Using a rich panel of data on welfare recipients in Alameda County, California, this article examines the importance of transportation policy variables in explaining the ability of some individuals to find gainful employment. A multinomial logit model predicts the probability that someone found a job as a function of car ownership, transit service quality, regional job accessibility by different transportation modes, human-capital factors, and various control variables. Results show that car ownership and educational attainment significantly increased the odds that someone switched from welfare to work, while transit service quality variables were largely insignificant. Nor was regional accessibility important in explaining employment outcomes, a finding that casts doubt on the spatial mismatch hypothesis. Concentration of housing near bus and rail routes appeared most important in stimulating employment. However, improved automobility had far stronger effects on employment outcomes than improvements in transit mobility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blackley, P.1990. Spatial mismatch in urban labor markets: Evidence from large U.S. metropolitan areas. Social Science Quarterly71: 39-52.
2.
Blumenberg, E. , and P. Ong.1998. Job accessibility and welfare usage: Evidence from Los Angeles. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management17: 639-657.
3.
Cervero, R.1997. Paratransit in America. Westport, CT: Praeger.
4.
Cervero, R. , and J. Landis. 1997. Twenty years of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System: Land use and development Impacts. Transportation Research A31: 309-333.
5.
Cervero, R. , T. Rood, and B. Appleyard. 1999. Tracking accessibility: Employment and housing opportunities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning A31: 1259-1278.
6.
Cervero, R. , and K. L. Wu.1997. Polycentrism, commuting, and residential location in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning A29: 865-886.
7.
Davis, O. , and N. Johnson. 1984. The jitneys: A study of grassroots capitalism. Journal of Contemporary Studies4: 81-102.
8.
Durán, L.1995. Bus Riders Union in L.A. Race, Poverty & the Environment6: 8-9.
9.
Ellwood, D.1986. The spatial mismatch hypothesis: Are there teenage jobs missing in the ghetto? In Black youth employment crisis, edited by R. Freeman and H. Holzer, 147-190. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Federal Highway Administration . 1997. Our nation’s travel: 1995 NPTS, early results (Publication no. FHWA-PL-97-028). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
11.
Holzer, H.1991. The spatial mismatch hypothesis: What has the evidence shown?Urban Studies28: 105-122.
12.
Holzer, H. , K. Ihlanfeldt, and D. Sjoquist. 1994. Work, search and travel among white and black youth. Journal of Urbn Economics35: 320-345.
13.
Hu, P. , and G. Young. 1999. Summary of Travek TrebdsL 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (Publication no. FHWA-PL-00-006). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
14.
Hughes, M.1991. Employment decentralization and accessibility: A strategy for stimulating regional mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association57: 288-298.
15.
Ihlanfeldt, K. , and D. Sjoquist. 1991. The role of space in determining the occupation of black and white workers. Regional Science and Urban Economics21: 295-299.
16.
Jencks, C.S. Meyer . 1990. Residential segregation, job proximity, and black job opportunities. In Inner-city poverty in the United States, edited by L. Lynn Jr. and M. McGeary. Washington, DC: Academy Press.
17.
Kain, J.1968. Housing segregation, negro employment and metropolitan decentralization, Quarterly Journal of Economics82: 197-198.
18.
Kain, J.1993. The spatial mismatch hypothesis: Three decades later. Housing Policy Debate3: 371-460.
19.
Lacombs, A. , and W. Lyons. 1998. The transportation system’s role in moving welfare recipients to jobs. Volpe Transportatin Journal2: 37-46.
20.
Leonard, J.1987. The interaction of residential segregation and employment discrimination. Journal of Urban Economics21: 323-346.
21.
Ong, P.1996. Work and car ownership among welfare recipients. Social Work Research20: 255-267.
22.
O’Regan, K. , and J. Quigley. 1998. Where youth live: Economic effects of urban space on employment prospects. Urbn Studies35: 1187-1205.
23.
Orski, C.1998. Welfare to work, Innovation Briefs2/3: 1-2.
24.
Rosenbloom, J.1995. Changing the geography of opportunity by expanding residential choice: Lesson from the Gautreaux Program. Housing Policy Debate6: 231-269.
25.
Rosenbloom, S. , 1992. Reverse commute transportation: Emerging provider roles. Tucson: Drachman Institute, University of Arizona.
26.
Sanchez, T.1999. The connection between public transit and employment: The cases of Portland and Atlanta. Journal of the American Planning Association65: 284-296.
27.
Shen, Q.2000. Spatial and social dimensions of commuting. Journal of the American Planning Association66: 68-82.
28.
Taylor, B. , and P. Ong.1995. Spatial mismatch or automobile mismatch? An examination of race, residence, and commuting in U.S. metropolitan areas. Urban Studies31: 1435-1473.
29.
Thompson, G. 1997. How ethnic/racial groups value transit accessibility: Modeling inferences from Dade County. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Collegiate Schools of Planning, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
30.
U.S. Department of Commerce . 1990. County business patterns. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
31.
Waller, M. , and M. A. Hughes. 1999. Working far from home: Transportation and welfare reform. Philadelphia: Progressive Policy Institute.
32.
Zax, J.1990. Race and commutes. Journal of Urban Economics28: 336-348.
