WALKING BUSES IN HERTFORDSHIRE: IMPACTS AND LESSONS

Roger Mackett, Lindsey Lucas, James Paskins, Jill Turbin Centre for Transport Studies, University College London November 2005

For further information please contact: Professor Roger Mackett Centre for Transport Studies University College London Chadwick Building Gower Street London WC1E 6BT Tel: 020 7679 1554 (International: +44 20 7679 1554) E-mail: rlm@transport.ucl.ac.uk

i

CONTENTS

PageExecutive summary iii

1 Introduction 12 The evaluation framework 32.1 The postal survey 32.2 The case studies 42.3 Research activities 52.4 Interviews with head teachers and walking bus co-ordinators at the

case study schools 6

2.5 Interviews with children at the case study schools 62.6 Interviews with parents at the case study schools 82.7 Reporting and the presentation of data 92.8 Reporting and confidentiality 92.9 The involvement of Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) 10

3 The walking buses studied 103.1 The postal survey 103.2 The case study approach 123.3 Hillshott Walking Bus 133.4 Layston Walking Bus 153.5 Lordship Walking Bus 173.6 Mandeville Walking Bus 193.7 Millfield Walking Bus 213.8 Differences and similarities between the case study walking buses 24

4 Objectives and outcomes 254.1 The objectives and outcomes identified in the postal survey 264.2 The initial objectives for the walking buses in the case study

schools 28

4.3 Achieving objectives: stakeholder perceptions 294.4 Modal shift: reducing car use 304.4.1 The schools in the postal survey 304.4.2 Modal shift in the case study schools: children 314.4.3 Modal shift in the case study schools: families 334.4.4 Modal shift and car use in the case study schools 354.4.5 Changes in the distances travelled 364.4.6 Overview 39

5 Benefits and disadvantages: a stakeholder perspective 415.1 Head teachers and co-ordinators 425.2 Benefits as perceived by parents and children 425.3 Negative aspects of the walking bus as perceived by parents and

children 46

5.4 Time savings and losses 496 The walking bus life cycle: changes in take-up and

participation 51

6.1 Changes in participation of children 516.2 Changes in participation of volunteers 556.3 The closure of walking buses 56

7 Implementation and process issues 577.1 Modal shift: a problem of implementation? 577.2 The walking bus life cycle: recruitment and retention issues 60

ii

8 Operation and organisation 648.1 The organisation of volunteers 658.2 The role of the co-ordinator 658.3 Formal and informal walking buses 668.4 The school and external sources of support 68

9 The initiative for setting up walking buses 6910 The barriers to walking buses 7111 The future potential for walking buses 7312 Conclusions 75

Acknowledgements 78References 78

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Walking buses have been set up at many schools in Britain as a way of providing an alternative to the car as a means of travel to school. A walking bus is a group of children who walk to school along a set route, collecting other children along the way at ‘bus stops’, escorted by several adult volunteers, one of whom is at the front (‘the driver’) and another is at the back (‘the conductor’). Each walking bus has a co-ordinator who ensures that there are sufficient volunteers and registers the children who wish to use it. The report examines a number of walking buses that have been set up in Hertfordshire, the area immediately to the north of London. The purpose of the evaluation of walking buses is to establish what the effects of walking bus are, and, as far as possible, establish a methodology that can be used to examine systematically initiatives to encourage children to use alternatives to the car, such as cycle training and pedestrian skills training, as well as walking buses. The data collected for the evaluation exercise comprises two parts: a postal questionnaire to schools across Hertfordshire and more detailed research on five case study walking buses within the county. This report presents the results from these two surveys. In Hertfordshire, the number of walking buses grew rapidly from one in early 1998. Four years later, there were 68 in 41 schools registered in the county. One year after that, there were 26 at 22 schools registered. This suggests that the number may have peaked. The walking buses had an average of 14 children registered to use them, with a range from 3 to 41. On average, 10 children used each walking bus, escorted by three or four volunteers. The children ranged in age from Nursery (age 3-4) up to Year 6 (age 10-11) but there was a clear peak in Year 2 (age 6-7), with a tailing off amongst older children. Of the 26 walking buses for which detailed information was supplied in the postal survey, twelve had ceased to operate by the time of the survey. In nine cases this was because of a lack of volunteers to escort the walking bus. For three of them, nobody was available to co-ordinate that walking bus. Five walking buses closed because there were too few children. Three of these also had a shortage of volunteers. In only one case was the closure of the walking bus not associated with a shortage of one or more out of children, volunteers and a co-ordinator. Walking buses have not been closed because they did not achieve the objectives for which they were set up. For head teachers, the main objectives of setting up walking buses were to relieve traffic congestion around the school, and to increase walking, particularly to give the children more exercise. The walking buses were seen as fairly successful in achieving these objectives. When the views of the head teachers of schools that had set up walking buses were compared with those of schools that had not, it was found that the former had greater recognition of the social aspects of walking buses whereas the latter have greater expectations in terms of reducing congestion, and improving the children’s road safety skills and mental alertness. About 62% of the children using walking buses had previously travelled to school by car. Some children used the walking bus fewer than five days a week. Overall, the reduction in the number of children travelling by car seems to be about 50% of the number of children on a walking bus. On average, each child who previously

iv

travelled by car who switched to walking, walked for 22 minutes on the walking bus each time it was used. For a child that uses the walking bus every day, this is nearly two hours of extra physical activity a week. Putting these two concepts together, suggests that walking buses can make a significant contribution to children’s volumes of physical activity. Given that only a small proportion of the children at a school use a walking bus, it would not be expected that there would be an observable reduction in traffic, except, perhaps, in very specific locations, such as at the school gate. This lack of reduction in traffic is compounded by the fact that many of the cars would continue to be used by a parent travelling to work or elsewhere at the time of the school trip. Walking buses are perceived by all those involved, to have benefits for the children, the parents and the school, particularly the social benefits to the children and the more indirect benefits in terms of sending out a visual message as to the importance of walking. Some negative outcomes or disadvantages of walking buses were reported by smaller numbers of respondents. They centred on the perceived lack of benefits, time losses and negative social outcomes. Benefits or disadvantages to parents in terms of time saving or losses were seen to be important in maintaining participation on the walking bus. This becomes even more critical for those parents acting as volunteers. Implementation processes were seen as being important in explaining why walking buses do not attract more car drivers. The availability and location of volunteers often determines the route of the walking bus such that it loses its strategic capability. ‘Trailblazers’ do not necessarily create pathways for subsequent, more targeted, walking buses. Responsibility for maintaining walking buses rests neither with the school, nor with the walking bus co-ordinator. It could well be that walking buses need a ‘champion’ within the school if they are to be a long-term initiative. This, however, sits uneasily with their selling point as necessitating little school input. The contribution of the co-ordinator to the success of the walking bus should not be overlooked. The personality and organisational ability of the co-ordinator will have an impact on the operation and long-term future of the walking bus. The loss of an effective co-ordinator may well have an impact on the continuation of the walking bus.

There are a number of characteristics of walking buses, which may be useful for explaining effectiveness and longevity. Formal or informal structures and benefits to volunteers are amongst some that have been identified by this evaluation exercise.

In the schools in Hertfordshire, the key source of information about walking buses was Hertfordshire County Council, but the initiative to set up a walking bus often came from within the school.

v

The vast majority of head teachers of schools without walking buses were aware of the concept. The main reason that walking buses have not been set up at these schools is the lack of parental interest or support. For some schools the nature of the catchment area would make it difficult to recruit enough children to form a walking bus. Otherwise the main problems are concerns about traffic danger and the lack of the head teacher’s time to start the process. Most of the schools which responded to the postal questionnaire regard children’s travel to and from school as a policy issue for the school. Of course, one reason that some schools did not respond to the survey may be because they do not regard travel to and from school as a relevant issue for them. The schools have taken or intend to take a wide variety of actions to address travel to school issues, including education and training of the children, setting up travel plans, and working with the County Council. This report illustrates the role and behaviour of walking buses in Hertfordshire. Given that Hertfordshire is an area where walking buses evolved earlier than many other parts of Great Britain, there may be useful lessons for interested parties elsewhere. In particular, it may help to stem the potential decline after the first cohort of children and their mothers have left the walking bus. There are a number of good reasons to encourage children to walk rather than go by car, in terms of their health and the environment, both in the short and long term. Walking buses can help to break down the barriers to walking perceived by parents and children, in terms of concerns about the children’s safety, competence and knowledge. Therefore, walking buses should be encouraged.

1

1 INTRODUCTION The work described in this report forms part of the output from a project entitled ‘Reducing children’s car use: the health and potential car dependency impacts’ which was carried out in the Centre for Transport Studies at University College London. The project was carried out in co-operation with the Environment Department of Hertfordshire County Council as well as colleagues from the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at UCL, the Department of Public Health at the University of Oxford, the Children’s Health and Exercise Research Centre at the University of Oxford, and the Royston, Buntingford and Bishop's Stortford Primary Care Trust. It was funded by the EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) under the Future Integrated Transport (FIT) programme for three years commencing January 2001. The objectives of the project were as follows:

• To examine the effects of car use on children’s physical activity and health; • To examine the effects of car use by children on their potential long-term car

dependency; • To develop a framework to evaluate the impacts of travel-to-school initiatives

systematically.

All the fieldwork was carried out in Hertfordshire, the county immediately to the north of London. It is a prosperous area with high car ownership levels. This report is concerned with the third objective of the project which was to develop a framework to evaluate the impacts of travel-to-school objectives (Mackett et al, 2003a). Whilst there are many initiatives aimed at encouraging children to use alternatives to the car to travel to school, there seems to be little evidence of systematic evaluation of them, to see how effective they are, and whether they represent efficient use of resources. Walking buses were chosen for evaluation because they are a relatively new phenomenon to encourage children to use an alternative to the car to travel to school and sufficiently small that information can be obtained from the key actors. A walking bus is a group of children who walk to school along a set route, collecting other children along the way at ‘bus stops’, escorted by several adult volunteers, one of whom is at the front (‘the driver’) and another is at the back (‘the conductor’). Each walking bus has a co-ordinator who ensures that there are sufficient volunteers and registers the children who wish to use it. All the volunteers have undergone training and police checks (or Criminal Record Disclosures which replaced police checks in April 2002). The purpose of the evaluation of walking buses is to establish what the effects of walking bus are, and, as far as possible, establish a methodology that can be used to examine systematically initiatives to encourage children to use alternatives to the car, such as cycle training and pedestrian skills training, as well as walking buses. The data collected for the evaluation exercise comprises two parts: a postal questionnaire to schools across Hertfordshire (Mackett et al, 2003b, 2003c) and more detailed research on five case study walking buses within the county. This report presents the results from these two surveys. There have been several systematic evaluations of the effectiveness of walking buses as policy instruments, particularly in New Zealand.

2

In Britain, an evaluation of the walking bus at Pirehill First School in Staffordshire was carried out by Centre for Alternative and Sustainable Transport (2000). The evaluation process was integrated with the process of setting up the walking bus. Much of the information collected was about the parents’ expectations about the impacts of the walking bus, rather than the impacts of the walking bus itself. This was partly due to the short time scale involved. Due to the time scale and delay in setting up the walking bus, the evaluation was short term, with the walking bus starting in the first week of December and the evaluation period ending in the same month. The evaluation used both quantitative and qualitative methods. Issues such as time savings for parents were covered in a qualitative survey, while questions about the social development and health of the children were only considered in terms of the parents’ expectations. The children’s views were sought through group discussions and simple analysis of their drawings. Areas of evaluation included the setting up and implementation process and outcomes of the walking bus, both positive and negative. They attempted to establish the reduction in traffic levels as a result of the introduction of the walking bus, but found no decrease, but they did find some change in the methods of travel to school by the children using the walking bus. A more comprehensive evaluation of walking buses was carried out in four schools in Christchurch, New Zealand (O’Fallon, 2001). As in the Pirehill First School example, evaluation was carried out as part of the setting-up exercise. The evaluation covered 13 walking buses involving 112 children, 60% of whom had previously walked to school. The surveys of parents included questions about time savings, changes in car use and the parents’ perceptions of the changes in the physical activity of the children. The children were asked what they liked and disliked about using the walking bus. The walking buses were seen as a success in terms of modal shift, that is, changing the proportion of children travelling by each form of transport. Also in Christchurch, New Zealand, Kingham and Ussher (2005) evaluated the walking bus programme in the city. They found that fifteen schools had set up walking buses in the period September 2000 to mid-2003, and that by the end of the period, nearly half of the walking buses had stopped operating and that few had survived for more than eighteen months. They developed a list of recommendations for durable walking buses. A detailed evaluation was carried out on the Zippy Walking Bus in Auckland (Kearns, 2001, Kearns et al, 2003). This involved a series of interviews with interested stakeholders 15 months after the set up of the walking bus. The aim of the evaluation was to assess the success of the walking bus and weigh up the evidence in support of extending the coverage. The report focuses on results rather than process issues. The walking bus was considered to be a success as it was still operating after 15 months with about 40 children using the walking bus in the afternoon and 15 in the mornings. A key factor in the success of the walking bus was the enthusiasm of the Safe Journeys Coalition at the school, which consisted of members of the school staff, parent representatives and representatives from the local authority. The evaluation recognised the importance of the role of a non-parent volunteer to the continuity and conviviality of the present Zippy Walking Bus as experienced by children. It was considered that commitment by the school was necessary for its ongoing vitality. Collins and Kearns (2005) carried out a survey of 54 walking buses at 29 schools in Auckland that had adopted walking buses by November 2002, particularly focusing on

3

the effects on child pedestrian injuries. They found that walking buses tend to be concentrated in more affluent neighbourhoods, and that they do not have very much effect on child pedestrian safety. 2 THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK The evaluation exercise in this research was formulated around the need to answer two different types of research questions: firstly, impacts and outcomes, and, secondly, process and implementation. In terms of the first of these, objectives are considered from the perspectives of different potential stakeholders and the evaluation encompasses questions of impact, outcome and benefit. The main research questions that fall within the scope of impact and outcomes are:

• What are the impacts of walking buses on the choice of travel mode (that is, the method of travel)?

• What are the benefits and disadvantages of walking buses for participants (children and parents)?

• How sustained are such impacts or benefits? • What (if any) are the broader outcomes of walking buses (for example, for the

school, for the volunteers, or for environmental or transportation concerns)? The second area of interest was concerned with process issues. Starting from the assumption that studying the implementation and operation of walking buses may offer insight into the degree of success that they demonstrate, the evaluation exercise sought to collect information that would answer the following questions:

• How does the process by which walking buses are implemented influence the impacts and benefits?

• What problems are encountered in implementing and running a walking bus and how are they dealt with?

2.1 The postal survey The first walking bus in Hertfordshire, and probably in Britain, was set up at Wheatfields School in St Albans early in 1998 as part of a comprehensive package of measures to reduce car use to school. By 2001, 50 out of 102 local authorities surveyed for the Department for Transport had implemented one or more walking buses, and a further 31 planned to do so (see http://www.local-transport.dft.gov.uk/schooltravel/travelplan/index.htm). By January 2002, 68 walking buses at 41 schools in Hertfordshire had been registered with the County Council, as shown in Table 1. Questionnaires were sent to the head teachers of all these schools in May 2002. As shown in the Mackett et al (2003c), it was in two parts: Part A was about the school's part in setting up the walking bus and the perception of the benefits, and was to be completed by the head teacher or his or her nominee. Part B was designed to collect detailed information about each walking bus and so one was sent for each walking bus at each school for the head teacher to pass on to the respective co-ordinators for completion. Twenty-six completed Part As were returned. Part Bs were returned for 26 walking buses at 23 schools. This implies a response rate of 56% for schools completing Part A and at least one Part B, and 63% for the return of Part A. Of the 26 walking buses for which detailed information was

4

obtained, 14 were still active at the time of the survey (May 2002), and 12 had ceased to operate. At one school a second walking bus had been planned but never started, although the first one was active. This large decline is reflected in the overall picture for Hertfordshire: by January 2003 there were only 26 walking buses at 22 schools registered with the County Council. Table 1 The number of walking buses in Hertfordshire

Schools Routes Number at January 2002 41 68 Number at January 2003 22 26 Number responding to the survey – full response

23 26

Number responding to the survey – partial response

3 0

Source: The postal survey Thus it seems that walking buses are in decline. This makes this report very timely, because it can shed some light on the reasons for the decline and help to explain why some schools have not been or will not be setting up walking buses. In particular, it may help Hertfordshire County Council, which is already addressing the issues arising from this decline, to take further action. In addition, a questionnaire similar to the one sent to the head teachers of schools with walking buses was sent to other schools in Hertfordshire with children under the age of 11. It is also shown in Mackett (2003c). This was sent to 464 schools, 58 of which were in the independent sector. Responses were received from 213 schools, giving a response rate of 46% for the schools which have not set up walking buses. 2.2 The case studies The case study evaluation exercise was based upon an in-depth study of five walking buses, which serve different schools in Hertfordshire. Two of the walking buses were in Buntingford, a small rural town in the east of Hertfordshire; two were in Letchworth Garden City, a garden city town in north Hertfordshire; and the last was in Sawbridgeworth in south-east Hertfordshire. Three of the walking buses were included in the study because the school were part of Hertfordshire County Council’s (HCC) Safer Routes to School Initiative (SRS). The other two were chosen because they had set up walking buses outside this initiative. The selection process was constrained by the need to select walking buses which were in the process of being set up, or had been running for only a short period of time. The three walking buses within SRS: Layston, Mandeville and Millfield, were chosen because these three schools had opted to set up walking buses at the start of the initiative. Other schools that could have been included had delayed the setting up of walking buses. The two schools outside SRS: Hillshott and Lordship, were included because the timescale of setting up a walking bus fitted into the time period for the evaluation. The research team worked with the Road Safety Unit of HCC (RSU) to identify possible launches of walking buses and this meant that a number of schools were monitored initially but were not included as they did not manage to set up walking buses.

5

Four of the five schools, Hillshott, Layston, Mandeville and Millfield, also responded to the postal survey. The walking bus at Lordship was launched after the postal questionnaire had been sent out. All the walking buses except one, are associated with schools that are above average in terms of the children’s achievement in government-specified tests, and below average in terms of special needs, free school meals and ethnic mix. Only Hillshott provides an example of an ‘average’ school. Whilst it would have been useful to include a wider mix of schools in the evaluation, in practice the schools included in the study are typical of those that have set up walking buses. This may be because parent participation and partnership tends to be stronger in such schools and this is a necessary component for setting up a walking bus. 2.3 Research activities At each of the case study schools a number of related activities were carried out. These included:

• Two interviews with the head teacher; • A series of interviews with the co-ordinator of the walking bus; • Interviews with parents and children who participated in the walking bus; • Timing and mapping the route; • Observation at meetings during the implementation stage for SRS walking

buses. Some of these activities took place during the start-up phase of the walking bus. For example, researchers attended as many meetings as possible prior to the launch of the walking bus and attended key events such as a ‘walking bus special’. Others such as the first interviews with head teachers, first interviews with co-ordinators and interviews with parents and children took place within six months of the start of the walking bus. This time delay was not so great that respondents could not answer questions regarding the reasons or objectives for starting a walking bus, but allowed the researchers to tackle questions about initial outcomes as well. For parents and children it was also intended to ensure that the walking bus had settled into a routine and that the initial high drop-out or joining rate of children had subsided. At this stage the route of the walking bus was mapped and timed by researchers. The two walking buses outside SRS were incorporated into the study after their launch. This was caused by difficulties in incorporating other non-SRS walking buses in the evaluation owing to their failure to launch. Although Hillshott and Lordship were co-opted as walking buses that were in operation an effort was made at the first interview stage to address issues of implementation. At the end of the evaluation exercise, final interviews were carried out with the head teachers and co-ordinators and a questionnaire sent by post to parents who had been interviewed at the earlier stage.

