Researchers Jennifer Dill, Jiahui Ma, Nathan McNeil, Joseph Broach and John MacArthur of Portland State University have published a new article in the November 2022 issue of Transportation Part D: Transport and Environment. The open-access article, "Factors influencing bike share among underserved populations: Evidence from three U.S. cities," examines bike share use and interest among lower-income residents and people of color in New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

There is evidence that lower-income and people of color (POC) in the U.S. do not use bike share as much as higher-income and white people. Using data from residents living near bike share stations in New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, the paper examines reasons for these disparities. Researchers looked at many factors that might explain bike share use and interest in lower-income, racially diverse, traditionally underserved neighborhoods. They focused on residents who live near bike share stations, so that proximity would not be a barrier.

A few key findings:

  1. People who are not members, but are interested in using bike share, including POC, are motivated to use bike share for fun, recreation, and social reasons (as opposed to utility).
  2. Knowledge of bike share and receiving information from interactive sources (for example, bike share ambassadors) are associated with bike share use.
  3. Cost is a barrier for people who are interested in using bike share, but are not members. Discounted memberships are one solution, but survey results indicate that many people do know know about them.

Some reasons for not using bike share among people of color and lower-income people may also be related to reasons for not bicycling, generally. These include concerns about traffic safety as well as personal safety.

Too expensive, i'll pay if anything happens to bike, don't want to use credit card, don't know about the system

Some of the barriers to bike share reported by low-income respondents of color in a 2017 survey

This paper is an analysis of data collected in a "Breaking Barriers to Bike Share" project funded by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) and the Better Bike Share Partnership (BBSP). Read more about the original study and explore some of the products to come out of this research, including a set of ten bike share equity briefs to help operators establish equity programs based on what's been shown to work.

Portland State University's Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) is home to the U.S. DOT funded National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI), PORTAL, BikePed Portal and other transportation grants and programs. We produce impactful research and tools for transportation decision makers, expand the diversity and capacity of the workforce, and engage students and professionals through education and participation in research.

Projects
1278
Researchers
nmcneil@pdx.edu

Researchers Aaron Golub, John MacArthur and Sangwan Lee of Portland State University, Anne Brown of the University of Oregon, and Candace Brakewood and Abubakr Ziedan of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville have published a new journal article in the September 2022 volume of Transportation Research: Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Rapidly-evolving payment technologies have motivated public transit agencies in the United States to adopt new fare payment systems, including mobile ticketing applications. The article, "Equity and exclusion issues in cashless fare payment systems for public transportation," explores the challenges facing transit riders in the U.S. who lack access to bank accounts or smartphones, and potential solutions to ensure that a transition to cashless transit fares does not exclude riders. Learn more about the project and read an open-access version of the final report.

The study asks: who is most at risk of being excluded by the transition to new fare payment systems and how would riders pay transit fares if cash payment options were reduced or eliminated? Researchers answer these questions using intercept surveys of 2,303 transit riders in Portland-Gresham, OR, Eugene, OR, and Denver, CO.

The article's authors explore existing research on emerging fare payment systems, as well as research on disparities in access to the various pieces of the new payment ecosystem, including credit and banking, Internet and smartphones. They then present qualitative and quantitative analyses used to investigate this topic, and conclude with a discussion of results and implications for policy and planning. The paper is based on a pooled-fund study supported by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC). Read more about the original study: Applying an Equity Lens to Automated Payment Solutions for Public Transportation

Photo courtesy of TriMet

The National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) is one of seven U.S. Department of Transportation national university transportation centers. NITC is a program of the Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University. This PSU-led research partnership also includes the Oregon Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Oregon, University of Texas at Arlington and University of Utah. We pursue our theme — improving mobility of people and goods to build strong communities — through research, education and technology transfer.

Projects
1268
Researchers
agolub@pdx.edu

In 2022, a PSU Master of Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) team made headlines with their strategies to improve safety for houseless pedestrians. Cities across the U.S. are facing alarming increases in traffic fatalities, especially among the number of pedestrians who are struck and killed by drivers. In 2021, 70 percent of all pedestrian fatalities in Portland were of people experiencing houselessness. The MURP team Street Perspective, made up of Peter Domine, Nick Meusch, Asif Haque, Angie Martínez, Sean Doyle, and Meisha Whyte, investigated how to reduce the risk of being hit and killed specifically for unhoused people. 

As the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) is updating the city's Vision Zero Plan, the team provided PBOT with recommendations to reduce the risk of pedestrian fatalities among the city's vulnerable houseless communities.

Watch the recorded Friday Transportation Seminar from June 3, 2022, or view the final report: "Safety Interventions for Houseless Pedestrians" (PDF)

"A disproportionate number of unhoused pedestrians are being killed in car crashes across America — and protecting this uniquely vulnerable group will require a set of strategies that both include and exceed even the conventional street safety playbook... To understand how Portland could do a better job of protecting houseless people from traffic violence — and perhaps chart a model for analysis other communities could follow — the Portland State researchers conducted dozens of interviews, in addition to performing spatial analysis on fatal crash sites that sat within 250 feet of both 1) a reported campsite for unhoused people, and 2) a segment of the city’s High Crash Network, where most of Portland’s vehicle collisions occur," Kea Wilson of Streetsblog USA wrote about the team's work.

BikePortland covered the project as well, focusing on Portland and the city's history of approaches to dealing with houseless individuals and communities. Journalist Taylor Griggs described the team's strategies to reduce crashes near homeless camps as "promising."

The PSU Master of Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) program is known for its workshop projects. For the last two quarters of the program, students work on community-based, client-focused projects. This provides students with the opportunity to work in teams on real-world problems for community clients. Learn more about the MURP program.

Portland State University's Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) is home to the U.S. DOT funded National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI), PORTAL, BikePed Portal and other transportation grants and programs. We produce impactful research and tools for transportation decision makers, expand the diversity and capacity of the workforce, and engage students and professionals through education and participation in research.

Researchers Amy Parker, Martin Swobodzinski, Julie Wright, Kyrsten Hansen and Becky Morton of Portland State University, along with Elizabeth Schaller of American Printing House for the Blind, have published a literature review in Frontiers in Education: Wayfinding Tools for People With Visual Impairments in Real-World Settings: A Literature Review of Recent Studies.

The literature review, published in October 2021, and a case study published in September 2021 in the same journal are both related to an ongoing project led by Swobodzinski. The project, Seamless Wayfinding by Individuals with Functional Disability in Indoor and Outdoor Spaces: An Investigation into Lived Experiences, Data Needs, and Technology Requirements, is funded by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC).

The October article reviews 35 peer reviewed articles in order to identify and describe the types of wayfinding devices that people who are blind, visually impaired or deafblind use while navigating indoors and/or outdoors in dynamic travel contexts.

Within this investigation, the researchers discovered some characteristics of participants with visual impairments, routes traveled, and real-world environments that have been included in recent wayfinding research as well as information regarding the institutions, agencies, and funding sources that enable these investigations.

Results showed that 33 out of the 35 studies which met inclusionary criteria integrated the use of smart device technology. Many of these devices were supplemented by bluetooth low-energy beacons, and other sensors with more recent studies integrating LIDAR scanning. Identified studies included scant information about participant’s visual acuities or etiologies with a few exceptions, which limits the usability of the findings for this highly heterogeneous population. Themes derived from this study are categorized around the individual traveler’s needs; the wayfinding technologies identified and their perceived efficacy; the contexts and routes for wayfinding tasks; and the institutional support offered for sustaining wayfinding research.

Human wayfinding and navigation allow human beings to fully participate in the environment and are essential elements for leading healthy, economically sustainable, and full lives. The NITC project aims to drive forward the development of standards and innovation in mobile wayfinding as it relates to the integration of indoor and outdoor wayfinding and routing of visually-impaired, blind, and deafblind pedestrian travelers.

Photo by Halfpoint/iStock

The National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) is one of seven U.S. Department of Transportation national university transportation centers. NITC is a program of the Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University. This PSU-led research partnership also includes the Oregon Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Oregon, University of Texas at Arlington and University of Utah. We pursue our theme — improving mobility of people and goods to build strong communities — through research, education and technology transfer.

Tags

Low-income residents, immigrants, seniors, and people with disabilities – these are people who stand to gain the most from new tools and services that reduce transportation costs and travel time. However, issues of affordability, technology adoption, banking access or other barriers can limit access to these new mobility opportunities.

In the latest report funded by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), New Mobility For All: Evaluation of a Transportation Incentive Program for Residents of Affordable Housing in Portland, OR, Portland State University researchers Nathan McNeil, John MacArthur and Huijun Tan worked with the City of Portland’s Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) to evaluate a local pilot program: the Transportation Wallet for Residents of Affordable Housing. This program provides a set of transportation incentives for low-income participants, including:

  • a $308 pre-paid US Bank Visa card which could be applied to public transit or other transportation services,
  • a free BIKETOWN bike share membership, and
  • access to discounted rates on several services.

Researchers surveyed the program’s participants to understand how they used the Transportation Wallet and how it helped them use different modes to get around Portland, OR. The goal was to identify which aspects of "new mobility" services (e.g. Uber/Lyft, bike share and e-scooters) appeal to different underserved groups. Drawing on the survey results, the researchers developed potential strategies to expand the reach and value of these transportation services, and consider how to implement more programs to realize these benefits. 

"The research highlights a specific group of individuals and families who are historically underserved, who often have limited access to services and jobs, and lack mobility options. The Transportation Wallet program is an innovative approach to address their mobility needs. This research focuses on evaluating the pilot program, but there is still so much to learn and understand how cities, transit agencies and mobility providers can assist the people living in affordable housing communities," MacArthur said.

The research team shared insights from the findings in a February 2021 paper in Transportation Research Record: "Evaluation of a Transportation Incentive Program for Affordable Housing Residents."

HOW DID PEOPLE USE THE WALLET?

"The Transportation Wallet provided funds for participants to use on transportation services, but it didn't prescribe specifically how they should use it. We ended up seeing a real variety. Some used it exclusively for public transit for daily needs, others for the occasional Uber or Lyft trip, and some people explored new services like our shared e-bike system or e-scooters. We also heard from a lot of participants that the program made them feel more independent in terms of being able to get around the city, as well as having less stress about if they or their children would be able to get home in the event of a missed bus or ride," McNeil said.

The research team found some key findings on how the Transportation Wallet was used:

  • A majority of the low-income participants were already users of TriMet –Portland’s public transit agency. Nearly half of the respondents indicated that they tried to use new modes that they never used before with the Transportation Wallet, which was correlated with increased sign-ups and usage of ride-hail, e-scooter and bike share services.
  • Participants appeared to use each mode more than they would have otherwise.
  • The flexibility and convenience of the program were highlighted in survey comments by participants. Responses also indicate that the program reduced stress related to how people might meet their basic travel needs or get around in the case of unexpected or emergency travel needs, all while reducing financial stress as well.
  • Although TriMet and ride-hail were the most used among the available services, it is still notable that 28% to 29% of participants signed up for e-scooter and bike share services, even if many did not proceed to use them. This highlights the potential of such a program, but also speaks to the need for programs to engage further in helping transition people from signing up for a service to actually using that service.

IMPLEMENTING A SIMILAR PROGRAM

RECRUITING PARTICIPANTS AT TRANSPORTATION FAIRS

"For anyone providing this type of service, keep in mind the value of Transportation Fairs. Attendees at these in-person events were much more likely to sign up for services, including discounted TriMet fares. Hosting the fairs near people’s homes was seen as very important by both the people we surveyed and the partner housing agencies," McNeil said.

To the extent possible, researchers recommend that participants should leave the Transportation Fairs "ready to walk out the door and start using the Transportation Wallet." Having activated cards to distribute at the fair (or providing credit to participants through a mobile app) could help to encourage program participation generally, and help in further promoting some of the services that participants may not have previously tried.

OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE

Input from participants suggests that several aspects of the Transportation Wallet can be improved:

  • Improve the way information about the program and new mobility usage is conveyed, specifically for those who never use phone apps to travel around.
  • Explore participants’ experiences when using different services. For instance, safety concerns about bike share and e-scooter share services and age-related barriers (e.g., physical ability) was a challenge. This is consistent with previous studies about safety concerns as a barrier for using new mobility. Transportation agencies may be limited in their promotion of these modes without further strategies to address the different perceptual and objective barriers.
  • Address problems through an enhanced level of ongoing assistance. This could include help with activating their Transportation Wallet cards, transferring funds into their service accounts, and navigating the challenge of prepaid cards which were sometimes not an acceptable form of payment. This type of further assistance could also help to address the gap between the number of people who sign up for various services and those who actually use those services.
  • Increased opportunities to actually test out services (use the apps, ride the e-scooters and bike share bikes). Some participants could benefit from lessons and practice in using e-scooters, bikes, ride-hail, and transit. Having tried it once in a supportive environment could be all it takes to give someone the confidence to use a new mode going forward.

Cities interested in implementing similar transportation programs can use the insights from this report on the Portland pilot study. Overall, the message from the Transportation Wallet program is one of empowerment: it did make it easier for many transportation-disadvantaged participants to get around, and gave them a new freedom of choice between different modes they hadn't explored before. For those who want to replicate this experiment, this report offers detailed guidance and a positive model to build upon.

ABOUT THE PROJECT

New Mobility For All: Can Targeted Information And Incentives Help Underserved Communities Realize The Potential Of Emerging Mobility Options?

Nathan McNeil and John MacArthur, Portland State University

This research was funded by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities, with additional support from Metro, the Portland Bureau of Transportation, and Portland State University.

RELATED RESEARCH

To learn more about this and other NITC research, sign up for our monthly research newsletter.

Photo by Cait McCusker

The National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) is one of seven U.S. Department of Transportation national university transportation centers. NITC is a program of the Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University. This PSU-led research partnership also includes the Oregon Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Oregon, University of Texas at Arlington and University of Utah. We pursue our theme — improving mobility of people and goods to build strong communities — through research, education and technology transfer.

"Transformative Transportation Survey Methods: Enhancing Household Transportation Survey Methods for Hard-To-Reach Populations," is a new article published in the September 2021 issue of Transportation Research Part D. It was co-authored by Amy Lubitow, a sociology faculty member at Portland State University, Erika Carpenter, a sociology graduate student, and Julius McGee, a faculty member in urban studies and planning.

The study explores the challenges that hard-to-reach populations face in completing household activity surveys. Researchers drew on qualitative data from hard-to-reach populations regarding the limits of the Oregon Household Activity Survey and found evidence that the survey methods lack social, cultural, and linguistic applicability for Black, Indigenous and other people of color, as well as low-income populations. The authors argue that Oregon’s household travel survey prioritizes certain ways of understanding and experiencing mobility that are, by default, exclusionary. The article concludes in sharing insights regarding how transportation professionals might improve data collection efforts. Broader efforts for transportation equity (and ultimately towards transportation justice) cannot be achieved when the data used to inform transportation planning fails to accurately reflect all populations.

The paper draws on findings from a NITC research project led by Lubitow: Advancing Transportation Equity through Inclusive Travel Survey Data Methods

Photo by santypan/iStock

The National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) is one of seven U.S. Department of Transportation national university transportation centers. NITC is a program of the Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University. This PSU-led research partnership also includes the Oregon Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Oregon, University of Texas at Arlington and University of Utah. We pursue our theme — improving mobility of people and goods to build strong communities — through research, education and technology transfer.

Projects
1122
Researchers
alubitow@pdx.edu

Our multi-year study on automated transit fare collection offers a key finding that won't surprise you: Despite the convenience, the rush toward cashless fare systems has created barriers for lower-income riders seeking to use transit. Results from focus groups, surveys, and a review of current transit agency practices suggest that continuing to accept cash is a crucial way to keep transit accessible. However, dealing with cash has drawbacks: it’s time intensive and expensive. Using a detailed cost-benefit model, the researchers explored the costs for agencies to maintain some cash options and found that some simple approaches can be quite effective. The best bang for the buck? Cash collection on board buses.

Launched in 2019, the research project "Applying an Equity Lens to Automated Payment Solutions for Public Transportation" was supported by a Pooled Fund grant program from the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) and conducted at three universities: Portland State University (PSU), the University of Oregon (UO), and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK). The other funding partners were City of Eugene, OR, City of Gresham, OR, Lane Transit District, Clevor Consulting Group, and RTD (Regional Transportation District) Denver.

Aaron Golub of PSU served as the principal investigator, with co-investigators Anne Brown of UO, Candace Brakewood of UTK and John MacArthur of PSU.

WHY STUDY CASHLESS TRANSIT FARE?

Automated payment technologies can smooth operations and improve data collection, but the added convenience for the agency and some riders comes at a price: those systems require riders to have access to private internet, smartphones, and banking/credit services. Access that is decidedly not universal. What happens to the riders who are left behind?

Fare payment systems have a long history in significant equity challenges - both in fare amounts, but also in how and where fare can be purchased and stored. The final report “Applying an Equity Lens to Automated Payment Solutions for Public Transportation” (PDF) is a detailed exploration of how transit riders pay for their fare, based on 2,303 intercept surveys and three focus groups with transit riders in Colorado and Oregon. Researchers looked at the use of cash, and focused on riders who may be excluded if cash options are removed as new fare payment systems are implemented in the coming years. The research team also interviewed employees at ten transit agencies to find out how their fare payment has been modernized in the past 5 years, how those agencies have evaluated the equity implications of these changes, and what programs they have deployed to mitigate the equity impacts.

Andrew Martin, Development Planner at Lane Transit District, served on the project's technical advisory committee. "Around the same time as this study, we were in the middle of purchasing and implementing our first electronic fare collection system. We had already decided to take a more customer-centric approach: instead of going completely cash-free, we determined that we were going to take on the costs of making sure our service remained accessible to all riders. It was good to see, in the research, a lot of the things that we were intuitively feeling turned out to be true. The cost-benefit analysis shows that the cost isn't as great as you think; by doing the equity mitigations, you might end up with higher ridership and offset the revenue loss," Martin said.

SOME KEY FINDINGS

Researchers found that a significant number (around 30%) of transit riders still rely heavily on paying cash on-board buses. Older and lower-income respondents had less access to smartphones and internet. 

Of those who do own smartphones, many are concerned about reaching data limits, and some depend solely on public Wi-Fi for internet connectivity. 

A small but significant number of riders (around 7%) have no access to formal banking services.

The researchers worked with transit organizations in three case cities: Eugene, OR (population 247,421); Denver, CO (population 2,374,203); and Portland, OR (population 1,849,898). The cost-benefit model can be used by any size agency to implement new fare payment technology.

"One thing that would be really helpful to a lot of agencies is the cost modeling [the researchers] did. It estimates the general cost to put new technologies out there, like ticket vending machines. A lot of smaller agencies may not have things like that, and they're really useful for customers. So even aside from the equity focus, there is a lot of good info on costs of implementing a system," said Martin.

COST BENEFIT MODEL

Researchers constructed a quantitative cost-benefit model that combines first-year capital investments along with 10 years of maintenance, operations and capital replacement into a single total cost estimate. This approach creates an overall reflection of the lifecycle costs of the fare payment system, meaning it enables us to understand the total cost from both the initial costs, as well as the recurring annual costs.

They then used the model to explore and compare four scenarios along with an additional base (no-cash) case. Scenarios are based on the feedback received from transit agencies and a review of best practices nationally: 

  • Base - (No cash accepted anywhere)
  • Scenario 1 - No cash anywhere, adds retail network
  • Scenario 2 - Cash on board, not at TVMs, no retail
  • Scenario 3 - Cash only at TVMs, no retail
  • Scenario 4 - Cash accepted everywhere

"The heart of this cost-benefit model is, how many riders cannot ride under the different scenarios? We were able to study more than 2,000 riders, and, in the fully no-cash base case, we knew that about 8% of riders could not ride, based on our surveys. Their answers to how they would  ride with different configurations of ticket vending machines and cash on board informed this model," Golub said.

SELECTING MITIGATION STRATEGIES

Any of the above scenarios 1-4, above the no-cash baseline, can mitigate some of the equity implications of going cashless. Which scenario is best for a particular setting depends greatly on how many riders are potentially excluded by a cashless fare system, and on which options those riders would most likely use, given the opportunity to pay with cash. Based on the results of the cost-benefit analysis for each of the three case cities, researchers developed some general principles that agencies should keep in mind, when choosing strategies to help keep transit accessible. 

"When you're looking at 10 different systems and you've got to justify to the board, the general manager, the community, why you're spending money a certain way – it's really helpful to have research like this that shows that the costs are not some huge amount. When equity is cheap to obtain, it's really easy to justify doing that," Martin said.

Larger agencies spend less to collect fare. This impacts the cost-benefit calculation of adding additional capabilities. Small agencies, the researchers suggest, should seriously consider going fare-free. The Eugene case study (the smallest agency) shows that, across the board, fare collection consumes a large part of fare revenues - in the full cash scenario, about 40% of revenue is spent on collecting fare. 

Retail is a low-cost option: Accepting cash payments at retail locations is by far the lowest cost option to add cash capabilities in terms of total cost, net costs, and in terms of cost to accommodate potentially excluded riders. It is also the most commonly used mitigation, according to interviews with agencies. However, the retail network still poses significant geographical barriers for many riders, and does not offer the kind of coverage and access that cash collection on-board would offer.

Simple cash collection on buses could be an important bridge: According to the ridership survey data, in addition to being a low-cost option for agencies, this mitigation also added significant ridership. Accepting cash at ticket vending machines was found to be much more expensive than accepting cash on board.

