Travel Behavior in Rural Areas

From RUCS Wiki

1 Travel Behavior
2 Attachments
3 Case Study: Urbanization of Rural Roads

Travel Behavior

Background

The six county expanse of the SACOG planning area is as diverse as it is large. In addition to a major urban area, this region includes many smaller, but very distinct urban centers and vast rural lands. Rural lands and smaller urban centers comprise 92% of the land area, with about 25% of the population residing in the various localities. The economic and social relationships the more rural localities have with each other, and with the Sacramento urban area, comprise a complex web of travel behavior. People drive to work, send their farm produce to market, receive goods to stock their store shelves, bicycle for exercise and for transportation, walk to school, carpool to the theater, take transit to the doctor, and demand many other transportation trips. But trip taking in Live Oak or Colfax does not necessary resemble that of urban Sacramento for the same needs. A study by SACOG of demographic trends and work trips reveals important insights. And many external factors also impact the more rural areas of the region, including the growth of traffic, geologic barriers, increased residential development, and the high cost of fuel.

When the SACOG region is categorized to separate the urban center from the more rural areas, the resulting breakdowns in demographics are intriguing, and help put much of the RUCS analyses into an important context of existing conditions. The footprint of the Large Urban area includes the City of Sacramento, Elk Grove, West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, City of Roseville, Rocklin, El Dorado Hills, Folsom, and other urbanized neighborhoods contiguous to the cities listed. Small Urban includes Galt, Davis, Woodland, Yuba City, Marysville, Auburn, Placerville, ~~Cameron Park (?),~~ Live Oak, Colfax, and Winters. All other areas are classified rural. Note from Table 1 that there are nearly as many jobs in the rural areas as there are residents, while the regional average is 2.3 persons to every job. This highlights the importance of the rural economy - especially agriculture, the dominant economic sector. Also, not everyone living in a rural area owns an automobile, and the smaller urban areas have disproportionately more households of modest income. These statistics are just some of those which reflect the mobility challenges faced by the residents outside the urban center.

Aging Population

One major demographic trend that will have significant impacts in rural areas is the aging of the population. According to California Department of Finance projections, by 2035 the number of people over the age of 55 in the SACOG region will increase by approximately 580,000. This is a 153% increase from the year 2000. “Baby Boomers” are rapidly reaching retirement age, and Americans are living longer than ever before. As Table 2 indicates, the percentage of the general population comprised of the elderly gradually increases over time, including their unique mobility needs. Like other Californians, the elderly are highly automobile dependent. SACOG models show that 89% of all trips are by automobile. Generally more affluent than past generations, many seniors have chosen to retire in more rural settings. Others are “ageing in place,” with potential consequences to their mobility as they lose driver’s license privileges. Compared to their urban peers, many rural seniors will face a much more restricted set of mobility options. According to a survey by the AARP, non-drivers over 50 years old were six times as likely to give up a discretionary trip due to lack of transportation.

Journey to Work

The journey to work is a keystone daily trip for many citizens. The nature of the work trips, and how they flow from one part of the region to another, can tell us a great deal about the demand for transportation resources. SACOG analyzed the Census 2000 CTPP dataset in detail to inform the RUCS dialogue, and to illuminate the importance of the work trip. At the level of the Census Designate Place (CDP), worker home origins and work destinations are catalogued, cross-referenced, and analyzed.

The journey to work (JTW) analysis bears out the importance of the rural job market to the smaller urban areas. For example, 16% of the workers in Yuba City go to jobs in rural parts of Yuba and Sutter Counties, while only 7% of urban Sacramento workers go to rural jobs anywhere in the region. In another example, the commuter patterns of Davis and Auburn make an interesting comparison. The pie charts break down job destinations for workers living in example cities by percentage. With few exceptions, the largest work destination category will be the same place where the worker lives. But note that a much larger percentage of Auburn residents commute to the urbanized areas (33%), which includes the cities of southwest Placer County (Roseville, Rocklin, Loomis, & Lincoln). In contrast, only 26% of Davis workers commute to the large urban area (Sacramento & West Sacramento). Both of the highlighted Small Urban centers rely on the rural parts of their counties for significant numbers of jobs, and export a non-trivial number of workers outside the region (Solano and Nevada Counties). Davis exchanges a significant number of workers (in roughly equal amounts) with fellow Small Urban area Woodland. But the two example Small Urban areas have more in common with each other than they do with the major urban core of Sacramento.

The Sacramento urbanized area (also called “Large Urban”) has a worker commute destination profile not dissimilar to other large cities. With a large concentration of employers in the urbanized area, a significant majority of workers live relatively close to their job locations. Sacramento’s reliance on the rural economy is far less than Auburn, Davis, and other smaller urban areas. While the SACOG MTP 2035 shows that a favorable jobs-housing balance reduces household travel, important structural differences in rural economies may contribute to higher VMT independent of this consideration. Smaller job markets are naturally less diverse, which makes matching job requirements with worker skill sets more challenging. For example, a small town business may require more skilled machinists than live in the local area. And the very nature of agriculture requires relatively remote employment locations for many of its jobs. Longer commutes result for many residents working in the rural and small town economies, and traditionally urban solutions to reducing travel may have less impact.

Travel Time

Travel time is a significant and interesting aspect of the commute experience. Total travel time for the work trip figures into some people’s residential location decisions, and it can have a significant impact on quality of life. Other considerations include fuel costs, and from a regional perspective, negative air quality impacts due to higher vehicle miles traveled. SACOG analyzed and charted average travel times for census places throughout the RUCS study area; please refer to Attachment C, Journey to Work Charts 1 & 2 for more details. Some key findings are that residents of El Dorado Hills have the highest average commute travel times in the region, and that Woodland’s commute times are below the average, similar to Arden-Arcade in Sacramento County. Additional analyses are pending later in the RUCS planning process.

Vehicle Miles Traveled

A key indicator of growth and its consequences are vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Since 1970, VMT has grown 190% while population has increased 110%. Over the same period, lane-miles of road increased only by 30%. Urban growth continues to encroach on rural areas, and as smaller urban centers continue to grow in their own right, so do traffic and its impacts. As shown in Table 3, VMT is proportionately higher in the more rural areas. The growth in VMT is strongly linked to air quality emissions, road congestion, accident rates, traffic growth on rural roads, and rising fuel prices.

Gasoline Prices

Households in less urban areas are disproportionately impacted by the rapid rise in gasoline prices. SACOG has been tracking the changes in transportation fuel costs and has submitted a detailed impact analysis to the Regional Planning Partnership. Although gas prices have always fluctuated a great deal in the short run, the average inflation adjusted price of a gallon of gas has remained fairly stable over the longer run. However, it is clear that the era of relatively cheap, stable fuel prices is probably over, and that over time, fuel is likely to increase in cost. Fuel is much larger share of expenses in rural households compared to their urban counterparts. There is also strong evidence that increased gas costs are implicated in the housing market crisis. Please read Attachment A, a memorandum titled “Impact of Gas Prices on Travel Behavior,” for a detailed treatment.

Measuring Growth

Traffic counts are among the most useful and reliable data for measuring the transportation impacts of growth. These counts are closely tied to estimates of VMT and roadway congestion. Traffic continues to increase on rural roads while roadway capacity remains static. Effects of new growth may be localized, with huge increases of traffic on existing facilities. The map titled “Traffic Volume Trends” shows significant increases in traffic volume on specific roads, across the region from year 2000 to 2005.

SACOG is collecting traffic counts during the course of FY 08/09, in support of the RUCS project, as well as for more general traffic monitoring purposes. About 125 locations were selected around the region on key roadways in rural areas. This set includes roadways that are transitional (i.e. they are in rural locations, but are suspected to accommodate more urban traffic volumes), and roadways which are wholly rural in character and use. For these roadways, counts will be taken in September and October 2008 (during harvest season), February 2009 (post-harvest and pre-planting for most crops), and a third time in March and April 2009 (during planting season for most crops). By comparing the differences in volumes across the three count periods, daily patterns of traffic, and the extent of truck traffic on these roadways, a rural traffic profile will be developed. This profile will help in improving the modeling of travel activities in rural areas, and will be useful in identifying transitional roadways.

Rural roads can quickly become urban roads. The SACOG region is growing quickly, and there are many two-lane rural roads on the fringe of the urbanized area that are impacted by this growth. Infrastructure improvements often lag new residential and commercial development. As increased traffic pushes onto roads designed for a rural lifestyle, the existing residents and business face many challenges. The case study titled “Urbanization of Rural Roads” describes the full scope of these impacts, and discusses some of the opportunities that may exist to mitigate the impacts. The case study also references a more thorough description of the RUCS traffic count program.

Next Steps

The Rural-Urban Connections Strategy seeks to accurately describe the existing conditions of the rural areas and smaller urban centers of the region, identify key challenges and emerging issues, and help develop innovative solutions for SACOG’s regional partners. Transportation infrastructure and the travel behavior that pushes the transportation agenda are important components of RUCS. Understanding how and why people travel, and the challenges they face while exercising transportation choices, may help us together find new opportunities for improving the quality of life for rural and urban residents alike.