Commuting in America 2013
The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends
Brief 8. Consumer Spending on Transportation
October 2013
About the AASHTO Census Transportation Planning Products Program
Established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and
the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), the AASHTO Census Transportation Planning Products
Program (CTPP) compiles census data on demographic characteristics, home and work locations, and journeyto-work travel flows to assist with a variety of state, regional, and local transportation policy and planning
efforts. CTPP also supports corridor and project studies, environmental analyses, and emergency operations
management.
In 1990, 2000, and again in 2006, AASHTO partnered with all of the states on pooled-fund projects to support the development of special census products and data tabulations for transportation. These census transportation data packages have proved invaluable in understanding characteristics about where people live and work,
their journey-to-work commuting patterns, and the modes they use for getting to work. In 2012, the CTPP was
established as an ongoing technical service program of AASHTO.
CTPP provides a number of primary services:
• Special Data Tabulation from the U.S. Census Bureau—CTPP oversees the specification, purchase,
and delivery of this special tabulation designed by and for transportation planners.
• Outreach and Training—The CTPP team provides training on data and data issues in many formats,
from live briefings and presentations to hands-on, full-day courses. The team has also created a number
of electronic sources of training, from e-learning to recorded webinars to downloadable presentations.
• Technical Support—CTPP provides limited direct technical support for solving data issues; the program also maintains a robust listserv where many issues are discussed, dissected, and resolved by the
CTPP community.
• Research—CTPP staff and board members routinely generate problem statements to solicit research on
data issues; additionally, CTPP has funded its own research efforts. Total research generated or funded
by the current CTPP since 2006 is in excess of $1 million.
Staff
• Penelope Weinberger, CTPP Program Manager
• Matt Hardy, Program Director, Policy and Planning
• Janet Oakley, Director of Policy and Government Relations
Project Team
•
•
•
•
Steven E. Polzin, Co-Author, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida
Alan E. Pisarski, Co-Author, Consultant, Falls Church, Virginia
Bruce Spear, Data Expert, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Liang Long, Data Expert, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Contact
Penelope Weinberger, e-mail: [email protected], phone: 202-624-3556; or [email protected]
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Pub Code: CA08-4
ISBN: 978-1-56051-578-4
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends
Brief 8. Consumer Spending on Transportation
This brief is the eighth in a series of briefs that constitute a body of knowledge describing
commuting in America. This body of work, sponsored by American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and carried out in conjunction with a
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project that provided supporting data, builds on three prior Commuting in America documents that were issued over the
past three decades. Unlike the prior reports that were single volumes, this effort consists of
a series of briefs, each of which addresses a critical aspect of commuting in America. These
briefs, taken together, comprise a comprehensive summary of American commuting. The
briefs are disseminated through the AASHTO website (www.transportation.org). Accompanying data tables and an Executive Summary complete the body of information known as
Commuting in America 2013 (CIA 2013).
A key factor in understanding how commuters select the mode of transportation they
use to get to work is their access and ability to use the various modes of travel. In particular,
auto and transit availability and cost are important factors in commute trip mode choice.
Brief 7, Vehicle and Transit Availability, explored vehicle availability; this brief, Brief 8, explores household spending on travel.
Spending on Transportation
Transportation is an important component of household budgets. While it is not feasible
with existing data to completely isolate commuting costs from transportation costs for all
other purposes, the data available can help shed some light on the subject and gain insight
into the nature of the costs involved.
The premier source for detailed transportation expenditures information is the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX) prepared annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 This
is the source of the basket of products and their prices that establishes the government’s
Cost of Living Index. All transportation expenditure data employed in this brief are from
the 2011 reporting of the survey or predecessor reports, unless otherwise noted.
The CEX captures direct household expenditures that can be attributed to transportation; however, it does not capture indirect costs or non-user-fee-based methods of paying
for transportation. Indirect costs might include such things as the share of cost of various
products that is a result of transporting the materials through the chain of production and
All comparisons made here are for expenditures. Incomes are identified in the survey, but comparisons of
spending to incomes can be very misleading, particularly, as often happens, in cases where total spending
exceeds income.
1
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
distribution. Examples of non-user-fee-based costs might include sales taxes or property
taxes used by many communities as a means of funding public transportation.
These expenditures are not associated with purchasing transportation services or equipment and, therefore, cannot be captured in consumer transportation expenditure data.
Similarly, impact fees, mobility fees, or other assessments on individuals or developments
are not captured in transportation expenditure data. Nor are local, state, or federal General
Fund transfers or allocations to transportation facilities and services. For example, federal
General Fund transfers to the Highway Trust Fund, General Fund appropriations for aviation or Amtrak, or even expenditures such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
investments in automobile manufacturers offset costs that might otherwise have been borne
more directly by travelers as gas taxes or vehicle prices. Thus, growth in non-user-fee-based
mechanisms for paying for transportation results in an incomplete reporting of the full
public resource commitment to transportation.
Spending on Personal Vehicle Travel
Figure 8-1 provides disaggregated statistics on total consumer spending by broad spending
categories. In this figure, spending for gasoline has been separated from overall transportation spending to gain a better sense of the nature of the spending. The six-year period
shown (2006–2011) is significant because it encompasses good years, bad years, and years
of weak recovery in the economy. Overall, transportation costs (inclusive of fuel) are typically the second largest cost in household spending after housing.
The range in total consumer unit expenditures (the sum of the lines shown on Figure
8-1) in this period is substantial, running from a spending high of $50,486 in 2008 to a low
(two years later) of $48,109, with a value mid-way between these numbers in the recovery
year of 2011 of $49,705—almost identical to spending levels in 2007.2 This aids in the understanding of much of what happened in the period. Of significance are the rising levels of
health-care spending and the generally fluctuating or stable levels of spending in the period
for other non-transportation purposes, including housing. The range of transportation
spending (excluding fuel spending) shows significant continuing declines after 2007, with a
slight upturn in 2011. Spending for gasoline shows rather dramatic levels of sawtooth-like
rising and falling for the entire period. Fuel price levels continued to rise in 2012. Total
transportation including fuel spending was at its height in the 2006–2008 period at approximately $9,000. It declined to the range of $7,700 per year in 2009 and 2010, before turning
upward to about $8,300 in 2011.
A consumer unit is similar to a household—its prime attribute is that it is a distinct entity in terms of
economic decision making. There were roughly 122 million consumer units in the Consumer Expenditure
Survey, contrasted to 115 million households estimated by the Census Bureau in the 2011 American
Community Survey (ACS). Part of this difference is explained by persons living in group quarters who may be
consumer units but are not households.
2
4
Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
$18,000
$16,920
$17,109
$16,895
$16,366
$16,557
$16,803
$16,000
Transportation (Excluding Gas)
Gasoline
Housing
Food
Apparel
Health Care
Entertainment
Pensions Insurance
All Other
$14,000
Annual Spending
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,281
$6,374
$5,889
$6,000
$5,672
$5,545
$5,638
$4,000
$2,000
$0
$2,227
$2,384
$2,715
2006
2007
2008
$2,655
$1,986
$2,132
2009
2010
2011
Figure 8-1. Consumer Spending Trends
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey
Brief 8. Consumer Spending on Transportation
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
5
Figure 8-2 shows the long-term trend of transportation shares of consumer unit annual spending (including fuel) over a 25-year period. The range is substantial, from a high
in 1986 of 20.0 percent to an all-time low of 15.6 percent in 2009, 16.0 percent in 2010,
and 16.7 percent in 2011—the three lowest years in transportation share reported. So, as
incomes and overall spending fell, transportation spending fell even faster.
