For Release Sunday, July 19, 2009
© 2009 Washington Post Writers Group
More fitness. America’s obesity epidemic curbed. Less gasoline burned, fewer carbon emissions. Safer streets. Improved access to public transit.
Those are just some of the reasons why biking and walking proponents say it’s time for the federal government to focus less on new and expanded highways, and far more on safe pathways and “complete streets” for our towns and cities.
Right now there’s a shadow over all transportation funding as gas taxes diminish, the Highway Trust Fund sputters on empty, and reauthorization of the overall federal support program almost assuredly faces a year’s postponement.
But maybe the pause is time to debate: Why should we seriously consider federal support for sidewalk widenings or new pathways for city dwellers and suburbanites?
Congressional Republicans seem to have few doubts about the answer. House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) have joked about the government’s existing $833 million a year for pedestrian and bike facilities and protecting historic neighborhoods. They’d ax the program altogether.
But–even when Republicans firmly held Congress, the House in 2003 voted overwhelmingly, 327-90, to keep the transportation enhancements program in place. Today, arguably, the case is even more compelling.
A top new argument: obesity. A stunning 34 percent of adult Americans are currently obese, another 32 percent clearly overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Excessive weight now causes more deaths than smoking. If the fat crisis can’t be dealt with, rising levels of heart disease and diabetes will assuredly swamp the nation’s efforts to reduce spiraling health costs.
What’s the answer? Yes, diet. But more physical activity, too. We’ve allowed autos to carry us everywhere, even walkable distances of less than a mile (and even, in many cases, to the gym)! Our bodies fatten inexorably. One estimate of the country’s annual medical bill for physical inactivity: $117 billion.
Children are a chief concern: in 1969, 50 percent walked to school; by 2004 the figure was down to 14 percent. It’s the same reason so many adults fail to enjoy the low-impact, weight-trimming exercise of close-to-home walking or biking: local planning that provides thin if nonexistent sidewalks, dangerous-to-cross highways, and sprawling development.
Walkers, bikers and public health advocates have embraced the existing federal transportation enhancements program as a start at sparing us a 100-percent asphalt future. But spread nationwide, the program’s yearly outlay is thin–just a quarter more than a single $676 million highway cloverleaf in Virginia, for example.
It’s time, argues Keith Laughlin, president of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (railstotrails.org), for a mega-federal step forward–toward “active transportation.” What would that mean? A quick answer: Walking and biking accepted as legitimate, viable and healthy transportation modes, worthy of priority, not last-and-maybe federal support.
Cities that have already invested seriously in walking and biking access are demonstrating solid results, Laughlin claims. The lead example: Portland, Ore., where $57 million has been spent on in a 300-mile bikeway/pedestrian network since 1991. Portland bicycling has lately increased up to 15-20 percent a year, and another $100 million trail investment is planned. By 2040, Rails to Trails calculates, Portland’s net benefit from better health and reduced fuel savings will be $1.2 billion, representing an eye-catching 8-to-1 return-on-investment ratio.
Could such gains be mirrored nationally? Up to 100 communities, 10 states included, have at least endorsed the “Complete Streets” movement (www.completestreets.org). And the last federal transportation reauthorization did include a pilot program encouraging four communities–provided with $25 million each–to devise their own programs to encourage “mode shifts” to walking and biking. Columbia, Mo., Sheboygan County, Wis., Minneapolis, Minn. and Marin County, Calif., were selected for the program, which Rails to Trails administers for the government.
Rails-to-Trails says the pilots are doing well and it’s time to expand the program to 50 more cities, funded at $50 million each, across the country. That would cost $2.5 billion. Rep. James Oberstar, the House Transportation Committee chair who authored the pilot program in 2003, is holding back, apparently seeking more conclusive evidence.
What’s indisputable is that several cities–among them Cleveland, San Diego, Altoona (Pa.), Billings (Mont.) and Madison (Wis.)–are straining at the bit, working with trail advocacy groups to appeal for significant federal support to mount full-bore walking/biking plans and construction.
Their case is strong. We’ve had a near-century of overwhelming federal funding preference for the automobile. Rails to Trails calculates that a nationwide promotion of biking and walking for short trips could cut miles driven by 70 billion miles to 200 billion miles from what Americans drive yearly. And we’d reduce our oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by at east 3 percent, and with luck as much as 8 percent.
Then also consider the dramatic health gains possible from more active, less sedentary lifestyles. It turns out that major walking and biking efforts aren’t some joke, or just an interesting idea. They’re imperative.
Neal Peirce’s e-mail is npeirce@citistates.com.
For reprints of Neal Peirce’s column, please contact Washington Post Permissions, c/o PARS International Corp., WPPermissions@parsintl.com, fax 212-221-9195. For newspaper syndication sales, Washington Post Writers Group, 202-334-5375, wpwgsales@washpost.com.
11 Comments
I couldn’t agree more. Infrastructure for more active modes of transportation is drastically under-funded in North America. The benefits and savings from having more complete, walkable communities linked by safe and accessible trail networks cannot be overstated. This is one of the only avenues for simultaneously addressing many of the most challenging problems of our time.
I think these are the two most striking and important sentences of this article. Recreational walking and cycling are fine, and theoretically they could provide the same exercise benefits as walking and cycling for transportation. But they certainly don’t hit the other benefits: reducing gas emissions, reducing need for space-consuming auto-parking, and increasing the closeness of community.
Peirce does a great job showing that this must not be a novelty anymore, though I do worry that even the successful examples he cites are somewhat novelties themselves. Certainly not every city will have the resources of Portland, but I think it is possible for every street in every city in the country to have made some accommodation for nonmotorized uses. Ideally, that would look like safe, accessible sidewalks on all streets and bike lanes on busy streets, but it could be as simple as inexpensive as a low speed limits, encouraging the different transportation modes to mix safely.
