US DOT keeps overestimating future Vehicles Miles Traveled

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Thanks for this, Charlie. As a member of the Baby-boom generation, everywhere I look, I see trends that could be interpreted as Boomers getting older. Less consumption, less commuting, less of everything! I know there are other factors as well: their charts make it obvious that recessions play a large part. But if we aren't in a recession now (or are they lying about that?), the aging of the population bulge probably has something to do with it. Here's a quote that seems to support that:

According to Census Bureau data on gasoline sales (courtesy of Harry Dent's research on demand curves), dollars spent on gasoline peaks for people in their late 40s and falls off rather quickly after that.
Click to expand...
The author obviously agrees with me, and says unemployment and electronic communications have a lot to do with it too. But still, only back to December '94 as a population-adjusted figure... we're still driving way too much, given the resources available to support the habit.
 
One thing that might be fun to see thrown in there: The impact of increasing fuel efficiency. I know there are plenty of DOTs dealing with that number, but I'd be curious to see just how hard taxable fuel sales are sliding.

Edit: On the other end of things, to control for changing population patterns, I think it might be worthwhile to look at a model that somehow "downweights" the population over 65/85. That might have some interesting predictive power...in no small part because a lot of people will be moving into those categories, but also because it would help control for employment/retirement. Another control might be to adjust for the share of the population over (16/18/21/25) that is employed. If people aren't driving because they're not working (retired or otherwise), that's a lot different than a voluntary change in behavior (and consequently something likely to change if the economy ever picks up).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are some interesting statistics on the EIA's website. Of course, gasoline refined is not miles driven, but it does relate to both driving habits and overall consumption of goods. Hubby forwarded me an interesting discussion, that used the charts from the EIA (as well as other sources). I always like to go to the original source.

Trying to figure out how some of the different factors could explain that much of a drop in consumption:

  • fewer miles driven (for whatever reason)
  • increased fuel efficiency
  • less consumption of goods that must be delivered to retail outlets
  • eelctronic communication leading to less need for physical delivery
Other reasons?
 
This is sort of related. I wonder what this will mean for freight railroads that depend heavily on oil and coal shipments.

Barclays just downgraded the entire electric utility sector to Underweight in the US high-grade corporate bond market.

Why? Because the industry has long-term challenges from solar energy but they aren't priced in, reports Michael Aneiro in a Barron's blog. Since utilities comprise about 7.5% of Barclays' U.S. Corporate Index by market value, this is pretty significant, he says.
Click to expand...
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25736
 
Probably a lot less than is being made out of it. The main issue at present is not so much the per-unit cost of the electricity, but the cost of installation (which can easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars). Of course, you're also talking to someone who ran discount calculations on the cost of law school when deciding not to attend...
 
As someone who has lived off-grid with solar for the last 25 years (and knows how reliable it is), I am surprised and pleased that an institution like Barclay's regards it is a significant factor in planning, one which utilities *should* take into account!
 
Anderson said:
Probably a lot less than is being made out of it. The main issue at present is not so much the per-unit cost of the electricity, but the cost of installation (which can easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars). Of course, you're also talking to someone who ran discount calculations on the cost of law school when deciding not to attend...
Click to expand...
The cost of solar power panels and systems have dropped significantly over the past 10 years. When the Chinese entered the market a few years ago, the cost of the panels plunged and really undercut the US and Japanese manufacturers. There is still a significant upfront cost, but solar power for the home is getting competitive in some markets for grid-tied systems if you amortize the cost over so many years. I can see why Barclay's is taking the changing marketplace for solar power systems into account in their market forecasts. But this is getting well off-topics from Vehicles Mile Traveled predictions by the US and state Department of Transportations.
 
Another report on declining VMT per capita found by the Streetsblog site. This one is from the Frontier Group: Declining Per-Capita VMT: A Broad-Based Trend. This one is interesting because it has VMT per capita charted for 5 regions of the US going back to 2004: Northeast, South Atlantic, South Gulf, South Central, West. Not a surprise that the NE has the lowest VMT per capita, but the difference between the NE and the highest, the South Gulf, is larger than I would have guessed.

The charts shows that VMT/capita is still below the 2005-2006 peak for all 5 regions, with a large drop for the South Atlantic while the South Gulf is ticking up the past several years. Excerpt:

In prior work, Frontier Group research has demonstrated that the decline in per-capita driving over the last decade is a broad-based trend taking place in a variety of states and metropolitan areas across the United States. As the economy continues to recover, it is worth checking in on trends in per-capita VMT, using monthly traffic data for 2013 and population data from the Census Bureau.

The monthly data confirm that the trend toward lower per-capita driving remains broad based. While the South Atlantic region has seen the greatest decrease in VMT per capita since 2004, all five regions saw declines. Furthermore, only one region, the South Gulf, has had a meaningful uptick in per capita VMT data in the last few years as each of the other four regions saw driving either flatline or decrease in this same time period.

The Federal Highway Administration divides the U.S. into five regionsthe Northeast,[1] the South Atlantic,[2] the North Central,[3] the South Gulf,[4] and the West.[5] Since 2004, the South Atlantic region saw the largest decrease in VMT per capita, declining 8 percent relative to 2004. The West saw the second largest decrease in VMT per capita at 7.7 percent, followed by the Northeast at 7.4 percent, the South Gulf at 5.6 percent, and finally the North Central at 4.3 percent.
Click to expand...
 
FHWA Gleefully Declares That Driving Is Up, Calls for More Highway Spending



Despite the rhetoric, FHWA’s own charts show that driving is hardly bouncing back to peak levels — even if you’re just looking at total miles-driven. Chart: FHWA
Well, so much for the predictions thatchanging preferences and new technologieswill lead to a car-free utopia. The Federal Highway Administration announced last week that after nine years of steady decline, vehicle-miles-traveled in the U.S. was 1.4 percent higher this June than last June. Apparently, red-blooded Americans everywhere are finally getting back to their Hummer habit after a few years of diminished driving and rising transit ridership and bike commuting.

Except one thing: Driving is still way down from peak levels. While the FHWA’s press release trumpets that “American driving between July 2013 and June 2014 is at levels not seen since 2008″ — adding, alarmingly, a call for “greater investment in highways” — that’s not the whole story. Yes, the total driving rate now approximates where it stood in 2008, when VMT was in freefall. But it’s still way down from the peak — 3.05 trillion miles — in 2007.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah - someone appears to be confused between vehicle-miles which would be proportional to both the number of vehicles and number of miles, and something like miles per vehicle, which would be proportional to the miles and inversely proportional to the number of vehicles.

Now then if people get rid of one vehicle and drive the other vehicle more that they had driven the two vehicles together for some odd reason..... Naah!
 
jis said:
Yeah - someone appears to be confused between vehicle-miles which would be proportional to both the number of vehicles and number of miles, and something like miles per vehicle, which would be proportional to the miles and inversely proportional to the number of vehicles.

Now then if people get rid of one vehicle and drive the other vehicle more that they had driven the two vehicles together for some odd reason..... Naah!
Click to expand...
You're right, I saw that and for some reason my brain saw "miles per vehicle", not total miles driven in vehicles (which on a second read, I saw was what they were talking about).
 
We need more highway spending in this country. The condition of roads is just appalling. We don't need any more roads, but we need to maintain the ones we have. Which we are to doing.
 
I wholeheartedly agree with GML. I don't see rail vs. roads as an either/or (exclusive) proposition, and I know many of my more ardent single minded rail partisan friends hate me for saying so. A joint rational planning of a transport network using the right mode for the right situation is what is needed, not partisan warfare.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
HIGHWAY BOONDOGGLESWasted Money and America’s Transportation Future

RELEASED BY: U.S. PIRG EDUCATION FUND
RELEASE DATE: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

> READ NEWS RELEASE
> DOWNLOAD REPORT (PDF)


Americans drive no more in total now than we did in 2005, and no more on average than we did at the end of Bill Clinton’s first term as president. The recent stagnation in driving comes on the heels of a six decade-long Driving Boom that saw steady, rapid increases in driving and congestion across the United States, along with the investment of more than $1 trillion of public money in highways.

But even though the Driving Boom is now over, state and federal governments continue to pour vast sums of money into the construction of new highways and expansion of old ones – at the expense of urgent needs such as road and bridge repairs, improvements in public transportation and other transportation priorities.

Eleven proposed highway projects across the country – slated to cost at least $13 billion – exemplify the need for a fresh approach to transportation spending....

Questionable projects poised to absorb billions of scarce transportation dollars include:

  • Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct, Washington, $3.1 billion to $4.1 billion – A cheaper transit-based alternative to an expensive highway tunnel has already been put in place as a stopgap during the much-delayed tunneling project. The stopgap’s successes could be built upon in order to achieve nearly all the same goals as the tunnel project for far less money.
Click to expand...
 
Much of the reason we associate driving with freedom and control is because we build communities and create a culture where cars are a requirement for mobility. Because of this, kids can’t wait to drive; they want to stop being dependent and beholden and get around on their own.

What if Rebecca had grown up with a bicycle and safe, dedicated paths to ride on? What if there was a frequent, reliable, free (!) transit system in her town? What if she had been given the freedom to get around without her parents before she was old enough to drive? What if there were more constraints on where and how fast cars could travel?
Click to expand...
When “growing up” = getting behind the wheel
 
Washington State Traffic Forecast Finally Recognizes Reality

Washington-State-Transportation-Revenue-Forecast-Council-Peak-Traffic.png
 
Just looking back at the FHWA's bit from last month, the only thing I can say in their defense is that there is a need to spend money...on fixing existing infrastructure.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top