1、Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics SePtember 2013 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
2、 U.S. Department 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 polic
3、y and planning 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 tab
4、ulations for transportation. 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 tec
5、hnical service 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
6、 training on data 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 dir
7、ect technical support 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, C
8、TPP has funded 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 T
9、eam Steven E. Polzin, 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. Contact Penelope Weinberge
10、r, e-mail: pweinbergeraashto.org, phone: 202-624-3556; or CTPPinfoaashto.org 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Pub Code: CA04-4 ISBN: 978-1-56051-574-6 2013 by the American Association of
11、 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 This brief is the fourth in a series describing commuting in America. This body of work, sponsored by America
12、n 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 three prior Commut- ing in America documents that were issued over the past three decades.
13、 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 comprehensive summary of American commuting. The briefs are disseminated through the AASHTO webs
14、ite (www.transportation.org). Accompanying data tables and an Exec- utive Summary complete the body of information known as Commuting in America 2013 (CIA 2013). Brief 3 described the composition of the population and workforce as a basis for understanding commuting. This brief goes beyond the basic
15、 national description of the population and workforce to describe some of the relevant trends that shaped the work- force in communities. Among the most critical aspects of population and workforce that impact commuting are the trends relating to how the national population and workforce are distrib
16、uted across the country. Individuals pursue employment opportunities and qual- ity-of-life amenities as they determine locations to settle. This constant process of respond- ing to employment and quality-of-life characteristics of different geographies results in continuing change in state and local
17、 population and workforce levels. As data in this brief reveal, the variation across geography is often significant relative to national averages. Workforce Residential Mobility Of the 308 million persons in households in 2011, 261 million of them, 85 percent, re- mained in the same home as the prev
18、ious year, and more than 28 million of the 47 million movers moved within their present county of residence. Therefore, almost 290 million had no impact on county population levels. Of the 18 million who left their home counties, almost 10 million remained in-state. So the impact on state population
19、s consisted of the 7 million interstate movers plus the 1.8 million movers from abroad. Figure 4-1 shows the shares by category. Since 2005, the American Community Survey (ACS) has measured annual household mobility, monitoring the process through what has been perhaps its most volatile period. Brie
20、f 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 2013 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 Trends Figure 4-1. Housing Location One Y e
21、ar Ago, ACS 2011 Among the 243 million persons of working age (16 or older) more than 27 million move each year, about 11 percent. More than 215 million persons of working age do not move. Over the past several years, the rate of moving has declined sharply during the recession, reaching its nadir i
22、n 2008 when the Current Population Survey 1measured the lowest rate of moving since the survey began in 1948. This should not have been a shock given the housing and employment problems in the nation overall, but moving has begun recovering in more recent years. Of those 27 million movers, about two
23、 thirds, 17.5 million, move within their same county of residence, another five million stay within their state, about 4 million move from another state, mostly nearby states, and roughly one million arrive from abroad. Table 4-1 describes these flows in greater detail, for the population 16 and abo
24、ve, by their employment characteristics. Table 4-1. General Work Force Mobility Summary 20112012 Location of Residence Last Year United States, 16+ years (000s) total Non- mover Same County Different County, Same State Different State, Same r egion Different r egion Abroad T otal 243,538 215,885 17,
25、476 5,263 1,827 2,146 941Employed (civilian) 140,970 123,986 11,030 3,327 1,020 1,189 418Unemployed 13,243 10,760 1,499 462 189 243 91Armed F orces 936 664 85 36 53 71 25Not in labor force 88,390 80,475 4,863 1,438 564 643 407 Source: Census, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Supplement. 1The C
26、urrent Population Survey (CPS), sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is the primary source of labor force statistics for the population of the United States. http:/www.census.gov/cps/. Same House 85%Different House Same County 9%Different County
27、Same State 3% Different County Different State 2%Abroad 1%Among the 243 million persons of working age (16 or older) more than 27 million move each year, about 11%. 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of appl
28、icable law.5 Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics The proportion of movers is sharply affected by their labor force status. Those not in the labor force are the least mobile as fewer than 9 percent move in a year; the employed are av- erage movers at 12 percent, just slightly greater than the ave
29、rage. The unemployed are very active movers with almost 19 percent movers. The Armed Forces, a small group comprised of those military living with their families, are exceptional at almost 30 percent movers. In terms of distances moved, the unemployed have the greatest tendency for long distance mov
30、es. At only 5.4 percent of the population in this period, they comprise over 10 percent of those going to a different state and over 11 percent of those going to an entirely different region of the country. This likely includes some retirees relocating and other workers seeking out loca- tions with
31、employment opportunitiesa positive given the importance of the mobility of the work force in balancing jobs and workers. Table 4-2 disaggregates the work force age population into three age categories: the early years of work, the main work force population, and the older work force that is just now
32、 becoming increasingly significant. Table 4-2. Work Force Movers by Age, 20112012 Labor Force Total Movers % Movers All 16+ 155,148,000 19,738,000 12.7% 16-24 20,913,000 4,918,000 23.5% 25-64 126,461,000 14,561,000 11.5% 65+ 7,775,000 260,000 3.3% Source: Census, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annu
33、al Supplement. The 1624 age group is by far the most active group in terms of moving and the 65 and over group is the least active. More than 23.5 percent of those in the 1624 cohort were movers. This is understandable given the educational and military activities, new job changes, and household for
34、mations occurring in that age group. Among the 65 and over group a small portion, 3.3 percent, moved in the 20112012 period. This is even lower than the share of movers in the “not in labor force” population, which includes a significant share of those 65 and over as well. All groups shared similar
35、tendencies regarding locations with just below two-thirds in each group moving within the same county. Regional Trends The Census Bureau delineates a set of Regions (see Figure 4-8 for region delineation) for the nation which helps in understanding patterns and trends at broader than the state level
36、. Figure 4-2 shows the population and worker levels of the regions. Flows between Census Of all movers, those unemployed move most and move farthest. 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.6 Co
37、mmuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends Regions are a relatively small component of the overall flow of population and workers within the country. As might be expected, the largest moves are local and the scale of moves typically decline as distances increase. F
38、igure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Population and Workers Source: Census, ACS 2011. The long-term trends show that national population growth, which has approximately doubled since 1950, has been very unevenly distributed. The Northeast and Midwest have changed much less significantly over the de
39、cades with a growth from 1950 of 40 percent and 50 percent, respectively. In the same time period, the South, already the largest area in 1950, grew by 150 percent; and the West increased 260 percent. Figure 4-3 shows the pattern relationships. Perhaps the most significant point of Figure 4-3 is tha
40、t the West, the smallest region in 1950, has now surpassed both the East and Midwest, while the South has increased its lead over the other regions. In fact, more than 75 percent of the growth in the nation since 1950 went to the South and West. Figure 4-4 shows the annual growth rate comparisons am
41、ong regions in this decade with no region reflective of the national average. 55.567.211672.925.630.750.3 31.70 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Northeast Midwest South West Millions Population Workers 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplic
42、ation is a violation of applicable law.7 Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics Figure 4-3. Regional Population Growth T rends 19502010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Figure 4-4. Annual Population Growth Rates by Region 20102012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Figure 4-5 shows state p
43、opulation change trends over the past decade, in ascending order of growth. Figure 4-6 shows a map version of the state population trend with both metro area and county detail. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Millions Northeast Midwest South West 0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60%
44、0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% United States Northeast Midwest South West Annual Growth Rate 2013 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 Patter
45、ns and Trends Figure 4-5. Population Growth Rates by State, 20002010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% NV AZ UT ID TX NC GA FL CO SC DE WY WA AK NM VA HI OR TN CA U.S. MT AR MD OK SD MN AL KY MO NE IN NH KS WI DC CT ND NJ MS ME IA PA IL MA VT WV NY OH
46、 LA RI MI National Average = 9.7% Half National Average Growth 1.5 Times National Average 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.9 Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics Figure 4-6. Population
47、 Growth Pattern by County, 20002010 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.10 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends More than 30 states were below the
48、national average growth rate of 9.7 percent for the decade, with only Michigan losing population, largely due to the volatile economy in the period. State growth levels are shown at either 50 percent more or less than the national average, with the states growing more than 1.5 times the national ave
49、rage all from the South and West. Five states togetherTexas, California, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolinaaccounted for half of the national growth in the period. One explanation for the sharp differences in growth rates is shown in Figure 4-7, describing the net migration trends for the year July 2011 to July 2012. Note that overall Regional shifts are relatively minor, peaking at an approximate 350,000 net increase in the South and ranging to a loss of approximately 220,000 in the Northeast. What stands out immediately in the Reg
