The Pressing Issues for Mobility Alan E. Pisarski AMERICAN DREAM COALITION Orlando 10/11/2010 In the Great Recessionand after This is a critical time to recognize that trips have.
Download ReportTranscript The Pressing Issues for Mobility Alan E. Pisarski AMERICAN DREAM COALITION Orlando 10/11/2010 In the Great Recessionand after This is a critical time to recognize that trips have.
The Pressing Issues for Mobility Alan E. Pisarski AMERICAN DREAM COALITION Orlando 10/11/2010 In the Great Recessionand after This is a critical time to recognize that trips have economic or social transactions at their end of value to the trip maker and the society Does America have the mobility it needs to meet its social and economic goals today? Almost! There are tasks undone and new antimobility policy challenges! We will see New, Sometimes Dramatic Patterns • • • • • • A replacement labor force of ? size & skills A rapidly increasing dependent older pop A pop heavily defined by immigration policy Changes in energy & environment costs Other intervening new technologies All affected by and affecting changes in societal preferences and tastes. Not Much Growth to Drive VMT pop change ( in thousands) 2010 chg 2010-2030 Half annual rate 18,810 Half of pop change Few new drivers 194,787 12,598 31,863 75,217 40,229 Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over population growth and shares of pop of working age 500000 450000 64 63 63 62 400000 62 350000 61 60 300000 60 250000 59 58 200000 58 57 150000 57 57 57 57 57 100000 56 50000 55 0 54 2010 2015 Under 18 years 2020 2025 18 to 64 years 2030 2035 65 years and over 2040 2045 2050 % labor force age The Tools of Travel are Stable Licenses • Saturation in all ages • Women’s gains • Immigrants Vehicles • Stability • Aging fleet • Workers = Drivers IN THIS DECADE: NO GROWTH IN VMT, CONGESTION, WORKERS, OR WORK TRAVEL TIMES African American Surge in Vehicle Ownership - % HH without vehicles 50 Differences in access to vehicles by race & ethnicity will diminish beyond 2020 40 30 20 10 0 1960 1970 1980 All 1990 Black 2000 Hispanic CAN ANYONE SAY THIS IS A BAD THING? 2010 Given all this stability • Need a focus on current needs not impending growth • A new context for planning. “Getting the Economy out of the mud!” • The mobility issues we face are eminently solvable. Keep asking this question: “IS IT A NEW TREND OR JUST THE ECONOMY?” Who, What Will Support The Economy? • Keep older workers at work • More women at work • More immigrants • More multi-tasking • More variable work schedules • More Division of Labor • More Productivity • More competitive in world markets ENHANCED MOBILITY SUPPORTS ALL OF THESE A New Role For Older Workers workers by age group 2000 70000000 60000000 50000000 40000000 30000000 20000000 10000000 0 A DOUBLING OF WORKERS OVER 65 BY 2030 Worker non worker <16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Alan E. Pisarski Prosperity is … “Prosperity is simply time saved, which is proportional to the division of labor.” Matt Ridley The Rational Optimist Travel Grows With Income Annual Trips per HH by Income Level Doesn’t Have to Mean More Crashes 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 present Future MOBILITY WE VALUE IT HIGHLY, BUT: – WE CAN’T DEFINE IT USEFULLY – WE CAN’T QUANTIFY IT EFFECTIVELY U.S. DOT, FOUNDED ON APRIL FOOLS DAY 1967, PRODUCES A PRODUCT THAT IT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND AND DOESN’T SEEM TO MUCH CARE ABOUT! WHAT ARE ITS ATTRIBUTES? • Speed • Cost • Convenience • Safety/ Security • Reliability All The Things That We Measure Badly! WILL IT STILL MATTER IN THE FUTURE? MORE THAN EVER! • THE CRITICAL NEED FOR SKILLED WORKERS • EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY • COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE IN A GLOBALIZED ECONOMY • KNITTING TOGETHER SOCIETIES In a World of Low Job Opportunities, Like Now • Job-hungry, often house-frozen, will expand the range they will consider to find an acceptable (any?) job • I am willing to go farther for a job I can: – Get – Do – That is attractive (pay, opportunity, benefits) • Maybe switch later when market improves When high opportunity job market returns (2012?) • Opportunities mainly for those with specialized skills • Increased specialization means going farther for a job – Fast Food? – down the block – Energy Research? – vast Distances WE DON’T LIVE OUTSIDE THE FACTORY GATE ANYMORE! Present “Livability” approach is anti-mobility • If you really want it; live next to it ! • I don’t shop at the corner grocer anymore – Not lettuce but 16 kinds of lettuce – Not milk but 10 kinds of milk • I don’t have one Doctor for my family – We probably have a dozen – None selected by the criterion of distance! The options exist now to achieve “livability” if we choose TO GO TO THE NEAREST TO MOVE SO THAT YOU • • • • • • • • JOB SHOPPING DOCTORS HOUSE OF WORSHIP HOW MANY DO? ARE NEARER WORK ARE NEARER MEDS ARE NEARER SHOPS ARE NEARER OTHER THINGS YOU VALUE HOW MANY DO? What’s Freight? • Freight doesn’t exist in livability world • If it does – its on trains – out of sight • Not seen as related to: – International competitiveness – Supporting/Enhancing the good life LIVEABILITY – IT’S THE CITIES’ TURN • • • • • Mayors love it Direct funding from Washington Get the states out of the way Where else will the money come from? “Livability” as a funding criterion • Present emphasis on “Performance Measurement” will become a charade • “Livability”, like “sprawl”, has no tangible meaning • A Perfect Federal Funding Tool – No quantitative criteria – Can’t measure success or failure – “Now I can fund my friends!” Ultimately fed-centric – a smart guy in Washington will decide. • “Nationalize” investment decision-making • “Ear-marking” by other means • focus on “jobs” means focus on public sector jobs – Transit, HSR, • The Highway Trust Fund would be gone • Revenue from highway and aviation taxes • Spending would be “Mode-Neutral” Next Surface Legislation Pro - or Anti-Mobility? • A year late already – Lame Duck Session unlikely – At least 6 months away in New Congress • Outlook – better bill - more bleak • Need 40% increase in revenue – no VMT • Gen Rev input “justifies” use of Trust Fund for anything – THREAT IS DISSOLUTION OF HTF CONCEPT PRESSING ISSUES FOR A PRO-MOBILITY POLICY 1. Understand It And Quantify It 2. Transmit That Understanding To Others 1. Decision-makers 2. The Public 3. Expand The Debate 4. Make The Case For The Value Of Mobility 5. Read “Mobility First” THANK YOU Alan E. Pisarski ALANPISARSKI.COM THE FUTURE OF MOBILITY – A WORK PROGRAM • EXTENDING ITS REACH – THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF MOBILITY • RESPONDING TO RISING DEMAND – THE DILEMMA OF AFFLUENCE • ENHANCING ITS COMPETITIVE POWER – THE ROUTE TO PRODUCTIVTY • AMELIORATING ITS NEGATIVE EFFECTS – SAFETY, ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES • SUPPORTING ITS VALUE – MAKING THE CASE Half of Growth in Aged Pop will be a Safety Challenge The share of 2010-2030 growth in the three major population groups 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 85 years and over 65 to 84 years 45 to 64 years 25 to 44 years 18 to 24 years 14 to 17 years 5 to 13 years Under 5 years WE HAVE SURVIVED A DIFFICULT PERIOD • the baby boomers coming of age ---working age and driving age • Women joining the labor force in vast numbers • Extraordinary growth in Just-in-Time Freight • Extraordinary growth in Foreign Trade Facets of the same Mobility Concept • • • • • • # of suppliers ½ hr of my factory # of workers ½ hr of my office #of job opportunities ½ hr of my home # of customers ½ hr from my store % pop with major hospital ½ hr away % pop with major Univ. 1 hour away Example: Hospital-mobility trade-off Goal: A major medical services facility within ½ hr of all citizens SUPPLY SIDE • Specialization yields vast market-sheds • Build more hospitals; train more doctors • Single purpose TRANSPORT SIDE • Public/private transportation system provides enhanced access • Multi-purpose 1990* 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 1900 MILLIONS WE ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS, AGAIN 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 The Strategic Plan and Mobility INSTEAD OF: 1. % of NHS with acceptable ride 2. % of bridges deficient CONSIDER: 1. % of VMT on NHS with acceptable ride 2. % of VMT on deficient bridges 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2.6 1.3 1995 1950 1945 1940 1935 1930 1925 1920 1915 12 6 1955 40 1910 PEOPLE PER CAR WE SEEM TO BE AT VEHICLE SATURATION Mobility makes cities both smaller and bigger! • Smaller in that the times to traverse distances are reduced • Bigger in that a city knitted together with effective transportation acts bigger – economically – socially OR MAYBE NOT! URBANIZED AREAS -1990 90 JTW % BLACK HH’S WITH NO VEHICLE NEW YORK 59% PHILADELPHIA 43% BOSTON 41% CHICAGO 38% BALTIMORE 40% Hispanic Asian American African- 95NPTS White 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 All % Percent of Households with no vehicle among racial and ethnic groups Annual Travel Comparisons Annual Trips % % Caucasian African Hispanic American ALL 1602 89% 96% DRIVER 1006 72% 82% PSGR 411 86% 106% Most trips are under 10 miles-95NPTS 5 miles or less 6 - 10 miles 11 - 15 miles 16 - 20 miles 21 - 30 miles 31 miles or more social or recreational Visit friends or relatives Doctor/dentist School/church Other family or personal business Shopping Work-related business To or from work 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% PRIVATE VEHICLE USE BY RACE & ETHNICITY 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% WHITE drivealone WHITE carpool BLACK drivealone BLACK carpool HISPANIC drivealone HISPANIC carpool 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% CC SUBURBS 90 CENSUS JTW NON-METRO Annual Long Distance Travel by Race and Ethnicity 5 Black Hispanic White per Capita Trips 4 3 2 1 0 ATS 95 BTS 1977 1995 HELP STAMP OUT AFFLUENCE We can do it if we work together! Annual Trips per household by household income - 1995 4000 3000 2000 1000 HH INCOME 80000 + 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 <1000 0 ANNUAL TRIPS 5000 Transportation share of Spending Selected Groups Non-HispanicHispanic Black White Rural Urban Renter Homeow ner All 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% But that sum for Racial and Ethnic groups is higher 60.00% 50.6% 54.1% 52.8% 50.00% 40.00% %Housing %Trans 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% White Black Hispa nic 1995 NPTS 0 79999 $75,000 to 5 64999 $60,000 to 49999 $45,000 to $34,999 $30,000 to $19,999 $15,000 to $5,000 Less than MILES WORK TRIP LENGTH BY INCOME 20 15 10 To or from work Comparative measures of travel by density 30.00 25.00 POP % 20.00 WORKERS PERTRIPS 15.00 VEHTRIPS 10.00 VEHS 5.00 0.00 0 to 100 100 to 500 500 to 1K 1K to 2K 2K to 4K 4K to 10K 10K to 25K to 25K 999K Mode Choice by Income -CIA II 100% Worked at home Other means 80% Walked Bicycle Motorcycle Taxicab 60% Ferryboat Railroad Subw ay or elevated Streetcar or trolley car Bus or trolley bus 40% Carpooled Drove alone 20% 0% 1-4999 50009999 1000014999 1500024999 2500034999 3500049999 5000074999 7599999 OV 100000 Transportation Spending Share by Income Quintile -1997 25.00% $4,300 20.00% 15.00% $6,100 $8,700 $11,800 $2,400 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% low est 20% 97 CEX 2nd 3rd 4th highest 20% Transportation Spending by Income Quintile - 1997 5000 4000 3000 V e h ic le p u r c h a s e s ( n e t) $ 2000 O th e r v e h ic le e x p e n s e s 1000 G a s o lin e a n d mo to r o il highest 20% 4th 3rd Pu b lic tr a n s p o r ta tio n 2nd lowest 20% 0 LAUNDRY DAY CARE WORK HOME THE TRIP CHAIN FOOD D a i l y tri p s p e r p e rso n b y p u rp o se 5 4 .5 O TH 4 S O C /R EC 3 .5 S C H O O L /C H C H 3 2 .5 F A M /PER S B U S 2 W O RK 1 .5 1 0 .5 0 1977 1983 1990 1995 THE BASIS FOR DISCUSSION – THE FORMS OF TRANSPORT • • • • • • • • COMMUTING OTHER LOCAL TRAVEL TOURISM SERVICE VEHICLES PUBLIC VEHICLES URBAN GOODS MOVEMENT THRU PASSENGER TRAVEL THRU FREIGHT TRAVEL TWO ASPECTS • MOBILITY - An Attribute of People • ACCESSIBILITY - An Attribute of Places Measured in opportunities per minute TRANSPORTATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT DISTANCE AND TIME TODAY THE PRESSURES OF TIME DOMINATE WE HAVE DESTROYED DISTANCE, ALMOST - The Starting Point WHAT IS THE GOAL? My goal for transportation is to reduce the effects of distance as an inhibiting force in our society’s ability to realize its economic and social aspirations. WHY IS TIME DOMINANT NOW? WHY WILL TIME BE DOMINANT IN THE FUTURE? • A HIGH INCOME POPULATION • A HIGH VALUE OF GOODS • A MULTI-TASKING SOCIETY • PRESSURES ON FAMILY THE C&P AND MOBILITY • • • • MAX INVEST scenario = $94b yields -3.2% saving in vehicle op. costs; -0.9% saving in travel time costs; -2.3% saving in crash costs. • What is the impact on the economy of such a change? • Total user costs declines by 1.8% in MAX. INVEST scenario – IS THAT ALL WE CAN DO? At the Millennium American society is highly dependent on mobility for all economic and social interactions. This is: – Negative in that it generates high interdependence in the society; – Positive because it generates most of the tremendous economic benefits of our society. – This is the high wire act of modern societies -POSITIVE WINS- BUT NEW MAJOR FORCES OF CHANGE WILL BE WITH US DEMOCRATIZATION OF MOBILITY IMMIGRATION THAT OLD “VILLAIN” AFFLUENCE THE FUTURE WILL BE MORE STABLE THAN THE PAST LOW POPULATION GROWTH LOW HOUSEHOLD GROWTH LOW LABOR FORCE GROWTH SATURATION OF DRIVER’S LICENSES SATURATION OF CAR OWNERSHIP LOW DOMESTIC MIGRATION TRENDS The New Millennium World • A STABLE “OLD” POP • A GLOBAL ECONOMY • “HIGH COST” TRANSPORT OK • SKILLED WORKERS AT A PREMIUM • WORKERS CAN LIVE, WORK ANYWHERE • WHO, WHERE ARE THE IMMIGRANTS • MAINSTREAMED MINORITIES A CHALLENGED AFFLUENT SOCIETY ISSUES OF MEASUREMENT • OPPORTUNITIES PER MINUTE • SHARES OF POP WITH ACCESS TO NEEDS BY MINUTES SPENT • TRAVEL TIME MONITORING • TRAVEL TIME DISTRIBUTIONS • EMBEDDED TRANS. COST IN PRODUCTS • MOBILITY/ACCESSIBILITY TRADE-OFFS • THE LINKAGE WITH DENSITY AND ITS EFFECTS WHAT THEN IS TRANSPORTATION’S PRODUCT? • As A Nation We Invest Vast Sums, Both Private And Public, In Transportation Networks, Vehicles And Services. • The “Product” Of That Investment Is “Mobility.” • We Obviously Value That Product Highly, But Don’t Seem To Understand It Very Well. A challenged affluent society in which Mobility is central to meeting our social and economic goals The Dependents Dividend is gone 140 Dependence ratio to labor force 120 80 Total dependent population Under 16 60 16 to 64 100 40 65 and older 20 0 1975 1988 1998 2008 2018