We've recently come across some great testimonials from individuals who have chosen to get around primarily by mass transit and/or bicycle rather than a personal car.
Chris Hrubesh, a senior video editor at CNN in Atlanta, says that trading in his car for a bicycle was one of the best decisions he's ever made. Check out what he has to say about the experience and watch him commute by bike on video. The benefits of this change include a ten-pound weight loss, a savings of $300-$500 per month, and the opportunity to demonstrate a car-free lifestyle to his son. Kudos to his employer for treating him to a free gym membership and transit passes in order to incentivize the decision to commute without a car. When Chris does want to drive, he rents a car by the week or borrows a Zipcar for an hour or two.
The Grist article "Why public transportation is good for kids" by Carla Saulter - AKA the SeattleBusChick - has been making the rounds on Twitter and Facebook. She and her husband have been car-free since 2003 - even after having two kids. Their toddler "took her first bus trip home from the hospital at one day old and has ridden almost daily ever since." We learned about the Seattle area's Undrivers movement through Carla's transit-focused blog. Her post explaining how she saves time by taking the bus instead of driving is eye-opening.
Over the past year, the American Public Transportation Association has gathered the testimonials of individuals whose lives have been positively impacted by public transportation. The APTA "Telling Our Story" campaign collected transit users' stories in an effort to demonstrate to the US Congress the importance of maintaining government support of transit services. This project produced a "video wall" of people speaking about the role of public transportation in their lives. Speakers include employers, riders with disabilities, students, transit agency employees and commuters.
Do you have a testimonial about using one of these transportation alternatives? Do you ride the bus to school, run errands on your bicycle, or carpool to work? Tell us your story by leaving a comment.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
What you need to know about the revised Indy Connect long-range transportation plan
As you may have already heard, Indy Connect version 2.0 is here! An updated long-range transportation plan for Central Indiana has been developed after an extensive public outreach and feedback-gathering effort. You can review this plan, ask questions and submit comments here or at any of the public meetings happening around the region over the next 2 weeks.
Here are eight key facts to know about the plan:
1. Indy Connect, Central Indiana’s Transportation Initiative, has developed a long-range transportation plan following an extensive public outreach effort. This is the most comprehensive transportation plan we have ever created – with more help and input from the public than ever before.
2. The long-range transportation plan centers on a comprehensive regional bus system that connects to rail, as well as roadways and bike and pedestrian pathways.
3. We sharpened our pencils and developed a plan that addresses our critical transportation system needs. It considers available funding and addresses feedback we received about cost, which indicated a willingness to pay an average of $15 per month per household.
4. The goal is to build a transportation system that provides various types of transportation that connect people to jobs, healthcare, shopping and education and increases the region’s competitiveness, economic development opportunities and mobility.
5. The bus system in this plan provides three times the service of today’s IndyGo, with more cross-town service, fewer downtown transfers, more direct routes and extended operating hours.
6. An enhanced bus system, known as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), supplements the traditional bus system and provides service with frequent stops and quick travel along highly traveled streets.
7. Rail will be built on existing lines from Union Station running north to Noblesville and south to Franklin. If funding allows, rail could be extended northwest to Zionsville.
8. BRT will be available along Washington Street and will be replaced, over time, with light rail transit. The first light rail line to be built will be from Union Station to the Indianapolis International Airport.
The next step in the process is to decide on a new dedicated source of local funds to build and operate the bus and rail components of this system. Federal grants, state dollars, the current property tax that funds IndyGo, and transit fares will be utilized, but will only cover half the $2.5 billion cost of creating the system. It will be up to the Indiana state legislature to determine what kind of local funding will be used. The funding sources will likely include an increase in the local option income tax or sales tax.
What parts of this system do you see yourself using? How is your neighborhood affected by the new plan? How would you feel about an average tax increase of $15 per month to fund the system? With construction potentially beginning within a couple of years, the time to consider your part in the grand scheme of Central Indiana transportation is now.
Here are eight key facts to know about the plan:
1. Indy Connect, Central Indiana’s Transportation Initiative, has developed a long-range transportation plan following an extensive public outreach effort. This is the most comprehensive transportation plan we have ever created – with more help and input from the public than ever before.
2. The long-range transportation plan centers on a comprehensive regional bus system that connects to rail, as well as roadways and bike and pedestrian pathways.
3. We sharpened our pencils and developed a plan that addresses our critical transportation system needs. It considers available funding and addresses feedback we received about cost, which indicated a willingness to pay an average of $15 per month per household.
4. The goal is to build a transportation system that provides various types of transportation that connect people to jobs, healthcare, shopping and education and increases the region’s competitiveness, economic development opportunities and mobility.
5. The bus system in this plan provides three times the service of today’s IndyGo, with more cross-town service, fewer downtown transfers, more direct routes and extended operating hours.
6. An enhanced bus system, known as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), supplements the traditional bus system and provides service with frequent stops and quick travel along highly traveled streets.
7. Rail will be built on existing lines from Union Station running north to Noblesville and south to Franklin. If funding allows, rail could be extended northwest to Zionsville.
8. BRT will be available along Washington Street and will be replaced, over time, with light rail transit. The first light rail line to be built will be from Union Station to the Indianapolis International Airport.
The next step in the process is to decide on a new dedicated source of local funds to build and operate the bus and rail components of this system. Federal grants, state dollars, the current property tax that funds IndyGo, and transit fares will be utilized, but will only cover half the $2.5 billion cost of creating the system. It will be up to the Indiana state legislature to determine what kind of local funding will be used. The funding sources will likely include an increase in the local option income tax or sales tax.
What parts of this system do you see yourself using? How is your neighborhood affected by the new plan? How would you feel about an average tax increase of $15 per month to fund the system? With construction potentially beginning within a couple of years, the time to consider your part in the grand scheme of Central Indiana transportation is now.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Public Goods
Few of us engaged in the fight for better public transportation would disagree with author Malcolm Gladwell when he says, “There is enormous power in the concept of the public good.” But would we really expect that power to show up tangibly in the heart health of a small Pennsylvania town?
Those of us who had the chance to hear Gladwell speak at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Public Transportation Association certainly see the connection. Delivering the keynote address for the October 3-6 event, the bestselling author of The Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers: The Story of Success brought a unique and powerful perspective on public transportation to the table – and made his most compelling points though the story of Roseto, PA.
As Gladwell explained, Roseto was settled in the late 19th century by immigrants from Italy and, for decades, thrived economically and socially as close-knit Italian-American community. A chance conversation among area physicians in the late 1950’s led to the discovery that the town experienced extremely low rates of heart disease as compared to surrounding communities. An academic study comparing Roseto with neighboring towns found that the key factor in keeping residents healthy was not diet, exercise, low tobacco use or genetics. Instead, it credited community cohesion and civic-mindedness with the community’s heart strength.
Isolated during its beginnings from older, surrounding communities by anti-immigrant discrimination, Roseto developed a community strongly focused on familial loyalty, civic institutions and social equality. Roseto’s citizens disapproved of overt displays of wealth and status, participated in social clubs, revered their elders and observed rituals and traditions. It was noted that they often went out on walks in the town, patronized local businesses and ate meals with extended family and friends. In other words, Roseto treasured communal life and public resources. The study’s authors state that “the community was their base of operations and each inhabitant felt a responsibility for its welfare and quality.”
Having first studied the town in 1960, the study’s authors returned in 1985 to re-examine heart disease rates and attitudes toward community. They found that younger generations had moved from the town center to suburban areas, walked less, drove more, and stopped going to church as much. They patronized large supermarkets rather than neighborhood groceries, placed their elderly parents in nursing homes instead of their own, and more earnestly pursued material wealth.
Did this communal change of heart have an impact on the residents’ hearts? Apparently, yes. During the same timeframe, rates of heart disease, hypertension and deaths from heart attacks rose to close the gap between Roseto and surrounding areas. The study authors attributed this to the social change in the community. As Roseto lost its unique sense of communal life, it also lost its uniquely high level of public health.
What does this have to do with public transportation? Think about the makings of a close-knit community like Roseto. Members of the older generations had abundant opportunities to develop relationships with one another. They walked more than they drove, so they apparently had safe places to walk through the town. They came together in clubs and churches, so there must have been plentiful public space available for those types of activities. Businesses were small and locally owned, meaning that customers routinely interacted both with owners and fellow patrons.
Now think about what public transportation is, and what it can achieve. It is a public good in which the entire community invests and which all are entitled to use. It is a resource that can enable us to forgo the expense of private car ownership and feel secure in our ability get to where we need to go. It enhances social equality by providing transportation opportunities to the poor and the disabled. It goes hand-in-hand with pedestrian-friendly business and residential districts. It provides us with a venue for becoming familiar with our neighbors, if only because we see the same faces day in and day out. It decreases congestion, pollution and wear-and-tear on our streets. And, as in Roseto, public transportation can even enhance our physical health – a notion further supported by the weight lost by commuters in Charlotte, N.C., who switched from their cars to a new rail line.
During his address, Mr. Gladwell asked his audience to think about what it would be like to be billionaires. With access to every private good conceivable, what more would we want? His answer? Plenty… of public goods. We’d still want clean air to breathe, safe water to drink, adequate protection from disaster or crime, less time spent in traffic and more time spent at home with our families. In other words, he suggests that we’d want more of the sorts of things the good citizens of Roseto valued … and the sorts of things that, judging by the evidence, did their hearts good.
The question then becomes, how strong a link do you see between the public good and your own personal well-being, and how are you willing to invest in that link?
Those of us who had the chance to hear Gladwell speak at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Public Transportation Association certainly see the connection. Delivering the keynote address for the October 3-6 event, the bestselling author of The Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers: The Story of Success brought a unique and powerful perspective on public transportation to the table – and made his most compelling points though the story of Roseto, PA.
As Gladwell explained, Roseto was settled in the late 19th century by immigrants from Italy and, for decades, thrived economically and socially as close-knit Italian-American community. A chance conversation among area physicians in the late 1950’s led to the discovery that the town experienced extremely low rates of heart disease as compared to surrounding communities. An academic study comparing Roseto with neighboring towns found that the key factor in keeping residents healthy was not diet, exercise, low tobacco use or genetics. Instead, it credited community cohesion and civic-mindedness with the community’s heart strength.
Isolated during its beginnings from older, surrounding communities by anti-immigrant discrimination, Roseto developed a community strongly focused on familial loyalty, civic institutions and social equality. Roseto’s citizens disapproved of overt displays of wealth and status, participated in social clubs, revered their elders and observed rituals and traditions. It was noted that they often went out on walks in the town, patronized local businesses and ate meals with extended family and friends. In other words, Roseto treasured communal life and public resources. The study’s authors state that “the community was their base of operations and each inhabitant felt a responsibility for its welfare and quality.”
Having first studied the town in 1960, the study’s authors returned in 1985 to re-examine heart disease rates and attitudes toward community. They found that younger generations had moved from the town center to suburban areas, walked less, drove more, and stopped going to church as much. They patronized large supermarkets rather than neighborhood groceries, placed their elderly parents in nursing homes instead of their own, and more earnestly pursued material wealth.
Did this communal change of heart have an impact on the residents’ hearts? Apparently, yes. During the same timeframe, rates of heart disease, hypertension and deaths from heart attacks rose to close the gap between Roseto and surrounding areas. The study authors attributed this to the social change in the community. As Roseto lost its unique sense of communal life, it also lost its uniquely high level of public health.
What does this have to do with public transportation? Think about the makings of a close-knit community like Roseto. Members of the older generations had abundant opportunities to develop relationships with one another. They walked more than they drove, so they apparently had safe places to walk through the town. They came together in clubs and churches, so there must have been plentiful public space available for those types of activities. Businesses were small and locally owned, meaning that customers routinely interacted both with owners and fellow patrons.
Now think about what public transportation is, and what it can achieve. It is a public good in which the entire community invests and which all are entitled to use. It is a resource that can enable us to forgo the expense of private car ownership and feel secure in our ability get to where we need to go. It enhances social equality by providing transportation opportunities to the poor and the disabled. It goes hand-in-hand with pedestrian-friendly business and residential districts. It provides us with a venue for becoming familiar with our neighbors, if only because we see the same faces day in and day out. It decreases congestion, pollution and wear-and-tear on our streets. And, as in Roseto, public transportation can even enhance our physical health – a notion further supported by the weight lost by commuters in Charlotte, N.C., who switched from their cars to a new rail line.
During his address, Mr. Gladwell asked his audience to think about what it would be like to be billionaires. With access to every private good conceivable, what more would we want? His answer? Plenty… of public goods. We’d still want clean air to breathe, safe water to drink, adequate protection from disaster or crime, less time spent in traffic and more time spent at home with our families. In other words, he suggests that we’d want more of the sorts of things the good citizens of Roseto valued … and the sorts of things that, judging by the evidence, did their hearts good.
The question then becomes, how strong a link do you see between the public good and your own personal well-being, and how are you willing to invest in that link?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
A Transit User With A Choice
By Christy Campoll, Program Liaison
I joined CIRTA as its Program Liaison in June. As an employee, I can choose either a free monthly parking garage permit or a free monthly IndyGo pass. When I started at CIRTA, in order to economize, my husband (who works on the east side of Indianapolis) and I commuted together in our pick-up truck and utilized the parking permit. We were temporarily residing in Danville (Hendricks County) during my first two months on the job and travelled a 40-mile round-trip to and from Indianapolis. My household’s options for transportation include:
-- the pick-up truck, which has about 65,000 miles and gets 20 mpg;
-- my husband’s motorcycle, which I am too chicken to ride;
-- several bicycles; and
-- an old broke-down Toyota Echo that got over 40 mpg and probably will again if we ever get around to fixing it.
The only good thing I have to say about losing two hours of our lives each day to that drive is that we became more informed about current events, listening to hours of news on the radio. When I started working for CIRTA, we began to look for a house to buy. We placed high priority on finding a home in closer proximity to our jobs, preferably on a bus line or within walking/bicycling distance. We found a house on the east side with a stop for IndyGo’s downtown-bound Route 10 within steps of the end of the driveway. Even better, we are only two miles from my husband’s place of employment. I now ride the bus and my husband cycles to work.
The change in our commutes has improved the quality of our lives in several ways. Riding the bus saves me ten miles of driving each day – that’s a gallon of gasoline every other day. I also avoid the likelihood of experiencing a vehicle collision in congested rush-hour traffic. We’ve already had one crash during my husband’s morning commute from Danville earlier this year – hence the broke-down Toyota sitting in our garage. While I don’t save any time by riding the bus instead of driving, I do save myself a lot of stress. When I started commuting on IndyGo, I noticed that I felt much more relaxed when I arrived at the office in the morning and especially when I got home at night. Personally, I find that more rewarding than the financial and safety benefits. One other benefit that came as a pleasant surprise was getting to know a few of my neighbors by interacting them daily on the bus. I sometimes eat lunch with a fellow Route 10 rider who works two blocks from my building. As for my husband, he has enjoyed having more free time with a pared-down 15-minute commute that gives him a daily cardiovascular workout. Between the two of us, we save 68 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per week by bicycling and using transit.
Riding the bus and adopting a lifestyle that is more independent of our car has spurred me to think critically about the transportation system and other city infrastructure. While I am pleased enough with IndyGo to continue to using it, I understand why so many other commuters stick with their cars. Common complaints that even I utter myself at one time or another include:
-- routes that run as infrequently as once per hour;
-- the need to transfer to get most places that are not downtown, necessitating additional fares and more waiting at stops;
-- operating hours that don’t accommodate non-traditional work shifts or later-evening activities;
-- stops with inebriated, overly sociable individuals or bad smells; or
-- lack of shelters, seating or even sidewalks at stops. My stop is simply a sign stuck into a patch of weeds and grass.
I’m glad that the Indy Connect transportation initiative is addressing the quality and efficiency of our local public transit system. Unlike me, most mass transit users in the Indy metro area today do not have a choice between driving and riding the bus. They are likely unable to afford to own or insure a vehicle, are elderly, or have a disability that makes them unable to drive. Most commuters who do have a choice will choose transit only if our system is made more convenient, efficient and attractive. It will cost taxpayer dollars to make these improvements, but the returns will pay us back in the form of a less congested, less polluted region that attracts jobs and high-quality development.
What do you think it will take to get more commuters to leave their cars at home and choose transit? Your comments are appreciated both here and at the Indy Connect comment page, where you can make suggestions for transit system improvements and fill out brief questionnaires about your transportation preferences.
I joined CIRTA as its Program Liaison in June. As an employee, I can choose either a free monthly parking garage permit or a free monthly IndyGo pass. When I started at CIRTA, in order to economize, my husband (who works on the east side of Indianapolis) and I commuted together in our pick-up truck and utilized the parking permit. We were temporarily residing in Danville (Hendricks County) during my first two months on the job and travelled a 40-mile round-trip to and from Indianapolis. My household’s options for transportation include:
-- the pick-up truck, which has about 65,000 miles and gets 20 mpg;
-- my husband’s motorcycle, which I am too chicken to ride;
-- several bicycles; and
-- an old broke-down Toyota Echo that got over 40 mpg and probably will again if we ever get around to fixing it.
The only good thing I have to say about losing two hours of our lives each day to that drive is that we became more informed about current events, listening to hours of news on the radio. When I started working for CIRTA, we began to look for a house to buy. We placed high priority on finding a home in closer proximity to our jobs, preferably on a bus line or within walking/bicycling distance. We found a house on the east side with a stop for IndyGo’s downtown-bound Route 10 within steps of the end of the driveway. Even better, we are only two miles from my husband’s place of employment. I now ride the bus and my husband cycles to work.
The change in our commutes has improved the quality of our lives in several ways. Riding the bus saves me ten miles of driving each day – that’s a gallon of gasoline every other day. I also avoid the likelihood of experiencing a vehicle collision in congested rush-hour traffic. We’ve already had one crash during my husband’s morning commute from Danville earlier this year – hence the broke-down Toyota sitting in our garage. While I don’t save any time by riding the bus instead of driving, I do save myself a lot of stress. When I started commuting on IndyGo, I noticed that I felt much more relaxed when I arrived at the office in the morning and especially when I got home at night. Personally, I find that more rewarding than the financial and safety benefits. One other benefit that came as a pleasant surprise was getting to know a few of my neighbors by interacting them daily on the bus. I sometimes eat lunch with a fellow Route 10 rider who works two blocks from my building. As for my husband, he has enjoyed having more free time with a pared-down 15-minute commute that gives him a daily cardiovascular workout. Between the two of us, we save 68 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per week by bicycling and using transit.
Riding the bus and adopting a lifestyle that is more independent of our car has spurred me to think critically about the transportation system and other city infrastructure. While I am pleased enough with IndyGo to continue to using it, I understand why so many other commuters stick with their cars. Common complaints that even I utter myself at one time or another include:
-- routes that run as infrequently as once per hour;
-- the need to transfer to get most places that are not downtown, necessitating additional fares and more waiting at stops;
-- operating hours that don’t accommodate non-traditional work shifts or later-evening activities;
-- stops with inebriated, overly sociable individuals or bad smells; or
-- lack of shelters, seating or even sidewalks at stops. My stop is simply a sign stuck into a patch of weeds and grass.
I’m glad that the Indy Connect transportation initiative is addressing the quality and efficiency of our local public transit system. Unlike me, most mass transit users in the Indy metro area today do not have a choice between driving and riding the bus. They are likely unable to afford to own or insure a vehicle, are elderly, or have a disability that makes them unable to drive. Most commuters who do have a choice will choose transit only if our system is made more convenient, efficient and attractive. It will cost taxpayer dollars to make these improvements, but the returns will pay us back in the form of a less congested, less polluted region that attracts jobs and high-quality development.
What do you think it will take to get more commuters to leave their cars at home and choose transit? Your comments are appreciated both here and at the Indy Connect comment page, where you can make suggestions for transit system improvements and fill out brief questionnaires about your transportation preferences.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Transportation funding: doing more with less
Last week, the General Assembly Commission on State Tax and Financing Policy took up the issue of transportation funding during its second meeting. During this summer and fall, the interim Commission is examining a roster of financial issues including transportation, county income tax, fire protection territories, tax credits for school foundation contributions and others. Chairperson Scott Pelath stated in a press release about the Commission that “We will come to grips with dissipating sources of road dollars, establish realistic levels for state and local road funding, and scrutinize our infrastructure priorities.”
The meeting’s transportation session began with a presentation by the Purdue Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) that mapped the complex state transportation financing structure. We also heard from INDOT on the status of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-funded transportation projects. Stimulus monies have funded 1,087 transportation projects around the state, ranging from road resurfacing to bridge repair to transit vehicle upgrades. Indiana’s ARRA projects have a completion deadline of February 17, 2012.
For the rest of the session, local public officials, citizens and interest group representatives made comments before the Commission. Just about all of the comments concerned the scarcity of transportation funding. City and town managers spoke of the hardships they face in funding local road maintenance. Several comments referenced the LTAP 2008 Statewide Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report, which reports that 21.6 percent of the state’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Some relayed concerns about the expense of constructing Interstate 69 in the southwest region of the state. Another issue that came up was vehicle fuel efficiency. Improvements in fuel efficiency (along with other factors such as the economic downturn) are decreasing the amount of gasoline sold, leading to a reduction in the gasoline tax revenues that fund much of the nation’s transportation programs.
Though the session’s main theme was the shortage of funds for meeting our transportation needs, the dialogue focused on lack of money – there was no discussion how we can reduce those needs to begin with. We are rightfully concerned about meeting the demand for transportation infrastructure. But what if we could reduce that demand? Transportation demand management is the process by which we change travel behavior (how, when and where people travel) in order to increase transportation system efficiency. Using transportation demand management strategies, we can do more with less. For example, we can reduce the number of vehicles on the road by increasing carpooling to work through incentives such as HOV lanes or preferential parking and resources like online carpooler matching databases. If we improve bus service and rail options, maybe we can divert enough traffic from the roads to reduce the expense of continually repairing and expanding highways like I-465. Another strategy is to employ transit-oriented development principles in constructing or redeveloping our neighborhoods and urban corridors.
There are dozens of other transportation demand management strategies to consider as governments plan for a future of increasing mobility needs and fewer funds to meet those needs. Which of these measures would work in your community? What are the best alternatives to making more and more room on the roads for single-occupancy vehicles?
The meeting’s transportation session began with a presentation by the Purdue Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) that mapped the complex state transportation financing structure. We also heard from INDOT on the status of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-funded transportation projects. Stimulus monies have funded 1,087 transportation projects around the state, ranging from road resurfacing to bridge repair to transit vehicle upgrades. Indiana’s ARRA projects have a completion deadline of February 17, 2012.
For the rest of the session, local public officials, citizens and interest group representatives made comments before the Commission. Just about all of the comments concerned the scarcity of transportation funding. City and town managers spoke of the hardships they face in funding local road maintenance. Several comments referenced the LTAP 2008 Statewide Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report, which reports that 21.6 percent of the state’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Some relayed concerns about the expense of constructing Interstate 69 in the southwest region of the state. Another issue that came up was vehicle fuel efficiency. Improvements in fuel efficiency (along with other factors such as the economic downturn) are decreasing the amount of gasoline sold, leading to a reduction in the gasoline tax revenues that fund much of the nation’s transportation programs.
Though the session’s main theme was the shortage of funds for meeting our transportation needs, the dialogue focused on lack of money – there was no discussion how we can reduce those needs to begin with. We are rightfully concerned about meeting the demand for transportation infrastructure. But what if we could reduce that demand? Transportation demand management is the process by which we change travel behavior (how, when and where people travel) in order to increase transportation system efficiency. Using transportation demand management strategies, we can do more with less. For example, we can reduce the number of vehicles on the road by increasing carpooling to work through incentives such as HOV lanes or preferential parking and resources like online carpooler matching databases. If we improve bus service and rail options, maybe we can divert enough traffic from the roads to reduce the expense of continually repairing and expanding highways like I-465. Another strategy is to employ transit-oriented development principles in constructing or redeveloping our neighborhoods and urban corridors.
There are dozens of other transportation demand management strategies to consider as governments plan for a future of increasing mobility needs and fewer funds to meet those needs. Which of these measures would work in your community? What are the best alternatives to making more and more room on the roads for single-occupancy vehicles?
Friday, September 17, 2010
Central Indiana Commuter Services
The following is a message from our friends at Central Indiana Commuter Services! Check out their options for reducing the cost of your commute. BTW - that cost doesn't just involve money, but stress and pollution, too. You can read some firsthand stories about the benefits of using an alternative to driving alone to work at the Commuter Profiles section of the CIRTA website.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Transit and wellness
Lately, a lot of items in mass transit news have had a common theme: “transportation and wellness.” For example:
So what does all of this mean for Indiana, a state with an underdeveloped transit system? Well, we rank 20th in overweight/obesity and 15th for vehicle miles per-capita. Which raises the question: As we discuss the economic and environmental benefits of transit, should we be working harder to make the case based on the health benefits of transit? Or would that be, um, biting off more than we can chew?
- While doing research on commuting, we discovered the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, a project that surveys more than 1,000 U.S. adults per day and assigns them a well-being score based on six sub-indexes: life evaluation, emotional health, physical health, work environment, healthy behaviors and access to basic necessities. (On a 1-100 point index, with 100 being a state of maximum well-being, the overall score for the survey population was 49.6 in July 2010.) In August, the index published data regarding commute times. The results? People with the longest commutes scored the lowest on the Well-Being Index, and those with the shortest commute times (0-10 minutes) had less back pain and lower cholesterol, and they weighed less. Long commutes also take an emotional toll, according to the findings: “Among employees who take more than 90 minutes getting from home to work, 40% experienced worry for much of the previous day – significantly higher than the 28% among those with negligible commutes of 10 minutes or less,” the report said. “Conversely, workers with extremely long commutes were less likely to have experienced enjoyment for much of the previous day or to say they felt well-rested that day.”
- As we prepared a report the other day, we took a look at the state-by-state totals of vehicle-miles driven per-capita. The list seemed remarkably similar to something else we had recently seen, so we checked and, sure enough, the states with the most vehicle miles also rank high on the state rankings for obesity. In fact, many of the states rankest highest for resident with a body mass index over 25 are the states with the highest per-person miles driven. Four states occupy the Top 10 list for each. Of course, it works the other way, too: New York, Hawaii and the District of Columbia rank at the bottom of the list for both weight and VMT.
- A report released last month by the American Public Transportation Association confirms what we could suspect from the report mentioned above: People living near public transportation drive less, exercise more, live longer and generally are healthier than those living in places with inadequate transit. Considering factors ranging from air pollution, vehicle accidents, walking to and from transit stops and consumer cost savings, the report examines and attempts to quantify the different health impacts of transit use.
- Another recent study demonstrates health benefits – including weight loss – of using transit with an analysis of the public health effects of a new rail line. When the nine-mile Lynx South Corridor Light Rail line opened in Charlotte, N.C., a group of physicians started tracking the weight and exercise habits of people living nearby. Collecting data before and after construction of the line, the physicians found that users of the rail line had lost an average of 6-7 pounds just eight months after construction.
So what does all of this mean for Indiana, a state with an underdeveloped transit system? Well, we rank 20th in overweight/obesity and 15th for vehicle miles per-capita. Which raises the question: As we discuss the economic and environmental benefits of transit, should we be working harder to make the case based on the health benefits of transit? Or would that be, um, biting off more than we can chew?
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Why do we have to choose?
by Ehren T. Bingaman, Executive Director
An investment in transit isn’t in lieu of investment in roads. Lots of people think it’s a choice – that we should do one or the other. Take for example the intersection of I-69 and I-465 in the northeast corridor of Central Indiana. Transit advocates will ask me why we can’t just put a rail line in that corridor rather than adding more lanes up to exit 5. The reality is transit wouldn’t be able to serve all the pent up demand in that corridor. On the other hand, adding lanes won’t meet the demand on the corridor during peak congestion (AM and PM commutes) on its own either.
Rail transit works best as a release valve for high demand corridors. It takes less time and money to add a train set in a high volume corridor than it does to add more lanes.
Busses and roads help each other in a different way. First of all, busses love good roads – so do bus riders! Second, busses take cars off of the road. Fewer cars on the road, aside from the positive environmental impacts, create two other opportunities: safety and movement. By reducing the number of cars on the road we make automobile travel safer. By reducing cars on the road we also make car and truck (big trucks, shipping) more efficient.
There’s a fine point to this because it boils down to money. I’ll write more about national transportation funding another time, for now let’s keep if focused on Indiana. Major Moves is the landmark road construction project of our state’s history. All of that money, all of it, will go to build roads and highways.
That’s great. That money is for roads. Leave it there.
Where’s our Major Moves for transit? Traditional road and highway folks agree, our infrastructure needs are great and the pot should be larger for investment in all modes of transportation. We shouldn’t be looking back, we should be looking forward. The next wave of Indiana’s transportation infrastructure construction needs to get focused on diversification. The highway guys have gotten theirs. And judging by their strategic plan the road people agree, it’s time for transit to get its do.
The pattern of choosing one investment strategy over another, when we need more of both, is a losing strategy.
“INCREASE MOBILITY BY ENCOURAGING MULTIMODAL AND INTERMODAL SOLUTIONS, POLICIES, AND TECHNOLOGIES - AASHTO will collaborate with shippers and carriers, relevant associations, and additional partners to develop funding and policy initiatives that help state DOTs (departments of transportation) improve multimodal and intermodal passenger and freight mobility.”Even the highway guys get it. AASHTO is the voice of the highway construction industry in the United States.
-American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Strategic Plan, 2009-2013
An investment in transit isn’t in lieu of investment in roads. Lots of people think it’s a choice – that we should do one or the other. Take for example the intersection of I-69 and I-465 in the northeast corridor of Central Indiana. Transit advocates will ask me why we can’t just put a rail line in that corridor rather than adding more lanes up to exit 5. The reality is transit wouldn’t be able to serve all the pent up demand in that corridor. On the other hand, adding lanes won’t meet the demand on the corridor during peak congestion (AM and PM commutes) on its own either.
Rail transit works best as a release valve for high demand corridors. It takes less time and money to add a train set in a high volume corridor than it does to add more lanes.
Busses and roads help each other in a different way. First of all, busses love good roads – so do bus riders! Second, busses take cars off of the road. Fewer cars on the road, aside from the positive environmental impacts, create two other opportunities: safety and movement. By reducing the number of cars on the road we make automobile travel safer. By reducing cars on the road we also make car and truck (big trucks, shipping) more efficient.
There’s a fine point to this because it boils down to money. I’ll write more about national transportation funding another time, for now let’s keep if focused on Indiana. Major Moves is the landmark road construction project of our state’s history. All of that money, all of it, will go to build roads and highways.
That’s great. That money is for roads. Leave it there.
Where’s our Major Moves for transit? Traditional road and highway folks agree, our infrastructure needs are great and the pot should be larger for investment in all modes of transportation. We shouldn’t be looking back, we should be looking forward. The next wave of Indiana’s transportation infrastructure construction needs to get focused on diversification. The highway guys have gotten theirs. And judging by their strategic plan the road people agree, it’s time for transit to get its do.
The pattern of choosing one investment strategy over another, when we need more of both, is a losing strategy.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Distracted driving
A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that 27% of all American adults say they have sent or read text messages while driving. That compares with 26% of all American teens ages 16-17 who reported texting at the wheel in 2009. 49% of adults say they have been passengers in a car when the driver was sending or reading text messages on their cell phone. 75% of adults who use cell phones report talking on the phone while driving.
Overall, 44% of adults say they have been passengers of drivers who used the cell phone in a way that put themselves or others in danger. The relationship between cell phone use and distracted driving has been documented by researchers. A University of Utah study found that using a cell phone while driving, whether it’s hand-held or hands-free, delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent. Perhaps more unsettling is that while some of the study’s participants crashed their virtual vehicles while using a cell phone, none of them crashed while drunk.
Many of us rely on frequent, if not constant, access to cell phones, text messaging and email in our work, family and social lives. This aspect of modern life does not mix well with dependence on the single-occupant vehicle to get around. Increasing the availability of alternatives to driving is one way to make our technology-dependent lives safer. What are your thoughts about mobile phone use, driving and mass transit?
Overall, 44% of adults say they have been passengers of drivers who used the cell phone in a way that put themselves or others in danger. The relationship between cell phone use and distracted driving has been documented by researchers. A University of Utah study found that using a cell phone while driving, whether it’s hand-held or hands-free, delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent. Perhaps more unsettling is that while some of the study’s participants crashed their virtual vehicles while using a cell phone, none of them crashed while drunk.
Many of us rely on frequent, if not constant, access to cell phones, text messaging and email in our work, family and social lives. This aspect of modern life does not mix well with dependence on the single-occupant vehicle to get around. Increasing the availability of alternatives to driving is one way to make our technology-dependent lives safer. What are your thoughts about mobile phone use, driving and mass transit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)