Transcript SAFETY & MOBILITY OVERVIEW Thoughts on the Future Alan E. Pisarski GHSA Annual Meeting Oklahoma City, 2006

SAFETY & MOBILITY
OVERVIEW
Thoughts on the Future
Alan E. Pisarski
GHSA
Annual Meeting
Oklahoma City, 2006
THE BROADEST ISSUE
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF
TRANSPORTATION IN OUR SOCIETY?




Changes
Changes
Changes
Changes
with
with
with
with
society’s structure
incomes and education
age and family structure
goals: personal and other
HOW DO WE MAKE SAFETY
A MAJOR PART OF IT?
A WORD ABOUT GOALS
Suppressing travel is not an answer;
if
your transportation goals can be met
by everyone staying home
you have the wrong goals.
FOR MOST THINGS IN SOCIETY
– DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY –
PERHAPS THE CENTRAL TRUTH
IN TRANSPORTATION AND
VEHICLE SAFETY
TRANSPORTATION:
THE COLLISSION OF DEMOGRAPHY
WITH GEOGRAPHY
THE INTERACTION OF
DEMOGRAPHY WITH ECONOMICS
AND TECHNOLOGY
We Have Survived A Difficult
Period
 The baby boomers
coming of age ---working age and
driving age
AGE DISTRIBUTION CHANGES
1995-2005
 Women joining the
labor force in vast
numbers
 A Sisyphean challenge
 NOW WE HAVE NEW
CHALLENGES
4
2
-4
5 YR AGE GROUPS
0
10
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
-2
10
0
r5
 This has almost
paralyzed action
MILLIONS
 Extraordinary growth
in foreign trade
6
Un
de
 Extraordinary growth
in just-in-time freight
8
Demographic Coming and Going
 The baby boomers go off-stage
 Workers replaced by?
 Immigrants coming on-stage
 Other – Who, Where, How?
 All states will show a decline in the
% in age group 18-65; 12 actual
Too many workers to too few?
As much of a social issue as a
transportation issue
END OF THE BOOM
WORKERS ADDED PER DECADE
Millions of Workers
25
19.8
20
15
18.4
13.3
12.2
10
5
0
1960-70
1970-80
1980-90
1990-00
1980-90
 18.5 million
workers
1990-2000
 13.3 million
workers
 Under 5 million
since 2000
 Too few
commuters?
Flattening Age Trends
POPULATION SHARES
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
62%
63%
63%
62%
60%
58%
57%
26%
25%
24%
12%
13%
24%
16%
24%
18%
24%
20%
12%
24%
15%
2000
2005
% UNDER 18
2010
2015
2020
% WORKING AGE
2025
2030
% 65 AND OVER
Work Force Issues
Older workers in labor force
Even more females in labor force
Even more variable schedules
Work hours – a lot like part time
Skills matches – more spreading
out
 Amenities-based employment





In This New World the Great
Issue Will Be Skilled Workers
• finding skilled workers will be the key
concern of business.
• they will go where those people are;
• or, go where those people want to be!
• Metro areas who can provide this
resource will be big winners!
• Minorities and Immigrants will be a
crucial part of the work force
There’s Greater Stability in
Future Travel Demand





Workers
Licenses/Vehicles
Population & Households
Women’s roles
Domestic Migration
New Forces Of Change

LACK OF SKILLED WORKERS

DEMOCRATIZATION OF MOBILITY

IMMIGRATION

THAT OLD “VILLAIN” AFFLUENCE

DISPERSAL TECHNOLOGIES

GLOBALIZATION OF EVERYTHING
The New Millennium World in
the U.S.
• A STABLE “OLDER” POPULATION
• OPERATING IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY
• WHERE “HIGH COST” TRANSPORT OK
• SKILLED WORKERS AT A PREMIUM
• WORKERS CAN LIVE, WORK ANYWHERE
• WHO, WHERE ARE THE IMMIGRANTS
• MAINSTREAMING MINORITIES
A CHALLENGED AFFLUENT SOCIETY
20th CENTURY POPULATION TREND
300
250
200
150
SUBS
CC
NON MET
Half of pop
in suburbs
100
50
0
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
The Focus Is On Big Metros

60% of population in big metros (2000)




1960 34 areas
1990 39 areas
2000 50 areas
60/20/20 big
over 1 million
over 1 million
over 1 million
metro/metro/rural

Now 12 areas over 5 meg = 100 million

Focus of national issues is in big metros

but growth is rural – “donut” metros
The “Donut” Metro
Jobs and workers centered in suburbs
46% of commutes;
64% of growth 90-00
7.5 million coming in to the subs from
exurbs and other metros each day
 7.5 million going out to the subs from
central cities
 CC to subs > Subs to CC in share of
growth




2000 METRO FLOW MAP
Other Metropolitan area
Own Metropolitan Area
suburbs
3.5
40.8
suburbs
1.1
.7
16.6
24.5
7.5
Central
city
2.2
Central
city
1.9
1.6
.5
2.9
24.4
Non-metropolitan Area
Sprawl ? –
or Community Integration?
 X-county commuting; 34 million
leave residence county each day
 Half of growth 90-00 in x-county
commutes!
 MORE THAN HALF 00-05
 Why? Does it matter?
 Intra Co 18.5 mins; X Co 36.9 mins
Counties with more than 25% of workers
leaving their county for work
County-to-County Worker Flow Percentage: 2000
N
W
E
S
Cnty_cnty_wrkrflow.shp
0 - 25
25 - 100
Forces Favoring Continued
or Increased Dispersal
 OLDER POPULATIONS MOVE LESS
 HOME OWNERS MORE STABLE
 MULTI-WORKER HOUSEHOLDS
 AFFLUENCE FAVORS SUBURBS
 TREND TO SOUTH AND WEST (82%)
 HOUSING COSTS
 “DISPERSAL TECHNOLOGIES”
DISPERSAL TECHNOLOGIES






ALL GROUND TRANSPORT
AIR TRANSPORT
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
TELEPHONE/CELLPHONE
RADIO/TELEVISION
COMPUTER/INTERNET
Anti-dispersal tech? -- the elevator!
40 year trend in Mode Use–
millions of commuters
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1960
1970
PRIVATE VEH
1980
PUBLIC TRANS
1990
WALK/HOME
2000
BUT – There’s more to
transportation than just commuting!
 COMMUTING (20% of local psgr
travel)
 OTHER LOCAL TRAVEL
 TOURISM
 SERVICES
(power/phone/cable/sewer/water)
 PUBLIC VEHICLES (gov. services)
 URBAN GOODS MOVEMENT
 THRU PASSENGER TRAVEL
 THRU FREIGHT TRAVEL
Daily trips per Capita
WORK
FAM/PERS BUS
SCHOOL/CHCH
SOC/REC
OTH
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
What about tourism and long
distance travel?
 We drive to where we want to
walk
 Participation by Minorities
 Conflicts between visitations and
preservation
 National Parks being shifted
toward Transit?
 A world of continued security
threats?
Annual Trips Per Household
by Household Income - 2001
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
USA
LOU
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$1
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
K+
0
8
Almost a perfect 4 part split
2000
share of workers by age
1.61%0.97%
0.74%
5.01%
3.70%
16.58%
16-19
20-29
20.63%
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-64
25.64%
65-69
25.12%
70-74
75+
Another 4 part split
SHARES OF OVER 55 WORKERS BY AGE GROUP
7%
5%
55-59
12%
60-64
49%
65-69
70-74
75+
27%
OVER 55 MODE USAGE - DETAILMODES
14.00%
12.00%
Bus or trolley bus
10.00%
Subway or elevated
8.00%
Taxicab
6.00%
Walked
4.00%
Worked at home
2.00%
0.00%
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75+
VMT/DRIVER - Male
20000
15000
10000
Male 35-54
5000
0
1969
1977
1983
1990
1995
2001
VMT/DRIVER - Male
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Male 35-54
Male 55-64
1969
1977
1983
1990
1995
2001
VMT/DRIVER - Male
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Male 35-54
Male 55-64
Male 65+
1969
1977
1983
1990
1995
2001
SAME PICTURE –
FEMALE VMT/DRIVER
14000
12000
10000
Female 35-54
8000
Female 55-64
6000
Female 65+
4000
2000
0
1969
1977
1983
1990
1995
2001
a
5: .m.
00
to
a.
4:
m
59
5:
.
30
to
a
5 : .m.
a.
:
m
2
6:
0 0 . to 9 a
5 : .m.
a.
:
m
5
6:
3 0 . to 9 a
6 : .m.
a.
:
m
2
7:
0 0 . to 9 a
6 : .m.
a.
:
m
5
7:
3 0 . to 9 a
7 : .m.
a.
:
m
2
8:
0 0 . to 9 a
a.
7 : .m.
m
:
5
8:
3 0 . to 9 a
8 : .m.
a.
m
2
:
9:
0 0 . to 9 a
8 : .m.
a.
10
:
m
59
:0
.t
0
a
o
9 : .m.
11 a.m
:
59
:0
.t
o
0
a
.m
a
1
.:
12 .m. 0:5
9
:0
to
0
11 a.m
p
.
4:
:5
.:
0 0 m.
9
p. to 3 a.m
m
.:
. t :59
o
1 1 p.m
.:
:5
9
p.
m
.:
12
:0
0
male-female commuting distribution by hour of the day
2000
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
00 Male
00 Female
START TIME CHANGES IN SHARE 1990-2000
30
24.9
25
%
20
15
14.7
11.2
10
5
was in '90
12.4
shr of chg
6.9
5.9
3
2.4
0
pre 5 am 5-6:30am
9-11am
WAH
The immigrant population quickly
looks like other commuters
Mode Use by Years in US
100%
90%
80%
other
70%
Worked at home
60%
Walked
50%
Bicycle
40%
transit
30%
carpool
20%
Drove alone
10%
0%
< 5 yrs
5- <10
yrs
10-<15
yrs
15-<20
yrs
>20 yrs
BORN
US
Heavy carpooling also shifts quickly
Carpool Use by Yrs in US
6%
5%
carpool 3
4%
3%
carpool 4
carpool 5 or 6
2%
carpool 7&+
1%
0%
< 5 yrs 5- <10 10-<15 15-<20 >20 yrs BORN
yrs
yrs
yrs
US
Long Term Driving-Related Trends
THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF
MOBILITY HAS MORE TO GO!
zero vehicle households by Race and Ethnicity
35
30
White Non-Hisp
25
Black
Hisp
15
Asian
%
20
Am Indian
10
All
5
0
1990
2000
WE ARE AT VEHICLE
SATURATION?
POPULATION TO VEHICLE RATIO 1900-1995
PEOPLE PER CAR
250
200
150
100
50
2.6
0
1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955
1.3
1995
% HH without vehicles in central cities by metro area size
45%
40%
35%
30%
WHITE NH cc
25%
20%
ASIAN cc
15%
10%
AF AM cc
HISP cc
5%
0%
5 meg +
2.5-5
1-2.5
.5-1
.25-.5
.1-.25
Foreign-born Persons without Vehicles by Year of
Arrival
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
ARRIVED
BETWEEN
1996-2000
ARRIVED
BETWEEN
1991-1995
ARRIVED
BETWEEN
1980-1990
ARRIVED 1980 NOT FOREIGN
AND BEFORE
BORN
Perhaps the greatest transportation
technological innovation of the last half
of the century
AVERAGE VEHICLE AGE TRENDS
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1969
1977
1983
0-2
3-5
1990
6-9
10+
1995
2000
Creates a vehicle fleet that’s
hard to replace
al
l
e
ot
or
cy
cl
M
RV
ru
ck
O
th
er
T
ck
-u
p
Pi
SU
V
Va
n
ob
ile
Au
to
m
le
Ty
pe
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Ve
hi
c
years
Vehicles Average Age by Type
The Personal Vehicle
And Our Future
 A More/Less
Affluent Pop?
 A Higher/Lower
Density Pop?
 Auto use
more/less
affordable?
 Age distribution
more/less
oriented to the
auto?
 Longer/shorter
Trip lengths?
 Purpose
changes?
 Freight
more/less
valuable ?
 Freight
more/less time
sensitive?
 Destinations
more/less
dispersed?
WHAT DOES THE FUTURE LOOK LIKE?









