Download - The End of Commuting
Forming Transportation Policy and Planning in a Data-free World – THE CASE OF CIA3
Portland October 27, 2006
Alan E. Pisarski
Alan E. Pisarski
WE ARE BLESSED WITH LOFTY GOALS TO STIR MEN’S (& WOMEN’S) SOULS?
Present National Goal:
MAKING THINGS GET WORSE -
--- SLOWER!
“ Many areas are targeting a goal of slowing the
growth of congestion, rather than a reduction.” THE 2002 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT, TTI, pg. 10
The starting point
WHAT IS THE GOAL?
My goal for transportation is to reduce the effects of distance as an inhibiting force in our society’s ability to realize its economic and social aspirations
Alan E. Pisarski
Responding to “The Tyranny of Distance”
It is a very big country!
Few nations have been challenged as greatly as we have been by “The Tyranny of Distance.”
No other nation has succeeded as we have in reducing the influence of distance on its economic future!
Alan E. Pisarski
Transportation Was Always About Time And DistanceTime Pressures Will Dominate
THE AUTO IS NOW AND WILL BE THE TIME TOOL
HIGH INCOME POPULATION
HIGH VALUE OF GOODS
SKILLED WORKERS IN SHORT SUPPLY
A MULTI-TASKING SOCIETY
PRESSURES ON WOMEN
Alan E. Pisarski
- The New Millennium World –a challenged affluent society
A STABLE “OLD” POPULATION
SKILLED WORKERS AT A PREMIUM
WORKERS CAN LIVE, WORK ANYWHERE
WHO, WHERE ARE THE IMMIGRANTS?
MAINSTREAMING MINORITIES
THE SCOURGE OF AFFLUENCE
THE GLOBALIZATION OF EVERTHING
Alan E. Pisarski
The Demographic Story
1. Boomers moving off stage
2. Where will the workers come from?
3. Advent of the immigrant workforce
4. Exurbanization
Alan E. Pisarski
Forces of Stability and Change in Future Travel Demand
Stable
Licenses/Vehicles
Workers
Population & Households
Migration
Changing
Incomes
Locations
Immigrants
Aging
Alan E. Pisarski
Old & Revised Census Estimates
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1950-
1960
1960-
1970
1970-
1980
1980-
1990
1990-
2000
2000-
2010
2010-
2020
2020-
2030
2030-
2040
2040-
2050
BLUE = actual pop; PINK = 2000 estimate; RED = 2005 estimate
Alan E. Pisarski
Complex projections – or a ruler?
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
19501960
19701980
19902000
20102020
20302040
2050
ESTIMATE 2000
25 MEG
ESTIMATE 2005
A 25 million per decade estimate works pretty well!
New estimate: 420 meg in 2050
Alan E. Pisarski
POPULATION SHARES
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
% UNDER 18 % WORKING AGE % 65 AND OVER
Alan E. Pisarski
MALES OF WORKING AGE
&
AS SHARE OF POPULATION
82,67592,234 95,932 98,622
105,411112,366
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
(000'S
)
50%
52%
54%
56%
58%
60%
62%
WORK AGE % WORK AGE
Alan E. Pisarski
END OF THE BOOM
WORKERS ADDED PER DECADE
12.2
19.818.4
13.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00
Mil
lio
ns o
f W
orkers
1980-90
18.5 MILLION WORKERS
1990-2000
13.3 MILLION WORKERS
Our problem may be too few commuters not too many!
Alan E. Pisarski
There’s more to transportation than just commuting!
