The 'school run' and the rationality of driving

S. Kidd

Geography and Transport Planning BA, Leeds University

Module: GEOG 3820, Research Placement

1 June 2003


1. Introduction

Initiatives such as 'Walk to school week' (Dorset County Council, 2003), 'Safe routes to schools' (Sustrans, 2003) and the National Cycling Strategy (NCS, 2003) encourage walking and cycling. Parents and pupils, however, are faced with real choices, performing a juggling act with their concerns for speed, safety and cost. On the one hand, we have the obvious convenience and, at least perceived, speed and safety advantages of the private motor vehicle. On the other hand, the health aspects of walking or cycling, along with social skills and even time savings for the driver, are cited as benefits which may be gained from independent travel.

This paper aims to analyse different methods of getting to school in the United Kingdom and compare and contrast the costs and benefits of each of them. It will go some way toward clarifying a solution to the dilemma facing many parents as to their choice of how to get their children to school.

That there are broad social benefits that accrue from non-car use is undisputed. Problems of congestion, local, regional and global environment and public safety ameliorated by walking, cycling and public transport have already been studied at length and are understood by some politicians and planners. The Government White Paper on Transport (DETR, 1998) set out a framework to reduce pollution and encourage healthy lifestyles through provision for walking and cycling.

There is a collective imperative to neutralise those negative effects of cars, perhaps through reduction of use and no attempt will be made herein to expand upon the considerable amount of largely unanimous literature on that subject [Button (1994), DETR (1998), Glaister et al (1998), Goodwin et al (1991), Maddison et al (1996)].

This paper will describe a method to assess the costs to individual family units of school journeys as a function of mode and distance. It will help to reduce the subjectivity of the decision making process by placing a monetary value on aspects of the journey, offering a basis for answering the question 'shall I drive or do we walk?'.

Costs will be described as an average generalised cost at 2001 value. (Benefits, which are also pertinent, are considered as negative costs). Five costs will be considered, namely those pertaining to safety, time, operation, health and social well being.

Although these five costs do not constitute a comprehensive set (so, for instance, the chances of picking up a winning lottery ticket being improved by walking will not be considered!), they do form a framework for calculation.

The four modes of transport considered are walking, cycling, buses and cars. Together these account for 99% of the school trips in the UK and will be divided into the 'soft' modes of pedestrians and cyclists and 'motor' modes.

Although many school journeys may be a subset of larger journeys (e.g. the journey to work) or may be utilised to facilitate other functions (e.g. shopping), this research will only consider the general situation between a single origin and a sole destination.

2. Quantifying the safety costs of travel by mode

All behaviour has risks, some difficult to predict and quantify, nevertheless the approximate values of travel risk might be calculated.

Government statistics published by the Department for Transport (DfT) in 'The Casualty Report' (DfT, 2002) disclose the chances of being hurt given distance travelled and mode used. Table (2/1) shows the relative danger of being involved in an accident and reveals that the motor modes are much safer, distance for distance, than the soft modes.

Table 2/1 Some passenger casualty rates GB 2001, per billion km

 

Killed

Serious

Slight

Pedestrian

47

515

1,744

Pedal Cycle

35

670

4,974

Bus

0.2

10

174.8

Car

2.9

32

301.1

(source: DfT, 2002, Table 8)

There are values given to accidents of varying severity. The quantification of suffering is a somewhat subjective and often uncomfortable area, may differ according to interpretation and can contrast remarkably widely, for instance, according to Maddison et al (1996 p 171), the Swedish government values a life four times higher than the UK. For the purposes of this paper the DfT/WHO assumption that "any figure in the range 750,000 to 1,250,000 could be regarded as being broadly acceptable" (DfT, 2002 p 33) is agreed. Using figures based on cross-societal surveys, the DfT estimate that the average value of people's willingness to pay for accident prevention is as described in table (2/2)

Table 2/2 Average value of prevention per road casualty by severity GB 2001

Fatal

1,194,240

Serious

134,190

Slight

10,350

Source: DfT, 2002 p 33

By multiplying each field in table (1) with the appropriate value in table (2), and dividing by 107 (to convert pounds per billion km into pence per km) results in safety costs shown in table 2/3.

