USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Demographic & commuting trends in Florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Demographic & commuting trends in Florida
Alternate Title:
Demographic and commuting trends in Florida
Physical Description:
v, 106 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Floridiana Collection
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Commuting -- Florida -- Statistics   ( lcsh )
Urban transportation -- Statistics -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Population -- Statistics -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 103-105).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"February 1994."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 030159756
oclc - 30827593
usfldc doi - C01-00427
usfldc handle - c1.427
Classification:
ddc - 388.4/09759/021
System ID:
SFS0032449:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

DEMOGRAPHIC & CoMMUTING TRENDS IN FLORIDA Prepared by: Center for Urban Transpln14tion Research UniversW] of South Florida February 1994

PAGE 2

this page IS blank

PAGE 3

CONTENTS. Foreword ...... ............................................. ................... ................................................. v Section 1: Introduction ...................... ..... .................................... ......... ......... .......... ........ 1 Section II: Florida 3 Section III: Commuting Flows......................................................................... ... ............ 31 Section IV: FlofliS in the Tampa Bay Region ; .......... .... ............................. ..... 43 Section V: Implication s of Trends ................................................................................. 53 Appendix A: Florida's Metropolitan Area Trends ......... .......... .................... ................ .. 59 Appendix B: Florida County Commuter Flows ........ ... .. ........ .. ..... .. .... ......... ... .. ..... .... .. 77 Notes ... .... ...... ... ............................ .. ......... ......... ....... .. .. ... .... .. .. ....................................... 101 References ....................................................................................................................... 103 Census Variables and Universes .............................................................. ..................... 106 Contents iii

PAGE 4

this page IS blank

PAGE 5

FOREWORD. Denwgraphic&CommutingTrendsinF/oridaisthethirdofathree-bookseriespreparedbytheCenterforUrban Transportation Research (CUTR) in an effort to summarize and analyze demographics and travel behavior in Florida and the United States. The fU'St two publications focused on the compilation and presentation o f 1990 Census and Nationwide Personal Transportation Study (NPTS) data for use by planning organizations, transit systems, decisionmakers, and the business community throughout the state of Florida. No analysis or interpretation was included. The third publication is designed t o present and analyze trends and patterns in demographics and commuting. The previous publications are highlighted below: NPTS Derrwgraphics & Travel Behavior: A Comparison of Florida and the United States summarizes selected results of the 1990 NPTS. Comparisons are made between Florida and the United States to determine how Florida is similar to and different from the United States in selected demographic and travel behavior characteristics. Florida Demographics & journey to Work: A County Data Book summarizes selected results of the 1990 Census and focuses on demographics and journeyto-wor k characteristics for the United States, F lorida, and the 67 Florida counties. Similar to these previous publications, this report was prepared for transportation planners, decision makers, and the business community to as a resource that documents t rends and patterns in demographic and commuting characteristics within the state of Florida Florida trends are also compared with those of the United States . For additional information or copies of previous publications, please contact William L. Ball at CUTR Foreword .. Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampo, Florida (813} 974-3120, fox (813) 974-5168 Gary L. Brosch, Director CUTR Project Team: William L Ball, Project Manager Mitchcll P. York Suzi Dieringer Michael H artmann Review and comments from the fo!Jowing individuals are gratefuliy acknowledged: Dan Boyle, Patricia Henderson, Steven E Polzin, Joel Rey, Ron Sheek, Phil Winters v

PAGE 6

Rapid growth, budget con stnint$, and changing demognpbic and travel behavior chancteristics have re sulte d in significant challenges for transportation decisionmakers, planners and pructitioncrs throughout the state of Florida. In p articular, Florida's growing metropolitan areasarefmding it more and more difficult to plan for and =age the transportation consequences of this extenSive growth, particularly as it relates to peak-period travel. Despite recent data indicating that growth in Florida is slowing down, it continues to be substantial through 1990 and will likely continue for the foreseeable future. A more thorough understanding of comm uting patterns and trends will wtdoubteclly im prove the transportation planning prooess in Florida. This publication was prepated to assist tranSportation analysts and policymakers in their efforts to meet these challenges by presenting and analyzing trends in demographics and commuting patterns in Florida and the United States. The widespread distribution of this publication should prove to be an effective mechanism for disseminating information to many agencies and individuals who may not otherwise b.we the opportu nity 1.0 use such data in their tranSportation p l anning efforu. Unless otherwise noted, all data are derived from machine-readable data files or publications preJl'lfed and distributed by the Bureau of the Census. The content of the publication is summarized below. Section ll presents and discusses trends in population, demographic, and journey-to-work characteristics in F l orida and compares these trends with that of the United States. Population characteristics include total population, households, workers, household vehicles, and licensed drivers. In addit ion, various ratios are also calculated, such as household izc per house bold), workers per household, vehicles per houschold, and others Demogruphic trends are also presented, including gender, ethnic origin, Hispanic origin, age, education level, work disability, household income, and poverty sta tus. Finally, trends in journey-to-work charocteristics are presented. including place of work, Introduction INTRODUCTION mode choice, tntvel time, departure time, and vehicle occupan cy Th e suburbaoization of America over the past century has resulted in many changes in the daily lives of United States citizens, includingsigoificant changes in commut ing pttems and flows. In the put century, people moved to the suburbs, followed by busin= and, subsequently, em p loyment. This extensive suburbanization, in tum, has resulted in co mmuting suburbanization, with more and more work trips hav ing origins and destinations in the suburbs. The third section presents metropolitan area commut ing flows in Florida by illustrating the share of commuting between and within oentral cities, suburbs, and outside metro politan areas. Aggregated metropolitan worker flows are presented along with a more det2ilecllook at oom muting flows in each Florida metropolitan area While Section ill provides a foundation for understand ing general trends in metropolitan area commuting flows in F l orida, Section IV is designed to illustrate t h e l evel of detail currently possible for establishin g placetoplaoe commutin g flows using available Census data. This is aocomplisbed by presenting a case .rudy of oommuting flows in the Tampa Bay region. Det:Uled worker flows at the traffic analysis zone (T AZ) level are available for same urban areas in the Unite d States as part of the urban element of the Census T ransportotion Planning Package (CTPP) and will even tually b e available for all urban areas. However, prepa ration of the urban element for man y urban areas may n ot be completed for some time. As a result, data compiled from Summary Tape Fik4'10, P/;u;tofWork 20 Deszinations F.k may be of use until the urban demen t of the CTPP is available. The implications of changing demographics and com muting behavior are offered in Section V. Numerous issues are discussed, incl uding future demand for peak period travel, continued suburbanlzati on, understand-1

PAGE 7

ing travel behavior in genenl, and modal implications, among others. Appendix A provides the trend in population, demo graphic, and journey-to-work characteristies for each metropolitan area in Florida from 1980 to 1990. In addition, place of work destinations for each county, along with the number of workers traveling to that destination, are also provided in Appendix B. 2 This publication provides a comprehensive look at commuting trends and patterns in Florida and should prove useful to numerous organi.z2tions and individuals throughout the state, including planning agencies, tran sit systems, decisionmakers, the business community, and the genenl public. Introduction

PAGE 8

TIlls section presents trends in population demo graphic, and journey-to-work characteristics for Florida and compares these trends to those of the Uni ted States. The data are presented primarily t hrough tab les and figures; however, some discussion is provided as it relates specifically to trends in Florida. POPULATION CHARACTER IS T ICS Florida has experienced significant growth ov e r th e past 30 years in each of the selected population characteris tics presented in Table I, including population, house holds, workers, household vehicles, and licensed driv ers. In addition to presenting the absolute trend in each of these population characteristics for Florida, Tabl e 1 provides the percent change in ten-year increments as well as the percent change from 1960 to 1990. A series of ratios is also calculated using the absolute population characteristics. The same data are provided for the United States in Tabl e 2. The trends and current state o f these characteristics are sununarized in this section. Population-The rate of growth in Florida's population far exceeds the national trend As seen in Figure 1, Florida's population grew at a rate four times greater than the U nited States from 1960 to 1990. However population growth in Florida does show signs of slow200% 160% 120% 80% 40% 0% FIGURE 1 Population GroW1h Rates, Florida and United States (1960-1990) F lorida 161% United States FLORIDA Absolute Population Trends in Florida The population o f Florida increased from near l y 5 million In 1960 to nearly 1 3 million In 1990, an Increase of 161 pe r cent The number of h ouseholds grew at an even faster rate, rising from nearly 1.8 million In 1980 to 5.1 million in 1990 an Increase of 231 percent. The number o f workere increased from over 1.7 million In 1980 to nearly 5.8 million I n 1990, an Increase of 232 perce n t. The number of household vehicles Increased from 1.7 million In 1960 to 8 .1 million In 1990, an Increase of 382 percent. Li censed drivers Increased from 2.6 million in 1980 to nearly 9 million In 1 990, an Increase of 252 perce n t. ing. During the 1970s, Florida's population ;;,creased by 44 percent. Tills rate of growth decreased to 33 percent during the 1980s. During these same time periods, the United States population growth rate de creased from 11 to 10 percent. Households The number of households in Florida grew at an even faster rate than the population. From 1960 to 1990, Florida added over 3.5 million households, an increase of 231 percent. In contrast, the num ber of households in the United States in1960-70 1980-90 creased by 73 percent. Despite continued increases in absolute terms, the growth rate in the number of Florida households dimin ished during the 1980s. As Figure 2 depicts, the growth rate for Florida households d& clined from 64 percent from 1970 to 1980 to 37 percent from 1980 to 1990. In compari son, the growth rate for United States house holds declined from 26 to 1 4 percent during the same time period Florida Trends 3

PAGE 9

Populatfon Ch4111c:1ertlttc. Popula-tiOn Households Work.en Household vehicle& Licensed d""ers Per'soM per I\OUSeloOid Worktttpe;< Vehiieie$ per ho!JSehOicl l icensed drivers per houMhOicl UbOt totee partlcipatlor\ Veh\clN per ...... Peroent k.ens.ed ...... 4 TABLE 1 Florida Population Characteristics, 1960990 Pen:ent Chanp .... '4,95f,$60 1,550 ,044 1 ,74$, 044 1,874,599 2.55$.000 3.11 1.13 1 08 .... 55% ... 7>% 1t70 .... ,..., ... ,. 9,74$,324 12 937,926 3"4 2,284 788 3,74<1,254 5 1 34,869 4"4 2 ,47),2.58 3.98-4,83$ $, 794,4$2 42% 2,914,.2'93 5.878,172 8 ,091, 424 "" 3,614, 000 7.290.000 8 .9'92,000 42% 2 .90 2.55 ...... .)% 1.08 1.06 1.13 .... 1.28 1.5 2 1. 5 8 1 9% 1.58 1.95 1.75 .... 53% 80% "' 0 43 0 .5 8 0.63 2 7% "'' 95% 87% fila FIGURE 2 Household Growth Rates, Florida and United States (1960-1990) .... .. ,. 6 1 % .. ,. 102% 12% % 19% .... "'' 36% ,.,. 300'h Florida 231% 200% United States 100% 1960-70 1960-90 80 ..... 33% 161% 37% 231% 4 $% 232% 43% 362% 23% 252% .... % ... 0 % ... .... % .. n1a "' 7% 84% nla ,.,. Florida Trends

PAGE 10

TABLE 2 United States Population Characteristics, 1960-1990 Percent Change Populaflon Characterl&tles ... 1970 1080 1900 10 '1040 80-00 60-00 ......... ,., 179,323,175 203.211,926 226,545,805 24$ 7 09,873 13% 11% 10% 39% Househo'.ds 53,021,061 63,449 747 80,389.673 9 1 947,4 1 0 20% 2"" 14% Workel$ 84,655 806 76,652,389 96,8 17,.296 1 1 6 070,274 19% 26% 11)% 78% Houteh
PAGE 11

6 FIGURE 3 Worker Growth Rates, Florida and United States (1960-1990) 200% 100% Florida 232% l:l:l United States 1970-80 1960-90 FIGURE 4 Household Vehicle Growth Rates, Florida and United Slates (1960-1990) ) 382% 375% 300% 225% 75% 0% Florida United Statas 1950-70 1970-80 1980-90 1960-90 FIGURE ll Licensed Driver Growth Rates, Florida and United States (1960-1990) 3oo% r---"""'?;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;1----, Florida li:'il United Statas 200% 100% 0% 1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 1960-90 Rate of Growth Trends in Florida The population growth rate was over 37 percent from 1980 to 1970, nearly 44 percent from 1970 to 1980, and slightly Ieos than 33 percent from 1980 to 1990. The growth rate in the number of households wa 47 percent from 1960 to 1970, 64 percent from 1970 to 1980, and 37 percent from 1980 to 1990. The number of workers g,.w by 42 percent from 1960 to 1970, 61 percent from 1970 to 1980, and 45 percent from 1980 to 1990. The number of houoehold vehicles increaoed by 74 percent from 1960 to 1970, 95 percent from 1970 to 1980, and 43 percent from 1980 to 1990. The growth rate In the number of licensed drivers waa 42 percent from 1960 to 1970, 102 percent from 1970 to 1980, and 23 percent from 1980 to 1990. variables, peaking from 1970 to 1980 at 102 percent, and falling to 23 percentfrom 1980 to 1990. Figure 5 depicts licensed driver growth rates for Florida and the United States. Summary of Growth in Population Character istics Although signif icant growth contin ues in all population characteristics in abso lute terms for Florida, a review ofthe rates of growth in ten-year increments from 1960 to 1990 for each of the population characteris tics reveals a consistent pattern. As indicated in Figure 6, the growth rate in population, households workers, household vehicles, and licensed drivers all show higher growth rates during the 1970s, and lower growth rates during the 1980s. Although Florida contin Florida Trends

PAGE 12

FIGURE 6 Comparison of Growth Rates In Population Characteristics, Florida (1960-1990) Population Households Workers Household Vehicles ues to grow significantly, the rate at which it is growing is showing signs of diminishing, suggesting that Florida is perhaps getting closer to a point of saturation in growth. TRENDS IN' HouSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS IN fLORIDA Several household characteristics for Florida wereestab lished by calculating ratios with the previously discussed D 1960-70 1970-80 .1980-90 l!lli!l1980-90 population characteristics. Trends in these ratios are summarized below. Household Si2e Average persons per household in Florida decreased from 3.11 in 1960to2.46in 1990, a21 percent decline. Table 3 reveals that the decline in household size is due to an increase in the proportion of one-person households and a decrease in the proportion of 4+-person households. TABLE 3 Household Size Distribution, Florida (1970) Household Size 1970 1980 1990 1 person 19% 24% 26% 2 persons 35% 38% 38% 3 persons 16% 16% 16% 4+ persons 30% 23% 21% Total 100% 100% 100% Florida Trends 7

PAGE 13

8 FIGURE 7 Average Household Size, Florida and United States (1960-1990) 5.00 4 .00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 F lorida United States 1980 1970 1980 1990 FIGURE 8 Workers Per H ousehold, Florida and U nited States (1960-1990) 2.oo I Florida United States I 1.60 1.25 1.20 0.80 0.40 0 00 1960 1970 1980 1990 FIGURE 9 Vehicles Per Household, Florida and United States ( 1 960-1990) 2.40 r.::====;------'--__;,-1 Florida 1.80 United States 1.20 0 .00 1960 1970 1980 1990 In 1970, one-person househo l ds comprised 19 pe rcent of all households in Flo rida This proportion increased t o 24 percent in 1980 and t o 26 p e rcent in 1990. The size of United States households de clined from an average of 3.29 persons in 1960to 2.63 persons in 1990,adecreaseof20 percent Figure 7 compares the trend in household size for Florida and the United States from 1960 to 1990. Workers per Household After declining in the 1960s and 1970s, the average number of workers per household in Florida increased by six percent during the 1980s, re a ching the same level observed in 1960 a t 1.13 workers per househo ld This increase is particularly signific an t, given the decline in average house hold size over the same time period. A simi l ar trend is observed for the United States as a who le; however, as indicated in F igure 8 Flo r ida has consistently had fewer workers per household than the United S tates. Vehicles per Household' F lo rida households with multiple vehicles available have grown at a much gre ater rate than 0an d !-vehicle households A s a r esult, the percent of all households with more than one vehicle available increased from one-fourt h o f all households in 1960, to one-half of all F l orida households in 1990, as indicated in Table 4. The number of 0and vehicle households have subsequently decreased as a percen tage of all households. In 1960, 19 percent of all households did not have a vehicle available, and 58 percent of households had onl y one veh icle. The proportions of 0and vehicl e households decreased to 14 and 51 percent in 1 970, 11 and 44 percent in 1 980, and to 9 and 41 percent by 1990. The average num ber of vehicles per household increased from 1.08 in 1960 to 1.58 in 1990 for Florida and from 1.03 in 1960 to 1.67 in 1990 for the United States, as indicated i n Figure 9. The Florida Trends

