Category: Research

Research Shows Dramatic Health Benefits of Walking & Biking

By Lauren Michele, January 26, 2012

Research Shows Dramatic Health Benefits of Walking & Biking

From the California Dept. of Public Health – November 2011; Neil Maizlish, PhD, MPH, Epidemiologist

A public health research team recently developed the Integrated Transport and Health Impacts Model (I-THIM) that makes it possible to estimate the health co-benefits and potential harms from active transport and low carbon driving in urban populations. The team applied the model to the Bay Area, and the results are dramatic.  According to the report, “Reducing risks from chronic disease of the magnitude suggested by I-THIM would rank among the most notable public health achievements in the modern era, and reduce the estimated $34 billion annual cost in California from cardiovascular disease and other chronic conditions such as obesity.”

Download the 2-page report summary
Download the technical report
Download the powerpoint overview

At 15% of all miles traveled by active transport, disease reductions include:

↓ 14% of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes

↓ 6-7% of dementia and depression

↓ 5% of breast and colon cancerMajor public health impact

$34 billion annual health costs from cardiovascular disease in California

When We Have Safe Routes to School We Have Safe Routes for All

By Lauren Michele, January 24, 2012

I read two articles tonight which caught my attention related to Safe Routes to School – right after a neighborhood bike ride home with my 17 year old nephew from his downtown Sacramento high school where I am volunteering as a mentor to students working on campus bicycle programs.  The first was a tragic article in the Sacramento Bee on Michelle Murigi who was fatally injured just one week before her 17th birthday a few blocks from her high school campus.  The second was on a new report released today by the National Center for Safe Routes to School on how to prevent such tragedy through ways to engage schools in increased safety measures, better infrastructure and education programs.

16% of students in California walk to school each day

– many crossing high speed streets without sidewalks or crosswalks

Key Findings from the California Statewide Travel Demand Model

Source: UC Davis Urban Land Use and Transportation Center

  • 16% of all school trips are made by walking, however, funding to support safe infrastructure, programs and plans at schools are far below the demand
  • High income students produce 19% of total school trips – contributing 17% of total trips by automobile
  • While 40% of low income students walk to school, only 8% of high income students walk – many schools lack adequate facilities to support active transportation.
  • Middle income students bike to school more than low and high income students combined – the fact that bicycle trips only account for 1% of total school trips may reflect the lack of investment, planning, and programs needed to foster bikable neighborhoods

Study Identifies Four Key Strategies of Successful Safe Routes to School Programs

National Center for Safe Routes to School Releases New Travel Mode Report

(Chapel Hill, N.C.) January 24, 2012 — Do Safe Routes to School programs that increase walking and bicycling have some characteristics in common? A new report conducted by the National Center for Safe Routes to School has found that may indeed be the case.

Shifting Modes: A Comparative Analysis of Safe Routes to School Program Elements and Travel Mode Outcomes identifies the following four key factors that successful SRTS programs share:

  1. Identifying an in-school leader, often the principal, to champion SRTS.
  2. Conducting activities that reinforce walking and bicycling, such as frequent walker/biker programs and Walk to School Day events.
  3. Generating parent support for SRTS.
  4. Establishing policies that support SRTS, such as early dismissal for students who walk or bicycle home from school.

“SRTS programs across the country are increasing the number of students walking and bicycling to school, and this research reveals some of the ways they did it, which is important for two reasons,” said Lauren Marchetti, director of the National Center for Safe Routes to School. “For transportation and public health officials, it establishes a baseline of data for future research to extend and enrich; for local SRTS program organizers and leaders, it identifies four distinct similarities among successful programs.”

In the Shifting Modes study, National Center researchers explore how school-level dynamics that underlie planning and implementation of SRTS programs relate to the percentage of students who walk and bicycle between home and school. The National Center examined three schools with SRTS programs that measured increases in walking and bicycling to school and compared them to a sample of schools that shared similar demographics but did not increase walking or bicycling to school. To view the complete report, visit www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/shifting-modes-report.

Because the study was limited to schools with three years of data and only those schools that adopted SRTS programs early and met stringent data collection criteria were examined, the study’s sample is small. The student travel mode data were complemented with structured interviews with local SRTS program coordinators. This approach yielded insights into ways to increase the percentage of students who walk and bicycle to school.

The National Center also developed a brief document specifically for the SRTS practitioner. Getting More Students to Walk and Bicycle:  Four Elements of Successful Programs highlights how practitioners can use the study’s findings to increase student participation in walking and bicycling to school. The four key strategies identified in the Shifting Modes study are compared to two schools that have been nationally recognized for increasing walking and bicycling to school; the programs at both schools shared all four identified strategies. To view Getting More Students to Walk and Bicycle, visit www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/getting-students-to-walk-and-bicycle-for-practitioners.

“We encourage those who are on the ground implementing SRTS programs to consider which of these identified strategies might work for their schools and communities,” Marchetti said. “Every school has different needs; however, the key factors identified in the study were common across programs in urban, suburban and rural settings.”

###

About the National Center for Safe Routes to School

Established in May 2006, the National Center for Safe Routes to School assists states and communities in enabling and encouraging children to safely walk and bicycle to school. The National Center serves as the information clearinghouse for the federal Safe Routes to School program with funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Part of the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, the National Center also provides technical support and resources and coordinates online registration efforts for U.S. Walk to School Day and facilitates worldwide promotion and participation. For more information, visit www.saferoutesinfo.org.

 

SB 375, RTP & SCS Course on 11/9/11 with Bill Higgins, J.D. (Lauren Michele Guest Lecturer) :: UC Davis Extension

By Lauren Michele, November 7, 2011

Regional Planning and Sustainable Communities Strategies: The Road So Far

SB 375 has been hailed as a new standard in planning for transportation, housing, land use and climate change mitigation. Get up-to-speed on this significant legislation with this “just the facts” approach to the implementation and application of the law, including how SB 375 was integrated into the Housing Element Law and CEQA, and the potential impacts this will have on local government and other state policy. Review the different strategies being developed by metropolitan planning organizations to achieve statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and the implications they have for land use and resource management planning. Examine the availability of implementation resources; and how traffic, economic and demographic data will be used to measure strategy effectiveness.

button

Instructor(s):

Bill Higgins, J.D., serves as the executive director for the California Association of Councils of Government, a statewide membership organization of councils of government and transportation planning agencies. Previously, he was a senior staff attorney and legislative advocate for the League of California Cities where he represented the League on issues relating to housing, land use and eminent domain.

Lauren Michele, M.S., will be contributing as a guest lecturer on “SB 375 Lessons Learned” where she will be providing an overview of the challenges and successes California has seen during its multi-staged SB 375 process.  She will discuss this in the context of what has led up to SB 375, how legislative developments in other western states highlight California’s efforts, and why groundwork today sets the stage for future progress.

When:

Nov. 9: Wed., 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

Where:

Sutter Square Galleria, 2901 K St, Sacramento, CA

Directions:

Map

Fee:

$290.00.

Special Discount fee:

10% discount for organizations enrolling three or more people at the same time in the same course. All registrations must be submitted at the same time and fees paid with one check, credit card or purchase order.
10% discount for BIA Member

Credit:

.6 CEU, 6 MCLE Hours, 6 AICP Hours

Section:

112LUP167

button

 

Washington State Legislation Update: Trans & Energy Bills

By Lauren Michele, May 2, 2011

Policy in Motion has expanded legislative services to Washington State! Below are summaries and links to legislative analyses for 5 bills pertaining to transportation and energy:

Updated May 2nd, 2011

ESHB 1071: Complete Streets

  • This bill will create a Complete Streets grant program. The purpose of the grant program is to encourage local governments to adopt urban arterial retrofit street ordinances designed to provide safe access to all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, and public transportation users, with the goals of promoting healthy communities, improving safety, protecting the environment and preserving community character.

SHB 1571: Regulation of EV Charging Facilities

  • This bill prohibits the utilities and transportation commission,under certain circumstances, from regulating the rates,services, facilities, and practices of an entity that offersbattery charging facilities to the public for hire.

ESSB 5251: EV Road Maintenance Fees

  • This bill requires that motor vehicles that are powered solely by electricity and are capable of being driven at a speed of more than 35 miles per hour must pay a $100 fee when the vehicle is registered and annually when the registration is renewed. The fee applies to registrations thatare due on or after March 1, 2012.

SB 5467: 2011-2013 Capital Budget

  • The Omnibus 2011-13 Capital Budget authorizes new capital projects forstate agencies and institutions of higher education for the 2011-13 fiscal biennium.The CapitalBudget generally includes appropriations for the acquisition, construction, and repair ofcapital assets such as land, buildings, and other infrastructure improvements. Funding for theCapital Budget is primarily from state general obligation bonds, with other funding derivedfrom various dedicated taxes, fees, and state trust land revenues.

ESSB 5764: Innovate Washington

  • Innovate Washington is created as the successor agency to Washington Technology Center (WTC) and the Spokane Intercollegiate Research and Technology Institute (SIRTI). It is to provide and facilitate research supportive of state industries; to provide mechanisms for collaboration between technology-based industries andhigher education institutions; to help businesses develop and integrate technology into new products and helpbusinesses compete; to offer technology transfer and commercialization training opportunities; and to administer the Technology and Innovation Grant and Loan Program.
  • ESSB 5764 Bill Text
  • ESSB 5764 passed in the Senate on April 27, 2011. It is currently pending in the House.

Public Policy Institute of California’s New Report on SB375 Implementation: Transit & Pricing Challenges

By Lauren Michele, February 17, 2011

Encourage Jobs Near Transit, Raise Cost of Driving to Put State on Road to Change

Analysis Reveals Signs Of Hope—And Warning—About Meeting SB 375 Goals


SAN FRANCISCO, February 16, 2011—If California is to achieve its goal of reducing the amount of driving residents do, policymakers should encourage job growth near transit stations and implement strategies that raise the cost of driving, according to a report released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).

