« US DOE Seeks to Invest up to $130 Million in Advanced Fuel Cell Technology | Main | VW and Sanyo Form Li-ion Partnership; VW to Focus on Drivetrain Electrification »
US Vehicle Miles Travelled Dropping
28 May 2008
 |
| Moving 12-month total of US VMT through March 2008. Click to enlarge. |
Americans drove less in March 2008, continuing a trend that began in November 2007, according to estimates recently published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The FHWA’s Traffic Volume Trends report, produced monthly since 1942, shows that estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on all US public roads for March 2008 fell 4.3% as compared with March 2007 travel. This is the first time estimated March travel on public roads fell since 1979. At 11 billion miles less in March 2008 than in the previous March, this is the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history.
Although February 2008 showed a modest 1 billion mile increase over February 2007, cumulative VMT has fallen by 17.3 billion miles since November 2006. Total VMT in the United States for 2006, the most recent year for which such data are available, topped 3 trillion miles.
Additionally, the US Department of Transportation estimated that greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector fell by an estimated 9 million metric tons for the first quarter of 2008.
The estimated data show that VMT on all US public roads have dropped since 2006. The FHWA’s Traffic Monitoring Analysis System (TMAS) computes VMT for all types of motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars, buses and trucks) on the nation’s public roads. These data are collected through over 4,000 automatic traffic recorders operated round-the-clock by state highway agencies. More comprehensive data are published in the FHWA’s Highway Statistics at the end of each year.
 |
 | |
| Travel on US Urban highways by month. Click to enlarge. | Travel on US Rural highways by month. Click to enlarge. |
Resources
FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information Monthly Traffic Volume Trends
May 28, 2008 in Market Background | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/29533356
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US Vehicle Miles Travelled Dropping:
Comments
I still can't figure out why US VMT dropped 4.3% in March and gasoline consumption only dropped 1%. Everyone left their Prius in the garage and drove their Expedition? Something doesn't add up.
Posted by: doggydogworld | May 28, 2008 6:51:41 AM
doggy:
Part of the measuring problem might be that people don't buy gasoline every day for their day's needs -- so some of that gas may have been purchased in February. That wouldn't seem to be the whole story, but it very well might be part of it.
Posted by: stomv | May 28, 2008 7:07:40 AM
Maybe it's because people are planing where they are going doggydogworld. Right now, everything's changing.
Posted by: Gerald Shields, Seattle, WA | May 28, 2008 7:12:27 AM
It's going to be interesting during the summer months if folks with still use gasoline lawn mowers or will they switch to electrical ones.
Posted by: Gerald Shields | May 28, 2008 7:13:50 AM
Or even a better possibility: Maybe folks will buy Cordless Lawnmowers
Posted by: Gerald Shields | May 28, 2008 7:15:50 AM
If you have the choice between a Pious and an Expedition, I would suggest that the cost of energy is not very significant in your budget.
Increases in energy cost hurt lower income folks the most. People with economy cars are driving less.
If you compare the value of energy use to the cost of other things in our lives, energy use is very inelastic. Are people driving less because they are conserving or because they lost their job? Is the factory using less energy because they invested in more efficient equipment or because the production was shifted to another country?
Posted by: Kit P | May 28, 2008 7:23:16 AM
Has the number of people driving reduced, or have the same number of people started driving less?
Either way, I guess $4 gas is finally having an effect.
Posted by: mahonj | May 28, 2008 7:59:33 AM
Remember that these are March numbers, before the price spike we had the past two months. That trend will continue.
Posted by: Cervus | May 28, 2008 8:01:45 AM
The sampling period may have been too short. Basically, fuel consumption drop should be very close to travel distance change.
With more hybrids + high fuel cost, fuel consumption should drop faster than travel distance, not less.
That survey does not make sense.
Posted by: HarveyD | May 28, 2008 8:04:09 AM
Harvey,
I could see how it could make sense. As others mentioned - lower income families (with more economical modes of transport) are likely driving less while those with big SUVs and Trucks are driving as normal - honestly in the Seattle area with fewer cars on the highways I see the big SUVs and trucks more consistantly zipping down the highway at 75+ mph. I saw maybe 7 SUVs/Trucks for every sedan/compact car when I drove down to visit some friends this past weekend (a 40 mile one way drive).
