PlanoFuji

In a recent thread, there was some debate about the validity of assuming that someone being car free is likely poor. I have seen many claims on this forum that such 'stereotypes' are not valid. And for many of the members of this forum it may not be. But the available data, such as the American Community Surveys (Census) would indicate otherwise. Rather than expecting folks to look at the original data, which seems to be impossible for all too many on these forums, I found a summary report. If you doubt the report, please don't debate IT, but actually reference the Census data. The report is only being provided as an easily accessible source for those unwilling to look at the raw data.



And the original paper; https://www.brookings.edu/~/media/fil...tion_tomer.pdf

surreal

I think that there's a lot of overlap. Plenty of folks living in poverty who own a car anyway, sometimes quasi-legally (eg, bought a cheap beater car, never insure/registered it, drivin with dirty tags til they're caught.) Plenty of well-to-do folks, typically in affluent neighborhoods on larger cities, who don't own a car, in part b/c they've got a good enough set-up to avoid the car ownership hassles. Plenty of folks in-between, too.

But yes, I'd say that, in the USA, the majority of car-free folks live in or near poverty conditions. There's just too large of a sample size, with too many exceptional cases, for that to mean anything while trying to judge ppl...

Roody

im sure that many people on this forum will be surprised by this data, but they shouldn't be.

Roody

Thanks for dumbin' it down for all us dummies. Your condescension is so off-putting!

Pobble.808

Among the carless, there are some who are car-deprived and some who are car-free.
Not necessarily the same thing.

chewybrian 

Yes. I'm not sure what the OP is trying to 'prove', with the chart or the article. These stats only involve the top 100 large metropolitan areas, and most of the people without cars live in the largest cities (28% live in NYC, for example). It's not too hard to go without a car in New York or Chicago, and it's a no brainer if you are low income, since parking adds another layer of cost.

Even so, 40% of those car free folks would not fall in the category of low income, which disproves the point the OP is trying to make. If the odds are only 6 in 10, then it would not be safe to assume someone is poor because they have no car. One would expect fewer people to go without the car if they live outside these large cities, both because it is less practical to be without, with fewer options for mass transit, and because their cost to own would be lower. So, it *might* be a safer assumption in rural areas, for example.

Certainly, the point has been made here that not all who go without a car do so because they can't afford it. And, some of us are living examples that prove the point. But, I have not seen posters doubting the idea that some sub-set of those who are car-free wish for a car, and can't afford one. Some of us live that side, too.


The real focus of the paper seems to be the value of mass transit. It shows that people who can't afford a car tend to locate where mass transit serves them (or vice versa). It implies that gaps in coverage in mass transit increase poverty by making it harder for poor people to reach available jobs. It seems unrealistic, though, to expect government to connect everyone with everything they need. Sprawl would seem to make this goal less achievable over time, and I'm not sure there is a realistic answer to this problem.

Smallwheels

Rent control and the city refusing building permits for buildings is the source of the sky high rents. They would still be very high without rent control and easier building permits, but they would eventually come down if there were more buildings available.

Who really knows the percentage of poor people forced to use bicycles out of all bicyclists? The more the price of fuel goes up and congestion increases the more the affluent people will become cyclists.

With fewer good paying jobs out there the ranks of cyclists will grow. I've said before that only one other person where I work has ever bicycled to work, even though many say they would like to do it. That person rode twice in two years. For non-cyclists to take up cycling you can bet it was forced upon them due to economic reasons.

PlanoFuji

Your welcome. The last time I referenced the data for this from the American Community Survey I was assaulted with a number of responses that "I made that up" since I couldn't point to an Internet source that summarized the data in a nice chart or table...

Machka 

One thing to point out ... the survey is American. Not really applicable to the rest of the world.

You might want to clarify that according to one survey, some Americans who don't own cars are poor.

PlanoFuji

Again, you are incorrect. The American Community Survey (one of the two sources for the data used in the chart) is conducted nationally, including rural areas. The chart (a nice simplification) from the study may be from urban areas; however, the raw data is actually worse if you include rural areas--since the folks who remain car free in non-urban areas are much more likely to be car free for financial reasons.

You really don't understand statistics if you actually believe this.

