immigrants, location, and travel in california: do the biggest impacts lie ahead? evelyn blumenberg...
TRANSCRIPT
Immigrants, Location, and Travel in California: Do the Biggest Impacts Lie Ahead?
Evelyn Blumenberg
2007 UCLA Lake ArrowheadTransportation – Land Use – Environment Connection
Symposium
Institute of Transportation Studies
The Project:Understanding Travel Behavior for
Diverse Population Groups in California • Client: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
• Purpose: examine the travel patterns of immigrants in California
• Investigators: Susan Handy (UC, Davis), Caroline Rodier
and Susan Shaheen (UC, Berkeley), Evelyn Blumenberg (UCLA)
• Components: (a) analysis of public data (b) focus groups with Mexican immigrants (c) interviews with staff of community-based organizations
% Foreign-Born – U.S. and CA1900 to 2005
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005
US CA
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
% of Immigrants to the U.STop 10 States (2003)
3%
3%
3%
3%
5%
6%
8%
8%
13%
25%
26%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Maryland
Washington
Virginia
Massachusetts
Illinois
New Jersey
Florida
Texas
New York
California
Other 40 states
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2003). Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2003 .
What are the implications of demographic diversity on travel and
transportation planning in California?
Immigrants, Location, and Travel in California
1. What do we know about immigrants and their travel?
2. What are the potential implications of these trends? And…do the biggest impacts lie ahead?
3. If so…what should we do?
What do we know about immigrants and their travel?
1. Immigrants commute by public transit and by carpool at rates
approximately twice that of native-born commuters
Commute Mode by NativityCalifornia (2000)
79%
65%
12%
22%
4%8%
3% 3%2% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1 2SOV Carpool Transit Walk Other
Native-Born Foreign-Born
2. Immigrants tend to assimilate to auto commuting
Relative Odds of Transit Commuting (over auto)Compared to Native-Born Whites
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21+ years
Years in the U.S.
Od
ds
Ra
tio
HISPANIC
WHITEASIAN
Relative Odds of Carpooling (over Solo Driving) Compared to Native-Born Whites
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21+ years
Years in the U.S.
Od
ds
Ra
tio
HISPANIC
ASIAN
WHITE
Recent immigrants today are less reliant on public transit compared to recent
immigrants 20 years ago
Transit Commuting by Years in the U.S.1980-2000
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Recent (P revious 10 years) 11-15 years 16-20 years 21+ years
1980 1990 2000
Much of the decline in transit commuting among recent immigrants
can be explained by the decline in transit commuting among recent
female immigrants
Transit Commuting Among Recent Immigrants by Sex (1980-2000)
10%10%
10%
22%
18%
15%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1980 1990 2000
Men Women
• Transit use also declines by generation
• Native-Born Hispanics have transit usage rates below the state average
Transit Commuting by Nativity and Race/Ethnicity (2000)
4%
3%
10%
7%
4%
8%
5%
10%
7%
11%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Total NH White NH Black NH Asian Hispanics
Native Born Foreign Born
3. Still, some immigrant groups—recent immigrants, Hispanic
immigrants, and immigrants living in particular locations—are heavily reliant
on public transit commuting
High Transit Usage by Select Immigrant Population Groups
11%
9%
11%
23% 23%
11% 11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
NH White Asian Hispanic SF Los Angeles Oakland
HispanicImmigrants
Recent Immigrants (< 6 years) Metropolitan Areas
4. Immigrants comprise a disproportionate percentage of transit
commuters
Composition of Transit Commuters by Nativity (2000)
Native Born, 53%
Foreign Born, 47%
Immigrant Composition of Transit Commuters by Major MSA (2000)
34% 34%
50%
62% 63%68% 71% 74%
83%
66% 66%
50%
38% 37%32% 29% 26%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Orange Los Angeles San Jose San Francisco San Diego Fresno Oakland Riverside/SanBernardino
Sacramento
Native-born Foreign-born
5. Although immigrants tend to assimilate away from public transit to
cars, a high percentage carpool
Carpooling Rates by Nativity and Race/Ethnicity
12%
21%
11%
17%
27%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Total White Asian Hispanic
Native Born Foreign Born
What are the potential implications of these trends? And…do the biggest
impacts lie ahead?
Trouble for Transit
Declining Immigrant Transit Use
Slowdown in Immigration to California
Lower Transit Ridership
Fewer Recent Immigrants
Transit Commuting in California by Nativity, 1980, 1990, 2000
408,41670% 337,054
54%
363,09953%
178,40326%
66,60611% 115,719
18%
148,00121%
105,03818%
176,04628%
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1980 1990 2000
Tra
nsi
t C
om
mu
ters
Native-born Old immigrants Recent immigrants
580,060 (100%)
628,819 (100%)
689,503 (100%)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 1980, 1990, and 2000, Public Use Microdata Samples, California, 5% samples.
Transit Commuters, Foreign-Born, and California Population, 1980-2000
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
1980 1990 2000
Transit Commuters
Foreign-Born Population
California Population% change 1980 to 2000: +43%
% change 1980 to 2000: +148%
% change 1980 to 2000: +19%
More Cars on the Road
Declining Immigrant Transit Use
Slowdown in Immigration to California
Lower Transit Ridership
Fewer Recent Immigrants
More Cars on the Road
Improved Economic Outcomes
Declining Immigrant Transit Use
Slowdown in Immigration to California
Lower Transit Ridership
Fewer Recent Immigrants
More Cars on the Road
Higher employment rates
Transportation resources are cause and consequence of improved economic
outcomes
*Easier job search and commute*Arrive at work on time
*Better manage home/work responsibilities
Transportation Employment
Greater work hours
Higher IncomeBetter-paying jobs
Public transit provides immigrants with an important transitional service; it
enables mobility among families that do not know how to drive or do not
have the resources to purchase automobiles
Public Transit
What should we do?
1. Enhance Existing Transit Services in Immigrant Ports of Entry
• Transit agencies should adopt services to better serve existing immigrant riders
–perhaps slow their assimilation to cars
–surely facilitate their economic assimilation
Recent Immigrants, Los Angeles (2000)
2. Plan for foreseeable changes in transit ridership
3. Develop density
• Higher development densities make alternative forms of travel more attractive
relative to private vehicles…
• for immigrants and non-immigrants alike
4. Make it easier for immigrants to access to automobiles
• Driver’s training
• Driver’s licensing for illegal immigrants
• Lift vehicle asset restrictions associated with public programs ($4,650 in
California)
The Challenge…Immigrants – Good or Bad?
For more information:Evelyn Blumenberg
Institute of Transportation StudiesUCLA School of Public Affairs
www.its.ucla.edu
Institute of Transportation Studies