When larger numbers of riders are excluded, equity mitigations are cheaper. The larger number of riders that are excluded, the bigger impact equity mitigations have and the cheaper they are per additional rider, and per additional fare collected. The Portland-Gresham case study showed relatively few riders were excluded when cash was eliminated compared to the other properties. That meant that adding retail cash collection cost $0.27 per new boarding. In Denver and Eugene, larger populations of riders were potentially excluded by cashless fare, and adding retail capabilities only cost 14 and 1.9 cents per boarding, respectively.

"Within the 10-year transition, some of the worst effects could be avoided by using some of these mitigations,” Golub told NextCity in a May 25, 2021 article: What Happens When Cash Fares Are Eliminated?

This research was funded by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities; the City of Eugene, OR, City of Gresham, OR, Lane Transit District, Clevor Consulting Group, and RTD (Regional Transportation District) Denver.

ABOUT THE PROJECT

Applying an Equity Lens to Automated Payment Solutions for Public Transportation

Aaron Golub and John MacArthur, Portland State University; Anne Brown, University of Oregon; Candace Brakewood, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Photo courtesy of TriMet

RELATED RESEARCH

To learn more about this and other NITC research, sign up for our monthly research newsletter.

The National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) is one of seven U.S. Department of Transportation national university transportation centers. NITC is a program of the Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University. This PSU-led research partnership also includes the Oregon Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Oregon, University of Texas at Arlington and University of Utah. We pursue our theme — improving mobility of people and goods to build strong communities — through research, education and technology transfer.

Projects
1268
Researchers
agolub@pdx.edu

In June 2019, the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) launched a new incentive package aimed at making transportation more accessible for low-income households. In the "Transportation Wallet for Residents of Affordable Housing" pilot program, people living in affordable housing developments received access to free transportation options like transit passes, bike or scooter share memberships, rideshare and carshare credits.

Portland State University researchers evaluated the pilot program to find out how participants used the Transportation Wallet and how it helped them use different transport modes to get around.

A February 2021 paper in Transportation Research Record by Huijun Tan, Nathan McNeil, John MacArthur and Kelly Rodgers presents insights into the implementation and effectiveness of a transportation financial incentive program for low-income populations. Access the paper: "Evaluation of a Transportation Incentive Program for Affordable Housing Residents."

Main findings include:

  1. The financial support of this program encouraged some participants to use new mobility services (including Uber/Lyft, bike share, and e-scooter) that they had never used before.
  2. The program increased access for participants, helping them make more trips and, for some, get to places they otherwise could not have gone.
  3. Transportation fairs, where participants could learn about services and talk to providers, promoted both mode sign-up and mode usage, particularly for new mobility services and a reduced fare transit program.

The article is part of a larger research effort underway, funded by the National Institute for Transportation & Communities, Metro, and PBOT: "New Mobility For All: Can Targeted Information And Incentives Help Underserved Communities Realize The Potential Of Emerging Mobility Options?" This project explores underserved communities' access to new mobility programs such as ride-hailing, car-sharing, and micromobility. Researchers surveyed participants of PBOT's Transportation Wallet pilot, as well as a program of Oregon Metro designed to provide personalized transportation planning services (trip planning, education, outreach) in combination with free ride or drive credits from ride-hail and car share services to help connect residents to travel opportunities. An update on the project will be given in an upcoming Friday Transportation Seminar:

Friday, April 16, 2021: Friday Transportation Seminar: Evaluation of a Transportation Incentive Program for Affordable Housing Residents

In the seminar, Huiun Tan, Nathan McNeil and John MacArthur of PSU along with Roshin Kurian of PBOT will share findings from their survey of participants in PBOT's pilot program, and draw connections to how a transportation demand management program like the Wallet could be implemented to provide incentives and financial benefits to low-income populations.

ABOUT THE RESEARCH

New Mobility For All: Can Targeted Information And Incentives Help Underserved Communities Realize The Potential Of Emerging Mobility Options?

Nathan McNeil and John MacArthur, Portland State University

Photo by Cait McCusker

The Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University is home to the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI), and other transportation programs. TREC produces research and tools for transportation decision makers, develops K-12 curriculum to expand the diversity and capacity of the workforce, and engages students and professionals through education.

Photo by Page Light Studios/iStock

Two national research centers at Portland State University have been awarded a new contract from the National Academies of Science (NAS): TCRP J-11/Task 40: Homelessness: A Guide for Public Transportation. We interviewed the two principal investigators to learn more about this new collaboration:

Could you share with us the background and objectives of this new project?

