DOCSLIB.ORG

Capstone Project Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Capstone Project Report CAPSTONE PROJECT REPORT Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. N/A N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date School Transportation Equity for Vulnerable Student Populations through 2020 Ridehailing: An Analysis of HopSkipDrive and Other Trips to School in Los Angeles 6. Performing Organization Code County UCLA-ITS 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Samuel Speroni LAS2004 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Institute of Transportation Studies, UCLA N/A 3320 Public Affairs Building 11. Contract or Grant No. Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656 N/A 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies Final www.its.ucla.edu 14. Sponsoring Agency Code UC ITS 15. Supplementary Notes DOI: doi:10.17610/T6530N 16. Abstract The Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) gave foster youth additional legal protections in school, including the right to transportation and the right to remain at their school despite any moves, similar to protections already in place for students experiencing homelessness and students with disabilities. California’s compliance with this mandate was relatively more difficult than other states’, as less than ten percent of students in California travel by school bus, compared with 35 percent nationally. Thus, California schools could not simply tap into their existing services to provide transportation for foster youth. Ridehailing offers a solution to this gap. HopSkipDrive, a ridehailing company designed to transport children, engages in contracts with school districts and county governments to provide school transportation for these vulnerable student populations. In 2018–2019, HopSkipDrive provided 32,796 trips to school in Los Angeles County, with massive time savings over the logical alterative: transit. Using Google’s Directions API, I determine that HopSkipDrive offers time savings of nearly 70 percent compared with the same trips simulated on transit. HopSkipDrive’s trips average 28 minutes in duration, yet on transit only 30 percent would have taken less than 45 minutes. This is despite 90 percent of all origins and destinations being located within a half-mile of a transit stop. This service has important social equity implications beyond just time savings offered to vulnerable student populations, as HopSkipDrive contract trips tend to originate in neighborhoods with high percentages of low-income households and people of color. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement new mobility, school transportation, equity, mobility as a service No restrictions. 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified N/A Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized School Transportation Equity for Vulnerable Student Populations through Ridehailing An Analysis of HopSkipDrive and Other Trips to School in Los Angeles County Samuel Speroni University of California, Los Angeles Meyer and Renee Luskin School of Public Affairs Department of Urban Planning Applied Planning Research Project A comprehensive project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Urban and Regional Planning. Client: HopSkipDrive, Inc. Client representative: Qiana Patterson, Vice President for Strategic Development Faculty supervisor: Dr. Evelyn Blumenberg, Professor of Urban Planning and Director of the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies June 2, 2020 Speroni i Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Background and Context ..................................................................................................... 3 2.1. School Travel Policy .................................................................................................................. 3 2.2. HopSkipDrive ............................................................................................................................ 5 3. Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 8 3.1. Travel to School ......................................................................................................................... 8 3.2. Ridehailing ............................................................................................................................... 14 3.3. Filling a Gap in the Literature ............................................................................................... 17 4. Data and Methodology ...................................................................................................... 18 4.1. Geographic Context ................................................................................................................ 19 4.2. Obtaining School Trip Data ................................................................................................... 19 4.3. School Travel in Los Angeles County ................................................................................... 20 4.4. HopSkipDrive Data ................................................................................................................. 21 4.5. Differences between HopSkipDrive and other Ridehailing Analyses .............................. 25 5. Descriptive Statistics and Spatial Analysis Findings ........................................................ 28 5.1. Statistics for Travel to High School ...................................................................................... 28 5.2. Spatial Patterns of HopSkipDrive Trips ............................................................................... 31 5.3. Sociodemographic and Neighborhood Traits ..................................................................... 37 5.4. Spatial Analysis of Neighborhood Traits ............................................................................. 42 6. Modal Comparison Findings ............................................................................................. 46 6.1. Trip Statistics Comparison .................................................................................................... 47 6.2. Spatial Analysis of Simulated Transit Trips and Modal Differences ............................... 51 7. Discussion of Findings and Implications .......................................................................... 54 7.1. The California Context ........................................................................................................... 54 7.2. Racial and Socioeconomic Transportation Equity ............................................................. 56 7.3. Educational Equity .................................................................................................................. 57 7.4. Mutually-Beneficial Partnerships ......................................................................................... 59 8. Policy Recommendations and Conclusion ....................................................................... 61 8.1. Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 61 8.2. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 63 9. Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 64 10. References .......................................................................................................................... 82 ii School Transportation Equity for Vulnerable Student Populations through Ridehailing List of Figures Figure 1: Comparison of Average Distance (mi.) ................................................................................. 31 Figure 2: Comparison of Average Duration (min.) .............................................................................. 31 Figure 3: HopSkipDrive Trip Origins and Destinations ...................................................................... 32 Figure 4: Maps of Origins and Destinations by HopSkipDrive Trip Type ....................................... 34 Figure 5: All HopSkipDrive Trips Average Durations by Census Tract of Origin .......................... 35 Figure 6: All HopSkipDrive Trips Average Durations by Census Tract of Destination ................. 36 Figure 7: All HopSkipDrive Trip Destinations and Number of Nearby High Schools ................... 37 Figure 8: Maps of HopSkipDrive Origins by Trip Type and Median Household Income ............. 43 Figure 9: Maps of HopSkipDrive Trip Type and Percent Non-White Residents ............................ 43 Figure 10: Maps of HopSkipDrive Trip Type and Percent without HS Diploma ............................ 44 Figure 11: Maps of HopSkipDrive Trip Type and Ratio Private : Public Students .......................... 44 Figure 12: Duration Comparison of HopSkipDrive Trips and Simulated Transit Trips ................ 48 Figure 13: Map of Simulated Transit Trip Durations by Origin Census Tract ................................ 51 Figure 14: Map of Simulated Transit Trip Durations by Destination Census Tract
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Urban Mobility and Sustainable Urban Transport Index
    Urban Mobility and Sustainable Urban Transport Index Islamic Republic of Iran Tehran Sustainable Transport Indicators(SUTI) October 2019 The Metropolis of Tehran Tehran Sustainable Transportation Indicators(SUTI) Tehran characteristics Population (million) 9 Area (km²) 750 southern slopes Location of Alborz mountains Average slope from north to 4.5% south Tehran Sustainable Transportation Indicators(SUTI) Tehran characteristics Municipal districts 22 12,100 District 10 Most density District 22 Least density Tehran Transportation Tehran Sustainable Transportation Indicators(SUTI) Tehran Road Network (km) Highways, freeways and 931 ramps & loops Major streets (primary & 1,053 secondary arterials) local streets 1,552 Tehran Sustainable Transportation Indicators(SUTI) Tehran's Restricted Traffic Zones Central restricted • Free for public vehicles zone (32 km²) • Charges for private cars • Free for public vehicles • Free for 20 days of each low emission zone- season for private cars LEZ (89 km²) • Charges for private cars, more than 20 days Tehran Sustainable Transportation Indicators(SUTI) Public Transport Bus system Subway Bus : 220 Lines 6 BRT : 10 Length(km) 3,000 215 Public sector: 1,348 Wagons: 1343 Fleet Private sector: 4,800 Trains: 183 Bus : 4,785 109 Stations BRT : 347 Tehran Sustainable Transportation Indicators(SUTI) Paratransit Types Fleet Rotary taxi 34,000 Fixed- route taxi 16,000 Private Taxi 28,000 Internet taxi NA Tehran Sustainable Transportation Indicators(SUTI) Active Transport Cycling Walking •Bike House: Facilities 153
    [Show full text]
  • D2.2: Current State of Urban Mobility
    Project ID: 814910 LC-MG-1-3-2018 - Harnessing and understanding the impacts of changes in urban mobility on policy making by city-led innovation for sustainable urban mobility Sustainable Policy RespOnse to Urban mobility Transition D2.2: Current state of urban mobility Work package: WP 2 - Understanding transition in urban mobility Geert te Boveldt, Imre Keseru, Sara Tori, Cathy Macharis, Authors: (VUB), Beatriz Royo, Teresa de la Cruz (ZLC) City of Almada, City of Arad, BKK Centre for Budapest Transport, City of Gothenburg, City of ‘s Hertogenbosch, City of Ioannina, City of Mechelen, City of Minneapolis, Contributors: City of Padova, City of Tel Aviv, City of Valencia, Region of Ile-de-France, Municipality of Kalisz, West Midlands Combined Authority, Aristos Halatsis (CERTH) Status: Final version Date: Jan 30, 2020 Version: 1.0 Classification: PU - public Disclaimer: The SPROUT project is co-funded by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme. This document reflects only authors’ views. EC is not liable for any use that may be done of the information contained therein. D2.2: Current state of urban mobility SPROUT Project Profile Project ID: 814910; H2020- LC-MG-1-3-2018 Acronym: SPROUT Title: Sustainable Policy RespOnse to Urban mobility Transition URL: Start Date: 01/09/2019 Duration: 36 Months 3 D2.2: Current state of urban mobility Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ......................................................................... 10 2 Introduction .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Impact on Transit Patronage of Cessation Or Inauguration of Rail Service
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1221 59 Impact on Transit Patronage of Cessation or Inauguration of Rail Service EDSON L. TENNYSON ilar bus service to calibrate models accurately for suburban Many theorists believe that transit service mode has little influ­ ence on consumer choice between automobile and transit travel. transit use ( 4). Others believe that they have noted a modal effect in which Earlier, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commis­ rail transit attracts higher ridership than does bus when other sion found that regional models calibrated for 99 percent con­ factors are about equal. Given environmental concerns and fidence level grossly overstated local bus ridership and equally the large investment needed for guided transit, a better under­ understated commuter rail ridership to obtain correct regional standing of this issue is essential, especially for congested areas. totals (5). There is thus considerable anecdotal evidence that A consideration of the history of automobile and transit travel transit submode choice can make a substantial difference in in the United States can be helpful in comprehending the nature the actual attraction of motorists to transit, with widespread of the problem. After World War II, availability of vehicles, attendant benefits. fuel, and tires spurred growth of both private automobile use It is true that travel time, fare, frequency of service, pop­ and use of buses for transit. Analyses of the effects of both this growth and the improvements in rail systems that were added ulation, density, and distance are all prime determinants of during the same period reveal that transit mode does indeed travel and transit use, but automobile ownership and personal make a significant difference in the level of use of a transit income may not be consistent factors for estimating rail transit facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Transportation Blue Dot Municipal Toolkit Building a Low-Carbon Future Blue Dot Municipal Toolkit
    Guide 9 Sustainable transportation Blue Dot Municipal Toolkit Building a Low-Carbon Future Blue Dot Municipal Toolkit People in Canada take pride in this country’s natural landscapes, rich ecosystems and wildlife. But Canada’s Constitution doesn’t mention environmental rights and responsibilities. Municipalities across the country are recognizing and supporting their residents’ right to a healthy environment. By adopting the Blue Dot declaration, more than 150 municipal governments now support the right to clean air and water, safe food, a stable climate and a say in decisions that affect our health and well-being. For some municipalities, adopting the Blue Dot declaration is a clear statement about environmental initiatives already underway. For others, it’s a significant first step. Either way, after passing a declaration, many ask “What happens next?” This toolkit provides practical ideas for next steps. Its introduction and 13 downloadable guides cover topics related to human health, green communities and a low-carbon future. Written for policy-makers, each guide shares examples of policies and projects undertaken in communities in Canada and around the world. The goal is to inform, inspire and share good ideas and great practices that will lead to healthier, more sustainable communities now and in the future. The following guides are available: Introduction to the Blue Dot Municipal Toolkit Protecting Human Health Guide 1: Air quality Guide 2: Clean water Guide 3: Non-toxic environment Guide 4: Healthy food Creating Green Communities Guide 5: Access to green space Guide 6: Protecting and restoring biodiversity Guide 7: Zero waste Building a Low Carbon Future Guide 8: Transitioning to 100% renewable energy Guide 9: Green buildings Guide 10: Sustainable transportation Guide 11: Green economy Guide 12: Climate change adaptation Guide 13: Ecological footprint and land use planning To read more about municipal actions for environmental rights, and to access all the Blue Dot toolkit guides, visit www.____.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation of U.S. Grains Modal Share 1978-2016 Update
