Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

50 Table 4.3 (continued) 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 Solano Fairfield 8A Fairfield-Suisun Transit No No 1.00 500 408 8B Vacaville City Coach + Fairfield- Suisun Transit No (e) No 2.00 1,000 600 Sonoma Santa Rosa 9A Santa Rosa CityBus Yes (c) No 1.00 500 384 9B Sonoma County Transit Yes (c) No 1.20 600 576 Average 1.67 867 617 aValley Transportation Authority offers a day pass for $4.50 for unlimited rides, and we used that cost to calculate the annual cost. Muni offers a day pass for $9, but we did not include it in our fare calculations because it is more costly than individual tickets. AC Transit previously issued one-day passes but phased out that program in 2003. bCounty Connection is part of the BART Plus program that allows riders to purchase BART Plus cards that give them unlimited local access on buses as well as stored BART value. cWithin-agency transfer adds no additional cost to rider fare. dValley Transportation Authority does not have a within-agency transfer program. Each single ride costs $1.50, thus it is more economical for riders to purchase a day pass for $4.50. We base our annual cost calculations on the cost of the day pass. eBetween-agency transfer requires that the rider pay full fare with both agencies.
participants who took transit or carpooled was $3.51 per day. 5 If we assume 250 work days in a year, then annual costs would be $878. Transfers were required for half of the within-county commutes that we analyzed. Across all the agencies serving our within-county example commutes, all but four of the public transit providers allow free transfers. One exception, Sonoma County Transit, allows free transfers within any given zone but charges 35¢ for each additional zone. 6 AC Transit requires an additional 25¢ for each transfer, and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and SamTrans both require a full fare to be paid for each transfer. Because most agencies allow free transfers, most of the commutes that we priced out are unaffected by whether a transfer is involved. Our estimates of within-county public transportation costs for Sonoma County and Alameda County (where Sonoma County Transit and AC Transit operate, respectively) are not particularly high relative to costs in the other counties, so their transfer policies do not seem to impose a very large cost burden on the commutes that we have chosen to analyze. If we had not used the cost of the VTA’s day pass to price out the Santa Clara County commutes, those would have been the most expensive example commutes out of the nine counties ($1,500 for both commutes). This high annual cost figure results because both of the Santa Clara commutes require transfers and VTA charges full price for those transfers (unless a day pass is used). If transfers were free in Santa Clara County, the public transit cost would be $750 annually, slightly below average. The most expensive commute out of our example commutes is the one that involves a transfer to BART ($1,325 for one of the commutes in Contra Costa County). The next most expensive commutes are those in San Mateo County ($1,250 for each), where transfers are required and SamTrans charges full price for those transfers. Most of the transit operators who supply service for the example commutes sell monthly passes for an unlimited number of rides, but a few of the agencies sell discounted packages instead, which are good for _____________ 5 Green et al. (2000), p. 22. 6 The transfer needed for the example commute that uses Sonoma County Transit was within-zone and therefore free. 51
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: 49 Table 4.3 Costs of Illustrative
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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?