Carless Households Research Articles

Social Equity and Bus On-Time Performance in Canada’s Largest City

Bus routes provide critical lifelines to disadvantaged travelers in major cities. Bus route performance is also more variable than the performance of other, grade-separated transit modes. Yet the social equity of bus operational performance is largely unexamined outside of limited statutory applications. Equity assessment methods for transit operations are similarly underdeveloped relative to equity analysis methods deployed in transit planning. This study examines the equity of bus on-time performance (OTP) in Toronto, Ontario, the largest city in Canada. Both census proximity and ridership profile approaches to defining equity routes are deployed, modifying United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Title VI methods to fit a Canadian context. Bus OTP in Toronto is found to be horizontally equitable. It is also found that the U.S. DOT approach of averaging performance between equity and non-equity routes masks the existence of underperforming routes with very significant ridership of color. These routes are overwhelmingly night routes, most of which are only classified as equity routes using a ridership definition. These results suggest that the underperformance of Toronto’s “Blue Night” network of overnight buses is a social equity issue. This OTP data is also applied to a household travel survey to identify disparities in the OTP of bus transit as experienced by different demographic groups throughout the city. It is found that recent immigrants and carless households, both heavily transit dependent populations in the Canadian context, experience lower on-time bus performance than other groups.

Trajectories and transitions: mobility after parenthood

Life events, such as childbirth or retirement, provide a crucial opportunity in which an individual’s habitual travel routines are disrupted and they may be especially susceptible to changing their travel behaviour. The transition to parenthood is one such period in which numerous life events occur but also in which car orientated travel practices tend to be adopted. While much is known about how travel behaviour changes during this period, there is little research explaining the processes in which car orientated travel practices are adopted. This paper addresses this gap using the results from twenty-five semi-structured interviews with parents of young children. The interviews illuminated that while a general pattern of increasing car orientation was apparent among most participants, five distinct mobility trajectories were evident. These ranged from those who had little change in their car dependent travel behaviour through to respondents from formerly carless households who experienced a dramatic rise in car use. Further, it became apparent that the first few years following the birth of a child is a period in which numerous changes can act to punctuate stable travel routines. Each change represents an opportunity to intervene and encourage the adoption of more sustainable travel behaviour. However, these findings suggest that in order to encourage families to adopt more sustainable travel practices, planners and policymakers would need to address the many transport and housing factors facilitating car orientated travel practices.

How do they get by without cars? An analysis of travel characteristics of carless households in California

In spite of their substantial number in the U.S., our understanding of the travel behavior of households who do not own motor vehicles (labeled “carless” herein) is sketchy. The goal of this paper is to start filling this gap for California. We perform parametric and non-parametric tests to analyze trip data from the 2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) after classifying carless households as voluntarily carless, involuntarily carless, or unclassifiable based on a CHTS question that inquires why a carless household does not own any motor vehicle. We find substantial differences between our different categories of carless households. Compared to their voluntarily carless peers, involuntarily carless households travel less frequently, their trips are longer and they take more time, partly because their environment is not as well adapted to their needs. They also walk/bike less, depend more on transit, and when they travel by motor vehicle, occupancy is typically higher. Their median travel time is longer, but remarkably, it is similar for voluntarily carless and motorized households. Overall, involuntarily carless households are less mobile, which may contribute to a more isolated lifestyle with a lower degree of well-being. Compared to motorized households, carless households rely a lot less on motor vehicles and much more on transit, walking, and biking. They also take less than half as many trips and their median trip distance is less than half as short. This study is a first step toward better understanding the transportation patterns of carless households.

The Poverty of the Carless: Toward Universal Auto Access

We document the falling socioeconomic status of American households without private vehicles and the continuing financial burden that cars present for low-income households that own them. We tie both these trends to the auto-orientation of America’s built environment, which forces people to either spend heavily on cars or risk being locked out of the economy. We first show that vehicle access remains difficult for low-income households and vehicle operating costs remain high and volatile. Using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Survey of Consumer Finances, and Census Public Use Microdata, we then show that in the last fifty years households without vehicles have lost income, both in absolute terms and relative to households with vehicles. We link these trends to the built environment by examining the fortunes of carless households in New York City, and particularly in Manhattan. Most of New York’s built environment did not change to accommodate cars, and in New York the fortunes of the carless did not fall. Our results suggest that planners should see vehicles, in most of the United States, as essential infrastructure, and work to close gaps in vehicle access.

