Uphill In The Snow, Or, You’re Killing Your Kids By Giving Them Rides

Due to my recent commuting schedule and location, I’ve had the chance to observe what I think of as “school rush hour” in northern Utah County, where dozens upon dozens of parents clog the streets bringing their kids to school.

And as it turns out, those parents are likely doing their children a major disservice.

The Davis Enterprise reported last month that kids who get rides to school have decreased learning ability while those who walk or bike can concentrate better.

The study investigated the connections between diet, exercise and the ability to concentrate for school students of all ages. Among its many results, one really stood out: Children have less concentration if they do not exercise on the way to school.

The children were asked to answer questions about their exercise behavior and complete a simple concentration test (one such exercise involved putting together a puzzle composed of face pieces) and they were scored for correctness.

Children who made the trip to school by themselves performed far better than those who were transported to school by car or public transportation (bus or train).

These findings seem initiative, even obvious, yet everyday I see school parking lots clogged with people driving their kids to school. And of course that kind of behavior also exacerbates things like the inversion, creating other long-term health problems.

Kids who bike or walk to school actually do better academically.

People deploy many excuses for driving kids to school. But even if kids have to walk the proverbial “uphill both ways in the snow” it isn’t actually that hard to go on foot. (Housing that makes walking impossible is a whole other, and bigger, problem.) And ultimately, most people in Provo and Utah County live within walking distance of an elementary school. For those people, it’s worth keeping in mind that kids are literally handicapped by giving them that ride in the morning.

The Killer Commute

CNN recently reported what many more specialized publications have been saying for a long time: commuting translates to health problems. Those problems include increased stress, emotional strain and these issues:

A 2012 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that the farther people commute by vehicle, the higher their blood pressure and body mass index is likely to be. Also, the farther the commute, the less physical activity the person was likely to get.

In Provo, the mean travel time to work is 16.6 minutes, which is lower than the state average of 21.2 minutes. Provo is also a good place to walk to work. These characteristics should help create a healthier community.

Commuting has detrimental effects on health. Provo has relatively low commute times, though recent projects could change that.

And yet Provo and other Wasatch Front cities have just added massive freeway infrastructure which encourages more driving. In fact, after the I15 expansion project I expect to see an increase in the total number of commuting hours because more people will have incentives to drive. And eventually, the marginal time savings from less congestion — which supposedly results from a widened freeway — will even be cancelled out by induced demand for more road space.

In other words, despite a mountain of evidence that long commutes are bad we’re pursuing projects that will put more people on the road and eventually keep them there longer. Clearly, that’s a recipe for disaster.

Spending Money to Save Money

In this age of financial crisis it’s easy to look at any kind of government spending as a problem. However, a BYU professor recently discovered that in at least one area, spending money actually saves money.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, a BYU economist recently discovered each dollar spent cleaning the air saves roughly $10. It also points out that the savings are spread across multiple industries:

C. Arden Pope, a Brigham Young University economist, said that for every dollar spent on cutting air pollution there are around $10 in savings — because health care costs go down, premature deaths decrease and other measurable savings are realized.

These findings are good news for quality of life and health advocates because they should help people understand the very real benefits of cutting pollution.

Provo, Utah. Spending money to clean the air actually ends up saving money.

These findings also demonstrate that sometimes the most fiscally responsible approach is the one that requires up front spending, rather than inaction or “smaller government.” Indeed this issue illustrates the way government investment is supposed to work: money is spent and then causes savings in the overall system, even if the exact dollar amount spent doesn’t end up right back in the same bank account it was drawn from.

The point is that when evaluating a government decision it’s important to take a broad view. And in this case, that means spending a little on air quality to save a lot.

Winter inversions create terrible air quality in Provo. However, spending money to clean that air is just one example in which the fiscally responsible approach is to spend money, rather than do nothing.

The Skinny on Fat: What the Obesity Debate Gets Wrong

Yesterday KSL reported that half of all Utahns will be overweight by the year 2030. That’s a harrowing figure that should cause panic in anyone who is concerned about public health, fiscal responsibility, quality of life and an array of other things. So, basically, everyone should be worried.

However, the KSL post also includes this reassuring quote:

“We know how to prevent this, we know how to reverse this course if we take the steps that are proven to make a difference,” said Jeff Levi, executive director of Trust for America’s Health.

The article then goes on to mention getting 20 minutes of exercise a day, improving school lunch programs, and bolstering physical activity regiments.

However, the article never mentions physical infrastructure — things like sidewalks, bike lanes, parking lots, etc. — that either encourage or discourage physical activity. In other words, the discussion focuses only on the most superficial aspects of being overweight and ignores the fact that city structure is highly determinative of people’s obesity and health.

The Salt Lake Tribune’s article on the same topic also omitted information about underlying causes of obesity.

