Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5.2 Commute Duration and Commute Schedules, by Income Group Low- Income Higher- Income Mean commute time (minutes) 28.4 29.5 Median commute time (minutes) 20.0 25.0 Departure time for work (%) Midnight–4:59 a.m. 4 3 5 a.m.–6:59 a.m. 22 23 7 a.m.–8:59 a.m. 42 51 9 a.m.–12:59 p.m. 17 13 1 p.m.–4:59 p.m. 10 6 5 p.m.–11:59 p.m. 5 3 SOURCE: Census 2000 Public Use Microdata Sample (Bay Area subsample). difference with respect to median commute time, which is 25 minutes for the higher-income group, compared to 20 minutes for the lowincome group. 4 The fact that the mean commute times are longer than the median commute times is an indication that both of these income groups include a subset of workers who have particularly long commutes compared to most of the workers in their income group. One might have expected to see a shorter average commute time for the higher-income group than for the low-income group. Those in the higher-income group commute by car more often and cars generally travel faster than the modes that low-income workers are more likely to take (buses, bicycling, and walking). Using 1990 data, MTC found that average commute speed for workers in the Bay Area was 35.13 miles per hour, whereas workers with income below $25,000 had commute speeds of only 31.58 miles per hour. 5 So how is it that commute times are _____________ 4 Using 1990 data, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (1996) also found that commute time was longer as income increased. Specifically, they found that “the average commute duration for income ‘>$75K’ (22.48 minutes from home-to-work) is 25 percent higher than the average commute duration for income ‘
longer for higher-income workers if they are traveling faster? There are several explanations. First, higher-income workers may be traveling about the same amount of time as low-income workers but traveling farther during that time, in part because of higher vehicle use rates. The PUMS Census data do not include information about distance traveled, but MTC’s calculations using specially tabulated data from 1990 show that the median commute distance for those with income less than $25,000 is 5.87 miles, compared to a median of 8.58 miles for all workers. 6 This is a difference of only 2.71 miles, but it effectively doubles the area within reach. 7 Having access to a car may not buy a briefer commute, but it may buy a greater travel range, thereby providing a wider selection of job opportunities and services. A second reason why higher-income workers have lengthier commutes is that when they do take transit, they often take the modes with the longest commute times (railroad or ferry, airplane, Caltrain, and Amtrak). The middle panel of Table 5.1 shows that of those higherincome workers who take transit to work, roughly half traveled by bus and half by other means. In contrast, more than three-quarters of lowincome workers who take transit take the bus and less than a quarter take other forms of transit. The top two panels of Table 5.3 show that commute duration by bus is shorter than for other forms of transit in the Bay Area. The PUMS data indicate that the median bus commute duration is 35 minutes, compared to 40 minutes for street car or trolley car, 45 minutes for subway or elevated, and 60 minutes for railroad or ferry boat. In addition to this pattern where higher-income transit users _____________ 6 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (1996), p. 9. 7 Following the example set forth by Murakami and Young (1997), we calculate the area accessible for higher-income commuters as (8.58) 2 = 231 square miles and the area accessible for low-income commuters as (2.71) 2 =108 square miles. We then divide the former by the latter to arrive at a ratio of 2.13. The difference in commute distance is not solely attributable to greater private vehicle use for the higher-income group. Comparing just households that drove alone, households with income under $25,000 had a median commute distance of 7.07 miles, compared to a median of 9.09 miles for all households, for a difference of 2.02 miles. Note that if one income group has a larger “area within reach,” this does not necessarily mean that those households have greater access to jobs and services—this depends on the relative density of jobs and services where each type of household is located. 67
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 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: We also looked at mode choice using
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?