Mobility Paper
-
Upload
alex-hutchinson -
Category
Documents
-
view
33 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Mobility Paper
Options for and Barriers to Mobility
in Washington, DC:
A study on Wards 7 & 8
Principal authors:
Mariana Bojaca
Adam Jadhav
Bob Schlehuber
Jason Smith
Megan Sullivan
Emily Thrush
with contributions from:
Folayemi Agbede
A.J. Doty
Artur Kalil
Tim Kovach
Bojaca et al. 1
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to better understand the perceptions of options for and barriers to mobility for low-
income residents of Washington, DC, a group of American University graduate students conducted
a field study in the southeast Wards of the city (Wards 7 and 8). With limited literature focused on
low-income access to transportation, the research team determined that a field study would add the
most depth to better understanding transportation among low-income households. The field study
included 109 respondents, each of whom were asked a uniform set of questions that sought to
uncover their current modes of transportation, their perceived barriers towards other modes, and
their policy recommendations on how to improve the current transportation system. The
questionnaire responses revealed a range of barriers for each transportation option. The survey’s
key findings included:
● Commuters in Wards 7 and 8 rely heavily on public transit.
● Costs and convenience were the primary reasons for why people relied heavily on Metrobus
and Metrorail.
● Many respondents preferred private transportation even if they currently did not have access
to their own vehicles. Furthermore, preference for a car was negatively associated with
preference for other options.
● Respondents from low-income households spend an average of 4 hours more in transit per
week than do respondents from non low-income households.
BACKGROUND
Before the beginning of the Fall 2012 Semester at American University, Professor Eve
Bratman and Alex Hutchinson of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) were
discussing a problem that a Bike Share program in Washington, DC had been facing. The relatively
new Bike Share program has been successful in DC with expansion to 175 locations and over 1600
Bojaca et al. 2
bikes across town.1 However, in Wards 7 and 8 of DC, the program had not gained traction and
bikes are rarely being used. Professor Bratman decided to integrate this question into a broader
service learning research project with her Urban Development class (SIS-635) at American
University. The research question centered on perceived barriers to mobility in Wards 7 and 8. The
answer to this question provides insight into why the Bike Share program is not being used, in
addition to giving deeper insights into an array of other perceptions about public and private
transportation and mobility in the poorest areas of DC.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Perceptions about barriers to mobility in Wards 7 and 8 of Washington, DC have not been
specifically addressed in literature. In order to glean useful information from the literature, the
research team focused on barriers to mobility in US cities, perceived barriers to mobility in US
cities, the role of public transportation and mobility, and the relationship between low-income
individuals and mobility. Though a dearth of information exists in the DC context, the issue is also
national. In an interview with Eric Bruins, a policy analyst at the Los Angeles County Bicycle
Coalition, Mr. Bruins states that "there isn’t a very good amount of literature on those specific
populations (low-income and hourly workers). We have the same population out here and we don’t
really know in any scientific sort of way why they use what they use."2 This highlights the difficulty
of pinpointing accurate literature that is applicable to our target population.
In a 2011 article, Bratman examines Washington, DC using the tools of international
development and asserts that the city has many characteristics consistent with many Third World
cities.3 Similar to an international development setting, the allocation of resources to DC has not
resulted in more equality, better governance, or higher environmental quality. The city was
designed by Pierre L’Enfant, a design which serves to “express the ideals of democracy, equality
1 http://www.capitalbikeshare.com/, accessed 11/21/2012 2 Eric Bruins (Policy Analyst, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition), interview by Adam Jadhav, September 14, 2012. 3 Bratman, E. “Development’s Paradox: Washington DC is a Third World City?” Third World Quarterly, 32: 9, 1541-1556
Bojaca et al. 3
and opportunity upon which the nation was founded” (p. 1546). However, this ideal is not borne out
in reality. Unemployment in DC for African Americans is 18.9 percent while for whites it is 6.1
percent (p. 1548). Geographic racial segregation is obvious. HIV rates in DC are the highest in the
nation. Although this article does not address mobility in DC, it helps to give context to the unique
nature of Washington, DC.
Hawkin et al. (1999) highlight the sustainable measures that Curitiba, Brazil has taken to
address the needs of their residents in a way that takes the whole urban system into account.4 An
applicable innovation in Curitiba was the creative overhaul to their bus system, maximizing
efficiency, optimizing the experience for passengers, and finding ways to decrease the
environmental impact. Given the high usage rates of Metrobuses in Washington DC, described
below, the actions that Curitiba has taken can serve as reference points for DC officials who may be
interested in improving bus services, especially to those residents of Wards 7 and 8.
Jacobs (1961) addresses American cities in the context of safety and the perception of
safety.5 When people speak of cities being safe or unsafe, Jacobs assert that they are specifically
envisioning the sidewalks of the city and the threat of physical attack on the sidewalks. As vendors
are removed from streets and as residences are moved from mixed-use city dwellings (which once
provided eyes on the streets) to the suburbs, the streets and sidewalks of cities become more
dangerous. Crime and the perception of crime are not specifically addressed in our study, but
several respondents mentioned safety as a concern that affected their mobility in Washington, DC.
Caldeira (1996) warned of increasing spatial segregation that included transportation
stratification along class lines.6 Comparing São Paulo and Los Angeles, she saw this segregation
partly as a function of elites and wealthy retreating via the automobile into separate enclaves and
4 Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, H.S. (1999) “Human Capitalism,” Natural Capitalism. (Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute), 285-308. 5 Jacobs, Jane. 1961. “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” in: Bridge, Gary and Sophie Watson (eds.), The Blackwell City Reader, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 273-277. 6 Caldeira, T. (1996) "Fortified enclaves: The new urban segregation." Public Culture 1996(8): 303-328.
Bojaca et al. 4
spaces of development, often abandoning public transportation to lower classes: "Public streets
become spaces for elites’ circulation by car and for poor people’s circulation by foot or public
transportation. To walk on the public street is becoming a sign of class in many cities, an activity
that the elite is abandoning. No longer using streets as spaces of sociability, the elite now want to
prevent street life from entering their enclaves" (p. 314). This reveals serious implications for
equality in transportation planning, if designing transit for one mode privileges an economic (or
even ethnic) group of people over another group.
Sidney (2009) discusses some theoretical strands that address issues of poverty, inequality,
and social exclusion in urban politics.7 Sidney explores political, economic, and problem-centered
solutions and describes their subsequent opportunities and challenges. Community organizing,
collective ownership, and addressing power imbalances are some of the cited suggestions to work
against social exclusion. These strategies speak to possible ways to mobilize the communities of
Wards 7 and 8 for action that address aspects of their social exclusion and barriers to mobility.
Dill & Voros (2007) investigate bicycle use in the US.8 Generally, bicycle ridership in the
US is very low, with less than one percent of all trips made on bicycles. Additionally, less than five
percent of trips under half a mile are made on bicycles. The study found that road connectivity and
rider safety affected ridership, but weather and installation of bike lanes did not seem to impact
ridership. Generally, men are more likely to ride than women. Racially, blacks are less likely to ride
bicycles than whites and Hispanics.
Butler et al. (2007) look at “socio-demographic, geographic and physical activity”9 to find
correlations for walking and biking. Generally, walkers and bikers are younger. Immigrants are less
likely to ride a bicycle for both genders. People with lower incomes are much more likely to walk.
7 Sidney, Mara (2009), "Poverty, Inequality and Social Exclusion," in: Davies, Jonathan S. and David L. Imbroscio (eds.),Theories of Urban Politics, Los Angeles: Sage, 171-187. 8 Dill, J. & Voros, K. (2007). Factors Affecting Bicycling Demand: Initial Survey Findings from the Portland, Oregon Region. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2031, 9-17. 9 Butler, G. P., M.Sc, Orpana, H. M., PhD., & Wiens, A. J. (2007). By your own two feet: Factors associated with active transportation in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 98(4), 259-64.
Bojaca et al. 5
Being physically active in other areas of life is connected to higher levels of walking and biking.
Bicycle ridership is highest among people with the highest education levels and the lowest incomes.
Sawicki & Moody (2000) examine implications for transportation in light of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Relocation Act of 1996, which mandates that recipients of
welfare must find work within two years.10 The study found that most welfare recipients in Atlanta
are women who need to string several trips together because of childcare proximity. Only 50
percent of TANF recipients live within half a mile of public transportation. TANF recipients often
have to travel across the city, increasing time spent in transit.
Schlossberg et al. (2006) examine factors within two cities in Oregon that affect travel mode
choice. In the 1970s, 49 percent of students traveled by foot or bicycle, whereas in 2000, it was
down to 14 percent.11 A number of demographic variables including income, education, ethnicity,
and number of cars owned did not influence choice of travel mode. Distance to the destination,
intersection density, and street connectivity were all correlated with higher walking and bicycling
rates.
Handy et al. (2010) examine factors correlated with bicycle ownership and use.12 In the US,
69.5 percent of bicycle trips are recreational. Older people do not bike as much. People with high
education levels bike more. Better bicycle infrastructure and bike path maintenance leads to higher
ridership. Perceptions influence ridership; factors that reduce the likelihood of ridership include the
thought that cars are necessary, the perception that other cyclists look poor, and the association of
biking with child-like behavior due to seeing children in the neighborhood ride bicycles.
10 David, S. S., & Moody, M. (2000). Developing transportation alternatives for welfare recipients moving to work. American Planning Association.Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(3), 306-318. 11 Schlossberg, M., Jessica, G., Page Paulsen, P., Bethany, J., & Bob, P. (2006). School Trips: Effects of Urban Form and Distance on Travel Mode. American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3), 337-346 12 Handy, S., Xing, Y., & Buehler, T. (2010). Factors associated with bicycle ownership and use: a study of six small U.S. cities. Transportation, 37(6), 967-985.
Bojaca et al. 6
Delbosc & Currie (2011) study the spatial context of mobility, social exclusion and well-
being in Melbourne, Australia.13 As a result of rising housing prices, people move to the urban
fringe and are forced to use a car more often. On the urban fringe, 94 percent of people own cars,
while in the city, only 79 percent own cars (p. 1136). Walkability and public transportation
availability decreases, and car ownership and distance from transport access increases as residents
move away from central Melbourne. Among those on the urban fringe, six to seven percent said
they could not find jobs due to transportation issues.
Lucas (2012) explores the connection between transportation and social exclusion.14 People
dependent on public transit have trouble getting to work and school, visiting friends and family, and
have a high degree of concern for their personal safety relating to their transportation patterns.
There is a connection between mobility and social connectivity and capital. Greater social capital
leads to greater economic opportunity and personal well-being. Transportation policy cannot
address social exclusion alone. Local solutions need to be integrated to consider land use, housing,
health, education and social service programming.
Cervero et al. (2002) examine the role of transportation in joblessness.15 Research is
inconsistent about the spatial mismatch hypothesis which holds that joblessness is due to increasing
physical isolation, or inaccessibility, of inner-city residents from suburban employment
opportunities. Accessibility to jobs explained between 30 and 40 percent of the difference in
employment rates among black and white teenagers. Neighborhoods with higher levels of
accessibility to low-wage firms average lower rates of welfare dependence. Other researchers argue
that the spatial mismatch is a smokescreen to more deeply rooted racial divisions. Car ownership at
the time of welfare reliance increased the odds of later getting off welfare and, conversely, not
13 Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2011). The spatial context of transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1130-1137. 14 Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20(0), 105-113. 15 Cervero, R., Sandoval, O., & Landis, J. (2002). Transportation as a Stimulus of Welfare-to-Work: Private versus Public Mobility. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(1), 50-63.
Bojaca et al. 7
owning a car after having owned one previously increased the odds of staying on welfare. Having
jobs that were reachable via public transit, and the ability to walk to transit lines, did incrementally
increase the odds of securing a job. The likelihood of finding a job for those with only two to five
years of education, who were otherwise similar, was about 50 percent higher if they owned a car
than if they did not.
Phillips (2012) considers the impact of residential segregation on the job searches for a
group of low-income residents in Washington, DC.16 In his working paper through the National
Poverty Center, Phillips runs an experiment with active job seekers to test the validity of spatial
mismatch. By providing transportation subsidies to a randomized group of people already
participating in job placement assistance with a local non-profit, Phillips finds a correlation between
the subsidy and the intensity of job search activity. The majority of the participants in Phillips’
study live in Wards 7 and 8, thus giving insight into our population of interest. Phillips found that
most of his participants were reliant on public transportation, with only nine percent citing access to
their own vehicle. Phillips’ sample set is over four times the size of the sample in the barriers to
mobility project.
Literature sources do not necessarily provide insight into the specific question of differences
in perceptions of mobility among low wage households, but the articles provide some insight into
the context of this study. Additionally, the sources provide examples of future potential
disaggregation methods which might prove useful for Wards 7 and 8 in Washington, DC. Finally,
the sources highlight the need for further study of the linkages between mobility and perceptions of
mobility to low-income residents.
SITE/STUDY AREA
The following table shows key demographics of Wards 7 and 8 of Washington DC. Poverty
16 Phillips, David C., (2012). Getting to Work: Experimental Evidence on Job Search and Transportation Costs. National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #12-03, 1-56.
Bojaca et al. 8
rates, unemployment rates, and average family income show the vast inequality between those
living in Wards 7 and 8 and the rest of the city.
17
METHODS AND METHODOLOGY
Given the dearth of information on transportation preferences and barriers, the research team
opted to conduct an in-person survey across Wards 7 and 8. The team specifically chose this method
— as opposed to targeted interviews recruited through existing policy networks (such as
neighborhood committees) or organizations (such as WABA’s supporter/contact lists) — in order to
avoid biasing the survey toward a sample with above average political or transport policy
17 Neighborhood Info DC. (2012). Retrieved November 29, 2012, http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/
Bojaca et al. 9
engagement. However, facing a compressed schedule, the research team ultimately relied upon a
convenience sample of commuters drawn from Metrorail (hereafter “train”) stations, adjacent
Metrobus (hereafter “bus”) stops, and nearby parking lots. At one site, additional sampling was
conducted at a nearby grocery store. This sample method has its own inherent biases, which will be
discussed later in the paper.
Recognizing that commuter respondents would likely be pressed for time, the research team
designed the survey instrument — a multi-stage questionnaire — for quick delivery on sidewalks
that would yield basic data even if a respondent had to break before completing the survey (for
example, to catch a departing bus). The survey
queried respondents on their current transportation
habits and motivations before presenting
respondents with a shortened version of a Q-sort.
Using laminated cards labeled with nine different
transport options and a corresponding picture,
respondents ranked their preferred modes of
transport, which were not necessarily their current
modes.18 Interviewers then asked probing questions
to elicit the perceived barriers to the array of
transport options. Respondents were then asked for demographic data, including age, hours spent in
weekly commute, and household income. Due to the assumed time constraints of the survey and the
complex and sensitive nature of the income question, respondents were asked to self-identify as
belonging to a low-income household, rather than divulge specific income details. If respondents
declined, they were alternatively asked whether or not they worked in low-wage, hourly jobs.
18 The nine transport options: Metro (Metrorail), Bus (Metrobus), Bike, Bike Share, Walk, Family Car, Car Share, Carpool, and Taxi.
Bojaca et al. 10
If respondents had additional time, interviewers asked for policy recommendations and
details about specific transportation habits. Interviewers questioned respondents about what modes
of transport they used for important trips (such as visits to a doctor or an urgent errand), and trips
where a respondent needed to transport other goods or people.19
The team complied with American University’s Institutional Review Board’s ethical
research guidelines regarding privacy, consent, and full disclosure. Only consenting adults
participated. Interviews were voluntary and conducted in public spaces. No identifying data (other
than first name, for courtesy) was collected, but respondents could opt-in to provide a telephone
number for future follow-up.
Interviews took place over a two-week period from October 23, 2012 to November 6, 2012;
significant events during that period
that may have affected
transportation patterns included
Halloween, the onset of Hurricane
Sandy (during which surveys were
not conducted), and the 2012
presidential election.
19 See Appendix A for the full survey instrument.
Bojaca et al. 11
The research team concentrated
on the Metrorail stations geographically
closest to, or within, Wards 7 and 8.
Final survey sites were Anacostia,
Congress Heights and Southern Avenue
stations on the Green line; and the
Benning Road, Capitol Heights,
Deanwood, Minnesota Avenue and
Stadium/Armory stations on the Orange
and Blue lines. Notably, the Southern
Avenue station lies just outside the DC
border, and Stadium/Armory lies inside
Ward 7, but is the only station in the
sample that is west of the Anacostia
River. Additional interviews were
conducted outside the Safeway grocery
store at 322 40th Street NE, several
blocks from the Minnesota Avenue
station.
Sampling was concentrated on morning and evening commuting hours. More than 50
percent of surveys were conducted between the hours of 8 a.m. - 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. - 8 p.m.
Surveys were administered on every day of the week.
The final sample consisted of 109 observations where respondents were able to complete the
majority of the survey. The research team examined the full dataset individually and then as a
Bojaca et al. 12
group. This included an array of quantitative analyses of coded answers and discrete variables
(demographics and Q-sort values) and narrative analyses of open-ended questions.
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Sample Description
The research team collected several basic demographics in order to better understand the
sample. Although the research project was focused on transportation options and perceived
transportation barriers within Wards 7 and 8, interview teams did not exclude respondents who were
not residents of those wards. This inclusion was made on the grounds that people from outside those
wards — both residents of other parts of DC as well as the surrounding states — still transit through
Wards 7 and 8, and therefore would have valuable opinions to offer. DC residents comprised 74.3
percent of the sample. Of those residents, 82.1 percent were residents of Wards 7 or 8 (excluding
three respondents who were uncertain of
their ward of residence).
Given that the Anacostia River
represents a major geographic divider, the
survey team did debate whether to recruit
respondents at the Stadium/Armory Metro
station, which is the only station in Ward 7
or 8 west of the river. Ultimately, the team
went ahead with surveys there, but the bulk
of the respondents (85.3 percent) were
recruited east of the river.
A key variable of interest to the research team was the income-level of respondents. Out of
the full sample, 100 respondents made a self-evaluation of income level. Of those, 54 percent
identified as living in a low-income household.
Bojaca et al. 13
Researchers also sought to characterize the sample by hours spent in weekly commute.
Mean commute time as estimated by respondents was 14.01 hours per week; responses ranged from
two hours to a maximum of 60 hours.
The mean age of respondents who declared their age (N=98) was 40.22 years old within a
range of 18 to 74 years. However, this sample is not normally distributed and saw two peaks, one in
the 21- to 25-year-old subset, and another in the 46- to 50-year-old subset.
Transportation Use
Respondents were asked which mode(s) of transportation they normally used to get to work,
or wherever they went most regularly. A combination of bus and train was the most frequently cited
(37.6 percent), followed by multiple buses (19.3 percent), one bus (12.8 percent), and the train (9.2
percent). In total, nearly 80 percent of respondents identify public transit as their primary mode and
69.7 percent use at least one bus for some part of their commute. However, this number is likely
biased given the sample and the fact that the data collection sites were at Metro stations.
The number of public transit users dwarfs the percentage of people who rely solely on a car
for their commute (6.4 percent). Again, this is likely biased given that interviews were conducted at
DC Metro Stations, which are not locations where many personal car owners would be sampled.
Bojaca et al. 14
Less than 10 percent of respondents
indicated that they routinely use a variety of
transportation. Two people depended on
Metro Access, a WMATA shuttle service for
passengers unable to use public transportation
on their own. Only one respondent, a
homeless man, used a bike as a primary
mode, and no one identified walking by itself
as a primary mode.
Reasons for Present Modes of Transit
The research probed why respondents use their current primary mode of transit. These
narratives (explained later) were also coded into six categories — consistency or regularity of
mode; convenience or ease/proximity of use or access to modes; cost of use; speed of transit;
feeling of enjoyment or safety; and a notion (perceived or real) that a mode was simply the only
option. Researchers assigned up to two motivating reasons for each respondent.
The six categories were split almost perfectly between what appears to be three tiers of
motivations. Cost and
convenience tied for the most
important; explanations from
40.4 percent listed one or both
as an explanation for their
current mode of transit. The
perception that a particular
Bojaca et al. 15
mode was the only option available (33.0 percent) was only slightly ahead of the speed of transit
(31.2 percent) as a motivating factor. The third tier of motivations included consistency (11.0
percent) and enjoyment (10.1 percent).
Preferred Modes of Transit
The Q-sort portion of the survey instrument presented respondents with nine different
transportation options around DC. Respondents ranked the options in the order they would most
prefer to use, regardless of what they may or may not be using at present.
Although less than 10 percent of respondents presently use a car as their primary mode of
transport, the personal or family car scored highest as the preferred mode of transport (mean:
7.0962). This was slightly higher than both the bus (mean: 7.0481) and the train (mean: 6.9519).
Beyond this clustering near the
top, walking was the next highest
scoring mode of transit (mean:
5.9255), at a full interval lower.
Carpool came in fifth (mean:
4.8140), another full interval
lower. The remainder began to
cluster more tightly at the bottom.
Bike share was the least preferred
mode of transport (mean: 2.6667)
and also deviated farthest from
the next most popular option.
These findings present a complicated picture of transportation preference that differs
substantially from present transport patterns. While present transport is highly concentrated on the
Bojaca et al. 16
bus and train, commuters have reasonably strong preferences for other options. Car ownership
obviously rises in the preferential sort, but so does walking, which was not a primary transport
mode at present for any respondent.
Although the car, bus and train largely tied in terms of their mean scores, car preference had
a substantially higher standard deviation. This may indicate that while many people do indeed wish
to use a car, opinions tend to be more extreme about car use than about public transit. In other
words, more respondents also ranked car driving lower than they did for the train and bus.
Respondents who ranked the car very low cited barriers such as the high cost and low availability of
parking and high levels of traffic.
Not all respondents were able to fully evaluate all options of the Q-sort. In some cases,
respondents gave their top preferences before abandoning the Q-sort. In other cases, some
respondents were more comfortable ranking their top and bottom choices while the middle options
were vague. Interviewers recorded all rankings that respondents felt comfortable giving, but left
blank any values that were not explicit. This explains the variation in sample size for various
options. The two least-ranked options were the car share and bike share (77 and 75 responses
respectively). There may be statistical support for the finding (explained in detail later) that
respondents were substantially less knowledgeable about car share and bike share options.
Correlations Between Transit Preferences
A bivariate correlation matrix of preferential scoring generated a number of statistically
significant relationships that can be interpreted to represent clustering of preferences. For example,
bus preference correlates positively with high significance with train preference. Yet bus preference
is significantly negatively associated with the car, car share, carpool and taxi preferences. In other
words, higher preferences for the bus correlated with lower preferences for all the automobile
options.
Bojaca et al. 17
Bike and bike share preferences not surprisingly display a positive relationship with each
other; higher rankings for one were associated with higher rankings for the other. Yet, like bus
preferences, bike and bike share preferences also had significant negative relationships with
preferences for all automobile options. The same significant, negative relationship also appeared
among respondents who rated walking higher. Train preference was negatively associated only with
the car share and carpool options. At the same time, car, car share and carpool options (all the
automobile options except for taxi) are positively correlated with each other.
Taken as a whole, this presents a statistical picture where a respondent’s preference for a
non-automobile form of transport correlates negatively with automobile forms of transport.
Essentially, there is a significant transport stratification between cars and most other modes of
transit.
Bojaca et al. 18
Specific Trips
Respondents who had extra time
were invited to answer additional
questions. The research team, in an
attempt to further assess barriers and
perceptions of mobility, asked
respondents about the modes of transit
they currently use for two particular types
of trips: those that are important or urgent
(such as a doctor’s visit or an emergency)
and those that require the respondent to
transport something/someone (such as
groceries or children).
For important trips (N=66), family
car became the most likely choice (25.8
percent), whereas public transit options
fell substantially from their dominant
positions. Other rarely used options,
including carpool and taxi, also appeared
more often as possibilities. Only 17
respondents did not change their
commuting pattern.
For transporting something (N=67), family car rose even higher (40.3 percent). Again, taxi
and carpool also appeared. Several respondents also identified informal taxi networks that operate
Bojaca et al. 19
from grocery store parking lots and charge flat unmetered fees. Only 15 respondents did not change
their commuting pattern.
Comparisons Between Groups
Independent sample t-tests were performed using a low-income household binary variable
— a key variable of interest in the study — as a grouping factor in order to determine whether
preferences for certain modes of transportation varied in a statistically significant fashion from non-
low-income households. The tests revealed that differences in means were significant for train and
bus preferences. In both cases, low-income households ranked those two modes of transit higher
than non-low-income households. Essentially, low-income respondents drove the high preferences
for public transit.
Bojaca et al. 20
A t-test was also performed to determine whether the mean commute time for low-income
households differed significantly from non-low-income households. Here the higher weekly mean
commute time (15.78 hours) for low-income households represents a statistically significant
difference from non-low-income mean commute time (11.74 hours).
T-tests were also performed for transit mode preference using the binary indicators for each
motivation behind current transit practice. Although these findings paint a somewhat more opaque
picture, this test essentially derives relationships between the importance of different facets of
transportation and a preference for a type of transport. For example, this type of testing found that
the higher mean preference for the train was significantly different for those respondents who cited
convenience as a determination in their current mode of travel than for those who did not: those
citing convenience gave the train a mean score of 7.271, a statistically significant difference from
the mean train preference (6.7213) given by respondents who did not cite convenience as important.
Other statistically significant findings include:
● The bus is preferred more among respondents who do not cite speed as a factor in their
current transport habits
● The train and carpooling are both preferred less by respondents who cite enjoyment and
safety as a motivation in their current mode of transit.
Many other t-test combinations revealed no statistically significant differences. This may be
because the size of subsamples from the overall sample might be too small to reveal trends. Other
analyses in Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square tests revealed no statistically significant
findings; however, due to the complex nature of even this limited data set, more testing, particularly
of large-scale multivariate regression modeling, is needed.
Bojaca et al. 21
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
Reasons for Transportation Use
When asked why respondents use their regular mode(s) of transportation, many remarked
upon cost and convenience, or ease of access. Even if respondents did not think that their regular
mode(s) of transportation were ideal, these were considered the easiest to use, the most reliable, and
the most accessible according to where respondents live, where they travel, and what they can
afford. Being fast and being the “only” option available were also regularly noted, though less than
cost and convenience. Additionally, many people alluded to a strategy in picking their mode(s) of
transit with considerations like time of day and time availability. Very few respondents discussed
modes of transportation outside of a personal vehicle, the train, or the bus.
Bojaca et al. 22
Several respondents said they had cars, but did not use them in their regular commute due to
expense and inconvenience. Specific reasons included high gas prices, needed repair costs, risk of
tickets, parking issues (cost or hard to find), as well as traffic. Some respondents said they use what
they do because they do not have a car, indicating that a car would be an ideal choice, yet only two
respondents mentioned that they were saving money to get a car. A few mentioned that they could
not afford a car, and many noted the higher costs of having a car, for reasons described above. This
perhaps demonstrates the ambivalence that respondents feel towards a personal vehicle: driving a
car remains a goal for some respondents, though there are many acknowledged barriers. A recent
article in the Washington Post highlighted that public transportation in DC can be more expensive
than using a car, despite efforts by officials to encourage public transit and reduce car use.20
Compared to driving, some respondents prefer using the train because it is faster and
cheaper. However, the bus was sometimes preferred over the train because of cost issues. The bus
generally takes longer than the train, both in waiting time and length of travel, but the bus is almost
always cheaper than the train. One respondent waiting at the Stadium/Armory Metro stop explained,
"The bus saves me money. The train is faster but it saves you less money. If you've got two hours to
get where you want to go, you might as well take the bus."
Some respondents did not think public transportation was reliable. People also complained
more about the higher train prices compared to bus prices. There were several comments about how
transfers are free from bus to bus but not from bus to train. Although there is an issue of timing for
the bus, particularly around non-peak hours, it is often the only mode choice if money is an issue
and people have access to a bus stop.
A number of people said that their mode(s) of transportation were the only option available
to them. This response may involve perceived and/or real reasons, some of which may be 20 Milloy, C. (2012, Nov. 27). For low-income residents, the District is becoming less accessible. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-to-poor-take-a-hike/2012/11/27/6b5b1670-38dc-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop.
Bojaca et al. 23
convenience and cost, but they were not explicit in some cases. The respondent’s budget or need for
reliability may contribute to the perception that their given transit option is seen as the “only”
possibility.
NARRATIVES ON MODE PERCEPTIONS
Metro(rail) Narrative
The most cited barrier given for why people do not take the train was cost. Peak hour rates
for the train reach a maximum of $5.75 for a one-way trip. While the minimum rate during peak
hours for the train is $2.10, the cost is still $0.50 more expensive than on the bus. As riders only
receive a 50-cent discount when switching from train to bus, respondents seemed to favor sticking
to the less expensive bus option if possible.
Unreliability was another reason often given for why respondents chose not to take the train.
With constant work being done to escalators, elevators and the track in general, respondents chose
not to take the train. Other reasons for not taking the train included lack of cleanliness and a fear of
being underground in the tunnels.
Bus Narrative
The main barrier stopping people from taking the bus is the perception that buses are slow,
not on time, and often stuck in traffic. When trying to plan a day accordingly, each of these factors
can greatly impact one’s day. One respondent at the Anacostia Metro expressed that the buses are
often overcrowded and full of “ignorant” people. Along these lines, people also expressed their
displeasure with the bus drivers themselves, citing that the drivers were often unfriendly. These
barriers did not often stop people from using buses, as they are still the cheapest mode of
transportation, but they did lead to people voicing their displeasure in the overall experience of
taking the bus.
Bojaca et al. 24
Bike Narrative
Several barriers presented themselves when it came to people selecting not to ride bikes.
The overall cost, maintenance, and storage of bikes were cited by respondents as the main barriers
to using bikes to get to work. For several, the distance to travel to work was farther than an
acceptable distance for them to ride, leaving them with no option but to take an alternative form of
transportation. Other respondents simply did not like riding bikes, they discounted using a bike to
commute because they did not want to arrive to work after so much exertion, and some did not like
what they would look like on a bike, as one Deanwood station respondent noted, “I’ll look
ridiculous at my age riding a bike.” Respondents also mentioned the dangers involved with riding a
bike, as Wards 7 & 8 do not have bike lanes to the same degree as the other six wards in the city.
The final reason for not taking bikes was weather factors; this response may have been biased as
interviews were done in the late fall when weather was cold and rainy. In addition, many
respondents did not own a bike.
Bike Share Narrative
The lack of knowledge or information regarding bike share seemed to be the main reason
why people did not use bike share. While some people did not explicitly say they lacked
information on bike share, answers such as not knowing the location of a bike share in the area and
not understanding how costs were structured indicated that the respondents needed more
information. Seemingly, however, even if people were given more information about bike shares,
the barriers that were given to riding bikes in general were repeated. People across the board were
not eager to bike, regardless of what form a bike was offered.
Walking Narrative
The largest barrier preventing people from walking to work is the distance from home to
work. As one Benning Road Metro respondent put it, “there is no work nearby that you could walk
Bojaca et al. 25
to.” With large distances needing to be traveled, compounded with health, age, and weather
limitations, people are unable or unwilling to walk to work.
Car Narrative
A large percentage of respondents preferred a personal car; however, due to a range of cost
factors, people are unable to acquire a car. Beyond the costs of the car itself, people cited the costs
of insurance, parking, and gas as additional barriers to using a car as their main transportation mode.
Several respondents also said that they did not have a driver’s license. A few respondents also
mentioned traffic concerns and a lack of parking near work as additional barriers preventing them
from using a personal car.
Car Share Narrative
Similar to bike share, respondents had limited knowledge of how car shares work.
Respondents cited that they were unsure of the costs of car shares and did not know where or how
they would partake in car share. Other noted barriers were similar to those mentioned for cars: no
driver’s license, traffic concerns, and the inconvenience of driving. Some respondents mentioned
that they use car share but only for quick trips and not as a daily mode of transportation.
