Transportation

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 375–408

Sustainability and automobility among the elderly: An international assessment

  • Sandra Rosenbloom
Article

Abstract

In the next three decades there will a huge increase in both the absolute number of older people and in their percentage of the populationin almost all Western European countries, North America, and Australia. Most older people will have active lifestyles in which mobility and access play a major role and almost all older men and a majority of older women will be car drivers, used to the convenience and flexibility which the car provides.

Using data from the US, Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom, the paper shows that, in spite of cultural and policy differences, older people around the world are more likely to have a license, to take more trips, and to do so more often as the driver of a car than older people just a decade ago; they are also less likely to use public transit. These trends have a number of sustainability implications – the most obvious one is increased environmental pollution. For example, even though older people may travel less than younger drivers they may be polluting proportionately more because a) they are less likely to make as great a proportion of trips in public transit as younger people and b) the trips they do make may create more pollutants. In addition, older drivers may incur more wasted miles due to wayfinding errors and trip-scouting behavior. And when older people curtail their driving, younger family members may have to increase (or lengthen) their trip-making to provide needed services or additional transportation.

While this paper stresses the environmental problems posed by an aging population, effective strategies arise from a focus on a broader definition of sustainability. The most important approach is to accept the inevitable and work to make the private car "greener" and safer. New transit service concepts and strategic community and neighborhood design and service elements can complement the development of cleaner cars.

Although many of the potential strategies are not new, or can be expensive to implement, the convergence of environmental concerns with other problems arising from the automobility of the elderly – including increasing crash rates and serious loss of mobility among those unable to drive – may make these policies more politically viable than in the past.