6

2.4 Interviews with head teachers and walking bus co-ordinators at the case study schools An important part of data collection was the continued input of the head teachers and walking bus co-ordinators. The latter provided detailed information about the changes in the walking bus participants and volunteers. This enabled the research to address some longer term outcomes and issues. Table 2 shows the timing of interviews with head teachers and co-ordinators. Interviews with parents and children took place in the period between the first and second co-ordinator interview. Only three interviews were held with the co-ordinator of the Lordship walking bus because it was launched after the others. At Millfield, the walking bus ceased operation in December 2002, so there was no co-ordinator to interview and it was not possible to interview the head teacher. A new head teacher was appointed at Hillshott Infants School between the first and second head teacher interview, so the comments at the second interview do no reflect involvement in the initial stages of the walking bus. Table 2 Launch of the walking buses and timing of interviews Walking bus

Date of launch of walking

buses

First head-teacher

interviews

First co-

ordinator interviews

Second co-ordinator interviews

Third co-ordinator interviews

Final interviews

Hillshott May 2001

February 2002

January 2002

September 2002

April 2003

September 2003

Layston November 2001

March 2002 March 2002

October 2002

April 2003 September 2003

Lordship June 2002

October 2002

October 2002

April 2003

September 2003

Mandeville September 2001

June 2002 March 2002

September 2002

April 2003 September 2003

Millfield November 2001

February 2002

February 2002

November 2002

March 2003

Source: The case study surveys 2.5 Interviews with children at the case study schools An important part of the evaluation was the interviews carried out with children and parents at the five case study schools. Details of all children who had registered on the walking bus were used to request children and their parents or carers to participate in the evaluation exercise. Interviews with children were carried out at their school during the day. Table 3 shows the number of interviews with children carried out at each of the five schools. As some children interviewed were siblings, the figure in brackets shows how many families were included in the study. It should be noted that both children and parents who no longer used the walking bus were also included in the study and the third column shows the number of interviews with these children. The relatively

7

higher number of such interviews in Millfield reflects both a high response rate from these children and a higher drop-off rate between first registration and interview. Table 3 Interviews carried out with children

School Pupils still using the walking

bus Pupil no longer using the walking

bus Hillshott 12 (10 families) 3 (3 families) Layston 18 (15 families) 4 (2 families) Lordship 18 (11 families) 0 Mandeville 14 (8 families) 0 Millfield 11(9 families) 14 (12 families) Total 73 (53 families) 21 (17 families) Source: The case study surveys Table 4 shows the ages of children included in the evaluation exercise. As can be seen the majority of the children were between the ages of 5 and 8, with the average age of children being 6½years. The age distribution between schools differed slightly; this was mainly because the schools themselves have such a variation. Two of the schools are Junior and so include children up to Year 6 (10-11 years), two were First schools and included children up to Year 4 (8-9 years) and one was an Infant school including children up to Year 2 (6-7 years). As the schools cater for different ages of children the walking bus participation varied by age. Table 4 Age distribution of children interviewed Age (years)

Children still using the walking bus

Children no longer using the walking bus

Total

3 1 0 14 6 1 75 11 4 156 17 6 237 18 4 228 6 4 109 6 2 810 8 0 8 11 0 0 0 Total 73 21 94 Source: The case study surveys In total, 44 boys and 49 girls were interviewed. Fewer boys were interviewed in all schools except Millfield where more boys than girls were interviewed. This is summarised in Table 5.

8

Table 5 Gender distribution of children interviewed School Male Female Total Hillshott 7 8 15 Layston 9 13 22 Lordship 8 10 18 Mandeville 5 9 14 Millfield 15 10 25 Total 44 50 94 Source: The case study surveys There are a number of methodological issues concerning the interviews with children. With an average age of 6½ years the validity of any data generated from the children’s interviews may be questioned. For the more ‘factual’ information given by the children, for example, the number of days the walking bus was used, which stop they joined at or how they travelled to and from school beforehand, an attempt was made to check responses with data from the co-ordinator and, if interviewed, the parent. In fact, there was little difference between the responses of children and the recorded information of the co-ordinator or parent. Questions relating to more subjective matters, such as likes and dislikes have to be taken at face value. It is recognised that the children’s responses depend on a number of factors. Some found it difficult to articulate likes and dislikes, whilst others were well aware of the objectives and rationale of walking buses and responded in these terms. Others, especially the younger children, may have responded on the basis of events that had occurred on the morning of the interview. Despite these potential weaknesses, there are a number of reasons for including children in the evaluation exercise. Firstly, they are the key participants and therefore important stakeholders in the walking bus and deserve to be given a voice in any evaluation. Secondly, although at an individual level, subjective data may be unreliable, the evaluation was interested in looking at the breadth and frequency of types of responses. 2.6 Interviews with parents at the case study schools For each walking bus, parents were also asked if they would agree to be interviewed. The response rate for parents was not as high as it was for children, and differed from one walking bus to another. Table 6 summarises the number of parents interviewed by walking bus school making a distinction between those parents whose children were still using the walking bus and those whose children had left. With the exception of Mandeville, the number of parents agreeing to be interviewed was good, usually a sizeable majority of parents involved with the walking bus. Agreement from parents whose children had left the walking bus was less forthcoming and this is reflected in the lower figures for this group. However, some of the walking buses, for example Mandeville and Lordship, had very few parents at this stage who had stopped using the walking bus, whereas the comparative figure for Millfield and Layston was much higher. Overall 48 parents were interviewed, representing 67 out of a total 93 children. With one exception, all the parents interviewed were female.

9

Table 6 Interviews carried out with parents

School Parents of children still using the walking bus

Parents of children who have left the walking bus

Hillshott 7 (10 children) 3 (4 children) Layston 9 (11 children) 2 (4 children) Lordship 12 (20 children) 0 Mandeville 3 (6 children) 0 Millfield 7 (8 children) 5 (7 children) Total 38 (52 children) 10 (15 children) Source: The case study surveys In September 2003 a short questionnaire was sent to the 38 parents who had been interviewed in the early stages of the walking bus evaluation exercise and were still using the walking bus in September 2003. At that time, these parents represented 52 children on the walking buses. The questionnaire was used to establish how many of these families were still using the walking bus and how many had left. Some of these families had been using the walking bus for over 18 months. The aim was to gather some views on the long term use of walking bus. 2.7 Reporting and the presentation of data The methodology of the case study evaluation was essentially a qualitative one. There was no intention of undertaking a statistical analysis of the data collected, nor would such an approach be appropriate for the numbers involved in each of the walking buses. However, in presenting the data, use is made of summary tables. In some cases, for example when examining modal shift, numerical data is given to indicate the different responses for each of the walking buses. In other places, for example in looking at benefits, numbers of responses for different types of comment are made. However, it should be stressed that data is presented in this way in order to provide a ‘summary’ of the information obtained. 2.8 Reporting and confidentiality An important part of the evaluation was to look at key differences between the walking buses in an effort to identify ‘success factors’ or possible areas of good practice. For this reason the report makes distinctions between walking buses and where appropriate summary tables present information in this way. However, in some instances information is not presented for each walking bus because it would breach confidentiality assurances. There are parts of the analysis where distinctions between each of the walking buses are appropriate. Their main characteristics, route, distance, timing and numbers of participants and volunteers is information that has to be connected to a walking bus (as a unit of analysis). In some cases these characteristics become explanatory and it would impair the evaluation if they were not treated separately. It is useful, for example, to determine whether different walking buses achieved objectives more generally. Where possible, the following discussion makes these distinctions.

10

2.9 The involvement of Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) The evaluation exercise was carried out with the co-operation of HCC. In particular the RSU and the SRS team provided assistance in making contact with schools within and outside SRS. Alongside this evaluation the RSU and SRS were implementing a number of initiatives to support schools in the preparation of school travel plans and other measures designed to promote walking to school. An important aspect of this was the appointment of a countywide ‘Walking Bus Co-ordinator’ to promote and support walking buses throughout the county. Many of the issues and suggestions made by co-ordinators and raised by this evaluation were simultaneously taken up by the countywide Walking Bus Co-ordinator. However, because of the timing of this evaluation exercise, it would not have picked up these improvements.

3 THE WALKING BUSES STUDIED 3.1 The postal survey The schools that completed the walking bus postal questionnaires are shown in Table 7. Five of the schools are shown as having two walking buses, but one of these never started. It can be seen that the number of children registered varies from 41 down to 3, with an average of 14. In fact, the 41 is an extreme value. The second largest is 28, and then there are four with 20 children registered.

11

Table 7 Schools which have set up walking buses in Hertfordshire which responded to the postal survey

School Route

no Status No of

children registered

No of children

using

No of volun-teers

Beech Hyde Primary, Wheathampstead 1

Active 12 12 4

Downfield JMI, Cheshunt 1 Inactive 5 4 nr High Wych C of E Primary, Sawbridgeworth

1 Active 5 3 1

1 Active nr 9 3 Hillshott Infant, Letchworth 2 Never

started nr nr nr

Holy Trinity C of E Primary, Waltham Cross

1 Inactive 6 6 nr

Kingshill Infant and St Mary’s JM, Ware 1 nr nr nr nr Layston C of E First, Buntingford 1 Active 15 11 3 Longmeadow Infant, Stevenage 1 Active 16 16 4

1 nr nr nr nrMandeville Primary, Sawbridgeworth 2 Active 3 3 2

Maple, St Albans 1 nr nr nr nr Martins Wood Primary, Stevenage 1 Inactive 20 12 nr Millfield First and Nursery, Buntingford 1 Active 13 11 5

1 Active 13 13 4 Newberries Primary, Radlett 2 Active 14 13 4 Park Street C of E VA Primary, Park Street 1 Active 14 12 3 Rickmansworth Park JMI, Rickmansworth 1 Inactive 6 6 nr Shenley Primary, Shenley 1 Inactive 20 10 nr St Bernadette RC Nursery and Primary, London Colney

1 Inactive 20 15 nr

1 Active 18 11 5 St Helen’s C of E Primary, Wheathampstead 2 Inactive 6 2 nr St John’s VA C of E Primary, Lemsford Village

1 Active 41 15 6

St Paul’s Walden Primary, Hitchin 1 Inactive 10 nr nr Sunny Bank Primary, Potters Bar 1 Inactive 18 14 nr

1 Active 8 8 3 Templewood Primary, Welwyn Garden City 2 Inactive 15 10 nr The Richard Whittington Primary, Bishops Stortford

1 Active 28 13 3

The Russell, Chorleywood 1 Inactive 15 15 nr Welwyn St Mary’s C of E VA Primary, Welwyn

1 nr nr nr nr

Wood End, Harpenden 1 Inactive 20 15 nr Source: The postal survey Note: The number of children using is the average on the days that the walking bus operates for active walking buses and the typical number for non-active walking buses. The number of volunteers for the active walking buses is the average for the days it operates. Some walking buses do not operate every day. nr = no reply

12

Table 7 also shows the number of children and volunteers on the walking buses. For the active walking buses this is the average for the days it operated, and so there could be more children using it during a week because some children used it on fewer than five days a week. One walking bus only operated on two days, while the rest operated five days a week. For the inactive walking buses, the figure is the typical number using it on any one day. As Table 8 shows, a total of 361 children were registered to use walking buses and 259 used them each day, on average, on the 26 walking buses covered in the postal survey. This gives an average of 10 children on a walking bus on the days it operated. It is known from information supplied by Hertfordshire County Council that all except one of the walking buses operated only in the morning. The average number of volunteers on one day on each active walking bus is also shown in Table 7. The total is 50, as shown in Table 8, implying that, on average, between three and four volunteers escort a walking bus, with a ratio of three children to each volunteer. Table 8 Numbers involved in walking buses in Hertfordshire in the postal

survey

Number of

walking buses

Number of children

registered

Number of children

using

Mean number of children

registered

Mean number of children

using

Number of volunteers

Active walking buses

14 200 150 14 11 50

Inactive walking buses

12 161 109 13 10 -

Total 26 361 259 14 10 - Source: The postal survey Note: These figures are based on those in Table 2 and the same definitions apply here. The mean number of children using the inactive walking buses is based on 11 walking buses because the number of children was not provided in one case. Table 8 distinguishes between active and inactive walking buses. It can be seen that the active walking buses were only slightly larger than the inactive ones in terms of the numbers of children registered and using them. This suggests that, in general, the walking buses did not cease to operate simply because there were insufficient children using them, although it is quite possible that significant numbers had moved on to other schools. 3.2 The case study approach The following section provides descriptive information on each of the five case study walking buses with respect to the following:

• Characteristics and location of the school and walking bus • Route characteristics and description • Walking bus operation • Volunteers and children at registration and first interview

13

In addition, a route map of each of the walking buses can be found alongside the description of each. Information on objectives and outcomes, benefits, disadvantages and lifecycle issues can be found Sections 4, 5 and 6, whilst process information on how the walking buses were set up and operated is dealt with in Sections 7 and 8. 3.3 Hillshott Walking bus Hillshott Walking Bus was launched on 14 May 2001 as an independent initiative. It serves Hillshott Infant School, a non-denominational school in the town of Letchworth Garden City. The catchment of the school is primarily local although the school also has a specialist unit for children with speech and language needs and includes a small number of children from a larger catchment across North Hertfordshire for this reason. Hillshott1 is set in a mixed residential area with both owner-occupied and rented housing. The school has broadly average attainment although it has a wide social and cultural mix with 17% of the children coming from homes where English is not the first language. The proportion of children with free school meals is below the national average but special educational needs are above average. At the latest Ofsted Inspection (September 1999) there were 135 full-time equivalent (FTE) children from Reception to Year 2 and 41 nursery children who attended part-time. Hillshott Infants School was not included in the SRS initiative and no information on travel mode and pattern for the school as a whole was available. However, despite the local catchment of the school, it is thought that a significant number of parents drive their children to school particularly as many parents have children at both Hillshott and the linked junior school, Pixmore. The walking bus included in the evaluation exercise was the only one operating at the school at the time. A second walking bus was planned but not launched due to the lack of adult volunteers and a co-ordinator. As shown on the map, the walking bus starts at the corner of Baldock Road and Lawrence Avenue. The route crosses two main roads, Baldock Road and Pixmore Way. There is a pelican crossing on Baldock Road that has a school crossing patrol, but this position was unfilled for a long period during the life of the walking bus. Pixmore Way is crossed with the help of a school crossing patrol. Since the walking bus started, this crossing has been redesigned and now there is a zebra crossing. The route is primarily through residential areas, passing the linked junior school on its way. With the exception of the two main road crossing and the road that passes the junior school, the route is unproblematic and all roads can be

1 Figures on school numbers and characteristics of pupils are taken from the latest Ofsted Report, September 1999

14

crossed with relative ease. The distance from the first stop to the entrance of the school is 1033 metres. On the day the walking bus was timed, this journey took 20 minutes 52 seconds, 16 minutes 58 seconds of which were spent walking. Road works at the time may have increased the non-walking time on this day but would not have affected the overall walking time. The walking bus runs every school day morning. It had five stops at the start of operation but one was cut out due to lack of demand. It also starts at the third stop on

15

one day of the week due to volunteer availability. Although most children join at the beginning of the route, children are picked up from the other stops on a regular basis. The walking bus had 15 children registered with the walking bus at the start. By the time of the first interview this figure had fallen 14 through children both joining and leaving. At the launch of the walking bus there were 9 parent volunteers running the walking bus, by the time of the first interview this figure was 8, again as a result of parents joining and leaving. 3.4 Layston Walking Bus Layston Walking Bus was launched on 20 November 2001 under the SRS initiative. It serves Layston First School, a Church of England school on the eastern edge of Buntingford. Buntingford is a small market town in the East of Hertfordshire with a catchment which includes children from the town and surrounding rural villages. The school is situated amongst mostly privately-owned housing and has above average attainment for children starting the school. It is below average for special needs, ethnic minority groups and free school meals2.

At the time of the latest Ofsted Inspection (May 2000) there were 157 FTE children at the school. As a first school the school takes children from Reception to the end of Year 4. A significant majority of children transfer to the local middle school although a few travel to schools further away. In the travel to school survey conducted by HCC, it was found that 42% of the pupils travelled to school by car, 3% by taxi, 10% cycled or came on scooters and 45% walked. Although some came to school by car because they lived in surrounding villages, a significant proportion of car drivers were believed to be local to the town. The walking bus included in the evaluation was one of two walking buses at the school and the first to be set up. As the map shows it starts on the outskirts of a large housing estate on the south side of town, crosses the town centre and cuts through a park before rejoining the roads nearby the school. With the exception of the town centre much of the route is pedestrian only, making use of the pathways through the housing estate, the park and a walkway next to the river. The total distance of the route, from the starting point at the community centre was 1154 metres. On the day the walking bus was timed this journey took 16 minutes and 11 seconds, 14 minutes and 54 seconds of which were spent walking. The walking bus runs every school day morning. It has two stops, the first at the community centre and a second outside the chemists shop in the town centre. In practice most of the children join at the start of the walking bus, with a few joining at the other stop on a regular basis. At the launch, the total number of children registered on the walking bus was 26. However, by the time of the first interview this number had fallen to 18. The majority of the children on the walking bus lived on or near the housing estate at the start of the route although a small number drove to the start of the route at the community centre.

2 Ofsted Report 15 May 2000

16

The walking bus had 15 volunteers at the launch, including 5 ‘spares’ who were called upon only occasionally. By the time of the first interview this figure had fallen to 10 volunteers.

