Affirmative Evidence Packet
Solvency: Better Planning Needed
Download 0.65 Mb.
|
Solvency: Better Planning NeededSocial equity needs to be factored into transportation planningLitman and Brenman, 2011. (Todd Litman--Victoria Policy Institute and Marc Brenman—Social Justice Constituency and Senior Policy Advisor to the City Project) “New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation (Draft for Discussion)”, March 3, 2011, p.3. Social equity (also called fairness) refers to the equitable distribution of impacts (benefits, disadvantages and costs). This is an important planning goal and a requirement for sustainable development, which balances economic, social and environmental objectives (Litman and Burwell 2006). Conventional transportation planning tends to focus on economic objectives (congestion reduction and increased travel speeds, travel cost savings, and traffic safety), and in recent decades, has added environmental objectives (resource conservation, emission reductions, and habitat protection). Various performance indicators have been established to help evaluate economic and environmental impacts. Social equity objectives receive less systematic analysis; they may be considered during political negotiations and through public involvement processes, but there are no standard methodologies for evaluating social equity impacts. Transportation planning is needed for healthBenjamin, 2009 Georges C.--MD, FACP, FACEP (E) executive director of the American Public Health Association, AT THE INTERSECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND TRANSPORTATION: Promoting Healthy Transportation Policy p.1 A healthy community is one that promotes healthy people by ensuring access to safe and nutritious foods; safe places to walk, run, or bike; clean air and water; adequate and accessible health care systems; and other healthy enablers. One of these healthy enablers is our transportation system. Current research demonstrates that how we build our transportation systems, how and on what modality we use them, and how we get people and things from one place to another affects our health. Enduring a long, tedious commute causes stress, which can exacerbate heart disease and our mental state and increases our risk of experiencing a traffic incident. In neighborhoods without a grocery store nearby, residents do not have access to nutritious foods, and people lacking access to preventive health services put themselves at risk by missing critical screening exams because of poor access to medical care services. Living near a superhighway, port, or a bus or train depot exposes people to increased levels of toxic air pollutants, and many of these same vehicle emissions contribute to global warming. What’s the fix? We need a comprehensive commitment to build transportation networks that serve our need to get from one place to another in a way that enhances our health while optimizing the trade-offs from our transportation and development needs. Our communities would benefit from a system that enables all residents access to affordable and secure housing, nutritious food, clean air and water, mass transportation, safe sidewalks, streets, and playgrounds, health services and opportunities for social networking. Solvency: Better Planning NeededNeed based models are easy to developMartens, Karel, 2006. Radboud University Nijemegan, “Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Justice,” Berkeley Planning Journal, 19 (1), 1-15, 2006 http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0tg6v7tn The development of a need-based transport model could benefit from recent experiments to provide accessibility to weak population groups, such as the U.S. Welfare to Work program (Blumenberg 2004) and the U.K. initiative to institutionalize accessibility planning (Lucas 2006). But where these experiments aim to identify accessibility needs of marginalized groups and generate solutions to solve their specific problems, need-based transport modeling would inform transport planning overall. This would avoid the paradoxical situation that mainstream transport modeling primarily serves the wants of the strong, while small-scale experiments and alternative financing schemes have to provide for the accessibility needs of the weak, whose problems were created by mainstream transport planning and the related maldistribution of resources in the first place. Need based criterion should be incorporated into transportation planningMartens, Karel, 2006. Radboud University Nijemegan, “Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Justice,” Berkeley Planning Journal, 19 (1), 1-15, 2006 http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0tg6v7tn This conclusion suggests that current transport demand models will have to be replaced by a whole new generation of models based on the criterion of need. The goal of such a need-based model would be to assess to what extent the existing or future transport network is able to secure a minimal level of accessibility for all population groups. Unlike demand-based models that apply a seemingly neutral methodology, the development of a need-based model will require an explicitly normative approach, as needs will have to be distinguished from wants and explicit accessibility standards will have to be set. Solvency: Cost BeneficialCosts of plan will be offset by savings from improved healthGostin and Pomeranz, 2009. (Lawrence O. Gostin, Georgetown University Law Center and Jennifer L. Pomeranz, Yale University) “Improving Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37:62-75 (Supp. 1 2009), http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/486 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1729227 Costs associated with the development of public transportation can be offset by factors that promote more active lifestyles, such as the following: (1) property development activities around planned transit stations; (2) decreased air pollution; and (3) potential health benefits related to increased exercise for residents living in the surrounding communities.45 Laws and policies that increase access to public transportation also improve economic opportunities in distressed communities and increase the ability for those in lower socioeconomic areas to access grocery stores, community facilities, and employment opportunities.46 Bicycle lanes are cost-effective. One-third of