On the road again: how tax policy drives transportation choice

Virginia Tax Review, Wntr, 2005 by Roberta F. Mann

Automobile dependency makes it more difficult to climb out of poverty. (142) Transportation is a key component in addressing poverty, unemployment, and equal opportunity goals, and in ensuring equal access to education, employment, and other public services. (143) Lack of mobility increases the cost of federal programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation. (144) When funding for mobility programs such as mass transit are cut, "for every dollar saved with the mobility program cut, there is a net savings of $.39 because of the increased costs in mobility-vulnerable programs." (145) Angela Glover Blackwell notes:

   Workforce development and transportation policies are inexorably
   linked. If workers are being trained for entry-level jobs, but they
   have no way to get to those jobs, then there is a spatial mismatch.
   Today, two-thirds of new jobs are located in the suburbs and "more
   than half of these new jobs are not accessible by public
   transportation ... [and] 94 percent of welfare recipients do not have
   cars." (146)

Welfare recipients often lack reliable transportation to and from work, drastically limiting their job prospects. (147) The environmental burden of the automobile also falls disproportionately on the poor. Having a seven-lane freeway next door may not be a benefit to someone who does not even own a car. The freeway serves the needs of upper income commuting suburbanites, while the low-income urban residents suffer with road construction, neighborhood destruction, noise pollution and air pollution. (148) Purchasing a car is often a top priority of low income workers. (149) While 26% of Americans earning $20,000 or less are car-free, 95% of Americans earning between $20,000 and $39,999 own a car. (150) Even when the working poor acquire private vehicles, the cost takes a toll on their lives. The Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) notes that the working poor that own vehicles spend 21% of their income to get to and from work. (151) In contrast, the average working American spends just 3.9% of his income on commuting costs. (152)

The growing population of elderly persons also is significantly impacted by lack of transportation choice. (153) The National Household Travel Survey found that the elderly continue to rely heavily on private motor vehicles for transportation, but that mobility as measured by number and distance of trips taken is significantly reduced for persons over the age of sixty-four. (154) Over half of seniors live in the suburbs, further complicating their transportation needs. (155) Seniors may move into institutions because they no longer can drive. Institutional care is significantly more expensive than in-home care, and many seniors could use in-home care if public transportation were a practical option. (156) Because of their reliance on driving, many elderly people continue to drive in spite of serious deterioration of their eyesight, hearing, and reflexes. (157) Eighty-six year old George Russell Weller became an unfortunate symbol of this issue in July 2003 when he sped through a crowded farmer's market in downtown Santa Monica, killing nine people and sending more than fifty to area hospitals. (158) Drivers older than sixty-nine are more than twice as likely to be involved in left-hand turn accidents and seven times more likely to be killed or injured in a crash than younger motorists. (159) Even when seniors can access public transportation, fear of crime and difficulty in boarding restrict their use. (160) Thus, it is not enough just to provide public transportation--it must be convenient, safe, and easy to use.