Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
1
Introduction
T
he U.S. transportation system moves some 5.5 trillion passenger-
miles of traffic each year, mainly on the nation’s highways, and
approximately 4.6 trillion ton-miles of freight (BTS 2010).1 Trans-
portation is a major industry in its own right, but its primary purpose is to
provide mobility and access to millions of travelers and to move goods
rapidly and reliably in support of economic activity. Policy and decision
makers in both the public and private sectors need to know how well the
system is performing; what changes in travel patterns can be expected
with changes in demographics and logistics; how travelers and shippers
respond to changes in the system and external factors; and what impact
travel patterns have on safety, congestion, energy use, and the environment.
Unfortunately, many of the policy and investment decisions facing
transportation decision makers in such crucial areas as improving travel
safety, alleviating congestion, increasing the energy efficiency of travel,
and reducing transportation-related air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions often are made on the basis of travel data that are lacking in
modal coverage, timeliness, and geographic detail. Moreover, the most
comprehensive passenger and freight travel data are collected in periodic
federal surveys that are highly contingent upon shifting political and
funding priorities and not infrequently in danger of cancellation.
1. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, Section D: Travel and Goods
Movement, Table 1-37 for U.S. passenger-mile data (updated April 2010) and Table 1-46b for U.S. ton-miles
of freight (special tabulation dated September 2009).
5
OCR for page 6
6 How We Travel: A Sustainable National Program for Travel Data
Study Charge, Scope, and Audience
The purpose of this study is to assess the state of passenger and freight
travel data at the federal, state, and local levels and to make recommendations
for an achievable and sustainable system for estimating personal and
freight travel to support public and private transportation planning and
decision making. (See Appendix A for the study’s full statement of task.)
In particular, the study
• Examines user needs for travel data, that is, what passenger and freight
travel data are essential for policy and decision making;
• Explores how these data might be collected more cost-effectively through
such techniques as continuous longitudinal surveys, web surveys, and
methods for capturing data from automated sources (e.g., instrumented
vehicles, passive cellular telephone probes);
• Investigates how data programs could be better managed and coordi-
nated; and
• Considers how these data programs should be funded on a consistent
and continuing basis.
The study builds on a long history of prior studies of data needs. Over a
span of nearly two decades, starting with Data for Decisions in 1992
(TRB 1992), the National Research Council published four special reports
and numerous other studies (referenced in Appendix C of this report)
supporting the need for a more integrated data structure that has yet to
materialize.2 The present study takes a strategic look at data issues as a
basis for recommending ways to provide a sustainable system for essen-
tial travel data.
The study is national in scope and recognizes the multiple geographic
levels—federal, state, regional, and local—and the multiple sectors—public,
private, nonprofit—in which travel data are collected and used. The breadth
of data needs—from national trends to project-level detail—and the
diversity of users pose a major challenge. No single data collection model
is appropriate. Moreover, building support for essential data programs is
complicated by the number of disparate user constituencies.
2. See, for example, special reports on data by the National Research Council (NRC 1997) and, more recently,
by the Transportation Research Board (TRB 2003a,b).
OCR for page 7
Introduction 7
The study covers all travel modes—surface (i.e., highways, rail, public
transit, pipeline, bicycle, and pedestrian), air, and marine transportation.
The focus, however, is on the transportation system as a whole and how it
performs as an integrated network, rather than on the individual modes.
The committee defines travel data broadly to include origin-to-destination
flows, their characteristics (purpose of passenger and freight movements;
attributes of travelers and commodities being moved; costs and travel times;
and impacts, such as those on congestion, energy use, and the environment),
and the characteristics of the infrastructure on which these flows take place.
An important issue motivating this study is the growing interest in
performance-based management and the opportunity to focus greater
attention on and provide resources for the necessary supporting data in
the next authorization of surface transportation legislation. Preliminary
bills reauthorizing surface transportation legislation and reauthorization
principles released by the current administration,3 for example, place
significant emphasis on performance-based decision making, outcomes,
and accountability. This strategy for transportation management rests
solidly on good performance measures and, in turn, on having the right
data to drive those measures.
More generally, faced with increasingly complex transportation problems,
users are demanding more varied and more detailed transportation data.
