Once you are done editing, you may close this tab.
Champion(s)
EM - Improving Analysis of Demand for Non-Auto Travel
Funding
Research Period
Description
Literature Search Summary
Various publications analyze some aspects of non-auto demands, such as travel activity by children and youths, people with disabilities, low-income households, zero-car households, visitors, and people who want more physical activity and fitness. Other studies examine demands for specific modes such as walking, bicycling, bike- and car-sharing, and various types of public transit. Some studies examine latent demands for non-auto travel and the benefits of serving currently unmet demands. However, few studies consider overall non-auto travel demands by all groups, total latent demands, and total benefits of serving them, and few documents provide technical guidance for performing such analysis.
As previously described, current analyses often rely on incomplete data, such as commute mode share, which undercounts non-auto trips, and often overlooks or underestimates latent demands for non-auto travel.
Below are some examples of current literature:
- Evelyn Blumenberg, Anne Brown and Andrew Schouten (2020), “Car-deficit Households: Determinants and Implications for Household Travel in the U.S.” Transportation 47, pp. 1103– 1125 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9956-6).
- Ralph Buehler and Andrea Hamre (2015), “The Multimodal Majority? Driving, Walking, Cycling, and Public Transportation Use Among American Adults,” Transportation 42, 1081–1101 (doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9556-z).
- Caltrans (2020), Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide, California Department of Transportation (https://dot.ca.gov); at https://bit.ly/3DDSm5H. Also see SB 743 Implementation Resources (https://dot.ca.gov/programs/sustainability/sb-743/sb743-resources).
- Chad Frederick, William Riggs and John Hans Gilderbloom (2017), “Commute Mode Diversity and Public Health: A Multivariate Analysis of 148 US Cities,” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, pp. 1–11 (https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1321705).
- ITE (2023), Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) as a Metric for Sustainability, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); at https://ecommerce.ite.org/imis/ItemDetail?iProductCode=IR-154-E.
- ITF (2017), Economic Benefits of Improving Transport Accessibility, The International Transport Forum (www.itf-oecd.org); at https://bit.ly/3QX64aC.
- ITF (2021), Travel Transitions: How Transport Planners and Policy Makers Can Respond to Shifting Mobility Trends, International Transport Forum (www.itf-oecd.org); at https://bit.ly/3BGJewh.
- Lawson, C.T., Muro, A. & Krans, E. Forecasting bus ridership using a “Blended Approach”. Transportation (48), 617–641 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10073-z
- Todd Litman (2013), “The New Transportation Planning Paradigm,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 83, June, pp. 20-28; at www.vtpi.org/paradigm.pdf.
- Todd Litman (2023), Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified, World Conference for Transportation Research (https://wctrs-society.com); at www.vtpi.org/vmt_red.pdf.
- Todd Litman (2024), Evaluating Transportation Diversity, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/choice.pdf.
- Todd Litman and Meiyu (Melrose) Pan (2023), TDM Success Stories, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tdmss.pdf.
- Glen Lyons (2020), The Benefits of a ‘Decide and Provide’ Approach to Transport Planning, Transport for the North (https://transportforthenorth.com); at https://bit.ly/3F8sst3.
- María del Mar Parra López, Jan Anne Annema and Bert van Wee (2022), “The Added Value of Having Multiple Options to Travel: An Explorative Study,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vo. 98 (doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103258).
- WRI (2019), Reducing Demand for Vehicle Trips in Cities – Learning Guide, The City Fix (https://thecityfixlearn.org); at https://bit.ly/3u4qtC1.
- WSL (2008), Adoption of Statewide Goals to Reduce Annual Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled by 2050, Washington State Legislature (https://apps.leg.wa.gov); at https://bit.ly/3rdP6KH.
- Fang Zhao, et al. (2013), Transportation Needs of Disadvantaged Populations: Where, When, and How?, Federal Transit Administration (www.transit.dot.gov); at https://bit.ly/3QS7Ut1.
Objectives
Develop guidance for more comprehensive analysis of non-auto travel demands, including latent demands.
Urgency and Potential Benefits
There is an urgent need to better understand non-auto travel demands, including the ability to forecast future demands and the impacts of serving those demands. This study can provide large benefits by better aligning the planning and investment decisions of state DOTs and other transportation agencies with the needs and preferences of transportation system users. Many policy makers and planning practitioners recognize that a significant portion of travelers cannot, should not, or prefer not to drive and will use non-auto modes if they are convenient, comfortable and affordable, and many jurisdictions have mode shift targets, but practitioners lack the data needed to achieve these goals. Current planning practices tend to overlook and undervalue non-auto travel demands, particularly latent demands, resulting in underinvestment. Improving our understanding of non-auto travel demands can make planning and investment decisions more responsive to user and community needs.
Implementation Considerations
The research would be beneficial to state DOT professionals at any level as well as transportation organization partners and stakeholders who all have a vested interest in better understanding the demand for different modes of transportation. Implementation elements include a communications plan to ensure awareness of the research and TRB, FHWA and AASHTO presentations to share the findings. Venues include workshops, peer exchanges, and committee meetings.
There are several other AASHTO and TRB committees interested in transportation’s contribution toward equity that would likely support this project, including:
- AASHTO
- Committee on Performance Based Management (CPBM) – Christos Xenophontos, Chair
- Committee on Planning
- Council on Active Transportation
- TRB
- Performance Management (AJE20) - Michael Grant, Chair
- Equity in Transportation (AME10)
- Transportation Planning Policy and Processes (AEP10)
- Transportation Planning Analysis and Application (AEP15)
- Public Transportation Planning and Development (AP025) – Peter Ohlms, Chair
- Bicycle Transportation (ACH20)
- Pedestrians (ACH10)
- Communication and Implementation Period: 6 months
AASHTO requirement for interim deliverable review:
- Interim deliverable(s): The results of this research are critically important to the DOTs. As such, an interim deliverable is required to be reviewed by the applicable AASHTO Committee(s). The AASHTO Committee on Performance Based Management has developed and sponsored this needs statement on behalf of member DOTs. Interim deliverables could include literature reviews, surveys, interim reports, and full draft reports.
- Stakeholder engagement: As part of the interim deliverable, the project team and research panel should engage DOT stakeholders for feedback during the project. Engagement could include webinars, workshops, presentations, surveys, user testing of draft tools, and interim reports and literature reviews.
Champion(s)
Others Supporting Problem Statement
Potential Panel Members
Person Submitting Statement
Notes
The current draft of the problem statement is available as a word document here: https://www.tam-portal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2024/08/Non-Auto-Travel-Demands-Research-Needs-Statement-08222024.docx