Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Promoting Active Transportation in Rural Areas is a round table discussion from 2012 that I listened to. This discussion promoting active transportation tied in well with our class discussion from a few weeks ago about community walkability and street-scale design. Proper planning makes active transportation much easier, safer, and increases the chances for people to walk/bicycle, instead of drive. Topics covered included; limitations specific to rural environments, the Complete-Streets initiative, community design including sidewalks and bike lanes, safe routes to schools, and suggestions related to active transportation for all individuals moving forward.
From what we covered in class, we know that “local” stores, schools, and jobs are sometimes located very far from homes, which makes it very difficult to commute without a well-functioning car. Many rural environments usually lack pedestrian amenities, like crosswalks with lights, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes, which makes active transportation more of an inconvenience. Back in 2012, all five public-health experts in this discussion agreed that active living was gaining momentum in every region of the country, and since then it appears that we have made a true effort to move forward by updating recreation facilities, parks, connecting sidewalks, and bicycle lanes.
Bicycling to school and work is something that has become more popular since this discussion and this helps you save money, as well as reach your weekly active minutes. Many renovations, like adding bicycle lanes, still needs to be made in order for these number to continue to rise. Having a separate lane for people on bicycles is much safer and inviting than having to share the road with cars. This discussion was tied into the Complete Streets initiative.
Jennifer Rice, from the Humboldt Area Foundation, followed with the point that the US lack methods and tradition for engaging communities in solving transportation problems. State officials say they are doing something for the community, in that community, but not working with the community. Ronald Cossman, from the Social Science Research Center, made the point that local officials need to notify and educate state officials, by showing proof of why and what kind of assistance they need. This requires local officials to spend time listening to better understand and connect with the community, but can lead to better results for all.
Mark Duncan, from Starkville in Motion, said that local officials need proof in order to get a grant in rural communities. Tracy Hadden Loh, from California, made a point that it is important to market towards parents. The opportunity to reduce transportation cost with a safe and healthier option is a great way to engage communities. In rural communities, having a school bus dropoff near the school and have a walking school bus was an option to help reduce congestion. Another takeaway moving forward from this discussion was to educate everyone (walkers, bicyclers, & drivers) on how to share the road properly and keep safety in mind.
What did this discussion give as solutions to the distance faced in rural communities? Will adding bike lanes and street lights increase active transportation if an individual still has to travel 10 miles to get to their destination? Have there been any interventions looking at increasing active transportation in rural communities? Since you can’t shrink the distance in communities such as these, it seems like a more practical way to increase activity would be to provide opportunities at people’s school and work. Increasing PE requirements in schools and jobs providing incentives to those who are active.