driving cessation elderly mobility pollution sustainability transit planning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    US Agency for International Development, and US Department of Commerce (1999) WorldPopulation Profile: 1998, WP/98, by Thomas M. McDevitt, Washington, DC, February, p 2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    United States Central Intelligence Agency (1998) World Fact Book 1998, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    US Bureau of the Census (1997) Gender and Aging; Demographic Dimensions, International Brief, by Gist YJ & Velkoff VA, IB/97-3, December.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    US AID and US Commerce (1999) Figure 17, part three, p 33.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pucher J & Lefevre C (1996) The Urban Transport Crisis in Europe and North America (pp 46–48). McMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oxley P (2000) ‘The travel of older people in the United Kingdom’, in Transport and Ageing of the Population (pp 211–214). Roundtable 112, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosenbloom S (2000) ‘Report by the chair’, in Transport and Ageing of the Population (pp 5–42). Roundtable 112, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith DI (1998) ‘The elderly population’, Chapter 23, in US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau, 1997 Population Profile of the United States; Current PopulationReports, Special Studies, pp 23–194.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oxley (2000).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brög W, Erl E & Glorius B (2000) ‘Elderly people's travel choices in Germany’, in Transport and Ageing of the Population (pp 43–142). Roundtable 112, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenbloom S (1993) ‘Transportation policy options for the elderly and those with disabilities’, Prepared for Transit New Zealand, Wellington.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosenbloom S & Morris J (1998) ‘The travel patterns of older Australians in an international context: policy implications and options’, Transportation Research Record 1617: 91.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenbloom (2000).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosenbloom (2000).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenbloom & Morris (1998).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tacken M (1998) ‘Mobility of the elderly in time and space in the Netherlands; an analysis of the Dutch National Travel Survey’, Transportation 25: 379–393.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tacken (1998).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hjorthol AR & Sagberg F (2000) ‘Changes in elderly persons' modes of travel’, in Transport and Ageing of the Population (pp 177–210). Roundtable 112, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brög E & Glorius (2000).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosenbloom & Morris (1998).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brög E & Glorius (2000).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hjorthol & Sagberg (2000).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pucher & Lefevre (1996).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pucher & Lefevre (1996).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hook W (1999), ‘The political economy of post-transition transportation policy in Hungary’, Transport Policy 6(4) (October): 2017–2224.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (1993) Federal Test Procedure Review Project; Preliminary Technical Report, May EPA 3320-R-93-007.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ball K, Owsley C, Stalvey B, Roenker DL, Sloane ME & Graves M (1998), ‘Driving avoidance and functional impairment in older drivers’, Accident Analysis and Prevention 30(3): 313–322.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Strahan RF, Mercier CR, Mercier JM & O'Boyle MW (1997) ‘Personality structure of elderly drivers’, Perceptual and Motor Skills 85(2) (October): 747–755.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eberhard JW (1996) ‘safe mobility for senior citizens’, IATSS Research 20: 29–37.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ranney TA & Pulling NH (1990) ‘Performance difference on driving and laboratory tasks between drivers of different ages’, Journal of Gerontological Nursing 16: 12–15.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    For studies discussing the problems of older drivers in recognizing signs and markings see US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (1998) Older Driver Handbook: Recommendations and Guidelines, Pub. No. FHWA-RD-99-045; Owsley C et al. (1998) ‘Visual processing impairments and risk of motor vehicle crashes among older adults’, Journal of the American Medical Association 279: 1083–1088; Charman VN (1997) ‘Vision and driving — a literature review and commentary’, Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 17: 371-391, and Owsley C & Ball K (1993) Assessing visual function in older drivers, in Retchin SM (ed) Medical Considerations in the Older Driver; Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, vol. 92.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Burns PC (1998) ‘Wayfinding errors while driving’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 18(2) (June): 209.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Benekohal RF et al. (1992) Highway Operations Problems of Elderly Drivers in Illinois, Pub. No. FHWA-IL-023, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999) Safe Mobility for Older People: Notebook, Model Driver Screening and Evaluation Program, DTNH22-96-C-05140, Washington, DC, January 1999.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    US Bureau of the Census (1998) Gender and Aging: Caregiving, by Velkoff V & Lawson VA, International Brief, IB/98-3, October.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    US, US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999) Safe Mobility for Older Drivers, DOT HS 808 853, April, p 2.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ball, Owsley, Stalvey, Roenker, Sloane & Graves (1998).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hakamies-Blomqvist L & Wahlstrom B (1998) ‘Why do older drivers give up driving’, Accident Analysis and Prevention 30(3): 305–312.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Marottoli RA et al. (1995) ‘Consequences of driving cessation among elderly individuals’, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 43.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kostyniuk LP & Shope JT (1998) Reduction and Cessation of Driving Among Older Drivers; Focus Groups, UMTRI-98-26, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, July 1998.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schlag B, Schwenkhagen U & Tränkle U (1996) ‘Transportation for the elderly; towards a user-friendly combination of private and public transport,” IATSS Research 20(1): 75–82.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Oxley (2000) p 239.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rosenbloom S (2001) ‘The mobility of the elderly; there's good news and bad news’, prepared for Transportation in An Aging Society; A Decade of Experience Conference, Washington, DC. November.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rosenbloom S (2001) ‘Driving cessation among the elderly; when does it really happen and what impact does it have?’, Transportation Research Record, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kostyniuk & Shope (1998).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Marottoli RA et al. (1995) ‘Consequences of driving cessation among elderly individuals’, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 43.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Commission of the European Communities (1992) Medical, Psychological, and Behavioural Characteristics of Elderly Drivers, DG XIII, by Oxley P et al., Brussels.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1999) Transport Economics Research and Policymaking; International Seminar, Paris, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1999) Traffic Congestion in Europe, Series ECMT, Roundtable 110, Paris; Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Harvey GW (1994) ‘Transportation pricing and travel behavior’, in National Research Council, Curbing Gridlock; Peak-Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion, Special Report 242, Vol 2, pp 89–114. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Marshall S (2000), ‘Restraining mobility while maintaining accessibility; an impression of the “City of Sustainable Growth”’, Built Environment 25(2): 168–179.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Oakridge National Laboratory, Summary of Travel Trends, 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, by Patricia S. Hu and Jennifer R. Young, 2000, on www-cta.ornl.gov/npts, Tables 6, 8, 24 and Figure 10.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rosenbloom (2001) ‘The mobility of the elderly...’Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rosenbloom (2001) ‘The mobility of the elderly...’Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rosenbloom (2000).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mallett WJ (1999), ‘Long distance travel by low income households’, paper given at 1999 Transportation Research Board Conference, Personal Travel: The Long and Short of It, June 28-July 1, Washington, DC (available on FHWA website, NPTS page).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Nevine Labib Georggi and Ram M. Pendyala (1999) ‘An analysis of long distance travel behavior of the elderly and low income’, paper given at 1999 Transportation Research Board Conference, Personal Travel: The Long and Short of It, June 28-July 1, Washington, DC (available on FHWA website, NPTS page).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Evans EL (1999) ‘Influences on mobility among non-driving older Americans’, paper given at 1999 Transportation Research Board Conference, Personal Travel: The Long and Short of It, June 28-July 1, Washington, DC (available on FHWA website, NPTS page).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Evans (1999).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cerulli (1988).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hakamies-Blomqvist L, Hohansson K & Lundberg C (1996) ‘Medical screening of older drivers as a traffic safety measure: a comparative Finnish-Swedish evaluation study’, Journal of the American Geriatric Society 44(6) (June).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hakamies-Blomqvist, Hohansson & Lundberg (1996).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rosenbloom & Morris (1998).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rock A (1998), ‘Impact from changes in Illinois drivers license renewal requirements for older drivers’, Accident Analysis and Prevention 30: 69–74.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 1999 Status and Trends, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-454/F-00-002, Research Triangle, August on www.epa.gov/airtrends, February 2001.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Evans L (1991) ‘Traffic Safety and The Driver’, Chapter Three, Effects of Sex and Age (pp 19–43). Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Oxley (2000), p 234.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kreitzman L (1996) Licenced to Drive at 85? A Report on the Mobility Needs of Older People in the Next 25 Years, for the Help the Aged Foundation, London.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Benekohal et al. (1992).Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (1998) Older Driver Design Handbook; Recommendations and Guidelines, Pub. No. FHWA-RD-99-045, December, p 3.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Stähl A (1991) ‘Providing transportation for elderly and disabled in Sweden: experience gained and future trends’, Public Transport International 40(2): 180–201.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Stähl A (1992) ‘Mobility and accessibility for elderly and disabled people in Sweden’, IATSS Research 16(2): 96–97.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Stähl (1992).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    McLary JJ, Stähl A & Persich S (1993) ‘Implementation of service routes in the United States’, Transportation Research Record 1378: 21–17.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Transit Cooperative Research Program (1998) Transit Markets of the Future: The Challenge of Change, TCRP Report 28, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Transit Cooperative Research Program (1995) Attracting Paratransit Patrons to Fixed-Route Services, TCRP Project B-5, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Project Action (1995) Broward County, Florida: Transit Options Project-Development of Local Community Bus Services, for the Federal Transit Administration, by Russell Thatcher and Larry Harmon, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Transit Cooperative Research Program (1998).Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    (2000) ‘Summary’, in Transport and Ageing of the Population (p 250), Roundtable 112, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    US Bureau of Census (1996) Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 1995-2050 (p 9). Current Population Reports, P25-1130, February, Table F, ‘Population by Age: 1990 to 2050’, Middle Series.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Marcellini F et al. (2000) ‘The aging population and transport; a new balance between demand and supply’, in Transport and Ageing of the Population (p 151), Roundtable 112, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris, Table 3.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Blincoe LJ, ‘The economic cost of motor vehicle crashes, 1994’, NHTSA Technical Report, US Department of Transportation, www.nhtsa.gov/people/economic/Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Rosenbloom
    • 1
  1. 1.The Drachman InstituteThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations