Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Public transit costs run approximately twice as high for intercounty commutes as for within-county commutes, with an average annual cost of about $2,000 across the 18 example commutes. For the intercounty example commutes, travel originating from Alameda, Marin, Napa, Santa Clara, and Sonoma Counties was accomplished solely via bus, whereas travel originating in Contra Costa, Solano, and San Mateo Counties involved both bus and BART. Travel originating in San Francisco involved both bus and Caltrain. Compared to the withincounty commutes, there is a bit less variation in public transit costs. Annual public transit costs for the between-county example commutes ranged from $1,125 for the Santa Clara to Alameda commutes to $2,825 for the commutes from Solano to Contra Costa. Public transit for between-county commutes is least expensive for the low-income commuters who live in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. Together, these two counties account for almost half the low-income population in the Bay Area. Transfer costs affect the cost of between-county commutes, as they did for within-county commutes. The most expensive commute, Solano to Contra Costa, requires a transfer and two full fares. In fact, two-thirds of the intercounty commutes require transfers. Alameda and Marin, both of which have intercounty commutes that do not require transfers, have relatively low public transit costs compared to the other counties. On the other hand, the commutes originating in Sonoma do not require transfers either, and those commute costs are slightly above the average. Each of the between-county example commutes has the option of some kind of multi-ride discount: monthly discount passes, 20-day passes, 31-day passes, 40-day passes, or something of the kind. On average, the discounted price is about 75 percent of the undiscounted price, and the worker nets roughly $500 in savings over the undiscounted price. San Mateo has both the commute with the greatest savings available through the discounted price ($1,079) and the commute with the least savings through the discounted price ($21). Private vehicle costs for the intercounty example commutes are higher than public transit costs and show a great deal of variation driven by differences in the distance of the commute. Using the lowest mileage rate (36¢ per mile), the average annual cost across the 18 example 58
commutes is $4,240, whereas the highest mileage rate (51.7¢ per mile) yields an average annual cost of $5,865 (Table 4.6). Private transportation costs for between-county commutes range from $828 for a commute from San Mateo to San Francisco (using the IRS mileage rate) up to $10,046 for a commute from Santa Clara to Alameda (using the AAA mileage rate). Napa and Sonoma Counties also have high private vehicle costs for intercounty commutes. Although one San Mateo commute has the lowest private vehicle cost of all the commutes ($828), the other San Mateo commute is substantially higher, at $4,799 (both using the IRS mileage rate). The Alameda and Contra Costa cost estimates for between-county commutes are more consistently at the low end, ranging from $1,687 to $3,256. As mentioned above, the variation in cost is driven entirely by the distance of the commute and the mileage rate that is used. 10 For all but two of our between-county example commutes, the commutes cost substantially more via private vehicle than via public transportation. One exception is one commute originating in Contra Costa County, where the range of costs for public transportation nest within the range of costs for private vehicle usage. The other exception is one commute originating in San Mateo, where the cost of commuting by public transportation ($2,375) is greater than the cost of commuting by private vehicle ($828 to $1,189, depending on which mileage rate is used). The difference in costs between public transportation and private vehicle is largest for the commute from Santa Clara to Alameda. This commute covers a relatively long distance, so that private vehicle costs were estimated to be quite high. For between-county example commutes, average private vehicle costs are double or triple the average _____________ 10 The average commute length for the commutes that we selected for this analysis is 22 miles. By comparison, 1990 data indicate that the median commute length across all workers in the Bay Area (including both intra- and intercounty commutes) is 8.58 miles (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 1996). Therefore, our private vehicle cost estimates may not be representative of the costs commuters using private vehicles are actually paying. Some may choose to work closer to home or to not work at all rather than pay the monetary and time costs associated with the commutes that we have selected as examples. That is, the private vehicle estimates we provide in this chapter may be accurate estimates of private vehicle costs, whereas they would be overestimates of private vehicle expenditures. 59
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 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: 57 Table 4.6 Costs of Illustrative
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?