Journal of Public Health Policy

, Volume 30, Supplement 1, pp S73–S94 | Cite as

Transit and Health: Mode of Transport, Employer-Sponsored Public Transit Pass Programs, and Physical Activity

  • Ugo Lachapelle
  • Lawrence D Frank


Increased provision of transit service and policy incentives that favor transit use can support a physically active lifestyle. We used the smartraq travel survey in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia (in 2001–2002) to assess whether transit and car trips were associated with meeting the recommended levels of physical activity by using walking as a means of transportation. Additionally, we assessed associations between walking and using an employer-sponsored public transit pass. We controlled for demographics, neighborhood density, presence of services near workplaces, distance from home to transit, and car availability in our sample of 4,156 completed surveys. Walking distances from origin to destination were derived by a geographical information system and categorized as: no walking, moderate walking, or meeting recommendation (walking⩾2.4 km (1.5 miles) a day, approximately⩾30 min). In a multinomial logistic regression controlling for other covariates, transit trips were associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.87 (confidence interval (CI) 95%, 2.93–5.11) of meeting recommendation. In a multinominal logistical regression controlling for other covariates, transit users were associated with meeting recommendation, OR 2.23 (CI 95%, 1.27–3.90).


public transit employer-sponsored transit pass walking density automobile availability 



We acknowledge the financial support of the Bombardier Foundation who funded this analysis of the SMARTRAQ data. We also thank the Georgia Department of Transportation and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority for funding the SMARTRAQ Project, and the collaboration with the Atlanta Regional Commission to collect the data.


  1. US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Promotion; 1996, Available at, accessed 14 August 2008.
  2. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD . Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med. 2003;25 (2):80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Sallis JF, Frank LD, Saelens BE, Kraft MK . Active transportation and physical activity: opportunities for collaboration on transportation and public health research. Transport Res A: Pol Pract. 2004;38 (4):249–268.Google Scholar
  4. Frank LD, Andresen MA, Schmid TL . Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. Am J Prev Med. 2004; 27 (2):87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frank LD, Schmid TL, Sallis JF, Chapman J, Saelens BE . Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: findings from SMARTRAQ. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 28 (2 Suppl 2):117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Transportation Research Board and Institute of Medicine. Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence, TRB Special Report 282. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board; 2005, Available at, accessed 14 August 2008.
  7. Dannenberg AL, Jackson RJ, Frumkin H, Schieber RA, Pratt M, Kochtitzky C, et al. The impact of community design and land-use choices on public health: a scientific research agenda. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93 (9):1500–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Besser LM, Dannenberg AL . Walking to public transit: steps to help meet physical activity recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 29 (4):273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee C, Moudon AV . Physical activity and environment research in the health field: implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research. J Plan Lit. 2004; 19 (2):147–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gärling T, Eek D, Loukopoulos P, Fujii S, Johansson-Stenman O, Kitamura R, et al. A conceptual analysis of the impact of travel demand management on private car use. Transport Pol. 2002;9 (1):59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhang M . Travel choice with no alternative: can land use reduce automobile dependence? J Plan Educ Res. 2006; 25:311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frank LD . Economic determinants of urban form: resulting trade-offs between active and sedentary forms of travel. Am J Prev Med. 2004; 27 (Suppl 1):146–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cervero RB . Walk-and-ride: factors influencing pedestrian access to transit. J Public Transport. 2001; 3 (4):1–23.Google Scholar
  14. Hoehner C, Brennan Ramirez L, Elliott M, Handy S, Brownson R . Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 28 (2 Suppl 2):105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J . An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006; 27:297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank L, Bradley M, Kavage S, Chapman J, Lawton TK . Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice. Transportation. 2008; 35 (1):37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. US Department of Transportation. A Summary: Rebuilding America's Infrastructure TEA-21 – Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; 2001. Available at, accessed 23 October 2008.
  18. Lucove JC, Huston SL, Evenson KR . Workers’ perceptions about worksite policies and environments and their association with leisure-time physical activity. Am J Health Promot. 2007; 21 (3):196–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Badoe DA, Yendeti MK . Impact of transit-pass ownership on daily number of trips made by urban public transit. J Urban Plan Dev. 2007; 133 (4):242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chapman J, Frank L . SMARTRAQ: Integrating Travel Behavior and Urban Form Data to Address Transportation Problems in Atlanta. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Department of Transportation, US Department of Transportation; 2004, Available at, accessed 14 August 2008.Google Scholar
  21. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Partnership Program, Available at, accessed 23 October 2008.
  22. Transportation Research Board. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program; 2003, Available at, accessed 14 August 2008.
  23. Chapman J, Frank L, Carpenter A . GDOT V.18 – Integrated Land Use, Travel Survey and Vehicle Emissions Data for 8,000 Household Survey Sample. Atlanta: Georgia Tech Research Institute; 2004.Google Scholar
  24. Ewing R, Cervero R . Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transport Res Rec. 2001; 1780:87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. US Census Bureau. Census Tracts and Block Numbering Areas. 2000, Available at, accessed 10 October 2008.
  26. Lachapelle U, Frank LD . In Bridging the devide: Celebrating the city. Employer sponsored public transit incentives in Atlanta, GA: winners, losers, users, and latent demand. Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning – Association of European Schools of Planning 4th Joint Congress; 2008 July 6–11; Chicago, IL. Available at, accessed 17 November 2008.
  27. Transportation Research Board. Analyzing the Effectiveness of Commuter Benefits Programs. Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Program; 2005, Available at, accessed 14 August 2008.

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Community & Regional Planning, University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations