Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

40 rides. There are a few variations on the monthly discount theme. For example, VTA sells one monthly pass for local service and another monthly pass that includes express service. On average, the discounted price is about 70 percent of the undiscounted price, saving the commuter roughly $250 annually. However, there is a great deal of variation in discounts between transit providers. Golden Gate transit in Marin County provides no discounts for within-county travel (although it does provide a discount for travel to San Francisco). SamTrans in San Mateo County has the largest discount—about 60 percent off the regular fare. VTA in Santa Clara County also has a generous discount—about 45 percent off the regular fare. Households with limited incomes may have trouble taking advantage of discount rates if they do not have the cash available at the right time. If monthly passes and rent are due at the same time of the month, and if paychecks arrive twice a month, then households will have to plan ahead and save to cover the cost of the transit pass for the following month. 7 Annual private vehicle costs for within-county commutes are higher than public transit costs (Table 4.4). These costs also show a wide range, in part because we present estimates using three different mileage rates. Using the lowest mileage rate (36¢ per mile), the average annual cost across the 18 example commutes is $893, whereas the highest mileage rate (51.7¢ per mile) yields an average annual cost of $1,283. Because the cost estimates are based on mileage rates, which are the same for all counties, the variation in private vehicle costs across commutes is driven exclusively by variation in the distances from the origin neighborhood to the destination city. 8 Marin County has the lowest private vehicle cost estimates, ranging from $144 to $548, and _____________ 7 Loveless (2000) notes, “Both transportation planners and social policy planners appear to have overlooked the cash-flow problems of low-income households. Often, low-income people do not have cash on hand to purchase the most cost-effective transit fare instruments—monthly passes. . . .” (p. 148). 8 Note that the average length of the commutes that we selected is five miles. For comparison, data from the 1990 Census Special Tabulation Product #214 indicate that in the Bay Area, the median commute length for those with income under $25,000 was 5.87 miles. However, the median commute length for those who drove alone was longer—7.07 miles (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 1996, p. 13). 52
Table 4.4 Costs of Illustrative Within-County Commutes Using Private Vehicle County of Residence Destination City Low-Income Distance Neighborhood (miles) IRS: 36¢/ mile Annual Cost ($) FHWA: 46.7¢/ mile AAA: 51.7¢/ mile Alameda Oakland 1A 2.86 515 668 739 1B 2.28 410 532 589 Contra Costa Concord 2A 2.21 398 516 571 2B 8.41 1,514 1,964 2,174 Marin San Rafael 3A 0.80 144 187 207 3B 2.12 382 495 548 Napa Napa (City) 4A 9.99 1,798 2,333 2,582 4B 7.33 1,319 1,712 1,895 San Francisco San Francisco 5A 2.30 414 537 595 5B 2.44 439 570 631 San Mateo Redwood City 6A 11.58 2,084 2,704 2,993 6B 13.81 2,486 3,225 3,570 Santa Clara San Jose 7A 4.48 806 1,046 1,158 7B 2.65 477 619 685 Solano Fairfield 8A 0.92 166 215 238 8B 9.45 1,701 2,207 2,443 Sonoma Santa Rosa 9A 2.09 376 488 540 9B 3.62 652 845 936 Average 4.96 893 1,159 1,283 San Mateo County has by far the highest, ranging from $2,084 to$3,570. Alameda County, where almost a quarter of low-income workers live, has relatively low private vehicle costs compared to other counties (ranging from $410 to $739). Santa Clara County, which also has a fairly large share of the Bay Area’s low-income workers, has fairly low costs as well, ranging from $477 to $1,158. The estimated costs are quite high in Napa County ($1,319 to $2,582) and may impose a notable cost burden on low-income families there, but Napa County has only 2 percent of the Bay Area’s low-income workers. Some counties show a large difference in private vehicle costs between the two neighborhoods that we have selected: Cost estimates in Contra Costa County range from $398 to $2,174, and cost estimates in Solano County range from $166 to $2,443. 53
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 and 72: 49 Table 4.3 Costs of Illustrative
Page 73: participants who took transit or ca
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?