Cars Are Key to Reducing Poverty

Cars Are Key to Reducing Poverty

Thursday, April 3, 2014 - 8:00am PDT by JAMES BRASUELL

http://www.planetizen.com/node/68153

Many advocates for new ways of thinking about places and streets argue for reduced use of cars as the dominant mode of transportation. A new study finds, however that poverty is improved when the poor have access to a car for tansportation.
Emily Badger reports on a new study called "Driving to Opportunity" by researchers at the Urban Institute, the University of Maryland and UCLA. The studies followed families in ten cities that participated in two federal voucher programs, the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing program, and the Welfare to Work Voucher program, which provide access to “stable housing and high-quality neighborhoods.â€

The key findings of the study, as explained by Badger: “The families with cars moved to neighborhoods with less poverty and were more likely to stay there. They lived in neighborhoods with less unemployment, higher median rents, more access to green space and lower levels of cancer risk. Controlling for other factors influencing their residential mobility, these families also lived by the end of the survey in neighborhoods with better-performing schools.â€

The article gives many more details on the report, a thorough treatment of the many policy implications for the report, and considers the many possible causes for the findings, one of which is that transit service is rarely reliable enough to trust for getting to and from work on time. Badger also suggests the following rational policy proposal: “A more effective poverty reduction policy might consider that families need both decent housing and a way to get from that home in the morning to school and work and back again.â€

Click to expand...

IMO, when you live far away, cars are vital. I think transit is not at the point outside urban areas to meet that standard.

denfromoakvillemilton said:

IMO, when you live far away, cars are vital. I think transit is not at the point outside urban areas to meet that standard.

Click to expand...

Agreed, it also brings into light another issue that I see more and more with regards to transit and North America. It's the issue of income levels and transit. Does transit actually benefit the less wealthy or is it actually just pushing them further away? Looking at most of the areas served by a subway station in Toronto, one can see a growing trend in Toronto, where a luxury tower is much harder to sell if it isn't right on a subway. I wonder if the old stereotypes about Drivers being wealthy and transit riders being poor has switched to a degree?

BMO said:

Agreed, it also brings into light another issue that I see more and more with regards to transit and North America. It's the issue of income levels and transit. Does transit actually benefit the less wealthy or is it actually just pushing them further away? Looking at most of the areas served by a subway station in Toronto, one can see a growing trend in Toronto, where a luxury tower is much harder to sell if it isn't right on a subway. I wonder if the old stereotypes about Drivers being wealthy and transit riders being poor has switched to a degree?

Click to expand...

Of course. Canada being proactive in transit is one of the reasons for that. Simply put, density has become favored which has driven up prices. The poor live on the outskirts, so do the less wealthy, and they need to get to their jobs. In the case of North Etobicoke, that means you either own your own care or take the finch west bus. The Transit is way longer. I think at some point we either need to accept the car or make transit cheaper. In toronto because it's so expensive to drive, many people will choose the Finch west bus.

Ha ha. Of course if a low-income family is given a car they will have more mobility which will benefit them, especially in any city without good transit. I'm not sure what the point of the study is, you can't draw some conclusion from that that we should be building highways instead of transit or something, if that's what they're attempting.

Give someone living at Jane & Finch a car and of course they will suddenly have more time during the day and be able to go to many places they couldn't before.

BMO said:

Agreed, it also brings into light another issue that I see more and more with regards to transit and North America. It's the issue of income levels and transit. Does transit actually benefit the less wealthy or is it actually just pushing them further away? Looking at most of the areas served by a subway station in Toronto, one can see a growing trend in Toronto, where a luxury tower is much harder to sell if it isn't right on a subway. I wonder if the old stereotypes about Drivers being wealthy and transit riders being poor has switched to a degree?

Click to expand...

Yes, properties near transit are rising in value and those away are losing value. Those stereotypes have definitely switched. If you look at some of the world's richest people in NYC, most of them take the subway.

This report shows average income across Toronto: http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/tnrn/Three-Cities-Within-Toronto-2010-Final.pdf
Page 9, Map 3 shows average income in 2005.

The biggest chunk of high income people are along Yonge street between Sheppard and Bloor. This corridor has Lawrence Park, Forest Hill, Deer Park, Rosedale. I would say the majority of very high income families or people both own cars and own a house near transit, and choose which to take depending on convenience. Those who work on Bay street are and live at Yonge & St Clair for example are likely to take the subway.

There are pockets on that map of lower income near the Bloor-Danforth line, however it has been 9 years since that map, and in my opinion those places will rapidly increase in value if they haven't already (Bloordale & East York, East Danforth).

On the other hand, low income people often live in apartment towers in the suburbs, like the apartments on Dixon Rd. They tend to be underserved by transit, yet they can't afford a car so they have to use transit.

BMO said:

Agreed, it also brings into light another issue that I see more and more with regards to transit and North America. It's the issue of income levels and transit. Does transit actually benefit the less wealthy or is it actually just pushing them further away? Looking at most of the areas served by a subway station in Toronto, one can see a growing trend in Toronto, where a luxury tower is much harder to sell if it isn't right on a subway. I wonder if the old stereotypes about Drivers being wealthy and transit riders being poor has switched to a degree?

Click to expand...

New York and Toronto, at least. The subway has long been the great equalizer in Manhattan.

This study seems to me to be an exercise in "correlation is not causation", an exercise which it appears the authors have failed.

There is definitely a cost to the urban sprawl and in a lot of ways, it's the poor that have to carry the burden. If it's not through the purchase of cars, it's collectively assigned through increased per-person burden of maintaining road infrastructure due to the reduced population density. Here's another report that speaks to the diverse interests at play here:
http://thecostofsprawl.com/

I often view LRTs as the "great equalizer," as LRTs are cheaper per kilometre and can serve many more low-income neighbourhoods. LRTs are almost like subways, except for lower cost and lower capacity.

MrsNesbitt said:

This study seems to me to be an exercise in "correlation is not causation", an exercise which it appears the authors have failed.

Click to expand...

I think there are definitely some merits to the study. With car prices being continually reduced, it's an interesting twist on the usual stereotype of transit as a way to move the poor, or for other social initiatives. While the study may have some flaws in its methodology I think it's a good catalyst for understanding that transit is loosing it's grip on the affordability game. Why would the traditional users of transit (less wealthy) choose transit when a brand new car is now in their price range? With increased congestion, time is money. These people need to work three jobs and they can't afford to spend 4 hours a day commuting on a bus. I personally take it as a realization that, oh geez, we have this huge demographic of people that were traditionally seen as transit users who are more and more likely to become car users, if not already, and for good reason too. What's even worse is that these same people who need to start using cars because of their isolation out in the suburbs cannot even afford to park downtown, where some of higher paying jobs are located, creating an island effect. I know it's kind of a loose tie to the study, but it's really an issue that I feel isn't acknowledged enough within the planning profession, and it's not something that can be alleviated with one-of mulit-billion dollar projects that pinpoint improvements to one or two areas in the city.

BMO said:

I think there are definitely some merits to the study. With car prices being continually reduced, it's an interesting twist on the usual stereotype of transit as a way to move the poor, or for other social initiatives. While the study may have some flaws in its methodology I think it's a good catalyst for understanding that transit is loosing it's grip on the affordability game. Why would the traditional users of transit (less wealthy) choose transit when a brand new car is now in their price range? With increased congestion, time is money. These people need to work three jobs and they can't afford to spend 4 hours a day commuting on a bus. I personally take it as a realization that, oh geez, we have this huge demographic of people that were traditionally seen as transit users who are more and more likely to become car users, if not already, and for good reason too. What's even worse is that these same people who need to start using cars because of their isolation out in the suburbs cannot even afford to park downtown, where some of higher paying jobs are located, creating an island effect. I know it's kind of a loose tie to the study, but it's really an issue that I feel isn't acknowledged enough within the planning profession, and it's not something that can be alleviated with one-of mulit-billion dollar projects that pinpoint improvements to one or two areas in the city.

Click to expand...

How do you figure that owning a car is more affordable than paying for public transit? The opposite is true. I'm a car owner and I take transit regularly. Car insurance alone is almost always more expensive than a metropass, not to mention the price of the car, gas, and maintenance. There are plenty of low-income people in Toronto who can't afford to own a car and therefore have to take transit.

Of course many would be able to save time if they had a car but they can't afford it.

ehlow said:

How do you figure that owning a car is more affordable than paying for public transit? The opposite is true. I'm a car owner and I take transit regularly. Car insurance alone is almost always more expensive than a metropass, not to mention the price of the car, gas, and maintenance. There are plenty of low-income people in Toronto who can't afford to own a car and therefore have to take transit.

Of course many would be able to save time if they had a car but they can't afford it.

Click to expand...

Because you can work more and make more money if your commute is less. Like my example of someone who has to work one or two jobs. commuting for 4 hours could potentially add up to $56 in lost wages compared say maybe only losing $16 for driving because it takes 60 minutes throughout a day compared to 120-240 on transit. Compound this over a year and so on and so forth. Obviously no scientific method behind it, just a principle that could be applied for or against it. Considering some of the lowest paid jobs are shift work and require employees to end at weird hours like 3 or 4 in the morning, for instance, sometimes transit really isn't the best form to get around. Sure I take transit to my white collar job which is right in the CBD in Toronto and I can take the subway there, but the same can't be true for everyone. Like I said, time is money, and unfortunately most people, even the less wealthy, can't afford to spend half their day commuting regardless of whether transit is a cheaper upfront cost.

BMO said:

Because you can work more and make more money if your commute is less. Like my example of someone who has to work one or two jobs. commuting for 4 hours could potentially add up to $56 in lost wages compared say maybe only losing $16 for driving because it takes 60 minutes throughout a day compared to 120-240 on transit. Compound this over a year and so on and so forth. Obviously no scientific method behind it, just a principle that could be applied for or against it.

Click to expand...

OK, I never thought of that. However, I still think that the majority of really low-income Torontonians can't afford to drive and simply wake up extra early and spend less time with their families at night due to unreliable and slow transit. I don't think the extra time saved having the car is actually enough to pay for all the costs of owning a car.

Take a look at this:
http://globalnews.ca/news/996589/map-carless-in-the-burbs/

Huge areas in northern Etobicoke like Jane & Finch and Weston Rd and Scarborough don't even have driver's licenses. These areas correspond to low-income and immigrant areas of the city.

Poor people are increasingly living on the outskirts in suburban areas. Without large transit investments like Toronto's Transit City LRT lines, they struggle to get to jobs and civic amenities like libraries and civic centres. That results in a lower standard of living. Either a city has a quick and efficient transit system in its suburbs, or the poor should have cars for a better standard of life. Gov't-subsidized car share might be an interim solution while transit is being built up. However, universal car ownership is hardly a viable solution to poverty. The more car ownership is encouraged, the more congested a city becomes.

junctionist said:

Poor people are increasingly living on the outskirts in suburban areas. Without large transit investments like Toronto's Transit City LRT lines, they struggle to get to jobs and civic amenities like libraries and civic centres. That results in a lower standard of living. Either a city has a quick and efficient transit system in its suburbs, or the poor should have cars for a better standard of life. Gov't-subsidized car share might be an interim solution while transit is being built up. However, universal car ownership is hardly a viable solution to poverty. The more car ownership is encouraged, the more congested a city becomes.

Click to expand...

That's why the Finch West LRT is a project I like. I see nothing wrong with providing decent transit quickly to high-density low-income suburban communities.

Having the government help pay for cars for low income people who currently take transit is a horrible idea in my opinion. Firstly it just adds to traffic gridlock so it's worse for everyone. Secondly, gas prices have already risen a huge amount and further gas prices rising will keep pushing the price of driving up. If everyone switches to electric vehicles the price of electricity will rise as well. The main reason however is traffic, our goal is to get people of all incomes to drive LESS not more.