Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

free transit is most likely not appropriate for these transit systems. 12 Fare-free transit might be more feasible for smaller agencies; however, to be eligible for Transportation Development Act (TDA) State Transit Assistance (STA) funds, an operator’s fare revenues must cover 10 percent of operating costs if serving a nonurbanized area and 20 percent of operating costs if serving an urbanized area. 13 In this environment, fare-free transit does not seem very feasible. Regarding the less dramatic idea of fare reductions, one must still consider the tradeoffs in service provision that would need to be made or the additional sources of funding that would have to replace the lost fares. If outside funding is available that could be used to reduce fares or provide discounts—for example, from a social services agency—then a reduction in fares would almost certainly make low-income travelers better off as long as the other aspects of transit service could be kept at the same level. However, if funding is not available to support fare reductions, then the tradeoffs between price and other facets of transportation will have to be weighed carefully. It may be more beneficial to low-income transit users to have frequent service along a route that runs close to their home and to their job opportunities, even if fares must be higher to support that level of service. If fares are reduced, service quality may suffer and commute time may lengthen. This may make low-income workers worse off if the value of time lost by longer commutes is worth more than the savings from reduced fares. Likewise, the length of the commute may become so onerous that they drop out of the labor force or take worse jobs closer to home. Cervero (1990) claims that “There can be little doubt that higher price/high quality services, supplemented by discounted passes and vouchers for the poor, are preferable to low price/low quality services” (p. 126). Evidence from the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) suggests that price is not what the public feels is the most important problem with transit. For those who use transit, the biggest problems cited were, in order of significance: “crime on public transit, time spent on public transit, having access to a car when they need it, _____________ 12 See Metropolitan Transportation Commission (2003). 13 See California Public Utilities (n.d.). 110
difficulty with crowding or getting a seat, cost of travel by public transit, time of day availability when they need to use it, transit stations and vehicles not being clean, and time and aggravation with transfers.” 14 Although these NPTS results are for the general public and therefore may not be applicable to low-income households, surveys of welfare recipients in Fresno and in Los Angeles arrive at similar results. 15 Surveys of the low-income population in the Bay Area to determine which facets of transportation service affect them most (including price) would be helpful for understanding the implications of the tradeoffs that must be made when transportation funding is limited. Flexible Pricing Creating transit pricing schemes that vary with distance and time of day would align fares more closely with the actual cost of the trip and shift the burden of fares away from low-income riders. (Higher-income riders are more likely to take longer trips and ride during peak hours.) Taylor (1998) notes that “[L]ower-income riders disproportionately consume off-peak, relatively inexpensive-to-provide services, while higher-income riders are more likely to consume expensive peak service. The net effect is a regressive cross-subsidy from low-income to highincome riders. Transit-dependents pay more per-mile and per-hour for the transit service they consume, while per-rider subsidies tend to increase with ability to pay” (p. 33). Linking fares to distance and time of day would mean that riders who receive more in services (i.e., traveling longer distances) and riders who impose higher costs on the transit system (by contributing to congestion during peak hours and decreasing seat turnover on long trips) would pay more. BART currently has distance-based pricing, as do several of the bus systems. The TransLink® fare payment system may make it easier to provide distancebased fares on buses, particularly if a global positioning system (GPS) is installed. 16 None of the transit agencies in the Bay Area are known to _____________ 14 Polzin, Rey, and Chu (1998), p. 5-3. 15 Moreno et al. (2000), p. vi., and Blumenberg and Haas (2001), p. 46. 16 Golden Gate Transit already has GPS installed on its buses. 111
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:
Page 79 and 80:
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 122 and 123: potential social costs such as poll
Page 124 and 125: • Increasing income directly, to
Page 126 and 127: grants for developments that meet c
Page 128 and 129: make it easier for various entities
Page 130 and 131: pass.” 10 Perhaps discounts could
Page 134 and 135: have fares based on the time of day
Page 136 and 137: hours for late night and graveyard
Page 138 and 139: credit ratings, assisting with insu
Page 140 and 141: would have paid with traditional au
Page 142 and 143: citizens. Rather, the question shou
Page 144 and 145: Facilitating Bicycling or Walking A
Page 146 and 147: transportation hubs may be another
Page 148 and 149: allowing flexibility at the local l
Page 150 and 151: services, health care, drug treatme
Page 152 and 153: costs. Efforts to incorporate infor
Page 154 and 155: are differences) and by looking at
Page 156 and 157: Dataset Poor Low-Income Higher-Inco
Page 158 and 159: income, problems common to most hou
Page 160 and 161: or the Bay Area specifically. We us
Page 163 and 164: Appendix B Information on Specific
Page 165 and 166: We also excluded expenditures on bi
Page 167 and 168: Atlanta: Atlanta, GA MSA Miami: Mia
Page 169 and 170: 147 Table B.1 (continued) CES Metro
Page 171 and 172: Appendix C Sensitivity Analysis for
Page 173 and 174: 151 Table C.1 (continued) Poor Low-
Page 175 and 176: transportation expenditures constit
Page 177 and 178: Appendix D Methods Used for the Exa
Page 179 and 180: Bibliography American Automobile As
Page 181 and 182: Implications of Welfare Reform for
Page 183 and 184:
Lucas, M., and C. Nicholson, “Sub
Page 185 and 186:
Progressive Casualty Insurance Comp
Page 187:
About the Author LORIEN RICE Lorien
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?