CALIFORNIA PATH PROGRAM
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of
the University of California, in cooperation with the State of California
Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Trans-portation,
and the United States Department Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein.
The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of
the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, spec-ification,
or regulation.
ISSN 1055- 1417
September 2007
Travel of Diverse Populations:
Literature Review
California PATH Working Paper
UCB- ITS- PWP- 2007- 5
CALIFORNIA PARTNERS FOR ADVANCED TRANSIT AND HIGHWAYS
Evelyn Blumenberg, Moira Donahue, Susan Handy,
Kristin Lovejoy, Caroline Rodier, Susan Shaheen,
James Volker
Report for Task Order 5111
Literature Review on the Travel of Diverse Populations:
Immigrants, Racial and Ethnic Groups, Native Americans, Elderly, and
Youth
Evelyn Blumenberg
UCLA
Moira Donahue
UC Berkeley
Susan Handy
UC Davis
Kristin Lovejoy
UC Davis
Caroline Rodier
UC Berkeley
Susan Shaheen
UC Berkeley
James Volker
UC Davis
September 2007
ii
iii
Abstract
California is in the midst of a demographic transformation. According to the 2000 U. S. Census,
nearly 30 percent of the California population is now foreign- born, more than 50 percent of the
population belongs to a minority group, and the elderly ( those 65 and older) comprise 11 percent
of the population. Demographic forecasts suggest that these patterns will continue. California
will continue to attract immigrants from throughout the world and will become increasingly
diverse, racially and ethnically, with whites declining as a share of the population from 54
percent in 1995 to 30 to 34 percent in 2025, according to one forecast ( Thomas and Deakin
2001). The percentage of seniors will also continue its upward trajectory in the coming decades,
reaching over 13 percent by 2025 ( Thomas and Deakin 2001). This demographic transformation
raises an important question for transportation planners in the state: How can we ensure that the
kinds of transportation systems and services we provide adequately meet the needs of our
increasingly diverse population?
To answer that question, planners need a better understanding of the travel behavior of
diverse demographic groups within the state. As a part of a larger project studying the needs,
constraints, attitudes, and preferences that influence travel choices and the outcomes of those
travel choices among diverse groups in California, this report provides a review of existing
literature on the travel behavior among specific demographic groups. In particular, this report
provides a review of what is currently known about the travel patterns and transportation needs
of the following five demographic groups, nationwide and in California: immigrants, racial and
ethnic groups ( Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics), Native Americans, elderly, and youth.
Key Words: land use, travel behavior, diverse demographic groups
iv
v
Executive Summary
This report provides a literature review of what is currently known about the travel patterns and
transportation needs of the following five demographic groups, nationwide and in California:
immigrants, racial and ethnic groups ( Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics), Native Americans, elderly,
and youth. In all populations we see an increasing dependence on automobiles. This trend may
be alarming for youth and elderly populations, who have a limited ability to take advantage of
driving independently. In addition, it makes the stakes higher for those who have difficulty
affording a vehicle, who are disproportionately blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, Native
Americans, and, to a lesser extent, Asians. Heightened transit use among immigrants, blacks,
Hispanics, Asians, and youth means that these services are particularly important for these
groups. Furthermore, these populations make up a significant share of overall transit ridership.
Immigrants
Immigrants are more likely to use transit and less likely to own cars than the rest of the
population, on average, especially those who have been in the country for a shorter amount of
time and especially among more recent cohorts of immigrants. With time spent in the U. S.,
immigrant travel patterns become more similar to the rest of the population, but in many cases
differences persist that are not explained by differences in income. With respect to residential
locations, immigrants tend to initially locate in ethnic enclaves in central cities, but many move
into suburban neighborhoods over time, potentially still as part of an enclave. Immigrant jobs are
often located in central cities, but this may be changing over time, and in addition, especially in
California, many immigrants are farm workers, and therefore have different transportation needs.
Still immigrants make up a large share of transit users, and therefore are a population of interest
among transit agencies. In addition, immigrant communities have spawned a number of
community- specific transportation options, such as intercity Chinatown buses and informal
carriers such as camionetas. In California, farm- worker transportation is an important issue.
Racial and ethnic groups
Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are more likely to use transit than whites, even after controlling
for income and residential location, with particularly large gaps for blacks making non- work
trips. Vehicle ownership is also lower among ethnic and racial minorities, with the lowest
ownership rates among blacks, then Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians. However,
vi
vii
licensure rates, access to cars, and daily per capita trip- making has been increasing among all
groups over time. In general, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics are more likely to live in urban areas
than are the rest of the population. Blacks especially are more likely to live in neighborhoods
with higher proportions of blacks, rather than as a part of integrated communities. As with the
rest of the population, there are differences in the travel patterns of ethnic and racial minorities
living in urban versus rural areas, with higher rates of transit use in urban areas. With lower
income and education levels among ethnic and racial minorities, these groups may face particular
transportation challenges related to limited pools of jobs available to them. Racial and ethnic
minorities and especially blacks are more likely to be injured in traffic accidents, especially as
pedestrians, than is the rest of the population.
Native Americans
Native Americans are less likely to own cars and also less likely to use transit, on average, than
the rest of the population nationwide. Nationally, they are also more likely to travel more miles
in a vehicle, on average, than the rest of the population, but this trend does not hold for those in
California. Much of what might make Native Americans’ transportation patterns different from
the rest of the population may have to do with a higher propensity to have lower incomes and
live in rural areas, although this trend is less prevalent in California than in other states. For
Native Americans living on tribal lands, inter- jurisdictional challenges and developing
transportation planning capacity are important issues for the sovereign tribal governments
managing transportation systems in those areas. Rates of traffic accident fatalities are very
disproportionately high among Native Americans, both as drivers and as pedestrians.
Elderly
Seniors tend to be as auto- dependent as the rest of the population, with low rates of transit use.
Elderly appear to have the same types of objections to transit as the rest of the population,
although amplified. Despite a shift from seniors making trips as drivers to making trips as
passengers with age, trip- making appears roughly constant through around age 75. Elderly
persons tend to make more off- peak trips and more unchained trips throughout the day than the
rest of the population, and a higher share of trips are for social, recreational, or shopping
purposes ( with fewer work trips). When elderly begin making fewer trips, recreational trips
appear to be the first to go. Licensure rates among elderly are expected to increase with future
viii
ix
cohorts of elderly, especially among women, due to successive generations’ auto dependence.
The number of elderly living in the suburbs appears to be growing, with many elderly preferring
to age in their own homes, although there is some evidence of a shift in this trend, due to an
evolving financing environment as well as changing preferences. Differences among races in the
overall population appear to hold among the elderly in these groups.
Youth
Youth travel patterns mirror those for the rest of the population, with increasing auto dependence
among newer cohorts, with the auto mode now dominating U. S. children’s trips in general and
trips to school. In California, the use of school buses is among the lowest in the country and
declining over time. Children appear to make fewer independent trips than did previous
generations of children, though as would be expected, independent travel increases with age.
There appears to be latent demand for engaging in more active travel, such as biking and
walking, with long distances and traffic safety most often cited by parents as barriers. Interest in
active travel appears to wane with age, with the majority of children becoming drivers at age 16
or 17. Differences by race and income tend to mirror the trends found in the rest of the
population. Girls’ travel appears somewhat different than boys’, with less independent and active
travel occurring at all ages. Children’s travel is highly correlated with that of their parents.
x
xi
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... v
Chapter 1. Introduction and summary ......................................................................................... 1
Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................ 2
Summary of findings............................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2. Immigrants ................................................................................................................ 7
Immigration Patterns and Projections ...................................................................................... 7
Transportation................................................................................................................. ....... 8
Residential Location.............................................................................................................. 12
Employment, Wages, Poverty ............................................................................................... 16
Use and Access to Public Services......................................................................................... 17
Chapter 3. Racial and ethnic groups.......................................................................................... 20
Population Characteristics and Trends................................................................................... 20
Transportation................................................................................................................. ..... 21
Vehicle Ownership................................................................................................................ 24
Travel Time and Distance...................................................................................................... 25
Health and Travel Safety....................................................................................................... 28
Residential Location, Mobility and Tenure............................................................................ 29
Mobility ............................................................................................................................... 33
Employment and Wealth ....................................................................................................... 34
Chapter 4. Native Americans .................................................................................................... 38
Previous literature ................................................................................................................. 38
Residential, economic, and sociodemographic characteristics................................................ 39
Mode choice, auto ownership, and mobility........................................................................... 42
Tribal transportation planning ............................................................................................... 42
Motor vehicle fatalities.......................................................................................................... 44
Chapter 5. Elderly..................................................................................................................... 46
Demographic Characteristics................................................................................................. 46
Location Choice .................................................................................................................... 49
Travel Behavior..................................................................................................................... 51
Route Choice......................................................................................................................... 55
Safety and Driving Cessation ................................................................................................ 55
Transit Barriers and Preferences ............................................................................................ 56
Chapter 6. Youth....................................................................................................................... 58
Overall travel patterns ........................................................................................................... 58
Age ............................................................................................................................... ....... 61
Gender ............................................................................................................................... .. 62
Income, race, and ethnicity.................................................................................................... 63
Type of place ........................................................................................................................ 64
xii
xiii
Parent and child attitudes and other determinants of children’s travel .................................... 66
Children’s influence on household travel............................................................................... 68
Strategies for better outcomes................................................................................................ 68
Data needs.......................................................................................................................... .. 70
Chapter 7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 71
References by chapter ............................................................................................................... 72
1. Introduction................................................................................................................... ... 72
2. Immigrants ........................................................................................................................ 72
3. Race and ethnicity ............................................................................................................. 75
4. Native Americans.............................................................................................................. 82
5. Elderly .............................................................................................................................. 84
6. Children and youth............................................................................................................ 86
xiv
Chapter 1. Introduction and summary
California is in the midst of a demographic transformation. According to the 2000 U. S. Census,
nearly 30 percent of the California population is now foreign- born, more than 50 percent of the
population belongs to a minority group, and the elderly ( those 65 and older) comprise 11 percent
of the population. Demographic forecasts suggest that these patterns will continue. California
will continue to attract immigrants from throughout the world and will become increasingly
diverse, racially and ethnically, with whites declining as a share of the population from 54
percent in 1995 to 30 to 34 percent in 2025, according to one forecast ( Thomas and Deakin
2001). The percentage of seniors will also continue its upward trajectory in the coming decades,
reaching over 13 percent by 2025 ( Thomas and Deakin 2001). This demographic transformation
raises an important question for transportation planners in the state: How can we ensure that the
kinds of transportation systems and services we provide adequately meet the needs of our
increasingly diverse population?
To answer that question, planners need a better understanding of the travel behavior of
diverse demographic groups within the state. As a part of a larger project studying the needs,
constraints, attitudes, and preferences that influence travel choices and the outcomes of those
travel choices among diverse groups in California, this report provides a review of existing
literature on the travel behavior among specific demographic groups. In particular, the following
five chapters provide a review of what is currently known about the travel patterns and
transportation needs of the following five demographic groups, nationwide and in California ( it
is recognized that these groups are not mutually exclusive, and that an attempt to tease out the
effects of cross- cutting characteristics that overlap among these categories is necessary):
• Immigrants,
• Racial and ethnic groups ( Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics),
• Native Americans,
• Elderly, and
• Youth.
This chapter briefly describes a theoretical framework for the study of travel behavior in this
context and then provides a summary of the findings from the more detailed sections that follow.
2
Theoretical framework
The standard model of travel behavior, based on economic theory, assumes that individuals seek
to maximize their utility, where the utility of travel is primarily in bringing people to spatially
segregated activities, such as work, school, and shopping ( e. g. Domencich and McFadden 1975).
That is, people try to optimally meet their needs for travel, such as getting to work, going
shopping, and getting children to school— subject to whatever constraints they face, including
their own constraints, such as limits on time, limits on income, or the inability to drive, and
constraints imposed by the transportation system, such as the level of service provided by
different modes.
However, this optimization process is complicated for several reasons. First, people must
make longer- term choices that affect their shorter term choices for everyday travel, such as auto
ownership and job location. Second, the types of considerations that make a particular choice
optimum for someone are likely unique to that individual and to her particular circumstance.
