One of the most frequently recurring justifications for densification policies (smart growth, growth management, livability, etc.) lies with the assumption that the automobile-based mobility system (Note 1) disadvantages lower income citizens. Much of the solution, according to advocates of densification is to discourage driving and orient both urbanization and the urban transportation system toward transit as well as walking and cycling.

Of course, there is no question but that lower income citizens are disadvantaged with respect to just about everything economic. However, there are few ways in which lower income citizens are more disadvantaged than in their practical access to work and to amenities by means of transit, walking and cycling. Indeed, the impression that lower income citizens rely on transit to a significantly greater degree than everyone else is just that – an impression.

The Data: This is illustrated by a compilation of work trip data from the five-year American Community Survey for 2006 to 2010. In the nation's 51 major metropolitan areas (more than 1,000,000 population), 76.3% of lower income employees use cars to get to work, three times that of all other modes combined (Figure 1).

Admittedly, this is less than the 83.3% of all employees who use cars for the work trip, but a lot more than would be expected, especially among those who believe that transit is the principal means of mobility for low income citizens. Overall, 8 times as many lower income citizens commuted by car as by transit. In this analysis, lower income citizens are defined as employees who earn less than $15,000 per year, which is approximately one-half of the median earnings per employee of $29,701. .

Perhaps most surprising is the fact that only 9.6% of lower income citizens used transit to get to work. This is not very much higher than the 7.9% of all workers in the metropolitan areas who use transit. (Table 1).







Table 1 Work Trip Market Share: 2006-2010 Lower Income Employees and All Employees Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000 Population Lower Income Employees All Employees Market Share Employees Earning Under $15,000 Annually Market Share Car, Truck & Van: Alone 56.72 73.4% 9.56 63.1% Car, Truck & Van: Carpool 7.67 9.9% 2.00 13.2% Car, Truck & Van: Total 64.38 83.3% 11.56 76.3% Transit 6.14 7.9% 1.46 9.6% Walk 2.19 2.8% 0.89 5.9% Other (Taxi, Motorcyle, Bicycle & Other) 1.34 1.7% 0.39 2.6% Work At Home 3.24 4.2% 0.85 5.6% Total 77.29 100.0% 15.16 100.0% In Millions Note: Median Earnings: $29,701 Source: American Community Survey: 2006-2010

Transit's small market share has to do with its inherent impracticality as a means of getting to most employment. According to ground-breaking research by the Brookings Institution, low-income citizens could reach only 35 percent of jobs in the major metropolitan areas by transit in 90 minutes. In other words, you cannot get from here to there, at least for most trips. It is no more reasonable for lower income citizens to spend three hours per day commuting than it is for anyone else. A theoretical 90 minute one-way standard is no indicator of usable mobility. It is likely that only about 8 percent of jobs are accessible by lower income citizens in 45 minutes (Note 2) and 4 percent in 30 minutes.

Automobility: Among the major metropolitan areas, lower income citizens use automobiles to get to work most in Birmingham (90.6%). Fourteen other metropolitan areas have lower income automobile market shares of 85% or more, including Charlotte, Detroit, Dallas-Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Louisville, Memphis, Nashville, Oklahoma City, Raleigh, San Antonio, St. Louis and Tampa-St. Petersburg. As in all things having to do with urban transportation, there are two Americas: New York and outside New York. By far the lowest automobile market share for low income citizens is in New York, at 49.3%. The second lowest lower income automobile market share is in San Francisco-Oakland, at 63.1%. Washington and Boston are also below 70% (Table 2).









Table 2 Work Trip Market Share: Car, Truck or Van: 2006-2010 Lower Income Employees and All Employees Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000 Population Lower Income Employees Metropolitan Area All Employees Employees Earning Under $10,000 Employees Earning $10,000-$14,999 All Under $15,000 (Combined) Atlanta, GA 88.3% 82.1% 83.8% 82.8% Austin, TX 87.2% 77.8% 82.3% 79.5% Baltimore, MD 85.9% 73.8% 77.7% 75.1% Birmingham, AL 94.6% 89.3% 92.6% 90.6% Boston, MA-NH 77.2% 66.4% 73.4% 68.5% Buffalo, NY 89.7% 79.8% 84.3% 81.3% Charlotte, NC-SC 90.9% 85.3% 88.5% 86.4% Chicago, IL-IN-WI 80.0% 73.0% 77.0% 74.4% Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 91.2% 82.7% 87.9% 84.4% Cleveland, OH 87.3% 78.1% 84.3% 80.3% Columbus, OH 90.8% 80.3% 87.1% 82.6% Denver, CO 85.3% 76.9% 82.1% 78.9% Detroit. MI 93.1% 85.8% 89.9% 87.2% Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 91.5% 85.4% 88.7% 86.7% Hartford, CT 89.7% 76.8% 83.1% 78.8% Houston. TX 90.7% 83.6% 86.4% 84.7% Indianapolis, IN 92.6% 85.1% 90.2% 86.9% Jacksonville, FL 91.6% 85.4% 88.3% 86.5% Kansas City, MO-KS 90.6% 85.2% 87.6% 86.2% Los Angeles, CA 84.7% 70.8% 74.1% 72.2% Las Vegas, NV 89.7% 80.0% 82.4% 81.0% Louisville, KY-IN 92.4% 85.6% 87.6% 86.3% Memphis, TN-MS-AR 93.3% 85.0% 89.6% 86.7% Miami, FL 88.3% 79.0% 80.9% 79.9% Milwaukee, WI 89.3% 78.0% 83.5% 79.8% Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 86.8% 76.9% 81.1% 78.2% Nashville, TN 92.0% 86.8% 89.5% 87.8% New Orleans, LA 90.0% 80.9% 83.8% 82.0% New York, NY-NJ-PA 57.6% 50.0% 48.1% 49.3% Oklahoma City, OK 93.1% 86.8% 90.8% 88.2% Orlando, FL 89.6% 79.7% 86.1% 81.8% Pittsburgh, PA 86.2% 77.9% 81.8% 79.2% Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 82.1% 70.6% 76.2% 72.4% Phoenix, AZ 88.6% 80.5% 83.9% 81.8% Portland, OR-WA 81.6% 69.3% 75.1% 71.3% Providence, RI-MA 89.9% 79.9% 87.1% 82.3% Raleigh, NC 90.8% 84.0% 88.0% 85.4% Rochester, NY 89.9% 76.7% 87.0% 80.0% Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 90.6% 83.4% 87.1% 84.8% Richmond, VA 91.3% 83.2% 86.2% 84.2% Sacramento, CA 90.7% 80.8% 86.3% 82.9% San Antonio, TX 92.1% 85.7% 88.2% 86.6% San Diego, CA 85.9% 73.6% 79.9% 76.0% Seattle, WA 81.3% 72.4% 76.1% 73.7% San Francisco-Oakland, CA 72.4% 63.3% 63.4% 63.3% San Jose, CA 87.1% 74.3% 80.2% 76.4% Salt Lake City, UT 88.1% 79.6% 83.4% 81.0% St. Louis, MO-IL 91.1% 83.8% 88.6% 85.4% Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 90.1% 84.1% 87.6% 85.5% Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC 89.8% 81.9% 81.8% 81.9% Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV 77.1% 67.8% 71.4% 69.0% Total: 51 Metropolitan Areas 83.3% 75.1% 78.3% 76.3% New York 57.6% 50.0% 48.1% 49.3% Outside New York 86.5% 77.8% 81.8% 79.3% Average of Metropolitan Areas 87.7% 78.9% 83.0% 80.4% Median 89.7% 80.0% 84.3% 81.8% Maximum 94.6% 89.3% 92.6% 90.6% Minimum 57.6% 50.0% 48.1% 49.3% Note: Median Earnings: $29,701 Source: American Community Survey: 2006-2010

Transit: It’s not surprising that New York has by far the highest transit market share among lower income commuters. However, New York's lower income transit market share is only marginally higher than its market share among all commuters, at 31.5%, compared to 30.0% for the entire workforce. San Francisco-Oakland had the second highest lower income transit market share at 16.8%. Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington were also above 10%. The lowest transit market share among lower income citizens was 1.1% in Oklahoma City. Six other metropolitan areas had lower income transit market shares under 2.5%, including Birmingham, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Nashville, Raleigh and San Antonio (Table 3).









Table 3 Work Trip Market Share: Transit: 2006-2010 Lower Income Employees and All Employees Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000 Population Lower Income Employees Metropolitan Area All Employees Employees Earning Under $10,000 Employees Earning $10,000-$14,999 All Under $15,000 (Combined) Atlanta, GA 3.4% 5.6% 6.2% 5.8% Austin, TX 2.6% 5.9% 5.3% 5.6% Baltimore, MD 6.3% 9.8% 9.3% 9.6% Birmingham, AL 0.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% Boston, MA-NH 11.9% 12.3% 13.3% 12.6% Buffalo, NY 3.7% 6.9% 5.8% 6.6% Charlotte, NC-SC 2.0% 3.5% 3.1% 3.3% Chicago, IL-IN-WI 11.4% 11.9% 12.5% 12.1% Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 2.4% 4.3% 3.8% 4.1% Cleveland, OH 2.7% 5.3% 3.1% 4.5% Columbus, OH 1.7% 3.5% 3.8% 3.6% Denver, CO 4.6% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% Detroit. MI 1.5% 3.5% 3.1% 3.3% Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 1.6% 2.6% 2.9% 2.7% Hartford, CT 2.8% 5.4% 5.0% 5.3% Houston. TX 2.6% 4.1% 4.3% 4.1% Indianapolis, IN 1.0% 2.6% 1.6% 2.2% Jacksonville, FL 1.1% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% Kansas City, MO-KS 1.7% 3.8% 3.4% 3.6% Los Angeles, CA 6.1% 11.7% 13.9% 12.6% Las Vegas, NV 3.6% 7.4% 7.6% 7.5% Louisville, KY-IN 2.2% 4.7% 3.7% 4.3% Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1.3% 3.3% 3.1% 3.3% Miami, FL 3.7% 7.9% 8.3% 8.1% Milwaukee, WI 3.7% 7.7% 7.4% 7.6% Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 4.6% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% Nashville, TN 1.0% 1.8% 2.0% 1.9% New Orleans, LA 2.5% 5.0% 5.3% 5.1% New York, NY-NJ-PA 30.5% 30.0% 34.0% 31.5% Oklahoma City, OK 0.5% 1.3% 0.8% 1.1% Orlando, FL 3.9% 7.4% 5.9% 6.9% Pittsburgh, PA 5.8% 6.2% 6.4% 6.3% Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 9.3% 12.2% 11.8% 12.1% Phoenix, AZ 2.2% 4.2% 4.9% 4.5% Portland, OR-WA 6.2% 9.3% 8.3% 8.9% Providence, RI-MA 2.6% 3.3% 3.2% 3.3% Raleigh, NC 0.9% 1.9% 2.1% 2.0% Rochester, NY 2.0% 4.8% 3.0% 4.2% Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 1.6% 2.7% 2.3% 2.6% Richmond, VA 1.9% 3.8% 4.4% 4.0% Sacramento, CA 2.2% 5.1% 4.6% 4.9% San Antonio, TX 1.3% 2.3% 2.8% 2.5% San Diego, CA 3.3% 6.9% 6.1% 6.6% Seattle, WA 8.2% 9.9% 10.5% 10.1% San Francisco-Oakland, CA 14.6% 15.8% 18.4% 16.8% San Jose, CA 3.3% 6.1% 6.0% 6.1% Salt Lake City, UT 3.2% 5.2% 4.5% 5.0% St. Louis, MO-IL 2.6% 4.8% 3.4% 4.4% Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 1.4% 2.9% 2.3% 2.7% Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC 1.7% 3.8% 4.7% 4.1% Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV 13.9% 14.3% 15.8% 14.8% Total: 51 Metropolitan Areas 7.9% 9.4% 10.1% 9.7% New York 30.5% 30.0% 34.0% 31.5% Outside New York 5.1% 7.1% 7.4% 7.2% Average of Metropolitan Areas 4.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% Median 2.6% 5.1% 4.7% 4.9% Maximum 30.5% 30.0% 34.0% 31.5% Minimum 0.5% 1.3% 0.8% 1.1% Note: Median Earnings: $29,701 Source: American Community Survey: 2006-2010

