Safe Routes to School
Safety & Mobility Analysis
Report to the California Legislature
By:
Marla R. Orenstein
Nicolas Gutierrez
Thomas M. Rice
Jill F. Cooper
David R. Ragland
University of California Berkeley Traffic Safety Center
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
------------------
Prepared Pursuant to
Streets and Highways Code
Section 2333.5
January 2007
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & i
University of California Traffic Safety Center
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the last decade, there has been an increased focus in California on encouraging children to walk and bicycle to
school safely. Concern about the decline in numbers of children walking/ bicycling to school, and about the risk of
death or injury for those who do walk, led the California Legislature to create the Safe Routes to School ( SR2S)
program in 1999.
The SR2S program was enacted by the California State Legislature through Assembly Bill 1475, which provided
federal transportation funds for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects. The
legislation was amended by Senate Bill 10 in 2001 and by Senate Bill 1087 in 2004 to extend SR2S funding until
January 1, 2008.
This landmark legislation authorized issuance of a competitive grant process for roadway construction projects.
The legislation had two goals: to reduce child injuries and fatalities near schools and to increase walking and
bicycling activity among students at elementary, middle and high schools. Since its inception in 2000, the SR2S
program has funded 570 projects with a total cost of over $ 190 million.
This report evaluates the SR2S program for a number of mandated issues:
( i) The effectiveness of the program in reducing crashes, injuries and fatalities involving children in the
vicinity of the projects;
( ii) The impact of the program on levels of walking and bicycling to school; and
( iii) The safety benefits of the program in comparison with other highway safety programs.
A previous report ( Boarnet et al., 2003) focused on the second goal, assessing the impact of the SR2S program
on walking and bicycling to school. The evaluations in this current report are based on safety, cost and
demographic data provided by a representative sample of 125 of the 570 projects that received SR2S funding in
the first three years of the program. This information is supplemented by data from external sources such as
collision data from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System and land- use maps of the project
areas.
Characteristics of SR2S projects
A total of 570 SR2S projects have been funded over the six cycles of the program to date. The SR2S
funding for projects ranged from $ 10,800 to $ 450,000, with the requirement of a minimum of 10% in local
matching funds. The SR2S program has thus far provided over $ 144 million to the projects, and the total
costs of the projects are in excess of $ 190 million. The projects have been equitably distributed across
the state, with proportional representation achieved geographically and by population.
Five basic types of infrastructure improvements were funded: sidewalk installation and upgrading, traffic
calming and speed reduction measures, installation of traffic signals, pedestrian and bicycle crossing
improvements, and construction of bicycle paths or other bicycle facilities. While most projects
constructed improvements that affected only one or two schools, the number of schools affected by a
single SR2S project extended as high as 21. The majority of schools affected were elementary schools
(~ 70%).
The 125 projects included in the study sample appear to accurately represent the 570 projects in terms of
geographical location, temporal distribution, scope of the project, types of improvements made, schools
and student populations affected, and costs.
Effects on walking and bicycling
One of the specific goals of the Safe Routes to School program is to encourage increased walking and
bicycling ( mobility) among students. Walking rates have been on the decline in the student population for
at least the last 35 years. In 1969, close to 50% of American children walked to school; today, that figure
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & ii
University of California Traffic Safety Center
is 12%. Walking to school has been replaced with motorized transport, particularly in private vehicles
driven by parents.
The SR2S program has increased walking and bicycling among children, based on results found in both
the 2003 study and the present study. The estimated effect varied greatly from school to school and also
varied depending on the method used to determine changes in physical activity. Direct observations
yielded increases that were often in the range of 20%- 200%. Parental estimates were more conservative,
generally in the range of a 10% increase overall. Students whose usual route passed the improvements
were more than three times more likely to begin walking/ biking than students whose usual route did not
pass the improvements. These increases in mobility must be placed in the context of an overall decline in
walking/ bicycling in the State of California and the US as a whole.
Effects on child safety
There has been an overall decline in the numbers of child pedestrian/ bicyclist injuries in the SR2S project
areas, the study control areas, and in California as a whole. When compared with the control areas, the
SR2S project areas did not show a greater decline in numbers of injuries. However, it is likely that the
number of children walking/ bicycling decreased in the control areas, and increased in the SR2S project
areas over the relevant time frame. When these changes in mobility are taken into account, the SR2S
program showed a decreased rate of injuries and a net benefit in terms of safety for affected students.
The benefit was modeled at five possible levels of mobility change: no difference from the rest of
California ( e. g. a decline in walking), and increases of 10%, 25%, 50% and 100% in numbers of children
walking/ bicycling. These levels are all well within the range of observed increases in mobility in SR2S
projects. The estimated safety benefit of the program ranged from no net change to a 49% decrease in
the collision rate among children.
Other safety- related benefits of the SR2S program are also important to note. These include near- misses,
personal perceptions of safety, amounts of vehicle traffic, and vehicle and pedestrian behaviors. These
factors are examined through a qualitative evaluation of safety as reported by agencies in the
questionnaires. In general, the agencies strongly felt that the SR2S program had succeeded in improving
safety for the schoolchildren and for other neighborhood residents.
Cost- benefit comparisons
The benefits and costs of the SR2S program were estimated based on monetary values assigned to
fatalities and injuries by Caltrans. The cost per collision reduced was modeled for the five levels of
mobility change used in the safety analysis. The cost per collision reduced ranged between $ 40,397 and
$ 282,779. These figures can be compared with the cost per collision reduced of $ 29,133 ( 2006 dollars)
found by the Highway Safety Improvement Program ( HSIP). However, the HSIP and SR2S programs
differ in a number of important ways that may preclude a direct comparison of financial effectiveness.
There are a number of benefits produced by the SR2S project that are not easily amenable to inclusion in
a cost- benefit evaluation. These include potential improvements in traffic congestion and in air quality
near the schools. Safety improvements will affect not only school children, but also other pedestrians in
the area. By encouraging walking and bicycling, the program may play a part in increasing physical
activity among the students, and may affect the health consequences of inactivity, such as obesity and
type II diabetes. Lastly, the SR2S projects targets children, who are among the most vulnerable road
users and who are at particularly high risk of traffic collisions.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & iii
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Recommendations
A number of recommendations were made in the areas of types of projects to be funded, evaluation, and
future research needs, funding levels, administration, and integration with the federal Safe Routes to
School program. Specific recommendations included:
Types of projects funded
• Increase consideration of proposals that lack collision data, but can demonstrate a high
probability of future collisions.
• Strongly encourage agencies to complement construction projects with educational and outreach
efforts.
• Consider targeting SR2S funds for elementary students, and further identifying the types of
improvements that particularly affect older students.
Directions for evaluation and future research
• Develop an independent and systematic method for evaluating the success of individual projects
that includes reliable, quantifiable estimates of the change from before the SR2S construction
and after.
• Identify funding for Caltrans to conduct in- depth, independent, before- and- after assessments of a
selection of projects.
• Increase response by agencies to questionnaires or other evaluation activities.
• Extend follow- up of the current SR2S program to determine long- term effects.
Funding levels
• Increasing both the total funding pool and the per- project cap on award amounts.
Administration
• Streamline the application process to decrease paperwork, and accelerate award notification.
Federal SRTS program
• The federal government is also beginning a Safe Routes to School program ( SRTS) that is
mandated under SAFETEA- LU. Although It is not yet clear what effect the federal SRTS program
will have on the California SR2S program, future decisions should be harmonized with the federal
program.
Summary
The Safe Routes to School program has captured the attention of traffic engineers, public health
advocates, schools, communities and families. Anecdotally it has been a resounding success. Through
the quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted as part of the legislative mandate, the SR2S program
has been effective in achieving its goals of increasing walking/ bicycling and improving safety.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & iv
University of California Traffic Safety Center
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ...... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES............................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................... ............ vi
Section 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... . 1
Section 2. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS........................................................................................ 3
2.1. Definitions ............................................................................................................................... ....... 3
2.2. Data collected ............................................................................................................................... . 4
2.3. Data excluded or collapsed............................................................................................................. 4
Section 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF SR2S PROJECTS......................................................................... 6
3.1. Geographic and temporal distribution ............................................................................................. 6
3.2. Improvement types.......................................................................................................................... 8
3.3. Affected schools and school populations........................................................................................ 9
3.4. Collision victims........................................................................................................................ .... 11
3.5. Costs ............................................................................................................................... ............. 12
3.6. Summary of sample characteristics .............................................................................................. 12
Section 4. EFFECTS ON MOBILITY ..................................................................................................... 13
4.1. Mobility study by Boarnet et al. ..................................................................................................... 13
4.2. Review of mobility among 125 SR2S projects.............................................................................. 17
4.3. Summary of SR2S effects on mobility .......................................................................................... 18
Section 5. EVALUATION OF SR2S IMPACT ON SAFETY.................................................................. 20
5.1. Methods for safety analysis .......................................................................................................... 20
5.2. Results of safety analysis.............................................................................................................. 22
5.3. Limitations of safety analysis approach ........................................................................................ 27
Section 6. QUALITATIVE EVALUATIONS OF SAFETY ...................................................................... 29
Section 7. COST- BENEFIT COMPARISONS........................................................................................ 33
7.1. Cost- benefit analysis of changes in collisions............................................................................... 33
7.2. Comparison with the Hazard Elimination Safety Program............................................................ 34
7.3. Benefits of intangible impacts ....................................................................................................... 35
Section 8. RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................... 36
APPENDICES
Appendix A – QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO ALL AGENCIES.................................................................... 39
Appendix B – CALTRANS DISTRICTS ...................................................................................................... 42
Appendix C – LIST OF AGENCIES THAT RETURNED THE QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................... 43
Appendix D – LIST OF SCHOOLS IN THE STUDY................................................................................... 46
Appendix E – EXAMPLE OF SCHOOL SECTION MAP ............................................................................ 54
Appendix F – EXAMPLE OF INTERSECTION SELECTION MAP............................................................ 55
Appendix G – EXAMPLE OF SWITRS INTERSECTION AREA ................................................................ 56
Appendix H – PRE- CONSTRUCTION AND POST- CONSTRUCTION INTERVALS................................. 57
Appendix I – METHODS FOR STATISTICAL ANALYSES ........................................................................ 64
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & v
University of California Traffic Safety Center
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
Table 1: Safe Routes to School project awards, 1999- 2006 ........................................................................ 1
Table 2: Excluded schools ............................................................................................................................ 5
Table 3: Total projects and sample projects by cycle ................................................................................... 7
Table 4: Total projects and sample projects by Caltrans district .................................................................. 8
Table 5: Funded Projects by type of improvement ....................................................................................... 9
Table 6: Total projects and sample projects by type of school ..................................................................... 9
Table 7: Estimated student population affected by project ( sample of 125 projects only) ......................... 11
Table 8: School area victims for 350 schools in study................................................................................ 11
Table 9: Characteristics of the 10 elementary schools studied by Boarnet et al. ....................................... 14
Table 10: Observed changes in numbers of students walking to school, before and after SR2S
improvements ............................................................................................................................... ...... 14
Table 11: Percent of students observed walking on the road or shoulder, before and after SR2S
improvements ( only projects with sidewalk improvements)................................................................. 15
Table 12: Parental report of students walking/ bicycling more after SR2S project, by school .................... 16
Table 13: Parental report of change in walking/ bicycling behavior before and after SR2S project
construction, all 10 schools.................................................................................................................. 16
Table 14: Changes in walking/ biking in the City of Los Altos ..................................................................... 17
Table 15: Changes in walking/ biking in the City of Campbell..................................................................... 18
Table 16: Change in collisions among collision and victim categories ....................................................... 26
Table 17: Changes in safety with changes in mobility ................................................................................ 27
Table 18: Cost- benefit analysis for the SR2S program .............................................................................. 34
Table 19: Safety improvements achieved by the HES program................................................................. 34
FIGURES
Figure 1: Relationship between agencies, projects, schools and improvements ......................................... 4
Figure 2: Funding for all 570 SR2S projects, Cycle 1 – Cycle 6................................................................... 6
Figure 3: True proportion of school types affected by SR2S projects ........................................................ 10
Figure 4: Number of schools affected by each project ( sample of 125 projects only) ................................ 10
Figure 5: Costs by cost category ................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 6: Project and control areas............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 7: Pre- construction and post- construction phases .......................................................................... 21
Figure 8: Child pedestrians/ bicyclists injured in collisions, all of California, 1998- 2005............................. 22
Figure 9: Child pedestrians/ bicyclists injured in collisions, SR2S control areas and California, 1998- 2005
............................................................................................................................... ............................. 23
Figure 10: Injured pedestrians and bicyclists in control areas .................................................................... 24
Figure 11: Children with fatal/ severe and minor injuries in control areas ................................................... 24
Figure 12: Injured children ages 5- 12 and 13- 18 in control areas .............................................................. 25
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & vi
University of California Traffic Safety Center
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We extend our sincere thanks to the many people who made significant contributions to this project.
