- 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 32 and 33: Defining the Income Groups The enti
- Page 34 and 35: Identifying Example Commutes In Cha
- Page 36 and 37: Table 3.1 Mean Annual Transportatio
- Page 38 and 39: income group because among househol
- Page 40 and 41: all of the categories, higher-incom
- Page 42 and 43: which half of the households in the
- Page 44 and 45: expenditures are $12,994. Because t
- Page 46 and 47: Only two categories in the budget s
- Page 48 and 49: Table 3.7 Variation in Transportati
- Page 50 and 51: some of the household characteristi
- Page 52 and 53: households with and without childre
- Page 54 and 55: paid for transportation. We limit t
- Page 56 and 57: household budget turns out to be vi
- Page 58 and 59: Table 3.11 (continued) we include i
- Page 60 and 61: among the low-income group, there i
- Page 62 and 63: 0-12 13-19 20-32 32-100 Bay Area co
- Page 64 and 65: Table 4.1 County of Residence for B
- Page 66 and 67: SONOMA NAPA Santa Rosa SOLANO Napa
- Page 68 and 69: SONOMA Santa Rosa NAPA Napa (City)
- Page 70 and 71: understate the actual public transi
- Page 72 and 73: 50 Table 4.3 (continued) County of
- Page 74 and 75: 40 rides. There are a few variation
- Page 76 and 77: Depending on the mileage rate used
- Page 78 and 79:
56 Table 4.5 (continued) County of
- Page 80 and 81:
Public transit costs run approximat
- Page 82 and 83:
public transit costs, depending on
- Page 84 and 85:
commutes analyzed in this chapter a
- Page 86 and 87:
Table 5.1 Mode Choice and Vehicle A
- Page 88 and 89:
Table 5.2 Commute Duration and Comm
- Page 90 and 91:
Table 5.3 Median Commute Duration,
- Page 92 and 93:
a.m. and 9 a.m. However, controllin
- Page 94 and 95:
share of the population taking tran
- Page 96 and 97:
74 Table 5.7 Mode Choice and Vehicl
- Page 98 and 99:
(10%), but it is not more prevalent
- Page 100 and 101:
Table 5.9 Comparison of Mode Choice
- Page 102 and 103:
Table 5.9 (continued) % Using Each
- Page 104 and 105:
• Solano to Contra Costa: Althoug
- Page 106 and 107:
Commute Patterns and Residential Lo
- Page 108 and 109:
Table 5.12 Tradeoffs Between Housin
- Page 110 and 111:
workers (with or without children)
- Page 113 and 114:
6. Conclusions from the Data Analys
- Page 115 and 116:
expenditures for transit users are
- Page 117:
This work will help target transit
- Page 121 and 122:
7. Policy Strategies for Affordable
- 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