Skip to main content

Author Archives: Lilly Shoup

Task force on childhood obesity should look at increased opportunity to walk and bike

Photo courtesy of the California Department of Transportation

In the last couple of weeks, we suggested First Lady Michelle Obama’s Task Force on Child Obesity consider transportation and the built environment.

Another important component is enhancing infrastructure for walking and bicycling.

Infrastructure to support walking and biking includes bike lanes, shared-use paths, and routes on existing and new roads as well as sidewalks, footpaths, walking trails and pedestrian crossings.  Improving bicycling infrastructure results in more bicycling, which makes intuitive sense.

Street-scale neighborhood design, such as improved street lighting, street crossings and traffic calming approaches, can also facilitate physical activity in small geographic areas.

On average, people in highly walkable neighborhoods take one or two more walking trips per week than those living in places with poor walkability. This additional 15 to 30 minutes of walking per week means a 150 pound person expends the energy equivalent of about one extra pound per year.

After only two years, participating schools in the Safe Routes to School Program in Marin County, CA, serving 4,665 students in 15 schools, reported an increase in school trips made by walking (64%), biking (114%), and carpooling (91%) and a decrease in trips by private vehicles carrying only one student (39%).

One way to facilitate increased bicycling and walking in through Complete Streets policies, which can happen at the state, local or national level. A Complete Streets approach requires jurisdictions to consider the needs of all users—whether walking, bicycling, taking public transportation or driving—in transportation projects.

As Michelle Obama’s task force continues its work, we hope they will take a look at active living through increased changes to get outside, walk and bike.

Active living means housing choices that get people moving everyday

As First Lady Michelle Obama’s Task Force on Childhood Obesity gets to work identifying policy changes and recommendations for federal agencies, the impact of city design on childrens’ health is one of the first places they ought to look.

Current laws and incentives drive where schools, grocery stores, health centers, and parks are located – and whether they are safely accessible by walking or biking. An Atlanta, Georgia study found that each quartile increase of land-use mix — an attribute of neighborhoods that encourages walking — was associated with a 12 percent reduction in the likelihood of obesity.

Building new communities that are less car dependent and making existing communities more efficient are two strategies to make active living more achievable for adults and children alike. Higher land-use mix encourages more everyday active living, increases travel options and reduces congestion. Other measures like higher residential density, smaller street blocks, and access to sidewalks, also translate to increased walking. Conversely, sprawl that limits connectivity and lengthens the distance between destinations has been associated with less physical activity and higher obesity rates in adults, as well as higher automobile passenger and pedestrian fatality rates.

Compact, mixed-use developments near near destinations and accessible by biking and walking make active living for children easier and more routine. Here’s how:

  • The proximity of neighborhood shops to residences has been shown to increase the number of trips on foot or by bicycle.  And people who live in neighborhoods with a mix of shops and businesses within easy walking distance have a 35 percent lower risk of obesity.
  • A national study of 448 metropolitan counties found that people living in compact, higher-density counties walk more, weigh less and are less likely to be obese or have hypertension than people living in more sprawling counties.
  • People in more compact metropolitan areas suffer from significantly fewer chronic medical conditions than their counterparts in more sprawling regions.

In sum, neighborhood and community designs that create opportunities to get out and be physically active during the course of the day is a great step for kids – and an important goal if we are serious about reducing obesity.

Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign a positive step, but must emphasize transportation voices

In February, First Lady Michelle Obama announced her exciting “Let’s Move” campaign and the goal of seriously confronting childhood obesity in the United States within a generation. Now, the campaign – more formally known as the Presidential Task Force on Childhood Obesity – is getting to work on an action plan to influence federal policy.

This is a great start, but there’s an omission: the task force has not emphasized the potential role for the U.S. Department of Transportation. The link between physical activity and the built environment is well established – transportation practices strongly influence physical activity and health outcomes for Americans of all ages.

An active living approach to physical activity incorporates walking and bicycling into everyday activities. Forty years ago, more than half of children walked and bicycled to school, contributing to exercise and good health. Today, less than 15 percent of children walk or bike school, with the rest ferried by school buses or car.  Children who have access to safe, convenient and ample walking and bicycling opportunities in their community develop active transportation habits that can last a lifetime.

Michelle Obama has been a positive role model for children and a leader in promoting healthy habits. Let’s make sure the influence of transportation and the built environment are a part of the Let’s Move effort. More walking and biking = healthier kids.

You can see Transportation for America’s comments on the First Lady’s task force here.

The potential economic and personal impacts of oil dependence

There isn’t a state in the union that doesn’t depend on oil for transportation. But states have varying levels of dependence, making some far more vulnerable to dramatic economic impacts as the price of oil goes up or down — depending on how many options consumers have for getting around.

Continuing the recent theme of the transportation challenges facing our small towns and rural areas comes this new report from the National Resources Defense Council analyzing the vulnerability of each of the 50 states to changes in oil prices. The research is timely with the national price for gasoline reaching $2.79 a gallon this week, the highest level since October 2008 according to the Energy Department, and likely to rise higher as we head into the summer driving season.

Percent of Income Spent on Gasoline by the Average Driver, 2008. Graphic from NRDC

As the graphic shows, drivers in some states would have to spend a larger share of their income on gasoline and are more vulnerable to oil price shocks. The five states that are most hurt by higher fuel prices are Mississippi, Montana, Louisiana, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Drivers in these states would have to spend as much as 11 percent of their annual income on gasoline, or about $3,345 on average, if the price returned to $4 a gallon.

Compare this list with the five least vulnerable states — New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland and New Hampshire — which have historically had a variety of transportation options to choose from, from private cars to public transportation and commuter trains, as well as development patterns that have produced walkable neighborhoods where residents can safely walk or bike for short trips. States that can find ways to provide residents with multiple options for getting around will be better off financially in the long run.

Already, people living in urban areas that have access to a wide array of transportation options spend 4% or less of their income on gasoline, while some rural residents reportedly spend over 13% of their income on fuel. And a study comparing 10 statewide averages, 12 major metro areas, and 29 counties that are at least 25% Native American found that households in rural areas spend almost 30% of their income on fuel, compared to metro area averages as low as 2.6% in some parts of the country. (pdf)

With the Energy Department forecasting gas prices topping $3 a gallon this spring and summer, residents in areas that have few options for getting around besides getting into the family car could find themselves with an unfortunate choice: Spend more of their income on transportation, or be stranded without any other options.

Increasing access and mobility is not an exclusively urban or a rural agenda. It should be a national goal that we work toward using a variety of policies, including fixed route and paratransit bus services, intercity and commuter rail services, intelligent transportation solutions, telecommuting and complete streets safe for walking and biking.

Speeding up, cleaning up freight movement in the U.S.

Container trucks on an American highway Originally uploaded by futureatlas.com

Since Chairman Oberstar introduced the Surface Transportation Authorization Act (STAA) last summer, we’ve increasingly heard that addressing freight congestion is going to be a major component of any national transportation policy.

Projections of the increase in freight movement in the next few years are huge — total freight movements are projected to increase by 92% in the next 30 years, according to a comprehensive congressional study. Congestion on the railroad network is also forecast to spread — by 2035, thirty percent of the rail network, or 16,000 miles, will experience unstable flows and service break-down conditions.[i] Considering the strong efficiency advantage of freight rail, that’s very bad news.

We face a choice in how the nation will step up to meet the coming demand for moving goods — and how clean those solutions will be. The upcoming reauthorization of the federal transportation bill is a great opportunity to help achieve a smarter, greener freight system. The innovative freight projects highlighted in this week’s “Good Haul” report by the Environmental Defense Fund demonstrates the practical solutions that are economically smart, protect us from harmful air pollution, and provide jobs for American workers. We have a golden opportunity to focus investments on projects that use the existing freight system more efficiently and grow the economy, while improving air quality and meeting big-picture national goals.

We need to recognize the connections between goods movement systems and public health and fast track the innovative solutions that tie transportation investments that improve efficiency with those that also improve air quality. The Good Haul report demonstrates that there have been innovative projects to address both these concerns and that some regions around the country are leading the way — but none of the practices in the case studies reflect current accepted standards or federal policy.

It’s time for the nation as a whole to refocus on options to invest in clean green freight.

