Income, Education, and Commuting Decisions in the NYC metro area

1
Income, Education, and Commuting Decisions in the
NYC metro area
Jay Harvard1, Julie Hewitt1, Ann Wolverton1 and
Colin Vance2 1-U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Center for Environmental
Economics. 2-German Aerospace Center.

• Research question
• How is mode of transportation in the New York
  City metropolitan area influenced by the
  socioeconomic characteristics of the commuter,
  and what are the environmental implications?
• In particular, to what extent are income and
  education associated with the use of public
  transportation?
• Why does public transportation matter?
• Numerous environmental and safety advantages are
  derived from the use of public transportation,
  including cleaner air and reduced motor vehicle
  accidents.
• If we can better understand the determinants of
  transportation choice, we will be better
  positioned to take advantage of these potential
  benefits.
• Income and education are two variables the
  literature has shown to be potentially important
  to the decision of what mode of transportation to
  use.

• Study area and Data
• NYC metro area was chosen as the study area as
  there is great diversity in communities,
  employment, and transportation options.
• NYC area constitutes more than 35 of U.S. public
  transit rider-ship.
• Over 55 of workers in NYC metro area commute on
  public transportation. (U.S. Census)
• Data is from the New York Metropolitan
  Transportation Council (NYMTC) and 1990 U.S.
  Census at a fine spatial unit of analysis.
• Commute modes aggregated for this study
• Private Auto - Single occupancy private vehicle.
• Other - includes multi-occupancy private vehicle,
  rail, bus, taxi, walk, and bike.

• The graphics showHow chosen transportation mode
  varies by income and education.
• At low incomes, individuals use a significant
  amount of public transportation.
• Use of public transportation decreases as income
  increases.
• At higher incomes, other transportation
  increases.

• Similar HS education levels between Private Auto
  and other modes.
• Higher levels of Bachelors and Professional
  degrees in other modes.

Income vs. Mode
Education vs. Mode
Cumulative Mean Percent of Education, by Mode
Cumulative Percent of Mode Choice by Income

• Logit Model Results
• Mode of transportation is the dependent variable
• 1 if private, single occupancy
• 0 if any other mode, including multiple
  occupancy private vehicle

Findings

• The average person chooses to commute in a
  private, single occupancy vehicle.
• As income increases, households choose to use
  alternate forms of transportation. A 1 increase
  in income will increase the chance of using
  other transportation by 0.14.
• At lower education levels, private single
  occupancy vehicles are more heavily relied upon.
• As education increases to college and above,
  people are more likely to seek alternate forms of
  transportation.
• The more people per square kilometer, the more
  likely a household is to use alternate
  transportation.
• As the number of children and vehicles in a
  household increases, the more likely is the use
  of single occupancy transportation. However,
  smaller households prefer other commuting
  options.
• As crime decreases, households are more likely to
  use alternative transportation.

Policy Implications

• Given a 100 per month subsidy (1200 per year),
  the average person is 0.3 more likely to choose
  public transportation. The same subsidy is
  predicted to influence 5 out of our sample of
  8,000 people to switch from single occupancy
  transportation to an alternative form.
• Transit subsidies may not be enough to
  significantly alter an individuals choice to use
  other transportation. If policy makers want to
  increase use of public transportation, a
  combination of alternatives, including in-kind
  subsidization, may be considered.
• Commuter safety is also an issue, with some
  studies estimating that public transportation
  travel is 20 times safer than travel by auto
  (Tampa Bay Commuter, 2002, v2, no1). Influencing
  a shift to public transportation not only eases
  the burden on the environment, but can also save
  lives.
• These results will hopefully further the
  understanding of the factors that influence
  individuals transportation choice as well as
  facilitate and encourage use of public
  transportation.
• Target marketing so that benefits of alternative
  transportation can be made known to upper-middle
  income households where use has declined.

Future Research

• Examine responsiveness of commuters to alternate
  policies other than those affecting income.
• Disaggregate the modes of transportation and
  possibly integrate individual education data.
• Multi-level modeling to account for differences
  in individuals, households, census blocks.

Delivering Science-Based Information to Decision
Makers