Auckland Regional Transport Authority School Travel Plan ...

3 downloads 0 Views 826KB Size Report
The School Travel Plan evaluation was funded by Auckland Regional ... schools were Albany School, Avondale Primary School, Fruitvale Road. School, Verran ...

Auckland Regional Transport Authority School Travel Plan Evaluation 2006 Dr Erica Hinckson & Hannah Badland Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, AUT University Report prepared for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority February 2006

2

Auckland Regional Transport Authority School Travel Plan Evaluation 2006 Authors: Dr Erica Hinckson & Hannah Badland, Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, AUT University.

Report prepared for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Published in February 2006 by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, as an evaluation of work undertaken by a range of partner organisations and ARTA to establish school travel planning as a regionally coordinated multi-agency programme in the Auckland region. The project was constituted under the Transport and Urban Form workstrand of the Auckland Sustainable Cities Programme, Auckland, New Zealand, from 2003-2006. The Auckland Sustainable Cities Programme is a regional partnership with the New Zealand Sustainable Development Programme of Action, a three-year programme sponsored by the NZ Government and running from 2003–2006. See www.sustainableauckland.govt.nz Copyright © 2005 Auckland Regional Transport Authority

3

Auckland Regional Transport Authority School Travel Plan Evaluation 2006

Dr Erica Hinckson & Hannah Badland Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, AUT University

Report prepared for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority February 2006

AUCKLAND SUSTAINABLE CITIES PROGRAMME A regional partnership with the Sustainable Development Programme of Action

4

Acknowledgements

______________________ The authors would like to acknowledge the time and effort which the children, parents, school personnel and ARTA representatives have contributed to the School Travel Plan and the subsequent evaluation. Particular thanks to the children who participated in the focus groups, the principals who participated in the interviews and the travel planners who organised the evaluations of the five case study schools. We also express our gratitude to the Sustainable Transport Manager Anna Percy, to the School Travel Plan Manager, Stephen Lindfield, and the School Travel Plan Coordinator, Hannah Mitchell. Finally, we would like to thank all individuals who provided feedback on the draft document. The School Travel Programme is a partnership between central, regional and local government. The authors would also like to acknowledge the partners in the programme: o Ministry for the Environment o Auckland Regional Transport Authority o Auckland Regional Council o Rodney, North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland, Manukau, Papakura and Franklin City Councils o Ministry of Health o Ministry of Transport o Ministry of Education o Roadsafe Auckland o Land Transport NZ o Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority The Ministry for the Environment through the governments Sustainable Cities Programme is a key partner and supporter the Auckland Regional School Travel Plan Programme. As a significant Sustainable Cities project the programme receives funding from the Ministry for the Environment. The School Travel Plan evaluation was funded by Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) and was carried out by researchers from the Centre of Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, AUT University. The report also includes information analysis and results from a wider study which focussed on student travel mode shifts from a larger group of schools. The data for the first group of this longitudinal study was gathered by ARTA in parallel to this report’s core study group and was analysed separately by Clive Project Services.

5

Executive Summary

______________________ Background

Travelwise for schools is a joint initiative aimed to reduce traffic congestion, improve road safety and provide alternative transport to and from school. Part of the initiative was the development of School Travel Plans (STP) with the assistance of travel planners who were appointed at each school. The development of the plan was a collaborative effort between schools, parents, communities, local councils and ARTA. Components of the STP included educational and promotional activities encouraging carpooling, walking or cycling, walking school bus (WSB) implementation, introduction of traffic calming measures, improvement of roads and footpaths, cycle training and parking restrictions. The first pilot school travel plans were developed in 2002 in North Shore City. The Regional School Travel Programme delivered by ARTA, launched by the Prime Minister in March 2005, significantly expanded this activity as part of the Sustainable Cities Programme with funding from government through the Ministry for the Environment. Table 1: Cumulative number of schools within the Travelwise programme. Region Auckland City Franklin District Manukau City North Shore City Papakura District Rodney District Waitakere City Cumulative total

2003

2004 2

2

19 1

2 4

4 26

2005 7

2006 10

1 15

3 4 4 11 2 89

1 6 55

Case Study of five schools As STP success has not been assessed since implementation, ARTA contracted researchers from the Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research (CPAN) at AUT University to analyse and evaluate project implementation in a small sample of participating schools. Five case study primary schools were assessed in terms of their success in meeting their objectives as stated in their individual STP. The participating primary schools were Albany School, Avondale Primary School, Fruitvale Road School, Verran Primary School and Waiheke Island Primary School. Each school was at a different stage of implementation at the time of data collection. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the following objectives: • To evaluate transport modality changes resulting from a multi-faceted STP seeking to substitute motorised transport.

6 • To understand which level of STP intervention is most successful at modifying travel behaviour. • To inform policy and strategy planning for ARTA and the wider community. • To recognise challenges and successes resulting from implementing STP. Mode Shift Study (MSS) In parallel to the evaluation of the five case study schools, a less comprehensive study referred to as the Mode Shift Study (MSS) also took place. It was an interim assessment of actual mode shift, based on the children’s survey at 20 schools (primary, intermediate and secondary) within the programme. The schools were at differing stages of implementation at the time of data collection. The assessment is planned to be repeated at regular intervals in the future. In addition to the above objectives the MSS is intended to: • Provide a measure of the transport modality changes resulting from a multi-faceted STP. • Recommend a cost effective, practical framework for monitoring the outcomes from individual schools and the total programme. Methodology

Baseline measures included data on children’s and staff travel modes, and parental perceptions of children’s travel behaviour and environmental safety. Twenty schools, all of which had completed a travel survey prior to April 2005, participated in a follow-up children’s actual travel mode survey. Repeated measures provided a statistically robust sample for reporting aggregate mode changes across the whole programme. For the five case study schools quantitative (surveys, environmental audit) and qualitative (interviews, focus groups) methods were used to collect data. Wherever possible, post STP survey data were compared to baseline measures. Comparisons were made to determine the magnitude of change for children and staff travel behaviour and parental perceptions of children’s travel behaviour and safety. Qualitative data were used to gain a deeper insight into the changes observed, and successes or challenges of the initiative. Results were reported as percentages. The methods used for data collection are outlined below. Results Mode Shift Study

Children’s Travel Survey-Actual Travel Mode Based on the evidence, STP implementation was overall successful in reducing school related automobile travel. Table 2 summarises the results from the children’s travel surveys.

7 Table 2: Summary of children’s overall travel modes (weighted), pre and post STP implementation for all schools except Kristin and Target Rd.

Walk

WSB

Cycle

PT

Family car

Friend car

Scooter

Drive self

Drive others

Other

Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change

Average (%) per mode weighted by school roll 31.4 33.4 Ç2.0 0.2 1.8 Ç1.6 1.8 1.9 Ç0.1 14.1 11.0 È3.1 49.5 45.7 È3.8 0.7 3.5 Ç2.8 0.9 0.8 Ç0.1 0.8 0.9 Ç0.1 0.0 0.4 Ç0.4 0.7 0.8 Ç0.1

• There was an overall decline in car use of 3.8%. Fifteen of the eighteen schools reported a decrease in family car use over the STP period. The percentage change for school related family car travel ranged from –13% to +4%. • Walking of all forms (WSB and independent) has increased by 3.6% Fourteen of the eighteen schools reported an increase in walking over the STP period. The percentage change ranged from –5% to +21%. • Car sharing has generally increased in most schools. All of the eighteen schools reported an increase in car sharing over the STP period. The percentage change for vehicle sharing ranged from 1% to 5%. • The results from the five case study schools were generally consistent with the trends demonstrated by the larger sample size of the MSS. Walking increased, (-2% to + 21%) family car usage reduced (+4% to –13%) and vehicle sharing increased (0% to 4%). Case Study

Data for actual travel mode from the case study schools were included in the MSS (refer to Table 2). Results for preferred travel mode from the five case study schools are summarised below.

8 Children’s Travel Survey-Preferred Travel Mode • Cycling was the most preferred mode of school related transport for children pre and post STP implementation. Cycling preference increased to 31% post STP. • The greatest decline in travel mode preference for travelling to and from school for children was private car (-5%). Children were also less likely to prefer travelling by public transport (-3%), scooter (-3%), and WSB (-1%) when pre and post STP values were compared.

Parent Travel Survey Table 3 summarises data from the parent travel survey. Parent survey data were available from three schools only. Parental perceptions of children’s travel mode did not always agree with the children’s actual travel behaviour.

9 Table 3: Summary of parents’ report on children’s overall travel modes, pre and post STP implementation.

Walking

WSB

Cycle

PT

Car

Pre STP (%) Post STP (%) % change Pre STP (%) Post STP (%) % change Pre STP (%) Post STP (%) % change Pre STP (%) Post STP (%) % change Pre STP (%) Post STP (%) % change

Albany School

Fruitvale Road School

Verran Primary School

Overall

13

38

22

24

14

41

52

Ç1

Ç3

Ç30

36 Ç12

0

0

0

0

2

4

1

2

Ç2

Ç4

Ç1

Ç2

1

0

0

0

4

0

0

Ç3

0

0

1 Ç1

7

1

0

3

11

4

2

Ç5

Ç3

Ç2

6 Ç3

78

62

60

67

69

51

46

È9

È11

È14

55 È12

• Although private car was still the most popular form of school related travel (post STP, 55%), parents perceived that driving children to and from school decreased by 12% over the STP implementation period. A decline in car travel was reported at each of the three schools sampled (-9% to –14%). • Parental perceptions of children engaging in WSB, cycling, and PT engagement to and from school showed increases of 2%, 1%, and 3%, respectively, between the two STP time points.

Perceived barriers • Fifty three percent of parents post STP indicated that their child/ren’s school route was very safe or safe. Only 5% of respondents reported that their child/ren’s school route was very unsafe. • The two largest barriers to parents allowing their children to walk, cycle, or bus to school post STP survey were distance between home and school (32%; 16% to 48%) (value; range) and safety issues (30%; 26% to 32%).

Staff Travel Survey Complete data were available from two schools only. Key findings from the staff travel surveys were: • Data showed a heavy reliance on private motorised transport. • STP implementation had very little impact on staff travel behaviour. It is conceivable that staff did not consider STP to be relevant to them and that it was only applicable to children and their parents.

10 Principal/Lead Travel Teacher Interview Principals and the lead travel teacher were supportive of the programme. Key findings from the principals and lead travel teacher interviews were: • STP should be promoted on the basis that they reduced school-related traffic congestion and provided health benefits for the students. • The role of the travel planner was integral to the STP as they provided a link with other organisations and reduced the burden on school personnel. • Parental support of the STP was imperative to the success of the WSB and the overall programme.

Children’s Focus Group Children were enthusiastic about STP. Key findings from the children’s focus groups were: • Most children preferred to walk or cycle to school rather than be driven. • Curriculum-based STP activities were not well remembered by the children. • Traffic safety was still a concern for many of the children.

Environmental Audit The audit revealed that the environmental changes undertaken by each school (where relevant) contributed to a safer environment, but more changes needed to be undertaken. Key findings of the audit were: • Obstructions to footpath such as overgrown hedges and cars parked next to footpaths bordering the road may have discouraged use of the path for active transport. • No cycle lanes were present at any of the roads around the schools, discouraging cycling. • Permanent traffic control devices on the roads at the main entrance of the schools were absent at Albany, Fruitvale Road, and Waiheke Island primary schools. • Temporary pedestrian crossings (kea crossings) were available in three schools only. This may have compromised children’s safety during times when pedestrian crossings were not supervised by school personnel. Conclusions Overall, results are promising at this early stage of the programme. Key conclusions and recommendations are: • STP implementation is achieving its broadest goal of reducing private automobile travel and increasing walking prevalence levels.

11 • Overall, STP implementation is achieving a reduction of private vehicle usage of 3.8%, and an increase in walking (independent and WSB) of 3.6%. • While there appears to be a downward trend in PT usage, it seems to have mainly resulted from shifts in a small number of specific schools. Further work is needed to understand and address these shifts. • The case study could not determine whether infrastructural changes (hard measures) or shifting parental/child travel perceptions (soft measures) had a greater influence in changing actual travel behaviour. It is likely that a combination of hard and soft measures would be most successful for increasing active and public transport modes for school related travel. • Sustainability of STP depends heavily on the ongoing support and liaison capabilities of the travel planners. Recommendations • STP needs to have a greater parental education component. Parents are ultimately responsible for choosing their child/ren’s mode of travel to school and it is imperative that their perceptions are changed in order to make STP successful. • Incentives to parents, staff, and Boards of Trustees (BOT) should be incorporated in the STP programme. • Offering public transport subsidies or other incentives to staff members may increase school personnel transit levels. • The road environment around schools still presents risks for children and further improvements may be needed, even around “completed” schools. • New STP should consider undertaking a hands-up type survey of students early in the process for better comparison with future Mode Shift Studies. • At least one permanent pedestrian crossing should be available directly outside each school. This will ensure that there is always a safe crossing location for children. • A control group of non STP schools should be established and regularly surveyed to determine whether there are any underlying trends and to help form a view of the “net” impact of the STP programme on travel modes.

12

Table of Contents

______________________ Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 5 Background .................................................................................................................................. 5 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 6 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 10 Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... 12 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 15 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 16 List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 18 Terms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................... 19 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 20 Background ................................................................................................................................ 20 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 22 Purpose....................................................................................................................................... 22 Methodology Rationale.............................................................................................................. 24 Procedures.................................................................................................................................. 26 Overview........................................................................................................................................ 29 Profile......................................................................................................................................... 29 Children’s Travel Survey ........................................................................................................... 30 Parent Travel Survey.................................................................................................................. 37 Staff Travel Survey .................................................................................................................... 40 Principal Interview..................................................................................................................... 41 Children’s Focus Group............................................................................................................. 43 School Environmental Audit...................................................................................................... 44 Albany School................................................................................................................................ 47 Profile......................................................................................................................................... 47 Children’s Travel Survey ........................................................................................................... 48 Parent Travel Survey.................................................................................................................. 50 Staff Travel Survey .................................................................................................................... 52 Principal Interview..................................................................................................................... 53 Lead Travel Teacher Interview .................................................................................................. 54

13 Children’s Focus Group............................................................................................................. 55 School Environmental Audit...................................................................................................... 56 Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 58 Avondale Primary School .............................................................................................................. 59 Profile......................................................................................................................................... 59 Children’s Travel Survey ........................................................................................................... 60 Parent Travel Survey.................................................................................................................. 61 Staff Travel Survey .................................................................................................................... 62 Principal Interview..................................................................................................................... 63 Children’s Focus Group............................................................................................................. 64 School Environmental Audit...................................................................................................... 65 Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 67 Fruitvale Road School.................................................................................................................... 68 Profile......................................................................................................................................... 68 Children’s Travel Survey ........................................................................................................... 70 Parent Travel Survey.................................................................................................................. 72 Staff Travel Survey .................................................................................................................... 74 Principal Interview..................................................................................................................... 75 Children’s Focus Group............................................................................................................. 76 School Environmental Audit...................................................................................................... 77 Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 79 Verran Primary School .................................................................................................................. 80 Profile......................................................................................................................................... 80 Children’s Travel Survey ........................................................................................................... 81 Parent Travel Survey.................................................................................................................. 83 Staff Travel Survey .................................................................................................................... 85 Principal Interview..................................................................................................................... 86 Children’s Focus Group............................................................................................................. 87 School Environmental Audit...................................................................................................... 89 Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 91 Waiheke Island Primary School..................................................................................................... 92 Profile......................................................................................................................................... 92 Children’s Travel Survey ........................................................................................................... 94 Principal Interview..................................................................................................................... 95 Children’s Focus Group............................................................................................................. 96

14 School Environmental Audit...................................................................................................... 97 Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 98 Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 99 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 101 Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 102 Appendices................................................................................................................................... 104

15

List of Tables

______________________ Table 1: Cumulative number of schools within the Travelwise programme................................... 5 Table 2: Summary of children’s overall travel modes (weighted), pre and post STP implementation for all schools except Kristin and Target Rd. ................................................ 7 Table 3: Summary of parents’ report on children’s overall travel modes, pre and post STP implementation. ....................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4: Number of schools within the Travelwise programme (cumulative). ............................. 20 Table 5: Schools involved in the Travelwise programme by classification. ................................. 21 Table 6: Cumulative school roll totals for the Travelwise programme ......................................... 21 Table 7: Data sources used for analysing the five case study schools........................................... 28 Table 8: Data sources used for analysing the remaining schools. ................................................. 28 Table 9: Summary of STP implementation at each case study school. ......................................... 29 Table 10: School roll figures used for weighting purposes for the remaining 15 schools............. 29 Table 11: Results from the children’s travel survey on actual travel mode for the five case study schools.................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 12: Results from the children’s travel survey on actual travel mode for Birkenhead, Browns Bay, Glamorgan, Glenfield Primary, and Greenhithe schools............................................... 31 Table 13: Results from the children’s travel survey on actual travel mode for Kristin, Long Bay, Manuka Primary, Mt Albert Grammar and Murrays Bay Intermediate schools. .................. 32 Table 14: Results from the children’s travel survey on actual travel mode for Murrays Bay, Northcross Intermediate, Target Road, St Mary’s (Northcote) and Sherwood schools. ....... 33 Table 15: Summary of modal shifts following Travelwise programme ........................................ 34 Table 16: Summary of parental reporting on overall perceived travel mode of children pre and post STP implementation....................................................................................................... 37 Table 17: Summary of staff travel modes, pre and post STP implementation. ............................. 40

16

List of Figures

______________________ Figure 1: Projected STP participation rates. .................................................................................. 21 Figure 2: Comparison of children’s pre and post STP preferred travel modes to and from school for the five case study schools combined. ............................................................................. 36 Figure 3: Combined parental reporting of children’s travel modes, pre and post STP implementation. ..................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 4: Overall parental perceptions of school route safety post STP implementation. ............ 38 Figure 5: Overall parental perceptions of barriers post STP prohibiting their children from walking, cycling, or bussing to and from school, pre and post STP implementation............ 39 Figure 6: Albany School children’s overall travel modes to and from school (weighted), pre and post STP implementation....................................................................................................... 48 Figure 7: Comparison of Albany School children’s pre and post STP travel modes to and from school. .................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 8: Albany School parental reporting of children’s travel modes, pre and post STP implementation. ..................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 9: Albany School parental perceptions of school route safety post STP implementation.. 51 Figure 10: Albany School overall staff travel modes post STP implementation........................... 52 Figure 11: Avondale Primary School children’s overall travel modes to and from school (weighted), pre and post STP implementation....................................................................... 60 Figure 12: Avondale Primary School parental perceptions of school route safety post STP implementation. ..................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 13: Avondale Primary School overall staff travel modes to and from school post STP implementation. ..................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 14: Layard Street next to railway tracks at the back entrance of Avondale Primary School. ................................................................................................................................................ 65 Figure 15: Narrowing of road on Crayford Street facilitates traffic control.................................. 66 Figure 16: A pedestrian median refuge on Avondale Road with a warning sign for pedestrians to give way to vehicles............................................................................................................... 66 Figure 17: Fruitvale Road School children’s overall travel modes (weighted), pre and post STP implementation. ..................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 18: Fruitvale Road School children’s preferred overall school travel modes, pre and post STP implementation............................................................................................................... 71

17 Figure 19: Fruitvale Road School parental reporting of students’ overall travel modes to and from school pre and post STP implementation............................................................................... 72 Figure 20:

Fruitvale Road School parental perceptions of school route safety post STP

implementation. ..................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 21: Fruitvale Road School overall staff travel modes to and from school post STP implementation. ..................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 22: Westall Road off Northall Road at the back entrance of the school. ........................... 77 Figure 23: Cars obstructing path leading to Fruitvale Road School entrance. .............................. 77 Figure 24: Pedestrian crossing with temporary lollipop signs on Croydon Road. ........................ 78 Figure 25: Northall Road with graffiti present on walls and structures......................................... 78 Figure 26: Comparison of Verran Primary School children’s overall travel modes to and from school (weighted), pre and post STP implementation. .......................................................... 81 Figure 27: Verran Primary School children’s preferred overall travel modes, pre and post STP implementation. ..................................................................................................................... 82 Figure 28: Comparison of Verran Primary School parental reporting of children’s overall travel modes to and from school, pre and post STP implementation. ............................................. 83 Figure 29: Verran Primary School parental perceptions of barriers prohibiting their children walking, cycling, or bussing to and from school, pre and post STP implementation............ 84 Figure 30: Verran Road leads to a steep hill further along from the entrance of the school. ........ 89 Figure 31: Yellow lines around the roundabout prohibit vehicles from parking........................... 90 Figure 32: Front entrance of Waiheke Island Primary School. ..................................................... 92 Figure 33: Waiheke Island Primary School children’s travel modes to and from school (weighted), pre and post STP implementation....................................................................... 94 Figure 34: Waiheke Island Primary School children’s preferred travel modes to and from school, post STP implementation....................................................................................................... 94 Figure 35: No footpaths are present on the road leading to Waiheke Island Primary School. ..... 97

18

List of Appendices

______________________ Appendix 1: Post STP parent travel survey ................................................................................. 105 Appendix 2: Post STP staff travel survey .................................................................................... 109 Appendix 3: Principal/lead travel teacher interview schedule..................................................... 112 Appendix 4: Children’s focus group schedule............................................................................. 113 Appendix 5: School environmental audit tool ............................................................................. 114

19

Terms and Abbreviations

______________________ ARC

Auckland Regional Council

ARTA

Auckland Regional Transport Authority

AUT

Auckland University of Technology

BOT

Board of Trustees

CPAN

Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research

ERO

Education Review Office

GIS

Geographical Information Systems

MSS

Mode Shift Study

PT

Public transport

STP

School Travel Plan

TLA

Territorial Local Authority

WSB

Walking School Bus

20

Introduction

______________________ Background Promoting active travel modes to and from school seems a logical way to improve health outcomes, enhance social capital, and reduce traffic-related congestion for all user groups. As part of the Auckland Sustainable Cities programme, Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) was funded to develop a series of School Travel Plan (STP) initiatives. STP is conducted in both primary and secondary schools. Specific aims of the STP programme included reducing school-related traffic congestion, improving local road safety, and providing better travel choices for the journey to school. The STP is a collaborative project that involves consultation with schools, local community and stakeholders to develop strategies to improve school-related travel. The modifications made as part of the STP were a mixture of hard (traffic calming devices, pedestrian crossings) and soft (cultural shift, school policy) environmental changes and were tailored to each school’s needs. The first pilot STP was developed in 2002 by North Shore City Council. The regional school travel programme, launched by the Prime Minister in March 2005, significantly expanded this activity as part of the Auckland Sustainable Cities programme. The Auckland Sustainable Cities Programme is a joint initiative between central government and local government in Auckland and is part of the government’s New Zealand Sustainable Development Programme of Action. The New Zealand government through the Ministry for the Environment committed $1.5million to undertake a two year trial of the School Travel Programme. The current and planned funding from Auckland’s local authorities to support the programme and to improve road safety infrastructure around schools has enabled the programme to be extended to 89 schools by the end of 2006. At the date of this report a total of 89 schools have initiated or completed a STP. The initial focus on North Shore schools is gradually being expanded across the region. Table 4: Number of schools within the Travelwise programme (cumulative). Region Auckland City Franklin District Manukau City North Shore City Papakura District Rodney District Waitakere City Cumulative total

2003 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4

2004 2 0 0 19 1 0 4 26

2005 9 0 1 33 1 1 10 55

2006 19 0 4 37 5 12 12 89

21 Table 5: Schools involved in the Travelwise programme by classification. 2004 2 20 3 25

Classification Intermediate Primary Secondary Total

2005 6 17 7 30

2006 5 21 8 34

The Travelwise school programme involves a total of over 57,000 students or over 25% of the Auckland region’s total school student population of approximately 250,000. The programme is intended to reach the entire Auckland region’s schools by 2014 (refer to Figure 1). Table 6: Cumulative school roll totals for the Travelwise programme 2004 2134 -

Region Auckland City Franklin District Manukau City North Shore City Papakura District Rodney District Waitakere City Cumulative total

8431 349 2074 12988

2005 3756 1046 9133 441 4577 31941

2006 4860 1585 7536 2538 6057 2682 57199

Number of schools

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

Figure 1: Projected STP participation rates.

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

22

Introduction

______________________ Purpose ARTA contracted researchers from the Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research (CPAN) at AUT University with research experience in urban design and non-motorised travel to analyse and evaluate the success of the STP project. Analyses were performed based on data provided by ARTA and on data collected by the CPAN researchers. Both qualitative (focus groups, interviews) and quantitative (school environmental audit) measures were used during the evaluation. Case Study Schools Five primary schools in the Auckland region at differing levels of STP implementation were selected as case studies for evaluation. These schools were Albany School, Avondale Primary School, Fruitvale Road School, Verran Primary School and Waiheke Island Primary School. The results of these schools’ evaluations are presented and discussed in this report. Limitations, recommendations and conclusions regarding STP implementation are also outlined. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the following objectives: • To evaluate transport modality changes resulting from a multi-faceted STP seeking to substitute motorised transport with active and public transport. • To understand which level of STP intervention is most successful at modifying travel behaviour. • To inform policy and strategy planning for ARTA and the wider community. • To recognise challenges and successes resulting from implementing STP. Mode Shift Study (MSS) In parallel to gathering and analysing data for the case study schools, a separate study was also conducted, referred to as the Mode Shift Study (MSS). The MSS is the first of a planned series of longitudinal mode shift trend surveys intended to develop an understanding of the long term mode changes arising from the STP programme.

Twenty five schools were selected for analysis. The sample included twenty schools of different educational level, which had developed complete travel plans by 2005, and the five case study schools selected for the evaluation. Valid data were available from twenty schools including the five case study schools. Results from the remaining schools will be reported once the longitudinal study has progressed further.

23 The data gathered in the MSS are limited to class based, student actual and preferred travel modes. In addition to the Case Study objectives the MSS is also intended to: • Recommend a cost effective, practical framework for monitoring the outcomes from individual schools and the total programme.

24

Introduction

______________________ Methodology Rationale The following methods were utilised to evaluate the success of the STP: principal and lead travel teacher interviews, focus groups with children and an environmental audit of the school’s surrounding area. Data from surveys collected by school travel planners during the evaluation, from parents and staff, were also analysed and compared to baseline results. Children, Parent, and Staff Travel Surveys Questionnaires were used to ascertain child and staff travel modalities to and from school. Parental and staff perceptions regarding school commuting were also assessed by questionnaire (refer to Appendices 1 and 2). The utilisation of questionnaires to obtain data has several advantages and was appropriate for this evaluation. They were an efficient way to collect data from a large number of participants, allowed for a wide range of information to be collected, were easy to administer and were relatively burden-free for the participants. Principal/Lead Travel Teacher Interview Qualitative interviews were chosen as a means to collect information from the principals/lead travel teacher. The interviews served to explore individual differences between individual STP experiences and outcomes, and programme expectations. While quantitative measures indicated in a literal sense whether STP outcome objectives were being met, the qualitative interviews identified pragmatic perceptions of the impact of the programme.

The semi-structured interviews (refer to Appendix 3) provided a forum to allow school personnel to describe the meaningfulness of the STP in a relaxed setting where participants could be candid. It also allowed the interviewer to probe for more detail. Children’s Focus Group Focus groups with senior primary school children were used to understand the children’s perceptions of travelling to and from school. Like semistructured interviews, focus groups were useful in highlighting issues that may have been missed with other assessment methods. Specifically, focus groups conducted with the children helped the interviewer gain an insight into children’s reactions about STP and partially determine the effectiveness of the programme. The children’s focus groups enhanced the understanding of the impact of the STP on travel behaviour (refer to Appendix 4). School Environmental Audit Physical environments have an important role to play in influencing travel mode engagement. Appropriateness of footpath surface and width, crossing opportunities, street connectivity and traffic speeds and volume all contributed to the overall safety and aesthetic appeal of the school environment. In turn, overall environmental perceptions and features

25 determined how people travelled within that setting. Without this information, STP success could not be evaluated effectively and recommendations stemming from the report would be unrealistic. A brief audit of the boundary streets of each of the five case study schools was conducted using a modified version of the Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES) audit tool (refer to Appendix 5).

26

Introduction

______________________ Procedures Source of Data Raw data were not available from all schools. Previously, pre STP analyses were conducted by independent contractors or raw data were in a form unsuited for analysis. In order to make the comparisons between the pre and post measures for these schools, baseline information was drawn from the initial STP report instead.

Some travel modes were not recorded pre STP because of different templates being used pre and post analysis. In the instances that comparative travel mode data were not available, post STP travel modes were not graphically reported. A summary of data sources used for the schools is outlined in Tables 7 and 8. Children’s Travel Survey Teachers within the twenty MSS schools asked the children each day for one school week (5 days) how they travelled to school that morning and how they intended to travel home. A number was recorded from a simple show of hands for each option. The information was recorded on a sheet and given to the travel planner at the end of the week. A similar methodology had been employed for the baseline data collection for children under the age of eight. For older students the baseline data was gathered using individual survey questionnaires.

Pre and post STP travel mode comparisons were carried out for all schools. When reporting aggregate mode percentages, the pre and post values of children’s actual travel modes were weighted according to each school’s roll as determined by the Ministry of Education in 2004. Parent Travel Survey Two similar questionnaires (pre and post STP) were distributed to all children within the selected schools to give to their parents/caregivers. The surveys were paper-based and questions pertaining to parents/caregivers’ perceptions and attitudes towards their children’s mode of school related transport were asked. Completed questionnaires were collected by the travel planner at the end of that week.

Comparisons of parental perceptions and attitudes of their child/ren’s schoolrelated travel were carried out between pre and post STP for each of the five case study schools measured. Comparisons provided an indication of parental/caregiver perceived and attitudinal changes resulting from STP implementation (refer to Appendix 1).

27 Staff Travel Survey Two similar questionnaires (pre and post STP) were distributed to all staff members within the selected schools. The surveys were paper-based and questions pertaining to the current transport modes of staff to and from school and their perceptions and attitudes towards alternative travel modes were asked. The questionnaire was collected by the travel planner at the end of that week.

Comparisons of travel modes to and from school and perceptions and attitudes related to school-based commuting for staff members were carried out between pre and post STP for each of the five schools measured. Comparisons provided an indication of staff members travel behaviour changes resulting from STP implementation (see Appendix 2). Principal/Lead Travel Teacher Interview Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the principal and the lead travel teacher (where relevant) within each of the five schools. The interviews focused on ascertaining the challenges and successes of implementing the programme within the school and provided recommendations for future STP. The interviews were audio-taped. Key themes were drawn and STP recommendations were made based on the evidence. The survey schedule is outlined in Appendix 3. Children’s Focus Group One focus group was conducted at each school consisting of 4-6 senior primary school children. The students were asked specific questions using a semi-structured process (refer to Appendix 4). Order during the interview was achieved by allowing a child to respond to a question only if he/she was holding a ball. Once the child had finished his/her response, the ball would be passed on to the interviewer who in turn passed it on to the next child. Responses from the focus groups were audio-taped. Key themes were drawn from these focus groups and STP recommendations were made based on the evidence. School Environment Audit A brief audit of the local environment was conducted around each of the five schools. A modified version of the Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES) audit tool was used (see Appendix 5). The built environment features were identified from the SPACES and recommendations for achieving an effective environment to promote active transport to and from school were outlined.

28

Table 7: Data sources used for analysing the five case study schools.

Pre STP source Survey STP Survey Survey

Post STP Source Survey Survey Survey Survey

Pre STP source Survey STP Survey Survey

Post STP Source Survey Survey Survey Survey

Pre STP source Survey Survey

Post STP Source Survey Survey Survey Survey

Principal/lead travel teacher interviews Post STP Source CPAN CPAN CPAN CPAN

STP

Survey

-

-

-

-

CPAN

Children’s travel survey School Albany School Avondale Primary Fruitvale Road Verran Primary Waiheke Island Primary -= no data

Parent travel survey

Table 8: Data sources used for analysing the remaining schools. Children’s travel survey School Birkenhead Primary School Browns Bay School Glamorgan School Glenfield Primary Greenhithe School Kristin School Long Bay School Manuka Primary Mt Albert Grammar School Murrays Bay Intermediate Murrays Bay Primary School Northcross Intermediate Saint Mary’s School (Northcote) Sherwood School Target Rd

Pre STP source STP STP Survey Survey STP Survey Survey STP STP Survey Survey STP Survey Survey Survey

Post STP source Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey NSCC

Staff travel survey

Children’s focus group

Environment audit

Post STP Source CPAN CPAN CPAN CPAN

Post STP Source CPAN CPAN CPAN CPAN

CPAN

CPAN

29

Overview

______________________ Profile Five Auckland primary schools at different stages of STP implementation were reviewed as case study schools (refer to Table 9). An additional fifteen schools were evaluated for mode shift changes as part of the MSS longitudinal study (refer to Table 10). The case study schools were all primary schools. The additional MSS study schools were a mixture of primary, intermediate and secondary schools. The schools were diverse in terms of their ethnic distributions, school decile ratings, environmental settings, rolls and existing culture within each school community. Accordingly, different measures were incorporated into each school as part of their STP. These measures were a mixture of hard environmental measures (e.g., footpaths, pedestrian crossings, refuges) and social changes (e.g., WSB, education modules, school policy). For the five case study schools the profile and the different types of measures implemented are summarised in Table 9. The following overviews are summaries of the data for the five schools combined, proceeded by a detailed analysis of each case study school. Table 9: Summary of STP implementation at each case study school. School roll*

ERO decile

Hard STP measures

Case study schools Albany School 533 10 Yes – completed Avondale Primary School 379 3 Yes – completed Fruitvale Road School 297 2 No Verran Primary School 202 7 No Waiheke Island Primary 130 6 Yes – ongoing School * School roll figures used for weighting purposes

Soft STP measures Yes – ongoing No Yes – completed Yes – ongoing Yes – ongoing

Table 10: School roll figures used for weighting purposes for the remaining 15 schools. School roll*

ERO decile

362 628 613 482 407 1464 297 351 2034 917 595 1168 422 437 432

10 10 10 7 10 0 10 8 5 10 10 10 6 7 10

Additional MSS schools Birkenhead School Browns Bay School Glamorgan School Glenfield Primary School Greenhithe School Kristin School Long Bay School Manuka Primary School Mt Albert Grammar School Murrays Bay Intermediate Murrays Bay School Northcross Intermediate Target Road School St Mary's School (Northcote) Sherwood School

30

Overview

______________________ Children’s Travel Survey Actual travel mode

Data from the fifteen schools which had developed complete travel plans by late 2005, and data from the five case study schools were analysed. Results of the analyses are summarised in Tables 11-14. Table 11: Results from the children’s travel survey on actual travel mode for the five case study schools.

Walking

WSB

Albany School

Avondale Primary School

Fruitvale Road School

Verran Primary

Pre STP

12

44

37

40

4

Post STP

14

42

41

51

25

% modal change

Ç2

È2

Ç4

Ç11

Ç21

Pre STP

0

-

-

1

-

Post STP

2

-

4

1

-

Ç2

0

Ç4

0

0 1

% modal change Cycle

PT

Family car

Friend car

Pre STP

0

-

1

1

Post STP

4

1

1

0

0

% modal change

Ç4

Ç1

0

È1

È1

Pre STP

11

3

1

1

43

Post STP

10

2

1

1

16

% modal change

È1

È1

-

-

È27

Pre STP

70

53

59

55

49

Post STP

65

48

49

42

53

% modal change

È5

È5

È10

È13

Ç4

Pre STP

0

-

-

-

4

Post STP

4

2

3

3

5 Ç1

Ç4

Ç2

Ç3

Ç3

Pre STP

0

-

1

1

-

Post STP

2

-

0

0

0

% modal change Scooter

Drive self

Drive others

Other

Waiheke Island Primary

% modal change

Ç2

-

È1

È1

0

Pre STP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Post STP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

% modal change

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Pre STP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Post STP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

% modal change

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Pre STP

6

-

-

2

0

Post STP

0

5

2

3

1

È6

Ç5

Ç2

Ç1

Ç1

% modal change -= no data; NA=not applicable

31 Table 12: Results from the children’s travel survey on actual travel mode for Birkenhead, Browns Bay, Glamorgan, Glenfield Primary, and Greenhithe schools.

Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP WSB Post STP % modal change Pre STP Cycle Post STP % modal change Pre STP PT Post STP % modal change Pre STP Family car Post STP % modal change Pre STP Friend car Post STP % modal change Pre STP Scooter Post STP % modal change Pre STP Drive self Post STP % modal change Pre STP Drive others Post STP % modal change Pre STP Other Post STP % modal change NA=not applicable Walking

Birkenhead School 25 22 Ç3 3 9 Ç6 0 0 0 3 2 È2 67 66 È1 0 1 Ç1 1 0 È1 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Browns Bay School 28 27 È1 1 2 Ç1 1 1 0 0 1 Ç1 70 64 È6 0 4 Ç4 0 1 Ç1 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Glamorgan School 35 39 Ç4 0 4 Ç4 1 0 È1 0 1 0 62 52 È10 0 4 Ç4 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Glenfield Primary School 39 45 Ç6 0 0 0 1 0 È1 2 1 È1 57 51 È6 0 2 Ç2 1 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Greenhithe School 34 28 È6 0 1 Ç1 4 3 È1 0 0 0 61 60 È1 0 5 Ç5 1 2 Ç1 NA NA NA NA NA NA

0 0 0

0 1 Ç1

1 0 È1

0 1 Ç1

0 0 0

32 Table 13: Results from the children’s travel survey on actual travel mode for Kristin, Long Bay, Manuka Primary, Mt Albert Grammar and Murrays Bay Intermediate schools.

Walking

Kristin School

Long Bay School

Manuka Primary School

Mt Albert Grammar School

Murrays Bay Intermediate

Pre STP

1

20

51

33

39

Post STP

2

19

52

35

38

Ç1

È1

Ç1

Ç2

È1

Pre STP

1

0

0

0

0

Post STP

0

4

0

0

0

È1

Ç4

0

0

0

Pre STP

1

0

0

3

3

Post STP

1

0

0

2

2

% modal change

0

0

0

È1

È1

Pre STP

39

11

2

30

17

Post STP

31

10

0

27

16

% modal change

È8

È1

È2

È3

È1

Pre STP

58

69

48

26

37

% modal change WSB

% modal change Cycle

PT

Family car

Friend car

Post STP

63

61

44

25

38

% modal change

Ç5

È8

È4

È1

Ç1

Pre STP

0

0

0

3

0

Post STP

3

6

3

4

3

Ç3

Ç6

Ç3

Ç1

Ç3

Pre STP

0

1

0

0

4

Post STP

0

0

1

1

2

% modal change

0

È1

Ç1

Ç1

È1

Pre STP

0

0

NA

4

NA

Post STP

0

0

NA

4

NA

% modal change

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

2

NA

% modal change

0

0

NA

Ç2

NA

Pre STP

0

0

0

1

0

Post STP

0

1

1

1

0

% modal change

0

Ç1

Ç1

0

0

% modal change Scooter

Drive self

Pre STP Drive others Post STP

Other

33 Table 14: Results from the children’s travel survey on actual travel mode for Murrays Bay, Northcross Intermediate, Target Road, St Mary’s (Northcote) and Sherwood schools. Murrays Bay Northcross School Intermediate Pre STP Walking

WSB

Family Car

Friend car

Drive self

Drive others

Other

41

11

32

44

26

35

33

29

È1

Ç4

È6

Ç22

È3

Pre STP

0

0

0

1

0

Post STP

3

1

5

5

6

Ç3

Ç1

Ç5

Ç4

Ç6

Pre STP

2

4

1

0

2

Post STP

1

6

0

1

2

È1

Ç2

È1

Ç1

0

Pre STP

0

33

2

20

2

Post STP

0

24

2

2

1

% modal change

0

È9

0

È18

È1

Pre STP

54

39

55

65

61

Post STP

51

39

58

54

55

% modal change

È3

0

Ç3

È11

È6

Pre STP

0

0

0

0

0

Post STP

1

4

0

5

5

Ç1

Ç4

0

Ç5

Ç5

Pre STP

0

2

0

0

2

Post STP

0

1

0

0

1

% modal change

0

È1

0

0

È1

Pre STP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Post STP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

% modal change

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Pre STP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Post STP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

% modal change

% modal change Scooter

Sherwood School

% modal change

% modal change PT

22

St Mary's School (Northcote)

Post STP

% modal change Cycle

45

Target Road School

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Pre STP

0

0

0

3

0

Post STP

0

0

0

1

0

% modal change

0

0

0

È2

0

The above information includes three records which may be considered unrepresentative. • Target Road School: The post STP survey was not undertaken by ARTA and there was no clear record of the methodology at the time of drafting this interim report. Furthermore, the data only includes actual student transport modes for one day (five days for other schools). For this reason the Target Road data was put aside from the summary analysis below in Table 15.

Kristin School: This is a large school with students ranging from five • years old through to 18 year olds. Examination of the age/class structure of the pre and post STP surveys indicates a substantial difference in age groups between the two sets of data. This is further supported by the anomalous reported PT usage. Kristin school operates its own school bus programme and keeps close records of student usage. Neither survey correlates with their known bus usage. For this reason the Kristin data was put aside from the summary analysis below in Table 15.

34 • The large drop in use of PT (-10%) at Northcross Intermediate may be anomalous, but has been kept in this analysis in Table 15 as there were no apparent reasons to question its validity.

Data from eighteen schools (originally twenty less Kristin and Target Road) is used for reporting modal shifts for the programme and are referred to as the “reported schools”. Once the above modal shifts were weighted with the 2004 ERO school roll, the overall mode changes were: Table 15: Summary of modal shifts following Travelwise programme

Walk

WSB

Cycle

PT

Family car

Friend car

Scooter

Drive self

Drive others

Other

Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change Pre STP Post STP % modal change

Average (%) per mode weighted by school roll 31.4 33.4 Ç2.0 0.2 1.8 Ç1.6 1.8 1.9 0.1 14.1 9.3 È3.1 49.5 45.7 È3.8 0.7 3.5 Ç2.8 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.4 Ç0.4 0.7 0.8 Ç0.1

MSS • There was an overall decline in car use of 3.8%. • Fifteen of the eighteen schools reported a decrease in family car use over the STP period. The percentage change for school related family car travel ranged from –13% to +4%. • Walking of all forms (WSB and independent) increased by 3.6%. • Fourteen of the eighteen schools reported an increase in walking over the STP period. The percentage change ranged from –5% to +21%.

35 • Car sharing has increased in most schools. • All of the eighteen schools reported an increase in car sharing over the STP period. The percentage change for vehicle sharing ranged from 1% to 5%. • The apparent reduction in PT usage is mainly driven by the substantial mode shift at Northcross Intermediate and St Mary’s and warrants further investigation.

Cast Study • Overall, in four out of the five schools, there was an increase in children walking to and from school over the STP period. Despite Avondale Primary School being the only school that showed a decrease in walking, overall walking prevalence level for that school remained high (42%). • The limited implementation of the WSB concept in the case study schools due to safety or lack of support rendered it inappropriate to reliably comment on the effectiveness of WSB implementation. • Children’s public transport engagement levels were reduced apart from one school (Waiheke Island Primary School). The school is new and the comparison of pre and post STP modes may not be representative. • There was an overall decline in car use (+8% to –17%). Four schools reported decreases in family car travel over the STP period. • Cycling and scootering to and from school and participating in WSB showed similar levels of engagement at each time point.

36 Preferred travel mode

The hands-up surveys used to capture the children’s actual transport mode also included questions with regard to their preferred travel modes, morning and afternoon. Mode preference data for the fifteen MSS schools were also captured in the survey but were not available for analysis by the date of publication of this interim report. Case Study • Cycling was the most preferred mode of school related transport for children (refer Figure 2) pre and post STP implementation. Cycling preference increased to 31% post STP.

Occurrence (%)

40 30 Pre STP

20

Post STP

10

er Ot h

n Tr ai

ot er Sc o

Ca r

PT

e Cy cl

W SB

W al

k

0

Overall preferred travel mode

Figure 2: Comparison of children’s pre and post STP preferred travel modes to and from school for the five case study schools combined.

• Walking preference increased by 3% post STP to become the second most preferred mode for travelling to and from school. • The greatest decline in travel mode preference for travelling to and from school for children was private car (-5%). Children were also less likely to prefer travelling by public transport (-3%), scooter (-3%), and WSB (-1%) when pre and post STP values were compared (refer to Figure 2).

37

Overview

______________________ Parent Travel Survey At the five case study schools, parents were asked to respond to a variety of questions pertaining to their perceptions of and attitudes towards their children’s mode of transport to and from school, and environmental safety (refer to Appendix 1). Pre and post STP comparisons were carried out, which provided an indication of the magnitude of change in parental perceptions resulting from STP implementation. The combined parent survey findings for Albany School, Fruitvale Road School, and Verran Primary School are summarised below. The remaining two schools were excluded from this analysis because of insufficient comparative parent travel information. Overall, more parents completed the pre STP survey (n=590) when compared to the post STP survey response rate (n=274). Perceived travel mode • Parents at each school reported an increase in children’s school related walking. The overall increase in walking to and from school was 12%. Percentage change increases for walking varied from 1% to 30% (see Figure 3 and Table 16). Table 16: Summary of parental reporting on overall perceived travel mode of children pre and post STP implementation.

Walking

WSB

Cycle

PT

Car

Pre STP (%) Post STP (%) % change Pre STP (%) Post STP (%) % change Pre STP (%) Post STP (%) % change Pre STP (%) Post STP (%) % change Pre STP (%) Post STP (%) % change

Albany School

Fruitvale Road School

Verran Primary School

Overall

13

38

22

24

14

41

52

Ç1

Ç3

Ç30

36 Ç12

0

0

0

0

0

4

1

0

Ç4

Ç1

2 Ç2

1

0

0

0

4

0

0

Ç3

0

0

1 Ç1

7

1

0

3

11

4

2

Ç4

Ç3

Ç2

6 Ç3

78

62

60

67

69

51

46

È9

È11

È14

55 È12

38 80 Occurrence (%)

70 60 50

Pre STP

40

Post STP

30 20 10 0 Walk

WSB

Cycle

PT

Car

Travel mode

Figure 3: Combined parental reporting of children’s travel modes, pre and post STP implementation.

• Although private car was still the most popular form of school related travel (post STP, 55%), parents perceived that driving children to and from school decreased by 12% over the STP implementation period. A decline in car travel was reported for each of the three schools sampled (-9% to –14%). • Parental perceptions of children engaging in WSB, cycling, and PT engagement to and from school showed increases (2%, 1%, and 3%, respectively) between the two STP time points. Perceived barriers • Fifty three percent of parents post STP indicated that their child/ren’s school route was very safe or safe (refer to Figure 4). Only 5% of respondents reported that their child/ren’s school route was very unsafe.

Occurrence (%)

40 30 20

Post STP

10 0 Very safe

Safe

Neither

Unsafe

Very Unsafe

Parental perception of school safety route

Figure 4: Overall parental perceptions of school route safety post STP implementation.

39 • The two largest barriers to parents allowing their children to walk, cycle, or bus to school post STP survey were distance between home and school (32%; 16% to 48%) (value; range) and safety issues (30%; 26% to 32%) (refer Figure 6). Occurrence (%)

40 30 Post STP

20 10

in sp or to th er s

ch a

y

Tr an

Tr ip

Sa fe t

m s ite

r Ca r ry

th e W ea

m e Ti

Di st

an c

e

0

Barriers

Figure 5: Overall parental perceptions of barriers post STP prohibiting their children from walking, cycling, or bussing to and from school, pre and post STP implementation.

