travel demand infrastructure needs infrastructure funding · 4 changes in vmt and capacity – u.s....
TRANSCRIPT
Center for Urban Transportation Research | University of South Florida
Travel Behavior ‐> Travel Demand ‐> Infrastructure Needs ‐> Infrastructure Funding
Growth and Infrastructure Consortium National ConferenceBradenton, Florida
Thursday, November 13, 2014 Steven E. Polzin, PhD
2
Trips, VMT and VMT per Capita Trends
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
Per C
apita
Ann
ual V
MT
Total V
MT (000,000)
VMT
VMT per capita
0
10
20
30
40
1969 1977 1983 1990 1995 2001 2009Pe
r Cap
ita Daily M
iles
Daily PMT
Daily VMT
0
1
2
3
4
5
1969 1977 1983 1990 1995 2001 2009
Per C
apita
Daily Trip
s
Daily PersonTripsDaily VehicleTrips
Count dataSurvey data
3
Factors Contributing to US VMT Growth 1977-2001
Source: CUTR analysis of NHTS and NPTS
Population28%
Trip Frequency
46%
Trip Length10%
Mode Shifts16%
4
Changes in VMT and Capacity – U.S.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Publ
ic R
oad
Mile
age
& L
ane
Mile
s (m
illio
ns)
Vehicle Miles of Travel
Lane - Miles
Vehi
cle
Mile
s of
Tra
vel(
trill
ions
)
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,00019
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
1020
1120
12
Annu
al V
MT
(Mill
ions
)
1990‐2000 Actual
2001‐2012 Actual
2001‐2012 Extrapolated ≈ 25%
5
VMT Change by State, 2007– 2012
6
PMT and VMT per Capita by Age
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
140002001 Per CapitaVMT
2008 Per CapitaVMT
7
Person Travel in Perspective
Household Travel
Private Vehicle Travel 2009
Percent of VMT
Percent of Total
Roadway VMT
Commuting 27.8
761Work-Related/Business Travel 9Other Resident Travel 63.2
Subtotal 100%Public and Commercial Travel
Public Vehicle Travel 22
Utility/Service Travel 123
Freight and Goods Movement Travel 104
Total 100%
Sources: CIA 2013, Brief 2, NHTS 2009, FHWA State Statistical Abstracts, FHWA1FHWA estimate based on NHTS data.2FHWA estimate using vehicle registration data.3FHWA estimate based on HPMS data and NHTS.4FHWA estimate based on HPMS data
.
8
Figure 3-1 Historical and Expected Population Change Trend by Decade
28.4
24.422.6 22.4
32.3
27.8
23.7 24.6
21.519.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Millions
9
Figure 16-1 Worker Increase Trends by Decade
The declining workforce growth over the past two decades and projections of continuing declines indicate a much diminished role of commuter growth in shaping future transportation needs.
10
Figure 4-5 Population
Growth Rates by
State, 2000-2010
11
Figure 4-6 Population Growth Pattern by County, 2000-2010
12
Figure 4-10 Long Term Population Trend 1950-2010
13
Figure 10-1 Long Term Commuting Trend
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Millions
Private vehicle Public transit Walk/home
14
Figure 10-2 Private Vehicle Mode Share Trend
64.4%
73.2% 75.7%76.6%
19.7% 13.4% 12.2%
9.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1980 1990 2000 2010
Mod
e Share
Drive alone Carpool
15
Figure 10-3 Detailed Mode Use Share Trend (Private Vehicles Excluded)
6.2%
5.1%4.6%
4.9%5.6%
3.9%
2.9% 2.8%
2.3%
3.0%
3.3%
4.3%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
1980 1990 2000 2010
Mod
e Share
Transit Walk only Work at home Taxi Motorcycle Bicycle Other
16
8-1 Consumer Spending Trends
$6,281 $6,374$5,889 $5,672 $5,545 $5,638
$2,227$2,384
$2,715
$1,986$2,132
$2,655
$16,366$16,920 $17,109 $16,895 $16,557 $16,803
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Annu
al Spe
nding
food apparel
health care entertainment
pensions insurance all other
transportation (excl gas) gasoline
housing
17
Figure 8-2 Transportation as a share of Household Spending
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%19
8519
8619
8719
8819
8919
9019
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
1020
11
Share of Total Spe
nding
18
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.01980
1985
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Miles p
er Gallon
Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards 1980 ‐ 2016
Passenger Cars Light Trucks
Fuel Efficiency
19
FUNDING ISSUES
Implications for New Capacity Needs
• Going forward needs driven almost exclusively by population and employment growth – not per capita demand growth?
• Needs will be exacerbated if population redistributes to greenfield areas and abandons existing capacity.
• New technology may enable capacity from existing infrastructure to be increased.
Infrastructure funding needs driven by:• Maintenance backlog• Construction cost trends• Extent of higher cost urban infrastructure needs• Extent of technology/amenities/safety features• Extent of shift to transit• Public’s tolerance for congestion/willingness to invest –disconnect between engineering assessment of needs and public/policy maker willingness to invest
22
Funding Issues
• No political will to adjust gas taxes • P3s and tolling can not address many of the transportation needs
• VMT charges still a few years away – means of collection is not necessarily related to level of collection
• System preservation and safety investments can not be sacrificed
23
Bottom Line
• Resources are becoming more scarce• The system is aging • US mobility will continue to rely heavily on individual vehicles of some type
• We are fueling the system with in a non‐sustainable manner
• The complex multiparty funding strategies are administratively expensive and inherently time consuming to arrange
FLORIDA MOBILITYFEE CONCEPT
The mobility fee should be designed to provide for mobility needs ensure that development mitigates its impacts
proportionately fairly distribute the fee among the governmental
entities that maintain the impacted “roadways” promote compact, mixed-use, and energy-efficient
development
25
MOBILITY FEE
• A charge on all new development to provide mitigation for its impact on the transportation system
• Legal requirements for fees• May not exceed pro rata share • Rational Nexus
• Connection: need and growth• Connection: expenditure and benefits
Definition
Center for Urban Transportation Research/USF
BASICS OF THE MOBILITY FEE APPROACH
Land use and transportation strategies
“Mobility Plan”Interlocal Agreements
Methodology for calculating the fee
Methodology for distributing the fee
MOBILITY FEEAPPROACH
Center for Urban Transportation Research/USF
Comments on Funding Source Characteristics
• The more apparent/explicit the revenue source is the greater its opportunity to influence travel behavior and the stronger the connection between the beneficiary and the payer –> impact trip rate, length, mode choice
Toll VMT tax
Fuel tax Impact fee
Mobility fee General funds
Influence travel behaviorIncidence to direct beneficiarySimple
More politically palatableMore administratively complexGreater revenue stream uncertainty