MORE AFFLUENCE
LOWER DENSITY
AUTO AFFORDABILITY
AUTO PRONE AGE
AUTO TRIP PURPOSE
DISPERSED DESTINATIONS
HIGHER FREIGHT VALUE
MORE TIME SENSITIVITY
DEMOCRATIZATION OF
MOBILITY









More
Less
More
More
More
More
More
More
More
A FUTURE WORLD WHERE TIME,
RELIABILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS
ARE KEY






KEYS
Personal Vs Mass
On-demand Vs Scheduled
Private Vs Public services
Self-operated Vs Managed
Time sensitive Vs Cost sensitive
Security issues
Infrastructure Issues





Feds - an unreliable partner
Re-defining failure
Retrofitting the system
ITS and ops. opportunities
1/3rd of fatalities facility related?
–
Is it “The wrong question!”
Technology and its users
 “Here Now!”
 Transparency
 Staged Learning (radio a
distraction!)
 Implementation
 User acceptance
 Institutional acceptance
 Shifts in roles public/private
Shifts in roles
 Shift from road-way based to onboard tech
 = shift from public cost and
responsibility to user
 = shifts between vehicle producer
and vehicle operator
 New rules?
 Tech-driven or liability-driven?
BIG INTERACTION ISSUES










TRUCKS VS CARS
SAFETY VS FUEL EFFICIENCY
TECHNOLOGY VS OLDER USERS
YOUNGER DRIVERS VS OLDER
KNOWN ROUTES VS LOST
LONG TRIPS VS SHORT
GOV’T VS PRIVATE
CONTROL VS FREEDOM
INSTITUTIONS VS INDIVIDUALS
CULTURE CLASH
CULTURE CLASH






NEW IDEA! OBEY TRAFFIC LIGHTS!
FAST VS SLOW
CAREFUL VS CARELESS
VARYING SENSE OF ROLE OF RULES
EXPERIENCE ELSEWHERE?
DOES GOV’T CONTRIBUTE TO LACK OF
RESPECT? E.G.
 SILLY SPEED LIMITS?
 STOP SIGNS AS SPEED BUMPS?
Making the vehicle
a better citizen!
 Around a hundred years and we
still act like it’s a passing fad
 Most seriously re pedestrian
interactions
 Vehicle interactions
 Trucks
 Pedestrians
 Vehicle types and operating regimes
 Parking
Vehicle – Pedestrian
Interactions
 We drive to where we want to
walk
 More separation
 More controls
 Parking/malls/markets/strip
 More vehicle-free zones?
 Spending more?
Making the case for safety
Safety costs 3-4x congestion costs
– $200b/yr – excluding intangible losses
quantify and expand discussion
MPO and State Planning must be more
than Air Quality compliance
 SAFTEA-LU has added safety and
economic development
 Provide Safety Assessment and Planning
tools




AASHTO SHSP UPDATED 9/06
 Goal: 10-15%
reduction in
fatalities and
injuries
 Proposed 22 areas
 $24.4B cap cost
 $1.5b O&M
 9,000 lives/yr
 600,000 injuries
A New Plan for Planning for
States And MPO’s






MEET SAFETY NEEDS
SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ASSURE SECURITY
MAINTAIN MOBILITY/RELIABILITY
SERVE AGING POPULATIONS
SERVE LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS
Measurement is pathetic
 Loss of denominators (CFS & NPTS)
 VMT by Age by func class?
 What shares of VMT should functional
classes have?
 New functional classes needed?
 Accident potentials
 “Near-miss” observations
 INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS!
HOW DID THEY PASS US BY?
Personal tidbits
 Immense variation in speeds/skills
 Older groups tend to be the ones with the
older vehicles – effects?
 Training to get a CDL has taught my son
what trucks can and cannot do and has
made him a better driver of his personal
vehicle -How do we capitalize on that?
 Are the annoying and dangerous people
who cut you off – just believing their side
view mirror?
Is Our Transportation System
In Place?
A nation that by the end of the
decade can expect:
 Another 30 million people
 And probably as many vehicles
 And another $3 trillion in GDP
Cannot say that its transportation work
is done!
WE ADD A CANADA EACH DECADE!
Thank you!
Alan E. Pisarski
703 941-4257
alanpisarski.com
“Efficiency” in transportation
BEWARE!
 A Very Dangerous Word
 THE EFFICIENCY OF WHO OR WHAT?
 The key to all transportation is the
efficiency of the users –– not the vehicles
 That’s why trucks not trains – cars not
buses
 School bus efficiency vs students !
 One colossal pizza delivery per night per
neighborhood is “efficient”!
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO
LIVE IN WAYS THAT MAKE GOVERNANCE MORE
EFFICIENT!
% of drivers in pre-1988 vehicles
•Aging population tend to be the ones with the aging vehicles
Work Mode Shares % USA
More of the Same?
1990 2000
DRIVE
ALONE
73.2 75.7
CARPOOL
13.4 12.2
TRANSIT
5.3
4.7
WALKED
3.9
2.9
WORK AT
HOME
3.0
3.3
 Transit sort-of holds
5%
 Carpool up; share
down
 Walking declines again
 Work at home (22%
incr.) passes walking
 SOV increase almost
exceeds # of workers
as in 90
 But more variability
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES
 THE SEARCH FOR SKILLED
WORKERS
 AGING POP’S NEEDS/DEMANDS
 RECOGNIZING CHANGING
CHARACTER OF DEMAND
 “NICHINESS” OF DEMAND
 ROLE IN SOCIETY
 A MEASUREMENT SYSTEM THAT
WORKS
share of pop by age
4%
8%
16-19
7%
20-29
4%
18%
5%
30-39
40-49
50-59
14%
60-64
20%
20%
65-69
70-74
75+
A key to the future?
Percent Households without vehicles
30
25
20
1995
15
2001
10
5
0
White
Black
Hisp
Asian
All
Going forward
 The great Commuter boom is behind us
 Most of the determinants of travel will
be more stable in the future
 Racial and Ethnic Minorities will be a
major source of travel growth in the
future
 Immigrant populations will be a major
source of growth
 When will the Democratization of
Mobility be Complete?
DEMOGRAPHIC PATTERNS TO
WATCH
 Immigrant
arrivals?
 Where do
immigrants go?
 Minorities &
mobility?
 Where do aging
baby-boomers
go?
 Multiple home
ownership?
 Even more
women in
workplace?
 Work by >65
pop?
 Workplace
patterns?
 Trip chains
Thoughts on the future
Setting a context for:
 Human Factors
 Vehicles
 Infrastructure Systems
Hours per Traveler
Congestion is Getting Worse In Cities
of All Sizes
Very Large = 3 M +
Large = 1 M - 3 M
Medium = 500 K - 1 M
Small = Below 500 K
70
60
50
40
1982
1992
2003
Source:
TTI
Tim
Lomax
30
20
10
0
Small
Medium
Large
Very
Large
The great loss from congestion is not
the extra three minutes it takes to get
home
HOUSEHOLDS
 It’s the decline in
the number of jobs I
could reach in ½ hr!
 It’s the decline in
the number of
affordable homes
accessible to my
work!
 It’s the decline in
the assurance of
arriving on time!
BUSINESSES
 It’s the decline in
the number of
workers within ½ hr
of my employment
site!
 It’s the decline in
the number of
suppliers &
customers within ½
hr of my business!
 It’s the decline in
shipment reliability!
Transportation Spending by Workers/hh
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
single
consumer no
earner (1)
multiple
consumer no
earner (2.3)
single
consumer one
earner (1)
multiple
consumer 1
earner (2.9)
multiple
consumer 2
earners (3.1)
multiple
consumer 3+
earners (4.4)
The nexus of interactions
SOCIO-POLITICAL PATTERNS
TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMY
The AASHTO SHSP - 2002
 Goal: 10-15%
reduction in
fatalities and
injuries
 Proposed 22 areas
 $15.3B cap cost
 $370M annual cost
 12 -15,000 lives/yr
 1,000,000 injuries
AN UPDATE ON COSTS AND
BENEFITS AS OF THIS MONTH