The Costs and Benefits of School Travel Planning Projects ... - Metrolinx

January 2014

The Costs and Benefits of School Travel Planning Projects in Ontario, Canada

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study is a collaboration of Metrolinx, Green Communities Canada, and the University of Toronto. Data was contributed by steering committees including School Travel Planning stakeholders from municipalities, public health units, school boards, schools, and the community. The study was made possible through the prior completion of the following School Travel Planning projects: • •

Children’s Mobility, Health and Happiness: A Canadian School Travel Planning Model1, led by Green Communities Canada with funding from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and the Public Health Agency of Canada (2010-2012); and Stepping It Up2, led by Metrolinx in partnership with City of Hamilton, Region of Peel, University of Toronto and Green Communities Canada, with funding from Transport Canada (2009-2011).

Thank you to the following steering committees for contributing information from their School Travel Planning projects toward this report: • • • • • • • •

Hamilton Active and Safe Routes to School Steering Committee Peel Safe and Active Routes to School Committee York Region Active and Safe Routes to School Steering Committee Region of Waterloo Active and Safe Routes to School Committee Ottawa School Travel Planning Steering Committee Haldimand & Norfolk School Travel Planning Steering Committee Elgin London Middlesex Oxford Active and Safe Routes to School Steering Committee Active and Safe Routes to School Peterborough

Contact for more information: Jennifer Lay, Program Advisor - School Travel Metrolinx [email protected] Jacky Kennedy, Director, Canada Walks, Green Communities Canada [email protected]

When using information from this report, please use the following citation: Metrolinx, Green Communities Canada and University of Toronto. (2014). The Costs and Benefits of School Travel Planning Projects in Ontario, Canada.

“It makes me feel happy and it makes me feel energized ‘cause you get more exercise walking to school than when you drive in a car.” – Student, Hamilton

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6

BACKGROUND School Travel Trending Toward Fewer Feet on the Street Reversing the Trend with School Travel Planning

8 9

INTRODUCTION

11

METHODOLOGY Step 1: Data Collection Framework Development Step 2: STP Project Screening Step 3: Data Compilation Step 4: Model Development and Modelling

13 14 15 16

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Baseline Student Travel Behaviour for 19 STP Projects STP Initiatives Implemented Shift in Student Travel Behaviour for 19 STP Projects Benefits of 19 STP Projects Other Environmental and Health Benefits of 19 STP Projects Costs of 19 STP Projects Benefit-Cost Ratio for 19 STP Projects Estimate Benefits and Costs of Province-Wide STP Program

21 21 23 25 26 26 28 30

CASE STUDIES Case Study 1: St. Lawrence Catholic Elementary School, Hamilton, Ontario Case Study 2: Viscount Alexander Public School, Ottawa, Ontario Case Study 3: Elmdale Public School, Ottawa, Ontario Case Study 4: Mitchell Hepburn Public School, St. Thomas, Ontario

31 33 35 37

CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

39

REFERENCES

41

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Student Travel Surveys and Response Rate Screening Appendix 2A: Example Classroom Student Travel Survey from Stepping It Up Project Appendix 2B: Example Student Travel Survey School Summary from Stepping It Up Project Appendix 3A: STP Project Cost Template - School Level Appendix 3B: STP Project Cost Template-Regional and Municipal Level Appendix 3C: STP Project Cost Template - Provincial Level Appendix 4A: Student Travel Survey - Five Day Tally (To School) Appendix 4B: Student Travel Survey - Five Day Tally (From School) Appendix 5A: Baseline and Follow-Up Survey Mode Share (To School) Appendix 5B: Baseline and Follow-Up Survey Mode Share (From School) Appendix 6: Student Survey Mode Shift (To and From School) Appendix 7: Benefit Results from 19 STP Projects Appendix 8: Cost Data from 19 STP Projects (School Level) Appendix 9: STP Project Benefit-Cost Ratios Appendix 10: Benefit Values from Victoria Transport Policy Institute

42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

“The Costs and Benefits of School Travel Planning Projects in Ontario, Canada”, January 2014

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13:

Trend in Elementary School Travel in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area The Canadian School Travel Planning Model in the Context of the Study School Travel Planning - Who’s Involved in the Community? School Travel Planning - Who’s Involved in the School? The Five Es of School Travel Planning About Active and Sustainable School Transportation Map of Communities Included in the Study Overview of Study Methodology Student Travel Mode Shift Results from 19 STP Projects (To School) Student Travel Mode Shift Results from 19 STP Projects (From School) Change in Single-Family Car Travel from 19 STP Projects (To and From School) Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations for 19 STP Projects Province-Wide STP Program Benefit-Cost Ratio Estimate

8 9 10 10 10 11 11 13 23 23 24 28 30

List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15:

STP Projects Included in the Study by Community School Community Selection Criteria for Ontario STP Projects STP Project Screening Process School Travel Assumptions Monetary Benefits of Vehicle Kilometres Travelled Reduced Monetary Benefits of Additional Kilometres Walked Cost and Benefit Assumptions Provincial Extrapolation Assumptions Summary of Initiatives Implemented Through 19 STP Projects Student Travel Survey Results from 19 STP Projects (To School) Student Travel Survey Results from 19 Projects (From School) Monetary Benefits Breakdown for 19 STP Projects Environmental and Health Benefits from 19 STP Projects Estimated Costs for 19 STP Projects Estimated 11-Year Total Costs for 19 STP Schools

12 14 14 16 17 17 19 20 22 23 23 25 26 27 28


5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Between 2009 and 2012, the Canadian School Travel Planning (STP) model was applied at 71 elementary schools in Ontario to promote active and sustainable modes of school travel for students and families, delivered through partnerships of schools, municipalities, public health units and community groups. Evaluations of STP projects, such as the “Stepping It Up - Final Report”2, demonstrate that travel behaviour change can be achieved. This study goes a step farther, and serves as the first benefit-cost analysis (BCA) of STP projects conducted in Canada. This study measures the model’s cost-effectiveness and demonstrates a BCA method that can be honed and utilized going forward. This study analyzes STP results for 19 projects in Ontario communities, ranging in population size, type (urban, suburban, rural) and geographic location (Ottawa, Brampton, Hamilton, Waterloo, Cayuga & Caledonia, and St. Thomas). These 19 STP projects were screened for the study based upon student travel survey datasets and response rates, and collectively reflect the diverse application of STP across the province. For each of the selected STP projects, existing student travel mode data was compiled, and data regarding project costs, time, and initiatives delivered was collected from each community. The BCA methodology was developed collaboratively, including a peer review component. The values used to estimate the benefits of increases in walking and decreases in car travel were derived from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute’s “Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs”3 report. These benefit values are conservative compared to those used by other jurisdictions.


“The project alleviates the parking problem, which seems to be getting worse every year. The effect it has had on me is I’m getting more exercise. I get to talk to my kids more.” – Parent, Hamilton

6

Executive Summary continued... Results from 19 School Travel Planning Projects and Modelling Costs and Benefits The 19 STP projects recorded an overall decrease of 2.8% in car trips in the morning period, and 1.4% decrease in the afternoon period. An increase of 1.3% in walking and cycling to school was measured in the morning period, and 0.6% increase in the afternoon period. When extrapolated for a full school year, the projects are estimated to have: • reduced 192,224 vehicle kilometres travelled; • reduced 41.7 tonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 1.7 tonnes of air pollutants (CAC); and • increased physical activity, including 1.3 million minutes of walking, and 2 million minutes of cycling. Modelling of this increased walking and decreased driving resulted in: • annual societal benefits of approximately $200,000; • net present value benefits of $1.8 million if STP is maintained for 11 years; and • average benefits per student of approximately $221 over 11 years. The STP cost data compiled includes provincial, regional and municipal level coordination costs, as well as school-level planning, implementation, and monitoring and maintenance costs. Monitoring and maintenance costs are projected for an additional 10 years. Modelling these costs resulted in: • an average annual cost of approximately $93,000; • total costs of the 19 STP projects to be 1 million over 11 years; and • an average cost per student of approximately $124 for 11 years. Modelling the Costs and Benefits of School Travel Planning Province-Wide Based on the average benefits ($221) and costs ($124) per student, if STP programming was delivered across Ontario to the approximately 640,000 elementary school students not eligible for transportation services (e.g. school bus), benefits are estimated to be $142 million, at the cost of approximately $80 million. Cost-Effectiveness of School Travel Planning Based on the estimated net present value benefits and total costs, the benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 supports the STP model as a relatively cost-effective intervention that when effectively coordinated and implemented can result in positive school travel behaviour change, and ultimately provide substantial economic, environmental and physical activity benefits. Additionally, this study demonstrates that the STP model in Ontario can be evaluated, and provides a method that can be further refined going forward. Recommendations for Future Studies Recommendations to improve future benefit-cost analyses of STP projects to provide more rigorous results include: • more frequent and long-term delivery of student travel behaviour surveys; • more rigorous surveying resulting in higher response rates with appropriate support to schools and community stakeholders; • application of standardized health benefit values and traffic and safety data; • cost collection during STP projects; and • inclusion of control schools. “The Costs and Benefits of School Travel Planning Projects in Ontario, Canada”, January 2014

7

BACKGROUND School Travel Trending Toward Fewer Feet on the Street Studies have found the number of children being driven to school nearly doubled over a 20 year period (1986-2006), while fewer children are walking to school and the number of children bicycling to school has remained consistently low (Figure 1). This has contributed to growing car traffic congestion, safety concerns, and air pollution around schools during the morning and afternoon. This scenario is playing out in most Ontario communities, and around the world. FIGURE 1: Trend in Elementary School Travel in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area2

“As I’m walking to school, I see everyone who’s parked along the street…all the exhaust…smells bad and I don’t like it at all.” – Student, Hamilton


8

Reversing the Trend with School Travel Planning Solutions aimed at supporting active and sustainable school transportation are gaining momentum across the globe. Safe Routes to School initiatives are in place across the United States and abroad. In Canada, the Active and Safe Routes to School movement began in Toronto in 1996 and has since spread across the country with many municipal governments and school boards putting walking and cycling plans and programs in place. School Travel Planning is an international best practice. The Canadian School Travel Planning model (see Figure 2) has been tested in all provinces and territories. In Ontario, the model has been used at over 70 schools to date and is proving to be valuable in communitybuilding and shifting travel behaviour.

International Walk to School Day at Swansea Public School in Toronto

Stakeholders pose during their Walkabout at Maple Grove Elementary School in Oakville

FIGURE 2: The Canadian School Travel Planning Model in the Context of the Study2


9

The Canadian model includes five phases which have been grouped into three sections for analysis, as per below: Phase 1: Planning • set up a stakeholder team for the community and school (see Figures 3 and 4); • assess and identify the school travel issues; • work with the school community to create a school travel plan with actions aimed at reducing car traffic and creating safer, healthier conditions for students, staff and families. Phase 2: Implementation • deliver short term actions in collaboration with the school population, school board and community partners; • undertake actions and measures from among the ‘Five Es’, depending on the unique needs of each school community (see Figure 5). Phase 3: Maintenance • continue to implement medium and longer term actions, while monitoring results and adjusting the action plan as necessary. FIGURE 3: School Travel Planning - Who’s Involved in the Community

FIGURE 4: School Travel Planning - Who’s Involved in the School

FIGURE 5: The Five Es of School Travel Planning.

