Results of Pilot Grounding McGrath HIA and
Proposed Criteria for Conducting
Transportation-related HIAs
for Planning in Massachusetts
Healthy Transportation
Compact Annual Meeting
December 5, 2013
Suzanne K. Condon, Associate Commissioner
Director, Bureau of Environmental Health, MDPH
Outline
I.
Transportation Reform in Massachusetts
II.
Overview of Screening and Scoping of Pilot HIA
III.
Review of Baseline Conditions and Pathways and
Indicators for Assessing Alternatives
IV.
Findings and Recommendations of HIA
V.
Short term Wins to Advance Healthy Transportation Goals
VI.
Proposed Criteria for Conducting HIA
VII. Summary and Next Steps
I. Transportation Reform in Massachusetts
Healthy Transportation Compact
•
Under M.G.L. Chapter 6C, Section 33 the Healthy Transportation
Compact is directed to:
• (v) establish methods to implement the use of health impact
assessments (HIAs) to determine the effect of transportation
projects on public health and vulnerable populations; and
• (x) institute a health impact assessment for use by planners,
transportation administrators, public health administrators and
developers
•
Transportation planning projects often have a range of health
implications that are not uniformly considered but can be now with
data from Environmental Public Health Tracking portals in
Massachusetts and 22 other states
•
MDPH was awarded funds from the RWJ/Pew Health Impact Project
to conduct a transportation-related HIA
Overall Goal to Meet HIA Directives of
Transportation Reform
The goal of the proposed transportation-related HIA project was to work
together with MassDOT, EEA and other community representatives to:
Pilot an HIA of a
proposed
transportationrelated project
Serve as a vehicle for
training staff
responsible for
implementing the HIA
directives
Provide the
framework for
developing methods
to determine which
types of
transportation
projects might benefit
from an HIA and the
process to make such
determinations
II. Overview of Screening and Scoping of Pilot HIA
Screening
• Healthy Transportation Compact Interagency Staff Working Group
selected MassDOT Grounding McGrath transportation planning
study to pilot an HIA
• The pilot HIA was structured to be conducted in tandem with an
active MassDOT study to provide supplemental health data to
better inform optimal transportation design alternatives
• MassDOT’s existing study protocol lends uniquely to the HIA
process by establishing a stakeholder working group composed of
community representatives to evaluate alternatives
Scoping
• Conducted HIA training by Health Impact Project/Human
Impact Partners of state agency managers and staff at the
beginning of pilot HIA
• Integrated data from MassDOT Grounding McGrath
Study into Pilot HIA:
• MassDOT Design Alternatives developed by Grounding
McGrath Working Group
• Grounding McGrath Study Evaluation Criteria and Data Used
by MassDOT to select best alternative
• Developed methods for assessing baseline health
conditions, and for evaluating the pathways and indicators
for each alternatives
III. Review of Baseline Health Conditions and
Pathways and Indicators for Assessment Alternatives
Pilot HIA proposed methods for assessing:
Baseline Health Conditions
• Demographic and Socioeconomic Conditions
• Vulnerable Populations
• Baseline Health Information
Pathways and Indicators for Assessing Alternatives
•
•
•
•
•
Air quality
Noise
Mobility/Connectivity
Public safety
Land use/Economic Development
Baseline Conditions
Selected Demographic and Socioeconomic Data
Census
Tracts
Population
2010
Median
Age
Median
household
income
(dollars)
350103
350104
350200
351300
351403
351404
351500
Somerville
State
1210
7275
6567
4233
4028
4289
2310
75,754
6,547,629
36.6
31.8
33.6
36.2
33.1
33.2
34.5
31.4
39.1
67,500
47,231
59,978
56,658
35,453
40,783
39,343
61,731
64,509
Percent of High
school graduate
(includes
equivalency) or
higher
87.5%
79.4%
91.7%
91.0%
92.2%
75.5%
66.8%
88.8%
88.7%
2006-2010
Families with
income below
poverty level
Unemployment
rate, ages 16+
24.8%
22.7%
5.5%
4.1%
13.2%
16.3%
18.1%
14.7%
10.5%
17.0%
6.4%
5.2%
13.4%
3.9%
5.2%
3.5%
6.3%
7.4%
Somerville
State
Foreign born persons
26.80%
14.50%
Language other than English spoken at home, percentage age 5+
32.60%
21.00%
Environmental Justice Areas
9
Baseline Health Data
Birth characteristics for select census tracts in Somerville, MA (2007)
Low Birth Weight
Very Low Birth Weight
(<2500 g)
(<1500 g)
Areaa
McGrath Highway
7.4%
1.9%
Massachusetts
7.9%
1.4%
aIncludes the following census tracts: 350103, 350104, 350200, 351300, 351403, 351404, 351500.
Estimated prevalence of adult obesity, hypertension, Type II diabetes,
exercise, and fruit/vegetable intake in Somerville, Ma (2009)
Middlesex
County, MA
State
Adult Obesity
Adult Ever
Hypertension
Adult Ever
Diabetes
Adult No
Exercise
Adult Five-ADay
20.4%
22.4%
7.5%
16.4%
27.2%
21.8%
25.7%
7.9%
20.9%
26.2%
For Somerville as a whole, 43.6% of children were overweight or
obese. This compares to 32.4% statewide for the same year (MDPH
2012).
III. Pathways and Indicators Evaluated in HIA
Air Quality: What are the public health impacts/benefits associated with
changes in air pollution concentrations from vehicles including technology
changes?
Noise: What are the public health impacts/benefits associated with
changes in noise impacts along corridor and adjacent streets in an area
with the highest number of vehicles along corridor?
Mobility and connectivity: What are the public health impacts/benefits
associated with changes for pedestrians and bicyclists and mode shift
from auto to walking?
Public Safety: What are the public health impacts/benefits associated
with changes in injuries and fatalities associated with vehicle collisions?
Land Use and Economic Development : What are the public health
impacts/benefits associated with changes in access to goods (e.g., grocery
store, pharmacy) and services (e.g., health care providers, schools,
libraries); housing and affordable housing (including possibility of
gentrification and displacement) and availability and access to parks, open
space, and the community path?
11
IV. Findings and Recommendations
•
The fact that significantly more children are currently obese compared to the statewide
average indicates that alternatives that promote healthy behaviors are paramount
•
Based upon data reviewed for the GM HIA, and the cumulative health impacts from multiple
factors in the study area, the two optimal alternatives are the Boulevard Alternative and
Boulevard with Inner Belt Connection Alternative because they offer the greatest
opportunities for mobility and access
•
Future assessment of health impacts and benefits of proposed study alternatives should be
conducted once more robust project-specific information and transportation data become
available
•
Additional analysis is needed to better understand and characterize the delays along the deelevated roadway due to congestion and the potential for diversionary traffic from the deelevated roadway into surrounding neighborhoods. This work can be incorporated into the
well established and comprehensive transportation planning that MassDOT carries out
•
Existing health data resources such as the MDPH Environmental Public Health Tracking portal
provide publicly available information on a variety of health outcomes and environmental
data that can be readily incorporated into future assessments of existing health conditions
and potential health impacts associated with transportation projects
•
Air Quality: Significant reductions in traffic-related air pollution largely attributed
to advancements in vehicle emissions standards and technologies are expected by
2035. De-elevation of the highway structure is anticipated to result in an increase
in ground-level exposure to traffic-related air pollutant emissions. Implementation
of mitigation measures (e.g., locating sidewalks and bike paths further away from
the roadway, installation of barriers, planting of trees) should be explored where
possible to reduce exposure to traffic-related air pollutants
•
Noise: More comprehensive analysis of noise impacts to sensitive receptors from
de-elevating the highway within the buffer area is recommended in order to
identify areas where noise mitigation may be warranted
•
Mobility and Connectivity: It is anticipated that all future pedestrian and bicycling
networks will conform to the Complete Streets guidelines
•
Public Safety: Efforts to support reduced travel speeds and volumes both on the
de-elevated highway and in nearby neighborhoods will decrease injuries and
fatalities
•
Land Use and Economic Development: Given that the study area is classified as
an environmental justice community it is critical that long-term plans that involve
current residents are developed to ensure affordability of goods and services,
stabilization of cost of rental apartments, and employment opportunities are
made available
V. Short Term Wins to Advance Healthy
Transportation Goals
•
Planning and implementing this HIA provided an opportunity for public health,
environmental and transportation agencies to familiarize with data, terminology &
overall transportation planning policies and share with the public
•
•
•
•
Participated in seven GM Working Group Meetings and two public informational meetings
Conducted a 30-day public comment period
Dedicated webpages with report and Executive Summary translated into three languages
Participated in conference and webinars to advance HIAs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Health Policy Forum
2012 Inaugural National Health Assessment Meeting (MDPH and MassDOT jointly presented)
Exploring the Promise and Practice of HIAs: New England Conference
Social Determinants of Urban Health (Chicago)
Connecticut Academy HIA Study Committee
Annual Connecticut Public Health Association Conference
Environmental Health: Strengthening What Works
141st APHA Annual Meeting
EPHT Annual Grantee Meeting
Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Population Health Improvement - Applying a Health Lens
to Decision Making in Non-Health Sectors (Ned Codd, MassDOT)
VI. Proposed Criteria for Conducting HIAs
•
Proposed broad guidance on nature and types of transportation projects
(e.g., roadway, transit and train, and airport projects) most likely to have
potential health impacts and would best benefit from an HIA
•
Proposed criteria for conducting HIAs may include significant changes to
existing conditions pertaining to:
• Volume of operations (e.g., increase in traffic volume)
• Physical infrastructure (e.g., expansion/reduction of a transit station,
new runway)
• Exposure to environmental pollutants (e.g., increase in motor vehicle
emissions to residents within 300 meters)
• Mode shift (e.g., change from between auto, transit, walking and biking)
• Displacement of residents
• Access to goods and services
•
Exceedance of existing Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
thresholds
•
Potential to Impact EOEEA-designated Environmental Justice
Communities
VII. Summary and Next Steps
 The HIA will now go through the MEPA process. This will provide an
opportunity to determine if HIAs actually facilitates the process
 HTC Interagency Staff Working Group will continue to work together
to advance the use of HIAs in transportation planning and to
enhance health policy across secretariats
 Massachusetts state agencies will continue their leadership role
nationally on use of HIAs in transportation planning by promoting
the HTC and Section 33 requirements