FACTORS AFFECTING PASSENGER TRAVEL DEMAND IN THE UNITED STATES

Transcription

1 FACTORS AFFECTING PASSENGER TRAVEL DEMAND IN THE UNITED STATES November 18, 2015 Dr. Giovanni CIRCELLA Institute of Transpor tation Studies, UC Davis Planning Horizons Seminar Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento, CA 1

2 NCST White Paper: Draft in November 2015 Final by end of

3 KEY POINTS Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita has declined in the United States since the early 2000s (but it is increasing again in 2015). Car travel seems to have decoupled from economic activity. Sociodemographic trends in the U.S. society include smaller household sizes, delayed childbearing and increased presence o f immigrants. Baby boomers are starting to retire (e.g. they make fewer commuting trips), and new generations (e.g. millennials) tend to own fewer vehicles and have increased multimodality. There is a resurgence of the central parts of cities, and increased availability of travel options also in non -central areas. The impact of new transportation technologies, e.g. shared mobility ser vices today, and autonomous vehicles in the future, is uncer tain. 3

4 OUTLINE OF THIS PRESENTATION CURRENT TRENDS IN TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS AFFECTING TRAVEL CHOICES CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 4

5 WE LIVE IN A TIME OF CHANGE: VMT Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 5

6 NOT ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES Source: Kuhnimhof et al.,

7 PEAK IN VMT PER CAPITA BY STATE Source: Garceau et. al.,

8 TRAVEL DEMAND IN THE U.S. Peak in Average Miles Driven (per person, per driver, per vehicle, per household) in 2004 Source: Sivak (2013), based on FHWA data 8

9 Source: Sivak, 2013 AUTO OWNERSHIP IN THE U.S. Vehicles per household: 2.05 (2001; 2006) Vehicles per licensed driver: 1.16 (2001; 2006) Vehicles per person: 0.79 (2006) 9

10 AUTO OWNERSHIP IN THE U.S. Vehicles per Vehicles per Vehicles per Year person driver household Source: American Community Survey data 10

11 HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT A CAR Nationwide: In particular, in all large cities: Year Percentage Source: Sivak, 2013; American Community Survey data 11

12 MOBILIT Y TRENDS: OTHER MODES VMT per capita dropped while the number of trips increased Person-trips made by car: 87.8% in 1990, 89.3% in 1995, 83.4% in 2009 Person-trips made by transit: 1.8% in 1990, 1.9% in 2009 Person-trips by walking: 7.2% in 1990, 10.4% in 2009 Percent of commute trips by bicycling: 0.4% in 2000, 0.6% in Increase in the number of households who do not own a car Sources: Santos et al. 2011; McKenzie 2014; using NHTS and ACS Data 13

13 SUMMARY TRAVEL STATISTICS Data: (NPTS), (NHTS) Source: Santos et al.,

14 Total VMT (Trillion miles) Per Capita VMT MOBILIT Y TRENDS: VMT , , ,000 6,000 4, ,000 - VMT (Trillion) VMT per capita - Source: FHWA and Census data; 2015 data based on monthlyupdated moving annual-average VMT data from FHWA 15

15 IT S THE ECONOMY, RIGHT? 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 -? VMT per capita GDP per capita ($2009) 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Source: Garceau et. al.,

16 OR OTHER FACTORS? Income Fuel prices Traffic congestion Aging population Regional migration Back-to-the city Smartphones Others 17

17 WHAT ARE THE REASONS BEHIND THESE TRENDS? Economic activity Travel demand decoupled from economic growth Growth in high income brackets Changes in fuel prices The reversal of urban sprawl The growth of urban lifestyles and culture Traffic congestion Investments in public transit Ageing of the population, decrease in household size and households with children Generational changes in travel attitudes and behavior Adoption of technology 18

18 ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT How do we as individuals and households make choices about travel? How and why are these choices changing? 19

19 NESTED CHOICES Long-term Choices Lifestyle Residential Location Mid-term Choices Driver s license Auto ownership Short-term Choices Trip frequency Trip destination Mode choice 20

20 CHOICE PROCESS Set of choices available Drive alone Shared ride Bus Rail Bicycle Walk Skateboard Qualities of choices available Cost Time Comfort Safety Knowledge, perceptions Value placed on different qualities Cost vs. Time vs. Comfort vs. Safety 21

21 WHAT ARE THE REASONS BEHIND THE OBSERVED TRAVEL CHOICES? 22

22 WHAT ARE THE REASONS BEHIND THE OBSERVED TRAVEL CHOICES? 23

23 WHAT ARE THE REASONS BEHIND THE OBSERVED TRAVEL CHOICES? 24

24 TOTAL TRAVEL PEAK CAR IN THE UNITED STATES? Are the current trends a temporary or lasting phenomenon? Will, after removing some causes (such as the economic crisis), the growth in the use of private vehicles resume as before? Continuum of travel, only part of which translates into car travel: CAR TRAVEL NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL MODE SHARE FOR CAR Empirical findings suggest a complex pattern of par tial ef fects Some of these effects may extend to future years 25

25 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GDP GAS PRICES URBAN FORM SOCIO- DEMOGRAPHICS AND GENERATIONAL EFFECTS IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY SHARED MOBILIT Y

26 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GDP 27

27 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GDP 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 - VMT per capita GDP per capita ($2009) 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Source: Garceau et. al.,

28 Percent Share of Income ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GDP Income growth only for higher income groups 70 Percent Share of Income by Quintile Lowest Quintile Second Quintile Third Quintile Fourth Quintile Highest Quintile Source: US Census (including ACS data) 29

29 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GDP Income growth only for higher income groups Impact on travel demand: Non-linear relationship with income; income grows with income for lower income classes, but plateaus at higher levels; potential substitution with faster modes (air travel) UNCERTAINTY: if trends in income inequality continue, slower growth in per-capita travel is expected Sources: Holtzclaw et al. 2002; Salon et al. 2013; Boarnet et al

30 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GDP Stronger growth in financial, technological and service sectors Impact on travel demand: Does a $1 of added value in the computer or financial sectors generate similar trips for commuting or other purposes to an equivalent amount in manufacturing? UNCERTAINTY: changes to travel patterns; unclear effects on the spatial patterns of commuting vs. non commuting trips 31

31 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GDP From a different perspective: Economic factors probably continue to play a role in the generation of travel, but the effect is downsized by current mutated conditions. If economic factors operate in the same direction as demographic and other trends, the effects are amplified. Economic effects may operate against dominant demographic trends, with the resulting effects on VMT largely canceling out. CAR TRAVEL 32

32 GAS PRICES 33

33 VMT per capita Price of Gasoline (2013$) GAS PRICES 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, VMT per capita Retail Gasoline Price (Constant 2013 dollars/gallon) Source: EIA AEO,

34 GAS PRICES Historically, travel demand considered inelastic with respect to gas price Larger impacts in times of larger fluctuations in prices Impact on travel demand: In the short term: rather limited effect on VMT and mode choice 35

35 GAS PRICES Historically, travel demand considered inelastic with respect to gas price Larger impacts in times of larger fluctuations in prices Impact on travel demand: In the medium term: impact on vehicle ownership and vehicle choice 36

36 GAS PRICES U.S. Energy Information Administration expects gasoline prices to remain low: 0.3% annual growth rate (adjusted for inflation). Diminishing effects on future VMT, also due to increased fuel efficiency and increased adoption of alternative fuels. CAR TRAVEL Source: EIA s Annual Energy Outlook,

37 URBAN FORM 38

38 URBAN FORM AND TRANSPORTATION SUPPLY Resurgence of downtown Access to alternative modes of travel Mixed land use and transit oriented development VMT changes mainly associated with very high-density areas Impact on travel demand: Urban residents travel less by car; increased availability of public transportation and walk/cycle options; lower auto ownership rates (in the medium term) UNCERTAINT Y: Need to account for residential self-selection! Sources: Ewing and Cervero, 2010; Voulgaris et al., 2015; Cao et al

39 POPULATION DENSIT Y 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Urban Suburban Rural Source: US Census (including ACS data) 40

40 MOBILIT Y TRENDS: URBAN FORM Growth in central areas in many US cities (often much faster than in suburbs) Increase of mixed-use housing This is not (yet) the end of suburbs Figure source: Denver Infill, 2014, denverinfill.com/blog) 41

41 MOBILIT Y TRENDS: URBAN FORM Population Growth ( ) in Midtown 15x faster than City of Atlanta (45x in Core ) Many young, high-income adults Prevalence of large condo/apt. buildings Large proportion of very recent (<10 y.o.) buildings 42

42 INVESTMENTS IN PUBLIC TRANSIT AND ACTIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION L.A. will add bike and bus lanes, cut car lanes in sweeping policy shift City leaders say the plan reflects a newfound view that simply widening streets is no longer feasible or, in many cases, desirable. They contend that if even a small share of motorists change their travel behavior, choosing alternatives to the car, the city can make a big dent in the overall number of miles traveled. (August 11, 2015) Source: 43

43 INVESTMENTS IN PUBLIC TRANSIT AND ACTIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION Cities once associated with image of car-dependence are undergoing massive efforts to expand public transit Improved pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure Improved multimodal accessibility also in lower-density areas Efforts for sustainability -inspired communities and TODs (e.g. California SB 375 s Sustainable Community Strategies) Indirect effects on promoting awareness and perceived utility of non-car travel alternative modes Increased tendency towards multimodality in U.S. Population MULTIMODALITY Sources: McKenzie, 2014; Buehler and Hamre,

44 SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS 45

45 SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS Lifecycle effects Period effects Cohort effects 46

46 Percent distribution of household type SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS Slow population growth Smaller household size and changes in family structure Households with children drive more than those without Married couples with children Single parents with children Married couples without children Household with other family One person Other non- family household Source: US Census Data 47

47 SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS Slow population growth Smaller household size and changes in family structure Source: Blumenberg et al. (2012), using NHTS data 48

48 SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS Slow population growth Smaller household size and changes in family structure Gender gap not causing VMT growth Larger prevalence of immigrants Increased urban lifestyles among some population segments Impact on travel demand: Households without children travel less by car; first generation immigrants travel differently from U.S. born individuals; current trends point to a decrease in per-capita VMT CAR TRAVEL Sources: Zmund et al., 2014; Polzin et al., 2014; McDonald,

49 GENERATIONAL EFFECTS 50

50 Average annual VMT per licensed driver DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND VMT 18,000 Change in household composition Changes observed among all age groups 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, to to to to Source: NHTS and FHWA data 51

51 BABY BOOMERS Baby boomers transitioning into retirement Higher income generation Increased amount of discretionary funds for leisure trips Less need for space in residential location Impact on travel demand: Fewer commuting trips; potential increase in less frequent longdistance trips; unlikely to leave suburbs as they age CAR TRAVEL Sources: Farber et al. 2011; Lee et al.,

52 GENERATION X Active workers Often live with children Telecommute more of ten Increased adoption of e-commerce Impact on travel demand: Increased multimodality; probable decrease in future VMT as an effect of lifecycle effects CAR TRAVEL Sources: LeVine and Jones, 2012; McDonald,

53 MILLENNIALS (OR GENERATION Y) Delay in marriage, childbearing and other life events High adoption of technology Credited to have higher preference for urban areas Delay in driver s licensing compared to previous generations Impact on travel demand: Reduced use of private cars, increased multimodality, unclear long-lasting trends of millennials travel CAR TRAVEL Sources: Blumenberg et al., 2102, 2014; Polzin et al., 2014; McDonald, 2015; Ralph, 2015; Circella et al.,

54 POTENTIAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE MOBILIT Y OF MILLENNIALS Source: Blumenberg et al.,

55 WHAT ELSE DO WE KNOW Source: 56

56 A UBER-FRIENDLY GENERATION? Familiarity with and usage of on-demand ride services (e.g. Uber, Lyft) 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% Millennials Gen X 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% I have never heard of it I have heard of it but I ve never used it I use it when traveling away from home I use it in my hometown/city I use it in my hometown & away from home Source: Circella et al.,

57 GENERATION Z Less studied than previous generations ( to date) High use of technologies and social media Entering soon into driving age Impact on travel demand: Unclear effects on VMT; many trends from millennials might extend among members of Generation Z; supposed similarities with silent generation CAR TRAVEL? 58

58 IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY 59

59 IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY Increase in individual users of ICT Adoption of telecommuting E-commerce Online social media Impact on travel demand: Most likely increase VMT; unclear impact of telecommuting on travel; increased alternatives for mode choice; probable slight increase in per-capita VMT. CAR TRAVEL Sources: Mokhtarian, 2009; Zhu, 2012; Wilson et al

60 May-00 Nov-00 May-01 Nov-01 May-02 Nov-02 May-03 Nov-03 May-04 Nov-04 May-05 Nov-05 May-06 Nov-06 May-07 Nov-07 May-08 Nov-08 May-09 Nov-09 May-10 Nov-10 May-11 Nov-11 May-12 Nov-12 May-13 Nov-13 May-14 Nov-14 May-15 Percent Mobile device ownership SMARTPHONES AND TRAVEL Over 90% of Americans own a cell phone and nearly 70% own a smartphone Cellphone Smartphone Some trip substitution, some complementary Source: Pew Research Center,

61 SMARTPHONES AND TRAVEL Flexibility in activities Flexibility in travel Productive travel time 62

62 IMPACT ON MODE CHOICE Source: 63

63 SHARED MOBILIT Y 64

64 CAR OWNERSHIP VS. SHARED MOBILIT Y 65

65 BIKE SHARING 66

66 EXPANDING TRAVELER CHOICE Choice Sets Choice Qualities Value of Qualities Long-term Choices Mid-term Choices Short-term Choices 67

67 EXPANDING TRAVELER CHOICE 68

68 WHAT REPLACES WHAT? 69

69 WILL NEW OPTIONS MEAN NEW TRAVEL? Increasing number of services available in U.S. cities Early studies report reduction in car ownership among carsharing members Potential for expanding the catchment area of public transit Eventual substitution with other means of travel Impact on travel demand: Uncertainty about dominant impact on VMT; bikesharing seems to reduce PT ridership in central areas; carsharing often reduces car ownership and use CAR TRAVEL? Sources: Martin and Shaheen, 2011; Hallock and Inglis, 2015; Shaheen et al.,

70 IMPACT OF ON-DEMAND RIDE SERVICES ON USE OF OTHER MEANS OF TRAVEL Millennials It reduced the amount of driving I did Generation X It reduced the amount of driving I did It reduced my use of public transportation It reduced my use of public transportation It increased the amount of walking/biking I did It increased my use of public transportation by providing a better way to access public transportation It increased my use of public transportation by providing a ride outside public transportation schedule hours It increased the amount of walking/biking I did It increased my use of public transportation by providing a better way to access public transportation It increased my use of public transportation by providing a ride outside public transportation schedule SCAG SANDAG SACOG NorCal and Others MTC Central Valley It reduced the amount of walking/biking I did It reduced the amount of walking/biking I did Other Other Source: Circella et al., % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 71 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

71 THE FUTURE: DRIVERLESS VEHICLES? 72

72 CONNECTED AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES 73

73 CONNECTED AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES Provide mobility for those who cannot drive Increase road network capacity Release latent demand Reduce value of travel time Impact on travel demand: Probable increase in VMT if widely implemented; a lot will depend on policies and regulations A White Paper from the National Center will focus on impact of autonomous vehicles on travel demand Source: Fagnant and Kockelman, 2015; Krechmer et al., 2015; Malokin et al.,

74 THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE 21 ST CENTURY 75

75 VMT IN THE FUTURE? The aggregate trends discussed do not allow us to forecast with any certainty the car use that we can expect in the future. Goodwin and Van Dender, ,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 -? 76

76 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND GDP GAS PRICES URBAN FORM SOCIO-DEMOGR./ GENERATIONAL EFFECTS IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY SHARED MOBILIT Y?

77 ROLE OF POLICY The engine of growth of car travel has lost strength Saturation level of auto ownership and car travel Higher heterogeneity and uncertainty in travel patterns, due to increased accessibility, available choices and changing preferences Future adjustments likely depend on what factors affecting demand, or combination of factors, prevail Potential for policy to drive the change Importance of policy that are robust to uncertainty Sources: Van Dender and Clever, 2013; Goodwin and Van Dender, 2013; Polzin et. al.,

78 ROLE OF POLICY 79

79 NOT ALL VEHICLE TRIPS ARE HIGH VALUE The goal is increased accessibility 80

80 TIPPING THE BALANCE If the options are good enough If driving is bad enough 81

81 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Dr. Giovanni CIRCELLA Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis 82