Linda Bailey Surface Transportation Policy Project … Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options was written by Linda Bailey, with editorial assistance provided by Michelle Ernst,

Linda Bailey

Surface Transportation Policy Project

April 2004

Acknowledgments

Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options was written by Linda Bailey, with editorialassistance provided by Michelle Ernst, Kevin McCarty, and Trinh Nguyen. The data extrac-tion, research design, and data analysis were conducted by Linda Bailey and Kate Zyla.

Many thanks to the National Household Transportation Survey team, headed by SusanLiss at the Federal Highway Administration, for their help in working with the NHTS 2001data set, and their work in gathering the data and providing it for public use.

The author would especially like to thank the members of the STPP Board; Jo Reed,Debra Alvarez, and Audrey Straight of AARP; and Art Guzzetti, Demaune Millard, RoseSheridan, and Mary Trupo of APTA for the valuable insight and information they provided.Thanks also to Chris Zeilinger of the Community Transportation Association of America(www.ctaa.org), and Jackie Gillan and Dr. Gerald Donaldson of Advocates for Highwayand Auto Safety (www.saferoads.org) for their review.

Linda Bailey is a policy analyst with the Surface Transportation Policy Project. Linda hasa Master’s degree in Urban Planning from the University of Michigan.

AAAAAging Amerging Amerging Amerging Amerging Americans: Sicans: Sicans: Sicans: Sicans: Strtrtrtrtranded Wanded Wanded Wanded Wanded Wititititithout Ophout Ophout Ophout Ophout OptionstionstionstionstionsExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive Summary

The demographics of the United States will change dramatically during the next 25 years asmore baby boomers reach their 60s, 70s and beyond. The U.S. Census Bureau projects thatthe number of Americans age 65 or older will swell from 35 million today to more than 62million by 2025 - nearly an 80 percent increase. As people grow older, they often becomeless willing or able to drive, making it necessary to depend on alternative methods of trans-portation.

Unfortunately, the United States is currently ill prepared to provide adequate transportationchoices for our rapidly aging population. Alternatives to driving are sparse, particularly insome regions and in rural and small town communities. As the number of older peopleincreases, so too will their mobility needs. How the nation addresses this issue will havesignificant social and economic ramifications.

This report presents new findings based on the National Household Transportation Survey of2001 and places them in the context of other research on mobility in the aging population.

MaMaMaMaMajor Fjor Fjor Fjor Fjor Findings:indings:indings:indings:indings:

More than one in five (21%) Americans age 65 and older do not drive. Some rea-sons include:

• Declining health, eyesight, physical or mental abilities;• Concern over safety (self-regulation);• No car or no access to a car;• Personal preference.

More than 50% of non-drivers age 65 and older - or 3.6 million Americans - stayhome on any given day partially because they lack transportation options. Thefollowing populations are more heavily affected:

• Rural communities and sprawling suburbs;• Households with no car;• Older African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans.

Older non-drivers have a decreased ability to participate in the community andthe economy. Compared with older drivers, older non-drivers in the United States make:

• 15% fewer trips to the doctor;• 59% fewer shopping trips and visits to restaurants;• 65% fewer trips for social, family and religious activities.

For trips outside their immediate neighborhood, public transportation is the onlyalternative to asking for a ride for many non-drivers. Where publictransportation is available, older Americans make regular use of it.

• Public transportation trips by older non-drivers totaled an estimated 310 million in 2001;• Older minority populations account for a significant share of these trips, with older African-Ameri-

cans and Latinos more than twice as likely to use public transportation as their white counterparts.

A safe and inviting walking and bicycling environment provides mobility andhealth benefits to many older Americans.

• More than half of older Americans make walking a regular activity, and nearly two-thirds walk ahalf mile at least once a month.

• Four percent of older Americans ride a bicycle at least once a week.• Research shows that moderate exercise, such as walking or bicycling, can contribute significantly

to a healthy lifestyle.• Improving the walking and bicycling environment is a priority for the general public.

Aging Americans: Stranded Without OptionsMore livable communities have lower rates of staying home, and higher rates ofpublic transportation use and walking among non-drivers aged 65 and over.

• 61% of older non-drivers stay home on a given day in more spread-out areas, as compared to43% in denser areas;

• More than half of older non-drivers use public transportation occasionally in denser areas, ascompared to 1 in 20 in more spread-out areas;

• One in three older non-drivers walks on a given day in denser areas, as compared to 1 in 14 inmore spread-out areas.

The TThe TThe TThe TThe Trrrrransporansporansporansporansportttttation Contation Contation Contation Contation Conteeeeextxtxtxtxt:::::

In too many places, public transportation is still not a practical option for olderpeople.

• Half of all adults cannot choose to take public transportation because service is not available intheir area, particularly in rural and small towns.

Public transportation depends on federal, state and local government funding tooperate. Making public transportation options available to more people will requireadditional government funding.

• Maintaining the current public transportation system requires a minimum of $14.8 billion in capi-tal investments annually.

• To improve the public transportation system would require $43.9 billion annually.

For frail older persons, paratransit and specialized transportation are the onlyfeasible modes of transportation, other than getting a ride from others.

• Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), public transportation agencies provide comple-mentary paratransit service along fixed routes for people whose disabilities prevent them fromusing fixed route service.

• The Federal Transit Administration’s Specialized Transportation Program for the Elderly and Per-sons with Disabilities (Section 5310) was funded at $90.6 million in 2004, or 0.23 percent of allfederal transportation funding.

Conclusions and RConclusions and RConclusions and RConclusions and RConclusions and Recommendations:ecommendations:ecommendations:ecommendations:ecommendations:

Public Transportation:• Substantially increase investment in public transportation systems to expand and improve ser-

vices to meet the needs of older Americans in metropolitan and rural areas.• Increase funding for existing specialized transportation programs that provide mobility for older

persons, such as FTA’s Section 5310 program.

Planning and Coordination:• Incorporate the mobility needs of older Americans into the planning of transportation projects,

services, and streets. Coordinate with land use planning.• Improve coordination among human services agencies and between those agencies and public

transportation agencies.

Road and Street Improvements:• Complete the streets by providing a place for safe walking and bicycling for people of all ages.• Urge states to adopt federal guidelines for designing safer roads for older drivers and pedestrians.• Preserve the flexibility of state and local governments to spend federal transportation funds on

improving public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and other alternatives that willmeet the mobility needs of older Americans.

• Support the “Transportation Enhancements” program, which is the only federal source of supportfor pedestrian and bicycle safety projects and facilities.


Older People: A Growing Part of the U.S.Transportation Market

The demographic shape of the U.S. populationwill shift dramatically in the next 20 years, andtransportation agencies will find themselves con-fronted with a very different customer base. In2002, 12 percent of the U.S. population was 65or older. By 2025, the number of seniors willhave gone up by 79 percent, and an estimated18 percent of the population will be 65 or older.The U.S. Census estimates the total populationof people aged 65 and over to be 62 million inthe year 2025. In 26 states, more than 20 per-cent - one in five residents - will be over the ageof 65.

Most older adults in 2025 will have spent theiradult life getting around by driving, and in manycases, will have chosen a home in a place wherethe only transportation mode available is the au-tomobile. People aging in spread-out suburbswill soon be facing the transportation challengesthat rural Americans already confront: friends,stores and family are far away and often con-nected only by car.

Fragility, Self-Limitation Challenge Driving as an Option

Older drivers are more likely than younger drivers to be killed in carcrashes relative to the miles they drive, even though drivers aged 75and over are involved in only about 3 percent of all crashes. Fragilityis the largest single cause of this increased mortality (Li, Braver andChen, 2003). Drivers aged 85 and older have a fatality rate that is 9times higher than driversaged 25 to 69 for each miledriven ("Travel Safety Facts2000: Older Population"NHTSA). The graph at rightshows the rates of driver fa-talities, by age, per miledriven in 2001. The rate offatalities begins to climb af-ter age 65, while the totalnumber of miles driven(black line) goes down.

The drop in commuter milesafter retirement may explainpart of the reduction in over-all mileage. However, manypeople also choose to reduce

3

Driver Fatality Rates and Distance Driven by Age, 2001

0

2

4

6

8

10

16-2

0

21-2

5

26-3

0

31-3

5

36-4

0

41-4

5

46-5

0

51-5

5

56-6

0

61-6

5

66-7

0

71-7

5

76-7

9

80-8

4

85+

Driver Age

Fata

liti

es p

er

100

Millio

n V

eh

icle

Miles

Dri

ven

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

An

nu

al V

eh

icle

Miles

Dri

ven

Miles Driven

Graph shows increased fatalities per mile driven juxtaposedwith decreasing miles driven for drivers of different ages.Sources: NHTS 2001, FARS

Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options

their driving as they age, or to limit it to certain situations. For ex-ample, someone may decide to drive only on local streets, or onlyduring the daytime. A 2002 national survey found that one in fivedrivers age 65 and over do not drive at night (Omnibus Survey, June2002). A National Institute on Aging study released in 2002 esti-mated that individuals who are driving at age 70 will stop driving andspend, on average, 6-10 years "dependent on others to meet theirtransportation needs" (Foley, Heimovitz, Guralnik and Brock, 2002).More than one in five adults age 65 and over do not drive – 21percent, or an estimated 6.8 million people (NHTS 2001).

