Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Understanding Transportation in Urban China - Local Residents vs Migrant Workers

  With rapid urbanization in China and other developing economies around the world, it has become imperative to understand household transportation behavior and expenditures in these urban areas. The objective ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Understanding Transportation in Urban China - Local Residents vs Migrant Workers Author: Liu, Jenny H. Year: 2016 With rapid urbanization in China and other developing economies around the world, it has become imperative to understand household transportation behavior and expenditures in these urban areas. The objective of this study is to examine the differences in the determinants of household transportation expenditures within two very distinct populations in Chinese cities: local residents and migrant workers. In order to craft policies or strategies promoting sustainable transportation or livability, it is essential to understand whether the drivers that push the migrant population towards spending more on transportation or owning bikes or motorbikes are similar to drivers for the rest of the population. This is further complicated by the differential treatment of households within China’s hukou (household registration) system which determines eligibility to receive public benefits in housing or education. Because nearly 40% of the population in urban areas are migrants, it is particularly important to examine how the transportation choices and behavior of migrant households may diverge (or not) from the rest of the urban dwellers. Utilizing a unique dataset that surveys both types of households, we utilize descriptive statistics and regression models to analyze their transportation expenditures. We find that household income level and automobile ownership are the strongest predictors of household transportation expenditures. In addition, larger local resident households who are younger tend to spend more on transportation while migrant households generally spend less on transportation, particularly those with stronger social networks and those who do not hold urban hukou status. We conclude that significant differences do exist and may be exacerbated by inequitable access to public services, housing opportunities and other urban amenities in addition to major differences in household composition, preferences and levels of participation in the urban economic and social systems. Title: Understanding Transportation in Urban China - Local Residents vs Migrant Workers Author: Liu, Jenny H. Year: 2016 With rapid urbanization in China and other developing economies around the world, it has become imperative to understand household transportation behavior and expenditures in these urban areas. The objective of this study is to examine the differences in the determinants of household transportation expenditures within two very distinct populations in Chinese cities: local residents and migrant workers. In order to craft policies or strategies promoting sustainable transportation or livability, it is essential to understand whether the drivers that push the migrant population towards spending more on transportation or owning bikes or motorbikes are similar to drivers for the rest of the population. This is further complicated by the differential treatment of households within China’s hukou (household registration) system which determines eligibility to receive public benefits in housing or education. Because nearly 40% of the population in urban areas are migrants, it is particularly important to examine how the transportation choices and behavior of migrant households may diverge (or not) from the rest of the urban dwellers. Utilizing a unique dataset that surveys both types of households, we utilize descriptive statistics and regression models to analyze their transportation expenditures. We find that household income level and automobile ownership are the strongest predictors of household transportation expenditures. In addition, larger local resident households who are younger tend to spend more on transportation while migrant households generally spend less on transportation, particularly those with stronger social networks and those who do not hold urban hukou status. We conclude that significant differences do exist and may be exacerbated by inequitable access to public services, housing opportunities and other urban amenities in addition to major differences in household composition, preferences and levels of participation in the urban economic and social systems. Close

• 2. [Article] Do TODs Make a Difference?

