Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "it'll catch up" argument has been bouncing around in different forms since the turn of the millennium. "Once gas prices slow down..." "Once the economy rebounds..." "Once Millennials start to have kids..." But gas is now, and has been, cheaper than the historical average. The economy is adding lots of jobs now. Millennials are having fewer babies per couple, and fewer couples are having children. The VMTs that DOTs have been projecting have been overestimations, sometime wildly so.
And why does it HAVE to catch up? Why is it so necessary that VMT/capita should match past levels? That's what frustrates me about this argument, that, in spite of evidence to the contrary and no reasonable need for a high VMT/capita, individuals keep insisting it'll "catch up."
It's already caught up and surpassed the old record for VMT in 2015 anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is. I guess it's that because you disagree with the estimate you just call it a wild overestimate and ignore it.
Perhaps you mean based on population, either per captia or deflated by civilian noninstitutionalized population age 16 and over. In that case, yes, it's roaring back in 2015 as well. It's not up to the previous peak and may not ever be but it's roaring back whether you want to believe it or not. The roaring back combined with population growth is why VMT is higher in 2015 than it's ever been. Up until around 2015 or late 2014, total VMT was below peak. We haven't had a crazy population boom in 2015 or an influx of people turning 16 or an influx of people leaving prison. It's because the civilian noninstitutionalized population age 16 and over is driving more than they have been in the past years few years.
There are two major economic indicators that should be considered in this VMT discussion. Both the labor force participation rate and the real median household income have been in decline since 2007.
It's already caught up and surpassed the old record for VMT in 2015 anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is. I guess it's that because you disagree with the estimate you just call it a wild overestimate and ignore it.
Perhaps you mean based on population, either per captia or deflated by civilian noninstitutionalized population age 16 and over. In that case, yes, it's roaring back in 2015 as well. It's not up to the previous peak and may not ever be but it's roaring back whether you want to believe it or not. The roaring back combined with population growth is why VMT is higher in 2015 than it's ever been. Up until around 2015 or late 2014, total VMT was below peak. We haven't had a crazy population boom in 2015 or an influx of people turning 16 or an influx of people leaving prison. It's because the civilian noninstitutionalized population age 16 and over is driving more than they have been in the past years few years.
Except that, over the long-term, it hasn't "roared back." VMT has increased, a point I have not disagreed with, but not nearly at the rate we would have expected it to. The actual VMT/cap has been, essentially, flat since 2005 (9,654 VMT/cap for the 12 months preceding August 2015 vs. 10,117 up to August 2005), and has been increasing more slowly than the population change prior to 2005 (9,054 VMT/cap for the 12 months preceding August 1995).
This isn't about belief, this is about data. Had the Millennial generation taken up driving at the same rate as, say, Baby Boomers, we would expect VMT to be much, much, much higher because the Millennial generation is so very large.
This isn't about belief, this is about data. Had the Millennial generation taken up driving at the same rate as, say, Baby Boomers, we would expect VMT to be much, much, much higher because the Millennial generation is so very large.
Millennials aren’t driving as much but they aren’t participating in the labor force either. It’s telling looking at the labor force participation rate for people aged 16-24. There has been a significant drop between 2002 and 2012 and it is projected to decline even further by 2022.
Except that, over the long-term, it hasn't "roared back." VMT has increased, a point I have not disagreed with, but not nearly at the rate we would have expected it to. The actual VMT/cap has been, essentially, flat since 2005 (9,654 VMT/cap for the 12 months preceding August 2015 vs. 10,117 up to August 2005), and has been increasing more slowly than the population change prior to 2005 (9,054 VMT/cap for the 12 months preceding August 1995).
This isn't about belief, this is about data. Had the Millennial generation taken up driving at the same rate as, say, Baby Boomers, we would expect VMT to be much, much, much higher because the Millennial generation is so very large.
Incorrect data can lead to incorrect conclusions then as VMT/capita has not remained essentially flat since 2005. Using correct data, you would indeed see that VMT/capita has "roared back" in 2015.
I don't have data to really look at cohorts. You say VMT/capita should increase but you're ignoring that the Millenial cohort is entering peak driving years as the Boomer cohort exits it. The Boomer cohort is now mostly in the age range where driving has slowed down (55-64 driving drops significantly). As Millenials came of peak driving age, Boomers exited peak driving age. The two cancel each other out. Without knowing specific numbers of how many Boomers entered the 55-64 cohort which drives significantly less than the 20-54 cohorts, that's not a call that can really be made.
The lack of data makes any calls pure speculation. There's essentially two points: 2001 and 2009. That's where your data comes from. Between 2001 and 2009, the under 34 group drove significantly less, 23% less in fact. That had some overlap with Millenials. What they're doing now in 2015 with VMT roaring back is an unknown. Is it roaring back because all those under 34-year-olds (which now is mostly Millenials) have started driving again? Is it roaring back because that's stayed the same but Gen X left 20-34 and started driving much more? Is it because the Boomers are driving more for longer? That's unknown. All that's known is that VMT/capita is roaring back, not which cohort is behind it.
Incorrect data can lead to incorrect conclusions then as VMT/capita has not remained essentially flat since 2005. Using correct data, you would indeed see that VMT/capita has "roared back" in 2015.
I don't have data to really look at cohorts. You say VMT/capita should increase but you're ignoring that the Millenial cohort is entering peak driving years as the Boomer cohort exits it. The Boomer cohort is now mostly in the age range where driving has slowed down (55-64 driving drops significantly). As Millenials came of peak driving age, Boomers exited peak driving age. The two cancel each other out. Without knowing specific numbers of how many Boomers entered the 55-64 cohort which drives significantly less than the 20-54 cohorts, that's not a call that can really be made.
The lack of data makes any calls pure speculation. There's essentially two points: 2001 and 2009. That's where your data comes from. Between 2001 and 2009, the under 34 group drove significantly less, 23% less in fact. That had some overlap with Millenials. What they're doing now in 2015 with VMT roaring back is an unknown. Is it roaring back because all those under 34-year-olds (which now is mostly Millenials) have started driving again? Is it roaring back because that's stayed the same but Gen X left 20-34 and started driving much more? Is it because the Boomers are driving more for longer? That's unknown. All that's known is that VMT/capita is roaring back, not which cohort is behind it.
The link (which is super nifty) is somewhat visually misleading, as the graph doesn't start at 0, making the "comeback" look more pronounced than it actually is. We have to go back to 2000 to find a similar VMT/cap.
As to your other point, Baby Boomers are still driving and still working. Meanwhile, the Millennials are at the point where they are taking jobs, having families, and having kids (even if later amongst the well-heeled). If they were taking up driving at the same rate as earlier generations, given the size of the Millennial cohort, the VMT/cap should be much, much higher than it is. VMT/cap is smaller than when this giant generation was barely getting driver's permits back in 2005.
So, I ask you, why is it necessary for VMT/cap to be high and ever-increasing?
Millennials aren’t driving as much but they aren’t participating in the labor force either. It’s telling looking at the labor force participation rate for people aged 16-24. There has been a significant drop between 2002 and 2012 and it is projected to decline even further by 2022.
Gotta wonder how immigration will affect the trends in VMT. Our population in the US is currently growing because we have lots of immigration, not because millennials are having lots of children. In fact I've heard the term "baby bust" used on multiple occasions on major mainstream network and cable news shows. Where I live, at least, many immigrants do end up living in the city and using the public transportation system, limited and inefficient as it is. Presumably because they don't have the background and family resources of, say, a teenager growing up in a middle class suburb in a household which always maintained multiple family vehicles. I don't have any data on this so it's a bit speculative, but perhaps food for thought for city/transportation planners.
The link (which is super nifty) is somewhat visually misleading, as the graph doesn't start at 0, making the "comeback" look more pronounced than it actually is. We have to go back to 2000 to find a similar VMT/cap.
Only if one doesn't know how to read a graph. Frankly, that's so basic I just assumed everyone did. The comeback is occurring at nearly the same rate as the "death of the suburb" drops did though, so even if one is ignorant and uneducated and can't read a graph that's a double-edged sword.
Quote:
As to your other point, Baby Boomers are still driving and still working. Meanwhile, the Millennials are at the point where they are taking jobs, having families, and having kids (even if later amongst the well-heeled). If they were taking up driving at the same rate as earlier generations, given the size of the Millennial cohort, the VMT/cap should be much, much higher than it is. VMT/cap is smaller than when this giant generation was barely getting driver's permits back in 2005.
And increasingly in the 55+ cohort where driving historically has dropped significantly. One would expect the two to cancel each other out. Again, I'm not claiming the comeback is because Millenials have started driving more at the end of 2014 and through 2015. That's speculative. It's either Millenals, Gen X, or Boomers though that is though as VMT/capita is increasing. Personally, I maintain my position that I don't think it will return all the way back up to where it was in 2005. But then my position has also been that most of the drop in VMT was due to the recession rather than any fundamental shift. You still have the fundamental shift, but it's not nearly as pronounced as the death of the suburbs camp liked to pretend.
We'll see where it ends up. VMT per capita dropped from ~10,000 per capita at the beginning of the recession to settle at 9,400 per capita and is now back up to around 9,700 per capita. I wouldn't be surprised to see it keep increasing to close to 10,000. I don't really see it continuing up above 10,100 to new highs though. The shift is there in those numbers. If Gen X and Millenials drove as much as the Boomers did, we'd certainly be going up above 10,000.
Gotta wonder how immigration will affect the trends in VMT. Our population in the US is currently growing because we have lots of immigration, not because millennials are having lots of children. In fact I've heard the term "baby bust" used on multiple occasions on major mainstream network and cable news shows. Where I live, at least, many immigrants do end up living in the city and using the public transportation system, limited and inefficient as it is. Presumably because they don't have the background and family resources of, say, a teenager growing up in a middle class suburb in a household which always maintained multiple family vehicles. I don't have any data on this so it's a bit speculative, but perhaps food for thought for city/transportation planners.
For miles traveled, that could be relevant. The number of young adults today getting to work by car, however, is mostly unchanged from 1980. There's a lot of changes. 15% are foreign born versus 6% in 1980, one in five live in poverty versus one in seven in 1980. Slightly lower employment, 65% versus 69%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
