Transcript The Future of Transportation: Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Livability? Steven E.

The Future of Transportation:
Baseball, Hot Dogs,
Apple Pie and Livability?
Steven E. Polzin, PhD.
Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida
September 2010
Based on comments from :
9th Annual New Partners for Smart Growth:
Building Safe, Healthy, and Livable Communities
February 2010
And
TRB Executive Committee Retreat “Red Meat” Session
on Livability
June 2010
Disclaimer: The observations are those of the author.
Outline

Some observations on travel behavior

Some observations on transportation
and land use.
Uncertainty in The Future
While the level of understanding and the amount of data
regarding travel behavior have never been better.
We haven’t been able to predict
 Who will win the next election,
 Which movie or TV show will be popular,
 What will be the hot Christmas gift, or,
 Which stocks (if any) will do well this year.
Therefore we shouldn’t apologize for uncertainty regarding
future travel or land use forecasts.
But we should plan for uncertainty.
• Travel
is fundamental
to the humanCreate
Social
and
Economic Interactions
desire to interact
andfor
socialize.
Demand
Travel
• Travel enables economic
interaction and
Time
the transportation
of products
and
is
Specialization
in
Growth in
Growth in
fundamental toEmployment
the functioning of the
 Person Travel
 economy.
Income
 Consumption
 Commerce
 Knowledge
• Growth in income
and knowledge fuel
Socialization
 Communication
the desire tobecome
Time usemore specialized in
employment, social interactions,
consumption and time use.
• This creates demand for more travel.
Polzin, CUTR 2010
I’m not going to
Disney. I’m going
to stay home and
watch the Disney
Channel on the Big
Screen
First thing
I’m going to
do is sell my
big pickup
truck and go
for a walk
Americans’
Mobility
Aspirations?
I can’t wait to
cancel my trip for
the family reunion
and move to a
small condo
downtown
Conceptual Framework for Thinking About Travel Demand
Legal/Political Climate
Culture
Socio-Demographic Conditions
Household/Person Characteristics
 Income/wealth levels and distribution
 Age/activity level
 Culture/values
Technology
Security
Economy
Business, Governance, Institutional
Context
 Scale of activity concentration
 Economic structure of service delivery
 Racial/ethnic composition
 Immigration status/tenure
 Gender
 Family/household composition
 Housing location
Travel Demand
 Local person travel
 Tourism/long trips
 Freight
 Commercial Travel
Land Use Pattern
 Regional/national distribution
 Density
 Mix of land uses
 Urban form
Transportation Supply/Performance
 Modal Availability
 Modal Performance
 Urban design
o Cost
 Contiguousness of development
o Speed/congestion
o Safety, security
o Reliability
o Convenience
o Image, etc.
Polzin, CUTR 2009
o Multi-tasking opportunities
-40 000
-80 000
-120 000
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
Miles (000,000)
Incremental Annual Growth in VMT
120 000
80 000
40 000
0
VMT and Population Growth Trends
8%
VMT Change (each year)
VMT Change (annualized 5-yr. Avg.)
Population Change
6%
4%
2%
-2%
-4%
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
0%
Per Capita VMT
3,500,000
10,500
3,000,000
10,000
10
2,000,000
1,500,000
9,500
VMT
9,000
VMT per capita
8,500
1,000,000
500,000
8,000
0
7,500
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total VMT (000,000)
2,500,000
Per Capita Annual VMT
Total VMT and VMT per capita
Factors Contributing to US VMT Growth
1977-2001
Mode
Shifts
16%
Population
28%
Trip
Length
10%
Trip
Frequency
46%
11
Source: CUTR analysis of NHTS and NPTS
Trip Rate and Length
1600
14,0
1457
1200
13,0
1483
1272
1297
Anual Trips
994
1000
12,0
11,0
978
800
9,00
9,29
8,87
8,68
600
10,0
9,85
9,80
400
200
9,0
8,0
Person Trips Per Person Per Year
7,0
Person Miles of Travel Per Person Trip
0
1975
12
6,0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Trip Length
1400
NPTS and NHTS Work Trip Walking
Mode Shares
6%
1983
4,50%
5%
Percent Walking to work
1969
5,00%
4%
1983
4,10%
3%
2%
Work Trip "Usual Mode"
1%
0%
13
1977
4,60%
Work Trip Actual Mode
Walk is 10.95% of all trips in 2008
1990
4,00%
1990
3,70%
1995
2,60%
1995
2,30%
2001
2,92%
2001
2,81%
2008
3,20%
2008
2,80%
Census Work Trip Percent Walking
to Work Mode Share
12%
10,40%
10%
Percent Walking to Work
8%
7,40%
5,60%
6%
3,90%
2,90%
4%
2,82%
2%
0%
1960
14
1970
1980
1990
2000
Vehicle Occupancies - NHTS
2,20
2,00
1969; 1,90
Work Trip
1977; 1,90
All Trips
1,80
1983; 1,80
Occupancy
1,60
2008; 1,59
1990; 1,70
2001; 1,64
1995; 1,59
1,40
1,40
1,30
1,20
1,30
1,20
1,20
1,20
1,15
15
2009
2004
1999
1994
1989
1984
1979
1974
0,80
1969
1,00
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Percent Carpooling to Work
Census Work Trips
Carpooling Mode Share
25%
20.4%
20%
19.7%
15%
13.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS
12.2%
10%
5%
0%
Transit Mode Share Trends
10%
8,90%
Census Journey to Work, Usual Mode
9%
NPTS/NHTS Work Trips, Survey Day
NPTS/NHTS All Trips
8%
NHTS 2001 Adjusted
7%
NHTS Work Trip, Work Trip Usual Mode
Percent on Transit
6,40%
6%
5,30%
5%
4,60%
5,05%
5,11%
4,70%
4%
3,56%
3%
2%
5,36%
4,06%
3,67%
3,40%
1,76%
2,70%
2,70%
2,20%
1,81%
2,27%
1,56%
1%
0%
196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008
17
Minutes of Travel per Person 5+ per
Day
90
83,9
80
71,2
70
60
75,7
62,8
49,2
Minutes
50
40
30
20
10
0
1983
18
1990 adj.
1995
2001
2008
Person Miles of
Travel per Hour of Travel
(speed, all trips)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
19
1977
1983
1990 adj.
1995
2001
2008
Vehicle Availability
1,6
1,4
1,2
Vehicles per
1
0,8
0,6
Vehicles per worker
Vehicles per person 16 and older
Vehicles per driver
0,4
0,2
0
1969
20
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
2009
Declining Zero-Vehicle Households
25%
Percent
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1960
1970
1980
NPTS/NHTS
1990
Census
2000
ACS
Source: CUTR analysis of NHTS ,NPTS,U.S. Census Bureau and 2002-08 ACS
2010
What is Driving Vehicle Ownership
and Use?
60%
VMT, Income, Wealth and Vehicle Sales Change Trends 2000 to 2008
Annual VMT % Change
Median Income Change
Annual Vehicle Sales
Household Wealth
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Transportation and Land Use
Transportation/Land and
Multimodal Thinking are Not New
Officials at all levels of
government are demonstrating an
increasing awareness of the need
for balanced transportation
systems. The Federal Housing bill
recently passed by Congress
provides for emergency loans to
communities for rail, bus , subway
and other facilities …. State and
local government are also giving
increased attention to the matter
of improving transit service by
coordination with other modes.
Wilbur S. Smith,
ASCE Annual Meeting
October 1961
“They said we
need high
density to make
public transit
work. “
“No, they said we need
public transit to make
high density work.”
25
Social, Professional, and
Commerce Relationships are Less
Place Based

