Group: Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues Task Force
DATE: January 17, 2001
TIME: 10 AM
LOCATION: CATS Conference Room
Members Represented:
Ed Barsotti League of Illinois Bicyclists (LIB)
Greg Dreyer Orland Park
Peter Fahrenwald Chicago Transit Authority
Gary Foyle Metra
Ronald Hamelberg Council of Mayors
Alan Mammoser Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
Jan Metzger Center for Neighborhood Technology
Bobbie Moore Palatine/Willow Rd. CMT
Ruth Myers DuPage County
Randy Neufeld Chicagoland Bicycle Federation (CBF)
Keith Privett Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Tom Rickert Kane County
Craig Williams Edwards and Kelcey
Mary Young Pace
Others in Attendance:
Bree Andrews Children's Memorial Hospital
Richard Bascomb Village of Schaumburg
Larry Bury Northwest Municipal Conference
Artemio Perez Center for Neighborhood Technology
Peter Pluska City of Naperville
Jeff Sunderlin Illinois Department of Public Health
Dan Thomas Edwards and Kelcey
Terry Walloch City of Naperville
Randy Warren CBF
Linda Bolte Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS)
Alice Huang CATS
Tom Murtha CATS
Kermit Wies CATS
1. Approval of Meeting Minutes
The minutes from the last meeting were approved with no changes.
2. Public Health and Transportation
At the last bicycle and pedestrian issues task force meeting, there was discussion about the links between transportation habits and public health. It was suggested that the task force invite professionals from the public health sector to participate in a discussion about possible partnerships and projects.
Jeff Sunderlin, from the Nutrition and Physical Activity section of the Illinois Department of Public Health, presented on the problems associated with inactivity in our country and the challenges of solving them. Cardio-vascular disease is the country's number one killer. The top three causes of this are tobacco, inactivity and alcohol. In Illinois, 64% of the adult population does not engage in enough physical activity to reap health benefits. About 44% engage in no leisure time recreational physical activity. In the last decade, the number of states with over 15% of the population classified as obese has grown dramatically. There has been a 33% increase in diabetes (70% increase in the 30-39 age bracket). If this were an ebola outbreak, we would have vans and guys in white suits attacking the problem.
Mr. Sunderlin and others are trying to figure out how to motivate people to get more physical activity. There are often misperceptions about physical activity. Often equated with exercise or extreme athleticism, it can be intimidating. Because many feel their overall health is already fine (90% of adults in a survey reported that their health is very good or excellent), they do not see the need for a lifestyle change that appears to involve spandex and unachievable goals. However, it has been shown that a mere 30 minuets a day of physical activity (walking, vacuuming the house, etc) confers health benefits. He maintained that the biggest obstacle is the glorification of food. Our country is the best at combining taste, quantity, access and advertising. 7% of Americans eat in a McDonalds on any given day. The food industry spends $11 billion dollars a year on advertising. The candy bar industry alone spends $50 million year. In contrast, the Center for Disease Control's National Obesity Campaign budget is $5 million. Mr. Sunderlin has concluded that diet is going to be very difficult to change. While there are only seven tobacco companies to hold accountable for damages to public health, there are 1,100 new food products entering the market every year. He feels it will be easier to combat obesity by getting people to move more as opposed to eat better.
He stated that while genetics permit obesity, the environment creates it. Recently, the Cardio-Vascular Disease task force submitted to the Illinois General Assembly a report that, among other things, calls for the reduction of barriers to walking. The task force is trying to get it onto the political radar screen; the disease is the state's number one killer (42,000 people a year--the combined populations of Rockford, Tinley Park and Pekon), but not one general revenue dollar has been dedicated to combating it.
One dilemma is figuring out where to target resources and energy. Do you work with young people or target those already with the disease? He feels it is important to pick one thing and do it well. He is interested in how we can create changes in the infrastructure to make it easier for people to convert perhaps five of their cars trips a week to walking or cycling ones.
Mr. Privett asked what body mass index is used to determine obesity and Mr. Sunderlin clarified that 30% and up is obese and 26-29% is overweight.
Ms. Moore complemented the presentation and suggested that it be shared with mayors because a lot of walkability decisions, such as installing sidewalks, are made at the municipal level. Mr. Farhenweld suggested the presentation would be particularly useful for that audience if it was boiled down and the transportation connection was made more of a focus. Ms. Moore mentioned that some communities do not install sidewalk amenities because they want to maintain a rural feel; however, there is nothing rural about 50,000 cars on the roads each day. She feels we should add the public health angle to the information we provide to communities. Non-motorized transportation is not just about reducing congestion.
Mr. Sunderlin added that a sub-committee will be established in the Cardio-Vascular Disease task force to address issues of the built environment. He noted that sidewalks are not the only issue; building design can also invite or impede physical activity.
Mr. Barsotti wondered if the North Carolina Department of Public Health's transportation advocacy work could provide a model for this area. Mr. Hamelberg suggested the task force add a public health representative to the task force, perhaps someone from a local county public health department.
Ms. Kilgore asked if there is any data that show a connection between community design and obesity levels. (See attached articles from the 1/21/01Washington Post and 1/10/01 abc news website). Mr. Sunderlin answered that evidence is generally anecdotal, but that it would be good to research the question. Ms. Kilgore noted that she was hearing two different messages. On one hand it is very difficult to convince people to change their behavior--access to sidewalks will not necessarily get people off the couch and out of the car. On the other, the built environment has a profound influence on people's behavior--when the walking and cycling environments are poor, people are much less inclined to use those modes. Mr. Sunderlin emphasized the need to deal with inactivity from both the infrastructure and behavioral perspectives.
Mr. Neufeld suggested that we pull together information and perhaps a presentation for the mayors and announced that Mr. Sunderlin will be the featured presenter at CBF's annual meeting on February 17 at the Rosemont Horizon.
Ms. Andrews then discussed work being done at Children's Memorial Hospital to explore the connections between children's transportation habits and their health. According to a 1997 study, 14% of children and 12% of adolescents are overweight. The incidence of type II diabetics (the kind that is related to diet) is increasing dramatically; a lot of kids are having adult type diseases. Meanwhile, funding for physical education programs is down.
CMH is interested in Safe Routes to School programs and the Walking School Bus. Walking to school can be an easy way for children to get the physical activity they need. Ms. Andrews is interested in figuring out what the barriers are. How much is infrastructure related and how much of it is psycho-social? For example, parents are often afraid to let their children walk alone, especially in neighborhoods struggling with violence. Instead of playing outside, kids stay in and watch TV. She is also curious about how people get information. What is the best way to educate people? Where are the billboards promoting positive lifestyle messages? She noted that we do not have good transportation data for children. Mr. Neufeld added that it is very important to collect information about children and transportation and that he would be bringing this issue up later in the meeting.
Mr. Rickert asked if CMH is already doing a Safe Routes to School program and she clarified that a grant has been submitted. CAPS is the lead agency in Chicago. She has been told that 114 schools participate in their walking school bus program, but she does not have details about how the program is being implemented. Mr. Privett mentioned that some projects in CDOT's traffic calming program have been instigated by CAPS and the walking school bus.
Mr. Neufeld added that many communities and states across the country are exploring ways to create safe routes to schools. California is conducting a two year pilot program that involves setting aside 20% of its hazard elimination funds to make improvements to the walking and cycling environments around schools. He proposed putting together a workshop to bring together individuals, agencies and communities interested in developing a strategy for dealing with safe routes to school in this region. Mr. Rickert mentioned that access to schools and park districts comes up as a primary concern and that his agency is being asked to look at the issue.
Ms. Bolte suggested that a safe routes to school workshop could be on the list of proposed UWP tasks. Mr. Hamelberg stated that we need to target youth because children often convince their parents to change behavior. He cited the example of smoking. Mr. Rickert asked what kind of funding might be available for things like workshops and billboard campaigns. Mr. Sunderlin replied that although CDC's budget tripled last year, it's still only 16 million for the entire country. Ms. Metzger added that, in terms of the UWP, she realizes the resources are limited but feels we need to be aware of the bigger picture. She stated that at the last round of public hearings there was so much support for non-motorized modes. She feels bicycle and pedestrian planning should get more than the small percentage of planning dollars it currently receives ($75,000 or 1.4% of CATS' FY01 UWP budget was for bicycle and pedestrian planning). Ms. Bolte reminded that it's not just a matter of dollars but also people resources. Mr. Barsotti added that IDOT used 402 safety funds to print the safe bicycling booklet, which is available free of charge. Ms. Bolte recalled that the Secretary of State is also working on a bicycle rules of the road publication.
Mr. Neufeld clarified his safe routes to school workshop suggestion by explaining it does not have to be a labor intensive project; it's mostly a matter of bringing together interested parties for a longer, more focused conversation. All we need are a space, presenters and a structure.
Ms. Moore asked if this was a good time to discuss IDOT's policies regarding local matches for sidewalks. Ms. Bolte explained that they are not inconsistent with federal policy which is that states can participate up to 80% by law, not that they must.
Ms. Kilgore asked for more details on California's use of Hazard Elimination funds. Mr. Neufeld replied that people in California noticed that while pedestrians and cyclists comprised 20% of traffic fatalities, 0% of Hazard Elimination funds were being used for infrastructure improvements to non-motorized environments. For a two year trial, the state is setting aside 20% of those funds and soliciting applications for infrastructure improvements that will increase safety for walkers and cyclists around schools. There were many more requests than dollars. This is a way of taking safety funds and leveraging them in a new way; at least half a dozen states are considering similar legislation. For this region, inventorying need and pre-existing programs is the next important step. There might be other sources of funding in Illinois. Mr. Williams asked if state legislation is even needed to access Hazard Elimination funds and if anyone had ever approached IDOT for information on their methodology for using them. Mr. Neufeld explained that he was not necessarily advocating for a bill, adding that it is an excellent idea to ask IDOT about their policy.
Mr. Rickert summarized the discussion and outlined next steps:
  • Investigate how we can communicate the connection between health and transportation issues to decision makers. We need to add this angle to the materials we offer municipalities.
  • Seek out a public health agency in this region that might like to become a member of the task force.
  • Look at the possibility of developing UWP tasks that promote walking and cycling for transportation and health and develop safe routes to school programs.
  • Plan a safe routes to school workshop.
  • Ask IDOT for information on the Hazard Elimination Program.
3. Data Standards Working Group Update
Ms. Kilgore shared a letter and map she prepared in response to one of IDOT's requests for information on bicycle accommodations on US Route 30 in Will County. She and Mr. Barsotti also summarized the working group's conversation on bicycle suitability measures. Because most bicycling occurs on roads, it is important to figure out ways to assess the relative bicycle friendliness of road segments. This can help with producing suitability maps as well as inform efforts to design bicycle friendly roads. Of the four measures the group looked at, the Bicycle Level of Service seems to have the most potential for assisting with this region's bicycle planning activities. While the working group felt it would be premature to ask CATS to endorse this measure, it proposed doing a pilot project to test the measure's usefulness. For example, CATS staff's responses to IDOT's requests for input on bicycle accommodations can include a suggestion that the roadway be designed to a certain level of service with suggestions on how to accomplish this. Mr. Rickert indicated to Mr. Williams that Kane would be willing to try using this tool as it revises its bicycle plan.
4. Unified Work Program
Ms. Bolte explained that this year's UWP is going to be structured in a new way. The key is that projects required for RTP development will be considered most important. She asked if the Councils of Mayors were planning on seeking bicycle planning money and Mr. Bury stated that they would not be. Ms. Bolte indicated that bicycle and pedestrian plan development is in a fairly strong position, since the 2000 update called for the development of a regional bike/ped plan. However, there is room for other tasks. Mr. Neufeld distributed a handout proposing the UWP include bicycling safety and usage data collection. Crash and usage data help identify safety problems, especially those which might require infrastructure solutions. He suggested that the initial regional bike/ped planning effort include improving the bikeways GIS, applying the Bicycle Level of Service model to road networks and gathering use and crash data. This year, a crash study of the city of Chicago revealed that police data are not complete. There is serious underreporting of bicycle crashes. For example, the DOT only keeps records of bicycle crashes involving motor vehicles. Crash data is also not correlated with health data, so it is hard to figure out what happens to people with injuries.
Ms. Myers stated cyclist behavior is often the cause of crashes. Mr. Neufeld agreed that can be a problem, which is why we need more information on what causes crashes. However, he also explained that behavior is often influenced by facility design. For example, speeding is a behavior that is related to road design; traffic calming measures can help change behavior. He also noted that sometimes people have misperceptions about safety, fearing things that are not problems and not aware of real dangers.
A conversation followed about possible sources of data and how data collection will be an important first step in developing the regional bike/ped plan. Mr. Neufeld asked about the status of the upcoming household travel survey and noted that the last one missed the opportunity to gather bicycling information. Mr. Wies said he would follow up on this question. (CATS' Technical Analysis Department informed Mr. Wies that the survey design details haven't been prepared but they will eventually receive an airing at the Technical Procedures Task Force. Attention will be paid to bicycling as a travel mode in the survey design.)
CATS' UWP proposal is due February 16th, so the task force decided to identify a sub-committee (Mr. Neufeld, Ms. Metzger, Mr. Barsotti and Mr. Rickert) to work with CATS staff to develop a bike/ped planning proposal.
5. Bicycles and Transit
If there are any questions about Pace's Bikes on Bus survey, contact Ms. Ladner, who was unable to be at the meeting. Mr. Neufeld expressed concern about Metra's explanation of its bikes on trains policy. It reiterated the findings of the original study, which did not include investigating the possibility of cyclists using ADA accessible spaces. The task force's letter to Metra had asked if the policy could be reconsidered in light of the increasing numbers of ADA accessible cars and other transit agency's successes with cyclists using those spaces. Mr. Foyle mentioned that CalTrans (a commuter rail agency with rolling stock identical to Metra's) has experienced some conflicts about cyclists using the accessible spaces. Mr. Neufeld and Mr. Foyle will get more information about these operational concerns before the next meeting.
6. Other Business
Ms. Kilgore stated that CATS has been invited to include an event in Chicago's bike month calendar and asked if the task force would be interested in CATS staff putting something together. Mr. Privett suggested putting the May/June task force meeting in the calendar and the task force agreed.
7. The next task force meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 20, 2001, 9:30 am