IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsdav/qt5kn4s4pb.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Accessibility- vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for Addressing Automobile Dependence in the U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Handy, Susan L

Abstract

Prepared for the European Conference of Ministers of Transport In 1995, the average American spent 56 minutes a day in a car, a 14 percent increase from only five years earlier. The average American household drove over 33,000 kilometers per year, and the average American car was driven over 19,000 kilometers per year. The growth in total vehicle-kilometers-traveled in the U.S. has continued unabated for decades, far exceeding the growth in population. The U.S. is clearly the most auto-dependent society on earth, but other parts of the world are catching up. By 2000, there were more cars per person in Germany than in the U.S., and nearly as many in Sweden, France, and Canada. The average vehicle in the United Kingdom was driven over 17,000 kilometers per year, just 11 percent behind the average in the U.S. Automobile dependence is growing throughout the world. Growth in automobile travel has been well supported by public investments in roads. Total capital outlays for roads in the U.S. by all levels of government have totaled between $30 billion and $50 billion per year (in constant 2000 dollars) for decades and have approached $60 billion per year in recent years. By 2000, the U.S. had over 3.9 million miles of roads, including over 21,000 miles of freeways in urban areas, and the annual cost of maintaining this system had reached nearly $30 billion per year. From the beginning, the mission of the U.S. Department of Transportation has been to accommodate the growing demand for vehicle travel. Today, the department has established "mobility" as one of its strategic goals and uses trends in vehicle travel as an indicator of progress towards this goal. In its 2001 "Report to the American People," the Federal Highway Administration said, "we must continue to invest in America's highways in order to achieve our national goals". But the investments in roads have not kept up with the growth in vehicle travel. Between 1941 and 2000, total kilometers of roads in the U.S. increased by 145% but vehicle-kilometers-traveled increased by 724%. The gap is significant even when accounting for population growth: kilometers of roads per person increased by 16% while vehicle-kilometers-traveled per person increased by 290% between 1941 and 2000. As demand has outpaced supply, levels of congestion have increased. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) calculates that in the 68 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. the average annual hours of delay per person grew from 11 in 1982 to 36 in 1999, an increase of 227%. The estimated cost of this delay reached $77.8 billion in 1999. How much more road building would it take to eliminate this delay? TTI estimates that metropolitan areas added only 48% of the roads they needed to keep up with the growth in vehicle travel in 1999. At the same time, the environmental consequences of this steady growth in automobile use are well known. Although air quality is better now in places like Los Angeles than it has been in decades, the problem is far from solved. In the U.S., emissions of volatile organic compounds from transportation have been decreasing steadily for the last three decades, but emissions of nitrogen oxides have been going up, and 36 areas that are home to a total of 85 million people still fail to officially meet the national standards for ozone. The transportation sector dumped 513 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere in 2000, a 3.43% increase from the year before. In 1999, the U.S. consumed 19.5 million barrels of oil per day, 26.5% of the world's consumption; 68% of oil consumption in the U.S. was for transportation, and consumption of oil in the U.S. for transportation alone exceeded total production of oil in the U.S. by 50%. These statistics and others seem to provide ample justification for policies to reduce automobile use. That leads to something of a dilemma for policy makers. Should policies focus on accommodating growing levels of vehicle travel because driving more is apparently what the public wants to do? Or should policies focus on limiting driving so as to reduce environmental and other costs? The former strategy has so far been more politically palatable, at least in the U.S., but it is also becoming increasingly unaffordable. The latter strategy means reversing a trend that has slowed only for wars and recessions and goes against American traditions of freedom of movement. So what's the right thing to do? One obvious approach is to push for further improvements in vehicle and fuel technologies that will reduce the environmental impacts of driving without in anyway limiting driving. But that leaves the problem that driving is growing faster than capacity possibly can. It also leaves the problem that a significant share of the population cannot drive or does not have access to a car, for reasons of income, age, or ability. An alternative approach that is gaining wide support in the U.S. is to reduce the need for driving by bringing activities closer to home, by improving the quality of transit, bicycling, and walking – by enhancing accessibility. Such an approach represents a fundamental shift from a traditional focus on enhancing mobility through road building. This report looks at what it means to focus on enhancing accessibility rather than enhancing mobility, first by defining these concepts then by reviewing the U.S. experience with mobility-enhancing strategies, accessibility-enhancing strategies, and others.

Suggested Citation

  • Handy, Susan L, 2002. "Accessibility- vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for Addressing Automobile Dependence in the U.S," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt5kn4s4pb, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt5kn4s4pb
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/5kn4s4pb.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patricia Mokhtarian & Francisco Samaniego & Robert Shumway & Neil Willits, 2002. "Revisiting the notion of induced traffic through a matched-pairs study," Transportation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 193-220, May.
    2. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Salomon, Ilan, 2001. "How derived is the demand for travel? Some conceptual and measurement considerations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 695-719, September.
    3. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Handy, Susan L. & Salomon, Ilan, 1995. "Methodological issues in the estimation of the travel, energy, and air quality impacts of telecommuting," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 283-302, July.
    4. Mokhtarian, Patricia L & Salomon, Ilan, 1998. "What Happens When Mobility-Inclined Market Segments Face Accessibility-Enhancing Policies?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9ns6v74t, University of California Transportation Center.
    5. Boarnet, Marlon G. & Haughwout, Andrew F., 2000. "Do Highways Matter? Evidence and Policy Implications of Highways' Influence on Metropolitan Development," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5rn9w6bz, University of California Transportation Center.
    6. Handy, Susan, 1994. "Highway Blues: Nothing a Little Accessibility Can't Cure," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt66k8b8bz, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Handy, Susan, 1993. "A Cycle of Dependence: Automobiles, Accessibility, and the Evolution of the Transportation and Retail Hierarchies," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt15g4c2j8, University of California Transportation Center.
    8. Solomon, Ilan & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 1998. "What Happens When Mobility-Inclined Market Segments Face Accessibility-Enhancing Policies?," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0f20d772, University of California Transportation Center.
    9. Susan Handy & Kelly Clifton, 2001. "Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 317-346, November.
    10. Handy, Susan L., 1992. "Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Neo-Traditional Development and Its Implications for Non-work Travel," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7gs0p1nc, University of California Transportation Center.
    11. S L Handy & D A Niemeier, 1997. "Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(7), pages 1175-1194, July.
    12. P L Mokhtarian & I Salomon, 1994. "Modeling the Choice of Telecommuting: Setting the Context," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 26(5), pages 749-766, May.
    13. Salomon, Ilan & Mokhtarian, Patricia, 1998. "What Happens When Mobility-Inclined Market Segments Face Accessibility-Enhancing Policies?," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt2x75525j, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haugen, Katarina & Vilhelmson, Bertil, 2013. "The divergent role of spatial access: The changing supply and location of service amenities and service travel distance in Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 10-20.
    2. Levine, Jonathan & Garb, Yaakov, 2002. "Congestion pricing's conditional promise: promotion of accessibility or mobility?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 179-188, July.
    3. Hess, Stephane & Bierlaire, Michel & Polak, John W., 2005. "Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 221-236.
    4. Yen Tran & Naohisa Hashimoto & Takafumi Ando & Toshihisa Sato & Naoki Konishi & Yuji Takeda & Motoyuki Akamatsu, 2024. "The indirect effect of travel mode use on subjective well-being through out-of-home activities," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2359-2391, December.
    5. Ory, David T, 2007. "Structural Equation Modeling of Relative Desired Travel Amounts," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8mj659fp, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    6. Mokhtarian, Patricia L & Salomon, Ilan & S, Lothlorien, 2001. "Understanding the Demand for Travel: It's Not Purely 'Derived'," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5bh2d8mh, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Gould, Jane & Golob, Thomas F., 2000. "Consumer E-Commerce, Virtual Accessibility and Sustainable Transport," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1rc1902p, University of California Transportation Center.
    8. Gould, Jane & Golob, Thomas F., 2000. "Consumer E-Commerce, Virtual Accessibility and Sustainable Transport," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8hr3760g, University of California Transportation Center.
    9. Lyons, Glenn & Urry, John, 2005. "Travel time use in the information age," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 257-276.
    10. Ory, David Terrance, 2007. "Structural Equation Modeling of Relative Desired Travel Amounts," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7rb3x52m, University of California Transportation Center.
    11. Patricia Mokhtarian & Francis Papon & Matthieu Goulard & Marco Diana, 2015. "What makes travel pleasant and/or tiring? An investigation based on the French National Travel Survey," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 1103-1128, November.
    12. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & Jakub Kronenberg & Jeffrey Englin, 2019. "The Individual Travel Cost Method with Consumer-Specific Values of Travel Time Savings," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 961-984, November.
    13. Susilo, Yusak O. & Lyons, Glenn & Jain, Juliet & Atkins, Steve, 2013. "Rail passengers’ time use and utility assessment: 2010 findings from Great Britain with multivariate analysis," Working papers in Transport Economics 2013:18, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    14. Carreira, Rui & Patrício, Lia & Natal Jorge, Renato & Magee, Chris & Van Eikema Hommes, Qi, 2013. "Towards a holistic approach to the travel experience: A qualitative study of bus transportation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 233-243.
    15. Tae‐Hyoung Tommy Gim, 2020. "The relationship between overall happiness and perceived transportation services relative to other individual and environmental variables," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 712-733, June.
    16. Sebastian Castellanos & Katy Wright & Susan Grant-Muller, 2025. "Governing shared mobility: a comparison of the public policy goals being pursued in three cities," Transportation, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1429-1456, August.
    17. Páez, Antonio & Scott, Darren M. & Morency, Catherine, 2012. "Measuring accessibility: positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 141-153.
    18. Parker, Cory, 2019. "Bicycle use and accessibility among people experiencing homelessness in California cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    19. Marco Diana & Tingting Song & Knut Wittkowski, 2009. "Studying travel-related individual assessments and desires by combining hierarchically structured ordinal variables," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 187-206, March.
    20. Ory, David T. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2005. "When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 97-123.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt5kn4s4pb. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucdus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.