The Pressing Issues for Mobility

Alan E. Pisarski

AMERICAN DREAM COALITION

Orlando 10/11/2010

In the Great Recession-and 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 anti-

mobility 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

Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over

75,217

194,787

40,229

12,598

18,810

31,863

pop change ( in thousands)

2010 chg 2010-2030

Few new drivers Half of pop change

Half annual rate

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 20500

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

6362

60

5857 57 57 57 57

population growth and shares of pop of working age

Under 18 years 18 to 64 years65 years and over % 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

0

10

20

30

40

50

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

All Black Hispanic

Differences in access to vehicles by race & ethnicity will diminish beyond 2020

CAN ANYONE SAY THIS IS A BAD THING?

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

0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

70000000

<16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Worker

non worker

Alan E. Pisarski

A DOUBLING OF WORKERS OVER 65 BY 2030

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 LevelDoesn’t Have to Mean More Crashes

0100020003000400050006000

presentFuture

MOBILITYWE 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

• JOB • SHOPPING• DOCTORS• HOUSE OF WORSHIP

HOW MANY DO?

TO MOVE SO THAT YOU

• 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 It2. Transmit That Understanding To

Others 1. Decision-makers 2. The Public

3. Expand The Debate 4. Make The Case For The Value Of

Mobility5. 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

Under 5 years

5 to 13 years

14 to 17 years

18 to 24 years

25 to 44 years

45 to 64 years

65 to 84 years

85 years and over

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

The share of 2010-2030 growth in the three major population groups

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

TRANSPORT SIDE • Public/private

transportation system provides enhanced access

• Multi-purpose

SUPPLY SIDE• Specialization yields vast

market-sheds • Build more hospitals;

train more doctors• Single purpose

WE ARE A NATION OFIMMIGRANTS, AGAIN

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

19

00

19

10

19

20

19

30

19

40

19

50

19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

*

MIL

LIO

NS

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

WE SEEM TO BE AT VEHICLESATURATION

0

20

40

60

80

100120

140

160

180

200

1910

1915

1920

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1995

PE

OP

LE

PE

R C

AR

2.6 1.340

612

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

% BLACK HH’S WITH

NO VEHICLE

NEW YORK 59%

PHILADELPHIA 43%

BOSTON 41%

CHICAGO 38%

BALTIMORE 40%

90 JTW

Percent of Households with no vehicleamong racial and ethnic groups

02468

101214161820222426

All

Wh

ite

Afr

ican

-

Am

eric

an

Asi

an

His

pan

ic

%

95NPTS

Annual Travel Comparisons

AnnualTrips

Caucasian%

AfricanAmerican

%Hispanic

ALL 1602 89% 96%

DRIVER 1006 72% 82%

PSGR 411 86% 106%

Most trips are under 10 miles-95NPTS

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

To or from work

Work-related business

Shopping

Other family or personalbusiness

School/church

Doctor/dentist

Visit friends or relatives

social or recreational

5 miles or less 6 - 10 miles 11 - 15 miles 16 - 20 miles 21 - 30 miles 31 miles or more

PRIVATE VEHICLE USE BY RACE& ETHNICITY

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

CC SUBURBS NON-METRO

WHITE drivealone

WHITE carpoolBLACK drivealone

BLACK carpoolHISPANIC drivealone

HISPANIC carpool

90 CENSUS JTW

Annual Long Distance Travelby Race and Ethnicity

0

1

2

3

4

5

1977 1995

per

Cap

ita

Trip

s

BlackHispanicWhite

ATS 95 BTS

HELP STAMP OUT AFFLUENCE

We can do it if we work together!

Annual Trips per household byhousehold income - 1995

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

<1

00

0

0

10

00

0

20

00

0

30

00

0

40

00

0

50

00

0

60

00

0

70

00

0

80

00

0

+

HH INCOME

AN

NU

AL

TR

IPS

Transportation share of Spending - Selected Groups

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

All

Homeow ner

Renter

Urban

Rural

White

Black

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic-

But that sum for Racial and Ethnic groups is higher

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

White Black Hispanic

%Housing

%Trans

50.6% 54.1% 52.8%

WORK TRIP LENGTH BYINCOME

0

5

10

15

20

$5,0

00

Less

than

$19,

999

$15,

000

to

$34,

999

$30,

000

to

4999

9$4

5,00

0to

6499

9$6

0,00

0to

7999

9$7

5,00

0to

MIL

ES

To or from work

1995 NPTS

Comparative measures of travel by density

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

0 to100

100 to500

500 to1K

1K to2K

2K to4K

4K to10K

10K to25K

25K to999K

%

POP

WORKERS

PERTRIPS

VEHTRIPS

VEHS

Mode Choice by Income -CIA II

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1-4999 5000-9999

10000-14999

15000-24999

25000-34999

35000-49999

50000-74999

75-99999

OV100000

Worked at home

Other means

Walked

Bicycle

Motorcycle

Taxicab

Ferryboat

Railroad

Subw ay or elevated

Streetcar or trolley car

Bus or trolley bus

Carpooled

Drove alone

Transportation Spending Share byIncome Quintile -1997

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

low est20%

2nd 3rd 4th highest20%

$2,400

$4,300 $6,100 $8,700 $11,800

97 CEX

Transportation Spending by IncomeQuintile - 1997

low

est

20

%

2n

d

3rd

4th

hig

he

st 2

0%

Pub lic trans po r ta tion

G as o line and mo to r o il

O the r v eh ic le ex pens es

V eh ic le pu rc has es (ne t)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

$

HOME

DAY

CARE

LAUNDRY

WORK

FOOD

THE TRIP CHAIN

Daily trips per person by purpose

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

1977 1983 1990 1995

OTH

SOC/REC

SCHOOL/CHCH

FAM/PERS BUS

WORK

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 FORCESOF CHANGE WILL BE

WITH US

DEMOCRATIZATION OF MOBILITY

IMMIGRATION

THAT OLD “VILLAIN” AFFLUENCE

THE FUTURE WILL BE MORESTABLE 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

1975 1988 1998 2008 20180

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Total dependent popu-lationUnder 1616 to 6465 and older

Dependence ratio to labor force