U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–250 PDF 2007

THE FEDERAL SAFE ROUTES TO

SCHOOL PROGRAM

(110–75)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 2, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Vice Chair 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi

TESTIMONY 

Bricker, Scott, Interim Executive Director, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, 

Portland, Oregon .................................................................................................. 5

Hubsmith, Deb, Director, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Fairfax, California ....................................................................................................... 5

Koch, Lisa, Coordinator, Kansas Safe Routes to School, Topeka, Kansas .......... 5

Marchetti, Lauren, Director, National Center for Safe Routes to School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina ......................................................................................... 5

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 36

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., of California ............................................................... 38

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 39

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bricker, Scott ........................................................................................................... 43

Hubsmith, Deborah A. ............................................................................................. 52

Koch, Lisa ................................................................................................................. 69

Marchetti, Lauren .................................................................................................... 93

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Bricker, Scott, Interim Executive Director, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, 

Portland, Oregon, responses to questions from Rep. Napolitano ..................... 48

Hubsmith, Deb, Director, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Fairfax, California, responses to questions from Rep. Napolitano .......................... 64

Marchetti, Lauren, Director, National Center for Safe Routes to School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina:

Response to request from Rep. Coble ................................................................. 111

Responses to questions from Rep. Napolitano ................................................... 112

vi


38250.001
vii


38250.002
viii


38250.003
ix


38250.004
x


38250.005
(1)

HEARING ON THE FEDERAL SAFE ROUTES TO 

SCHOOL PROGRAM 

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter A. 

DeFazio [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The Subcommittee will come to order as soon as 

I turn on my microphone. 

Today, the subject matter is a hearing on the Federal Safe 

Routes to School program. Coming down the hall, I thought we had 

created a massive amount of interest when I saw the police and 

crowd, but I find that was a scandal instead of something that is 

substantial in contributing to the future of our Country. 

This program, which the Chairman of the Committee took a particular hand in creating, in my opinion, and I believe probably others share this sentiment, can address a number of problems simultaneously in the United States. We have a childhood obesity problem. If we can change the habits of children and make them less 

sedentary, that will lead to a life-long improvement in health. It is 

solving problems for children who are today, already, riding their 

bikes or walking to school, who are not the new entrants in the 

program, but who are doing it in areas that are not safe. 

In my hometown of Eugene we have had one fatality of a small 

young boy who was riding his bike and crossing a four-lane road, 

and the car closest to him stopped, and as he was obscured riding 

past that, a young driver who was speeding past that car in the 

outer lane killed the child. We had another incident of a child in 

the crosswalk who was seriously injured. 

And I know this is repeated around the Country. There are obviously improvements we can make in the routes that our children 

might use to go to school, in addition to getting more children to 

choose to walk or ride bikes to school. 

So I think this sort of interim hearing on what progress we are 

making, what problems there might be with the program will help 

direct its future. 

With that, I would turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan, for 

his comments. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of 

the witnesses that have come here to testify this morning and 

thank you for calling this hearing. 

2

The topic of today’s hearing is the Safe Routes to School program 

that was created in SAFETEA-LU. This program was intended to 

pay for infrastructure improvements around elementary and middle schools to make it safer and easier for students to walk or bike 

to school. Funding from this program can also be used to pay for 

non-infrastructure activities that encourage walking and biking to 

school. 

Where it makes sense, I think it is great if children are able to 

walk or bike to school. I think the goals and objectives of this program are very admirable, and I think we can all agree that childhood obesity is a major problem in our society and that any program that enables children to be more active is a good program. 

Some people have raised concerns about whether these activities 

should be funded through the Federal Highway program and the 

Highway Trust Fund because, before the end of 2009, the account 

of the Highway Trust Fund will run out of money. In fiscal year 

2009, the Safe Routes to School program will receive $183 million. 

In that same year, we allocate only $90 million for highway improvements on high-risk rural roads, and we set aside only $100 

million for emergency highway repairs to respond to natural disasters and disasters like the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minnesota. 

I think the Safe Routes to School program is a wonderful and 

worthwhile program, but we need to make sure that we don’t shortchange other programs that would perhaps save even more lives. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. With that, I would see if other Members have opening statements. 

Ms. Matsui? 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing. I just want to first start out by saying that Safe 

Routes to School is a wonderful and a worthwhile new program 

that Congress authorized in SAFETEA-LU. 

In my district, in Sacramento, we are having great success with 

this program. For example, one of our school districts has created 

a program—and I think this has happened in other States too—

called Walking Wednesdays. It encourages the kids and the parents 

to walk or bike to school together. It encourages more family time, 

which I guess all of us know there is not enough of, but also promotes a better appreciation for the healthiness of walking and encourages alternate modes of transportation. These are all lessons 

that can be used later in life and can help build healthier communities. 

I am looking forward to working on these issues with you, Mr. 

Chairman. I am also looking forward to hearing from today’s witnesses. I thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. 

I want to welcome the panelists, especially my fellow North Carolinian, Ms. Marchetti, and I want to associate with the remarks, 

Mr. Chairman, of the gentleman from Tennessee. I believe the 

goals are indeed admirable, and I too look forward to hearing the 

testimony today, and I yield back. 

3

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. With that, I would turn to the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar, the father of the Safe 

Routes to School program. Or grandfather or whatever you would 

like to be. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take full credit, 

responsibility, obligation, but that has to be shared with so many 

dozens of others who were there at the creation of this initiative. 

I thank you for allowing us to hold this hearing. And the gentleman from Tennessee, who is ever so diligent in supporting the 

activities of the Committee and for his ever-thoughtful comments, 

thank you so very much. 

Ms. Matsui, in whose city there is a very strong, very effective 

Safe Routes to School program, on its way to being an award-winning project with use of all of the initiatives, the education, the 

traffic calming, the actual walking and cycling to school, engaging 

parents, faculty, administration, and the city engineering office as 

well. The program also works well when the mayor of the community, Mayor Heather Fargo, in this case, is strongly supportive. My 

hat is off to Sacramento and to Portland and to so many other cities across the Country. 

The real purpose of this hearing is to fulfill what I said at the 

outset of the creation of the Safe Routes to School initiative, is that 

it has to be accountable; that we have to take measure of the program in its initial stages, halfway through, and then at the end of 

the authorization period, when, on the eve of 2009, we will be writing a new transportation bill under the leadership of the gentleman 

from Oregon. 

I said this is a new initiative. It is one that has great hope, great 

promise for the future, and for that reason we have to hold it accountable and we have to review its progress, make sure that it is 

achieving the goals set out and, if not, to adjust that program. 

Well, I am quite satisfied that not only are the goals of Safe 

Routes to School being achieved, but exceeded. For that, at the outset, I want to thank Tim Arnade, who is at the Federal Highway 

Administration, the national director of the Safe Routes to School 

program for the U.S. Department of Transportation. Mr. Arnade 

put himself, Mr. Chairman, heart and soul, full energy into the development of the guidelines, working with State coordinators for 

Safe Routes to School across the Country as they were designated 

by each State; developed a comprehensive plan, a model for each 

of the States to follow; and then, when all the coordinators were 

designated, he gathered them, had a conference, got the best ideas, 

best practices, and moved this initiative forward. 

We didn’t ask him to testify; that should come at a later date in 

the program. We should hear from those who are on the firing line. 

I also, at this point, want to thank our Safe Routes coordinator 

in Minnesota, Kristie Billiar. She is the best thing the Minnesota 

Department of Transportation has done over the last three years. 

Everything else has gone to hell in a hand basket over there; the 

bridge collapsed, they can’t get their act together, can’t pass an increase in the gas tax. But they can do Safe Routes to School, and 

they have done it exceedingly well. 

When I crafted this idea, it was following a presentation by the 

Centers for Disease Control in March of 2000 on results of a five 

4

year longitudinal study of obesity in America’s children. This study 

reported that, 40 years ago, 60 percent of all children walked and 

biked to school; in 2000, less than 2 percent; that, further, 25 percent of children were clinically obese, that is, more than 30 percent 

above their ideal body weight; that 60 percent of children 15 and 

under were clinically seriously overweight or verging on obesity; 

that 65 percent of adult Americans were clinically overweight or 

obese; that 75 percent of trips by children 15 and under were by 

vehicle, motor vehicle, to school, from school; that twice a day air 

quality is severely deteriorated at school areas because idling of 

buses and cars and SUVs and the rest. 

There were many other disturbing data, but the worst of all was 

that Type II diabetes had doubled in five years among children 15 

and under. No period in health statistics had seen such a dramatic 

increase in disease, a preventable disease, largely. 

So I gathered a group of enthusiasts for cycling. Actually, I went 

out and did a ride on my bike that afternoon. It was a short session 

that day and I went out and I meditated on the issue, called a 

group of cycling/pedestrian advocates together in my office and I 

read those statistics to them and I said I have a plan to fix it, I 

am going to call it Safe Routes to School. Someone raised their 

hand and said it is a great idea, it has already been done in England. I said, well, it is still a pretty good idea, even though the 

Brits already did it. 

They cited to me the study which had been completed three 

years—more than a study, an experiment—three years sustainable 

transportation, and in those three years the Brits had really 

changed habits of young people; created Walking School Buses. 

They did infrastructure changes at intersections: widened the 

crossings, brighter striping; as I said, Walking School Buses for 

children, wearing the same clothing or hats. They engaged parents 

and school administrators, and in the third year of the program 

more bicycles were sold in the U.K. than automobiles. Well, I am 

not out to sell more bikes than automobiles with this program, but, 

in fact, that is what is happening. Last year, more bicycles were 

sold in the United States than automobiles. 

So we took that idea, we had—to shorten the story—engaged the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to commit to two 

grants of $50,000 each, one to support a principally walking program in Arlington, Massachusetts, and the other principally a bicycling program in Marin County, California. Thanks to the energy, 

enthusiasm, and creativity of Deb Hubsmith, that Marin County 

program was a resounding success, and the same in Arlington, 

Massachusetts, where they revived school crossing guards that had 

long been dormant in that city; and in both places lessons learned, 

lessons applied resulted in the draft legislation and finally inclusion in SAFETEA-LU, and here we are with an enormously successful initiative. 

You have many opportunities in the legislative arena to do good 

of one kind or another. Many of us get an amendment passed and 

occasionally we get a bill passed. But rarely do you have an opportunity like this, to change the habits of an entire generation, and 

that is what we can do with Safe Routes to School. We can save 

an entire generation, and those to follow them, from childhood diaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:31 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38250 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
5

betes, from obesity, into safer walking, bicycling habits; change the 

safety parameters in the school arena. And we are seeing the benefits, seeing the results, and seeing the success of those initiatives 

with the program on which we will hear a full report today. 

Over 700 schools in just the first two years of the program have 

initiated programs and had reports and success. Safe Routes to 

School is now in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Law 

enforcement, families, children, school boards, city governments, all 

are engaged. We have a Safe Routes to School clearinghouse with 

Lauren Marchetti at the University of North Carolina School of 

Public Health, and serving as a center for sharing information, best 

practices, and making sure that information gets out quickly, Safe 

Routes Task Force, headed by Deb Hubsmith. All are working together, sharing their experiences, and the best result of all is that 

we are seeing success in reducing Type II diabetes, high cholesterol 

and blood pressure among school children. 

I look forward to the testimony, which I have read already, 

frankly; I stayed up until the early hours of the morning making 

sure I read every page of it, and I am very excited about the report 

we will receive this morning. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Are there other Members who wish to make an opening statement? 

[No response.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Seeing none, we will then proceed to the witnesses 

and we will begin with Ms. Marchetti. 

TESTIMONY OF LAUREN MARCHETTI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

CENTER FOR SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL, CHAPEL HILL, 

NORTH CAROLINA; DEB HUBSMITH, DIRECTOR, SAFE 

ROUTES TO SCHOOL NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP, FAIRFAX, 

CALIFORNIA; SCOTT BRICKER, INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE, PORTLAND, 

OREGON; AND LISA KOCH, COORDINATOR, KANSAS SAFE 

ROUTES TO SCHOOL, TOPEKA, KANSAS 

Ms. MARCHETTI. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify. It is an honor and privilege 

to be here before you to discuss this wonderful program. I also 

want to thank Congressman Coble for his kind statement of support. But I particularly want to thank the Committee and Chairman Oberstar, and his staff in particular, for their tremendous 

leadership in making this a reality. 

The Safe Routes to School concept has been described as small 

steps, perhaps, but millions of them and all in the right direction. 

It is a simple and powerful concept. Where it is safe, encourage 

children to enjoy the walk to school as generations before them did. 

Where it is not safe, bring together the community partners and 

resources to make it safe. Unfortunately, in some places, children 

are walking and biking to school in unsafe conditions. Often, this 

is in urban, low resource areas. These children deserve better. 

Housed within the University of North Carolina Highway Safety 

Research Center, the National Center works with the Federal Government, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and local proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:31 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38250 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
6

grams throughout the Country to help implement the Safe Routes 

to School program. We are pleased that our partners include the 

American Association of State Transportation Officials, America 

Walks, the Governors Highway Safety Association, the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers, and Toole Design. 

The clearinghouse serves three main functions. Build capacity. 

This is done largely with training and technical support. Promote 

demand. I will talk to you later about the wonderful things that 

Walk to School Day is accomplishing. And, finally, understand 

what works. This is very important to us. Successful programs and 

strategies must be identified and shared so all schools can benefit. 

As Chairman Oberstar was saying, we are on the convergence of 

major issues that Safe Routes to School programs can address. The 

obesity epidemic and related illnesses that we are experiencing 

have reached our children, leading public health professionals to 

warn that this generation of children may be the first not to live 

to be as old as their parents. Now, that stuns a lot of people when 

they hear that. 

Concerns about traffic congestion, the environment, and our dependency on foreign fuel have spurred many to look for alternatives. Walking is the form of transportation and physical activity 

that is the easiest to do and most affordable for all. As more and 

more adults and children seek this ability, we must be proactive in 

our efforts to make these modes safe and accessible. 

With over 30 years experience in the transportation safety field, 

I have seen a lot of programs. Yet, I am amazed at how quickly 

so many States have embraced Safe Routes to School, and at the 

commitment and enthusiasm of the State coordinators. You will 

hear that spirit when Lisa Koch testifies shortly. 

I would like to make five points. One, the Federal program is 

going strong. They had three requirements: to establish the Safe 

Routes to School program, establish a clearinghouse, and create a 

national task force. I am here to inform you that FHWA has moved 

aggressively to accomplish all three. As Chairman Oberstar mentioned, they appointed a senior level employee, Tim Arnade, to 

serve as the contact person within six weeks of passage of 

SAFETEA-LU. This was crucial to the speed with which the program advanced. Within two months, the first two years of funding 

were issued to the States. By the time the program was one year 

old, 13 States had announced funding. 

The clearinghouse was established in May 2006, and we too understood speed was important. Within three months we had a comprehensive web site, we had convened a meeting of the State coordinators, we started providing free training to each State, and we 

had established a tracking program. 

The national task force was established in October 2006 and, as 

a member of that organization, I can testify that we have already 

met three times, about to have our fourth meeting, and we are 

working hard to get our report out. 

My second point is that States are engaged and running with the 

program. Two key provisions made that happen: the requirement 

for full-time coordinators and the flexibility in allowing States to 

use a variety of approaches. Funds are also reaching the communities and we are seeing early successes. As of July, 40 States had 

7

completed or were actively involved in soliciting local Safe Routes 

to School program applications. 

Data is also being collected. We have set up a tracking system. 

We are going to be looking at programs, and the resulting database 

will support national level and overall program evaluation. We will 

be able to see what is working and share that information quickly. 

I would like to end my testimony with a success that gives me 

particular joy. Tomorrow, October 3rd, is International Walk to 

School Day. I am very proud to say that that started in the United 

States in 1997. The Brits joined us later. This year, it will be celebrated in 42 countries. The importance to me about this is that it 

is an event that has caught on in all 50 States, with over 3,000 

schools registered this year. And it isn’t just an event. When they 

do the walk to school activity, they go on to start programs and get 

engaged and remember how much they used to enjoy walking to 

school, at least the adults when they were young. 

In conclusion, I want to say that the Safe Routes to School program is off to a great start because of parents and schools that 

want better for their children, advocates who are dedicating their 

time to where their hearts are—and you will hear that in Deb 

Hubsmith’s testimony, I am sure—and the State coordinators, like 

Lisa Koch, for whom this is not just a job, but a way to improve 

the lives of school children. 

I would like to thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to tell you the wonderful things I am seeing out there. 

I want to leave you with one statement from a coordinator in a 

State that is dealing with some rough economic times. In an application for an award that we are going to be giving out soon, he 

said, often, because neighborhood schools are the single remaining 

institution in blighted areas around which a community can rally, 

Safe Routes to School is the catalyst that engages neighborhoods 

again and empowers them, through success, to stem decline and 

recreate community. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Ms. Hubsmith. 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Yes, good morning, Chairman Oberstar, Chairman DeFazio, and Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the 

Committee. I am pleased to be here today to have the opportunity 

to speak with you about the success of the Federal Safe Routes to 

School program. 

Overall, my assessment is that the program is doing extremely 

well and is very popular. Still, there are some things that Congress 

can do to improve its success, and I will highlight those opportunities throughout my testimony. 

I have been involved with Safe Routes to School programs for 

nearly 10 years. In 1999, California passed the first legislation to 

allow for a Safe Routes to School program, and then, in the year 

2000, as Chairman Oberstar mentioned, I had the opportunity to 

help to manage a pilot program for the National Highway Traffic 

Safeway Administration in Marin County, California. We were 

asked by the Federal Government to incorporate the five E’s as 

part of our Safe Routes to School program, recognizing that if you 

8

build it, they don’t always come. So in order to create a program, 

in order to change people’s behavior, you need to use a variety of 

techniques. 

So our program used the 5 Es, starting off with Evaluation, asking parents why they are driving their children to school now and 

what it would take to change their behavior, and taking initial 

baseline information; Engineering, taking a look at the routes to 

schools and what could be changed, and then creating priority lists 

and seeing what the city can do on their own funding and what 

type of applications are needed from State or Federal governments; 

Education, taking a look at traffic safety and how we can improve 

that in the schools and on the streets; Encouragement, activities 

like Walk to School Day; and then Enforcement, working together 

with law enforcement. 

So Safe Routes to School became a comprehensive program that 

really brought the city and the school together and directed the resources of these entities to make a difference. It worked so well 

that when the Congress passed the Safe Routes to School legislation, the Federal Highway Administration created guidance recommending the 5 E’s for Safe Routes to School, and that has been a 

tenet for its success. 

I went on to form the Safe Routes to School National Partnership 

that is a network of more than 300 organizations now, including 

the Institute for Transportation Engineers, the American Association of School Administrators, Rails to Trails Conservancy, and the 

League of American Bicyclists. We are working to grow the Safe 

Routes to School movement, set best practices, and to share information. We released this report yesterday, Safe Routes to School: 

The State of the States, and there are copies here that will be 

available for you to pick up later if you are interested. 

I would like to cover four points as to how Safe Routes to School 

is succeeding. Number one, it is being proven that the program is 

increasing walking and bicycling to school. In California, where we 

have had a program now for six years. The Department of Transportation released a study this January that showed that at schools 

that received improvements, we increased the number of children 

walking and bicycling in the range of 20 percent to 200 percent. 

Secondly, Safe Routes to School builds important partnerships, 

both at the State level and also at the local level. It brings together 

partnerships like the Health Department, law enforcement, and 

the Departments of Transportation and Education, partners that 

may not have always worked together before. 

Our friends in Knoxville, Tennessee report that the Regional 

Transportation Planning Organization is particularly proud of the 

fact that they have worked with the Bearden Elementary School 

and the Beaumont Elementary School to run active Safe Routes to 

School programs, and they are now applying for Federal funds to 

expand to three more schools. And they are particularly proud of 

the fact of how they brought together these diverse partners. 

Thirdly, Safe Routes to School is reaching low income communities. By providing the 100 percent funding for the program, it allows for communities that may not have the resources to apply for 

grants to do so, and the Active Living Resource Center, funded by 

9

the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is making an effort to work 

with DOTs to have that happen. It is being successful. 

In addition, another success is that Safe Routes to School is 

leveraging additional funds. Foundations like the Robert Wood 

Johnson Foundation, Bikes Belong Coalition, and the Harvest 

Foundation have invested money to help make this program succeed. In addition, thousands of parents give their time, through 

Walking School Buses and other activities, in order to make the 

program work. This adds value to the Federal program. 

There are three opportunities and challenges that I would like to 

address where Congress can help. First, there is a latent demand 

for the funding for this program. In most States, we have seen way 

more requests than funding is available. In fact, many times it is 

five times the amount of funding that is available. In New Jersey, 

$74 million was requested for only $4.15 million that was available. 

Secondly, the Federal requirements for Safe Routes to School reflect Title 23, and while it is extremely important to have rigorous 

oversight for the expenditure of Federal funds, many of these programs are very small in nature, and the administrative fees and 

time it takes to implement them are quite intense. It would be 

great if we could work together with Congress to streamline these 

activities, because many of the changes are taking place in an existing built environment and result in educational programs. 

Thirdly, we would like to work with you on improved data collection. We are very pleased that the National Center for Safe Routes 

to School has developed parent-student collection surveys, and 

these are good, but we would like to work with you to improve the 

census questions, to have questions related to school travel, and to 

fund the National Household Travel Survey. In addition, as the 

State DOTs report information to FHWA, we would like to have 

more information reported on bicycle and pedestrian data and Safe 

Routes to School. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not address recent criticisms 

that have been directed at the use of Federal dollars for Safe 

Routes to School and other bicycle and pedestrian programs. Please 

let me point out that the funding for this program represents only 

0.2 percent of the overall funding in the Federal transportation bill. 

Our children are worth 0.2 percent of the Federal transportation 

funds. 

Secondly, many communities report that 20 percent to 30 percent 

of the morning traffic is parents driving their kids to school. This 

is helping to relieve that traffic congestion. In addition, municipal 

costs are rising for school bus transportation, so many States are 

cutting this. We need to provide a way for these kids that are now 

on the streets to get to school safely. 

As was mentioned by the Chairman, U.S. activity among children 

has plummeted, and now one third of our U.S. children are overweight and obese. That is 25 million children. And there are huge 

costs for the United States for this. In addition, walking and biking 

to school reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it reduces energy, 

and these are priorities for our Nation. 

Safe Routes to School is creating a stronger America, a healthier 

America, and I would like to thank Congress for making the opportunity available for every family and every child to make a difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:31 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38250 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
10

ference in their health and the health of this Nation. Safe Routes 

to School is a program the United States can be proud of. Thank 

you very much. I look forward to working with you to strengthen 

the program and to answering your questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Mr. Bricker. 

Mr. BRICKER. Thank you, Chair DeFazio, Chair Oberstar, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Committee. My name is 

Scott Bricker and I am with the Bicycle Transportation Alliance 

from Oregon. I am very pleased to be here, very excited to be up 

here testifying. I am hoping to provide just a small, brief snapshot 

of what is going on in Oregon, successes and challenges that one 

State is facing. 

In 1996, I started working on youth mobility issues as part of my 

master’s degree at Portland State University in transportation 

planning. For two years I rode bicycles with children to school, 

after school, and worked with them on what types of transportation 

needs they needed and had. 

In 1998, I worked with the Bicycle Transportation Alliance to 

write a grant to ODOT, the Transportation Safety Division, to get 

money, actually FHWA money, to start a bicycle safety education 

program. In the last eight years, that program has taught over 

40,000 children a 10 hour traffic safety course riding bicycles on 

the street. 

In Oregon, we have worked to be part of the National Safe 

Routes to School partnership and I have been on the board of that 

organization with Deb. We passed Oregon Safe Routes to School 

laws in 2001, 2005, and 2007, and in Oregon, recently, we created 

a Safe Routes to School advisory committee, as well, to help write 

rules in the Oregon law, but also mostly because of the Federal 

program. 

In Oregon, communities up and down the State have been working on and grappling with issues about bicycling, walking to school, 

and the children. In Eugene and Springfield, the Lane Transit District has been working to try and increase safety of children and 

get bus passes into kids’ hands, trying to increase walking and 

biking to school. 

In Albany, one community volunteer, Jim Lawrence, has been 

working with the community to grapple people to work with this 

issue of congestion in front of his schools, and in Corvallis, the Benton County Health Coalition has been working to try and do the 

same. 

In Bend, the Public Works Department created Oregon’s first 

Safe Routes to School plan in Bear Creek Elementary School, working with the principal and a couple parents, and in Ashland and 

Medford the communities have been working with their traffic safety committees in the community to try and handle this issue. 

Finally, in Portland, we have been working for the last four years 

to try and increase Safe Routes to Schools. 

In all of these programs the community has been really the 

group that has been leading this effort. In fact, in none of these 

communities has the school been the place that has been leading 

this effort. At the same time, Oregon spends $300 million a year 

on school bus transportation. Today, Oregon receives about $1 milVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:31 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38250 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
11

lion a year from the Safe Routes to School program. And, in Oregon, only 30 percent of the kids actually take the bus. 

What is the problem here? The Federal Safe Routes to School program has given the impetus, with only $1 million a year, to help 

form these coalitions, to help actually bring these people together 

to create school travel plans, to create strategies, and to apply to 

receive Federal Safe Routes to School funds. In fact, in Oregon, in 

2005, we passed a law stating that to get Safe Routes to School 

funds you would have to have a school transportation plan or some 

kind of strategy; not a very formalized plan, but a strategy, a discussion between the city and the schools or the county and the 

schools. 

The Federal program has been successful in Oregon because it 

has helped leverage real partnerships; it has helped bring me out 

here, and this is my first time testifying in front of Congress, and 

I really am excited and slightly nervous to be up here, but you 

have the potential to have more and more people who have never 

been here before because of this program. Yesterday we had a 

press conference with children who came with bikes and were 

walking, had a chance to have a civics lessons. Kids who, in the 

past, were not empowered to bicycle and walk to school today are 

being so. 

I believe that, for Oregon, the Federal Safe Routes to School program has had some very specific positive impacts. One, it has been 

the impetus to help us create our Safe Routes to School Advisory 

Committee, which really is a coalition and has, for the first time, 

Department of Education, School transportation people in the same 

room with ODOT, with the transportation department. Two, as I 

had mentioned, it is creating partnerships between health departments, between cities, between schools, between advocates like myself, parents, safety advocates, a wide range of people that have 

never worked before together in this way. And, three, it has real 

money. Even at $1 million a year, we can build crosswalks, we can 

build curb extensions, we can build meeting islands, and we can 

also provide safety education to children in Oregon. We can promote bicycling and walking to school and active, healthy lifestyles, 

and those things are happening. 

There are some problems or some concerns that we have, stumbling blocks about the programs. Our stumbling block is the construction requirements that are required by FHWA. With $1 million a year, and perhaps only $700,000 a year, we are encouraging 

communities in Oregon to only submit small applications, between 

$35,000 and $250,000 per school. Two hundred fifty thousand is 

one traffic signal. To have to go through the Federal hoops, right 

now, we haven’t even figured out in Oregon. We are encouraging 

bundling of projects; we are encouraging a streamlining process 

and seeing if there is any way we can streamline the evaluation 

project. If you are going to build a $2,000 speed bump, you 

shouldn’t have to have a $10,000 administrative fee. 

At the same time, the promotion and education programs have 

already been funded, and those programs are moving forward. 

The other thing that we are stumbling with is the issue of supplanting ongoing costs. We would like to be able to fund ongoing 

bicycle safety education, but we are not exactly sure if this program 

12

will let us do it for more than one or two years, and that is something that we are working on. 

In summary, in Oregon, the demand greatly outpaces the cost of 

available revenue and ODOT is doing an excellent, in the Transportation Safety Division, managing this program. At the same 

time, planning does take time. With only two years after the Federal program has really been released, communities are still trying 

to put their plans together. So we are excited to move this forward 

and have more and more schools submit programs and plans to you 

all. 

So I encourage you and I look forward to working with you all 

to increase this funding in the future to keep this program going 

and to let us continue this great work. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Bricker. 

Ms. Koch. 

Ms. KOCH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Committee. My name is Lisa Koch, and 

I am the Coordinator of the Kansas Safe Routes to School program 

at the Kansas Department of Transportation in Topeka. In addition 

to my oral testimony today, please accept my written testimony, 

which I have submitted for the record. 

Thank you for holding this timely hearing on the status of the 

Federal Safe Routes to School program, which was funded through 

the passage of SAFETEA-LU in 2005. Since the passage of 

SAFETEA-LU, the 50 State Departments of Transportation and 

the Department of Transportation for the District of Columbia have 

been working to create Safe Routes to School programs that meet 

the needs of their varied constituents. My comments today will 

focus on the Safe Routes to School program that has been created 

at KDOT as an example of how the Federal guidance for the Safe 

Routes to School program has been interpreted at the State level. 

KDOT started their Safe Routes to School program in early 2006, 

just months after receiving guidance from FHWA. The leadership 

at KDOT supported this program from the beginning and, knowing 

that there wouldn’t be much time to prove its viability during the 

life of SAFETEA-LU, moved aggressively to start their program. 

After a public information campaign and an application process, 

KDOT selected its first 24 Safe Routes to School projects in October 

of 2006, just six months after starting our program. In the year 

since that time, KDOT has worked aggressively to educate the public about the holistic nature of the Safe Routes to School program 

and has selected over 20 more projects in its second year of funding. 

The flexibility of the program guidance which FHWA provided 

for the Safe Routes to School program has allowed us to fund over 

10 non-traditional recipients of transportation funding, including 

school districts and non-profit organizations. The flexibility of the 

guidance has also allowed us to appropriately fund programs at all 

levels. Our smallest programs focus on single school initiatives 

where there are specific traffic or safety concerns that are not allowing children to walk or bicycle to school. Our largest programs 

are being implemented with two of the metropolitan planning organizations in Kansas. These programs focus on regional programming such as Walking School Bus programs and safety education. 

13

When I speak to local communities, they have found that the 

Safe Routes to School program works. A specific interaction that reminded me of the importance of these types of programs occurred 

when I met with leaders from a small town in Southeastern Kansas two weeks ago. I asked them why they needed a program like 

Safe Routes to School, why it was important to them. They said 

that their city of around 1500 people was on the verge of dying. 

Their population was aging and their children were leaving for college or better opportunities. Special programs like Safe Routes to 

School would help enable city leadership to encourage families to 

move back to this town to raise their children. 

Increased livability factors would encourage industries to locate 

near this town, creating more jobs and opportunities for folks to 

live there. Having a more walkable community would allow their 

aging population to maintain their independence, instead of perhaps having to leave their home and their town for care facilities. 

In my opinion, rural communities are where this program is having the most impact. The programs that occur in the cities and in 

suburban areas are doing well and they are very necessary, and 

they have been very successful in Kansas. But the $250,000 in a 

city that we provide, if there is 100,000 people or so, it isn’t having 

a very big impact on overall traffic patterns. Two hundred fifty 

thousand dollars in a town with a relatively small population has 

a massive lasting effect; it has the type of impact that can galvanize an entire town to change their future. 

In my conversations with other Safe Routes to School coordinators, there is agreement that the Safe Routes to School program is 

working. They appreciate the flexible nature of the program because it allows for creativity and for programs to meet the needs 

of their constituents. 

The common complaints from coordinators are that more funding 

is needed to meet the needs of their applicants. In Kansas, we turn 

down over half of applicants due to limited funding, and we have 

very strict application requirements that we get fantastic applications, and we have to turn down quite a few. 

Coordinators also think that the Federal aid requirements are 

too extensive for such a low cost program. The small towns that I 

work with do not have the staff to work through this process; 

therefore, projects have to be let through the State Department of 

Transportation, which extend the time line of projects and make 

them more expensive. Also, these daunting requirements cause 

some people not to apply for funds, those programs that we are trying to target. 

In closing, I would like to thank Chairman DeFazio for providing 

me with the opportunity to testify today. On behalf of the 51 Safe 

Routes to School programs, I would like to publicly acknowledge 

the fantastic work of the Safe Routes to School affiliated staff at 

the Federal Highway Administration Headquarters and at the 

State divisions. I would also like to acknowledge the impeccable 

work of Lauren and her staff at the National Center for Safe 

Routes to School. The work that they do in assisting the State coordinators is extraordinary and will have a lasting effect on the Safe 

Routes to School movement. 

14

Again, thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions 

that you might have. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Ms. Koch. 

We will now turn to the first round of questions. 

Ms. Marchetti, one of the clearinghouse jobs is to develop and 

share best practices to make certain States are using their funding 

in the most effective way and we are not recreating the wheel, so 

to speak, or the path, or whatever. Can you give us a few examples 

of best practices that you have found that are being replicated and 

working well? 

Ms. MARCHETTI. We are in the process of collecting case studies. 

We have 35 now that are going up on our website probably within 

the week, and many of these involve looking at how schools are reducing speeds, because the speed at which a child is hit greatly influences whether or not they can survive a crash. We are also looking at encouragement programs. We have got documentation of a 

program in Tucson, for instance, that through education was able 

to increase the walking and biking to school by 300 percent. 

The safety strategies are harder to evaluate, and that is why we 

are very excited about this tracking program we are setting up. We 

are hoping that the majority of States will get their schools to collect both travel data and parent concern data that will help us—

and also what the strategies are, and then we will be able to do 

supplemental evaluation so that we can understand what works for 

safety. We feel confident we are going to learn what works to encourage kids to walk and bike, but we need to do very specific evaluations to understand what are the strategies and what are the engineering treatments that will be of most value. So it is an ongoing 

process, but we have got some. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. We look forward to those new postings. 

Ms. Hubsmith, you mentioned in your testimony about the delay 

in project implementation after the grants are announced, the 

problems with both administrative fees and the time involved. Do 

you have any proposals on how to deal with that to make it better? 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. One of the possibilities might be to be able to set a threshold for a certain amount 

of funding that if a project was $250,000 or less, that there might 

be able to be a streamlined process for implementation of those 

grant awards. My understanding is that Title 23 requires about 12 

different forms of paperwork that need documentation related to 

archeological resources, noise, dirt, a variety of different things. We 

believe that the rigorous accountability for this program is extremely important. It is also important to recognize that most of 

these improvements are taking place in an existing built environment, and that when it costs sometimes as much to do the administrative fees as it does to implement something like a speed bump, 

that we need to find a way to be more effective. 

In addition, another technique that is being used is the bundling 

of projects, and I believe that might be one of the best practices 

that the national center may discover. I know that the State of 

Massachusetts has worked to allow for one contractor to implement 

their infrastructure projects throughout the State, and for bundling 

them in that way they have been able to reduce administrative fees 

per project and do them overall. That may work in smaller States, 

15

but I don’t see that working in a State such as California, that is 

so big and spread out. So some sort of changes to Title 23 would 

be helpful, possibly related to the amount of funding that is required if it is taking place in a built environment. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Mr. Bricker, you mentioned bundling also in your testimony. Is 

there any particular difference? You heard Ms. Hubsmith mention 

it can work, but in the larger States, with the tremendous dispersion, perhaps not so well. What about the Oregon experience? You 

mentioned that. They are a large land area, too. 

Mr. BRICKER. Yes, thank you, Chairman DeFazio. We are a large 

land area, especially in some areas not much population. The bundling the way Oregon has proposed it, I had mentioned that the 

Safe Routes Advisory Committee in Oregon had actually recommended smaller projects, so we really are hoping, with only $1 

million a year, and maybe 70 percent of that for infrastructure, was 

hoping to only fund smaller, $250,000 projects or less. So the idea 

of bundling was, within a community, if you had applications for 

more than one school, so, for example, if Eugene was going to apply 

for three or four schools, each school might have $100,000 worth 

of improvements, that they would try and bundle those applications 

into one bunch so they could all be reviewed at once. So it was 

more of community-by-community than it was the whole State with 

one contractor. And that would really only work for the larger communities, so for the smaller communities they would be handicapped with this process, and, again, I do want to emphasize the 

idea of a streamlining approach. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. 

Ms. Koch, on Kansas, obviously, you have a rural challenge here. 

How well does the program work in these more rural areas and 

what are the needs there that we could meet? 

Ms. KOCH. We are finding that this program is extraordinarily 

successful in rural communities, which was a surprise to us. The 

research that we have seen from past programs funded through our 

past transportation funding, they have all been suburban and 

urban. So this was kind of a new opportunity for us to see if it 

works. 

The most important thing we have had to do is make sure that 

we are reaching to these communities. A lot of rural communities 

all over the Country don’t feel like Federal funding is intended for 

them, so it was important for us to make sure that they understood 

that we were helping them. We wanted them to be participating. 

We took trainings to their location; we didn’t force them to go to 

the big cities to go to trainings. We provided tons of technical assistance. We created opportunities for them to start their program 

at a planning process. If they have never done anything before, we 

would provide them opportunities to plan using our funds. If they 

have already had a planning process, they can go towards implementation. 

The most important thing that we have found with our rural 

communities in Kansas is that our poverty rates are extraordinarily high. They are as high as a lot of our inner city areas in 

Kansas. So it is important that we are focusing on these areas. 

16

They don’t have the tax base to fix potholes, let alone make improvements to make pedestrian areas safer. 

We are also dealing with a lot of aging infrastructure. So there 

are so many challenges in rural communities that can really be 

benefitted by this program. Plus the fact that you are dealing with 

a smaller area where people are wanting to have their kids have 

great qualities of life; that is why they live in these kinds of areas. 

The schools that I work with know every single child and their parents on every street in the community that they live, and this is 

the most important thing that they can do for their kids, and they 

are overwhelmingly supportive. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. Thank you. Thanks for that perspective. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

TEA-21 required that each State establish a coordinator for bicycling and pedestrian activities. Have you seen any overlapping between the coordinator for that and the coordinator for the Safe 

Routes to School program? Are they doing the same type of work? 

Ms. MARCHETTI. I will be happy to address that first. I find them 

to be partners. The ped-bike coordinators have been in place for a 

while, they have a lot of understanding of how to get things done 

in their States in the general area, and the Safe Routes to School 

coordinators often work with the ped-bike coordinators. I feel that 

the combination of interest and passion enables both to progress 

even more. But I am seeing a lot of working together and not any 

overlap that isn’t positive. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Several years ago I joined with a Democratic colleague and got a program started in the Department of Education 

that we originally called the Smaller Schools Initiative, and this 

was designed to give grants to communities to try to help them 

keep smaller schools open that otherwise would have had to close. 

The name of the program has been changed and some things have 

been added to it, but it was my belief then and concern that our 

schools were getting too big and that, in big schools, young people 

were just numbers and didn’t have a chance to make ball teams or 

be presidents of clubs or cheerleaders or whatever. And I had read 

that in 1930 the average size school in this Country had a little 

over 100 students. Now, of course, it is much, much bigger, and 

parents keep demanding brand new schools, but then they generally make those schools bigger and further away from students. 

I am just wondering if there is not some way that—I think a 

child is better off to go to school in an older building, as long as 

it is clean and well lit and safe, than they are to go to some big 

giant school far away from their home. I am just wondering if there 

is some way that you can join your activities, because it is going 

to be harder to walk and bicycle to schools if we keep moving these 

schools further and further away from the students. I mean, those 

are just some thoughts, I guess, not really so much a question. Any 

comments? 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Yes, Ranking Member Duncan. Thank you very 

much for bringing that up and for initiating that small schools initiative. I agree with you 100 percent that students are learning 

better in smaller schools, and there are studies that are supporting 

that as well. One of the things that we are noticing through the 

17

Safe Routes to School program and the fact that it is creating a 

dialogue between cities and school districts that traditionally have 

not communicated with each other on a regular basis is that it is 

helping to lead to discussions about issues such as school siting, because there has been a change in recent years. In 1970, about 50 

percent of children in the United States lived within two miles of 

their school, and now that is only 33 percent of students. So by creating this Safe Routes to School program and opening up that dialogue, there are now discussions that are going on about school 

siting master plans and how that can interrelate. 

For example, in California, one of the things that has happened 

because of the Safe Routes to School program and the fact that we 

received a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to 

focus on barriers to children walking and bicycling to school is that 

we are able to broaden our approach to take a look at issues such 

as school siting, and we have come under advisement that the California Department of Education is currently revising their application guidelines right now for school siting. So we have brought together a coalition that includes a variety of different organizations, 

including the California Department of Public Health, to work together with the California Department of Education and the California Department of Transportation to make sure that as the Department of Education is revising their guidelines, that they are 

keeping in mind the fact that transportation to the school is important and that the size of the school is important, and that we 

should be having incentives to renovate older schools that are within walkable neighborhoods. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask you this. You said today only one 

third live within two miles of their school. What was the front end 

of that statistics, in 1970? 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Fifty percent. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Fifty percent. 

Well, let me just say one other thing. We have gotten this annual 

report and everything in there is good. I have got no criticism when 

I say this. But having said that, everything in there refers to documentation, data collection, evaluation, surveys, conferences, meetings, training, creation of web sites, a Safe Routes to School library, a toll-free line, e-mail, a question and answer database, all 

that kind of stuff. Now, what I am getting at is this. I am sure that 

in the creation of a new program all that had to be done, but I hope 

that if we have a hearing on this a year from now, we won’t hear 

about all this surveys and studies and data collection and libraries 

and conferences, but what we will hear about is actual projects, actual safe routes being created. 

This Committee has been referred to many times over the years 

as the Build America Committee, and at some point we want all 

these studies and data collection to stop and actual highways to be 

built, or actual runways to be built, or actual water projects to be 

completed. Do you see what I am getting at? I hope that if you 

come back a year or two from now in a hearing we won’t hear 

about all this paperwork and all this bureaucracy, we will hear 

about actual projects, actual safe routes that have been created. So 

I hope you will make that your goal. 

18

Ms. MARCHETTI. Thank you, sir. That is our report and I can explain that. You are absolutely right. What we recognize, though, is 

that we got started after the States were already starting their programs, having their State coordinators, and our biggest concern 

was that this is the one chance some communities are going to 

have to build something that could be there forever, and we wanted 

to make sure that they had the expertise and the knowledge to 

make their own decisions——

Mr. DUNCAN. But what I am saying is this: It is good that you 

have done all this, but now that we have done it, let’s move to the 

next level. Let’s move to the next step and let’s get some actual 

safe routes done. 

Ms. MARCHETTI. Absolutely. 

Mr. DUNCAN. That is what I want to hear. 

Ms. MARCHETTI. We feel like we have got the information place 

now and it is time to get going. 

Mr. DUNCAN. You can just flood yourself with so much information and nothing ever gets done. I mean, you know, we can read 

about these bills and these issues for years and we can study them, 

but nothing ever gets done if you don’t do anything but read, study, 

and collect data. You have got to act at some point.. 

Ms. MARCHETTI. One last thing I would like to say to support 

what you are saying. The other piece of paper we placed in the 

folders was a summary showing that early States were spending 

funds at 80 percent of available funding. This money is already out 

the door, has been awarded. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, as long as it is out the door, though, to create—see, if the States are doing the same thing and they are doing 

paperwork and creating web sites and data collection and all that. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. I thank the gentleman. 

Did I see you grasping? All right, Ms. Koch, go ahead. 

Ms. KOCH. Yes. I just want to speak on behalf of the States. The 

States that have funded programs are not laden in paperwork. We 

have 24 projects we funded last year. Most of those are planning, 

but we are doing some projects that are hitting the ground, that 

involve construction and getting kids out there. The things that are 

happening with the National Center for Safe Routes to School are 

a low amount of funding in relation to the projects that are being 

created, and 40 of our States are already in the process of funding 

and getting projects on the ground. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Good. Thank you very much. 

Now I have got to, unfortunately, slip out to another hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I understand the gentleman has a very important 

hearing to go to. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman leaves, I 

plead guilty to insisting on the reports, the documentation, establishment of a database, tracking, and accountability. That was 

something I insisted on, that we would be able then to track the 

results of this program, leading up to exactly what the gentleman 

is talking about, what are the results of Safe Routes to School? Are 

you putting in traffic calming? Are you doing crosswalks? Are you 

building sidewalks, putting in traffic lights at schools? And there 

19

are numerous examples of these success stories already reported 

through this documentation. The program is, I think, through the 

documentation stage and ready, and will now be reporting on the 

implementation. I have a number of such projects in my own district, but I know that Ms. Marchetti’s testimony, Ms. Hubsmith’s 

testimony, and that of Ms. Koch relates several exemplary sample 

success stories. 

So the gentleman’s concern is rightly taken, but I will plead 

guilty to the insistence on documentation because I felt it was, at 

the outset, to set up a documented database and a tracking for this 

program so that we can ave the accountability that the gentleman 

is asking for. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I will just say this. I think the Chairman 

knows that nobody in the Congress admires and respects him more 

than I do, and if you notice that when I first started that I said 

I think that all that was necessary and good that we collect that; 

I am just saying that now I hope we don’t get bogged down in the 

paperwork so that we don’t accomplish the good things that the 

Chairman wanted us to accomplish through this program. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Rightly said and rightly taken. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for that clarification. 

The gentleman from Iowa. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the members of the panel and members of the audience, I 

have the privilege of serving as the Vice Chair of this Subcommittee, which means I spend most of my time getting coffee 

and making copies for Mr. DeFazio. 

But I also am very privileged to represent the Field of Dreams, 

where the saying ‘‘if you build it, they will come’’ became part of 

our national dialogue. And I think that applies to the Safe Routes 

to School program. One of my big frustrations is that so many of 

the decisions on Safe Routes to Schools are impacted by local jurisdictions and how they have local zoning ordinances and building 

codes that can influence whether or not sidewalks are built on 

passways to schools, and one of the things I would like to hear 

about from the panel is what you have learned from the work that 

has been funded to date on this program about the intersection of 

Federal policies and local building codes and what additional work 

needs to be done to bridge that gap. 

But I am also very concerned about how this is playing out. I 

happen to represent a district that has urban schools, suburban 

schools, and many rural schools. Having grown up in a town of 

1500 and being one of the 42 percent of students who walked or 

rode a bicycle to school in 1969, when I was in sixth grade, I realize 

that there are vastly different challenges when you are dealing 

with Safe Routes to School in urban areas contrasted with rural 

areas. 

So I would like to open it up to the members of the panel to comment on those two topics, and I will yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. BRICKER. Thank you for your comments and questions. I can 

really only give my experience in Oregon, but I think it might relate to Iowa and other communities. 

In my experience, at least from the local level, the major intersection that tends to not happen is between the schools and the 

20

road authorities. The road authorities tend to be county and the 

city governments, and sometimes State governments, and the 

schools tend to have their own elected board with making independent decisions, and the coordination between the two is tenuous, at best. 

As a transportation advocate, for the last 10 years I have been 

going to transportation meetings from the State to the local to the 

regional. I mentioned that Oregon spends $300 million a year on 

school bus funding. That is a lot. That is a lot of transit service, 

and I never have seen school bus or school transportation represented. In my experience, the land use decisions made by schools, 

while it has to fit within zoning codes and whatnot of local authorities, they are not necessarily vetted in the same way that if you 

were a public agency, that you are going to make your decisions. 

The implications on the transportation system, the burden on the 

transportation system that schools might be generating by locating 

a school further out because they want a larger piece of land is not 

necessarily vetted through the city the way it would be if you were 

responsible for both the roads and the schools. So, in my experience—and I am less experienced about how the Federal policies 

work within that, but that intersection is one of the major things 

that is missing from just a political standpoint. 

I don’t know how it works in Iowa, but in Oregon the school bus 

funding goes all through the State. So every school district is reimbursed between 70 percent and 90 percent of their school bus funding, whether you spend $1 or $1 million or $10 million. The incentive to actually reduce the school busing cost is very low. So even 

if you build a new school and it doubles your school busing cost, 

if you are only paying 30 percent or 20 percent of those costs, there 

is not much incentive to bring that school back. 

So that is my experience, and I don’t know if that helps at all. 

Ms. KOCH. Speaking on behalf of a State DOT, I just want to 

thank you for your input and let you know that in the State of 

Kansas, when we do cite reviews to fund programs, one of the most 

important questions we ask is if they have local subdivision regulations that support this program. If we build something and then 

they build new subdivisions and they don’t have any requirements 

for modernization of their roadway facilities or sidewalk improvements or improvements at intersections, then we are going to lose 

that program once it gets into that neighborhood. So that is a very 

important part of our decision-making process, to ensure that what 

we start with our seed money is encouraged through their city-wide 

and county funding. 

Also, Kansas does have very stringent guidelines for this program, so I can’t speak on behalf of all State DOT programs, but 

we take that very seriously. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

And I thank the gentleman for that question. 

The gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I regret 

that the gentleman from Iowa admitted he was in the sixth grade 

in 1969. That is very demoralizing. What did you say, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You weren’t even born then, were you, Howard? 

21

Mr. COBLE. No comment. 

Good to have you all with us. 

Ms. Marchetti, in your testimony you included a breakdown of 

program activity from various States, but our State was not included. Can you give us some information as to how the program 

has been implemented in North Carolina and the results thereof? 

Ms. MARCHETTI. Yes, sir, thank you. North Carolina was off to 

a great start in the example of the pedestrian and bicycle coordinator working with the Safe Routes to School coordinator. That 

was going quite well. Unfortunately, the person who was in the position, who had already started doing a lot of training across the 

State, had to leave the position and a new person has started, and 

that is one of the reasons why North Carolina’s results don’t show 

up as a lot of other States do. However, the commitment of the pedestrian and bicycle coordinator, combined with the new Safe 

Routes to School coordinator, they have already started doing programs and we are going to start seeing some things on the ground 

very shortly. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

Ms. Hubsmith, do you have data that supports your statement 

that the Safe Routes to School program will decrease energy use 

and reduce carbon emissions? I don’t doubt that that is accurate, 

but do you have data to support that? 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Thank you very much for asking. The program 

has been proven to decrease the number of cars that are arriving 

at some schools, and by decreasing the number of cars, calculations 

can be made that energy is being saved and carbon emissions are 

being reduced. These are the types of things that we are looking 

to be able to calculate more fully as the program is implemented 

more in the future, and it is one of the reasons why we put in place 

the rigorous tracking system. My information from this is coming 

from many programs that have been implemented in California 

that has had a program for many years and has shown that we are 

decreasing the number of cars that are coming to schools and then, 

by proxy, energy and carbon emissions are being decreased as well. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that. 

Mr. Bricker or Ms. Koch, either one, I am told that parents, in 

many instances, have expressed concern that their children may be 

at risk, as far as safety is concerned, while biking or walking to 

school. How can the Safe Routes to School program address those 

concerns? 

Ms. KOCH. This is certainly what we are seeing in a lot of our 

data that we collect from parents, that they have concerns about 

traffic safety. But a lot of those concerns that they have are about 

personal safety, about kidnapping or bullying, or other things that 

they can’t prevent if they are not there. Something that we really 

promote with the Safe Routes to School program are group walking 

or biking, Walking School Bus programs, bicycle trains, where children are accompanied to school with adults that the parents know, 

adults that have gone through background checks, so that they 

know that they are legitimate volunteers of the school district or 

the city, that they have obligation to get those kids to school safely 

and consistently. That is one way that we do it. 

22

We understand this is a concern. We honor that concern those 

parents have and we work with our local communities to ensure 

that they have the set of skills they need to create programs that 

meet those concerns and that the kids can still get there walking 

and biking. 

Mr. COBLE. Do you want to add anything to that, Mr. Bricker? 

Mr. BRICKER. She did a great job. 

Mr. COBLE. Good. 

Mr. Marchetti, you indicate that between 5 percent and 51 percent of students live within walking distance to their schools. Let 

me put a two-part question to you. How do you define walking distance, and why is the range so wide that it is 5 percent to 51 percent? 

Ms. MARCHETTI. Thank you, sir. The walking distance is considered one mile, especially for younger children. 

Mr. COBLE. One mile? 

Ms. MARCHETTI. One mile is walking distance to school. Bicycling 

distance is considered more, two to three miles. The range is because we still have some community schools, we still have some 

consolidated schools. The point there is that there are some schools 

where as many as 50 percent of the children, with proper environment and encouragement, could be walking and we could be reducing the congestion around the school. 

I would like to make a quick comment about when we were talking about school siting. We used to have schools that had an average of 150 students per school. We have gone to such extremes that 

one State had a campus so large that they were busing students 

from one building to the other. That State has since rescinded their 

acreage rules for schools. 

What we would like to see is go away from the 5 percent schools 

and go more to the larger percent that could be walking and 

biking. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one more question. I 

know my red light is on. 