Americans already own bikes and lanes and paths are more efficient investment.McMahon, February 22, 2012, (Edward T. McMahon—Urban Land Institute), “Bicycles Belong” Urban Land Nonmotorized transportation should be a high priority in the United States. Currently, 100 million Americans own bicycles, and walking and bicycling already account for 12 percent of all trips made in the United States. For the cost of one mile (1.6 km) of a four-lane urban freeway ($50 million), we could build approximately 100 miles (160 km) of bike lanes and bicycle boulevards or more than 150 miles (241 km) of off-road bike trails. Benefits of biking outweigh costs of investment increaseMcMahon, February 22, 2012, (Edward T. McMahon—Urban Land Institute), “Bicycles Belong” Urban Land Benefits from bicycling and walking far outweigh the cost of upfront investments in infrastructure, with benefits-to-cost ratios of 5 to 1 or more, according to the Rails to Trails Conservancy. If we simply doubled the current 1 percent of all trips by bicycle to 2 percent, we would collectively save more than 693 million gallons (2.6 billion liters) of gasoline each year, to say nothing of reduced congestion and improved public health. Cost savings makes investment less expensiveMcMahon, February 22, 2012, (Edward T. McMahon—Urban Land Institute), “Bicycles Belong” Urban Land Finally, bicycling and walking provide a variety of environmental benefits. Making fewer trips by motor vehicle means less air pollution and lower carbon emissions. It also means stores and businesses will need fewer parking spaces, which, in turn, reduces stormwater runoff and non-point-source pollution. The state of Minnesota estimates the public savings derived from reduced pollution, oil import, and congestion costs at 5 to 22 cents for every automobile mile displaced by biking or walking. Solvency: Cost BeneficialCycling investments are economically efficient. Infrastructure investment is 4-5 times more valuable than it costs.Reynolds, et al. 2009 (Conor CO Reynolds--Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia , M Anne Harris--School of Population and Public Health, UBC, Kay Teschke--School of Population and Public Health andSchool of Environmental Health, UBC, Peter A Cripton--Department of Mechanical Engineering, UBC and Meghan Winters--School of Population and Public Health, UBC) “The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature” Environmental Health, October 2009 Bicycling is an active mode of transportation that integrates physical activity into daily life. The bicycle is an attractive alternative to the automobile as an urban mode of transport. Cycling is associated with a range of individual and public health benefits such as improved physical and mental health, decreased obesity, and reduced risk of cardiovascular and other diseases [1-6], as well as ancillary benefits such as reduced emissions of noise, air pollutants and greenhouse gases [7,8]. There are significant economic costs of physical inactivity [9], and benefit-cost analyses suggest that the benefits of increased cycling are worth approximately four to five times the costs of investing in new cycling infrastructure [10,11]. These potential benefits suggest that it is important to increase the use of the bicycle as a mode of active transportation. Solvency: Increased RidershipSubsidizing biking solves The Community Cycling Center, “Understanding Barriers to Bicycling Transportation Literature Review” http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/understanding-barriers-transportation-review-101909.pdf Bicycling may present an affordable means of transportation that could overcome some of these barriers. Bicycling is best suited to replace shorter trips, so for low-income people living in areas with a dense, mixed-use land-use pattern, it may be a more convenient option than carpooling or transit, both of which may have restricted schedules. Since low-income people make more trips during offpeak hours or on weekends when transit service is provided at a lower frequency, bicycling may be faster and/or more flexible than transit for those trips. Although low-income people are likely to travel shorter distances and make fewer trips, working women on average make more trips and travel farther than working men. These women trip-chain more often, combining trips to different destinations. For these kinds of trips, bicycling may be more convenient than transit. Because it is not fixed route, bicycling may be quicker, eliminating transfer times between transit lines. However, because women are more likely to be transporting children or items from one destination to the next, they may need racks, seats, trailers or other accessories to help them carry things on their bicycle. In the case of women transporting children, other factors such as the child’s age and own bicycling ability may affect the type and cost of bicycle accessories required, as well as convenience and safety concerns. Bike use increases with infrastructure investmentMcMahon, February 22, 2012, (Edward T. McMahon—Urban Land Institute), “Bicycles Belong” Urban Land Bicycle riding, whether for recreation or transportation, requires investments in bicycle infrastructure. Such investments yield results regardless of climate, topography, city size, or other factors. For example, in New York City (NYC), biking continues to go up even as driving and transit ridership stay nearly flat. According to the NYC Department of Transportation, bicycle commuting into Manhattan increased 13 percent in 2010 and has grown 262 percent in the past ten years. Active transportation is the missing piece in our transportation system. Bicycles are used for commuting worldwide, but only in isolated pockets in the United States. A 1995 Louis Harris poll found that a majority of Americans would be willing to ride a bicycle to work "at least occasionally" if they could do it on a safe bicycle lane or designated off-road path. Even more remarkable, 13 percent of Americans said they would be willing to ride a bicycle to work on a "regular basis" if they had the facilities to do so. The long-range potential of cycling as a mode of transportation is amply demonstrated in bicycle-friendly college towns like Boulder, Colorado; Eugene, Oregon; Madison, Wisconsin; Gainesville, Florida; Iowa City, Iowa; and others. Davis, California, a city of 62,500 people and home