Would the report "Health Co-Benefits and Transportation-Related Reductions in
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Bay Area" answer the questions?
Full detailed report at:
Peer-reviewed manuscript at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673232/
Objectives. We quantified health benefits of transportation strategies to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE).
Methods. Statistics on travel patterns and injuries, physical activity, fine particulate
matter, and GHGE in the San Francisco Bay Area, California, were input to a model that
calculated the health impacts of walking and bicycling short distances usually traveled by
car or driving low-emission automobiles. We measured the change in disease burden in
disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) based on dose-response relationships and the
distributions of physical activity, particulate matter, and traffic injuries.
Results: Increasing median daily walking and bicycling from 4 to 22 minutes reduced the
burden of cardiovascular disease and diabetes by 14% (32 466 DALYs), increased the traffic
injury burden by 39% (5907 DALYS), and decreased GHGE by 14%. Low-carbon driving reduced
GHGE by 33.5% and cardiorespiratory disease burden by less than 1%.
Conclusions: Increased physical activity associated with active transport could generate a
large net improvement in population health. Measures would be needed to minimize
pedestrian and bicyclist injuries. Together, active transport and low-carbon driving could
achieve GHGE reductions sufficient for California to meet legislative mandates.
Christiaan Abildso, Ph.D., MPH
Assistant Professor, WVU School of Public Health
From: h+t--friends-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 1:00 PM
Subject: H+T--Friends Digest, Vol 31, Issue 3
Send H+T--Friends mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re:
Contents of H+T--Friends digest..."
1. Re: AQ Impacts vs Active Transport Benefits (John Eberhard)
2. Re: AQ Impacts vs Active Transport Benefits (John Eberhard)
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 09:58:09 -0500
From: John Eberhard <jeberhard2(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [H+T--Friends] AQ Impacts vs Active Transport Benefits
To: TRB Health and Transportation <h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net>
Cc: "h+t--friends(a)ryoko.chrispy.net" <h+t--friends(a)ryoko.chrispy.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Aging housing stock and our aging society. Is anyone aware of the impact of our aging
housing stock on the ability of older people to maintain and age in their homes? This may
be a serious issue. Any references or resources would be appreciated. I am developing a
position paper on how people seeking or in elected positions should be addressing our
John Eberhard PhD Consultant on Aging and Transportation Issues
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Thera Black <blackvt(a)trpc.org> wrote:
Greetings, all - I?m reaching out to Health and
listserv members in the hopes someone can point me in a productive direction.
I have a planning commission that is struggling with the public health
benefits/impacts of compact, walkable urban development. On the one
hand they understand and appreciate the active transportation benefits
associated with this built form. On the other hand, the epidemiologist
on the commission argues that the increased impacts of air pollution
in an urban area more than offsets the benefits associated with active
lifestyle and so is working to prohibit urbanization measures along
our key transit corridors ? density, mix of uses, transit oriented development.
I can find reams of articles on the benefits of active transport. And
I can find scholarly articles about transportation-related air quality
impacts on public health. What I cannot find is anything that brings
the two together in a way that sheds light about these considerations
in combination ? air quality impacts trumping active transport
benefits (or vice versa). This is further complicated by the studies
she is referencing which were done in major metropolitan areas. We are
a small, low-density metro area with a population of about 175,000
between three cities. Our principal arterials carry anywhere from 10,000 ? 18,000
vehicles per day.
We have very little ?urban? land use form and are trying to more
effectively stimulate that kind of private sector investment along our
premier transit corridors where we have the beginnings of walkable,
mixed-use neighborhoods taking shape.
Are you aware of any research that has looked at the trade-offs
between active transport and air quality impacts that might be useful
in this regard?
Any insights are appreciated ? thank you!
Thurston Regional Planning Council
2424 Heritage Court SW, Ste A
Olympia, WA 98502
360.956.7575 ext 2545
This email and any attachments are for the use of the addressed
individual. If you have received this email in error, please notify
our systems manager. TRPC has taken responsible precautions to ensure
no viruses are present in this email, however we do not accept
responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this email or its attachments.
H+T--Friends mailing list
John Eberhard PhD
Senior Consultant in Aging and Transportation