Speed. June Victor Couture (U. Toronto) Gilles Duranton (U. Toronto) Matt Turner (U. Toronto)

Transcription

1 Speed June 2012 Victor Couture (U. Toronto) Gilles Duranton (U. Toronto) Matt Turner (U. Toronto)

2 Objectives: Assess differences in driving speed across us metropolitan areas Explore their determinants Estimate the costs of congestion and the value of policy responses

3 Why it matters: Median us households devotes 18% of its budget to transportation Two key questions of transportation economics What is travel demand? What does the speed-flow curve look like? (supply) We treat the demand and supply of travel together Productivity of city transportation is little studied

4 What we do: 1. Present a simple demand and supply framework for automobile travel 2. Estimate city level supply of travel (by trip distance) 3. Construct a speed index by city 4. Assess the determinants of this index 5. Conduct counterfactual policy experiments 6. Assess the costs of congestion and the value of policy responses to it

5 Data Trips: us nhts for 1995, 2001, and 2008 Roads: us hpms for 1995, 2001, and 2008 Employment and population data Geography Urban form Historical transportation data tti data (for comparison)

6 Summary statistics for the 100 largest msas Variable Panel a. Trip-level data Mean trip distance (km) (16.2) (17.0) (16.4) Mean trip duration (min) (14.2) (15.3) (15.2) Mean trip speed (km/h) (23.0) (22.5) (22.2) Mean trip number (per driver) (2.6) (2.4) (2.3) Total observed number of trips 152, , ,630 Panel b. msa-level data Mean daily vkt ( 000,000 km) (74.7) (85.0) (90.9) Mean daily vtt ( 000,000 min) (91.4) (114.6) (126.2) Mean lane km (ih, 000 km) (2.3) (2.4) (2.4) Mean lane km (mru, 000 km) (13.5) (16.1) (18.1) Mean msa population ( 000) 1,747 1,943 2,095 (2,673) (2,915) (3,052)

7 Trip distance and (inverse) speed: Chicago 4 log inverse speed log distance

8 Trip distance and trip purpose Trip purpose Frequency ( ) km 1995 km 2001 km 2008 To/from Work 23.6% (19.0) (18.8) (19.1) Work-related business 3.3% (21.0) (23.4) (21.5) Shopping 21.8% (11.3) (12.1) (11.1) Other family/personal business 24.3% (12.8) (14.3) (13.6) School/church 4.6% (13.3) (13.6) (13.5) Medical/dental 2.2% (14.9) (13.2) (13.5) Vacation 0.3% (41.0) (40.3) (34.6) Visit friends/relatives 5.7% (20.2) (23.0) (22.7) Other social/recreational 13.8% (17.1) (16.4) (15.1) Other 0.5% (18.6) (25.4) (23.9)

9 The supply of travel Inverse-supply curve of travel for trips of distance x in a city: j: person k: trip c: time cost x: distance δ j : driver ability c s jk = x γ jk exp(c + δ j + ɛ jk ). γ: elasticity of speed with respect to trip distance c: time cost of a trip of unit distance

10 The demand for travel Driver s inverse demand for trip distance x and purpose τ in a city: A τ : willingness to pay for trip of type τ χ τ jk : dummy when trip k is of type τ η j : driver s preference β: demand elasticity of speed distance c d jk = x β jk exp(σ T τ=1a τ χ τ jk + η j + µ jk )

11 Driver maximisation (monopsony): Maximisation c d = MC(x) d(x cs ) dx = (1 γ)c s

12 Supply and demand system: D j β γ c + γ β AT + η j δ j β γ Ã τ AT A τ γ β, τ {1,..,T 1} ζ jk µ jk ɛ jk β γ χ j : dummy for trips by person j ln x jk = D j χ j + Σ T 1 τ=1 Ãτ χ τ jk + ζ jk ln c jk = c + δ j χ j γ ln x jk + ɛ jk, Identification: A τ (willingness to pay for trip of type τ) explains demand but not supply so does χ τ jk (dummy when trip k is of type τ) and η j (driver s preference) but likely correlated with δ j (driver ability)

13 Equilibrium ln c c d 1 ( x) ( x) c d 2 a b ' b ( ) x MC 1 MC 2 ( x) ln x

14 Predicts distance well Instrument 1: trip type dummies Otherwise orthogonal to speed? Some trips may be more likely if traffic is good (selection) Restrict attention to non-discretionary trips Extensive controls for trip characteristics

15 Instrument 2: mean distance by trip type Predicts distance well Otherwise orthogonal to speed? Some trips may be longer if traffic is good Fine provided the bias is uncorrelated with mean trip distance Restrict attention to non-discretionary trips Extensive control for trip characteristics The two instruments might fail for different reasons

16 Estimating equation Time cost of travel per km = f(city effect, distance in the city, trip characteristics, driver characteristics): With ols and tsls ln c ijk = c i + Y j δ γ i ln x jk + T jk ξ + ɛ ijk.

17 Estimation of inverse-supply curves (averages across msas) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) ols1 ols2 ols3 fe iv1 iv2 iv3 iv4 iv fe Panel a. 100 largest msas for 2008 Mean c (0.092) (0.090) (0.092) (0.102) (0.149) (0.143) (0.138) (0.142) (0.760) Mean γ (0.032) (0.032) (0.032) (0.037) (0.075) (0.072) (0.064) (0.074) (0.402) Panel b. 50 largest msas for 2008 Mean c (0.065) (0.067) (0.069) (0.070) (0.098) (0.091) (0.104) (0.087) (0.120) Mean γ (0.018) (0.017) (0.017) (0.020) (0.046) (0.042) (0.045) (0.042) (0.054) Panel c. 50 largest msas for 2001 Mean c (0.072) (0.069) (0.071) (0.067) (0.112) (0.122) (0.118) (0.131) (0.240) Mean γ (0.022) (0.021) (0.021) (0.022) (0.060) (0.065) (0.065) (0.066) (0.112) Panel d. 50 largest msas for 1995 Mean c (0.103) (0.081) (0.081) (0.090) (0.131) (0.136) (0.119) (0.139) (0.163) Mean γ (0.040) (0.022) (0.023) (0.026) (0.070) (0.072) (0.054) (0.075) (0.079)

18 Distance explains a lot (R 2 of 57%), the rest very little. But: Women are marginally slower Older drivers are slower Black drivers are much slower More educated drivers are faster More affluent drivers are faster Weekdays are slower, peak hours, seasonal patterns, etc Evidence of a small endogeneity bias All ivs yield the same answer Some differences across cities (not sampling) Some difference across years

19 Speed index Index: S i = Time to complete all US trips at average US speed Time to complete all US trips at city i speed = Σ jkx jk exp (c US γ US ln x jk ). Σ jk x jk exp (c i γ i ln x jk ) Inverse Laspeyres index for the time cost of travel Reference: all us trips in the same year

20 Ranking of the 50 largest msas, slowest at the top Population Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank rank Miami-Fort Lauderdale, fl Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, il-in-wi Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, wa Portland-Salem, or-wa Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, ca New York-Northern nj-long Isl., ny-nj-ct-pa New Orleans, la Pittsburgh, pa Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Low.-Brock., ma-nh Washington-Baltimore, dc-md-va-wv San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, ca Sacramento-Yolo, ca Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, tx Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, fl Orlando, fl Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atl. City, pa-nj-de-md Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, va-nc Phoenix-Mesa, az Las Vegas, nv-az Cleveland-Akron, oh Atlanta, ga Kansas City, mo-ks Greensboro Winston-Salem High Point,nc Louisville, ky-in Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, mi

21 Checks 28% difference in speed between fastest and slowest Very high correlation with a Paasche or a Fisher index Very high or high correlation across indices obtained from variants of the estimations (less so with average inverse speed) Correlation 2008/2001: 0.81, 2008/1995: 0.62 Correlation with 2008 tti and with 2009 tti -0.74

22 Determinants of speed ln S i = α ln R i θ ln vtt i + X i φ + ν i. Equivalent to a production function for travel (since S vtt = vkt) ln vkt i = α ln R i + (1 θ) ln vtt i + X i φ + ν i. Instead of two steps, we could use vtt and roads in a trip level regression Estimating production functions is fraught with endogeneity problems

23 The determinants of speed, 100 msas in 2008 (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) S raw S ols1 S ols2 S ols3 S fe S iv1 S iv2 S iv3 S iv4 S iv fe log lane c a a a a 0.10 a 0.11 a b 0.11 a 0.22 (0.047) (0.019) (0.020) (0.020) (0.019) (0.036) (0.033) (0.029) (0.033) (0.19) log vtt b a a a a a a a a (0.045) (0.018) (0.018) (0.019) (0.018) (0.034) (0.031) (0.026) (0.031) (0.18) R

24 Checks Robust to the trip regression Robust to year of data and sample of cities Robust to using population instead of vtt Robust to sample of roads Same results when using tti index for 2008 (but not 2009) Same results when using Levinsohn and Petrin estimation Very close results when instrumenting vtt with population Very close results when instrumenting roads with planed 1947 highways and 1898 railroads

25 Other determinants of speed, 100 msas in 2008 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Added: Emp. Pop. Job/resid. E pop. log pop. s. manuf. Cooling Heating central. central. mismatch growth 1920 emp. deg. days deg. days log lane (total) a a 0.11 a a a a 0.10 a a (0.033) (0.032) (0.033) (0.034) (0.033) (0.033) (0.033) (0.033) log vtt a a a a a a a a (0.031) (0.030) (0.031) (0.033) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.032) Added variable c a c a a 0.22 a b b (0.051) (0.054) (20.9) (0.058) (0.0050) (0.13) (0.0067) (0.0026) R

26 Out-of-equilibrium policy experiments and welfare analysis 1 / S = C B MC 1 A F E I H C G D AC 1 AC 2 Demand VKT opt VKT 1 eq VKT 1 eq VKT 2

27 Out-of-equilibrium policy experiments (bring all cities to the 95th percentile) in 2008 S 95 S TFP 95 S Roads95 S Scale95 S Mean Speed (kph) People affected(millions) Aggregate vtt (millions of hours) 9,579 5,332 3,281 4,411 Dollar value (Bn) (tti equivalent for column 1 is 87 Bn$ in 2008 and 155 Bn$ in 2009 despite higher valuation of delay time and broader geographical coverage

28 Welfare analysis Depends on the elasticity of demand for vkt with respect to speed Duranton and Turner (wp of AER 2011) suggest very high: 16 Welfare loss of congestion: about 82 Bn$ Conservative since we ignore fuel costs, trucks, cities outside top 100, etc Building more roads is very costly and only bring small benefits Optimal average congestion tax of about 4 c/km. Peak hour congestion tax could be much higher (1 $/km)

29 Conclusions Three advances A new methodology to identify the supply of travel in cities to build an index of travel speed Investigation of the determinants of this speed index Welfare analysis Findings: Drivers choose distance knowing speed 27% speed difference between slowest and fastest msa Time (85%) and roads (11%) explain travel. Small decreasing returns and sizeable unobserved productivity differences across msas. Suggestions that urban form matters. Conservative estimated cost of congestion: 82 Bn$. Travel should be managed on the demand side!