That’s not to say the ideas mentioned by Levi and KSL aren’t important. They matter and I wholeheartedly support measures to make schools healthier, for example.

But to a large degree these efforts are arbitrary and artificial; if they can be mandated, they can be un-mandated. They’re subject to budget constraints, tastes, politics and fads. As good as they are, there’s an amount of built-in caprice.

The better solution is to tackle the problem at its root.

That means promoting all of the typical solutions, as well as incorporating activity requirements into the built environment. So, it means making schools sufficiently walkable and bikeable that more kids can get around on their own. It means reducing parking and dropoff areas at schools and businesses, so it suddenly becomes less convenient to drive. It means re-zoning neighborhoods to allow for more infill, less parking, and greater mixed use. And of course, it means cutting back on parking.

Widespread obesity is a complex problem that needs big and small solutions. But until we start paying greater attention to more underlying factors there’s no reason to believe the problem will get any better.

Solving the so-called obesity epidemic will require greater attention to the way we get around in our cities and on how much physical activity we engage in as part of our daily routines.

Making the Case for Cutting Out Cars

If you’re reading this blog, there’s a good chance you agree that reducing our dependency on and use of cars is a good idea. If you’re not yet on board with that idea, try reading this new study that correlates diabetes with a lack of walkability. Or read this piece from GOOD that connects city makeup with obesity. Or take a look at some of my previous posts — here, here, and here, for example — that look at the various detrimental impacts of an auto-centric urban area.

So clearly reducing car usage would be a positive development.

Citing new research, The Atlantic Cities’ Nate Berg recently provided two possible strategies to make that happen: increase the price of gas and increase the number of smart growth features like density and public transit.

Both of these strategies are pretty intuitive, even obvious, though Berg adds that it’s really only smart growth that has a longterm positive impact.

Utah and Provo are getting part of the equation right by adding things like FrontRunner commuter rail and, someday, bus rapid transit.

But those improvements won’t be effective if they aren’t coupled with efforts to increase density and make other infrastructure improvements as well. And unfortunately, those types of improvements are far less visible or adequately explained to the public in Utah. (See this post for an example of a meeting in Provo where nearly everyone agreed that smart growth hallmarks like density are bad.)

In other words and on the local level, Berg’s two strategies need an addendum: someone getting out there saying “yes, we actually need to increase density and here’s what that means.” When that happens, the evidence suggests that our cities will be healthier and more prosperous.

Cars cause all sorts of problems in cities. Building better, denser cities is one way to solve that problem, but in Utah no one has ever really explained what that means or why it matters.

Utah County’s Wired Hospitals

Provo is a top technology center in the U.S., and apparently one of the places that plays out is in the area’s hospitals.

Last week, my colleague Paige Fieldsted wrote that Intermountain Healthcare landed on the American Hospital Association’s list of most wired hospitals. That means local hospitals are at the top of a field that includes more than 1,500 other facilities.

Paige’s article includes information about why having wired health care facilities should matter to patients. But I also want to point out that this information should be a boon for the region generally. It emphasizes the area’s commitment to technology and its ability to handle coming health-related issues, such as large numbers of aging baby boomers. Indeed, if I were a city or county official, I would use this sort of ranking as a marketing tool to attract people heading into retirement.

Stairs: An Obvious Answer to the Obesity Epidemic

Last week, the internet erupted with the news that 42 percent of Americans could be obese by 2030. That’s up from the already-appaling 36 percent obesity rate that we currently have. A lot of people will see those numbers and want to talk about healthy eating and exercise, but according to many experts this problem also stems from our cities’ physical make-up.

The so-called obesity epidemic will take a lot of work to solve, but as a I look around I’m also struck by how often we squander opportunities for basic exercise. Case in point: stairs.

Climbing a few flights of stairs can be a good way to get some exercise in an average day, but most multi-story commercial and government buildings emphasize elevators instead. When visitors walk into these buildings, they see the elevators first, while the stairs are often tucked out sight — and out of mind — in a corner. Worse still, doors to stairwells often look like emergency exits and the stairwells themselves are austere and uninviting concrete closets.

The main entrance to Provo’s 4th District Court in downtown. After coming through the metal detector, visitors are immediately directed to the right, where they see elevators. The stairs are around a corner in a small nook that isn’t even visible in this picture.

Provo court patrons who do find the stairs discover this scene: an ugly, dimly-lit concrete stairwell (it’s darker in real life, hence the blurry-ness) that’s currently being used as a storage facility. This is hardly the kind of stairwell that invites usage.

With these kinds of architectural failings, it’s no wonder people don’t take the stairs. I don’t think most visitors to Provo’s 4th District Courthouse ever even learn where the stairs are located, despite the fact that the stairs are always the faster option for reaching any of the building’s four floors.

But while putting stairs in inconspicuous places is common, it’s by no means necessary. For example, the new convention center puts stairs front and center (though they do play second fiddle to the escalators).