of the University of California at Davis, has 35 miles (56 km) of bike lanes and more than 50 miles (80 km) of off-road, multiuse paths, which have grade separations (bridges and underpasses) to minimize traffic interaction. As a result, more than 20 percent of all trips in the city are by bicycle. The Davis school district has given up its expensive school bus system, and according to a resident "one of the delightful features of life in Davis is observing the morning and afternoon 'rush hours' on the greenbelt paths, as groups of children travel to and from school on bikes, skateboards, and scooters." Solvency: Increased RidershipImproved cycling safety snowballs into more ridership and increased safety—several reasons: Reynolds, et al. 2009 (Conor CO Reynolds--Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia , M Anne Harris--School of Population and Public Health, UBC, Kay Teschke--School of Population and Public Health andSchool of Environmental Health, UBC, Peter A Cripton--Department of Mechanical Engineering, UBC and Meghan Winters--School of Population and Public Health, UBC) “The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature” Environmental Health, October 2009 There are clearly bicycling safety and popularity "gaps" between (and within) Europe and North America [28]. In addition, there is an important safety gap between cyclists and other transport modes: estimates from both continents suggest that cyclists are seven to 70 times more likely to be injured, per trip or per kilometer traveled, than car occupants [27,29]. It is likely that public perception of a lack of safety acts as a deterrent to cyclists in North America: in surveys asking about factors that affect the choice of cycling as a mode of transportation, concern about safety is one of the most frequently cited deterrents [[30-34], and Winters M, Davidson G, Kao D, Teschke K: Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: factors influencing decisions to ride, submitted]. For example, in a survey of adults in the Vancouver metropolitan area, the following were among the top deterrents: the risk of injury from car- bike collisions; the risk from motorists who don't know how to drive safely near bicycles; motorized vehicles driving faster than 50 km/hr; and streets with a lot of car, bus, and truck traffic [33]. The good news is that there is evidence that perceived safety improvements in bicycle transportation have an aggregate elasticity value greater than one (i.e. a 10% increase in perceived safety results in greater than 10% increase in the share of people commuting by bicycle) [32]. Increased ridership rates may result in improved safety for cyclists: injury rates have been shown to decrease with increased cycling rates. This principle of "safety in numbers" is supported by studies of injury and ridership patterns in California, Australia, and Europe, as well as between cities and within cities over time [35-38]. There are a number of potential explanations. Motor vehicle drivers may not expect cyclists when there are few of them on the roads, and thus make so-called "looked-but-failed- to-see" errors that can result in collisions [39]. When motorists and cyclists are unaccustomed to sharing the road, both parties may hold incorrect assumptions about what the other party will do [40]. Increased cycling rates may mean that more motorists also use bicycles as a mode of transport, making motorists more attuned to cyclists and their movements, and encouraging them to drive in a way that accounts for potential interactions [36]. Finally, a larger cycling population means stronger lobbying power for cycling resources. Finally, it is worth considering long-term temporal trends in motor vehicle injuries. The injury rate from motor-vehicle crashes has steadily declined since the 1920s in many parts of the world, in part attributable to improvements in road-related infrastructure [41]. This provides reason for optimism: the risk of injury or death from traffic crashes is modifiable, and this is likely to extend to the infrastructural determinants of cycling injuries.
Solvency: Increased RidershipBicycle infrastructure investment encourages bicycle use.McMahon, February 22, 2012, (Edward T. McMahon—Urban Land Institute), “Bicycles Belong” Urban Land Of course, it is only when cities begin investing in bicycle infrastructure that residents begin to use bicycles at rates higher than the national average. Consider Portland, Oregon: in the 1980s and early 1990s, it was a city pretty much like any other in terms of transportation behavior. Today, however, over 6 percent of residents commute to work by bicycle; the national average is less than 1 percent. Bicycle use in Portland has grown geometrically while other modes have grown modestly or declined: since 1990 bicycle use has grown 400 percent, transit has grown 18 percent, and driving has declined 4 percent, all relative to population. From 1990 to 2008, Portland added more daily bicycle commuters than daily transit commuters. Portland's city traffic engineer says that "bicycling infrastructure is relatively easy to implement and low cost compared to other modes." The estimated cost of Portland's entire bikeway network-which exceeds 300 miles (482 km)-is approximately $60 million, which, as noted, is just a little more than the cost of one mile (1.6 km) of urban freeway. Another city where bicycling has boomed is Minneapolis, Minnesota. Today, about 4 percent of Minneapolis residents bike to work. Biking has grown almost 33 percent since 2007 and 500 percent since 1980. Even in winter, numerous cyclists commute to work at least some of the time. Minneapolis currently has almost 130 miles (209 km) of bikeways, with an additional 57 miles (91 km) planned or under construction. "Biking has become a huge part of who we are," said Mayor R.T. Ryback during a recent interview. Minneapolis has a long-term goal of achieving a 10 percent mode share for bicycles. This is certainly possible when one considers that 25 percent of all trips people take in the United States are within a mile (1.6 km) and 50 percent of all trips are within three miles (4.8 km), or a 20-minute bike ride. The biggest impediment to more daily bike riding is concerns about safety. Research shows that fear of collisions with automobiles is among the most pervasive factors limiting bicycle commuting in the United States.