Engineering: Creating operational and physical improvements to infrastructure in and around schools that reduce speeds and potential conflicts with motor vehicle traffic and establish more accessible crossings, walkways, trails and bikeways. Education: Teaching children and parents about a broad range of transportation choices; building walking and cycling safety skills; holding safety campaigns around schools. Enforcement: Ensuring traffic laws in school zones are obeyed; initiating crossing guard programs. Encouragement: Promoting walking and cycling through activities and events. Evaluation: Monitoring and documenting outcomes and trends through data collection before and after interventions.


10

INTRODUCTION Parents, teachers, municipal staff, and students who have used the Canadian School Travel Planning (STP) model in their school-community know it as a promising practice which brings the community together and improves the school trip for children and families. However, quantitative evidence in dollars and cents - looking at both the costs and the benefits - help everyone better understand the impacts of School Travel Planning in Ontario. This report presents the first cost-benefit analysis of STP projects in Canada. Data comes from two streams of Ontario elementary school projects completed between 2009 and 2012, some led by Green Communities Canada, and others from the Metrolinx Stepping It Up pilot. (see Figure 7 and Table 1). All projects used the Canadian School Travel Planning model and facilitator toolkit4. Schools were selected for participation in STP projects based on a common set of criteria, as described in the Methodology section. Timelines varied from project to project, initiatives were tailored to each community’s needs, and the project team and resources allocated varied based on local circumstances. However, despite local differences, many schools chose to implement similar types of initiatives as described in the Results section.

FIGURE 6: About Active and Sustainable School Transportation

Transportation to and from schools is a major traffic generator, and has real impacts on the environment, the economy, our health and our communities. Automobiles use fossil fuels, emit greenhouse gases, contribute to smog, and create congestion, delays and safety hazards around schools. Public transit vehicles and school buses, which move people more efficiently, are safer than cars, and are more sustainable. Active transportation is even more desirablekids who walk or bike to school use their own energy, and they minimize wear and tear on public infrastructure, while getting physical activity that helps them develop and stay healthy. Active and Safe Routes to School (ASRTS) and School Travel Planning (STP) are increasingly common active and sustainable school transportation initiatives in Ontario.

The study demonstrates that the STP model can be evaluated using benefit-cost analysis on an individual project basis, and that Ontario-wide projections can be estimated using data from a 19 project sample. FIGURE 7: Map of Communities Included in the Study


11

Table 1 below provides a list of the 19 elementary schools included in the sample, identifying the community, stakeholder committee, and survey period. From hereon, school results are reported anonymously using unique numeric identifiers so as not to identify individual school performance. TABLE 1: STP Projects Included in the Study by Community

Community Brampton

Caledonia/ Cayuga

Hamilton

Kitchener-Waterloo

Ottawa

St. Thomas

Stakeholder Committee

School

Survey Period

Peel Safe & Active Routes to School Committee

Eagle Plains PS

Nov 09 - Jun 11

Red Willow PS

Oct 10 - Oct 11

Haldimand & Norfolk School Travel Planning Steering Committee

J.L. Mitchener PS

May 11 - Feb 12

Notre Dame CS

Apr 11 - Feb 12

Hamilton Active & Safe Routes to School Steering Committee

Earl Kitchener ES

Oct 10 - May 11

Holy Name of Jesus CES

Feb 10 - May 11

Mountview ES

Oct 10 - May 11

St. Ann CES (Ancaster)

Oct 10 - May 11

St. Lawrence CES

Feb 10 - May 11

St. Martin of Tours CES

Oct 10 - May 11

St. Patrick CES

Mar 10 - May 11

Pope John Paul II CS

Oct 10 - Oct 11

Saint Matthews CS

Oct 10 - Oct 11

Broadview PS

Apr 10 - May 12

Churchill Alternative PS

May 10 - May 12

Corpus Christi CS

Sep 10 - May 11

Elmdale PS

Sep 10 - May 12

Viscount Alexander PS

Oct 10 - May 12

Mitchell Hepburn PS

Dec 10 - Feb 12

Region of Waterloo Active & Safe Routes to School Committee

Ottawa School Travel Planning Steering Committee

Elgin London Middlesex Oxford Active & Safe Routes to School Steering Committee


12

METHODOLOGY The STP Benefit-Cost Study methodology consists of five steps, summarized in Figure 8. This section outlines Steps 1 to 4 of the methodology, including the assumptions used for modelling the travel behaviour, costs, and benefits. Step 5 is covered in the Results section.

FIGURE 8: Overview of Study Methodology

Step 1: Data Collection Framework Development The data collection framework identified the quantity, availability, and scope of Ontario STP project data necessary to estimate the costs and benefits. The framework ensured the compilation of the following data in a consistent and transparent format: • community and school profile information (primary data collected as part of STP projects); • baseline and follow up student travel survey data (primary data collected as part of STP projects): dates; response rates; travel mode share results; • data on project time, cost and STP initiatives completed (primary data collected as part of this study). As noted above, STP project time and cost data were identified as primary data to be collected as part of the study with assistance from community-level and provincial-level STP facilitators. It was determined that costs would be collected at the following levels: • school level; • community level (municipal or regional); • provincial level.


13

Step 2: STP Project Screening Between 2009 and 2012, 71 STP projects were implemented in Ontario - thereby providing the base of available projects to be included in this study. The selection of schools for those 71 projects was based on student commute distance, school-level and community-level support for the project, and no significant past participation in similar projects (see Table 2). TABLE 2: School Community Selection Criteria * for Ontario STP Projects

School Type Commute Distance

Elementary schools (K-6, K-8) At least 50% of students living within 1.6km.

School Support - Champions Strong support from Principal/Vice Principal and school will put a School Travel team in place to support the project. Previous Projects

No formal past participation in School Travel Planning projects.

Community Support Stakeholder Committee

Community stakeholder committee with School Travel Planning facilitator will support the school and project.

*additional criteria in the Stepping It Up project included urban form (only urban or suburban schools included, not rural) and socio-economic status (only low SES in first year and only high SES in second year of the project).

To establish the STP project sample for this report (see Table 3), the 71 STP projects were first screened based on the availability of baseline and follow up student travel surveys. The remaining 36 STP projects were then screened for minimum baseline and follow up survey response rates of 40%. Through this screening, the original sample of 71 STP projects became 19, as listed in Table 1. For the full list of STP projects, including school population, survey dates, and response rates, see Appendix 1. TABLE 3: STP Project Screening Process

Level of Screening

# of STP Projects

Level 1: Total number of STP Projects in Ontario that occurred in period 2009 to 2012.

71

Level 2: Number of STP Projects with available completed baseline and follow-up surveys.

36

Level 3: Number of STP Projects achieving 40% or greater response rate to student travel surveys (Baseline and Follow up surveys, To and From school).

19


14

Step 3: Data Compilation All STP projects conducted baseline and follow up surveys to measure how students travelled to and from school before and after implementation of a school travel plan. In this voluntary classroom survey conducted daily for a week, students raise their hand to identify which mode of travel they used on the way to school, and which mode they will be using to travel from school. Appendices 2A and 2B provide examples of the classroom survey and school summary forms used by STP projects to compile survey responses and calculate response rates. For this study, these forms were sourced from STP facilitators (i.e. individuals who coordinated STP projects in each community). Response rate data was used for project screening and mode share data was used in Step 4 for benefit-cost modelling. As noted in Step 1, STP project costs were collected using the standardized templates for the school, community (municipal and/or regional), and provincial levels. The cost templates were completed as part of this study by local level and provincial level STP facilitators collaboratively to ensure consistency. Examples of the cost collection templates can be found in Appendices 3A, 3B, and 3C. The costs collected at each level include: •

School level: costs associated with the planning, implementation, and monitoring and maintenance of the STP process in each school community; specifically, all costs of delivering the school travel plan, including staff time, amenities, and services. Volunteer hours from parents and students and costs of infrastructure leveraged were also inventoried.

•

Community level (municipal or regional): costs associated with the time and resources spent by steering committees to support STP projects happening in their community within the time frame; specifically, in-kind human resources, human resources special to the STP process, and administrative and overhead costs. Each STP project was assigned an equal share of their community-level costs, so this cost was standard for all schools in the same community.

• Provincial level: costs associated with project management, coordination, toolkit development and training covering multiple STP projects in multiple communities, expended by provincial facilitators (i.e. Green Communities Canada and/or Metrolinx). Each STP project was as signed an equal share of provincial-level costs based on the number of STP projects in the province during the time frame (i.e. 71), thus this cost was standard for all 19 projects. Many of the costs noted above were in-kind or donated costs by existing staff and volunteers for facilitation and implementation of the STP process. Therefore, while schools and/or communities did not necessarily incur these as additional costs to their operating budgets, the value of this in-kind time was captured and included in modelling.


15

Step 4: Model Development and Modelling In this Benefit-Cost Study, the primary benefits measured are derived from: • reductions in motor vehicle kilometres travelled; • increases in kilometres walked. In Step 3, the baseline and follow up mode shares to and from school were compiled. The first step in modelling was to multiply the mode share for each of the 19 STP projects by their respective student population to calculate the total daily trips to and from school for each travel mode. From that, the change in trips and change in mode share were calculated. Benefits Table 4 displays the assumptions applied to the total number of daily single-family motor-vehicle trips (i.e. cars trips that are not carpools) and walking trips to calculate the annual change in vehicle kilometres travelled and kilometres walked. The average walking, walking part-way, and car trip distance assumptions are informed by bus eligibility distance thresholds, and results from the Metrolinx “Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area School Travel Household Attitudinal Study Report”5. The car trip distance accounts for the return trip home for parents making dedicated trips to school or those going on to travel from the school to another destination.

TABLE 4: School Travel Assumptions

Assumption

Value

Number of elementary school days

190

Average walking trip distance

1.0 km

Average walking part-way distance

0.5 km

Average car trip distance

1.8 km


16

To calculate the economic benefits of the STP projects, the study used values from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute’s (VTPI) “Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs”3 report. Only benefits relevant to school trips were included in calculations, and the “overall average” values were used in recognition that the STP projects were in both urban and rural environments, and morning trips are made during peak and off-peak hours. The VTPI report was selected due to its Canadian origin, conservative benefit values, and its breakdown into individual benefits that could be customized for school travel applicability. The benefits used in the analysis include:

• A benefit value of $0.79 per vehicle kilometre travelled (VKT) reduced. Table 5 displays the breakdown of societal monetary benefits to obtain the $0.79 benefit. Appendix 10 provides the definitions for each of the benefits.

TABLE 5: Monetary Benefits of Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) Reduced

•

Benefits of VKT Reduction

Monetary Benefit per VKT Reduced

Congestion reduction

$0.04

Pollution reduction

$0.03

Parking cost savings

$0.16

Vehicle cost savings

$0.14

Energy conservation

$0.02

Reduced barrier effect

$0.01

Roadway cost savings

$0.03

Avoided chauffeuring driver’s time

$0.36

Total

$0.79

A benefit of $0.51 per additional kilometre walked. Table 6 displays the breakdown of societal monetary benefits to obtain the $0.51 benefit. This health benefits value is conservative compared to those used in other jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, which exceed $2.00 per kilometre walked6.

