Biking and walking are very different. For the statistics to make any sense, they should
be disaggregated. I also disagree that the infrastructure for the two are the same or
similar. Bikers want their own lanes on roads, and are supposed to stay off sidewalks.
Peds don't ask for showers or secure storage. Racial/ethnic breakdowns are different
also; for example, African-Americans walk more, yet one rarely sees an African-American
biker, except for a few young male recreational bikers.
Marc Brenman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paula Reeves" <ReevesP(a)wsdot.wa.gov>
To: "TRB Health and Transportation" <h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net>
Cc: "David Ragland" <davidr(a)berkeley.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 4:55:48 PM
Subject: Re: [H+T--Friends] active transportation accessto healthcare facilities
In transportation we commonly talk about commute trips. It makes sense for transit and the
public understands rush hour related to their own commute wait times. There may be other
reasons for focusing on commute trips only that I am not aware of. Our national surveys
primarily focus on commute travel at this time and the ACS doesn’t capture enough data
about biking and walking any longer. The NHTS and some regional household surveys can
provide some information about all trips vs. just commute trips. For a breakdown of the
mode share in the Puget Sound Region/Seattle Area based on household travel surveys, see
attached table.
In Washington State, about 5% of all trips are made by transit, while 10% of all miles
traveled and 13% of all trips are made on foot or by bicycle, primarily in urban areas:
about 4% are commute trips; 6% are utilitarian trips like shopping, going to school, or
traveling to medical appointments; and 3% are social or recreational. This makes a lot of
sense when you think about how limited transit services really are. Also, consider their
costs (buses or trains, operating expenses, maintenance).
Biking and walking trips are accommodated at a fraction of the cost of providing other
types of transportation services and building other types of infrastructure. I do combine
biking and walking trips often because infrastructure for one often improves conditions
for the other (i.e., lighting, crossings, trails, showers, lockers, even sidewalk in some
places although not the safest option). Recent studies on ROI back up the logic of making
investments to improve conditions for biking and walking as well. I can provide some ROI
related links and other information.
Good discussion. Look forward to more.
-Paula Reeves
From: h+t--friends-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:h+t--friends-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf
Of mbrenman001(a)comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 4:05 PM
To: TRB Health and Transportation
Cc: David Ragland
Subject: Re: [H+T--Friends] active transportation accessto healthcare facilities
Is this really true: " biking and walking trips exceed transit trips in many
places." Can anyone provide me some cites to this effect? I would guess that these
bike uses are extremely small: "bicycling for other types of trips – school,
shopping, social, medical etc." In fact, the use of bikes for medical appointments is
probably vanishingly small. Similarly with bikes for shopping other than very light
shopping. Or is my confusion due to the lumping of biking and walking, which are very
different? By the way, these features cost money: "showers, lockers, repair
facilities" and secure storage facilities.
Marc Brenman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paula Reeves" < ReevesP(a)wsdot.wa.gov >
To: "TRB Health and Transportation" < h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net >
Cc: "David Ragland" < davidr(a)berkeley.edu >
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 3:20:46 PM
Subject: Re: [H+T--Friends] active transportation access to healthcare facilities
While the percent of bike commuters is relatively small, bicycling for other types of
trips – school, shopping, social, medical etc.. are important to consider. Together,
biking and walking trips exceed transit trips in many places. Accommodating biking and
walking trips doesn’t have operating cost like transit – much lower per trip cost for
biking and walking. Features like showers, lockers, repair facilities, etc can often be
combined in ‘bike centers’ to make the most of these investments.
-Paula Reeves
From: h+t--friends-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ mailto:h+t--friends-bounces@chrispy.net ] On
Behalf Of mbrenman001(a)comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 3:04 PM
To: TRB Health and Transportation
Cc: David Ragland
Subject: Re: [H+T--Friends] active transportation access to healthcare facilities
At the moment, the percent of bike riders to work is tiny. Perhaps it should be increased.
But should "changing room, showers" be provided to only one type of commuter? If
they are, they should be carefully costed out, and a conscious decision made to provide
such incentives for bike riders. Or not.
Marc Brenman
From: "Phyllis Orrick" < phylliso(a)berkeley.edu >
To: "erik weber" < erik.weber(a)dot.gov >
Cc: h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net , "David Ragland" < davidr(a)berkeley.edu >
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:35:31 AM
Subject: [H+T--Friends] active transportation access to health care facilities
Eric,
Your comments (pasted in below) to the TRB health and transportation subcommittee are
really interesting and useful.
David Ragland, here at SafeTREC, has done some preliminary work on non-emergency health
transportation systems, which he presented at a separate workshop around the time of TRB.
(He is cc'ed and might have something to add, as I am not familiar with the specifics
of his findings.)
