Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Axhausen, K.W.: Car availability change in England and Wales 1971–1981. Transportation 22, 151–164 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, C.L.: The effects of vehicle ownership on employment. J. Urban Econ. 66, 151–163 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Blumenberg, E., Manville, M.: Beyond the spatial mismatch: welfare recipients and transportation policy. J. Plan. Lit. 19, 182–205 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenberg, E., Pierce, G.: Automobile ownership and travel by the poor. Transp. Res. Rec. 2320, 28–36 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenberg, E., Thomas, T.: Travel behavior of the poor after welfare reform. Transp. Res. Rec. 2452, 53–61 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • de Jong, G., Fox, J., Daly, A., Pieters, M., Smit, R.: Comparison of car ownership models. Transp. Rev. 24, 379–408 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • Goodwin, P.B.: Family changes and public transport use 1984–1987. Transportation 16, 121–154 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, P.B.: Car ownership and public transport use: revisiting the interaction. Transportation 20, 21–33 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gurley, T., Bruce, D.: The effects of car access on employment outcomes for welfare recipients. J. Urban Econ. 58, 250–272 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D.A.: Dynamics of automobile demand: an overview of an Australian research project. Environ. Plan. A 18, 1339–1374 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hunt, J., Abraham, J., Weidner, T.: Household allocation module of Oregon2 model. Transp. Res. Rec. 1898, 98–107 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krizek, K.J.: Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood-scale urban form matter? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 69, 265–281 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, K. (ed.): Running on Empty: Transport, Social Exclusion and Evironmental Jstice. Policy Press, Bristol (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Millard-Ball, A., Schipper, L.: Are we reaching peak travel? Trends in passenger transport in eight industrialized countries. Transp. Rev. 31, 357–378 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, A.: A dynamic analysis of household car ownership. Transp. Res. Part A 44, 446–455 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ong, P.M.: Car ownership and welfare-to-work. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 22, 239–252 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panel Study of Income Dynamics Produced and distributed by the Survey Research Center Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Accessed 2014

  • Pucher, J., Renne, J.L.: Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the NHTS. Transp Q. 57, 49–77 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simonsohn, U.: New Yorkers commute more everywhere: Contrast effects in the field. Rev. Econ. Stat. 88, 1–9 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tal, G., Handy, S.: Travel behavior of immigrants: an analysis of the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey. Transp. Policy 17, 85–93 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train, K.: Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Eonometrics, and An Aplication to Automobile Demand, 2nd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community and Regional Planning, School of Environmental Design, Temple University, 580 Meetinghouse Road, Ambler, 19002, PA, USA

    Nicholas J. Klein

  2. Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 33 Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA

    Michael J. Smart

Authors
  1. Nicholas J. Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Smart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas J. Klein.

Appendix

Appendix

 

Sample size

 

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

All families

7493

7887

8346

8718

8941

9308

9690

Poverty

 Families not in poverty

90 %

92 %

90 %

90 %

90 %

89 %

88 %

 Families in poverty

10 %

8 %

10 %

10 %

10 %

11 %

12 %

Nativity

 US-born families

91 %

92 %

90 %

90 %

90 %

89 %

90 %

 Foreign-born families

9 %

8 %

9 %

9 %

10 %

10 %

10 %

Race/ethnicity

 Non-Hispanic white

77 %

77 %

77 %

75 %

74 %

73 %

72 %

 Non-Hispanic black

13 %

13 %

13 %

14 %

14 %

15 %

15 %

 Non-Hispanic Asian

2 %

2 %

2 %

2 %

2 %

2 %

2 %

 Hispanic, any race

5 %

5 %

5 %

8 %

8 %

9 %

9 %

  1. We only include cases with information on auto ownership in the family
  2. Beginning in the 2005 survey, PSID changed the way they ask race and ethnicity questions, adding a new question about Hispanicity (Latino status). This likely resulted in the increase in Latino respondents between 2003 and 2005
 

Mean number of cars in family

 

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

All families

1.64

1.67

1.69

1.63

1.68

1.65

1.59

Poverty

 Families not in poverty

1.73

1.76

1.79

1.74

1.78

1.76

1.71

 Families in poverty

0.80

0.79

0.78

0.69

0.77

0.75

0.72

Nativity

 US-born families

1.67

1.69

1.71

1.64

1.69

1.66

1.61

 Foreign-born families

1.36

1.52

1.54

1.52

1.58

1.57

1.46

Race/ethnicity

 Non-Hispanic white

1.76

1.77

1.79

1.73

1.77

1.76

1.69

 Non-Hispanic black

1.02

1.15

1.16

1.11

1.15

1.13

1.11

 Non-Hispanic Asian

1.57

1.71

1.66

1.63

1.72

1.61

1.54

 Hispanic, any race

1.34

1.59

1.61

1.60

1.69

1.68

1.58

 

Mean car-to-adult ratio in family

 

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

All families

0.95

0.96

0.98

0.94

0.97

0.97

0.94

Poverty

 Families not in poverty

0.99

1.00

1.03

1.00

1.02

1.02

1.00

 Families in poverty

0.57

0.57

0.56

0.48

0.55

0.55

0.52

Nativity

 US-born families

0.97

0.98

1.01

0.96

0.99

0.99

0.96

 Foreign-born families

0.67

0.76

0.76

0.75

0.78

0.78

0.74

Race/ethnicity

 Non-Hispanic white

1.02

1.02

1.04

1.01

1.04

1.04

1.01

 Non-Hispanic black

0.63

0.69

0.73

0.70

0.74

0.74

0.75

 Non-Hispanic Asian

0.87

0.93

0.90

0.88

0.91

0.88

0.80

 Hispanic, any race

0.68

0.81

0.81

0.82

0.84

0.84

0.81

 

Median family income (2011 $s)

 

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

All families

$55,614

$57,058

$54,250

$54,024

$55,149

$52,936

$49,529

Poverty

 Families not in poverty

$62,100

$61,701

$60,304

$60,690

$61,040

$59,280

$56,300

 Families in poverty

$8848

$8646

$9180

$8925

$8481

$9023

$8500

Nativity

 US-born families

$57,205

$58,410

$55,330

$54,740

$56,000

$53,285

$50,006

 Foreign-born families

$41,896

$45,850

$45,360

$49,147

$48,020

$48,233

$41,719

Race/ethnicity

 Non-Hispanic white

$62,238

$62,225

$59,750

$59,582

$59,808

$58,240

$55,380

 Non-Hispanic black

$37,260

$37,990

$35,000

$34,397

$33,600

$31,954

$31,520

 Non-Hispanic Asian

$65,357

$94,975

$81,625

$86,394

$84,000

$71,812

$82,000

 Hispanic, any race

$38,640

$38,016

$38,750

$44,037

$47,040

$45,760

$39,000

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klein, N.J., Smart, M.J. Car today, gone tomorrow: The ephemeral car in low-income, immigrant and minority families. Transportation 44, 495–510 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9664-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9664-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation