Changes in Household Vehicle Fleet Compositions & Policy Implications

1. Changes in Household Vehicle Fleet Compositions & Policy Implications Stacey Bricka and Trey Baker Texas Transportation Institute Presented at the 13thNational TRB Transportation Applications Conference May 11, 2011 -- Session 19 --

2. Why is this important? • The fuel tax is the primary source of funding for state and federal transportation programs • Fuel taxes are levied on a per-gallon basis, meaning that taxes paid per-mile increase as fuel efficiency decreases • If low income drivers are more likely to drive a low fuel efficiency vehicle, then there are likely to be equity implications

3. Why is this important? If low income drivers are more likely to drive a low fuel efficiency vehicle, then there are likely to be equity implications

4. Equity Implications • The benefitsprinciple • those who pay a tax should be the ones who benefit • those who pay equal amounts should receive equal benefit • The ability to pay principle • consumers of governmental goods and services should pay according their ability to pay

5. Research Questions • How has household fleet composition changed over time? • Vehicle Type • Vehicle Age • Fuel Efficiency • Are there differences based on income or minority status? • Are there differences at the state vs. national levels?

6. Approach 1995, 2001, and 2009 NHTS • National + Add-on Samples • Household Vehicles • 1995: 176,066,656 vehicles • 2001: 209,586,200 vehicles • 2009: 211,501,318 vehicles • Poverty levels defined according to US-HHS • Race is self-reported for the head of the household

7. National HH Fleet Composition

8. HH Fleet by Income At/Below Poverty Above Poverty

9. HH Fleet by Minority Status Non-Minority Minority

10. Vehicle Age

11. Vehicle Age by Income At/Below Poverty Above Poverty

12. Vehicle Age by Minority Status Minority Non-Minority

13. 2009 Fuel Efficiency by Vehicle Age

14. Preliminary Conclusions • Household Fleet Composition has changed over time. • We own 14% fewer cars and 12% more SUVs • HH at/below poverty experienced a similar shift, but also acquired 4% more vans • Minority HH experienced a stronger shift from car (16%) to SUV (14%)

15. Preliminary Conclusions • Household Fleets are aging.

16. Preliminary Conclusions • Possible Equity Issue for Households at/below Poverty Levels.

17. Future Research • Consider VMT • Consider subgroups • Single parent HH • Urban/rural HH • Continue to investigate regional/state differences

18. Thank you! Stacey Bricka – s-bricka@tamu.edu Trey Baker – r-baker@ttimail.tamu.edu