Figure 8-3 fills out the spending picture within the main transportation spending category, which helps to ascertain the nature of the downturn. Components of consumer unit
expenditures in transportation are for new and used cars and trucks, comprising about a
third of total transportation spending; spending on gasoline defines almost another third;
and other vehicle expenses, such as finance charges, maintenance, and insurance, cover just
less than a third. Finally, there is purchased transportation—all the modes that require a
ticket purchase for use, including transit, intercity bus, rail, air, cruise ships, cabs, etc.—at
about 6 percent of spending.3
Following this level of detail further, Figure 8-4 shows the change in these expenditures
from 2006–2011. Note that while overall consumer expenditures grew by 3 percent in the
period, transportation spending declined by 3 percent. The big declines were in purchases
of new cars (-30 percent) and used cars (-15 percent) and the accompanying finance costs
(-22 percent). Other spending, for insurance (+11 percent), maintenance (+17 percent) and
fuel (+19 percent), rose appreciably in the period.
Perhaps the most effective way to better understand this spending is to stratify the
expenditures by important variables such as income, age, vehicle ownership, and metro area
scale. For purposes of this brief, the key variable will be workers and their spending.
Fuel Spending
In Figure 8-3, it was shown that spending for fuel comprises
a substantial part of transportation spending—32 percent
in 2011. Fuel costs are among the most volatile of transportation costs and have varied sharply over the past decade.
Although the use of fuel per mile has declined with the improved average fuel economy of vehicles, a rather dramatic
increase in fuel costs since the late 1990s has impacted
consumers and is considered one of the factors dampening
travel demand.
In recent years,
overall household
spending on
transportation
has declined in
spite of growing
expenditures
for fuel.
It is important to recognize that the Consumer Expenditure Survey reports only personal expenditures; it
does not include travel spending reimbursed by an employer or others, such as a church or social groups.
3
6
Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
25%
Share of Total Spending
20%
15%
10%
5%
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
0%
Figure 8-2. Transportation as a Share of Household Spending
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey
Purchased
Transportation
6%
Other Vehicle
Expenses
30%
Cars and
Trucks, New
16%
Gasoline and
Motor Oil
32%
Cars and
Trucks, Used
16%
Figure 8-3. Components of Consumer Unit Transportation Spending
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
Purchased Transportation
Vehicle Rental, Leases, Other
Vehicle Insurance
Maintenance and Repairs
Vehicle Finance Charges
2%
-10%
11%
17%
-22%
Gasoline and Motor Oil
19%
Cars and Trucks, Used
Cars and Trucks, New
All Transportation
All Consumer Expenditures
-15%
-30%
-3%
3%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Figure 8-4. Change in Household Transportation Spending, 2006–2011
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
Brief 8. Consumer Spending on Transportation
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
7
Figure 8-5 shows the long-term trend in fuel prices on a current and constant dollar
(historic prices inflated to 2011 levels) basis, indicating that current fuel costs are not significantly different from the prices experienced in the early 1980s, and with higher efficiencies of vehicles, the costs per mile traveled are appreciably less. On a per-vehicle-mile basis,
fuel consumption measured in British Thermal Units (BTUs) has dropped from about 8,000
BTUs in 1980 to about 5,300 BTUs in 2010, a decline of about a third.4
Transportation Spending by Area Size
There is substantial variation in total spending and transportation spending by the type of
area in which people live. Total annual household spending runs the gamut, from under
$40,000 to more than $58,000 per year, an almost 50 percent swing, generally increasing
with size of area, as shown in Figure 8-6. Transportation spending swings by area are not as
extreme, varying by less than 20 percent, and do not necessarily track with income changes,
making for sharp variations in shares of spending going to transportation.
Transportation spending does not have dramatic variations between various metropolitan area size groups. Overall, the transportation spending share is on the order of
17 percent, with a basic variation of about 3 percentage points, from just over 14 percent for
the largest metropolitan areas up to 20 percent for rural areas. Spending seems to be least
in total dollar terms in the smallest metro areas (below 100,000 in population), but because
total spending and incomes are also lower, the share of spending for transportation in such
areas is among the highest. Figure 8-7 shows the pattern of transportation spending and
transportation percent of all spending.
Rural expenditures, in areas outside urban areas, are perhaps among the most significant spending statistics. Those outside urban areas spend the most for transportation,
roughly $9,500 per year; at the same time, they are among the lowest in total expenditures
and, consequently, exhibit the highest share of total spending on transportation, at 20 percent. It is notable that small town and rural areas spend the least on purchased transportation, roughly half the average for all areas.
ORNL, Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 31, Table 2.13.
4
8
Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
400
350
Gas Current
Fuel Cost in Cents
300
Gas Constant 2011
250
200
150
100
50
1 97
8
1 98
0
1 98
2
1 98
4
1 98
6
1 98
8
1 99
0
1 99
2
1 99
4
1 99
6
1 99
8
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
0
Figure 8-5. Fuel Price Trends, 1978–2011
Source: ORNL, Transportation Energy Data Book
ore
99
00
nd
M
0a
5,0
,00
00
0t
,00
o2
o4
,49
,99
9,9
9,9
99
9
0t
,00
00
2,5
Al
Ou
ts
1,0
100
250
,00
,00
0t
0t
o2
o9
49
99
,00
,99
0
0
,00
han
id
Les
eU
sT
rb
Tot
an
al
100
Me
ea
Ar
its
Un
er
m
su
on
lC
Transportation Spending
tro
Average Annual Expenditures
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Figure 8-6. Total Spending and Transportation Spending by Area Type
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
ore
5,0
00
,0
00
and
M
9
9,9
9
,99
to
4
00
,0
2,5
00
1,0
00
,49
9,9
99
o9
0t
,00
,00
0t
o2
99
,99
9
,00
0
250
0t
,00
100
han
sT
o2
100
49
,00
0
tro
Me
Les
rb
eU
Ou
ts
id
al
Ar
an
Un
er
m
Tot
ea
0%
su
on
lC
Al
Transportation % of All Spending
Transportation % of All Spending
Transportation Spending
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
its
Transportation Spending $
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
Figure 8-7. Transportation Spending by Metro Area Size
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
Brief 8. Consumer Spending on Transportation
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
9
When the data are adjusted for the number of vehicles or the number of earners in the
consumer unit, the data presented in Figure 8-8 emerge.
Mo
re
6,005
4,904
6,518
and
00
0,0
5,0
0
0t
,00
2,5
00
0t
,00
00
1,0
4,905
99
, 99
o4
,49
o2
o9
0t
,00
250
9, 9
99
9, 9
, 99
99
,00
49
o2
0t
,00
6,201
4,123
9
3,873
0
0
,00
100
4,163
6,095
6,217
Spending per Vehicle (Excluding Purchase)
3,769
4,364
100
han
sT
Les
Tot
al
Me
tro
3,691
ea
Ar
an
rb
eU
Ou
ts
id
5,858
6,146
6,379
4,093
its
Un
er
m
su
on
lC
Al
Spending per Earner
7,931
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
Figure 8-8. Transportation Spending per Household Vehicle and per Earner
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
• Spending per earner is rather stable across areas, with only a small variation of a
few hundred dollars above or below $6,000. The notable exception to this stability is, again, areas outside metros, with spending at almost $8,000 per earner, or
about a third more than average.
• Spending per vehicle exhibits far greater contrasts. For purposes of analysis,
expenditures for purchased transportation (spending unrelated to vehicles) have
been deleted from the spending-per-vehicle data in Figure 8-8 to assure a balanced comparison.
• Perhaps surprisingly, areas outside urban boundaries show the lowest household spending per vehicle, at about $3,700, vs. the largest metro areas, exhibiting
spending close to $5,000 per vehicle. Rural areas provide a unique picture in that
their low spending per vehicle may be associated with the fact that they own the
largest numbers of vehicles among all groups—2.5 vehicles vs. an average of 1.9
for all consumer units. This appears to be the product also of newer, more expensive but fewer cars owned by consumers in large metro areas, with the effect of
those cars being used more extensively. At the same time, their spending for fuel
is the highest in total among all groups—$3,316 in the largest metro areas vs. an
average of $2,655 for all units—but their spending per vehicle for fuel is among
the lowest.
• Rural spending per earner is, by far, the highest in total and for fuel ($2,700 vs.
$2,040 average), suggesting that although the number of earners in rural households is only slightly fewer than in other areas, their travel is for greater distances.
10
Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
• Small-town spending is the group with the lowest total spending for transportation, the lowest spending per earner, and among the lowest in spending
per vehicle.
Incomes and Transportation Spending
Historically, expenditures for transportation have followed an almost standard pattern
when examined among quintiles of population.5 The lowest-income 20 percent has had
the lowest share of overall spending going to transportation spending over the years, at
an overall level less than 15 percent. Then, not only total spending but the share of total
spending for transportation rises as incomes rise in each quintile, declining only slightly in
the highest-income 20 percent. Figure 8-9 shows that this pattern is repeated again in the
current time period. These patterns suggest that transportation, like almost all other forms
of spending, has a basic-necessity component, as indicated by the lowest income quintile,
and a discretionary component that expands with income. This is borne out here as vehicle
purchases increase with income and shift from used to new vehicles. Also, intercity travel—
mostly air travel—rises sharply with income, indicating expenditures for more expensive
recreational travel.
Gasoline and Motor Oil
All Transportation
Percent of Spending
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
16.7%
11.3%
5.3%
14.8%
9.2%
5.6%
16.0%
All Transportation (Exculding Gasoline)
17.9%
17.8%
16.1%
9.8%
6.2%
11.6%
12.0%
6.4%
5.7%
11.8%
4.3%
All
Consumer
Units
Lowest 20
Percent
Second 20
Percent
Third 20
Percent
Fourth 20
Percent
Highest 20
Percent
Figure 8-9. Shares of Spending in Transportation by Income Group, 2011
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
The numbers of workers in consumer units, here, as elsewhere, plays a determinative
role in transportation spending. High incomes in America often are the product of multiple
workers in a consumer unit. Units in the highest quintile average four times as many workers as those in the lowest quintile and almost three times as many vehicles.
Quintiles are obtained by ranking all consumer units in order by income and then dividing them into five
groups of equal size, starting with the lowest-income fifth and proceeding to the highest-income fifth of the
population. It has proven to be an effective guide to understanding transportation expenditures.
5
Brief 8. Consumer Spending on Transportation
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
11
Table 8-1 presents a basic summary regarding total transportation spending in light of
persons, earners, and vehicles in a household. Note that those in the highest quintile spend
about 4.3 times as much as the lowest quintile in annual average spending, but their transportation spending rises even faster, at 4.7 times the lowest quintile. Their spending per
person, per earner, and per vehicle is greater than the other quintiles.
Table 8-1. Spending for Key Related Factors by Income Group
All
Lowest
Lower
Middle
Middle
Upper
Middle
Upper
Persons
2.5
1.7
2.2
2.6
2.8
3.2
Earners
1.3
0.5
0.9
1.3
1.7
2.0
Vehicles
1.9
1.0
1.5
1.9
2.3
2.8
Avg. annual spending
$49,705
$22,001
$32,092
$42,403
$57,460
$94,551
Transportation spending
$8,293
$3,256
$5,142
$7,592
$10,205
$15,264
% Transp. spending
16.7%
14.8%
16.0%
17.9%
17.8%
16.1%
Transp. spending/person
$3,317
$1,915
$2,337
$2,920
$3,645
$4,770
Transp. spending/earner
$6,379
$6,512
$5,713
$5,840
$6,003
$7,632
Transp. spending/vehicle
$4,365
$3,256
$3,428
$3,996
$4,437
$5,451
Attribute
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
Figure 8-10 plots vehicles, jobs, and spending for transportation by income quintile. A
strong relationship is evident, visually indicating how spending increases consistently with
income.
Earners and Vehicles in Household
3.0
2.8
2.5
Earners
Vehicles
$16,000
Transportation Spending
2.3
1.7
1.5
1.5
$14,000
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.0
$8,000
0.9
$6,000
0.5
$4,000
0.5
0.0
$12,000
$10,000
1.3
1.0
$18,000
$2,000
Lowest 20
Percent
Second 20
Percent
Third 20
Percent
Fourth 20
Percent
Highest 20
Percent
$0
Figure 8-10. Linkage among Earners, Vehicles, and Total Transportation Spending
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
12
Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Transportation and Age
One of the byproducts of the recent recession has been strong interest in the views of
younger people (those under age 25 and from ages 25–34) regarding transportation and
transportation spending. As shown in Figure 8-11, a greater share of their spending goes
to transportation than other age groups. While they tend to have fewer vehicles than older
consumers, they spend more per vehicle. Other than among the younger groups, average
spending share for transportation is not affected by age.
Persons under age 25 spend on transportation a greater portion of their income (20
percent) than of their overall expenditures (18 percent), indicating that their spending is
greater than their incomes, suggesting support by others or by loans. This certainly does
not suggest that they have lost interest in spending for mobility in general; the two younger
groups are the only ones with transportation spending above 18 percent of all spending.
The young, particularly those under age 25, do spend more on transit than persons who
are older, but that has been the traditional pattern for many years and does not represent a
recent shift. The young spend about 2 percent of their transportation spending (about $100
per year) for transit, greater than the average spending for all ages (about $75 per year, ~1
percent). To add perspective, those ages 25–34 spend more than three times as much on air
fares as they do on transit.
Transportation Spending
Transportation Share of Expenditures
18%
17%
20%
15%
13%
All
Consumer
Units
18%
Transportation Share of Income
17%
13%
Under 25 Years
25–34 Years
17%
16%
12%
35–44 Years
45–54 Years
16%
12%
55–64 Years
13%
65–74 Years
Figure 8-11. Transportation Shares of Spending and Income by Age Group
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
Brief 8. Consumer Spending on Transportation
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
13
The Role of Workers and Transportation Spending
Figure 8-12 reveals an important attribute of transportation spending, in that, not surprisingly, it is closely associated with the number of workers in the household. Households
without workers, often retired households, spend limited amounts on transportation,
roughly $2,700 for single persons living alone without a job. Single persons living alone
with a job spend an additional $2,800, about $5,500 per year, on transportation. Of course,
their income rises as well, roughly by 50 percent, so working is clearly a factor in household
transportation spending.
$16,000
$14,025
$12,000
$11,267
$10,000
$8,477
$8,000
$5,552
$6,000
$5,673
$4,000
$2,000
rs
rke
Wo
rke
2+
Per
son
2+
s, 3
Per
or
son
Mo
s, 2
re
Wo
Wo
s, 1
son
Per
son
Per
rs
r
rke
er
ork
oW
s, N
son
Per
gle
Sin
2+
Sin
gle
Per
son
,N
oW
Wo
ork
rke
er
r
$2,713
$0
2+
Transportation Spending
$14,000
Figure 8-12. Transportation Spending by Workers per Household, 2011
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
In households where there are two or more people in the unit and none of them work,
their spending is about $5,600 per year for transportation, roughly a bit more than double
the spending for single non-workers, but they spend less on a per-person basis, given that
the typical unit has 2.4 members. The key factor, as Figure 8-12 shows, is that transportation spending rises with each additional worker in the consumer unit. As in the case of the
single worker, each added worker adds about $2,800 in transportation spending. However,
spending for fuel declines with each additional worker, suggesting a role for distance traveled in the costs.
Many of the costs per vehicle are stable among the households with workers, at about
$1,400 for gas per vehicle, as shown in Table 8-2, plus about $500 per vehicle for insurance
and $400 for maintenance. It appears that each additional worker adds about 0.5 vehicles to
the household fleet.
14
Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Table 8-2. Annual Fuel Spending per Vehicle
1-Person/Household
2 or More Persons
Gas/vehicle, no workers
$1,009
$1,139
Gas/vehicle, 1 worker
$1,461
$1,476
Gas/vehicle, 2 workers
—
$1,459
Gas/vehicle, 3+ workers
—
$1,441
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
Transportation Spending by Geographic Type
The Consumer Expenditure Survey provides another geographic stratification with which
to assess consumer spending for transportation that is a differentiation by central cities,
suburbs, and rural areas outside metro areas (Figure 8-13). This is a very revealing stratification. First, the total spending varies sharply, ranging from similar lows of $42,500 and
$45,100 in rural areas and central cities to a high of $52,800 in suburbs. Transportation
spending does not follow that pattern; rural areas spend almost as much as suburbs ($8,600
vs. $8,900), and central city spending is below $7,000. This makes for sharply varying shares
of spending going to transportation, ranging from 15 percent in central cities to 20 percent
in rural areas, and suburbs roughly in the middle at 17 percent. Most noteworthy is that
rural spending for all purposes, which is about $2,600 less than central city spending, is
$1,700 higher per year for transportation.
Total Spending
Transportation Spending
$52,773
$50,348
$45,147
$8,266
Total Urban
$42,540
$6,906
Central City
$8,900
Suburbs
$8,606
Rural
Figure 8-13. Transportation and Total Spending by Central Cities, Suburbs, and
Rural Areas
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
Brief 8. Consumer Spending on Transportation
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
15
On a per-vehicle basis, central city spending is the greatest, at about $4,600 per year, not
appreciably greater than about $4,450 per year in suburbs, but both are sharply greater than
spending of less than $3,600 per year in rural areas. Figure 8-14 contrasts the spending to
vehicles owned.
Vehicles
$4,604
Spending per Vehicle
$4,500
Spending/Vehicle
3.5
3
$4,450
2.4
2
$4,000
2.5
2
1.5
1.5
$3,500
$3,586
1
$3,000
Vehicles per Household
$5,000
0.5
$2,500
0
Central City
Suburbs
Rural
Figure 8-14. Comparative Spending per Vehicle
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
Housing and associated costs are so great—exceeding a third of all spending—that they
dwarf other spending. However, an important facet of this spending needs explanation: if
transportation and housing are looked at as a total share of spending, then an important
understanding arises—the sum of housing and transportation spending varies slightly
across metro area types, with suburban totals being slightly less than central cities. The
national average for the total has hovered around 50 percent for many years (Figure 8-15).
Also to be noted is that both housing and transportation costs rise with the size of the metro area. For metro areas of 5 million or more, housing costs constitute almost 40 percent
of spending; despite transportation spending decreasing to about 14 percent, the sum still
yields the highest total housing and transportation share, between 53 and 54 percent.
16
Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
% Housing
60%
% Transportation
50%
16.4%
15.3%
16.9%
34.2%
35.5%
33.7%
Total Urban
Central City
Suburbs
40%
20.2%
30%
20%
28.5%
10%
0%
Rural
Figure 8-15. Shares of Housing plus Transportation Spending by Area Type
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
Spending on Other Modes
The Consumer Expenditure Survey collects some other travel-related information, including expenditures for parking fees and tolls, but these are limited in coverage and produce
data of extremely limited value. It is possible to shed some light on spending for public
transportation. Figure 8-16 shows intracity mass transit spending per year by population
age. In addition, data indicate out-of-town spending on transit averages $12 per year per
household.
$120
Dollars
$100
$80
$60
$40
er
r
Yea
rs
and
Old
lde
75
sa
nd
O
65
Y
ear
4Y
–6
55
4Y
–5
45
44
Y
35–
ear
s
ear
s
ear
rs
Yea
34
25–
rs
25
der
Un
All
Con
sum
er
Un
Yea
its
$0
s
$20
Figure 8-16. Annual Spending on Local Public Transit
Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2011
The relatively modest levels of spending on public transportation are a reflection of the
fact that transit use is modest relative to auto use and that the share of public transportation
costs borne by spending per user is also modest. Nationwide, transit fares cover approximately 32 percent of transit operating costs and none of transit capital costs.6 Remaining
costs are covered by various non-passenger revenues, taxes, and fees; thus, they are not
2010 National Transit Profile Summary—All Agencies.
6
Brief 8. Consumer Spending on Transportation
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
17
attributed and reported as spending on transportation in consumer expenditure data.
Transit funds derived from the Transportation Trust Fund are counted in the Consumer
Expenditure Survey data as vehicle operating costs, as they are derived substantially from
fuel taxes.
Figure 8-17 shows the fare revenue reported per passenger mile of transit travel. This
all-mode national average for reporting agencies indicates that transit fares averaged approximately $0.23 per mile in 2010.
Fare per Passenger Mile
$0.25
$0.20
$0.15
$0.10
$0.05
$0.00
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 8-17. Trend of Fare Revenue per Passenger Mile for All Modes of Transit
Service, U.S.
Source: American Public Transportation Association, 2012 Fact Book, Appendix A.
Summary
Availability and costs of the various travel options are acknowledged in both theory and
statistical analysis as critical elements in the mode choice decisions of travelers. The cost of
travel and commuting also influences residential location and workplace as well as travel destination choices of travelers. The work trip, as one of the longer and most common
trips of households, is, accordingly, influenced by cost considerations. Given the relatively
mature U.S. transportation system and large existing fleet of vehicles, overall travel costs
change modestly over time with fuel costs being the most volatile component. Transit fare
costs have grown steadily over time and are now approximately $0.23 per passenger mile—
a level relatively similar to the average cost per passenger mile for auto operations.7
In 2011, the average household spent a total of $7,778 on auto ownership and operating costs. Based on the
2009 NHTS, the average household had 33,004 person miles of personal vehicle travel. As travel levels today
are similar, net spending per person mile of travel is approximately $0.24.
7
18
Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends
© 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Commuting in America 2013 Briefs Series
The CIA 2013 series will include the briefs listed below as well as a CIA 2013 Executive Summary and
supporting data files, all available at the CIA 2013 website traveltrends.transportation.org. The website also
includes a glossary of terms, documentation of data sources, and additional resources. The series of briefs
included in CIA 2013 are:
1. Overview—establishes institutional context, objectives, importance, data sources, and products
to be produced.
2. The Role of Commuting in Overall Travel—presents national trend data on the relative role
of commuting in overall person travel; explores commuting as a share of trips, miles of travel,
and travel time at the national level.
3. Population and Worker Trends—provides very basic and key national demographic data.
4. Population and Worker Dynamics—focuses on the dynamics of the population and workforce, including data on migration, immigration, and differential rates of growth.
5. The Nature and Pattern of Jobs—defines employment and describes it in terms of its
temporal, geographic, and other features.
6. Job Dynamics—looks at trends as they relate to jobs, including work at home, full-time versus
part-time, job mobility, and changes in the nature and distribution of job types.
7. Vehicle and Transit Availability—reports on vehicle ownership and licensure levels and the
availability of transit services. It also references factors influencing the availability of bike, walk,
and carpool commute options.
8. Consumer Spending on Transportation—reports on various trends related to household
spending on transportation.
9. How Commuting Influences Travel—explores how commuting travel influences overall
travel trends temporally and geographically.
10. Commuting Mode Choice—provides a summary of mode choice for commuting (including
work at home).
11. Commuting Departure Time and Trip Time—reports descriptive information on travel
time and time left home, including national and selected additional data for metro area sizes.
12. Auto Commuting—addresses trends in privately-owned vehicle (POV) and shared-ride
commuting.
13. Transit Commuting—addresses transit commuting.
14. Bicycling and Walking Commuting—addresses bicycling and walking as commuting modes.
15. Commuting Flow Patterns—addresses commuting flow patterns for metro area geographic
classifications.
16. The Evolving Role of Commuting—synthesizes and interprets materials developed in the
prior briefs to paint a picture of the current role of commuting in overall travel and evolving
trends to watch going forward.
ES.CIA 2013 Executive Summary
American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials
444 North Capitol Street, N.W.; Suite 249
Washington, DC 20001
www.transportation.org
ctpp.transportation.org
traveltrends.transportation.org
Pub Code: CA08-4
ISBN: 978-1-56051-578-4