Effectiveness and equity impacts of traffic restriction schemes outside schools: a controlled natural experimental study.
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity 2025
Patterson R, Carey EG, Garrott K, Huang Y, Ogilvie D, van Sluijs E, Panter J, Panter JR
DOI : 10.1186/s12966-025-01858-w
PubMed ID : 41398292
PMCID :
URL : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12966-025-01858-w
Abstract
Active travel (such as walking, cycling and scooting) has a range of benefits for human and planetary health, whereas driving children to school contributes substantially to motor vehicle traffic at peak times. Local governments have collaborated with schools to implement traffic restriction schemes, in which motor vehicle access around schools is restricted at drop-off and pick-up times. We examined the impacts of these schemes on how children travel to school, and how these differed between socio-economic groups, in England and Scotland.
In this controlled before-and-after natural experimental study, we used data collected by primary schools on children's mode of travel to school between 2012 and 2023. We matched each intervention school to two control schools based on area-level deprivation, urban-rural status, school size, baseline prevalence of active travel to school, and geographical region. We used fixed-effects regression models to conduct difference-in-difference analyses of the percentage of pupils using active modes of transport and private motor vehicles, adjusting for potential confounding factors. We examined absolute and relative differences and differential effects by stratifying analyses by geographical region, method of enforcement, area-level deprivation, and urban-rural status.
We used data from 498 schools (166 intervention and 332 control) at which on average 70% of children travelled to school by active modes at baseline, with no significant difference between intervention and selected control schools (p = 0.79). The proportion of pupils in intervention schools travelling by active modes increased by 5.9 absolute percentage points (95% CI: 2.5 to 9.1), and the proportion travelling by private motor vehicle decreased by 5.3 points (2.5 to 8.2), relative to control schools. The results for relative changes were similar, the patterns were consistent between jurisdictions and no differences were seen in other stratified analyses.
We found that after primary schools implemented schemes, a greater proportion of children walked, cycled or scooted to school and a smaller proportion were driven. These findings suggest that wider roll-out of these schemes might contribute to promoting active travel in children, and perhaps, to improving health. Improving the availability, quality and consistency of routinely collected data on travel to school would facilitate future research into these schemes.
Lay Summary
Aims
School Streets ban most cars from the roads right outside schools, at times when children arrive or leave. We wanted to find out whether School Streets help more young people to walk, cycle, scoot or skate to school. We also wanted to know whether they work the same everywhere or whether they help more in some places than others.
Why is this important?
Lots of research has found that active travel – like walking, scooting, cycling and skating – is good for our bodies and our minds. Having fewer cars on the road makes the air we breathe cleaner and might cause fewer car accidents. The point of School Streets is to have fewer cars outside schools and to encourage young people to travel actively. Lots of schools in the UK, especially in London, already have School Streets. But nobody has tested lots of School Streets at once, across the whole country, to see how well they work. Understanding how different types of School Streets work in different places means the people deciding where to put School Streets know where and how they might work best. That’s why we did this research.
What did we do?
In this part of our research, we looked at how many children used active ways (like walking, scooting or cycling) to get to and from school before and after School Street rules started. We then compared this with schools which don’t have School Street rules. We looked at:
• 166 schools with School Streets (cars banned right outside schools)
• 332 schools without School Streets (cars allowed)
We made sure to compare similar schools. The schools with and without School Streets:
• Were in similar places
• Had similar numbers of pupils
• Had similar levels of active travel before the School Street rules
What did we find?
Schools with School Streets saw more children walking, cycling, scooting or skating to and from school. There was about a 6% increase compared to schools without School Streets. This means that if you take 100 people from the school, 6 people who used to take the car to school now get there in more active ways. More young people now:
• Walked the whole way to school
• Rode bikes, scooters or skateboards all the way to school
• Got dropped off nearby and walked the rest of the way to school
This happened in lots of different places and types of schools.
Why is this helpful?
School streets cost money to set up. Our research shows that they do work, so it might be worth spending that money to set up School Streets at more schools, to try to keep children stay active and safe.
What’s next?
We are talking to families, children and schools to hear what they think about School Streets. The numbers are important, but it is also important to understand how people feel about these changes. This will help us understand the best way to make School Streets that people are happy with.