RECENT DIVERGING TRENDS IN THE AMOUNT

Similar documents
A SURVEY OF PUBLIC OPINION

University of Michigan Eco-Driving Index (EDI) Latest data: August 2017

THE ILLUMINATED SURFACE AREAS OF HID AND TUNGSTEN-HALOGEN HEADLAMPS IN THE U.S.

KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER

Appendix D: Functional Classification Criteria and Characteristics, and MnDOT Access Guidance

APPENDIX D. Glossary D-1

Appendix D Functional Classification Criteria and Characteristics, and MnDOT Access Guidance

Overview of the Draft Highway Primary Freight Network. November 20, :00 2:30 pm ET Coral Torres Ed Strocko

Traffic Data Quality Analysis. James Sturrock, PE, PTOE, FHWA Resource Center Operations Team

9. TRAVEL FORECAST MODEL DEVELOPMENT

IMPROVING TRAFFIC SAFETY: CONCEPTUAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL ACTION

Policy Research CENTER

Standardization of Travel Demand Models

APPENDIX TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING OVERVIEW MAJOR FEATURES OF THE MODEL

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION PROCESS

SDDOT 2006 Statewide Customer Satisfaction Assessment Study SD Executive Summary

CHAPTER 7. TRAVEL PATTERNS AND TRAVEL FORECASTING

NCHRP 3-88 Guidelines for Ramp and Interchange Spacing

PRELIMINARY REVIEW COPY

Central Data Repository for Traffic Data Collection in Rural Areas and Corridors Supporting Freight Mobility

Updating Virginia s Statewide Functional. Brad Shelton, VDOT Chris Detmer, VDOT Ben Mannell, VDOT

2016 Arizona Pavement/Materials Conference. Dennis Smith MAG Executive Director (602)

October 31, We would like to submit the following comments, on behalf of Conservation Colorado and the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project.

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE J. Repo,t No. 2. Govf'rnmen' Accession No. 3. RecIpIent's Catalog No.

Scenario Planning in an Uncertain Future

NEW YORK TRANSPORTATION FACTS ECONOMIC IMPACTS

SECTION 5. Existing Conditions TRANSPORTATION NETWORK TRANSPORTATION

Association for Commuter Transportation Recommendations to USDOT on MAP-21 Performance Measures

Recommended Roadway Plan Section 3 Existing Facilities & System Performance

OFFICIAL MARC PROCEDURES FOR ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Updated July 2013

To Market, To Market. Discussion Contents. Part 1: Land Use & Infrastructure

Model Characteristics

NCHRP Report 687 Guidelines for Ramp and Interchange Spacing

Effectively Using the QRFM to Model Truck Trips in Medium-Sized Urban Communities

MAINE TRANSPORTATION BY THE NUMBERS:

Updating Virginia s Statewide Functional Classification System. Briefing to MPOs, PDCs, and Local Governments

Daniel G. Brown, School of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Michigan,

NYSDOT Roadway Inventory. Both On and Off the State System

IOWA TRANSPORTATION BY THE NUMBERS:

Evaluation of Congestion Pricing for Management Highway in Seattle

Process to Identify High Priority Corridors for Access Management Near Large Urban Areas in Iowa Using Spatial Data

Keep Roads and Bridges in Good Condition. Dennis Heckman, State Bridge Engineer. Tracker. Measures of Departmental Performance

Are We Successful in Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled in Air Quality Nonattainment Areas?

America s Top Five Transportation Headaches

TRAFFIC FORECASTING REQUIREMENTS BY PROJECT TYPE. August Research Report

Multimodal Freight Transportation Policy Overview

EVALUATION OF HMA OVERLAYS IN ILLINOIS

Freight Transportation Planning and Modeling Spring 2012

Process to Identify High Priority Corridors for Access Management Near Large Urban Areas in Iowa

New Jersey Pilot Study

Transportation Model Report

Crystal Jones. Office of Freight Management and Operations. USDOT Federal Highway Administration

New Analytical Tools for Safety Management of Urban and Suburban Arterials. Douglas W. Harwood Midwest Research Institute Kansas City, MO

III. CONSENT AGENDA 1:40 *A. Approve October 1, 2013 Meeting Minutes

University Transportation Center Conference for the Southeastern Region

Establishing International Roughness Indices for a dense urban area case study in Washington, DC

MAINE TRANSPORTATION BY THE NUMBERS:

Hillsborough County 2045 Population and Employment Projections and Allocations. Project Update. Plant City City Commission February 26, 2018

LOUISIANA TRANSPORTATION BY THE NUMBERS:

Appendix O Level of Service Standard and Measurements

KANSAS WORK ZONE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES

Decision Support Tool for Nighttime Construction and Air Quality - User s Guide

Kentucky Transportation Center

TEXAS FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN 2017

National Concrete Conference. Structural Change, Impacts and Opportunities For Concrete Pavement

Virginia Critical Rural and Urban Freight Corridor Designation WebEx Discussion. September 28, 2017, 10:30 12:00

Evaluation of Flexible Delineator Posts

CONNECTICUT TRANSPORTATION BY THE NUMBERS:

GWRC Scenario Planning Phase II

INTERSTATE CORRIDOR PLANNING

Transit Carrying Capacity MPO Transit Study

WHEREAS, irregular and increased travel times disproportionately affect lower-income drivers who have longer commutes due to housing costs; and

Interstate 66 Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Public Hearing

UMTRI THE EFFECTS OF HYDROPHOBIC TREATMENT OF THE DRIVER-SIDE WINDOW AND REARVIEW MIRROR ON DISTANCE JUDGEMENT

Planning Tools. In Section 2: the Nevada Statewide Travel Demand Model; Connecting Nevada website; the webmap; and, data compilation.

Grottoes. Transportation Plan. Transportation Planning Division. Virginia Department of Transportation

CHAPTER 5. City of Greensburg Comprehensive Plan. Introduction. Transportation Goals & Objectives

Mn/DOT Travel Demand Modeling Coordinating Committee Meeting Summary September 8, 2005

DEVELOPING DETERIORATION MODELS FOR NEBRASKA BRIDGES

Modeling Truck Traffic Volume Growth Congestion

Performance Measures, Data Acquisition and Performance Evaluation Under the National Transportation System

MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION BY THE NUMBERS:

KANSAS TRANSPORTATION BY THE NUMBERS:

Implementation of HERS-ST in Iowa and Development/Refinement of a National Training Program

Functional Classification

CONCRETE PATCHING GUIDE. Final Report SPR 334

Technology, Newark, New Jersey, USA. Abstract

Keep Roads and Bridges in Good Condition. Dennis Heckman, State Bridge Engineer. Tracker. Measures of Departmental Performance

EFFECTING REAL PERFORMANCE CHANGE THROUGH COACHING

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE 2030 MOBILITY PLAN STUDY UPDATE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES PREPARED FOR: CITY OF JACKSONVILLE

VTrans2040: Sketch Planning for Exploratory Scenarios

OKLAHOMA TRANSPORTATION BY THE NUMBERS:

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) AASHTO Subcommittee on Design July 21, 2009

Estimation of Average Daily Traffic on Low Volume Roads in Alabama

APPENDIX H: TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL VALIDATION AND ANALYSIS

IDENTIFYING INDIANA'S PORTION OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Summary. Freight transportation in New England

11. Contract or Grant No. Austin, TX

Market-to-Market Market influences on Transportation and Development. Dawn Cartier & Tom Hester January 2015

NC State Freight Plan

Transcription:

SWT-2017-11 JULY 2017 RECENT DIVERGING TRENDS IN THE AMOUNT OF URBAN AND RURAL DRIVING IN THE UNITED STATES MICHAEL SIVAK BRANDON SCHOETTLE SUSTAINABLE WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION

1. Report No. SWT-2017-11 4. Title and Subtitle Technical Report Documentation Page 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipientʼs Catalog No. Recent Diverging Trends in the Amount of Urban and Rural Driving in the United States 7. Author(s) Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle 9. Performing Organization Name and Address The University of Michigan Sustainable Worldwide Transportation 2901 Baxter Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 U.S.A. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address The University of Michigan Sustainable Worldwide Transportation 5. Report Date July 2017 6. Performing Organization Code 383818 8. Performing Organization Report No. SWT-2017-11 10. Work Unit no. (TRAIS) 11. Contract or Grant No. 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Information about Sustainable Worldwide Transportation is available at http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt. 16. Abstract This study examined recent changes in the amount of driving in urban and rural areas of the United States. The raw data consisted of the estimated annual distance driven by locale (urban and rural) and the type of roadway (interstates, other arterials, and other roads). The analysis covered 17 years from 2000 through 2016, and it involved normalizing the data relative to 2000. There are two main findings. First, the overall distance driven increased by 15% between 2000 and 2016. Second, during this period, urban distance driven increased by 33%, while rural distance driven decreased by 12%. While the increase in the overall distance driven can be fully accounted for by the increase in the U.S. population during the period examined, the divergent patterns of urban and rural driving are not fully accounted for by the corresponding changes in the amounts of urban and rural populations. 17. Key Words distance driven, VMT, urban, rural, population, trends, U.S.A. 19. Security Classification (of this report) None 20. Security Classification (of this page) None 21. No. of Pages 8 18. Distribution Statement Unlimited 22. Price i

Contents Introduction... 1 Method... 1 Results... 2 Discussion... 4 Summary... 6 References... 6 ii

Introduction This study examined recent changes in the amount of driving in urban and rural areas of the United States. This topic is of interest because urban and rural driving differ in many fundamental aspects. For example, it is likely that urban driving involves a larger proportion of commuting (as opposed to discretional driving) and that the average urban driver is younger (given the differences in the average age of urban and rural populations). Therefore, changes over time in urban and rural driving do not necessarily need to follow the same pattern. Method The raw data consisted of the estimated annual distance driven by locale (urban and rural) and the type of roadway (interstates, other arterials, and other roads) from the U.S. Department of Transportation (FHWA, 2017). The analysis covered 17 years from 2000 through 2016, and all data were normalized relative to 2000. 1

Results Figure 1 presents the normalized distances driven for each of the six combinations of locale and type of roadway. Table 1 lists the corresponding percentage changes from 2000 to 2016. Proportion relative to 2000 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 Urban interstate Urban other arterial Other urban Rural interstate Rural other arterial Other rural 0.9 0.8 Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle University of Michigan 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Figure 1. Distances driven by locale and type of roadway from 2000 to 2016, normalized to 2000. Year Table 1 Percentage changes from 2000 to 2016 in distance driven, by locale and type of roadway. Locale/roadway combination Change from 2000 to 2016 Urban interstate +41% Urban other arterial +26% Other urban +43% Rural interstate -10% Rural other arterial -13% Other rural -13% 2

Figure 2 presents the normalized data for all urban roadways, all rural roadways, and all roadways, respectively. Table 2 lists the corresponding percentage changes from 2000 to 2016. 1.4 1.3 All urban roads Proportion relative to 2000 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle University of Michigan 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year All roads All rural roads Figure 2. Distances driven on all urban roads, all rural roads, and all roads from 2000 to 2016, normalized to 2000. Table 2 Percentage changes from 2000 to 2016 in distance driven on all urban roads, all rural roads, and all roads. Locale Change from 2000 to 2016 Urban +33% Rural -12% All +15% 3

Discussion Overall change in distance driven From 2000 to 2016, the distance driven on all roads (urban and rural) increased by 15%. Because the U.S. resident population increased by 15% during the same period (from 281,421,906 to 322,563,614, as of April 1 of each year) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002; 2017), the overall distance driven per person has not changed from 2000 to 2016. Changes in urban and rural distances driven The most important finding of this study is the divergent trend of the changes in the amount of urban and rural driving from 2000 to 2016. Specifically, during this period, urban driving increased by 33%, while rural driving decreased by 12%. Between 2000 and 2016, the urban population in the U.S. increased from 79.1% to 81.8% (World Bank, 2017). Applying these percentages to the total populations in 2000 and 2016 yields the urban and rural populations listed in Table 3. As indicated in Table 3, from 2000 to 2016 there was a 19% increase in the urban population and virtually no change in the rural population. This takes into account both the increase in the U.S. population in general and the overall net increase in migration into urban areas. Table 3 Urban and rural populations, 2000 and 2016. Locale 2000 2016 Change from 2000 to 2016 Urban 222,604,728 263,857,036 +19% Rural 58,817,178 58,706,578 no change 4

Table 4 compares the changes from 2000 to 2016 in distance driven and population for urban and rural locales. The data in Table 4 indicate that (1) the increase in urban population can account for only about 58% of the increase in urban distance driven (19 is 58% of 33), and (2) the rural distance driven decreased despite the fact that the rural population remained virtually unchanged. Table 4 Changes from 2000 to 2016 in distance driven and population, by locale. Locale Change from 2000 to 2016 Distance driven Population Urban +33% +19% Rural -12% no change Factors of potential importance The results of the present analysis indicate that the changes in the number of people living in urban and rural areas cannot fully account for the obtained divergent patterns of distance driven on urban and rural roads. The following four topics are worthy of future research in order to better understand the factors that have contributed to the recent driving patterns: (1) Who are the recent arrivals in urban areas in terms of their age, income, education, and other demographic factors that might influence the amount of urban driving? (2) What were recent economic changes in urban versus rural areas that might have contributed to the observed driving patterns? (3) Who drives on urban versus rural roads and for what purposes? (Not all urban driving is done by urban residents, and vice versa.) (4) What effect has increased internet access and online activity (both personal and business related) had on driving, especially in rural areas? 5

Summary This study examined recent changes in the amount of driving in urban and rural areas of the United States. The raw data consisted of the estimated annual distance driven by locale (urban and rural) and the type of roadway (interstates, other arterials, and other roads). The analysis covered 17 years from 2000 through 2016, and it involved normalizing the data relative to 2000. There are two main findings. First, the overall distance driven increased by 15% between 2000 and 2016. Second, during this period, urban distance driven increased by 33%, while rural distance driven decreased by 12%. While the increase in the overall distance driven can be fully accounted for by the increase in the U.S. population during the period examined, the divergent patterns of urban and rural driving are not fully accounted for by the corresponding changes in the amounts of urban and rural populations. References FHWA [Federal Highway Administration]. (2017). Traffic volume trends. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). U.S. summary: 2000. Population and housing unit counts. Available at: http://www.census.gov/census2000/pubs/phc-3.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). U.S. and world population clock. Available at: http://www.census.gov/popclock/ World Bank. (2017). Urban population. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.urb.totl.in.zs 6