The South Dakota Department of Transportation’s draft Carbon Reduction Strategy includes na interesting graph showing the “intuitively obvious” correlation between gross state product and vehicle miles traveled:
SDDOT cites this 0.88 correlation to further justify its hands-off approach to reducing carbon emissions:
In South Dakota’s setting, the emissions strategy, methods, and activities must be carefully crafted to not reduce gross state product and economic activity. A sustained effort to limit emissions cannot be supported by a struggling economy. As stated earlier, there are few mobility options other than motorized vehicles in rural areas and VMT reductions there are not attainable. Aggressive action to limit VMT would almost assuredly produce undesirable economic outcomes because of the strong relationship between VMT and GSP [SDDOT, 2023.06.09, p. 20].
I find the DOT’s logic curious. Their appeal to the GSP-VMT correlation suggests that they fear that reducing travel will reduce economic activity. But they leap to imply that reducing emissions will reduce travel. Reducing emissions does not inherently reduce travel—electric cars, anyone?—and reducing travel does not inherently reduce economic activity—working remotely and spending less time on the road may introduce efficiencies that allow people to be more productive.
I find something curious about the GSP-VMT correlation itself. Gross state product appears to have grown faster in the first decade of the millennium, taken one last big jump in 2011, then flagged throughout the past decade. If GSP consistently inched upward from 2000 through 2011, it only centimetered up afterward. Meanwhile, vehicle miles traveled, aside from a radical drop in 2005 and a more radical bounce back in 2006, appear to have posted slow, steady growth throughout the period graphed. So sure, both GSP and VMT have gone up over the last 20 years, but their rates of going up don’t appear to be related. We keep on trucking a little more each year, but our economy hasn’t grown as fast over the past decade as it did in the decade before that.
A look at the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s data on gross state product confirms that South Dakota’s economic growth in recent years is only half of what it was at the beginning of this millennium. From 1997 through 2022, South Dakota’s gross state product doubled, with an average annual growth rate of 2.8%. Over those same 25 years, the national gross domestic product has grown 2.2% a year, so yay, South Dakota! for outpacing the nation in economic growth.
But South Dakota really only outpaced the nation during the first half of that period. From 1997 to 2010, SD GSP grew 3.7% per year compared to US GDP growth of 2.4% per year. South Dakota was smoking everybody but North Dakota, where the beginning of the Bakken boom pushed annual growth to 4.0%.
After the Great Recession, South Dakota’s economic surge subsided. From 2010 to 2022, SD GSP grew 1.8% per year compared to the nationwide GDP growth of 2.1% per year. 40 states saw slower annual GSP growth from 2010 to 2022 than they did from 1997 to 2010, but the nearly two percentage points (1.95) that South Dakota lost in annual GSP growth was the fourth-worst slowdown in the nation, exceeded only by Louisiana, Alaska, and Wyoming, which all three actually saw annual decreases in GSP over the last 12 years.
South Dakota’s GSP did snap back from the pandemic. From 2019 to 2022, South Dakota’s GSP grew at an annual rate of 2.2%. That’s better than South Dakota’s recent 12-year average of 1.8% a year, but it’s still a far cry from the bubbly 3.7% we were posting from 1997 through 2010. And it’s still behind the pandemic/post-pandemic growth of 12 other states, including Maine, which took the pandemic far more seriously than South Dakota and still outpaced us economically with 2.8% annual GSP growth from 2019 to 2022.
So even with all those nice people driving to South Dakota for fireworks and other fun, the state’s economic growth over the last 12 years is notably slower than it was back in the apparently more thriving economic days of 1997 through 2010 and notably slower than the national economy.
SDDOT is mired in negativity bias meaning they find something wrong with a solution before that solution has even been proposed. Thus: America’s worst innovation skills state rating. #embarrassing
– Commercial and long distance travel options that are suitable for rural states without lowering the gross state product include:
1. Air Travel: Rural states often have smaller regional airports that offer commercial flights connecting to major hubs. Airlines like Delta, American Airlines, and United Airlines usually service these airports, providing connections to various destinations.
2. Train Travel: Amtrak provides passenger train services in many rural states. This can be a convenient and comfortable option for long-distance travel within the state or to neighboring states.
3. Intercity Bus Services: Many bus companies provide intercity routes, connecting rural areas with larger cities. Greyhound and Megabus are two well-known companies that offer affordable and convenient travel options.
4. Car Rental: Renting a car can be a flexible way to explore rural areas or travel to nearby states. Rental car agencies like Hertz, Enterprise, and Avis generally have branches in smaller towns within rural states.
5. Ride-Sharing Services: Services like Uber and Lyft are increasingly available even in rural areas. They can provide more personalized transportation options for short-distance or regional travel.
6. Shared Van Services: In some rural states, shared van services operate, providing scheduled transportation between towns and cities within the state.
7. Travel Networks: Some rural states have established travel networks to facilitate transportation within and between towns. These networks often consist of shared transportation services like shuttles or vans, designed to improve access for residents and tourists.
8. Tourism Packages: Many rural states offer tourism packages that include transportation, accommodation, and guided tours. These packages can provide a convenient and comprehensive way to explore the various attractions of the state without impacting the gross state product negatively.
9. Bicycle Rentals: Some rural states have bike rental services available, enabling visitors to explore scenic areas by bicycle. This option promotes eco-friendly and healthy tourism while also supporting local businesses.
10. Specialized Tours: Some rural states offer specialized tours such as agricultural tours, wine tours, or historical tours. These tours often include transportation, allowing visitors to experience the unique offerings of the state.
When selecting the desired travel option, it is essential to consider factors such as cost, convenience, accessibility, and duration of the intended journey.