Getting Around When You’re Just Getting By: The Travel Behavior and Transportation Expenditures of Low- Income Adults
MTI Report 10- 02
MTI
Getting Around When You’re Just Getting By
MTI Report 10- 02
January 2011 The Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies ( MTI) was established by Congress as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Reauthorized in 1998, MTI was selected by the U. S. Department of Transportation through a competitive process in 2002 as a national “ Center of Excellence.” The Institute is funded by Con­gress
through the United States Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration, the Califor­nia
Legislature through the Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), and by private grants and donations.
The Institute receives oversight from an internationally respected Board of Trustees whose members represent all major surface transportation modes. MTI’s focus on policy and management resulted from a Board assessment of the industry’s unmet needs and led directly to the choice of the San José State University College of Business as the Institute’s home. The Board provides policy direction, assists with needs assessment, and connects the Institute and its programs with the international transportation community.
MTI’s transportation policy work is centered on three primary responsibilities:
MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
Research
MTI works to provide policy- oriented research for all levels of government and the private sector to foster the development of optimum surface transportation systems. Research areas include: transportation security; planning and policy develop­ment;
interrelationships among transportation, land use, and the environment; transportation finance; and collaborative labor- management relations. Certified Research Associates conduct the research. Certification requires an advanced degree, gener­ally
a Ph. D., a record of academic publications, and professional references. Research projects culminate in a peer- reviewed publication, available both in hardcopy and on TransWeb, the MTI website ( http:// transweb. sjsu. edu).
Education
The educational goal of the Institute is to provide graduate- level education to students seeking a career in the development and operation of surface transportation programs. MTI, through San José State University, offers an AACSB- accredited Master of Sci­ence
in Transportation Management and a graduate Certificate in Transportation Management that serve to prepare the nation’s transportation managers for the 21st century. The master’s de­gree
is the highest conferred by the California State University system. With the active assistance of the California Department of Transportation, MTI delivers its classes over a state- of- the- art videoconference network throughout the state of California and via webcasting beyond, allowing working transportation professionals to pursue an advanced degree regardless of their location. To meet the needs of employ­ers
seeking a diverse workforce, MTI’s education program promotes enrollment to under- represented groups.
Information and Technology Transfer
MTI promotes the availability of completed research to professional organizations and journals and works to integrate the research findings into the graduate education program. In addition to publishing the studies, the Institute also sponsors symposia to disseminate research results to transportation professionals and encourages Research As­sociates
to present their findings at conferences. The World in Motion, MTI’s quarterly newsletter, covers innovation in the Institute’s research and education programs. MTI’s extensive collection of transportation- related publications is integrated into San José State University’s world- class Martin Luther King, Jr. Library.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented here­in.
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U. S. Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program and the California Department of Transportation, in the interest of information exchange. This report does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the U. S. government, State of California, or the Mineta Transportation Institute, who assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard specification, design standard, or regulation. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U. S. Department of Homeland Security.
DISCLAIMER
MTI Report 10- 02
GETTING AROUND WHEN YOU’RE JUST GETTING BY:
THE TRAVEL BEHAVIOR AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES OF LOW- INCOME ADULTS
Asha Weinstein Agrawal, PhD
Evelyn A. Blumenberg, PhD
Sarah Abel
Gregory Pierce
Charles N. Darrah, PhD
January 2011
a publication of the
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San José, CA 95192- 0219
Created by Congress in 1991 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
1. Report No.
CA- MTI- 10- 2806
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipients Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Getting Around When You’re Just Getting By: The Travel Behavior and Transportation Expenditures of Low- Income Adults
5. Report Date
January 2011
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
Asha Weinstein Agrawal, PhD, Evelyn A. Blumenberg, PhD, Sarah Abel, Gregory Pierce, and Charles N. Darrah, PhD
8. Performing Organization
Report No.
MTI Report 10- 02
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San José, CA 95192- 0219
10. Work Unit No.
11. Contract or Grant No.
DTRT07- G- 0054
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13. Type of Report and Period
Covered
Final Report
California Department of Transportation
Sacramento, CA 94273- 0001
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
U. S. Department of Transportation
Research and Innovative Technology Administration ( RITA)
Office of University Programs
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract
How much do people with limited resources pay for cars, public transit, and other means of travel? How does their transportation behavior change during periods of falling employment and rising fuel prices? This research uses in- depth interviews with 73 adults to examine how rising transportation costs affect low- income families. The interviews examine four general areas of interest: travel behavior and transportation spending patterns; the costs and benefits of alternative modes of travel; cost management strategies; and opinions about the ef­fects
of changing transportation prices on travel behavior. Key findings include:
1. Most low- income households are concerned about their transportation costs.
2. Low- income individuals actively and strategically manage their household resources in order to survive on very limited means and to respond to changes in income or transportation costs.
3. In making mode- choice decisions, low- income travelers, like higher- income travelers, carefully evaluate the costs of travel ( time and out- of- pocket expenses) against the benefits of alternative modes available to them.
4. Some low- income individuals in our sample were willing to accept higher transportation expenditures— such as the costs of auto ownership or congestion tolls— if they believed that they currently benefit or would potentially benefit from the increased expenses.
5. Although low- income households find ways to cover their transportation expenditures, many of these strategies have negative effects on their lifestyles.
The report concludes with recommendations for increasing transportation affordability, minimizing the impact of new transportation taxes or fees on low- income people, and developing new research and data collection strategies.
17. Key Words
Travel costs, Low- income groups, Poverty, Equity ( finance), Environmental justice
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through
The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
19. Security Classif. ( of this report)
Unclassified
20. Security Classifi. ( of this page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
118
22. Price
$
Form DOT F 1700.7 ( 8- 72)
Copyright © 2011
by Mineta Transportation Institute
All rights reserved
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number:
2010938045
To order this publication, please contact the following:
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San José, CA 95192- 0219
Tel ( 408) 924- 7560
Fax ( 408) 924- 7565
E- mail: mti@ sjsu. edu
http:// transweb. sjsu. edu Mineta Transportation Institute
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We offer our sincere thanks to the many people who helped with this project. Special thanks go to the interviewees, who gave their time and shared their expe-
riences, making the project possible. In addition, we gratefully thank:
• The students in the fall 2009 class of Anthropology 149 at San José State University, who conducted many of the interviews for the study and shared their analysis of their interview data with the research team.
• Stephen Brumbaugh, Cathy DeLuca, Kanhong Lin, and Vinay Murthy, graduate students at San José State University and the University of California, Los Angeles, who provided research, data analysis, and interviewing assistance.
• Todd Madigan and Rebecca Cole of Sacred Heart Community Service, Diane Nguyen and Yarabi Lara of Paseo Senter, and Imelda Rodriguez and Mona Lerna of CommUniverCity San José, who helped us recruit interviewees.
• Dr. Brian Taylor of the University of California, Los Angeles, who provided advice and feedback.
The authors also thank MTI staff, including Research Director Karen Philbrick, Ph. D.; Director of Communications and Special Projects Donna Maurillo; Research Support Manager Meg A. Fitts; Student Publications Assistant Sahil Rahimi; Student Research Support Assistant Joey Mercado; Student Graphic Artists JP Flores and Vince Alindogan; and Webmaster Frances Cherman. Additional editorial and publication support was provided by Editorial Associate Janet DeLand.
Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors. Mineta Transportation Institute
Acknowledgments Mineta Transportation Institute
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Study Methods 1
Findings 1
Policy Implications 2
INTRODUCTION 3
Major Findings 3
Overview of the Report 5
RESEARCH ON TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES AMONG
LOW- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS 7
Introduction 7
What Do We Know About How Much Low- Income Families Spend
on Transportation? 7
Spending Tradeoffs Between Transportation and Housing 12
How Rising Transportation Costs Affect Low- Income Households 13
METHODOLOGY 17
Introduction 17
Why Interviews? 17
The Interview Guide 17
Subject Recruitment 19
The Interviewers 20
The Interview Process 20
Data Processing and Analysis 20
Home Locations of the Interviewees 23
Limitations of the Study Data and Analysis 23
THE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT FOR LOW- INCOME
RESIDENTS IN SAN JOSÉ 25
The Geography of San José 25
Socio- Demographic and Travel Data of San José and Santa Clara
County Residents 25
Transit Services In and Around San José 28
Transportation Supports for Low- Income Residents 29
Summary 32 Mineta Transportation Institute
Table of Contents
ii
STUDY FINDINGS: THE TRANSPORTATION SURVIVAL STRATEGIES
OF LOW- INCOME ADULTS 33
Travel Behavior and Transportation Expenditures 33
Managing the Costs of Transportation 35
How Do Changing Transportation Costs Affect Low- Income People? 44
Summary 48
GETTING AROUND WHEN YOU’RE JUST GETTING BY: SUMMARY
AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 49
Management 49
The Difficulties Managing Transportation Expenditures 50
The Costs and Benefits of Travel 50
Transportation Hardship 51
PLANNING AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 53
Strategies to Increase Transportation Affordability 53
Strategies for Structuring New Taxes and Fees to Minimize the
Transportation Burden Imposed on Low- Income Families 58
Taking Action: The Need for Collaboration Among Many Actors 60
Summary 60
NEXT STEPS FOR RESEARCH AND DATA COLLECTION 63
Needed Data and Research on Transportation Expenditures 63
Recommended Research and Data Collection Strategies 64
Conclusion 65
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE 67
APPENDIX B: CODING PROCEDURES 73
ENDNOTES 83
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 95
REFERENCES 97
ABOUT THE AUTHORS 107
PEER REVIEW 109 Mineta Transportation Institute
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Home Locations of 65 Interviewees, Indicating Proximity to Transit Lines 23
2. “ Usual” Commute Mode, by Poverty Status, in San José ( 2006– 2008) 26
3. Average Weekday Per Capita Trip Rates in Santa Clara County, by
Annual Household Income Status and Travel Mode 27
4. Average Weekday Per Capita Trip Rates in Santa Clara County, by
Trip Purpose and Household Income Status 28 Mineta Transportation Institute
List of Figures
iv Mineta Transportation Institute
v
LIST OF TABLES
1. Summary of Transportation Expenditure Data Collected in National Surveys 10
2. Transportation Expenditures for the Lowest- Income Quintile versus All
Consumer Units in 2008 11
3. Number of Interviewees, by Location 19
4. Demographics of the Interviewees and the Adult Poverty Population
in San José 22
5. VTA Fares as of October 1, 2009 29
6. Modes Used by Interviewees on Their Most Recent Travel Day 34
7. Strategies for Managing Transportation Costs 35
8. Lead Actors for Implementing a Sample of Affordable Access Policies 61 Mineta Transportation Institute
List of Tables
vi Mineta Transportation Institute
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent increases in fuel prices, combined with the deep downturn in the economy, have raised concerns among policymakers and advocates about the burdens of transportation costs on the poor. Moreover, low- income travelers have been at the center of recent debates over the fairness of proposed transportation finance instruments such as congestion pricing and gas- tax increases. Despite these concerns, relatively little is known about how low- income households manage their transportation costs while also preserving their desired level and quality of mobility. This study begins to fill that gap by exploring the challenges low- income residents face in covering their transportation costs.
STUDY METHODS
The analysis is based on in- depth interviews with 73 low- income adults living in or near the City of San José, California, in the San Francisco Bay Area. The sample was diverse by many criteria, but overrepresented individuals who had extremely low incomes. ( Some were homeless; many relied on food banks and/ or public benefits and services.) The interviews centered around four general areas of interest: travel behavior and transportation spending patterns; the costs and benefits of alternative modes of travel; transportation cost management strategies; and opinions about the effects of changing transportation prices on travel behavior.
FINDINGS
Key findings include the following:
1. Most low- income households are concerned about their transportation costs.
2. Low- income. individuals actively and strategically manage their limited household resources in order to survive and respond to changes in income or transportation costs. They do so by using strategies such as ( a) modifications to travel behavior, ( b) creative cost- covering strategies, ( c) careful management of household expenditures, including transportation expenditures, and ( d) reductions in discre- tionary spending.
3. In making mode- choice decisions, low- income travelers— like higher- income travelers— carefully evaluate the costs of travel ( time and out- of- pocket expenses) against the benefits of each mode available to them.
4. Some interviewees were willing to accept higher transportation expenditures— such as the costs of auto ownership or congestion tolls— if they believed that they currently benefit or would potentially benefit from these increased expenses.
5. Although low- income households find ways to cover their transportation expenditures, many of these strategies create hardship. Mineta Transportation Institute
Executive Summary
2
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The study findings suggest a wide variety of policy and planning strategies that could increase transportation affordability, as well as minimize the effects of new transportation taxes or fees on low- income people. These fall under several themes:
1. Target transportation subsidy programs to low- income people in general, in addition to such population subgroups as the elderly and the disabled. This approach would help user- side subsidies reach those who most need them.
2. Divide large, lump- sum transportation costs such as transit passes into smaller, more frequent payments, to make the costs more manageable.
3. Help low- income families access a wide variety of essential destinations such as support services, government offices, and businesses.
4. Recognize that the specific transportation supports needed vary by household structure, life stage, and residential location. For example, reduced- cost transit passes may help those living near public transit but will do little to aid families in rural communities with minimal transit service. Even within the same geographic area, families’ travel needs vary by employment patterns, family responsibilities, and disabilities that may make certain modes inaccessible.
In addition, we propose various strategies for collecting new data that would allow policymakers to assess which policies would most effectively and efficiently ease the transportation burden for low- income families. Mineta Transportation Institute
3
INTRODUCTION
Recent increases in fuel prices, combined with the deep downturn in the economy, have raised concerns among policymakers and advocates about the burdens of transportation costs on the poor. Moreover, low- income travelers have been at the center of recent debates over the fairness of proposed transportation finance instruments such as congestion pricing and gas- tax increases.
Despite these concerns, relatively little is known about how low- income households manage their transportation costs while also preserving their desired level and quality of mobility. Travel surveys do not typically include data on household transportation expenditures, while consumer expenditure surveys do not include data on travel behavior. Therefore, it is difficult to examine how low- income individuals trade off the costs and benefits of travel, using only the existing data sources. In addition, there is virtually no qualitative research on the topic.
The purpose of this study, therefore, is twofold. First, we explore how low- income families manage their transportation resources given their limited resources. We then examine how low- income individuals feel about, and respond to, changes in transportation costs that arise due to increases in gas prices or transit fares, or hypothetical new congestion tolls or mileage fees.
We conducted in- depth interviews with 73 low- income adults living in or near San José, California, a city of about one million people located 50 miles south of San Francisco. We recruited interviewees through organizations serving low- income members of the San José community. This recruitment strategy generated a sample that was diverse by many criteria, but also overrepresented individuals who had extremely low incomes. Some were homeless; many relied on food banks and/ or public benefits and services.
By their very nature, the qualitative interview data allowed us to explore people’s attitudes and their reported feelings about their travel, as well as their processes for managing transportation expenditures under varied and changing circumstances. More specifically, the interviews centered around four general areas of interest: travel behavior and transportation spending patterns, the costs and benefits of alternative modes of travel, transportation cost management strategies, and opinions about the effect of changing transportation prices on travel behavior.
MAJOR FINDINGS
The results of our interviews are not readily generalizable to the larger population of poor people in the United States. While our sample is diverse across a number of dimensions, it focuses on the urban poor, was not randomly selected, and is too small to permit meaningful quantitative analysis. However, the findings suggest a number of patterns that could be tested in subsequent research with more representative population samples:
1. Low- income residents tend to worry about paying for transportation. Car owners worry about gas prices, maintenance, and other auto- related costs, while transit Mineta Transportation Institute
Introduction
4
riders worry about transit fares and the ready cash necessary to purchase transit passes that could save them money in the long term. Low- income individuals who receive transportation subsidies ( such as free transit passes) have the fewest concerns, but they still report anxiety about maintaining their subsidies.
2. Most low- income individuals actively and strategically manage their household resources in order to survive on very limited means and to respond to changes in income or transportation costs.
3. In deciding whether to drive, get a ride, take transit, bike, or walk, low- income travelers— like higher- income travelers— carefully evaluate the time and money costs of travel against the benefits of each mode available to them.
4. Some low- income individuals in the sample reported a willingness to endure higher transportation expenditures— such as auto ownership or congestion tolls— if they believed that they currently benefit or would potentially benefit from these more expensive travel options.
5. Although low- income households find ways to cover their transportation expen- ditures, many of these strategies have negative effects on their lifestyles. These negative effects include heightened stress and anxiety, reduced expenditures on necessities such as food, inability to participate in discretionary activities, and spatial entrapment in the neighborhood around their homes.
Many low- income households have difficulty managing their transportation expenditures because of their limited and precarious incomes. Fundamentally, the best way to address their transportation burden is through poverty- alleviation programs, but many of these programs— such as broad income transfers— are expensive and politically unpopular. Therefore, it is also important to support transportation- related policies that help low- income households ease their transportation- expenditure burden. On the basis of our findings, we generated the following transportation- related recommendations:
1. Transportation policies can mitigate the hardships of poverty and the high costs of transportation. In general, low- income families would benefit from policies that reduce their transportation cost burden without also limiting their mobility.
2. Research on transportation expenditures by the poor is underdeveloped, primarily because of inadequate data. Better data are needed to determine accurately both the transportation expenditures and incomes of low- income households, and the data should be linked to residential location at the neighborhood level. The expenditure data collected need to be disaggregated into more detailed expenditure categories, including vehicle ownership costs, vehicle operating expenses, tolls, parking charges, and transit fares by mode and fare type, to allow analysts to examine a wider set of expenditure categories that are potentially relevant to transportation policy.
3. Evaluations of the low- income transportation burden cannot focus solely on costs. Complete analyses should consider both the time and money costs of transportation, as well as the benefits obtained from different types of travel. Existing research tends to emphasize the costs without integrating an assessment of the variable benefits of accessibility. Mineta Transportation Institute
Introduction
5
OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT
This report is organized as follows. The second chapter provides a comprehensive review of the research literature on the travel behavior and expenditure patterns of low- income households. In presenting this review, we first discuss the methodological challenges inherent in obtaining transportation expenditure data, especially from low- income households. We then describe the three national data sources that include transportation expenditure data and summarize key findings from studies based on these data. In addition, we review research in three areas: ( 1) the combined burden of housing and transportation expenditures; ( 2) how low- income families respond to changing transportation costs, especially changes in the price of gas and public transit; and ( 3) how tolling and fees affect low- income families.
The third chapter describes our in- depth interview data collection methods. We explain why we chose interviews as the most appropriate method of data collection and describe the data collection steps and the analysis process. We then summarize the demographic characteristics and residential locations of our sample. Finally, we discuss the limitations of our study.
The fourth chapter describes the environment in which the interviewees live. This information is important, because residential location strongly shapes the transportation options available to the interviewees. The chapter includes a description of the geography of the city, the socio- demographic characteristics of residents, and the travel behavior patterns of San José and Santa Clara County residents. The chapter concludes with a summary of transit service in San José and a listing of services and subsidies available to help low- income residents cover their local transportation costs.
The fifth chapter presents our research findings, focusing on how low- income adults manage their travel and transportation expenditures given limited resources. We review our findings in three principal areas: how low- income households spend their transportation dollars, strategies low- income individuals use to manage their transportation expenditures, and interviewees’ attitudes about current and potential changes in transportation costs, including rising fuel prices and congestion tolls. We summarize and analyze these findings in the sixth chapter.
In the seventh chapter, we present planning and policy recommendations to ( 1) increase transportation affordability and ( 2) minimize the impact of new transportation taxes or fees on low- income people. A better understanding of the transportation expenditures of low- income families allows us to consider the likely effects of transportation policies on low- income families. It also enables policymakers to better evaluate the effects of transportation finance policies such as congestion pricing and gas- tax increases on the travel behavior and economic security of low- income families. In the eighth and final chapter, we present recommendations for developing new research and data collection strategies. Mineta Transportation Institute
6 Introduction
Mineta Transportation Institute
7
RESEARCH ON TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES AMONG LOW- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
INTRODUCTION
Transportation is one of the largest categories of expenses for American families— in most cases, second only to housing. 1 However, while affordable housing is a highly prominent policy issue, affordable transportation has received much less attention. 2 Transportation expenditures merit more focused attention from researchers, policymakers, and advocacy groups who wish to address the financial burdens that low- income families face. 3 These expenditures also merit attention from the transportation policy and planning community because they tie into the equity issues surrounding transportation finance and investment, in particular for emerging finance mechanisms such as congestion pricing. 4
This chapter summarizes and reviews existing research on transportation spending by low- income households, with a focus on research conducted in the United States. Researchers generally agree that transportation expenditures place a heavy financial burden on families with the fewest resources. However, they draw very different implications from this basic finding. Many of the studies emphasize the high costs associated with automobiles and therefore suggest policy strategies to minimize driving. In contrast, other studies acknowledge the high out- of- pocket expenses associated with automobiles but interpret high automobile usage rates among low- income households as an indication of the utility of automobiles, particularly given the dispersed urban structure of most metropolitan areas.
The chapter begins by discussing the methodological challenges inherent in obtaining transportation expenditure data, especially from low- income households, and then describes the three national data sources that include transportation expenditure data— the Survey of Program Dynamics ( SPD), the Panel Study of Income Dynamics ( PSID), and the Consumer Expenditure Survey ( CES). Key findings from these, with emphasis on the CES, are presented next. The chapter then examines one of the prominent themes in current research on transportation costs, the combined burden of housing and transportation expenditures. The final section discusses the literature on how low- income families respond to changing transportation costs, especially changes in the price of fuel and public transit and the introduction of tolling.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT HOW MUCH LOW- INCOME FAMILIES SPEND ON TRANSPORTATION?
Little solid information exists on how much Americans— of any income level— spend on transportation. This section briefly discusses the challenges of collecting such data, describes the only national sources of transportation expenditure data, and presents findings on what is known from these sources about expenditures among low- income families. Mineta Transportation Institute
Research on Transportation Expenditures Among Low- Income Households
8
Methodological Issues in Collecting Transportation Expenditure Data
Collecting data on transportation expenditures and estimating them as a portion of total income are not simple matters, especially in the case of low- income households. Two particularly troubling methodological dilemmas are the tendency of respondents to omit information when reporting their income and expenditures and the question of whether to measure the household transportation “ burden” by comparing total transportation expenditures against total household income or against total household expenditures.
The first difficulty stems from a problem inherent in expenditure surveys of any type: respondents do not always give complete or accurate information. They may not keep good track of their expenditures, they may distrust interviewers, they may fear repercussions if they describe spending behavior related to illegal activities, or they may wish to avoid the embarrassment of reporting expenditures on goods that can elicit social disapproval, e. g., alcohol. Misrepresentation may be particularly acute among low- income respondents because of their greater economic vulnerability.
Similar problems with misrepresentation occur in income surveys, as illustrated in a study by Edin and Lein, who interviewed nearly 400 single mothers on welfare or working in low- wage jobs to identify their sources of income. 5 The authors found that these women supplemented formal wages and benefits with undocumented income from relatives, boyfriends, and under- the- table employment. To obtain this information, however, the authors had to gain the trust of interviewees through repeat visits or referrals from other interviewees.
With respect to transportation expenditures, people also may rely on cost- cutting strategies that they wish to hide. Some low- income families lie to caseworkers about their vehicle asset holdings to avoid vehicle asset limits associated with public assistance programs, or families may drive uninsured vehicles to avoid both insurance and vehicle registration costs. 6 On the transit side, some households may be hesitant to disclose that they use illegal jitney services7 or buy black- market transit passes. 8
The problems of inaccurate data become especially clear when comparing income and expenditure data. According to CES data for households at the bottom income quintile, reported expenditures can be up to two times larger than reported pre- tax income. ( By comparison, among all consumer units, total expenditures are about 80 percent of pre- tax income. 9) While some low- income households certainly take on debt to pay for basic expenses, it is implausible that the average poor household spends twice as much as it takes in each and every year. While debt is surely a problem among poor households, there is simply no evidence that debts of such magnitude are endemic— especially given the evidence from Edin and Lein that households frequently have unofficial income sources. 10
The second major methodological issue, related to the first, is the question of whether expenditure statistics should use total household income or total expenditures as a comparative baseline for understanding how severely transportation expenditures burden families. Blumenberg and Rice use the large disparity between income and expenditures Mineta Transportation Institute
Research on Transportation Expenditures Among Low- Income Households
9
to argue that expenditures should serve as the denominator for calculating transportation spending percentages. 11 Sanchez and Brenman argue that income should serve as the denominator because it “ better illustrates the impact of high travel costs on lower- income households,” though they do not explain precisely why this is the case. 12 Sanchez and Brenman explicitly note that calculating transportation expenditures against reported income results in much higher estimated transportation- expenditure burdens. Advocacy groups typically follow their lead and use income to calculate percentages as well. 13
Transportation Expenditure Data Sources
To date, there are very few sources of data on transportation expenditures. Most of the well- known national and regional household travel surveys collect no information at all on expenditures; the exceptions are a few surveys that ask about parking costs at the respondent’s workplace and even fewer that ask basic questions about transit fares. 14 The only three major national surveys to collect more- detailed information about transportation expenditures are the SPD, the PSID, and the CES. Table 1 summarizes the transportation- related data in each of these surveys. The SPD contains limited transportation expenditure data; the PSID and the CES are more comprehensive, especially the CES. 15 Indeed, the CES, administered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS), collects the most complete set of transportation expenditure data of any major survey in the United States.
The CES has collected expenditure data for both urban and rural households in the United States on an annual basis since 1984.16 The CES project consists of two independent surveys: a quarterly interview survey of 7,500 households and a weekly diary survey of another 7,500 households. The quarterly interview survey focuses on monthly expenditures for such categories as housing, transportation, and insurance. The weekly diary survey focuses on more- frequent purchases such as food, personal care products, and non- prescription drugs. The BLS then combines these data to produce annual data tables and reports. One table shows average annual expenditure data for selected cities in each of four regions in the country ( not including San José).
The CES provides a useful overview of transportation spending patterns among low- income households, but it does not paint a comprehensive picture of their expenditures. To avoid issues with sampling errors, the BLS does not publish fine- grained expenditure data— a reasonable choice for such a survey, but one that obscures potentially important differences in spending between low- income and higher- income families. For example, researchers interested in the equity effects of tolling schemes have to look elsewhere, because the public CES data lack a specific category for tolls. In addition, the transportation expenditure data are not linked to data on travel behavior. Therefore, it is impossible to calculate how much households pay per mile of travel. Moreover, the data do not distinguish between the costs of travel for different purposes such as travel to work and travel for recreational purposes. Finally, the CES suffers from the methodological issues associated with expenditure surveys in general, as discussed above. Mineta Transportation Institute
10 Research on Transportation Expenditures Among Low- Income Households
Table 1. Summary of Transportation Expenditure Data Collected in National Surveys
Transportation topics covered
Survey name
Unit of analysis
Geography
Transportation expenditures
Travel
behavior
Vehicle ownership/ availability
Vehicle
characteris­tics
Consumer Ex­penditure
Survey ( CES)
Household
Region; selected metropolitan areas
Yes— questions on vehicle purchases and leases; recent months’ expenses on vehicle maintenance and repair, licensing and reg­istration
fees, and operating expenses ( in­cluding
gas, parking, tolls, oil changes); and vacation travel expenses
None on daily travel; a few on vacation travel
Yes
Yes
Panel Study of Income Dynamics ( PSID)
Individual and family
Location vari­ables,
including PSID/ GSA and FIPS state codes, region, and the Beale Rural- Urban code
Yes— questions on vehicle purchases ( total price and current payments), plus previous month’s expenses on vehicle repairs, gas, parking, carpools, transit fares, taxis, and “ other” transportation costs
No
Yes
Yes
Survey of Program Dynamics ( SPD)
Household
State
Yes, but only on weekly commute expendi­tures
A few
Yes
Yes
Sources: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey Interviewing Manual, 2007, copies of the questionnaires for each of the three surveys listed, January 2007, http:// www. census. gov/ apsd/ techdoc/ cps/ CPS_ Interviewing_ Manual_ July2008rv. pdf ( accessed September 3, 2010); U. S. Bureau of the Census, “ Survey of Program Dynamics ( SPD) 2000: Cross- Sectional File SPD_ 00CS” ( no date), http:// www. census. gov/ spd/ pubs/ SPD_ 00CS. pdf ( accessed September 3, 2010); U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “ Consumer Expenditure Survey Quarterly Interview CAPI Survey,” 2008, http:// www. bls. gov/ cex/ capi/ 2008/ cecapihome. htm ( accessed September 3, 2010).
Note: GSA = General Services Administration; FIPS = Federal Information Processing Standards. Mineta Transportation Institute
Research on Transportation Expenditures Among Low- Income Households 11
Transportation Expenditures of Low- Income Families
Since the CES provides the best data on transportation expenditures, we briefly review the most recent CES data, focusing on households (“ consumer units”) in the lowest income quintile, and then discuss findings from other authors’ analyses of CES data. 17
As shown in Table 2, in 2008, households in the bottom- income quintile spent slightly less than other households on transportation as a percentage of total expenditures— 15 percent on average for the lowest- income quintile versus an average of 17 percent for all households. Over time, from 1988 to 2008, the transportation- expenditure burden declined significantly among all households but changed very little among households in the bottom income quintile. 18
The real gap between low- income households and all households is in the magnitude of total expenditures. All households spent an annual average of just over $ 8,600 on transportation, but households in the lowest- income quintile spent only 40 percent of that amount, around $ 3,400. The data suggest that low incomes may preclude purchasing as much transportation as these households want or, perhaps, need.
More than 94 percent of all the transportation expenditures of both the bottom quintile and all households were for vehicles, with the largest amount going to vehicle purchases.
Table 2. Transportation Expenditures for the Lowest- Income Quintile versus All Consumer Units in 2008
Expenditure category
Consumer units in the lowest- income quintile
All
consumer units
Average annual transportation expenditure, $
3,430
8,604
Change in annual transportation expenditure ( 1988– 2008), percent
12
– 9
Transportation as a percent of total expenditures
15
17
Change in the transportation- expenditure burden ( 1988– 2008), percent
1
– 14
Average annual expenditure on vehicles, $
3,210
8,091
Percent of transportation expenditure for vehicles
94
94
Average annual expenditure for public transit, $
220
513
Percent of transportation expenditure for public transit
6
6
Sources: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “ Consumer Expenditure Survey 2008: CE Database: One- Screen Data Search,” http:// www. bls. gov/ cex/# tables ( accessed May 14, 2010). Data were obtained by searching for the following items: “ average number in consumer unit: at least one vehicle owned or leased,” “ total average annual expenses,” “ average annual expenses: housing,” “ average annual expenses: transportation,” “ average annual expenses: transportation: other vehicle expenses,” “ average annual expenses: transportation: gasoline and motor oil,” “ average annual expenses: transportation: vehicle purchases,” and “ average annual expenses: transportation: public transportation”; U. S Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, Table 1: Quintiles of Income Before Taxes, 1988, ftp:// ftp. bls. gov/ pub/ special. requests/ ce/ standard/ 1988/ quintile. txt ( accessed June 16, 2010). Mineta Transportation Institute
12 Research on Transportation Expenditures Among Low- Income Households
( The figure represents an average expenditure among all households in a given year; individual households do not, of course, purchase vehicles every year.) The bottom- quintile households spent an average of $ 3,210 per year on vehicles. In contrast, the same households spent just $ 220 per year on public transit. 19
The proportion of households with access to at least one vehicle is 22 percentage points lower for the lowest- income- quintile households than for all households ( 67 percent and 89 percent, respectively). 20 Owning fewer vehicles is thus the major way low- income households manage to keep their transportation expenditures low.
Other researchers have examined CES data in more detail to detect overall patterns and trends in transportation spending, and they have arrived at conclusions similar to ours. Rice used CES microdata to examine transportation spending among low- income households in California and found that 13 percent of the total expenditures of those households were on transportation, compared with 15 percent for other households. 21 Using older ( 1999) CES data and looking only at families living in larger metropolitan areas, Liao also found that low- income families spent a smaller percentage ( 15 percent) of their household budget on transportation than high- income families ( 19 percent). 22
Moehrle used CES data to examine household expenditures among low- income elderly households ( those with less than $ 15,000 in annual income), comparing working and non- working households. 23 He found that overall expenditures varied not only by income, but also by work status: low- income working elderly spent 25 percent more on transportation than low- income non- working elderly, despite having only 12 percent more income on average.
Finally, Sanchez and Brenman calculated changes in transportation spending between 1993 and 2003 and found that households in the lowest- income quintile experienced the greatest rate of increase in transportation spending relative to income. In contrast, households in the highest- income quintile spent a smaller percentage of their income on transportation in 2003 than in 1993.24 Similarly, Deka used data from the CES as evidence that inequities in transportation have increased over time. 25 The percentage of income spent on transportation by low- income and minority households has increased at a much faster rate than the percentage for other households.
SPENDING TRADEOFFS BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
While transportation is generally the second- largest expense category for households in the United States, housing is first. The two expenses are closely linked, because in many communities, cheaper housing is located farther from jobs and other key destinations, so households often make tradeoffs between transportation and housing costs. 26 For example, a family living and working in the central city may choose to move to the suburbs for cheaper housing, even though the move increases their travel costs. Given the tight linkage between the two costs, a number of researchers have investigated the transportation/ housing- expenditure burden to estimate the total burden and the relative contribution of each expense. Mineta Transportation Institute
Research on Transportation Expenditures Among Low- Income Households 13
To understand the effects of this tradeoff, the Center for Neighborhood Technology ( CNT), with help from the Brookings Institution, developed a Housing + Transportation Affordability Index that estimates total housing and transportation costs for a given neighborhood. 27 The CNT began by analyzing neighborhoods in St. Paul/ Minneapolis but later expanded the analysis, initially to 2828 and then to 33029 metropolitan areas in the United States ( as of March 2010). In general, the CNT studies find that low- and moderate- income families who live in low- density, suburban- fringe neighborhoods with low housing costs face high transportation costs, since they must rely on private automobiles and drive long distances to access needed destinations.
Other advocacy groups and researchers have also looked at how high transportation expenses affect long- term wealth accumulation for low- income families. McCann, of the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership ( STPP), for example, argues that when low- income families trade off low housing costs for high transportation costs, the choice hinders wealth accumulation, because spending on housing can increase a household’s wealth, whereas spending on transportation reduces a family’s wealth. 30 Similarly, Sanchez and Brenman note that housing appreciation is the primary means of accumulating wealth among low- and middle- income households in the United States; thus, having to accept high transportation costs in exchange for low housing costs hinders low- income households from improving their economic status. 31
In a policy brief for the Brookings Institution, Waller hints at the possibility of an additional tradeoff between transportation and food expenditures, with lower transportation costs associated with higher food expenditures. 32 ( In Rice’s analysis, food actually edges out transportation as the second- largest expense for low- income households. 33) Waller notes other research showing that low- income urban areas, such as South Central Los Angeles, have fewer grocery stores than high- income areas have, as well as a higher proportion of fast- food restaurants and convenience stores. 34 These conditions lead residents to pay higher prices for food of lower quality and nutritional value. 35 Waller speculates that owning cars may allow residents to shop for food in the suburbs, where grocery stores compete more heavily and, therefore, offer a greater range of choices at lower prices. However, researchers have not examined this effect specifically.
HOW RISING TRANSPORTATION COSTS AFFECT LOW- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
In addition to research on the amount low- income households spend on transportation, the literature also includes examinations of how households adjust their spending when the cost of transportation rises and falls or when incomes fluctuate.
