Active mobility

Active mobility, active travel, active transport or active transportation is the transport of people or goods, through non-motorized means, based around human physical activity.[1] The best-known forms of active mobility are walking and cycling, though other modes include running, skateboarding, kick scooters and roller skates. Due to its prevalence, cycling is sometimes considered separately from the other forms of active mobility.[2]

The urban bicycle, one of the most widespread and well-known vehicles for active mobility

Public policies promoting active mobility tend to improve health indicators by increasing the levels of physical fitness and reducing the rates of obesity and diabetes,[3][4] whilst also reducing the consumption of fossil fuels and consequent carbon emissions.[5] These policies are proven to result in large increases in active transportation for commuting: for example Portland, Oregon was able to increase bicycle use 5-fold from 1990 to 2009 with pro-cycling programs.[6] Studies have shown that city level programs are more effective than encouraging active mobility on the individual level.[7]

Health

Health benefits of active mobility include alleviating urban pressures, reduced energy consumption and production, and improved quality of life.[8] Active mobility improves health by decreasing air pollution from cars. [9] However, negative health problems can arise from inactive and sedentary lifestyles. The US Centers for Disease Control recommends increasing access to active transportation.[10] Multiple U.S. studies advocate for increased access to active transportation for everyone, including children, due to multiple health benefits.[11]

Sedentary people can lower their BMI by increasing physical activity.[12] A House of Commons of the United Kingdom Health Committee report about Obesity in 2004 recommended cycling and walking as key components to combat obesity.[13] Public Health England estimated in 2016 that in the UK, physical inactivity directly contributes to one in six deaths every year.[14] The PHE report notes that walking and cycling daily is effective to increase physical activity and reduce levels of obesity, as well as prevent cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer and several mental illnesses, including depression.[14]

People exercising with active mobility on a rainy day

Physical exercise improves mental and physical health.[15] Cyclists and walkers perceive their environment differently than people driving in cars because cars block sensory inputs that active mobility exposes. [16] Proponents of active mobility assert that activities like cycling and walking promote a feeling of community and connection, improving mental health and overall wellbeing.[16]

Providing good infrastructure for active mobility effectively promotes this type of transportation to decrease traffic and urban congestion.[8] Cycling and walking can save money by reducing money spent on gasoline.[17] Consequences of cycling and walking include increased exposure to air pollution, noise, and more frequent accidents.[17] Cycling reduces the need for large roads and parking lots as bikes occupy 8% of available space compared to cars.[17] As cycling and walking increases, urban infrastructure can be transformed to parks to add green space to urban environments.[17] Aesthetically pleasing areas can become optimal places for walking and cycling in cities.[18] Urban environments can also be transformed into walkable areas, which can benefit the elderly, but safety can be problematic if areas are congested with cars.[19] Designing safe walkable areas in cities can increase the popularity of walking, decrease physical inactivity, and improve health.[19]

Additionally, electric bike users benefit from this type of physical activity. In seven European cities, electric bike users had 10% higher weekly energy expenditure than other cyclists.[20] People switching to e-bike from either private cars or public transport expend more energy as physical activity increases, gaining between 550 and 880 Metabolic Equivalent Task minutes per week.[20]

Environment

An environmental benefit of active mobility is reducing greenhouse gas emissions to slow global warming.[21] Every year, a typical car emits 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide.[22] As a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere speeds up the effects of climate change.[23] As automobile use increases greenhouse gas emissions, the rates in which our Earth is reaching climate tipping point thresholds are escalating.[23] Active mobility lowers daily greenhouse gas emissions, slowing these tipping points.[24] For example, in New Zealand, active mobility has been found to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 1% annually.[24]

Air and noise pollution are negative effects of vehicular transport. Air pollution negatively affects human health and the environment.[25] Air pollution can cause acid rain, eutrophication, haze, wildlife deaths, thinning of Earth’s ozone layer, crop damage, and global climate change.[25] Noise pollution disrupts ecosystems and wildlife.[26] Active mobility reduces air and noise pollution by substituting for cars that produce greenhouse gases and noise, benefiting the environment and urban ecosystems.[17]

Government responses

Active mobility has appealed to policymakers because of its beneficial contributions to physical health and reductions of air pollution,[27] leading to legislative efforts to make cycling and walking safer and more attractive for commuting and personal errands.[28] These measures include infrastructure changes to accommodate more cyclists and pedestrians on roads, regulations to limit car traffic,[27] and education and training to improve the coordination between motor vehicles and individuals using active mobility.[29] Infrastructure developments that have been correlated with increased active mobility are wider sidewalks, street lighting, flat terrain, and urban greenery,[30] particularly with access to parks.[31] Cycling in particular requires more infrastructure development to achieve a noticeable increase in use, including:

  • Bike lanes: a separate lane on a conventional road designated by signage and street markings to be reserved for bicycles.
  • Bike boxes: areas at an intersection designated for bicycles to occupy when stopped.
  • Bicycle stations: specialized parking facilities that also include basic tools for bicycle maintenance.[27]

Several researchers have also emphasized that the largest contribution to active mobility comes from easy access to local amenities such as restaurants, shops, and theaters, which can be promoted by local governments.[32][33] A significant concern about increased active mobility is a corresponding increase in injuries and deaths, especially between pedestrians or cyclists and motor vehicles.[34] Active mobility is often more time-consuming than commuting by vehicle, and the effects of distance, geographic features such as hills, and climate may make outdoor exertion uncomfortable or impractical.[35] Another criticism of active transportation policy contends that converting traffic lanes for bicycle use makes travel more difficult for commuters who must a motor vehicle.[36]

Europe

The European Union’s Mobility and Transport organization includes the promotion of walking and cycling among its strategies to enable more sustainable transportation in Europe.[37] The European Union has also adopted a Vision Zero goal to eliminate all traffic deaths, seeking to mitigate the number of incidents between pedestrians and cyclists and motor vehicles, as these commonly result in serious injury or death.[38] Separate from the European Union, several European cities and regions founded an organization, Polis, in 1989 to coordinate efforts between local governments and the European Union to improve the efficiency of transportation.[39] This includes the facilitation of active mobility, which Polis states provides benefits to the environment and to the public’s physical health and asserts that these improvements contribute to the economy as well.[40] Polis recommends that policy decisions should account for benefits from reduced health and environmental costs from active mobility, increased city accessibility from reduced congestion and pollution, and consider regulations on vehicle design to address concerns of safety and convenience.[41] Polis encourages the development of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) to guide mobility projects in cities of all sizes.[42]

United Kingdom

The Association of Directors of Public Health in the United Kingdom, joined by over one hundred signatory organizations including Sustrans and the Royal College of Physicians on a position paper on active travel, set out a number of clear policy measures recommended for local planning and highway authorities, including:

  • A 20 mph (32 km/h) speed limit for residential areas.
  • Cycling road infrastructure that provides for convenient and practical transportation.
  • Education of drivers and revamped law enforcement to improve road safety.
  • Publishing clear goals for the expansion of active transportation.[43]

Other steps include the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, which passed in 2013. The act requires local authorities to continuously improve facilities and routes for pedestrians and cyclists and to prepare maps identifying current and potential future routes for their use. It also requires road improvement and development projects to consider the needs of pedestrians and cyclists at the design stage.[44]

Netherlands
Cycling fatalities in the Netherlands from 2007 to 2016.

Active mobility is used widely in the Netherlands, comprising more than 40% of commuting in urban areas.[29] The flat topography and temperate climate of the Netherlands benefits active mobility, which has been supported by government policy for decades,[45] including 35,000 kilometers of dedicated cycling paths.[46] As a result, the Dutch government estimates that there are about 1.3 bikes per person in the Netherlands.[47] A consequence of this is that about 20% of Dutch road accident fatalities are cyclists, with more than 100 cyclists perishing each year.[48] This rate and number are higher than most other European countries, reflecting the high use of active mobility in the Netherlands.[48] However, policy efforts by the Ministry of Industry and Water Management[49] may have contributed to a declining mortality rate, which fell more than 30% from 2007 to 2016.[48]

United States

Residents of the United States use active mobility as a mode of transportation less often than residents of other countries.[50] The far greater mortality rates of pedestrians and cyclists in U.S. cities has been cited as a contributing factor to this trend.[50] Efforts to increase use of active mobility have been undertaken at the federal levels by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which pursues the development of active commuting through its Livability Initiative.[51] The Livability Initiative includes billions of dollars of funding through several grant programs, including the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD), Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA), and the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), to facilitate the construction of infrastructure supportive of increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic.[52] Funding increases for these programs, such as the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) act of 2015, have garnered bipartisan support.[53] Multiple cities in the United States, including Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis, Sacramento, and Houston, have implemented their own policies to encourage the active mobility for commuting to work and to school.[54] More extensive efforts involve detailed  active transportation programs (ATPs), such as those implemented in California,[55] Portland, Oregon,[56] Fort Worth, Texas,[57] and San Diego County.[58] However, these efforts have struggled to promote measurable changes in the percentage of commuters using active transportation to work: in the United States Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, 3.4% of Americans biked or walked to work in 2013, and only 3.1% did so in 2018.[59]

Bike and pedestrian lanes in Roger Williams Park.
Active Commuting in the United States[59]
Year Biking Walking Total Active Commuting
2013 0.614% 2.792% 3.405%
2014 0.631% 2.754% 3.385%
2015 0.595% 2.768% 3.362%
2016 0.573% 2.706% 3.279%
2017 0.556% 2.639% 3.195%
2018 0.526% 2.574% 3.100%


Singapore

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) of Singapore pursues a stated goal to supplement mechanized transportation methods with "walk and cycle options".[60]  Following a test plan implemented in the neighborhood of Tampines,[61] the Minister of Transport presented a National Cycling Plan in 2013 to provide paths to integrate cycling with Singapore's extensive Mass Rapid Transit system.[62] This includes 190 kilometers of paths, thousands of bicycle parking racks, signage, and cyclist education. These efforts have been criticized, however, as being limited in scope, especially for limiting the expansion of cycling access to off-road connections, such as through the Park Connectors Network, rather than more infrastructure for commuting in cities.[61]

gollark: Is the piece of paper a CPU implemented with conductive ink or not that?
gollark: So it's technically compliant for it to just return anything? Or does it have to actually work somehow?
gollark: Maybe they're just bad.
gollark: Our bee scientists are mathematically incapable of incorrectness or falsehood however.
gollark: This repository was created merely to fake `apt` output in this sort of situation so it is "fake" according to our bee scientists.

See also

References
  1. Children's Active Transportation. Elsevier. 2018. doi:10.1016/c2016-0-01988-5. ISBN 978-0-12-811931-0.
  2. Bicycling for Transportation. Elsevier. 2018. doi:10.1016/c2016-0-03936-0. ISBN 978-0-12-812642-4.
  3. Pucher, John; Buehler, Ralph; Bassett, David R.; Dannenberg, Andrew L. (1 October 2010). "Walking and Cycling to Health: A Comparative Analysis of City, State, and International Data". American Journal of Public Health. 100 (10): 1986–1992. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.189324. ISSN 0090-0036. PMC 2937005. PMID 20724675.
  4. de Nazelle, Audrey (1 May 2011). "Improving health through policies that promote active travel: A review of evidence to support integrated health impact assessment". Environment International. 37 (4): 766–777. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.02.003. PMID 21419493.
  5. Sustainable mobility in metropolitan regions : insights from interdisciplinary research for practice application. Wulfhorst, Gebhard,, Klug, S. (Stefan),. Wiesbaden. ISBN 978-3-658-14428-9. OCLC 957700183.CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
  6. Pucher, John; Buehler, Ralph; Seinen, Mark (July 2011). "Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies". Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 45 (6): 451–475. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2011.03.001.
  7. Audrey, Suzanne; Fisher, Harriet; Cooper, Ashley; Gaunt, Daisy; Garfield, Kirsty; Metcalfe, Chris; Hollingworth, William; Gillison, Fiona; Gabe-Walters, Marie; Rodgers, Sarah; Davis, Adrian L. (December 2019). "Evaluation of an intervention to promote walking during the commute to work: a cluster randomised controlled trial". BMC Public Health. 19 (1): 427. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6791-4. ISSN 1471-2458. PMC 6480724. PMID 31014313.
  8. Zhou, Q.; Che, M.; Koh, P.P.; Wong, Y.D. (March 2020). "Effects of improvements in non-motorised transport facilities on active mobility demand in a residential township". Journal of Transport & Health. 16: 100835. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2020.100835.
  9. Johansson, Christer; Lövenheim, Boel; Schantz, Peter; Wahlgren, Lina; Almström, Peter; Markstedt, Anders; Strömgren, Magnus; Forsberg, Bertil; Sommar, Johan Nilsson (April 2017). "Impacts on air pollution and health by changing commuting from car to bicycle". Science of The Total Environment. 584-585: 55–63. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.145.
  10. "CDC – Healthy Places – Transportation HIA Toolkit – Strategies: Promote Active Transportation". www.cdc.gov. 9 June 2017. Retrieved 22 April 2018.
  11. Voss, Christine (1 January 2018), Larouche, Richard (ed.), "1 - Public Health Benefits of Active Transportation", Children's Active Transportation, Elsevier, pp. 1–20, doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-811931-0.00001-6, ISBN 978-0-12-811931-0, retrieved 14 July 2020
  12. Dons, E (2018). "Transport mode choice and body mass index: Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from a European-wide study". Environment International. 119 (119): 109–116. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.023. hdl:10044/1/61061. PMID 29957352.
  13. House of Commons Health Committee, Obesity – Third Report of Session 2003–04
  14. "Physical activity: applying All Our Health". GOV.UK. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  15. Ione Avila-Palencia (2018). "The effects of transport mode use on self-perceived health, mental health, and social contact measures: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study". Environment International. 120: 199–206. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.002. hdl:10044/1/62973. PMID 30098553.
  16. Orellana, D.; Hermida, C.; Osorio, P. (8 June 2016). "A MULTIDISCIPLINARY ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING ACTIVE MOBILITY PATTERNS". ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. XLI-B2: 527–534. doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B2-527-2016. ISSN 2194-9034.
  17. Giorgio Guariso; Giulia Malvestiti (24 August 2017). "Assessing the Value of Systematic Cycling in a Polluted Urban Environment". Climate. 5 (3): 65. doi:10.3390/cli5030065. ISSN 2225-1154.
  18. Vich, Guillem; Marquet, Oriol; Miralles-Guasch, Carme (March 2019). "Green streetscape and walking: Exploring active mobility patterns in dense and compact cities". Journal of Transport & Health. 12: 50–59. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2018.11.003.
  19. Lee, Jae Seung; Zegras, P. Christopher; Ben-Joseph, Eran (December 2013). "Safely active mobility for urban baby boomers: The role of neighborhood design". Accident Analysis & Prevention. 61: 153–166. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.008.
  20. Castro, A (2019). "Physical activity of electric bicycle users compared to conventional bicycle users and non-cyclists: Insights based on health and transport data from an online survey in seven European cities". Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 1: 100017. doi:10.1016/j.trip.2019.100017.
  21. Fraser, Simon D. S.; Lock, Karen (1 December 2011). "Cycling for transport and public health: a systematic review of the effect of the environment on cycling". European Journal of Public Health. 21 (6): 738–743. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckq145. ISSN 1101-1262.
  22. US EPA, OAR (12 January 2016). "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle". US EPA. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  23. Jørgensen, Susanne V.; Hauschild, Michael Z.; Nielsen, Per H. (1 April 2014). "Assessment of urgent impacts of greenhouse gas emissions—the climate tipping potential (CTP)". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 19 (4): 919–930. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0693-y. ISSN 1614-7502.
  24. Keall, Michael D.; Shaw, Caroline; Chapman, Ralph; Howden-Chapman, Philippa (1 December 2018). "Reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from an intervention to promote cycling and walking: A case study from New Zealand". Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 65: 687–696. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2018.10.004. ISSN 1361-9209.
  25. "Air Pollutants & Toxics". Mass.gov. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  26. Davenport, J; Davenport, Julia L (2010). The ecology of transportation: managing mobility for the environment. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. ISBN 978-90-481-7137-8. OCLC 798881574.
  27. Pucher, John; Dill, Jennifer; Handy, Susan (1 January 2010). "Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review". Preventive Medicine. 50: S106–S125. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.028. ISSN 0091-7435.
  28. Mackenbach, Joreintje Dingena; Randal, Edward; Zhao, Pengjun; Howden-Chapman, Philippa (March 2016). "The Influence of Urban Land-Use and Public Transport Facilities on Active Commuting in Wellington, New Zealand: Active Transport Forecasting Using the WILUTE Model". Sustainability. 8 (3): 242. doi:10.3390/su8030242.
  29. Pucher, John; Dijkstra, Lewis (1 September 2003). "Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve Public Health: Lessons From The Netherlands and Germany". American Journal of Public Health. 93 (9): 1509–1516. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1509. ISSN 0090-0036. PMC 1448001. PMID 12948971.
  30. Cervero, Robert; Kockelman, Kara (1 September 1997). "Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design". Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2 (3): 199–219. doi:10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6. ISSN 1361-9209.
  31. Vich, Guillem; Marquet, Oriol; Miralles-Guasch, Carme (1 March 2019). "Green streetscape and walking: Exploring active mobility patterns in dense and compact cities". Journal of Transport & Health. 12: 50–59. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2018.11.003. ISSN 2214-1405.
  32. Fan, Jessie X.; Wen, Ming; Kowaleski-Jones, Lori (1 November 2014). "An ecological analysis of environmental correlates of active commuting in urban U.S." Health & Place. 30: 242–250. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.09.014. ISSN 1353-8292.
  33. Dogan, Timur; Yang, Yang; Samaranayake, Samitha; Saraf, Nikhil (2 January 2020). "Urbano: A Tool to Promote Active Mobility Modeling and Amenity Analysis in Urban Design". Technology|Architecture + Design. 4 (1): 92–105. doi:10.1080/24751448.2020.1705716. ISSN 2475-1448.
  34. Lindsay, Graeme; Macmillan, Alexandra; Woodward, Alistair (2011). "Moving urban trips from cars to bicycles: impact on health and emissions". Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 35 (1): 54–60. doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2010.00621.x. ISSN 1753-6405.
  35. Rietveld, Piet; Daniel, Vanessa (1 August 2004). "Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter?". Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 38 (7): 531–550. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2004.05.003. ISSN 0965-8564.
  36. "Dangerous 'road diets' are starving LA of common sense: Susan Shelley". Daily News. 19 September 2017. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  37. Smith, John (22 September 2016). "Sustainable transport". Mobility and Transport - European Commission. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  38. "Mobility and transport". Mobility and transport - European Commission. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  39. "About Polis". Polis Network. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  40. "Active Transportation Best Practices" (PDF). Polis Network. June 2019. Retrieved 25 July 2020.
  41. "Securing the health benefits of active travel in Europe" (PDF). Polis Network. November 2011. Retrieved 25 July 2020.
  42. "Polis: Cities and Regions for Transport Innovation" (PDF). Polis Network. Retrieved 28 July 2020.
  43. "Take action on active travel" (PDF). Association of Directors of Public Health. January 2010. Retrieved 24 July 2020.
  44. "Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 – National Assembly for Wales". assembly.wales. Retrieved 2 June 2017.
  45. Rietveld, Piet; Daniel, Vanessa (1 August 2004). "Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter?". Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 38 (7): 531–550. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2004.05.003. ISSN 0965-8564.
  46. Zaken, Ministerie van Algemene (7 June 2017). "Bicycles - Government.nl". www.government.nl. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  47. Zaken, Ministerie van Algemene (7 June 2017). "Bicycles - Government.nl". www.government.nl. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  48. "Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2018: Cyclists" (PDF). European Commission. European Road Safety Observatory. 2018. Retrieved 23 July 2020.
  49. Zaken, Ministerie van Algemene (9 June 2017). "Safe cycling - Bicycles - Government.nl". www.government.nl. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  50. Lee, Jae Seung; Zegras, P. Christopher; Ben-Joseph, Eran (1 December 2013). "Safely active mobility for urban baby boomers: The role of neighborhood design". Accident Analysis & Prevention. Emerging Research Methods and Their Application to Road Safety. 61: 153–166. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.008. ISSN 0001-4575.
  51. "Livable and Sustainable Communities | FTA". www.transit.dot.gov. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  52. "U.S. Department of Transportation Transit, Highway, and Safety Funds - Funding - Bicycle and Pedestrian Program - Environment - FHWA". www.fhwa.dot.gov. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  53. Davis, Rodney (4 December 2015). "H.R.22 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): FAST Act". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  54. Lee, Richard J.; Sener, Ipek N.; Jones, S. Nathan (4 March 2017). "Understanding the role of equity in active transportation planning in the United States". Transport Reviews. 37 (2): 211–226. doi:10.1080/01441647.2016.1239660. ISSN 0144-1647.
  55. "Active Transportation Program (ATP) | Caltrans". dot.ca.gov. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  56. "Regional Active Transportation Plan". Metro. 25 July 2014. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  57. "Active Transportation Plan | City of Fort Worth, Texas". fortworthtexas.gov. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  58. "Active Transportation Plan". www.sandiegocounty.gov. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  59. Bureau, US Census. "American Community Survey Data". The United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  60. "LTA | Who We Are". www.lta.gov.sg. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  61. Meng, M.; Koh, P. P.; Wong, Y. D.; Zhong, Y. H. (1 October 2014). "Influences of urban characteristics on cycling: Experiences of four cities". Sustainable Cities and Society. 13: 78–88. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2014.05.001. ISSN 2210-6707.
  62. "MOT Singapore – Gain new perspectives on land, sea & air transport". www.mot.gov.sg. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.