AASHTO CA12-4-2014 Brief 12 Auto Commuting.pdf

1、Brief 12. Auto Commuting JAnu Ar y 2014 Commuting in America 2013 The National Report on Commuting Patterns and TrendsAbout the AASHTO Census Transportation Planning Products Program Established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the U.S. Departmen

2、t of Transportation (U.S. DOT), the AASHTO Census Transportation Planning Products Program (CTPP) compiles census data on demographic characteristics, home and work locations, and journey- to-work travel flows to assist with a variety of state, regional, and local transportation policy and planning

3、efforts. CTPP also supports corridor and project studies, environmental analyses, and emergency operations management. In 1990, 2000, and again in 2006, AASHTO partnered with all of the states on pooled-fund projects to sup- port the development of special census products and data tabulations for tr

4、ansportation. These census transpor- tation data packages have proved invaluable in understanding characteristics about where people live and work, their journey-to-work commuting patterns, and the modes they use for getting to work. In 2012, the CTPP was established as an ongoing technical service

5、program of AASHTO. CTPP provides a number of primary services: Special Data Tabulation from the U.S. Census BureauCTPP oversees the specification, purchase, and delivery of this special tabulation designed by and for transportation planners. Outreach and TrainingThe CTPP team provides training on da

6、ta and data issues in many formats, from live briefings and presentations to hands-on, full-day courses. The team has also created a number of electronic sources of training, from e-learning to recorded webinars to downloadable presentations. Technical SupportCTPP provides limited direct technical s

7、upport for solving data issues; the pro- gram also maintains a robust listserv where many issues are discussed, dissected, and resolved by the CTPP community. ResearchCTPP staff and board members routinely generate problem statements to solicit research on data issues; additionally, CTPP has funded

8、its own research efforts. Total research generated or funded by the current CTPP since 2006 is in excess of $1 million. Staff Penelope Weinberger, CTPP Program Manager Matt Hardy, Program Director, Policy and Planning Janet Oakley, Director of Policy and Government Relations Project Team Steven E. P

9、olzin, Co-Author, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida Alan E. Pisarski, Co-Author, Consultant, Falls Church, Virginia Bruce Spear, Data Expert, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Liang Long, Data Expert, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Nancy McGuckin, Travel Behavior Analyst,

10、Consultant, Los Angeles, California Contact Penelope Weinberger, e-mail: pweinbergeraashto.org, phone: 202-624-3556; or CTPPinfoaashto.org 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Pub Code: CA12

11、-4 ISBN: 978-1-56051-583-8 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends Brief 12. Auto Commuting This brief is the twel

12、fth in a series describing commuting in America. This body of work, sponsored by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and carried out in conjunction with a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project that provided supporting data, builds on th

13、ree prior Commuting in America documents that were issued over the past three decades. Unlike the prior reports that were single volumes, this effort consists of a series of briefs, each of which addresses a critical aspect of commuting in America. These briefs, taken together, comprise a comprehen-

14、 sive summary of American commuting. The briefs are disseminated through the AASHTO website (www.transportation.org). Accompanying data tables and an Executive Summary complete the body of information known as Commuting in America 2013 (CIA 2013). The three dominant themes early in the Commuting in

15、America series were the auto boom in commuting, the boom in workers, and the boom in suburbanization. As we have seen in previous briefs, the worker boom has passed, with subsequent decades forecast to have markedly slower growth in the workforce (Briefs 3 and 4). Suburbanization, while pronounced d

16、ead by critics and arguably weakened by higher energy costs and the econom- ic recession, remains strong, based on Census data (Brief 4). The auto boom appears to have completed its rapid growth cycle and has stabilized at very high levels, remain- ing the dominant mode with only modest signs of ret

17、rench- ment. The notably different trend is in the continuing slide of carpooling since the start of statistical observation. This brief presents data describing private vehicle use trends and relationships. The auto boom appears to have completed its rapid growth cycle and has stabilized at very hi

18、gh levels, remaining the dominant mode, with only modest signs of retrenchment. 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.4 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and

19、 Trends The Use of Private VehiclesGeographic Patterns and Trends Table 12-1 shows the trend in private vehicle use for commuting over the past three decades. Table 12-1. Summary of Long-T erm Trends in Private Vehicle Commuting 1980 1990 2000 2010 (000) % (000) % (000) % (000) % T otal Workers 96,6

20、17 100.0% 115,070 100.0% 128,279 100.0% 136,941 100.0% Drive Alone 62,193 64.4% 84,215 73.2% 97,102 75.7% 104,858 76.6% Carpool 19,065 19.7% 15,378 13.4% 15,634 12.2% 13,266 9.7% T otal Private Vehicles 81,258 84.1% 99,593 86.6% 112,736 87.9% 118,124 86.3% Source: Census, American Community Survey (

21、ACS) 2010 Figure 12-1 provides the 30-year trend of the growth in Drive Alone and the continuing decline in Carpool. From 1980 to 2010, Drive Alone rose from 62.2 million to 104.9 million commuters; this growth42.7 million solo driversexceeded the growth in the total work- force, at just above 40 mi

22、llion new workers. Effectively, the number of commuters driving alone accounted for all new workers and gained 2.7 million from other modes. In the 2000 to 2010 period, the Drive Alone share of total growth in workers was 90 percent. While carpooling remains the second highest commute mode share, Wo

23、rk at Home, followed by Transit, had the next highest rates of growth after Drive Alone. All other modes showed some growth, other than Carpool and Taxi. Figure 12-1. Long-term Trend in Drive Alone and Carpool, 20002010 Source: Census, ACS 2010 64.4% 73.2% 75.7% 76.6% 19.7% 13.4% 12.2% 9.7% 0% 20% 4

24、0% 60% 80% 100% 1980 1990 2000 2010 Mode Share Drive Alone Carpool Since 1980, the Drive Alone share increased from 62.2 million to 104.9 million commuters, exceeding the total growth in new workers. 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved.

25、 Duplication is a violation of applicable law.5 Brief 12. Auto Commuting Figure 12-2 shows both the net change and the long-term trend in the period for Drive Alone, Carpool, and all the other modal categories. Figure 12-2. Net Change in Commuting Modes, 20002010 Source: Census, ACS 2010 Figure 12-3

26、 depicts the patterns of change in Drive Alone by state, in order based on their share of Drive Alone in 1990, ranked from low to high. In 2010, there were three states at less than 70 percent, 21 in the 7080 percent range, and 26 at greater than 80 percent. The three states below a 70 percent share

27、 are New Y ork (54.4 percent), Hawaii (66.6 percent), and Alaska (67 percent). After these, there is a steady rise in share in the range of 7080 percent. Growth occurred from 1990 to 2000 in nearly all states; the pattern from 2000 to 2010 generally shows continued growth, but a few states also show

28、 some declines in share. It is notable that two states had lower shares in 2010 than in 1990Oregon (72.2 percent vs. 73.3 percent) and Washington (73.0 percent vs. 73.9 percent); although slight, they are significant in terms of trend. Figure 12-3. T wenty-Y ear Trend in Drive Alone Share of T ravel

29、 by State Source: Census, ACS 2010 Total Workers Drive Alone Carpool Transit Taxi Motorcycle Bicycle Other Walk Work at Home 8,662 7,756 -2,368 900 -49 125 243 277 38 1,740 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Thousands of Workers 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 NY HI AK MD IL ND PA CA NJ MT SD

30、 MA VT VA OR NV IA AZ WY MN WA UT ME CO WI NM WV ID LA SC MS NE KY TX GA NC FL DE AR MO CT RI NH OK TN KS IN AL OH MI Drive Alone Share 1990 2000 2010 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.6 C

31、ommuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends Overall, nine states registered some decline from 2000 to 2010. The interesting point about these changes is that they are all clustered in the states with lower Drive Alone shares. Only two states with a share at or abov

32、e 80 percent lost shareNew Hampshire (81.6 percent vs. 81.8 percent) and Connecticut (79.7 percent vs. 80.0 percent). 1The declines in share in the other seven states were all in states that already had relatively low shares. This is shown in Figure 12-4. In this period, it is perhaps too simplistic

33、 to attribute all such changes to the economy. In the case of Oregon and Washington, with patterns consistent over 20 years, the changes must be attributed to a combination of pub- lic policies such as statutes requiring commute reduction initiatives and incentives in some major urban areas and pers

34、onal preferences of a changing population. Future data will confirm whether these were minor variations or parts of a real trend. It should be noted that the remaining chang- es are all clustered on the East Coast around Washington DC, New Y ork, and New England. Figure 12-4. 20002010 Changes in Dri