Table (2/3) Some Road casualty costs GB 2001 (pence per km)

 

Killed

Serious

Slight

Total

Pedestrian

5.61

6.91

1.81

14.33

Pedal Cycle

4.18

8.99

5.15

18.32

Bus

0.02

0.13

0.18

0.34

Car

0.35

0.43

0.31

1.09

derived from tables (2/1) and (2/2)

These figures may be open to several criticisms, including

The figures used, according to The Casualty Report (DfT, 2002 p 34) do not incorporate:

The figures give an, if anything probably conservative, approximate idea of the casualty costs per kilometer of travel by mode namely, the totals of the rows in table (2/3).

3. Quantifying the time value of travel mode

Based upon a consistent willingness to pay (WTP) approach, the values of time recommended by the DfT for use in economic appraisals of transport projects are based upon a standard appraisal value of non-working, in car and on bus time in 1998 of 4.52 per hour, given in Highways Economic Note (HEN) 3 (DfT, 1998 a).

The DfT indicate that the growth in value of time for the years ending in 1999. 2000 and 2001 is, respectively, 3.41%, 1.31% and 2.19 % per annum (DfT, 1998 a).. It can thus be calculated that in 2001 the standard appraisal value of non-working, in car and on bus time is 4.84. This is an aggregate figure, which in individual cases can vary. The same sources quote "The value of non-working time spent waiting for public transport, walking and cycling is double the standard appraisal value", leading to a figure of 9.68 per hour. That these values have such coincident proportions might indicate a somewhat imprecise methodology in their assembly, nevertheless these are the figures used herein.

Speeds differ tremendously, making them especially critical considering the high value placed on time costs and should more properly be considered on an individual basis. This paper, however, seeks to draw broad conclusions and will use the following speed values, derived from the national traffic survey and posted by the DfT (appendix 1). There is an especially marked tendency for the speed of all modes to increase by distance, walking speeds nearly tripling for longer journeys and the other modes all between 5 and 6 times faster for journeys over 3 km compared to journeys of less than 500m. For all bicycle journeys and the very short motor journeys it was stated that sample sizes were too small for reliable estimates, but they are regarded as reasonable for use in this paper.

Table 3/1 Average speed of mode of travel to school

 

km per hour

minutes per km

Pedestrian

3.9

15.38

Pedal Cycle

9.5

6.32

Bus

16.9

3.55

Car

23.1

2.60

source: National Travel survey (appendix 1)

Given the wide variety of age groups who cycle and the varying impedance's accorded to different journeys (pedal cycle quality, gradient, prevailing winds, surface, traffic and journey length) cycling speed especially is subject to great fluctuation. Some walking and waiting time is involved with bus journeys, but according to the figures supplied (appendix 1), only 9% of trips to school with bus as main mode incorporate other stages. This might be considered curious given that bus stops are not ubiquitous. No evidence indicates that waiting time figures are considered in the bus speeds.

The product of the appropriate time value and the average speed gives us the average cost of travelling one kilometre in terms of time, shown in table (3/2).

Table 3/2 Time Costs of travel (pence per kilometer)

Pedestrian

248.16

Pedal Cycle

101.88

Bus

28.63

Car

20.95

derived from Transport Economics Note 2 and Table (3/1)

4. Operating Costs

For the purposes of this paper, there is an assumption of zero operating costs for pedestrians and pedal cycles. Although there may be initial outlay and some maintenance this is statistically insignificant, and can be offset largely as being part of the general cost of living.

Bus fares vary usually as a function of distance, between operators and authorities. No general figures for bus fares have been found. The prices for West Yorkshire Metro will be regarded herein as being not untypical. First Group, a bus operator within West Yorkshire operates a fare system based on banding as follows in table (4/1).

