How Local Transportation Decisions Can Put Public Health Front and Center
Transportation projects often have profound consequences for public health, whether negative (in the case of fossil fuel-burning highway expansions) or positive (in the case of calorie-burning bike-friendly, walkable streets). So why don't cities and states always consider health impacts when evaluating a transportation project or policy?
That's the question at the heart of a new paper released today by the Pew Health Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [PDF], prepared by the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University.
The authors looked at the prevalence of "Health Impact Assessments," which analyze the public health effects of a particular project or policy on a given population. Think of it as an Environmental Impact Statement, only the indicators are people, not ecosystems. HIAs are already used to inform policy decisions concerning health care or disease prevention, but they have also been used to evaluate transportation projects, like the East Bay Greenway. The HIA for the greenway influenced the design of the project, suggesting better integration with existing biking and walking paths, and helped to secure funding from Alameda County.
In some places, the report found, HIAs are already required in non-health policy sectors, while in others they are actually prohibited by law (though never for transportation). Most jurisdictions fall somewhere in between, with HIAs allowed but not mandated. (An EIS, on the other hand, is required by federal law for certain projects.)
The report does not evaluate the effectiveness of HIAs. Rather, the authors suggest that where HIAs have been slow to take root, an understanding of the law can increase their importance:
Interestingly, HIA practitioners have rarely used legal arguments to advocate for consideration of the findings or recommendations. More commonly, HIAs have been conducted through voluntary efforts by health officials, advocates, or officials outside the health sector who are interested in ensuring that the health implications of a proposed action are proactively identified and addressed. The findings and recommendations are often considered and acted on by responsible officials, but not necessarily because of legal requirements to do so.
The findings of our research do not suggest that there is a need to invoke legal arguments in cases where this voluntary approach is successful. Where effective, HIA practitioners can continue to conduct successful HIAs solely through building strong cross-sector collaborations, providing robust scientific analysis and recommendations, and educating decision makers and community members about the health impacts of proposed policies, projects, and plans, even when HIAs are not clearly required or facilitated by law.
The study compared 36 different jurisdictions, including 20 states, 10 cities, and five Native American tribes, as well as the federal government. Most supportive of transportation HIAs were Massachusetts, which adopted a "Healthy Transportation Compact" in 2009, and Washington State, which legally required an HIA as part of a bridge replacement project in 2007.
Overall, there were seven jurisdictions in which transportation HIAs were legally viable, if not already mandated.
Read the Health Impact Project's full statement here, alongside helpful links to additional resources relating to their research.
Stay in touch
Sign up for our free newsletter
More from Streetsblog USA
Who’s to Blame for Tuesday’s Headlines?
David Zipper writes for Vox about the numerous policies that encourage "car bloat," from tax loopholes and tariffs to lax safety regs and unfair fuel economy standards.
Why Riders With Disabilities Have To Sue For Accessible Transit Stops
A Bay Area transit agency is only the latest to be sued over inaccessible stations. What will it take to get every American stop ADA compliant?
Monday’s Headlines Reconnect With Pete
More than $3 billion is flowing out of the White House to help correct infrastructure mistakes in Black communities.
‘Buy, Bully, Bamboozle’: Report Shows App Companies Threaten Democracy
App delivery companies seek to block worker-led improvements by spending big money on political influence, leveraging their data, and even co-opting progressive language, argues a new report that lands days before a national one-day strike by app-workers.
How the Myth that ‘100 Companies’ Are Responsible for Climate Change Hides the True Impact of Automobility
An influential report pins responsibility for the climate crisis to just a handful of oil, gas and cement producers. But who's buying what they're selling — and who's creating policy that makes many of those purchases functionally compulsory?
