Transit grants out the federal door, but what about the cuts?
March 8, 2010By Stephen Lee Davis
 |
| Park and Ride Ribbon Cutting Originally uploaded by WSDOT |
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is (rightfully) touting the great news on his blog this morning that the Federal Transit Administration met their ambitious deadline for distributing 100% of the transit funds from the stimulus package. That’s great news, but it should be accompanied by the sobering reminder that these public transportation systems that get people to work each day largely couldn’t use that money to keep from having to cut service at a time when it’s needed the most.
The FTA has now doled out 881 grants totaling $7.5 billion since the stimulus was signed last year, and LaHood notes that these grants have funded the purchase of nearly 12,000 buses, vans and rail vehicles; construction or renovation of more than 850 transit facilities; and $620 million in preventive maintenance to keep systems running smoothly.
But what about the hundreds of agencies cutting back service, raising fares, or laying off workers — like the terrible story from Atlanta we chronicled last Friday, where 25-30% of all service may be history come June?
Unfortunately, the FTA’s hands were tied with the rules for the grants set by Congress, which meant that almost all of the money had to be used to purchase new equipment or perform maintenance, even if those agencies couldn’t afford to hire or train the new drivers to operate the buses or railcars. We say “most of the money,” because a group of lawmakers were able to successfully include a provision in a separate bill during the summer that made it possible for local transit agencies to spend up to 10% of their transit stimulus money on operations. But in many places like St. Louis, where the deficit was ten times the $4.6 million they could now spend on service, that’s not enough to keep from having to make drastic cuts or lay workers off, even while getting an influx of federal money.
With a full transportation bill likely months away, in the short term we need to urge the Senate to include money in any future jobs bills to help keep transit systems running.
With millions who depend on these systems each day to get to work, making sure that reliable transit service doesn’t disappear will help get them to their jobs quickly and conveniently each day, ensuring that many of them stay employed.
Transit riders in Atlanta face massive cuts, “wholesale restructuring” of service
March 5, 2010By Stephen Lee Davis
 |
| Eastbound Originally uploaded by robholland |
| A family on an eastbound MARTA rapid rail train in Atlanta. |
Transit riders in Metro Atlanta will soon require a new system map to find their way because the current map is about to be ancient history, a document fit for use only by archivists and history buffs. Of course, this would only apply to those who still have a bus or train to wait for after MARTA goes through with massive cuts this year. This story from the Atlanta Journal Constitution was included in a few headline posts from the usual suspects earlier this week, including one of ours, but the desperate situation in Atlanta is worth a closer look.
Wrap your head around this number: MARTA is facing a budget deficit of $120 million, on an operating budget of $399.1 million, making their deficit nearly a full third of the operating budget.
As a result, the cuts the agency is forced to consider are downright shocking. More than half of Atlanta’s 131 bus routes could be cut entirely, and rail service will be cut severely. Wait times for a train could be as much as 30 minutes on weekends before 7 a.m. and after 9 p.m., and even rush-hour train intervals could be as much as 12 minutes. The AJC pegs the cuts as approximately 25-30 percent of all service.
While the loss of routes or the inconvenience of long waits and increased transfers will result in some riders going back to their cars or finding other options, what about the thousands who depend on MARTA as their transportation lifeline to reach work, get to the doctor or pick up their kids at school? The “lucky” ones might have an alternative, a longer wait or less convenience. But too many riders will be left completely stranded, unable to get to important destinations as routes disappear entirely in the South’s biggest metro and the economic core of the state.
The popular refrain among some Atlantans is that MARTA is a bloated bureaucracy that wastes money. The truth is far different. MARTA enjoys the lowest cost per-mile of passenger rail service for any heavy rail system in the United States, and survives on a penny sales tax from two counties, with no dedicated funding stream from the State of Georgia. They are the largest transit agency with no such dedicated funding source in the country.
| Atlantans: Tell us your story of how these cuts will affect you. |
This year’s situation was narrowly avoided last year when the Atlanta Regional Commission, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region, found a way to transfer $25 million in last year’s stimulus funds to MARTA. In return the agency spent $25 million of capital funds on infrastructure improvements around their stations like better sidewalks, crosswalks, and other vital bike and pedestrian improvements to improve access.