COMMUTING (16-20% of local psgr travel)
OTHER LOCAL TRAVEL
TOURISM
SERVICES (Power/phone/cable/sewer/water)
PUBLIC VEHICLES (gov’t services)
URBAN GOODS MOVEMENT
THRU PASSENGER TRAVEL
THRU FREIGHT TRAVEL
Alan E. Pisarski
The Role of Commuting Today
WORK TRIP SHARE OF TRAVEL BY DAY OF WEEK
4.7
18.9 19.3 18.7 18.816.5
6.4
18.4
14.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wedn
esday
Thursday
Friday
Sat
urday
5 DA
Y
7 DA
Y
%
Alan E. Pisarski
The Role of Commuting Today
Still declining in share
But some new understanding
Activities of workersWork as a Percentage of all Travel Measures
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Person Trips Person Miles of TravelVehicle Trips Vehciles Miles of Travel
Alan E. Pisarski
Daily trips per Capita
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
WORK FAM/PERS BUS SCHOOL/CHCH SOC/REC OTH
Alan E. Pisarski
workers by age group 2000
0
10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
60000000
70000000
<16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Worker
non worker
Alan E. Pisarski
TREND IN PERSONAL VMT – by age-sex
02000400060008000
1000012000140001600018000
16-
19
20-
34
35-
54
55-
64
65+ 16-
19
20-
34
35-
54
55-
64
65+
Female Male
90-01 CHG
90 VMT
Alan E. Pisarski
Metro Stability re Driving Alone?
Alan E. Pisarski
Metro Stability re Driving Alone?
Alan E. Pisarski
Metro Stability re Driving Alone?
Alan E. Pisarski
Special Transit Study of Trips Downtown
%
metro
Wash DC 9%
New York 25%
Seattle 7%
Dallas Ft W 1.8%
Alan E. Pisarski
Special Transit Study of Trips Downtown
%
metro
%
cc
Wash DC 9% 21%
New York 25% 45%
Seattle 7% 12%
Dallas Ft W 1.8% 2.6%
Alan E. Pisarski
Special Transit Study of Trips Downtown
%
metro
%
cc
% “Downtown”
Wash DC 9% 21% 38%
New York 25% 45% 77%
Seattle 7% 12% 37%
Dallas Ft W 1.8% 2.6% 14%
Alan E. Pisarski
Four key Dichotomies
Over/under 20 minutes commute
In/out of metro area over 5 million (12 metros in 2005)
Before/after 8 am
Over/under age 55
Alan E. Pisarski
Adjusting for travel times
21.7
22.4
25.5
21.7
23.4
25.5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1980 1990 2000
National
Adj National
Alan E. Pisarski
Extreme Commutes
10 million over 60 minutes; 1/3 90+
60-90 minute commute grew 2x average
90+ minute commute grew 5x average
Percent of workers commuting over 60
minutes and under 20 minutes by metro size
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
5,000,000 or
more
2,500,000 to
4,999,999
1,000,000 to
2,499,999
500,000 to
999,999
250,000 to
499,999
100,000 to
249,999
50,000 to
99,999
% under 20
% over 60
Alan E. Pisarski
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
1 2 3
In met area -- 5,000,000 + In met area -- 2,500,000 to 4,999,999
In met area -- 1,000,000 to 2,499,999 In met area -- 500,000 to 999,999
In met area -- 250,000 to 499,999 In met area -- 100,000 to 249,999
In met area -- 50,000 to 99,999 Not in metro area
CARPOOLING TRANSIT WORK AT HOME
Alan E. Pisarski
TRANSIT SHARE BY METRO AREA SIZE - 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
5,00
0,000
or m
ore
2,50
0,000
to 4
,999,
999
1,00
0,000
to 2
,499,
999
500,
000 to
999
,999
250,
000 to
499
,999
100,
000 to
249
,999
50,0
00 to
99,9
99
perc
en
t
CC
SUB
Alan E. Pisarski
male-female commuting distribution by hour of the day
2000
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
12:00 a.m. to
4:59
a.m
.:
5:00 a.m. to 5:29 a.m.:
5:30 a.m. to 5:59 a.m.:
6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m.:
6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m.:
7:00 a.m. to 7:29 a.m.:
7:30 a.m. to 7:59 a.m.:
8:00 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.:
8:30 a.m. to 8:59 a.m.:
9:00 a.m. to 9:59 a.m.:
10:00 a.m. to
10:59 a.m
.:
11:00 a.m. to
11:59 a.m
.:
12:00 p.m. to
3:59
p.m
.:
4:00 p.m. to 11:59
p.m
.:
00 Male
00 Female
Alan E. Pisarski
8 O’clock and all’s well
0%
2%4%
6%
8%
10%12%
14%
12:0
0 a.m
. to
4:59
a.m
.
5.00
a.m
. to
5:29
a.m
.
5.30
a.m
. to
5:59
a.m
.
6.00
a.m
. to
6:29
a.m
.
6.30
a.m
. to
6:59
a.m
.
7.00
a.m
. to
7:29
a.m
.
7.30
a.m
. to
7:59
a.m
.
8.00
a.m
. to
8:29
a.m
.
8.30
a.m
. to
8:59
a.m
.
9.00
a.m
. to
9:59
a.m
.
10.0
0 a.m
. to
10.59
a.m
.
11.0
0 a.m
. to
11:59
a.m
.
12:0
0p.m
. to
3:59
p.m
.
4:00
p.m
. to
11:5
9 p.
m.
ALL
bus or trolley bus Streetcar or Trollley car Subway or Elevated
Railroad Ferryboat Taxicab
Motorcycle Bicycle walked
Other method
Alan E. Pisarski
START TIME CHANGES IN SHARE 1990-2000
2.4
14.7
6.9
3
11.2
24.9
12.4
5.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
pre 5 am 5-6:30am 9-11am WAH
%
was in '90
shr of chg
Alan E. Pisarski
Aging out of the Boomers -1
SHARES OF OVER 55 WORKERS BY AGE GROUP
49%
27%
12%
7%5%
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75+
Alan E. Pisarski
Aging out of the Boomers - 2
Over 55 patterns in mode use of private vehicles
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
55-64 65-74 75+
Drove alone
2 people
3 people
4 people
5 or 6 people
7 or more people
Alan E. Pisarski
Aging out of the Boomers - 3
Over 55 patterns in mode use of other modes
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
55-64 65-74 75+
bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or Trollley car
Subway or Elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Taxicab
Motorcycle
Bicycle
walked
worked at home
Other method
Alan E. Pisarski
Aging out of the Boomers - 4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
MALE UNDER 20 MINS
FEMALE UNDER 20 MINS
MALE OVER 60 MINS
FEMALE OVER 60 MINS
Alan E. Pisarski
THE SHIFT HAS BEGUN
OVER 65 1990 2000 %
POPULATION (millions)
31.2 35.0 12.2%
WORKERS (millions)
3.5 4.25 21.4%
SHARE AT WORK
11.2% 12.1%
Alan E. Pisarski
THE SHIFT HAS BEGUN
OVER 65 1990 2000 % 2005
POPULATION (millions)
31.2 35.0 12.2%
36.8*
WORKERS (millions)
3.5 4.25 21.4%
4.66
SHARE AT WORK
11.2% 12.1% 12.7%
* Census estimate 2005
Alan E. Pisarski
THE SHIFT HAS BEGUN
OVER 65 1990 2000 2010 2020
POPULATION 31.2 35.0 40.2 54.6
WORKERS 3.5 4.25 5.1 6.9
SHARE AT WORK
11.2% 12.1% 12.7% 12.7%
Alan E. Pisarski
Immigrants will be a key part of the work force
HISPANIC SHARE OF POPULATION BY WORKING AGE GROUPS
17%
11%12%
5%
13%
0%
2%
4%6%
8%
10%
12%
14%16%
18%
20%
% <16 %16+ %16-65 % 65+ ALL
Alan E. Pisarski
The Immigrant story - 1
immigrants are only 13.5% of workers but are
significant part of usage in some modes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Dro
ve a
lone
2 pe
ople
3 pe
ople
4 pe
ople
5 or
6 p
eople
7 or
mor
e peo
ple
Bus
or t
rolle
y bu
s
Stre
etca
r/ tro
lley ca
r
Sub
way
or e
leva
ted
Railr
oad
Ferryboa
t
Taxicab
Mot
orcy
cle
Bicyc
le
Walk
ed
Work
ed at h
ome
Oth
er m
etho
d
all w
ork
BORN US
ALL 2 US
Alan E. Pisarski
The Immigrant story - 2
Mode Use by Years in US
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
< 5 yrs 5- <10
yrs
10-<15
yrs
15-<20
yrs
>20 yrs BORN
US
other
Worked at home
Walked
Bicycle
transit
carpool
Drove alone
Alan E. Pisarski
The Immigrant story - 3
Carpool Use by Yrs in US
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
< 5 yrs 5- <10
yrs
10-<15
yrs
15-<20
yrs
>20 yrs BORN
US
carpool 3
carpool 4
carpool 5 or 6
carpool 7&+
Alan E. Pisarski
The Immigrant story - 4
8.9%
6.7%
5.8%
4.7%
3.5%
2.0%
4.2%
5.4%
4.4%4.0%
3.5%
1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
< 5 yrs 5- <10 yrs 10-<15 yrs 15-<20 yrs >20 yrs BORN US
Bus or trolley bus
Subw ay or elevated
HELP STAMP OUT AFFLUENCE
We can do it if we work together!
Alan E. Pisarski
Transportation spending rises in share as income rises.
Percent of all Consumer Spending onTransportation 2002
by income quintile
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
LOWEST LOWER MID MIDDLE UPPER MID HIGHEST
Alan E. Pisarski
Annual Trips Per Household by Household Income - 2001
0100020003000400050006000
< $10K
10K - < $
20K
20K - < $
30K
30K - < $
40K
40K - < $
50K
50K - < $
60K
60K - < $
70K
70K - < $
80K80K+
2005
Alan E. Pisarski
WORK TRIP LENGTH TRENDby income
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
<
$10K
10K -
<
$20K
20K -
<
$30K
30K -
<
$40K
40K -
<
$50K
50K -
<
$60K
60K -
<
$70K
70K -
<
$80K
80K+
mil
es
1990
1995
2001
Alan E. Pisarski
Mode Choice by Income –2001 – all purposes
0
20
40
60
80
100
< $20,000 $20- $40K $40- $75K $75- $100K $100K+
%
SOV HOV Transit Walk Other (+taxi+Bike+school)
Alan E. Pisarski
Modes have an income signature
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Dro
ve a
lone
2-p
ers
on c
arp
ool
3-p
ers
on c
arp
ool
4-p
ers
on c
arp
ool
5-o
r-6-p
ers
on c
arp
ool
7-o
r-m
ore
-pers
on c
arp
ool
Bus o
r trolle
y bus
Streetc
ar or trolle
y car
Subw
ay
or ele
vate
dR
ailr
oad
Ferryboat
Bic
ycl
eW
alked
Taxi
cab
Moto
rcyc
leO
ther m
eans
Work
ed a
t hom
eall
transit
under $25,000 $25,000 to $75,000 $75,000-$100,000 OVER $100,000
Alan E. Pisarski
WE ARE AT VEHICLE
SATURATION?
0
50
100
150
200
250
1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1995
PE
OP
LE
PE
R C
AR
POPULATION TO VEHICLE RATIO 1900-1995
2.6 1.3
Alan E. Pisarski
TRENDS IN SHARES OF HOUSEHOLDS BY VEHICLE
OWNERSHIP
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
O VEHICLES
1 VEHICLE
2 VEHICLES
3+ VEHICLES
Alan E. Pisarski
zero vehicle households by Race and Ethnicity
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1990 2000
%
White Non-Hisp
Black
Hisp
Asian
Am Indian
All
THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF MOBILITY HAS MORE TO GO!
Alan E. Pisarski
A key to the future? When will minorities reach 5%?
Percent Households without vehicles
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
White Black Hisp Asian All
1995
2001
Alan E. Pisarski
Another key
Foreign-born persons in households without Vehicles
by Year of Arrival
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%
ARRIVED
BETWEEN
1996-2000
ARRIVED
BETWEEN
1991-1995
ARRIVED
BETWEEN
1980-1990
ARRIVED 1980
AND BEFORE
NOT FOREIGN
BORN
Alan E. Pisarski
20th CENTURY POPULATION TREND
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
SUBS
CC
NON MET
Alan E. Pisarski
SHARE OF POPULATION CHANGES 2000-2030
15%
20%
15%15%
23%
5%7% CALIFORNIA
REST OF WEST
TEXAS
FLORIDA
REST OF SOUTH
NORTH EAST
MIDWEST
Alan E. Pisarski
The Focus will be on Big Metros
60% of population in big metros
(2000)
1960 34 areas over 1 million
1990 39 areas over 1 million
2000 50 areas over 1 million
2005 53 areas
Probably 60 by 2020
60/20/20 big metro/metro/rural
Alan E. Pisarski
The Focus will be on Big Metros
12 areas with
more than 5 meg.