17

3.5 Lordship Walking Bus Lordship Walking Bus began on 17 June 2002 and was initiated independently of SRS. It serves Lordship Farm Infant and Junior School. The school is set within a desirable residential area of Letchworth Garden City, predominantly owner-occupied. The catchment of the school is predominantly local with few children coming from further away. Lordship Farm JMI3 has children entering the school with above average attainment. It has an average number of children coming from homes where English is not the first language, a below-average number eligible for free school meals and very few children with special needs. At the latest Ofsted inspection the school had 336 FTE children from Reception through to the end of Year 6 and a further 24 FTE nursery places. At the end of year 6 most children from the school transfer to local schools although there are a proportion that travel to neighbouring towns for their secondary education. The school carried out its own survey on travel in May 2002 and their school travel plan reports that at that time, 38% of pupils came to school by car, 57% walked and 5% cycled. The walking bus was the only one operating at the school at the time of the evaluation. It starts on the corner of Baldock Road, the A505 and Willian Way. The walking bus was originally intended to start at a point further away from the school but the crossing of Baldock Road at this junction was deemed too dangerous by the RSU and could not be part of the official route. Unofficially a number of children and volunteers start the walking bus before this point. From the official start of the walking bus there are no major roads to cross and the route follows a wide pathway up to the school. There are three ‘official’ stops on the route although there are a number of points where additional children join the walking bus and one of the stops is no longer used. The distance from the official start of the walking bus to the school was 897 metres. On the day the walking bus was timed the total time taken was 13 minutes 53 seconds, which included 12 minutes and 49 seconds of walking time. The lack of difference between these two figures can be accounted for because the walking bus does not stop to pick up children who simply join in as the walking bus passes them. There are also few crossing points where it is necessary to stop. The walking bus runs every school day morning. A significant number of children join at the start although on the day the route was timed a similar number joined along the way. At its launch the walking bus had 16 children registered on the walking bus. By the time of the first interview this had grown to 26. By the second interview there were 32 children registered with the walking bus. On a daily basis there are usually between 15 and 19 children on the walking bus.

3 Ofsted Report 27th April 1998

18

19

3.6 Mandeville Walking Bus Mandeville Walking Bus was launched on 17 September 2001 under SRS. The walking bus serves Mandeville Infant and Junior School, set within the town of Sawbridgeworth in South East Hertfordshire. The school is located within a residential area made up primarily of owner-occupied housing and has a large local catchment. The children entering the school are of average ability and the proportion of free school meals is average. A higher than average proportion (6%) of children are from ethnic backgrounds and 5% of the children are from homes where English is not the first language. Although none of the children are statemented there are 60 children on the school’s register of special needs.4

According to the latest Ofsted Report (March 2000) the school has 220 FTE children between reception and Year 6. There are an additional 29 part-time children in its nursery unit. At the end of Year 6 children leave to join one of several schools in the surrounding area. The travel to school survey undertaken by HCC under the SRS initiative found that 47% walk to school, 39% travel to school by car and 14% use a mixture. The walking bus included in this survey was one of two walking buses operating at the school, both set up within the initial stages of SRS. although they were planned before this time. As the map shows, the Mandeville route starts off in on the edge of a residential estate and continues through a large housing estate. Most of the roads that are crossed are within this estate and none form main roads or through routes for traffic. The most difficult crossing is directly outside the school on West Road although structural work as part of SRS has made this area safer in recent months. The school crossing patrol post on West Road was vacant when the pupils were interviewed following the retirement of the previous holder. The total distance from the start point to the school was 1072 metres. On the day the walking bus was timed the journey took a total of 17 minutes 15 seconds of which 14 minutes 18 seconds was spent walking. Most of the time not walking was spent waiting at one of the stops for children who usually caught the walking bus but on that day had gone ahead. Very little other stop time was recorded. At the time of the evaluation the walking bus ran three mornings a week: Monday, Wednesday and Friday. It has no formal stops but picks up children along the route, in some cases outside their houses. The number of children registered on the walking bus at the launch date was 15. By the time of the first interview one child had left and 14 remained on the walking bus. The number of volunteers at the launch was 6. This figure had remained stable and by the first interview no volunteers had left or joined.

4 Ofsted Report 20th March 2000

20

21

3.7 Millfield Walking Bus Millfield Walking Bus was launched, along with Layston, on 20 November as part of a SRS initiative. Millfield First School is situated within Buntingford on the south side of the town. The school is located at the heart of a major residential estate but like Layston also takes children from outlying villages. Children entering the school have average to above average levels of attainment. The school has a below average number of children from ethnic minority groups and a below average number who do not have English as a first language. Only 4% are eligible for free school meals and the number of children with special needs is below average5.

Millfield is a First School taking children from Reception through to Year 4. It also has a nursery unit which serves both Millfield and Layston Schools. At the time of the latest Ofsted Report (November 2000) there were 173 children in full-time education plus an additional 20 FTE children in the nursery unit. Like Layston the majority of children who leave at the end of Year 4 transfer to the local middle school although a number go to schools further away. In the travel to school survey conducted by HCC, it was found that 60% of the children surveyed travel to school by car, 4% came by walking bus, 4% used bikes or scooters and 32% walked. Although some came to school by car because they live in surrounding villages, a significant proportion of car drivers were believed to be local to the town. The walking bus included in the evaluation was the only walking bus at the school and was set up during the SRS initiative. As the map shows it starts on the corner of a main road and the road which leads to the school. Despite the fact that the route proceeds through a residential area, it has to negotiate a number of difficult crossings caused by the undulating nature of the residential layout. The crossing to the school is particularly dangerous although this area has been the subject of improvements by HCC. Like Lordship Farm, and for the same reason of road safety, at the time of the evaluation, it also had an official and unofficial start. The unofficial start begins on the other side of the main road near the middle school. This unofficial starting point is marked on the route map as a number of children join at this point although they have to be supervised by their own parents. The official route is 546 metres and on the day it was timed took 8 minutes and 49 seconds of which 7 minutes and 40 seconds was spent walking. For such a short distance the stop time can be explained by the disproportionate number of crossings. The distance from the unofficial start to the school was 1022 metres and this journey took 18 minutes and 29 seconds of which 13 minutes and 49 seconds was spent walking. The long period of stop time can be accounted for primarily by the wait at the corner of Baldock Road at the official start of the walking bus. In other walking buses this wait time was not recorded. At the start of the evaluation the walking bus operated every morning although this had reduced to three mornings per week at the time of writing. After its first official stop it picks up children along Monks Walk. The ‘stops’ depend on the location of the children joining the walking bus and, like Mandeville, children tend to join the walking bus at or near their homes. At its launch date the walking bus had 29 children registered on it but this figure had fallen to 15 by the time of the first interview, all

5 Ofsted Report 6th November 2000

22

accounted for by children leaving the walking bus. Like Layston many of these children failed to use the walking bus for very long, if at all. At the launch of the walking bus there were 4 official volunteers. A number of parents also walked along with the walking bus with their children but were not part of a rota system. At the time of the first interview most of the unofficial volunteers had stopped walking on the walking bus (many along with their children) but the original 4 volunteers remained. Millfield walking bus went through a number of changes of both route and co-ordinator in its lifetime. In Autumn 2002 it was cut back to a three-day week, and at the end of the autumn term it disbanded.

23

24

3.8 Differences and similarities between the case study walking buses It is useful to look at some of the differences and similarities between the walking buses. First the routes themselves varied. Layston Walking Bus route stands out as being relatively unproblematic and extremely pleasant. Mandeville, though lacking scenery comparable with that on the Layston Walking Bus, is a relatively easy route with no real safety issues or problems. The official part of Lordship is similar in that once the walking bus is under way, there is little reason to stop and the volunteers do not have to negotiate road crossings. By comparison Hillshott and Millfield are more difficult routes, Hillshott because it takes in so many road crossings and Millfield because the housing estate it walks through is difficult to cross and, at that time of day, relatively busy. Although all the routes have been checked and are deemed safe by the RSU of HCC, Hillshott and Millfield may well create a more stressful journey for the volunteers. For Millfield the shortening of the route, coupled with the difficulty of the crossings made this walking bus vulnerable from the start. Table 9 shows summary information on the routes of all five walking buses. The distances of each of the routes are similar with the exception of Millfield which is shorter if the ‘unofficial’ part of the journey is not counted. The pace of the walking bus (excluding stop times) varies between 3.6km/h and 4.6km/h, with Hillshott having the slowest pace. This could be related to the younger age range of the children on this walking bus, but as timings were only taken on one day, it is likely that any variations may well be reversed if the routes were timed on another day. What is more noticeable is that the total time, including stop times does vary with Hillshott taking over 20 minutes and Millfield, from the official start nearly 9 minutes. Although this may not seem an issue when recording time, in terms of potential time saving for parents this may be an important difference. The time from the first volunteer arriving at the start point to the start of walking was not recorded. However in some cases, notably Layston and Hillshott, this was a significant amount of time. At the time of the first interview, all the walking buses except Mandeville operated on 5 days of the week. The number of stops varied – from 5 through to 1, but in fact some of those walking buses that had fewer stops also picked up children along the way in a more informal way. Table 9 Summary information on the five walking buses: distance, time

and operation

Walking bus Distance Total Time

Taken

Walking Time

Number of Stops

No of days in

operation Hillshott 1033m 20:52 16:58 5 (reduced

to 4 later) 5

Layston 1154m 16:11 14:54 2 5 Lordship 897m 13:53 12:49 3 (2 used) 5 Mandeville 1072m 17:15 14:18 3 3 Millfield: unofficial start official start

1022m 546m

18:29 8:49

13.49 7:40

21

5 (reduced to 3 later)

Source: The case study surveys

25

It is also useful to compare the number of children and volunteers at registration and first interview, for each walking bus. Table 10 draws together the data on this, as discussed above for the five walking buses. There is no particular pattern. The two Buntingford walking buses, at Layston and Millfield, started off with a large number of children but quickly lost a number, whereas Mandeville and Hillshott showed little difference. Lordship gained a significant number of children after its launch. Table 10 Summary information on the five walking buses: children and

volunteers

At the launch First interview Second interview

Final interview

Walking bus

child-ren

volun-teers

child-ren

volun-teers

child-ren

volun-teers

child-ren

volun-teers

Hillshott 15 9 14 8 9 6 8 5 Layston 26 15 18 10 14 5 5 4 Lordship 16 10 26 10 32 10 31 8 Mandeville 15 6 14 6 12 6 5 2 Millfield 29 4 15 4 12 4 0 0 Source: The case study surveys When looking at the number of volunteers there appears to be no straightforward connection between the number of children on a walking bus and the number of volunteers. It must be remembered that the RSU have set out the recommended ratios of volunteers to children and this varies with age as follows: • For nursery age children - 1 adult to 2 children • For children up to Year 2 - 1 adult to 4 children, and • For junior children (Years 3 to 6) - 1 adult to 8 children. It should be noted that Millfield had a number of unofficial volunteers. Given this, there is no pattern over the recruitment and retention of volunteers either. As shown in Table 10, at Layston, the number of volunteers reduced in line with the number of children, but in others, for example Millfield it stayed stable until it closed. Lordship had a large number of children joining the walking bus but did not gain any volunteers. These figures do not show how many days per week each registered child actually used the walking bus, or how many days per week each volunteer had to walk with the walking bus. At Millfield the four volunteers all walked every day, whereas at Layston they tended to walk two days each. These operational differences are discussed in more detail later on in this report.

4 OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES In this section the different objectives for the walking bus, and the extent to which such objectives have been met, are examined. In the following discussion, this is presented first for the schools covered in the postal survey, then for the five case study

26

schools. The latter is considered in two ways, firstly by reporting on the perception and judgement of key actors and stakeholders (head teachers, co-ordinators, parents and children), and secondly by looking at data that provides a more objective measure of outcomes (for example, travel mode). 4.1 The objectives and outcomes identified in the postal survey

The impacts of walking buses can be identified in two ways from the questionnaires: firstly by asking about the objectives of the walking buses and whether they were achieved, and secondly, by presenting a list of possible outcomes and seeking views on whether the respondents would expect them. The first can only be presented for the schools where walking buses have been set up whereas the latter can be answered as a hypothetical question for schools where walking buses have not been set up. Table 11 shows the achievement of objectives by walking buses for 22 of the schools which have set them up. These answers were not structured on the questionnaire: they were written in and coded, using the categories for the perceived impacts as far as possible (shown in Table 12), adding further categories where necessary. Table 11 Achievement of objectives by the walking buses covered in the

postal survey

Objective achieved? Objective Number of schools with this objective

Yes Partially No Success

rate (%)

To reduce congestion at the school entrance 20 10 4 6 60 To give the children more exercise 12 9 1 2 79 To increase walking to school 7 3 1 3 50 To reduce car use to school 2 2 - - 100 To ensure children reach school on time 2 1 1 - 75 To improve the children’s road safety skills 1 1 - - 100 To create safer routes to school 1 1 - - 100 To increase social interaction between the children

1 1 - - 100

To be environmentally friendly 1 - 1 - 50 To slow down the traffic 1 - 1 - 50 To escort children who currently walk unsupervised

1 - - 1 0

To reduce the need to bring younger siblings to school

1 - - 1 0

To increase social interaction between the parents

0 - - - -

To make the children more mentally alert at school

0 - - - -

Total 50 28 9 13 65 Source: The postal survey Note: This table is based on 22 responses from schools which have set up walking buses. Some respondents provided multiple answers. The success rate has been calculated by dividing the number of achieving the objective plus half the number achieving partial success by the number of schools setting that objective.

27

Of the 22 schools, twenty said that reducing congestion at the school entrance was an objective. The second most popular objective, with twelve schools mentioning it, was to give children more exercise, followed by the general desire to increase walking to school, cited by seven schools. Two schools mentioned reducing car use to school, and two others cited ensuring that children reach school on time. The other objectives given, each stated by one school were: to improve the children’s road safety skills, to create safer routes to schools, to increase social interaction between the children, to be environmentally friendly, to slow down the traffic, to escort children who currently walk unsupervised, and to reduce the need to bring younger siblings to school. No schools set the objectives of increasing social interaction between the parents or making the children more mentally alert at school, which were amongst the possible impacts discussed below. Table 11 also shows whether the objective was achieved. In some cases they were achieved partially. A success rate has been calculated by summing the number of schools achieving the objective, plus half those partially achieving the objective, and dividing by the number of schools which set that objective. Overall, 65% of the objectives were achieved. Of the three main objectives (in terms of the number of schools setting them), giving the children more exercise had a success rate of 79%, followed by reducing congestion at the school entrance at 60%, and increasing walking to school at 50%. Most of the other objectives were achieved. Overall, it can be argued that walking buses are seen as fairly successful. Nearly all the schools at which walking buses were still operating at the time of the survey, regarded them as successful, whereas some of the schools where they were no longer operating recorded them as not achieving their objectives simply because they were no longer operating. Of course a walking bus that is inactive cannot achieve any objectives, but, as discussed above, the reasons for abandoning them was not the failure to achieve positive outcomes, but the lack of volunteers, co-ordinators or children. Hence it can be argued, that the success rate in terms of achievement of objectives is probably higher than the figure of 65% implied above. In terms of continuity it is rather lower than this since, in the survey, only 14 out of the 26 that started were still operating (54%). Another way to assess the impacts of walking buses is to ask the respondents what they perceive the potential impacts to be. This question was asked of head teachers at both schools which have set up walking buses and those which had not. Table 12 shows the results separately for these two groups. The possible responses were defined on the questionnaire. The responses are shown in order of declining percentages of responses from the head teachers at the schools which have set up walking buses. The most popular response in each case was, ‘Give children more exercise’, with all the head teachers at schools which have set up walking buses identifying this as a potential impact. The second most popular response in each case was ‘Improve children’s road safety skills’, followed by ‘Reduce car use to school’. ‘Increase social interaction between the children’ and ‘Reduce congestion at the school entrance’ were the next two factors for the schools where walking buses had been set up, each cited in about three-quarters of the cases. The latter was cited rather more at the schools where walking buses have not been set up and the former rather less. ‘Increase social interaction between the parents’ came next in each case. Last in each case was ‘Make the children more mentally alert’, which was cited much more in the schools where walking buses have not been set

28

up. The main differences between the two groups seem to be that the head teachers at schools which have set up walking buses have a greater recognition of the social aspects of walking buses, while the schools which have not, have greater expectations in terms of reducing congestion and improving the children’s road safety skills and mental alertness. For the schools where walking buses have been set up the results are fairly consistent with the success of the walking buses in achieving the objectives set for them, as shown in Table 11. (These were asked in an unstructured form, and asked prior to the suggestions of possible impacts shown in Table 12). Table 12 Perceived impacts of walking buses from the postal survey

Schools which have set up walking buses (%)

Schools which have not set up walking buses (%)

Yes No Do not

know

Total Yes No Do not

know

Total

Give children more exercise 100 0 0 100 94 5 2 100 Improve children’s road safety skills

82 9 9 100 90 4 6 100

Reduce car use to school 82 14 5 100 86 9 5 100 Increase social interaction between the children

77 5 18 100 65 13 22 100

Reduce congestion at the school entrance

73 27 0 100 84 10 6 100

Increase social interaction between the parents

59 14 27 100 54 19 27 100

Make the children more mentally alert

27 0 73 100 52 8 40 100

Source: The postal survey Note: This table is based on 22 responses from schools which have set up walking buses and 191 which have not. 4.2 The initial objectives for the walking buses in the case study schools Both head teachers and co-ordinators were asked about the initial objectives for the walking buses. Not surprisingly, there was a high degree of consistency both across the two groups and between them. Most of the head teachers saw a walking bus as a way of tackling traffic and parking problems outside their school. The need to address complaints by local residents was a large part of this, although it was also acknowledged that safety was an issue. The congestion caused by parents or other carers bringing children to school each morning was seen as something that could be improved by getting more children to walk to school. This objective was usually the first one mentioned by both head teachers and co-ordinators. A second objective was to get more children to walk to school. For co-ordinators this was often a prime motivation for their involvement in the walking bus, whereas for head teachers it was a positive by-product of the first objective. Having said this both

29

groups also mentioned the positive effects of exercise on children and some specifically claimed that children who walked to school were more mentally alert and ‘ready to learn’ than those who were driven. So a further objective of walking buses might be seen as improving the health, fitness and mental alertness of children by altering the way they travel to school. More minor objectives mentioned involved the possible role walking buses could have in providing an escort for unaccompanied children who arrived at school earlier than the norm. Lastly, and more strategically, starting up a walking bus has been seen as a way of gaining support from HCC for traffic solutions at or around the school. As schools with walking buses are given ‘points’ in the SRS selection exercise, this objective cannot be ignored as insignificant. 4.3 Achieving objectives: stakeholder perceptions An important part of the case study evaluation was to consider how far walking buses had achieved their objectives, as defined by key stakeholders. In this section, the reports of both head teachers and walking bus co-ordinators are examined in terms of their original stated objectives for the walking bus. This sub-section takes this discussion further with reference to data collected from children and parents. In fact, few of the stated objectives were perceived to have been met by the co-ordinator or head teacher. In particular, none of the head teachers reported that the walking bus had reduced congestion or parking around the school. There was some acknowledgement by two of the head teachers that it would take more than one walking bus to produce a noticeable effect. However, there was an expectation that a walking bus would have more of an immediate effect and this had not been achieved. Co-ordinators reported that most of the children who regularly used the walking bus walked beforehand. Thus it was unlikely that the walking bus had made much of an impact on car journeys to school. Although none of the walking buses included in the case study evaluation were comprised entirely of children who walked all the time, co-ordinators did not believe that the existence of the walking bus had produced a significant modal shift. Despite this assertion by both head teachers and co-ordinators, most saw the walking bus as having a positive effect on activity levels and health of the children involved. Head teachers in particular had some belief that the children on the walking bus arrived at the school in a better mental state than those who were driven to school and co-ordinators also made the same point. However, it should be noted that this is an assertion that is not backed up by further analysis. In terms of other possible objectives, the walking bus was also perceived not to have met expectations. The walking bus had made no difference to those children who were bought to school early, nor unaccompanied. Neither had it had any effect in the short term on road safety issues although in some schools these were being addressed as part of SRS. Regardless of its failure to meet specific objectives both co-ordinators and head teachers were very positive about the initiative. Walking buses were seen to be a ‘good thing’ all round as walking was good for both the children and the parents and

30

the existence of a walking bus demonstrated the school’s commitment towards healthy lifestyles. As will be seen in the next section, this perception is of immense importance, regardless of whether it can be proved. 4.4 Modal shift: reducing car use Whilst the previous discussion of objectives was based primarily on perception or judgement, this section looks at the information provided by children and parents on previous and current travel mode to school. This focuses on the contribution of the walking buses to modal shift. Modal shift is looked at in a number of ways:

• Numbers of children using the walking bus who previously walked • Numbers of families (that is, cars) using the walking bus whose mode of

transport was the car • Number of car journeys likely to be affected by switching to walking bus use.

4.4.1 The schools in the postal survey One of the key objectives of setting up a walking bus is to reduce car use to school. This desire may manifest itself in various ways, such as reducing congestion at the school entrance, or giving the children more exercise. Such factors dominate the objectives cited in the postal survey, shown in Table 11. Table 13 shows the number and percentage of children using the walking bus who used to travel by car for eleven of the walking buses in the postal survey. This shows an average of 62% of the children using the walking bus used to travel by car, with a range from 31% to 100%. It should be recognised that these are estimates by the co-ordinators and that the children who used to travel by car might not have done so every day. Indeed, some of them could still travel by car if they were dropped off at the starting point of the walking bus. It does seem that setting up a walking bus can attract children out of their cars, although it should be acknowledged that 107 children are a small proportion of all the children in Hertfordshire who travel to school by car.

31

Table 13 Estimated shift from the car in the schools with active walking buses (where information was provided) Walking bus Number of children

registered Number of children who used to travel

by car

Percentage of children who used

to travel by car Beech Hyde 12 7 58 High Wych C of E Primary

5 2 40

Layston 15 7 47 Mandeville WB 2 5 3 60 Millfield First and Primary

13 4 31

Newberries WB 1 13 6 46 Newberries WB 2 14 7 50 Richard Whittington 28 9 32 St Helen’s 18 18 100 St John’s VA C of E Primary

41 39 95

Templewood 8 5 63 Total (for schools providing data)

172 107 62

Source: The postal survey 4.4.2 Modal shift in the case study schools: children Interview data from both children and parents have been used to ascertain how many of the children registered to use the walking bus were previously driven to school. However, an analysis of the responses of both children and parents reveals a number of issues that make it difficult to provide accurate data on modal shift. First, the previous mode of transport to school is often a mixture of both car journeys and walking for many children. The way in which some children in the sample travel to school changes from day-to-day. Bad weather, the need to transport musical instruments or other heavy equipment, recovery from illness are all ‘child’ related factors, but on top of these, parents’ working hours and days, and other commitments, may also make the car necessary on one day and not on another. In the interviews with both children and parents this has had to be recorded as a ‘mixture’ as respondents were not able to place themselves firmly in one category or another. Secondly, children do not necessarily use the walking bus on all the days it operates. Some children only use the walking bus on one day of the week and if these children are driven to school on all other days, then the impact on modal usage is significantly reduced. That being said it is still useful to look at modal shift as an indicator of the potential impact of a walking bus. Table 14 below how many children using each of the walking buses previously came to school by car, walking or a mixture of the two. As can be seen the majority of children using the walking buses walked to school previously. Out of the 73 children still using the walking bus 35 were walking regularly previously. However, according to these figures 17 children had switched

32

from using the car to walking, and a further 14 who used a mixture of walking and the car were now walking. This suggests a reasonable level of modal shift across the five walking buses. Looking at each of the walking buses in turn suggests that, in most cases, one or two children on each walking bus switched from being driven to school. This figure is higher if children who sometimes used the car are included. The walking bus at Layston indicates a higher number of children switching from car use to walking. Table 14 Modal shift of pupils by walking bus

Method of travel before walking bus School No

information Car Mixture Walk Total

Hillshott 3 2 4 3 12 Layston 0 10 4 4 18 Lordship 1 2 2 13 18 Mandeville 2 2 2 8 14 Millfield 1 1 2 7 11 Total 7 17 14 35 73 Source: The case study surveys Ideally, estimates of modal shift need to take into account how many days children were using the walking bus. This can be compared either with their previous mode of transport, or with their mode of transport on the days that the walking bus was not used. Table 15 shows modal shift by the number of days the walking bus was used. As can be seen the number of children using the walking bus every day remained high (and is higher still if Mandeville which only operated for 3 days is taken into account). Of the 31 children who reported using the walking bus every day, 18 were already walking. The respective figure for the car as the prior mode of transport is 6, whilst 5 children who used a mixture of walking and the car switched to using the walking bus every day. Table 15 Modal shift of pupils: number of days on walking bus by prior

mode of travel

Method of travel before walking bus Number of days on walking bus

No information

Car Mixture Walk Total

No information 0 3 1 0 41 1 3 3 2 92 0 0 3 4 73 2 4 1 8 154 2 1 1 3 75 2 6 5 18 31

Total 7 17 14 35 73 Source: The case study surveys Another way of looking at the real extent of modal shift is to look at the way children travel to school on the days they did not use the walking bus. Table 16 provides a similar table but shows how children travel to school on the days they do not use the

33

walking bus. Information is not provided for those children who use the walking bus every day. Table 16 Modal shift of pupils: travel on days that the walking bus is not

used

Mode of transport on non-walking bus days Number of days walking bus is used

Car Mixture of car or walk

Walk Total

1 4 3 2 92 0 5 2 73 3 0 12 154 2 1 4 75 n/a n/a n/a 31

No information 4 0 0 4Total 13 9 20 73 Source: The case study surveys The figures above suggest that whilst about half of the children also walked on non-walking bus days, the same number are driven at least some of the time. So although the walking bus may have resulted in a partial modal shift it should not be assumed that children who used the walking bus and who were previously taken to school by car, then always walked. As can be seen, a number of children only used the walking bus on one day a week and were often taken to school by car on the other four days. 4.4.3 Modal shift in the case study schools: families A second way of looking at modal shift is to look, not at the number of children using the walking bus, but at the number of families. This information provides a more accurate picture of the impact the walking bus has had on the number of car journeys made to the school. Although this assumes that the children are driven by a family member and not by another adult who is still doing so, the interview data with parents suggests that, for these parents at least, this is the case. Again, it is useful to first look at this by comparing previous mode of transport for the different walking buses. Table 17 provides a summary of this information. Whilst the figures on children indicated that 17 children across the five walking buses had changed from using the car to walking, family data indicates that this represents 14 families, with 11 families using a mixture of walking and car and 25 families making no change.

34

Table 17 Modal shift of families by walking bus

Method of travel before using the walking bus School

No information

Car Mixture Walk

Total

Hillshott 1 2 4 3 10 Layston 0 7 4 4 15 Lordship 1 2 0 8 11 Mandeville 0 2 2 4 8 Millfield 1 1 1 6 9 Total 3 14 11 25 53 Source: The case study surveys Table 18 provides a summary of how many days a week each family used the walking bus. As shown above, 14 families switched from using the car to using the walking bus, but only 6 of these use the walking bus every day and one family (representing 3 children) only used the walking bus for one day. By contrast, 13 families who walked previously used the walking bus every day. As Mandeville ran a walking bus only three days a week, this figure is higher as all the Mandeville families who walked to school previously, walked on the days the walking bus was not running. Table 18 Modal shift of families: number of days on the walking bus by prior mode of travel

Method of travel before walking bus Number of days walking bus used

No information

Car Mixture Walk

Total

No information 0 3 1 2 61 1 1 2 1 52 0 0 2 1 33 0 3 1 5 94 0 1 1 3 55 2 6 4 13 25

Total 3 14 11 25 53 Source: The case study surveys Table 19 shows how families travel to school on the days they do not use the walking bus. This provides similar information to the information in Table 14 and demonstrates that whilst many of the ‘walkers’ continued to walk even on non-walking bus days, another group used the car or a mixture. It is not surprising to learn that for the most part, families and children who were driven to school previously, usually travelled by car on the days that they did not go on the walking bus. It appears that some ‘walkers’ opted not to use the walking bus every day. Some of the reasons for this were to retain some flexibility for parents, to gain time with their own child or because they had another child that needed to be escorted somewhere on that day.

35

Table 19 Modal shift of families: travel on non-walking bus days

Mode of travel on non walking bus days Number of days walking bus is used

Car Mixture Walk Total

No information 4 0 0 41 2 3 2 72 0 2 2 43 2 0 6 84 2 1 2 55 n/a n/a n/a 25

Total 10 6 12 53 Source: The case study surveys 4.4.4 Modal shift and car use in the case study schools A third area relating to modal shift is the actual reduction in car use. Although there were families who used the walking bus instead of driving to school, this does not necessarily mean that there was an overall reduction in actual car use. For some parents it merely changed the nature of the journey from one to the school to one to the walking bus stop, often on the way to work. Others might have walked to the walking bus stop and then go back and collect their cars. Table 20 shows how car use was affected. Table 20 The impact of walking buses on car use

Whether the car was still used for a journey. Travel mode before using walking bus Car used

every day Mixture Car not used Total

Car 11 1 0 12 Mixture 0 10 0 10 Walk 0 0 16 16 Total 11 11 16 38 Source: The case study surveys It can be seen that for those families who used the car before the walking bus, in general, using the walking bus changed only the nature of the journey, not the level of car use. Of the 11 families who used the car every day, many reported that they changed to driving the car to the walking bus stop. Not surprisingly, all but one of these parents was employed and the journey being made was to get to work. The situation is similar for those parents reporting a mixture of car use and walking to school. About half of these parents were employed part-time and the car tended to be used on those days when they needed to go on to work. Other parents not employed often had other commitments, for example, taking younger children to nursery or playgroups, which meant that they still used the car on those days. Overall, even where the walking bus has had an impact on the way the child travels to school and thus the number of cars around the vicinity of the school, the actual impact on car use may be negligible.

36

Parents were also asked whether the journey was made especially to get to school. As can be seen in Table 21, the results of this are broadly in line with the analysis above. Of the 12 parents who took the children to school by car, only 3 reported that this was mainly to get the children to school, for the other 9 parents it was part of a journey, usually to work or another school. All the walk journeys, as might be expected, were made solely to get the child to school. Parents who previously used a mixture of using the car or walking show the most variation, possibly because their needs changed from one day to another. Table 21 The main purpose of the car journey Travel before using walking bus

Mainly to get to school

Sometimes Rarely just to get to school

Total

Car 3 0 9 12 Mixture 4 5 1 10 Walk 16 0 0 16 Source: The case study surveys 4.4.5 Changes in the distances travelled

For 64 of the children, who live in 47 families, as shown in Table 22, it is possible to calculate how far they travelled to school when using the walking bus and to compare this with the distance travelled before using the walking bus. The number of children being considered here is small, but it gives an indication of the potential for walking buses to increase physical activity. Table 22 Number of participants on each walking bus included in distance calculations

Families Children Hillshott 10 12 Layston 15 18 Lordship 8 14 Mandeville 5 9 Millfield 9 11 Total 47 64

As Table 23 shows, on average the children walk an extra 513 metres a day each when using the walking bus. From the figures in Table 9, it is possible to calculate the average speed the children walk at on the walking bus, which is 4.2 km/hour or 70.6 metres/minute. Assuming all the walking is at this speed, this implies that the children are receiving an extra 7.3 minutes of physical activity a day on average or 36 minutes each week. This is not a huge amount, but given that they have to travel to school anyway, this suggests that walking buses can provide a useful opportunity for extra exercise. This is in addition to the other benefits that will be discussed in Section 5. It may be noted that there is wide variation across the five schools, from Layston with an extra 1,011 metres a day on average to Millfield with an increase of only 75 metres on average. As shown in Table 14, Layston was the school with the greatest number of children switching from car to walk on taking up the walking bus. Millfield had the

37

smallest proportion of children switching from car. Part of the reason that the figure is low for Mandeville is that it operates on only three days a week. Table 23 Average distance (in metres) walked to school each day by each child before and after the introduction of the walking bus

Before After Distance walked

Distance walked on days the

walking bus was used

averaged over the week

Distance walked on days

that the walking bus was not used

averaged over the week

Total distance walked

Difference between after and

before

Hillshott 508 1,082 134 1,216 708Layston 356 1,248 119 1,367 1,011Lordship 776 957 148 1,105 329Mandeville 997 616 465 1,081 84Millfield 630 700 5 705 75Total 614 970 157 1,127 513

It is interesting to distinguish between the extra physical activity by those who formerly travelled by car and those who formerly walked. Table 24 shows the change in the average distance walked each day disaggregated by the mode of travel used previously, across all five schools because the numbers at the individual schools are small. Table 24 Average distance (in metres) walked to school each day by each child before and after the introduction of the walking bus disaggregated by the mode of travel used previously

Before After Mode of travel used previously

Distance walked

Distance walked on days the

walking bus was used

averaged over the week

Distance walked on days

that the walking bus was not used

averaged over the week

Total distance walked

Difference between after and

before

Walk 950 839 129 968 19Mixture 567 494 382 876 309Car 0 1,445 105 1,549 1,549Total 614 970 157 1,127 513

It can be seen that that the children who walked previously were only walking an extra 19 metres a day on average, but those who regularly travelled by car previously were walking an average of 1,549 metres each day, which is considerably further than the average total distance of 968 metres walked by children who walked previously. It may be the case that some of them lived further from the school than those who previously walked which is why they were previously brought by car. At an average speed of 4.2 km/hour a walk of 1,549 metres implies an extra 22 minutes of physical

38

activity each day. This is consistent with a rather longer walk than the time that the walking buses take, as shown in Table 9. It is 110 minutes of walking each week. This is very close to the recommended standard of 2 hours a week of physical education (PE) and games lessons. It has been shown elsewhere in the research project of which this work is part (Mackett et al, 2005), that walking uses more calories per minute than all other activities that children do, other than PE and games lessons and ball games. This all suggests that there is a significant physical activity benefit for a child who switches to using a walking bus to go to school rather than travelling by car. As a result of using the walking bus there is a reduction in the distance travelled by car, as shown in Table 25. The reduction is 408 metres a day by each child on average, with Layston showing the largest decrease because it has the greatest reduction in car use. Table 25 Average distance travelled to school by car each day by each child before and after the introduction of the walking bus by children providing such data (in metres)

Before After Difference between after and before

Hillshott 601 107 -494Layston 1,382 564 -818Lordship 405 85 -320Mandeville 134 51 -83Millfield 69 53 -16Total 621 213 -408

As implied by Table 22, some of the children using the walking bus are siblings and so travel to school together. This means that the total reduction in the distance that the cars travelled is less than that implied by the figures shown in Table 25. Table 26 shows the reduction in the distance travelled to school by cars as a result of the use of the walking bus. Table 26 Total distance (in metres) travelled to school by cars each day before and after the introduction of the walking bus by children

Before After Difference between after and before

Hillshott 7,216 1,281 -5,935Layston 20,484 6,952 -13,532Lordship 4,489 237 -4,252Mandeville 924 228 -696Millfield 763 584 -179Total 33,876 9,281 -24,594Average per school 6,775 1,856 -4,919

As Table 26 shows, this implies that the cars previously taking the 64 children from the 47 families travelled nearly 25 km less each day between them each day. However, it is possible that some of the car journeys to school made previously were part of a longer trip, such as commuting to work which would still be made even if the

39

child used the walking bus. Table 27 shows the frequency that each mode of travel was used previously especially to take the child to school. Table 27 Frequency that the previous mode of travel was used especially to take the child to school

Frequency that the previous mode of travel was used especially to take the child to school

Mode of travel used previously Rarely Sometimes Mainly Total Walk 0 3 16 19 Mixture 1 1 2 4 Car 7 1 3 11 Total 8 5 21 34

Table 27 shows that for seven out of the eleven former car users, the car was rarely used solely to take the child to school: usually the journey to school was part of a longer trip; hence, even though the child was using the walking bus, the car was still be used, so there was unlikely to be a significant reduction in car use for that overall trip (It is even conceivable that there could be an increase in car use if the parent had to drive further to take the child to the walking bus than he or she did to go straight to school, but this is likely to be rare). By contrast, it can be seen that the parents who previously walked with their child were usually making the trip especially for that purpose. This suggests that the reduction in the distance that cars travel as a result of the introduction of a walking bus is likely to be considerably less than the 25 km overall shown in Table 26. It is recognised that the numbers of children being considered here are small, but the results seem intuitively to be about right. The main conclusions that can be drawn are that a walking bus can provide a very useful volume of physical activity for a child who previously travelled by car, but that there is likely to be a very small reduction in car use in terms of total distance travelled. (There may however be a reduction in congestion at the school entrance). There does not seem to much benefit in physical activity terms for children who were walking previously, but there are other benefits, as will be shown later in Section 5 and they may help to make the walking bus viable so that the former car users can use it. 4.4.6 Overview There is some evidence on car use by those using the walking bus from the interviews about the five walking buses. Table 14 showed the mode used before they started using the walking bus by the 73 children interviewed. It also showed the mode used on days when the walking bus is not used. This suggests that about 26% (17 out of 66 for whom information is available) of the children previously used the car every day. If those using a mixture of car and walk are counted as 0.5 this increases to 36% (24 out of 66). This is lower than the figure of 62% in Table 13. However, if the three schools in both surveys are examined, and the children who previously used a mix of walk and car are counted as 0.5, the mean from the postal survey is 42.4% (14 children out of 33) and the mean from the interviews is 42.5% (17 out of 40). (One of the four schools that was interviewed and responded to the postal survey, did not