On the issue of federal funding for some of these improvements, I still have slide 17 from this slideshow burned into my head from months ago when I first watched it. The 10% of trips made by bicycle and walking receive only 1% of federal funding. There’s just no getting around how imbalanced that is.
Sean Hayford O’Leary
Northfield Area Task Force on Nonmotorized Transportation
Northfield, Minn.
How about rails to restored or new train service? I’ve seen enough trails that ripped up miles of old track where trains could have been reintroduced. Portland also has a robust streetcar system that includes a system that runs on old rail tracks from Portland to Lake Oswego. We need all possible existing rail links that still connect the places we intend for survival. Put the trails money into better sidewalks and pedestrian ROW.
Stephen Coyle, AIA, LEED AP
Another great analysis, Neal. You’ve made a compelling case for the fact that sidewalks, trails and bike paths are very much of national significance and national interest. Congress needs to recognize that when it comes to spending money on highways, only a single letter separates the words “faster” and “fatter.”
Besides the physical health aspects, there are also huge mental health aspects to consider. The psychological damage from living a car based lifestyle, the associated social isolation, are interwoven with how much we eat as well. After having lived in Texas and Washington state for over a decade, I moved to Europe. While I missed the general friendliness and openness of Americans, what I didn’t miss was the soul-destroying car based lifestyle where most of your life is spent in a metal box by yourself driving to various places. There is freedom in the wide open spaces of the United States, but there can also be a total lack of exercise (unless its the “gym”) and profound social isolation. Living in a city or neighborhood that is walkable alleviates that. Even better, you get your exercise while running errands, going to to the store, etc. The social contacts you make during your walks/errands even if its just a nod hello or a quick chat give an additional sense of relief.
When Congressman Boehner first made his anti-bikepath views known on “Meet The Press”, numerous Ohioans called and faxed his office. An excert from our message is below:
Apparently, the congressman believes urban sprawl is the answer. In his mind smog, pollution and asthma must be good things. In addition, he apparently:
- Ignores the numerous studies documenting that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor more bike paths
- Is ignorant of the obesity epidemic that causes diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and dozens of other chronic illnesses which are killing us and crippling our healthcare system
- Does not understand that bicycling, walking and other non-automobile methods are valid transportation for people
- Cares nothing about the 33% of Americans who do not drive due to age, personal circumstances, physical impairment or poverty
- Is not aware of the significant economic benefit that walkable / bikeable neighborhoods create or that more people walking and biking foster safer, more vibrant communities
- Fails to appreciate that the Cincinnati/Dayton area benefits from over 200 miles of multi-use paths that are shared by cyclists, walkers, joggers, families, seniors and others
- Is unaware that two of the country’s Top 100 bicycle retailers are located in Cincinnati/Dayton
- Does not know that the Cincinnati/Dayton area is home of Ohio’s two largest bicycle clubs and numerous walking groups
- Does not care that the Ohio Bicycle Federation is headquartered in Dayton
Whether you are a seasoned bicycle commuter who doesn’t use bike paths or an occasional rider who is intimidated by riding on streets, anyone who rides a bicycle or walks should take issue with his comments, the insulting tone in his voice and his anti-bicycle / anti-pedestrian stance. His stance endangers not just bike paths, but also other projects such as crosswalk improvements, better signage, new striping and sharrows, education programs, bicycle parking improvements and multi-use paths.
The International Association of Public Transport (UITP) new president MR ALAIN FLAUSCH noted in his conference closing speech that all transportation “need always to give first priority for soft mobility modes namely walking and biking” If all transportation modes start at this point and focus there, a lot of development mistakes will be avoided and projects so based will be more successful. Now if we can just get everyone to start there!!
Great to see this topic highlighted. Planners and local officials are increasingly recognizing the benefits of improved walking & biking facilities — it’s become an important “quality of life” issue, something more and more citizens are demanding.
We’ve also covered Complete Streets & related issues in the Planning Commissioners Journal; there’s a free download of transportation planner Hannah Twaddell’s article, “Growing Safer: Improving Roadways for Everyone” at: http://www.plannersweb.com/280.pdf — we’ve also published on our PlannersWeb site a short resource page on Complete Streets: http://pcj.typepad.com/planning_commissioners_jo/complete-streets-resources.html
A message from Michael Gregory, City Councilmember, District 1, City of San Leandro, CA:
Outstanding piece. Our city has snapped out of it, adopted an unrestricted TOD strategy for our Downtown BART Station area. We received $24 million in CA state funds to move our surface parking across the street into a multi-level structure (read: dense) and build 100 units of affordable workforce housing. This is phase one of a station area master plan. We’re on a roll, literally – steel is going up on a number of projects; this while building has ceased most other places. I just bought a light weight commute bike so that folks see that I can do it while asking them to do same. If San Leandro can do this, anyone can.
What’s next is getting our regional BRT (bus rapid transit) line up and running. What’s bizarre is what I call the ‘Bay Area Paradox:’ folks here are no less willing than elsewhere to relax their grip on the steering wheel even thought the area is affluent, educated and progressive. We’ll get it going but, geez, what a battle.
An excellent article. My only concern is that Rails to Trails will be implementing the program. I don’t think we should be loosing precious rail rights-of-way for any purpose, even for trails, as once these are lost, the loss is usually permanent. rail networks need to be expanded, not shrunken. What we desparately need in this country is a COMBINATION of rails, walking and biking.
I bike everyday. The benefit is personal – mind, body and spirt elevation. There is no carbon footprint reduction to biking, hiking. We are a land, sea,air transport society and money for trails must be halted until we become realistic