Health, Traffic and Environmental Justice in San Francisco, California

Transcription

1 Health, Traffic and Environmental Justice in San Francisco, California Megan Wier, MPH Program on Health, Equity and Sustainability APHA Webinar Series What Healthy Communities Need From Their Transportation Networks: Health Impact Assessments in Transportation March 15, 2011

2 Healthy Transportation Networks = Healthy People Able to walk, bike, take transit, play, access basic needs safely: traffic injury, physical activity, obesity, depression, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, social cohesion Able to sleep well, concentrate, communicate: traffic-related noise levels associated with stress, hypertension, blood pressure, heart disease, learning delays, sleep disturbances, hearing impairment, community annoyance Able to breathe clean air: air pollution and proximity to heavy traffic resulting in reduced lung function, increased asthma hospitalizations, asthma symptoms, bronchitis symptoms, and medical visits; air toxics like diesel exhaust and benzene are carcinogens Environmental justice, Equitable access: for all populations and subgroups regardless of age, ethnicity, income, immigrant status, etc.

3 Health Should Be Considered Health Impact Assessment (HIA): a systematic process to make evidence-based judgments on the health impacts of public decisions Screening Scoping Assessment Reporting Monitoring/ Evaluation Determine need for and value of a HIA Determine which health impacts to evaluate, methods for analysis, and workplan to complete the assessment Judge magnitude and likelihood of potential health impacts and identify responsive design strategies and recommendations Communicate results to stakeholders and decisionmakers Track effects of HIA and decision on health and evaluate HIA from start to finish

4 A Community and a Freeway 1960s: Construction of Interstate 280 (I-280) through southeast San Francisco Today: I-280 brings almost 200,000 vehicles/day within <100 feet from the nearest residences

5 HIA Partners and Contributors In 2006, concerned with the environmental health and justice implications, PODER (People Organizing to Demand Environmental & Economic Rights) asked SFDPH to collaborate on a participatory study of the impacts of building I-280 and subsequent local traffic patterns on local residents. UC Berkeley School of Public Health joined the collaboration in 2007.

6 Question for HIA (Retrospective): What are the health impacts of the building of I-280 and subsequent local traffic patterns on local residents?

7 Screening: Are the Conditions Ripe for HIA? EJ community partner interest in addressing health impacts of planning decisions Use of health criteria in transportation planning decisions limited Growing body of evidence regarding the health impacts of traffic and transportation systems Evidence and methods exist (some developed by SFDPH and UCB) to conduct analysis SFDPH engaged in on-going work to incorporate health impacts into planning policy decisions Consideration of health and equity impacts = potential to prevent and/or mitigate health impacts on communities

8 Screening: Principles of Collaboration Principal agreements included: focus on developing community knowledge, community engagement generating research that could inform actions for community change commitment to regular communication regarding findings and their interpretation intent to disseminate findings through various media after consulting with all parties Guiding principles: demystifying science validate diverse knowledge sources draw connections that challenge institutional paradigms

9 Scoping: Health Impacts of Traffic Air pollution respiratory disease, impaired lung development, asthma hospitalizations & symptoms, bronchitis symptoms, medical visits, cancer Traffic-related noise stress, hypertension, blood pressure, heart disease, learning delays, sleep disturbances, hearing impairment, community annoyance LA Weekly March 6, 2010 Traffic hazards, Walkability increased risk of traffic-related injury and death with higher volumes and speeds; adverse impacts on pedestrian environment, community cohesion, walking and its associated benefits for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, etc.

10 Scoping: Some Research Questions The Community 1. What are the community demographics now, and historically? 2. How do local residents experience the local and freeway traffic volumes? 3. What solutions do local residents see as potentially addressing some of the health impacts of traffic on their community? Traffic-related Health Impacts 4. What are local and freeway traffic volumes by vehicle type? 5. What air pollution and noise exposures are associated with traffic volumes? What is the health-based evidence regarding these impacts on local residents? 6. What are the pedestrian conditions in the community in terms of the built environment and safety?

