school travel guidance

National Guidance and Recommendations

Several agencies and organizations have integrated school travel-related COVID-19 considerations into school re-opening publications. Sources below include the most prominent information across the range of travel modes.

American Academy of Pediatrics

• COVID-19 and Safe Transportation in Motor Vehicles : Provides guidance for carriers who transport multiple children and guidance for families in making decisions about motor vehicle travel.
• Supplemental Information on COVID-19 and Safe Transportation in Motor Vehicles : Includes guidance for carriers who transport multiple children, children and the use of public transit, and transportation of children with special health care needs (not specific to school travel).
• COVID-19 Guidance for Safe Schools : Overview of COVID-19 prevention measures recommended for school settings.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

• Requirement for Face Masks on Public Transportation Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs : CDC’s Order on the wearing of face masks while on public transportation applies to all public transportation conveyances, including school buses. Regardless of the mask policy at school, passengers and drivers must wear masks on school buses, including on buses operated by public and private school systems, subject to the exclusions and exemptions in CDC’s Order.

National Association for Pupil Transportation, National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, and National School Transportation Association

• Student Transportation Aligned for Return to School (STARTS Guidelines) : Synthesizes the 27 guidelines that were included in at least 30 state reopening plans. Focuses on bussing but mentions expanded walk zones as a strategy to reduce demand for bussing and facilitate distancing. Released in 2020.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

• Planning Considerations for Walking and Rolling to School : Considerations for how to support active travel with COVID-19 prevention in mind. While it was released in 2020, considerations remain the same.

Safe Routes National Partnership

• Safe Routes Back 2 School : Includes guides, info sheets, and virtual discussion sessions launched monthly through September 2021. Designed to help school communities choose walking and rolling to school to support social connections and physical activity.

International

• UNICEF Guidance for Safe and Healthy Journeys to School: During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond : Offers practical steps to address COVID-19 and promote active transport like walking and cycling to improve air quality, physical activity and road safety.

Resources for School Re-opening Beyond School Travel

• White House Fact Sheet on Reopening Schools and Rebuilding With Equity
• U.S. Department of Education Safer Schools and Campuses Best Practices Clearinghouse : Lessons from the field to support schools, early childhood programs, and campuses continuing to reopen following closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Given the uncertainties presented by the pandemic, this information may change based on new evidence as it becomes available. Resources listed on this page were last updated on September 1, 2021 .

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Preventing Spread of Infections in K-12 Schools

Table of contents.

• › Preventing Spread of Infections in K-12 Schools
• Everyday Actions for Schools to Prevent and Control the Spread of Transmissible Infections
• When Students or Staff are Sick
• Planning for Outbreaks, Epidemics, and Pandemics
• Additional Strategies that May Be Used to Minimize Infectious Disease Transmission in Schools during Times of Elevated Illness Activity
• Maintaining School Operational Status
• Considerations for Prioritizing Additional Strategies
• Appendix A: How Infections Spread
• Science Brief: Prevention and Control of Respiratory and Gastrointestinal Infections in Kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12) Schools
• Fact Sheet: Help Your Child’s School Prevent the Spread of Infections

Mention of a product or company name is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Schools provide safe, supportive environments, routines, and important services that support student health and well-being. Schools should have plans in place that can help reduce illness and illness-related absenteeism by preventing the spread of common infections. This guidance is designed to maximize school attendance and its benefits for all students, while also preventing the spread of infectious diseases.

• Schools can help prevent infections caused by common childhood respiratory or stomach viruses by using and encouraging everyday actions.
• If illnesses are spreading in the community, additional actions can be taken by schools to prevent infections from spreading.
• Schools can prepare for outbreaks or a pandemic by ensuring that they have an emergency operations plan with an infectious disease section , which outlines the actions necessary to reduce the impact of the outbreak.

This new guidance consolidates and simplifies previous recommendations intended specifically for K-12 school settings. It replaces previous guidance that was for COVID-19 and influenza in schools, is aligned with CDC’s respiratory virus guidance , and is based on scientific studies that showed what works best to prevent the spread of many common respiratory and stomach infections. These strategies can also reduce the spread of many other infectious diseases in schools.

Prevention and Control of Respiratory and Gastrointestinal Infections in Kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12) Schools

On CDC’s website, there is additional guidance for several other illnesses (e.g., strep throat , hand-foot-mouth disease , norovirus , head lice , pink eye , impetigo , scabies , measles , and molluscum contagiosum ) that schools can use to prevent specific infections. Information on diseases from mosquitos  (e.g., West Nile Virus, dengue) is also available.

Schools should work with their local public health partners, and engage parents/caregivers and other community partners, to create their emergency operations plan that includes a section on infectious diseases. School and public health officials can promote learning and health for all students and staff by implementing comprehensive prevention strategies to keep students, staff, families, and school communities healthy and provide supportive environments for in-person learning. Federal civil rights laws  may require that schools provide reasonable modifications or accommodations in various circumstances. Schools must provide reasonable modifications or reasonable accommodations, when necessary, to ensure equal access to in-person learning for students with disabilities during increased infectious illness activity. Nothing in this guidance is intended to detract from or supersede those laws.

This guidance also highlights the importance of clear and consistent communication between school administrators, parents and caregivers, and staff. Providing clear and accessible communication to families and staff is required for the success of many strategies described in this guidance. Communication strategies should consider the needs of people with limited English proficiency who require language services, and individuals with disabilities who require accessible formats .

• Skip to main content
• Accessibility help

Information

We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

School transport guidance 2021

This document updates the guidance to local authorities about the provision of school transport and replaces the School Transport Guidance Circular issued in 2003 (Circular No 7/2003 ).

1. This document updates the guidance to local authorities [1] about the provision of school transport and replaces the School Transport Guidance Circular issued in 2003 (Circular No 7/2003 [2] ).

2. The establishment and delivery of an effective school transport system is an important responsibility for all local authorities and supports the Scottish Government's commitment to ensure that every child has the best start in life and is able to fulfil their potential.

3. Local authorities have functions in law [3] relating to travel to school and many parents rely on the school transport provided by their local authority to get their children to and from school.

4. This guidance deals only with school transport and travel to and/or from any place where school pupils receive education or training in general. It does not deal with travel arrangements for pre-school children, travel in connection with extracurricular activities, or travel between school and college of further education.

5. This guidance should be read in conjunction with the 'Guide to Improving School Transport Safety 2010' [4] .

Email: [email protected]

There is a problem

Thanks for your feedback

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

U.S. Department of State

Diplomacy in action.

UNCLASSIFIED (U)

OFFICIAL TRAVEL

(CT:LOG-399;   07-02-2024) (Office of Origin:  A/LM)

14 FAM 531  EmploymenT and Assignment Travel

(CT:LOG-343;   02-11-2022) (State/USAGM/USAID/Commerce/Agriculture)

When two or more types of travel are combined, the pertinent provisions apply separately to each segment of the trip.  Types of official travel follow below.

14 FAM 531.1  Appointment Travel

a. Official travel and transportation for U.S. citizen employees, their families, and effects, may be authorized from place or places of residence or other place specifically authorized to official duty station.

b. Effects may be authorized to be shipped at U.S. Government expense from place of storage.  Shipment of effects is authorized for employees whose tour of duty at post is one year or more or who serve less than a year and are transferred or otherwise removed from post for the convenience of the U.S. Government (see 3 FAM 2440 regarding curtailments).

14 FAM 531.2  Alternate-Seat-of-Government Travel

a. Official travel and transportation for U.S. citizen employees, their families, and effects, may be authorized to and from the alternate seat of government.

b. There is no per diem at destination unless specifically authorized. Shipment and storage of effects, and privately owned vehicle, may be authorized.

14 FAM 531.3  Relocation Travel

Official travel and transportation may be authorized for employees to move from one official duty station to another.  This includes permanent change-of-station (PCS) and transfer moves.

14 FAM 531.4  Home Leave Travel

a. Official travel and transportation may be authorized for U.S. citizen employees and their families from post or any place abroad where presence is due to U.S. Government orders to home leave address within the United States (or U.S. commonwealth or possessions) and return to post of assignment or a new official duty station.  Home leave travel is not authorized for family members already on separate maintenance allowance (SMA) authorization (see also 14 FAM 536.1 ).

b. Employees and their families traveling should spend 20 workdays in the United States (see 3 FAM 3434.2 for exceptions).  Except as provided in 14 FAM 532.4 the family may not travel until the employee is eligible for home leave and has been issued home leave orders.

14 FAM 531.5  Rest and Recuperation Travel

a. Travel of an employee and eligible family members may be authorized and performed in accordance with 14 FAM 523.2-1 , subparagraph f(1)(d) and in 3 FAM 3720 .

b. Each post eligible for rest and recuperation (R&R) travel will fund one of the following three travel options to employees and eligible family members:

(1) Round-trip travel to post's designated foreign relief point.  Lists of eligible posts by regional area and their designated relief points are in 3 FAH-1 Exhibit H-3722(1) through 3 FAH-1 Exhibit H-3722(5) ; or

(2)  Round-trip travel to any one city in the United States (the 50 States and the District of Columbia) or one city in its territories including American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; or

(3)  Travel to any other location or combination of locations whether within the U.S. or abroad.  Travel will be authorized against post's R&R cost-construct cap for the fiscal year in which the travel commences.  When this option is selected, the traveler may proceed using any mode of common carrier transportation, class of service, or fare type (restricted or unrestricted).  Any amount exceeding the cap is the financial responsibility of the traveler.  Cost-construct caps are established annually using the methodology and timeline outlined in 3 FAH-1 H-3726.3 .

c.  Only the designated foreign relief point, the traveler's selected city in the United States or U.S. territory, or "R&R Cost-Construct Cap" can be shown as the destination on the authorized itinerary of the R&R travel authorization.

d. Travel under the cost-construct cap is indirect travel; therefore, no Government fares may be utilized.  If the traveler selects a restricted airfare, any penalty fees, change fees, or limitations associated with the restricted airfare over and above the cap threshold are the traveler’s responsibility.  All cost-constructed travel must still comply with the provisions and requirements of the Fly America Act (see 14 FAM 583 ).

e.  Employees authorized premium class travel through MED/DRAD will have a cost-construct cap established on a case-by-case basis using the same methodology used for economy caps outlined in 3 FAH-1 H-3726.3 .

f.  The Department recommends that posts use the lowest cost unrestricted airfares for travel to the designated relief point or U.S. city or U.S territory.  However, funding for R&R travel is a post function and, as such, the final decision whether to use restricted or unrestricted fares for R&R travel is a post responsibility.

14 FAM 531.6  Marine Security Guard

See 12 FAM 435 .

14 FAM 531.7  Military Furlough, Resignation, Retirement, and Other Separation Travel

a. Official travel and transportation may be authorized for U.S. citizen employees, their eligible family members, and effects, from post or any place where presence is due to U.S. Government orders to designated place of residence in the United States (see definition of "United States" in 14 FAM 511.3 ).

b. When a U.S. citizen employee elects to reside at other than the designated place of residence, expenses must be allowed based on constructive cost (for "cost constructed travel," see 14 FAM 511.3 and 14 FAM 612.3 ) to designated place of residence in the United States.  See 3 FAM 2510 on separation of U.S. citizen employees and 3 FAM 2560 on military furlough.

c.  This regulation provides Civil Service employees, who mandatorily converted to Civil Service from Foreign Service under the Foreign Service Act of 1980, those benefits of travel and/or transportation of effects to which they were entitled at the time of such mandatory conversion.

14 FAM 532  Family tRAVEL

14 FAM 532.1  Family Travel for Representational Purposes

14 FAM 532.1-1  Eligibility and Purpose

Travel for representational purposes may be authorized for one family member only.  The authorizing officer is expected to make sparing and judicious use of this authorization.  In all cases, the justification must demonstrate a clear advantage to the United States.

14 FAM 532.1-2  Within Country of Assignment

a. As a general guideline, local travel of a family member should be authorized when:

(1)  Representation by the officer alone could not be accomplished effectively; or

(2)  Protocol or local customs would be served; or

(3)  The travel is necessary in connection with VIP visits or important meetings at which spouses of foreign dignitaries are present.

b. The chief of mission in consultation with heads of other agencies in their country of assignment will develop local rules and practices to promote the maximum degree of uniformity in the exercise of this authority.

14 FAM 532.1-3  Outside Country of Assignment

Representational travel outside the country of assignment is restricted to family members of high-level officers and will be authorized only when a clear need for dual representation exists.  Normally, travel will be restricted to eligible family members of chiefs of mission, deputy chiefs of mission, country public affairs officers, and USAID mission directors or USAID representatives.  However, in exceptional circumstances, the eligible family members of a subordinate officer may be authorized such travel.  Typical of the circumstances warranting representational travel outside the country are the following:

(1)  When an ambassador or USAID mission director accompanies a foreign dignitary to the United States on a state visit or as a presidential guest and the dignitary is accompanied by a spouse or other members of the household;

(2)  When a State, or USAID officer attends an international conference or meeting sponsored by a group or organization of nations, such as the United Nations, and the spouses of participants have also been invited to attend; and

(3)  When the President sends U.S. delegations abroad or congressional or other high-level delegations proceed abroad, accompanied by their spouses.

14 FAM 532.1-4  Domestic-Based Employees

Representational travel by family members of domestically assigned employees is restricted to the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, and Under Secretaries, unless a waiver is granted by M, and will be authorized only when a clear need for such representation exists.

14 FAM 532.1-5  Authorization and Documentation

a. Department of State : The chief of mission may (subject to the availability of travel funds) authorize representational travel within and/or outside the country of assignment for employees at post.  This authority may be redelegated only to the deputy chief of mission.  The Assistant Secretary of the regional bureau may authorize for the chief of mission.  For representational travel outside the country of assignment, advance approval must also be obtained from the assistant secretary of the regional bureau.  For domestic based employees, the Under Secretary for Management must approve all representational travel for family members.  Representational travel by a family member of M must be approved by D.

b. USAID :  The director of the USAID mission or USAID representative may (subject to the availability of travel funds) authorize representational travel within and/or outside the country of assignment.  This authority may not be redelegated. For representational travel outside the country of assignment, advance approval must also be obtained from the regional bureau Assistant Administrator in Washington.

c. The officials cited above must provide and sign a justification statement.  For control and inspection purposes, the authorizing officer should record and file the justification statement in the Department's eTravel Services (ETS) software (currently E2 Solutions).

14 FAM 532.2  Adding New Eligible Family Members

Employees who wish to add a new eligible family member – EFM - (see 14 FAM 511.3 for the definition of "eligible family member") do so by completing Form OF-126, Foreign Service Residency and Dependent Report, to GTM/EX/IDSD or HCTM/FSC for USAID staff.  Once the new EFM is added to the Form OF-126 then the employee’s travel authorization will be updated to include new EFM and travel expenses may be incurred based on the updated travel authorization, notwithstanding the time limitation specified in 14 FAM 584.2 .  Travel will be authorized from either the location at which the new EFM joined the family (for example, place of birth or adoption) or from the employee’s official home of record.  Shipment and storage of additional effects may be authorized in accordance with 14 FAM 613.2 .

14 FAM 532.3  Advance Return of Family Financed by U.S. Government

14 FAM 532.3-1  General Policy

In certain cases, an employee's family may be authorized, before the employee's eligibility for travel, to return to employee's residence in the United States.

14 FAM 532.3-2  Conditions of Authorization

a. The Department of State, USAGM, Commerce, Agriculture, or the USAID mission director or USAID representative may authorize advance travel of an employee's family members when the chief of mission or the head of the agency establishment abroad determines that the public interest requires the return of a member of the family for compelling personal reasons of a humanitarian or compassionate nature, including but not limited to cases which may involve physical or mental health or death of any member of the immediate family.

b. The Department or Agency in Washington, DC, may authorize advance travel of family members when there is an obligation imposed by an authority or circumstances over which the individual has no control.  Advance travel may be authorized by the Department or Agency in Washington, DC, after family members have been at the post at least 6 months under the following conditions:

(1)  A child who is not eligible for educational travel (see 14 FAM 532.5 ) has been at a post abroad and educational needs (for the equivalent of grades 1 through 8 only) so require; or

(2)  A child 21 years or older, is unmarried, and has traveled to the post before attaining such age (see 14 FAM 532.6 ).