The PPIC report assesses how well California’s local and regional governments are positioned to meet the targets set under Senate Bill 375, the 2008 law that aims to reduce passenger vehicle use. The law’s main purpose is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, but it is also expected to have public health benefits by encouraging more walking and biking. SB 375 calls for the state’s major metropolitan areas to reduce per capita emissions from driving about 7 percent by 2020 and about 15 percent by 2035. This will require a major behavioral shift in California, where the vast majority of commuters still drive to work—even if they live or work near a transit station.

“The law encourages an integrated approach to reducing emissions—changing land use patterns to reduce the need to drive, investing in mass transit and other alternatives to driving, and increasing the cost of driving and parking to encourage the use of these alternatives. But it will be up to regional and local leaders to turn the vision into reality,” says Ellen Hanak, PPIC senior fellow, who co-authored the report with PPIC research fellow Louise Bedsworth and Jed Kolko, PPIC associate director and research fellow.

The PPIC analysis draws on a survey of local governments, interviews with land use and transportation planners, and numerous data sources. It reveals reasons for optimism that the state can achieve its goals—but also warning signs.

On the plus side: Transit ridership is increasing, with recent investments directed toward higher-density areas, where they will be more likely to get people of out their cars. Regional transportation authorities and local governments recognize the importance of integrating land use, transit, and pricing policies such as toll lanes, carpool lanes, and parking fees. And, despite the recession, local governments have increased activities to support the goals of SB 375, and they say the policies they have begun to implement have a strong potential to reduce residents’ driving.

But the warning signs are significant. California has failed so far to reap the benefits of its large investment in rail transit. While rail ridership has increased slightly—from 0.9 percent of all commutes in 1990 to 1.4 percent in 2008—the growth is much slower than the pace of transit cost increases and service expansion.

One reason is that transit-oriented development has failed to live up to its potential. Having jobs near transit is more important in boosting ridership than having housing near transit. It’s not hard to see why: while workers can park their cars or bikes at transit stations close to home, they need a way to get to the workplace after getting off the train. But the number of jobs per square mile in California is lower than the national average and declining, a continuation of a decades-long trend of jobs moving out of dense downtowns.

To encourage job growth around transit, the state should consider changes in SB 375, which explicitly favors residential over commercial development near stations. On the local and regional level, specific policies to spur development near transit include relaxing requirements for minimum numbers of parking spaces provided by developers and improving accessibility to surrounding areas through feeder bus services.

The PPIC report notes one more important warning sign: resistance to the use of pricing tools, like higher fuel taxes and road use charges, to discourage solo driving. Local and regional officials are wary of public opposition. But these tools have the highest potential to reduce driving, and they can generate revenue to fill the growing gap in transportation budgets. Coastal regions are making limited use of road tolling to manage congestion and raise revenues. For example, high-occupancy toll lanes are in use in Southern California and the Bay Area that combine free access for carpoolers with a toll option for solo drivers. But for more comprehensive road pricing solutions, state and federal officials will need to take the lead, either by raising the gas tax or introducing general road use fees. Such mileage fees—already in use in other countries and successfully tested in Oregon—are more flexible than the gas tax. They rely on new electronic toll collecting and geographic positioning system technology to charge motorists according to the number of miles driven, time of day, type of road, and type of vehicle.

Driving Change: Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled in Californiais supported with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the David A. Coulter Family Foundation.

ABOUT PPIC

PPIC is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. As a private operating foundation, PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.

Forbes: “World’s Happiest Countries” Determined After Five Year Research Project

By Lauren Michele, January 24, 2011

Similar to the “Quality of Life” metrics used in Growing Wealthier’s economic analysis of smart growth, Policy in Motion believes that we need to start framing transportation and land use planning and project priorities around factors that do not only consider environmental impacts and funding feasibility — rather we need to assess the full spectrum of social impacts from community design decisions  to include measures for our health and happiness.

Christopher Helman from Forbes highlights which countries are the “happiest” and why in the article below….

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Think about it for a minute: What does happiness mean to you?

For most, being happy starts with having enough money to do what you want and buy what you want. A nice home, food, clothes, car, leisure. All within reason.

But happiness is much more than money. It’s being healthy, free from pain, being able to take care of yourself. It’s having good times with friends and family.

Furthermore, happiness means being able to speak what’s on your mind without fear, to worship the God of your choosing, and to feel safe and secure in your own home.

Happiness means having opportunity — to get an education, to be an entrepreneur. What’s more satisfying than having a big idea and turning it into a thriving business, knowing all the way that the harder you work, the more reward you can expect?

With this in mind, five years ago researchers at the Legatum Institute, a London-based nonpartisan think tank, set out to rank the happiest countries in the world. But because “happy” carries too much of a touchy-feely connotation, they call it “prosperity.”

Legatum recently completed its 2010 Prosperity Index, which ranks 110 countries, covering 90 per cent of the world’s population.

To build its index Legatum gathers upward of a dozen international surveys done by the likes of the Gallup polling group, the Heritage Foundation and the World Economic Forum. Each country is ranked on 89 variables sorted into eight subsections: economy, entrepreneurship, governance, education, health, safety, personal freedom and social capital.

The core conceit: Prosperity is complex; achieving it relies on a confluence of factors that build on each other in a virtuous circle.

“To use economic measurements alone to gauge the success of a nation would be equivalent to assessing the entire condition of a man simply by looking at his bank balance,” writes Peter Mandelson, former U.K. economic minister.

