Community Design & Travel Choice Dr. Lawrence Frank, UBC

Just One Month Ago …

Built Environment Transportation Investments and Land Use

Human Behavior Travel Patterns and Physical Activity

Environmental Quality Air Quality and Greenspace

Quality

of Life

CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Transportation

Investments

Land Use

Patterns

Travel Choice

Physical

Activity &

Dietary

Patterns

Travel

Patterns

Body

Mass

Index

Vehicle

Emissions

Built

Environment

Chronic

Disease

Onset

Respiratory

Function

Path I - Behavioral

Path II - Exposure

Health

Care

Utilization

Patterns

&

Health

Care

Costs

Note: Diet and nutrition, age, gender, income, genetics, and other factors also impact

weight and chronic disease and to the extent possible are controlled in analyses.

Vehicle age and climate impacts emissions and air quality, and respiratory function

is also impacted by a variety of factors

Predicting Travel Behavior Micro-economic Theory – “Compensatory” / Tradeoffs

Personal Utility Maximization

Relative Utility and Benefit Across Modes

Consumer Science – A “Discrete Choice” Process

Non Pecuniary Cost

Time “Elasticity of demand” varies by demographic group

Comfort

Safety

Money (Pecuniary) Marginal Vs Sunk Costs

Some modes are synergistic Walk & Transit

Cycling & Transit

Many Pathways Demographic &

socioeconomic

covariates

Built

environment

variables

Physical

activity

outcomes

Health

outcomes

Obesity

outcomes

Design Mechanisms – The “How”

Proximity to destinations – Land Use Mix Distance > time > ability to walk or bike

Compactness / Density Consumers > Spending power > local shops and services

Trip ends > Transit ridership > Level of Service

Connectivity

Route directness > relative travel time

Comfort

Safety

. Proximity

Connect-

ivity

2 KM

1 KM

Pedestrian Environment Block faces

Sidewalk presence, buffering, quality, vegetation, lighting, seating, eyes on the street

Intersections Signal timing, distance across, # of vehicle lanes, turning movements, transit integration

Less studied Data becoming available

Results show significant relationships with objectively measured physical activity and travel patterns

Pedestrian environment Lighting

Street furnishings

Street trees

Bicycle facilities

Street width / total number of lanes

On-street parking

Connections to transit

Open/green space

Accessibility and affordability Low income

Elderly

Children/Youth

Disabled

Design Elements

Barrier-separated bikeway on the

Carrall St. Greenway. Photo: Kira

Baker

Regional Accessibility - the “where” Travel time to major destinations

By mode Transit, drive alone, carpool,

Role of walking and biking

By time of day (am & pm peak and off peak)

Can overpower walkability Where matters as much or more than “how” a place is designed

Derived from trip distribution model

Walk Score Senior destination weights

Walk Score component Weight

Banks .12

Books .04

Parks .24

Coffee .26

Entertainment .11

Grocery .08

Restaurants/bars .01

Shopping .08

Street connectivity .06

• Proximity of parks and coffee shops were most predictive of senior objectively measured physical activity:

Note: weights sum to 1.00

2011 Vancouver Walkability

Surface

Local Walkability – “How”

Reducing Travel Time

Increases Ridership

•Seattle - 10% reduction in travel time on transit was associated with a 3.9% increase in transit use and a 2.9% increase in walking (Frank et al. 2007).

•Walkable Neighborhoods

• Metro Vancouver – Residents of our most walkable transit supportive neighbourhoods were nearly twice as likely to make a public transit trip in a usual week

(Frank et al. 2014)

•Proposed investment in transit (currently being voted on here) will provide access to frequent transit for 70% of Metro Vancouver residents and save 20–30 minutes per day on some of the region’s most congested corridors.

Transit Investment A Montreal study found that transit users achieved 25% of the daily recommended level of physical activity from transit use (Morency et al. 2011).

A Salt Lake City study found a 19% increase in the number of participants who rode rail after the opening of a new rail line (Brown et al. 2007). Rail use was also associated with increased land use mix and residential density (Werner et al. 2010).

Transit, Driving, and Walking

A recent study in Los Angeles evaluated the impact of the new Exposition Line light rail stations on travel patterns, activity levels, and CO2 emissions (Boarnet et al. 2013). It found that people living within 1/2-mile of a rail station:

Reduced their daily vehicle travel by 10-12 miles

Reduced CO2 emissions by 30%

Experienced an 8-10 minute increase in physical activity after station opening (for those least physically active)

Transit Users Get

Needed Activity

Transit users accumulate anywhere between 12 to 18 minutes of additional walking per day compared to non-transit users (Freeland et al. 2013, Rissel et al. 2010, Saelens et al. 2014).

Transit users in Atlanta were 3.42 times more likely to meet physical activity recommendations by walking for transportation than non users (Lachapelle and Frank 2009).

Every additional hour per day in a car translates into a 6 percent increase in the likelihood of obesity Time spent driving increases as

walkability decreases

Every additional Kilometer (.6 miles) walked translates into 4.8 percent reduction in the likelihood of being obese Distances walked increases with

walkability

Frank, L., Andresen, M., and Schmid, T., Obesity Relationships With Community Design, Physical

Activity, and Time Spent in Cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. June 2004.

Less Chronic Disease

• Several studies have shown that compact,

walkable, and transit-oriented community design

is associated with improved health outcomes

including reduced blood pressure,

cardiovascular disease, and diabetes (Ewing et

al. 2014, Li et al. 2009, Hoehner et al. 2012).

• A San Diego study of 18,000 participants showed:

– 10 % reduction in Type II diabetes Risk

– 15 % reduction in cardiovascular disease Risk

from living in a more walkable transit supportive

environment (SANDAG, 2012).

Final Map of CO2

emissions from

transportation

Includes:

Local urban form (land use mix, intersection density, retail FAR)

Regional location (auto travel time

Transit accessibility & travel time

Demographics

CO2 & Neighbourhood Design

Source: LUTAQH final report, King County ORTP, 2005

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

0 - 4 4 - 7 7 - 10 10 -15 15+

Net Residential Density

(housing units per residential acre)

CO

2 (

KG

) --

mean

dail

y p

er

pers

on

8

9

10

11

12

13

0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.4+

Intersections per acre

CO

2 (

KG

) --

mean

dail

y p

er

pers

on

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

0 1 - 2 3 - 9 10 - 29 30 - 165

# of Neighborhood Retail Parcels

CO

2 (

KG

) --

me

an

da

ily

pe

r

pe

rso

n

“The Hidden Health Costs of Transportation” Frank et al 2010

American Public Health Association

Physical Activity Case Study:

Estimated Costs Savings from

Walkable Urban Design

Saving Money Mortality – Living Longer

Over $5.5 billion wages (in 2012$) are lost in Canada annually due to premature death attributable to excess weight (overweight and obesity). An additional $3.8 billion is lost to premature death attributable to physical inactivity. (Krueger et al, 2014)

A recent report released by the American Public Health Association showed a potential savings of $23 million in adjusted life years through a tertile (33 Percent) increase in street connectivity (connected streets) for a community of appx 5000 inhabitants (UD4H, Inc. 2014).

Saving Money Morbidity – Staying Healthier

Approximately $6 billion (2006$) in healthcare costs in Canada are attributable to being overweight or obese. (Anis et al, 2010)

Canada spends $8.4 billion (2012$) annually on healthcare attributable to excess weight or physical inactivity.

Another $10.3 billion (2012$) of wages are lost annually from individuals on long and short-term disability due to disease attributable to obesity and physical inactivity. (Krueger et al, 2014)

Saving Money The same study by Krueger found that Vancouver Metro Region loses $2 billion annually to healthcare costs and lost wages combined from inactivity, obesity, and lost productivity (Krueger et al, 2014)

For every additional 1% of residents able to reach physical activity recommendations and healthier body weight, we would expect to see at least $20 million in annual economic benefits due to health impacts.

A 12 % increase = 240 Million = the referendum budget

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800

Direct Healthcare

Premature Death

Disability (Long and Short)

PhysicalInactivityOverweight &Obese

Annual Costs Attributable to Excess Weight and Physical

Inactivity for Vancouver Metro, based upon Krueger et al (2014)

Utilitarian

Walkability Made up of: Residential

density, retail Floor Area

Ratio, intersection density,

land use mix

Regional walkability distribution, by

block group

Case study 1 – Palomar Gateway

Built environment changes RESULTS ARE PRELIMINARY AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

Name Base Scenario Change Scenario Units

Single Family DU 192 80 housing units

Multi-Family DU 155 1626 housing units

Total Population 884 3841 people

Residential Area 44.3 68.5 acres

Net Residential Density 7.8 24.9 units/acre

Retail Floorspace 370073 395221 square feet

Retail Area 15.7 7.3 acres

Retail FAR 0.5 1.3

Office Floorspace 0 41238 square feet

Office Area 0 1.2 acres

Office FAR 0 0.8

Civic and Education Floorspace 0 20035 square feet

Recreation and Entertainment Floorspace 0 68393 square feet

Park Area 1.2 1.2 acres

Number of Schools 0 0

Number of Transit Stops 3 3

Number of Grocery Stores 1 2

Total Road Centerline Miles 4.2 4.2 miles

Total Sidewalk Miles 4.5 5.5 miles

Sidewalk Coverage 53% 66%

Total Bike Miles 0.5 1.2 miles

Health metrics: Palomar Gateway

case study (San Diego)

Color Key

1-10% change - positive health impact 1-10% change - negative health impact

10-25% change - positive health impact 10-25% change - negative health impact

over 25% change - positive health impact over 25% change - negative health impact

HEALTH INDICATOR Regional

base Base

Scenario Change

Scenario Percent Change

Daily minutes in car – adults (age 16 and up) 55.81 49.04 44.89 -8.46%

Daily minutes transportation walking – adults (age 16 and up) 6.61 6.1 10.24 67.87%

Daily minutes leisure walking - adults (18 and up) 12.27 8.42 8.87 5.34%

Daily minutes leisure moderate activity (adults 18+; not incl. walking) 34.21 17.33 18.38 6.06%

Percent visiting park in last 30 days (adults 18 and up) 70.3 56.95 59.23 4.00%

Body Mass Index - Adults 18 and up 26.73 28 27.65 -1.25%

Percent of adults obese 21.7 32.73 31.66 -3.27%

Percent of adults overweight or obese 59 68.91 66.98 -2.80%

Percent of adults with high blood pressure 28.2 30.92 26.16 -15.39%

Percent of adults with Type 2 Diabetes 4.4 8.63 7.8 -9.62%

Percent of adults 18 and up with current asthma 10.8 5.69 5.43 -4.57%

Pedestrian and Bike Collision Risk Factor 1-100 (all age groups) 39.55 46.71 47.65 2.01%

Self-rated general health (5 = highest) per adult 18 and up 2.42 3.21 3.28 2.18%

Daily minutes transportation walking – youth (age 5 to 15) 5.82 4.39 5.16 17.54%

Percent walking to and from school – teens (age 12-17) 26.0 43.65 46.06 5.52%

Percent walking to or from school - children (age 5-11) 38.5 18.81 24.17 28.50%

Days per week of 60+ minutes moderate or vigorous physical activity, teens 12-17

4.33 3.87 3.91 1.03%

Percent visiting park in last 30 days (teens 12-17) 40.8 31.34 35.38 12.89%

Park visits, days per month (children age 1-11) 7.78 5.69 6.72 18.10%

Body Mass Index - children 11 and under 20.52 20.94 20.68 -1.24%

Body Mass Index – teen 12-17 21.59 23.19 23.05 -0.60%

Percent of teens obese 11.4 27.32 28.55 4.50%

Percent of teens overweight or obese 24.3 38.75 42.95 10.84%

Percent of teens 12-17 with current asthma 6.3 15.43 18.17 17.76%

Percent children 11 and under with current asthma 12.2 16.66 18.48 10.92%

Times eating fast food per week - children 2-11 1.12 1.43 0.83 -41.96%

Predicted daily min. physical

activity (blue = high, red = low) –

San Diego

Unmet Demand for Transit Supportive Communities

• A recent survey of 1,223 people found that

1 out of every 3 residents in auto-oriented

neighbourhoods in outer Metro Vancouver

would prefer to live in a transit supported

walkable environment (Frank et al. 2014).

• Sixty percent of survey participants stated

a willingness to trade off features of auto-

oriented environments for walkable

communities well-served by public transit.

Policy Recommendations • Researchers

– Develop projects with government and private sector end users

– Leverage investments in research and ownership of results across

disciplines where possible

– Translate results of work into concrete actionable strategies

– Be willing to take risks when needed and realize messengers do

get blamed at times

• Public Sector – Find ways to link performance at the local level with funding

– Integrate regional development aspirations with transportation funding

and development approval

– Use evidence to make case why walkability x regional accessibility is

beneficial using visualization tools

• Private Sector – Lenders and developers - Residential and travel patterns shifted

Aging & Place

“If I knew I was

going to live

This long I would

have taken

Better care of

myself”

THE END