Isolation: If you can't drive, stay home?

Over half of non-drivers aged 65 and over stay homeon any given day, as shown on the graph, left. Thisisolation* among older people affects 3.6 million oldernon-drivers. In contrast, 17 percent of older drivers,or about a third the rate of non-drivers, stay homeon a given day (NHTS, 2001). Why is it that so manyolder people simply stay home when they cannotdrive? Some are too ill or frail to travel. However, formany, the only alternative to driving oneself is gettinga ride from someone else. A 2002 survey of adultsaged 50 and older found that many older people areself-conscious about asking for rides. About half saidthat "feelings of dependency" and "concerns aboutimposing on others" were problems (Ritter, Straightand Evans, 2002).

A comparison of trip patterns among drivers and non-drivers is also revealing. While non-drivers make 15percent fewer trips to the doctor than drivers, they

make 65 percent fewer trips for social, family and religious purposes.This means in effect that while drivers go out for these social pur-poses about 8 times per week, on average, non-drivers only go outabout 3 times a week (NHTS 2001).

Lack of contact with others has been shown to be detrimental to theemotional well-being of older people (Findlay, 2003). Not being ableto get around also reduces older adults' ability to participate in theeconomy. Non-drivers 65 and over make less than half as manyshopping trips as drivers do. They also make less than half the num-ber of trips to restaurants and other places to eat (NHTS 2001).

Alternative Ways to Travel Independently

Currently, adults 65 and over in the U.S. predominantly use the au-tomobile to get around, and are dependent on getting rides oncethey stop driving. However, many older adults also walk, bicycle andtake public transportation, even if they use the car for most trips.

More thanone in fiveadults age

65 and overdo not drive.

* “Isolation” in this paper is used to refer to people staying in their homes inpart related to their non-driving status.

4

Non-Drivers

65 Years and Older

Leave

Home

46%

Stay

Home

54%

Chart shows average daily pattern.NHTS 2001, STPP analysis.


Nearly two-thirds of older adults walk a half mile at least once amonth (Omnibus Survey, October 2003). Four percent, or 1.1 mil-lion, ride a bicycle at least once a week (NHTS 2001). About one inten uses public transportation at least once a month. So why don'tolder adults simply make up for driving with walking and public trans-portation when they are not able to drive?

Public Transportation

For many non-drivers, public transportation is the only alternative toasking for a ride when they are going somewhere outside their imme-diate neighborhood. However, most U.S. residents still do not havethe option of using public transportation to get places. In 2001, justhalf – 49 percent - of all Americans reported that they have publictransportation service (American Housing Survey, 2001). In 1995, aquarter of rural counties had below average public transportationservice, and 41 percent had none at all (CTAA, 1995).

Where public transportation is more available, however, it is highlyused (see graph, page 9). Many older non-drivers take public trans-portation every day. In fact, they complete an estimated 310 milliontrips per year (NHTS 2001). The systems that provide these every-day services depend on reliable funding from various levels of gov-ernment. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that main-taining the current public transportation system requires an annualcapital investment of $14.8 billion, an increase of 30 percent overcurrent levels from all funding sources (US DOT, 2002). The cost ofimproving public transportation service is estimated at $43.9 billionannually, more than double the current funding level (Cambridge Sys-tematics, 2002). Federal funding for public transportation has increasedan average of 2.1 percent annually since 2001.

Public Transportation Services for People with Disabilities

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), every public trans-portation agency is required to provide complementary paratransitservice along fixed routes for people whose disabilities prevent themfrom using fixed route service. But for those living away from fixedroutes, there is no guarantee of access to any public transportationservice. And the public transportation agency is under no obligationto provide access for older people without disabilities. For older adults,frailty or a chronic condition may rule out the use of traditional publictransportation even though they are not eligible for paratransit underthe ADA.

Human Services Transportation

A portion of the federal public transportation budget is devoted toproviding human services transportation for older people and peoplewith disabilities, primarily by enabling human service agencies to pur-chase vehicles. The Federal Transit Agency's Elderly and Persons withDisabilities Formula Program, also known as "Section 5310," wasfunded at $90.6 million in 2004, or 0.23 percent of all federal trans- 5


portation funding. According to the most recent FTA report, nearly60 percent of Section 5310 vehicles were in need of replacement.(FTA, 2001).

Walking

Although over half of older Americans make walking a regular activ-ity, they do not walk very often in comparison with peers in otherindustrialized countries, where the rate of walking is much higher. Notbeing able to walk places can become a problem when an older per-son stops driving. In the U.S., people 65 and over make just 8 per-cent of their trips on foot or bicycle. In Germany, 50-55 percent of alltrips for adults aged 65 and over are on foot or bicycle. The Nether-lands shows a similar pattern: 44-48 percent of all trips for thoseaged 65 and over are made on foot or bicycle (Pucher & Dijkstra,2003).

Getting places on foot is still difficult in many parts of the U.S., and infar too many cases, unsafe. Recent public health studies have foundthat per mile, people out walking in the United States are three timesas likely to be killed as in Germany, and over six times as likely to bekilled as in the Netherlands (Pucher & Dijkstra, 2003, p. 1511). Trans-portation engineering solutions to the problem of our unsafe walkingenvironment do exist, but implementation has been spotty and slow.Only 1.1 percent of federal transportation funding went to makingimprovements in pedestrian and bicycle facilities between 1998 and2003, despite the fact that over 13 percent of all traffic deaths arepeople on foot or bicycle. In fact, 17 percent of traffic fatalities among

people 65 and over were pedestriansand bicyclists in 2002 (FARS, 2002).

Improving the walking and bicycling en-vironment is already a high priorityamong the general population. In a pollreleased last year, 42 percent of Ameri-cans reported that "dangerous intersec-tions make crossing the street difficultin the area close to where [I] live." Al-most 9 out of 10 (87 percent) sup-ported the proposal to "use part of thetransportation budget to design streetswith sidewalks, safe crossing and otherdevices" (STPP 2003).

Designing for Street Safety

As noted previously, even though olderdrivers and pedestrians are no morelikely than younger people to be in anaccident on a per capita basis, they aremore likely to be in accidents per miledriven, and more vulnerable to injury

6

Walking and Health: An Added Benefit toMobility

Researchers have found that moderate exercise,such as walking or bicycling, can contribute sig-nificantly to a healthy lifestyle. Traditionally, onlyexercise activities involving a higher heart ratewere considered important. This conception haschanged since the Surgeon General announceda recommendation of 30 minutes of moderateexercise daily. A one-mile trip is a twenty-minutewalk, or two-thirds of the recommended dailyexercise regimen of 30 minutes (US SurgeonGeneral, 2001). In fact, because people may bemore apt to walk places than go to a gym, pub-lic health researchers are focusing much morenow on exercise as an integrated part of gettingthrough the day. The CDC estimates that if 10percent of adults began a regular walking pro-gram, $5.6 billion in heart disease costs couldbe saved (CDC 2003).


when they are in an accident (Lyman, Ferguson, Braver & Williams,2002). Older people are among the first to suffer increased injuriesand fatalities when streets and highways are not safe.

The Federal Highway Administration has developed guidelines for en-gineering streets for maximum safety for drivers, such as eliminatingdifficult turns, making signs easier to see, and improving lighting andpavement markings (FHWA, 2003). At the same time, it is critical tomake improvements for people on foot. In neighborhoods, trafficroundabouts and other traffic calming devices have been found todramatically increase safety by reducing speeds and increasing vis-ibility of other vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Building and main-taining sidewalks along roadways creates a safe place to walk. Cross-ing the street can be made safer with a walk signal. Existing cross-walks can be improved by lengthening signal times to allow people tocross more slowly, and by building "refuge" islands on the median sothat people who only cross halfway have a safe place to wait for thenext walk signal.

Disparate Impacts: Rural, African-American, Latino andAsian-American Populations More Isolated

Rural and small-town older Americans whodo not drive are more likely to stay home ona given day, as shown on the graph, right. Ineffect, these non-drivers are much less likelyto get out than their urban and suburbancounterparts, reducing their contact with thecommunity. Spread-out land developmentpatterns and poverty in rural areas are pri-mary factors in staying home for older non-drivers. When it is available, public transpor-tation contributes significantly to the mobilityof older rural non-drivers. However, publictransportation is considerably less availablein rural areas and small towns than in largercities and their suburbs. Bicycling and walkingfacilities, such as sidewalks, benches and bi-cycle paths, are also often lacking.

African-American, Latino, and Asian-American elders are dispropor-tionately affected by the lack of options because many more do notdrive. While just 16 percent of white persons 65 and over do notdrive, 42 percent of older African-Americans, 39 percent of olderLatinos, and 45 percent of older Asian-Americans do not drive. Thismay explain why over a third of the total population of older Latinos,African-Americans and Asian-Americans stay home on any given day- 34, 36 and 38 percent, respectively. In comparison, just 22 per-cent of all older white people stay home on any given day (seegraph, next page).

Rural and Small-Town Isolation: Staying Home on a Given Day, Non-

Drivers 65 and Over

51%60%63%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Small Tow n (lessthan 50,000)

Rural Area Urban/Suburban

Home Location

7


The isolation of these older minority popula-tions reflects an increased rate of poverty,especially for older African-Americans andLatinos. Sixteen percent of both older Afri-can-Americans and older Latinos live inhouseholds beneath the poverty threshold(Current Population Survey, 2003). Less ac-cumulated wealth is also reflected in the lackof automobiles in the households in whicholder African-Americans and Latinos live.More than one-quarter of older African-Americans live in households with no cars -28 percent. One in five, or 19 percent of olderLatinos, and 9 percent of older Asian-Ameri-cans live in households with no cars.

On the other hand, older African-Americans,Latinos and Asians are much more likely to

use public transportation regularly than their white counterparts. While10 percent of older whites use public transportation at least occa-sionally, 21 percent of older African-Americans, 21 percent of olderLatinos, and 16 percent of older Asian-Americans use public trans-portation at least occasionally.

Livable Communities

In some places, of course, people who cannotdrive have better options than others. They havemany public transportation options, they canwalk and bicycle to many destinations safely,and special transportation services for olderpeople are available.

For example, in the Philadelphia metropolitanarea, only a third (35 percent) of non-driversage 65 and over stay home on a given day. Incomparison, over half (53 percent) of older non-drivers in the Los Angeles metropolitan area stayhome on a given day.

Being closer to destinations is an important partof mobility for older people who cannot drive orwhose driving is limited. People 65 and over liv-ing in areas where houses are built closer toshops and services are less likely to stay homeon a given day, and are more likely to use publictransportation and walk to get around. The graph,opposite page, contrasts isolation and publictransportation use across a range of residentialdensities.

8

Race and Isolation:

65+, Stay Home on Given Day

38%34%36%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

White Black Hispanic Asian-

American

NHTS 2001, STPP analysis

Ferndale, CaliforniaPhoto: www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden


The range of neighborhood (block-group level) densities shown onthe graph are representative of most metropolitan areas covered bythe National Household Travel Survey. Even low-density metropoli-tan areas such as Atlanta contain some neighborhoods with a den-sity of 25,000 or more people per square mile. (Population density isused here as a stand-in for other measures of land use because ofdata availability.)

Many more older non-drivers are occasional public transportationusers in higher density neighborhoods, as shown in the graph. Simi-larly, older non-drivers in more densely built neighborhoods are muchmore likely to walk on a given day. While about one in three - 35percent - of older non-drivers living in the densest neighborhoodcategory walk somewhere on a given day, just 8 percent, or 1 in 13,of those living in the most sprawling or rural neighborhoods walk ona given day.

9

NHTS 2001, STPP Analysis

Isolation and Public Transportation Use

By Neighborhood Density, Non-Drivers, 65+

47%43%

55%53%

61%58%

5%12%

19%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1,000 or less 1,000-4,000 4,000-10,000 10,000-25,000 25,000 and up

People per Square Mile (Census block group)

Percent staying home on a

given day

Rate of

occasional

transit use


Regional Differences

Within the U.S., there is a wide range of relative isolation of oldernon-drivers. The worst two areas for isolation of older non-driversare in the central southern area of the United States - encompassingAlabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee; and Arkansas, Loui-siana, Oklahoma, and Texas. In these areas, over two-thirds of oldernon-drivers stay home on a given day (see map, above).

Providing options to non-drivers is crucial, and will be a growing prob-lem as the population 65 and over increases. Even now, for instance,an estimated 69,247 people aged 65 and over in the Houston metroarea do not drive - about 1 in 5. Policy-makers and transportationplanners need to ask, "How well is this population being served?"

A full table of areas, the states they contain, and the percentage ofolder people who do not drive in selected metropolitan areas is pro-vided in the Appendix. Information on public transportation serviceand funding in the same metropolitan areas is also provided.

10


Next Steps to Better Mobility for Older People

Communities across the country need to work hard to serve a growingolder population. Thinking now about how to provide safe mobilitywill save communities time and money in the future. Such planningnow for the mobility of people who will be 65 and older in twentyyears will help reduce unnecessary isolation and dependence in thefuture.

Transportation is one part of getting people to the places they want tobe. Community design and land use planning are the larger picture:creating places where older people are able to get around safely andeasily, whether by using public transportation or by walking to desti-nations that are closer to home.

Below are some recommendations for policy-makers that will helpmake transportation a part of the solution:

Public Transportation

• Public transportation: Substantially increase public transportation agen-cies' funding to provide better public transportation options for every-one. Public transportation agencies need support for improving their ser-vices to meet the growing needs of older people and people with disabili-ties in both metropolitan and rural areas.

• Senior transportation: Increase funding and flexibility for existing pro-grams that provide mobility for older people. Significant among these isthe Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 program for the elderlyand persons with disabilities, currently funded at $90.6 million per year.Explore alternatives, such as volunteer driver programs.

Planning and Coordination

• Better Planning: Communities andtransportation agencies need to startplanning now to integrate mobility forthe aging population into transporta-tion projects, services, and streets.Land use planning should be coordi-nated with transportationplanning.

• Improved Coordination: Supportcoordination among human servicesagencies, and between those agen-cies and transportation agencies atthe federal, state and local levels.

Roadway and StreetImprovements

• Complete Streets: Make streets safeand inviting to walk and bicycle as well

11

Photo: www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden


as drive. Too often, "incomplete" streets are built, where people only feelcomfortable in cars.

• Improve Roadway Design for Safety: Encourage states to implementthe Federal Highway Administration's design guidelines for older driversand pedestrians.

• Preserve Flexibility: Preserve the existing flexibility provisions in federaltransportation law that allow states and metropolitan governments touse transportation dollars for public transportation investments, pedes-trian and bicycle improvements, and other investments to support mobil-ity needs of older people.

• Support Transportation Enhancements: Transportation Enhancements,the only federal program that focuses specifically on pedestrian and bi-cycle safety and facilities, provides vital resources to these projects andshould be preserved.

12

Photo: Montana Department of TransportationTransportation for the Elderly and Persons withDisabilities (TransADE).


Notes on Methodology

Unless specifically mentioned otherwise, figures provided are based onSTPP's analysis of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS2001). The NHTS consists of a national travel survey and travel diarytracking daily mobility across a representative range of geographies andregions.

For the regional analysis, census divisions were used because of thesampling model of the NHTS in 2001. Information is presented at themetropolitan level as much as possible. Metropolitan areas include cities,their suburbs, and the counties that include them. State maps showingmetropolitan area boundaries can be found at: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/stma99.pdf

Sources

Cambridge Systematics, 2002. Expanded and National Transit InvestmentAnalysis.

CDC 2003. Preventing Obesity and Chronic Diseases Through GoodNutrition and Physical Activity. Accessed at: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/pe_factsheets/pe_pa.htm

CTAA, 1995. Atlas of Rural Public Transportation 1995.

Current Population Survey, US Census and US Bureau of Labor Statistics.Annual Demographic Survey, 2003. Accessed at: http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032003/pov/new02_100.htm

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Data collected and maintainedby National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Original data analysisby Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2004.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2001. Fiscal Year 2000 TrendsReport on the Use of Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with DisabilitiesProgram Funds.

FHWA: Staplin, L., Lococo, K., Byington, S., and Harkey, D., 2003.Guidelines and Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers andPedestrians. Federal Highway Administration.

Findlay, R. 2003. “Social Isolation Interventions,” Ageing and Society,vol. 23, part 5.

Foley, DJ, Heimovitz HK, Guralnik JM, and Brock DB. 2002. “Driving LifeExpectancy of Persons Aged 70 Years and Older in the United States.” In:American Journal of Public Health, vol. 92, no. 8 pp. 1284-1289.

Li, Guohua, Elisa R. Braver, and Li-Hui Chen. 2003. “Fragility versusexcessive crash involvement as determinants of high death rates pervehicle-mile of travel among older drivers.” In: Accident Analysis &Prevention, vol. 35, pp. 227-235.

Lyman, S, SA Ferguson, ER Braver, AF Williams. “Older DriverInvolvements in Police Reported Crashes and Fatal Crashes: Trends andProjections.” Injury Prevention, vol. 8, issue 2, p. 116.

13


National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) 2001. Data collected anddistributed by U.S. Department of Transportation. Original data analysisby Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2004.

Omnibus Household Survey, June 2002 and October 2003. Data collectedand distributed by Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Original dataanalysis by Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2004.

Pucher and Dijkstra. 2003. "Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling toImprove Public Health: Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany."American Journal of Public Health, vol. 93, no. 9.

Rosenbloom, S, 2003. The Mobility Needs of Older Americans:Implications for Transportation Reauthorization. Brookings InstitutionTransportation Reform Series.

Stowell Ritter, A., Straight, A., and Evans, E., 2002. Understanding SeniorTransportation: A Report and Analysis of a Survey of Consumers Age 50+,AARP.

Surface Transportation Policy Project 2003. Americans' Attitudes TowardWalking and Creating More Walkable Communities. Available at: http://www.transact.org.

US Census Bureau. American Housing Survey, 2001.

US Department of Transportation. 2002 Status of the Nation's Highways,Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance.

US Surgeon General, 2001. The Surgeon General's Call To Action ToPrevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. Accessed at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_vision.htm

14


Worst Areas of the Country for Isolation of Non-Drivers 65and Over, Ranked

gniknaR )noisiviDsusneC(aerA +56srevirD-noNemoHgniyatS setatS

1# lartneChtuoStsaE %96 eessenneT,ippississiM,ykcutneK,amabalA

2# lartneChtuoStseW %86 saxeT,amohalkO,anaisiuoL,sasnakrA

3# lartneChtroNtseW %95 ,aksarbeN,iruossiM,atosenniM,awoI,sasnaKatokaDhtuoS,atokaDhtroN

4# citnaltAhtuoS %75,aigroeG,adirolF,erawaleD,aibmuloCfo.tsiD

,aniloraChtuoS,aniloraChtroN,dnalyraMainigriV

5# lartneChtroNtsaE %35 nisnocsiW,oihO,nagihciM,anaidnI,sionillI

6# cificaP %84 ,nogerO,iiawaH,ainrofilaC,aksalAnotgnihsaW

7# dnalgnEweN %74 weN,sttesuhcassaM,eniaM,tucitcennoCtnomreV,dnalsIedohR,erihspmaH

8# citnaltAelddiM %64 ainavlysnneP,kroYweN,yesreJweN

9# niatnuoM %44 ,adaveN,anatnoM,ohadI,odaroloC,anozirAgnimoyW,hatU,ocixeMweN

Source: NHTS 2001. See also map, page 10, above.

15

Appendix

Driving among 65 and Over Population

Selected States

etatS +56srevirD-noN*emoHgniyatS

+56fotnecreP-noneraohw

srevird

+56revirD-noN)0002(noitalupoP

amabalA a/n %81 702,401

anozirA a/n %61 173,401

sasnakrA a/n %12 256,77

ainrofilaC %64 %22 239,287

odaroloC a/n %02 824,28

tucitcennoC a/n %82 740,231

adirolF %15 %91 013,935

aigroeG a/n %72 880,012

sionillI %75 %22 137,033

anaidnI a/n %91 552,341

awoI %26 %01 942,44

sasnaK a/n %31 897,74

ykcutneK %57 %32 189,411

anaisiuoL a/n %53 646,871

dnalyraM %86 %82 701,071

sttesuhcassaM a/n %12 519,671

nagihciM %05 %71 833,802

atosenniM a/n %31 357,47

ippississiM a/n %61 476,55

iruossiM a/n %22 687,261

yesreJweN %35 %72 947,992

kroYweN %34 %43 016,028

aniloraChtroN a/n %02 687,591

oihO %15 %31 234,791

amohalkO a/n %02 177,19

nogerO a/n %11 922,64

ainavlysnneP %94 %72 609,905

aniloraChtuoS a/n %12 037,201

eessenneT a/n %02 733,931

saxeT %66 %61 840,933

hatU a/n %8 869,51

ainigriV a/n %71 992,331

notgnihsaW a/n %71 943,011

nisnocsiW %35 %61 989,011

16

Appendix

Source: NHTS.*Data availability in NHTS only allows some state-level specification.