JOHN MACARTHUR, Sustainable Transportation Manager, Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University

Five years ago the NAS completed TCRP Synthesis 121 report– a synthesis of transit agency practices in interacting with people who are experiencing homelessness. They want to take another look to find out what has changed. Originally, the work was focused on the operational side of things. We’re expanding that scope to look at, not only how are people who are experiencing homelessness impacting the transit system, but also, how can the transit system help that community. 

Transit agencies are looking for best practices– ways to address the issue, both in internal operations but also through partnerships. The project is a combination of a literature review, survey scan, and case study development to elevate some of those lessons learned to a national dialogue.

DR. MARISA ZAPATA, Associate Professor of Land-Use Planning at Portland State University and Director of PSU's Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative (HRAC)

Homelessness is a reflection of dramatic societal failure from multiple systems. And it is both the failure of those systems, but now also the responsibility of those and other systems, to respond and address what homelessness produces. And obviously, the people who are experiencing homelessness are the people who are most impacted by the existence of homelessness. But by continuing to allow homelessness in our society, we also have to recognize that there are additional impacts being felt across other systems - particularly in our public assets around land, transit, public infrastructure. 

What we're really trying to do here is to highlight places that have found innovative ways to engage in supporting people experiencing homelessness. And also to identify solutions such as fare-free transit. 

Why do you think it is so critical to be looking at transit when discussing barriers and opportunities that people experiencing homelessness face?

MARISA

There are a couple of ways in which transit agencies are both impacted by and implicated in homelessness. They also have opportunities to help resolve it. We have seen increases in unsheltered homelessness, particularly on the West Coast. We've got people who are looking for any kind of shelter: living in subway tunnels, sleeping at bus stops, riding rail lines just to stay warm. So you've got people who are experiencing homelessness, which is a critical issue in itself, and it can also be distressing to other passengers.

Looking at the prevention side, how can we ensure that people who are low-wage earners are able to access transportation to jobs and opportunities? If we can keep people at least making minimum wage, then we can often keep people housed by augmenting that minimum wage salary with housing assistance. 

People experiencing homelessness need to be able to access work, health care systems, benefit offices...and the best way to do that is on transit. And so we need to think about how people who are in low-income situations or experiencing homelessness use transit systems to better their lives, but then also understand the impacts of homelessness on our transit systems. 

JOHN

I think transit agencies can no longer look at themselves as just providing transit. Their role in the way a community functions is so much bigger than that. Transit is the connection that gets a lot of people to essential services that will improve their lives. Transit agencies need to rethink how they are serving all riders, including people experiencing homelessness, and how they can - more humanely and with attention - make the system more usable for all riders. Both for the people who are homeless, but also for riders who are interacting with people using the system.

What unique strengths do PSU researchers bring to the table that will deepen our understanding of transit and houselessness?

JOHN

At PSU we have two national research centers that focus on both sides of this coin, and it's exciting that this is the first project for us to work on collaboratively on such an important and timely topic. 

MARISA

Yes, it's the first project of what, we hope, will become a portfolio of work. We've got John, who has an incredible research history with transit agencies and understanding how they function, and is part of TREC, which is one of our national leaders in transportation research. And you've got me. I lead the Homelessness Research and Action Collaborative – one of the few national research centers that is looking specifically at homelessness as an issue. 

There is a history of people who study homelessness avoiding research about unsheltered homelessness. And there's a reason for that. Historically, people will use focusing on sheltered homelessness to avoid talking about the actual solution to homelessness, which is housing and support services to maintain housing. So there is a concern that when you look at other things, you're allowing society to ignore what the real solution is. As a research center, we have been willing to engage in a way that other scholars are hesitant to do so. 

One of the things that meant a lot to me in this study was the inclusion of the prevention side. So it's understanding and accepting responsibility for where you, as a system, might not have been working as the best actor in helping to prevent homelessness, while also asking for assistance to figure out how to be a part of the solution.

What aspect of this project are you most excited about? What do you expect to be most challenging?

MARISA

The two things I am most excited about, one is to build the continued partnership and relationship with TREC. And then secondly, I think, to bring a unique perspective and sensitivity to this work. To avoid this idea of, 'Get rid of the people, or do the minimum so they don't bother the other people.' There is also a security component of transportation. This is an opportunity, particularly at this moment in history, to think about policing in relationship to people of color, many of whom are experiencing homelessness in these communities.

Working on issues in homlessness is some of the most challenging public policy work you can do right now. It is our responsibility to give as much context as possible to understand what the findings really mean. It’s easy for someone to pull a stat from a survey and make a headline in the paper or use it for arguments that were not at all intended. 

JOHN

That attention is both exciting and challenging. But that demonstrates how important the topic is, and how there are widely varying beliefs on how we approach it. This is really that initial step to doing a longer-range research portfolio on this topic area.

This is also an opportunity to not frame this as a situation where you're pitting riders against other riders who are homeless. A big issue for transit agencies is that if some of their riders are complaining and if it’s negatively impacting how often they ride, it hits the agencies’ bottom line. It’s important for those agencies to publicly address safety concerns, while also dismantling negative perceptions of their other riders. That's a tricky path to walk on both sides, but I think that's one of the things we'll be looking at. 

Have you noticed promising approaches in the first six case studies that you hope to revisit?

MARISA

It's really promising to see people bringing in social service organizations to do outreach. That is something we're seeing across a number of public agencies, recognizing that not everyone needs to build out their own social service wing. There are lots of different ways in which people are experiencing homelessness, and reasons why. There is also the stigma around it. If you have a sign up saying "If you are homeless, stop here for help," a lot of people might walk past this. If Instead you're setting up coffee chats, and you've got experienced nonprofits involved and you're asking, are you experiencing stress in your life? That can reach people. 

The other thing that people really don't fully understand about homelessness is that some people experiencing homelessness are really ill and they need intensive health care support. Those tend to be the people who get the most attention, in terms of people reacting and being afraid of them. And so those folks need a very specific kind of outreach. Having people who are there to build the relationships and to really establish trust – which is what one of the cases talked about, that trust development – is so essential to being able to help someone move into housing and be willing to trust service providers again. The agencies that are looking for those partnerships, and are able to effectively implement them, are what I'm most excited to follow up on. 

JOHN

In addition to these promising approaches – like providing crisis support with trained staff and acknowledging how to deal with this in humane and appropriate ways – I think it will be really interesting coming back to these agencies after five years and saying, this is what was written up about you; how have things changed? What worked, what didn't work? The case studies cover different sized cities and geographic areas, so this really is a national approach. Our ultimate goal is to create a guidebook for agencies who are looking to build these types of programs, as well as understand where the network is. What other agencies can they talk to that are already doing that work? So the outcome is a very practical, practitioner-oriented guide.

ABOUT THE RESEARCHERS

John MacArthur is the Sustainable Transportation Program Manager for TREC and the Principal Investigator for TREC's electric bicycle research initiatives. His research includes low-/no-emission vehicle infrastructure in Portland metro, as well as a climate change impact assessment for surface transportation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. He currently manages a complex Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant to develop and test an emergency transportation recovery plan for the Portland, Oregon Region. Before joining the TREC staff, John was the Context Sensitive and Sustainable Solutions Program Manager for the Oregon Department of Transportation’s OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program.

Marisa Zapata is an associate professor of land-use planning at Portland State University and the director of PSU's Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative. She received her Ph.D. in Regional Planning from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, her M.U.P. in Urban Planning from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and B.A. in Anthropology from Rice University. As an educator, scholar, and planner, Dr. Zapata is committed to achieving spatially - based social justice by preparing planners to act in the face of the uncertain and inequitable futures we face. She believes how we use land reflects our social and cultural values.

The Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University is home to the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI), and other transportation programs. TREC produces research and tools for transportation decision makers, develops K-12 curriculum to expand the diversity and capacity of the workforce, and engages students and professionals through education.

The Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative (HRAC) at Portland State University brings together researchers from across the PSU community to work alongside people experiencing homelessness, advocates, service providers, city and county policymakers and other stakeholders to address issues that lead to and perpetuate homelessness.

Researchers
mazapata@pdx.edu
macarthur@pdx.edu

Tags

A review of equity and vehicle sharing, by Jennifer Dill and Nathan McNeil of PSU, appears this month in a special issue of the Journal of Planning Literature (click here for access to a free author's edition). They investigated whether shared vehicle systems – carsharing, bikesharing, and e-scooter sharing – are equitable. Overall, they did not find much evidence that they are improving accessibility for disadvantaged populations. Equity programs in carsharing are notably understudied. Given that many cities lack safe bicycle infrastructure and trip distances can be long, there may be more immediate potential for improving accessibility through carsharing. The benefits of access to a vehicle for low income people are well documented.

Read Dr. Dill's blog here.