Automobile and Transit Metrics: The difference in automobile commuting between all employees and lower income employees turns out to be surprisingly small. The least variation is in Birmingham, where the automobile market share among lower income commuters is 4.3% below that of all commuters. Charlotte, Kansas City and Nashville also have lower income market share variations of less than 5%. The greatest variation is in Los Angeles, where the automobile market share among lower income commuters is 14.7% less than for all commuters. The lower income automobile market share is also at least 12.5% below that of all commuters in Baltimore, New York and Portland.

Oklahoma City has the most lower income automobile commuters in relation to transit commuters, with 81.3 times as many lower income commuters using automobiles as opposed to transit. In Birmingham, Nashville and Raleigh, there are more than 40 lower income automobile commuters per transit commuter. In contrast, the number of low-income automobile commuters in New York is 1.6 times that of lower income transit commuters. Again, New York is in a class by itself (Figure 2). Outside New York, there are 11.0 times as many lower income automobile commuters as transit commuters. San Francisco-Oakland (3.8) and Washington (4.7) are the only other metropolitan areas with fewer than five lower income automobile commuters per transit commuter (Table 4).









Table 4 Work Trip Market Share: 2006-2010 Lower Income Employees and All Employees Metrics: Car, Truck or Van & Transit Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000 Population Lower Income Car, Truck or Van Market Share Compared to All Car Truck or Van Market Share Times Transit Metropolitan Area Employees Earning Under $10,000 Employees Earning $10,000-$14,999 All Under $15,000 (Combined) Atlanta, GA -7.0% -5.0% -6.3% 14.2 Austin, TX -10.8% -5.5% -8.8% 14.1 Baltimore, MD -14.1% -9.6% -12.6% 7.8 Birmingham, AL -5.6% -2.1% -4.3% 50.7 Boston, MA-NH -14.1% -5.0% -11.2% 5.4 Buffalo, NY -11.1% -6.0% -9.4% 12.4 Charlotte, NC-SC -6.1% -2.6% -4.9% 25.9 Chicago, IL-IN-WI -8.8% -3.8% -7.0% 6.1 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN -9.3% -3.6% -7.4% 20.4 Cleveland, OH -10.5% -3.3% -8.0% 17.7 Columbus, OH -11.5% -4.0% -9.0% 23.1 Denver, CO -9.8% -3.8% -7.5% 10.9 Detroit. MI -7.8% -3.5% -6.4% 26.2 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX -6.7% -3.0% -5.2% 31.7 Hartford, CT -14.4% -7.4% -12.2% 15.0 Houston. TX -7.9% -4.8% -6.6% 20.5 Indianapolis, IN -8.1% -2.5% -6.2% 39.1 Jacksonville, FL -6.8% -3.6% -5.6% 35.1 Kansas City, MO-KS -5.9% -3.4% -4.9% 23.7 Los Angeles, CA -16.4% -12.4% -14.7% 5.7 Las Vegas, NV -10.8% -8.1% -9.8% 10.8 Louisville, KY-IN -7.4% -5.3% -6.6% 19.9 Memphis, TN-MS-AR -9.0% -4.0% -7.1% 26.7 Miami, FL -10.5% -8.4% -9.6% 9.9 Milwaukee, WI -12.6% -6.5% -10.6% 10.5 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI -11.4% -6.5% -9.8% 12.2 Nashville, TN -5.7% -2.7% -4.6% 46.1 New Orleans, LA -10.2% -6.9% -8.9% 15.9 New York, NY-NJ-PA -13.1% -16.5% -14.4% 1.6 Oklahoma City, OK -6.8% -2.5% -5.3% 81.3 Orlando, FL -11.1% -3.9% -8.7% 11.8 