In both cases, the trend is clear:

"Economic outcomes improve as a transportation system becomes more multimodal and efficient"

Full report here:
www.vtpi.org/ITED_paradox...

I'll definitely be citing this work going forward.

Also interesting but with a slightly lower R2 (explanatory usefulness) value is this plot of VMT per capita vs GDP per capita.

Economic productivity declines with more urban roadway supply. This indicates that urban roadway expansions are often economically harmful because they degrade other types of travel, particularly walking, and they induce inefficient vehicle travel and sprawl.

State economic productivity DECLINES when you choke metro areas with highways!

Check out this plot of 1) urban lane miles per capita vs. 2) state GDP per capita

From @toddlitman.bsky.social and his team at VTPI

This is what great public service looks like! Thank you @nharris.bsky.social for promptly addressing this concern

Carbrain survey alert: the MWCOG survey won’t let me enter that my household has 0 vehicles - potentially stuffing the ballot box for more car infrastructure when I really moved to DC for the mass transit 🚆 🚎 🚴‍♂️
@cmcharlesallen.bsky.social
@nharris.bsky.social yall should toss this data point

YouTube video by Active Towns EP 274 MIGUEL MORAVEC: Is Induced Demand A Kitchen Table Issue? If not? Can it be?

Spot on as always by @activetowns.bsky.social and guest @miguelmoravec.bsky.social from Rocky Mountain Institute youtu.be/3aMNC8Bm4fA

A good one to listen to!

Join me and John Simmerman TODAY at 2pm ET for a great clean transport dialogue!

YouTube video by Active Towns EP 274: Discussing Induced Demand and much more w/ RMI's Miguel Moravec

PREMIERE REMINDER: Pls tune in tmw, Wed, Dec 18th, at 2 pm EST for my chat w/ @miguelmoravec.bsky.social, a Senior Associate w/ the @rockymtninst.bsky.social (RMI), about strategies to create more sustainable mobility mode choices, such as walking, biking, and transit.
youtu.be/3aMNC8Bm4fA

This small shift could save Oregonians $1,500 and prevent 67 traffic deaths per year Just swap out one car trip out of every five with walking, biking, transit — or maybe don't take the trip at all!

Lawmakers that will decide how Oregon funds transportation for years to come heard a presentation from @rockymtninst.bsky.social that touted benefits of a 20% reduction in VMT.

bikeportland.org/2024/12/03/t...

This small shift could save Oregonians $1,500 and prevent 67 traffic deaths per year Just swap out one car trip out of every five with walking, biking, transit — or maybe don't take the trip at all!

Learn about this one weird trick to save money and lives, featuring my RMI analysis! bikeportland.org/2024/12/03/t...

Opinion: Cars Have F@#%ed Up This Country So Bad — Streetsblog USA Fact: The car-centric age of development is one long mistake.

"It is like building a staircase that takes up the entire first floor of a two-story house. You have left yourself nowhere to live."

Thank you for voicing this feeling @hamiltonnolan.bsky.social

usa.streetsblog.org/2024/09/10/o...

@hthonet @drewveysey does this consider the new proposed guidance from IRS that charger credits will be awarded by the ~port~ rather than by the ~station~?

I suspect that new discount could be a significant tie breaker

Extra extra: Check out our new fleet TCO analysis -
EV vs ICE!
Common fleet applications!
Charger costs included!
By the venerable @hthonet @drewveysey
https://rmi.org/businesses-and-local-governments-its-never-been-a-better-time-to-electrify-your-vehicle-fleet/

Disclaimer: today's live tweets were sent while traveling for an urbanism conference in Italy, so I blame any omissions on the complimentary event spritz

And no, sadly EV's still aren't prevalent enough to put a dent in this (~2% veh stock in 2024).

End rant, do better, have a nice day!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country

...meaning that pollution in 2024 is way higher than what's forecast here and likely increasing.

@MnDOT should correct this trendline to bake in the emissions from post pandemic driving.

Gee - please don't let them set targets around that forecast TAC!

Anyone in the biz could tell you @MnDOT is lowballing the BAU forecast with that 2020 trend line

Why? Per @USCBO, national VMT (and thus pollution) rebounded almost immediately to pre-demic levels in 2021

Folks who've driven in the 3 yrs since know that traffic has only grown..

BONUS RANT: This GRAPH that MnDOT presented

Spot the bizarr-o assumption!

Ok that's a wrap! Coming up next time:
1) 18 pages of glorious guidance on how to assess highway VMT/GHG!
2) brand spanking new regional target allocations (Duluth MnDOT's coming for ya!)
3) a hybrid forecast system that weighs SHIFT(!) and TDFM outputs! @CaltransHQ u listening?

This conversation was informed by some awesome sensitivity analysis from @ICF comparing TDFM's and SHIFT in real world settings, leading them to the conclusion to recommend SHIFT adherence in all urban settings.

TAC members - if you're listening - please consider requiring forecast validation with SHIFT as a firm part of the analysis process!

Its right and its free! It doesn't get any better than that.

As an @RockyMtnInst analyst, I can tell you that the SHIFT very robustly captures new tailpipe pollution from expansion based on real observed outcomes.

Requiring forecasts to be even somewhat near SHIFT entirely blows up the junk idea that expansions can decrease GHG

Fortunately, @ICF had this flow chart of how MnDOT would like to handle modeling to better address junk input.

Most welcomely, the slides suggested comparing TFDM results to @RockyMtnInst's peer-reviewed SHIFT Calculator to see if forecasts are "reasonable"

This is HUGE!!!!

Today, transport modeler @NormMarshall also pointed out the systemic failure of static travel demand models to have any basis in reality.

He directly called out that the twin cities TDFM doesn't even consider land use, which is a huge L-take for a 21st century metro region

Part 3) not junk travel demand models!

You may remember my last live-tweet thread where I addressed the usage of junk VMT forecasts head on:

https://x.com/MiguelMoravec/status/1833272245826777416

The regional target options + modeling used to allocate the targets will be shared at the next TAC meeting.

Rooting for MnDOT to have used @VolpeUSDOT 's Vision Eval model, which is free, open source, and has a great fix on land use + induced demand

An interesting stat: smaller MPOs really only have about 1 project/yr that would be affected by the VMT/GHG requirements.

These projects are usually developed with heavy MnDOT consultation anyway, meaning that the assessment would add minimal burden for rural planners

Part 2) Regional Target Setting!
MnDOT shared that the TAC will have the opportunity to weigh in on what is fair target setting for rural vs urban areas, understanding that each region will have different levers to pull to hit decarb.

TAC members have until the end of the month to make comments on the procedure, which will go into effect Feb. 1, 2025.

Yes - that timeline would mean that the proposed I-94 expansions would need to offset VMT/GHG ($$$) - good question from @AlexT_Burns