WA-RD 615.2 Travel Indicators and Trends in Washington...

WA-RD 615.2

Travel Indicators and Trendsin Washington State—Summary

byUrban Form Lab, Department of Urban Design and Planning

University of Washington

Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC)for

Washington State Department of TransportationProfessor Anne Vernez Moudon

Research Assistants D.W. Sohn and Gwen [email protected]

April 2005

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO.

WA-RD 615.2

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE

TRAVEL INDICATORS AND TRENDS IN WASHINGTON April 2005STATE—SUMMARY 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

Anne Vernez Moudon, Gwen Rousseau, D.W. Sohn

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.

Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC)University of Washington, Box 354802 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

University District Building; 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535 Agreement T2695, Task 65Seattle, Washington 98105-463112. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVEREDResearch OfficeWashington State Department of TransportationTransportation Building, MS 47372

Final Research Report—Summary

Olympia, Washington 98504-7372 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

Kathy Lindquist, Project Manager, 360-705-797615. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

This study was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal HighwayAdministration.16. ABSTRACT

This review of travel indicators in Washington State aims to understand similarities and differencesbetween the state and the nation and to detect changes or special conditions that need to be considered inthe future. The work is intended to support general transportation policies and future state-leveltransportation plans.

None of the travel indicators reviewed strongly suggests that travel conditions in the state stand outin the national context. Two factors are prime in their association with travel demand: household incomeand development density. Stagnant income explains why the demand for car travel has slowed over therecent past, yet future demand for car travel may increase if the economy improves. On the other hand,demand could remain stable if development density continues to increase.

Residential and population densities are positively associated with demand for modes other thansingle-occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. Living in more compact residential areas and in alternative housingtypes, and renting versus owning a home, also relate to lower demand for SOV travel.

Even at the aggregate level of national data, the Puget Sound region’s transportation context differsfrom that of rural or other urbanized regions in the state. State policies need to recognize at least threedifferent markets for transportation, which are found in rural, small town, and metropolitan areas.

Overall, Washington State needs to stay tuned to national projections about the likely impacts ontravel demand and transportation of general economic trends, the slow down in household formation,growth in car ownership among new immigrants, an aging population with changing driving patterns, andpopulation growth in densely populated areas --where transportation systems investments and land-usepolicies can affect future travel behavior.

17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENTTravel indicators; travel trends; socio-demographicfactors; land-use factors; Washington State No restrictions. This document is available to the

public through the National Technical InformationService, Springfield, VA 22616

19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this report) 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this page) 21. NO. OF PAGES 22. PRICE

None None

Washington StateTravel Trends 1980-2001

Contents

• How Different Are We? Washington State Versus the Nation

• PART I: Washington State 2001 Travel Indicators Related toDemographic Factors Land-Use Factors

• PART II: Trends 1980-2000 and Beyond

How Different Are We?Travel Indicators

Washington State Versus the NationNHTS 2001

Person Number of Biking trips Below average

Person Distance to WorkPerson Public Transit Use

Person Number of Walking trips

Household VMTHousehold Vehicle Count

Below average

Slightly below average

Slightly above average

Above average

Average

How Different Are We?Average VMT per Household

Low: New York—High: Alabama

1969321822

23955

27993

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

NY AL

Min WA Mean [nation] Max

1.33

2.011.89

2.23

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

NY UT

Min WA Mean [nation] Max

How Different Are We?Average Vehicle Count per Household

Low: New York—High: Utah

0.05

0.15

0.21

0.35

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

TX FL

Min WA Mean Max

How Different Are We?Average Number of Bicycle Trips

per Person per WeekLow: Texas—High: Florida

PART IWashington State

2001 Travel IndicatorsFrom the National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS 2001)

Demographic Factors Land-Use Factors

Washington State 2001 Travel IndicatorsDemographic Factors NHTS 2001

Average Household VMT

HH Income Home Ownership Life Cycle RacePlace of

Birth

VMT steadily increases with higher household incomes and peaks at $75,000

VMT is higher for households that own their own home than for household that rent.

VMT generally increases with the number of adults and with the presence of older children. Only couples with small children have lower VMT than couples without children.

Standard errors are high, yet non-white households may have lower VMT than white

na

21822

1836817649

24066

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Own Rent Provided by job or military


Average Household VMT by Home Ownership


Average Household Vehicle Count

HH Income Home Ownership Life Cycle Race Place of Birth

The number of vehicles owned per household steadily increases with higher household income and peaks at $75,000

Households that own their own home own a greater number of vehicles than those that rent.

The number of vehicles owned per household increases with the number of adults and the number of children over the age of 5.

Non-white households own fewer vehicles er household than white households.