40

answer this question in the latter survey, so the comparison here is based on three schools). The surveys were done at different times, which explains the difference between the total numbers. This comparison suggests that the differences between the two data collection exercises reflects the different sets of schools covered rather that a difference arising from the methods used. This partly arises from the small numbers providing this information, namely 172 children in this part of the postal survey and 66 in the interviews. It is recognised that these are small numbers, but walking buses are small-scale initiatives, and it is unusual to obtain data about the dynamics of modal shift from any sector of the population, let alone for young children. As shown in Table 16, quite a few children do not use the walking bus every day, and some use car on other days. This means that even if a child has switched from car to using the walking bus, he or she may not be making five fewer car trips to school each week. (It is worth noting that most walking buses only operate in the morning. This is usually because of the variation in the times that children leave school because of after-school activities). Because of the relatively small numbers involved, and because some children did not previously go to school by car on five days a week, and because some do not use the walking bus every day, it is difficult to reach a firm estimate of the reduction in the number of car trips to school by children. (It is worth bearing in mind that the figures presented here are based on a survey of the whole of Hertfordshire, which is wider than many other travel surveys. Potentially, every child on a walking bus in the county was covered and the response rate in the postal survey was well over 50%, which is very high for this type of survey sent out ‘cold’). Given these caveats, the reduction in the number of children travelling by car seems to be about 50% of the number of children on the walking bus. As discussed in Section 3.1, a walking bus typically has 10 children using it and at January 2003 there were 26 active walking buses in Hertfordshire. Putting these figures together suggests that there are about 130 children on walking buses rather than using the car each day in Hertfordshire. This is not a huge reduction in the number of car trips in a county with a population of just over one million. Just because a child has switched from using the car to going by walking bus, it does not mean that the car is not being used for a trip. For example, if a parent previously dropped a child off outside the school on the way to work and now drops the child off at the beginning of the walking bus, then there will not be a significant reduction in the number of cars on the road, but there could be a reduction in the amount of parking near the school entrance, which would be a small benefit on road safety grounds. The figures from the five case study interviews, shown in Table 20, confirm that the cars used to bring the children to school previously are still being used for a trip at about the same time. It seems likely that the car is being used to go to work by a parent even though the child is using the walking bus. In other words, even though the child has started using the walking bus, there is not a reduction in the number of car trips. This is confirmed by the figures in Table 27 in which it was shown that, for the majority of those who formerly travelled by car, rarely was the car used solely to take the child to school: usually it was part of a longer trip, probably by a parent on the way to work. More generally, in the questionnaire surveys undertaken in another part of this project (Mackett et al, 2002), it was found that 28% of the trips to school by car were made solely to take a child to school. The rest were made in the course of

41

trips to other destinations, mainly workplaces. This confirms the limited scope for walking buses to reduce the number of cars on the road. However, whilst the actual numbers may not be high this does not mean that walking buses do not have any impact on travel to school. Although it is common for only one or two families to have switched from driving to walking, this still represents a change in travel mode for these families. There was an acceptance from the head teachers that one walking bus could not be expected to make a significant direct contribution to congestion around the school Moreover, a number of parents reported that using the walking bus had made them more rigorous about walking to school. Whereas once they might have used the car a number of times a week, now they were more likely to walk every day, regardless of weather or other constraints, though it should be noted that this is sometimes given as a reason why parents stopped using the walking bus. It was also suggested that using the walking bus one or two days a week was a way of building up to either a higher usage or walking to school regularly, although there is no evidence to suggest that this occurs. More indirectly, this evaluation exercise has not looked at whether the walking bus contributed to a change in travel mode across the school. It is possible that walking buses help to raise awareness of the benefits of walking to school. Children not on the walking bus may be influenced by measures such as these, which encourage walking. The evaluation did not look at this potential wider impact. To sum up, the measurable benefits that come out of this analysis are that about half the trips on walking buses were previously made by car, and that, on average, each child who previously travelled by car who switched to walking, walked for 22 minutes on the walking bus each time it was used. For a child that uses the walking bus every day, this is nearly two hours of extra physical activity a week. Putting these two concepts together, suggests that walking buses can make a significant contribution to children’s volumes of physical activity. 5 BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES: A STAKEHOLDER

PERSPECTIVE As shown in Section 4 above, modal shift, as a direct result of walking buses, is not very high. Nevertheless it would be wrong to dismiss the walking bus initiative as being without benefits to schools, parents and children – even if these benefits are a matter of perception. This section looks more broadly at the benefits to these groups outside the more narrowly defined objectives. In the first sub-section the views of co-ordinators and head teachers are considered. The second section looks at the views of parents and the children including those who have left the walking bus. A third section looks at disadvantages of walking buses, as reported by those interviewed. As some participants (children or parents) were previous users of the walking bus, where possible, the discussion distinguishes between the responses made by those who had left the walking bus and those who had remained on it at the time of the interview. The issue of time saving and loss is treated separately in Section 5.4.

42

5.1 Head teachers and co-ordinators As shown in Section 4 above, most of the stated objectives of walking buses were not seen as being realised by either head teachers or co-ordinators. Despite this, both these groups were broadly supportive and positive about walking buses and saw them as having a number of positive attributes. First and foremost, walking buses are seen as a public statement of the benefits of walking. Regardless of whether the children on such walking buses actually changed the travel mode to school, this sends out important messages to others around the school. For head teachers walking buses can be conceived as part of a larger strategy to try to change the ‘car culture’ which results in so many children being driven to school. Walking buses are seen as a positive step in addressing both parking and health issues throughout the school even where it is acknowledged that the contribution of a single walking bus may be small. The evaluation did not attempt to measure these wider benefits so it is not possible to comment on how far walking buses, as part of a package of measures, may have such outcomes. For some of the head teachers the walking bus was also a way of reassuring residents living near the school that their concerns were taken seriously. The tension between local residents and schools over parking and congestion is detrimental to good relationships in the community. A walking bus is a positive statement of the school’s policy towards walking and driving. Some of the head teachers were of the opinion that this was a major benefit of having a walking bus at the school although it was not possible to comment on whether community relationships had improved as a result. Co-ordinators also felt that the walking bus was important for a number of other reasons. First, they bring together groups of children who may not ordinarily mix. Younger and older children learn to co-operate and socialise in a supervised setting. The social aspects of a walking bus were mentioned by virtually all co-ordinators. A number also felt that the interaction between children and adults who were not their parents or teachers was important. Second, walking buses make road safety issues explicit in a way that is not necessarily the case when children walk with parents. Co-ordinators reported that learning about road safety was an important by-product of being on a walking bus. Third, walking buses impose a level of discipline on children in terms of the time they leave home and the means by which they travel to school. Neither head teachers nor co-ordinators thought that there were many, if any, disadvantages to walking buses. However, it should be noted that a number of schools reported that they had thought the walking bus would place more of a burden on the school whereas in fact, once up and running, school involvement was actually minimal. As one of the conclusions arising from this report is that schools need to take more responsibility for walking buses, this finding should be treated with some reservation. 5.2 Benefits as perceived by parents and children This section discusses the benefits as reported by parents and children interviewed. In the discussion and parents a distinction is made between:

• benefits or ‘likes’ as reported by children

43

• benefits for children as reported by parents • benefits for parents as reported by parents

Children were asked what they liked about the walking bus. Parents were asked to look at benefits from two viewpoints, those for their children and any they themselves gained. Both children and parents still using the walking bus, and those who had left, are included in this analysis. The comments made by both children and parents varied but could be seen to fall within general categories. Table 28 provides a summary of the number of times different types of comments were made by children and parents across the five walking buses. Figures in brackets are given to distinguish parents and children who no longer use the walking bus. As can be seen, the most reported benefit for children, as reported by parents and children, was a social one. Parents reporting this benefit often voiced it in terms of the benefit of being with other children. In particular, walking buses can provide a setting where children who would not normally mix, are put together. Younger children walk alongside older children and children in different classes become friends. For some parents the social aspects of the walking bus were paramount and in one or two cases explained why they went out of their way to ensure that there child used the walking bus. However, some parents also thought that it was beneficial for their children to mix with other adults. Children reported social benefits in a similar way. Many children liked the walking bus simply because they liked to walk with friends, older or younger children and other adults. The social aspects of a walking bus, though difficult to quantify, are easily the most reported benefit by both parents and children. However, social benefits were not seen as extending to parents themselves and only two parents using walking buses reported that they benefited from the social aspects themselves.

44

Table 28 Summary table to show reported benefits as perceived by children and parents

Benefits For children For children For parents As perceived By parents By children By parents Social aspects - mixing with adults and children of other ages

33 (including 5 who had left)

61 (including 13 who had left)

2

Exercise and fresh air 20 10 (including 1 who had left)

7 (including 2 who had left)

Enjoyment of walking - 19 (including 1 who had left)

-

Settle more quickly at school and alertness

10 - -

Supervised independence from parent

11(including 2 who had left)

3

Road safety and good walking habits

7 (including 1 who had left)

2 (including 1 who had left)

-

Discipline 2 - - None 6 (including 4

who had left) 12 (including 5 who had left)

14 (including 3 who had left)

Pollution - 1 - Fall back option or childcare

- - 9

Source: The case study surveys Both parents and children reported that it was good for them to walk. More parents than children reported this, although it was also an area where parents felt that they themselves could benefit. It should be pointed out though that this benefit was reported irrespective of previous mode of travel to school. Parents and children who already walked every day are amongst those who saw exercise and fresh air as a benefit of walking buses. However, if parents reported walking as a benefit because of exercise and fresh air, children often vocalised this in more simple terms and many (19) just said that the ‘liked walking’, or in some cases, they ‘didn’t like going in the car’. Although, as argued earlier, it is difficult to demonstrate any benefits in terms of health or mental alertness, a number of parents clearly see these as benefits of walking buses. A number (10) mentioned that they believed walking to school helped their child settle better into class and that driving them to school meant that they still had ‘too much energy’. However, as above, parents of children who were already walking to school often make these comments. They are reported as benefits for walking buses, but are in fact benefits their children were already accruing prior to the start of the walking bus. Parents also saw the walking bus as a means by which children could gain independence, yet still be supervised. For some this was a step towards walking to school themselves whereas for others it was more about confidence building or

45

building up road safety skills. One parent had started her children on the walking bus specifically because of the role she felt it played in teaching road safety skills, whereas another felt that the adult volunteers were better at teaching road safety skills because they were in a disciplined setting. Overall, social aspects are by far the most reported benefits of walking buses, as seen by parents and children. Benefits to do with walking, getting exercise and fresh air are also seen as important – perhaps more by parents than children. Less mentioned were road safety benefits, environmental benefits and independence. Interestingly very few parents could see benefits for themselves (although time saving is considered elsewhere). The most reported benefit in this regard was as a childcare option or fallback. Table 29 illustrates some typical comments from children regarding what they liked about the walking buses, whilst Table 30 presents this information from a parental perspective. Table 29 Comments made by children about what they liked about the

walking bus6

Social Aspects • You get to see friends on the walking bus. I have lots of friends on the walking bus

• (You) get to wear the yellow and silver jackets and get to be with your friends.

• They let us walk slowly and have a play • (You) get partners and don’t have to walk on your own

Exercise and energy

• It gives you more energy and you get to talk to your friends. • We sing songs on the way. Sometimes I get leg ache but this is

good. • When you walk on the walking bus you get lots of fresh air

and energy Like walking • I like it ’cause I can walk, more than going in the car. (I) like

walking and holding hands with Lindsey (adult volunteer) • It’s nice to walk if you’re not tired

Safety and pollution

• It’s good for the environment because the air is not so polluted • (Its) safer because (we’re) walking in a group

Source: The case study surveys

6 These comments are illustrative. Whilst comments that were complete have been selected, editing has been undertaken so they make sense to the reader. This editing occurs in brackets.

46

Table 30 Comments made by parents about the benefits for their children of the walking bus7

Social Aspects • (My) younger child really liked the walking bus - all her friends used it

• (Its) nice to help others Exercise and energy

• (It) gets them fitter. Now they don't complain about walking; they did to begin with

Settle more quickly at school and alertness

• (My) son is like a playful puppy - he has bags of energy and finds it difficult to sit still at school

• He's not stuck in the car and it wakes him up • (My) eldest daughter uses up surplus energy walking to

school. (It’s) good for them to be out in the fresh air, good for their fitness. (It) helps them prepare for the school day.

• Walking gives him a burst of exercise - then (he’s) more likely to concentrate at school

Supervised independence from parent

• (My) child is quite clingy and this helps give him some independence.

• A bit of independence especially when they go on their own Safety • feeling that she was safer - the traffic is stopped for them and

they learn about road skills • (It) teaches (them) about road skills and crossing the road • Peace of mind that (my) daughter is supervised. She is too

young to walk on her own Source: The case study surveys 5.3 Negative aspects of the walking bus as perceived by parents and children Children and parents were also asked about their ‘dislikes’ (for children) or the disadvantages (for parents) of the walking bus. These more negative comments are recorded in this section, apart from those about time losses which are treated separately in Section 5.4. Table 31 provides a summary of these comments by children and parents. In looking at these comments two points should be considered. Firstly, many of those interviewed – parents and children – could not think of any dislikes or disadvantages of the walking bus. Secondly, reported disadvantages were often the downside of reported advantages and were sometimes made by the same parents or children. Both parents and children reported social aspects as a disadvantage of walking buses. If walking with other children can be seen as an advantage, it can also become a disadvantage. Sometimes the social experience of a walking bus is not a good one. Some children mentioned being worried about other children on the walking bus, being bullied or teased by these children, having to walk with a child they did not like or not being able to walk with the one that they did like. Parents made similar comments. It is fair to say that many of the children who mentioned social aspects as a bad thing about walking buses were the same as those who mentioned it as a good 7 These comments are illustrative. Whilst comments that were complete have been selected, editing has been undertaken so they make sense to the reader. This editing occurs in brackets.

47

thing. There are, however, a small number of children for whom being on the walking bus was only perceived as a negative social experience. Table 31 Summary table to show negative aspects as perceived by the

children and parents Negative aspects For children For children For parents As perceived By parents By children By parents Social aspects 10 (including 3

who had left the walking bus)

15 (including 4 who had left the

walking bus)

-

Embarrassment 7 (including 4 who had left the

walking bus)

7 (including1 who had left the

walking bus)

-

Loss of contact between child and parent

7 (including 3 who had left the

walking bus)

2 (including 1 who had left the

walking bus)

5 (including 2 who had left the

walking bus) Do not like walking - 10 (including 1

who had left the walking bus)

-

Poor weather 8 (including 1 who had left the

walking bus)

8 (including 2 who had left the

walking bus)

1

Lack of exercise - - 1 Commitment to be there and on time or loss of flexibility

4 (including 1 who had left the

walking bus)

- 22 (including 9 who had left the

walking bus) Formality of walking bus

- 7 -

Carrying bags to school 2 - - Dog mess - 1 - None or no comment 17 (including 1

who had left the walking bus)

47 (including 12 who had left the

walking bus)

21 (including 1 who had left the

walking bus) Source: The case study surveys There are a number of disadvantages of walking buses that are closely allied to these social aspects. First a number of children, often the older children on the walking bus, reported that they did not like being on the walking bus because they were teased or felt embarrassment. Loss of ‘credibility’, particularly amongst the older children was often given as a reason why children left the walking bus and some still on it complained that other children made fun of them for being on the walking bus. Alongside the loss of ‘credibility’ were also comments about the jackets children have to wear. Whilst jackets were also mentioned as a positive thing, for some children it is a negative one. Parents often reaffirmed these comments and embarrassment was the reason for a number of children stopping using the walking bus (although only one such child reported this). For both parents and children, participating on the walking bus also reduced individual time spent by a child with their parent. Whilst many did not mention this as

48

a disadvantage some children did not like walking to school without their parent and resent the loss of contact. A number of parents felt the same way or appreciated that their children did so. However, parents who reported ‘increased independence’ as an advantage could also report ‘loss of parental time’ as a disadvantage. There are also children who did not like being on the walking bus because they did not like walking. Often this is reported as ‘being too tired’ to walk. Although this group was not large it was apparent that some children found the walking bus rather a trial. Often these children were used to being driven to school although this could have been because they lived further away or were younger than some of the others. Looking at the disadvantages parents see for themselves, it is apparent that loss of flexibility it by far the most reported. Many parents reported that they found it difficult or stressful to have to be ‘at the stop’ by a certain time (usually earlier) and that this created difficulties for them. Others found having to walk every day (or even on set days) meant that they had less flexibility to decide how to travel to school (or what time to leave). This issue is revisited in the section below on time saving and losses. Table 32 illustrates some typical comments from children regarding what they disliked about walking buses whilst Table 33 presents this information from a parental perspective. Table 32 Comments made by children about what they disliked about the

walking bus8

Social aspects • The boys are horrible and step on the back of your shoes. • (I) don’t like being oldest girl on the walking bus. No other

girls from (my) class - would be nicer if Mum was on the walking bus or another girl from (my) class

Poor weather • don't like it if it’s raining and snowing at the same time or really pouring with rain as (we) get wet

• (I) don't like walking as my hands freeze Do not like walking

• get bored walking • don’t like having to walk 4 days a week…would prefer to go

by car because its quite a long walk • (I) don't like walking, would like to come in the car, walking

makes (my) legs ache Embarrassment • (I’m) fed up with wearing jacket. People are staring at me.

They might be safe but (I) don’t like them • (I) think everybody is looking at them-both adults and

children. Formality of walking bus

• don’t like walking at the front or back of the walking bus • (It) sometimes goes too fast and (I) get a stitch. • (I) don't like walking in twos and following the others.

Sometimes they are slow and you bump into them Source: The case study surveys 8 These comments are illustrative. Whilst comments that were complete have been selected, editing has been undertaken so they make sense to the reader. This editing occurs in brackets.

49

Table 33 Comments made by parents about the negative aspects of the walking bus9

Social aspects • Some of (my) daughter’s friends don't go on walking bus. (She) missed walking with her friends and seeing them in the playground before the bell rings.

• He didn't have a good friend on the walking bus who could be his partner

Commitment to be there and on time or loss of flexibility

• Time factor. We have to be on time or else are letting other people down

Embarrassment • (My) older child gets flack for jackets • (He) didn't enjoy it: not cool enough! Didn't like singing the

songs! Poor weather • Getting wet on rainy days

• Having to walk in the rain Loss of contact between child and parent

• Now I don't chat to him as he's with friends • (He) didn't like leaving me - liked me to take him to school.

Source: The case study surveys It can be seen that many of the good and bad things about walking buses can be extended to walking to school in general. Getting exercise, using energy and it being better to walk than drive are not solely the benefits of walking buses. In a similar vein, concerns about the weather, not liking walking or feeling too tired to walk are not the preserve of the walking bus. 5.4 Time savings and losses As stated above, one of the key areas for assessing the benefits of the walking bus is time. It was more difficult to find out about time saving or loss than was expected. It was often difficult for parents to make judgements about changes in the timing of the journey to school, as it was often incorporated into a multi-purpose trip and could vary from day to day. However, the evaluation has clarified the different ways in which time may be seen to be gained or lost and these findings are reported here. The information is based on the interviews with the 38 parents who were still using the walking bus. Some of the parents who no longer used the walking bus, had used it for such a short time that they were unable to say in detail how much longer the journey had taken or whether they had saved time. However several of them gave the longer time as a reason for leaving the walking bus. There are three ways of looking at time changes:

• Time shifts, for example, taking children to school earlier;

9 These comments are illustrative. Whilst comments that were complete have been selected, editing has been undertaken so they make sense to the reader. This editing occurs in brackets.

50

• Time savings, for example, the time spent taking the child to school was shorter;

• Time loss, for example, the time spent taking the child to school increased. A distinction also needs to be made between the time it took the child to walk to school on the walking bus compared with their previous mode of transport, and the time the parent spent on the school journey with the walking bus in place. These are not necessarily the same, and in fact, if benefits are to be maximised, it is important that they are not. As reported by parents, children ‘lost’ time by using the walking bus regardless of whether they walked or were driven prior to its use. The walking bus generally took longer than the child and parent walking to school by themselves. Therefore, parents of children who previously walked reported that their children took longer getting to school on the walking bus. If time shifts are considered first, then most parents reported that the walking bus has resulted in a time shift. Generally, the walking buses departed from their start point earlier than the parents would normally have left for school. For parents who usually walked this time shift could be about 10 minutes, but for those used the car they could be significantly greater than this. For example, one parent who walked, usually left the house at 8:40 am in order to undertake a 15 minute walk to school. The walking bus departed from its first stop, where her child joined it, at 8:30 am so there was a time shift of 10 minutes. Another parent using the same walking bus but who previously drove the car was used to leaving at about 8:50 am for a five minute journey to the school. With the walking bus, she had to drop her child off at the first stop at 8:30 am. This is a time shift of 20 minutes but the mother did not mind the earlier start as she considered that she had now ‘gained’ 20 minutes. These time shifts are important for understanding why some parents find the walking bus so useful and others quite difficult. Some parents may gain little from being able to drop their children off earlier and in fact often perceive this as making the mornings more stressful. This is elaborated in Section 6 where reasons for leaving the walking bus are discussed. Other parents though may find this ‘extra’ time useful, for example in the example given above the parent was able to go to work earlier and so finish earlier in time to pick her child up from school in the afternoon. On their own, however, time shifts are neither savings nor losses and may be viewed either negatively or positively depending on circumstances. Time savings, that is over a period of a week they were spending less time taking their child to school as a result of the walking bus, were reported by 12 of the 36 parents for whom these data were available. Time losses were reported by 13 parents whilst 11 parents said that they neither gained nor saved time as a result of using the walking bus. These time savings and losses have to be seen within the context of the parent’s situation, including whether or not they acted as a volunteer for the walking bus. The following table provides some summary information about the volunteer status of parents and whether they gained, lost or found no time change. The information summarised in Table 34 is not surprising. A number of volunteers do so every day. Usually these volunteers walked prior to being on the walking bus, but with the walking bus they both left the house earlier and took longer to walk to school. If they did this every day they could not benefit. At best these parents reported that the school journey was not taking them any longer.

51

Table 34 Time savings and losses for 36 parents who were still using the walking bus

Volunteer Status

No change Lose Time Gain Time

Volunteer every day

5 11 0

Have days off volunteering

6 2 3

Not a volunteer

0 0 9

Total 11 13 12 Source: The case study surveys Volunteers that had days off had more chance of gaining time overall although on balance a number of them felt that they were ‘even’. However, this was often viewed positively, that is, they would prefer to spend longer on some days in order to have other days free from the school journey. Two of the volunteers also reported the benefit of having days off although they calculated that they actually spent longer on average than previously. For some of the volunteers, this was a way of fitting other commitments into the busy morning period. Their ‘volunteer days’ were programmed to coincide with days they have no outside commitments whilst their free days might allow them to fulfil other obligations, for example get to work on time or take another child to a playgroup.

6 THE WALKING BUS LIFE CYCLE: CHANGES IN TAKE-UP AND PARTICIPATION

In Sections 4 and 5 the objectives, perceived outcomes and benefits of walking buses were considered. An important part of the case study evaluation exercise was examining the walking bus over a period of time. Most of the issues regarding the lifecycle of a walking bus are raised in later sections of this report where process issues are considered. However, this section presents an initial overview of some of these data as it affects outcomes over time. 6.1 Changes in participation of children With one exception, Lordship, which was the newest walking bus, the numbers of children on a walking bus dropped off over a period of time. As shown in Table 35, the four oldest walking buses all lost more children than they gained although the overall change was not always significant. The two walking buses in Buntingford, Layston and Millfield, lost many of the registered children over the period, with Millfield closing down in December 2002, despite being the largest initially.

52

Table 35 Children: recruitment and drop-off

Spring term 2002

Autumn term 2002

Spring term 2003

Autumn term 2003

Walking bus

Date of

launch

Number at

launch change change change change Hillshott May

2001 15

-8 +7

14 -6 +1

9 -1 +2

10 -5 +3

8

Layston Nov 2001

26 -8 18 -4 14 +1 15

-12 +2

5

Lordship June 2002

16

n/a - -1 +14

29 -6 +4

27 -6 +10

31

Mandeville Sept 2001

15 -1 14 -6 +4

12 -8 +2

6 -1 5

Millfield Nov 2001

29 -14

15 -7 +4

12 -12 0 n/a -

Total 101 61 76 58 49 Source: The case study surveys There are a number of reasons why children leave a walking bus. In the early stages many children (and parents) leave the walking bus because they find it does not ‘fit’ with their schedule or expectations. The kinds of disadvantages seen in Section 5 explain much of the fall off during early periods and often it is the parent who makes the decision to leave the walking bus rather than the child. However, in most cases, where children left the walking bus in the early stages they reverted to their prior mode of transport. For some children this would mean going back to being driven to school. The following provides an overview of the types of reasons mentioned by parents for leaving the walking bus:

• Timing or routine, for example, the walking bus left too early, or arrived at the school too late

• Route, for example, the route was out of their way or made them walk further • Weather, for example, they or their child did not like walking or waiting at the

walking bus stop • Child reasons, for example, their child did not like the walking bus • Inflexibility, for example, they did not like being ‘tied’ to leaving at a certain

time or having to walk on certain days Table 36 provides some illustrations of these reasons.

53

Table 36 Reasons why parents (and children) stopped using the walking bus • (It) took too long, too many prams, they sung silly songs, and we didn’t get to

school early enough. He (her son) likes to play with his friends. • If I went on the walking bus I had to leave home earlier than my son (at another

school) and didn’t know if he had left or taken all his things with him. • Timing. Stressful to have to be there on time. Walking anyway so no benefit to

have to leave the house earlier. • (Older child) did not want to go on it ...got teased about the yellow jacket. • Had to go out of our way to get to the stop, missed the walking bus a couple of

times, and gave up. Source: The case study surveys In the later stages of operation, the reasons for children leaving the walking bus become more about changes in situation, primarily of parents. Job changes, house moves and the transfer of the child to junior or middle school all feature as reasons why some children left the walking bus. In these cases there is no generalisation to be made as to the method of travel to school. Many children who walked to school on the walking bus continued walking, either to this or another school, afterwards. However, changes in situation, particularly involving parental work or family responsibilities, often meant reverting to car use where it was a previous mode of transport. An analysis of the children who have left the walking bus by previous and current mode of transport showed that those children who had walked before using the walking bus continued to walk (9 children), and those who were driven beforehand reverted to this mode of transport (9 children). One child who used a mixture continued to do so and another who had used the car stated that they used a mixture. From the follow-up interviews with the co-ordinators it was apparent that children begin to leave the walking bus because they outgrow it. This happens at different ages in the different schools. At Mandeville, which had a high proportion of children in year 5 at the start of the walking bus, these children started to walk to school by themselves. As they were walking prior to the walking bus, this does not represent any modal shift, but is a move to independence, which might have happened anyway. At Hillshott where the children transfer to the local junior school, pupils have reverted to the mode of transport used prior to the walking bus. The questionnaire sent out in September 2003 to the 38 parents who had been interviewed in the early stages of the walking bus evaluation exercise and were still using the walking bus in September 2003 was intended to gather some views on the long term use of walking bus including the following: • Why in the long term did people leave the walking bus? • What were their views of the walking bus after leaving? • Did they still use the walking bus as much? • Did parents still perceive the same benefits for their children and themselves? • Did they still perceive the same disadvantages for their children and themselves? • Why did some parents stay on the walking bus and others leave? Questionnaires were sent to parents who had been on the walking bus at Millfield School despite the fact that it was known that this walking bus was no longer

54

operating. As shown in Table 37, 24 responses were received, giving a return rate of 63%. Of the questionnaires that were returned, 14 were no longer using the walking bus and 10 were. Table 37 Survey in September 2003 of parents who were also interviewed in

the early stages of the evaluation exercise Walking bus

Number of questionnaires

sent out

Number returned with children still

using the walking bus

Number returned with children who

had left the walking bus

Total returned

Hillshott 7 3 4 7 (100%) Layston 9 1 3 4 (44%) Lordship 12 6 3 9 (75%) Mandeville 3 0 1 1 (33%) Millfield 7 0 3 3 (43%) Totals 38 10 14 24 (63%) Source: The case study surveys Of the ten respondents who still use the walking bus, they all had one child on a walking bus, apart from one who had 4 children on it. The number of days these families were using the walking bus is shown in Table 38. Table 38 Change in usage of the walking bus by families using it over the

whole evaluation period Family ID

Number of days on walking bus

at first interview

Number of days on walking bus in September

2003

Number of days as volunteer in

September 2003

Change in the number of days on the walking bus

126 5 2 2 Reduction 101 5 3 3 Reduction 005 5 5 0 Same 105 3 3 3 Same 129 1 1 1 Same 131 5 5 0 Same 134 5 4 0 Reduction 125 5 3 2 Reduction 109 2 3 1 Increase 133 5 5 0 Same Source: The case study surveys Although this is based on a very small number of responses, there does appear to be a decrease in commitment to the walking bus. This means that even if they were walking as volunteers each day they use the walking bus, they have days with no commitment to the walking bus. It appears that those still using the walking bus every day are often non-volunteers who are employed for whom the walking bus provides an opportunity to get to work earlier. Obviously this is only based on a small sample but from conversations with the walking bus co-ordinators it would seem that the

55

walking bus is popular with these parents; however this may make the walking bus unsustainable in the long term. Four of the parents were using the walking bus less than when they first started. Only one parent has increased the number of days her child goes on the walking bus and this is probably related to a change in her employment status. At the first interview she was not in paid employment, but she was at the time of the second interview and the walking bus enabled her to drop her son earlier. Of the five parents whose use of the walking bus has stayed the same, two of them only used the walking bus a few days a week having chosen to retain some days where they had flexibility. The other three parents who used the walking bus every day, were in employment, were non volunteers and dropped their children off on the way to work. They admitted that the use of the walking bus freed them up in the morning. Of the 14 respondents who no longer used the walking bus, only four families left because the walking bus did not fit with their expectations and they did not enjoy the commitment. Eight stopped using the walking bus because their children were either no longer at that school, or they had moved as a family. For two, the walking bus ceased to operate. Of the three parents at Millfield, one left in September 2002 because of the timing of the walking bus but the other two left when the walking bus stopped in Spring 2003. Of the four parents at Hillshott, three left when their children moved on to another school and one left before because of the loss of flexibility and having to walk in bad weather. This parent only used the walking bus one day a week, having already reduced from three days to one shortly after the walking bus started. The three parents at Layston all left when their children moved on to another school. The one parent at Mandeville left because her older children wanted to walk on their own. One child moved to senior school, and the mother continued to walk her two younger children to school by herself. She was the co-ordinator and felt that by organising the walking bus she missed out on contact time with her children. Of the three parents at Lordship, two had moved away and one had stopped using the walking bus because of the lack of flexibility and the timing and her children did not like the walking bus. Her children had only used the walking bus on one day a week. All 14 respondents stated that they would recommend the walking bus to other parents, including the four who left because it no longer suited them. 6.2 Changes in participation of volunteers The reduction in the number of children using the walking bus is mirrored by a decline in the number of volunteers as shown in Table 39. As children left the walking bus so their parents, if they were volunteers, gave up this role. As the number of children fell so there was less need for volunteers (assuming there was no growth). Thus walking buses became stagnant unless new children with parental volunteers joined.

56

Table 39 Volunteers: recruitment and drop-off

Spring term 2002

Autumn term 2002

Spring term 2003

Autumn term 2003

Walking bus

Date of

launch

Number at

launch change change change change Hillshott May

2001 9 -4

+3 8 -4

+2 6 0 6 -2

+1 5

Layston Nov 2001

15 -6 +1

10 -5 5 +2 7 -4 +1

4

Lordship June 2002

10 n/a 0 10 0 10 -3 +1

8

Mandeville Sept 2001

6 0 6 +2 -2

6 -4 2 0 2

Millfield Nov 2001

4 0 4 -4 +4

4 -4 0 n/a n/a

Total 44 28 31 25 19 Source: The case study surveys The reasons why volunteers leave the walking bus are similar to those discussed above. For some parents who are volunteers the benefit to them, if there is one, is marginal in comparison to the disadvantages. This may simply be because they are spending longer on the school journey, or find the time shift difficult to accommodate in their routine. However, it would be inaccurate to say that all volunteers left because there was no real benefit perceived. For some it was only because their child left the walking bus or because their own situation changed. At the time of the evaluation very few parents who were volunteers and had now left the walking bus were interviewed and it is thus not possible to provide a full picture of the reasons why volunteers leave from the parental perspective. Co-ordinators who were interviewed tended to report changes in circumstances or that the volunteer’s child had left the walking bus. This may not reflect the full reason for why a volunteer gave up the walking bus. 6.3 The closure of walking buses The reasons behind the closure of the walking buses were covered in the postal survey, as shown in Table 40. It should be noted that some co-ordinators gave more than one reason for the closure. Five walking buses closed because of a shortage of children, but the lack of volunteers was much more significant, with three-quarters of them ceasing for this reason. Since the volunteers are parents, usually mothers, of the children, there may well be cases where the child has dropped out, either through lack of interest or by leaving the school, and so his or her mother ceased being a volunteer. In three cases, the lack of a co-ordinator for that walking bus caused it to cease to operate. This may be for the same reason as that suggested above for volunteers. Out of the five walking buses which ceased because of a shortage of children, three also had a shortage of volunteers, but two did not. In the latter cases, the walking buses ceased simply because too few children were willing or able to use them. The other reasons given were ‘Bad weather’ and ‘Lack of incentives’ but in each case there was also a shortage of a co-ordinator and volunteers. The ‘Lack of incentives’ was added under ‘Other reasons’ rather than an option offered on the questionnaire.

57

Table 40 Reasons why walking buses have ceased operation – based on 12 walking buses in the postal survey

Number %

Lack of volunteers 9 75 Too few children 5 42 Lack of a co-ordinator 3 25 Bad weather 1 8 Lack of incentives 1 8 Source: The postal survey Note: This table is based on 12 responses from schools which set up walking buses that have ceased to operate. Some respondents provided multiple answers.

7 IMPLEMENTATION AND PROCESS ISSUES The previous sections of this report summarised the main findings from the evaluation. The purpose of the next two sections of this report is to address the two issues of modal shift and drop-off in numbers of volunteers and children. Although these sections indicate possible problems within the implementation and organisation of walking buses, this is untaken in order to identify areas of good practice or points of intervention. The discussion is intended to offer a constructive look at walking buses. 7.1 Modal shift: a problem of implementation? The process of setting up a walking bus at each of the schools was considered as part of the evaluation. The purpose of this was to determine whether the way in which the walking bus was set up had any short or long term effects on its operation and outcome. To this end, the following factors were looked at: • Who initiated the process at each of the schools and who was involved • How the routes were identified and planned • How demand for the walking bus was ascertained and encouraged • The process by which volunteers were recruited to the walking bus In terms of understanding how the set up of walking buses is linked to their modal shift potential, it is useful to look at the inter-relationship between these factors. Table 41 shows some of the stages that schools go through prior to setting up walking buses. It should be noted that these stages do not necessarily occur in this order, and some stages, for example local intelligence on travel to school, or a ‘one-day special’ do not necessarily occur at all. The main point of setting out these stages is to look at the problems and issues that have to be resolved at each stage. Table 42 shows some of these as observed in the five walking bus case studies and other school settings where the process of setting up a walking bus was started but not completed. It is clear that, in all the walking buses (and potential walking buses) included in this evaluation exercise, the identification of volunteers and a co-ordinator to run the walking bus is vital. This is the most important aspect of the implementation even if it

58

compromises the original objectives of starting a walking bus. This may be made more difficult by the perceived need, usually by all parties involved, to launch a walking bus as quickly as possible. Table 41 Stages in setting-up a walking bus Stage Types of activities Possible outcomes Finding out about the walking bus and outlining your objectives

• School meetings with Road Safety or SRS

• Information received or requested

• Decision to start up a walking bus

• Identification of school champion of walking buses

Local intelligence (and other factors)

• Map plots • Travel to school

information • Other local intelligence

• Identification of possible routes

• Assessment of the need and potential for walking buses

• Identification of ‘obstacles’ to different routes

Assessing and encouraging demand

• Questionnaires to parents

• Meetings with interested parents

• One-day specials

• An idea of possible interest in the initiative to fit into ‘routes’

• Generation of interest and ‘demand’

Assessing and encouraging support

• Meetings with potential volunteers

• Identifying a co-ordinator to take over the initiative

• Appointment of a co-ordinator

• Co-ordinator duties, for example, Rotas etc., police checks

• Identification of initial volunteers

Refining the route • Fitting the route to the volunteers

• Walking the route and other road safety training

• Changing the route to ensure safety

• A finalised route • Trained volunteers

Getting started • Setting a launch date • Sending letters to

parents and registering children

• Starting-up

• A WALKING BUS

Source: The case study surveys

59

Table 42 Problems in implementing walking buses Stage Some obstacles or problems

in implementation

Possible outcomes

Finding out about the walking bus and outlining the objectives

• The school is not greatly committed to a walking bus

• There is no-one within the school able to take an on-going lead

• RSU makes infrequent contact and the initiative falls off the map

• Implementation goes ahead but is not prioritised

• The initiative is postponed or shelved

Local intelligence (and other factors)

• This stage does not take place

• This stage takes place but becomes disconnected from other stages

• The walking bus is not targeted on modal shift

Assessing and encouraging demand

• Insufficient response to questionnaires

• Insufficient interest in walking buses by parents

• Poor attendance at meetings

• The initiative begins to revolve around a small group of interested parents

• If response is very poor the initiative may be abandoned

Assessing and encouraging support

• Few parents are willing to be volunteers

• No parents are willing to take on the role of co-ordinator

• There is a mismatch between parents and possible routes

• The walking bus initiative collapses

• The walking bus initiative goes ahead but is based around availability of volunteers and where they live

Refining the route • The route is designed around the volunteers

• The route is deemed unsafe

• The route may only attract children who previously walked

• The route is abandoned

Getting started • Administrative difficulties • Volunteers and children

don’t arrive

• A walking bus but perhaps one that is not targeted on modal shift

Source: The case study surveys Even where the implementation of a walking bus goes well, the ability of the school to use any local intelligence, such as where children live and how they get to the school, to maximise the impact of the walking bus on modal shift may be limited. In a number of cases where this was attempted, it was abandoned at the stage where

60

volunteers were recruited. If a potential co-ordinator is identified prior to this stage, the walking bus may be implemented without reference to its target population. It is, of course, necessary to have volunteers in order for a walking bus to be launched. However, the identification of potential volunteers has tended to result in parents who already walk to school. The core of a walking bus can well be made up of families, many of whom know each other, changing from walking together informally to launching themselves as a walking bus. The success of the walking bus, in terms of modal shift, then becomes their ability to attract and retain other families (who do not walk regularly) into this initiative. Tapping into existing walkers willing to act as volunteers for a walking bus may be the only way to launch a walking bus at all. Certainly, at all schools, the difficulty of getting parents to act as volunteers is probably the major obstacle to running a walking bus. It may be unrealistic to place an additional burden on the implementation phase by suggesting that the route and target population of the walking bus should take equal priority to that of attracting volunteers. However, without this more strategic orientation, walking buses that produce a significant modal shift will exist primarily by luck rather than good planning. In summary, the net effect of these constraints can result in a walking bus that matches the volunteer profile rather than the objectives of the school. The reasons for this are apparent in that it would not be possible to run a walking bus without volunteers even if the route identified was more strategic. However, first walking buses are also seen as ‘trail blazers’ and schools and parents are encouraged to start up walking buses quickly and easily in order to maintain and generate new interest. As the first of a number of walking buses this would seem to be an appropriate strategy. Unfortunately very few schools seem to get past the first walking bus and even where they do, a second walking bus may well be implemented along similar lines. 7.2 The walking bus life cycle: recruitment and retention issues Another issue is the difficulty in maintaining a walking bus. As seen earlier, most of the case study walking buses lost volunteers and children shortly after the launch of the walking bus: only one walking bus reversed this process. Even where there was additional recruitment of children and volunteers, it rarely kept pace with the loss of both. The net effect was that walking buses became smaller and less capable of expanding without additional adults. The purpose of this section is to look at factors which may influence the life span of a walking bus. The first part considers the importance of support at the setting-up stage of the walking bus, in particular whether there is any difference between schools which are given a great deal of support from external sources, and those which are not. The second aspect of this discussion is to look at the stages that walking buses seem to go through and point out some of the problems that were encountered. One area considered in the evaluation exercise was the importance of initial support and also source of the idea for the initiative. In terms of the former, an issue of interest was whether walking buses which had benefited from a lot of initial support and assistance, for example those operating within SRS, were more resilient as a result.