1/3 of national
pop.; 100 meg.
Growth is in
exurbs expanding
areas
NY, LA, CHI, DC, SF, DFW, PHIL, BOS, DET, MIA, HOU, ATL,
PHX, SEA next
Alan E. Pisarski
Immense distortions from choices of geography
Census redefinitions distort trends
“central cities – not”
Exurbs vs rural
Urbanized area boundaries
Need a science of suburbanism
Flows from suburb to suburb
Think markets
Alan E. Pisarski
% LEAVING COUNTY TO WORK
U.S.
1990 23.9% of workers left home
2000 26.7%
OF ALL 13.2 Meg. WORKERS 51% Left home county (6.7 Meg. )
ONLY 3 STATES DOWN !
Wash DC Area leads
Alan E. Pisarski
Ware
Burke
Clinch
Hall
Laurens
Early
Floyd
Lee
Bulloch
Worth Wayne
Charlton
Coffee
Fulton
Tift
Long
ScrevenHarris
Emanuel
Decatur
Carroll
Troup
Dodge
Irwin
Grady
Bryan
Polk
Colquitt
Liberty
Wilkes
Telfair
Brooks
Dooly
Bartow
Appling
Sumter
Thomas
Gilmer
Mitchell
Jones
Camden
Tattnall
Cobb
Elbert
Walker
Talbot
Berrien
Hart
Echols
Taylor
Stewart
Macon
Coweta
RabunFannin
Baker
Union
Washington
JeffersonBibb
Wilcox
Lowndes
Jasper Hancock
HenryGreene
Brantley
Marion
Pierce
Crisp
Monroe
Terrell
Miller
Glynn
Murray
Twiggs
Upson
Pike
Gwinnett
Heard
Gordon
Clay
Effingham
Morgan
Wilkinson
Cherokee
Houston
Toombs
Bacon
White
Jackson
Oglethorpe
Warren
Banks
Newton
Lincoln
McIntosh
Chatham
Lumpkin
Columbia
Richmond
Ben Hill
Dougherty
Haralson
Candler
EvansSchley
Spalding
Muscogee
Stephens
Clayton
Quitman
Georgia.shp
GA_25per_more_1990.shp
0 - 25
25 - 100
N
EW
S
GA: 25% or More Leaving County of Residence to Work in 1990
Alan E. Pisarski
Ware
Burke
Clinch
Hall
Laurens
Early
Floyd
Lee
Bulloch
Worth Wayne
Charlton
Coffee
Fulton
Tift
Long
ScrevenHarris
Emanuel
Decatur
Carroll
Troup
Dodge
Irwin
Grady
Bryan
Polk
Colquitt
Liberty
Wilkes
Telfair
Brooks
Dooly
Bartow
Appling
Sumter
Thomas
Gilmer
Mitchell
Jones
Camden
Tattnall
Cobb
Elbert
Walker
Talbot
Berrien
Hart
Echols
Taylor
Stewart
Macon
Coweta
RabunFannin
Baker
Union
WashingtonJeffersonBibb
Wilcox
Lowndes
Jasper Hancock
HenryGreene
Brantley
Marion
Pierce
Crisp
Monroe
Terrell
Miller
Glynn
Murray
Twiggs
Upson
Pike
Gwinnett
Heard
Gordon
Clay
Effingham
Morgan
Wilkinson
Cherokee
Houston
Toombs
Bacon
White
Jackson
Oglethorpe
Warren
Banks
Newton
Lincoln
McIntosh
Chatham
Lumpkin
Columbia
Richmond
Ben Hill
Dougherty
Haralson
Candler
EvansSchley
Spalding
Muscogee
Stephens
Clayton
Quitman
Georgia.shp
Ga_25per_more_2000.shp
0 - 2525 - 100
N
EW
S
GA :25% or More Leaving the County of RTesidence to Work
Alan E. Pisarski
Cnty_cnty_wrkrflow.shp0 - 2525 - 100
N
EW
S
County-to-County Worker Flow Percentage: 2000
Alan E. PisarskiCnty_cnty_wrkrflow.shp
0 - 2525 - 100
N
EW
S
County-to-County Worker Flow Percentage: 2000
Alan E. Pisarski
Share of Increase in Commuting Flows 1990-2000
3%
19%
14%64%
Cent City to Cent
City
Cent City to
Suburbs
Suburbs to Cent
City
Suburbs to
Suburbs
Alan E. Pisarski
The “Donut” Metro
Jobs and workers centered in suburbs
