Transportation 28: 375–408, 2001

 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Sustainability and automobility among the elderly:

An international assessment

SANDRA ROSENBLOOM
The Drachman Institute, The University of Arizona, 819 E. First Street, Tucson, AZ 85721,
USA (E-mail: Rosenblo@U.Arizona.edu)

Key words: driving cessation, elderly, mobility, pollution, sustainability, transit planning

Abstract. In the next three decades there will a huge increase in both the absolute number of
older people and in their percentage of the population in almost all Western European
countries, North America, and Australia. Most older people will have active lifestyles in which
mobility and access play a major role and almost all older men and a majority of older women
will be car drivers, used to the convenience and flexibility which the car provides.
Using data from the US, Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom,
the paper shows that, in spite of cultural and policy differences, older people around the world
are more likely to have a license, to take more trips, and to do so more often as the driver of
a car than older people just a decade ago; they are also less likely to use public transit. These
trends have a number of sustainability implications – the most obvious one is increased envi-
ronmental pollution. For example, even though older people may travel less than younger
drivers they may be polluting proportionately more because a) they are less likely to make as
great a proportion of trips in public transit as younger people and b) the trips they do make
may create more pollutants. In addition, older drivers may incur more wasted miles due to
wayfinding errors and trip-scouting behavior. And when older people curtail their driving, younger
family members may have to increase (or lengthen) their trip-making to provide needed services
or additional transportation.
While this paper stresses the environmental problems posed by an aging population, effec-
tive strategies arise from a focus on a broader definition of sustainability. The most important
approach is to accept the inevitable and work to make the private car “greener” and safer. New
transit service concepts and strategic community and neighborhood design and service elements
can complement the development of cleaner cars.
Although many of the potential strategies are not new, or can be expensive to implement,
the convergence of environmental concerns with other problems arising from the automobility
of the elderly – including increasing crash rates and serious loss of mobility among those
unable to drive – may make these policies more politically viable than in the past.

1. Introduction

Two worldwide trends have tremendous environmental implications, although

the non-environmental implications are far better recognized. First, between
1998 and 2025 the world’s elderly population will double [1]. But the fastest
growth will be in the industrial countries where increasing longevity, combined
376

with rapidly declining fertility, will substantially change the structure of the
entire population [2–3]. By the middle of the next century roughly one in three
citizens of the world’s industrial nations will be over 65 [4].
Second, as the populations of developed countries have aged they have
become more and more dependent on the private car and less and less on
alternatives to the car – this is not simply a North American or US phenom-
enon [5–7]. In the next two decades almost 100% of older men and between
60–90% of older women in the developed countries will enter their retire-
ment years as car drivers. Linked to greater access to a car is a far more
active life style-older people today take more trips, a greater variety of trips,
and longer trips than those who were 65+ just a few years ago. This combi-
nation of greater and different trip-making supported by the car is the essence
of what has been called automobility.
The basic demographic trends have spurred a number of important policy
debates about how to reform pension programs, improve medical delivery
systems, expand housing opportunities, deliver adequate and responsive social
services, and provide appropriate recreational opportunities for older people.
But the growing automobility of a rapidly expanding older population has
not received the attention it should. And almost no one has questioned the
environmental implications of the two trends combined.1
In fact, traditional planning efforts in both the transportation and the
environmental arenas have tended to underestimate or even ignore the “con-
tribution” of older retired people to environmental problems. Most traditional
transportation planning efforts, for example, focus largely on the work trip, not
dealing with the impacts of the travel of retired people (or, indeed, anyone
not in salaried employment). Many transport, land use, and environmental
models assume that the relatively low licensing and travel rates seen among
older people in the past will continue into the future.2
In an effort to lay the groundwork for building sustainable communities
which simultaneously guarantee the access and mobility of older travelers
and reduce detrimental environmental impacts, this paper examines the travel
behavior of older people in several major countries: Australia, Germany, New
Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom, as well as the US. The research
presented in this paper was undertaken as part of an initiative by the European
Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) evaluating ways to address
the transportation and mobility problems of a new generation of elderly people.
The analyses presented below show that older people around the world
are rapidly becoming car drivers and changing their travel patterns in response
to the advantages offered by the car – whatever its societal and environ-
mental costs. And these international trends have occurred in spite of
sometimes substantial differences in government policies, gas and other auto-
related taxes, and public values about driving, land use, and development
 377

patterns. In fact, when we look carefully it appears that the cultural norms
outside the US about the role of the private car are really about whether women
should and do drive – men around the developed world are rapidly becoming
car drivers for the majority of their trips.
The data presented in this paper are designed to alert a range of policy-
makers to the importance of understanding and evaluating the implications
of the international automobility of the elderly. Initial analyses suggest that
planners may be 1) substantially underestimating the actual number of
vehicular trips older people will make well into their 70’s and even 80’s and
2) failing to recognize the disproportionate environmental impacts of those
trips. However, the analyses also raise a number of unexplored questions about
the travel patterns of older people in the future; for example, will older drivers
pollute less than comparable younger drivers because they shorten their trips,
or drive more slowly, or buy newer, less polluting cars? It will be difficult
to develop effective environmental, congestion, and transportation policies
without a better understanding of the driving patterns of an increasingly older
driver pool.
The paper concludes by outlining strategies which address these concerns
in a way that balances the need of older people for an active lifestyle with
our concern for sustainable community development – creating cleaner and
safer cars, promoting transit options more responsive to the needs of the elderly,
and enhancing community design and service options. None of the suggested
alternatives are new or cheap, but the intertwined environmental, safety, and
mobility challenges posed by an aging population may make policymakers
more receptive to paying for and implementing such approaches.

2. Background

Population changes

Table 1 indicates the dimensions of population changes around the world; in

almost all industrial countries the absolute population of older people will
increase by over half while the percent of the population over 65 will double
between now and the middle of the next generation. This is not an artifact
of starting with low absolute numbers; even in 1998 over 15% of the popu-
lation were 65+ in many of the countries shown. For example, there were
over nine million elderly people in both France and Italy and over twenty
million in Japan. The “youngest” countries – the US, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand – which start from much lower bases, are expected to show triple
digit percentage increases in the number of older people. But by 2050 even
these “young” nations will have a substantial number of older people.
378

Table 1. Trends in aging in selected industrialized countries, 1998–2050.

1998 2050 Percentage

change in
Percent of Absolute Percent of Absolute 65+
total number 65+ total number 65+ population
population 65+ (millions) population 65+ (millions) 1998 to 2050

Australia 12.4% 02,307 25.2% 05,756 +149.5%

Austria 15.5 01,260 35.2 02,157 0+71.2
Belgium 16.8 01,705 33.3 02,534 0+48.6
Canada 12.5 03,821 24.7 10,005 +161.8
Denmark 14.9 0,0797 30.3 01,357 0+70.3
France 15.8 09,292 31.8 15,314 0+64.8
Germany 15.9 13,048 36.0 20,695 0+58.6
Italy 17.6 09,999 37.9 14,511 0+45.1
Japan 16.0 20,164 32.1 32,518 0+61.3
New Zealand 11.6 0,0421 23.8 01,085 +157.7
United Kingdom 15.7 09,270 27.6 14,958 0+61.4
USA 12.7 34,269 20.0 78,859 +130.1

Source: Computed from various tables, US Bureau of Census, International Database.

The relative number of older people is as important as the absolute number.

As the elderly become a greater percentage of the population there will be
fewer and fewer young people to pay for or provide the services needed by
the old. In fact, the coming generation of older folks (the baby boomers)
will have fewer children per capita than any generation in the last two
centuries [8].

Changes in licensing

Licensing among older people is rapidly increasing around the world as

younger people age – since younger travelers are more likely to be licensed
than comparable travelers a few decades ago. Figure 1 shows the substantial
growth in the driver license rates of older Americans between 1992 and 1997.
Among those older than 70, over 90% of the men and 65% of the women
had a license. Even when disaggregated by sex and age cohort the extent of
licensing is very great; for example over 83% of men and almost 50% of
women over 80 were licensed to drive in 1997. But perhaps most important,
among those who were 50–59 in 1997 almost all the men and over 90% of
the women were licensed drivers. By extension, in 2020 roughly 85% of all
Americans 65–80 (and over 70% of all older Americans under 90) will be,
or will have been, licensed drivers.
While European countries are far less motorized than the US there are
 379

Source: Office of Highway Information Management, FHWA Table DL-20.

Figure 1. USA driver license rates by age and sex, 1992 and 1997.

very similar trends in licensing among the elderly, but particularly among men.
In Great Britain, which has the lowest rates in Western Europe, licensing
went up for every cohort of elderly driver from 1985 to 1996. For example,
in 1985 roughly 70% of men 65–69 had a full license but that figure had grown
to almost 82% by 1994. Roughly 40% of men over 85 had a full license in
1994/96 compared to 21% of comparable men in 1985. While a large licensing
gap remains between British men and women the number of women 65–69
with a full license increased 81% between 1985 and 1994 [9].
Figure 2 displays a more conservative measure of the growth of auto-
mobility among the elderly in Norway, combining holding a license with having
access to car. As the figure shows, in the period between 1985–1992 there
were substantial increases in this joint measure of licensing and vehicle access
in all cohorts, but particularly among women. For example, between 1985
and 1992, automobility grew 27% among men 64–70 but 83% among com-
parable women. Although no data exist for 1985 for those over 78, in 1992
almost 70% of the men and 20% of the women over 78 had both a license
and access to a car. Thus by 2010 at least 90% of elderly Norwegian men
and 60% of elderly Norwegian women under roughly 80 will be (or will
have been) licensed drivers.
In a similar fashion, in 1997 just under 40% of Germans over 65 had a
license but roughly 60% of those 60–64 did: almost 80% of the men and
380

Source: Hjorthal, 1998.

