Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

household budget turns out to be virtually identical between California households and households in the rest of the United States for each income category—that is, about 7 percent for poor households, about 12 percent for low-income households, and about 16 percent for higherincome households. The average annual public transit expenditures for those low-income households in California that regularly use public transit is lower than elsewhere in the United States ($451 compared to $487). However, the result reverses when the average is taken over the entire population of low-income households ($74 compared to $55). This comes about because a greater percentage of the low-income households in California use public transit than elsewhere in the United States (16% compared to 11%). Higher-income households in California use public transit about as much as higher-income households elsewhere (roughly 8%). One main reason that Californians have higher transportation expenditures than those in the rest of the United States is because they pay more in private vehicle expenditures. For low-income households with vehicles, the difference in vehicle expenditures between California and the rest of the United States is roughly $300. Low-income California households have rates of regular private vehicle use that are about the same as low-income households elsewhere—roughly 60 percent. For low-income households that purchased a vehicle, purchase prices for vehicles are slightly lower in California than in the rest of the United States, but for the higher-income group, California vehicle purchase prices are slightly higher than elsewhere. This next section makes use of a separate CES dataset to compare transportation expenditures in the San Francisco Bay Area to other metropolitan areas around the country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides a version of the CES data that is aggregated to the level of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and this MSA-level dataset allows us to make comparisons across Metropolitan Statistical Areas but does not allow us to calculate results separately by income group. Of the 28 Metropolitan Statistical Areas covered by the CES MSAlevel data, the San Francisco MSA ranks fourth in terms of the dollar amount spent on transportation annually (Table 3.11). Only Anchorage, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Houston have higher transportation 34
Table 3.11 Comparison of the San Francisco Metropolitan Area with Other Metropolitan Areas in the United States Average Annual Transportation Expenditures ($) Transportation Expenditures as a % of Total Household Expendituresb Sum of Transportation and Housing Expenditures as a % of Total Household Expendituresc Metropolitan Areaa Tampa 8,522 23 55 Phoenix 8,884 21 53 Cleveland 8,240 21 54 San Diego 9,572 21 58 Houston 9,644 21 51 Dallas-Ft. Worth 9,732 20 51 Cincinnati 8,039 20 52 St. Louis 7,997 20 49 Kansas City 7,667 20 51 Pittsburgh 7,037 19 48 Detroit 7,864 19 52 Miami 7,466 19 55 Seattle 8,387 18 52 Denver 8,399 18 54 Anchorage 9,793 18 51 Atlanta 6,817 18 55 Los Angeles 7,903 18 55 Milwaukee 6,850 17 51 San Francisco 9,609 17 54 Minneapolis-St. Paul 8,740 17 48 Chicago 7,804 17 53 Philadelphia 6,739 17 53 Boston 6,465 17 53 Baltimore 6,795 17 51 Portland 7,359 17 51 Washington, D.C. 7,730 16 52 New York 7,149 15 52 Honolulu 6,149 14 47 Averaged 7,884 18 53 SOURCES: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 1999–2001. NOTES: Total transportation expenditures at the MSA level differ from total transportation expenditures reported elsewhere in this report. MSA transportation totals include money spent on out-of-town travel, vehicle leases, and other vehicle expenses that 35
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: Table 3.10 Comparison of California
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 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 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?