61

Conversely did walking buses which were set up outside SRS, with assistance and support from Road Safety Officers (RSO), show signs of weakness earlier? With only five walking buses being considered, it is difficult to ascertain whether the findings of the evaluation exercise in this respect can be generalised. However, as far as these five walking buses go, there was no evidence to support either of the arguments above. The SRS walking buses demonstrated differences between each other in terms of the kind of start they made, their organisational arrangements, and the support they received. The walking buses set up outside SRS were little different from these in terms of how they started up and the numbers of children and parents at the launch and some time later. However there are a number of points that can be made, that may be relevant to future walking buses. First, a school’s motivation for setting up a walking bus, and where this motivation came from, are both important aspects of implementation. Some of the walking buses were set up because they were part of SRS, as a means of demonstrating commitment to travel-to-school initiatives, either prior to inclusion in SRS, or as part of the programme. Although there may also be perceived benefits and outcomes, for example relieving congestion, there may be subtle differences between these and other schools. By comparison, in some schools there were clearly individuals, for example, parents, governors or the head teacher, who saw walking buses as an initiative worth supporting. This support was seen as being important at the start of the walking bus. It may however, be even more crucial in ensuring the long-term survival of the walking bus. An ‘internal champion’ may be a way of helping walking buses retain links with, and therefore support from, the school. As argued elsewhere, one of the benefits that schools see with walking buses is that they are ‘self-running’. This however, is seen as a demotivating factor by co-ordinators who may see themselves as burdened and ‘forgotten about’. The second point is that walking buses set up under SRS may or may not have been initiated by this process. Often schools already had on-going contacts with RSOs that were continued under the SRS initiative. Other schools in the SRS programme had operating walking buses prior to the launch of the initiative in their school. SRS cannot, therefore, be used as a factor when looking at outcomes and lifespan without taking account of these possible nuances. Walking buses seem to go through a number of life stages after their launch. These stages may be over different time periods for different walking buses and it may or may not result in the disbandment or temporary stoppage of the walking bus. The following four stages have been identified:

• Initial enthusiasm • Stability • Stagnation and slippage • Resignation

At the first stage, all the walking buses were launched with some enthusiasm. The schools provided support and publicity, RSOs had been working with the school, and the co-ordinator and parent volunteers were keen. At this stage, some of the walking buses had large numbers of children on them and a good potential source of volunteers. The co-ordinator was usually committed to the objectives of the walking

62

bus and the idea that it could help more children to walk to school. The profile of the registered children suggested that this might happen. At the second stage, the original number of volunteers and children may have fallen. In one sense this does not diminish the enthusiasm or commitment of the co-ordinator or volunteers and may even make the walking bus more manageable. However, if a high proportion of children who have left the walking bus, have reverted to being driven to school this can act as a demotivating factor. After 4-5 months some of the co-ordinators, although still keen, were concerned that the walking bus attracted only a few children who did not already walk. By this stage some of the walking buses might have made some changes to either the route or the number of stops made. This could have led them to have further input from RSO. However, generally the external input has diminished and walking buses are seen as being ‘self running’ or sustainable. This is an important point because it may well be that this is the stage where walking buses need additional input from external sources such as the school and RSO to maintain momentum, motivation and recruitment. The third stage for some walking buses does not have to be wholly negative. One of the co-ordinators, whilst admitting that there had been no recruitment of children or volunteers, also reported that this was not necessarily a bad thing from her perspective. Small walking buses with fewer volunteers are easily to run and manage. However, once recruitment slows down or even stops the walking bus is likely to collapse in the future. It could well be that small established walking buses comprised of groups of families stop being community resources and start becoming personal ones. At this point they are unlikely to attract ‘outsiders’. Another reason for why recruitment is halted around this stage concerns the lack of responsibility taken by schools. Although the school may assist in sending out letters to parents, by this time the ‘ownership’ of the walking bus lies elsewhere with the parents. However, it is neither easy, nor particularly in the interests of these parents, to maintain the walking bus beyond their own need for it. Four of the co-ordinators who had been interviewed for a second time were at a stage where they questioned the benefit of the walking bus. Only one of them still believed that the walking bus was beneficial and advantageous to children and parents. For three of the co-ordinators the walking bus had become an obligation. At this point, one of the walking buses reduced its days whilst cancelling the walking bus became more frequent. If few (or none) of the children using the walking bus had switched from driving this further eroded the sense of worth – all of the co-ordinators were motivated from knowing that they helped other children to walk to school. The final stage, resignation, is not, of course, inevitable. It should be possible to rejuvenate a walking bus, to recruit more volunteers and children and perhaps change the co-ordinator in an effort to share the burden of running the walking bus. However, in many instances this does not happen. As argued earlier, this may well be because the responsibility for maintaining the walking bus has not been taken by the school. Parents are not best placed (and after a year or so maybe not even motivated) to recruit new volunteers and children to the walking bus.

63

Table 43 provides an overview of the life cycle of a disbanded walking bus. This is based around one of the case study walking buses but has added in examples taken from other walking buses to produce a ‘composite’. It provides a good example of the stages outlined above, coupled with a number of factors which combined to make walking buses difficult to sustain. It should be pointed out that the commitment of the school and the parents in this example is no less than at other schools and there is no intention of attributing blame to either party. The problems and stages encountered by this walking bus are unlikely to be unique. Table 43 Diary of a walking bus (now disbanded) Initial enthusiasm • Walking bus operates 5 days a week

• Car park stop picks up ‘car’ children • Four volunteers plus additional ‘informal’ volunteers each

day • School makes input and walking bus is recognised in

assemblies etc. • Regular contact with SRS/RSU

Stability • Walking bus operates 5 days a week • Car park stop dropped due to lack of demand • Informal volunteers drop out – together with their children • School’s role reduced • Regular contact with RSU continues through SRS

Stagnation and slippage

• Walking bus cancelled occasionally because of lack of volunteers or other factors but continues as 5 days a week

• First stop axed due to problems with crossing main road • Volunteers question whether to continue with the walking

bus – most regular children walk anyway and belong to the volunteers

• Contact with RSU because of difficulties and some school involvement in resolving problems but no on-going recruitment or liaison with parents and children

Resignation • Walking bus has to reduce to 3 days a week because of reduction in volunteers

• New children recruited on the walking bus but they all walked already

• Co-ordinator leaves, a second gives up after two weeks and a third is reluctant to continue for long

• Walking bus under threat of collapse – volunteers would be happy with this!

• No contact with RSO or SRS because the new co-ordinator has no link

• School tries to help with letters but there is little response • Walking bus is disbanded

Source: The case study surveys As outlined above there are some key problems that faced this walking bus:

• The involvement of the school was limited soon after the launch of a walking bus. The initial support given to the walking bus was not maintained as the

64

walking bus became seen as ‘self-running’. Although the school did support the walking bus through administrative services (letters to parents etc.), it could not take responsibility for the maintenance of the walking bus. Later on, a letter produced little response from other parents.

• Contact with RSO reduced as the walking bus became ‘established’. There was no on-going link between the RSO and the school/walking bus co-ordinator. The change in co-ordinator compounded this and the new co-ordinator had no established link to external support and was not motivated to make the first contact.

• As those children who used to be driven to school left the walking bus, the volunteers become disillusioned and question whether there is any reason to continue. The new children already walked and did not motivate the volunteers to continue.

• The route itself was seen as an obstacle. It was changed to start after a difficult crossing but in doing so it failed to attract potential children who then had to walk half way to school before reaching the start of the walking bus. There was nowhere for cars to stop at this point either, although by now there were few car drivers using the walking bus.

There are many factors that inter-relate in the above example to produce a walking bus that is not seen as useful or sustainable by the volunteers running it. It gives them no benefits and because most of the children walked anyway, it is not seen as giving the children or the school any benefit either. As is argued below, walking buses have to be seen to be beneficial by volunteer parents or else they will decline.

8 OPERATION AND ORGANISATION

The evaluation exercise was concerned with whether there appeared to be ‘good’ ways of organising walking buses, that is, did some practices appear to offer more benefits to participants, or ensure the effectiveness and longevity of the walking bus. In fact, there are many ways to organise a walking bus and it is likely that in looking in detail at only five cases it is not possible to identify all these ways. However, given this, the characteristics of each of the five walking buses, the way they were organised and the school-walking bus responsibilities, did seem to make a difference. Those elements of the organisation and operation of a walking bus that offered any insight in this respect are considered in this section. It should be noted, however, that this does not cover every aspect of operating a walking bus. The evaluation looked at a number of factors in terms of the operation and organisation of the walking bus. Those issues which seemed to make some difference to the running and longevity of the walking bus are discussed below. They include:

• The organisation of volunteers • The role of the co-ordinator • Formal versus informal walking buses • The school and external sources of support.

65

8.1 The organisation of volunteers As was seen earlier, parents and volunteer parents get differential benefits from the participation of their child on the walking bus. At one extreme, a parent who does not participate in the walking bus but whose child does can receive benefits in terms of additional time for other activities. A number of parents reported that they could now go to work earlier, or did not have to make multiple journeys to different schools, nurseries or playgroups. At the other end of the spectrum, parents acting as volunteers every day of the week reported no benefits at all. It is not difficult to see that unless parents feel that there are some advantages for them, they are unlikely to remain committed for long. This is a particular problem for volunteers. The walking buses, which appeared to be the ‘healthiest’ from a volunteer viewpoint, shared a number of characteristics:

• Parents were given at least one day off from volunteering, while their child still used the walking bus. Most of these volunteers gained more time than they lost.

• Rotas changed on a monthly or termly basis in order to account for changes in routine or situation.

• The process of changing rotas may occur formally as set out below, or more informally.

• Meetings were held (usually to coincide with the above) in order to resolve difficulties. They could also act as a social event forming an additional benefit to volunteers.

• Volunteers feel they are able to swap and cover for each other as necessary as they are not all walking every day.

The first of these points is by far the most crucial. If a walking bus is set up and gives no benefits (usually in the form of time off) to volunteers, it will be vulnerable from the start. Despite this rather obvious observation, some walking buses start off with volunteers who are committed for every, or nearly every, day. In time, however, this selflessness is not usually sustainable. Walking buses run by volunteers who received no benefits and who were ‘tied’ to the walking bus on a daily basis were more likely to result in volunteers becoming despondent and leaving. It may sound straightforward to argue that walking buses should have sufficient volunteers to make it worth their while. However, two of the walking buses could not recruit enough volunteers to make this possible, and a third had lost so many volunteers that those remaining were having to put in extra days. Even the walking buses that started out with plenty of volunteers struggled to maintain this level and could only ensure volunteers did not have to walk additional days by not recruiting any more children. 8.2 The role of the co-ordinator The role of the co-ordinator is extremely important in maintaining the volunteers. Usually the co-ordinator is a parent volunteer who agrees to take initial responsibility for the setting up of a volunteer rota and maintaining a register. Some agree to do it because they support the idea of the walking bus and no-one else comes forward. The

66

co-ordinators are often parents who are already involved with the school either through the PTA (parent-teacher association) or as a parent helper. The co-ordinators have not necessarily thought about what the role may involve in the long term and do not necessarily see it as part of their role to maintain the numbers of volunteers and children or to recruit new members. There is little emphasis on this aspect of walking buses in the enthusiasm to launch one at the school. However this role is given to them unconsciously, once the walking bus has been set up, with neither the school nor RSU involved in the day-to-day running of the walking bus. Only the co-ordinator is left with a clear overview of how the walking bus is operating. If the co-ordinator then leaves, the walking bus is left in a vulnerable position unless a new one can be recruited. 8.3 Formal and informal walking buses Walking buses are organised in various ways. Although rather simplistic, one way of looking at these differences is to differentiate between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ walking buses. At one end of the continuum the walking bus is a highly formal arrangement consisting of a number of volunteers, usually organised on a rota basis, with children who regularly walk on set days of the week. Volunteers know that they must walk on ‘their’ days or else the walking bus will not have the correct adult: child ratio. Although this is a constraint, they also know that they will not be required to walk on other days. At the other end of the continuum a number of parents walk together in a group with their children to school. They may or may not turn up – it does not matter because they know that the other parents will be walking. This gives them the freedom to join the walking bus if they wish, or walk alone or drive to school. The walking bus does not really constrain them but neither does it provide many benefits. Although these may be rather extreme examples, the degree of formality or organisation would seem to make a difference to the outcomes and perhaps longevity of a walking bus. The more formal walking buses, whilst being a commitment also offer more benefits. The less formal walking buses lose their purpose more quickly and seem to offer no real benefits to parents. Both parents and co-ordinators on less formal walking buses question the point after a while, even though at the beginning their justification for beginning a walking bus may well have been along the lines of ‘well we all walked anyway so we thought we might as well’. Table 44 shows some characteristics of the formal and informal walking buses. There are of course positive characteristics of informal walking buses and negative characteristics of formal ones. Informal walking buses are often easy to set up, require little organisation and volunteers feel (for a time) mutually dependent. Social benefits may be high, especially for parents but also for children. For a while the walking bus functions in a positive way. Conversely, a more formal structure may not be as easy to set up, may require more organisation to keep lists and rotas up to date, and can be strange for both parents and children. Some parent volunteers may not respond well to having to make commitments and may opt out. Some children may not like walking with children they do not know and may not want to stay on the walking bus.

67

It may also be that not all the characteristics are present, or that some walking buses have aspects of all of them. For example, one of the characteristics is strong involvement from the school. However, none of the case study schools really stayed actively involved with the walking buses after their immediate launch. However, some schools had better systems in place for acknowledging the work of volunteers and the participation of the children. A particular problem for recruitment of informal walking buses is that they resemble friendship networks. In so doing, they become ‘closed’ to outsiders, even where this is not intended. If parents do not see the walking bus as a school resource then they are unlikely to use it. Unfortunately, those walking buses that start out as small informal walking buses comprised of parents who already walk and know each other, may become seen as a clique by others. This is likely to deter parents from volunteering for the walking bus. Even established and formal structures have problems in bringing in new parents when the walking bus is socially stable but this difficulty is greater in informal ‘friendship’ groups.

68

Table 44 Characteristics of formal and informal walking buses Formal walking buses

• Formal rota of volunteers, negotiated regularly and with clear roles designated to parties

• Volunteers are a mixture of friends and parents who may not know each other

• Children are drawn from different age ranges and do not form clear friendship groups

• Designated ‘school’ based person with responsibility for walking buses maintaining link between walking buses and school

• School and volunteers take responsibility for maintenance of the walking bus, recruitment etc.

• Volunteers perceive they have benefits and a clear role

• Walking bus seen as ‘open’ to outsiders by parents

• Walking bus seen as ‘open’ to outsiders by children

• Recruitment, retention, reward issues dealt with externally

• Volunteers do not feel overburdened, taken for granted and ‘forgotten’

Informal walking buses

• Informal or static rota • Volunteers are based around

a friendship group • Children based around

parental or child friendship group

• No designated responsibility within the school, the walking bus becomes ‘detached’ from the school

• No-one takes responsibility for maintenance of the walking bus, recruitment etc.

• Volunteers perceive they have no flexibility and no clear role

• Walking bus seen as a clique or ‘shut’ to outsiders by parents

• Walking bus seen as a clique or ‘shut’ to outsiders by children

• Little input into retention, recruitment and reward issues, can lead to tail off of walking bus use, or demoralisation

• Walking bus volunteers feel overburdened, taken for granted and forgotten.

Source: The case study surveys 8.3 The school and external sources of support This report has already shown the importance of external and school support in terms of setting up the walking bus. It has also been argued that walking buses that have someone, for example a school governor, who takes an active role and responsibility for the walking bus, may be better placed to survive than those who do not. A number of walking bus co-ordinators did not feel that they had sufficient support from either the school or the RSO/SRS team and there was a feeling of being ‘left to get on with it’. After the initial enthusiasm, the responsibility and commitment necessary to maintain a walking bus was felt by some to be a burden. The question for the evaluation exercise was whether there were any points in the lifecycle of the walking bus when support from the school or RSU would have been beneficial, or made a difference. Co-ordinators were asked to comment on ways in

69

which they could have been helped either by schools or co-ordinators. Table 45 summarises the main points made and additionally brings in some comments discussed previously. Changes were implemented within HCC, including the appointment of a countywide walking bus co-ordinator and the production of a guide on how to set up a walking bus (Hertfordshire County Council, 2004), that addressed some of these issues. This is not reflected in the evaluation exercise (and consequently the table) owing to the time differences between the evaluation exercise and these changes. Table 45 Ways to support walking bus co-ordinators after launch

By the School By the local authority • Walking buses should not be seen as

‘self-running’. All walking buses need school input and support.

• Ask for and use local intelligence to try to target parents who usually drive to school. Try to get feedback from parents about what would help them take part or use a walking bus.

• Reward volunteers by acknowledging their support in newsletters etc.

• Reward children who use the walking bus in appropriate ways (assemblies might not suit all children).

• Try to encourage older children onto the walking bus by emphasising their importance as ‘role models’.

• Hold regular recruitment drives to help co-ordinators maintain sufficient numbers of volunteers and children.