  In this report, we present research that measures the outcomes of TOD areas in relation to their metropolitan area controls with respect to (1) jobs by sector; (2) housing choice for household types based ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Do TODs Make a Difference? Author: Nelson, Arthur C., Miller, Matt, Eskic, Dejan, Kim, Keuntae, Ewing, Reid, Liu, Jenny H., Berggren, Matt, Mumuni, Zakari Year: 2015 In this report, we present research that measures the outcomes of TOD areas in relation to their metropolitan area controls with respect to (1) jobs by sector; (2) housing choice for household types based on key demographic characteristics; (3) housing affordability based on transportation costs; and (4) job-worker balance as a measure of accessibility. Prior literature has not systematically evaluated TOD outcomes in these respects with respect to light rail transit (LRT), commuter rail transit (CRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and streetcar transit (SCT) systems. Our analysis helps close some of these gaps. We apply our analysis to 23 fixed-guideway transit systems operating in 17 metropolitan areas in the South and West that have one or more of those systems. We find: (1) Most TOD areas gained jobs in the office, knowledge, education, health care and entertainment sectors, adding more than $100 billion in wages capitalized over time; (2) In assessing economic resilience associated with LRT systems, jobs continued to shift away from TOD areas before the Great Recession, the pace slowed during the recession but reversed during recovery, leading us to speculate that LRT TOD areas may have transformed metropolitan economies served by LRT systems; (3) Rents for offices, retail stores and apartments were higher when closer to SCT systems, had mixed results with respect LRT systems, but were mostly lower with respect to CRT systems (our BRT sample was too small to evaluate); (4) SCT systems performed best in terms of increasing their TOD-area shares of metropolitan population, households and householders by age, housing units, and renters with BRT systems performing less well while LRT and CRT systems experienced a much smaller shift in the share of growth; (5) Household transportation costs as a share of budgets increase with respect to distance from LRT transit stations to seven miles, suggesting the proximity to LRT stations reduces total household transportation costs; (6) Emerging trends that may favor higher-wage jobs locating in TOD areas over time than lower- or middle-wage jobs, perhaps because TOD areas attract more investment which requires more productive, higher-paid labor to justify the investment; and (7) The share of workers who commute 10 minutes or less to work increases nearly one-half of 1 percent for each half-mile their resident block group is to an LRT transit station, capping at a gain of 1.3 percent, which is not a trivial gain. Our report summarizes case studies of 23 transit systems and three journal articles based on our research. Title: Do TODs Make a Difference? Author: Nelson, Arthur C., Miller, Matt, Eskic, Dejan, Kim, Keuntae, Ewing, Reid, Liu, Jenny H., Berggren, Matt, Mumuni, Zakari Year: 2015 In this report, we present research that measures the outcomes of TOD areas in relation to their metropolitan area controls with respect to (1) jobs by sector; (2) housing choice for household types based on key demographic characteristics; (3) housing affordability based on transportation costs; and (4) job-worker balance as a measure of accessibility. Prior literature has not systematically evaluated TOD outcomes in these respects with respect to light rail transit (LRT), commuter rail transit (CRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and streetcar transit (SCT) systems. Our analysis helps close some of these gaps. We apply our analysis to 23 fixed-guideway transit systems operating in 17 metropolitan areas in the South and West that have one or more of those systems. We find: (1) Most TOD areas gained jobs in the office, knowledge, education, health care and entertainment sectors, adding more than $100 billion in wages capitalized over time; (2) In assessing economic resilience associated with LRT systems, jobs continued to shift away from TOD areas before the Great Recession, the pace slowed during the recession but reversed during recovery, leading us to speculate that LRT TOD areas may have transformed metropolitan economies served by LRT systems; (3) Rents for offices, retail stores and apartments were higher when closer to SCT systems, had mixed results with respect LRT systems, but were mostly lower with respect to CRT systems (our BRT sample was too small to evaluate); (4) SCT systems performed best in terms of increasing their TOD-area shares of metropolitan population, households and householders by age, housing units, and renters with BRT systems performing less well while LRT and CRT systems experienced a much smaller shift in the share of growth; (5) Household transportation costs as a share of budgets increase with respect to distance from LRT transit stations to seven miles, suggesting the proximity to LRT stations reduces total household transportation costs; (6) Emerging trends that may favor higher-wage jobs locating in TOD areas over time than lower- or middle-wage jobs, perhaps because TOD areas attract more investment which requires more productive, higher-paid labor to justify the investment; and (7) The share of workers who commute 10 minutes or less to work increases nearly one-half of 1 percent for each half-mile their resident block group is to an LRT transit station, capping at a gain of 1.3 percent, which is not a trivial gain. Our report summarizes case studies of 23 transit systems and three journal articles based on our research. Close