Improved transportation (speed, cost, safety, choice)

Improved communications

Shorter tenure (jobs and housing)

Greater work force participation (social relationships less
likely to be made over the picket fence or on the front porch)

Government/business replacing neighbors as safety net

Economy of scale factors challenge neighborhood-scale
businesses and enterprises. (Technology and government
regulation enhance the strength of economy of scale. )
Activity Scale and Distribution

The average size of an elementary school in the U.S. has
grown from 155 students in 1950 to 445 in 2008.

There are 6000 fewer grocery stores in America in 2010
compared to 2001.

In 1970, there were 34 hospitals per million persons. In
2005 there were 24.

In 1970, there were 30,800 car dealerships. In 2008
there were 20,770. In 2011 there will be far fewer.
Do Business Economics
Contradict Travel Minimization

1940 - Went to the Doctor

2010 - Went to the general practitioner,
referred you to the specialist, sent to lab,
scanning center, pharmacist, and the
physical therapist (and not the closest one
but the one covered by your health plan).
Commuting
u
u
Work trip commute appears to be well
under 20% of trips and travel.
Nearly 30% of households have no
workers or no commuters (workers work at
home).
u
Fees, homestead tax rules, upside down
mortgages, lack of portability of
mortgages, etc. impede moving to
minimize work trip length.
Impact of Density
Impact of Density
Future high density residents may not behave as in
the past
Income
Vehicle ownership
Where We Live and Where
We’d Like to Live
by community type
Ideal
Current
City; 31%
City;
23%
Small
Town;
26%
Rural Area;
16%
Suburb;
26%
Small Town
Suburb
Note: “Don’t know/Refused” responses are not reported
Source: Pew Research Center, January 2009
Rural
Area;
21%
Rural Area
Small
Town;
30%
Suburb;
25%
City
Thus Future Travel is:
Travel Desire
•Population
•Real Income
•Wealth
•Value of Time
System Supply:
•Modes
•Speeds
•Costs
Land Use
•Density
•Mix
Energy Costs
Comments on Non-Urban
Travel?
One vacation is equivalent to up to a 10
mile per day longer commute
How does city rebuilding compare to
other mobility accommodating strategies?
(Is a country that won’t raise gas taxes a dime willing
to transform urban America?)
Managing regional growth versus urban
growth.
Funding Transportation
How could you
afford this nice
transportation?
I Explained to my banker
that if I had money for a new
SUV, boat, motor, trailer,
fishing gear and gas -- I could
bring home free fish for
dinner.
$100,000 worth of Tata Nanos
Steven E. Polzin, Ph.D.
Center for Urban Transportation Research
813-974-9849
[email protected]
Future Travel Demand in Hillsborough County:
How Much Demand Could be Handled by Rail?
Based on Daily Person Miles of Travel (PMT)
New travel by vehicle 2025
Portland LRT
The total travel on all the
U.S. LRT systems is
equivalent to about 1/3
of the expected growth
in travel in Hillsborough
County.
All Other U.S. LRT
Dallas LRT
Salt Lake LRT
Denver LRT
Person travel by vehicle
2005
Source: NTD, Hills. MPO 2025 LRP
Transit 2005
New Transit
2025
36
Thank You
Top National Transportation
Priority
Economic
Intelligent
Efficiency
Intermodalism
Sustainable
Livability
Safety
One
Jobs
DOT
Coordination
Multimodalism
Development
Transportation
38