Foreign born household respondents may travel shorter distances to work. However, large standard errors make these differences statistically insignificant.

7.129 .81

12 .16

15.5113 .15 12 .51

0

5

10

15

20

25

$0 -14999 $15,000 -29999

$30 ,000 -49999

$50 ,000 -74999

$75,000+


Average Person Distance to Work by Household Income


Average Number of Walk Trips per Person per Week

Income Home Ownership Life Cycle Race Place of Birth

No recognizable pattern

Those who own their homes appear to walk slightly less than those who rent

Standard errors are high, yet singles may walk more than couples except when their children are very young or between the ages of 16-21.

Standard errors are high, yet white households may make more walking trips than non-white households

Standard errors are high, yet US born households may make more walking trips than foreign born households


Average Person Distance to Work

HH Income Home Ownership Life Cycle Race Place of Birth

Distance to work increases with income and peaks at $50,000 to $75,000 range

Persons in households that own their home own work at distances 30% higher than those who rent

Distance to work increases with the number of adults in the household

Standard errors are high

Distance to work is 30% shorter for those who are foreign born than those born in the US


Average Number of Bicycle Trips per Person per Week

HH Income Home Ownership Life Cycle Race

Place of Birth

Standard errors are high

Standard errors are high, but those who own their home may bike more

Standard errors are high yet it appears singles may walk more than couples.

No recognizable pattern

na

Washington State 2001 Travel Indicators Land-Use Factors NHTS 2001

Average Household VMTHousing Unit

DensityPopulation

Density Home Type Urban/ Rural Size of MSA

VMT generally decreases with higher densities up to 5000 housing units per square mile

VMT generally decreases with higher densities up to 25,000 person per square mile

Households living in mobile and SF homes have highest VMT; those in town-homes or row houses have lower VMT, and those in apts and condos have the lowest VMT.

Households in rural areas have higher VMT than those in urban areas.

Not much difference between different sized MSAs, however VMT is greater for households living outside of MSAs

21024.7925410.52

21822.23

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Urban Rura l

Washington State 2001 Travel IndicatorsLand-Use Factors NHTS 2001

Average Household VMT by Urban or Rural Location


Average Household Vehicle CountHousing Unit

DensityPopulation

Density Home Type Urban/ Rural Size of MSAThe number of vehicles owned decreases with higher densities.

The number of vehicles owned gradually decreases with higher densities.

Households living in SF and mobile homes own a greater number of vehicles than those living in apts and condos. Standard errors are high, but households living in row houses and townhomes may own fewer vehicles

Households living in rural areas own a greater number of vehicles than those in urban areas.

Not much difference in vehicleownership between households living indifferent sized MSAs, nor between households living inside or outside of an MSA.

1.922.47

2.02

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Ur ban Rur al


Average Household Vehicle Count by Urban or Rural Location

2 .311.71 1.81

1.121.97 2 2 .02

0

0 .51

1.5

22 .5

3


Average Household Vehicle Count by Home Type

Det

ache

d si

ngle

hou

se

Dup

lex

Row

hou

se o

r to

wnh

ouse

Apa

rtmen

t, co

ndom

iniu

m

Mob

ile h

ome

or tr

aile

r

Oth

er


Average Person Distance to WorkHousing Unit Density Population Density Home Type Urban/ Rural Size of MSAStandard errors are high, but on average, households living at higher densities may travel shorter distances to work

Standard errors are high, but distance to work indicates interesting patterns. For instance, it remains almost constant at the lowest densities, increases at densities with 500 to 1000 people per sq. mile, and drops at densities greater than 1000 people per sq. mile. This same pattern occurs with distances increasing slightly at 10,000-25,000 people per sq. mile and then dropping considerably again at 25,000 people per sq. mile.

Standard errors are large, but households living in rowhouses and townhomes may have the shortest distances to work and households living in mobile homes the longest distance to work.

na Standards errors for the different sized MSAs are too large to draw any conclusion


Average Number of Walk Trips per Person per Week

Housing Unit Density Population Density Home TypeUrban/ Rural

Size of MSA

Standard errors are high, but the number of walking trips taken by people living in low density areas appears to be higher than those living in higher density areas until densities become very high, greater than 5000 housing units per sq. mile.

Standard errors are high, but, but the number of walking trips taken by people living in low density areas appears to be higher than those living in high density areas until densities become very high, greater than 10,000 people per sq. mile.

Large standard errors prevent conclusions to be drawn, however, a greater number of walking trips may be made by households living in rowhouses, townhouses and apartments than by households living in single-family and mobile homes.

na No recognizable pattern


Average Number of Bicycle Trips per Person per Week

Standard errors are too large to draw conclusions

PART IIWashington State

Trends 1980-2000 and Beyond From the Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) 1970-2000

Washington State Trends 1980-2000Travel Time to Work

• Commute trip is getting longer• Average commute trip in the Puget Sound has increased by

3.6 minutes from 1990 to 2000 (higher than 3.1-minute national average)

• The proportion of workers commuting “more than 45 minutes” has increased over time in all study areas.

• The proportion of workers working at home has increased over time in all study areas.

Washington State Trends 1980-2000Public Transportation in Travel to Work

o Nationwide, proportion of commute to work by public transportation has decreased over the two decades

o In Puget Sound, proportion of workers using public transportation is higher than the national average, while Spokane and statewide averages are lower.

o In Washington State, proportion of commute trips by public transportation reached their lowest point in 1990 but slightly increased by 2000.

o Increases in transit use 1990 –2000 in Puget Sound bring Washington State’s average to the same level as the national average, marking an increase in the use of transit in the state while the nation experienced a decrease.

Washington State Trends 1980-2000Percentage of Commuters Using

Public Transportation

HH VMT

HH Vehicle Count

P Distance to work

P Number of Walking trips

P Number of Biking trips

Below average

Slightly Below average

Below average

Above average

Slightly above average

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

1980 1990 2000

U.S.WAPuget SoundSpokane

ConclusionsWashington State

The Future

Washington State — The Future Car Ownership Versus VMT

• Washington State has car ownership rates that are higher than the nation’s average (2.01 vs. 1.89 per household), but this does NOT translate into VMTsthat are higher than the national average (21,800 vs. 24,000 miles per household per year)

Washington State — The FutureThe State Versus the Nation

• Washington travel indicators are not very different from those of the nation as a whole

• There are no “red” flags in travel and demographic trends that are specific to the state

Washington State —The FutureThe State Versus the Nation

A State Agenda• Stay tuned to national socio-economic projections • Monitor factors affecting travel demand:

– Income and wealth– New influx of immigrants– Changing distribution of young and old in population

• Monitor and influence land-use patterns as they affect travel demand– Growth will take place in metropolitan areas– Recognize that rural, small towns, and large metropolitan

areas have different transportation needs

Washington State — The Future Income and Density

• The consistently strong relationship of income and development density with travel (VMT and car ownership) may explain the leveling of demand for car travel in the early part of the 21st century, as reported by Todd Litman

• Future demand for travel will likely increase if the economy improves, but it could stay level if development density continues to increase.

Washington State — The Future Income and Development Density

Keeping Ahead of Demand for Travel

• Monitor increases in income and wealth to identify future growth in travel demand

• Work with growth management laws and programs to keep track of metropolitan growth and land development patterns.

Washington State — The Future New Influx of Immigrants

From Pisarski 2002

• Nationwide, immigrants gain access to automobile ownership more rapidly than in the past

• Increases in the number of immigrants may increase demand for automobile travel faster than anticipated

Washington State — The FutureForeign-Born Population

7.4%6.2%

7.0%

3.8%

7.9%6.6%

7.6%

3.3%

11.1%10.4%

12.1%

4.5%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

U.S

.

WA

Pug

etS

ound

Spo

kane

U.S

.

WA

Pug

etS

ound

Spo

kane

U.S

.

WA

Pug

etS

ound

Spo

kane

1980 1990 2000

Washington State — The Future An Aging Population

From Litman, VTPI 2005

• Older adults (>64 years) tend to drive less than their younger counterparts

• Demand for automobile travel may decrease or stop increasing as the population ages

Washington State — The Future Population Distribution by Age

19.9% 19.4% 18.6% 20.4% 18.2% 18.4% 17.3% 19.0% 18.9% 19.0% 18.1% 19.0%

59.0% 60.2% 61.3% 59.9% 61.9% 62.3% 64.5% 60.4% 61.9% 63.2% 65.2% 61.9%

10.4% 9.7% 9.5% 11.5% 12.5% 11.8% 10.7% 13.2% 12.4% 11.2% 10.2% 12.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

U.S

.

WA

Pug

etS

ound

Spo

kane

U.S

.

WA

Pug

etS

ound

Spo

kane

U.S

.

WA

Pug

etS

ound

Spo

kane

1980 1990 2000

Persons 65+Persons 18-64Persons 5-17

Washington State — The FutureLocation-Specific Demand for TravelOne Size Does NOT Fit All

• Travel indicators differ by location• Future policies need to separately address

rural/urban and Spokane/Puget Sound demand for travel

WA-RD 615.2 Travel Indicators and Trends in Washington...

Documents

Transcript of WA-RD 615.2 Travel Indicators and Trends in Washington...