ISSN 1055- 1425
May 2009
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 Transportation, and the
United States Department of 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, specification, or regulation.
Final Report for 6111
CALIFORNIA PATH PROGRAM
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Travel Behavior of Immigrant
Groups in California
UCB- ITS- PRR- 2009- 30
California PATH Research Report
Susan Handy et al.
University of California, Davis
CALIFORNIA PARTNERS FOR ADVANCED TRANSIT AND HIGHWAYS
Travel Behavior of Immigrant Groups in California
Susan Handy, Ph. D.
Department of Environmental Science and Policy
University of California, Davis
Evelyn Blumenberg, Ph. D.
Institute of Transportation Studies
UCLA School of Public Affairs
Moira Donahue, Graduate Student Assistant
California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways
University of California, Berkeley
Kristin Lovejoy, Graduate Student Assistant
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California, Davis
Caroline Rodier, Ph. D.
California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways
University of California, Berkeley
Susan Shaheen, Ph. D.
California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways
University of California, Berkeley
Kimiko Shiki, Graduate Student Assistant
Department of Urban Planning
UCLA School of Public Affairs
Lily Song, Graduate Student Assistant
Department of Urban Planning
UCLA School of Public Affairs
Gil Tal, Graduate Student Assistant
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California, Davis
ii
Acknowledgements
This work was performed under Task Orders 5111 and 6111 for the project
Understanding Travel Behavior for Diverse Population Groups in California. This
project is jointly funded by PATH and Caltrans. Thanks to Norman Dong and
Frank Taylor of Caltrans for their enthusiasm and support of the project and the
advisory committee members for their invaluable feedback: Paul Branson of
Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services; Becky Frank of Caltrans
District 4, Transit and Community Planning; Monica Hernández of SACOG,
Public Information Coordinator; Greg King of Caltrans, Division of Environmental
Analysis; Luz Maria Rodriguez of SACOG, Public Information Coordinator;
Sharon Scherzinger of Caltrans, Regional and Interagency Planning; Ying Smith
of Valley Transit Authority, Project Manager; Lacey Symons of SACOG,
transportation planner; and Pat Weston of Caltrans, Advance Systems Planning.
Thanks also to the participants from the focus groups and community- based
organizations for providing indispensable information for the project.
iii
iv
Travel Behavior of Immigrant Groups in California
Abstract
California is the destination for over one- quarter of immigrants to the United
States, and immigrants now make up over one- quarter of the state’s population,
with nearly half of immigrants originating in Mexico. To ensure that transportation
systems and services adequately meet the needs of recent immigrants, planners
need a firm understanding of the travel behavior of immigrant groups. This paper
reports on key findings from a three- phased study: ( 1) analysis of data on
commute travel of California immigrants from the 1980, 1990, and 2000
Censuses; ( 2) focus groups with recent Mexican immigrants in six California
regions on their transportation experiences and needs in six California regions;
and ( 3) interviews with community- based organizations in nine California regions
on the transportation needs and wants of Mexican immigrants. Analysis shows
that the car is the most important means of transportation for immigrants; nearly
two- thirds of all immigrants use single occupancy vehicles as their primary
commute mode, either as drivers or as passengers. However, a disproportionate
share of immigrants, particularly those new to the US, commutes by public
transit. Mexican immigrants report both advantages and disadvantages of
driving and transit, while walking and bicycling help to fill gaps left by these other
modes. These findings point to a long list of potential strategies for agencies and
organizations to consider in efforts to more effectively meet the transportation
needs of Mexican and other immigrants in California.
v
vi
Travel Behavior of Immigrant Groups in California
Executive Summary
Introduction
California is in the midst of a demographic transformation. 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). 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 percent of the foreign- born population comes from Mexico and another
22 percent from Asia ( U. S. Bureau of Census, 2004).
This demographic transformation raises an important question for transportation
planners in the state: How can we ensure that transportation systems and
services adequately meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population? To
answer this question, planners need a firm understanding of the travel behavior
of immigrant groups, taking into consideration cross- cutting demographic
characteristics such as age, income, and gender. Immigrants experience much
higher rates of poverty, poor education, and poor vehicle access than US- born
persons, conditions that add to their transportation challenges.
The objective of this study was to provide Caltrans and other transportation
agencies in the state with an essential foundation for the design and targeted
marketing of transportation systems and services to produce better outcomes for
the diverse and dynamic population of California. Our research had three
components: ( 1) an investigation of the commute travel of California immigrants
using data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses; ( 2) an exploration of the
transportation experiences and needs of Mexican immigrants using focus groups
in six California regions; and ( 3) an inquiry to transportation needs and wants of
Mexican immigrants, collected from interviews with community- based
organizations in nine California regions. Results were compiled on an
interactive CD- ROM. See
http:// path. berkeley. edu/ PATH_ Downloads/ Presentations/ Travel-
Behavior/ index. html
Key Findings
􀂃 Commute mode
The car is the most important means of transportation for immigrants; nearly two-thirds
of all immigrants use single occupancy vehicles as their primary commute
mode. Carpooling is also an important commute mode for immigrants in
California, with nearly twice as many immigrants as US- born persons relying on
carpooling as their primary commute mode. However, a disproportionate share of
vii
viii
immigrants, particularly those new to the US, rely on public transit. Forty- seven
percent of all transit commuters in the state are foreign born. However,
immigrants are less reliant on public transit than they were in previous decades –
11 percent in 1980 compared to 8 percent in 2000. The decline in transit use
among immigrants can be explained by two trends: ( 1) the rapid assimilation to
auto use with years in the US, and ( 2) the decline in transit use among recent
immigrants to California. Despite these trends, transit commuters are
disproportionately immigrants.
􀂃 Auto Assimilation
For Mexican immigrants, the car is an important and necessary mode of
transportation – auto access means more freedom, more job opportunities, and a
better quality of life; for some it is a symbol of greater social status. Cars are also
essential for commutes to work in industries that involve variable work sites ( e. g.,
construction), the need to carry equipment ( e. g., landscaping), and early or late
shifts ( e. g., service work). Having children also adds to the need for a car. Auto
access is not a simple yes/ no situation. Those living in households without a car
often get rides from others or borrow cars, and few are truly transit dependent.
Conversely, living with someone who has a car does not guarantee access to
that car. Barriers to auto access include the costs of buying and maintaining a
car, inability to get a driver’s license, risk of vehicle confiscation, inability to get
insurance, and having no way to learn how to drive.
􀂃 Public Transit Pros and Cons
Transit plays an important role for meeting transportation needs for daily
activities in addition to commuting to work for Mexican immigrants. They
appreciate many qualities of transit, including the low cost compared to driving
and comfort in comparison to walking. Disadvantages to transit include the transit
fare costs of traveling with children, difficulty traveling with packages, lack of safe
and comfortable shelters, lack of safety on buses, long waits, and limited
schedules and routes. Unreliability and limited service hours are of particular
concern for immigrants using transit to get to work. Women in particular are
concerned with safety at stations, treatment by bus drivers and passengers, and
inability to communicate in English.
􀂃 Carpooling Pros and Cons
Among Mexican Immigrants, carpooling is often preferable to taking public transit
for commuting to work for reasons of reliability and speed as well as comfort. In
addition to work, carpools are organized for traveling to large supermarkets, flea
markets, churches, and other destinations. However, depending on others for
rides may be problematic with respect to discomfort in asking for a ride, a sense
of indebtedness to others, unreliability of the driver, and the risk of a breakdown
or being pulled over while on a trip made on the passenger’s behalf.
ix
x
􀂃 Role of Walking and Bicycling
Walking is an important mode for Mexican immigrants, especially those with
limited access to cars, and is used to get children to school, go to the park, and
do limited shopping. For this group, walking is seen both as a way to save money
and a way to get exercise, but it only works when destinations are close. A lack
of safe sidewalks, speeding in residential areas, and a lack of safe signal
crossings are deterrents. Some Mexican immigrants rely on biking to save costs
or when transit service is not available, but barriers to bike travel include lack of
bike lanes, difficult road conditions, and hot weather.
Strategies
These findings provide insights into the transportation issues affecting California
immigrants and possible strategies to address them ( Table ES- 1). These
strategies fall into two general approaches to improving the degree to which the
needs of California’s immigrants, particularly those from Mexican, are met. The
first strategy is to make car travel more attainable, the other is to enhance the
quality of transit service. These strategies are not necessarily incompatible, and
indeed efforts in both areas would only improve conditions for immigrants.
However, if lean budgets should limit these efforts, then there are several
reasons to give priority to transit service, including the reliance of transit agencies
on immigrants for their ridership and the importance of providing alternatives to
driving for all residents of California. These alternatives should include walking
and bicycling as well, both important modes for immigrants and often used in
conjunction with transit.
Future Research
Additional research is needed to further our understanding of immigrant travel.
Future research on immigrant travel would benefit from expanded data sets and
travel surveys that would enable a more accurate statistical look at mode
choices, driving ability, trip frequencies, auto access, etc. Many topics merit
further research: the travel needs of elderly immigrants; region- specific spatial
distributions of jobs and residences as they affect the commuting patterns and
needs for transit services; trends in travel for areas in transition from one
immigrant group to another or from immigrant to non- immigrant predominance;
the extent of driving without a license that is occurring and how license issues
impact travel choices; the potential of advanced intelligent transportation
technologies, including real time traveler information, to improve transit service or
facilitate carpooling; rigorous before and after studies of programs designed to
serve the travel needs of immigrants. Many other interesting and important
questions remain on the understudied topic of the travel needs of immigrants.
xi
xii
References
California Department of Finance ( 2002). Census 2000 California Profile.
Sacramento, CA: State of California.
U. S. Bureau of the Census ( 2004). Historical Poverty Tables, Current Population
Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements. Washington, DC: Poverty
and Health Statistics Branch/ HHES Division.
U. S. Department of Homeland Security ( 2002). Yearbook of Immigration
Statistics. 2003. Washington, DC: Office of Immigration Statistics.
xiii
xiv
Table ES- 1. Possible Strategies
1. Improve Public Transit
1.1. Orient transit services to better accommodate their commute hours
1.2. Encourage supplemental public transit systems
1.3. Reduce costs
1.4. Improve comfort and ease of transit use
1.5. Market transit
1.6. Improve transit linkages between residence and workplace
2. Make Car Travel Safer and More Attainable
2.1. Help increase driving ability
2.2. Facilitate car ownership
2.3. Facilitate carpooling and carsharing
2.4. Improve safety of driving in rural areas
3. Improve Pedestrian Experience
3.1. Improve pedestrian infrastructure
3.2. Provide density of destinations
3.3. Improve quality of pedestrian experience
4. Improve Bicycling Experience
4.1. Increase access to bicycles
4.2. Increase the safety and comfort of bicycling
5. Adapt Land Use Patterns to Support Alternative Transportation
5.1. Ensure adequate access to basic services within the community.
5.2. Ensure transit access to public services outside of the community.
xv
xvi
Travel Behavior of Immigrant Groups in California
1. Introduction
California is in the midst of a demographic transformation. 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 1). 1 Over nine
percent of immigrants to the US 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). California will continue to attract
immigrants from throughout the world and will become increasingly diverse,
racially and ethnically.
Figure 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 percent of the foreign- born
1These 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).
1
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.
This demographic transformation raises an important question for transportation
planners in the state: How can we ensure that transportation systems and
services adequately meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population? To
answer this question, planners need a firm understanding of the travel behavior
of immigrant groups, taking into consideration cross- cutting demographic
characteristics such as age, income, and gender. Immigrants experience much
higher rates of poverty, poor education, and poor vehicle access than US- born
persons, conditions that add to their transportation challenges.
In this study, we explored the needs, constraints, attitudes, and preferences that
influence travel choices and the outcomes of those travel choices for immigrants
in California. The objective of the study was to provide Caltrans and other
transportation agencies in the state with an essential foundation for the design
and targeted marketing of transportation systems and services to produce better
outcomes for the diverse and dynamic population of California.
Our research had three components: ( 1) an investigation of the commute travel
of all California immigrants using data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses;
( 2) an exploration of the transportation experiences and needs of Mexican
immigrants using focus groups in six California regions; and ( 3) an inquiry to
transportation needs and wants of Mexican immigrants, collected from interviews
with community- based organizations in nine California regions. We focus on
Mexican immigrants because they represent nearly half of California’s
immigrants. Results from all three components were compiled on an interactive
CD- ROM; contents include maps, data tables, summary sheets, papers, and
reports. In this paper, we report key findings synthesized from these efforts and
suggest strategies to better meet the needs of immigrants in California.
2. Literature Review
Very little academic scholarship has focused on the travel patterns and behavior
of immigrants. 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. 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
2
immigrants, highlighting the potential implications of these factors for travel
behavior.
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 US. Using data from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey,
Casas et al. ( 2004) divide Hispanics into three categories – US born, “ Newcomer
Hispanics” who have lived in the US less than one- third of their lives, and
“ Settled Hispanics” who have lived in the US more than two- thirds of their lives.
They also find that “ Newcomer Hispanics” rely more heavily on public transit
compared to both 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 US. 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) finds 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).
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.
3In 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.
3
Vehicle Ownership
Studies show that auto ownership among immigrants increases with length of
residence in the US; however, immigrant households— regardless of their length
of residence— remain more likely than native- born households to live in zero-vehicle
households. Using data from the 1990 Public Use Microdata Sample
( PUMS), McGuckin and Srinivasan ( 2003) find a positive relationship between
length of time in the US and auto ownership. They find that new immigrants are
twice as likely to live in households without vehicles as immigrants who have
lived in the US for ten years or more. However, their study shows that even after
a decade in the US, immigrants are still twice as likely to live in households
without automobiles compared to the US- 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 US. 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 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 US are much less likely to possess
driver’s licenses or to know how to operate vehicles than women in the US
( Pisarski, 1999).
Immigrants may also face administrative obstacles to obtaining drivers’ licenses
in the US; 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,
4Aponte ( 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.
4
2005). 5 All but twelve states, including California, require “ lawful presence,”
meaning that immigrants must present evidence that they were lawfully admitted
to the US. 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 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
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).
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.
5
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 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.
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
Where immigrants choose to live has important implications for their travel.
Recently arrived immigrants— particularly those with low- incomes— are more
likely to live in dense central- city neighborhoods. However, over time,
immigrants tend to move to suburban areas, and increasingly, even new
immigrants are starting out in the suburbs, often in ethnic enclaves. Overall, a
majority of the foreign- born population in California lives in suburban rather than
central city areas ( Figure 2).
Because public transit networks tend to be well developed there, central- city
immigrants, 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.
6
Figure 2. 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.
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 shorter distances than other low- wage
suburban workers if they both live and work in suburban ethnic enclaves.
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 native- born suburban
residents, they will also be more isolated from jobs, services, and other
destinations.
7
3. Method and Conceptual Framework
The study involved three components: ( 1) an investigation of the commute travel
of California immigrants using data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses; ( 2)
an exploration of the transportation experiences and needs of Mexican
immigrants using focus groups in six California regions; and ( 3) an inquiry to
transportation needs and wants of Mexican immigrants, collected from interviews
with community- based organizations in nine California regions. Details on the
methodology for each step are reported elsewhere ( Blumenberg and Song, 2008;
Blumenberg and Shiki, 2008; Lovejoy and Handy, 2007). However, it is
important here to note several limitations in our methods, and to present the
conceptual basis for our approach.
Limitations
Because few travel surveys record the immigration status of respondents, the
census data are the best data source to examine the travel of immigrants largely
because of its large sample size and the wealth of detailed information on
immigrants. However, the census data have some important limitations, the most
significant of which is the lack of information on travel other than the commute.
Further, the data sets do not include information on the transportation barriers
facing immigrants or their service preferences.
Therefore, we supplemented the analysis of census data with focus groups and
interviews to investigate the travel behaviors and preferences of Mexican
immigrants. We focused on Mexican immigrants because they comprise 44
percent of the total immigrant population in California, the experiences of
different immigrants are likely to be different in a variety of ways, and the project
budget did not enable us to conduct multiple sets of focus groups in other
languages. Through the focus groups and interviews, we also explored all travel
purposes as we might expect travel behaviors and preferences to vary by
purpose. Of course, the findings from both the focus groups and interviews with
community- based organizations are limited by small samples and the content of
conversations was steered by questionnaire guides or dominant speakers. As
such, content and frequency of comments from participants may not accurately
reflect the views of the broader Mexican- immigrant population. Nevertheless,
these efforts enabled us to explore questions of “ why” and “ to what end” raised
by the analysis of the census data, as discussed below.
Conceptual Basis
Planners need a better understanding of the travel behavior of diverse
demographic groups within the state. An analysis of travel patterns for different
population groups, as measured through travel surveys, is just one step towards
that understanding. Planners also need to understand what factors contribute to
the travel choices that individuals within these population groups make. These
factors include an individual’s need for travel ( e. g. getting to work, going
8
shopping, getting children to school) as well as his constraints on travel ( e. g.
limits on time, limits on income, inability to drive) and his attitudes and
preferences for travel in general and by different modes. Given these factors and
the level of service provided by the transportation system, an individual makes
choices about travel ( e. g. whether or not to travel, where to go, what mode to
use, what route to use) that lead to a variety of outcomes for him ( e. g. an ability
to earn an income, put dinner on the table, get an education) ( Figure 3).
Although these factors vary from individual to individual, they may show some
consistency for individuals who share demographic characteristics. With a better
understanding of the factors influencing travel choices, planners can develop a
transportation system that effectively and efficiently produces better outcomes for
the diverse demographic groups of California.
Figure 3. Conceptual Model
Individuals
Needs and
constraints
Travel Outcomes
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. Constraints include
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,
shorter term choices for everyday travel are affected by longer- term choices,
such as auto ownership and job location. Second, the types of considerations
that make a particular choice optimal for someone are likely to be unique to that
Transportation
System
Attitudes and
preferences
Level of service
by mode
9
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” decision- making 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 the travel behavior of immigrants.
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 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.
These theories provide a useful framework for examining the travel choices of
immigrants. For example, some of the “ rational” factors emphasized in the utility-maximizing
theory, such as travel time and travel cost, should play a significant
role. An undocumented immigrant with very low income will face dramatic
constraints in his transportation choices as well as job- and residential- location
choices. At the same time, planned behavior and social cognitive theories may
help explain why a previously transit- dependent immigrant who now has options
might choose either to continue riding transit or to purchase and drive a car.
We might expect similarities along demographic lines for several reasons. First,
whatever demographic characteristics a demographic group has in common may
be associated with other choices its members also have in common. For
10
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. 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.
4. Key Findings on Immigrant Travel
Travel and Commute Mode Trends
Most immigrants in California, like most non- immigrants, travel by car. However,
a disproportionate share of immigrants, particularly those new to the US – rely on
public transit. This trend, coupled with high rates of immigration, has fueled a 19
percent increase in the number of transit commuters in the state since 1980.
Forty- seven percent of all transit commuters in the state are foreign born,
suggesting that without immigrants, the number of transit commuters in California
would be at least half of what it is today.
However, the increase in transit commuters has not kept pace with the growth in
the California population. Similarly, the increase in immigrant transit commuters,
while significant, has not kept pace with the growth in the foreign- born
population. Consequently, immigrants are less reliant on public transit than they
were in previous decades – 11 percent in 1980 compared to 8 percent in 2000.
The decline in transit use among immigrants can be explained by two trends: ( 1)
the rapid assimilation to auto use with years in the U. S. and ( 2) the decline in
transit use among recent immigrants to California. Despite these trends, transit
commuters are still disproportionately immigrants.
Autos
The car is the most important means of transportation for immigrants; nearly two-thirds
of all immigrants use single occupancy vehicles as their primary commute
mode. Car usage varies by country of origin. Some immigrant groups—
immigrants from Iran ( 94%), Korea ( 94%), Vietnam ( 93%), and Taiwan ( 93%)—
travel by car in rates higher than U. S.- born commuters ( 91%). Other immigrant
groups— particularly immigrants from Latin America— are less reliant on cars. For
11
example, only 75 percent of Guatemalans and 83 percent of Mexican immigrants
rely on cars.
Overall, newly arrived immigrants are more highly transit dependent than US
born commuters. However, they assimilate to autos quickly once in the US, and
much of this assimilation occurs after the first five years in the US. The rate at
which immigrants assimilate to auto use varies by race and ethnicity. Hispanic
immigrants most quickly assimilate to auto use; however, their rates of transit use
are so much higher than for other racial and ethnic groups that they remain more
likely to use transit than U. S.- born white commuters even after 20 years in the
US. In contrast, after five years in the US, Asian immigrants are about as likely
to commute by transit as US- born white commuters.
Findings from exploratory research on Mexican- immigrant travel help to elucidate
the trend in auto assimilation. For this group, the car is an important and
necessary mode of transportation – auto access means more freedom, more job
opportunities, and a better quality of life; for some it is a symbol of greater social
status. Cars are also essential for commutes to work in industries that involve
variable work sites ( e. g., construction), the need to carry equipment ( e. g.,
landscaping), and early or late shifts ( e. g., service work). Having children also
adds to the need for a car.
Auto access is not a simple yes/ no situation. Those living in households without
a car often get rides from others or borrow cars, and few are truly transit
dependent. Conversely, living with someone who has a car does not guarantee
access to that car. Mexican immigrants who know how to drive sometimes
borrow cars, but they often feel uncomfortable asking and worry about getting
into accidents, having the car confiscated if pulled over, or having a breakdown.
Mexican immigrants with limited car access find it difficult to get to healthcare
facilities, out- of- town destinations, recreational places, and any destinations at
off- peak times; they spend more time commuting, and their employment and
educational opportunities are more limited. Limited car access may affect women
and children, in particular, who have to find alternative modes of travel when their
husbands take the car to work.
Barriers to auto access include the costs of buying and maintaining a car,
inability to get a driver’s license, risk of vehicle confiscation, inability to get
insurance, and having no way to learn how to drive.
Public Transit
Transit plays a critical transitional service for immigrants, especially their first five
years of living in the US. Moreover, although recent immigrants rapidly transition
to auto commuting, many— particularly Hispanic immigrants— remain reliant on
transit many years after immigrating to the US. Consequently immigrants transit-
12
commute at rates twice that of US- born commuters – 8 percent compared to 4
percent. Transit usage varies by country of origin.
Given these figures, it is not surprising that a disproportionate percentage ( 47%)
of transit commuters are immigrants. And in some metropolitan areas this figure
is much higher. For example, in Orange and Los Angeles, immigrants comprise
two- thirds of all transit commuters.
The focus group and interview findings on Mexican immigrant travel suggest that
transit plays an important role for meeting transportation needs for daily activities
in addition to commuting to work. They appreciate many qualities of transit,
including the low cost compared to driving and comfort in comparison to walking.
Reported disadvantages to transit include the transit fare costs of traveling with
children, difficulty traveling with packages, lack of safe and comfortable shelters,
lack of safety on buses, long waits, and limited schedules and routes.
Unreliability and limited service hours are of particular concern for immigrants
using transit to get to work. Women in particular are concerned with safety at
stations, treatment by bus drivers and passengers, and inability to communicate
in English.
Carpooling
Carpooling is an important commute mode for immigrants in California – nearly
twice as many immigrants ( 22%) as US- born persons ( 12%) rely on carpooling
as their primary commute mode. Carpooling also varies by country of origin.
Among the top ten immigrant groups in California, Mexican immigrants use
carpooling the most ( 29%) and Iranian immigrants rely on it the least ( 11%).
The rates of carpooling among immigrants decline with years in the US; but after
20+ years in the US, Hispanic and Asian immigrants carpool at rates higher than
for US- born whites. Carpooling rates among Mexican immigrants vary across
metropolitan areas and are highest, at least in the first 5 years, in Fresno and
Orange Counties, both metropolitan areas with limited public transit networks.
Findings from exploratory research on Mexican- immigrant use of carpools reveal
that carpooling is often preferable to taking public transit for commuting to work
for reasons of reliability and speed as well as comfort. In addition to work,
carpools are organized for traveling to large supermarkets, flea markets,
churches, and other destinations. However, depending on others for rides may
be problematic with respect to discomfort in asking for a ride, a sense of
indebtedness to others, unreliability of the driver, and the risk of a breakdown or
being pulled over while on a trip made on the passenger’s behalf.
13
Walking/ Biking
While few immigrants report walking as their primary commute mode – 3.5% of
immigrants versus 2.8% of US- born persons – walking is still an important
alternative means of travel, particularly for non- work travel.
The focus group and interview findings indicate that walking is an important
mode for Mexican immigrants, especially those with limited access to cars, and is
used to get children to school, go to the park, and do limited shopping. For this
group, walking is seen both as a way to save money and a way to get exercise,
but it only works when destinations are close. A lack of safe sidewalks, speeding
in residential areas, and a lack of safe signal crossings are deterrents.
Some Mexican immigrants rely on biking to save costs or when transit service is
not available, but barriers to bike travel include lack of bike lanes, difficult road
conditions, and hot weather.
Land Use
Many immigrants enter the US through central- city neighborhoods that serve as
ports of entry for new immigrants. We calculated the distribution of the US- and
foreign- born populations by density quintiles across Public Use Microdata Areas
( PUMAs), geographic units developed by the U. S. Census. 7 We find that only 13
percent of the US- born population lives in the densest neighborhoods compared
to almost 30 percent of immigrants. These dense urban areas also tend to be
neighborhoods with extensive transit networks and service. However, with time
in the US, immigrants are more likely to live outside of the central city in
neighborhoods where transit service is more limited.
Immigrants are more likely to choose alternative modes of travel than US- born
commuters regardless of metropolitan area. But the rates at which they rely on
alternative modes of travel— and substitute one mode for another— vary by
metropolitan structure. There tends to be less variation in transit commuting
between immigrants and US- born commuters in dense metropolitan areas,
where transit use can more easily substitute for driving than in more spatially
dispersed areas where using transit is far less convenient. In Los Angeles, even
Mexican immigrants with cars made regular use of transit; in San Jose and
Fresno they did not.
For Mexican immigrants, land use plays an important role by determining the
distances from home to destinations, including work and others, as well as the
quality of travel by alternative modes. Long distances are often cited as a reason
for needing a car or getting a ride. For nearby destinations, the quality of the
built environment influences the safety and comfort of walking. For immigrants
7 See http:// www. census. gov/ geo/ www/ tiger/ glossry2. pdf page A19 for a description of PUMAs
14
without car access, having destinations within walking distance adds to their
quality of life.
5. Issues and Strategies
These findings provide the basis for a list of transportation issues affecting
California immigrants and possible strategies to address them ( Table 1). This list
is not intended as a list of recommendations for specific communities but rather a
general list of strategies that communities might consider in their efforts to better
meet the transportation needs of Mexican immigrants in California. Several
issues deserve further investigation, as described below.
Our findings point to two general strategies for improving the degree to which the
needs of California’s immigrants, particularly those from Mexican, are met. The
first strategy is to make car travel more attainable, the other is to enhance the
quality of transit service.
􀂃 Make car travel more attainable. In most neighborhoods cars are the
preferred mode of travel as they allow convenient access to numerous
destinations. Yet many immigrants arrive in California having had little
driving experience or without the ability to obtain a driver’s license.
Particularly in neighborhoods outside of the central city, automobiles
provide immigrants with better access to jobs and services and should be
promoted. Access to cars might be provided in a variety of ways,
including carpooling facilitation and car- sharing programs.
􀂃 Enhance the quality of transit service. Public transit is a critical service in
helping new immigrants transition to life in the US; many immigrants enter
the US through ports of entry located in the central city where public
transit works best. In these neighborhoods that transit agencies may see
the need for additional service. In less densely population areas, transit
service is still important to immigrants whose access to cars is limited.
These strategies are not necessarily incompatible, and indeed efforts in both
areas would only improve conditions for immigrants. However, if lean budgets
should limit these efforts, then there are reasons to give priority to transit service.
Transit commuters are disproportionately immigrants; without them, the number
of transit commuters in California would be at least half of what it is today. But
transit agencies are likely to face a decline in transit ridership in the future due to
( a) the projected slowing of immigration to California combined with ( b) the
assimilation of current immigrants to auto use. Declines in ridership make it hard
to maintain quality of service, let alone improve it. But improving transit service is
important not just from the standpoint of meeting the needs of immigrants. The
combination of volatile gas prices and new environmental policies ( such as the
California Global Warming Solutions Act) magnify the importance of providing
alternatives to driving for all residents of California.
15
These alternatives should include walking and bicycling as well, both important
modes for immigrants and often used in conjunction with transit. All of these
modes need supportive land use patterns to be viable. Many communities in
California have adopted policies that help to change land use patterns in ways
that are more supportive of transit, walking, and bicycling. Examples include
smart growth policies and transit- oriented development programs. These efforts,
though directed at much broader societal and environmental concerns, may help
to address the mobility needs of immigrants as well. In addition, communities
might consider land use strategies targeted specifically to immigrants.
Table 1. Issues and Possible Strategies
1. Improve Public Transit
1.1. Orient transit services to better accommodate their commute hours
ISSUES
A substantial number of immigrants work in the
service industry and factories; and they often
work early- morning, late- night, and third- shift
work schedules. Because their work schedules
are different from standard commute hours,
access to work is problematic. Agents of change
may want to orient transit services to better
acommodate their commute hours.
STRATEGIES
- Extend hours of service earlier and later to
accommodate work schedules,
- Increase frequency of service during
commute hours specific to immigrant
communities and reliability of arrival times,
and
- Implement rapid bus lines on most frequent
routes, especially to common work places
and shopping areas.
1.2. Encourage supplemental public transit systems
ISSUES
Many Mexican- immigrant communities, and likely
other immigrant communities, may be isolated
from major transit routes, making transit
inaccessible or an unviable option for individuals
traveling with packages or children, and traveling
in times of extreme weather conditions. This may
affect women and children at home in particular.
Agents of change might consider options to
encourage supplemental public transit systems
and higher quality transit systems.
STRATEGIES
- In areas with concentrations of newly
arrived immigrants, increase number of
routes, destinations served, frequency of
service, and reliability of arrival times; and
improve coordination of transfers between
routes;
- Provide ride- home shuttle services at
grocery stores and round- trip rides to
healthcare facilities; and
- Implement a shuttle system that links
residential areas with major transit routes.
1.3. Reduce costs
ISSUES
The cost of traveling by transit may be
burdensome for many Mexican immigrants. This
is potentially the case for other immigrant groups
as well. Instead of reducing fares for everyone,
agents of change might consider options to
reduce costs for the most burdened transit
riders:
STRATEGIES
- Reduce costs for children and families, and
- Subsidize transit passes for workers and
students.
16
1.4. Improve comfort and ease of transit use
ISSUES
Newly arrived immigrants, women, and seniors
may avoid traveling on transit systems because
of concern of personal safety, discrimination by
fellow passengers or transit operators, and
inability to effectively communicate in English.
Finding exact change for transit fares may also
be a particular annoyance and barrier to riding
transit. Agents of change may want to improve
comfort and ease of transit use.
STRATEGIES
- Require cultural sensitivity training and
basic language skills for bus drivers;
- Improve bus shelters with shade, seats,
protection from traffic, protection from crime;
- Improve nighttime security on vehicles and
at stops; and
- Implement pre- paid swipe cards.
1.5. Market transit
ISSUES
Immigrants may encounter language barriers
and might not have access to transit information.
While the Mexican- immigrant community and
possibly many other immigrant communities learn
through an informal network system of
communication, it may be worth the while for
agents of change to market transit to immigrant
communities to boost ridership and facilitate their
comfort with transit use.
STRATEGIES
- Provide information at bus stops, including
schedules, maps with nearby destinations,
and real- time information, in Spanish or other
languages;
- Provide transit information to all non- profit
organizations and libraries;
- Advertise transit systems via Hispanic
media: radio, billboards, newsletters,
newspapers, Spanish television; and
- Promote transit use across all income and
ethnic groups to build support for improved
transit and to reduce dependence of transit
ridership on recent immigrants.
1.6. Improve transit linkages between residence and workplace
ISSUES
In some communities, immigrants may cluster in
residence and workplace. For these
communities, agents of change might consider
options to improve transit linkages between
residence and workplace to improve workplace
accessibility.
STRATEGIES
- Identify residential and workplace clusters
of immigrant communities and increase
transit linkages,
- Subsidize shuttle systems to improve
linkages between neighborhoods and large
transit systems, and
- Implement rapid bus lines on most
frequented routes, especially to common
work places and shopping areas.
2. Make Car Travel Safer and More Attainable
2.1. Help increase driving ability
ISSUES
Immigrants may not know how to drive when they
arrive into the United States. Inadequate
resources may make the learning process
difficult; this may disproportionately affect
women. Agents of change may want to help
increase their driving ability.
STRATEGIES
- Provide opportunities for driver’s training,
and
- Provide mechanism for acquiring driver’s
license and insurance regardless of
immigration status.
17
2.2. Facilitate car ownership
ISSUES
More immigrants are low- income or impoverished
as compared to U. S.- born persons. This may
make car ownership burdensome or unviable for
many. Agents of change may help to facilitate car
ownership.
STRATEGIES
- Provide financial assistance for purchasing
vehicles and auto insurance,
- Provide auto- repair training and facilities,
- Lift the vehicle asset limitation associated
with public assistance programs; and
- Encourage a retired fleet vehicle program to
make available low- cost vehicles.
2.3. Facilitate carpooling and carsharing
ISSUES
While many immigrants rely on carpooling as
their primary commute mode, and others use it
as an alternative mode, it may be worthwhile for
agents of change to facilitate carpooling and
carsharing.
STRATEGIES
- Develop an organized carpool or vanpool
system, with dedicated vehicles and
community volunteers to drive to specific
work locations; and
- Implement carsharing programs.
2.4. Improve safety of driving in rural areas
ISSUES
Transit may be scarce in rural areas and the
automobile may be the only mode of
transportation for some; these areas may also
have poor road and highway conditions. Agents
of change may want to improve safety of driving
in rural areas.
STRATEGIES
- Provide signage of all highway turnoffs,
- Post notices of potholes or flooding,
- Provide Spanish translation of signs in key
areas, and
- Improve highway lighting.
3. Improve Pedestrian Experience
3.1. Improve pedestrian infrastructure
ISSUES
Immigrant communities may not be well designed
for pedestrian travel. Mexican immigrants have
expressed concern regarding the danger that car
traffic poses to walkers. Agents of change might
consider options to improve pedestrian
infrastructure to promote safety and comfort with
walking.
STRATEGIES
- Provide sidewalks and signal- protected
crossings,
- Enforce speed limits and implement traffic
calming, and
- Improve egress from schools and grocery
stores.
3.2. Provide density of destinations
ISSUES
Although not a primary commute mode for the
majority of immigrants, walking may be an
important alternative mode of transportation for
those without access to transit or autos. To
facilitate pedestrian travel, agents of change
might consider options to provide density of
destinations.
STRATEGIES
- Plan for schools, workplaces, parks,
supermarkets, laundromats, and healthcare
within walking distance of residential areas.
18
3.3. Improve quality of pedestrian experience
ISSUES
Walking is also a leisure and health- conscious
activity for many Mexican immigrants and
potentially other immigrant groups. However, the
built environment may discourage these
activities. To facilitate walking, agents of change
may want to improve quality of pedestrian
experience.
STRATEGIES
- Make walking more pleasant through
beautification, landscaping, benches, trees;
and
- Make walking safer through lighting.
4. Improve Bicycling Experience
4.1. Increase access to bicycles
ISSUES
Bicycling is an inexpensive mode that can
effectively meet middle- distance needs, i. e.
traveling to destinations too far for walking and
not well served by transit. It is also an important
physical activity. Agents of change may want to
increase access to bicycles.
STRATEGIES
- Work with police departments and bicycle
shops to provide low- cost used bicycles to
immigrants, along with training in bicycle
repair and access to repair facilities.
4.2. Increase the safety and comfort of bicycling
ISSUES
Many communities where immigrants live have
limited bicycle infrastructure, making biking less
safe as an alternative mode of transportation.
Agents of change might consider options to
increase the safety and comfort of bicycling.
STRATEGIES
- Maintain and improve existing bicycle
infrastructure
- Provide more extensive networks of bicycle
lanes and other facilities
- Provide free helmets and training in bicycle
safety, particularly for children
5. Adapt Land Use Patterns to Support Alternative Transportation
5.1. Ensure adequate access to basic services within the community.
ISSUES
Although immigrants are more dependent on
walking as a mode of transportation, many
immigrant communities do not have basic
services within walking distance. Agents of
change may work to ensure adequate access to
basic services within the community.
STRATEGIES
- Conduct audits of available versus needed
services
- Review zoning policies in immigrant
communities
- Provide incentives for needed services to
locate in immigrant communities
5.2. Ensure transit access to public services outside of the community.
ISSUES
Public services important to immigrants are
sometimes located in areas not accessible by
transit. Agents of change might consider
possibilities to ensure transit access to public
services outside of the community.
STRATEGIES
- Give high priority to transit access in
deciding where to locate public services
important to immigrants.
6. Opportunities for Future Research
There are several opportunities for future research that will further our
understanding of immigrant travel. These include both needs and opportunities
for future research.
19
Future research on immigrant travel would benefit from expanded data sets and
travel surveys that would enable a more accurate statistical look at mode
choices, driving ability, trip frequencies, auto access, etc. One need is to
measure immigrant status as part of travel surveys ( for example, in travel diary
surveys conducted by regional transportation planning agencies). Another need
is to expand large- sample national surveys to include data on travel for purposes
other than the commute. Finally, a new way of measuring car access should be
developed.
Many topics merit further research. The travel needs of elderly immigrants, for
example, could be significantly different from those of younger immigrants or
than native- born elderly. Region- specific spatial distributions of jobs and
residences as they affect the commuting patterns and needs for transit services
for immigrants are not well understood. Studies of the trends in travel for areas
in transition from one immigrant group to another or from immigrant to non-immigrant
predominance could yield important insights. Our understanding of
the extent of driving without a license that is occurring and how license issues
impact travel choices is limited. The potential advanced intelligent transportation
technologies, including real time traveler information, to improve transit service
and facilitate carpooling for immigrants has not been studied. Programs
targeted at improving transportation services for immigrants should be evaluated
through rigorous before and after studies. Many other interesting and important
questions remain on the understudied topic of the travel needs of immigrants.
20
References
Ajzen, Icek. 1991. “ The theory of planned behavior.” Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 50: 179– 211.
Alba, R., J. Logan, A. Lutz, and B. Stults. 2002. “ Only English by the third
generation? Loss and preservation of the mother tongue among the
grandchildren of contemporary immigrants,” Demography, 39 ( 3): 467- 484.
Alba, R. D., J. R. Logan, B. J. Stults, G. Marzan, and W. Q. Zhang. 1999.
“ Immigrant groups in the suburbs: A reexamination of suburbanization and
spatial assimilation,” American Sociological Review, 64 ( 3): 446- 460.
Aponte, Robert. 1996. “ Urban Employment and the Mismatch Dilemma:
Accounting for the Immigration Exception,” Social Problems 43 ( 3): 268- 283.
Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc.
Baranowski, T., C. L. Perry et al. 2002. “ How Individuals, Environments, and
Health Behavior Interact: Social Cognitive Theory.” In Health Behavior and
Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer,
and F. M. Lewis, eds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Bernstein, Nina. 2005. “ Fight Over Immigrants' Driving Licenses Is Back in
Court,” The New York Times, April 7.
Blumenberg, E. and L. Song. 2008. “ Travel Behavior of Immigrants in California:
Trends and Policy Implications.” Paper presented at the Transportation
Research Board 87th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Blumenberg, D. and K. Shiki. 2008. “ Immigrants and Resource Sharing: The
Case of Carpooling.” Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board
87th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
California Department of Finance. 2002. Census 2000 California Profile.
Sacramento, CA: State of California.
Casas, J., C. Arce, and C. Frye. 2004. Latino Immigration and Its Impact on
Future Travel Behavior. Available: http:// trb. org/ conferences/ nhts/ Casas. pdf
Douma, F. 2004. “ Using ITS to Better Serve Diverse Populations,” Final Report.
State and Local Policy Program, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public
Affairs, University of Minnesota.
21
Ellis, D. 2001. “ Improving Camioneta Van Service in Texas,” Texas
Transportation Researcher, 37( 4): 10.
DiCamillo, M. and M. Field. 2005. “ Californians oppose issuing driver’s licenses
to undocumented immigrants. Divided about issuing them special driver’s
licenses identifying their not having legal status,” The Field Poll, Release
# 2156.
Domencich, Tom A., and Daniel L. McFadden. 1975. Urban Travel Demand: A
Behavioral Analysis. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company.
Fang D. and D. Brown. 1999. “ Geographic mobility of the foreign- born Chinese
in large metropolises, 1985- 1990,” International Migration Review, 33( 1):
137- 155.
Fass, A. 2001. “ Chinatown to Boston on a $ 15 Van Ride,” The New York Times,
February 18, page 4.
Fennelly, K. and N. Palasz 2003. “ English language proficiency of immigrants
and refugees in the twin cities metropolitan area,” International Migration, 41
( 5): 93- 125.
Fix, M. E., J. S. Passel, and W. Zimmerman. 1996a. “ Summary of Facts About
Immigrants' Use of Welfare,” Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute.
Available: http:// www. urban. org/ urlprint. cfm? ID= 7415
Fix, M. E., J. S. Passel, and W. Zimmerman. 1996b. The Use of SSI and Other
Welfare Programs by Immigrants. Testimony Immigrants before the House
Committee on Ways and Means. Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute.
Available: http:// www. urban. org/ urlprint. cfm? ID= 6940
Hegstrom, E. 2003. “ Deadly crossing; Camionetas travel road full of risk;
Immigrant vans largely unregulated,” The Houston Chronicle, November 10,
pg. A01.
Heisz, A., and G. Schellenberg. 2004. “ Public Transit Use among Immigrants,”
Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 13( 1): 170- 191.
Ingram C. 1999. “ California and the West; Panel OKs Farm Van Seat Belt Bill;
Legislature: Measure gets swift approval in Senate committee along with
tougher penalties for operators of unsafe vehicles,” The Los Angeles Times,
pp. 3.
Juon, H. S., Y. J. Choi, and M. T. Kim. 2000. “ Cancer screening behaviors among
Korean- American women,” Cancer Detection and Prevention, 24 ( 6): 589-
601.
22
Lee R, T. Miller, R. D. Edwards. 2003. The Growth and Aging of California's
Population: Demographic and Fiscal Projections, Characteristics and Service
Needs. Berkeley, CA: California Policy Research Center, University of
California.
Lewis, Raphael. 2001. “ Catching a ticket to ride – cheap language, price help
shuttles edge buses,” The Boston Globe, February 17, pg A1.
Li, W. 1998. “ Anatomy of a New Ethnic Settlement: The Chinese Ethnoburb in
Los Angeles,” Urban Studies, 35( 3): 479- 501.
Li, W. 1999. “ Building Ethnoburbia: The Emergence and Manifestation of the
Chinese Ethnoburb in Los Angeles’ San Gabriel Valley,” Journal of Asian
American Studies, 2( 1): 1- 28.
Light, I. and E. Bonacich. 1988. Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los
Angeles. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Logan, J. R., R. D. Alba, and W. Q. Zhang. 2002. “ Immigrant enclaves and ethnic
communities in New York and Los Angeles,” American Sociological Review,
67 ( 2): 299- 322.
Lovejoy, K., and S. Handy. 2007. Transportation Experiences of Mexican
Immigrants in California: Results from Focus Group Interviews. UCD- ITS-RR-
07- 32, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
Martin, P. L. and J. E. Taylor. 1998. “ Poverty and prosperity: Farm employment,
immigration, and poverty in California,” American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 5: 1008- 1014.
McCarthy, K. F. and G. Vernez. 1998. Immigration in a Changing Economy:
California's Experience -- Questions and Answers. Santa Monica: Rand
Corporation.
McGuckin, N. and N. Srinivasan. 2003. “ National Summary,” Journey to Work
Trends in the United States and its Major Metropolitan Areas 1960 – 2000.
Publication No. FHWA - EP- 03- 058.
Moreno, Sylvia. 1998. “ Legal attack targets vans carrying immigrants,”
Washington Post, April 22, pg. B01.
Myers D. 1996. “ Changes over Time in Transportation Mode for Journey to
Work: Effects of Aging and Immigration,” Decennial Census Data for
Transportation Planning: Case Studies and Strategies for 2000, Volume 2:
Case Studies. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
23
National Immigration Law Center. 2002. Immigrant Driver's License Proposals
and Campaigns: Surprising Progress since 9/ 11. Immigrants' Rights Update,
Web Edition, 2002.
National Immigration Law Center. 2004. State Driver’s License Requirements,
December. Available:
http:// www. nilc. org/ immspbs/ DLs/ state_ dl_ rqrmts_ 120504. pdf
National Immigration Law Center. 2005. Overview of States’ Driver’s License
Requirements, March 17. Available:
http:// www. nilc. org/ immspbs/ DLs/ state_ dl_ rqrmts_ ovrvw_ 031705. pdf
Newman, Barry. 2005. “ Street Smarts On the East Coast, Chinese Buses Give
Greyhound a Run,” Wall Street Journal, January 28, pg A1.
Ngo- Metzger, Q., M. P. Massagli, B. R. Clarridge, et al. 2003. “ Linguistic and
cultural barriers to care,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18 ( 1): 44- 52.
Pamuk, A. 2004. “ Geography of immigrant Clusters in Global Cities: A case
study of San Francisco, 2000” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 28( 2): 287- 307.
Pisarski, A. 1999. Cars, Women, and Minorities. The Democratization of
Mobility in America. Automobility and Freedom Project, November.
Available: http:// www. cei. org/ PDFs/ pisarski. pdf
Purvis C. 2003. Commuting Patterns of Immigrants. Washington, DC: U. S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Federal Transit Administration, CTPP 2000 Status
Report.
Schrader, E. 2000. “ National Perspective: The Border Safety Concern Follow
Popular “ Little Buses” on the Road. Officials say an Inordinate Number of
Crashes Plagues Camionetas which Transport Millions of Latinos,” Los
Angles Times, Tuesday, February 8.
Thomas, John V., and Elizabeth Deakin. 2001. “ California demographic trends:
Implications for transportation planning.” University of California
Transportation Center paper no. 530. http:// www. uctc. net/ papers/ 530. pdf.
Truelove, M. 2000. “ Services for immigrant women: an evaluation of locations,”
Canadian Geographer- Geographe Canadien, 44 ( 2): 135- 151.
24
25
U. S. Bureau of the Census. 2004. Historical Poverty Tables, Current Population
Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements. Washington, DC: Poverty
and Health Statistics Branch/ HHES Division.
U. S. Department of Homeland Security. 2002. Yearbook of Immigration
Statistics. 2003. Washington, DC: Office of Immigration Statistics.
U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2003. Estimates of the
Unauthorized Immigrants Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to
2000. Washington, D. C.: Office of Policy and Planning. Available:
http:// uscis. gov/ graphics/ shared/ statistics/ publications/ Ill_ Report_ 1211. pdf
Valenzuela Jr., A. 2003. Plane, Trains, or Camionetas ( little buses)? A Baseline
Study of an Informal Travel Mode. A UCTC Year 13 Research Grant Final
Report Summary. Available: http:// www. uctc. net/ papers/ final
reports/ year13/ 33 - Valenzuela final report year 13. htm