Socioeconomics of urban travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS

Transportation Quarterly

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 49-77

  Pucher, John ^a   Renne, John L ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BICYCLES; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; PUBLIC POLICY; SOCIAL ASPECTS; SURVEYS; TAXICABS;

PRIVATE CAR; PUBLIC TRANSPORT; SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS; URBAN TRAVEL;

MASS TRANSPORTATION;

EID: 0042822158     PISSN: 02789434     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. John Pucher, Chris Hendrickson, and Sue McNeil. "Socioeconomic Characteristics of Transit Riders: Some Recent Evidence." Traffic Quarterly 35(3) (1981): 461-483
2. John Pucher, and Fred Williams. "Socioeconomic Characteristics of Urban Travelers: Evidence from the 1990 NPTS." Transportation Quarterly 46(4) (1992): 561-582
3. John Pucher, Tim Evans, and Jeff Wenger. "Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 1995 NPTS." Transportation Quarterly 52(3) (1998): 15-33.
4. The 1960 Census figures, unlike all later census years, included an "unreported" category that accounted for 4.3% of all survey responses. To make the 1960 modal split distributions comparable with later census years, the authors scaled up all reported modal shares by a factor of 1.045 so that the modal shares add up to approximately 100%.
5. It is important to note that these NPTS and NHTS modal split distributions in Table 2 differ from those in subsequent tables because they include all local, daily travel in the USA, including both rural and urban areas. These distributions were supplied directly by the Federal Highway Administration of USDOT. Long-term trend data were available only on this nationwide basis. Our own cross-tabulations of the 2001 NHTS, shown in subsequent tables, include only urban areas, except for Table 9, which includes some rural portions of counties in metropolitan statistical areas.
6. Calculated by the authors from the 2001 NHTS. For full details, see Table 6 of this article.
7. Federal Highway Administration and Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Inklings: Preliminary Results from the 2001 NHTS. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, 2003.
8. Federal Highway Administration. Highway Statistics. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, various years; and International Road Federation. World Road Statistics 2002. Washington, DC: International Road Federation, 2002.
9. John Pucher, Tim Evans, and Jeff Wenger. "Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 1995 NPTS."
10. Katherine M. Flegal, Margaret D. Carroll, Cynthia L. Ogden, and Clifford L. Johnson. "Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among Adults, 1999-2000." Journal of the American Medical Association 288(14) (2002): 1723-1727
11. Carlos Dora. "A Different Route to Health: Implications of Transport Policies." British Medical Journal 318 (1999): 1686-1689
12. Jeffrey P. Koplan, and William H. Dietz. "Caloric Imbalance and Public Health Policy." Journal of the American Medical Association 282 (1999); 1579-1581
13. Douglas Carnall. "Cycling and Health Promotion." British Medical Journal 320 (2000): 888
14. Simon P. Wolff, and C.J. Gilham. "Public Health Versus Public Policy? An Appraisal of British Urban Transport Policy." Public Health 105 (1991): 217-228
15. Mayer Hillman, "Health Promotion: The Potential of Non-motorized Transport," in Tony Fletcher, and Anthony J. McMichael (eds). Health at the Crossroads: Transport Policy and Urban Health. London: Wiley and Sons, 1997.
16. US Department of Health and Human Services. "Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General." Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1996
17. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, November 2000.
18. John Pucher, and Christian Lefevre. The Urban Transport Crisis in Europe and North America. London: Macmillan Press, 1996
19. World Health Organization. Obesity in Europe: The Case for Action. London: International Obesity Taskforce of the World Health Organization, September 2002. Accessible at: http://www.iotf.org/media/globalprev.htm.
20. John Pucher. "Discrimination in Mass Transit." Journal of the American Planning Association 48(3) (1982): 315-326
21. Mark Garrett, and Brian Taylor. "Reconsidering Social Equity in Public Transit." Berkeley Planning Journal 13 (1999): 6-27
22. R. Bullard, and G. Johnson, eds. Just Transportation. Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publications, 1997.
23. John Pucher. "Renaissance of Public Transport in the USA?" Transportation Quarterly 56(1) (2002): 33-50.
