TRBHealth January 2020

trbhealth@mailman.chrispy.net

13 participants
11 discussions

Sustainability and Emerging Transportation Technologies (SETT) 2020 Conference | Call for abstract (Deadline Feb 15)

by Sener, Ipek

Hello everyone, I would like to let you all know about the SETT 2020 Conference. Please see below for more information: The "Sustainability and Emerging Transportation Technologies" (SETT 2020) is a special Transportation Research Board (TRB) Conference that will be held on August 31 - September 2, 2020 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, CA. The conference is co-sponsored by the ADB20 Committee on ICT and Travel Choices and the ADD40 Committee on Transportation and Sustainability. The deadline for the call for abstract is fast approaching: February 15! U.S. and international practitioners, researchers and students are invited to submit abstracts (of up to 500 words) about emerging issues at the intersection of sustainability and transportation technologies. You can find out more about the conference, check the full list of example topics and submit your abstract at: https://trb.secure-platform.com/a/page/SETT2020<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrb.secur…>. A PDF of the call for abstracts and the conference flyer are also attached to this email. For inquiries, please contact the planning committee's contact point Ipek Sener at i-sener(a)tti.tamu.edu<mailto:i-sener@tti.tamu.edu> or TRB's contact point Gary Jenkins at GJenkins(a)nas.edu<mailto:GJenkins@nas.edu>. Thanks, and have a great day! Ipek Ipek Nese Sener, PhD Associate Research Scientist Texas A&M Transportation Institute 505 E Huntland Dr, Suite 455 Austin, TX 78752 Tel 512.407.1119 | Fax 512.467.8971 i-sener(a)tti.tamu.edu<mailto:i-sener@tti.tamu.edu> | http://tti.tamu.edu<http://tti.tamu.edu/>

2 years, 7 months

Announcing Research Paper RFP: The Role of Transportation in Addressing Social Isolation in Older Adults

by Alexandra King

Good afternoon, I am reaching out on behalf of The Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) to share the attached RFP. CTAA is soliciting proposals for a consultant to complete a research paper on the role of transportation in addressing social isolation in older adults through the following research question: How can public transportation be used as a preventive intervention tool to address the potentially harmful effects of social isolation? You can find further information and the full RFP here. <https://nationalcenterformobilitymanagement.org/grants/social-isolation-rfp/> *All proposals will be due by 12:00 pm EST, February 17, 2020.* Please also share this announcement with any other individuals who you feel might be interested in this opportunity. Best, Alex -- Alex King Senior Program Associate, Health Care and Transportation Community Transportation Association of America <http://ctaa.org/> National Center for Mobility Management <http://nc4mm.org/> Tel: (202) 340-5284

2 years, 8 months

Help shape the Physical Activity Policy Research and Evaluation Network!

by Goins, Karin Valentine

Dear colleagues, The Physical Activity Policy Research and Evaluation Network (PAPREN) wants to hear from you! PAPREN is the newest generation of a research network supported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) since 2004. PAPREN remains committed to serving as a hub for physical activity policy research. New developments include emphasis on the built environment, multi-sector collaboration, and moving research into practice. Stephenie Lemon, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School and Jamie Chriqui, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Chicago are the PAPREN principal investigators. We're working on initial steps like building our website and have launched a short survey to help inform Network development. You can access the survey via this link: Please provide your input into the new PAPREN!<https://arcsapps.umassmed.edu/redcap/surveys/?s=H8MW3CTLLD> If that link does not work, try copying the link below into your web browser: https://arcsapps.umassmed.edu/redcap/surveys/?s=H8MW3CTLLD We encourage you to share this message with colleagues you think may be interested. If you'll be at the 2020 Active Living Conference in Orlando next week, join us Monday February 3 7:15-8:45am for an informal breakfast meeting in the Tangerine Room. Feel free to reach out to me with any questions or to be added to our email distribution list. Thanks! Karin Karin Valentine Goins, MPH Program Director | Physical Activity Policy Research and Evaluation Network (PAPREN) University of Massachusetts Medical School 368 Plantation Street Worcester, MA 01602 508-856-5675 karinvalentine.goins(a)umassmed.edu<mailto:karinvalentine.goins@umassmed.edu> | papren(a)umassmed.edu<mailto:papren@umassmed.edu> | @papren1