Addressing transportation demand, for example, is a matter not only of
adding more capacity, but also of modifying demand and optimizing the
operation of existing systems while at the same time minimizing adverse
impacts on air quality, energy use, and climate. All of these strategies would
benefit from a richer understanding of travel behavior and travel demand,
often at a level of detail not currently available. Responding to these data
needs is complicated by heightened sensitivities with respect to privacy,
concern for the protection of proprietary data made available for public use,
rapid adoption of technology (e.g., cellular telephone-only households)
that makes many current survey methods outdated (e.g., sampling of only
landline telephone users), and budgetary pressures that put a premium
on using scarce resources productively.
3. See The Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009: A Blueprint for Investment and Reform,
Executive Summary, presented by Chairman James L. Oberstar, Ranking Member John L. Mica,
Chairman Peter A. DeFazio, and Ranking Member John J. Duncan, Jr., Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, June 18, 2009; “Fact Sheet: Renewing and Expanding
America’s Roads, Railways, and Runways,” The White House (Office of the Press Secretary), September 6,
2010; and “Obama Administration Releases Principles for 18-month Surface Transportation Extension,”
Transportation Weekly, July 1, 2009.
OCR for page 8
8 How We Travel: A Sustainable National Program for Travel Data
The situation facing data managers is challenging but provides many
opportunities for improvement. Members of Congress, who provide for
program funding, and senior leadership and managers of key travel data
programs at the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and other
federal agencies are the primary audiences for this study’s findings and
recommendations. The study is intended to have a wider audience, how-
ever, including planners and decision makers at state departments of
transportation (DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations, transit
agencies, universities, and private businesses that use—and in some cases
provide—travel data.
The sections that follow examine the role and value of travel data in
transportation decision making; fulfilling this role and providing real value
are likely to be essential for securing user support for a comprehensive
travel data program. Changes in the context in which transportation
operates that affect both data needs and the ability to meet those needs
are considered next. Finally, looking forward, key issues that affect data
relevance and thereby user support are discussed. The chapter ends with
a brief overview of the remaining chapters of the report.
Role and Value of Travel Data
Along with experience and judgment, good data are a critical component
of good decision making. Travel data are used at many different levels and
for many different purposes. They provide the basis for trend analyses and
inputs to forecasting models, enabling “what if” analyses and providing
early warning of changes in trends. They enable analysts to discern
how travelers and shippers respond to various factors that influence
travel decisions. They also help shape policy decisions that affect travel
and, once a policy has been implemented, provide a basis for measuring
and monitoring performance and outcomes. Travel data can help inform
investment decisions, enabling analysis of program and project alternatives
and trade-offs. For example, they provide the basis for highway and bridge
capacity enhancements and pavement design. Travel data also are integral
to environmental review for air quality, noise, and water quality analyses,
and they are used extensively in transit planning and assessment of other
modal investment opportunities. Real-time travel data are critical as well for
operational decisions, such as traffic control and incident and emergency
management and high-efficiency supply chains.
OCR for page 9
Introduction 9
Because of these important roles, travel data have been characterized
as a national asset (Schofer et al. 2006). Like any asset, data cost money
to acquire and maintain, to turn into useful information, and to be made
readily accessible to users. To justify the necessary expenditures, particu-
larly on a sustained basis, funders must be able to see the value of data for
planning and decision making as constituting a sufficient return on their
investment.
Today, however, some of the key national travel data programs are
threatened, and others have been terminated, because of a lack of funding.
If good transportation data are essential for good decision making, why
are travel data programs struggling to identify champions and funding?
The answer is not straightforward. First, it could be argued that trans-
portation decision makers do recognize the value of good data. When
a decision must be made, however, they tend to use whatever data are
available “on the shelf”—good or indifferent—to inform it. Moreover, while
data are important, they are but one of many factors, such as the political
context and available resources, considered in decision making.
Second, some decision makers, particularly highly placed transportation
policy makers and agency administrators who influence budgets as well
as policy and investment choices, may indeed be unaware of or overlook
the importance of data. The data and analysis that lie behind a summary
cost/benefit ratio or a rating score, for example, remain largely unseen
and could easily be taken for granted. In other cases, data may be perceived
as highly technical—a black box whose utility for supporting policy and
decision making is not readily apparent. Even for the more technically
savvy user, the sheer volume of data available through the Internet and
search engines that have not been translated into usable information can
be overwhelming. Finally, and related to the issue of data utility, providers
of transportation data often are removed from users and sometimes are
poorly coordinated among themselves, dispersed across federal agencies,
agencies at other governmental levels (e.g., state DOTs), and private
companies, as described in more detail in Chapter 2. Without adequate
user feedback mechanisms, data programs risk becoming disconnected
from the decisions facing policy makers and managers. Transportation
data users themselves tend to be widely dispersed and often (appropriately)
focused at a technical level, increasing the difficulty of obtaining needed
feedback and building constituency support for data programs.