Studies prove that improved access to transit stations is more equitable and also benefits industryRodier, et al. 2010. (Caroline Rodier, PhD--Sr. Researcher, Transportation Sustainability Research Center, Innovative Mobility Research, U California Berkeley, John E. Abraham, PhD—Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Brenda N. Dix—Graduate Student Researcher, Transportation Sustainability Research Center, John D. Hunt, PhD—Department of Civil Engineering, U of Calgary) “Equity Analysis of Land Use and Transportation Plans Using an Integrated Spatial Model,” Paper submitted to the 2010 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. As well, this study shows that a more compact urban form designed around transit stations can reduce travel costs, wages, and housing costs by increasing accessibility. These can lead to substantial net benefits for industry categories and for lower income households. Higher income households may be net losers, since their incomes are more dependent on reduced wages, they are less willing to switch to higher density dwellings, and they are more likely to own their own home. Maintaining fixed total industry size between scenarios impacts the consumer surplus measures. The PECAS AA model represents how increased accessibility benefits industry directly and indirectly (for example through lower wages), but it does not represent how industry may grow faster in the region because of this benefit. If a separate model of region-wide economy size were to respond to AA‟s producer surplus measures, industry would grow faster, and some of the benefit currently ascribed to industry would be transferred to households through less wage reductions. Solvency: Increased RidershipNew opportunities will lead to increase cycling behaviorNuworsoo, et al. February 2012. (Cornelius Nuworsoo, PhD—Associate Professor of Transporation Planning, Cal Polytech State U—San Luis Obispo, Erin Cooper—Transportation Analyst, EMBARQ, World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport, Washington, DC, Katherine Cushing, PhD—Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, San Jose State, Eugene Jud, P.E.—Life Fellow, Institute of Transportation Engineers) “Integration of Bicycling and Walking Facilities into the Infrastructure of Urban Communities,” Mineta Transportation Institute, February 2012, p. 8 The average walking trip is ¾ of a mile. The average bicylcing trip is just over 2 miles. Roughly 30 percent of walking trips and 40 percent of bicycling trips are for recreational purposes, whereas only 20 percent of all trips using all modes are recreational, which shows the sizable proportions of non-motorized trips that are for leisure rather than utilitarian purposes. This indicates that planning for multimodal transit must purposefully satisfy the specific needs of utilitarian and recreational uses. America Bikes states: “the average family spends 18 percent of its annual income on transportation.” Since some people may find it difficult to buy or maintain one or more automobiles, providing bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure allows access for people of all incomes. Other research shows that people reduce their driving in response to difficult economic times. Current safety statistics suggest a need for increased pedestrian infrastructure. For example, Ernst and Shoup note in “Dangerous by Design” that “41 percent of pedestrian fatalities take place where there are no crosswalks available.” These facts point to the need for non-motorized infrastructure to promote their use and for safety during use. Taken together, this snapshot of conditions for walking and cycling show that there is abundant room to increase the share of non-motorized transportation in lieu of automobile use if the conditions are created for use of these modes. The right conditions would include the availability and convenience of non-motorized transportation infrastructure and connections with desired land uses and activity centers. This study provides insight into how planners can better accommodate current and future bicyclists and walkers by determining what is desirable from their point of view. Growing need for more public transit. Building America’s Future Education Fund, 2011. Building America’s Future: Falling Apart and Falling Behind, Transportation Infrastructure Report, p. 39 Two-thirds of the U.S. population lives in our largest metropolitan areas, and this number is expected to grow—a recent survey shows that 77% of Americans under 30 intend to live in an urban core for most of their lives. Yet only 30 of the largest 100 metropolitan regions in the U.S. have light rail or subway systems. Only half of Americans have access to mass transit, and surveys show that most Americans want more local transport options. But cities and states need more federal support to build the mass transit alternatives our metropolitan regions need. The federal government should shift more attention and funding toward building more mass transit alterna tives. Spurring investment in mass transit is a smart use of federal dollars: new light rail or commuter rail lines can accommodate 8 or 9 times the number of passengers as a new lane of highway, and they can be built at a fraction of the cost. Solvency: Increased RidershipPopulation shift requires a move to public and active transit investment Bradley, et al. 2011. Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation Infrastructure. (Bill Bradley—former US Senator, Currently Managing Director Allan and Company; Thomas J. Ridge—Former Pennsylvania Governor and Secretary of Homeland Security, Currently CEO of Ridge Global; David M. Walker, former US Comptroller General and Current CEO of Comeback America Initiative) Carnegie Endowment for International Peace p. 58-9 More than 80 percent of the U.S. population now lives in metropolitan areas of 50,000 or more, and the rate of population growth between 2000 and 2009 in metropolitan areas—10.4 percent—easily outpaced that of “micropolitan” or rural areas.28 Individuals from 21 to 30 years of age represent the second-largest age group in the country. They are set to expand their role in the U.S. housing market and broader economy significantly during the coming decades. These so-called Millennials have been shown to prefer walking to driving and have less interest in owning a car than previous generations. Indeed, 77 percent of Millennials plan to live in dense urban environments.29 Americans 65 and older are the fastest-growing demographic segment in the United States. By 2050, one in five Americans will fall into this category. 30 Considering that more than 20 percent of seniors over the age of 65 do not drive and must depend upon alternative transportation options, it will be necessary to expand non-automobile mobility. Today’s lack of transportation options forces half of nondrivers age 65 and older to stay home on any given day, limiting their access to medical care, economic activity, and social enrichment.31 The demographic shifts of future stakeholders suggest that there should be fewer investments in new highway capacity and more investments in urban transportation modes that provide high volume, space- and energy-efficient mobility, such as public mass transit, ultra-light neighborhood electric vehicles, cycling, and walking. Solvency: Improved Public HealthReducing fuel use also saves public health Bradley, et al. 2011. Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation Infrastructure. (Bill Bradley—former US Senator, Currently Managing Director Allan and Company; Thomas J. Ridge—Former Pennsylvania Governor and Secretary of Homeland Security, Currently CEO of Ridge Global; David M. Walker, former US Comptroller General and Current CEO of Comeback America Initiative) Carnegie Endowment for International Peace p. 84-5 Transportation pricing could reduce fuel use, stimulating public health benefits. It directly lowers harmful tailpipe emissions, decreases the rate of traffic accidents, and engenders more healthful mobility. Automobile dependence is closely linked to some of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Transportation reform linked to smart growth policies that facilitate biking and walking can play a significant role in reducing the country’s skyrocketing health care costs, which were estimated to be $2.4 trillion in 2008 and could reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.37 More accurately priced transportation helps reduce the number of traffic accidents by limiting driving exposure and peak-hour use in congestion. Traffic crashes cause more than 40,000 deaths and cost $180 billion each year.38 Revenue generated from pricing can be directed to the implementation of more efficient street designs. Inefficient transportation designs, characterized by weak street connectivity, have higher automobile collision and pedestrian fatality rates.39 Other studies show that the risks of accidents, injuries, and fatalities to pedestrians and bicyclists decrease when rates of walking and bicycling increase.40 An automobile-dependent transportation system contributes to sedentary lifestyles and a lack of opportunity for daily physical activity. Low levels of physical activity are directly linked to the alarming obesity problem that costs Americans $76 billion annually, approximately 10 percent of U.S. health care spending.41 There is a well-documented link between the built environment and physical activity, indicating that comprehensive land use and transportation planning that provides a sufficient level of street connectivity and destination density and supports alternatives to driving could save $142 billion annually in obesity-related health care expenditures, lost wages, and premature deaths.42 The literature provides extensive evidence that higher levels of physical activity are associated with urban design and infrastructure that support walking and cycling, mixed-use zoning, and greater access to public mass transit.43 Walking associated with transit use is often enough to meet public health recommendations for physical activity of 30 minutes or more of moderate activity five days per week.44 An analysis found that an average 3.4-mile bicycle commute in Madison, Wisconsin, expends 144 calories round trip, amounting to 10 pounds of weight lost during a year, which reduces risks of heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, colon cancer, and type II diabetes.45 Solvency: Improved Public HealthActive transportation is necessary for public healthBors, et al. 20009, Philip Bors, MPH, Mark Dessauer, MA, Rich Bell, MCP, Risa Wilkerson, MA, Joanne Lee, RD, MPH, Sarah L. Strunk, MHA) “The Active Living by Design National Program Community Initiatives and Lessons Learned” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2009:37(6S2) The link between insufficient physical activity and adverse health outcomes is well-documented and includes obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic diseases.1 Health scientists have established the benefits of physical activity and have recently focused on the importance of regular, moderate-intensity activities.2,3As a result, physical activity advocates have increasingly highlighted the importance of utilitarian activities, such as walking and bicycling for transportation, in addition to exercise, recreation, and athletics. In order to increase routine physical activity, comprehensive public health interventions have been developed using an ecologic framework to increase the potential to improve the health of populations.4 An ecologic framework stresses the importance of addressing health problems at multiple levels and recognizes that behavioral determinants range from individual and interpersonal factors to community norms, environments, and policies.5–8 Many federal, state, and local public health practitioners have shifted from traditional, individually focused interventions to those with the potential to change environments and policies to maximize and sustain population impact. Environmental and policy interventions for physical activity strive to “create changes in social networks, organizational norms and policies, the physical environment, and laws.” Improved infrastructure leads to more active transportation and better healthStronegger, et al. 2010. (Willibald J. Stronegger—Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Medical University of Graz, Sylvia Titze—Institute of Sport Science, Univzersity of Graz, Pekka Oja, UKK Institute, Finland) “Perceived characteristics of the neighborhood and its association with physical activity behavior and self-rated health” Health & Place 16 (2010) 736–743 We found that different aspects of the residential environment seem to incite different physical activity behaviors. A high level of satisfaction with the quarter’s local infrastructure may encourage the residents to engage in higher levels of physical activity for transportation purposes, whereas the preferred mode of transportation may be gender-specific: men use the bicycle more often whereas women walk. Therefore, our results suggest that facilities of the local infrastructure (shops, leisure time facilities, etc.) should be designed so as to ensure accessibility by both walking and cycling. The results presented here may serve as a basis for devising structural health promoting measures in urban environments in the sector of urban planning and design. The presence of a diversified local infrastructure designed in combination with areas for walking and cycling could be a promising approach to enhance physical activity for transportation purposes. Moreover, a high satisfaction of living in a quarter of high general social- environmental quality with respect to appearance, safety, air quality, walkable spaces, etc. is linked to higher levels of leisure time physical activity in both men and women. Solvency: Improved Public HealthInfrastructure investment will increase active travelOgilvie et al, 2010, (David Ogilvie, 1Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--2Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie--3Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Petticrew--4London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Stephen Platt--5Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh). “Shoe leather epidemiology: active travel and transport infrastructure in the urban landscape” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2010, 7:43 http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/7/1/43 Walking and cycling as modes of transport ('active travel') can make an important contribution to overall physical activity and may be associated with characteristics of the built or natural environment [1-3]. Prima facie, altering the urban landscape may lead to changes in patterns of mobility, physical activity and (eventually) population health. These changes may be positive or negative, and may occur as the indirect or unintended effect of transport or planning policies primarily intended to achieve other goals [4]. Transportation plans should incorporate health considerations into planningAmerican Public Health Association, 2009 AT THE INTERSECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND TRANSPORTATION: Promoting Healthy Transportation Policy, p10 Currently, of the federal transportation bill, about 80% of the funding goes toward building highways and improving road infrastructures, and approximately 20% goes toward public transit programs. As a start, a more equitable balance of funding is required. Programs in the transportation bill that help to improve traffic safety; increase availability of public transit ridership; connect people with work, home, and services in an affordable and accessible way; benefit health by increasing opportunities for physical activity; and protect the environment as well as health should continue and the funding should be increased. Specific favorable programs include the following: HSIP, CMAQ, Safe Routes to School, recreational trails, and all public transit improvement projects. Most importantly, health considerations should not be sidelined as an add-on in a number of small program areas. All our transportation policies, programs and decisions should begin with the under- standing that the health of the general public is a national priority. Health and well-being should be a critical consideration in overall transportation policy. To be successful, these policies and programs must have positive measurable health outcomes, which will result in medical cost savings. Positive societal outcomes, such as helping to decrease the burden of climate change and societies dependance on fossil fuels, should also be considered. The elements of achieving positive health through transportation policy outlined earlier are good basic principles and offer a good place for public health professionals to start. Solvency: Improved Public HealthActive transportation policies improve health and fitnessSallis, et al. 2012. (James F. Sallis, PhD-- From the Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Myron F. Floyd, PhD-- Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Daniel A. Rodríguez, PhD-- Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Brian E. Saelens, PhD-- Seattle Children's Research Institute, University of Washington) “Recent Advances in Preventive Cardiology and Lifestyle Medicine Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Obesity, and Cardiovascular Disease”, American Heart Association Journal, June 19, 2012, http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/125/5/729.full Active transportation has declined in recent decades. Between 1977 and 1995, the number of all walking trips decreased by 32% for adults, with similar reductions for youth.45 Adults walk for only 21.2% of trips that are 1.6 km or less, and children walk for only 35.9% of trips to school of that distance.45 Reversing the recent decline in rates of walking and biking for transportation, especially for short trips, presents a major opportunity for improving health for all ages. Evidence is accumulating about how the built environment can support active transportation, and this evidence can inform policy changes. Built Environment, Active Transportation, and Physical Activity Key characteristics of built environments and community design are land use (residential, commercial, institutional, or park and open space), intensity (population density), location relative to other community destinations, the interconnections available to reach those destinations, and aesthetic qualities. Having a variety of destinations close by has been positively associated with walking and bicycling for transportation.22,23,46–48 Destinations refer to land uses that are frequently accessed in daily life for shopping, education, work, and recreation. Proximity to parks and commercial areas is associated with higher active transportation.24,49 Population density refers to the number of individuals or households living in a particular area and is consistently associated with higher active transportation.23,46 In areas of high density, destinations can be closer together because the number of people needed to support shops, services, and schools is found in a smaller area.