)ASM

C/ASM(

aerAnatiloporte

Msrevir

D-noN

gniyatS+56

emo

H

+56fotnecreP-no

Nera

ohw

srevirD

detamitsE

fonoitalupoP

+56srevird-no

N)0002(

ecivreStisnarT2002

ecivreSeuneve

R()s000()seli

M

sruoH

ecivreS56

nosrePreprev

Odna

launnAegarevA

,gnidnepStisnarTlaredeF,10-89

AS

MA

G,atnaltA

A/N

%23615,99

927,55871

940,355,421$

AS

MXT,socra

Mna

S-nitsuA

A/N

%01751,9

108,71591

041,527,51$

AS

MC

TC-

EM-

HN-

AM,ecner

waL-retsecroW-notso

BA/

N%91

888,041594,99

631286,309,551$

AS

MYN,sllaF

aragaiN-olaffu

BA/

N%32

947,14285,9

25851,773,01$

AS

MCI

W-NI-LI,ahsone

K-yraG-ogacih

C%75

%82634,872

161,512612

051,045,482$

AS

MC

NI-YK-

HO,notli

maH-itannicni

CA/

N%51

657,33980,81

87577,469,42$

AS

MC

HO,nork

A-dnalevelC

A/N

%9910,93

380,7388

730,703,05$

AS

MC

XT,htroWtroF-salla

DA/

N%61

435,66225,45

921737,160,981$

AS

MC

OC,yeleer

G-redluoB-revne

DA/

N%42

057,45701,74

502037,291,97$

AS

MCI

M,tnilF-robrA

nnA-tiorte

DA/

N%02

185,921061,84

57567,668,44$

AS

MIH,ululono

H%35

%13432,63

492,52512

135,659,52$

AS

MC

XT,airozarB-notsevla

G-notsuoH

A/N

%91742,96

024,16171

562,696,401$

AS

MNI,silopanaidnI

A/N

%31493,22

979,815

792,311,51$

AS

MSK-

OM,yti

Csasna

KA/

N%42

850,84488,11

95752,875,51$

AS

MZA-V

N,sageVsaL

A/N

%32610,34

923,22121

085,218,31$

AS

MC

AC,ytnuo

Cegnar

O-edisreviR-selegn

AsoL

%35%22

795,753832,432

541085,279,713$

AS

MC

LF,eladreduaLtroF-imai

MA/

N%72

095,351729,38

941301,842,901$

AS

MCI

W,enicaR-eekua

wliM

%25%91

268,04638,92

141102,183,72$

AS

MIW-

NM,lua

P.tS-silopaenniM

A/N

%51324,14

344,24941

048,353,37$

AS

MC

AP-TC-J

N-YN,dnalsI

gnoL-yesreJwe

Nnrehtro

N-kroYwe

N%84

%73032,420,1

614,128503

376,023,791,1$

AS

MC

DM-

ED-J

N-AP,yti

Ccitnalt

A-notgnimli

W-aihpledalihP

A/N

%62960,122

516,99911

214,138,441$

AS

MZA,ase

M-xineohP

A/N

%51436,75

786,9277

200,868,43$

AS

MAP,hgrubstti

PA/

N%23

485,431974,84

611667,701,39$

AS

MC

AW-

RO,

melaS-dnaltro

PA/

N%81

982,44650,24

471580,414,79$

AS

MYN,retsehco

RA/

N%02

957,72877,6

84312,637,01$

AS

MC

AC,oloY-otne

marcaS

A/N

%02962,04

342,5157

556,306,33$

AS

MXT,oinotn

Ana

SA/

N%91

869,23264,82

761127,584,62$

AS

MA

C,ogeiD

naS

A/N

%13279,89

203,74051

196,763,73$

AS

MC

AC,esoJ

naS-dnalka

O-ocsicnarFna

SA/

N%32

965,771814,591

052639,403,744$

AS

MC

AW,notre

merB-a

mocaT-elttaeS

A/N

%12116,77

204,49852

014,410,941$

AS

MLI-

OM,siuoL.tS

A/N

%12982,96

909,1359

091,824,68$

AS

MLF,reta

wraelC-grubsrete

P.tS-apmaT

A/N

%12024,79

313,8104

392,501,61$

AS

MC

VW-

AV-D

M-C

D,eromitla

B-notgnihsaW

%66%72

314,012713,661

612186,820,073$

AS

MLF,nota

Raco

B-hcaeB

mlaPtse

WA/

N%51

591,93-

-A/

N

Dri

vin

g a

mo

ng

65

an

d O

ver

Po

pu

lati

on

, Tra

nsi

t S

erv

ice,

an

d F

ed

era

l Tra

nsi

t S

pen

din

gS

ele

cted

Metr

op

olita

n A

reas

Sourc

e: N

HTS 2

001. M

etro

polit

an a

reas

gen

eral

ly incl

ude

cities

, th

eir

suburb

s, a

nd t

he

counties

they

are

in.


1100 17th Street, NWTenth Floor

Washington, DC 20036phone: (202) 466-2636

fax: (202) [email protected]

Documents

Linda Bailey Surface Transportation Policy Project … Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options was written by Linda Bailey, with editorial assistance provided by Michelle Ernst,