To that end, the inputs used to create the index are both objective and subjective: that’s because it’s not enough to know hard data like a country’s unemployment or inflation rates. It also matters how hard people think it is to find jobs, how convinced they are that hard work can bring success.

This can get complicated. In Nepal, for example, inflation is 11 per cent, unemployment 46 per cent. Yet a surprisingly high 50 per cent of the people say they are satisfied with their standard of living and 81 per cent have confidence in their banks. Could be they’re scared of voicing their true opinion in a shaky democracy, or maybe the Nepalese are just endemically happier people. Legatum adjusts for this, adding a variable called “ability to express political opinion without fear.”

What’s the most prosperous country in the world? Norway. What’s it got that the rest of the world doesn’t? The biggest bump comes from having the world’s highest per capita GDP of $53,000 a year. Norwegians have the second-highest level of satisfaction with their standards of living: 95 per cent say they are satisfied with the freedom to choose the direction of their lives; an unparalleled 74 per cent say other people can be trusted.

Cynics (particularly those leaving comments on Legatum’s excellent website) say Norway’s ranking is a fluke, that it’s a boring, godless (just 13 per cent go to church) homogeneous place to live with a massive welfare state bankrolled by high taxes. Without massive offshore reserves of oil and gas that it exports to the world through state-controlled Statoil, Norway’s GDP would be far smaller.

And yet joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are its Scandinavian sisters Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with equally small and civilized Switzerland and the Netherlands also in the club. None of these countries are blessed with great hoards of oil and gas.

So what gives? What do these prosperous European nations have in common that can somehow explain their prosperity? Being an electoral democracy is almost a given — of the top 25 most prosperous countries, only Singapore and Hong Kong aren’t.

Being small helps too. Big countries have so many disparate groups (ethnic, geographic, civic) vying against each other that it’s hard for true social cohesion and trust to emerge, and harder to maintain high levels of safety. Among countries with populations of more than 150 million, the United States ranks highest, at No. 10.

What else? They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Yet they don’t let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant (consider decriminalized drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands). There are few restrictions on the flow of capital or of labor. Legatum’s scholars point out that Denmark, for example, has little job protection, but generous unemployment benefits. So business owners can keep the right number of workers, while workers can have a safety net while they muck around looking for that fulfilling job.

The importance of entrepreneurship

Of perhaps utmost importance, nearly all the nations in the top 10 are adept at fostering entrepreneurship and opportunity. Legatum’s researchers concluded that a country’s ranking in this area is the clearest proxy of its overall ranking in the index.

‘Entrepreneurial societies raise levels of expectation and produce a culture in which human potential is released.’—Alan McCormick, Legatum

This means low business startup costs, lots of cellphones, plenty of secure Internet servers, a history of high R&D spending and the perception that working hard gets you ahead.

That last bit — the perception that working hard pays off — is especially vital. Consider that Denmark and Sweden rank first and second in entrepreneurship and opportunity, but only 77 per cent of Swedes and 84 per cent of Danes think that working hard will get them ahead. Compare that with the U.S., the No. 3 country for entrepreneurship and opportunity. Fully 9 of 10 Americans think that hard work will pay off.

Perception matters. Alan McCormick, a managing director at Legatum, points out that the U.S. remains the envy of the world when it comes to entrepreneurialism, pointing out that during the recession year of 2009, Americans created 558,000 new businesses each month. That’s 27,000 more per month than in 2008 and 60,000 more per month than in 2007.

For countries that want to move up in the prosperity rankings, that care about improving the happiness of their people, one of the best ways may be to cultivate an entrepreneurial culture.

“Over the last three decades, new startups have accounted for nearly all of the increased employment in the American private sector,” says McCormick. “Entrepreneurial societies raise levels of expectation and produce a culture in which human potential is released, healthy risk-taking is encouraged, and where the fledgling business ideas of today become the global-selling products of tomorrow.”

Entrepreneurialism also gives a society a mechanism by which it can address and improve other aspects of the prosperity ecosystem. Want better education, health care or safety? Someone’s ready to sell it to you.

So what else does the U.S. have going for it? High levels of governance, education and freedom. But most surprising, Legatum gives the U.S. the top ranking in the world when it comes to health.

Huh? Didn’t the U.S. spend last year decrying the sorry state of an American health care system that had left 40 million uninsured? This doesn’t mean the U.S. has the best health care system, says McCormick, but $5,500 a year in per-capita health spending has resulted in excellent vaccination rates, water quality and sanitation.

Lacking: the U.S. scored just 62nd in feeling “well rested.” Compare that with China, which ranked 12th in being well rested.

That takes us back to our original question: What does happiness mean to you? Does being well rested fit into the equation? Maybe. But not if all that shuteye is because you don’t have a job to go to. Or if you have no choice but to rest because you don’t have access to real medical care. China ranks 66th in health, spending just $350 per capita per year.

Safety, security drag down China

Overall China is the 58th most prosperous nation in the world. Despite scoring well in economic measures, it’s dragged down by a rank of 92nd in safety and security and 102nd in personal freedom (just edging out Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe).

And the worst? Zimbabwe is the least prosperous country on Earth, followed by Pakistan, according to the study, with most of the rest of sub-Saharan Africa not much better. To be fair, some countries, like North Korea, are so far off the deep end that they don’t publish any data or let in pollsters to quiz their people.

How to improve their plight? Economic growth at all costs. Roger Bate, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that if you live in one of the poorest nations, a doubling of income from $3,000 to $6,000 per year will generate a lot more additional happiness than would a pay raise of the same amount, from $33,000 to $36,000, for a citizen of a prosperous country.

Ultimately how happy you are depends on how happy you’ve been. If you’re already rich, like Scandinavia, then more freedom, security and health would add the most to happiness. For the likes of China and India (ranked 88th), it’s more a case of “show me the money.” What they want most of all? The opportunity to prove to themselves that money doesn’t buy happiness.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/20/f-forbes-happy-countries.html#ixzz1ByXQElgR

New York Times Business Journalist Interviews “Growing Wealthier” Co-Author Steve Winkelman

By Lauren Michele, January 20, 2011

New York Times

January 20, 2011, 11:02 AM

Growing Without Driving

By DAVID LEONHARDT
Image Source: Growing Wealthier, Center for Clean Air Policy, January 2011
VMT, in the chart (left), stands for “vehicle miles traveled.” So what changed in the early 1990s to cause the growth of driving to fall behind the growth of gross domestic product?

Was it simply that economic growth was so fast in the 1990s? Perhaps. But that doesn’t seem the most likely explanation. The gap between G.D.P. and miles driven continued to grow last decade, when economic growth was mediocre. And the rapid economic growth of the 1960s did not outpace the increase in driving.

The Center for Clean Air Policy — a Washington group that advocates for walkable cities, public transportation and other so-called smart growth policies — released the chart at a briefing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. I asked Steve Winkelman, the center’s director of transportation and adaptation programs, what he thought explained the divergence of economic growth and driving growth. Excerpts from his reply follow:

… a couple of months back I took a quick look at relative economic growth in sectors that I guessed were less travel intensive (data limitations hamper assessment of the VMT intensity of specific economic sectors). It is interesting note that from 1998-2008, knowledge- and service-oriented economic sectors such as information, finance, real estate and health care were responsible for more than two thirds of GDP growth, while extracting, manufacturing, transporting and selling physical goods generated less than one third of GDP growth over that period. In the previous decade, these more physically-intensive sectors contributed more than half of all GDP growth…

Transportation planners have been predicting saturation in travel for decades, for example once women fully penetrate the workforce. Perhaps that saturation is finally happening. The big demographic trends are aging of the baby boomers, increasing numbers of households without children and increasing proportion of minority and immigrant households, who typically have lower travel. We’ve also seen strong growth in transit ridership: up 38% percent since 1995, vs. population growth of 14% and highway VMT growth of 21%….

The jury is still out on the net impact of telecommuting and e-commerce on travel demand. While the number of telecommuters increased from about 3 million in 1993 to 6 million in 2008, that’s still only 4% of work trips, and work trips are only about a quarter of all VMT. In fact, VMT for work has decreased from 1969-2009, but shopping VMT almost quadrupled. So, while Amazon.com and Netflix are changing the way we’re shopping and entertaining ourselves, there’s a sense that the internet can both substitute trips but generate others….

The center’s report, arguing that building more roads is not the best way to produce more economic growth, is available on its Web site.

SACOG and CSU Fresno Receive $5.5 million from HUD Sustainable Regional Planning Grant Funding

By Lauren Michele, October 15, 2010

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has selected the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as a recipient of a $1.5 million Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant. Only about 1 in 5 applicants received an award.

Background on the grant:

The HUD funds will help the Sacramento region plan for the construction of housing and employment centers in high-frequency transit areas, including using CEQA streamlining under SB 375. The funds will also be used to integrate natural resources planning with other local and regional planning, and a study of how to better integrate federal, state, regional and local plans, policies and programs.

This funding, from the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program, is part of a new federal Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities, led by HUD, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

What the grant funds:

  1. Increase the construction of housing and employment centers in high-frequency transit areas that promote social equity, inclusion, access to opportunity, public health, and neighborhood revitalization and reduces environmental impacts.
  2. Integrate housing, land use and transportation planning and programs.
  3. Integrate natural resources planning to protect valuable environmental assets and increase housing opportunities near employment centers.
  4. Use the Sacramento region as a pilot test to develop comprehensive recommendations and a handbook to improve the integration of federal, state, regional and local plans, policies and programs for the purpose of effectively implementing place-based planning.

Who will be involved in implementing the grant:

  • SACOG
  • Valley Vision
  • Cities & counties across the Sacramento region
  • Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency (SHRA)
  • UC Davis Center for Regional Change
  • UC Davis Urban Land Use and Transportation Center
  • Urban Land Institute, Sacramento Chapter
  • Regional Water Authority (RWA)

The only other California grant recipient was for California State University, Fresno Foundation in the amount of $4 million.  Click HUD Grant Finalists for a list of all award recipients across the country.

UC Davis Sustainable Transportation Seminar to Host Fall 2010 Webinar: Handy, Lubell, Cervero to Present

By Lauren Michele, September 7, 2010

October 13, 2010: Encouraging Sustainable Travel, Part II

Introductions by Larry Orcutt, Caltrans Division of Research & Innovation

Presentations & Speakers:

Photo of Susan Handy How Do We Get More People Bicycling? Evidence from the Davis Bicycle Studies
Susan Handy – Sustainable Transportation Center

Communities throughout the US are giving increased priority to bicycling as a mode of transportation. However, it is not clear what factors are most important in promoting bicycling in these communities. A 2006 survey of residents of six small U.S. cities shows that bicycle ownership and use depend on individual characteristics, as well as aspects of the physical environment and the social environment. Critical factors include how much a person enjoys bicycling and how comfortable they are bicycling. In addition, bicycling-oriented people tend to “self-select” bicycling-oriented communities as places to live. Among characteristics of the physical environment, distances to destination are most important. Bicycle infrastructure seems to play an indirect role through its influence on comfort and safety. For the social environment, negative perceptions of other bicyclists seem to be a greater deterrent to bicycling than positive perceptions are an encouragement. These results suggest that to foster bicycling, communities must adopt land use policies that put destinations within bicycling distances of residents and create a safe bicycling environment through investments in infrastructure and other policies. To increase bicycling substantially, communities must also create programs that encourage bicycling by increasing comfort levels and changing the way their residents think about bicycling.

Dr. Susan Handy is a Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy and the Director of the University Transportation Center at the University of California Davis.  Her research interests focus on the relationships between transportation and land use, particularly the impact of land development patterns on travel behavior, and on strategies for reducing automobile dependence.  She is a member of the Committee on Women’s Issues in Transportation and the Committee on Transportation Education of the Transportation Research Board.

Photo of Robert Cervero Are TODs Over-Parked?
Robert Cervero – University of California Transportation Center

Apartments that provide more parking than needed near rail stations, critics argue, drive up the cost of housing, consume valuable land near transit, and impose environmental costs like water pollution from enlarged impervious surfaces. We surveyed multi-family housing near suburban rail stations and asked professional planners about parking ordinances that account for transit. We found that vehicle trip generation rates for some projects were well below ITE standards and that adjacent land uses and proximity to transit matter. Based on this analysis, we recommend parking policies for state and local agencies to consider, particularly in light of climate legislation (AB 32, SB 375).

Robert Cervero works in the area of sustainable transportation policy and planning, focusing on the nexus between urban transportation and land-use systems. Besides his academic and directorship appointments at Berkeley, Professor Cervero is also a faculty affiliate of the Energy and Resources Group, the Institute of Transportation Studies, the Center for a Sustainable California, the Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport, and the Global Metropolitan Studies Center. His current research is on the intersection of infrastructure, place-making, and economic development as well as urban transformations and their impacts on travel behavior. He is a frequent advisor and consultant on transport projects, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Photo of Mark Lubell City Adoption of Environmentally Sustainable Policies in California’s Central Valley
Mark Lubell – Sustainable Transportation Center

Problem: Sustainability remains “the current object of planning’s fascination,” as Campbell described it in 1996, but it is unclear what causes local governments to adopt environmentally sustainable policies and whether they are effective once adopted. Purpose: The goal of this article is to explain why communities adopt environmentally sustainable policies.

Methods: We develop an environmental policy sustainability index for 100 incorporated cities in California’s Central Valley using a combination of survey and archival data. We then use regression and cluster analyses to test which independent variables expressing three theoretical perspectives (Tiebout’s public goods development model, Peterson’s fiscal capacity model, and Logan and Molotch’s interest group/growth machine model) are best at explaining this index.

Results and conclusions: The results suggest that sustainable policies are more likely to occur in cities with better fiscal health and whose residents are of higher socioeconomic status. These findings raise important questions about the relationship between developed and developing cities that were not raised in previous studies, which focused only on major metropolitan which focused only on major metropolitan areas in the United States.

Takeaway for practice: Our results suggest that small, less-developed cities will need substantial technical, financial, and planning assistance to move toward greater sustainability. Many medium-sized, more developed cities may also need technical assistance, but are otherwise capable of becoming more environmentally sustainable.

Victoria Transport Policy Institute: Summer 2010 Research Updates

By Lauren Michele, August 19, 2010

VTPI NEWS
———–
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
“Efficiency – Equity – Clarity”
————————————-
Summer 2010    Vol. 13, No. 3
———————————–
The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is an independent research organization dedicated to developing innovative solutions to transportation problems. The VTPI website (http://www.vtpi.org ) has many resources addressing a wide range of transport planning and policy issues. VTPI also provides consulting services.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEW VTPI DOCUMENTS
====================

Changing Vehicle Travel Price Sensitivities: The Rebounding Rebound Effect” ( http://www.vtpi.org/VMT_Elasticities.pdf )
This paper, submitted for presentation at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, summarizes recent findings concerning transportation price sensitivities. Some studies found that fuel and vehicle travel price elasticities declined significantly between 1960 and 2000, but recent research suggests that price sensitivities have returned to more normal levels, indicating that the rebound effect is rebounding. This suggests that mobility management strategies provide greater benefits than many current energy conservation evaluation models indicate.

Sustainability and Livability: Summary of Definitions, Goals, Objectives and Performance Indicators” ( http://www.vtpi.org/sus_liv.pdf )
This short report summarizes basic definitions and concepts for sustainable and livable transportation planning.
*     *     *     *     *

UPDATED DOCUMENTS
=================

Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism” ( http://www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf )
This report evaluates criticism of rail transit systems, including a recent paper by Wendell Cox, ‘Washington’s War on Cars and the Suburbs.’ It examines claims that rail transit is ineffective at increasing public transit ridership,that rail transit investments are not cost effective, and that transit is an outdated mode of transportation. It finds that critics often misrepresent issues and use biased and inaccurate analysis.

*     *     *     *     *

PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE
===================

Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits” ( http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2010/Pages/100811_Public%20Health%20Benefits.aspx ), written by VTPI for the American Public Transportation Association.
This report investigates ways that public transportation affects human health, and practical methods for considering these impacts in policy and planning decisions. This research indicates that public transit improvements and more transit oriented development can provide large but often overlooked health benefits. People who live or work in communities with high quality transit tend to drive significantly less and rely more on alternative modes (walking, cycling and public transit) than they otherwise would, which reduces per capita traffic crash and pollution emission rates, increases physical fitness, and improves access to medical care and healthy food. These impacts are significant in magnitude compared with other planning objectives but are often overlooked or undervalued in conventional planning.

Recent Planetizen Blogs ( http://www.planetizen.com/blog/2394 ):
*     *     *     *     *

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT
====================

Benefit/Cost Analysis for Transportation Infrastructure: A Practitioner’s Workshop,” sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation, held 17 May 2010 in Washington DC. Presentation slides are available at http://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/benefit_cost10/program

Changing Course for the Transport Sector” ADB Transport Forum, Manila, 25-27 May 2010 ( http://www.adb.org/documents/events/2010/transport-forum/default.asp ). Ministers, industry decision-makers, researchers and representatives of civil society from more than 30 countries participated in this event.

Environment and Energy Research Conference” ( http://cte.ncsu.edu/CTE/EEConference/index.asp ) Transportation Research Board Conference, 6-10 June 2010, Raleigh, North Carolina.
*     *     *     *     *

UPCOMING EVENTS
=================

Indicators for Sustainable Transport Policy Making and Performance Evaluation,” keynote presentation at ‘A New Decade in Sustainable Transport: Fifth Regional EST Forum in Asia’ United Nations Center for Regional Development ( http://www.uncrd.or.jp/env/5th-regional-est-forum/doc/programme.pdf ), 24 August 2010, Bangkok.

Economic Impacts of Transportation Enhancements,” at the  National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse Workshop ( http://www.enhancements.org/seminar/seminarfy10.asp ), 16-17 September 2010, Chattanooga, held in conjunction with ProBike/ProWalk ( http://www.bikewalk.org/2010conference/index.php )

Win-Win Emission Reductions” at the Vancouver Island Air & Waste Management Association ( http://www.pnwis.org/Ch_VI/monthlyluncheon.htm )
Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 11:30 – 13:10, Cedar Hill Golf Course Victoria, B.C.

Livable Communities, Housing and Health – Toolbox Session” at ‘Railvolution 2010′ ( http://www.railvolution.com ).
This workshop will identify ways that transit oriented development and more affordable-accessible housing can help achieve public health and social equity objectives.
*     *     *     *     *

USEFUL RESOURCES
=================

Transit Score” ( http://www.walkscore.com/transit-score.php ) measures how well a location is served by public transit based on the distance to the nearest transit stop and the quality of transit service. This is used to calculate a score between 0 – 100, similar to Walk Score ( http://www.walkscore.com )

Framework for Measuring Sustainable Regional Development for the Twin Cities Region “( www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/pdfdownload.pl?id=1328 ).
This major study by the University of Minnesota developed a framework for evaluating sustainable development in the Twin Cities metropolitan region. The proposed framework includes a set of six sustainability principles, and 38 indicators, each with specific definitions of how it can be measured and suitable data sources. This is one of the best framework of its kind.

Time Lost by Driving Fast in the United States” ( http://mdm.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/29/0272989X09357476 )
This study by Professors Donald A. Redelmeier and Ahmed M. Bayoumi indicates that that in the U.S., one hour spent driving was associated with approximately 20 minutes reduction in life expectancy due to crash risk. For the average driver, each one kilometer per hour (0.6-mph) increase in driving speed yielded a 26-second increase in total expected lost time because the savings from reduced travel time were more than offset by time lost to increased crashes.

P-A-Y-D: As easy to support as 1 – 2 – 3” ( http://www.paydpilot.ca ) . This website and video by Cliff Caprani of Sha-na-key films introduces the concept of Pay-As-You-Drive vehicle insurance and advocates its implementation in British Columbia.

Relative Costs And Benefits Of Modal Transport Solutions” ( http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/393/docs/393.pdf )
This report provides guidance to local authorities about the costs and benefits of transport modes. It provides estimates of vehicle costs, infrastructure, travel time, accidents, health impacts, and pollution costs. It also discusses related urban transport planning issues, including travel demand, relationships between land use and transport, and road space and traffic management. A selection of case studies provides specific illustrations of these issues.

Shared Path Widths” ( http://viastrada.co.nz/pub/shared-path-widths ). This poster provides practical guidance on the design and management of non-motorized facilities.

A wonderful 1906 film of a trolley trip along Market Street in San Francisco ( www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=NINOxRxze9k) and a 1908 film of a trolley trip through Barcelona, Spain ( www.flixxy.com/barcelona-spain-1908.htm) show the use of urban streets a century ago.

Data & Capacity Needs for Transportation NAMAs: Report 1, Data Availability” ( http://www.ccap.org/docs/resources/925/CCAP_Transport_NAMA_Data_Availability.pdf ).
This is the first in a series of research reports by Cambridge Systematics and the Center for Clean Air Policy, assessing data and capacity needs for developing, implementing and evaluating successful transportation Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs).

Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport Projects” ( http://www.adb.org/evaluation/reports/ekb-carbon-emissions-transport.asp )
This report identifies ways the Asian Development Bank can assistance developing member countries in creating more sustainable transport systems. It describes models for evaluating how specific transport policy decisions affect energy consumption and pollution emissions. This analysis considers the generated traffic impacts, the cobenefits of demand management and other indirect impacts.

Choosing Where We Live: Attracting Residents to Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods; A Briefing Book for City Planners and Managers” ( http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/5-10/Briefing_Book-Choosing_Where_We_Live.pdf )
This report identifies various housing market segments and describes ways to make transit oriented development more attractive in response to their specific needs and preferences. It includes recommendations for improving walking and cycling condition, transit service quality, neighborhood livability (quiet, cleanliness and safety), school quality and accessibility, parking management, and urban housing affordability.

Promoting Livable Communities: Examining The Internal Revenue Code And Reforming Its Influence On The Built Environment” ( http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab083048.pdf ).
This report by Smart Growth America and the American Institute of Architects reviews federal tax code features that affect community development patterns. It recommends specific policy reforms to better support livable community development, including clearer definitions regarding livable community features, changes to federal tax codes, legal provisions to develop livable community tax districts, and federal policies that encourage development of more affordable housing.

The Hidden Health Costs of Transportation: Backgrounder” ( http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/B96B32A2-FA00-4D79-99AB-F0446C63B254/0/TheHiddenHealthCostsofTransportationBackgrounder.pdf )
This report by the American Public Health Association identifies various ways that transportation systems affect public health, including physical activity, safety, air quality, affordability and equity. It describes methods for quantifying and monetizing these impacts and recommends specific policy and planning reforms to create more balanced transportation systems that support health objectives.

Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, Recommended Practice” (http://www.ite.org/css )
This free new report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers provides practical guidance on the application of Context Sensitive Solutions to create roadways that better integrate diverse planning objectives and meet community needs.

Growing GreenLITES” ( http://www.nysdot.gov/programs/greenlites )
Greenlites (Green Leadership In Transportation Environmental Sustainability) by the New York State Department of Transportation promotes more sustainable and livable transport planning. It uses a detailed spreadsheet that rates individual projects according to various objectives and impacts.

Vision California – Charting Our Future” ( http://www.visioncalifornia.org )
Vision California uses the new ‘Rapid Fire Model’ spreadsheet tool to evaluate regional and statewide land use and transportation scenario impacts on vehicle travel, pollution emissions, water use, building energy use, transportation fuel use, land consumption, and public infrastructure costs.

Canadian Guidelines for the Measurement of Transportation Demand Management Initiatives” ( http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-urban-guidelines-practitioners-tdmguide2009-menu-1657.htm ).
This guidebook is designed to help organizations implementing TDM strategies to evaluate progress toward established objectives.

TDM Supportive Guidelines For Development Approvals: A Handbook For Practitioners” ( http://www.actcanada.com/actcanada/en/tdmsupportiveguidlines1.aspx )
This report provides recommendations for planners to better incorporate Transportation Demand Management strategies into land development.

ITDP in South Africa” ( http://vimeo.com/13170113 ).
This video by Brian McAllister describes the success of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) in Africa, particularly the new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems. Also see http://vimeo.com/tag:itdp

Equity Analysis of Land Use and Transport Plans Using an Integrated Spatial Model” ( http://www.transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Equity%20Analysis%20of%20Land%20Use%20(with%20Covers ).pdf )
This study used the PECAS Activity Allocation Module to evaluate the equity effects of land use and transport policies intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The results show that a more compact urban form designed around transit stations can reduce travel costs, labor costs, and housing costs by increasing accessibility, which can lead to substantial net benefits for various industries and lower income households.

The Role of Land Use in Reducing VMT and GHG Emissions: A Critique of TRB Special Report 298” ( http://www.calthorpe.com/files/TRB-NAS%20Report%20298%20Critique.pdf ).
This short report provides additional information on the effects that smart growth land use polices can have in achieving VMT and GHG reduction targets. It critiques the assumptions and modeling methods used in the TRB report, and investigates consumer demand for more accessible, multi-modal residential locations.

Panorama Theme by Themocracy