PAGE 14

Trends in Household Characteristics in Florida Average household size (persons per household) decreased from 3.1 1 In 1960 to 2.46 In 1990 a decline of 21 percenL Ave r age perso n s per household decreased by 7 percent during the 1980&, 12 percent in the 1970s, an d by 4 percent In the 1980s. Workers per house h old decreased by 4 percent In tho 1960s and 2 percent In the 1970s before growing by 6 p e rcent during the 1980s Average ve hicles per household Increased f rom 1 .08 In 1960 to 1.58 In 1990, an Increase of46 percent. Ve hicles par h ousehold In c re ased by 18 percent from 1960 to 1970, 19 percent from 1970 to 1980, and by 4 percent from 1980 to 1990. L i censed drivers per household i ncreased from 1.651n 1960 to a h igh of 1 951n 1 980 and then declined to 1.75in 1990. growth rate in Florida is diminishing however, as vehicles per househo ld grew at a rate of 19 percent from 1970 to 1980 and 4 percent from 1980 to 1990. LicensedDriwrsper HouseholdThe nwnber of licensed drivers per househ old in Florida also has increased, from 1.65 in 1960 to 1.95 in 1980 but declined back to 1.75,in 1990 The United Stat es trend showed an increase in this ratio in each of the ten-year increments Figure 10 presents a comparison ofthis ratio for Florida and the United States. TRENDS IN POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS PER CAPITA IN fLORIDA The popula tion trends were also used to establish trends in characteristics per capita for Florida and the United States, including the labor force participation rate, the number of vehicles per capita, and the percent of the population with a drivers license. Labor Force Participation Rate -The increases in the working popu lation in Florida are not only attributable to the increase in the population, but are also a direct effect of the increases in labor for ce participation. Florida's labor force participation rate for persons age 16 and older increased from 55 percent in 1960 to 60 percent in 1990. In addition to popul ation growth, t he increase can be partially attributed to the increasing participation of women in the labor force. F igur e 11 depiets the trend in labor force participation in F lorida and the United States Vehicles per Capita -Vehicles per capita in Florida has increased significantly, from 0.34 in 1960 to 0.63 in 1990. Similarly, this ra ti o for the United S ta tes increased from 0.31 in 1960 to 0.62 in 1990, on increase of nearly 103 percent. The corresponding growth rates for t his ratio are presented for Florida and the United States in Figure 12. M with all of the population TABLE4 Vehicles per househofd None 1 2 or more Average vehicles p e r househotd Florida Trends Vehicles Per Household, Florida Distribution (1960-1990) 1960 1970 19% 14% 58% 51% 24% 35% 1.08 1 .28 1980 1990 11% 9% 44% 41% 4 5% 50% 1 .52 1.5 8 9

PAGE 15

FIGURE 10 Licensed Drivers Per Household, Florida and United States (1960-1990) 3.00 I Florida United States I 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.15 1960 1970 1990 1990 FIGURE 11 Labor Force Participation Rates, Florida and United States (1960-1990) I Florida United States I 80% 65% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1960 1970 1980 1990 Trends In Population Characteristics per Capita in Florida The labo r force participation rate Increased from 55 percent in 1960 to 60 percent I n 1990. From 1960 to 1990, vehicles per capita from 0.34 to 0.63, an increase of 84 percent. The number of veh icles per capita grew by 27 percent from 1960 to 1970, 36 percent from 1970 to 1980, and 7 percent from 1980 to 1990. The proportion of Florida's population having a drivers license Increased from 73 percent In 1960 to 87 percent In 1990. DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS D e mographic trends in Florida are presente d in T able 5, while the percent distribution of these trends are provided in Table 6. Char acteristics included in this table are g end er, ethnic origin, Hispanic origin, age, educa tion level work disab i lity, household in co me, and poverty status Demographic FIGURE 12 characteristics discuss e d previously growth continued in the recent decade but at a dim i nishing rate. Growth Rates In Vehicles Per Capita, Florida and United States (1960-1990) Percent L i censed Drivers The proportion o f Florida's population (age 16 and over) with a driver's lic ense increased from 73 percent in 1 960 to 87 p erc en t i n 1990. Similarly, this same ratio for the United States increased from 70 percen t to 86 percent over the same time period. The trend in percent licensed drivers is dis played in Figure 13 for F lorida and the U nited States 10 103% Florida Uni ted States 60% 30% 0 % 1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 1960-90 Florida Trends

PAGE 16

trends are also provided for the United States in Tables 7 and 8. The trends in demographic characteristics for Florida and the United States are summarized below Gender The male and female populations 100% in Florida grew at similar rates from 1960 75% through 1990, at approximately 160 percent. As a percent of all persons, the female 60% populationremainedvirturulythesamefrom 1960to 1990at Slto 52 percentofthe total 25% population. Ethnic Origin The population of Florida 0% has not shown significant changes in racial composition since 1960. The white population of Florida comprised 82 percent of all persons in 1960, and increased to 83 1990. The most significant change m the states rac1al composition has been in the African-American popula tion, which declined from 18 percent of all F l oridians in 1960 to 14 percent in 1990. Although showing cant growth in absolute numbers, all other still comprise less than four percent of the population 111 F lorida Figure 14 depicts the distribution of ethnic origin for Florida and the United States. Hispanic Origin-From 1980 to 1990, the numbe r of persons o f Hispanic origin in Florida grew ata faster rate than those persons not of Hispanic origin (83 versus 28 percent). As a percent of all persons, those of Hispanic origi n increased from 9 to 12 percent ofthe population of Florida and from 6 to 9 percent in the United States as a whole. Trends in this demographic characteristic are presented for Florida and the United States in Figure 15. Age Since 1960, the fastest growing age category in Florida has been the 65 years and older age group, increasing by 328 percent from 1960 to 1990. In comparison, the national growth rate for this age group was 89 percent The gwwth rate in Florida for this age group decreased from 79 percent during the 1960s to 71 percent in the 1970s and 40 in 198_0s. Neverthe less, this growth has resulted man share of the total Florida population from 11 percent m 1960 to 18 percent in 1990. Figure 16 presents the Florida Trends FIGURE 13 Percent Licensed Drivers, Flori da and United States (1960-1990) 1960 1970 1980 1990 distribution trend of selected age groups for Florida and the United States. Education LevelThe proportion of Florida's popula tion reaching"" education level of high school graduate or higher increased from 43 percent in 1960 to 74 percentin 1990. Similarly, tbissameproportionforthe United States as a whole increased from 41 percent to 75 percen t. The distribution of education level from 1960 to 1990 is presented in Figure 17 for Florida and the United States. Work Disability -Since a question on work disability was first included in the Census questionnaire in 1990, there are no trend data available for this variable. In 1990, approximately 13 percent of Florida's population age 15 andolderindicatedhavinga work disability. This same proportion was 12 percent for the United States as a whole. Median Household Income -Median household income in Florida increased from $4,722 in 1960 to $27,483 in 1990, an increase of 482 percent. Adjusted for inflation, this same measure of i ncome increased nearly 32 per cent, from $15,953 in 1960 to $21,028 in 1990. larly, this income measure for the United States m creased from $4,791 in 1960to $30,056 in 1990. WhC:O adjusted for inflation, incom e increased 16,186 m 1960 to $22,996 in 1990, an increase ofapproxunately percent. Median household income in Florida contmJl

PAGE 17

TABL E 5 Demographic Trends, Florida (1960-1990) Peree n t Change 1980 197 0 198 0 1990 Charaettrfstlu 60-70 70-80 80.00 $0.0 0 Gender Mal t 2,436,783 3 275. 571 4,675.626 6 ,261,719 34% 43'.4 3 4 % 157 % Femal e 2 5 1 4 ,777 3.513,872 5 ,070,698 6.676,207 40% 44% 32% 165% Ethn i c O ri g in Wh .. 4,063 881 5.719,343 8 ,1 84.5 1 3 1 0 749,285 4 1 % 43% 31% 165% African-Ameri can 880, 186 1,041 651 1 342 ,68.8 1,759,534 18% 29% 31'.4 1 00% 01he r 7 493 28, 449 2 1 9 ,1 2 3 429 ,107 280% 6 70% 96% 5 ,627% H ispa nic Orig i n Not H ispa nic n /a n/a 8 8 88,168 11,383, 783 n /a n/a 28% n /a H i $pa n i c n/a "'' 858, 158 1 574. 143 n ta nta 83% nla Age < 16 yea!'$ 1, 466.8 1 4 1 .874,098 2.034, 189 2.561,211 28% 9 % 26% 75% 16 to) 19 337, 487 452, 585 653, 9 2 5 650, 1 3 7 34% 44% -1% 93% 20 to 29 594, 415 899,613 1 55 1 .275 1 ,922.6 52 5 1 % 72% 2 4 % 223% 30 to 3 9 686.855 714,077 1,226.803 2,021 ,566 7% 72% 65% 203% 40t o S 9 1 1 1 1 ,403 1.500 7 7 9 2,028 ,907 2 ,733, 891 35% 35% 35% 146% 60to 64 22 1 ,4-57 358 92S 504.652 679,038 6 2 % 57% 20% 65 + 553, 1 29 969,368 1 ,667,573 2 ,369,431 79% 7 1 % 40% 328% EducatJon Level <9th g rade 1.066,616 1 .104, 113 1 101.429 842.81 1 4 % 0% 23% 21% 9th t o 1 2 t h g ra d e 567, 871 778 ,424 981.519 1,428.263 37% 28% 46% 152.4 High SChOOl grad 7 1 3,661 1, 2 1 9,216 2,189 ,5 72 2,679 ,235 7 1 % SO% 22% 275% Some college 275, 7 10 4 5 8 ,864 1 ,047, 471 2 ,312,404 66% 128% 121.4 739% 8aChCIO(S degree 144,90 8 2 5 0 ,522 533 452 1,062.849 73% 113% 99% 633% Gra d uate o r prof. degree 7 6,679 156,742 396.682 56 1 .756 104% 153% 4 2 % 633% Work O i sa biity With work disability n ta "'' nta 1 ,345,289 n/a n/a n /a n /a disability nla n/a nla 8 ,756,870 n/a n/a n / a n/a M ed ia n Houoe h old I ncome Nominal Income $4, 722 $7, 168 $14,675 $27 .483 52% 105% 8 7 % 48:2% l nl\ati0n adj u$le d $15,9$3 $18, 474 $17.809 $ 2 1 ,028 1 6% ...... 18% 32% P overty Status Above poverty l evel n1a 5 701,218 8 ,459,268 11 ,037,300 n/a 4 8 % 30% n/a Bekm poverty level nla 1,068.225 1,287 ,056 1 ,604,168 n /a 16% 25% n/a 12 Florid a Trends

PAGE 18

TABLE& Percent Distribution of Demographic Trends, Florida (1960-1990) Demographic Charac1eriatiu 1960 1870 1980 Gender Male 49 2% 48.2% 48 0 % Female 50.8% 61.&% 62.0% Eth nic Origi n 82. 1 % 84.2% 84.0% Afriean-AmOJiea.n 17.8% 15.3% 13.8% 01Mr 0.2% 0.4% 2 .2% Hispanic Origin Not HiSpaniC n/a n/a 91.2% Hlapanle .,. n/a 8.8% Age < 16 yeafS 29.6% 27.6% 20.9% 16 to t 9 6.6% 6 .7 % 6 .7% 20 to 29 12.0% 13.3% 15.9% 3010 3 9 19.5% 10.S% 12.6% 40to 5 9 22 .4% 22. 1 % 20.6% 601064 4 .5% 5.3% 5 .6% 65+ 11.2% 14.6% 1 7 .3% Education Level <9t h grade 37.5% 27.6% 17.6% 9ln t o 12th grade 20.0% 19.6% 15.7% High $ChOOI grad 25.1% 30.7% 3S.O% Some college 9.7% 11.6% 16.&% Bachelor's degree 5.1% 6.3% 6.6% Gradu ate or prof degree 2 7 % 4 .0% 6.3% Work D is.ab ility Wrth wo'fk d i&ab ility n/a nla nla No worK d isability n/a n/a n/a Poverty Statw Above poverty level nla 66.6% Below poverty level nla 16.0% 13.2% Florida Trends 1990
PAGE 19

TABLE 7 Demographic Trends, Unit e d States (19601 990 ) Demognphl e Percen1 ChaJl9 Chracttlflb .... 1570 .... .. .. 80 70.00 80 ..... Gen"" MOle 86.3.31, 494 98, & 1 2,192 1 1 0 05S, t 6 1 1 2 1,239, 4 1 8 12% 11% 10 % 31% 9() ,991,881 104.299 ,734 1 1 6 4 92,& 127. 470,455 15% 12% 0% """ E1hnlc Origin While 1SU31,732 1n.748,975 188,371.$22 1 9 9,68 8 070 12% 8% 8 % 28% Afrie:ai).Ame rlean 18,871 ,8$1 22,5$0,2h 26,49$.02'6 29,&aa,060 20% 17% 13% .... 01het 1 6 1 9 6 1 2 2.8$2 662 1 1 ,$70.1$8 10,031.1'43 78% 305% 83% 1 ,075% H ispaniC Orlgi'l "' "" 2 1 1 ,937,132 226,355,814 ... nla 7% nla Hisparc nla nla 1 4,6 0 8.673 22,354,059 ... "" 53% nla """ < 18 yeatS 5 8 ,542 ,789 61,929,085 55,350 .237 56 889 4$0 8% -11% 3% -3% 1 9 1 0,462,627 1 5 ,04 1 ,314 17 108 226 14,432,406 44% 14% 16% :18% 20 to 29 2 1 ,669,885 29,848 ,01
PAGE 20

.TABLES P ercent D istribution of Dem og r a phic Trends, United States (1960-1990) Demographic Chanu:teriatfcs 1980 1970 1980 Gender Male 49.3% 48.7% 48 6% Female 50.7% 51.3% 51.4% Elllnle Origi n White 88.6% 87.6% 83.1% African-American 1D.5% 11.1% 11.7% Ot het 0 .9% 1.4% 5.2% Hispani c Orlg1n Nol Hi$pan ic n/a nto 93.6% Hlspa.nlc nla nro 6.4% Age < 1 6 year& 32.6% 30.5% 24.4% 16 to 1 9 5.8% 7 .4% 7.6% 20to 29 12.1% 14.7% 1 8 .0% 30to 39 13 6% 11.1% 1 3.9% 4010 59 22.6% 22.2% 20.3% 60to 64 4.0% 4.2% 4.5% 65+ 9.2% 9 9% 11.3% Education LGvcl <9th grade 39 .7% 28.3% 18.3% 9th to 12th grade 19.2'4 19.4% 15.3% High school grad 24 .6% 31.1% 34.6% some college 8.8% 1D.6% 15.7% BachelOr's 4.6% 6.1% 8.6% Graduate or prof. degree 3 .0% 4.8% 7.6% Work O l sabllty With work diUblliCy nla n la n/a No w ork disabtlity nla nla nla Poverty Status Above powrty ie-.el n/a 88.6% 87.9% Bek>w poverty leVel n la 13A% 12 .1% Florida Trends 1890 4 8 .7% 5 1 .3% 80.3% 12.1 % 7 .7% 91 .0% 9 .0% 22.9% 5 .8% 16.2% 16.8% 2 1 .5% 4.3% 12.6% 10.4% 14.4% 30.0% 24.9% 19.1% 7.2% 12,1 % 87.9% 66.9% 13.1 % 15

