El Transporte y la Nueva Generación en Estados Unidos. ¿Por qué la gente joven está manejando el auto menos?

7/29/2019 El Transporte y la Nueva Generacin en Estados Unidos. Por qu la gente joven est manejando el auto menos?

1/41

Transportation andthe New Generation

Why Young People Are Driving Lessand What It Means for Transportation Policy


2/41

Transportation andthe New Generation

Why Young People Are Driving Less

and What It Means for Transportation Policy

Frontier Group

U.S. PIRG Education Fund

Benjamin Davis and Tony Dutzik,

Frontier GroupPhineas Baxandall,

U.S. PIRG Education Fund

April 2012


3/41

The authors would like to thank the ollowing individuals or providing analysis, editorialassistance, and review or this report: David Burwell, Carnegie Endowment or Interna-tional Peace; Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute; Adie Tomer, Brookings

Institution; and Clark Williams-Derry, Sightline Institute. A special thanks is extended toJordan Schneider at Frontier Group or her editorial assistance.

The authors bear any responsibility or actual errors. The views expressed in this reportare those o the authors and do not necessarily reect the views o those who providedreview.

Copyright 2012 Frontier Group

Frontier Group conducts research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier andmore democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate inormation and compellingideas into public policy debates at the local, state and ederal levels. For more inormation

about Frontier Group, please visit our website at www.rontiergroup.org.

With public debate around important issues oten dominated by special interests pursuingtheir own narrow agendas, U.S. PIRG Education Fund oers an independent voice thatworks on behal o the public interest. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organiza-tion, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate prob-lems, crat solutions, educate the public, and oer Americans meaningul opportunities orcivic participation. For more inormation, please visit our website at uspirgedund.org.

Cover Photo Credit: Regional Transit System (RTS) or the City o Gainesville, FloridaDesign and Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design

Acknowledgments


4/41

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 5

The Trends: Todays Youth Drive Less andUse Transportation Alternatives More 7Todays Youth Drive Less 7

Todays Youth Increasingly Use Transportation Alternatives 9

Todays Youth Avoid or Postpone Buying Cars and Acquiring Drivers Licenses 10

Americans Move to More Urban Areas with More Transportation Alternatives 11

Young Peoples Priorities and Preferences Are

Leading Them to Drive Less 14Young People Choose to Replace Driving with Alternative Transportation 14Young People Want to Live in Places with Transportation Alternatives 14

The Trend Toward Reduced Driving AmongYoung People Is Likely to Persist 19Communication Technology Substitutes for Driving and Supports 19Alternative Transportation

Drivers License Restrictions Postpone Young People from Obtaining Licenses 22

Increased Fuel Prices Push People to Cheaper Transportation Alternatives 23

Some Young People Reduce Their Driving to Protect the Environment 24

The Trend Toward Reduced Growth in Driving Will Likely Persist Even 24When the Economy Rebounds

Implications for Transportation Policy 27

Notes 29


5/41


6/41

Executive Summary

From World War II until just a ewyears ago, the number o miles drivenannually on Americas roads steadily

increased. Then, at the turn o the cen-tury, something changed: Americans be-gan driving less. By 2011, the average

American was driving 6 percent ewermiles per year than in 2004. (See FigureES-1.)

The trend away rom driving has been

led by young people. From 2001 to 2009,the average annual number o vehicle-miles traveled by young people (16 to34-year-olds) decreased rom 10,300miles to 7,900 miles per capitaa dropo 23 percent. The trend away romsteady growth in driving is likely to belong-lastingeven once the economy re-covers. Young people are driving less ora host o reasonshigher gas prices, newlicensing laws, improvements in technolo-gy that support alternative transportation,

and changes in Generation Ys values andpreerencesall actors that are likely tohave an impact or years to come.

Federal and local governments have his-torically made massive investments in newhighway capacity on the assumption thatdriving will continue to increase at a rapid

and steady pace. The changing transpor-tation preerences o young peopleandAmericans overallthrow those assump-tions into doubt. The time has come ortransportation policy to reect the needsand desires o todays Americansnot theworn-out conventional wisdom rom daysgone by.

Figure ES-1: Vehicle-Miles Traveled Per Capita Peaked in 2004

Executive Summary 1


7/41

Americas young people are decreasing

the amount they drive and increasing

their use of transportation alternatives.

According to the National House-hold Travel Survey, rom 2001 to

2009, the annual number o vehicle-miles traveled by young people (16 to34-year-olds) decreased rom 10,300miles to 7,900 miles per capitaadrop o 23 percent.

In 2009, 16 to 34-year-olds as awhole took 24 percent more biketrips than they took in 2001, despitethe age group actually shrinking insize by 2 percent.

In 2009, 16 to 34-year-olds walkedto destinations 16 percent morerequently than did 16 to 34-year-olds living in 2001.

From 2001 to 2009, the numbero passenger-miles traveled by 16to 34-year-olds on public transitincreased by 40 percent.

According to Federal Highway

Administration, rom 2000 to 2010,the share o 14 to 34-year-oldswithout a drivers license increasedrom 21 percent to 26 percent.

Young peoples transportation priori-ties and preerences dier rom thoseo older generations.

Many young people choose to re-place driving with alternative trans-portation. According to a recent sur-

vey by KRC Research and Zipcar, 45percent o young people (18-34 yearsold) polled said they have consciouslymade an eort to replace drivingwith transportation alternativesthisis compared with approximately 32percent o all older populations.

Many o Americas youth preer tolive places where they can easily walk,bike, and take public transportation.According to a recent study by theNational Association or Realtors,young people are the generation

most likely to preer to live in an areacharacterized by nearby shopping,restaurants, schools, and public trans-portation as opposed to sprawl.

Some young people purposely reducetheir driving in an eort to curb theirenvironmental impact. In the KRCZipcar survey, 16 percent o 18 to34-year-olds polled said they stronglyagreed with the statement, I want toprotect the environment, so I driveless. This is compared to approxi-mately 9 percent o older generations.

The trend toward reduced drivingamong young people is likely to persistas a result o technological changes andincreased legal and fnancial barriers todriving.

Technology:

o

Communications technology,which provides young people withnew social networking and recre-ational possibilities, has become asubstitute or some car trips.

o Improvements in technologymake transportation alternativesmore convenient. Websites andsmart phone apps that providereal-time transit data makepublic transportation easier to

use, particularly or inrequentusers. Meanwhile, technology hasopened the door or new trans-portation alternatives, such asthe car-sharing and bike-sharingservices that have taken root innumerous American cities.

2 Transportation and the New Generation


8/41

o Public transportation is morecompatible with a liestyle basedon mobility and peer-to-peerconnectivity than driving. Busand train riders can oten talk onthe phone, text or work saely

while riding, while many stategovernments are outlawing usingmobile devices while driving.Currently, 35 states have out-lawed texting while driving, andnine states have outlawed hand-held cell phone use while driving.These bans may not be enoughto ensure saetyin December2011 the National TransportationSaety Board recommended ban-ning cell phone use while drivingentirely.

Changes in driving laws: From 1996to 2006, every state enacted Gradu-ated Drivers Licensing (GDL) laws.GDL laws, which are designed tokeep young people sae, also makeobtaining a drivers license morechallenging. Young people must nowtake more behind-the-wheel train-ing (which is more expensive), ulfll

additional requirements or permits,and once they are allowed to drive,they are oten restricted to drivingin the daytime without passengers.GDL laws are likely to remain in e-ectand continue to be a deterrentto young people to apply or licens-esbecause they have been success-ul in keeping young drivers sae.

Increased uel prices: Increased uelprices have made driving more ex-

pensive, reducing the requency withwhich peopleespecially youngerpeople with less disposable incometravel in cars. The average cost orflling up the tank in 2001 was $1,100or the year (in 2011 dollars). Withgasoline prices soaring since then,

flling up the same tank today costs$2,300. While gasoline prices otenuctuate, they are unlikely to returnto the low levels o 1980s or 1990s.According to the U.S. Energy Inor-mation Administrations projections,

gas prices are expected to increase by26 percent rom 2010 to 2020.

The recession has played a role in re-ducing the miles driven in America, es-pecially by young people. People who areunemployed or underemployed have dif-culty aording cars, commute to work lessrequently i at all, and have less disposableincome to spend on traveling or vacationand other entertainment.The trend to-

ward reduced driving, however, has oc-curred even among young people whoare employed and/or are doing well f-nancially.

The average young person (age 16-34) with a job drove 10,700 miles in2009, compared with 12,800 miles in2001.

From 2001 to 2009, young people(16 to 34-years-old) who lived in

households with annual incomes oover $70,000 increased their use opublic transit by 100 percent, bikingby 122 percent, and walking by 37percent.

America has long created transportationpolicy under the assumption that drivingwill continue to increase at a rapid andsteady rate. The changing transportationpreerences o young peopleand Ameri-cans overallthrow that assumption into

doubt. Policy-makers and the publicneed to be aware that Americas cur-rent transportation policydominatedby road buildingis undamentallyout-o-step with the transportationpatterns and expressed preerenceso growing numbers o Americans. It

Executive Summary 3


9/41

is time or policy-makers to consider theimplication o changes in driving habitsor the nations transportation inrastruc-ture decisions and unding practices, and

consider a new vision or transportationpolicy that reects the needs o 21st cen-tury America.



10/41

In the years ater World War II, Ameri-cans love aair with the car reached ullower.To the post-war generation, cars were

a symbol o maturity, prosperity and ree-

dom. Acquiring a drivers license was arite o passage or young peoplesome-thing that was ideally done as close to onessixteenth birthday as possible. Owning (orat least having access to) a car was a youngpersons ticket to reedom, riends and ad-venture. For American amilies, a car wasalso a ticket to the good lie in the sub-urbs, away rom crowded and increasinglytroubled cities.

Americas post-war leadersand thosein the generations that ollowedsatisfed

Americans demand or mobility by car byengaging in the greatest road-building en-deavor the world had ever seen, at greatpublic expense. They embarked on thelargest public works project in human his-tory up until that point, the constructiono more than 40,000 miles o Interstate

highways.1 And that grand road-buildingproject has continued even up to the pres-ent daysince 1980, American road build-ers have constructed an average o morethan 22,000 new lane-miles every year.2

Times have changed, however. Theopen road that once beckoned to an ear-lier generation o young people has beenslowly replaced by congested highwaystraversing a landscape o suburban sprawl.Once a symbol o reedom and Americascan-do spirit, the automobile has becomeor many a fnancial straitjacket that limitslie options, as well as a symbol o the na-tions enduring dependence on oil. Urbanlivingwhether in cities, older suburbs,or new mixed-use neighborhoodsis get-

ting a serious look by many young peopleanxious to avoid long commutes, be closeto riends and activities, and lessen theirenvironmental impact. Meanwhile, theemergence o the Internet, mobile tech-nologies and social networking has upend-ed the way Americans, especially younger

Introduction

Introduction 5


11/41

Americans, interact with each other andthe world.

There is now little room or doubt:many Americans transportation needs anddesires are changing. And they are chang-ing astest among the people who have the

most to gain or lose rom the investmentswe make in new transportation inrastruc-ture: the young. This report documentsthe many ways in which young people arechanging their transportation behavior andtheir desires or the utureand argues that

many o those changes are here to stay.An earlier generation o American lead-

ers embraced and worked toward a visiono a more mobile America linked by high-ways and automobiles. Today, or betterand or worse, we are living their legacy.

Will Americas policy-makers have thedexterity, the vision and the courage tomeet these changing needsand by sodoing, put America on a path to a cleaner,more resilient transportation system thatis less dependent on oil?

Transportation and the New Generation


12/41

During the second hal o the 20th cen-tury, the total number o miles driv-en in America steadily increased.

Then, at the turn o the century, the trendchanged. Americans now drive less thanwe did in the mid-2000sboth in abso-lute and per-capita terms.

Todays youth are leading this decline invehicle-miles traveled. Some young peo-ple do not drive at all because they either

do not own a car or do not have a license.Those who do drive are taking ewertrips and driving shorter distances. At thesame time, more young people are in-stead choosing to walk, bike or take publictransportation, or to stay connected usingmobile technologies instead o traveling.

Todays Youth Drive LessBetween 1970 and 2004, the number ovehicle-miles traveled per capita increasedby an average o 1.8 percent annually, andthe total number o vehicle-miles traveledincreased by an average o 2.9 percentannually.3

Since the mid-2000s however, the num-ber o miles driven in Americaboth totaland per capitahas allen. Since 2004, theaverage number o vehicle-miles drivenper capita has decreased by 6 percent. (SeeFigure 1.) And since 2007, when Ameri-cans total vehicle travel peaked, the totalnumber o miles driven in America hasallen 2.3 percent. (See Figure 2.) Ameri-cans as a whole drove ewer miles in 2011

than they drove in 2004.4Todays youth lead the decline in ve-

hicle-miles traveled. While Generation X(age 35-49) and the Baby Boomers (age50-65) have seen modest drops in the dis-tance they travel in cars, Generation Y(age 16-34) is now driving signifcantlyless than young generations have in pri-or decades. According to the NationalHousehold Travel Survey (NHTS), be-tween 2001 and 2009, the average num-ber o vehicle-miles traveled by young

people (16 to 34-year-olds) decreasedrom 10,300 miles to 7,900 miles per cap-itaa drop o 23 percent.7 The NationalHousehold Transportation Survey showsthat this is the result o:

The Trends:Todays Youth Drive Less and UseTransportation Alternatives More

The Trends: Todays Youth Drive Less 7


13/41

Figure 1: Vehicle-Miles Traveled Per Capita Peaked in 20045

Figure 2: Total Vehicle-Miles Traveled Peaked in 20076

Transportation and the New Generation


14/41

Fewer car trips per driver: In 2009,young drivers took 15 percent ew-er trips than young drivers took in2001.8

Shorter car trips: In 2009, the average

trip length traveled by young driverswas 9.5 milesa 6 percent drop rom10.1 miles, the average trip length in2001.9

In addition, ewer young people are onthe road in the frst place because ewerhold licenses. According to the FederalHighway Administration, rom 2000 to2010, the percentage o 14 to 34-year-oldswithout licenses increased rom 21 percentto 26 percent.10 For more inormation onlicensing rates or young people, see page11.

Todays Youth IncreasinglyUse TransportationAlternativesYoung people are traveling less in cars,but they are increasingly using alternativeorms o transportation. According to theNHTS, the average young person took 25more trips and traveled 117 more miles onalternative transportation (including bik-ing, transit, and walking) in 2009 than theaverage young person traveled in 2001.14

Biking: In 2009, 16 to 34-year-olds as awhole took 24 percent more bike trips thanthey took in 2001, despite the age groupactually shrinking in size by 2 percent.15

Walking: In 2009, 16 to 34-year-oldswalked to destinations 16 percent morerequently than did 16 to 34-year-olds in2001.16

Young People in Other Countries Have AlsoReduced Their Driving

Decreased driving among young people is not unique to America, but rather aphenomenon becoming characteristic o developed countries. In a 2011 studyby the University o Michigan Transportation Research Institute, researchers oundthat o the 14 countries studied other than the United States, seven developed coun-triesSweden, Norway, Great Britain, Canada, Japan, South Korea and Germa-nyshowed a recent decrease in the percentage o young people with drivers li-censes. The other seven countriesFinland, Israel, The Netherlands, Switzerland,Spain, Latvia and Polandmany o them less developed, showed an increase in thepercentage o young people with licenses.11

In addition to licensing rates, driving rates have also allen in many developedcountries. Vehicle-miles traveled have either leveled o or allen in Western Euro-

pean countries including Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, The Neth-erlands and Spain.12 Although data on driving rates or young people are not eas-ily available, the German Income and Expenditure survey shows that the share oyoung households without cars in Germany increased rom 20 percent to 28 percentrom 1998 to 2008.13



15/41

Public transit: Between 2001 and 2009the annual number o passenger miles percapita traveled by 16 to 34-year-olds onpublic transit increased by 40 percent.17Young people have played a signifcantrole in driving up the total number o

passenger miles traveled on transit. From2001 to 2009, the annual number o pas-senger miles traveled increased by 10 bil-lion, more than 60 percent o which camerom 16 to 34-year-olds.18

According to the Bureau o Transpor-tation Statistics, heavy rail (subway) andlight rail ridership across the country hasbeen steadily increasing over the last de-cade, even as automobile travel has stag-nated.19 (See Figure 3.)

Todays Youth Avoid orPostpone Buying Cars andAcquiring Drivers LicensesNot only are many Americansinclud-

ing young Americansmaking ewer andshorter trips in their cars, but an increas-ing number are not driving at alleitherbecause they do not have a car or do nothave a license.

The Number of Vehicles on theRoad Has StagnatedPeople are putting ewer cars on Americanroads. Every year, several million Ameri-cans buy and register new automobiles

Figure 3: Heavy and Light Rail Ridership Increases Across the US20



16/41

while several million simultaneously retireold ones. Historically, the number o auto-mobiles on the road has steadily increasedbecause newly registered automobiles

outnumbered retired automobiles. Since2006, the number o vehicles on Americasroads has hit a plateau ater decades ogrowth.21 (See Figure 4.)

The Number of Young LicensedDrivers Has DecreasedA growing number o young Americansdo not have drivers licenses. Accordingto the Federal Highway Administration,rom 2000 to 2010, the share o 14 to 34-

year-olds without a license increased rom21 percent to 26 percent.23 (See Figure 5.)The increase in young people with-

out drivers licenses is not limited to agegroups aected by Graduated DriversLicensing (GDL) laws (age 14-19). (Formore inormation on GDL laws, see page

22.) The percentage o people between theages o 20 and 34 without licenses has alsoincreased. The number o 20 to 34-year-olds without a drivers license increased

rom 10.4 percent to 15.7 percent between2000 and 2010. (See Figure 5.)

Americans Move to MoreUrban Areas with MoreTransportation AlternativesMany Americans, including young people,

are seeking to move to places that havealternative transportation options. Fordecades, people migrated rom central cit-ies to distant suburbs and exurbs wheretransportation was dependent on automo-biles. Recently, however, there has beenan increase in movement back to densely-

Figure 4: The Total Number of Vehicles On the Road Has Plateaued Since 200622



17/41

populated urban cores where people canwalk, bike and take public transit insteado driving. There has also been an increase

o interest in walkable, mixed-use devel-opments in suburban communities. Somepeople living in these communities, espe-cially those in Generation Y, do not owncars. According to the Bureau o Trans-portation Statistics, households in urbanareas are 2.5 times more likely not to pos-sess a car than households in rural areas.25

The rising demand or homes in central-ly-located locations is being met throughthe revitalization o aging urban areas inmajor cities as well as the reconstruction

o downtown and single-use (e.g. retail)areas into mixed-use walkable and tran-sit-oriented developments in smaller cit-ies. This transormation has already takenplace in several cities. Arlington Countyin Virginia, Bellevue in Washington, andPasadena in Caliornia have all replaced

strip malls with mixed-use developmentsthat have access to public transit.26

This increase in downtown construc-

tion is clearly demonstrated by trends inbuilding permits. In the decades beorethis shit back to downtown areas, thenumber o building permits in exurbs andar-lying suburbs dramatically outnum-bered the number o permits in inner cit-ies. However, a recent study by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency o 50metropolitan areas shows that the pro-portion o building permits in central cityneighborhoods has signifcantly increasedin recent years. In nearly hal o the metro-

politan areas, the share o new residentialbuilding permits in urban core communi-ties dramatically increased. For example,in the New York City metropolitan area,the central citys share o residential build-ing permits increased rom 15 percent inthe early 1990s to 48 percent in the mid-

Figure 5: The Share of Young People Without Drivers Licenses Has Increased24



18/41

2000s.27 Over the same time period, thecentral citys share o building permitsin Chicago increased rom 7 percent to27 percent and the central citys share inPortland, Oregon, increased rom 9 per-cent to 26 percent.28

The increased demand or property ininner cities and mixed-use suburban areasis also evident in housing prices. Where-as in the late 1990s, the most expensivehousing was in the outer-lying suburbs,todays most expensive housing has shitedto walkable inner cities and inner sub-urbs. According to a real estate analysis byChristopher Leinberger, proessor at theGraduate Real Estate Development Pro-gram at the University o Michigan, someo todays most expensive neighborhoodsin metropolitan areas are walkable multi-use communities, such as Capitol Hill inSeattle, Virginia Highland in Atlanta, and

German Village in Columbus (OH)communities that were all dilapidated 30years ago.29

The age groups leading this migrationto inner-cities and mixed-use suburbs arethose nearing retirement (Baby Boomers)

and young adults (Generation Y). Manybaby boomers, who no longer need multi-room houses and backyards (because theirchildren have moved out), have begunmoving to homes that are smaller and inlocations that have easily-accessible soci-etal amenities.30 Young adults have begunleaving their parents homes to move intovibrant, compact, and walkable commu-nities ull o economic, social, and recre-ational activities, according to the Brook-ings Institution.31 An estimated 77 percento young people (age 18-35) plan to live inurban centers.32



19/41

Many members o Generation Y havereduced their driving because theychoose to take transportation alter-

natives instead o cars to school, work andrecreation, and because many have chosento live in ways that require less time behindthe wheel o a car. Growing evidenceboth anecdotal and quantitativesuggeststhat some o this change is being driven byshits in young peoples priorities and pre-

erences, shits that could very well persist asGeneration Y ages.

Young People Choose toReplace Driving withAlternative TransportationAcross America, a growing number oyoung people make a conscious eort totake transit instead o cars to get to school,work and riends houses.

Many young people do not prioritizelearning to drive. According to Tom Pec-oraro, owner o I Drive Smart, a Wash-ington area drivers education program,quoted in the Washington Post, Driving is

really important to a lot o the kids in theculture, but it is not the central ocus likeit was 25 years ago. 33 Instead, young peo-ple choose to spend time on their studies,extracurricular activities and social media.

Recent polls have also documented thisshit away rom driving and toward alter-native transportation. According to a re-cent survey by KRC Research and Zipcar,45 percent o young people (18-34 years

old) reported to have made a conscious e-ort in the previous year to reduce theirdrivingthis is compared with approxi-mately 32 percent o the rest o the popu-lation.34 (See Figure 6.)

Young People Want to Live

in Places with Transporta-tion AlternativesMany people, especially those in Genera-tion Y, increasingly preer to live in placeswhere they can get around without gettingin a car. People want to move to placeswhere they can walk to amenities such as

Young Peoples Priorities andPreferences Are Leading Them toDrive Less



20/41

grocery stores, restaurants, and houses oworship, and have nearby access to publictransportation. These preerences con-trast with the preerences o older andpast generations, many o whom stronglyvalued living in suburban single amilyhomes with transportation dependent onautomobiles.

Living in a place that is walkable andtransit-oriented has become increasinglypopular in recent years, even outside o citycenters. For example, Arlington Heights inIllinois, which moved to transit-orienteddevelopment ahead o many other places inAmerica, has become a cherished place tolive. The suburb, located 25 miles north-west o Chicago, has 77,000 residents, acombination o single-amily and multi-amily homes, and a number o amenities

within walking and biking distance thatmakes driving less necessary.36 Accordingto a Chicago Tribune article, what residentsenjoy about Arlington Heights, amongother qualities, is its mobility. Residents saythat Arlington Heights amily-riendlymelding o top-ranked schools, an out-standing park district, convenient accessto Chicago and revived downtown repre-sent an appealing mix.37 The citys Metracommuter rail station, located downtown,is three blocks rom the library (which isvisited by 2,600 people a day38), our blocksrom a recreational park, and is surroundedby restaurants, shops, schools, theaters andother amenities39and the Metra com-mute to downtown Chicago takes only 50minutes.40

National surveys and polls have also

Figure 6: Young People Have Made a Conscious Effort to Reduce Their Driving

In the survey by KRC Research and Zipcar, participants were asked to what extent theyagreed with the statement, In the past year, I have consciously made an eort to re-duce how much I drive, and instead take public transportation, bike/walk or carpool

when possible. The percent o the age group that said they strongly or somewhatagreed is displayed below.35

Young Peoples Priorities and Preferences 15


21/41

documented the popularity o living inplaces with smart growth and transit-ori-ented development among young people.

According to a survey by the Na-tional Association or Realtors,

conducted in March 2011, 62 percento people ages 18-29 said they wouldpreer to live in an area with smartgrowth (defned as a place with a mixo single amily houses, apartments,and condominiums, with stores, res-taurants, libraries, schools and accessto public transportation nearby) asopposed to sprawl. The proportiono young people who preerred tolive in smart growth neighborhoodswas between our and 11 percent-age points higher than all other agegroups.41 (See Figure 7.)

Figure 7: Young People Prefer to Live in Smart Growth Neighborhoods

Passengers at Arlington Heights Station on the UnionPacic-Northwest Metra Line. Credit: City o ArlingtonHeights

In the National Association o Realtors survey, participants were asked i they wouldpreer to live in an area with smart growth or sprawl. The percent o the age groupthat said they preerred smart growth is displayed below.



22/41

Figure 8: Young People Most Value Social Amenities within Walking Distance

In the National Association or Realtors survey, participants were asked to rate theimportance (on a scale o very important, somewhat important, not veryimportant, and not at all important) o having nine specifc social amenities (e.g.,

restaurants) within walking distance o their homes. The percentages o participantsthat answered very important or each amenity are averaged by age group anddisplayed below.

In a survey by the Urban Land In-stitute in 2011, nearly two-thirds o18 to 32-year-olds polled said livingin communities that were walkablewas either essential (14 percent) orpreerable (50 percent).42

In the National Association or Real-tors survey discussed above, peoplebetween the ages o 18 and 29 valued

having social amenitiessuch as gro-cery stores, restaurants and doctors

ofcesin walking distance morethan people in other age groups.43(See Figure 8.)

In the same survey, people betweenthe ages o 18 and 29 were at least 25percent more likely than older popu-lations to highly value having busroutes and rail lines within walking

distance o their homes. (See Figure 9.)

Young Peoples Priorities and Preferences 17


23/41

Figure 9: Young People Most Value Bus Routes and Rail Lines within WalkingDistance

In the National Association or Realtors survey, participants were asked to rate theimportance (on a scale o very important, somewhat important, not very im-portant, and not at all important) o having (1) bus routes and (2) rail lines withinwalking distance o their homes. The percentages o participants that answered veryimportant or bus routes and rail lines are averaged by age group and displayed below.



24/41

Transportation investments last or de-cades. So it is important or transpor-tation policy-makers to understand

whether trends such as the recent declinein driving are temporary or are likely to belong-lasting.

While temporary actors such as the re-cession have contributed to the decline indriving, the shit in transportation attitudesand behaviors among young people appears

likely to persist as they get older and as newpeople reach driving age. Social network-ing sites, smart phones and other new com-munications innovations not only providean alternative to driving in their own rightbut they also provide a platorm or trans-portation services such as real-time transitinormation and car- and bike-sharing ser-vices that did not exist a decade or two ago.Legal barriers, such as recent GraduatedDrivers Licensing laws that now requirepotential drivers to take more behind-the-

wheel training and restrict young peoplesdriving behavior will also likely act as acontinued barrier to driving. Other youngpeople avoid driving because increased uelprices have made driving more expensivea situation that is unlikely to change mark-edly in the oreseeable uture.

Communication TechnologySubstitutes for Driving andSupports AlternativeTransportationImprovements to and expanded accessibil-ity o communications technology reducethe number o trips taken in cars. Socialnetworking technology has become a sub-

stitute or some types o car trips. Web-sites and smart phone apps, which did notexist 20 years ago, provide real-time transitdata (e.g. Nextbus) and make public trans-portation easier to use, particularly orinrequent users. Meanwhile, technologyadvances have also acilitated the growtho car-sharing and bike-sharing services,enabling users to reserve, pay or, and lo-cate cars or bikes anytime o the day.

Todays communications technologyused or social networking has become

a substitute or some car trips. Youngerpeople today value constant interconnec-tivity to their peers through websites andmobile phone applications, social net-working platorms (Facebook, Twitter,Foursquare), instant messaging sotware,cell phones and video chatting platorms

The Trend Toward ReducedDriving Among Young People

Is Likely to Persist

The Trend Toward Reduced Driving Is Likely to Persist 19


25/41

(Skype). Some young people who spend

time interacting with riends throughcommunications technology have lesstime and desire to drive to see someone.

Communicating through these newtechnologies has decreased the necessityor young people to use cars. Michelle Wei,or example, rom Herndon, Virginia, whodid not get her license until she was a se-nior, was content without driving becauseo the social media available to her. Sheclaims, in an article in the Washington Post,I I couldnt get a ride to see my riend

who lives a town over, I could talk on IM. . . or Skype. The digital world, she said,made it very easy not to drive.44

Ms. Wei is not alonea recent sur-vey by Zipcar and KRC Research oundthat many young people substitute socialnetworking or driving. According to the

survey, 54 percent o young people polled

strongly or somewhat agreed with thestatement that I sometimes choose tospend time with riends online instead odriving to see them. That compares withonly 18 percent o Baby Boomers (age55+).45 (See Figure 10.)

Websites and smart phone applicationsthat provide real-time transit data, such asNextbus, make public transportation easierto use, particularly or inrequent users.Real-time transit data allow riders to seewhen the next bus, train, or subway will

arrive, how long the trip will take, and whattransers will be necessary on the journey.Twenty years ago, public transportation wasmost accessible to experienced riders, whoknew the routes, schedules, and requencies.Even then, buses, trains and subways thatwere late would waste passenger time.

Figure 10: Young People Substitute Driving with Social Networking Platforms

In the survey by KRC Research and Zipcar, participants were asked to what extent theyagreed with the statement, With access to social networking sites such as Facebookand Twitter, text messaging and online gaming, I sometimes choose to spend time

with riends online instead o driving to see them. The percent o the age groupthat said they strongly or somewhat agreed is displayed below.46



26/41

With real-time transit technology, publictransportation is just as accessible to thefrst-time traveler as the experienced rider,and people waste less time waiting or theirbus, train or subway.

Real-time transit data have become in-

creasingly accessible in recent years. Notonly have transit operators made availablereal-time transit data, but some companies(e.g. Nextbus, Google through GoogleMaps) have begun to aggregate the real-time data rom dierent systems into onelocation. Nextbus, or example, has aggre-gated real-time transit data rom systemsacross the country, and over the past ewyears they have expanded rapidly. From1996, when Nextbus was ounded, to 2008,the company was able to grow to cover 40transportation systems. In the past threeyears, Nextbus has rapidly expanded andnow covers 82 transportation systems.47Today, passengers can use Nextbus, bothon the Internet and on a smart phone,to fnd their next ride in cities across thecountry, rom Seattle to Los Angeles toBoston.48 (See Figure 11.)

Technology has also led to the creationo transportation options that did not exist15 or 20 years ago. With car-sharing ser-vices such as Zipcar, or example, the In-ternet and smart phone applications allowusers to reserve, pay or and locate cars

easily, at any time o the day. Then, RadioFrequency Identifcation (RFID) technol-ogy allows car-sharing users to open thecar doors with digital cards, removing thehassle and cost o having to pick up keys.49The availability o car-sharing servicessuch as Zipcar enables some people toavoid purchasing a vehicle o their ownsaving money that can then be spent oncommutes and trips via alternative trans-portation and reducing the temptation todrive at times other than when it is strictlynecessary.

Technology also makes bike-sharingprograms possible and convenient. Inthe past two years, numerous cities, in-cluding Boston, Chicago, Denver, DesMoines, Honolulu, Miami Beach, NewYork, San Antonio and Washington D.C.have launched bike share programs.50

Figure 11: Nextbus Provides Real-Time Transit Data



27/41

These programs have been made possibleand convenient by the advent o dierenttechnological applications. With technol-ogy that is now widespread and common,bike-sharers can look up the availability obikes near them, ride to work, school or to

go shopping, and be automatically billedor their ride time with their key signa-ture.

On the other hand, despite eorts byautomakers to integrate new technologyinto new vehicles, mobile technology anddriving still oten dont mix. GPS systemshave made it somewhat easier or driv-ers to fnd their way to their destinationsand avoid trafc, and voice recognitionsotware integrated with cars computersystems make it somewhat easier to makecalls and text while driving, but the uni-verse o interactive activities availableto drivers is necessarily limited by theact that they need to pay attention tothe road. Bus and train riders can typi-cally talk, text or work saely while rid-ing. Driving while talking on a cellphone,texting or working on a laptop or smart-phone, however, can be dangerous. Statesare increasingly enacting laws that makedriving while talking on the phone or text

messaging a misdemeanor. Currently, 35states have outlawed texting while driv-ing, 12 o which were enacted recentlyin 2010, and nine states have outlawedhandheld cell phone use while driving.51Some saety experts believe that eventhese measures do not go ar enoughinDecember 2011, the National Trans-portation Saety Board recommendeda complete ban on cell phone use whiledriving, due to the dangers o distracteddriving.52

The technological changes o the last 20yearsparticularly the advance o mobilecommunications technologyhave madetransportation alternatives more appeal-ing relative to driving, especially or theyounger people who have embraced thosetechnologies with enthusiasm.

Drivers License RestrictionsPostpone Young Peoplefrom Obtaining LicensesBetween 1996 and 2006, every state one

but one enacted Graduated Drivers Li-censing (GDL) laws.53 GDL laws, whichare designed to keep young people sae,also make obtaining a drivers license morechallenging. To get a license today, youngpeople must take more behind-the-wheeltraining (which is more expensive), ulflladditional requirements or permits, and,once they are allowed to drive, they otenare restricted to driving in the daytime andwithout passengers.

Over the past 15 years, states have putrestrictions on young people acquiring li-censes. Up until the mid-1990s, acquiringa license was relatively simpledriverscould get their licenses when they were 16or younger, with only a short restrictiveperiod (permit), and a ew hours o train-ing. Then in 1996, to keep young driverssae, Florida enacted the frst comprehen-sive Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL)program.54 GDL programs have threestages o licensing (learners permit, inter-

mediate license, ull licensure) to graduallyintroduce driving privileges to young driv-ers, ensuring that they have all the skillsto drive saely once they are on the road.55In the fve years ater Florida enacted itsGDL law, 42 other states enacted simi-lar laws, and by 2006, all states had someGDL rules in place.56

GDL laws have become a deterrent orsome young people contemplating acquir-ing a license. Not only do GDL laws de-crease young peoples mobility in the frst

months and years when they start driving,but the process o getting a ull licenseis longer and more expensiveup to 60hours o driving practice with an adult and$600 or driving courses.57 According toRob Foss, director o the Center or theStudy o Young Drivers at the University



28/41

o North Carolina, these hurdles and re-strictions have caused much o the declinein the number o licensed 16-year-olds.58To many teenagers, studying and extracur-ricular activities are a greater priority thanthe tens o hours o behind-the-wheelpractice and high cost necessary to receivea license.59

GDL laws are likely to remain in eectbecause they have been successul in keep-ing young drivers sae. From the yearsbetween 1993 and 1995, to the years be-tween 2003 and 2005, atal crashes involv-ing 16-year-old drivers decreased 23 per-cent.60 According to a report by PreusserResearch Group, the most eective provi-sion in keeping young drivers sae is theextension o the time period in which theymust be supervised, which restricts youngdrivers mobility and deters them getting a

license.61

Since GDL laws successes makethem unlikely to be rolled back by statelegislatures, they will likely continue to bea deterrent or young people consideringapplying or licenses.

Increased Fuel Prices PushPeople to CheaperTransportation AlternativesIncreased uel prices have made drivingmore expensive, reducing the requencywith which peopleespecially youngerpeople with less disposable incometravelin cars. The average cost or flling up thetank in 2001 was $1,100 or the year (in2011 dollars).63 With gasoline prices soar-ing to $3.50 on average since then, fllingup the same tank today costs $2,300more than twice as expensive and a seri-ous deterrent or drivers to get behind thewheel.64

While gasoline prices will uctuate inthe uture, they are unlikely to return tothe low levels o 1980s or 1990s, and unlessthe United States accelerates its adoption

o electric vehicles, it will likely be moreexpensive to fll up the tank in the uturethan it is today. According to the U.S. En-ergy Inormation Administrations projec-tions, gas prices are expected to increaseby 26 percent (adjusted or ination) rom2010 to 2020.65 (See Figure 12.)

Will GDL Laws Lead to a Prolonged Reductionin Driving?

GDL laws reduce young peoples driving during the frst ew years they areeligible to drive. But GDL laws may have a longer lasting impact. Recent re-search at the University o Michigan Transportation Research Institute ound

that the percentage o licensed drivers among people who were 20 to 44 years old in1983 did not increase as those people agedin other words, according to the study,or all practical purposes, or the cohorts born between 1939 and 1963, all those whowanted to get a drivers license did so by age 20.62 (emphasis in original)

Should this fnding prove to be true or todays young peoplewhich is veryuncertainchanges in drivers licensing laws that delay the acquisition o a licensecould potentially have long-lasting repercussions or driving behaviors later in lie.



29/41

Some Young People Reduce

Their Driving to Protect theEnvironmentSome young people purposely live in waysthat reduce their driving as a way to ulflltheir personal commitment to a cleanerenvironment. Driving in cars releases dan-gerous gases that cause global warming,create smog and make ambient air dirtyand unsae to breathe. In a survey by Zip-car and KRC Research, 16 percent o 18to 34-year-olds polled said they strongly

agreed with the statement I want to pro-tect the environment, so I drive less. Thisis compared to approximately 9 percent oolder generations.67 (See Figure 13.)

The Trend Toward Reduced

Growth in Driving Will LikelyPersist Even When theEconomy Rebounds

The recession has played a role in reduc-ing the miles driven in America, especiallyby young people. People who are unem-ployed or underemployed have difcultyaording cars, commute to work less re-quently (i at all), and have less disposableincome to spend on traveling or vacation

and other entertainment.It is possible that driving will increase

somewhat as the economy rebounds. Butthe long-term, sustained, upward growthin vehicle travel that characterized theUnited States or decades is likely at anendeconomic recovery or notdue to

Figure 12: Gasoline Prices Will Remain High Or Increase In the Future66

Note: High Oil Prices reers to $200 per barrel (in 2009 dollars). Medium Oil Prices reersto $125 per barrel. Low Oil Prices reers to $50 per barrel.



30/41

the undamental shits in external condi-tions and consumer preerences detailedin this report.

The current recession has hit youngadults the hardest. Many statistics and re-ports document the recessions particular

impact on Generation Y:

According to the Bureau o LaborStatistics, in 2011 the unemploymentrate was 24.4 percent among 16 to19-year-olds, 14.6 percent among 20to 24-year-olds, and 10.3 percent or25 to 29-year-olds, as compared to 8.9percent or the country as a whole.69

According to a 2010 report by thePew Research Center, young peopleare more likely than older people tohave recently lost a job (10 percentor people 29 and younger, 6 percentor people 30 and older).70

According to the same Pew report,the proportion o 18 to 29-year-oldsemployed ull time ell 9 percent(rom 50 percent to 41 percent) rom2006 to 2010, whereas the propor-tion o 30 to 64-year-olds employed

ull time ell only marginally (65percent to 63 percent or 30-45 yearolds, and 54 percent to 53 percent or46-64 year olds).71

According the Project on StudentDebt, two-thirds o college seniorswho graduated in 2010 had studentloan debt, averaging $25,250.72

According to Fidelity Investments,the typical member o Generation Yholds at least three credit cards, andone in fve cards has a balance o over$10,000.73

Figure 13: Young People Reduce Their Driving to Protect the Environment68

In the survey by KRC Research and Zipcar, participants were asked to what extentthey agreed with the statement, I want to protect the environment, so I drive less.The percent o the age group that said they strongly or somewhat agreed is dis-played below.



31/41

The economic recession has conse-quently pushed car ownership outside theeconomic reach o many young adults.In America, the average annual cost oowning and operating an automobile is$8,776.74 With such a high percentage o

young people unemployed, and many othose employed still struggling to makeends meet, car ownership is simply not vi-able. In the Zipcar/KRC Research survey,80 percent o 18 to 34-year-olds statedthat the high cost o gasoline, parking andmaintenance made owning a car difcult(in comparison, approximately 72 percento people ages 35 and older ound owninga car difcult).75

However, many young Americans whocannot aord cars would continue to driveless and take alternative transportation eveni they could, or the ollowing reasons:

Young people who have the unds to-day to aord cars are still increasingtheir use o transportation alterna-tives. From 2001 to 2009, youngpeople (16-34 years old) who livedin households with incomes o over$70,000 per year increased their useo public transit by 100 percent, bik-

ing by 122 percent, and walking by37 percent.76

Young people who have jobs todaydrive less than young people whohad jobs beore the recession. Theaverage young person (ages 16 to34) with a job drove 10,700 miles in2009, compared with 12,800 miles in

2001.77

Young people who have jobs todaytake public transportation more thanyoung people who had jobs beore therecession. Among young people whoare employed, the number o milestraveled via public transit has increased25 percent rom 2001 to 2009.78

Americans started to drive less beorethe recession. The miles driven percapita in America frst dropped in2005three years beore the start othe recession.79

The economic recession has orced alarge number o young people to delaypurchasing an automobile and/or reducethe amount they drive. Economic recov-ery will bring some o those young peopleback onto the roads. But the undamentalorces that are driving many Americans

especially young peopleto change theirtransportation behaviors will remain.



32/41

Americas transportation policies havelong been predicated on the as-sumption that driving will continue

to increase. The changing transportationpreerences o young peopleand Ameri-cans overallthrow that assumption intodoubt. Transportation decision-makers atall levelsederal, state and localneedto understand the trends that are leadingto the reduction in driving among young

people and engage in a thorough recon-sideration o Americas transportationpolicy-making to ensure that it serves boththe needs o todays and tomorrows youngAmericans and moves the nation towarda cleaner, more sustainable and economi-cally vibrant uture.

Transportation inrastructure decisionshave long-lasting implications. Highways,transit lines and sidewalks have useul livesmeasured in decadesand sometimes cen-turies. To make the best o limited resourc-

es, transportation planners must anticipatetrends 10, 20 or 40 years into the uture.

Since World War II, the vision the U.S.government has had o the uture has beenone o consistent increases in driving.In 2000, or example, the U.S. Energy

Inormation Administration projected thatby 2010, the total number o vehicle-milestraveled on Americas roads would reach3.4 trillion.80 However, in 2010, decreaseddriving rates caused the vehicle-milestraveled to total just less than 3 trillionmilesa dierence o 11 percent.81

The shit away rom six decades o in-creasing vehicle travel to a new reality oslow-growing or even declining vehicle

travel has potentially seismic implica-tions or transportation policy. It callsinto question the wisdom o our currenttransportation investment priorities aswell as the sources o revenue used to payor those priorities. It creates both a mul-titude o new opportunities as well as di-fcult challenges.

The data in this report suggest a pos-sible uture in which:

The demand or transportation

overall stagnates due to the substi-tution o mobile technologies orsome transportation services and theemerging consumer preerence orwalkable, less auto-dependent ormso development.

Implications for Transportation Policy

Implications for Transportation Policy 27


33/41

The demand or automobile trans-portationboth absolutely and asa share o overall transportationdemandstagnates or declines dueto the improved competitive posi-tion o transportation alternatives on

measures o quality, convenience andcost.

The demand or transportationalternatives increases or the samereasons.

It is much too early to conclude thatthis vision o the uture will become real-ity. But it is at least as plausible a visiono the uture as one based on an expecta-tion that the trend toward ever-increasingamounts o driving that has characterizedthe last 60 years will resume.

Such a shit in uture transportationtrends would shake the oundations otransportation policy-making. For ex-ample, to meet the demand or alterna-tive transportation, ederal, state and lo-cal governments would need to prioritizeinvestment in public transportation, bikelanes, sidewalks and other transportationalternatives. To meet the demand or walk-

able neighborhoods in close proximity to

transit, government ofcials would needto ensure that land-use and transporta-tion policies were aligned to support thedevelopment o these communities. Tocompensate or the declines in gas-tax rev-enues, decision-makers would need to fnd

alternative sources o unding or road andbridge maintenance or boost the gasolinetax to levels that may urther discouragedriving.

Again, it is ar too early to say that thisvision will become reality. As the old say-ing goes, its difcult to make predictions,especially about the uture.

But policy-makers and the public needto be aware that Americas current trans-portation policy-making and fnancingstructure is undamentally out-o-stepwith both the nations current needsand the expressed preerences o grow-ing numbers o Americans. It is well be-yond the scope o this report to addressthe policy implications o shiting youthtransportation trends in detailthoughwe hope to return to this issue in uturework. It is clear, however, that we urgentlyneed to consider a new vision or trans-portation policy that reects the needs o21stcentury America.



34/41

Notes

1 Federal Highway Administration,Interstate FAQ, downloaded rom www.hwa.dot.gov/interstate/aq.htm, 7 March2012.

2 Federal Highway Administration,Highway Statistics 2009, Table VMT-422, 29February 2012.

3 Vehicle-miles traveled: Federal HighwayAdministration,Historical Monthly VMT

Report, 3 May 2011; Note: or all reerencesin this report to population and per capitastatistics, the ollowing citations are used.For population data or 1900-1999 seeU.S. Census Bureau,Historical PopulationEstimates: July 1, 1900 to July 1, 1999, 28June 2000. For population data or 2000-2010 see U.S. Census Bureau, GCT-T1:Population Estimates, downloaded romactfnder2.census.gov, 17 November 2011.For population data or 2011 see U.S.Census Bureau,Monthly Population Estimates

or the United States: April 1, 2010 to January1, 2012, downloaded rom www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2011/index.html, 10 February 2012.

4 2010 and prior: Federal HighwayAdministration,Historical Monthly VMTReport, 3 May 2011; 2011: Federal Highway

Administration, Trac Volume Trends,December 2011.

5 2010 and prior: Federal HighwayAdministration,Historical Monthly VMTReport, 3 May 2011; 2011: Federal HighwayAdministration, Trac Volume Trends,December 2011; Note: The vehicle-milestraveled per capita in 2004 and 2005 arenearly the same, and the peak year mayvary between 2004 and 2005 depending on

which datasets within the Federal HighwayAdministration are used.

6 See note 4.

7 10,300 miles in 2001 and 7,900 milesin 2009 were derived by dividing the totalvehicle miles traveled by the total numbero persons age 16-34 or 2001 and 2009,per the Federal Highway Administration,National Household Travel Survey,downloaded rom nhts.ornl.gov/det, 21November 2011.

8 15 percent ewer trips derived bydividing the number o vehicle tripsper driver in 2009 by the number ovehicle trips per driver in 2001 or 16 to34-year-olds, per the Federal HighwayAdministration,National Household Travel

Notes 29


35/41

Survey, downloaded rom nhts.ornl.gov/det,21 November 2011. The vehicle trips perdriver in 2001 and 2009 were derived bydividing the total number o vehicle tripsby the total number o drivers or 16 to 34-year-olds or each year.

9 The average trip lengths in 2001 (10.1miles) and in 2009 (9.5 miles) were derivedby dividing the total vehicle miles traveledby the total number o vehicle trips oreach year or 16 to 34-year-olds, per theFederal Highway Administration,NationalHousehold Travel Survey,downloaded romnhts.ornl.gov/det, 21 November 2011.

10 Federal Highway Administration,Highway Statistics 2010Table DL-20,September 2011.

11 Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle,University o Michigan TransportationResearch Institute,Recent Changes in theAge Composition o Drivers in 15 Countries,October 2011.

12 Todd Litman, Victoria TransportPolicy Institute, The Future Isnt WhatIt Used To Be: Changing Trends and theirImplications For Transport Planning, 6November 2011.

13 Tobias Kuhnimho, Institute orMobility Research, Matthias Wirtz,Institute o Transport Studies, KarlsruheInstitute o Technology, and Wilko Manz,STRATA GmbH,Lower Incomes, MoreStudents, Decrease o Car Travel by Men, MoreMultimodality: Decomposing Young GermansAltered Car Use Patterns, 2012.

14 25 more trips was derived bysubtracting the trips on alternativetransportation made per person in 2001rom the trips made per person in 2009or 16 to 34-year olds using data romthe Federal Highway Administration,National Household Travel Survey (NHTS),downloaded rom nhts.ornl.gov/det,21November 2011. For both 2001 and 2009,the total number o trips on alternativetransportation was calculated by adding

the total number o bike person trips,transit person trips and walk person tripsor 16 to 34-year-olds per theNTHS. Thetotal number o alternative transportationtrips or each year was then divided bythe number o 16 to 34-year-olds or each

year, which gives the total number oalternative transportation trips per person.117 more miles was derived by subtractingthe number o miles traveled on alternativetransportation per person in 2001 rom thenumber o miles traveled on alternativetransportation per person in 2009. For both2001 and 2009, the total number o milestraveled on alternative transportation wascalculated by adding the miles traveled bybike, transit and walking or 16 to 34-year-olds perNTHS. The total number o milestraveled on alternative transportation or

each year was then divided by the numbero 16 to 34-year-olds or each year, whichgives the alternative transportation milesper person.

15 24 percent more bike trips was derivedby dividing the number o bike trips takenin 2009 by the number o bike trips takenin 2001 or 16 to 34-year-olds, per theFederal Highway Administration,NationalHousehold Travel Survey, downloaded romnhts.ornl.gov/det, 21 November 2011.

16 16 percent more requently was derivedrom dividing the trips taken per capita in2009 by the trips taken per capita in 2001,using data rom the Federal HighwayAdministration,National Household TravelSurvey, downloaded rom nhts.ornl.gov/det,21 November 2011.The trips taken percapita in 2001 and 2009 were derived bydividing the total number o person tripswalked by the total number o persons orthat year or 16 to 34-year-olds, per theNHTS.

17 40 percent increase in the number omiles traveled on public transit is derivedby dividing the number o miles traveled ontransit per capita in 2009 by the number omiles traveled on transit per capita in 2001or 16 to 34-year-olds, using data rom theFederal Highway Administration,National



36/41

Household Travel Survey, downloaded romnhts.ornl.gov/det, 21 November 2011.The number o miles traveled on transitper capita or 2001 and 2009 is derivedby dividing the total number o personmiles traveled on transit by the number o

persons or 16 to 34-year-olds or that year.Note: the number o trips taken by youngpeople on public transit did not increasedramatically.

18 10 billion derived by subtracting thetotal passenger miles traveled in 2001rom the total passenger miles traveled in2009 or all ages, per Federal HighwayAdministration,National Household TravelSurvey, downloaded rom nhts.ornl.gov/det,21 November 2011. More than 60 percentderived by subtracting the total passenger

miles traveled in 2001 rom the totalpassenger miles traveled in 2009 or 16 to34-year-olds, and dividing the dierence by10 billion, per theNHTS.

19 The Bureau o Transportation Statisticsalso reports on the ridership rates or buslines, which has stayed relatively constantover the past ten years. Research andInnovative Technology Administration,Bureau o Transportation Statistics, TransitRidership, February 2012.

20 Research and Innovative TechnologyAdministration, Bureau o TransportationStatistics, Transit Ridership, February 2012.

21 National Automobile DealersAssociation,NADA Data: State o theIndustry Report 2011, downloaded romwww.nada.org/nadadata, 26 March 2012;National Automobile Dealers Association,Economic Impact o Americas New-Car andNew-Truck Dealers 2002, downloaded romwww.nada.org/nadadata, 26 March 2012.

22 Ibid.

23 See note 10.

24 Ibid.

25 Research and Innovative Technology

Administration, Bureau o TransportationStatistics,Figure 32 Proportion oHouseholds Without Vehicles by HouseholdType: 2001, 2003.

26 Christopher Leinberger, The Death

o the Fringe Suburb,New York Times, 25November 2011.

27 U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency,Residential Construction Trends inAmericas Metropolitan Regions, 2010 Edition,January 2010.

28 Ibid.

29 See note 26.

30 Patrick Doherty and Christopher

Leinberger, The Next Real Estate Boom;How housing (yes, housing) can turn theeconomy around, Washington Monthly,November 2010.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

33 Donna St. George, Teens not thedriving orce they used to be; Able toconnect in ways that dont involve ourwheels, many are postponing licenses, The

Washington Post, 24 January 2010.

34 KRC Research,Millennials & Driving;A Survey Commissioned by Zipcar, November2010.

35 Ibid.

36 Jerey Steele, A amily-riendly burb;Arlington Heights lively, walkable with adiverse housing stock, Chicago Tribune, 2April 2010.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Four blocks rom a recreational park,and is surrounded by restaurants, shops,schools, theaters and other amenities is

Notes 31


37/41

deduced rom Google Maps, downloadedrom maps.google.com, 15 January 2012.

40 Metra, Union Pacic/Northwest Line(schedule), downloaded rom metrarail.com/metra/en/home/maps_schedules/

metra_system_map/up-nw/schedule.ull.html, March 6 2012.

41 Beldon Russonello & Stewart LLC,The 2011 Community Preerence Survey;What Americans are looking or when decidingwhere to live, prepared or the NationalAssociation o Realtors,March 2011.

42 M. Leanne Lachman and Deborah L.Brett, Urban Land Institute, Generation Y:Americas New Housing Wave, 2011.

43 See note 41.

44 See note 33.

45 See note 34.

46 See note 34.

47 Note: Nextbus covers transportationsystems in America and Canada.

48 Nextbus, Company History, downloadedrom news.nextbus.com/about-us-2/

company-history, 6 March 2012.

49 Zipcar, ater one year, zipcar drivestransportation change in Baltimore (pressrelease), 6 March 2012.

50 Boston, Chicago, Denver, Des Moines,Honolulu, Miami Beach, New York, andSan Antonio: Wendy Koch, Cities rollout bike-sharing programs, USA Today,May 9 2011; Washington D.C.: CapitalBikeshare, District o Columbia and ArlingtonLaunch Regional Bike Sharing Program (pressrelease), 21 May 2010.

51 National Highway Trafc SaetyAdministration (NHTSA), Distraction.gov, State Laws, downloaded rom www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-acts/state-laws.html, 5 February 2012.

52 National Transportation Saety Board,No call, no text, no update behind the wheel:NTSB calls or nationwide ban on PEDs whiledriving(press release), 15 February 2012.

53 Barry Sweedler, History and Eects o

Graduated Licensing and Zero Tolerance,in Transportation Research Board oNational Academies, Transportation ResearchCircular: Young Impaired Drivers: The Natureo the Problem and Possible Solutions, NumberE-C132,June 2009.

54 Allan Williams, The Fall and Rise oGraduated Licensing in North Americain the Transportation Research Board oNational Academies, Transportation ResearchCircular: Implementing Impaired DrivingCountermeasures: Putting Research into Action:

Number E-C072,January 2005.

55 National Highway Trafc SaetyAdministration (NHTSA), Trac SaetyFacts: Laws: Graduated Driver LicensingSystem (act sheet), April 2004.

56 See notes 53 and 54.

57 See note 33.

58 Ibid.

59 Ibid.

60 See note 53.

61 David Preusser and Julie Tison, GDLthen and now,Journal o Saety Research,2007.

62 Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle,University o Michigan TransportationResearch Institute,Recent Changes in theAge Composition o U.S. Drivers: Implicationsor the Extent, Saety, and EnvironmentalConsequences o Personal Transportation, June2011.

63 $1,100 to fll up the tank in 2001derived by multiplying the average priceo gasoline on 15 October 2001 ($1.309dollars/gallon, per Research and Innovative



38/41

Technology Administration, Bureau oTransportation Statistics, MultimodalTransportation Indicators,Motor FuelPrices: Retail Gasoline Prices, October 2011)by average amount o uel consumed pervehicle per year, (661 gallons, per Federal

Highway Administration,Highway Statistics2009,Table VM-1, April 2011), whichequals $865.25 (2001 dollars). $865.25 in2001 dollars is equivalent to $1,048.15in 2011 dollars, per the Bureau o LaborStatistics CPI Infation Calculator, availableat www.bls.gov/data/ination_calculator.htm, 19 March 2012.

64 $2,300 to fll up the tank today derivedrom multiplying the average price ogasoline on 17 October 2011 ($3.476dollars/gallon, per Research and Innovative

Technology Administration, Bureau oTransportation Statistics,MultimodalTransportation Indicators:Motor Fuel Prices:Retail Gasoline Prices, October 2011) bythe average amount o uel consumed pervehicle per year (661 gallons; see note 63),which equals $2,297.64.

65 U.S. Energy InormationAdministration,Annual Energy Outlook2011: Components o Selected PetroleumProduct Prices, United States, Reerencecase, downloaded rom www.eia.gov/oia/

aeo/tablebrowser, 12 March 2012. Note:Gas Prices reers to what the EnergyInormation Administration defnes asEnd-User Price or Motor Gasoline (AllSectors).

66 U.S. Energy InormationAdministration,Annual Energy Outlook2011: Components o Selected PetroleumProduct Prices, United States, Reerence case,High oil price, Low oil price, downloadedrom www.eia.gov/oia/aeo/tablebrowser,12 March 2012. Note: Gasoline Pricesreer to what the Energy InormationAdministration defnes as End-User Priceor Motor Gasoline (All Sectors).

67 See note 34.

68 Ibid.

69 Bureau o Labor Statistics,EmploymentCalculator, downloaded rom www.bls.gov/data/#employment, 6 March 2012. Note:8.9 percent or the country as a wholepertains to workers above the age o 16. Allpercentages are not seasonally adjusted.

70 PewResearchCenter,Millennials;A Portrait o Generation Next: Condent.Connected. Open to Change., February 2010.

71 Ibid.

72 Project on Student Debt, Student Debtand the Class o 2010, November 2011.

73 Christine Dugas, Generation Ys steepfnancial hurdles: Huge debt, no savings,USA Today, 23 April 2010.

74 Research and Innovative TechnologyAdministration, Bureau o TransportationStatistics, National TransportationStatistics, Table 3-17: Average Cost o Owningand Operating an Automobile, 13 April 2011.

75 See note 34.

76 100 percent increase or public transitderived by dividing the person milestraveled in 2009 by the person milestraveled in 2001 or 16 to 34-year-olds in

households with incomes above $70,000,per Federal Highway Administration,National Household Travel Survey,downloaded rom nhts.ornl.gov/det, 21November 2011; 122 percent increase orbiking derived by dividing person milestraveled by bike in 2009 by the person milestraveled by bike in rom 2001 or 16 to 34-year-olds in households with incomes above$70,000, perNHTS; 37 percent increase orwalking derived by the dividing the personmiles traveled by walking rom 2009 by theperson miles traveled by walking in 2001or 16 to 34-year-olds in households withincomes above $70,000, perNHTS.

77 Miles driven by young people withjobs in 2001 and 2009 calculated bydividing the total vehicle miles traveledby the number o 16 to 34-year-olds with

Notes 33


39/41

jobs or each year, per Federal HighwayAdministration,National Household TravelSurvey, downloaded rom nhts.ornl.gov/det,21 November 2011.

78 25 percent derived by dividing the total

person miles traveled on transit in 2009 bythe total person miles traveled on transit in2001 or 16 to 34-year-olds with jobs, perFederal Highway Administration,NationalHousehold Travel Survey, downloaded romnhts.ornl.gov/det, 21 November 2011.Note: while the number o miles traveledvia public transit has increased, the numbero trips has decreased 16 percent.

79 Robert Puentes and Adie Tomer,Brookings Institution, The Road . . . LessTraveled: An Analysis o Vehicle Miles TraveledTrends in the U.S., December 2008.

80 Energy Inormation Administration,

Annual Energy Outlook 2000: With Projectionto 2020, December 1999.

81 Federal Highway Administration,Historical Monthly VMT Report, 3 May 2011.



40/41

Notes 35


41/41

Documents

El Transporte y la Nueva Generación en Estados Unidos. ¿Por qué la gente joven está manejando el auto menos?