First, funding for this project was provided by a grant from the California Department of Transportation
( Caltrans). We want to thank Randy Ronning, Caltrans Department of Local Assistance, who provided
substantial input and support throughout the research.
We appreciate the support of the public agencies that completed the questionnaires sent to them; their
data and stories were central to this effort.
We are grateful to Marlon Boarnet, Craig L. Anderson, Kristen Day, Tracy McMillan, and Mariela Alfonzo.
Their 2003 evaluation of the effects of the California Safe Routes to Schools program on walking and
bicycling rates strengthened our study.
Marilyn Sabin provided expert input into a next- to- final draft of this report, and her comments, as always,
were insightful and helpful.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 1
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Section 1. INTRODUCTION
For almost a decade, there has been a strong focus in California on encouraging children to walk and bicycle to
school safely. In 1999, the Safe Routes to School ( SR2S) highway construction program was created by the
California State Legislature through Assembly Bill 1475, which amended the California Vehicle Code ( Section
2333.5) to provide federal transportation funds for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic
calming projects. Senate Bill 10 was authorized in 2001 to extend the repeal date from January 1, 2002 to
January 1, 2005. California Vehicle Code Section 2333.5 was further amended in 2004 by Senate Bill 1087,
which extended SR2S funding until January 1, 2008.
This landmark legislation authorized issuance of a competitive grant process for highway construction projects.
The legislation had two goals: to reduce child injuries and fatalities near schools and to increase walking and
bicycling activity among students at elementary, middle and high schools.
Since its inception in 2000, the SR2S program has funded over 570 projects with a total cost of over $ 190
million. Table 1 shows the number of applications, awards and SR2S program funding associated with
the program during its first six cycles. Each project was required to obtain a minimum of 10% in local
matching funds, and the “ total project cost” shown in the table includes these additional amounts.
Table 1: Safe Routes to School project awards, 1999- 2006
Number of
applications
Number of
project awards
SR2S program
funds
Total project cost
1st cycle – 2000/ 2001 729 85 $ 19,859,331 $ 25,150,032
2nd cycle – 2001/ 2002 520 101 $ 24,328,658 $ 27,266,117
3rd cycle – 2002/ 2003 427 87 $ 22,130,419 $ 28,814,521
4th cycle – 2003/ 2004 422 85 $ 22,817,010 $ 26,361,982
5th cycle – 2004/ 2005 381 97 $ 22,722,480 $ 25,496,860
6th cycle – 2005/ 2006 364 115 $ 32,184,100 $ 57,676,665
Total to date 2,843 570 $ 144,041,998 $ 190,766,177
The program funded five basic types of infrastructure improvements: sidewalk installation and upgrading,
traffic calming and speed reduction measures, installation of traffic signals, pedestrian and bicycle
crossing improvements, and construction of bicycle paths or other bicycle facilities. In the first cycle,
funding was limited to engineering improvements; however, subsequent application cycles allowed funds
to be used for education and traffic safety awareness programs to support the infrastructure changes.
It was anticipated that a number of benefits would accrue as a result of these project awards. Some of
the expected outcomes were:
• Increased bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety around schools
• More children walking and bicycling to and from schools
• Decreased traffic congestion around schools
• Reduced childhood obesity
• Improved air quality, community safety and security, community involvement
• Improved partnerships among schools, local agencies, parents, community groups, non- profit
organizations
• Improved access and safety for disabled pedestrians
The legislation that created the SR2S program also mandated that the California Department of Transportation
( Caltrans) study its effectiveness. Specific elements to be evaluated were:
( i) The effectiveness of the program in reducing crashes, injuries and fatalities involving children in the
vicinity of the projects;
( ii) The impact of the program on levels of walking and bicycling to school; and
( iii) The safety benefits of the program in comparison with other highway safety programs.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 2
University of California Traffic Safety Center
The University of California Traffic Safety Center ( TSC) was contracted by Caltrans to conduct this
evaluation. This report presents an assessment of program effectiveness for a number of different
outcomes, including changes in child pedestrian safety, changes in numbers of children walking/ biking,
and the cost- effectiveness of the SR2S program. This evaluation is based on information provided by a
representative sample of agencies that received SR2S awards, and supplementary data from outside
sources.
In this report, we first describe the methods that were used for gathering and collating data. We then
characterize the projects that were in the SR2S program overall and those that comprised our study
sample of 125 projects. The effects of the projects on walking and bicycling are reported. This is followed
by a quantitative and a qualitative investigation of changes in child pedestrian/ bicyclist safety due to the
SR2S program. We attempt to quantify the relative costs and benefits of the SR2S program, particularly
in relation to the Highway Safety Improvement Program of the FHWA. Last, we provide
recommendations on possible future directions of the SR2S program, and suggestions for improvement.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 3
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Section 2. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
Our evaluations are based on safety, cost and demographic data provided by the agencies that received
funding from the SR2S program, as well as a review of statewide collision data analyzed for the cities in
which these agencies operate. Not all funded projects contributed to this dataset. We asked for
information only on projects that were funded under the first three program funding cycles, between 2000-
2001 and 2002- 2003. This limitation on dates was set so that the infrastructure changes would be
completed and there would be sufficient time to observe post- implementation changes in traffic safety and
pedestrian/ vehicle behaviors. During the first three cycles, 273 projects were funded representing 191
different agencies. Twenty- nine of these projects were not completed by December 31, 2005, the cut- off
date for inclusion in this research set, and were therefore excluded from participating in the evaluation. An
additional 13 projects had been dropped by the local agencies for a variety of reasons. Surveys were
sent to the responsible agency for the remaining 231 projects. Of these 231 projects, we received
responses on 130, a response rate of 56%.
The remainder of this section will describe the methods that we used to collect data and the nature of the
information that was collected.
2.1. Definitions
This report uses the following definitions to avoid ambiguity:
• Agency: A city or a county that received funding. An agency may have more than one project
associated with it.
• Project: A set of related improvements for which an agency received funding in a single funding
cycle. The project may involve only one school, or it may involve several schools in close
proximity.
• School: A single school that has had one or more improvements through a SR2S project.
• Improvement: A specific goal, such as the construction of a new sidewalk or installation of a
crossing signal. Each improvement is linked to a particular project, but may affect more than one
school.
An example of the relationships between agencies, projects and improvements can be seen in the
graphical representation below in Figure 1. The figure shows one agency— the City of Anytown—
receiving two separate SR2S projects in two different cycles. Project A, funded in Cycle I, affects one
school and includes two types of improvements. Project B, funded in Cycle III, affects two schools and
includes one improvement. As this example shows, the number of affected schools is larger than the
number of projects, and the number of projects is larger than the number of responsible agencies.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 4
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Figure 1: Relationship between agencies, projects, schools and improvements
2.2. Data collected
The data collected for each project came from several sources: a) the original application for funding that
described proposed changes and pre- improvement conditions; and b) a post- construction questionnaire
( developed in conjunction with Caltrans) that provided details on actual improvements constructed and
both quantifiable data and subjective opinions on the impact of the improvements. A sample of the
questionnaire is provided as Appendix A.
Although a wide range of information was collected, the areas of primary interest were:
• Specific improvements completed
• Dates of construction commencement and completion
• Costs
• Delineation of schools and student populations affected by the changes
• Pre- and post- construction rates of walking and bicycling
• Observations of traffic and pedestrian behavior and interactions ( including collisions)
• Complementary educational efforts
As stated above, the research team received 130 questionnaires of the 231 that were sent out, for a
response rate of approximately 56%. Reminders by Caltrans and follow- up phone calls from the Traffic
Safety Center were used to maximize the response rate. The scope and quality of the information
provided varied greatly. For example, post- construction vehicle and pedestrian counts were only included
in six percent ( eight of 130) of applications returned.
The information provided by the agencies was supplemented by additional information gathered by the
research team from public sources. This additional information included the official school address and
attendance boundary maps, detailed land- use maps and satellite imagery, and data on traffic safety and
conditions on streets and intersections surrounding these schools. The methods used to collect and
analyze this data are further described in Section 5.1: Methods for safety analysis and in Appendix I.
2.3. Data excluded or collapsed
The 130 projects covered by the questionnaire responses were narrowed down to 125 projects for
analysis. This collapsing was done because of the way in which information was provided in some
questionnaires. In two instances, an agency provided only a single set of questionnaire responses
covering two separate projects. In these instances, it was impossible to differentiate data for the two
Agency:
City of Anytown, California
Improvement
Sidewalk built
along County
Road 12
Project B:
Cycle III
Schools Affected
• Pacific Elementary
• Central High
Improvement II:
Crossing signal
installed at 15th and
N Streets
Improvement I:
Bike Path constructed
on Main St. from 21st to
16th Streets.
Project A:
Cycle I
School Affected
• Anytown Middle School
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 5
University of California Traffic Safety Center
projects, and thus the data was combined. In three other cases, a single set of improvements
constructed at a single location over a short time span (~ 6 months) was funded through two separate
SR2S applications. Although these were technically separate projects, we eliminated the duplication to
avoid double- counting school or collision data. This approach reduced the 130 projects to 125.
These 125 projects reported 374 individual schools that would be affected by the improvements ( some
projects affected more than one school). We examined the characteristics and location of each school
individually, and decided to exclude 24 of these schools from the analysis presented in this report. These
exclusions were applied for either of two reasons: a) because the age range of the listed school was
outside the SR2S target range ( the school was either a nursery school or a college/ university); or b)
because the listed school was located so far from the improvements ( far outside the school’s attendance
boundaries, or separated by a barrier such as a freeway or a lake) that we felt it was unlikely that the
SR2S changes would demonstrably impact safety at the location.
Table 2 lists the 24 schools that were excluded and the reasons for doing so. After these exclusions, 350
schools remained in our sample. The names, locations and pertinent characteristics of the schools that
remained in the sample are presented in full in Appendix D.
Table 2: Excluded schools
Project
Number
Caltrans
District
No. of
schools
listed in
application
Number of
dropped
schools
Names of dropped schools Grade Level Reason
2174 7 12 4 Thomas B Moffit Elementary K- 5 Distance
Loretta Lampton Elementary K- 5 Distance
John Dolland Elementary K- 5 Distance
Arturo Sanchez Elementary K- 5 Distance
2175 7 5 2 Raymond Elementary K- 8 Distance
Imperial Elementary K- 3 Distance
2659 4 3 1 Tamalpais High 9- 12 Distance
2667 5 2 1 UC Santa Cruz Adult Age range
2674 6 7 2 Stiern Middle 6- 8 Distance
Ruggenberg Carrier Center Adult Age range
2678 7 3 1 Methodist Nursery School < K Age range
2680 7 12 8 Roosevelt Elementary K- 6 Distance
Lincoln Elementary K- 6 Distance
Wilson Elementary K- 6 Distance
Lynwood Middle 7- 8 Distance
Agnes ( aka Rosa Parks) Elementary K- 6 Other*
Mark Twain Elementary K- 6 Distance
Abbot Elementary K- 6 Distance
Washington Elementary K- 6 Distance
2682 7 18 1 Manzanita Elementary K- 5 Distance
2692 7 10 3 Wilson Middle 6- 8 Distance
Fremont Elementary K- 6 Distance
Clark High 9- 12 Distance
2934 6 5 1 Delano Adult School Adult Age range
* Agnes Elementary was renamed as Rosa Parks Elementary, and had originally been overlooked by the research team. The
change was detected only after the analyses had been completed.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 6
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Section 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF SR2S PROJECTS
No attempt has previously been made to comprehensively characterize all the projects funded by the
SR2S program. In this section, we present the SR2S projects in terms of a number of defining
characteristics, including geographical location, temporal distribution, scope of the project, types of
improvements made, schools and student populations affected, and costs.
In this section, where possible, we present information on all 570 projects funded in the six cycles of the
SR2S program. However, where information is not available for this entire group, we use the study
sample of 125 projects and 350 schools from the first three cycles. Each table and figure in this section is
clearly labeled as to which sample set it presents.
3.1. Geographic and temporal distribution
A total of 570 projects were funded in the first six cycles of the program, with between 85 and 115
projects funded per cycle ( Table 1 in the Introduction). The amount of SR2S program and matching funds
awarded for projects remained relatively stable for each of the first five cycles, and increased dramatically
for the sixth cycle ( Figure 2). This large increase was due to a combination of two factors: ( a) an increase
of over 40% in the amount of federal funding provided ( an increase from $ 22.7 to $ 32.2 million); and ( b)
several projects with extremely high levels of matching funds.
Figure 2: Funding for all 570 SR2S projects, Cycle 1 – Cycle 6
$ 0
$ 10,000,000
$ 20,000,000
$ 30,000,000
$ 40,000,000
$ 50,000,000
$ 60,000,000
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Cycle 6
Matching funds
SR2S funding
Our study sample of 125 projects represented only a portion of all 570 projects funded by the SR2S
program. Table 3 shows the number and funding levels of the sample projects in comparison to all SR2S
projects. By number, the 125 projects in our sample represented approximately 46% of all projects in the
first three cycles of the SR2S program. By funding levels, the proportion of projects captured in our
sample increased to 52%. These figures indicate both that the study sample captured a fairly large
portion of the total projects funded in the first three cycles; and also that projects with higher funding were
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 7
University of California Traffic Safety Center
more heavily represented in our sample ( and conversely that smaller projects were relatively under-represented).
Table 3: Total projects and sample projects by cycle
All SR2S projects Projects in study sample
Number Funding Number Percent Funding Percent
1st cycle – 2000/ 2001 85 $ 25,150,032 37 43.5% $ 13,540,765 53.8%
2nd cycle – 2001/ 2002 101 $ 27,266,117 50 49.5% $ 16,427,867 60.3%
3rd cycle – 2002/ 2003 87 $ 28,814,521 38 43.7% $ 12,239,686 42.5%
4th cycle – 2003/ 2004 85 $ 26,361,982 0 0% 0 0%
5th cycle – 2004/ 2005 97 $ 25,496,860 0 0% 0 0%
6th cycle – 2005/ 2006 115 $ 57,676,665 0 0% 0 0%
Total 570 $ 190,766,177 125
21.9%
( 46% of
Cycles 1- 3)
$ 42,208,318
22.1%
( 52% of
Cycle 1- 3)
Some concern had been expressed by agencies that parts of the state were relatively under- represented
in the SR2S program, most notably rural counties and Southern California. Table 4 presents the
distribution of SR2S projects and funds by Caltrans districts. There are 12 Caltrans administrative districts
throughout the state in total, and a map detailing Caltrans district and California county boundaries is
presented in Appendix B. The population percentages for living in each of the 12 districts is also
presented in the table. As shown, the districts with small populations have a relative excess of SR2S
projects, counted both by number of projects and by funding received. This finding suggests that
concerns about inequity for rural areas is unfounded. Southern California ( Districts 7, 8, 11 and 12) has
indeed received proportionately less relative to its population; however, these four districts still comprise
approximately 50% of total projects to date, and 47.6% of total funds received.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 8
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Table 4 also shows the distribution of Caltrans districts among the 125 projects in our sample. While the
distribution is not identical to that of all 570 projects, there is a reasonably good match, and only District 9
is missing from our sample entirely. This method of assessment supports our study sample as a
representative subset of the entire SR2S program.
Table 4: Total projects and sample projects by Caltrans district
District All SR2S projects Projects in our sample
number
District
area
Percent of
CA
population
in district
Number of
projects
( percent)
Percent
of
funding
Number of
projects
Percent of
funding
1 North Coast 0.9% 13 ( 2.3%) 3.1% 1 ( 0.8%) 2.0%
2 North Inland 1.0% 16 ( 2.8%) 3.3% 3 ( 2.4%) 3.1%
3 Sacramento Valley 7.0% 35 ( 6.1%) 7.3% 5 ( 4.0%) 6.0%
4 Bay Area 19.1% 98 ( 17.2%) 18.5% 28 ( 22.4%) 25.3%
5 Central Coast 3.8% 25 ( 4.4%) 5.8% 3 ( 2.4%) 2.3%
6 Fresno 6.4% 55 ( 9.6%) 7.5% 14 ( 11.2%) 8.6%
7 Los Angeles 29.9% 129 ( 22.6%) 24.7% 19 ( 15.2%) 16.1%
8 Inland Empire 10.6% 62 ( 10.9%) 7.9% 16 ( 12.8%) 7.2%
9 E. Sierra Nevada 0.1% 4 ( 0.7%) 0.4% 0 ( 0%) 0.0%
10 Central CA 4.3% 41 ( 7.2%) 6.6% 12 ( 9.6%) 12.0%
11 San Diego 8.6% 39 ( 6.8%) 8.2% 12 ( 9.6%) 13.4%
12 Orange County 8.5% 53 ( 9.3%) 6.8% 12 ( 9.6%) 3.9%
Total 100.0% 570 ( 100%) 100% 125 ( 100.0%) 100.0%
3.2. Improvement types
The SR2S program provides funding for five types of infrastructure improvements:
• Sidewalk installation and upgrading ( e. g. constructing or improving sidewalks in locations where
they were non- continuous or non- existent)
• Traffic calming and speed reduction measures ( e. g. installation of speed bumps, curb bulb- outs,
roundabouts, or traffic lights)
• Installation of traffic signals ( e. g. pedestrian traffic signals, school signs, warning signs,
illuminated crossing guard signs, etc.)
• Pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements ( e. g. sidewalk ramps, in- pavement crossing
lights, school crossing signs and pavement markings or pedestrian- request crossing lights)
• Construction of bicycle paths or other bicycle facilities ( e. g. connection of non- continuous bicycle
paths or construction of bridges over major traffic arteries)
Most projects— well over half— included some type of sidewalk upgrade as part of the improvements.
Upgrading intersection crossings was also a high priority for applicants, with more than one- third of
projects including this component. Most projects included multiple improvement types.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 9
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Table 5 describes the funded projects by type of improvement. Detailed information on constructed
improvements was only available for the projects in Cycles 1- 3. Because some projects included more
than one type of infrastructure upgrade, the figures in Table 5 total more than 100% of funded projects.
Table 5: Funded Projects by type of improvement
All 273 projects in Cycle 1
through Cycle 3
125 projects in our sample
Number of
projects
Percent of
projects *
Number of
projects
Percent of
projects *
Sidewalk improvements 161 59.0% 89 71.2%
Traffic calming and speed reduction 47 17.2% 26 20.8%
Traffic signals 81 29.7% 25 20.0%
Crossing upgrades 93 34.1% 53 42.4%
Bicycle paths or other facilities 38 7.2% 15 12.0%
* Because projects often included more than one type of improvement, the percentages in this column total more than
100%
3.3. Affected schools and school populations
As mentioned previously, individual SR2S projects were able to have an impact on more than one school.
The agencies carrying out the 570 projects estimated that a total of 1,684 schools would be affected by
the improvements. Our sample of 350 schools represents approximately 21% of total schools affected
overall.
The greatest proportion of schools affected by SR2S projects were elementary schools, as shown in
Table 6. Given that there are a larger number of schools at elementary grade levels and students are
funneled up to a small number of larger schools at higher grades, this finding is not particularly surprising.
Table 6: Total projects and sample projects by type of school
All SR2S projects Projects in our sample
Elementary school 810 ( 48%) 241 ( 69%)
Middle / Jr. High school 259 ( 15%) 72 ( 21%)
High school 181 ( 11%) 23 ( 7%)
Other* 434 ( 26%) 14 ( 4%)
Total 1,684 ( 100%) 350 ( 100%)
* Schools that are not elementary, middle or high schools; or schools for which no detailed information was provided
by local agencies.
The projects in our sample turned up a higher proportion of elementary schools than did all SR2S projects
( 69% vs. 48%). However, this difference is likely driven by the additional work performed by our research
team in determining the nature of affected schools. Almost one- third of school types were unable to be
identified though the original applications ( data not shown). The research team used additional resources
to determine the exact school types for all sample projects, and was able to make a determination for all
350 schools. The 14 schools remaining in the “ other” represent cases in which the grades spanned more
than the usual grade level for each school type ( for example, Kindergarten through 9th grade). We
therefore feel that the proportions of each school type estimated by the projects in our sample are likely to
be more accurate than those for all SR2S projects, as shown in the figure below.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 10
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Figure 3: True proportion of school types affected by SR2S projects
Elementary
School
68%
Middle / Jr.
High School
21%
High School
7%
Mixed Levels
4%
We also examined the distribution of how many schools were impacted by a given project. This
information was not available for the total sample of 570 projects, but only for the projects in our sample.
As shown in Figure 4 below, the number of schools affected by the projects ranged from one to twelve.
The majority ( approximately 70%) of projects affected only one or two schools.
Figure 4: Number of schools affected by each project ( sample of 125 projects only)
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 21
Number of schools per project
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 11
University of California Traffic Safety Center
The number of students impacted by each project was also examined for the 125 projects in the sample.
This figure was estimated as the total number of students at all schools in the project area. While this
estimation may overestimate the number of students who actually do take advantage of the
improvements, it does not include parents, other community members, or students at other schools
whose route may take them past the improvements. As shown in Table 7, most projects were anticipated
to reach more than 1,000 people.
Table 7: Estimated student population affected by project ( sample of 125 projects only)
Affected Population Frequency Percent
500 or fewer students 14 11.2%
501 - 1,000 students 45 36.0%
1,001 - 2,000 students 32 25.6%
3,000 or more students 34 27.2%
3.4. Collision victims
Between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2005, 11 children were killed and 1,449 were injured in the
vicinity of the 350 schools in the study. Of these, 644 ( 44%) were bicyclists and 816 ( 56%) were
pedestrians. It is likely that bicyclists made up a disproportionately high percentage of collision victims,
relative to the number of bicyclists. Other surveys have shown that the mode share for bicycling to school
is low ( national average of 2%), but the fatality rate is more than two times higher than for pedestrians. 1
Approximately 52% of those injured or killed in our sample were age 12 or less; 20% were ages 13- 14
( roughly corresponding to junior high/ middle school); and 3128 were ages 15- 17. Because we do not
know the total proportion of the study sample population that made up each of these age categories, it is
not possible to determine whether any specific age group was at a particularly high risk.
Table 8: School area victims for 350 schools in study
Number Percent
Total number of victims 1,460 100%
Injury severity
Fatal 11 0.75%
Severe injury 109 7.5%
Minor injury 774 53%
Complaint of injury 566 39%
Mode of transport
Pedestrian 816 56%
Bicyclist 644 44%
Victim age
12 or less 764 52%
13- 14 294 20%
15- 17 402 28%
1 Source: The Relative Risks of School Travel: A National Perspective and Guidance for Local
Community Risk Assessment: Transportation Review Board; 2002.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 12
University of California Traffic Safety Center
3.5. Costs
The total costs for the SR2S program and the study sample were shown in Table 3. On average, the 570
projects received approximately $ 250,000 directly through SR2S funding, with matching funds topping the
projects up to an average award of $ 335,000. Funding levels varied enormously between projects. The
lowest SR2S award was $ 10,800 and the highest was $ 450,000 ( the maximum allowed under the
program).
We used the 125 projects in our sample to estimate the different types of costs that the program funds
were used for. The four primary categories of costs for a project include preliminary engineering,
construction engineering, construction and right- of- way. Agencies were asked to provide these costs in
the questionnaire. Figure 5 shows the proportion of costs associated with each phase of project
implementation as noted by projects that reported costs for at least the first three of these categories.
The proportion of preliminary engineering ( PE) costs may be artificially low, however, as many of the
projects bore a portion of the PE costs internally.
Figure 5: Costs by cost category
3.6. Summary of sample characteristics
The SR2S program has provided the State of California with a key opportunity to protect many of our
most vulnerable road users. Quantifying the projects according to the characteristics above is critical to
helping understand the impact of the SR2S program.
Construction
Engineering
11%
Preliminary
Engineering
12%
Right- of- Way
2%
Construction
75%
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 13
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Section 4. EFFECTS ON MOBILITY
One of the specific goals of the Safe Routes to School program is to encourage increased walking and
bicycling among students. Increased walking/ bicycling is desirable from a number of standpoints. By
reducing the number of cars driving children to school, the potential for collisions is reduced. Further,
other important public health benefits may ensue. With less driving, the air quality near the school may be
improved. Active commuting may also increase overall physical activity levels or decrease overweight
and obesity among the students— important issues that have been identified as a public health priority.
In general, walking rates are low, and have been on the decline in the student population for at least the
last 35 years. In 1969, close to 50% of American children walked to school. Today, that figure is 12%.
For children who live within one mile of school, the proportion declined from 87% to 31% in that same
period. Similar trends have been noted in many other Western countries and are projected to occur in
parts of the developing world as well. Walking to school has been replaced with motorized transport,
particularly in private vehicles driven by a parent.
This section contains a review of a study that was conducted in 2003, also pursuant to California Vehicle
Code 2333.5 to assess the impact of the SR2S program on mobility among students. The review is
supplemented by empirical data gathered from schools in this current study.
4.1. Mobility study by Boarnet et al.
The most in- depth study of changes in mobility in the SR2S program has been conducted by Boarnet,
Anderson, Day, McMillan and Alfonzo for their 2003 Report to the Legislature. Boarnet et al. assessed
changes in mobility in two different ways. The first way was through on- site observations of students
walking or bicycling before the SR2S project was constructed, and then again after construction had
finished. The second way was through a survey of parents whose children attended the school. The
survey asked the parents to compare whether the child walked more, the same, or less than before the
SR2S improvements had been put in.
Boarnet’s intensive study was conducted using a “ convenience sample” of 10 elementary schools.
Elementary schools were chosen because most schools in the first and second cycles of the SR2S
program ( 70%) were elementary schools, and because elementary schools are traditionally sited to serve
local populations, indicating that walking might be feasible for many elementary school students who live
nearby.
The number of schools studied was low due to deadline requirements associated with that 2003 report;
projects must not have been started by spring 2002 so that observations could be made before
construction began, but projects had to be completed by fall 2003 to allow for students to start using the
improvements. Sixty- four percent ( 16 of 25) of eligible schools agreed to participate. Construction was
delayed at six of these schools, leaving 10 in the study. Characteristics of these schools are presented in
the table below.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 14
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Table 9: Characteristics of the 10 elementary schools studied by Boarnet et al.
School Name City Percent of students with
walk/ bike as primary
mode of travel
Median household
income ( for ZIP code)
SR2S Improvement
Type
Cesar Chavez Bell Gardens 46% $ 30,029 Traffic control
Glenoaks Glendale 10% $ 41,674 Intersection crossing
Jasper Alta Loma 14% $ 66,668 Intersection crossing
Juan Cabrillo Malibu 8% $ 100,857 Sidewalk
Mt. Vernon San Bernardino 44% $ 23,498 Intersection crossing
Murrieta Murrieta 6% $ 61,583 Sidewalk
Newman Chino 17% $ 55,185 Traffic control
Sheldon El Sobrante 5% $ 61,494 Sidewalk
Valley Yucaipa 6% $ 39,286 Sidewalk
West Randall Fontana 22% $ 35,008 Sidewalk
Of the six types of possible improvements funded by the SR2S program, three types were represented in
this sample. Five schools added sidewalk improvements ( new sidewalks, filling gaps in the sidewalk
network, construction of a walking path, and the installation of curbs and curb cuts). Three schools added
intersection crossing upgrades crosswalks, installing in- pavement crosswalk lighting, and installing a
pedestrian- activated, “ count- down” street- crossing signal) and two schools added traffic control devices
( installation of a traffic signal).
Direct observations of changes in walking/ bicycling
Traffic data were collected at each school location by a team of three or four observers. Among the
information collected by the observers was counts of the number of pedestrians and bicyclists both before
and after the SR2S project was constructed. The observations were made over a 2- day period, from 30
minutes before until 15 minutes after the start of the school day, and then again from 15 minutes before
until 30 minutes after the end of the school day. Results of the direct observations of students
walking/ bicycling are presented in Table 10.
Table 10: Observed changes in numbers of students walking to school, before and after SR2S
improvements
School Name SR2S Improvement Type Before project After project Difference
Juan Cabrillo Sidewalk 274 302 + 10%
Murrieta Sidewalk 2 19 + 850%
Sheldon Sidewalk 138 152 + 10%
Valley Sidewalk 64 89 + 39%
West Randall Sidewalk 692 1146 + 66%
Cesar Chavez Traffic control 1,701 2,047 + 20%
Newman Traffic control 143 250 + 75%
Glenoaks Intersection crossing ( a) 974 --
Jasper Intersection crossing 51 57 + 12%
Mt. Vernon Intersection crossing 193 137 - 29%
( a) ‘ Before project’ counts were originally published as 148, yielding an increase in walking of 558%. However, there
was some uncertainty as to whether the same site was observed before and after construction, and thus the authors
deem the “ before” estimate unreliable.
In eight out of nine schools, an increase in walking/ biking was observed after the SR2S project was
completed. These increases ranged from 10% at Juan Cabrillo and Sheldon Elementary schools to 850%
at Murietta Elementary. A decrease in walking of 29% was observed at one school, Mt. Vernon
Elementary. An increase of 558% percent was estimated for the tenth school ( Glenoaks), but there was
some uncertainty as to whether the same site had been used by the observers for both the “ before” and
“ after’” counts, and the results are discounted by the authors. These results strongly suggest that
increases in mobility occurred as a direct result of the SR2S projects. However, the number of schools
examined is too small to be able to draw any firm conclusions about the types of improvements or
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 15
University of California Traffic Safety Center
characteristics of schools or students that are most likely to increase walking.
Another change seen through the study’s direct observations was the decrease in numbers of students
walking on the street or on the shoulder of the road, for schools that had instituted sidewalk
improvements. The table below demonstrates that overall, far fewer students walked on the road once
sidewalk improvements were made. This data corroborates the qualitative evaluations that were received
for this 2007 study ( see Section 6: Qualitative Evaluations of Safety).
Table 11: Percent of students observed walking on the road or shoulder, before and after SR2S
improvements ( only projects with sidewalk improvements)
School Name Before project After project Difference
Juan Cabrillo 7% 2% - 5%
Murrieta 0% 5% + 5%
Sheldon 66% 35% - 31%
Valley 42% 4% - 38%
West Randall 75% 5% - 70%
Parental reports of changes in walking/ bicycling
The second way in which Boarnet et al. assessed changes in walking/ biking behavior was through a
survey of parents at the ten schools. A questionnaire was distributed to parents of students in the third,
fourth and fifth grades at the ten schools. The questionnaire included the following question:
Think about how often your child walked or bicycled to school before the SR2S project was built. Would
you say that your child now walks or bicycles to school:
( 1) Less than before the project was built
( 2) The same amount as before the project was built
( 3) More than before the project was built
3,222 surveys were distributed, and 1,244 were returned, for a response rate of 39%. The 1,244
responses were pared down to 862 who also answered the question of whether the SR2S improvements
were along the child’s usual route to school – that is, whether the child would normally pass the
improvements while traveling to school.
Table 12 shows the percent of students who were more likely to walk/ bike more after the SR2S
improvements, for each school and improvement type. The table differentiates between those children
whose route passed the SR2S improvements, and those whose route did not. Among students whose
route passed the improvements, there was a reported increase in walking/ biking of between 3% and
29%, with an average increase of 15.4%. However, students whose route did not pass the improvements
were far less likely to begin walking; most schools reported no increase in walking at all among these
students, and the average increase was only 4.3%. This finding makes intuitive sense – the students
whose walking/ biking behavior were most affected by the SR2S program were the ones whose routes
passed by the improvements.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 16
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Table 12: Parental report of students walking/ bicycling more after SR2S project, by school
Percent who walk / bike more
School Name SR2S Improvement Type Project is along
student’s usual route
Project is NOT along
student’s usual route
Juan Cabrillo Sidewalk 6.7% 0.0%
Murrieta Sidewalk 13.7% 2.4%
Sheldon Sidewalk 15.6% 0.0%
Valley Sidewalk 11.6% 0.0%
West Randall Sidewalk 28.6% 7.4%
Cesar Chavez Traffic control 20.6% 6.2%
Newman Traffic control 10.9% 0.0%
Glenoaks Intersection crossing 12.0% 7.7%
Jasper Intersection crossing 3.1% 0.0%
Mt. Vernon Intersection crossing 19.0% 5.7%
Table 13 below shows the distribution of responses to the question posed above on how student
walking/ biking changed from before to after the SR2S project: whether students walked/ biked more, the
same, or less once the project was complete. Overall, a 10.6% increase in walking / biking was reported.
At the same time, 18% of students were reported to walk / bike less than before the SR2S project was
installed. This steep decline is lamentable, but is also congruent with an overall national trend of
decreased walking,
Table 13: Parental report of change in walking/ bicycling behavior before and after SR2S project
construction, all 10 schools
Walk/ bike more No change Walk/ bike less
Project is along student’s route to school 15.4% 67.1% 17.5%
Project is NOT along student’s route to school 4.3% 77.1% 18.6%
Total 10.6% 71.5% 18.0%
To examine this phenomenon further, the authors examined whether rates differed between those
children whose route passed the SR2S improvements, and those whose route did not. As shown below,
students whose route passed the improvements were much more likely to walk / bike more: 15.4% versus
4.3%. This difference indicates that the SR2S project likely had a positive impact on promoting walking
among these students.
Interestingly, there was little difference in the percentage of students who were less likely to walk/ bike
between the two groups: 17.5% versus 18.6%. There was also no consistency among schools as to who
was less likely to walk: students whose routes passed the improvements, or those whose routes did not.
