Big news, as reported by Atlantic Cities:
Early last week the State Smart Transportation Initiative, a sustainable transport program funded by the Department of Transportation, released some charts on the continued decline of vehicle-miles traveled in the United States. Overall VMT (Vehicle Miles Travelled) dropped 1.2 percent in 2011 from the previous year, reaching its lowest total since 2003, and per capita VMT fell 2.1 percent to levels not seen since 1998:
So … it’s not just happening in Vancouver. But why?
The simplified and convenient answer is often gas prices, and with today’s New York Times reporting the “spector” of $5 a gallon fuel prices it may become a favored political one this election year. But an equally compelling reason is a rise in the embrace of sustainable land-use patterns.
“It is generally observed that greater accessibility associated with better transportation-land use coordination will result in lower VMT,” a 2006 DOT study stated. The logic harmonizes with some of the best research on “peak driving” to date. In a paper published last June [PDF] in the journal World Transport Policy and Practice, Australian researchers Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy presented the reversal of urban sprawl and the rise of urbanism as two of the six major reasons VMT has plateaued. …
In an influential study of VMT released in late 2008 [PDF], the Brookings Institution examined travel behavior in the 100 largest metro areas in the United States and found evidence of lower per capita VMT rates in cities with high-density development and strong transit systems. (Click on chart to enlarge.)
More evidence for our emerging Post-Motordom world.
Fuel poverty is a reality that people are rejecting…the market place is leading the charge. Soon politicians will realize this and stop trying to smear people to confuse the issue. Sustainable afforable liveable … as community goals cities need to openly and enthusiasticall embrace these and ask people what part of that don’t you like. Yet there are Politicians who equate sustainability with additional expense and density as a threat to the suburban status quo.
Wait, isn’t the second chart being interpreted exactly backwards? Wouldn’t the conventional wisdom expect density and auto use to be negatively correlated, not positively correlated?
Reversed Y axis. Got it.