HomeMy WebLinkAbout0486.091I ~
October 3], ]99]
KONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto~ California
Bay .A.ru '91 Clean Air Pl~n u Status Report
Members of the Council:
RepQ:""t in Bri!f
This ;s an informational staff report.
recommended. The r!pcrt summarizes the
proposed Bay Area T9J Clean Air Plan.
Background
No City Council action is required or
status of City recommendations on the
On July 22, 1991, the COL~cil reviewed the Draft 191 Clean Air PTan prepared
by the Bay Area Ai!'" Quality Management District. The attaded July 23 letter
contains the City Council actions. The BAAQMD has r~leased the proposed final
Bay Area ~9J Clean Air Plan. The proposed Plan iIlIil1 be considered for
adoption by the District on Wednesday, October 30.
Status of City Comments on DrafUlill
The City requested that the PTan contain restrictions on ~oodburnin9. As
identified in the attached letter from Milton Feldstein, the proposed Pian
includes Control Measure D9, Contro1 of tmissions from Residential Wood
Combustion. Specific control measures are to be developed in 1992.
The City's fourth t:omment urged Ue Air C'i.strict "[0 adopt a policy of \!IorKlng
with legislators and Ajr Resources Board staff to prumptly consider amendments
to the State's attainment criteria sta~dards a~d the Ca1ifornia Clean Air Act~
(C(M) to make compl.ianc.e with State standards, especially for olone.
feasib1e. The CounCil ~eiterated its strong support for the goals of the
C(AA, but was concerned with the draft Bay ,~rea Plan's conclusion tnat there
is -no practical strategy for meeting tne St~te ~ZDne standard.~
On October 16, City staff members Ken Schreiber arid Doris Man met with Kip
Lipper. Chief Consultant to the Ass.embly Committee on Natural Resources. The
purpose of the meeting was to review the City's comments about the CCAA and
discuss related issues. It is likely th3t the Assembly Committee on Natural
Resources "'ill hold a publlc hearing in November, possibly during the week of
November 18, on concerns raised regarding implementation of the CCAA. At the
request of Mr. Lipper, City staff is pr~paring information on a number of
CCAA-related issues primar'i1y connected to tne concern raised h the City's.
July 23 letter to the Air District.
CMR:485:9!
'. ./
o
City staff also provided Mr. Lipper ~itn the attac~ed ~nformat1on cn commute
distances and time lengths. me infOr"'lTt~tion is especially important because
it is contrary to the convent ior:al lWisdom tnat appear-s to be very important in
ronming State, re9ional and local respon~es to air quality and traffir
congestion policy issues.
Respectfully ,u~mitted,
;iUW"d f ./df<.:kr .
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER /
Dirtctor of Planning and
Community Environment
Related (MRs: CMR:28B:9I, CMR:301:91, CMR:l49:91
Attachments: 10/21/91 letter from Milton Feldstein
7/23/91 letter from Mayor Sutorius
10/11/91 lett.r to Kip Lipper
CMR:4B6: 91 10/ll/91
p', \cm,.\capsta!", Page 2
.. /
~-.". I '-: \... ,.'
ALAME~. COU"-I'T'Y
E.:l"". r.;:: ~ ~'np".'1
L~·,,"iIO"cOC"
C''l' ~ar;:>,'"
F'!r~ >; C9""'J
".au L C.J~"",r
rC'.a""",r,;()",
5w~~e ''''ir'~~1 ',II<:P~~
Tc..,.. Po,,'!!'~
", ... PA ,::OU",Tv
f'.", 9~r1'~'
5"N ~o;':'NC:",C(~ C::l;".n ='C ~oe~a ,o.C ~~ .. r-:"'-'2
,..."" Co 9-,r.
S~~ ~,A"!';::<~ r.(j~-,,,,;':'
C~~ J .. ,~~ ~~~ ;l~
s,:.,.-", : .. ';:'~ :,:,-,,-.
'h'""' -: .. ,."-,;~.
=.xC"~,,,"
=_':'''", ". -<L;-d"
;) a"Oo! ~c .... ~"-~
.,-~Jr:","'!.,:,~
"""C,d .... '''''"''!! 'S<-'-r~[~r,~'
_L ______ .
BAY AREA AIR Q:JALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Mayor Jack Sutorius
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avo.
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mayor SutoriUs.:
October 21, 1991 .-.>
TIwLk you for your July 231etlercommenting on the draft Ba., Area 1991
Clean Air Plan (CAP). We appreciale your support for acl1i~vl!Jg the goals of the
California Clean Air Act (CCAA).
The draft CAP has been revised in response to public commen!s. A copy
of the proposed flnal CleaJl Air Plan has been sent to the City 0: Palo Alto. The
proposed final CAP will be considered for adoption by the BAAQMD Board of
DirectOfi at a public hearing on Wednesday. October 30 at 7:00 p,m. at the
Cathedral Hill HQtel (corner of Van Ness and Geary) in San Francisco.
Your letter requests thai the CAP include restrictions on residential wood
burning as a mandatory cormot measure on days when L1e Pollution Standard
lndex ellceeds SO. The propo~ final CAP includes Control Measure 09, Control
c-f Emissions from Residential ",rood Combustion. This rontrol measure is
scheduled for adoption in 1992. The spcc:fi\: provisions of this measure wili be
determined through the District's rule-making process.
You also urge the District to work Vr.·ith the Legislature and the Air
Resources Board to consider amendments to the California Clean AlI Act and [0
the criteria for atttining Stat:: ambient air quality StaJ'ldards. Although the District
has not adopted a policy to seek: changes. in State air quality standards. we wi!!
support proposed changes to promote consistency betv.'een CCAA planning
requirem~nts and federal planning requirements.
Thank you for your comments. We look forward to your cuntinued support
and participation as we move forv.'ard to implemel1t th~ Clean Air Plan.
Sincerely.
);!~~
Milton FeldSTein
Air Pol1ution Control Officer
MF·DB:ey
'139 El.US STREET' S ... , FRA:"OCISCO. CALlFOR~·IA 94!09 • ~41511i'i-6o()O • FAX (4i51 928-856Q
i
!
0 .. """"' ..... · I .
I ------.,..---.
-.
·\ •
QNlC:t O"1'~t ...... "0'0111
... ~:!, 3.t!)·Z::31!.o1
Paul l. Cooper, Chairperson
~. o. eo. IO.z~O
~"'1.0 .. 1."o,CA. 8<~0-3
Say Area Air Quality I'tanagement District
939 £11;$ Street
San Francisco. CA 94109
Dear Chairperson Cooper:
July 23, 1991
Subject: City of Pi·To Alto Comments 0."1 Draft Bay Area ~91 Clean Air Pian
"
The Palo Alto City (cunci) discussed the Dr.ft '91 Clean Air Plan at a June 3 study
session and. on J~Ty 22, formally reviewed the Plan and unanimously adopted "the
fol1o'lling c:ormrents: •
I. The City commends the BAAQMO staff fOT their thorough .n.ly.is of the control
~ea5Ures and issues fn the 191 CAP;
2. The City requests that replacement pages reflectigr. corrections to Tables 4
and 9 be included in the Addendum;
3. The City requests that restrictions on woodburning be lnclllded ,as a roandatol'"Y
centrol measure during days wfien the Pollutton Standard lndex reaches or
exceeds 80;
4. The City reiterates its continuing strong support for tne goals of tne
California C1P.l~ Air Act but is concerned about the conseq~ences ~f the Plan's
conclusion that tnere is -no practical strategy for ~eting the State ozane
standard.-A num1er of possibilities exist t~ modtfy ~~fstlng standards and
attain~nt criteria to make compliance ~;t" State standards feasible. while
still maintaining serious efforts toward meeting the Widely accepted goal of
irnpro-ving California's aiT quality. Therefore, the City lJrges the District to
adopt a policy of working with legislators and A7r Resources Board staff to
pTO~tly consider amendments to the State's attainment criteria standards and
the California Clean Air Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on tbe '91 CAP.
cc: City Council
Sincerel~~
~ CK SUTORIUS
, .-tayor
j
I
..:._ .......... i::o .. _ ... -~ ____ ,.::
;) City of J'~lo }1lto
Oep4rtment of Pl~nn1ng and
Commu~fty Environment
(415) 329-23;4
October 21. 1991
Mr. K1P Upper
Cni~f Consu1tant to the
, 0 I':'x. 1[1:2500
Assembly Co~;ttee on Natural Resources
California Legislature
Stah Capitol
Sacramento. CA 95814
Dear Mr. Lipper:
250 Hamilton Avenue
P. O. Box 10250
Pal. Alt •• CA 94303
Thank you for taking the time to meet with Oo:--'\s Maez and mis~lf on
October 16.
This letter follows up on the COrmlents that I made about the decreasing 1erf~'th
(time and dtstance) of the average commute trip in 1arge urban areas. Two
attachments address this issue. The first attachmer.t is from the Autumn 1991
issue of the Journ~l of the American Planning Association. The authors
conclude that between 198J and 19S5, average commute times in the 20 largest
metropolitan areas in the U.S. either fell by i statistically significant
artlcunt <lr remained the same. The ~econd attachment is t'n2 title page p1us
pages 55 and 57 from the Dr.ft Bay Are. '91 Clean A!r Pl.n (CAP). The
ABAG/BAAQMOjMTC authors conclude tr.at "Contrary to p~blic:: perceptions, the
length of ~ost trips is decreasing. Over the next twenty years, the avera9~
trip will b2 9 per cent shorter, while the length of the home-to-work trip
will decrease by 11 per cent.~
The essence of the situation appears to be that loc~tion and re1ocation
deCisions by employers and households result in both decentralilation of jobs
and expansion of alternative roadway routes from hOlJsin~ to jobs sufffcient to
reduce both tt1e length and time of tl'1e commute trip for a substantial number
of workers. Given that trend, and absent any type of land use regulatory
framework that can change the trend, the likelihood of achieving substantially
hi9he~ a~erage vehicle ridership for commute trips appears, to me, to be
remote un1ess government is ~;lling to impose s~bstantial finanCial costs
and/or se~ere regulatory limitations on commuters.
" ..
•
> ,
Hr. Kip Lipper
October 21, 1991
Page 2
o
.~' -.
.-'-,'
o
Within the next one t~ two weeks, I ~ill respond to your request for a list of
issues and questions that might be approprlate for the hearing t~ be scheduled
during tne week of November IS. If I can be of other assistance, please
contact me at 415/319·1354.
KRS:jm
Attachments
Sincerely.
~"c~ 5';/u..Ji,'~,
K£NNET~ R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
COm"l1uni ty Environment
cc: Daris Maez, Environmental Protection (oordinator
William Zaner, City Manager
, ...
., ~'
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
,"
-----fARTIIs:;C1LIES~lr-------"""-
The
Commuting
Paradox
Evidence from the
Top Twenty
Peter Gordon, Harry \\" Richard~orJt and
Myung-fin fun
A comparison of auto commuting trip durafions
fruro the J 98.5 American Housing Survey [0 data
from the J 980 census for-the twenty largest met
ropolitan areas suggests tbat during the study
period average trip times either fell by a stalls
tically significant amount or remained the same.
A paradox mollY nist in the widespread reports
of congestion in spite of stable average :rip du
ralions. Perhaps average commute ti mes are
contained by the location adjustments that
bouseholds and businesse!!l make. Perhaps ttl ere
is DO paradox. Location adjusfments ..... ouid not
be made were it Dot for the perception af congl:"S
don.
Gordon and Rkhardson are on [he fa,~ll)' of the Schoel or Urban and Region,,) Plomni:1g al :he tlnivcrsit)' or
Southern CaJiromia, r:.Jn is a doctor;!1 s!udent in the
5¢hool.
/ournm oj 1M Amer-tcan Planlling AS5cx'ialion, Vol 57. No
4, A'Ulumn 199L "Am~ric-.an Planning AswcialLon. Chi
cago, IL
C;lou;!l empiricJsm, me~;2 a:ltr,[ion, :mJ yers·:mai obser·
v'1"LIOn air ~~egesl :h:lt ",urT'le 'l~;)g(.'!>ti'ln hi15 :-,eer gwjng
worse in recent years'. Yet the ""ationwide Perso~al Trllm,·
portatinn Study C"PTS} show, th~t tr'l'.-el be:t"Javior ~id nOI
renect this trend (Gordon. K'-.:mJr. imd. Rich lIrJ:i.Ort. I %ga).
