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 tobecome 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% Rural Area, 16% City, 23% Small Town, 26% 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 polzin@cutr.usf.edu 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