Figure 2. Change in automobility, Norway, 1985–92.

40% of the women. The overwhelming percentage of those with a license

also had access to a personal or household car; for example among Germans
70–79, only 6% had a license but no household car (and most were women)
[10].
Rosenbloom’s work in New Zealand and Rosenbloom and Morris’ work
in Melbourne, Australia show similar patterns – rapidly increasing licensing
among the elderly and a declining gap between the rates of men and women.
Table 2 shows that, because almost all the men and over 80% of the women
in these areas were licensed drivers in the early 1990’s, within 20 years, roughly
the same percentage of older people will be licensed drivers [11, 12].

Increased reliance on the car

In the US and abroad there is compelling evidence that licensing rates are
strongly related to much greater use of the private car. The 1995 Nationwide
Personal Transportation Study (NPTS) data show that roughly 92% of all
trips of Americans over 65 were taken in a private vehicle – almost exactly
the same percentage as those 16–64. The major difference is that older people
were more likely to be the passenger in that car than the driver – but not by
large margins. People over 65 took roughly two thirds of all their trips as
 381

Table 2. License rates by sex and cohort, projections to 2010–2013.

New Zealand Melbourne, Australia

1989–90 2010 1993 2013

44–54 Male 97.3 ≈ 0– 99.3 ≈ 0–

Female 80.1 ≈ 0– 89.9 ≈ 0–
65+ Male 80.7 ≈ 97.3 75.3 ≈ 99.3
Female 49.6 ≈ 80.1 40.2 ≈ 89.9

the driver of a car – compared to three-fourths of the trips of younger people

[13].
The strong dependance on the car holds even when examining older people
by cohort – in 1995 all cohorts of American elderly under 84 relied on the
private vehicle for almost the same percentage of their trips – 92%. But even
those over 85 made almost 85% of their trips in a car. At the same time, as
people aged they were more likely to be the passenger in the car and not the
driver – but again not by much. Those older than 85, for example, drove
themselves for over half their total trips. Public transit use was comparably
small among all cohorts of the elderly; walking was always the second most
important travel mode [14].
There are comparable patterns among older people internationally. In
Melbourne, those over 65 were not much less likely to use a car than younger
people. In 1993 those 65–69 made 65% of all non-work trips in a car, compared
to 52% of the trips of those over 85. But surprisingly, older people were
more likely to have been the driver of that car than younger people; 74% of
those 65+ were driving the car they were riding in compared to 56% of those
18–59. For most older travelers walking was a much more important mode
than was public transport. However, the longer the trip, the more likely the
older resident of Melbourne was to use a car; almost 80% of all trips under
0.5 km were made walking, (although over 20% were still made by car). But
almost 80% of all trips longer than 2 km were taken as a car driver or pas-
senger. No cohort of older Melbournian made less than 70% of all trips over
1 km by car [15].
Table 3 focuses specifically on the elderly in the United Kingdom; the Table
shows that almost 70% of all trips over one mile made by UK elders 65–69
were made in a car (75% of the men’s and 62% of the women’s trips); over
91% of the men and 31% of the women in that cohort are driving the car.
Although the likelihood of being a passenger in the car increased with age,
even among those British elders over 80, where 55.2% of all trips over 1
mile were made in a car, 70% of the men were driving that car.
382

Table 3. Travel mode for all trips, 1.6 km+, by age and sex, Great Britain, 1996–1998 (%).

30–59 65–69 70–79 80+

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Car 83.8 76.4 63.4 67.6 57.9 60.8 57.8

Driver 65.1 68.0 19.3 57.1 15.6 39.8 74.0
Passenger 17.2 06.8 42.7 08.9 40.1 17.2 45.1
Other POV 01.5 01.5 01.4 01.6 01.8 03.9 05.4
Public transit 07.6 10.2 24.4 17.3 28.3 21.4 28.9
Bus 05.4 08.7 22.6 16.2 27.0 20.4 27.9
Rail 02.2 01.5 01.8 01.1 01.3 01.0 01.0
Walk 05.9 11.1 09.9 12.3 11.0 13.9 09.3
Taxi 01.0 00.7 01.2 00.9 02.0 01.9 00.5

Data from The Netherlands show similar patterns-although the substantial

role of the bicycle among older people is noteworthy. Almost half of all trips
made by those 65–74 were made in a private car in 1994 – and only 6% by
all public transit modes combined. But this cohort made 45% of all trips
either walking (22%) or cycling (23%). Over 43% of the trips of those over
75 were made in car but 19% were made cycling and 28% walking [16].
Unfortunately we lack published trend data on elderly mode choice in
other developed countries (an indication, perhaps, of how lightly this issue
is taken). But to the extent that younger Europeans will carry into their retire-
ment the travel choices of their younger years, the patterns look the same
even if the magnitude of car use is less. Table 4 shows the trends in mode
choice for a variety of countries, many of which substantially subsidize all
forms of public transit while spending considerably less on highways. In
1994 over 80% of all travel (measured in km traveled) in the European coun-
tries was by private car. From 1984 to 1994 almost every country in Europe
increased the percentage of all travel by car. Conversely the majority of coun-
tries in Europe saw a significant decrease in the percentage of all kilometers
traveled in all public modes combined (buses, coaches, rail); even in coun-
tries like the Netherlands, where the use of public transport modes increased,
gains were not impressive (and came with a high price tag).3
Overall, the data we have on travel by European elders strongly shows
that European travel trends are moving in exactly the same direction as those
in North America – toward greater auto dependency among the elderly and
declining reliance on other modes. There are important differences between
the US and most European countries – the most striking being the lower
 383

Table 4. Percentage of trips by mode, 1984–1994.

Cars and taxis Buses and coaches Rail

84 94 84 94 84 94

Belgium 81.2 88.3 11.1 05.2 07.8 06.5

Denmark 75.5 80.4 16.1 12.9 08.4 06.7
Finland 76.2 81.8 17.2 13.2 06.6 05.0
France 83.0 86.6 06.8 05.6 10.2 07.8
Germany 76.7 84.6 13.4 08.1 09.9 07.3
Great Britain 84.1 88.9 09.9 06.7 06.0 04.5
Netherlands 85.7 83.8 07.6 07.9 06.7 08.2
Norway 84.9 85.0 09.5 09.6 05.6 05.5
Portugal 78.5 81.1 13.1 13.5 08.5 05.6
Spain 71.0 79.1 18.4 14.7 10.5 06.2
Sweden 82.0 82.6 10.3 11.3 07.7 06.0
Switzerland 82.6 80.8 05.4 06.1 12.0 13.6

Source: UK, DETR, Transport Statistics.

level of automobility among women and the greater relative importance of

walking – but equally striking are the similarities.

3. The direct implications of elderly automobility

There is substantial evidence that increased access to, and use of, a private
car is linked to substantial increases in trip rates and trip lengths among those
over and under 65. Many policymakers have failed to recognize the absolute
growth in trip making by older people – with all the environmental impacts
which this trend implies. But they have also failed to recognize that the growing
automobility of older people has environmental impacts greater than the
“simple” increase in auto travel – because older people are not only making
more trips than in the past, they are making the kinds of trips least amenable
to the use of alternative modes. And, in addition, the nature of their travel
patterns may actually create more pollution than their trip rates or mode choices
alone would indicate.

Greater tripmaking

Access to a car either results from or causes substantial increases in travel

among older people. Table 5 shows that between 1983 and 1995 older
Americans increased their travel activity on every index: they made 77%
384

Table 5. Daily travel statistics for older Americans (65+), 1983–1995.

1983 1990 1995 % change

(adjusted) 1983–1995

Vehicle trips per driver 01.66 02.27 02.94 0+77.1

Vehicle miles traveled per driver 09.80 14.83 19.56 0+98.0
Average vehicle trip length 05.92 06.61 06.69 0+13.0
Average time spent driving
(in minutes) 0in.a. 30.83 42.89 0+39.1
Person trips per person 01.82 02.49 03.43 0+88.5
Person-miles per person 12.21 19.85 25.24 +106.7
Average person trip length 06.70 08.12 07.46 0+11.3

Source: Computed from Table 29 Draft 1995 NPTS Summary of Travel Trends.

more vehicle trips, spent almost 40% more time driving, and drove 98%
more miles than they had in 1983. They also increased the number of trips
made in private vehicles by 13% and increased all trip lengths by 11%. While
it is unlikely that the rate of increase will continue at such high levels in
the coming decades there seems little doubt of the direction of such indica-
tors.
European elders are also traveling more than comparable people a few years
ago even if they do not travel as much as Americans. In 1994 Dutch women
65+ took 79% more and men 69% more daily trips by car than they had in
1980; as in the US, trips lengthened as reliance on the car grew. Men traveled
46% more and women 37% more kilometers each day in 1994 than they had
in 1980 [17]. Randi Hjorthol and her colleagues found that older Norwegian
men made significantly more trips in 1991/92 than comparable elders had in
1984/85 although women only made slightly more trips. They also found
that older Norwegians of both sexes traveled further in 1991/92 than they
had in the earlier survey [18]. Werner Brög and colleagues report a signifi-
cant increase in trip making for German elders between 1982 and 1997 [19].
Neither the sheer number of older people who are licensed drivers nor the
growth in their trip-making would be as serious if older people still made many
fewer trips than younger people or traveled substantially fewer miles, as most
travel projections expect. In fact, we would experience a net reduction in
pollution and congestion if we exchanged one less active older driver for
each energetic younger one! However, the gap between older and younger trav-
elers is not as large as might be thought, because older people today have
such active lifestyles.
Table 6 shows daily trips rates and miles traveled (via all modes) in the
US for cohorts of those under and over 65. Even if we examine differences
in the total trip rate – which includes a large number of work trips made by
 385

Table 6. US total trip and non-work trip rates by age and sex, 1995.