The wealth of data on the Internet creates another insidious problem:
it leads users to expect that data are free for the asking, sometimes masking
OCR for page 10
10 How We Travel: A Sustainable National Program for Travel Data
the sources of the data. Often, those sources are second or third hand, and
users have no knowledge of the primary source, much less the quality or
accuracy of its coverage. Thus, the easy availability of data on line may
make it even more difficult to garner support for investments in travel
data programs.
The demise of the planned 2007 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey
(VIUS), which can be contrasted with the saving of the 2009 National
Household Travel Survey (NHTS), illustrates many of these points, in
particular the importance of a lead sponsor and strong user support
(see Box 1-1 for detail). The VIUS was a national survey of commercial
vehicle characteristics and use; the NHTS is a national survey of household
personal travel. Although the VIUS was valued by several federal agencies
(e.g., U.S. DOT, the Department of Energy) and the motor vehicle manu-
facturing industry, its uses were often indirect. When the Census Bureau,
which both conducted and funded the survey, announced its termination
in early 2006 to close a budgetary gap, there was no strong and credible
transportation advocate at U.S. DOT working with the Census Bureau to
defend the survey. In contrast, when the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS), the federal statistical agency for transportation, announced that it
was unable to commit its share of funding for the planned 2009 NHTS,
data users at the state and regional levels, along with such organizations
as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
the American Highway Users Alliance, AAA, the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, and AARP, recognizing how essential the NHTS was to travel
models and investment decisions, lobbied U.S. DOT to defend the survey.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which historically had
sponsored the survey, reassumed full responsibility, although other user
agencies provided the majority of the funding.
The Changing Context for Travel Data
Linking data and data providers more closely with users is becoming even
more important with increasing interest in the performance management,
outcomes, and accountability of the transportation system. Travel data
are essential both to measure and to monitor system performance. Yet some
travel data programs are still rooted in measuring the “what” and “how”
of passenger and freight movement rather than extending to address
“why,” including the motivations for travel, its efficiency, and its impacts.
OCR for page 11
Introduction 11
Box 1-1
A Tale of Two Data Sets
A comparison of the recent history of two data surveys—the
Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) and the National
Household Travel Survey (NHTS)—provides a good illustration
of the importance of leadership, user support, and sustained
funding for data program continuity.
The Truck Inventory and Use Survey (retitled the VIUS in 1992
based on the expectation that the survey would be expanded to
cover automobiles and buses and obtain comparable information for
all vehicles on patterns of use, energy consumption, and economic
activity served) had been conducted continuously at 5-year intervals
since 1963 by the U.S. Bureau of the Census until it was abruptly
canceled in February 2006. Based on a sample of vehicle registration
files taken from R. L. Polk and Co., this mandatory survey provided
national and state-level data on heavy-duty and light-duty trucks,
including vehicle size, weight, engine type, fuel economy, miles
driven, commodities carried, and operation type (e.g., for-hire
transportation), among other items. Its uses were many, but
often indirect, thus likely contributing to its lack of visibility and
champions. For example, the VIUS was used to help calculate the
size of the for-hire trucking component of the Transportation
Services Index—an economic measure of freight and passenger
services—and to apportion vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) among
vehicle types on the nation’s highways as part of the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA’s) Highway Statistics series. It also was
used as input to various freight forecasting models and for truck
size and weight regulatory studies. At the time it was canceled in
response to a governmentwide federal budget rescission, there were
no strong sponsors within the U.S. Department of Transportation
(U.S. DOT) or the broader transportation community working
with the Census Bureau to defend the survey.
The NHTS, which had been conducted since 1969 on a less regu-
lar schedule than the VIUS, was also in danger of cancellation when
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 12
12 How We Travel: A Sustainable National Program for Travel Data
Box 1-1 (continued)
A Tale of Two Data Sets
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics at U.S. DOT announced
that it was unable to provide its share of the funding for the
planned 2009 survey. In contrast with the VIUS, however, FHWA,
which historically had administered the survey, reassumed full
responsibility. Some 20 states and metropolitan planning organi-
zations (MPOs), as well as associations representing transportation
interests, which count on the data as input for travel models and
for policy and investment analyses, provided the bulk of the funding
and expanded the survey’s coverage, and the survey went forward.
The experience proved the need for a lead sponsor, in this case
FHWA; strong user support; and a product that is both visible and
valuable to users.
The NHTS experience, however, with the possible exception of
the strong partnership among the federal government, the states,
and MPOs, is not a sustainable model going forward. Despite
FHWA’s role in stepping in to save the survey, the “pass-the-hat”
approach to funding resulted in a small federal contribution to a
national-level survey that paled in comparison with the size of the
state and MPO add-ons, resulting in a skewed sample when viewed
from a national perspective. When U.S. DOT staff were questioned
about plans and a date for the next survey, the answers given were
tentative.
Massive changes in the context in which transportation operates have
implications for both the content of travel data and the way they are
collected. Some data programs have been slow to adapt to these changes
and the needs they generate; as a result, these programs risk a decline in
their salience to the point where their support is threatened. To illustrate,
the following changes have occurred in just the past 20 years:
• Policy focus—Policy concerns have shifted from a narrow focus on
the rehabilitation and construction of transportation infrastructure;
OCR for page 13
Introduction 13
to a broader interest in system performance and efficiency in moving
people and goods; to more recent concerns about travel impacts on
the environment, energy use, the economy, and equity.4,5 In general,
travel data programs are not well designed to measure system perfor-
mance or travel impacts. Box 1-2 provides examples of current policy
issues that require good travel data but for which current data
fall short.
• Regulation—Continued deregulation of the economy has reduced the
primary justification for many data collection activities and resulted in
the loss of data sets. For example, the demise of the Interstate Commerce
Commission in 1995 marked the end of economic regulation of railroads
and trucking and of the supporting data on operations and finances of
individual firms, geared to ensuring fair pricing and eliminating rate
discrimination, among other regulatory requirements. As discussed in
Chapter 2, broad industry data continue to be collected by various
federal agencies (e.g., the rail Carload Waybill Sample, the Air Carrier
Traffic Statistics, the Waterborne Commerce Statistics). In addition,
safety and environmental regulations have often supplanted economic
regulations, but not always with associated data capabilities (e.g., limited
data exist on the safety of public transit systems).
• Technology—More widespread use of technology has increased the ability
to collect real-time data at micro levels of detail (e.g., inexpensive fixed
sensors, wireless communications, passive cellular telephone probes)
and with geographic precision (e.g., the Global Positioning System [GPS]).
As noted earlier, broader penetration of the Internet has enabled increased
accessibility of data.
• Privacy and trust—Increasing concerns about the disclosure of
personal information—one consequence of technological advances—
have constrained the ability to acquire data at levels of detail desired
by users for modeling, planning, and policy analysis. Privacy concerns
and uncertainty about the use of data, particularly by government,
4. The focus on travel impacts can be traced back to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991, with its emphasis on the impact of travel on air quality and its link with the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1990.
5. Equity impacts include disproportionate cost burdens of various transportation financing mechanisms
(e.g., dedicated sales taxes, congestion pricing, tolling) on the poor.
OCR for page 14
14 How We Travel: A Sustainable National Program for Travel Data
Box 1-2
Examples of Current Policy Issues
for Which Travel Data Are Lacking
Transportation and the Economy
Recent attention focused on the economy and economic perfor-
mance has resulted in increased interest in the role of the transpor-
tation sector in the economy and productivity. The Transportation
Services Index (TSI) was developed in 2002 and first reported
in 2005 as a measure of the economic activity of the transporta-
tion sector, both passenger and freight. Many of its components
are weak, however, and others are missing entirely. For example,
the TSI covers only domestic for-hire transportation services
(i.e., services provided by an external company for a fee), although
estimates suggest that such services across all modes account for
only about half of all transportation services; many private firms
have their own fleets (Young et al. 2007). Because of these omis-
sions and the lack of timeliness of some of the data inputs, the TSI
is generally a poor real-time indicator of economic changes.
Travel Patterns of an Aging Population
The United States is facing a potential sea change in housing and
travel patterns over the next several decades as the Baby Boom
generation retires and downsizes from its suburban housing.
Detailed data are needed on the travel patterns of older households
and individuals—how and where they travel and how much—as
well as their access to transportation, particularly nonautomobile
modes (e.g., transit). These data are important for providing services
to an aging population to help maintain mobility. The National
Household Travel Survey (NHTS) is a rich source for these data,
but it is conducted too infrequently to capture useful trends and
does not include data on transportation services.