Carpool Narrative
Several barriers were cited for why people do not use carpools for their regular mode of
transportation. Several respondents mentioned that they did not know someone with a car that
drove to the same general location as they did, nor were the drivers on the same schedule as they
are. While several respondents were open to the idea of carpooling, the prospect of matching routes
and schedules seemed to be too much of a barrier for people to make carpooling work. Others
noted concerns when it came to riding with strangers and felt safer taking the bus or train.
Additional barriers to generally using cars in the city were given again.
Bojaca et al. 26
Taxi Narrative
The major barrier preventing people from using taxis are their high costs. While some
people mentioned that they took taxis for short trips or in case of emergency, no respondent took a
taxi on a regular basis. In addition to the cost barrier, several said that they do not have access to
taxis because taxis do not enter certain neighborhoods.
POLICY SUGGESTIONS
If respondents had time, surveyors asked four supplemental questions. The first question
captured policy suggestions to make regular transportation options better. Many people immediately
thought of ways to improve public transportation as opposed to private options. Many respondents
requested lower fares, and more frequent, timely, and longer service, especially for the bus. More
and/or improved service was requested for weekends, early mornings, and late evenings, with two
requests for 24-hour service. Some people mentioned a need for increased security on public
transportation, particularly around bus stations and on buses.
Many people mentioned factors that would improve the overall experience of riding the bus,
such as cleanliness, better customer service from the operators, and fewer disturbances by riders
such as kids playing music and fighting. Some respondents complained about overcrowded buses
and recommended bigger buses on major routes, more seating, and/or more routes at peak times.
Suggestions for the train included better maintenance for tracks, elevators, and escalators,
with minimal inconvenience to riders, especially during the weekend. Two respondents proposed a
flat fare or better discounts when transferring between the train and the bus. One unemployed
Anacostia Metro respondent noted, “A lot of people can't afford to use the options. It's like they're
only trying to make transportation and the city only for rich people." There is a general feeling from
this and other questions that transportation is decidedly unequal across DC, and that Wards 7 and 8
receive less attention.
Bojaca et al. 27
LIMITATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Given the compressed time scale of the research project and its exploratory nature, the
research team opted for a targeted convenience sample rather than a more robust sampling
technique, such as a stratified cluster sample or another systematic method. Most of the interviews
occurred outside of six major Metro train/bus stations. As a result, most people included the bus or
train as one of their primary modes of transportation. In future studies, researchers must recruit
respondents who are in other spaces: grocery stores, churches, community gathering places, parks,
libraries and even individual houses. This would eliminate sample bias toward Metro options. In
addition, survey respondents did not include many people who chose to drive or carpool as their
first option, an obvious bias as many personal car users would not be found at Metro stations.
Although more robust methods would obviously be more difficult, they would be more likely to
generate a statistically representative sample of the population in Wards 7 and 8.
Surveyors included a suggestion for a change in the language of the survey. When
identifying the Metro train, surveyors were instructed to say “Metro.” Respondents in Wards 7 and
8 often referred to the bus as “Metro,” causing initial confusion between the surveyors and
respondents. In the future, when identifying the bus, surveyors should use “Metrobus” and when
identifying the train, surveyors should use “Metrorail”.
Some respondents had difficulty sorting through all nine of the Q-sort options, highlighting
a potential flaw. In future studies, surveyors might limit the number of options to five or six (though
the research team understands that traditional Q-sorts involve a larger, more complicated method
entirely). In limiting options, the data might be less precise, but some respondents clearly lacked
precision in ranking even nine options. Missing from the Q-sort was an option for a
moped/scooter/motorcycle. It is unclear how adding another option to the Q-sort would have
improved the quality of the results, but at least one respondent indicated that it should have been
included.
Bojaca et al. 28
The survey team recognized the limits of data being gathered but opted for a short survey in
order to maximize completion rates. In light of the success and positive reaction of respondents,
future surveys might be able to take more time and probe more deeply into details about present
transportation strategies, habits, directions, distances and routine variations. This study also did not
gather data on gender, education level, exact income level, amount of money spent on travel, or
race. As the survey was developed, these topics were purposefully avoided to mitigate negative
reactions to surveyors in the field. However, in general, respondents did not react negatively to the
sensitive questions that were included in the survey, so future studies should seek to gather more
information to disaggregate even further.
One very helpful question was the policy recommendations question. This question was
nearly cut because it was deemed non-essential to understanding perceptions to mobility; however,
many respondents gave additional information in response to this question that had not been
gathered previously in the survey. The policy recommendation question was asked near the end of
the survey, allowing respondents a chance to think about transportation through the course of the
survey; most responded thoughtfully. Future surveys must recognize that individual commuters do
have ideas to offer; one option to further probe the subject of policy would be to gather reactions to
specific policy proposals and cost/benefit tradeoffs.
When the survey results were being aggregated, surveyors estimated the respondents’
motivations to be in one or two of six different categories: enjoyment/safety, cost, convenience,
consistency, only, and speed. This coding was applied after the survey was completed; though the
research team believes that it captures the results of the survey, findings might be improved if
respondents themselves categorized their own motivations rather than relying on surveyors to
correctly code narratives into specific categories.
Finally, some respondents did not know the ward in which they lived. For future surveys
Bojaca et al. 29
that disaggregate by Ward, surveyors could ask for street names at a major intersection near
respondents’ residences to identify the ward.
