Explore National Transportation Change Trends by Age Group

Cross-posted from City Observatory

In some ways, the urban renaissance of the last decade or two has been quite dramatic. Downtown or downtown-adjacent neighborhoods in cities around the country have seen rapid investments, demographic change, and growth in amenities and jobs. Even mayors in places with a reputation for car dependence, like Nashville and Indianapolis, are pushing for big investments in urban public transit.

Because many of those who work in urban planning live in or near these walkable, transit-served neighborhoods, it may be easy to imagine that their changes are representative of the overall pace of transition to a more urban-centric nation. Butas we and others have discussed before, in at least one way — transportation — change has actually been excruciatingly slow at the national level.

According to the American Community Survey, from 2006 to 2014, the proportion of people using a car to get to work declined — from 86.72 percent to 85.70 percent. Even among young people, the shift seems underwhelming: from 85.00 percent to 83.94 percent. (Though, as we stressed last week, these Census data only cover journey-to-work trips and tend to overstate the extent to which households rely exclusively on cars for their transportation needs.)

The changes for transit, biking, and walking are, obviously, similarly small. Transit mode share increased from 4.83 percent to 5.21 percent; among those 20 to 24, the increase was 5.53 to 6.35 percent. The overall share of walking commutes actually fell.

In fact, we’ve built a little tool to let people explore these data in an interactive way, selecting mode type and age ranges to see how things have changed, and haven’t, over the last almost-decade. The tool displays the same data in two ways: first, as a graph (above), and then as a simple table (below), for those who find that easier to read. (On the graph, yes, we have allowed the y-axis to begin at numbers larger than zero — in large part because the changes are so small that a chart that began at zero would be unintelligible. We will trust our readers to be sophisticated enough at reading graphs to understand.)

So what’s going on here? Well, as we wrote about just last week, the single greatest determinant of people’s transportation choices isn’t what mode they think is the coolest — or even whether there’s a train or bus station nearby, though that obviously helps. The most important factor is their city’s land use pattern: are there things close by to walk to? Is the city compact enough — and pedestrian-friendly enough — that there’s an fast, safe, and pleasant way to get from a transit stop to their place of employment? When you step out of a train station, do you see this:

The terminus of the Green Line light rail in downtown St. Paul. Credit: Google Maps
The terminus of the Green Line light rail in downtown St. Paul. Credit: Google Maps

…or this:

The Arapaho light rail stop in Dallas. Credit: Google Maps
The Arapaho light rail stop in Dallas. Credit: Google Maps

This kind of built environment doesn’t change nearly as fast as attitudes — or as quickly as jobs can relocate from suburban office parks to downtown lofts. But it does change, and it’s why we insisted last week that thinking about “the future of urban transportation” in terms of apps and hacks, rather than fundamental urban design, is a huge mistake.

There is more encouraging news, however: if you drill down to mode shifts by metropolitan area, the changes are much more pronounced, especially among younger people. In a follow-up post, we’ll let you see exactly how much has changed in your city.

  • Are bike and taxi combined because they’re such low numbers?

  • Alexander Vucelic

    Civilized cities have incredible walk to work mode shares. Tokyo 23%, German Cities 20-30%, Spanish Cities 30-40%, Paris 61%. Imagine how transformative it would be to get walk shares to these levels in Certain US cities. Imagine the multi-billion cost savings and increase in productuve economic activity.

  • Some of the ACS data lumps them together. I just looked up the data that breaks down commuting mode share by age, and it does this. It might not be that way throughout the FactFinder website, but it can be painful to navigate and find precisely what you’re looking for.

  • neroden

    It would be much more informative if the numbers could be tracked by birth year or cohort. The population of 25-44 year olds keeps turning into 44 year olds while 18-24 year olds keep turning into 25 year olds.

    I have a strong suspicion that people maintain habits and don’t change their behavior much over time. So cohort-based analysis would show clearer information than age-based breakdowns.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Michigan Cities See Placemaking as the Way to a Brighter Future

|
There’s no consensus in the urban planning profession — or in public opinion more generally — about how to handle declining cities like Detroit. All sorts of solutions have been proposed, ranging from the outlandish (making Detroit a “skyscraper ruins park“) to the more widely accepted (converting vacant land into urban agriculture). But lately Michigan […]

Can Transit Reverse Indianapolis' Center-City Slide?

|
At the Indiana statehouse today, a committee is discussing a transit plan that could revolutionize Indianapolis. The proposal would drastically expand transit investment, and add a rapid transit element, in an attempt to make this relatively auto-centric city a more authentically urban place. But changing the transportation culture of a city is hard. And some […]

Can Transit Reverse Indianapolis’ Center-City Slide?

|
At the Indiana statehouse today, a committee is discussing a transit plan that could revolutionize Indianapolis. The proposal would drastically expand transit investment, and add a rapid transit element, in an attempt to make this relatively auto-centric city a more authentically urban place. But changing the transportation culture of a city is hard. And some […]

Can Milwaukee Build a Downtown Stadium That's Not a Disaster?

|
A promotional video for the Milwaukee Bucks’ new downtown arena promises the public a “ripple effect” for their investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, saying the stadium will “transform” the neighborhood with development and jobs. The whole thing is pretty over the top. Jeramey Jannene over at Urban Milwaukee has been evaluating the recently unveiled stadium design. He notes that, for […]

DC: Getting Urban Sports Arena Development Right

|
Publicly backed sports arenas are always a gamble. Sold as a way to attract investment and energy, they can become big public liabilities, draining money for more essential services. But that doesn’t stop too many cities, and there are examples of places that have gambled on sports facilities and won big. There’s a new member […]