National Academies Press: OpenBook

Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers (2011)

Chapter: Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy

« Previous: Women s Travel in Developed and Developing Countries: Two Versions of the Same Story?
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Her Money or Her Time: A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22901.
×
Page 93

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

78 Her Money or Her Time A Gendered View of Contemporary Transport Policy Genevieve Giuliano and lisa Schweitzer, School of Policy, Planning and Development, University of Southern California This paper reports on recent research and trends for women’s transportation policy and planning in the united States. From among the wide range of factors that influ- ence outcomes for women in cities, the authors focus on two key areas of major contemporary change in transpor- tation policy: public transit and transportation finance. Both areas have responded to a wide range of policy goals, including energy, health, the environment, and climate change. In so doing, policy and planning have converged on one major goal: reducing vehicle miles traveled (vMT). However socially laudable in other dimensions vMT reduction may be, policy and planning based on this goal have gone forward largely without addressing or allowing for the related equity consequences that derive from social norms and institutions that contribute to gender inequal- ity, including wage discrimination, gender segregation of labor markets, and household roles and labor divisions. A review of the scant literature on women’s time poverty finds that anything that increases the time costs or uncer- tainties of auto travel is likely to disproportionately affect women and that public transit provision has not in the short term provided an effective substitute. At times, women—particularly single mothers—seem to be more discussed than served by con-temporary transportation policy and planning. For instance, LA Times editorialist Tim Rutten used a single mom to illustrate what he sees as the funda- mental problem with high-occupancy toll (HoT) lanes: the affluent can easily afford them while single mothers cannot. Rutten envisions a senior partner (to whom he assigns the male pronoun) who would, without a second thought, hop into the HoT lane so that he can catch a few extra holes of golf. By contrast, Rutten has us imag- ine an impoverished single mother, employed at the same firm as the partner, sitting in the endless lA congestion worrying that she will not make her rent if she pays for the HoT lane to go get her sick preschooler. HoT lane advocates countered in the online com- ments and letters to the editor that the partner is more likely to have a spouse he can turn to for help with child-related work, and he can also afford to purchase additional child care, landscaping, food delivery, house- keeping, and laundry service to make up for time lost while he is stranded in traffic. This same single mother, if she is really trading rent money against tolls, is hardly in the position of texting her nanny to go handle the sick child. Keeping the mom and the partner stuck in traf- fic together and thereby denying him his golf game may serve one’s sense of class envy, but it offers little if any practical help for the single mom and probably delays her even more than if the partner were just to take the HoT lane and go golf. The single mother is a potent symbol in transport policy because she is likely to be both time-poor and money-poor, whipsawed between earning a living and caring for her family (Albelda et al. 2004). Although all parents contend with these two priorities, single mothers face the problem more acutely, often as single earners without access to male wages and or additional adults to help with unpaid house- hold service work, such as caring for children (Schmidt and Sevak 2003; Sigle-Rushton and Waldfogel 2007). Because

of the tension between time caring and time earning, any- thing that increases the monetary cost of mobility is likely to affect single mothers disproportionately, as is anything that increases the time it takes to get around. While single moth- ers have become ubiquitous symbols of social inequality on the roads, few if any real changes have occurred within either policy or planning to grapple specifically with the demands of women’s mobility (Wekerle 2005). Women’s challenges and differences have been widely described but seldom addressed. even as transport planning and policy have yet to catch up with the social reality of women’s lives, they are responding readily to other social policy and plan- ning agendas, such as urban growth management, air quality, obesity, climate change, and energy (Beatley 2000; Cervero 2000; Duany and Talen 2002; Frank and engelke 2005). The consensus from multiple policy domains is that Americans, and the planet, would be a lot better off if they drove less and instead used alter- native modes like walking and public transit. Reducing vehicle miles traveled (vMT) has become a fundamental objective for transport policy. To achieve this, research- ers and advocates from a wide variety of perspectives argue for strategies that raise both the time and out-of- pocket costs of driving—the very same costs likely to affect women disproportionately. This paper examines what the emphasis on vMT reduction means for women’s transport, particularly in the short term. We focus on two major dimensions of transport policy—user fees and public transit—as these drive a significant portion of current u.S. policy debates. user fees are widely regarded as the “stick” part of changing travel behavior, a means of generating revenue for the “carrots” of transit and urban amenities around transit stations, which are anticipated in the long run to restructure metropolitan form and mobility. We begin our discussion with the larger context of women’s lives. Social norms and institutions define gender roles that are played out at home and in the workplace and that in turn result in gendered differences in time value and travel preferences. We then discuss our policy examples. We show that in both cases, little attention has been paid to the travel needs of women. neither policy is informed by women’s value of time and money or by the travel patterns of women. Transport policies and plans that fail to accommodate difference—and here we must include race, class, gender, and physicality—reinforce other social structures of disadvantage and exclusion (Blumen- berg 2004; Brown 1998; Hutchinson 2005; MacDonald 1998; Rosenbloom and Altshuler 1979; Schweitzer and valenzuela Jr. 2004). The role of transport in the pursuit of social equality may be partial, but it is significant. one caveat is in order. our general discussion of trends may fail to convey that women and their mobil- ity are heterogeneous, diverse, and context dependent. While the single mother may be a useful representative consumer to envision for transport services, single moth- ers vary in their private resources as well; some live and work ensconced within deep family and community net- works that provide both monetary help and household services, while other single parents need more from pub- lic support (Wheelock et al. 2003). In turn, just because a woman might be married does not mean she shares adequately in household resources to make mobility affordable, nor does it mean that she has the help or resources she needs to cope with work and home roles (Iversen 2003). Additionally, most of a woman’s adult life is spent without child-care responsibilities, even if she has children. As important as it is to recognize these differences among women, it is similarly important to note places where their needs intersect to form a cohesive policy agenda for transportation, as we seek to do here. gendered tiMe: Working and caring It is widely accepted that travel demand is derived from the demand for daily activities. over the past three decades, women have greatly increased their participation in the paid labor force. In 2007, women accounted for 46% of the active labor force. of women with children under the age of six in 1960, only 19% worked outside of the home, but by the early 2000s, that number had grown to 64% (noonan 2001; u.S. Census Bureau 2009a). The overall amount of unpaid work has decreased somewhat in response to higher levels of workforce participation, and male partners have increased their share of house- hold labor; however, neither of these effects has neces- sarily led to gender parity in household labor; women still report roughly twice the amount of time spent on housework, child care, and elder care (Coltrane 2001). The result has been time compression, along with wage and opportunity penalties at work (noonan 2001). Paid and Nonpaid Work Scholars have proposed different explanations for the increased participation of women in the workforce. The standard economics perspective is that increased labor market choices for women resulted from economic restructuring, higher educational attainment, and greater control over child bearing. outside of privileged income classes, women’s increased labor force participation may actually be more related to the necessity of dual incomes resulting from the decline in u.S. real family income for lower-income households since the early 1970s (Albelda et al. 2004). Reduced real income is in turn reflected in changes in the types of work available to u.S. workers (both men and women), who since 1980 have faced a 79HeR MoneY oR HeR TIMe

80 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 reduction in manufacturing employment as well as a bifurcation of service work into high-paying, white- collar jobs and much lower-paying “pink”-collar jobs and low-skill service work. The latter are likely to have much lower wages and access to employment benefits at the same time that the u.S. federal government reduced social services and income support for education, wel- fare, and health. The result has been a systematic draw- back in the provision of support for and supply of caring work done both in the united States and throughout the world (Hondagneu-Sotelo 2001; united nations Devel- opment Program 1999). However, the demands of unpaid caring work have not gone away. Caring work includes tending children, the elderly, or those in ill health; household maintenance; and volunteer work at churches and schools, among other tasks. less access to health and welfare, along with reduced school budgets, adds to the demands for unpaid caring work. The result has been a trifecta that drives women’s monetary and time impoverishment: 1. Increased hours of work for women, both paid and nonpaid. As women have increased their hours of paid labor, they have not had a corresponding reduction in their nonpaid work—the famous “second shift”—that has diminished little in practice even as awareness of it grows. 2. Higher amounts of nonpaid work for men, only not at the same rate. As men have increased their share of unpaid work—and they have done so substantially— they do so at a rate lower than that at which women have undertaken paid work (MacDonald et al. 2005). 3. Wage discrimination, and thus a lower cost of sub- stitution between paid and nonpaid work for women. The allocation between paid work and unpaid work by gen- der tends to keep women’s wages and work status—that is, entry into management and control positions—lower, which in turn prompts households pressed for both time and money to allocate more of the lower wage earner’s time to nonpaid work, thereby creating and reinforcing a cycle in which women have more unpaid work. This can affect their ability to reach wage and rank parity with their male counterparts (noonan 2001). What does the labor market have do with women’s mobility, and in particular, how much they will be affected by changes in transport policies? each of these effects in the labor market translates into myriad differ- ences in policy impact by gender—for a wide variety of services, including travel time saving and service qual- ity—even within similar income ranges and within gen- der by income. each factor affects whether women can afford tolls, certainly, but these factors also influence the degree to which a woman can substitute her time for her money (e.g., use transit), or her money for other types of services designed to save time. lower wages and more paid and unpaid work also determine whether a woman, when faced with higher time or monetary costs of travel, has the capability of negotiating higher wages or more flexible work hours in response to higher mobility costs or has to use her exist- ing resources to cope with the costs. Research on working patterns suggests that women are less likely to be in jobs that allow for flexible work hours, but are more likely to work part time, in part as a result of caring work respon- sibilities (Rosenbloom 2006). These issues affect the elas- ticity of travel demand for women, which in turn affects how much women will be expected to benefit and lose from strategies such as vMT fees, congestion charges, or a new rail line. The extant research, though scant, offers many reasons to suspect that men and women have very different methods of time–money substitution. Gender and Time Pressures Gender is associated not just with higher total hours of work, both paid and unpaid, but also with the stressors associated with that work. So while the work–family bind is itself something that can drive demand for higher-qual- ity transport services like time-saving HoT lanes, the time sensitivity and stress of uncertainty surrounding child- related travel can also contribute to the premium women are willing to pay to make sure they arrive on time. For example, a recent Canadian study examined the force of these differences on women’s workload and the time-sensitivity associated with that work (MacDonald et al. 2005). In its sample, the study found sizable dif- ferences in the amount of time spent in three different types of nonpaid caring work: child care, elder care, and housekeeping. According to the sample means among working-age respondents, men reported doing, on aver- age, a little over 9 hours per week of housekeeping tasks, while women reported doing twice that amount, 18 hours. Women do about 30 hours per week of child- minding, while men do about 12. Finally, women and men report doing similar, very small amounts of help- ing out elders, ranging from about 2 hours per week for women to a little over 1 hour per week for men. In sum, women worked 75-hour weeks of paid and unpaid work, while men worked 65-hour weeks, on average. of these tasks, respondents ranked each in terms of the time spent and the amount of gratification received. unsur- prisingly, housework was the least gratifying, and child care was the most. not all tasks related to child care were equally as gratifying, and not all were considered equally stressful or time-sensitive. Women reported being more likely to be responsible for time-sensitive, rigidly timed, or stressful household and child care tasks, such as food preparation at mealtimes and homework; in contrast, male respondents reported a heavier distribution of household

81HeR MoneY oR HeR TIMe and child care tasks that could be more flexibly scheduled, such as lawn care, auto maintenance, and playing games or sports with children. This was true even for households without children. Gendered roles associated with nonpaid work appear to carry on from gendered work specializa- tions constructed prior to women’s widespread movement into the workforce, when women’s nonpaid work time was less influenced by paid work structures. This has been found in other research as well (Field and Bramwell 1998; Hanson and Pratt 1995; Marshall 1993). Given these differences, single mothers have to con- tend with the compression of real incomes that have prompted families to move into dual-earning arrange- ments; only they do so often without the support of male wages. They also may do so without the additional help—however evenly or unevenly distributed—of an additional adult to provide nonpaid household services, some of which, like landscaping or home repair, are expensive to purchase. We conclude from this literature that women work more hours overall and are more likely to engage in caring tasks that are time sensitive. Women therefore may face the challenge of highly complex daily activi- ties under a variety of binding time constraints. Speed and reliability become critical when schedules are tight and the cost of being late is substantial, as, for example, when one must stop at the cleaners before closing time on the way home from work. neW finance scheMes and WoMen’s travel numerous factors have coalesced over the past few decades so that transportation finance is now at a transition point. First, federal policy makers have recognized the transpor- tation finance problem. A national commission conducted 2 years of study and hearings and concluded that fund- ing for surface transportation infrastructure was in crisis. The commission estimated that although between $133 and $188 billion in annual expenditures would be required through 2035 just to maintain the current highway system in acceptable condition, current sources—including federal, state and local—would generate only $68 billion annually. The report also stated that maintaining current levels of capital investment in transit (about $8 billion) would result in flat or declining mode share. To increase transit mode share, annual investment would need to be at least $13 bil- lion per year (national Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission 2007). Second, high-profile infrastructure failures, such as the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Min- nesota, have brought infrastructure back into the public dialogue, lending credence to the warning of transpor- tation professionals that the system is deteriorating at an alarming rate. These failures have also raised public recognition that our current source of funding—predom- inantly the gas tax—is inadequate to cover the demands for new systems while maintaining existing roadways (Brown 2001; Wachs 2003). Most recently, shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund in 2009 demonstrated the real- ity of contemporary funding problems. Academics and policy observers have argued for decades that transportation funding should be based on user fees and that externalities generated by transport should be reduced by pricing. Thus, new facilities should be financed from tolls, and congestion should be man- aged via pricing. Increasing user fees has proved politi- cally unpopular, however, and states and localities have subsequently turned to local option sales taxes to meet their funding needs (Goldman et al. 2001). Global climate change is the third factor influencing transportation finance. Facing the risk of potentially dev- astating impacts from climate change, user fees such as the gas tax or mileage-based fees are seen as an effective way of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reducing vMT and providing revenue for alternative modes (e.g., Sperling and Gordon 2009). With the support of several environmental advocacy groups, highway user fees as a way of reducing vMT are becoming a more visible part of the transportation funding discussion. The question comes down to whether reducing vMT will reduce mobil- ity overall—and if so, for whom—or whether transit and land use strategies can make up the difference. User Charges, Tolls, and Women’s Time Pricing is in principle the most efficient means for manag- ing transport externalities like congestion or GHG emis- sions because taxes target the source of the externality. Pricing allows consumers to make choices (for example, to pay the fee or change route or mode) and generates rev- enues that can either be used to improve the system or to offset regressive impacts of the fees. user charges and pol- lution taxes are also, however, generally regressive; that is, they require a larger percentage of sacrifice in income from lower-income households than from the more afflu- ent (Dill et al. 1999). Although there are numerous pos- sible ways to redistribute revenues to offset, on average, the incidences of the charges, such redistribution schemes cannot fully compensate all individuals.1 1 Researchers and practitioners have suggested numerous means for easing these monetary burdens, such as lowering other taxes, graduat- ing payments by income, investing in public transit and other services for lower-income group, and offering credits (Bento et al. 2005; Kalmanje and Kockelman 2004). We regret the lack of sufficient time to discuss these issues here, as they are crucial to the social equity of transportation finance, and each portends consequences by gender.

82 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 In a recent review of more than 70 studies on the incidence of gas taxes, congestion tolls, emissions fees, vMT fees, and carbon taxes, Schweitzer found that only a handful of these studies in any way accounted for potential differences within income classes by gender or by race (l. Schweitzer, “An overview of existing and emerging Transportation Finance Instruments and Their effect on low-Income Groups,” unpublished work). Few studies go so far as to calculate the income elasticity of mobility price changes—the extent to which income affects an individual’s response to price changes. Most equity studies of new transport finance measures do not even consider the idea that women might have a differ- ent, potentially less elastic demand for mobility—that is, women may be less able to change the amount or timing of travel in response to price changes than men of similar income categories. In a review of more than 100 transit demand studies, Paulley et al. (2006) mention gender only in passing and ethnicity not at all. These authors cite an earlier study by Mackett (1990) that women’s demand for public transit is less elastic than men’s, but they attribute this difference entirely to differences in affluence and vehicle access. This omission of gender from studies of tax and user charge incidence is particularly difficult to understand given the overwhelming evidence from the travel behav- ior research of significant and persistent differences among women and among women of color in their travel demand. Although those who study equity in finance may attribute these differences to income, the evidence on the distribution of both paid and unpaid work between men and women discussed above suggests that these differ- ences in demand for all types of mobility—transit, cars, and walking—may be related to income, but there are other labor market differences at play that affect travel demand and demand for other goods. The new research on HoT lanes indicates that income is a determinant: commuters with higher incomes are more likely to use the lanes, thereby in some respects verifying the popular moniker of “lexus lanes” among opponents (Brownstone et al. 2003; Brownstone and Small 2005; Mastako et al. 1998; Parkany 1999). Yet, the same research also shows gender effects in addition to income effects (Brownstone et al. 2003; li 2001). Although female-headed households are more likely to have lower incomes than dual or male-headed house- holds, women of all income levels are far more likely to use a HoT lane, even if higher-income women are more likely to do so than low-income women. The results sug- gest that women highly value both travel time-savings and reliability. Two studies are particularly significant here, though they are seldom considered as holding the answer to whether it is “fair” to women to charge congestion tolls or roadway user charges, given women’s lower incomes. The first study, by lam and Small (2001), examined data from California SR-91 to measure the value of time and the value of reliability (voR), which in this case was the sample’s revealed willingness to pay for decreasing variation in travel time. For value of time, their best- fitting model yielded $22.87 per hour, which was 72% of the average wage rate in the sample. Women’s voR was twice that of men’s ($31.91 for women, $15.12 for men), and it was 101% of the prevailing wage rate. Their explanation for this difference was women’s differential responsibility for child care. The study is significant, and not just because it empiri- cally begins to quantify the much discussed but seldom- studied phenomenon of the supermom stretched to her limits. The magnitude of the voR difference suggests that that mobility and reliability are more high-stakes goods for women than men. This is not just a question of uneven work distribution. It also indicates that time- sensitivity and the potential stress of work are unevenly distributed (Floro 1995). Purchasing Services: Defensive Measures Against Time Loss not only is there some evidence that women value travel time and reliability more highly than men, but there also is evidence that women are more likely to spend money to avoid the consequences of time and reliability problems. A second set of studies centers on the will- ingness and ability to change travel strategies, such as by telecommuting or using time-enhancing services and technology such as home computers (Cao and Mokhtar- ian 2005; Clay and Mokhtarian 2004; Mokhtarian and Raney 1997; Salomon and Mokhtarian 1997). This body of research examines behavioral response to congestion and travel choices, including the purchase of what econ- omists call “defensive expenditures”—goods or services that individuals purchase to contend with unsatisfactory conditions like congestion or air pollution. Mokhtarian and Raney (1997) use data from a survey administered to more than 600 city workers in the City of San Diego, California. The survey presented respondents with a choice set of 23 different mechanisms for adapting to traffic congestion. These responses ranged from the comparatively inexpensive, such as altering departure times, to the very expensive, such as changing residential location. These authors find, again, that income matters. Higher incomes enable individuals to purchase more effective and costly means to contend with congestion. Their most consistent finding, however, concerns gen- der. At almost every cost level, women were more likely than men to adopt measures to deal with congestion, including changing their departure times from work or negotiating for different work hours—all of which can

83HeR MoneY oR HeR TIMe cost women in terms of earnings or prestige at work. In addition to gender, family structure influenced the adop- tion of congestion mitigation strategies, with the results mirroring the findings from labor economics in terms of household time allocations. The bottom line: the costs of dealing with congestion are not evenly distributed between genders. Though the research from HoT lane usage and con- gestion mitigation is very new, it should prompt us to ask much more of policy analysis than whether a congestion toll or gas tax increase will “price poor drivers off the road.” The questions here are just not that simple, not when we recognize gender difference. In the example of the debate over HoT lanes in los Angeles, California, transportation equity research has not paid sufficient attention to measuring differences between men and women and how they use and value their time to be able to say whether Rutten is right or wrong. Should we, as Rutten suggests, be ashamed of asking a single mother to pay for timesaving when she also has rent to pay? or are the commentators right? Should Rutten be ashamed for not recognizing what congestion delays and uncertain travel times do to this single mother’s scarce time and frayed nerves? The answer is not clear because the finan- cial research has not incorporated the findings regarding gender differences in travel behavior and the research on women’s time allocation has yet to inform public policy in any meaningful way. Sales Taxes If gender is invisible in the analysis of new user charges like congestion tolls and value pricing, no studies of gas tax or sales tax burdens consider gender at all. Given budgetary shortfalls and growing commitments to stim- ulus projects like high-speed rail, sales taxes and gas tax increases have arisen as potential sources of new revenue. of these, local option sales taxes have gained traction in metropolitan regions across the country. Half-cent local option sales taxes are already common in California; in April of this year [2009], north Carolina passed enabling legislation for sales taxes primarily to fund transit proj- ects in metropolitan regions. Again, however, research assumes the cost burdens and benefits of tax increases to be gender neutral and to vary by income alone. This may not be the case for cost burdens associated with excise taxes or emissions fees any more than it was for conges- tion charges. The research on behavioral responses to congestion shows that women’s comparative time poverty also means they consume more timesaving services. The scant research on sales taxes suggests that many of these services are subject to differential taxation. In a recent study comparing the effects of HoT lanes and sales taxes in orange County, California, Schweitzer and Taylor (2008) used consumer expenditure data to estimate a two-stage model of taxable goods expenditures. These researchers test a variety of variables, including gender, ethnicity, household structure, age, child age, and region of the country. They find that expenditures subjected to the sales tax vary by virtually all of these factors, but most notably by gender and by single-female households with children. Taxable expenditures also varied by gen- der and ethnicity. Single-parent households, dispropor- tionately female-headed, were more likely to make a higher percentage of their overall expenditures on tax- able services, particularly food away from home. Food consumed away from home illustrates a par- ticularly sticky problem for tax incidence analysis and women, as Schweitzer and Taylor’s orange County example suggests. Women’s time poverty also means they deal with the time-sensitive task of feeding the fam- ily, at least partially, through purchasing prepared food, and that they face a tax for this behavior. These food preparation services are not a luxury for them, per se, in the way they might be for other families with fewer time constraints. untaxed food prepared at home assumes the availability of unpaid work—traditionally a mother’s time—for food preparation. Sales tax policy thus fails to accommodate differences in time constraints and fails to supply women with direct service quality benefits in return for their expense the way that congestion charges would. Because the sales tax is spread across such a large tax base, these differences in payment amount to com- paratively little for individual households. However, the problem illustrates how little gender informs policy design either in theory or practice. Principles of optimal taxation tend to treat differences in demand merely as taste variations—which do not merit special attention from an equity standpoint—rather than as systematic differences in resources and responsibilities—which do merit scrutiny. This omission may be a small problem in some contexts (like the sales tax) but are a much big- ger issue for the total distributional effects of transport finance and investment. It suggests a need to rethink how we frame and analyze equity in finance and investment from a gendered perspective. We conclude that the incidence of user fees and sales taxes are not gender neutral, and if the existing research is any indictor, gender effects and possible causes of travel time sensitivity persist throughout women’s life course (Rosenbloom 1993). As a result of greater time pressures, women value travel time and reliability more highly than men and are more inclined to take coping actions to deal with congestion. Greater time pressures result in different consumer choices, yielding a different incidence of fees and tax payments for ostensibly “pre- mium” mobility services such as HoT lanes, driving

84 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 alone, and taxes. This area represents a fertile ground for research. Public transit trends and WoMen’s travel For proponents of vMT reduction, higher auto travel costs for women can be resolved by providing less expen- sive substitutes, like transit and walking. If transport policy makes driving more expensive in terms of time or money, transport planning and investment can provide alternative means of access. To carry on with our exem- plar, what the single mother needs, the argument goes, is high-quality public transit so that her sick preschooler is one inexpensive transit trip and short walk away from the mother’s job and home. Yet, previous research on public transit suggests that in most u.S. regions, transit and walking do not necessarily serve time-constrained women particularly well; general transit trips, compared with auto trips, are both longer in duration and involve a higher uncertainty regarding arrival time (Rosenbloom 1992). This section examines trends in public transit pol- icy and discusses both short- and long-term outcomes with respect to women. Public transportation is a top priority for transporta- tion planning. Improved public transit is seen as a means to a broad array of urban planning objectives: attracting people out of private vehicles (thereby reducing vMT); reshaping u.S. metropolitan areas; solving congestion, energy and air pollution problems; and revitalizing urban neighborhoods. over the past 30 years, support for public transit has greatly increased, and among urban planners today, the role of public transit in solving met- ropolitan problems is assumed. For women’s transport, however, the outcomes of policy appear more mixed. We argue that public transit policy is more about abstract, longer-term goals than about providing the best possible service to transit users. Transit policy therefore not only does not consider the particular needs of women, but also fails to provide services that respond to many transit user markets. Public Transit Trends The commitment to public transit, and particularly rail transit, as an urban policy tool is reflected in its funding and its expansion to metropolitan areas throughout the united States. By 2006, 50 metropolitan areas had at least one form of rail transit in operation. Annual transit capital expenses increased from $5.1 billion in 1991 to $8.9 billion 2007 in constant 1991 dollars (FTA 2008). In addition, the nationwide fare recovery for operating expenses is 33%. All capital expenses, and two-thirds of operating expenses (totaling about $32 billion in 2006), are subsidized by federal, state, or local governments. Public funding of this magnitude suggests broad political support for public transit, and this support is in part built on expectations that these investments will contribute to solving congestion, environment, energy, and qual- ity of life issues. Table 1 provides an overview of pub- lic transit supply and consumption by mode.2 Between 1984 and 2006, transit supply as measured by vehicle miles increased by 35%. Supply of rail services increased much more rapidly than bus services, with light rail more than tripling. over the same period, transit ridership (as measured by unlinked passenger trips) increased by 13.5%. In all cases, ridership grew less than service sup- ply, meaning that over the period, service productivity declined. unlinked trips per vehicle mile dropped from 2.55 to 2.14, and the share of operating cost covered by fare revenue declined from 39% in 1996 to 33% in 2006 (earlier data not available). The growing costs associated with attracting new rid- ers have not yet dampened capital investment. Figure 1 gives capital expenditures from 1995 to 2006 by mode. While capital investment has increased for all modes (note however that the chart is in real dollars), the big increases are in light and heavy rail, even though bus service still accounts for nearly 60% of all trips. Outcomes What is the result of the investment made in transit over the past decades? The most recent national data source for characteristics of transit users is the 2001 national Household Travel Survey (nHTS). The nHTS shows that the transit market share has continued to decline and in 2001 accounted for just 1.6% of all person trips. other long term trends continue; for example, transit use is still concentrated among minority and low-income persons (accounting for 63% of all transit riders), who have lower rates of car ownership (Pucher and Renne 2003). Transit ridership also remains concentrated in the largest metro areas, despite extensive capital invest- ment in other, smaller metro areas. In 2006 the new York metro area accounted for 35% (about 3.5 billion) of all unlinked passenger trips (see Table 2). The next six ranking metropolitan areas accounted for an additional 30%. Thus seven metropolitan areas account for nearly two-thirds of the nation’s 10 billion transit trips. The additional three metropolitan areas in the top 10 add just 5% of annual ridership. The 2001 nHTS also shows that the transit market continues to be segmented, with lower-income and minor- ity households as greater users of bus and light rail and higher-income households greater users of subway and 2 All data are from APTA (2008).

85HeR MoneY oR HeR TIMe commuter rail. Persons in low-income households (less than $20,000 per year) account for 23% of all house- holds but 47% of all bus and light rail riders; persons in high-income households (more than $100,000 per year) account for 11% of all households but 42% of all com- muter rail users (Pucher and Renne 2003). Compared with bus riders, rail transit users are more likely male and employed and have higher household incomes and access to a private vehicle. In contrast, bus transit users are more likely female and of minority race or ethnic- ity, have lower household incomes, and are less likely to have access to a private vehicle (Pucher and Renne 2003). A recent APTA study based on 2006 on-board surveys shows the same ridership patterns (APTA 2007). However, public transit policy has been focused on the discretionary rider, as reflected by the investment in rail transit and the differences in transit markets for bus and rail. This focus is consistent with the larger goals of reducing car use, congestion, and energy consump- tion and of restructuring metropolitan areas (Crane and Schweitzer 2003). If transit supply is a key factor in reducing vMT, then transit market share should increase. Data from the u.S. census show that the work mode share served by transit for the united States has consistently decreased from 6.22% in 1980 to 5.12% in 1990 to 4.58% in 2000. Analysis of u.S. census data at the metropolitan level reveals largely stable modal shares between 1990 and 2000. Among the 50 largest metro- politan areas, five experienced small decreases of drive- alone mode share (l percentage point), and 12 (eight in the West) experienced small increases of transit mode share (Pisarski 2006). American Community Survey (ACS) data document the same trend through the early 2000s (Pisarski 2006). However, the most recent ACS data suggest a slight increase in transit mode share for the work trip, from 4.6% to 4.9% between 2000 and 2007. over the same period, the drive-alone share also increased, but the carpool share decreased (Demographia 2008). When transit market share is measured in terms of total passenger miles traveled, the market share in all u.S. metropolitan areas of 1 million or more population is seen to have fallen from 3.6% in 1983 to 2.5% in TABLE 1 Supply and Consumption of Transit, by Mode: 1984 and 2006 vehicle Miles (millions) unlinked Passenger Trips (millions) Mode 1984 2006 Change (%) 1984 2006 Change (%) Bus 1,844.7 2,494.9 35.2 5,908.0 5,894.0 0.2 Commuter rail 167.9 314.8 87.5 267.0 441.0 65.2 Heavy rail 435.8 652.1 49.6 2,231.0 2,927.0 31.2 light rail 16.8 74.3 342.3 135.0 407.0 201.5 Totala 3,461.9 4,684.2 35.3 8,829.0 10,017.0 13.5 Source: APTA 2000; APTA 2008. a For vehicle miles, total includes other modes and is calculated in bus-mile equivalents. For passenger trips, total includes other modes. FIGURE 1 Capital expenses by mode. $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 M illi on s $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 light rail heavy rail commercial rail bus 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0