In terms of health care facilities' "friendliness" to active transportation
access, as someone who thinks about bicycle-oriented design and has done 2 papers for TRB
on the subject in the last two years, I am struck by the lack of access--and not just for
patients and visitors, but for employees. Even our Oakland Kaiser campus, which has a
longstanding shuttle service connecting its buildings to BART, falls pretty short in this
area. There is bike parking in the garage, but it's for employees only and in a dark
and sort of scary place, with no signage or wayfinding. The patient parking area, when I
finally found it, is pretty enough, but very small. And this from a company whose
leadership enthusiastically embraces the 10,000 steps program.
Part of the difficulty is that building owners and operators don't have a
"cookbook" for these designs and, unless they are bicycle riders themselves,
have problems understanding some of the unique needs and opportunities. (Imagine a
changing room, showers and safe and secure bike parking for staff to avail themselves of
lunchbreak bike rides.)
I'm attaching a paper I did with Karen Frick of the University of California
Transportation Center on 4 Berkeley building owners and their decisions to invest in this
"infrastructure that extends beyond the door." A policy brief is also attached
for quicker reading.
As part of my work developing the CATSIP website on active transportation safety in
California, I also am in contact with bike and ped planners across the state. Some notable
activity is taking place in SF and Silicon Valley, the latter, I am hearing anecdotally, a
hotbed of innovative ways to incorporate bicycle riding and walking into their campuses
(Google, Facebook and Apple, to name a few). I can't help but think it would be of
value to collect their design solutions, along with costs, challenges and opportunities,
into a central toolkit.
Anyway, sorry for the long comments, but it seems like a potentially small shift in design
thinking that could alter the fabric of the built environment to raise awareness of and
participation in active transportation modes (though we would have to evaluate the
response to be certain).
Best,
Phyllis
--
Communications Director
Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC)
University of California Transportation Center (UCTC)
Institute for Urban and Regional Development (IURD)
California Active Transportation Safety Information Pages (CATSIP)
2614 Dwight Way
UC Berkeley
Berkeley CA 94720-7374
510-643-1779
@ transsafe
@ californiaUTC
@ IURDBerkeley
@ trbhealth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: < erik.weber(a)dot.gov >
Subject: Re: [H+T--Friends] Help inform our Subcommittee's TRB 2013
Workshop Proposal!
In preparing a DOT presentation on Transportation and Health at a panel about social
determinants of health and health disparities at NIH for Nation Minority Health Month, I
sketched an outline that I think could be informative to planning next year:
Transportation's impact on health
* Transportation availability & access to care
* Transportation options & livable communities
* Transportation planning & environmental justice
As I mentioned back at the annual meeting, there is nowhere near enough research being
done on bullet #1, while nos 2&3 get covered by a lot of disciplines. This
subcommittee can help fill that gap. There is a need to look not only at
"transportation decisions" which imply planning of projects & future
impacts, but transportation use and availability and their impact on individual health
outcomes. Arguably, transportation has a much larger impact on health when considered in
the immediate term and on an individual scale.
To use two specific examples: certainly planning decisions can have large future aggregate
impacts on air quality and respiratory health as a result - but how many people in the
past year have ended up in emergency care, or, sadly, died because they were unable to get
to a preventive appointment like dialysis or other chronic disease treatment? That's a
much more immediate and measurable impact, yet no one can really say for sure. That's
where, in my opinion, this committee has the biggest opportunity to contribute.
I think TCRP made a good foray into this area with B-27 "Cost Benefit Analysis of
Providing Non-Emergency Medical Transportation,"<
http://www.trb.org/Main/Public/Blurbs/156625.aspx > but this was really only a
beginning, and happened 7 years ago now.
I would argue that the Public Health sector is pretty strongly engaged in the
transportation discussion and it's time now to engage more people in the Health Care
& Services sectors. In the long term, I think, that engagement will have benefits for
all of the other questions the subcommittee considers. As hospitals, insurance companies,
and other care providers better understand the direct impact of transportation on their
missions and their bottom lines, the more they will support transportation options and
better transportation planning. I mean how many hospitals are built today to enable, much
less encourage, walking to and from? I sure haven't seen one recently. To what extent
to providers consider transportation access (beyond driving & parking garages) when
placing and planning new facilities? These are all very important issues which are not
being researched.
_______________________________________________
H+T--Friends mailing list
H+T--Friends(a)ryoko.chrispy.net
http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/h+t--friends
_______________________________________________
H+T--Friends mailing list
H+T--Friends(a)ryoko.chrispy.net
http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/h+t--friends
_______________________________________________
H+T--Friends mailing list
H+T--Friends(a)ryoko.chrispy.net
http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/h+t--friends