Mobilizing Against COVID-19 (by staying put)

How has and will the coronavirus impact how we travel and where we live?
April 12, 2020 │Steve Winkelman

This is the second in a series of blog posts exploring how lessons from the response to the coronavirus pandemic might help accelerate climate action. 1) We Pressed Pause. What’s Next? 2) Mobilizing against COVID 19 (by staying put), 3) Think Globally, Produce (& Reduce) Locally, 4) Prepare and Prevent, 5) Green Reboot?

Don’t just do something, stand there! Few of us could have imagined that a key strategy to save millions of lives was to just stay put. (Practitioners of meditation and mindfulness were probably better prepared.)

Billions of us, indeed are staying home, avoiding travel and driving shorter distances. We are figuring out which trips are truly essential, what we can afford and which travel modes and patterns are safest. At the same time, millions of people do not have the choice to work from home or the luxury to stay put. And that exacerbates longstanding structural inequalities pertaining to race and income.

I’ve spent much of my career working to make it possible for people to spend less of their lives driving – by advancing solutions such as public transit, walking, cycling, travel demand management, smart growth, transit-oriented development, etc. And with numerous colleagues, we documented benefits for the environment, economy, quality of life and health.

GHGs from Transportation
The transportation sector accounts for about 24% of global CO2 emissions; 80% is from road transport, with aviation and marine each contributing about 10%. In the US, transportation has surpassed electricity as the largest source of GHGs (28%), and that gap is expected to widen. In Quebec, the transportation sector accounts for 43% of provincial GHGs (electricity accounts for only 0.3% of GHGs due to hydro-electricity).

It could take decades for electric vehicles to fully penetrate the fleet and take a big bite out of emissions. And EVs won’t solve all of our problems, nor bring the myriad benefits of walkable, transit-oriented communities (see my earlier blog: Avoiding Clean Congestion).

Global emissions are temporarily down but can be expected to rebound as the world emerges from the pandemic.

What changes are we seeing? Are there trends that may last and cut GHGs? What opportunities and risks might we see going forward?

More questions than answers.
There are a lot of data out there. We have a basic sense on what’s going on in terms of changes across different modes of transportation, trip types and locations. But the whole situation is very dynamic and policies change daily.

At this point we have more questions than answers. Transportation researchers certainly have our work cut out for us. In addition to assessing physical and economic changes, it will be important to consider our emotional reactions to the massive changes we’re undergoing. How are we feeling about various aspects of the situation will inform what happens when we re-emerge. What changes would we like to preserve? Which can’t we wait to stop?

Telecommuting. More people are working from home than ever have. The adjustment has been challenging for many. We need to assess what’s going well and what isn’t. What are the factors that contribute to increased or decreased productivity? How are video call systems working? What are the social equity implications for people who lack the equipment or the type of job that allows for remote work? What are impacts on relationships and family dynamics?

(I’ve been working at home for more than 20 years. So that part hasn’t been disruptive for me. One silver lining: my son is a skilled jazz drummer without access to the kit at school, so we get to enjoy daily performances. That silver does tarnish a bit when his practicing coincides with a work call or attempted nap…).

Many people are “Zoomed-out” and can’t wait to get back to the office. But I expect that as workers and employers get used to remote work that we will see some significant persistence and increased employer flexibility on telecommuting. Prithwiraj Choudhury of the Harvard Business School noted, “A shift toward remote working may also be here to stay. … Some companies and organizations have gone completely virtual, abandoning offices altogether.” (Quoted by Beth Gardiner, Yale E360.)

Flying. Aviation, while just 2.5% of global GHG emissions, is one of the fastest growing sources — even though some people are going on flight diets and some corporate and university sustainability plans include goals to minimize flights to cut GHGs (and save money).

Worldwide commercial flights decreased 55% in the final week of March compared to 2019. It took about two years for air travel to recover from 9/11 as well as from the 2008 financial crisis. And the industry’s economic could top $100 billion (vs. $23 billion after 9/11).

It remains to be seen how increased concerns about health risks may impact future air travel. I would guess that increased familiarity with remote meeting technology and more frugal budgeting will displace a noticeable share of flights in the next few years. Personally I’ve done a lot of flying over my career (you’ve got to burn carbon to save carbon?) and frankly don’t want to spend a lot more time away from my family (yes, even after some weeks of self-quarantine).

Driving. The average distance traveled in the US has declined 25-40% since February 2020, with a 60-65% reduction in non-essential trips, according to smartphone data compiled by Unicast. (These data reflect all movement, but about 75% of all US trips are in private cars and light trucks.) Environics found that 1 in 6 people left their neighbourhoods in Canada last weekend, vs. 1 in 3 before the pandemic.

Google’s Community Mobility Reports indicate travel reduction for different trip types in the US: -49% for retail and recreation, -40% for workplaces and -20% for grocery and pharmacy trips (as of April 5th). (By the way did you know that work trips account for only about 20% of miles driven?)