86 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 2003. Transit market share increased in eight of these metropolitan areas and decreased in all others (Public Purpose, n.d.).3 overall, the large investment in public transit has not yet had much effect on transit market share or vMT.4 Impacts on Transit’s “Second Market” Giuliano (2005) has argued that those with low incomes and little access to cars constitute transit’s “second market.” Women are disproportionately represented in transit’s second market: the 2008 u.S. poverty rate was 13.2%, but 14.4% for women and 18.9% for female heads of household (u.S. Census Bureau 2009b). His- torically, support for public transit has been based on the public goods arguments that transit provides basic mobility. As the objectives for transit have broadened, however, the discretionary rider—specifically, the urban commuter—has become the “first market,” because these broad objectives are contingent upon auto users shifting to transit. In her discussion of this second market, Giuliano iden- tifies three dimensions of transportation disadvantage: higher prices for basic goods and services, limited job access, and higher transport costs. With limited mobil- ity, households may be captive consumers, restricted to local shops and unable to take advantage of more distant supermarkets or discount stores. As is described further below, access to jobs is much lower by transit than by 3 The eight metropolitan areas are Boston, Massachusetts; Dallas– Fort Worth, Texas; las vegas, nevada; orlando, Florida; San Diego, California; Riverside–San Bernardino, California; Seattle, Washington; and Washington, D.C. 4 More recently, the increase in fuel prices in 2008 has been anec- dotally associated with more transit use. It is reasonable to expect such an association; increased transit ridership is affected by relative costs. car, even in transit-rich environments. Because of the limited accessibility transit provides, even the poor- est households purchase and maintain cars, spending a disproportionate share of income doing so. our iconic single mother is part of transit’s second market. Does she benefit from the expansion of transit services? one important measure of transit benefits is job acces- sibility. on this subject, the literature is quite clear: access to jobs by car is far superior to access to jobs by transit, even in central cities or locations with high levels of transit service. Blumenberg and ong (2001) compared the num- ber of jobs available within 30 minutes by car and by tran- sit for several different low-income census tracts in los Angeles. The ratio of jobs by car to jobs by transit ranged from 5 to 70. Shen (2000) compared commute times for low-income areas within the central city for the 20 largest metropolitan areas and found that in 17 cases, commutes from these areas were longer than average for the met- ropolitan area. He estimated commute time regressions using 1990 data for Boston; using public transit had a strong positive effect on commute time. Measuring the impact of transit investments on job accessibility requires comparisons over time. Kawabata and Shen (2007) examined car versus transit accessibility in the San Francisco–oakland–San Jose, California, con- solidated metropolitan statistical area from 1990 to 2000. using measures of accessibility that control for both sup- ply and demand, they compared changes in access over the decade. Car access was found to be much higher in both decades, but it declined slightly in some areas in 2000 as a result of increased congestion. Although tran- sit access increased, particularly on the main north and east commuter rail corridors, the average commute time on both modes increased from 25.6 to 29.4 minutes for driving alone and from 41.2 to 46.3 minutes for transit. Regression analysis revealed that job access is strongly and negatively associated with commute time for both drive-alone and transit commuters. For transit commut- ing, the job access coefficient was much smaller in 2000 than in 1990, suggesting an increase in long-distance transit commuting. The San Francisco area results are quite consistent with public transit policy’s focus on the discretionary long-distance commuter. The 1996 federal Welfare Reform Act generated a literature on the role of transport in welfare to work. Given that most welfare recipients are single mothers, these studies offer important insights on transit mobility for this group. under the old spatial mismatch frame- work (e.g., Kain 1968), unemployment was cast largely as a problem of decentralized low-wage jobs and central- ized low-skill job seekers. Thus, access to appropriate jobs was in part a transportation problem. Welfare eli- gibility rules limit capital assets, including cars, so most welfare recipients did not own cars. The public policy solution was to provide transit subsidies. Several studies TABLE 2 Concentration of Transit Ridership: 2006 unlinked Trips Rank Metropolitan Area (millions) 1 new York–newark, new Jersey (new York, new Jersey, Connecticut) 3,557 2 los Angeles–long Beach–Santa Ana, California 700 3 Chicago, Illinois (Illinois, Indiana) 611 4 Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia, virginia, Maryland) 461 5 San Francisco–oakland, California 420 6 Boston, Massachusetts (Massachusetts, new Hampshire, Rhode Island) 387 7 Philadephia, Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, new Jersey, Delaware, Maryland) 342 8 Seattle, Washington 169 9 Miami, Florida 163 10 Atlanta, Georgia 149 Source: APTA 2008, p. 21.

87HeR MoneY oR HeR TIMe have shown that transit access has little or no impact on employment outcomes (e.g., Sanchez et al. 2004; Transportation Research Board 2009), while access to a car increases the likelihood of employment (ong 2002; Cervero et al. 2002). A pilot study of low-income, employed single mothers suggests car access is also asso- ciated with better jobs (lichtenwalter et al. 2006). In a thoughtful review of low-income women and transportation policy, Blumenberg (2004) discusses the many aspects of life for single mothers that make the speed, reliability, and convenience of the car particularly important. These include more effective job seeking, a reliable commute mode, the time pressure of complex activity patterns (the caring work described above), and the capacity to respond to children’s emergencies. one final aspect of transit merits discussion here. The section above on new finance schemes and women’s travel discusses emerging evidence on women’s greater valuation of travel time reliability. Transit operators are concerned about schedule adherence, and route scheduling takes into account loads at stops and travel speeds and their random variations to maximize schedule adherence. Transit users, however, are more concerned about the travel time reli- ability of the entire journey, which often includes transfers between routes or modes (Paulley et al. 2006). extensive searching found just one relatively recent paper on this topic, a study of the reliability of transit in the nether- lands (Rietveld et al. 2001). Based on estimates of stated preference data, 1 minute of “uncertainty” (meaning 50% probability of 2 minutes of delay) was valued at 2.4 times 1 minute of certain delay. That is, Dutch transit users place a high value on travel time reliability. This study did not consider gender differences. Whether u.S. transit users have similar perceptions of transit reliability is unknown, but it is not unreasonable to think that they do. The lack of information on this issue suggests a lack of attention to the transit user as a customer.5 Since bus transit is subject to more unreliabil- ity than rail, the transportation disadvantaged are likely more subject to reliability problems. no research was found on the possible value of improvements in informa- tion quality, such as real-time headway information and expected arrival times. It might be expected that those types of services would enable time-constrained women to work around reliability issues more than systems that do not have these information services. For time-pres- sured women, all of these service quality issues can ren- der transit inconsistent with their needs. Given the many advantages of the private vehicle, it is not surprising that women’s use of transit continues to decline. Crane (2007) used American Consumer Survey 5 one might argue that with congestion and risk of delays caused by accidents, road travel times are far more uncertain than transit times. low-income workers have shorter commutes, however, and therefore less exposure to nonrecurrent congestion. data to compare commuting patterns of women and men between 1985 and 2005 and found that transit mode share dropped for both men and women across all racial groups except that of white men (again consistent with transit policy objectives). The transit mode share dropped the most among African-American women, whose share approached that of other women of color by 2005. Transit and Urban Form Transit policy is driven by long-term goals. It might be argued that as long as u.S. metropolitan areas remain dominated by the automobile, transit is a poor substi- tute. However, given enough investment in transit, and with complementary land use development policies, urban form will eventually change, which will lead to neighborhood environments that are more transit ori- ented and make walking, biking, and transit more competitive modes. With a greater mix of jobs, hous- ing, and services and higher residential densities, trips should become shorter and reduce the travel burden for everyone, including busy women. This section addresses two questions: first, is there evidence that urban form is changing, and second, would the compact urban form promoted by many urban planners better support wom- en’s activities and travel? Changing Urban Form The rehabilitation and expansion of u.S. transit systems began nearly four decades ago. This length of time should reflect changing urban development patterns, given the rapid population and employment growth that has taken place during the same period. At the metropolitan scale, the evidence suggests that metropolitan population and employment have continued to decentralize. u.S. census data indicate that the share of central city population declined from 45.5% in 1970 to 34.7% in 2000. As of 2000, fully half of the u.S. population resided in sub- urbs (Giuliano et al. 2009). Studies of population den- sity show that the density gradient continues to decline, though at a decreasing rate (Kim 2007). Similar trends are documented for employment, though the data are far more limited. employment has grown faster outside of central cities, and employment gradients have decreased. The historic dominance of downtowns as major employ- ment clusters has been increasingly offset by the growth of employment centers outside central cities (Giuliano et al. 2007; lee 2007; lee et al. 2006; McMillan and Smith 2003). overall trends suggest an increasingly less transit- friendly urban environment. Broad trends may obscure local changes that may be taking place in response to transit investment, such as

