This report is the third and final report of a research initiative that explores the evolution of travel in meeting urban mobility needs given rapidly changing technology and greater sensitivity to climate change.

The first report, “Transportation’s Role in Climate Change,” focuses on the role of transportation in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The second report, “Public Transit and Climate Change,” focuses specifically on the influence of public transportation.

This final report in the series explores the challenges and issues facing urban travel going forward as demographic, economic, technological, and cultural/political conditions evolve.

This report examines the current and forthcoming challenges with a specific focus on the potential influence of technological advancements and evolving travel behaviors on the trajectory ahead.

The analysis first delves into the core attributes of travel decision-making, followed by an overview of pivotal issues that will shape the course of urban transportation in the years ahead. It concludes with observations about planning and policy strategies to help address these challenges.

The context

Transportation is undergoing its most profound changes in over half a century. Significant technological changes coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic, growing concerns over climate change, and greater sensitivities to equity in mobility are affecting multiple aspects of every mode of travel. The COVID-19 pandemic served as an accelerant to the adoption of technologies and behaviors that fundamentally change the travel choices individuals make.

From the rapid embrace of telework to the more subtle shifts in activity and settlement patterns, to the movement to electrification of transportation, virtually every aspect of travel is changing.

Read the full Policy Brief:

The post Transportation and climate change: Urban mobility in a climate-sensitive world appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This report is the second of three from a research initiative addressing the role of urban travel currently and going forward in meeting urban mobility needs and in efforts to reduce the impacts of transportation on climate change.

The first report, “Transportation’s Role in Climate Change,” established the context by focusing on the contributions of different types of transportation on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

This report, “Public Transit and Climate Change,” focuses more specifically on the influence of public transportation.

The final report in the series, “The Path Forward: Urban Mobility in a Climate Change Sensitive Post-COVID World,” explores the challenges and opportunities for urban travel going forward as demographic, economic, technological, and cultural/political conditions evolve.

There are two dominant goals for public transportation.

First, it serves to provide mobility for individuals who are unable to secure or do not choose alternative means of travel. The provision of public transportation is intended to enable economic and social opportunities for individuals who otherwise might be severely impeded.

The motivation is that this is both humane treatment and provides economic participation in society by facilitating self-sufficiency and potential for constructive contributions to society.

The second fundamental goal is to capture the economies of scale of “mass” transportation. The use of large vehicles accommodating group travel can provide resource efficiencies, including savings in energy use, space use, and physical infrastructure, resulting in reduced resource use and reduced transportation impacts, including GHG reduction goals.

This report explores that issue and, by documenting current conditions, provides guidance for the path forward addressed in the subsequent report.

Many media and literary references to public transportation are prefaced with words like “sustainable,” “green,” “environmentally friendly,” “energy efficient,” or other adjectives indicating to the reader that public transportation is a more environmentally benign means of travel. In prior decades, this translated into reduced energy use and reduced emissions contributing to ozone and smog.

More recently, sensitivity centers on the production of GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. Support for public transportation among the public and policymakers is influenced by this perception of transit being a more environmentally sustainable travel mode, and it is among the virtues cited as public subsidies are solicited.

This report looks more closely at that perception, exploring historical, current, and anticipated future conditions that influence GHG emissions as they are, in turn, influenced by public transportation.

Figure 1 characterizes ways to evaluate the energy intensiveness of various means of travel. For this graphic, energy intensiveness is a surrogate measure of GHG emissions. There are a multitude of ways to measure and define the energy consequences of various means of travel. Understanding the interrelationships between the mode and energy use, as well as data availability, are prerequisites to using each possible measure.

This report focuses primarily on operating energy intensiveness and transportation energy impacts as affected by public transportation’s influence on land use.

Full Policy Brief: Transportation and Climate Change: Public Transit

The post Transportation and climate change: Public transit appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This report is the first of three from a research initiative addressing how urban transportation can reduce climate change. This report provides a baseline on how transportation impacts greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The second report, “Public Transit and Climate Change,” focuses specifically on the extent to which urban public transportation can help reduce GHG emissions.

The final report in the series, “The Path Forward: Urban Mobility in a Climate-Sensitive Post-COVID World,” explores the challenges and opportunities going forward as demographic, economic, technological, cultural, and political conditions evolve to influence urban transportation. It lays out the role transportation can play in meeting mobility needs and reducing GHG emissions.

Thus, this report lays out foundational information that helps guide the observations and findings in the referenced subsequent reports. It also informs the broader understanding of the role of transportation in addressing climate challenges.

Policymakers are increasingly concerned about climate change. Increased scientific evidence, accumulating observations of weather and climate changes over time, changes in political leadership, and ever-increasing media attention to weather and climate phenomenon have engaged the public. Pew Research reports that the share of Americans believing climate change is a major threat increased from 44% in 2009 to 54% in 2022.

As the single largest domestic greenhouse gas emissions-producing sector, transportation is inevitably a focus of climate change mitigation initiatives. This attention is further enabled by the prospect of a path forward via focusing on a strategy based on the electrification of vehicles, a transition to sustainable electricity production, and reliance on alternatives to personal vehicles for travel.

As climate impact moves up the ranks of evaluation criteria for virtually every transportation investment and policy decision, it is important to base these discussions on transportation’s specific contribution to GHG emissions and the respective roles of person travel and freight across urban and rural geographies.

It is also important to realize that transportation trends are evolving at a rate far greater than in the past several decades as changes in technology, demographics, and public priorities influence the amount, type and means of travel.

Yet, today’s transportation decisions and their impact on tomorrow’s GHG emissions may not be well grounded in a rich understanding of travel behavior and transportation markets. Much uncertainty remains regarding the phenomena of climate change, technology’s effectiveness in mitigation, behavioral reactions to technology and policy initiatives, and unintended side effects. Both the magnitude of climate-protecting actions and the timeframe for their impacts to play out are critically relevant issues as transportation planners and policymakers weigh various policies and investment decisions going forward.

Most data in this report references pre-COVID-19 pandemic conditions as a baseline for the discussion and analysis. These data are available and are most representative of the respective historic roles of passenger and freight transportation modes. Many analysts anticipate that there may be changes in the magnitude and shares of both passenger and freight mode use in a post-COVID-19 era and that trends such as differential rates of electrification of vehicles are likely to alter the relative GHG intensiveness of transportation market segments going forward.

Read the full report here:

The post Transportation and climate change: Travel trends and GHG emissions appeared first on Reason Foundation.

As auto travel and the economy recover from the COVID-19-related slowdown, transportation planners and engineers will need to decide how much new roadway capacity to build. In the post-World War II years, the U.S. built thousands of miles of highways—40,000 miles of Interstate highway alone between 1956 and 1980. However, the country has added significantly fewer miles over the past 40 years.

One reason that highway construction slowed is the growing challenge of building roadways, particularly in urban areas. Starting in the late 1960s, community groups began protesting the construction of Interstate highways, some of which divided neighborhoods. These protests led state departments of transportation (DOTs) to cancel numerous freeway projects and, along with the growing concern about the environment, gave power to anti-roadway and “smart growth” groups.

Over time, groups opposed to highways have become more sophisticated as social justice groups, residents opposed to development (also known as Not In My Backyard, or NIMBYs), and opportunistic politicians have joined forces.

One justification these groups have for opposing new highway capacity is a concept called induced demand. Induced demand is the notion that when you add new capacity to a congested highway, that improvement reduces congestion, which then leads to more people opting to travel and the return of congestion.

While induced demand exists in some circumstances, smart growth groups often exaggerate the magnitude of induced demand or claim it exists when some other factor, such as rapid population growth, is causing the congestion. They also fail to appreciate how, even if congestion returns, a highway can accommodate more travelers after it is widened. The purpose of transportation systems is not to reduce congestion, but to provide mobility.

Increasing demand for travel leads to the need for new capacity, not the other way around.

As detailed in Part 3, the following five factors lead to higher travel demand:

1. Growth in demand attributable to population, employment, or new activities in the
   market area served by the roadway
2. Redistribution of existing travelers geographically across the roadway network to
   optimize travel routes
3. Altered travel times that take advantage of additional capacity at preferred travel
   times
4. Modified travel modes resulting from new roadways or missing links in existing roadways
5. New trip generation or trip length increases as trip distribution patterns change

Only the latter two are legitimately induced demand. And only demand associated with new trip generation or increased trip length is a significant contributor to induced demand.

