Texting & Driving: Riskier Even Than Drinking & Driving

 

By Barb Thoman, Executive Director

 

Distracted driving puts all road users at risk, including people walking and bicycling.
Photo credit: TLC

 

Over 900 people gathered in Duluth in mid-November for the Toward Zero Deaths Conference focused on improving safety on Minnesota roads. The conference brings together law enforcement, state and local transportation practitioners, safety advocates, and providers of emergency medical services. The keynote speaker, Dr. Paul Atchley, Director of the Cognitive Psychology Program at the University of Kansas, gave a sobering presentation on distracted driving.

 

Atchley noted that drivers who are talking on a cell phone while driving are four to five times more likely to get in a crash; texting is even more hazardous. Atchley said people can't multi-task, they simply task-switch. This means that when someone uses a cell phone while driving, their brain reduces its focus on the complexity of driving and effectively narrows their field of vision.

 

Research shows that cell phone use while driving has an even higher incidence of causing a crash than drinking and driving. Atchley said cell phone users have little awareness of impairment and are even more likely than drunk drivers to simply drive off the road or into the back of another vehicle (or a bicyclist or pedestrian).

 

The 2014 Toward Zero Deaths Conference drew nearly 1000 attendees focused on improving safety on Minnesota roads. Photo credit: TLC.

 

Distracted driving is not limited to cell phone use. Another TZD conference presenter, Vijay Dixit, spoke about his 19-year-old daughter who died as a passenger in a car crash after the driver, her college friend, reached for a napkin. Any action that takes a driver’s attention away from the road can be dangerous. The National Highway Safety Traffic Administration suggests, however, that because texting requires a driver’s visual, manual, and cognitive attention it is a particularly high-risk distraction.

 

Distracted driving poses great risks for the most vulnerable road users: people walking and bicycling. Bicyclists and pedestrians lack the protection that a vehicle—with its many airbags and safety features—provides a motorist. A recent tragic example is the death of young mother Andrea Boeve who was bicycling in rural Rock County, Minnesota, this summer when she was struck and killed by a distracted driver. The driver was using his phone at the time of the crash.

 

Despite cell phone use being linked to one of every four crashes, Dr. Atchley noted that the United States and individual states, including Minnesota, have weak laws and weak enforcement about cell phone use behind the wheel. Existing laws are notably weaker than laws pertaining to drunk driving.

 

What can you do? Silence the phone and keep it out of reach when you are driving a vehicle (or riding a bike or walking across the street); encourage others to do the same. Support stronger laws and enforcement pertaining to distracted driving.

 

More information:

 

• Watch a short presentation by Dr. Atchley.
• Learn more about the Toward Zero Deaths conference and download featured presentations.

Transportation and Climate Change: Building out the Transit System for a Greener Future

By Whitney Lawrence, Member Engagement/Senior Organizer

“The most significant opportunity to reduce carbon emissions . . . is transportation—which in turn depends on community design.”  —Peter Calthorpe

Last week, TLC members and allies gathered in Minneapolis to take a closer look at the connection between transportation and climate change. Over 50 people attended the event, which also featured presentations from Jim Erkel of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Joshua Houdek of the Sierra Club. Thanks to all who could join us!

The US Environmental Protection Agency affirms that "the more greenhouse gases we emit, the larger future climate changes will be." As discussed at our recent event, current Minnesota law specifies aggressive goals for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Using 2005 as a baseline, the goals call for decreases in GHG emissions by the following:

• 15% by 2015,
• 30% by 2025, and
• 80% by 2050.

How do we get there? We will never meet the emissions standards outlined above if we do not seriously address our transportation system. Transportation accounts for 24% of Minnesota’s total CO2 output, making it the second largest contributor to our state’s GHG emissions.   

 

This is consistent with patterns for the U.S. at large. The EPA reports that, with a 27% share, transportation is also the second largest end-use contributor to GHG emissions nationally.  Of this pollution, 62% comes from cars & light trucks (SUVs, pickups, minivans).

 

 

Understanding how and why transportation contributes to our GHG emissions is crucial to addressing the problem. First, it is important to understand that transportation is a derived demand. Put simply, people are not driving or riding the bus for fun—they are doing it because they need to get from point A to point B. 

The options we have for getting from point A to point B have a significant impact on transportation patterns and GHG emissions. The average Twin Cities commuter puts approximately 2.6 tons of GHG emissions into the atmosphere every year by driving alone to work. And, an estimated 78% of workers who drive to work drive alone. In the coming decades, cleaner fuels and more fuel efficient vehicles will help. However, reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled is the single most important thing we can do to lower GHG emissions from transportation in Minnesota.

