Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Facilitating Bicycling or Walking About 10 percent of low-income workers already walk or bike to work (Table 5.1), but finding ways to make walking or biking easier could decrease monetary costs for other low-income commuters. Smartgrowth strategies are meant to encourage development growth in a way that would keep jobs and homes in walking or biking distance of one another. Programs to facilitate bicycle ownership for low-income populations are rare, although some small programs donate bicycles, subsidize bicycle maintenance and repair, or teach bicycle maintenance. Low-income communities could be targeted for bicycle lanes. However, bicycle and walking strategies may not be very practical for households with young children. Involving Employers Employers could be involved with many of the approaches mentioned above. One approach that has met with some success is to encourage employers to set up or help establish shuttle services for their employees—either from home to work or from a main transit hub to work. Another employer-related strategy is to encourage participation in the Commuter Check program, which allows workers to pay for transportation with pre-tax dollars. Employers with large numbers of low-wage employees could be particularly encouraged to participate. Incentives could be extended to employers to provide Commuter Check benefits as an addition to salary rather than just having the money come from the employee’s pre-tax salary. Improving Information and Convenience Nearly all of the county welfare-to-work transportation plans mentioned that program participants often were unaware of transportation services or had difficulty making use of them. Scholl (2002) mentions that BART offers a special 50 percent reduced-rate pass to youths ages 13 through 17 but notes that “this program is not well known or advertised, and is mostly offered through private high schools at this time” (p. 59). Low-income households need to understand their alternatives to make informed transportation 122
decisions. Efforts to distribute information might include the provision of information kiosks in low-income neighborhoods, community centers, and social service provider offices. Limited English proficiency is sometimes a barrier to the dissemination of information about transportation programs, but this can be addressed by making sure that information is available in various languages. An additional strategy is to include transit route information as part of job listings, thereby facilitating the job search process. Simplifying fare structures and transfer policies as well as streamlining processes in general would help low-income persons take advantage of the transportation options available to them. Two findings from the Alameda County Welfare to Work Transportation Planning Project illustrate the need for simplification and clarity: First, the document reports that “Using transit in Alameda County requires deciphering five different sets of rules for adult fares, child fares, transfers and passes on five different transit systems,” and second, that “the process for getting transportation assistance is complicated” (p. 10). In a similar vein, a study of 100 low-income parents from Alameda and Santa Clara Counties concluded that caseworkers need mandatory, up-to-date training regarding transportation services, and that monetary transportation allotments should be mailed directly to clients before the beginning of the month. 28 Widespread participation of transit providers in the TransLink® smart card system may reduce some of the complexity of dealing with different sets of fares. It might also present an opportunity to implement greater uniformity of fares across providers. Trip planning services are often provided to CalWORKs participants; these services could be extended to the broader low-income population as well. Assistance for Child-Related Travel The empirical results from this report suggest that parents face a different set of transportation needs than people without children. One possibility for addressing this issue is to encourage employers to provide child care at the place of employment. Placing child care centers at _____________ 28 CalWORKs Transportation Access and Advocacy Coalition (2001), p. 2. 123
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 142 and 143: citizens. Rather, the question shou
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?