CONCLUSION
This study provides the first completed experiment that documents the perceived barriers to
mobility for residents of Wards 7 and 8 in Washington, DC. Though the limitations to the study are
clear, and the data set is relatively small, the evidence provides a solid foundation to future studies
that could elaborate on some of the initial results. The strongest empirical finding is that 80 percent
of respondents identified public transportation as their primary mode, with most respondents citing
issues related to the cost of their transit that dictates the largest barrier to their preferred ways of
traveling the city. Indeed, the self-identifying low-income respondents drove the higher preference
for public transportation because of their preference for the cheapest modes of travel. Nearly 70
percent of the respondents relied on at least one bus to complete their commute. Additionally, low-
income residents experienced significantly longer transportation times than non-low-income
residents at 15.8 and 11.4 hours per week respectively.
The three top preferred modes were the car, the bus, and the train. The empirical evidence
also points toward a clear split between respondents who prefer car transport and those who do not.
For those respondents who indicated a desire to use a personal vehicle to travel, many still cited the
prohibitive cost of owning a vehicle that couples with already existing barriers in DC, such as heavy
traffic, parking costs and parking scarcity, and the risk of accruing parking tickets. A future study
could deconstruct the barriers to personal car ownership in order to uncover nuances related to the
rate of people with or without drivers’ licenses, the access to credit to purchase a vehicle, and the
ability to afford car maintenance and upkeep.
Through quantitative and qualitative analyses, the research team of six data collectors has
generated a study that begins to answer some timely questions about the residents of Washington,
DC who live in the two most spatially isolated and racially segregated Wards of the city. The
Bojaca et al. 30
respondents have opened the way to a better understanding of perceived barriers to mobility in
Wards 7 and 8. The answers given to the short survey have helped to construct a picture of what is
involved in the transit patterns of a select group within southeast DC: while many respondents
would prefer using their own vehicle, less than 10 percent of respondents have access to a vehicle,
and most of the respondents use public transportation. Of the policy suggestions offered, many
related to improving and increasing the public services that already exist.
The second most cited perceived barrier to mobility after cost was convenience. Notably,
respondents were not only interested in improving transit services, but they were also invested in
the experience of their chosen mode, and they were hopeful for creative solutions that can make
transportation a clean, efficient, accessible, and equitable resource for residents of every ward of
Washington, DC.
Bojaca et al. 31
APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT We are a team of students from American University and are interested in learning about transportation in Wards 7 and 8. This should take just a few minutes of your time; we have fewer than 10 questions and the survey will be anonymous and your participation is entirely voluntary. Do you consent to be interviewed? ( ) Yes If no, thank the person for her/his time and discontinue. Provide respondent with consent disclosure. SEMI-STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE Delivered orally with answers copied (written) by the interviewer/team 1) DC resident? ( ) Yes ( ) No What ward do you live in? ______________ Are you over the age of 18? ( ) Yes If under 18, stop interview. 2) From start to finish, which mode or modes of transportation do you normally use to get to work, or wherever you go most regularly? Probe if respondent is uncertain/brief. “Could you explain more?” DO NOT suggest transport options. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3) Why do you use these modes of transportation? Interviewer must attempt to capture nuance in the recorded response but also listen for key points to summarize. Probe if necessary. Only write down quotes that are particularly enlightening, interesting or compelling. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ The following question uses a Q-sort method, where the respondent is given shuffled, pre-determined cards labeled with transportation options:
Bojaca et al. 32
4) In relation to your transport needs, put these cards in order according to which modes of transportation you would most PREFER to use? (Card options: Metro, bus, personal bike, rented bike/bike share, walk, own/family car, rented car/car share, formal or informal car-pool, taxi) Interviewer can clarify that this is a Q-sort of options that they would like to use but may or may not currently use. After sort, read back cards in order out loud for accuracy and for record keeping. Most to least preferred: 1) ______________ 2) ______________3) ______________ 4) ______________ 5) ______________ 6) ______________7) ______________8) ______________ 9) ______________ 5) What stops you from using the other modes of transportation more often? Interviewer CAN refer to the preference results of the Q-sort. “You ranked X as more preferred… why don’t you use this more often.” ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 6) Thinking about your transportation options, roughly how many hours a week to do you spend in transit? _______ Tell the respondent that we have a few basic background and demographic questions. Remind about anonymity. 7) Could you tell us your age? ______ 8) You don’t have to answer but the following question is important for the purposes of our study. Could you please tell us if you consider yourself to live in a low-income household? This information of course will remain anonymous. ( ) Low Income ( ) Not Low Income ( ) Declined If the respondent declines, follow with: Do you get paid by the hour? Do you mind telling me what kind of work you do? ( ) Hourly ( ) Not Hourly ( ) Decline Kind of work ____________________ 9) If you would feel comfortable in speaking more about this in the future would you be willing to give us your phone number? When would be the best time for us to call? Do you mind giving a first name so we can ask for you? Remind that this is an anonymous survey. Number: __________________________________ Time: _________________ Name: ___________________ Critical portion of the survey is now finished. Thank the respondent. If the respondent has more time, the following questions are optional. 10) If you could tell DC civic leaders one or two ways to make your regular transportation options better, what would you suggest? ______________________________________________________________________________
Bojaca et al. 33
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 11) If you need to get somewhere important, how are you most likely to travel? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 12) If you need to transport something — groceries or a child, for example — how do you travel? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 13) Is there anything else you’d like us to know about the barriers you face in getting where you need to go? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________