Volume 3, Issue 2 Fall 2010

Young Professionals in TransPorTaTionhttp://ypt.transportation.org

Dear Members of YPT:

Following the election of the new Board of Directors for 2010-2011 that was held on October 20th, I stepped down as Chair of Young Professionals in Transportation.  I would like to use this column to simply say “Thank you.”  What has started out as a hazy concept in the back of my mind as a side project in late 2007 has blossomed into a 1,000-strong network of transporta-tion professionals from all around the country, thanks to the tremendous support from you, our members, and the rest of the industry.  With our latest milestone--getting new regional chapters established in Austin and Boston--I feel that it’s time for a new set of leaders to craft their vision of YPT moving forward.

As you may know, all along, the main motivation behind the group has been to bring all the young, bright, and energetic peers in our generation to come together beyond our respective organizational silos to not only meet each other, but also to collectively build the foundation for carrying the transportation industry forward as we become leaders ourselves.  While this remains the primary mission of YPT, some of the most rewarding experi-ence for me in the last three years has been making personal connections with so many of you who just love be-ing in transportation and seeing your work not simply as tasks to be done, but as living your passion.  I’m sure many of you can relate when you’re at a social event and people ask “so, what exactly do you do again?”  Well, YPT is

the one place that will always understand exactly what you do and help you find new oppor-tunities as too.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t recognize the tireless work of our all-volunteer Board of Directors.  Every single member of the Board from inception to today deserves a huge thanks for giving their time and energy to an unproven, nascent entity and making it what it is today. You guys are the best.

With that, I look forward to continuing our careers together, and see you around at a future YPT event!

Cheers, Joung Lee joung.lee@gmail.com

In thIs Issue:

• LetterfromtheChairman........................1

• 1,000thMemberoftheYoungProfessionalsinTransportation................2

• BenchmarkingtheWorld’sBusSystems...................2

• TheNeedforRegionalFreightTransportationPlanning.........................3

• TheRoadtoHighwayReauthorization..............5

• WhyisTransportationDemandManagement(TDM)theBestInvestmentforPublicHealth?...........7

• BoardofDirectorsandAdvisors........................11

• YPTPhotoAlbum.........12

• YPTSponsors................13

2

M obility Matters

Hello YPT Members,

I’m very excited about being the 1,000th member of the Young Professionals in Transportation. After hearing that YPT would be establishing a Boston chapter, I felt it would be a great opportunity for me to network with peers, not only within engineering but throughout the entire realm of the transportation industry. I’m looking forward to getting involved and meeting new faces.

Growing up, I always thought of myself as a problem solver and as I entered college, I that I wanted to be an engineer. After my first semester, I quickly developed an interest in civil engineering. My academic courses and internships helped set the foundation I needed to start my career in the transportation industry.

I earned my Bachelor’s of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Miami, Florida in 2003. Since graduating college, I have been working as a civil

engineering consultant in the Boston area. I work for HDR, which provides both engineering and architectural consulting services to markets nationally and internationally. In my 3 ½ years with HDR, I have been involved in a variety of different projects. Most of my work has consisted of urban roadway design in the Boston metro area. I have also worked on projects around the New England and East Coast region that have involved site development designs, highway designs, water pipe lines, and planning studies. I really enjoy my work in urban design because I like the idea of improving a neighborhood by making a street better for all modes of transportation. I also enjoy challenging myself with new projects and work experi-ences that I wouldn’t normally do, and HDR gives me the ability to explore those opportunities.

Sincerely, Jay Carroll

1,000th MeMber of the Young Professionals in transPortation

benchMarking the World’s bus sYsteMs

From 2005 to 2007, Eric Randall worked at Imperial College Lon-don, benchmarking some of the world’s major bus systems. This is his story….

In 2004, during a visit to Eng-land, a friend suggested I stop by Imperial College London and talk to a group there doing public transportation benchmarking. I had recently left Booz Allen Ham-

ilton, and was weighing various options for the next step in my career. While I had not considered working overseas, fortune smiled, and I walked into one of the greatest experi-ences of my life.

As background for readers, Imperial College London is regarded as the leading technical university of the United Kingdom. It is located in South Kensington, surrounded by several museums, the Royal Albert Hall, and just down the road from Harrods. Within the civil engineering depart-ment, the Centre for Transport Studies coordinates several

specialized research programs, including the work of the Railway and Transport Strategy Centre, or RTSC ( http://www.rtsc.org.uk/)

One of the core activities of the RTSC is its facilitation and management of three programs of international public transport benchmarking: the CoMET and Nova metro benchmarking groups and the International Bus Bench-marking Group. The RTSC carries out the proprietary re-search for each group, collecting confidential annual perfor-mance data, using benchmarking to identify best practice, and conducting in-depth case studies on topics chosen by the members. All of the work is funded by the members, who meet twice annually at one of the members’ locations to set the research agenda and discuss results.

CoMET, founded in 1994, is now a consortium of twelve of the world’s largest metros, including Beijing, Berlin, Hong Kong, London, New York, Paris, and others. Nova, founded in 1998, is made up of a consortium of fifteen small and me-dium sized metro systems from around the world, including Lisbon, Milan, Montréal, and Singapore. Finally, the Inter-national Bus Benchmarking Group, founded in 2004, now ▶

3

M obility Matters

comprises thirteen large and medium bus organizations, including those of Barcelona, Brussels, Dublin, London, New York, Paris, and Sydney.

I visited the RTSC just following the kick-off meeting of the Bus Group, and my experience fit perfectly with their needs as they looked to establish the group on a permanent basis; I knew a lot about bus systems, from my time at Booz Allen and two years at DASH, the Alexandria, VA bus system and - best of all - I was ready to move to London and start work-ing!

As the lead research and facilitator of the Bus Benchmarking group, I was immediately involved in the development of a performance measurement system to cover all the mem-bers. Unlike the States, where a considerable amount of data is collected by the FTA’s National Transit Database and can be used to assess comparative performance, no such com-parable database exists internationally. In fact, this has been one of the key reasons for the international benchmarking

groups, as many of these metro and bus systems have no comparable system within their own nation against which to judge themselves. Accordingly, a detailed performance measurement system was introduced for the bus group, covering the six success dimensions of growth & learning, internal productivity, customer, financial, safety, and envi-ronmental. Beyond the development of performance indica-tors and defining necessary data items, we also started in-depth case studies in driver productivity and service quality. In the latter area particularly, the European systems are very strong given regulatory requirements to meet customer sat-isfaction goals. The first year of the bus benchmarking effort concluded with these studies, and one of my colleagues and I were able to present some limited results on these studies at a UITP Bus Conference in Bogota.

Meanwhile, I found London and all of Europe very enjoyable, traveling to various cities for both work and pleasure. The funding and attention given to public transport is naturally much greater, given its importance to travelers and the economy. Seeing all these different systems and the mul-tiple approaches taken to meeting the same customer or operational need in public transportation was eye-opening. However, after two-plus years at the RTSC I had to draw my stay to a close, though I have been able to participate in a few subsequent studies and meetings. The Bus Benchmark-ing Group continues, and my colleagues Mark Trompet and Rich Anderson continue to advance international public transport benchmarking at the RTSC.

Meanwhile, I recently joined Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments as a Senior Transportation Engineer. My responsibilities include facilitation of the Regional Bus Subcommittee and management of the $58 million TIGER grant awarded for Implementing Priority Bus in the National Capital Region. My international experience provides excep-tionally useful background as I plan on how we can improve bus transit in this region.

▶

the need for regional freight transPortation Planning

by Kipp Snow

Do We Really Plan For Freight Transportation?

The states in the Mid-Atlantic Region are individually suc-cessfully focused on freight transportation in their own districts. Maryland maintains a Statewide Freight Plan (1) to manage the various modes of transportation. The Maryland Department of Transportation’s (MDOT) Office of

Freight and Multimodalism manages this process for the state, directing programs and services that support freight logistics. This all encompassing plan addresses the state’s system and strategy of supporting the area’s freight require-ments. Metrics are recorded in the plan for understanding history and future demand on the infrastructure. The plan also outlines future development requirements, program development and the steps for implementation and project action. Virginia has also recently completed a freight study in 2009 in conjunction with its Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan, Trans2035 (2). Delaware addresses its needs in its report “Delaware Freight & Goods Movement

4

M obility Matters

Plan” (3). The District of Columbia (4) even has its own Na-tional Capital Region Freight Plan 2010 to address its needs regarding the movement of freight. Each state understands the importance of the impact of freight movement and each plan addresses many of the freight transportation initia-tives by transportation departments that are conscious of today’s transportation needs, including safety, infrastructure updates, environmental sustainability, economic well being, and operational efficiency. Similar to what some states are doing to combine efforts to build on passenger high speed rail in regions, our Mid-Atlantic States must join together to build a regional freight plan.

One of the main importances of this region is access to all modes of transportation as outlined in these respective plans. The Mid-Atlantic Region is a true Intermodal transpor-tation model. From a maritime perspective, we have strong ports in Baltimore, Wilmington DE, and in Norfolk region in VA with supporting inland and river ports spread through-out the states. From an air cargo perspective, there are major air cargo airports at Dulles International Airport, Baltimore Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport, with support from Ronald Reagan National and Richmond Inter-national Airport. There are many other regional airports that support smaller cargo operations. From a rail perspective, CSX and Norfolk Southern both have freight operations in the region, supporting intermodal activities. From a highway infrastructure perspective, there are many interstate and na-tional highway systems that are used for transporting cargo. Heading north and south we have I-83, I-95, I-81 and east and west we have I-70, I-66, and I-64. On the Eastern shore the major arteries includeUS 50/301 and US 13.

There is an extensive wholesale trade, manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution infrastructure that exist in the region that use the region’s transportation resources. Many businesses operate in and around the port waterway areas and within local distance of the airports to utilize these key infrastructures to deliver and receive goods. Some of

these transactions are state-transborder related, where a firm takes advantage of local resources in one state, but transports the finished product to another state for long distance movement. Deciding on where and how to manu-facture goods based on transportation and product flow is a key supply chain decision that firms must decide is best for optimal operation. The Mid-Atlantic region offers opportuni-ties for firms to optimize these supply chain decisions and provides the infrastructure for movement of their goods to their destinations.

So Why Should We Have A Regional Freight Plan?

Maryland and Virginia are pass-through states for freight highway traffic between the northeast corridor, the south-east, and the Midwest. These highway routes not only link the regions together, but provide a framework for freight movement domestically originating or terminating at the region’s seaports, airports, and rail yards. One of the main concerns of pass-through freight is the use of these high-ways by non-local entities. The local tax base is being used to maintain roads used by those outside the region. Tolls are a partial solution, but the local tax base cannot support all of the requirements for the infrastructure management.

With the current expansion of the Panama Canal and the allowance of larger cargo ships to pass through, our ports need to be ready to accept the new size ships in the vari-ous ports. In order to compete with other rail industries, our infrastructure must be optimized and updated to handle double stack containers to take advantage of economies of scale. Better planning and management must be used to offset congestion in the region by using alternate paths of transportation. This includes taking a look at possibly trans-porting goods via rail or barge around know local bottle-necks to reduce costs and delivery time. In all industries, the need to address an aging infrastructure needs to be brought to the forefront of regional transportation discussions and planning.

The rail and highway industries support the maritime freight to provide a land delivery solution for containerized ship-ments. This intermodal solution is imperative to the success of freight transportation for many supply chains, where the different entities must work collaboratively to provide solu-tions to customers. This becomes a challenge as they not only have to manage solutions for their own customers, but work with industry partners to provide solutions for indirect customers. In the air cargo industry, there is a desire for continued support of the expedited/time sensitive products, but dealing with rising costs, security, and increased lane congestion makes this difficult. ▶

5

M obility Matters

So How Does This Regional Plan Work?

This collective regional plan will take work to be successful. Participation in the planning should come from both the government and private sectors. Participants from the fol-lowing groups are key for the plan’s success: local and state governments, heads of transportation and logistics firms, key supply chain management from manufacturers and distributors, and educators from higher education transpor-tation programs.

The individual state’s plans can be used as a foot-print for a regional plan. By taking the statistics from each state and providing each state’s plans for economic growth, infrastructure management, and operational management in

the plan, the region can leverage against other states for legislation for and money to support regional transporta-tion activities. The individual states can use the regional plan to build up local and state projects that can be beneficial region wide. With the support and feedback of the private sector, the region can really focus on the needs of the major

firms utilizing the infrastructure that would be addressed in the plan. What better way to utilize funding in the areas best needed if it is communicated directly from the firms that use that infrastructure? The educational theater that provides the training to transportation workers can use the informa-tion from the region’s plan and build educational programs that support regional initiatives. If the private sector is focused on a particular initiative, the governmental entities can assist in the promotion of legislation and funding, and the educational arena can train the workers towards that initiative. This becomes a successful roadmap for promoting and executing transportation initiatives under a proposed regional freight transportation plan.

Kipp Snow Instructional Specialist – Anne Arundel Community College 101 College Parkway CRSC 345 Arnold, Maryland 21012 410-777-2923 kcsnow@aacc.edu

References

(1) http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/OFL/StatewideFreightPlan.pdf

(2) http://www.vtrans.org/statewide_freight_study.asp

(3) http://www.deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/freight_plan/pdf/executive_summary.pdf

(4) http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/bV5Y-W19a20100721135007.pdf

▶

the road to highWaY reauthorization

by Jason Statler, American Highway Users Alliance

With the 2012 election season steadily approaching, cries of “Washington is broken” and “Politics as usual” can be heard across the country. We have all seen these reactions from voters and candidates alike. In fact, those in the transporta-tion community have been trying to navigate the treacher-ous waters for a long time. They have witnessed the new highway bill fall victim to partisan impasse time and time again. As transportation professionals, you are undoubtedly aware of just how important this reauthorization is to our struggling economy and crumbling infrastructure. Better surface transportation infrastructure is crucial to a robust, growing economy and the ability to compete successfully in today’s global marketplace. This ability is essential to meeting key national priorities – growing private sector jobs, reducing the deficit and national debt, and keeping

jobs in America. The American Highway Users Alliance (The Highway Users) has taken an active role in ensuring the next highway reauthorization continues to support infrastructure improvements that meet national needs and achieve broad objectives that benefit the safety and mobility of all Ameri-cans.

We believe investment in our nation’s highways pays signifi-cant dividends in the form of economic and employment growth. In today’s economic climate, Washington is consist-ently looking for ways to put Americans back to work. As we have seen, America’s national infrastructure is deteriorating and is not adequate to support a growing population and economy. It is a drag on economic growth and it is making U.S. businesses less competitive in today’s global market-place. Business leaders understand this. They have made it clear that, without proper investment and attention to our infrastructure systems, the nation’s economic stability, potential for job growth, and global competitiveness are at

6

M obility Matters

risk. The highway system provides just the arena for imme-diate economic and job creation benefits America needs. As you already know, highways are the circulatory system for our nation’s “just-in-time-delivery” economy, and federal investments pay off in the form of healthy economic growth and jobs. The Federal Highway Administration reports that U.S. industries, from 1950 through 1989, experienced annual production savings of 18 cents for each dollar invested into the road system. Furthermore, the transportation construc-tion community alone supports more than 3 million jobs, jobs that are vital to struggling families during tough eco-nomic times. Also, America’s trucking sector carries nearly 80% of the value of our nation’s goods. These items are the same deliveries made to schools, grocery stores, and hospi-tals each day. Together, trucks and highways are the life-blood of the national economy. In fact, U.S. highways have accounted for 18 percent of the nation’s productivity gains since 1956. This high level of efficiency lowers the costs for consumers when they buy their products. Without a doubt, our economy depends on a fast, reliable highway network.

Additionally, The Highway Users advocates for smart invest-ment and careful spending with the new surface transporta-tion bill. A focus on congestion reduction will go a long way for strategically adding road capacity while simultaneously ensuring environmental sustainability. Over the past 25 years, the U.S. population has increased by 32 percent, regis-tered vehicles are up by 56 percent and the number of miles Americans drive every year has increased by 97 percent. Yet, during that same time period, new road miles have grown by a scant four percent and lane capacity by only six per-cent. This means more people are driving more cars more miles than ever before on essentially the same deteriorating road network. The result has been nothing short of dismal.

A Texas Transporta-tion Institute (TTI) study found traffic congestion costs the U.S. at least $78 billion annually in wasted time and fuel. Addition-ally, TTI has found that areas which were more active in adding road capacity to respond to increased travel were able to greatly slow the increase of regional traffic congestion. The Highway Users

believe a comprehensive approach to traffic congestion must include targeted expansion of our highway system and improvements to the operation of existing facilities. When smart investment is made and traffic congestion is eased, the motorists and environment both come out winners.

Safety on our nation’s high-way system simply cannot be overlooked either. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that substandard

road conditions and outmoded safety designs contribute to nearly one-third of all traffic fatalities- resulting in some 14,000 deaths annually. In fact, total fatalities on our high-ways hover around 43,000 each year. These deaths, how-ever, are largely preventable with investment in better and safer roads, bridges, and roadsides that significantly reduce the terrible injuries and loss of life on our highways. With dramatic progress having been made in improving both driver behavior and vehicle safety designs, a critical remain-ing element for reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes is making roads, bridges, and roadsides safer. The Highway Users believe the next surface transportation reauthoriza-tion must emphasize proven road improvements which reduce all crashes and fatalities, including those that too often result from drivers’ mistakes.

Naturally, funding is the pivotal aspect of any reauthoriza-tion bill. Fortunately, the highway bill is in a unique position to stand apart in Congress. As President Ronald Reagan said in 1982 amidst 10 percent unemployment, “Good tax policy decrees that, wherever possible, a fee for a service should be assessed against those who directly benefit from that service.” Highway users have lobbied to pay more in federal user fees to cover the costs of the roads they drive on. To this regard, user fees continue to be the backbone of financ-ing for the Highway Trust Fund. Each day, American motor-ists pay a gas tax to fill up their tanks. This gas tax revenue then goes back into the Highway Trust Fund in the form of road and safety improvements. The Highway Users willingly supports an increase in the gas tax in order to get reauthori-zation passed and begin construction on many planned highway capacity and safety projects. As little as a few cents per day can provide all the necessary revenue needed to fully fund our highway system. The Highway Users also believe Public Private Partnerships can, in some cases, be a good deal for the government and motorists. Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are agreements between government ▶

7

M obility Matters

and a private entity to build, maintain, and or operate a new or existing highway facility. These projects often create a new opportunity for highway travel and the government assumes no financial risk if the project fails. However, when PPPs are used to “lease” and privatize existing public road capacity, the deals can be dangerously unfair to existing mo-torists and truckers who are held hostage to substantial toll increases. AASHTO determined that PPP strategies could provide up to 9 percent of needed funding for our highway system. The fuel tax and possibly general funds will still need to be the dominant source of federal highway funds for many years. In some cases, it is reasonable to use tolls and PPPs for newly constructed roads and lanes. But proven consistency of the federal fuel tax provides more transpar-ent solution to financing surface transportation reauthoriza-tion.

As a community, we are at a crossroads. Our highway sys-tem, which was once the envy of the world, has fallen into

decay. We have the option to continue down our current path, neglecting infrastructure until it is too late to reverse the damage already done. Or, we can properly invest in our nation’s highway and infrastructure systems to ensure a prosperous tomorrow. Much like past generations did for us, we have the opportunity to build and maintain a world-class system that promotes American commerce and jobs. The American Highway Users Alliance believes today’s motorists deserve better and tomorrow’s drivers should be afforded the robust investments we were. America’s high-ways are the key to long-term economic growth and jobs for American workers.

Jason Statler is a Senior at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan. His work at the American Highway Users Alliance has been focused on grassroots outreach, strategic planning, and transportation research. He has also recently worked for the American Trucking Associations in Arlington, Virginia and the Commonwealth Foun-dation for Public Policy Alternatives in Harrisuburg, Pennsylvania.

▶

WhY is transPortation deMand ManageMent (tdM) the best investMent for Public health?by Alan Huynh

In the world of transportation, two main components get the most discussion; design and planning. Those two com-ponents often look over the more vital funding and pro-gramming, but thus the nature of the beast. So whenever there is discussion about transportation, the talks always lead back to design and planning. Much like in the world of health the discussion usually turns back to doctors and medicine. If one gets sick they see the doctor. If a street is too congested, they can have design add a lane. If there is a pandemic then a vaccine or drug will be prescribed to fight off the disease. If there is a community problem then planning will prescribe a TOD or transit system. But like in public health, many are trying to lead the discussion back to preventative care rather than keep the status quo fixated on doctors and medicine. Transportation demand manage-ment for lack of a better comparison is the preventative care option for the transportation discussion. Thus in many ways is the most important tool that can leverage transportation to fix America’s public health problem.

C.E.A Winslow defined public health as, “the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society, organizations, public and private, communities and

individuals.” Although, public health has evolved over time, it has only grown in scope and incorporates more sectors and industries.

Before the economic recession, sustainability was the big buzzword. Sustainability, for the most part sense was focused on getting projects and developments to achieve the triple bottom line (equity, environment, and economics).

Early on sustainability was a luxury option, then morphed into necessary requirement for firms that were concerned with their public image. Then as the recession hit some firms re-focused around sustainability while others began to perceive it once again as a luxury op-tion. The Obama administra-tion early on understood the

importance of sustainability and took it to the next level by supporting and creating the HUD, DOT, and EPA Sustain-able Communities Initiative. This led to the new “livability” criteria that many federal departments now employ when ranking and rating projects.

Livability, a term used to describe the synergies found between housing, transportation, and the environment, has finally incorporated sustainability with public health, educa-tion, economics, and continues to continue connecting other sectors that have holistic synergies. What synergies do public health and transportation share?

8

M obility Matters

Public health is presently being discussed at numerous levels and its role in creating livable communities. The country’s public health is not in great shape, which was highlighted during the debates regarding the healthcare bill that was passed earlier in 2010. Many of those arguments revolved around; obesity, preventative care, heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases were constantly highlighted during this time. These conversations led many policy mak-ers to investigate the impact communities have on public health. Access to healthy and local food, schools cutting physical activity programs, schools locations in urban areas with inadequate access, suburban communities and their sprawled development, the lack of education, and many other factors were questioned and investigated. The conclu-sion from these investigations highlighted that a holistic ap-proach that balances education, neighborhoods, communi-ties, and development patterns were vital factors to improve the country’s overall public health.

Buzzwords such as walkable communities, community gardens, urban farms, and smart growth were viewed as potential solutions to America’s public health crisis. Due to the attraction those buzzwords strategies created syn-ergies between public health, transportation, policy, and development became apparent. Although, these potential strategies can be viewed as practical solutions to America’s public health program, they have not been thoroughly investigated to determine the implementation feasibility of these solutions and how it can actually effectively improve America’s public health.

Transportation should be defined in order to highlight the potential synergies. Transportation projects can usually be split into three components. A design component, which revolves around the physical design of transportation infrastruc-ture (lane widths for streets, traffic signals for intersections, signage,

etc.). Another component for most transportation projects is the planning component, which can range from planning, reviewing, managing, and delivering transportation projects or projects that will have an impact on traffic or transporta-tion. The final component, which is an offshoot of trans-portation planning, is the policy creation and implementa-tion. In many ways, transportation demand management (TDM) embodies the policy creation and implementation of transportation planning, as the goal of TDM is the utilization of various transportation modes that design and planning accomplishes. Design, planning, and policy all need each other to work in balance in order to have effective transpor-tation systems that support a variety of users.

Exploring certain correlations that exist between transporta-tion and public health can further increase the ability to find effective solutions.

Transportation plays a huge role in society and affects it in many ways. The following trends display that there is a relationship between transportation and public health. Fig-ure 1 through Figure 4 display the various relational trends between transportation and public health.

Figure 1 highlights the relationship between transit rider-ship and asthma prevalence. Asthma prevalence can stem from poor air quality, which is a result from the amount of CO2 emitted from our utility. Automobile use is a large contributor to the amount of CO2 that is emitted from society. Figure 1.1 shows the impact that ridership has on greenhouse gases for transit buses, which tend to have a higher carbon footprint than light rail or other commuter rail technology.

Figure 1: Relationship Between Transit Ridership and Lifetime Asthma Prevalence

Figure 1.1: CO2 Reductions Bus Transit v Single Occupancy Vehicles

▶

9

M obility Matters

Figure 1.1 shows that at low ridership levels, transit buses emit a much larger amount of C02 per passenger mile when compared to a single occupancy vehicle, which has a flat rate of 89 lbs of CO2 per 100 passenger miles, if it maintains 25 miles per gallon. What we notice however is that the reduction in CO2 emissions is much less than the single occupancy car vehicle once a bus has 11 transit riders. 11 transit riders is typically 1/5 of the maximum capacity of a public transit bus. Meaning that having more buses avail-able is not the primary reason for less asthma prevalence, but instead the ridership plays a much larger role. Thereby looking at the data from Figure 1, the polynomial trend line indicates the fluctuations in ridership for transit over the past 20 years. Asthma, a public health component, displays a polynomial trend that can be considered reactive to the ridership levels. As ridership remained consistently low for the past 20 years, the asthma rates increased greatly near the end of the 1990s and early 2000. As gas prices rose so did transit ridership. As transit ridership rose significantly, the asthma prevalence rates began plateau and appear to have downward trend for asthma.

Figures 2 and 3 both look at the growth of obesity and diabetes in adults for five years. Most significant is the drop in bicycle and pedestrians who commuted to work on these modes between the years of 2004 and 2005. Although there is very little different between Figure 2 and Figure 3 one can see that Figure 3 posits that bicycle and walking isn’t enough to play a strong role in reducing obesity. The fall be-tween 2004 and 2005 in bike/walk commuting and the con-sistent rise in obesity show that obesity is a larger problem that cannot be solved through mode choice alone. Figure 2, however, offers more hope between bike/walk commut-ers compared to others. Figure 2, however, shows better correlation between these to parameters. The amount of diabetes rates increased dramatically in 2005 – 2006. Most likely as a response to the huge drop of bicycle/walk com-muters in 2004 – 2005. Yet, in 2006-2007 the rate of indi-viduals with diabetes had a less severe increase, which could be explained as a response to the massive shift in bike/walk commuters during the 2005-2006 year.

Figure 4 displays the inverse relationship that exists be-tween CO2 emissions and carpool usage. Since the early 1990s carpooling has been on a decline and CO2 emissions has grown consistently during the same time period. As carpooling hit an all time low in 2003, CO2 emissions were about to hit an all time high. When individuals decided to go back to carpooling, which rapidly increased for the next two years then CO2 emissions began to fall. So as most carpooling occurred, less CO2 emissions were created, thus created a strong relationship between carpoolers and CO2 emissions.

As the trends from the previous tables display, America is investing more into infrastructure for the past decade. Al-though there has been increased investment, there has not been an equal amount of increased utility of these infra-structure improvements. The data displayed in the previous segments display the existing relationship between trans-

Figure 2: Relationship Between Bike/Walk Commuters and Diabetes Levels in Adults

Figure 3: Relationships Between Bike/Walk Commuters and Obesity Levels in Adults

Figure 4: Carpool Commuters and CO2 Emissions from Petroleum Consumption

▶

10

M obility Matters

portation and public health. Many transportation trends rely on ridership and usage, thereby, making it easy to claim that transportation usage and ridership also have a relation-ship with public health. Allowing us to conclude that an increase in usage of transportation services and ridership would display in increase in positive health benefits.

How can one get more usage of existing transportation infrastructure and services? Create policies that encourage or incentivize the use. Transit use in 2008 was at an all time high due to the price of gas. Yet, although there is a relation-ship between gas prices and transit ridership, is there a real relationship between gas prices and public health?

The answer, ultimately would be yes, if and only if the gas prices remained at high levels over a long period of time. Health, unfortunately, does not behave like money. Healthy habits over one day will not cause one to lose 10 lbs over-night. Instead, improved health conditions only occur over extended periods with a sustained and consistent effort to improve public health. This explains why the increase gas costs during the 2008-year did not create any huge ripples in public health, as the high cost of gasoline was too short term.

Hence in order to improve public health, one needs to im-plement programs that are both long term and sustainable. It is only natural then for the country to start considering how an effective policy that increases the utility of existing transportation infrastructure can also be used to improve public health.

Transportation demand management (TDM) is the miss-ing link that can leverage transportation to dramatically improve public health. Explained earlier, TDM links utility to transportation planning and design. Implementing a TDM policy framework can only be effective if the area where the policy is implemented has a robust and adequate existing transportation system. That is because TDM, when done correctly, has the unique ability to get drivers to stop driving their single occupancy vehicles, try other modes of transpor-tation, or forgo their second vehicle. Decreasing the owner-ship of a second vehicle is almost as important as increasing the use of other travel modes when trying to reduce the amount of sprawled communities, traffic, and congestion. Due to the fact that TDM can only work if an area does have a variety of transportation infrastructure such as: transit service, bicycle lanes, adequate sidewalks, etc. ,TDM is heav-ily dependent on both transportation planning and design in order for TDM to have a fighting chance at improving the positive externalities for public health.

Recently, President Obama presented a $50 billion dollar front loaded infrastructure bank as the next step in his stim-ulus plan. When presenting this idea in Milwaukie, President Obama said this of the infrastructure bank, “All of this will not only create jobs now, but will make our economy run better over the long haul.” The President is most likely cor-rect when discussing the potential job creation that a $50 billion dollar infrastructure, however, the infrastructure bank can leave an even greater impact on the future of America if the funds utilize a necessary TDM framework in order to maximize the utility of existing infrastructure and future infrastructure projects.

With the new push for “livability” coming from the EPA, DOT, and HUD, the administration is dedicated to creating communities that are incubators for healthy and sustainable lifestyles. A long-term TDM policy coupled with adequate transportation systems can dramatically improve the health of a community. In many regards, if the EPA, HUD, and DOT do not put more consideration into the policy consequences and program creation of the infrastructure projects they support, “livability,” will have a very hard time living up to its initial conception.

Regardless if the sustainable communities initiative is suc-cessful at selecting projects that meet the “livability” criteria set, there is still no guarantee that these projects will make their communities “livable” if there is not a long-term strat-egy. A coordinated TDM framework that compliments the “livability” projects can play a vital component in the long term success of “livability” because TDM can increase the functionality of existing infrastructure while capitalizing on the benefits to public health.

Thus, the discussion started looking at TDM as the preventa-tive medicine equivalent in the transportation world. Eating healthy, exercising, and taking care of oneself has been recently brought forth as the best ways to keep America healthy. As presented, TDM not only supports these preven-tative medicine strategies but TDM in itself is the preventa-tive medicine for the transportation industry. In some areas there is no more benefit to building more infrastructure. Instead, policy and planning need to collaborate in order to have a coordinated effort at fixing the big transportation problems that plague the industry. Rather than rely on plan-ning and design to just build more or retrofit, perhaps the industry needs to add more TDM strategies into the frame-work just like rather than prescribing every type 2 diabetic metformin, let’s make sure everyone in America before they’re at risk for diabetes is already doing their part in eat-ing healthy and exercising.

11

M obility Matters

Chair: Chris SmithIntermodal Policy and Program Manager, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Deputy Chair: Nate SmithAssociate Director of Government Relations, American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA)

Vice Chair for Administration-Secretary: Aaron ZimmermanTransportation Planner/Engineer, Loudon County Office of Transportation Services

Vice Chair for Communication: Ananda “Andy” PalanisamySenior Transportation Management Specialist, Citizant, Inc.

Vice Chair for Finance-Treasurer: Nick PerfiliTransportation Planner, Fairfax County Department of Transportation

Vice Chair for Membership: Nikki ThorpeSenior Policy Analyst, Bipartisan Policy Center

Vice Chair for Programs: Jeffrey EnsorConsultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff

At-large Director: Shana JohnsonPrincipal, Civic Synergy, LLC

At-large Director: Chris PangilinanSpecial Assistant to the Deputy Administrator, Research and In-novative Technology Administration (USDOT-RITA)

Board of Directors

Board of Advisors

Jack Basso, Chief Operating Officer, AASHTO

Mortimer Downey, Chairman, PB Consult

Emil Frankel, Director Transportation Policy, Bipartisan Policy Center

Jane Garvey, North American Chairman, Meridiam Infrastructure

Jonathan Gifford, Professor and Associate Dean for Research, George Mason University School of Public Policy

John Horsley, Executive Director, AASHTO

Tony Kane, Director of Engineering and Technical Services, AASHTO

Janet Friedl Kavinoky, Director of Transportation Infrastructure, US Chamber of Commerce

Donna McLean, Vice Chairman of the Board, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Bill Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association

Emeka Moneme, Managing Director, Pillar Solutions, LLC

Mary Peters, Former Secretary, United States Department of Transportation

Gloria Shepherd, Associate Administrator for Planning, Environment, and Realty, Federal Highway Administration

Stephen Van Beek, President and CEO, Eno Transportation Foundation

Mobility Matters Editor: Shana JohnsonPrincipal, Civic Synergy, LLC

Mobility Matters Design and Layout: Alpha WingfieldVisual Information Specialist, Research and Innovative

Technology Administration, United States Department of Transportation

12

M obility Matters

YPT Photo Album!

YPT Special Workshop on Future of Transportation Mobility

YPT-TRF-WTS-Reason Foundation Joint Reception with Sam Staley

Leadership Seminar with Beth Osborne

13

M obility Matters

YPT Sponsors