Practice and Promise

Safe Routes to School

Preface ................................................................................................................ iii

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................. v

Chapter One: Safe Routes To School – Why? ...................................................... 1

Chapter Two: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) – What Does That Mean? ........... 7

Chapter Three: Evaluation and Outcomes – How Do You Measure Success? . 13

Chapter Four: Promising Practices – From Whom Can We Learn? ................ 19

 ■ Arlington and Boston, Massachusetts ...................................................... 21

 ■ The Bronx, New York ................................................................................. 25

 ■ Chicago, Illinois ..........................................................................................29

 ■ Florida ........................................................................................................ 33

 ■ Great Britain .............................................................................................. 37

 ■ Marin County, California .......................................................................... 41

 ■ Portland, Oregon ........................................................................................45

 ■ Santa Ana, California ................................................................................ 49

 ■ Toronto, Ontario ......................................................................................... 53

Chapter Five: Supporting Safe Routes To School – Where Do We 

Go From Here? ............................................................................ 57

Appendix A: Safe Routes To School Projects and Related Efforts ................... 61

Appendix B: Resources, Publications, and Organizations ................................ 81

Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists ....................................... 93

Appendix D: Steps to Start an Safe Routes To School Project ....................... 105

Appendix E: National Transportation Law and Funding .............................. 111

Photo Credits .................................................................................................... 121

i

Table of

Contents
Safe Routes To School (SR2S) projects are popping up all over 

the country. Enthusiastic parents, teachers, community activists, and health professionals are advocating for changes that 

get children out of cars and onto their feet and bicycles.

The benefits of walking and bicycling, especially getting into the habit as a 

young person, are compelling. Two United States government agencies have 

set targets for increasing these activities. The Department of Transportation, 

in its 1994 National Bicycling and Walking Study, specified two goals for 

the nation:

■ To double the percentage of total trips made by bicycling and walking 

from 7.9 percent to 15.8 percent;

■ To reduce by 10 percent the number of bicyclists and pedestrians killed 

or injured in traffic crashes.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2001 established 

two objectives in its report Healthy People 2010:

■ To increase the percentage of children five to 15 years old, who live 

within one mile of school and regularly walk to school, from 30 percent 

to 50 percent;

■ To increase the percentage of children five to 15 years old, who live 

within two miles of school and regularly bicycle to school, from 2.4 percent 

to five percent.

As the SR2S concept continues to gather momentum, people have 

begun to ask:

■ Why do so few children walk or bike to school, and why is this a problem?

■ Is there a “right” way to go about creating a SR2S project?

■ Are there risks in switching the normal car-to-school commute to a 

walking-and-bicycling parade of kids and adults?

■ How will we know if we have succeeded?

Preface

i iii
Are these questions you have asked? If you are a policy maker, program planner, provider of funding or administrator, and are faced with deciding how 

or even whether to support SR2S efforts in your area, then Safe Routes To 

School: Practice and Promise is for you.

This publication is designed to provide enough information about SR2S programs so those in decision-making positions will be able to determine how to 

allocate scarce resources and to assure positive outcomes from SR2S efforts. It 

delves into the history of SR2S, considers risks and benefits, offers examples, 

and lists supportive agencies and organizations.

Chapter One Safe Routes To School – Why? discusses the need for SR2S 

efforts.

Chapter Two Safe Routes To School (SR2S) – What Does That Mean?

describes the education, encouragement, enforcement, and engineering approaches to SR2S.

Chapter Three Evaluation and Outcomes – How Do You Measure 

Success? details information on practical evaluation measures you can use to 

document success. It explains how you can help communities with the critical 

task of gathering data so that all can learn what works.

Chapter Four Promising Practices – From Whom Can We Learn?

describes the SR2S efforts of different types of communities so that you can 

learn from their successes and challenges.

Chapter Five Supporting Safe Routes To School – Where Do We Go 

From Here? covers common questions and realistic answers about SR2S.

The Appendices include examples of the sorts of assistance local groups 

need, based on the experience of statewide or regional technical assistance 

organizations. We include a comprehensive listing of SR2S efforts around the 

world, with contact information.

We offer this guide in support of your work with local activists as you collaborate to make communities safer and healthier for children.

If you are a 

policy maker, 

program 

planner, 

provider of 

funding or 

administrator, 

and are faced 

with deciding 

how or even 

whether to 

support SR2S 

efforts in your 

area, then 

Safe Routes 

To School: 

Practice and 

Promise is 

for you.

iv
v

The Center for Health Training and the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration thank the following individuals for their comments and input 

during the development of this guide:

■ Barbara Alberson

State Department of Health Services, State & Local Injury Control 

Section (Sacramento, California)

■ Aida Berkowitz

Federal Highway Administration, Region IX (San Francisco, California)

■ Ellen Cavanaugh

Urbitran Associates, Inc.; formerly with the Bronx Safe Routes To School 

Project, Transportation Alternatives (New York, New York)

■ Jack Champlin

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Region IX 

(San Francisco, California)

■ Dorothea Hass

Walk Boston, Safe Routes To School (Boston, Massachusetts)

■ Wendi Kallins

Marin County Safe Routes To Schools (San Anselmo, California)

■ Jacky Kennedy

Active & Safe Routes To School (Toronto, Canada)

■ Peter Lipman

Sustrans (Bristol, England)

■ Lauren Marchetti

University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center, 

Pedestrian & Bicycle Information Center (Chapel Hill, North Carolina)

■ Ana Matthews

Regional Health District (Spokane, Washington)

■ Gay Page

State Department of Transportation, Bicycle/Pedestrian Program 

(Denver, Colorado)

■ Nan Peterson

University of Wisconsin Children’s Hospital (Madison, Wisconsin)

■ Jessica Shisler

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Walk To School 

Program (Atlanta, Georgia)

Acknowledgments
1: Safe Routes 

To School 

– Why?

The common 

goal of Safe 

Routes To 

School projects 

is to increase 

the number of 

children who 

walk and bike 

to school safely.

Pose the question “How did you get to school when you 

were a kid?” to a roomful of adults, and chances are the 

great majority will say that they walked. If you ask 

them what they experienced while walking, the following 

responses are typical:

My brothers and sisters and I got together with some 

neighbor kids and we all walked together. It was really fun.

 Man, we were really awake when we got to school! It was 

 cold out in the morning and walking really got our blood going.

My mom walked with me when I was little, and then I walked 

with my big sister. I loved it when we got to go by ourselves – it made 

me feel really grown up!

 It was always nice and quiet walking down the road in the 

 morning. The air smelled good and we got a chance to see 

 all the trees blossom, change their leaves and all.

When I got to be about 12, I didn’t walk anymore. 

I rode my bike and that was a whole new feeling of freedom. 

My friend and I used to zoom through the streets. 

There weren’t very many cars out.

Seldom in our years of working with 

people to develop Safe Routes To 

School (SR2S) in their communities 

have we heard an adult say anything 

negative about walking to school. There 

may have been the occasional bully, 

but, as one man said, “He gave us a 

reason to run fast and we got stronger!”

Today however, in the United States, 

fewer than 15 percent of children 

walk to school every day.1 In response to this situation, many 

efforts to encourage walking and 

biking to school have sprung up. The 

growth of these efforts has come to 

be called the SR2S movement. Some 

projects have existed for several 

years; some started recently. Their 

common goal is to increase the 

number of children who walk and 

bike to school safely. 

1: Safe Routes To School – Why? 1
2 1: Safe Routes To School – Why?

To understand the SR2S movement, 

we must first answer this question: 

Why has there been a decline—in 

just one generation—of children 

walking and bicycling to school?

That is not an easy question to 

answer. We all realize that the 

United States is not the same as it 

was in 1950. However, if we look at 

how life in this country has changed 

during the past 50 years, some 

explanations begin to emerge. There 

have been significant changes in two 

major areas: community design and 

travel patterns.

Community Design and 

Travel Patterns

Before World War II, Americans 

lived in compact towns and cities, 

and they walked to shops, schools, 

and work. While the United States 

population has nearly doubled—from 

150 million in 1950 to 287 million in 

2002—and the population in urban 

areas has increased by 25 percent, 

the percentage of urbanized land has 

changed much more dramatically—it 

has quadrupled. The suburbanization 

of America has resulted in communities that are significantly more 

spread out. The size of residential 

lots is much greater now than before 

1950. For example, in 1950, around 

the Chesapeake Bay, each person 

required .18 of an acre for residential 

and commercial use. By 1988, each 

person required .65 acre.2, 3

This expansion around towns and 

cities significantly changed travel 

patterns. Where walking and transit 

use once predominated, the private 

car has become the normal way to get 

around. The number of vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) increased from 718 

billion per year in 1960 to more than 

two trillion per year in 1999.4 As 

with land use, the increase in motor 

vehicle use has grown much faster 

than the rate of population growth. 

Driving to school has significantly 

contributed to increased auto use. It 

has been estimated that the “school 

run” adds 20-30 percent to traffic 

volume during the morning commute.5

Changes in land use and driving 

patterns certainly seem to have 

contributed to the decreasing number 

of children walking to school. Have 

other changes led to the Safe Routes 

To School movement? It appears that 

the answer is yes.

Environmental Quality

At the same time as land use and 

transportation practices have been 

changing, we have seen significant 

changes in environmental quality. 

Air pollution concerns in the 1960s 

and ’70s resulted in the passage 

of regulations aimed at reducing 

various pollutants. While many air 
1: Safe Routes To School – Why? 3

pollutants have decreased during 

the past 30 years, the decline is now 

threatened by the continuing rise in 

the number of cars and trucks on the 

road, and in the miles each vehicle 

is driven.3 However, one important 

emission has not decreased—carbon 

dioxide (CO2). This “greenhouse gas” 

is released in direct proportion to the 

gallons of gasoline consumed. The 

amount of carbon dioxide American 

cars and light trucks emit into the 

atmosphere has steadily increased. 

From 1970 to 1999, the amount 

increased by 56 percent, culminating 

in an estimated 300 million metric 

tons of carbon being released in the 

latest year.6, 7 Concerns about global 

warming have grown during this 

period as well.

Changing land development and 

driving patterns have also caused 

loss of natural habitat and farmland. 

Water quality suffers because more 

pavement is required to handle the 

increase in vehicles. This results 

in runoff of water laced with toxic 

substances from the pavement into 

lakes, streams, and rivers instead of 

being absorbed by the earth.3, 8

Children’s Health

What has happened to the health of 

children in this time? There are some 

strong indications that children’s 

health has suffered.

First, thousands of children each 

year are killed and injured in motor 

vehicle crashes—as passengers, 

pedestrians, and bicyclists. Motor 

vehicle injury is the leading cause 

of death for children aged two to 

18. The number of children injured 

and killed in traffic has fallen over 

the past 20 years, though the rate of 

injury for children is highest among 

all age groups.9 There is evidence 

that lowered death rates for child pedestrians and cyclists do not reflect 

greater safety—just fewer numbers of 

children walking and bicycling.10

Second, a large number of American 

children—more than 3.8 million in 

1999—are afflicted with asthma, 

which can be triggered and exacerbated by air pollutants. Asthma rates 

throughout the population have been 

increasing for 40 years.11, 12, 13

A third indication of ill health among 

children is excessive weight gain, tied 

closely to increases in chronic conditions such as diabetes. The percentage of American children who are 

overweight has steadily increased, 

from approximately four percent in 

the 1960s, to more than five percent 

in the 1970s, to the 2001 level of 

more than 13 percent. Increases 

in childhood weight problems have 

been accompanied by even greater 

increases in obese and overweight 

adults—an estimated 61 percent of 

the population aged 20 to 74 years as 

of 1999.14, 15

It is important to note that lowincome and ethnic minority children 
are most affected by obesity, injury, 

and asthma.16, 17 These children do 

walk to school more than their more 

affluent peers, but poor air quality 

and speeding traffic put them at 

higher risk.18 For these children, 

there are compelling reasons to 

provide truly safe routes to school. 

Walking is an excellent way to 

promote their health, and they are 

already doing it. Supporting this 

activity is a first step toward minimizing health disparities.

Parents

We realize there are many reasons 

parents are reluctant to allow their 

children to walk to school. We know 

that it is the parents who make the 

choices; if children were allowed to 

choose, most say that they would 

rather walk. But parents drive them 

because they fear traffic dangers, or 

they worry about strangers bothering or kidnapping their children; 

although kidnapping is statistically a 

very small risk, it looms large in the 

fears of parents. Parents also may 

drive their children to school because 

they feel that they are so busy the 

only time they have with their children is in the car.

SR2S Benefits

Valid as these reasons why children 

don’t walk to school are, there also 

are benefits that could be gained from 

the daily, active trip to school:19, 20, 21

■ Children who are active are alert 

and do well in school.

■ Being active improves self-image 

and independence.

■ Physical activity prevents obesity 

and promotes healthy heart and 

lungs, lessening the risk of cardiovascular disease.

■ Children who are out and about 

in their neighborhoods develop an 

understanding and comfort with 

their surroundings, and learn to 

make their way in the world.

■ If fewer children are driven to 

school, fewer car trips are needed, 

thus reducing air pollution, noise 

pollution, and other environmental 

impacts of driving.

■ Increasingly congested roads take 

a toll on the emotional well-being 

of adults. One less car trip gives a 

parent or guardian some breathing 

space in his or her day.

■ When parents and children walk 

even a block or two together on the 

trip to school, the benefit of “quality time” comes in tandem with 

improved fitness.

■ “Eyes on the street” is a phrase 

that describes a neighborhood 

where people watch the daily 

activities. When more people are 

out and about, having more eyes on 

the street helps to prevent crime.

4 1: Safe Routes To School – Why?
Many Reasons, One Goal

SR2S advocates—parents, children, 

legislators, health professionals, 

school administrators, and environmental activists—have concluded 

that children’s walking-to-school 

behavior is linked to land use, travel 

practices, and health effects. They 

also have concluded that it is time to 

reverse the trends. Some SR2S advocates have been primarily motivated 

by concerns about injury, and some 

by environmental deterioration, some 

by their shock at seeing children 

inactive and overweight.

Regardless of their specific concerns, 

SR2S advocates are working together 

to change the patterns of the past 

half-century. As more people wake 

up to the benefits of walking and biking to school, they join the movement 

to encourage these behaviors in their 

communities. They are committed to 

assuring that the children who grow 

up in the 21st century will be able 

to recall walking and bicycling to 

school among their favorite childhood 

memories.

1 U.S. Department of Transportation. (1995). 

Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. 

2 U.S. Census Bureau. Population: 1790 to 1990. 

United States Summary. 

3 Environmental Protection Agency.(2001). Our Built 

and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of 

the Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation, 

and Environmental Quality. 

4 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Transportation 

Technologies. www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/

fotw165supp.shtml

5 Department of Environment, Transport and the 

Regions, London, Greater Vancouver Regional 

District. (1999). Morning Peak Trip by Purpose.

6 Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (2001). Transportation Energy Data Book. Edition 21.

7 Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Policy. 

(April 2000). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 1998.

8 Stewart, Arthur J. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

Personal Communications. (May 2002).

9 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

(1998). Traffic Safety Facts.

10 Geary, Riley. Traffic Fatality Trends in the U.S., 

U.K. and Australia: A Comparative Analysis. (2000). 

Institute for Traffic Safety Analysis.

11 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance 

of Asthma in the United States – 1960-1995; 47 

(no. ss-1).

12 American Lung Association. (February 2002). 

Trends in Asthma Morbidity and Mortality.

13 California Air Resources Board. (2002). The 

Children’s Health Study.

14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Center for Health Statistics, Division of 

Health Examination Statistics. Unpublished data via 

Web site. United States. (2001).

15 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General. 

The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and 

Decrease Overweight and Obesity. (2001).

16 James Bowman Associates. Preschool Children 

in California: Nutrition and Active Play. (2002). 

California Department of Health Services.

17 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance 

of Asthma in the United States – 1960-1995; 47 (no. 

ss-1).

18 Braza, Mark.1999. Walk to School Day Survey 

Analysis.

19 Bogden, J.F. and C.A.Vega-Matos. (2000). Fit Healthy 

and Ready to Learn: A School Health Policy Guide.

Chapter D: Policies to Encourage Physical Activity. 

National Association of School Boards of Education.

20 Department of Health and Human Services. Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention. Kids Walk-ToSchool. A Guide to Promote Walking to School. (2000).

21 Eccles, Jacquelynne S. (1999). The Development of 

Children Ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, Vol. 9 

No. 2. The David and Lucille Packard Foundation.

1: Safe Routes To School – Why? 5
2: Safe Routes To 

School (SR2S)– 

What Does 

That Mean?

Safe Routes To School (SR2S) efforts have been inspired by 

a myriad of concerns—therefore those efforts look different 

from community to community. The SR2S founders in Odense, 

Denmark, were mainly concerned about how many injuries 

children were suffering on their city’s streets. In the Bronx, 

New York, organizers also were concerned about injuries. 

In Toronto, the major concern was air pollution, and people 

understood that unless prevailing trends in travel changed, 

the situation would worsen. The California Department of 

Health Services entered the field in 1999 with a special 

interest in promoting physical activity for health. In Chicago, the Walking School Bus (WSB) program, sponsored by 

the Department of Transportation and the Chicago Police 

Department, responded to concerns about children’s safety 

in high-crime neighborhoods.

The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) began 

funding Safe Routes To School in 

2000, with two demonstration projects in Marin County, California, 

and Arlington, Massachusetts. 

NHTSA also began to gather and 

compile the array of SR2S activities into a central document, Safe 

Routes To School: Practice and 

Promise, in the hopes of making 

information readily available to 

decision-makers. The development 

of this guide included researching 

the effectiveness of Safe Routes To 

School efforts. 

Common Threads

Projects that improve walking and 

bicycling conditions for schoolchildren 

have sprung up all over the world 

during the past 20 years. Regardless 

of what the organizers name the 

project, all include a combination 

of activities that make it safer for 

children to walk and bicycle to school. 

When we use the term Safe Routes 

To School, we mean the whole array 

of efforts. The beauty of the SR2S 

movement is that it is enormously 

diverse. However, some common 

threads characterize communities 

Regardless 

of what the 

organizers 

name the project, all include 

a combination 

of activities that 

make it safer for 

children to walk 

and bicycle to 

school.

2: SR2S – What Does That Mean? 7
8 2: SR2S – What Does That Mean?

that demonstrate what we consider 

examples of “promising practices” 

in SR2S. 

Based on the experience of many, 

we have identified key factors a 

community should have in place to 

provide comprehensive, effective, 

pleasant, and safe routes to school for 

its children:

■ The community—especially 

parents and school officials—believes in the value of walking and 

bicycling to school, and encourages 

children to do so.

■ Drivers are educated about how 

they contribute to traffic congestion, increase the risk of injury to 

children, and cause pollution. They 

also learn how safe driving reduces 

these risks.

■ Drivers are alert to the sizes and 

behaviors of child pedestrians and 

bicyclists, and yield to them.

■ Children and parents understand 

how to walk and bicycle safely and 

assertively.

■ Officials enforce laws that support 

and protect walkers and bicyclists.

■ Community planning for residential and school areas considers the 

safety and practicality of children 

walking or biking around their 

neighborhoods.

■ Streets are designed to encourage 

walking and bicycling, with sidewalks, bike paths, bike lanes, and 

traffic-calming measures.

The “Four Es” & SR2S

The key factors for a successful SR2S 

project fit nicely into the transportation safety framework that is familiar to health and safety professionals: 

the “Four Es.” Each “E” can be 

developed into an effort that supports 

SR2S goals.

■ Encouragement – Make walking 

and bicycling more attractive by 

planning special events to celebrate 

active travel, beautifying walking/

bicycling routes, and by sponsoring 

classroom activities and contests.

■ Education – Teach children, 

adults, pedestrians, cyclists, and 

motorists about traffic laws and 

safe and courteous behavior on 

the road; and about the health, 

environmental, and safety benefits 

of walking and bicycling.

■ Enforcement – Pass new laws or 

enforce existing ones to make it 

safe for children and adults to walk 

and bicycle. For example, enforce 

the law that requires motorists 

to yield to pedestrians at street 

corners or observe the speed limit 

in school zones.

■ Engineering – Build a better 

environment for walking and 

bicycling. Plan compact neighborhoods and school sites; construct 

or maintain sidewalks and bike 

lanes; and install traffic signals 

or change the design of streets 

through traffic-calming structures 

such as chicanes and bulb-outs.
2: SR2S – What Does That Mean? 9

Most SR2S efforts involve more than 

one of the “Four Es;” many include 

all four. What follows are examples of 

ways that five different communities 

have utilized one of the “Es” as part 

of a broader effort.

Encouragement: Walk To 

School Day – National and 

International

Because walking to school is 

somewhat uncommon in the United 

States, it is important to encourage 

nonwalkers to try it. The activity 

most effective in getting large numbers of parents and children to try

walking is Walk To School Day, an 

event that began in Great Britain 

in 1994. America’s first involvement 

came in 1997 with the Partnership 

for a Walkable America.

The event has grown each year, 

with NHTSA’s support through the 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. In 2002, three million 

people, in 28 countries, took part in 

International Walk To School Day. 

Quotes from a few of the American 

participants follow:

“It was a beautiful morning. Everyone had fun.”

 Alex, fourth-grader, Nebraska

“It was a wonderful experience. We 

had 513 students walk with their 

parents and siblings. We all had a 

great time. Thanks for the idea.”

 Tammy, parent, Texas

“I met the students at the driveway 

entrance to the school from Westwood. 

... Jamie was so excited that her Mom 

drove across the railroad tracks and 

into the subdivision so she could walk 

to school. The duty teacher could not 

get over the high number of walkers 

for the day and less car traffic, too.”

 Carolyn, teacher, Ohio

Although Walk To School Day events 

cannot guarantee that students 

will continue to walk, they are a 

positive first step. With the large 

number of people walking, parents 

and children feel safer and have 

fun. Walk To School Day may help 

skeptical parents or school personnel 

to see the value of walking, so that 

they support ongoing activities. Many 

communities have asked their walkers to complete the NHTSA Walkability Checklist (see Appendix C: 

Walkability & Bikeability Checklists), 

and on their walk to collect information about positive and negative 

experiences on various streets to help 

pinpoint areas that need attention 

from the local government.

