Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

understate the actual public transit cost associated with a specific commute. Therefore, our results should be seen as illustrative examples of the range of potential commute costs that may be associated with the transportation options available in the Bay Area. The main purpose of this analysis is to identify factors that contribute to particularly high commute costs in the Bay Area overall, not to provide exact estimates of commute costs for each county. Within-County Commutes Within each county, the smaller circles on the maps in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 represent the two neighborhoods with the highest number of low-income individuals, and the larger circles represent the centroid of the city with the highest number of jobs. The transit operators serving the selected low-income neighborhoods for the within-county example commutes are shown in Table 4.3. All of the transit routes identified for the intracounty example commutes were bus routes, with the exception of one route in Contra Costa County, which requires a transfer from bus to BART to get to Concord. The “Annual Cost” column of Table 4.3 shows the public transit costs for the intracounty commutes that were calculated for the two selected low-income neighborhoods in each county. The average annual cost across the 18 example commutes was $867, but there is a great deal of variation. Annual public transit costs for within-county commutes range from $500 for some commutes in Solano and Sonoma Counties to $1,325 in Contra Costa County. The relatively expensive public transit commutes in Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Contra Costa potentially affect a large number of low-income households in the Bay Area, because over 40 percent of the Bay Area’s low-income households live in one of these three counties. Alameda County, the county with the highest number of low-income workers, has a relatively moderate public transit cost ranging from $750 to $875 per year. These estimated costs match fairly closely with results from a survey of CalWORKs recipients in Alameda County, which reports that the average amount spent on travel to work or job training by 48
49 Table 4.3 Costs of Illustrative Within-County Commutes Using Public Transportation County of Residence Destination City Low-Income Neighborhood Transit Agencies Used for the Commute Transfer Required Cost of Transfer ($) Day Pass One-Way Availablea Fare ($) Cost ($) Annual Cost ($) Annual Discounted Alameda Oakland 1A AC Transit Yes 0.25 No 1.75 875 720 1B AC Transit No No 1.50 750 720 Contra Costa Concord 2A County Connection No No 1.50 750 563 2B County Connection + BART Yes (b) No 2.65 1,325 1,128 Marin San Rafael 3A Golden Gate Transit No No 1.80 900 900 3B Golden Gate Transit Yes (c) No 1.80 900 900 Napa Napa (City) 4A Napa Vine No No 1.50 750 480 4B Napa Vine No No 1.50 750 425 San Francisco San Francisco 5A Muni No Yesa 1.25 625 540 5B Muni No Yesa 1.25 625 540 San Mateo Redwood City 6A SamTrans Local Yes 1.25 No 2.50 1,250 480 6B SamTrans Local Yes 1.25 No 2.50 1,250 480 Santa Clara San Jose 7A Valley Transportation Authority Yes (d) Yes (a) 1,125 630 7B Valley Transportation Authority Yes (d) Yes (a) 1,125 630
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: Administration (FHWA) mileage rate
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: 55 Table 4.5 Costs of Illustrative
Page 79 and 80: 57 Table 4.6 Costs of Illustrative
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?