Michael –

Congratulations on your new career change, but I did not assert that “more VMT equals more wealth”. What I wrote was that “Data worldwide show that increased VMT is associated with increasing wealth because it does increase mobility and accessibility”. Why do people travel more as they get wealthier if not to increase or enhance activities associated with increased mobility and accessibility?

Incidentally, as Steve Van Beek has thoughtfully shown us, the Rockefeller/Lautenberg legislation is not about “capping” per capita vehicle miles of travel but about reducing them.

Gabriel

America’s transportation system is both broke and broken. Fixing those problems will take new investment, a market-focused reorientation towards customers, new approaches to governance and service delivery, and success in setting and achieving system goals. It will require new forms of cooperation between the public and private sector, with incentives that tie public funds and private rewards to performance. HR 2724 – The National Transportation Objectives Act of 2009 – introduced by Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg, provides a valuable marker of what is needed. It lays out a vision for national transportation goals, establishes regional, state, and national planning and reporting to measure progress towards objectives, and begins to link funding to performance. Among its measures of progress is the highly achievable and appropriate goal of capping per capita vehicle miles of travel (VMT). In the past decade, America has already shown a capacity to largely decouple economic growth from growth in VMT. James Coreless and others on this blog have discussed the foundations for this development. Washington State has led the nation by adopting last year a law requiring state transportation plans to significantly reduce per capita VMT over time to meet climate action goals. Other states and regions are in various stages of advancing such goals. Comparing metropolitan areas of comparable wealth across America and across the world, it is obvious that some enjoy more efficient patterns of land use and transportation than others, just as some enjoy more efficient heating and cooling systems for building, more efficient appliances, and more efficient electricity production. In the 20th century environment of low cost energy in which greenhouse gases were accorded no value, there may have been some competitive advantage to high energy consumption economic structures. But in the emerging 21st century environment where energy becomes more costly and greenhouse gases are accorded economic value because they threaten the future viability of the planet for human civilization, metro areas and nations where access and mobility require higher per capita VMT will be at an increasing competitive disadvantage against areas and nations that can meet their needs with more efficient economic structures. Gabriel's Roth is wrong in asserting that more VMT equals more wealth because "it is associated with accessibility and mobility." Sound regional strategies for reducing per capita VMT will increase accessibility, mobility choices, and the proximity of opportunities. Such strategies will combine smart transportation system pricing, land use, and investments, fostering new paratransit, bus rapid transit, and non-motorized transportation opportunities, as well as more dependable but priced auto-mobility. Such strategies can and should be designed to help lower income households have better travel options at lower costs. Transportation generally is a cost, not a benefit. The only type of transportation that can be pegged as a benefit is recreational travel, where the travel itself (e.g. bicycling a rail trail, driving the Blue Ridge Parkway) is the destination, the thing being accessed. The error Mr. Roth makes is in assuming that it is the VMT that "creates" wealth. When people can access places they need to go with fewer VMT, they may save money, enabling them to devote scarce resources for better ends. VMT is a cost, a means to an end, rarely a goal in itself for consumers. Minimizing VMT – not through dictates on individuals but through better spatial planning and transportation system management and service development – can put money back in people’s pockets and create wealth. Michael Replogle is now Global Policy Director and Founder of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (mreplogle@itdp.org) and works in close cooperation with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Some of the participants have written about the correlation between VMT and economic growth as if you can't have one without the other. Given lower VMT per capita in other industrialized countries as I mentioned in my previous answer and the fact that here in the U.S. there are regions (Austin and Portland come to mind) where this relationship not as tight as others, this seems like a pretty flimsy thesis.

This is understandable once we see that VMT is not an end in itself (we drive to get to and from places, yes?); it is a means. This is a distinction that, as I wrote in my previous post, we learned about energy a couple of decades ago. Energy too is a means; the services it provides are what matter. This realization has yielded a host of innovations. To cite just one example, the energy-efficiency of our refrigerators has leaped since the 1970s, all while increasing in quality and size and decreasing in cost on a per-unit basis.

By making more efficient use of energy, some states and countries have realized huge energy savings in the electricity sector, without suffering economically. The graph below from Dan Kammen provides evidence of this fact.

When we focus on transportation as a means, not an end, we also realize that it can be costly. This is especially the case with driving. Annual fixed and variable costs of maintaining a vehicle that has to be driven 15,000 miles per annum is $8732 if gas costs $2.94 per gallon (according to AAA). And vehicle value depreciates over time. That means that reducing the amount of driving consumers must do to meet their daily needs actually expands economic opportunity, since the money saved can be invested more productively, say in education or a 401(k).

The energy analogy is really instructive, and the transportation field must realize that VMT is not an end in itself, but instead like energy use a cost of doing business. It's widely recognized that reducing energy-intensity of our economy is a worthwhile goal, and lowering traffic-intensity is similarly worthwhile.

Lisa:

Below is a list of the goals, including the first (reducing per capita VMT), from the Rockefeller/Lautenberg legislation. I thought they would be useful to enumerate given the comments of some of the bloggers. Whatever our individual thoughts about the individual goals or what should have been included but was not, it is a refreshing specificaiton given recent experiences. These goals are similar to those contained in many other national transportation policies.

Steve Van Beek

Major Goals of The Federal Surface Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009
• Reduce national per capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis;
• Reduce national motor vehicle-related fatalities by 50 percent by 2030;
• Reduce national surface transportation-generated carbon dioxide levels by 40 percent by
2030;
• Reduce national surface transportation delays per capita on an annual basis;
• Increase the percentage of system-critical surface transportation assets that are in a state
of good repair by 20 percent by 2030;
• Increase the total usage of public transportation, intercity passenger rail services, and non-
motorized transportation on an annual basis;
• Increase the proportion of national freight transportation provided by non-highway or
multimodal services by 10 percent by 2020; and
• Reduce passenger and freight transportation delays and congestion at international points
of entry on an annual basis.

As with most things in life, there’s a little bit of good, a little bit of bad and a whole lot of maybe in this plan.

Certainly, we need to have specific performance goals for our infrastructure, and from those goals we need to develop comprehensive, long-term plans. When it comes to transportation, I would argue that increased safety, eased mobility and improved conditions should be the focal points. While the bill does set some specific goals that could produce laudable results, including ones for emissions reduction, such specifics for the infrastructure provisions—VMT reduction, transit use, congestion relief, etc.—are lacking. That’s a pretty important omission, given that the infrastructure-related targets are the tools we need to reach the environmental goals.

A truly comprehensive plan is more complicated than just looking at it through a lens of emissions reductions. Environmental restoration should absolutely be one factor taken into account, but so should offering options for travel other than just highways. If we aren’t putting any money into highway improvements that ease congestion, the actual miles traveled don’t matter because drivers will be spending more time idling in traffic emitting greenhouse gasses. Right now, the bill asks more questions than it answers: How far should VMT be lowered and how much more should be spent on expanding transit? Increasing access to transit should have a downward effect on VMT, but by how much? Would that even meet the expectations of the legislation?

As the saying goes . . . the ‘devil is in the details’? The intention behind this legislation is a step in the right direction for easing the nation’s transportation woes. But until the ‘detail’ issues—like the lack of specific, actionable targets and just how we plan to pay for the reorganization and improvements that will be needed to meet the bill’s goals—are addressed, this just isn’t ready for primetime.

Arbitrarily reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is not an appropriate policy to achieve environmental goals. VMT is a measure of mobility, and the public should not be constrained in its travel choices.

While AAA members rely on and value various modes of transportation, there is no doubt that the personal vehicle has improved the quality of life, employment, and economic opportunities for many Americans, especially for moderate and low income workers. Arbitrarily reducing VMT would mean fewer family trips, fewer economic transactions within communities, more limited employment recruiting bases for small business, and a general societal shift away from the open and free-flowing interactions we’ve become accustomed to.

The true gains in the important goal of reducing the environmental impact of personal mobility will be made through vehicle and fuels technology. The approach should be to determine how best to incentivize and advance technological deployment in order to achieve greenhouse gas reductions.

VMT reductions will occur as a secondary effect of consumer choice. AAA supports increased coordination with government and private enterprise to support telecommuting and transit usage; increased promotion of transit opportunities that are currently operational; and better local coordination between residential and commercial development can help meet our future energy, environmental and transportation goals.

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions, reducing congestion, and providing reliable alternatives and affordable transportation options are all important aspects of the larger transportation policy picture. But arbitrary caps on personal mobility are counter-productive, and should not drive the decision-making.

With great timing for this debate, a new and highly informative paper has just been released by the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. It specifically focuses on the cost effectiveness of VMT targets and other mobility management targets:

"Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified? Evaluating Mobility Management Objectives Such As Targets To Reduce VMT And Increase Use Of Alternative Modes" ( http://www.vtpi.org/vmt_red.pdf )

Lisa

I apologize for taking up more space but the contribution from Jan Lars Mueller compels a response.

First, he wants us to “accept the premise, per other commentators, that we are not talking about limiting access or mobility”. But limitation of access or mobility is exactly what the issue is about. Data worldwide show that increased VMT is associated with increasing wealth because it does increase mobility and accessibility. Has Jan data to indicate the opposite?

Second, Jan is concerned about road fatalities, but the Obama “blood for oil” policies, mandating smaller and lighter vehicles, are more likely to increase road fatalities than to decrease them.

Third, Jan is concerned that “we have been unable to afford to maintain the highway system we have now”. but the Rockefeller/Lautenberg bill seeks to take money from road users to finance other transport modes. How will this improve highway maintenance?

Jan wants us to “accept VMT as a manageable, unifying measure of performance”. Managed by whom? For the benefit of consumers? Or of producers?

There are no inter-modal, unifying, measures of performance in the Rockefeller/Lautenberg bill which, if implemented, is likely to reduce mobility, increase fatalities and divert funding from facilities for which users are largely paying to those they are not prepared to pay for.

Jan Lars Mueller, senior policy associate with the transportation & energy program at the Environmental & Engery Study Institute in Washington, D.C., offers the following comments:

Should VMT reduction be a goal unto itself? Let's accept the premise, per other commenters, that we are not talking about limiting access or mobility--quite the opposite, we are accepting the challenge of enhancing access, mobility, and freight movement by the most cost-effective, efficient, and satisfactory means possible while reconciling other critical national goals. VMT reduction, in that case, may be an important pathway or by-product of achieving national goals--e.g. oil independence, greenhouse gas reduction--but not the goal unto itself, as Ms. Kavinoky points out.



VMT, however, is a darn good proxy for several performance indicators that are difficult to measure in practice, which makes it attractive and useful as a policy goal. Oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, again, are good examples--neither is easily measured at the metropolitan level where key transportation decisions are made. Another important area is public health and safety. Though air pollution emissions per vehicle-mile have dropped substantially in recent decades, as Mr. Cohen notes, increased traffic volume and congestion have, in several well-studied cases, led to increased local pollution exposure to motorists as well as residents, businesses, and schools near major roads (see EESI briefings, 6/5/09, 1/14/09, 12/03/08, www.eesi.org for more information).