The creative deal with the ARC was necessary because by a curious — and old — piece of state law, MARTA has to evenly split their tax revenues between operations and capital funds (they have a capital budget of $388 million this year), meaning they aren’t even able to set their own operating budget.
The Georgia State Senate passed a bill that would have removed that rule, allowing MARTA the flexibility to set their own operations and capital budgets. This would have enabled the agencyto basically plug budget holes with a share of (formerly) capital funds — never an ideal situation, but one that would have staved off dramatic fare increases and wholesale cancellation of service. Unfortunately for Atlantans, that bill died in the Georgia State House on the last day of the legislative session, leaving many upset and frustrated at the State’s failure to act.
Even with the funds from the ARC, MARTA had to raise their base fare $0.25, and weren’t able to restore all of the service that had been proposed for cuts, though they did avoid the drastic step of closing down service entirely one day a week.
MARTA Board Chairman Michael Walls pointed out that this was no permanent solution to the crisis, noting “this is a one-time infusion of funds” in a MARTA press release. “We are facing increasing deficits in the coming fiscal years. It is imperative that we identify a permanent, dedicated source of funding for transit as soon as possible in order to avoid more drastic cuts in the future,” he said.
That future has become the present, so what will the State do this time? Will they remove the barrier that prevents MARTA from making their own budget? At a broader level, what help will the federal government provide for the hundreds of other transit agencies facing this same crisis? Will they turn their back on the millions who depend on public transportation each day?
Want to do something? Here are three things you can do:
- Tell Senator Harry Reid to include funding for keeping transit systems running in the next round of jobs-creation legislation he’s planning to bring to Congress.
- Tell us your story! How are these cuts going to affect you in your daily life? Will you be going back to your car? Will you be stuck with no way to get to work? We want to know.
- If you’re in Atlanta, join up with the Citizens for Progressive Transit or the Area Coalition for Transit Now Facebook page calling for Gov. Perdue to call a special legislative session. These groups are also joining with others in Atlanta to organize a “Ride MARTA” day in late March to drum up support statewide.
Cleaner buses can create jobs, improve the environment
January 14, 2010By Stephen Lee Davis
A new study by Duke University illuminates the fact that thousands of green jobs are waiting to be tapped in transit bus manufacturing — if the federal government will make a sustained commitment to investing in public transportation.
The Duke University Center on Globalization, Governance and Competitiveness released a new report this morning during a briefing at the Natural Resources Defense Council that evaluated the many U.S. job opportunities that can reduce carbon emissions in public transit buses. Jobs in and related to public transportation are some of the lowest hanging fruit in the push for green jobs, so what’s keeping the domestic manufacturing industry from ramping up?
The U.S. market for heavy-duty transit buses is small, currently delivering 5,000 to 5,500 buses per year. U.S.-based firms dominate the North American bus market, with an 88% share in total buses and a 51% share in heavy-duty transit buses. Under current U.S. transportation policy, which favors highway spending and de-emphasizes public transit, bus orders are small and sporadic; this makes it difficult for the bus industry to grow.
 |
| Non-comprehensive chart of the domestic supply chain for buses. From the Duke CGGC report, p.30 |
The report is well worth a read, but for a much simpler case study of what this means in real life, consider one piece of the complex supply chain for transit buses that we tend to take for granted: seats. On a crowded bus or train, you may not get the chance to sit in one, but when you do, you probably don’t think about the design or innovation that went into that seat. It probably didn’t occur to you that seats can add hundreds or thousands of pounds of weight that the bus needs energy to carry.
David McLaughlin, vice president of the American Seating Company, a U.S.-based manufacturer of seats for buses and railcars (among many other things), made it clear at this morning’s briefing that increased investment in transit would be good for business. But he also stressed that those benefits are not limited to American Seating alone. As a result of the stimulus bill from 2009, McLaughlin’s company calculated $2.9 million in new business, the bulk of which resulted from seat orders for buses and railcars ordered by transit agencies across the country with stimulus dollars.
“$2.9 million means 11 new jobs for us at American Seating,” he said. In another internal study, His company discovered that 1 job at American Seating sustained roughly 6 others in their immediate supply chain.
Take those two facts together and you begin to see the economic impact of the small public transit investment in the stimulus — and what could happen on a much larger scale. American Seating, just one manufacturer of one particular component that goes into transit vehicles, created the equivalent of 11 jobs through the stimulus. Those 11 jobs create or sustain 66 more at the company that supply them.
Stimulus spending will not be enough, however. Although the economic activity resulting from the stimulus was important, McLaughlin said his business needs investment that is reliable, consistent and predictable — like the funding that could result from a full six-year transportation bill. Stable funding sources will fuel the research and development that can cut seats weights even further and enable buses to use less energy.
“The stimulus package has been a good thing, but what we really need is sustained predictable investment, so we can make the investments we need to make to ensure our viability. This isn’t just a public issue, it’s a public-private issue. …It’s jobs,” he said.
The message from all fronts this morning was consistent. To spur job creation through manufacturing cleaner transit buses, the industry needs reliable, predictable investment and government policies that encourage innovation. Increasing the available federal funding for new transit lines and rolling stock is one aspect. Ensuring operation of these new transit lines remains affordable is another. Both are needed. As the report says:
If federal, state and local policy were to shift to a clear, sustained commitment to public transit, the nation would have the manufacturing capability to meet the resulting increased demand for transit buses. However, the transit bus industry is unlikely to have significant market growth in the absence of several major changes: better management of public transit funds and improved coordination with manufacturing firms; significant, sustained public funding; and perhaps most important, a comprehensive transportation policy shift that encourages public transit use.
Or, in other words, give transit agencies money to buy new rolling stock — and the money to operate them — and you’ll be creating green jobs on Main Street all across America. Buy new hybrid buses for New York City or San Francisco to reduce emissions there, and support new jobs in towns like Grand Rapids, Michigan that need jobs more than anything.
Feds announce change to consider livability in funding transit projects
January 13, 2010By Stephen Lee Davis
 |
| TriMet MAX on the Transit Mall Originally uploaded by paulkimo90 |
| From the Transportation for America Flickr group. |
Following through on a policy change hinted at for much of 2009, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced this morning that federal transit officials would begin considering expanded criteria as they select which transit projects to fund, bringing a new focus on improving livability and sustainability.
At the Transportation Research Board’s annual conference this morning, Secretary LaHood made it clear that a wider range of positive benefits would be considered in the application process for new transit lines or systems. These applications were being unfairly burdened by the previous administration’s cost-effectiveness measurement, which left out such benefits as energy efficiency, economic development and reduced emissions.
“Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it,” he said. “We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live.”
Of course, the one problem that this will not fix is the very high demand for a limited supply of New Starts funding. Even under the old narrow rules for winning approval, only a small percentage of the many applicants were receiving limited funding, and even then, the federal government was only matching about half of local funds, compared with at least 80 percent for road projects.
Still, this change is keeping in line with the positive reforms contained in Chairman Jim Oberstar’s draft reauthorization bill released back in the summer. In June, we quoted the bill’s section on New Starts reform, noting that the proposal to remove the cost-effectiveness requirement and include other “livability” criteria “equalizes the treatment of proposed transit projects and elevates the importance of the benefits that will occur in the community once the project is built.”
The Obama administration and all the leaders at USDOT and the Federal Transit Administration are to be praised for their leadership in changing this program for the better. The next step is securing a greater share of funds for public transportation in the upcoming reauthorization and improving federal match rates to equalize the choices state or regional leaders face between new highways and new transit lines.
Update: Chairman Oberstar responded with a statement of his own praising the change, also observing that New Starts needs greater funding to meet the overwhelming demand. ”Now we need increased investment dollars to follow this reform, so that we can move forward with transit projects that relieve congestion, reduce emissions, increase our energy independence, and promote more livable communities across the country,” he said. (From Elana Schor’s post on Streetsblog Capitol Hill)
Conservatives and public transportation; join us for an upcoming debate
November 18, 2009By Sean Barry
 |
| Sign up to listen to the free online debate. |
UPDATED: This session has been rescheduled for 12/14. If you already signed up with the link below, you won’t need to do a thing, and should get an email from us about the change.
Everyone has to get from point A to point B at some point each day. Though most people don’t rate it as one of their most important issues, transportation is something that affects everyone, whether we realize it or not.
If you are not convinced that the need for transportation reform is an issue that transcends labels and partisanship, you’ll definitely want to join us for what should be an interesting online debate/discussion on Monday, December 7 December 14. A handful of experts from differing perspectives are going to discuss the viewpoints shared in a recent book by William Lind and the late Paul Weyrich called “Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation.”
William Lind, one of the book’s co-authors, will be expanding on the arguments made in his book; that public transportation is something conservatives should embrace, because it can protect national security, promote economic development, support tight-knit communities and reduce congestion; and how many libertarians and conservatives often ignore the fact that our interstate highway system has been a massively subsidized project, made possible only through heavy government intervention.
Sam Staley, a critic of mass transit who serves as director of urban and land use policy at the libertarian Reason Foundation, will provide an alternative perspective to Lind. We’ll also have John Robert Smith, president and CEO of Reconnecting America and former mayor of Meridian, Mississippi; and Bill Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).
Join us online for the debate on Monday, December 7 December 14 at 3:00 p.m. (Eastern)
The tone of the book by Lind and Weyrich, published jointly by the Free Congress Foundation and Reconnecting America, is perhaps best captured by former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, a Republican, who writes in the forward: “why do academic conservatives seem to believe that all transit is bad, when as a real-world conservative, I know it isn’t?”
Weyrich and Lind do a thorough job of knocking down myths peddled by some right-wing groups, like the “decline” of bus and light-rail. Many of these numbers are attributable to policy choices that gave preference or hefty subsidies to the automobile. Building codes and tax policy, for instance, have effectively subsidized auto-oriented growth for decades.
The authors are also unafraid to take a jab or two at some of the libertarian think tanks that regularly oppose funding for public transportation. Many of these critics decry support for light rail and bus systems as “subsidies,” but when offering their own proposals, often ignore the evidence that building more interstates or highways requires massive government support as well.
While critics like to label light rail projects as social engineering, it is hard not to look at our current transportation system without coming to the same conclusion, Weyrich and Lind argue.
“In no other society in history have places to live, places to work and places to shop been separated from one another, separated so widely that you need a car to get from one to another.”
There’s a old argument that transit must be a waste of money, because it carries only a small percentage of all trips. As Lind points out in the Streetfilms video below, the critics are disingenuously comparing apples to oranges. 1/2 of all Americans have no access to transit. And of the half that do, 1/2 of those say that the service is inadequate or unsatisfactory. If you break it down to a corridor where transit is available as a viable option to automobile travel (“transit competitive trips, as Lind calls it”), public transportation may be carrying a number closer to 40% of the total trips.
Weyrich and Lind make a thorough economic case for public transportation, offering superb guidance for making a compelling case to a conservative for supporting public transportation. But they also introduce a cultural element that is equally compelling. To them, reviving downtown streetcars or beefing up bus service does more than bring people to their destination and fuel development. It adds “flavor” and lifeblood to urban centers, spawning community. This may be a conservative sentiment, but it’s one that appeals to a broad audience.
Streetfilms had a chance to interview William Lind at the recent Rail~Volution conference in Boston about his book and produced this terrific short video that is a must-watch.
Stephen Lee Davis contributed to this post.
Last week’s elections a net plus for public transportation
November 12, 2009By Sean Barry
Last Tuesday’s election results were a win for public transit, although high-profile state and national races stole most of the headlines. According to the Center for Transportation Excellence, 72 percent of transportation ballot measures received voter approval on November 3.
November’s ballot included seven measures in five states – Colorado, Indiana, Maine, Michigan and Ohio. Voters ultimately approved $74 million for transportation and rejected measures to delay transit projects, most notably a measure in Cincinnati aimed at blocking a planned streetcar line. The pro-transit incumbent in Cincinnati, Mayor Mark Mallory, was re-elected and voters in Charlotte, North Carolina elected transit advocate Anthony Foxx over an opponent who has been less supportive of transportation choices.
Two states – Maine and Washington – rejected initiatives known as TABOR measures. If passed, these would have imposed harsh spending limits on state governments, potentially forcing deep cuts to public transportation.
Starting tomorrow, the Center for Transportation Excellence is launching a free, six-part webinar series aimed at helping transportation organizations and advocates get measures on the ballot and win. The first part, scheduled for Friday, November 13 is themed “Election Trends: Learning from the Past and Looking to the Future.” Future webinars include “Building a Winning Coalition,” “Making Your Message Better” and “Silencing the Naysayers.”
CFTE maintains comprehensive records of transit politics throughout the country. Their website, http://www.cfte.org is a terrific resource.
Bay Area bridge shutdown puts transportation network in the spotlight
October 30, 2009By Sean Barry
Even in the San Francisco Bay Area, a renowned transit hub with higher than average rates of walking, biking and transit ridership, more than 280,000 vehicles cross the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge every day. It’s a critical artery connecting downtown San Francisco with the thousands of residents who live in Oakland and the surrounding suburbs.
It is thus understandable that panic ensued after a part snapped off in high winds and fell onto the roadway, resulting in a complete shutdown of the Bay Bridge early Tuesday. Thankfully, though at least two vehicles either ran into or hit the fallen part, no injuries resulted. As of this morning, the bridge remains closed without a date certain for re-opening.
The Bay Bridge was last closed down over Labor Day weekend, during which engineers discovered an unexpected crack. This structural flaw nearly delayed the bridge from reopening on-time, but crews received the needed materials in just enough time for the post-weekend morning commute.
It was one of those last minute repair pieces that broke off Tuesday, although engineers could not say whether the Labor Day rush had anything to do with it. Heavy winds are another potential culprit — hardly an uncommon occurrence in the Bay Area, however.
Once the bridge was closed, the immediate focus shifted to the Wednesday morning commute. Prognosticators were predicting mass chaos and never-ending gridlock as far as the eye could see on Wednesday morning.
Officials with the BART subway system arranged for extra train cars and personnel to accommodate the expected surge in passengers, leading to a record day of ridership that crushed the previous high water mark. Ferry agencies across the Bay ramped up service and Amtrak is providing a shuttle. MUNI, AC Transit, and other local agencies also stepped up rates of service and frequency to meet the demand.
| “When the Bay Bridge closed we saw a 49 percent spike in transit use. Thank goodness we had that transit option there.” |
| - Federal Transit Adminstration Administrator Peter Rogoff today at the Rail~Volution Conference |
Despite similar predictions of chaos and gridlock, commuters, transit agencies and officials effectively coped with the collapse of a major overpass near the Bay Bridge in April 2007. Many drivers quickly developed alternate routes or shifted their schedule, BART was effective at expanding capacity and major thoroughfares were crowded, but not gridlocked.
Media accounts accounts for this week indicate Bay Area officials have handled the shutdown relatively smoothly, especially considering how many vehicles use this bridge every day. BART trains were filled to capacity and the Richmond-San Rafael and San Mateo-Hayward bridges — both adjacent to the Bay Bridge — were jammed with cars but still moving, albeit at a sluggish pace.
As far as we can tell, California Department of Transportation officials have been responsive and responsible about safety and structural integrity. It is important they be given the time to get this right.
But even if the time crunch during Labor Day weekend did not contribute to the problem, it should be cause for concern. In too many transportation projects, safety is shelved in favor of speed and grandeur. Part of the Bay Area’s ability to cope is the investment they’ve made in a variety of transportation options and modes. Which begs the question, how would metropolitan areas that lack these alternatives fare if a similar incident occurred?
Diversity of options isn’t just about cutting emissions or reducing fuel consumption. A complete network is one that can continue functioning when a few parts go down. A city dependent completely on cars and interstates (or 1 or 2 transit lines) is a vulnerable city.
Across America, children, seniors, the disabled and people who do not or cannot drive are at risk due to unsafe streets and crumbling sidewalks. We cannot afford to spend untold billions on new projects if we cannot keep old ones from crumbling. Including strong “fix-it first” language in the transportation bill re-authorization would ensure that existing roads and bridges get the upgrades they need to keep commuters and all users safe.
In addition, the Critical Asset Investment Program proposed in Chairman Oberstar’s transportation bill would create a substantial, dedicated funding stream for maintaining roads and bridges, preventing states from diverting those funds to more political popular highway expansion projects. This program would also require transit agencies to show how they are maintaining their systems and keeping them in “a state of good repair.”
The Bay Area will get through this. But the incident is a reminder that transportation policy cannot be a piecemeal, crisis-to-crisis endeavor.
Health advocates blanket Congress with health & transportation message
October 19, 2009By Sean Barry
 |
| 139 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America |
| Dr. Richard Jackson speaks at the podium, flanked by Dr. Georges Benjamin, left, Shireen Malekafzali, Dr. Joe Thompson, James Corless, and Julia Lopez. More info about the speakers can be found in our press release. |
Our transportation investments and the built environment — what we build and where — have an enormous impact on our health and the cost of our health care.
With the debate over health care reform dominating the news daily, Transportation for America and coalition members from across the country took that powerful — yet often ignored or neglected — message to Capitol Hill leaders.
T4 America’s “health fly-in” last Friday connected health professionals and advocates from across the country with their Congressional representatives to highlight the impact that transportation has on our health and wellness.
T4 America kicked off the day with a briefing from campaign director James Corless and four other nationally recognized experts on health and transportation. Then, participants from across the country, from the Pacific Northwest to New England, split up and took the message to their representatives, visiting a total of 37 Congressional offices.
Among the 25 participants in the fly-in, six hailed from national groups and 19 from state and local organizations. Several, including fourteen-year-old childhood wellness advocate Julia Lopez and UCLA professor Dr. Richard Jackson, traveled all the way from California. (Look for a full list of organizations at the bottom of the post)
During the meetings, advocates discussed how the built environment — where we live, work and play — has a profound impact on obesity rates, diabetes, asthma and other quality of life measures. And they discussed policy prescriptions that can increase walkability, grow transit ridership and make physical activity a normal part of our daily routine.
“As a pediatrician and child advocate, my job is to do what I can to make sure as many kids as possible live healthy lives, and the biggest threats to them at this time are injuries — both violent and unintentional — and obesity,” said Dr. Katherine Kaufer Christoffel, a medical and research director at Northwestern University.
“This active transportation stuff really gets at all of those things.”
Dr. Joe Thompson, Director of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center to Prevent Childhood Obesity, participated as a briefing panelist but did not attend Congressional meetings. Thompson serves as the Surgeon General of the State of Arkansas, where an alarming 22 percent of children are obese and 40 percent are overweight. Thompson said the built environment is a critical component of America’s livelihood.
“If we don’t solve the upstream causes of health problems, we won’t be able to hold health care reform together,” he said.
 |
| 207 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America |
| 14 year-old health advocate Julia Lopez chats with attendees of the health fly-in after making a few remarks. |
Noelle Dobson, Director of the Healthy Eating Active Living initiative at Portland’s Community Health Partnership, has been stressing the link between health and transportation through her work preparing health impact assessments for new development projects.
“This is all public health has ever been about for me,” she said.
T4 America and participating advocates were promoting three important pieces of legislation that address the health and transportation connection.
One is CLEAN-TEA, a Senate bill that would allocate ten percent of revenue from climate legislation toward clean transportation, walking and biking, and other modes that can help reduce emissions. The second is the National Transportation Objectives Act, which would create explicit, specific targets and benchmarks for the transportation bill, including goals like reducing CO2 from transportation by 40%, eliminating at-risk exposure to pollution, and tripling the amount of walking and biking we do. Lastly is Complete Streets legislation to make our streets safe and accommodating for all users and people — bus riders, bicyclists and pedestrians.
Most fly-in participants met with their representatives’ transportation staffers, but a few were able to meet face-to-face with the representatives themselves. Heidi Klein, a board member for the Vermont Public Health Association, got a few words in with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and two fly-in participants from Montana had the chance to meet their junior Senator, Democrat Jon Tester.
Other office visits included Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana.
Our thanks to the many advocates and supporters who worked very hard to take this crucial message to Capitol Hill.
Participating organizations:
- National Recreation and Park Association
- National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity
- Campaign to End Obesity
- American Public Health Association
- American Lung Association
- PolicyLink
- National Complete Streets Coalition
- Trust for America’s Health
- America Bikes
- Safe Routes to School
- State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association (STIPDA)
It’s time to make the link between health and transportation
October 13, 2009By Sean Barry
Most of the news coverage about what is happening in Washington compartmentalizes health and transportation, missing key connections between the two.
This week, Americans from around the country will speak to their representatives, seeking to emphasize those links. The “health fly-in” will commence Thursday and is sponsored by Transportation for America, the American Public Health Association, the Complete Streets campaign and PolicyLink, a research institute specializing in social equity.
The U.S. transportation system – our roads, bridges and highways, as well as bicycle and pedestrian paths – propels our social and economic lives. Unfortunately, the system we have takes a significant toll on our health and safety.
By building neighborhoods, towns and cities that require a car trip for nearly every move we make, we have literally engineered physical activity out of our daily lives. In many sprawling communities, driving is the only option for getting to school, work and recreation, and new road projects tend to favor speeding cars over the people who cross the street.
Poor air quality resulting from pollution contributes between $40 billion and $60 billion to U.S. health care costs annually. Each hour spent in the car increases the risk of obesity. And further, the lack of emphasis on transit, walking and biking lowers mobility for disadvantaged Americans and makes our streets less safe for people both behind the wheel and on foot.
Transportation policy can no longer be viewed in isolation. That is why groups like the American Public Health Association are educating people about the links between the built environment and our personal well-being and organizations from different policy arenas that never saw the need to work with each other before are joining hands.
This week has been all about making the health and transportation link more concrete, and there is more to come.
Republican Senator says more transit = better health
October 8, 2009By Sean Barry
Last week, an offhand comment by Republican Senator John Ensign about the link between health and transportation policy didn’t make the headlines, but it did make an interesting connection.
Ensign was wrong in asserting that the United States has the highest life expectancy among developed countries when gun and automobile accidents are ignored. But he was on target when he mentioned America’s auto-dependent ways and how that negatively impacts our health.
Compared to Europe, “we’re just a much more mobile society,” he said. “We drive our cars a lot more, they do public transportation. So you have to compare health care system with health care system.”
While misunderstanding mobility as just traveling a high number of miles, Ensign correctly implies that driving more and walking less contributes to poor health and makes us more prone to death (in a car) than our European neighbors, which the data suggests to be true. The most obese cities in the United States — Miami, Oklahoma City and Ensign’s own constituents in Las Vegas — are known for their auto-oriented sprawl.
A recent study in the Journal of Physical Activity and Health confirms a correlation between the more active walking habits of Europeans and lower obesity rates, backing up American research from earlier this decade by Smart Growth America and others showing that residents of sprawling places are more likely to be obese.
If we want to boost mobility while bringing health costs down, we need our transportation policy to create more travel options for everyone and make it safer and easier to walk and bike.
Mobility isn’t an end of itself, nor is it just about going long distances on a regular basis. Mobility is about access to destinations and opportunity. We’re spending hours in the car not because ordinary Americans think that having high “mobility” is important — we’re doing it out of necessity just to get around our increasingly spread out cities.
No one would argue that our transportation priorities are the driving force — no pun intended — behind lower health outcomes. But there is enough evidence to suggest they should be a serious part of the discussion.
-
- Transit grants out the federal door, but what about the cuts?
March 8, 2010 - Transit riders in Atlanta face massive cuts, “wholesale restructuring” of service
March 5, 2010 - Opposition to Senate extension results in looming shutdown of federal transportation programs
February 26, 2010 - T4 jobs proposal would create nearly half a million jobs, according to Economic Policy Institute
February 17, 2010 - Obama’s 2011 budget gives a lift to livability and transportation
February 2, 2010
- Transit grants out the federal door, but what about the cuts?
The United States of Transit Cutbacks
Driving is down and transit ridership is at record highs. Yet transit agencies across the country are considering layoffs, service cuts and fare hikes. Find out more and learn what you can do to help at t4america.org/transitcuts
Transportation: In your eyes
Send us your transportation-related photos.