Yes, lots of folks who go car free do so for reasons other than lack of money for something better; however, as the DATA shows about 6 out of 10 are poorer than the average. So the 'myth' that car free equates to poor has a very solid factual basis. To put the math in English, if one randomly chose car free folks in the US and bet (even odds) that they are poorer than average; you would win more often than you wouldn't...

Oh, and as I said in the OP, the cited paper was simply a nice packaged summary of the raw data for the specific question. Yes, the focus of the paper is on something completely different. Feel free to look at the raw data if you like.

PlanoFuji

Yes, this survey (and my point is about America). However, this isn't one survey. It is performed every year and has been for at least a decade. The data on income and car free has been very consistent over time.

Machka 

But in some countries, car ownership doesn't seem like that big a deal. Human-powered transport or mass-transport is much more common.

PlanoFuji

I don't necessarily disagree, though I suspect (I know of no actual data to prove/disprove) that cost is certainly a factor. My hypothesis is that as a community’s wealth increases the likelihood that 'easier' modes of transport will get chosen (such as the automobile) increase.

However, since so many of the debates on this forum seem to occur about situations in the US (like the recent discrimination one), the data I referenced is very applicable.

Machka 

Unless, of course, the easier mode of transportation is mass-transportation (for example). I have spent some time in France, and can't imagine why anyone would want to own a car there when you can hop a train that travels in excess of 250 km/h and will drop you at your destination after a comfortable and relaxed ride where you can work on your computer, read a book, sleep, or whatever, with no worries about the hassle and expense of finding parking upon arrival. And from my observations, people of all walks of life use the mass transportation system there. Who knows, maybe they own cars too ... but they wouldn't really need to.

wphamilton

I thought that the myth involved stereotyping car-free cyclists as poor. According to these stats, 60% of the car-free households in the cities used mass transit while in the suburbs a similar percentage gets to work by borrowing a car or carpooling. The statistics regarding cyclists may or may not be similar but this data is insufficient to the point.

PlanoFuji

Well according to this source, France is number 19 in car ownership per capita with 578 per 1,000 people versus 797 per 1,000 for the U.S. (#3) and 695 per 1,000 for Australia (#8)

Machka 

So?

PlanoFuji

Car free cyclists are by definition in the general pool of car-free are they not? Also, you should realize that use of mass transit does not also preclude use of the bicycle. After all why do we have buses with bike racks, and many light rail (and commuter rail) have accommodations for bikes as well. Bike specific parking at transit park and rides (or kiss and rides). Not to mention the proliferation of bike shares, etc...

But of course, there are also the collection of car free folks who live in places like Manhattan, that rely on car services and such. You know the tails of the bell curve that aren't really relevant to what is considered normal for a given population...

PlanoFuji

I was specifically addressing you statement that country's like France have a transit system where cars aren't required. Which I don't disagree with; however, the sheer number of vehicles in the country would tend to support my hypothesis that as wealth increases more people will tend to choose what they perceive to be the most convenient means of transport--which typically equates to what is common called a car.

wphamilton

Their distribution within that population may vary with respect to income levels. You cannot assume that a subset reflects the general distribution.

PlanoFuji

Actually you can with this data source. It includes enough information to identify car free cyclists. And when I last checked, 2010 data set, there wasn't a significant deviation between the mean income for car free in general and car free cyclists...

Again the cited report was just a nicely packaged subset of the data in question. The original raw data is extensive and simply tells a story, that apparently some car free folks can't swallow.

FrenchFit 

Yeah, I would argue there are many in Metro areas with income/assets so high they use car services and taxis almost exclusively. That's what my dad did, and he lived the high life in Manhattan: no driver's license...but he used/road in cars routinely...and nice ones.

Car free, can't imagine that whatsoever in this country unless you are rich, a student, poor or retired.

Roody

The point of the study is not that people lack cars because they are poor. The point is that one main reason people remain poor is that they lack access to transportation.

squegeeboo

More than 1/2 of people can be poorer than average. if two people make 50K, and 1 person makes 100K, the average is 66.6K, putting 2/3 of my 'sample' below average. You need to use the median for your 6/10 to have any meaning.

Roody

Well, there are many things in this world that you can't imagine.