PAGE 21

16 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% FIGURE 14 Ethnic Origin, Florida and United States (1960-1990) 1960 Florida 1970 1980 .White African-American O Other United States 3 % 1990 100% r--;;,..,------:;:::;--------------, 80% 60% 40% 20% 1 960 1 970 1980 1990 F I GURE 15 Hispanic O rigin, Florida and Un ited States (1960-1990) 100% .--9-1% ___ ....:.c= 88% United States 91% 80% 60% 40% 1980 1990 1980 1990 Florida Trends

PAGE 22

Demographic Trends in Florida (1960-1990) The male population increased by 3.8 million or 167 percent, while the female population I ncreased by 4 2 million or 185 percent. The white population grew by 165 percent, Afric:anAmeric:an by 100 percent. Tho numbor of persons of other races, including Native American, Eskimo, Aleut, Asian or Pacific Islander, and others, I ncreased from 7,4931n 1960 to 429,107 in 1990. Persons of Hispanic origin Increase d by 83 percent from 1980 to 1990, while persons not of Hispanic origin increased by 28 percent. From 1960 to 1990, the 65 years and over age group was the fastest g rowing age category, increasing by 328 percent. The 30 to 39 year age group was the fastest growing age category from 1980 to 1990, increasing by 65 percent. Persons w ith less than a ninth grade educational level decr-eased by 21 percent, while persons with some high school increased by 152 percent, high school graduates by 2 76 percent, persons with some college by 739 percent, persons with a bachelor's degree by 633 percent, and persons w ith graduate degrees by 633 percent. Median household income increased from $4,722 In 1960 to $27,483 in 1990. In nominal terms, this represents a grow1h of 482 percent. Median household income grew by a nominal rate of 52 percent in the 1960s, 105 percent in the 1970s, and 87 percent In the 1980s. Adjusted for inflation, median househ ol d Income i ncreased from $16,953 i n 1960 to $21,028 in 1990, an Increase of 32 percent. Persons living in households w ith incomes above the poverty level increased by 48 percent during the 1970s and 30 percent during the 1980s Persons living In households with Incomes below the poverty level increased by 18 percent during the 1970s and 25 percent during the 1980s. ues to be lower than that of the United States. Figure 18 presents t he trend in adjusted median household i n come for Florida and the Un i ted States. Puverty Level. Sl>%h
PAGE 23

35% 28% 21% 14% 7% 0% .. 0> v 0 ... -50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% .. i .. i I! -i l! 5 .. l! 18 F IGUR E 1 6 A g e Distribution, Florida and United S tate s (196 0-1 990) Florida Un i ted Slates 0> ... s 0 ... B; : s .s s g + ., ... 35% 28% 21% 14% 7% 0% .. 0> 0> --... v s s ... 0 -... I 1960 1970 D 1980 II!I!IS 1 9 9 0 I FIGU R E 1 7 Education Level, Florida and United States (1960-1990) ., ... 0 s 0 ... Flori da 50% United Stat e s 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% f ! I f a t f i .. .. i I! J t .. I 2 -I 1 0 Q. 0 1 -0 41 u X i> .l! 5 e i .. r "' l! I 1960 1970 D 1980 II!I!IS 1990 I : s 0 ... ; + ., .. ll' l a Florid a Trends

PAGE 24

F I G UR E 18 Inflation-Adjust e d M e d i a n Househ o l d Income, F l orid a and U nited States ( 1960-1990) summarizes the extent of all personal travel in Florida and the United States. The average number of person trips was nearly the same for the United States and Florida, but the average person miles per day was almost three miles greater for the United States t han for F l orida. This represents approxima t ely 1 ,000 more annual person miles of travel p e r capita for t he United States than for Florida. 1 960 F lorida States 1 970 1960 1990 F IG URE 1 9 P overty L e v e l Status, F lorida and United States (1960-1990) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 970 Income > poverty level FL lneom > povorty level U.S. 0 Income < poverty level FL < poverty level U.S. 1 980 1990 trips and traveled approximately 62 billion vehicle miles in 1990. Based on NPTS population estimates, this equates to 770 annual vehicle t rips and 5 ,967 annual vehicle mil e s per person or2.11 v ehicle trips per p erson and 16.35 vehicle miles per person each day. In terms of person trips in 1990, F l orida recorded nearly 12 billion trips, r epresenting a total of 1,140 annual person trips per capita and 3.12 trips per day. In addi t ion, Florid a' s popula t ion traveled approximately 98 billion person miles. This computes to 9,451 annual miles of trave l for every person five years and o l der and an average of almost 26 person miles per day. T a ble 13 Flo rida T r e n d s The aver.oge daily vehicle trips traveled was slightly greater in Florida than the United S tates. Ho w ever, United StateS travel is characteri7..ed by a longer average vehicle trip length and, therefore, aver age daily vehicle miles were greater for the United State s than for Florida. Trip Purpose In 1990 one out of five perso n trips in Florida was a work trip. Social/ recreational purposes represented a relatively larger portion of person trips, at approximately 25 percent The journey-to-work trip represe n ted a slightly l arger portion ofFiorida' s person miles, as over 22 percent resulted from the commute. Social/ recreational trips accounted for a larger component of per son miles in F lo rida at 34 percent Tab le 14 summarizes trav e l by t rip purpose in Florida and the Uni ted States. CoM MUTING TRENDS A discussion o f commuting trends is provided below, including place of work, mode to work, travel time t o work, departure time to WO!k, and private vehicle occupancy. Place of Work Commuting outside an individual's home county has become incteasingly more common in Florida, increasing from 6 percent of all workers in 1960tonearly 15percentin 1990. Incontras t ,commut ing o utside the home county is even more common in 1 9

PAGE 25

TABLE 9 Journey-to-Work Trends, Florida (1960-1990) Joumoy-to--Work Prtent Chang 1960 1970 1t8Q 19!10 Charattllrtttl 60 70-80 80-80 8<)-8(1 Plaoe or Wor1< Worked in home county 1,558 ,111 2 ,053,793 3 ,157,939 4,958,.240 32% 54% 57% 218% Worked outside home 91,87 9 198,351 357.987 833,21 2 116'4 81% 134% 812% cou nty Plaee of wofte not reported 95,054 22 1,112 4 1 ,564 nla 133% -81% nla nla ModetoWo111. Private auto or carpool 1 ,240,665 2,099,436 3 557,675 5 ,286,567 69% 70% 49% 326% D rive alone n la nla 2.751,259 4,468.021 nla nla 62% nla Carpool nla nla 806 416 818,546 nla nla 2% nla Walk 128,645 118,601 146, 421 145,269 .S% 24% -1% 13% Public transportation 101 ,05 1 106,730 106 .546 116,352 6% 0% 9% 15% Work at home 88,738 59,876 s.e.na 132,084 -33% -2% 125% 49% Other means 93.001 88,813 108,98 7 11<4,130 5% 23% 5% 23% Travel Time to WOff< Le$$ than 10 minute$ nla nla 611,036 768,607 nla nla 26% nla 1 o to 19 minutes nla nla 1,380,673 1 ,908.310 nla nla 36% nla 20 to 29 mlnu le& nla nla 866.785 1,236,778 nla nla 43% nla 30 t o min utes nla nla 722 .745 1 ,172.060 nla nla 62% nla 45 more minutes nla nla 345,155 576,613 nl a nla $7% nla Worke d at home nla nl a 5&.n8 132,084 nla nla 125% nla Departure Time to WM 1 2 : DOto 4 :59a.m nla nl a nla 126,9 01 nla nla nla nla 5 :00 t o 5 :59 a .m. nla nla nla 283,702 nla nla nla nla 6:00 to 6:59 a.m. n la nla nla 1 120,718 nla nla nla nla 7:00to 7:59a.m. nla nla nla 1.843,369 nla nla nla nla 8 :00 to 8 :59a.m. nla nla nla 1,066,549 nla nla nla nla 9:00 to 9:59a.m. nla nla nla 3-41,737 nla nla nla nla 10:00 to 10:59 a.m. nla nla nla 123,2<9 nla nla nla nla 11:00to 11:59a.m. nla nla nla 80,9-48 nla n1a nla nla 12:00 lo 3:59p.m nla nla nla 343,816 nla nla nla nla 4:00to 11 :59p.m. nla nla nla 351,379 nla nla nla nla Wort(ed at horne nla nla nla 132,084 nla nla nla nla Prtvate Vef'llckl Occupancy D rive alo n e nla nla 2 751,259 4 468.02 1 nla nla 62% nla 21)8rtiOn carpool nla nla 579,82 5 660,172 nla nil 1<% nla 31)CI'$0ft ea f'POOI nla "' 132,$25 99,518 nla nla -2S% nla 4-pertion+ carp oOl nla nla 94 ,066 56.$56 nla nla -37% nla Other means nla nla 420,732 507.885 nla nla 21% nla 20 Florida Trends

PAGE 26

TABLE 10 Percent Distribution of Journey-to-Work Trend s Florida (19 60 199 0) ChalKterlstlce 1160 1970 1080 .... Place of WOf1C. Wor1
PAGE 27

TABLE 11 Journey-to-Work Trends, United States ( 1960-1990) Joumty-to-WOttc Percent CMnge Charac:t:ertedea 1960 1970 1910 1990 &0-70 70-80 80-00 1 0-00 Place of Work Worked In hOme c:ounrv 52 8 12,017 57,464 606 nia 87.587,877 9% n/a nia 66% Worked outside home 8 985.588 1 3 648 172 nia 27,482 .597 52% nta nia 206% county P lace of wort< not reported 2.858.200 5 699.611 nia n/a 99% n/a n/a n/a Macht t o Woric. Private auto Of earpool 41. 368,062 5 9 722 550 81,2 58 .496 99.592 932 ... ,. 38% 23% 1 41% Drive alone nJa n1a 6 2 ,193 .449 84,215 298 nia nia 35% nla CarpoOl n/ a n/a 19,065 ,047 15, 377,634 n/a n/a 9" n/a Walk 6 416,343 5,689,819 5,413,2<18 4,488 886 -11% -5% -17 % -30% Public transportation 7,806 932 6,810,458 6.175.061 6.069 ,589 -13 % -9% -2% -22% Work at home 4 ,662,750 2 6$5, 1 44 2.179,863 3 .4<>6, 025 .. 2% 19% 56% -27% Other means 1 ,619.&42 1 ,944,41 8 1 590,628 1,512,842 20% 18% -5% -7% Trave l Time to Wort< less than 10 mlnut:K n/a nla 16.871 .572 18 ,257,92 1 nla nia 8% nla 10 to 19 m l nutn nla n/a 31.846 602 36,980 181 nta n/a 16% nla 20 t o 29 m i nutes nta nla 18,849 .280 22,436 930 nla nta 19% n/a 30 to minutes n/a nia 1 5 996,009 20.053,109 n/a n/a 25% nia s or more minutes nla nla 1 0-92 3 ,652 13.9 36.108 nla nia 28% nil Worked at h ome nil n/a 2,179,863 3,406 ,025 n/a n/a 56% nta Depanure Time T o WOt1C 12 : 0 0to 4 :59 a m nla n/a n/a 2 .7.7 88 n/a n/a n/a nil 5:00 to a m n/a n/a n/a 7, 145 .948 n/a nla n/a nla 6 :00 to 6 :59 a m nl a nla nla 22,820,464 nla n/a n/a n/ a 7: 0 0 to 7:59a.m. n/a n/a nia 35,346,620 nia n/ a nil nia 8 :00 to 8 :59 a .m. n/a nia nla 18,867 326 n/a nta nla nla 9 :00 to 9:59a.m. nia n/a nil 5.792 .355 nla nla ,,. nla 10 :00to 10:59a.m nla nla nia 2 ,2.49, 960 n/a n/a nil n/1 1 1 :0010 1 1:59a.m. nil nia nla 1 1 67,633 nla nia nil nla 12:00to 3 :59p.m. n/a nla nla 7,985 160 n la nla nia n/a 4:001o 11: 5 9p.m n/a nil nia 7 561.297 nla nia nla n l a Won:ed a t home n/a nia n/a 3.406.025 nia nia "'' n/a Prtvate V ehlce OCOJpaney Drive atone nla nia 62,193.449 s-.215 ,299 nia nia 35% nil 2-person carpool nia nla 1 3 303,70 1 12. 078,176 nla nla -9 % n/a 3-pe:rson carpool n/a n/a 3 360.781 2,001,378 nia nil -40% nil 4-person carpool nia nla 2 ,400,56.5 1.298,08 1 nia nil -46% n/1 OlhermNns nla nil 1 5 358,800 15, -4n,342 nla n/ a 1% nla zz Florida Trends

PAGE 28

TABLE 12 Percent Distribution of Journey-to-Work Trends, United States (1960-1990) J ourney-toWork Charattertetica 1960 ,1$70 1880 1880 Place of Wotk Worked in home county 85.5% 80.8% nla 76.1% Wotked outside home c:ountv 14.5% 19.2% nla 23.9% Place o f work n o t reported nla n la nla nla Modo to Wort< Pri\lale auto or carpool 66.9'.4 n.7% 84.1% 86.5% Drive alone nla nla 64.4% 73.2% CarpoOl n/a n/a 19.7% 13. 4 % Walk 10. 4% 7 .4% 5.8% 3 .9% P ublic transportatiOn 12 0% 8.9% 6.4% 6.3% Work at home 7.5% 3.5% 2 3% 3.0% Other means 2.6% 2.5% 1.6% 1.3% Time to Wort< LeM than 1 o minute$ nla nla 17.5% 15.9% 10 to 19 minutes nla nla 32.9% 32.1% 20 to 29 n*tutea n/a n/ a 19.5% 1 9.5% 30 to 44 minutes nla n/a 16.5% 1 7.4% 46 or more minutes nla nla 11.3% 1 2 .1% Wott.ed at home nla n/a 2.3% 3.0% DEPARTURE TIME TO WORK 12:00 to 4:59a.m nla n/8 nla 2.4% 5 : 0 0 to 5:59a.m. n/a n/a n/a 6.2% 6 : 0 0 to 6 :59a.m. nla nla n/a 19 .8 % 7:00 to 7:59a.m. n la nla n / a 3 0.7% 8:00 to 8:59a.m. nla nla n/a 16.4% 9:00 to 9:59a.m. nta nla nla 5 .0% 1 0:00to 1 0:S9 a .m. nla nla nla 2 0% 11: D0to 11: S9a.m. nla nla n/a 1.0% 1 2:00to 3 : 69p.m. nla nla nla 6.9% 4:00to 11:59 p.m nla nla nla 6.6% Worked at home nla n/a nla 3.0% PRIVATE VEHICLE OCCUPANCY DriYO nla nl a 64.4% 73.2% 2-person carpool nla nla 13.8% 1 0.5% 3-person carpool nla nla 3 .5% 1.7% 4person earpool n l a nla 2..5% 1.1% Other means n la nla 15.9% 13 .5 % Florida Trends 23

PAGE 29

JOURNEY-TO-WORK CHARACTERISTICS IN FLORIDA (1960-1990) Florida's population made 7.97 billion vehicle trips and 11.80 billion person trips In 1990. In making these trips, Florida's population traveled 61.76 billion vehicle miles and 97.82 billion person miles In 1990. In 1990, one out of five person trips In Florida waa for the journey to work. The proportion of Florida workera commuting outside their home county Increased from approximately 6 percent in 1960 to nearly 15 percent in 1990 The number of workere using the private vehicle as the main means of transportation to work (driving alone and rldeaharing) increased from 1.2 million In 1960 to 5.3 million In 1990, an lncl"4taae of 328 percent. The mode share Increased from 75 percent to 91 percent over the aame time period. From 1980 to 1990, the number of workers driving to work alone Increased from 2.8 million to 4.5 million, a growth rata of 62 percent. The share of work travel for driving alone increaaed from 69 percent In 1980 to 77 percent in 1990. The number of workers carpooling to work grew from 806,416 in 1980 to 818,546 In 1990, an Increase of 2 percent and a decline in mode share from 20 percent ln 1980 to 14 percent i n 1990. The number of workers walking to work grew from 128,645 In 1960 to 145,269 in 1990, an increase of 13 percent. The walk to work mode share for these two years was 7.8 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively. The number of workers uaing public transportation as the main means of transportation to work Increased 15 percent from 101,051 workers In 1960 to 116,352 workers in 1990. The resulting mode share for the work trip declined from 6.1 percent to 2.0 percent over this same time period. From 1960 to 1990, tho number of workers working at homo increased from 88,738 to 132,084, a growth of 49 percent. The work at home share decreased from 5 4 percent In 1960 to 2.3 percent in 1990, but increased In tho moot recent decade from 1.5 percent in 1980 to 2.3 percent in 1990. The average travel time to work for workers in Florida increased from 20.90 mlnutee in 1980 to 21.35 minutes in 1990, an increase of just over 2 percent. Seventy percen t of Florida workers depart to work between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00a.m. Vehicl e occupancies declined eignificantly from 1980 to 1990, as the share for driving alone to work Increased from 69 percent to 77 percent, while all categoriee of carpooling (2-peraon, 3 person, etc.) showed de-clines over the same time period. the United States as a whole, increasing from nearly 15 percent in 1960 to 24 percent in 1990. MeansofTransponation to Work-It is imponant to note that the Census questionnaire asks for the respondent's main means of tr.utsportation to work last week. Therefore, the question captures the primary method of transportation only and reflectS an indiv idual's employ ment situation only for that particular week. 24 Journey-to-work modes are presented in five categories, including private auto, publi c tr.utsportation, walking, other, and working at home. Private auto includes workers driving to work alone and ridesharing. Ridesharing was not clearly identified until the 1980 Census, resulting in only two data pointS for this particular mode. Public transportation includes the use of motorbus, trolle y subway, ferry, and elevated or Florida Trends

PAGE 30

TABLE 13 O verv iew of Personal Travel, Florida a n d United States (1990) Person nav el category Florida United Statea Person m ile $ (in biliOns) 97.82 2,3 1 5.30 Per&on trips (In billions) 11.80 249.60 Vehicle miiM (In billions) 61.76 1 ,409.58 Vehlde k ips (in bllions) 7};7 158.93 Average person m il es per day 25.89 28.56 Average person tri p s per day 3.12 3 .08 Average v&.hlcle m i les pe.r day 16 .35 17.39 Average vehi cle bips per day 2.11 1.96 TABLE 14 Distribution o f Trip Purpose, Florida and United States (1990) I Florida Trtp Purpose """"" T rips Work 20% Soci a l o r recraaflonal 25% Famify o r Personal 2 1% Snopplng 21% School or Church 10% Other 3% Total 100% surface rail. Other means of transportation include the motorcycle, bicycle, taxi cab, and o ther modes. In t erms of absolute growth in the number o f workers using eac h mode, the au tomobile showed the greatest and most consistent growth of all modes to work. The number of F lorid a workers using the private auto as thei r primary m eans of trnnsportario n to work in creased from 1.2 million in 1960 to 5.3 million in 1990, representing an increase of 326 percent However, as the growth in the number of workers in Florida de clined in the 1980s,so did the growth rate in the number Florida Trends United States Person Person Person MI'-S T rips Milos 22% 22% 27% 34% 25% 35% 19% 22% 19% 12% 19% 11% 6% 11% 6% 7% 2% 2% 100% 100% 100% of p ersons using the automobile as their means of t ransportation to work. The use of the private auto increased by approximately 69 percent in both the 1960s and 1970s, but slo wed to 49 percent in the 1 980s. Growth rates in the use of all other modes fluctuated over the 3Q-ycar time period. These variations are presented in Figure 20 Walking to work decreased in the 1960s by 8 percen t, then grew by 24 percent in the 1970s, and declined by 1 percent in the 1980s The use of public t ransit as the primary means of transportation 25

PAGE 31

FIGURE 20 Growth Rates in Number of Workers by Journey-to-Work Mode, Florida and United States ( 1960 1990) Florida -=-------, Private auto or carpool Walk Public transportation Work at homo Other meana -$% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% I 1960-1970 1970-1980 D 1980-1990 I United States ,.-------Private auto or carpool Walk Public tranaportation Work at home other means 75% -25% 25% 50% 75% to work had an erratic trend as weU. Public transit usc grew in the 1960s by six percent remained virtu.Uy the same during the 1970s, and increased by nine percent in the 1980s. The number of persons working at home declined by 33 percent from 1960 to 1970 and then by two percent in the 1970s. However, from 1980 through 1990, the number ofpenonsworking at home i ncreased by 125 percent. 26 The predominant means of transponation t o work from 1960 through 1990 has bee n and continues to be the private automobile. The use of the au tomobile in F l orida for this trip purpos e has increased from 75 percent of workers in 1960 to 91 percent in 1990. In comparison, this same trend increased for the U nited States from 67 percent in 1960 to near l y 87 percent in 1990. With the exception of working at home, aU other Florida Trends

PAGE 32

modal alternatives have shown declining shares of work travel. The journey-to-work shares for these alternative modes are discussed below in the conteXt of how they compare to the United States. The United States and Florida have experienced dimin ishing preferen>S for ridesharing. In 1990, approxi mately 14 percent of Florida's wor kers carpooled com pared to 13 percent for the United States. This is down from a 20 percent share for both the United States and Florida in 1980. Walking to work declined as a share of all modes in both Florida ""d the United States from 1960 to 1990. In Florida, the proportio n of those walking declined from 8 percent in 1960 to approximately 3 percent in 1990, while declining from 10 percent to 4 percent for the United States. Public transportation in the United States and Florida has experienced declines in journey-to-work share from 1960 to 1990, and Florida continues to lag behind the national transit mode split. In the United States, the proportion of workers using public transportation as their primary jour n ey -to-work mode declined from nearly 13 percent in 1960to just overS percent in 1990. Similarly, this same trend is observed for Florida, where the transit share fell from over 6 percent to 2 percent. As a share o f all United States workers, working at home declined from nearly 8 percent in 1960 to 3 percent in 1990, while the work at home share in Florida decreased from just over 5 percent to approxi mately 2 percent. Despite this decrease, Florida has experienced an increase in the work at home share in the Florida Trends most recent decade, from under 2 percent in 1980 tO greater than 2 percent in 1990. Figure 21 presents mode split trends for the journey to work in Florida and t he United States. Trawl Time to WorkStarting with the 1980 Census, estimated travel time to work was asked of workers on the Census questionnaire. It is important to note that this measure of travel time to work is an estimate made based on the perception of each respondent which, in many cases, may be much different from reality. As indicated in Figure 22, the average travel time to work in Florida increased from 20.90 minutes in 1980to 21.35 minutes in 1990, an increase of over 2 percent, while travel time in the United States as a whole increased by 3 percent, from 21.70 in 1980 to 22.40 in 1990. Time to Work-Departure time to work was first asked in the 1990 Census. As a result, there is no tre nd for this commuting characteristic In 1990, 70 percent of the workers in Florida reported their depar ture time to work between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Similarly, 67 percentoftheworkers in the United States reponed leaving during this time period. Figure 23 presents the number of workers by departure time for Florida and the United Stares. Private Vehicle Occupancy-This particular commuting characteristic refers to the use of private vehicles only and, therefore, excludes all other commuting alterna tives. Figure 24 presents the trend io vehicle occupancy for Florida and the United States from 1980 to 1990. The data indicate that the carpooling share is declining across the board, regardless of the size of the carpool. 27

PAGE 33

28 FIGURE 21 Distribution of Journey-to-Work Mode, Florida and United States (1960) Private auto or carpool Walk Public transportation Work at home Other means 0% 25% Private auto or carpool Walk Public transportation Workathoma Other means 25% Florida .1960 01980 m 1990 50% United States .1960 01980 ll 50% 75% 75% 100% 100% Florida Trends

PAGE 34

FIGURE 22 Travel Time to Work, Floridaand United States (1980 1990) 30 20 10 0 12: 00 to 4:59a.m. 5:00 to 5:59 a.m. 6 : 00 to 6:59 a.m. 7 : 00 to 7:59 a m. 8:00 to 8:59a.m. 9:00 to 9:59 a m. 10:00 to 10:59 a m. 11:00 to 11:59 a.m. 12:00 to 3 :59p.m. 4:00 to 11:59 p.m. Worked at home 0% Florida Trends I F lorida United States I 22.40 1980 1980 FIGURE 23 Departure Time to Work, Florida and United States (1960-1990) Florida United States 7% 14% 21% 28% 35 29

PAGE 35

30 FIGURE 24 Private Vehicle Occupancy, Florida and United States (1980-1990) Florida 80% 77% 60% 40% 20% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3..person .._.person+ other means I 1990 1990 1 United States 80% 73% 60% 40% 20% 4% 2% 3% 1% 0% Ot1ve alone 2-peraon l-pen,on ....,_rson+ Other mHns Florida Trends

PAGE 36

The sub urbanization of America over the past century has resulted in many ehanges in the daily lives of U.S. citizens, incl u ding significant changes in commuting patterns and flows In the past century, people moved to the suburbs, followed by bll$inesses and, subse quendy, employment. This extensive suburbanization process has in turn resulted in thesuburbanization ofthe commute, where the predominant commuting pattern is from suburb to suburb. The purpose of this section is to present and analyze trends in commuting flows for the state of Florida. The magnitude of commuting flows between and within central cities, suburbs, and outside metropolitan areas was compiled for 1980 and 1990 to observe how flows have changed over this decade. The section begins with a disc,ssion of the methodology used to measure com muting flow patterns ove r time. This is followed by a general discussion of the suburbanization of America and how it has led to the suburbanization of the com mute. Finally, the analysis of aggregated metropolitan area commuting flows in Florida is presented, followed by a more-detailed look at commuting flows in eaeh Florida metropolitan area. METHODOLOGY Jurisdictional measurement is the methodology selected for determining and analyzing commuter flows in Florida. Jurisdictional measurement involves popula tion comparisons of geographical units, or jurisdictions, over time. To iden tify commuting flow patterns, juris dictions must be established to measure the flow of work trips within and amon g these jurisdictions. This analysis measures commuting flow patterns based on the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and its geo graphical components. A MSA is defmed by the Census Bureau and, in theory, represents one or more counties having a high degree of economic and social dependence. MSAs hving more than one million persons can be divided into primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs). The combined Commuting Flows area then can be referred to as a consolidated metr opoli tan statistical area (CMSA). As a result of the 1990 Census there are now 18 MSAs and two PMSAs in Florida. These two PMSAs (Miami -Hialeah and Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano Beaeh) combine to form the only CMSA in the state. The 20 MSAsl PMSAs are presented in Table 15, along with popula tion, area, and population density (persons per square mile). Two new MSAs were established as a result ofthe 1990 Census and are included in the table (Ft. Pierce MSA, Naples MSA). Hereafter, MSAs and PMSAs will be jointly referred to as metropolitan areas. A metropolitan area can be divided into two geographic components, the central city and suburb. Central cities are defined by the Census Bureau and are typically t he largest cities within the metropolitan area. The suburb is the remainder of the metropolitan area Ideally, measurement of worker flow data into the central business district (CBD) would provide a more accurate representation of commuting flows; howe ver, given Census data lim i tations, these more-detailed data are not yet available. In addition, origins outside metropolitan areas cannot be deftned using c urrendy available Census data. Using the available Census geographical units, commuting flows can be measured with six major flows from placeof residence to place of work, as listed below : suburbto-suburb suburb-to-central city suburb-to-outside metro area central city-to-central city central cityto-suburb central cirytooutside metro area Figure 25 illustrates the possible commuting flow pat terns. Jurisdictional measurement was chosen for this analysis primarily t o illustrate how Census data can be used to establish commuting flows in metropolitan areas. The 31

PAGE 37

TABLE 15 1990 Florida Metropolitan Statistical Areas MSAJPMSA Tampa/St. Petersburg/Clearwater M iami F ort Lauderdale Jacksonvill e West Palm Beach/Boca Raton/Delr ay Bd1 Lakeland/Wmter Haven Melboumetr itusville /Palm Bay Daytona Beach Pensacola Fort Myers/Cape Coral Sarasot a Fort Pleree TaUahassee Bradenton Gainesville Oca l a Naples F ort Walton Beach Panama City compilat ion of metropol i tan orca data can the n be aggregated to establish metropo l itan area commuting flows at the statewide l eve l. It should be noted tha t there are two major limitations 1990 1990 Area Popu l ation Population (square miles) Density 2,067,959 2 ,554 810 1,937 ,094 1,945 996 1,255 ,488 1 ,209 1 038 1,072,748 2,538 423 908,727 2 ,636 344 663, 518 2.034 4 24 405 382 1,875 216 398,978 1,018 392 370 712 1,106 335 344 ,406 1 ,679 205 335,113 804 417 277,776 572 466 251,071 1,12 8 223 233,598 1,183 197 211,707 74 1 266 204,111 1,167 175 194 ,833 1,579 1 23 1 52,099 2 ,025 75 143 ,776 936 154 1 26 ,994 764 166 where central city boundaries happen to have been drawn many years ago. Fo r this reason, dire<:t comparisons between m e tropol i tan areas should not be made. to the use of ju ri sdictional measurement : (2) Time series comparisons can be imprecise as many central city boundaries move outward as popula tion and e mployment expand. A3 a result, it is ne<:essary to choose jurisdictional boundaries at a specific point in time and then adhere to those boundaries throughout t he study period. This (1) This type of measure does no t pe r mit care ful 32 cross-sectional comparisons. It can mean very little if one metropolit2Il area has a large p ropor t ion of popu l ation l iving or working in the central city since this difference may be the result of Commuting Flows

PAGE 38

FIGURE 25 Commuting Flow Patterns COUNTY A COUNTVC (!) suburb-to-suburb 0 suburb-to-central city 0 suburb-to-outside metro area Other MotropoiHan Area 0 central city-to-central city 0 central city-to-suburb (!) central city-to-outside metro area souree: Pisarski commuting In America: A National Reporl on CommutJng Patterns and Trends, p. 39. analysis makes every effort to avoid this problem lation, suburbanization of the marketplace, and by keeping boundaries as consistent as possible suburbanization of employment. between 1980 and 1990 (using 1980 definitions). Table 16 includes all areas classified as metropolitan areas in 1980, along with the counties and central cities that comprise each metropolitan area. In order to make consistent comparisons, 1990 metropolitan areas are adjusted to reflect 1980 boundary definitions. As a result, the two newly-established metropolitan areas referred to previously arc excluded from the analysis. Since the 1990 data are available at both the county and the place level, it is relatively easy to aggregate the data using the 1980 definition. Pisarski used this methodol ogy to establish nation:U commuting flow trends.' Mills and Hamilton also presented a similar technique when gauging suburbanization over time. SUBURBANIZATION OF AMERICA The suburbanization of America can be characterized by three phases, including the suburbanization of popu-Commuting Flows THREE PHASES OF SUBURBANIZATION In every decade since 1920, suburban population in the United States has grown at a faster rate than that of central cities.' People living in the suburbs quickly grew tired of traveling to central cities to shop for goods and services. This resulted in the suburbanization of the marketplace or the "malling of America. "10 As the marketplace evolved in tbe suburbs, the demand for workers increased significandy over time, resulting in the suburbanization of employment. At the same time, numerous other factors helped facilitate suburban growth, including the creation of extensive transporta tion (highway) networks, widespread availability of the automobile, and public policies encouraging home own ership, as wdl as rising living standards and changes in consumer preferences." Each of tbese tbree phases is summarized below. 33

PAGE 39

TABLE 16 1980 Florida MSA Boundaries MSAJPMSA Counties Ce n tral Cities Bradenton Manatee Bradenton Daytona Beach Volusia Daytona Beach Ft Lauderdale/Hollywood Broward Fort Hollywood F ort Myers/Cape Coral Fort Myers. Cope Coral Fort wanon Beach Okaloosa Fort Waon Beach Gai nesvine Alachua Gainesville Jacksonville Baker. Clay, Duval, Nassau, St. Johns Jacksonville Lakeland.I\Mnte r Haven Polk lakeland, Winte-r Have n Mel boumeffitusvllle/Cocoa Brevard Melboume. Titusville, Cocoa Miami Dade Miami Ocala Marion Ocala Ortando Orange. Semi nole. Osoeola Ortando Panama C i ty Bay Panama City Pensacola Escambia, Santa Rosa Pensacol a Sarasota Sarasota Sarasota Tallaha ssee WakuD a Ta\lallasse e Tampa/St. Petersburg Pasco, Pinellas. Hi!l s boroug h Tampa, St. Petersburg West Palm Beach/Boca Raton Palm Beach Suburbanization of PopuLttion -F i gure 26 depicts the suburbanization of metr opoli t an area population in 10. year increments from 1950 to 1990. The suburban popu lation surpassed central city population sometime in the 1950s, and t his gap continued to grow thro ugh 1 990 Nearly 43 percent of met ropo litan orea popula tion lived in the suburbs in 1950. This increased to nearly 78 percent in 1990. Suburbanization of the MarketpLtceAs peop l e contin ued to move and live in the subu r bs, the demand for conveniently l ocated goods and services has inc reased over t ime. Sometimes referred to as the "mailing of Ameri""' the suburbanization of the marketplace was and is a l ogical followup to the s uburbani:z.ation of the population. "Firms followed t he population to the suburbs, both to provide services to suburban res ide nts 34 Wast Palm Beach and to t ake advantage o f lower suburban wages and land costs ... 12 Figur e 27 rep resents the distribution o f office space between the central city and outs id e the central city. Due to data l imita t ions, office space is used as a proxy for t he marketp lace for goods and services. The proporti o n of office space located outside the central city has significantly increased from 25 percent in 197 0 to 57 percent in 1984.0 Suburbanization of Employment -As a resul t of the subu rbanizati o n of the mar k etpl a ce the demand for employees in t he suburbs has grown substantially over time. Figure 28 presents the distribution of employ ment betw ee n the central city and suburb in selected metropo li tan areas of the United State s. Approximately Commuting Flows

PAGE 40

FIGURE 26 An entire section in the publication Suburbanlzatlon of Population In Metropolitan Areas of the United States was devoted to the compilation and analysis of coounuting flow character istics. The primary conclusion is that the dominant flow pattern for the com100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1950 Central City 1960 1970 711% mute is now the suburb-t
PAGE 41

FIGURE 28 Suburbanlzatlon of Employment, Selected Metropolitan Areas of the United States sents the F l orida tre n ds in commuting flows from 1980 to 1990. Commuting flow data for metropolitan areas are aggre gated and analyzed to provide a statuS r eport on metropolitan commuting in the state as a whole. In addition, the presenta tion of aggregated data is followed by a more-detailed look at commu ter flows for each metropolitan area within the state. 1oo% r-----7"'-----r-----., C.n1ral City 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 70% AGGREGATED METROPOLITAN AREA CoMMUTING Ftows 1980 1970 1980 F igure 30 s howsthe relative market shares of the six commuting patt e rns for F lorida in 1980 and 1990 The dat a are compiled by aggreg ating Florida' scommuting flows Source : MiU.s and Hammon Urban p 1$4. The "traditional" suburb -to -centralcitycommu t e also doubled in absolute tenns, gaining o ver 6 million worke -rs> and i nc r easing i t s share from 16 percent to 19 percent of total flows lntntsuburban commuting flows i ncreased from 11 million to over 25 million workers, resulting in a rise in its share from 28 percent to 38 percent of all commut in g flows Commuting flows t o jobs outside the metrofor e .. ch of F lorida's metropolitan areas, resulting in a sto.tew ide look at metropolitan commut ing flows. T h e following summariles the state of m e t ropoli tan com m u ting flows in 1990: The market share of the suburb to-suburb com mute increased by nearly 5 percent, from 40 percent in 1980 to nearly 45 percent in 1990. Similar to national patterns, t his type of commute F IGURE 29 politan area also grew, increasing the flow share fro m 4 perc ent to 7 per Share of Total Increases in Commuters by Commute Flow, 1960-1980 ecn t '5 FLORIDA TRENDS IN COMMUTING FLOWS National trends i n commu t ing flows reviewed in the pre vious section set the stage for a more-detailcdandcurrentlook at commuting flows in t h e metropolitan areas of the state of F l orida. This section pre 36 ..--r.. c-entJal Clty-to..C.ntJal City Cenllal Clty-to.SuburlO 58% Suburb-to.SuburlO Suburl04o..C.nlla1City SOurce: P i$arsk.l, Commuting I n America: A Nationtl Report on Commutin g Patlerns snd Trends p. 43, Commuting Flows

PAGE 42

Market share for the cenFIGURE 30 Metropolitan Area Commuting Flows in Florida, 1980, 1990 tral city-to-outside MSA commute pattern re mained virruallythesame between I and 2 percent. Central CltytoC
PAGE 43

The number of workers commuting from central city-to-suburb increased by 54 percent, from cen tral city-to-outside MSA by 45 percent, and from central city-to-central city by 34 percent. Surprisingly, the commute pattern showing the highest growth is t h e suburb-to-outside metro politan area flow, which increased 125 percent from 1980 to 1990; however, to put this in per speCtive, this commute flow on ly has a 6 percent share of all me tropolit an commuting flows in Florida. METROPOLITAN AREA CoMMUTING FLOW SHARES Table 17 presents worker flow shares for each metro politan a rea in Florida With few exceptions, each area is consistent with the aggregated metropolitan area commuting patterns. The suburb-to-suburb commute pattemisthedominantflowin 16of20 MSAs The four exceptions include: T allahassee, Gainesville, Jackson ville and Ocala MSAs. Possible explanations are pro vided below. Tallahassee MSA The composition of employment in the Tallahassee MSA is largely government workers since Tallahassee is the state capital. As a resul t t he suburb-to-central city commute pattern still d o minates as a majority of workers travel to the central city to their government jobs. GainewilleMSA The UniversityofFloricb is located in central Gainesville, which accounts for the large per centag e of trip patterns destined for the central city. Howeve r, there has been an increase of approximately 38 6 percent in suburb to-suburb trip shares from 1980 to 1990 (IS to 2 1 percent). This suggests that jobs are moving to the suburbs Jacksonville MSA Jacksonville is another unique area. Jacksonville has the highest central city-to-central city trip pattern of all the F lorida MSAs. This is more a funetion of the large central city boundary, which almost entire l y encompasses Duval County. In addi tion the surrounding counties which are included in the Jacksonville MSA are relatively undeveloped. As a result, t h e majority of workers live and work within the central city. Ocala MSA Ocala exemplifies the condition that most Florida MSAs were in ten years ago. The data for Ocala's trip patterns show that suburbanization i s tak ing place. However i t is lagging behind most of the other Florida MSAs. In 1990, central city-to-central city trip patterns fell over 7 percent while suburb-to-central city trip patterns rose almost 8 percent. This indicates that the population is sh ifting. An increase of 2 percent occurred from 1980 to 1990 for suburb-to-suburb trip patterns. It is probable that jobs will follow and, as a result, suburb to suburb trip patterns will continue to mcrease. ABSOLUTE GROWTH IN COMMUTING FLOWS Table 18 shows the number of workers using each conunute pattern in 1980 and 1990, while Table 19 presents the percent change in number of workers over this same time period. In general, commuting patterns are simila r for each of Florida's metropolitan areas. Commuting Flows

PAGE 44

&' !! !! "' ... "' <&:1 "' 10 MSAIPM SA Bradenton Dayton a Beach Fort LauderdaJe Fort MyersiCs.pe Corel Fort Pierce Fori Wak o n Beam Gainesville Jadcsonvllle LakelandNVinter Haven Melbo u r nafrrtusvilleiPalm B ay Miam i Naples Ocala 01 1ando Panama Cly Pensacol a Sarasota Tallahassee Tampa/St. Petersburg/Clearwater w Palm Bch/Boca Raton/Delray Bch AlL Fl.ORIOA MSAs Table 1 7 Work e r F l o w Shares b y MSA (198 0 1990 ) suburb-tocentral city-tc> central c i ty to.suburb c e ntral city central clly to-suburb 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 1990 34. 07% 36.06% 29 .10% 2 2.78% 12.91% 9.20% 6 .20% 7 46% 50. 00% 49.57% 21.66% 1 6.09% 1 4 .90% 1 1 .36% 5.32% 4 .96% 36.16% 4 2 .20% 21.99% 19. 90% 1 7.01% 11.77% 7.01% 6 33% 27.96% 32. 52% 32.51% 23.31% 27.63% 25.70% 6 .57% 9.50% nla 59.47% nla 13.04% nla 7.52% nla 4.64% 56. 58% 65.0 1 % 19. 33% 14.23% 9.93% 5 69% 9.05% 9 .03% 14.90% 21.36% 29 .41% 3 2.30% 4 2.17% 32. 65% 7.50% 6 30% 13.62% 1 5.01% 9.99% 12.68% 69.15% 65.54% 3.06% 3.28% 49 .53% 51 06% 23 1 4 % 16. 19% 13.77% 10.93% 7.50% 1 0.77% 44.85% 46.45% 17.90% 2o.&2% 18. 15% 15.11% 15. 24% 12 57% 44.65% 53A4% 30.99% 25.56% 13.8 1 % 9.70 % 6 6 1 % 6.43% nla 54.73% nla 29.94% nla 7.02% nla 2 .87% 2 7.03% 29.09% Jll.53% 36.42% 2 4 .80% 17.47% 6.00% 4.23% 50.73% 54.70% 27.74% 25. 68% 11.02% 10. 13% 6 .40% 5 81% 28.64% 36.40% 35.51 % 34. 77% 24.77% 17.17% 6.56% 7.23% 5 2.53% 54. 36% 23.23% 23.15% 10. 58% 8 64% 8 .31l% 6 91% 37.95% 45. 05% 2 8.99% 26.20% 21 38% 12.96% 4.70% 5.66% 13.83% 1 3 1 1 % 33.79% 30.32% 40.59% 49.55% 7.29% 3 35% 41.92% 49 18% 21.49% 21.99% 26.7 5% 19.29% 6 .68% 6.33% 52.3 1 % 47.29% 21.46% 24 01% 12. 45% 12 53% 6.44% 6.40% 39.85% 44. 90% 2 4 .11% 22.51% 22.97% 18.50% 6.7 1 % 6 34% suburb-to central clly outside M SA MSA 1980 1990 1980 1990 15.12% 20 5 2 % 2.60% 3 .95% 6.98% 15 24% 0.95% 0 .76% 13 .63% 16 36% 3.97% 3.43% 4.17% 7.02% 1.13% 1 .95% nla 14.37% nla 0 .96% 4 .39% 5.27% 0. 7 1% 0.78% 3.12% 5. 4 5% 2.91% 1.94% 1 64% 1 .6 1 % 2.53% 1 .69% 5 0 1 % 9 23% 1 .06% 1 .82% 2 86% 3 87% 1.01% 1.38% 3 30% 4 34% 0 .44% 0.54% nla 4 79% nla 0 .65% 1 99% 9 49% 9 .64% 1.31% 3.47% 3.08% 0.64% 0 39% 3 .16% 3 82% 1 .36% 0.61% 4. 7 4% 6.28% 0 66% 5.19% 8 .2 1% 1.79% 1 93% 2 64% 1. 96% 1.86% 1 68% 2.55% 2.72% 0.61% 0.50% 5.2 1 % 7 .15% 2 1 3% 2.63% 4 81% 6.40% 1.55% 1. 35% II

PAGE 45

Q 3 3 &: .. 11:1 MSA/PMSA ---... ...._ F'Ott Myetsteape Coril F' All FlORIDA MSAI: Table 18 Number of Workers by Type of Commute Flow (1980, 1990) aubutb IUbUrtl.tO central cfty-to-C.nttal C:lty to-.uburb untral dty c.ntr1l city tOtUbutt:l .... .... .... ... .. .. ltto ... .... :SO,IXW 1),8 $$ 19, S1e 8 0$7 1,00< 2.9 1 0 $ 430 ...... 1 5 ,0$1 11,52:Z 71,683 12.020 17, 420 ...., 7 ,SW 136,<$3 2 .... 152 ...... 117,010 64.,1 4 1 ot.201 ...... 37.,232 19.864 "' "' 2:l,.075 33,089 1t,t14 3e ,4H .... 13,.483 n/a n/a 1 3,122 n/a 7 .... n/a <,GGG 25,t82 uee ..... IG,064 4,421 4,022 4 ,027 6 ,387 8,718 19,886 1 7, 205 29,713 24,874 30,0.. .. 388 5 ,809 39,603 6$,$20 28,040 56,281 20t,08 S 2110, 8)1 a.ooo 1 4 ,5-43 .$8,10$ 15, 9).5 2 7 1 1 27 .247 ' 1$S 8 795 1 8 124 4 7,.27 6 t$,1$5 11, ... 31. 793 \1, 121 77,U7 18,050 23,0)4 200.<50 4 7 4.,54$ tte.171 22e. M 1 tl,S$2 00.1 .. -57, 000 n/a 3t,nt n/o 20,116 n/a 4 7 11 n/8 U126 10,406 2U88 1 1 753 28,244 8 ,5o< t2. e.u: 2,311 3,10 7 140 ,196 304,942 711, ... 144,283 30, $79 &8,482 17, 749 32.40$ 10,&07 20,970 1 3.153 20,031 Sl,174 8,889 2.430 4,14$ 57,086 t3;&62 2 5,2-40 $5,625 11t4" U ,HO 9,025 10,628 24,$26 50 8t5 11,738 29 ,<128 1 3,1 15 1 4 ,5$7 ..... 6,357 1 ,873 15,3 73 n .eu ...... ,.. ... M.l25 5,103 S,t31 231 ,06 4Ct .ns tte .-"2A 201 ,113 1 4 7 ,1 3.728 318 ... 1,826 $ ,025 1,700 t ,7at 4 783 8 ,0'23 7,368 7 ,<82 a 112 ...... 1,245 .... ).0 12 7 100 1 ,00S 2.520 20, ... 38,500 2,111 .n "' >.222 ria ... .. 8, 875 3,700 ... S1,142 17 153 1,780 2,17 3 1,171 2 201 505 ... 5,154 U87 871 1,023 3 ,353 9.21 8 1,160 2 184 1 ,0 2.l2& uo:s 1 .... 1 4.007 Z U 7 4 3 377 4 ,5&4 10,100 77, 1 7 1 4 41 8 .... 153,113 3-42,450 49.229 72, 2st

PAGE 46

&' .. .. :s lEI "" Table 19 Percent Change In the Number of Workers by Type of Commute Flow (1 980-1990 ) IISAIPIIISA -... ...,.._ otntrw1 ............. tNUI:I&Ift. c.-city central city CO..Utlurb callbide MSA 883.47% 43.3'"' 30. 48'% 120 ,$6% 148.60% Oeytona 79.10 % 49 .40% 38.03% 68. 80% 294.$$% Fort l.Midetdalt 8U6% 41.08-% 7.88% 40. 7&% 84.67% Fort My9rs/Cape Coral 132..42% 43.40% 86.02% 188, 96% 236.81% Fort Pieroe nle n/a .,. nla nle Fort Wahoo Beach 82. 62% 18.97"% 4.03% ... ..,. 90. 79% Galnesrile 125 80% 73.05% 2U7% >2.38% 175 34% -01.22'!4 83.81% ,...,ee" s:J.AD% 47--0.31'!< 1 S.171' IOS.OT% ... ....,. --... -,.,.,_ 44.76" """" 13$.12% ..... 87A2" t$.3$11 ,,.. 31""' 83.92'J< -... riO Ml nle ria O7.<>611 ..,.,,. Ml 4 0 1 % 22.041% -28. 90% 62.48% 8US% 51 65% 34 .a% 128.13 ...., ...

PAGE 47

this page IS blank

PAGE 48

FLOWS IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION. The information presented in the previous section provides a foundation for understanding the current status of commuting flows in Florida. This section presents a case study on commuting flows in the Tamp a Bay area t o assist planne rs and decisionmakers in know ing what data can be compiled for local areas in Florida with. currently-available Census data. Detailed worker flows a t the traffic analysis zone (T AZ) level are avail able for some urban areas in the United States as part of the urban element of the Census Transpo rtation Plan ning Package (CTPP) and will eventually be available for all urban areas. However, preparation ofth.e urban ele m ent for many urban areas may not be completed for some time. As a result, data compiled from Summary Tape File420, PltZCe ofWork 20 Destinations File {STF 420} may be of use until the urban e lement of the CTPP is available. Census, when Hernando County and Clearwater were added to the MSA. The Tamp a MSA is illustrated in Figure 32, based on the 1990 definition. As indicated in the previous section, jurisdictional measurement is used, reqniring tha t 1980 metropolitan area defmitions be used to ensure comparability of data over time. Figure 33 depictS the market s hares for the six commut ing patterns from 1980 to 1990. Highlights of the commuting flow data are provided below. The predominant commuting pattern for the Tampa MSA is the suburb-to-suburb commute, with approximately 49 percent of workers in the MSAcommutingfromsuburb-to-suburbin 1990, up from 42 percent in 1980. FIGURE 32 This section begins with. an over view of the T ampa!St. Petersburg/ Clearwater MSA. ChangesinMSA commuting patterns from 1980 to 1990 are then presented. Finally a commuting flow profile for the Tamp a Bay region is provided in a series of tables at the conclusion of this section. Tampa/St. Petersburg/C lea rwater MSA A summary of commuter flow data for the 67 Florida counties is pro vided in Appendix B. STF 420 pro vides 20 worker destinations for each county, along with. the num ber of workers for each. dest i nation. TAMPA/ST. PETERSBURG/CLEARWATER MSA In 1980, the T ampaMSA comprised three counties--Hillsborough, Pin ellas and Pasco-and two central cities-Tampa and St. Petersburg. This changed as a result of the 1990 Flows in the Tampa Bay Region ..................... .................... ...... 43

PAGE 49

FIGURE 33 Commuting Shares in t h e Tampa MSA (1980, 1990) Central City-to-Central City Central City-to..Suburb Central Clty-to.Qulaide Metro Area Suburb-to-Central City Suburb-to..Suburb Suburb-to..Oulalde Metro Area The suburb-to-<:entral city commute share remained virtually the same, between 21 and 22 p e r cent from 1980 to 1990. The central city to-central city commute share declined from nearly 27 percent in 1980 to ap proximately 19 p e r cent in 1990. The central city-to-suburb, suburb-to-outside MSA, and central city-to-outside MSA all remained relatively stable from 1980 to 1990, at 6-7 percent, 3 percent, and less than 1 percenl. respec tively. PERCENT CHANGE IN WORKER COMMUTE PATTERNS Table 20 presents the number of workers that used each type of flow in 1980 and 1990, while F igure 34showsthe percent change in the number of workers for each commuting pattern over this same decade The tables are summa rized below. 44 From 1980 to 1990 the number o f workers trav eling from suburb-to-suburb increased 8 I percent in the T:unpa MSA, from 231,049 in 1980 to 418, 297 in 1990. Similar to aggregated metropolitan area flows for Florida, the suburbto-outside MSA commute 20% .1980 1990 60% flow showed the largest percent increase, at 89 percent from 14,067 in 1980 to 26,627 in 1990 The number of workers using a suburb-to-central city commute flow changed from 118,424 in 1980 to 199,990 in 1990, an increase of 69 percent. Workers traveling from central city-to-central city showed a relatively small increase in the number of workers, from 147,425 in 1980 to 176,429 in 1990, an increase of nearly 20 percent. The number of workers using the central city-to outside metropolitan area commute increased 38 percent, from 3,377 in 1980 to 4,665 in 1990. Finally, t h e number of workers using a central city-to-suburb commute increased from 36,816 in 1980 to 57,797 in 1990, a rise of 60 percent. TAMPA BAY REGION CoMMUTING fLOW PROFI LE A detailed profile of commuting flows in the Tampa Bay region is provided in a series of tables on pages 46 through 52. These tables were created through manipu lation of data files available on STF 420 Flows in the Tampa Bay Region

PAGE 50

TABLE 20 Number of Workers by Commute Pattern in the Tampa MSA (1980, 1990) Place of Work Place of C.ntral City Suburb Outside MSA RQidence 1980 1990 1980 1990 1980 Central City 147,425 176,429 36,816 57, 797 3,377 Suburb 118,424 199,990 231,049 418,297 14,067 FIGURE 34 Percent Change In Number of Workers by Commute Pattern in Tampa MSA (1980-1990) Centra l City-to-Central City Central City-to-Suburb C..ntral City-to.Outside Metro Area Suburb-to-Central City Suburb-to-Suburb Suburb-to.Outsicle Metro Area 0% 25% 50 % 75% 100% Flows in the Tampa Bay Region -----1990 4,665 26,627 45

PAGE 51

Place of Residence 46 ... .. ''"'"" Flows in the Tampa Bay Region

PAGE 52

Flows In the Tampa Bay Region 47

PAGE 53

Place of Rlllsldonco 48 Flows in the Tampa Bay Region

PAGE 54

lek.eland Flows in the Tampa Bay Region 49

PAGE 55

so Flows in the Tampa Bay Region

PAGE 56

Flows in the Tampa Bay Region 51

PAGE 57

Place of Residence 52 Flows in the Tampa Bay Region

PAGE 58

IMPLICATIONS OF TRENDS Rapid gro wth, budget con straints, and changing de mographic and travel b e havio r characteristics re suited in sign ificant challenges for decisionmakers, plann e rs, and practitioners throughout Florida and the United States. Despite receot data indicatiog rate of growth in Florida is slowing down, growth con tinues to be substantial and will likely continue into th e 21st century. AJ a result, Florida' s tronsportatio n communi ty is finding it in creasingly difficult to meet the demands for tuosportation facili ties 1111d infra s tn1cture The problems and factors i nfluencing Florida's = portation problems are, in many ways, similar ro those faoed by growing metropolitan areas throughout the United States. The increasing participation of women in the labor force, the baby boom generation entering the labor mar k et, and suburbanization of develo pm ent have only been exaggerated in Florida due t o the m ore rapid pace of growth. In addi tio11, resource constraints, environmental concerns, and a sensitivity to neighborhood disru pti on are seri ously funiting the pace at which new transport a tio n infrastructure (particularly new highneeds. Several alternatives to new roadway construc tion have been implemented or arc receiving serious consideration i n Florida, including new 1111d public transportati o n services and facilities, land use policy decis i ons, and transportation dem1111d ment (TOM) techni ques, such as ridesharing, tel ecommu ting and varia ble work hou N. Experienced tronsportation professionals unde= d that the complex and multifaocted tronsportation prol>lems cannot be solved easily and that no single answer can be applied unifonnly to each geographic area. De cisions are further com p licated by increasingly oompl e:r.: multimoda l an d mul tij uri sdiction a l decisionmaking structures. In addition, s ignificant uoceruinty i s associated with many of the issues, inc l uding th e impacts of Impli cations of Trends i nunigrution o n popula t ion gr ow th, pub l ic acc e p tance of transit 1111d T DM activities, impacts of new tech nologies such as e l ectric vehicles or intelligent vehicle/ highway systems, and the public's willingness to influ eneesignificandy land development pmcrns. There are no easy answers. Numerous factors will have major impacts on commut ing behavior in Florida throug h the 1990s and into the 21st cent u ry. Many of these factors2re briefly disc u ssed below. Perhaps this will stimulate further discussion and research t o assi$! i n identifying strateg ies th at will address the many challenges facing the transportation community in Florida an d the United States over the course of the next decade. FLORIDA'S GROWTH The number of co mmute!'$ continues to grow in Flo rida whi ch, in tum, con tributes to an increase in co mmuting a n d the demand for transportati o n facili ties to support commuting. Three major f actors contributed to the significant growth in commuting in the 1970.. an d the more moderate growt h in the 1980s: population growth increasing participation of women in the labo r force aging o f the baby bo o m generation The two latter factoN appear t o be one-time, moderate d uration shifts i n population characteristics, contrib u t ing greatly to travel growth in the1970s. With the labo r force participation rate for women nearing that of men and the first Stages of the baby boom generation nearing retirement, these two factors will no longer be as significant in contributing to growth in the work force as they have been in the past Althoug hthenumberofoomm ut C1'$ will cont inu e to increase, it is lik ely that the ra t e o f g r o wth will continue to decline in the 1990s. 53

PAGE 59

Significant growth in tourism and the number of sea sonal residents, along with significant increases in peak period tr.avel in general have also contributed to grow ing transportation problems in Florida Although con g estion is not necessarily a statewide phenomenon, it is clearly a local, multijurisdictional, and corridor-spcx:ific problem within the metropolitan areas throughout the state. Despite these short-duration shifts, population growth will continue to contribute to increases in the number of commuters. Growth in population will likely continue into the 21st century, albeit at so mewhat lower growth rates than observed in the 1970s and 1980s. The chal lenge is to effectively manage limited resources to sup port efficient movement of people and goods in metro politan areas throughout Florida. CONTINUED SUBURBANIZATION The predominant development trend in the United States and Florida has been and continues to be suburbanization. The data in this publication dearly indicate that significant suburbanizatlon continued in Florida in the 1980s, and there is no reason to b elieve that it will notcontinuethroughoutthe 1990s. Florida's growth management legislation was designed to discourage sprawling development, but no evidence exists in the 1990 data to suggest that it has been effective. However, it is too early to judge the effectiveness of the program at this point, but it will be interesting to observe developmenttrends and travel patterns over the next two or three decades to dete rmi ne if the intended results of the l egislation are achieved. The relocation of people, goods and services, and jobs to the suburbs clearly has resulted in major changes in commuting patterns. First and foremost, suburbanization has resulted in a reduced need to tr.avel to central cities and in significant increases in travel with origins and destinations in the suburbs. These have contrib uted to a reduced importance of peak-hour, peak-direction travel. As peak periods become longer 54 and as peak-directional travel becomes Jess important, it can be argued that existing highway networks will be used much more efficiently since tr.avel volumes will be more balanced by direction and by tirne of day. The question remains as to what happens if metropoli tan area congestion continues to worsen. Will people continue to move farther away from the centr.al city? As suburbs become more congested, will they move outside the suburbs? Early indications suggest that this is the case, as the fastest growing commute flow in Florida from 1980 to 1990 was from the suburb to outside the metropolitan area. UNDERSTANDING TRAVEL BEHAVIOR In order to develop a more thorough understanding of travel beha vior, numerous factOrs should be analyzed, some of which are highlighted below. Continued Significance of Commuting -The data clearly indicate that journey-to-work travel will continue to be of great significance in the metropolitan areas of Florida and the United States. Although the share of home based work trips in Florida as a percent of all tripsis only 28 percent, the share of these trips during the peak travel period (6 to 9 a.m .) is much greater, at approximately 53 percent. Furthermore, these trips account for as much as 80 percent of the trav el during the one-hour peak period from 6 to 7 a.m." Understanding Trip-Chaining Behavior -Current data sources are extremely rich in char.acteriz.ing home-based work trips, but are limited with regard to trip-chaining behavior. Trip-chai ning ref ers to single trips that are taken for many purposes. For example, a journey to work may include sever.al stops along the way, such as at the dry cleaners or day care. These types of trips are not accounted for in most traditional data sources and need to be carefully analyzed in the next decade. An understanding of this type of travel behavior may con tribute to identifying new solutions for addressing trans portation problems. Implications of Trends

PAGE 60

Impact ofPublicPolicies on Behavior-Cunent tax policies provide a financial incentive for employers to subsidize parking rather than public transporta ti on since the law currently places a cap of $60 per month on the tax-free subsidization of transit and van pooling and acapof$155permonthonthesubsidiza ti onofparking. Re.:ent research found that the removal of parking subsidies may decrease the-single-occupant vehicle share by as much as 41 percent." Developing a more thor ough understanding of the implications of public poli cies will improve the decisionmaking process. In addition, decisionmakers must continually be edu cated concertting the cost..,ffe<:tive solutions to trans portation problems, whether the solution is new high way construction, new or expanded public transporta tion services and facilities, or transportation demand management techniques. The marginal cost of con structing a new lane on an existing highway may not be the most cost-eff e ctive method for meeting peak-hour demand. THE ROLE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Although the number of workers using public transit in their journey to work has grown in absolute terms, the journey-to-work mode sba.re bas declined at nearly all geographic levels in the United States. As people, businesses, jobs, and institutions continue to move to the suburbs and as the suburb-to-suburb commute has become the predominant commuting pattern, it has become increasingly difficult for transit systems to serve these sprawling communities In addition the demo graphics that charaCterize suburban residents also work against public transportation in these outlying areas. As suburban centers grow, many are evolving into relatively dense areas characterized by mixed land use. These evolving suburban centers are often referred to as "edge" cities. When suburban developments reach this stage, i t be<:omes more feasible for traditional transit service to '(survive" in the suburbs. However, in observ Implications of Trends ing suburban developments around the country, few are characterized by densities and lan d use that adequately support the use of t ransi t at any significant levels. Therefore in most instances continuing to expand fiXedroute service in suburban areas is extremely expen sive and relatively ineffectiv e in reducing congestion, improving mobility, or improving air quality." The challenge of making transit work in the suburbs has become an issue of whether land uses can be adapted to make suburbs more serviceable by transit (e.g., greater densities and mixture of uses) and wh e ther transit services can be adapted to be more flexible and demand responsive to serve dispersed origins and destinations." How to make these adapta t ions happen remains the ultimatechallengetothepublictransitindustry t hrough out the United States, THE ROLE OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) In response to constraiitts in dealing with the supp ly side of transportation problems, TDM has emerged as an important mechanism for assisting in the management of the demand side of the equation. Among the many TOM techniques are ridesharing, telecommuting, vari able work hours, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and bicycling, as well as numerous others. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDO'I) has supported TOM effortS by sponsoring the establish ment of commuter assistance programs and transporta tion management associations and the provision of TOM training throughout the state of Florida. As a result, TOM is becoming an integral part of dealing with transportation problems. The next decade will be extremely important in determining the impact and effectiveness of these programs in reducing congestion and increasing mobility. From 1980 to 1990, the use of ridesharing in the journey to work declined as a share of all commuting modes, from 20 to 14 percen t in Florida and from 20 to 13 percent in the United States. To maximize the potential 55

