4/2/2014
1
Institute of Urban and Regional Development (IURD)TRANSIT & CITIES CONFERENCE
UC BerkeleyMarch 20-21, 2014
Plenary Session 3: Inclusive Cities and Transit
Evelyn Blumenberg, Professor and Chair of Urban PlanningInstitute of Transportation StudiesUCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
4/2/2014
6
Draw on the research—including some of my own—to ask the following question:
With respect to inclusion—particularly for low‐income families in the labor market—what can we reasonably expect from public transit...in the U.S?
4/2/2014
7
1. Public Transit
2. Public Transit in Relation to Automobiles
3. Where do we go from here?
4/2/2014
9
Residential Location Choice: Low‐income families (without cars) tend to move to transit‐rich neighborhoods, where they can get around using public transit (Glaeser et al., 2008)
Travel Behavior: Low‐income adults are 2‐ to 3‐times as likely to use public transit than all adults.
4/2/2014
10
Q: Is public transit positively related to economic outcomes for low‐income adults?
A: Likely, although the effect of transit on economic outcomes tends to be relatively small
In general, studies show a small positive effect of transit on employment outcomes Only among some population groups, particularly those without cars (Holzer et al., 2003; Kawabata, 2003; Ong and Houston, 2002; Sanchez, 1999)
Some studies do not find any employment effect of public transit (Sanchez et al., 2004) Could be due to the insufficient supply of public transit
4/2/2014
12
When low‐income families get lump‐sum payments of one sort or another, a high percentage purchase automobiles
Earned income tax credit
Individual development accounts (IDAs)
4/2/2014
13
A: A growing body of research shows that access to a car is a strong predictor of employment outcomes
A: In studies that include measures of automobile and transit access, automobiles are a much stronger predictor of employment than transit.
PopulationGroup Research
Low Income Garasky et al. (2006)
Minorities (Black, Latino) Raphael and Stoll (2001); Raphael and Rice (2002)
Single mothers Baum (2009); Lichtenwalter et al. (2006)
Welfare recipients Cervero et al., (2002); Gurley and Bruce (2005); Lucas and Nicholson (2003); Ong (2002); Sandoval et al. (2011); Shen and Sanchez (2005)
Subsidized housing residents
Blumenberg and Pierce (in progress); Blumenberg and Pierce (in progress)
4/2/2014
14
Blumenberg and Ong, 2001
Public transit serves the mobility needs of the poor, particularly those without automobiles
In most settings, cars still have advantages along a number dimensions—time and access, flexibility, convenience
Cars are associated with improved employment outcomes and have a greater employment effect than public transit
Yet cars come at a high cost—out of pocket expenditures, environmental externalities, congestion
4/2/2014
15
We should not balance our carbon budget on the backs of low‐income families
We ought to pursue transportation policies that maximize transportation’s role in getting low‐income adults to work while, at the same time, working to minimize the negative externalities of automobiles
Public Transit Cars
• Protect and strengthen transit in dense urban neighborhoods where transit works well
• Automobile ownership programs and policies
• Buy• Upgrade
• Increase affordable housing adjacent to transit.
• Automobile access programs – taxi script, car share, on‐demand ridesharing (Uber/Lyft)
• Address transit equity issues: farestructure, finance, and relative investments in bus/rail
• Ease the expenditure burden –subsidized maintenance, pay per mile auto insurance