Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 · Time: 1 p.m.–2 p.m. ET · Location: Zoom

Ready to make biking, walking, and Safe Routes to School safer and more accessible in your community?

Don’t miss this informational webinar on upcoming federal funding opportunities to support these efforts! We’ll focus on two key funding sources: Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) and the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). These funding programs are available to all communities across the country, and we'll be showing you how communities in Pennsylvania (and beyond) can take advantage of them! During the webinar, you’ll hear from regional experts about the types of projects that can get funding, grant timelines, how to apply, and best practices for crafting a competitive application. This webinar is open to everyone, and while the focus will be on Pennsylvania, the tips and strategies shared will be helpful no matter where you’re located in the country. Also, Safe Routes Partnership will introduce a new initiative aimed at helping communities in the Greater Philadelphia region secure these federal funds.

This webinar is part of a series of free resources made possible by the generous support of the William Penn Foundation.

Featured Speakers:

• Vanessa Cascio, Policy and Program Manager, Safe Routes Partnership
• Joe Banks, PennDOT Consultant Project Manager / Office of PA Project Implementation, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

We've developed state report cards which provide a snapshot of how supportive each state is of walking, bicycling, rolling, and active kids and communities.

We’ve developed state report cards which provide a snapshot of how supportive each state is of walking, bicycling, and physical activity for children and adults as of 2024.

Wednesday, September 4, 2024, 2 p.m. ET

Ruby Bridges Walk to School Day honors the living legacy of civil rights activist Ruby Bridges. Every November 14th, schools organize Ruby Bridges Walk to School Day activities to promote meaningful dialogue on activism, anti-racism, and anti-bullying. This webinar explores the history behind Ruby Bridges Walk to School Day and how to plan and implement impactful activities. We will also share an exciting opportunity to boost your celebration with a Ruby Bridges Walk to School Day mini-grant.

Speakers:

Kori Johnson, Program and Engagement Manager, Safe Routes Partnership

Cailin Henley, Safe Routes to School Coordinator, Transportation Planner, City of Tacoma, Department of Public Works

Key Takeaways:

• Community champions are trusted and engaged members of the community such as teachers or people with previous experience in urban planning, or activism. Involving these individuals in the planning process may bridge a gap between community members and local governments when planning and implementing active transportation projects.
• Local community champions recruited for Families and Educators for Safe Cycling Project (FESC) were integral to the success of local active transportation projects. In communities where the local governments maintained the relationship with the champions over the entire two-year period of the pilot program, the champions reported an increased sense of trust between the community and the local government.
• Local community champions facilitated engagement within school communities related to walking and biking and relayed community input to the local government in public meetings, surveys, and focus groups. They bridged a gap among the city staff, the non-profit organization (CultureLink), and local school communities by acting as a mediator – explaining the planning process to community members unfamiliar with it and engaging youth. They would elevate community feedback and concerns to city staff.
• The most successful champions were community animators and had three core characteristics:  they were passionate about walking and biking; they had relationships with key stakeholders -school communities, the planning department, and community-based organizations; and they encouraged engagement from other community members.
• Community champions have the opportunity to deepen public engagement activities due to their intimate knowledge of local connections and identify community members who may find it challenging to engage in the traditional planning process but should be included.

Key Takeaways:

• Of the study participants interviewed, the primary travel mode to school for their children was 55 percent by personal vehicle, 33 percent by walking, and five percent by bus. Of the sample, no children biked as their primary mode of transportation to school.
• Many parents stated a lack of resources available for other modes as a reason for deciding to walk or take public transit for their daily commute, as these modes are more accessible. This included not being able to afford a bike and instead opting for walking, or not having a personal vehicle and instead opting for public transportation.
• Parents reported that distance was a factor in choosing not to walk or bike to school. This was especially true if adequate infrastructure was also not available such as sidewalks, bike lanes, or bike racks to safely store bikes at school.
• Parents expressed concerns about weather such as rain or cold temperatures, the presence of crime within their neighborhoods, or high vehicle speeds as other barriers to walking and biking.
• Parents were more likely to encourage their children to walk to school if they were walking either with an adult or a group of other children.
• Parents reported their children not having attended bicycle training education as a barrier to encouraging biking to school for their children. Parents of children that had completed a ‘bikeability’ program felt more comfortable allowing their children to bike to school.

Key Takeaways:

• Increased physical activity, socializing with peers, and developing life-long healthy habits were among the positive effects described by parents whose children walk or bike to school.
• Parents interviewed expressed concerns about safety within their neighborhoods including concerns about criminal activity, and traffic safety, and cited perceived safety as a barrier to allowing their children to walk or bike to school.
• Residents of the neighborhoods that identified as not being from the area, such as families that recently immigrated to Sweden, or not knowing people within the neighborhood were more likely to express concerns about safety and feel a sense of distrust towards their neighbors discouraging their children from walking or biking to school.
• Parents cited distance to school, lack of bicycle infrastructure, and lack of confidence when riding a bicycle as reasons why their children may not ride a bike to school.
• Parents reported that they were more likely to allow their children to walk or bike to school if they traveled with them or if their child had a cell phone or GPS tracking device.

Key Takeaways:

• Compared to national averages of travel mode to school, Georgia students (aged 5-17) take more trips to school by school bus (46 percent vs. 33 percent) and fewer trips to school by personal vehicles (48 percent vs. 54 percent). They also are less likely to walk or bike to school (5 percent vs. 10 percent) or take public transit (1 percent vs. 2 percent.)
• In Georgia, students who live in rural areas and live far from school are twice as likely to be driven in a personal vehicle to school than to take the school bus or use active travel. This is despite policies that require rural students to have access to a school bus.
• Students who live close to school within an urban area, are older, male, without a driver’s license, and whose parents have a college education are most likely to use the bus to travel to school in Georgia.
• Black students in Georgia are more likely to take the bus to school than white students. However, this was only applicable to Black and white students, race was not a significant predictor of mode choice to school for children with other racial identities.

Key Takeaways:

• Under-resourced communities experience several barriers to accessing funding for Safe Routes to School. Barriers included the ability to come up with the local match often required for federal funds; the lack of resources and personnel to apply for, write, and administer grants; and simply the lack of knowledge of what is available and how to apply for grants.
• Of the states surveyed (n=14), 63 percent provide special considerations to disadvantaged communities when they apply for funding for Safe Routes to School and apply additional points when scoring their grant applications. Some respondents also describe their state’s efforts to address barriers to funding by providing training, consultation, and proactive outreach to underserved communities.
• How states determine the effectiveness of their Safe Routes to School programs vary widely and differ from state to state. Examples of how states evaluate their programs include the number of schools involved in Safe Routes to School programs, the amount of funding that reaches priority populations, the number of people who access resources and training, the mode split of students walking and biking to school, percent of schools or districts with a dedicated Safe Routes to School coordinator, safety improvements, and pre/post program crash data.
• Only six states that responded have a strategic plan for their Safe Routes to School program. Of those plans, four include equity and a focus on underserved populations.
• Of the “Six E’s” -Engagement was ranked as the most prioritized by state program coordinators.  States described the importance of engagement to cultivate community and school buy-in, and the importance of local stakeholders (ex. parents, teachers, students, neighbors, etc.) to the success of a program.
• Of the “Six E’s,” Evaluation was the least prioritized. State coordinators described the barriers to collecting quality data and the lack of staff and resources.

Key Takeaways:

• African Americans are more likely to use biking to travel to school. Of the total number of survey respondents, 13 percent of African Americans reported biking to school compared to nine percent of respondents from other racial groups.
• African American respondents are more likely to use bicycling than other people of color. 
• African-American households are more likely than white households to use walking and biking to reduce the financial burden of travel.

• African American survey respondents were more likely than white survey participants to identify bad lighting, heavy traffic, and lack of pedestrian facilities such as paths, parks, or sidewalks as barriers to biking and walking.

• African Americans take fewer bike trips per week than white Americans and are least likely to utilize bike-share programs.