Fuel Prices
Gas prices are not only highly visible— they appear on large signs everywhere you turn— they are also highly volatile, changing every day, sometimes by several cents a gallon. It comes as little surprise, then, that the cost of gas receives widespread attention and concern. Respondents to public opinion polls often state that gas prices affect their habits and, in some cases, pose financial hardships. 36 Higher percentages of low- income respondents Mineta Transportation Institute
14 Research on Transportation Expenditures Among Low- Income Households
report hardship than do more- affluent respondents. For example, in a June 2009 Gallup poll, 71 percent of low- income households ( those earning less than $ 30,000 annually) reported that current gas prices caused them financial hardship, compared with 60 percent of middle- income households ($ 30,000 to $ 74,999) and 39 percent of higher- income households ($ 75,000 or more). 37 Using slightly different income categories, a recent Public Policy Institute of California ( PPIC) study found that 83 percent of low- income California households ( less than $ 40,000 annually) reported that current gas prices cause them financial hardship, compared with 67 percent of moderate- income households ($ 40,000 to less than $ 80,000) and 53 percent of higher- income households ($ 80,000 or more). 38
Self- reported hardship is one way to assess the impact of high motor- fuel prices; another approach is to look at how people change the amount of fuel they purchase when fuel prices rise. Economists refer to this concept as the price elasticity of fuel, which measures the percentage drop in the quantity of fuel purchased that is expected with every percentage increase in fuel price. While many studies— literally hundreds39— have analyzed price elasticities for gas, only a few have examined whether price elasticities vary by income group in the United States.
One such study, by Hughes, Knittel, and Sperling, examined the sensitivity of gas demand to changes in prices and income. 40 Their statistical model includes a term measuring the interaction between income and price. This term is negative, suggesting that as fuel prices rise, higher- income households reduce their fuel purchases more than do low- income households. A study by Kayser finds similar results; she speculates that this finding may be due to the greater proportion of discretionary trips taken by higher- income households. 41 In other words, lower- income households already travel at a minimum, leaving little room for reductions.
One might assume that as gas prices rise, some low- income households would choose to replace driving with public transit, but the findings from studies on the relationship between gas prices and transit ridership are ambiguous. Some studies have found that gas prices have relatively little or no influence on public transit ridership, 42 while other studies have concluded that as gas prices rise, so too does use of public transit. 43 Hughes, Knittel, and Sperling explain that in the short run, few people switch from driving to public transit, because the factors that allow people to easily make such a change— land use, employment structure, and transit infrastructure— change very slowly over time. 44 However, if prices remain high or continue to rise, it is possible that many more households might make major lifestyle shifts, such as moving, that would permit them to increase their use of public transit. 45 A study of transit ridership in the Philadelphia area found that even after gas prices had fallen from their peak in the summer of 2008, transit ridership increased, suggesting a permanent change in travel behavior. 46
A 2009 PPIC study found that more low- income respondents ( those earning less than $ 40,000 annually) reported reducing driving and increasing their use of transit, walking, and bicycling in response to rising gas prices than did moderate- and high- income respondents. 47 In other words, low- income households demonstrated higher elasticity with respect to mode choice than did higher- income households. Mineta Transportation Institute
Research on Transportation Expenditures Among Low- Income Households 15
In summary, the literature shows clearly that when fuel prices rise, households reduce their motor- fuel purchases. Although relatively few studies have looked at whether low- income households do so more or less than their wealthier counterparts, some research suggests that low- income households may actually reduce their fuel consumption less than the highest- income households, perhaps because the former have already reduced travel to the most necessary trips. As for whether high fuel prices stimulate increased used of cheaper modes such as public transit, the evidence is ambiguous, especially with respect to short- term changes.
Public Transportation Fares
Researchers have also calculated general elasticities for public transportation fares. In a summary of transit ridership studies, Litman notes that in the short term ( one year), observed fare elasticities range from – 0.2 to – 0.5.48 In the longer term ( five to ten years), elasticities are larger, ranging from – 0.6 to – 0.9.
Few studies have examined differences in elasticities between low- income and higher- income transit riders. Two studies, summarized by Cervero, show that riders with annual incomes below $ 5,000 in 1970 dollars ( approximately $ 28,000 in 2009 dollars) have a fare elasticity of – 0.19, while riders with incomes above $ 15,000 have an elasticity of – 0.28.49 Low- income riders are less sensitive to fare changes because they are more likely to be transit- dependent; higher- income riders are more likely to be choice riders who can decide to drive if transit fares rise. However, a few studies have found that discount fare programs targeted to certain low- income groups ( such as students) can induce significant ridership increases. 50 Nevertheless, for most low- income families, costs rarely pose the greatest barrier to using public transit. 51 Service coverage and frequency appear to be the greatest obstacles to transit use— as is the case for families at all income levels. 52
Regardless of how much public transit ridership levels actually change in the face of fare increases, transit fares may still disproportionately burden low- income riders. Most transit agencies charge a flat per- ride fare. 53 This fare structure is regressive, because low- income riders, on average, make more trips, transfer more frequently, and travel shorter distances than higher- income riders. 54 Further, advocacy organizations such as the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union have criticized transit agencies when they increase fares, arguing that higher fares unduly hurt low- income families. 55 Additionally, some researchers and transit advocates suggest that extremely low- income families cannot accumulate enough money to purchase transit passes that would ultimately save them money. 56 In contrast, however, Doxsey finds that income has no effect on transit pass purchases. 57
The Impact of Tolling
Transportation proposals that would charge drivers additional fees, such as high- occupancy toll ( HOT) lanes or congestion pricing, inevitably raise equity concerns about the financial effects on low- income families. Opponents of HOT lanes, for example, frequently allege that they are “ Lexus lanes” that allow wealthy people to avoid congestion at the expense of other drivers who will have to spend more time in traffic. 58 Some also worry that the lanes Mineta Transportation Institute
16 Research on Transportation Expenditures Among Low- Income Households
reduce travel options for low- income drivers, forcing them to either pay the fees or stop traveling.
Research on the effects of tolls and fees on low- income drivers has produced mixed results. Some studies have focused exclusively on the tolls that low- income drivers would pay. An assessment of two hypothetical tolling systems in Puget Sound— one for 12 road segments and one for a bridge only— found that drivers at the poverty line who used the roads, with no option of a free alternative route, would pay 15 percent and 6 percent of their total income under the two systems; the authors concluded that tolls would pose severe financial hardships. 59 Other studies show that low- income households pay a smaller percentage of their income or expenses on tolls than higher- income households do. 60 Researchers also note that drivers at all income levels benefit from toll lanes when saving time is important to them— for example, when picking up a child from day care to avoid late fees— and when travelers switching to the toll lanes reduce traffic in the general- use lanes. 61
While the costs of tolls may in fact pose financial hardships for some low- income households, many researchers argue that policymakers must compare those costs against the amounts the households currently pay under existing transportation finance systems. 62 For example, Schweitzer and Taylor used the high- occupancy toll lanes on State Route 91 in Orange County, California, to compare the amount that low- income residents pay for toll roads with the amount they pay through local transportation sales taxes, which are an increasingly popular transportation- finance mechanism in the United States. 63 Schweitzer and Taylor concluded that under the sales- tax approach, low- income households without automobiles end up subsidizing part of the driving costs for wealthy households. 64 They conclude by suggesting that low- income travelers could receive direct “ lifeline” discounts for toll roads if policymakers remain concerned about equity issues. 65 Mineta Transportation Institute
17
METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
To complement the research described above, which primarily comprises aggregate analyses of quantitative data, this study uses qualitative data from face- to- face interviews with 73 low- income adults living in or near San José, California. This chapter begins with an explanation of why we chose interviews as the most appropriate method of data collection. We then describe the steps of the data collection and analysis process and summarize the demographic characteristics and residential location of our sample. We conclude with a brief discussion of the limitations of the study data and analysis.
WHY INTERVIEWS?
The goal of this survey was to develop a nuanced understanding of how transportation costs shape low- income people’s travel options and choices. We chose interviews as the most appropriate method because they make it possible to explore the motivations underlying behaviors of interest. To date, most research into travel behavior has relied on surveys, and these have uncovered relatively little about how low- income people decide what trips to make and what modes to use, and even less about how cost considerations influence their decisions. The interviews allowed us to unveil complex relationships between costs and travel behavior that are not captured with survey questionnaires. They allowed us to probe carefully for the motivations behind respondents’ travel choices. In addition, interviews were appropriate because so little is known about how cost influences low- income individuals’ travel decisions; in such circumstances, it would be difficult to develop appropriate survey questions.
The final sample size of 73 is quite large for a qualitative, interview- based study, giving us ample data for analysis. The sample is large enough to provide a diversity of experiences and large enough to distinguish those attitudes or behavioral choices that appear unique to an individual from more common ones that would be appropriate to examine further through survey- based research.
THE INTERVIEW GUIDE
The interviews were conducted in a semi- structured fashion, following a detailed interview guide ( reproduced in Appendix A). Interviewers were given the guide prior to the interviews and were asked to familiarize themselves with it. They also were instructed to bring it with them to use during their interviews. The guide was not intended to be treated as a strict script. The interviewers were encouraged to modify the question wording as needed during the interviews and also to add questions to probe more deeply into relevant topics.
We developed the questions on the interview guide to gather basic information about the interviewees’ travel patterns, but more important, to elicit their reflections, values, and decision making processes regarding their travel behavior and transportation expenditure choices. Interviewees also were asked to describe their perceptions about different travel Mineta Transportation Institute
Methodology
18
modes, to discuss the daily tradeoffs they make when deciding how to get around, and to offer general suggestions to policymakers on how to make transportation more affordable. The interviewers also collected basic demographic information and general information on the residential locations of interviewees ( the names of major streets intersecting near the interviewees’ homes).
The primary topics covered in the interviews were the following:
• Household composition. With whom does the interviewee live and consider members of his or her family, and what are the relationships among members of the household?
• Employment. Does the interviewee or other household members have paid employment?
• Household vehicles. What motor vehicles or bicycles are available to the interviewee?
• Travel behavior. By what mode does the interviewee travel, and to what types of destinations? What are the reasons behind the interviewee’s mode choices?
• Expenditures on travel. What are the interviewee’s typical travel costs, including both daily expenses ( gas, tolls, taxi fares, parking, transit fares, etc.) and periodic expenses ( car payments, insurance, repairs, etc.)? Does the interviewee “ pay” for transportation by trading services, such as trading babysitting for rides?
• Budgeting. Does the interviewee keep track of personal or household transportation expenditures? If so, how?
• Impact of rising gas prices. Did the interviewee change his/ her travel behavior or expenditures in response to rising gas prices in 2008? If so, how?
• Impact of rising transit fares. Did the interviewee change his or her travel behavior or expenditures in response to the increase in Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) bus and rail fares that went into effect on October 1, 2009? ( VTA is the transit authority in the San José area.)
• Impact of hypothetical changes in transportation costs. How does the interviewee anticipate that his or her travel behavior might change in response to future changes to transportation costs? Scenarios discussed included doubled or free transit fares, a 10- cent- per- mile mileage fee on driving, and the introduction of high- occupancy/ toll ( HOT) lanes.
• Policy suggestions. What does the interviewee believe are the most important changes policymakers could implement to make transportation better or more affordable for him or her?
On Wednesday, September 9, 2009, four members of the research team tested the recruitment strategy and draft interview protocol at the Sacred Heart Community Services ( SHCS) Center in San José. On Friday, September 25, members of the research team conducted a second set of pilot interviews at the Olinder Food Bank, also in San José. Following these pilot interviews, the team made minor adjustments to the interview Mineta Transportation Institute
Methodology
19
questions and established a set of procedures to guide the recruitment and interview processes. The locations of the recruitment sites are shown in Figure 1 on page 23.
SUBJECT RECRUITMENT
Most respondents were recruited through organizations serving low- income members of the San José community. To encourage participation, we told interviewees during the recruitment process that they would receive a $ 20 gift card to Target as thanks for their participation.
Recruiting interviewees through organizations serving low- income clients made it possible to identify low- income individuals without having to do invasive income screening. Also, working through the partner organizations facilitated recruiting very low- income individuals, including homeless people, who would otherwise have been difficult to identify and reach.
Most interviewees were recruited with the help of three organizations: SHCS, the Olinder Food Program, and a low- income rental housing complex called Paseo Senter. These organizations are located in central San José in neighborhoods with high concentrations of low- income, minority residents, including large Latino and Vietnamese populations. In addition, a handful of interviewees were recruited through referrals by CommUniverCity staff and San José State University anthropology students who put us in touch with low- income acquaintances.
Table 3 shows the distribution of interviewees by place of recruitment. Approximately three- quarters of the interviews were conducted at the SHCS Center. SHCS, which serves over 1,500 low- income customers per day, provides a number of integrated services, including food and clothing assistance, early childhood education, housing assistance, legal services, and a small number of free transit tokens. To recruit interviewees, SHCS staff or the interviewers themselves approached customers waiting in line for food or clothing to ask if they would be willing to do an interview on the spot. Potential interviewees were told that the interview would take 45 minutes to an hour. The interviews took place in both private and communal rooms at the center.
Seven interviews were conducted with Olinder Food Program customers. Olinder is a volunteer- run neighborhood nonprofit organization that gives away food on Monday and Friday mornings. As interviewers did at SHCS, Olinder Food Program volunteers approached customers waiting in line and invited them to be interviewed on the spot. These interviews took place inside the food bank or on benches in an adjacent park.
Table 3. Number of Interviewees, by Location
Interview site
Number of interviewees
Sacred Heart Community Services
55
Olinder Food Center
7
Paseo Senter
6
Other locations
5 Mineta Transportation Institute
20 Methodology
A final six interviews were conducted at Paseo Senter, a multifamily, affordable- housing development that is owned and operated by the nonprofit organization Charities Housing. Staff members at Paseo Senter helped recruit tenants by distributing flyers describing the research project and inviting residents to participate. Interested residents gave their names and phone numbers to Paseo Center staff and were later contacted by an interviewer to schedule a time for the interview. These interviews were conducted in a community room at Paseo Senter.
THE INTERVIEWERS
San José State University faculty and students conducted the interviews. Under the supervision of Professor Charles Darrah, undergraduate students enrolled in Anthropology 149— an ethnographic methods course— conducted 34 of the interviews. The other interviews were completed by graduate students in the departments of Urban and Regional Planning and Anthropology, and by the principal investigators.
THE INTERVIEW PROCESS
All participants completed one face- to- face interview lasting from 20 minutes to over an hour. All but one of the interviews was conducted in English; one interview was conducted in Spanish. 66 Most of the interviews took place in the facilities of the three nonprofit organizations or at outdoor ( public) seating nearby, though a few interviews were arranged at offsite meeting locations such as a coffee shop or public library. The interviews took place between September 9 and December 2, 2009.
At the beginning of each interview, the interviewer explained the purpose of the study and the interviewee’s rights as a subject of research conducted through San José State University. Each subject then was asked to sign an informed consent form. At the beginning of each interview, participants and any children or family members with them were offered bottled water and a granola bar to consume during the interview. All interviews were audio recorded. When an interview concluded, the interviewee received a $ 20 Target gift card.
After an interview was complete, the interviewers wrote up brief notes, including the time of the interview, the location, and any reflections on the interviewee or the content of the material discussed. For example, interviewers made notes on where the interview took place, how the environment might have influenced the interview, impressions of the interviewee’s conduct or attitude, and reflections on the interactions between the interviewee and any family members who were present. 67
DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS
The audio recordings made during each interview were transcribed by the interviewer or by a professional transcription service. On the transcripts, interviewers replaced the names of the interviewees with pseudonyms to protect the interviewees’ confidentiality. They also applied line and page numbers to each transcript. Mineta Transportation Institute
Methodology 21
After the interviews were transcribed, a subset of members of the research team read all of the transcripts, identified trends, and prioritized major themes. They then selected a set of 23 topics around which to code the transcripts. The coding strategy was a mix of deductive coding ( reflecting the questions and issues known by the research team to be most relevant to transportation policy) and inductive coding ( focusing on key issues raised by the interviewees themselves).
To code the data in each transcript, the coders followed a set process in which they
1. Selected each quotation relevant to a code and applied a “ comment” identifying the code name( s) in the margin of the transcript.
2. Copied the relevant quotations, with the identifying line numbers, and pasted them into a spreadsheet organized such that each transcript number was a row and each code topic was a column.
3. Wrote up additional notes summarizing the interview as a whole and/ or highlighting particularly important material from it.
The coding process was tested by having multiple coders code the same transcript. After comparing the results, we refined some code definitions to promote better consistency among coders. Three primary coders further tested the coding process by meeting as a group to compare and discuss their results. Their findings were used to make a final round of revisions to the coding definitions and procedures used to analyze all the transcripts. The final set of codes and coding procedures is shown in Part 1 of Appendix B.
In addition to coding the documents for qualitative content, we created a database to enumerate a small set of factors, including demographic characteristics of the interviewees and the modes they used on the travel day discussed during the interviews. Part 2 of Appendix B outlines the specific data analyzed in this way.
During the coding process, coders met with the principal investigators each week to discuss common issues and make further adjustments to the codes as necessary. Throughout the process, the principal investigators reviewed coded transcripts for accuracy and consistency.
Once the data coding was complete, the research team developed a set of key subthemes relevant to each code by reading and re- reading the quotations assigned to each to identify concepts that appeared in quotations made by multiple interviewees. In a few cases, the researchers identified subthemes that related to well- established theories in the literature about travel behavior. The quotations for each code were then assigned to all relevant subthemes for that code, using a new spreadsheet to capture these data.
After all the quotations for each code had been assigned to subthemes, the research team reviewed the material yet again to identify the most prominent subthemes, and the remaining data were discarded from the analysis. A subtheme was kept for further analysis if it captured the content of a reasonable number of interviewees’ comments and also applied directly to the research questions of interest for the study. The final set of subthemes and their associated quotations provide the basis for the findings of the study. Mineta Transportation Institute
22 Methodology
Table 4 presents basic socio- demographic information on the 73 interviewees. For comparison, the table also includes the characteristics of the adult poverty population in San José. Although diverse, the study sample does not precisely represent the composition of the adult poor in San José, underrepresenting young adults, Asians, and persons with very little education. The sample was divided roughly evenly between males and females. About one- fifth of respondents were between the ages of 26 and 40; almost all of the remaining respondents were between the ages of 41 and 65. About one- half of the respondents identified themselves as Hispanic, and one- third identified themselves as white. A very small percentage identified themselves as African- American or Asian. Approximately 40 percent of the respondents had completed only a high- school
Table 4. Demographics of the Interviewees and the Adult Poverty Population in San José
Interviewees
Category
Number
Percent
Adult poverty population in the San José MSA,
percent ( 2000)
Sex
Female
34
53
52
Male
39
47
48
Age range
18– 25
2
3
33
26– 40
15
20
30
41– 65
47
64
24
66+
2
3
13
Missing
7
10
- -
Ethnicity
White
22
30
34
Hispanic
30
41
34
African- American
2
3
4
Asian
1
1
23
Mixed/ other
9
12
4
Missing
9
12
Education level
< High- school graduate
10
14
29
High- school graduate
19
26
27
Some college education
19
26
28
College graduate
4
5
11
Advanced degree
2
3
6
Missing
19
26
—
Source: Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek, “ Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0” [ machine- readable database], Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 2010. Mineta Transportation Institute
Methodology 23
education or less, about one- quarter had taken some college classes but had not com- pleted a degree, and 8 percent indicated that they had graduated from college or received an advanced degree.
HOME LOCATIONS OF THE INTERVIEWEES
Sixty- five participants told us the names of major streets intersecting near their homes ( see Figure 1). Most of the interviewees lived in central San José, which is not surprising, since this was where we recruited most of them. Therefore, the sample represents the attitudes of urban residents, which are probably different from those of a more isolated rural poverty population. Figure 1 also shows the location of VTA bus and light rail transit lines. A geographic information system ( GIS) analysis measuring the straight- line distance between the home locations and VTA stops found that all but one of the 65 participants’ stated home locations was within a quarter- mile of a VTA transit stop.
Figure 1. Home Locations of 65 Interviewees, Indicating Proximity to Transit Lines
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY DATA AND ANALYSIS
This research entailed a labor- intensive effort to gain insights into the travel needs and burdens of the poor from a relatively small sample of participants. As mentioned previously, there are many advantages to using a qualitative research approach. However, this Mineta Transportation Institute
24 Methodology
strategy has some weaknesses for the present study that are important to note, including the inability to ( a) generalize our findings to a larger population since the sample size was not only small but also was not randomly selected and ( b) compare our findings across income groups and geographic locations ( both within and across urban areas). Further, the study would have been enhanced had we been able to collect information on revealed transportation expenditures. Our data give us insight into how our interviewees think about their transportation expenses but do not indicate whether these thoughts are reflected in their actual behavior.
A second limitation to this qualitative study is the nature of the coding process used. The research team primarily used a deductive coding process designed to identify themes that relate to current policy questions and issues within the transportation community. We chose this process as an efficient method to elicit information with clear and immediate relevance to policymakers. However, an alternative approach to analyzing the data would rely on a purely inductive coding strategy designed to identify themes solely through analysis of the transcripts themselves. Such a coding approach could reveal other aspects of the transportation cost burden thus far not considered by policymakers and researchers.
In the concluding chapter of the report, we recommend additional data collection strategies to address some of the limitations of our study, as well as to supplement the data sources reviewed in the preceding chapter. Mineta Transportation Institute
25
THE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT FOR LOW- INCOME RESIDENTS IN SAN JOSÉ
Low- income households make transportation decisions based, in part, on the environments in which they live. Mode- choice decisions are influenced by the density of land use, public transit proximity and levels of service, and the availability of user- side transportation subsidies, among other factors. In this chapter, we describe the environment in which the interviewees for this study live. We begin with a description of the geography of San José, and we then review the socio- demographic characteristics and travel behavior of San José and Santa Clara County residents. In the last two sections of the chapter, we describe transit service in San José and the support available to help low- income residents cover their local transportation expenses.
THE GEOGRAPHY OF SAN JOSÉ
The city of San José has a population of nearly one million people spread across 174 square miles. 68 Like most cities, San José has a variety of land- use patterns. The downtown core is relatively dense, with a mix of housing and employment opportunities. The core is well served by freeways and a mix of local and regional transit services. The city contains other pockets of dense and mixed- use development around smaller commercial centers as well, though large sections of the city are very low- density residential suburbs. The southern parts of the city include some semi- rural neighborhoods.
Many residents of San José commute north for employment. Although San José does contain jobs, especially in the downtown area and neighborhoods to the north, it also serves as a bedroom community for the rest of Santa Clara County: many residents commute to job- rich communities such as Santa Clara, Mountain View, and Palo Alto.
The city is relatively flat and has a good year- round climate, making walking and bicycling reasonable mode- choice options for short trips.
SOCIO- DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL DATA OF SAN JOSÉ AND
SANTA CLARA COUNTY RESIDENTS
The residents of San José are quite diverse. In terms of race and ethnicity, 2006– 2008 American Community Survey data show the city to be 49 percent white, 30 percent Asian, 3 percent mixed race, and 3 percent African- American. Thirty- two percent of the residents identify themselves as of Hispanic or Latino origin. The city also has a high percentage ( 39 percent) of foreign- born residents.
The median San José household income at the time of this study was just over $ 79,796, and per capita money income averaged $ 33,859. Ten percent of city residents fell below the federal poverty line. 69 San José residents are somewhat less affluent than all residents in the county, and more of them are minorities. 70 Mineta Transportation Institute
The Transportation Environment for Low- Income Residents in San José
26
The Census Bureau provides limited information on travel behavior for San José residents, consisting of only the “ usual” mode used for the work commute. Figure 2 compares the percentage of workers in San José below and above the poverty line by commute mode. Workers below the poverty line are considerably less likely to commute by car ( although more than two- thirds of them use this mode) and are slightly more likely to use public transit, bicycling, and walking compared to workers above the poverty line.
Data from the 2006– 2008 American Community Survey on vehicle ownership in San José show that approximately 5 percent of all households have no household vehicles available, 29 percent have one vehicle, and the rest have two or more vehicles. It is not surprising, then, that the dominant modes used for work trips by those in households below the federal poverty line are driving alone and carpooling, which, combined, account for 68 percent of the mode share. Public transit accounts for 6 percent of work trips, and bicycling and walking account for approximately 5 percent and 9 percent of work trips, respectively. 71
68% 6% 5% 9% 11% 89% 3% 1% 2% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% AutoTransitBikeWalkOtherBelow PovertyAbove Poverty
Figure 2. “ Usual” Commute Mode, by Poverty Status, in San José ( 2006– 2008)
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, “ 2006– 2008 American Community Survey 3- Year Estimates: San José Metropolitan Statistical Area, California,” http:// factfinder. census. gov/ servlet/ Dataset MainPageServlet?_ program= ACS&_ submenuId= datasets_ 2&_ lang= en ( accessed May 14, 2010).
Note: Poverty is defined as the percentage of workers who live in households with incomes below the federally- established poverty threshold. Mineta Transportation Institute
The Transportation Environment for Low- Income Residents in San José
27
The 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey provides more- detailed information about travel behavior in Santa Clara County as a whole, although not for San José specifically. Figures 3 and 4 show trip rates by travel mode and purpose for the lowest- income quartile in the county ( households with annual incomes below $ 30,000), as well as for all households in the county. The total number of daily trips does not vary much by income, but modes vary among the income groups. In particular, lower- income residents are much more likely to travel by public transit than county residents as a whole ( 10 percent of trips for lower- income residents, compared with 2.4 percent of trips for all residents) and are also less likely to travel as vehicle drivers. Lower- income residents are also somewhat less likely to travel as vehicle passengers, although here the variation across income groups is not large. Figure 4, which presents trip rates by trip purpose, shows that low- income individuals make comparatively more trips for shopping and school and fewer trips for work and social purposes.
3.131.870.830.230.080.040.093.081.150.770.320.310.040.510.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5TotalVehicle driverVehicle passengersWalkTransitBicycleOtherAverage Weekday Per Capita Trip RatesAll HouseholdsLow- Income Households (<$ 30,000) Mode
Figure 3. Average Weekday Per Capita Trip Rates in Santa Clara County, by Annual Household Income Status and Travel Mode ( 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey Data)
Source: Charles L. Purvis ( Metropolitan Transportation Commission), e- mail correspondence with the authors. Mineta Transportation Institute
28 The Transportation Environment for Low- Income Residents in San José
0.720.800.540.380.680.490.980.490.540.580.00.20.40.60.81.01.2WorkShopSocial/ RecreationSchoolNon- Home BasedAverage Weekday Per Capita Trip RatesAll HouseholdsLow- Income Households (<$ 30,000)
Figure 4. Average Weekday Per Capita Trip Rates in Santa Clara County, by Trip Purpose and Household Income Status ( 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey Data)
Source: Charles L. Purvis ( Metropolitan Transportation Commission), e- mail correspondence with the authors.
A final source of information on travel behavior in the county, a 2005– 2006 VTA passenger survey, shows that approximately two- thirds of the riders in the system have no access to automobiles, and only 19 percent have complete access. 72 Further, using 2000 Census data, the survey report estimates that more than half of VTA’s riders have household incomes of less than $ 25,000, as compared with only one- sixth of the county’s total population.
TRANSIT SERVICES IN AND AROUND SAN JOSÉ
VTA provides the majority of bus and light rail services for San José and Santa Clara County residents. 73 Service is fairly comprehensive throughout the county— VTA estimates that 80 percent of residents live within one- quarter mile of a local bus stop74— although travel is quite slow for many trips.
VTA’s fares for single- ride tickets are relatively expensive by U. S. standards, but they are comparable to those of other Bay Area transit operators ( see Table 5). The cash fare for bus and light- rail trips is $ 2.00. However, riders can obtain cheaper rates if they purchase packs of tokens or monthly or annual passes. Mineta Transportation Institute
The Transportation Environment for Low- Income Residents in San José 29
Table 5. VTA Fares as of October 1, 2009 ( in dollars)
Passenger
category
Single ride
Day pass
8- hour light rail pass
Community bus single ride
Pack of 5 day pass tokens
Monthly flash pass
Annual pass
Adult
2.00
6.00
4.00
1.25
27.00
70.00
770.00
Adult express
4.00
12.00
N/ A
N/ A
N/ A
140.00
1,540.00
Youth ( 5– 17)
1.75
5.00
3.50
0.75
22.50
45.00
495.00
Senior ( 65+)/ dis­abled/
Medicare
1.00
2.50
2.00
0.50
N/ A
25.00
275.00
Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, “ VTA Fares,” 2010, http:// www. vta. org/ schedules/ fares/ vta_ fares. html ( accessed May 12, 2010).
VTA offers paratransit services for county residents with disabilities that prevent them from using fixed- route service. A nonprofit organization, OUTREACH, operates the county’s paratransit services on behalf of VTA. During VTA service hours, paratransit is made available to individuals residing within three- quarters of a mile of a bus or light rail stop. The service can be used both to connect disabled individuals with VTA’s fixed- route services and as a substitute for VTA services. Standard paratransit trips cost $ 4.00, with premium services available for $ 16.00 per trip. 75
VTA also operates the Downtown Area Shuttle ( DASH) free of charge on weekdays during peak traffic hours. DASH runs through downtown San José and connects to the Diridon Station, which is the primary multimodal transit center in the city.
A variety of transit operators provide interregional transit service. VTA itself offers express buses to connect residents to other employment centers in the Bay Area. In addition, Caltrain provides north- south rail service between San Francisco, San José, and Southern Santa Clara County. The Altamont Commuter Express ( ACE) offers weekday rail service east from San José to Stockton, in the Central Valley.
TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTS FOR LOW- INCOME RESIDENTS
The greater San José area has no systematic program to assist low- income individuals with meeting the cost of transportation. However, a few government agencies and nonprofit organizations offer limited transportation assistance to low- income individuals. Moreover, the available programs are nowhere centrally listed and advertised. The following sections summarize available transportation assistance programs in the San José area. This review took a considerable amount of work to compile and relied to a large extent on the researchers’ institutional contacts and prior knowledge of public assistance programs, a task most individuals would likely be unable to complete on their own.
Government Programs
The California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids ( CalWORKs) program is funded by the federal welfare program and administered at the county level. CalWORKs Mineta Transportation Institute
30 The Transportation Environment for Low- Income Residents in San José
provides temporary cash aid transfers and employment assistance to low- income individuals who serve as the primary caregivers for at- risk children or parents. CalWORKs participants also are eligible to receive monetary assistance for transportation costs related to “ welfare- to- work” activities, child day care, or schooling. 76 Participants can take transportation assistance in the form of public transit tickets or, if their commute by public transit would exceed two hours, they may obtain mileage reimbursement for personal automobile use. Even if a participant’s commute does not exceed two hours, he or she can still choose to receive the cash value of a comparable public transit fare and apply these funds toward personal automobile use. Further, participants may receive taxi vouchers from their employment advisor to use in emergency situations.
In Santa Clara County, OUTREACH provides other CalWORKs services. One of these, the Guaranteed Ride Program, provides scheduled and emergency ride services to transport participants between work and work- related destinations. The Give Kids a Lift! program facilitates transportation to school and day- care locations for participants’ children. The Jump Start Program helps participants pay for repairs to personal vehicles that do not exceed the Kelly Blue Book value of the vehicles. OUTREACH provides all of these services at no charge to CalWORKs- eligible individuals and to a small number of non- eligible, low- income individuals as resources allow.
Medi- Cal also provides non- emergency transportation to participants for medical appointments when transport by other means is deemed impractical. However, Medi- Cal will provide such services only with the signed confirmation of a medical professional and at the lowest cost adequate for participants’ medical needs. 77
For veterans meeting certain criteria, including low- income classification, the Veterans Administration of Santa Clara County offers either the use of a government vehicle or reimbursed mileage ( at a rate of $ 0.285 per mile) for trips taken for medical appointments or care. 78
The Consumer Assistance Program of the California Bureau of Automotive Repair also offers low- income individuals and families help with paying for vehicle repairs needed
to enable the vehicle to pass the state’s smog test. Eligible participants receive up to $ 500 in emissions diagnostic and repair services. Participants must contribute the first $ 20 to the repair of the vehicle. The maximum income threshold for a single person to receive this service is $ 23,400; the threshold increases by $ 8,100 for each additional family member. 79
To help homeless individuals with transportation, Santa Clara County and the City of San José Department of Transportation fully subsidize the Universal Pass for Life Improvement in Transportation ( UPLIFT) program. Administered by United Way and 24 local community organizations, 80 the program provides homeless individuals who currently receive case management from a participating institution with free three- month bus passes. Case managers have the discretion to renew UPLIFT passes for their clients, depending on the clients’ needs. 81 The UPLIFT program appears to be the most widespread transportation assistance program for homeless individuals in Santa Clara County. Mineta Transportation Institute
The Transportation Environment for Low- Income Residents in San José 31
Homeless individuals also can receive help through the City of San José Department of Housing, which has an Emergency Shelter Grant ( ESG) program funded at a modest level by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The program provides a range of services, including transportation assistance. The ESG received $ 440,000 in total funding for fiscal year 2010– 2011,82 but we were unable to obtain further information regarding the specific transportation services provided with that funding.
Finally, low- income individuals who are disabled or over the age of 65 can take advantage of deeply discounted fares that VTA offers. VTA does not offer discounted fares to other low- income individuals. The only aid it targets specifically to low- income individuals is the informal distribution of transit tokens to local community organizations on a sporadic basis, as its budget allows. 83
Nonprofit and Private Organizations
According to Rebecca Cole, the community involvement coordinator at SHCS, nonprofit organizations in the San José area generally do not have reliable sources of funding for transportation assistance for low- income clients. For instance, SHCS has no formal transportation assistance programs but “ randomly” receives and distributes bus tokens and passes from VTA to assist clients attending SCHS programs or traveling to medical appointments. Similarly, Matt Osment, the director of strategic alliances for InnVision, one of the area’s leading providers of housing and services for homeless families and individuals, states that InnVision’s only formal transportation assistance program is participation in the UPLIFT program. 84 InnVision sometimes receives bus tokens from VTA as well but has no formal budget for other transportation assistance services.
There are numerous other community organizations in San José, such as First Church Downtown, that draw funding from a variety of sources and provide at least some transportation assistance for poor families. 85 The full range of the services these organizations provide cannot be assessed in this brief survey. However, their transportation- related efforts seem to be piecemeal and are perhaps often dependent on VTA- provided surplus.
Some health organizations, such as hospitals, adult day- care centers, and mental health clinics, also provide ad hoc transportation assistance for their patients. For example, Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County offers escorted transportation for clients in its adult day- care program. 86 ( This benefit is not exclusively for low- income clients.)
Some low- income individuals benefit from free transit passes that employers provide to all employees or that are purchased for all residents in certain housing units. VTA offers employers and residential communities with a minimum of 25 units the opportunity to buy deeply discounted annual Eco Passes for their employees or tenants. While there are no other restrictions on the types of residential communities that can participate in the residential Eco Pass program, many of the participating communities are classified as affordable housing. 87 Eco Passes give holders free access to all VTA buses and light rail, and employers or residential communities purchase the passes for far less than the cost of regular adult annual passes. 88 Mineta Transportation Institute
32 The Transportation Environment for Low- Income Residents in San José
SUMMARY
To conclude, San José is diverse in both land use and demography. City residents— particularly those living in the urban core— have access to freeways and fairly extensive local and regional transit services. As in other cities, most residents travel primarily by automobile. However, the poor are more likely to use alternative transportation modes such as public transit, walking, and bicycling than are higher- income persons. Consequently, VTA transit riders are disproportionately low- income. Finally, some low- income households receive transportation assistance from public and nonprofit organizations, but this assistance is difficult to identify and often limited. Mineta Transportation Institute
33
STUDY FINDINGS: THE TRANSPORTATION SURVIVAL STRATEGIES OF LOW- INCOME ADULTS
This chapter discusses the findings from our interviews. In particular, we focus on how low- income adults manage their travel and transportation expenditures given limited resources. Our data show that low- income households employ, often creatively, a variety of strategies to preserve their mobility, at the same time making ends meet with limited and often unreliable resources.
We begin by reviewing the transportation expenditures of the interviewees in very general terms. We then examine how they manage these expenditures. We conclude with a discussion of the interviewees’ feelings about current and potential changes in transportation costs, including rising gas prices and congestion tolls.
TRAVEL BEHAVIOR AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES
The purpose of the interviews was to explore how low- income individuals manage their transportation resources. Therefore, we did not ask for a detailed accounting of interviewees’ household expenditures. However, their responses to questions regarding their access to automobiles and their travel behavior provide the basis for a general understanding of their likely transportation expenditures. First, most of the interviewees spend at least some of their household budgets on cars and/ or public transit. Second, while many interviewees use no- or very- low- cost modes of travel, such as walking or bicycling, very few are exclusively reliant on these modes. Third, regardless of mode, interviewees devote their resources primarily to non- discretionary travel.
Automobiles
Many of the interviewees, even in our very low- income population group, regularly use automobiles. More than one- third of the interviewees stated that they always had access to a vehicle, and a few others said that they sometimes did. Cars are widely used in some interviewee households. For instance, Juanita, a self- described housewife living with her husband and four children, explained that her family has four or five cars in their household:
All the cars, they are mine and my husband, but my son, he use one truck . . . and my daughter I give . . . my new car because she need it for the school . . . my son, he goes very very close so he use old car and my son— my husband too— he use old car. And I use— I use the new truck . . . So everybody use a car.
Similarly, as Table 6 shows, slightly less than half of the interviewees drove a car on their most recent travel day, making it the most frequent mode of transportation used, although walking and the bus are not far behind. This rate of car use coheres with interviewees’ more general responses about personal car access. The number of trips taken was slightly higher among interviewees with personal access to cars, a finding consistent with the broader travel- behavior literature. 89 Mineta Transportation Institute
Study Findings: The Transportation Survival Strategies of Low- Income Adults
34
Table 6. Modes Used by Interviewees on Their Most Recent Travel Day
Mode
Percent of
interviewees
Drove private vehicle
44
Rode in private vehicle
17
Bus
30
Light rail
7
Bicycle
11
Walk
30
Approximately 45 percent of the interviewees stated that they did not have personal access to a car. Many of these interviewees live in households with no cars or are homeless, but several live in households with cars but have virtually no access to these vehicles. For instance, a young man named Robert, who lives with roommates, stated that he previously owned two cars but had to sell them for cash- flow purposes. He has a long commute between his job at a community center and attendance at a community college. He explained, “ There’s three [ cars in the household], everybody but me has a car,” but elaborated that he can borrow a car from his roommates only “ if it’s late at night and I want to go to the store.”
Public Transit, Bicycling, and Walking
More than half of those without access to a car use public transit. As Table 6 shows, 37 percent of the interviewees used public transit— bus and light rail— on their most recent travel day. Almost one- third walked on that day, and more than 10 percent used a bicycle. These figures include some interviewees who have access to cars. The data suggest that slightly more than one- third of the interviewees used more than one mode of transportation on the travel day. For example, among those with personal access to cars, approximately 15 percent also used public transit on that day. Not all of those with cars chose to drive, since some could not afford the high cost of gas, registration fees, and ongoing maintenance.
Trip Purpose
Regardless of mode, interviewees spend most of their transportation dollars on non- discretionary travel. We distinguished between non- discretionary and discretionary trips by defining a non- discretionary trip as any trip made for work, school, or other purpose necessary for livelihood maintenance. 90 Using this broad definition, only about one- third of all trips were discretionary. There appears to be no major difference between those with and without access to automobiles in the number of discretionary trips taken. Mineta Transportation Institute
Study Findings: The Transportation Survival Strategies of Low- Income Adults
35
Contrary to stereotypes that the poor travel very little and/ or have ample free time, 91 most of the interviewees— even those who are not employed— reported being actively involved in trip- making and activities to support their households. Those who are not working are frequently engaged in livelihood- maintaining activities, such as seeking immediate assistance at a nonprofit organization, traveling to resolve legal or financial issues, or searching for employment. Purchasing food or groceries was the most commonly cited trip purpose, followed by visits to family or friends and medical- related trips.
MANAGING THE COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION
Our interview data suggest that low- income households actively and creatively manage the costs of their travel, using one or more of the following four strategies: ( 1) modifications to travel behavior, ( 2) creative cost- covering, ( 3) careful management of expenditures, including transportation expenditures, and ( 4) reductions in non- transportation spending. These strategies are summarized in Table 7 and described in detail below.
Table 7. Strategies for Managing Transportation Costs
Strategy
Examples
Modifications to travel behavior
• Shift to travel by less expensive modes; reduce total miles traveled ( reduce number of trips, shorten trips)
• Consolidate travel by trip- chaining to reduce mileage or the number of days a transit day pass is needed
Creative cost- covering
• Informal income- generating activities
• Informal support from friends and families
• Formal support from public, nonprofit, and private organizations and agencies
• Access to low- cost goods and services ( e. g., gas, auto mechanics)
• Transit- fare evasion
Careful management of
expenditures
• Detailed knowledge of fares and other costs of transportation
• Monitoring miles traveled, gas consumption, weekly miles of travel
• Cost minimization
Reductions in non- transportation spending
• Reduction in discretionary spending ( e. g., cigarettes, cable television, cell- phone service, DVDs or games, going out to eat)
• Reduction in non- discretionary spending ( food) Mineta Transportation Institute
36 Study Findings: The Transportation Survival Strategies of Low- Income Adults
Changes in Travel Behavior
Interviewees objected to the high costs associated with both cars and public transit. Consequently, almost all of them reported adjusting their travel behavior to accommodate changes in the costs of travel and household incomes. They adapt their travel behavior in three ways: ( 1) shifting travel to other, less expensive transportation modes, ( 2) reducing the total amount they travel, and ( 3) reorganizing their travel to increase cost efficiency. These are not mutually exclusive strategies; typically, interviewees combine two or more of them.
Some interviewees reported finding various aspects of auto ownership, including the costs of gas, maintenance, and insurance, to be prohibitively expensive. For example, Maria stated, “ Gas. It’s ridiculously high.” Similarly, Jim reported, “ Can’t afford gas, um . . . insurance, upkeep on a vehicle.” The out- of- pocket expenses of using public transit are much lower than those of auto ownership, and, importantly, there are no up- front capital costs. However, the costs of using public transit can be onerous, particularly for the very lowest- income people and those who are most likely to live in households without cars and thus rely on transit. For example, Julio lives with his wife, his cousin, and his cousin’s family, but only his cousin and his cousin’s daughter are employed in any capacity. Julio depends on General Assistance for his livelihood and told us, “[ The] only frustrations [ in taking the bus] was the money . . . so altogether it was just the money issue— trying to come up with the money.” Jennifer, who has two high- school- aged children and is unemployed because of a knee injury, also complained about the costs of public transit:
Jennifer: So how are the kids going to get it [ the money to ride the bus] for $ 5.00 a day? ( Laughter) . . . It’s a lot . . . How much are the bus pass now for a month? $ 75.00?
Interviewer: About $ 70.00.
Jennifer: Whoa. That’s a lot. ( Laughter) That’s a lot, I think.
The high costs associated with cars and public transit clearly affect mode choices and prompted many of our interviewees to shift to lower- cost modes of travel. For example, Juanita described her mode- choice process as follows: “ If I have to go to two places, I figure out how I can go better. Which one I go was free, I go. Better not to spend a lot of gas.” Maria is a stay- at- home mom, and she and her partner use the car for work most of the time. However, she began to walk more, especially when the price of gas increased. She said, “ So [ when gas prices went up] we wouldn’t use the car as much and we decided to walk to closer places like parks and by the house and stuff like that.” And Monica responded to the high price of gas by stating:
Yeah, [ the price of gas] is becoming to be a big worry. So now that’s kinda we walk around a lot because we don’t wanna waste you know like if we can get to it on foot— you know, why should I, you know, waste money on gas.
Some of the lowest- income interviewees indicated that they shifted from public transit to less- expensive travel modes. Manuel lives with his girlfriend and her parents and works Mineta Transportation Institute
Study Findings: The Transportation Survival Strategies of Low- Income Adults 37
only part- time. He discussed his reliance on rides when he did not have the money for public transit: “ I just get a ride if I don’t have the money for it [ the bus].”
These data suggest that the out- of- pocket expenses associated with the use of cars or public transit influence the mode- choice decision making of many individuals in our sample. However, out- of- pocket expenditures are not the only criterion. Like higher- income travelers, most of our interviewees carefully consider other important aspects of the available travel modes, particularly speed and convenience. For example, Alice, a 19- year- old single mother who works night shifts at Taco Bell stated:
Yeah, it is [ easier to drive], ’ cause it helps out a lot when you want to get to places faster. You have to wait half an hour for the bus. And if you’re carrying something, like the baby, she’s going to get fussy and then in the car, you have everything you need in there. I carry extra juice, extra diapers, and it’s easier when I have to change her diaper. I can just pull over and, you know, just change it, but in the bus it’s a whole lot harder. Yeah, just, the car helps a lot, a lot.
Similarly, Tom, a young single father who works and attends San José State University, described the advantages of cars for households with multiple responsibilities:
Driving . . . I have to move. I have to go to work and go to school and then back to school or get my daughter or drop off my daughter or just go to, ah, whatever appointment I have. It just makes it faster for me to move around.
Therefore, many interviewees in our sample continue to use a more expensive primary mode of travel— cars or public transit— but reduce their costs by curtailing the total amount they travel. Some interviewees have eliminated certain trips altogether, and others make shorter trips. John practices the first of these strategies. Even though he receives a lot of informal support for transportation, John explained, “ We don’t go places where we used to go, because of the economy.” Interviewees tend to eliminate discretionary travel as one way to reduce overall trip- making. Joan, who is retired and has trouble traveling because of health problems, focused on this approach:
Um, yeah, [ sometimes I won’t go somewhere because it’s too expensive] because if it isn’t necessary, I won’t spend it and that’s just kind of where I’ve been— and the way I’ve been brought up so.
As a complementary strategy, many interviewees in our sample stay close to home, reducing trip distances by traveling to nearby, albeit less preferred, destinations. Rosa epitomizes the economic difficulty that many of our interviewees experience. She is a mother of three children but recently became unemployed. She discussed traveling only to destinations that are close to her home: “ The truth [ is], we hardly ever go out, we only go to close places because we are not doing very good.”
Finally, many interviewees have reorganized their travel primarily by engaging in more trip- chaining, stringing trips together. Jim has recently become unemployed and has seen his budget shrink significantly. He had to make changes in the way he travels, and in his interview he made a strong case for the cost savings associated with trip- chaining: Mineta Transportation Institute
38 Study Findings: The Transportation Survival Strategies of Low- Income Adults
Um, I mean the biggest way I save money is by planning my week out and see to it that I do all my errands together. You know, if I go to the grocery store, and the doctor’s, and the pharmacy, and the food bank, and go by the post office, and stop by all those different places, in order all in one trip, I save a tremendous amount of money on gas by not doing a lot of short trips that are not conserving energy or ( inaudible). So I guess that’s the number one way I save money is by planning my schedule and then working my plan as far as how I drive and use my vehicle as little as possible, accomplishing the most results.
Trip- chaining is typically accomplished by automobile. However, transit users engage in a form of trip- chaining as well. A number of interviewees spoke about clustering their transit trips on fewer days so as not to purchase an all- day bus pass on more days than necessary. Jeward, who is homeless and on parole, emphasized this strategy. He stated, “ Maybe not trips, but as many days to do trips, you know, like I said, instead of doing, going around four or five days a week I might be doing two or three days a week.”
Covering the Costs of Travel
To cover their transportation costs, many interviewees, once again, rely on multiple strategies. They engage in informal income- generating activities, solicit formal and informal support from others, and have found creative ways to minimize the ongoing expenses of using both cars and public transit.
A number of interviewees engage in informal income- generating activities specifically to
pay for their transportation. For example, they panhandle, recycle cans, and sell merchandise at flea markets, and some interviewees who have automobiles charge others for rides. Julio discussed the use of panhandling:
This might sound a little desperate but in order— because I’m not working at all
. . . we do a lot of panhandling for money to get on the bus to just so we could keep our errands and make our scheduled appointments that we get . . . So, all of our money is pretty much given to us, all people’s good faith . . . That’s how we’ve been on [ the bus] every single day.
At times, respondents also charge friends, family, or more distant acquaintances for the use of their vehicle, passing on to passengers some of the costs of driving. For example, Lila travels long distances to do housecleaning work as far away as the East Bay ( 30 miles northeast of San José) and accordingly spends a lot of money on gas. She tries to carpool as much as possible:
. . . people that go to work with the same trip so you can share the trip. So $ 10.00, you can put $ 10.00, I can put $ 10.00 so it’s like half the tag, $ 20.00. . . Now afford it. And then if you can’t take nobody, so I had to pay the whole ten by myself . . . So that affect[ s] my budget.
Many interviewees rely on multiple channels of transportation support, both formal and informal. Formal support includes transportation assistance from government agencies, nonprofit organizations, employers, or landlords. Informal support refers to transportation assistance, usually in the form of rides from family members, friends, Mineta Transportation Institute
Study Findings: The Transportation Survival Strategies of Low- Income Adults 39
or other acquaintances. Interestingly, only about 15 percent of the interviewees who responded to the support question indicated that they received no support whatsoever, and more than half of these had access to personal automobiles.
Formal support from government programs or employer transit pass programs represents a more stable form of support but is limited ( by program restrictions or knowledge networks) to a small segment of the population. A significant portion of the interviewee sample receives consistent transportation support from the government or other formal avenues. Government agencies represent the most common sources of formal assistance. Jim, a middle- aged man who lives in a group home for recovering addicts, stated that the government mails him “ a check every month and then I go buy a pass at the main office
. . . it comes out of my SSDI [ Social Security Disability Insurance] check.” Employers also provide important transportation assistance in the form of cash or unlimited- use transit passes, although in most of these cases, support does not appear to depend on the employees’ low- income status.
Some of the individuals in our sample receive formal support from nonprofit organizations. This type of assistance is often ad hoc and is increasingly unreliable in light of economic constraints, which helps to explain the frustration interviewees expressed in regard to such support. Compared with other formal sources, nonprofit organizations provide consistent support to relatively few individuals. Indeed, as many interviewees expressed unsolicited frustration with nonprofit assistance as those who indicated that they received consistent nonprofit assistance. Craig is homeless and without a car, so he is proactive about trying to find transportation assistance. He epitomized interviewees’ complaints when he explained, “ I went to the Salvation Army, I went here [ SHCS], I went to every church up and down San Carlos, nobody helps out with bus passes, nobody. It’s like we’ll give you all this food, all this clothing, a bus pass no way.” Essentially, interviewees find nonprofit transportation assistance to be very sparse and oftentimes unreliable.
Interviewees noted receiving support from informal sources far more often than from formal sources, although the quality and consistency of informal support was likely to be lower. A substantial portion of the interviewees— more than half— benefit from a fairly stable informal support network, although they may utilize this network infrequently. More than half of the respondents indicated that they could either rely on consistent support or could count on support in times of need from family or friends. For instance, approximately one- fourth of the respondents indicated that they receive consistent transportation from individuals. Alice, who runs a mobile vending business in collaboration with her siblings, stated that “ if we’re going somewhere and we’re taking my car, they’ll help out with gas . . . Yeah, my brothers help, my boyfriend helps a lot, obviously since he’s the dad, and my mom helps out a lot. I have a lot of support.” An even greater portion of respondents indicated that they could confidently ask for support from specific individuals in times of need. Nevertheless, they also suggested that they could not rely on support on a daily basis.
Some interviewees expressed strong opinions about the nature of reciprocity for transportation assistance. While low- income individuals are often viewed as passive recipients of support, 92 the interview data indicate that they just as frequently provide support. Mineta Transportation Institute
40 Study Findings: The Transportation Survival Strategies of Low- Income Adults
Importantly, only respondents who had complete access to cars consider themselves as primary givers in an exchange relationship. A substantial portion of respondents also described a roughly equal exchange for transportation.
By far the most prevalent payment method is cash or the direct purchase of gas, although in- kind transactions are also relatively frequent. In these in- kind transactions, oftentimes nothing is exchanged at the time the ride is given, but those interviewed reported that there was a mutual understanding between participants regarding reciprocity. For instance, Rick lives in a boarding house and stated that he receives rides from friends and “ during my time of injuries, no gas payment was asked for anything but there are times when my friend will be low in gas, they’ll borrow money and don’t come to pay me back . . . or he’ll say, ‘ I’ll give you a couple of rides, back and forth to work if you can watch my little kid for me.’ We do barter sometimes.” Similarly, Julio expressed a mutual understanding with his cousin: “ Whatever she asks for. If I can, you know, favors go for favors.”
Even more than mutual understanding, several respondents expressed a strong desire to help people with their transportation needs. This was expressed most eloquently by Alice when asked if she gets anything in return for giving people rides:
You get what you give. And so if I really needed help and I had a problem, I can go to them for that and that’s kind of like a support system that every family should have . . . I think it’s really important that you support people in their fundamental ideas to give them independence and to structure a good quality of life.
At the same time, there was also a contrasting theme of hesitance to participate in exchanges. Monica stated that “ it was so nice that I could take the bus and get here to work independently without asking anybody for rides or anything.” However, such hesitance to give and receive support through informal relationships was not commonly expressed.
Finally, interviewees cover their transportation costs by minimizing the ongoing expenses of using both cars and public transit. For example, many auto owners in our sample discussed their efforts to locate cheap gas, parts, and service. Dan stated:
Um [ to cut down on transportation costs], I’d buy secondhand tires, I found a mechanic that charges less, I go the cheapest gas station I can find.
While some interviewees find low- cost service providers, other interviewees maintain vehicles themselves. Tom, for example, studied automotive technology at a local community college, so if there is a problem with the household vehicle, he is able to fix it himself. A few other drivers in our sample minimize their costs by driving conservatively to reduce their gas consumption and wear and tear on their vehicles. Some also avoid areas where they would have to pay for parking. Finally, some respondents defer some of their transportation expenses. Mike owns a relatively old car and explained his strategy for keeping costs low:
Last time I did the oil change it was 2,400 miles, and the time before that I wasn’t able to afford an oil change for the car and I had to stretch it to about 5,000 miles. It’s supposed to be done every 3,000. Mineta Transportation Institute
Study Findings: The Transportation Survival Strategies of Low- Income Adults 41
Transit riders also find creative ways to minimize the costs of travel. For example, more than a few use public transit without paying, boarding trains at times of the day when they are least likely to get caught evading fares. Dave is particularly savvy in this regard:
I walk to there, and at night, I can just take the light rail. I basically don’t have to worry about the fare . . . very few people buy fares at night. It’s kind of an agreement, you know, sort of a “ We don’t check” and “ We won’t buy.” . . . I almost always work graveyard, so I very very rarely pay, if I don’t have a day pass already, I very rarely pay for the light rail.
Roger is a homeless man nearing retirement age who lives in a park with a friend. He shares a transit pass with his friend:
The bus passes, like the one I showed you? . . . so its $ 6 normal, so . . . I shouldn’t be saying this [ chuckles] . . . so I get on the bus first and I buy the day pass first, then I immediately get off say “ excuse me sir I have to go to the store” and I get off. Then I give the bus pass to Randy and he get on the next bus and does the same thing, so we both get a day pass for $ 2.50. Doesn’t sound like much to you and I laugh about it, but instead of paying $ 8.50 total, we pay $ 5. So it’s the little things that you have to figure out so you can get on by and stuff.
Another interviewee makes a habit of asking for complimentary transit rides; another changes his appearance, shaving to look younger and therefore less likely to be questioned about his eligibility for a discounted youth ticket. Finally, yet another respondent organizes his travel around the use of DASH, the free downtown shuttle.
Careful Budgeting
Only a few of our interviewees carefully budget for their transportation expenses, that is, earmark fixed sums of money for particular purposes such as transportation. Most of them stated that they did not rely on budgets, although their behavior and comments often suggested otherwise. Most interviewees are well aware of the costs associated with their travel and use informal mechanisms to monitor their expenditures. The few interviewees who did not seem to keep even informal track of their expenses were in situations where budgeting was either too difficult or irrelevant.
A small subset of our interviewees stated that they use budgets to manage their expenses, setting aside a fixed dollar amount to spend on transportation each week or month. However, when asked directly whether they used a budget, most interviewees responded that they did not. For example Julio stated:
No. I don’t have no budget . . . It’s just by whatever happens and we get to spend and we get to spend it . . . All pretty much goes to the bus.
Yet comments by many of the interviewees suggest that they do operate with some kind of budget. Even among those who stated that they did not budget, a number made statements such as “ but I try to keep it below $ 50.00 if I can” or “ my budget is around $ 250, and I try to stay in to my budget unless it’s, I don’t need to do something else.” Mineta Transportation Institute
42 Study Findings: The Transportation Survival Strategies of Low- Income Adults
Many interviewees reported keeping close track of their expenditures and budgeting to minimize their transportation expenses. Joan underscores this point; when asked whether she budgets, she stated, “ Not anymore. I, you— uh like I said, I am, I’m— I’m uh fiscally very conservative.” Joan does not keep a formal budget but knows enough about her income and expenses to be financially prudent or, as she puts it, “ fiscally conservative.” Similarly, in discussing her expenses, Kari stated, “ And then every week I’ll try to lower that amount, get it lower and lower every time.” Again, while Kari may not keep formal records of her expenses, she knows what she spends and aims to reduce these expenditures weekly.
The data suggest that interviewees are aware of their transportation expenses, generally track their expenses in their heads, and use this information to make rational decisions about the tradeoffs between their expenditures and travel behavior. Dan revealed detailed knowledge of his auto- related expenses:
[ I spend] About $ 40.00 a month [ on gas] . . . And that’s— that’s gas only, $ 40.00. The repairs on my automobile run easily $ 1,000.00 a year so you break that down and it comes out to $ 140.00 a month operating and gas. Operating expense and fuel total about $ 140.00 a month.
Similarly, transit users expressed detailed knowledge about transit fares. They use all of the major fare types— single ride, day pass, monthly pass, and annual pass. They generally know how much it costs to ride the bus, the costs associated with the various transit- pass programs, and the fact that fares had recently increased. For example, Rodger, a disabled man, revealed his knowledge of the discounted transit fares available to him:
But the bus fare is a pain in the ying yang. You’re asking about that and I have uh . . . OK, so this thing helps out a lot, I have a disabilities pass. It was $ 20 but it just went up to $ 25, you know. There is a big difference between paying $ 6 a day, $ 180 for the month, and $ 25.
He was not alone. Dave stated, “ In the morning, I pay the $ 1.75, which I guess is now $ 2, and get off at the Fruitdale station, and walk back home.”
While some of the interviewees save receipts, most keep track of their expenditures in th