1
Transportation Experiences of
Mexican Immigrants in California:
Results from Focus Group Interviews
RESEARCH RPORT
Kristin Lovejoy
Susan Handy
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California Davis
Davis, CA 95616
June 22, 2007
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents ............................................................................................................................. 2
List of tables ............................................................................................................................... .... 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 5
REPORT......................................................................................................................... ................ 7
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8
1.1 Study design and data collection..................................................................................... 8
1.1.1 Focus on Mexican immigrants in California........................................................... 8
1.1.2 Geographic focus within California ........................................................................ 8
1.1.3 Car- owning and car- less groups............................................................................ 10
1.1.4 Site selection and participant recruitment ............................................................. 10
1.1.5 Focus group facilitation and discussion content ................................................... 12
1.2 Analysis process............................................................................................................ 13
2 Results ............................................................................................................................... ... 14
2.1 Participant profile.......................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Transit........................................................................................................................ ... 17
2.2.1 Transit use ............................................................................................................. 17
2.2.2 Advantages and disadvantages of transit .............................................................. 18
2.3 Private vehicles ............................................................................................................. 23
2.3.1 Private vehicle use................................................................................................. 24
2.3.2 Destinations in private vehicles, or Why a car is needed...................................... 25
2.3.3 Advantages and disadvantages of private vehicle use .......................................... 27
2.3.4 Buying a car .......................................................................................................... 38
2.4 Walking ......................................................................................................................... 42
2.4.1 Use of walking ...................................................................................................... 42
2.4.2 Advantages and disadvantages of walking............................................................ 44
2.5 Biking......................................................................................................................... .. 46
2.5.1 Bike use ................................................................................................................. 46
2.5.2 Advantages and disadvantages of biking .............................................................. 46
2.6 Transportation to work.................................................................................................. 47
2.6.1 Modes used for work trips..................................................................................... 47
2.6.2 Travel time to work............................................................................................... 48
2.6.3 Challenges getting to work.................................................................................... 48
2.7 Transportation to grocery stores.................................................................................... 53
2.7.1 Modes used for grocery store trips........................................................................ 53
2.7.2 Challenges getting to and from grocery stores...................................................... 55
2.8 Places that are hard to get to.......................................................................................... 56
2.9 List of transportation needs and destinations visited .................................................... 58
2.10 Participants’ ideas for change ....................................................................................... 59
2.10.1 Suggestions for public transit ................................................................................ 60
2.10.2 Suggestions relating to private- vehicle use........................................................... 61
3
2.10.3 Suggestions for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure........................................... 62
2.10.4 Suggestions for land use........................................................................................ 63
2.10.5 Suggestions for other transportation services: Taxis and grocery- store shuttles .. 63
3 Discussion of cross- cutting issues......................................................................................... 63
3.1 Role of land use and the built environment................................................................... 63
3.2 Role of children and childcare duties ............................................................................ 66
4 Implications for Policy.......................................................................................................... 68
4.1 Making car- free travel more feasible and enjoyable..................................................... 68
4.1.1 Improving public transportation............................................................................ 68
4.1.2 Improving the pedestrian experience .................................................................... 69
4.1.3 The role of land use and the built environment..................................................... 70
4.1.4 The need for a critical mass................................................................................... 71
4.2 Making car travel safer and more attainable ................................................................. 71
4.2.1 Driving skills and licensing................................................................................... 71
4.2.2 Becoming a car- owner .......................................................................................... 72
4.2.3 Carpooling and car- sharing ................................................................................... 72
5 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... ....... 73
6 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 74
7 References ............................................................................................................................. 74
Appendix A. Script for telephone recruitment .............................................................................. 75
Appendix B. Facilitation guide for car- owning groups ................................................................ 77
Appendix C. Facilitation guide for car- less groups....................................................................... 81
Appendix D. Summaries by region and group…………………………………………………. 90
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Citywide population statistics for six focus- group cities, 2000 ...................................... 10
Table 2. Chronology of focus group sessions ............................................................................... 11
Table 3. Years since immigrating to the United States ................................................................. 16
Table 4. Approximate participant demographics, by focus group ................................................ 17
Table 5. Frequency of transit use by focus group ......................................................................... 18
Table 6. Comments identifying advantages of transit................................................................... 19
Table 7. Comments identifying disadvantages of transit .............................................................. 20
Table 8. Extent of car ownership and driver’s licenses among car- owning groups...................... 24
Table 9. Reasons to drive ( your own car, real or hypothetical) or get a ride ................................ 25
Table 10. Reasons to borrow a car ................................................................................................ 27
Table 11. Advantages of driving................................................................................................... 28
Table 12. Disadvantages of driving your own car ( hypothetically for car- less participants) ....... 32
Table 13. Disadvantages of driving a borrowed car...................................................................... 34
Table 14. Disadvantages of getting rides ...................................................................................... 36
Table 15. Challenges to owning and obtaining a car and starting to drive .................................. 38
Table 16. Possession of driver’s licenses, by focus group ............................................................ 39
Table 17. Duration before buying a car in car- owning groups ..................................................... 41
Table 18. Frequency of walking by focus group........................................................................... 42
Table 19. Advantages of walking.................................................................................................. 44
Table 20. Disadvantages of walking ............................................................................................. 45
Table 21. Commute mode share, by region, auto- ownership status, and overall.......................... 47
Table 22. Commute time............................................................................................................... 48
Table 23. Challenges getting to work............................................................................................ 49
Table 24. Modes used for grocery shopping................................................................................. 54
Table 25. Challenges getting to and from the store....................................................................... 55
Table 26. Places that are particularly hard to get to, by focus group ............................................ 58
Table 27. Participants’ suggestions for easier use of public transit .............................................. 61
Table 28. Participants’ suggestions for easier private- vehicle transportation............................... 62
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview of the study
The purpose of this study was to conduct exploratory research on the transportation needs of
Mexican immigrants in California, their use of different modes of transportation, their
experiences with each mode, and the challenges they experience with respect to the
transportation system as they go about their daily lives. We explored differences by car
ownership status ( households with and without a car) and by geographic area within California.
To conduct this research, we held ten focus group interviews ( in Spanish) with Mexican
immigrants in the summer of 2006 in the cities of Fresno, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Jose,
Stockton, and Sacramento, California. The results are presented using a mix of qualitative
summaries of the discussions in addition to systematic counts of participants’ comments relating
to various themes. Highlights from the full report are summarized here.
Summarized results
The focus group interviews revealed rich descriptions of participants’ everyday realities with
respect to transportation. For the most part, participants’ transportation needs were similar to
those of the rest of the population; as employees, customers, patients, and students, the
participants needed to access many of the same types of places as the rest of the population.
Therefore, the mode choices that would make the most sense for other Californians also tend to
be best for Mexican immigrants. Most participants considered driving the most preferred mode,
mostly because it was what everyone else in California does and therefore is what the
transportation system best accommodates. Those that didn’t have cars hoped to buy one; those
that had one, wanted a second; more auto access implied more freedom and a better quality of
life, although to a greater or lesser extent in different cities and for different individuals.
Indeed, because most participants could not fulfill all of their transportation needs without a
car, even among those in households without cars few were truly car- free. Participants’ auto
access ( and auto use) was better described as a spectrum of degrees of access rather than as a
binary “ yes” or “ no” categorization. Those living in households without a car still received rides
and borrowed cars, some quite regularly. Conversely, living with someone who had a car did not
guarantee access. For example, up to a quarter of participants in two of the car- owning groups
( about 15 percent across all five car- owning groups) did not drive at all. Better capturing this
spectrum of access among different members of the household would be useful in future
research. However, it was clear that for most, those in households with cars had more access than
those in households with no car. Still, few of the participants in car- less households were truly
“ transit dependent.”
Travel in private vehicles was preferred for the usual reasons: It was faster, more flexible,
more spontaneous, more comfortable, and made it easier to carry things. However, the
participants faced some disadvantages associated with car travel that may be somewhat unique to
this population. In particular, the cost of buying and maintaining a car was identified as an
important challenge associated with obtaining a car, and the cost of gas as a disadvantage
associated with driving for any given trip. They also identified obtaining a driver’s license ( or the
fear of driving without one) as an important barrier to buying a car, to driving, and even to
getting a ride with others. Many revealed ( without prompting) that they ( and those they received
rides from) were not licensed because they were undocumented, which led to a slew of mostly
6
financial complications, including the risk of the police confiscating the vehicle and charging a
prohibitively high fee for retrieval, and the inability to obtain good ( or any) auto insurance.
Learning how to drive was also an issue for some, not having needed to learn in Mexico and
having few opportunities to practice and train in the U. S., especially without a license and with
limited access to vehicles. Some of these issues made driving more expensive, more frightening,
more dangerous, and have higher stakes than it would for the population at large.
In light of such issues, we might expect the extensive use of private vehicles to be evidence
of compelling need. Indeed, the reasons that participants felt that they needed cars were quite
practical. They found transit service limiting. Many needed cars to get to work, or to get there
reliably. Many participants also identified getting married and having children as a reason to get
a car. In particular, transporting children to schools and doctors, an increased need for trip-chaining,
better ability to manage packages and children on the road, and being better prepared
for emergencies were all needs for cars brought about by having children. Other types of trips for
which participants used cars were to get to healthcare facilities, to shop for groceries, to visit far-away
destinations ( such as out of town), and for emergencies. Participants in car- less households
reported getting rides and borrowing cars for many of these types of destinations.
Transit still played an important role for many participants, though its use varied by auto-access
group and by city. There was regular transit use by some, many, or all participants in all
five of the car- less groups, but only some of the car- owning groups had any participants
reporting regular use ( for instance, not in Fresno and San Jose). Transit use was highest in Los
Angeles. In general, participants reported using transit to get to work, shopping, school,
recreation, and appointments. Participants appreciated the relative low cost of transit, the
independence it could provide, and the relative comfort of riding versus walking. However,
participants’ discussions of their experiences using transit uncovered numerous complaints,
many that amounted to shortfalls in levels of service, such as: long waits, infrequent schedules,
limited schedules, indirect routes, limited routes, and awkward transfers. In addition,
unreliability was identified as a major problem for some, especially for those trying to use transit
to get to work. There was also a variety of issues that made riders feel unsafe and uncomfortable
while riding or accessing transit.
Participants in all the groups walked somewhat regularly, although the extent varied by group
and by individual. Walking was more prevalent in the car- less groups, with the car- owning
groups being more likely to have participants reporting that they never or rarely walked. The
most common two destinations participants described reaching on foot were to take their
children to school and to go to stores for a few items ( such as between major shopping trips
completed on the weekend with the whole family). Other destinations included parks, doctor’s
offices, and religious service. Participants stressed the importance of destinations being close by
in order for them to walk there, and that many would opt to walk to destinations that were close
in order to save gas money or transit fare.
It was not entirely clear from the discussions what factors explained why the participants that
had cars did and those that did not didn’t. Possible sources of difference include the ability to
afford a car, degree of risk aversion ( with respect to driving in general or to driving without a
license), or degree of need for a car. However, participants in the households without cars
indicated that they experienced more transportation- related limitations and suffering. Participants
in households without cars were more likely to name places that were hard for them to get to,
including healthcare facilities, others cities ( such as to visit friends and family), recreational
7
places outside of town ( such as parks and lakes), and anywhere during off- peak hours ( such as
grocery stores, libraries, work, etc.). They tended to spend more time commuting ( ranging from
five minutes to two hours), and were more likely to affirm that they experienced challenges
getting to work and to agree that their transportation options limited their opportunities for
schooling and employment. They described more challenges in getting groceries home from the
store, employing a wide range of strategies to complete the task.
At the end of each session, the participants brainstormed recommendations. The suggestions
they provided addressed a range of topics, including improving public transportation, improving
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, facilitating the purchase and legal driving of cars, reducing
the costs of all types of transportation, relieving traffic congestion, and improving safety and
security for pedestrians, drivers, and passengers.