46% of commutes;
64% of growth 90-00
7.5 million coming in to the subs from exurbs and other metros each day
7.5 million going out to the subs from central cities
CC to subs > Subs to CC in share of growth
Alan E. Pisarski
Suburban Flows grow with metro size
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
50,000 to 99,999
100,000 to 249,999
250,000 to 499,999
500,000 to 999,999
1,000,000 to
2,499,999
2,500,000 to 4,999,999
5,000,000 or more
subs-out
subs-subs
subs-cc
cc-out
cc-subs
cc-cc
Alan E. Pisarski
Own Metropolitan Area
Other Metropolitan area
suburbs
Central
city
Central
city
suburbs
24.5
7.5
16.6
40.8
.7
2.2
1.1
3.5
1.9
.5
24.4
1.6
2.9
Non-metropolitan Area
2000 METRO FLOW MAP
Alan E. Pisarski
Two things are key: Time and Costwe measure both badly
TIME
Weak Travel Time for work
Nothing else NPTS
No purchased modes data
No service summary data
COST
CEX only small
AAA limited
No trucking costs
No ton-mile costs
Limited fare costs in purchased modes
Alan E. Pisarski
My keys on travel time% under 20 mins / % over 60 mins
Percent of workers commuting over 60
minutes and under 20 minutes by metro size
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
5,000,000 or
more
2,500,000 to
4,999,999
1,000,000 to
2,499,999
500,000 to
999,999
250,000 to
499,999
100,000 to
249,999
50,000 to
99,999
% under 20
% over 60
Alan E. Pisarski
CIA II – Unresolved Questions
Force of Immig. Persist?
Immig. trend to mainstream?
Job/worker balance?
Minorities typical?
Will tech fixes work?
WAH & telecom impact?
ITS influence?
Aging commuters change the trend?
Growth in smaller metro areas?
Higher densities?
Alan E. Pisarski
New Patterns to Watch
Who, where will the workers be?
Will long distance commute expand further?
Will role of commuting decline/grow or just change?
Will value of time still be the guiding factor?
Value of mobility recognized?
Alan E. Pisarski
Is Our Transportation System In Place?
A nation that by the end of the decade can expect: Another 25-30 million people
And probably as many vehicles
And another $3 trillion in GDP
Cannot say that its transportation work is done!
Alan E. Pisarski
WE ADD THE POPULATION OF A CANADA EACH DECADE!!!!
DO WE ADD CANADA’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM?
Alan E. Pisarski
For the first time in history–
A nation’s population is approaching a state where it can live and work wherever it wants!
Affluence and low cost transportation and communications have made that possible.
American society must have the mobility it needs to meet its social and economic goals. IT IS NOT OK TO FAIL!
Thank you
Alan E. Pisarski
Alan E. Pisarski
PATTERNS TO WATCH
Immigrant arrivals?
Where do immigrants go?
Minorities & mobility?
Where do aging baby-boomers go?
Multiple home ownership?
What happens to Job/Worker suburban ratios?
Even more women in workplace?
Work by >65 pop?
Workplace patterns?
Alan E. Pisarski
30 YEAR POP TREND BY AGE GROUP
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
400,000,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
.Under 5 years .5 to 13 years .14 to 17 years
.18 to 24 years .25 to 44 years .45 to 64 years
.65 years and over
Alan E. Pisarski
WORKING AGE POP VS DEPENDENT POP
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
OVER 65
WORKAGE
UNDER 20
Alan E. Pisarski
Transit use sensitive to income – at both ends of spectrum
Central City and suburban Transit Use by income
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Le
ss th
an
$1
0,0
00
-
$1
5,0
00
-
$2
0,0
00
-
$2
5,0
00
-
$3
0,0
00
-
$3
5,0
00
-
$4
0,0
00
-
$4
5,0
00
-
$5
0,0
00
-
$6
0,0
00
-
$1
00
,00
0-
$1
50
,00
0
CC TRANSIT SUB TRANSIT
Alan E. Pisarski
Cars per Household – 40 year trend
NUMBER OF HH BY VEHICLES OWNED
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
OO
O'S
O VEHICLES 1 VEHICLE 2 VEHICLES 3+ VEHICLES
Alan E. Pisarski
POP TREND BY AGE GROUP 2000-2050
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
..85+
..65-84
..45-64
..20-44
..5-19
..0-4
Alan E. Pisarski
CHANGE IN WORK AGE POP
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
..0-4 ..5-19 ..20-44 ..45-64 ..65-84 ..85+
Alan E. Pisarski
SHARES OF DEPENDENT POPULATION
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
% DEP
% < 20
% >65
Alan E. Pisarski
Aging out of the Boomers - 2
Car, truck, or van
70.00%
72.00%
74.00%
76.00%
78.00%
80.00%
82.00%
84.00%
86.00%
88.00%
90.00%
55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+
Alan E. Pisarski
Transportation Spending by Workers/hh
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
single
consumer no
earner (1)
multiple
consumer no
earner (2.3)
single
consumer one
earner (1)
multiple
consumer 1
earner (2.9)
multiple
consumer 2
earners (3.1)
multiple
consumer 3+
earners (4.4)
Alan E. Pisarski
VEHICLES OWNED BY NUMBER OF WORKERS
1.20
2.50
3.20
2.00
1.80
0.80
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
single
consumer no
earner (1)
multiple
consumer no
earner (2.3)
single
consumer one
earner (1)
multiple
consumer 1
earner (2.9)
multiple
consumer 2
earners (3.1)
multiple
consumer 3+
earners (4.4)
Alan E. Pisarski
2000-2050 GROWTH RATES BY AGE GROUP
050
100150200250300350400450
..TOTAL
0-4
5-19
20-4
4
45-6
4
..65-
84 85+
GR
OW
TH
RA
TE
2000-2050
Alan E. Pisarski
Male Female Growth Rates 2000-2050
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
MALE
TOTAL
0-4
19-M
ay
20-4
4
45-6
4
65-8
485
+
FEMALE
TOTAL
0-4
19-M
ay
20-4
4
45-6
4
65-8
485
+
Alan E. Pisarski
GROWTH BY AGE GROUP, (OOO'S)
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
0-4 5-19 20-44 45-64 65-84 85+ TOTAL
2000-2010 2010-2020 2020-2030 2030-2040 2040-2050
Alan E. Pisarski
WORKING AGE GROUP GROWTH (000'S)
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
20-44 45-64
2000-2010
2010-2020
2020-2030
2030-2040
2040-2050
Alan E. Pisarski
AGE GROUP GROWTH RATES 2000-2030
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%110%
Under 5
years
5 to 13
years
14 to 17
years
18 to 24
years
25 to 44
years
45 to 64
years
65
years
and
over
ALL
Alan E. Pisarski
Commuting in America III hots
From a Social point of view
Af am vehicles
Immig transitions
From an Economic Point of view
% leave home county
From a transportation point of view
leave home by 6 am
Work at home
WHAT IS CONGESTION ?
Congestion is:
People with the economic means to act on their social and economic interests -getting in the way of other people with the means to act on theirs!