How the Poor Afford Public Transportation

169 Pages·2015·2.24 MB·English

How the Poor Afford Public Transportation: the Case of New York City
Alexis F. Perrotta
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
under the Executive Committee
of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
2015
© 2015
Alexis F. Perrotta
All rights reserved
ABSTRACT
How the Poor Afford Public Transportation: the Case of New York City
Alexis F. Perrotta
This research asks how universality of ridership is maintained in New York City’s transit system
given that it is gated by the fare. Transportation planning scholarship presumes transit is
affordable because the fare has a relatively low price and ridership among the poor is high. The
transit agency addresses universality by maintaining a fare structure that keeps the single ride
fare relatively low. Its method is based on empirical evidence that low-income riders “prefer”
cheaper fare products over those with lower average fares but that require higher initial cash
outlays. Transportation scholarship observes that low-income riders are inelastic and presumes,
based on economic theory, that riders will forego more elastic goods to ride transit.
Critical planning scholars have contested the tenets of the modernist planning project which
utilize predict-and-provide empiricism and neoclassical economic models such as these. While
urban planning has turned toward direct collaboration or at least participation with affected
communities, transportation planning has not fully made this turn. There is thus little transit-
related research that is informed directly by riders, especially low-income riders, suggesting the
conventional approaches to understanding how riders afford the fare are incomplete.
To fill this void, this research engages with low-income transit riders to elaborate and challenge
the explanations for universality of ridership. It finds that although the fare price is low, it is not
necessarily affordable. The “preference” for single ride fares is in most cases the result of
constraints. Single fare rides are often combined with fare evasion and exploitation of free
transfers, while unlimited fare cards are highly sought and widely shared. Low-income riders are
more likely to undertake compensating behaviors than to forego goods. On the occasions when
they do forego goods, they compromise necessities such as food, telephone service, rent and
laundry. Finally, agents of the welfare state distribute fares to low-income individuals to promote
rehabilitation and labor force attachment.
Together these findings suggest that universality of ridership is tenuous. It depends on
fragmented systems of generosity, compromise and welfare of which transit advocates and
planners are largely unaware. Fare evasion enforcement, pricing structures and fare payment
methods can pose challenges to riders who rely on these fragmented systems. By explicitly
acknowledging transit affordability, and incorporating knowledge on the role that welfare plays
in enabling low-income ridership, planners can expand access to transit for low-income riders.
Table of Contents page
List of Abbreviations iv
List of Illustrations v
1 Introduction 1
2 Literature Review 7
2.1 The Fare’s Effect on Ridership 8
2.1.1 Economic Explanations for Low Income Ridership 9
2.1.2 Alternative Explanations for Ridership 10
2.2 Studies of Poverty, Deprivation and Transport 14
2.3 Prices 15
2.4 Transport and the Welfare State 19
2.5 Transit Affordability 24
2.6 Qualitative Studies of Transportation 25
2.7 Political Economy of the Fare 27
2.8 Conclusion 29
3 Case and History 31
3.1 Demographics and Ridership in the Study Area 33
3.2 Welfare in New York City 35
3.3 Welfare and Transit Fare Policy 39
3.4 New York City’s Transit Fare 40
3.5 Applicability to Other Utilities 48
4 Methods 49
4.1 Plan of Inquiry 49
4.2 Pre-Interviews 51
4.3 Population and Recruitment 51
4.4 Relevance and Quality 53
4.5 Data Collection and Analysis 57
!i
5 Findings 59
5.1 Findings from Residents 59
5.1.1 Residents’ Elaboration of Inelasticity 63
5.1.2 Residents' Ability to Pay 64
Residents’ Resources, Foregone Goods and Compensating
5.1.3 65
Behaviors
Residents' Experiences with Welfare State Interventions in
5.1.4 71
Transit Fares
5.1.5 Residents' Experiences with Fare Evasion 74
Residents' Experiences with Borrowing, Lending and
5.1.6 77
Sharing
5.1.7 Residents Who Exploit Free Transfers 80
5.1.8 Residents Who Skip Trips & Shift Modes 81
5.1.9 Residents' Fare Card Structures & Preferences 82
5.2 Findings from Professionals 85
5.2.1 Professionals’ Opinions of Fare Affordability 85
5.2.2 Professionals' Experiences with Foregone Goods 89
5.2.3 Professionals' Knowledge of Welfare State Interventions 91
5.2.4 Professionals' Experiences with Fare Evasion and Sharing 92
5.2.5 Professionals' Opinions of Universal Access 94
5.3 Summary of Findings 96
5.4 Conclusion 100
6 Policy Implications and Recommendations 102
Notes 109
Works Cited 117
Appendix A Cash Assistance Grants, New York City 132
Appendix B Recruitment Flyer 133
Appendix C Interview Guide 134
!ii
Appendix D Institutional Review Board Approvals and Consent Form 141
Appendix E Case Summaries 144
!iii
List of Abbreviations
ADC Aid to Dependent Children
AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children
EBT Electronic Benefits Transfer
EITC Earned Income Tax Credit
GAI Guaranteed Annual Income
HH Household
HRA Human Resources Administration
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority
NYCT New York City Transit
NYMTC New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
OTDA Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance
PRWORA Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
SBS Select Bus Service
SMH Social Mismatch Hypothesis
SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SSI Supplemental Security Income
TANF Temporary Aid to Needy Families
WEP Work Employment Program
!iv
List of Illustrations
Figures page
Figure 1 Study Area 32
Figure 2 Home Addresses of Resident Interviewees with Pseudonyms 60
Figure 3 Home Addresses of Resident Interviewees and Subway 61
Stations
Tables
Table 1 Fare Card Use by Income, 2008 34
Table 2 New York City Transit Fare Prices, 1998-2015 46
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics 55
Table 4 Age 57
Table 5 Distance to Subway Station 62
Table 6 Coping with the Fare 67
Table 7 Resources Currently Available to Interviewees 68
!v
Acknowledgements
Elliott Sclar, my dissertation advisor, provided invaluable, patient and thoughtful support
throughout all stages of research and writing. I am grateful for the guidance received from
members of my dissertation committee: Robert Beauregard, George Deodatis, David King and
Lisa Servon. At Columbia research fellowship support came from the National Science
Foundation Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship, Solving Urbanization
Challenges by Design, directed by Patricia Culligan.
!vi