Education: Marin Safe 

Routes To Schools – Marin 

County, California

The Marin County Bicycle Coalition 

used its SR2S demonstration project 

in 2000 to develop an extensive and 

continuing educational program for 

local schools. The project promotes 

walking and biking to school through 
10 2: SR2S – What Does That Mean?

classroom education, contests, and 

events (i.e., Walk and Bike to School 

Days, Frequent Rider Miles contest, 

walking school buses, and bike 

trains), mapping, and community 

involvement.

The education component gives each 

participating school a toolkit, guidance, forms, newsletters, and other 

promotional materials. An SR2S 

instructor provides safety training 

for second- and fourth-graders and 

conducts a bicycle safety rodeo with 

assistance from law enforcement. 

Fact sheets for drivers build upon the 

safety message, letting drivers know 

of their responsibilities. The project 

also offers environmental education for sixth- and eighth-graders, 

exploring transportation choices and 

the effect of those choices on air and 

water pollution, and on greenhouse 

gas emissions.

After its first year, the Marin SR2S 

pilot project reported the following 

outcome at its 16 participating schools:

■ The schools experienced a 57 percent increase in the number of 

children walking and biking, and 

a 29 percent decrease in the number of children being driven alone 

in a car. 

Education: Active and Safe 

Routes to School “No Idling” 

Campaign – Toronto, Ontario

The Active and Safe Routes To 

School (ASRTS) program in Toronto, 

Ontario, has targeted auto air pollution as a major part of its campaign 

since 1996. ASRTS pinpointed car 

engines idling at schools as a major 

source of pollution. ASRTS launched 

a “No Idling” campaign across this 

Canadian province in April 2001. 

“No Idling,” a social marketing 

effort, uses posters, stickers, printed 

educational materials, and volunteer 

parents, school staff, and students 

in dialogue at school. The materials 

are intended to dispel the myth that 

idling a car does not cause pollution, 

or that idling pollutes less than 

normal driving. In fact, ASRTS determined that an idling engine uses 

3.5 liters of gasoline an hour, and 

12 percent of urban smog is attributable to idling vehicles. “No Idling” 

kits were printed in English and 

French, and more than 1,000 have 

been distributed. ASRTS evaluated 

the effort via mail and phone questionnaire and determined that:

■ More than 75 percent of the schools 

surveyed noted fewer idling vehicles after implementing the “No 

Idling” project.

■ The estimated reduction of 247 

hours per day of auto idling resulted in an estimated 210.5 fewer 

metric tonnes of carbon dioxide 

(CO2) emissions.

■ Schools that requested the 

kit—rather than receiving it 

“cold”—were more likely to initiate 

activities. However, all schools had 

difficulty with specific pre- and 

post-campaign data collection.
2: SR2S – What Does That Mean? 11

Enforcement: Pedestrian 

Safety Enforcement (PSE) 

– Multiple Communities

It is a common complaint among 

walkers-to-school that automobile 

drivers seldom yield to pedestrians, 

even though many states have 

laws that require the driver to yield. 

Several communities have implemented targeted pedestrian safety 

enforcement (also known as “pedestrian sting”).

Pedestrian Safety Enforcement 

(PSE) was first tried in Redmond, 

Washington, in 1998. Currently, the 

Redmond Police Department received 

many complaints from pedestrians 

and police officers about drivers’ 

failure to yield to pedestrians—their 

estimate of the extent of the problem 

was that 50 percent of drivers did not 

yield to pedestrians under situations 

where the pedestrian clearly had 

the right-of-way and the driver had 

sufficient time to stop. Currently, 

the Redmond Police Department 

chooses sites for its PSE operations 

based on complaints and on collision 

data. Seven or eight officers take 

part in each operation, which lasts 

approximately two hours. At an 

intersection, police officers determine 

the reasonable stopping distance for 

a vehicle approaching a crosswalk 

where a pedestrian is attempting to 

cross. A plainclothes officer attempts 

to cross, while “spotters” and motorcycle officers are assigned to document whether motorists yield; those 

who do not are issued citations. The 

operation has increased police officer 

awareness of the problem. The officers have written a large number of 

driver citations, which are intended 

to increase yielding by drivers at 

intersections. PSE has been used in 

numerous cities, including Oakland, 

Santa Rosa, Santa Ana, and Montebello in California; Las Vegas and 

Carson City in Nevada; and various 

locations in Oregon and Maryland. 

During a one-year period in Oakland, police officers conducted 51 

PSE operations, yielding 1,141 traffic 

citations and 15 arrests. Media coverage of the PSE operations has been 

good. This helps to spread the word 

to drivers outside the immediate area 

who see or hear reports on television 

or radio.

Engineering: Traffic 

Calming Measures – Odense, 

Denmark

Walking and bicycling to school 

are much more common in Europe 

than in the United States. However, 

injuries are also common. From 1955 

to 1971, Denmark had the highest 

rate of child mortality due to road 

crashes in Western Europe. The city 

of Odense (population 180,000 with 

38,000 children under 18 years) 

began working with all of its 45 

schools more than 20 years ago. For 

each school, city staff drew maps of 

the area, showing where the children 
traveled and what they considered 

dangerous. Proposals to improve the 

traffic environment were developed 

based on this information. Since 

1981, approximately 200 projects 

have been implemented. Slow-speed 

areas, traffic islands, speed humps 

and separate foot and bicycle paths 

are all effective at calming traffic. 

Odense earmarks approximately 

$146,000* per year for safety improvements for children. As a result:

■ 41 percent of Odense children bicycle to school and 21 percent walk.

■ Twelve different roads that were 

studied showed decreases in speed 

from 28 to 19 miles per hour. On 

these roads, the total number of 

crashes has been reduced 82 percent,

and the crashes are less serious.

■ Citywide, from 1994 to 1999, traffic crashes involving walking and 

bicycling children six to 17 years 

old dropped 16 percent during 

school hours.

■ Schools report that parents and 

students feel more secure. This 

perception of safety is considered 

as important a measure of success 

of the SR2S effort as statistics on 

traffic and injuries.

Putting It All Together

In a relatively short period of time, 

excellent work has been done to 

improve the experience of children 

walking and bicycling to school. 

While we know of no American community that has achieved all SR2S 

goals—at least 50 percent of children walking and biking to school, 

a significant proportion of all trips 

done by bike or on foot, and a pleasant, community-wide environment 

that encourages physical activity, 

community spirit, and children’s 

well-being—significant steps have 

been taken to reach this ideal. 

We celebrate each effort, community 

by community, as a step toward 

achieving national goals. There are 

many reasons to work on Safe Routes 

to School, many different approaches 

and many levels of effort. Section 4: 

Promising Practices of Safe Routes to 

School – From Whom Can We Learn? 

spotlights the promising practices of 

SR2S efforts that:

■ have enough longevity to measure 

changes;

■ have made an effort to evaluate 

their effectiveness; and

■ have achieved a stable funding 

level.

There are SR2S efforts in many 

parts of the world. They are all 

slightly different, and they all need 

and deserve support to turn their 

promise—of healthier children and 

communities—into reality.

12 2: SR2S – What Does That Mean?

*All monetary amounts are given in U.S. Dollars.
 3: Evaluation and Outcomes – How Do You Measure Success? 13

3: Evaluation 

and 

Outcomes –

 How Do You 

Measure Success?

It is easy to be enthusiastic about a one-day walk to school or 

bicycle rodeo event. Once the enthusiasm of the event is over, 

though, Safe Routes To School (SR2S) leaders are left with 

the task of building an ongoing, comprehensive, communitychange effort, which requires collaboration from many people 

and organizations, and money and time to implement. At the 

end of the day, everyone wants to know: “Were we successful? 

Is this community safer and healthier because of what we did?” 

Decision-makers, funders, and local advocates need concrete 

indications that the answers to these questions are “yes.”

Indicators of Success

Evaluation frightens many people. 

Others just don’t want to be bothered; 

they are engaged in positive activities, and children and parents are 

happy. However, as the movement 

of SR2S has matured in the United 

States, it has become clear that 

evaluation data are critical. Collecting data is important at the beginning of a project, in order to identify 

and address areas of concern. This 

identification of a problem is a powerful motivator for action to create safe 

routes to school. Ongoing evaluation 

helps to keep a project on track, and 

to document changes at different 

points in time.

Over the past several years, we asked 

numerous people involved in SR2S 

what evaluation information they 

want. We asked them:

■ What information would help you 

know you have been successful?

■ What would help you change 

strategies if something you’re doing 

is not working?

■ What information would help you 

gain buy-in from those who could 

support your efforts through legislation or funding?

Table 1 lists areas that were consistently mentioned.

At the end 

of the day, 

everyone wants 

to know: “Were 

we successful? 

Is this community safer 

and healthier 

because of what 

we did?”.
14 3: Evaluation and Outcomes – How Do You Measure Success?

Table 1

Key Indicators of Success for Safe Routes To School Efforts

 Desired

 Direction 

 Outcome Measure Before and After of Change

 Behavior ■ Numbers of children walking to and È More

 of children from school

 ■ Numbers of children bicycling to and È More

 from school

 ■ Skills for walking and bicycling safely È Better

 Behavior of ■ Numbers of vehicles arriving and departing Í Fewer 

 drivers school at morning drop-off and evening 

 pick-up times 

 ■ Speed of vehicles in and around school area Í Slower

 ■ Aggressive driving behavior (e.g., not Í Less

 yielding to pedestrians) 

 ■ Number of driving trips by parents and Í Less

 length of morning and evening commute 

 Community ■ Quality of walking environment: number È Better

 Facilities and usefulness of sidewalks and bike lanes 

 ■ Safely designed intersections (lights, È More

 crosswalks, etc.) 

 Crashes and ■ Number of traffic crashes involving children Í Lower

 Injuries walking or biking to and from school 

 ■ Severity of injuries to children from traffic Í Less 

 on their way to and from school severe 

 ■ Number of conflicts between vehicles and Í Lower

 pedestrians/bicyclists which would be likely 

 to lead to crashes (i.e., “near misses”) 

 Community ■ Number of different types of people involved È More 

 buy-in in the SR2S effort 

 ■ Level of commitment and energy displayed È Higher

 by the SR2S collaborators 

 ■ Parent enthusiasm about SR2S and allowing È Higher

 their children to walk or bike 

 Environmental ■ Level of air and noise pollution in Í Lower

 quality school area

 ■ Land devoted to parking and drop-off/ Í Less

 pick-up areas
 3: Evaluation and Outcomes – How Do You Measure Success? 15

Depending on how the leaders of the 

SR2S effort define the problem in 

their community, they might gather 

information on all of these measures, 

or only some. Some measures are 

technical and difficult to collect: air 

quality data, injury data, vehicle 

speed. Some are very easy: number of 

cars driving 

up to the 

school gate 

at a certain 

time. For 

many of the 

measures, 

the data 

collector 

will want to 

know more 

than just a 

simple number—perhaps a rate or 

a percentage, especially if working 

with several schools. It is important to note that crash and injury 

numbers may be low simply because 

fewer children walk or bicycle. In this 

case, this is not an indicator that a 

neighborhood is safe; it may indicate 

that parents don’t consider the area 

safe enough to allow their children to 

walk or bicycle.

Gathering Data

Defining the problem gives the leader(s) the framework needed to gather 

information and statistics. Then they 

can decide which aforementioned 

measures will provide the information most likely to generate further 

support and best evaluate 

the effectiveness of the SR2S effort 

as it progresses. Unfortunately, many 

leaders, parents, children, and school 

personnel get caught up in the enthusiasm of the effort and neglect to 

gather basic information about the 

current situation in the community 

(e.g., How 

many people 

are walking? 

Frequency and 

type of injuries? Extent of 

air pollution 

from idling 

cars?). Without 

such baseline 

information it 

is difficult to 

pinpoint success and, without documented success, to continue the 

enthusiasm and funding for the 

efforts. The good news is that there 

are many different places you can 

find data.

The trick is to get enough information, but not get bogged down in 

details. The Safe Routes To School 

Working Group on Data Collection, 

sponsored by the League of American 

Bicyclists, suggests the sources listed 

in Table 2 for gathering useful data. 

Evaluation Experiences 

from the Field

Because most SR2S efforts have not 

been in existence for a long time, 
it is difficult to gauge their longterm success. We have indications 

from Odense, Denmark and Great 

Britain that SR2S efforts can lead to 

decreases in crashes and injuries and 

increases in the numbers of children 

walking and bicycling to school. 

These efforts did not begin with a 

strong commitment to evaluation, 

but their leaders have recognized the 

value of documenting the effects of 

their work over time.

In the following section, Promising 

Practices – From Whom Can 

We Learn? we describe a number 

of SR2S efforts in this country and 

abroad. All of these efforts appear to 

have made an impact in their communities, over time. Because SR2S 

efforts exist within communities – 

not laboratories — there are many 

factors which can affect the outcomes 

we desire: more active children, 

less traffic, cleaner air, and fewer 

injuries. In the future, there may be 

complex and expensive evaluation 

projects that offer specific details 

about cause and effect.

For now, however, any SR2S leaders 

can at least compare the situation in 

their own communities before they 

began their efforts, and after. They 

can also look at their own communities and consider other neighborhoods 

that have not tried to increase walking and bicycling to school — are 

there differences? These are fairly 

simple questions that do not require 

a great deal of data or a sophisticated 

evaluation design.

It is important for all SR2S project 

leaders to gather some of the data we 

have described in this section. We 

recognize that data can be difficult 

to gather. It can vary from month to 

month, and from season to season. 

Data gathered from children (e.g., 

“raise your hand if you walk to school 

regularly”) can be inaccurate or, 

at least, incomplete. Nevertheless, 

as more people in more communities work on safe routes to school, 

everyone’s data — though imperfect 

— will add to our overall understanding of what works. Simple information on evaluation is available from a 

variety of sources, including, The Art 

of Appropriate Evaluation and Demonstrating Your Program’s Worth: A 

Primer on Evaluation for Programs 

to Prevent Unintentional Injury, as 

listed in Appendix B: Resources, 

Publications, and Organizations.

16 3: Evaluation and Outcomes – How Do You Measure Success?
 3: Evaluation and Outcomes – How Do You Measure Success? 17

Table 2

 

 Specific Information Needed Sources for Data

Current walking/biking levels ■ Students survey

 among students ■ Observation in front of school 

 Potential walking/biking level ■ School records of students’ home

(number of students within addresses

 reasonable distance of school ■ Student survey of distance to school

 who do not currently walk/bike) ■ parent survey of distance to school

 Physical barriers to a safe or ■ Student survey with maps

 appealing walk/bike trip to school ■ Parent survey with maps

 ■ NHTSA Walkability/Bikeability

 checklists, filled out by surveying 

 the neighborhood

 Preference or attitudinal barriers to ■ Student survey, Parent survey

 walking/biking to school ■ Survey of support for waking/biking

 in local community (from parents,

 community groups, schools, govern-

 ment, and health professionals)

 Pedestrian and bicyclist crashes ■ Local police department data

 and injuries ■ Local hospitals

 ■ National Center for Health Statistics

 ■ Public health department

 ■ Other advocacy groups

 Traffic law infractions near school ■ Local police department data

 ■ Special police study

 ■ Observational study by advocates

 Dangerous behavior near school ■ Local police department data

 (e.g., abductions, harassment of ■ Reports from school administrators

 students, bullying)

 Physical activity level of students ■ Student survey

 Walking/biking behavior in community ■ Parent survey; community survey

 Air pollution caused by private car ■ Observations of parents or students

 trips to/from school regarding the smell of the air

 ■ Air pollution monitoring via 

 mechanical device 
 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 19

4: Promising 

 Practices –

From Whom 

Can We Learn?

Because the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) movement is 

large, diverse, and changing every day, it is not possible to 

describe each of the different projects or activities. Earlier in 

this guide, we outlined the key factors that a community must 

have in place to provide comprehensive, effective, pleasant, and 

safe routes to school for its children:

■ The community values active and safe transportation 

for children;

■ Drivers are alert and careful;

■ Pedestrians and cyclists are knowledgeable, careful and 

assertive; and

■ Community design and facilities support walking 

and cycling.
Each of the case studies provides:

■ A description of the efforts made

■ Effects that can be tied to the 

SR2S efforts

■ Challenges

■ Funding

■ Lessons Learned

■ Contact Information

Appendix A: Safe Routes To 

School Projects and Related 

Efforts, includes a larger, but less 

detailed, listing of a variety of 

SR2S efforts, organized by state 

and country. We encourage you to 

learn from all of these advocates and 

practitioners as you plan your own 

SR2S approach.

In this section, we outline the efforts 

of a number of communities that have

made important strides in achieving 

safe routes to school for their children. 

We offer examples that focus on a 

specific neighborhood, as well as 

examples of statewide efforts, and 

even one national project. 

The projects that are spotlighted have 

been in operation for at least a few 

years. They have acquired funding 

and community buy-in so that they 

know their efforts will not be just a 

“flash in the pan.” They have made 

some attempt at evaluating the work 

that they have done, although evaluation of Safe Routes to School efforts 

remains a significant challenge. 

20 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?
Arlington and Boston, 

Massachusetts

 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 21

Arlington’s Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program was 

started in 2000 by the National Park Service’s Rivers and 

Trails Program in coordination with Walk Boston. Arlington 

(population 42,389) is an older suburb of Boston (population 

589,141) that was developed before World War II. The project 

started with three schools in Arlington. During the first year, 

two schools in Boston were added. City and suburb are both 

densely populated, and neighborhoods are considered walkable. 

However, many lifestyles do not lend themselves to walking 

to school, and schools 

in both cities actively 

discourage cycling. This 

SR2S project concentrated on community education, as well as parent 

and student encouragement efforts, believing 

these to be the greatest needs. Numerous strategies and 

activities encouraged thousands of parents and children to 

get involved, resulting in substantial gains in the number of 

Arlington children walking to school. By comparison, changes 

in Boston were much smaller.
Effects

■ In the two elementary schools in 

Arlington that participated in 

SR2S, the percentage of students 

walking to school increased from a 

baseline of 42 percent to a current 

rate of 56 percent. At the participating middle school in Arlington, 

walking to school increased from 

19 percent to 24 percent.

■ At these Arlington schools, more 

than 150 students now walk to 

school regularly, who did not 

walk before.

Challenges

■ Busy parents and school staff are 

wary of “one more thing to do.” 

Enthusiasm for the program does 

not necessarily translate into 

action when relying on volunteers; 

so funding for staff is essential.

■ Boston schools did not show significant gains in students walking 

to school. Most students who lived 

within walking distance of school 

already walked before SR2S. The 

challenge in Boston is greater 

than in Arlington because most 

elementary schools in the city bus 

more than half of their students 

under a school-choice program. At 

one school, more than 60 percent of 

the students are bused, but a high 

percentage of students miss the 

bus and have to be driven 

to school. 

22 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Developing 

a culture of 

walking in a 

community 

requires a 

sustained 

effort.

Description of Efforts

■ Sponsored Walk to School Days, a 

six-week Step into Spring walking 

contest, led neighborhood walks 

with classes, developed walking 

games and activities, conducted 

a “walking school bus” week, and 

gave children pedometers 

so they could measure how far 

they walked.

■ Produced six SR2S newsletters 

that showcased crossing guards, 

students, and parents who 

regularly walked; newsletters 

included photographs and walking activities.

■ Hired parents of students at participating schools as SR2S coordinators to work 10-15 hours per week.

■ Emphasized the fun aspects of 

walking, avoiding messages that 

focused on negative concerns such 

as overweight children.

■ Recruited parents at PTA meetings and through informal networks such as SR2S coordinators 

“talking up” the program daily 

with parents as they arrived at 

school with their children.

■ Worked with town councils on 

ways to make routes to school 

safer.

■ Promoted the use of public transit, 

in conjunction with walking, for 

middle school age children.
 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 23

■ It is hard to motivate middle 

school students to walk to school if 

they do not already do so. At large 

middle schools (more than 1,000 

students at the school in Arlington), many students live too far to 

walk. 

■ Students as well as school officials 

are preoccupied with a wide range 

of social and academic concerns, 

which makes it difficult to launch 

a SR2S program. 

Funding

■ $50,000 one-year grant from 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration for the demonstration project.

■ $4,500 grant from the National 

Park Service plus considerable 

in-kind services, such as staff and 

printing, to assess community 

interest.

■ $100,000 from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 

(federal funds administered by 

the Massachusetts Highway 

Department).

Lessons Learned

The project focused on the fun aspect 

of families walking together. Elementary children were very enthusiastic, 

and parents who remembered 

walking to school when they were 

students were willing to try walking; though, developing a culture of 

walking in a community requires a 

sustained effort. Teachers are more 

willing to participate and integrate 

activities into their curriculum when 

given ready-made lesson plans.

It is more difficult to launch SR2S 

programs in school systems where 

a high percentage of students are 

bused out of their neighborhood. 

Middle school students are less interested in walk-to-school programs and 

activities than elementary students. 

Bicycle-to-school programs may be 

more popular with adolescents than 

walk-to-school programs.

Contact

Dorothea Hass

Tel: (617) 232-0104

E-mail: dhass@shore.net

Developing a culture of walking in 

a community requires a sustained 

effort. 
 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 25

The Bronx, New York

More than 85 percent of children in the Bronx (population 

1.3 million) walk to school. Unfortunately, in 1995-97, the 

Bronx had New York state’s highest rate of pedestrian fatalities and injuries. Transportation Alternatives—an advocacy organization for pedestrians and bicyclists—launched the 

Bronx Safe Routes To 

School (SR2S) project in 

1997 in an effort to 

maintain the high percentage of children walking to school but to make 

their travel safer. The collaborative process began 

with community leaders 

nominating a number 

of schools. From this list, project staff chose several schools at 

which to develop support among parents and decision-makers. 

They acquired funding and created environmental changes 

and traffic-calming measures that made walking routes safer. 

The project grew to 38 schools, with enrollments totaling 

33,540 students. The 300,000 Bronx residents who use routes 

near the schools also have benefited by having safer streets.
26 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Description of Efforts

■ Surveyed parents’ and children’s 

walking routes and mapped the 

hazards.

■ Used city and state crash data and 

Geographic Information System 

software. Intersections at which 

there were clusters of crashes 

involving child pedestrians were 

mapped and the findings presented 

in easy-to-read map format.

■ Developed detailed traffic-calming 

plans for New York City Department of Transportation to design 

and build.

■ Used competitive nominating 

process to create “buzz” about the 

program to ensure interest and 

participation by busy principals 

and Parent-Teacher Associations 

(PTAs).

■ Built support for engineering and 

traffic-calming measures; used 

media and PTA outreach to raise 

awareness of child pedestrian 

safety issues and solutions.

Effects

■ Won citywide commitment and 

funds to improve pedestrian safety 

around schools.

■ Identified walking routes to school 

where traffic safety was a major 

concern and residents would 

welcome changes.

■ New York City Department of 

Transportation improved signage, 

restriped crosswalks, and put in 

numerous speed humps in the 

neighborhoods around elementary 

schools.

■ Improved public and political acceptance of effective but potentially 

controversial new traffic-calming 

engineering measures such as 

narrower roads, pedestrian refuge 

islands, leading pedestrian intervals, and neck downs. 

Challenges

■ High traffic volume at some intersections, with a general public resistance to slowing down the traffic.

■ Developing a process in which New 

York City Department of Transportation engineers felt welcomed and 

needed, rather than criticized and 

on the defensive.

■ Choosing a “champion” at a school. 

PTA may or may not be organized 

and involved enough to take on a 

program.

■ Shifting the interest of parents and 

school personnel over long periods 

of time from determining the safety 

problem to getting it fixed.
To win the 

traffic-calming design 

changes that 

would make 

Bronx school 

routes safer, 

the project had 

to demonstrate 

political 

viability and 

soundness as 

a traffic safety 

program.

 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 27

Funding

■ Transportation Alternatives 

received $84,000 a year (1997-

2001) from the governor’s Traffic 

Safety Committee, which drew on 

federal TEA-21 402 funds, under 

sponsorship of the Office of the 

Bronx Borough President.

■ New York City Department of 

Transportation launched a new 

School Safety Engineering Division in 2000 that began a $2.5 

million project to improve safety 

around all 1,359 New York City 

elementary schools.

Lessons Learned

School-based traffic calming has 

reduced pedestrian deaths and 

injuries along school walking routes 

and improved the walking experience 

in cities across Europe. However, 

New York City agencies and elected 

officials only reluctantly embraced 

measures that they felt impinged on 

motorists. To win the traffic-calming 

design changes that would make 

Bronx school routes safer, the project 

had to demonstrate political viability 

and soundness as a traffic safety 

program. Staff encouraged parents, 

principals, police, the New York City 

Department of Transportation, and 

other local traffic engineering talent 

to participate in planning so that the 

new engineering measures would be 

appropriate and there would be broad 

support for funding the program. 

The competitive school nomination 

process won parents’ and principals’ 

attention and increased their sense of 

ownership and pride in the project.

Contacts 

Transportation Alternatives

Tel: (212) 629-8080 

E-mail: info@transalt.org

Web site: www.saferoutestoschool.org

Ellen Cavanaugh 

Urbitran Associates

Tel: (510) 839-0810 

E-mail: ecavanagh@urbitran.com
About 90 percent of Chicago’s 422,000 public school 

children still walk to school, making the city a great example 

of the benefits of safe-walking efforts. The City of Chicago 

and its Police Department, through the department’s Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy, launched Operation Safe 

Passage in 1997. The program grew from a coalition of 

police, educators, 

local citizens, and 

minister who were 

concerned about 

the dangers children faced when 

they walked through areas rife with 

gang violence and 

gunfire. In 1998, 

Operation Safe Passage evolved into the Walking School Bus 

(WSB), a citywide program supported by the mayor, school 

superintendents, and principals. With WSB, children walk 

to school under the watchful eyes of adults along safe streets 

that have been taken back from the gangs that previously 

ruled them.

Chicago, Illinois

With WSB, 

children walk 

to school under 

the watchful 

eyes of adults 

along safe 

streets that 

have been 

taken back 

from the gangs 

that previously 

ruled them.

 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 29
30 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Description of Efforts

■ Police, parents, caregivers, and 

school safety officials monitored 

designated safe routes near participating schools.

■ Uniformed and tactical police 

officers patroled the streets around 

these schools.

■ Public housing officers visited 

schools in the morning when students arrive and in the afternoon 

when they depart for the day.

■ Parent patrols, church volunteers, 

and residents supplemented the 

police patrols.

■ Program coordinators – employees 

paid by the Police Department 

trained parent patrols.

■ Adults who wanted to help, signed 

their names next to their address 

on street maps displayed at their 

local school. Clusters of households 

were then identified and linked so 

they could stay in contact with one 

another for the walking school bus 

that takes the chaperoned students 

to school safely.

■ Police conducted background checks 

and fingerprint all volunteers.

■ Volunteers wore vests that identified them as WSB “drivers” and 

carried walkie-talkies so they 

could communicate with each other 

and the police.

■ Volunteer parent attendance 

officers went door to door to pick 

up children and make sure they 

arrive at school on time; other 

volunteers stand at designated 

stations.

■ Staff worked with the Bureau of 

Transportation to improve crosswalk markings and other signage. 

Together, they also created maps 

that showed which street corners 

have crossing guards and which 

streets have police patrols, so that 

parents can pick the safest route to 

school.

Effects

■ WSB is citywide and includes more 

than 3,000 volunteers.

■ Every school in Chicago distributes the booklet “Safe Passage to 

and from Chicago Public Schools.”

■ The police presence sends a message that criminal activity around 

schools will not be tolerated.

■ The City of Chicago has razed 

three buildings once occupied by 

rival gangs that had a reputation 

for sniper gunfire.

■ Parents increase the “eyes on the 

street” and can quickly identify 
 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 31

problem intersections and criminal 

activity.

■ Crime-ridden blocks are targeted 

for graffiti-removal, new lighting, 

sidewalk repair, and other crimeprevention measures.

Challenges

■ Lack of government funding.

■ Keeping volunteers motivated.

■ Coordinating activities with 

 other safety programs in the city.

Funding*

■ Chicago Police Department’s 

 Alternative Policing Strategy 

 funded the program coordinator 

 position.

■ The City of Chicago funded 10 

 youth coordinator positions.

■ Contributions from local 

 businesses, private agencies, and 

 parents.

(*Actual funding amounts were unavailable.) 

Complementary Effort

In 2001, the Chicago Department of 

Transportation contracted with the 

Chicagoland Bicycle Federation to 

manage the Safe Routes To School 

(SR2S) project. Chicago Department 

of Transportation’s partners include 

the Chicago Public Schools, Illinois 

Secretary of State, Chicago Police 

Department, and Children’s Memorial Hospital. The focus of the SR2S 

project is to increase the number 

of children who ride their bikes to 

school, which reduces traffic, encourages more physical activity, and 

increases overall health and safety.

Lessons Learned

The Chicago Walking School Bus 

project is now well-established. But 

when the project started, staff had 

trouble scheduling appointments 

with school principals and teachers 

to discuss the project and its benefits. The key to their success was 

having City and Police Department 

support. It legitimized the program 

and provided some leverage when 

staff wanted to schedule meetings 

at the schools. Through these meetings, project staff learned that they 

needed to lay out all project details 

and activities, and clearly state what 

they expected school officials, staff, 

and parent volunteers to do. The 

key was flexibility; every school and 

community posed different challenges and had different concerns. To 

identify the differences and inform 

the community about WSB, project 

staff attended PTA meetings, school 
32 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

council meetings, school assemblies, 

and community meetings. To keep 

the parents who have signed up to 

be “drivers” motivated and involved, 

they receive small incentives 

throughout the year—baseball caps, 

sweatshirts, gift certificates—that 

are donated by local businesses and 

merchants.

Contact

Kathie Carothers, School Safety 

Coordinator 

Chicago Police Department CAPS

Tel: (312) 744-CAPS (744-2277)

Email: kathie.carothers@chicagopoli

ce.org

Web site: http:

//www.cityofchicago.org/cp/

AboutCAPS/HowCAPSWorks/

WalkingSchoolbus.html
Florida has been involved in pedestrian and bicycle education since 1982, when the Florida Department of Transportation established its Pedestrian and Bicycle Program to serve 

as a clearinghouse for information and materials regarding 

pedestrian and bicycle 

safety. The Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Program also developed plans and programs to 

make it safe, comfortable, 

and convenient to take trips 

by walking and bicycling. A 

1991 University of Florida 

study of children’s transportation showed that only one in six children traveled to school by 

walking or bicycling; the rest arrived by school bus or private 

car. The University of Florida and Florida Department of 

Transportation collaborated in 1997 to develop a Safe Ways To 

School pilot project to reduce childhood injuries and fatalities 

by educating teachers, parents, and children; and to improve 

conditions that affect children walking and bicycling to and 

from school. The pilot traffic and bicycle safety education program offered a series of workshops with certificates awarded to 

elementary and middle school teachers, community volunteers, 

law enforcement officers, and recreation leaders. The project 

also involved research, media awareness campaigns, and safety 

education documents and guidelines.

Florida

 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 33
34 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Description of Efforts

■ Conducted pilot project, Safe Ways 

To School, at 10 elementary schools 

from 1997 to 1999:

 ◆ Conducted travel and attitudi-

 nal surveys to assess the vari-

 ous modes of transportation

 used by students to get to and 

 from school and to identify 

 concerns and barriers to 

 walking/bicycling to school.

 ◆ Combined traffic calming tech- 

 niques with other school initia- 

 tives (e.g., Walking School Bus) 

 and an education program to 

 cultivate a safer environment 

 for children.

 ◆ Developed the Safe Ways To

 School Toolkit to help schools

 assess and improve hazardous 

 conditions around schools and 

 the surrounding neighborhoods. 

 The toolkit includes a student

 travel survey, a school site 

 design assessment, a neighbor- 

 hood site assessment, parent

 and student attitudinal surveys, 

 a video, a “how to” manual, 

 clipboard, pen, and file folders, 

 all in a schoolhouse box carry- 

 ing case. The Safe Ways To 

 School Toolkit has been dis- 

 tributed to more than 100 

 schools throughout Florida.

■ Developed a 10-hour teacher 

workshop for elementary and middle school teachers of Physical 

Education and Health. Teachers 

learn to train students in age-appropriate bicycle and traffic safety 

skills, decision-making skills, 

balance development, awareness 

of surroundings, environmental 

conservation issues, independent 

mobility, and physical exercise and 

health.

■ Conducted training on safe bicycling and walking:

 ◆ Eight-hour Community 

 Workshop regarding bicycle 

 safety procedures and rules 

 of the road appropriate for 

 elementary school.

 ◆ Adult Cycling Road I Courses 

 are geared toward adult cyclists 

 and combine classroom activi- 

 ties and discussion with on- 

 road practice in the basics of 

 bicycling.

 ◆ Driver’s Ed for Bicyclists 

 prepares Driver’s Education 

 instructors to teach bicycle and 

 pedestrian laws.

Effects

■ A study at elementary schools in 

Duval County, Florida, which 

participated in the Florida 

Traffic and Bicycle Safety 
Much of the 

program’s 

success is 

attributed to 

the growth and 

evolution of 

the program, 

a resistance to 

stagnancy, and 

the on-going 

training of new 

teachers.

 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 35

Education Program from 1996-98, 

showed:

■ Helmet use increased from 

19 percent in 1992 to 47 percent 

in 1997.

■ Fatal crashes involving bicycles 

decreased 80 percent and bicyclerelated injuries decreased 68 

percent between 1996 and 1997.

■ Helmet use increased 25 percent 

 from 1997 to 1998 for children 

 under age 13.

■ The program operates in more 

 than 55 percent of the school 

 districts in Florida.

■ A state children’s bicycle helmet 

 law was enacted in 1997.

Challenges

■ No budget for promotion—information gets out mainly through wordof-mouth and newspaper coverage.

■ No statewide curriculum requirements for Traffic Safety Education. 

Competing for time to incorporate 

SR2S training, activities, and 

curriculum into classroom lesson 

plans.

■ Teachers leave the field, creating 

turnover; the need to train new 

teachers is ongoing.

■ Maintenance and security of equipment trailers requires continuous 

attention.

■ The large numbers of students 

per class.

■ Numbers of parents who drive 

their children to school: parent 

concern about safety, stranger 

danger, or their work schedules.

■ Daylight savings time extended 

into October, which means children 

walk to school or pick-up school bus 

in the dark.

Funding

■ Started in 1982 with $108,528 

from the United States Department of Transportation Section 402 

through the Florida Department of 

Transportation.

■ $161,000 annually from Florida 

Department of Transportation 

regular training budget on a threeyear renewable contract with the 

University of Florida.

■ In-kind support from nonprofit 

Bike Florida, which supplements 

training equipment and assistance, 

has warehouse space for curriculum storage, and provides minigrants to school districts.

■ Federal 402 funds provided 

annually to school districts to 
36 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

purchase bikes, trailers, and 

other equipment. Funding amount 

fluctuates from $500,000 to 

$1 million per year.

Lessons Learned

The Florida Traffic and Bicycle 

Safety Education Program has 

benefited from longevity, continuing 

to grow since it began in 1982. The 

program has regularly used Section 

402 funding to teach pedestrian and 

bicycle safety to hundreds of thousands of children across the state. 

Much of the program’s success is 

attributed to the growth and evolution of the program, a resistance to 

stagnancy, and the on-going training 

of new teachers. After ten years 

of effort, enough support had been 

gathered to establish a statewide 

program. In 2002, the state legislature passed the “Safe Paths” bill as 

a directive to Florida Department of 

Transportation to create an annual 

funding source to support additional 

pedestrian and bicycle safety education projects.

Contact

Linda Crider, Director, Florida 

Traffic and Bicycle Safety 

Education Program, 

University of Florida, Department of 

Urban and Regional Planning 

P.O. Box 115706, 

Gainesville, FL 32611

Tel: (352) 392-8192

Fax: (352) 846-0404 

E-mail: safetyed@ufl.edu

Web site: www.dcp.ufl.edu/centers/

trafficsafetyed/ 
In the early 1990s, awareness was growing that auto traffic had 

increased throughout the country, and that cars on residential 

streets frequently exceeded the speed limit. Research showed 

that the United Kingdom 

(UK) had among the 

worst child pedestrian casualty records in Europe, 

and at the same time one 

of the highest rates of 

restriction on children’s 

outdoor play and independent travel. Injury 

was an obvious impact on 

children’s health, but their loss of independence and increasing 

overweight status were also of concern.

Public agencies and private organizations responded to the 

situation. Sustrans, a civil engineering advocacy group, began 

promoting Safe Routes To School in 1995. Drawing on successful efforts in Denmark, Sustrans began with 10 schools 

and four local authorities. To reduce car speeds, the UK’s 

Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions 

implemented traffic-calming schemes in rural and urban 

areas. The Children’s Play Council and Transport 2000 

initiated the Home Zones effort, which pulls together health, 

safety, and community-building goals. All of these efforts, 

while not officially coordinated, have contributed to safer 

travel for pedestrians and cyclists, increased numbers of children walking and bicycling to school, and improved quality 

of life in neighborhoods.

 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 37

Great Britain
The national 

downward 

trend of 

children 

walking to 

school seems 

to be reversing. 

In 2000, the 

percentage of

walkers 

increased.

38 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Description of Efforts

Sustrans: Safe Routes To 

School

■ Offered telephone and e-mail helplines to demonstration sites and 

hosts a Web site available to all.

■ Conducted research on Safe 

Routes To School.

■ Organized conferences.

■ Produced curricula for teachers, 

general information for the public, 

and guides for traveling to and 

from school.

■ Helped projects plan and implement infrastructure improvements 

such as bikeways, walkways, 

better signals, traffic-calming, 

and bicycle parking.

Effects

■ Local governments’ interest in developing safe School Travel Plans 

rose from 38 percent in 1999 to 50 

percent in 2001.

■ Sixty-four percent of Local Transport Plans established targets 

for travel mode changes in 2001, 

up from 28 percent in a previous 

survey.

■ The national downward trend of 

children walking to school (down 

11-13 percent from 1985 to 1997) 

seems to be reversing. In 2000, 

walkers increased by two percent 

from the previous year.

Sample Effects at 

Demonstration and 

Pilot Sites

■ Horndean Community School, 

a secondary school, improved 

pedestrian crossings, provided 

bicycle lanes and parking, and 

implemented traffic-calming. 

Walking to school increased from 

39 percent in 1996 to 41 percent in 

1998, cycling from two percent to 

seven percent.

■ Admiral Lord Nelson, a new 

secondary school, promoted walking and cycling to school when 

it opened. In 1998, 31 percent of 

students walked to the school, 25 

percent cycled.

■ Sandringham School, a secondary 

school, provided a safety zone with 

traffic-calming, bicycle lanes and 

parking, a new bus shelter and 

bus priority. Pupils who walked 

increased from 35 percent in 1996 

to 47 percent in 1998, cyclists from 

two percent to five percent.

■ Hafren School, a primary school, 

provided covered cycle parking and 

a network of bikeways, encouraged curriculum activities, and 

increased cycling from one percent 

to 14 percent in four years.

■ Rosendale School, a primary 

school, changed its policy on 

cycling from cautious tolerance 

to active promotion, installed 

parking for bicycles, created a 
 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 39

20-mph zone, and provided bicycle 

training. The number of cycling 

students, most accompanied by 

parents, doubled from two percent 

in 2000 to four percent in 2002.

Challenges

■ Lack of coordination among cycling 

and walking efforts.

■ Lack of funding for infrastructure 

improvements in the early days.

■ Lack of support for travel plans, 

monitoring, and evaluation.

■ Reluctance of schools to take on 

extra projects.

■ Parents’ fears for the safety of 

their children and their perception 

that cycling is unsafe.

■ Habitual car use and perception 

that cars are the safest, best way 

to travel.

Funding

■ Sustrans SR2S budget is approximately $307,000* a year.

■ National government allocated 

$76 million* in the last four years 

for cycling and walking projects, 

including Safe Routes To School.

■ In 2001, national government 

provided $14 million* over three 

years to fund school travel plans in 

100 communities.

■ Local transport authorities 

allocated between $230,000* 

and $768,000* a year for SR2S 

efforts in four communities involved in SR2S since the 

demonstration phase.

Complementary Efforts

Home Zones

■ Advocacy groups have been campaigning for public support of 

Home Zones since 1996. In home 

zones, residential streets have 

been redesigned using the Dutch 

concept of “woonerf” or “yard” 

to promote interaction among 

neighbors.

■ In 1999, legal changes allowed 

streets to be used for purposes 

other than moving vehicles. Several pilot sites were recognized.

■ Local residents helped plan and 

implement projects, resulting in 

community-building.

■ National government allocated 

$43.5 million* in 2001 to develop 

and construct more Home Zones.

■ Fierce competition for funding 

resulted in awards to 61 different 

communities.

Traffic-Calming

■ Experience with more than 50 

traffic-calming schemes report 

that lower speeds reduce injuries.

■ Strategies include narrowing 

roads, marking roads, coloring 

surfaces and traffic islands, and 

*All monetary amounts are given in U.S. Dollars.
40 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

placing physical deflection measures and signs on gateways.

■ In a project at Ayres Road, slower 

speeds and less vehicle noise led 

to greater numbers of villagers 

saying that they walked to shops 

daily — up from 25 percent to 40 

percent in one year.

■ Looking at village traffic-calming 

projects from 1992 to 1997, the 

project leaders found that when 

auto speeds dropped two to seven 

miles per hour, injury crashes were 

reduced by 47 percent.

■ Installation of village trafficcalming greatly reduced injuries 

to children in the communities 

involved:

◆ Child pedestrian injuries 

 dropped by 40 percent

◆ Child pedestrians killed or 

 seriously injured dropped by 

 77 percent

◆ Child cyclist injuries dropped by 

 51 percent and

◆ Child cyclists killed or seriously 

 injured dropped by 49 percent

■ Funding from local transportation 

agencies varied widely.

Lessons Learned

Great Britain’s national efforts –

public and private—although not 

originally coordinated, complement 

each other and have led to significant 

reduction in injuries, changes in how 

parents and children travel, and better facilities for bicycling and walking. Advocates say that coordination 

is improving but needs to be better. 

Communities and local governments 

have become more interested in 

making changes so that children can 

walk and bike to school more safely. 

Using information from established 

projects such as “woonerfs” in the 

Netherlands and Safe Routes To 

School in Denmark was helpful. 

Funding from various sources has 

been required to implement educational efforts and make engineering 

changes. 

Contacts

Sustrans

Rhian Barnes, Geoff Gilbert

E-mail: schools@sustrans.org.uk

Web site: 

www.saferoutestoschools.org.uk

Home Zones

Peter Lipman

E-mail: peterl@sustrans.org.uk

Web site: www.homezonenews.org.uk

Traffic Calming 

Department for Transport 

Web site: www.dft.gov.uk

(formerly Department of Transport, 

Local Government and the Regions)

A Safer Journey To School

Transport 2000 Trust

E-mail: stp@tranport2000.demon.

co.uk
 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 41

Marin County, 

California

Marin County, California (population 247,000), a few miles 

north of San Francisco, is primarily suburban with a number of 

small, older communities 

and a lot of rural areas 

and open spaces. Many 

people walk and bike in 

these communities and 

have a strong commitment to environmental 

protection. There is also 

increasing concern over 

growing traffic congestion. A recent study showed that 21 percent of the morning traffic consists of adults driving children 

to school. To lessen the aggravation of the morning commute, 

the Marin County Bicycle Coalition introduced the concept of 

Safe Routes To School (SR2S) and its benefits of reduced traffic, cleaner air, and healthier children. In August 2000, the 

Marin County Bicycle Coalition received a grant from NHTSA 

for a SR2S demonstration project in Marin County. That initial 

project has grown to include 21 schools with nine more organizing projects.
42 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Description of Efforts

■ Encouraged walking and biking to school through classroom 

education and activities, contests 

and events (Walk/Bike To School 

Days, Frequent Rider Miles contest, “walking school buses,” bike 

trains), mapping of routes, and 

community involvement.

■ Participating schools received a 

toolkit, guidance, forms, newsletters, and other promotional 

materials. 

■ Qualified instructors — including law enforcement personnel 

— conducted safety trainings for 

second- and fourth-graders and a 

bicycle safety rodeo. 

■ Each community developed an 

SR2S Improvement Plan in cooperation with Public Works staff, 

law enforcement, and an engineering consultant.

Effects

■ Parents make more of an effort 

to get their children up in time to 

walk and bike to school. 

■ Tremendous cooperation from the 

school staff in getting the safety 

training in the classroom.

■ As shown in the chart below, pilot 

school’s transportation modes 

shifted (total enrollment of 1,744 

students in Fall 2000, 1,756 in 

Spring 2001, and 10,000 in 

Spring 2002).

 Transportation Percent Before Percent After Percent After

 Mode (Fall 2000) (Fall 2001) (Spring 2002)

 Walk 14% 17% 23%

 Bike 7 12 15

 Bus 6 3 4

 Carpool 11 15 21

 Drive Alone 62 53 38

■ Marin Congestion Management 

Agency designated 30 percent 

of Transportation Enhancement 

funding toward a countywide 

SR2S program.

Sample Effects at 

Demonstration/Pilot Sites

■ Greater police presence at all pilot 

schools. 
 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 43

■ Stoplight at dangerous crossing 

changed to give pedestrians more 

time.

■ Sidewalks near local elementary 

schools improved.

■ Middle school students began 

walking and biking as a direct 

result of the contests and continued walking and biking after the 

contests ended. 

■ Fairfax, an older city on the western fringe of densely populated 

areas, has new bike lanes and 

funding to fill in sidewalks where 

there are gaps.

■ Mill Valley and Fairfax police now 

use radar trailers to control vehicle 

speed on main arterials 

near schools.

Challenges

■ Teacher and staff reluctance to 

take on additional work.

■ Convincing school administrators 

that SR2S is worthwhile.

■ Working with Public Works staff 

not trained in bicycle and 

pedestrian issues.

■ Recruiting and retaining crossing 

guards.

■ Finding volunteers to work to 

involve the middle schools.

Funding

■ First-year funding totaled 

$120,000. Funding sources included:

◆ NHTSA demonstration project 

 ($50,000)

◆ California Office of Traffic 

 and Safety, Section 402 funding 

 ($15,000)

◆ California Kids Plate program 

 ($25,000)

◆ Marin Community Foundation 

 ($25,000)

◆ Additional foundation support 

 and funds provided by private 

 donations

Lessons Learned

The major lesson learned from 

the Marin SR2S effort is that the 

project team must be persistent and 

stay organized. Many of the school 

administrators and teachers were 

reluctant to take on more work, so 

parents went directly to the school’s 

administration with their pitch. They 

said they believed that children who 

walk or bike to school are more alert 

and tend to do well in school, and 

that reducing traffic around a school 

can make the neighbors happy and 

improve relationships. Then they 

asked for an SR2S project.
44 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Work with schools must be customized for the community and its needs. 

Each school’s “team leader” or “champion” starts the planning process for 

the program at the start of the school 

year with a form schools fill out to 

select the safety training classes 

they want and to list the incentives 

they will use. Each school then has 

its own plan and timeline—including classroom activities and special 

walking and biking events—to follow 

throughout the year.

Marin SR2S also found that getting 

press coverage was a great way to 

promote the project and keep the 

community and public officials 

informed. Organizers said that it is 

also important to keep public officials 

informed and feeling like they are 

heroes, because it gives them more 

reasons to help and fund the project. 

Contact

Wendi Kallins, Program Director 

Tel: (415) 488-4101 

E-mail: wendi@marinbike.org

Web site: www.saferoutestoschools.org
Portland,

Oregon

 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 45

The Portland Department of Transportation, serving this 

northwestern city of 538,000, takes a neighborhood-based 

approach to traffic safety for adults and children. Its established traffic-calming 

program bases its efforts 

on the well-documented 

effectiveness of slowing 

vehicle speeds to prevent 

injury. Since the 1980s, 

the Portland Department of Transportation 

has been involved in 

collaboration with community groups and in targeted activities 

related to school area safety with department initiatives such 

as the Elementary School Safety Program. The department 

promotes transportation choices that reduce single-occupant 

auto use. Presently, the Portland Department of Transportation is involved in community planning with Safe Routes To 

School (SR2S) task forces at several schools, while continuing 

to respond to specific requests for traffic-calming from the 

entire city.
46 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Description of Efforts

■ Portland Department of Transportation maintains ongoing trafficcalming efforts, with an emphasis 

on providing speed humps. The 

largest number of calls to Portland 

Department of Transportation are 

from residents concerned about the 

number of cars and how fast they 

drive on neighborhood streets. The 

Neighborhood Traffic Safety Plan, 

a comprehensive planning effort, 

emphasizes traffic-calming around 

schools and parks.

■ From 1994-97, 12 schools were 

selected for interventions by the 

Elementary School Safety Program. Installation of speed humps 

was the most common engineering 

change, with a few pedestrian 

refuges and slow points, and one 

traffic diverter to send traffic in 

a clockwise direction around a 

school.

■ Bicycle Transportation Alliance 

has offered a “Safe Routes for 

Kids” classroom and bicycle 

instruction program since 1998. 

More than 10,000 children have 

been in the program in Portland 

and throughout Oregon.

■ School Beacon Program, with 76 

schools participating, puts flashing 

yellow lights remote-controlled by 

Portland Department of Transportation above school zone signs.

■ Portland Police Bureau School 

Police Division trains elementary 

school Safety Coordinators and 

student safety patrol crossing 

guards how to patrol school 

crosswalks safely. Emphasis is on 

crosswalk safety and safe driver 

behavior during peak times of 

drop-off and pick-up activities.

■ Portland Department of Transportation educational programs have 

reached more than 3,200 children 

in Portland during the past two 

years, teaching them safe ways to 

walk and bicycle. Programs include:

◆ “Portland Kids on the Move” 

 is a three-day workshop for 

 third-grade students, parents, 

 and teachers covering safe ways 

 to maneuver, traffic hazards 

 as pedestrians, and safe ways 

 to ride a bicycle on the street. 

 Educational package includes 

 kindergarten to fifth-grade 

 transportation curriculum with 

 more in-depth study of traffic 

 safety and transportation 

 options, a “Slow Down” 

 banner for the school, and a 

 supply of bumper stickers.

◆ Traffic Safety Town is a giant 

tarp used for an indoor gym 

activity. It is designed with bike 

lanes, sidewalks and intersections, and may be used in 

conjunction with the curriculum 

or as a stand-alone activity. 
 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 47

Two tarps have been taken to 

every elementary school in 

Portland at least once.

◆ “Play It Safe,” an interactive, 

outdoor education program, is 

provided in partnership with 

Portland Parks and Recreation, 

Portland Police Bureau, and 

Portland Fire Bureau to 

elementary school-age children 

during the summer. “Play It 

Safe” focuses on pedestrian and 

bicycle safety. The bicycle safety 

training is geared toward youth 

ages seven to 13 who already 

know how to ride a bicycle. 

The parks, fire, and pedestrian 

safety sessions are for all ages.

Effects

■ In the 12 Elementary School 

Safety Program schools, traffic 

speeds were reduced on the roads 

with speed humps, usually by 

several miles per hour. However, 

the speeds usually were not below 

the 20-mph school speed limit.

■ A 1993-96 study showed relatively 

consistent reduction in vehicle 

speed when beacons flashed. 

School principals, parents, and 

police officers reported improved 

traffic safety after installation of 

the flashing beacons.

■ School safety education and planning efforts led to a variety of 

results at different schools. For 

example: students stopped crossing 

at the middle of one street and 

started using the signalized intersection; a pedestrian refuge island 

was constructed on a major street; 

and the “walk” period at a school 

crossing was increased.

■ Bicycle Transportation Alliance 

evaluations showed that children 

increased their safety knowledge 

by more than 40 percent and 

bicycled to school more frequently. 

During the 2000-01 school year, 

only 4.4 percent of students in the 

participating Portland schools rode 

to school before the Bicycle Transportation Alliance program, while 

more than 11 percent rode during 

the program’s final days.

Challenges

■ Changes in department priorities 

resulted in the elimination of 

the Elementary School Safety 

Program.

■ The state passed SR2S legislation 

in 2001 (Oregon House Bill 3721), 

but did not appropriate funds or 

provide strong direction.

■ Motor vehicle use—measured 

by daily vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT)—has increased steadily in 

the city; 70 percent of trips to work 

are in single-occupant vehicles. 

Carbon monoxide and carbon 

dioxide emissions have increased.

■ Data collection has never been a 

priority. Currently, it is estimated 
48 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Portland has 

committed 

significant 

resources over 

several years 

to implement 

a very welldocumented 

strategy to 

reduce injury: 

slowing vehicle 

speeds with 

extensive use 

of speed 

bumps and 

warning lights.

that 18-20 percent of Portland’s 

children walk or bike to school. 

However, staff believe that there 

is a trend toward more parents 

driving their children to school.

■ Need to educate school representatives about city transportation 

services, policies, and procedures 

relevant to school traffic safety 

projects, so they know the options 

available to them.

Funding

■ Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention grant for $20,000 for 

beginning SR2S task forces at six 

schools in 2001.

■ Portland allocated more than $1.3 

million for school safety over the 

three-year period 1999-2002:

◆ Bicycle safety education in 

coordination with Bicycle Transportation Alliance: $590,000

◆ School beacons: $100,000

◆ Portland Department of 

Transportation educational 

programs: $515,000

◆ Engineering changes (crosswalks, signs, traffic circulation, 

etc.): $105,000

Lessons Learned

Portland’s experience over the past 

20 years demonstrates the difficulty 

of increasing walking and bicycling 

by schoolchildren in the face of 

continuing increases in automobile 

use. However, within the overall 

national picture of declining walking 

and bicycling, Portland remains a 

city where bicycling and walking are 

perceived as more desirable than 

elsewhere. Strong political champions 

in Portland have supported bicycling 

and walking as making the city more 

livable. Portland has committed significant resources over several years 

to implement a very well-documented 

strategy to reduce injury: slowing 

vehicle speeds with extensive use of 

speed humps and warning lights.

Contacts

Dakota InyoSwan

Tel: (503) 823-5552

E-mail: Dakota.Inyoswan@pdxtrans

.org

Web site: www.trans.ci.portland.or.us

Scott Bricker

Tel: (503) 226-0676

E-mail: scott@bta4bikes.org
Santa Ana,

California

 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 49

In the Southern California city of Santa Ana (population 

320,000), the impetus for promoting safety and walkability for 

children came from the realization that the pedestrian death 

rate for the city was, in 1997, the second highest of any large 

California city. While approximately 50 percent of fifth- and 

sixth-grade children 

walk to school regularly, 

a majority of residents 

responding to a survey 

stated that it was unsafe 

for children to walk 

in their neighborhood. 

Children aged five to 

nine represented only 

nine percent of Santa 

Ana’s population in 1997, but they were victims in 21 percent of 

the pedestrian injuries. The California Office of Traffic Safety 

funded the Santa Ana Pedestrian Safety Project for three years. 

After this project period, Santa Ana took over the operation of 

the project, which has spread to 20 schools and has produced 

many tangible results. Unlike many other projects, the Santa 

Ana Pedestrian Safety Project established specific measurable 

goals and objectives, and collected data from the beginning. All 

of the objectives were achieved.
50 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Unlike many 

other projects, 

the Santa Ana 

Pedestrian 

Safety Project 

established 

specific measurable goals 

and objectives, 

and collected 

data from the 

beginning.

Description of Efforts

■ Established Citywide Task Force 

with representatives from law 

enforcement, schools, traffic 

engineering and community 

development, elected officials, 

community-based organizations, 

and concerned residents. Meeting topics included presentations 

on pedestrian safety issues and 

services, discussions of unsafe 

situations, and updates on the 

Santa Ana Pedestrian Safety 

Project accomplishments.

■ Developed a comprehensive educational toolkit and community 

outreach program in English and 

Spanish; toolkit includes:

◆ 20-minute pedestrian safety 

video with discussion guide.

◆ 30-minute pedestrian safety 

presentation with slides.

◆ Neighborhood Safety Survey 

— for residents to identify 

unsafe walking conditions.

◆ Pedestrian Safety Solutions 

Guidebook.

■ Participated in Walk to School Day 

in 2001 (approximately 20 schools).

■ Provided small grants to community-based organizations to 

purchase materials and conduct 

outreach and education events 

promoting pedestrian safety.

■ Promoted walking and safety 

through a Family Literacy Program that includes publications 

about walking to school.

■ Collected data from Neighborhood 

Perception Surveys, Walkability 

Checklists, Geographic Information System mapping, and police 

summaries to develop a community profile of pedestrian injuries.

■ Developed pedestrian safety art 

exhibits and murals through 

collaboration with the Multicultural After School Arts Program 

and Operation Clean Slate.

■ Applied through the Public Works 

Department, for pedestrian safety 

improvement funding; projects 

included in-pavement lighted crosswalks, new signals, and sidewalk 

improvements.

■ Police Department made strong 

commitment to child pedestrian 

safety, conducting such pedestrian 

safety enforcement actions as 

ticketing drivers who did not yield, 

and working directly with children 

and their parents to develop 

children’s safe walking skills.

■ City worked with schools to develop, update, and assess Suggested 

Routes to Schools maps for all 

elementary schools.
Key Desired Results and 

Objectives

■ To reduce the number of pedestrians under 15 years old who are 

killed and injured in traffic collisions by 15 percent.

■ To prepare a community profile of 

the pedestrian injury problem.

■ To develop multilingual, pedestrian-injury prevention materials. 

■ To establish a community-wide 

Pedestrian Safety Task Force that 

meets regularly.

Effects

■ Santa Ana’s representative in 

the State Assembly sponsored a 

statewide “Safe Routes to School” 

funding bill, and supported other 

pedestrian safety legislation.

■ City assumed ownership and 

leadership for ongoing pedestrian 

safety program after grant period 

ended in 2001.

■ City and school district established 

a partnership. 

■ Schools and school district have 

taken a more proactive role in 

addressing pedestrian safety for 

students by encouraging “walking 

school buses,” using more innovative signage, and improving school 

drop-off practices. Additional 

crossing guards have been provided to schools.

■ Pedestrian injuries for children 

under age 15 declined from 82 in 

1997 to 48 in 2000.

■ Extensive media coverage during 

the first year of the project raised 

awareness and garnered support 

and involvement by community 

residents, professionals, and 

elected and appointed officials.

Challenges

■ Time constraints and competing 

priorities of key stakeholders, and 

personnel changes within collaborating agencies. It was tough to maintain participants’ commitment, 

momentum, and level of activity.

■ Working with the media to promote the issues and portray the 

statistics accurately. Publicity helped bring attention to the issue, but 

negative publicity sometimes interfered with collaborative efforts.

Funding

■ Santa Ana Pedestrian Safety 

Project operated for three years 

with the following funding:

◆ California Office of Traffic 

Safety Section 402: $350,000.

◆ In-kind support and provision 

of services from Orange County 

Health Care Agency and City 

of Santa Ana estimated at 

$100,000 a year.

◆ City of Santa Ana allocated 

$715,200 for pedestrian safety 

 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 51
52 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

improvements from city budget, 

and applied for and received:

 ♦ $713,400 from state Safe 

 Routes to School funding 

 (AB 1475) 

 ♦ $251,200 through Hazard 

 Elimination Safety Program

 ♦ $150,000 through Federal 

 Empowerment Zone fund

 ♦ $384,000 from California 

 Pedestrian Safety Program 

 funds

■ Office of Traffic Safety secondround funding: one grant for 

Pedestrian Safety Task Force 

($77,000) and a second for a crosswalk study and public information 

campaign ($142,000).

Lessons Learned

Santa Ana’s approach to pedestrian 

safety enhancement is different from 

other safe routes to school efforts in 

that data collection and evaluation 

were included as important project 

activities from the beginning. The 

focus on injury reduction poses difficulty in evaluation. Working with different agencies to collect data, Santa 

Ana was able to document an overall 

reduction in injuries, but found that 

evaluation was difficult because the 

numbers of injuries in any local area 

are usually modest. The data collection experience highlighted the need 

for proxy measures (e.g., conflicts 

between the needs of pedestrians and 

the rights of motor vehicle drivers) 

and exposure data (e.g., number of 

pedestrians) to be able to measure 

effects of pedestrian safety programs. 

The pedestrian safety efforts included a very broad cross-section of 

the community, which the organizers 

report was essential to the program’s 

success. They learned that a comprehensive approach was necessary, 

as opposed to focusing on just one 

part of the problem such as jaywalking education, ticketing parents for 

illegal parking, or simply teaching 

children about pedestrian safety. In 

such a multicultural community, it 

was important to develop materials 

and outreach efforts in languages 

other than English—in this case, 

the second language needed was 

Spanish. The Santa Ana Pedestrian 

Safety Project was also prepared to 

develop materials in Vietnamese, 

although they discovered that the 

need was not as great as originally 

thought.

Contacts

Diane Winn

University of California, Irvine

Tel: (949) 824-7410

E-mail: dgwinn@uci.edu

Ruth Smith

City of Santa Ana

Tel: (714) 647-5605

Unlike many other projects, the 

Santa Ana Pedestrian Safety Project 

established specific measurable goals 

and objectives, and collected data 

from the beginning. 

Unlike many 

other projects, 

the Santa Ana 

Pedestrian 

Safety Project 

established 

specific measurable goals 

and objectives, 

and collected 

data from the 

beginning.
Toronto,

Ontario

 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 53

In Toronto (population 2.5 million) there is major concern over 

poor air quality caused mainly by motor vehicle emissions. 

Another concern is the health problems of inactive children. 

Although 68 percent of 

Canadian children live 

within a 30-minute walk 

to school, only 36 percent 

of the children walk. In 

an attempt to alleviate 

both health concerns, 

Greenest City, an environmental advocacy organization, began the Active and Safe Routes to School (SR2S) 

project in 1996 with three pilot schools. It was a comprehensive 

program, with materials, education, and activities. The project 

took root and grew. Active and SR2S activities result from 

major collaboration among Greenest City, five traffic engineers, 

10 different police divisions, and 25 public health nurses. Experiences and successes at these schools have led to Active and 

SR2S project development in 150 other schools. The project now 

serves the entire Province of Ontario, and has assisted in the 

start-up of SR2S projects elsewhere in Canada.
The number of families

participating in all

aspects of the program

has approximately

doubled each year.

This steadily increasing

participation has

resulted in distance

traveled by car, which is

calculated to result in

greenhouse gas reduction

in the amounts indicated.

54 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Description of Efforts

■ Provided a comprehensive package 

of education and encouragement 

materials: flyers, brochures, 

certificates, reports, and surveys.

■ Offered curriculum information to 

teachers, including Blazing Trails, 

a publication useful in mapping 

safer routes.

■ Designed events to encourage 

walking: Walking School Bus 

(WSB), out of which came a new 

toolkit for beginning a WSB in a 

neighborhood; Walking/Wheeling 

Wednesdays at schools, and “Kilometer Club” (described on page 

55) for kids who want to be active 

during the school day, but cannot 

walk to school.

■ Trans-Canada Walking Challenge 

encouraged children to keep track 

of the miles they walk, add them 

up, and see how far across Canada 

they could get. A poster shows 

points of interest along the way.

■ Neighborhood Walkabouts surveyed the area around schools 

to find out if they were safe for 

children to walk.

■ “No Idling” campaign educated 

drivers about the air pollution they 

cause while the engine idles as 

they wait to pick up schoolchildren, 

and lets them know that idling like 

that is banned in Toronto.

Effects

■ Walking/Wheeling Wednesdays 

at several schools demonstrated 

 Greenhouse

 Program Year Participation Reduction

 eCO2 in tonnes

 Walking School Bus 1999 3.38

 2000 5.22

 2001 7.44

 Walking Wednesday 1999 1.43

 2000 5.15

 2001 16.67

 No Idling 1999 4.47 

 2000 12.92

 2001 40.02

 Walk To School Day 1999 3.05

 2000 3.86

 2001 2.95
 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn? 55

significant shifts in travel mode: 

some schools reported empty 

parking lots on these days. The 

average across schools is 55 percent student walkers on Walking 

Wednesdays.

■ Total person kilometers walked 

(1997-2001) IWALK and Walking 

Wednesday = 1,074,891 kilometers. 

This is equal to 144 individual 

trips walking across Canada from 

St. John’s Newfoundland to Vancouver, British Columbia.

■ Support from local officials has 

grown. Police departments got 

involved because they were concerned that they would have to 

spend too many hours managing 

traffic congestion.

■ Forty-four Toronto schools completed neighborhood walkabouts, 

resulting in some type of traffic 

safety change being made at each 

school.

■ Each year, from 1998-2001, the 

reduction of emissions of eCO2

(greenhouse gas) in Toronto 

because of the walking to school 

program equaled 73 metric tonnes. 

The adjacent chart estimates the 

contribution of specific program 

components toward a desired 

reduction in greenhouse gas in 

different years.

Sample Effects at 

Demonstration/Pilot Sites

■ Maurice Cody and John Wanless 

Public Schools: 1998 evaluation 

showed a 10 percent increase over 

1996 in students walking to school 

on a regular basis. Both schools 

have 60 percent walkers on Walking Wednesdays.

■ E.T. Crowle Public School: Physical 

Education teachers had noticed a 

year-by-year decline in the number 

of children (grades four through 

eight) who were fit enough to participate in the cross-country track 

team for a spring event competing 

with other schools. The teachers 

started the “Kilometer Club” in 

2001, with students walking and 

running laps in the schoolyard and 

walking to school. By the spring of 

2001, more children qualified for 

the cross-country challenge.

■ Maurice Cody Public School: 

Students challenged the City 

Council and the Mayor to walk or 

bike to work at City Hall on “Bike 

Day.” Some city officials took the 

challenge seriously, including one 

who walked 3.2 miles to work that 

day.

■ Mary Shadd Public School: 

Walkabout survey resulted in a 

bus stop being moved, installation 

of a well-signed crosswalk, and a 

crossing guard assigned for before 

and after school.

Physical 

Education 

teachers had 

noticed a yearby-year decline 

in the number 

of children who 

were fit enough 

to participate 

in the crosscountry track 

team for a 

spring event 

competing with 

other schools. 

The teachers 

started the 

“Kilometer 

Club” in 2001, 

with students 

walking and 

running laps in 

the schoolyard 

and walking to 

school. By the 

spring of 2001, 

more children 

qualified for the 

cross-country 

challenge.
56 4: Promising Practices - From Whom Can We Learn?

Challenges

■ Finding funding for all of the 

efforts.

■ Attitude of North Americans 

toward their cars. There is no 

political will to make the changes 

necessary to encourage other 

means of transportation.

■ Schools are very busy. They need a 

champion who will carry the cause, 

probably a parent, with a supportive principal and teachers.

Funding

■ Started with approximately 

$22,000* per year from the 

Toronto Atmospheric Fund.

■ Funding sources included city, 

private and public foundations, 

and national transportation 

department.

■ Active and Safe Routes to School 

leveraged funding to acquire more 

than $320,000* per year in in-kind 

support from various partners.

■ Province-wide effort cost approximately $128,000* per year.

■ $285,000* awarded recently from 

Ontario Trillium Foundation for 

three-year program support.

Lessons Learned

Greenest City’s strategy has been 

to pilot activities in Toronto schools, 

then adapt them and disseminate 

throughout the province. Recognizing 

that schools have busy schedules, 

they advise that it takes a full year 

to implement an Active and Safe 

Routes to School project. Greenest 

City has recruited partners from 

health, law enforcement and community government, and leveraged 

funding into significant in-kind 

support. Greenest City responded 

to the enthusiasm of schoolchildren 

for active travel by developing fun 

events like the Kilometer Club and 

Cross-Canada Walking Challenge. 

Greenest City emphasized that both 

funding and community volunteer 

effort for Active and Safe Routes to 

School projects are essential.

Contact

Jacky Kennedy

Tel: (416) 488-7263

E-mail: asrts@greenestcity.org

Web site: www.greenestcity.org/

indexasrts.html

*All monetary amounts are given in U.S. Dollars.
5. Supporting

 Safe Routes 

 To School –

 Where Do 

 We Go From 

 Here?

 5: Supporting Safe Routes To School - Where Do We Go From Here? 57

As a local, regional, or statewide decision-maker, you may 

be approached in many different ways by people who are interested in the Safe Routes To School (SR2S) concept. How can you 

help them? Following are questions you might be asked, along 

with suggested responses. These are only suggestions – which 

you may expand and adapt to fit your own situation.

Safe Routes To School – What 

does it mean and do we need to 

be involved?

This is the straightforward information your questioner needs: Since 

the 1950s fewer children have been 

walking or bicycling to school. Many 

people believe that this is a negative change. SR2S projects started 

in Denmark during the 1970s, and 

spread throughout the developed 

world. The common goal of all SR2S 

efforts is to increase the numbers of 

children who walk and bike safely to 

school, because:

■ Walking and bicycling are healthy 

for children.

■ Communities benefit from less 

traffic congestion and pollution.

The Preface explains why walking 

and bicycling are desirable activities, 

and lists the national goals from the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention and the United States 

Department of Transportation. Chapter One: Safe Routes To School 

– Why? expands on why the SR2S 

movement started, and the benefits.

Is it really a good idea to encourage children to walk or bicycle to 

school? Wouldn’t they be safer in 

a car or on a school bus?

Reply that statistics show that children are generally safe from traffic 

injury inside a school bus. However, 
58 5: Supporting Safe Routes To School - Where Do We Go From Here?

motor vehicle crashes are the leading 

cause of death for school-age children. And, whether in a car or bus, 

they do not get the physical activity 

benefits of walking or bicycling. Nor 

do they learn to feel independent and 

move confidently about their communities.

On the other hand, studies show that 

children who walk and bicycle are 

alert and ready to learn when they 

get to school, and more easily achieve 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention’s healthy goal of one hour 

of physical activity each day, a habit 

they would do well to keep. Those 

who continue to be active throughout 

their lives are at lower risk of various 

chronic illnesses.22

Communities benefit when more 

people walk and bicycle, because 

there is less traffic and cleaner air.

See Chapter One: Safe Routes To 

School (SR2S) – Why?, especially 

page 4, for more benefits.

We have to make a presentation 

to our school board about Safe 

Routes To School. Do you have 

information or resources we 

can use?

See Chapter Two: Safe Routes To 

School (SR2S) – What Does That 

Mean? for descriptions of SR2S 

activities that relate to education, 

encouragement, engineering and 

enforcement. 

See Chapter Four: Promising 

Practices – From Whom Can We 

Learn? for case studies of many different communities that have started 

programs to make their children’s 

routes to school safer, how they did it 

and their results.

See Appendix A: Safe Routes 

To School Projects and Related 

Efforts for contact information on a 

variety of SR2S efforts, and Appendix B: Resources, Publications, 

and Organizations for additional 

SR2S resource information. 

SR2S sounds great! How do we 

get started?

Encourage your activists to gather 

information about their community. 

They will have to be able to document the need for SR2S projects and 

to evaluate their efforts. Chapter 

Three: Evaluation and Outcomes 

– How Do You Measure Success?

lists key indicators of success for 

SR2S projects, and tells where to 

get data (see Table 1 on page 14 and 

Table 2 on page 17).

Appendix D: Steps to Start an 

SR2S Project covers what is essential for starting an SR2S project. 

Useful toolkits have been developed 

by a variety of SR2S projects; they 

are listed on page 107.

We have heard about the Four Es 

– but don’t know which one we 

should concentrate on. Is it better 
to educate people about SR2S, or 

to encourage changes? Or should 

we build (engineer) safe routes to 

school, or work on enforcement?

Ask the community group what 

problems they have identified. What 

specific barriers keep their children 

from walking or bicycling safely to 

school? 

Once the barriers are identified 

(see Appendix D: Steps to Start 

a SR2S Project, page 107), they 

can decide – perhaps with your help 

– how to overcome them. For example, for streets without sidewalks, 

an engineering solution is desirable. 

If the infrastructure is in place, but 

people just are not in the habit of 

walking, then encouragement will 

help. If people are unaware of the 

benefits of walking, education is a 

good approach. If motorists are not 

obeying the laws and yielding to 

children in the crosswalks, or are 

speeding in school zones, then address the problem with enforcement.

Chapter Two: Safe Routes To 

School (SR2S) – What Does That 

Mean? offers examples of how five 

different SR2S projects utilized one 

of the Four Es, as a part of their 

overall effort. 

Desirable as it is to start with one 

or two activities, eventually it will 

probably be necessary to engage most 

or all of the Four Es. For the majority 

of children in most communities, the 

shift to walking and bicycling safely 

to school is a big change.

We have heard that your department has some money available 

for SR2S projects. What do we 

have to do to get funding for our 

project?

If your department has money 

available for SR2S, you will need 

clear guidelines for choosing which 

projects to fund. First, consider how 

far you want to spread the money: 

over neighborhoods, towns, counties 

or regions? Do you want to fund 

geographical and/or demographic 

diversity? For example, large and 

small communities or ethnic mixes? 

Or simply the efforts most likely to 

be effective in raising numbers?

Consider evaluating projects, or 

project proposals, based on Table 1 

on page 14. Be sure that each project 

has a way to measure change and 

plans to measure changes in at least 

some of the areas described.

We know that your department 

doesn’t have any money for SR2S 

projects, but do you know where 

we could get some funding?

SR2S projects have been funded 

by initiatives at the state, local or 

national level, and by private foundations. In Chapter Four: Promising 

Practices – From Whom Can We 

Learn?, each case study project’s 

funding sources are described. The 

 5: Supporting Safe Routes To School - Where Do We Go From Here? 59
following sources of federal money 

have been used for Safe Routes To 

School efforts:

■ Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality Improvement Program 

(CMAQ), Section 1110

■ Surface Transportation Program 

(STP), Section 1108

■ State and Community Highway 

Safety Grants, Section 402

See Appendix E: National Transportation Law and Funding for 

more information on funding available under the federal Transportation 

Equity Act (TEA-21).

We have done a lot of education 

of parents and children, and they 

are walking and driving much 

more carefully. But it still isn’t 

safe or pleasant to walk in our 

area. What should we do next?

First, review with your community 

group whether they accurately 

assessed the barriers to safe and 

pleasant walking. Perhaps they 

thought they needed to educate 

walkers and cyclists, when the bigger 

problem was unsafe speeds by 

motorists. In that case, they need to 

work for better enforcement.

However, there are times when the 

policies of a school district, city, state 

or region work against safe routes to 

school. For example, the state may 

have a policy that requires a new 

school to be built if it is expensive to 

renovate an older one. Or the state 

might require a very large campus 

area for a school. These policies work 

against keeping schools in older, 

more densely built, walkable neighborhoods. By sharing the information 

in this resource guide, you may be 

able to help the group advocate for 

changes to such a policy. 

See pages 64 and 75 in Appendix 

A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) 

Projects and Related Efforts

for policy activities carried out by 

activists in Oakland, California, 

and in Texas. Also see pages 65-66 

for descriptions of the projects that 

resulted from a legislative change in 

California that allocated a portion of 

construction money to Safe Routes To 

School projects. 

22 Dwyer T. Sallis JF, Blizzard L, et al. (2001) 

Relation of academic performance to physical 

activity and fitness in children. Pediatric Exercise 

Science, 13: 225-237.

60 5: Supporting Safe Routes To School - Where Do We Go From Here?
 Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts 61

Appendix A:

Safe Routes

To School (SR2S) 

Projects and 

Related Efforts
 Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts 63

Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts

Local Communities and Statewide

(Alphabetically by State) (as of December 2002)

Arizona

Safest Routes to School - 

City of Phoenix

www.ci.phoenix.az.us

Brandon Forrey, 

Chief Engineering Technician

Street Transportation Department

City Hall, 200 West Washington St., 

5th Floor, Traffic Operations, 

Phoenix, AZ 85003

brandon.forrey@phoenix.gov

Tel: 602.534.2020

Fax: 602.495.0336

■ Has completed year-long School 

Safety Task Force effort which has 

resulted in $500,000 funding from 

City Council plus new positions

■ Recommendations include Education, Engineering and Enforcement

■ Safest Route to School Walking 

plans will be developed cooperatively between City staff and school 

officials and parents – identify safest roads for children to use when 

walking or biking

■ School Crossing Safety Audit 

Procedure has specific items to 

check to determine safety of school 

crossings and crosswalks. Points 

are assigned to crossings – high 

points indicate need for improvements or changes 

Prescott Alternative 

Transportation

www.prescottbikeped.org

Sue Knaup, Executive Director

Prescott Alternative Transportation, 

P.O. Box 2122, Prescott, AZ 86302

sue@prescottbikeped.org

Tel: 928.708.0911

■ Program covers all 4Es: engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement; and funding

■ The Morris grant is kick-start 

funding and is being used to 

leverage local, state, federal and 

foundation funding

■ PAT is a strong advocacy organization with a mission that Safe 

Routes fits beautifully

■ Use a lot of organizational 

resources for SR2S program

■ As of 2/02 started preliminary 

stages of starting SR2S teams 

in three schools, with possibly 

2 others joining soon

■ Prescott City Council passed 

SR2S proclamation in 2/02

■ Applying for additional funds 

from various foundations to expand program
64 Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts

California

Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley 

Coalition

www.bfbc.org

Pam Webster, Project Director 

Safe Routes To School Planning 

Grantee 

P.O. Box 13357, Berkeley, CA 94712

Tel: 510.549.7433

Fax: 510.540.1057

PW: 510.848.0305

■ Works with individual schools to 

identify unsafe conditions and then 

contracts with Caltrans to correct 

dangerous conditions. Received 

$450K in 2000 to make SR2S to 

Willard Middle School and Le 

Conte Elementary Pilot programs 

in 12 Elementary schools and 3 

middle schools

■ Completed Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Safety Task Force Report in March 

2000; Results: Berkeley had highest rates of pedestrian and bicycle 

injuries compared to 44 other CA 

cities of similar size; local children 

age 10-17 suffer twice as many 

pedestrian injuries than any other 

age group

■ SR2S committees organized at 

each school; members include 

school staff, parents, healthcare 

workers and school neighbors

■ Six “E”s: Events; Encouragement; 

Engineering; Education; Enforcements; Escorts

■ DHS SR2S Planning Grantee

Safe Walks Home Program Oakland Pedestrian Safety Project

www.oaklandnet.com

Tom Van Demark, Coordinator

1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor, Office of the City Manager, Oakland, 

CA 94612

tvandemark@oaklandnet.com

Tel: 510.238.7049

Fax: 510.238.6129

■ Initially started as a city funded 

project in 1995; efforts focus on 

Education, Engineering, and 

Enforcement

■ Held cities first WTSD in 1998 

with 40 schools participating; in 

2001, all 74 elementary schools in 

the district participated. Events 

supported by the City Council 

members and staff, School Board 

and District, principals, teachers, 

and volunteers

■ Other activities include Safe Moves 

Town trainings for elementary students (and seniors); Mock Vehicle/

Pedestrian Traffic-Collisions (joint 

project with OPSP, OFD, and 

drama depts. of every high school); 

and Pedestrian Stings with OPD

■ Uses the Safe Communities model 

for organizing and outreach

■ Council staff and community members working with seven elementary schools to upgrade signage 

and safety engineering and to introduce each school’s SR2S

■ Developing the “20 Year Pedestrian Master Plan” which will “institutionalize pedestrian safety” by 

focusing on the inclusion of pedestrian safety solutions in ongoing 

city street engineering
Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts 65

■ OPSP received two year OTS 

grant; offered $220,000 in minigrants (with a nine month grant 

cycle) for traffic-related injury 

prevention projects. Three grant 

tiers: $0-5000, $5,000-10,000 and 

$10,000-30,000, with the under-

$5000 tier geared towards non501(c)3 organizations for materials 

only (helmets, safety seats, educational materials, etc).

City of Palo Alto; Department 

of Planning & Community 

Environment

www.city.palo-alto.ca.us

Amanda Jones, Project Director

250 Hamilton, Palo Alto, CA 94301

Amanda_jones@cityofpaloalto.org

Tel: 650.329.2568

Fax: 650.617.3108

■ Main problems identified are congestion around schools, lack of 

sidewalks and stop lights

■ Goal is to identify how people are 

currently getting around and the 

barriers that keep people from 

walking

■ Working with Cal-Trans to develop 

facilities that enhance walking 

and safety and install stop lights

■ Implementing “Way-To-Go” program—a comprehensive program 

for city promote driving less (including school trip reductions) and 

to increase walking, car pooling

■ Only one school in the city has 

completed mapping a SR2S 

(route goes through the local park 

instead of streets)

■ Received California Office of 

Traffic Safety (OTS) Traffic Study 

Grant for the “Share our Streets, 

As If” project (an “As If” project 

refers to, “as if it was your child 

walking, biking, etc.”) to work with 

law enforcement to increase citations and signage. Also, collecting 

crash and injury data on an on-going basis to determine whether an 

increase in the number of children 

walking combined with a decrease 

in driving will lead to an increase 

in the number of injuries.

■ Conducts the Pedestrian Safety 

Program (in conjunction with Safe 

Moves) in schools with teachers, 

students, and parents

■ DHS SR2S Planning Grantee; Area

of focus for grant purposes is two 

elementary schools in the Ventura/

So. El Camino Real neighborhood 

and connecting corridor.

Caltrans Safe Routes To School 

Construction Program

www.dot.ca.gov/hg/LocalPrograms/

Caltrans District Offices staff 

CA Grantees–Statewide

Caltrans Headquarters: 1120 N 

Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

See web-site

■ See web site for a list of funded 

grantees; 1st & 2nd Cycles

■ Funded by federal transportation 

safety funds

■ Began in 1999 with the passage 

and signing of Assembly Bill 1475 

(Soto-D); effort spearheaded by 

James Corless at Surface Transportation Policy Project in San 

Francisco

■ Two-year demonstration period; 

approx. $20 million worth of SR2S 

projects for the first cycle of the 

program; up to $500,000 per project with a 90 percent federal reimbursement ratio
66 Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts

■ The SR2S program is a construction program. It is intended to 

improve and enhance the safety 

of pedestrian and bicycle facilities 

and related infrastructure

■ On October 2, 2001, Governor 

Davis signed State Bill 10 (SB 10/

Soto), extending the Safe Routes 

to School program for three more 

years. The program sunsets on 

January 1, 2005, unless a future 

statute deletes or extends this date

Safe Routes To School Initiative 

Planning Grantees

www.dhs.ca.gov/routes2school/

Barb Alberson

611 No. 7th Street, Suite C, Sacramento, CA 95814-0208

balberso@dhs.ca.gov

Tel: 916.323.3486

Fax: 916.323.3682

■ California Dept. of Health Services 

(CA DHS) funded projects with 

$25,000 each

■ 2/3 of grantees either have collected community data or will be 

collecting data starting with Walk 

To School Day 2001 to identify 

problem areas and pedestrian 

safety issues that need to be addressed and/or corrected. 2001-

2002 Grantees:

 ◆ Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley 

 Coalition

 ◆ California Bicycle Coalition 

 Sacramento

 ◆ Child Abuse Prevention Council 

 of Shasta County (Anderson 

 Partnership for Healthy 

 Children)

 ◆ City of Palo Alto; Dept. of 

 Planning & Community 

 Environment

 ◆ Mid-City SR2S, Center for 

 Healthier Communities, 

 Children’s Hospital San Diego

 ◆ Town of Fairfax

 ◆ San Francisco Educational 

 Services, Inc.

 ◆ Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition, 

 City of Santa Barbara

 ◆ Tulare County Health & Human 

 Services

 ◆ Vista Community Clinic

Safe Routes To School, Marin

www.saferoutestoschools.org

Wendi Kallins, 

Project Coordinator

P.O. Box 201, 

Forrest Knolls, CA 94933

wendi@marinbike.org

Debbie Hubsmith, Director

debbie@marinbike.org

Tel: 415.488.4101

Fax: 415.488.0926

DH: 415.456.3469

■ Pilot program, started in August 

2000; Marin County Bicycle Coalition received $50,000 funding from 

NHTSA to develop national model 

(promoted by Congressman Oberstar)

■ Promotes walking/biking to school 

through classroom education/

activities, contests/events (i.e., 

W/BTSDs, Frequent Rider Miles 

contest, walking school buses, bike 

trains), mapping, and community 

involvement
Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts 67

■ Each school receives guidance, 

forms, newsletters and other promotional materials

■ Formed citywide task forces to 

study engineering solutions for 

safety issues on school routes; 

hired Transportation Engineer.

■ 1st year: nine pilot schools in four 

different geographic locations; 2nd 

year: 20 schools; conducted community Train-The-Trainer programs;

■ Developed SR2S Tool-kit

■ By end of the pilot program the 

schools experienced a 50 percent 

increase in the number of children walking and biking and a 29 

percent decrease in the number of 

children arriving alone in a car

■ DHS SR2S Planning Grantee contractor for Town of Fairfax

Mid-City Safe Routes To 

School, Center for Healthier 

Communities, Children’s Hospital 

San Diego

www.chsd.org

Cheri Fidler, Director

cfidler@chsd.org

3020 Children’s Way, MC 5073, San 

Diego, CA 92123

Anna Zacker, Program Coordinator

azacker@chsd.org

CF: 858.495.7748

AZ: 858.576.1700, ext. 4796

Fax: 858.966.7563

■ Conducted environmental assessments of areas around two schools 

and developed recommendations 

for improvements

■ Conducting ongoing pedestrian 

education program (building off of 

WTSD) at three schools

■ Received approval from the Public 

Safety and Neighborhood Services 

Committee of the City Council to 

start a city-wide pedestrian advisory group

■ Multidisciplinary coalition of 

health professionals, police, city 

planners/traffic engineers, Council 

members, schools, CBOs, parents 

and other community members

■ Focus on driver behavior

■ Integrated approach of education, 

environmental assessment and engineering, and enforcement

■ DHS SR2S Planning Grantee

Santa Ana Pedestrian Safety 

Project

www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us

Kelly Broberg

Orange County Health Care

Agency; Chronic Disease & 

Injury Prevention

12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 127, 

Santa Ana, CA 92701

kbroberg@hca.co.orange.ca.us

Tel: 714.834.3059

Fax: 714.834.3492

■ Two-year project coordinated by 

UC Irvine’s Center for Health 

Policy and Research in conjunction 

with the Orange County Health 

Care Agency Chronic Disease and 

Injury Prevention Program. Funded by California Office of Traffic 

Safety from 1998-2001 to mobilize 

community action to reduce pedestrian injuries and deaths in the 

city of Santa Ana
68 Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts

■ 2002 project ended and the task 

force was transitioned over to the 

City of Santa Ana’s Department 

of Public Works (DPW). The DPW 

will continue to work with schools 

on SR2S and will be responsible 

for coordinating and promoting 

Walk Day 

■ Pedestrian safety has been improved by engineering measures 

(slight decrease in the number of 

injuries for children 0-15 years old 

and no fatalities since the program 

began in 1998)

■ Promotes walking and safety 

through a Family Literacy Program that includes books focused 

on walking to school

■ Representatives from law enforcement, schools, traffic engineering, 

and community development, locally elected officials, Santa Ana community-based organizations, and 

concerned Santa Ana residents are 

combining efforts to improve pedestrian safety through a city-wide 

Task Force

■ Developed a comprehensive multilingual educational toolkit and 

community outreach program to 

reduce Santa Ana’s high number of 

pedestrian motor-vehicle crashes

Safe Moves

www.safemoves.org

Pat Hines

15500 Erwin Street, Suite 1121, 

Van Nuys, CA 91411

info@safemoves.org

Tel: 818.908.5341

Fax: 818.908.5337

PH: 818.762.5535

■ SAFE MOVES is a non-profit organization, dedicated to saving lives 

through education. SAFE MOVES 

provides programs throughout the 

United States

■ Educates children, parents and the 

community on pedestrian, bicycle, 

motor vehicle, train, bus and recreational safety

■ Conducts student and parent workshops, traffic simulation rodeos, 

community outreach campaigns, 

data collection and evaluation

■ Provides information on the California Bicycle Helmet Law, how 

to choose the right helmet, and bicycle safety 

■ Programs are designed to be interactive, fun and effective

■ SAFE MOVES was selected as the 

winner of the 1996 United States 

Secretary of Transportation Award 

for Child Transportation Safety 

and the 1996 California Office of 

Traffic Safety Award

Colorado

Bicycle & Pedestrian Traffic Safety Education: Home to School Safe 

Travel for Children

www.dot.state.co.us

Gay Page, Program Manager, 

Education Director, & Instructor, 

CO Department of Transportation

4201 E. Arkansas Ave, Room 212, 

Denver, CO 80222

Gay.Page@dot.state.co.us

Tel: 303.757.9982

Fax: 303.757.9727

■ CDOT Bicycle/Pedestrian program 

offers a two day traffic safety education course that provides train-
Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts 69

ers with tools and skills necessary 

to teach children how to become 

predictable, competent and confident in traffic by focusing on developing their decision making skills

■ The course features classroom 

training, hands-on field work, 

problem solving exercises, peer 

training, role playing, lectures, 

videos, and demonstrations

■ Upon completion of the training, 

each participant (trainer) will be 

able to create a traffic safety program that best suits their needs

■ Each trainer receives a training 

binder and curriculum materials

■ The traffic safety education 

curriculum is designed for grades 

K – 5

■ The goal of the program is to place 

one copy of the curriculum in every 

elementary school in Colorado and 

to provide the instructor training 

for successful implementation

Florida

Safe Ways To School

http://www11.myflorida.com/Safety/

Ped_Bike/Ped_Bike.htm

Linda Crider, Project Director

University of Florida

P.O. Box 115706, 

Gainesville, FL 32611-5706

LBCrider@aol.com

Dwight Kingsbury, 

FL Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Coordinator 

Florida Department of 

Transportation Safety Office

605 Suwannee Street, 

Tallahassee, FL 32399

dwight.kingsbury@dot.state.fl.us

Tel: 352.392.8192

DK: 850.487.1200

Fax: 850.922.2935

■ Safe Ways to School operated out 

of the University of Florida since 

1997

■ Florida Dept. of Transportation, 

Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education Program is the funder

■ Home-to-School study in 1992 

found one out of six children walking to school in FL

■ Have not done another survey; 

feeling is there is majority opinion in FL against kids walking to 

school

■ Each participating school has a 

School Traffic Safety Team; attends to Education, Engineering, 

Encouragement

■ Have produced tool kits for school 

and distributed 100. Do not know 

how they have been used

■ Have a training program for 

schools to train & certify crossing 

guards ( the only one we know of 

in the country)

Georgia

Kids Walk

www.peds.org

Sally Flocks, President & CEO

Michael Orta, Director of 

Community Education

PEDS

100 Edgewood Ave, Suite 540, 

Atlanta, GA 30303

info@peds.org

education@peds.org

Tel: 404.873.5513

Fax: 404.873.5667
70 Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts

■ Project sponsored by PEDS advocacy group (Pedestrians Educating 

Drivers on Safety, Inc)

■ Kids Walk project began in 1999 

when CDC wanted to pilot test 

KidsWalk-to-School booklet

■ Operates with 10-12 schools in central Atlanta; unable to work much 

with suburban counties

■ Provides pedestrian safety training to children, teachers, parents, 

and volunteers

■ Organizes “walking school buses”

■ Evaluates walking conditions and 

empowers communities to advocate 

successfully for SR2S

■ Has created a toolkit for school 

“champions”

■ Anecdotal information about program popularity and success: air 

quality, parent attitudes, driver behavior, increased walking. No hard 

data yet

■ Have grant money from CMAQ. 

Had money from Robert Wood 

Johnson Foundation, in collaboration with CDC, but project had inflexible research constraints

Illinois

Safe Passage/The Walking 

School Bus

http://www.cityofchicago.org/cp/

AboutCAPS/HowCAPSWorks/

Walking Schoolbus.html

Vance Henry, Director

Kathie Carothers, School Safety 

Coordinator

Chicago Police Department

Chicago School District

CAPS Implementation Office

DePaul Center, 

333 South State St., Room 1500, Chicago, IL 60604

Tel: 312.744.CAPS

Fax: 312.746.6000

■ City of Chicago Police Department 

and School District

■ Began in 1997 with a few elementary schools (K-8) in State Street 

Corridor

■ Uniformed and tactical officers, 

parent patrols, church volunteers, 

and local residents patrol area 

schools

■ Mapping projects and safety education with individual schools

■ Walking School Buses organized 

mostly in housing projects; Parent 

Attendance Officers go door-todoor to get children to school and 

to arrive on time

■ Project is considered a success 

because safety education has been 

institutionalized in individual 

schools

Safe Routes to School Chicagoland 

Bicycle Federation

www.biketraffic.org

Heather Convey

Research Coordinator/Education 

Assistant

650 S. Clark St., #300, 

Chicago, IL 60605

heather@biketraffic.org

Tel: 312.427.3325

Fax: 312.427.4907

■ Primary focus of program is to increase the number of children who 

ride their bikes to school, thereby 

increasing the health and safety 

of all residents by reducing traffic 

and encouraging everyone to become more active
Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts 71

■ Program began in 2001. Target 

of four schools in 2001-2002 

school year

■ Budget: $135,000

■ Four phases to program; 3Es 

approach

■ For detailed info see 2002 STPP 

SR2S Inventory (http://www.transact.org/Reports/sr2002/programs/

il1.htm)

Walkers Win

www.cnt.org

Artemio Perez

Center for Neighborhood Technology

2125 W North Ave., 

Chicago IL 60647

artemio@cnt.org

Tel: 773.278.4800

Fax: 773.278.3840

■ Walkers Win! is a pedestrian advocacy campaign that promotes 

health and social cohesion by improving the pedestrian atmosphere 

around schools on the northwest 

side of Chicago

■ Part of the program is to assist 

schools develop their SR2S initiatives, with limited resources

■ Schools are located in dense, low 

income, minority communities

■ Working with the Chicago Area 

Transportation Study to develop a 

workshop that will directly 

address the issue of access to 

schools and bring together representatives of the health, transportation, engineering, education, 

advocacy and policy communities

■ Transportation summits information is at www.cnt.org/2030

Massachusetts

Walking in Arlington

http://walking_in_arlington.tripod.

com/safe.htmm

107 George St., 

Arlington, MA 02476

refdesk@world.std.com

■ Public Advocacy group, working on 

SR2S with Walk Boston

■ Two elementary and one middle 

school intensively working on Walk 

to School

■ Increased walking rate in 2000 

– 2001 from approximately 

40 percent to up to 90 percent

Safe Routes To School Walk Boston

www.walkboston.org

Dorothea Hass, Program Manager

Steve Golden, National Park Service

94 Perry Street, 

Brookline, MA 02446

dhass@shore.net

Tel: 617.232.0104

Fax: 617.451.6475

■ Oberstar NHTSA grant for one 

year (2000-2001)

■ Funded by the Massachusetts 

Cultural Council, NHTSA, Mass 

Highway Dept, and National Park 

Service Rivers and Trails Program

■ Program includes WTS Day, 

Safety training for kids, classroom 

materials and working with Town 

councils on ways to make routes to 

school safer

■ Would like to expand from Arlington schools into two Boston schools 

in 2001-02

■ Not much data collected on overall 

effectiveness 
72 Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts

Maine

Kids and Transportation Program

www.gpcog.org/trnsprttn/k_&_t/

k_&_t.htm

Erik Hermann, Program Coordinator

233 Oxford St., 

Portland, ME 04101

ehermann@gpcog.eddmaine.org

Tel: 207.774.9891

■ Greater Portland Council of 

Governments, began in 1994, 

funded by Maine DOT

■ Aim is to teach kids about transportation alternatives to autos, 

with hope for net decrease in 

auto-related congestion and air 

pollution in the future

■ Original concept came from 

regional planning staff

■ Educational materials, including map to guide kids in getting 

around

■ Teacher courses and school 

presentations

■ Evaluation is in number of contacts/presentations

Maryland

Child Pedestrian Injury Project

www.jhsph.edu

Susan DeFrancesco, JD, MPH, 

Project Coordinator

Johns Hopkins Center for Injury 

Research and Policy, School of 

Public Health

624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 

21205-1996

sdefranc@jhsph.edu

Tel: 410.502.8671

Fax: 410.614.2797

■ Research project begun in 2000, 

working in four Baltimore city 

school neighborhoods

■ Collected data on pedestrian 

areas, conducted safety audit and 

counted pedestrians

■ Has information on state pilot 

study on SR2S in planning stages 

(for additional info on state project visit http://www.transact.org/

Reports/sr2002/programs/il1.htm)

Minnesota

Minnesota Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Alliance

www.bikeped.org

Paul Charmosta, Executive Director

210 E. 10th St., St. Paul, MN 55101

mnbpa@aol.com

Tel: 651.290.0405

■ Represents the interests of bicyclists and pedestrians on a variety 

of issues, infrastructure, facilities 

and programs related to alternative transportation

■ Currently in partnership with the 

Capital City Traffic Calming Alliance, Transit for Livable Communities to coordinate a demonstration project in St. Paul designed 

to reduce car usage and encourage 

walking, biking, carpools, and 

transit use

■ Building on the Neighborhood Pace 

Car Program and SR2S models 

(started 02/02; 12 month timeline) 
Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts 73

Missouri

Safe Routes to School Task Force 

Bureau of Chronic Disease Control

www.dhss.state.mo.us

Department of Health and Senior 

Services

Diana Hawkins, M.Ed., C.H.E.S. 

Manager, Cardiovascular Health 

Program

920 Wildwood, P.O. Box 570, 

Jefferson City, MO 65102

hawkid@dhss.state.mo.us

Tel: 573.522.2896

Fax: 573.522.2898

DH: 573.522.2860

■ Board meeting held in July 2002 

resulted in quite a few members 

signing up for the newly established Safe Routes to School Task 

Force

■ Hope to bring those folks together 

in the next few weeks to brainstorm regarding goals, objectives, 

strategies and additional partners

■ More information to follow 

New Mexico

Pedestrian Safety Program

www.dgr.unm.edu/tsb/tsbprograms/

pedsafe.html

Transportation Programs Division

Isabel Lopez-Encinias

New Mexico Highway and 

Transportation Department

P.O. Box 1149, 604 W. San Mateo, 

Santa Fe, NM 87504-1149

Isabel.Lopez-Encinias@nmshtd.stat.

nm.us

Tel: 505.827.0427

■ Funded by the New Mexico Traffic 

Safety Bureau

■ New Mexico has the highest pedestrian fatality rate in the country 

(6.6 per 100,000), nearly twice the 

national rate. (In 1994, pedestrian 

deaths accounted for 16% of all 

motor vehicle-related deaths in the 

state. The pedestrian death rate in 

rural areas and among American 

Indians is extraordinarily high.)

■ Initiative to promote pedestrian 

safety throughout the state seeks 

to focus attention on the extent 

and source of the problem, to identify possible interventions, to rally 

community support, and to marshal resources to effect change

■ Initiative is based on strengthening viable coalitions and alliances 

among public and private sector 

organizations at the local, state 

and federal levels

■ TSB has embraced a broad spectrum approach involving: education/behavior modification, motor 

vehicle modification, and environmental/engineering changes

New York

Safe Routes to School: The Bronx

www.saferoutestoschool.org

Transportation Alternatives 

John Kaehny, Executive Director

115 W. 30th St. Ste. 1207, 

New York, NY 10001

exec@transalt.org

Tel: 212.629.8080

Fax: 212.629.8334
74 Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts

Urbitran Associates 

Ellen Cavanaugh, Campaign 

Coordinator

71 West 23rd Street, 11th Floor, 

New York, NY 10010

ecavanagu@urbitran.com

Tel: 212.366.6200

Fax: 212.366.6214

■ Traffic calming and pedestrian 

safety engineering program

■ Project began in 1997,with support 

from the office of the Bronx Borough President and the Governor’s 

Traffic Safety Committee

■ Collected surveys on traffic hazards; worked with NYC DOT to 

change signage, signal timing

■ Has completed traffic calming 

plans for 38 schools; partial installations at all

■ NYC DOT will take over program 

in October 2001 and expand citywide, via RBA Group and Urbitran 

consultants ($2.5 million contract)

Oregon

Portland Kids On The Move

www.trans.ci.portland.or.us

Shannon Parker, Education Contact

Office of Transportation

1120 SW Fifth, Room 800, 

Portland, OR 97204

Shannon.Parker@pdxtrans.org

Tel: 503.823.5391

■ Bureau of Transportation System 

Management, Traffic Calming 

Program, Portland Office of Transportation. Funds were allocated 

in 1994 to begin an Elementary 

School Safety program

■ Educational materials and events 

for schools; engineering approaches 

including signs, beacons; and enforcement against speeding

■ Identifies most common problems 

as high traffic volume and excessive speed

■ Reports from schools indicate that 

after engineering changes were 

made, speeds decreased in the 

targeted area

Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania Walk To School 

Trails Program

www.RailTrails.org/PA/Active_Pages/Programs/main.asp

Tom Sexton, Director

105 Locust Street, 

Harrisburg, PA 17101

tsexton@transact.org

Tel: 717.238.1717

Fax: 717.238.7566

■ Government Agency supported; 

Rails-To-Trails Conservancy’s 

Pennsylvania Field Office

■ Rails-to-Trails Conservancy -PA 

(and NPS) are meeting with the 

PA. Dept. of Health to talk about 

developing a SRTS program. RailsTo-Trails Conservancy inventoried 

all elementary schools near trails 

(a few blocks away) as a first step. 

Assessed what’s out there: 100 

open trails in PA, about 20 identified within two blocks of school

■ Looking to partner with four to 

five local health organizations 

to plan program to increase rail 

trail use in walking and biking to 

school. Will follow Centers for Disease Control’s program guide on 

KidsWalk to School
Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts 75

Safe Routes To School

www.ceo.indiana.pa.us

Leann C. Cheney, Senior Land Use 

Planner

lchaney@ceo.co.indiana.pa.us

Jerry Richardson, Deputy Director

jrichard@ceo.co.indiana.pa.us

Indiana County Office of Planning 

& Development

801 Water Street, Indiana, PA 15701

Tel: 724.465.3870

Fax: 724.465.3150

■ Pilot program— Started this August 2001

■ In early stages of “getting it off 

the ground”— initial stages of program implementation

■ Funded by the County Office of 

Planning & Development, in cooperation with Livable Indiana 

Neighborhood Connections (LINC) 

a grassroots organization

■ Focus is on three area schools (an 

elementary, middle, and high 

school) with plans to create a 

pedestrian convergence zone to 

increase walking and bicycling, 

improve safety, and implement 

changes to the physical infrastructure within the SR2S zone

Texas

Safe Routes To School TX 

BICYCLE COALITION

www.biketexas.org

www.saferoutestexas.org

Robin Stallings, Executive Director

mail@biketexas.org

Laura King, Program Director

laura@biketexas.org

P.O. Box 1121, 

Austin, TX 78767

Tel: 512.476.RIDE

■ TX BICYCLE COALITION 

GETS $3 MILLION FOR ‘SAFE 

ROUTES’

■ According to the March 2nd BikeLeague News, “Texas Bicycle 

Coalition (TBC) supporters were 

stunned by the recent announcement that the Texas Department 

of Transportation will allocate $3 

million to develop the TBC-sponsored Safe Routes to Schools program

■ The announcement was made by 

State Rep. Roberto Gutierrez (DMcAllen), who sponsored the Matthew Brown Act that included the 

creation of Safe Routes to School

■ Gutierrez said he had been assured by both Gov. Rick Perry 

and TxDOT Executive Director 

Michael W. Behrens that TxDOT 

intends to come up with the funds 

to get the program started

WALK Austin

www.io.com/~snm/walk/index.html

Steve Rogers or Marilyn Rogers

P.O. Box 773, 

Austin, TX 78713

snm@io.com

Tel: 512.451.9335

■ Advocacy group

■ WALK Austin was founded in 

1993 to organize citizen support 

for increased use and safety of pedestrian facilities
76 Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts

Virginia

Arlington Co. Safe Routes to 

School

www.co.arlington.va.us

Arlington Co Public Affairs Division

2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 310, 

Arlington, VA 22201

Tel: 703.228.3969

■ Arlington Co. Public Schools & 

County Government funded

■ Each parent receives a walking 

route map and a bus route map 

when they enroll their child in an 

Arlington Public School

■ Families are encouraged to review 

the map and to chart a safe course 

to and from school, and to have a 

discussion of safety issues such as 

looking both ways, staying on welllit pathways and “what to do” when 

encountering dangers

Wisconsin

Teaching Safe Bicycling Program

Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation

www.dot.state.wi.us

JoAnne PruittThunder, Safety 

Program Manager, Wisconsin DOT

Division of Transportation, 

Investment Management

joanne.pruittthunder@dot.state.wi.us

Peter Flucke, WEBIKE President

webike@aol.com

4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Room 951 

P.O. Box 7913, Madison, WI 53707

Tel: 608.267.3154

Fax: 608.267.0441

PF: 920.497.3196

■ According to a recent WisDOT 

statewide survey, nearly 12 percent 

of all trips were being completed 

by bicycling and walking

■ WisDOT has recently approved a 

state bicycle plan and is currently 

working on a state pedestrian 

plan.

■ All 14 metropolitan areas in Wisconsin have their own bicycle and 

pedestrian plans

■ The 12th Annual Teaching Safe 

Bicycling (TSB) Workshops are 

coming up in April. These workshops provide community instructors information about child bicycling safety

■ WisDOT’s Bureau of Planning 

has been working on the creation 

of long-range plans to address the 

needs of bicyclists and pedestrians

■ WisDOT has produced a Statewide 

Pedestrian Policy Plan; a 20 year 

plan that will consider pedestrian 

needs and concerns and provide 

recommendations to address them. 

WisDOT devotes two staff positions to bicycle and pedestrian 

planning and safety 
Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts 77

National SR2S Efforts

National SAFE KIDS Campaign 

SAFE KIDS Walk This Way

www.safekids.org

Angela Mickalide, Program Director

1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Suite 1000, 

Washington, DC 20004

Tel: 202.662.0600

Fax: 202.393.2072

■ National SAFE KIDS Campaign 

was launched in 1988 to address 

the problem of unintentional 

injuries to children

■ Has 300 local and state coalitions 

in all 50 states

■ Has been involved in school route 

safety/child ped safety since 2000

■ Conducted a study (Fall 2000), 

which showed that two-thirds 

of drivers speed in school zones 

across the country

■ SAFE KIDS involves partners 

FedEx, 3M, and LL Bean

■ Nationwide pedestrian safety initiative, SAFE KIDS Walk This Way. 

On International Walk to School 

Day, October 2, 2001, volunteers 

will join SAFE KIDS coalitions to 

help assess the walkability of areas 

surrounding schools, teach kids 

safe pedestrian behavior and motivate communities to create safer 

walking environments

Keep Kids Alive Drive25®

www.keepkidsalive.com

Tom Everson, Founder

P.O. Box 45563, Omaha, NE 68145

kkad25@yahoo.com

Tel: 402.334.1391

(Phone and Fax)

■ Begun in 1998, privately organized 

campaign to slow drivers down

■ Many communities throughout the 

US use the signs

■ Currently beginning an effort in 

Phoenix that will be evaluated to 

observe before and 12-month after 

behavior of drivers

KidsWalk-to-School Program

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/

kidswalk.htm

Jessica Shisler, MPH, Health 

Education Specialist

Division of Nutrition and 

Physical Activity

Center for Disease Control & 

Prevention

4770 Buford Highway NE, 

Mail Stop K-46, 

Atlanta, GA 30341-3717

jshisler@cdc.gov

Tel: 770.488.5692

Fax: 770.488.5473

■ Published Kids Walk to School 

in 2000

■ Primary interest in physical 

activity promotion

■ Looking for information on states 

that are working on Safe Routes 

to School Legislation similar to 

California’s SR2S legislation
78 Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts

■ Developing slide shows and curriculum for champions to present 

Walk-to-School concepts to their 

community

International SR2S Efforts

Canada

Go For Green

www.goforgreen.ca/

Nathalie Racine, Active and Safe 

Routes to School Coordinator

nathalie.racine2@sympatico.ca

5480 Canoteck Road, Unit #16, 

Gloucester, Ontario

CANADA K1J9H6

Tel: 418.877.6350

Fax: 418.877.1363

■ National environmental activist 

group took on SR2S, building on 

Greenest City’s Toronto experience 

in 1998. Most funding from Health 

Canada

■ Primary focus is physical activity; provides materials to groups 

throughout the country 

Ottawalk – The Association of Pedestrians and Walkers of Ottawa 

and Area

www.ottawalk.org 

Chris Bradshaw

chris@ottawalk.org

George Duimovich

gduimovich@ottawalk.org

Box 52036, 41York Street

Ottawa, Ontario 

CANADA K1N1B4

Tel: 613.230.4566

Fax: 613.230.8820

■ Advocacy group

Active and Safe Routes to School

www.greenestcity.org

Jacky Kennedy

asrts@greenestcity.org

244 Gerrard Street, Main Floor

Toronto, Ontario

M5A 2G2

CANADA

Tel: 416.488.7263

Fax: 416.922.7636

■ Greenest City—Advocacy group. 

Began project in 1996

■ Primary goal is reducing greenhouse gas emissions; Ontario air 

quality is very poor. Has partnership with environmental organizations such as World Wildlife Fund

■ Has organized schools to promote 

walking and bicycling; has curriculum for teachers, Blazing Trails 

publication for mapping, No Idling 

Campaign for drivers

■ Greenest City has been refining 

their data collection methods and 

has done several evaluations. They 

rely heavily on community partners to collect data

■ Recent evaluation work indicated 

the “No Idling at School” project 

avoided the release of over 200 

tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

in one year

■ 30 percent of schools who participate in IWALK continue with 

ASRTS activities throughout 

the year.

■ Participation in regular Walking 

Wednesday s averages to 55 percent per school.
Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts 79

Way to Go

www.waytogo.icbc.bc.ca/

Bernadette Kowey

waytogo@telus.net

Vancouver, BC

CANADA

Tel: 604.732.1511

Fax: 604.733.0711

Toll-free: 877.325.3636

■ Began in 1997; has major focus on 

safety; funded by the Insurance 

Corporation of British Columbia 

(public insurance agency)

■ Published toolkit called Way to Go

Denmark

Safe Routes to School

Troels Andersen, Project Manager

TA@Odense.dk

Traffic-og Vejkontoret Odense

Slot Indgang

N Norregarade 36

DK – 5000 Odense

DENMARK

Tel: 45.66.14.88.14

tone 2751

■ Birthplace of Safe Routes to School 

movement

■ Approximately thirty years ago, 

Denmark had the highest rate 

of child mortality due to road accidents in Western Europe. This 

promoted investment into the Safe 

Routes to School program

■ In Odense, SR2S program started 

in early 1980’s

■ Overall, the total number of accidents has been reduced 82 percent 

as speeds on twelve roads have 

been decreased.

■ Results as presented to VeloCity 

conference in 2001 are that child 

pedestrian accidents have dropped 

24 percent from 1994 to 1999

■ Odense is now working on gathering data on numbers of children 

walking/cycling; rates of children 

walking/cycling in Odense varies 

from 24 percent to 73 percent at 

different schools

England

Safe Routes to School

www.saferoutestoschool.org.uk

Diana Nicoll

schools@sustrans.org.uk

35 King Street, Bristol BS1 4DZ, 

ENGLAND

Tel: 0117.929.0888

■ Established demonstration program in 1995; began working with 

10 schools

■ Results include:

 ◆ increase in cycling in all 10 pilot 

 schools (9% of children in all 

 York schools now cycle to school)

 ◆ reductions in car use (12 percent 

 and 17 percent in Hampshire 

 and Colchester schools)

 ◆ reductions in child road 

 casualties (32 percent in York)

■ Efforts include practical measures 

(e.g. engineering, routes, enforcement) and educational measures 

(e.g. lesson plans and policy)

Home Zone effort

www.homezonesnews.org.uk

Sally Keeble, Minister of Home Zones

homezones@ncb.org.uk

National Children’s Bureau

Children’s Play Council

8 Wakely Street, London EC1V 7QE

ENGLAND

Tel: 020.7843.6016
80 Appendix A: Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Projects and Related Efforts

■ Homezone and “village traffic 

calming” efforts in England have 

been under way since the early 

1990’s. Periodic newsletter tracks 

and reports on activities

■ A homezone is a street or area 

designed primarily to meet the interests of pedestrians and cyclists 

rather than motorists, opening up 

the street for social use

■ Nine pilot projects are underway 

and are being monitored by the 

government; reports so far focus 

on building community feeling and 

perceptions of safety

■ Traffic injury rates were studied in 

56 village traffic calming schemes. 

Auto speeds were reduced and injury rates went down 25 percent 

(15 percent reduction in slight injuries and 52 percent reduction in 

severe/killed injuries) as reported 

in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 11/00

■ Project ended in March 2002

Jersey Pedestrian Association

user.itl.net/~wordcraf/main.html

Gerraint Jennings, Chairperson

Geraint_j@psilink.co.je

Geraint@itl.net

102 Rouge Bouoillon, St. Helyi Jerri

JE2 3ZU ENGLAND

Tel: 44.15343.280778

■ Advocacy group—NGO

■ The Association was founded to 

raise awareness of the difficulties, 

problems and dangers of walking 

in Jersey and to campaign for better facilities and better policies for 

pedestrians

■ In June 1998, the Jersey Pedestrians Association put forward a plan 

for pedestrian priority for the center of St. Helier entitled “St. Helier 

Footstreets”

■ The plan is designed to fulfill 

the stated aim of Public Services’ 

transport policy document of “recognized, safe routes” and “pedestrian priority areas” and provide 

input into the revision process of 

the policy document

New Zealand

SafeKids

www.safekids.org.nz

Rebecca Williams, Safe Routes to 

School, National Project Manager

rwilliams@ahsl.co.nz

162 Blockhouse Bay Road, P.O. Box 

19 544, Avondale, Auckland, 7

NEW ZEALAND

Tel: 64. 9.8201193

Fax: 64. 9.8201191

■ Sponsored by Starship Children’s 

Hospital with additional funding 

from the Land Transport Safety 

Authority; began efforts in 1994 

after publication of a study by Ian 

Roberts – showed high pedestrian 

injury and death rates for children 

in Auckland region

■ Explored models around the world 

and selected Australia approach

■ Projects (programmes) use the 3 E 

approach (environmental, education, enforcement)

■ 1995 had three pilot projects and 

now have projects in about 36 

communities
Appendix B:

Resources, 

Publications and 

Organizations

 Appendix B: Resources, Publications and Organizations 81
Appendix B: Resouces, Publications and Organizations 83

PUBLICATIONS

Active & Safe Routes To School Resource Manual

This community action guide is for organizations and schools that want to 

encourage active transportation to and from school, thus reducing children’s 

reliance on the automobile for short trips. It suggests ways to conceive, create, 

and implement their own program that suits their unique circumstances. 

Included are sample letters, surveys, forms, activity booklets, and an extensive 

list of international resources.

Contact: Active and Safe Routes to School, Greenest City

 244 Gerrard Street East, Toronto, Ontario M5A 2G2 Canada

 Tel: (416) 488-7263

 Fax: (416) 488-2296

 E-mail: asrts@greenestcity.org

 Web site: www.greenestcity.org

The Art of Appropriate Evaluation – A Guide for Highway 

Safety Program Managers

This guide (64 pages), provides an overview of the steps that are involved in 

program evaluation. It is designed for state or local traffic safety project directors who need to understand what type of evaluation is reasonable for the type 

of program you are implementing and what you can do to maximize the success of a program evaluation. It provides suggestions on how to find and work 

with an evaluation consultant. A glossary of terms and concepts commonly 

used by evaluators is also included.

Contact: Behavioral Research Division, NHTSA, NTI-131

 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590

 Fax: (301) 386-2194

 Publication #: DOT HS 808 894

 Web site: www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/traftech/pub/ 

 tt202.html

Best Practices for a Safe Community – A Vision for the Future: A Safe 

Community in Every Community in America

This booklet, published May 1992, explains what the Safe Community concept 

is, and lists the elements that promote safe communities. It includes “promising practice” activities for highway and traffic safety programs, and describes 

pedestrian and bike safety programs, data and analysis activities, and program evaluation.

Contact: Federal Highway Administration Division Office in your State 

 and Federal Railroad Administration Regional offices

 For grant program information, contact your Governor’s Highway 

 Safety Representative

 Web site: www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safecomm/scbestp/
84 Appendix B: Resources, Publications and Organizations

Demonstrating Your Program’s Worth A Primer on Evaluation 

for Programs to Prevent Unintentional Injury

This book details how managers and coordinators can show the value of their 

SR2S efforts to funding and community agencies (including schools and school 

districts), to their peers, and to the community of people they serve. This book 

explains why evaluation is necessary. It also shows how to conduct simple 

evaluation, how to hire and supervise consultants for complex evaluation, and 

how to incorporate evaluation activities into the activities of an injury prevention program.

Contact: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

 Mailstop K65, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Atlanta, GA 30341-3724

 Tel: (770) 488-1506

 Fax: (770) 488-1667

 E-mail: OHCINFO@cdc.gov

 Web site: www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/demonstr.htm

Encouraging Walking: Advice to Local Authorities 

The London Department of Environment, Transport, and the Regions developed this booklet as a practical working guide for people who can put policy 

into action. It recommends strategies to achieve specific objectives such as: 

making walking a primary transportation option, land use and development 

planning, and gathering data. It also includes checklists for implementing an 

approach to walking as a plus for the local environment.

Contact: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

 P.O. Box 236,Wetherby, West Yorkshire LS23 7NB, United Kingdom

 Tel: 0870-1226-236

 Fax: 0870-1226-237

 Web site: www.dft.gov.uk

Getting to School Safely 

This community action kit explains how to develop a School Transportation 

Safety Program. It includes fact sheets, talking points, state and regional resources, national organization resources, newspaper articles, and much more.

Contact: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

 U.S. Department of Transportation

 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20590

 Fax: (202) 366-7721 

 Web site: www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/buses/GTSS/toc.html
Appendix B: Resouces, Publications and Organizations 85

Healthy People 2010

This publication offers a set of health objectives for Americans to strive to 

achieve in the first decade of the 21st century. “Healthy People 2010” presents 

a comprehensive, nationwide health promotion and disease prevention agenda 

to help states, communities, organizations, and individuals develop programs 

to improve health. Available in print or CD-ROM.

Contact: U.S. Government Printing Office

 Tel: (800) 367-4725

 Web site: www.bookstore.gpo.gov/ or www.health.gov/healthypeople/

Improving Conditions for Bicycling and Walking

This report describes outstanding projects that have increased walking, bicycling, and improved user safety in communities across America. Impressive is 

the variety of projects that have been initiated since the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act was passed in 1991. With examples from all 

parts of the country, it describes on-road facilities and off-road trails, transitrelated projects, and community planning efforts. All Four Es (encouragement, 

education, engineering, and enforcement) are represented.

Contact: Federal Highway Administration

 Tel: (202) 366-5007

 Web site: www.fhwa.dot.gov

 Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

 Tel: (202) 331-9696

 Web site: www.railtrails.org

 Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals

 E-mail: pedbike@aol.com

Increasing Physical Activity Through Community Design – A Guide for 

Public Health Practitioners

This guide is designed to provide public health practitioners and others an 

introduction to increasing physical activity through better community design, 

and describes seven kinds of projects you promote to help create more bicyclefriendly and walkable communities. The guide discusses how such projects get 

funded and presents an array of resources to help with implementation.

Contact: National Center for Bicycling and Walking

 1506 21st Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036

 Tel: (202) 463-6622

 Fax: (202) 463-6625

 E-mail: NCBW@bikewalk.org

 Web site: www.bikewalk.org
86 Appendix B: Resources, Publications and Organizations

KidsWalk-to-School: A Guide to Promote Walking to School

This guide by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a tool to 

help you develop a walk-to-school program that is appropriate for your neighborhood. It includes a checklist and step-by-step guidelines for creating a 

KidsWalk-to-School program such as a “walking school bus.” Sample letters, 

surveys, forms, and an extensive list of resources are included.

Contact: Tel: (888) CDC-4NRG (232-4674)

 E-mail: ccdinfo@cdc.gov

 Web site: www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/kidswalk.htm

National Strategies for Advancing Child Pedestrian Safety

National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety

Each publication was the result of a nationwide conference that brought 

researchers, activists, and officials together to recommend strategies. 

“National Strategies for Advancing Child Pedestrian Safety” (22 pages) 

details six strategies and action steps readily implemented by anyone interested in reducing pedestrian injuries among children, all while encouraging 

them to become more active and explore their environment on foot.

“National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety” (25 pages) is designed to 

be a roadmap for policy makers, safety specialists, educators, and the bicycling 

community to follow as they promote national, state and local efforts to 

increase safe bicycling. It includes goals, strategies, short- and long-term 

actions that can reduce injuries associated with bicycle riding.

Contact: National Strategies for Advancing Child Pedestrian Safety

 Web site: www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pedestrian/

 National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety

 Tel: (888) CDC-4NRG (232-4674)

 E-mail: ccdinfo@cdc.gov

 Web site: www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/bicycle_ 

 safety/index.htm

Pedestrian Safety Toolkit

This toolkit includes resource materials that states and communities can use 

to implement their pedestrian safety programs and achieve their goals. It contains a compilation of federal agency pedestrian safety videos; an interactive 

CD-ROM of pedestrian resources with subject-to-subject cross referencing; a 

user manual that explains how to create effective pedestrian safety programs; 

a resource manual that references NHTSA, Federal Highway Administration 

and Federal Railroad Administration materials; and sample materials and 
Appendix B: Resouces, Publications and Organizations 87

information that cover the basics for all who want to do pedestrian safety and 

advocacy. In addition, the “User’s Manual and Resource Guide” can be 

ordered separately.

Contact: Office of Communications and Consumer Information

 U.S. Department of Transportation

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

 Tel: (888) DASH-2-DOT (327-4236)

 Fax: (202) 493-2062

 Web site: www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Safe Routes To Schools Toolkit

This toolkit, developed by the Marin County Safe Routes To Schools project 

in California — in partnership with NHTSA and the California Department 

of Health Services — is designed to be used in initiating and implementing a 

Safe Routes To Schools program. It includes examples of classroom activities, 

ideas for promotions, information on safe streets, resources, and forms to 

assist you along the way.

Contact: Marin County Safe Routes To Schools

 P.O. Box 201, Forest Knolls, CA 94933

 Tel: (415) 488-4101

 Fax: (415) 488-0926

 E-mail: wkallins@igc.org

 Web site: www.saferoutestoschool.org or 

 www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/ped/saferouteshtml/

Safe Ways To School Toolkit

This toolkit details systematically how to create a Safe Ways To School 

program for your community. It provides an overview of the implementation 

process, and includes sample tools such as a student travel survey, parent 

survey, neighborhood site assessment, and implementation ideas. It also contains a video and sample materials, including handouts for students, parents, 

and schools. 

Contact: Florida Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education Program

 Department of Urban and Regional Planning

 University of Florida

 P.O. Box 115706, Gainesville, FL 32611-5706

 Tel: (352) 392-0097

 Fax: (352) 392-3308

 Web site: web.dcp.ufl.edu/urp/research-centers-traffic.html
88 Appendix B: Resources, Publications and Organizations

Way to Go! Manual and Resource Kit

The “Way to Go! Manual and Resource Kit” can help parents, teachers, and 

student groups design and implement school-based, traffic-reduction programs 

in their communities. It includes ideas, strategies, information, and educational and curriculum resources. Other manuals available include: “Bike Smarts: 

A Handbook;” “RoadSenseKids: Passport to Safety (Teaching Guide for K-3);” 

and “Walking/Wheeling Challenge Map.”

Contact: Bernadette Kowey

 3538 West 24th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

 Tel: (604) 732-1511 or (877) 325-3636

 E-mail: waytogo@bc.sympatico.ca 

 Web site: www.waytogo.icbc.bc.ca

Organizations

California Department of Health Services 

The California Department of Health Services encourages communities to 

pursue Safe Routes To School projects because of the sustained cultural and 

environmental improvements that enable children to be more physically 

active and safe. The California Department of Health Services, through its 

Active Community Environments and Injury Prevention divisions, has made 

Safe Routes To School a priority. California Department of Health Services 

supports the state’s participation in Walk To School Day, distributing informational materials including brochures, fact sheets, timelines, and ideas for a 

successful Walk To School Day event. The Department also has helped to raise 

statewide awareness of SR2S.

Contact: California Department of Health Services

 P.O. Box 942732 - Mail Stop 675, Sacramento, CA 94234-7320

 Tel: (916) 323-4808

 Web site: www.dhs.ca.gov/routes2school

Center for Health Training—Safe Routes To School Clearinghouse

The SR2S Clearinghouse offers support to local activists and public agency 

staff in their quest to develop safe routes to school in California communities. 

The Clearinghouse maintains a database of information related to Safe Routes 

To School efforts and communicates with local activists through e-mail updates and newsletters. The Clearinghouse offers technical assistance to activists and agency staff who need coaching on subjects related to Safe Routes To 

School such as traffic safety, healthy physical activity, curriculum, legislation, 

and policy. The Clearinghouse also facilitates focus groups and organizes 

conferences related to the subject.

The Center for Health Training is a California nonprofit organization with 

extensive of experience in supporting those who work in public health and 

community development. 
Appendix B: Resouces, Publications and Organizations 89

Contact: Center for Health Training, SR2S Clearinghouse

 614 Grand Avenue, Suite 400, Oakland, CA 94610

 Tel: (877) 4-Safe-Rt (472-3378) Toll Free or (510) 835-3700

 Fax: (510) 625-9307

 E-mail: safert@jba-cht.com

 Web site: www.4saferoutes.org

League of American Bicyclists

The League of American Bicyclists (originally founded in 1880 as the League 

of American Wheelman) works with local communities to promote bicycling for 

fun, fitness, and transportation through advocacy and education. The League 

of American Bicyclists is a membership organization with over 300,000 

members, including individuals and organizations. The League’s key programs 

include the Bicycle Friendly Communities Program that encourages and then 

rewards communities that provide better facilities for cyclists and the Bicycle 

Safety and Education Program, which provides materials and training courses 

for new cyclists. The League also advocates for cyclists on the national, state, 

and local levels.

Contact: League of American Bicyclists

 1612 K. Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006-2850

 Tel: (202) 822-1333

 Fax: (202) 822-1334

 E-mail: bikeleague@bikeleague.org

 Web site: www.bikeleague.org

National Center for Bicycling and Walking

The National Center for Bicycling and Walking is the major program of the 

Bicycle Federation of America, Inc., a national, nonprofit corporation established in 1977. The National Center for Bicycling and Walking works with 

local, state, and national bicycle, pedestrian, and transportation advocates 

to bring about changes in government policies, programs, and procedures to 

help create more bicycle friendly and walkable communities. Ongoing National 

Center for Bicycling and Walking activities include: policy development, public 

involvement, route selection, planning and design guidelines for bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities; training programs for public health and transportation 

agencies; and organizing and managing workshops and conferences, including 

the biennial Pro Bike / Pro Walk conference.

Contact: National Center for Bicycling and Walking 

 DC Office & Headquarters

 1506 21st Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036

 Tel: (202) 463-6622

 Fax: (202) 463-6625

 E-mail: info@bikewalk.org

 Web site: www.bikewalk.org
90 Appendix B: Resources, Publications and Organizations

National SAFE KIDS Campaign

The National SAFE KIDS Campaign is a national nonprofit organization 

dedicated exclusively to the prevention of unintentional childhood injuries 

(motor vehicle crashes, fires, and other injuries), which is the number one 

cause of death of children under the age of 14. The Campaign’s aim is to 

stimulate changes in attitudes, behavior, and the environment. Since its 

inception in 1988, the Campaign has focused on developing injury prevention 

strategies—conducting public outreach and awareness campaigns, stimulating 

hands-on grassroots activity, and working to make injury prevention a public 

policy priority. The National SAFE KIDS Campaign and program sponsor 

FedEx Express developed SAFE KIDS Walk This Way in 2000 to bring national and local attention to pedestrian safety issues. The SAFE KIDS Walk 

This Way program involves Walk To School Day events, data collection, school 

pedestrian safety committees, and community pedestrian safety task forces. 

The Campaign relies on the support of more than 300 state and local SAFE 

KIDS coalitions in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to 

reach out to local communities.

Contact: National SAFE KIDS Campaign

 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004

 Tel: (202) 662-0600

 Fax: (202) 393-2072

 Web site: www.safekids.org

Surface Transportation Policy Project

The Surface Transportation Policy Project is a national coalition of more than 

200 organizations working to promote transportation policies that protect 

neighborhoods, provide better travel choices, and promote social equity. The 

goal of the Surface Transportation Policy Project is to ensure that transportation policy and investments help conserve energy, protect environmental and 

aesthetic quality, strengthen the economy, promote social equity, and enhance 

community life. The Surface Transportation Policy Project emphasizes the 

needs of people, rather than vehicles, in assuring access to jobs, services, and 

recreational opportunities. The Surface Transportation Policy Project has offices in Sacramento and San Francisco, California; Albuquerque, New Mexico; 

and Washington, DC.

Contact: Surface Transportation Policy Project

 1100 17th St., NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20036

 Tel: (202) 466-2636

 Fax: (202) 466-2247

 E-mail: stpp@transact.org

 Web site: www.transact.org
Appendix B: Resouces, Publications and Organizations 91

University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center 

and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center 

The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center was established in 2001 with 

the idea that communities where people can walk and bicycle are better places 

to live. Funded by the United States Department of Transportation, the Center was started by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research 

Center, in cooperation with the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. The Center’s goal is to connect communities with the information and 

resources they need to create safe places for walking and bicycling. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center is a clearinghouse for information about 

health and safety, engineering, advocacy, education, enforcement, and access 

and mobility. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center serves planners, 

engineers, private citizens, advocates, educators, police enforcement, and the 

health community. The Highway Safety Research Center has also documented 

and supported the annual International Walk To School Day events in the 

United States since 1998.

Contact: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

 730 Airport Road, CB 3430, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3430

 Tel: (919) 843-4422

 Web site: www.walkinginfo.org and www.bicyclinginfo.org
Appendix C:

Walkability and

Bikeability

Checklists

 Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists 93
Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists 95
96 Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists
Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists 97
98 Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists
Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists 99
100 Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists
Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists 101
102 Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists
 Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists 103
104 Appendix C: Walkability and Bikeability Checklists
Appendix D: Steps to Start an SR2S Project 105

Appendix D:

Steps to Start a 

Safe Routes To 

School (SR2S) 

Project
Essential Steps

Starting a Safe Routes To School (SR2S) project is not as 

difficult as you might think. It will take time and effort, but 

it can be done. Through our research and review of SR2S 

projects and materials, we have identified steps that are essential to developing an SR2S project. Not all projects require 

gathering all the information listed under each step, nor must 

you follow the order listed here.

■ Step 1: Understand the Community Situation and Identify the Problem(s)

❏ Collect and review data on issues such as: number or percentage of 

children walking to school, child pedestrian- and bicycle-related injuries 

and fatalities, number of overweight children, level of children’s physical 

fitness, traffic congestion, crime rates, and air pollution.

❏ Collect school data including: school population by grade; number of 

families in your school community; number of out-of-area children and 

families at your neighborhood school; number of students who participate 

in after-school programs and location of these programs; and physical 

education class schedules and attendance rates.

■ Step 2: Identify and Contact Potential Partners and Stakeholders

❏ Write a letter explaining the project to potential volunteers, partners, 

and organizations including law enforcement, school personnel, parents, 

and neighbors.

❏ Explain the specific problems the SR2S project will address, and ask for 

support as you research your neighborhood for safety (walkability and/or 

bikeability checklist).

■ Step 3: Research and Assess the Situation

❏ Demonstrate the interest and need for a SR2S project by conducting 

student and parent surveys to gather baseline information about walking 

and bicycling to school, and barriers and risks.

❏ Compile a database of potential parent volunteers and a list of families 

that are already using active transportation to and from school.

❏ Map your school catchment area and neighborhood to identify: location 

of neighborhood school; streets and entrances to school grounds; routes 

children walk and bicycle to school; locations where cars and school buses 

drop off or pick up children; bike paths, best routes, crosswalks; and 

safety hazards and safety concerns.

 Appendix D: Steps to Start an SR2S Project 107
108 Appendix D: Steps to Start an SR2S Project

■ Step 4: Walk to Assess Safety and Walkability, and Consult 

 with Traffic Safety Experts

❏ Walk the neighborhoods and document conditions to identify areas 

where cars conflict with schoolchildren’s safety, and isolated areas 

where children could be at risk.

❏ Consult with transportation or traffic experts to develop ideas for 

improving or changing traffic patterns.

■ Step 5: Schedule Planning Meeting with All Concerned

❏ Invite faculty, staff, parents, and children to a meeting at which you 

make a short presentation about the SR2S project.

❏ Suggest goals and objectives, and present survey and mapping results.

■ Step 6: Design Your Project and Develop an Action Plan

❏ Decide on the type of activities the project is likely to undertake, such 

as: changes to improve safety and convenience, traffic safety awareness, 

code enforcement, and events that promote walking and bicycling.

❏ Assign tasks to volunteers, and agree on a reasonable completion date 

for each task.

❏ Set priorities and deadlines for your action plan.

■ Step 7: Implement Your Action Plan

❏ Find a “champion” to serve as key organizer of the project, help lead the 

effort, and keep the project focused and on task.

❏ Give all team members an organizational chart of the tasks and person 

responsible for each task and due dates; include contact information for 

all participants. 

❏ Involve the children as much as possible in the campaign to promote the 

project, especially for special events.

■ Step 8: Promote and Plan a Kickoff Event to Launch Your SR2S Project

❏ Send home a letter from the principal to promote the project; use the 

school newsletter; put up posters about the project around the school; ask 

teachers to talk about it in class; make public address announcements at 

the school; post flyers in local apartment buildings, libraries, and community centers.

❏ Hold the kickoff event in conjunction with a special occasion, such as 

the annual International Walk To School Day or Earth Day. 

❏ Invite the media, local law enforcement officers, politicians, celebrities, 

and team or organization mascots to participate; have give-aways 

for the children.
■ Step 9: Evaluate the SR2S Project

❏ Conduct an evaluation of the project to identify successes and problems, 

and to confirm that the project is meeting its goals and objectives.

❏ Generate support, and help others who are planning an SR2S project.

❏ Keep measuring your success; refine and conduct new surveys.

■ Step 10: Maintain Your SR2S Project

❏ Reintroduce the project at the start of each school year with a kickoff 

event and send information home about the project. Also meet with the 

principal and teachers at the beginning of the year to plan classroom 

activities on traffic safety.

❏ Hold regular SR2S team meetings at a time when most people can attend.

❏ Inform your community of your successes at the meetings; and through 

newsletters and newspaper articles.

❏ Look for funding opportunities.

❏ Connect with other SR2S activists to share strategies and organize 

efforts for regional policy changes.

Useful SR2S Toolkits

Much of the information to help you through these 10 essential steps for 

starting a Safe Routes To School project were gathered from the many SR2S 

toolkits available that offer detailed step-by-step instructions, strategies, 

sample materials, and resources. The toolkits that we found useful were:

❏ Safe Routes To School (Marin County, California, Bicycle Coalition)

❏ Kids-Walk-To-School, (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

Atlanta, Georgia)

❏ Safe Ways To School (Florida Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education 

Program, Federal Department of Transportation)

❏ Active and Safe Routes To School (Greenest Cities, Toronto, Canada)

❏ Way To Go! School Program Manual (The Road Sense Team, British 

Columbia)

Please refer to Appendix B: Resource, Publications, and Organizations

for additional information on these toolkits and how you can obtain a copy. 

The toolkits can help you start an SR2S project and alter and adapt any of the 

steps described to better suit your school and community’s situation.

Appendix D: Steps to Start an SR2S Project 109
Appendix E:

National 

Transportation 

Law and Funding

 Appendix E: National Transportation Law and Funding 111
 Appendix E: National Transportation Law and Funding 113

In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and ushered in a new 

era of transportation law and funding. States were given much 

more flexibility in deciding how to use their federal transportation dollars, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities gained 

prominence in states’ transportation plans. The next national 

law, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), continued many of the policies introduced in ISTEA. Many 

states now pay significant attention to the needs of cyclists and 

walkers, often with Departments of Transportation partnering with Departments of Health to promote healthy, active 

transportation. Within this framework, Safe Routes to School 

projects can hope for both financial and policy support.

Congress is currently working on 

a new national transportation bill. 

As this publication goes to press, 

we do not know all of the details of 

the new law. However, we can take 

a look backward at the provisions 

included in TEA-21, and gain some 

understanding of the various parts of 

the law that might afford support for 

SR2S projects. The following information was taken from a Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) 

publication entitled “A Summary: 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Provisions 

of the Federal Aid Program.”

Funding Sources

TEA-21 increased transportation 

spending by more than 40 percent 

without altering the basic funding 

programs and planning system 

created in 1991 by the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act (ISTEA). There have been some 

changes to the way the programs will 

function as follows:

Federal-Aid Highway 

Program

National Highway System (NHS)

funds may be used to construct 

bicycle transportation facilities and 

pedestrian walkways on land adjacent to any highway on the National 

Highway System. The Interstate 

Maintenance and NHS programs 

have almost $60 billion over the six 

years of the law.

Surface Transportation Program

(STP) (Section 1108) funds may be 

used for either the construction of 

bicycle transportation facilities and 

pedestrian walkways, or nonconstruction projects (such as maps, 

brochures, and public service announcements) related to safe bicycle 

use. TEA-21 lists “the modification of 

public sidewalks to comply with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act” as 

an activity that is specifically eligible 

for the use of these funds. Approximately $33 billion is authorized for 
114 Appendix E: National Transportation Law and Funding

this program over the six years of the 

legislation (Section 1101(a)(4)).

Transportation Enhancement 

Activities (TEAs) (Section 1201, 

paragraph 35) funds are a 10 percent 

set aside from each state’s annual 

STP funds (total is approximately 

$3.3 billion). Provision of facilities for 

bicyclists and pedestrians, and the 

preservation of abandoned railroad 

corridors (including the conversion 

and use thereof for bicycle or pedestrian trails), remain eligible activities. Among the changes were:

a) The range of eligible activities was 

expanded to include:

■ Safety and educational activities 

for pedestrians and bicyclists

■ Tourist and welcome centers

■ Environmental mitigation to 

reduce vehicle-caused wildlife 

mortality while maintaining 

habitat connectivity

■ Establishment of transportation 

museums

b) The definition of a transportation 

enhancement activity includes the 

phrase “if such activity relates to 

surface transportation” to try and 

ensure a transportation purpose 

for each project.

c) The 80 percent federal matching 

requirement now applies only to 

the total non-federal share of all 

projects in a State rather than 

each individual project. In addition, there is continued flexibility 

for what funds and services may be 

credited to the non-federal share.

d) 25 percent of the funds each State 

receives over the amount received 

in FY 1997 may be transferred 

into other STP activities.

e) Eight “designated transportation 

enhancement activities” are funded 

off the top of the enhancement 

program funds, including a 

depot restoration in Gettysburg 

($800,000); a scenic byways center 

in Duluth, MN ($1.5 million per 

year); the Coal Heritage Trail 

scenic byway in West Virginia ($6 

million); $11 million for traffic 

calming measures in two suburban 

Virginia counties; a $1 million pedestrian bridge in Charlottesville, 

VA; and $2 million for the Chain of 

Rocks bridge across the Missouri 

River in St. Louis. (Section 1215)

Hazard Elimination and 

Railway-Highway Crossing 

Programs (Section 1401) are 

another ten percent set aside of each 

State’s STP funds. Bicycling and 

pedestrian safety are now eligible for 

funding in this category. In addition, 

the definition of a “public road” now 

includes a publicly owned bicycle 

or pedestrian pathway or trail and 

traffic calming measures. Each State 

is required to implement a Hazard 

Elimination Program to identify and 

correct locations that may constitute 

a danger to motorists, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians. Funds may be used for 

activities including:

a) A survey of hazardous locations 

and

b) Projects on any publicly owned 

bicycle or pedestrian pathway or 

trail, or
 Appendix E: National Transportation Law and Funding 115

c) Any safety-related traffic calming 

measure. Improvements to railway-highway crossings “shall take 

into account bicycle safety.”

Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality Improvement Program 

(CMAQ) (Section 1110) funds may 

be used for either the construction 

of bicycle transportation facilities 

and pedestrian walkways, or nonconstruction projects (such as maps, 

brochures, and public service announcements) related to safe bicycle 

use. Approximately $8.12 billion is 

authorized for the six years of the 

law. Fifty percent of the funds a state 

receives in excess of the amount they 

get when the program is funded at 

$1.353 billion per year (which happens in FY 2000) may be transferred 

into other programs (Section 1310).

Recreational Trails Program 

(RTP) (Section 1112) funds may be 

used for all kinds of trail projects. Of 

the funds apportioned to a State, 30 

percent must be used for motorized 

trail uses, 30 percent for non-motorized trail uses, and 40 percent for 

diverse trail uses (any combination). 

Annual funding in FY 2000 and 

beyond is $50 million per year.

Federal Lands Highway Program

funds may be used to construct 

bicycle and pedestrian transportation 

facilities in conjunction with roads, 

highways, and parkways on 

or adjacent to Federal Land. Priority 

for funding is determined by the 

appropriate Federal Land Agency or 

Tribal government.

National Scenic Byways Program

funds may be used for construction 

of a facility along a scenic byway for 

pedestrians and bicyclists.

Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants are available to 

support projects, including bicyclerelated services, designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible 

low-income individuals to and from 

employment.

High Priority Projects and 

Designated Transportation 

Enhancement Activities identified 

by TEA-21 include numerous bicycle, 

pedestrian, trail, and traffic calming 

projects in communities throughout 

the country. The legislation contains 

more than 1,850 high priority projects of which approximately 112 have 

a bike, pedestrian, or trail element to 

them. Funding for these projects is 

almost $200 million.

Federal Transit Program

Title 49 U.S.C. (as amended by TEA21) allows the Urbanized Area 

Formula Grants, Capital Investment Grants and Loans, and 

Formula Program for Other than 

Urbanized Area transit funds to be 

used for improving bicycle and pedestrian access to transit facilities and 

vehicles. Eligible activities include 

investment in “pedestrian and bicycle 

access to a mass transportation 

facility” that establishes or enhances 

coordination between mass transportation and other transportation.

TEA-21 also created a Transit 

Enhancement Activity program 

with a one percent set aside of Urbanized Area Formula Grant funds 

designated for, among other things, 

pedestrian access and walkways, 
116 Appendix E: National Transportation Law and Funding

and “bicycle access, including bicycle 

storage facilities, and installing 

equipment for transporting bicycles 

on mass transportation vehicles.”

Highway Safety Programs

Pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

remain priority areas for State and 

Community Highway Safety Grants 

funded by the Section 402 formula 

grant program. A State is eligible for 

these grants by submitting a Performance plan (establishing goals and 

performance measures for improving 

highway safety), and a Highway 

Safety Plan (describing activities 

to achieve those goals). Funding is 

approximately $150 million per year 

rising to $160 million in 2003.

Research, development, demonstrations, and training to improve 

highway safety (including bicycle 

and pedestrian safety) is carried out 

under the Highway Safety Research 

and Development (Section 403) 

program. Funding is approximately 

$72 million per year.

Federal/State Matching 

Requirements

In general, the Federal share of the 

costs of transportation projects is 80 

percent with a 20 percent State or 

local match. However, there are a 

number of exceptions to this rule.

■ Federal Lands Highway projects 

and Section 402 Highways Safety 

funds are 100 percent federally 

funded.

■ Bicycle-related Transit Enhancement Activities are 95 percent 

federally funded.

■ Hazard elimination projects are 

90 percent federally funded. 

Bicycle-related transit projects 

(other than Transit Enhancement 

Activities) may be up to 90 percent 

federally funded.

■ Individual Transportation 

Enhancement Activity projects 

under the STP can have a Federal 

match higher or lower than 80 

percent. However, the overall 

Federal share of each State’s 

Transportation Enhancement 

Program must be 80 percent.

■ States with higher percentages of 

Federal Lands have higher Federal 

shares calculated in proportion to 

their percentage of Federal lands.

■ The State and/or local funds used 

to match Federal-aid highway projects may include in-kind contributions (such as donations). Funds 

from other Federal programs may 

also be used to match Transportation Enhancement, Scenic Byways, 

and Recreational Trails program 

funds. A Federal agency project 

sponsor may provide matching 

funds to Recreational Trails funds 

provided the Federal share does 

not exceed 95 percent.

Planning for Bicycling and 

Walking

States and Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPOs), a planning agency established for each 

urbanized area of more than 50,000 

population, are required to carry out 

a continuing, comprehensive, and 

cooperative transportation planning 

process that results in two products.
 Appendix E: National Transportation Law and Funding 117

1. A long-range (20 year) transportation plan provides for the development and integrated management 

and operation of transportation 

systems and facilities, including 

pedestrian walkways and bicycle 

transportation facilities. Both 

State and MPO plans will consider 

projects and strategies to increase 

the safety and security of the 

transportation system for non-motorized users.

2. A Transportation Improvement 

Program (TIP) contains a list of 

proposed federally supported projects to be carried out over the next 

three years. Projects that appear 

in the TIP should be consistent 

with the long-range plan.

The transportation planning process 

is carried out with the active and 

ongoing involvement of the public, 

affected public agencies, and transportation providers.

Section 1202 of TEA-21 says that 

bicyclists and pedestrians shall 

be given due consideration in the 

planning process (including the 

development of both the plan and 

TIP), and that bicycle facilities 

and pedestrian walkways shall be 

considered, where appropriate, in 

conjunction with all new construction 

and reconstruction of transportation 

facilities except where bicycle use and 

walking are not permitted. Transportation plans and projects shall 

also consider safety and contiguous 

routes for bicyclists and pedestrians. 

Safety considerations may include the 

installation of audible traffic signals 

and signs at street crossings.

Policy and Program 

Provisions

State Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Coordinators

Each State is required to fund a 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator 

position in its State Department 

of Transportation to promote and 

facilitate the increased use of nonmotorized transportation, including 

developing facilities for the use of 

pedestrians and bicyclists, and public 

educational, promotional, and safety 

programs for using such facilities. 

Funds such as the CMAQ or STP 

may be used for the Federal share of 

the cost of these positions. In many 

States, the Coordinator is a full-time 

position with sufficient responsibility to deal effectively with other 

agencies, State offices, and divisions 

within the State DOT.

Protection of Non-Motorized 

Transportation Traffic

The Secretary shall not approve any 

project or take any regulatory action 

that will result in the severance of 

an existing major route, or have an 

adverse impact on the safety of nonmotorized transportation traffic and 

light motorcycles, unless such project 

or regulatory action provides for a 

reasonable alternate route or such a 

route already exists.

Users of A Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Facility

Motorized vehicles are not permitted 

on trails and pedestrian walkways 

except for maintenance purposes, 

motorized wheelchairs, and – when 

State or local regulations permit 
118 Appendix E: National Transportation Law and Funding

–snowmobiles and electric bicycles. 

Electric bicycles are defined for the 

purposes of the Act as a bicycle or 

tricycle with a low-powered electric 

motor weighing under 100 pounds 

with a top motor-powered speed not 

in excess of 20 miles per hour.

Facility Design Guidance

The design of bicycle and pedestrian 

facilities is determined by State and 

local design standards and practices, 

many of which are based on publications of the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) such as the 

Guide to the Development of Bicycle 

Facilities and A Policy on Geometric 

Design of Streets and Highways.

TEA-21 calls on the Federal Highway 

Administration to develop guidance 

on the various approaches to accommodating bicycle and pedestrian 

travel, in cooperation with AASHTO, 

the Institute of Transportation 

Engineers, and other interested organizations. The guidance, was revised 

in February 2000. It encourages the 

inclusion of facilities for bicyclists 

and pedestrians as a routine practice.

Bridges

When a highway bridge deck—on 

which bicyclists are permitted or may 

operate at each end of the bridge—is 

being replaced or rehabilitated with 

Federal funds, safe accommodation of 

bicycles is required unless the Secretary of Transportation determines 

that this cannot be done at a reasonable cost.

Railway-Highway Crossings

When improvements to at-grade 

railway-highway crossings are being 

considered, bicycle safety must be 

taken into account.

Research, Special Studies, and 

Reports

TEA-21 continues funding for highway safety research (Section 403), 

the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program (NCHRP) and 

Transit Cooperative Research 

Program (TCRP), all of which have 

funded research into pedestrian and 

bicycle issues. In addition, the legislation creates a number of new research areas, special studies, reports, 

and grant programs including:

■ A new Surface Transportation-Environment Cooperative Research 

Program is established to evaluate 

transportation control measures, 

improve understanding of transportation demand factors, and 

develop performance indicators 

that will facilitate the analysis of 

transportation alternatives.

■ $500,000 is made available for the 

development of a national bicycle 

safety education curriculum.

■ $500,000 per year is made available for grants to a national notfor-profit organization engaged in 

promoting bicycle and pedestrian 

safety to operate a national clearinghouse, develop informational 

and educational programs, and 

disseminate techniques and strategies for improving bicycle and 

pedestrian safety.
 Appendix E: National Transportation Law and Funding 119

■ $200,000 is made available for a 

study of the safety issues attendant to the transportation of school 

children to and from school and 

school-related activities by various 

transportation modes. Transportation Research Board is identified 

as the manager of the study, which 

must be done within 12 months 

and the panel conducting the study 

must include bicycling organizations. (Section 4030)

■ A study of transit needs in National Parks and related public 

lands includes a requirement that 

the study assess the feasibility of 

alternative transportation modes. 

(Section 3039)

■ The Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics is charged with establishing and maintaining a transportation data base for all modes 

of transportation that will include 

“information on the volumes and 

patterns of movement of people, 

including local, inter-regional, 

and international movements, 

by all modes of transportation 

(including bicycle and pedestrian 

modes) and intermodal combinations, by all relevant classifications. (Section 5109)

Conclusion

Bicycling and walking are important 

elements of an integrated, intermodal 

transportation system. Constructing 

sidewalks, installing bicycle parking 

at transit, teaching children to ride 

and walk safely, installing curb cuts 

and ramps for wheelchairs, striping 

bike lanes, and building trails all 

contribute to our national transportation goals of safety, mobility, 

economic growth and trade, enhancement of communities, the natural 

environment, and national security.

All of these activities, and many 

more, are eligible for funding as part 

of the Federal-aid Highway program. 

The Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century confirms the place 

of bicycling and walking in the 

mainstream of transportation decision-making at the State and local 

level and enables communities to 

encourage more people to bicycle and 

walk safely.

For More Information

1. The Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century, PL-105-550. 

Available from the Government 

Printing Office or on-line at 

www.dot.gov.

2. Title 23, United States Code. 

Available from the Government 

Printing Office or your local 

library system.

3. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

652. Available from the Government Printing Office or your local 

library system.
Photo

Credits

Photo Credits 121

Page/Source/Photographer

iv. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

2. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

3. Santa Ana Pedestrian Safety 

Project, Pediatric Injury 

Prevention Research Group, 

Health Policy and Research, 

University of California, 

Irvine / Dianne Winn

4. Marin County

5. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden 

8. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

9. Santa Ana 

10. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

11. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

12. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

14. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

15. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

16. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

17. Digipop/Justin Smith

21. WalkBoston Safe Routes 

to Schools, Massachusetts / 

Christofer M. Cirker

22. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

23. WalkBoston Safe Routes 

to Schools, Massachusetts / 

Christofer M. Cirker

25. Transportation Alternatives, 

New York, New York

26. Transportation Alternatives, 

New York, New York

27. Digipop/Justin Smith

29. Walking School Bus Program, 

CAPS Implementation Office, 

Chicago, Illinois/Kathie 

Carothers

30. Walking School Bus Program, 

CAPS Implementation Office, 

Chicago, Illinois/Kathie 

Carothers

31. Walking School Bus Program, 

CAPS Implementation Office, 

Chicago, Illinois/Kathie 

Carothers

32. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

33. Safe Ways To School, Florida 

Traffic and Bicycle Safety 

Education Program
34. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

35. www.pedbikeimages.org/

Dan Burden

36. Digipop/Justin Smith

37. Gorselands Primary School, 

Ipswich, Great Britain, Sustrans 

/ P. Osborne

38. Gorselands Primary School, 

Ipswich, Great Britain, Sustrans 

/ P. Osborne

39. Watchfield Cycle Train, Watchfield Primary School, Oxfordshire, Great Britain, Sustrans /

J. Bewley

40. Dutch Elementary School, 

United Kingdom, Sustrans, 

Great Britain / Peter Lipman

41. Marin County Safe Routes To 

Schools, California / Wendi 

Kallins

42. Marin County Safe Routes To 

Schools, California / Wendi 

Kallins

43. Marin County Safe Routes To 

Schools, California / Wendi 

Kallins

45. Robert Gray Middle School, Safe 

Routes To School Task Force, 

Portland, Oregon / 

Rachel Rosenberg

46. Robert Gray Middle School, Safe 

Routes To School Task Force, 

Portland, Oregon / 

Rachel Rosenberg

47. Robert Gray Middle School, Safe 

Routes To School Task Force, 

Portland, Oregon / 

Rachel Rosenberg

49. Santa Ana Pedestrian Safety 

Project, Pediatric Injury 

Prevention Research Group, 

Health Policy and Research, 

University of California, Irvine / 

Dianne Winn

50. Santa Ana Pedestrian Safety 

Project, Pediatric Injury 

Prevention Research Group, 

Health Policy and Research, 

University of California, Irvine / 

Dianne Winn

51. Santa Ana Pedestrian Safety 

Project, Pediatric Injury 

Prevention Research Group, 

Health Policy and Research, 

University of California, Irvine / 

Dianne Winn

52. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

53. Kingston This Week, Toronto, 

Ontario / Rob Mooy

54. Kingston This Week, Toronto, 

Ontario / Rob Mooy

55. Kingston This Week, Toronto, 

Ontario / Rob Mooy

56. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

58. Safe Ways To School, Florida 

Traffic and Bicycle Safety 

Education Program

59. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

60. www.pedbikeimages.org /

Dan Burden

122 Photo Credits