Tag Archive: children

Child-Friendly Transit

by Andres Salomon, NE Seattle Greenways

Andres and Atom travel around Seattle by bus and bike

Andres and Atom travel around Seattle by bus and bike

December 7, 2015

Seattle voters recently approved the Move Seattle levy, which contains funding for a number of exciting transit projects. Seattle’s Department of Transportation is currently planning at least two of these projects; a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line running along E Madison St, and another BRT line running from Northgate to Downtown.

Bicycles and transit go hand-in-hand, with bicycles (and bike share) helping with transit’s “last mile” problem. Transit also compliments biking, allowing people on bikes to increase their range, skip dangerous segments of roadway, bypass hills, or act as a backup option when they can’t or don’t want to ride. Unfortunately, our current public transit systems are failing families who want to bike. Even when bicycle facilities are integrated with transit, they are often designed for only certain types of bikes – non-standard bikes such as family/cargo bikes don’t fit.

If we can design our BRT and other public transit systems to be truly family-friendly, not only do we allow families to reduce or completely eliminate car ownership, but we also create a transit system that works for all ages and abilities. In order for a BRT system to be truly family-friendly, families should be able to safely and comfortable walk or bike to stations. However, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways has already talked a lot about safe routes, so this will focus on BRT itself. Some of these things are more important than others, and people have different preferences, so I haven’t attempted to prioritize anything. This is simply my ideal, family-friendly BRT system.

Let’s start with waiting for the bus:

* High-frequency. Kids aren’t going to want to sit still for 30 mins while waiting for the bus, and when you have multiple kids (and a spouse), it’s pretty hard to check OneBusAway and time it right. Someone’s going to lose a shoe (or hide your keys), you’re going to leave the house and have to go back for someone’s favorite stuffed bear, or maybe everyone will be already outside and ready to go. Once you’re outside, there will be stops to look at a caterpillar, or wanting to go into a store, potty breaks, etc. You just can’t time public transit with kids. You need a bus or train that just comes regularly. Ideally, every 5 minutes. Without kids, I’m fine waiting 15 minutes while I read a book or check email. With kids, every minute is spent telling them to behave, trying to find something to keep them entertained, etc.

* Safe. The bus stop needs to feel safe. This means good lighting, a good distance away from fast-moving cars, and clean (especially no broken glass, random liquids, garbage, etc). It also means that there’s nothing capable of being broken. For 1-3 year olds, parents will have to make sure they’re not going to fall or touch anything that will hurt them. For 3-6 year olds, parents will have to keep them from breaking/destroying things or venturing out into traffic.

* Entertaining. Stops with things that keep kids (and adults) entertained are the best.
Read the rest of this entry »

Safe Routes To School Playgrounds

November 24, 2015
Screen Shot 2015-11-24 at 8.06.41 AMYou can tell how much the Dutch care about traffic safety by looking at their school playgrounds.

On a recent trip to The Hague in the Netherlands, Queen Anne Greenways leader Mark Ostrow saw a playground painted as a mini Traffic Garden where young children could practice road safety skills.

Mark decided to follow up with help from Google Maps to see if many Dutch schools used big expanses of playgrounds to familiarize their children with road safety in a protected environment.

They do!

Mark notes wryly, “They even have little parking spaces.”

Mark found Dutch elementary schools (“basisschool”) paint nearly the entire asphalt surface of their playgrounds with mocked-up road markings, so one can assume they are a common playtime activity and prominent part of the physical education curriculum.

Painted asphalt playgrounds would be a terrific complement to a newly launched partnership between Cascade Bike Club, Seattle Department of Transportation, and Seattle Public Schools to offer a three-week walk and bike safety curriculum to every third through fifth grader in Seattle Public Schools starting in the 2016-17 academic year.

Underfunded Equity Priority: Safe Routes to School

Click to listen to CIty Council testimony. Begins at 13.50.

Click to listen to CIty Council testimony. Begins at 13.50.

Douglas MacDonald
June 4, 2015
WA State Secretary of Transportation, 2001 – 2007
Key considerations that support the position offered in public comment to the Seattle City Council of May 29, 2015 that a large increase should be made in the proposed allocation to the Safe Routes to School Program.

The Proposed “Move Seattle” Transportation Levy Should Significantly Increase Its Commitment to Safe Routes to Schools. Justice and equity should be served by higher SRTS funding in transportation investment.

 

School children attending the Seattle Public Schools make up about eight percent of the City’s population.

The ethnicity of students in the Seattle School District is not a mirror image of the city population as a whole. Students are less likely to be white and almost twice as likely to be Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino or Multi-­Racial than citizens at large.