To any of the panelists, what percentage of school children 

walked to school or biked to school prior to the implementation of 

the Safe Routes to School program, and what is the percentage 

today, if you know that? 

Ms. MARCHETTI. I will take that question. It is a very good question. Unfortunately, it is a question everyone would like to have 

answered, and we are just now in the process of trying to figure 

it out. The tally forms that we have produced would enable schools 

to ask students two days during a one-week period a year how did 

you get to school, and this way we would be the first to start getting that kind of information. If we can get comparison sites, then 

we would be able to understand what schools who haven’t had this 

opportunity are experiencing versus what the schools that do have 

the opportunity. 

So we are in the process of understanding that, but that is a universal question that people have been asking and wanting to find 

solutions to. 

Mr. COBLE. If you could get that to us, we would appreciate that. 

Thank you. 

Ms. MARCHETTI. Yes. 

23

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. I would just ask the gentleman she said the biking distance was three to five miles. I was 

wondering on the penny-farthing bikes in the gentleman’s day, how 

far could you ride one of those big things? 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Oregon is giving me a hard 

time, but he is doing it with a smile on his face. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Baird, do you have any questions? 

Mr. BAIRD. Just very briefly. I just came back from a weekend 

in London and noticed a tremendous amount of people bicycle commuting. Forgive me for coming in late, but have you talked about 

how our kids get to school relative to young people in other nations? Where do we stand? If you have already covered it, forgive 

me for asking. I am familiar with Holland and other places. Everybody is riding bikes. In London, we just saw lots of bikes on the 

streets, and this was on the city streets. 

Ms. MARCHETTI. I would like to make a quick comment on that. 

I was just at a conference yesterday in Toronto on Active and Safe 

Routes to School. It was an international conference and, oddly 

enough, people from the U.K. and Canada were asking how we 

were getting our good program started. They do have great experiences, but they are also starting to see some problems coming up. 

One of the issues that we discussed yesterday was that as they 

make it easier for parents to drop off their kids in cars, they are 

seeing a decrease in walking and biking. They are very concerned 

about that and looking for solutions. 

So we are all sort of on a continuum. They had early successes. 

Then, they did something that is reducing their successes, and we 

are hopefully learning from each other that way. 

Mr. BAIRD. We had a hearing on a Committee I Chair, Research 

and Science Subcommittee, on how social sciences inform energy 

consumption policies, and very subtle differences in the wording of 

persuasive messages can make 30 percent, 40 percent differences 

in such mundane things as recycling towels in hotels. Are you incorporating any social science research in your strategy to encourage use of bikes or walking to school? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BAIRD. That is not a good sign. 

Ms. KOCH. I guess I can speak to that. A lot of what we do is 

trying to change social behaviors, and if we can make walking or 

biking social activities, activities that have positive connotations, 

rather than negative connotations, we find research that shows 

that when people see adult pedestrians or adult bicyclists, they 

have negative connotations about those people: that they are poor, 

that they don’t have access to vehicles, that they are part of our 

society that we are throwing away. If we can change that through 

positive messages at a young age, then we can incorporate that as 

they get older and make it a more positive message so that people 

will want to walk or bike, they will choose that. 

The most important thing we do with Safe Routes to School is 

enable people to make a choice. We don’t want to force anyone to 

do anything, but we want to give them that opportunity so that 

they can make lifetime behavioral changes. 

24

Mr. BRICKER. If I may follow up, Mr. Baird. In Portland we started working on a program called Smart Trips—it is actually a European program that had a slightly different name—and for the last 

four years in Portland bicycling has been increasing exponentially. 

We have a pretty well built-out bicycle network, and in the last 

four years we have been promoting the bicycle network, as opposed 

to substantially increasing the bicycle network, and what we have 

found is that by just giving messages to households that there is 

a significant reduction in automobile trips; just by asking people 

are you interested, and then when they say, yes, I am interested, 

giving them more information and support. And I truthfully forget 

the data, but it is something like a decrease of 9 percent in automobile trips and, as I mentioned bicycling is increasing exponentially. In Portland right now, a lot of the effort is marketing. 

We are also, at the same time, learning new strategies. We have 

learned that people prefer to bicycle in larger numbers together. 

We have learned that people prefer to bicycle in low traffic streets, 

as opposed to the really busy streets, so we are talking on new 

strategies to even try to increase. So I think part of this is that, 

really, we are in sort of a young profession, really, in 1991, in 

ISTEA, where we really started working on bicycling. So some of 

this stuff is young, but I think that we are getting some data collection. 

Ms. HUBSMITH. And if I just may add, I think we all needed to 

think for a moment because it was such a good question. One of 

the hallmarks of this program is that it gives flexibility to the 

DOTs to fund infrastructure improvements between 70 percent and 

90 percent, and non-infrastructure improvements between 10 percent and 30 percent. So the DOTs are working together, and many 

of them, even though it is not a Federal requirement, have formed 

advisory committees. In fact, 36 of the States have formed advisory 

committees that bring together the Department of Public Health 

with Education with law enforcement in order to work on issues 

such as that. Many times, Departments of Public Health have done 

a lot of research around messaging, which is why it is really important to bring them in. 

At the local level, as well, the program is based on the five Es, 

and every community determines how to implement those Es, 

which are Evaluation, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, 

and Engineering. And while a program is different whether it is in 

a rural area, suburban area, or an urban area, the common practice is bringing the community together to address how to realize 

those five Es, and with Evaluation being the first one, it is really 

important to survey the parents as to what it would make them do 

to change their behavior. So messaging is often incorporated on the 

State level, on the local level based on the concerns of the community, and then also based on the grade level that you are working 

with. 

We found that this program serves K through 8. The K through 

5 children, elementary school, are reacting in many ways to their 

parents, so messaging is detailed a lot more toward the parents. 

When you get toward middle school, many times you will work 

through student leadership groups to have the students develop the 

messages and then to bring those messages to their students, beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:31 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38250 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
25

cause they are very influenced from their peers. So there is a lot 

of work that is being done with that to tailor the messaging. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate that very much. That is good news. I 

would just encourage, also, to look at the literature in this field. 

One of the studies that we had—and my staff will get you this, but 

a gentleman was looking at—I mentioned about towel usage in hotels. Well, they were able to increase towel recycling by 34 percent 

by just changing the message, and here is the take-home point that 

is troubling: none of the messages that they found most effective 

were actually being used by any of the hotels. The hotels were saying if you recycle your towels, you will save energy, you will save 

the planet, the world would be a better place, we sing Kumbaya, 

basically. 

What they found was that the most effective message was everybody else is doing it, you don’t want to be the guy who isn’t. I 

mean, that is paraphrased, but the point being wrong messaging 

can actually be counterproductive, even if you think it is right. And 

if we have got some good literature on this, good data, empirical 

studies would actually put different messages. 

They actually found, similarly, at Petrified National Forest, the 

signs that were intended to cause people to not take petrified rocks 

from the forest actually increased theft; whereas, a different 

version actually decreased it. So you want to be careful and hopefully disseminate that. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for that observation. 

Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am fascinated by this 

whole conversation here, about how to encourage students to walk 

or bike to school, do it safely. I mean, my own household is a classic example of this. My children take the bus to school, even 

though I try to tell them it is only a couple hundred yards further 

to the school to walk. You are going in the right direction and I 

lose all these articles at home, so I realize what you are up against 

trying to persuade people. But it has been a continuing frustration 

for me, just in my own household, to talk about the benefits of 

walking to school when, in fact, it seems to be socially fun to ride 

the bus, as opposed to walk. These are just the issues that I face 

in my household. Yours are much greater. 

I just wanted to ask you a question, Ms. Hubsmith, if I could. 

You may have touched on this already, and if you have, I apologize. 

Do you have any kind of quantitative data that can support your 

statement that Safe Routes to School programs will decrease energy use and reduce carbon emissions? Do you have any data on 

that up to this point? 

Ms. HUBSMITH. At this point, right now, what we are doing is we 

are gathering data, and my statement about that was based on 

some of the early implementation of programs prior to SAFETEALU. In California we have seen that the program has increased 

walking and biking in the range of 20 percent to 200 percent and 

has improved safety up to 49 percent. By increasing the walking 

and biking, we have decreased the number of automobile trips, and 

calculations can be made about the miles that students are from 

26

school and, as a result, how much energy and how much carbon is 

being decreased. 

Through the tracking system that the National Center for Safe 

Routes to School is putting in place, we will be able to learn much 

more about how this pans out with the implementation of the 

SAFETEA-LU program, and we look forward to providing more of 

that hard data to you in the future, which is one of the reasons 

why we have worked so hard on evaluation and data. 

I would add that one of the things I mentioned in my earlier testimony is that we would really like to work together with Congress 

to have even more rigorous systems for data collection, and we feel 

that we can be collecting data as part of the census, as part of the 

National Household Travel Survey, and also finding ways, when 

FHWA collects data from States, to add in more information about 

collecting data related to schools. We know that Congress is moving 

more toward a performance-based analysis for transportation systems, and we are all in favor of that. We would really like to have 

your help in terms of being able to further quantify these things 

because we know they are working. 

Mr. DENT. Also with respect to quantifiable data, I think you 

stated that up to 30 percent of the morning rush hour traffic is 

generated by parents who are driving their children to schools. You 

said that earlier, did you not? 

Ms. HUBSMITH. I did. Thank you. These are data that come from 

local communities, it is not data that is collected at the State level. 

In Marin County, California, where I am from, they determined 

that between 21 percent and 27 percent in the morning traffic is 

parents driving their children to school. That is from the Transportation Authority of Marin. Similarly, in Santa Rosa, their traffic 

engineer says it is the same number. And we are seeing similar 

types of studies in other communities. 

These are done on a community-by-community type basis because the data is not supported at the State level yet. 

Mr. DENT. I don’t doubt the data, it seems logical to me, just my 

observations dealing with taking kids to school and watching the 

morning traffic patterns in my community. I wouldn’t be surprised 

by that number. But I guess the follow-up to that would be if these 

parents are dropping their children off on the way to way to work 

or to run some other errand, do you think this program is going 

to have a real impact on reducing congestion? 

Ms. HUBSMITH. I do think that it will. In fact, in Marin County, 

California, what we were able to see is that, consecutively, every 

year we have seen a 13-point percent decrease in traffic congestion 

around the schools because we are reversing the way that children 

are coming to school. By making it safer for students to walk and 

bicycle, and especially by incorporating improvements like the 

Walking School Bus, where one parent will walk with the group of 

children together, coupled with engineering improvements and adding in law enforcement, police officers that are out there on the 

street and enforcing the speed limit, we are able to show a decrease 

in traffic congestion around schools, which also then improves air 

quality, and it creates sort of a cyclic effect because as more people 

begin walking and bicycling, others begin to want to do it as well, 

and it is really something that helps create a positive momentum 

27

within the community when we get law enforcement and other infrastructure improvements involved. 

Mr. DENT. Well, thank you. This panel has done a great job of 

informing me so I can go back home at the end of this week and 

instruct my children and wife that it is better to walk to school, 

for a lot of reasons that you have identified. Now I have empirical 

data to back it up, so thank you for that. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The gentleman might consult with the resident 

psychologist on the most persuasive techniques for that messaging. 

Mr. DENT. I have already done so. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Oh, okay. All right. 

I turn now to the Full Committee Chairman, Mr. Oberstar, for 

his questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dent, thank you for those questions and comments, and for 

your own personal experience. I will give you an example from Sacramento, where my son lives. Son Ted, when he was in high school, 

was a trainer for the football team and he wanted to drive the family car to practice. I put a backpack on my back, got on my bike, 

and pedaled with him to school to show him it could be done. He 

is now a father of two. He gets on his bike with my granddaughter, 

Kathryn Jo, and they pedal from their home about a block and pick 

up Kathryn’s friend, Sierra, and then they pedal another block and 

they pick up their friend Jackson, for Jackson Hole—this is California; they are named for mountain ranges and things—and then 

they pick up another couple of children and then they cross this 

100-foot street to the school, and Ted then pedals on to CalTrans, 

California Transportation Department, where he works. 

What do you suppose Kathryn is going to be doing 20 years from 

now? She is going to be biking with her children to school. And in 

the process, crossing that 100-foot street, Ted observed that the 

apartments and condos and single-family homes on the one side, 

children were being bused less than a quarter of a mile, just the 

example that you gave, to this school. He said, that is crazy, why 

are they doing this? So he met with the city planning department 

to get a traffic calming and traffic lights and they said, oh, we can’t 

do it, we don’t have the money. So Ted figured out how to do it. 

And he also went out and got a city councilman elected, school 

board member elected, and a mayor elected to enforce all these 

things, and they changed it. They now have traffic calming, they 

have traffic lights, the kids from the apartments and so on are now 

biking and walking to school. It takes a lot, but you can change the 

habits. 

Mr. BRICKER. Will the Chairman yield? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. BRICKER. One thing I have noticed about this issue, from a 

personal perspective, is my wife is concerned about security. There 

seems to be more security in going to the bus stop than walking 

to the school, even though I can see my child just walk to the door, 

practically. But there is some fear that something could happen on 

the streets. When I went to school, I always walked to school out 

of sight of my parents and much greater distances, but because of 

our society and the criminal element out there, there is such a fear 

28

among many parents. There seems to be security in numbers in the 

buses. 

I am not sure how you overcome that, but I am trying to talk 

to that psychologist for my wife to see if she can overcome some 

of those fears. It is just an issue that I just wanted to share with 

you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Absolutely, and that is why we started out with—

maybe we have to change the term to Securer Routes to School, because that really is what it is all about. When I was a elementary 

and junior and senior high school student walking to school, the 

worst we had to fear was an errant snowball being thrown in our 

direction. But not so anymore. 

The question has been asked what are the success stories, and 

Mr. Duncan raised the question about studies and reports. The 

education and the engineering part of the five E’s are foundational 

activities. You have to develop the database. You have to do the engineering. You have to do the education. As we learn from the 

Marin County experience and the Arlington, Massachusetts experience, you have to develop a base of information, design engineering 

and find the trouble spots, the traffic obstacles, the security questions, and address those with the infrastructure changes that are 

needed, with the training of students to safe practices in both walking and cycling, and then implement the infrastructure changes 

that are needed: sidewalks, traffic lights at key crossing areas, lowering traffic lights to eye level for walkers and cyclers. All those 

are in the works. This is foundational. 

But in Deb Hubsmith’s testimony there are at least four pages 

of success stories. In Idaho, until recently, children had no choice 

but to walk in the street because there were no sidewalks. There 

are now sidewalks being built. That makes a huge difference. 

In Michigan, 223 schools training 547 people in 100 school districts. More than half of the counties of Michigan are engaged in 

this foundational work of training, changing mind-sets, changing 

attitudes. That is hard to do, to change people’s attitudes, especially about walking and biking to school, but those things are 

being done. 

In Missouri, 160 children, six schools register for the Walking 

School Bus program and walk to school every day on 14 different 

routes. 

In Two Harbors, on the north shore of Lake Superior, in my congressional district, the city has had a school right on the shore of 

Lake Superior, spectacular view, but it is an 80 year old school 

building. They built a new one inland, on the other side of a major 

highway. Most of the people live on the east side of that highway. 

But the students said build us a trail, a round trip, so that we can 

bike and walk to school and come home by a different route, and 

with the help of some funding and in TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, 

that two mile bike trail and walking trail has been built, and it is 

in constant use. And when the kids are in school, the parents are 

out using the trail. I see them every time I get up to Two Harbors. 

In the southern end of my district, in Cambridge and Isanti, two 

small towns—well, Cambridge is not so small by our standards, it 

is 6,000 people now; Isanti is about 1,500, 2,000. But the children 

from Isanti go to school in Cambridge, four miles away. What sepaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:31 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38250 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
29

rates them is a wildlife waterfall wetland, otherwise known as a 

swamp. 

Well, they said why can’t we bike and walk to school? And if we 

could go through the wetland, it would also be interesting. And 

now they are doing that with an elevated wood four mile facility. 

Well, it is about two miles of elevated wood pathway, with appropriate railings, and then paved asphalt on the other ends. They 

love it. They are excited to get to school, to talk about muskrats 

and herons and geese and ducks that the have seen on the way. 

This is exciting and it is changing habits, and they are healthier 

and they are ready to learn when they get to school. 

In Marin County, Ms. Hubsmith, you didn’t state at all the success story. Tell us when you started Safe Routes to School and the 

percentage now that are participating. 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar. When we started the pilot program back in the year 2000, about 21 percent of 

children were walking and bicycling to school, and in my testimony 

I indicated that at the end of that first year there was a 64 percent 

increase in the number of students walking, a 114 percent increase 

in the number of students bicycling, a 91 percent increase in carpooling, and a 39 percent decrease in the number of students arriving by private car carrying only one student. 

And I will add that after the one year of funding from the Federal Government, the county did not want the program to end, so 

what happened after that was that the Marin Community Foundation chipped in some funding in order to make it possible to continue. Then the Bay Area Air Quality Management District provided a few years of funding. Then the funding was going to end 

because all of these funding streams were only allowed for one or 

two years. The county was looking for a way to deal with our aging 

infrastructure and was going to be launching a transportation sales 

tax in order to deal largely with roads and transit, and one of the 

things that they polled upon was how would people like to support 

a measure that included Safe Routes to School and enable that program to continue so it could be safe. It was one of the highest 

things that came up in the community poll. So they ended up dedicating 11 percent of the transportation sales taxing to the program. 

So our Marin County program is now in 45 of our schools, which 

is two thirds of our schools, and we are seeing a regular amount 

of decrease in the number of cars that are arriving at schools as 

a result of the program. It has been very successful and we are 

very grateful to have had the opportunity to work with the Federal 

Government to do that pilot. 

There has been a 13 percent decrease. And if you go to the web 

site tam.ca.gov, and then click under Programs for Safe Routes to 

School, there is about a 50 page evaluation report that substantiates how that has happened. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Those are just striking numbers and exciting 

numbers, and the goal is to replicate them all around the Country, 

and as the foundational work takes hold, the education work and 

all, that is going to happen. 

Mr. Bricker, I was struck by your observation that Oregon 

spends $300 million a year on bus transportation, over 50 percent 

of children are driven to school. I never thought about that. If we 

30

can reduce the amount of money that States and school districts 

are spending on school bus transportation. We, in fact, did get a 

good deal of push-back from the bus drivers organization and from 

private school bus companies that contract with school districts to 

provide schools: oh, you are going to take our business away from 

us. Well, I hope so. I hope so. But I have never seen it quantified 

before, and you have provided a great service to us. Have you 

heard any such push-back from the private or public school bus operators? 

Mr. BRICKER. Well, Chairman Oberstar, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this. This is one of those issues, as a bicycle 

advocate and lobbyist, and a pedestrian advocate and someone who 

is in the Capitol, this is something that is very, very challenging, 

as you can imagine. There is a lot of money in school busing, $300 

million, and there is a desire to make sure that every kid can get 

to school safely. So I want to acknowledge that every student 

should be able to get to school, and I believe that when the law in 

Oregon that basically required school busing was created, it was 

out of creation for every child to be able to get to school. 

However, the school bus fund is not eligible to fund—well, it is 

not clearly eligible to fund transportation projects that would reduce the cost, and I do believe we have not had success working 

with the school bus lobby on trying to shift some of those dollars. 

So if only 1 percent of those funds went, we would triple the 

amount of money we are getting for Safe Routes to School, and if 

10 percent, if we had $30 million a year to increase safety for 

schools around Oregon, we could significantly reduce the ongoing 

costs for school bus transportation. 

And the other thing to note on school bus transportation is the 

school buses are only half full. The way that they are created, they 

do these routes and half of the time kids are driven to school and 

half of the time they get on the bus. So, really, from a performance 

standpoint, it is not very clear how effective those funds are being 

used. So while school bus is a very safe way to get to school, an 

important way for kids who live miles and miles away from school, 

within the areas of one, two, or three miles, many kids are getting 

driven to school and many kids are getting bused because of the 

safety improvements. If we were able to flex some of those dollars, 

we would be able to reduce long-term costs, and I think that that 

would have appeal to most decision-makers. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. 

I will yield to the gentleman from Oregon. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Unfortunately, 

the No Child Left Behind Act may have a provision which will actually increase the use of busing, rather than decrease it, in that 

it mandates that if you are in a school that is deemed to be failing 

under AYP, the school actually has to set aside a trust fund, basically, that would be used to bus the kids to another school of their 

choice. I actually had the unfortunate experience of being at a 

school where the principal was in the process of laying off 24 paraprofessional educators because their salary, instead of being used 

to help educate the kids to help them succeed, had to be set aside 

for a fund to pay for the cost of busing to send kids to another 

school. And, by the way, that other school didn’t have to have demVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:31 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38250 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
31

onstrated any better success with that same population. So No 

Child Left Behind may actually, paradoxically, increase busing to 

other schools and, thereby, all the other side effects we have talked 

about today. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Maybe we can change this to No Bicyclist Left 

Behind. I thank you for that observation. One final comment, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Ms. Koch, I really appreciate your comments and observations 

about the experience in Kansas, physical changes around the school 

zone, soft-side elements, encouragement programs. Flexible nature 

of the program, that is what we intended it to be. We gave flexibility and you have shown how, in Kansas, that flexibility is serving the needs of constituents and tailoring the program to the varying needs of differing size communities. 

And I appreciate your observation about application to tribal governments, and I will follow up further on that matter. 

But your final paragraph, local communities, small town in 

Southeastern Kansas, why do they want this Safe Routes to School 

program? Because their city of 1500 people is on the verge of dying, 

and that a Safe Routes to School program would encourage families 

to move to the town to raise their children, and you create a—you 

call it a livability, I call it quality of life issue. If we can achieve 

that around this Nation, we will have accomplished something extraordinary. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for 

that inspiring statement. 

Mrs. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very interesting topic, 

Safe Routes to School. 

I represent West Virginia, and the trend in the educational system over the last, I would say, 20 years has been to consolidate 

schools to where, instead of an elementary school where you might 

have 150, 200 students, you might have as many as 800, 900 students. While that is a little rare in a State like West Virginia, I 

know in some of the larger, more urban areas it is very likely to 

be happening. So I think that presents challenges for anybody 

seeking to walk or have a bike route to the school. Do you find this 

to be a particular challenge? I will just throw the question open to 

anybody who might like to answer it. 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Yes, thank you. This is a big challenge, and 

through surveys that have been done by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, distance is the number one reason that 

there is an obstacle for walking or bicycling to school, and certainly 

the consolidation of schools and putting them further out on the 

edges of communities is something that is contributing toward the 

problem. 

There was an interesting analogy that was made from a colleague at the EPA that has talked about school siting, because if 

you look at the Safe Routes to School program, there are $612 million that is being spent nationally on the program over five years. 

If you look at the cost of school construction and siting schools, it 

is much, much greater than that. And he asked the question can 

the tail wag the dog, and, in effect, what we are doing is we are 

32

seeing that that is happening in some ways, that just the discussions that are being created at the State level, among the Department of Education and the Department of Transportation and the 

Department of Health around Safe Routes to School and the impacts of school siting and school consolidation, because we have 

this Federal funding and we are charging State DOTs with creating a program, that is influencing regulations that are being related to school siting. And because the program focuses on the five 

E’s at the local level, discussions need to be had with the school 

districts and the cities, who often don’t speak with each other. I 

mean, many times you will have a school district that decides to 

site its school in a certain location, and they don’t consult with the 

city’s master plan and their general plan before making that happen. 

This program, this small program is really creating those conversations, and hopefully one of the goals we can have emerge out 

of this as a positive consequence is that there can be more effort 

that is brought forward about the decisions of school siting, what 

that means in terms of walkability, what that means in terms of 

the neighborhood, what that means in terms of students’ ability to 

be able to learn. So we are hoping that the tail can wag the dog 

and change the habits of a generation. 

Ms. MARCHETTI. I would like to just briefly add to her comments. 

Observing at the national level what is going on in all the States, 

as a lot of communities were rushing toward building the larger 

schools, some communities are rushing back, because they are recognizing, what we thought was a good idea for these reasons have 

other unintended consequences that we don’t like. So some of what 

I am hearing is, you know, when we compare refurbishing this 

school with building this new school, nobody ever factors in transportation costs. That changes things. 

Other places are saying, you know, if we take this downtown 

school and refurbish it and include a library, a YMCA, a childcare 

center, whatever, we have created a community cluster that benefits everyone. 

So there is a lot of innovation out there right now; we have just 

got to get the word out. People are recognizing that accomplishing 

one good sometimes does some other things that you really never 

thought about. 

Mrs. CAPITO. I think that is an excellent point, and I do see that 

trend in my community of rather than trying to go to four schools 

together, maybe refining the schools that are existing. 

I was thinking about my own experience growing up. I mean, it 

just struck me. I used to walk to school, but I also walked home 

for lunch and walked back to school. And when I tell my own children that, they can’t believe that you can—I remember my mother 

made pancakes sometimes for lunch; they were so good. 

In any event, I think another challenge for students, particularly 

in the elementary school area, is the latchkey kid phenomenon, 

where, if a child is coming home after school, if they are walking 

home or biking home, more on their own without—I mean, our 

buses would not drop our kindergarten students unless I was 

standing there or an adult was standing there. That has got to be 

a challenge in terms of trying to develop programs around all the 

33

different times that people are home and putting that responsibility on the child to remember, well, I can’t really walk today because mom and dad aren’t going to be home. 

I am sure you deal with this, trying to develop this program. Do 

you have any insight into that? 

Ms. MARCHETTI. The only insight I have is that, when I get 

bogged down in these thoughts sometimes and think, oh, there are 

so many issues and so many concerns, I look to the community 

level, they figure things out in ways I never would have thought 

of. They are creating groups of kids that walk together. They are 

creating community service projects where high school students 

walk with the kids and actually do some mentoring of them on 

other issues as well. We need to gather these examples and get 

them out there, because it is at the very local level that the most 

amazing ideas are coming. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and 

Chairman Oberstar for all your work on this project; it certainly is 

something that is good for the American people and for children. 

Children need protection at all levels. 

I did not have the experience Chairman Oberstar had. I went to 

school in Memphis and in Florida and in California, and I walked, 

but we didn’t have snowball problems. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. We did have problems sometimes with the Federal 

Express jets flying over and bothering our hearing, but other than 

that it was all right. 

But walking to school was a good experience, and you need kids 

to learn. 

My State Senator is here, State Senator Beverly Marrero, and I 

would just like to ask the panel. Much of this is administrative, but 

are there legislative initiatives that any of you all are familiar with 

that she could take back to Tennessee in promoting safety, either 

pedestrian or bicycle, for kids and safe routes? Yes, sir. 

Mr. BRICKER. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. In Oregon we have passed 

a couple of different efforts trying to basically create the discussion. 

We, in the creation of our Safe Routes action plans, we require that 

schools work with the city or the county. So just the actual having 

people who are city and county engineers, who understand the 

roadway systems, working with the people who understand children and the kind of ebb and flow of the school, is something that 

needs to happen, and in that process you get parents and the community on board. So we actually have legislative that our Safe 

Routes to School action plans would require that partnership to 

take place. 

We also, in this last legislation session, required that any new 

schools to be constructed or major renovation of the school would 

have to launch a Safe Routes action plan that has these stipulations in it as well. So when you are looking at some of these 

issues—and I think that potentially looking forward, when you consolidate a school you should be required to look at the transportation implications. And when I say transportation, I mean safety 

34

as well, and looking at actually walking around with the folks in 

some community. 

Ms. HUBSMITH. Congressman, I have three ideas for you related 

to State legislation that might be possible. One is with the issue 

related to school siting. I don’t know off the top of my head what 

the regulations are in Tennessee, but several States have minimum 

acreage requirements and indicate that if you are going to locate 

a high school, it needs to be on a tract of land that has 30 acres. 

We recommend that there be a removal of those minimum acreage 

standards, because that often drives the schools to be on the edges 

of communities. 

In addition, many States have regulations called the two thirds 

rule. If it costs more than two thirds to build a new school than 

it would be to retrofit an old school, they encourage building of the 

new school instead. It would be a good idea to take those regulations off the books to evaluate each school site and plan on its merits, so you can work to create the neighborhood schools. 

A second idea is the fact that relates to that there are many 

more applications for Safe Routes to School funding as there is 

funding available, and the Federal funding is often quite flexible. 

Through SAFETEA-LU, Congress created a provision for the creation of a strategic highway safety plan in every State, and each 

State is analyzing data-driven analyses for how injuries and fatalities take place. On a national level, 13.5 percent of injuries and fatalities are bicyclists and pedestrians. Something that your State 

could do is take a look at the percentage of bicycle and pedestrian 

injuries in your State and create a fair share for safety and guarantee that that percentage of your safety funds goes towards bicycle and pedestrian improvements, including Safe Routes to School. 

Finally, another provision is called Complete Streets. Many 

States and municipalities are moving forward to create this right 

now, and what this is is a requirement that every roadway, as it 

is being constructed, or any transit project that is being constructed would consider the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians simultaneously. And this is really a good use of taxpayer dollars, because as you are planning for transportation infrastructure, we 

want to plan for people who are walking, bicycling, who are disabled, who are elderly, who are taking transit and who are using 

automobiles, and by actually putting legislation in effect that requires this consideration helps to lead toward the construction of 

more comprehensive projects that serve the needs of all users and 

don’t have to be retrofitted at a later date. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. I want to thank both of you and ask LA, 

who is here, Mr. Houston, to get with you all and get some notes 

about your legislation. You know, this is such a good program, a 

lot with obesity. We have got a problem with obesity with kids, and 

that is because they are taking a bus or driving, rather than walking or bicycling. That is part of it. You know, you get into the lobbies. You mentioned the bus folks. They don’t want to give up their 

money. You know, all kind of things get involved, and we really 

need to look after the kids first. 

I thank you all for your testimony, and we will try to implement 

some of these things in Tennessee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Oberstar. 

35

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, I will thank the gentleman. 

I want to thank the panel. I think that what we have shown, we 

have laid a very solid foundation for an extraordinarily successful 

program over the final years of the SAFETEA-LU bill, and I think 

it is something upon which we will be able to build in future authorizations and hopefully expand. So thank you for your time and 

your testimony. 

The Committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

36


38250.006
37


38250.007
38


38250.008
39


38250.009
40


38250.010
41


38250.011
42


38250.012
43


38250.013
44


38250.014
45


38250.015
46


38250.016
47


38250.017
48


38250.018
49


38250.019
50


38250.020
51


38250.021
52


38250.022
53


38250.023
54


38250.024
55


38250.025
56


38250.026
57


38250.027
58


38250.028
59


38250.029
60


38250.030
61


38250.031
62


38250.032
63


38250.033
64


38250.034
65


38250.035
66


38250.036
67


38250.037
68


38250.038
69


38250.039
70


38250.040
71


38250.041
72


38250.042
73


38250.043
74


38250.044
75


38250.045
76


38250.046
77


38250.047
78


38250.048
79


38250.049
80


38250.050
81


38250.051
82


38250.052
83


38250.053
84


38250.054
85


38250.055
86


38250.056
87


38250.057
88


38250.058
89


38250.059
90


38250.060
91


38250.061
92


38250.062
93


38250.063
94


38250.064
95


38250.065
96


38250.066
97


38250.067
98


38250.068
99


38250.069
100


38250.070
101


38250.071
102


38250.072
103


38250.073
104


38250.074
105


38250.075
106


38250.076
107


38250.077
108


38250.078
109


38250.079
110


38250.080
111


38250.081
112


38250.082
113

Æ


38250.083