PAGE 61

for successful TDM programs (includingridesharing), it wiU be important for researchers to develop an under standing of the factors that may have contributed to the decline in ridesharing, including continued suburbanization, trends in formal ridesharing arrange mcnts versus household carpoo l ing, and the impact of the economy on ridesbaring alternatives, among others The only commuting alternative showing an increasing sha r e from 1980 to 1990 other than t he single-occupant auto was working at home, which increased from 1.5 percent in 1980 to 2.3 percent in 1990 in Florida and from 2.3 percent to 3.0 percent in the United States Although "working at home" does not necessarily mean individuals are telecommuting in the truest sense, it does provide a proxy for observing telecommuting trends overtime. Telecommuting can be technically defmed as any working relationship where telecommunications services are partial l y or comp l etely substituted for trans portat.ion to a conventional office or other workplace. According to a recent stUdy on telecommuting, approxi mately 2 million workers currently telecommute, and this number could reach 7.5 to 15 miUion workers by the end of the decade." Data are limited concerning the full transportation implications of telecommuting, and many studies offer conflicting results. Although many believe that telecommuting has the potential to provide significant transportation-related public benefits in this decade, others believe that te lecommut ing could stimulate ur ban sprawl, have adverse impacts on land use and public transportation, and perhaps even result in increases in vehicle miles of travel, depending upon household loca tion decisions made based on a reduced number of necessary trips to the workplace." Over the next decade, it will be important to determine the fuU implications of telecommuting. In particular, case studies of telecomm u ting programs must be docu men ted and analyzed t o detertninehow the impli cations may vary based on t h e characteristics and demographics of local areas. 56 SPENDING MORE OR SETTLING FOR LESS There is no simple solution for the transportation community to effectively manage sub urban growth and respond to constantly-changing demographics and com muting behavior. However, careful analysis of the trends provided in this should assist in the transporta t ion planning and decisiorunak.ing process. Although this section identifies many of the implica tions, it is intended only to provoke thought on these issues and not to offer solutions to the many complex transportation problems. However, the following excerpt is offered for the reader's consideration. Although the excerpt focuses on the problems associated specifi c.Uy with trans i t planning, the statement captures the essence of transportation p lanning in general. What can we as transit and transportation plaMers do? My suggestions are mostly wh:u we shouldn't do. Since serving concentrated tra vel needs is increasingly less relevant to the suburbs, it seems pointless for transit operators to continue expanding fixed-route service in suburban areas. This approach is extremely expensive and l argely unproducti v e in reducing congestion, a ddi ng measurably to mobility, or improving air quality. Transit operators may be better advised to avoid the subur b -to-suburb travel market and focus resources in growth in traditional suburb-to-central city center commuting, work travel increases be tween metropolitan areas, travel between met ropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, and the transportation needs of the central city itself. With regard to transportation problems of the suburbs, maybe the time has come to give th.e Do-Nothing Alternative a chance. We could call it a Transportation Policy of Benign Neglect. Or, using State Department terminol ogy, we could rall it a Policy ofNonlnterven tion. Eventually, things will get so bad for suburbanites that they'll start coming back to the central city where there is plenty of afford a b le real estate, where we can serve them effectively with public transportation, and we can provide them with all the amenities they need. And they won't even have to mow yass.23 Implications of Trends

PAGE 62

Although many will argue that this proposed solution is policy to the significant changes in demo&rnPhics devcl extreme, the reality of the statement is painfully clear. opment patterns, and commuting behavior. The diffi Effortstoimprovemobilityinaneraofsuburbanization cult decision that must be made is whether to spend and evolving demographics have had little sucxcss. As more or tO settle for less. Hopefully the information sociery evolves into the 21st century, it will be ex-provided in this publication will 20sist in making this tremely important to adapt transportation planning and decision. Implications of Trends 57

PAGE 63

this page IS blank

PAGE 64

:!! C) ... ::... 1:> "'. .. i :s "' l:> 1:> "' ..., 10 Bn'td!i!AlO I'\ MSAIPMSA ... MSitJPMSA. Oa;ytona Beach 1teo I 1s9o FL Lau40n:lalei'HOI!yWOOd 1sso I 1no Ft. ... .. Fort Pitrce 1180 I 1sso ;!'! ., ... 0 ..... <:: )::.. :::11) S1 <:: 1::1 0 ):( "' )>. I]

PAGE 65

0 II: -J z i -60 r 0 c 0 "' J Florida' s Metropolitan Area Trends

PAGE 66

Florida's Metropolitan Area Trends 6 1

PAGE 67

"' "' :!! 0 .., "' 0 "' ):. "' a-MSAJPMSA -...... ...... r ,.,_ Female _<: < .>. _..,._ Asian 01 Pac'f..c lslaOOer :'e{ <;'\ Hi$patltt 1610 1 9 ye,t$ 20 b29yurt .<. -30 to to 5 9 Years .. 60 10 64 )'NI S ll.eta lhar\ 1211\gtade ><->< ... .. High schOOl Bachebt'& degree or prot degree Wen worlt 'd$abl lity ,_ No wor1< disabil ity teU _ttlai) $5 00(J $5,000 $9,999 ifo:OOo w s:t4 ,9 9 g "-" '"' """' $15 .000 to $24,999 S2'sTOOO Or rOOro Median llOtiSChold i ncome Ft. Walton Beach GalnesviJ i e .hiektonvil l t Lkelandi'M n te r Haven 1tao I 1!90 1oto T mo 11ao I tsto 1sao r 1990 .,,. T ,.,. < > ",. 54 3 1 7 7 -2J2T '.:* .7$,604 -'; -t ... . . < "' '<>'< ,,.. ,.. <$ .. ,,,,.,.. ,.,,, .. ,; ',.,,. .... ....... '"'H"'<< 7 1,049 75,7 102..864 3'61,1 72 4$l, 862 t$3, 092 209 067 1 S8.005 I 9.372 -. 1 2 970 T 23.8<10 I -H.,'> 1,446 :39s-I .., 644 I .- 3,6521 1 ,769 (0&7. '. . 1 68 .. 2 68$ 4 tS8 5 01$ 9 .473 15 721 3 639 ...... 1S:'o4& . 6 0S1 4 429 67,135 7,425 7 .;1'58 10, 10 9 8.88 1 $15, 151 33.275 "1 7 ,93:2 24 6$4 32. .... .. 5 ,698 31,971 12.&45 6,952 82,200 30,$.53 115: 21,1 1 6 4 304 10,747 -31,123 35,?95 11, 628 15;363 7; 610' 100,567 2,324 .-:,11: 400 .. ...... 3 &.t9 11,222 4'998; > 8 '872' ., 12.,246 12,323 3fr, 155 $27,941 1 0,92(1 . . $12.354 Eth nic Or\gln : :.. . 56$, 076 ' .... "' .. "" 39,1 27 15 8,112 .41,(. ;;.,.: ,. ' >" 4 551 _i "' ',65 Hlapan.le Otlgln .: v $ ,98 7 14 ,28 1 Age 181 ,026 .... 14 873 8&4; 52 l 2 2 206 26&,396"> -t.? 3 1 8 .. ";x 24$.270 -'"---;-3S&;r.t5-l "'' >-"'"'' }-v" ''" '"" 48 3 1 0 64,3\8 23,573 31,280 s. . :.>,_)$< .,.. .-.:.---" "'"' '--"' ,. ... ; .... ,. 1 ,173 2 310 2,040 6,04& "-... $:-:"'. ,, -9,685 1$,192 5 ,&2$ 12, 279 i-': ._8$'-,ri'\7 ,., .. 21, 357 43' $$2 ""-18, SS6 59.923 ...... 22,$01 &6,36t 1$,5 1 1 54,366 :'8,886 1 36',62:9 . 34,06 5 1 05,447 3?.687. .. .. t$O;.i07 6,967 31,153 19 ... 84. 7 ,1,48-4 EducatiOn L evet ,,::-::-,es,253 33,7 1 2 201.72'8 se.ss& ,. 8&;3&2' . 23,702 39, 5 1 3 Worit D lwbltlty ttsS&.,-, ... . .' I .... 13'9, 406 427, $19 Household l ocome 50,464 23,411 154';163 :5i218 "' ' < > 1 58,9$4 4 1, 4g,2 6$.iio -1 36,8f.G 99:21' 1 214,945 189)82 79 ,000 32.672 1$5, 082 ...... $70,907 46.03S 84,208 14, 475 8,086 177,337 2t.900 $4'370 I ._;?, .. 57.7.C$ 88, 1 59 ..... 2-3,138 7s;23s > 32,863 1 $ 209 '14.6/JG ... .. ,,,, '< m I : ,. 1 01,755 82 ,$31 Z0.17i 24 544 18 1 58 1 1,527 12.._807 ...... 10 1.858 40,890 ; M4,101 18 004 _-:'> '? '\2 2 ,153 1 6,004 1 7,134 1 1,9GS r .. -<., '. >; -1?,18. 7_', ',;, : 1:C' t ;( f r a r620-' '>;'" 4-4'818 ,;t. "' ___ . '. 1 5,272 89, 462 $78,897 $22 279 Poverty SU.tua 30,1341 6$,1 28 199,338 $29 ,514 30, 7 98 34,445 27,783 31.097 < ' t":: $14 ,2 4 $ $25,218 $16,858 $30 ,534 pcrieiiy Jiyel, .. -"-"" 8eklW poverty level .:); ; ,, F ;, :., .. . 11,657 124:os2t .. . 14s ,A?, o ) te:e,f:H'' ,... ( #o' <>< -,..j < .W -"";;;; . ,.,, ... ',.'. ..... .... "'"'''-''"""*'"''"' <-o<'' 0< o 14, 183 33,385 43,096 109,258 104.t 24 4.5, 779 s 1,201 28,on -35. 815

PAGE 68

Florida's Metropolitan Area Trends 63

PAGE 69

0\ "" ... ... -3: .. .. '= 0 .. Q ::a l:> Q .. ::a MSAIPMSA

PAGE 70

Florida's Metropolitan Area Trends 65

PAGE 71

01 01 ... ,,; () "" )1. "" aFt. W.ltOn Btac:h Balnesvi l'-L akt&andiWlnt e r Havon MtiDoum.rrttu&\IRit IISAIPMSA tHO I 1190 1110 I ,,.. 1tao 1 1 m ttao 1 11to nso 1 tttO Gender Qlft'.," . '.h:: .. 'W'<< ;tt .49. 80% --. .. ,.48.32% 49;44% ,...., .'!!'--{ .4.- x;;. "'"""'""' _,_.,., "'"'"'"' "'>""' iw"' ;!'I lidA-:;;,..,..,._..,. Female -49.42% 50,0S% 50.40% SUS% 5 '.16% 50.70% U 57% S0 56% 50.82% Ethnic Origin M"'? ;>-g;,eg i27% 77.2314" f<.< M:M% -00. 26% ;,.:.:r<&9.1U% ,_. -' .'l< -.: ...... ....... ,_ .. ,, ....... ....... "'"' ',.-;-_;_.,._,.,_ ,;;.,.,, "" ,._,.,. ,..,.,_ ......... :-...:-...... <------...... -... ". .-..... ,,. __ .., Alrie:D:n..Amerbn 8 .5&% 9 02% 19 .20% 19 .17% 21.50% 19 .96% 15.2<4% 1 3.40% 8 67% 7. 84% '.it46% 7ft' :{il:2tw: ,.,..0,33% : ... K:;._,,, O _i2s' % 0.37.% ( ... ' ....... <.-........... -.... ........ .., w ..... ,,._..,:;:;:: ........ ._.,,.,._. < ..,,_,._ ,,, ........ ,...,. ___ ,._;r, Asian or Paclfte I slander 1.32 % 2.54% U7% 2 23% 0.93% 1.6 4% 0 .37"Yo 0 57% 0 76% 1.26% Ofl4:1 ;,.z; >"'Tt.-t>;\;:; '\ ,. :i:. t T > ";,l r .;. :'0.96 .. <'< 1'/f ... k t" H ltpank Ortg l n Hi$panie ,, .. ?t.r.-1J%1f-t; 1 -.; 1 ';;: 2.89% 3 .3W. 3 42% 1.9-t% 2 .4S% 3.0 1 % 2 06% 3 08% Age .,... J .. "'2586% -" '23" ;4% .. '_.: 19' 8 'S% ?_' ... .... ';;_,; '----- .,, .;' ... 1", ' ' f-:>-: -. f ;.. "' {> 1 ..... "" ... ..... ,. 20 .9S% 8 .62% 5 52% 10 $4% 8 09% 7 37% 5 57% 7.28% 5.40% 4 65% .t5':"o2% t e to t 9 years -:-;:;. ",,. -/7.,_" ;; 30 to 3i Year& ,; '<2 b .26%," 8'-J 2s.9sw ""18.52% ::'. ,,.11.01% ;;. 1 ,_._,, . : -, """ v v ', ,.,. ,, 7.82% '15.96j(l 12.04% 5 94% ". ... iD-59:v.u.f:g -. v .... h"" "'"' w 60to&cyeatS y.,.r$1" i ..... ._., _, ___ ,,_ > g r I ,..;:--;..": High $Ch001 . ,;:"'.;. ''' 8acbel0r'1 degree ''2 1 .,_., 18'::14-U. ,....':I.'Qivc.' '"''2 j'ii.Mi. '"' ,,_ 1-19 .}'.,:,--<;_._,,_ ..._ "'/ ','h"f!;!,. : 3 31% 3 96% 2 .84% 3 41% 4 22% 4.07% ', .. ;.,: .. 9 .!9.% t. H .:. 45 00% ..... 30.0 1 % '_{:;,.3-i' tf% .. _, '' .. 26.$8% 1 0.04% EduetUon L evel '. '" 21.1$% 38.6 1 % .3S.38Y. ', ,;.; 11% 1 4 .88!1. 7.58% ' 23 .05% 32. 03% r :.>-' 11. 77% -:-$ ,,, 1 2.87% 1 4 24% $ .14% 5 .7t% J ">: 18 26% 5 .G4V. .. 3U!% '\-f 8:'31% ,,..._. 33 .09% 40 .29% 30.1 8% 14.93% :;:v 22m '. 2 1 :()3%' 4 32il7%' ., ' ' 8 .19% 7 98'.4 8.85% 1 3.12% 7 .88% I 12.06% & .70% .. :;. .::,. _;;' -'4,8ti ... 'o.W!t. ., 3j5% .. .. Olitab l llty ., .. 7 :0,3,-. .h. "11t1@% ;;t.C. 0::--; 15;SOI'.4 J ; !<-vMK<,..h ... -<-:-. :<'"'>'> n 97% 88, 8 1 % 89.8-5% $4.70% .99% 8$.78% , "'----{3:..22% 1 k ,, .. e&.74% HouHhol d Income t' . 6 78% .: .. ,.--), '.,,...,' .,-,_. ., -t. _.,_ -i ,.;, '-,.. 1 9 .4$% 10 2 7 % 16.97'% 7 .39% <)r 1 Srt. .,,,_ ''". "'*-"'' -11:' 27 04% 22. 10'h 27. 35% t9..20% Le59 Ulan:U:ooo.:;" .. :; '"'' "'"''""""' .. ss.ooo to $9, 999 '""""''""_.,' .... .... S l 5 000 to $24 999 :<-...; "" j\)''?3" J\ "-'' 4 >' .(;--20 83% "-'-51$ 4 "-A I'U.% ' A $,'23% '"'-*' ""''" _,,_.._ "" ., .<-><>.;,,.._,.., .-r."' v..w.wl 1 9 7 4% $ $4% 20.50% 12 34% 1 7. 34% 7.89% <;; 'Uifll 1e .4< ''<< 1 0 ae..,, >; !;Oc;8 "789. ... ,,, >;t'o// '! "* $ ""'7 ... ,; .. <:. ;;,t. -r y 26.88% 2 2.&4% 22, 5 1 % 1 9 48% 28 31% 1 8 ,99% "'"'" ... ,., ... .-....... ,. .. "' .. ,.,. ., -.1s: i 1; .. 2 4 }42% ,.,_,M-28. _5'0%. e;o.14% Q u a ,, ...... ................ ,, ........ ,._, ... ,. ' Below """"" ,.., .. ;j'< w 89.0$% I ':}..:+<' 'M<4S% 1:--... : 1 0 .95% 10 .26% 23. 55% ,;: 4<'it77 :lia% 1' ftt-$4 86-%'1*'': H' *"''tS%' 1 87.06%1%. 90 S0%1 Dri.a'l"'l ,.,.,...,.,., >e-:X:,..-> -.. ,a.'$;o, .t>iJ$'T .,..: c, ,._<.; 22 .71% 1 5 1 4% t1.8S% 1 4 5$% 12. 94% 9 .13% fl

PAGE 72

... &:1 ,. :3::: .. i ::0 l>o &:1 .. ::0 e-01 'I MSAII'MSA

PAGE 73

68 Florida's Metropolitan Area Trends

PAGE 74

... .,.. : .. "IS 0 .. ,. )> .. ,. a-"' 10 MSAIPMSA II

PAGE 75

" 0 ::!:! 0 Ill. Q ... -3:: .. .. 0 0 .. Q "' )>. .. Q .. "' Ill. "' MSA/PMSA -.;c., ... e:oc;t,IO a.gt.,; ; .,_ 7:00 eo 7:59 a.m. &;CO eo 9 :59 ,m. 10;00 ,,, --""' ..... <>. ,. 1 1:00 to 11:5 9 a.m. .......... ..:.. ......... --!'(a ,, .... ; "'' .... ,,. >'>' ... ;} nla ... "!.---><' Jl .OJj 19,. 568 2 691 .. 818 .;;. 27,448 .. ,, Ilia .... .... .. n/a .. ,,. _, fila II ' t 2 :a9( 1 ' : 32,831 I ... 5,7&1 l-447' 1,.447 ;.;; ....... ,._ ;--*"

PAGE 76

"' f .,-::: .. .. "' 0 .. 0 "' )>. 0 .. "' ..... MSAIPMSA [II

PAGE 77

72 Florida's Metropolitan Area Trends

PAGE 78

:!! 0 .,.-:;: .. 0 -S> "' )>. S> .. "' 'I .... MSAIPMSA

PAGE 79

:;;! ... .. 'IS 0 .. 1:1 :: )> 1:1 :: a-MSAIP M SA .. \o\fcrked outskle home COI.I'll'f eroce.o;w;;t: i)0'1 rei>i>rte "' ,,. Worked a1 h ome 5;00 to 5 :59 a.M tP a.c;n,. 7:00 to 7 :MI a.m. to B:MI a.m . 9'.00 to 9 ;59 a.m. 1 1 :00 11:59 a m 4 : 00 to 1 1 :59 p m '" .... "'" tooe; 2 -pel'$00 carpool .. ,, ., i ,, ;_,;. .,, .. . .. I)Co."$0ff Ft W 1rto n Beach 1880 1 1tto 90. 6 .$% l'f 2 .42% .. ..,. 4.08% 87.21%. > 79.98% 22.34% Ga i nesv ille Jackaonv llSt Lake l andiWIMer Haven M e l bOumctiTit\nvlll 1tao 1 1m 1110 1 1m 1 NO I .... ,... I ,..., Place of Work ' '91'!.-.... 4 .9W. 8 .64% , .._,.. ';<, _,_,.":{-10 53% 1 4 85% 4.89'% 10 55% 2.66% 4.41% :: ',. . ,. .-... . S:o>.2 1.,.. ' ' 70:23%'1 .. 14 .32%1 74:$16%' 66.42% Hi 80.63-%' '.,. ., ........ "',>"" 1 4 33% 25.20% 1 2 99% ; q '". '. I.: :66.}3%1 : 22 02% 3 75% J ,W+I 20. 0 6 % < O.ti.%' :, .. '.0.41% 0 : 28% '" >" 4.07% 2.44% 3.90% 2.38% 1.37% 1 .79% '2;a, 72% 42.92% 1 1 0 8 % 5 93% nta nta nta "' nla nla nra "' nla nla \ 9 60% 39 72% 13.08% 5 .84% .. 1.79% 09% 15.34% 'ltJ,fJ!i" 2U2% 9 27% 3 .413% 1.78% 1,(l 8.22% ,_' ... nla I 2. 08% -" rJa 2 .09%1 1 1 62 % .. I < . ,, n1a 29,95% rJa n/a nll ,.. ' ,. nJa 141.2 > ,.,,. "'I 7 .22% "A '., .. fVal> nla" ->-' ' ,.; .,. ..... ,,v,, .-;. .. nrah nlal 5 27% "' / :tlJi ;; 1:91% ' -. __ --. .. .. :r;s.os% 16.4&% .,.,. 79;98% 10.43% 1 6 6 % P rlv81e Vehkte Occupancy ., : 72.$3%1 75.0<%1''' 78.23%1-"' 78.0S% 1'" . ''"' ,._ '" .............. ,."""""" .,., 17,$1% 11 .1.\2% 17.82% 1 1.60% 1 5..45% 3 .63% 1 .94% 3 .39% ,, .. '''' .... 1 8 31% 10 66% 78 : 98% .. .. . 11.39% 1 .90% s .1o% 1 .62% 1.42% I 4. 58% 11 : }-;,': t, rtt: : : 3 1 1%1 1 .0:.%1 ... -<> ,.., "'" ,, ........... ......... .. p. "'' 0 .71% $ ,38%'1 II

PAGE 80

----------------------Florida 's Metropolitan Area Trends 75

PAGE 81

... "' "" ,... '1::1 0 ii "' :1> "" "' "' MSAIPMSA . on ly meaoa <>. ,_ .. """"

PAGE 82

APPENDIXB FLORIDA COUNTY COMMUTER FLOWS. Florida County Commuter Flows 77

PAGE 83

-. J,Jli ;} Y -" --:. ' J:P BeaCh, F L MSA. -"' ., .. _,. 78 Florida County Commuter Flows

PAGE 84

Florida County Commuter Flows 79

PAGE 85

-h -'!' ... "' "'--""""' "'''>' _., 4-o..-:c .. ; 80 Florida County Commuter Flows

PAGE 86

Florida County Commuter Flows 81

PAGE 87

82 '' ,.. -;-> ..... ,._, . -;i,: :(>'<'-""' ,.. ;..._,.: ,.._, .. '!;' '""' '"' ;-'' Florida County Commuter Flows

PAGE 88

Florida County Commuter Flows 83

PAGE 89

-_,.._,. "'<>'" ---
PAGE 90

Florida County Commuter Flows 85

PAGE 91

86 """" ,., .... .... -(-,f >"":')'$",-,><_ """*'* Florida County Commuter Flows

PAGE 92

Florida County Commuter Flows 87

PAGE 93

88 Florida County Commuter Flows

PAGE 94

Florida County Commuter Flows 89

PAGE 95

;. \c >-. ',. 90 Florida County Commuter Flows

PAGE 96

Florida County Commuter Flows 91

PAGE 97

... ,...,...,.. ....... -.{;'. 92 Florida County Commuter Flows

PAGE 98

Florida County Commuter Flows 93

PAGE 99

-> ;; ,S'> 94 . -' Florida County Commuter Flows

PAGE 100

Florida County Commuter Flows 95

PAGE 101

-"" <'
PAGE 102

Florida County Commuter Flows 97

PAGE 103

C;\.j '" ' .. ,. .. .,.-,. J Fl MSA> ,.,. >t;.i
PAGE 104

Florida County Commuter Flows 99

PAGE 105

this page IS blank

PAGE 106

NOTES. 1 Aggregate vehicles were available only for 1990. As a result, this number was estimated for prior years using the distribution of household vehicle ownership(# of one-vehicle households + II of households 2 + II of three or more vehicle households 3.3). The three or more vehicle household factor was estimated by computing the average number of vehicles for t hree or more vehicle households in 1990 and then applying this factor to previous years. 2 U.S. Bureau of the Census, StatisticalAb5lract of the UnitedStrmmuring in America: A Nrt on Commutjng Paltems and Tm:M (Eno Foundation for Transporwion, Inc., 1987}, p. 37. Mills and Hamilton, pp. 62-64. 'James r!eilbrun, Urbt>n Economics and Public Policy (New York, St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1987), p. 31. "Joel Garreau, Edge City, Lifo on the New Frontier (New York' Doubleday Publishing, 1988), p. 4. "Heilbrun, pp. 46-49. upeter Mieszkowski and Edwin S. Mills, 'The Causes of Metropolitan Suburbanization," Journal of Economic Perspectives (Summer 1993), p. 136. "Robert Cervero, Suburb# (New Brunswick, NJ Center for Urban Policy Research, 1986}, p 1. "Mills and Hamilton, p. 64. a Pisarski, pp. 41, 42. "Federal Highway Administration, 1990 Natimwide Personal Transporttion Study public use topes. 11 Richard W. \Vuson and Donald C. Shoup, "Parking Subsidies and 'fravcl Choices, Assessing the Evidence. IS Robert Cervero, c..Sunrivingin cheSuburbs: Transit's Untapped Frontier,'" Access, (Berkeley, CA: UniversityofC.Uifornia Transportation Center, Number 2, 1993}, p. 30. "Manuel Padron, "Impacts of Changing Demographics on Transit Planning" (Atlanta GA, Manuel Padron & Associates, 1993}, p. 4. 20Cervero, "Surviving in the Suburbs: Transit's Untapped Frootier,'" Access, p. 30. "U.S. Department of T ransportation, Transporttion Implications ofTekmmmuting, (U.S. G.P.O.: 1993-343-120:85869, 1993), p. v. "Ibid. "Padron, p. 8. Notes 101

PAGE 107

this page lS blank

PAGE 108

REFERENCES. Cemus o/Pt>pulation ami Housing: 1990. Summary Tape File 1 on CIJ.R OMTechniral Dorumentatwn I prepared by the Bureau of the Census.Washington: The Bureau, 1992. Census ofPt>pulation ami Housing: 1990. Summary Tape File 3 on CIJ.R OM TerhnkalDocumentatwn I prepared by the Bureau of the Census. -Washington: The Bureau, 1992. Census of Population ami Housing: 1990. Summary Tape Fik 1A on CD-ROM, Florida [trutchine -readab le data fdes] I prepared by the Bureau of the Census.Washington: The Bureau (producer and distributor], 1992. Census of Population ami Housing: 1990. Summary Tape Fik 1C on CD-R OM, Florida [machine-readable data fdes] I prepared by the Bureau of the Census.Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1992. Census of Population and Housing: 1990. Summary Tape Fik JA on CDR OM, Florida [trutchine-readable data files] I prepared by the Bureau of the Census.Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1992. Census ofPt>pulationandHousmg: 1990. Summary Tape File 3Con CD-ROM, United States [machine-readable data files] I prepared by the Bureau of the Census.Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1992. Census of Pt>pulalion and Housing: 1990. Summary Tape Fik S-5, United States [machine-readable datpulation and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 420, Place of Work 20 Destinations Technical Documentation I prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Woshington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1993. Center for Urban Transportation Research, NPTS Demographics & Travel Beha'!Jior: A Compariscn of Florida and the Uniud States. Tampa, FL: Center for Urban Transportation Research, January 1993. Center for Urban Transportation Research, Florida Demographics & journey to Work: A Cor
PAGE 109

Mills, Edwin S., and Bruce W. Hami l to n Urban Economics. Glenview, IL: Scon, For eman and Company, 1984. Padron Manuel, "Impacts of Changing Demographics on Transit Planning." Atlanta, GA: Manuel Padron & Associates, 1993. Pisarski, Alan E., Commuting in America: A National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends. Eno Foundation for Transponation, I n c., 1987 U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Volume I, Characteristics of the Population. Part I, Florida U.S Government Printing Office, Washington, D .C., 1963. U.S. Bureau of the Census U.S. Cemus of Populaticn: 1960. Volume I, Characteristics of the Population. Part II, Florida U.S Government Pri n t i ng Office, Washington D.C., 1963. U.S. B u rea u of the Census U.S. Census of Housing; 1960. Volume I, Stau s and Small Areas. Part 3, Delaware Indiana U S Governme n t Printing Office Washington, D.C. 1963. U.S Bureau of the Ce n sus, U.S. Census of Housing: 1960. Volume I, States and Small Areas. Pan I, United States Summary. U S Government Pri n ting Office, Washington, D.C., 1963 U.S Burea u of the Census, U.S. Census of Populaticn: 1960. Volume I Characuristics of the Population. Part I, United States Summary. U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 1964. U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Volume I, Characuristics of the Populatum. Part II, United States Summary U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D .C., 1964. U S Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing: 1970. Volume I, Housing Characuristics for States, Cities, and Ccttnties. Part II Florida. U S Government Printing Offi ce, Wash i ngton, D.C., 1972. U S Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing: 1970. Volume 1 Housing Characuristics for States, Cities, and Counties. Part I, United States Summary. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972. U S Burea u of the Census U.S. Census of Population: 1970. Volume I Characuristics of the Population. Pan II, F l orida Section I. U.S. Government Printing Office, Was h ington, D .C., 1973. U S Bureau ofthe Census, U .S. Census of Population: 1970. Volume I, Characteristics of the Population. Part II, FloridaSect ion 2. U.S. Government Pri nting Office, Washington, D.C., 1973. U .S. Bureau o f the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1970. Volume I, Characteristics of the Population. Pan!, U n ited States Summary-Section I. U.S Government Pri n ting Office, Washington D.C., 1973 U.S. Bureau of the Census U.S Cemus of Population: 1970. Volume I, Characteristics of the Population. Part!, United States SummarySection 2. U.S. Government Printing Off ice, Washington, D.C., 1973 U.S. Bureau of the Census Census of Housing: 1980. Vol ume I, Characteristics of Housing Units. Part II, Florida -Chapter A U .S. Government Printi ng Offi ce, Washington, D.C., 1982 U.S Bureau ofthe Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1980. Vol ume 1, Characte ristia of the Population. Part II, Florida-Chapter B. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash i ngton D.C., 1983 U .S. Bureau ofthe Census, U.S. Cemus of Population: 1980. Volume I, Characteristics of the Population Part II, F lori da-Chapter C -Section!. U.S. Governmen t Printing Office, Wshington, D.C., 1983 U .S. Bureau o f the Census, U.S Qnsus of Population: 1980. Volume I, Characuristics of the Populaticn. Part II, FloridaChapte r C-Sectio n 2. U S Government Printing Office, Washington, D .C., 1983. 104 References

PAGE 110

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing: 1980. Volume 1, Characteristics ofHausing Units. Part U, Florida Chapter B. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1983. U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Cemtu of Population: 1980. Volume I, Characteristics of the Population. Part I, United States Summary Chapter B. U.S. Gov e rnment Printing Offioe, Washington, D.C 1983. U.S. Bureau of th e Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1980. Volume I, Characteristics of the Population. Part I, United States Summary Chapter C. U.S Government Printing Office, Washington, D C., 1983. U.S. Bureau of the Census, CensusofHowing: 1980. Vplume 1 Chara.cteristicsofHousing Units. Part I, United States Summary Chapter A. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1983. U.S. Bureau of th e Census, StatisticaJAbstractofthe United States: 1991, 11th edition, D.C., 1991 (and previous editions). U.S. Bureau of the Census, Censzts of Population and Housing: 1990. Summary Population and Housing Characteristics. Florida U.S. Governmen t Prin t ing Office, Washington, D.C., 1991. U S Bureau ofthe Census, Cemus of Population: 1990. Genera/Population Characteristics. F l oridaSe<:tion 1. U.S. Government Prin t ing Office, D.C 1992 U.S. Burea u of the Census, CensusofPops.!ation: 1990. Genera/Population Characteristics. F l orida-Section 2. U. S Government P r inting Office, Washington, D C., 1992. U.S. Bur eau of the Census, Census of Population: 1990. General Population Characteristics. United States Summary {Metropolit an Areas)Secti on 1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1992. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census ofPopulation: 1990. General Population Characteristics. United States Summary {Metropolitan Are

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader cam 2200277Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 030159756
005 20110812140529.0
008 940505s1994 flua bs 000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00427
035
(OCoLC)30827593
040
CUY
c CUY
d OHI
043
n-us-fl
0 4 082
388.4/09759/021
2 20
090
HE309.F6
b D46 1994
245
Demographic & commuting trends in Florida /
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
1 3 246
Demographic and commuting trends in Florida.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1994]
300
v, 106 p. :
ill. ;
28 cm.
500
"February 1994."
5 FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references (p. 103-105).
530
Also available online.
FTS
650
Commuting
z Florida
Statistics.
Urban transportation
Florida
x Statistics.
651
Florida
Population
Statistics.
710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Floridiana Collection.
FTS
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.427
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:000988083;
FTS