11 Assessment Focused on diverse methods; draw on collaborators strengths: PODER s experience with community assessment and education SFDPH and UC Berkeley s technical capacity Community members expertise and experiences Method Traffic Counting Air Quality Modeling Community Surveys Noise Modeling & Monitoring U.S. Census Analysis Pedestrian Environmental Quality Assessment Community Photography Lead PODER SFDPH PODER SFDPH UCB - SPH SFDPH PODER Secondary Data Analysis SFDPH Methods further detailed in: Wier M, Sciammas C, Seto E, Bhatia R, Rivard T Health, Traffic, and Environmental Justice. Collaborative Research and Community Action in San Francisco, California. American Journal of Public Health 99(S3):S499 S504. Oral Histories PODER

12 Assessment Method Traffic Counting Findings example The proportion of trucks and buses to overall traffic in areas where families live and children play exceeds 10%. At the corner of Still & Lyell Streets, over 107 medium and big trucks pass in one hour. Noise Monitoring Areas at the end of Cayuga near I-280 were measured in excess of 70 Leq (equivalent constant decibel levels) due almost exclusively to freeway traffic. Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index Assessment Poor pedestrian environmental conditions exist along Still and Lyell Streets including unmarked pedestrian crossings to a bus stop and incomplete sidewalks. U.S. Census Analysis From 1960 to 2000, the project area, and areas close to the freeway, have had a dramatic increase in the number of children living there.

13 Reporting Popular Education Activities (PODER) workshops and trainings skits at community movie nights in the park pamphlet including community stories, comic art and research findings Media events at City Hall (PODER and community allies) targeted residents and policy makers about traffic s health impacts, need for action Lobbying, Testimony at City Hearings (PODER, community allies, SFDPH) Race, Poverty & the Environment, Article American Journal of Public Health, Field Action Report

14 Monitoring: Outcomes Short Term 2008 Board of Supervisors unanimous Resolution (081397): [U]rging the Municipal Transportation Agency and the Department of Public Health to collaborate and create health protective truck route planning in Southeast Neighborhoods. Encouraging cooperation between DPH and SFMTA and the local community in identifying and correcting health and safety related issues associated with truck traffic Cited key participatory research findings among other community conditions and traffic-related health effects.

15 Monitoring: Outcomes Short Term 2009 Health Protective Truck Route Planning Working Group: PODER, SFDPH and SFMTA staff, San Francisco Supervisoral staff, the Chinese Progressive Association, and concerned community members met quarterly. Truck Routes: identified and updated San Francisco s City Truck Route Map of designated/preferred truck routes. Conducted outreach to Teamster union halls and private trucking companies. Next steps: additional revisions and General Plan update. Traffic Calming: incorporated health criteria for cut-through truck traffic and pedestrian and bicycle collisions into the City Traffic Calming application ranking and selection process.

16 Monitoring: Outcomes Longer Term Framework to continue to assess and address health impacts of transportation systems: 1) Identification and analysis of existing residential areas experiencing disproportionate, adverse health impacts from heavy traffic and truck volumes. 2) Prioritization of disproportionately impacted areas for improvements in the context of ongoing transportation and land use planning processes. 3) Coordination of resources to alleviate the disproportionate environmental health burdens experienced by residents in these areas.

17 1) Identification of Disproportionately Impacted Communities SFDPH Traffic related Air Quality and Noise Modeling Inputs: Traffic volumes and speeds; Vehicle type and emissions rates; Temperature and humidity; Road surface type and meteorology; Receptors and exposure height Outputs: Traffic related fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) and traffic related noise levels (decibels) used to assess population exposure relative to health protective thresholds Health effects: can also be estimated using exposure response functions from the empirical literature.

18 1) Identification of Disproportionately Impacted Communities SFDPH Pedestrian Injury Forecasting and Pedestrian Environmental Quality Assessment San Francisco census tracts ( ) Number of Collisions Highways/Freeways Miles Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System Significant predictors of area level collisions: Traffic volume (+) Arterial streets (+) w/o surface transit Neighborhood commercial zoning (+) Employees (+) Residents (+) Land area ( ) Below poverty level (+) Age 65 and over ( ) Wier et al. Accident Analysis & Prevention street segment and intersection indicators in 5 domains: Intersection Safety Traffic Street Design Perceived Safety Land Use Observational survey = Street and Intersection weighted scores More information at:

19 1) Identification of Disproportionately Impacted Communities: Equity Pedestrian Injuries by Median Household Income: San Francisco Census Tracts 6 Pedestrian Injuries (ln), Proportion of Population in Poverty Proportion living below federal poverty level stclines_highways stclines_freeways , , , ,000 0% - 5% 5% - 9% 10% - 15% 16% - 25% 26% - 52% HWY 1 SOUTHBOUND LOMBARD ST I-80 EASTBOUND Regression Statistics Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations 169 Median Household Income Congestion Pricing Boundary Source: 2000 Census µ Miles City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health Environmental Health Section SKYLINE BLVD SLOAT BLVD 19TH AVE I-280 NORTHBOUND HWY 101 SOUTHBOUND HWY 101 NORTHBOUND I-280 SOUTHBOUND

20 2) Prioritization of Improvements Transportation Systems: Street and intersection improvements Soundwalls Speed reductions in residential areas, near vulnerable population attractors Traffic volume reductions (e.g., Road and Parking Pricing Policy, Transit Investments, Transportation Demand Management, Truck Routing, etc.) Attention to high injury areas, routes traveled by vulnerable populations (i.e., children, elderly, disabled, transit dependent) Sensitive Land Uses (residences, schools, health care facilities, child care, etc.): Indoor Ventilation and Filtration Systems (HVAC) Using lower floors for commercial use and upper for residential Setback of buildings from roadway air pollution source Double paned Windows Potential co benefits of energy efficient windows, insulation, etc.

21 3) Coordination of Resources to Alleviate Environmental Health Burdens Identify planning and policy decision making processes with impacts on the transportations system and resident exposures (changes in traffic volumes/trips, speeds, transit service and access, pedestrian and cyclist conditions) Are health impacts on existing or future residents analyzed? Are resources targeted to promote health and/or prevent adverse health impacts? Are resources targeted to address existing health disparities and inequities in transportation infrastructure and services? Ongoing SFDPH engagement in planning processes addressing health issues specifically regarding air quality, noise, pedestrians hazards, active transportation, equity

22 Some thoughts re: getting started Start: Small - with a pilot project that can build capacity and knowledge With community concerns that intersect with the goals of your work By drawing on strengths/resources of potential collaborators By identifying short-term goals to keep things focused By getting out and getting familiar with transportation efforts underway in your community: Who are the decision makers? Who are the stakeholders involved? What are their concerns? What are some of the potential health impacts of the decision? Are community concerns reflective of health impacts (e.g., noise, community cohesion, safety, pollution), but not articulated as health impacts? Are these potential health impacts part of the public discussion? Are they part of the project or policy analysis? What are the health gaps (and what evidence could address those gaps)?

23 Feasibility study approved by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) Board: December 2010 The Northeast Cordon (AM/PM) was the best performing among dozens of scenarios: 12% fewer peak period auto trips 21% reduction in VHD Congestion pricing is being studied in San Francisco, California 16% reduction in Northeast Cordon GHGs (5% citywide) $60-80M annual net revenue for transportation services and amenities 20-25% transit speed improvement Next steps: further study/analysis, including environmental review Implementation decision: likely 2-3 years, following environmental review Health Impacts?: The SFDPH-led HIA is examining the Northeast Cordon scenario that charges motorists $3 during AM/PM rush hours to travel into or out of the northeast quadrant of San Francisco (below). Northeast Cordon (AM/PM, $3) Laguna 18 th Street SFDPH noted SFCTA study assessing: Transportation System Performance 3 Es : Environment; Economy; Equity twitter.com/sanfranciscota The HIA is supported with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation s Active Living Research Program.

24 Scoping

25 Assessment: Air Pollution Health Impacts

26 Assessment: Active Transportation Impacts

27 Assessment: Baseline & Future Conditions Includes: Active transportation, physical activity, adherence with health guidelines Pedestrian and bicycle collisions - injury forecasting modeling approach Air pollution and asthma, premature mortality Noise levels and community annoyance, sleep disturbance, and myocardial infarction Economic impacts of air quality and pedestrian injury collisions Equity impacts - disparities based on population subgroup and place Resident & stakeholder perceptions of existing conditions and potential impacts Reporting: complete findings in Summer 2011 Baseline health factors and conditions Evidence-based judgments of potential health impacts Recommendations to promote benefits and address potential adverse impacts Updates and more information available at:

28 For More Information, Program on Health, Equity and Sustainability: HIA Practitioners Summer Training Course (July 25-28, 2011): San Francisco Bay Area HIA Collaborative: Human Impact Partners: APHA Public Health & Transportation Toolkit: UCLA HIA Clearinghouse, Learning, and Information Center: Health Impact Project: World Health Organization: