Active Transportation and Smart Growth Thomas Gotschi, PhD [email protected] [ Active Transportation = Bicycling and Walking for Utilitarian Purposes]
Active Transportation and Smart GrowthThomas Gotschi, [email protected]
[ 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 GrowthA 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)
GermanyShort distance• Regional rail (RE, RB, S-Bahn) averaged:
59mpgUrban short distance (Subway, Tramway, Bus) averaged: 91mpg
RegionalExpress (RE): 54mpgRegionalBahn (RB): 47mpgS-Bahn: 63mpg
Bus: 88mpgSubway, Tramway: 140mpg
Long distance rail• Averaged over types of trains (ICE, EC, IC) and
speeds: 107mpg
ICE up to 124 m/h: 118mpgICE 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 MobilityPush (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 LevelsCDC Recommendation: “30 minutes of moderate exercise on most days”
48% fulfill activity recommendation
52% insufficiently active
156 M
25% no leisure time activity75 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
CO2
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
Mile
s Tr
avel
ed (B
illio
ns)
% 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
Portland’s Benefits from Bicycling
Congestion Relief
Congestion Relief
Miles Driven Avoided70-150M
Fuel Savings3-7M gal
CO2 Emission 30-70K tons
Physical Activity0.3 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
• CO2 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 CO2 Reduction is Calculated (p.22)
Based on Fuel Savings• CO2 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
CO2 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