News
Commute Study: Focus Efforts to Reduce Driving on Cities
Contrary to the libertarian Washington Policy Center's interpretation (and kind of a "duh" for smart-growth proponents), a new UW study
on the impact of efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) found that efforts to get people out of their cars work best in urban and suburban areas rather than remote towns and rural farming communities. (The state has adopted a goal of reducing VMT 50 percent by 2050).
The study looked at five specific populations (small businesses whose workers commute across county lines, low-income people, agricultural workers, residents of economically distressed rural area, and residents of counties where more than half of the land is public or tribal). All five groups, the study found, would experience negative impacts from a mandate to get people to drive less. However, the study also found that most of the people in the state now live in urban and suburban areas where transit and walking are viable alternatives to driving, and suggested that the state legislature focus its VMT-reduction efforts on those areas.
The study also says the negative impacts weren't necessarily universal across those five groups. For example, low-income people who don't drive, obviously, wouldn't be impacted by a driving fee at all, and small businesses would only feel a significant impact if the fee was set very high. Additionally, the study suggests that a ride-sharing or vanpool program for migrant workers, along the lines of one implemented in California, could save agricultural workers between $30 and $45 on travel costs per month.
Because the vast majority of people in the state are concentrated around urban areas, the study concludes, it makes sense to focus strategies for shifting from cars to walking, biking and transit on those areas. "It is entirely feasible to exempt vulnerable populations from [single-occupant vehicle] VMT reduction benchmarks."
The study looked at five specific populations (small businesses whose workers commute across county lines, low-income people, agricultural workers, residents of economically distressed rural area, and residents of counties where more than half of the land is public or tribal). All five groups, the study found, would experience negative impacts from a mandate to get people to drive less. However, the study also found that most of the people in the state now live in urban and suburban areas where transit and walking are viable alternatives to driving, and suggested that the state legislature focus its VMT-reduction efforts on those areas.
The study also says the negative impacts weren't necessarily universal across those five groups. For example, low-income people who don't drive, obviously, wouldn't be impacted by a driving fee at all, and small businesses would only feel a significant impact if the fee was set very high. Additionally, the study suggests that a ride-sharing or vanpool program for migrant workers, along the lines of one implemented in California, could save agricultural workers between $30 and $45 on travel costs per month.
Because the vast majority of people in the state are concentrated around urban areas, the study concludes, it makes sense to focus strategies for shifting from cars to walking, biking and transit on those areas. "It is entirely feasible to exempt vulnerable populations from [single-occupant vehicle] VMT reduction benchmarks."
