Contributions to the article:
Division of Labor:
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 most well-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]
Public policies which promote 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 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]
Physical exercise improves mental 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 of Task minutes per week. [20]
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]
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 is use, including:
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, measures that can be implemented by local governments. [33] [34] A significant concern about increased active mobility is a corresponding increase in injuries and deaths, especially between pedestrians or cyclists and motor vehicles. [35] 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. [36] Another criticism of active transportation policy contends that converting traffic lanes for bicycle use makes travel more difficult for commuters who must use a motor vehicle. [37]
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. [38] 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. [39] 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. [40] 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. [41] 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. [42] Polis encourages the development of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) to guide mobility projects in cities of all sizes. [43]
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. This includes:
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. [45]
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, [46] including 35,000 kilometers of dedicated cycling paths. [47] 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]
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]
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% |
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. [62] 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. [63]
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: others (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
Contributions to the article:
Division of Labor:
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 most well-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]
Public policies which promote 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 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]
Physical exercise improves mental 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 of Task minutes per week. [20]
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]
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 is use, including:
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, measures that can be implemented by local governments. [33] [34] A significant concern about increased active mobility is a corresponding increase in injuries and deaths, especially between pedestrians or cyclists and motor vehicles. [35] 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. [36] Another criticism of active transportation policy contends that converting traffic lanes for bicycle use makes travel more difficult for commuters who must use a motor vehicle. [37]
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. [38] 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. [39] 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. [40] 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. [41] 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. [42] Polis encourages the development of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) to guide mobility projects in cities of all sizes. [43]
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. This includes:
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. [45]
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, [46] including 35,000 kilometers of dedicated cycling paths. [47] 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]
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]
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% |
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. [62] 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. [63]
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: others (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)