Age Sex Total daily Daily non-work

Trips Miles Trips Miles

18–64 Male 4.6 51.3 3.1 29.3

Female 4.7 37.5 3.7 28.0
65–69 Male 4.4 37.4 3.8 32.0
Female 3.7 24.9 3.5 23.1
70–74 Male 4.2 34.5 3.8 31.1
Female 3.4 20.6 3.2 20.0
75–79 Male 3.5 23.8 3.3 21.8
Female 2.9 16.4 2.8 15.8
80–84 Male 3.4 19.0 3.4 18.5
Female 2.4 13.0 2.3 12.7
85–89 Male 2.1 13.1 2.0 13.3
Female 1.3 07.3 1.3 07.2

Note: Non-work excludes trips to and from work and those “work-related”.
Source: Unpublished data from 1995 NPTS.

younger travelers – the trip rates of older people are not substantially lower
than younger travelers until age 75. But if we examine non-work trips we
find that older men under 85 take substantially more non-work trips than
younger men; older women take fewer than younger women – but the drop
is not very large until the age of 75. For example, men 70–74 take 23% more
and those 80–85 take 8% more non-work trips than men under 65. Conversely
women 70–74 take 12% fewer and those 75–79 take 24% fewer non-work trips
than younger women.
Older people travel substantially fewer total miles each day than younger
travelers – not surprising since the lengthy work trip is largely gone from
the travel patterns of older people. But as with trip rates, when we focus on
only non-work travel, we find that older men make longer trips than younger
men until they reach 75. For example, men 70–74 travel 31.1 miles each day
for non-work purposes compared to 29.3 for men under 65 – a 6% differ-
ence. Older women drive less than younger women but again the biggest
drop comes at age 75.
These data suggest that the US will not see as drastic a gap in trip-making
between those younger and older than 65 as some planners may assume.
Moreover, it is possible that the drop in trip-making among women as they age
is the result of cohort and income effects rather than a reduced desire for travel,
at least until age 75 or 80. As women over the next three decades come to
386

more resemble men at the point they retire – in terms of years of driving
experience, education, professional accomplishments, etc. – they may display
the same demand for additional travel as now seen among older men. As
more women enter their retirement years with better incomes they may have
the means to travel as often and as long as comparable men. Overall we may
well see substantially more travel among older women – and even less of a
gap in trip-making between all of those over and under 65 than Table 6 would
suggest.
We find some comparable patterns abroad. In Norway, Germany, and the
UK older people also increased the absolute number of non-work trips when
they reached 65. For example, in Norway people over 65 made substantially
fewer “necessary trips” – defined as work and work-related plus serve pas-
senger trips – than younger people, as expected. But they also made more
“optional” trips – defined largely as all other trips – and more trips in 1992
than in 1985. For example, in 1992 men 64–70 made 1.2 optional trips daily
or 30% more than men 50–56. Moreover the optional trip rate of men 71–77
was only slightly less than that of men 50–56: 0.90 v. 0.93 trips per day. As
in the US older women did not make more trips than younger women but
they did not make substantially fewer either; moreover patterns varied by
trip type: in 1992 Norwegian women 78–84 made as many daily shopping trips
as did women 61–70.
Conversely, 1994/95 data from Melbourne show that older travelers did
make fewer non-work trips than younger travelers – but they still made a
substantial number. Among those licensed to drive, travelers 18–59 made
3.1 non-work trips compared to 2.7 non-work trips per day for those 65–69,
70–74, and 75–79 – or a 13% difference. Trip-making did not drop substan-
tially among those licensed until the age of 85 – when they made “only” 1.8
non-work trips per day. Even those without a license were fairly active;
people 65–74 made 1.9 trips per day while those 75–84 made 1.6 non-work
trips per day [20].
In short, older men in the US and in several other countries make more non-
work trips when they retire than younger people – and, as shown in the previous
section – an increasing percentage are made in a car. So while overall older
people made fewer trips than while in the paid labor force, the difference is
not nearly as large as in the past or as policymakers may be counting on.
Moreover changes in women’s demands and resources in the future may narrow
the gap even more. It is entirely likely that older people will be making far
more auto-based trips after retirement than most policymakers and models have
assumed.
While it is beyond the scope of this paper to directly compute the envi-
ronmental impacts of this increased trip-making, Table 7 gives some idea of
the dimensions of the escalating number of vehicle trips4 which might be made
 387

in the US in the future by older drivers. In 1995 the NPTS found that drivers
over 65 made almost 26 million vehicle trips each day. The Table shows that
if vehicle trip rates by sex and cohort were frozen at 1995 levels, the larger
population of older people in 2010 would make over 72 million vehicle trips
each day. The 275% increase in trip making over the 15 year period would
be fueled only by increasing population and the much greater number of women
drivers among the “new” seniors.
However, if each future cohort of the elderly, by sex, increased its trip
making to resemble the vehicle trip rate of the cohort “behind” it in 1995, those
over 65 would make 92 million vehicle trips daily in 2010, or almost 27%
higher than the first assumption.5 Clearly the giant growth in trip-making in
this assumption is based disproportionately on the rapid increase in the number
of vehicle trips taken by those over 75, but particularly women.
If older women’s vehicle trip rates rose to that of men’s in 1995 and men’s
stayed constant (at the 1995 level), as calculated by the third assumption,
the total daily vehicle trips made by the elderly in 2010 would climb to 94
million trips each day – all fueled only by women’s increasing rates. Note
that the third assumption, while creating large increases in the trip rates of

Table 7. Daily vehicle trip rates under different assumptions (in millions).

2010 2020

I II III IV I II III IV
95 rates Previous 95 male 83–95 95 rates Previous 95 male 83–95
cohort rates change* cohort rates change*
rate rate

Men
65–74 30,438 32,436 30,438 047,788 046,573 049,629 046,573 073,119
75+ 14,325 21,028 14,325 023,923 019,467 028,576 019,467 032,511
Women
65–74 20,103 24,647 33,706 031,694 032,125 039,565 054,106 050,876
75+ 07,859 13,956 16,102 014,697 014,205 025,224 028,942 026,564
Total 72,725 92,067 94,571 118,102 112,370 142,994 149,088 183,070

Pecentage +26.8% +2.6% +25.0% +27.3% +4.3% +22.8%

Difference Over previous assumption Over previous assumption
Lowest to highest assumption +62.6% +62.9%

* Annualized.
Source: Computed from unpublished 1983 and 1995 NPTS data and Tables NP-T3-C & E,
“Projections of the Total Resident Population by 5 year Age Group, and Sex, “2006-201” and
“2016-20”, Middle Series, on US Census Website, date January 13, 2000.
Assumption: All drivers licensed at an early time remain drivers; no new drivers.
388

older women, only produces a slightly higher total for all older drivers than
that produced by the second assumption. Finally if vehicle trip rates for both
men and women were to continue to increase at the same annual rate as they
did between 1983–95, the number of daily trips would skyrocket – to over
118 million in 2010 and 183 million in 2020 (or six times more than 1995).
Of course, these calculations are simplistic at best; there are crucial dif-
ferences by income, race, ethnicity, residential location, etc. not captured
accurately in such gross estimates. Moreover, the estimates are based on very
large aggregate cohorts containing people who display markedly different travel
patterns. And trip rates cannot increase indefinitely; there are only 24 hours
in the day and people neither can nor want to spend that entire time driving!
But the major point of Table 7 is that, within a few years, the US may be
dealing with a huge number of perhaps unexpected daily car trips.

Important differences in trip making

The growing number of older people leaving the work force on retirement
might still create less pollution and congestion, and reduce the consumption
of non-renewable natural resources, if the trips which were made by older
people were identical to those made by younger people. This could be true
even if a) the reduction in trips were not as great as historical patterns might
have led us to expect, b) a greater number of trips were made in a car, and
c) new cohorts of the elderly were very active. Unfortunately their trips are
not identical – and the differences are important. Older people are going to
be less transit dependent in the future for the trips they do make and when they
drive they are going to pollute the air proportionately more.