Table 4/1 Bus fares relative to band and distance charged by First Group

Band

Distance (km)

Fare ()

   

Adult

Child

1

0.8

0.40

0.20

2

1.6

0.70

0.35

3

2.4

1.00

0.50

4

3.2

1.00

0.50

5

4.0

1.00

0.50

6

4.8

1.20

0.60

7 - 22

5.6 - 13.6

1.50

0.75

source: First Direct

Given that the average school trip bus journey length is 5.4 km (From National Travel Survey: See appendix 1) it is assumed that 15p per kilometer at 2001 prices is not an unreasonable estimate of bus fares for school journeys.

Cars are regarded as being subject to fuel and non-fuel costs. Fuel costs vary at least between model of vehicle, type of fuel, distance, speed and driving style. There is obviously a huge difference between those fuel costs incurred by a carefully driven high economy car that has been warmed up, and an old, cold, poorly tuned, high capacity vehicle driven by an injudicious driver and these aspects may be factored when considering one's individual costs. Transport Economics Note 3 provides a detailed framework for estimating operating costs incorporating factors for year, vehicle type and predicted efficiency, but for this paper the following parameters will be considered: In 2000 there was an average total fuel cost of 78.49 p per litre and an average fuel consumption of 0.17 litres per kilometre, therefore an average fuel cost per kilometer of 13.26 pence per kilometer at 1998 prices.

The non fuel costs of cars fall into two categories of which the 'fixed' (or 'capital') costs and 'distance related costs' shall be discussed in turn. Fixed costs do not vary with distance. Examples include insurance, purchase VAT, Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), MOT certificates, breakdown cover and obsolescence. For the purposes of this paper these are ignored, as they are not part of those short run marginal costs with which it is concerned. These costs would effect long term elascticities of use and therefore costs, but the assumption is made that people own cars and have paid these appropriate costs already. Given that 2001 and 2002 have seen consecutive record car sales in the UK (now over 2.5 million new vehicles per annum), there is little evidence to suggest that this trend will reverse given the current economic and social conditions.

The second category of non-fuel operating costs are distance related. These increase with travel and examples include oil, tyres and depreciation. Once again there are considerable differences across different user groups and vehicle types, for which there may be an account made, but this paper will accept the perceived cost for Non-Fuel vehicle operating costs of an average car of 3.52 pence per kilometer (TEN 3 Table 3/6) at 1998 prices. By combining these ongoing fuel (13.26 p/km) and non fuel (3.52 p/km) costs, and accounting for inflation at 2% (Retail Price Index, 2003) per annum a value of 17.81 p/km can be deduced.

Having calculated car operating costs as the sum of fuel and other distance related costs, the following operating costs per kilometer shown in table (4/2) will be used.

Table 4/2 Operating Costs of travel (pence per kilometer)

Pedestrian

0

Pedal cycle

0

Bus

15

Car

17.81

from: tables 4/1 and DfT (1998 b)

5. Quantifying the health value of travel mode

It is seen in section one, that considerable health risks are imposed in terms of accident costs, or at least that portion of those which result in personal discomfort and/or a degree of dehabilitation. There is also risk to health through pollution and non-activity and a vicarious benefit of exercise which may be gained through walking or cycling, along with recreational and access benefits of all forms of transport. These costs and benefits are very much more difficult to quantify. the British Medical association articulate a unanimity of professional opinion in stating:

"..health and fitness aspects of cycling, perhaps the least researched area of policy although it may provide the most compelling reasons for encouraging participation" (BMA, 1992)

Regarding pollution it is understood that levels of local pollutants are higher in vehicle than on the pavement (Chan et al, 1999), yet it is also true that in-vehicle times are shorter. For the purposes of this paper, therefore, the physiological effects of air quality are ignored.

There is an overwhelming consensus that moderate physical activity on a regular basis can provide the greatest benefits to public health. The UK Department of Health. (1996), Erikssen et al (1998), The World Health Organisation (1995), and the Surgeon General of the United States (1997) are typical of that unanimity that stresses the importance of frequent and brief moderate physical activity, typified by brisk walking or cycling for half an hour a day.

The quantification of health benefits is difficult to assess with precision as the they may be removed in time (for instance increased life expectancy of a child will not reveal itself for 80 years or so) and particularly difficult to measure (How is 'happiness' brought about by improved health measured?).

The predicted approximate increase in life expectancy through exercise may be estimated by using a life expectancy calculator, wherein different aspects of lifestyle are considered. The Microsoft Network Life expectancy calculator (MSN, 2003) offers three levels of activity, namely:

  1. Avoids all physical exertion;
  2. Takes moderate exercise, such as walking at least two miles three times a week and
  3. Regular aerobic exercise

It is found that a person who exercises moderately will, on average, probably, live three years longer than a totally sedentary person. The more regular exerciser gains an added year (Appendix 2).

Without accounting for other forms of exercise it shall be excepted that 150 minutes walking or cycling spread throughout a week will extend healthy life by four years. According to the CIA world fact book there is a Gross Domestic Product per capita per annum in the UK of $24,700 = 15,000 (CIA, 2003). It is thus surmised that regular walking or cycling brings a net worth of, on average, at least 60,000.

Life expectancy in the UK is 78 years and for a person who spends 70 years making ten 15-minute journeys per week (i.e. a total of 36,400 trips) each trip might then be surmised to have a value of 1.64. If the person is rewarded appropriately for their value this may be counted as an internal benefit. For these calculations a maximum benefit of only 1.64 per trip shall be considered, i.e. that benefit gained in the first quarter of an hour of each trip. (If there were no limit to the potential benefits one could make a 'healthy' profit by cycling all day).

Without doubt a raft of complicating factors could render this calculation less than perfect, as it does not consider the advantages during life of a healthy lifestyle, disability affected life years and the multiplicity of benefits generally associated with robust health, therefore this may be a conservative estimate of benefits. Unknown confounding factors are as likely to cancel each other out as not but, for the purposes of this work, by using the speeds indicated in table 3/1, the following health benefits (Table 5/1) will be debited to the transport user:

Table 5/1 Health benefits of travel (pence per kilometer)

Pedestrian

1.69

}not exceeding 1.65

Pedal cycle

0.69

Bus

0

 

Car

0

source: Author's calculations, from MSN(2003) and table (3/1)

6. Quantifying the social value of travel mode

If health aspects of travel are 'least researched' it may be because societal benefits to an individual through choice of travel mode may not even be considered an area of transport research (Hansen, et al in their 2001 paper do explore psychological benefits of fitness). The social benefits of travel are extraordinarily difficult to 'pin down', as the BMA (1997) indicate with the statement:

"It is difficult to establish quantitative data for the health effects of transport policy such as the severance of communities or the benefits to mental health."

It should be considered that there may be some advantages and disadvantages pertaining to each mode of transport. There are wider social benefits to walking and cycling, but to re-iterate, only those advantages pertaining to the individual are considered in this paper.

The advantages and disadvantages of each mode regarding the utility to the user through 'societal skills' shall be considered. Table (6/1) indicates at least some aspects of societal gain which may be considered as pertaining to the four transport modes with an 'x'. There may be potential benefits as yet difficult to prove indicated by a '?'

Table 6/1 Individual societal benefits (x) of transport modes (? = perhaps)

 

Pedestrian

Pedal cycle

Bus

Car

Dealing with strangers

x

?

   

Expanding learning

x

x

   

Making Friends

x

x

x

 

Meeting Family

x

?

?

x

Meeting Friends

x

x

x

 

Self Esteem

?

?

 

?

Self Reliance

x

x

x

 

Time management

x

x

x

 

Dealing with strangers is not something which immediately springs to mind as a desirable skill but, despite the prevalent concern of 'stranger danger', a child is unlikely to be hurt by a stranger for nefarious purposes [In one year 2001-02 there were eight children under the age of 16 murdered by strangers (Flood-Page and Taylor, 2002) against 219 killed in road accidents in 2001 (DfT, 2002)]. What is obviously true is that at some stage in a human life, the ability to meet, interact, deal with and co-operate with unknown and unintroduced humans is an asset. It is suggested that although an initial bus trip might introduce strangers, this does not recur to any great extent on subsequent journeys. Obviously a car journey totally isolates the passengers from the outside world. Through varying time and route, walking and cycling can provide the variety of introducing fresh acquaintance. It would be hard to imagine a cheery 'good morning' between two complete strangers on a bus, but this is the norm for walking on many paths.

We have evidence that physically active people are mentally more adept (Thirlaway and Benton, 1992). This is a function of the good health enjoyed by walkers and cyclists, but may also be a result of an increased net input and variety of information. Children who walk and cycle may attune their sense of spatial awareness as a direct result of them seeing the world in proportions which reflect reality. According to the U.S. Surgeon General's Report on Physical Activity and Public Health (1997):

"Physically active people tend to have better mental health... Compared with inactive people, the physically active had higher scores for positive self-concept, more self-esteem and more positive 'moods' and 'affects.' These findings seem similar in both young people and adults. Physical activity has also been used to treat mental health problems such as depression."

Making and meeting friends is not possible in a car, yet these are clear aspects of 'soft' travel and public transport. It might be added that enemies may be more difficult to avoid on the latter, but perhaps all the more dangerous with the former, especially when walking.

Scottish research points out that the car may offer the advantages of contact time with the family and self esteem (Granville et al, 2002). The study indicated that the school run is regarded by some parents as a very useful time in that it is a prime opportunity to be with and relate to children. There was evidence that quality time in the car was not so 'highly prized'. It might be suggested that escorts, if desired, can be provided on all modes and walking has also been cited by parents as a means to achieve 'quality time'. There may be wider problems within a family is the journey to school is the highlight of contact time between parents and children.

Modern society places great emphasis on the motor vehicle and, naturally, children follow the trend of drawing conclusions from the kind of vehicle people drive. As things stand it would be an unusual child who would rather roll up at the school gates in an 'old banger' than an air conditioned 4 x 4. The self esteem endowed by walking and cycling is moot. To a degree we are conditioned into thinking that these are 'poor' or 'childish' modes of transport, but during 'walk to school week' there is at least a perception that the sticky badge reward conveys some form of credit.

The skills of self reliance and time management are not encouraged to any great degree by chauffeured car journeys. For public transport they are critical and they are important aspects of walking and cycling.

It should be borne in mind that there will be a vast difference in benefits according to condition. It might be speculated that walking in a busy, noisy and dangerous environment is very different socially to a quiet direct, well defined and safe path. Equally congestion can lead to a degree of stress which is less conducive to socialising.

A raft of social benefits directly attributable to soft forms of transport are understood, but have no quantitative framework with which we can reflect them, consequently will not place them in this account.

7. Conclusions and discussions

A combination of the benefits outlined provide the framework with which to calculate mean journey costs outlined in table 7/1. The framework does not lend itself to totalling because of the limits to the health benefits.

Table 7/1 Some costs and benefits of travel. Pence per kilometer by mode

 

Safety

Time

Operating

Totals

Health

 

Pedestrian

14.33

248.16

na

262.49

169.06

}not exceeding 164.84

Pedal cycle

18.32

101.88

na

120.19

69.40

Bus

0.34

28.63

15.00

43.97

na

 

Car

1.09

20.95

17.81

39.84

na

from: Tables (2/3), (3/2), (4/2) and (5/1)

There is an applied utility for our calculations, in that in a real world scenario it is possible for a parent to calculate the worth of the travel options open to the family. Granted it is very 'back of the fag packet' but it is better than nothing. If the yield does not correspond to the intuitive feelings of the user, this might be a strong indication for the efficacy of closer investigation.

Perhaps a more important application of the matrix is in calculating the effects of the alteration of parameters on the validity of modes. We see a very high negative value placed on cycling and walking time, yet we know that many people actually cite these activities as recreational, i.e. far from being an incursion into their time they provide an end in themselves. It is clear that people will actually travel long distances merely to walk in a nice place, and even terrible golfers will pay up to hundreds of pounds to hack their way round beautiful surroundings, perhaps just for the walk. Cycle paths with little or no utilitarian use are used for purely recreational purposes.

The largest portions of the calculations are the health and time costs. If a lower time cost was placed on walking and cycling (and well it might, as outlined above) very different values would result. In an example of a four kilometer accompanied journey with three children it is calculated, given the current values, the cost of the school trip is 45.90 on foot and 17.45 on bicycles as opposed to 7.97 by car. If the journey was attractive enough to give a zero value of time the cycling benefits would be 2.93. (with zero time costs there would still be a net car cost of 3.78. By virtue of being slightly safer than cycling, walking would come out as being more beneficial still (3.73). It might be interesting to speculate that if the journey involved no interaction with motor transport, for example on a dedicated path, the safety costs of cycling and walking would practically disappear, giving a net benefit of 6.59 for both.

On the other hand, health costs form the bulk of benefits of walking and cycling. There comes a point of diminishing returns with health benefits, and so whatever the validity of the figures used, it seems that these benefits are considerably less for a person who already exercises regularly. In the above scenario, were health benefits to be largely ignored (as well they might be for a fit and active person) it is seen that, although car costs remain the same at 7.97, cycle costs climb to 24.04 (walking becomes an almost unbelievable 52.50). Crucially health benefits are most significant for those people with the greatest requirement of them, i.e. the sedentary.

Even ignoring those esoteric individual 'social' benefits, mainly pertaining to soft modes, it seems that any reduction in journey time or increase in quality, leading to less severe journey time values, has a profound effect upon the values of cycling and walking.

Error notwithstanding, this research indicates that:

a) the decision to drive children to school is often a rational choice and

b) even ignoring the large societal benefits brought about through reduced motor use, there is, at an individual, internal level, an economic justification in the provision of safe, pleasant and direct routes to school for walkers and cyclists.

 

Additional Resources

A Microsoft XL Spreadsheet, originally called 'Cost Calculator' has been designed to supplement this research. By typing in three parameters for

  1. number of children;
  2. escorts and
  3. distance

Costs of journeys can be calculated instantaneously using the parameters in this research

If one is not available the author may supply one. E mail: steve_jm_kidd@yahoo.co.uk

 

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to Pr Phil Rees for unquantifiable instruction, insight and inspiration.

 

References

BMA (1997) Road Transport and health London, Chameleon Press.

Button, K. (ed.) (1994) Internalizing the Social Costs of Transport. Paris, OECD.

Chan L. et al (1999) The effect of commuting microenvironment on commuter exposures to vehicular emission in Hong Kong, Atmospheric Environment, Volume 33, Issue 11, 1 May 1999, Pages 1777-1787

CIA (2003) World Factbook. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html

DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions) (1998) A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone. Cm 3950. London, Stationary Office.

DfT (Department for Transport) (1998a) Highways Economics Note 2. Values of Time URL: http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadnetwork/heta/highway/04.htm

DfT (Department for Transport) (1998b) Highways Economics Note 3.Vehicle Operating Costs. URL: http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadnetwork/heta/highway/05.htm

DfT (Department for Transport) (2002) The Casualty Report. London, The Stationary Office

Dorset County Council (2003) Walk to school. URL: http://www.walktoschool.org.uk

Erikssen, G. et al (1998) Changes in Physical fitness and changes in Mortality The Lancet. Volume 252, September 5, 1998 pp. 759-762

First Direct Bus Company: Telephone 01484 426313

Flood-Page, C. and Taylor, J. (eds.) (2002) Home office statistical bulletin, Crime in England and Wales 2001-2002 Supplementary Volume. United Kingdom, Office of National Statistics

Glaister, S. et al. (1998) Transport Policy in Britain. London, Macmillan.

Goodwin, P. et al (1991) Transport: The New Realism, Report to the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford.

Granville, S. et al (2002) Why do parents drive their children to school? Scottish Executive Central Research Unit

Hansen, C. et al (2001) Exercise Duration and Mood State: How much is enough to feel better? Health Psychology Volume 20, Issue 4, July 2001, pp. 267-275

Hillman, M (ed) (1992) BMA Cycling; Towards health and safety. Oxford University Press

Maddison, D. et al (1996) Blueprint #5: The True Costs of Road Transport. London, Earthscan.

MSN (2003) Money. URL: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/calcs/n_expect/main.asp

NCS (2003) National Cycling Strategy. URL: http://www.nationalcyclingstrategy.org.uk

Retail Price Index (2003). URL: http://www.forecasts.org/pound.htm

Surgeon general of the United States (1997) United States Department of Health and Human Services. Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta GA: US department of Health and Human Services

Sustrans (2003) Safe Routes to School. URL: http://www.saferoutestoschools.org.uk

Thirlaway, K. and Benton, D. (1992) Participation in physical activity and cardiovascular fitness have different effects on mental health and mood, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Volume 36, Issue 7, October 1992, Pages 657-665

UK Department of Health. (1996) Strategy statement on Physical Activity. London: DOH 1996

World Health organisation (1995) International federation of Sports medicine. Exercise for Health: WHO/IFSM Committee on Physical activity for health, Bulletin of the world health Organisation 1995; 73: 135-136

 


Appendix 1: Figures supplied by DfT by request: School trip statistics

 

Journey

Stage

 

0-500km

500m-1km

1-3km

Over 3km

Total

Average length (km)

 

Average trip length (km) by distance

   

Walk

0.9

0.9

Walk

0.3

0.8

1.7

3.7

0.9

Bicycle

2.4

2.4

Bicycle

0.3

0.8

1.9

4.7

2.4

Bus/coach

8.0

5.4

Bus/coach

1.4

0.9

2.1

9.0

8.0

Car

4.1

3.9

Car

0.4

0.8

1.9

7.0

4.1

Other

12.6

6.8

Other

-

0.8

2.0

13.4

12.6

All

3.5

3.1

All

0.3

0.8

1.8

8.3

3.5

Average time (minutes)

 

Average trip time (minutes) by distance

   
 

Journey

Stage

Walk

8.9

13.7

23.1

37.3

15.0

Walk

15.0

14.2

Bicycle

10.8

14.3

13.9

22.8

16.3

Bicycle

16.3

15.4

Bus/coach

30.0

6.6

19.4

33.3

31.2

Bus/coach

31.2

19.1

Car

5.1

6.4

7.8

15.1

11.0

Car

11.0

10.2

Other

-

5.0

20.7

38.7

37.4

Other

37.4

17.2

All

8.7

12.4

16.5

26.5

17.5

All

17.5

14.5

Average trip speed (km/hour) by distance

   

Average speed (km/hour)

 

0-500km

500m-1km

1-3km

Over 3km

Total

 

Journey

Stage

Walk

2.1

3.5

4.3

6.0

3.71

Walk

3.7

3.9

Bicycle

1.9

3.4

8.3

12.3

8.97

Bicycle

9.0

9.5

Bus/coach

2.9

8.2

6.6

16.3

15.44

Bus/coach

15.4

16.9

Car

4.9

7.6

14.2

27.8

22.39

Car

22.4

23.1

Other

-

9.7

5.7

20.8

20.22

Other

20.2

23.7

All

2.2

3.9

6.5

18.7

11.94

All

11.9

12.8

           
                 

Percentage of journeys consisting of different numbers of stages

     
 

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Total

   

Walk

100

0

0

-

-

100

   

Bicycle

100

-

-

-

-

100

   

Bus/coach

91

7

2

0

0

100

   

Car

99

1

0

-

-

100

   

Other

66

27

6

1

-

100

   

All

97

2

0

0

0

100

   
                 
 

Accompanied

Unaccompanied

Total

 

Average stage speed (km/hour)

 

Average stage length (km)

   

Walk

3.8

4.2

3.9

Walk

0.9

1.0

0.9

 

Bicycle

7.5

10.3

9.5

Bicycle

2.0

2.6

2.4

 

Bus/coach

18.2

15.9

16.9

Bus/coach

6.0

4.9

5.4

 

Car

23.2

8.8

23.1

Car

4.0

0.8

3.9

 

Other

24.9

22.6

23.7

Other

7.7

6.1

6.8

 

All

13.0

12.3

12.8

All

3.0

3.3

3.1

 

Percentage of stages accompanied/unaccompanied

Average stage time (minutes)

     

Accompanied

Unaccompanied

All

Walk

14.3

13.9

14.2

 

Walk

73

27

100

Bicycle

15.9

15.2

15.4

 

Bicycle

28

72

100

Bus/coach

19.9

18.5

19.1

 

Bus/coach

42

58

100

Car

10.3

5.4

10.2

 

Car

99

1

100

Other

18.7

16.1

17.2

 

Other

45

55

100

All

13.8

16.2

14.5

 

All

71

29

100

Appendix 2a Example of MSN Life expectancy calculator result sheet (high exercise)

Information Entered

 

Personal

 

Gender

male

Current age

14

Weight

140

Height

5 feet 10 inches

Frame size

medium

Education completed

high school

How would a friend describe you?

Easy-going and relaxed

Family History

 

Grandparents who lived past age 80

2

Mother

Lived to at least 80

Father

Lived to at least 80

Parents, siblings or grandparents who have had cancer, cardiovascular disease or childhood-onset diabetes

0

Died before age of 60 of these conditions

0

Died of natural causes before age 60?

0

Health

 

Blood pressure

100/70

Diastolic pressure ever over 90?

no

Over 105?

no

Weight fluctuated by more than 10 pounds?

no

Cholesterol level

200

Cholesterol ever over 240?

no

Over 300?

no

Lifestyle

 

Drink alcohol

no

Ever drink more than 2 drinks a day?

no

Regularly drink until intoxicated?

no

Ever smoked?

no

Years since quit smoking

0

Cigarettes smoked per day

0

Smoked marijuana once a week or more

no

Diet

 

Eating habits

high-fat foods balanced by fruit and vegetables

Exercise

 

Exercise routine

aerobically at least three times a week for 30 minutes or longer.

Regular doctor's exams?

no

Results

 

Answer

 

Life Expectancy

88

Appendix 2b Example of MSN Life expectancy calculator result sheet (low exercise)

Information Entered

 

Personal

 

Gender

male

Current age

14

Weight

140

Height

5 feet 10 inches

Frame size

medium

Education completed

high school

How would a friend describe you?

Easy-going and relaxed

Family History

 

Grandparents who lived past age 80

2

Mother

Lived to at least 80

Father

Lived to at least 80

Parents, siblings or grandparents who have had cancer, cardiovascular disease or childhood-onset diabetes

0

Died before age of 60 of these conditions

0

Died of natural causes before age 60?

0

Health

 

Blood pressure

100/70

Diastolic pressure ever over 90?

no

Over 105?

no

Weight fluctuated by more than 10 pounds?

no

Cholesterol level

200

Cholesterol ever over 240?

no

Over 300?

no

Lifestyle

 

Drink alcohol

no

Ever drink more than 2 drinks a day?

no

Regularly drink until intoxicated?

no

Ever smoked?

no

Years since quit smoking

0

Cigarettes smoked per day

0

Smoked marijuana once a week or more

no

Diet

 

Eating habits

high-fat foods balanced by fruit and vegetables

Exercise

 

Exercise routine

avoid all physical exertion, other than the path between your couch and the refrigerator.

Regular doctor's exams?

no

Results

 

Answer

 

Life Expectancy

84