88 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 transit-oriented development or shifts in travel behav- ior that are essential for reducing congestion, emissions, and energy use. In a recent paper, Giuliano and Agarwal (2009) examined evidence on the impact of rail transit investments on urban spatial structure. Recognizing the complexities in trying to isolate the effects of invest- ments, they found much of the existing literature limited in methodology, data, or both. empirical studies that use appropriate statistical models, methods, and data show little or no impact of rail transit on land values or its prox- ies (population or employment density and commercial or residential building). To change land values, rail tran- sit must significantly affect accessibility, and in most u.S. metropolitan areas, even the largest transit investments have had little impact on accessibility. Thus, the empiri- cal results are consistent with theoretical expectations. Much of the urban planning literature (particularly the literature oriented to practitioners), however, is more positive. Portland, oregon; the impact of the Bay Area Rapid Transit on downtown San Francisco; and impacts around some Washington, D.C., Metro stations are well known and widely used as examples of success. numer- ous publications document results of transit-oriented development and offer guidelines for successful projects (Bernick and Cervero 1997; Cervero et al. 2004; Ditt- mar and ohlands 2004). Case studies, however, often do not distinguish between the impacts of land use policies (e.g., more flexible zoning, development subsidies) and the impacts of the transit investment (including impacts on transit use), and often do not consider the larger con- text that drives demand for new development. Thus, for example, the Del Mar station on the Pasadena Gold line in the los Angeles area is often considered a success story by urban planners, despite poor ridership.6 Giuliano and Agarwal (2009) conclude that transit investments do not necessarily lead to more transit use or changes in land use patterns. Rather, impacts depend on local circumstances: the degree to which transit influences accessibility, the local and regional economy, and the local policy envi- ronment. At best, it would appear that greatly increased transit investment and more decades would be required to achieve compact development (and vMT reduction) goals. Compact Urban Form and Women’s Travel Would women’s activity patterns be less constrained should the visions of urban planners be implemented? The literature on individual travel and land use is quite vast, yet the complexity of travel behavior, measurement 6 Some urban planners argue that land use policy changes to promote mixed-use, higher-density development are only possible when rail transit is present; thus, when these changes actually take place, the transit investment has in fact been the influencing factor. problems, and data limitations has made it difficult to draw many conclusions. There is substantial evidence that vMT is inversely related to population and employ- ment density, but the relationship is of small magnitude. For example, doubling residential density might reduce vMT by 5% to 10% (Transportation Research Board 2009). To our knowledge, there is little empirical research on whether women respond differently to specific urban form attributes, holding household and socioeconomic characteristics constant. let us work through the logic. First, walking is a slow mode, so people who place high value on time would not be inclined to walk for a pur- poseful trip. The share of walking trips for commuting as well as for all purposes has steadily declined (Pucher and Renne 2003). Women make slightly more walking trips than men, but this is more likely related to poverty and poor access to cars than to placing low values on time. Research on poverty and walking among women chal- lenges popular notions that privilege the exercise value of walking while discounting the hardships associated with walking while carrying children, groceries, or other burdens (Bostock 2001). Second, higher density and mixed use, all else being equal, make more activities available in close proxim- ity to home or work. Household maintenance chores (shopping, medical care, children’s school trips) should require less travel. However, the opportunities in the closest proximity may or may not have the marginal value to supplant opportunities farther away. examples include the local market versus the supermarket and the neighborhood school versus the charter or magnet school. It is also not clear that choices are as ubiqui- tous as measures of mixed land use might suggest. For example, most medical insurance plans limit access to doctors, labs, and hospitals that are not part of the plan. The presence of many medical services nearby may be of little relevance to those whose choices are determined by the insurance company. In addition, higher density is correlated with slower travel speeds. If time pressure is the problem, shorter but slower trips do not necessarily help. The ways in which the spatial distribution of activi- ties may differentially affect women’s travel choices are in need of more research. Finally, the literature on wasteful commuting indi- cates that people do not optimize their commute trips: they live much further away from jobs than would be required based on the spatial distribution of workers and jobs (Giuliano and Small 1993; Hamilton 1989; Horner 2002; Yang 2008). nonwork trips are shorter and often not as frequent as the work trip, so there is little rea- son to expect economizing behavior for nonwork trips. Basically, it does not cost much more to travel to the preferred restaurant, child-care center, dry cleaner, and so forth. Wasteful or excessive travel may appear incon-

89HeR MoneY oR HeR TIMe sistent with women’s constrained daily activity patterns. However, if women use travel resources to optimize activities, whether they be the better job, school, soc- cer league, park, dentist, or movie theater, the result- ing travel outcomes are efficient for the individual. At this point, the private vehicle is the most flexible and convenient mode for accomplishing these activities in most u.S. regions, especially when carrying packages or accompanying small children or frail elders. Conclusions on Transit We draw the following conclusions regarding tran- sit policy. First, investment patterns over the past two decades reflect long-term transit policy objectives based on attracting the discretionary passenger. Rail invest- ments to serve conventional long-distance commuters (who are twice as likely to be men) are illustrative. To date, the success of this strategy is mixed, and national data do not yet suggest any significant change in transit market share. The particular needs of busy women make them harder to attract as discretionary transit users; it is much more difficult to pick up children or stop for food on the way home when using transit. The benefits of cur- rent transit policy are more likely to accrue for those with lower demands on their time and household labor. Second, our iconic single mother, to the extent that she may be transit dependent, is faced with negotiating a (bus) system that is slow, sometimes unreliable, and dif- ficult for strollers and packages. She may work part time and in the outbound direction and so may be traveling at times when service frequency is low. She is likely to be using the parts of the system that have received the least investment and capacity expansion. like other members of transit’s second market, she has received limited ben- efits from the annual $32 billion in public expenditures on transit. suMMary We close with some observations and conclusions. First, despite dramatic societal changes in the past few decades, gender differences persist. Women spend more time in caring work; roles and norms yield highly con- strained activity patterns that are expressed in travel behavior. Persistent gender differences yield persistent travel behavior differences that are based on the high value women place on both travel time and reliability. The limited evidence available suggests that women are more likely to travel by car and more likely to pay tolls to save time, all else being equal. Second, the higher value women place on time and reliability suggests that transport policies that provide the option for saving time, such as HoT lanes or conges- tion fees, provide the benefit of more choices. Although user fees and taxes are regressive and therefore have greater incidence on lower-income travelers, it merits noting that indirect revenue sources such as sales or property taxes are also regressive, sometimes steeply so, and have the added disadvantage of distorting demand. Moreover, road tolls provide revenue that can be used to offset regressive impacts, either by redistributing rev- enues or reducing other regressive taxes. The higher value women place on time and reliability suggests that public transit is not well suited to wom- en’s travel needs; therefore, female discretionary riders will be more difficult to attract than males. Better travel time and reliability, however, would make public tran- sit more attractive to everyone. one example is the los Angeles Metro’s Rapid Bus program. The orange line, a 14-mile busway traversing the San Fernando valley from north Hollywood west to Warner Center, was pro- jected to open with 5,000 to 7,500 weekday boardings; yet the first month, november 2005, averaged 16,000 boardings. As of December 2006, boardings had reached about 19,000, with orange line patrons indicating that 17% were new transit passengers (Callahan and vin- cent 2007). The Rapid Bus line on Wilshire Boulevard has experienced passenger increases of more than 40%. These are precisely the types of services that could greatly benefit transit’s second market. They are also cost effec- tive. In contrast, the Gold line light rail, while compa- rable in scope, cost twice as much to construct and has a much higher cost per passenger and therefore requires a larger subsidy. Third, we are struck by the disconnect between our understanding of women’s travel and the making of u.S. transport policy. Since the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) first women’s conference, an extensive literature has been generated that identifies and explains the many dimensions of gender differences. It is quite clear that everyday life remains highly gendered, and because the daily lives of women and men are different, their travel behavior is different as well. We know that women trip-chain more, commute shorter distances, are less likely to have access to the car if there is only one in the household, and so forth. More recently, we have been learning that women place higher value on time and reliability, which is a logical outcome of highly pressured daily activity patterns with large penalties for being late attached to some activities. Transportation planning and policy have been remarkably adept at adapting to and encompassing many policy objectives. Dramatic shifts in federal policy have occurred since that first TRB women’s conference. From a strict focus on highway construction and main- tenance, federal funding has moved increasingly toward being more multimodal and more flexible in response

90 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 to concerns about air pollution, urban decline, environ- mental justice, energy efficiency, and now global climate change. As noted at the start of this paper, vMT reduc- tion captures much of the essence of transportation plan- ning objectives. The consensus view from planning and policy is that vMT reductions must be achieved to save energy and reduce carbon emissions as well as to achieve the visions of compact development. Walking, biking, and transit will reduce emissions, save energy, and even make people thinner and healthier. Again, the paucity of research that is sensitive to gen- der limits what can be concluded about vMT reduction or any of these social goals. Complicated and time- pressured lives depend on the most efficient transport available, however, and in most circumstances, this is the private vehicle. The car currently affords better access to jobs, shops, medical care, and elderly relatives than other modes do in most circumstances. More accessibility means more opportunities and choices. Thus, vMT reduction is inconsistent with women’s accessibility needs, at least in the short term. Although raising the time and monetary costs of driving can create barriers to access for both gen- ders, the scant evidence and theory available suggest that these barriers will present more significant obstacles to social inclusion, support for unpaid work, and economic advancement for women than for men. ideas for transPortation Planning and Policy We begin with the often stated and obvious. The best thing we can do to reduce pollution and save energy is to “get the prices right.” Although just about any scheme to increase the price of using private vehicles is bound to be regres- sive, we note again that current transportation finance mechanisms are also regressive and fail to send the right price signals to travelers. Most out-of-pocket costs asso- ciated with emissions fees are only about 0.1% to 0.2% of yearly income for even low-income households (Walls and Hanson 1999; West and Williams 2004; l. Schweitzer, “An overview of existing and emerging Transportation Finance Instruments and Their effect on low-Income Groups,” unpublished work). Raising the price of using private vehicles will at the margin lead to other choices, like changes in mode, destination, or trip. Congestion pricing or HoT lanes provide additional choices to travelers, and some evidence suggests that the benefits of savings in travel time may be of particular value to women. With regard to transit, service quality and reliability are key. Frequent headways, quick transfers, and reliable travel times are what attract travelers to rapid bus or subways. Better service would provide benefits to both genders and both of transit’s markets. Investment in rail services, based on the promise of benefits decades into the future, does little for the travel needs of today’s women. Investments justified by such benefits also deemphasize the importance of the quality of existing current services (and the responsibility of transit agencies to focus on ser- vice quality), something of critical value to transit users. Finally, we suggest that women’s travel be considered in the transportation planning process. The planning process explicitly considers impacts on disadvantaged groups (minority and low-income populations), but oth- erwise assumes gender neutrality. Why not consider how various finance alternatives might affect low-income women or high-income women? Why not examine who receives the benefits of a new rail line? We close by noting that travel demand continues to be largely derived from daily activity patterns. The dif- ferences in these patterns reflect gendered societal roles and norms. We understand that transportation policy by itself cannot change the role of women. Rather, the transportation system facilitates time-pressured activity patterns. It can even be argued that the transportation system is one part of the societal structure that enables and therefore reinforces gender differences. At the very least, transportation planning should “do no harm.” It should not add to the challenges of our iconic single mother or her married sisters or her elderly aunts. references Albelda, R., S. Himmelweit, and J. Humphries. 2004. The Dilemmas of lone Motherhood: Key Issues for Feminist economics. Feminist Economics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–7. American Public Transportation Association (APTA). 2002. 2002 Public Transportation Fact Book, 53rd Edition. APTA, Washington, D.C. APTA. 2007. A Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys. APTA, Washington, D.C. APTA. 2008. 2008 Public Transportation Fact Book, 59th Edition. APTA, Washington, D.C. Beatley, T. 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Bento, A. M., l. Goulder, e. Henry, M. R. Jacobsen, and R. H. von Haefen. (2005). Distributional and efficiency Impacts of Gasoline Taxes: An econometrically Based Multi-Mar- ket Study. The American Economic Review, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 282–287. Bernick, M., and R. Cervero. 1997. Transit Villages for the 21st Century. McGraw-Hill, new York. Blumenberg, e. 2004. en-gendering effective Planning: Spatial Mismatch, low-Income Women, and Transportation Pol- icy. Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 269–281. Blumenberg, e., and P. ong. 2001. Cars, Buses and Jobs: Wel- fare Recipients and employment Access in los Angeles.

91HeR MoneY oR HeR TIMe In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- portation Research Board, No. 1756, TRB, national Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 22–31. Bostock, l. 2001. Pathways of Disadvantage: Walking as a Mode of Transport Among low-Income Mothers. Health and Social Care in the Community, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 11–18. Brown, J. 1998. Race, Class, Gender, and Public Transporta- tion. Critical Planning Journal, Spring, pp. 3–20. Brown, J. 2001. Reconsidering the Gas Tax: Paying for What You Get. Access, vol. 19, pp. 10–15. Brownstone, D., and K. A. Small. 2005. valuing Time and Reliability: Assessing the evidence from Road Pricing Demonstrations. Transportation Research Part A, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 279–293. Brownstone, D., A. Ghosh, T. Golob, C. Kazimi, and D. van Amelsfort. 2003. Drivers’ Willingness-To-Pay to Reduce Travel Time: evidence from the San Diego I-15 Conges- tion Pricing Project. Transportation Research Part A, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 373–387. Callahan, l., and W. vincent. 2007. Preliminary evaluation of the Metro orange line Bus Rapid Transit Project. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- portation Research Board, No. 2034, Transportation Research Board of the national Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 37–44. Cao, X., and P. l. Mokhtarian. 2005. How Do Individuals Adapt Their Personal Travel? A Conceptual exploration of the Consideration of Travel-Related Strategies. Trans- port Policy, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 199–206. Cervero, R. 2000. Transport and Land Use: Key Issues in Metropolitan Planning and Smart Growth. university of California Transportation Center, Berkeley. www.uctc.net/ papers/436.pdf. Cervero R., S. Murphy, C. Ferrell, n. Goguts, and Y. Tsin. 2004. TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges and Pros- pects. Transportation Research Board of the national Academies, Washington, D.C. Cervero, R., o. Sandoval, and J. landis. 2002. Transportation as a Stimulus of Welfare-to-Work: Private versus Public Mobility. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 50–63. Clay, M. J., and P. l. Mokhtarian. 2004. Personal Travel Management: The Adoption and Consideration of Travel- Related Strategies. Transportation Planning and Technol- ogy, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 181–209. Coltrane, S. 2000. Research on Household labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social embeddedness of Routine Fam- ily Work. Journal of Marriage and the Family. vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1208–1233. Crane, R. 2007. Is There a Quiet Revolution In Women’s Travel? Revisiting the Gender Gap in Commuting. Jour- nal of the American Planning Association, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 298–316. Crane, R., and l. Schweitzer. 2003. Sustainability, Transport, and the Built environment. Built Environment, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 238–252. Demographia. 2008. Demographia Journey to Work Data united States 2007. http://www.publicpurpose.com/ ut-commute2007.pdf. Dill, J., T. Goldstein, and M. Wachs. 1999. California vehicles Fees: Incidence and equity. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 133–148. Dittmar, H., and G. ohlands (eds.). 2004. The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Duany, A., and e. Talen. 2002. Transect Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 245–266. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2008. Annual Report on Funding Recommendations: Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year 2009—New Starts, Small Starts, Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands. FTA, u.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C. http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/reports/reports_ to_congress/publications_7753.html. Field, S., and R. Bramwell. 1998. An Investigation into the Relationship Between Caring Responsibilities and the lev- els of Perceived Pressure Reported by Female employees. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 71, pp. 165–170. Floro, M. S. 1995. Women’s Well-Being, Poverty, and Work Intensity. Feminist Economics, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1–25. Frank, l. D., and P. engelke. 2005. Multiple Impacts of the Built environment on Public Health: Walkable Places and the exposure to Air Pollution. International Regional Sci- ence Review, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 193–216. Giuliano, G. 2005. low Income, Public Transit, and Mobility. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1927, Transportation Research Board of the national Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 63–72. Giuliano, G., and A. Agarwal. 2009. Public Transit as a Met- ropolitan Growth and Development Strategy. Presented at Conference on urban and Regional Policy and Its effect, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Giuliano, G., and K. Small. 1993. Is the Journey to Work explained by urban Structure? Urban Studies, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1485–1500. Giuliano, G., A. Agarwal, and C. Redfearn. 2009. Metropoli- tan Spatial Trends in employment and Housing: literature Review. Transportation Research Board of the national Academies, Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubs/sr/sr298giuliano.pdf. Giuliano, G., C. Redfearn, A. Agarwal, C. li, and D. Zhuan. 2007. employment Concentrations in los Angeles 1980– 2000. Environment and Planning A, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 2935–2957. Goldman, T., S. Corbett, and M. Wachs. 2001. local option Transportation Taxes in the united States: Issues and

92 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 Trends. Institute of Transportation Studies, university of California, Berkeley. Hamilton, B. 1989. Wasteful Commuting Again. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 1497–1504. Hanson, S., and G. Pratt. 1995. Gender, Work, and Space. Routledge, new York. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. 2001. Domestica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence. univer- sity of California Press, los Angeles. Horner, M. 2002. extensions to the Concept of excess Com- muting. Environment and Planning A, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 543–566. Hutchinson, S. 2005. The northern Drive: Black Women in Transit. In Gender and Planning: A Reader (S. S. Fain- stein and l. J. Servon, eds.). Rutgers university Press, new Brunswick, n.J., pp. 256–274. Iversen, v. 2003. Intra-Household Inequality: A Challenge for the Capability Approach? Feminist Economics, vol. 9, no. 2 and 3, pp. 93–115. Kain, J. 1968. Residential Segregation, negro employment, and Metropolitan Decentralization. Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 175–197. Kalmanje, S., and K. M. Kockelman. 2004. Credit-Based Con- gestion Pricing: Travel, land value and Welfare Impacts. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- portation Research Board, No. 1864, Transportation Research Board of the national Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 45–53. Kawabata, M., and Q. Shen. 2007. Commuting Inequality Betweens Cars and Public Transit: The Case of the San Francisco Bay Area 1990–2000. Urban Studies, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1759–1780. Kim, S. 2007. Changes in the nature of urban Spatial Struc- ture in the united States 1890–2000. Journal of Regional Science, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 273–287. lam, T. C., and K. A. Small. 2001. The value of Time and Reliability: Measurement from a value Pricing experi- ment. Transportation Research Part E, vol. 37, no. 2 and 3, pp. 231–251. lee, B. 2007. edge or edgeless Cities? urban Spatial Struc- ture in u.S. Metropolitan Areas 1980 to 2000. Journal of Regional Science, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 479–515. lee, S., J. Seo, and C. Webster. 2006. The Decentralizing Metropolis: economic Diversity and Commuting in the u.S. Suburbs. Urban Studies, vol. 43, no. 13, pp. 2525– 2549. li, J. 2001. explaining High-occupancy-Toll lane use. Trans- portation Research Part D, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 61–74. lichtenwalter, S., G. Koeske, and e. Sales. 2006. examining Transportation and employment outcomes: evidence for Moving Beyond the Bus Pass. Journal of Poverty, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 93–115. MacDonald, H. 1998. Women’s employment and Commut- ing: explaining the links. Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 267–283. MacDonald, M., S. Phipps, and l. lethbridge. 2005. Tak- ing Its Toll: The Influence of Paid and unpaid Work on Women’s Well-Being. Feminist Economics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 63–94. Mackett, R. l. 1990. explanatory Analysis of long-Term Travel Demand and Policy Impacts using Micro-Analytical Simu- lation. In Developments in Dynamic and Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis (P. Jones, ed.). Avebury, Aldershot, united Kingdom, pp. 384–405. Marshall, K. 1993. employed Parents and the Division of Housework. Perspectives on Labour and Income, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 23–50. Mastako, K. A., l. R. Rilett, and e. C. Sullivan. 1998. Com- muter Behavior on California State Route 91 After Intro- ducing variable-Toll express lanes. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1649, TRB, national Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 47–54. McMillan, D., and S. Smith. 2003. The number of Subcenters in large urban Areas. Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 321–338. Mokhtarian, P. l., e. A. Raney, and I. Salomon. 1997. Behav- ioral Response to Congestion: Identifying Patterns and Socio-economic Differences in Adoption. Transport Pol- icy, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 147–160. national Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. 2008. Transportation for Tomorrow. national Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, Washington, D.C. noonan, M. C. 2001. The Impact of Domestic Work on Men’s and Women’s Wages. Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 1134–1145. ong, P. 2002. Car ownership and Welfare-to-Work. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 239–252. Parkany, e. 1999. Can High-occupancy/Toll lanes encourage Carpooling? Case Study of Carpooling Behavior on the 91 express lanes. In Transportation Research Record: Jour- nal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1682, TRB, national Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 46–54. Paulley, n., R. Balcombe, R. Mackett, H. Titheridge, J. Preston, M. Wardman, J. Shires, and P. White. 2006. The Demand for Public Transport: The effects of Fares, Quality of Ser- vice, Income and Car ownership. Transport Policy, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 295–306. Pisarski, A. e. 2006. Commuting in America III: The Third National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends, nCHRP Report 550, TCRP Report 110. Transportation Research Board of the national Academies, Washington, D.C. Public Purpose. n.d. Public Transport Market Share Trend 1983–2003, estimated. http://www.publicpurpose.com/ ut-pt20trend.pdf. Pucher, J., and J. Renne. 2003. Socioeconomics of urban Travel: evidence from the 2001 nHTS. Transportation Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 49–77.

93HeR MoneY oR HeR TIMe Rietveld, P., F. Bruinsma, and D. van vuuren. 2001. Coping with unreliability in Public Transport Chains. Transpor- tation Research Part A, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 539–559. Rosenbloom, S. 1992. Reverse Commute Transportation: Emerging Provider Roles. Federal Transit Administration, u.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C. Rosenbloom, S. 1993. Women’s Travel at various Stages of Their lives. In Full Circles: Geographies of Women Over the Life Course (C. Katz and J. Monk, eds.). Routledge, london, pp. 208–242. Rosenbloom, S. 2006. understanding Women and Men’s Travel Patterns: The Research Challenge. In Conference Proceed- ings 35: Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation: Report of a Conference; Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers, Transportation Research Board of the national Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 7–28. Rosenbloom, S., and A. Altshuler. 1979. equity Issues in urban Transportation. In Current Issues in Transportation Policy (A. Altshuler, ed.). lexington Books, lexington, Mass. Salomon, I., and P. l. Mokhtarian. 1997. Coping with Conges- tion: understanding the Gap Between Policy Assumptions and Behavior. Transportation Research Part D, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 107–123. Sanchez, T., Q. Shen, and Z. Peng. 2004. Transit Mobility, Jobs Access and low Income labour Participation in u.S. Metropolitan Areas. Urban Studies, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1313–1331. Schmidt, l., and P. Sevak. 2003. Gender, Marriage, and Asset Accumulation in the united States. Feminist Economics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19–25. Schweitzer, l., and B. Taylor. 2008. Just Pricing: The Distri- butional effects of Congestion Pricing and Sales Taxes. Transportation, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 797–812. Schweitzer, l., and A. valenzuela Jr. 2004. environmental Justice and Transportation: The Claims and the evidence. Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 383– 398. Shen, Q. 2000. Spatial and Social Dimensions of Commuting. Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 68–82. Sigle-Rushton, W., and J. Waldfogel. 2007. Motherhood and Women’s earning in Anglo-American, Continental euro- pean, and nordic Countries. Feminist Economics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 55–91. Sperling, D., and D. Gordon. 2009. Two Billion Cars: Driv- ing Toward Sustainability. oxford university Press, new York. Transportation Research Board. 2009. Special Report 298: Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Com- pact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO 2 Emissions. Transportation Research Board of the national Academies, Washington, D.C. united nations Development Program. 1999. The Invisible Heart—Care and the Global economy. In Human Devel- opment Report 1999, pp. 77–83. http://hdr.undp.org/en/ media/hdr_1999_ch3.pdf. u.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey. 2009a. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/. u.S. Census Bureau. 2009b. Current Population Survey. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/pov/ new01_100_01.htm. Wachs, M. 2003. A Dozen Reasons for Raising Gasoline Taxes. Institute of Transportation Studies, university of California, Berkeley. Walls, M., and J. Hanson. 1999. Distributional Impacts of an environmental Tax Shift: The Case of Motor vehicle emissions Taxes. Discussion Paper 96-11. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Wekerle, G. 2005. Gender Planning in Public Transit. In Gen- der and Planning: A Reader (S. S. Fainstein and l. Servon, eds.). Rutgers university Press, new Brunswick, n.J., pp. 275–292. West, S. e., and R. C. Williams III. 2004. estimates from a Consumer Demand System: Implications for the Incidence of environmental Taxes. Journal of Environmental Eco- nomics and Management, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 535–558. Wheelock, J., e. oughton, and S. Baines. 2003. Getting by with a little Help from Your Family: Toward a Policy-Relevant Model of the Household. Feminist Economics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19–45. Yang, J. 2008. Policy Implications of excess Commuting: examining the Impacts of Changes in u.S. Metropoli- tan Spatial Structure. Urban Studies, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 391–405.

Next: Road User Safety: Women s Issues »
Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Conference Proceedings 46: Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers includes an overview of the October 2009 conference and six commissioned resource papers, including the two keynote presentations.

Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 2: Technical Papers includes 27 full peer-reviewed papers that were presented at the October 2009 conference. The conference highlighted the latest research on changing demographics that affect transportation planning, programming, and policy making, as well as the latest research on crash and injury prevention for different segments of the female population. Special attention was given to pregnant and elderly transportation users, efforts to better address and increase women’s personal security when using various modes of transportation, and the impacts of extreme events such as hurricanes and earthquakes on women’s mobility and that of those for whom they are responsible.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!