The declining role of public transit

Older people in the future are less likely to take the same percentage of their
trips using public transit as they did when younger (or as older people did
in the past) both because a) new generations of elderly people have different
lifestyles and b) non-work travel is not as conducive to transit use. Thus they
may be trading some work trips on buses, trains, and trams for non-work
trips in cars.
Transit usage data can send conflicting signals because older people are
generally more likely to use public transit than younger people in most
countries. So a recent German study concluded that older people consciously
switched to “more environmentally friendly” modes when they retired [21].
But this interpretation seems unlikely since the elderly in most developed
countries are increasingly less reliant on mass transit than comparable elderly
people in the past. Rather than “switching” on retirement it is more likely
that we are seeing different behavior by different cohorts of older people.
 389

New cohorts of the elderly are less likely to have a lifestyle which makes it
possible to use public transit as frequently as did otherwise comparable people
in the past.
For example, transit usage between 1985 and 1992 declined for both older
men and women in Norway, although substantially more among men.
Norwegian men 64–70 took 71% fewer daily transit trips in 1992 than com-
parable men had in 1985 – although the transit use of comparable women
only dropped 4%. At the same time, the study found that as people aged they
sustained their increased use of the car [22]. In other words, the higher use
of transit among those elderly in 1985 was the result of different lifestyle
choices and not the result of a switch to transit upon aging. Similar patterns
have been seen in Germany, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
The impact of declining transit use among the elderly is magnified because
transit use has always been substantially lower for non-work trips than for work
trips. For example, unpublished data from the 1995 NPTS show that Americans
over 65 actually take slightly more of their non-work trips in a car than do
younger travelers. And most older people will be trading work travel for
non-work travel – and thus trips by transit for trips by car.
In addition older people are increasingly taking trips too long to walk but
for which transit services are unavailable or inappropriate. Unpublished data
from the 1995 NPTS show that the average older American traveled almost
4.9 miles to church, 6.9 miles to the doctor, and 6.4 miles for personal or family
business.6 The NPTS data show that average senior took over 40 minutes
one way to go the doctor using public transit; the comparable trip by car
took 17 minutes (and involved no waits or transfers).
Clearly the land use patterns (or policy strategies) which create this kind
of situation are not universal. European cities are, on average, much denser
so walking, cycling, and public transit may be more feasible options for many
trips; moreover these cities generally provide much better public transit
services, at least in the most developed areas. But the bottom line may be
remarkably similar – most trips taken by the elderly are too long to walk
and public transit as an alternative is very time consuming, even if not as taxing
to use as in the US.
In 1997 the average German 65–69 traveled 5.4 km per trip; a German
85+ traveled on average 3.5 km. Yet both of these distances, while roughly
a third of the distance traveled by comparably aged Americans, are also too
far for most older people to walk. In Melbourne, the average senior traveled
roughly 6.3 km for medical and religious purposes and 7.2 km for all types
of non-work trips – again too far to walk. But in both studies these trips
took over 30-plus minutes one way on a bus or tram – based on actual transit
travel speeds reported by survey respondents – and less than half that time
in a car.
390

As a result, car use is increasing and relative transit use declining around
Europe. Although we lack trend data by age, some overall patterns may be
indicative. A 1998 comprehensive study of Germany found that, between 1950
and 1992, private vehicle use went up 1,348% while public transit use only
went up 104% (less than the total increase in the population or work force).
Moreover, in those four decades the car’s share of all motorized travel (that
is, not including walking and cycling) almost tripled, from 35.5% to 83.6%,
while public transit’s share of those trips dropped almost 75% (from 64.5%
to 16.4%). In London between 1975 and 1991 public transit use decreased 15%
while car use increased 9% (measured as a percentage of all trips) [23].
Nothing has been more dramatic than the decreasing role of public transit
in Eastern European countries [24]. A recent study of Hungary shows that well
before the 1989 transition from a communist state, car ownership rates and use
were rising rapidly. In 1970, only 28% of all trips were made by car; that
number had surpassed 60% by 1998 – while both rail and public transit shares
combined fell to 37% of all trips (from 71% in 1970). In Budapest, transit
ridership dropped over 22 percentage points in just 8 years – from 82% of
all trips in 1990 to 60% in 1998. Since the Hungarian economy essentially
collapsed in post-transition years, policymakers were surprised by the con-
tinual increase in automobility; they had assumed that auto ownership and
use expanded only in response to rising incomes [25].
Overall it does appear that, around the world, as older people switch from
work to non-work travel and trips grow too far to walk, elderly travelers are
relying less on public transit and other alternatives and more on the car.
Although we cannot say with certainty, it looks as if, in the future, some
older people will be trading some percentage of their trips, formerly taken
by transit, for different trips taken by car. Thus even if they travel less and
make shorter trips, they may be polluting more or contributing more to
congestion.

Polluting proportionately more

But there is an additional way in which older people may pollute propor-
tionately more. Older people tend to take many short trips, so their car engines
may never get warm enough for pollution control devices to be effective –
this is the so-called “cold start” problem. The catalytic converters on modern
cars work best at reducing the hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides
of nitrogen produced by car engines when both the catalyst and the engine
are hot. (In fact very little catalytic activity occurs below roughly 600° F.)
Emission rates during cold starts can be 20 to 100 times higher than rates
from a “hot” vehicle. As a result, in laboratory tests on modern, properly
operating cars, the majority of emissions occurred during the first 10% of
the test before the engine and catalyst were hot [26]. So when someone at
 391

retirement trades five 10 mile one-way trips to work for two or three shorter
trips, some emissions may double – even though fewer trips are made and
fewer miles traveled.
Of course there may off-setting trends. Older people are more likely to have
new cars which may pollute less than those of younger workers. On the other
hand, older people are also likely to have bigger cars – which generally pollute
more. The impact of these off-setting factors seem small in comparison to
the cold-start problem. Until we get better evidence, it seems wise to assume
that the activity patterns of older people may be creating substantial envi-
ronmental impacts even though they travel less than they did when younger.

4. The indirect implications of elderly automobility

The patterns of older drivers themselves

The fact that so many older people will be drivers has some less obvious
sustainability implications whose actual magnitude is unclear. There is sub-
stantial evidence that older people drive differently than younger people
[27–30] – and some of these behavioral differences may have negative impacts.
First, older drivers may be making a number of “wasted trips” – older drivers
may get lost more than younger ones and they may make duplicative trips.
A 1981 UK study concluded that roughly 4% of all miles driven were the result
of “wayfinding errors” – getting lost. A 1998 UK study by Peter Burns found
that elderly drivers were more likely to report wayfinding problems than
younger drivers. On the other hand, older drivers were not more likely to report
actually getting lost. Burns suspects that this apparent contradiction may result
from a) the inability of his measures to control for exposure – it is possible
that older drivers a) made more wayfinding errors per mile/km driven or trip
made7 [31] or b) were simply less willing to travel to places with which they
were not familiar [32].
That observation illustrates another dimension to wayfinding – “scouting
a trip.” People sometimes travel to a destination a day or two before they
actually have to make a trip to figure out the best route, the actual location,
the availability and cost of parking facilities, etc. Preliminary data from a large
comparative study of younger and older drivers in Tucson, AZ show that
older drivers are more than twice as likely as younger ones to scout a trip,
and men far more than women. As much as 10% of all tripmaking by older
drivers may be scouting trips. Of course, these scouting trips are already
included in the trip counts discussed above so the direct environmental impact
should not be double-counted. But these are, in essence, wasted trips.
In addition, to increase their safety older people more frequently engage
392

in routing practices which artificially increase their journeys. Several studies

have found that older drivers avoid left turns or left turns at unprotected
intersections; to do so they sometimes change their routes [33, 34]. For example
they go beyond their destination to find a signalized intersection which allows
them to turn left and or make a U-turn to return to their destination, or they
may make three right turns instead of a left, conceivably tripling the mileage
for that segment of their trip. For any given trip, older drivers may avoid
the more direct route by freeway, instead taking much longer to travel on
local streets.
On the other hand, some of the differences in the behavior of older people
could have positive impacts (in comparison to younger drivers). Older drivers
may substitute shorter for longer non-work trips, drive more slowly (which
reduces some kinds of emissions), or travel in the off-peak instead of the
peak. Avoiding both left turns and congested areas they may not sit in
queues as frequently as younger travelers, reducing the time their engines
idle. Overall, however, we simply don’t know the net results of all these driving
changes.
Whether they have positive or negative environmental impacts, will these
driving differences continue? It is entirely conceivable that a new generation
of older drivers will be less likely to avoid left turns, by-pass congested
areas, shorten their trips, or drive more slowly. We can’t simply conclude either
that the current differences between older and younger drivers have neutral
or positive environmental implications or that older drivers in the future will
behave in the same manner.

The patterns of other drivers

Indirect environmental impacts may also arise from the increased travel of
non-elderly people who must respond to the needs of those who have stopped
driving for health or financial reasons (or both). There is a large body of
literature which describes the role that adult children, and particularly daugh-
ters and daughters-in-law, play in meeting the needs of their elderly relatives
around the world [35]. This assistance would have no net environmental
implications if all concerned lived with or very near one another – trading
the younger person’s drive for the older person’s. But increasingly older people
live far from family members which may require those relatives providing
assistance to add new trips or lengthen existing ones.
Of course, many relatives combine trips they already make – to the grocery
or pharmacy – with visits they would have made anyway to their older family
members. In addition, some trips by adult children might actually reduce
total trip making, as when an adult child living nearby brings groceries or
medicines to a parent entirely removing the older person’s need for out-of-
 393

home travel. However, these are clearly impacts which must be recognized and
studied.

5. Mobility and safety

We know that “. . . as people age their ability to safely drive a car may be
compromised by a variety of functional impairments” [36]. Thus older people,
who represent 13% of the US population, constitute 18% of US motor vehicle
deaths. Moreover people over 75 have more motor vehicle deaths per 1,000,000
than any cohort of the population except those under 25; per mile driven
they have more crashes than all other drivers except teenagers.
The greater mobility associated with increased automobility produces
significant, and very real, resistance to reducing driving-for safety or any other
reasons. Traffic analysts have long debated if and when current older drivers
cease driving when faced with physical, emotional, and/or mental problems
which seriously interfere with their ability to do so safely [37–39]. An equally
important question is whether a new generation of seniors, far more used to,
and dependent on the private car, will stop driving when faced with similar
situations.8 A 1998 focus group study of older drivers at the University of
Michigan noted,

Nearly all participants had strong emotional feelings about the importance
of driving . . . Healthy older drivers, in particular, described busy, active
lives that required the use of a car on an almost daily basis . . . Many,
including nearly all the male participants, had not even thought about the
eventual need to reduce or stop driving . . . [40]

Even in Europe, those who have long relied on the car to meet their mobility
needs resist driving cessation [41]. A recent British study asked,

[A]ssuming that an elderly person eventually loses the ability to drive, what
are the consequences of that loss, and how can a reasonable level of personal
mobility be retained by someone who has, perhaps, spent his entire life
driving and little or no knowledge of public transport or how to use it?
[42]

Certainly the travel differences between the elderly with and without a licenses
are substantial. Data from the 1995 NPTS show that, for example, women
70–74 with a license made almost 117% more daily trips and traveled over
180% more miles daily than comparable women without a license. Men 70–74
with a license traveled 232% more miles and made over 100% more trips
than comparable men without a license [43].
394

But the NPTS data include both men and women who never drove, and
possibly people who gave up driving because they were too ill to travel at
all (so their loss of mobility was really due to illness and not driving cessa-
tion.) In a recent study in Tucson I followed 42 older people who had stopped
driving over a one year period; just under 40% reported that driving cessa-
tion was due to some problem or condition that would probably not
significantly affect their willingness or ability to get about or out of the house
[44].9 But unpublished data show that this subset of non-drivers made 62%
fewer trips than they had a year before when still driving – and 75% fewer
trips than continuing drivers. Certainly some of this gap must represent a
genuine loss of mobility directly related to the inability to drive.
There is no way to easily separate cause from effect when looking at driving
cessation among the elderly. But substantial evidence shows that, because they
lack realistic alternatives to the car, 1) many older people will continue to drive
for as long as they can even when driving becomes difficult and even dan-
gerous [45–47], and 2) many who give up driving will still have substantial
needs for out-of-home travel. And all evidence suggests that those who will
be elderly in the future will be even less likely to easily give up driving, having
made so many life style choices based on the flexibility and access offered
by the private car.
By 2020 the overwhelming number of non-drivers among those over 75 will
be elderly people who have had to stop driving. Those people who never drove
will be a small part of the mobility problem created by, and facing, an aging
population. Thus intertwined with the environmental aspects of sustainability
are the safety and mobility consequences of the greater automobility of the
elderly in the US and abroad.

6. Policy implications and options

The car – whatever its societal costs – clearly suits the active lifestyle enjoyed
by most American elders today and will do so in the future. While most elderly
Europeans in the future will not depend as much as Americans on driving a
private car to fulfill their needs – they are clearly much more likely to do so
than older Europeans today. In fact European trends in auto use only look good
when compared to those of North America – they are not inherently sustain-
able patterns, however sustainability is defined.
While this paper has focused largely on only one aspect of sustainability,
environmental protection, it has raised two additional societal problems related
to the increasing automobility of the elderly: increasing crash rates, and the
mobility losses facing older people who stop driving. And while much of
the discussion has focused on a narrow view of sustainability, the solution
 395

to these converging problems may well lie in a broader definition of sustain-

ability, one which stresses land use and social implications as well.

The role of incentives and sanctions

Many analysts have argued that the problems raised by the overall auto-
mobility of society could be addressed by encouraging travelers to use alter-
natives to the car or reduce their tripmaking. Others feel that we can reduce
car dependency by more correctly pricing the use of the car [48–50] – or
even by restricting its use entirely (for example, by banning cars from certain
streets or zones in a city [51]). Many suggested sanctions would automati-
cally cover elderly travelers (e.g. peak period road pricing) while others could
be targeted at them, for example, imposing more stringent licensing
standards on the elderly. Incentives could be also be specifically targeted –
for example, offering older people reduced transit fares.
How successful will such approaches be in addressing the intertwined
problems raised by the automobility of the elderly? Current efforts to encourage
all drivers to use carpools or transit – approaches which rely on incentives
rather than prices or penalties – have not been very successful. In spite of major
programs and policies, public transit’s share of all US trips has fallen to an
all time low10 as have car pool rates which have been dropping steadily for
over three decades [52]. In fact, in 1995, for the first time older people in
the US took a smaller percentage of their trips by public transit than younger
travelers [53].
Imposing prices or sanctions – although less likely to be widely implemented
– would clearly strongly impact a sub-set of older drivers. And some of those
drivers would sharply reduce their travel or choose alternatives modes or travel
at non-congested times. But many older people will be quite well-off;11 lacking
meaningful travel alternatives they will probably continue to make all or
most of the auto trips they currently make. They may be more willing to
travel in off-peak times – but they are already doing so to a large extent.
The elderly most likely to significantly change their behavior in response
to pricing measures will be older women and the poor, who generally have few
alternatives if they cannot drive themselves [54, 55]. But society may not
achieve substantial environmental gains since those impacted are not the
most mobile of older drivers [56–58]. Moreover, crash rates among older
women are (currently) substantially less than among older men even when
controlling for exposure [59, 60] so safety gains would be smaller-and non-
existent if auto use among the elderly didn’t drop appreciably in response to
these policies.12
Age-based testing or re-licensing of older people, which can be viewed
as a form of targeted sanction, generally decreases the number of older drivers
396

[61]. To the extent that loss of license occurs among drivers making an
appreciable number of trips this policy will have positive environmental
impacts. However, contrary to public perception, there is no compelling
evidence that age-based testing reduces crash rates among the elderly [62–64].
Either people who cease to drive were not really unsafe drivers, and/or, they
were driving so infrequently that their absence from the driver pool has little
impact on crash rates or severity.13 In the former case, age-based licensing
would increase environmental protection but not safety-and would do so at
the expense of elderly mobility. In the latter case, the sanction would have little
positive impact-but might negatively impact elderly mobility, if only slightly.
Overall, mobility losses will likely swamp the environmental and crash
savings to society accruing to sanctions and pricing policies among the elderly.
Ultimately such policy approaches will fail – to be widely implemented or
to make a significant dent in the safety or environmental problems created
by an aging population – because they do not address the underlying mobility
needs of older people. The data presented above show that this is not just a
US problem; many European countries have substantially subsidized public
transit for decades, have spent considerably less on roads and parking facili-
ties than North Americans, and have attempted to force land use and
development patterns to complement transport planning. The successes have
generally been modest – and the drop in transit use and the growth in auto-
mobility, even among older Europeans – has occurred in spite of these
strategies.

Improved vehicles and roads

The elderly today have increasingly fashioned lives based on the conve-
nience, independence, and flexibility offered by the car; it seems inevitable
that those who will be elderly in the coming decades will depend even more
on the car to maintain their busy and active life styles. We cannot ignore
these obvious trends because we don’t like them. One of the most important
strategies for addressing the overlap of environmental, safety, and mobility
problems posed by the aging of society is to work to make cars both cleaner
and safer – and there is strong evidence that we can.
Substantial gains in air quality have already been achieved by making cars
cleaner. For example, the EPA reports that due to Federal emissions regula-
tions, today’s passenger cars are capable of emitting 90% less carbon
monoxide, 70% fewer nitrogen oxides, and 80–90% fewer hydrocarbons over
their lifetime than their uncontrolled counterparts in 1960. As a result, while
VMTs have been increasing steadily over the last twenty years, most emissions
have been dropping even faster. National carbon monoxide levels fell 22%
while NO2 levels dropped 25% from 1980–99 [65]. Obviously we have a
 397

long way to go, as VMTs, driven in part by the increasing number of “new”
older drivers, are climbing. The Bush Administration has affimed that it will
enforce new vehicle and fuel mandates which will lead to greater reductions
in key vehicle emissions in the coming decade.
It should be noted, however, that some vehicle emissions improvements
have been achieved by reducing car size or weight (mass), which has par-
ticular safety consequences for older people [66].14 A related issue is the
potential for the greater use of electric cars, or even golf-carts, by the elderly.
The use of smaller and/or alternative fuel vehicles by older drivers, in place
of fossil-fuel powered cars, will undoubtedly meet many mobility needs while
reducing environmental pollution. But using smaller cars or less protected
vehicles may increase the severity of the injuries received by older drivers
in the crashes which do result.
There is also industry wide research underway on auto designs which
address some of the problems older people have in safely maneuvering a
vehicle. A report to a 1999 Roundtable of the European Conference of
Ministers of Transport concluded,

[T]here are many . . . innovations which are either just beginning to pen-
etrate the market or are the development/prototype stage. These include
night vision enhancement (based on near infra-red), vision enhancement
in fog and poor visibility (far infra-red), and rear-view mirrors systems
combined with a warning device to alert the driver to the presence of a
vehicle in the blind spot. Emergency alert systems, with vehicle location
based on GPS technology and two-way radio contact, car to emergency
control centre, have been developed to the prototype state. . . . Longer
term still, the development of automated highways may happen . . . [67]

In fact, a number of these devices can already be purchased on high-end

vehicles in the US. If their price falls and their availability and reliability
increases, such devices may not only make older people safer drivers, it may
reduce their “scouting” behavior and wayfinding errors, lowering some of their
unnecessary trip making. In 1996 a study by a British advocacy group for
the elderly concluded that in the future, “. . . cars will be much easier to
drive and consequently older people will probably be able to extend their
drive-life by at least five to ten years compared with today” [68].
In addition, there are substantial efforts underway to make roadways and
signing “safer” by responding to the changing abilities of older drivers. A 1992
study found that older people reported the greatest difficulty in reading street
signs in town, crossing an intersection, responding to traffic signals, finding
the beginning of the left turn lane, and following pavement markings [69].
Although these difficulties are not unique to older people, the US Federal
398

Highway Administration (FHWA) commented . . . “the various functional

deficits associated with aging result in exaggerated levels of difficulty for
this user group” [70]. In response, the FHWA has developed a series of new
design standards for both roads and signs which reflect the aging of the driver
pool. While local implementation is voluntary and most localities will not
retrofit existing roads, over time more and more facilities around the US,
and abroad where similar efforts are underway, will become easier and safer
for older drivers.

Elderly friendly public transit

While public transit use has been falling as a percentage of all trips among
the elderly in most developed countries, there is still a role for transit in the
travel patterns of older people. In fact, the transit services which older people
have been abandoning are those designed for a mass market, serving best
the home-to-work trip which occurs in traditional peak periods. It may well
be cost-effective to offer older people public transit options for the times
they can’t or don’t wish to drive, at night for example, or to locations which
they avoid when driving, like congested malls. While not likely to lead to
massive defections from the car, such options can be part of a package of
community and neighborhood sustainability options.
What is strikingly different about transit ridership in other developed
countries is the extent to which car drivers also use public transit, occasion-
ally or even regularly. Partially this is a function of land use patterns and
the price of using the car; partially this is result of better public transit options.
There is growing evidence that it may be possible to capture some ridership
in the US context from among older people, even among those who continue
to drive. A series of experiments begun in Sweden and adapted and adopted
in the US over the last two decades suggest the older people will use, some-
times quite extensively, transit services which better meet their needs.
The “service route” concept was begun in Sweden in the 1980’s with the
objective of providing an alternative to paratransit or special services for
older travelers (generally door-to-door taxi-type systems) which were creating
staggering deficits.15 Small, low floor (accessible) buses were routed and
scheduled to meet the origins and destinations sought by older travelers,
although anyone was allowed to board. Vehicles had regular, signed stops
but often served locations inaccessible to larger buses, such as the front door
of hospitals, day care centers, and even stores. Passengers received driver
assistance if they needed it and the bus did not leave a stop until all passen-
gers were seated. At the same time, many of these services ran only hourly,
sometimes only between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., often only on week-days.
In spite of sometimes serious service constraints many, although certainly
 399

not all, service routes have been great successes: they tend to have higher
fare box recovery than regular transit services, are well used, and passengers
report being more satisfied than with traditional buses [71, 72]. Over the last
two decades many of these systems have expanded greatly and similar oper-
ations are seen today all over Scandinavia and Western Europe. In fact, some
smaller Scandinavian cities have almost totally abandoned more traditional
services in favor of a series of service routes.
Prior to service implementation, sceptics assumed that service routes would
not achieve meaningful ridership because 1) older people willing to use public
transit were already doing so, and 2) those more disabled – and thus eligible
for special services – would not willingly give up demand-responsive door-
to-door service. Strikingly, while some systems gained as many as 25% of their
riders from among those eligible for special paratransit services, most riders
were simply healthy older people (not eligible for special services) who had
not previously used regular transit. Those eligible for special paratransit
services who did use the service routes reported that they liked not having
to call in advance, wait for pick-up, or tell people when they would be out
of their homes or where they would be going [73].
This service concept has been adopted by several US (and a number of
Canadian) metropolitan areas; often called “community buses” they have
been used to provide service in neighborhoods where traditional routes could
not be provided or were about to be discontinued. Many US operators were
initially interested in such approaches as a way to lower paratransit costs16
but these systems never proved particularly effective at doing so [74]. As in
Europe what they often proved effective at was increasing transit use by healthy
older people [75–77]. True community buses and service routes have not
been more widely adopted because they must be provided in addition to
existing traditional services, they are often more expensive (since they run
slower) and many transit operators do not currently have the luxury of adding
new services [78].17 But over time, as the elderly population increases, and
the very real environmental and safety costs of their continued driving mounts,
local communities may find the willingness or ability to finance services
more responsive to the needs of older people.

Some elements of a sustainable community

While “sustainability” has many definitions, certainly an important aspect of

any is the role of community and neighborhood in supporting people’s lifestyle
in an environmentally responsible way. This may include pedestrian ameni-
ties, reduced vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, mixed land uses (so that walking,
biking, and mas transit use are possible and realistic), and enhanced comfort
and security. These elements can also address, in some measure, the safety,
400

mobility, and environmental problems created by an aging society. Again, while

not likely to lead to massive defections from the car, older people might be
willing to occasionally, and perhaps increasingly, make some trips using alter-
native modes if communities provided better and more appropriate facilities
or services.
A major problem facing older people is the need for pedestrian access and
safety – to allow them to walk for recreation, to get to public transit services,
to travel to and from parking facilities, and to access available community
services. The Smart Growth and Neo-traditional planning movements, among
others, promote and incorporate many important pedestrian design elements
which would assist older pedestrians But older people may need additional
options, including walkways free from illegally parked cars, bike riding or
rollerblading, food carts and vendor stalls, and inappropriate street furniture
and signs.
Older pedestrians are very much at risk – some experts maintain that an
elderly person is as much as fifteen times more likely to be injured as a
pedestrian than when driving a car [79]. And as when driving a car, older
pedestrians are substantially more likely to be seriously injured or killed than
younger travelers in comparable crashes. So communities must pay special
attention to pedestrian-vehicle interactions – along streets, at corners, at
intersections. As the number of older people increases substantially over the
coming decades in some neighborhoods, it may be defensible to lengthen traffic
signals (temporarily or permanently) to accommodate slower walking speeds
as well as more widely introducing traffic lights or electronic warning signs
at unsignalized intersections which give priority to elderly pedestrians (or
travelers with baby carriages or heavy packages). More widespread use of
traffic islands may be necessary so that older travelers, unable to cross busy
streets in one cycle, may stop in the middle while waiting for the next green
light.
But community livability means more than traffic and transportation options.
Older people need housing options which do not force them to depend on
cars when they no longer should; this includes residential alternatives near
secure shopping and medical choices to which they can walk or easily take
public transit. New housing models are being developed for older people all
the time; sustainable communities require housing options which are more than
safe, comfortable and affordable; they must have secure access to needed
services. It is surprising how few people talk about neo-traditional commu-
nity design in terms of the elderly yet, as Jonathan Levine recently noted, these
designs may hold greater appeal for the retired.
In an electronic age, many people see great promise in the home delivery
of goods ordered through the internet. However, since most goods and services
still must be delivered in a vehicle by someone, the environmental implica-
 401

tions are not clear. And the mobility problems of older people cannot be
addressed by keeping them in their houses and bringing everything to them;
older people need to get out and around to maintain their lifestyles and to
feel independent. The focus on electronic shopping may have obscured the fact
that many more existing services could, and perhaps should, come to the
user. Most service providers – groceries, stores, clinics – now require older
people to travel to them, rather than the other way around, largely because it
is cheaper for the provider to do so. This may or may not also make it cheaper
for the customer – but it’s not clear that it’s cheaper in a societal sense, given
the very real costs imposed by older people who drive when they should not,
or those who do without services until their conditions become emergencies
(and very expensive to treat).
By delivering a service in a way which requires older people to drive, or
to wait for others to drive them, many providers are not lowering total costs,
they are simply transferring them to others. But worse, by failing to either
provide transport services themselves or to bring medical or social services
to the elderly they may actually be increasing the total cost to society – from
greater crash rates to increased environmental pollution. In the current system
these concerns have no affect on most providers’ operational decisions since
they have effectively externalized those costs.
The focus on the telecommunications revolution has also obscured a more
fundamental service delivery question – who decides how, where, and when
services frequented or targeted at older people are provided? An important
element in inducing older people to drive less without reducing their mobility
may lie in better coordination between and among the public and private
providers delivering community based services. The ways in which services
used by older people actually operate may have profound sustainability
implications. It is not uncommon for the hours of service availability to conflict
with one another so that older people must make two separate trips rather
than being able to combine visits. Or for hours of service to fail to match
the schedule of available transport options – so older people are asked to
come before transit service is available or their appointments conclude too late
for them to catch a bus home (or require a lengthy wait for the next bus).
Or for service providers to locate their facilities in very inconvenient
locations which require older people to cross busy streets or those without
traffic signals or to walk in unsafe areas. If service providers interacted and
cooperated in service delivery they might be able to avoid the need for older
people to make multiple trips or travel at times when alternatives to the car
are not available.
402

