Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

hours for late night and graveyard shifts, weekend service, increased frequency of service (particularly at night and on weekends), coordination of transfer times, and increased safety. Linking Home to Work via Vehicle Ownership Waller and Hughes (1999) claim that “In most cases, the shortest distance between a poor person and a job is along a line driven in a car.” Although vehicle ownership may not always be a cost-effective solution for transportation problems, it is undeniable that the private vehicle affords great advantages in terms of geographic range, speed, schedule flexibility, and general convenience. Only 14 percent of the low-income population in the Bay Area use transit to get to work, whereas 53 percent drive alone, and another 17 percent carpool (Table 5.1). This means that a transportation affordability strategy that focuses solely on transitoriented policies will likely affect less than half of the population of interest. A comprehensive approach to transportation affordability in the Bay Area must deal with the reality that most low-income households rely extensively on automobiles. 19 Vouchers for Operating Expenses In light of the large numbers of low-income households with private vehicles, many CalWORKs agencies provide mileage reimbursements for their clients to cover the vehicle operating costs of getting to training sites, job interviews, and jobs. Parking expenses and auto repairs are sometimes covered as well. These subsidies are by far the most common vehicle-related approach to transportation affordability currently in use. _____________ 19 In addition to the other approaches mentioned in this section, reducing asset value limits as criteria for eligibility for means-tested programs is another way to facilitate vehicle ownership. Although not directly related to transportation affordability, this policy can improve household finances by allowing participants greater access to jobs through vehicle ownership. In recent years, many states have changed their asset requirements to reduce this barrier to vehicle ownership. In California, $4,650 of the value of a vehicle is currently excluded from the calculation of assets. California might consider further raising this amount or removing the limit altogether on the value for one vehicle. In addition, it may be useful to institute a regular review of the vehicle-related portion of the asset value policy to account for inflationary changes in the cost of living over time. See Waller and Hughes (1999) for more information on this option. 114
Loans or Grants for Vehicle Purchase, Maintenance, and Repair Another strategy that has been gaining momentum in recent years is the provision of loans or outright grants for vehicle purchases and repairs. Low-income families generally have less access to credit than the general population, and these services fill in that gap and help lowincome families smooth out large, infrequent expenditures and those arising from unexpected events. The Family Service Agency in San Mateo County, the Ways to Work Family Loan Program in Santa Clara, the Sonoma County Human Services Department (in conjunction with Jewish Family and Children’s Services), the KEYS program in Contra Costa County, the Alameda Corridor Jobs Coalition, and the Napa Valley Workforce Investment Board all provide loans for vehicle purchase and vehicle-related expenditures. 20 Partnerships with mainstream financial institutions may also be a successful approach to the provision of loans to low-income vehicle buyers. A randomized experiment of subsidized purchases of refurbished, donated used cars has shown a statistically significant increase in earned income and in the probability of employment, suggesting that this approach may be a promising course of action. 21 However, the study was done in Vermont, a highly rural state. The results may not be the same in the more urbanized sections of the Bay Area, and the merits of such a program relative to transit-based approaches may be quite different given the differences in population density. Implementing similar studies in the Bay Area would provide valuable information about how well loan and grant programs work in this region and where they work best. Solano County’s Car Adoption and Roads to Success (CARS) program recently began providing donated vehicles to low-income households. The National Economic Development and Law Center in Oakland has a document describing several similar car ownership programs and a summary of best practices. Its recommendations include providing case management, training car recipients in financial literacy, planning for all ownership costs, partnering with banks to help rebuild _____________ 20 Scholl (2002). 21 Lucas and Nicholson (2002). 115
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 132 and 133: free transit is most likely not app
Page 134 and 135: have fares based on the time of day
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?