Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 3.11 (continued) we include in the “other expenditure” category rather than the transportation category. See Appendix B for details. aGenerally, the information provided refers to a Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) wherever a CMSA exists and refers to an MSA wherever a CMSA does not exist. See Appendix B for details on what is included in each metropolitan area. bBecause household-level data are not available at the MSA level, the numbers reported here show the ratio of average transportation expenditures to average household expenditures, rather than the average of the household’s ratio of transportation expenditures to total expenditures, which is what we report elsewhere in this chapter. See Appendix A for details regarding the differences between these two measures. cThe numbers reported here show the ratio of the sum of average transportation expenditures and average housing expenditures to average household expenditures. See the previous note. dThe average across the MSAs is weighted by the number of consumer units in each MSA. expenditures than San Francisco. With an annual transportation expenditure of $9,609, San Francisco’s transportation costs are 20 percent higher than the average of $7,884. However, because total household expenditures are also high in the San Francisco area, San Francisco ranks much lower in terms of the budget share going toward transportation. San Franciscans pay 17 percent of their total expenditures on transportation, which is virtually the same as the average across the 28 MSAs included in this sample. 12 Comparing San Francisco to other California metropolitan areas, we find that San Francisco has a somewhat lower budget share for transportation expenditures than San Diego and about the same budget share as Los Angeles. Elsewhere, we calculate the transportation budget share across all households in all metropolitan California areas and find it to be similar to that in San Francisco (16%), even though dollar expenditures are much higher for San Francisco ($9,609) than for metropolitan California as a whole ($6,389). This pattern suggests that the results from the CES microdata presented in Table 3.1 through _____________ 12 The average was weighted by the number of consumer units (households) in each MSA. 36
Table 3.10 have lower expenditure figures than what we would find if we were able to look specifically at Bay Area households, but that the budget shares are fairly similar to actual transportation budget shares for San Francisco area households. However, we do not know for certain if this is true within each income group or just in the aggregate. Table 3.11 presents the sum of housing and transportation expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures. San Franciscans spend 54 percent of their total budget on housing and transportation. The figure is about the same for Los Angeles, but San Diego has the highest share of spending on housing and transportation of all 28 metropolitan areas (58%). The percentage of the household budget going toward housing and transportation together for all metropolitan households in California is identical to that for the San Francisco Bay Area (54%). San Francisco has a similar number of vehicles per household to Los Angeles and San Diego. This is a somewhat unexpected finding, given that Census data show that public transit use is higher in the San Francisco Bay Area than in either of those metropolitan areas. With PUMS data, we calculate that 9.5 percent of employed adults in San Francisco commute by public transit compared to only 4.6 percent in Los Angeles and 3.3 percent in San Diego. Average public transit expenditures are higher in San Francisco than in these two other metropolitan areas, probably primarily because of greater transit use rates rather than higher fares, but we do not have individual-level data to verify that conjecture. Gasoline expenditures are higher in San Francisco than in Los Angeles and San Diego, but not by much ($100 per year or less). Vehicle purchase prices are higher in San Diego than in San Francisco or in Los Angeles. Other vehicle-related expenditures looked fairly comparable across the three MSAs, although these were slightly lower in San Diego. The PUMS data indicate that the percentage of households with access to a vehicle is either 90 percent or just above 90 percent for all metropolitan households in California. By investigating transportation expenditure data, this chapter finds that transportation expenditures constitute a fairly moderate portion of total expenditures for the average low-income household. However, 37
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: Table 3.11 Comparison of the San Fr
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?