TRANSPORTATION AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020-CMOS)
TRANSPORTATION AND HEALTH
Transportation Determines Health
The way we travel determines our levels of physical activity and social interaction. In turn, this can affect our physical and mental conditions. Transportation
policies and investments provide significant opportunities to promote human well-being and environmental health.
Research tells us that active transportation can prevent obesity, improve air and water quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, abate urban heat, increase
traffic safety, reduce injuries, and build social and environmental capitals.
Transportation policies play a huge role in addressing the social, environmental and economic root causes of health. Poverty, or financial instability, is one of the
root causes of poor health. Offering alternative transportation to jobs would give the underserved populations an affordable means to get to work and become
more financially stable.
Many health-promoting transportation policies, such as creating pedestrian-friendly street environment, co-locating services and amenities near reliable transit
services, adopting a complete streets ordinance, ensuring safe routes to major destinations, and redirecting transportation funding from roads to pedestrian,
bicycle and transit, have proven multiple social, economy and environmental benefits.
The Logic Model
Input / Impact
Area
Strategies/ Policies
Intermediate Outcomes
Ultimate Outcomes
Complete
Streets
• Adopt a Complete Streets policy and ordinance
that follow national best practices of
organizations, such as Smart Growth Americai.
• Plan, design, and build streets with treatments
for active transportation.
• Improved access to physical activity.
• Increased social connection.
• Improved equitable access to mobility.
• Reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
• Improved air quality.
• Reduced obesity.
• Improved physical health.
• Improved mental health.
• Improved quality of life, particularly
among the underserved.
• Improved sense of community.
• Increased social and environmental
capitals.
TRANSPORTATION AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020-CMOS)
Input / Impact
Area
Strategies/ Policies
Intermediate Outcomes
Ultimate Outcomes
Neighborhood
Road
Environment
• Treat streets as healthy and safe “places”.
• Improve environmental quality of streets, such
as:
➢ Apply pedestrian and bicycle friendly design.
➢ Ensure safe sidewalks.
➢ Create connected on-street and off-street
trails.
➢ Develop gridded street patterns.
➢ Ensure small street block size.
➢ Minimize curb cuts.
➢ Apply Low Impact Development/ Green
Stormwater Infrastructure practices.
➢ Provide green spaces, landscaping, public
arts, and street furnishing to promote
comfortable walking.
• Create compact and mixed-use developments
inducive to walking and placemaking.
• Increased walkability.
• Increased bicycling.
• Improved physical activity.
• Increased social connection.
• Increased small-scale economic
development.
• Reduced crime.
• Improved local economy.
• Increased social, environmental and
physical capitals.
• Increased community diversity and
inclusiveness.
• Improved quality of life across
neighborhoods.
• Improved sense of community and
place attachment.
• Improved neighborhood safety.
• Increased life expectancy.
• Reduced depression and improved
emotional/mental health.
• Improved health and well-being.
Safety
Measures
• Use environmentally-sensitive designii,
landscape improvements, and street trees to
improve roadside safety.
• Consider a range of traffic calming measures,
such as:
➢ Road diet
➢ Street crossing design
➢ Speed humps
➢ Design of on-street parking
➢ Lighting
➢ Visibility
• Improved driver safety.
• Reduced collision rate.
• Reduced cut-through traffic.
• Increased user comfort for transit access
and active transportation use.
• Reduced number of traffic deaths and
serious injuries.
• Increased number of active
transportation trips.
• Safer driver behavior.
• Reduced crime.
• Reduced traffic deaths (to zero) and
serious injuries.
• Improved neighborhood safety.
• Improved health and well-being.
TRANSPORTATION AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020-CMOS)
Input / Impact
Area
Strategies/ Policies
Intermediate Outcomes
Ultimate Outcomes
➢ Lower Speed Limits
➢ Speed camera
• Educate the public about road safety.
• Set Target Zeroiii as a goal.
• Increased number of pedestrians using
amenities.
• Improved walking and biking conditions
for all residents.
Safe Routes
and
Connectivity
• Plan and implement Safe Routes to School with
stakeholders.
• Consider access/ connectivity/ co-location with
transit when siting schools.
• Promote Safe Routes to Destinations, including
parks and recreation, transit, shopping, and
places of employment.
• Promote street connectivity/ trail accessibility.
• Increased number of students walking to
school.
• Increased number of pedestrans.
• Increased physical activity.
• Increased sidewalk and trail connections
to schools.
• Increased connected pedestrian and
bicycle facilities to access destinations.
• Increased social connection.
• Reduced obesity.
• Increased social and environmental
capitals.
• Improved sense of community.
• Increased acceptance of walking as a
societal norm for all ages.
• Improved health and well-being.
• Improved livability.
Equitable
Access
• Apply Universal Design iv v vi standards and
principles to improve mobility among all ages
and abilities.
• Consider equity in making transportation
decisions.
• Support compact communities to promote equity
for all.
• Prioritize projects and investments in historically
underserved areas with the affected
communities.
• Develop Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Evaluation and Transition Plan with
stakeholders.
• Improved equitable access to
opportunities in historically underserved
communities and for all population
groups.
• Increased number of adopted ADA
Transition Plans in the County.
• Improved social determinants of
health indicators.
• Reduced poverty.
• Reduced health disparities.
• Increased human, social and physical
capitals.
• Increased community diversity and
inclusiveness.
TRANSPORTATION AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020-CMOS)
Input / Impact
Area
Strategies/ Policies
Intermediate Outcomes
Ultimate Outcomes
Public Transit
• Create compact and dense developments to
support transit usage.
• Co-locate services/ amenities near transit
facilities.
• Ensure continuous sidewalks and bike lanes
connect to bus stops and transit centers.
• Provide bike parking facilities.
• Provide transit passes instead of parking stalls.
• Provide transit services to connect low-income
neighborhoods and employment centers.
• Increased number of people living within
½ mile radius to transit.
• Increased connectivity and access to
jobs, healthy foods, medical services,
and community events.
• Reduced single occupancy vehicle
congestion and associated greenhouse
gas emissions.
• Increased transit ridership and frequency.
• Increased percentage of riders accessing
transit by walking or rolling.
• Increased physical activity.
• Increased transit services in areas with
low car ownership rates.
• Improved social connections.
• Reduced poverty.
• Reduced obesity.
• Improved overall health and well-
being.
• Increased social, physical and
environmental capitals.
Mode Shift
• Set and track mode shift targets.
• Develop performance measures other than
traditional level of service-based congestion
measures, such as Vehicle Miles Traveledvii and
multimodal creditsviii.
• Develop Transportation Demand Management
programsix to promote alternatives to driving
alone, such as Commute Trip Reduction,
employee incentives, focused community
outreach, etc.
• Reduced congestion and Vehicle Miles
Traveled per capita.
• Increased in number of trips by transit
and active transportation modes.
• Improved air quality.
• Increased physical activity.
• Reduced obesity.
• Improved physical health.
• Improved social and mental health.
• Increased social and environmental
capitals.
TRANSPORTATION AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020-CMOS)
Research Evidence
General
Boehmer, T.K., A.M. Wendel, F. Bowers, K. Robb, E. Christopher, J.E. Broehm, K. Rose, and J. Ralph. 2017. “U.S. Transportation and Health Data Tool: Data for
Action.” Journal of Transportation and Health 6: 530-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.02.007.
Christian, T.J. 2012. “Trade-offs Between Commuting Time and Health-related Activities.” Journal of Urban Health 89, no. 5: 746-57.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22689293/.
Dannenburg, Andrew L., Howard Frumkin, and Richard J. Jackson, ed. 2011. Making Healthy Places: Designing and Building for Health, Well-Being, and
Sustainability. Washington, DC: Island Press.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261215792_Making_Healthy_Places_Designing_and_Building_for_Health_Well-
Being_and_Sustainability_by_Andrew_L_Dannenberg_Howard_Frumkin_and_Richard_J_Jackson.
Frumkin, Howard. 2002. “Urban Sprawl and Public Health.” Public Health Reports 117. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497432/pdf/12432132.pdf.
Nashua Regional Planning Commission, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning. “Performance Zoning.”
Integrating Transportation and Community Planning Fact Sheet 34. https://www.nashuarpc.org/files/7213/9042/4981/FS34_Performance_Zoning.pdf.
Stevenson, Mark, Jason Thompson, Thiago Herick de Sa, Reid Ewing, Dinesh Mohan, Rod McClure, Ian Roberts, Geetam Tiwari, Billie Giles-Corti, Jim Sallis,
Xiaoduan Sun, Mark Wallace, and James Woodcock. 2016. “Land Use, Transport and Population Health: Estimating the Health Benefits of Compact Cities.”
Lancet 388, no.10062: 2925–2935. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5349496/.
Complete Streets
National Center of Bicycling & Walking. 2010. “Increasing Physical Activity through Community Design.” http://www.bikewalk.org/pdfs/2010/IPA_full.pdf.