Posted by: Patrick | May 28, 2008 8:29:38 AM
Patrik:
Your point is well taken, but with many thousands larger vehicles unsold, I was lead to believe that their numbers, on the road, would also be reduced. Apparently, this is not the case yet.
If gas @ $4+ does not do it, the time may be right to add a progressive 5 cents/gal/month Fed. carbon tax before oil goes to $150/$200 barrel. Registration fees could be multiplied by 10x for vehicles above 3500 lbs.
Very rich people will always drive 380+hp, 3-Ton Hummers if they feel like it. All we can do, is to make them pay much more for it.
Posted by: | May 28, 2008 8:49:15 AM
Please read the article and the verbiage under the graphs. The VMT graph is a 12-month average, probably what is called a rolling average. That is why the gasoline and miles don't match.
Posted by: NCyder | May 28, 2008 9:00:08 AM
Sorry but even with the lower income = smaller car driving less it doesn't make sense. For one - hypermiling is all over the news. I see people driving slower all the time now. Still see SUV's going 75 mph but there are plenty of people clogging the right lane.
There are also people with choices in what they drive. Wife drives SUV, husband drives sedan. Wife drives farther so they switch at the higher prices.
Another example - guy drives truck 40 miles to work. Does the math - saves more on gas than car payment for new Civic Hybrid. Truck sits - HCH commutes.
These are my personal world examples - YMMV
Even if this wasn't it - do you really get 4.3% less mileage and 1% less gas would mean it was all 50 mpg cars off the road and 12.5 mpg staying on the road. With no change in driving habits. Show me a lower income person with a perfectly maintained Metro getting 50 mpg - there might be 2000 of these people in a country of 100,000,000 cars.
Now - truck mileage is down probably 5% and that is all diesel. So maybe diesel use is down 5%? That could give you 0.5% on the total VMT.
Posted by: | May 28, 2008 9:05:33 AM
People are shopping less and when they do shop they mega shop at wally world and bulk buy. Our friends save over 900 a month bulking. Now even fairly well off people are going wallmart to dave money for holidays.
Posted by: wintermane | May 28, 2008 10:56:22 AM
This graph shows massive change compared to its previous trend. The july 1990 to march 1991 recession (-3.0%) is just visible but this new behavior is really something. Currently the US is still not in a recession. The last 2 quarters were weak but positive. With evidence like this it could look like the US will hit negative growth this quarter and perhaps the next one as well. It isn’t over for the US yet but global economic growth is still quite healthy. It would help if the Chinese started to spend more of their huge surplus. I hope they see that this is a good time to do exactly that.
Posted by: Henrik | May 28, 2008 11:27:06 AM
....with many thousands larger vehicles unsold, I was lead to believe that their numbers, on the road, would also be reduced.
I've thought about this a little. Even if we buy fewer SUVs this year than last, total SUVs on the road may still increase. This is because it's not the cars we bought last year but the ones we bought 15 years ago which are now being retired that matter. Extreme example, if all cars lasted exactly 15 years and every car sold up until 1995 was a 25 mpg sedan but from 1996-2007 saw a 50/50 mix between 25 mpg sedans and 15 mpg SUVs, then going to a 60/40 sedan/SUV mix in 2008 would leave a million+ SUVs sitting on lots but total SUVs in our fleet would still increase in 2008 as we replaced 1993 vehicles (100% sedans) with a 60/40 mix.
Confusing enough? Sorry. Anyway, IMHO our actual fleet mileage is not changing much right now because even with a change in mix, the cars we're buying don't collectively get better MPG than the ones we're retiring.
Posted by: doggydogworld | May 28, 2008 11:42:37 AM
Please read the article and the verbiage under the graphs. The VMT graph is a 12-month average, probably what is called a rolling average. That is why the gasoline and miles don't match.
Sorry, NCyder, but the 4.3% reduction is a one month number. The graph shows 12 month moving average but the 4.3% VMT drop is March 2008 vs. March 2007. Note Easter was in March this year vs. April last year, not sure what effect that had.