2 years, 8 months

Subcommittee Update

by Ed Christopher

Hi--I hope this finds you well. This January’s TRB Annual Meeting was an exciting time for our subcommittee. A lot of activities are wrapping up, moving forward or just beginning. On top of all the activity underway we heard some exciting news. As part of the TRB Strategic realignment, http://www.trb.org/AboutTRB/TADStrategicAlignment.aspx, a new Group, Transportation Sustainability and Resilience is being set up. Under the Group are three sections; Society, Systems Resilience and Sustainability. In the Society section are eight committees including Health (AME70). Bill Anderson, TRB staff was at our subcommittee meeting and talked with us about the process of setting up a committee and getting things rolling. As the larger TRB realignment rolls out there is a lot of activity happening as committees are being formed, restructured, merged, retired, etc. For us we have a few things directly ahead. 1. Continue with our subcommittee activities maintaining our broad connections within and throughout TRB and the community. Bill echoed this noting the main purpose of committees in Group is to collaborate across the organization. For us, this means that we should continue to put the spotlight on different elements of health where it intersects with other committees. 2. More immediately, we need to craft a scope and mission for the new committee. Bill said it was due sometime in May. We have a good start since we have been developing and evolving the subcommittee’s scope over the last 10 years. It can be found on our website but here is the direct link https://sites.google.com/site/trbhealthandtransport/subcommittee-information. The scope of the new committee of course will be developed in coordination with the scopes of the other committees in the Social section as they come together. There was also a discussion about membership. First, the chair of the new committee has not been appointed. Bill noted that TRB decides committee chairs. Regarding membership, member selection is a responsibility of the committee working with TRB staff. A committee can have up to 36 members, eleven of which can be any combination of international, young or state DOT representatives. The last membership category discussed was that of a Friend. Friends work on committees hand in hand with the members and there is no limit to number of friends. As a subcommittee we were using our listserve as our friends list. To dive deeper into the rules for committees the TRB Leadership guide is the place to go. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/dva/chair/TRBLeadershipGuide1-35.pdf. That was about the extent of the discussion for the new committee. To get things moving I will pull together a small group from our leadership team to begin the review of the scope. For now, if you get a chance, take a look at the subcommittee’s current scope listed above and feel free to comment either directly to me or to the listserve. Thanks -- Ed Christopher Transportation Planning Consultant 708-269-5237

2 years, 8 months

h+t--friends mailing list migrated to trbhealth@mailman.chrispy.net

by Chris Parrinello

All, The h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net mailing list has been migrated to a new email address: trbhealth(a)mailman.chrispy.net. The archives for this mailing list have also been migrated to a new URL: https://mailman.chrispy.net/hyperkitty/list/trbhealth@mailman.chrispy.net/ Please let me know you have any questions or run into any problems with the new mailing list. Thanks, Chris Parrinello

2 years, 8 months

[H+T--Friends] Fwd: [ENV Section] Proposed Rule for Environmental Impact Consideration under NEPA