Also, more than 2.4 million people were injured and more than 43,000 people were killed in U.S. traffic accidents in 2007 (at an annual estimated cost of $230 billion), according the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic fatality figures have remained stubbornly high for decades, despite numerous safety innovations, largely because of increased vehicle miles traveled. Causality is difficult to prove, but other factors being equal, the correlation is hard to ignore. A drop in VMT from 2007 to 2008 of approximately 4-5 percent paralleled a 9-10 percent drop in traffic fatalities.



Finally, there are reasons to reduce VMT directly. The most important one I see--especially after watching state DOTs add up the full costs of highway construction as they implement "asset management" programs--is that we have been unable to afford to maintain the highway system we have now--let alone add to it. In the future, we will need to make the best use of our existing road system by reducing VMT, and perhaps even disinvesting federal funds from less functionally critical roads. Few in the transportation community want to acknowledge this, but our national wealth, however great, is limited and facing increasing competing demands--health care, education, etc. If we care about long-term U.S. economic competitiveness, we will re-dedicate ourselves to developing more efficient, safer, healthier, and less costly ways of moving goods and people.



In short, we should either get ready to measure a long and unwieldy list of metrics, or accept VMT as a manageable, unifying measure of performance.

A focus on VMT reduction as a key performance measure for the nation’s surface transportation program seems odd both in terms of economics and policy. VMT and economic activity are closely linked. The causal linkages are real but not simple, however. It is hard to see how a 16 percent drop in per capita VMT can be accomplished without having a negative impact on economic activity.

VMT appears to be a proxy for the goal of reducing greenhouse gasses. If so, it would be better to set goals that provide direct measures, rather than indirect – say CO2 emissions from mobile sources.

One goal of transportation investment and operation (some would argue the primary goal) is to encourage economic growth. I would prefer to set an objective that reflects a direct link between transportation and economic growth. Access to jobs and access to labor is one such approach. This is modally neutral since improvements can be made using highways or transit and gains (or losses) can come from shifts in land use as well.

Perhaps All the King's Horses and All the King's Men Can Put Our Transportation Policy Back Together Again.

We should all be delighted congressional authorizers are finally talking about fundamentally reforming our nation's surface transportation policy. How long has it been since Congress was actually talking about what the our vision should be, the goals to implement the vision, and the funding allocation mechanisms to support them?

This is a potential turning point from what has been a disjointed and incremental policy that has been built by distributive politics rather than national needs. Seen in this light, I think it is productive that Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg have put these ideas on the table; it is exactly the kind of conversation we should be having.

My own inclination is that measures of service reliability, maintenance standards, access, greenhouse gas emissions, safety, and resiliency of the network are more likely to be the kinds of measures we should adopt. Per capita VMT is certainly something we should be tracking because it can help inform success or failure of policies in certain sectors or regions (especially if there are explicit policies supporting modal shift or evaluating the success of alternatives).

Having said that, I don't understand some commentators who assume it is necessarily beneficial to set a goal of reducing VMT. It is rather cavalier to assume that reducing VMT is the best way to further the myriad of goals we will set (e.g., reduction of greenhouse gas emissions). Before I make this kind of judgment, I would like to see the analysis for a range of mobility alternatives to see how they compare across the goals. Otherwise, it smacks of "faith-based" advocacy rather than sound planning and analysis.

Whatever our views, I don't think we should get too wrapped around our axles about particular measures at this point, instead we should support the House and the Senate's apparent efforts at redesigning our policy architecture and reforming our programs.

Keep up the good work Senators.

Mr. Roth,

Thank you for your comments. In answer your inquiry,

First, I don't think that we need to look to Europe or Tokyo to analyze what Americans are looking for in national transportation policy. We can stay right here in the states, where growth in transit ridership has been outpacing VMT for the last few years. According to a 2008 study from the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute:

Despite the long history of auto-centric planning and financial subsidies, recent trends show that transit may be reestablishing a significant role in American metropolitan areas. National increases in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) flattened in 2003 and actually declined in 2006. In 2005, for the first time in nearly a century, national transit ridership increased faster than VMT. Since 1995, transit ridership is up 25.1 percent compared to a 22.5 percent increase in VMT.

law.du.edu/images/uploads/rmlui/rmlui-sustainable-publicTransit.pdf

Note that those numbers are from early 2008, before volatile gas prices turned even more commuters into transit riders. You can also look at Amtrak's 6 straight years of record growth in ridership. These trends represent a commuting public that is using much more transit and rail, and no one is forcing anything.

As far as global climate change, I will defer to the scientists who have studied a sample size slightly larger than the first 8 years of this century over "commentators" with an agenda, and I will direct you to a recent US Government report representing a consensus of 13 agencies developed over a year and half focused on potential climate change impacts on the United States. The report found that:

Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow.

www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

Considering that the federal government and several state and local governments are now writing and implementing policies to try to adapt to the realities of a new climate, I think we can assume a change is afoot, and rather than refighting the ideological battles of years ago, we should be looking for solutions.

Finally, if you are truly interested in what a "new kind of transportation policy" would look like, I'll point you in the direction of the Transportation for America coalition and their extremely cogent and comprehensive blueprint for transportation reform, which was developed in consultation with transportation professionals, public officials and stakeholders from around the country.

t4america.org/pressers/2009/05/11/transportation-for-america-issues-national-blueprint-for-transportation-reform/

Speaking of stakeholders, in a response to the posting from the gentleman from Highways.org, I think that we can and should defer to those who actually work on behalf of "the poor, particularly the working poor and large families" to speak for those populations. Groups like the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations, PolicyLink, or the Transportation Equity Network, none of which should be confused with out-of-touch elitists, and all of which have signed on in support of HR 2724, the legislation at the root of this discussion.

Impeding our nation’s mobility should not be a national policy. Personal freedom is a defining characteristic of the American way of life, making us the envy of others around the globe. Enacting a plan to reduce VMT is a direct attack on the freedom of American citizens, many of whom would never be able to venture beyond the confines of their job or neighborhood if subjected to VMT restrictions.

Reducing per capita VMT is also a threat to U.S. productivity. As Greg Cohen mentioned, there’s a very strong relationship between VMT and our nation’s GDP. Instead of limiting mobility, we must focus on improving our nation’s crumbling infrastructure, which will alleviate traffic congestion. Each year the U.S. economy loses an estimated $78 billion in the form of 4.2 billion lost hours and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel as a result of congestion.

The trucking industry strongly supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make our country more energy independent, but the anti-motorist provisions in the proposed bill simply create more problems than they solve. Instead of requiring the federal government to develop intrusive policies in an attempt to alter behavior and personal choice, our nation’s transportation policy must look toward improving our infrastructure and utilizing available technology to create a more sustainable system.

John -

In my earlier post today I wrote that “many commentators write that, in the twentieth century, our planet is actually cooling.”

That was a typo. It is in the twenty-first century that the planet is reported to be cooling.

Gabriel

John –

In your interesting post of June 29 you wrote that

“The reason that travel is so closely tied to driving is because we have not developed sufficient alternatives. If they were provided more widely, high-speed rail and transit ridership would also spike in a strong economy”.

Can you provide examples of places in which increased provision of transit and high-speed rail is associated with reduced travel on the roads? Data from Europe and Japan indicate that road travel continues to increase despite massive investment in those modes.

In the light of this experience, can you define more precisely a “new kind of transportation policy” (other than reducing living standards) “that makes it easier for Americans to drive less”?

You also wrote that

“Highways are congested, oil demand is high, and the planet is warming”,

but many commentators write that, in the twentieth century, our planet is actually cooling.

On the basis of what data does PIRG believe that the planet is now warming?

Best wishes –

Gabriel

The Association for Commuter Transportation begins to answer this question by recognizing the basic assertion that federal transportation policy should be set based upon a series of desired outcomes. I think it is important to note that the discussion has shifted here from “should there be goals” to “which goals should there be”.

With that, it is important to recognize a goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled for what it is: a measurement of how well we are managing the capacity of our transportation system, not a reduction in the mobility of individuals. Where this has worked well with our membership is with the (oft-mentioned here) Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Program. Washington State, prior to the latest downward trend in VMT, had managed to hold its statewide VMT steady to falling based on programming designed to encourage commuters, in concert with their employers, to find a different way of getting to or performing their work other than by driving alone. See the biennial program reports at www.ctrboard.org for more details on their tracking of VMT as it relates to their program.

The program goals in Washington State have, over time, been incorporated into the overall Washington State transportation planning process. This has meant an increasing focus on questions of necessity as it relates to project selection, repair versus new capacity, and a look to technological and other solutions to encourage individuals to make thoughtful transportation choices. At its most basic point, a federal transportation policy should encourage these sorts of data analysis and program choices that Washington State has shown is possible through the inclusion of VMT goals into a transportation planning process. To answer the question, not only is a VMT goal possible, it is already being done and with consequences in project selection and funding.

For most of the last century, the U.S. transportation equation was pretty simple: VMT = Mobility. I suspect that some of my fellow bloggers who believe federal policy should not attempt to reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita continue to equate VMT with mobility.

The federal government certainly has no business promoting less mobility. But in the nation's major metropolitan areas, there are a growing number of ways to get around besides driving a car, especially for the journey to work. And in the interest of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and our dangerous reliance on foreign sources of oil, I believe it is appropriate for federal policy to encourage less driving per person as more alternatives to the automobile are made available for more trips.

Like any important national objective, the goal of reducing VMT per capita should not be pursued to the exclusion of other essential values. Many Americans -- whether due to the lack of real travel alternatives, the nature of their work, or some kind of physical disability -- will need to continue to rely on the automobile for their basic mobility. But many other Americans are willing and able to take transit, bike, or walk for more of their travel needs. Why not encourage them to do so?

Reducing VMT can be achieved in many ways that improve the American lifestyle while maintaining or even facilitating economic growth. Back in the 1980s, naysayers said the US couldn’t decouple energy use from GDP. In many similar respects we’re now facing the same situation with VMT and GDP. Already, before the economic recession in the past five years, VMT per capita has been leveling off at the same time that public transportation use has been increasing (which Keith Laughlin already mentioned).

Federal policy can put more momentum behind trends that are already occurring due to the realization of multiple benefits from both commuter and regulatory perspectives: oil savings, carbon emissions reductions, cleaner air, and time-value savings.

Now, let’s agree that certain regions of the country are more conducive to VMT reduction strategies than others. We can still make great strides toward reducing VMT on an aggregate level, by focusing on our urban and suburban centers, where the most miles are logged anyway. 1) More compact, location-efficient development, 2) public transportation, and 3) price signals are good ways to start.

We don’t have to look very far to see how we can increase mobility while reducing VMT. Europe has benefitted from a head start of centuries of land-use planning without the presence of the automobile. Japan has dealt with land constraints for a few decades, resulting in high density in its metropolitan areas, and is the world’s most efficient economy. Provinces like British Columbia and Ontario in Canada have enacted growth-management policies that have had real effects. Increased mobility can take the form of mixed-use development, walkable and bikable streets, and well-designed roadways. Imagine being able to grocery shop, pick up your kids from school, and go to work, at locations all within 20 minutes commute of each other. That’s why even normalized on a GDP per capita basis, Canada gets by on 3/4ths the VMT per capita of the US, Europe gets by on 2/3rds, while Japan does well on just half.

Besides well-planned cities, another factor accounting for the VMT per capita difference amongst Europe, Japan, Canada and the US is public transportation use. The U.S. would do well to increase ridership on rail and buses to reach levels that of our counterparts across the seas. For starters, regions should coordinate transportation infrastructure more effectively. The San Francisco Bay Area region, for example, has over 40 separate local transportation agencies managing everything from transit, to congestion management, to air quality. They’ve long recognized the need to coordinate; a federal goal of reducing VMT would make progress toward providing local and state agencies with the push they need to integrate transportation infrastructure, for example, on a payment structure or the synchronization of different services. Doing so will focus us on an even better metric for mobility and efficiency of our transportation system, vehicle-person miles traveled. At the end of the day, we can increase the number of people using existing alternative transportation options, improving the efficiency of our transportation system and lowering VMT without reinventing the wheel.

Lastly, public transportation becomes more attractive when we price correctly the externalities of driving our own vehicles. The gas tax is one way. Charging for free parking in suburban areas is another. Numerous studies conducted by Donald Shoup of UCLA show that we grossly underprice parking: Shoup estimates we spend anywhere of $127 billion to $374 billion per year, which is higher than amount spent on national defense budget and higher than total value of roadways. We can start by having more companies reward their employees for ridesharing, walking, or biking to work.

When we get the economics of land-development and public transportation on a truly level playing field with that of driving our vehicles, US VMT reduction can be achieved in the same way that it was in Canada, Europe, and Japan. In 15 to 20 years from now, VMT reduction, together with other strategies (e.g. improvements in vehicle technology, traffic operations, and low-carbon fuels), can make real progress toward the end goal of providing more mobility while achieving the huge co-benefits of healthier communities and a less oil-dependent economy.

It is entirely appropriate, even necessary, for our federal investment in transportation to create a future network that allows Americans to accomplish more—being able to get to work, school, shopping, family and friends—without having to driving more.

This is the simple principle of efficiency and can be accomplished by providing the public more choices: more options in how to travel, more affordable housing options that are closer to jobs, schools, retail and services to allow for shorter trips, and more incentives in the workplace to encourage telecommuting, carpooling and public transit.

Transportation for America supports the goals in HR2724 and in S1036, which would establish a target of reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled over the next 20 years. The 16 percent per capita reduction spelled out in HR2724 would essentially hold total vehicle miles driven constant given projected population increases.

Incidentally, the notion that higher rates of driving are necessary for economic growth just doesn’t stand up to examination. An analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Statistics shows that, by and large, the metro areas with lower per capita VMT are the most economically competitive, with the highest GDP. Austin, Texas, for example, saw 11 percent growth in its GDP between 2002 and 2006, while VMT per capita dropped by 12.3 percent.

So how do we meet a goal of leveling off VMT over the next two decades?

First, we design our systems to match market and demographic trends and launch an aggressive program to meet the pent-up demand for more affordable housing near jobs and services, more walkable neighborhoods, and good public transportation. When we crafted the current federal program in the 1950s, exponential growth in automobile travel was almost a given, and policies were created to accommodate and even promote it, as families moved to suburbs, women streamed into the workforce and an entirely new surburban form became the norm. Today, there are numerous indications that Americans will be driving less, on the whole, in the future. Indeed, VMT began leveling off even before the current economic downturn.

As oil becomes less plentiful and more hotly contested in coming decades, reducing per-person consumption will be part of the nation’s plan to insulate ourselves from volatile energy markets and potentially hostile oil-producing countries. Higher prices, in any event, will lead Americans to reduce their driving, as they did when prices spiked dramatically last summer and fall.

But perhaps even more powerful are the demographic changes that are well under way. First is the aging of the population: It is estimated that by 2030 one in four Americans will be 65 or older. As they leave the work force, stop commuting and begin to restrict the hours and distances they travel from home, older Americans generally drive less than the population as a whole. In the baby-boom era of the early days of interstates and car-oriented suburbs, fully half of all households had a Mom, Dad and kids. Today that share has shrunk to less than a third, while the proportion of single-person households edged past it. There are increasing numbers of baby boomers now looking downsize and locate in a more walkable, transit and amenity-rich city or suburb. We are just beginning to see this tip of the demographic iceberg, and we are

The other big change since the 1950s is that most Americans – 75 percent – now live in metropolitan areas. The largest 100 metropolitan areas alone account for 65 percent of the population and 78 percent of economic activity. And the population is projected to become even more heavily concentrated in urban and suburban areas in coming years.

In the future, we will find that the measures we take to deal with these facts of life, beyond meeting the demand for transit and walkable neighborhoods, will have the effect of lowering per capita VMT. Even as growing congestion leads many to avoid or trips or shift to other modes, it is almost inevitable that metro regions will begin using price signals in the form of variable tolls to manage congestion on key corridors, which will further suppress VMT. In increasingly contested urban space, parking will become less available and more expensive, further increasing the incentive to carpool, bike or use public transit.

Understand that this over-arching VMT target is for the nation as a whole, not for every area of every state. There will be rural places that find it difficult to reduce VMT absent punishing fuel prices, which we wouldn’t wish on anyone. We do think there needs to be concerted thinking, now, about how to help small cities and towns in the likely event that future fuel prices become prohibitive.

Meeting the demand for alternative travel and living options coupled with the sensible, necessary measures to accommodate a larger population living in urban and suburban centers make it highly likely we will meet or exceed the 16 percent target. We can shape our investment policies to make this easier, more comfortable and more affordable for all Americans, or we can remain unprepared for both the coming seismic shift in demographics as well as the next major energy crisis and suffer the consequences.

Don’t Regulate VMT Reduction

VMT reduction targeting, along the lines desired by environmental groups and some members of Congress, is already the law in California, thanks to SB 375, enacted last year. In the name of greenhouse gas reduction, this law sets GHG reduction targets for each of the state’s 17 metro areas and requires them to draft smart-growth-oriented land use and transportation plans aimed at reducing VMT. Those that produce the “best” plans to do this will get priority in the allocation of about $20 billion per year in federal and state transportation funding.

The logic chain that underlies such efforts goes something like this. Transportation is a major source of GHGs, and the more people drive, the more GHGs they emit. If their jobs, schools, and shopping are close to where they live, they won’t drive as much. Therefore, government should promote compact, high-density development so as to reduce driving and therefore to reduce GHGs.

When you work through this logic chain with data and numbers, it starts falling apart. First, all of transportation (including trucking, airlines, barges, etc.) contributes 27.9% of U.S. GHG emissions, according to the EPA. Personal vehicles (cars and light trucks) are 61% of that; hence, personal vehicles are the source of 17% of GHGs, not one-third, as you will often hear. Second, GHG emissions from vehicles are a function of speed. Stop & go driving (as in congestion) produces much greater GHG emissions than steady-speed driving between 30 and 60 mph; above about 60 mph, GHGs increase fairly rapidly. Third, there is no hard data showing that people who live in higher densities drive significantly less than those who live in typical suburbia. Fourth, there is excellent data from the Australian Conservation Foundation showing that among housing types, townhouses have the lowest carbon footprint, single-family suburban houses the second-lowest, and high-rise condo-type dwellings the highest. This logic chain also ignores considerable evidence that traffic congestion increases with urban density—which of course increases GHG emissions.

If the attempts to reduce VMT in these ways succeed, the result will be even greater reductions in mobility than Americans already suffer through from today’s traffic congestion. There is a growing academic literature that finds direct correlations between reduced travel times and regional economic productivity. One key example: if you can go twice as far in a 30-minute commute, your potential-jobs area is four times as large (since the area of a circle around your house is proportional to the radius squared). Some of this research is summarized in the 2008 book Mobility First, by my Reason colleagues Sam Staley and Adrian Moore (available from amazon.com).

Rather than restricting mobility via VMT reduction, transportation -related GHG reduction measures should be required meet a reasonable cost-effectiveness standard. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the well-respected McKinsey & Company study, “Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?” recommend $50/ton as a good benchmark, below which there are ample opportunities for large-scale but low-cost GHG reduction measures. (In the vehicular area, one of the most cost-effective is miles-per-gallon standards, like the tougher ones the President announced in May.) VMT reduction, especially via smart-growth land-use changes, will surely flunk that test.

And instead of setting goals for reduced VMT, we should aim to reduce VHT—vehicle hours of travel. HOT lanes and new urban toll roads using congestion pricing are excellent at reducing VHT, since reliable time savings are their main rationale. And since congestion pricing can maintain free-flow, uncongested travel, these managed roadways also reduce GHG emissions.

In summary our aim should be to reduce CO2, not mobility.

No. Reducing travel should not be national policy. VMT is not an environmental metric. In fact, since the 1970 Clean Air Act, VMT has grown dramatically while regulated pollutant emission levels have plunged. The same will be true for regulated greenhouse gases.

A proper environmental performance goal would be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers. Similarly, a reasonable transportation performance goal could be to cost-effectively reduce delay or VHT (vehicle hours traveled) instead of VMT. VHT reductions should come from congestion relief projects.

The one variable that is most closely correlated to VMT is actually Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In fact, since 1950 the cumulative correlation rate between VMT and GDP, calculated using Pearson’s R is 0.9946. This is an extraordinarily strong correlation. The R-squared value of 98.9% indicates the predictive value between the two variables.

In other words, it is highly likely that any successful VMT-reduction program would be accompanied by nationwide economic declines – exactly what has occurred over the last year. In fact, the only times that VMT has EVER declined has occurred during periods of economic decline and rising unemployment.

Who would be harmed most by a mandatory VMT-reduction policy? Clearly, rich, single people would be able to afford to commute, shop, and recreate in a car under any federal behavioral-control plan. But the poor, particularly the working poor and large families, would be hurt the most – confined to jobs and shopping only in their neighborhoods or along transit lines. Should they be denied the opportunity that auto-mobility provides?

Personal mobility that comes from roads and private vehicles provide opportunity for real people. The ability of people at any economic class to afford mobility is one of the greatest ways to improve the quality of their lives. People all over the world admire America for our freedom of mobility; the freedom to leave! We should never restrict it.

The truth is mandatory VMT-reduction schemes are elitist and their advocates have little consideration for the people they would hurt the most. It is baffling to me that some supporters of such schemes could actually consider themselves to be liberal!

Back in 1995, EPA tried to reduce VMTs by executive fiat through a so-called employee trip reduction (ETR) requirement ( otherwise known as Employee Commute Options or ECO program ). The requirement proved so controversial that Congress repealed it even before it could take effect. The same fate awaits any proposals for VMT reduction mandates today. Indeed, I have yet to hear any one on Capitol Hill consider the Rockefeller-Lautenberg bill seriously.

Establishing an objective of reducing VMT reflects a failure to understand the underlying economic importance of travel and tourism. We need to encourage travel, not discourage it!!!

In all probability, an integrated policy designed to reduce vehicular emissions, promote energy conservation and provide alternatives to driving personal automobiles will result in fewer VMT, since it is unlikely that more acceptable personal vehicles will be developed soon enough to permit VMT to continue to grow. However, policy makers should focus on the problems – excess emissions, excessive petroleum consumption and inadequate travel alternatives -- rather than to the consequences of inadequate past planning.

Yes. As a matter of policy, reducing per capita VMT should be an essential objective for the next surface transportation bill. Anticipated reductions in green house gases due to improvements in per mile fuel efficiency should not be cancelled out by increases in miles driven. What’s more, even if driving were a zero emission activity we would still want to reduce VMT in the course of achieving a host of other transportation outcomes, such as curtailing congestion, reducing the burden of transportation costs on household budgets and improving quality of life.

But despite the warnings of those who think VMT reduction will require massive social engineering to pry people out of their cars, I submit that it won’t take much more than making common sense investments to expand the transportation choices available to the American people.

Why is this?

Most people who follow federal transportation policy know that spurring VMT reduction is not the biggest challenge to formulating a new authorization of the federal surface transportation bill. Rather, the biggest challenge is the insolvency of the transportation trust fund resulting from declining levels of VMT growth.

This point is important because it highlights a central truth: reducing per capita VMT is not forcing people to do something they don’t want to do; rather it is helping them do more of something they are already doing.

Since 1956 we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars building the interstate highway system. In addition to maintaining that system in a state of good repair, our goal for the future must be to build out the other half of a balanced transportation system. It is time for investments in walking, biking and public transportation that provide the American people with more transportation choices as they contemplate getting from Point A to Point B. Not only will such a strategy reduce per capita VMT, it will provide the American people the choices that they eagerly want.

I look forward to some good discussion on this question, but with the caveat that I don’t think it is properly framed. Let me explain.

Setting performance targets is a very appropriate step for government to take, and in its role as the policy setting branch of government, it’s a good idea for Congress to play a role in setting those targets. In fact, setting performance goals and measuring progress isn’t just a good idea, it’s the law! The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) passed by Congress in 1993 calls for all national programs to the managed according to performance goals, with a process of Strategic Plans, Performance Plans and Results Reports as the basis for compliance.

Implementing GPRA has not been a overnight process, although the US Department of Transportation has been among the leaders in using GPRA. Their Strategic Plans, developed with broad participation inside and outside the Department, identify the broad goals for transportation programs. The Performance Plans, developed each year in conjunction with the Budget, identify and assess strategies to meet these goals and their sub-objectives, identifying appropriate measures of performance and success. And the Annual reviews report publicly on success and failures.

Even though USDOT has been a leader in this process, it can be improved, and one key element in improvement is validating the goals for program success with the Congress, most effectively through statements as part of authorizing bills. Another area where improvement is required is in the alignment of actions by all parties involved in programs. While states and localities argue, with some good rationale, that they should have latitude on how to reach goals, I would argue that the acceptance of federal funding mandates that they become part of the management process, with consequent obligation to report goals. And there will need to be a much greater focus on sound data collection and analysis to support the process.

All that said, what about the Rockefeller-Lautenberg proposals? I see the overall proposal as a good step forward in explicit goal setting, and would expect the debate over their legislation to provide the stakeholder input required for broad acceptance of goals. However, as to the VMT proposal, it is problematic in terms of performance management. Appropriate performance goals are best expressed in terms of desired outcomes, not in terms of outputs or inputs. What is it we are trying to accomplish? In this case, it seems to be a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with perhaps some side benefits in reducing transport costs to the individual. I think most people, or at least I, would endorse such goals. We should be focusing on the objective, then on the best strategies to achieve those objectives with an appropriate balance of costs and benefits.

As we debate the Senate Commerce proposal, let’s aim to make performance management an effective tool, not to throw it out because we disagree with a particular element.

To say that most Americans would reject transportation strategies that make it easier to drive less is naïve at best. But don’t take my word for it. Earlier this month, over 140 major national, state, and local organizations, with a collective membership somewhere in the millions, wrote to Congress to appeal for a new kind of transportation policy that makes it easier for Americans to drive less. (www.uspirg.org/uploads/sM/pK/sMpKponYMb87E1tYXtCp-Q/HR2724-letter-FINAL.pdf) These organizations, who represent a truly broad spectrum of politics and geography (I haven’t been in DC long, but long enough to recognize that a letter signed by Friends of the Earth, The Friends Committee on National Legislation, and The Free Congress Foundation is rare), have come together in support of 10 critical objectives for the federal surface transportation program, as iterated in legislation recently introduced by Representatives Holt, Inslee, and Carnahan. - (This legislation expands on a similar bill introduced in the Senate by Commerce Chair Jay Rockefeller and Senator Lautenberg). Chief among the 10 objectives is a 16 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled in order to reduce the transportation‐generated carbon dioxide level by 40 percent by 2030.

Has this large and diverse community of advocates come together to promote federally-mandated behavior modification? No. The thing that so many transportation stakeholders, including environmentalists, land developers, protectors of public health, and local community leaders, have recognized is that a coordinated effort at all levels of government is needed in order to develop and build a more energy-efficient and environmentally-sustainable system that makes it easier for people to drive less. That is exactly the goal of HR 2724 – The National Transportation Objectives Act of 2009.

But will Congress hear the millions of voices that are calling out for this new direction or the singular misleading argument that somehow reducing driving would hurt the economy, which is like arguing that a reduction in caviar consumption would shrink the upper-class. The fact is that travel increases when the economy is strong and decreases when the economy is weak, because so much travel is dependent on disposable income. The fluctuation in driving is a result of the current strength of the economy, not the cause of it. The reason that travel is so closely tied to driving is because we have not developed sufficient alternatives. If they were provided more widely, high-speed rail and transit ridership would also spike in a strong economy. The difference, though, is that there would be a much smaller spike in oil consumption and carbon emissions.

Highways are congested, oil demand is high, and the planet is warming. In order to address these major challenges, while also improving quality of life, we must make it easier for people to get around without driving. But that is not a tough pill for all of us to swallow. It’s the medicine that so many in the public are crying for, and again you don’t have to take my word for it - www.uspirg.org/uploads/sM/pK/sMpKponYMb87E1tYXtCp-Q/HR2724-letter-FINAL.pdf.

Of course, reducing vehicle miles of travel is an appropriate national goal, coupled with reducing global warming , pollution, and reducing dependence on foreign oil imports. But that achievement must be matched by offsetting goals, finding alternatives to oil based energy, offering alternatives to travel by personal vehicle, and developing an alternative source of infrastructure financing other than the gas tax.

Reducing vehicle miles of travel can best be done by implementing stringent CAFE standards, raising the federal gas tax by a significant amount and ultimately a vehicle mile tax, congestion pricing and similar policies and measures.

The only major impediment is the political will and courage to do the right thing.

I seem to have missed something. It was my impression that the problem is emissions, and with fossil fuels emissions are directly linked to usage. It was also my impression that the long term goal is to find fuels and propellants that drastically reduce or eliminate emissions. If that is the goal, and it is achieved, what is to be gained by limiting usage since the undesirable side effects have been mitigated?

Of course, no one likes traffic and maintaining the current levels of usage will continue to make travel, especially at certain times, a chore. However, the planet killing aspect will disappear, leaving only the soul killing boredom and annoyance that traffic jams engender.

No. Reducing VMT per capita is but one strategy to achieve goals such as enhanced mobility, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and lower energy consumption. In some geographies, such as the Rocky Mountain west and my home state of Wyoming, it is not appropriate or practical. In some industries, including retail that relies on trucks for delivery, it is not plausible. Not only is it a strategy that doesn’t work everywhere, it also implies restricting the freedom to travel. So while reducing VMT per capital may sound like a reasonable goal – especially if one is of the school that roads have been ruinous to communities and the environment, which I am not – it is only one means to several ends.

Instead of prescribing reduced VMT per capita, put it in the context of these and other strategies to meet the goals mentioned in the previous paragraph:

• Employing technology to provide better information to travelers about mode selection, route choices and travel times so they can plan and adjust their travel as needed.
• Implementing technology for smarter operation of transportation systems by owners.
• Managing congestion through operational strategies.
• Improving vehicle technologies so that cars and trucks consume less energy and emit less pollution.

Then measure performance around the big picture goals. It will take more than one approach to achieve these goals since states and communities need to pursue solutions that work best to meet their unique transportation needs.

It is not appropriate. So long as road users pay the costs of their travel, it is unacceptable for Secretary LaHood to “coerce people out of their cars”.

Most travel is not for its own sake. We strive for mobility to enhance the scope and quality of our activities. So a reduction of Vehicle-miles of Travel (VMT) per capita — be it by reductions in the length of trips or in their number — will generally lead to a reduction of preferred activities: People will be “coerced” to live in less convenient places; to work in less suitable jobs; to shop in fewer and closer stores; to visit fewer friends.

If the use of carbon fuels imposes external costs on society, all users should be charged an appropriate tax, and left to decide for themselves which activities to cut. Taxes in the range of $25 to $50 per ton of carbon dioxide — which would raise the price of gasoline about 22—45 cents a gallon — have been considered appropriate, but would not significantly reduce motorized travel.

So how might legislators reduce people’s travel? There are four likely approaches.

- Increase the time spent traveling, by not expanding the highway system;

- Increase the cost of travel by raising the prices of vehicles or fuel;

- Provide superior alternatives to the private car; or

- Mandate planning regulations to encourage high-density living.

Allowing congestion to increase travel times would be the easiest, since it would result from inaction, rather than from a highly visible tax increase. In the name of "multi-modal planning," road-use taxes could be diverted, as the Senate bill suggests, to "increasing the total usage of public transportation, intercity passenger rail services, and non-motorized transportation."

Increasing fuel taxes, perhaps by as much as $4 per gallon, as some have suggested (a “bargain,” we’re told, compared to the $6-per-gallon German motorists pay), would have the added advantages of reducing the federal deficit; helping nationalized car manufacturers sell smaller, less-safe, cars; and pleasing the environmental lobbies.

How about alternatives to the private car? Bicycles are good for some trips but not for most. Trips by public transport (where it is available) typically take two or three time as long as by car, so it is not practicable for most travelers to switch from private to public transport without reducing the amount of their travel.

Journeys by public transport are not only much slower than by car, they also require heavy subsidies. Road users — in contrast to transit users — generally pay most of their journey costs, and one fifth of the federal fuel taxes they pay is diverted to transit. The funds for the additional transit trips are likely to come from road users, on the model of the proposed rail extension to Dulles Airport that is to be financed in part by increased tolls on a parallel highway.

Planning regulations can be used to encourage high density living, and reduce single-occupancy driving, but “Smart Growth” policies have had mixed results. The House bill proposes to establish a federal “Office of Livability” within the federal Department of Transportation to

“verify that States and metropolitan areas achieve progress towards national transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals"

which are not specified.

Those who founded a federal republic on July 4, 1776 did not envision this sort of supervision. Is federal regulation of local land-use planning really desirable in the 21st century?

These considerations lead me to conclude that the nice people running the federal government should have better things to do than to attempt to reduce the amount of travel undertaken by others.