Feb and Apr 2008 gasoline consumption was actually higher than 2007 according to early data. This is simply not consistent with the graph and I can't figure out the difference. Someone suggested the VMT drop is mostly diesel, which is a good thought, but diesel VMT is much lower than gasoline in this country so the drop in diesel VMT would have to be huge to effect the overall number this much. And if diesel VMT dropped so much why has the cost of diesel risen even faster than gasoline?
It still doesn't add up.
Posted by: chriseddy | May 28, 2008 11:52:49 AM
@ Kit P .. a Toyota a Pious ?
LOL ... some people are religious about that car! (with good reason).
Posted by: | May 28, 2008 12:06:38 PM
Guys you are missing the point here (apart from Henrick) ... this graph is showing the vmt for the past 25 YEARS and this change in trend of such a massive scale has never been seen before in the past, even through recessions. The break in the trend has started 3 years ago, as no one would have anticipated, and is quite timed with the beginning of the exponential increase in oil prices ... and you are asking why the change in vmt in March is different from the change in fuel consumption?
Posted by: Alessio | May 28, 2008 1:29:14 PM
"It would help if the Chinese started to spend more of their huge surplus. I hope they see that this is a good time to do exactly that."
Oh yes they are spending their surplus alright - on fuel subsidies!
Posted by: | May 28, 2008 2:09:54 PM
Both China and India subsidize gasoline and diesel, so they're not seeing the price increases we are. I have read that some developing nations--like Indonesia--are decreasing their fuel subsidies to to the high prices. If China does the same, the demand picture will change significantly.
Posted by: Cervus | May 28, 2008 3:54:53 PM
... this graph is showing the vmt for the past 25 YEARS and this change in trend of such a massive scale has never been seen before in the past,
Actually, this graph starts just after the last big drop in VMT (1979-82). Graphs from prior Monthly Reports show VMT dropped 4-5% peak to trough that time. We're not near that yet, but we might get there.
Interesting that total US oil consumption was down 4% this March. We had big drops in distillates (diesel, heating oil) which made up for the meager 1% drop in gasoline. If you adjust for ethanol, gasoline was down more like 1.5%, but still these numbers indicate our fleet-wide MPG is dropping. I'd expect just the opposite. We'll see if this trend persists.
Posted by: doggydogworld | May 28, 2008 4:20:11 PM
I am seeing reduced speed, reduced traffic and increased transit ridership. I htink the numbers are about to take a big plunge.
Gerald,
People wont even blink about using gas lawn equipment. At worst the typical home owner is only going to use 2-3 gallons of gas to mow their lawns.
Posted by: cwh | May 28, 2008 4:32:37 PM
I'd love to see a breakdown between commercial traffic and passenger/light-duty.
How much of this is the transport industry becoming more efficient, and how much is ordinary people finding other ways to get to work (public transit, carpooling, etc.)?
Either way, good news...
Posted by: rob | May 28, 2008 5:34:55 PM
MasterCard has been saying that the demand drop is about 5%, based on their credit card usage. That would be more inline with this.
I've really noticed less traffic on the roads lately. And people driving behind (fewer) semi trucks. I'm pretty certain we're in a recession now. Ford reports that full-sized pickup trucks dropped from 11% to 9% of sales in a single month.
Posted by: Cervus | May 28, 2008 7:05:36 PM
Instead of going out alot of people are loging on.. mmo games are soaring..
Posted by: wintermane | May 28, 2008 7:47:56 PM
People wont even blink about using gas lawn equipment. At worst the typical home owner is only going to use 2-3 gallons of gas to mow their lawns.
I hope you mean per year, and not per cut! I have a house on a half acre with a fair amount of grass. I use less than 3 gallons for the entire growing season (late Apr to early Nov). For me to use a push mower, gas would have to be about $200/gal. I might buy an electric at less than that, but it would probably have to be corded given the amount of grass I have.
Posted by: | May 29, 2008 12:18:40 AM
I use a corded electrical (duh) lawnmower, and I'm quite happy with it. It does take more turns because the cutting width is less, but the absence of noise and fumes make up for it. With my Ipod shuffle at medium volume, I can barely register the sound of the mower :-)
But then again, I only have about 3500 sq ft of lawn. Anyway, I highly recommend using an electrical mower.
Posted by: Thomas | May 29, 2008 1:23:20 AM
ACtually, I see the miles travelled going back up again by 2011, but this time most people will be driving B-segment vehicles in the Honda Fit category and C-segment vehicles in the Ford Focus category, all powered by advanced gasoline engines with variable-valve timing and possibly direct fuel injection to reduce fuel consumption without losing power.
