Welfare and Transportation
Will there be justice for the poor?
by Beverly G. Ward (longer version here)

High users of public transit are most likely to be of Asian, black, or Hispanic heritage; central city dwellers, particularly female workers, living alone; households with no vehicles; or low-income persons. Since these are characteristics shared by those who received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), it would appear that transit should likewise meet the needs of adults participating in the new welfare reform program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Mobility problems certainly disproportionately affect poor blacks who live in inner cities.

After World War II, public transit systems, specifically buses and commuter rail companies, faced an unending spiral of fare increases and service cuts. Higher incomes, increased suburbanization, highways and private auto use, all contributed to this decline. The Federal Transit Act (formerly Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964) was presented by President Johnson as part of his Great Society. But in light of the funding that was available for the interstate highway system, the Federal Transit Act was only a token gesture to address public mass transportation needs. Over the years, the funding for public transit has been reauthorized at 20 to 25 percent of the federal budget for surface transportation, while the needs for public transit have continued to increase, e.g., rural transportation, clean air transportation control measures, and in 1998, to provide transportation for welfare reform. The underinvestment in mass transportation and land use patterns have forced large segments of the U.S. population to become dependent on private automobiles to meet their basic needs. Marcia D. Lowe wrote in 1991, "One of the greatest ironies of the 20th century is that around the globe, vast amounts of such priceless things as land, petroleum, and clean air have been relinquished for motorization – and yet most people in the world will never own an automobile."

Former U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater said transportation is the "to" in Welfare-to-Work (WtW) initiatives, realizing that many welfare recipients and the working poor have limited access to transportation. Welfare parents and others seeking employment need access not only to jobs, but other services such as daycare facilities, schools, training programs, and health care providers. Persons with private automobiles take for granted the ability to plan and control work trips, errands, shopping, recreation and other trips. Lack of automobile ownership, however, limits access. Automobile ownership is associated with class in that automobiles symbolize not only status in American society, but also freedom. Popular slogans abound such as "It’s not just your car, it’s your freedom" and "On the road of life, there are passengers and drivers." These slogans come to have real manifestations.

Violence, disenfranchisement, economic exploitation, and segregation laws have been used to limit black mobility on physical, psychological, economic, and other social levels since Africans were forcibly moved to the American colonies. Throughout this history, some aspect of transportation has been a major locus of dissent – the Underground Railroad, Plessy vs. Ferguson, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the bus boycotts, the Freedom Rides – continuing to this writing with the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union and the Environmental Justice Action in Atlanta, Ga.

The intersection of space, ethnicity, and income only intensifies the issues related to women’s travel. Female-headed households comprised 88 percent of all U.S. households receiving public assistance in 1996. Women outnumber men in urban areas from 115:100, overall, to 157:100 for those over age 65. The concentration of women and female-headed families in the city is both cause and consequence of the city’s fiscal woes. Women live in cities because it is easier and cheaper for them to do so, but because fewer women are employed, and those that are receive lower pay than men, they do not make the same contribution to the tax base that an equivalent population of men would. Concomitantly, they are more dependent on public resources, such as transportation and housing. Concerns about adequate childcare may restrict a woman from taking a job outside the home. Access to goods and services when traveling with small children may be limited by the design of public transportation facilities.

It is one thing to say that federal funds are available for welfare reform, but these funds do very little if the infrastructure, such as buses, 24-hour bus service, and daycare, is not available. Even in areas where there is relatively good bus service, research suggests that public transportation is not a feasible option for many rural and inner-city residents. Legislators, policymakers, and transportation providers often are not users of public transportation services. The real conditions that users face are often far removed from the decisionmaking arena.

The connection between work and access to employment opportunities was overlooked in the welfare reform legislative process. In 1998, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) found that only about 6 percent of welfare recipients owned automobiles. While two-thirds of all new jobs were in the suburbs, three-quarters of welfare recipients lived in rural areas or central cities. In metropolitan areas with excellent public transit systems, less than half of the jobs were accessible by transit. The median price of a new car was equivalent to 25 weeks of salary for the average worker in 1991. (For a low-income worker, the price would be considerably more.) Approximately 9 million households or 10 million Americans of driving age, most of whom are low-income workers, did not own cars. There were no new funds, however. Congress "set aside" formula grant dollars that would have been used to provide general transportation services. Thus, the available formula grant funds have been reduced. Transit authorities now compete with each other and other entities for these funds through "innovative" grant proposals.

The disconnection between federal policy and reality continues with examples of the lack of coordination between federal programs. The FTA found "most state welfare plans submitted to the federal government barely mentioned transportation." Peter Edelman, former Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services stated, "[Welfare reform] closes its eyes to all the facts and complexities of the real world and essentially says to recipients, ‘Find a job.’" Edelman resigned his post in protest over the bill.

Welfare reform mandates that TANF recipients "work first." The profile of the recipients at time of enactment suggests that those subject to employment mandates of the Act faced significant challenges in meeting this requirement. Lack of transportation seemed to be chief among the challenges. For many rural recipients there may be no transportation – no private automobile and no public transportation. Where public transportation is available in rural areas, temporal gaps may pose barriers. The service may be available days or hours during the week not compatible with commuting needs. Studies from three major metropolitan areas found that geographic and temporal gaps existed in areas with public transit systems ranked among the top 25 in the nation. Many TANF participants have passed the critical five-year period of program participation. Although welfare reform addresses transportation as an allowable support service for participants, few states have transportation elements as part of their statewide plans. Former Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Administrator Gordon Linton stated in 1999 that the failure of the legislation and state plans to address transportation needs of TANF participants was "poor planning."

Today’s spatial patterns of poverty pockets, edge cities, exurbs, and "fortified enclaves" have been developing for many years and are part of the economic and other social characteristics of the U.S. Public transportation could and should provide us choices other than the private automobile, but the lack of it continues to contribute to the reproduction of social differences.

Beverly G. Ward is a transportation policy expert in Tampa, Florida. She is a Quaker. This article is condensed from a longer paper which is available here.