Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 495–510 | Cite as

Car today, gone tomorrow: The ephemeral car in low-income, immigrant and minority families

  • Nicholas J. KleinEmail author
  • Michael J. Smart
Article

Abstract

Most transportation research in the United States uses cross-sectional, “snapshot” data to understand levels of car access. Might this cross-sectional approach mask considerable variation over time and within households? We use a panel dataset, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), for the years 1999–2011 to test this question. We find that for most families, being “carless” is a temporary condition. While 13 % of families in the US are carless in any given year, only 5 % of families are carless for all seven waves of data we examine in the PSID. We also find that poor families, immigrants, and people of color (particularly, blacks) are considerably more likely to transition into and out car ownership frequently and are less likely to have a car in any survey year than are non-poor families, the US-born, and whites.

Keywords

Car ownership Panel data Poverty Immigration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the US Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program under Grant Number DTRT12-G-UTC21.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the US Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The US Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.

References

  1. Axhausen, K.W.: Car availability change in England and Wales 1971–1981. Transportation 22, 151–164 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum, C.L.: The effects of vehicle ownership on employment. J. Urban Econ. 66, 151–163 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becketti, S., Gould, W., Lillard, L., Welch, F.: The Panel Study of Income Dynamics after fourteen years: an evaluation. J. Labor Econ. 6, 472–492 (1988). doi: 10.2307/2534852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berube, A., Raphael, S., Deakin, E.: Socioeconomic differences in household automobile ownership rates: Implications for evacuation policy. In: Quigley, J.M., Rosenthal, L.A. (eds.) Disasters, Cities, Public Policy, pp. 197–221. Public Policy Press, Berkeley (2008)Google Scholar
  5. Blumenberg, E., Manville, M.: Beyond the spatial mismatch: welfare recipients and transportation policy. J. Plan. Lit. 19, 182–205 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumenberg, E., Pierce, G.: Automobile ownership and travel by the poor. Transp. Res. Rec. 2320, 28–36 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumenberg, E., Smart, M.: Migrating to driving: exploring the multiple dimensions of immigrants’ automobile use. In: Lucas, K., Blumenberg, E., Weinberger, R. (eds.) Auto Motives: Understanding Car Use Behaviours, pp. 225–251. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bradford (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumenberg, E., Thomas, T.: Travel behavior of the poor after welfare reform. Transp. Res. Rec. 2452, 53–61 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Currie, G., Stanley, J., Stanley, J. (eds.): No way to go: Transport and Social Disadvantage in Australian Communities. Monash University Publishing, Clayton (2007)Google Scholar
  10. Dargay, J., Hanly, M.: Volatility of car ownership, commuting mode and time in the UK. Transp. Res. Part A 41, 934–948 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. de Jong, G., Fox, J., Daly, A., Pieters, M., Smit, R.: Comparison of car ownership models. Transp. Rev. 24, 379–408 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzgerald, J. M.: Attrition in models of intergenerational links using the PSID with extensions to health and to sibling models. B E J. Econ. Anal. Policy 11 (2011). doi: 10.2202/1935-1682
  13. Goodwin, P.B.: Circumstances in which people reduce car ownership—a comparative analysis of three panel data sets. J. Int. Assoc. Traffic Saf. Sci. 12, 60–65 (1988)Google Scholar
  14. Goodwin, P.B.: Family changes and public transport use 1984–1987. Transportation 16, 121–154 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, P.B.: Car ownership and public transport use: revisiting the interaction. Transportation 20, 21–33 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodwin, P.B.: Have panels told us anything new? In: Golob, T., Kitamura, R., Long, L. (eds.) Panels for Transportation Planning: Methods and Applications, pp. 79–96. Springer, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gurley, T., Bruce, D.: The effects of car access on employment outcomes for welfare recipients. J. Urban Econ. 58, 250–272 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hensher, D.A.: Dynamics of automobile demand: an overview of an Australian research project. Environ. Plan. A 18, 1339–1374 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill, D.H.: The gasoline price responsiveness of personal transportation demand. In: Hill, D.H., Hill, M.S., Morgan, J.N. (eds.) Five Thousand American Families: Patterns of Economic Progress, vol. 9, pp. 269–298. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1981)Google Scholar
  20. Hunt, J., Abraham, J., Weidner, T.: Household allocation module of Oregon2 model. Transp. Res. Rec. 1898, 98–107 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Institute for Social Research (2013) Panel Study of Income Dynamics wave 37 questionnaire 2011. Accessed 15 April 2015. ftp://ftp.isr.umich.edu/pub/src/psid/questionnaires/q2011.pdf
  22. Kitamura, R.:A dynamic model system of household car ownership, trip generation, and modal split: model development and simulation experiment. Transportation 36, 711–732 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kitamura, R., Yamamoto, T., Fujii, S.: The effectiveness of panels in detecting changes in discrete travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part B 37, 191–206 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krizek, K.J.: Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood-scale urban form matter? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 69, 265–281 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lovejoy, K., Handy, S.: A case for measuring individuals’ access to private-vehicle travel as a matter of degrees: Lessons from focus groups with Mexican immigrants in California. Transportation 35, 601–612 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucas, K. (ed.): Running on Empty: Transport, Social Exclusion and Evironmental Jstice. Policy Press, Bristol (2004)Google Scholar
  27. McGonagle, K.A., Schoeni, R.F., Sastry N., Freedman, V.A.: The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: overview, recent innovations, and potential for life course research. Longitud. Life Course Stud. 3, 268–284 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. Millard-Ball, A., Schipper, L.: Are we reaching peak travel? Trends in passenger transport in eight industrialized countries. Transp. Rev. 31, 357–378 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nolan, A.: A dynamic analysis of household car ownership. Transp. Res. Part A 44, 446–455 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. Oakil, A., Ettema, D., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H.: Changing household car ownership level and life cycle events: a action in anticipation or an action on occurrence. Transportation 14, 1–16 (2013)Google Scholar
  31. Ong, P.M.: Car ownership and welfare-to-work. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 22, 239–252 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paleti, R., Copperman, R., Bhat, C.: An empirical analysis of children’s after school out-of-home activity-location engagement patterns and time allocation. Transportation 38, 273–303 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Panel Study of Income Dynamics Produced and distributed by the Survey Research Center Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Accessed 2014Google Scholar
  34. Pucher, J., Renne, J.L.: Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the NHTS. Transp Q. 57, 49–77 (2003)Google Scholar
  35. Rice, L.: Transportation spending by low-income California households: lssons for the San Francisco Bay Area. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco (2004)Google Scholar
  36. Simonsohn, U.: New Yorkers commute more everywhere: Contrast effects in the field. Rev. Econ. Stat. 88, 1–9 (2006)Google Scholar
  37. Tal, G., Handy, S.: Travel behavior of immigrants: an analysis of the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey. Transp. Policy 17, 85–93 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Train, K.: Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Eonometrics, and An Aplication to Automobile Demand, 2nd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  39. United States Census Bureau: The 2011 American Community Survey questionnaire. FORM ACS-1(INFO)(2011)KFI, OMB No. 0607-0810. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/questionnaires/2011/Quest11.pdf (2010). Accessed 15 April 2015
  40. Woldeamanuel, M., Cyganski, R., Schulz, A., Justen, A.: Variation of households’ car ownership across time: application of a panel data model. Transportation 36, 371–387 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Community and Regional Planning, School of Environmental DesignTemple UniversityAmblerUSA
  2. 2.Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public PolicyRutgers, the State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations