The Future of Transportation: Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Livability ? Steven E. Polzin, PhD. Center for Urban Transportation Research University.

The Future of Transportation: Baseball,

Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Livability?

Steven E. Polzin, PhD. Center for Urban Transportation ResearchUniversity of South Florida September 2010

Disclaimer: The observations are those of the author.

Based on comments from :

9th Annual New Partners for Smart Growth:Building Safe, Healthy, and Livable CommunitiesFebruary 2010And TRB Executive Committee Retreat “Red Meat” Session on LivabilityJune 2010

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.

Polzin, CUTR 2010

Growth in · Income· Knowledge

Social and Economic Interactions Create Demand for Travel

Specialization in· Employment· Consumption· Socialization· Time use

Growth in · Person Travel · Commerce· Communication

Time

• Travel is fundamental to the human desire to interact and socialize.

• Travel enables economic interaction and the transportation of products and is fundamental to the functioning of the economy.

• Growth in income and knowledge fuel the desire to become more specialized in employment, social interactions, consumption and time use.

• This creates demand for more travel.

I can’t wait to cancel my trip for the family reunion and

move to a small condo downtown

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?

Land Use Pattern

· Regional/national distribution· Density· Mix of land uses· Urban form· Urban design· Contiguousness of development

Conceptual Framework for Thinking About Travel Demand

Travel Demand

· Local person travel

· Tourism/long trips

· Freight

· Commercial Travel

Socio-Demographic Conditions

Household/Person Characteristics

· Income/wealth levels and distribution· Age/activity level · Culture/values· Racial/ethnic composition· Immigration status/tenure· Gender· Family/household composition· Housing location

Transportation Supply/Performance

· Modal Availability

· Modal Performance

o Costo Speed/congestiono Safety, securityo Reliabilityo Convenienceo Image, etc.o Multi-tasking opportunities

Legal/Political Climate Culture Technology Security Economy

Business, Governance, Institutional Context

· Scale of activity concentration· Economic structure of service delivery

Polzin, CUTR 2009

Incremental Annual Growth in VMT1

97

01

97

11

97

21

97

31

97

41

97

51

97

61

97

71

97

81

97

91

98

01

98

11

98

21

98

31

98

41

98

51

98

61

98

71

98

81

98

91

99

01

99

11

99

21

99

31

99

41

99

51

99

61

99

71

99

81

99

92

00

02

00

12

00

22

00

32

00

42

00

52

00

62

00

7*

20

08

20

09

-120,000

-80,000

-40,000

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

Mile

s (

00

0,0

00

)

VMT and Population Growth Trends19

7019

7119

7219

7319

7419

7519

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

07*

2008

2009

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

VMT Change (each year) VMT Change (annualized 5-yr. Avg.) Population Change

Per Capita VMT

10

7,500

8,000

8,500

9,000

9,500

10,000

10,500

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

Per C

apita

Ann

ual V

MT

Tota

l VM

T (0

00,0

00)

Total VMT and VMT per capita

VMT

VMT per capita

11

Factors Contributing to US VMT Growth 1977-2001

Source: CUTR analysis of NHTS and NPTS

Trip Length

10%

Mode Shifts16%

Trip Frequency

46%

Population28%

Trip Rate and Length

12

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

8.87 8.689.29

9.00

9.80 9.85

994

978

1272

1457 1483

1297

Person Trips Per Person Per Year

Person Miles of Travel Per Person Trip

An

ua

l Tri

ps

Tri

p L

en

gth

NPTS and NHTS Work Trip Walking Mode Shares

13

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

0.045

0.04

0.023

0.02920.032

Series15.00%

4.60%4.10%

3.70%2.60%

2.81%2.80%

Work Trip "Usual Mode"

Work Trip Actual ModePe

rce

nt

Wa

lkin

g t

o w

ork

Walk is 10.95% of all trips in 2008

Census Work Trip Percent Walking to Work Mode Share

14

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

10.40%

7.40%

5.60%

3.90%

2.90%

2.82%

Pe

rce

nt W

alk

ing

to W

ork

Vehicle Occupancies - NHTS

15

19

69

19

74

19

79

19

84

19

89

19

94

19

99

20

04

20

09

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

Series1; 1.90 1.90

1.80

1.70

1.591.64

1.59

1.40 1.30 1.30

1.20 1.20 1.201.15

Work Trip

All Trips

Occ

up

ancy

Census Work Trips Carpooling Mode Share

20.4% 19.7%

13.4%12.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

19

70

19

71

19

72

19

73

19

74

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08P

erc

en

t Ca

rpo

olin

g to

Wo

rk

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS

Transit Mode Share Trends

17

1968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004200620080%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

0.05110.0505

0.0536

1.76%

3.40%

2.70% 2.70% 2.20% 1.81% 1.56%

2.27%

0.046

0.0356 0.03670.0406

8.90%

6.40%

5.30%

4.70%

Census Journey to Work, Usual Mode

NPTS/NHTS Work Trips, Survey Day

NPTS/NHTS All Trips

NHTS 2001 Adjusted

NHTS Work Trip, Work Trip Usual Mode

Pe

rce

nt o

n T

ran

sit

Minutes of Travel per Person 5+ per Day

18

1983 1990 adj. 1995 2001 20080

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

49.2

62.8

71.2

83.9

75.7

Min

ute

s

Person Miles of Travel per Hour of Travel

(speed, all trips)

191977 1983 1990 adj. 1995 2001 20080

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Vehicle Availability

20

1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 20090

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Vehicles per workerVehicles per person 16 and olderVehicles per driver

Ve

hic

les

pe

r

Declining Zero-Vehicle Households

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Perc

ent

NPTS/NHTS Census ACS

Source: CUTR analysis of NHTS ,NPTS,U.S. Census Bureau and 2002-08 ACS

What is Driving Vehicle Ownership and Use?

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

VMT, Income, Wealth and Vehicle Sales Change Trends - 2000 to 2008

Annual VMT % ChangeMedian Income ChangeAnnual Vehicle SalesHousehold Wealth

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

25

“They said we need high

density to make public transit

work. “

“No, they said we need public transit to make high density work.”

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 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).

Fees, homestead tax rules, upside down mortgages, lack of portability of mortgages, etc. impede moving to minimize work trip length.

Impact of Density Future high density residents may not behave

as in the past Income Vehicle ownership

Impact of Density

Where We Live and Where We’d Like to

Live

Note: “Don’t know/Refused” responses are not reported

Small Town; 26%

Suburb; 26%

Rural Area; 16%

City; 31%

Current

Small Town Suburb Rural Area City

Small Town; 30%

Suburb; 25%

Rural Area; 21%

City; 23%

Ideal

Source: Pew Research Center, January 2009

by community type

Thus Future Travel is:

Energy Costs

?Land Use• Density• Mix

Travel Desire• Population• Real

Income• Wealth• Value of

Time

System Supply:• Modes• Speeds• 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

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.

How could you afford this nice transportation?

$100,000 worth of Tata NanosSteven E. Polzin, Ph.D.Center for Urban Transportation [email protected]

36

Future Travel Demand in Hillsborough County: How Much Demand Could be Handled by Rail?

Based on Daily Person Miles of Travel (PMT)

Transit 2005

New travel by vehicle 2025

New Transit 2025

Person travel by vehicle 2005

Denver LRT

Salt Lake LRTDallas LRTAll Other U.S. LRT

Source: NTD, Hills. MPO 2025 LRP

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.

Thank You

38

Top National Transportation Priority

SafetyMultimodalismSustainableIntermodalismCoordinationOne DOTEconomic DevelopmentEfficiencyIntelligent

Transportation LivabilityJobs