Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 6: The Effects of Socio-Demographics on Future Travel Demand (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

59 This research project has created a package of tools, Impacts 2050, that have been designed to assist state DOTs, MPOs, and other transportation agencies in better coping with the effects of uncertainty in their long- range planning process. At the core of the package is the Impacts 2050 model, a spreadsheet-based, scenario-planning tool that is designed to assess the effects of various socio-demographic and other trends on long- term transportation outcomes and needs. With this tool, agencies have the capability to relatively easily define, test, and evaluate the impacts of trends on existing projections and estimates of need. Impacts 2050 is an SD model that simultaneously accounts for the interaction of a wide range of variables on the nature and magnitude of travel demand 30, 40, and even 50 years into the future. Implicit in its structure is the interaction among key sectors—population, employ- ment, land-use patterns, and transportation supply—that are known to be highly interdependent, and influenced by economic, technological, financial, and policy developments. Accompanying Impacts 2050 is a set of scenarios, strategically designed to represent dramatically different planning futures. In contrast to a baseline Momentum scenario, which reflects continuation of exist- ing trends, are three scenarios that depict radically different futures: a high-tech scenario (Technology Triumphs), in which technology greatly enhances transportation and economic productivity; an economic hard- ship scenario (Global Chaos) that depicts flat or no economic growth, widespread joblessness, and reduced quality of life; and an environmental consciousness scenario (Gentle Footprint) that places limiting harm to the physical environment as a societal priority. Impacts 2050 was used to project the impacts of each scenario on 2050 transportation conditions in several metropolitan areas to quan- titatively illustrate how existing transportation plans and policies could lead to widely different outcomes in the face of future shifts in any of the key underlying factors. The goal of both Impacts 2050 and the scenarios is to enhance the capability of transportation agencies to address uncertainties in their plans, expand their analytic capabilities, and assist them in educating and engaging stakeholders on the importance of sensitizing plans and expectations to potentially radical changes in historical trends. The travel forecasting models many trans- portation agencies use are categorically different from the design and intent of Impacts 2050. C H A P T E R 8 Relevance and Value of Impacts 2050 to Transportation Agencies Chapter 8 Takeaways • Impacts 2050 can enhance capabilities of transportation agencies to address uncertainties in plans, expand analytic capabilities, and assist with educating and engaging stakeholders. • Impacts 2050 may aid agencies by: – Supporting long-range plan development. – Supplementing the capabilities of existing planning models. – Formalizing the consideration of uncertainty in the planning process. – Facilitating participation in the planning process. – Serving as a sketch-planning tool for providing quick and timely answers, and supporting sensitivity and exploratory analyses. – Serving as a utility program for providing data inputs to models and the planning process. “Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.“ John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States

60 The Effects of Socio-Demographics on Future Travel Demand Not surprisingly, those future conditions are strongly defined by past trends. If those conditions change—as the result of one key factor changing substantially, or multiple factors interacting more subtly—the implications for the reality of the original forecasts may be dramatic. While Impacts 2050 is not intended to replace these traditional models, it is meant to (1) show how significant these uncertainties can be, (2) foster broader awareness of and the importance of uncertainty, and (3) set the stage for more meaningful dialogue and creative thinking in terms of mitigating strategies or planning scenarios. 8.1 Demands of the Long-Range Planning Process Both state DOTs and MPOs are required under federal law as a condition of funding to engage in a comprehensive long-range planning process. While the makeup, authority, and responsibilities between these two types of agencies have important differences, common to both is the require- ment for a long-range plan that projects conditions, needs, and programs over a horizon of at least 20 years into the future, and a routine update process that occurs roughly every four years. The update is a major process, involving many players—staff, elected officials, stakeholders, and the public—during which: • Previous goals and objectives are reviewed for attainment and continued relevance, • New projections of population and employment are received in conjunction with develop- ment plans, • Transportation needs are evaluated through use of transportation planning models, and • New transportation projects and programs are evaluated in response to the growth trends and projected needs. Specific projects and programs recommended for funding and implementation must come from this comprehensive process. These recommended projects must not only demonstrate cost-effectiveness in meeting projected demand, but satisfy other evaluation criteria as well. These criteria are largely linked to the adopted goals that frame the plan, which themselves are significantly guided by the “planning factors” established under MAP-21. These factors are intended to ensure that transportation investments are supportive of critical social, economic, and environmental goals that are served by transportation. As outlined under the latest revision of the MAP-21 (USC 2012), these planning factors include (emphasis added): • Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competi- tiveness, productivity, and efficiency. • Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users. • Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users. • Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight. • Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns. • Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight. • Promote efficient system management and operation. • Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. The goals and objectives in state DOT and MPO transportation plans must embody these plan- ning factors. Increasingly, these agencies are being required to measure the performance of their project and plan recommendations in achieving these goals and in selecting projects. This obvi- ously places more weight on the respective planning and decision-making process to adopt achievable long-term goals and select projects that are most likely to achieve them.

Relevance and Value of Impacts 2050 to Transportation Agencies 61 The challenge for state DOTs and MPOs is that they neither directly control many of the fac- tors that define the assumptions that make up the long-range plans, nor have complete control over the prioritization of projects. For example: • Residential and employment growth assumptions are largely the result of both local develop- ment plans and exogenous forecasts. • The location of growth and the design of the development are largely controlled by local juris- dictions with planning and zoning authority. • Project priorities are heavily influenced by the political process, which reflects support for local plans and priorities—often in exception to or without full consideration of regional or state priorities. Since the state DOTs or MPOs are not in control of these key underlying elements, it is dif- ficult to foster broader thinking about and support for alternative ways to potentially manage growth, supply efficient transportation, and achieve key economic, social, and environmental goals. To a reasonable extent, part of the challenge is being able to illustrate the potential effects of alternative approaches, or how the area might grow very differently based on exogenous trends in the economy, technology, funding levels, environmental initiatives, etc. Several strategies have been devised and tested for intervening in this set of relationships to try to raise the discussion level to consider a broader array of factors, actions, and outcomes. Among these strategies are “visioning” exercises and scenario planning. While the two are very similar and often intertwined, the nature of visioning is frequently fairly broad and qualitative, while sce- nario planning generally is more specific as to assumptions and employs tools to quantify probable outcomes. With visioning, participants are generally asked to look at a broad set of possibilities and not be constrained by historical experience or practical constraints, such as funding, existing condi- tions (facilities, development, zoning), or adopted regulations. Visioning may be the way DOTs or MPOs obtain input to their long-range plans. In comparison, scenario planning is more focused, tied down to a fairly specific set of alterna- tive growth, land-use, and transportation investment “futures” that may represent a synthesis of the ideas (“visions”) that come out of a visioning exercise or may be composed by a specially con- vened group of individuals who hold decision-making power in the planning process. The goal is to represent an array of possible approaches and try to characterize the expected outcomes across a range of important indicators. Because generally no one scenario will appear superior across all criteria, the scenario exercise serves to compare the alternatives with each other in a manner that highlights their impacts as tradeoffs. The participants then weigh the tradeoffs in developing recommendations for the preferred scenario. While exercises such as these have been employed by many DOTs and MPOs, their results have not been seen as uniformly meaningful or productive in attracting desired attention to key issues. One important reason for this may lie in the tools and information used to support scenario planning, which may be limited in terms of: • Their ability to accommodate or accurately estimate the impact of highly relevant strategies, such as the relationship between compact mixed land-use and travel behavior, especially in reducing auto ownership and VMT, and increasing use of transit and nonmotorized modes. • Dexterity/flexibility in entering assumptions and manipulating conditions. • Visual communication of problem setting, alternatives, and impacts. • Extensive computational time that prevents real-time use. Admittedly, the challenges of scenario planning extend far beyond simply being able to “model” a provocative set of scenarios. Lack of any direct authority over local planning and land-use

62 The Effects of Socio-Demographics on Future Travel Demand decisions means that many of the key variables that would be essential to proper scenario plan- ning are, for practical purposes, fixed, which greatly constrains the range of important options. However, it is reasonable to believe that one way to objectively visit and challenge this constraint is to provide credible evidence as to the impacts of future changes on transportation, economic development, and other key societal goals. 8.2 Value and Potential Use of Impacts 2050 In light of these responsibilities associated with the long-range planning process, and the gaps presented by the suite of existing planning tools, it was of direct interest to ascertain whether and how the Impacts 2050 model and prepackaged scenarios may be of use in the process. To address this question, input was obtained from a number of sources, including planners and planning officials who participated in the demonstration workshops, those who agreed to pilot test the model, and members of the project panel with extensive state DOT experience and familiarity. Clearly, the long-range planning process pursued by states and MPOs is about more than pro- duction of an official long-range plan every four years. While updating the plan is a major task for states and MPOs that can consume as much as two years of intense activity, much of the ongoing daily work of these agencies is concerned with planning for the future and attempting to balance current needs with making responsible, cost-effective, and sustainable long-term decisions. Ques- tions are routinely raised about the potential consequences of a new trend (e.g., fuel prices, travel tendencies of Millennials); policies to respond to a trend (e.g., tolling to enhance revenues); or the potential impact of a major new transportation investment. Viewed in this manner, activities and responsibilities related to long-range planning are continuous in most transportation agencies, and also involve a wide variety of functions that frequently stretch the agency’s capabilities. Based on feedback from the state DOT and MPO audiences, the needs associated with these gaps that may be aided by Impacts 2050 fall into the following general categories: • Supporting long-range plan development. • Supplementing the capabilities of existing planning models. • Formalizing the consideration of uncertainty in the planning process. • Facilitating participation in the planning and decision-making processes. • Serving as a sketch-planning tool for providing quick and timely answers, as well as supporting sensitivity and exploratory analyses. • Serving as a “utility” program for providing data inputs to models and the planning process. The following is a summary of those needs and possible applications offered by those who pilot tested the model. 8.2.1 Supporting Long-Range Plan Development As earlier noted, the development of the actual long-range plan—or, more properly, its peri- odic update—is a major activity for any DOT or MPO. Goals and objectives must be revisited and revised in light of past performance, future trends, and new regulatory or funding require- ments; new forecasts are run; and new priorities are established. This process involves many players, inside and outside of the agency. Staff must perform research and assemble key infor- mation on past performance and future trends (incorporation of member forecasts, national trends), and must communicate policy objectives. And at each step, there is active involvement of stakeholders—governing boards, elected officials, technical committees, interest groups, and the general public—to provide their ideas and recommendations, review staff materials and

Relevance and Value of Impacts 2050 to Transportation Agencies 63 suggestions, and eventually help craft the new plan. This plan development process could ben- efit from new tools in many ways, specifically the features of the Impacts 2050 methods, both in expanding the set of issues that can be examined, as well as in ways of communicating with participants. While long-range plan development is a participatory process, the inclusiveness may come at the expense of objectivity and sustainability. Member jurisdictions will understandably advocate for their own visions and priorities, and so development of the respective regional or statewide plan will be something of a compromise between local versus regional/statewide objectives, and between near-term and long-term outcomes, and will not necessarily reflect an optimal plan for allocating resources. While this process is largely the result of institutional factors, the inability of the planning tools to effectively depict the tradeoffs among different future land-use and investment scenarios greatly diminishes the opportunity to interject valuable objectivity into the decision-making process. 8.2.2 Supplementing Travel Forecasting Existing travel forecasting modeling tools have several characteristics that limit the potential of the long-range planning process to pursue a wider and potentially more enlightened set of conclusions. First, most conventional trip-based models were not designed to address the types of planning or policy questions that have become increasingly important, such as those related to the interplay between land use, transportation investments, and travel behavior. Because Impacts 2050 incorporates this interplay and other key relationships as part of its basic structure (even in a limited manner), it offers agencies greater opportunity to explore scenarios with a wider range of important factors. Second, almost all existing transportation models—including the newer activity- and tour- based models—tend to be highly detailed and complex, and require substantial time and effort to set up and return results. This tends to limit the number of variations that can be considered when investigating alternatives, and eliminates the opportunity for real-time interaction with participants. The Impacts 2050 model is quite the opposite of this conventional experience: it is a strategic planning model designed to respond quickly to planning questions, thus sustaining the interest stimulating the creative participation of stakeholders in the planning process. Third, existing travel forecasting models have the characteristic of striving to be accurate (or presumed to be accurate) in projecting outcomes of key variables—ridership, volumes, VMT— for a very specific set of future conditions. Unfortunately, if any of those conditions changes, the original forecasts become highly questionable. The responding states and MPOs saw great value in being able to address these uncertainties in a relatively easy and demonstrable way. Impacts 2050 makes it possible to test the stability of long-term forecasts in the face of potential changes in socio-demographic composition, rates of growth and its geographic distribution, and perhaps even locational and modal preferences. 8.2.3 Formalizing Treatment of Uncertainty Because Impacts 2050 enables its users to quickly and easily explore the effects of variations in long-term trends on future travel outcomes, it encourages consideration of uncertainty in the planning and forecasting process. In so doing, the tool provides a way to sensitize forecasts and also temper expectations of stakeholders regarding the likelihood that a particular growth sce- nario will materialize, and help understand the risks associated with a particular policy approach or set of investments. Correspondingly, by offering an improved lens for viewing the future, Impacts 2050 provides a mechanism to begin to consider supporting or corrective strategies that may help better ensure the desired future outcome.

64 The Effects of Socio-Demographics on Future Travel Demand In addition to incorporating Impacts 2050’s capabilities more formally into the travel forecast- ing process, some less formal methods would also be beneficial. One such step would be identi- fying a set of key indicators that reflect key trends and committing to tracking those indicators. Example indicators were presented in the preceding chapter. By monitoring these indicators and observing key changes in direction, the agency is made more aware of how market condi- tions and needs may be shifting, and has the opportunity to explore what the effects may be on adopted plans. This information process not only can support in-house planning activities, but also can be used to educate and inform key stakeholders—board members, elected officials, and members of the public. Regular newsletters, periodic announcements, or articles in news media can help with the dissemination of such information toward a more informed constituency. 8.2.4 Facilitating Stakeholder Involvement Some of the volunteers who pilot tested the model saw a particular value in an enhanced capa- bility to communicate and interact with decision makers and the public. These interactions would be at large and small (and formal and informal) levels, ranging from defining and testing alterna- tive scenarios in regional/statewide plans to supporting dialogue at community meetings. Most testers saw a role for the Impacts 2050 model and scenarios in visioning and scenario-planning activities as a way both to profile a broader set of options (with quantitative results) and to edu- cate and engage the stakeholders in creating and identifying with the scenarios. They felt that this could help alter their past experience with scenario planning as minimally effective in changing perspectives. At a less formal level, great potential was seen in Impacts 2050’s capacity to respond to questions received at random times from a variety of sources (officials, the public), where having a quick and defensible answer could either help support a desired effect or diffuse/deter an undesired effect or action. 8.2.5 Serving as a Sketch-Planning Tool There are many occasions where agency staff must perform analysis in advance of a formal study, or tweak the results from an existing study to better understand the range of poten- tial outcomes and the sensitivity of the results to changes in key variables. For this purpose, Impacts 2050 was seen as a potentially valuable tool for internal applications to help guide early scoping decisions on complicated problems, or simply to educate people participating in the analysis on the nature of the particular issue and effectiveness of actions being considered. The primary strengths of the model that encourage this use are the variables and relationships con- tained in its structure, the ease of varying assumptions on these variables, and the speed with which results are received. Obviously, this capability is similar to the value seen in having the tool available for use in public meetings or planning sessions. 8.2.6 Preparing and Manipulating Data A number of pilot testers suggested that Impacts 2050 may have considerable value as a mecha- nism for preparing data for use in other mainline models, such as either travel forecasting tools or integrated transportation/land-use models. One tester sees the tool as a means for generating small area “margins” (subgroup population characteristics, such as people by age, households with/without young children) when developing synthetic populations for activity or tour-based travel models. The ability afforded by Impacts 2050 to experiment with different rates of change in key variables (and the margins) over time is also seen as extremely valuable. Most of the pilot testers saw strategic value in what was viewed as Impacts 2050’s cornerstone feature: its inherent capability to integrate socio-demographics with land use, economics, and the transportation system with travel behavior. One tester saw use of the tool to (1) develop

Relevance and Value of Impacts 2050 to Transportation Agencies 65 scenarios to control the boundaries of the land-use model and (2) show the relationship between land scarcity and how it is affecting the population dynamics (since with land-use models, there is no feedback on real-world socio-demographic variables, like employment). Impacts 2050 was also seen as a way to investigate and guide the manipulation of data to reflect demographic char- acteristics in relation to land-use issues. 8.3 Value of Prepackaged Scenarios While it is widely acknowledged that uncertainty is ever present in forecasting, decisions must regularly be made with the best information at hand. However, there is a natural tendency to see the future through the eyes of current experience and historical trends. An important question guiding this study and model development is whether having tools that give better information on where future trends may lead can help agencies do a better job at planning or managing their transportation systems, as well as understanding what other collateral actions may be necessary to ensure the success of those plans. As one mechanism to gauge the potential impact of the Impacts 2050 tools on transportation agencies, a national Internet survey was conducted involving members of the AASHTO’s Stand- ing Committee on Planning. The survey consisted of presenting respondents with descriptions of the four scenarios (detailed in the previous chapter), and then asking for their response to two types of questions: • How likely they thought each of the scenarios was of actually occurring, along with a brief explanation of their reasoning behind their answer. • What impact, if any, would such a scenario have on their agency, its policies and practices, and its operations. Responses received represented a good cross section with regard to geographic region, urban versus rural character, and other key characteristics. A summary and interpretation of the survey responses are offered below. In terms of the projected likelihood of each scenario occurring, Table 8-1 below shows that most respondents (almost 80 percent) felt that the Momentum scenario was likely to happen, while the fewest (16.7 percent) felt that the Global Chaos scenario would happen. Meanwhile, about one-third (37 percent and 34 percent, respectively), felt that the Technology Triumphs and Gentle Footprint scenarios had some reasonable chance of occurring. Respondents were also asked to indicate what they thought the impact of the given scenario would be—positive or negative—on their goals and priorities. Table 8-2 tabulates these responses. The most notable findings here were: Momentum (75 percent likely, 25 percent unlikely or no response) While most respondents believed that the Momentum scenario was highly likely to happen, only one-third thought that its impacts would be positive for their agency, while 41.7 percent thought the predominant effect would be negative. Of those believing the effect would be posi- tive, they believed that those trends were within the expected realm of experience and could be managed. They saw hope in advancing technology and an apparent leveling off of VMT growth as factors that would give agencies time to develop an appropriate response and identify neces- sary funding. Those believing the primary effect to be negative felt that revenues would not keep up with demand, and would limit the ability to diversify programs and offerings beyond high- ways. Those seeing neither positive nor negative consequences took the position of believing this would be business as usual and that funding and programs would adapt.

66 The Effects of Socio-Demographics on Future Travel Demand Technology Triumphs (37.5 percent likely, 62.5 percent unlikely or no response) Only about half as many respondents felt that the Technology Triumphs scenario was as likely to happen as Momentum, but virtually all of those respondents felt that the impacts would be positive. This group felt rather uniformly that technological advances would positively affect the economy and transportation—that travel would be faster, cheaper, safer, and more efficient than ever, and that there would be an increasing number of opportunities to use technology to replace personal travel. With less personal travel and demand, hope was expressed that there might be more resources to invest in improving freight systems. There was also the sense that a healthy economy might produce innovative sources of funding. Among the roughly two-thirds who felt that the scenario was unlikely or were unsure, most felt that there would be no impact on their agency or goals, slightly fewer felt there would posi- tive impacts, and only a small number thought the effects might be negative. Among those see- ing the effects as potentially negative, some who represented rural states felt that they might not equally share in the gains from technology, while others felt that an era of technological innova- tion might also introduce new needs and services that the agencies were not trained to deal with and for which funding had not been identified. Global Chaos (16.7 percent likely, 83.3 percent unlikely or no response) This was the most difficult scenario for respondents to envision as a potential reality. Those few who did pointed to the recent economic meltdown with worldwide impacts, conflict in the Middle East, and lack of political leadership as reasons to believe this scenario could happen. Those in the majority who felt it was unlikely or had no opinion felt that government, industry, Response Momentum Technology Triumphs Global Chaos Gentle Footprint Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Very likely 5 20.8% 1 4.2% 0 0.0% 1 4.2% Quite likely 13 54.2% 8 33.3% 4 16.7% 7 29.2% Hardly likely 4 16.7% 12 50.0% 10 41.7% 15 62.5% Not likely 0 0.0% 1 4.2% 6 25.0% 1 4.2% No response 2 8.3% 2 8.3% 4 16.7% 0 0.0% Total 24 100% 24 100% 24 100% 24 100% Table 8-1. Projected likelihood by scenario. Response Momentum Technology Triumphs Global Chaos Gentle Footprint Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Positive 8 33.3% 14 58.3% 0 0.0% 10 41.7% Both positive & negative 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 16.7% Negative 10 41.7% 3 12.5% 21 87.5% 5 20.8% No Impact 6 25.0% 7 29.2% 2 8.3% 3 12.5% No response 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 4.2% 2 8.3% Total 24 100% 24 100% 24 100% 24 100% Table 8-2. Expected impact on agency’s goals and priorities by scenario.

Relevance and Value of Impacts 2050 to Transportation Agencies 67 and society would never allow it to happen, and would kick in investments and stimulus policies, and that technology would play a major role. Regardless of likelihood of occurrence, no respondent saw a positive impact from this scenario. The probable shortage of funding in a poor economy would likely limit the agency’s ability to maintain the transportation system, let alone invest in strategic projects or diversify into other modes that might be demanded as a substitution for driving, particularly transit. Gentle Footprint (33.4 percent likely, 66.6 percent unlikely or no response) Slightly less than the percentage of respondents who felt that the Technology Triumphs sce- nario was likely felt that the Gentle Footprint scenario was likely. Those believing it was likely pointed to growing concerns about and action toward global warming, and also pointed to trends among Millennials to forego car ownership to live in urban areas where they can walk or take transit. They saw the impact on their agency as having to diversify more extensively into other transportation options, though with potentially limited funding to do so. Those believing it unlikely tended to feel that some of these trends were likely to happen, but not at the rate implied by the scenario. Rural states generally felt they would be affected more than urban areas, but had some concern that their economies depended upon highways, and any change away from that focus would not be positive. It was not part of the strategy in this survey to inquire about Impacts 2050 as a way of respond- ing to the implications of the four scenarios, since they had not been as thoroughly exposed to the model as the participants in the onsite demonstrations or the beta tests. Nevertheless, it was reveal- ing to observe the respondents’ perspectives on the uncertainty associated with the scenarios and how their agency would address them. The most common response was that none of the scenarios was likely to come to fruition, because they represented such extreme cases, and that the current process of creating long-range plans with 20-year horizons—with reassessment and update every four years—would be sufficient to make the necessary adjustments and stay on course. 8.4 Strategic Responses The four scenarios were purposely designed to encourage transportation agencies to think outside the box—and consider what they might do if the future took a sudden and decidedly different turn from the trajectory defined by the previous 50 years. But are planners or their constituents able to cope with such uncertainty? Viewing the results of the survey, it is reasonable to conclude that nothing so severe as what is suggested by the “extreme” scenarios would ever fully happen. However, the agencies respond- ing offered little as to what they would do if such trends began to manifest. Most of them thought that their biggest challenge would be finding enough funding. Also, most believed that the con- ventional long-range planning process, with a 20-year horizon and a 4-year update, would also provide them with an adequate mechanism to monitor and respond to change. There is nothing inherently wrong with the current long-range planning requirement and its recommended time frames. The 20-year horizon and periodic updates make great sense as a way of balancing long-term goals and perspectives with near-term needs and realities. The real ques- tion is whether the benefits of the existing process are being fully exploited in addressing future needs, goals, options, and uncertainties, or whether the process has become comfortable with building off historic trends—i.e., maintaining momentum and avoiding the potential conflict of change. There seems to be ample evidence that the latter may be the case, which further raises the argument for new tools that can add new dimensionality to the existing process.

68 The Effects of Socio-Demographics on Future Travel Demand Clearly, a solid trend has been in place in the United States since World War II, exhibiting a steady increase in not only VMT alone, but also VMT per capita, with little perturbation from 1945 through 2005. During that time, annual VMT grew from 250 billion miles a year to more than 3 trillion miles—more than a factor of 10—while population merely doubled. This means that VMT per capita grew from 4.9 miles per day to 27.9 miles per day—an increase of almost 470 per- cent. The trends behind this steady increase are well documented: aided by major transportation investment in highways, households and employers have steadily moved out of central cities to low-density suburban subdivisions, office parks, and shopping centers. Only private vehicles can provide mobility in such settings, so continuation of these trends has led to increasingly longer trips and more vehicle miles—not just for work travel, which accounts for less than 20 percent of household travel, but more significantly for nonwork travel, which has grown at a much higher rate than commuting since 1970. Planners and decision makers have been aware of these trends for decades, with a particularly defining moment occurring in the late 1990s, when a “suburban traffic crisis” was declared nationally to describe suddenly untenable traffic congestion gripping previously exempt sub- urban areas, with no obvious remedies in such a landscape, except for additional road capacity. Insufficient funding to address such expansion needs was identified simultaneously with rec- ognition of substantial deferred maintenance on the existing system, suggesting unprecedented infrastructure funding needs. This combined crisis led to the passage of the first Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991, which not only raised revenues, but also placed sharp conditions on their use, including the requirement of goal-oriented, multimodal plan- ning and the long-range planning process. While data suggest that this trend began to level off in 2005, important exogenous events have been occurring, such as the recession, joblessness, the bottoming out of the housing mortgage market, and unprecedented increases in fuel prices for which the effects on VMT have not been fully accounted. So while this set of requirements has been in place for more than 20 years, and transportation has faced the added challenges of mitigating air pollution emissions under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the upward trend in VMT continued until only the mid-2000s. One reason that may be offered as to why major changes have not occurred in the trend is that the long- range planning process has not been able to truly encourage transportation and planning agen- cies and their constituents to consider a different set of future outcomes. Hence, plans are more reliably made as a function of past trends and continued similar expectations, while the agencies conducting the planning are frequently unable to encourage elected officials and the public to consider alternative future approaches and outcomes. Much headway has been made over the past decade in considering other planning frame- works, particularly those giving more emphasis to transit investment coupled with compact mixed land use and attention to pedestrian and bicycle travel. States like Maryland with its Smart Growth and Sustainable Communities Law, and California with its climate change-driven AB-32 and SB-375 initiatives, have raised the bar in trying to encourage, through laws and incen- tives, greater consideration of coordinating land-use planning with transportation investments. While the benefits of these smart growth/sustainable efforts have yet to be fully demonstrated, they have been aided by tools and empirical evidence that have helped illustrate their benefits. Admittedly, such changes in outlook take time to manifest themselves in thinking and imple- mentation, but most who have practiced in the transportation and urban planning fields know that the substantial resistance to changing traditional practices and perceptions is difficult to overcome in the short term. While modeling tools and analyses that can better capture and relate these effects are only part of the potential solution, they are nevertheless seen as a major step in the right direction to better inform participants in the planning process about the positive and negative impacts of a broader array of options.

Relevance and Value of Impacts 2050 to Transportation Agencies 69 8.5 Challenges Facing State DOTs and MPOs This section provides some suggestions as to various ways that transportation agencies may respond to better cope with the uncertainties—even some of the less desirable certainties—of the future. Impacts 2050 was especially designed to assist this process by providing enhanced insight into the potential impacts of major trends. However, the tool is only an aide to what must be a planning process that is better able to deal with the uncertainties of change. Several important conclusions were drawn from studying the state DOT survey responses: • Insufficient funding. Many DOTs see their principal problem or challenge as sufficient fund- ing. Clearly, this has been a critical issue through the recent recession, and may have been given some relief through MAP-21 and passage of new transportation funding legislation in some states (e.g., Virginia and Maryland). However, the reliability and durability of these funding streams are far from predictable over the long term, so at a minimum, transportation agencies are recognizing that they need to extract as much sustainable value as they can from the resources they have. This objective can best be addressed through sound planning that places priority on investments that create the most comprehensive (meeting societal goals) and sustainable long-term benefits. • Tying transportation investment and policy decisions to broader goals. To achieve the most efficient and sustainable use of resources, every effort should be made to tie transportation investment and policy decisions to broader economic, social, and environmental goals. This can be done through judicious identification and diligent use of outcome-oriented perfor- mance metrics in plans and programs. Through such a performance-based process for setting priorities—which has been underscored in the latest transportation funding act, MAP-21— the connection between transportation and societal goals is made clearer. Therefore, if deci- sion makers and planners want to determine where to put scarce resources to get the most impact, these relationships should guide them and justify their decisions. • Lack of influence with regard to how transportation funds are spent. Some state DOTs see themselves as not being in a position to greatly influence policies and preferences that determine how transportation funds will be spent. Neither DOTs nor MPOs have any direct control on the all-important planning and zoning decisions that are the domain of local juris- dictions. Therefore, both organizations must accomplish change through means of educa- tion, persuasion, and perhaps incentive. To maximize the potential for impact under this arrangement, DOTs and MPOs must have access to the best tools and information to lead the discussion, which will ideally give way to better understanding of the consequences of par- ticular actions (or inactions), and the tradeoffs involved. The existence of such tools may also improve dialogue between the states and the MPOs, who may often disagree on how resources are allocated and what priorities are being supported in plans and programs. • Uncertainties in the amount and source of transportation funding. Because transportation agencies often see adequate funding as the ultimate factor in what they can or cannot accom- plish, there is ongoing concern about the uncertainties in the amount and source of transporta- tion funding. While federal funding comes with a variety of conditions, some of which present difficulty for the agency, a lessening of the federal role is likely to mean that the states (primar- ily) will have to step up with either new mechanisms to generate funding or plans and programs that lessen the demand for additional funding. In either case, they will need ample tools and evidence to garner support for their actions, neither of which will be free of controversy. • Need for better tools to support expansion of multimodalism. All state DOTs are required to be multimodal in their structure, plans, and priorities, and most have made substantial efforts to evolve into that role. Many agencies, especially in more rural states, will admit that they are still predominately highway agencies. To gain broader acceptance of multimodal thinking and concepts—both internally and externally—the agencies will need better tools and evidence

70 The Effects of Socio-Demographics on Future Travel Demand to support plans and policies that expand multimodalism. As a challenge, their planning models—if they exist—are very highway oriented, making it difficult to evaluate or make the case for prioritizing multimodal approaches in plans, policies, and programs. This situa- tion may be strategically aided by introduction of tools with the capabilities of the Impacts 2050 model and scenarios. • Differences between urban and rural interests. There is a long-standing competition between urban and rural interests that greatly affects plans, priorities, and funding levels. Rural interests are often represented by agricultural or natural resource extraction industries that rely heavily on a well-maintained highway network, and may not agree with the need for transit or other costly infrastructure enhancements in the busier, higher-density urban areas. Hence, they may oppose raising revenues for such initiatives. Any of the tested “extreme” scenarios accentuates these differences and potential negative outcomes for rural areas. One approach for reconciling these differences is to create a framework that lays out the different characteristics, needs, and expected performance of these different areas, and then develops funding plans and priorities that are commensurate with those places and the benefits they provide. The capabilities of Impacts 2050 would seem to provide assistance in quantifying these tradeoffs. • Moving beyond 20-year plans. There is a need to encourage transportation agencies and their stakeholders to consider a longer-range outlook when developing their 20-year plans. While 20 years is certainly a long-term horizon, setting one’s sights on only 20 years with the abil- ity to revisit the assumptions in 4 years is argued to create a situation where long-term goals are not viewed with the same confidence and value as the near-term needs. Recommending consideration of a 50-year outlook offers to put more emphasis on considering conditions that could occur in 20 years, and stimulate greater focus on and support for plans to achieve 20-year objectives. 8.6 Response Mechanisms for Meeting an Uncertain Future From these observations, a set of response mechanisms has been outlined below to provide potential guidance to transportation agencies in better meeting the needs of an uncertain future. Impacts 2050 can be used to carry out each of these mechanisms. 8.6.1 Establish an Indicator Monitoring System • Pick the indicators and associate them with trends of concern; articulate the relationship(s) tied to the indicators. • Find the data to populate indicators; set up a procedure for routine update. • Establish a departmental function to monitor, analyze, and report on these indicators. • Hire and train staff with appropriate skills (economics, demographics, geographic informa- tion systems, statistical analysis, and market research) to explicitly support this function. 8.6.2 Stimulate Wider Awareness and Dialogue about Possible Futures and Potential Responses • Prepare an annual or biennial report on trends and conditions—e.g., what key trends are hap- pening, how big are the changes, how do we compare with other areas, what are the possible implications? • Prepare periodic topic reports addressing particular trends and their possible explanations— e.g., pedestrian safety. • Encourage feedback, either by inviting visits to a Web site or by conducting periodic Web surveys.

Relevance and Value of Impacts 2050 to Transportation Agencies 71 • Present these findings to agency leadership and governing boards, and encourage discussion as to their nature and implications. • Investigate alternative trends and outcomes. 8.6.3 Increase Stakeholder Participation and Buy-in • Perform scenario planning and visioning exercises supported by credible tools and data to highlight the particular issues/trends or to portray alternative responses and outcomes. • Encourage members of agency boards, elected officials (particularly lawmakers), stakehold- ers, and other decision makers to participate in the planning and discussion process. • Elicit and test recommended actions from participants to increase understanding of the issues and ownership of the viable solutions. 8.6.4 Recognize the Need for Organization Growth and Change • Encourage multimodal approaches to all transportation problems, striving for cooperative and creative thinking across modes. • Engage sister agencies (transportation, planning, environment, economic development, com- munity development, education, criminal justice) in the planning process. • Develop the ethic of first seeing transportation as a means for accomplishing social, economic, and environmental goals before focusing on modal performance optimization. • Attempt to identify the best long-term sustainable approaches to a transportation problem that look beyond transportation capacity. 8.6.5 Provide Financing and Political Support • Adopt a performance-based planning and programming process that uses multimodal sus- tainability as the key prioritization criterion (net accessibility benefits over the long term), and find a way to account for the long-term benefit/cost stream. • Select projects based on these criteria, and then report progress and success annually (Mary- land and other states are doing this as part of their annual capital program). • Be aggressive about ensuring that decision makers—especially legislators who review budget requests—are involved in this deliberate process, and support changes that must be made to policies or funding practices.