5. THE RESULT: MORE CARS PER HOUSEHOLD
AND MORE DRIVING PER PERSON
WHAT BEGAN AS A CHOICE BECAME A NECESSITY
6. Driving In the United States, 1970 to 2004
(Billions of Miles Per Year)
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
7. Driving In the United States, 1970 to 2004
(Billions of Miles Per Year)
3,500
3,000
2,500 Average of 2.5%
Growth Per Year
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
8. ONE RESULT OF BUILDING THE
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Construction: 45 Years (1956-2001)
Length: 47,000 miles (75,000 km)
Cost: $500 billion (2010 Dollars)
9. Rural Highways – “Inter-State” Urban Highways
50 Percent of Funds 50 Percent of Funds
16. A GROWING PROBLEM:
Return on investment for spending on surface
transportation has been declining -- law of
diminishing returns
17. Driving In the United States, 1970 to 2004
(Billions of Miles Per Year)
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
18. Driving In the United States, 1970 to 2012
(Billions of Miles Per Year)
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
19. Driving In the United States, 1970 to 2012
(Billions of Miles Per Year)
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000 No growth
2004 to 2012
1,500 – 8 Years
1,000 Decline Began in 2007, Before
Financial Crisis of 2008-09
500
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
21. Driving Per Person, 1985- 2011
US GDP grew 8 percent during
this period while driving per
person fell 6 percent
22. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DRIVING, 1999 - 2011
(GDP in constant 2005 Dollars, VMT in miles driven, 1999 = 100)
130%
120%
110%
100%
GDP (2005 Dollars)
Miles Driven
90%
80%
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
23. UNTIL 2004 A GROWING ECONOMY = MORE DRIVING
NOW THE ECONOMY CAN GROW WITHOUT MORE DRIVING
25 Ratio of Growth in GDP to Growth in Driving
(5-Year Average) 1985 - 2008
20
15
10
5
0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
24.
25.
26. MORE BICYCLE LANES ARE BEING BUILT
Miles of Protected Bikeway Per 100,000 Residents,
9 U.S. Cities, 2000 and 2010
Average Increase of 74% Over
10 Years In These 9 Cities
32. IDEAS FOR CONSIDERATION
1: COST
• Transportation is a cost of doing business –
cheaper is better
• Transportation policy emphasizing public
transportation has high cost for government but
low cost for families.
• Transportation policy emphasizing the car has high
cost for both government and families
• A system build around public transportation has
lower total costs
• Difference can be as much as 8% of GDP
33. IDEAS FOR CONSIDERATION
2: CITY PLANNING, LARGE SCALE
• Public transportation is very effective in serving a
well-planned city
• This requires directing new jobs and housing to
land served by Metro lines
• Un-coordinated urban development is very hard to
serve with even the best public transportation
system
• City must learn to say no to development that
cannot be served by public transportation
• Mixing uses is key – jobs and housing in separate
areas requires more trips and longer trips
34. IDEAS FOR CONSIDERATION
3: CITY PLANNING: SMALL SCALE
• People using public transportation must get to
and from stations -- walking and cycling.
• For public transportation to work the city must
be built for walking and cycling
• Super-blocks are the worst kind of design for
walking and cycling
• Small things add up: parking policy, bike
sharing, car sharing, traffic signal priority for
buses
35. IDEAS FOR CONSIDERATION
4: THE POWER OF THE BUS
• Beijing (other Chinese cities?) have wide streets
• Changan Jie – 14 lanes?
• There is room to create bus-only lanes, the key to good
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
• One expressway lane dedicated to buses in the peak hour
has similar theoretical capacity as a new metro
– (800 buses per hour, 65 people per bus = 52,000 people per hour
for BRT; Metro capacity can reach 60,000 per hour)
• Cost is MUCH lower, can be implemented much more
quickly
• Single BRT lines do not meet their potential until they are
part of a connected network
36. CONCLUSIONS
• Recent US experience shows that the
economy can grow even as car use falls
• Cities do not need to fear measures to reduce
car use if they do it thoughtfully
• Solving transportation in mega-cities is not
possible without addressing land use and
property development