Solvency: Improved Public HealthTransportation policies can help solve 50% of health problemsAmerican Public Health Association, 2009 AT THE INTERSECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND TRANSPORTATION: Promoting Healthy Transportation Policy, p5-6 Fifty percent of the leading causes of death and illness in the United States—traffic injuries, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and respiratory illness—are preventable. These diseases have several risk factors that can be mitigated by transportation policies—policies that promote the design and development of healthy communities. Because the transportation system touches most aspects of daily life, optimizing transportation and community design can play an important role in improving health. Improving the health of US residents and helping to prevent disease through reformed transportation policy can be achieved through a variety of means: • Offering balanced and affordable modes of transportation (including driving, biking, walking, and public transit) and, where possible, helping to decrease reliance on automobiles; • Building communities and improving connectivity so that residents can safely walk or bike to work, school, home, play, public transit, and services; • Ensuring public transit can be reached safely without needing to drive; • Increasing opportunities for residents in sprawling communities to be physically active; • Improving injury prevention and installing safety and protective measures where needed; • Sustaining and improving motor vehicle safety; • Increasing US energy independence and investing in identification of alternative fuels sources; • Educating US residents about the health benefits of walking, biking, and safe transportation behaviors; and • Assessing the potential health impact*of all major transportation, land-use decision, or planning activities. Solvency: Improved Public HealthStudies prove that changing and promoting transportation infrastructure increases active transportation and improves healthSallis, et al. 2012. (James F. Sallis, PhD-- From the Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Myron F. Floyd, PhD-- Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Daniel A. Rodríguez, PhD-- Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Brian E. Saelens, PhD-- Seattle Children's Research Institute, University of Washington) “Recent Advances in Preventive Cardiology and Lifestyle Medicine Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Obesity, and Cardiovascular Disease”, American Heart Association Journal, June 19, 2012, http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/125/5/729.full Recommendations summarized in the Table, based on limited evidence and often expert opinion, have guided large-scale initiatives to implement change in built environments and policy. Some evidence regarding environment and policy interventions does exist. The December 2009 supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine highlighted outcomes from communities engaging in environment and policy change through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Active Living by Design program. For example, Jackson, MI, developed Project U-Turn. In addition to physical activity education and programming, changes in the physical environment (eg, construction of a rail-trail) and policy (eg, streets must accommodate all modes of travel, including pedestrians and bicyclists) around physical activity were realized, with corresponding increases in active transportation.78 The Shape Up Somerville trial compared community-wide interventions for childhood obesity in Somerville, MA, to 2 nonintervention cities matched on sociodemographic factors. Shape Up Somerville interventions cut across levels of the ecological model and included pedestrian infrastructure/safety, walk to/from school campaigns, and new school play equipment. Most notable is that this comprehensive set of community-wide interventions had a documented impact on reducing child overweight/obesity prevalence79 and increasing physical activity80 at the population level. Cycling solves urban health problemsTight, et al, 2011. (Miles Tight--Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Paul Timms--Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, David Banister--Oxford University Centre for the Environment, Jemma Bowmaker--SURFACE Inclusive Design Research Centre, University of Salford, Jonathan Copas--School of Computing Science, University of East Anglia, Andy Day--School of Computing Science, University of East Anglia, David Drinkwater--School of Computing Science, University of East Anglia, Moshe Givoni--Oxford University Centre for the Environment, Astrid Gühnemann--Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Mary Lawler--Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, James Macmillen--Oxford University Centre for the Environment, Andrew Miles--Centre for Research of Socio-Cultural Change, University of Manchester, Niamh Moore--Centre for Research of Socio-Cultural Change, University of Manchester, Rita Newton--SURFACE Inclusive Design Research Centre, University of Salford, Dong Ngoduy--Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Marcus Ormerod--SURFACE Inclusive Design Research Centre, University of Salford, Maria O’Sullivan--SURFACE Inclusive Design Research Centre, University of Salford, David Watling-- Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds “Visions for a walking and cycling focussed urban transport system” Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 1580–1589 This paper seeks to develop and evaluate three alternative visions for the year 2030 in which walking and cycling play a substantially more central role in urban transportation than is currently the case. The aim is to explore the extent to which these modes could replace our current dependence on motorised transport with a view to creating urban environments which are safer, more sociable and less environmentally damaging. The visions seek to go beyond just small scale incremental changes to the existing transport systems and to explore the potential for more radical change. The focus is on walking and cycling as these modes have a high potential to address (at least in part) many of the problems which currently blight our urban areas, including road accidents, traffic induced air pollution, noise, severance and the health issues associated with increasingly sedentary lifestyles. Solvency: Improved Public HealthInfrastructure is necessary first step to create cycling cultureDill, 2009. (Jennifer Dill, Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University). “Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of Infrastructure, Journal of Public Health Policy (2009) 30, S95–S110. doi:10.1057/jphp.2008.56 The study demonstrated that bicycling for transportation can be used by adults to meet the recommendations for daily physical activity. A supportive environment, like that found in the Portland region, appears necessary to encourage bicycling for everyday travel, allowing more adults to achieve active living goals. The first part of that environment is bicycle infrastructure that addresses people’s concern about safety from motor vehicles. In Portland, this includes a network of bike lanes, paths, and boulevards. Building such a network requires a comprehensive plan, funding, and political leadership. In Oregon, state law requires that both bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure be built whenever roads are built or rebuilt (with few exceptions), and that cities, counties, and the State spend a reasonable share of their state highway funds, usually defined as 1%, on pedestrian and bicycle features. Walkable neighborhoods need to be included in transportation planningSallis, 2009. (James F. Sallis--Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Brian E. Saelens--University of Washington and Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Lawrence D. Frank-- School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada & Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA c,d, Terry L. Conway--Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Donald J. Slymen-- Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Kelli L. Cain --Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, James E. Chapman-- Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA, Jacqueline Kerr -- San Diego State University, University of California San Diego, CA, USA) “Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiple health outcomes”, Social Science & Medicine 68 (2009) 1285–1293 Physical inactivity and obesity are two of the most significant health problems in the United States and globally (Andersen, 2003; Dishman et al., 2004; World Health Organization, 2004), and both outcomes were related to neighborhood attributes which are directly controlled by public policies. Policies to encourage development of more walkable neighborhoods and enhancements to existing neighborhoods could provide health benefits to large proportions of the population, both low- and high-income, on a relatively permanent basis. Policies that favor walkable neighborhood designs have also been related to reductions in driving, greenhouse gases, and air pollution; conservation of open space; and reduced spending on public infrastructure (Frank et al., 2003, 2004, 2006; Ewing, Bartholomew, Winkelman, Walters, & Chen, 2007). Some negative effects have been identified, such as local traffic congestion and concentration of air pollution (Frumkin et al., 2004). Thus, walkable neighborhoods are not a panacea, and policies promoting walkable development patterns should be combined with other policies to avoid negative outcomes, especially among low-income populations. The potential to produce widespread and long-lasting favorable impacts on physical activity and overweight/obesity should make the creation and improvement of walkable neighborhoods a high priority on the public health agenda. An important next step in research is to identify the shape of the relation of neighborhood environment characteristics to physical activity and overweight/obesity outcomes so recommended levels of walkability attributes can be developed. Other studies are needed to strengthen evidence of causality through prospective and quasi-experimental studies. Empirical Solvency ExamplesSafe Routes to School Programs improve health in childrenLindholm, 2011, (Raymond Lindholm, Georgia State University College of Law, Center for Health, Law, & Society) “Combating childhood obesity: A survey of laws affecting the built environments of low-income and minority children”, Review of Environment and Health 2011 In 2005, Congress allocated $612 million to give to states as grants for state Safe Routes to Schools Programs (SRTS) through 2009 as part of its Transportation Bill (95). Since 2005, the STRS program has provided evaluation, education, and engineering to cities and counties to improve active transportation to more than 6,500 schools (96). This has resulted in a large increase in the number of children walking and biking to school. One study found that the SRTS program in California has resulted in a 38% increase in the number of children getting to school by active transportation (97). New Jersey is another example of a successfully implemented SRTS program. Using over $4 million in federal SRTS grants, New Jersey encouraged children to walk and bike to school while also improving the safety for them to do so (98). SRTS programs help children get exercise and fight obesity, and they also help reduce pollution and morning congestion. There are currently plans to reauthorize and re-fund the SRTS program in the 2010 Federal Transportation Bill. Complete streets program helps childrenLindholm, 2011, (Raymond Lindholm, Georgia State University College of Law, Center for Health, Law, & Society) “Combating childhood obesity: A survey of laws affecting the built environments of low-income and minority children”, Review of Environment and Health 2011 Several states and localities are using the land-use laws discussed above to improve how streets and other transportation lanes are constructed. These programs are known as “Complete Streets” programs. California’s Complete Streets Act of 2008 will require all cities and counties to design their streets, roadways, and highways so they can safely accommodate motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors, public transit subscribers, commercial vehicles, and people with disabilities beginning January 1, 2011 (99, 100). Washington has a similar program through its Healthy Communities and its Active Community Environments programs. Both of these programs help counties and cities implement the “complete streets” ideal by increasing the number of bicycle facilities, sidewalks, trails, and mixed-use developments so that pedestrians and bicyclists can easily access homes, businesses, schools, and other community facilities (101). Florida also has a Conserve by Bicycle program (102). In 2009 Louisiana introduced legislation aimed at creating a Complete Streets workgroup in its Department of Transportation for “streets and roadways that are safe and convenient for travel by automobile, foot, bicycle, and transit regardless of age or ability.”