Unlike many buildings, the stairs in the new Utah Valley Convention Center are visible, easy to access, and aesthetically pleasing.

Another interesting example of making stairs visible comes from the library at Utah Valley University. In that building, the stairs are located in a cordoned-off stairwell, but visitors are alerted to their presence by big windows facing the elevators.

Stairs and elevators in UVU’s library.

Windows looking in on a stairwell.

With those big windows, I suspect people don’t wait very long for the elevator before they just give up and opt to take the stairs. And indeed, while I was at the library the stairs saw a steady stream of users.

Both of these buildings are good examples of architecture and design encouraging people to take the stairs. In Provo, there’s also no reason that these sorts of strategies aren’t more common; with the possible exceptions of the main Nu Skin building and BYU’s Kimball Tower, there are no buildings in the city that are too tall for able-bodied people to take the stairs to any floor. (I’ve climbed the stairs to the top of the Zion’s Bank building. It wasn’t hard.)

In the end, getting more people to use stairs more often won’t solve the obesity epidemic. But it will help, while also cutting down on electricity consumption. And if we can start taking the stairs more often, it may also help create a pattern of more active behavior.

The Nu Skin expansion in downtown Provo. At least for now, it appears that the stairs in this structure are pushed off to the left side of the building in an emergency exit-style stairwell. Click on the image to see that stairwell immediately above the yellow excavator.

Bike Week 2012 Begins Today

Bike Week 2012 begins now. That means there are activities, a free tune-up clinic, and a lot of other things going on all week. Read more about it on BikeProvo.org or visit the Facebook event here.

Provo’s flat roads and the current good weather mean there has literally never been a better time or place to ride a bike. Indeed, compared to some famously bikeable cities (Minneapolis?!), Provo seems perfectly designed for two-wheeled transportation.

Bike Week is also good for the community.

For one, it’s a good way to meet people. More broadly, it’s also a way to get exercise and helps bolster Provo’s reputation as a great place to ride a bike. In that way, biking and Bike Week have a kind of mystique-effect on the city. And of course, biking has also been connected with economic vibrancy, better metropolitan health, lower traffic, government savings, and more.

What is Utah Good At?

The company One Block Off The Grid recently produced a map of things that each state is “good” at. Utah did pretty well: it apparently has the highest literacy rate, the lowest number of smokers, the fastest growing job market, and the lowest median age.

By comparison, not all states excelled at good things. Illinois, for example, had the highest gang membership. Hawaii has the most expensive energy. Mississippi was the most obese.

People in Provo are generally pretty optimistic about their city, and this is just more evidence that their outlook is well-founded.

Get Out and Walk!

All this week, Slate is running a series by Tom Vanderbilt on walking. Read the first installment here.

Vanderbilt begins his series by writing about how walking has become marginalized, de-prioritized, and generally abandoned in modern America. Why and how is this happening? Here’s part of the problem:

More time spent driving means less time spent on other activities, including walking. And part of the reason we are driving more is that we are living farther from the places we need to go; to take just one measure, in 1969, roughly half of all children lived a mile or more from their school; by 2001 three out of four did. During that same period, unsurprisingly, the rates of children walking to school dropped from roughly half to approximately 13 percent.

Vanderbilt’s piece goes into a lengthy discussion about what we lose by not walking and how walking is perceived in today’s culture. Walking is a common theme on this blog, and the article is worth reading and considering because, as Vanderbilt points out, “the decline of walking has become a full-blown public health nightmare.”

You can read the second installment of the series here, and the third installment here.

That last link goes to an article on Walk Score, the company that ranks neighborhoods’ walkability. Walk Score has come up over and over again on this blog, and in a nutshell it helps people understand how easily they can do things on foot — which in turn has health, environmental, and other benefits. As Vanderbilt notes, the company has changed the way people think about cities:

Before the company launched, “you’d see real estate listings that would say this house is right on the golf course, and it’s super walkable,” says Lerner. “But you actually don’t do most of your daily errands on the golf course. One of the things we did in real estate was really define walkability, as access to amenities, access to transit, living in a pedestrian friendly neighborhood.”

The article goes on to mention the paradox of the real estate market, where people want big houses on big lots where they can still somehow walk places. It also mentions in passing the popsicle rule — which stipulates that a child should be able to walk to buy a popsicle within five minutes — and explores some of the shortcomings of Walk Score.

But the point Vanderbilt is making is important. People don’t walk much, but they probably should.

(The fourth and final installment of Vanderbilt’s series is due out on Friday, after this post was written. However, you can find it on Slate.)

A sidewalk in the Joaquin neighborhood in central Provo. Depending on the address you input, this area generally has a walk score in the 70s. Thats pretty good, but it leaves a lot of room for improvement. In addition, most Provo neighborhoods have much lower scores.