Pittsburgh, PA -9.7% -5.2% -8.2% 12.7 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD -14.0% -7.2% -11.8% 6.0 Phoenix, AZ -9.1% -5.3% -7.6% 18.1 Portland, OR-WA -15.1% -7.9% -12.5% 8.0 Providence, RI-MA -11.1% -3.1% -8.4% 25.3 Raleigh, NC -7.4% -3.1% -5.9% 42.8 Rochester, NY -14.7% -3.3% -11.0% 19.1 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA -8.0% -3.9% -6.5% 32.7 Richmond, VA -8.9% -5.6% -7.7% 20.9 Sacramento, CA -10.9% -4.8% -8.6% 17.0 San Antonio, TX -7.0% -4.2% -6.1% 35.1 San Diego, CA -14.3% -7.0% -11.5% 11.5 Seattle, WA -10.9% -6.4% -9.3% 7.3 San Francisco-Oakland, CA -12.5% -12.4% -12.5% 3.8 San Jose, CA -14.7% -8.0% -12.3% 12.6 Salt Lake City, UT -9.6% -5.3% -8.1% 16.3 St. Louis, MO-IL -8.0% -2.8% -6.3% 19.6 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL -6.6% -2.7% -5.1% 31.8 Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC -8.7% -8.9% -8.8% 19.8 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV -12.0% -7.3% -10.4% 4.7 Total: 51 Metropolitan Areas -9.8% -6.0% -8.4% 7.9 New York -13.1% -16.5% -14.4% 1.6 Outside New York -10.1% -5.5% -8.4% 11.0 Average of Metropolitan Areas -10.1% -5.5% -8.5% 12.7 Median -9.8% -5.0% -8.2% 17.0 Maximum -5.6% -2.1% -4.3% 81.3 Minimum -16.4% -16.5% -14.7% 1.6 Note: Median Earnings: $29,701 Source: American Community Survey: 2006-2010

A Line Driven in a Car: Why is this the case? The "bottom line" has been perhaps best characterized by Marge Waller and Mark Allen Hughes in a research paper for the Progressive Policy Institute of the Democratic Leadership Council.

In most cases, the shortest distance between a poor person and a job is along a line driven in a car. Prosperity in America has always been strongly related to mobility and poor people work hard for access to opportunities. For both the rural and inner-city poor, access means being able to reach the prosperous suburbs of our booming metropolitan economies, and mobility means having the private automobile necessary for the trip. The most important response to the policy challenge of job access for those leaving welfare is the continued and expanded use of cars by low-income workers

Concerns about the automobile based urban transportation system excluding lower income citizens are misplaced. Despite all the hand-wringing, America's lower income population has considerable access to cars and far greater mobility as a result. It is no more than a figment of planner's imaginations that lower income citizens would be best served by constraining car use and trying to force them into transit service that more often than not gives circuitous, slower and often impossible for access to work opportunities.

Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

-----

Note 1: As used in this article, automobile includes cars, trucks and vans.

Note 2: This estimate estimates lower income 45 minute access using the ration between 90 minute and 45 minute for all employees (as reported in the Brookings Institution report)

Photograph: Classic early 1950s Buick, Sinsheim Auto & Technik Museum, Sinsheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany (by author).