Policy recommendations and future research
The result of this study suggest two types of policies that could improve the transportation
options for Mexican immigrants and other California residents in similar situations. The first
type is policies that aim to make car- free travel more feasible and more enjoyable. These include
policies to improve public transportation, to cultivate better pedestrian infrastructure, and to
cultivate high- density, mixed land uses that complement both walking and transit. A second type
of policies to consider is those that make car travel safer and more attainable. These could
include allowing undocumented aliens to obtain driver’s licenses, educating new drivers on safe
driving and the rules of the road, establishing community- level auto- repair resources, and
promoting more carpooling or car- sharing among immigrant communities.
In addition, the study also points to several potential areas of future research, including
conducting a broader survey of this population in order to get a more accurate statistical snapshot
of some of the topics explored here. In addition, developing a metric for capturing the spectrum
of auto access that different individuals experience and exploring the extent of driving without a
license and how it impacts travel choices would be informative, as would targeted studies of
access to healthcare facilities and to supermarkets. Finally, careful non- rider surveys among
interested communities could lead to better prioritization of transit- improvement projects.
8
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to conduct exploratory research on the transportation needs of
Mexican immigrants in California, their use of different modes of transportation, their
experiences with each mode, and the challenges they experience with respect to the
transportation system as they go about their daily lives. We explored differences by car
ownership status ( households with and without a car) and by geographic area within California.
The data for the analysis come from ten focus- group interviews conducted in the summer of
2006 with immigrants from Mexico living in six different California cities: Fresno, Los Angeles,
Riverside, San Jose, Stockton, and Sacramento. This study was a part of a research grant from
the California Department of Transportation to study the transportation needs of diverse
population groups in California, including racial and ethnic groups, immigrants, Native
Americans, youth, and the elderly.
1.1 Study design and data collection
1.1.1 Focus on Mexican immigrants in California
California has a large, growing, and diverse immigrant population throughout the state.
However, for this study, we focused on immigrants from just one country of origin, to be able to
analyze members of this group’s experiences in some depth. Because immigrants from Mexico
represent the largest group of immigrants in California, we focused our attention on this group.
Within this group, we also narrowed our focus to those who had lived in the U. S. for less
than ten years and who were between the ages of 20 and 40. We opted to interview more recent
immigrants ( less than ten years) because their situations and choices were thought to be more
different from their native- born counterparts than are longer- term residents who may have
assimilated more. We opted to interview 20- to 40- year- olds because they were thought to
represent average working- age adults. Both the age and residency limitations served to remove
some of the diversifying characteristics across focus group participants, increasing the chances
that those within the group would have somewhat common experiences to serve as a platform for
discussion. These limitations also made more meaningful any differences we might find across
participants within this bracket. That is, if we found differences, we would know that they were
not due to extreme variation in age or length of residency.
1.1.2 Geographic focus within California
We selected six different locations within California in which to conduct the focus groups
interviews. These locations were selected to represent different types of settings in which
Mexican immigrants live in California, both urban settings with diversified economies and
relatively good transit service to exurban or small urban areas with limited transit service and an
agriculturally oriented economy; we also aimed for a balance between communities in northern
and southern California. Within these settings, we selected specific areas with high numbers
and/ or concentrations of recent Mexican immigrants. We identified these communities using data
from the 2000 U. S. Census on the foreign- born from Mexico and on Hispanics that do not speak
9
English or do not speak English well. The availability of focus group facilities also influenced
the choice of specific communities within targeted regions.
The following six locations were selected as sites for the focus- group interviews for this
study; Census data for each of the six locations chosen ( citywide) and for the state are shown in
Table 1.
• Los Angeles: Los Angeles was included to help represent the experience of those living in
a large city and because it has some of the highest numbers and concentrations of Mexican
immigrants in the state. In particular, Census data indicate that residents of Hispanic origin
make up 46 percent and Mexican immigrants 17 percent of the city’s total population.
About a third of the city’s Hispanic residents speak English “ not well” or “ not at all.” We
recruited focus group participants from the area of South Los Angeles, south of the Santa
Monica Freeway and east of the San Diego Freeway, where Mexican immigrants are
found in high numbers and in high concentrations, and the share of Hispanic residents who
do not speak English well or at all is also high.
• San Jose: San Jose was chosen as an urban setting in Northern California with a high
number and concentration of Mexican immigrants. The share of residents of Hispanic
origin is about equal to that of the state as a whole, as is the share of Mexican immigrants.
The Santa Clara Valley, where San Jose is located, has an extensive transit system,
including an expanding light- rail system and commuter rail.
• Fresno: Fresno was included to represent the experience of immigrants living in a small
urban area with limited transit service in the San Joaquin Valley, where residents of
Hispanic origin make up more than 40 percent of the total population ( in the eight counties
south of Sacramento in the Central Valley). In many Census tracts in this area, foreign-born
Hispanics are 25 to 50 percent of the population and in some they are 100 percent of
the population. Mexican immigrants are the vast majority of the Hispanic population and
live throughout the Valley, with a larger population in the southern counties. Fresno
County has the highest number of Mexican immigrants, concentrated in the city of Fresno.
• Riverside: Riverside was included to represent the rapidly growing Inland Empire ( usually
defined as covering the western half of Riverside County and the southwest corner of San
Bernardino County), in which there area are many enclaves of Mexican immigrants.
Although Riverside itself has a lower percentage of Mexican immigrants than do smaller
towns nearby, the availability of a focus group facility made Riverside the most practical
location in this region.
• Stockton: Stockton was included as a small urban area in Northern California with limited
transit service. Indeed, transit access to the focus group site ( in this case, a hotel rather
than a professional focus group facility) was poor, and no truly car- less participants
attended the car- less session ( see sections 1.1.4 and 2.1). For this reason, a sixth location,
Sacramento, was added, where an additional car- less session was held.
• Sacramento: In order to replace the problematic car- less group in Stockton, Sacramento
was identified as a nearby alternate location where enough transit service is available that
a car- less group could be recruited. While Sacramento is considerably larger than
Stockton ( explaining the more extensive transit service available), it is a smaller urban
10
area than San Jose or Los Angeles. Of the six focus group sites, Sacramento has the lowest
share of Mexican immigrants and Hispanic population more generally.
.
Table 1. Citywide population statistics for six focus- group cities, 2000
City
Type of
setting
Total
population
Foreign-born
share
of total
Mexican-born
share
of total
Hispanic/
Latino share
of total
Share of Hispanics
who don’t speak
English well a
Fresno Small urban 427,224 20% 11% 35% 18%
Los
Angeles
Large urban
3,694,834 41% 17% 42% 33%
Riverside Exurban 255,093 20% 12% 34% 19%
Sacramento Medium urban 407,075 20% 6% 19% 16%
San Jose Large urban 893,889 37% 11% 27% 23%
Stockton Small urban 242,714 24% 10% 28% 21%
California 33,871,648 26% 12% 29% 25%
a Share of Hispanics over age 5 who report speaking English “ not well” or “ not at all.”
Source: Census 2000, Summary File 3.
1.1.3 Car- owning and car- less groups
Previous research suggests that one of the most important predictors of transportation choices is
auto ownership ( e. g. Pucher and Renne 2003). Indeed, it seemed likely that households with
access to a car might have different experiences with transportation than those without, and that
somewhat different discussions would be appropriate with these two different groups. In
addition, auto ownership is a particularly interesting issue for immigrants because the financial
and administrative hurdles necessary to obtain and drive a car may be particularly difficult for
many immigrants to overcome; they tend to have lower incomes, are new to the administrative
framework in the U. S., and may not know how to drive.
For these reasons, we chose to conduct separate focus group interviews with participants who
had at least one car in their households and those who did not. Holding separate groups allowed
us to better tailor the conversation in each group to the participants’ individual transportation
experiences and to explore in more detail the process of auto ownership from the perspective of
each of these two types of residents.
1.1.4 Site selection and participant recruitment
An outside firm was selected to conduct the focus groups based on the expertise they would
bring to the process. In particular, the firm was contracted to recruit and facilitate the meetings in
Spanish, select and secure local meeting sites, video and audio record the proceedings, transcribe
the proceedings, and translate transcriptions of the proceedings into English. The firm, TMD
Inc., of Sacramento, has worked for the Department of Motor Vehicles and other state agencies,
and has extensive experience conducting focus groups in Spanish and in communities throughout
California.
The focus group sessions were held either in mid- morning or mid- afternoon on Saturdays
between June and September 2006 ( see Table 2). The World Cup soccer matches coincided with
the originally scheduled dates of some of the early sessions, including the two June 10 sessions
in Los Angeles ( games that day included England v. Paraguay, Trinidad & Tobago v. Sweden,
and Argentina v. Ivory Coast). Once this conflict was discovered, all other sessions were
postponed until after the conclusion of the World Cup.
11
Table 2. Chronology of focus group sessions
Group Day Date
Los Angeles
( car- owning and car- less)
Saturday June 10, 2006
Stockton
( car- owning only)
Saturday July 15, 2006
San Jose
( car- owning and car- less)
Saturday July 22, 2006
Fresno
( car- owning and car- less)
Saturday July 29, 2006
Riverside
( car- owning and car- less)
Saturday August 5, 2006
Sacramento
( car- less only)
Saturday August 12, 2006
Sites for the meetings were selected based on several criteria, including the existence of a
facility that could accommodate the focus group sessions and vicinity to Mexican- immigrant
neighborhoods. Census data were used to identify formal focus group facilities located in the
heart of the high- density Mexican immigrant areas in each of the six cities. A subcontractor
recruited participants over the phone from the areas surrounding their facilities, so that
respondents would have an easy time attending the groups. All were located close to freeway
access and on bus lines. The one location in which a formal focus group facility was not
available was in Stockton, where a hotel meeting room was used instead. While an attempt was
made to select a location close to freeway and bus stops, transit access to the Stockton meeting
was poor. It was the only city in which a participant requested assistance with transportation
( paid roundtrip taxi fare); it was also the one location in which car- less participants did not show
( for this reason, an addition car- less session was held in Sacramento; see section 2.1).
From the selected area, potential participants were recruited from lists of phone numbers
corresponding to Hispanic last names in each area. Upon reaching a person on the phone, the
recruiters, following a screener script, described the nature of the study and asked if they had
permission to ask a few questions to see if the potential participant qualified. The recruiters then
screened potential participants for age (“ Are you between 20 and 40 years of age?”), whether
they had immigrated to the U. S. from Mexico in the last ten years (“ Did you come here from
Mexico within the last ten years?”), and whether they or someone in their household has a car
(“ Do you or does someone in your household have a car?”). If the potential participants met the
qualifying criteria, they were then also asked a few additional questions for research purposes
relating to household composition, comfort with English, ability to drive, income level, and
length of residence in the U. S. ( zero to five years or five to ten years). Qualifying participants
were then informed of the time and place of the meeting on an up- coming Saturday, informed of
the $ 75 incentive to participate, described ways to get more information about the study, and
then asked whether they intended to participate. ( A copy of the English version of the screener
script used to recruit and screen participants is attached as Appendix A; the actual recruitment
was conducted in Spanish.)
In this way, the focus group facilities recruited 15 persons with the goal of having 12 show,
calling as many numbers as they needed to and stopping once they reached their goal. While we
hoped to draw “ average” people from the target population for participants in the study, no effort
was made to recruit a statistically significantly representative sample, since the sample size was
12
too small for statistical significance and because it was intended to be a qualitative exploration
rather than quantitative investigation.
There were two problems that may have complicated the recruitment of eligible participants.
First, although the $ 75 incentive was not mentioned until the end of the recruitment interview,
participants may have been able to guess that an incentive would be offered, and therefore may
have tried to answer the screening questions according to what they guessed the requisite
qualifications were rather than answering them truthfully. This problem was difficult to avoid
and is especially common when recruiting low- income participants, as we were in this study. We
discuss the potential extent of this problem in this study in section 2.1. Another potential
problem in collecting information about participants in this study was their possible discomfort
about revealing certain types of information, if they were nervous about their own or their family
or household- members’ legal status. We took several measures to help encourage contacts to
answer honestly and to participate freely, including assurance during the recruitment phone call
that their answers would be kept confidential, that their contact information would not be
retained in order to protect their identities, and that they could participate using a pseudonym if
they wished ( see Appendix A).
1.1.5 Focus group facilitation and discussion content
We developed separate facilitation guides for the non- car and the car groups to cover the issues
of interest for each type of group. The facilitation guides ensure sufficient consistency across
groups while still leaving participants in each group some room to express themselves freely.
The general line of questioning in each group reflected the purpose of the study indicated above,
including the types of transportation modes used, how often and for what purposes they were
used, and what was perceived to be good and bad about each. We also specifically asked
participants to discuss how they got to work and to grocery shopping, and if there were any
places that were hard for participants to get to in general. Each session concluded with asking
participants to recommend transportation- related changes that would make their lives easier. The
facilitation guides were developed by the researchers in English, then translated into Spanish for
use in the groups. Copies of the original English versions are attached as Appendix B and
Appendix C.
While the facilitation guides were designed to structure the interviews more or less
identically across sessions ( with some planned differences between car groups and non- car
groups), this ideal was neither possible nor desirable. Inevitably, each session would be unique.
Given the fact that the format of focus group interviewing lends itself better to fluid discussion
rather than rigid surveying, the researchers left it to the session facilitator to balance the goals of
sticking to the planned guide and following leads spontaneously when the group hit on
something not necessarily scripted but potentially valuable to the overall scope of the study. The
facilitator also deviated from the guide when it was clear that an alternative line of questioning or
phrasing would more effectively elicit participant discussion. Sessions that were chronologically
later in the study benefited from the facilitator’s growing experience with the script ( see schedule
in Table 2). In all sessions, the facilitator made every effort to cover at least the major points in
the guide. To ensure that these challenges were well handled, the facilitator chosen was an
experienced professional. She was fluent in Spanish and had an Hispanic family, although she
was born and raised in the United States. The same facilitator was used for all focus group
sessions.
13
Throughout each session, the facilitator and the participants spoke into microphones, such
that in another room separated by one- way glass a translator could listen to the proceedings and
perform a live translation. Audio and video recordings of the proceedings ( in Spanish) as well as
an audio recording of the live translation ( in English) were retained for each session. Textual
transcriptions of the translations were later generated and used as the primary content to be
analyzed by the researchers.
1. 2 Analysis process
The purpose of this analysis was to synthesize in the content of the ten focus group discussions.
We provide qualitative summaries based on our subjective assessments of the content of the
discussions, in addition to some systematic counts of participants’ comments relating to various
themes.
The first step in the analysis process was to read through all ten transcripts and to compose
an initial summary of all points raised in the discussions. This initial analysis alerted us to
certain themes and helped us in determining what sorts of topics would lend themselves to more
systematic quantification of the numbers of occurrences of different viewpoints or themes. We
identified a tentative list of topics to explore more systematically and continued to revise and
amend this list over the course of the analysis process.
For each topic identified for more systematic exploration ( for example, “ advantages of
transit”), we read through each transcript from beginning to end, tagging participant comments
deemed related to the topic as they came across them. In particular, we copied any quotes judged
to be relevant to a designated topic from the transcripts ( as electronic documents) into an Excel
spreadsheet, keeping track of its source ( using a letter code to indicate which focus group and a
number to indicate the line number in the transcript on which the text began). We allowed quotes
to be copied into more than one column ( that is, to be relevant to more than one topic). We
attempted to include as much context as was relevant for a given quote, including facilitator
comments and/ or an exchange between multiple speakers. Brackets [ example] were used to
represent comments by the facilitator and paraphrasing by the researchers. Ellipses (…) were
used to indicate omitted transcript text. Double slashes (//) were used indicate a change in
speaker.
The process resulted in an Excel spreadsheet with topics labeled horizontally across the top,
and with individual comments listed vertically in each column. We continued to review this
Excel document to check for comments that did not belong in a given column ( moving them to
another column or removing them altogether) and for comments that should also belong in
another column ( making an additional copy), with the goal of sorting comments by column as
accurately and comprehensively as possible.
Once comments were sorted by column, we were able to conduct further analysis within each
topic ( e. g. “ advantages of transit”), grouping comments within a column according to what main
point( s) they convey ( e. g. “ is inexpensive”). These groupings provided a way for the researchers
to review comments by session and by subject matter— a more condensed and systematic review
of the content than the raw transcripts themselves. In particular, we generated qualitative
summaries of the points raised in each category, and then we also conducted systematic checks
of which points were raised in each focus group and made rough counts of the frequency that
certain topics were discussed within each focus group. These counts enabled more quantitative
assessments of the content of the sessions and are presented throughout this report. However,
14
measures of frequency should be interpreted with caution, since frequencies do not necessarily
reflect the importance of a topic or the extent of agreement among the participants on a given
topic. In particular, it is unknown how many participants silently concurred with a given
comment ( if everyone agreed, the comment may be only said once; alternatively, a minority view
may be over- represented by a particularly vocal participant) ( Krueger and Casey 2000). For this
reason, we also indicated how many groups mentioned a topic at least once, as a rough measure
of the extensiveness of a theme.
2 RESULTS
2 .1 Participant profile
We intended that all participants have these characteristics in common: from Mexico,
immigrated to the United States within the last ten years, someone ( or no one) in the participants’
households owned a car, for the car- owning ( or car- less) groups, and between the ages of 20 and
40. In addition to confirming whether these screening characteristics were met, we also
examined additional demographic characteristics for the participants, including gender,
household income level, household size, presence of children, whether participants could speak
or read English, whether participants were able to drive, and whether participants had
immigrated more recently ( within the last 5 years) or somewhat less recently ( within the last 5 to
10 years).
The screener script and the facilitation guides were designed to collect this information
during the recruitment phone call or in a round of introductions at the beginning of each focus
group, respectively. However, there were several issues that made collecting accurate, detailed
information difficult. One issue was the possibility of participants lying during the recruitment
phone call in order to be eligible for the $ 75 offered to all participants. Another issue was the
possibility of participants feeling uncomfortable answering certain questions if they were
nervous about their legal status or that of their family members. A final issue was that focus-groups
are designed to be more of a discussion than a survey and to gather qualitative rather than
statistically significantly quantitative data; it would have been time consuming ( and perhaps
counterproductive, if participants felt intimidated) to meticulously draw out each respondent’s
answer to any given question during the session.
As it turned out, the screening criteria confirmed over the phone did not necessarily hold for
those participating in the sessions. In particular, a few participants indicated living in the United
States longer than ten years, being from countries other than Mexico ( just one participant, from
Guatemala), and either owning or not owning a car counter to expectations. This issue was
discovered after the first few sessions, following which the facilitator began re- screening
participants at the outset of each focus group for the three most important criteria ( Mexican
origin, years in the U. S., and auto ownership). The few participants who did not meet the criteria
were excused and still offered the $ 75 incentive. There was also some discrepancy between the
first names of participants who were expected to show and the names participants used to
introduce themselves at the outset of the sessions. This may have been in response to our
invitation to use pseudonyms if they wished, or it may indicate that different individuals showed
than were recruited over the phone ( e. g. perhaps another family member was sent). At least in
one case, a participant brought her sister to also participate. For all of these reasons, we have
some reason to doubt the correspondence between the information collected over the phone and
15
actual facts about the participants in the sessions. When a discrepancy existed, we assumed that
information given live in the focus group was more accurate than that recorded during the
recruitment process. But in many cases, the overall picture was somewhat incomplete.
Despite these issues, the available information suggests that almost all participants met the
screening criteria as summarized here:
• From Mexico: Participants were screened for this criterion during the telephone
recruitment with the question, “ Did you come here from Mexico within the last ten years?”
In addition, in most groups, participants were asked where they were from during the
round of introductions. The facilitators identified one non- Mexican in this process, a
Guatemalan in the car- less Sacramento group who was excused at the outset. All other
responses received confirmed Mexican origin, but the question was not asked in the car-owning
Los Angeles group, and there was not 100- percent response from all participants
who were asked, with a total of 15 unknowns scattered among the 89 participants in the
other nine focus groups.
• Immigrated within the last ten years: For eight of the ten groups ( all except the two Los
Angeles groups), participants were screened during the telephone recruitment by the
question “ Did you come here from Mexico within the last ten years?” and were later asked
“ Would you say you’ve lived in this country less than five years or five to ten years?” In
addition, during the round of introductions at the outset of each meeting, participants were
asked to indicate how long they had been here, with the exception of the car- owning group
in Los Angeles, in which the question was omitted. As mentioned, there were some
discrepancies between the information collected in advance and that provided by the
participants during the focus group interviews. Assuming that the latter is more accurate,
we present these responses in Table 3. There were three groups that contained participants
who had lived in the United States longer than ten years. In one of these ( car- owning,
Fresno) the facilitator noted the violation and excused two participants who had lived here
for 20 and 25 years, respectively. However, there was one participant reporting 11 years in
the car- less Fresno group, one reporting 20 years in the car- owning San Jose group, and
four participants reporting 16, 20, 20, and 25 years in the car- owning Stockton group who
were allowed to participate. In addition, the question was not asked in the car- owning Los
Angeles group, and there was not 100- percent response from all participants who were
asked, with a total of eight unknowns scattered throughout the other nine focus groups.
• Car- ownership status: Recruiters attempted to screen participants over the phone such that
those in the car- owning groups all had someone in their households who owned a car, and
that those in the car- less groups had no one in their households who owned a car. This
distinction was chosen as one way of dividing those who had access to a vehicle and those
who did not. However, this distinction proved to be somewhat fuzzy. In particular, there
were some participants who had regular access to cars through frequent borrowing, but
technically neither they nor anyone that lived with them owned a car. On the flip side,
there were some participants who had household members who owned cars that were
either never or rarely available to them. In this way, participants’ access to vehicles could
occur in varying degrees. Separating participants into the two groups according to our
definition may have been somewhat arbitrary in some cases. Perhaps for this reason, there
were a few participants who had identified themselves as car- less, but later revealed
through the course of the discussion that others in their households owned cars. In one
16
group ( car- less Fresno) two such participants were discovered part- way through the
interview and excused. In another group ( car- less San Jose) two such participants were
discovered part- way through the interview and allowed to stay. An attempted car- less
group in Stockton attracted just four participants, all women, and all with vehicles in their
households. ( The results of this group’s discussion are not presented in this report. Some
possible explanations for the adverse turnout in this group may include the difficulty of
finding car- less participants in Stockton or, perhaps more likely, the difficulty of reaching
the site where the Stockton session was held without a car, since it was the only site in the
study that was not easily accessible by transit ( see section 1.1.4).
• Aged between 20 and 40: This criterion was screened for during the uring the recruitment
telephone call but not asked during the focus group. No records were kept on participants’
ages; however no extreme age variations were observed in the focus groups.
