Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7. Policy Strategies for Affordable <strong>Transportation</strong> In response to MTC’s request for a menu of strategies, this chapter presents and discusses a variety of policy options for addressing transportation affordability. The data analyses in Part I focused on costs and expenditures, and although the resulting findings help illuminate the issue of affordability, information on costs and expenditures alone cannot provide definitive answers about the extent to which transportation is affordable. The essence of the notion of transportation affordability is that the cost of transportation should not be a barrier to access to essential destinations, such as jobs and health care. Although the cost of transportation plays a key role in transportation affordability, the ability of households to pay for transportation is also affected <strong>by</strong> other factors that were not included in the data analysis in Part I—such as household wealth, access to credit, the cost of competing budget items, the geographic relationship between home and basic destinations, and the quality of transportation services available for a given price. The policy menu developed in this chapter therefore takes a broader perspective than the first part of the report. Because the options presented in this chapter do not flow from the earlier data analysis, we do not offer any strong policy recommendations. When evaluating strategies to make transportation affordable, one must examine the overall benefits of each course of action. Some policy options listed below may require greater out-of-pocket expenses than others yet provide enough gains in mobility or reductions in travel time to yield a larger net gain for low-income households. Policymakers must also consider the social costs and benefits of the policies. Certain options might improve transportation affordability for low-income households yet decrease the monies available for competing priorities, including other services that benefit low-income families. In addition, other 99
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 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 119: Part II Policy Strategies and Areas
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
show all

Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?