- Page 1 and 2:
Transportation Spending by Low-Inco
- Page 3 and 4:
Foreword Mismatches between jobs an
- Page 5 and 6:
Summary Transportation is an import
- Page 7 and 8:
Table S.1 Median Annual Transportat
- Page 9 and 10:
about 5 to 10 percent of the median
- Page 11:
providing discounted transit fares
- Page 14 and 15:
5. COMMUTE BEHAVIOR IN THE BAY AREA
- Page 17:
Figures S.1. Vehicle Ownership and
- Page 20 and 21:
4.3. Costs of Illustrative Within-C
- Page 23 and 24:
1. Introduction Costs associated wi
- Page 25 and 26:
of “welfare-to-work” transporta
- Page 27:
lays out policy options for address
- Page 31 and 32:
2. Data and Methods In this report,
- Page 33 and 34:
advantage to this approach is that
- Page 35 and 36:
3. Transportation Expenditures in M
- Page 37 and 38:
Table 3.2 Vehicle Use, Vehicle Owne
- Page 39 and 40:
Components of Vehicle-Related Expen
- Page 41 and 42:
inspection, and auto club membershi
- Page 43 and 44:
income households and the higher-in
- Page 45 and 46:
eport looks primarily at cost and n
- Page 47 and 48:
The results from Table 3.5 indicate
- Page 49 and 50:
variation in transportation costs w
- Page 51 and 52:
overall household expenditures for
- Page 53 and 54:
31 Table 3.9 Transportation Expendi
- Page 55 and 56:
Table 3.10 Comparison of California
- Page 57 and 58:
Table 3.11 Comparison of the San Fr
- Page 59 and 60:
Table 3.10 have lower expenditure f
- Page 61 and 62:
4. Costs of Illustrative Bay Area C
- Page 63 and 64:
0-300 301-600 601-1100 1101-6813 Ba
- Page 65 and 66:
Table 4.2 Place of Work Comparison
- Page 67 and 68: Concord CONTRA COSTA SAN FRANCISCO
- Page 69 and 70: Administration (FHWA) mileage rate
- Page 71 and 72: 49 Table 4.3 Costs of Illustrative
- Page 73 and 74: participants who took transit or ca
- Page 75 and 76: Table 4.4 Costs of Illustrative Wit
- Page 77 and 78: 55 Table 4.5 Costs of Illustrative
- Page 79 and 80: 57 Table 4.6 Costs of Illustrative
- Page 81 and 82: commutes is $4,240, whereas the hig
- Page 83 and 84: The results from this chapter seem
- Page 85 and 86: 5. Commute Behavior in the Bay Area
- Page 87 and 88: We also looked at mode choice using
- Page 89 and 90: longer for higher-income workers if
- Page 91 and 92: Table 5.3 (continued) Low- Income H
- Page 93 and 94: Table 5.5 depicts the share of the
- Page 95 and 96: 73 Table 5.6 Mode Choice and Vehicl
- Page 97 and 98: 75 Table 5.8 Mode Choice and Vehicl
- Page 99 and 100: households report having access to
- Page 101 and 102: Table 5.9 (continued) % Using Each
- Page 103 and 104: • Marin to San Francisco: As with
- Page 105 and 106: Table 5.10 Median Commute Durations
- Page 107 and 108: 85 Table 5.11 Differences in Mode C
- Page 109 and 110: Table 5.13 Mode Choice, Work Schedu
- Page 111: trips, make more household-supporti
- Page 114 and 115: only expenditures. Paying a given n
- Page 116 and 117: improving service quality rather th
- Page 121 and 122: 7. Policy Strategies for Affordable
- Page 123 and 124: An appropriate mix of strategies wi
- Page 125 and 126: out of the central city does not ne
- Page 127 and 128: strategies can generally be impleme
- Page 129 and 130: assistance, so relying on current s
- Page 131 and 132: Machines (AVMs), Ticket Office Term
- Page 133 and 134: difficulty with crowding or getting
- Page 135 and 136: Improving the Non-Monetary Aspects
- Page 137 and 138: Loans or Grants for Vehicle Purchas
- Page 139 and 140: Targeting Insurance Costs Insurance
- Page 141 and 142: Vans and Shuttles Demand-response s
- Page 143 and 144: they have to work past the hours of
- Page 145 and 146: decisions. Efforts to distribute in
- Page 147 and 148: transportation assistance program.
- Page 149 and 150: 8. Priorities for Future Research T
- Page 151 and 152: County, and the Blumenberg and Haas
- Page 153 and 154: eplication. In addition, new transp
- Page 155 and 156: Appendix A General Information on M
- Page 157 and 158: the poverty level). Those with a po
- Page 159 and 160: expenditures to the poverty thresho
- Page 161: significant. (We also used t-tests
- Page 164 and 165: Consumer Expenditure Survey 1999-20
- Page 166 and 167: determined the capital cost of each
- Page 168 and 169:
146 Table B.1 Demographic Compariso
- Page 170 and 171:
Area sample. The CES low-income sam
- Page 172 and 173:
150 Table C.1 Sensitivity Analysis
- Page 174 and 175:
that the results are very similar t
- Page 176 and 177:
household level than taking the ave
- Page 178 and 179:
3. Identify the public transit and
- Page 180 and 181:
July 2003, available at www.brook.e
- Page 182 and 183:
Holzer, H., “The Spatial Mismatch
- Page 184 and 185:
Nuworsoo, C., “Deep Discount Grou
- Page 186 and 187:
Surface Transportation Policy Proje
- Page 189:
Related PPIC Publications Metropoli