High-Speed Intercity Rail
The current administration has made available $10.5 billion for
high-speed rail projects, a down payment on a potentially much
(continued)
OCR for page 15
Introduction 15
larger program. The decision to go forward was made in the absence
of any current data on intercity passenger travel, which were last
collected in 1995. Although good origin-destination data are available
for airline passenger travel, most high-speed rail trips are likely to be
substitutes for motor vehicle travel. As high-speed rail projects seek
federal funding, data on long-distance travel by automobile and air
will be critical for analyzing potential travel markets and evaluating
proposals. The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) is
patching together numerous data sources to help fill the void, but
without a major new survey, the necessary data are unlikely to be
available.
Energy Efficiency
Transportation is a key contributor to both energy use and green-
house gas (GHG) emissions. Data are needed to track the kinds
of vehicles on the road (including alternative-fueled vehicles),
fleet turnover, and vehicle use to determine whether policies to
encourage lower energy use (e.g., higher Corporate Average Fuel
Economy standards for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks,
soon to be extended to heavy-duty trucks) are having the desired
effect and to what extent. The NHTS collects some data on house-
hold vehicles, but only infrequently, as noted. With the demise of
the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey in advance of the 2007
NHTS, no data are available on heavy trucks and their travel.
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency moves to regulate
GHG emissions, one strategy is to reduce the demand for driving
by increasing the density of land use and by mixing residential and
commercial uses to provide an environment that encourages non-
motorized travel (e.g., walking and bicycling, as well as transit use).
Regulations requiring such land use policies are already in effect
in California, and many other communities are experimenting with
similar development strategies that go under various names,
such as smart growth, transit-oriented development, and livable
communities. The current administration has created a $527 million
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 16
16 How We Travel: A Sustainable National Program for Travel Data
Box 1-2 (continued)
Examples of Current Policy Issues
for Which Travel Data Are Lacking
grant program for livable communities to encourage such initiatives.
To evaluate proposed projects and properly monitor and measure
outcomes, community-level data are needed on travel patterns
(number and length of trips) by purpose and mode. Data for small
areas are weak, particularly spatial data on where residents work,
shop, and attend school, which are critical to improving transit
accessibility and service.
Congestion
Congestion continues to be a major barrier to efficient goods move-
ment and traveler mobility for most travel modes. Given forecasts of
significant increases in freight movements and, to a lesser extent,
passenger travel, good data on major bottlenecks, as well as peak
period traffic congestion, are important. Congressional leaders and
program managers at U.S. DOT need these data to help ensure
adequate funding of transportation programs at the national level.
State DOTs and local transportation managers also need these data
for investment planning, traffic management and incident control,
and emergency evacuation planning. Despite its importance, there
are no detailed measures of congestion. The well-known travel-time
index of the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) provides trend
data on congestion for large metropolitan areas, but travel time
measurements are based on average annual daily traffic. The private
sector has begun to capture automated data on vehicle movements
from passive probes (e.g., cellular telephones) and vehicles instru-
mented with Global Positioning System devices to provide timely
traffic information to individual travelers and fleet managers.
A few firms are partnering with the federal government and
universities, TTI among them, so that these data can be integrated
and aggregated to enable reporting on nationwide congestion
trends and major traffic bottlenecks for policy analysis and invest-
ment purposes.
OCR for page 17
Introduction 17
as well as distrust of government generally, have eroded the willing-
ness of both individuals and businesses to respond to surveys. In a
recent survey by the Pew Research Center, for example, only 22 percent
of respondents said they could trust the government in Washington
almost always or most of the time—an attitude that has affected
response rates for the U.S. census and other, less visible surveys
(Pew Research Center 2010 in Billitteri 2010). Measures to improve
survey response rates also have driven up the cost of data collection.
Moreover, businesses are particularly concerned about protecting
proprietary data, especially with respect to making data available for
public use.
• Globalization and logistics—Increased globalization and continued growth
of the service economy have changed shipping, logistics, and supply
chain patterns in ways that are not captured by current freight data
surveys or at geographic levels (i.e., market areas) useful for network
planning and management and economic analysis.
• Resources—Resources have always been a constraint, but increased
competition for funds has made it more important than ever to be
strategic and selective in defining data needs, to identify ways of
collecting data more cost-effectively, and to demonstrate the value per
dollar invested in data.
The above changes pose considerable challenges for travel data program
managers. At the same time, however, they provide an opportunity to
reorient and adapt data programs in ways that are more responsive and
useful to policy and decision makers.
Key Issues for Study
Looking forward, improving passenger and freight travel data will require
addressing several key issues. Defining essential travel data is an important
first step. The range of different users and the breadth of their data needs,
however, make this a difficult task. Core data organized around a few key
surveys may prove valuable to all data users, but a more distributed system
of data collection may be needed to meet specific user needs. In addition,
being more strategic in defining essential data requires being selective
and considering what can be discarded.
