Driving Is About to Explode

Per capita driving in the United States grew from 1 mile per year in 1900 to more than 10,000 miles per year in 2006. During that time, it grew in almost every year except for a few recession years (1932, 1933, 1938, 1974, 1979, and 1980) and two years of World War II (1942 and 1943).

In 2007, however, growth flattened and after that per capita driving fell below 9,400 miles per year. Some have argued that this is evidence that Americans are turning away from cars and to transit, cycling, and walking. Others say that the decline can be completely explained by the recession; although the financial crisis took place in 2008, the housing bubble that led to that crisis actually began collapsing in 2006.

The latest traffic data from the Federal Highway Administration suggests that people are picking up where they left off in 2006. Total miles of driving in the first quarter of 2015 set a new record and was nearly 4 percent greater than the same period in 2014. The Census Bureau estimates that the population is growing at less than 1 percent per year, so per capita driving is once again growing.

Historically, the growth in per capita driving was attributed to increasing car ownership and increasing numbers of women in the workplace. some people think these markets are nearly saturated and so don’t expect per capita driving to grow much more. Recent growth seems to be due to falling fuel prices and increasing employment, but if fuel prices level out and unemployment rates fall from the current 5.4 percent to 2 or 3 percent, those factors will be saturated as well.
This best selling antibiotic drug has been discovered as an ideal treatment for infections in respiratory tract, skin and ear infections and could viagra order shop effectively treat the sexually transmitted diseases. Smaller generic cialis canadian rings are likely designed to be worn only on the shaft or head of the penis. Indigestion could be supplementprofessors.com india tadalafil tablets a symptom or a result of a currently occurring disease. You can look out for Kamagra tablets and Eriacta tablets online. viagra without prescription free
On the other hand, self-driving cars will open up driving to many people who now can’t drive. If, as Uber promises, it turns out to be less expensive to car-share self-driven cars, then car ownership rates may decline but driving will grow.

One implication of growing driving rates is that congestion will again increase. “Increased gridlock nationwide can be expected unless changes are made in the near-term,” warns the Federal Highway Administration. The use of self-driving cars could offset much of that congestion in the long run, but in the short run cities should take steps that will actually relieve congestion, not just provide a handful of people an alternative to congestion.

Another number to watch is highway fatalities. These dramatically declined after 2006, when 43,700 people were killed. By 2010, the number had fallen below 33,000. Did auto safety measures suddenly make a difference or was the decline due to the reduction in driving? If the latter, will we see fatalities grow this year, or will safer cars offset the increase in congestion-related accidents?

We can debate the future of driving and its implications for where we should spend transportation dollars. In the face of uncertainty, however, the better solution is to create a system that automatically insures that dollars are spent where they are needed most. This means shifting from gas taxes to mileage-based user fees and funding all modes of transport out of their own revenues. This will give the managers of highways, transit systems, and other transport facilities incentives to respond to user needs rather than to the political fads of the day.

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

19 Responses to Driving Is About to Explode

  1. Fred_Z says:

    “This means shifting from gas taxes to mileage-based user fees and funding all modes of transport out of their own revenues.” Who is they?

    “This will give the managers of highways, transit systems, and other transport facilities incentives to respond to user needs rather than to the political fads of the day.” This is a joke, but not a funny one. So long as these managers are civil servants the ONLY incentives to which they will respond are aggrandizing their income, stature and perquisites and the political fads of the day. Has the entire history of the civil service taught you nothing? Do you not style yourself the Antiplanner?

    The real job is to figure out how to eliminate the present evils of the civil service. The only idea I have ever been able to come up with is term limits. 10 years as a civil servant and you may never work or consult for any level of government ever again. Once you do that transportation funding will sort itself out very nicely.

  2. sprawl says:

    I just moved in to the inner city and was reading how the area had a a lot of residents that were car free. I lived here 30 years ago, in the same neighborhood and infill and higher density units have not been added. The streets are full of parked cars all the time. Thirty years ago in the evenings and weekends, the streets were pretty much empty of parked cars.
    My conclusion is we may have car free residents, but most residents that own cars, have more cars per resident.
    I did notice the banks in the area are no longer a traffic jam on Mondays and Fridays, maybe because of drive through ATMs, cash card and credit cards. Our neighborhood bank use to have cars lined up for a block.

  3. msetty says:

    A few comments about The Antplanner’s prognostications. First, predicting the future is always dodgy.

    A recent “surge” in traffic growth over a few months isn’t a trend, particularly when gasoline prices have dropped 35%-40% compared to the previous year. The economy is also improving with more than 3 million new jobs compared to the year before, which also explains part of the “surge.”

    It will be interesting to see what happens to these trends when the Saudis decide they’ve lost too much revenue in their ultimately futile fight to undermine new U.S. oil production in the Bakken and elsewhere.

  4. Ohai says:

    This means shifting from gas taxes to mileage-based user fees and funding all modes of transport out of their own revenues.

    Making users actually pay for the cost of the roads will make driving implode rather than explode.

  5. CapitalistRoader says:

    @Ohai:

    Making users actually pay for the cost of the roads will make driving implode rather than explode.

    From the link:

    It’s also high time to enact a per-mile fee that can be adjusted for the types of transportation costs we’d like to capture—emissions, congestion, construction, maintenance, transit equity, and so on. There’s nothing for a dose of reality like an itemized monthly bill.

    Hell yeah! I’d love to see light-and heavy-rail riders pay for the entire capital and operation costs of their train rides. Great idea, except for the ridiculous transit equity doublespeak.

  6. MJ says:

    Making users actually pay for the cost of the roads will make driving implode rather than explode.

    You and the Citylab kiddies should be careful what they wish for. Remember, replacing funding sources like property taxes for local roads will require offsetting reductions in property taxes now that they no longer serve this purpose. In other words, unless this is not just another bid to ratchet up government spending, the ‘price effect’ of the new user taxes/fees will (or at least should) be offset by an ‘income effect’ since the ‘non-users’ are no longer paying. Of course it makes little sense for only drivers to pay for local roads anyway since they aren’t the only users. I wonder if their idea of user fee financing also applies to bikes, buses and trains? Also, they divert road user charges to non-transportation program

    Of course the ‘road subsidy’ straw man was just pretense for arguing for…wait for it…full non-user financing! Because roads not being entirely financed out of variable-cost user charges is a big problem, one that can only be solved by….making sure nobody is subject to variable-cost user charges. Seriously, this is the argument.

    And it is supported by a claim of “look how well the Europeans are doing”. Except they aren’t. They enjoy considerably longer average commutes than most Americans and face terrible congestion on intercity roadways due to their policy of using railways for passenger travel, forcing more freight onto the highways. Apparently also worth celebrating is the fact that not only are road users in Europe treated as a cash cow for other types of passenger travel, they are also treated like a cash cow for non-transportation-related programs. I’ll bet they even have ‘crumbling infrastructure’ of their own. Now there’s a policy to emulate.

  7. Not Sure says:

    “the ‘price effect’ of the new user taxes/fees will (or at least should) be offset by an ‘income effect’ since the ‘non-users’ are no longer paying.”

    Do the “non-users” expect the police to use local roads to come when they call about a break-in? Or the fire department, when their house is on fire?

    If so, are they really “non-users”?

  8. ahwr says:

    @Not Sure. General tax revenue to cops etc…can be increased so the police can be billed per mile same as everybody else. Just because everybody benefits from a public asset doesn’t mean they all benefit equally. Why shouldn’t cost to build and maintain infrastructure be tied to usage? Libertarians generally support moving away from flat fee utilities like water, power etc…Why not do the same for roads? If a road was only used for the occasional delivery vehicle and emergency services you would need a lot less pavement, and a lot less land off the property tax rolls. Or instead of pavement and an inhospitable public space it could be a pleasant place to spend time. Not so when you have cars driving by frequently at high speeds. Maybe it would make sense to take 80% of the share of property taxes devoted to roads and reduce property taxes by that much (or if it’s one of the many municipalities that is taking on debt because it isn’t bringing in enough revenue then use the money to reduce the deficit) and fund the rest of the cost of the roads out of mileage based user fees, even if a lightly used road ends up costing several dollars a mile to drive on.

  9. Not Sure says:

    “If a road was only used for the occasional delivery vehicle and emergency services you would need a lot less pavement…

    Less pavement? Why would that be? Smaller vehicles, or what?

  10. Frank says:

    You would need less pavement because turning lanes wouldn’t be necessary. Street parking would be eliminated.

    However, roads already exist, so how this would change the amount of pavement that currently exists needs explaining.

    The biggest point ahwr is missing is that not everyone lives in the city, but people in rural areas need access to the city. Are they supposed to park their car on the far edge of the city (say Troutdale for someone visiting PDX from the Gorge) and then what? Hop on a delivery truck or emergency vehicle? What if they are visiting their friend in a neighborhood? Transit on the major road, and walk along an empty arterial to and down neighborhood roads?

    “Or instead of pavement and an inhospitable public space it could be a pleasant place to spend time. Not so when you have cars driving by frequently at high speeds.”

    Roads were never meant to be a “pleasant place to spend time.” Children should not play in roads and people should not walk in them. There are sidewalks, lawns, and parks. Roads are necessary for the free movement of the people.

  11. ahwr says:

    Streets were always about more than transportation before cars. They should again serve those other purposes.

    http://www.pps.org/reference/streets-as-places-how-transportation-can-create-a-sense-of-community/

    Pavement doesn’t last forever. and doesn’t need to be maintained, at least not to the same quality, if you have a bench, pop up shop, food cart, or permanent structure set up on it. Or replaced with bioswales to cut down on the need for expanded sewer facilities. But the effect would be greater in greenfield developments. If the city spent more than needed so it can accommodate cars, and continues to accommodate cars, then car drivers should cover the cost, both direct and lost opportunities.

    If someone from the gorge wants to drive into the city they have no reason to expect that to be free or cheap, or sped up by accommodating their trip at the expense of other city priorities. The readers of this site seem absolutely baffled that poor people whose only mobility option is to take a subsidized and necessarily inefficient transit vehicle don’t pay the cost of operations and find it almost repulsive when a city or transit agency spends a pittance to make the time in transit less miserable yet expect driving to be cheap and fast at all times, no matter the cost to others, direct or opportunity.

  12. metrosucks says:

    and find it almost repulsive when a city or transit agency spends a pittance to make the time in transit less miserable

    Oh, you must mean like the $200 million a mile being spent on the PMLR light rail line?

    yet expect driving to be cheap and fast at all times, no matter the cost to others, direct or opportunity.

    Since most people are using freely cars, it is reasonable to expect that the majority of infrastructure be developed around that. Only a planner who finds cars & mobility personally repellent would see some urgent need to reshape society around his favored form of transportation.

  13. msetty says:

    Someone that shall remain unnamed said:
    Since most people are using freely cars, it is reasonable to expect that the majority of infrastructure be developed around that. Only a planner who finds cars & mobility personally repellent would see some urgent need to reshape society around his favored form of transportation.

    You mean the way the auto and oil industry paid for the “hostile takeover” of city streets in the 1920’s when driving was neither the dominant form of urban transportation at the time, nor was it particularly popular at the time due, well, at least until the auto/oil industry propaganda started to work with the “jaywalking” shibboleth and similar gambits with the goal of “taking over” the streets. See Fighting Traffic for the seminal history of this transition.

    Straw man and vox populi arguments mixed together.

  14. msetty says:

    MJ said:
    …And it is supported by a claim of “look how well the Europeans are doing”. Except they aren’t. They enjoy considerably longer average commutes than most Americans and face terrible congestion on intercity roadways due to their policy of using railways for passenger travel, forcing more freight onto the highways. Apparently also worth celebrating is the fact that not only are road users in Europe treated as a cash cow for other types of passenger travel, they are also treated like a cash cow for non-transportation-related programs. I’ll bet they even have ‘crumbling infrastructure’ of their own. Now there’s a policy to emulate.

    Please provide some links to provide evidence for these assertions.

    I have never heard of any European “infrastructure crisis” thanks partly to the high gasoline taxes in Europe–which BTW are due historically to the relative lack of oil on that continent and efforts decades ago to limit costly imports when they weren’t nearly as rich as they are now. According to this “Modern Marvels” documentary about the autobahns in Germany, for example, those expressways are built to much more exacting standards than Interstates and other U.S. superhighways.

    I also recall reading something about an effort a few decades ago to insert a requirement for construction warranties of highways into a federal transportation bill, but that effort was successfully blocked by the Road Gang in Washington, D.C.

  15. msetty says:

    MJ also said:
    Of course the ‘road subsidy’ straw man was just pretense for arguing for…wait for it…full non-user financing! Because roads not being entirely financed out of variable-cost user charges is a big problem, one that can only be solved by….making sure nobody is subject to variable-cost user charges. Seriously, this is the argument.

    Your point is accurate if you stick to the very limiting “user fees must be used only for roads” fetish. But it is also an omissions fallacy. A central part of the argument was that the “user fees” principle was too simplistic, partly because this idea is part of the “free market” worship fetish (the market mechanism is a “social force” like gravity is a physical force, but neither warrant being fetishes like the former is with too many people in this society) but also because every transportation mode has huge positive, and negative, externalities that go way beyond user fees, whether gasoline taxes or rail and bus fares. Though not mentioned directly, also that since driving is claimed to provide huge benefits to individuals,

    Here is the money quote [emphasis added], not from Citylab, but http://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/who-pays-roads:

    …Americans lead increasingly multi-modal lives. Most are not “drivers” or “non-drivers” but people who use a variety of modes and pay for transportation in a variety of ways.

    Roughly two-thirds of American drivers also bicycle, walk or use public transit during the course of a given week, with young people more likely to be multimodal than older generations.

    Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe it is appropriate to use gasoline tax revenue to support public transportation. And several recent opinion polls suggest that Americans believe that the nation should give greater priority to transit, bicycling and walking in transportation spending.

    Solving the transportation funding crisis may or may not require higher gas taxes. It certainly requires policy-makers to use fresh thinking. They can begin by taking three steps:

    1) Recognize the reality that all Americans now bear the cost of roads by making transportation policy choices based on which investments deliver the most benefits for the public, regardless of mode. The needs of Americans who mainly ride transit, bicycle, walk or use other transportation services should bear no less weight than the needs of automobiles in transportation decision-making.

    2) Treat revenue sources and investment decisions as separate. Transportation agencies have often prioritized new highways of dubious merit over pressing maintenance and repair projects, as well as important investments in transit and other modes of transportation. By subjecting all transportation spending to rigorous evaluation and prioritization – regardless of the source of revenue – public officials can ensure that taxpayer money is spent most effectively.

    3) Move toward a sensible pricing system for transportation. Taxes on drivers have been seen primarily as a way to raise money for transportation. But they can fill a more important purpose by being used to recoup some of the costs drivers impose on society and improve the efficiency of the transportation system. Congestion pricing, parking pricing, pollution-based charges and similar charges can encourage transportation choices that deliver the greatest benefits to or impose the least costs on society – even if every penny of revenue from those fees is returned to taxpayers or used for purposes other than transportation.

  16. CapitalistRoader says:

    Streets were always about more than transportation before cars. They should again serve those other purposes.

    Like the streets in the progressive and enlightened DPRK. Note the dearth of motorized vehicles and the happy children. It really is paradise.

  17. Roundabout says:

    All this anti smart growth anti automobile rah rah train is much deeper and more sinister than just a dispute over the best way to spend public dollars. It is interesting to see people on the left waking up to the global elite’s agenda to destroy our constitution, sovereignty, wealth, rights, and freedom. Agenda 21 is not predicting the future; it is targeting it to dictate and control it and they have an army of useful idiots to help them.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkgGxt7A4sM

  18. Roundabout says:

    For more on Agenda 21, fast forward to 1:20 on the program –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP8yfhvIjCE

  19. c6h6r6s says:

    But we have less of a reason to drive anywhere than ever before. In the 1980s, my parents spent much of their evenings and weekends running errands that I NEVER run. I pay my bills online, stream or download all multimedia entertainment, and have most physical items delivered. The only errand I have to run is groceries, and I probably could eliminate that too if I wanted to. I’ll usually bike to work, and to meet up with friends at bars or restaurants, I’ll either use Car2Go or Uber (if I don’t bike). If one doesn’t telecommute, there is no longer a need to go anywhere to satisfy one’s daily needs. Obviously, most of us will want to leave our house for recreational reasons, but the need to go anywhere at all has been greatly reduced.

Leave a Reply