How Car Ownership Helps the Working Poor Get Ahead

Access to public transit helps, but it’s not enough to connect some workers with economic opportunity.

National Journal
Sophie Quinton
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Sophie Quinton
July 24, 2014, 6:57 a.m.

Buses stop right out­side LaToyia New­man-Gross’s apart­ment in sub­urb­an Columbia, Md. That doesn’t mean it’s easy to get around by pub­lic trans­it. “They run every hour,” says New­man-Gross, 32. If you miss a bus, you’re stuck. Wait­ing out in the sun or snow with her four chil­dren be­side her usu­ally isn’t a great op­tion.

Amer­ic­ans are driv­ing short­er dis­tances, buy­ing few­er cars, and are less likely to ap­ply for a driver’s li­cense than just a few years ago. This might be due to the re­ces­sion—own­ing a car is ex­pens­ive—or it might be due to a cul­tur­al shift in fa­vor of urb­an liv­ing.

But al­most all house­holds, re­gard­less of so­cioeco­nom­ic status, own at least one vehicle. In 2009, more than three-quar­ters of work­ers com­muted by driv­ing alone. Re­cent re­search sug­gests that, par­tic­u­larly for single moms like New­man-Gross, own­ing a car can mean ac­cess to bet­ter jobs and safer neigh­bor­hoods.

“There’ve been times when I’ve been stand­ing on the bus stop with my kids, watch­ing oth­er people drive by with their cars, and you just feel less-than, when you can’t do something so simple, that most people take for gran­ted,” New­man-Gross says.

About 7.5 mil­lion house­holds in the 100 largest U.S. met­ro­pol­it­an areas don’t have ac­cess to a privately owned vehicle, ac­cord­ing to a 2011 study from the Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion. Roughly 60 per­cent of those house­holds are low in­come, and about 60 per­cent are non­white. The vast ma­jor­ity have ac­cess to pub­lic trans­it.

This March, the Urb­an In­sti­tute re­leased a stat­ist­ic­al ana­lys­is of fed­er­al data that found a link between car own­er­ship and em­ploy­ment. Re­search­ers took a look at fed­er­al data col­lec­ted on two groups of low-in­come people who re­ceived hous­ing vouch­ers in the 1990s and early 2000s.

“The fam­il­ies who had cars were more likely to get ac­cess to high-qual­ity neigh­bor­hoods—and they were more likely to get jobs if they didn’t have jobs already, and keep jobs if they already had jobs, than those house­holds who did not have cars,” says Rolf Pend­all, dir­ect­or of the Urb­an In­sti­tute’s Met­ro­pol­it­an Hous­ing and Com­munit­ies Policy Cen­ter. Ac­cess to pub­lic trans­it was as­so­ci­ated with keep­ing a job but not with get­ting one.

It’s un­clear to what ex­tent eco­nom­ic be­ne­fits out­weigh the costs of car own­er­ship—pay­ing for the car, plus in­sur­ance, gas, car re­pairs, and so on. But in areas with little trans­it, hav­ing a car clearly helps. The sub­urbs are home to many low- and middle-in­come jobs that can be hard to reach without a car. Ac­cess­ing these work­places is at best time-con­sum­ing and at worst im­possible for low-in­come res­id­ents of urb­an neigh­bor­hoods. 

For single, work­ing moms like New­man-Gross, there’s an ad­di­tion­al be­ne­fit to hav­ing a car: man­aging a fam­ily’s sched­ule. “When you’re by your­self, you know—your kids have got to pretty much go wherever you go,” she says.

New­man-Gross runs a day-care busi­ness out of her apart­ment. She doesn’t com­mute. But she has young chil­dren, and that means doc­tor’s ap­point­ments, meet­ings with teach­ers, and travel to stores where she can get a good deal on food and cloth­ing for a fam­ily of five. She used to spend a lot of money on tax­is, some­times as much as $60 to get to one doc­tor’s ap­point­ment.

That changed three months ago, when New­man-Gross re­ceived a used 2002 Mazda minivan from a Mary­land-based non­profit called Vehicles for Change. The or­gan­iz­a­tion, foun­ded by an auto-parts com­pany in 1999, fixes up donated cars and awards them to people liv­ing close to the poverty level. Cli­ents pay a fee of about $750 for a car (they of­ten end up pay­ing far more in car in­sur­ance).

Most fam­il­ies are re­ferred to Vehicles for Change by state so­cial-ser­vice agen­cies or oth­er non­profits. Cli­ents come from across Mary­land, Vir­gin­ia, and the Dis­trict of Columbia, and the vast ma­jor­ity are single moth­ers. To re­ceive a car, cli­ents must be em­ployed or have a veri­fi­able job of­fer.

Marty Schwartz, pres­id­ent of Vehicles for Change, says that about three-quar­ters of cli­ents who ac­quire a car through the or­gan­iz­a­tion get a bet­ter job with­in a year, and see an in­come boost of about $7,000. Mary­land plans to ex­pand trans­it op­tions, but those pro­jects take time, and the fam­il­ies Vehicles for Change serves need trans­port­a­tion now.

“It just seemed al­most too good to be true,” New­man-Gross says. She doesn’t ex­pect her twelve-year-old Mazda to run per­fectly all the time, but she has a six-month war­ranty and can take the car to Vehicles for Change’s gar­age to get it re­paired at a low rate.

Get­ting a new car may not have im­me­di­ately altered New­man-Gross’s in­come, but it has made life easi­er. She’s been able to ex­pose her kids to new ex­per­i­ences, like trips to the pet­ting zoo, and travel has be­come less stress­ful. “My 1-year-old, she just had sur­gery, and I was able to take her home in our own car,” New­man-Gross says. “As a par­ent, you just feel bet­ter about those kinds of things.”

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
7 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×