14 FAM 532.3-3  Authorized Costs

Only one-way transportation will be authorized for advance return of family.  If a family member subsequently travels at U.S. Government expense to the same or another post to which the employee is assigned, the total cost of the advance return and subsequent travel may not exceed the cost which would have been incurred had the family member traveled at the same time as the employee.

14 FAM 532.3-4  Repayment Agreement

Before any obligation of U.S. Government funds is incurred, the employee must execute a repayment agreement in accordance with the format in Form DS-4020, Repayment Agreement for Advance Travel of Family.  The original and one copy should be forwarded to:

(1)  State :  GTM/CDA, by memorandum, subject:  APER;

(2)  USAID :  M/PM, USAID/W as an attachment to a memorandum;

(3)  Commerce : USFCS/OIO/OFSP as an attachment to a memorandum;

(4)  USAGM :  E/O, P/N, VOA/X, and D/OHR as an attachment to a memorandum.

(5)  USDA/FAS :  Foreign Agricultural Affairs, International Services Division; and

(6)  APHIS :  International Services/Administrative Services/Personnel.

14 FAM 532.3-5  Repayment Requirements

The conditions under which repayment must be made by the employee for travel expenses borne by the U.S. Government in connection with the advance return of employee's family are as follows:

(1)  The employee fails to complete the service period (see 3 FAH-1 H-2423 , subparagraph c) required to become eligible for travel and transportation at U.S. Government expense; or

(2)  There is a change of dependency status which cancels the eligibility of family member(s) for return travel to the United States (see definition in 14 FAM 511.3 ) at U.S. Government expense.  (A divorce or an annulment prior to the issuance of travel orders no longer cancels eligibility of family members for return travel to the United States.)

14 FAM 532.3-6  Repayment Liquidation or Refund

If the employee is subsequently transferred, assigned, separated, or returned on leave at U.S. Government expense to the United States and the expenses of the advance travel become a proper obligation of the U.S. Government, the employee will be relieved of the obligation set forth in the repayment agreements to the amount of allowable expenses (see 14 FAM 532.3-4 ).  If the employee has previously made repayment, employee may request and receive an appropriate refund.

14 FAM 532.4  Advance Travel of Family Financed by the Employee

a. The employee may arrange for advance travel of family, paying the cost initially and claiming reimbursement after the employee has been issued travel authorization which covers the travel of family and after the employee has reached eligibility date.  Reimbursement is limited to the amounts payable had the family traveled at the same time as the employee.

b. Reimbursement may be made for advance travel or return travel to the United States for a spouse or domestic partner as defined in 3FAM 1610 and/or minor children of an employee who have traveled to the post as eligible family members even if, because of divorce, annulment or dissolution of domestic partnership, such spouse or domestic partner as defined in 3 FAM 1610 and/or minor children have ceased to be eligible family members as of the date the employee becomes eligible for travel.  Reimbursable travel may not be deferred more than 6 months after the employee completes personal travel pursuant to the authorization.

c.  If the advance travel of family was to the employee's temporary duty (TDY) post and the employee was transferred to the post at the end of the employee's TDY, employee may claim reimbursement for expenses of allowable travel and transportation of family and effects which were incurred prior to the effective date of transfer of the employee and the date of employee's transfer travel authorization.

14 FAM 532.5  Educational Travel

a. Travel of a child may be authorized in lieu of an educational allowance, once each way annually between school and the employee's post for secondary education and for college education in accordance with section 280, Standardized Regulations (Government Civilians, Foreign Areas) and the Federal Travel Regulations.

b. Unaccompanied air baggage is allowable in accordance with 14 FAM 613.3-1 .

14 FAM 532.6  Travel of Children 21 Years of Age or Older

(CT:LOG-399;   07-02-2024) (State/USAGM/USAID/Commerce/Agriculture)

a. An employee's child who is unmarried and who is 21 years of age or older may be authorized return travel to the employee's place of residence for separation purposes in the United States (see definition in 14 FAM 511.3 ), provided the child, when attaining the age of 21 was at, or proceeding to, a post abroad to which the employee was assigned.  The first travel authorization that is issued to the employee authorizing travel of the family after a child has reached the age of 21, constitutes authority for such travel.  The return of the child to the United States should be completed within 1 year of the date the employee's travel begins.

b. A child 21 years or older, who proceeds to the employee's post, may not be returned to the United States nor perform any travel at U.S. Government expense, except as provided for educational travel up to the 23rd birthday, plus additional years allowed for any military service, in subchapter 280 of the Standardized Regulations (Government Civilians, Foreign Areas).

c.  Travel of a child who is under 21 will usually be authorized to an employee's next assignment if the employee's transfer is to occur before the child's 21st birthday.  If that child's travel does not commence prior to turning 21, that authorization is no longer valid.

d. If a child commences R&R or home leave/return travel before attaining the age of 21 and turns 21 while in travel status, the child is authorized return to post under the travel authorization that was in effect prior to turning 21.

14 FAM 532.7  Travel of Family While Employee Is on Temporary Duty (TDY) En Route to or from Post of Assignment

a. Payment of per diem during an employee's period of TDY, which may not exceed 30 calendar days total, is authorized for members of an employee's family accompanying the employee to the post of assignment only under the following conditions:

(1)  When the employee is ordered to stop within the country of destination for orientation, training, or consultation while en route to post of assignment;

(2)  When the employee is ordered to stopover outside the country of destination for orientation, training, or other TDY while en route to the post of assignment, provided that the stopover is in the positive interest of the U.S. Government and is made necessary by a threat to the health, safety, or well-being of the employee’s family if required to continue on to post of assignment other than in the company of the employee;

(3)  In cases where the family member, because of representative responsibility in the U.S. Government's interest, is required to stop at agency headquarters while en route abroad to employee's post of assignment in order to undergo special orientation and/or training designed to ensure the effective discharge of those responsibilities; or

(4)  In any other cases when specifically authorized by the agency in advance in writing in travel orders.

b. When an employee is ordered to stop for TDY in the United States or abroad en route to or from employee's post of assignment, the family does not have to accompany the employee as long as they join the employee at the stopover point.  Per diem at the stopover point may be allowed for members of the family only during the period of TDY of the employee and for the actual time at the TDY location.

c.  Per diem, not to exceed 3 work days, may be authorized when an employee or the employee's family members who are at a constituent post and are traveling on home leave, transfer, or separation orders must stop, at the time of travel, at the Embassy in country or at an embassy in a neighboring country for the purpose of storing or retrieving effects or obtaining passports, visas, or immunizations.

d. Stopovers should generally not be authorized for family members in connection with international, interagency, interregional, or intermission conferences, unless specifically authorized by the agency in advance in writing and reflected in travel orders.

14 FAM 532.8  Return Travel of Spouse, Domestic Partner as Defined in 3 FAM 1610, and/or Dependent Children to the United States in Connection with Marital Separation, or Divorce, or Statement of Dissolution of Domestic Partnership

a. Return travel of an employee's spouse or domestic partner as defined in 3 FAM 1610 may be authorized to the employee's service separation address in the United States (see definition of "United States" in 14 FAM 511.3 ) or any other location on a cost-constructive basis from the employee's post of origin to the employee's separation address when a permanent marital separation or divorce is intended, or a statement of dissolution of domestic partnership has been submitted.  Generally, a separation agreement should exist, but in the absence of an agreement, the chief of mission or head of agency's establishment abroad may determine that such travel is warranted and may initiate authorization action.  The circumstances upon which this determination is based should be summarized in writing and retained at post in accordance with 5 FAH-4, Records Management Handbook.

b. Return travel of spouse or domestic partner as defined in 3 FAM 1610 may be included in the first travel authorization issued to the employee authorizing travel of the family after an agreement to separate, divorce, or dissolve a domestic partnership is reached.  In the circumstances referred to in paragraph a of this section, such travel may also be requested as advance travel in accordance with 14 FAM 532.3 and 14 FAM 532.4 .

c.  Only one-way transportation to the employee's service separation address, or to any other location in the United States on a cost-constructive basis from the employee's post of origin to their separation address, will be authorized for return travel of spouse or domestic partner as defined in 3 FAM 1610 .  If the employee subsequently requests travel of the spouse at U.S. Government expense to the same or another post to which the employee is assigned, the total cost of the return and subsequent travel may not exceed the cost which would have been incurred had the spouse or domestic partner as defined in 3 FAM 1610 traveled at the same time as the employee.  In such cases, if the cost of the return and subsequent travel exceeds the employee's authorized travel, the employee will be liable for payment of the excess cost.

d. Before any expenses are incurred for return travel of spouse or domestic partner as defined in 3 FAM 1610 , the spouse or domestic partner as defined in 3 FAM 1610 must execute an agreement in accordance with the format in Form DS-4021, Agreement for Return Travel of Spouse (or domestic partner).  This agreement states that the spouse or domestic partner as defined in 3 FAM 1610 understands that travel back to the same post will not be authorized at U.S. Government expense, and that the agreement is signed voluntarily.

e. Travel of dependent children of an employee may be authorized under this provision only if a legal custody agreement exists or the employee otherwise agrees in writing to permit the children to leave post permanently with the spouse.  The employee must also submit a revised Form OF-126, Foreign Service Residence and Dependency Report, to declare as a loss those children for whom return travel is requested under this provision (see 3 FAH-1 H-2347.8 , subparagraph a).  The employee may also request advance travel of children in accordance with 14 FAM 532.3 , if travel is not intended to be a permanent return to the United States.

14 FAM 532.9  Transfer Travel

(CT:LOG-343;   02-11-2022) (State/USAGM/USAID/Commerce/Agriculture) (Foreign Service)

a. Official travel and transportation may be authorized for U.S. citizen and Foreign Service national employees, their families and effects, from old post, or any place where presence is due to U.S. Government orders, to new post.  Transportation of effects is allowed from old post to new post and/or to point of storage; or to new post from old post, previous posts, and/or points of authorized storage.

b. Effects may be shipped between places other than those authorized subject to provisions in 14 FAM 612.3 .  When emergency conditions exist at the new post, another destination may be designated for travel of the family and transportation and storage of effects and a motor vehicle.  Upon termination of the emergency, travel and transportation to the new post may be authorized.

14 FAM 532.10  Spouse Travel to Obtain a Visa or Reset Residency

Management officials at post may authorize, from post funds, travel expenses when the spouse of an employee assigned to post must travel out of country to obtain appropriate visas or reset residency permissions to remain in-country when the host government will not accredit the spouse.  The travel expenses under this provision may include transportation expenses, per diem, and authorized miscellaneous expenses (e.g., visa fees, where authorized under 14 FAM 562.1 , subparagraphs a(1) through a(4).  Expenses incurred are for the spouse only.  Time in travel status should be minimized to the extent possible to obtain a visa or reset residency permissions at the most cost-effective point to post.  Spouses who are employed on family member appointments (FMA) or personal services agreements (PSA) are not authorized administrative leave for the purpose of the travel.

14 FAM 533  Temporary Duty (tdy) Travel

14 FAM 533.1  General

Official travel and transportation may be authorized for U.S. citizen employees from any place to TDY station or stations and thence to such place or to post (see also 14 FAM 532.7 covering travel of eligible family members). Official travel and transportation may be authorized for Locally Employed (LE) Staff from their post of employment to TDY station or stations and for return to the post of employment.

14 FAM 533.2  Authorizing Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel

a. State only :  Form JF-144, Temporary Duty (TDY) Official Travel Authorization, is used for approving TDY travel.  Approval may cover travel performed for administrative or medical purposes, rest and recuperation, short-term training, attendance at conferences, etc., between the United States and other countries, within the United States, or abroad.  Authorizations issued in the form of telegrams, etc., are confirmed by the subsequent issuance of a Form JF-144, or equivalent official form.

b. USAID only :  See ADS 522, Performance of Temporary Duty travel in the United States and Abroad.

c.  Commerce only :  Form CD-29, Travel Order, is used for authorizing TDY travel when headquarters, Washington, DC, issues the travel orders.  Otherwise, Form JF-144 is used when post issues the travel orders.  Included is travel for administrative purposes, rest and recuperation travel, short-term training, medical purposes, attendance at conferences, etc., performed abroad, within the United States, and between the United States and points abroad.  Authorizations issued in the form of telegrams are confirmed by the subsequent issuance of either a Form CD-29 or a Form JF-144.

d. USDA only :  Form AD-202, Travel Authorization, is used for authorizing TDY travel.

e. USAGM only :  Form IA-34-A is used for authorizing TDY travel; Form JF-144 is used for overseas correspondence travel.

14 FAM 533.3  Training Attendance

Official travel may be authorized for employees to receive training.

14 FAM 533.4  Conference Travel

14 FAM 533.4-1  Attendance

Agencies must select conference sites that minimize conference costs and conference attendees' travel costs.  Agencies must minimize conference attendees' travel costs by authorizing the minimum participation necessary to accomplish agency goals.  The authorizing official must assure that the number of attendees from the Department is necessary and justified.  In addition, the need for conference and meetings for which the total travel and per diem estimate exceeds $5,000 must be authorized by an Assistant Secretary, executive director, or equivalent.

14 FAM 533.4-2  Conference Site

When available, use U.S. Government-owned or U.S. Government-provided conference facilities to the maximum extent possible.  The authorizing officer should avoid conference sites that might appear extravagant to the public.

14 FAM 533.4-3  Conference Site Selection Process

a. Locality selection procedures :

(1)  When arranging to conduct a conference, the authorizing officer must consider at a minimum three alternative conference sites;

(2)  Each considered site must be selected based on the belief that it would result in lower overall conference costs and conference attendees' travel costs.  The sponsoring or co-sponsoring office must survey the cost of conference facilities at each of the considered sites, and must determine the potential cost to the U.S. Government of conducting the conference at each of the alternative sites.

b. Exception :  A conference site may be selected without following the procedures outlined above for the reason of disproportionate participation.  The procedures outlined above do not apply when a majority of the U.S. Government attendees are from the locality proposed as the conference site, or when only one site accomplishes conference goals.  In the latter case, the authorizing officer must certify in writing that the selected locality is the only conference site compatible with accomplishing the sponsoring or co-sponsoring office's objectives.

c.  Documentation :  The authorizing officer must document the cost of each alternative conference site, and must retain a record of the documentation for every conference held.  The authorizing officer must also make the documentation available for inspection by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), or for other interested parties.

14 FAM 533.5  Experts and Consultants Travel

Persons employed intermittently as consultants or experts and persons serving without compensation (including citizens or subjects of other countries) are authorized travel expenses, including per diem, while away from their homes or regular places of business, in accordance with 14 FAM 560 .

14 FAM 533.6  Information Meeting Travel

(CT:LOG-343;   02-11-2022) (State/USAGM/USAID/Commerce/Agriculture) (Foreign Service and Civil Service)

Official travel and transportation may be authorized for employees to attend a meeting to discuss general agency operations, and/or to review status reports or discussion topics of general interest.  If a site visit is conducted as part of the same trip, the entire trip should be considered a site visit (see 14 FAM 533.10 ).

14 FAM 533.7  International Conferences

When travel to, or in connection with, conferences is financed under Department of State appropriations available for international conferences, such travel must be performed in accordance with the provisions of the travel authorization and other appropriate instructions issued by the Department pertaining to the conference.

14 FAM 533.8  Invitational Travel Authorizations Federally Financed

Each invitational travel authorization must specify the purpose of the travel (e.g., conference attendance, information meeting, speech presentation, etc).

14 FAM 533.9  Invitational Travel Authorizations Non-Federally Financed

To defray the cost of air travel, any donations from non-Federal sources must comply with the Department's regulations in accommodations on airplanes ( 14 FAM 567.2 ), including all applicable OMB guidelines (OMB 93-11), as well as the Department’s regulations regarding gifts of invitational travel (see 2 FAM 962.12 ).

14 FAM 533.10  Site Travel

Travel of an employee may be authorized to visit a particular site in order to perform operational or managerial activities; e.g., oversee programs, grant operations, or management activities for internal control purposes; carry out an audit, inspection or repair activity; conduct negotiations; provide instructions; or provide technical assistance.

14 FAM 533.11  Special Mission Travel

Travel of an employee may be authorized to carry out a special agency mission such as involvement in noncombat military unit movements; providing security to a person or a shipment (e.g., diplomatic pouch); moving witnesses from residence to other locations; and covering travel by Federal beneficiaries and other nonemployees.

14 FAM 533.12  Speech or Presentation Travel

Travel of an employee may be authorized to make a speech or a presentation, deliver a paper, or otherwise take part in a formal program other than a training course where the authorizing official makes a specific determination in writing that such activity is related to and in furtherance of the agency’s mission.

14 FAM 534  Medical Travel

a. Official travel and transportation may be authorized for U.S. citizen employees and their eligible family members from any place where presence is due to U.S. Government orders to nearest locality where suitable medical care can be obtained and thence to an official duty station.

b. Travel of attendants may be authorized.  For other special provisions, see 16 FAM 316 and 14 FAM 523.2-1 , paragraph e.

14 fam 535  oTHER TRAVEL

14 FAM 535.1  Directed Departure

14 FAM 535.1-1  General

When, in accordance with 3 FAM 2443 , it is the judgment of a chief of a diplomatic mission that the departure of an employee assigned by the Department or Agency to a post under the chief of mission's jurisdiction would be in the interest of the U.S. Government, the authorizing officer at the post may issue a travel authorization detailing the employee to a nearby country.  For the Department, the post-authorizing officer may issue a travel authorization transferring a State Department employee and that employee's eligible family members to Washington, DC.  For USAID, a travel authorization transferring an employee to Washington, DC, must originate in or have prior approval of Washington, DC headquarters.  For USAGM, a travel authorization transferring an employee to Washington, DC must originate in or have prior approval of Washington, DC headquarters.

14 FAM 535.1-2  Procedures in Connection with Directed Departure

To authorize purchase of transportation permitting the detail of an employee or to transfer an employee and eligible family members in accordance with 3 FAM 2443 , chiefs of mission may allow issuance of Forms OF-1169, U.S. Government Transportation Request (GTRs).  The travel order establishing the official obligation of funds will be issued by the Department or the Agency, after the travel commences, upon receipt of the report required in 3 FAM 2445 .  Travel will be chargeable to the current applicable appropriation.  Other fiscal data will be supplied by Washington, DC.  Movement of household effects and shipment of automobiles must not be authorized until receipt of instructions from the Department or Agency.

14 FAM 535.2  Travel under Authorized/Ordered Emergency Evacuation

14 FAM 535.2-1  General

a. When the Under Secretary for Management (M) makes a determination that an emergency exists at a post requiring the evacuation of official U.S. citizen employees, official travel and transportation may be authorized for the employees, their eligible family members, and effects from post of assignment to place designated in the travel orders, and thence to post.

b. When M makes a determination that an emergency exists at a post requiring the evacuation of Foreign Service national employees, official travel may be authorized for the Foreign Service national employees and their immediate families to the nearest practicable place for the duration of the emergency.

c.  The authorizing officer at post must issue individual or blanket travel authorizations (see 14 FAM 628 for shipment and storage of household effects (HHE)).

14 FAM 535.2-2  Travel Authorizations under Authorized/Ordered Emergency Evacuation

a. State only :  The authorizing officer at post must issue individual or blanket travel authorizations.  Each authorization must cite the names of the persons traveling.  In addition to the usual post distribution of copies, the authorizing officer must furnish information copies of all evacuation travel authorizations to the:

(1)  Bureau of Global Talent Management (GTM/CDA/AD);

(2)  Travel and Transportation Management Division (A/LM/OPS/TTM);

(3)  Appropriate regional bureau; and

(4)  Office of Accounting Operations (CGFS/F/AO).

b. Commerce only :  The authorizing officer must furnish evacuation travel authorization copies to the:

(1)  Office of Foreign Service Human Resources (USFCS/OFSHR);

(2)  State's Travel and Transportation Management Division (A/LM/OPS/TTM); and

(3)  Office of Planning and Management.

c.  USAGM only :  The authorizing officer must furnish evacuation travel authorization copies to the:

(1)  Office of Foreign Service Personnel (D/OHR);

(2)  Office of Administrative Operations Division (M/AO); and

(3)  Appropriate administrative office.

d. USDA/FAS only :  The authorizing officer must furnish evacuation travel authorization copies to the:

(1)  Foreign Agricultural Affairs/International Services Division (USDA/FAS/OFSO/ISD); and

(2)  State's Travel and Transportation Management Division (A/LM/OPS/TTM).

e. APHIS only :  The authorizing officer must furnish evacuation travel authorization copies to the International Services/Administrative Services/Travel Section.

f.  U.S. Despatch Agents :  The Department's or Agency's transportation office will ensure that the appropriate U.S. Despatch Agent receives a copy of the evacuation order or request and authorization for use in clearing the employee's shipment(s) through U.S. Customs.

14 FAM 535.2-3  Prohibitions Against Official and Personal Travel to Posts under Authorized/Ordered Emergency Evacuation

See 3 FAM 3770 regarding requirements and restrictions for official and personal travel to posts under authorized departure, ordered departure, suspended operations, contingency operations, and posts designated partially unaccompanied or unaccompanied.

14 FAM 535.3  Emergency Visitation Travel

The cost of emergency visitation travel in connection with the serious illness, injury, or death of an immediate family member is performed in accordance with the provisions of 3 FAM 3740 .

14 FAM 535.4  Visitation Travel

14 FAM 535.4-1  Authorization

Travel of an employee or eligible family member may be authorized and performed in accordance with regulations in 14 FAM 523.2-1 , subparagraph f(1)(h), and in 3 FAM 3730 .

14 FAM 535.4-2  Travel to Countries With Closed Posts Or No U.S. Diplomatic or Consular Relations

See 3 FAM 3780 regarding requirements for official and personal travel of employees to countries with which the United States has no diplomatic or consular relations or where all U.S. posts have been closed, and where travel may be prohibited or restricted.

14 FAM 536  SPECIAL TRAVEL

14 FAM 536.1  Voluntary Separate Maintenance Allowance (SMA) Travel

14 FAM 536.1-1  Authorization

a. Travel may be authorized for all eligible family members for whom SMA is granted under Section 260 of the Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR).

b. Per 3 FAM 3232.3-3 , only one change of status of SMA for each family member will be permitted for a single tour of duty.  See DSSR 264.2(b) regarding change in status in an evacuation.

14 FAM 536.1-2  Authorized SMA Location(s)

a. The following SMA travel at U.S. Government expense may be approved to authorized location(s):

(1)  When the employee's point of origin is in the United States, an employee's family members may remain at the employee's last official duty station in the United States, or travel to the home leave location designated on Form OF-126 or Washington, DC when the employee is transferred to a foreign post of assignment;

(2)  When an employee transfers from one foreign post of assignment to another, an employee's family member(s) may travel to the home leave location designated on Form OF-126, Foreign Service Residence and Dependency Report, or Washington, DC;

(3)  If an SMA is granted during an employee's tour of duty abroad, the employee's family members may be authorized travel to the home leave location designated on Form OF-126, or Washington, DC.

b. For shipment of household effects under SMA Grant, see 14 FAM 613.7 .

14 FAM 536.1-3  Alternate SMA Location

a. U.S. family members traveling to an alternate SMA location in the United States (see definition in 14 FAM 511.3 ) may do so on a cost-constructive basis.  The maximum amount of reimbursement is the cost required to move the family members from the authorized point of origin to the authorized SMA point.

b. Foreign location: An employee's family members traveling to a foreign SMA location may do so on a cost-constructive basis.  The maximum amount of reimbursement is the cost required to move the family members from the authorized point of origin to the authorized SMA point.

c.  Should an employee's SMA grant be terminated due to the employee's subsequent transfer to another post of assignment while the family members are at a foreign location, the employee will be responsible for the payment of excess travel costs involved in relocating the family members to the new post of assignment.  The excess travel costs, if any, must be determined through a constructive cost analysis that compares the travel cost of the employee's eligible family members that would have been authorized from an authorized SMA location to the next post of assignment compared to the amount that is actually incurred.  Any amount in excess of the amount allowable is payable by the employee.

d. Family members in a foreign alternate SMA location have no diplomatic status or privileges.

14 FAM 536.1-4  SMA Travel Financed by Employee

An employee who initially pays the costs of advance travel of family members may subsequently claim reimbursement of travel and transportation expenses if the agency later authorizes an SMA grant for the affected family members.  An employee may not recover a greater amount than would have been incurred had the U.S. Government procured the travel (see 14 FAM 544.2 , paragraph c).

14 FAM 536.2  Death of U.S. Citizen Employee

The following applies to an employee abroad, on domestic assignment, or on TDY.

14 FAM 536.2-1  Expenses in Connection with Remains

a. Following the death of a Foreign Service employee or EFM while in a foreign area, expenses may be authorized for the reasonable cost of preparing remains including the cost of embalming, clothing, cremating, casket, or container suitable for shipment to the place of interment; expenses incurred in complying with local and U.S. laws; and transportation of remains from place of death to the employee's authorized separation address. Transportation of remains to any other place in the United States or its territories as designated by the next-of-kin may be done on a cost-construct basis against the authorized separation address, by surface, or by air.  For shipment of remains to a foreign country, see 14 FAM 536.2-4 .

b. Following the death of a Foreign Service employee or EFM while on assignment in the United States or a non-foreign area, expenses may be authorized for transportation of the remains from place of death to the employee's authorized separation address. Transportation of remains to any other place in the United States or its territories as designated by the next-of-kin may be done on a cost-construct basis against the authorized separation address, by surface, or by air.

c.  For Civil Service employees, refer to FTR, chapter 303.

14 FAM 536.2-2  Family Travel Expenses

Expenses may be authorized for the travel of the family from the last place at which dependents resided and traveled at U.S. Government expense, to any place in the United States designated by the next-of-kin as separation residence or place of interment.  For travel to foreign countries, see 14 FAM 536.2-4 .

14 FAM 536.2-3  Transporting Effects

Expenses may be authorized for the transportation of effects from the last post of assignment, and safe haven if effects are located there, and from any place where effects are stored at U.S. Government expense, to separation residence designated by the next-of-kin.  For transportation to foreign countries, see 14 FAM 536.2-4 .

14 FAM 536.2-4  Foreign Destinations

Actual authorized expenses may be authorized for travel, transportation of effects, and/or shipment of remains to a foreign country and are allowed up to the constructive cost to place last designated by employee as separation residence.  Place of interment may differ from residence for travel and transportation of family.  When one location or the other is in a foreign country, this does not limit the next-of-kin's discretion in designating an authorized location in the United States for either interment or travel and transportation of family.  Authorized expenses may be incurred at any time within 12 months following the date of death, unless the time limitation is waived by the GTM/EX Director or USAID Executive Officer for USAID staff.

14 FAM 536.3  Family Member Death

a. This section applies when the employee is assigned abroad or is on domestic assignment.

b. Actual expenses may be authorized for round-trip travel of a family member and for transportation of remains to the separation address or on a cost-constructive basis to any other point in the U.S. or foreign country.

14 FAM 536.3-1  Expenses in Connection with Remains

See 14 FAM 536.2 .

14 FAM 536.3-2  Family Travel Expenses

Travel expenses are authorized for an employee or an eligible dependent to accompany the remains of a family member to the place of interment in the United States or abroad and return to the duty station (see 3 FAM 2550 ).

14 FAM 536.3-3  Transporting Effects

Transportation of effects is not authorized in connection with a family member death.

14 FAM 536.4  Travel and Transportation Expenses Authorized in Connection with Deaths of Locally Employed (LE) Staff when in Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel Status

Travel and transportation expenses are authorized when a LE Staff dies at a post abroad to which that LE Staff has traveled at U.S. Government expense.  Types of expenses authorized are detailed below.

14 FAM 536.4-1  Expenses in Connection with Remains

Expenses in connection with remains are authorized only as prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 5742, and within made available to the post.  The chief of mission must determine the payments to be made.

14 FAM 536.4-2  Transportation of Effects

Transportation of effects is authorized from the TDY post where death occurred to the LE Staff's post of employment.  Payments are to be made from allotments made available to the post.

14 FAM 537  through 539 unassigned

The Relative Risks of School Travel: A National Perspective and Guidance for Local Community Risk Assessment -- Special Report 269 (2002)

Chapter: 4 identifying and managing risks associated with school transportation, 4 identifying and managing risks associated with school transportation.

T he school travel problem is explored in Chapters 2 and 3 from a national perspective using injury and fatality risk measures. As noted earlier, however, decisions about school travel alternatives are made at the regional, school, household, and individual levels. Although these decisions reflect considerations other than safety—such as cost, flexibility, and convenience—an understanding of the risk factors that determine school travel safety can provide essential input for the decision-making process. This understanding can also make it possible to evaluate alternatives designed to reduce the risks associated with each mode, and enable a school district to provide a range of choices for school travel that meet a variety of needs, including safety. Accordingly, the risk factors associated with school travel, as well as potential interventions to reduce the risks most salient for each school travel mode, are reviewed in this chapter.

To examine the risks involved in school travel, the committee grouped the risk factors into five categories that cut across the various school travel modes: ( a ) human, ( b ) vehicular, ( c ) operational, ( d ) infrastructure/environmental, and ( e ) societal. It should be noted that much of the information presented here on these factors is descriptive or nonquantitative in nature. Moreover, the list of factors reviewed is not intended to be exhaustive, but includes those factors the committee considers most important. It should be noted as well that the risk factors vary not only across travel modes, but also across school districts, students, and days of the year. Following the discussion of the five risk categories, a checklist is provided for each mode that can be used by decision makers in a given community (whether policy makers, local administrators, or parents) to enhance the safety of school travel.

HUMAN RISK FACTORS

For this study, human risk factors are defined as those factors that can be attributed to the people in the system (school-age pedestrians, school-age passengers, and school-age and adult drivers). This category includes both factors that cannot be directly changed (e.g., age, gender, personality, information processing, cognitive ability) and those that can (e.g., experience levels; training, education, and qualifications; substance use; compliance; peer pressure).

It should be noted that, although fatalities to school-age children who ride school buses are low, the majority of those fatalities occur outside the vehicle. In contrast, injuries occur much more frequently to school bus riders when they are on the bus than during the pedestrian segment of their trip. The human risk factors for the pedestrian segment of the trip will be different from those for the passenger segment.

Pedestrian behavior is complex. Children must acquire many skills and learn many tasks to become safe pedestrians, and they do not reliably demonstrate these skills (Sandels 1975; Vinje 1981). Moreover, because children walking may encounter and interact with other modes during their travel, they must have the skills needed to interpret the dangers represented by these other modes. Thus, children need to develop schema for critical behaviors such as street crossing, which may require the ability to judge vehicle speed and distance, as well as safe gaps. While evidence of the effectiveness of generic pedestrian safety education in reducing injuries and fatalities and in preventing accidents is lacking (Duperrex et al. 2002; TRB 2001), implementation of school bus passenger safety education has been linked to a reduction in the risk of fatality for school bus passengers during the pedestrian segment of their trip in New York and Kansas (New York State Education Department 2002; unpublished data from Kansas Department of Education for 1971–2001). Effective training programs for other modes, as well as environmental change and adult supervision, are needed to provide for the safety of children who walk to and from school, bus stops, and the like.