In p3rticular. an,;: c-h.9nges in \I.'ork trip time~ and distances
belween I qn and 1983 wen: mvdeS'. a:nd gen~r3tly insig
nlficar1'l. Trip speo:ds ch:mgr:d hardly at ail. and in rJct im
proved somewhat dl.:ring the peaks beiween 1977 and 1983
The stability OJ" sli~hi dedine in commuting timC"1 "'tnC"ctec
.9.n inc-ease-in suburb-Io-suburb commuting Jnd tht: gen
era),,:y i1t~teT speeds or subu:"b:m LralieL
TI'1~ 1985 Arnericiln HOlJsing Su.r-'e)' (.1.HS) d~la re
centry became e1ailab!e, oi1ering the D05SiblliIV of re
testing ~},~se findi!1g~ \I.'i,1: ~n i!1d~pc. .. tIJt~t .:lJ:a'sou.:--ce.
The -\HS data are two )'e;lrs newer th:m th~ ."PTS. thev
includ~ 5ubstanlia~ inronniltion. abellf commulmg eve~
U,Ollgh t~eir main ro;;:us is housing. lind th ey are avairab~e
for indi~'iduar cities. Moreover. the commuting qu.e~lion~
asked !n 1985 were alrnosl identical fo those aste-d in
the 1980 co:n:sus. l'e:-mil1ing a direct campacison. This
ofTer.; an oppClrtunlt}' !o update t.h~ ElnElI)'sis until the re
.suits. oflhe next]\"PTS ~urvey (or;g"lna1Iy planned ror 1989
but not carri.:=d out untir 1990 to 1991) and the 1 990
census become a.ailable. pro:;abl,Y 'in 1992. Allhough
the 1985 o\HS d.ata.are al'ailabJe for seytntv·fO'Uf Met
.-opo!it!!'" Statrsticaj Area~, the ana~ysis here is rC"~tricled
10 the twenty largC"~t-.he TC'p T\I,.·enty. Thi,. restriCtlon
pUIS to rest an) doubts abo:!t sample .sizI! (the sample or
auto cm~mllte~ ranged frt'm 244 respondents rn Pllt~
burgh to T .376 tn los Ar .• <;de~). and it is more Jppropriale
for !he congestion an:;rys:s b~ca'U~e. rtghlty or wrongi),
congeslion problems t;r~ perce~ved 10 be partlculorly .~e
vere ir1 the larger cl!it's
To preview the c:onclu~ions of :he analvsis, noi onh'
are the carrier XPTS rtndings confirmed. thev are rein:
forced. 111 :I !;.iz;lble propO<1ion of th~ Top Tw~-nIV MSA~.
work trip travei tLmesj",a belween 198'0 Jnd 1985 by a
stJ~i.tic.1l1)' significant Jmount, and in no C-it~e d~d work
,,;p time~ IllCTf'!,ase slg:1ifiC':iritly. \foreoveJ". CCJr!lrTl:Jt;ng
t:mes tendo:d to be shoner in cilies. ex:per;efll::n,g-:-a~!d
growth a"dior ""tilh low-densiE), structures, T~~se ;"t:,;ults
suggest a (::)mT:'IClting paradox: Traffic e.)ngestion m"y
be gelling progressilldy WOIOC, yel 31'erege commuting
times ror Ihe nverwhelming!), dominJnt auto commuter
are either remainIng constant or becoming shorter, This
par.adox. is perhaps e),;pla;n~d by the cllpacity of indi·'ld
u<il~ and flrms to adjust ration.ally to pOEcr,tially r.dve:5-e
c-h<lnge5 in phYSical an.1 economic conOlrions so as to
"-eep cnmrruling times ..... Ithin loTer<lbte limils. !.loreover.
~,..tr1hel adju.stments .are posstble .so Ih'"t any fu!ure de
teriorJiion in traffic congestion ..... ill ind,..tce a .com~~"'
sating resporl.'i.e.
Data and Their Interpretation ----
One potentiill prGblcm ..... ith Ihe AHS data is. Ihe a.:·
C-UrJCy ,",r~ej{·repol':ing. c<'r,C"ciJIi) gi'en the nJtu.ral ir.-
." ~"--"-----"
•
-
clim:lIion to rOund nIT to lh~ neare~t five ffilncLtes. How
ever. Ihis should not d'ISIO!1 the re~u!ts unless there are
cha~ging biase$ over time in the dire~tion t"lf r.)u.nding
\.lp or down. and tnere is m:ither ~\'id~nre nor theClI")' to
suppon such biases,
Why focus. or. trip lime~ rat"r.~r th.:ln c.1 trip lengths
at1d average U'ilvel speeds? The major rea.<on :s th.:!t tr;p
time is lhe variable rnA: IncS! infJucnu$ travel behavior.
Moreo"cr. t:ip tenglh and speed cannot be compared for
1980 and. 1985. all.hough the NPTS da:a permit com
parisons be-tween 1971 £nd 1983 by place of residence
(cen:ral cit)' or suburb) as ·,., .. eli.as by city-s:?e .:lass. peak
or off-peak tr.t~'ei lime, and trip pl.!rpClSe. Hu"sc compar
isons show lhe! work trip s.peed.s increased in almost all
dry-size das~s ~CT both centrol cit)' and suburban resi
dents. The only exception to this Eener~tiza'ion i:!; the
510wer sp~ed.s of of i-peak work trips ;01' .St:burbtr. resi~
dents (Gordon. Kumar. and Richaros,m 19S9a, Table 4}.
which are probably explained by the rapid grcwth in
nonwork trips (Gordon. Kumar. ll:1d RichardsOrt "1<;8Ea.
Tables 2 and 5) and by the pre"'aient n~gre.:t of trl':r.s~
portation S)'Hem management (TS:-'·f) mea~t..Lres in orr
p~ak periods. Work trip lcnglhs. exapt for do ..... ntown
oriented commulers, are shorter for subLlrbtm than for
centraT city r.:sidents, and this t.rend ca" r-...e expected to
continue as more and m-are jobs shift [0 the subur~s,
Average trip lengths dedined, a fact whoily consistent
with the hypothesis. 5uggesre:d in tn;s paper.
Why u.se means rather than mediarl~? (A!! Ctl.:r papers
using NPTS data looked at bOlh means t1nd m edi.o.ns; both
sets of reS-tilts. were mutu.any consiste.r:t, However, for
this researcb il is very important to rely on me-am.) Fir5t,
Ibe mean reflecls the net outC<:lme or a great m~ny j.,.
dividuaJ commuting declsians ir.. >::ach l.lrge city and is
n.:>t a Hatistical artifact. Second, mediJ. reporting of the
congestion eflecis or metrOpolitan growth tends 10 rely
heo~'ily on the experiences or outr:~r.;. those who com
mute up tc three nou.rs a day. for p.arnp!e, a recent
ne ...... s rt,?ort profl.led a tos Angdel> Peiice Departmcm
lieutenant ·",'ho commuted f,")ur and one-half hour.. a day
from the Mountain r-eSO:1 of Lake AJ"rowhe;ad 10 do;.:.·~·
lown. Buried deep in the article W2.-5 the ract til'"t he
intended to ;oelire il"'. faur years' time .lnd that he had
bought his mOil-main horr:e in ;lnticipa'ion 01 retireme-nt~
Obvicu~ly, .such outliers affect mean c.ommuting times.
But les:i newsworthy are the actions of the IT cst pro~
portion.); of commUlers \line eOld year ch.:l.!1ge residence
andlc.r work place to avoid conges!ion and redu.ce: their
commuti.ng Umeii. These ul"lsung heroes of melropol"ltan
tr.I .... er behavior e~plain why commuting times in the
largesI cities remain stabre or decline despite imp~~
Slonistic, hUl proba~ly r:liabre. evidence of incre.:l5lng
c'Ongestion along particular highway segments. This pOl·
per does not c.h.:lllenge the hypothe~~~ of incre.1.5ing
congeslion per unit of road capac It)' , onl) the assumption
thai :his ine"1Iab1y rest.:lts in higher a"'cragt: l:Ommuting
times.
Thi~ .In.llysis of comJl1l.'tir.g behavior in the T'Jp Twe:lt)'
IS T"C"5tricled !o responde:Hs in Ihe core rilther than the
~ripileral countiel of melr'Jpol"lIiln regjons DeL:aUSe of
the de~ire to dlsljllgujsh between centrJ~ city and sub
urban residc:,..,ts. Th.,; concept of "C"enlral city" loses its
lTUe meaning in a ~uburba'"l county. (In wn .. , sense is
AnOlheim In Onmge County a centr.1t ci~y7) Howe,,·er.
the poploJlali('rl growth data i1"l. Tabr~ 1 rerer to me broader
rr,C"lropo!ltiln reg ton to gi"e a mere reliable indkator of
mClJupolitan r;.:onomic perrorm~nce. These growth rales
suggeM a dear dl$tir.~'lion be~ween .. Iagnant populf'tion
~ro\l,.·t,'1l.n the Northeasl and M:J....-est and more buoyant
grClwt~ 'n the \Vest :lCid :he South. Minnenpolis i~ the
onl)' e):.c~ptior. to this general'lzatton,
Table 1 a[so compMes automobile commuling times
for sublJrbln .end ,en:ra: dry residents. Because the d~ta
refer to a-.t.riiges, it might be e'(pected that s\.JbuTban
commuting times wQutd be mud; ~or.ger because 'Of Ine
i:-.l1uence of aut!:ers; the longest c'2Immutcs are from sub·
Llrban loe-atk/ns to the cem:dl dty in general and to
downt'.)wn in particular. Although this expectation of
longer suburban co;nmutes is cor.ilrmed, there are m<ljar
q1.l2Iii"icatiom. ['1 five cases, suburbnn cGmmul:r.g times
aT"C' shorter, and in eight cascs tiley are less !hal'. or equal
10 15 percent longer. Tn only One case (Pittsb'jrgb) i!: the
travel time difference extreme (aimost 50 percent longer),
As pointed aut by P:.sar5-ki (rgs/), suburb--tO-5u.burb
commul-:s ;He the: lToO,,: r.apidty gro ..... ing caleg,')!)". and
these commutes offer opportunilies f()r trip ~cOn()mie5
("ia chan gel in residential and/or work place loc.ltionJ
that .s .. bstamiJ.i1y off~( the muc.h :ongerradial cammlHCi
from the suIJu~tJ .. to t~e centra: city.
The Commuting Paradox
The mo~ impQrtail.t qu.estiQn is: 'What happened to
c:ommuti1'1g rimes by ;au~omobi!r: between 1980 and I 9SS?
[f t,afTic conge~tion tS indeed g'!ttlng worse:, and if the
proportions in the won.: trip origin-de~ttna~ion matrix re
main thc same. then ir-evitably lral.-el times must become
IOl'ogt;, But data f.anke Top T wel'll) in "fa.ble 1 show that
~11 eighteen .:a.'es cOrTomuttng ti:nes bec.a;me .sho.'1er. In
nint! orthese UiseS the :-edLiCtior. '",,'as ,,:.atlst,caily signif
ican; at the 0.01 ie~·::-1. iT"' "J"I( case~ it wa~ .sjg!1iGcant a!
lhe 0.05 ~el'el. anc i., ani,. lhree c.ases wa~ the decline
SlJt·~51.icll"1y ins"!gniftcanl. In t~e two ca~e~ w',lere: tra"'el
lime:s l::ngthened a littre (Dallas and Phoenix). the in
cre ... se was statil(lcan,. insigniftcant. The aye rage saving
(un weighted) was about twO minules. an 8 perce-TIl de
c~i~c from the 1930 meaTl commute in the Top TwenTY
C:ltle~,
H()w on the commuting p<;radox of more congestion
but 5"1,orter commul11:g l;mc:s be explained? One-PO!;sj
hiht)' is that t.he parldox i.;. wrong: in other WOrt.l.~, that
:here was no ..... orsening or conge~ti{]n. lndeed commulers
mOlY percei~'e congest;on as ~eing worse Ih~n it il. re
membering the relat!v~ly infrequent derilys more than
tne [1oml.lL unevenlrur trips. Yet Ihe h)'potnesis of higher
tramc dens~t~es arong p;:miculilr routt:~-one poss.ible
meJ~u.rE or congeslion-L5 probabrv -.a['ld in manv in
stance:<.-(Har;.l,s.lnd Lomilx 199 I),' ~or .... .l~ doe e:Te"~t or
.Jd
.
•
[ I
~ ,
~IIIWJ"''''_ ... _ .... , ___ ,_
PETER GORrx:> HARRY W. RICHARDSO'1, AND~-'UNGIIN lU'1
TABLE r: Population ,rowth and commuting .:imes 10 20 largest U.s. metropotitan .prus
~popo.oI.iIfr)n
;roo<o'tt"t rate
('%.l1980-85
_",,, 0.'
i...olI .... ~ ",,0
""-•• S¥l FrancisCo 's
""""""'" '.3
"""" -'7
""''''' OJ
"""' " Wa.shro!1IM. DC U
t-iouslon 3. ....,.. , .
""'--C_4 . "''''' 2 •
St. t.oui$ 03
S!!-aHle ,. ............. 1.(
Sao """" " """"'" 0.' ",,, .... "" -07
"'-'" 3.'
•. ~~byc¥,D'UI;I!;,~"""''''OcII1years
b_~a!(lJJ'''''
c.~a!a~1rf1It
5..iburtl.atl!CHltrjlj
Ott Clute 'ltlW! ",.S
086
1,0!
u"l~
~ !I~
'.>0
1 ,16 ". , ,03
'" '19
1.19
097
1.15
1,'1
«'
'''' 1,.<'6
'(5 ,,,
t,OIS
Au.amoD<'e
CQ("ro"'T'\"'~1"'i~
(mm)'"
-'""""'" 1 !=ISO " .. C11!~(l-.. aJlJe)
21l.! ", -197'"
237 2,z,t -4 O~
25' -2~' 9 -2,-4,,-
2" 21,3 -2 ,-4e
'37 21.9 -3,15D
'"" '" -6,'"
220 ,,)4 2,2'"
'" 227 0,10
'" 25,0 -32'-
2!! 5 Z .. ,O -2.43"
22' ,.. -31~ "". 19.5 ~3'"
2-4,7 233 -1,87"
:2:,6 20. -2.21'
220 .<:05 -1 7ry
,g, ". -3.79"
:20J IS,S -{dIS
25_7 24.7 0,78
~2 2 2, ,5 --0,52
21,fi '" 073 -------"---"
San:a!..~(1e" ... lrooo:otJs. C'A'ISI.IS Bure..u, 19&[)~d.a:41r""', 18&leer.s...."$, and 198.5 ~ .. d;allllmm"""'""",~"\i~y, ·1iIB~
conges:io:\ on commuting times alle~'ialed by an)' ~pili
ol'er ofwor'k. trips outside tr.aditionai peak hou.rs: Then.:
was only \'cry moderate peak elongation in !he smaller
(less than 500,000 population) metropolitan l'lreas. Any
tendency for peak work trip'i 10 decline was olliet b .... , /I
growth In peak l"lonwork trips (Cordon. Kumar, and
Ri:chardsor. 1985b}. Funhermore, tJ,e population growth
da!a ofTable 1 suggest thtl! there was sllf!icienllncreasc
in the numbeM. using the roads in many ;netm~o~i!an
areas Juring this peri'Jd 10 create demand pre~5\lre on
transport3tion ry~,em~ .... ':t:loUt &; 5,,:TLcier.tl)' strong Sllp
ply re"pon5e.
Another possibility (sugge.o;..ed' 10 us by Gene"'je',e
Olufiano) is tl11111 & lengthening of commuting time~ for
males was hidden by an incr-ea.-;.e in the sh2:~ or f~male
commuters. Because women have .. ignific:antl}' shorter
commutes. (Gordon, Kumar, Ind Rid.ard:!.on I 9E9b), this
could bring down the mean .everaged over all coml1lutt!rs.
Howeve:-, automobile com:nuting limes. either dcdi:led
or remained stable for males.. whether strattfieo b)' city·
!lze c!ilSS or-income, bet\l!een Ig77 and 1983. w~ile fe
male CDmmule-s. tended to lenglher. a linle, e5pecially in
the three miHion plu-s ciry·!ize c1':lSS (Gordon, Kumu,
and Rirhardso'\ 1989b, T.abks 6 and 9). The lrend~ ",,'~re
similar between 1960 and 1 >38"5.
Our preferred explanation of lhe dedine in commuting
--: ------,~~-.~-.
tLmes i5 Ihat enough commule~ were rn.a.kJng leealJon
adju~,tmt;;ns (or benefll:ng from locat~en adju.stments by
firm~) to prevent the eXl~ tirr,'; CO$ts of increasing
congestiot1 from ha','jllg a signt~ca'\t ir.1pact on C<:.'m·
muting a~'er:;ge.s. Thes.e adj~stments I':,igh'i inv(Jlve a
change ~n residence or a change in work place (and
somet:rr.es both). either 10 reduce Ihe ~eng1b of the work
trip or to allow the u~e of less conge~:ed ro~tes... Many
of Ine loc,Hlon changes tnvdved more suburb.a.!':I?a~ion
(by hous~hold:.) and decentralization (by firons). :r-.~ost
A~e:-ican metropo[ita;; areas during the study period
w€re becoming mor-e polycer:tric. The downtowns' al·
read)' small share of metropoltt.an n:gion jobs continuec
to derJ'M". as indeed 1t must if cont'mued metropolitan
population and empioyment gro ..... 1h is to be achieved
witr.out a lengthening of comml·ting &~lance .. and travel
:irncs.
Commuting and Spatial Structure
Lllrort\:na:elj', ailhough the AHS has scm.' Gffta abo:1t
rnOll'en.. there is no information a~<1Uable a~mut com·
muting times a! pr"f\l"tou~ iQ{:<liiuns, m Ina! the hypornesis
thaI many :no~'en challged iocOition tD shon~n the work
trip cannel be fe"led direcdy (nor t~ information avaitable
abclll c,l)mmule-S who changed their ..... ork pi.ace). Ho ..... -
.: ... -
"'"":".".-... " '.-' .
. ," .i"t,~f'-·"" ~
~,;~~~~f-, ~
, ,
,"'TI'E COMMUTING PARADOX 0
-.,/
ever, moven from the central city had (regardless of the-!r
new location) longer comm~ljng times (25.1 comparc:d
with 21.4 minulesllnar. movers from the ~ubLLrbs (re
gardleM oftneir dcstinatioT"!). ThIs rna}' ~,e interpreted as
indirect evidence :hat centrar city resideIlls are le3~ cmn
mu,ing time-sensitIve than suh'Jrbanit!.'s. On the other
hand, sl.>burban commuting limes i-emained on: die a~·
e,ag~ somewhallonger than cCnlrul city cornm~ling times
(about 0.8 minuLes) be!;;al.ls!.' or d,e innuence or the ,~ub
urban outJkn; comRll.>ting to downtown. But thi! was
not troe or long-eslablisned suburbanites in the mMt·
dt$pe~ed cities (wilh an average comm~le ort .... ent:-~one
mi!1utes). This i! an impor'.ant p:Ji"t because it wggest5
that polyce1ltric or disFe~d metropoHtan structures a..-e
e~peciall)' favorabl!.' to .hort commutes. A neglected n
planati.:on \)r subl.lroaniution is tn..:: opponlJ!',ity it offers
far C'ommuting economies, eACept for thOSt w no con tin ue
ta work !r, the central city, e~pecian)' dOwrHo .... n l .
There is a striking diffel'e:lce in auto commuting times
il<:lw:!en de:"l5e (New York, Chicago, Ba)(lmore) and a!5-
persed (D.anas. Phoenix, San Diego) cities. The limes are
25 10 30 percent higher for central ci!:y residents. Dense
citie~ result in much Ionge. automobile commuling times
than .. pre/'jd~out, dispened c'lties. They imply more
congestion, wherea~ spra: ..... ; (or, less pejoratively, di.5·
persion) offers mOr<! div!.'fS.e oppo=-tunities for raster
commutes through changes of residence or jobs, the r.c:
location of finns, or the choice of uncongested routes.
Also. commuting times tet'ld 10 be shorter in rapidly
growing citie~, e~'idence thi!lt growth pe~ u doe~ not lead
to ubiquitJl.>s eongestion, provided that the ~patjal dis·
tribution of growth is conducive to work trip-eccnomiz·
ing 'Oenavior by both firms and household..>.
The Future
A pessimist might a.gue that even if the escape hatch or spat:al redistrlbulIon has pr.:vented the ...... O;l;t drects
of congestion up to now, Lhi.l reJief may nOI be possible
in th~ future. Ev~ntually, the preS$ures of growth and
dete';orating ctlng'!stior. wiil become ovE ...... ,helming, For
example, pLanner.;!n Southern Caliromia hav~ projected
.a doomsday scenario, if currenl t..-ends cor,linue. oj" d~op
ping freeway speeds C:V!.'r tbe neXl twenty year; byelmost
50 perce nl and spe~d! on other road... by 46 perce nt te
Iwemy.four and nineleen mile! per hour r-espectively
(Soulnem California A$$ocialiot'l of Government.) 1988",),
Among the proposed r-emedies is an arnbiliou! grcwth
management plan 10 elimin.ate ~mhtllance! within ';:Offi'
munilies. by changing the geographiC distriblJlioo wilhin
the region of new housl~g and employmem (So;Jthern
Cal"ifomia Association of Co~'em".,en!s 19S8b). The ac~
tions: incl~de ma~i .. e ~~blic subsidies funneleci through
the Community Redevelopmenl AgenL)' to build afford,
able hOliSiog t'lo expen~ive land in or dose to downtown.
ignoring the fact that job grow!h in downlown is onl)'
one-third of the rale in the ;-e~t of the region or lhat low·
""lOge job growlh ,n do ..... nlOllo'l'l i:!i vinually SlaZnanl.
"
Wha~ th~se pr.;..posall ignore is :ha! !pontaneou~ reo
location dec;~ilJos by nuns and hou~eholds do oI! ver")
nlee job of achitVLllg bJ.lar:ce, 3nJ of heping commuting
tim!.'s within tolerable timi~.) wilhout co~d)' r-!anr,jns in
terventioo:;. With;n Soulh~rn Ca~Lromia, :his has hap
pe:1cd in suburoOin Orange County in the i-aH d~cad(".
90d it .... ,m happeo in the n(lo.~ dt:'l;lide in rhe rapidly g'-ow
ing outer cOI.mties Dr San Bemarcr,no 2~d Rherside,
...... hich a;-e e;"periencing anm:al popul<.ltion gro ..... ,!h rales
in excelS of 6 perl;ent. The apprcpri<!te rcre ror planning
agencies and loclli juri.sdil;(iom should be 10 fl.::ilJtate the:
dece:1~ral\Htion 01 jobs b} reiaxing zon·tng r-estri.:tions
that limit comPlercia] llind uses in resid~nli.ai commu
nities, 10 help in l.and assembly, to pr(wide-ec.anomic
Inrraslr\IctlJre, and to di~,·:ol.l:-age growth cL'nlrol inilia
tives-in othe-r ...... urd,., ht'lp the market 10 work rather
Ihan al1!.':t1.pt to s!nm~le it. W·tth such an approach:. eco
nomic agents (bo:h firms and households) will be able to
conlinue to make rational decisions, hold commuting
times in check. and mitigate ,cc;.ngestion.
The commuting par<ld,l;( reflects the apparent cMtra·
diction ben ... een i='erceplions of worsening traffi<: cong~!~
lion and evideoce of ei,her declIning or sleble commutit'g
times. F!o',llever, not oril)' is there no cOII:radictior; but
th" ' ..... 0 phenomena a~ cau.>a!ly related. Ra:il'nal com
muters wLll, soone, or l.ner, ~eek 10 e£c"pe congestion
b}' changing the 10cation of their homes and/or Iheir jobs.
This type of adjustmen: t! ea:;ier to make in large, di~·
perscd metropoli[ar: area~ with aJtemative employmerll
subccnters and a wide Hriety of residential neighbor,
hoods. The proC"ess is f.ac~titated by '.he dec!;ntralizing
rocation d!.'cis:on! of fltT.15 seeking to move clo~r to sub·
urban labo. pools. There i~ still cons'lderable scope for
more readjustment! so t!-:~t ctlmmuting times ;'Iced not
incrc:ase, e'>'en if highways becom~ r:lore congested.
However, in most ...:r"ban areas, wi.h the pos~ibje excep
tion of Ihose experien6,1g rapid net inmigration, panic
ularly from abroad. congestion t! uni"lkel}' to get much
wor..e. Recent c!emogr!lphic~ show an end to the b<:by
boom-propelled growth in d,e ari"'ing age-population,
the peakiT .. ~ of female labor forcl' panicipatjo:l, 3m! a
.).Jtl.lr.llior: it, the ralLO ohehi'::es 10 Ihe driving,ase pop·
u!alion (Lave 1990).4 The pClrpose of !h!s paper 'I! (0 su~~
ge .. t reasom .... hy the increaslng !.'mp!-:;a~;! on congestiw;
doo;-mday sceoarios is overblo .... n, hut ..... e Will hav!.' te
wa il un ti I 1992 o~ 199} .... 'hen the 1990 :"IPTS alta census
results are p'l:bli~hed to confirm thatlhe comi.1uting par
adox continlJes.
AUTHORS' NOTE
v.,.'e wish to thank the anon'lmous referee~ and Gene~'ie'ie
Giuliano for helprul Cl)mments and sugile~lion;.
____________ NOT~ __________ __
J. A..~ a ~cent if a:ypkal eXJ.mpl!.'. lr.e neweSI redel-a]
exp~rt~ on traIlSplJrtalion planning and urban crime,
. . ... -_.-
J
PETER GORDON:'"1l:ARRY W. RICHARDSON. "ND M, "NG-jlN /UN
eh~ CeT'ler rur Disea.;c Cun:rol(!) in Atlan.a, published
• papt:r in the !ouma! of Ihi! .4me"fican Medical ft).
socialion blaming L'I]e 1987 !..o_~ Angeles freeway
shootings or. gridlQck and traffic cong~stion. To ra
tionanz.e that only 30 perct:nt ofrn(: a~a!.l.lu took pl;lC'e
in peak hourS, t!-le reselU"chen; suggested that ofi4peak
congestion was more frustrllting bec~~lse it ..... as !t'ss
expect~d (reported by Sperling 1989),
2. \Vhereas the Hanks and Lomax study cite.s Lns An·
gele.s as the most cor.gested. a recer.t siudy by \Vir"!.h!in
!'eported on a su,-,.ey in which two·thirds of Los .-\11.
geles County commuters described their commutes
as "noC' or "or.ly somewhat" congested. Also, the
Los Angeles Regiorlal Transponation SlUdy (LA.RTS}
surveys of auio commutbg times, conclucud in 1967
I!.nd 1975. reported average trip durations that are
vinuall)' the same as the j 980 and 1985 numbers re·
ported in Table I.
3. Longercommuting times fOTCefitraJ ciry re~idenls who
moved to the suburbs probably ref1ect that m,'lI",y
of them oid not change job ... A higher proportion of
suburb·to+suburb movers prob3bly already worked in
th~ su burb1.
4. A possibJe flaw in this analysis could be ifth.e recent
strong growth ir. flonwark travel, e~'en dunng peak
hours. continues (Gordor;. Kumar, and Richardsor:
1989,).
I1EFERENCES --------------
Cord':'l1. P •• A_ Kumar. a~d H. w. Rich.a.rd~on. I 939a.
Conge~tion, Changing Melrflpolitan Siruct .. n:, a'1d City
SLze in the Uni:ed Slal~s... bll~maJ:'ona1 Regional Sci-
erl,e Re~'ieLLlI2, 1: 45+56.
___ . 1989b. Cender Differences :::1 Me~politan
Travel Behavror, R~t!ic~ar $II.,dieli 23. 5; 499·510.
___ . 198$a. Beyond the 1o:.Jrney te \o\."ork. Tra;<.spor.
ja/ion Research.~ 22A. 6: 4] 9·]6.
___ . 1988b. Peak.Spreading:-How Much: TNJJlSpor.
j;nicHl Rese/Jrcn ?4A, 3: J 65-7"5.
Hanks, lames H., Jr .• I!.nd T~mothy r. Lomax. 1991. Road-
Will>' Conge.llion in Major t:r~'a.'1 A."eas 1982101988.
Working Pape:-1\:0.910245. Ccll=ge Station: Texll.S
Transpor!atiol"llnslitule.
La '·e, C. 1990. Thing5 Won't Gel a LOI Worse: The Fu.ture or u.s. Traffi.: Congestion. u-vine. Instltule of Trans-
portation Studies. Uni.,·ersity oreafifomia.
P'lsarski, A .. 1987. Commuting il': America. ;Vestp.art.. CT:
Eno Foundation for Tr3nsponation R:search.
Soulh~l"T' Califom;il AS50ci.atiOll of eo"emrnents. 1985a.
REgional .1I,./o!:J:"liry Platt. Los A~geles: Southern Cali
fornia AssocialiOt1 of Covemment~.
___ . 1985b. Growlh Uanag..:merll PI"tt. Las .4.11gefes:
Southern C3lifom~!I A~sociation or Go .... emmeI1!s.
Si'trfirlg. D. 1989. Gridlock May Be K~y in Shootings.
L'S:.!. Today October 27, lA
A remarkable meditation on the
topography ofth.e modern city.
"A CQUrll'"ou.ly tu.:ic!
de<:OMtructiooiJt text. Of
-1"1te New .,·orte-
Pr;>'er lulu .... pur;ue$ rour
urb:J.n l.and5'~.ap~ in dn
.a>~embl.as:e or I1r'i ow . .,
e .... oc..ati\·e e:!;~YS, el(C!?rpLS
from modem m.a~!e'1-Sl.tCfl
as Benjdmin, B .. rthe~. and
So:1t.Jg. ~'1d PE"rj,")(j photOlo.
5:c ~i;.lpl'\", ~f6 ;:.J~, ,nll$l"r~
.l.rb()ol;-""'t'l(ll(.,lIl'·~!.22&tt;?
V''>IiI.1.~d
UNIVERSITY OF
CALIfORNIA PRESS.
I!bM'I 100,UUJ.d ~'lan; 'JJIOtI)
"'P~ IOL'R."',; \L 420 AL'TL~l"" ,"'"I
__ .. __ -.. __ • _____ r_~ __ •
, ,
•
!
• I ,
~ ,
Hi -f
~
,-
"
f
!
I
\
\
"
MI"'iI, S\III'(( Umlrpl Memuer:;
In ~ritt' III nllR'll'm"s conlrol .. fforl'! nVf.>r !it'vt'ral dt"Cildt''I. molor
Vl'~ldl'!. ('(lnlinul' 10 hr .. rna;lr air pollulinn pl'oblf'm. TlK' fOOr>ral
M,d Cllifnrni.1 ",olor v('hrrlll' (,fm'lsinn ('Ontrol prngrJ'm'l MV('
m.tu("l'III.,ilp1rt' .. mh'lsinn rat ... '1 fl'r itlJlomflbilM by .00ul90%,
'l,lwl'vrr, Iht' ShN'r nllmber of vr>hi('it'S and rapu.lly growing U5(>
haw nll.,,'1 5Omt' ollhis ~in.
Flgllf(, 10 shows basic trllvr!1 jn'n~lion lor tM-Bay Arroa hi'ltori
l'"lly ~ntl pmjlxlM into Itwo near'll'rm l"lure, Rcl"liY(' 10 Olht'r
u,h.lnin,1 CalifomjR n.-gi(u,s, 5uC"h ,n Ln, Ang('It'S, San Dicr;fI.
'j,l("f,lm,'J'I'o and .. vcn rn"ny C .. ntr.,l VRIlf'y wmmunitiM, the Bay
Arl'.,'o; ~mwlh r8I(1'1 .... '(' Ih(llow('st.
"COlllrnr!llo I",Mic I,urrl/limls.
11,1' J.ol/glII Of mOSllrips is
d,'crrasi"s ' , . VMT will i"crease "'I .. IIII' ralr of l"'I"IIl1lion
,\rmp/Il ...
Ik-Iw('('n 199(),md 2010 .... ('hid(' lrip" tlJ(,
lort"('a'lilo grow by 27 fK'rt"'ml. H(uJll'lo
work h .. ip'i will Wow by ;n pt'rct'nlor only
51i~hlly mlr(' Ih,lIIlbf' r.llt' of populitlion
"..owth. Conlf"ry 10 publk pt'rc{'ptinM. ,lit'
It'nglh of mn~t trips i'l dl'("f('a!Oing. Ovt'rth('
1'1('_, tw('nly yt',lrs.lh .. 11V .. ra~ tnp wllIlK> 9
~r«"nl !'lhnrh", whil .. ,h .. Il"'nglh 01 tht' hnmlf'
In work trip will .11'('r('iI!it' hy 'I pt"("('nl.
r,.Unwing d('('ild,,,,; of r,lpld growlh. Ih<> ,,,Il'
pf mil .. s dn" .. n will ~Iow 11'1 wdl. Fmm )9lXltu 211111, IlK-Int." BIly
.11· ... " vl'hid .. mil~ Irav('IPd (VMT) Win inc'I'i!"oI' by lR~,.I(";~ Ihan
lint' pt'rf"('nl pc'r y['ar, and M,!i(t,Uj;llly Ih~ rill~ nr ,-,,:'p"l.uinn growth
{'II !"Nil" durirJp; Ih(>!Oatn(' lim(', Wmk t,'1.1Il"l..t V~fr wHi gnlw hy
I] ' ... ·r("('nlllr 1("!Ii Ihit" 1M> (>-.pt"CIl" pnpulnlinl\ in('f('011!1('.
01,(' ", ("/(''''n('r nC'w cal"!ll. mnlnr v,·hid(' pmi!O'Iinn!l w,lI ('nnHml(' 10
I'
, 1". J'
d('('rt'aSt! in the Bit,. Al"t'a (or tht' fOI'NC(',.blc futlJr(l, I'l!l n(lll-d
prt'viousl)' TII,I("("dl'r.llC' th(' projt.YII:'d dl'CrN~'1.llll' CAIW h.,~
rrnpoS{'d a !l('rics of loughc-r 'Iland,.rds Inr fI\Iny Vl'h,ctl' c1a!io~I(I('a·
~i(lM, Othfor prttgrams will 'urtht'r r!.'duCt> v('hicl('('mi!isi'105.
A~ it !l(IVl"'r(' nnn-<1Uainm .. nt "·('iI. ('v('J)' fl'A'Iible rm~Mrn rnll""'~
by Ih(' CAR" i'l n('O. .. kd "1' Iht' Ray Arra. As pari nl the ''91 C A f,
Ihi'l lndudt'5th .. foUowirjJj J""ngt.m1!'i alrt'.v:ly ador't'lf by Ih('CARB
sine .. 19"7'
Rt'gulalions fo' low--cmis~lon whick, and dean iuds.
Including tran'litjonal'ow·t'mi~'Iinn vc .. icll""S. low-('ml'>!,ion
vl'hicles. ldtra.low ... ·mi,s,il)I'I vt'hicl~ and 2'(,1'(1 ,"'mission
vl'hicl{'s. Fupls oet'f'5s.ary for I~ Yl'hidf.'S mll'>t tK'
providM a~ 1m.!M> v('fliclM at(' introdul't'd into HlI.' nl'('t.
Improved jn5p«linn/m.inlmal'l(,(, ('"Smog Ch('ck")
program;
On-bollrd diagnl'Kllc s)'SI('m~ -rhaS(> 2;
C(>Jtihc.lion pt'OCOOUrM lor aftprmark", ('.Ialylic (onvt>rl
l'r5;
Rt.'vi!K'd in,uSC' Yr>hid« r('(',fIl1't'~ul,lli(ln!i;
AlJ1(>nd('l:ll'n"IiMinn control 'Y5t(>m wafranly rt"qllir('m('(lt!O
and slanditrdl7J'rl nnl11t.'nClllhlrr;
R('viw H~hl-tluly .,fll'rm.,rk£,1 P.1JI!i pll)gr .. m; <trx1
11{'.""IVy-duly vt'hir'l' ('.(', Iruck dit''It'r,) '\mnk(' (>"'o«"·"1('nl
rroy;rilm;
'\
o
o
Ha,. Ar_a '91 Cl4ta:\ Air PI!)n ICAP). 'mplam_llting Ittr '"f"aa~II)I.· Conlt(ll~
I.' .. ,
•
,!,.I" :')'
. ::,'f].~,'" ,~
" "I ...
"
!
I
\
•
Figure 10 • Bay Area Vehicle Trave: Characteristics: Trips, Trip Length. and VMT
1990 and 2010 Trips'
· ,
" ~ • ~
~ •
i
0
.... --.. .. ..-
V,hlt" Trip T, ..
• 21-,1. GrOwth Overall
~u''''' IoIIC IOtlDboor 1990t
~
i
.J
~
~ • o
i > •
Avaroge Trip length"
.... • ..... /Wol .... ~ MoooH-<lI,." AH",
ythh:lllnp Type
•• 9% ~ Overall
II,~ II,,, .• '<)1 1.1",1" A" [,1,\11 jCl\l'j 1II'I"urm""',I'1 All T" ,_ ,hi., Cnnlrlll'.
~
2 >
> c • o
Vehicle Miles 01 Travel'" 0
\-.• iROl illl linG I
"""'.'1111\ "-...0. •• AIOItI_
Verlle" rflp Tvpt
••• 16% GroW11'l Overall I _I
-"'",,-;'
. I .•
",
"
. .' .;.~ ...... /
•
"