Citation

Gardenhire A, Sermons M. Transp. Res. Circular 2001; (E-C026): 179-195.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2001, U.S. National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Modeling household automobile ownership choices is a key component of travel behavior research and of travel-demand analysis and forecasting. Typically, automobile ownership models have not addressed the differences in automobile ownership behavior for different population segments. Low-income households are a population segment whose automobile ownership behavior is particularly relevant for public policy concerning household mobility. When making automobile ownership choices, it is expected that all households, regardless of income, consider their own mobility needs, purchasing power, availability of alternate modes, and various characteristics of the urban environment. How do low-income households evaluate these factors differently than non-poor households, and how can these differences impact traditional transportation policies aimed at helping the poor? This research proposes to examine this question. Automobile ownership models of residential location choice are estimated for samples of poor and non-poor households from the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. The analysis tests whether the automobile ownership choice behavior of low-income households is significantly different from that of middle- and upper-income households. The empirical analysis involves estimation of ordered choice models of automobile ownership and involves a criterion-based segmentation search methodology to explore the influence of race, gender, and life-cycle status on automobile ownership choice behavior. The results reveal that factors such as household income and residential density affect poor households' automobile ownership behavior differently than they do non-poor households' behavior. Specifically, poor households convert income into automobiles at a higher rate and convert larger adult household size into automobiles at a lower rate than non-poor households. The implication of these findings on public policy concerning the mobility of low-income households, including welfare-to-work policy, is discussed.