• Get a member of staff to act as ‘walking bus school link’.

• Try to launch more than one walking bus – they may add to the profile of the walking bus at the school, and provide some informal mutual support.

• Slow down the launch to ensure that local intelligence is taken into account. If the walking bus is launched as a trailblazer, work with the school to find a more suitable second route shortly after the launch of the first.

• Review the route after operation, not just for safety but also as an effective intervention. If it is not seen as effective suggest looking at the route again.

• Set up contact information between the co-ordinator and the RSO to pass on information, news etc. but also exchange other information, for example, a change of co-ordinator.

• Visit or contact new co-ordinators to re-establish links and sort out problems

• Make regular visits to the walking bus

Source: The case study surveys

9 THE INITIATIVE FOR SETTING UP WALKING BUSES In the postal survey it was found that there was a high level of awareness of walking buses at the schools which did not have them, as shown in Table 46. It can be seen that the head teachers of 95% of the schools without walking buses knew about them.

70

Table 46 Awareness of walking buses at schools which have not set them up

Number % Aware 199 95 Not aware 11 5 No response 3 1 Total 213 100 Source: The postal survey The main source of head teachers’ information that had led to the setting up of walking buses was Hertfordshire County Council, as shown in Table 47. Some of the walking buses had been set up as part of ‘Safe Routes to Schools’ schemes whilst others were based on initiatives from within the school. Even at schools without walking buses, the County Council was the main source of initial awareness about walking buses. General publicity, through the press and newsletters comes next in each case, followed by information from another school. This is much more important in the case of schools without walking buses. Table 47 Initial sources of information about walking buses

Schools which have set up

walking buses

Schools which have not set up walking buses

Total

Number % Number % Number %Hertfordshire County Council 15 65 77 41 92 43 General publicity 4 17 53 28 57 27 Another school 1 4 35 19 36 17 Internal to school 3 13 7 4 10 5 Another county council 0 0 4 2 4 2 Other 0 0 13 7 13 6 Total 23 100 189 100 212 100 No response 3 24 28 Source: The postal survey A slightly different picture emerges when the suggestion to set up a walking bus is considered, as shown in Table 48. Of the schools which did not have a walking bus, only those which have considered setting one up are shown as responding. Generally, the initiative came from within the school, with the County Council the second most important source, particularly in schools which had set them up.

71

Table 48 Origin of the suggestion to set up a walking bus

Schools which have set up

walking buses

Schools which have not set up walking buses

Total

Number % Number % Number %Hertfordshire County Council 9 39 25 24 34 27 General publicity 0 0 3 3 3 2 Internal to school 13 56 59 56 72 56 Another school 0 0 2 2 2 2 Another county council 0 0 2 2 2 2 Other 1 4 14 13 15 12 Total 23 100 105 100 128 100 No response 3 108 111 Source: The postal survey

10 THE BARRIERS TO WALKING BUSES Given that the majority of schools that do not have walking buses are aware of the concept, this raises the question as to why they do not have them. About one quarter of these schools had tried to set them up but had not succeeded, as shown in Table 49. Table 49 Potential for walking buses at schools which do not have them

Attempted to set up a walking bus previously?

Plans to set up a walking bus in the future?

Number % Number % Yes 50 25 60 32 No 153 75 125 68 Total 203 100 185 100 No response 10 28 Source: The postal survey Table 50 shows the reasons why they did not succeed. The dominating factor is the lack of parental interest or support, which was cited in well over half the schools. The next two most important reasons were concern about traffic danger and the lack of the head teacher’s time to set it up (or other priorities). Lower in terms of numbers are the nature of the area (usually in rural areas) and parental concerns.

72

Table 50 Factors preventing the setting up of walking buses previously at schools without them

Number %

Lack of parental interest or support 47 65 Traffic danger 8 11 Lack of time to organise it or other priorities 7 10 Nature of catchment area 4 6 Parental concerns 2 3 No crossing patrol 1 1 Other 3 4 Total 72 100 Source: The postal survey Note: This table is based on 67 responses from schools which have not set up walking buses. Some respondents provided multiple answers. Turning to the future, 60 of the schools which have not set up walking buses have plans to do so in future, as Table 49 shows. In order to do so, they will have to overcome some barriers. Table 51 shows the perceived barriers to setting up walking buses, separated into schools that stated that they plan to set them up and those that did not. For the schools that plan to set them up, the dominant barrier is lack of parental support, followed, a long way behind, by the lack of time to organise it. The nature of the catchment area is the third factor. This is the most popular reason in the schools that did not plan to set up walking buses, followed closely by the lack of parental support. ‘Nature of the catchment area’ means that the pupils are scattered widely either because the school is in a rural area or because the school draws its pupils from particular segments of the community, such as members of a religious group. A walking bus needs one or more clusters of pupils’ homes within walking distance of the school. If this is not the case, there is little point in trying to set up a walking bus. This is likely to be the case in rural areas and for schools which draw pupils from a large area.

73

Table 51 Perceived barriers to setting up a walking bus in the future

Schools which stated that they plan to set

up a walking bus

Schools which did not state that they plan to set up a walking bus

Total

Number % Number % Number % Lack of parental support

36 60 47 32 83 40

Nature of the catchment area

6 10 48 33 54 26

Traffic danger 4 7 16 11 20 10 Lack of time to organise

8 13 12 8 20 10

Too close 4 3 4 2 Parental concerns 2 3 2 1 4 2 Volunteer: pupil ratios

2 1 2 1

Lack of information

1 1 1 0

Most children already walk

1 1 1 0

Other 4 7 14 10 18 9 Total number of obstacles

60 100 147 100 207 100

Source: The postal survey Note: This table is based on 172 responses from schools which have not set up walking buses. Some respondents provided multiple answers.

11 THE FUTURE POTENTIAL FOR WALKING BUSES As Table 49 shows, 60 schools without walking buses had plans to set them up. However, over twice as many did not, even though a lot of potential benefits were seen, as shown in Table 12. This raises the interesting question of whether the schools saw travel to and from school as a policy issue with which they need to be concerned. As Table 52 shows there is a large difference between the schools which have set up walking buses and those which have not. Of those that have set up walking buses, 84% regard travel to and from school as a policy issue they need to be concerned with. In contrast, nearly half the schools (45%) that have not set up walking buses do not regard it as an issue for them. It can be seen that four schools have walking buses even though they do not regard children’s travel to and from school as a policy issue for the school. These schools set up the walking buses in an attempt to reduce congestion around the school entrance and for the health benefits for the children, which is similar to the other schools, as was shown in Table 11. Given that the majority of schools do regard travel to and from school as a policy issue for the school, it is interesting to see what initiatives they have taken or plan to take, as shown in Table 53. These were unstructured answers which have been coded. The top answer was ‘Discourage car use to school’ which included educating the children as part of personal, social and health education (PSHE), competitions, walk to school weeks and messages to parents through newsletters. The second most

74

popular choice was ‘Involvement with an outside organisation or campaign’ which usually meant working with Hertfordshire County Council. The next most popular answer was ‘Set up a walking bus’. This is high because this is precisely what 21 of the schools have done. (In fact, none of them mentioned it explicitly, but it would have been perverse not to have included it in the figures). The next most popular answer was ‘Set up a travel plan’, followed by ‘Address traffic and parking issues’ which included shutting the school car park to parents at one school, and opening a new car park adjacent to the school entrance at another. Other initiatives include consultations with parents and governors, education and training of the children (pedestrian skills training and road safety education), physical measures such as new road layouts and pelican crossings. Table 52 Is children’s travel to and from school regarded as a policy issue

for the school?

Schools which have set up walking buses

Schools which have not set up walking buses

Number % Number % Yes 21 84 108 55 No 4 16 87 45 Total responses 25 100 195 100 No response 1 18 Source: The postal survey Table 53 Ways in which schools have or intend to address travel to school

policy issues

Schools which have set up

walking buses

Schools which have not set up walking buses

Total

No % No % No % Discourage car use to school 8 14 34 20 42 19 Involvement with an outside organisation or campaign

6 11 33 20 39 17

Set up a walking bus 21 37 12 7 33 15 Set up a travel plan 7 12 22 13 29 13 Address traffic and parking issues 4 7 19 11 23 10 Consult parents and governors 0 0 19 11 19 8 Education and training 6 11 9 5 15 7 Physical measures 5 9 7 4 12 5 Run a coach, minibus or car share scheme

0 0 12 7 12 5

No specific plans 0 0 2 1 2 1 Total 57 100 169 100 226 100 Source: The postal survey Note: This table is based on 21 responses from schools which have set up walking buses and 92 which have not. Some respondents provided multiple answers. If ‘Set up a walking bus’ is excluded from the table, the policies being pursued are fairly similar at both the schools which have set up walking buses and those which have not, with greater emphasis on travel plans, education and training, and physical

75

measures in the former, and on consulting parents and governors, and running a coach, minibus or car share scheme, in the latter. Consulting parents and governors’ implies that these schools have not gone as far as the walking bus schools in their thinking since those schools would have had to do so as part of the setting up process. ‘Run a coach, minibus or car share scheme’ reflects the dispersed nature of the school catchment area in some cases. It is interesting to see whether the schools that have set up walking buses intend to set up more. Table 54 shows that of the twenty schools that supplied complete information on this topic, six plan to set up more and fourteen do not. Of the six, five had one or more walking buses at the time of the survey and only one did not. This suggests that schools that have had walking buses which have ceased to operate, do not tend to want to try again. This may well reflect difficulty in obtaining parental support. Even amongst the schools which had one or more walking buses in operation at the time of the survey, the majority (seven out of twelve) do not plan to set up any more. Table 54 Plans for new walking buses at schools which have previously set

up walking buses

Plan to set up more walking

buses

Do not plan to set up more

walking buses

Total responses

No response

Schools with a walking bus at the time of the survey

5 7 12 2

Schools without a walking bus at the time of the survey

1 7 8 1

Total responses 6 14 20 3 No response 0 2 2 1 Source: The postal survey

12 CONCLUSIONS Walking buses have become increasingly popular in recent years as way of promoting safe walking to school as an alternative to the car. Although there have been some evaluations of walking buses, there is still a lack of clarity as to what they are expected to achieve and how to measure the outcomes and benefits. The purpose of this evaluation was therefore two-fold: firstly to develop a methodology that could be used to evaluate travel to school initiatives such as the walking bus, and secondly, to use this methodology to assess the outcomes and benefits of walking buses in Hertfordshire. In terms of the former, the evaluation has clarified a number of issues relating to costs and benefits that can be used to refine future research instruments. In particular, the evaluation has identified a number of issues around the measurement of modal shift and time savings or losses that need to be addressed in any further work. Whilst the evaluation has raised a number of methodological issues it has also provided valuable information on the outcomes and operation of walking buses. These findings are summarised in the remainder of this concluding section.

76

In Hertfordshire, the number of walking buses grew rapidly from one in early 1998. Four years later, there were 68 in 41 schools registered in the county. One year after that, there were 26 at 22 schools registered. This suggests that the number may have peaked. The walking buses had an average of 14 children registered to use them, with a range from 3 to 41. On average, 10 children used each walking bus, escorted by three or four volunteers. The children ranged in age from Nursery (age 3-4) up to Year 6 (age 10-11) but there was a clear peak in Year 2 (age 6-7), with a tailing off amongst older children. Of the 26 walking buses for which detailed information was supplied in the postal survey, twelve had ceased to operate by the time of the survey. In nine cases this was because of a lack of volunteers to escort the walking bus. For three of them, nobody was available to co-ordinate that walking bus. Five walking buses closed because there were too few children. Three of these also had a shortage of volunteers. In only one case was the closure of the walking bus not associated with a shortage of one or more out of children, volunteers and a co-ordinator. Walking buses have not been closed because they did not achieve the objectives for which they were set up. For head teachers, the main objectives of setting up walking buses were to relieve traffic congestion around the school, and to increase walking, particularly to give the children more exercise. The walking buses were seen as fairly successful in achieving these objectives. When the views of the head teachers of schools that had set up walking buses were compared with those of schools that had not, it was found that the former had greater recognition of the social aspects of walking buses whereas the latter have greater expectations in terms of reducing congestion, and improving the children’s road safety skills and mental alertness. About 62% of the children using walking buses had previously travelled to school by car. Some children used the walking bus fewer than five days a week. Overall, the reduction in the number of children travelling by car seems to be about 50% of the number of children on a walking bus. On average, each child who previously travelled by car who switched to walking, walked for 22 minutes on the walking bus each time it was used. For a child that uses the walking bus every day, this is nearly two hours of extra physical activity a week. Putting these two concepts together, suggests that walking buses can make a significant contribution to children’s volumes of physical activity. Given that only a small proportion of the children at a school use a walking bus, it would not be expected that there would be an observable reduction in traffic, except, perhaps, in very specific locations, such as at the school gate. This lack of reduction in traffic is compounded by the fact that many of the cars would continue to be used by a parent travelling to work or elsewhere at the time of the school trip. Walking buses are perceived by all those involved, to have benefits for the children, the parents and the school, particularly the social benefits to the children and the more indirect benefits in terms of sending out a visual message as to the importance of walking. Some negative outcomes or disadvantages of walking buses were reported by smaller numbers of respondents. They centred on the perceived lack of benefits, time losses and negative social outcomes.

77

Benefits or disadvantages to parents in terms of time saving or losses were seen to be important in maintaining participation on the walking bus. This becomes even more critical for those parents acting as volunteers. Implementation processes were seen as being important in explaining why walking buses do not attract more car drivers. The availability and location of volunteers often determines the route of the walking bus such that it loses its strategic capability. ‘Trailblazers’ do not necessarily create pathways for subsequent, more targeted, walking buses. Responsibility for maintaining walking buses rests neither with the school, nor with the walking bus co-ordinator. It could well be that walking buses need a ‘champion’ within the school if they are to be a long-term initiative. This, however, sits uneasily with their selling point as necessitating little school input. The contribution of the co-ordinator to the success of the walking bus should not be overlooked. The personality and organisational ability of the co-ordinator will have an impact on the operation and long-term future of the walking bus. The loss of an effective co-ordinator may well have an impact on the continuation of the walking bus.

There are a number of characteristics of walking buses, which may be useful for explaining effectiveness and longevity. Formal or informal structures and benefits to volunteers are amongst some that have been identified by this evaluation exercise.

In the schools in Hertfordshire, the key source of information about walking buses was Hertfordshire County Council, but the initiative to set up a walking bus often came from within the school. The vast majority of head teachers of schools without walking buses were aware of the concept. The main reason that walking buses have not been set up at these schools is the lack of parental interest or support. For some schools the nature of the catchment area would make it difficult to recruit enough children to form a walking bus. Otherwise the main problems are concerns about traffic danger and the lack of the head teacher’s time to start the process. Most of the schools which responded to the postal questionnaire regard children’s travel to and from school as a policy issue for the school. Of course, one reason that some schools did not respond to the survey may be because they do not regard travel to and from school as a relevant issue for them. The schools have taken or intend to take a wide variety of actions to address travel to school issues, including education and training of the children, setting up travel plans, and working with the County Council. It has been shown that, in Hertfordshire, the number of walking buses grew rapidly but now seems to be in decline. The key issue underlying this trend is the lack of volunteers, often associated with a shortage of children because usually the volunteers are mothers of some of the participants. If the children cease to use it, either because they leave the school or they no longer wish to take part, then their mothers also do so. Because the maximum number of children on the walking bus is dictated by the

78

number of volunteers, one child dropping out may mean that several others cannot use it. There needs to be a regular process of renewal of a walking bus, with new pupils being encouraged to join, with at least some of their mothers becoming volunteers. This may not happen if the organisation of the walking bus is left to those who currently use it because they have no incentive to ensure its continuation after it ceases to meet their individual needs. There is a need for a higher level of supervision of walking buses, to ensure their continuation. This report has illustrated the role and behaviour of walking buses in Hertfordshire. Given that Hertfordshire is an area where walking buses evolved earlier than many other parts of Great Britain, there may be useful lessons for interested parties elsewhere. In particular, it may help to stem the potential decline after the first cohort of children and their mothers have left the walking bus. There are a number of good reasons to encourage children to walk rather than go by car, in terms of their health and the environment, both in the short and long term. Walking buses can help to break down the barriers to walking perceived by parents and children, in terms of concerns about the children’s safety, competence and knowledge. Therefore, walking buses should be encouraged. It is hoped that this report will help in the process. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper has been written as part of a project entitled ‘Reducing children’s car use: the health and potential car dependency impacts’ funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under grant GR/N33638 at the Centre for Transport Studies at University College London. The co-operation of the children who took part in this exercise, and their parents and teachers, is greatly appreciated. The Environment Department of Hertfordshire County Council was a non-academic partner in the project and facilitated much of the fieldwork, which is appreciated.

REFERENCES Centre for Alternative and Sustainable Transport (2000) An Evaluation of the Walking bus at Pirehill First School: A report for the Staffordshire Walking Bus Partnership, The Centre for Alternative and Sustainable Transport (CAST), Staffordshire University. Collins, D. C .A. and Kearns, R. A. (2005) Geographies of inequality: Child pedestrian injury and walking school buses in Auckland, New Zealand, Social Science and Medicine, 60, 61-69. Hertfordshire County Council (2004) The Walking Bus: A step by step guide, Road Safety Unit, Environment Department, County Hall, Pegs Lane, Hertford, SG13 8DN. Kearns, R. (2001) Walking the talk about child pedestrian safety: An evaluation of Gladstone School's Zippy Walking bus, The University of Auckland. Kearns, R. A., Collins, D. C. A. and Neuwelt, P. M. (2003) The walking school bus: extending children’s geographies?, Area, 35, 285-292.

79

Kingham, S. and Ussher, S. (2005) Ticket to a sustainable future: An evaluation of the long-term durability of the Walking School Bus programme in Christchurch, New Zealand, Transport Policy, 12, 314-323. Mackett, R. L., Lucas, L., Paskins, J. and Turbin, J. (2002) Children’s car use: the implications for health and sustainability, Proceedings of the European Transport Conference, Cambridge, September 2002 (PTRC, London).

Mackett, R. L., Lucas, L., Paskins, J. and Turbin, J. (2003a) A methodology for evaluating walking buses as an instrument of urban transport policy, Transport Policy, 10, 179-186. Mackett, R. L., Lucas, L., Paskins, J., and Turbin, J. (2003b) The impact of walking buses, Proceedings of the Transport Practitioners Meeting, held at the University of Nottingham, July 2003 (PTRC, London). Mackett, R. L., Lucas, L., Paskins, J., and Turbin, J. (2003c) Walking buses in Hertfordshire: Results from the walking bus postal survey and case studies in Hertfordshire, available via http://www.cts.ucl.ac.uk/research/chcaruse/.

Mackett, R. L., Lucas, L., Paskins, J., and Turbin, J. (2005) The therapeutic value of children’s everyday travel, Transportation Research A, 39, 205-219.

O’Fallon, C. (2001) Walking School Walking bus Networks: Evaluation of trial in Christchurch. Pinnacle Research.