Car-deficit households: determinants and implications for household travel in the U.S.

In the U.S., households with less than one car per driver (auto-deficit households) are more than twice as common as zero-vehicle households. Yet we know very little about these households and their travel behavior. In this study, therefore, we examine whether car deficits, like carlessness, are largely a result of financial constraint or of other factors such as built environment characteristics, household structure, or household resources. We then analyze the mobility outcomes of car-deficit households compared to the severely restricted mobility of carless households and the largely uninhibited movement of fully-equipped households, households with at least one car per driver. Data from the California Household Travel Survey show that car-deficit households are different than fully-equipped households. They have different household characteristics, travel less, and are more likely to use public transit. While many auto-deficit households have incomes that presumably enable them to successfully manage with fewer cars than adults, low-income auto-deficit households are—by definition—income constrained. Our analysis suggests that low-income car-deficit households manage their travel needs by carefully negotiating the use of household vehicles. In so doing, they travel far more than carless households and use their household vehicles almost as much as low-income households with at least one car per driver. These results suggest that the mobility benefits of having at least one car per driver are more limited than we had anticipated. Results also indicate the importance of transportation and employment programs to ease the potential difficulties associated with sharing cars among household drivers.

Accessibility strategies beyond the private car: A study of voluntarily carless families with young children in Gothenburg

It is generally recognized that technological fixes alone cannot solve car-induced sustainability problems requiring measures to reduce car use. However, there is a knowledge gap concerning what we can learn from the experience of people who voluntarily refrain from car ownership. This paper aims to explore how everyday life is organized and perceived by voluntarily carless households with complex travel needs, focusing on dual-income families with children living in an urban setting (Gothenburg, Sweden). Through a time-geographical theoretical lens and drawing on eight in-depth interviews with parents, we scrutinize the accessibility strategies of these families and the perceived implications of being voluntarily carless for daily living. We find that these families use largely proximity-oriented strategies and combine various practices in managing time-pressed everyday life. The findings underscore the situatedness of carlessness and the importance of the inherent constraints and fixities of different everyday life projects. Notably, adaptation is considered to be well functioning in the spheres of mandatory activities and bounded routines (related to work, school, and consumption). Regarding free-time activities, carlessness is associated with more friction and perceived inconvenience. Questions are raised regarding the long-term persistence of voluntary carlessness, as family life situations may change. The results merit further consideration in sustainable transport and land use planning as well as regarding the wider organization of society.

Without a ride in car country – A comparison of carless households in Germany and California

One approach to making transportation more sustainable is to transition away from a car-oriented society. Unfortunately, our understanding of the factors that prompt households to voluntarily forgo their motor vehicles is limited. The 2008 Mobility in Germany (MiD) and the 2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) provide an opportunity to start filling this gap by teasing out what built environment and socio-economic variables impact the likelihood that a household is carless (voluntarily or not) in Germany and in California, two car-dependent societies with different carless rates. Results from our generalized structural equation models show that in both Germany and California, households who reside in denser neighborhoods, closer to transit stations, and who have a lower income or fewer children, are more likely to be voluntarily carless. However, households with more education are more likely to be voluntarily carless in Germany, whereas the reverse is true in California. Moreover, employment density and public transit have a higher impact on voluntary carlessness in Germany than in California. Our results also show that different socio-economic groups have substantially different residential location preferences in Germany and in California. These differences may be explained by cultural preferences, historical differences in land use and transportation policies, and by the higher cost of owning a motor vehicle in Germany.

Carless in California: Green choice or misery?

Approximately 1 million Californian households do not own a motor vehicle (hereafter a “car”). These households, who are often forgotten in transportation policy discussions, can be organized into two groups based on whether they are voluntarily carless or not. Understanding why some households decide to voluntarily forgo cars could inform policies aiming at reducing our dependency on cars. Understanding the plight of households who are not able to own a car is no less important as these households are at greater risk of social exclusion. Unfortunately, our knowledge of carless households is still sketchy so the purpose of this paper is to start filling this gap. We analyze data from the 2012 California Household Travel Survey using univariate tests and Generalized Structural Equation Models (GSEM) that account for residential self-selection to assess the impacts of various socio-economic and built environment variables on the likelihood to be carless, voluntarily or not. Our results (GSEM Model 1) indicate that carless households are more likely to have less education, a lower income, and a smaller number of members than motorized families. They also tend to live in denser, more land-use diverse, and more walkable areas with better transit coverage. Contrasting voluntarily and involuntarily carless households (GSEM Model 3), we find that involuntarily carless households are less affluent on average and they tend to live in areas that are less land-use diverse, less walkable, and with worse transit coverage. Finally, although residential self-selection is present, its impacts are minor.

Car-less or car-free? Socioeconomic and mobility differences among zero-car households

Transportation professionals have long identified the important division between choice and constraint in modal decision-making. However, while heterogeneity within some modal groups such as transit riders is well documented, intragroup differences in other groups have been largely ignored. In particular, significant heterogeneity exists among zero-car households, who may not own a car due to choice (car-free) or constraint (car-less). Recognition of intragroup heterogeneity among zero-car households yields policy implications as cities consider where to invest their ever more precious and more limited transportation resources. Using activity diary data from the 2012 California Household Travel Survey, I investigate two research questions: first, how do car-less households compare to car-free households in terms of both their socioeconomic characteristics and their relative share of zero-car households? Second, how do motivations behind not owning a car translate into mobility differences - including daily trip counts and miles traveled? I find that, contrary to media reports that the number of car-free households—that is, households that choose not to own a car—is “booming”, 79 percent of zero-car households do not own a car because of economic or physical constraints. Car-less households in many ways mirror the captive transit population, in that they have significantly lower household incomes, lower educational attainments, and are disproportionately non-white compared to car-free households. Observed socioeconomic variations translate into mobility differences, with car-free travelers taking more trips and traveling more miles per day. Policy makers should consider extending access to carshare services, which are positively associated with more trips and miles traveled among both car-free and car-less households.

The economic boom, bust and transport inequity in suburban Dublin, Ireland

This paper examines the existence and extent of transport inequity and disadvantage in new suburbs in Dublin, built during the Celtic Tiger period and as experienced during the recession. Findings are presented from a household postal survey from three case study areas built between 2001 and 2008. The case study areas are typical ‘middle class’ suburbs, and were constructed at a time when Ireland was experiencing unprecedented economic growth. The subsequent recession left many of these areas in significant negative equity, and householders with very limited housing mobility. Results from the survey point to considerable problems that are impacting on population groups typically vulnerable to transport disadvantage, such as low income earners and car-less households. The study also highlights the burdens on middle and high income households, and those who are experiencing ‘forced car ownership’. The paper concludes with a commentary on how the findings might be used to inform better transport and planning policy.

Charging for Parking to Finance Public Services

Many cities have two serious problems: overcrowded on-street parking and undersupplied public services. This article examines a policy to address both problems: charge market prices to manage on-street parking and use the revenue to finance local public services. Our case study of a pilot program for alley improvements in Beijing finds that the estimated payback period for the investments in sanitation, security, landscaping, and parking is less than three years. Only 35 percent of households in the pilot program own a car and the average income of car-owning households is almost three times the income of carless households.

Enhancing Capacity for Emergency Evacuation through Resource Matching and Coordinated Volunteerism

Many disaster-related large-scale evacuations occur each year, however, most local governments do not have the necessary resources, training or plans to transport individuals without a personal automobile out of a disaster zone. An analysis of previous research suggests that this risk could be addressed by a volunteer-supported, community-based disaster organization coordinating regional multi-modal transportation resources for disaster response. This study introduces and tests the idea of a Transportation Reserve Corps (TRC) by refining its objectives and functions while assessing its value and feasibility. Due to an assortment of potential challenges, a TRC as proposed may not be suitable or sustainable in all geographic or political contexts. Key challenges and other considerations are detailed and synthesized to yield key action steps for further inquiry. This research asserts that, if properly organized, a TRC could be an effective means of evacuating those who cannot self-evacuate during an emergency. Keywords: Multi-modal transportation planning, coordinated volunteerism, emergency evacuation, disaster response, disaster preparedness, carless households

Inconsistencies in Associations between Crime and Walking: A Reflection of Poverty and Density

Higher crime rates theoretically deter walking, yet empirical analyses show mixed results. It is hypothesized that more walking occurs in low-income, high-density municipalities that have higher crime rates. Gender, car ownership and relative wealth may also moderate associations between crime and walking. A statewide New Jersey survey (n = 673) of walking was linked to crime and census data. Women were more likely to walk for exercise, but less likely as crime rose. Carless households and wealthier respondents did more non-discretionary walking, but walked less in municipalities with higher crime rates. Poorer, high-density municipalities have higher crime rates and more walking.

The Multiple Discrete-continuous Extreme Value Model (MDCEV) with Fixed Costs

In this paper, we present a model that can be viewed as an extension of the traditional Tobit model. As opposed to that specific model, ours also accounts for the fixed costs of car ownership. That extension is needed since being carless is an option for many households in societies having a good system of public transportation. The main reason for being carless is that households wish to save the fixed costs of car ownership. So far, no existing model can adequately capture the impact of these fixed costs on car ownership. The Multiple Discrete-Continuous Extreme Value Model (MDCEV) with fixed costs fills this gap. In fact, this model can evaluate the effect of policies intended to influence household behaviour with respect to car ownership. This can be of great interest to policy makers. Our model makes it possible to compute the effect of policies such as taxes on fuel or on car ownership on both the share of carless households and the average driving distance.We calibrated the model using data on Swiss private households in order to be able to forecast responses to policies. One result of particular interest that cannot be produced by other models is the evaluation of the impact of a tax on car ownership. Our results show that a tax on car ownership has a much lower impact on aggregate driving demand – per unit of tax revenues – than a tax on fuel.

Where Sustainable Transport and Social Exclusion Meet: Households Without Cars and Car Dependence in Great Britain

A secondary analysis of the British National Travel Survey for the years 2002–2010 shows that the composition of the group of carless households is a good indicator of the level of car dependence in a local area: indeed, while non-car ownership in peripheral and rural areas very often correspond to a marginal socio-demographic situation, this is less and less true as one moves towards larger urban areas. Similarly, while in sparse areas most households without cars are either virtually immobile or reliant on car lifts, in large urban areas the ‘mobility gap’ between car-owning and carless households is considerably smaller, as the latter are able to use modal alternatives to the car. These findings are interpreted with reference to an integrated theoretical framework, showing how changes in land use and the environmental and social impacts of increasing motorization are intimately linked. Notably, the consequences of the self-reinforcing cycle of car dependence on two forms of car-related transport disadvantage (car deprivation and forced car ownership) are highlighted. Overall, the article highlights how the socio-demographic composition and the travel behaviour of carless households vary systematically across different types of area: this has interesting implications for sustainable transport policy and research.

Are Cell Phone Samples Needed for Studies of Walking Activity?

The growth in cell phone–only households represents a challenge for the collection of survey data. Cell phone–only households have distinct sociodemographic characteristics, which may result in different travel behavior. To explore those differences, as well as to investigate the impact of including a cell phone component in active transportation research, a representative sample of New Jersey households was surveyed with a random digit dial survey that included 1,200 completed interviews (800 based on a statewide landline sample, 400 from a landline over sample of Jersey City) and 311 statewide cell phone interviews, of which 80 were cell phone–only respondents. The survey explored walking behavior and perceived characteristics of the pedestrian environment. Sociodemographic characteristics, the frequency of walking, and home location characteristics were compared with chisquare tests of significance between sample pairs as well as multivariate analysis (ordered probit). Cell phone–only respondents were typically younger and poorer, with a greater proportion of renters, carless households, and minorities. It was found that cell phone–only household members walked more frequently, but this finding was because of their distinct sociodemographic characteristics, not their cell phone use per se. The implication for any analysis of rates or trends in walking (and probably other travel behavior) is that cell phone–only households must be included through a cell phone sample supplementing a landline sample. However, in the absence of a cell phone supplement, multivariate analysis of the correlates of walking may not be overly biased if sociodemographics relevant to cell phone–only respondents are collected and included in the analysis.

Geographic disparities in accessibility to food stores in southwest Mississippi

Disparities in accessibility to healthy food are a critical public-health concern. Poor access to reasonably priced, nutritious, and good-quality food may lead to poor diet and increase the risks of health problems such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. This research advances the popular two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method by incorporating a kernel density (KD) function to form the ‘KD2SFCA method’. The study applies the method to measure the spatial access to food stores in southwest Mississippi, and examines the interaction between the spatial access and nonspatial factors. The research shows that neighborhoods with higher scores of urban socioeconomic disadvantage actually have better spatial accessibility to food stores; but higher percentages of carless households and lower income in some neighborhoods may compromise overall accessibility. Neighborhoods with stronger cultural barriers tend to be associated with poorer spatial accessibility. The study clearly differentiate...