Table 6: Monetary Benefits of Additional Kilometres Walked

Benefits of Walking

Monetary Benefit per Additional Km Walked

Health benefit

$0.31

User benefits

$0.16

Options value

$0.02

Equity objectives

$0.02

Total

$0.51


17

Results from STP projects that measured increases in car travel and/or decreases in walking are shown in Appendices 5A and 5B. However, these results were treated as $0 benefit, rather than negative benefits, as presented in the Results section, Table 11. The reasoning behind this treatment of benefits is that these outcomes are counter to the goals of STP, and were thus assumed to be attributed to external factors beyond the STP process. Potential external factors could include inclement weather the week of the follow up survey, or events such as class field trips causing significant absences during follow up surveys. In addition to the economic benefits noted above, this study calculated benefits in additional ways including: • the annual reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2e) and Criteria Air Contaminants from the annual vehicle kilometres travelled reduced figure, based on coefficients from Environment Canada7 . • additional kilometres walked expressed as additional minutes of walking, based on the median elementary and middle school student walk speed of 4.3 kilometres per hour8. • additional kilometres cycled expressed as additional minutes of cycling based on the mean childhood cycling speed of 14.3 kilometres per hour9. In line with benefit-cost study best practice, the benefits of STP projects are estimated to continue in a steady state annually for an 11-year period10. The benefits model assumes that the following elements remain in a steady state over the 11 year period: • the percent mode shift in school travel behaviour; • student population (i.e. the number of students annually leaving the school is replaced by an equal number of incoming students). The approach used in this 11-year time frame is conservative because it does not account for any further decreases in car travel, and increases in walking and cycling due to sustained implementation of the school travel plan and other associated STP initiatives. The time frame is also realistic as literature suggests that STP projects should be implemented at least over a period of two to three years11, which most of the STP projects included in this study had yet to reach at the time of data collection. A discount rate of 3% is applied to address the net present value of future benefits, recognizing that money available now is worth more than an equal amount in the future. The 3% discount rate is consistent with the recommendation of the U.S. Panel on Cost–Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, which sought to define a discount rate making all cost-effectiveness analyses comparable12. This discount rate is less conservative than the 5% typically utilized by the Government of Ontario, but over 11 years, impacts the net present value of benefits by less than 10%.


18

Costs Table 7 summarizes the assumptions used for modelling costs for each STP project. As the costs for each project were reported over different time periods, costs were treated as follows: • ‘Planning Phase’ costs were calculated as a one-time cost, but not normalized. Planning costs were not normalized because the reported cost (and time period) reflected the entirety of the planning phase. The lack of correlation between cost and time period, suggests the length of time for this phase did not necessarily influence the cost. • ‘Implementation Phase’ costs were calculated as a one-time cost, normalized for an eight-month period. The eight-month normalization was used because time periods reported with implementa tion costs ranged from two to twelve months, suggesting projects with short time periods did not reflect the full cost of implementation. The average reported implementation cost time period was eight months. • ‘Monitoring and Maintenance Phase’ costs were calculated as an annually recurring cost for years two through eleven, normalized for a six-month period. The six-month normalization was used because time periods reported with monitoring and maintenance costs ranged from two to twelve months, suggesting projects with short time periods did not reflect the full cost over an entire school year and projects with long time periods reflected the cost of more than an entire school year. The average reported monitoring and maintenance cost time period was six months. The ten-year appraisal period following planning and implementation follows best practice10.

TABLE 7: Cost and Benefit Assumptions

Assumption Planning cost period Implementation cost period Monitoring and maintenance cost period

Value One time cost (not normalized) One time cost (costs normalized to 8 months) Annual cost (costs normalized to 6 months)

Maintenance period Discount rate Uncertainty range

10 years 3% 90%*

*A 90% uncertainly level indicates that there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above and 5% likelihood that the value could be below.


19

Modelling the STP Project Sample The benefit-cost analysis is summarized as a benefit-cost ratio (BCR), which is an indicator of costeffectiveness, and represents the amount of benefits returned for each dollar invested. The BCR is calculated by dividing present value (11-year) benefits by present value (11-year) costs. The BCR is calculated for the collective 19 STP project sample, and for each individual STP project. Modelling a Province-Wide STP Program To provide scale illustrating the potential benefits and costs of a hypothetical province-wide STP program, benefits and costs per student calculated for the project sample were extrapolated using the number of elementary school students enrolled in Ontario schools not eligible for student transportation services (e.g. school bus). Historically, due to the primary goals of STP being to promote cycling and walking to school, only schools with less than 50 percent of the student population eligible for student transportation have been targeted for STP projects. However, fine-grained school level transportation data could not be accessed for this study; therefore, the provincial student transportation ineligibility total provides the best available value to estimate the number of students who could benefit from STP. The benefits and costs per student were multiplied by the total number of non-eligible students to estimate the total benefits, costs, and cost-benefit ratio of delivering STP province-wide.

TABLE 8: Provincial Extrapolation Assumptions

Assumption

Value

Number of enrolled Ontario elementary school students not eligible for student transportation services

643,067 13


20

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Baseline Student Travel Behaviour for 19 STP Projects As noted in the Methodology section, Step 3, the basis for the study results are the student travel surveys conducted for each STP project. Timeframes between baseline and follow up surveys range from seven to 25 months. The survey respondent sample was 5,282 students, representing 63% of the total population of 8,267 students at the 19 schools. With this response, the sampling error was 0.8% with a 95% confidence interval. For the full STP project student travel survey dataset, see Appendices 4A and 4B. Baseline survey results demonstrate (see Appendices 5A and 5B for complete datasets): • the most common modes of travel to school are: the family car (34.1%), walking (33.4%), and school bus (24%); • baseline behaviour regarding the trip from school differs: walking (37.7%), family car (27.9%), and school bus (26.4%).

STP Initiatives Implemented Table 9 summarizes the 212 initiatives that were implemented by the 19 STP projects following planning and baseline data collection. The initiatives are grouped into five categories: encouragement, engineering, enforcement, education and evaluation (Figure 5). The frequency with which STP projects implemented each of the 23 categories of initiatives is shown.

Students work with community partners on school travel planning


21

The most commonly implemented initiatives are those that are embedded as part of the STP process itself, including classroom surveys, traffic counts/observations, and family/parent surveys. Other initiatives implemented by more than half of the STP projects include promotional item give-aways, walking and cycling themed days, bicycle rack installation or relocation, newsletters/letters/open houses, and signage. TABLE 9: Summary of Initiatives Implemented by 19 STP Projects

Type

Initiatives

Frequency (19 STP Projects)

Encouragement

Walking school buses/groups

37%

Engineering

Enforcement Education

Evaluation

Walking/cycling themed days

74%

Newsletters/letters/open houses

53%

Presentations to councils

32%

Distribution of umbrellas & pedometers (to walking groups)

11%

Promotional item give-aways

84%

Bike racks (installation or relocation)

68%

Signage (speed limit, school route, or parking)

53%

Pavement markings

11%

Kiss n' Ride/Car Drop-off Zone Modifications

5%

Sidewalk and curb-cut construction

11%

School bus re-routing

5%

Sidewalk hedge trimming

5%

Crossing guard services

32%

Speeding, parking and by-law enforcement

32%

Bike rodeo/cycling training

42%

Helmet safety training

5%

CAA school safety patroller/crosswalk training

11%

School route and parking drop-off maps

21%

Classroom Surveys

100%

Site/neighbourhood walkabout

74%

Traffic counts/observations

95%

Family/parent surveys

95%

Total Number of Initiatives

212*

* Note that for the purposes of the chart, many initiatives have been categorized and aggregated. The Initiative Frequency is the percentage of STP projects that implemented a given initiative, whereas the Total Number of Initiatives is the total implemented collectively by 19 projects. Therefore the initiatives total is not directly linked to initiative frequency.


22

Shift in School Travel Behaviour This section reports the shift in school travel behaviour following the implementation of STP initiatives, as measured by the change in mode share (mode shift) to and from school from follow up surveys (see Appendix 6 for complete mode shift data).

FIGURE 9: Student Travel Mode Shift Results from 19 STP Projects (To School)

Regarding travel to school, as illustrated by Figure 9 and Table 10, collectively the 19 STP projects resulted in a: • 1.3% increase in walking and cycling; • 2.8% decrease in car travel. TABLE 10: Student Travel Survey Results From 19 STP Projects (From School) Car - just my family

Carpool

Walk

School Bus

Public Transit

Walk Part Way

Bicycle

Other

Baseline Survey (19 schools)

34.1%

3.8%

33.4%

24.0%

0.9%

1.2%

2.1%

0.5%

Follow-up Survey (19 schools)

31.3%

4.6%

33.6%

25.1%

0.3%

1.1%

3.2%

0.8%

Mode Shift

-2.8%

0.8%

0.2%

1.0%

-0.5%

-0.1%

1.1%

0.3%

Regarding travel home from school, as illustrated by Figure 10 and Table 11, collectively the 19 STP projects resulted in a:

FIGURE 10: Student Travel Mode Shift Results from 19 STP Projects (From School)

• 1.1% increase in students cycling; • 1.4% decrease in car travel.

TABLE 11: Student Travel Survey Results From 19 STP Projects (From School) Car - just my family

Carpool

Walk

School Bus

Public Transit

Walk Part Way

Bicycle

Other

Baseline Survey (19 schools)

27.9%

3.5%

37.7%

26.4%

0.7%

1.2%

2.1%

0.6%

Follow-up Survey (19 Schools)

26.4%

4.5%

37.2%

26.3%

0.4%

1.2%

3.2%

0.8%

Mode Shift

-1.4%

1.0%

-0.5%

-0.1%

-0.3%

0.0%

1.1%

0.2%


23

Figure 11 displays the change in family car travel from baseline and follow up surveys for each of the 19 STP projects, demonstrating that car travel: • • • •

decreased on the way To School in 14 of 19 STP projects; decreased From School in 10 of 19 STP projects; decreased by more than 5% in seven of 19 STP projects (to and/or from school); increased at nine schools (to and/or from school).

FIGURE 11: Change in Single-Family Car Travel from 19 STP Projects (To and From School)


24

Benefits of 19 STP Projects Table 12 displays the annual monetary benefits calculated for each of the 19 STP projects, based on the mode shifts observed in driving (i.e. single-family car) and walking (including walked-part way) from the baseline and follow up student surveys. For more detailed benefits results, see Appendix 7. The results for the 19 schools include:

• $151,857 in annual benefits (A result of annual decrease of 192,224 kilometres driven); • $46,300 in annual benefits (A result of annual increase of 90,785 kilometres walked); • a total of $1,833,492 in benefits over the 11-year timeframe; representing $222 in benefits per student.

These results demonstrate that 17 of 19 projects produced benefits, including 14 deriving benefits from a decrease in car travel, and 11 deriving benefits from an increase in walking, with total annual benefits ranging from $170 to $46,386. Some projects experienced a decrease in walking, but an increase in cycling, suggesting STP project implementation prompted some students to switch from walking to cycling (which is not reflected in this study as providing monetary benefits). TABLE 12: Monetary Benefits Breakdown for 19 STP Projects

Project ID

VKT Reduced (km)

VKT Benefits ($$)

Walking Kilometres increased (km)

Walking Benefits ($$)

Total Annual Benefits ($$)

11-Years Total Benefits ($$)

1

8,402.7

$6,638

603.9

$308

$6,946

$64,266

2

38,863.4

$30,702

30,753.4

$15,684

$46,386

$429,198

3

1,916.7

$1,514

2,721.8

$1,388

$2,902

$26,856

4

9,120.4

$7,205

69.7

$36

$7,241

$66,998

5

12,638.6

$9,985

0.0

$0

$9,985

$92,380

6

10,366.1

$8,189

15,917.0

$8,118

$16,307

$150,880

7

0.0

$0

4,221.5

$2,153

$2,153

$19,922

8

0.0

$0

0.0

$0

$0

$0

9

2,238.5

$1,768

0.0

$0

$1,768

$16,373

10

6,540.4

$5,167

0.0

$0

$5,167

$47,806

11

0.0

$0

0.0

$0

$0

$0

12

28,849.0

$22,791

23,027.8

$11,744

$34,535

$319,544

13

0.0

$0

332.8

$170

$170

$1,569

14

20,406.7

$16,121

0.0

$0

$16,121

$149,164

15

8,807.2

$6,958

0.0

$0

$6,958

$64,372

16

7,964.7

$6,292

6,394.9

$3,261

$9,554

$88,394

17

0.0

$0

1,037.2

$529

$529

$4,893

18

230.6

$182

0.0

$0

$182

$1,687

19

35,878.7

$28,344

5,704.5

$2,909

$31,254

$289,189

Total

192,223.6

$151,857

90,784.5

$46,300

$198,157

$1,833,492

Average

10,117.0

$7,992

4,778.1

$2,437

$10,429

$96,500


25

Other Environmental and Health Benefits from STP Projects As summarized in Table 13, additional STP benefits included:

• 41.7 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) prevented annually, as result of 562 vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) prevented each day; • 1.7 tonnes of Criteria Air Contaminants (CAC) prevented annually - including nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate matter - as result of 562 vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) prevented each day; • 1.3 million additional minutes of walking annually, as result of 90,785 additional kilometres walked; • 2 million additional minutes of cycling annually, as result of 260,023 additional kilometres cycled. TABLE 13: Environmental and Health Benefits from 19 STP Projects

Schools (n=19)

Total Students

Vehicle Trips Avoided Each Day

VKT Reduced Each Year

GHG Reduced Each Year (Tonnes)

CAC Reduced Each Year (Tonnes)

Additional Mins. of Walking Each Year

Additional Mins. of Cycling Each Year

8,267

562

192,224

41.74

1.67

1,270,982

1,950,171

Costs of 19 STP Projects Table 14 displays the reported costs of planning, implementing, and monitoring each of the 19 STP projects at the school level, as well as the estimated community-level (i.e. municipal or regional) and provincial-level costs to manage the projects. The costs include tangible assets delivered through STP initiatives and staff time, including paid staff time, in-kind staff time, and parent volunteer time. For more detailed school-level cost data, see Appendix 8. The average cost for each STP project was calculated to be: • At the school level: $6,929 for planning and implementation in the first year, with costs ranging from $3,057 to $12,235 - $3,236 for monitoring and maintenance in each of the 10 subsequent years, with costs ranging from $1,228 to $6,876 • At the community level: - $650, with costs ranging from $125 to $6,275 • At the provincial level: - $1,943, based on an equal share among all projects province-wide. The ranges in costs reflect that STP projects can be implemented with varying degrees of resources and suggest that, for the community and provincial levels, there is the potential for economies of scale with decreases in costs as resources become distributed among more projects in a given community and throughout the province.


26

TABLE 14: Estimated Costs for 19 STP Projects First-Year Costs

Annual Costs

School Costs

Coordination Costs

Project ID

Planning Cost

Implementation Cost

Monitoring Cost

Community Level Cost *

Provincial Level Cost

1

$5,440

$3,785.00

$1,896

$210.00

$1,943.00

2

$4,999

$3,954.00

$1,996

$210.00

$1,943.00

3

$3,238

$3,059.00

$6,876

$210.00

$1,943.00

4

$2,917

$4,953.00

$6,171

$210.00

$1,943.00

5

$3,137

$9,098.00

$4,084

$210.00

$1,943.00

6

$3,658

$3,158.00

$4,758

$210.00

$1,943.00

7

$3,001

$880.00

$3,210

$210.00

$1,943.00

8

$4,106

$3,047.00

$4,703

$247.00

$1,943.00

9

$4,526

$3,897.00

$6,340

$247.00

$1,943.00

10

$6,185

$2,267.00

$2,685

$983.00

$1,943.00

11

$5,860

$3,400.00

$2,490

$983.00

$1,943.00

12

$2,436

$3,185.00

$1,959

$380.00

$1,943.00

13

$1,793

$1,742.50

$1,240

$380.00

$1,943.00

14

$1,713

$1,669.50

$1,228

$380.00

$1,943.00

15

$1,676

$1,381

$1,603

$380.00

$1,943.00

16

$1,448

$2,300

$3,310

$380.00

$1,943.00

17

$5,270

$4,337

$2,933

$125.00

$1,943.00

18

$4,945

$4,463

$2,663

$125.00

$1,943.00

19

$2,490

$2,240

$1,352

$6,275.00

$1,943.00

*The Project IDs that have the same Community Level Cost are from the same community.


27

Table 15 summarizes the total estimated costs of planning and implementation for the 19 STP projects, and then monitoring and maintenance for a further 10 years, applying a discount rate of 3%. The total estimated cost for the 11 years is $1 million, which represents an average annual cost of $93,332, or $124 per student. TABLE 15: Estimated 11-Year Total Costs for 19 STP Projects

Cost

11-Year Total Cost ($)

School-Level Costs

$636,429

Community and Provincial-Level Costs

$390,228

Total Costs

$1,026,657

Benefit-Cost Ratio for 19 STP Projects As summarized in Figure 12, the benefits of the 19 STP projects total $1.8 million over eleven years, which is 1.8 times the estimated cost of planning, implementing, and monitoring and maintaining the projects for 11 years. The benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 suggests that STP is a relatively cost-effective intervention.

FIGURE 12: Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculation for 19 STP Projects

Present Value Benefits =

$ 1,405,089 + Car Reduction Benefits

$ 428,402 = $1,833,491 Walking Benefits

Total Costs = $ 635,429 + $ 390,228 = $1,026,657 School-Level Community Total Costs Costs Costs

Benefit-Cost Ratio

=

Total Present Value Benefits

=

Total Costs

$1,833,491 $1,026,657

= 1.8


28

Benefit-cost ratios for each STP project can be found in Appendix 9. These individual project ratios demonstrate: • The economic efficiency of STP can substantially vary from one project to the next - four projects produced very high benefit-cost ratios of over 10.0 (benefits greater than ten times costs) - eight projects had benefit-cost ratios of less than 1.0 (benefits exceeded by costs), including two which did not achieve a reduction in car travel, or increase in walking. •

There is weak correlation between the costs and benefits, as many of the projects with the highest benefit values did not accumulate the highest costs, which reinforces that there are a number of factors which influence the effectiveness of STP (examples include Project IDs 2, 12, and 19).

The study does not explore in depth how or why some projects demonstrate significantly higher benefit-cost ratios than others. However, the study “School Travel Planning in Action in Ontario”14 reported common factors for STP success and sustainability including: • • • •

strong stakeholder engagement and commitment; dedicated STP facilitators within the community; enthusiastic internal school champions; strong connections with other existing environmental, health and/or physical education programs.

Additionally, effectiveness of STP interventions is not necessarily based on quantity, but rather leveraging the above factors to efficiently implement appropriate STP initiatives. Lastly, monitoring and maintenance make up a large portion of the modelled costs over the life span of the 11-year model and, in the absence of more longitudinal follow up survey data, it is not known whether they assist in influencing behaviour change (resulting in benefits).


29

Estimate Benefits and Costs of Province-Wide STP Program To provide a sense of scale, Figure 13 summarizes the benefits and costs of a hypothetical province-wide STP program. The benefits per student, and costs per student from the 19 schools were extrapolated to estimate the benefits and costs of delivering STP projects across the province, based on the 643,067 elementary school students who are not eligible for student transportation (e.g. school busing). Results include: • total 11-year benefits of $142,622,225; • total costs of $79.9 million; • benefit-cost ratio of 1.8. In practice in a province STP program, community-level and provincial-level costs per student could be reduced and the benefit-cost ratio could be improved if delivered through a more robust program. For example, in the case of STP project operations in Ontario that formed the basis of this study, provincial coordinators were contributing time to projects outside of Ontario, and many of the regional and municipal STP committees were not working at capacity, and therefore could potentially have coordinated more STP projects without significant additional cost.

FIGURE 13: Province-Wide STP Program Benefit-Cost Ratio Estimate

Present Value Benefits = Total Costs =

Benefit-Cost Ratio

$221.78 x 643,067 = $142,622,225 Benefits per Total Students Student $124.00 x Costs per Student

=

Present Value Benefits

643,067 = Total Students

=

Total Costs

$79,860,811

$142,622,225 $79,860,811

= 1.8


30

CASE STUDIES The following section provides four case studies highlighting STP projects which experienced particular success. The case studies provide a brief project overview and a summary table including:

• • • •

school profile; details about the project phases; student travel mode shift to and from school; benefit-cost ratio and other results.

CASE STUDY 1: St. Lawrence Catholic Elementary School (CES), Hamilton, Ontario St. Lawrence CES joined the Stepping It Up STP pilot project in winter 2010 to help alleviate traffic and safety concerns and promote walking and cycling to school. STP Facilitators from City of Hamilton Public Health and Public Works assisted the School Work Group to complete their profile, walkabout, surveys, and traffic observations. The School Travel Plan included a variety of actions to educate, encourage, and enforce safe travel behaviour and promote walking and cycling while reducing drop offs by car. Actions such as helmet safety training, dedicated walk/bike to school days (i.e. Wear Yellow Day), and a cycling week, were implemented over the 2011 school year. Student surveys in the classroom (70% response rate) measured significant decreases in car trips (-14% TO and FROM) and increases in walking (+22% TO and +17.5% FROM) and cycling (+0.8% TO and FROM). The total project cost for January 2010 to June 2011 was $10,948.50 and the project achieved the following annual results:

• prevented 38,863 vehicle kilometres travelled, 8.4 tonnes of greenhouse gases and 338 kilograms of air pollutants; • added 430,548 minutes walked and 12,037 minutes bicycled.

Using the model, if the project were maintained long term (11 years) the total costs would be $25,218.47 with total benefits of $429,198.37. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is 17.

Walk to School Celebration at St. Lawrence CES, Hamilton


Bike Maintenance at Schools, Hamilton

31

St. Lawrence Case Study continued... PROJECT PROFILE:

PHASE 1: PLANNING

Community: Hamilton School: St. Lawrence CES • •

Student Population: 407 Project Timeline: January 2010 – June 2011

•

Stakeholder Committee: 1 Public Works staff, 2 STP facilitators (Public Health staff), 2 Public Works project managers, 2 principals, 1 police officer, 1 Green Venture staff, 1 Parent Council representative - 10 meetings (4/year) School Work Group: 2 STP facilitators, 1 principal, 1 school nurse, 4 teachers, 3 parents, 7 students - 2 meetings School Profile Traffic Observations Walkabout Parent Survey Student Survey (RR: 70.8 % - February 2010)

• • • • • •

PHASE 2: IMPLEMENTATION

• • • •

Education: Think First Helmet Safety training Encouragement: Wear Yellow Day, Walking Wednesdays, Cycle to School Week, promotions e.g. bicycles, repair toolkit, locks, bells, pencils, reflective items, etc.) Engineering: N/A Enforcement: N/A

PHASE 3: MONITORING

•

School Work Group: 1 STP facilitator, 2 teachers, 7 students - 1 meeting Completed: • Traffic Counts • Parent Survey • Student Survey (71.5 % - May 2011)

MODE SHIFT:

To School: • Car: -13.9% • Walk: +22.2% • Bicycle: +0.8%

From School • Car: -14.0% • Walk: +17.5% • Bicycle: + 0.8%

BENEFIT-COST RESULTS:

11-Year Costs & Benefits • Total Costs: $25,218.47 • Total Benefits: $429,198.37

Annual Results • VKT Reduced: 38,863 • GHG Prevented: 8.4 tonnes • Air Pollutants prevented: 338 kg • Additional Mins Walked: 430,548 • Additional Mins Cycled: 12,037

•

Benefit-Cost Ratio: 17

New Bicycle Rack, Hamilton


32

CASE STUDY 2: Viscount Alexander Public School, Ottawa, Ontario Viscount Alexander PS joined the Ottawa STP project in fall 2010 to promote more walking and cycling to school. STP Facilitators from Green Communities Canada assisted the School Work Group to complete their profile, walkabout, surveys, and traffic observations. The School Travel Plan included actions to educate, encourage, and enforce active travel behaviour. Actions included themed active travel days and promotions, a bike rodeo with safety and skills training, and new bicycle rack, implemented over 2010-11 and 2011-12 school years. Student surveys in the classroom (49% response rate) measured significant decreases in car trips (-11.7% TO and -5.8% FROM) and increases in walking (+20.8% TO and +3.1% FROM) and cycling (+3.5% TO and +2.1% FROM). The total project cost for September 2010 to June 2012 was $8,208.50 and the project achieved the following annual results: • prevented 7,965 vehicle kilometres travelled, 1.7 tonnes of greenhouse gases and 69 kilograms of air pollutants; • added 89,528 minutes walked and 34,050 minutes bicycled. Using the model, if the project were maintained long term (11 years) the total costs would be $30,080.07 with total benefits of $88,393.97. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is 3.

Walking School Bus, Ottawa


33

Viscount Alexander Case Study continued...

PROJECT PROFILE:

PHASE 1: PLANNING

Community: Ottawa School: Viscount Alexander PS • •

Student Population: 133 Project Timeline: September 2010 – June 2012

•

Stakeholder Committee: 2 STP facilitators, 4 City staff, 1 Public Health nurse, 1 Ottawa Police Services staff, 2 school board representatives, 2 transportation authority representatives, 2 Ottawa Safety Council representatives • 6 meetings School Work Group: 1 STP facilitator, 1 principal, 1 teacher, 1 parent, 1 Public Health nurse, 1 Community Health Centre representative • 1 meeting School Profile Traffic Observations Walkabout Parent Survey Student Survey (63.9 % - October 2010)

• • • • • •


• • •

Education: Bike Rodeo with bike safety training and bicycle maintenance training Encouragement: Winter Walk to School Day, Clean Air Day, promotions (e.g. bicycles, helmets, pencils, stickers, reflectors, etc.), Engineering: Bike rack

PHASE 3: MONITORING

•

School Work Group: 1 STP facilitator, 1 principal, 1 teacher, 1 Public Health Nurse, 1 Community Health Centre representative, 2 parents • 2 meetings Completed: • Traffic Counts • Parent Survey • Student Survey (48.9 % - May 2012)

MODE SHIFT:

To School: • Car: -11.7% • Walk: +20.8% • Walk Part-Way: +1.0% • Bicycle: +3.5%

From School • Car: -5.8% • Walk: +3.1% • Walk Part-Way: +1.9% • Bicycle: +2.1%



Annual Results • VKT Reduced: 7,965 • GHG Prevented: 1.7 tonnes • Air Pollutants Prevented: 69 kg • Additional Mins Walked: 89,528 • Additional Mins Cycled: 34,050

•


Assets Leveraged • Infrastructure $ Leveraged: $3,000 (for bike racks)


34

CASE STUDY 3: Elmdale Public School, Ottawa, Ontario Elmdale PS joined the Ottawa STP project in fall 2010 to address traffic issues and promote more walking and cycling to school. STP Facilitators from Green Communities Canada assisted the School Work Group to complete their profile, walkabout, surveys, and traffic observations. The School Travel Plan included actions to educate, encourage, engineer and enforce active travel behaviour. The actions implemented included a bike rodeo with safety and skills training, parking area mapping, walking campaigns and themed days, a Walking School Bus and Bike Club, crossing guards, a bike rack, traffic signage and by-law enforcement, implemented over 2010-11 and 2011-12 school years. Student surveys in the classroom (47% response rate) measured significant decreases in car trips (-8.3% TO and -4.9% FROM) and increases in cycling (+12.3% TO and +12.8% FROM). The total project cost for September 2010 to June 2012 was $5,445.50 and the project achieved the following annual results: • prevented 20,407 vehicle kilometres travelled, 4.4 tonnes of greenhouse gases and 177 kilograms of air pollutants. • added 231,458 minutes bicycled. Using the model, if the project were maintained long term (11 years) the total costs would be $13,454.29 with total benefits of $149,163.78. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is 11.

Participation in Winter Walk Day, Ottawa

CAN-BIKE instruction at a bicycle rodeo, Ottawa


35

Elmdale Case Study continued... PROJECT PROFILE:

PHASE 1: PLANNING

Community: Ottawa School: Elmdale PS • •

Student Population: 452 Project Timeline: September 2010 – June 2012

•

Stakeholder Committee: 2 STP facilitators, 4 City staff, 1 Public Health nurse, 1 Ottawa Police Services staff, 2 school board representatives, 2 transportation authority representatives, 2 Ottawa Safety Council representatives - 6 meetings School Work Group: 1 STP facilitator, 1 principal, 2 teachers, 3 parent volunteers - 1 meeting School Profile Traffic Observations Walkabout Parent Survey Student Survey (69.7 % - September 2010)

• • • • • •


• • • •

Education: Bike Rodeo, Parking drop-off map, pedestrian crossing letter campaign, Encouragement: IWALK Challenge, Winter Walk to School Day, Walking School Bus, promotions, Bike Club, Engineering: Traffic signage, bike rack, Enforcement: 2 Crossing guards, by-law enforcement,

PHASE 3: MONITORING

•

School Work Group: 1 STP facilitator, 1 principal, 2 teachers, 3 parent volunteers - 1 meeting Completed: • Parent Survey • Student Survey (47.1 % - May 2012)

MODE SHIFT:

To School: • Car: -8.3% • Walk: -4.1% • Bicycle: +12.3%

From School • Car: -4.9% • Walk: -0.4% • Bicycle: +12.8%



Annual Results • VKT Prevented: 20,407 • GHG Prevented: 4.4 tonnes • Air pollutants prevented: 177 kg • Additional Mins Cycled: 231,458

•


Assets Leveraged • Services and Infrastructure $ leveraged: $13,090.00 (for two crossing guards, traffic signage, and one bike rack)


36

CASE STUDY 4: Mitchell Hepburn Public School, St. Thomas, Ontario Mitchell Hepburn PS joined the St. Thomas STP project in fall 2010 to address traffic issues and promote more walking and cycling to school. STP Facilitators from Elgin-St. Thomas Public Health assisted the School Work Group to complete their profile and surveys. The School Travel Plan included actions to educate, encourage, engineer and enforce active travel behaviour. The actions implemented included a bike rodeo and bike racks, stop signs and road markings, newsletters to parents and presentations to school council, police enforcement and a crossing guard, implemented over 2010-11 and 2011-12 school years. Student surveys in the classroom (40.7% response rate) measured significant decreases in car trips (-7.4% TO and -9.7% FROM) and increases in walking (+4.6% FROM) and cycling (+6.7% TO and +6.8% FROM). The total project cost for September 2010 to May 2012 was $6,758.00 and the project achieved the following annual results: • prevented 38,878 vehicle kilometres travelled, 4.4 tonnes of greenhouse gases and 312 kilograms of air pollutants; • added 79,864 minutes walking and 1,537,628 minutes bicycled. Using the model, if the project were maintained long term (11 years) the total costs would be $15,789.16 with total benefits of $289,188.91. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is 18.

Cycling at Mitchell Hepburn

Mitchell Hepburn Community Cycleabout


37

Mitchell Hepburn Case Study continued... PROJECT PROFILE:

PHASE 1: PLANNING

Community: St. Thomas School: Mitchell Hepburn PS • •

Student Population: 614 Project Timeline: September 2010 – May 2012

•

Stakeholder Committee: 1 STP facilitator, 4 Public Health nurses, 1 Police representative, 2 school board representatives, 1 TDM Coordinator, 3 community organization representatives, 2 parent volunteers - 11 meetings (over 1.5 years) School Work Group: 1 STP facilitator, 1 Public Health nurse, 1 Police officer, 1 city councillor, 1 principal, 2 parent volunteers, 1 municipal representative - 3 meetings School Profile Parent Survey Student Survey (52.8 % - December 2010)

•

• • •


Education: Bike Rodeo Encouragement: Newsletter inserts, presentation to School Council Engineering: Bike Racks, stop signs, road markings Enforcement: Police enforcement, crossing guard

PHASE 3: MONITORING

•

MODE SHIFT:

To School: • Car: -7.4% • Walk: -2.2% • Bicycle: +6.7%

From School • Car: -9.7% • Walk: +4.6% • Bicycle: +6.8%


11-Year Costs & Benefits Total Costs: $15,789.16 Total Benefits: $289,188.91

Annual Results • VKT Reduced: 38,878 • GHG Prevented: 7.8 tonnes • Air pollutants prevented: 312 kg • Additional Mins Walked: 79,864 • Additional Mins Cycled: 1,537,628

School Work Group: 1 STP facilitator, 1 Public Health nurse, 1 principal, 1 parent volunteer, 1 police staff - 1 meeting Completed: • Parent Survey • Student Survey (40.7 % - February 2012)


Assets Leveraged • Services and infrastructure $ leveraged: $12,000 (for crossing guard and 2 bike racks)


38

CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

Overall the benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 supports STP as a cost-effective intervention. The study demonstrated that STP can contribute toward significant school travel behaviour change, provide substantial economic, health and environmental benefits. More generally, this study demonstrated that it is possible to evaluate the economic efficiency of STP projects in Ontario, provides a method that can be refined going forward.

has and has and

Although behaviour change results were inconsistent across the project sample, there were a number of promising examples of success, which can serve as models for optimizing STP benefits and costs. The report does not explore in depth how or why some projects demonstrate significantly higher benefit-cost ratios than others. However, complementary research has identified a number of common factors for STP success and sustainability, including: • • • •

strong stakeholder engagement and commitment; dedicated STP facilitators within the community; enthusiastic internal school champions; strong connections with other existing environmental, health and/or physical education programs.

Considerations for Future Studies This BCA overestimates some variables while underestimating others; overall, the methodology and analysis is sufficiently fair and robust, and can be refined in future iterations to better align with provincial and regional benefit-cost analysis standards as they are established. A number of recommendations stem from developing and delivering on this methodology, which could improve the rigour of future benefit-cost analyses of STP projects. These relate to the inputs, i.e. data collection, as well as the benefits and costs applied, and include: 1. More frequent student travel behaviour surveys at consistent intervals: the STP projects included in this study had varying study periods, ranging from less than one year, to more than two years (beginning and ending in different seasons). Further, many STP projects could not be included in the study due to incomplete student survey data. Going forward student travel surveys should be conducted more frequently, at consistent intervals, year-over-year, and include more context for the results (e.g. make note of weather or special events taking place); thereby providing more detailed and consistent longitudinal data for further studies. This can be supported by the inclusion of a lifetime effect escalator in future benefit-cost models addressing the longer-term benefits of adult behaviour resulting from active commuting as a child and youth.


39

2. More rigorous surveying and higher response rates: More rigorous surveying, with high response rates will provide the statistical confidence necessary for inclusion of all modes, for example, cycling, in future studies. Appropriate support and incentives to school communities for this purpose are important considerations. 3. Application of standardized health benefit values and available traffic and safety data: other jurisdictions have government-standardized active travel health benefit values available for economic efficiency modelling (Canada does not), as well as comprehensive traffic collision and safety data, both of which would enable more robust measurement of STP benefits. 4. Cost estimation during STP projects: the cost of in-kind time presented in this study was calculated and collected after STP projects were completed which may affect accuracy. It is important going forward that staff time and other expenditures are recorded while the project is taking place. 5. Control schools: the inclusion of control schools which are not part of STP projects within participating communities would be a very valuable source of travel behaviour data to support and verify STP project results.

“I think the issue behind the project is something that needs improvement in all communities across the province.” – Principal, Peel District School Board


40

REFERENCES

1. Green Communities Canada. (2012). Children’s Mobility, Health and Happiness: A Canadian School Travel Planning Model - 2012 National Results - Executive Summary. Online: www.saferoutestoschool.ca/downloads/Executive%20Summary-CLASP%20Results-May%202012.pdf

2. Metrolinx. (2012). Stepping It Up - Final report. Online: www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/schooltravel/SteppingItUpReportENG.pdf

3. Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. (2013). Evaluating active transport benefits and costs: guide to valuing walking and cycling improvements and encouragement programs. Online: www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf

4. Green Communities Canada. (2012) School Travel Planning Facilitator Guide - Edition 3. Online: www.saferoutestoschool.ca/sites/default/files/Canadian%20STP%20Facilitator%20Guide%20%281%29.pdf

5. Metrolinx. (2011). Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area school travel household attitudinal study report. Online: www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/schooltravel/ENG-2011GTHASchoolTravelStudy.pdf

6. Auckland Regional Transport Authority. (2010). TravelWise school and workplace travel plans: evaluation report. 7. Environment Canada. (2006). National inventory of greenhouse gas emissions 1990-2006. 8. McDonald, N. C. (2007, July 21). Children’s mode choice for the school trip: the role of distance and school location in walking to school. Online: http://planning.unc.edu/people/faculty/noreenmcdonald/McDonald_SchoolTripModeChoice_Transportation_2008.pdf

9. Thompson, D., Rebolledo, V., Thompson, R., Kaufman, A., &Rivara, F. (1997). Bike speed measurements in a recreational population: validity of self reported speed. Injury Prevention(3), 43-45. Online: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1067763/

10. Moodie, M., Haby, M., Galvin, L., & al, e. (2009). Cost-effectiveness of active transport for primary school children walking school bus program. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity(6), 63. Online: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2758827/

11. Green Communities Canada. (2010). Review of international school travel planning best practices. Online: www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/schooltravel/Review_of-Intl_STP_Best_Practices_Update_2010.pdf

12. Muennig, P. (2008). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health: A Practical Approach. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 13. Ministry of Education. (2012a). 2010-11 Student Transportation Survey. Results obtained from Ministry of Education. 14. Metrolinx and Green Communities Canada. (2013). School travel planning in action in Ontario: successes and lessons in active and sustainable school transportation. Online: www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/schooltravel/School_Travel_Planning_in_Action_in_Ontario_EN.pdf


41

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: STUDENT TRAVEL SURVEYS AND RESPONSE RATE SCREENING

School ID

Student Pop.

Baseline Survey Date

To School Resp.

Resp. Rate

From School Resp.

Resp. Rate

Follow Up Survey Date

To School Resp.

Resp. Rate

From School Resp.

Resp. Rate

1

282

Mar-10

247

87.59%

121

42.91%

May-11

208

73.76%

208

73.76%

2

407

Feb-10

288

70.76%

291

71.50%

May-11

269

66.09%

239

58.72%

3

209

Oct-10

166

79.43%

157

75.12%

May-11

165

78.95%

167

79.90%

4

332

Oct-10

269

81.02%

157

47.29%

May-11

262

78.92%

262

78.92%

5

300

Oct-10

215

71.67%

212

70.67%

May-11

244

81.33%

243

81.00%

6

406

Feb-10

281

69.21%

280

68.97%

11-May

201

49.51%

201

49.51%

7

494

Oct-10

369

74.70%

261

52.83%

11-May

207

41.90%

202

40.89%

8

886

Oct-10

826

93.23%

784

88.49%

Oct-11

492

55.53%

503

56.77%

9

715

Nov-09

330

46.15%

305

42.66%

11-Jun

294

41.12%

289

40.42%

10

475

Oct-10

371

78.11%

318

66.95%

Oct-11

351

73.89%

327

68.84%

11

450

Oct-10

377

83.78%

361

80.22%

Oct-11

352

78.22%

300

66.67%

12

780

Apr-10

545

69.87%

526

67.44%

May-12

389

49.87%

382

48.97%

13

360

May-10

294

81.67%

239

66.39%

May-12

336

93.33%

324

90.00%

14

452

Sep-10

315

69.69%

229

50.66%

May-12

213

47.12%

190

42.04%

15

272

Oct-10

219

80.51%

156

57.35%

May-11

195

71.69%

139

51.10%

16

133

Oct-10

85

63.91%

65

48.87%

May-12

125

93.98%

97

72.93%

17

420

Apr-11

289

68.81%

279

66.43%

Feb-12

279

66.43%

275

65.48%

18

280

May-11

225

80.36%

219

78.21%

Feb-12

195

69.64%

182

65.00%

19

614

Dec-10

324

52.77%

322

52.44%

Feb-12

250

40.72%

252

41.04%


42

APPENDIX 2A: EXAMPLE CLASSROOM STUDENT TRAVEL SURVEY FROM STEPPING IT UP PROJECT The Classroom Student Survey example below displays the five-day survey form that was used to collect baseline and follow up student travel mode for trips to and from school. The only difference between the Stepping It Up pilot survey (shown below) and the survey utilized by Green Communities Canada (GCC)’s project is the inclusion of “Walked Part-Way” as a mode choice in the GCC survey.


43

APPENDIX 2B: EXAMPLE STUDENT TRAVEL SURVEY SCHOOL SUMMARY FROM STEPPING IT UP PROJECT The Student Survey School Summary example below displays the form which aggregates the five-day classroom survey from all classrooms in a given school based on the forms from Appendix 2A.


44

APPENDIX 3A: STP PROJECT COST TEMPLATE – SCHOOL LEVEL The forms below display the templates used to collect the estimated planning, implementation, monitoring and maintenance costs for the STP project at each of the 19 schools included in the study. The forms compile information regarding the time frame for the estimate, estimated monetary cost, estimated time, items/initiatives covered by the estimate, data sources, and additional notes. The costs are categorized as in-kind human resources, human resources specific to STP, administrative and overhead costs, costs of amenities, and costs of infrastructure leveraged.


45


46

APPENDIX 3B: STP PROJECT COST TEMPLATE – REGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL LEVEL The forms below display the templates used to collect the estimated steering committee costs of STP projects in each of the municipalities or regions included in this study. The forms collected information regarding the time frame for the estimate, estimated cost amount, estimated time, items/initiatives covered by the estimate, data sources, and additional notes. The costs are categorized as in-kind human resources, human resources specific to STP, administrative and overhead costs, and costs of municipal infrastructure and services leveraged.


47

APPENDIX 3C: STP PROJECT COST TEMPLATE – PROVINCIAL LEVEL The form below displays the templates used to collect the estimated provincial coordination costs of STP projects in Ontario. The forms compile information regarding the time frame for the estimate, estimated cost amount, estimated time, items/initiatives covered by the estimate, data sources, and additional notes. The costs are categorized as in-kind human resources, human resources specific to STP, and administrative and overhead costs.


48

APPENDIX 4A: STUDENT TRAVEL SURVEY – FIVE-DAY TALLY (TO SCHOOL)

Baseline Survey – To School

Follow-Up Survey – To School

School ID

Car just my family

Carpool

Walking

School Bus

Public Transit

Walked Part Way

Bicycle

Other

Car just my family

Carpool

Walking

School Bus

Public Transit

Walked Part Way

Bicycle

Other

1

325

16

876

0

17

0

1

2

230

41

740

0

22

0

2

4

2

571

46

432

362

20

0

2

5

348

43

704

236

1

0

12

3

3

320

35

107

364

0

0

2

3

297

0

144

385

0

0

3

0

4

555

0

54

723

0

0

13

0

435

44

54

769

0

0

7

0

5

429

2

304

332

0

0

8

0

407

114

305

375

1

0

20

0

6

409

53

361

569

10

0

3

2

259

80

346

289

6

0

19

7

7

772

21

743

206

40

0

46

17

439

23

404

122

12

0

22

13

8

1493

591

1783

222

19

0

24

0

972

436

912

129

1

0

6

6

9

533

154

680

267

0

0

13

2

462

145

565

299

0

0

0

0

10

503

40

400

715

70

79

47

1

411

28

369

881

0

38

29

1

11

653

31

767

269

4

78

78

4

725

30

653

285

0

32

32

4

12

731

54

1127

517

67

73

109

47

361

17

968

347

13

87

128

26

13

538

26

389

261

5

68

144

39

654

17

432

367

19

47

138

7

14

453

24

610

378

4

11

77

16

219

0

370

269

0

2

183

23

15

307

8

296

368

14

46

40

15

248

2

181

385

7

38

25

90

16

120

0

123

178

1

2

1

0

103

1

310

177

0

9

23

0

17

697

41

404

297

0

0

8

0

758

37

286

294

2

18

1

0

18

294

13

227

559

0

9

24

1

252

8

158

552

0

5

0

0

19

598

27

438

526

0

7

20

4

369

17

310

437

0

12

99

5

Please note that this is the raw data from five-day student travel surveys. From these results the mode share, total trips (mode share x total students), mode shift, and single-family car trips reduced, walking, walking part-way, and bicycle trips increased were calculated.


