Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

citizens. Rather, the question should be whether it makes sense to maintain legal restrictions that hinder the development of transportation services that hold so much promise of improving the economic prospects of the very poor (Garnett, 2001, pp. 228–229). However, jitneys would also take riders and money out of the public transit system. If jitney services could be effectively incorporated into the public transit system, this might serve the needs of the riders and generate revenue for the transit system at the same time. Ride-Sharing and Car-Sharing Carpooling or ride-sharing can be a very effective way for lowincome households to take care of their transportation needs, and carpools are sometimes organized through social services agencies and schools or through programs directed at the general public. Car-sharing is a more novel way of spreading the costs and benefits of private vehicle ownership across numerous households. City CarShare, which operates in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Palo Alto, and Mountain View, is an innovative system of short term car rental for members at a rate of $4 per hour for peak hours and $2 per hour for off-peak hours. With funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, City CarShare is now offering 300 CalWORKs memberships, with the usual $30 membership fee and $300 deposit waived for eligible applicants. Although City CarShare is not intended for commuting purposes, it can provide the benefits of vehicle ownership for occasional trips. Evaluation of the success of this program would help policymakers decide whether the program should be implemented on a wider scale and what modifications might be necessary. Transportation for Short-Term Needs One of the most important roles that needs to be filled is that of transportation for emergency situations. Welfare-to-work programs are generally aware of this and often offer vouchers for “guaranteed ride home” services for workers who usually take transit but who may need an occasional taxi ride home to take care of a sick family member or when 120
they have to work past the hours of transit service. Emergency rides are also useful in cases where a private vehicle breaks down. One possibility to consider is the expansion of guaranteed ride home programs to the broader low-income population. The MTA in Los Angeles County oversees a program that provides taxi vouchers and bus tokens for urgent short-term transportation needs. The Immediate Needs Transportation Program 27 covers its $5 million cost through funding from two local sales tax measures. Two community-based organizations (First African Methodist Episcopal Church and the International Institute of Los Angeles) administer the program, supervising 600 social services agencies throughout the county that distribute taxi vouchers and tokens to roughly 14,000 clients each month. The individual agencies determine clients’ eligibility for receipt of services. Trips are subsidized for medical purposes, grocery shopping, job training and interviews, case management appointments, various emergencies, and other reasons. The program originally focused on providing taxi vouchers, but now 48 percent of the trips rely on bus tokens. MTC could consider searching for appropriate communitybased partners and funding streams to implement a similar program in the Bay Area. Providing Options for Job Search The job search situation has its own unique transportation issues. It is much easier to figure out commute logistics once a worker has a job than it is to figure out transit routes and time requirements for multiple destinations when seeking a job. Short-term rentals or vehicle loans for the purpose of job search and other occasional uses could be a useful supplement to regular public transit services. On the other hand, this can be counterproductive if a job-seeker finds a job and then discovers that it is not feasible to travel there without a car. The Solano County Welfare-to-Work Transportation Plan Final Report mentions that Solano County had considered a program that “would allow participants the opportunity to borrow county vehicles for a limited period of time,” but this program was put on hold because of liability issues. _____________ 27 See Transportation Research Board (1998) for more details on this program. 121
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 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 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?