This lack of a difference between the two groups suggests that the change from walking to not walking is
not likely driven by the SR2S projects, but by other, external factors.
Summary of the study by Boarnet et al.
Using a convenience sample of ten schools allowed Boarnet et al. to examine changes in walking and
bicycling associated with the SR2S project. Both direct observation and parental report indicated that the
projects caused an increase in the number of students who walked/ biked to school. This increase was
generally in the range of 10% to 75%. Students whose usual route passed the improvements were more
than three times more likely to begin walking/ biking than students whose usual route did not pass the
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 17
University of California Traffic Safety Center
improvements. The improvements also affected pedestrian behavior; students were much more likely to
stay off the road once sidewalk improvements were built. At the same time, there was a large decrease
proportion of students overall who walked/ biked to school. This decline in walking/ biking did not seem to
be associated with the SR2S projects, but rather mirrored an overall decline in walking among students in
California.
Complete details of the Boarnet et al. study, including methods, a listing of the schools, and the full
analysis is available from these sources:
• Boarnet MG, Anderson C, Day K, McMillan TE, Alfonzo M. Safe routes to school, vols. 1 and 2.
Sacramento: California Department of Transportation, 2003.
• Boarnet MG, Anderson CL, Day K, McMillan T, Alfonzo M. Evaluation of the California Safe Routes
to School legislation: urban form changes and children's active transportation to school. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2005 Feb; 28( 2 Suppl 2): 134- 40.
• Boarnet MG, Day K, Anderson C, McMillan T, Alfonzo M. California’s Safe Routes to School
program: impacts on walking, bicycling and pedestrian safety. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 2005; 71( 3): 301- 17.
4.2. Review of mobility among 125 SR2S projects
A small number of projects among the 125 in the study sample collected counts of pedestrians / bicyclists
both before and after the project construction. In this section, we review the data on changes in mobility
that were provided by these projects.
a. City of Los Altos ( Santa Clara County)
The City of Los Altos installed a series of landscaped median islands to reduce traffic speeds, and a
raised crosswalk at a crossing near Almond Elementary School. The total project cost was $ 325,055.
The school had a student population of 555 at the time. Approximately 100 of these students traveled
along this route to school.
Consultants evaluated changes in mobility at the crosswalk, with before and after counts taken five
months apart. The report documented a pedestrian volume increase of 58% in the morning peak and
292% in the afternoon peak ( Table 14). It was not clear how much of the pedestrian activity was school-related,
as the observations did not distinguish between students and other users.
Table 14: Changes in walking/ biking in the City of Los Altos
Before SR2S project After SR2S project Change
Morning peak time 36 ( 33 walk, 3 bike) 56 ( 52 walk, 4 bike) + 58%
Afternoon peak time 25 ( 24 walk, 1 bike) 96 ( 94 walk, 2 bike) + 292%
Total 61 152 + 149%
b. City of Campbell ( Santa Clara County)
The city of Campbell installed a number of upgrades near Westmont High School ( estimated school
population of 1,749 in 2004). The improvements included the construction of sidewalks, bike lanes, curb
ramps, streetlights, and crosswalks. The total cost of the project was approximately $ 1.5 million, with the
SR2S program providing $ 450,000.
Observations of walking/ biking activity were taken before and after construction, with a 20- month period
between the observations. As shown in Table 15, walking increased dramatically, with the number of
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 18
University of California Traffic Safety Center
pedestrians tripling in both the morning and afternoon peak periods. The project was less successful in
increasing bicycle traffic; there was an observed increase of 160% in the morning and no change in the
afternoon. However, the school had experienced a bicycle collision in the 2- year period prior to the
project, so increasing bicycle safety– even without increasing mobility– may have been a priority for this
area.
Table 15: Changes in walking/ biking in the City of Campbell
Before SR2S project After SR2S project Change
Morning peak time 32 ( 22 walk, 10 bike) 115 ( 89 walk, 26 bike) + 259%
Afternoon peak time 35 ( 22 walk, 13 bike) 100 ( 87 walk, 13 bike) + 186%
Total 66 215 + 223%
c. City of Artesia ( Los Angeles County)
The city of Artesia, covering an area of only 1.5 square miles, is a small, highly urbanized city in Los
Angeles County. The population is small ( 15,500) but weekday traffic is equivalent to that of a city of
100,000 due to its location and pass- through traffic. Artesia installed a wide range of improvements
including sidewalks, handicapped ramps, upgraded crossing signs and crosswalks. There were five
elementary schools impacted by the improvements: Niemes, Kennedy, Burbank, Carver and William
Elliott elementary schools, with a total school population of over 2,600 students. Over half of the students
walk to school. Only between two and ten students at each school was reported to commute by bicycle.
The total cost of the project was $ 550,000. Although no specific counts were provided the city indicated
that surveys had shown an overall increase of eight percent in students walking to and from school as a
result of the improvements.
d. City of Santa Cruz ( Santa Cruz County)
The City of Santa Cruz used SR2S funds to complete a primary bicycle commute corridor that affected
one elementary school and the high school. The city hosts a bi- annual Bike to Work / School day and
keeps a tally of the number of students from each school that participate in the event every year. The
numbers of students participating in the event at the two schools affected by the SR2S project did not
increase immediately after the post- construction period, and even decreased slightly. However, the Bike
to Work/ School event does not necessarily represent typical usage patterns. Bicycles use on this day
( both before and after the SR2S improvements) is likely to be highly affected by other factors, such as
promotional campaigns and peer decisions.
e. Other cities
No other agencies provided counts of pedestrian or bicycle activity. However, three cities offered
personal assessments of the change in mobility as a result of the SR2S projects. The Principal of Wren
Elementary School in the city of Concord ( Contra Costa County) noted that “ the faculty has observed
increased heavy use by the students.” He adds “ Wren Elementary School faculty is very pleased with the
increased bike usage and believed this is due to the increased safety.” The city of Waterford ( Stanislaus
County) notes “ an increase in bicycles in the bike racks and in children walking to school is evident.” And
last, the city of Merced ( Merced County) states the project “ increased the number of children and parents
who walk to school.”
4.3. Summary of SR2S effects on mobility
Both Boarnet et al. and the present study found increases in mobility as a result of the SR2S projects.
The estimated effect varied greatly from school to school and also varied depending on the estimation
method. Direct observations yielded increases that were often in the range of 20%- 200%. Parental
estimates were more conservative, generally in the range of a 10% increase overall. Although only a
small number of schools contributed to the mobility study, it is important to remember that these schools
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 19
University of California Traffic Safety Center
were not picked as examples because of their success, but were, for the most part, independently
evaluated before the project construction began.
It is promising that the SR2S program appears to have increased mobility in these areas, in light of an
overall decline in walking/ bicycling in the State of California and the US as a whole.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 20
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Section 5. EVALUATION OF SR2S IMPACT ON SAFETY
Understanding whether the SR2S projects improved safety among students is critical in evaluating and
appraising the SR2S program. In this section, we present the results of a set of statistical analyses that
were performed specifically to address this issue. We begin with an explanation of the methods that were
used to perform the statistical analyses, followed by the presentation of results.
5.1. Methods for safety analysis
This section presents a brief overview of the methods used for data collation and statistical analyses; full
details on the methods can be found in Appendix I.
Overview
The safety analysis is based on a comparison of school areas that were affected by SR2S projects
( school areas), and nearby areas that were unlikely to be affected by the SR2S improvements ( control
areas). For both the school areas and the control areas, the change in number of collisions was
compared for the period before the SR2S construction took place ( the pre- construction phase) and the
period after the SR2S construction was completed ( post- construction).
Collision Data Source
The California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System ( SWITRS) is a database of police- reported
collisions operated by the California Highway Patrol. Local police departments are required by law to
submit information on all reported traffic collisions involving any injury or fatality. In addition, some
departments voluntarily submit information on property- damage- only collisions. Injury and fatality data
were obtained from this records system for the period of January 1, 1998 through Decemer 31, 2005. A
working data file was created of collisions that involved a pedestrian or bicyclist aged 5- 17 years and in
which at least one injury was reported.
School Areas
School areas were based on the list of affected schools provided by the agencies. For each school, a
boundary area was defined that circumscribed both the SR2S improvements and a proximate area that
was likely to have been impacted by the improvements. The boundary area was created from an
examination of street maps and aerial photographs of the neighborhood. In addition, school attendance
boundary maps were useful in identifying areas that were likely to have been impacted by the program
and to exclude nearby areas that, despite their proximity, would not have been plausible routes along
which children travel, given the geographic areas served by that school.
Most school areas enclosed only one school. However, a number of projects affected several schools
that were in close proximity (< 1/ 2 mile apart and sharing a number of intersections used by students). In
these cases, the nearby schools were grouped into a single “ school area” unit, and were treated as one
unit in the analysis. All areas inside the boundary were assigned to that one school area. This was done
to avoid double counting collisions for geographically proximate schools. A list of school areas can be
found in Appendix H.
Identifying Affected Intersections
Because collisions in SWITRS are coded according to the nearest intersection, intersections within a ¼ -
mile radius of a school’s main entrance were selected for the collision analysis. The distance of ¼ mile is
arbitrary, but represents an area of capturing the majority of children approaching the school on foot or
bicycle. A number of intersections outside the ¼ mile radius were included, and some within the radius
were excluded, based on the relevance to project- related changes in walking/ biking. Appendices E, F
and G provide examples of maps showing areas captured by these methods of intersection coding.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 21
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Control Areas
The control area was defined as all intersections in the city boundaries that were not included as
intersections affected by a SR2S project. In the figure below, the two white ovals represent the impact
areas of two projects, and the control area is shown in grey.
Figure 6: Project and control areas
The control areas covered a significant portion of the state of California, as they comprised the non- SR2S
project areas of all towns and cities that had an SR2S project in one of the first three cycles. When
measured as a proportion of the total child pedestrian/ bike collisions in California, the control areas
represented almost 40% of the state.
Pre- and Post- Construction Dates
The pre- construction phase was defined as the period between January 1, 1998 and the award date for
the SR2S project. The post- construction phase was defined as the period between the completion of
construction on the project and December 31, 2005. The amount of time in the two phases varied
between different projects, as projects had different award dates, and different construction completion
dates. This difference is represented in Figure 7 below. There was an average of 283 weeks in the pre-construction
period, and an average of 102 weeks in the post- construction period, although the length of
these periods varied greatly for different projects. Appendix H shows the relevant dates and lengths of
time for each project in the study.
Figure 7: Pre- construction and post- construction phases
January 1,
1998
December 31,
2005
SR2S
Award Date
Construction
Completion Date
Pre- Construction Phase Post- Construction Phase
Construction
of SR2S
project
Project I
Project II
City
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 22
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Statistical tests
Rates were calculated as counts per unit of time. Post- intervention rates were compared with pre-intervention
rates, summing across all school areas. An estimate of the average yearly change in injury
occurrence in the control areas was obtained by fitting a linear regression to collision injury counts. The
changes in collision rates in the school areas were estimated with rate ratios obtained from a Mantel-
Haenszel person- time rate ratio estimator and were adjusted by the change observed in the control areas
over the same average time period. All analyses were performed with Stata software.
5.2. Results of safety analysis
a. Collision trends over time
It has been noted elsewhere 2 that the number of collisions involving school- age pedestrians and
bicyclists have been decreasing over time in California. Some of this decrease may be due to better
safety measures or to increased awareness of traffic safety by the pedestrians or by drivers. However, it
has also been suggested that this decline is the result of decreased exposure; the number of children
walking and bicycling has also been in decline, and the fewer number of pedestrians and bicyclists leads
to fewer collisions.
The graph below presents the number of child pedestrians and bicyclists who were injured ( fatally or
nonfatally) in California for the years 1998- 2005 ( Figure 8). The data was taken from SWITRS and
includes injured children ages 5- 18. The data included all areas of California, including SR2S project
areas, control areas, and all other areas in the state. The results are shown in Figure 8 below. The
number of injured children declined approximately 22% over the period, from 9,271 in1998 to 7,236 in
2005.
Figure 8: Child pedestrians/ bicyclists injured in collisions, all of California, 1998- 2005
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
2 2004 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions, Tables 7G and 7N, California Highway
Patrol.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 23
University of California Traffic Safety Center
b. Control areas vs. California
We then compared the same data for SR2S control areas and for the parts of California that were not
control areas ( Figure 9). This allowed us to assess how representative the control areas were with
respect to overall trends in child pedestrian/ bicyclist collisions. The number of child inujuries for control
areas and for the rest of California have been standardized to 100 for 1998 to allow us to assess the
relative decline among populations of different sizes.
As shown in the figure, the decline in injuries in the SR2S control areas very closely parallels the decline
in the rest of the state. This similarity indicates that the control areas are indeed representative of state
trends in child pedestrian safety.
Figure 9: Child pedestrians/ bicyclists injured in collisions, SR2S control areas and California,
1998- 2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
All of California
California minus SR2S
School and Control Areas
SR2S Control Areas
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 24
University of California Traffic Safety Center
c. Characteristics of collisions and victims
The collisions were examined by a number of different characteristics, such as mode of transportation,
severity of injury, and child’s age category. These results are presented in the three figures below.
There were approximately 25% fewer collisions involving bicyclists than pedestrians. As mentioned
previously, bicycling is a much rarer activity than walking among this age group, but the per- trip fatality
rate tends to be much higher.
Figure 10: Injured pedestrians and bicyclists in control areas
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Number of collisions
Pedestrians
Bicyclists
Over the eight years, there has been a decrease in the numbers of severe/ fatally- injured children and in
those with minor injuries.
Figure 11: Children with fatal/ severe and minor injuries in control areas
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Number of collisions
Fatal/ severe
Minor injury
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 25
University of California Traffic Safety Center
While a pronounced downward trend in collisions is seen among children ages five to twelve, a similar
trend is not observed for older children, ages 13 to 18. The decrease among younger children is 36%
over the eight- year period, whereas the net change for older children is less than 9%. This difference
shows that the decrease in overall collisions is driven by a change primarily among younger children. The
change could result from increased safety awareness and behaviors among these children, or more likely
from a societal shift away from walking in this age group. It is important to note that young children bear a
higher risk for being injured or killed in pedestrian- related motor vehicle crashes.
Figure 12: Injured children ages 5- 12 and 13- 18 in control areas
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Number of collisions
Age 5- 12
Age 13- 18
d. SR2S project areas
It is not appropriate to construct a time- series graph similar to those above for SR2S project areas, as the
individual projects had widely varying construction dates. Instead, the statistical analyses accounted for
the different lengths in pre- and post- construction periods for each school area.
For the SR2S school areas, the overall change observed between the pre- intervention and the post-intervention
periods was a 13% reduction in annual numbers of injured child pedestrian/ bicyclists. The
95% confidence interval for this figure is between 2% and 23%. The 95% confidence interval is a
parameter used to capture the ‘ true’ change in risk in this population ( all children affected by SR2S
improvements) based on the results obtained among our sample. We can be 95% certain that the “ true”
change is between 2% and 23%, and 13% represents the best estimate, based on observed data.
The various categories of collisions and victims were not affected uniformly. As shown in the table below,
the largest change was observed among children ages 5 to 12, with an observed reduction in injuries of
27.6% among this group. While this group also had the largest decrease in the control areas, the SR2S
program appears to have had additional impact among this group. In other words, the SR2S program
made the most noticeable safety improvements among children ages 5 to 12. Also notable is that minor
injuries were clearly reduced, while this reduction was not observed among fatal/ severe injuries.
However, because the numbers of fatal/ severe injuries were extremely low in the SR2S project areas, it is
impossible to articulate any trend with statistical certainty.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 26
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Table 16: Change in collisions among collision and victim categories
Number of
collisions
in this category
Change in Collisions* 95% Confidence Interval*
Overall 1,460 - 13% (- 23% to + 2%)
Mode of transportation
Bicycle 644 - 11.6% (- 26.4% to + 5.8%)
Walking 816 - 13.9% (- 26.8% to + 1.1%)
Severity of injury
Fatal or severe injury 120 + 28% (- 14.5% to + 90%)
Minor or complaint of injury 1,340 - 16.1% (- 26.1% to - 4.9%)
Age
5 to 12 764 - 27.6% (- 39.4% to - 13.9%)
13 to 17 696 + 5.0% (- 11.3% to + 23%)
* Negative number is a decrease in collisions, positive number is an increase.
d. SR2S project areas vs. control areas
As shown above, both the control areas and the rest of California experienced a decline in numbers of
injured children over the time frame during which the SR2S projects were implemented. Therefore, an
attempt was made to control the observations for the overall downward shift in collisions.
The same pre- intervention and post- intervention periods used for the school areas were applied to the
control areas, as described in the Methods, above, and the change in collisions for the control areas was
estimated for that time interval. This change was found to be a decrease of 15%, similar to the 13%
found for the SR2S intervention areas. Alone, this finding would indicate that the SR2S program resulted
in no net benefit in terms of reducing numbers of crashes among affected students.
e. Results in context of changes in mobility
The results above are based on an assumption of similarity between the SR2S intervention areas and the
control areas. However, these areas are likely to be different in one important way that may affect the
safety analysis.
As noted above, there is an overall trend in decreasing numbers of child pedestrians in California, and
this decrease may be responsible for the decline in collisions seen both in California and in the control
areas: fewer pedestrians means fewer collisions.
However, as demonstrated in the Mobility section of this report, there is evidence that the SR2S program
may have succeeded in increasing walking/ cycling rates among children. If that is the case, we would
have expected to see an increase in the numbers of collisions among the SR2S project areas. The fact
that the numbers did not increase, but instead decreased, may mean that the SR2S project was indeed
successful in improving safety for the affected children.
The number of schools that quantitatively assessed changes in walking/ biking are few, and their results
varied greatly. Therefore, we do not feel that there is a single ‘” best” estimate of the change in mobility
that likely occurred across the SR2S program. Table 17 below models SR2S safety improvements for a
range of possible changes in mobility. The top row shows five levels of possible change in mobility. The
first possibility is “ same as control areas”, which represents an unspecified decrease in walking/ bicycling
that is the same as what occurred in the control areas ( the general downward trend in California and the
US). The other levels of mobility change are increases in walking/ biking of 10%, 25%, 50% and 100%.
All these figures are well within the range of actual observed changes in mobility that resulted from the
SR2S program. The figures below the row entitled “ change in collision rate” show the net change in
collisions that would result from each level of change in mobility. For example, an increase of 50% in
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 27
University of California Traffic Safety Center
walking/ bicycling would mean that the overall collision rate decreased 32% from before to after the SR2S
project.
Table 17: Changes in safety with changes in mobility
Increase in walking/ bicycling
Same as
control
areas
( decrease)
10% 25% 50% 100%
Change in collision rate*
Overall + 2% - 7% - 18% - 32% - 49%
Mode of transportation
Bicycle + 9% - 1% - 13% - 28% - 46%
Walking - 2% - 11% - 22% - 35% - 51%
Severity of injury
Fatal or severe injury + 52% + 38% + 21% + 1% - 24%
Minor or complaint of injury - 1% - 10% - 21% - 34% - 51%
Age
5 to 12 - 6% - 14% - 25% - 37% - 53%
13 to 17 + 11% + 1% - 11% - 26% - 44%
* Negative number is a decrease in collisions, positive number is an increase.
Table 17 shows that expected changes in mobility have likely resulted in a net improvement in safety
associated with the SR2S program. The only scenario that signifies no program benefit is the scenario of
no change ( 0%) in walking and bicycling in the program community, which the mobility data do not
support. The overall benefit ranges from a 2% increase to a 50% decrease in the collision rate. While it
not possible to know with any degree of certainty which of the scenarios is closest to the truth, the
exposure reductions that are consistent with the available evidence on mobility are associated with
significant reductions in injury risk to children.
e. Summary of safety analysis
There has been an overall decline in the numbers of child pedestrian/ bicyclist collisions in the SR2S
project areas, the study control areas, and in California as a whole. When compared with the control
areas, the SR2S project areas did not show a greater decline in numbers of collisions. However, it is
likely that the number of children walking/ bicycling decreased in the control areas, and increased in the
SR2S project areas over the relevant time frame. When the change in mobility in the program areas is
taken into account, the SR2S program appears to have had a net benefit in terms of safety for affected
students.
5.3. Limitations of safety analysis approach
The quantitative analysis above provides important information and represents one way to assess
potential improvements in safety associated with the SR2S program. However, the quantitative analysis
does not tell the whole story, and there are several important considerations.
First, collisions are relatively rare events, although they often have catastrophic consequences. As a
result, a small variation in the number of collisions in a certain area— even if it is the result of random
circumstances— can greatly influence the outcome of the analysis.
Second, collisions result from a combination of circumstances: how many vehicles are in the area,
combined with the number of pedestrians ( including bicyclists), and the behavior of both the vehicles and
pedestrians. The SR2S projects are designed to impact safety mainly by altering behavior: causing
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 28
University of California Traffic Safety Center
drivers to slow down or to yield to pedestrians, or removing pedestrians from the roads and onto
sidewalks. It is also hoped that there will be relatively more pedestrians and fewer vehicles as a result.
However, the numbers of vehicles and pedestrians were not, for the most part, assessed before and after
these projects. As a result, the exposure of pedestrians to vehicles – that is, the risk that pedestrians face
– has not been assessed, and is not therefore taken into account in the safety analysis.
Lastly, collisions are only one aspect of safety. Other factors are also related to safety, and may be
equally important to address. These include near- misses, personal perceptions of safety, walking/ biking
rates, amounts of vehicle traffic, and vehicle and pedestrian behaviors.
The next section addresses other ways of evaluating the success of the SR2S program. We present
results of a qualitative evaluation of safety as reported by agencies in the questionnaires. This is followed
by an examination of the costs and benefits of the SR2S program.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 29
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Section 6. QUALITATIVE EVALUATIONS OF SAFETY
The research team also assessed the potential improvements in safety associated with the SR2S
program from a qualitative perspective. For this assessment, we used information provided by school
and agency officials and others who have been present to observe changes in behavior and safety as a
result of the interventions. These opinions and observations bring out aspects of improvements not
otherwise documented, such as impacts on the community and changes in pedestrian or driver behavior.
This information directly complements the quantitative information that describes the impact in terms of
reducing injuries and providing cost- effective improvements.
One hundred fourteen sets of comments were received in response to specific questions asking about
perceptions of changes in safety and the impact of the program. This number is smaller than the number
of affected schools or agencies, because some agencies did not respond to these questions, and others
used the opportunity to respond about several different projects administered by that agency. Only two of
the sets of the comments were not, on balance, favorable. While it is not surprising that schools that
received infrastructure upgrades have viewed those improvements favorably, the range of their answers
shed some light on exactly how the SR2S program affected schools, students and the wider community.
The remainder of this section reviews a representative sample of the comments that were received.
Satisfaction was expressed by a wide range of stakeholders: parents, school boards, school officials and
administrators, teachers, local communities and residents, and other involved parties. Comments such
as “ this program was a great success” were common.
“ This project was a great success. Nearly two years later, we are still being thanked for putting in
this sidewalk. Students, parents, teachers, administrators and school bus operators all appreciate
the increase in safety and easier access to school. Vehicle and pedestrian traffic from the school
now has less impact on the neighborhood traffic flow. The neighborhood also appreciates the
increased visibility and safety that came with the three new street lights.” ( Stockton, San Joaquin
County)
“ We received emails from happy parents after the project was completed.” ( Ojai, Ventura County)
“ The project is a resounding success for children who walk to school and for the many children
and adults that use the school facilities after school and weekends.” ( Humboldt County)
“ The community and school felt the project was a success. The improvements are good for both
the schools and the neighborhood.” ( Santa Ana, Orange County)
“ Several members of the community have expressed strong support for the completed project to
Board of Supervisors and local transportation commission.” ( Amador County)
“ Norwalk’s community leaders enthusiastically believe that the SR2S project was a complete
success.” ( Norwalk, Los Angeles County)
Many respondents specifically addressed the question of whether they felt the SR2S projects had
affected safety.
“ The Alameda County Public Works Agency has been very pleased with SR2S program. The
SR2S funds have been a great value in increasing the safety of children walking to and from
school in Alameda County.” ( Alameda County)
" The sidewalks have greatly increased the safety and comfort of our students and parents at Fair
Oaks School. Since the vast majority of our students walk to school the sidewalks have improved
their trip considerably. The students are not walking at the edge of the roadway; they have a safe
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 30
University of California Traffic Safety Center
sidewalk to separate them from the cars. Not only is it safer but the school is cleaner in the rainy
season since students no longer have to walk through the mud. We appreciate your help getting
us the sidewalks." ( San Mateo County)
“ Through informal conversations with residents I know that people feel student safety has been
increased by the installation of sidewalks along the routes to school.” ( Yolo County)
“ Student pedestrian and bicycle traffic has been removed from the vehicle right- of- way, to the
safety of the children.” ( Lemoore, Kings County)
Few schools conducted before- or after- implementation surveys of traffic counts or crashes. However,
many subjective opinions were provided on the effect of the SR2S interventions on collisions or near-collisions.
“ The lack of pedestrian and bicycle collisions at the location, in spite of increased speeds along
19th Street, indicate a successful project and good use of SR2S funds.” ( Rancho Cucamonga,
San Bernardino County)
“ The former exit led children through a small parking lot, causing congestion and direct
competition of pedestrians, cyclists and drop- off vehicles. Near- misses were common. Now, drop-off
vehicles are separated from pedestrians. Buses can now stop very near the new gate,
allowing students to enter school grounds immediately.” ( Stockton, San Joaquin County)
“ Overall, the project was a success. Even though detailed speed surveys have not been performed
yet, in the field it was noticed that traffic has slowed down. Whether this is a long term success is
yet to be determined.” ( Vista, San Diego County)
Several agencies reported a change in driver yielding behavior after implementation of project
improvements. Driving yielding behavior is related to crashes between pedestrians/ bicyclists and motor
vehicles.
“ The crossing guards previously had difficulties in getting drivers to yield the right of way to
school pedestrians crossing at this intersection. Since the installation of the project we have had
positive feedback from the crossing guard at this location.” ( Tustin, Orange County)
“ The in- roadway light systems have been very successful. Prior to the installation of in- roadway
warning light systems an average of only 19% of motorists yielded to pedestrians at the
uncontrolled crosswalks in daytime hours and 15% in night- time hours. With the installation of the
systems throughout the city, the percentages increased to 79% in daytime hours and 87% in
night- time hours. In addition, about 90% of pedestrians are using the in- roadway warning
systems.” ( Glendale, Los Angeles County)
“ Although there have not been formal studies conducted by the city of San Jose Department of
Transportation for these locations, subsequent incidental interviews with motorists, students,
parents and teachers all report a greater feeling of safety, and notice an increase in compliance
of motorists stopping for pedestrians within the crosswalk.” ( San Jose, Santa Clara County)
Others framed their evaluations in terms of increased numbers of students walking or bicycling, as a
result of increased perceptions of safety.
“ An increase in bicycles in the bike racks and in children walking to school is evident.” ( Waterford,
Stanislaus County)
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 31
University of California Traffic Safety Center
“ Wren Elementary School Faculty is very pleased with the increase bike usage and believes this
is due to the increased safety.” ( Concord, Contra Costa County)
“ The T Y Lin International/ CCS Report documented that pedestrian volumes increased by 58% in
the morning peak and 292% in the afternoon peak.” ( Los Altos, Santa Clara County)
“ The flow of traffic is more efficient. Pedestrians, bicyclists and children can cross the street more
safely as well.” ( Turlock, Stanislaus County)
“ The project was a great success. It increased the number of children and parents who walk to
school.” ( Merced, Merced County)
“ The program encourages students to walk and bike to school and decreases the localized traffic
and pollution.” ( Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County)
Students, other pedestrians and drivers appeared to conform to the new behaviors indicated by the
infrastructure changes.
“ No formal surveys or reports were completed by teachers, students and parents regarding their
feelings on the signal improvements. However, based on field observations, students were using
the signals. It was easier for the crossing guards ( provided by the school district) to cross the
students compared to prior to the installation of the traffic signal when the school crosswalk was
uncontrolled.” ( Riverside, Riverside County)
“ City officials have noticed a significant amount of school children and parents using the Safe
Routes to School sidewalks on both Melba Rd. and Santa Fe Drive.” ( Encinitas, San Diego
County)
“ Pre- construction estimates were that about 800 of the school’s approximately 1000 students
walked to school each day without the use of the sidewalk. The number of children now walking
to school without walking on the road suggests this was a project well worth doing, and we
consider it a success here at the Kern County Roads Department.” ( Kern County)
Several agencies felt that significant and important improvements occurred that were unlikely to be
documented by collision statistics, due to the infrequency of collisions. These agencies emphasized the
importance of continuing safety- related infrastructure improvements, even in the absence of “ hard”
numerical evidence.
“ Even if it does not show reduced accidents … I can tell you that the unseen or unstudied benefits
( physical health, community pride, environmental / air quality, etc.) will continue to benefit
taxpayers for a good number of years to come.” ( Waterford, Stanislaus County)
“ The current emphasis on accident data is reactive rather than proactive. With the tremendous
growth in the Riverside- San Bernardino MSA, there is a current surge of the new school
construction, often in spaces made available by developers, not necessarily at a location that is
the best fit for a community. Urgent needs for safety improvements are often identifiable before
traffic collisions might occur but local funding is insufficient for known needs. Local agencies,
whether Cities or Counties, could likely mitigate safety issues with advance state or federal
funding. However, under the current program, proposals without supporting ' collision data' are
unlikely to be prioritized highly enough to be funded. Consider a " block grant" program for safety
projects within one mile of a school facility where local traffic and planning experts may determine
the greatest return on the safety dollar.” ( San Bernardino County)
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 32
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Several agencies funded near the beginning of the program noted that changes could have been
significantly enhanced if funding had been allowed for traffic safety education and outreach in addition to
infrastructure improvements. Beginning in the second cycle, the SR2S program did allow funds to be
used for complementary educational efforts, and several projects implemented after that date noted that
this use of funds created additional value for the projects.
“ The project was a great success. From the public outreach efforts and community- wide
education on how to safely use the constructed improvements, to the actual improvements that
were installed, this project provided pedestrian continuity, safety and visibility to a community that
was once lacking these elements... Furthermore, educating the children on how to use the
improvements was also a huge and instrumental benefit of the program.” ( San Diego, San Diego
County)
“ Yes, the program was a huge success. Not only did it provide much needed sidewalks for the
area’s schools but it got the schools involved. They are teaching the younger students roadway
walking and bike safety. The students of all ages used to walk and ride their bikes right down the
middle of the roadway.” ( Yolo County)
Agencies also commonly reported that the improvements made through the SR2S program had long
been recognized and needed, but were only made possible through SR2S funding.
“ The program also gets both the jurisdiction and the school talking together and discussing how
to solve real problems that deal with traffic around and near the schools. I think a good many
engineers and Public Works officials had and have great plans to increase safety around the
schools in their respective jurisdiction. What has always lacked was the dollars to do it. This
program takes care of that problem and gives them an avenue to make their plans become
reality. This program is one of the smartest ones out there.” ( Waterford, Stanislaus County)
“ A huge success that allowed us to fund a very expensive project that otherwise would not have
been constructed.” ( Paradise, Butte County)
“ This addition of traffic signal at a busy intersection with high school- age pedestrian activity would
not have been possible without the SR2S program as a funding source.” ( Tulare, Tulare County)
“ The project was very successful addressing numerous school crossings in Oakland with high
volumes of pedestrians and vehicular traffic... Without SR2S the signal probably would not have
been a possibility.” ( Oakland, Alameda County)
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 33
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Section 7. COST- BENEFIT COMPARISONS
7.1. Cost- benefit analysis of changes in collisions
Based on the decreases in collision rates identified in Section 5.2, a cost- benefit ratio can be generated to
estimate the financial efficacy of the SR2S program. This estimate is based on the costs incurred by the
SR2S program to construct safety improvements, and the benefits gained in terms of lives saved and
injuries avoided.
A complete cost- benefit analysis is based on a large number of assumptions and parameters, many of
which are not relevant to the SR2S program, or for which information is not available. The cost- benefit
presented below is therefore fairly rudimentary. It is, however, one of the few methods available for
quantifying the impacts of the program and for comparing it to competing options for other safety
programs.
The cost- benefit analysis below is based on the following assumptions and parameters:
• The costs are total program costs of the 99 projects ( 214 out of 307 school areas) that
contributed collisions to our counts.
• The cost comprises only the initial program cost. No other costs, such as continuing
maintenance or operation of the safety improvements, are included in the cost amount, since
these costs are not borne by the SR2S program.
• Because of the wide variety and programmatic combinations of interventions in the SR2S
program, the effective service life of the SR2S improvements could not be modeled.
• The values assigned to fatalities and injuries avoided are:
Fatal injury $ 3,927,372
Severe injury $ 198,899
Other visible injury $ 51,740
Complaint of pain $ 24,944
These figures come from Caltrans estimates from 1997, adjusted to 2006 dollars.
• The cost per collision reduced is based on one year of collision avoidance.
• It is assumed that the SR2S program has no differential effect on types of injuries: that is, the
proportion of fatalities, severe injuries and minor injuries remains the same. Although the safety
analysis indicated that the observed projects may have had a greater impact on minor collisions,
the number of fatalities was very small and more subject to random variation.
The table below shows the costs and benefits for each of the modeled levels of change in walking/ biking.
The cost per collision reduced ranges from $ 40,397 ( based on a 100% increase in walking/ bicycling from
the SR2S project) to $ 282,779 ( based on a 10% increase in walking/ bicycling).
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 34
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Table 18: Cost- benefit analysis for the SR2S program
Change in
walking/ biking
Change relative to
control areas
Cost of
program
($ millions)
Benefit per
year
($ millions)
Cost per
collision
reduced
Same as control
areas
( decrease in
walking)
No effective
difference $ 28.9 $ 0 n/ a
10% increase 7% decrease $ 28.9 $ 8.33 $ 282,779
25% increase 18% decrease $ 28.9 $ 21.43 $ 109,970
50% increase 32% decrease $ 28.9 $ 38.09 $ 61,858
100% increase 49% decrease $ 28.9 $ 58.33 $ 40,397
7.2. Comparison with the Hazard Elimination Safety Program
The continuing Hazard Elimination Safety ( HES) program provides an interesting comparison to the SR2S
program. The HES program began in 1974 and by 1996 had allocated over $ 4.5 billion dollars to 35,000
projects. The projects consisted primarily of improving traffic channelization ( to separate or regulate
conflicting traffic movements), installing and upgrading traffic signals, upgrading guardrails, median
barriers and shoulders, improving pavement skid resistance and upgrading pavement markings. A 1996
report– the Annual Report on Highway Safety Improvement Program – presented the effectiveness of the
HES program in reducing the number and severity of motor vehicle traffic accidents.
The HES program is one of the few large traffic safety programs that has evaluated its effectiveness
through both risk reduction estimates and cost- benefit analyses. As such, a comparison between the
HES and SR2S programs may be informative.
In 1996, the FHWA presented results of the impact of the HES program on traffic safety, based on an
evaluation of approximately 20% of the funded projects. The program was assessed on its success in
reducing rates of fatal and injury collisions, and on a cost- benefit analysis to estimate the cost per life
saved and non- fatal injury avoided. Results of these evaluations are discussed below.
The HES Program accomplished reductions in fatal, non- fatal injury and combined ( fatal plus non- fatal
injury) collision rates of 51%, 27% and 27% respectively ( Table 19). The average costs per unit reduction
in fatal collisions and combined ( fatal plus non- fatal injury) collisions were $ 377,500 and $ 16,400 ( costs
used a combination of 1987 and 1995 dollars).
Table 19: Safety improvements achieved by the HES program
Fatalities Non- fatal injury All collisions
( fatal plus non- fatal injury)
Reduction in rate 51% 27% 27%
Cost per collision reduced
( 1987 dollars)
$ 377,500 -- $ 16,400
Cost per collision reduced
( 2006 dollars)
$ 670,594 -- $ 29,133
The cost- benefit analysis was based on a number of parameters including a cost of $ 2.7 million per
fatality and $ 57,000 per injury ( 1995 dollars). Other parameters included the basis of the service life of
the improvements, an interest rate of 10 percent, and assumptions of zero maintenance costs and
salvage values. A cost index was used to convert the original construction cost of each project to 1987
dollars. Details on these evaluations can be found in: The 1996 Annual Report on Highway Safety
Improvement Programs: Report to the Secretary of Transportation to the United States Congress.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 35
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Prepared by the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway
Safety, April 1996.
The cost per collision reduced was less for HES projects than for SR2S projects modeled at 10% to 100%
increases in mobility. However, there are several important ways in which the HES and the SR2S
programs differ, and a direct comparison of the cost- benefit ratios may be inappropriate. To begin with,
the HES was conducted at a time when traffic fatality rates were decreasing across most developed
countries. This decrease was occurring for a variety of reasons, including enforcement of seatbelt use,
changes in the engineering of cars, etc. The HES was therefore able to capitalize on decreased collision
rates in the overall environment, which is applicable to the SR2S program.
Secondly, the HES evaluations were performed only in hazardous highway locations where the potential
for collisions was significant. By contrast, the SR2S programs target areas in which the rates of collisions
are much lower to begin with, and collisions are only examined in the small population of pedestrians,
rather than all motorists.
7.3. Benefits of intangible impacts
The cost- benefit analyses above are based on a monetary valuation of changes in collision rates and
decreases in human injury. However, there are a number of other products of the SR2S program that are
not easily quantified or valued.
Many of the SR2S improvements reduce the speed of traffic surrounding the school area through traffic
calming strategies. By reducing the average speed of vehicles, the severity of injuries to a pedestrian or
bicycle struck will be reduced.
The SR2S program may reduce the number of cars on the road, if more children walk or bike, rather than
being driven. This reduction in school- related traffic may ease local congestion, improve drivability in the
neighborhood, and ease competition for parking spaces. It may also result in improvements in local air
quality near the school, which may have a positive impact on asthma among vulnerable students.
The projects increase traffic safety not only for students at the affected school but also for other
pedestrians, including community members and students from other schools whose route takes them past
the improvements. Increased perceptions of safety may also improve a sense of community among
residents.
By encouraging walking and bicycling, the program may play a part in increasing physical activity among
the students. Low levels of physical activity have been linked with health problems such as obesity and
Type II Diabetes even among young children. Walking and physical activity early in life is also
associated with higher rates of physical activity as an adult. Further, exercise ( through walking and
bicycling to school) has been positively associated with greater ability to focus in classrooms.
Lastly, it is important to bear in mind that the populations most affected by the SR2S projects consist of
some of the most vulnerable road users. Children are at particularly high risk of traffic collisions, and it is
a terrible— and usually avoidable— tragedy when a child is killed in these circumstances. By focusing on
the safety of very young pedestrians, the SR2S program helps protect the segment of society that most
greatly needs it.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 36
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Section 8. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Safe Routes to School program has been effective in achieving its goals of increasing
walking/ bicycling and improving safety. The recommendations below have been identified by a number of
sources, including the authors of this report, Caltrans, agencies that received SR2S funds, the 2003
report by Boarnet et al., and from independent reviewers. The recommendations below are grouped into
thematic categories and encompass both small details and broad thematic concerns.
Types of projects funded
• In addition to proposals that demonstrate high collision rates, proposals that are unable to use
collision data but can demonstrate the probability of future collisions, should be given serious
consideration for funding.
• Strongly encourage agencies to complement construction projects with educational and outreach
efforts.
• The greatest successes in the SR2S program have been seen for younger students. Additional
targeting of SR2S funds for elementary students may be appropriate, and further identification of
the types of improvements that particularly affect older students may be appropriate.
Directions for evaluation and future research
• A significant challenge is the lack of data for evaluating the success of individual projects. While
success can be defined in a number of different ways– through changes in collisions, near-collisions,
traffic speeds, numbers of children walking/ bicycling, children’s overall physical activity
levels, etc. – it is important to obtain reliable, quantifiable estimates of the change from before the
SR2S construction and after.
• In order to provide this data, identify funding for Caltrans to conduct in- depth, independent,
before- and- after assessments of a selection of projects. It may also be feasible to require
agencies to provide information such as pedestrian counts, based on methods developed by
Caltrans.
• For future evaluation efforts, increase the response rate of agencies responding to
questionnaires. 56% of eligible agencies responded to the questionnaire distributed for this study.
Consider making funding contingent on the completion of a similar questionnaire or final report.
• An evaluation of changes in safety should be repeated in 2- 3 years’ time. The additional years of
data on collisions will help demonstrate long- term changes in safety and will provide a greater
sample size for statistical analyses.
Funding levels
• The per- project cap of $ 450,000 in SR2S- awarded funds should be increased, due to increased
construction costs.
Administration
• Several agencies expressed frustration at the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy involved in
the application process and suggested it be streamlined.
• It was also suggested that funding should come from the state rather than federal government
because of the difficulty and burden ( particularly for small agencies) in complying with federal
paperwork requirements and deadlines.
• Successful applications should be announced more quickly and feedback should be given to
agencies that were not successful.
• Some agencies felt that additional funding for the entire SR2S program should be used to make
the application process less competitive and to more closely match expressed need.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 37
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Federal SRTS program
• The federal government is also beginning a Safe Routes to School program ( SRTS) that is
mandated under SAFETEA- LU. The SRTS program will have its own eligibility requirements and
funding sources. It is not yet clear what effect the federal SRTS program will have on the
California SR2S program. Additionally, California’s Strategic Highway Safety Implementation
Plan will likely affect the SR2S program in the State. Future decisions about the state SR2S
program should be harmonized with these other programmatic areas.
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 38
University of California Traffic Safety Center
APPENDICES
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 39
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Appendix A – QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO ALL AGENCIES
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 40
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 41
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 42
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Appendix B – CALTRANS DISTRICTS
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 43
University of California Traffic Safety Center
Appendix C – LIST OF AGENCIES THAT RETURNED THE QUESTIONNAIRE
List of agencies that returned the questionnaire
LP2000 ID #
Program
Year
Program
Release
Date
District
Agency County
2136 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 8 Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino County
2137 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 8 San Bernardino County San Bernardino County
2141 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 10 Waterford Stanislaus County
2143 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 10 Merced Merced County
2144 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 10 Turlock Stanislaus County
2145 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 10 Merced County Merced County
2146 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 10 Turlock Stanislaus County
2147 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 11 San Diego County San Diego County
2152 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 12 Garden Grove Orange County
2153 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 12 Santa Ana Orange County
2154 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 12 Santa Ana Orange County
2157 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 12 Santa Ana Orange County
2161 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 7 Ojai Ventura County
2163 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 8 Murrieta Riverside County
2164 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 8 Yucaipa San Bernardino County
2165 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 6 Kern County Kern County
2166 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 6 Central Union School District Kings County
2167 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 6 Dinuba Tulare County
2168 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 6 Clovis Fresno County
2169 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 6 Clovis Fresno County
2172 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 7 Artesia Los Angeles County
2173 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 7 Los Angeles Los Angeles County
2174 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 7 Norwalk Los Angeles County
2175 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 7 Downey Los Angeles County
2181 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 7 Los Angeles Los Angeles County
2182 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 7 Santa Monica Los Angeles County
2187 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 7 Rosemead Los Angeles County
2188 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 7 Baldwin Park Los Angeles County
2191 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 4 Sebastopol Sonoma County
2192 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 4 Belmont San Mateo County
2194 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 4 San Francisco County San Francisco County
2195 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 4 Santa Rosa Sonoma County
2197 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 4 Union City Alameda County
2198 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 4 Oakland Alameda County
2199 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 4 Napa Napa County
2201 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 5 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara County
2205 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 1 Humboldt County Humboldt County
2213 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 4 Berkeley Alameda County
2218 2001 9/ 22/ 2000 4 Contra Costa County Contra Costa County
2641 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 1 Humboldt County Humboldt County
2643 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 2 Red Bluff Tehama County
2648 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 3 Woodland Yolo County
2649 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 Solano County Solano County
2651 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 Santa Rosa Sonoma County
2652 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 Walnut Creek Contra Costa County
2655 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 San Jose Santa Clara County
2656 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 Campbell Santa Clara County
2657 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 Albany Alameda County
Safe Routes to School: Safety & Mobility Analysis
California Department of Transportation & 44
University of California Traffic Safety Center
List of agencies that returned the questionnaire
LP2000 ID #
Program
Year
Program
Release
Date
District
Agency County
2659 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 Mill Valley Marin County
2660 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 Alameda County Alameda County
2661 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 Oakland Alameda County
2662 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 Vacaville Solano County
2664 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 San Jose Santa Clara County
2666 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 4 Fremont Alameda County
2667 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 5 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz County
2670 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 6 Fresno Fresno County
2672 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 6 Fresno Fresno County
2674 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 6 Kern County Kern County
2675 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 6 Bakersfield Kern County
2677 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 6 Fresno Fresno County
2678 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 7 Malibu Los Angeles County
2679 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 7 Norwalk Los Angeles County
2680 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 7 Lynwood Los Angeles County
2682 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 7 Covina Los Angeles County
2683 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 7 Downey Los Angeles County
2687 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 7 Artesia Los Angeles County
2692 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 7 Glendale Los Angeles County
2694 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 7 Lancaster Los Angeles County
2695 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 7 Whittier Los Angeles County
2704 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 7 Pomona Los Angeles County
2705 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 8 Riverside County Riverside County
2707 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 8 Chino San Bernardino County
2709 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 8 San Bernardino County San Bernardino County
2711 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 8 Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino County
2712 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 8 Grand Terrace San Bernardino County
2714 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 8 Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino County
2715 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 8 Moreno Valley Riverside County
2716 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 8 San Bernardino San Bernardino County
2719 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 10 Amador County Amador County
2721 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 10 Merced County Merced County
2724 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 10 Ceres Stanislaus County
2727 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 11 San Diego San Diego County
2728 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 11 Encinitas San Diego County
2729 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 11 Vista San Diego County
2732 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 11 La Mesa San Diego County
2733 2002 11/ 27/ 2001 11 Santee San Diego County
2734 2002