  • Over a quarter (26%) of the students are from non-­‐English speaking backgrounds.
  • Almost two fifths (38%) of the students are from economically stressed family circumstances qualifying students for reduced price or free school meals.
  • Almost one in six (14%) of school age children in Seattle live in poverty.

The purpose of Safe Routes to School investments towards more convenient, safer and healthier trips for school children back and forth from home to school is a transportation investment manifestly responsive to social justice and equity.

SRTS Effectiveness and Results

Nationwide and Washington State research on effectiveness of SRTS programs shows that schools where programs are implemented generally achieve a 20% increase in children walking to school.

We know from WSDOT survey results (2014-­‐15) that nearly 60 percent of parents queried respond that unsafe road crossings are a factor in deciding how their children get to school.

Sampling from classrooms collected by the state’s Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction suggests about 1 child in 3 in Seattle already walks to school daily (twice the statewide norm) – underscoring why the safety focus of SRTS is so important. But almost half the Seattle students never walk to school – underscoring the rich opportunity to improve child health and transportation efficiency from SRTS investments.

We know from national and local research that inactive lifestyles are a major contributor to significant health issues for children. Walking and biking to school are widely seen as delivering multiple important health benefits to children.

We know that SDOT has declared a goal of “Building America’s Most Walkable City.” And that the vision of Seattle’s Bicycle Master Plan is that “Riding a bicycle is a comfortable and integral part of daily life in Seattle for people of all ages and abilities.” SRTS investments turn rhetoric into reality. Quickly and tangibly.

We know that SRTS programs invariably show ancillary benefits for safer, more walk-­able and more bike-­able trip choices for everyone, old and young, and often do valuable double-­duty as improvements for transit accessibility, a critical need almost everywhere in the city and often especially in lower income neighborhoods.

We know that planning and implementing SRTS programs for individual schools inherently provide rich and welcome opportunities for building positive relationships between the Seattle School District, neighborhood groups and parents, the Seattle Police Department and the Seattle Department of Transportation. The value of these collaborations to daily family and neighborhood life is widely dispersed across the city -­‐-­‐ probably unmatched in this respect by any other transportation investment proposed in the levy.

Increased investment in SRTS builds quickly and positively on a program already underway, widely known and favorably viewed. 

STRS is a program with existing momentum that can quickly be made even more powerful, successful and meaningful to Seattle citizens.

Working with competitive grant money from the state and funds from school zone speed enforcement fines (both sources, however, now in decline, and Olympia’s attention unfortunately focused n big highway spending projects) important beginnings on STRS have been made, giving the program visibility and popularity delivering tangible transportation benefit at very modest cost.

A few of the schools, for example, were state funds have already bought starter investments include Dearborn Park, Roxhill, Olympic Hills, Concord, Baylet Gatzert, Sanislo, High Point, Fairmont Park and Hawthorne, among others. Other important progress, though limited in scale and scope, has also already been made by the City’s use of its own resources. Some of the additional schools where progress has been achieved include North Beach, Salmon Bay, Wing Luke and Kimball among others.

City projects have included new sidewalks (but, since 2007, only 27 block faces), curb bulbs and curb ramps, flashing beacons, newly painted crosswalks and other improvements.

 

SRTS needs and priorities deserve more investment than now proposed.

We know that despite all the above, the proposed funding level for SRTS in the current proposal for the $930 million nine-­‐year “Move Seattle” transportation levy proposal is just $7 million. This would work out to about $750,000 a year – hardly enough to make a significant dent in SRTS needs and opportunities. This works out to about 7/10ths of 1 percent of the fiscal commitment in the levy – for essential transportation improvements for a population that just counting students alone (not even tallying their parents, or other citizens who directly benefit from these investments) makes up eight percent of the City’s population. Members of the population that have uniquely high claims on transportation spending for reasons of age, social equity and overall personal and community health.

We know from the diligent work of the analysis spearheaded by Seattle Neighborhood Greenways that investment on the scale of $20 million is required to achieve solid STRS progress within the one mile walk zones of ten elementary schools with the highest equity claims for attention. Adding 17 next level equity elementary schools would bring the total scale above $35 million. Key steps taken for high school walk zones are also badly needed. The funding level in the currently proposed levy of $7 million (less than 8/10ths of one percent of the total levy amount) would if unchanged signal a lack of intention to make any more than token progress toward the safety, convenience, health and equity benefits the STRS program should deliver. A larger commitment will both strengthen the levy program and strengthen its tangible appeal to prospective Seattle voters.

View this written testimony in memo form.

Read the rest of this entry »