Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5.3 Median Commute Duration, by Mode, Work Schedule, and County (in minutes) Low- Income Higher- Income Total From PUMS Mode Drove alone 20 20 20 Carpool 20 30 25 Bus or trolley bus 35 35 35 Streetcar or trolley car 40 35 40 Subway or elevated 45 45 45 Railroad 60 60 60 Ferryboat 60 60 60 Bicycle 15 15 15 Walked 10 10 10 Taxicab 15 15 15 Motorcycle 15 20 20 Other method 25 30 30 From BATS Mode Car (a) (a) 30 Carpool (a) (a) 40 Bus (a) (a) 45 Local rail (including Muni Rail) (a) (a) 45 BART (a) (a) 60 Caltrain (a) (a) 80 Ferry (a) (a) 80 Bicycle (a) (a) 20 Walk (a) (a) 10 Taxi (a) (a) 20 From PUMS Work schedule Midnight–4:59 a.m. 20 25 25 5 a.m.–6:59 a.m. 30 30 30 7 a.m.–8:59 a.m. 20 25 25 9 a.m.–12:59 p.m. 20 20 20 1 p.m.–4:59 p.m. 20 20 20 5 p.m.–11:59 p.m. 15 20 20 68
Table 5.3 (continued) Low- Income Higher- Income Total From PUMS County Alameda 20 25 25 Contra Costa 25 30 30 Marin 25 30 30 Napa 15 15 15 San Francisco 30 30 30 San Mateo 20 20 20 Santa Clara 20 20 20 Solano 20 25 20 Sonoma 15 20 20 SOURCES: Census 2000 Public Use Microdata Sample (Bay Area subsample), and 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey. aNot reported because of small sample sizes. take the transit modes with the longest commute durations, those in the higher-income group are also less likely than those in the low-income group to walk or bike, and walking and biking have very short median commute durations (15 minutes and 10 minutes, respectively). Note that commute durations are very similar across the income groups once mode is controlled for. Low-income and higher-income workers have exactly the same median commute durations for eight of the 12 modes. Commute time differs most between the income groups with respect to carpooling—20 minutes for low-income workers and 30 minutes for higher-income workers. A third reason for longer commute times for higher-income workers may be that those in the higher-income group are relatively more inclined to commute during rush hour (Table 5.2). Half of those in the higher-income group leave for work between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., whereas only 42 percent of those in the low-income group leave for work at that time. Both groups have about the same percentage leaving between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. (about 23 percent), but in the low-income group a much higher share leaves for work after 9 a.m. (total of 32%, compared to 22%). The last column of the third panel down in Table 5.3 shows that commutes are 5 minutes shorter after 9 a.m. than they are between 7 69
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 and 88: We also looked at mode choice using
Page 89: longer for higher-income workers if
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?