In spite of the critical importance of mobility for quality of life and economic well-being, the travel behavior of households without motor vehicles has received insufficient attention even though “carlessness” may bethe most vivid expression of mobility disadvantage in our car-centric society. Approximately 10.6 million (9 %) of U.S. households do not own a motor vehicle (car, pickup, van, SUV, or motorbike), including over one million in California. These “carless” households form two groups: (1) involuntarily carless households who are forced to live without cars, and (2) voluntarily carless households who chose to do so. Since one of the strategic goals of federal transportation policy is “to increase transportation choices and access to transportation services for all” it is essential to understand the travel behavior of households who are unable to own a motor vehicle. Indeed, many involuntarily carless households are experiencing economic hardship, disabilities, racial and age discrimination, or cultural barriers. Understanding the travel pattern of voluntarily carless households is also necessary to formulate policies aimed at decreasing vehicle use. Reducing personal vehicle use would help relieve congestion, decrease road accidents, improve air quality, cut emissions of greenhouse gases, and improve the health of people who switch to more active modes, such as walking and biking.

The trucking industry serves as the backbone of the nation’s economy. In 2018, approximately 3.5 million truck drivers were delivering over 70% of all freight tonnage in the United States, generating close to $800 billion in gross revenue annually.1 While 3.5 million truck drivers represents a significant number of jobs, it is not enough to satisfy demand. The trucking industry suffers from a chronic shortage of drivers. Nearly 70,000 additional heavy-duty tractor-trailer drivers in the United States were needed at the end of 2018, according to the American Trucking Associations. And COVID-19 has brought new challenges that may amplify or dampen the driver shortage and in turn impact supply chains. For example, what if a small percentage of long-haul truck drivers became ill? Would it cripple the industry? Would it significantly delay the delivery of essential medical supplies and equipment? New research from UC Irvine explored the challenges imposed by COVID-19 on truck drivers by conducting a literature review, looking at past crises, and interviewing academic and industry experts.

Health concerns and government restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic caused a sharp increase in telecommuting (i.e., doing paid work at home or possibly an alternate worksite). In addition to reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), decreasing energy use, and lowering emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHG), telecommuting may offer numerous other co-benefits, including increasing the worker pool, decreasing time and costs associated with travel, improving work-life balance, and decreasing stress. It may also stimulate greater use of non-motorized and active modes of travel (e.g., walking, biking, taking transit).

In this study, we examine if observed line-level changes in OCTA bus boardings could be partly attributed to AB 60, while controlling for differences in transit supply, socioeconomic variables, gas prices, and the built environment. Using fixed effects panel data models, we analyzed monthly boardings on different OCTA route classifications—local, community, Express, and station link routes—one year before (2014) and two years after (2015 and 2016) AB 60’s implementation.

Concerns about the environmental impacts of transportation have made reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) a policy priority. One way to decrease VMT is to decrease the length of commuting trips, and to get commuters out of their private vehicles. Unfortunately, the average one-way commute keeps getting longer in the U.S., increasing from 25.1 to 27.6 minutes between 2005 and 2019. The percentage of work trips made by private vehicle has also soared, jumping from 66.9 percent in 1960 to 84.8 percent in 2019. As commuting typically occurs during traffic peaks, it is a major contributor to congestion and air pollution.

Shared micromobility (e.g., e-scooters, bikes, e-bikes) offers moderate-speed, space-efficient, and “carbon-light” mobility, promoting environmental sustainability and healthy travel. While the popularity and use of shared micromobility has grown significantly over the past decade, it represents a small share of total trips in urban areas. To better understand shared micromobility ridership, researchers from across the U.S. and the world have analyzed statistical associations between shared micromobility usage and various explanatory factors, including socio-demographic and -economic attributes, land use and built environment characteristics, surrounding transportation options (e.g., public transit stations), geography (e.g., elevation), and micromobility system characteristics (e.g., station capacity). To understand what these studies collectively mean in terms of expanding shared micromobility usage, we conducted a meta-analysis of 30 empirical studies and then developed robust estimates of factors that encourage ridership across different markets.

In spite of their substantial number in the U.S., our understanding of the travel behavior of households who do not own motor vehicles (labeled “carless” herein) is sketchy. The goal of this paper is to start filling this gap for California. We perform parametric and non-parametric tests to analyze trip data from the 2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) after classifying carless households as voluntarily carless, involuntarily carless, or unclassifiable based on a CHTS question that inquires why a carless household does not own any motor vehicle. We find substantial differences between our different categories of carless households. Compared to their voluntarily carless peers, involuntarily carless households travel less frequently, their trips are longer and they take more time, partly because their environment is not as well adapted to their needs. They also walk/bike less, depend more on transit, and when they travel by motor vehicle, occupancy is typically higher. Their median travel time is longer, but remarkably, it is similar for voluntarily carless and motorized households. Overall, involuntarily carless households are less mobile, which may contribute to a more isolated lifestyle with a lower degree of well-being. Compared to motorized households, carless households rely a lot less on motor vehicles and much more on transit, walking, and biking. They also take less than half as many trips and their median trip distance is less than half as short. This study is a first step toward better understanding the transportation patterns of carless households.

To gain a better understanding of the current use and performance of free and reduced-fare transit pass programs, researchers at UC Irvine surveyed California transit agencies with a focus on members of the California Transit Association (CTA) during November and December 2019. Fifty-nine agencies, representing a broad cross-section of California transit operators, responded. Three quarters of respondents offered one or more free or reduced-fare transit pass programs in fiscal year 2018-19. While most respondents stated that free or reduced-fare transit passes increase ridership, many had concerns about the effect on their agency’s farebox recovery ratio, and to some extent on the fiscal health of their agency, though almost half of the respondents did not know the actual impacts. Those agencies offering student pass programs funded by student fees or employee programs funded by employers did not report any negative impact on ridership or on farebox recovery ratios. This confirms that free or reduced-fare transit pass programs structured like insurance programs (where a large group of potential transit riders—such as all students at a college or all employees in a large firm—periodically pays a lump sum to a transit agency while only a subset of that group actually uses transit) can be good for both riders and transit agencies. Free or reduced fare pass programs have an important role to play in transportation policy in California, but we should not ask too much from these programs. To achieve their full potential, they should be integrated into comprehensive policies to achieve California’s social and environmental goals.