Furthermore, some of the considerations that are thought to be relevant for travel choices do not
necessarily fit into the traditional notion of “ rational” decisionmaking implied by economic
theory. This rich set of considerations might include factors such as ability or willingness to pay,
family responsibilities, residential location, risk aversion, perceptions of safety or comfort,
previous travel experiences, cultural norms, sensitivity to features of the built environment, the
desire to impress peers, and self- efficacy.
Because of the non- rational nature of some of these considerations, theories from the field of
psychology are a useful supplement to utility- maximization in framing travel behavior choices.
In particular, the “ theory of planned behavior” ( e. g. Ajzen 1991) and “ social cognitive theory”
( e. g. Bandura 1986) both contribute useful frameworks for understanding travel behavior in
general and among the particular groups that are the focus of this project. The theory of planned
behavior identifies three different types of beliefs that play an important role in explaining
behavior: beliefs about likely outcomes of a behavior ( e. g. if I go alone, I will get lost),
normative beliefs about whether others approve or disapprove ( e. g. driving a sports car is cool),
and beliefs about factors that will facilitate or constrain particular behaviors ( e. g. bus stops are
dangerous places to spend time). Social cognitive theory recognizes that an individual’s behavior
is not simply a product of her personal characteristics and the environment, as given inputs to a
behavioral outcome, but rather that an individual’s behavior can influence her personal
3
characteristics ( e. g. riding the bus changes her feelings about the bus) and can influence her
environment ( e. g. by riding the bus she is making it more crowded for others, and/ or serving as
an example for someone in her peer group who might then feel encouraged to ride the bus). The
notions of “ outcome expectations” and “ self- efficacy” also come from social cognitive theorists,
referring to, respectively, expecting something to happen based on previous experience,
observations, hear- say, or gut feelings; and confidence about the ability to accomplish something
( Baranowski, Perry et al. 2002). These concepts are useful in explaining many aspects of
behavior that seem to fall outside of the utility- maximizing framework, such as resistance to
riding transit due to associated stigmas or drunk driving.
With respect to the diverse populations that are the focus of this project, it will be useful to
keep all of these theories in mind in our attempt to understand the travel choices that are made
and what these outcomes mean for the members of these communities. For example, it is
expected that some of the “ rational” factors emphasized in the utility- maximizing theory, such as
travel time and travel cost, will play a significant role, especially for populations very sensitive
to those factors. For example, an undocumented immigrant or someone who has a very low
income may face very real and dramatic constraints in their transportation choices and job- and
residential- location choices, and therefore travel outcomes for these groups may be well
explained by the cost- benefit framework provided by economic theory. At the same time,
planned behavior and social cognitive theories may help explain why a previously transit-dependent
immigrant who now has choices might choose either to continue riding transit or to
purchase and drive a car.
In general, we might expect every individual to be unique, as no two people face the same
circumstances or have identical perceptions and beliefs. However, there may be some
consistency for individuals who share demographic characteristics. We might expect similarities
along demographic lines for several reasons. First, whatever demographic characteristic they
have in common may be associated with other choices they also have in common. For example,
individuals with similar income levels or educational attainment may choose to live in the same
neighborhoods, choose from the same pool of jobs, shop at the same nearby grocery stores, and
make the same decisions about how to travel between these activities. Demographic
commonalities may be associated with particular attitudinal and belief- oriented responses as
well. For example, although the youth and elderly categories cut across all racial, ethnic, and
4
income groups, they may have similar responses to certain situations. For example, self- efficacy
is thought to be a major factor in seniors’ residential and travel decisions. Similarly, children and
teenagers are notoriously susceptible to peer pressure, and may be particularly determined to
prove their independence, both of which may be framed as normative beliefs which may have
significant influence on their travel choices. A second reason we might expect similarities along
demographic lines may have little to do with the characteristic they have in common, and more
to do with the fact that they share a community, for whatever reason. For example, specific
communities may produce normative beliefs that are specific to that particular culture or group,
such as whether it is appropriate for women to travel alone or how much stigma there is about
riding transit. Furthermore, outcome expectations may be shared within a specific community,
making the choices within that community more similar to each other than to the rest of the
population. For example, a belief that it is dangerous to take rides in taxis may lead to limited use
of that mode by a particular group.
Summary of findings
In all populations we see an increasing dependence on automobiles. This trend may be alarming
for youth and elderly populations, who have a limited ability to take advantage of driving
independently. In addition, it makes the stakes higher for those who have difficult affording a
vehicle, who are disproportionately blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, Native Americans, and, to a
lesser extent, Asians. Heightened transit use among immigrants, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and
youth means that these services are particularly important for these groups. Furthermore, these
populations make up a significant share of overall transit ridership.
Immigrants
Immigrants are more likely to use transit and less likely to own cars than the rest of the
population, on average, especially those who have been in the country for a shorter amount of
time and especially among more recent cohorts of immigrants. With time spent in the U. S.,
immigrant travel patterns become more similar to the rest of the population, but in many cases
differences persist that are not explained by differences in income. With respect to residential
locations, immigrants tend to initially locate in ethnic enclaves in central cities, but many move
into suburban neighborhoods over time, potentially still as part of an enclave. Immigrant jobs are
often located in central cities, but this may be changing over time, and in addition, especially in
5
California, many immigrants are farm workers, and therefore have different transportation needs.
Still immigrants make up a large share of transit users, and therefore are a population of interest
among transit agencies. In addition, immigrant communities have spawned a number of
community- specific transportation options, such as intercity Chinatown buses and informal
carriers such as camionetas. In California, farm- worker transportation is an important issue.
Racial and ethnic groups
Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are more likely to use transit than whites, even after controlling
for income and residential location, with particularly large gaps for blacks making non- work
trips. Vehicle ownership is also lower among ethnic and racial minorities, with the lowest
ownership rates among blacks, then Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians. However,
licensure rates, access to cars, and daily per capita trip- making has been increasing among all
groups over time. In general, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics are more likely to live in urban areas
than are the rest of the population. Blacks especially are more likely to live in neighborhoods
with higher proportions of blacks, rather than as a part of integrated communities. As with the
rest of the population, there are differences in the travel patterns of ethnic and racial minorities
living in urban versus rural areas, with higher rates of transit use in urban areas. With lower
income and education levels among ethnic and racial minorities, these groups may face particular
transportation challenges related to limited pools of jobs available to them. Racial and ethnic
minorities and especially blacks are more likely to be injured in traffic accidents, especially as
pedestrians, than is the rest of the population.
Native Americans
Native Americans are less likely to own cars and also less likely to use transit, on average, than
the rest of the population nationwide. Nationally, they are also more likely to travel more miles
in a vehicle, on average, than the rest of the population, but this trend does not hold for those in
California. Much of what might make Native Americans’ transportation patterns different from
the rest of the population may have to do with a higher propensity to have lower incomes and
live in rural areas, although this trend is less prevalent in California than in other states. For
Native Americans living on tribal lands, inter- jurisdictional challenges and developing
transportation planning capacity are important issues for the sovereign tribal governments
6
managing transportation systems in those areas. Rates of traffic accident fatalities are very
disproportionately high among Native Americans, both as drivers and as pedestrians.
Elderly
Seniors tend to be as auto- dependent as the rest of the population, with low rates of transit use.
Elderly appear to have the same types of objections to transit as the rest of the population,
although amplified. Despite a shift from seniors making trips as drivers to making trips as
passengers with age, trip- making appears roughly constant through around age 75. Elderly
persons tend to make more off- peak trips and more unchained trips throughout the day than the
rest of the population, and a higher share of trips are for social, recreational, or shopping
purposes ( with fewer work trips). When elderly begin making fewer trips, recreational trips
appear to be the first to go. Licensure rates among elderly are expected to increase with future
cohorts of elderly, especially among women, due to successive generations’ auto dependence.
The number of elderly living in the suburbs appears to be growing, with many elderly preferring
to age in their own homes, although there is some evidence of a shift in this trend, due to an
evolving financing environment as well as changing preferences. Differences among races in the
overall population appear to hold among the elderly in these groups.
Youth
Youth travel patterns mirror those for the rest of the population, with increasing auto dependence
among newer cohorts, with the auto mode now dominating U. S. children’s trips in general and
trips to school. In California, the use of school buses is among the lowest in the country and
declining over time. Children appear to make fewer independent trips than did previous
generations of children, though as would be expected, independent travel increases with age.
There appears to be latent demand for engaging in more active travel, such as biking and
walking, with long distances and traffic safety most often cited by parents as barriers. Interest in
active travel appears to wane with age, with the majority of children becoming drivers at age 16
or 17. Differences by race and income tend to mirror the trends found in the rest of the
population. Girls’ travel appears somewhat different than boys’, with less independent and active
travel occurring at all ages. Children’s travel is highly correlated with that of their parents.
7
Chapter 2. Immigrants
Immigration Patterns and Projections
Very little academic scholarship has focused on the travel patterns and behavior of immigrants.
Yet legal immigration, after tapering off during the late 1990s, is once again rising. In 2002,
almost 300,000 new immigrants entered California, the intended destination of 27 percent of all
immigrants to the United States ( California Department of Finance, 2002; U. S. Department of
Homeland Security, 2004 ( Figure 2.1). 1 Over nine percent of immigrants to the U. S. intend to
settle in the Los Angeles- Long Beach metropolitan area ( U. S. Department of Homeland
Security, 2004). 2 Although immigration to California tapered off in 2003 ( U. S. Department of
Homeland Security, 2003), population forecasts suggest that international migration to California
will continue to be an important source of population growth in the state ( Lee, Miller and
Edwards, 2003).
Figure 2.1. Legal Immigration to the United States and California
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
U. S. California
Source: U. S. Department of Homeland Security ( 2004). 2003 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics . Office of Immigration
Statistics, September
More startling than data on the number of annual entrants to California is the cumulative
effect of immigration on the composition of the California population. Data from the 2000 U. S.
Census show that more than one- quarter of the California population is foreign- born. Forty- four
1 These figures underestimate the total percentage of immigrants to California since they exclude unauthorized or
“ illegal” immigration. The U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service ( 2003) estimates that 2,2 million
unauthorized immigrants resided in California in 2000, up from 1.5 million in 1990.
2 In fiscal year 2003, 703,542 legal immigrants were granted lawful permanent residents in the U. S.; of these, 64,422
stated their intent to live in Los Angeles ( U. S. Department of Homeland Security, 2004).
8
percent of the foreign- born population comes from Mexico and another 22 percent from Asia
( U. S. Bureau of Census, 2004). The foreign- born population comprises over one- third of the
population in Los Angeles, over one- quarter of the population in the San Francisco Bay Area,
and over one- fifth of the population in the Southern, Coastal, and Central Valley areas.
Much of the research on California immigrants has focused on their economic assimilation
and, therefore, has centered on educational attainment, labor market participation, income, and
poverty status. A second body of research has focused on the effects of immigration on the
California economy. However, very little of the scholarship on immigrants has focused on their
travel behavior and, related, the effect of immigration patterns on California’s transportation
infrastructure.
In the following sections we review the small existing body of research on the travel
behavior of immigrants. Additionally, we examine the residential location, economic and
employment patterns, and public service utilization of immigrants, highlighting the potential
implications of these factors for travel behavior.
Transportation
Travel Mode
A number of scholars find that assimilation decreases immigrants’ propensity to use public
transit. Myers ( 1996) has written the major piece of scholarship on immigration and
transportation. Using data from the 1980 and 1990 Public Use Microdata Samples ( PUMS) of
the U. S. Census, he shows that recent immigrants are far more reliant on public transit than older
immigrant cohorts. Over time, however, immigrants improve their economic status and become
increasingly reliant on personal vehicles. Purvis ( 2003) draws from the 2000 Public Use
Microdata Sample to analyze immigrants in the San Francisco Bay Area. Similarly, he finds that
immigrants’ use of public transit declines with time spent in the U. S. Using data from the 2001
National Household Travel Survey, Casas et al. ( 2004) divide Hispanics into three categories –
U. S. born, “ Newcomer Hispanics” who have lived in the U. S. less than one- third of their lives,
and “ Settled Hispanics” who have lived in the U. S. more than two- thirds of their lives. They
also find that “ Newcomer Hispanics” rely more heavily on public transit compared to both
9
native- born and “ settled” Hispanics. 3 Finally, Heisz and Schellenberg ( 2004) examine the public
transit use of immigrants in three Canadian cities ( Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver). They,
too, find that the initially high rates of public transit use among immigrants erode over time.
Despite these findings, public transit continues to play an important role for immigrants,
particularly those new to the U. S. Myers ( 1996) finds that the share of transit users in Southern
California who were recent immigrants increased from 27 to 42 percent from 1980 to 1990. In
his study of the San Francisco/ Bay Area, Purvis ( 2003) find that immigrants comprise 32
percent— more than one- third— of all transit commuters in the region, not surprising considering
the influx of recent immigrants to California. Further, Heisz and Schellenberg ( 2004) find a
cohort effect related to public transit use. New cohorts of recent immigrants have higher rates of
transit use than earlier cohorts. This is likely the result of changes in sending regions and,
related, differences in the characteristics of immigrant cohorts, particularly with respect to
educational attainment. Recent immigrants to California from Mexico and Central America tend
to arrive with very low levels of education ( McCarthy and Vernez, 1998).
Vehicle Ownership
Studies show that auto ownership among immigrants increases with length of residence in the
U. S.; however, immigrant households— regardless of their length of residence— remain more
likely than native- born households to live in zero- vehcile households. Using data from the 1990
Public Use Microdata Sample ( PUMS), McGuckin and Srinivasan ( 2003) find a positive
relationship between length of U. S. residence and auto ownership. They find that new
immigrants are twice as likely to live in households without vehicles than immigrants who have
lived in the U. S. for ten years or more. However, their study shows that even after a decade in
the U. S., immigrants are still twice as likely to live in households without automobiles compared
to the U. S.- born population.
Casas et al. ( 2004) report similar findings for Latino households. They find that the
percentage of zero- vehicle households among Hispanic immigrants declines substantially with
time spent in the U. S. Almost one- quarter of “ newcomer immigrants” live in households without
automobiles compared to 13 percent of “ settled immigrants.” They also find that older
immigrants and native- born Latinos are significantly more likely to own newer— and perhaps
3 In comparing data between the NHTS and the Current Population Survey of the U. S. Census, the authors also find
that the NHTS significantly undercounts Hispanic immigrants and, in particular, newcomer immigrants.
10
more reliable— vehicles. Similar to the findings of McGuckin and Srinivasan ( 2003), Casas et
al. find that “ settled immigrants,” those living in the country more than two- thirds of their lives,
are still twice as likely as non- Hispanics to live in households without automobiles. 4
Explanations for low auto ownership rates among recent immigrants are varied. Income is
clearly an important factor. Immigrants— particularly recent immigrants— have low incomes
and, therefore, are less likely than other population groups to afford automobile ownership— both
the purchase and the maintenance expenses. Also, many recent immigrants do not have
automobiles because they do not know how to drive. Some immigrants may be less likely than
others to have had drivers’ licenses, driven cars, or owned automobiles in their countries of
origin. There are also cultural differences associated with driving. For example, women outside
of the U. S. are much less likely to possess driver’s licenses or to know how to operate vehicles
than U. S. women ( Pisarski, 1999).
Immigrants may also face administrative obstacles to obtaining U. S. drivers’ licenses; this,
too, may decrease the likelihood of auto ownership. Historically, states have had responsibility
for the issuance of driver’s licenses and the establishment of driver’s rules. As of March 2005,
driver’s license applications in 47 states, including California, required Social Security Numbers
for those who have been assigned or are eligible for one ( National Immigration Law Center,
2005). 5 All but twelve states, including California, require “ lawful presence,” meaning that
immigrants must present evidence that they were lawfully admitted to the U. S. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that legal immigrants may have difficulty providing the necessary documents.
Further, some states, most recently New York, are denying license renewals and suspending the
licenses of non- citizens who fail to provide documents ( a Social Security card or a visa) “ deemed
satisfactory by a motor vehicles clerk” ( Bernstein, 2005).
But the issue of driver’s licenses is clearly most pressing for illegal immigrants. In most
states undocumented immigrants are not eligible for driver’s licenses. This issue has been highly
controversial in California where in 2003 the State Legislature repealed SB60, a bill allowing
illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. Public opinion polls in the state clearly support
4 Aponte ( 1996) finds that Mexican men have strikingly higher car ownership rates ( also lower unemployment rates)
than African American men despite their lower schooling and English proficiency. The car ownership rate for
African American men was 66% compared to 82% among Mexican men, a rate 2% points less than that for white
men ( 84%). Unemployment rates for black, Mexican, and white men were 32%, 7%, and 16%, respectively.
5 In California, persons who are legally authorized to be in the state but are ineligible for a social security number
are entitled to DMV documents ( NILC, 2004).
11
this decision. A recent Field Poll shows that 62 percent of California residents oppose granting
undocumented immigrants the right to obtain a California driver’s license ( DiCamillo and Field,
2005). 6
Finally, low automobile ownership rates may be due to immigrants’ disproportionate
residential location in central- city neighborhoods. Many of these neighborhoods have well-established
ethnic communities ( as we discuss below) as well as extensive public transit service.
Intercity Travel
Anecdotal evidence suggests that there has been a growth in ethnic providers of inter- city
transportation services. A number of newspaper articles have profiled ethnic inter- city bus
carriers, particularly on the east coast ( Fass, 2001; Newman, 2005). For example, Chinese buses
make regular trips between Chinatowns in New York, Boston, and Washington, D. C. As
Newman ( 2005) reports, Chintatown buses first emerged approximately eight years ago,
transporting Chinese workers to restaurant jobs in nearby cities. Over time, their ridership has
both expanded and diversified.
“ Camionetas” serve a similar purpose in many Hispanic communities. Camionetas are
informal van services used primarily by Hispanic immigrants for inter- regional and transnational
travel. While the presence of this service is widely acknowledged by journalists ( Hegstrom,
2003; Lewis 2001; Moreno, 1998), few scholars have examined the extent and role of this type
of informal service. In a report sponsored by the Texas Department of Public Safety, Ellis
( 2001) chronicles some of the safety problems associated with camionetas, including the use of
high mileage vehicles, the operation of vehicles for unsafe periods of time, the presence of
defective seat belts, and low usage rates of seat belts.
More recently, Valenzuela ( 2004) examined camioneta services in Los Angeles. He found
that camionetas provide many benefits usually associated with private transit services, “ flexible
routes and timing, more tailored destinations, better in- vehicle amenities, and faster trips due to
the smaller vehicles.” Camioneta service often is more expensive than Greyhound service, but
typically provides faster service. Further, from Los Angeles, camionetas provide service as far
as New York, Mexico, and Central America. The travelers reported they use the service from 1
6 The Field poll shows that there is a “ large ethnic divide” on this issue. Latinos in the state are in favor of providing
driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants by a two to one margin. Furthermore, 49 percent of residents support
issuing undocumented immigrants a different kind of driver’s licenses that would allow them to drive but would
clearly identify their legal status.
12
to 60 times a year and 70 percent use the service for work- related travel. More than half of all
survey respondents had a car available for their daily travel needs and only six of the 150
respondents reported using transit to get to work.
Farmworker Travel. Finally, in California farm worker transportation is an important issue.
Following a series of accidents that involved farm labor vehicles, the California Highway Patrol
conducted an enforcement sweep throughout the state. They pulled over 118 vehicles of which
36 ( 31%) were found to have serious safety violations. These violations included unregistered
vehicles, defective lights, and license- related offenses, including driving without a license
( Ingram, 1999). The growing number of injuries and fatalities of farm workers in the San
Joaquin Valley, many of them immigrants, served as the impetus for a Farm Worker
Transportation Services Pilot Project ( FTSPP) funded as part of the Job Access and Reverse
Commute program. The FTSPP program provides vanpool, fixed- route, and Dial- A- Ride service
to farm worker families for employment- related, childcare, health and/ or social purposes.
Residential Location
Two major theoretical models explain the adaptation of immigrants— spatial assimilation and
ethnic resources models. These models provide two divergent perspectives on the spatial
mobility of immigrants. The first model— spatial assimilation— theorizes that recent immigrants
live in the central city until their economic conditions improve and they, like other central- city
residents, relocate to higher- income neighborhoods perhaps located in the suburbs. The second
theory— the ethnic resources model— posits that ethnic agglomerations or “ ethnic enclaves”
enhance the economic outcomes of immigrants through local and ethnic- specific economic and
cultural networks. In this case, immigrants may choose to remain in ethnic neighborhoods long
after they might have an economic imperative to do so. 7
Data from the 2000 U. S. Census support the spatial assimilation theory. Figure 2.2 shows
that the longer immigrants live in the U. S., the greater the likelihood that they reside in suburban
neighborhoods. For example, only 33 percent of the foreign- born population entering the U. S.
prior to 1970 lives in the central city compared to 47 percent of recent immigrants. Spatial
assimilation is also apparent across generations. For example, Figure 2.3 shows that 43 percent
of first generation immigrants live in the suburbs compared to 36 percent of their children, and
7 Whether residential location in a central city ethnic enclave facilitates or hinders relocation to the suburbs in
unclear.
13
only 26 percent of the third generation. Alba et al. ( 1999) also find increasing suburbanization
among some immigrant groups during the 1980s and 1990s due, in part, to declining barriers to
the entry of new immigrants to suburban neighborhoods.
Figure 2.2. Residence of Foreign- Born Population by Year of Entry ( U. S., 2004)
47% 45% 43% 43%
34%
47% 50% 52% 53%
60%
7% 5% 5% 4% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 or later 1990- 1999 1980- 1989 1970- 1979 Before 1970
Central City Outside central city Nonmetropolitan area
Source: U. S. Census Bureau ( 2004). Current Population Survey.
Figure 2.3. Residence of Foreign- Born Population by Generation ( U. S., 2004)
43%
36%
26%
51%
56%
53%
6% 8%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
First Generation Second Generation Third+ Generation
Metropolitan area, inside central city Metropolitan area, outside central city
Nonmetropolitan area
14
Figure 2.4. Foreign- born by Residence – California Metropolitan Areas ( 2000)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Yuba City
Visalia-- Tulare-- Porterville
Stockton-- Lodi
Santa Barbara-- Santa Maria-- Lompoc
San Luis Obispo-- Atascadero-- Paso Robles
San Francisco-- Oakland-- San Jose
San Diego
Salinas
Sacramento-- Yolo
Redding
Modesto
Merced
Los Angeles-- Riverside-- Orange County
Fresno
Chico-- Paradise
Bakersfield
All Metropolitan Areas
Central City
Suburb
However, the rate of spatial assimilation into suburban neighborhoods varies by ethnicity
( Allen and Turner, 1996; White and Sassler, 2000). As Figure 2.5 shows, only 41 percent of
European immigrants live in the central city compared to 48 percent of immigrants from Latin
America and 45 percent of immigrants from Asia. There is also variation by metropolitan
location. Figure 2.4 shows the residential location of the foreign- born in California metropolitan
areas. In Santa Barbara ( MSA) 65 percent of the foreign- born live in the central city compared
to less than 30 percent in Merced.
Further, spatial assimilation into suburban neighborhoods may not necessarily indicate
residential integration. While suburban immigrants are more spatially dispersed than immigrants
living in the central city ( Clark and Blue, 2004), many still live in ethnic enclaves ( Alba et al.,
1999; Allen and Turner, 1996; Li, 1998, 1999; Logan, Alba, Zhang, 2002). Therefore,
immigrant families may move from one ethnic enclave to another, perhaps combining some of
the benefits of suburban living with those of living in ethnic concentrations. 8
8 However, in a study of Chinese immigrants in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, Fang and Brown ( 1999)
find that the characteristics of suburban Chinese immigrants in Monterey Park City were more similar to Chinese
immigrants in the central city than their counterparts in the suburbs.
15
Figure 2.5. Central City Residence of Foreign- Born Population by Region of Birth ( U. S., 2004)
46%
41% 45% 48%
39%
54%
59% 55% 52%
61%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total Europe Asia Latin America Other
Central City Suburb
Source: U. S. Census Bureau ( 2004). Current Population Survey.
What might this mean for the travel patterns of immigrants? First, recently arrived
immigrants— particularly those with low- incomes— are more likely to live in dense central- city
neighborhoods where public transit networks tend to be well developed. Central- city
immigrants, therefore, are more likely to use public transit and to travel short distances.
However, the effect of a suburban residential location on the travel patterns of immigrants is
much less certain. Overall travel distances tend to be longer in the suburbs than in the central
city since suburban employment is more spatially dispersed relative to central- city employment.
In contrast, travel times tend to be shorter for suburban commuters since a high percentage of
suburban residents commute within the suburbs. Suburban commute times are also reduced by
the widespread use of automobiles as well as less congested streets and highways.
But if suburban immigrants are more likely than other suburban residents to maintain
employment in traditional, central- city ethnic enclaves, their travel distances might be longer
than those of other suburban workers. For example, an article in the Los Angeles Times tells the
story of Jung- In Lee who moved from Koreatown in Los Angeles to the City of Walnut where
she found better schools and lower crime rates. The article states that “ Lee often spent three
hours a day commuting to and from her Koreatown job in publishing” and “ during her time in
the suburbs, she was so stressed out from the commute that she barely had time to enjoy their
four- bedroom ‘ dream house.’” In contrast, low- wage suburban immigrants may commute
16
shorter distances than other low- wage suburban workers if they both live and work in suburban
ethnic enclaves.
Employment, Wages, Poverty
Nationally, foreign- born workers are disproportionately represented in service ( 23%) and
production occupations ( 18%) and, on average, have median weekly earnings 76 percent that of
native- born workers ( U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004). In terms of labor force
participation, there is a substantial gender gap. Foreign- born men are significantly more likely to
be in the labor force ( 81%) than native- born men ( 72%). In contrast, foreign- born women are
significantly less likely in the labor force ( 54%) compared to foreign- born men as well as native-born
women ( 60%). The division of labor among foreign- born households should affect the
distribution of work- and non- work trips.
The employment characteristics of immigrants clearly vary by ethnicity and region— across
the U. S. as well as within California. Ong and Valenzuela ( 2001) analyzed immigrant labor in
California. They find that foreign- born Latinos are significantly underrepresented in high- wage
managerial and professional occupations and over- represented in low- wage farming and
operator/ laborer occupations. As a consequence, they earn significantly less than native- born
workers. As Figure 2.6 shows, the poverty rate among Mexicans, Guatamalans, and Salvadorans
in California is substantially above the state poverty rate. More distributing, however, is that
their economic prospects have increased only slightly since 1969.
In contrast, as a group, the economic attainment of Asian immigrants is quite good. Many
find employment in high- wage managerial and professional occupations. As of the late 1990s,
the median earnings of foreign- born Asians rivaled those of native- born workers. However, the
occupational and earnings success of foreign- born Asians masks tremendous disparities across
Asian ethnic groups. Figure 2.6 shows that immigrants from the Philippines, India, Hong Kong
and China had poverty rates well below the state average. In contrast, immigrants from Laos and
Thailand had the highest poverty rates, more than twice the state average.
17
Figure 2.6. Poverty Rate by Country of Origin ( California, 2000)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Philippines ( 2)
Canada ( 11)
UK ( 12)
India ( 8)
Germany ( 14)
Hong Kong ( 15)
Mainland China ( 5)
Iran ( 9)
Nicaragua ( 17)
Taiwan ( 10)
Japan ( 13)
Vietnam ( 3)
Korea ( 6)
Russia ( 20)
El Salvador ( 4)
Guatemala ( 7)
Mexico ( 1)
Armenia ( 19)
Thailand ( 18)
Laos ( 16)
California Poverty Rate ( 14%)
* Numbers in parentheses signify rank
based on population size
Finally, the employment of immigrants clearly varies by region of residence. With respect to
California, there are clear differences between agricultural and urban counties. In urban areas,
such as Los Angeles, many immigrants live in ethnic enclaves, relying on their social networks
to find employment in ethnic labor markets ( Logan, Alba, Zhang, 2002). 9 Some immigrants
have relied on ethnic resources to establish businesses, some of which meet the growing demand
for ethnic products ( Light and Bonacich, 1988). In contrast, immigrants in the San Joaquin
Valley are largely dependent on employment in the agricultural sector. The industry provides
low- wage, seasonal employment for many migrant workers from Mexico and Southeast Asia;
these workers tend to earn low wages and have incomes well below the poverty line ( Martin and
Taylor, 1998).
Use and Access to Public Services
There is very little research on immigrants and their awareness and use of public transit services.
However, a broader literature on immigrants and their utilization of public services suggests that
service use is affected by the structure of public benefits, English language proficiency, and the
spatial location of services relative to the evolving residential location of the immigrant
population.
9 The one exception for Los Angeles is Koreans; they work in enclave sectors yet are less likely to live in ethnic
neighborhoods ( Logan, Alba, Zhang, 2002).
18
A number of scholars have examined immigrants’ use of public services such as welfare,
health care services, and other benefits. Compared to native- born families, immigrants are more
likely to use federally- funded cash assistance such as welfare ( AFDC or TANF) and SSI;
however, poor immigrants are less likely to use welfare than poor natives ( Fix, Passel and
Zimmerman, 1996). Further, not all immigrants are equally likely to enroll in cash assistance
programs. Hence, service use is concentrated among certain immigrant groups such as the
elderly and refugees who comprise 21 percent of all immigrants, but 40 percent of all immigrant
welfare users ( Fix, Passel and Zimmermann, 1996b). Low- income households headed by non-refugee
immigrants are less likely to receive cash assistance than poor households with native-born
heads ( Fix, Passel and Zimmermann, 1996). Historically, refugees have been eligible for
welfare benefits upon their arrival as a component of refugee assistance ( Fix, Passel and
Zimmermann, 1996b).
English language ability also influences service use. Numerous studies show a positive
relationship between English proficiency and the use of health care services ( see, for example,
Juon et al, 2000; Ngo- Metzger et. al, 2003; Tsai and Lopez, 1997). Length of residency in the
U. S. is significantly related to English language proficiency ( Fennelly and Palasz, 2003). While
this is true overall, English language acquisition varies substantially by immigrant group. For
example, in a three generational study of linguistic assimilation, Alba et al. ( 2002) find that the
rates of speaking only English occurs slower among descendents of Spanish speakers than for
Asians and Europeans. This difference likely is due to the sheer number of Spanish- speakers
that make it possible for Hispanics to communicate for most purposes in their native language.
Immigrants’ access to and use of services also varies by the spatial location of services
relevant to particular immigrant groups. In a study of services for immigrant women in Toronto,
Truelove ( 2000) finds that the suburbanization of immigrants negatively affects their access to
services typically concentrated in central- city areas. While Truelove ( 2000) focuses on social
services, the finding likely applies also to transit services. Immigrants who move to suburban
neighborhoods will have less access to the extensive transit networks typically found in central
cities. This may make little difference if— along with a suburban residence— immigrants also
acquire automobiles. However, if suburban immigrants are more reliant on public transit than
19
native- born suburban residents, they will also be more isolated from jobs, services, and other
destinations.
Finally, a recent study suggests that cultural differences may also influence the use of transit
services. In focus groups with Latino, Somali, and Hmong immigrants in Minnesota, Douma
( 2004) finds that Latino immigrants are more open to transit and “ social” types of travel,
compared to Hmong immigrants who place a greater value on privacy.
20
Chapter 3. Racial and ethnic groups
Population Characteristics and Trends
When race and ethnicity are not explicitly accounted for, analysis of transportation behavior
often yields a mere reflection of the behavior of the White majority ( Giuliano, 2003). However,
very little scholarly research has targeted the disaggregated travel behavior of non- immigrant
Hispanics, Blacks and Asians. While many areas of the United States remain predominately
White, the proportion of Whites in California is continuing to decline. In 1980, Whites made up
almost 70% of the Californian population, but by the year 2000 they comprised less than 50% of
the population ( University of Michigan, 2002) ( Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1. Racial Composition of California’s Population
Although the California’s racial composition did not change significantly from 2000 to 2003,
it is not likely to remain static ( Heim, 2005). From 2000 to 2003 annual net migration decreased
significantly, while the annual amount of natural increase grew. More conclusively, over that
time span Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and those classified as ‘ Multirace’ accounted for over 95%
of the average annual natural increase, indicating that as immigration dwindles, California’s
population growth will be dominated by races other than White. In addition, from 2000 to 2003
the natural increases in Hispanic, Asian and Multirace populations outweighed any increase due
to net migration, evincing the demographic change in these populations towards proportionally
more non- immigrants ( Heim, 2005).
21
There have not been many studies on race, ethnicity and travel behavior in California, and
even fewer have accounted for immigrant status. What research has been done in California, has
focused primarily on travel time and distance, spatial mismatch, health hazards, and housing
tenure and location. On the national level, broader bodies of literature exist for these issues as
well as travel mode and others, but even there few studies examine the cultural context and other
specific factors affecting transportation decisions made at the margin.
In this review, we survey the Californian and national literatures on a wide range of issues
affecting racial or ethnic differences in travel behavior. In particular, we address travel behavior
itself, health consequences of transportation, residential location and tenure choice, employment
and wealth. Owing to the dearth of travel behavior research that controls for immigrant status,
not all the findings in this paper pertain specifically to non- immigrant groups.
Transportation
Travel Mode
For all trips combined, Blacks, Asians, and urban Hispanics are generally much more apt than
Whites to use public transit, controlling for basic socioeconomic variables, though not immigrant
status ( Pucher and Renne, 2004; Pucher and Renne, 2003; Giuliano, 2003; Polzinn et al., 2001;
Johnston, 2000). Using 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey ( NPTS) data, Giuliano
( 2003) finds that Blacks travel on public transit more than twice as often as any other racial or
ethnic group, and more than seven times as often as Whites. Pucher and Renne ( 2003), using
2001 National Household Travel Survey data, and Giuliano ( 2003) both assert that Hispanics
use public transit more often than Whites, though Rosenbloom and Waldorf ( 2001) find that
among the elderly respondents in the 1995 NPTS, Hispanics are the least likely to use it. Pucher
and Renne ( 2003) find that Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to use public buses than Asians
and Whites, and that Asians use rail transit more than all other groups, possibly due to their
concentration in the largest cities in the United States where rail transit is most prevalent.
As pertains specifically to the commute to work, McLafferty and Preston ( 1997) reveal that
Blacks and Hispanics in New York are much more likely than Whites to commute using public
transit, with the differences being greatest amongst women and urban residents. They also show
that the women, especially Blacks and Hispanics, are more likely than men to commute by
transit. For non- work travel, Polzin, et al. ( 2001) conclude from 1983, 1990 and 1995 NPTS
data that Blacks are the only group to use public transit significantly more than Whites. Polzin et
22
al. further find that Blacks make an approximately equal percentage of their non- work and work
trips by public transit, whereas Whites and Hispanics are much more likely to use transit for
work related trips. Zmud and Arce ( 2001) show that Blacks and Hispanics are much more likely
than Whites to make shopping trips using public transit.
In terms of other travel mode alternatives to the automobile, Blacks, Hispanics and
Asians also have higher walk shares than Whites out of all trips taken ( Giuliano, 2003; Pucher
and Renne, 2003). However, Whites and Hispanics, at least in urban areas, make a higher
percentage of their trips by bicycle than Blacks and Asians, though for Whites bike trips are
predominately recreational ( Pucher and Renne, 2003).
Not surprisingly, data from the 2001 NHTS reveal that among households in urban areas,
Blacks ( 78.9%) make a lower percentage of trips by automobile than do Asians and Hispanics
( both 83.1%), who in turn have a lower automobile mode share than Whites ( 87.6%) ( Pucher and
Renne, 2003). These results echo Blumenberg and Haas’ ( 2001) findings using data on welfare
recipients from Fresno County. In addition, Zmud and Arce ( 2001) show that Blacks and
Hispanics are much less likely than Whites to make shopping trips with a car. In terms of total
automobile trips, Mallett and McGuckin ( 2000), using 1995 NPTS and ATS data, find that
Blacks make about half as many recreational automobile trips per capita as Whites. Van Hengel
et al. ( 1999) provide case specific evidence from the recently constructed Century Freeway in
L. A. County that increases in highway and other auto- serving infrastructure benefit White more
than minority households in terms of commute time savings, evincing urban minorities’ lesser
dependence on the automobile.
Waldorf’s ( 2003) analysis of the elderly using 1995 NPTS trip data shows that amongst
Blacks, automobile reliance greatly decreases for low- income households (‹$ 10,000 annually)
and urban ( as opposed to suburban) dwellers. He finds a Black- White differential in automobile
reliance for low- income households, regardless of location, but no significant Hispanic- White
differential. He also finds that urban Blacks and Black women rely more heavily on carpooling
than their White and Hispanic counterparts, i. e. they are more likely to be passengers. Looking
at 2001 NHTS data, Pucher and Renne ( 2004) find that carpooling is even more prevalent among
Blacks in rural areas than in urban settings. One possible explanation for Blacks’ higher
propensity for carpooling is that they receive more practical support ( e. g. with transportation)
23
from relatives and friends than other groups, a finding corroborated by Sarkisian and Gerstel
( 2004) in their study on kin support among Blacks and Whites.
Just as Waldorf ( 2003) and others find an urban- suburban differential in automobile reliance,
so too have scholars uncovered an urban- rural split. Across all racial, ethnic, age and income
groups, residents of rural areas are more likely to travel via automobile, a symptom of greater
spatial spread and more limited transit service as compared to urban areas. In comparing their
findings to NPTS and L. A. Transportation Needs Assessment data, Blumenberg and Haas ( 2001)
show that recipients in Fresno, a relatively rural area, are 26% more likely than L. A. recipients to
commute via auto ( either as passenger or driver). Pucher and Renne ( 2004) find that Blacks
( 91%), Hispanics ( 90%), and Whites ( 91%) in rural areas make a virtually identical percentage
of their respective trips by car. Interestingly, they also find that though Blacks use public transit
more often than Hispanics in urban areas, the reverse is true in rural areas. Lastly, they find that
despite such high dependency on the automobile, all three groups rely more on school bus
service in rural areas.
In all, Rosenbloom and Waldorf ( 2001) find that residential location is one of the most
significant predictors of travel mode choice, though there are also independent effects of
race/ ethnicity, a conclusion corroborated by the findings of Pucher and Renne ( 2004), Sinha
( 2003), Waldorf ( 2003), and McLafferty and Preston ( 1997). Waldorf ( 2003) proffers that apart
from the socioeconomic and locational effects, the perceived independent racial differences in
automobile use are also a function of cultural variations in the perceived need to obtain a driver’s
license and the propriety of certain populations, e. g. women, traveling alone.
Current Trends
As Polzin et al. ( 2001) and others note, the mobility of racial/ ethnic minorities has risen
proportionally greater than that of Whites in the past couple decades largely due to their
increasing licensure and access to cars, rising income, and increasing consumer spending. This
has contributed to the rising number of daily per capita trips as well as the expanding gap
between the proportions of work related and non- work related trips. For all groups, especially
minorities, driving is becoming an ever more prominent travel mode, especially for non- work
travel. For work related travel, especially in urban areas, however, the amount of automobile use
for all groups is still tempered by availability of transit. Ong and Houston ( 2002), in their study
of L. A. County welfare recipients, confirm that propinquity and frequency of transit service still
24
have a positive effect on transit use across racial/ ethnic groups, controlling for inability to
borrow/ use a vehicle. Thompson ( 2001) correspondingly finds that transit accessibility also
reduces the likelihood of automobile ownership.
Vehicle Ownership
According to the 2000 U. S. Census Supplementary Survey data for California, the percentage of
Black households that have at least one working automobile available for use is lower, at 84.3%,
than for all other racial/ ethnic groups. Non- Hispanic White households have the highest rate of
access to automobiles at 94.1%, followed by Asians ( 91.6%), Native Americans ( 90.9%) and
Hispanics ( 89.2%) ( U. S. Census Bureau, 2002). 1997 Consumer Expenditure Survey data
reveals similar racial/ ethnic disparities on the national level ( Zmud and Arce, 2001). Consistent
with these numbers, Blumenberg ( 2004) finds that Black welfare recipients in California are
much more likely to live in zero- vehicle households than their White, Hispanic and Southeast
Asian counterparts. In addition, using 1995 NPTS data, Gardenhire and Sermons ( 2001) show
that non- White status significantly diminishes the likelihood of vehicle ownership for non- poor
female- headed households.
There are a number of factors that contribute to the racial/ ethnic differences in vehicle
ownership. In his analysis of the sustainability of urban transportation systems, Sinha ( 2003)
posits that urban density, as measured by people and/ or jobs per unit area, is the “ key indicator”
of automobile use and ownership. Incidentally, there is much evidence that Blacks, Hispanics
and Asians tend to live in higher density areas than Non- Hispanic Whites, even after controlling
for immigrant status ( Yu, 2003; Bajari and Kahn, 2001). Income certainly affects vehicle
ownership as well, though does not help much to explain the Asian- White gap since Asians on
average have relatively similar incomes ( Gardenhire and Sermons, 2001; U. S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2005). Lastly, family structure and race/ ethnicity itself ( via culture, e. g.) differentially
affect each groups travel behavior, as exemplified by Black women’s higher tendency to engage
in reciprocal exchange of practical support, including transportation aid, than White women
( Sarkisian and Gerstel, 2004).
25
Travel Time and Distance
The Work Commute
Travel time is largely a function of two things: distance from destination ( which necessarily
incorporates travel purpose) and travel mode. The majority of the literature on travel time and
distance has focused on the commute to work in metropolitan areas. Generally it has been found
that residents of job poor areas have longer commute times, manifesting the link between
commute distance and time ( Sultana, 2002; Thompson, 2001). Shen ( 2000) correspondingly
finds that those who live farther away from the city center have longer average commutes.
Ihlanfeldt and Sjoquist ( 1998), in their review of the spatial mismatch literature, and Taylor and
Ong ( 1995) reveal that the commute times and distances for both minorities and Whites are and
have been increasing. Interestingly, Giuliano ( 2003) also finds that access to a vehicle has a
greater positive effect on commute distance for Hispanics than Whites, Blacks or Asians.
However, neither Taylor and Ong ( 1995), nor Sastry et al. ( 2002) finds that Blacks or Hispanics
have longer commute distances than Non- Hispanic Whites, though Sastry et al. show that non-immigrant
Asians in L. A. might. In fact, Taylor and Ong ( 1995) conclude that Whites commute
a mile further every day than both Blacks and Hispanics, and Giuliano ( 2003) consistently finds
that being Black or Hispanic is significantly correlated with decreased commute distance. The
commonly accepted reason for Whites’ greater commute length is that White males have very
high average incomes and are more willing or able to commute longer distances to earn them
( Johnston, 2000; McLafferty and Preston, 1997 and 1992). On the other hand, research in Atlanta
provides evidence that Blacks are less likely to relocate if their jobs decentralize ( Helling, 1998)
and that they are likewise less prone than Whites to move as a result of having longer distance
( Clark and Huang, 2002), possibly due to their preferences for mixed- race neighborhoods or to
housing and job market discrimination. However, neither of the Atlanta studies finds that Blacks
in fact commute longer distances.
In contrast to the trends in commute distance, Blacks tend to have much longer commute
times, especially in urban areas, as do urban Asians, whereas the verdict is more mixed for
Hispanics. McLafferty and Preston ( 1992) find that Blacks and Hispanics in northern New
Jersey have significantly greater commute times than White women. Giuliano ( 2003) also finds
that being Hispanic is significantly associated increased travel time, though Taylor and Ong
( 1995) show just the opposite, albeit using data a decade older. Shen ( 2000) compares commute
26
times across intra- city neighborhoods and finds that residents of neighborhoods with a higher
percentage of minorities, lower income and less educational attainment have greater average
commute times. Specifically he finds that as the neighborhood percentage of Blacks or Asians
increases, the average commute time also increases. For example, he shows that a 10% increase
in percentage Black increases average travel time by 0.4 minutes. Lastly, Johnston ( 2000) finds
that, at least for women, racial/ ethnic differences in commute time are more pronounced for
inner city residents.
These differences in commute time are in large part a factor of commute mode. Blacks,
Hispanics and Asians are all more apt to use public transit. In particular, Blacks and Hispanics
disproportionately use public buses, while Asians rely most heavily on rail transit ( Pucher and
Renne, 2003). Since buses are usually the slowest mode of public transit, it is no wonder that
Blacks have the highest average commute times ( Johnston, 2000; Shen, 2000; Taylor and Ong,
1995). Scholars have also adduced housing and job market mismatch and discrimination to help
explain the racial/ ethnic commute time differences ( Chapple and Weinberger, 2000; McLafferty
and Preston, 1997).
Despite the fact that commuting distances do not currently compound these differentials, it is
possible that they will come to do so if, as many scholars have noted, new jobs continue to
become available in the suburbs at a quicker rate than in urban centers, even replacing some
urban jobs ( Stoll, 2005; Blumenberg, 2004; Stoll and Raphael, 2001; Pollard and O’Hare, 1999).
For example, Johnston ( 2000) shows that Black women who work in the suburbs have longer
temporal commutes than do comparable White women. The palpable effect that job
decentralization could have on racial commute time differentials is, however, necessarily
contingent on continued racial residential segregation ( esp. along urban- suburban lines),
especially for Blacks.
Non- Work Travel
It is commonly the case that residents of low- income urban neighborhoods have much less
access to large grocery stores and retailers, which are increasingly locating in growing suburban
areas ( Clifton, 2004; Chung and Myers, 1999; Alwitt and Donley, 1996; Andreasen, 1975).
Thus, based on income and residential segregation of services alone Blacks and Hispanics, who
have lower average incomes ( U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005; Zmud and Arce, 2001) and
are more prone to live in urban centers than Whites, appear at face value to be more likely to
27
travel further and for longer to shop. Zmud and Arce ( 2001) support this hypothesis with their
findings that Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to make shopping trips on foot or public
transit. Clifton ( 2004), in his exploratory study of access to grocers and other retailers of low-income
residents of Austin, TX, finds that reliance on slower modes of transport further
compounds the travel time of low- income urbanites. Sastry et al. ( 2002), using data from the
L. A. Family and Neighborhood Survey, find that in L. A. County Blacks, Hispanics and those in
the “ other” category ( i. e. not White, Black, or Hispanic) travel greater distances to reach the
grocery store than do Whites, regardless of immigrant status.
Sands and Smock ( 1994) analyze data from the Detroit Metropolitan Public Policy Survey
and find that Blacks take longer to get to places of worship than do Whites, possibly because of
their predominately Baptist affiliation, a relatively less territorial denomination that allows more
freedom in deciding which parish to attend. Sastry et al. ( 2002) echo Sands and Smock’s
findings, showing that Blacks on average travel farther than Asians, Whites and Hispanics to
reach places of worship. Sastry et al. ( 2002) further reveal that, accounting for immigrant status,
Asians traveled significantly farther than the other groups top receive health care. As for purely
recreational trips, Mallett and McGuckin ( 2000) find that Blacks do not travel as far on average
as Whites.
Gender Differences
The travel time and spatial mismatch literatures also evince gender differences in travel time that
differ by race and ethnicity. McLafferty and Preston ( 1992), using northern New Jersey Public
Use Microdata Sample ( PUMS) data from the 1980 Census, find that men have longer commute
times than women, with the difference being greatest for Whites, fairly large for Hispanics, and
minimal for Blacks. Taylor and Mauch ( 2000) reveal that the only statistically significant gender
difference in commute times for San Francisco Bay Area residents is for Whites. Though not
significant, their analysis also shows that Hispanics have the smallest gender gap. In
comportment with McLafferty and Preston’s ( 1992) results, Johnston ( 2000) finds that Blacks
exhibit the smallest gender difference in commute times. In contrast to the putative gender
differences for commute times across all travel modes, McLafferty and Preston ( 1997) show that
amongst transit riders, all women have longer commute times regardless of race or ethnicity
( Asians are not included in the study). For non- work travel, Taylor and Mauch ( 2000) find that
the gender differences for Blacks, Hispanics and Asian/ Pacific Islanders are about 1.5 times
28
greater than for Whites, irregardless of travel mode, income and household type, except for
single parent Asians, where women spend more time per trip.
Health and Travel Safety
As a result of their travel mode choices and residential location patterns, Hispanics, Asians and
especially Blacks disproportionately incur some negative health consequences. Morello- Frosch
et al. ( 2001), in their study of the relationship between hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs), as
defined in the Federal Clean Air Act, and increased cancer risk in the Southern California Air
Basin, find that Blacks, Asians and Hispanics have a much higher propensity to develop cancer
from HAPs than do Whites. These racial disparities remain even when the authors control for
land use, population density and other factors. Supporting the findings of Morello- Frosch et al.
( 2001), Macey et al. ( 2001) find that Hispanics and Blacks, though not Asians, in L. A. County
are more likely to have high blood lead levels than Whites, accounting for, among other things,
proximity to transportation corridors.
In addition to disproportionate exposure to vehicle- produced carcinogens, Blacks have a
higher risk of injury as vehicle occupants, regardless of socioeconomic status. Using National
Center for Health Statistics, 1990 NPTS and 1990 U. S. Census data, Baker et al. ( 1998) show
that Black and Hispanic children and teenagers have much a much higher risk of being involved
in a fatal automobile accident per billion vehicle- miles of travel than Whites. Braver ( 2003) uses
1995 NPTS and Fatality Analysis Reporting System ( FARS) data to extend the scope to adults.
He finds that Blacks are more likely to die when traveling in a vehicle than Whites or Hispanics,
largely because of their disproportionate failure to wear seatbelts. Hispanic men, he shows, have
a higher rate of fatalities per vehicle- mile traveled relative to Whites, but only when
socioeconomic status and blood alcohol level ( BAC) are not controlled for. The Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety ( IIHS) ( 2002) analyzes the same data sets as Braver ( 2003) and
yields concurring results, except they find that after controlling for education, they find Hispanic
men to still have a higher risk of getting into a fatal automobile crash. Romano et al. ( 2005)
confirm Braver’s and IIHS’s conclusions in finding that race has a predominately indirect effect
on fatal red light crashes, through BAC, possession of a valid driver’s license, seatbelt use and
others. Vivoda et al. ( 2004) show that high- visibility seatbelt enforcement programs ( i. e. police
can ticket you for not wearing a seatbelt whether or not you have transgressed any other traffic
laws) raise Blacks’ seatbelt usage levels significantly to equal those of Whites, a result, they
29
posit, of Blacks’ perception that they are more likely than other racial/ ethnic groups to be
ticketed.
Blacks and Hispanics indeed also incur a disproportionate share of pedestrian injuries and
fatalities. Ernst and McCann ( 2002) review 2001 FARS data and reveal that Blacks comprise
more than 20% of the annual national pedestrian fatalities, yet they only constitute about 12% of
the U. S. population. A 2001 National Medical Association consensus report confirmed their
findings ( Mosley, 2002). In addition, cited by Ernst and McCann ( 2002) is an article by Marosi
( 1999) addressing pedestrian injuries and fatalities in Orange County. Marosi ( 1999) shows that
though Hispanics represent only 28% of the population there, they account for 40% of all
pedestrian injuries and 43% of all fatalities. Ernst and McCann ( 2002) hypothesize that the
higher relative rates of injury amongst Hispanics and Blacks is due in large part to the two
groups’ greater reliance on pedestrian travel modes ( e. g. walking and biking).
Compounding their higher risk of transportation related injury, racial/ ethnic minorities
appear to sometimes be disadvantaged relative to Whites in their access to health care. As
aforementioned, Sastry et al. ( 2002) find that Asians in L. A. County travel farther than Blacks,
Hispanics and Whites to receive health care. Guidry et al. ( 1997) survey Texas cancer patients
undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy and discover that Blacks and Hispanics are more
likely than Asians and Whites to forgo treatments because of transportation barriers, including
distance, access to an auto and availability of people to drive them.
Residential Location, Mobility and Tenure
Homeownership
In general, scholars have found significant differences in metropolitan homeownership rates
between Hispanics and Blacks on one hand, and Whites on the other, independent of immigrant
status. Schlottmann and Boehm ( 2004) analyze data from the Panel Studies of Income
Dynamics from 1984- 1992 and discover that minorities ( i. e. everyone except Whites) have a
lower propensity to both attain homeownership for a first time and move up the housing
hierarchy ( i. e. move into another house) than Whites. In addition, they find that minorities are
increasingly less likely than Whites to become homeowners again ( e. g. a second or third time)
after having reverted back to renting. Lastly, they find that there are significant income effects
for both minorities and Whites, though in both income categories, Whites are more apt to be
homeowners.
30
Notably, the case is much different for Asians. In contrast to Hispanics and Blacks, Asians
have homeownership rates that are very similar to Whites. Painter et al. ( 2001) even find, by
decomposing Asians into 6 discrete groups, that, regardless of immigrant status, the Chinese
have homeownership rates 20% higher than Whites in all the three Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Areas studied ( San Francisco- Oakland- San Jose, New York- Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, and Los Angeles- Riverside- Orange County). The authors find no satisfactory
explanation for the differential apart from race/ group, suggesting the importance of cultural
differences.
The observed Hispanic- White and Black- White gaps in homeownership are largely a
function of income and credit constraints, though there are also locational and other effects,
including putative discrimination in the housing market ( Deng et al., 2003; South and Deane,
1993). Gabriel and Rosenthal ( 2005), Gabriel and Painter ( 2004, 2003), and Deng et al. ( 2003)
all derive similar results showing that income and credit constraints can explain much of the
Black- White and Hispanic- White homeownership, and that income has a greater effect on Blacks
than on other groups. Gabriel and Painter ( 2003) find that Asians in the L. A. metropolitan area,
on the other hand, are not so affected when bestowed with the endowment characteristics of
Whites because of their already high incomes and homeownership rates, and lower propensity to
experience credit constraints. In addition, all of the studies show a small residual or unexplained
racial/ ethnic gap.
The results are more mixed as to the effect of residential location on tenure choice. Using
PUMS data from the 1990 Census, Gabriel and Painter ( 2003, 2004) analyze the determinants of
housing tenure choice in samples of movers in L. A., Chicago and Washington D. C., while
accounting for mobility and the endogeneity of residential location ( i. e. the interdependence of
location and tenure choices). They find that the “ expected utility of residential location choice”
( i. e. the desirability of a potential location) exerts a depressive effect on homeownership for
Hispanics, Blacks and Whites, implying a trade- off for individuals between living in their more
desired locations and owning a home. The effect is greatest for Blacks and then Hispanics,
pointing to a greater trade- off between location and ownership for these groups. Deng et al.
( 2003), likewise accounting for the endogeneity of location to tenure choice, but not for mobility,
reveal that Philadelphian Blacks’ existing residential location characteristics serve to increase
homeownership over alternative locational options. They simulate the partial equilibrium effects
31
of reducing the variation in Philadelphia’s locational characteristics such as percent Black,
percent in poverty and the amenity/ price index, and find an increase in the Black- White
homeownership gap. The authors postulate that this could be the result of Blacks either self-sorting
or being steered into poorer areas where owner- occupied housing is more affordable,
processes that are hindered by a reduction in locational choice.
Location
There is somewhat of a common assumption in California and elsewhere that minorities, and
especially Blacks, are more concentrated in higher density urban areas than and segregated from
Whites. Many studies lend credence to this assumption for metropolitan areas generally.
Reviewing the literature on race and residential location through 1975, Streitwieser and
Goodman ( 1983) conclude that Blacks are still “ highly segregated from Whites” in metropolitan
areas along urban- suburban lines, though also in areas where Black suburban expansion has
occurred. In their study on black urbanization in Philadelphia using PUMS Population and
Housing data from the 1990 U. S. Census, Bajari and Kahn ( 2001) confirm that Blacks
disproportionately reside in higher density urban areas. Yu ( 2003) finds that within the L. A.
CMSA Blacks, Asians and Hispanics, in that order, are all more likely than Whites to live in high
density areas and areas with older housing, controlling for immigrant status. Gabriel and Painter
( 2003, 2004) concur that the urban settlement patterns of Blacks, Asians and Hispanics are more
concentrated than for Whites in the L. A., Chicago and Washington D. C. metropolitan areas.
Racial differences also persist in the composition of residential locations, Gabriel and Painter
( 2003, 2004), Deng et al. ( 2003) and Krysan and Reynolds ( 2002) all show that Blacks are much
more likely than any other group to live in areas with greater minority representation, evincing
residential racial segregation. In addition, Blacks are more likely than Whites to live in areas
with higher poverty levels, like many central cities and old suburbs ( Deng et al., 2003;
Streitwieser and Goodman, 1983). Adelman ( 2004) finds that even just among the middle class,
Blacks still have a higher propensity to live in more impoverished areas than Whites.
In terms of the factors affecting location choice, Gabriel and Painter ( 2003, 2004),
accounting for other locational factors, find that housing prices have a negative effect on location
choice for all groups, especially for Blacks, and that crime rates also have a large negative effect
for Blacks. Likewise controlling for other locational factors, Deng et al. ( 2003) reveal that Black
homeowners in Philadelphia are more likely than Whites to live in areas with high equity risk
32
( e. g. in poorer urban and old suburban neighborhoods). The propensity of Black homeowners to
live in areas of high equity risk may reflect both an income effect ( i. e. Blacks are poorer on
average and tend to purchase homes where they can afford them, e. g. areas with high equity risk
and high minority representation) as well as discrimination in the housing market and/ or by local
governments, a force suggested, though not tested for, by Deng et al. ( 2003), Bajari and Kahn
( 2001), McLafferty and Preston ( 1997), Streitwieser and Goodman ( 1983) and others. Deng et
al. ( 2003) also find that employment access has a positive effect on location choice for Blacks
and Whites. Bajari and Kahn ( 2001) correspondingly find that its effect on location choice has
been one of the major causes of suburban sprawl and Black- White segregation along urban-suburban
lines. But, they argue, as the Black population becomes more educated and racial
tensions decline, they will have more suburban job opportunities and will thus be more likely to
integrate into predominately White suburbs. These three effects appear to overpower most
suburbanizing effects such as Blacks’ high valuation of safety
Individual preferences and aversions to various racial compositions have also been shown to
significantly affect residential location choice. Krysan and Reynolds ( 2002) find specifically
that Blacks most prefer a 50- 50 Black- White split, even over areas with a higher proportion of
Blacks, with some respondents actually praising integration. However, overall, the authors stress
that there is much fear of White hostility among the Black population. Similarly, Sermons
( 2000) finds that San Francisco Bay Area residents exhibit both in- group racial preferences, and
more notably, out- group “ avoidance” behaviors. His results reveal that the most significant
aversions are Hispanics to Blacks, Blacks to Asians, and Asians to Whites. Clark and Huang
( 2002) proffer that preference for mixed- race neighborhoods helps explain Blacks’ lower
propensity to move as commute distance increases relative to Whites.
Gautreaux study
In 1966 Dorothy Gautreax sued the Chicago Housing Authority and the U. S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development alleging “‘ systematic and illegal segregation’” in their
provisioning of public housing in Chicago. The case was eventually heard by the U. S. Supreme
Court where the justices authorized, as one means of remediation, the Gautreaux residential
mobility program. The program enabled low- income black families who were either living in
public housing or on the waiting list to move to wealthier and predominately White ( i. e. with
30% or fewer Blacks) suburban areas beginning in 1981. Recent research has looked at the
33
current locational characteristics of families who were relocated pursuant to the program, but
subsequently moved again. Both Keels et al. ( 2005) and DeLuca and Rosenbaum ( 2003) derive
similar results, showing that the families that have moved since their original placement
currently live in areas with strikingly similar characteristics to where they were originally settled,
including higher income, safer and predominately White. These results suggest that mobility to
suburban locations can significantly alter Blacks’ locational preferences.
Mobility
According to the March 1999 Current Population Survey ( CPS) geographic mobility data Blacks
( 19.6%), Hispanics ( 19.7%) and Asians ( 20.3%) made proportionally more residential moves
than non- Hispanic Whites ( 14.4%). The overall mobility of U. S. citizens has decreased
substantially since then, but 2004 CPS data reveal that similar racial/ ethnic disparities still exist.
Hispanics have the highest current residential mobility rate, at 17.4%, followed by Blacks
( 16.7%), Asians ( 15.5%) and non- Hispanic Whites ( 12.2%). Another trend continued from
1999, is that Blacks and Hispanics are significantly more apt to move within their same county,
while Asians and Whites make a much higher proportion of their moves out of county, a likely
impact of income and family ties among others ( U. S. Census Bureau, 2005).
In general, high unemployment, low income, low homeownership, low marriage rate,
settlement in areas of high unemployment, fewer children and minimal education are all
associated with high rates of residential mobility ( Spilimbergo and Ubeda, 2004; Gabriel and
Painter, 2003; South and Crowder, 1998). Differences in the aforementioned socioeconomic
characteristics account for much of the gross racial disparity in mobility rates between Blacks
and Whites, as Blacks, are more likely to live in impoverished areas, have lower incomes, and
rent instead of own among others ( Crowder and South, 2005; Adelman, 2004; Deng et al., 2003;
South and Deane, 1993; Streitwieser and Goodman, 1983). Similar differences most likely help
account for some of the overall Hispanic- White gap in mobility rates as well. Some of these
factors also differentially affect the various racial/ ethnic groups. Gabriel and Painter
( 2003,2004) show that in the L. A. metropolitan region, marriage exerts a much greater
depressive effect on mobility for Whites than Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians, and that age has a
negative effect on mobility that is only significant for Whites. They further find that income is a
much greater predictor of mobility for Blacks than the other groups and that occupational status
increases Hispanics’ mobility, but decreases Asians’ mobility.
34
Most of the remaining scholarly research done on racial differences in determinants of
residential mobility has focused on comparing Blacks and Whites. Spilimbergo and Ubeda
( 2004) show that after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics, much of the remaining
Black- White disparity in mobility rates is accounted for by differences in the effect of family
ties, measured according to percentage of family members in the same Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area ( SMSA). They find that Blacks are much more likely than Whites to move when
they have minimal proximal familial ties. South and Deane ( 1993), using Annual Housing
Survey data from 1980, find that Blacks are less likely than Whites to move when they are
dissatisfied with their neighborhood. Their study also yields that residential segregation in
metropolitan areas has a disproportionately depressive effect on Black mobility, and that large
suburban populations and “ high vacancy rates increase non- Black mobility,” suggesting an effect
of in- group racial preference, out- group aversion and/ or housing market discrimination. In
contrast, South and Crowder ( 1998) find no evidence that housing market discrimination
decreases Black mobility. They reveal that in areas with racial discrimination by real estate and
rental agents, both Blacks and Whites are more likely to move ( though the coefficients are not
statistically significant) and are significantly more apt to move to tracts with a higher percentage
of White residents. The authors do, however, concede that the measured discrimination and
Whites increased mobility could both be effects rather than causes of Blacks’ increased mobility
into predominately White areas. Lastly, Helling ( 1998), in her study of employment accessibility
in Atlanta, finds that Blacks are less likely than Whites to move when their jobs decentralize.
Mobility can directly affect transportation needs and patterns in at least two ways. For one,
higher mobility often necessitates greater access to a vehicle, even if just for the time of the
moves. Secondly, constraints on spatial mobility can lead to increased commute time and
distance if jobs decentralize, inconveniencing everyone, especially those without access to a
vehicle.
Employment and Wealth
Employment
Nationally, Whites and Asians are disproportionately represented in managerial and professional
occupations, while Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately clustered in semi- skilled,
unskilled and service occupations ( Pollard and O’Hare, 1999). These patterns are generally
replicated in California, though there are a few differences worth noting. After categorizing the
35
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s occupational groups in the same way as
Pollard and O’Hare ( 1999), U. S. Census 2000 data shows that Blacks are represented
proportionally more than any other group by at least 5% in technical and administrative
positions, while Hispanics are proportionally less concentrated in those fields by at least 5%. In
addition, the data reveals that Blacks ( 13.3%), Asians ( 12.6%) and especially Hispanics ( 30.8%)
are all employed proportionally more than Whites ( 8.7%) in semi- and unskilled labor
( California Employment Development Department, 2005a). Hispanics’ exceedingly high
concentration in semi- and unskilled labor would be somewhat tempered if immigrant status
were accounted for.
With such occupational differences exist racial/ ethnic disparities in income. Nationally, for
full- time workers, Blacks ( including Hispanic Blacks) and especially Hispanics have much lower
average personal incomes than Whites ( including Hispanic Whites) and Asians, though some
projections show the gaps decreasing at least for Blacks ( U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005;
Zmud and Arce, 2001). As compared to the other groups, Zmud and Arce ( 2001) attribute
Hispanics’ relatively low average income and low annual income increases in part to the
continuing influx of Latino immigrants, whose low wages exert a leveling effect on the average
income of Hispanics as a group ( Zmud and Arce, 2001).
The Black- White and Hispanic- White household income gaps also reflect their disparate
employment rates. According to CPS data for California, the average monthly unemployment
rates in 2003 were 6.1% for Whites ( including Hispanic Whites), 10.6% for Blacks and 8.1% for
Hispanics. Further compounding these racial/ ethnic disparities in income are the racial/ ethnic
differences in wealth building, specifically in equity ownership and savings ( California
Employment Development Department, 2005b). Keister ( 2004) finds that Blacks and Hispanics
are less likely than Whites to own homes and stocks and often start saving money proportionally
later in life, differences due in part to family size and marital stability during childhood.
Additionally, Bound et al. ( 2003) find that health differences, though they are somewhat
endogenous, also contribute to the income disadvantage of Blacks relative to Whites.
Spatial and Automobile Mismatch
The spatial mismatch hypothesis ( SMH), as first propounded by Kain ( 1968), states that
segregation in the housing market affects Black employment patterns and reduces their job
opportunities. Some subsequent researchers have expanded the scope of the hypothesis to
36
include Hispanics in addition to Blacks. Scholars have used many methods to test the SMH,
including measures of accessibility to employment, distance traveled to work, commute times,
the job/ housing balance, employment decentralization or job sprawl, shifts in workforce
occupational composition, minority residential location and residential segregation. Across all
measures of spatial mismatch, the majority of the studies find some evidence for the SMH. In
their review of the spatial mismatch literature, Ihlanfeldt and Sjoquist ( 1998) find that of the 28
studies they reviewed, only 7 rejected or found equivocal evidence for the existence of some sort
of spatial mismatch.
In California, spatial mismatch has been studied most thoroughly in Los Angeles, and results
have confirmed its existence there, at least for Blacks. Using 2000 U. S. Census data and the
1999 Department of Commerce’s ZIP Code Business Pattern files, Stoll ( 2005) finds that across
30 metropolitan areas L. A. has the highest job sprawl and spatial mismatch, as measured by a
standard dissimilarity index. Stoll and Raphael ( 2001) reveal that residential segregation is one
of the most significant determinants of spatial job search quality, measured by average number
of new job openings in areas searched, and that spatial job search quality can account for at least
25% of the Black- White gap in employment. Cooke ( 1996) also finds evidence of spatial
mismatch in L. A. by comparing the employment probabilities of central city and suburban
Blacks.
Generally, Blacks, and to a lesser extent Hispanics ( though not accounting for immigrant
status), residing in large metropolitan areas are found to have lower accessibility to employment,
especially high paying jobs, and greater occupational mismatches where they reside than Whites
( Cervero et al., 1999; Helling, 1998; Wyly, 1996; McLafferty and Preston, 1992). In addition,
studies show that increasing job decentralization ( Blumenberg, 2004) and persistent Black
residential centralization decrease the employment probability and increase the unemployment
duration for Blacks and Hispanics, even after controlling for socioeconomic and locational
characteristics, though not immigration status ( Stoll, 2005, 1985; Powell, 2002; Weinberg, 2000;
Cooke, 1996). Residential suburban sprawl is found to have contributed significantly to such job
decentralization as well as Black- White residential segregation ( Powell, 2002; Bajari and Kahn,
2001).
Lastly, Blacks, and to some extent Hispanics, also suffer from an “ automobile mismatch,”
whereby their lower access to vehicles, in addition to compounding their spatial mismatch via
37
diminishing spatial range of mobility, increases their commute times and can lead to
stigmatization by employers ( Taylor and Ong, 1995; McLafferty and Preston, 1992, 1997;
Blumenberg and Haas, 2001). Using 1995 NPTS data for the New York- Northern New Jersey-
Long Island CMSA, Macek et al. ( 2001) find that, regardless of race/ ethnicity, the employment
probability for urban residents reliant on public transit is “ substantially lower” than for residents
reliant on the automobile. Blumenberg ( 2004) finds that nationally, and specifically in
California, reliable access to a vehicle, is strongly linked to employment among welfare
recipients.
It is possible that increasing transit accessibility in minority and low- income areas could help
alleviate the employment problems associated with automobile mismatch. Ong and Houston
( 2002) find that nearby transit moderately increases employment of single mother welfare
recipients in L. A. County. Thompson ( 2001) reveals that high transit accessibility does not
increase labor force participation ( i. e. the proportion of working age people who are employed or
unemployed) among Blacks, Hispanics or Whites, though he does find that it significantly
increases wage rates, directly or indirectly, for auto- disadvantaged groups. Expanding transit
service late at night, early in the morning and on weekends would likely help balance the effects
of automobile mismatch as well, since Blacks, Hispanics and others are more likely than Whites
to work nonstandard shifts ( weekends and/ or predominately after 4pm or before 8am) ( Presser,
2003).
38
Chapter 4. Native Americans
About 2.5 million Native Americans 10 reside in the United States, or about 0.9 percent of the
total U. S. population. Nationwide, another 1.6 million people identify themselves as part Native
American. California is home to about 33,346 Native Americans, which is about 1.0 percent of
the total population in California. A total of 627,562 people ( 1.9 percent) in California identify
themselves as part Native American ( U. S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, SF 1). The Native
American population has grown slightly faster than the rest of the population over the last
decade, both nationwide and in California specifically, where Native Americans comprised about
0.8 percent of the population in 1990 ( Ogunwole 2002, Table 2). Whether this population grows
or remains a minority, understanding transportation issues particular to this population will
enable transportation planners in California to better accommodate the needs of residents. The
purpose of this chapter is to review what is known about the travel behavior and transportation
needs of Native Americans, with special attention to those in California.
Previous literature
Published materials relating to transportation issues for Native Americans have primarily
focused on three topics. One topic is the particular transportation challenges for Native
Americans living on reservations that are geographically isolated, with few employment,
healthcare, and shopping opportunities on- site, and limited economic resources ( e. g. Bogren
1999, CTAA 1995). A second topic is the issue of transportation planning on tribal lands and/ or
by tribal governments, and how these bodies might interface with federal, state, and local
jurisdictions and planning processes ( e. g. Caltrans 2002a, TRB 2002, CTAA 1995, U. S. DOT
2005a, U. S. DOT 2006a, Shawn 2006). A third topic discussed in the literature is the
disproportionately high rate of fatalities due to motor vehicle accidents among those who are
racially identified as Native American, especially fatalities that are alcohol- related ( e. g. Indian
Health Service 1998a, Indian Health Service 1998b, Traffic Safety Center 2003, U. S. DOT
2006b).
10 We use the term “ Native Americans” in place of the term “ American Indians” as used by the U. S. Census Bureau.
As defined by the U. S. Census Bureaus, this includes people who identify themselves as American Indians or
Alaska Natives, and no other race. We recognize that alternative definitions exist and may be justified.
39
This review found no literature describing overall travel patterns or transportation needs of
Native Americans, neither for those in California nor at the national level. However, several
sources provide information relevant to this theme:
• The U. S. Census provides information on Native Americans as a racial group and on
particular Native American tribes, including residential, economic, and
sociodemographic characteristics that inform transportation choices, auto ownership data,
and journey- to- work data ( available at the national or state levels);
• The National Household Travel Survey ( NHTS) considers Native Americans as one of 17
racial categories, providing statistics on VMT, numbers of trips, travel time, and auto
ownership by race ( sample sizes appear to be large enough to calculate some state- level
summary statistics for Native Americans);
• The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) considers Native
Americans as one of five racial categories in their data on motor vehicle fatalities;
• The Indian Health Service ( part of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services),
provides a database of Native American health statistics that include deaths by motor
vehicle accidents among other health indicators ( available at the national and state
levels); and
• Various case studies and anecdotal illustrations depict conditions in and strategies for
particular Native American communities.
Residential, economic, and sociodemographic characteristics
Overall, Native Americans tend to be on average younger, less educated, less likely to participate
in the labor force, with lower earnings among those that are employed and with higher poverty
rates than the rest of the population ( Ogunwole 2006). These trends appear to hold, on average,
for Native Americans in California. See Table 4.1 below.
Native Americans are also more likely than the rest of the population to live in rural areas,
both nationwide and in California ( Census 2000, American Indian and Alaska Native SF). This
means that Native Americans may face different transportation issues than other minority
populations with comparably disadvantaged socioeconomic characteristics. In particular, greater
distances may separate them from jobs, healthcare, and other services, making travel more
necessary and more expensive than for those living in more densely developed areas. At the
40
same time, transit is more difficult to provide and is less likely to be available to rural
populations than to the urban poor. Furthermore, Native American communities on reservations
operate outside of the usual transportation planning and funding process that is in place in the
Table 4.1. Summary of residential, economic, and sociodemographic statistics for Native
Americans from the 2000 Census, in the United States and in California
United States California
Statistic All races
Native
Americans a
All races
Native
Americans a
Total population 281,421,906 2,447,989 33,871,648 312,215
Percent b with high school diploma 80.4% 70.9% 76.8% 67.5%
Percent b with a bachelor’s degree 24.4% 11.5% 26.6% 11.4%
Percent c participating in the labor
force 63.9% 61.1%
62.4% 61.5%
Median male earnings $ 37,057 $ 28,919 $ 40,627 $ 31,571
Median female earnings $ 27,194 $ 22,834 $ 31,722 $ 26,253
Percent of male workers earning
more than $ 50,000 32.4% 17.7%
39.0% 24.4%
Percent of female workers
earning more than $ 50,000 14.5% 7.9%
22.7% 12.9%
Percent of families in poverty 9.2% 21.8% 10.6% 18.6%
Average household size 2.59 3.06 2.87 3.22
Median age 35.4 28.5 33.5 30.2
Percent of population in rural
areas
21.0% 39.2%
5.5% 12.6%
Percent living on Indian
reservations d 36.6%
5.9%
a Includes those who identify themselves on census forms as American Indian or Alaska Native alone,
not those who identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with one or
more other races.
b, c Of the population aged 25 or above and 16 or above, respectively.
d Includes federally recognized Indian Areas, Alaska Native Areas, and Hawaiian Home Lands, as
defined by the Census.
Source: Census 2000. In particular U. S. Census Bureau 2003 ( Tables 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 41, 42, 45, 47,
49, and 51) for all statistics except percent living on reservations ( calculated from Summary File 1) and
percent rural ( calculated from the American Indian and Alaska Native Summary File).
United States. While federally recognized tribes are eligible for government funds, there is no set
process for developing tribal transportation plans and for coordination with regional, state, and
national governments. Native American communities suffering from all of these factors may face
particular transportation- related hardships. For example, Scott Borgen describes the “ stunning”
combination of poverty and isolation that challenge residents of the Rosebud reservation in
41
South Dakota, making the Rosebud Sioux Transit agency both a perpetual near impossibility and
an essential lifeline for the reservation’s residents ( Borgen 1999). However it is unclear if and to
what extent this experience is common to Native Americans nationwide and in California.
Although Native Americans are more likely to live in rural areas than the rest of the
population, more Native Americans live in urban areas than in rural areas, especially in
California, where just 13 percent live in rural areas ( Census 2000, American Indian and Alaska
Native SF). Nationwide, about 37 percent of Native Americans live on reservations. 11 In
California, the share living on reservations is less, with about 6 percent living on reservations.
( The share is even smaller for those identifying themselves as a mix between Native American
and some other race, with about 3 percent of this group living on reservations in California.)
Even among those living on reservations in California, only 42 percent of these are in rural areas.
Thus, most Native Americans do not live on reservations, and most of those that do are not in
rural areas, especially in California. For these reasons, it is unlikely that most Native Americans
in California have experiences like the Rosebud Sioux.
However, the poverty rate among Native Americans living on reservations in California is 31
percent, much higher than that among all Native Americans statewide, which at 22 percent is still
much higher than that among all races, at 14 percent ( Census 2000, American Indian and Alaska
Native SF, SF 4). In particular, the Big Valley Rancheria, the Karuk, and the Susanville
Rancheria reservations all have poverty rates at or above 50 percent ( the same level as the
Rosebud reservation) ( Census 2000, American Indian and Alaska Native SF).
In total, about 60,514 people live on reservations in or partially within California, about
17,445 of which identify themselves as at least part Native American ( Census 2000, SF 4). Based
on the size of their Native American populations, the largest reservations contained entirely
within California are the Hoopa Valley Reservation ( not far from the Oregon border and just
inland from the Redwood National Park) the Bishop Reservation ( in Inyo County, south of the
Mammoth Lakes area), and the Pala Reservation ( in San Diego County), with 2252, 1035, and
737 residents who are at least part Native American, respectively. In addition, the Colorado
River Reservation and the Fort Yuma Reservation have 2505 and 1446 residents each, spanning
the California and Arizona border.
11 The term “ reservations” here includes American Indian Areas, Alaska Native Areas, and Hawaiian Home Lands,
as defined by the Census.
42
Mode choice, auto ownership, and mobility
The socioeconomic characteristics summarized above may have several implications for
transportation. In particular, lower socioeconomic status is often associated with lower mobility
levels ( Pucher and Renne 2003). For example, members of low- income households may not own
a car, may have less reliable vehicles, and may have to share a car with more people. Indeed, a
higher share of Native American households have no vehicle and the average age of vehicles
owned by Native Americans is greater than for the rest of the population, both nationwide and in
California ( Table 4.2). Although the share of Native Americans commuting by private vehicle is
comparable to other groups, a larger portion of Native Americans carpool during their commute
rather than drive alone. Since Native Americans are more likely to live in rural areas, as
mentioned above, we may expect them to have less access to transit than other lower- income
groups, and may have to travel longer distances to achieve the same level of accessibility as their
counterparts in higher- density urban areas. Nationwide, Native Americans appear somewhat less
likely to use transit for commuting and travel more vehicle- miles than the rest of the population,
but this trend does not seem to hold in California ( Table 4.2). In contrast to Native Americans in
the rest of the nation, those in California appear to travel fewer vehicle- miles than the rest of the
population, perhaps due to the fact that more live in urban areas but are still lower- income, on
average, than the rest of the population.
Tribal transportation planning
Today there are 561 federally recognized tribes and about 300 reservations in the United States.
Additional tribes and areas may be recognized by state governments, called “ rancherias” in
California. Caltrans lists 109 tribal governments in a 2002 directory ( Caltrans 2002b). Tribal
territories are governed by tribal councils, with varying degrees of immunity from federal and
state laws.
In recent decades, transportation planning processes have evolved to incorporate more local
participation and regional coordination in recent decades, and tribal governments have been
included in this effort. In particular, federal code mandates that states and metropolitan bodies
consider the needs of tribal governments when carrying out transportation plans and consult with
them on the development of plans and programs. These efforts have been formalized by, for
example, designating a Native American Program Coordinator in the Federal Highway
Administration, designating tribal liaisons at state departments of transportation, and by
43
discussing and documenting best practices for collaboration and consultation between tribal and
other government bodies ( e. g. U. S. DOT 2005a and U. S. DOT 2006b, which is a collection of
case studies that includes one in California).
Table 4.2. Summary of transportation- related statistics from the 2000 Census and the 2001 NHTS
in the United States and in California
United States California
Statistic All races
Native Americans/
Alaska Natives a
All races
Native Americans/
Alaska Natives a
Percent of occupied housing
units that have no vehicle
available 10.3% 14.9%
9.5% 13.9%
Average vehicle age 8.3 10.4 9.3 12.5
Percent b commuting to work in a
private vehicle 87.9% 86.5%
86.4% 85.2%
Percent b commuting in a carpool 12.2% 18.5% 14.5% 19.3%
Percent b commuting by public
transportation
4.7% 3.8%
5.1% 5.2%
Average number of trips per
person per day 4.03 4.02
4.01 4.35
Average vehicle miles traveled
per driver per day 37.8 43.6
35.5 29.2
a Includes those who identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native alone, not those who
identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races.
b Of workers aged 16 or above.
Source: For percent with no vehicles and commute mode, Census 2000 ( AIAN SF); for vehicle age,
average VMT, and average trips, NHTS 2001.
While state and federal governments recognize the sovereignty of tribal governments, they
also provide some assistance for transportation and other services. For example, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs has long cooperated with the Federal Highway Administration for the
appropriation of funding for road construction and maintenance on reservations through the
Indian Reservation Roads program, established in 1928. Since then, the sources of
transportation- related funding have expanded, including those related to Medicaid and programs
serving the elderly and disabled in addition to funds administered by the Department of
Transportation. SAFETEA- LU established a new allocation of funds for “ Public Transportation
on Indian Reservations” ( 49 U. S. C. 5311( c)), which is to include $ 45 million over the next four
years out of the “ Non- urbanized Area Formula Program” explicitly for tribal needs ( U. S. DOT,
2005b). Local, federal, and state governments have also contributed non- financial assistance. A
variety of government entities have made efforts to encourage more and better transportation
44
planning within tribal governments by documenting best practices and producing guidance
documents ( e. g. U. S. DOT 2004 on transit planning, U. S. DOT 2005c on long- range plans, U. S.
DOT 1999 on the IRR program, and Caltrans 2002a providing an overview of planning
processes for tribal governments in California).
Motor vehicle fatalities
Nationwide, motor vehicle accidents account for a higher share of deaths among Native
Americans than among any other race. About 7 percent of all Native American fatalities are due
to motor vehicle crashes, making it the third leading cause of death in this group, compared with
less than 2 percent for non- Hispanic Whites for whom it is the eighth leading cause of death
( U. S. DOT 2006b). This difference has diminished since the 1970s, but remains significant
( Indian Health Service 1998a).
Some of the risk factors associated with motor vehicle accidents are also highest among
Native Americans compared to other racial groups, based on nationwide averages. In particular,
fatally injured drivers who were Native American are on average the most likely to have been
drinking, the least likely to hold a valid driver’s license, the most likely to have a prior DUI
conviction or license suspension Native American passengers are also the least likely to have
been wearing a seat belt or using a child safety seat. Finally, fatally injured Native American
( along with Hispanic) motorcycle riders are less likely to have been wearing helmets at the time
( U. S. DOT 2006b).
Nationwide, the fatality rate for Native American pedestrians is not as high as that for other
minorities, such as African Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Asians. However, among non-occupant
fatalities, Native American victims are the most likely to have been drinking at the time
of the crash ( U. S. DOT 2006b).
In California, the differences between Native Americans and the rest of the population may
not be as great. Motor vehicle fatality rates among Native Americans in California are lower than
among Native Americans in other parts of the country, although still higher than the rest of the
population ( Table 4.3). In addition, as an indicator of one risk factor, the alcohol- related fatality
rate among Native Americans in California is also lower than in other parts of the country,
although still higher than for the general population ( Indian Health Service 1998b).
45
Table 4.3. Fatality rates among Native Americans in California versus the rest of the United
States, 1995
All races Native Americans
Fatality rate a United States
All Indian Health
Service areas
California Indian Health
Service area
Motor vehicle accidents 16.3 54.0 23.7
Alcoholism 6.7 48.7 27.0
a Age- adjusted rate per 100,000 population. Rate also adjusted to compensate for miscoding of Indian
race on death certificates.
Source: Indian Health Service 1998b, Tables 4.18 and 4.23.
46
Chapter 5. Elderly
Both the U. S. and California face the imminent challenge of providing transportation services to
a new and vastly larger population of o