24. R. Cervero, and M. Duncan. "Benefits of Proximity to Rail on Housing Markets: Experiences in Santa Clara County." Journal of Public Transportation 5(1) (2002): 1-18
25. R. Cervero, and M. Duncan. "Transit's Value-Added Effects: Light and Commuter Rail Services and Commercial Land Values." Transportation Research Record 1805 (2002): 8-15
26. J. Lin. "Gentrification and Transit in Northwest Chicago." Journal of the Transportation Research Forum 56(4) (2002); 175-191
27. G. Knaap, C. Ding, and L. Hopkins. "Do Plans Matter? The Effects of Light Rail Plans on Land Values in Station Areas." Journal of Planning Education and Research 21(1) (fall 2001): 32-39.
28. John Pucher, Tim Evans, and Jeff Wenger. "Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 1995 NPTS."
29. This might also be true of light rail transit, but there were so few light rail observations in both the 1995 NPTS and the 2001 NHTS that it was impossible to separate out light rail for detailed socioeconomic analysis of its riders.
30. Thus, if the 31.1% growth rate is applied to the $15,000 income level in 1995, it would yield $19,7000, quite close to the $20,000 cutoff we used for 2001. Applying 31.1% to the upper income category of $80,000 in 1995 yields $104,800, somewhat higher than the $100,000 category cutoff we used for 2001. The 31.1% growth in per capita income from 1995 to 2001 is deried from US Bureau of the Census, 2002 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 2, on population trends and Table 640, on personal income trends.
31. For details on location efficient mortgages, see http://www.locationefficiency.com.
32. Vukan Vuchic. Transportation for Livable Cities. New Bruswick, NJ, CUPR Press, 1999
33. Peter Newman, and Jeffrey Kenworthy. Sustainability and Cities, Washington, DC, Island Press, 1999.
34. We tried to disaggregate metros into old systems (such as in New York City, Boston, and Chicago) and new systems (such as in Washington, DC, San Francisco, and Atlanta), since the two types have quite difference designs and rider characteristics. We also tried to disaggregate light rail systems into old street-car systems (such as in Boston and San Francisco) and new LRT LRT systems (such as in St. Louis, Sacramento, Portland, OR, and San Jose, CA). Unfortunately, there were not enough sample observations to permit such further disagregation. Indeed, it was not even possible to produce a separate category for light rail and streetcar combined, since they only generated 38 total trip observations (0.02% of all trips). Thus, LRT/streetcar had to be lumped in with bus services, as in previous census and NPTS studies.
35. Taxes and user charges are regressive when payments as a percentage of income fall with increasing household income.
36. Calculated by the authors from the 2001 NHTS.
37. John Pucher. "Discrimination in Mass Transit;"
38. Mark Garrett, and Brian Taylor. "Reconsidering Social Justice in Public Transit";
39. Robert D. Bullard, and Glenn S. Johnson. Just Transportation.
40. John Pucher, and Lewis Dijkstra. "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe." Transportation Quarterly 54(3) (2000): 25-50.
41. Information provided by the New York City Transit Authority.
42. Federal Highway Administration and Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Inklings: Preliminary Results from the 2001 NHTS. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, 2003.
43. The 1.7% transit modal share cited here for 2001 is for urban travel only, compared to a 1.6% transit modal share for both urban and rural travel combined, as shown in Table 2. Likewise, the 2.2% transit modal share cited here for 1995 is for urban travel only, as reported in John Pucher, Tim Evans, and Jeff Wenger. "Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 1995 NPTS," Exhibit 3. By comparison, the 1.8% transit share shown in Table 2 includes both urban and rural travel.
44. John Pucher. "Renaissance of Public Transport in the USA?"
45. John Pucher, Tim Evans, and Jeff Wenger. "Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 1995 NPTS," Exhibit 3.
46. Calculated by the authors from the 2001 NHTS.
47. Surface Transportation Policy Project. Mean Streets 2000. Washington, DC: Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2001.
48. Federal Highway Administration. Highway Statistics 2000. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, 2002
49. US Rep. James Oberstar. Opening remarks at Railvolution Conference, Washington, DC, October 4, 2002
50. Surface Transportation Policy Project. Mean Streets 2000. Washington, DC: Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2001.
51. Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2001, p. 5.