by Kelly Rodgers

Hi all - Here is the follow-up analysis from a member of the APHA, as promised. Kelly ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dr. Deborah N. Wallace <privateemail68535(a)connect.apha.org> Date: Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:07 AM Subject: [ENV Section] Proposed Rule for Environmental Impact Consideration under NEPA To: Environment Section APHA <env_section(a)connect.apha.org> Dear section members: We all received Kathleen Rest's summary of the proposed rule's erosion of environmental protection. I scanned the proposed rule on changes to the Council on Environmental Quality's guidance to federal agencies on environmental assessment of federal projects and will highlight some parts relevant to environmental health to help with your commenting. Much of this proposed rule is purely bureaucratic such as shifting a paragraph from one section to another without change but hidden in a mass of these innocuous rewrites are changes that would subvert the entire intent of NEPA and erase much of the history of the regulations' evolution. Bases for this proposed rule are Executive Orders 13807 and 13891. These are not long documents and I recommend we all scan them. The President wants the whole process of environmental impact assessment both streamlined and weakened in order to usher in an era of big construction projects, especially carbon-dependent energy projects. The sections referred to below are those of the proposed new CEQ guidance document on environmental assessment by federal agencies. *Issue #1. The Definition of "significant environmental effect"* In section 1508 "Definitions" at the very end of the proposed new Guidance, "effects should not be considered significant if they are remote in time, geographically remote, or the product of a lengthy causal chain." This narrow definition rules out climate change effects, interstate pollution effects, and lengthy processes such as generation of widespread antibiotic resistance via microbial cassette exchanges. It could also disallow consideration of cumulative effects that build over decades. "Remote" is undefined and could be subject to agency bias.Discharges to the Mississippi River from its origin in Minnesota down to its delta end up in the drinking water of many Louisiana towns and cities. Air emissions in the Midwest end up in the lungs of East Coast dwellers. Minimizing remote impacts is one reason for a federal environmental system. This new narrowing takes this responsibility away from agencies. I*ssue #2. Finding of no significant effect relies on mitigation.* In section 1501.6, even if a project is found to have significant effect, it can be labeled as having no significant effect if there is a mitigation plan and mitigation monitoring. Mitigation may or may not work in any particular circumstance. If the devices are not reliably maintained and repaired, the significant effect will be realized. If an agency decides that a project has no significant effect, no full impact statement is required. Thus, between issues #1 and #2, the number of projects requiring full impact assessment and statement is greatly whittled down to the detriment of public health and the environment. *Issue #3. Time limits for environmental assessment and environmental impact statement* Section 1501.10 limits the time to produce an EA to one year and an EIS to two years. In the contexts of climate change, major social trends that affect underlying public health such as growing income inequality, and growing new knowledge about such problems as massive plastic pollution, these time limits do not reflect the work needed to understand the environmental impacts of a large and complicated project. Although a senior agency official may allow a set lengthening of the time, agencies will be under great pressure to keep to the time limits. Indeed, near its end, the guidance document describes a scoring system that includes consideration of keeping to the time limits and a system of punishment of agencies that don't score well. These time limits come straight from Executive Order 13891. *Issue #4. Page limits for EIS* Section 1502.7 limits A normal EIS to 150 pages and a complicated one to 300 pages, not including the appendices. The senior agency official may allow a longer EIS in the case of an especially complex one. A large project will need assessment for a number of issues from air and water quality to generation of traffic, human population change of the local area, shifts in the ecosystem, and land use suitability. One way that the CEQ wants to limit pages is to include information and analyses by reference. This would put a great burden on the reader to look up myriad references to gauge whether the data and analyses are valid and appropriate for the project. Another way to limit pages according to CEQ is to put loads of information and analyses in the appendices. Thus, crucial information may get buried, much the way the crucial definition of "significant effect" was buried at the end of the guidance document. *Issue #5. Definition of "reasonably foreseeable"* Many EISs have to present scenarios of possible future events and processes in order to judge whether the proposed project would have future environmental impacts should present circumstances change. The language in these instances is "reasonably foreseeable". Section 1508 (definitions) limits "reasonably foreseeable" to the judgment of " a person of ordinary prudence". This definition strikes at the heart of the role of science in environmental impact assessment. Even we scientists sometimes underestimate severity and rapidity of processes such as climate change. Yet we have a much better probability of predicting likely changes in circumstances that could turn the proposed project into one with unacceptable environmental impacts than "a person of ordinary prudence". *Issue #6. General narrowing and weakening of the EIS process.* The proposed Guidance substitutes important words. In section 1500.1, "possible" becomes "practicable" in the proposed document. Instead of "all possible means and measures to foster general welfare, ...", it becomes "all practicable means and measures..." Practicable in this document is heavily weighted by economic considerations, so that the economic overwhelms the environmental and NEPA is subverted. The economic has become so overwhelming in this proposed Guidance that the cost of the EIS is required to be put on the cover page! Sections 1501.1 and 1501.3 ("Threshold applicability analysis" and "Appropriate level of NEPA Review") invite classifying projects as not needing an EIS.In the first, an agency is left to decide whether an action is major or not or is non-discretionary and therefor not up for environmental consideration. In the second, actions can be excluded if normally they have no significant effects; if significant effects are unlikely or unknown, then only an environmental assessment is issued and not a full EIS. Without appropriate criteria for any of these decisions, these sections give large leeway for abuse of process and subversion of NEPA. Throughout the document, agencies are pressed to use existing data and analyses and existing EIS's from similar projects. This efficiency may or may not be scientifically appropriate. There are no criteria for such adoption. There is no recognition that the state of the art develops so that an EIS of a decade ago is obsolete in its methodology and cannot provide the best assessment. The agencies are ordered not to generate new data and analyses. The Guidance document does not state whether agencies may ask sponsors of private projects to generate site-specific data and analyses. The sense of the document is not to have any new specific data and analyses. I*ssue #7. The last one in this list and possibly the most important: the Guidance document states that the only responsibility of an agency is to produce the EIS and inform the public about it.* The summary at the front of the Fed. Register posting on page 1693 and the rewriting of section 1500.1 assert that federal agencies need only consider environmental impacts and not come to any particular conclusion. It removes the reference to "action-forcing" provisions. In other words, the agency could produce an EIS without a conclusion. Section 1505.3 discusses implementing the decision and says nothing about saying no to a damaging project. If a project is found environmentally "unsatisfactory" by one agency in a multi-agency effort, the agencies involved must refer it to the CEQ to resolve the issue and get a consensus (section 1504). There is nothing in the Guidance about stopping a damaging project or imposing a non-damaging alternative. I apologize for such a long message, but the topic is serious for environmental health professionals and the proposed Guidance document threatens public health and our science. I omitted many items of interest and focused only on the Big Ones. Please consider submitting comments. The deadline is March 10, 2020. The comment portal is https://www.regulations.gov which will give you directions. You need the agency name (Council on Environmental Quality) and the docket number (CEQ-2019-003). Thanks for your indulgence, Deborah Wallace Furthermore, on page 1694, we learn that NEPA violation in and of itself is not the basis for injunctive relief or a finding of irreparable harm. "A showing of irreparable harm in a NEPA case does not entitle a litigant to an injunction or stay." ~~~----~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ Manage your Group settings: * To reply to sender (Dr. Deborah N. Wallace): privateemail68535(a)connect.apha.org * To view sender's profile, click this link: Dr. Deborah N. Wallace <http://connect.apha.org/profile.htm?mode=vp&pid=68535> * To post to entire group, send email to: ENV_Section(a)connect.apha.org * To email the group moderator(s) (Megan, Fran, Jyotsna, Jennifer, Nirupama): ENV_Section-moderator(a)connect.apha.org * To UNSUBSCRIBE or change delivery settings, click this link: edit delivery settings <http://connect.apha.org/p.htm?m=qs&em=kelly@thinkstreetsmart.org&sk=BE1J3g> * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send email to: ENV_Section-unsubscribe(a)connect.apha.org * To remove yourself from this group, send email to: ENV_Section-remove(a)connect.apha.org * To visit this group on the web, click this link: view group <http://connect.apha.org/group.htm?igid=159703> Powered by GoLightly, http://www.golightly.com/ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~~~-~--~ -- Kelly Rodgers Executive Director, Streetsmart <http://welcome.thinkstreetsmart.org/> kelly(a)thinkstreetsmart.org 503.442.7165 Portland, OR *Please note I am working in Pacific Standard Time.*

2 years, 8 months

[H+T--Friends] Fwd: [ENV Section] Proposed rule of Council on Environmental Quality

by Kelly Rodgers

>From our friends at APHA ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dr. Deborah N. Wallace <privateemail68535(a)connect.apha.org> Date: Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 8:24 AM Subject: [ENV Section] Proposed rule of Council on Environmental Quality To: Environment Section APHA <env_section(a)connect.apha.org> Dear colleagues, As if our plates aren't full enough with the proposed rule on "transparency in science", the Council on Environmental Quality proposes to rewrite the whole set of regulations on the National Environmental Protection Act requirements for environmental impact assessments and statements. *NY Times focused on a part of the rewrite which would waive requirements for an EIS (environmental impact statement) for major infrastructural projects.* Because the EIS must usually consider air and water quality, land use, traffic patterns, and other public health issues, this proposed rule may influence environmental health if it is issued as drafted. I devoted 75 minutes today to reading the proposal in the Fed. Register and got one-third through. I shall probably finish my review on Thursday and could pull together a summary of the matters of interest to us on Friday. If you are a glutton for punishment, you can read it for yourself at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/2019-28106/update-to-the-… Comments are due March 10, 2020. The portal for comments: https://www.regulations.gov Follow the instructions for submitting comments. You must include the agency name (Council on Environmental Quality) and the docket number (CEQ-2019-0003). The guidance for commenting from U. Mich for which Natalie Sampson supplied links and the one from Union of Concerned Scientists are also useful for making comments on this NEPA proposal. More on Friday, Deborah Wallace ~~~----~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ Manage your Group settings: * To reply to sender (Dr. Deborah N. Wallace): privateemail68535(a)connect.apha.org * To view sender's profile, click this link: Dr. Deborah N. Wallace <http://connect.apha.org/profile.htm?mode=vp&pid=68535> * To post to entire group, send email to: ENV_Section(a)connect.apha.org * To email the group moderator(s) (Megan, Fran, Jyotsna, Jennifer, Nirupama): ENV_Section-moderator(a)connect.apha.org * To UNSUBSCRIBE or change delivery settings, click this link: edit delivery settings <http://connect.apha.org/p.htm?m=qs&em=kelly@thinkstreetsmart.org&sk=BE1J3g> * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send email to: ENV_Section-unsubscribe(a)connect.apha.org * To remove yourself from this group, send email to: ENV_Section-remove(a)connect.apha.org * To visit this group on the web, click this link: view group <http://connect.apha.org/group.htm?igid=159703> Powered by GoLightly, http://www.golightly.com/ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~~~-~--~ -- Kelly Rodgers Executive Director, Streetsmart <http://welcome.thinkstreetsmart.org/> kelly(a)thinkstreetsmart.org 503.442.7165 Portland, OR *Please note I am working in Pacific Standard Time.*

2 years, 8 months

[H+T--Friends] TRB Workshop 1049 - NCHRP 08-123: Census Transportation Data Field Guide for Transportation Applications

by Krishnan Viswanathan

Apologies for cross-posting. The goal of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 08-123 is to build a census data guide for transportation applications. In this age of big data, census data are critical to provide context and ensure decisions are made on a foundation of sound representative data that includes at-risk subpopulations. The diversity of stakeholders at the TRB Annual Meeting who can provide insights on integrating census data into their analytical toolkits is an opportunity to make this NCHRP research product more robust and useful to a wide audience. Agenda Sunday 1:30 PM- 4:30 PM Convention Center, 154 Presiding Officer Penelope Weinberger, AASHTO Participants and Presentations · Introduction and Workshop Objectives · Census Data Inventory – Krishnan Viswanathan, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. · Uses of Census Data – Ed Christopher · Field Guide Framework – Kimon Proussaloglou, Ph.D., Cambridge Systematics, Inc. & Kevin Tierney, Birds Hill Research · Break out groups · Report back and Summary – Ed Christopher

2 years, 8 months

Re: [H+T--Friends] TRB Health Subcommittee meeting

by Bailey, Chad

It is worth our community knowing that the Health Effects Institute (HEI; healtheffects.org) has convened another expert panel to review the epidemiologic literature on traffic-related air pollution and health. The panel has published its protocol, and is expected to release a final report in early 2021. Here's more information: https://www.healtheffects.org/announcements/experts-drive-discussion-traffi… Chad R. Bailey, MPH USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality 2000 Traverwood Drive Office S88 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Phone: 734-214-4954 Fax: 734-214-4821 -----Original Appointment----- From: Leslie Meehan <Leslie.Meehan(a)tn.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2020 2:04 PM To: Leslie Meehan; TRB Health and Transportation Subject: [H+T--Friends] TRB Health Subcommittee meeting When: Monday, January 13, 2020 2:45 PM-4:30 PM (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Where: 888-757-2790, passcode 928355 Note: Due to being 4 floors underground, cell reception may prohibit the functionality of a conference call. If that is the case, the meeting notes will be provided.

2 years, 8 months

[H+T--Friends] TRB Health Subcommittee meeting

by Leslie Meehan

Note: Due to being 4 floors underground, cell reception may prohibit the functionality of a conference call. If that is the case, the meeting notes will be provided.

2 years, 8 months

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

TRBHealth January 2020