7. Conclusion

Within 20 years there will be 53,220,000 people over 65 in the US and over
80,000,000 in the 15 countries of the European Union [80, 81]. And over
92% in the US and over 75% in the EU will be drivers – almost all the men
and most of the women. With this rapidly growing population will come a host
of inter-related problems – as drivers they may well create more environmental
and safety problems than we are prepared for. Because they will be even less
willing to compromise their mobility than those elderly today, they will
continue to drive, unaware or unable to deal with their impact on the envi-
ronment and in the face of declining driving skills.
Policies designed to build and support build sustainable communities must
address all three of the issues raised here-environment, safety, and mobility
– by taking into account the remarkable changes in the lifestyle of older people
facilitated or caused by growing auto dependance. Unless we recognize these
patterns – and their underlying causes – we may substantially underestimate
the environmental implications of a global aging population. This may lead
us to focus our environmental policies on the wrong problems or fail to capture
opportunities to enhance the sustainable elements of our communities now,
before these opportunities are lost to us.
The most promising policies lie in making the instrument of the mobility
of the elderly – the car – cleaner and safer, providing responsive public transit
options which might effectively substitute for some car trips, and enhancing
those aspects of community and neighborhood livability which encourage
the use of alternative modes and promote more efficient delivery of services
targeted at older people. The costs of these options may be substantial – but
so are the dollar costs of the problems they target – from inappropriate insti-
tutionalization of the elderly lacking transportation options to rising death rates
due to car crashes to increasing illness among those exposed to environ-
mental pollutants. A 1994 DOT study concluded that the annual cost of car
crashes was $150 billion dollars (of which only 28% was due to loss wages,
which may not be incurred by older drivers) [82]. It may not even be possible
to calculate all the environmental costs associated with current auto use-from
clean up to health.
Clearly the solutions offered here have benefits well beyond addressing
the environmental and safety problems of an aging society – ultimately each
of these solutions adds to the sustainability of our communities and neigh-
borhoods in ways that benefit a far larger group of people.
 403

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Dr. Deb Niemeier for making me realize I had something to

say on these issues and to Dr. Martin Wachs and two anonymous reviewers
for helping me to substantially improve what I said and how I said it – I
don’t think I have ever had three more helpful and generous reviewers. It
should go without saying that, had I listened to all their good advice, the errors
which remain in the paper, and its glaring omissions, would also have been
remedied. I am indebted to all my international colleagues who participated
in ECMT Roundtable 112 and the ECMT itself, but particularly to Alain
Rathery, Randi Hjorthol, Philip Oxley, Werner Brög, Agneta Stähl, Jack Short,
Ann Frye, and Fiorella Marcellini for their insights and information. I appre-
ciate the help of the Drachman staff, Brian Sotak, Jesus Romero, and Emily
Leunk who assisted in research and designed graphics.

Notes

01. An exception is an December 1997 unpublished report by Daphne Spain for the Federal
Highway Administration, “Societal Trends: The Aging Baby Boom and Women’s Increased
Independence,” in which she warns of the environmental implications of older women’s
greater mobility in the future.
02. There is widespread anecdotal evidence to support this assertion. Several regional
transportation planners have admitted to the author that their models do not incorporate
changing licensing or trip rates among the elderly. Chuck Purvis, Senior Transportation
Planner for the (San Francisco) Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and a nationally
recognized expert on transportation modeling, admits that regional models nationally don’t
do a good job at responding to the changing demographic profile of society, although they
do distinguish between workers and non-workers. “We don’t have a drivers license effect
that would take into account the cohort effect of today’s middle-aged folks with licenses
turning into tomorrow’s elderly with licenses.” He notes that models do not currently attempt
to forecast the travel behavior of “non-working households” in the future based on fairly
recent travel behavior data, although since many metro areas are undertaking new house-
hold surveys they may be soon have the data to chart trip trends over 20–30 years. Personal
Correspondence, March 5, 2001.
03. Of course, focusing only on the percentage of km traveled may overstate the importance
of car travel to European travelers; they may, after all, be making many short walking
and biking trips. But focusing on the distance traveled is the correct way to evaluate the
potential environmental threat of this change in travel activity.
04. In the NPTS vehicle trips are calculated only for drivers so as not to double count
trip-making; trips taken in a car, personal truck, van, or SUV are included.
05. That is, the second assumption calculates that those 75-plus in 2010 are taking the same
number of daily vehicle trips as those who were 65–74 in 1995 while those 65–74 are
taking the same number of daily vehicle trips as those 50–65 in 1995.
06. The comparable 1990 figures were 4.5 miles for church, 6.2 miles for doctors, and 6.7
miles for personal/family business.
07. It is important not to let ageism highjack this analysis. Burns found that older drivers often
had wayfinding problems, not because of mental problems, but because of their inability
404

to see or make out signs and road side information; this is consistent with a huge litera-
ture showing that various visual skills generally decline with age and that older drivers
are more likely to have problems seeing signs and markings.
08. Although many conditions which beset older people today will eventually strike the elderly,
there is significant evidence that there will be a “compression of morbidity” – that the age
at which disabilities initially occur will increase faster than gains in longevity, so that people
will have fewer years of total disability. (Anthony J. Vita et al. (1998) Aging, Health
Risks, and Cumulative Disability, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 338, no.
15, April 9, 1998, pp. 1035–1041.) Thus, on average, they will be able to drive longer
than those currently elderly.
09. Self-reported reasons for cessation may be suspect; moreover focus groups and
anecdotal information suggest that the driving cessation decision may be a complex one,
having multiple intertwined reasons.
10. Total US transit ridership has been increasing – but not as rapidly as the growth of the
population nor the growth in trip-making so its share has continued to decline.
11. Being “well-off” does not mean that most such people are in the position to hire someone
to chauffeur them or take taxis for all their tripmaking – or have all services and goods home-
delivered.
12. These pricing mechanisms may be more equitable than other ways used to pay for highways
and roads, etc. even if they disproportionately target poorer travelers. General sales taxes,
for example, are often used for such purposes and may well burden poor older drivers
both a) more than they burden richer drivers, and b) greater than their proportionate share
of road use.
13. There has been substantial discussion among traffic safety analysts of the possible “chilling
effect” of such tests, particularly for older women. Some analysts feel that older people afraid
of failing may underestimate their skill levels (or overestimate how hard the test is – failure
rates generally run under 10%); others suspect that older men afraid of failing may keep
driving anyway, without seeking to be re-licensed. There is also evidence that some older
people who choose not to seek re-testing may not have been driving much or at all.
14. Older people are substantially more likely to be injured or killed than younger people in a
crash of the same severity; bigger and heavier cars offer disproportionately more
protection to older people.
15. Sweden was one of the first countries to require public transit operators to provide alter-
native special services for older people and those with disabilities who could not easily
use regular, fixed route services.
16. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires all federally funded transit opera-
tors to provide very high quality complementary paratransit services for people too disabled
to use regular transit services. Such services, which must be provided within 3/4 of a mile
of all regular routes, are extremely expensive to provide.
17. Some operators have provided suburban circulator services or small area services which they
have styled as community buses or service routes; however many lack the service features
necessary to attract older riders – small accessible buses, driver assistance if needed, all
passengers seated before the bus moves, and most importantly, routing and scheduling to
serve older people’s needs. Instead they use smaller buses to provide fairly conventional
transit service.
 405

References

01. US Agency for International Development, and US Department of Commerce (1999) World
Population Profile: 1998, WP/98, by Thomas M. McDevitt, Washington, DC, February, p
2.
02. United States Central Intelligence Agency (1998) World Fact Book 1998, US Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC.
03. US Bureau of the Census (1997) Gender and Aging; Demographic Dimensions, International
Brief, by Gist YJ & Velkoff VA, IB/97-3, December.
04. US AID and US Commerce (1999) Figure 17, part three, p 33.
05. Pucher J & Lefevre C (1996) The Urban Transport Crisis in Europe and North America
(pp 46–48). McMillan, New York.
06. Oxley P (2000) ‘The travel of older people in the United Kingdom’, in Transport and Ageing
of the Population (pp 211–214). Roundtable 112, European Conference of Ministers of
Transport, Paris.
07. Rosenbloom S (2000) ‘Report by the chair’, in Transport and Ageing of the Population
(pp 5–42). Roundtable 112, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris.
08. Smith DI (1998) ‘The elderly population’, Chapter 23, in US Department of Commerce,
US Census Bureau, 1997 Population Profile of the United States; Current Population
Reports, Special Studies, pp 23–194.
09. Oxley (2000).
10. Brög W, Erl E & Glorius B (2000) ‘Elderly people’s travel choices in Germany’, in Transport
and Ageing of the Population (pp 43–142). Roundtable 112, European Conference of
Ministers of Transport, Paris.
11. Rosenbloom S (1993) ‘Transportation policy options for the elderly and those with
disabilities’, Prepared for Transit New Zealand, Wellington.
12. Rosenbloom S & Morris J (1998) ‘The travel patterns of older Australians in an international
context: policy implications and options’, Transportation Research Record 1617: 91.
13. Rosenbloom (2000).
14. Rosenbloom (2000).
15. Rosenbloom & Morris (1998).
16. Tacken M (1998) ‘Mobility of the elderly in time and space in the Netherlands; an analysis
of the Dutch National Travel Survey’, Transportation 25: 379–393.
17. Tacken (1998).
18. Hjorthol AR & Sagberg F (2000) ‘Changes in elderly persons’ modes of travel’, in Transport
and Ageing of the Population (pp 177–210). Roundtable 112, European Conference of
Ministers of Transport, Paris.
19. Brög E & Glorius (2000).
20. Rosenbloom & Morris (1998).
21. Brög E & Glorius (2000).
22. Hjorthol & Sagberg (2000).
23. Pucher & Lefevre (1996).
24. Pucher & Lefevre (1996).
25. Hook W (1999), ‘The political economy of post-transition transportation policy in Hungary’,
Transport Policy 6(4) (October): 2017–2224.
26. US Environmental Protection Agency (1993) Federal Test Procedure Review Project;
Preliminary Technical Report, May EPA 3320-R-93-007.
27. Ball K, Owsley C, Stalvey B, Roenker DL, Sloane ME & Graves M (1998), ‘Driving
avoidance and functional impairment in older drivers’, Accident Analysis and Prevention
30(3): 313–322.
406

28. Strahan RF, Mercier CR, Mercier JM & O’Boyle MW (1997) ‘Personality structure of elderly
drivers’, Perceptual and Motor Skills 85(2) (October): 747–755.
29. Eberhard JW (1996) ‘Safe mobility for senior citizens’, IATSS Research 20: 29–37.
30. Ranney TA & Pulling NH (1990) ‘Performance difference on driving and laboratory tasks
between drivers of different ages’, Journal of Gerontological Nursing 16: 12–15.
31. For studies discussing the problems of older drivers in recognizing signs and markings
see US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (1998) Older Driver
Handbook: Recommendations and Guidelines, Pub. No. FHWA-RD-99-045; Owsley C et
al. (1998) ‘Visual processing impairments and risk of motor vehicle crashes among older
adults’, Journal of the American Medical Association 279: 1083–1088; Charman VN (1997)
‘Vision and driving – a literature review and commentary’, Ophthalmic and Physiological
Optics 17: 371–391, and Owsley C & Ball K (1993) ‘Assessing visual function in older
drivers’, in Retchin SM (ed) Medical Considerations in the Older Driver; Clinics in Geriatric
Medicine, vol. 92.
32. Burns PC (1998) ‘Wayfinding errors while driving’, Journal of Environmental Psychology
18(2) (June): 209.
33. Benekohal RF et al. (1992) Highway Operations Problems of Elderly Drivers in Illinois,
Pub. No. FHWA-IL-023, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield.
34. US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999)
Safe Mobility for Older People: Notebook, Model Driver Screening and Evaluation Program,
DTNH22-96-C-05140, Washington, DC, January 1999.
35. US Bureau of the Census (1998) Gender and Aging: Caregiving, by Velkoff V & Lawson
VA, International Brief, IB/98-3, October.
36. US, US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(1999) Safe Mobility for Older Drivers, DOT HS 808 853, April, p 2.
37. Ball, Owsley, Stalvey, Roenker, Sloane & Graves (1998).
38. Hakamies-Blomqvist L & Wahlstrom B (1998) ‘Why do older drivers give up driving’,
Accident Analysis and Prevention 30(3): 305–312.
39. Marottoli RA et al. (1995) ‘Consequences of driving cessation among elderly individuals’,
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 43.
40. Kostyniuk LP & Shope JT (1998) Reduction and Cessation of Driving Among Older Drivers;
Focus Groups, UMTRI-98-26, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute,
Ann Arbor, July 1998.
41. Schlag B, Schwenkhagen U & Tränkle U (1996) ‘Transportation for the elderly; towards
a user-friendly combination of private and public transport,” IATSS Research 20(1): 75–82.
42. Oxley (2000) p 239.
43. Rosenbloom S (2001) ‘The mobility of the elderly; there’s good news and bad news’,
prepared for Transportation in An Aging Society; A Decade of Experience Conference,
Washington, DC. November.
44. Rosenbloom S (2001) ‘Driving cessation among the elderly; when does it really happen
and what impact does it have?’, Transportation Research Record, forthcoming.
45. Kostyniuk & Shope (1998).
46. Marottoli RA et al. (1995) ‘Consequences of driving cessation among elderly individuals’,
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 43.
47. Commission of the European Communities (1992) Medical, Psychological, and Behavioural
Characteristics of Elderly Drivers, DG XIII, by Oxley P et al., Brussels.
48. European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1999) Transport Economics Research and
Policymaking; International Seminar, Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
49. European Conference of Ministers of Transport (1999) Traffic Congestion in Europe, Series
ECMT, Roundtable 110, Paris; Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development.
 407

50. Harvey GW (1994) ‘Transportation pricing and travel behavior’, in National Research
Council, Curbing Gridlock; Peak-Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion, Special Report
242, Vol 2, pp 89–114. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
51. Marshall S (2000), ‘Restraining mobility while maintaining accessibility; an impression of
the “City of Sustainable Growth” ’, Built Environment 25(2): 168–179.
52. Oakridge National Laboratory, Summary of Travel Trends, 1995 Nationwide Personal
Transportation Survey, by Patricia S. Hu and Jennifer R. Young, 2000, on
www-cta.ornl.gov/npts, Tables 6, 8, 24 and Figure 10.
53. Rosenbloom (2001) ‘The mobility of the elderly . . .’
54. Rosenbloom (2001) ‘The mobility of the elderly . . .’
55. Rosenbloom (2000).
56. Mallett WJ (1999), ‘Long distance travel by low income households’, paper given at 1999
Transportation Research Board Conference, Personal Travel: The Long and Short of It, June
28–July 1, Washington, DC (available on FHWA website, NPTS page).
57. Nevine Labib Georggi and Ram M. Pendyala (1999) ‘An analysis of long distance travel
behavior of the elderly and low income’, paper given at 1999 Transportation Research Board
Conference, Personal Travel: The Long and Short of It, June 28–July 1, Washington, DC
(available on FHWA website, NPTS page).
58. Evans EL (1999) ‘Influences on mobility among non-driving older Americans’, paper given
at 1999 Transportation Research Board Conference, Personal Travel: The Long and Short
of It, June 28–July 1, Washington, DC (available on FHWA website, NPTS page).
59. Evans (1999).
60. Cerulli (1988).
61. Hakamies-Blomqvist L, Hohansson K & Lundberg C (1996) ‘Medical screening of older
drivers as a traffic safety measure: a comparative Finnish-Swedish evaluation study’, Journal
of the American Geriatric Society 44(6) (June).
62. Hakamies-Blomqvist, Hohansson & Lundberg (1996).
63. Rosenbloom & Morris (1998).
64. Rock A (1998), ‘Impact from changes in Illinois drivers license renewal requirements for
older drivers’, Accident Analysis and Prevention 30: 69–74.
65. US Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Latest Findings on National Air Quality:
1999 Status and Trends, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-454/F-00-
002, Research Triangle, August on www.epa.gov/airtrends, February 2001.
66. Evans L (1991) ‘Traffic Safety and The Driver’, Chapter Three, Effects of Sex and Age
(pp 19–43). Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
67. Oxley (2000), p 234.
68. Kreitzman L (1996) Licenced to Drive at 85? A Report on the Mobility Needs of Older People
in the Next 25 Years, for the Help the Aged Foundation, London.
69. Benekohal et al. (1992).
70. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (1998) Older Driver
Design Handbook; Recommendations and Guidelines, Pub. No. FHWA-RD-99-045,
December, p 3.
71. Stähl A (1991) ‘Providing transportation for elderly and disabled in Sweden: experience
gained and future trends’, Public Transport International 40(2): 180–201.
72. Stähl A (1992) ‘Mobility and accessibility for elderly and disabled people in Sweden’, IATSS
Research 16(2): 96–97.
73. Stähl (1992).
74. McLary JJ, Stähl A & Persich S (1993) ‘Implementation of service routes in the United
States’, Transportation Research Record 1378: 21–17.
75. Transit Cooperative Research Program (1998) Transit Markets of the Future: The Challenge
of Change, TCRP Report 28, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
408

76. Transit Cooperative Research Program (1995) Attracting Paratransit Patrons to Fixed-Route
Services, TCRP Project B-5, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
77. Project Action (1995) Broward County, Florida: Transit Options Project-Development of
Local Community Bus Services, for the Federal Transit Administration, by Russell Thatcher
and Larry Harmon, Washington, DC.
78. Transit Cooperative Research Program (1998).
79. (2000) ‘Summary’, in Transport and Ageing of the Population (p 250), Roundtable 112,
European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris.
80. US Bureau of Census (1996) Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex,
Race, and Hispanic Origin, 1995–2050 (p 9). Current Population Reports, P25-1130,
February, Table F, ‘Population by Age: 1990 to 2050’, Middle Series.
81. Marcellini F et al. (2000) ‘The aging population and transport; a new balance between
demand and supply’, in Transport and Ageing of the Population (p 151), Roundtable 112,
European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris, Table 3.
82. Blincoe LJ, ‘The economic cost of motor vehicle crashes, 1994’, NHTSA Technical Report,
US Department of Transportation, www.nhtsa.gov/people/economic/

About the author

Dr. Sandra Rosenbloom is Professor of Planning in the University of Arizona’s

Interdisciplinary School of Planning and Director of the Roy P. Drachman Institute
for Land and Regional Development Studies. Her current research interests are the
planning and policy implications of global aging and the changing structure of families.
She teaches courses in financing public services, transportation policy, and professional
communications.