What's Putting the Brakes on the Growth of Driving?

With the exception of a blip during WWII, one iron law governed 20th century transportation: driving always increases. This is true not just because population grew; the relentless surge in driving was strongly evident even on a per person basis. See the data on the last century’s love affair with the automobile here.

But surprisingly, the 2000s appeared to see a halt to that trend, with driving totals stabilizing by decade’s end. Why? I definitely think I would have noticed if there was a colossal world war going on, so are there any other possible explanations for the slowdown?

Last post, I put forward a couple of narratives I find only partially satisfying: high fuel prices, government policy, and a sickly economy.

I do have to amend one argument I made, in which I dismissed greater transit ridership as a possible cause. Eagle-eyed reader Michelle Ernst pointed out to me that I missed the bus – or, rather, missed everything except bus – when I presented data showing that transit ridership was flat throughout the decade. Instead, per capita person miles traveled on transit (including rail) actually rose about seven percent between 2000 and 2008.

My apologies to transit fans; this does speak better of the performance of the industry. But still, it does not contradict my basic point. The reason? Mass transit accounts for a very small share of our total transportation: according to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, intracity transit (excluding school buses) currently accommodates only about 2.2 percent of our person miles traveled. So it would take very large percent change in transit ridership – much larger than we did indeed see – to take a significant bite out of driving. Moreover, not all new transit trips involve getting people out of their cars; some are trips that might not have happened (or been walking trips) had transit service not improved.

So while transit may take a bit of the credit, we need to look elsewhere. Are there any more promising possible explanations?

First, we may have congested ourselves to the maximum level we can tolerate. With the notable exception of the interstate program, in the face of the dizzying surge of driving in the 20th century we did comparatively little to build more roads. Since 1920, public road mileage has increased by about a third, as driving rose by a factor of about 62. Lane mileage figures, which take road width as well as length into account, weren’t kept until more recently. But they tell a similar story, at least in recent decades.

Lots more driving and few more roads obviously translates into more congestion, the rise of which is well documented by the Texas Transportation Institute among others. It’s quite possible that the congestion problem that so vexes us all (except possibly for us transportation professionals, for whom it provides employment) has caused travel to reach an equilibrium state: at least in larger cities, the value to drivers of marginal, additional trips may be so low that they simply aren’t worth the time cost given the traffic that must be battled.

Another possible explanation is that the share of women in the workplace seems to have stopped growing. While in 1950 only 34 percent of women over 16 worked, in the 2000s that figure appears to have stabilized at about 60 percent. In the past, women arriving in the labor force has meant more commuters. Plus, it meant greater family incomes and thus higher auto ownership levels. This phenomenon seems to be abating.

Speaking of car ownership, it might also hold part of the answer. As pointed out by Adam Millard-Ball and Lee Schipper of Stanford University, auto ownership in the U.S. – indeed, in the developed world – may have reached stable levels. In the past car ownership rose as Americans’ incomes did, but in the U.S., the growth in the number of vehicles per capita has been slowing appreciably since about 1990, and it currently seems to have leveled off at about 700-750 vehicles per 1000 residents. This may be bad news if you live in Detroit, but it is good news if you battle rush hour traffic every day.

Interestingly, in most of the other countries in Millard-Ball and Schipper’s study, car ownership also began to stagnate about the same time ours did, though at lower levels. Now Japan, the U.K., Canada, and Sweden all seem to have relatively stable ownership rates of around 500 cars per 1000 people.

So perhaps the rich world is seeing auto saturation, where just about anybody who needs and can possibly operate a car already has one. In the U.S., we have more than one vehicle per licensed driver, and unfortunately for the auto companies, until we get self-driving cars there’s going to be a cap on the number of autos one person can operate at any one time. So a plateau in the number of vehicles may be contributing to a plateau in the number of vehicle miles traveled.

Another possible explanation for the driving slowdown? Maybe ever more advanced information technology and telecommunications – such as cell phones and the Internet – are enabling us to do things from a distance, eliminating the need for many kinds of trips. But, on the other hand, some believe these technologies might actually cause us to travel more. More on this contentious issue another time.

And a final possible cause for peak driving? It may be that we simply have run out of hours in the day to devote to travel. After all, we need to sleep, eat, work, play, and read Freakonomics at some point. Given that we have to spend at least some time at our destinations, there may be a cap on how much time we can possibly spend getting to them.

Some transportation scholars have theorized that humans have a built-in travel clock; according to this idea, we are programmed to travel about an hour a day regardless of our personal circumstances or the society in which we live. As I have promised, more on this fascinating and controversial theory soon.

PS: My beloved UCLA School of Public Affairs just received a terrifically generous gift from Meyer and Renee Luskin, whose names will from this point forward grace our school and our firstborn children. Indirectly, they are helping to support this column, so feel free to give them credit for anything you like in this space – but continue to address your complaints to yours truly.


Or maybe we're biking to work? Just a thought -- or a beneficent hallucination...


How do cities measure passenger miles by bus? I think this would be a tricky problem because riders normally don't 'tap-out' when they exit, making it impossible to know how far one has travelled once they get on the bus. Isn't it possible that bus routes have adjusted to maximize the distance travelled by riders, meaning that even if ridership is only up a small amount those rides might be travelling longer distances?


What about demographic changes? As the baby boomers are retiring, they are likely to drive less as they have less of a need to but also as age takes its toll and leaves folks unable to drive. In addition, the younger generations have shown much more of a desire for walkable, bikable, transit-friendly communities, and are driving less out of choice, and in many cases even waiting much longer before getting a driver's license.

Michael Radosevich

Other than the fact that 95% of us are either broke or "underwater", I can't think of a reason people are driving less.


Have you stratified the data by age? A surprising thing I notice is that while I and my friends got driver's licenses as soon as possible - 14 1/2 - my children's friends seem to be in no hurry - some not driving until after 18.

Eric M. Jones

Pilots, bus drivers and truckers log work by Hours, not miles, because this is a fairer metric. My guess is that Hours spent in the car would not have gone down at all.

When cities were smaller, travel occupied fewer hours and more miles. When cities get bigger, the miles go down and the hours go up.


The author misses the key land use/ transportation connection. The suburbanization trend is beginning to reverse with higher population growth occuring in central cities. This means more people are utilizing alternative transportation or decreasing their vechicle miles traveled due to a more central location.


Here's a theory:

The internet is causing more shopping and meetings between people to go online. Hence, fewer car trips.

I wonder

Time is likely to be a factor for at least some people. I wonder if people might be getting somewhat more efficient about their travel time.

A local land-use debate went something like this: Here we have a major intersection, and down the road we have a school (and we're in California, so that sensible invention, the "school bus", does not exist).

In between the two, a major company proposed placing a big-box retail store.

NIMBYs instantly declared that every single customer represented two new trips through "their" intersection. Proponents said-What? You think I'm going to drive my kid to school, go home, and then come back to the store, to generate two trips? Why wouldn't I just stop off while I'm already driving right past it, putting exactly the same pressure on that intersection as your refusal to pay for school buses has already generated?


People are quick to underestimate the impact of working from home. At my Company (IBM) at our Austin site most of the 5,000 or so employees work from home at least once a week or often all of the time. The large buildings are ghost towns now and the parking garages have lots of empty space. Plenty of my other friends in the tech industry either work from home or find the nearest coffee shop to their house. The impact is simply staggering. Several families I know have gone from being 2 car families to 1 car families since they don't need a car to get to work anymore.


This decrease in driving somewhat correlates to the aging of the baby boomer population, does it not? In addition to a having a higher percentage of elderly/retired folk in the country, people are living longer in general. As people age, they eventually have to stop driving. Higher percentage of elderly = larger percentage of the adult population that can't drive. Just a thought...


"I definitely think I would have noticed if there was a colossal world war going on...." is not standard English, and thus it is hard to understand what is meant by the clause.

I think the blogger meant to say, "I definitely think I would have noticed had there been a colossal world war going on...."


"I definitely think I would have noticed that there had been a colossal world war going on...."

Who knows? Best to ignore the opinions of those native speakers of English who cannot express themselves in standard English.

william copeland

the earlier age-adjustment suggestion has it right for part of the explanation. years ago, my family would average about 20,000 miles per year. now, my wife and i, with two cars- average about 6,000 miles per year, total (we are in our 80's). the proportion of the population that is aged has been steadily increasing since the '70's. you should adjust for that.


When I was a teen in mid-80's we'd load a bunch of us in a car and go cruising every weekend. Driving up and down Main Street, drag racing at stop lights and that sort of stuff. I don't see kids today doing that as much. Driving is still popular for teens, but not like it was for me. For sure our cars were a lot more souped up back then.



I bought my first car in 1954 new Oldsmobile for total out the door
price $2,450.00 and you what the prices are today.
And again my first and only brick, 3 bdrm. ranch home in 1959 for
$ 19,500.00 if I sell it I can NOT buy a similar home.
I think here we are talking about Prices,.


In this time, air travel costs have declined then stabilized (even though it's become a hassle). That may be a factor. Driving long distances, on road trips, isn't done as much.

I dont' know which way this factor would go over a whole population, but I enjoyed long road trips back in the day everyone wasn't doing 75-80 mph. Now folks seem to think they're in one long video game when they drive. (But those who like that, you would think be driving more?)

Increasing gas prices may fix that, though - there is a growing movement of people who keep it to 65 mph or even less. Then I could drive long distances and actually enjoy it again.

Jason Tinkey

There is a generational shift that has been underway for at least the past decade. College graduates have settled in denser, walkable, bikeable, transit-heavy urban environments rather than the suburbs. I am 33 and among my peer group in Chicago only a handful own cars. Most of those people only drive because they work in the suburbs, but don't use the car at all during evening and weekend hours. I have friends in other cities around the country (even, increasingly, in LA) who live car-free.


The internet is certainly a factor by reducing shipping trips and enabling more productive work from home arrangements. There has been a significant connection between driving and employment, so it is not surprising that driving leveled off as the economy tanked.

Congestion is probably a factor, but in many urban areas traditional bottlenecks have been eliminated because of the widespread implementation of tolling using new technologies that greatly reduce plaza queueing. Tolls are also a part of the increased cost of driving in some areas, and higher tolls levied by financially pressured local governments might be a contributing factor. While increasing tolls results in lower driving rates, has this been offset by the implementation of new tolling technologies that reduce congestion?


It would be interesting to compare the rates for commuting, work-related driving, errand driving, and pleasure driving to see where the drop actually is.

Kevin Johnson

Both sets of my grandparents died in the 1990 to 2000 range. Both of my grandmothers never drove. All of their grandkids drive.

I think we have reached the point where the older people who did not drive have been replaced by drivers. Now when people die, they are drivers and are being replaced by drivers.

The short dip could be caused by fuel prices, but I think the trend will stick with the population growth.