Florida Transportation Statistics

[tufsu1]

these are from FDOT for 2011

System Usage:
195,755 million annual vehicle miles of travel
67 million enplanements
245 million transit trips
51.6 million transportation disadvantaged
trips
12.7 million cruise passengers
762 million tons of freight traffic

oh...and for those curious, Amtrak ridership in Florida is around 1.1 million annual passengers (trips)....and while that is a pretty small number, it has increased over 50% from its low point in 2006.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/trends/pg11.pdf

[Lunican]

196 billion vehicle miles seems awfully wasteful.

[tufsu1]

averages out to about 10,400 miles annually per Florida resident..and keep in mind that a pretty decent chunk of the total is travel by vistors

[Lunican]

Shouldn't you divide vehicle miles by the number of vehicles, not people?

[tufsu1]

maybe....of course sadly there are more registered vehicles in the U.S. than licensed drivers

[Ocklawaha]

averages out to about 10,400 miles annually per Florida resident..and keep in mind that a pretty decent chunk of the total is travel by vistors

I think I've hit that number just coming up for the MJ meetings! I sure wish someone would find me a train!

[FayeforCure]

196 billion vehicle miles seems awfully wasteful.

Yeah, but while we bicker over which route to build CA high speed rail (as we did in FL), we continue to fail to see the Big Picture:

In a development future built around high-speed rail and enhanced local transit, average vehicle miles traveled per household would be reduced 40 percent, the equivalent of taking 18.6 million cars off the road. New highway construction would be reduced by 4,700 lane miles, saving around $400 billion. This type of development means less air pollution, fewer respiratory diseases, less water consumption, efficient local infrastructure and lower costs to local governments.

California would consume 300 billion fewer gallons of fuel over the next 40 years. When these savings are combined with other transportation and energy savings, households would save close to $11,000 per year.

More compact communities require 67 percent less land â€" saving prime farmland in the Central Valley and key open space in coastal regions.

Just as the ’56 highway bill helped spawn the modern suburb, high-speed rail would energize a new generation of community building â€" one that fits our current environmental and economic needs. This is an investment we cannot afford not to make.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/26/does-california-need-high-speed-rail/high-speed-rail-is-a-catalyst-for-better-development

[NotNow]

196 billion vehicle miles seems awfully wasteful.

Why?

[NotNow]

maybe....of course sadly there are more registered vehicles in the U.S. than licensed drivers

Why is that "sad"?  I thought that most members of this forum were in favor of government support of GM, Chrysler and auto unions.  Isn't the point of these businesses to sell more cars?  Isn't the fact that Americans own a lot of cars a good thing? 

I'm not being smart.  I am in favor of improved rail in this country.  But the automobile is not going away.  Trains and planes will never be as convenient or serviceable to less dense locations.  The shift to electric cars will happen (although the misguided attempts of government to force this transition is misguided), but the infrastructure for auto travel will remain.  IMHO. 

[Ocklawaha]

In a development future built around high-speed rail and enhanced local transit, average vehicle miles traveled per household would be reduced 40 percent, the equivalent of taking 18.6 million cars off the road. New highway construction would be reduced by 4,700 lane miles, saving around $400 billion. This type of development means less air pollution, fewer respiratory diseases, less water consumption, efficient local infrastructure and lower costs to local governments.

California would consume 300 billion fewer gallons of fuel over the next 40 years. When these savings are combined with other transportation and energy savings, households would save close to $11,000 per year.

More compact communities require 67 percent less land â€" saving prime farmland in the Central Valley and key open space in coastal regions.

Just as the ’56 highway bill helped spawn the modern suburb, high-speed rail would energize a new generation of community building â€" one that fits our current environmental and economic needs. This is an investment we cannot afford not to make.

These are good points but the average Joe Citizen misses the details... With the current layout of our communities, something not likely to change, there is NO reason to believe that any form of mass transportation will "relieve" traffic congestion.

Adding lanes to FREEways is bogus, as it will simply increase capacity which will quickly be consumed by new auto-centric development, net result? NOTHING GAINED.

The true benefit of public transit is somewhere in the distant future, assuming that we embraced the concept. Public transportation drastically reduces the amount of space needed for automobiles. This allows new building projects to come on line with 30-50% less parking spaces then is currently required. The tradeoff is that every employee gets a mass transit pass.

While an urban rail system can handle more passengers per hour in a 100' foot wide right-of-way then a 6 lane 300' foot wide FREEway, the benefit will not manifest unless we radically alter our planning and build towards a transit sustainable community.

But as for a HSR train suddenly taking a quarter million automobiles off of I-4 or I-5, FORGET IT, with luck our children's children might live to see the early signs of such relief.

[dougskiles]

maybe....of course sadly there are more registered vehicles in the U.S. than licensed drivers

Why is that "sad"?

This is why.  Axiom, here we come!



An over-reliance on cars has already created an obesity epidemic.

Is it a surpise that we lead the world in both obesity rate and automobile use?

[NotNow]

maybe....of course sadly there are more registered vehicles in the U.S. than licensed drivers

Why is that "sad"?

This is why.  Axiom, here we come!



An over-reliance on cars has already created an obesity epidemic.

Is it a surpise that we lead the world in both obesity rate and automobile use?

Soooo...stuffing one's face is not a cause?  Oh, I forgot that some want to make a Federal law about that as well.  Just be sure to be at morning exercise with the Great Leader...

[Dog Walker]

It would be interesting to compare the obesity rates in areas served by transit systems compared to areas not so served.  Everytime I am in New York, Paris or London I end up walking way more than at home.  Using subways and buses mean you walk farther to places from transit stops than from parking spaces to destination.

It's always exhausting the first few days until your body adjusts.

[NotNow]

Sigh....the point is that federal light rail and HSR money MUST be targeted to projects that will work economically.  Otherwise you get....the  Skyway. 

But I am amused by the argument that we should build rail because it whips the public into shape  .

[dougskiles]

You don't see many obese people in New York City (or any major European city).  When you walk 30 minutes every day, the rate of obesity goes way down.  People who use transit to get around walk significantly more than those who rely solely on a car.  No special exercise programs or fancy diets needed.  The healthiest and longest lived people in the world get that way from being 'lifestyle' fit.

We over-invested in auto-related infrastructure and have not provided choices that would lead to a healthier life.  Reversing that is the number one reason I support rail infrastructure.  But, if you want to talk economics, then we should factor in the high cost of health care that comes form obesity related disease, such as type 2 diabetes.