It is well known that children’s motor, cognitive, and behavioral skills develop chronologically and sequentially. Between the ages of 6 and 8 years, children begin to develop the ability to plan ahead, understand rules, consider consequences of actions, follow a logical sequence of thought, and understand the difference between right and wrong (Flavell 1963; Tyson 2002). Thus, even with training of various programmatic levels and quality, young elementary school-age children cannot be relied upon to make consistent, safe traveling decisions, regardless of the modes they use. Accordingly, age is regarded as a major risk factor in school travel, particularly for those younger than age 10, who are not considered to have internalized the principles of safe travel and thus may not exhibit those principles in their travel behaviors (Sandels 1975; Dewar 2002b). Indeed, the pedestrian road accident rate has been shown to be a function of age (Oxley et al. 1997; NHTSA 1999). Sandels (1975), who has studied the behavior and cognition of children, suggests that the degree of maturity necessary for safe behavior is reached between the ages of 9 and 12.

To educate children about traffic safety and implement a successful school transportation safety education program, then, it is important to understand the abilities and limitations of school-age children as they relate to behavior in the roadway and in the school site environment (Dewar 2002b). A program must be developed at a level that corresponds to the cognitive abilities of the children who will be receiving the training. Parents, as well as schools and law enforcement personnel, can assist in this effort. At the same time, it must be noted that the committee was unable to locate sufficient data demonstrating the effectiveness of such safety training programs in decreasing the number and severity of injuries to school-age children. Therefore, attention must also be paid to the environment and infrastructure to safeguard the child pedestrian. (For a thorough review of children’s social and cognitive development and the implications for a traffic environment, see Collins and Gunnar 1990; Dewar 2002b; and Vinje 1981.)

A number of personality-related traits (e.g., hostility, alienation) that cannot easily be changed have been shown to be strongly linked to a number of human risk factors, such as risk taking and sensation seeking (behavior that appears to peak between 16 and 19 years of age, then decreases with age; see Dewar 2002b, 124). These personality traits and associated risk factors have been shown to be related to crash involvement (Donovan et al. 1983; Pelz and Schuman 1973). In addition, a relationship has been established between sensation seeking and risky driving (defined as excessive speed, increased frequency of speeding, less seat belt usage, and increased frequency of drinking and driving; see Burns and Wilde 1995; Jonah 1997).

Higher risks of involvement in crashes or incidents are associated with age (for both the young and the elderly); driving experience; training received; and temperament and physical condition, including visual acuity, reaction time, information processing ability, stamina, and alcohol impairment levels (Dewar and Olson 2001; Evans and Schwing 1985; Mareck and Sten 1977). Driver risk has been found to be higher for younger than for older drivers and higher for less experienced than for more experienced drivers, other conditions being equal (Chen et al. 2000; Levy 1990; Mayhew and Simpson 1990).

The Driver Performance Data Book (Henderson 1987) contains source materials applicable to driving that address such human factors as response times, anthropometrics, visual and auditory performance, and information processing. This information is used by those who design vehicles, roadways, and traffic control devices. There is an extensive base of empirical data to support these materials, and it continues to be broadened (Dewar and Olson 2001).

Research in other, less traditional areas also continues to expand the knowledge base on human factors related to driving and to shed light on the effects of experience and situational conditions on driving behavior and accepted risk. Young drivers have been found to be less perceptive than older drivers of risk in the driving environment. One study revealed that young drivers (aged 18–24) detected the presence of children in only 51 percent of the total number of encounters (Egberink et al. 1986); another showed that young drivers were less likely to recognize potential hazards (Brown 1982; Quimby and Watts 1981). The results of these and other studies suggest that careful consideration should be given to the school site, including ingress and egress areas, where young drivers, as well as adult drivers, are likely to encounter pedestrians and bicyclists.

Peer pressure, and at times just the presence of peers, is another important factor that influences children’s behavior. There is evidence that the presence of peers in a vehicle is associated with accidents among young drivers (Dewar 2002a). Another study of young drivers (Williams et al. 1997) revealed that if the driver was wearing a safety belt, the passenger was more likely to do so as well. Chen et al. (2000) examined the influence of 16- and 17-year-old drivers having passengers in their vehicles on the likelihood of crashes. They determined that the risk of death rose significantly for young drivers with an increase in the number of passengers, regardless of time of day and gender of the driver.

Human risk factors such as those reviewed above must be considered not only when making decisions about mode choice, but also when considering procedures and other operational factors (discussed more fully later) that affect the overall safety of a mode. For example, depending on the state or local school district, students traveling by school bus are required to receive safety training at least biannually (NHTSA 2000). This passenger training—a safety feature unique to this mode—includes appropriate behaviors and activities while waiting for and riding on the school bus (e.g., remaining in one’s seat, not distracting the driver, proper boarding and alighting procedures, proper street crossing, emergency evacuation). Students who ride other buses typically do not receive such training, or if they do, it is provided either by parents or through observation of other passengers.

Depending on the school system, students who ride as passengers in passenger vehicles may also receive verbal instruction from school administrators on appropriate locations for being dropped off and picked up from school, and on safe procedures for crossing parking lots or streets as required to get to and from the vehicle and the school building. Again, however, such instruction of school-age children is not always successful, durable, or reliable.

Unlike drivers of passenger vehicles, bus drivers are generally required to possess a commercial driver’s license (CDL) or similar license, and receive considerable training. Moreover, federal regulations require drug and alcohol testing of bus drivers (initial, random, on-suspicion, and postcrash). All CDL drivers are required to have a biennial physical, and school bus drivers in many states must have an annual physical. All states, however, do not have parallel requirements, including criminal history checks and other screening procedures.

Certain elements of training differ for drivers of school buses and other buses. For example, school bus drivers generally receive specialized training in passenger management, loading and unloading procedures, and vehicle evacuation, as well as additional training in transporting, assisting, and monitoring special-education children. In contrast, the committee’s review of training for drivers of other buses revealed considerable variability across states in training requirements. Relatively few transit agencies provide specific training for bus drivers with regard to transporting school children. At the same time, some transit agencies providing significant levels of transportation for school children instruct bus drivers in a variety of safety-related issues, including security and crossing. Some transit agencies and bus companies have developed administrative relationships with schools and school districts regarding not only discounted fares, but also disciplinary actions for students not complying with safe or appropriate ridership practices. Agencies responsible for transporting school children would benefit from guidelines regarding appropriate and effective training for bus drivers.

Beyond the minimum qualifications established by state laws or federal regulations for drivers of school buses and public transit vehicles, then, there is extreme variation with respect to recruitment, selection, and training practices, as well as rates of pay. While the committee believes such a range in practices is

likely to be associated with variations in driver safety performance, it was not possible to determine the extent of such variation in practices, let alone the effect of the various practices on student travel safety. A review of factors associated with school bus crashes (about 26,000 per year) would provide information on driver factors, vehicle factors, and contributing causes that would be helpful for districts making decisions about the various modes and measures to improve their safety. As an example, a report on a study by the California Department of Education addressing training requirements for school bus drivers, prepared for the California Highway Patrol (Chapter 1509, California Statutes of 1982), revealed a decrease in frequency of school bus accidents and a decline in accidents caused by school bus drivers after mandatory training requirements were adopted for school bus drivers in 1974. The report validated the need to maintain at least 20 hours of classroom instruction and 20 hours of behind-the-wheel training for school bus drivers.

VEHICULAR RISK FACTORS

While safety is an important consideration in vehicle design, it is important to recognize that many other criteria are also factored into the design process, including the design and placement of controls and displays, performance, comfort, durability (including life-cycle costing factors), versatility, directional stability, maintainability, packaging (i.e., the arrangement of subsystems and components), air quality, fuel efficiency, cost, and marketability (see Peacock and Karwowski 1993). A number of design elements based on these criteria—including capacity, mass, structure and suspension systems, occupant restraints, and handling and braking—affect driver and passenger safety directly or indirectly.

Some vehicles are subject to many standards; others, such as bicycles, are subject to few; and still others, such as skateboards and scooters, are subject to virtually none. Motorized vehicles are regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). The standards that apply to motor vehicles used to transport school-age children are listed in Table 4-1 . It is important to note that vehicle safety standards are performance standards, not design standards. What they accomplish is subject to regulation; how it is accomplished is not.

The safety record of school and other buses is due in part to both their mass and design, which in general provide an advantage in most crashes. Standards for school buses have emanated from congressional actions including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974. There are 36 FMVSSs that apply to school buses, 6 of which specify unique requirements for school buses; 4 standards are applicable only to school buses, 21 apply to transit buses and motorcoaches (see Table 4-1 ), and fewer apply to the various types of passenger vehicles.

Apart from obvious features such as vehicle mass, the safety record of school bus service has also been attributed to several unique factors of school buses: they are clearly distinguishable—painted a special color universally recognized by most motorists—and enhanced by other vehicle features, such as flashing red lights; stop arms; and, in at least 20 states and many more school districts, cross-

TABLE 4-1 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

ing control arms. There are also routinely enforced laws and regulations affording school bus passengers special treatment during their boarding and alighting, as well as street crossings.

The fact that public transit buses have two sets of doors—and in some cases three—may be a source of increased risk. Rear doors are activated by the bus operator upon an action of the passenger (e.g., stop chime request) or when a stop is reached. Rear door interlocks are designed to stop the bus from moving when a passenger is holding a rear door open while exiting, since exiting through a rear door takes place outside the direct view of the bus driver. In addition, passengers alighting from rear doors are likely to have a wider gap separating the bus and the curb than those alighting from the front because of the way the driver positions the bus in the loading zone. School buses provide better screening of blind-spot areas than other buses. Transit vehicles have larger blind spots than school buses, and their mirror systems do not help with blind spots in the front of the vehicle caused by such things as the designed location of the farebox.

Motorcoaches are designed for travel involving longer distances, with few stops and virtually no street crossings. They contain padded, high-backed, forward-facing seats. Many also have lateral supports and comfort features such as reclining seats and adjustable spacing, and some contain occupant restraint systems. Motorcoaches have emergency windows, including roof hatches and large, well-marked, push-out windows. However, their large passenger windows do not possess the window retention characteristics of school buses, and in rollovers can result in passenger ejection. At the same time, motorcoaches have considerable mass, and many have monocoque construction, pneumatic suspension systems, and antilock braking systems. However, they are not required to pass rollover and side-impact tests mandated for school buses.

Unlike school buses, passenger vehicles used for school travel are not required to be a distinctive color or have special lighting, nor must they meet the same safety standards for occupant protection, joint strength of body panels, roof rollover protection, and so on. In addition, passenger vehicles do not have the capacity to transport as many students as school and other buses, nor do they have the same or comparable mass, crashworthiness, conspicuity, maintenance/inspection requirements, and the like.

Finally, bicycles lack mass, stability, speed, and conspicuity (except for the bright-colored clothing worn by some bicycle operators). They have minimal crashworthiness characteristics, no restraints, and no maintenance/inspection requirements.

OPERATIONAL RISK FACTORS

In terms of operational characteristics, state and local school districts have established extensive policies and programs to ensure the safety of school travelers. Much of the guidance for these actions comes from Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This guideline, which was originally

a standard, “establishes minimum recommendations for a state highway safety program for pupil transportation safety including the identification, operation, and maintenance of buses used for carrying students; training passengers, pedestrians, and bicycle riders; and administration” (NHTSA 2000, xx).

School buses serve all types of areas (urban, suburban, and rural), all ages of children (prekindergarten through high school), and children with disabilities and special needs. They usually operate according to fixed routes with designated stops or, for some categories of passengers (e.g., children with special needs), may provide door-to-door service according to a fixed schedule.

School bus drivers are responsible for the safety and well-being of their passengers, including discipline. Unlike drivers of other forms of public transportation, however, school bus drivers cannot order an unruly student passenger off the bus (the driver can ask system officials to suspend the student, pending correction of the misbehavior). School bus drivers also have more responsibility for the safety of students while they are pedestrians, particularly as the drivers must provide student riders regular safety instruction and participate proactively in the students’ crossing in front of the bus. (On undivided roadways, drivers are not to discharge students until other vehicles traveling in both the same and opposing directions have stopped in response to the driver’s engagement of flashing lights and stop arms.) Some states also require riders to wait for the bus driver’s signal to cross the roadway. All school bus passengers ride seated. In fact, typical transit practices whereby students begin to walk toward the door as the vehicle approaches their stop are prohibited.

Although other bus drivers certainly have responsibilities for monitoring and assisting school children and others in crossing, these responsibilities are limited. This is the case largely because passengers cross behind the bus, except when it is stopped at the near side of a signalized intersection and the signal instructs pedestrians to cross. The legal responsibility for such activities varies significantly from state to state. In the state of Missouri, for example, a safe stop includes ( a ) the place where the passenger steps off the bus, ( b ) the area around the bus, ( c ) the intersection where the bus has pulled over, and ( d ) a safe path to the likely primary origins and destinations of most passengers. In contrast, Pennsylvania law restricts the responsibility for a bus’s operation to such time as it is in motion, effectively defining liability for loading and unloading out of existence. Driver responsibilities reflect these state-to-state differences and must be taken into consideration in an evaluation of comparative safety and relative risk.

The design goals and operating objectives of school and other buses reflect different needs. Other buses must accommodate a broader range of passengers (including school children), different destinations (including schools), different duty cycles and operating environments (some similar to those of pupil transportation), and special user groups (elderly and disabled individuals). However, the peak-hour nature of the majority of transit trips and the uneven distribution of passengers within these peaks lead to overcrowding and other operational issues. These issues, in turn, must be addressed by vehicle and operating characteristics—such as room for standees; vertical and horizontal stanchions;

flat, unpadded, and side-facing seats; irregular positioning of modesty panels; and other amenities not optimized specifically for student riders. And because passengers board and alight at the same stops—an occurrence virtually nonexistent in school bus service—passenger movement, boarding, alighting, crossing, fare collection, wheelchair securement, lift usage, and so on are considerably different than with school bus usage. Most important, because passengers do not cross in front of the bus, driver attention is diverted to many places it would not be during school bus loading, unloading, or crossing.

Most bus operating agencies are involved in planning, education, monitoring, and inspection. They receive input from a variety of regulatory agencies and local (school district or transit agency) staff and their contractors. In addition to drivers, operators often employ managers, supervisors, planners, system designers, schedulers, reservation personnel, dispatchers, training instructors, mechanics, marketing and outreach personnel, and other technical and administrative support personnel. Each of these disciplines has its own set of standards, procedures, policies, training programs, and oversight, and each plays an important role in the safety of bus transportation.

Students riding in transit or other buses to and from school face a number of operational factors that differ from those they encounter on a school bus. First, they are subject to commingling with the general population. Second, as noted above, they must generally cross the street behind the bus rather than in front of it, except when the bus is stopped at the near side of a signalized intersection and the signal instructs pedestrians to cross. They must cross with no help from equipment and limited, if any, help from the driver of the bus and fellow motorists. And these buses do not have identifying marks and flashing lights to indicate that they are carrying student passengers or that students are boarding or alighting, nor are motorists required to stop for transit buses loading and unloading passengers. Third, these students also often spend more time than school bus riders as pedestrians walking to and from and waiting at the bus stop.

A considerable statutory and regulatory structure exists for passenger vehicles (e.g., mandatory child safety seat laws in all states and seat belt laws in many states), including distinctions that reflect driver age, such as graduated licensing programs (for a review, see Foss and Evenson 1999). In contrast, the framework for travel by bicycle and walking is generally personal; provided by parents, relatives, and friends; and often learned through observation and experience, occasionally with a contribution by the school.

Students traveling to and from school in a passenger vehicle often leave directly from their home (or origin of trip) and thus do not make another trip, using a different mode, to an indirect transfer point (i.e., a bus stop). As a consequence, the total trip length and trip time are generally shorter and the routing more direct than is the case for bus trips (unless multiple students are being transported in the same vehicle from different origins to different destinations). Passenger vehicles also have the ability to pick up and drop off passengers directly at their originating point and destination, without the need to cross roadways or walk to bus stops. Like other non–school bus modes, however, passenger

vehicles have no means of controlling other traffic (e.g., stop signal arms, red flashing lights).

Bicyclists, although using a nonmotorized vehicle, are considered vehicle operators according to traffic laws. Research indicates that the wearing of helmets could significantly reduce bicycle-related injuries and fatalities. Currently, 20 states and 84 localities have bicycle helmet laws (Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute 2002). There is little if any enforcement of these laws, however, apart from parents and guardians [see Dinh-Zarr et al. (2001) for a review of the research literature]. Largely because of its travel speed, the attractiveness of bicycling diminishes with increasing trip distance. As a consequence, bicycle trips are generally shorter in distance than school bus and other bus trips, and may be shorter than passenger vehicle trips.

Trip distances for walking are significantly shorter than for any of the other modes. Like bicycle trips, moreover, walking trips are generally more direct. The relative risks of walking encompass a broad spectrum of considerations, including trip length, roadway and infrastructure conditions, supervision, intersections and signalization, traffic volumes, and laws and law enforcement.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS

Infrastructure and environmental risk factors are those characteristics of the route along which school-age children travel to and from school and of the areas around the school location. These factors, which affect every travel mode, can be organized into four categories: roadway characteristics and traffic control devices, traffic characteristics, adjacent land use characteristics, and school zone safety and site location characteristics. Roadway characteristics include road type (e.g., lanes, width, shoulders), surface (e.g., composition), condition (e.g., quality, irregularities), topography (e.g., degree of slope, straightness), and road hazards (e.g., detours). Traffic control devices include signs, signals, and pavement markings. Traffic characteristics include traffic volume, speed, and density, as well as traffic mix competing for the same space. Adjacent land use characteristics include lighting and light conditions, presence of sidewalks and bike paths, and weather and atmospheric conditions. School zone safety and school site location factors include competing modes in and around the school zone, school-related traffic impacts to local roadway traffic, ingress/egress at the school, traffic flow pattern at the school, and school site location and impact on modal choice.

As noted by Dewar (2002c), much research has been conducted on highway design engineering from a traffic safety perspective (e.g., Lamm et al. 1999), but relatively little has been done from a driver or pedestrian behavior perspective. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2001), which is updated regularly, sets forth national standards for the installation and maintenance of traffic control devices on all roadways built with federal funds. States have their own manuals, which in many cases duplicate the federal standards, but may also include sections that address state-unique situations (Dewar 2002c). Part 7 of the FHWA manual, entitled “Traffic Controls for School Areas,” is dedicated to school areas. The standards in many other parts of the manual apply to most roadways, but are applicable to school areas as well (e.g., Sections 1A.02 and 1A.07,

which contain information on the application of standards; Section 2A.17, which contains information regarding the mounting height of signs; and Sections 2B.34, 2B.35, and 2B.36, which address the signs that govern parking regulations in school zone areas).

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) also deals with various aspects of transportation planning, traffic operations, and traffic control. Traffic Circulation and Safety at School Sites (ITE 1998) presents a sampling of traffic engineering techniques that can be used to address these concerns, such as school speed zones, traffic control devices, routing and layout, flashing beacons, and crossing guards, particularly at elementary and middle schools. ITE also provides information on traffic calming techniques that are applicable to school areas.

Reduced speeds (and traffic volumes) have been shown to result in increased pedestrian safety (Dewar 2002c; Ragland and Hundenski 1992). School speed zones are usually instituted where pedestrians must cross roadways to get to and from the school. In most instances, these reduced speed limits remain in effect for specific time periods on particular days. School zone speed limits are set in relation to the regular speed limit on the roadway, and are generally 10 mph below the road’s posted speed limit. Various types of signs are used to inform drivers of the limits. ITE’s School Zone Speed Limits study (ITE 1999), which “examined the effect of different types of school-zone speed-limit signs and the effect of different speed limits on the roads approaching the schools,” revealed that about half of the motor vehicles in the school zone were in compliance with the posted speed restrictions, and flashing-light school zone signs were effective in slowing vehicles. The use of well-trained crossing guards has also been found to be one of the most effective measures for promoting the safety of children walking to and from school (see www.walkinginfo.org ).

Bicycles generally share the roadways with other vehicles (except when operated on exclusive bike paths and on sidewalks or other terrain). For bicycles, infrastructure and environmental features, especially if they are substandard or hazardous, will likely have a more direct impact on the likelihood of crashes than is the case for other vehicles. However, numerous interventions have been shown to increase bicyclist safety, including traffic calming devices and raised crossings. Infrastructure-related interventions, such as walking paths, can also increase safety for pedestrians, as well as those using skateboards, rollerblades, and the like (OECD 1998).

Depending upon local conditions, numerous infrastructure features may contribute to or mitigate school travel risks. Such features include the presence or absence and condition of sidewalks, the number of street crossings students must negotiate to reach the school, the presence or absence of marked cross-walks and crossing guards, signalization, pedestrian-exclusive walkways and overpasses, and the volume density and speed of vehicular traffic (Ragland and Hundenski 1992). Such factors should be considered when selecting a particular mode if alternative modes are available, as well as when selecting potential school sites. Schools should work with communities and traffic engineers to provide an environment that enhances the safety of school travel by all modes. Planning for the transportation needs of children should be an integral part of

the planning of new school sites. According to NCST (2000, 90), “school officials should provide:

Separate and adequate space for school bus loading zones;

Clearly marked and controlled walkways through school bus zones;

Traffic flow and parking patterns for the public and non-bused students separate from the school bus loading zone;

A designated loading area for disabled passengers with special needs, if required;

An organized schedule of loading areas with stops clearly marked;

A loading and unloading site to eliminate the backing of transportation equipment;

Procedure for evaluating each school site plan annually.”

SOCIETAL RISK FACTORS

Societal factors are not directly related to the transportation process, but have significant impacts on school travel. These factors reflect values of the community and its institutions and thus influence decisions and choices, including those related to travel. With respect to school travel, some of the more salient factors are related to health and fitness, security, quality of life, public spending and investment, politics, freedom of choice, and liability.

One example of how such concerns affect school travel decisions is the value placed on health improvement as a result of increased physical fitness (see, for example, HHS 1996). A variety of programs have been implemented to promote walking for children, including “Walk Your Child to School Day” and “Walkable Communities.” Some of these programs support changes in infrastructure (e.g., implementation of traffic restraint devices, traffic calming and speed reduction, widening of sidewalks, well-marked crosswalks, lighting improvements, and landscaping). Others encourage adult supervision and groups walking together (e.g., the “Walking School Bus”) to increase personal safety and security while meeting other objectives, such as reducing travel and health care costs, reducing congestion and improving air quality, and promoting fitness and health benefits.

Other factors in this category, such as perceptions about security and safety, influence modal choices and may not be consistent with other factors related to the relative safety of the various modes. For example, many believe that children are more secure in a passenger vehicle than on a bus. Likewise, a child who is beaten up on a bus may be statistically less likely than users of other modes to be killed in a vehicular crash, but the child’s personal feeling of safety has been violated. In other cases, mode choices may be based purely on lifestyle factors, such as teenagers’ preference for driving or riding in their peers’ cars over traveling by transit or school bus.

In every modern society, the notion of safety—the protection of human life and property—exists alongside the concept of holding individuals and organizations accountable for providing and ensuring safety. This latter notion is termed liability. But safety and liability are not merely related; they are inextri-

cably intertwined. While laws, regulations, and practices establish criteria presumably related to safety, verdicts and settlements often set standards that can diverge significantly from those criteria.

Under the American legal system, an attempt is made to define the elements and degrees of responsibility for safety (through statutes, regulations, and standards), nuances specific to each exercise of responsibility, the parties responsible, and the parties entitled to relief when responsibilities are not met. When a party violates prohibitions or fails to meet prescribed or generally accepted standards of care, that party is said to be negligent. Negligence consists of either things done wrong (errors of commission) or things not done that should have been (errors of omission). The U.S. legal system empowers the courts to assess monetary damages against parties who have violated various safety standards and practices. While designed to compensate victims and deter both types of errors, these assessments have increasingly raised transportation costs, consumed human resources, and often complicated the provision of goods and services. On the positive side, the notion of liability has provided an additional incentive for parties to improve safety in an effort to avoid burdensome judgments or damage awards.

Another societal factor—funding of school transportation—has become a major concern in recent years. Budgetary reductions in some school districts have resulted in competition for funding between transportation and classroom activities. These and other dynamics have led some states to consider alternatives for transporting students to and from school. For example, some smaller cities and rural areas have integrated a variety of student and social service transportation services with public transit services (thus mixing the school bus and other bus modes discussed in this study). However, federal law prohibits public transit agencies from providing exclusive school bus service (either separately or as part of their contracted provision of transit service) unless private operators are not available for the purpose. This prohibition was designed to ensure that transit agencies subsidized by public funds would not compete with private school bus operators. Public transit can, however, accommodate school children through regular transit service, including routes designed primarily for school travel (i.e., “tripper service”), as long as that service is open to the general public as well.

STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING RISK

The safety of a school travel mode is affected by a combination of factors from each of the above five risk categories, and the net impact of these factors (the relative risk) will differ across modes, locations, and students. Because of the complexity of the risk problem, it is likely that every community could take steps to improve the safety of every mode. However, limited resources, multiple objectives, and conflicting priorities may prevent a district from taking a safety-only perspective; communities must balance safety with other goals. To aid in this task, it would be ideal if precise calculations of the costs and benefits for different risk mitigation measures could be made. Unfortunately, this is not possible. Many of

the salient studies that have been completed give only general estimates of risk reductions for specific situations, and the actual cost of implementing a measure could vary significantly among school districts. Moreover, some risk mitigation options have no real supporting empirical research, but are widely accepted as being “best practice.”

Despite these limitations, the committee developed a set of checklists that it believes can provide decision makers with a rough (but useful) road map of the types of actions that could be considered to reduce the risks associated with each school travel mode. Many states and school districts may already have addressed most of the items on these checklists. For these districts, additional risk reduction could be expensive and difficult to attain. For others, however, the checklists, when combined with the national statistics highlighted in previous chapters, can serve as a valuable starting point for discussing and prioritizing risk mitigation options.

Before proceeding to the checklists, the committee wishes to emphasize a point made in Chapter 1 : the importance of considering the entire transportation system. Any risk reduction measures must be undertaken with the understanding that a change in a risk factor associated with one mode can shift students from/to other modes and affect a school’s overall risk in unexpected ways.

Finally, it should be noted that the range of topics covered in the checklists is quite large, and the committee has not conducted a comprehensive review of the issues involved; rather, issues judged to be important by the committee are highlighted as examples. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of the various safety measures is unknown.

Checklist for School Bus

Checklist for other bus.

As mentioned previously, all motorized vehicles are subject to FMVSSs. In 1977, NHTSA issued three new FMVSSs and modified four others to enhance the safety of school bus transportation. However, some school buses that were built prior to 1977 and thus do not incorporate these more recent safety features are still used to transport school-age children. This use of older buses puts their passengers at greater risk.

The committee did not specifically address the issue of lap belts on school buses, given the previous TRB report (TRB 1989) and recent National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports (NTSB 1999; NTSB 2000) addressing this issue. The NTSB (2000) report indicates that compartmentalization is an incomplete measure for lateral impact with vehicles of large mass and in rollover collisions. A more recent NHTSA report (NHTSA 2002), prepared since this committee completed its deliberations, shows that a lap/shoulder belt restraint system is superior to compartmentalization and to lap belts used in conjunction with compartmentalization. As school buses are replaced, they should have the newest and safest occupant protection system. California is the only state at present to have adopted lap/shoulder restraints for all school buses beginning in the 2004–2005 school year (California Vehicle Code Section 27316, Chapter 581, Statutes of 2001). NHTSA’s ongoing research program is also addressing side-impact protection.

As discussed earlier, drivers of buses must possess a current CDL or other appropriate license or certification, and many operators provide periodic retraining and refresher training. Retraining occurs when a driver has had a given number of crashes and is required to undergo retraining in a particular area (this training does not involve all drivers in the system). Refresher training is given over a period of time for all drivers to keep their skills honed. It generally includes defensive driver training, passenger safety, fatigue awareness, and envi-

ronmental and site-specific issues (e.g., snow, fog, security). Many believe this refresher training should occur at least annually, but the committee found insufficient evaluative documentation identifying the best time interval between refresher courses or the specific components that should be included in the training. It is also important for students to receive training on proper school travel behavior and safety, as discussed earlier, but once again, no evaluation studies could be found that indicated how often this training should be given for best retention or how the training should be carried out.

In the general roadway environment, it has been shown that heterogeneous traffic results in increased traffic fatalities (Fazio et al. 1999). Thus to further increase safety, modes should be separated in time (through dedicated movement times; e.g., no vehicles may be in an occupied crosswalk) or space (e.g., through pedestrian overpasses or tunnels). Special signage may also be used (see, e.g., Retting et al. 1996). If there are traffic signals at the ingress/egress points of the school, right-turn-on-red should probably not be permitted (see Preusser et al. 1984). 1

Criteria for effective traffic control devices include conspicuity, legibility, glance legibility, comprehension, and response time. Various methods for evaluation of traffic control devices are available (see, e.g., Dewar and Ells 1974; Dewar and Ells 1984). Detailed analysis of the design and use of painted road markings has also been undertaken (see Commission internationale de l’eclairage 1988).

Checklist for Passenger Vehicle with Driver Younger Than 19

Because of the rates of injuries and fatalities for passenger vehicles with teen drivers (see Chapter 3 ), the committee discourages the use of this mode. However, a number of risk factors could be addressed to help decrease the risk associated with this mode. For example, it has been estimated that the adoption and enforcement of primary safety belt use laws in all states could reduce the risk of nonfatal injuries by 2 percent and fatalities by 9 percent for individuals in passenger vehicles (Dinh-Zarr et al. 2001). Graduated driver licensing (GDL) programs (especially those with passenger limitations) may also reduce the risks associated with this mode. Such programs have proven effective in some states. In Michigan and North Carolina, for example, implementation of GDL provisions has led to marked reductions in crashes. According to Foss et al. (2001), Shope et al. (2001), and McKnight and Peck (2002), a carefully designed GDL system that introduces young drivers to driving in stages and provides practical experience for extended periods of time before unrestricted driving is permitted has been found to reduce crashes by 20 to 25 percent in the first years of driving. [See Foss and Evenson (1999) for a detailed review and analysis of evaluations of existing GDL systems.] Having a closed campus where unwarranted transportation during school hours is controlled can also reduce the possibility of crashes, and hence resulting fatalities and injuries.

Given the age of the driver (below age 19) for this mode, the human risk factors described earlier in this chapter need to be taken into consideration. For example, as noted above, previous studies of the driving behavior of young drivers have provided much useful information about the relationship between crashes and such behaviors as alcohol and substance use, risk taking, and sensation seeking. If compliance with speed limits, traffic signals, and the like is low, the risk associated with these factors is higher.

Finally, the previous discussion of the importance of traffic flow patterns and separation of different modes (especially at the school location), proper installation of traffic control devices, and adequate repair of roadways around the school applies equally to this mode.

Checklist for Passenger Vehicle with Driver 19 and Older

With the exception of GDL and driver education programs, the items on this checklist are the same as those for passenger vehicles with driver younger than 19. Most of the issues are the same as well, except those related specifically to younger drivers, and the reader is referred to the preceding discussion. It should be noted, however, that driver education programs have not been shown to be effective.

Checklist for Bicycling and Walking

Many interventions or countermeasures can be implemented to mitigate the risks to school-age children associated with these two modes. In particular, the risk of fatality and injury to a child bicyclist could be significantly reduced if bicycle helmets were worn universally. A meta-analysis of data from several countries indicates that bicycle helmets reduce the likelihood of bicyclist fatalities by 73 percent, of head injury by 60 percent, and of brain injury by 58 percent in crashes (Attewell et al. 2001).

The committee was unable to find objective evaluations of bicycling safety programs and walking programs for children; however, numerous such programs exist, and they are part of the overall education of many school-age children. As

discussed earlier, age-appropriate educational programs, properly designed and evaluated, should be a component of the strategies used to enhance the safety of children traveling to and from school by these modes. In addition, operational improvements have been achieved through the installation of bicycle paths; to date, however, their safety impact has not been demonstrated (Harkey et al. 1998; Harkey and Stewart 1997). FHWA has published a Good Practices Guide for Bicycle Safety Education (2002); NHTSA, FHWA, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have published National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety (2001); CDC and NHTSA have published National Strategies for Advancing Child Pedestrian Safety (2001); and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) has published a Walkability Checklist. These resources identify goals communities should strive to attain and provide much information on actions that can be taken to achieve those goals. These actions can in turn mitigate the risks identified in this chapter that are of concern for school-age children. 2

Finally, the risk of injuries and fatalities from bicycling and walking could be reduced if the interaction of different/mixed modes were minimized by reducing the number of times they must come together. For example, an infrastructure that included sidewalks, bicycle paths, and dedicated school-site access/egress for passenger vehicles in one area and bicyclists in another might be considered to increase safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. In addition, once on campus, bicycles should be walked.

In assessing the comparative safety of the various school travel modes, their relative risks, and measures that can be taken to enhance their safety, one must consider a broad range of factors, as set forth in this chapter. It is also important to keep in mind that the risks associated with each mode are partly generic (e.g., buses have a greater mass than automobiles or bicycles) and partly with respect to conditions at the local level (e.g., a bicycle path may be safer than a road). Also to be taken into account are the community’s resources and values.

The risk level of each mode can be affected positively or negatively by a variety of factors involved in its operations, as well as in the local infrastructure and environment. In many cases, engineering, education, and enforcement interventions whose effectiveness has already been proven by research can have a highly beneficial impact.

The difficulty of evaluating the risks and making decisions accordingly is compounded by the fact that school trips often involve the use of more than one mode. Changes involving one mode used in the trip may affect the risks associated with the other, and in some cases may compound them. In addition, though students often go directly to school in the morning, they may take very different trips returning home in the afternoon, greatly complicating the analysis in this study and making it more difficult to define a school trip.

The integration or coordination of different modes, such as school bus and transit service, raises new challenges and opportunities that must be addressed at the operating level (e.g., both drivers and students may need different training), at the vehicle level (e.g., the features such vehicles should have to accommodate crossing), at the societal level (e.g., concerns for security and liability), at the human level (e.g., whether such hybrid services may be less safe for school children of certain ages), and at the environmental level (e.g., changes in roads, signage, and other infrastructure to accommodate the services). Such changes are often complex, reflecting decades of development and refinement aimed at optimizing safety and other aspects of these modes as traditionally operated. As NTSB has pointed out with respect to the comparative safety of school bus and motorcoach vehicles, a vehicle’s safety is largely reflective of the type of service for which it is designed and in which it is operated.

Finally, it must be reiterated that while data presented in this report and elsewhere provide valuable insights regarding the safety of the various school travel modes and often the vehicles they deploy, such data are likely to be misleading if used to make policy changes at the local level without considering the factors that affect the safety of school travel for that community. While modes indeed have certain generic characteristics, it is also true that many of their characteristics differ markedly from place to place. Local conditions affecting these characteristics must be considered in such analyses and evaluations.

Some factors in each of the five categories can be controlled by policies at the local, state, and federal levels. Other factors, such as age and gender, cannot be changed but must be considered when making policy decisions. Still others, such as safety education, bicycle helmet laws, and availability of crosswalks, can be changed through direct policy choices made by decision makers. Infrastructure must be designed and constructed to accommodate the needs of children. The information provided in this chapter can be used to understand how the national risk estimates for each mode presented in Chapter 3 can be adjusted for local conditions and programs.

Abbreviations

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

NCST National Conference on School Transportation

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

TRB Transportation Research Board

Attewell, R. G., K. Glase, and M. McFadden. 2001. Bicycle Helmet Efficacy: A Meta-Analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 33, pp. 345–352.

Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. 2002. Helmet Laws for Bicycle Riders. www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm .

Brown, I. D. 1982. Exposure and Experience Are a Confounded Nuisance in Research on Driver Behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 14, pp. 345–352.

Burns, P. C., and G. J. S. Wilde. 1995. Risk Taking in Male Taxi Drivers: Relationships Among Personality, Observational Data and Driver Records. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 18, pp. 267–278.

CDC and NHTSA. 2001. National Strategies for Advancing Child Pedestrian Safety. Washington, D.C., Oct.

Chen, L.-H., S. P. Baker, E. R. Braver, and G. Li. 2000. Carrying Passengers as a Risk Factor for Crashes Fatal to 16- and 17-Year-Old Drivers. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 283, No. 12, pp. 1578–1582.

Collins, W. A., and M. R. Gunnar. 1990. Social and Personality Development. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 387–416.

Commission internationale de l’eclairage. 1988. Visual Aspects of Road Markings. Joint Technical Report CEI/PIARC Publication 73. Vienna, Austria.

Dewar, R. E. 2002a. Age Differences—Drivers Old and Young. In Human Factors in Traffic Safety (R. E. Dewar and P. L. Olson, eds.), Lawyers and Judges Publishing Co., Tucson, Ariz., pp. 209–233.

Dewar, R. E. 2002b. Pedestrians and Bicyclists. In Human Factors in Traffic Safety (R. E. Dewar and P. L. Olson, eds.), Lawyers and Judges Publishing Co., Tucson, Ariz., pp. 557–612.

Dewar, R. E. 2002c. Roadway Design. In Human Factors in Traffic Safety (R. E. Dewar and P. L. Olson, eds.), Lawyers and Judges Publishing Co., Tucson, Ariz., pp. 381–420.

Dewar, R. E., and J. G. Ells. 1974. Methods for the Evaluation of Traffic Signs. Final Report No. 97096. Ministry of Transport, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Dewar, R. E., and J. G. Ells. 1984. Methods of Evaluation of Traffic Signs. In Information Design: The Design and Evaluation of Signs and Printed Material (R. Easterby and H. Zwaga, eds.), John Wiley, Chichester, England, pp. 77–90.

Dewar, R. E., and P. L. Olson. 2001. Human Factors in Traffic Safety. Lawyers and Judges Publishing Co., Tucson, Ariz.

Dinh-Zarr, T., D. Sleet, R. Shults, S. Zaza, R. Elder, J. Nichols, R. Thompson, D. Sosin, and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. 2001. Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions to Increase the Use of Safety Belts. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 2, No. 4S, pp. 48–60.

Donovan, D. J., G. A. Marlatt, and P. M. Salzberg. 1983. Drinking Behavior, Personality Factors, and High-Risk Driving. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 396–428.

Duperrex, O., F. Bunn, and I. Roberts. 2002. Safety Education of Pedestrians for Injury Prevention: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials. British Medical Journal, Vol. 324, pp. 1–5.

Egberink, H. O., P. F. Lourens, and H. H. van der Molen. 1986. Driving Strategies Among Younger and Older Drivers When Encountering Children. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 18, pp. 315–332.

Evans, L., and R. Schwing (eds.). 1985. Human Behavior and Traffic Safety. Plenum Press, New York.

Fazio, J., M. M. Hoque, and G. Tiwari. 1999. Fatalities of Heterogeneous Street Traffic. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1695, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 55–60.

FHWA. 2001. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Millennium Edition (with incorporated Errata No. 1 changes, dated June 14, 2001). Part 7: Traffic Controls for School Areas. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-millennium_06.14.01.htm .

FHWA. 2002. Good Practices Guide for Bicycle Safety Education. Washington, D.C.

Flavell, J. H. 1963. The Developmental Psychology of Jean Piaget. Van Nostrand Co., New York.

Foss, R. D., and K. Evenson. 1999. Effectiveness of Graduated Driver Licensing in Reducing Motor Vehicle Crashes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 16, No. 1S, pp. 47–56.

Foss, R. D., J. R. Feaganes, and E. A. Rodgman. 2001. Initial Effect of Graduated Driver Licensing on 16-Year-Old Driver Crashes in North Carolina. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 286, pp. 1588–1592.

Harkey, D. L., D. W. Reinfurt, M. Knuiman, J. R. Stewart, and A. Sorton. 1998. Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of Service Concept. Publication FHWA-RD-98-072. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Harkey, D. L., and J. R. Stewart. 1997. Evaluation of Shared-Use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 111–118.

Henderson, R. 1987. Driver Performance Data Book. Report FHWA-RD-97-135. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

HHS. 1996. Physical Activity and Health: The Report of the Surgeon General. www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/pdf/prerep.pdf .

ITE. 1998. Traffic Circulation and Safety at School Sites. Washington, D.C.

ITE. 1999. School Zone Speed Limits. Washington, D.C.

Jonah, B. A. 1997. Sensation Seeking and Risky Driving: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, pp. 651–665.

Lamm, R., B. Psarianos, and T. Mailaender. 1999. Highway Design and Traffic Safety Engineering Handbook. McGraw Hill, New York.

Levy, D. T. 1990. Youth and Traffic Safety: The Effect of Driving Age, Experience, and Education. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 22, pp. 327–334.

Mareck, J., and T. Sten. 1977. Traffic, Environment, and the Driver. Charles C. Thomas Publishing, Ill.

Mayhew, D. R., and H. M. Simpson. 1990. New to the Road—Young Drivers and Novice Drivers: Similar Problems and Solutions? Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

McKnight, A. J., and R. C. Peck. 2002 (forthcoming). Graduated Driver Licensing: What Works? Prevention.

NCST. 2000. National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures, 2000 Revised Edition. Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on School Transportation. Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg.

New York State Education Department. 2002. School Bus Safety Is … One Bus Stop at a Time. Albany, N.Y.

NHTSA. 1999. Traffic Safety Facts 1998: Pedestrians. Washington, D.C.

NHTSA. 2000. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea21programs/402Guide.html .

NHTSA. 2002. School Bus Crashworthiness. www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/Crashworthiness.html .

NHTSA, FHWA, and CDC. 2001. National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety. Wash-ington, D.C., June.

NTSB. 1999. Bus Crashworthiness Issues. Highway Special Investigation Report NTSB/ SIR-99/04. Washington, D.C.

NTSB. 2000. Putting Children First. Report NTSB/SR-00/02. Washington, D.C.

OECD. 1998. Safety of Vulnerable Users. Report DTSI/DOT/RTR/DS7(98)1/FINAL-OECD. Scientific Expert Group on the Safety of Vulnerable Road Users (RS7), Paris.

Oxley, J., B. Fildes, E. Ihsen, J. Carlton, and R. Day. 1997. Differences in Traffic Judgments Between Young and Old Adult Pedestrians. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 28, pp. 838–847.

Peacock, B., and W. Karwowski. 1993. Automotive Ergonomics. Taylor and Francis, London.

Pelz, D. C., and S. H. Schuman. 1973. Drinking, Hostility, and Alienation in Driving of Young Men. Proceedings of the Third Annual Alcoholism Conference, NIAAA, No. 7501062, pp. 50–74.

Preusser, W., K. Leaf, R. DeBartolo, R. D. Blomberg, and M. Levy. 1984. The Effect of Right-Turn-on-Red on Pedestrian and Bicyclist Accidents. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 13, pp. 45–55.

Quimby, A. R., and G. R. Watts. 1981. Human Factors and Driving Performance. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, England.

Ragland, D. R., and R. J. Hundenski. 1992. Traffic Volumes and Collisions Involving Transit and Non-Transit Vehicles. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 547–588.

Retting, R. A., R. Van Houton, L. Malenfant, J. Van Houton, and C. M. Farmer. 1996. Special Signs and Pavement Markings Improve Pedestrian Safety. ITE Journal, Vol. 66, No. 12, pp. 28–35.

Sandels, S. 1975. Children in Traffic. Paul Elek, London.

Shope, J. T., L. J. Molnar, M. R. Elliott, and P. F. Waller. 2001. Graduated Driver Licensing in Michigan: Early Impact on Motor Vehicle Crashes Among 16-Year-Olds. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 286, pp. 1593–1598.

TRB. 1989. Special Report 222: Improving School Bus Safety. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

TRB. 2001. TCRP Report 66: Effective Practices to Reduce Bus Accidents. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Tyson, P. 2002. Thinking: Six to Eleven. www.specialchildren.about.com/cs/cognitive/ .

Vinje, M. P. 1981. Children as Pedestrians: Abilities and Limitations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 225–240.

Williams, A. F., V. Rappold, S. A. Ferguson, and J. K. Wells. 1997. Seat Belt Use of High School Drivers and Their Passengers. Journal of Traffic Medicine, Vol. 25, pp. 21–25.

TRB Special Report 269 - The Relative Risks of School Travel: A National Perspective and Guidance for Local Community Risk Assessment presents a method to estimate, on a per-mile and per-trip basis, the relative risks that students face in traveling to and from school by walking, bicycling, riding in passenger vehicles with adult drivers, riding in passenger vehicles with teenage drivers, or taking a bus.� These estimated risk measures can assist localities in developing policies to improve the safety of students traveling to school and in evaluating policies that affect mode choices by students and their parents.� The report also includes checklists of actions to reduce the risks associated with each mode of school travel.

Children in the United States travel to and from school and school-related activities by a variety of modes. Because parents and their school-age children have a limited understanding of the risks associated with each mode, it is unlikely that these risks greatly influence their school travel choices. Public perceptions of school transportation safety are heavily influenced by school bus (i.e., "yellow bus") services.

When children are killed or injured in crashes involving school buses, the link to school transportation appears obvious; when children are killed or injured in crashes that occur when they are traveling to or from school or school-related activities by other modes, however, the purpose of the trip is often not known or recorded, and the risks are not coded in a school-related category. Despite such limitations and the fact that estimates of the risks across school travel modes are confounded by inconsistent and incomplete data, sufficient information is available to make gross comparisons of the relative risks among modes used for school travel and to provide guidance for risk management.

Each year approximately 800 school-aged children are killed in motor vehicle crashes during normal school travel hours. This figure represents about 14 percent of the 5,600 child deaths that occur annually on U.S. roadways and 2 percent of the nation’s yearly total of 40,000 motor vehicle deaths. Of these 800 deaths, about 20 (2 percent)—5 school bus passengers and 15 pedestrians—are school bus–related. The other 98 percent of school-aged deaths occur in passenger vehicles or to pedestrians, bicyclists, or motorcyclists. A disproportionate share of these passenger vehicle–related deaths (approximately 450 of the 800 deaths, or 55 percent) occur when a teenager is driving.

At the same time, approximately 152,000 school-age children are nonfatally injured during normal school travel hours each year. More than 80 percent (about 130,000) of these nonfatal injuries occur in passenger vehicles; only 4 percent (about 6,000) are school bus–related (about 5,500 school bus passengers and 500 school bus pedestrians), 11 percent (about 16,500) occur to pedestrians and bicyclists, and fewer than 1 percent (500) are to passengers in other buses.

When school travel modes are compared, the distribution of injuries and fatalities is found to be quite different from that of trips and miles traveled. Three modes (school buses, other buses, and passenger vehicles with adult drivers) have injury estimates and fatality counts below those expected on the basis of the exposure to risk implied by the number of trips taken or student-miles traveled. For example, school buses represent 25 percent of the miles traveled by students but account for less than 4 percent of the injuries and 2 percent of the fatalities. Conversely, the other three modal classifications (passenger vehicles with teen drivers, bicycling, and walking) have estimated injury rates and fatality counts disproportionately greater than expected on the basis of exposure data. For example, passenger vehicles with teen drivers account for more than half of the injuries and fatalities, a much greater proportion than the 14–16 percent that would be expected on the basis of student-miles and trips.

Special Report 269 Summary

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Warnings and insurance

Your travel insurance could be invalidated if you travel against FCDO advice. Consular support is also severely limited where FCDO advises against travel.

FCDO advises against all travel to Russia

FCDO advises British nationals against all travel to Russia due to the risks and threats from its continuing invasion of Ukraine. The situation in Russia is unpredictable. This includes:

• security incidents, such as drone attacks, happening in some parts of the country
• lack of available flights to return to the UK
• limited ability for the UK government to provide consular assistance

There is also a high likelihood that terrorists will try to carry out attacks, including in major cities. See ‘Safety and Security’ section .

Security situation in Russia

The Russian invasion of Ukraine continues. There are reports of drone attacks and explosions in areas in western and southern Russia, particularly near the Russian border with Ukraine, Moscow and St Petersburg. Military activity is currently underway in Kursk and Belgorod oblasts. 

Political rallies and demonstrations may take place in Moscow, St Petersburg and across Russia. Check local media for the latest information. Be vigilant and avoid any political demonstrations or gatherings.  

The situation remains unpredictable and could escalate without warning.

Leaving Russia

FCDO advises British nationals to consider leaving Russia.

If you do not need to be in Russia, we strongly advise you to consider leaving.

You cannot fly directly from Russia to the UK or through EU countries. Commercial flight options are limited and can sell out quickly. Check with your airline or travel provider.

British nationals should exercise extreme caution at all times. Travel within or out of Russia is at your own risk.

You cannot fly direct from Russia to the UK or through EU countries. There are limited commercial airlines with indirect flights via the Middle East, Serbia and Turkey. Check the latest information with your airline or travel provider.

Land borders may be busy. Be prepared for a long wait to exit Russia. You may also be questioned at the border. During periods of unrest, check the local media for updates on the situation before travelling.

Road border crossings between Finland and Russia will be closed until at least 11 February 2024. Consult the  Finnish border guard website  for up-to-date information. Further changes may be announced at short notice.

Some European countries have restricted or banned the entry of vehicles registered in Russia, this includes:

If you plan to drive a vehicle registered in Russia into Europe check that you are eligible to do so.

Some bus companies have international routes. The situation may change quickly. From 18 November 2023, Finland will restrict entry at some road border crossings (See ‘Travelling from Russia to Finland’). Check these companies for availability of buses, timetables and tickets:

• Ecolines – buses to Riga (Latvia), Tallinn (Estonia), Vilnius (Lithuania) and other destinations in Europe
• Baltic Shuttle – buses from St Petersburg to Tallinn (Estonia)
• Lux Express – buses from St Petersburg to Riga (Latvia), Tallinn (Estonia)

Travelling from Russia to Latvia

Check the travel advice for Latvia .

See the Latvian government website for information on crossing the border.

Travelling from Russia to Finland

Check the travel advice for Finland .

Road border crossings between Finland and Russia will remain closed until further notice. Consult the  Finnish border guard website  for up-to-date information. Further changes may be announced at short notice.

The border crossing points for maritime traffic at Haapasaari, the port of Nuijamaa and Santio will be closed to leisure boating from 15 April until further notice.

The train service from Russia to Finland is no longer available.

Travelling from Russia to Estonia

Check the travel advice for Estonia .

See the Estonian police and border guard website for information on crossing the border.

From 1 February 2024, it is not possible to cross the border by vehicle via the Narva-Ivangorod crossing point, whilst construction works take place on the Russian side. The crossing is open to pedestrians.

Travelling from Russia to Lithuania

Check the travel advice for Lithuania .

If you’re planning to cross into Lithuania by road from Kaliningrad oblast at the Kybartai border crossing point, see the Lithuanian state border crossing website .

Travelling from Russia to Norway

Check the travel advice for Norway .

Staying in Russia

If you decide to stay in Russia, you should:

• keep your departure plans under constant review
• ensure your travel documents are up to date
• follow local media
• stay alert to security warnings and follow the advice of local authorities
• take cover in buildings or underground and avoid windows in the event of drone attack
• sign up to email alerts for Russia travel advice

Read FCDO advice on what to do if you’re affected by a crisis abroad and how to prepare.

Support for British nationals in Russia

The British Embassy in Moscow and British Consulate Ekaterinburg are open, but the situation could change at short notice.

In person consular support in Russia is limited. It is very limited in parts of Russia because of the security situation and the size of the country, particularly in the North Caucasus.

If you need consular assistance, call our 24-hour helpline +7 495 956 7200 and select the option for consular services for British nationals.

Contact the Russian emergency services on 112.

Dual nationals

Dual British-Russian nationals are treated as Russian nationals by local authorities. The consular support FCDO can provide is severely limited. If you are arrested or detained, Russian authorities are unlikely to allow us consular access.

In 2022, Russia declared a partial mobilisation of Russian citizens to join the military forces. Military recruitment continues. Anyone with a Russian passport could be conscripted.

In August, Russian law was amended to stop Russian nationals eligible for military conscription from leaving Russia from the day their draft notice appears on the federal electronic conscription register.

Travel insurance

If you choose to travel, research your destinations and get appropriate travel insurance . Insurance should cover your itinerary, planned activities and expenses in an emergency.

About FCDO travel advice

FCDO provides advice about risks of travel to help you make informed decisions. Find out more about FCDO travel advice .

Follow and contact FCDO travel on Twitter , Facebook and Instagram . You can also sign up to get email notifications when this advice is updated.

Related content

Invasion of ukraine.

• UK visa support for Ukrainian nationals
• Move to the UK if you're coming from Ukraine
• Homes for Ukraine: record your interest
• Find out about the UK’s response

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

• Travel Advisories |
• Contact Us |
• MyTravelGov |

Find U.S. Embassies & Consulates

Travel.state.gov, congressional liaison, special issuance agency, u.s. passports, international travel, intercountry adoption, international parental child abduction, records and authentications, popular links, travel advisories, mytravelgov, stay connected, legal resources, legal information, info for u.s. law enforcement, replace or certify documents.

Before You Go

Learn About Your Destination

While Abroad

Emergencies

Share this page:

Travel Advisory June 27, 2024

Russia - level 4: do not travel.

Reissued after periodic review with minor edits.

Do not travel to Russia due to the consequences of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russian military forces. U.S. citizens may face harassment or detention by Russian security officials, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, limited flights into and out of Russia, and the possibility of terrorism. The U.S. Embassy has limited ability to assist U.S. citizens in Russia. The Department has determined that there is a continued risk of wrongful detention of U.S. nationals by Russian authorities. U.S. citizens residing or traveling in Russia should leave immediately.

The U.S. government has limited ability to help U.S. citizens in Russia, especially outside of Moscow. The U.S. Embassy is operating with reduced staffing, and the Russian government has restricted travel for embassy personnel. Furthermore, all U.S. consulates in Russia have suspended operations, including consular services.

There have been reports of drone attacks and explosions near the border with Ukraine as well as in Moscow, Kazan, and St. Petersburg. In an emergency, you should follow instructions from local authorities and seek shelter.

Russia may refuse to recognize your U.S. citizenship if you are a dual U.S.-Russian citizen or have a claim to Russian citizenship. Russia has denied consular officers visits to detained dual U.S.-Russian citizens. The Russian government has forced citizens with dual nationality to join the Russian military and prevented them from leaving the country. In 2022, the Russian government mobilized citizens for its invasion of Ukraine. Military conscription continues.

In Russia, the rights to peaceful assembly and free speech are not always protected. U.S. citizens should avoid protests and taking photos of security staff at these events. Russian authorities have arrested U.S. citizens who joined protests. Moreover, there are many reports of Russians being detained for social media posts.

U.S. citizens should know that U.S. credit and debit cards no longer work in Russia. Due to sanctions, sending electronic money transfers from the U.S. to Russia is nearly impossible.

Commercial flight options are minimal and are often unavailable on short notice. If you wish to depart Russia, you should make independent arrangements. The U.S. Embassy has limited ability to assist U.S. citizens in leaving the country, and transportation options may suddenly become even more restricted.

Click  here  for Information for U.S. Citizens Seeking to Depart Russia.

U.S. Embassy staff generally are not allowed to fly on Russian airlines due to safety concerns. Recently, the FAA downgraded Russia's air safety rating from Category 1 to Category 2. Additionally, the FAA banned U.S. flights in some Russian areas, including the Moscow Flight Information Region (FIR), the Samara FIR (UWWW), and the Rostov-na-Donu (URRV) FIR within 160NM of the boundaries of the Dnipro (UKDV) Flight Information Regions. Check the FAA's Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Notices for more information.

Country Summary: 

Russian officials have interrogated and threatened U.S. citizens without cause. This includes former and current U.S. government and military personnel and private U.S. citizens engaged in business. U.S. citizens may become victims of harassment, mistreatment, and extortion.

Russian authorities may not notify the U.S. Embassy about the detention of a U.S. citizen and may delay U.S. consular assistance. Russian security services also target foreign and international organizations they consider “undesirable.”

Russian security services have arrested U.S. citizens on false charges, denied them fair treatment, and convicted them without credible evidence. Furthermore, Russian authorities have opened questionable investigations against U.S. citizens engaged in religious activity. U.S. citizens should avoid travel to Russia.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has destabilized security in southwestern Russia. In October 2022, the Russian government declared martial law in the following border areas with Ukraine: Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, Voronezh, Rostov, and Krasnodar. Under martial law, authorities can set curfews, seize property, and restrict movement. The Russian government may detain foreigners, forcibly relocate residents, and limit public gatherings. U.S. citizens should avoid all travel to these areas.

Russian authorities have questioned, detained, and arrested people for “acting against Russia's interests.” Local authorities have targeted people for posting on social media or supporting "anti-Russian" groups and punished individuals for criticizing the government or military. The Russian government's current "LGBT propaganda" law bans discussion of LGBTQI+ related topics. In November 2023, the Supreme Court labeled the so-called "international LGBT movement" as extremist. This decision effectively made it a crime to support the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons in Russia.

Terrorists continue to plan attacks in Russia. The March 2024 Crocus City Hall incident proved they can strike suddenly. Terrorists may target tourist areas, transport hubs, and markets. They may also target government buildings, hotels, clubs, restaurants, and places of worship. Parks, events, schools, and airports are also potential targets.  U.S. government employees under Embassy (Chief of Mission) security responsibility are not permitted to travel to the North Caucasus, including Chechnya and Mt. Elbrus. U.S. citizens should avoid travel to those areas.

The international community does not recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and does not acknowledge Russia’s purported annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhya. Russia staged its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in part, from occupied Crimea and there is a heavy Russian military presence in these areas. There is intense fighting across these regions and Russian authorities there have abused both foreigners and locals. Authorities have specifically targeted individuals who are seen as challenging Russia’s authority.

The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv administers consular services to U.S. citizens in Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhya. However, the conflict limits the Embassy's ability to help U.S. citizens in these areas.

Read the  country information page  for additional information on travel to Russia.

If you decide to travel to Russia:

• Read the information on what the U.S. government can and cannot do to assist you in an emergency overseas .
• Consider the risks involved in having dual U.S.- Russian nationality.
• Have a contingency plan in place that does not rely on U.S. government help. Review the Traveler’s Checklist .
• Follow news for any important events and update your plans based on the new information.
• Ensure travel documents are valid and easily accessible.
• Visit our website for Travel to High-Risk Areas .
• Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). This will allow you to receive Alerts and make it easier to locate you in an emergency.
• Follow the Department of State on Facebook and Twitter .
• Review the Country Security Report for Russia.
• Visit the CDC page for the latest Travel Health Information related to your travel.

Important Information for U.S. Citizens Seeking to Depart Russia (Updated Monthly).

Click Here for Important Information for U.S. Citizens Seeking to Depart Russia (Updated Monthly) .

Embassy Messages

View Alerts and Messages Archive

Quick Facts

Required six months beyond intended stay

2 pages per stamp

$10,000 or more must be declared

You may export up to $3,000 (or equivalent) without declaring it

Embassies and Consulates

U.S. Embassy Moscow Bolshoy Deviatinsky Pereulok No. 8 Moscow 121099 Russian Federation Telephone:  +(7) (495) 728-5000 or +(7) (495) 728-5577 Emergency After-Hours Telephone:  +(7) (495) 728-5000 Fax:  +(7) (495) 728-5084 Email:   [email protected]

U.S. Consulate General Vladivostok 32 Ulitsa Pushkinskaya Vladivostok 690001 Russian Federation

Consular services at U.S. Consulate General Vladivostok remain suspended.  Contact Embassy Moscow for all consular services.

U.S. Consulate General Yekaterinburg Ulitsa Gogolya 15a, 4th floor, Yekaterinburg 620151 Russian Federation

Effective April 1, 2021, Consulate General Yekaterinburg suspended all consular services.  Contact Embassy Moscow for all consular services.

U.S. Consulate General St. Petersburg

Due to the Russian government’s ordered closure of the U.S. Consulate General, as of March 31, 2018, U.S. citizen visitors and residents in St. Petersburg must contact the U.S. Embassy in Moscow for all consular services .

Destination Description

Learn about the U.S. relationship to countries around the world.

Entry, Exit and Visa Requirements

Before traveling to Russia, consider the current Travel Advisory.

The Travel Advisory for Russia is Level 4, Do Not Travel. The Department of State recommends U.S. citizens do not travel to Russia due to the consequences of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russian military forces. U.S. citizens may face harassment or detention by Russian security officials, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, limited flights into and out of Russia, and the possibility of terrorism. The U.S. Embassy has limited ability to assist U.S. citizens in Russia. The Department has determined that there is a continued risk of wrongful detention of U.S. nationals by Russian authorities. U.S. citizens residing or traveling in Russia should leave immediately.

Russian authorities strictly enforce all visa and immigration laws. The  Embassy of the Russian Federation  website provides the most up to date information regarding visa regulations. In accordance with Russia’s Entry-Exit Law, Russian authorities may deny entry or reentry into Russia for five years or more and cancel the visas of foreigners who have committed two administrative violations within the past three years. Activities that are not specifically covered by the traveler’s visa may result in an administrative violation and deportation.

Under a bilateral agreement signed in 2012, qualified U.S. applicants for humanitarian, private, tourist, and business visas may request and receive multiple-entry visas with a validity of three years or a single entry, three-month validity visa. (Please note that other types of visas are not part of the agreement, and those visa holders should pay close attention to the terms of their visas.) You cannot enter Russia prior to the date on your visa, and you must exit Russia before your visa expires. The maximum period of stay is shown on the visa.

• You must have a current U.S. passport with the appropriate visa. Russian visas in an expired or canceled passport are not valid.
• You must obtain a valid visa for your specific purpose of travel before arriving in Russia. Do not attempt to enter Russia before the date shown on your visa.  If you are staying in Russia for more than seven days, you must register your visa and migration card with the General Administration for Migration Issues of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
• Students and English teachers should be certain that their activities are in strict keeping with their visa type. U.S. travelers in Russia on a student visa are prohibited by Russian law from teaching or coaching English for pay or as an unpaid volunteer.. It is a visa violation that may subject you to detention and deportation. 
• Transit visas:  We recommend that all passengers transiting through Russia obtain a Russian transit visa.
• With the exceptions noted below, travelers are not required to have a transit visa if they are transiting through an international airport in Russia, do not leave the Customs zone, and depart from the same airport within 24 hours.
• Travelers must have a Russian transit visa if they plan to transit through Russia by land in route to a third country or if they transfer to another airport.
• Travelers must possess a Russian transit visa in addition to a Belarusian visa if their travel route either to or from Belarus goes through Russia.

Dual Nationals: Anyone entering Russia who has claim to Russian citizenship, regardless of any other citizenship they hold, is subject to Russian law and accountable to Russian authorities for all obligations of a Russian citizen, including required military service. Russia may refuse to recognize your U.S. citizenship if you are a dual U.S.-Russian citizen or have a claim to Russian citizenship. Russia has denied consular officers visits to detained dual U.S.-Russian citizens.

