Among the many challenges that public transportation has the ability to help solve – including issues with the economy, the environment, and energy independence – giving older Americans a viable and reliable method for staying mobile is at the forefront. By the year 2030, the number of Americans age 65 and older is expected to double to more than 70 million. Expanding transportation options for seniors and increasing funding for public transit targeted toward seniors’ needs ranked the third most important issue at the last White House Conference on Aging; it ranked above issues pertaining to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Clearly, it is of utmost importance for older Americans who decide to no longer drive or are no longer able to do so.

Public transit is a lifeline for countless seniors – and as our population continues to age, it will become even more vital. A recent study on senior transportation shows that almost 90 percent of seniors who use public transportation use it for going to medical facilities and traveling to the grocery store, while 85 percent of seniors who use transit rely on it for trips to senior centers and traveling to housing. It must be treated as this vital lifeline in the upcoming federal surface transportation authorization legislation that could be voted on as early as this fall. This bill represents the chance that states and communities across our country will have to improve and expand public transit service to meet the needs of all Americans, including senior citizens. Simply put, it’s the single biggest investment that the federal government makes in public transportation.

According to a study by the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership and AARP, more than half of all non-drivers age 65 or older stay home because they lack current transportation options, particularly in rural and smaller communities. The implications are many – they make 15 percent fewer trips to doctors and 65 percent fewer trips to family and friends. Given the lack of transportation options and the limited attention this issue has received, seniors are right to be concerned. We know that three in five seniors would use transit services if they were more readily available in their neighborhoods. And we know that by providing more and better transportation options, we are opening doors for older Americans to reach their doctor’s appointments, entertainment and shopping venues, and visits with friends and family.

The American Public Transportation Association and our members are calling on Congress to provide at least $123 billion (more than double what the current legislation provides) for our country’s investment in public transportation. Older Americans need good public transportation service to give them the independence and mobility they deserve.

What is striking to me is the tussle, the expectation of enormous push-back to come from the car and highway industries, as this country tries to move -- not away from cars -- but towards a more balanced transportation path that provides more options. Today, 87% of all trips are done by car. This won’t serve us well in our future that will be more urban and older. The challenge is the timing delay between what people think they want today (more of the status quo) and what they will want in 15 years (more non-personal-car options). We know changing the built infrastructure takes time and is a matter of slow incremental changes, the result of how we spend each new dollar that comes into the system. So how do we get more people to want to move away from the status quo?

The rational, logical, and statistical arguments about our need to become less auto-centric have been well presented by Nancy Leamond and Rob Puentes. They will move some minds. A more emotional pitch, that points out the failings of the current paradigm, might start with some personal questions:

• How is your city/town/county addressing the needs of its current aged population? And at what cost? Are you ready to absorb the budget increases that will become necessary when your older population becomes a larger percentage of the total (lower income tax revenue with higher para-transit cost burden?)
• What is happening with your own parents? My mother just totaled her car (see my blog), and miraculously did not harm anyone in the process – including children on the sidewalk who could have been her own children. All because she was reluctant to give up her license because of poor mobility options. How many of those accidents are we as communities willing to absorb?
• What’s your personal plan for when you are 80? Or do we all expect to be in the small minority of drivers who are perfectly qualified to still be driving?

We all have a personal stake in what the future looks like, and it is in our personal (financial and familial) best interests to make that future less car dependent.

The obvious answer is more investment in mass transit and special demand responsive transportation services for the elderly and handicappe,d. but another strategy is to extend the time that elderly can continue to legally drive. Research into this area is on going especially by state motor vehicle agencies into new signage, redesigned vehicle quipment, and special training for elderly drivers.

Like all demographic groups, seniors overwhelmingly travel by private automobiles (either as drivers or passengers) and do not wish to have that option restricted or to have Washingtonians try to coerce them from using cars. Seniors use private vehicles for the same reasons we all do: auto access via roads provide the most opportunities to shop, recreate, & visit family in any region than other modes. This is true both now and into the foreseeable future in every corner of America.

For Seniors who need special care, automobiles provide a much wider range choice in their caregiver options. Another critical mode for Seniors is paratransit, which also require safe and uncongested roads to operate efficiently. Paratransit works for Seniors because of the convenience of flexible routing and scheduling. Investments in alternatives to autos and paratransit are important but must be considered in a realistic context: They represent a *very* small fraction of trips and miles traveled for seniors (and others).

So while it is important to invest in alternatives where they have potential to attract a signicant amount of users, we should still make every effort to make road transportation as safe and efficient as possible for seniors. And we must recognize that this is the mode they (and their families) depend upon most. Ignoring highway investment needs as a "senior issue" is simply not a helpful or sensible plan for them.

To that end, it is critical that we make our roads and roadsides more forgiving. Systemic efforts to upgrade our safety infrastructure are desparately needed. Larger, brighter signs, lane & crosswork markings, safer shoulders, more extensive use of guardrails, and better snow removal are needed to protect drivers from hazards and will go a long way to preventing deaths and injuries. Senior driving safety courses are helpful for understanding physical limitations, driving with slower reaction times, understanding how to "Read The Road", and deciding when it is time to give up the keys and let another person drive.

In addition to safety, poor road condtions and congestion makes senior driving more difficult and frustrating. As part of any DOT/HUD efforts to make our communities more "livable", we should not forget that congestion robs time and quality-of-life from all of us, including seniors.

While U.S. transportation policy has focused on the mobility of the automobile for the last 50 years, it is time to acknowledge that for many people driving is not an option.

More than 60 million Americans are not allowed to drive because they are too young. Another 30 million adults are not licensed to drive for a variety of reasons including economics, age, disability and choice. Eight million Americans above the age of 60 do not have a driver’s license and many more licensed drivers choose not to drive.

A surprising number of families, especially in urban areas, do not have access to an automobile. In Washington, D.C., 37 percent of households do not own an automobile.

Access to mobility is crucial to thrive economically, socially and physically. Therefore, while it is imperative that we maintain existing roads in a state of good repair, it is time to invest significant attention and resources to improving access to mobility by building-out the other neglected half our transportation system. It is time to meet the transportation needs of large segments of the American people by investing in walking, biking and public transportation systems that offer Americans the choice of mobility without the automobile.

The changing needs of the traveling public resulting from major shifts in demographic profile is no doubt a question that has to be addressed immediately and I would imagine many of the contributors on here will approach the question from that perspective. For young and emerging professionals, however, I believe the surface transportation system’s look and function in the next decades will be shaped by the quality and style of life sought by us and subsequent generations. I would also like to note that the commentary here reflects my own personal opinion. Given the diverse background of members of Young Professionals in Transportation and the organization’s national scope, my perspective on this topic does not represent that of the entire membership.

With that in mind, first, I think the significant shift of population to suburbs in recent decades produced a cohort that has spent their entire childhood (and perhaps young adult life) in a traditional suburban environment where access to activities is determined by getting rides from parents, or whether one was fortunate enough to get a car after reaching driving age. These constraining factors have accelerated the traditional path of developing one’s sense of independence by moving away from the “nesting grounds”, or suburbs in this case for so many, for something at the other end of the pendulum, the urban core. Added to this motivational factor, the greater amount of career and entertainment choices available for young, white-collar professionals in cities contributes to the desirability of a more urban-oriented life.

Second, while some have lamented the demise of active civic engagement in the last quarter of the 20th century, I believe the emerging generation of professionals has developed hitherto-unknown forms of social and civic participation. Whether they manifest as social networks like Facebook or internet-based political campaign volunteering, the sense of collective identity may be different than it was in the 1950s, but it is certainly there.

What implications do these trends hold for transportation? I believe that with the proportion of urban population in the United States at least holding still or growing even more, there will be an attendant increase in demand for two types of travel: active and experiential. The former includes pedestrian, bicycle, or any other human-powered modes of travel that appeals to the active lifestyle of young urbanites. The latter refers to—and this is the more important factor—the experiential enhancements in urban travel that will be enabled by increased comfort level of sharing personal travel information under the context of active social engagement. The resulting combination of availability and access to comprehensive travel data, technological advances in mobility, and better understanding and mapping of social networks has the potential to greatly improve the efficiency and overall travel experience for every mode. For example, this could take the form of a personalized status alert that shows the location of family and friends on a transit system or a car that recognizes and responds to individual driving habits to help optimize the entire road network, among others.

In any case, the transportation network of the future will reflect not only societal needs based on changing demographics; it will also represent the solution to our ever-evolving set of collective preferences.

The United States is currently undergoing a transformation of dramatic scale and complexity comparable to what it experienced at the beginning of the last century—another period characterized by the radical reshaping of the American landscape.

For one, unlike peer countries in Western Europe and parts of Asia we will continue to grow by leaps and bounds. And despite the economic downturn we still expect a wave of immigration to fuel this increase. Nearly 13 percent of our residents—some 38 million people—were born outside the United States, the highest share since 1920. This immigration offsets another major demographic trend. The aging of the baby boom generation will make pre-seniors this decade’s fastest growing age group. Yet these seniors will differ from earlier seniors in that they'll have higher rates of divorce and more education, for example.

Partly as a result of these shifts, the average U.S. household size has fallen by nearly one full person—from 3.5 in 1950 to 2.6 today and projected to drop below 2.5 by 2020. Nationally, the traditional married-coupled households with children declined from 43.0 percent in 1950 to just 23.1 percent today. Since 1980, the largest percent point increase in terms of family type was in so-called “non-families”—that is, households maintained by one person living alone or with non-relatives only.

These changes have 3 main spatial effects on the American landscape:

First, rather than dispersing randomly all this population and economic activity is shifting and re-aggregating within and between major metropolitan areas. Today, the nation is already overwhelmingly metropolitan and is expected to become nearly 90 percent metropolitan by 2030. Second, these mega-trends are revaluing the assets of the cities and urban cores within metropolitan areas and have reconfirmed the primacy and centrality of place. Third, America's metropolitan areas have become exceedingly complex and have moved well beyond the conventional city versus suburb divide. These are not your parent’s suburbs. For example, the number of suburban poor surpassed the number of city poor since 2000.

These demographic trends and spatial patterns are changing the nation in many important ways yet these effects are extraordinarily complex and broad agreement does not exist with respect to the nature of the relationship. But in setting the stage for future discussions of federal transportation policy decision makers should keep in mind the following considerations based on these trends:

Built environment. Given current growth rates and trends, it is estimated that by 2030 about half of the buildings in which Americans live, work, and shop will have been built after 2000. In other words, nearly half of what will be the built environment in 2030 doesn't even exist yet, and will have to be accommodated somewhere. How that is done will have enormous transportation consequences and should provide policy makers a vital opportunity to reshape future development.

Household changes: Household formation also will have profoundly important impacts. Childless married-couple and single-person households will grow rapidly and account for nearly half of the net growth in households over the next ten years, but single persons will continue to be the fastest-growing household type. Thus, there appears to be an increasing demand for smaller housing units.

Continued diversity: Minorities are expected to account for 71 percent of household growth from 2006 to 2016, increasing from 63 percent from 1995 to 2005. Further, the Census Bureau projects that new immigrants and their descendants will account for two-thirds of the population growth in the next century. Several demographers speculate that whites will be in the minority by 2040. Suburbs especially will have to adapt to this new multi-culturalism.

Migration shifts: Western and Southern states with a strong history of growth management—Florida, California, Washington—will account for the lion’s share of growth between 2000 and 2030. Federal policies should leverage these existing approaches to growth to ensure transportation supports, rather than undermines these initiatives. For other fast and slow-growing states, federal policy can set the framework for accommodating growth in ways that meet broad objectives for job access, economic development, and environmental stewardship.

Increasing elderly: By 2030 more than one in five Americans will be over the age of sixty-five, and one-in eleven will be over 85. Addressing the mobility needs of this segment of society will go a long way to solving transportation challenges in general.

Demographics will not be the only determinant of our future, of course. Globalization, climate change, technological innovation, freight, energy concerns, and public policy are key. Yet we have an enormous opportunity now to shape our nation's metropolitan future.

Since Congress appropriated funds for the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System in 1958, American households and businesses have benefited from an impressive network of federal roads. But now those same highways that improved access and facilitated suburbanization are 50 years older, and our quality of life is being diminished by congestion. Everyone is tired of getting stuck in traffic and we are all dissatisfied with our ability to travel efficiently and safely in our communities.

America needs a new national approach to land use and transportation planning--both to address congestion issues and to accommodate the changing demographics of our population--before the transportation debate devolves into a power struggle over funding. By 2025, 64 million people will be over age 65 according to census projections. By 2030 a quarter of all U.S. drivers will be 65+. Some states, like Florida, already reflect these changes. Others will see them all too soon.

The 78 million boomers grew up primarily in the suburbs. The first wave are well into empty-nesting, while many of the youngest boomers still wave their kids off to school in the morning This first truly suburbanized generation, now ranging in age from their forties to their sixties, will grow old with few non-driving travel choices.

Both metropolitan and rural areas are becoming increasingly populated by non-drivers, including older boomers, younger immigrants and minorities. There are also a growing number of people who are driving less or using alternative modes where they are available. All these age diverse groups will need more robust transportation choices to meet increased travel demands. America’s increasingly diverse population will need a variety of affordable and accessible public transportation options, especially buses and light rail that serve residents of all incomes.

Long term, planners need to link plans for transportation and land use to provide a family of services that accommodate a range of travel preferences and mobility needs in different life stages, from childhood through old age. For example, paratransit should not be an add-on or an afterthought; it should be a component of a continuum of services and routinely provided using a door-to-door standard.

HUD Secretary Donovan and Transportation Secretary LaHood have pledged to work together toward the goal of “livable communities.” AARP applauds them and their vision. Now we must all work together to improve the ability of people to get to the places they need and want to go.

The days of building neighborhoods with loop and lollipop road plans are over. Mixed use, compact, and walkable developments serve everyone better--from young families, to working men and women, to older adults. Portland, Oregon has provided the nation with a successful model of Transit Oriented Development. At the street level, the Commonwealth of Virginia has dealt a blow to the ubiquitous cul-de-sac by announcing that DOT administrators will not provide state maintenance for streets in new developments that do not meet new minimum connectivity requirements. Not only do those roads cost too much in maintenance, they ultimately threaten the ability of residents to stay connected to community life.

Road planning, design, maintenance and operations that follow Complete Streets principles modeled in the bill now pending in Congress can help make roads safe and user-friendly for pedestrians, drivers, transit users and bicyclists alike. AARP also recommends separate legislation to upgrade and fund implementation of the FHWA roadway design guidelines for older drivers and pedestrians that, integrated with Completes Streets, can keep older drivers and pedestrians safe on roads and sidewalks and reduce crash risks for everyone.

Many communities and metropolitan areas like Iowa City and Atlanta are planning for the demographic changes coming at them. If these communities can do it, and state and local policymakers are committed to diversifying the family of transportation services available, then those shaping federal transportation policy should rise to the occasion.