Abstract
Public transportation is part of the economic and social fabric of metropolitan areas, especially to low income individuals, whom are often totally dependent on this service for their daily activities. The role that transit plays on the connection between residential locations and employment opportunities is crucial in creating and implementing programs that will improve and maintain transit and vehicle ownership options viable for vulnerable segments of metropolitan residents. This study proposes the use of the logsum measure obtained from transportation demand models to assess the accessibility of a target population. In this sense, the Maryland State Travel model is used to evaluate the Washington Metropolitan area. This paper analyzes the socio-demographic characteristics of low income individuals, job availability, travel patterns and trip chaining and evaluates policies aiming at improving accessibility by car and public transport within the study area. The results show that policies promoting investment on public transportation would yield higher benefits to the low income population when compared to the ones that promote lowering vehicle operational cost. Interestingly, the results also highlight the fact that extremely low income households receive almost no benefit from these incentives, indicating that reasons other than lack of transportation means might be hindering them to reach job opportunities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
PUMAs are statistical geographic areas defined for the dissemination of Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data. They nest within states or equivalent entities and contain at least 100,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2015).
TAZs are statistical zones delineated with a resident or worker population of 1200 or greater (Federal Highway Administration 2015).
A group quarters is a place where people live or stay, in a group living arrangement, which is owned or managed by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the residents. People living in group quarters are usually not related to each other (American Community Survey 2013).
References
American Community Survey (2013) Group quarter definitions. https://ask.census.gov/faq.php?id=5000&faqId=1681. Accessed 01 Feb 2016
Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge
Blumenberg E, Hess DB (2003) Measuring the role of transportation in facilitating the welfare-to-work transition: evidence from three California counties. J Transp Res Board 1859:93–101
Blumenberg E, Ong P (1998) Job accessibility and welfare usage: evidence from Los Angeles. J Policy Anal Manag 17:639–657
Boesch K (2005) Ride for five: low-income transportation, pilot project final report. Lincoln
Cats O, Susilo Y, Eliasson J (2012) Impacts of free PT in Tallinn: evaluation framework. Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Costinett P, Jain M, Moeckel R, Wardell E, Weidner T (2009) MSTM model users guide. Parsons Brinckerhoff, New York
Dargay J (2001) The effect of income on car ownership: evidence of asymmetry. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 35(9):807–821
Dargay J, Gately D (1999) Income’s effect on car and vehicle ownership worldwide: 1960–2015. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 33(2):101–138
de Grange L, Troncoso R, Gonzalez F (2012) An empirical evaluation of the impact of three urban transportation policies on transit use. Transp Policy 22:11–19
de Jong G, Daly AJ, ver der Hoorn A (2007) The logsum as an evaluation measure: review of the literature and new results. Transp Res Part A 41(9):874–889
Estache A, Gomez-Lobo A, Leipziger D (2000) Utility privatization and the needs of the poor in Latin America. The World Bank, Washington, DC
Fan S, Chan-Kang C (2005) Road development, economic growth, and poverty reduction in China. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Federal Highway Administration (2015) Transportation analysis zones (TAZ) FAQs. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/ctpp/data_products/tazfaq.cfm#s1q1. Accessed 01 Feb 2016
Goldberg H (2001) State and county supported car ownership programs can help low-income families secure and keep jobs. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC
Karlaftis M, McCarthy P (1998) Operating subsidies and performance in public transit: an empirical study. Transp Res Part A 32(5):359–375
Kawabata M (2003) Job accessibility and employment outcomes for low-skilled autoless workers in US metropolitan areas. Environ Plan 35(9):1651–1668
Lopez H (2003) Macroeconomics and Inequality. Macroeconomic challenges in low income countries. The World Bank, Washington, DC
Loveless S (1999) Access to jobs: Intersection of transportation, social and economic development policies—Challenge for transportation planning in the 21st century. In: Refocusing transportation planning for the 21st century: Proceedings of two conferences. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
Lucas MT, Nicholson CF (2003) Subsidized vehicle acquisition and earned income in the transition from welfare to work. Transportation 30(4):483–501
Mishra S, Welch T, Jha MK (2012) Performance indicators for public transit connectivity in multi-modal transportation networks. Transp Res Part-A Policy Pract 46(7):1066–1085
Murakami E, Young J (1997) Daily travel by persons with low income. In: NPTS Symposium in Bethesda, Maryland, October 29–31. Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
Paulley N, Balcombe R, Mackett R, Titheridge H, Preston J, Wardman M, White P (2006) The demand for public transport: the effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership. Transp Policy 13(4):295–306
Pucher J, Renne JL (2003) Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transp Q 57(3):49–77
Pucher J, Markstedt R, Hirschman I (1983) Impacts of subsidies on the costs of public transport. J Transp Econ Policy 17(2):155–176
Robert M, Jonsson RD (2006) Assessment of transport policies toward future emissions targets: a backcasting approach for Stockholm 2030. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 8(4):451–478
Rosenbloom S (1994) Travel by women. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC
Sanchez T (2008) Poverty, policy and public transportation. Transp Res Board Transp Res Part A 42(5):833–841
Sanchez T, Seng Q, Peng Z (2004) Transit mobility, jobs access and low income labour participation in US metropolitan areas. Urban Stud 42(7):1313–1331
Santos A, McGuckin N, Nakamoto H, Gray D, Liss S (2009) Summary travel trends: 2009 national household travel survey. FHWA, Washington, D.C. http://www.nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf. Accessed 01 Feb 2016
Shen Q (1998) Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage workers. Environ Plan 25(3):345–365
Tomer A, Kneebone E, Puentes R, Berube A (2011) Missed opportunities: Transit and jobs in metropolitan America. Brookings Insitute Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, DC
U.S. Census Bureau (2015) Public use microdata areas (PUMAs). http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/puma.html. Accessed Apr 2015
Van Goeverden C, Rietveld P, Koelemeijer J, Peeters P (2006) Subsidies in public transport. Eur Transp 32:5–25
Wachs M, Taylor BD (1998) Can transportation strategies help meet the welfare challenge? J Am Plan Assoc 64(1):15–19
Waller M (2005) High cost or high opportunity cost? Transportation and family economic success. Brookings Insitute Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, DC
Welch T, Mishra S (2013) A measure of equity for public transit connectivity. Transp Geogr 33:29–41
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Serulle, N.U., Cirillo, C. Transportation needs of low income population: a policy analysis for the Washington D.C. metropolitan region. Public Transp 8, 103–123 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-015-0119-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-015-0119-2