People Powered Movement. “Benefits of Biking and Walking.” Accessed April 8, 2020. https://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/benefits-of-biking-walking/.
Rundle, Andrew G., and Steven. B. Heymsfield. 2016. “Can Walkable Urban Design Play a Role in Reducing the Incidence of Obesity-Related Conditions?”
Journal of American Medical Association 315, No. 20:2175-77. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.5635.
TRANSPORTATION AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020-CMOS)
Settlement.org. “What Are the Health Benefits of Walking and Cycling?” Ontario Council Agencies Serving Immigrants. Accessed April 8, 2020.
https://settlement.org/ontario/daily-life/transportation/walking-and-cycling/what-are-the-health-benefits-of-walking-and-cycling/
Smart Growth America/National Complete Streets Coalition. 2018. “The Elements of a Complete Streets Policy.”
https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/elements-complete-streets-policy/.
Sustrans. 2019. “Health Benefits of Cycling and Walking.” UK National Cycling Network. Accessed April 8, 2020. https://www.sustrans.org.uk/what-you-can-
do/use-your-car-less/health-benefits-walking-and-cycling.
Neighborhood Road Environment
Cohen, D.A., S. Inagami, and B. Finch. 2008. “The Built Environment and Collective Efficacy.” Health & Place 14, no. 2: 198-208.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17644395.
Frank, Lawrence, James F. Sallis, …and William Bachman. 2006. “Many Pathways from Land Use to Health: Associations between Neighborhood Walkability and
Active Transportation, Body Mass Index, and Air Quality.” Journal of the American Planning Association 72, no.1: 75-87.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d6f7/6ca88000717b842d94c387661df2364f7733.pdf.
Fujiwara, T., and I. Kawachi. 2008. “A Prospective Study of Individual-level Social Capital and Major Depression in the United States.” Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health 62, no. 7: 627-33. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18559446.
Kawachi, Ichiro, S. V. Subramanian, and Daniel Kim, ed. 2008. Social Capital and Health. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/168/11/1340/121775.
Leyden, Kevin M. 2003. “Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Public Health 93, no.
9:1546–1551. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1546.
Lund, Hollie. 2002. “Pedestrian Environments and Sense of Community.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 21, no. 3: 301-12.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100307.
The Cecil Group. 2015. “Complete Neighborhoods: Exploring Holistic Community Planning.” Harriman. https://harriman.com/inspirations/approach-complete-
neighborhoods/.
TRANSPORTATION AND HEALTH LOGIC MODEL
(SEPTEMBER 30, 2020-CMOS)
Transportation Research Board and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. 2005. Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the
Evidence. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board Committee on Physical Activity, Health, Transportation, and Land Use.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr282.pdf.
US Department of Transportation. “Built Environment Strategies to Deter Crime.” Accessed April 8, 2020.
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/built-environment-strategies-to-deter-crime.
Safety Measures
Dumbaugh, Eric, and J.L. Gattis. 2005. “Safe Streets, Livable Streets.” Journal of American Planning Association 71, no.3: 283-300.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944360508976699.
Macdonald, Elizabeth. 2008. “The Intersection of Trees and Safety.” Landscape Architecture 78, no. 2: 54-63.
https://www.naturewithin.info/Roadside/LA%20Mag_Intersection%20of%20Trees%20and%20Safety.5.08.pdf.
Macdonald, Elizabeth, Rebecca Sanders, and Paul Supawanic. 2008. The Effects of Transportation Corridors’ Roadside Design Features on User Behavior and
Safety, and Their Contributions to Health, Environmental Quality, and Community Economic Vitality: A Literature Review. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Transportation Center. https://www.naturewithin.info/Roadside/Macdonald%20lit%20review.2008.pdf.
Mok, Jeonghun, Harlow C. Landphair, and Jody R. Naderi. 2003. “Comparison of Safety Performance of Urban Streets Before and After Landscape
Improvements.” Proceedings of the 2nd Urban Street Symposium (Anaheim, California). Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/comparison_of_safety_performance_of_urban_streets_after_landscape_improvements_mok.pdf.
Mok, Jeonghun, Harlow C. Landphair, and Jody R. Naderi. 2006. “Landscape Improvement Impacts on Roadside Safety in Texas.” Landscape and Urban
Planning 78: 263-274. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204605001386.
Naderi, Jody R. 2003. “Landscape Design in the Clear Zone: Effect of Landscape Variables on Pedestrian Health and Driver Safety.” Transportation Research
Record 1851: 119-130. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/swutc.tamu.edu/publications/papers/167425TP2.pdf.
Naderi, Jody R. Byoung Suk Kweon, and…