With this in mind, it is crucial that the state and region fund the build-out of public transit and well-connected networks for bicycling and walking so more people have the option to leave the car at home or live without one. Transit emits a fraction of the pollution of driving alone, and getting around by bike or on foot produces zero emissions. Unfortunately, only 25% of metro households and 10% of metro jobs are conveniently served by our current transit systems. It’s one of many reasons why TLC and the Transit for a Stronger Economy coalition are spearheading a movement to accelerate the build out of the regional transit system. (Learn more and get involved at www.transit4mn.org.) 

Transportation and land use go hand in hand. Residents who live in more compact, mixed-use areas use transit at a rate that is 2-5 times greater than the rest of the region, which reduces the number of car trips they take by up to 50%.  And less driving means less GHG pollution.

The Minneapolis/Saint Paul area is one of least compact metro regions in the nation. Our land use policies and transportation investments have traditionally encouraged people to live far from where they work: the average Twin Cities commuter travels 13 miles and crosses county lines at least once reach to their job. This means they often have to drive, which significantly increases CO2 output. As shown on the featured map, people living near the core of the Twin Cities metro region—where there is higher density and greater access to transit—have a smaller carbon footprint. Land use policies that encourage transit-oriented development and communities designed for bicycling and walking will be key to helping Minnesota achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals.

What else will help Minnesota put the brakes on climate change? Try leaving the car at home for one extra trip each week and make that trip by walking, sharing a ride, bicycling, or taking the bus or train. We encourage you to drive differently and to drive less whenever possible. More tips and inspiration for doing exactly that:
 

Sincere thanks to Jim Erkel at Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy for contributing graphics and information for this article.

Clean air and transportation

From Barb Thoman, Executive Director

The air in Minnesota is cleaner than it was 40 years ago, when cars without catalytic converters burned leaded gasoline and industry smokestacks had fewer controls. Yet, over that same period, we’ve also found out more about how air pollution affects people’s health and the environment.  In short, we’ve found that lower levels of air pollution affect our health more than we had previously thought.

Based on this new knowledge, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has tightened federal air quality standards for lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, small particles, and sulfur dioxide in recent years.  Even more stringent standards are now proposed for ozone and small particles. 

Why are elevated levels of ozone and small particles in our air of such concern that stronger regulation is necessary? Because ozone and fine particles contribute to many health problems.

• OZONE. The health effects from elevated concentrations of ozone include “breathing problems, lung tissue damage, and premature mortality” (California Air Resources Board). Even persons who are otherwise healthy may experience health effects when ozone levels increase.  A recent study also shows that ozone contributes to cardiovascular events like heart attacks.  (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-quality-and-pollutants/general-air-quality/be-air-aware.html)
• FINE PARTICLES. These particles enter the deep lung and are transferred into the bloodstream where they can travel to and affect other organs.  Fine particles have been shown to increase heart disease, respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and mortality. They also make asthma worse and lead to increased hospitalizations and deaths. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children are the groups most at risk. Fine particles are also major contributors to reduced visibility (haze). (California Air Resources Board, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/aqfaq/index.html#1 and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, http://www.pca.state.mn.us/gloss/glossary.cfm?term=Particulate_Matter,_Fine_(PM2.5)).  

Currently in Minnesota, our air pollution levels fall within EPA standards. But if, as expected, the standards become more stringent, we’re likely to exceed the new limits and be “out of compliance” with the Clean Air Act. Non-compliance would trigger a mandatory multi-year planning process and implementation of programs and actions to reduce pollutants. Exactly what will be required depends on the specific sources of pollution.  The costs of nonattainment would spread throughout the economy and could be very large. 

There are many sources of harmful air pollutants, including factories, homes, and other places where fuel and wood are burned, as well as farms where crop and livestock dust are generated. Vehicle tailpipe emissions contribute significantly to the creation of ground-level ozone and diesel emissions along interstate highways contribute to elevated levels of particles adjacent to those corridors.

 

 

Our transportation system and our personal transportation choices can either be part of the problem or part of the solution. Shifting trips from driving to transit, walking, or bicycling could play an important role in protecting air quality by reducing vehicle tailpipe emissions.

 

According to US EPA, a single passenger car emits nearly one pound of carbon dioxide per mile driven. Transit saves space on the road and emits a fraction of the pollution of driving alone.

 

Transit emits just a fraction of the air pollution of driving alone. More bicycling and walking also reduces emissions. We know this first hand from the combined efforts of TLC’s Bike Walk Twin Cities non-motorized transportation pilot program and the Volpe Center at the US Department of Transportation.

Since 2007, our BWTC program has been measuring the rate of bicycling and walking in the Twin Cities. Using the data from 2010, which showed bicycling up 33% since 2007 and walking up 18%, USDOT calculated the impacts on levels of driving and emissions. The results: in 2010 alone, more than 7 million miles were covered on bike or foot rather than in a car. From 2007-2010, more than 14 million miles shifted from driving to bicycling and walking.

And what’s the impact of less driving on air quality. Here is the chart from Volpe, showing that every day in the Minneapolis area, more bike/walk trips and less driving meant less carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and hydrocarbons.

USDOT Volpe Center CONVERSIONS for Minneapolis-area pilot.
Based on 7,260,877 averted vehicle miles travelled (VMT) in 2010
and 14,521,754 averted VMT for 2007-2010.

Other transportation options that can protect air quality by reducing tailpipe emissions include increasing use of car and bicycle sharing, telework and telecommuting programs, van pooling and carpooling.

So, what’s next with air quality issues in the Twin Cities? The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency manages compliance with the federal Clean Air Act in Minnesota. Currently, the MPCA is collaborating with the Minnesota Environmental Initiative, a nonprofit organization, to oversee an 18-month study process, called the Clean Air Dialogue, to identify options to reduce air emissions and reduce the risk of falling out of compliance with new air standards.

Transit for Livable Communities is one of the invited participants in the Clean Air Dialogue. If our region commits to building out our transit system (bus and rail) and keeps working to make bicycling and walking safe and convenient options across the metro, we can show how emissions from transportation can be reduced – contributing to cleaner air and better health.

For more information on:

The Clean Air Dialogue process

http://www.environmental-initiative.org/projects/minnesotas-clean-air-dialogue/minnesotas-clean-air-dialogue-meetings

Bike Walk Twin Cities Count report

http://www.bikewalktwincities.org/sites/default/files/bike_walk_twin_cities_2011_count_report.pdf

Non-Motorized Pilot Program report to Congress

http://www.bikewalktwincities.org/news-events/news/us-dot-more-investment-bicycling-and-walking-pays

 

Air Pollution and Brain Damage

From Dave Van Hattum, Policy & Advocacy Program Manager

Air pollution in the Twin Cities generally goes unnoticed, and I suspect that unless you have asthma or other health problems, you don’t pay much attention to the handful of Air Quality Alerts each year.   I didn’t realize that we had a smog problem until I saw the picture below from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

 
                            Without smog                                                               With smog

 

But what we don’t pay attention to can still pose a very serious health threat.  The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency reports that we have made steady progress over the past couple of decades in reducing the emission of key air pollutants.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is that over those same decades scientists have learned that the health risks from even very minute levels of air pollution are far greater than previously estimated.

Recent research from the University of Southern California (USC) reveals a very disturbing picture of how air pollutants, much of it resulting from cars and trucks, can impact our health. 

USC scientists exposed mice to the same atmospheric conditions that humans encounter when driving along the freeway (15 hours per week of smog).   Frighteningly, the mice experienced swelling and inflammation of the brain similar to that associated with Alzheimer’s disease. 

Because the challenge of substantially reducing our dependence on autos seems so difficult, reducing the health impacts of cars is not currently a high public policy priority.  This can and should change.  Other metro regions, particularly our counterparts in Canada and Europe, have rates of transit and bicycling trips several times that of the Twin Cities.

Paul Aasen, the new Commissioner of the MPCA, warns that if current travel trends continue, the Twin Cities’s region will fall out of attainment with federal air quality standards in the next three years.  A report by the University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies estimated the health costs of automobile generated air pollution in Minnesota to be over $700 million per year.  The Minnesota Chamber has estimated an additional cost (for regulatory responses) of $300 million per year should our region be placed in non-attainment for federally regulated air pollutants.

$4.00 gas may be a blessing in disguise as it will encourage more walking, bicycling, transit use and carpooling.  Longer term, high gasoline prices should spur a debate about how to fund an expansion of our region’s modest public transit system; we need to be building a transit system that provides real options for most, not a small fraction, of metro residents. We also need to design our roads and communities in a manner that encourages far more travel by bicycle and by foot.

 

Interview with David Thornton, MPCA Assistant Commissioner

David Thornton is one of three Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Assistant Commissioners. He is responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of the agency’s air policies to improve and maintain air quality in Minnesota.  David joined the MPCA staff in 1980 as the Acid Rain Coordinator. After that, he managed air quality monitoring, data analysis, and air policy activities for many years. Most recently he has been involved with implementing federal regional haze regulations, and developing policies to help reduce air emissions, particularly mercury emissions from power plants.

Barb Thoman, acting executive director of TLC, talked with David in June about the transportation sector’s impact on air quality, the MPCA’s role in regulating air quality, and changing EPA air quality standards.

Barb: How has the role of the MPCA evolved in the last 10-20 years?

David: We’re working to communicate with people more effectively.  We’re hoping to let them know that the air they are breathing now, in 2010, is much cleaner than it was ten or twenty years ago. Not only do health scientists know more about how air pollution affects public health, but the standards have been reduced to reflect that understanding.  Based on that knowledge, we’ve done a more comprehensive job of monitoring air quality and alerting people when we feel that air quality could negatively affect their health. However, what people are hearing is that the air is bad – that they can’t play soccer today -- and because they didn’t hear that kind of warning ten years ago they assume the air quality has gotten worse.  I don’t want to give the impression that it is good enough, but we are working to get it there and it is getting better.

Barb: Is Minnesota’s air quality regulated by the state or by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)?

David: Minnesota has a few separate and unique standards, but not many. The effort that it takes, mainly the research, to create and enforce regulations on our own isn’t something we can do with our current resources. Currently, we are relying on the federal EPA standards. That being said, EPA standards had been stagnant for years even though the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires updating as appropriate every five years. For a long time the EPA avoided doing that updating, but certain advocacy groups figured out that they could sue the EPA for noncompliance.  Now the EPA is more aggressive and staying in sync with the CAA schedule. Sometimes it feels like they just changed the standards when they are already coming out with another proposal to change it again. At some places in the country, we’re still trying to implement the first round of changes!

Barb: What are the new standards and is Minnesota in compliance?

David: Minnesota may be in violation with the revised federal standards for particulate matter (PM 2.5), or fine particles in the air, and ground-level ozone, depending on where the new standards are set. This past winter was pretty bad. When you add up all the numbers, we think we’ll become “nonattainment” -- a regulatory word meaning we don't meet the standards -- based on the existing standards for fine particles that EPA has on the books.  The EPA is developing a new standard for particulate matter, and there is no reason to believe Minnesota will fare any better under the new standard.

The EPA is also looking at new ozone standards. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by a chemical reaction. While particulate matter is a problem year round, ozone is typically only a problem in the summer or when the weather is warm. The EPA has proposed a new standard, but only as a range. When the final standard is released in late August, we will have a better idea what it will mean for Minnesota. We’ve been very close to the current standard for a year. While we continue to make progress in reductions, the EPA has been slowly ratcheting the standard down.

If Minnesota is in violation of the new standards, we will be required to create a specific plan that can include mandated and voluntary regulation strategies.  These plans are known as State Implementation Plans and are enforceable at the state and national level.

Barb: What role does transportation play in air quality?

David: Transportation sources are a significant part of the problem we have with ozone and particulate matter. If you look at places like Chicago and Milwaukee, they can trace some of their air quality problems to emissions generated in the Twin Cities. Particulate matter is carried by the wind, typically moving from west to east.  In Minnesota, particulate matter is actually highest in Ramsey County to the east of the Twin Cities. The areas south of us add to our particulate matter problems as well. 

The city in Minnesota with the biggest ozone problem is Stillwater.  Ozone forms when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are given the opportunity to interact with sunlight. The pollution put into the air by the Twin Cities area doesn’t fully form ozone until it has reached the Stillwater area. But, again, there are places that are much worse off from an air quality standpoint than we are here in Minnesota.

Barb: In what ways does air pollution from the transportation sector impact people’s health?

David: The MPCA is currently working on a model to do risk analysis for all sources of pollution.  Mobile sources (cars, trucks, lawn mowers) and area sources contribute the most to public risk. Area source pollution is not easily regulated and is coming from locations such as homes, gas stations, bakeries, and automotive paint businesses. We do have monitors where freeways converge and there are densely populated neighborhoods since the risk is higher along high traffic roadways.  Those monitors track the nitrous oxide levels. One monitor is near the Lowry tunnel.  However, we can’t afford to do more than the minimum where monitoring is concerned. 

Non-road sources are a major issue as well.  Non-road sources are mobile sources that aren’t on the road such as boats, construction equipment, snowmobiles, weed whackers, and lawn mowers.

Although the EPA’s new standards for motor vehicle emissions will help to reduce pollution from cars and trucks, ultimately, all of our air problems are linked back to the use of fossil fuels for energy. Because of our lifestyle choices and how we get from point A to point B, we are degrading our air. The solution will require using less fossil fuel and increasing efficiency.

Barb: What is being done in Minnesota to address the fact that transportation is a leading source of air pollution?

David: Through the federal CMAQ Grant (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality), the MPCA has retrofitted nearly every eligible state and county heavy-duty diesel truck in the metro area with emission-reducing exhaust equipment.  And we’re now starting to retrofit eligible city fire trucks, beginning with Minneapolis and Saint Paul’s fleets.

Diesel particulate can be very harmful in high concentrations.  California has even classified diesel emissions as a carcinogen.  Take a second and think about what is all around you all the time. There are school buses, garbage trucks, and semi-trucks –a lot of sources of vehicle emissions.

Our job at the MPCA is to keep this issue in front of everyone. Transportation is a major contributor to air quality issues.  MPCA is also part of the planning process for new standards.

Resources:

• Particulate Matter
• Ground Level Ozone