35、ve Alone Share Source: Census, ACS 2010 Figure 12-5 shows the distribution of states by their Drive Alone shares in 2010. New Y ork is alone at less than 55 percent, and it lost share in the 20002010 period (Figure 12-3). 1Many of these minor changes are within the margins of error for year-to-year

36、comparisons at the state level. -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 60 65 70 75 80 85 Change in Drive Alone Percent by 2010 Drive Alone Percent in 2000 With the exception of Oregon and Washington State, all states had increases in the Drive Alone share from 1990 to 2010; however, nine states showed some decline from

37、 2000 to 2010. 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.7 Brief 12. Auto Commuting Two states, Alaska and Hawaii, are in the 6569 percent range and both gained share in the period; 7 states were

38、in the 7074 percent share range, with 5 losing and 2 gaining shares. In the 7579 percent range, only 2 of 14 states lost share, and in the 26 states in the greater than 80 percent range, none lost share. It is worth noting that if New Y ork City is excluded from New Y ork State, then the state is at

39、 a 76.6 percent share, roughly in the middle of the distribution of the states by share and about the same as Arizona or Pennsylvania. Figure 12-5. Distribution of States by Single Occupant Vehicle Range in 2010 Source: ACS 2010 A similar picture derives from studying the Drive Alone shares for majo

40、r metropoli- tan areas with a 2010 population of 1+ million, as shown in Figure 12-6. The base year (in this case, 1980) shows a very limited number of metropolitan areas with low shares, most 1 2 7 13 26 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 55% 6569% 7074% 7579% 8084% Number of States by Range Single Occupant Vehicl

41、e Share Ranges 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.8 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends notably New Y ork City. All showed significant growth in

42、share in 1990 but with diminished change and, in some cases, declines in 2000 or 2010. Figure 12-6. Drive Alone Shares among Metropolitan Areas with 1+ Million Population Source: Census, ACS 2010. Note: Uses 1990 CMSA definitions. In 2010, the West Palm Beach metro area was merged with Miami metro a

43、rea. While all the major metro areas showed an increase in share when observed over the entire 1980-2010 period, some lost share in 20002010. The areas with very low increases in share from 1980 to 2010 are among the nations major metro areas: New Y ork (+5.2 percent); Los Angeles (+3.9 percent) and

44、 San Francisco (+4.8 percent). Thirteen areas showed some decline in share in the last decade. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the 13 highest in- creases in the last decade were in the range of gains from 2 percent to the maximum in New Orleans of more than 5 percent. Interestingly, the two met

45、ro areas with the highest shares, Grand Rapids and Detroit, both lost some share, but both remain the highest two areas in share, with just below 84 percent. The most significant de- clines were in New Y ork (53.9 percent vs. 56.3 percent) and Boston (72.0 percent vs. 73.9 percent). In any case, it

46、is clear that since the substantial jump from 1980 to 1990, most change has been more limited. Table 12-2 shows the metro areas with the largest gains and largest losses in the 20002010 period. All 13 metro areas showing losses are included. The 13 areas that gained are all greater than 2 percent. 4

47、0 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 New York Washington, D.C. Chicago Philadelphia Norfolk Boston Pittsburgh New Orleans San Francisco Minneapolis San Diego Seattle Rochester Denver Portland Milwaukee Providence Raleigh Salt Lake City Jacksonville Buffalo San Antonio Hartford St. Louis Austin Atlanta Na

48、shville Kansas City Charlotte Sacramento Louisville Memphis Houston Cincinnati Orlando Miami Phoenix Los Angeles Cleveland Indianapolis Columbus West Palm Beach Greensboro Dallas Las Vegas Tampa Oklahoma City Grand Rapids Detroit Percent Drive Alone Metropolitan Areas Over 1 Million Drive alone, 198

49、0 Drive alone, 1990 Drive alone, 2000 Drive alone, 2010 Thirteen metro areas showed some decline in the Drive Alone share from 20002010. 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.9 Brief 12. Auto Commuting Table 12-2. Metro Areas with Major Changes in Drive Alone Share, 20002010 Losing Share Difference in Percentage Points, 20002010 Gaining Share Difference in Percentage Points, 20002010 New Y ork -2.41 Phoenix 2.05 Bosto