Road traffic and health

Railway Track and Structures, Dec, 2004 by Tom Judge

Are you sick of traffic? A new medical study shows you may be literally sick from traffic, and not just from road rage. According to a German study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, people prone to a heart attack face triple their usual risk as a result of traffic. The scary part is that the study found that the risk is tripled whether you're in a car, on a bicycle or using mass transit, which means the increase is not solely from stress.

Many studies have tied respiratory disease to air pollution. Evidence coming in over the past 10 years points to microscopic particles in the air causing harm to the heart and blood vessels, as well, possibly even more than to the lungs.

After tallying the results, the German researchers found that study participants were three times more likely to suffer a heart attack within an hour of driving, riding or bicycling than they were during their activities away from traffic.

While stress and noise may be factors, the researchers noted that they observed the risk increase even in the quiet, more-relaxing setting of a bus or train ride.

One bit of good news is that Germany uses far more diesel fuel than the U.S. So the risk should still be present in North America, but not quite as high. Also, the U.S. EPA has been working to reduce particle levels in the air for more than three decades. Particles of the size implicated in heart attacks dropped by 17 percent between 1993 and 2002, according to EPA data.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

OK, what should this mean to railroaders? I think it's one more indicator that we should shift more traffic to railroads.

AAR is touting a study of 49 cities recently released by transportation expert Wendell Cox. In his report, Cox shows that, by 2025, a five percent shift of freight from road to rail in the U.S. would reduce air pollution by nearly 900,000 tons each year. Besides that, it would save each commuter 44 hours per year, which is 44 hours not spent in traffic. That has to be good for you. And commuters will burn less fuel, about 257 gallons less, according to the study. The economy would save about $620 per household in congestion costs each year.

The fuel-efficiency advantage that railroads enjoy over trucks is already diverting traffic from roads to rails as fuel prices soar. But, as we all know, railroads have been unable to expand capacity fast enough to handle the increases. Money to keep up or even expand is going to have to come from public-private partnerships. It already makes good economic sense to run more freight over the railroads because doing so means the public agencies save money on road maintenance and repair. Now we have another argument for doing the same thing, this time from un unexpected quarter: health care.

Does this mean that government agencies are going to see the light and provide funding to the railroads and create incentives to shippers to move more cargo by rail? Don't hold your breath.

I wish all of you all the best for a joyous holiday season and a happy, prosperous and healthy 2005.

Tom Judge, Editor