This document discusses active transportation and smart growth. It defines active transportation as biking and walking for utilitarian purposes. The goals of smart growth are discussed, including more sustainable development through energy efficiency, social benefits like improved health, and economic efficiency. Smart growth principles include mixed land uses, transportation choices, walkable neighborhoods, and compact building design. Active transportation like biking and walking can help achieve smart growth goals by replacing short car trips, improving transit access, and reducing trip distances through dense, mixed-use development. Significant health, environmental, and economic benefits could result from increasing biking and walking through infrastructure investment and supportive land use policies.
This document discusses active transportation and smart growth. It defines active transportation as biking and walking for utilitarian purposes. The goals of smart growth are discussed, including more sustainable development through energy efficiency, social benefits like improved health, and economic efficiency. Smart growth principles include mixed land uses, transportation choices, walkable neighborhoods, and compact building design. Active transportation like biking and walking can help achieve smart growth goals by replacing short car trips, improving transit access, and reducing trip distances through dense, mixed-use development. Significant health, environmental, and economic benefits could result from increasing biking and walking through infrastructure investment and supportive land use policies.
This document discusses active transportation and smart growth. It defines active transportation as biking and walking for utilitarian purposes. The goals of smart growth are discussed, including more sustainable development through energy efficiency, social benefits like improved health, and economic efficiency. Smart growth principles include mixed land uses, transportation choices, walkable neighborhoods, and compact building design. Active transportation like biking and walking can help achieve smart growth goals by replacing short car trips, improving transit access, and reducing trip distances through dense, mixed-use development. Significant health, environmental, and economic benefits could result from increasing biking and walking through infrastructure investment and supportive land use policies.
This document discusses active transportation and smart growth. It defines active transportation as biking and walking for utilitarian purposes. The goals of smart growth are discussed, including more sustainable development through energy efficiency, social benefits like improved health, and economic efficiency. Smart growth principles include mixed land uses, transportation choices, walkable neighborhoods, and compact building design. Active transportation like biking and walking can help achieve smart growth goals by replacing short car trips, improving transit access, and reducing trip distances through dense, mixed-use development. Significant health, environmental, and economic benefits could result from increasing biking and walking through infrastructure investment and supportive land use policies.
thomas@railstotrails.org [ Active Transportation = Bicycling and Walking for Utilitarian Purposes] Session Overview The role of active transportation in smart growth Thomas Gotschi, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Trail Oriented Development Billy Fields, University of New Orleans Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Program Dan Dawson, Marin County Department of Public Works Focus on transportation related aspects of smart growth Goals of Smart Growth A more sustainable form of development, in terms of environmental, social and economic criteria Energy efficiency smarter mobility smarter building designs Social benefits Quality of life Social interaction Health benefits Economic efficiency Energy savings Time savings Infrastructure savings Health care savings Smart Growth Principles Mix land uses Provide a variety of transportation choices Create walkable neighborhoods Take advantage of compact building design Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective Create a range of housing opportunities and choices Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions Sorted by relevance for transportation Land Use Transportation Choices Walk and Bike Friendly Neighborhoods Public Transportation Longer trips Less vehicles per traveler Less emissions per traveler Land use Increased density Mixed use Sense of place Walking and Bicycling Short trips Transit feeder Zero emissions Smart Mobility Goals Reduce travel distances Reduce the need to drive Improve quality of travel Maximize benefits Minimize regrets Smart Mobility Chicken and Egg (and Rooster) Smart Mobility Why Smart Mobility must be about more than just Transit APTA numbers SAIC report GHG transit/cars: 0.76 ICF international PMPG transit: 57 (gasoline only) VMTPG: 41 (cons. Auto occupancy) Germany Short distance Regional rail (RE, RB, S-Bahn) averaged: 59mpg Urban short distance (Subway, Tramway, Bus) averaged: 91mpg RegionalExpress (RE): 54mpg RegionalBahn (RB): 47mpg S-Bahn: 63mpg Bus: 88mpg Subway, Tramway: 140mpg Long distance rail Averaged over types of trains (ICE, EC, IC) and speeds: 107mpg ICE up to 124 m/h: 118mpg ICE over 124 m/h: 91mpg EC/IC: 125mpg 100% 40% 20% Fuel use compared to 25mpg 80% 60% US Ger Ref: Cars What is the key to efficient transit? Back to the roots Mycorrhizal mycelia are much smaller in diameter than the smallest root, and can explore a greater volume of soil, providing a larger surface area for absorption. Plant root w/out mycorrhiza Plant root with mycorrhiza Driving Forces of Mobility Push (Sticks) Cost of driving Gas price/tax Pay as you drive insurance Congestion Congestion fee Toll lanes Parking restrictions Pull (Carrots) Transportation choices Convenience Safety Example: Does car sharing reduce GHG emissions? Early Conclusion Start wherever you can Bonus: Health Benefits Unique to Active Transportation In itself a reason to increase walking and bicycling Obesity a Ticking Time Bomb 300,000 premature deaths every year Allison, D.B., et al., Annual Deaths Attributable to Obesity in the United States. JAMA, 1999 Reduces life expectancy of children by 5 years Levine, S., et al., Obesity Threatens a Generation: Catastrophe of Earlier Deaths, Higher Health Costs. The Washington Post, May 18, 2008 Causes more preventable disease than smoking Mokdad, A.H., et al., Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000. JAMA, 2004 Costs at least $100 billion a year Anderson, L.H., et al., Health care charges associated with physical inactivity, overweight, and obesity. Prev Chronic Dis, 2005 In contrast to many diseases, obesity is almost completely preventable Americans (In)Activity Levels CDC Recommendation: 30 minutes of moderate exercise on most days 48% fulfill activity recommendation 52% insufficiently active 156 M 25% no leisure time activity 75 M 14% not active at all 42 M Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System: 2007 Codebook Report. 2008 Why Active Transportation Works Reduction in physical labor, routine activity Lack of opportunities Too busy Too tired Lack of motivation Financial constraints Skills, confidence Social, cultural factors Steady increase in mobility 27% of all trips <1 mile, 48% of all trips <3 miles Exercise secondary purpose Low intensity exercise Convenient transportation Affordable, saves money No skills required, suitable for everyone Build it and they come Leisure Time Exercise Active Transportation Making the Case Notes from the Field Quantification of Benefits Increase in Bicycling and Walking Benefits from Bicycling and Walking Investment in Safe and Convenient Infrastructure Transportation Economic Value Climate Change Oil Dependence Health Quality of Life Status Quo Modest Scenario Substantial Scenario Mode Share Assumptions for Benefits Calculations 10% 1.4% 87% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 13% 5% 25% 79% 53% Other Driving Transit Transit from Bike & Walk Bicycling & Walking Mode Share Status Quo Modest Scenario Substantial Scenario 15% 5% Benefits Calculation Congestion Relief Congestion Relief Miles Driven Avoided Fuel CO 2 Physical Activity Replace Short Trips Synergy with Transit Induce Smart Growth $$ VMT reduction from Active Transportation 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1 Mile or less 1 3 Miles 1 15 Miles Trip Distance M i l e s
T r a v e l e d
( B i l l i o n s ) % of all Trips 27 21 39 87 % of Miles Traveled 2 7 39 48 SQ 1. Shift Short Trips to Bicycling and Walking SQ MS SS MS SS Status Quo Modest Scenario Substantial Scenario 2. Boost Transit Ridership through Improved Access 3. Reduce Trip Distances through Mix-Use Development Monetary Value of Benefits Under current conditions, fuel savings from short bicycling and walking trips alone offset current expenditures more than 6-fold. Under modest assumptions about shifting trips to bicycling and walking, the resulting annual benefits will be worth close to 20 times the current level of federal funding for bicycling and walking. Assuming substantially increased growth of bicycling and walking, nationwide benefits would skyrocket to a magnitude approaching that of total federal surface transportation spending. $4B $10B Compared to ~$500 million in current federal spending for bike/ped $66B How Comprehensive is our Analysis? - biased towards the quantifiable Local example: Portland, Ore. How much investment is needed? Portland Costs of Portland's Bikeway Network http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/case_statements/Portland%20CS%20for%20Web.pdf ~50 million over 28 years 2 million/year $3.50/resident and year Portlands Benefits from Bicycling Congestion Relief Congestion Relief Miles Driven Avoided 70-150M Fuel Savings 3-7M gal CO 2 Emission 30-70K tons Physical Activity 0.3 min/pers day Direct Replacement of Short Trips Increase in Transit Ridership Thanks to Bicycling and Walking Reduce Trip Distances Thanks to Mixed-Use Induced by Bicycling and Walking $9 - $22 million / year Based on Active Transportation for America methodology Conclusions Land use, transit, and AT complement and support each other Active Transportation is a cost-effective starting point for smart growth Efficient smart growth policies balance: Carrots and sticks Land use, transit, and active transportation How Much Funding is Needed? p.17 Strong correlation, but not necessarily a causal relationship Some figures may not be exactly comparable due to source of funds, duration of funding, and funding purposes. Infrastructure Investments and Increase in Bicycling in Portland (p.28) Health and Climate Benefits Physical activity for 50-90 million Americans Enough to lift all currently insufficiently active people to being sufficiently active (30+ min/day) Billions of dollars in health care savings every year $0.4 - $28 billion per year (depending on assumptions) $20 - $330 per individual and year CO 2 reduction equivalent to 3-8% of all personal vehicles 33-91MMT/year (equivalent to 19 50 million add. hybrids) Barriers to Bicycling and Walking Safety concerns, perception of risk Lack of facilities (Mis-)perception of inconvenience Density, diversity of development (Lack thereof) Traffic regulation (Lack thereof) We need focused investments in safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure Assume same effect on congestion for NMT as for transit (per mile driven avoided) Methodological Challenges Assume health care savings of $19 - $330 per person and year from gained activity Assume 1-3% reduction in length of trips up to 15 miles How Fuel Savings are Calculated (p.22) Based on Miles Driven Avoided Fuel savings from short trips (<3 miles): 20 mpg (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html) Fuel savings from increase in public transportation Need fuel economy assumption for public transportation Status Quo: 75% of current vehicle fleet (APTA) Modest Scenario: 70% of current vehicle fleet Substantial Scenario: 50% of current vehicle fleet Need assumptions on how much bicycling and walking increases public transportation Status Quo: unknown (reference) Modest Scenario: 10% Substantial Scenario: 30% Based on Congestion Relief from Miles Driven Avoided Texas Transportation Institute Estimates effect of miles driven avoided by public transportation: Total passenger miles over urban areas: 45.1 billion Equivalent to 45.1 / 1.33 persons/vehicle = 33.8 billion VMT Total fuel saved thanks to public transportation: 323.4 million gal Fuel saved per 1000 VMT avoided: 323.4 million gal / 33.8 billion VMT = 9.6 gal / 1000 VMT http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/ How CO 2 Reduction is Calculated (p.22) Based on Fuel Savings CO 2 emission reduction: 19.6 pounds per gallon of gasoline 1 pound = 0.45 kg 1 ton (metric) = 1000 kg How Time of Physical Activity is Calculated (p.30) Based on Bicycling and Walking for short Trips (3 miles or less) Walking speed: 3 mph Biking speed: 10 mph Bike share among active transportation miles: Status Quo: 20% Modest Scenario: 30% Substantial Scenario: 50% Conversion to calories: Bicycling, 10mph, leisure, 155lbs: 281 cal per hour (http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist4.htm) Walking, 3mph, mod. pace, 155lbs: 246 cal per hour (http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist4.htm) How Benefits are Monetized (p.38) Fuel Savings Status Quo: $3.50 per gallon, minus 15% tax Modest Scenario: $3.00 per gallon, minus 15% tax Substantial Scenario: $4.00 per gallon, minus 15% tax CO 2 Emission Reductions Status Quo: $0 Modest Scenario: $10 Substantial Scenario: $30 In Billion Dollars: $4B $10B $66B How to Compare Benefits between Scenarios? Benefits are totals, NOT in addition to lower scenario or status quo