In Manhattan the reduction was -85% for retail/recreation, -56% for work and -47% for grocery/pharmacy – but cars account for just 35% of trips (31% transit, 28% walk, 3% bike). In Canada, the average reduction in retail/recreation trips is -63%, with the deepest reductions in Quebec (with strict mobility limitations) at -84%, followed by Ontario at -60%.

For retail and recreation trips in the US (e.g., restaurants, cafes, shopping centers, theme parks, museums, libraries, movie theaters), which account for about 40% of miles driven, the change in mobility varies across states with the greatest reductions in DC and NJ (-66%) and the smallest reductions in Arkansas (-36%) .

Upon quick glance it appears that the reductions in driving reflect infection rates, with a tendency for states with  more infections (the red in the map below) to see deeper reductions in cut driving (green and yellow above).

(There are also some visual parallels with the US political map – with lower infection rates, death rates and reductions in driving in politically “red” states. But the situation changes daily, so we can’t read too much into that. Polls have shown Democrats to be more concerned about infection than Republicans, however Republican concern has grown significantly. Some have suggested that we may be seeing a reflection of cultural/tribal differences in trust of scientists and confidence in government. That said, there has been a high-level of bi-partisan cooperation on the stimulus bills in spite of deep political differences. Hopefully this crisis can inspire more of us to unite in common cause.)

Wikipedia: summary of results of the 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 presidential elections.

Streetlight Data provides more detailed county-level changes in total miles driven which allows for more nuanced analysis of travel behaviour change and impacts of response strategies.

We’re also seeing a major reduction in collisions: about an 80% reduction in collisions and injuries in NYC, and a 50% reduction in traffic deaths in California (saving the state $1 billion). There is an increasing concern about the rate of crashes and speeding vehicles (and even drag racing in Toronto). A number of cities are reducing speed limits and pursuing tactical urbanism strategies to slow traffic such as protected bike lanes and traffic cone curb extensions.

Walking and Cycling. What a cheap and healthy way to save lives and reduce GHGs! With so few cars on the road walking and cycling have become safer and more pleasant. (As I put in a recent interview, « C’est tellement agréable de faire du vélo actuellement. »)

We’re seeing increases in walking and cycling as people head to the corner pharmacy, avoid crowds on public transit and try and maintain their physical and mental health. Cycling increased by 52% in NYC and use of bike share systems more than doubling in Chicago and Beijing. In cities with stricter restrictions on movement cycling has declined along with other travel modes.

An international group of researchers and scientists has called on governments to make rapid improvements in walking and cycling infrastructure. NACTO, CityLab and others have started to track city transportation policy responses to the pandemic:

• Temporary bike lanes. Bogota, Colombia was one of the first cities to expand temporary bike lanes to reduce crowding on public transit (but the city is now under broader lockdown). Berlin and Mexico City have also expanded bike lanes.

• Limiting vehicle access and road closures. Several cities have limited vehicle access in certain areas to create space for walking and biking social distancing (Calgary, Minneapolis, NYC, Oakland (74 miles!), Philadelphia, Portland, Vancouver).

• Automated pedestrian crossing in cities such as Auckland, Boston, Los Angeles and Perth avert the need to push buttons.

• Bicycle repair shops have been deemed essential services in a growing number of city, states and provinces, including (Berlin, Chicago, Kentucky, Ohio, Ontario, New Jersey, NYC, Quebec, San Francisco).

• Free bike sharing during the COVID-10 crisis is being offered in cities such as Detroit, Kansas City, London, Memphis and Washington DC.

• Free e-bikes for health care workers in Bogota arose from collaboration of several organizations including NUMO and Despacio.  

ITDP has shared good ideas on the role micromobility can play to promote low-carbon resilience right now and into the future.

Image source: ICI Radio.

Public transit use is down 60-80% in major US and Canadian cities. This breaks my heart. I get it. I’m avoiding transit myself, but haven’t really needed it. Many people, however do not have the choice to work from home or the luxury to stay put. Many essential workers rely on public transit to get to their jobs in hospitals and grocery stores.  Ridership may decrease further with stricter social distancing and lock-down requirements.

With 55% of the global population living in urban areas, I can’t see how the world can function without the essential service of public transit. And we can’t meet climate goals without public transit. In the month since it reopened, ridership of the Shenzhen metro is only at one-third of normal levels. We’ll see what next month brings.

Transit systems are going to need major new investments to keep systems clean and safe. Frequent and comprehensive cleaning programs and new policies to manage crowding and reduce physical contact (e.g., back-door boarding, forbidding cash payment) will be required. NACTO and APTA’s have resources to help transit agencies protect their workers and riders. Some 50 cities have made public transit free, including Atlanta, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles and New Orleans.