OCR for page 18
18 How We Travel: A Sustainable National Program for Travel Data
Second, developing a more policy-relevant and enduring travel data
system requires leadership, particularly at the federal level, and greater
coordination with data partners, such as states and metropolitan plan-
ning organizations. What often exist now as disparate surveys with a
myriad of different uses need to be integrated into a more logical and
well-focused system of travel data programs, directed toward users and
decision making.
Third, data program managers need to address the growing conflict
between the expressed desire of many users for more small-area data
with which to examine regional and local policies, such as encouraging
bicycling to work or greater transit use, and growing privacy concerns
among those individuals and businesses that provide the data, particularly
as the feasibility of collecting small-area data grows. What mechanisms
are available to ensure confidentiality while meeting legitimate needs for
detailed data? What are reasonable limits, and who should be responsible
for negotiating these arrangements?
Fourth, the timeliness of data is an increasing concern. Periodic
surveys whose results can take up to 2 years to release after completion
of the data collection are simply too little, too late for many decision
makers. Continuous annual surveys are becoming more commonplace
but have their own problems. Interpreting annual data for trend analysis,
accumulating sufficient annual data to provide reliable information for
small geographic areas, and accommodating greater data variability in
return for better timeliness are just some of the issues that need to be
addressed.
Fifth, providing sustained resources to support travel data programs is
a perennial concern. Finding partners to share the burden is part of the
answer, but in the long run, it is no substitute for leadership and the build-
ing of strong user constituencies. As discussed in this report, neither of
these elements has been much in evidence.
Finally, improving access to data—particularly making available data that
have been transformed into useful products—is a necessary step toward
meeting user needs and thereby building support for data programs.
Modelers and researchers need detailed data with accompanying statistical
information. Policy makers require timely summary products, tailored to
particular policy uses and users, which should boost both the visibility
and the value of the data.
OCR for page 19
Introduction 19
Organization of the Report
The remainder of the report addresses the key elements of the committee’s
charge. Chapter 2 provides an overview of current travel data programs and
critical gaps in coverage and characteristics, drawing on prior studies,
as well as briefings to the committee from data providers and users
(see Appendix B for a full listing of these briefings and Appendix C for a
list of selected references; Appendix E provides a more detailed discussion
of these programs). Chapter 3 examines barriers to data collection and
opportunities for overcoming these barriers—from using technology
more effectively to employing alternative methods for data collection.
Chapter 4 introduces the committee’s proposal for a National Travel Data
Program to better meet the travel data needs of policy and decision mak-
ers and details how the program should be managed and funded. The final
chapter presents the committee’s key findings and recommendations for
a strategy for improved passenger and freight travel data.
References
Abbreviations
BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics
NRC National Research Council
TRB Transportation Research Board
Billitteri, T. J. 2010. Census Controversy. CQ Researcher, May 14, pp. 433–455.
BTS. 2010. National Transportation Statistics. http://www.bts.gov/publications/
national_transportation_statistics/. Accessed Aug. 26, 2010.
NRC. 1997. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics: Priorities for the Future
(C. F. Citro and J. L. Norwood, eds.), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Pew Research Center. 2010. Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor. Pew
Research Center Publications, Washington, D.C., April 18. http://pewresearch.
org/pubs/1569/trust-in-government-distrust-discontent-anger-partisan-rancor.
Accessed May 13, 2010.
Schofer, J. L., T. J. Lomax, T. M. Palmerlee, and J. P. Zmud. 2006. Transportation
Research Circular E-C109: Transportation Information Assets and Impacts: An
Assessment of Needs. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., December. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/
ec109.pdf.
OCR for page 20
20 How We Travel: A Sustainable National Program for Travel Data
TRB. 2003a. Special Report 276: A Concept for a National Freight Data Program.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10793.
TRB. 2003b. Special Report 277: Measuring Personal Travel and Goods Movement:
A Review of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ Surveys. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.
trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr277.pdf.
TRB. 1992. Special Report 234: Data for Decisions: Requirements for National
Transportation Policy Making—New TRB Study. TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
Young, P., K. Notis, G. Feuerberg, and L. Nguyen. 2007. Transportation Services Index
and the Economy. BTS, Research and Innovative Technology Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., December. http://www.
bts.gov/publications/bts_technical_report/2007_12_21/html/entire.html.