49

APPENDIX 4B: STUDENT TRAVEL SURVEY – FIVE-DAY TALLY (FROM SCHOOL)

Baseline Survey – From School School ID

Car just my family

Carpool

Walking

1

156

12

434

2

527

46

511

3

280

23

136

4

223

0

66

5

394

15

6

416

58

School Bus

Follow-Up Survey – From School

Public Transit

Walked Part Way

Bicycle

Other

Car just my family

Carpool

Walking

School Bus

Public Transit

Walked Part Way

0

3

0

0

0

221

31

352

15

0

2

0

266

38

344

0

0

4

0

315

484

0

0

12

0

378

306

335

0

0

8

0

383

360

559

2

0

3

2

257

Bicycle

Other

755

0

29

631

242

3

0

6

0

0

11

6

0

164

355

26

48

851

0

0

1

0

0

0

6

0

83

342

46

378

384

0

0

21

2

300

2

0

16

6

7

522

21

523

184

27

0

19

10

403

15

449

100

17

0

14

10

8

1151

474

2065

211

2

0

16

1

862

482

1070

93

0

0

8

0

9

389

129

698

282

0

0

13

12

408

140

577

302

0

0

0

20

10

351

14

438

719

3

35

29

0

356

12

371

839

0

34

16

6

11

552

53

835

245

4

52

64

1

490

88

618

253

0

17

27

5

12

467

63

1213

554

111

78

95

50

291

7

973

375

11

114

119

22

13

305

16

336

283

3

82

131

40

437

24

463

463

13

54

152

14

14

269

6

480

310

2

11

61

7

176

0

366

223

0

1

172

12

15

201

12

225

249

10

44

24

13

132

2

196

257

2

33

8

64

16

58

0

89

179

0

0

0

0

58

3

147.00

229

28

9

10

0

17

471

45

567

300

0

0

8

5

552

45

418

335

5

18

1

0

18

174

14

263

603

0

9

31

2

156

4

205

545

0

1

0

0

19

478

19

476

604

0

8

23

4

251

16

430

455

0

2

103

2

Please note that this is the raw data from five-day student travel surveys. From these results the mode share, total trips (mode share x total students), mode shift, and single-family car trips reduced, walking, walking part-way, and bicycle trips increased were calculated.


50

APPENDIX 5A: BASELINE AND FOLLOW-UP SURVEY MODE SHARE (TO SCHOOL)


Car just my family

Carpool

Walking

1

26.3%

1.3%

2

39.7%

3.2%

3

38.5%

4.2%

4

41.3%

5

39.9%

6 7


School Bus

Public Transit

Walked Part Way

Bicycle

Other

Car just my family

Carpool

Walking

School Bus

Public Transit

Walked Part Way

Bicycle

Other

70.8%

0.0%

1.4%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

22.1%

3.9%

30.0%

25.2%

1.4%

0.0%

0.1%

0.3%

25.8%

3.2%

71.2%

0.0%

2.1%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

52.3%

17.5%

0.1%

0.0%

0.9%

0.2%

12.9%

43.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

35.8%

0.0%

17.4%

46.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.0%

4.0%

53.8%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

0.0%

33.2%

0.2%

28.3%

30.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.7%

0.0%

33.3%

3.4%

4.1%

58.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

0.0%

9.3%

25.0%

30.7%

0.1%

0.0%

1.6%

0.0%

29.1%

3.8%

25.7%

40.4%

0.7%

0.0%

0.2%

0.1%

41.8%

1.1%

40.3%

11.2%

2.2%

0.0%

2.5%

0.9%

25.7%

8.0%

34.4%

28.7%

0.6%

0.0%

1.9%

0.7%

42.4%

2.2%

39.0%

11.8%

1.2%

0.0%

2.1%

1.3%

8

36.1%

14.3%

43.2%

5.4%

0.5%

0.0%

0.6%

0.0%

39.5%

17.7%

37.0%

5.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.2%

0.2%

9

32.3%

9.3%

41.2%

16.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

0.1%

31.4%

9.9%

38.4%

20.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

10

27.1%

2.2%

21.6%

38.5%

3.8%

4.3%

2.5%

0.1%

23.4%

1.6%

21.0%

50.1%

0.0%

2.2%

1.7%

0.1%

11

34.7%

1.6%

40.7%

14.3%

0.2%

4.1%

4.1%

0.2%

41.2%

1.7%

37.1%

16.2%

0.0%

1.8%

1.8%

0.2%

12

26.8%

2.0%

41.4%

19.0%

2.5%

2.7%

4.0%

1.7%

18.5%

0.9%

49.7%

17.8%

0.7%

4.5%

6.6%

1.3%

13

36.6%

1.8%

26.5%

17.8%

0.3%

4.6%

9.8%

2.7%

38.9%

1.0%

25.7%

21.8%

1.1%

2.8%

8.2%

0.4%

14

28.8%

1.5%

38.8%

24.0%

0.3%

0.7%

4.9%

1.0%

20.5%

0.0%

34.7%

25.2%

0.0%

0.2%

17.2%

2.2%

15

28.1%

0.7%

27.1%

33.6%

1.3%

4.2%

3.7%

1.4%

25.4%

0.2%

18.5%

39.4%

0.7%

3.9%

2.6%

9.2%

16

28.2%

0.0%

28.9%

41.9%

0.2%

0.5%

0.2%

0.0%

16.5%

0.2%

49.8%

28.4%

0.0%

1.4%

3.7%

0.0%

17

48.2%

2.8%

27.9%

20.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.6%

0.0%

54.3%

2.7%

20.5%

21.1%

0.1%

1.3%

0.1%

0.0%

18

26.1%

1.2%

20.1%

49.6%

0.0%

0.8%

2.1%

0.1%

25.8%

0.8%

16.2%

56.6%

0.0%

0.5%

0.0%

0.0%

19

36.9%

1.7%

27.0%

32.5%

0.0%

0.4%

1.2%

0.2%

29.5%

1.4%

24.8%

35.0%

0.0%

1.0%

7.9%

0.4%


51

APPENDIX 5B: BASELINE AND FOLLOW-UP SURVEY MODE SHARE (FROM SCHOOL)


Car just my family

Carpool

Walking

1

25.8%

2.0%

2

36.3%

3.2%

3

35.6%

4


School Bus

Public Transit

Walked Part Way

Bicycle

Other

Car just my family

Carpool

Walking

School Bus

Public Transit

Walked Part Way

Bicycle

Other

71.7%

0.0%

0.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

21.2%

3.0%

35.2%

24.2%

1.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

22.2%

3.2%

72.5%

0.0%

2.8%

0.0%

0.6%

0.0%

52.7%

20.2%

0.3%

0.0%

0.9%

0.5%

2.9%

17.3%

43.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

0.0%

37.7%

0.0%

19.6%

42.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

28.4%

0.0%

8.4%

61.7%

0.0%

0.0%

1.5%

0.0%

28.9%

2.0%

3.7%

65.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

0.0%

5

37.2%

1.4%

28.9%

31.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

6

29.7%

4.1%

25.7%

39.9%

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

31.5%

6.8%

28.1%

31.6%

0.0%

0.0%

1.7%

0.2%

0.1%

25.6%

4.6%

37.6%

29.9%

0.2%

0.0%

1.6%

0.6%

7

40.0%

1.6%

40.0%

14.1%

2.1%

0.0%

1.5%

0.8%

40.0%

1.5%

44.5%

9.9%

1.7%

0.0%

1.4%

1.0%

8

29.4%

12.1%

52.7%

5.4%

0.1%

9

25.5%

8.5%

45.8%

18.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

34.3%

19.2%

42.5%

3.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

0.8%

28.2%

9.7%

39.9%

20.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.4%

10

22.1%

0.9%

27.6%

45.2%

0.2%

2.2%

1.8%

0.0%

21.8%

0.7%

22.7%

51.3%

0.0%

2.1%

1.0%

0.4%

11

30.6%

2.9%

46.2%

13.6%

0.2%

2.9%

3.5%

0.1%

32.7%

5.9%

41.3%

16.9%

0.0%

1.1%

1.8%

0.3%

12

17.7%

2.4%

46.1%

21.1%

4.2%

3.0%

3.6%

1.9%

15.2%

0.4%

50.9%

19.6%

0.6%

6.0%

6.2%

1.2%

13

25.5%

1.3%

28.1%

23.7%

0.3%

6.9%

11.0%

3.3%

27.0%

1.5%

28.6%

28.6%

0.8%

3.3%

9.4%

0.9%

14

23.5%

0.5%

41.9%

27.1%

0.2%

1.0%

5.3%

0.6%

18.5%

0.0%

38.5%

23.5%

0.0%

0.1%

18.1%

1.3%

15

25.8%

1.5%

28.9%

32.0%

1.3%

5.7%

3.1%

1.7%

19.0%

0.3%

28.2%

37.0%

0.3%

4.8%

1.2%

9.2%

16

17.8%

0.0%

27.3%

54.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

12.0%

0.6%

30.4%

47.3%

5.8%

1.9%

2.1%

0.0%

17

33.7%

3.2%

40.6%

21.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.6%

0.4%

40.2%

3.3%

30.4%

24.4%

0.4%

1.3%

0.1%

0.0%

18

15.9%

1.3%

24.0%

55.0%

0.0%

0.8%

2.8%

0.2%

17.1%

0.4%

22.5%

59.8%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

19

29.7%

1.2%

29.5%

37.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.4%

0.2%

19.9%

1.3%

34.2%

36.1%

0.0%

0.2%

8.2%

0.2%


52

APPENDIX 6: STUDENT SURVEY MODE SHIFT (TO AND FROM SCHOOL)

Student Survey Mode Shift – To School School ID

Car just my family

Carpool

Walking

1

-4.1%

2.7%

0.4%

2

-13.9%

0.0%

22.2%

3

-2.7%

-4.2%

4.5%

4

-8.0%

3.4%

5

-6.6%

9.1%

6

-3.3%

4.2%

8.7%

7

0.6%

1.1%

8

3.3%

3.4%

School Bus

Student Survey Mode Shift – From School

Public Transit

Walked Part Way

Bicycle

Other

Car just my family

Carpool

0.0%

0.7%

0.0%

0.1%

-7.7%

-1.3%

0.0%

0.8%

2.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

-0.4%

0.1%

5.0%

0.0%

0.0%

-0.4%

-3.3%

-0.2%

0.1%

0.0%

0.9%

-11.7%

-0.1%

0.0%

-1.2%

0.6%

-1.0%

-6.1%

-0.1%

-0.4%

Walking

0.2%

-4.6%

1.0%

0.7%

-0.1%

-14.0%

0.0%

17.5%

2.1%

-2.9%

2.4%

0.0%

0.5%

2.0%

0.0%

-5.7%

5.4%

1.7%

0.6%

-4.1%

0.4%

0.0%

-0.4%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

-0.3%

0.2%

4.9%

School Bus

Public Transit

Walked Part Way

Bicycle

Other

0.0%

2.3%

0.0%

0.6%

0.0%

-4.0%

-0.8%

0.0%

0.8%

0.5%

-1.2%

0.0%

0.0%

-0.4%

0.0%

-4.7%

3.4%

0.0%

0.0%

-1.1%

0.0%

-0.8%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

0.2%

11.9%

-10.1%

0.1%

0.0%

1.4%

0.5%

-0.1%

4.5%

-4.2%

-0.4%

0.0%

-0.1%

0.2%

7.1%

-10.1%

-1.7%

-0.1%

0.0%

-0.1%

0.0%

9

-0.9%

0.5%

-2.8%

4.1%

0.0%

0.0%

-0.8%

-0.1%

2.7%

1.2%

-6.0%

2.4%

0.0%

0.0%

-0.9%

0.6%

10

-3.7%

-0.6%

-0.6%

11.6%

-3.8%

-2.1%

-0.9%

0.0%

-0.3%

-0.1%

-4.9%

6.1%

-0.2%

-0.1%

-0.8%

0.4%

11

6.5%

0.1%

-3.6%

1.9%

-0.2%

-2.3%

-2.3%

0.0%

2.1%

2.9%

-5.0%

3.3%

-0.2%

-1.7%

-1.7%

0.3%

12

-8.3%

-1.1%

8.4%

-1.2%

-1.8%

1.8%

2.6%

-0.4%

-2.5%

-2.0%

4.8%

-1.4%

-3.6%

3.0%

2.6%

-0.7%

13

2.3%

-0.8%

-0.8%

4.1%

0.8%

-1.8%

-1.6%

-2.2%

1.5%

0.1%

0.5%

4.9%

0.6%

-3.5%

-1.6%

-2.5%

14

-8.3%

-1.5%

-4.1%

1.2%

-0.3%

-0.5%

12.3%

1.1%

-4.9%

-0.5%

-3.4%

-3.6%

-0.2%

-0.9%

12.8%

0.7%

15

-2.7%

-0.5%

-8.5%

5.8%

-0.6%

-0.3%

-1.1%

7.9%

-6.8%

-1.3%

-0.7%

5.0%

-1.0%

-0.9%

-1.9%

7.6%

16

-11.7%

0.2%

20.8%

-13.5%

-0.2%

1.0%

3.5%

0.0%

-5.8%

0.6%

3.1%

-7.6%

5.8%

1.9%

2.1%

0.0%

17

6.1%

-0.2%

-7.4%

0.5%

0.1%

1.3%

-0.5%

0.0%

6.4%

0.1%

-10.2%

2.9%

0.4%

1.3%

-0.5%

-0.4%

18

-0.2%

-0.3%

-3.9%

7.0%

0.0%

-0.3%

-2.1%

-0.1%

1.2%

-0.8%

-1.5%

4.8%

0.0%

-0.7%

-2.8%

-0.2%

19

-7.4%

-0.3%

-2.2%

2.5%

0.0%

0.5%

6.7%

0.2%

-9.7%

0.1%

4.6%

-1.3%

0.0%

-0.3%

6.8%

-0.1%

Overall

-2.82%

0.82%

0.24%

1.02%

-0.54%

-0.09%

1.10%

0.25%

-1.44%

1.00%

-0.48%

-0.15%

-0.26%

0.00%

1.10%

0.23%


53

APPENDIX 7: BENEFIT RESULTS FROM 19 STP PROJECTS School ID

VKT Reduced (To School)

VKT Reduced (From School)

Total VKT Reduced

VKTR Benefits

Walking to School Km

Walking from School Km

Walking PW to School Km

Walking PW From School Km

Additional Kms Walked

Total Walking Benefits

Total Benefits

11 Year Total Benefits

GHG (tonnes CO2e)

CAC (kg)

Additional Mins. Walked

1

3,989.5

4,413.2

8,402.7

$6,638

217.4

386.5

0.0

0.0

603.9

$308

$6,946

$64,266

1.82

72.99

8,455

2

19,310.0

19,553.4

38,863.4

$30,702

17,184.7

13,568.7

0.0

0.0

30,753.4

$15,684

$46,386

$429,198

8.44

337.61

430,548

3

1,916.7

0.0

1,916.7

$1,514

1,784.7

937.1

0.0

0.0

2,721.8

$1,388

$2,902

$26,856

0.42

16.65

38,105

4

9,120.4

0.0

9,120.4

$7,205

69.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

69.7

$36

$7,241

$66,998

1.98

79.23

975

5

6,772.5

5,866.1

12,638.6

$9,985

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

$9,985

$92,380

2.74

109.79

0

6

4,614.6

5,751.5

10,366.1

$8,189

6,739.1

9,177.9

0.0

0.0

15,917.0

$8,118

$16,307

$150,880

2.25

90.05

222,837

7

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

0.0

4,221.5

0.0

0.0

4,221.5

$2,153

$2,153

$19,922

0.00

0.00

59,102

8

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

$0

$0

0.00

0.00

0

9

2,238.5

0.0

2,238.5

$1,768

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

$1,768

$16,373

0.49

19.45

0

10

6,049.2

491.1

6,540.4

$5,167

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

$5,167

$47,806

1.42

56.82

0

11

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

$0

$0

0.00

0.00

0

12

22,099.3

6,749.7

28,849.0

$22,791

12,389.1

7,091.3

1,326.0

2,221.3

23,027.8

$11,744

$34,535

$319,544

6.26

250.61

322,389

13

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

0.0

332.8

0.0

0.0

332.8

$170

$170

$1,569

0.00

0.00

4,660

14

12,760.0

7,646.7

20,406.7

$16,121

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

$16,121

$149,164

4.43

177.27

0

15

2,467.3

6,339.9

8,807.2

$6,958

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

$6,958

$64,372

1.91

76.51

0

16

5,322.9

2,641.8

7,964.7

$6,292

5,260.7

776.1

123.1

234.9

6,394.9

$3,261

$9,554

$88,394

1.73

69.19

89,528

17

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

0.0

0.0

514.5

522.7

1,037.2

$529

$529

$4,893

0.00

0.00

14,520

18

230.6

0.0

230.6

$182

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$0

$182

$1,687

0.05

2.00

0

19

15,476.0

20,402.7

35,878.7

$28,344

0.0

5,396.2

308.4

0.0

5,704.5

$2,909

$31,254

$289,189

7.79

311.68

1,537,628

Please note: All values except “11 Year Total Benefits” are presented as annual totals. Although reflected accurately in the previous appendices displaying trips, mode share, and mode shift, increases in driving, or decreases in walking are reflected as 0 in the above table, rather than incurred costs of School Travel Planning, under the assumption that the School Travel Planning process did not contribute directly to these results.


54

APPENDIX 8: COST DATA FROM 19 STP PROJECTS (SCHOOL LEVEL)

Planning

Implementation

Monitoring/ Maintenance

School ID

Timeframe (months)

Cost

Timeframe (months)

Cost

Timeframe (months)

Cost

1

2

$5,440.00

8

$3,785.00

6

$1,896.00

2

2

$4,999.00

8

$3,954.00

6

$1,995.50

3

3

$3,238.00

3

$1,147.00

2

$2,292.00

4

2

$2,917.00

3

$1,857.50

2

$2,057.00

5

3

$3,137.00

2

$2,274.50

3

6

3

$3,658.00

10

$3,947.50

5

7

3

$3,001.00

2

$220.00

8

3

$4,106.00

3

9

5

$4,526.00

12

10

4

$6,185.00

11

4

$5,860.00

12

5

13

4

14 15

Other Data Total $

Volunteer (Parent/ Student) Hrs

Infrastr. Leveraged

$11,121.00

36

$150.00

$10,948.50

53.5

$0.00

$6,677.00

7

$600.00

$6,831.50

30

$600.00

$2,042.00

$7,453.50

17

$600.00

$3,965.00

$11,570.50

17

$10,120.00

4

$2,140.00

$5,361.00

8

$0.00

$1,142.50

4

$3,135.00

$8,383.50

0

$6,800.00

$5,845.00

2

$3,170.00

$13,541.00

12

$14,000.00

6

$1,700.00

10

$4,475.00

$12,360.00

14

$2,800.00

6

$2,550.00

10

$4,150.00

$12,560.00

28

$1,400.00

$2,436.00

12

$4,777.50

12

$3,917.00

$11,130.50

105

$12,315.00

$1,793.50

12

$2,613.50

12

$2,480.00

$6,887.00

96.5

$2,150.00

4

$1,713.50

12

$2,504.00

6

$1,228.00

$5,445.50

74.5

$13,090.00

4

$1,675.50

12

$2,071.50

6

$1,603.00

$5,350.00

109.5

$2,250.00

16

4

$1,448.00

12

$3,450.50

6

$3,310.00

$8,208.50

87.5

$3,000.00

17

8

$5,270.00

7

$3,795.00

6

$2,932.50

$11,997.50

58

$1,100.00

18

8

$4,945.00

7

$3,905.00

6

$2,662.50

$11,512.50

47

$320.00

19

2

$2,490.00

8

$2,240.00

9

$2,028.00

$6,758.00

5

$12,000.00

Totals

$174,097.00

805.5

$83,295.00

Please note: Infrastructure and Crossing Guard services leveraged are not included in the benefit-cost analysis because these costs include municipal infrastructure (e.g. sidewalks, road modifications) and services which may have been facilitated through the STP process, but were funded through pre-existing capital or operating budgets.


55

APPENDIX 9: STP PROJECT BENEFIT-COST RATIOS School ID

Total Benefits (11 years)

Total Costs (11 years)

Benefit-Cost Ratio

1

$64,265.96

$24,658.51

2.61

2

$429,198.37

$25,218.47

17.02

3

$26,856.12

$63,058.58

0.43

4

$66,997.97

$58,747.78

1.14

5

$92,380.34

$45,701.31

2.02

6

$150,879.64

$46,022.04

3.28

7

$19,922.10

$30,352.38

0.66

8

$0.00

$45,889.27

0.00

9

$16,372.67

$60,683.64

0.27

10

$47,806.34

$30,442.00

1.57

11

$0.00

$29,611.85

0.00

12

$319,544.05

$21,677.09

14.74

13

$1,568.66

$13,702.22

0.11

14

$149,163.78

$13,454.29

11.09

15

$64,372.36

$16,243.12

3.96

16

$88,393.97

$30,380.07

2.91

17

$4,893.44

$33,613.56

0.15

18

$1,686.91

$31,184.00

0.05

19

$289,188.91

$15,789.16

18.32

Please note: The project-specific benefit-cost ratios shown above only include school level costs, compared to the overall 19-project benefit-cost ratio within the study which also includes community and provincial-level costs.


56

APPENDIX 10: BENEFITS DEFINITIONS FROM VICTORIA TRANSPORT POLICY INSTITUTE Benefits of VKT Reduction

Monetary Benefit per VKT Reduced

Definition

Congestion Reduction

$0.04

Reduced traffic congestion from automobile travel on congested roadways.

Pollution Reduction

$0.03

Economic and environmental benefits from reduced air, noise, and water pollution

Parking Cost Savings*

$0.16

Reduced parking problems and facility cost savings

Vehicle Cost Savings

$0.14

Consumers savings from reduced vehicle ownership and use

Energy Conservation

$0.02

Economic and environmental benefits from reduced energy consumption

Reduced Barrier Effect

$0.01

Improved non-motorized travel conditions due to reduced traffic speeds and volumes

Roadway Cost Savings

$0.03

Roadway construction, maintenance and operating costs

Avoided Chauffeuring Driver’s Time

$0.36

Reduced chauffeuring responsibility due to improved travel options

Total

$0.79 Benefits of Walking

Monetary Benefit per Additional Km. Walked

Definition

Health Benefit

$0.31

Improved fitness and health

User Benefits

$0.16

Increased user convenience, comfort, safety, accessibility and enjoyment

Options Value

$0.02

Benefits of having mobility options available in case they are ever needed

Equity Objectives

$0.02

Benefits to economically, socially, or physically disadvantaged people

Total

$0.51

*Please note: All benefit values are consistent with the “Overall Average” values found in Tables 16-18 in VPTI’s Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs report (after conversion from $/mile to $/kilometre), except for Parking Cost Savings, which is reduced from $0.22/VKT to $0.16/VKT in recognition that student trips require less parking than commuting trips, and generally require only temporary parking solutions for the purposes of student travel.


57