• U.S.-Russian dual nationals and Russian citizens who are Legal Permanent residents of the United States must register their dual nationality/foreign residency. Registration forms and further information (in Russian only) can be found on the website of the General Administration for Migration Issues of the Interior Ministry of Russia. Dual U.S.-Russian citizens who have not registered have been arrested. 
• U.S.-Russian dual nationals must both enter and exit on a Russian passport.  You will not be permitted to depart on an expired passport. Applying for a passport can take several months. 
• U.S.-Russian dual nationals who return to Russia on a “Repatriation Certificate” are only permitted to enter Russia and will not be permitted to depart Russia until they obtain a valid Russian passport.
• Minors who also have Russian citizenship and are traveling alone or in the company of adults who are not their parents, must carry a Russian passport as well as their parents’ notarized consent for the trip. Parents can contact, a Russian embassy or consulate or a U.S. notary public to notarize a letter of consent.  If you use a U.S. notary public, then the notarized document must be apostilled (authenticated), translated into Russian, and properly affixed. Russian authorities will prevent Russian citizen minors from entering or leaving Russia if they cannot present a properly notarized consent letter.

Crimea: Follow the guidance in the Department’s  Travel Advisory for Ukraine  and do not travel to the Crimean Peninsula. 

Documentary Requirements for obtaining a Russian visa: Consult with the  Embassy of the Russian Federation  for detailed explanations of documentary requirements.

HIV/AIDS Entry Restrictions: Some HIV/AIDS entry restrictions exist for visitors to, and foreign residents of, Russia. Applicants for longer-term tourist and work visas or residence permits are required to undergo an HIV/AIDS test.

Find information on  dual nationality ,  prevention of international child abduction  and  customs regulations  on our websites.

Safety and Security

Terrorism: Terrorist groups, transnational and local terrorist organizations, and lone actors inspired by extremist ideology and messaging continue plotting possible attacks in Russia. Terrorists may attack with little or no warning. They may target tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, local government facilities, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, parks, major sporting and cultural events, educational institutions, airports, and other public areas.

Terrorists have carried out attacks in Russia, including Moscow and St. Petersburg, and bomb threats against public venues are common. If you are at a location that receives a bomb threat, follow all instructions from the local police and security services.

North Caucasus Region: A risk of civil and political unrest continues throughout the North Caucasus region including Chechnya, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Stavropol, Karachayevo-Cherkessiya, and Kabardino-Balkariya. Local criminal gangs have kidnapped foreigners, including U.S. citizens, for ransom. In the Republic of Chechnya, local authorities may harbor particular hostility towards U.S. travelers.

• Do not travel to Chechnya or any other areas in the North Caucasus region.
• If you reside in these areas,  depart immediately.
• U.S. government employees under Embassy (Chief of Mission) security responsibility are prohibited from traveling to the region,  due to ongoing security concerns.
• The U.S. government has no ability to assist U.S. citizens in the North Caucasus Region.

Mt. Elbrus:

Do not attempt to climb Mt. Elbrus , as individuals must pass close to volatile and insecure areas of the North Caucasus region.

• Do not travel to this Russian occupied territory of Ukraine.
• The U.S. government is unable to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens in Crimea. Contact the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv for questions regarding consular services.
• U.S. government employees under Embassy (Chief of Mission) security responsibility are prohibited from traveling to Crimea. See the Department’s  Travel Advisory for Ukraine .

Harassment: Harassment of U.S.-based religious and student groups can take place in Russia, and you should be aware of the possibility of anti-U.S. sentiment or harassment. U.S. citizens, including current and former U.S. government and military personnel, may be subject to additional scrutiny by Russian security services. Remain alert, avoid any protests or demonstrations, and use discretion when commenting publicly on political developments. You can find safety and security  Alerts on the Embassy’s website .

• Police do not need to show probable cause in order to stop, question, or detain individuals. Please comply with the requests of local law enforcement officials.
• Report harassment or crimes to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

Demonstrations:

• Avoid public demonstrations. U.S. citizens who have participated in demonstrations have been arrested by the Russian authorities.

Crime: Crimes against tourists do occur at popular tourist sites and on public transportation. U.S. citizens have been victims of serious crimes when visiting Russia. Russian authorities are not always willing to investigate crimes impartially and thoroughly.

• Be cautious and aware of your surroundings.
• Exercise caution in the vicinity of large crowds.
• Do not leave bags unattended. 
• Never leave your drink unattended in a bar or club. Alcohol was a significant factor in most criminal activity reported by foreign visitors.
• Report Credit card or ATM card theft to the credit card company or issuing bank immediately.
• Avoid carrying large sums of cash. 

Cybercrime: Cybercrime is a major issue in Russia. Hackers and organized crime groups collaborate, especially targeting the financial sector. They use malware, spam, spear phishing, and social engineering to infect, steal, or compromise personal information. Therefore, U.S. citizens and companies must be alert and use cyber security measures to lower their risks.

U.S. citizens have no reasonable expectation of privacy in Russia. Telephone and electronic communications are subject to surveillance at any time and without advisory, which may compromise sensitive information. The Russian System for Operational-Investigative Activities (SORM) legally permits authorities to monitor and record all data that traverses Russia’s networks.

See the  Department of State  and the  FBI  pages for additional information on scams.

Victims of Crime: U.S. citizen victims of sexual assault are encouraged to contact the U.S. Embassy in Moscow for assistance. Report crimes to the local police at 02 or 102, or 112 if using a mobile phone, and the U.S. Embassy at +7 495 728-5000.

Remember that local authorities are responsible for investigating and prosecuting the crime. U.S. law enforcement agencies generally do not have jurisdiction to investigate crimes against U.S. citizens that occur on Russian territory.

See our webpage on  help for U.S. victims of crime overseas .

• Help you find appropriate medical care
• Assist you in reporting a crime to the police
• Contact relatives or friends with your written consent
• Provide general information regarding the victim’s role during the local investigation and following its conclusion
• Provide a list of local attorneys
• Provide our information on  victim’s compensation programs in the U.S.
• Provide an emergency loan for repatriation to the United States and/or limited medical needs
• Support in cases of destitution
• Help you find accommodation and arrange flights home
• Replace a stolen or lost passport.

Domestic Violence: U.S. citizen victims of domestic violence are encouraged to contact the U.S. Embassy for assistance.

Tourism: The tourism industry is unevenly regulated. Safety inspections of equipment and facilities are infrequent Hazardous areas may lack proper signage, and construction or maintenance staff are often uncertified. In case of injury, medical care is mainly available in major cities. First responders are usually unable to reach areas outside of major cities quickly. U.S. citizens are advised to get medical evacuation insurance . 

Local Laws & Special Circumstances

Arrest Notification: Russia routinely fails to meet its obligation to inform the U.S. Embassy of arrests of U.S. citizens. If you are detained, ask the police or prison officials to notify the U.S. Embassy immediately. If you are a U.S.-Russian dual citizen, the police or prison officials may refuse to contact the U.S. Embassy on your behalf. Your U.S. passport does not protect you from arrest or prosecution. See our for further information.

Criminal Penalties: You are subject to all Russian laws while in Russia. If you violate these laws, even unknowingly, you may be arrested, fined, imprisoned, or expelled, and may be banned from re-entering Russia. 

Some acts committed outside the United States are prosecutable as crimes in the United StatesFor examples, see  crimes against minors abroad  and the  Department of Justice  website.

• You can be arrested, detained, fined, deported, and banned for five years or more if you are found to have  violated Russian immigration law.
• Penalties for  possessing, using, or trafficking in illegal drugs  in Russia are severe. Convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences and heavy fines.
• You can be  detained for not carrying your passport  with you.
• You can be jailed immediately for driving under the influence of alcohol.
• It is illegal to pay for goods and services in U.S. dollars , except at authorized retail establishments.
• You can be arrested for attempting to  leave the country with antiques , even if they were legally purchased from licensed vendors. Travelers seeking to leave Russia with items like artwork, icons, samovars, and rugs, military medal, or antiques must possess official Russian certificates showing that they lack historical or cultural value. You may obtain certificates from the  Russian Ministry of Culture . 
• Retain all receipts  for high-value items, including caviar.
• You must have  advance approval to bring satellite telephones to Russia.
• Global Positioning System (GPS) and other radio electronic devices, and their use, are subject to special rules and regulations in Russia. Contact the Russian Customs Service for required permissions.

Counterfeit and Pirated Goods: Although counterfeit and pirated goods are prevalent in many countries, they may still be illegal according to local laws. You may also pay fines or have to give them up if you bring them back to the United States. See the  U.S. Department of Justice website  for more information.

Faith-Based Travelers: Russian authorities have arrested, fined, and even deported travelers for religious activities. The Russian government recognizes four religions: Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. There are strict regulations on religious missionary work of any kind. To engage in missionary work, travelers must obtain authorization from a recognized religious group. Proselytizing outside of a registered place of worship is illegal. U.S. citizens have been detained for religious activities not allowed on tourist or humanitarian visas. See the  Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report .

LGBTQI+ Travelers: Russian law bans distributing "LGBT propaganda,” and the Russian Supreme Court has declared the so-called “international LGBT movement” an extremist organization, effectively prohibiting all expression related to LGBTQI+ issues.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is widespread in Russia. Acts of violence and harassment targeting LGBTQI+ individuals occur.

Government officials have made derogatory comments about LGBTQI+ persons and violence against the LGBTQI+ community continues.

There have been credible reports of arrest, torture, and extrajudicial killing of LGBTQI+ persons in Chechnya allegedly conducted by Chechen regional authorities.

See our  LGBTQI+ Travel Information  page and section 6 of our  Human Rights report  for further details.

Travelers Who Require Accessibility Assistance: Getting around in Russia is often difficult for persons with mobility issues. In general, public transportation is not accommodating to people with disabilities. The Moscow Metro, though extremely safe and efficient in other areas, is generally not accessible to persons with disabilities.

• Sidewalks are narrow and uneven.
• Mobility is usually easier in major cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg.
• Crossing streets in large cities can be difficult, since it usually requires the use of a pedestrian underpass. These underpasses include stairs, steep ramps, and no elevators.

Students: See our  Students Abroad  page and  FBI travel tips .

Women Travelers: See our travel tips for  Women Travelers .

Private medical care in major metropolitan cities and tourism centers in Russia is often equal to Western standards. However, medical care is generally below Western standards in non-metropolitan areas.

• Private medical facilities require payment before providing services. They will not accept U.S. insurance as a guarantee of future payment unless it's for life-threatening care. Payment is expected at the time of service.
• The U.S. Department of State cannot pay the medical bills of private U.S. citizens.
• U.S. Medicare/Medicaid does not provide coverage outside the United States without the purchase of supplemental coverage. 
• Make sure your health insurance plan provides coverage overseas. Most care providers overseas only accept cash payments. See our  webpage  for more information on insurance coverage.
• Elderly travelers and those with existing health problems are particularly at risk.

Prescription Medication:

• Certain classes of over-the-counter cold medicines, such as those containing pseudoephedrine, are illegal in Russia. Do not bring cold medication with you to Russia.
• Russia does not recognize medical marijuana prescriptions. Possession of marijuana in Russia is illegal. If you bring medical marijuana into Russia, you are at risk of arrest. 
• Carry a copy of valid U.S. prescriptions, including a notarized translation into Russian of each prescription, when entering Russia with prescription medications. 
• Prescription medication should be in its original packaging.

Medical Insurance: Make sure your health insurance plan provides coverage overseas. We strongly recommend  supplemental insurance  to cover medical evacuation.

Vaccinations: Be up-to-date on all  vaccinations  recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Further health information:

World Health Organization

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention  (CDC)

Travel and Transportation

Road Conditions and Safety:  Road conditions and driver safety customs differ significantly from those in the United States.  In some more remote areas of Russia, roads are practically nonexistent or have poor or nonexistent shoulders.

Drivers are required by law to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, and this is generally observed.  It is dangerous for pedestrians to cross a street where there is not a crosswalk present.

Do not drive outside the major cities at night.

Construction sites and road hazards are often unmarked. 

Traffic Laws:  Russian authorities to sometimes consider traffic or parking infractions as "administrative violations. "  These can lead to deportation and denial of reentry to Russia.

• Drivers must carry third-party liability insurance under a policy valid in Russia.
• You may drive for 60 days using your U.S. driver’s license, with a notarized Russian translation.
• Tourists may also use International Driving Permits issued by the  American Automobile Association  or the American Automobile Touring Alliance to drive in Russia.
• Russian law requires foreigners on business or employment visas or with permanent residence status to have a Russian driver’s license.
• Driving regulations are strictly enforced and violators are subject to severe legal penalties.
• Russia practices a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Authorities can detain an intoxicated driver.
• If you are involved in an accident, do not move your vehicle from the accident site.  You may be held liable if you move your car even if you are not at fault.
• Roadside police checkpoints are commonplace.  Be prepared to stop and show identity documents and proof of registration and insurance.

Public Transportation:

Moscow and St. Petersburg have extensive, efficient public transit systems, as do many other urban areas in Russia.

In metropolitan areas, well-marked taxis are generally safe and reliable.  Do not use unmarked taxis.  Passengers have been the victims of robbery, kidnapping, extortion, and theft.

See our  Road Safety page  for more information.

AVIATION SAFETY OVERSIGHT:  The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has assessed that the Government of Russia's Civil Aviation Authority is not in compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) aviation safety standards for oversight of Russia's air carrier operations. Further information may be found on the  FAA's safety assessment page.

Maritime Travel:  Mariners planning travel to Russia should check the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration site for  U.S. maritime advisories and alert s.  Information may also be posted to the  U.S. Coast Guard homeport website and the  NGA broadcast warnings website.

The Commandant of the Coast Guard is unable to determine if effective anti-terrorism measures are in place in Russia’s ports as required by 46 U.S. Code § 70108.

Please see Fact Sheet for this country/area.

For additional travel information

• Enroll in the  Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP)  to receive security messages and make it easier to locate you in an emergency.
• Call us in Washington, D.C. at 1-888-407-4747 (toll-free in the United States and Canada) or 1-202-501-4444 (from all other countries) from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday (except U.S. federal holidays).
• See the  State Department’s travel website  for the  Worldwide Caution  and  Travel Advisories .
• Follow us on  Twitter  and  Facebook .
• See  traveling safely abroad  for useful travel tips.

Review information about International Parental Child Abduction in  Russia .  For additional IPCA-related information, please see the  International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA)  report.

• Enroll in the  Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP)  to receive security messages and make it easier to locate you in an emergency.
• See the  State Department’s travel website  for the  Worldwide Caution  and  Travel Advisories .
• Follow us on X (formerly known as "Twitter") and Facebook .
• See  traveling safely abroad  for useful travel tips.

Review information about International Parental Child Abduction in Russia . For additional IPCA-related information, please see the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act ( ICAPRA ) report.

Travel Advisory Levels

Assistance for u.s. citizens, russian federation map, learn about your destination, enroll in step.

Subscribe to get up-to-date safety and security information and help us reach you in an emergency abroad.

Recommended Web Browsers: Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.

Make two copies of all of your travel documents in case of emergency, and leave one with a trusted friend or relative.

Afghanistan

Antigua and Barbuda

Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba

Bosnia and Herzegovina

British Virgin Islands

Burkina Faso

Burma (Myanmar)

Cayman Islands

Central African Republic

Cote d Ivoire

Czech Republic

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Equatorial Guinea

Eswatini (Swaziland)

Falkland Islands

France (includes Monaco)

French Guiana

French Polynesia

French West Indies

Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint Martin, and Saint Barthélemy (French West Indies)

Guinea-Bissau

Isle of Man

Israel, The West Bank and Gaza

Liechtenstein

Marshall Islands

Netherlands

New Caledonia

New Zealand

North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

Papua New Guinea

Philippines

Republic of North Macedonia

Republic of the Congo

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Sao Tome and Principe

Saudi Arabia

Sierra Leone

Sint Maarten

Solomon Islands

South Africa

South Korea

South Sudan

Switzerland

The Bahamas

Timor-Leste

Trinidad and Tobago

Turkmenistan

Turks and Caicos Islands

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom

Vatican City (Holy See)

External Link

You are about to leave travel.state.gov for an external website that is not maintained by the U.S. Department of State.

Links to external websites are provided as a convenience and should not be construed as an endorsement by the U.S. Department of State of the views or products contained therein. If you wish to remain on travel.state.gov, click the "cancel" message.

You are about to visit: