Walking and biking is better: It's time for the federal government to promote healthier transportation
Share with others:
More fitness, less obesity. Less gasoline burned, less pollution, fewer carbon emissions. Safer streets. Improved access to public transit. These are just some of the reasons it's time for the federal government to focus less on new and expanded highways and more on widening sidewalks and building bike and pedestrian paths.
Congressional Republicans have staked out their position. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia have joked about the existing allocation of $833 million a year for pedestrian and bike facilities (and for the preservation of historic neighborhoods). They'd ax the program.
But even when Republicans firmly held Congress, the House in 2003 voted overwhelmingly, 327-90, to keep the "transportation-enhancements" program. And today, the case is even more compelling, thanks to the obesity epidemic.
A stunning 34 percent of adult Americans now are obese, another 32 percent overweight.Excessive weight causes more deaths than smoking. If the fat crisis continues, rising levels of heart disease and diabetes will swamp the nation's efforts to reduce spiraling health costs.
Diet is one answer, but so too is physical activity. We've allowed cars to carry us everywhere, even walkable distances. 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. Adults are walking far less, too, and for the same reason: narrow or 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 -- not much more than a single $676 million highway cloverleaf in Virginia.
Keith Laughlin, president of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, says it's time for a giant federal step forward toward "active transportation."
Cities that have gone this route are demonstrating solid results, Mr. Laughlin claims. In Portland, Ore., $57 million has been spent on a 300-mile bikeway/pedestrian network since 1991. Portland bicycling has lately increased 15 percent to 20 percent a year, and another $100 million in 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, an eye-catching 8-to-1 return on investment.
Up to 100 communities and 10 states have endorsed "complete streets" approaches (www.completestreets.org). And the last federal transportation reauthorization did include a pilot program that gave four communities $25 million each to devise programs to encourage walking and biking -- Columbia, Mo.; Sheboygan County, Wis.; Minneapolis, and Marin County, Calif.
Rails to Trails says the pilots are doing well and that it's time to expand to 50 more cities, funded at $50 million each. That would cost $2.5 billion, still very little by federal transportation standards.
Several cities -- among them Cleveland; San Diego; Altoona, Pa.; Billings, Mont.; and Madison, Wis. -- are straining at the bit, seeking federal support to mount full-bore walking/biking programs.
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 from 70 billion to 200 billion miles off what Americans drive yearly. We'd reduce our oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by at least 3 percent, and perhaps as much as 8 percent. Our air would be cleaner and we would be more fit.
First Published July 28, 2009 12:00 am