40

Overview

______________________ Staff Travel Survey Questions pertaining to the current transport modes of staff to and from school and their perceptions of and attitudes towards alternative travel modes were asked in the staff travel survey (refer to Appendix 2). Comparisons of travel modes to and from school and perceptions and attitudes related to school-based commuting were carried out between pre and post STP. Comparisons provided an indication of staff’s travel behaviour changes resulting from STP implementation. An overall summary of the pre and post STP survey of staff travel changes is outlined in Table 17. Albany and Verran primary schools provided pre and post staff travel survey data. Albany School however, was the only one that had a sufficient response rate (26 respondents pre and 25 respondents post versus 14 respondents pre and 4 respondents post from Verran Primary School) to make meaningful comparisons. Nonetheless, the overall trend showed reliance on private motorised transport. STP implementation had very little impact on staff travel behaviour. It is conceivable that staff did not consider STP to be relevant to them and that it was only applicable to children and their parents. Table 17: Summary of staff travel modes, pre and post STP implementation.

Pre STP (%) Post STP (%) % change Pre STP Car (%) Post STP (%) % change CarPre STP (%) pool Post STP (%) % change Pre STP Cycle (%) Post STP (%) % change Pre STP PT (%) Post STP (%) % change *small sample size

Walk

Albany School

Avondale Primary School

Fruitvale Road School

Verran Primary School

Waiheke Island Primary School

8

-

-

14

-

7

14

7

-

-

È1

-

-

-

-

80

-

-

71

-

81

6

81

25*

-

Ç1

-

-

-

-

9

-

-

14*

-

11

16

12

75

-

Ç2

-

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

41

Overview

______________________ Principal Interview The principals from the five schools were very supportive of the STP initiative, mainly because it provided opportunities to improve the level of safety for children when commuting to and from school, to reduce the amount of traffic congestion at the school gate, and to enhance the health and fitness of the children. Two principals also highlighted the importance of sustainable transport modes for environmental benefits and the positive impact on the wider community. The findings were mixed regarding principals’ perceptions whether more children or staff walked or cycled to school as a result of the STP. Four of the principals commented on the importance of the travel planner during STP implementation. Travel planners reduced the burden of programme participation for school personnel, were a valuable liaison between the school community and the council, and kept enthusiasm levels high. Parental and Board of Trustee (BOT) support was also viewed as important to the sustainability of the programme, and the initial ‘buy-in’ from the parents could not be underestimated. In future, offering incentives directly to parents may encourage their involvement. Perceptions of the STP launch varied. One principal found that the launch was too formal and the children could not relate to it, and two principals reported it was an enjoyable experience. In the future, launching of the programme should be targeted appropriately towards the school community. Principals reported different levels of WSB success among the schools. WSB were in operation at two of the case study schools, had stopped at one school because of traffic concerns, and two were due to launch at another school in 2006. Principals also commented that the sustainability of the WSB was highly dependent on parental support. As a result of the STP, however, many informal groups developed where children and parents walked to and from school together. It was suggested that developing strategies to progress the STP more quickly was very important. Four of the principals commented that the current process was frustrating, with many hard physical changes taking a long time to implement. Extending the parental education component may also have valuable consequences, as parental support was integral to the success of the STP. It was important that the travel planners maintain their level of input for the schools, as the principals felt that their personnel would be overburdened if the school had to put additional resources into implementing the STP. Finally, two of the principals commented that the end of the school year was a particularly busy time of year for teaching personnel. In future, STP evaluations should not be carried out at the end of the academic year.

42 Key findings • STP should be promoted on the dual basis that they reduce school-related traffic congestion and provide health benefits for the students. • The role of the travel planner is integral to the STP as they provide a link with other organisations and reduce the burden on school personnel. • The STP launch should be targeted appropriately towards children. • Environmental changes associated with the STP were taking a long time to implement. Consequently, some principals were becoming frustrated with the process. • The time-frame for the STP evaluation should be changed to the start or in the middle of the academic year. • It is recommended that the parental education component in the STP be extended. • Parental support of the STP was imperative to the success of the WSB and the overall programme.

43

Overview

______________________ Children’s Focus Group The focus groups yielded some interesting findings regarding children’s travel behaviour. There was a mixture of travel modes to school. Most children, however, chose to get to and from school by bicycle (57%) or walking (22%), and only two students preferred to be driven by a parent. Interestingly, two of the schools had policies not allowing students to cycle to school, and no school actively encouraged cycling as a form of transport. Most children reported that more pupils were walking to school when compared to a month ago, and it appeared that a cultural shift had occurred; walking to school was viewed by many children as a social opportunity. Many students walked to and from school in informal groups, and many children wanted to walk as part of a WSB. Several children perceived that a WSB was a safer way to commute to school than walking unsupervised without a parent. Apart from the STP surveys, curriculum-based activities were not well remembered by the children. The children also did not know a great deal about the overall project aside from the WSB implementation and pedestrian crossing developments immediately outside the school grounds. Probably as a result of the STP, the children were aware of safety and the health and environmental benefits gained from walking to and from school. The issue of traffic safety was frequently raised by the children, and many children also commented that some parents did not demonstrate appropriate road safety when dropping off or picking up their children. Educating parents about road safety should be addressed in future STP. Key findings • Most children prefer to walk or cycle to school rather than be driven. • School policies regarding cycling to school should be reconsidered. • The STP has positively changed the walking culture within the schools. As such, the children perceive more students are walking to school. • Many of the children wanted to be part of WSB. • Many children walk to and from school as part of informal groups. • Curriculum-based STP activities were not well remembered by the children. • Traffic safety was still a concern for many of the students. • Parents required further traffic safety education.

44

Overview

______________________ School Environmental Audit A modified version of the Systematic Pedestrian and Cycling Environmental Scan (SPACES) audit tool was used to assess the local environment around each school. The environment was assessed in terms of features that would promote active transport to and from school. All schools except for Waiheke Island Primary School were located near residential dwellings. Avondale Primary School and Fruitvale Road School were also near railway tracks. Overall, schools were located in user friendly environments. In general, footpaths directly outside the front or back entrance of the schools ranged from moderate to good condition, were usually clean, and therefore attractive for walking, cycling, or both. Footpaths were typically located approximately between 1-3 metres away from the kerb or directly bordered the road. Footpaths bordering the road may be less desirable and could discourage active transport. The slope of the footpaths at the front entrance for all schools was flat but extended to a moderate or steep slope for Avondale, Verran and Waiheke Island primary schools. Moderate to steep slopes may require the exertion of moderate physical efforts during active transport. The increased physical effort required by an unfit individual to overcome a gradient may deter them from using active transport. Common obstructions on footpaths were the bonnets of parked cars extending over the footpath or overgrown hedges. Such obstructions deter pedestrians from using footpaths and may force them to use the road as an alternative which may compromise their safety. For footpaths that were wide enough to share walking and cycling (Avondale Primary School), there were no visible markings to promote pedestrian safety and encourage dual use of the footpath. No marked cycle lanes were on any roads of the five case study schools. This was probably due to the width of the roads that accommodated one to three vehicles only. Even though cycling to school was a preferred method of active transport by many children, the environment was not conducive to cycling to and from school. Cycle parking facilities were available at Albany and Waiheke Island primary schools for approximately 30-40 cycles, but absent at Avondale, Fruitvale Road and Verran primary schools. Permanent traffic control devices on the roads at the main entrance of the schools were present at Avondale (kerb extensions) and Verran (roundabout) primary schools, but absent at Albany, Fruitvale Road and Waiheke Island primary schools. But, in the absence of permanent traffic control devices, schools utilised different strategies to reduce congestion at the front gate

45 during critical times before and after school. In particular, Albany School blocked the vehicle access way leading into school grounds and parking wardens were present to issue tickets to parents who parked illegally. At Fruitvale Road School the front gate was closed off at these times, prohibiting cars from entering the school grounds. Permanent pedestrian crossings were available in two schools only (Albany and Fruitvale Road primary schools). The other schools operated temporary crossings (kea crossings) with no permanent pedestrian lines. In place of a permanent pedestrian crossing at Avondale Primary School there were permanent kerb extensions that facilitated safe crossing. The only school located close to a main arterial was Avondale Primary School, but no permanent or temporary pedestrian crossing was available directly outside the school. There was, however, a permanent pedestrian crossing on the next block. All permanent and temporary crossings were supervised at critical times before and after school. Temporary pedestrian crossings should be in place with the view to becoming permanent crossings as their absence could jeopardise children’s safety during times when the crossings were not operated by school personnel. Parking restrictions were mainly visible on roads at the front entrance of the schools. Parking restrictions included yellow lines, restricted times, and no parking signs. There were no vehicle-parking restriction signs, traffic control devices, pedestrian crossings, and other crossing aids at the back entrance of the schools. Although every care is taken to improve safety for children at the front gate, these measures are not enforced at the back gate. Parking facilities on the roads bordering the schools usually accommodated 10-20 cars with the exception of Waiheke Island Primary School. At the front entrance of Waiheke Island Primary School there was a parking facility that accommodated approximately 100 cars. A parking facility of that capacity may have compromised the aims of STP implementation. Bus stops were available close to the school grounds at all schools for the use of public transport except Fruitvale Road and Verran primary schools. Absence of bus stops at these two schools limited the available choices of alternative modes of transport. Key findings • All schools were located in a user-friendly environment. • Obstructions to footpath such as overgrown hedges and cars parked next to footpaths or footpaths bordering the road may have discouraged the use of the path for active transport. • It was unsafe for children to cycle to and from school due to the absence of cycle lanes or appropriate footpaths around schools. The presence of cycle lanes would also potentially positively affect travel for other users. • Parking restrictions at the entrance of all schools were sufficient. However, there were no vehicle-parking restriction signs, traffic control devices,

46 pedestrian crossings, or other crossing aids at the back entrance of each school. • Permanent traffic control devices on the roads at the main entrance of the schools were absent at Albany, Fruitvale Road, and Waiheke Island primary schools. • Temporary pedestrian crossings (kea crossings) were available in three schools only. This may have influenced children’s safety during times where pedestrian crossings were not operated by school personnel. • The parking facility that accommodated approximately 100 cars at Waiheke Island Primary School may have compromised STP implementation. • Bus stops were not available for Fruitvale Road and Verran primary schools. This potentially discouraged the use of public transport.

47

Albany School

______________________ Profile Albany School has over 600 pupils currently on its school roll, and provides education for children from Year 1 through to Year 6 (ages 5-10). The school’s zone encompasses both rural and urban areas and the current Education Review Office (ERO) school decile rating is 10. Over the last few years, Albany School has undergone significant changes, including personnel changes (new principal in Term 4, 2003), a substantial increase in the school roll, and building expansions. Albany School began implementing their STP in August 2004. In the initial stages of STP development, letters were sent to local residents (approximately 250 households) inviting them to view the ‘planning for real’ map located at Albany School and to comment on local road safety issues. The ‘planning for real’ map was a three dimensional model that provided information on road safety issues around the school and depicted visual clusters of families and children who could potentially travel to school together. Children’s home addresses were also plotted on a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) map. This provided information regarding the street network and distances that children travelled to access Albany School. As a result of the initial STP analysis, Albany School put in place numerous changes to reduce traffic congestion around school drop off/pick up times and to improve traffic safety for the children. Environmental measures included the creation of a pedestrian crossing, blocking off the school gates to traffic immediately before and after school, and developing a new school bus route to reduce private automobile reliance. A substantial road safety education component for the children was also undertaken at Albany School, led by both the teachers and New Zealand Police. A traffic violation fining system for parents was implemented by North Shore City Council.

48

Albany School ______________________ Children’s Travel Survey The pre and post response rates for the STP at Albany School were high (pre n=360, post n=620). For weighting purposes of the actual travel modes, it was assumed that 533 children were enrolled at each time point of the STP. Comparisons between the two time points are presented below. • Although walking (2%), cycling (4%) and WSB (2%) slightly increased and being driven to school (-2%) decreased between pre and post STP, the percentages for each mode of travel remained relatively constant at each time point (refer to Figure 6). • WSB concept was trialled for a two-week period only and therefore showed a small response from children pre and post STP implementation. • More children walked home from school (pre 13%, post 16%) compared with walking to school (pre 12%, post 12%). • In the afternoons more children also travelled home by bus (pre 17%, post 13%) compared with bussing to school in the mornings (pre 6%, post 8%). • Car use for children’s travel showed a slight decrease when morning and after school trips were compared (mornings: pre 76%, post 73%; afternoons: pre 65%, post 64%).

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Pre STP

er Ot h

ot er

r ca nd

Sc o

r ca Fr ie

PT

Fa m ily

e Cy cl

W al

W SB

Post STP

k

Occurrence (%)

• Despite only 4% of children reporting cycling to/from school in the post STP, cycling to or from school was the most preferred travel mode (32%) for children in the post STP survey (see Figure 7).

Overall travel mode

Figure 6: Albany School children’s overall travel modes to and from school (weighted), pre and post STP implementation.

49

• Children were more likely to prefer travelling by non-motorised (61%) or public transport (21%) modes post STP compared with the baseline (refer to Figure 7) findings. • Fewer children wanted to travel to/from school by car post STP compared with baseline results (-11%). This was the greatest decline of any modal preference. • The greatest increase in children’s preferred travel modes was travelling to/from school by ferry (6%), followed by cycling to/from school (6%).

Occurence (%)

40 30 Pre STP

20

Pos t STP

10

rr y Fe

n Tr ai

Sc o

ot er

ar C

PT

e yc l C

SB W

W

al

k

0

Overall preferred travel modes

Figure 7: Comparison of Albany School children’s pre and post STP travel modes to and from school.

50

Albany School

______________________ Parent Travel Survey Response rates were high for the parent travel surveys (pre n=284, post n=162). Parents reported on their children’s travel modes to and from school, perceptions of the safety of the route to school, and perceptions of travel behaviour relative to their children. • There was a 9% decrease in children being driven to school post STP (refer to Figure 8). Children’s walking levels, as reported by parents, remained constant and WSB, cycling and public transport engagement slightly increased from baseline findings.

Occurence (%)

• The main reasons for parents driving their children to and from school post STP were distance (32%), convenience (21%), traffic safety (19%), and overall safety (13%).

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Pre STP Post STP

Walk

WSB

Cycle

PT

Car

Figure 8: Albany School parental reporting of children’s travel modes, pre and post STP implementation.

• Parents were asked to comment on the perceived safety of their children’s school route post STP (see Figure 9). The majority of parents perceived that the environment was either safe (27%), slightly less than safe (25%), or unsafe (19%). • Cycling was considered a dangerous activity by many parents; 20% of parents reported post STP that they would never let their children cycle to/from school by themselves or with a friend. • The post STP measure also revealed that 12% of parents would never let their children walk to/from school by themselves or with a friend, 4% of parents would never let their child bus to/from school, and 3% of parents would never let their child participate in a WSB. • Eighty two percent of parents were aware that Albany School was implementing the STP at the time of the post survey.

51

Occurrence (%)

40 30 20

Post STP

10 0 Very safe

Safe

Neither

Unsafe

Very unsafe

Parental perceptions of school routes safety

Figure 9: Albany School parental perceptions of school route safety post STP implementation.

52

Albany School ______________________ Staff Travel Survey There was high staff participation in pre and post survey measures. Twenty six staff completed baseline travel surveys and twenty five staff completed post STP travel surveys. • The majority of staff (98%) travel to school in a private motorised vehicle (refer to Figure 10). • There was no change in walking, a slight increase in car use (1%), and a small increase in carpooling (3%). No staff reported use of a bicycle post STP, and public transport was not utilised by any staff member pre or post STP. • The majority of staff (96%) perceived travel behaviour had not changed during the year following STP. One staff member reported a change in behaviour, but then switched from cycling to driving to school due to a change of address. • Apart from one respondent, all staff parked their cars on school grounds. • Thirty six percent of staff reported that nothing would encourage them to walk or cycle to school. Others reported that showers (24%), cycle lanes (16%) and discount on equipment (12%) would encourage them to walk or cycle to school.

Occcurence (%)

• Public transport was a less favourable option for the staff. The majority of staff (96%) reported that nothing would encourage them to use public transport, while others commented that a subsidy or a more direct route would encourage them to use public transport. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Pre STP Post STP

Walk

Car

Carpool

Cycle

PT

Overall staff travel modes

Figure 10: Albany School overall staff travel modes post STP implementation.

53

Albany School

______________________ Principal Interview The main change the principal identified as a direct result of STP was the reduction of congestion around the school gates immediately before and after school. This was primarily a result of prohibiting right hand turns into the school grounds at these times and improving the pedestrian crossings. The educational component also led to children educating their parents about crossing the road safely and parking appropriately. The principal commented that these measures have had a ‘flow on’ effect of reducing stress around the school gates, and have resulted in the reduction of New Zealand Police presence at Albany School this year. In terms of STP implementing, the role of the travel planner was invaluable. The travel planner had the appropriate contacts, understood the procedures required to implement the necessary changes, and continued liaising with council. Having a central co-ordinator, such as a travel planner, also helped to reduce the burden that otherwise would fall on school personnel. The external funding for the reliever teacher was a welcome addition to the programme. The principal also commented that it was vital to have BOT support as the STP was a substantial undertaking. Initiation of the STP has also resulted in Albany School developing an official school travel policy. The focus of the policy was to formalise appropriate ages for the children to be walking and cycling to school, safety issues regarding crossing the road and taking public transport, and traffic management. Other comments by the principal regarding the STP included having travel planners walk the WSB route before it launches; Albany School’s WSB had to cease after two weeks because the roads were deemed too busy and unsafe and footpaths were not in existence along the whole route. Reimbursement and incentives for teachers and BOT members should also be considered in future STP.

54

Albany School

______________________ Lead Travel Teacher Interview The main motivator for the lead travel teacher to participate in the programme was to improve traffic safety for the children. As such, the education component of the STP was extremely valuable for the students, and it increased the parental perceptions of their children’s safety for travelling to school. The programme also provided the teachers with the tools to provide safe guidelines for school-related travel to both children and parents, and consequently, school drop off/pick up times became more organised and safer for the children. The STP generated a lot of community discussion and support; the principal provided lollipops for children who used the crossing correctly, a parent became the WSB liaison and parents supervised the pedestrian crossing. The lead travel teacher recommended that in the future ARTA informed the teachers of the programme’s aims and objectives before the launch of the STP to try to reduce the time frame of project implementation. Another concern raised by the lead travel teacher was ensuring that there was no extra burden for the teachers. The programme may start to lose support from the teachers if the STP increased their current workload.

55

Albany School

______________________ Children’s Focus Group Of the five children that participated in the focus group at Albany School, two were driven to/from school, two were driven part-way to/from school and scootered the rest of the journey and one student walked to/from school. When asked how the students would prefer to travel to school, none wanted to be driven; three children wanted to travel by bicycle, one by scooter and the other student preferred to walk. Children preferred these travel modes because they provided an opportunity to travel with friends, walking and cycling were seen as enjoyable travel modes, and they were convenient. The students wanted to see more WSB developed as they perceived that it was safer to walk to school as part of a WSB. Three children thought that more children walked to school as a result of the STP and all commented that more people used the pedestrian crossing at the time of the focus group when compared with a month ago. When the children were asked what they knew about the STP, the children mentioned the pedestrian crossing at the front of the main entrance at Albany School. One child noticed that there were fewer cars outside the school gate. Initiatives in the classroom included reading books about road safety, discussions regarding the environmental changes outside school and the STP survey. The students also raised the issue that parents needed to be educated about crossing the road safely and that parents should use the pedestrian crossing accordingly. Some specific comments from the focus group were: ‘More kids use the pedestrian crossing now because it is a safe place to cross’ ‘It is fun to walk with my friends’ ‘It is important that parents know that they have to cross at the crossing’

56

Albany School

______________________ School Environmental Audit Overview The main entrance to the school was located on Bass Road and the back entrance on Crowe Close Sreet. The surrounding infrastructure comprised residential dwellings. Footpaths On both roads and on both sides of each street there were footpaths of continuous concrete with one side bordering the road while the other side had a grass verge separating the kerb and the footpath. Bass Road and Crowe Close Street footpaths were clean and overall were very attractive for walking and cycling.

No obstructions were found on the footpaths on Bass Road. The footpath on Crowe Street was obstructed on one side of the road by the bonnets/bumpers of parked cars extending over the footpath. Such obstructions deter pedestrians from using footpaths and may force them to use the road as an alternative. A path through a park was available on Crowe Close St. Road Neither road had any marked cycle lanes due to the fact that the road was not a main arterial. On Bass Road, vehicle parking restrictions were visible (2 minute drop off zone) and the vehicle access way leading into the school grounds was blocked during pick up times to reduce congestion in front of the school gate. Parking wardens were present on Bass Road only. These wardens could issue tickets if parents were parked on yellow lines. Bass Road narrowed on one end serving as an additional traffic control device.

A pedestrian crossing with lollipop signs also operated before and after school and was supervised by parents. On Crowe Close Street there were no vehicle parking restriction signs, traffic control devices, pedestrian crossing or other crossing aids. However, Crowe Close Street was a cul-de-sac and traffic exited via Bass Road. On both roads during pick up, 15-20 cars were parked to collect school children. Parked cars reduced the roads’ width to approximately one and a half lanes. The subsequent reduction in road width would likely contribute to traffic congestion experienced at that time which in turn may affect traffic on Albany Highway.

57 Cycle parking facilities were available for 40 cycles in the school grounds (accessed from Bass Road). At the time of observation, the bicycle rack was full. It is possible that if more bicycle racks were made available, more children would choose to cycle to school.

58

Albany School ______________________ Conclusions • Albany School was successful in meeting the two objectives stated in their STP: to reduce traffic congestion and improve traffic safety for the children. • Despite the implementation of hard and soft measures there was no substantial change in travel behaviour in children, parents, or staff. • The majority of children preferred active to passive transport. • Children’s actual travel behaviour and parents’ perceived travel behaviour of their children was slightly different in terms of car use. • Distance was the primary reason for parents driving their children to school. • The majority of the parents perceived the environment to be generally safe in terms of WSB route. • The STP formed the impetus for the development of an official school travel policy.

59

Avondale Primary School

______________________ Profile Avondale Primary School has approximately 350 children with an ERO school decile rating of three. The school has a diverse cultural and ethnic makeup, with only 31% of the school roll classified as European/Pakeha or Maori. Avondale Primary School is situated between a main arterial road route and a railway line and is near a busy shopping centre. Currently, Avondale Primary School is developing processes to encourage parents to become more involved in school-based initiatives. Avondale Primary School’s STP was launched in March 2004. Objectives for Avondale Primary School’s STP were to engineer a safer environment around the school, educate and enforce appropriate road safety behaviour in children and parents, make walking and cycling to Avondale Primary School an efficient journey, actively encourage school related walking and cycling, and monitor and review the action plan. The STP process at Avondale Primary School included conducting surveys with parents and children from the school, setting up a working group comprising of representatives from key stakeholder groups and school personnel to discuss and document school travel issues and solutions, implementing the agreed action plan developed by the working group and monitoring the progress of STP. STP components examined by the working group included the number of children travelling to and from school via different travel modes, perceptions of school-related travel safety, parental and child STP participation, community awareness of the STP, level of cycling and walking infrastructure within the community and driving behaviour of adults proximal to Avondale Primary School. The main objective for Avondale Primary School’s STP was to provide safe places for children, parents and staff to cross when they were commuting to and from school. Consequently, five physical environmental changes occurred within the community setting and around the perimeter of the school. Environmental measures included building pedestrian refuges and crossings in the neighbouring streets and developing a controlled crossing outside the main school entrance. Avondale Primary School also incorporated a community focus into the programme. Students walked set routes around the surrounding streets for eight weeks during school time to encourage awareness about walking in the local community. Baseline data for Avondale Primary School could not be located at the time of writing this report. Accordingly, all baseline data pertaining to Avondale Primary School were drawn from the information provided in the initial STP report.

60

Avondale Primary School

______________________ Children’s Travel Survey The presented children’s travel results are compiled from the ‘hands up’ survey conducted in December 2005 (post values) (n=242) and the initial STP summary from March 2004 (pre values). For weighting purposes of the actual travel modes, it was assumed that 379 children were enrolled at each time point of the STP. • Minimal differences were observed in walking behaviour pre and post STP. There was a 2% decrease in children walking to and from school post STP (refer to Figure 11). Despite the STP generating no walking changes, a large portion of children consistently walked to and from school post STP (42%). • There was a 4% decrease in the number of children being driven to school in the family car post STP. • Changes regarding WSB, cycling, travelling in a friend’s car, scootering, and other modes for pre and post STP implementation could not be ascertained as these travel mode data were not collected in the baseline survey.

Occurrence (%)

80 70 60 50

Pre STP

40 30

Post STP

20 10 0 Walk

Family car Overall travel mode

Figure 11: Avondale Primary School children’s overall travel modes to and from school (weighted), pre and post STP implementation.

• More children preferred to cycle to school post STP (34%) than pre STP implementation (21%). • In the post STP survey, walking (31%) and being driven to and from school (25%) were the second and third preferable school travel mode options for children, respectively.

61

Avondale Primary School

______________________ Parent Travel Survey Ninety eight parents participated in the post STP parent travel survey at Avondale Primary School. The number of baseline surveys collected was not available. • Forty eight percent of parents reported driving their children to school, while 50% reported their children walked to and from school pre STP. • More parents drove their children to school (53%) and fewer children walked (42%) post STP implementation. • More parents drove straight home after dropping their children to school in the morning post STP (31%) than pre STP implementation (26%). • In the afternoons, similar percentages of parents drove straight home after picking up their children from school (pre 36%, post 34%) while 33% of parents drove directly from home to pick up their children in the afternoon post STP implementation. • Few parents supported a school bus service post STP. Only 4% of parents said that their children would use a bus service if it were offered. Cost of the service and living close to the school were the main reasons why public transport would not be utilised at this school. • The majority of parents perceived the environment to either be safe (35%) or slightly less than safe (26%) for their children (refer to Figure 12).

Occurrence (%)

40 30 20

Post STP

10 0 Very safe

Safe

Neither

Unsafe

Very unsafe

Parental perception of school route safety

Figure 12: Avondale Primary School parental perceptions of school route safety post STP implementation.

• Similar to baseline data, post STP data indicated that parents would never let their children cycle to school by themselves or with another child (34%).

62

Avondale Primary School

______________________ Staff Travel Survey Baseline staff travel surveys at Avondale Primary School were not available, therefore only post STP survey results were summarised. Twenty two staff completed the post survey. • Staff at Avondale Primary School engaged in similar levels of modal transport to and from work each day post STP.

Occurence (%)

• The majority of staff (77%) travelled to work utilising private motorised transport (Figure 13). 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Post STP

Walk

Car

Car pool

PT

Overal staff travel modes

Figure 13: Avondale Primary School overall staff travel modes to and from school post STP implementation.

• Seventy three percent of staff perceived that their travel behaviour had not changed over the past year. Only six people reported a change in behaviour post STP which included the use of carpooling, public transport, or car, to travel to work. • Apart from two respondents, all staff parked their cars within the school grounds during work hours. • Lack of cycle lanes was the main barrier to staff cycling to or from school. However, 50% of respondents stated that no level of environmental change would encourage them to cycle to/from school. • Using public transport was a favourable potential travel mode alternative to cycling. Sixty eight percent of staff would consider using public transport if a subsidy was offered, and if the routes were more direct and frequent.

63

Avondale Primary School

______________________ Principal Interview The primary motivators for the principal to participate in STP implementation were first, to reduce the number of cars around the school, thereby increasing the children’s safety, and secondly, to encourage the children to accumulate more physical activity. Despite STP implementation, the principal has not noticed any changes in children’s overall travel behaviour, regarding both modal shift and culture. Although the principal did not perceive that any more children were walking or cycling to school, she commented that more children were returning to school after hours by walking or cycling, despite having been driven to and from school in the first instance. With regards to implementing the STP, the clear initial objectives ensured that no changes had to be made to the programme. The launch was an enjoyable event for the entire school community and the travel planner was very supportive. Currently ARTA is using GIS to map the children’s’ home addresses to identify the optimal locations for safe crossings for the maximum number of children. Once these crossings have been identified they will be incorporated into the school newsletter and sent home to parents. Despite the student neighbourhood walking programme initiated at Avondale Primary School being well received by the wider community, lack of parental support for the STP was a continuing problem for the school. To date, WSB have not been implemented due to parent unavailability, and although many children wanted to cycle to school, parents have not approached school personnel regarding installing bicycle racks. A recommendation made by the principal to improve parental support was to offer incentives directly to parents. Other suggestions included incorporating more robust survey measures to get a true reflection of student travel behaviour and using celebrities to launch and improve the profile of WSB.

64

Avondale Primary School

______________________ Children’s Focus Group Four children participated in the focus group. Three children usually walked to school and one child was driven to and from school. Children’s reasons for walking to and from school included dairy visits before or after school, health gains and proximity to the school. Three children thought that more students walked to school at the time of the focus group when compared to a month prior. When children were asked how they preferred to travel to school, three favoured cycling and one favoured bussing. Avondale Primary School children were not allowed to cycle to school as per school policy. The danger of road traffic was raised by the children, even though three of the children recognised that the main focus of the STP was traffic safety when travelling to school. Despite STP targeting road safety issues, the area surrounding Avondale Primary School has a heavy traffic flow that probably cannot be addressed solely by STP implementation. Even after participating in a road safety education module, one child expressed strong concerns for their safety. Some specific comments from the focus group were: ‘I would prefer to walk to school because it would make me more healthy’ ‘I live really close so it would be silly not to walk’ ‘…I like to bike because it is really fun’ ‘Sometimes I think I may get hit by a car because there is so much traffic’

65

Avondale Primary School

______________________ School Environmental Audit Overview The main entrance to the school was situated on Crayford Street, the back entrance on Layard Street, and Avondale Road runs alongside the school. While the surroundings on Crayford Street were mainly residential and commercial infrastructures, Layard Street was adjacent to a railroad line (refer to Figure 14), and Avondale Road was a major arterial route adjacent to commercial businesses and bus stop shelters.

Figure 14: Layard Street next to railway tracks at the back entrance of Avondale Primary School.

Footpaths On Crayford Street and Avondale Road, paths were shared for both walking and cycling but no visible markings were present. The 3 metre width from the kerb of the shared path on Crayford Street and Avondale Road encouraged walking and cycling but visible markings were not present to encourage the dual use of the path. Paving bricks added some appeal to the footpaths. All paths surrounding the school were in good condition, were attractive and had no obstructions. Road None of the roads had any marked cycle lanes, discouraging cycle use. The slopes on Layard Street and Avondale Road were flat and on Crayford Street moderate, requiring overall low to moderate levels of physical exertion for active transport. All roads were in good condition. While both Crayford Street and Avondale Road were wide enough for 2-3 lanes, Layard Street accommodated one lane of traffic only.

On Crayford Street there were signs with 60 minute parking restrictions on one side of the road, while on Layard Street and Avondale Road there were yellow markings along the roads prohibiting vehicle parking. Traffic was controlled on Crayford Street only through lane narrowing (refer to Figure 15). Although there were traffic lights further down Avondale Road, the lack of controlled crossings directly outside the school on the main

66 arterial route was unusual. A pedestrian crossing controlled with lollipop signs (kea crossing) was available on Crayford Street 15 minutes before and after school. The crossing was only temporary and no pedestrian markings were painted on the road. However, permanent kerb extensions were present to facilitate safe crossing. Crossing supervision was only available on Crayford Street crossing. On Layard Street, an overpass gave access to pedestrians from the railway tracks to the road.

Figure 15: Narrowing of road on Crayford Street facilitates traffic control.

On Avondale Road there was a median refuge that was widely used by children and caregivers before and after school. Cars stopped infrequently to let children cross. A sign alerted pedestrians to give way to vehicles (refer to Figure 16). Bus stops were present on either side of the street on Avondale Road, providing easy access to the bus service.

Figure 16: A pedestrian median refuge on Avondale Road with a warning sign for pedestrians to give way to vehicles.

There was car parking for approximately 20 cars at the Crayford Street and Layard Street entrances. Avondale Road had several bus stops and shelters proximal to the school grounds. Cycle parking facilities were absent within or outside Avondale Primary School.

67

Avondale Primary School

______________________ Conclusions • Avondale Primary School was successful in creating a safer environment around the school with the addition of refuges and a controlled pedestrian crossing, but unsuccessful in initiating WSB and sustaining changing travel behaviours. • The scope of the STP could not address the high traffic speeds and volumes associated with the proximal streets. • Despite the implementation of hard and soft measures there were minimal changes in walking travel behaviour in children and staff and there was an increase in the number of children being driven to school. • The majority of the children preferred active to passive transport. • Parents’ perceptions of children’s actual travel mode to school were similar. • The majority of the parents considered the school travel route to be safe despite children’s traffic concerns. • The WSB was not implemented and cycling racks were not installed due to lack of parental interest and support. • Despite the proximity of bus stops and shelters, very few parents would allow their children to use a bus service.

68

Fruitvale Road School

______________________ Profile Fruitvale Road School caters for children from Years 1 to 6 and has a current ERO school decile rating of two. There are approximately 300 pupils on the school roll, and the school provides high quality education for a diverse ethnic mix of primary school-aged children. Within the culture of the school, the principal has a strong leadership role and is well supported by the BOT and school personnel. Fruitvale Road School is located in a suburban setting through, a railway line is adjacent to the school. Fruitvale Road School was approached by the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) (predecessor of ARTA) in October 2003 to be the second of two pilot schools within the West Auckland region to participate in an STP programme. Fruitvale Road School was initially targeted so as ARC/ARTA could establish the success of implementing an STP within a low decile school setting. Initiatives at Fruitvale Road School have centred strongly on changing the culture regarding walking to and from school. As such, the STP at Fruitvale Road School focused extensively on consultation and participation within the school and local communities to identify key concerns regarding the road network surrounding the school. Prior to STP, several attempts were made by the school to address school related travel safety concerns. Extensive lobbying resulted in several hard environmental changes occurring (pedestrian crossing on Titirangi Road, speed bumps on Fruitvale Road, and a pedestrian refuge being installed along Northall Road). The refuge on Northall Road was not situated in the natural walk line of children travelling to/from school and many parents perceived that the volume and speed of traffic along Titirangi Road were still too dangerous for children to safely cross. These environmental measures, therefore, have limited utility. However, further environmental measures are awaiting completion. The school provided a road safety education module to children in Years 1 to 6. One controlled crossing was operated along Croyden Road adjacent to the main entrance of the school. Crossing supervision along Northall Road was provided by the principal despite the lack of a formal crossing facility. The STP for Fruitvale Road School incorporated several phases. Phase one consisted of defining the current transport patterns by means of surveying children, parents and residents around the school. Phase two was the development of a draft STP that was written by a working group consisting of school personnel, BOT and council representatives. Phase three involved

69 consultation with the parent community regarding the proposed STP. Parents were provided with an opportunity to comment on the programme at parent teacher interviews and potential STP strategies were displayed in the school hall at that time. Parents were invited to indicate their support of each individual strategy on a voting sheet. Incentives were offered to the parents to maximise participation. Fruitvale Road School had an intensive STP programme. Strategies that were actioned at Fruitvale Road School as part of STP included developing a WSB for children, running a cycle skills course for years 5 to 6, teaching children how to cross the road safely (including crossing railway tracks), encouraging networking and carpooling by parents who lived proximal to each other, students creating maps of preferred walking and cycling routes, reinforcing walking and cycling to/from school in the school newsletter, petitioning for slower traffic speeds around the school, upgrading the walkway linking the school to the street, preventing cars mounting the footpaths and installing road signage alerting drivers to the presence of a school.

70

Fruitvale Road School

______________________ Children’s Travel Survey Two hundred and seventy eight children participated in the pre STP survey and 301 children participated, post STP implementation. For weighting purposes of the actual travel modes, it was assumed that 297 children were enrolled at each time point of the STP. Figures 17 and 18 summarise the overall travel modal shift and the preferred modal shift, respectively. • There was a 4% increase in the number of children walking to and from school and an 11% decrease in the number of children being driven to and from school in the family car post STP implementation. • The shift to travelling in a friend’s car could not be established as no pre STP data regarding this travel mode existed. The post STP value was 3%. • Cycling, bus use, and scootering remained consistently low over both sampling periods (approximately 1%).

Occurrence (%)

• Post STP 4% of children commuted to school via WSB. 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Pre STP Post STP

Walk

WSB

Cycle

PT

Family car

Scooter

Overall travel mode

Figure 17: Fruitvale Road School children’s overall travel modes (weighted), pre and post STP implementation.

• There was a 6% increase in cycling as the preferred travel mode post STP implementation. Cycling was also the most preferred mode of school travel at both time points. • Children were 7% less likely to choose travel by motorized modes (car and bus). Preference for walking decreased by 4% post STP implementation.

71 • Post STP, 8% of children preferred to travel to school by WSB and 4% of children preferred to travel home by the same mode.

Occurrence (%)

40 30 Pre STP

20

Post STP

10 0 Walk

Cycle

PT

Car

Scooter

Overall preferred travel mode

Figure 18: Fruitvale Road School children’s preferred overall school travel modes, pre and post STP implementation.

72

Fruitvale Road School

______________________ Parent Travel Survey Parental responses were high pre STP (n=217) but lower post STP implementation (n=60). Parents reported on their children’s travel modes to and from school, perceptions of the safety of the route to school and perceptions of travel behaviour relative to their children. • Parents reported a slight increase in the number of children walking to school post STP (3%), adoption of WSB (4%), a slight increase in bus use (4%) and a decrease in children being driven to school by 11% (refer to Figure 19). 80

Occurence (%)

70 60 50

Pre STP

40

Post STP

30 20 10 0 Walk

WSB

PT

Car

Parental perception of children's travel modes

Figure 19: Fruitvale Road School parental reporting of students’ overall travel modes to and from school pre and post STP implementation.

• The three main reasons for parents driving their children to school post STP were distance (48%), safety (31%) and convenience (13%) in comparison to pre STP results which were distance (31%), convenience (29%) and safety (27%). • Parents were asked to comment on the perceived safety of their children’s school route post STP (refer to Figure 20). The majority of parents perceived the environment to be (25%), safe (29%), neither (25%) or unsafe (10%). • Parents did not consider cycling as a dangerous activity post STP. In particular 60% of the parents perceived cycling to be very safe or safe. • Post STP, some parents reported that they would never let their children walk to/from school by themselves or with a friend (12%), let their child bus to/from school (4%), or let their children participate in a WSB (3%).

73 • Only 51% of parents were aware that Fruitvale Road School was implementing an STP at the time of post STP data collection.

Occurrence (%)

40 30 Post STP

20 10 0 Very safe

Safe

Neither

Unsafe

Very unsafe

No answer

Parental perception of school route safety

Figure 20: Fruitvale Road School parental perceptions of school route safety post STP implementation.

74

Fruitvale Road School

______________________ Staff Travel Survey

Occurrence (%)

Baseline staff travel survey data were not available, therefore only post STP survey data were reported. Sixteen staff completed post STP surveys. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Post STP

Walk/run

Car

Carpool

PT

Overall staff travel modes

Figure 21: Fruitvale Road School overall staff travel modes to and from school post STP implementation.

• The majority of staff (93%) travelled to school in a private motorised vehicle (refer to Figure 21). • Ninety four percent of the staff reported no behaviour change following implementation of the STP. One staff member reported a change in behaviour to walking to school to save money. • All staff parked their cars on school grounds apart from two respondents (walked, no answer). • Twenty six percent of the staff reported nothing would encourage them to walk or cycle to school while others reported that distance (20%), lockers (14%), availability of cycle parking facilities (7%), cycle lanes (7%), and improved fitness (7%) and safety (7%) would encourage them to walk or cycle to school. • Slightly less favourable to walking or cycling to work was the option of public transport. Thirty three percent of staff reported that nothing would encourage them to use public transport while others would be encouraged if the bus services ran more frequently (25%), the bus stop was nearer (17%) and tickets were subsidised (17%).

75

Fruitvale Road School

______________________ Principal Interview The principal perceived that since the initiation of the STP more staff and students walked to and from school. Also, as an extension of STP, all of the students and teachers at Fruitvale Road School regularly walked to the New Lynn library (20 minutes each way) when required. As a result, the principal reported teachers commenting on the improvement in overall fitness levels of the children. The WSB was very successful with approximately 18-20 children using it each day. Although the principal found it was a lot of work to get the WSB set up initially, the parental support was excellent and it was organised by a parent liaison with minimal input required from the school. There was also an unofficial WSB where some children met down the road and walked to school together. Conducting the STP helped to raise the students’ and the BOT’s awareness about health, physical activity and obesity. This led to other facets of the school being examined, for example, the food served at the tuck-shop and staff involvement in a fitness programme developed by a gym. A BOT member also made a clay foot for each child who regularly walked to and from school (approximately 200 students). A student’s name was inscribed on each foot and the feet will be concreted to the school grounds. Also, as a direct consequence of the STP, Fruitvale Road School is working with the Ministry of Education to become an ‘Active School’. Despite the successes of the STP, Fruitvale Road School was still waiting for the footpaths to be improved around the railway line and staff were not carpooling. There was also some parental concern regarding strangers in the area.

76

Fruitvale Road School

______________________ Children’s Focus Group Four children participated in the focus groups. Three of the children were driven to school and one walked. Aside from one child, all preferred to walk or cycle to school, mainly because of the potential health and fitness benefits. Children’s recall of STP included the WSB that was currently operating and the pedestrian crossing outside the main school entrance. Children were also asked if they thought that more of their peers were currently walking or cycling to and from school as a result of STP. The responses were mixed with three children thinking walking levels had improved and one child reporting that cycling levels had decreased in the last month. Other than the STP surveys that were conducted prior to the focus group, none of the children reported any classroom-based travel activities. Despite extensive prompting, the children did not elaborate further on these statements. Some specific comments from the focus group were: ‘I would rather walk but no one who lives down my street walks. If I walked I would have to do it by myself.’ ‘I walked when a WSB was going.’ ‘Walking keeps you fit and you get to meet friends along the way.’

77

Fruitvale Road School

______________________ School Environmental Audit Overview The main entrance to the school was located on Croydon Road and the back entrance on Westall Road which was off Northall Road (refer to Figure 22). The surrounding infrastructure comprised of residential dwellings.

Figure 22: Westall Road off Northall Road at the back entrance of the school.

Footpaths On Croydon Road there were footpaths on both sides of the street which were separated from the kerb by a grass verge. The footpath was constructed of concrete slabs. The Croydon Road path was on a flat slope, in good condition and with no obstructions.

The footpath on Northall Road was made of concrete slabs and was located three metres away from the kerb, making it easier and safer for children to walk or cycle. Northall Road footpath was on a flat slope but in moderate condition with obstructions along the path. Footpath obstructions included overgrown hedges and boots of cars overhanging onto the footpath (refer to Figure 23). In both cases, the footpath became very narrow.

Figure 23: Cars obstructing path leading to Fruitvale Road School entrance.

78 Road Neither road had any marked cycle lanes, probably because the road width was appropriate for two vehicle lanes only. Both roads were flat and in moderate condition with some cracks and bumps.

Parking restrictions were observed on both roads. On Croydon Road there were yellow lines before and after the pedestrian crossing and on Northall Road there were yellow line parking restrictions around the refuges and street corners. There were no traffic control devices on either of the roads or any alternate routes available. Bus stops were not present on either of the roads which potentially discouraged the use of a bus service. The only pedestrian crossing available located on Croydon Road was supervised before and after school. Pedestrian crossing markings were present (refer to Figure 24).

Figure 24: Pedestrian crossing with temporary lollipop signs on Croydon Road.

A significant strategy employed by the school during drop off and pick up times to reduce traffic congestion at the school gate was the closing off of the front gate so cars could not drive into the school grounds. Car parking facilities were present on both roads allowing up to approximately 20 cars to park on the road. Cycle parking facilities were not present on either road. Croydon Road was generally clean and attractive to walk. However, once cars were parked on either side of the road, the street became too narrow for cycling. Contrary to the overall cleanliness of Croydon Road, on Northall Road there was graffiti on a number of structures (refer to Figure 25). Nevertheless, Northall Road had a substantially lower traffic volume than Croydon Road.

Figure 25: Northall Road with graffiti present on walls and structures.

79

Fruitvale Road School

______________________ Conclusions • There was an increase in the number of children walking to and from school and a substantial decrease in the number of children being driven to and from school. • A WSB was initiated due to parental support but only a few children participated (19). • The majority of children preferred active to passive transport. • Distance remained the number one reason for parents driving their children to school. • The majority of parents perceived the environment of their children’s school route to be generally safe. • Despite a change in children’s travel behaviour, staff travel behaviour showed minimal change.

80

Verran Primary School

______________________ Profile Verran Primary School has approximately 200 pupils on the roll, with the ethnic composition predominantly made up of European/Pakeha (59%) children. The current ERO school decile rating for Verran Primary School is seven, and the primary school is generally regarded as high performing and well governed. Verran Primary School is also an ‘Environmental Education’ pilot school. As such, the school curriculum is focused on environmental and sustainability issues. The school is situated at the end of a steep suburban cul-de-sac road with paths running between the school and the local streets. No bus lines service the school. The STP was implemented in July 2005. After surveying the children, parents and staff, the travel planner worked with the children to create three dimensional maps of the area surrounding the school. The children played a substantial role in implementing the STP. Children plotted where they lived and discussed actual and potential modes of travel to/from school and perceptions of safety when travelling the road network. Parents and residents were also invited to view the map and commented on the identified safety issues. Parents and staff also commented on issues and concerns relating to the school gate area at pick up/drop off times. Most of these concerns raised related to vehicle congestion. The reason for the large parental consultation component at Verran Primary School was that the school chose to focus their STP on cultural change within the school community. Suggestions resulting from the mapping exercise included installing road signage alerting drivers to the presence of a school, painting yellow road markings along Verbena Road, improving the safety of the scenic reserve and modifying the major intersections leading into the school’s streets. Regarding the environmental measures, many of these changes are awaiting implementation by the council in next financial year. Approval has been granted for a pedestrian refuge to be built on the main road and speed restriction signs will also be placed on the road leading down to the school.

81

Verran Primary School

______________________ Children’s Travel Survey Verran Primary School had large child survey response rates (178 pre, 229 post). For weighting purposes of the actual travel modes, it was assumed that 202 children were enrolled at each time point of the STP. Key results from Verran Primary School’s children’s travel survey are outlined below. • There was an 11% increase in children walking to school post STP implementation and a 13% reduction of children being driven to school in the family car (refer to Figure 26). 80 Occurrence (%)

70 60 50

Pre ST P

40

Post ST P

30 20 10 0 Walk

Cycle

PT

Family car

Other

Overall travel modes

Figure 26: Comparison of Verran Primary School children’s overall travel modes to and from school (weighted), pre and post STP implementation.

• In the baseline sample, children were less likely walk to school (36%) and more likely to walk home (45%). In the post-sample, children were likely to walk to and from school (51%). • In the post STP survey, children were most likely to commute to and from school either by walking (51%) or being driven in the family car (42%). • Prevalence levels of travelling by cycle, bus and other travel modes remained consistently low at both time points. • Baseline data were not available for WSB, travelling in a friend’s car and scooter travel modes. These are not reported in Figure 26. The WSB concept was only trialled post STP with very few children. • The most preferred mode of transport for children to and from school was cycling irrespective of STP implementation. This preference figure increased by 8% post STP (refer to Figure 27). • Aside from ‘other’ travel modes, the WSB was consistently the least preferred travel mode.

82 • Less children preferred to travel by walking, WSB, bus, and car following the STP implementation. • The preference of commuting by car preference had the greatest decline (5%).

Occurrence (%)

40

30 Pre STP

20

Post STP

10

0 Walk

WSB

Cycle

PT

Car

Scooter

Other

Overall preferred travel modes

Figure 27: Verran Primary School children’s preferred overall travel modes, pre and post STP implementation.

83

Verran Primary School

______________________ Parent Travel Survey Parental responses were higher pre STP (n=89) than post STP implementation (n=52). Parents reported on their children’s travel modes to and from school, perceptions of the safety of the route to school, and perceptions of travel behaviour relative to their children. • Parents reported that overall children walking to and from school increased by 30%, and children being driven to and from school decreased by 14% post STP implementation (refer to Figure 28). • Pre STP implementation parents reported that their children only travelled to and from school by walking or being driven. Post STP, parents reported that children also commuted to and from school via WSB and public transport (although these rates were low). • In the afternoons, 17% of parents in the post STP survey went directly home every day after picking up their children from school. • Only one parent in the post STP survey reported that they would utilise a school bus. The main reason for not supporting a school bus route was because many children lived close to the school. 80 Occurrence (%)

70 60 50

Pre STP

40

Post STP

30 20 10 0 Walk

WSB

PT

Car

Overall children's travel modes

Figure 28: Comparison of Verran Primary School parental reporting of children’s overall travel modes to and from school, pre and post STP implementation.

• Parents perceived that their children’s route to and from school was very safe (15%) or safe (42%). • Time constraints (33%) and safety (26%) were the most commonly reported barriers for not allowing children to travel to school by modes other than cars post STP implementation (refer to Figure 29). The most frequently

84 reported barriers in the baseline survey were safety (33%) and distance (17%). • Time constraint issues regarding participation in alternative travel modes to cars showed the greatest increase (21%) between the two time points. Distance also remained a consistent barrier for parents pre (17%) and post STP implementation (16%).

Occurrence (%)

40 30 Pre STP

20

Post STP

10

th er Ch ild ag e Tr ip ch No ain bu ss er vi ce No ca rp oo Ca l r ry ite m s

Ti m e

W ea

e an c

Di st

Sa fe t

y

0

Barriers

Figure 29: Verran Primary School parental perceptions of barriers prohibiting their children walking, cycling, or bussing to and from school, pre and post STP implementation.

• Although child age was not a substantial barrier for parents allowing children to walk or cycle to and from school, post STP implementation showed that 60% of parents would allow their children at 5 years of age to walk to and from school by themselves or with a friend. • No parents would let their 5-year-old children cycle to school, 27% of parents would let their 10-year-old children cycle, and 23% of parents would never let their children cycle to and from school post STP implementation.

85

Verran Primary School

______________________ Staff Travel Survey Participation in the staff travel surveys was very low with 14 staff completing the baseline survey and 4 staff participating in the post STP survey. Consequently, comparisons could not be made between the two time points. The presented findings are a summary of the surveys from both time points. • In the pre STP survey, two staff walked to and from work and 12 staff drove to and from school. • All respondents (n=4) in the post STP survey used private motorised transport. • Three of the participants in the pre STP and post survey carpooled to and from school. • In the post STP survey, participants were asked what would encourage them to walk or cycle to work. Two respondents perceived that nothing would motivate them to actively commute to/from work and one respondent perceived that more available infrastructure (footpaths, cycle lanes) and not having to carry heavy items home would encourage active travel to and from work. The same participant noted that providing public transport subsidies would also encourage mass transit use.

86

Verran Primary School

______________________ Principal Interview The main travel changes that the principal noticed with STP implementation was an increased awareness regarding travelling to and from school which had a flow on effect with more students walking to school. More parents also walked with their children to school, possibly because of the large focus on parental consultation in the initial stages of the STP project. As such, the parents were generally supportive of the programme as they felt it provided health and environmental benefits. Also, no school personnel lived within walking distance to the school, so few staff car pooled together. The principal thought that the main reason for the success of STP was the travel planner. The travel planner consulted thoroughly with the parents and addressed their concerns (major and minor) before promoting travel behaviour change. The travel planner essentially ran the whole programme for Verran Primary School by conducting the project, liaising with Council and reporting to the school community, as well as keeping everybody motivated. The principal perceived that if the programme was left to school personnel to be implemented, it would not have got off the ground, both because of time constraints and not having the appropriate contacts. On a larger scale, the principal found that the STP helped get the wider community together to think about sustainable travel options and ensured the setting around the school was safe for all. Reasons for supporting the STP included reducing traffic congestion around the school gates, health and fitness benefits for the children, and encouraging children to socialise with friends when travelling to school. Supporting environmentally friendly travel modes fitted well within Verran Primary School’s culture since the school is recognised as an ‘Enviro-school’. Although the STP was well supported by the school community, most of the physical environmental changes will take place next financial year (due to council funding). This was disappointing for the principal. Other strategies included in Verran Primary School’s travel plan were painting yellow lines over driveways to discourage parents blocking residential access, using the ACC speed trailer on the school’s access road, and focusing on traffic speeds in the school newsletter. A ‘two minute drop zone’ was proposed for the roundabout by the main school entrance, but was rejected by the parents as they thought that more cars would circle around the roundabout and compromise children’s safety.

87

Verran Primary School

______________________ Children’s Focus Group Six children participated in the focus group at Verran Primary School. Four children walked to school, one was driven part-way, and the other child was driven to school. Five of the children preferred to cycle to and from school and the other favoured walking. The main reasons for choosing to cycle were fun and quickness in transport. However, current policy at the school does not allow children to cycle to school. All the children reported that more children were walking to school as a result of the STP. Other comments included that it was ‘cool’ to walk, the programme had caused a chain reaction, large groups of children walked to school together, and the traffic around the school gates had decreased. The students enjoyed the launch and ‘Maxx’ the mascot was well remembered. Although the children did not recall any curriculum-based activities, the pupils stated that their teachers still talked about travelling to school. The only thing that students could specifically identify about the STP was the WSB. Comments included having more parents available so more WSB could be set up and having wider routes so more children could participate. The children suggested that people could all meet at designated places to join onto the WSB and skits could be performed at the parents’ assemblies to encourage parents to get involved in the STP or help run a WSB. One child also commented that they felt much safer when they walked as part of a WSB. Other concerns for the children when walking to and from school included; taunting from teenagers, uncontrolled dogs and cars reversing out of driveways. Specific comments from the focus group were: ‘I would prefer to walk, but it is too far and I have a little brother. I would rather walk or cycle.’ ‘Not many people walked before Travelwise. More people walk now because people are now thinking about walking to school. It is now cool to walk to school.’ ‘I do road patrol and there are still more cars coming down to pick the children up than the number of kids that walk up the hill.’ ‘Parents still pick up the juniors outside school. It would be safer for them to park up the road and walk down.’ ‘The teacher is still encouraging kids to walk to school.’

88 ‘Parents need to be encouraged to be involved in a WSB as we want another one. It is fun to do with friends.’

89

Verran Primary School

______________________ School Environmental Audit Overview The main and only entrance to the school was located on Verran Road. The surrounding infrastructure was comprised of residential dwellings and a park. Footpaths There was a footpath on both sides of the road either directly next to the road or one metre away from the kerb. The footpath was made of concrete slabs that followed a gentle rise and extended to a steep slope along the road. Path condition was moderate with no obstructions. The short footpath distance from the kerb may have affected children’s safety (real and perceived) especially before and after school. Road There were no cycle lanes (marked or unmarked) on the road, probably because the road width was appropriate for two vehicle lanes only. The road was flat and in good condition, but led to a steep hill further along the road (refer to Figure 30), requiring low to moderate levels of physical effort during active transport.

Figure 30: Verran Road leads to a steep hill further along from the entrance of the school.

Vehicle parking restrictions were visible prohibiting cars from parking on the inside of the roundabout (marked with yellow lines) but no lines were present on the outside of the roundabout, allowing cars to park there (refer to Figure 31).

90

Figure 31: Yellow lines around the roundabout prohibit vehicles from parking.

There were other routes available to access the school, including pedestrian access through parks that connected to cul-de-sacs. Several WSB are possible due to the attractive surroundings being inductive to walking and the light traffic flow. No bus stops were present. A temporary lollipop sign crossing (kea crossing) was in operation outside the main school entrance before and after school. Car parking facilities along the road could accommodate up to 20 cars. There were no cycle parking facilities at Verran Primary School because it was against school policy for children to bring bicycles to school. Overall, Verran Road was relatively clean and attractive enough for walking but not cycling. Physical demands for walking or cycling were easy to moderate.

91

Verran Primary School

______________________ Conclusions • Despite recent operation of STP and the implementation of primarily soft measures only, there were changes in children’s travel behaviour. More children walked to school and fewer children were being driven. • Success of changing travel behaviour could be attributed to parental awareness and support. • Children preferred active to passive transport. • Parents perceived that there was a much greater change in children’s walking behaviour than children’s reported travel behaviour. • The majority of parents perceived the environment of the school route to be safe. • Even though time was the main reason for parents driving their children to school, distance remained a consistent reason after STP implementation.

92

Waiheke Island Primary School

______________________ Profile Waiheke Island Primary School opened in February 2005, and is one of two primary schools located on Waiheke Island. Approximately 200 children currently attend the school, with this figure projected to rise to around 450 children over the next few years. No ERO information is currently available regarding the ethnic distribution or the decile rating of Waiheke Island Primary School. The school is situated near a quiet road (Seaview Road) in a bush setting with a small school zone (refer to Figure 32). At the time of the post STP evaluation, some of the school’s premises and street network physical features were still under construction.

Figure 32: Front entrance of Waiheke Island Primary School.

The STP was initiated in October 2004 before Waiheke Island Primary school opened. Pre-STP surveys were distributed to all households residing within the new school zone regarding children’s travel mode intentions. Surveys were also available from the existing primary school (Te Huruhi Primary School), and were distributed to local kindergartens as well. Other community members were also able to comment on safety issues regarding school-related travel by having a survey sent to them. Issues raised from the surveys were centred on safety. Lack of footpaths, tight road bends and fast traffic speeds on the school feeder road were raised as concerns. The findings from the surveys were used to develop the action plan for the STP. At the school’s previous temporary site, cars were not legally allowed to drive into the school grounds. Once the school moved to the current premises, the pupils were initially encouraged by senior management to be driven to school as the infrastructure was not in place for children to travel safely by walking or cycling. The physical environmental changes are slowly being developed. There have been substantial delays, primarily caused by the construction contractors. The infrastructural changes include widening and resurfacing of the main road, development of a pedestrian crossing outside the school entrance and

93 the construction of footpaths and a car park. The car park at the front of the school entrance was just completed at the time of the post-evaluation and provides parking for approximately 100 vehicles. A school bus service has also been developed as part of the STP, although the current low patronage level may result in its termination. The parent and staff pre STP and parent and staff post-STP surveys for Waiheke Island Primary School could not be located at the time of writing this report. Consequently, all relevant data pertaining to Waiheke Island Primary School apart from the qualitative findings and child travel survey information have been drawn from the initial STP report. As students were not attending Waiheke Island Primary School at the time of the pre STP, the pre STP children’s overall travel modes were based on travel mode intention not actual travel modality.

94

Waiheke Island Primary School

______________________ Children’s Travel Survey Both pre (n=386) and post (n=113) response rates for the children’s travel survey at Waiheke Island Primary School were high. For weighting purposes of the actual travel modes, it was assumed that 130 children were enrolled at each time point of the STP. Figures 33 and 34 outline overall and preferred travel modal shift, respectively. • There was a 21% increase in children walking, a 27% reduction in bus use, and increases in children being driven to school by their family (4%) or friends (1%) post STP (refer to Figure 33). WSB was not implemented but was planned to be in the new school year.

Occurrence (%)

60.0 50.0 40.0 Pre STP

30.0

Post STP

20.0 10.0 0.0 Walk

WSB

Cycle

PT

Family Friend car car

Other

Overall travel mode

Figure 33: Waiheke Island Primary School children’s travel modes to and from school (weighted), pre and post STP implementation.

• Pre STP data for preferred travel modes were not available. Walking (35%) was the preferred mode of travel followed by car (24%) and cycle (20%) for the post STP sample (refer to Figure 34). WSB was the least preferred option for children (4%).

Occurrence (%)

40 30 20

Post STP

10 0 Walk

WSB

Cycle

PT

Car

Overall preferred travel modes

Figure 34: Waiheke Island Primary School children’s preferred travel modes to and from school, post STP implementation.

95

Waiheke Island Primary School

______________________ Principal Interview The principal saw the STP as a vital component to the success of the school. Reasons for participating in the STP included enhancing the fitness and holistic health of the children, improving sustainability within the environmental context, and encouraging public transport as a viable transport mode. The principal also acknowledged the importance of having the parents support the programme. Parental support was initially gained by a letter drop within the school zone before Waiheke Island Primary School opened. The letter drop helped to sell the concept of the programme to the parents and the community. The travel planner also played a valuable role in harnessing this support, and worked closely with the school community and the council to plan the necessary changes. The principal felt that most of these changes would not have occurred if the travel planner was not involved in the programme. Because of the nature of the island, the principal felt it was vital that the bus service was maintained and wanted to increase the route to service more children. Although walking and bussing was promoted, at the time of the interview the principal discouraged cycling to school. A cycling education module will run at the end of 2005 to provide children with the skills to cycle safely. From 2006, cycling to school will be promoted. It is also envisaged that the two WSB will commence in 2006 and these have been well supported by parents. Recommendations made by the principal to improve STP included spending more time educating parents about the importance of sustainable travel for children, increasing teacher support at the school gate and developing a package that is tailored towards new schools with limited infrastructure and a minimal parent body. This was a particularly challenging aspect of the STP for Waiheke Island Primary School as there were no footpaths constructed when the programme was launched, so children were initially discouraged from walking to school.

96

Waiheke Island Primary School

______________________ Children’s Focus Group Of the five students in the focus group, two children usually bussed to school, two walked, and one child was driven to school. When asked how the students would prefer to travel to and from school, the responses were mixed. Two preferred cycling, one walking, one bussing and one child preferred to be driven to school. The children all commented that the number of people being driven to school had increased substantially since the car park opened. Three children thought that the levels of walking to school had also increased from the time of the focus group compared to one month earlier. The increase in bus fares and poor bus punctuality deterred students from taking public transport. The children were aware of the STP and seemed to understand issues regarding traffic safety. Children commented that some ‘naughty’ people did not wear helmets when cycling and that several adults used the pedestrian crossing incorrectly. Issues regarding the environment were also raised by the children. These included the cost and waste of petrol through car travel, walking and cycling were better for the environment and promotion of carpooling may be effective. The initiation of the WSB was well supported by the students. The children were looking forward to participating in the WSB at the start of Term One, 2006. Despite no formal WSB existing at the time of the focus group, small groups of children frequently walked to and from school together. Specific comments from the focus group were: ‘The hills are too big for me to walk/cycle and the bus stop is too far.’ ‘The car park at the front of the school has increased the numbers of children being driven to school.’ ‘Parents don’t use the crossing and driving out of the car park is dangerous..…A mum with a pram up the road doesn’t use the crossing.’ ‘We should have more people walking and cycling as it is better for the environment.’

97

Waiheke Island Primary School

______________________ School Environmental Audit Overview The main entrance to the school was located close to wetlands and no residential dwellings were present. Footpaths On either side of the road there were footpaths of continuous concrete immediately adjacent to the road on a flat slope that turned into a steep hill. The footpaths were in good condition with some loose stony concrete, and the proximity of the footpath to the road was not favourable for walking or cycling (refer to Figure 35). The environment around Waiheke Island Primary School was aesthetically appealing.

Figure 35: No footpaths are present on the road leading to Waiheke Island Primary School.

Road There were no marked or unmarked cycle lanes probably because the road width was appropriate for two vehicle lanes only. The road was flat, leading to a steep hill and in poor condition perhaps due to ongoing construction at the school. Vehicle parking restrictions were visible in the form of yellow lines on the road and no stopping signs. Bus stops were located on the road offering an alternative for school travel. A temporary pedestrian crossing with lollipop signs (kea crossing) was present before and after school. This was supervised by teachers at these times. Parking facilities were available on the road and inside school gates. The car park inside the school gates held approximately 100 cars which seemed to contradict the efforts of the school to encourage active transport. Cycle parking facilities were available for approximately 30 bicycles inside the school grounds.

98

Waiheke Island Primary School

______________________ Conclusions • Despite the recent opening of the school, there were favourable changes in children’s intended travel behaviour to actual travel behaviour. • There was a substantial increase in children walking to school at the expense of using public transport. A slight increase was also shown in the number of children being driven to school. • Children preferred active to passive transport.

99

Limitations

______________________ Delimitation and limitations pertaining to STP evaluation are listed below.

Case Study

• The evaluation was delimited to five case studies within the primary school setting. • The findings were drawn from cross-sectional data with the inherent limitation that the same children, parents, and school personnel may not have been sampled in both STP surveys. Attempts were made to minimise this bias by using the same sample sizes for children pre and post STP. • In many cases, the same surveys were not conducted pre and post STP. Subsequently it was difficult to make some comparisons. • There were missing data and several of the findings were based on small sample sizes. • Children, and potentially parents, may have a response bias towards a desirable answer. • Modal preferences, although interesting, may not translate into behaviour change. • Waiheke Island Primary School is a very new school and the actual student travel mode data baseline data may not be representative.

Mode Shift Study • The evaluation was delimited to twenty schools, mostly within North Shore City with relatively high ERO decile ratings. • The study reports the “gross” mode shift. There may be underlying trends which need to be subtracted or added to these figures to gain an understanding of the actual impact of the STP programme. • The hands-up survey methodology was used in all of the post STP surveys but individual survey questionnaires were used for older children in the pre STP surveys. This may affect some of the results due to the (assumed) stronger “group-think” bias in the hands-up environment. Any such effect may be mitigated as further data is collected when future ‘hands-up’ surveys take place. • Certain modes of travel behaviour change according to the season and day to day weather patterns. No attempt has been made to analyse or correct for this issue.

100 • Some schools limited the surveys to certain classes or age groups for practical reasons. This may have introduced result bias in the larger schools with more diverse class structure. Kristin and Target Road schools in particular, may not be representative due to the nature of their survey samples. • The results from individual schools would benefit from interpretation in terms of the actual conditions at the school, focus of the STP and progress of soft and hard measures. This is being undertaken and reported separately as part of the MSS longitudinal study.

101

Conclusions

______________________ Main conclusions resulting from the evaluation are presented below.

Case Study • Overall, STP implementation achieved its broadest goal of reducing private vehicle travel, and increasing walking prevalence levels. • The evaluation could not determine whether infrastructural changes (hard measures) or shifting parental/child travel perceptions (soft measures) had a greater influence in changing actual travel behaviour. It is likely that a combination of hard and soft measures would be most successful for increasing active and public transport modes for school related travel. • Sustainability of STP depends heavily on ongoing support and liaison capabilities of the travel planners.

Mode Shift Study • Overall, STP implementation is achieving a reduction of private vehicle usage of 3.8%, and an increase in walking (independent and WSB) of 3.6%. • The overall picture appears to consist of a clear reduction in vehicle usage, with more lift sharing and walking in the evaluated schools. • While there appears to be a downward trend in PT usage, it seems to have mainly resulted from shifts in a small number of specific schools.

102

Recommendations

______________________ A list of recommendations is provided based on the outcomes of the evaluation:

Case Study Schools • STP need to have a greater parental education component. Parents are ultimately responsible for choosing their child/ren’s mode of travel to school and it is imperative that their perceptions are changed in order to make STP successful. • Incentives to parents, staff and BOT should be incorporated in the STP programme. • Offering public transport subsidies or other incentives to staff members may increase usage. • Based on the limited data on WSB it seems that WSB require more resources to be initiated and/or sustained. Responsibility for conducting WSB should be clearly identified in the STP. • Time frames of implementing hard environmental measures should be transparent and realistic so that schools are aware of the duration of the project. • STP evaluation processes should be conducted at the beginning or the middle of each academic year. • The road environment around schools still presents risks for children and further improvements may be needed, even around “completed” schools.

Mode Shift Study • New School Travel Plans should consider undertaking a hands-up type survey of students early in the process for better comparison with future Mode Shift Studies. • Future actual mode surveys should record the date of the survey in a form that allows the weather on that date to be cross correlated with the mode results. • Future actual mode surveys should examine and record the actual sample size and sources for any accidental biases. • A control group of non STP schools should be established and regularly surveyed to determine whether there are any underlying trends, to help form a view of the “net” impact of the STP programme on travel modes.

103

104

Appendices

______________________

105 Appendix 1: Post STP parent travel survey PRIMARY PARENT FOLLOW UP TRAVEL SURVEY 1. Please indicate the year level of your child/ren who attend this school: Year Level Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 2. Please write your home address in the boxes below: House/Flat number

Street name

Street type

Suburb

Section 1: Travel to and from school 3. How does your child/ren travel to and from school during the week? Walk

Walking school bus

Bike

Public transport

Friend's car

Family car

Other (please specify)

Monday am Monday pm Tuesday am Tuesday pm Wednesday am Wednesday pm Thursday am Thursday pm Friday am Friday pm If you never or rarely drive your child/ren to this school please go to Question 8 4. On the mornings you drive your child/ren TO this school, how often do you usually…

Drive straight home? Do something else?

Number of times per week 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

5. If you drive to work or your place of study, where do you usually park? Street name Suburb

5 5

Car park/building name

6. On the afternoons you drive to pick up your child/ren FROM this school, how often do you…

Drive from your work or own place of study to school? Drive from somewhere else to school? Drive from home to school?

Number of times per week 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

7. On the afternoons you drive to pick up your child/ren FROM this school, how often do you take them…

5 5 5

106 Straight home? Somewhere else (after school activities, shopping) and then home?

Number of times per week 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

5 5

8. What are the two main reasons you drive your child/ren to and/or from school? The distance between home and school is too far to walk or cycle There are too many dangerous roads between home and school My child/ren has too much to carry I'm worried about personal safety issues It’s convenient to drive my child/ren on the way to/from work or elsewhere We are usually running short of time They don't enjoy walking or cycling They are not physically able to walk or cycle We never have really thought about how we travel Other (please specify)

Section 2: Different ways for your child/ren to travel to and from school Car pooling This is where two or more families arrange to share the driving of their children to and from school on at least some of the days of the week. 9. Does your family currently car pool with another family or families? Yes

No

School bus 10. Is there a scheduled school bus service available in your area? Yes

No (Please go to Question 12)

Not sure

11. If yes, will your child/ren use the school bus service this term? Yes (Please go to Question 14)

No (Please go to Question 13)

Not sure

12. If there is no school bus service in your area at present and one was made available, would your child/ren use it for some of their trips to and from this school? Yes (Please go to Question 14)

No (Please go to Question 13)

13. If you would not use a school bus service, please tick the main reasons why below: We live close to school, a bus is unnecessary Bus stop is too far from home Bus is probably too expensive Concerned that my child/ren will be bullied on the bus Believe that it is unsafe for children to walk to, or wait at, the bus stop Already taking the car out - more convenient to drive them Child/ren have other activities before or after school Other (please specify) Bicycles 14. If your children do not currently cycle to school would you allow them to if… (tick up to three boxes) My child/ren had a bicycle

Not sure

107 My child/ren did cycle safety training at school They cycled in a group with adult supervision More cycle paths on the way to school More safe places to cross the road(s) Slower traffic (e.g., speed limits of 30-40 kph) Less traffic on the road Secure facilities at school to leave bike and belongings Nothing would convince me to allow my child/ren to cycle to school Other (please specify)

Section 3: Health and safety travelling to and from school 15. Overall, how safe or unsafe do you consider your child/ren's route to school to be? Very safe Safe Neither safe nor unsafe Unsafe Very unsafe 16. Please fill in the age you think is appropriate for the following activities: At what age do you think it is safe for a child to… Age (yrs) Walk to school by themselves or with another child? Walk with a walking school bus to this school? Cycle to school by themselves or with another child? Have cycle training at school? Take the bus to school?

Never

Not sure

17. In a week (7 days), the amount of time your child/ren spends on physical activities outside of school hours is usually…. (please tick one box per child) Physical activities include walking or cycling to/from school, team sports, gym, swimming, etc Age Between 0.5 Between 2.5 More than 5.0 and 2.5 hours and 5.0 hours hours Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 18. Are you aware that this school is in the process of developing/implementing a school travel plan? Yes

No (Please go to Question 20)

19. Have you read the school's travel plan document? Yes

No

20. Do you have any further comments about your child/ren's journey to and from school?

21. If you are interested in contributing to the development/implementation of our school travel plan…. What programmes are you interested in? Walking school bus Car pooling Implementing the travel plan

108 Please give us your contact details: Name Phone Email

Thank you for your time

109 Appendix 2: Post STP staff travel survey STAFF FOLLOW UP TRAVEL SURVEY Section 1: Background 1. Please write your home address in the boxes below: House/Flat number

Street name

Street type

Suburb

2. Do you work: Full time (Please go to Question 4)

Part time

3. If you work part time, how many times per week do you:

Arrive at school between 8 and 9 am? Leave school at 3 pm or later?

0 0

Number of times per week 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

4. Please tell us how you USUALLY travel to (T) and from (F) work (tick one box for 'to' and 'from' for each day you work).

Mode Car - drive alone Car - as a passenger Car - drive with passenger(s) Cycle Public transport Walk/run Do not work this day Other (specify)

T

Mon F

T

Tues F

T

Wed F

T

Thurs F

5. Has your travel behaviour changed in the past year? Yes

No (Please go to Question 7)

6. If yes, why and how has your travel behaviour changed? For example: I wanted to get more exercise so I began walking to work

Section 2: Questions for car driver/passengers only Only answer this question if you frequently travel to and from work by car 7. Where do you usually park your car while at work? On the school grounds/school-provided parking On the street (please write the street name below) In a car park building/lot (please complete the details below) 7a. Parking details

T

Fri F

110 Street name

Suburb

Car park/building name

Section 3: Some options for travelling to school 8. What would encourage you to walk or cycle to work? (Please tick up to three boxes) I already walk/run to work at least three days a week (Please go to Question 12) If I couldn't park my car on the school grounds There were more/better maintained footpaths There were more cycle lanes on the way to school There were safer places to cross the road(s) Slower/less traffic on the road(s) There were safer places to lock up my bike at school Special deal on walking/running shoes or cycling equipment If a taxi fare was provided for emergencies during work hours Other people to walk/cycle with Staff showers at school Lockers to keep my personal belongings and papers in To improve my physical fitness Nothing would encourage me to walk/cycle to school Other (please specify) 9. What would encourage you to use public transport (bus, train, ferry) to travel to work? (Please tick up to three boxes) I already use public transport at least three days a week (Please go to Question 12) Subsidised/cheaper fares If public transport tickets were available for purchase at the school If there were vehicles available for personal or work use during the day If a taxi fare was provided for emergencies during work hours If the bus/train went more frequently If there was a stop/station near where I live If there was a public transport route from my home to work If I couldn't park my car at the school grounds Nothing would encourage me to use public transport Other (please specify) 10. What would encourage you to car pool (share a ride with another staff member) to work? (Please tick up to three boxes) I already car pool to work at least three days a week (Please go to Question 12) If someone organised car pooling at the school If there were more vehicles available for personal or work use during the day If a taxi fare was provided for emergencies during work hours If I couldn't park my car at the school grounds If special parking was available on the school grounds for car poolers Nothing would encourage me to car pool Other (please specify)

Section 4: Your interest in our school travel plan 11. Would you be interested in contributing to the development and/or implementation of the school travel plan by doing any of the following (please tick all boxes that apply): Be part of the committee developing the school travel plan Organise a 'planning for real' day at school (identifying hazards and solutions on a large map) Develop ways to integrate school travel issues into the curriculum (health and safety, geography, sense of community, maths)

111 Be a contact person for a specific part of the school travel plan once it is developed Help set up a car pooling scheme for the school community Help monitor a school crossing once a fortnight or weekly Be a volunteer 'driver' of a walking school bus one day a week (supervising a group of children walking to or from school) Be a coordinator/supervisor of a walking or cycling club (monitor achievement, issue prizes) Be a cycle buddy (supervise one or more children cycling to or from school) Supervise a meeting point at the school for children using walking school buses or normal buses Organise promotional activities once or twice a year such a Walk to School Day, Car Free Week, poster campaign, special school assembly Run a cycle maintenance course once or twice a year for Years 6 and up Other (please specify) 12. If you are interested in getting more information or contributing to the development and/or implementation of our school travel plan please give us your contact details. Name Phone Email 13. Do you have any comments or concerns about your travel to and from school?

Thank you for your time

112

Appendix 3: Principal/lead travel teacher interview schedule

1.

What changes have you noticed since the School Travel Plan has been initiated?

2.

In terms of implementing the School Travel Plan what seems to work/not work and why?

3.

Are you on track with time and resources in implementing the School Travel Plan?

4.

Has the School Travel Plan changed since implementation?

5.

What are your reasons for supporting/not supporting the School Travel Plan initiative?

6.

What changes would you recommend in terms of the process of implementing a School Travel Plan?

7.

Do you have anything else you would like to say about the School Travel Plan?

113 Appendix 4: Children’s focus group schedule

1.

How do you usually get to school?

2.

Do you like walking, cycling, being driven to school? Why/why not?

3.

If you had a choice, how would you get to and from school? Why/why not?

4.

Do you think more of your mates walk/cycle to school compared to a month ago? Why do you think this is?

5.

Do you talk about walking and cycling in your classroom? [If answer yes] Give an example.

6.

What do you know about the School Travel Plan?

7.

Do you have anything else you would like to say about travelling to and from school?

114 Appendix 5: School environmental audit tool Side 1

Date______ Auditor ID___ Time______

On-road (all segments)

Side 2

Side 1

Side 2

Crossing aids

Unmarked cycle lanes

Median refuge or traffic island Kerb extensions

Slope

None

Type of building/features (tick all applicable)

Flat or gentle slope

Number of car parking facilities at (including staff and parent parking)

Transport structure Housing

Moderate slope Steep slope

0 1-20

Industrial

Condition of road

21-50

Natural Features

Poor (many cracks, bumps, weeds)

50-70

Path for walking/cycling

Moderate (some cracks, bumps, weeds)

>70

No path

Good (very few cracks, bumps, weeds)

Bike parking facilities

Footpath

Under repair

Bike locker or enclosure

Shared path (marked) Shared path (unmarked)

Number of lanes on road (in total) 1 lane

Bike stands None

Path Location

2 or 3 lanes

Surveillance

Next to road

4 or 5 lanes

Teacher on duty at school entrance

Within 1m kerb

6 or more lanes

Teacher supervising crossings

Between 1 + 2m of kerb

Vehicle parking restriction signs

None

Between 2 + 3m of kerb

Yes

Cleanliness (can see litter, broken glass, graffiti, rubbish, etc)

More than 3m from kerb

No

Yes, lots

Path material

School drop-off zone

Yes, some

Continuous concrete

Traffic control devices and numbers

None, or almost none

Concrete slabs

Roundabouts

How attractive would you rate this street for walking?

Paving bricks

Bitumen

Speed humps Chicanes or kerb extensions Lane narrowing

Grass or sand

Traffic signals

How physically difficult would you rate this street for walking?

Under repair

None

Easy

Slope Flat or gentle

Other routes available Lane

Moderately difficult Very difficult

Moderate slope

Pedestrian access lane through cul-de-sac

How attractive would you rate this segment for cycling?

Steep slope

Path through park

Very attractive

Path condition and smoothness

None

Attractive

Poor (a lot of cracks, bumps, weeds)

Bus stops

Not attractive at all

At least one bus stop

How physically difficult would you rate this street for cycling?

School_____________________

Marked cycle lanes

Street______________________ Side 1

Gravel

Moderate (some cracks, bumps, weeds) Good (very few cracks, bumps, weeds) Under repair

Side 2

Very attractive Attractive Not attractive at all

None

Easy

Types of crossings and number

Moderately difficult

Obstructions

Pedestrian

Very difficult

Parked cars

Pedestrian crossing with lollipop signs

Continuity of path

115 Poles

Traffic signals

Signs

Bridge/overpass

Tables + chairs Trees

Underpass None

None

VERSION: Final………March 16th 2006

Path forms useful and direct route Path is disjointed

Suggest Documents