At the same time, all five sources of demand for new capacity are driven by the benefits of additional travel. New capacity brings many benefits as well as costs, and all have to be evaluated.

While induced demand was a significant concern in the 20th century, the shifting nature of travel, including the increase in working at home and growth in the services economy, is likely to reduce induced demand in the foreseeable future. Further, induced demand is not always bad, because new capacity creating the demand allows folks to travel when and where they want, creates economic activity, and improves safety.

This brief begins by providing a history of induced demand. Then, it examines different scenarios to see when induced demand is an issue and when it is not and how that affects the benefits of a capacity expansion.

Next, this brief explores how current and future travel patterns are likely to lessen induced demand. After that, it highlights the advantages of induced demand and compares how society views induced demand of highways compared with induced demand in other areas.

Finally, this brief provides some policy suggestions on how to reduce induced demand.

Full Policy Brief: Induced Demand’s Effect on Freeway Expansion

The post Examining the causes of induced demand and the future of highway expansion appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The induced demand argument, which says that widening roadways will lead to new and additional traffic, is not new nor without theoretical and empirical underpinnings. But the principle of induced demand is only relevant when used in the correct context and is misapplied when used as a one-size-fits-all justification for resisting roadway capacity expansion or is offered without an explanation of the effects. More importantly, both the theory and empirical foundations of induced demand need an update. Much of the data underlying prior publications on the topic are more than 20 years old and were conducted when travel behavior and trends were different. 

A cynic would counter that this, “Don’t build it and they won’t come logic,” is a close relative to the, “We can’t build our way out of congestion logic,” and has as much merit as stopping school construction to solve classroom overcrowding. But induced demand is real even if it is often oversold.  The concept has a long history and relies on the time-tested economic relationship between price and demand. Different definitions, metrics, time periods, and analysis methods result in a range of results.

There are five interpretations of what constitutes induced travel demand ranging from any demand beyond what existed prior to construction to new travel by pre-existing travelers. Some of these definitions are more valid than others.

The first interpretation of induced demand is that growth in demand is attributable to population, employment, or activity growth in the market area served by the facility.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in July of 2020, the Austin urbanized area’s population was 2,295,303, a 3% increase from 2019, and the fastest growth among metros with at least 1 million residents.  The Austin metro area has had a 34% population increase since 2010.

The October 2021 announcement of the relocation of the Tesla corporate headquarters to Austin, due partly to the pandemic and economic induced relocation trends, is the type of news that indicates growth is likely to remain robust. And this further growth will create a lot of new travel demand that is not induced by new pavement.

New transportation capacity can also have land-use impacts within a metropolitan area, as firms and residents seek to build near transportation capacity. Attracting development has often been a goal of transportation investments and is frequently cited as a benefit in economic impact evaluations of transportation investments. This new demand may not impact regionwide travel levels but may concentrate more activity in a given corridor.

The second interpretation of induced demand is associated with existing travel redistributing across the roadway network to shorten trips. Even before navigation apps started sending drivers through residential neighborhoods to avoid freeway traffic jams, drivers sought out alternative paths to severe traffic congestion. Traveling on freeways is considered preferable to traveling on surface streets as freeways are generally quicker, less circuitous, produce fewer greenhouse gasses than urban stop-and-go travel, and are safer. Fatality rates for urban freeways are typically only half as high as for urban arterials. Freeway travel also eliminates the risks of pedestrian and bicycle conflicts (in most states), a growing share of all fatalities. This change has no effect on total travel.

The third interpretation of induced demand is associated with existing travel changing their travel time to take advantage of additional capacity at the desired hour. This has no effect on total travel but enables individuals and commercial vehicle drivers to travel on their preferred route at a better time. A parent may get home in time to eat with the family, attend a sporting event, or proctor homework. A delivery vehicle may be able to deliver products more quickly. These benefits improve the quality of life for everybody.

The fourth interpretation of induced demand is associated with existing travel shifting from alternative modes due to new connections or capacity. The shift of travel from non-auto modes to automobiles is a part of the new traffic that has increased roadways volumes and contributed to induced demand. These mode shifts include carpooling to driving alone, transit to driving, or bicycling or walking to driving.  The new capacity that reduces travel times makes driving more attractive. However, historical induced demand rates may not be accurate because there is less travel on non-auto modes to induce to roadways. Between 1980 and 2019, the percent of commuters carpooling decreased from 20% to 8.9%. In that same time span, transit use decreased from over 6% to 5% and walking declined from 5.6% to 2.6%. The transit commuting mode share was only 2% in Austin in 2019–not a lot of potential travel to be induced to use new road capacity.

Some planners see the lack of new road capacity as one way to shift solo commuters to other modes of travel. However, that is not a realistic proposition. For example, in Austin, a 3% sustained population growth would produce enough new commuters that, to keep roadway commute volumes constant, mass transit commuting use would need to increase 150% in a single year to absorb one year’s worth of new commuters and repeat that growth every year—a feat never accomplished in urban transit. 

The fifth interpretation of induced demand is associated with new trips or trip length increases as trip distribution patterns change. Some consider this the true measure of induced demand as these are new trips by existing commuters.  The lower time cost of travel associated with reduced congestion led commuters to travel more often and/or at greater distances. An individual may choose to travel farther to shop in a location that may have better choices or prices, be motivated to take a better job with a longer commute or make an additional trip that might have previously been deemed burdensome.  These have historically been desirable outcomes of enhanced mobility created by new connections or new capacity. There may be economic and/or other benefits to this new travel.

However, given the changes in trip generation and trip length trends for personal travel, even if there is new capacity and new demand from existing users, it might not be due to new or widened highways. Travel demand changes over time. 

As shown in Figure 1, over the last 14 years vehicle miles of travel (VMT) per capita have moderated and not returned to the peak levels in the 2004-2007 period. Previously, VMT per capita had been growing despite a lack of new capacity. Between 1980 and 2015, the national lane miles of all roadways increased by about 11% and Interstate and freeway lane miles increased 39.6% while vehicle miles of travel (VMT) increased over 100%. At the national level, we have not tested the hypothesis that we cannot build our way out of congestion. Instead, demand has grown despite roadway capacity per capita shrinking. Arguably, demand is being induced despite a lack of new capacity.

The National Household Travel Survey data confirms the moderation in per capita demand.  “The Case for Moderate Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel: A Critical Juncture in U.S. Travel Behavior Trends,” notes that several trends that increased VMT have moderated or played themselves out.  Suburbanization, declining household size, women joining the workforce, increased auto ownership, and diminished opportunities to shift from other modes are not as influential as they were 30 years ago in driving VMT growth.  The travel patterns that drove historic levels of induced demand have changed.

Figure 1: Trends in Vehicle Miles of Travel and VMT per Person

The emerging opportunity to substitute telecommuting for travel is also likely to impact traffic inducement.  Telecommuting and e-commerce are examples of people choosing to use communications in lieu of travel.  The work-at-home share has grown from 2.3% in 1980 to 5.9% in 2019 and dramatically accelerated with the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in expectations that post-COVID work-at-home shares will be over 10% and increase as the share of information jobs in the economy increases.  E-commerce, distance-learning, online business transactions, and telemedicine are also likely to grow, moderating any increases in travel. 

A growing share of roadway travel is not household-based person travel but commercial and service vehicle travel responding to business, government, and household needs.  This includes police, fire, ambulance, mail, school buses, delivery vehicles, and the myriad of services we use—from lawn, insect, pool, and repair services and service visits such as home health care, realtors, and decorators.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) VMT and National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data suggest that the share of commercial and service vehicles as well as heavy freight are 29.6% of all travel and growing (Table 1).  There is no evidence that this demand is sensitive to roadway capacity and, importantly, this demand is not able to switch to alternative modes in the absence of new capacity.

Table 1: Sources of Roadway VMT

Travel cost/pricing, settlement patterns, population growth, and the deployment of automated vehicles are also likely to affect future travel demand. Sensitivity to the environmental impacts of travel is an increasingly important consideration in travel decisions and may offset the desire to take advantage of faster travel.   

I have not studied the Austin Interstate project closely enough to determine if it is well justified or well-conceived, but I know that the need for roadway capacity goes well beyond any amount that might be “induced” and not building capacity will have significant consequences. A failure to add capacity is unlikely to steer meaningful shares of the demand to public transit absent a radical and impactful rebuilding of Austin and is more likely to induce businesses and residents to locate in other corridors or communities. Pre-COVID-19, Austin’s average bus occupancy was fewer than six passengers  (motor bus and commuter bus passenger miles/vehicle revenue miles), which suggests that expanding bus services to attract travelers is both challenging and unlikely to offer a positive environmental benefit relative to auto travel. 

It is transportation officials’ responsibility to vet and challenge proposed projects based on a full analysis of the impacts. Studying design options to improve transportation outcomes and reduce the effect on neighboring and broader communities is likewise a worthwhile endeavor. Impugning motives and misapplying or taking information out of context, however, is not helpful as decision-makers strive to make difficult and impactful decisions in an era of changing behaviors, technologies, and values.  Finally, induced demand metrics need to be updated to reflect current travel behaviors and contexts. 

The post Examining the induced demand arguments used to discourage freeway expansion appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The COVID-19 pandemic will be remembered as a historic and transformational event impacting the human condition across the globe. Its consequences, direct and indirect, are likely to play out over many years as the human costs impact families, loved ones, and the economy, inclusive of dramatic additional government debt.

COVID-19 has produced changes in the behavior of individuals, businesses, and governments. Some share of these changes, initially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, are now expected to remain long after COVID-19 has diminished as an overwhelming public health threat.

Public transportation is among those sectors disrupted by COVID-19 and unlikely to return to pre-COVID-19 conditions. The initial plummeting of mass transit ridership was associated with the shutdown of activities and due to exposure fears when using travel options that do not allow isolation or sufficient social distancing.

The dramatic ridership reductions persisted as shutdowns were discontinued. Individuals who had to rely on public transportation returned but many others did not. Most public transportation trips remained lost as communication substituted for travel or commuters shifted to alternative modes, including newly acquired automobiles, that reduced exposure risk.

These ridership losses persist with unprecedented consequences. Extrapolating ridership trends from the National Transit Database through April 2021, which captures the first full year of COVID-19-impacted ridership, results in 12-month levels approximately 65 percent below the 12-month period prior to the start of COVID-19. For the corresponding period, service levels are extrapolated to track approximately 23% below pre-COVID-19 levels.

While national data on spending and fare revenues for this period will not be available for months, Figure 1 shows the transit ridership trend since 2010 and Figure 2 shows the trend in revenue-miles of transit service.

After March 2021, the rolling 12-month annual ridership should trend positive with the increase dependent on the pace of recovery in mitigating COVID-19 and the extent to which travelers return to transit.

Source: National Transit Database. Trend extrapolated through April 2021 to estimate a full year of COVID-19-related impacts.Source: National Transit Database. Trend extrapolated through April 2021 to estimate a full year of COVID-19-related impacts.

Source: National Transit Database. Trend extrapolated through April 2021 to estimate a full year of COVID-19-related impacts.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the pace of change and when, hopefully, the pandemic fades as a critical factor in travel behavior, then demographic, economic, and particularly technological changes are likely to leave us in a far more dynamic travel behavior environment than has persisted for the past three-quarters of a century. We have historically been content to use 30-year planning horizons for transit capital investment planning that were driven by often 10-year-old travel behavior models and data and relatively stable presumptions with respect to travel choices, capital and operating cost trends, propulsion system efficiency, and the spectrum of travel choices with which transit competes. Continued reliance on dated planning methods and pre-coronavirus data is fraught with risks as we plan the future.

The absence of easy solutions to the challenges facing public transportation—or the fact that these solutions may not be satisfying to all stakeholders—is not an excuse for policymakers to ignore the magnitude of the challenges facing public transportation.

The core goals of public transportation—providing mobility particularly for those without alternative means and capturing the economy of mass movement of people in markets where those conditions exist—remain important and widely held goals for transportation. Planners and policymakers must explore the full range of methods of accomplishing these objectives without preconceived commitments to status quo plans and strategies.

Full Policy Brief: Public Transportation Must Change After COVID-19 

The post Mass Transit Systems Face Critical Challenges Now and When COVID-19 Pandemic Is Over appeared first on Reason Foundation.