Newcastle School Streets Evaluation

<p dir="ltr">Background </p><p dir="ltr">School Streets is a traffic restriction scheme meant to reduce traffic during drop off and pick up times on streets outside the school. A 2022 study found that air pollution surrounding Newcastle schools exceeded EU/UK regulations and posed potential health risks to children (Keast et al., 2022). Shortly after, Newcastle City Council (NCC) introduced a unique signage-only School Streets initiative at four primary schools in Newcastle to improve air quality around schools, two of which are now permanent schemes. The approach taken in Newcastle is a "signage only" scheme that informed drivers of the school road closures during school pick up and drop off times through regular active engagement from NCC officers and the delivery partner rather than active enforcement or infrastructure to physically prevent vehicles from driving down a road. Residents are supplied with an access permit indicating that their car is able to be on the School Streets during the active pick up and drop off times. Whilst assessing the changes in air quality is important (but out of scope here) understanding factors associated with a signage-only implementation approach used here are not well understood but are important for future policy making and expansion of School Streets. </p><p dir="ltr">The overarching aim of this evaluation was to understand how Newcastle School Streets has been implemented and the factors affecting successful implementation. The primary research questions of this PHIRST-Light-led project were to understand:  </p><p dir="ltr">• Why and how was the decision made to implement School Streets in Newcastle? (Adoption) </p><p dir="ltr">• How is School Streets being delivered and what are the barriers and facilitators to its implementation? (Implementation) </p><p dir="ltr">• How is School Streets experienced by end users and community stakeholders? (Acceptability) </p><p dir="ltr">• What is the perceived impact of School Streets on travel behaviour, health impacts and wellbeing and to the local community area? (Effectiveness) </p><p> </p><p dir="ltr">Methods </p><p dir="ltr">This evaluation used a retrospective, single group, mixed methods design to assess the implementation and outcomes of the Newcastle School Streets. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) model (Damschroder et al., 2022) was used to guide the research questions, methodology, and interpretation of the results. In addition to the CFIR, Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) (May & Finch, 2009) was used specifically to guide the questions used within the planned interviews. Existing datasets where pre and post implementation data existed were included in the analysis e.g., traffic count data. </p><p dir="ltr">The study was divided into four workstreams to capture the data in each of the identified themes. </p><p dir="ltr">Workstream 1: Adoption and implementation at the local authority level. </p><p dir="ltr">Workstream 2: Adoption and implementation of School Streets (at the school level)</p><p dir="ltr">Workstream 3: Acceptability (Perceptions) of School Streets by residents and schools</p><p dir="ltr">Workstream 4: Effectiveness of School Streets as defined by changes in active travel, traffic counts and a health impact assessment. </p><p> </p><p dir="ltr">Findings </p><p dir="ltr">Adoption </p><p dir="ltr">• The decision-making process was led by Newcastle City Council (NCC) Cabinet leaders. School Streets fit within the national Net Zero targets and was intended to be a part of a wider active travel initiative. </p><p dir="ltr">• Prior relations between NCC and schools as well as NCC and delivery partner (a national charity and advocacy organisation for active travel) enabled the use of existing partnerships to facilitate adoption of the scheme. </p><p dir="ltr">• The local and school community perceived traffic outside schools as unsafe prior to School Streets, creating a desire for increased traffic provision to support child safety. </p><p dir="ltr">Implementation </p><p dir="ltr">• NCC and delivery partner led the implementation of School Streets. NCC was responsible for implementation and engagement of residents, while the delivery partner was responsible for carrying out all engagements within the school community. </p><p dir="ltr">• Schools had little input on the implementation process. Head teachers expressed a desire to be more informed and involved in the planning process as delays were not communicated and launch dates were inappropriate at some schools. </p><p dir="ltr">• Prioritisation and implementation were impacted by changes in staff across the NCC and delivery partner which resulted in accompanying changes in political priorities. Recruitment delays at the delivery partner and changes in staff impacted the momentum and communication with the schools. </p><p dir="ltr">• School Streets was regarded as a low-cost scheme being signage only and using time-specific Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders; however, only four out of the desired 12 schools were delivered the School Streets scheme. Qualitative and quantitative results suggest limited change in travel behaviours. The lack of compliance by drivers (discussed more under ‘Effectiveness’) suggests that School Streets requires more follow-up support (i.e. continuous engagement and/or enforcement) to aid in its long-term success. </p><p dir="ltr">Acceptability </p><p dir="ltr">• The signage-only, time-specific (school pick up and drop off times) approach of School Streets made the scheme more popular than other restrictive traffic orders for NCC as well as the end users. </p><p dir="ltr">• Parents, pupils, and residents were aware of School Streets and had a generally good understanding of how it works. Residents were slightly unclear on how the access permits should be used as they were sometimes perceived as permanent parking passes rather than used as an indicator, they have permission to be on School Streets during the active traffic restriction times. </p><p dir="ltr">• Pupils and their parents/carers, school staff and local residents supported the idea of the School Streets; however, it was agreed across these groups that enforcement and interconnected physical infrastructure for active travel (such as walkways, crossings, and cycle lanes) were deemed essential for sustainability. </p><p dir="ltr">Effectiveness </p><p dir="ltr">• End users felt more confident to actively travel within the School Streets operating times; however, non-compliant road users were hostile at times. </p><p dir="ltr">• School Streets created some opportunity for increased active travel; however, external factors, such as the need to continue a journey to work after school drop off make multiple stops and longer distance lived from school were not addressed by this scheme. </p><p dir="ltr">• There was limited impact on motivation. Families that previously travelled actively continued to do so, while families that commuted with a car continued to do so. Some families who drove to school may have opted to park further from the school and walk the final part of the journey (park and stride). </p><p dir="ltr">• There was a decrease in traffic in some schools with weak evidence of change in mode of travel. Data was not available for all schools. </p><p dir="ltr">Discussion </p><p dir="ltr">The key facilitators for the School Streets implementation were: </p><p dir="ltr">• Existing work relationships between the main stakeholders (NCC, delivery partner, primary schools) provided a solid foundation to work together to implement the scheme. </p><p dir="ltr">• No physical infrastructure changes were required using a signage-only approach and therefore considered a ‘low cost’ scheme. </p><p dir="ltr">• The school and local community were supportive of School Streets. </p><p dir="ltr">The key barriers for the School Streets implementation were: </p><p dir="ltr">• Inconsistent communication between the NCC, delivery partner and the schools led to delays and reduced buy-in from parents and residents. </p><p dir="ltr">• Personnel resource requirement of the implementation team was higher than expected particularly with processing access permits for residents, recruiting delivery partners to support engagement activities and changes in staff at NCC. Only four out of the anticipated 12 School Streets were delivered. </p><p dir="ltr">• Residents, parents, and pupils believed lack of enforcement led to low compliance (traffic volume prior and post School Streets and parent survey data confirmed limited changes in travel behaviour).</p><p dir="ltr">Recommendations</p><p dir="ltr">NCC and delivery partner</p><p dir="ltr">• A built-in evaluation plan prior to launching School Streets will allow for a richer understanding of the effectiveness of the scheme, particularly with regard to traffic volumes and travel mode. </p><p dir="ltr">• Enforcement was viewed as a key step needed for increased compliance, through spot checks or ANPR. Consideration should be given to implementing and evaluating such measures.</p><p dir="ltr">• School Streets would benefit from evaluating the use of physical infrastructure changes to prevent vehicle access and improve active travel during school pick-up and drop-off times in comparison to the current signage only scheme. </p><p dir="ltr">• NCC and delivery partner should communicate frequently with schools during the implementation process to assess the needs of the specific school and generate agreed timelines of activity. </p><p dir="ltr">• Clearer guidelines for School Streets maintenance post implementation are needed. The delivery partner provides follow up support on an on-call basis; however, some schools were unaware of this resource. Therefore, clearer communication between the delivery partner /whoever the deliver partner is in the future and the school regarding sustainment strategy is needed. </p><p dir="ltr">• Families living between one and two miles from school have high car use; therefore, future engagement can could have a more targeted approach to change travel behaviour; for example, encouraging older children to cycle to school and families with younger children to utilise park and stride. </p><p dir="ltr">Schools </p><p dir="ltr">• Continued re-engagement of parents at the start of the new school year will ensure continued awareness of the scheme but needs to be supported by the delivery partner and NCC.</p><p><br></p>