The US Congress has allocated $25 billion in emergency funding, but experts have warned that it’s not enough. Not only are transit agencies losing passenger fares (which can cover 10-30% of operating expenses), they are also seeing major declines in core revenue streams (sales taxes, payroll taxes, parking fees, gas taxes, etc.), while spending more on vehicle and system cleaning. It will be financially difficult to restore full service and logistically challenging to enforce safe distancing. Transportation and sustainability advocates have put forth recommendations on emergency stabilization and economic recovery (infrastructure investment, housing and community development), which I’ll cover in my Green Reboot blog.

Density isn’t Destiny
Will people want to move out of cities once the pandemic subsides? Many factors impact exposure to the novel coronavirus. Richard Florida points out that hotspots have arisen in international travel hubs for industry (Wuhan), commerce (NYC) and tourism (Alpine ski slopes).

Some have posited that density is at the core of the problem. That makes common sense: when people are closer together they are more likely to interact and share ideas and diseases. Indeed, analysis by Jed Kolko found higher death rates from COVID-19 in higher-density US counties. Kolko notes, however, that the rate of increase in deaths has been similar across place types (urban, suburban rural), and that death rates are also higher in counties with older populations, larger minority populations and later issuance of stay-at-home orders. A Washington Post study concludes that rural residents are more likely to die from the flu than urbanites and may be more vulnerable to COVID-19 as well. Laura Bliss points out that rural residents generally live much further from hospitals than urbanites and are concerned about access to high quality health care.

Emily Badger and others have pointed out that very dense place like Hong Kong and Singapore have done a better job managing transmission due to wide-spread testing, isolation and clear communication. Ann Forsyth points out that that the distinction between density and crowding is important. Density is the number of people per acre, whereas crowding reflects physical proximity, such as the number of people per room.

Richard Florida underscores that the kind of density makes a big difference, “The density that transmits the virus is when people are crammed together in multifamily, multi-generational households or in factories or frontline service work in close physical proximity to one another or the public.” Urban design can make a big difference too. Are sidewalks wide enough? Is there adequate and accessible green and public space?

Within New York City, it appears that there COVOID-19 infection rates are higher in low-density areas than in higher-density areas at the borough level. (I learned that from Llyod Alter, and dove deeper into the data.)

Zooming into the ZIP code level there is wide variation of density and infection rates within boroughs. Variance in infection likely due to factors such as age, pre-existing health conditions and where crowding presents barriers to social distancing,such as when large or multiple families share a dwelling. (In a terrible irony the highest infection rate in NYC is in Corona, Queens.)

Again, it is important to note that the data and situation are evolving rapidly. When this terrible storm finally passes (and may that be soon) more thorough analysis will be needed to consider how infection rates and death rates are impacted by a wide range of factors including age, race, income, health, urban design, housing, containment strategies, health care capacity, community resources, social support networks, etc. In the meantime, Richard Florida and Bill Fulton have shared some helpful thoughts on how cities will need to adapt and evolve in response to the pandemic. 

15-Minute Neighbourhoods: Green, Resilient and Healthy
Brent Toderian shared that, “The need for #SpatialDistancing is illustrating the great value of many city-building elements that we’ve been talking about for years — wider sidewalks; porches & balconies; pedestrian streets; wide separated bike-lanes, & the general concept of the hyper-local ‘15 minute city’.”

It’s well known that that walking, cycling and public transit can cut GHG emissions. Sustainable land use strategies can cut driving in half – no matter if you call them 15-minute neighbourhouds (as they do in Ottawa and Paris), smart growth (as we did in Growing Cooler) or transit oriented development (as I have in Colombia).  And it’s been well-documented that walkable, accessible communities also provide a host of economic, social and health benefits of (e.g., see Todd Litman, and Chuck Kooshian and me in Growing Wealthier).

There’s also lot we can do to enhance the resilience of transportation systems. Walkable communities with multiple travel options are also more resilient to shocks and disruptions


14-day Communities?
We’ve all been reminded how important it is to have a couple weeks of basic supplies, food, clean water, soap, medicine, etc. So, maybe in addition to 15-minute neighbourhoods we should also pursue 14-day communities. I’ll explore that idea more in the fourth installment: Prepare and Prevent.


« Les urbains n’accepteront pas aisément un retour à la normale. Peut-être prôneront-ils à l’avenir des manières différentes de concevoir les quartiers et d’y vivre, en priorisant les déplacements à pied, par exemple », pense cet Américain installé à Montréal. – Steve Winkelman (quoted in unpointcinq).

Rough translation: “Urban dwellers will not readily accept a return to business-as-usual. Maybe they will demand — and move into — neighbourhoods designed to prioritize foot travel,” thinks this American living in Montreal. [By the way, I am proud to note that I became a Canadian citizen last year, so this gringo is also Canadian.]

Now go take a walk!

This is the second in a series of blog posts exploring how lessons from the response to the coronavirus pandemic might help accelerate climate action. 1) We Pressed Pause. What’s Next? 2) Mobilizing against COVID-19 (by staying put), 3) Think Globally, Produce (& Reduce ) Locally, 4) Prepare and Prevent, 5) Green Reboot?