    1 Agricultural Marketing Service Updated April 2019 Transportation of U.S. Grains A Modal Share Analysis 1978-2016 Update 1 Preferred Citation Chang, Kuo-Liang “Matt”, Peter Caffarelli, Jesse Gastelle, and Adam Sparger. Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, April 2019. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Web. <http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/TS049.04-2019> Photo credits: USDA USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Transportation of U.S. Grains A Modal Share Analysis 1978-2016 Update USDA Economists Kuo-Liang “Matt” Chang Peter Caffarelli Jesse Gastelle Adam Sparger Transportation Services Division USDA Agricultural Marketing Service i Abstract This report provides a breakout by mode of corn, wheat, soybeans, sorghum, and barley movements to either domestic markets or U.S. ports for export between 1978 and 2016. It is the eleventh update of an initial modal share study completed in 1992. The purpose of this series of reports is to provide the latest information about changes and trends in the relative competitiveness and efficiency among the different transportation modes in moving grain. Estimates of the tonnages (and shares) of grain railed, barged, and trucked are developed from a variety of secondary sources. This data can be used to identify trends and implications on transportation from factors, such as changes in production volumes and commodity mix, as well as changes in the relative demand for U.S. grain for domestic purposes versus export. ii Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................ii
    [Show full text]
  • Madrid Public Transport System Metro & Regional Railways
    MADRID PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM METRO & REGIONAL RAILWAYS 3rd International Seminar on Mega city: « Urban Mobility options» Mumbai, Nov ember 2014 - Presentation • INECO is a state owned company established in 1968 • The trusted consultancy to the Spanish Transport and Public Works Ministry • Independent from manufacturers/suppliers interest • World class railway engineering and consultancy company 2 - shhldhareholders INECO is a company integrated in the Ministry of PublicWorks and Transport. Its shareholders are the public companies for the complex management of Spain´s transport systems. ADIF Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (Administrator of Railway Infraestructures) RENFE Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Españoles (Spanish National railway) AENA Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea (Spanish airports and airspace) Shareholders 3 - Presentation Turnover approx. Staff: 2800 300 Million EUROS employees 40 years, 55 countries , leading + 1,000 railwa y transport projects Staff: over 3,100 2,000 staff working in railway consultancy including LRTs, metros, commuter trains, freight railways and high speed railways) 4 - capabilities A global services offer. Fro m planning & design to operation Highly specialized in railways (Metro, Light Rail, Commuter, Regional and High Speed) PROJECT MANAGEMENT DESIGN • Control, supervision and technical • Conceptual and preliminary design assistance • Performance specifications • Construction Management and technical • Detailed Design advisory OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLANNING • Commissioning,
    [Show full text]
  • LONG-TERM TRENDS in MODAL SHARE for URBAN PASSENGER TRAVEL David Cosgrove and David Gargett Bureau of Transport and Regional
    LONG-TERM TRENDS IN MODAL SHARE FOR URBAN PASSENGER TRAVEL David Cosgrove and David Gargett Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics INTRODUCTION When considering the effects of competition on patronage levels for urban public transport, an awareness of past trends in those levels is typically of significant value. In fact, a sound knowledge of how urban transport patterns have varied over time can be crucial for properly assessing the likely scope for any change to the current modal shares of the various urban passenger tasks. At the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE), we have compiled datasets on a series of long-term trends in primary passenger tasks; not only at the national level, but also for each of the Australian capital cities. As an aid to discussions concerning either past effects of transport reforms (on passenger modal choice) or the possible extent of future patronage growth (for urban transit), this paper presents a summary of such modal trends, for each State and Territory capital city. The BTRE has recently conducted a study of the avoidable social costs of congestion in Australia (reported in Working Paper 71, Estimating Urban Traffic and Congestion Cost Trends for Australian Cities, BTRE 2007). Congestion imposes significant costs on society – with interruptions to urban traffic flow lengthening average journey times, making trip travel times more variable, and making vehicle engine operation less efficient. The latter leads not only to higher rates of fuel consumption, than would otherwise have occurred, but also to poorer urban air quality (with vehicles under congested conditions typically emitting far higher rates of noxious pollutants than under more freely flowing conditions, resulting in even higher health costs to the community).
    [Show full text]
  • Towards New Urban Mobility: the Case of London and Berlin
    Towards New Urban Mobility New Towards The case of London and Berlin case of London The Towards New Urban Mobility The case of London and Berlin LSE Cities and InnoZ, 2015 3 3 Research Directors Philipp Rode Executive Director of LSE Cities and Senior Research Fellow, London School of Economics and Political Science London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street Christian Hoffmann, Director of User Research, London Innovation Centre for Mobility and Societal Change WC2A 2AE (InnoZ) UK Research Team Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 7706 lse.cities@lse.ac.uk Jens Kandt www.lsecities.net Lead Researcher, LSE Cities Duncan Smith Research Officer, LSE Cities Andreas Graff Researcher, InnoZ Innovation Centre for Mobility and Societal Change (InnoZ) GmbH Support and Advice Torgauer Strasse 12 - 15 Alexandra Gomes, LSE Cities 10829 Berlin Alun Humphrey, National Centre for Social Research Germany Ben Plowden, Transport for London Catarina Heeckt, LSE Cities Tel: +49 (0)30 238884-0 Colin Shepherd, Transport for London info@innoz.de Florian Lennert, InnoZ www.innoz.de Jillian Anable, University of Aberdeen Joe Stordy, Transport for London Supported by Imke Steinmeyer, Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment Nihan Akyelken, University of Oxford Piotr Fryzlewicz, London School of Economics and Political Science Robert Vollmer, infas Institute for Applied Social Sciences Robin Hickman, University College London Samantha Kennedy, Transport for London Thorsten Brand, infas Institute for Applied Social Sciences Production and Graphic Design Peter Griffiths Managing Editor, LSE Cities Atelier Works www.atelierworks.co.uk This Report is intended as a basis for discussion. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material in this report, the authors and/or LSE Cities will not be liable for any loss or damage incurred through the use of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • D2.1 SUMP Baseline Report
    Ref. Ares(2018)3823219 - 18/07/2018 D2.1 SUMP Baseline Report Deliverable No.: D2.1 Project Acronym: DESTINATIONS Full Title: CIVITAS DESTINATIONS Grant Agreement No.: 689031 Workpackage/Measure No.: WP2, M2.1 Workpackage/ Measure Title: WP2: Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning for residents and visitors Task 2.2: Mobility context analysis and baseline Responsible Author(s): Willem Buijs, Renske Martijnse, Teije Gorris (LuxMobility) Responsible Co-Author(s): Alexandra Ellul (TM), Ritianne Buhagiar (TM), André Freitas (HF), Claudio Mantero (HF), Carla Patrícia (SRETC), Cristina Loreto (SRETC), Antonio Artiles (Guaguas), Octavio Cantero (Municipality of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria); Francesca Pietroni (ISSINOVA), Riccardo Enei (ISSINOVA), Panayiotis Antoniades (Stratagem), Nicole Mavrovounioti (Stratagem), Thanos Vlastos, Efthimios Bakogiannis, Konstantinos Athanassopoulos, Maria Siti, Harry Kyriakidis (Sustainable Mobility Unit, National Technical University of Athens), Nikos Vovos, Vasilis Myriokefalitakis , Thomas Papadogiannis (Rethymno Municipality), Stavroula Tournaki, Eleni Farmaki (Technical University of Crete) Date: 10/07/2017 Status: Final Dissemination level: Public The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and the DESTINATIONS project consortium and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. D2.1 – SUMP Baseline 07/2017 Document History Date Person Action Status Diss. Level LuxMobility, TM; Draft template to ISINNOVA and PM, WPL, 27/3/2017 Draft WP2 leader VECTOS
    [Show full text]
  • How Uber Won the Rideshare Wars and What Comes Next
    2/18/2020 How Uber Won The Rideshare Wars and What Comes Next CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE | HOW UBER WON THE RIDESHARE WARS AND WHAT COMES NEXT How Uber Won The Rideshare Wars and What Comes Next How Uber won the first phase of the rideshare war and how cabs, competitors, and car companies are battling back. BY ELYSE DUPRE — AUGUST 29, 2016 VIEW GALLERY https://www.dmnews.com/customer-experience/article/13035536/how-uber-won-the-rideshare-wars-and-what-comes-next 1/18 2/18/2020 How Uber Won The Rideshare Wars and What Comes Next View Gallery In 2011, two University of Michigan alums Adrian Fortino and Jahan Khanna partnered with venture capitalist Sunil Paul to revolutionize how people got from point A to point B quickly without having to do much. The company was Sidecar, and the idea was simple: “We're going to replace your car with your iPhone,” Fortino explains. Sidecar did not lack competition. Around this time, the taxi industry was experimenting with new ways to make it easier for individuals to summon cars. And entrepreneurs, frustrated with wait times, imagined new ways to hire someone to drive them around. Multiple companies formed to solve this need, including one that is now considered a global powerhouse: Uber. By the time Sidecar went into beta testing in February 2012, Uber, or UberCab as it was originally known when it was founded in 2009, had raised at least $37.5 million at a $330 million post-money valuation, according to VentureBeat. Lyft followed shortly after when it went into beta in mid 2012, boasting more than $7 million in funding, according to TechCrunch's figures.
    [Show full text]
  • National Data on Transport Modal Shares for 131 Countries
    Article How Do People Move Around? National Data on Transport Modal Shares for 131 Countries Grigorios Fountas 1, Ya-Yen Sun 2 , Ortzi Akizu-Gardoki 3 and Francesco Pomponi 4,* 1 Transport Research Institute (TRI), School of Engineering & the Built Environment, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh EH10 5DT, UK; g.fountas@napier.ac.uk 2 UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia; y.sun@business.uq.edu.au 3 Faculty of Engineering of Bilbao, University of the Basque Country, 48013 Bilbao, Spain; ortzi.akizu@ehu.eus 4 Resource Efficient Built Environment Lab (REBEL), Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh EH10 5DT, UK * Correspondence: f.pomponi@napier.ac.uk; Tel.: +44-(0)-13-1455-3590 Received: 19 May 2020; Accepted: 16 June 2020; Published: 18 June 2020 Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought global mobility into the spotlight, with well over 100 countries having instituted either a full or partial lockdown by April 2020. Reduced mobility, whilst causing social and economic impacts, can also be beneficial for the environment and future studies will surely quantify such environmental gains. However, accurate quantification is intimately linked to good quality data on transport modal shares, as passenger cars and public transport have significantly different emissions profiles. Herein, we compile a currently lacking dataset on global modal transport shares for 131 countries. Notably, these are the countries covered by the Google Community Mobility Reports (plus Russia and China for their global relevance), thus allowing for a smooth integration between our dataset and the rich information offered by the Google Community Mobility Reports, thus enabling analysis of global emissions reductions due to mobility restrictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Communities
    Active Communities This guide is for local governments of rural and urban communities across British Columbia who want to create active, healthy and thriving places for all people. What you’ll find in this Action Guide: • Information on co-benefits of physical activity • Actions and examples from BC communities • Funding opportunities • Further reading and resources • A summary checklist Kimberley, BC Photo Credit: Province of British Columbia Local Government Action Guides for Healthy Communities Local Government Action Guide: Active Communities Active Communities in BC How does physical activity affect British Columbians? Benefits Beyond Physical Health and live in healthy neighbourhoods where it is safe and comfortable to play or choose active travel. Physical activity supports healthy child For more information on health outcomes and the development, social connectedness, positive co-benefits of healthy built environments check out educational outcomes, and physical and mental the Healthy Built Environment Linkages Toolkit.8 wellbeing. Active modes of transportation reduce traffic congestion and pollution, improve Inequitable Access Creates Inequitable community safety, enhance business activity and Outcomes property values, and provide more equitable access to jobs, services and other opportunities.1,2,3 Healthy environments are not available to all, Green spaces encourage biodiversity and reduce and many British Columbians struggle to get pollution.4 Physical activity increases workplace enough physical activity each day.9 Parks and productivity while also decreasing demands on other natural spaces may be inaccessible due to healthcare and social services.5,6 distance, mobility challenges, or underdeveloped transportation networks. Recreational Environments are a Key Determinant of opportunities, including sports, might be an Active Life exclusionary due to time or financial constraints, or a lack of cultural relevance.
    [Show full text]