Draft MTP/SCS Comments Received - sacog

SCS Health & Equity Metrics August 2011
‐ When measuring transit trips by community type, SACOG has reported out combined
transit/bike/walk trip‐making. This makes it difficult to distinguish between these modes of
active transport. We suggest disaggregating it in the report and in monitoring.
‐ We further suggest measuring daily amount (in minutes) of work‐trip and non‐work trip
related physical activity, and if possible, chronic disease outcomes due to physical activity.
Methodology for measuring physical activity exists (see Health and Equity Metrics) and other
MPOs in California are embracing this measure. Also, modeling chronic disease outcomes from
physical activity changes due to transportation investments has been done by the California
Department of Public Health. 7
‐ SACOG bases some of their predictions of an increase in public transit use on an increase in use
of transfers, aided in part by streamlining measures such as the policy to implement the Connect
Card. However, should streamlining measures fail to produce an increase in transfers, SACOG
should plan for an adaptive decision‐making process that does not automatically decrease the
importance of public transit support strategies but revise those strategies – informed by data.
‐ While an increase in farebox revenues would be a boon to funding public transit, we express a
concern about which populations would be most heavily burdened. Therefore, we again
recommend as an equity measure that SACOG monitor transportation costs as a percentage of
household income by all forms of transportation, disaggregating and reporting it out by
community type as well as by income levels, and monitoring this on a regular basis.
Assumptions about farebox revenue increases are hopeful but again, adaptive decision‐making
processes should be put in place in case predictions do not hold true.
Bicycle and Pedestrian
‐ We commend SACOG for the discussion of public health benefits associated with walking and
biking, alluding to equity by describing that people with safe places to walk exercise more than
people who live in unsafe places, and highlighting the importance of pedestrian and bike
infrastructure (i.e., sidewalks and safe bikeways) in the choice and ability to walk.
‐ We commend SACOG for the planned changes to the non‐motorized transportation system (i.e.,
more bicycle trails and lanes, bike/pedestrian amenities on roads, complete street connections
within and between cities, and to transit and schools).
‐ The measures of biking and walking used in the SCS are:
Commuters reporting walk/bike/transit (however, commute trips that include transit
are counted as transit trips even if they include walking and biking)
Bike route mileage by class
Number of bicycle person trips and walk person trips
Weekday trips per capita by transit/bike/walk in various community types (center city,
developing, rural, etc)
Mode of travel for commute and non‐commute (drive alone, carpool, transit, bike walk)
7 California Dept. of Public Health. Health Co‐Benefits and Transportation‐Related Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
the Bay Area: A Technical Report. Available at
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/CCDPHP/Documents/ITHIM_Technical_Report11‐21‐11.pdf
‐8‐
Page 44 of 165