(103) Programs such as these are effective at increasing active transportation methods. For instance, Portland, Oregon experienced a 74% increase in bicycle traffic after implementing a “Complete Streets” program in the 1990’s. Empirical Solvency ExamplesPeople will become cyclists. Portland Study Proves.Dill, 2009. (Jennifer Dill, Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University). “Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of Infrastructure, Journal of Public Health Policy (2009) 30, S95–S110. doi:10.1057/jphp.2008.56 A large majority (59%) of the participants were able to meet the recommended 150 minutes of activity per week through the bicycling recorded by the GPS units. Nearly all of the bicycling was for utilitarian purposes. Although the participants represent a small share of all bicyclists, and an even smaller share of the population, this finding does indicate that regular bicyclists can achieve healthy levels of physical activity through daily travel. Trip distances are sometimes cited as a barrier to bicycling (22). The median bicycle trip length recorded here was about 3 miles. About half of all daily trips made in the United States are 3 miles or less in length (10). Therefore, the potential to switch trips from driving to bicycling is large. In addition, participants were linking trips together, stopping somewhere on the way home from work, for example. This is made more feasible by Portland’s policies and regulations that support mixing land uses, including commercial and residential uses. A well-connected network of bicycle-friendly infrastructure would also facilitate such linking of trips. Can replicate Portland Results. Rest of nation has the necessary infrastructure or it can be folded into new construction.Dill, 2009. (Jennifer Dill, Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University). “Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of Infrastructure, Journal of Public Health Policy (2009) 30, S95–S110. doi:10.1057/jphp.2008.56 A network of different types of infrastructure appears necessary to attract new people to bicycling. Simply adding bike lanes to all new major roads is unlikely to achieve high rates of bicycling. For people concerned with safety and avoiding traffic, a well-connected network of low-traffic streets, including some bicycle boulevards, may be more effective than adding bike lanes on major streets with high volumes of motor vehicle traffic. Opportunities to build separate paths are often limited in existing neighborhoods due to space constraints and costs. Public agencies can, however, look for such opportunities when building other infrastructure, such as new rail transit lines, along existing transportation corridors, and when expanding to new undeveloped areas. Finally, the role of bike lanes should not be dismissed in planning for a bicycle-friendly community. A disproportionate share of the bicycling occurs on streets with bike lanes, indicating their value to bicyclists. These facilities may provide important links in the network, connecting neighborhoods when low-volume streets cannot. The bicycle infrastructure in Portland appears to work, in part, because of a supporting land use and street network structure. The areas within Portland where the highest levels of bicycling occur also have a well-connected street grid and mix of land uses. This allows bicyclists to link their trips together in an efficient manner. The grid street patterns allows the installation of bike boulevards that provide options to bicycling on major streets with more traffic, without increasing travel distances too much. The older parts of many US cities have this same supportive structure. For new development, street connectivity standards and zoning that allows or even mandates a mix of land uses can create such an environment. The Portland region has adopted both of these strategies. Empirical Solvency ExamplesWalkable neighborhoods increase active transportationSallis, 2009. (James F. Sallis--Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Brian E. Saelens--University of Washington and Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Lawrence D. Frank-- School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada & Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA c,d, Terry L. Conway--Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Donald J. Slymen-- Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Kelli L. Cain --Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, James E. Chapman-- Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA, Jacqueline Kerr -- San Diego State University, University of California San Diego, CA, USA) “Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiple health outcomes”, Social Science & Medicine 68 (2009) 1285–1293 The walkability-by-income interaction (p ¼ 0.027) and walkability main effect (p ¼ < 0.0001) were both significant. Overall, the significant walkability main effect indicated a higher average number of minutes per week of walking for transportation in highwalkability neighborhoods (44.3 min per week) compared to lowwalkability neighborhoods (12.8 min per week). Walking for transportation was significantly higher in high-walkability neighborhoods compared to low-walkability neighborhoods for both high- and low-income neighborhoods; however, the differential was larger in high-income neighborhoods (5.1 min) vs. low-income neighborhoods (2.3 min). Study done in Baltimore and Seattle so it is more generalizable for nation as a whole.Sallis, 2009. (James F. Sallis--Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Brian E. Saelens--University of Washington and Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Lawrence D. Frank-- School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada & Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA c,d, Terry L. Conway--Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Donald J. Slymen-- Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Kelli L. Cain --Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, James E. Chapman-- Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA, Jacqueline Kerr -- San Diego State University, University of California San Diego, CA, USA) “Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiple health outcomes”, Social Science & Medicine 68 (2009) 1285–1293 A strength of the present study was the design to recruit participants from two regions of the United States that differed in demographic composition, climate, geography, and era of development. Results generalized across the two regions. Other strengths included use of accelerometers to objectively assess physical activity, assessment of walking for multiple purposes, control for seasonal effects, selection of neighborhoods that varied widely on walkability defined by GIS and income, and use of validated measures. The present study is one of the few to statistically adjust for potential self-selection bias (Handy et al., 2006, 2008; Frank et al., 2007; Bagley & Mokhtarian, 2002). Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2012 2012 -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? 2012 -> Aa and na members Dying from Tobacco 2012 -> [Baby Crying] 01: 04 [Ching 2012 -> Unit Name / Nom de l’unité uic / ciu dates 2012 -> What We Owe Jehovah’s Witnesses 2012 -> Oceans Challenge Badge 2012 -> Canadian cycling olympians 2012 -> Greg landry, june olkowski and tom lysiak 2012 -> William goldman 2012 -> Does translocation and restocking confer any benefit to the European eel population? A review Download 0.65 Mb. Share with your friends:
|