Posted by: Raymond | May 29, 2008 5:17:55 AM
I guess, this is because the first travel reduction is on long trips, where vehicles are pretty efficient.
you remove lots of mileage than consumes little fuel compared to city driving.
Posted by: salvador | May 29, 2008 7:26:43 AM
We use a landscaping service... im far too clumsy to be allowed to use a lawnmower near living or breakable or flamable or.. im not allowed to use anything that can explode within 500 feet of anything...
Posted by: wintermane | May 29, 2008 9:10:41 AM
@Gerald Shields:
I've owned a cordless electric lawnmower for six years, and I absolutely love it. No struggling with pulling the starter cord, no stomach-churning gasoline smell, and it's much quieter too.
Three years ago I got my solar PV system, and now I cut my grass using sunshine.
I'm hoping to engineer a similar arrangement with my Prius in the near future. I can't quite afford a PHEV conversion at the moment, but it's coming.
Having said all that, you would need a pretty big lawn to justify switching to an electric mover on economic terms alone.
The main problem with gas-powered mowers is not how much gasoline they use -- it's relatively little -- but in how inefficiently they use it, and how much pollution they generate. The exhaust is much dirtier than car exhaust. Alas, we don't pay for the pollution we generate, we pay for the gas.
Posted by: John L. | May 29, 2008 10:13:45 AM
Lots of major trucking companies are setting the governors on their rigs to 67MPH or so, and they're setting them even lower on the smaller rigs used for urban hauling. That's why trucks pass other trucks so slowly. Now, you can set your cruise to match their speed and draft them.
Posted by: wesmontage | May 31, 2008 4:57:59 AM
"US Vehicle Miles Travelled Dropping"
Gee, I wonder why?
Duh.
Posted by: swen | Jun 2, 2008 1:57:09 PM
Swen...When gas was going up last year, people didn't cut their vehicle travel miles. Even up to January of this year, Americans only cut their travel distance one third of one percent. So the economics-to-be figured they could just keep raising the price of fuel...lo!
If many more people had driven 35, 42, 45, & 75MPG vehicles like I did for 35 years(& insisted on good mass transit), Americans wouldn't be paying $4 & $5 per gallon now, would have used that gas effectively to save even more money, people's lung, heart & stroke problems would be lessened, & we would be more ready to usher in the era of Electric Vehicles.
Posted by: litesong | Jun 2, 2008 3:25:53 PM
Patrick's right on it; $4 a gallon gas hits lower income drivers first. Subtract them from traffic and you'll have higher income drivers and their larger vehicles going faster on roads that are now less busy.
A small - but perhaps significant - percentage of gasoline goes to non-highway use throughout the summer, so I wouldn't expect gas consumed and miles driven to be joined at the hip. I still see boats, motorhomes, ATVs and motorcycles being fueled up in line at Costco.
Posted by: Milo | Jun 9, 2008 11:35:22 AM
This is not good news. It is very bad news.
While driving was down 4.3% in March from last year, gasoline consumption was down less than 2%.
We aren't using less fuel, we're just getting less done with it.
Here is the gasoline consumption for March 2008/2007:
0.997051758
0.981709957
0.985513514
0.983036561
Gas consumption has since recovered. Following March, it has been relatively flat compared to last year. January to week of June 13th total consumption is down less than 1%.
Part may be due to rural driving suffering more than urban, but that doesn't explain such a large diffence in fuel efficiency. The miles we are not driving would need to be several time more efficient than normal to explain the difference.
One reason is probably bad information. We've know for quite a while that faster acceleration is more efficient than slow acceleration, but people still believe the opposite.
There are other possible reasons; Giffen Behavior and less efficient fuel mixtures. People may be driving less during off-peak hours and more during peak ours. They don't have the money or energy to do luxury off-peak driving, but must drive more during high traffic times to earn enough money to get by.
Posted by: aaron | Jun 20, 2008 7:06:47 AM
During the economic slow down, communities may also be neglecting good traffic management too (e.g. not timing traffic lights properly).
Posted by: aaron | Jun 20, 2008 7:09:49 AM