Here’s a glance at a few of the 28 case studies highlighted in the report:

  • In Chicago, the CREATE program aims to reduce congestion and improve air quality by streamlining four major rail lines. Chicago handles 30% of rail freight revenue and expects to see an 89% increase in rail traffic over the next 30 years. The program will result in $1.12 billion in health care savings from improved air quality and will generate economic activity valued at more than $525 million. The program expects to create 2,700 annual jobs.
  • In Southern California, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach launched the Clean Air Action Plan in 2006, which cleans up all areas of port activity: ships, trucks, cargo handling equipment, locomotives — even tug boats. The plan has already taken 2,000 dirty diesel trucks off the road and has created more than 3,000 jobs at the Port of LA, alone.
  • In Seattle, BNSF Railway installed four electric wide-span, rail-mounted gantry cranes at the Seattle International Gateway (SIG) intermodal facility. The cranes’ wide footprints allow them to span three tracks, stack containers and load and unload both trucks and railcars. The cranes produce zero onsite emissions and have increased throughput by 30% at the facility.
  • In the East, the Port of Virginia’s Green Goat hybrid yard switcher, a rail locomotive that moves short distances within a rail yard, provides fuel savings between 40-60% and is predicted to reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions between 80-90% annually.
  • Along the Gulf, SeaBridge freight, a coastal shipping service between Port Manatee, Florida and Brownsville, Texas avoids an average of 1,386 miles of congested highways. Compared to trucking, one SeaBridge barge has the capacity to remove 400,000 truck highway miles on a single one-way voyage.

[i] Association of American Railroads, National Rail Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (Washington, DC: September 2007), figure 4.4, page 4-10.

What’s the impact of the Highway Trust Fund patch or an extension of the current bill?

UPDATED 7/30: The Senate passed the $7 billion patch late this afternoon by a 79-17 vote. All 4 amendments failed, so the identical bill has been approved by both chambers and now heads to President Obama’s desk for signature.

With the House passing a $7 billion patch for the Highway Trust Fund yesterday afternoon to keep it from running out of money before September, we thought it might be useful to post a brief Q&A about the trust fund patch and how the full six-year transportation authorization bill could be affected. The $7 billion patch now moves to the Senate for a vote, probably this afternoon, before reaching President Obama’s desk. The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) provides funds for the federal portion of transportation projects.

If the patch is approved by the Senate, Congress will then be is now facing a much bigger decision before the current transportation bill expires on September 30th: pass a new six-year transportation bill, or pass a short- or long-term extension of SAFETEA-LU, the existing transportation bill.

What is the short-term patch and who supports it?

The short-term patch would repair the trust fund insolvency through a $7 billion cash infusion into the HTF. The funds would be transferred from the General Fund before Congress goes on recess in August and would ensure that states can continue to obligate transportation funds through September 30th, 2009. The patch would address the funding shortfall due to declining gas tax revenues that are no longer sufficient to cover the federal portion of transportation projects.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar supported this option and testified before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on July 23rd asking for the $3 billion patch. (That patch has since been increased to $7 billion to match the Senate’s preferred amount.)

How does this relate to the upcoming expiration of SAFETEA-LU on September 30th?

With this cash infusion Congress could continue to focus on pushing the authorization of a new 6-year surface transportation bill this September. The original $3 billion figure was based on recent estimates made by DOT but both the White House and DOT officials have expressed concern that $5-7 billion is a more accurate figure needed to keep the HTF solvent through September. (The House passed a $7 billion patch.)

What is the extension and who supports it?

An extension would continue SAFETEA-LU policies and funding guarantees for a specified amount of time to allow Congress and the Administration to continue working on a full 6-year comprehensive bill.  A proposed 18-month extension would extend SAFETEA-LU to March 2011. Numerous Senators have stated their preference for an 18-month extension, which is also currently supported by the White House. On July 23rd the Senate Banking Committee became the third Senate committee to approve an 18-month extension bill. Congress is also considering the possibility of a short-term extension of 3, 6, or 12 months in lieu of a longer-term extension.

How would the extension be funded and how does it address the near-term shortfall in HTF funds?

An extension of SAFETEA-LU for any length of time would be paid through gas taxes and a possible General Fund infusion. (More funding from some source would certainly be required, as gas taxes do not cover the current funding levels.)

The Senate Financing Committee Chairman Max Baucus released a funding proposal (S. 1474) on July 21st that would maintain the HTF’s solvency throughout an 18-month extension.  This provision will transfer $26.8 billion from the General Fund to transportation ($22 billion to HTF, $4.8 billion to the mass transit account).  The fund transfer will begin in time to provide near-term funding (through August) before HTF reaches insolvency.

Any questions? Ask away in the comments and we’ll try to answer.

56 million people in rural America looking for better transportation solutions

Ray LaHood on a trainA top priority in the transportation debate is addressing the mobility needs of the 56 million residents of rural areas and small towns in America – about 20 percent of the population of the United States. Rural areas and small towns often fall through the cracks of federal transportation policy, which focuses on statewide priorities for building new highways and often overlooks local needs and preferences.

Access to jobs, schools, shopping, and critical community services is just as vital for Americans living in small cities, towns and rural communities. Transportation for America has been working closely with our coalition partners on this important issue for some time. Now, it looks like Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is also getting on board.

Listening to folks at the La Crosse Interstate Fair in Wisconsin this week, he heard many of the same things that we already know:

  • It’s getting harder financially to depend on a truck or car for all of a family’s transportation needs.
  • Rural residents need public transportation just like city-dwellers do.
  • Access to commercial air service is increasingly difficult for rural areas.
  • Shippers of grain and other products need better freight options to get rurally produced goods to markets.

Clearly, the transportation system in rural areas and small towns faces challenges and demands that are unique from those in our metropolitan areas. Small cities and towns have higher concentrations of older Americans and families in poverty who would absolutely benefit from more affordable transportation options, beyond just driving. In addition, children in rural areas are 25 percent more likely to be overweight or obese than those in urban areas and face unique barriers to being active and maintaining a healthy weight. Non-metro areas have a larger share of people over age 65 (15 percent) than the country as a whole (12 percent) particularly across the middle of the country. (According to 2004 numbers.)

These challenges are amplified by global changes in the economic marketplace, insufficient funding to maintain substandard or unpaved roads, improve public transportation services, and upgrade or replace substandard and deteriorating bridges.

Our nation’s transportation infrastructure should provide access for all Americans, regardless of their geographic location, age, income, or disability status. While there are no easy answers here, Secretary LaHood’s comments are a good starting point for reframing the debate towards policy options that benefit all Americans, regardless of geography.

Improving access to healthcare by improving transportation options

Holland Michigan photo by Dan Burden
Photo by Dan Burden

Yesterday we noted transportation’s impact on health care costs, and how expanding access to public transportation and investing more money in complete streets safe for walking and biking can improve overall health and lower healthcare costs.

At the same time, we should remember that having transportation options and the ability to easily get where you need to go have a huge impact on whether or not you receive care. Folks who can’t get to the doctor or who must wait on rides from family and friends are more likely to stay sick.

A study of over 1,059 households in 12 western North Carolina counties tests the relationship between transportation options and healthcare utilization while adjusting for the effects of personal characteristics, health characteristics, and distance. The report found that people with reliable access to healthcare visited their doctor 2.29 times more frequently for serious illness and 1.92 times more frequently for regular checkups than those who did not.

The ability to reliably and affordably make it to doctor’s visits or healthcare appointments is also a matter of transportation equity. Minorities, households in rural areas, the disabled, and low-income Americans face even greater hurdles because many cannot drive and public transportation is often unavailable, inaccessible or unreliable. (Not to mention public transportation, paratransit or dial-a-ride programs being cut left and right)

We already know Americans are tired of being stuck in traffic and are clamoring for more options for getting around. But they are also demanding prevention as a top health care reform priority, and overwhelmingly support increasing funding for prevention programs to reduce disease and keep people healthy.

Meeting the health care needs of all Americans will require funding infrastructure projects that can create more opportunities for physical activity. The healthcare bill Congress is currently working on is just another opportuniy to demand that transportation options and access issues are more broadly included in the debate. It is not just the cost of care, but the ability to access that care that’s proven to reduce hospitalization rates for chronic conditions.