Table 3. Years since immigrating to the United States
Share of valid answers
Group
Total
participants
Valid
answers Range
Average
( years)
5 years
or less
5 to 10
years
more than
10 years
Car- owning 49 35 1 to 25 yrs 8.9 14% 71% 14%
Fresno 8 8 3 to 10 yrs 6.9 25% 75%
Los Angeles 13 0 n/ a n/ a n/ a n/ a n/ a
Riverside 10 10 9 mo to 10 yrs 6.3 30% 70%
San Jose 10 9 6 to 20 yrs 8.7 89% 11%
Stockton 8 8 6 to 25 yrs 14.5 50% 50%
Car- less 53 45 1 to 11 yrs 5.9 42% 53% 2%
Fresno 10 9 3 to 11 yrs 7.0 11% 67% 11%
Los Angeles 12 8 2 to 8 yrs 4.6 63% 38%
Riverside 9 9 6 mo to 10 yr/ s 5.9 33% 67%
San Jose 13 11 5 to 10 yrs 6.1 55% 45%
Sacramento 9 8 2 to 9 yrs 5.5 50% 50%
Total 102 80 1 to 25 yrs 7.2 30% 61% 8%
Table 4 summarizes demographic statistics for the participants, based on responses to
questions answered during the recruiting phone call; however, the aforementioned caveats about
the accuracy of these data should be kept in mind. In addition, the sample size and recruitment
process was not intended to generate a statistically significantly representative sample of the
target population. Even so, the information collected suggests several trends. First we note that
the recruited participants were predominantly low- income, as intended, with almost all
participants reporting annual household incomes less than $ 25,000. It is probably safe to assume
that in most cases, this amount supported a family rather than just an individual: when
introducing themselves, many discussed having spouses and children, with an average household
size of around 4 people ( although it was not always clear whether cohabitation implied a
financial unit; a few indicated renting a room in a unit with a larger group, and some indicated
having immediate family not living with them in the United States). According to the recruitment
data, around three- quarters of participants had children under age 18. Most did not speak or
understand English well, according to their own self assessments. While the recruiters attempted
to obtain groups with a balance of men and women, several groups were markedly unbalanced,
17
particularly the two Riverside groups. The car- owning Riverside group consisted entirely of 10
women, while the car- less Riverside group consisted of 8 women and 1 man. The reasons for the
unbalance in these groups are unknown, whether related to deficiencies in the recruitment
process in this region, or an indication that men in this region tend to work on Saturdays and
therefore were difficult to recruit for the Saturday- scheduled focus groups. A final observation
especially pertinent to transportation is that less than 100 percent of the participants from the car-owning
households reported knowing how to drive, and less than half of the car- less participants
reported knowing how to drive.
Table 4 . Approximate participant demographics, by focus group
Percent
Group
Total
participants Female
Able to
drive
With
children
< 1 8 yrs
Household
income
< $ 25,000
Household
income
<$ 35,000
Number
who speak
English
Car- owning 51 63% 90% 79% 71% 95% 9
Fresno b 10 50% 67% 89% 100% 100% n/ a
Los Angeles d 13 46% 100% 77% 69% 100% 1
Riverside c 10 100% 90% 100% 70% 90% 2
San Jose d 10 40% 100% 60% 50% 90% 3
Stockton b, c 8 88% n/ a 73% n/ a n/ a 3
Car- less 53 60% 24% 62% 89% 100% 7
Fresno 10 40% 40% 100% 90% 100% n/ a
Los Angeles d 12 67% 0% 50% 100% 100% 0
Riverside c 9 89% 56% 44% 89% 100% 3
San Jose b, c 13 54% 14% 57% 79% 100% 4
Sacramento 9 n/ a n/ a n/ a n/ a n/ a n/ a
Total a 104 62% 56% 72% 80% 98% 16
a Total percentages include only those groups for which values are available.
b Written records were not consistent with what is shown in video or written records ( 9 versus 10 in car- owning
Fresno; 15 versus 8 in car- owning Stockton; and 14 versus 13 in car- less San Jose). Data shown here for Total
Participants and Percent Female accurately represent numbers shown in video records, but all other data are
based on written records and therefore may deviate from actual group in unknown ways.
c Genders of participants were guessed based on the first names provided orally by participants.
d Genders of participants were guessed based on participant first names listed in the written records.
2 . 2 Transit
In this section we present results relating to transit use and experiences. Clearly, transit is an
important mode of transportation for this population, with extensive use among car- owning and
car- less participants. However, few participants, even those in the car- less groups, are entirely
transit dependent, finding that they cannot rely on transit to meet all of their transportation needs.
2.2.1 Transit use
The extent that participants used transit varied by auto- ownership group, by city, and by
individual. As might be expected, the car- less groups used transit more than did the car- owning
groups ( see Table 5). All five car- less groups had participants reporting daily use of transit,
compared to only two of the car- owning groups ( Los Angeles and Stockton) with participants
reporting daily use. In contrast, all five car- owning groups had participants who reported never
using transit, compared to only one car- less group ( Sacramento).
18
Table 5. Frequency of transit use by focus group
Groups with at least one participant who
indicated using transit at this frequency level
Car- owning groups Car- less groups
Frequency
Fresno
Los Angeles
Riverside
San Jose
Stockton
Total
Fresno
Los Angeles
Riverside
San Jose
Sacramento
Total
Never      5  1
Sometimes ( less than 1 time per week)      5    3
Weekly ( 1 to 3 times per week)   2      5
Almost daily ( 4 or more times per week)   2      5
Total 5 5
Transit use was lowest among the car- owning groups in Fresno and San Jose, where almost
none of the car- owners used transit regularly anymore, although several said they used to use it
before getting a car. In contrast, in Riverside, Stockton, and especially Los Angeles, at least
some of the car- owning participants still used transit regularly, while others used it less often. As
one indicator, none of the car- owners used transit to commute ( all commuted by car) in Riverside
and Stockton and most reported usually grocery shopping by car, too; in comparison, in Los
Angeles a few car- owning participants commuted regularly by transit and about half of the group
usually went to the grocery store by some means other than a private vehicle ( see sections 2.6
and 2.7).
In the car- less groups, all had used transit at least once and almost all continued to rely on it
regularly to some extent. In four of the five car- less groups ( all except Fresno), everyone usually
commuted by some mode other than a private vehicle, most taking transit and some walking.
However, participants in Riverside seemed to frequently get rides, and many knew travel times
for various modes to work ( e. g. around 20 minutes by bus versus 7 or 8 minutes by car). Only
two car- less participants in Fresno used transit to get to work. With respect to grocery shopping,
only a few car- less participants conducted entirely car- less shopping, with most reporting using a
mix of strategies including getting rides, borrowing cars, riding transit, walking, getting friends
with cars to shop for them, and utilizing store- provided shuttles.
Thus, while transit was clearly an important mode for many in this population, even
participants who did not own cars were not entirely transit dependent in the sense that for many,
not all of their transportation needs were fulfilled by transit. For some, significant needs, such as
getting to work and to shopping, were not completed by transit or on foot.
2.2.2 Advantages and disadvantages of transit
Both the car and no- car groups discussed the advantages and disadvantages of transit, as
prompted by the facilitators. We tagged a total of 75 comments relating to advantages of public
transit, with 44 and 27 among car- owning and car- less participants, respectively ( Table 6); and a
total of 274 comments relating to disadvantages of public transit, with 125 and 149 among car-owning
and car- less participants, respectively ( Table 7). The results suggested that the
participants’ primary concerns with respect to transit were practical, both with respect to its
advantages and its disadvantages.
19
Table 6. Comments identifying advantages of transit
Car- owning groups Car- less groups
Comments Comments
Attribute Number* Share*
Number of
groups Number* Share*
Number of
groups
Saves money 12 27% 3 12 44% 4
Gets you there 6 14% 3 8 30% 5
Physically comfortable 5 11% 5 7 26% 4
Relaxing or easy 11 25% 3 0 0
Provides good service; is convenient 3 7% 2 5 19% 3
Enables independence 6 14% 2 1 4% 1
No parking 5 11% 1 0 0
Safer from traffic accidents 3 7% 1 1 4% 1
No police / license issues 2 5% 2 2 7% 2
Kids like it 3 7% 2 0 0
No navigation / driving ability needed 2 5% 1 1 4% 1
Pleasantly social 2 5% 2 1 4% 1
Keeps you on schedule 2 5% 1 0 0
No risk of car breakdowns or damage 2 5% 1 0 0
Environmentally friendly 1 2% 1 0 0
Encourages more exercise 1 2% 1 0 0
Total 44 100% 5 27 100% 5
* Numbers may not sum to total and shares may not sum to 100% since each comment may be counted in more
than one category.
The one advantage cited most frequently and in seven of the ten groups was that transit was
an inexpensive option, compared to driving or getting a ride ( and contributing gas money).
However, to put this perk in perspective, the cost of transit was also seen as a drawback for some
( also discussed in seven of the ten groups), when compared to walking, or when traveling with
children, since fare was charged per person. Another basic feature of transit that participants
acknowledged frequently was that it did indeed get them places that they may not have another
good way to get to. Furthermore, more than half of the groups had participants that went on to
say that service was good and convenient.
Almost all the groups ( nine of ten) discussed aspects of riding transit that were physically
comfortable, noting features such as pleasantly cool air- conditioning and the ability to sit and
rest while riding on the bus. There were also some aspects of transit that offered mental relief.
Several car- owning groups discussed that it felt relaxing and easy to take transit, presumably
compared to driving. Some other sources of relief included not having to find and pay for
parking, not having to worry about being stopped by the police or having a driver’s license, not
needing to navigate or even know how to drive, and not worrying about your car breaking down
or being damaged in any way during the trip. One participant described the feeling of riding the
bus instead of driving by explaining, “ You aren’t stressed, you relax, you’re just looking. You
get to work and you’re relaxed” ( Car- owning, Riverside). Two groups had participants who felt
that riding the bus was safer than driving; one participant noted, “ Buses hardly ever crash” ( Car-owning,
Los Angeles).
There were also some personal and social advantages cited. In particular, three groups had
participants who discussed the element of independence that transit provided them. They enjoyed
being able to go places without asking for rides. One participant explained, “ I believe that, for
me, it was a nice experience. I felt that I learned a lot about this country, being able to go places,
20
not to be at home” ( Car- owning, Riverside). Some participants described the pleasure of
socializing on the bus. For example, one participant explained that her son “ has enjoyed getting
on the bus… because all the students are taking the bus right now in order to get home” ( Car-owning,
Stockton). Another reminisced, “ We used to talk to the bus driver. He used to know
us... it really was a pleasant time riding the bus” ( Car- owning, Riverside). Some parents indicated
that their children enjoyed riding the bus. Two drivers missed the discipline of living by the bus
schedules, feeling that they waste more time when left to their own devices; one thought riding
the bus also encouraged more exercise and walking.
There were many more comments describing disadvantages of transit than advantages ( 176
versus 75 comments, see Table 7). Furthermore, the same issues were mentioned repeatedly
throughout most of the focus groups, suggesting both consensus and strong feeling on many of
these issues. The most prevalent set of disadvantages cited by participants were related to serious
shortfalls in the quality of service provided by transit that would make it challenging for anyone
to be transit dependent. Indeed, the shortcomings participants encountered seemed to inhibit
many from relying on transit alone to fulfill all of their basic needs for mobility. See also
sections 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8 for further discussion of challenges associated with using transit for
commuting, grocery shopping, and other transportation needs.
Table 7. Comments identifying disadvantages of transit
Car- owning groups Car- less groups
Comments Comments
Issue Number* Share*
Number
of groups Number* Share*
Number
of groups
Takes so long; have to wait 35 28% 4 41 28% 5
Routes are limited; stops are far away 18 14% 4 26 17% 5
Frequency is limited 25 20% 4 17 11% 5
Doesn't stick to schedule; easy to miss 20 16% 4 21 14% 5
Not good for certain companions 12 10% 4 24 16% 5
Schedule is limited 17 14% 4 17 11% 4
Expensive 8 6% 3 18 12% 4
Lack of information 10 8% 3 16 11% 4
Exposure to the elements 10 8% 4 10 7% 3
Drivers are rude, discriminatory, or
inconsistent 7 6% 3 12 8% 5
Hassle to tend packages and children 2 2% 2 16 11% 5
Risk of crime, assault, or harassment 3 2% 1 13 9% 4
Physically uncomfortable inside 10 8% 1 6 4% 3
Need to learn routes 12 10% 3 2 1% 2
Full or crowded 5 4% 4 8 5% 4
Unreliability of service cuts and
changes, strikes 1 1% 1 9 6% 4
Transfers aren't smooth 6 5% 4 4 3% 3
Weirdoes or rude people 7 6% 3 2 1% 2
Need for exact change 4 3% 2 1 1% 1
Hard to trip- chain 2 2% 2 2 1% 1
Traffic congestion; not enough bus lanes 4 3% 2 0 0
Fear of reckless driving; safety concerns 1 1% 1 1 1% 1
Risk of falling asleep, missing stops 1 1% 1 1 1% 1
Total 125 100% 5 149 100% 5
* Numbers may not sum to total and shares may not sum to 100% since each comment may be counted in more
than one category.
21
The most common complaints about transit was how long it took and how much waiting was
required. Like most travelers, participants minded the experience of waiting itself, but also
attested to lengthy travel times once on board. Some of the other items in Table 7 delineate some
of the underlying reasons that transit would take so long, including infrequent service, lengthy
transfers, indirect routes, traffic congestion, and stops that were far from participants’ ultimate
destinations.
Another major problem with transit was that it was found to be unreliable. Participants
reported that buses did not stick to their schedules, making the bus hard to catch and making it
difficult for participants to arrive at their final destinations at a specific time. There were also
many other elements of unreliability, including buses reaching capacity and then skipping stops
and refusing new passengers; confusion about different driver’s policies about pickup locations;
temporary service changes that were not understood in advance; the possibility of transit strikes;
and permanent service cuts.
Participants described service limitations by time of day, by frequency, by service area, and
by capacity. Participants complained that buses did not go to many of the places they needed to
go, especially work sites. For some, the nearest bus stops to home and other destinations were
rather far, and so they found themselves walking great distances to get to the bus. For others,
buses did not run late enough in the morning or evening to serve their needs, such as early-morning,
late- night, and third shift work schedules. Others complained of limited bus service on
the weekend, when many did work, or if they did not work, when it was the only time they had
to do things outside of work, such as shop, run errands, go on recreational outings, visit libraries,
or attend religious services. Participants in eight of the ten focus groups complained of
insufficient capacity on buses, such that they sometimes could not board, they could not sit, or
they could not board with a bicycle, adding another dimension of unreliability. The problem of
being passed by a late or full bus was mentioned repeatedly in both groups in both Los Angeles
and Riverside. When asked how many participants had experienced this problem in the car- free
group in Riverside almost all responded affirmatively.
Participants also described a number of attributes associated with riding transit that made it
uncomfortable or unsafe. In particular, participants frequently described the discomfort of
accessing and waiting for transit in hot sun and rainy weather, without shelter at transit stops.
They minded the physical hassle of tending to packages on transit, especially while boarding,
and especially if children were in tow. Some felt that the vehicles themselves were
uncomfortable, or they didn’t like having to stand or having to negotiate paying fare when the
bus was already moving. Some reported dirty buses, including foul smells, urine, and vomit.
Participants reported the discomfort of dealing with strange people on the bus or while waiting at
stops. Participants also discussed what they perceived to be driver rudeness or even racial
discrimination, and the inconvenience of needing exact change to board the bus. With respect to
safety, four out of five of the car- less groups ( and one of the car- owning groups) discussed
concerns about crime and assault while using transit. Multiple participants in multiple groups had
witnessed assaults or had been assaulted themselves while riding or accessing transit ( mostly
resulting in theft; once at gunpoint). In addition, two groups had participants who felt that the bus
itself was dangerous, for example due to reckless driving or lack of seatbelts.
The process of familiarizing oneself with the system and its routes was mentioned in half the
groups, and other lack- of- information problems were mentioned in seven of the ten groups,
including issues such as wanting to know in real time what was happening when a bus did not
22
show at its scheduled time. Some participants indicated that because they didn’t use the bus
often, they didn’t know the routes very well, which kept them from even using it on occasion.
For others, any anxiety about learning to ride the bus seemed to be conflated with not knowing
the city in general. In several of the groups, the facilitator pressed participants to assess their
awareness of means of obtaining transit information. It seemed that most participants were well
aware of how to obtain schedules and look up bus information. While some expressed preference
for information to be available in Spanish, its lack was not a barrier to taking transit. Most
participants seemed to be able to figure out the system, especially if written materials were
available. Participants learned routes by studying published schedule booklets, noticing what
buses they saw on the streets where they wanted to go, and asking friends or family who were
more familiar with the system for help. Several participants described frustration with telephone
information lines: that the number didn’t work, that they didn’t have useful information, and one
expressed a wish to be able to speak to someone in Spanish over the phone. Several participants
described challenges associated with the inability to verbally ask informational questions of the
bus driver while on the bus, due to the language barrier. This issue was particular problematic if
something out of the ordinary occurred during the ride, such as a temporary service change or
other event announced only in English.
One participant explained learning to use the bus as follows:
• “ I’ll confess, the first time I took the bus even my stomach hurt. I didn’t know where to
get off. I was riding the bus, but I was just looking to see where I had to get off. As soon as
I saw a church that I knew I pressed the button and he dropped me off about two stops
before, so I had to go around and around and I couldn’t find the house. So I got off way
before where I was supposed to. So my stomach was really hurting, but I learned that it
had to be two stops afterwards. So the next time I knew where to get off” – Car- owning,
Riverside.
While the relative low cost of transit was its chief advantage, cost was still a significant
concern for many— all five car- less groups and four out of five of the car- owning groups
discussed the expense of transit as a disadvantage that sometimes provided reason enough to
choose to walk, drive, or stay home instead of paying transit fare. Some participants with
families found traveling by bus with children to be particularly expensive. Example perspectives
included the following:
• “ I have to walk because before the bus used to charge less. I don’t work, only my husband.
So we don’t have a lot of money. Before, the bus was less expensive. Now it’s more
expensive, because you take your children with you and you have to pay a $ 1.25 per child
. . . to take the bus you have to pay $ 10 every time you go out” – Car- less, Riverside.
• “ The bus is expensive, the day bus is $ 5.25 and sometimes you have to think about it and
there’s four of us and it makes a really hard on me because I don’t really have that much.
But still, it’s just— well, do I rather walk or do I take a bus?” – Car- less, San Jose.
• “ One of the reasons I don’t take the bus is because I say I have to pay for the three
children and for my fare. And with a car I don’t have to pay that much” – Car- owning, Los
Angeles.
• “ Since we don’t earn a lot, we have to walk” – Car- less, Los Angeles.
23
Many of the disadvantages associated with transit interacted with one another, compounding
the inconvenience experienced by the traveler. For example, unreliability exacerbated the burden
of waiting: Passengers felt that since the bus could be either early or late, they had to get to the
stops early in order to be sure to catch the bus, meaning extra waiting. The infrequency of
service meant that missing the bus was high- stakes, if the next one would not come for another
half hour, hour, or more. Limited numbers of routes meant that getting to a particular destination
was more likely to require an indirect path and one or more transfers, multiplying both the travel
time and the uncertainty with successfully catching a bus for each leg of the journey. Safety
concerns made waiting for a bus at night particularly unsettling.
Discussing the transit service in the U. S. inspired some participants to make comparisons
with transit services in Mexico. Participants were quick to point out the superiority of transit in
Mexico, explaining “ it’s done differently” there. Participants specifically mentioned frequency of
service, multiplicity of routes so that each is more direct, the provision of bus shelters, and more
personal safety. Participants were savvy about possible reasons for differences between the two
countries, explaining, that deficiencies in U. S. transit services were “ understandable because in
this country… the main transportation is a car” ( Car- less, Riverside). Another explained, that “ in
Mexico— because there’s a greater demand there’s more buses, there’s more routes” ( Car-owning,
Stockton) and “ because hardly anybody has cars down there, so it’s different… there’s
many more people that depend on the bus” ( Car- owning, Stockton). Others expressed some
disbelief and frustration that better service wasn’t provided in such a wealthy country. For
example, one participant mused, “ I believe it’s incredible because this is such a rich country and
there can’t be a bus over on Jurupa?” ( Car- less, Riverside). Another explained, “ We’re
wondering why we don’t get bus coverings,” noting a new bus stop in downtown Stockton that
was established without constructing a shelter, saying that it’s not like Mexico where “ they don’t
have the money to do something about it” ( Car- owning, Stockton).
2 . 3 Private vehicles
Throughout the focus group discussions, most participants seemed to consider driving the most
preferred mode of transportation. A range of reasons for this preference come through in various
sections of this report, including the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of driving
versus other modes, in addition to section 2.3.2, which discusses the types of destinations for
which participants think cars are needed. Given the perceived superiority of the driving mode
and the desire or need to function independently from others, it is not hard to understand wanting
to buy a car. As one car- less Riverside resident explained, “ The car is a necessity here. Which
one of us doesn’t want a car? It’s what we are thinking about. That’s our purpose” ( Car- less,
Riverside).
Although there was general agreement that everyone would like to have a car and drive, there
were also some participants that indicated that they only wanted to drive because they had to.
The theme of driving as a necessity was prevalent in both the car- owning and car- less groups,
with many participants saying things like, “ Here it’s— driving a car is a necessity, it’s not for
enjoyment” ( Car- less, Riverside), “ I don’t like to drive, but I have to” ( Car- owning, Fresno),
“ I’m driving it because it’s necessary” ( Car- less, Los Angeles), and “ the car is indispensable”
( Car- owning, Los Angeles). Some of the groups discussed the big picture of the transportation
systems in the United States versus Mexico, why they think it makes sense to drive here even
though they relied on transit in Mexico (“ In this country . . . the main transportation is a car,”
24
Car- less, Riverside), and how it might be difficult to make transit services as favorably
competitive with private vehicles in U. S. cities as they are in Mexico.
2.3.1 Private vehicle use
Private vehicles were used frequently by participants in all the groups, since many participants in
car- less households received rides and borrowed cars. Indeed, with respect to their use of cars,
we found that the dividing line between members of car- owning and car- less households could
be blurry. There were some in car- owning households who did not know how to drive and rarely
used the car that someone in their households owned. In their day- to- day transportation choices,
these participants may have had more in common with someone who doesn’t own a car.
Conversely, some participants in car- less households regularly received rides or borrowed cars as
often as daily; these participants may have had more in common with members of car- owning
households. But despite this ambiguity of household ownership as a representation of what was
evidently a spectrum of access to vehicles, the crossover cases ( that is, car- owners who don’t
drive at all and car- less participants who do so frequently) were the minority not the majority. Of
the car- owning participants 41 of 49 ( about 84 percent) reported driving regularly, with a low of
about three- quarters in Stockton and Los Angeles and a high of 100 percent in Fresno ( see Table
8). Overall, just less than half of the participants from car- owning households had a car all to
themselves, that is, reporting that they had one or more cars per driver in their households. As
another potential indicator of participants’ relationships with driving, it was evident that few— at
least less than half— had driver’s licenses, although some reported driving with a Mexican
driver’s license.
Table 8 . Extent of car ownership and driver’s licenses among car- owning groups
One car per driver in
the household
Have driven in
the last month
Have a driver’s
Car- owning license a
group
Total
participants Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Fresno 8 5 63% 8 100% 1 13%
Los Angeles 13 5 38% 10 77% 4 31%
Riverside 10 3 30% 8 80% 4 40%
San Jose 10 5 50% 9 90% n/ a n/ a
Stockton 8 3 38% 6 75% n/ a n/ a
Total a 49 21 43% 41 84% 9 29%
a In some cases, there was ambiguity as to whether the discussion referred to California driver’s licenses or Mexican
driver’s licenses. Some participants may possess Mexican driver’s licenses that were not reported; therefore these
figures may under- estimate the number of legal drivers. The issue was not discussed in San Jose or Stockton. The
subtotal figures only include those groups for which information is available.
We did not collect systematic counts of how many participants in the car- less groups knew
how to drive, nor the frequency that they did drive, but it was evident that there were some
regular borrowers as well as some who never borrowed in all of the groups. Borrowing cars
seemed the least common among the car- less participants in Los Angeles. In four out of five of
the car- less groups, the discussions made clear that none of the participants had driver’s licenses;
in the remaining group, Los Angeles, it also seemed that few had driver’s licenses.
While there were many who were reluctant to borrow cars, in contrast there were almost no
participants who reported never getting rides, though some indicated that it was rare for them to
get a ride. Getting rides seemed to be a major means of getting around for both the car- owning
and car- less participants. Many participants had regular arrangements or casual arrangements for
getting frequent rides.
25
2.3.2 Destinations in private vehicles, or Why a car is needed
An important aspect to understanding participants’ need for cars is to understand the type of
destinations and purposes for which they used or wanted to use cars. To systematically
summarize these purposes, we used the previously described coding process to tag comments
describing the types of destinations, purposes, and needs participants had for cars. We grouped
these into comments describing everyday kinds of transportation needs separately from those
describing every- once- in- a- while kinds of needs. In particular, since borrowing a car seemed to
be a more extreme measure for many participants, we grouped comments relating to destinations
for which participants borrowed cars separately. In contrast, driving one’s own car and getting
rides were both solutions to everyday transportation needs, and therefore we grouped all
comments related to these options together. We also included in this category car- less
participants’ descriptions of destinations for which they wanted or needed to use a car— perhaps
the reason they planned to buy a car in the future.
With respect to everyday needs for driving, we tagged a total of 93 comments describing the
purposes and destinations for which participants would drive their own car ( real or hypothetical)
or for which they would get a ride or carpool, with 69 and 24 comments tagged among car-owning
and car- less participants, respectively ( Table 9). For borrowing a car, we tagged a total
of 28 comments describing destinations for which participants might borrow a car, with just 5
and 23 comments tagged among car- owning and car- less participants, respectively ( Table 10).
Table 9. Reasons to drive ( your own car, real or hypothetical) or get a ride
Car- owning groups Car- less groups
Comments Comments
Purpose Number* Share*
Number
of groups Number* Share*
Number of
groups
For anything with kids 31 45% 5 9 38% 2
For work 28 41% 5 9 38% 5
To transport others 15 22% 5 4 17% 2
To get to doctors / healthcare 16 23% 5 1 4% 1
For going shopping 13 19% 5 4 17% 3
To get to schools 11 16% 4 3 13% 2
To get to far- away destinations 4 6% 2 6 25% 4
For emergencies 9 13% 4 0 0
For recreational outings 0 0 7 29% 4
For " everything" or anything 4 6% 2 0 0
To take the laundry 3 4% 3 1 4% 1
For going to meetings or
religious services 3 4% 3 1 4% 1
For paying bills in person 1 1% 1 1 4% 1
To participate in sports teams 0 0 1 4% 1
Total 69 100% 5 24 100% 5
* Numbers may not sum to total and shares may not sum to 100% since each comment may be counted in more
than one category.
The car- owning and car- less participants seemed to use ( or to imagine using) cars for many
of the same purposes. The one purpose of driving mentioned in all ten groups was getting to
work. It seemed that going by car to work was necessary for some because it was the only way to
get there; that is, the destinations were not served by transit— either at all, or at the hours they
needed to come and go— and were too far away to walk. Others chose to go by car because it
was the only way to get there reliably on time or because it was faster than the alternatives. In
26
addition, a number of participants worked in areas such as construction, landscaping, and house-cleaning
that required carrying tools and supplies in a vehicle and hopping between different job-sites
throughout the day or from day to day. Example perspectives included the following:
• “ Let’s say it’s the third shift, there might be a car coming back, but going to work, if it’s a
third shift at work, then there are no buses” – Car- less, Riverside.
• “ Well, I drive my car almost all day. As I said, it’s not a luxury, it’s a need, because I have
to go to work from one job to another. You have to get there on time . . . And we know the
work, how we can get back or there faster. We try to get there, where we’re going, faster”
– Car- owner, Los Angeles.
Another prominent reason for going somewhere by car in both groups involved children,
including going to destinations on the children’s behalf, taking children along on ordinary trips,
and having to do more errands ( including buying more, harder- to- carry groceries) for a family
with children than for a single person. Indeed, for car- owners, getting married and having
children was an often- cited trigger for purchasing a first vehicle ( see section 3.2).
Other purposes discussed by both car- owning and car- less participants ( although in more car-owning
groups) included going grocery shopping, driving others around, and getting to schools.
The types of passengers participants wanted to transport in their cars included their mothers,
their dates, and their families. Participants wanted to drive to their own schools and to take their
children to school.
Despite these similarities, car- owning and car- less participants had different perspectives in
some respects on the purposes of driving. In particular, car- owning participants were more likely
to mention driving to doctors and medical appointments, probably because car- less participants
often discussed borrowing a car for this task ( destinations in borrowed cars are tallied separately
in Table 10 below). In contrast, the car- less participants were more likely to mention driving to
far- away destinations and on family outings— topics that were each discussed in four of the five
of the car- less groups, but in only two and none of the car- owning groups, respectively. This may
be because car- less participants were more hesitant to borrow a car or get a ride for these
purposes, and so for them, such uses might have felt like illusive luxuries uniquely associated
with owning a car. In contrast, the car- owning participants may have been less likely to mention
such activities either because they were taken for granted, or because the participants were
focused on answering the facilitator’s questions about what they usually use their cars for— and
so they might have been less likely to mention special occasions such as these.
As for destinations in borrowed cars, of the 28 comments that described such destinations,
only 5 were made in car- owning groups ( Table 10). This was probably in part because the
facilitator did not explicitly ask these groups about borrowing cars, based on the researchers’ a
priori assumption that borrowing would not play as important a role for car- owners. However,
the discussions revealed that at least some of the car- owners did participate in lending and
borrowing cars. For example, a Fresno car- owner described sometimes borrowing a car from a
brother, because he did not like to leave his wife without a car in case she needed it, such as for
an emergency with their children. However, it is still likely that the car- owning groups had less
need to borrow cars from outside their households, and that is why they discussed it less during
the focus group interviews.
27
Table 10. Reasons to borrow a car
Car- owning groups Car- less groups
Comments Comments
Purpose Number* Share*
Number
of groups Number* Share*
Number
of groups
For emergencies 2 40% 2 10 43% 3
For going shopping 2 40% 1 6 26% 2
To get to doctors and healthcare 2 40% 1 5 22% 4
For anything, once you have kids 2 40% 2 4 17% 2
To get to far- away destinations 2 40% 2 2 9% 2
To transport others: kids, date, mother 1 20% 1 2 9% 1
For recreational outings 0 0 3 13% 2
For " everything" or anything you want 0 0 1 4% 1
To take the laundry 0 0 1 4% 1
For going to meetings or religious
services 1 20% 1 0 0
Total 5 100% 2 23 100% 4
* Numbers may not sum to total and shares may not sum to 100% since each comment may be counted in more
than one category.
As shown in Table 10, the most frequently cited reason to borrow a car was for emergencies.
Participants who would otherwise be hesitant to borrow a car agreed that a medical emergency
warranted an exception. Examples included taking a sick child or a woman in labor to the
hospital, although there was also some variation as to what constituted an emergency; for some,
emergencies included purposes such as grocery- store trips, buying stamps, or “ picking up my
stuff.” The only other destination mentioned in all five groups was non- emergency trips to
doctors’ appointments. This result suggests that accessing healthcare is difficult or unappealing
without a car. This may be because healthcare facilities are particularly far away from where
participants live, or that healthcare facilities are underserved by transit, or that when you need to
go to the doctor, you are sick or unwell in some way, and would prefer more comfortable, faster
transportation. The latter did not seem to be the issue for most participants. Many complained of
how long it took to get to doctor’s appointments by transit. For one participant, the trip involved
four buses. Another described that only two buses a day served her destination, and so going
there required all day— which made taking a taxi a cheaper option than a full day’s lost wages. A
participant in Sacramento specified that it was only difficult to get to doctors who spoke Spanish.
The next most common destination in borrowed cars was grocery trips, with many
participants in car- less groups indicating that they often borrowed a car to do the household
shopping. Other destinations included any far- away destinations ( whether errands or recreation),
taking laundry to a Laundromat, recreational outings, transporting particular passengers, and
going to church. One participant described borrowing a car for “ everything,” illustrating the
casual nature of borrowing cars for some participants.
2.3.3 Advantages and disadvantages of private vehicle use
In this section we explore participants’ perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of
driving, including driving your own car, borrowing a car, and getting rides or carpooling.
To systematically summarize participants’ specific perceptions of driving, we used the
previously described coding process to tag comments related to the advantages and
disadvantages of driving. Since the advantages associated with borrowing a car or getting a ride
have almost complete overlap with the advantages of driving oneself in one’s own car, we
28
grouped comments describing advantages of any of these types of car travel together. In contrast,
we analyze comments related to the disadvantages of driving one’s own car, driving a borrowed
car, and getting a ride separately from one another.
In general, the car- owning participants supplied a greater number of comments about driving
than did the car- less participants ( although the car- less participants provided a greater number of
comments specifically about car- borrowing and getting rides). This undoubtedly reflects the fact
that car- owners drive more than their car- less counterparts, but this result may also be an artifact
of how we structured the conversations in the car- less versus car- owning groups, with more time
devoted to discussing driving in the car- owning groups than in the car- less groups. The content
of the comments suggest that car- owning and car- less participants had mostly similar
perspectives on the advantages of driving but some differences in their perspectives on the
associated disadvantages. Each category is discussed below.
2.3.3.1 Advantages of driving
We tagged a total of 100 comments relating to advantages of traveling by car ( 67 and 33 among
car- owning and car- less participants, respectively; see Table 11). These included all the
advantages participants associated with driving their own cars ( real or hypothetical) as well as a
few comments that were said in the context of borrowing a car or getting a ride but that would
also apply to driving one’s own car. We did not tabulate the advantages of borrowing a car or
getting rides separately from driving one’s own car, since almost any advantages enjoyed by
these modes were a subset of those enjoyed driving one’s own car. The only exceptions were a
few advantages uniquely associated with getting a ride that were each mentioned once: saving
money on gas by carpooling, the ease and comfort of going with somebody else if you’re both
going the same way, and the fun of riding in a car that’s nicer than your own.
Table 11. Advantages of driving
Car- owning groups Car- less groups
Comments Comments
Attribute Number* Share*
Number
of groups Number* Share*
Number of
groups
Faster, more direct, and no waiting 20 30% 5 14 42% 3
Allows logistical independence 18 27% 4 8 24% 3
Easier to carry things, children 12 18% 3 4 12% 3
Allows spontaneous trip- making 9 13% 4 3 9% 2
Provides shelter from the elements 9 13% 4 3 9% 1
Enables off- hours trip- making 7 10% 4 2 6% 3
Just easy and convenient 7 10% 3 3 9% 3
On time and reliable 6 9% 3 3 9% 3
Takes you there: flexible and
precise destinations 8 12% 3 3 9% 2
Easier to trip chain 6 9% 4 3 9% 2
More safe and secure 3 4% 3 1 3% 1
Provides privacy 3 4% 2 0 0% 0
Physically comfortable 2 3% 2 1 3% 1
Free to do whatever in the car 2 3% 2 0 0% 0
More proper 2 3% 2 0 0% 0
Kids like it 1 1% 1 4 12% 3
Cheaper than transit 1 1% 1 1 3% 1
Total 67 100% 5 33 100% 5
29
Many of the advantages associated with driving were related to the timing of trip- making. In
Table 11, we have tallied these in several separate categories in order to capture their various
dimensions, but some of them are clearly related to one another. The first and most prevalent has
to do with overall travel time. The most frequently cited and undisputed advantage of driving is
that it is fast, direct, and requires no waiting, in contrast to transit. For example, participants
explained:
• Driving “ saves you a lot of time, you don’t have to wait for buses or you don’t have to
wait to ask for a ride in old cars” – Car- less, Riverside.
• “ The advantage for me is that you get to doing things faster. You save time and you save
your energies because you don’t have to wait around for somebody to pick you up. You
know what time you have to do things” – Car- owning, Stockton.
• “ Well, my feeling is that so you don’t have to be waiting for hours at a time at the bus or
waiting for somebody to come and pick you up, because you don’t like to wait. So when
you want to leave you’ve got the car. You just get in and you go” – Car- owning, Stockton.
• “ With a car you go directly to where you are going. If you take the bus you have to get off
and then take another bus that’s— to the address where you’re going and that’s a loss of
time” – Car- owning, Los Angeles.
• In getting to work, “ So by car it’s about 20, 25 minutes, but the bus takes me about an
hour, an hour and 15 minutes, an hour and a half” – Car- less, Fresno.
• “ The major advantage [ of driving] is time. When I take my bicycle it takes me 40 minutes
to go to my job. And then if someone gives me a ride it takes probably five to seven
minutes” – Car- less, San Jose.
For some, the issue of saving time was merely a matter of convenience, but for others it was also
a financial consideration, taking into account the opportunity cost of lost wages for the hours
spent traveling. In particular, if they were able to save two or three hours per day in travel time
by driving, they may have been able to fit in additional work hours and earn additional wages.
Another way in which travel time was more than a matter of convenience was in the case of
emergencies. Many participants cited the need to drive in cases of an emergency, such as when a
woman went into labor or if there was a need to pick up a sick child from school. ( The use of
cars for emergencies is discussed more in section 2.3.2)
Another issue that was only mentioned explicitly in about half the groups, but underlied
much of the discussion about driving was that the routes and destinations are flexible and
individually specified when driving oneself, in contrast to taking a bus or getting a ride with
someone else. In many cases, this meant that there were many places participants needed to go
that they could only get to by car, especially workplaces. In other cases, this meant that getting
there by car was much easier ( such as driving 30 minutes to a hospital instead of taking half a
day and four buses to get there). Finally, some participants described sequences of destinations
that could only be done feasibly in the car. That is, trip- chaining was more feasible in a car. We
tagged all of these sorts of features as “ gets you there: flexible and precise destinations” in our
tally, as shown in the following examples:
• “ Because of my job, because it was too far away” – Car- owning, San Jose.
30
• “[ By driving] I can go to more places, to the store, to Wal- Mart to look at things, to look
for specials, and also for the groceries” – Car- less, Riverside.
• “[ My children] started growing and I needed to keep appointments more often. I had to go
to their school more often and other places, so things were more complicated having to
take the bus. Picking up my kids and all that. So I had to learn how to drive and buy a car”
– Car- owning, Riverside.
• “ The advantage is that, as everyone has said, you go and do your things faster. For
instance, I try to do my errands early, when my girls are at school. That way I do my
errands, go grocery shopping, or go to work in the morning and then I get home and I have
a chance to go get the girls at school” – Car- owning, Stockton.
• “ It’s because of my work. I have to go from one house to another, from Rancho
Cucamonga out to Riverside. There’s a distance. With everything you have to carry and to
have to ride a bus, can you imagine?” – Car- owning, Riverside.
Several other advantages related to the timing of trips included the spontaneity afforded by
driving, the ability to get somewhere reliably on time when you drive yourself, and the easiness
of making off- hours trips ( such as nights and weekends) in a car. While spontaneity was more of
a convenience ( except in the case of emergencies), reliability was a very important issue for
getting to work. Both car- less and car- owning participants stressed the importance of getting to
work on time and how difficult it was to achieve when relying on transit, and sometimes, when
relying on other people. Off- hours trip- making was important for many participants who worked
long- hours, either starting or ending work early in the morning or late at night, when transit was
running less, if at all, and when getting rides was a bigger inconvenience to others. Off- hours
trip- making was also important for doing things outside of work, such as grocery- shopping,
going to libraries, going out at night, going places on weekends, going on recreational outings,
and attending religious services.
The advantage cited most frequently after overall travel time was related to the logistical
independence associated with driving. Participants appreciated not having to coordinate with
others to get a ride or with the transit schedule to catch a bus. This encompassed the issue of
reliability, but also encompassed feeling freed from debt to others. For some it also afforded the
peace of mind of doing things like grocery shopping at one’s own pace. Example explanations
included the following:
• “ Because you wouldn’t bother anyone else. . . . When I recently got here, I would get off
work, the restaurant would close about two in the morning and we’d stay, washing the
pots, something like that, and we wouldn’t get out until three in the morning. So then my
brother had to go pick me up and he was very sleepy. And like he said everything was
dandy, but afterwards it wasn’t” – Car- owning, Los Angeles.
• “ When I got here my husband used to take me to work and then later my husband, he
taught me how to drive the vehicle so that I could be more independent and go to work on
my own” – Car- owning, San Jose.
• “ Since I have to take [ my children places] I’ll always have to ask for a ride. Take me to
pick up my kids. Take me back home. You know, when you start asking for favors they
make faces. They didn’t say anything, but they always made faces at me. And I asked my
husband get me a car, so that I no longer have to ask for it” – Car- owning, Riverside.
31
• “ Well, I don’t know how to drive, but I would like to learn because my daughter’s
appointments, I wouldn’t have to leave two hours earlier in order to get there. Or when I
have to go to the store I don’t like anybody to be pressuring me as to when I leave or when
I get back. I could come and go when I wished” – Car- owning, Stockton.
The next most prevalent feature that participants discussed was related to the physical
advantages associated with traveling in cars. Participants in three of the groups cited the overall
physical comfort of riding in a car, compared with walking or taking transit. They also
appreciated that it was easier to carry things, such as groceries and other packages, while driving
than when traveling by any other mode. For some, this was an issue of being able to transport
construction tools or housecleaning equipment in their vehicles when going around to different
jobs. For others it was an issue of being able to leave things in the car during the day while they
were at school. Many participants also discussed the advantage, just from a physical perspective,
of being able to transport children in cars versus by walking or by transit. Examples of these
perspectives included the following:
• “[ I like] the comfort of not having to carry things, and if you have to take children.
Sometimes I have to drive my three children. It depends on where I have to use it. Usually
I use it when I go to the supermarket and you carry heavy things, or when I go washing” –
Car- owning, Los Angeles.
• “ It’s more convenient to take the car. If you’re going shopping, then things that you
bought you can carry. But if you take the bus you have the child, you have the purchases,
you have the baby carriage… You buy very little because that’s all you can carry” – Car-owning,
Riverside.
Several groups also discussed that driving was more comfortable than other modes in bad
weather, such as hot sun or rain. A few participants mentioned more minor things such as the
relaxed feeling of dressing however you want in the car, eating in the car if you want to, and
listening to your own music. In three of the groups, participants alluded to the fact that it felt
more proper to take a car, especially with certain passengers in tow, such as a date or one’s
mother.
Four of the groups discussed feeling safer and more secure driving, mostly with respect to
physical assault or robbery while walking or riding transit, but also for children because they are
wearing seatbelts. By contrast, other groups expressed that transit was safer because buses are
less likely to get into accidents than cars.
Although transit was frequently cited as being cheaper than driving, participants in two
groups considered driving as a cheaper option, in one case because the car owner was the one
paying, but in other cases participants pointed out that a tank of gas is cheaper than paying for
her family’s transit fare. One parent explained, “ I have three children. I pay $ 12 [ to ride the bus
with them]. I fill [ the car] up with $ 10 and I can come and go. So, for me, if the fare were lower,
then I would be very happy using the bus. Because when you’re driving you’re very tense. It’s
much better to be comfortable in the bus” ( Car- owning, Los Angeles).
2.3.3.2 Disadvantages of driving your own car
We tagged 71 comments relating to disadvantages of driving one’s own car; car- less participants
were asked to think about disadvantages of driving for any given trip if they were to get their
32
own car, In this analysis, we tagged a total of 59 and 12 comments among car- owning and car-less
participants, respectively ( Table 12).
Table 12. Disadvantages of driving your own car ( hypothetically for car- less participants)
Car- owning groups Car- less groups
Comments Comments
Issue Number* Share*
Number
of groups Number* Share*
Number
of groups
Cost of gas 17 29% 5 6 50% 2
Fear of police / losing car 9 15% 4 8 67% 3
Fear of accidents and road conditions 12 20% 4 1 8% 1
Produces tension; requires attention
and responsibility 8 14% 5 1 8% 1
Finding and paying for parking 5 8% 2 1 8% 1
Fear of breakdowns and mishaps while
on the road 5 8% 1 0 0
Irritation of traffic congestion 5 8% 2 0 0
Having to navigate 5 8% 2 0 0
Bad for kids 2 3% 2 0 0
Up to you to be on time 1 2% 1 0 0
Total 59 100% 5 12 100% 4
* Numbers may not sum to total and shares may not sum to 100% since each comment may be counted in more
than one category.
Among car- owners, the most prevalent disadvantage associated with driving itself was the
cost of gas. As one participant put it, “ The price of gas is criminal right now” ( Car- owning,
Fresno). Some participants indicated that their travel choices were affected by gas prices,
choosing to ride transit or to make fewer trips because they cannot afford gas, such as some of
the following experiences:
• “ I drive a Durango, but I use the bus. . . For the simple reason that gasoline is very
expensive” – Car- owning, Los Angeles).
• “ The difficulty that I used to have with my children, with my daughters, is that I used to
give them a ride, but now they’re taking the school bus because gasoline has gone up in
price” – Car- owning, Los Angeles.
• “ That’s one of the reasons why I try not to go out. I say to my son, let’s say my son is
going to go someplace, I say to him, stay home because gasoline is too expensive right
now…[ We have] a light car and it doesn’t use much gas, but even so, if you’re going a
ways, 20 minutes away or half an hour away, then you have to take into consideration the
fact that gasoline is very expensive” – Car- owner, Stockton.
Others indicate that public transportation improvements, along with high gas prices, could
together convince them to use transit:
• “ I think if there were more services and better transportation services, public services, I
think that with the price of gas right now, as expensive as it is, people would avail
themselves of this much more” – Car- owning, Stockton.
The second most prevalent concern among car- owners was fear of having an accident and/ or
being uncomfortable with the other cars on the road. In particular, participants expressed
concerns about reckless drivers, tailgating trucks, driving on the freeway, driving in the rain,
careless drivers talking on their cell phones, and having to be especially careful when their
33
children are in the car. While these concerns may have reflected the concerns many people have
about driving, which is statistically dangerous, such concerns might also be heightened among
Mexican immigrants for several reasons: they tend to be lower- income, and at least in this study,
participants tended to be uninsured or under- insured, and many were new and/ or unlicensed
drivers. All of these factors may have contributed to a heightened fear of accidents, since the
financial risk associated with an accident would have been particularly burdensome for lower-income
drivers especially if they were under- insured or uninsured, and new or under- trained
drivers may have lacked the skills and experience necessary for maneuvering traffic conditions
confidently.
The issue of driving without a license was the third most prevalent concern among car-owners,
and also the first most prevalent concern among the car- less participants ( imagining
what it would be like to own a car) based on the percent of comments related to this issue, but
the overall number of comments related to this issue is comparable in both groups ( 8 comments
in four focus groups versus 9 comments in three focus groups in the car- owning and car- less
groups, respectively). Therefore, this issue may or may not be more concerning to car- less
participants than to car- owning participants. But we can tell from these results that the issue of
the license is one of the few issues on the forefront of prospective car- owners’ minds, as well as
actual car- owners’. In contrast, some of the other burdens car- owners associated with driving
were raised less often by prospective car- owners, such as breakdowns, finding parking, dealing
with traffic, and even the risk of getting into an accident.
For both groups, the fear of the police and of driving without a license seemed to be
primarily a financial concern. In particular, participants feared being stopped by police and
having their car confiscated. Participants reported that the fee charged for retrieving a
confiscated car was so expensive as to be close to or more than the value of the cars they might
own, and so many would have to treat the car as lost. Therefore, each driving trip carried with it
some risk of losing the car altogether. The stakes were even higher if the vehicle was used for
work or contained work tools that would be expensive to replace. Example perspectives included
the following:
• “ If the police officer has decided to stop you he’s going to stop you. And if it’s your time
it’s your time. If you just make one single traffic mistake and that’s it… sometimes I do get
frightened. I say what if they take the car away from me?”
– Car- owner, Riverside.
• “ We’ve been here for many years and I am thankful that in those years we have never been
stopped” – Car- owner, Fresno.
Some participants discussed that one strategy for mitigating the risk of getting stopped by
police was to learn and obey traffic laws, and to avoid parts of town where there were a lot of
police. One participant explained, “[ The other cars passing me on the road] don’t get me
nervous. I just say let them pass me by. As long as I’m driving at the right speed I don’t increase
the speed, because I don’t want the police officer to stop me” ( Car- owning, Los Angeles). Others
went out of their way to study up on traffic laws, explaining, “ I took driving classes and I studied
the book. And the problem is that I don’t have documentation. I don’t take [ the car] downtown
because I don’t— well, there are too many policemen” ( Car- owning, Los Angeles).
Some of the other disadvantages associated with driving that participants identified were that
the process of driving itself was stressful and required constant attention, producing for some
34
drivers “ a lot of tension” ( Car- owning, Los Angeles). Example explanations included the
following:
• “ I get bored driving because I have to be paying attention to everything, because you have
to watch the road and you have to watch everybody else around you too” – Car- owning,
Stockton.
• “ Your mind gets tired. Compared to when you’re riding the bus you get stressed. You get
really stressed when you’re driving” – Car- owning, Riverside.
Others discussed dealing with traffic congestion, having to know how to get somewhere, and
having to find and pay for parking. Several groups discussed that these stresses were enough to
make them use transit when possible. Parking alone seemed to be a particular reason for car-owners
to use another mode in Los Angeles. A few participants mentioned fears of breakdowns
as a reason to avoid driving on any given trip, but most of the discussion about breakdowns and
maintenance were discussed more as a burden of owning a car ( see section2.3.4).
2.3.3.3 Disadvantages of driving a borrowed car
We tagged a total of 33 comments related to disadvantages of driving a borrowed car, with 9 and
24 comments supplied by car- owning and car- less participants, respectively ( Table 13).
Table 13. Disadvantages of driving a borrowed car
Car- owning groups Car- less groups
Comments Comments
Issue Number* Share*
Number
of groups Number* Share*
Number
of groups
Discomfort asking / reluctance to lend 6 67% 1 12 50% 5
Fear of accidents and road conditions 0 0 10 42% 4
Fear of police / losing car 1 11% 1 6 25% 3
Can't borrow a car 0 0 6 25% 4
Fear of breakdowns and mishaps
while on the road 1 11% 1 3 13% 3
Cost of gas 1 11% 1 1 4% 1
Total 9 100% 2 24 100% 5
* Numbers may not sum to total and shares may not sum to 100% since each comment may be counted in more
than one category.
Participants considered a major disadvantage with borrowing a car to be the process of
asking car- owners to lend it to them. Participants reported being embarrassed to ask and were
conscious of reasons that others might be hesitant to lend. They did not like being turned down
nor the feeling like the lender was making excuses or avoiding them:
• “ The disadvantage that I don’t like is it’s embarrassing because they hesitate and think
about it before they lend it to you. So I ask anyway, but it is embarrassing” – Car- less,
Fresno.
• “ What I don’t like is if you ask to borrow a car and they say ‘ no’ and you really need it.
It’s so embarrassing and then if they say no, you feel so bad and you think to yourself,
‘ I’m not coming back to ask ever again’” – Car- less, Sacramento.
For others, this was not a problem. For example, a car- owner in Fresno explained, “ My father
and my brothers and I get along really well. We have a very good relationship and I don’t mind
borrowing a car from them or vice versa.” However, the problem of being turned down, or not
35
being able to borrow a car for whatever reason, was another major disadvantage in itself.
Borrowing a car is not as reliable as having your own, where “ You just get in and you go” ( Car-owning,
Stockton).
Some of the other reasons that borrowing and lending made people uncomfortable were
reflected in the other disadvantages cited by participants, including the risk of getting into an
accident, getting stopped by the police ( and losing the car), and having some sort of breakdown.
In comparing this list with the types of worries associated with driving one’s own car, we note
that participants worry more about higher- stakes calamities when borrowing than about habitual
inconveniences such as paying for gas or encountering traffic congestion. This makes sense,
since losing or breaking someone else’s car is stressful, and the sorts of everyday inconveniences
one might mind over time would be less important if encountered only every once in a while.
Several participants explained their concerns as follows:
• “ My husband and I really don’t like to borrow anyone’s car because if it breaks down then
you feel like you have to pay for it, logically. We don’t want to have a problem. We have
this thing, we don’t really like to borrow vehicles” – Car- owning, Fresno.
• “ I believe that that’s quite a responsibility, the one that’s borrowing, because the
insurance— first, because of the insurance. So you might say to yourself I am a good
driver, and you know that you’re a good driver. But if you have an accident then you’re
going to be in a big problem, because it’s not your vehicle and it’s not in your name, so
you’re in a big problem. I do want to learn how to drive and all that, but I’m concerned
that something might happen and I could cause another problem for the person that loaned
me the car. So then you have to think, because you don’t know what can happen. If it were
your car then it’s okay. If something happens it doesn’t matter, it’s your car, but if it’s
somebody else’s…” – Car- less, Riverside.
• “ The disadvantage for me, as far as borrowing a car, is that I only borrow it, first of all, if I
know my aunt isn’t going to need it. But one of the disadvantages is that you don’t have a
license and so there could be an accident or the police could stop you for any reason,
whatever that might be. And if the police stops you, you could lose the car. You may lose
the car” – Car- less, Fresno.
• “ I would never ask for a vehicle. It’s just causing a lot of problem and a lot of headaches.
You never know what can happen . . . Who will lend you a vehicle these days? You know,
it’s just— it’s so difficult” – Car- less, San Jose.
To the degree that car- less participants were less experienced drivers and less likely to have
driver’s licenses , they may have been particularly worried about these sorts of major events
when borrowing cars. Clearly, for some this lack of experience was the major barrier to
borrowing cars, as one car- less participant in Los Angeles explained, “ We don’t borrow it,
because we don’t know how to drive.”
Although mentioned only twice, the cost of gas was a concern for some borrowers.
Participants indicated that when they borrowed a car, they did indeed pay the lender for gas,
sometimes buying a full tank when they had only used a small portion of it, as one participant
explained:
• “[ A reason to buy a car was] to save money. Sometimes a friend would leave the car at my
house and say use it. Use it. And he would leave it and then I would have to put gas in and
36
then I would fill up the gas. He would take the car after I filled up the gas and then he
would come back with the gas empty and he would say use the car, and the gas tank was
empty. And then I would have to fill it up again and then he would take it again and he
would return it and the gas was empty. All I would do is fill up his tank” – Car- owner, Los
Angeles.
2.3.3.4 Disadvantages of getting rides
We tagged 76 comments related to the disadvantages of getting a ride, with 14 and 29 among
car- owning and car- less participants, respectively ( Table 14).
Table 1 4 . Disadvantages of getting rides
Car- owning groups Car- less groups
Comments Comments
Issue Number* Share*
Number
of groups Number* Share*
Number
of groups
Socially uncomfortable to ask 7 50% 3 13 45% 4
Having to pay the lender 2 14% 2 10 34% 2
Unreliable, doesn't always work out 3 21% 2 7 24% 4
Having to yield to someone else's
schedule 4 29% 3 4 14% 3
Having to deal with each other's
company 2 14% 2 3 10% 1
Feeling responsible for lender's
encounter with police 1 7% 1 2 7% 1
Not trusting the lender 0 2 2 7% 0
Feeling responsible for lender's
breakdowns or wrecks 2 14% 0 0 0
Total 14 100% 4 29 100% 5
* Numbers may not sum to total and shares may not sum to 100% since each comment may be counted in more
than one category.
As with borrowing a car, some of the biggest disadvantages associated with getting rides
were related to the social discomfort of asking for rides and feeling indebted to others, discussed
in 7 of the 10 groups. Example explanations included the following:
• “ Yeah, sometimes people make you feel like you’re bothering them, so you feel bad.
Sometimes they don’t answer the phone. ‘ Oh, gosh, here he comes again. He’s calling for
a ride’” – Car- less, Fresno.
• “ You want to go to the store and you just have to wait until somebody takes pity on you
and takes you. And then you ask, ‘ Will you take me?’ And they say, ‘ There’s too many of
us. There’s not enough room.’ And you feel really bad” – Car- less, Sacramento.
• “ It’s uncomfortable in my case. If you have a good relation with that friend, and if you
trust her, but there’s a time that if she’s tired, or you might be tired then you feel
uncomfortable about bothering her. It’s an uncomfortable situation” – Car- less, Riverside.
• “ They give you the impression that it’s a big favor that they’re doing for you. I am
independent. I’d rather do it on my own [ on transit] than ask for a ride” – Car- owning,
Riverside.
For many, this sense of debt implied a financial obligation to pay the driver for gas or for
their trouble, which made getting rides more expensive than taking transit for some. One
participant explained, “ If there were buses that would take me exactly where I needed to go that
37
would be easier and less expensive. But because I have to get rides, I pay the people that give me
a ride” ( Car- less, Fresno). In some cases, the exchange of money was an established fee, such as
an employer that took a sum directly out of the paycheck for giving his employee a ride to work.
Another explained, “ If the person takes me [ to work] all week long then I give that person about
$ 10, $ 15, or $ 20 for gas” ( Car- less, Fresno). For others, the arrangement seemed more casual,
perhaps with a reciprocal arrangement of different types of favors among neighbors.
However, there seemed to be some dimensions of the favor that were difficult to compensate
for, such as the risk of encountering police or having a breakdown during the leg of the trip that
was on the passenger’s behalf. Perhaps some of these concerns added to the discomfort of asking
for a ride. There were four instances when these sorts of issues were discussed explicitly. One
participant explained:
• “ The people that give me a ride don’t have a license either and whenever they go and pick
me up or take me back home they have to be thinking about the police, if they get stopped.
So that’s hard on them too. They’re out watching and they’re careful, you know? Because
they can lose the car if they get stopped and then it’s going to be a lot of money to get it
out. So the greatest problem is the license” – Car- less, Fresno.
The other main disadvantages associated with getting rides were exactly the flipside to the
flexibility and independence of driving oneself. In particular, passengers suffered from the
possibility that the arrangement could fall through, either because circumstances would change,
or the driver might change his mind, or the driver would be late or unreliable. Passengers also
described the inconvenience of having to coordinate with the driver’s schedule and preferred
destinations, such as when and where to go grocery shopping, or where they worked. The
following comments illustrated some of these concerns:
• “ I found it very difficult though because before I had a car I would ask for a ride and then
the person giving me a ride would either forget that I was going to wait for them at a
certain place and I’d get left there. Sometimes I’d miss work because I didn’t have a ride”
– Car- owning, Stockton.
• “[ We used to] work at the same place. She would take me and she goes with me. And we
have the same interests. Now she’s moved to a different job, so it’s difficult for me to get
transportation again” – Car- less, Stockton.
• “ If my brother doesn’t want to go to the same place we want to go to then I can’t get
there” – Car- less, Fresno.
Finally, participants also indicated that needing rides or carpooling also had the disadvantage
of forcing them to keep company with either passeng