Nature and/or nurture? Analyzing the determinants of transit ridership across US urbanized areas

Public subsidy of transit services has increased dramatically in recent years, with little effect on overall ridership. Quite obviously, a clear understanding of the factors influencing transit ridership is central to decisions on investments in and the pricing and deployment of transit services. Yet the literature about the causes of transit use is quite spotty; most previous aggregate analyses of transit ridership have examined just one or a few systems, have not included many of the external, control variables thought to influence transit use, and have not addressed the simultaneous relationship between transit service supply and consumption. This study addresses each of these shortcomings by (1) conducting a cross-sectional analysis of transit use in 265 US urbanized areas, (2) testing dozens of variables measuring regional geography, metropolitan economy, population characteristics, auto/highway system characteristics, and transit system characteristics, and (3) constructing two-stage simultaneous equation regression models to account for simultaneity between transit service supply and consumption. We find that most of the variation in transit ridership among urbanized areas – in both absolute and relative terms – can be explained by factors outside of the control of public transit systems: (1) regional geography (specifically, area of urbanization, population, population density, and regional location in the US), (2) metropolitan economy (specifically, personal/household income), (3) population characteristics (specifically, the percent college students, recent immigrants, and Democratic voters in the population), and (4) auto/highway system characteristics (specifically, the percent carless households and non-transit/non-SOV trips, including commuting via carpools, walking, biking, etc.). While these external factors clearly go a long way toward determining the overall level of transit use in an urbanized area, we find that transit policies do make a significant difference. The observed range in both fares and service frequency in our sample could account for at least a doubling (or halving) of transit use in a given urbanized area. Controlling for the fact that public transit use is strongly correlated with urbanized area size, about 26% of the observed variance in per capita transit patronage across US urbanized areas is explained in the models presented here by service frequency and fare levels. The observed influence of these two factors is consistent with both the literature and intuition: frequent service draws passengers, and high fares drive them away.

Transit Score

The transit score is a measure that can inform the selection of appropriate transit investments for a given community. The model estimates a measure of the potential for success of various transit investments— the transit score—as a function of the densities of population, employment, and carless households. A version of this methodology was developed in 1989 by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), the metropolitan planning organization for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Camden–Trenton, New Jersey, region. The method was adapted and expanded by the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) in 2000 to evaluate future rail and fixed guideway extensions in its 2020 plan. Several other versions of the transit score methodology are known to exist and have been applied in studies across the United States. In 2005, DVRPC staff, in collaboration with NJ TRANSIT, undertook a project to validate and apply the transit score methodology to areas within the DVRPC region. Three versions of the transit score model were calibrated with linear regression models by using observed transit journey-to-work mode share as a proxy for transit score. Development of the transit score model is documented, revisions and statistical validation are described, and a range of applications of the transit score, both completed and contemplated, are discussed.

What about effective access to cars in motorised households?

Most Canadian urban centres are facing difficulties with public transport systems. As car ownership has increased, urban areas have experienced a long‐term decrease in per capita ridership. At present, a significant proportion of riders in most cities is considered to be transit captives, which usually refers to carless individuals or members of carless households. But, what about members of motorised households without effective or real access to a car as, for instance, two‐income households with only one car? Do these ‘restricted car users’ constitute a significant, but somewhat hidden, segment of the transit market? The initial purpose of this paper was to learn more about individuals with restricted or no‐car access who live in car‐owning households: Who are they? Where do they live? Do their numbers fluctuate significantly throughout the day? More specifically, how has car access in motorised households changed in the past two decades? Sociospatial profiles of motorised household members with restricted car access are presented for 1981 and 1996. The second purpose was to analyse restricted car access in motorised households by using a multivariate model of car access for motorised households in the Québec metropolitan area. To achieve these objectives, we developed a logical typology of forms of ‘restricted car access’ based on a combination of variables, or resources, qualifying the degree of car access enjoyed by individuals at any given moment during the day: availability of a car, possession of a driver's licence and a driver at the disposal of other household members. This typology was then applied to the 1981 and 1996 origin–destination survey data obtained from the Québec Census Metropolitan Area.