Black Households Are More Burdened by Vehicle Ownership than White Households

Abstract

Vehicle ownership is a significant cost to households, but Black households are more likely to be burdened than White households. Previous assessments of transportation spending between races did not differentiate by vehicle ownership status, depressing overall transportation spending by Black households, which are three times as likely as White households not to have access to a car and, thus, spend comparatively little on transportation. When these experiences are isolated, 76% of Black households with vehicles are burdened by transportation spending compared with 60% of White households. Black households with vehicles allocate more of their total average annual spending to transportation regardless of income, and disparities in transportation burden are present even in high-earning households. Black households that are in poverty spend on average $1,115 more per car than their White peers. Insurance, gasoline, vehicle loans, and leasing are all major drivers of transportation burden on Black households and, frequently, these are less burdensome to White households. This adds to concerns of disparate safety and environmental impacts of automobility experienced by Black households, for example, higher rates of pedestrian fatalities and risk of childhood asthma from vehicle exhaust fumes.

Keywords

transportation equity transportation burden transportation affordability racial disparity vehicle dependency

Vehicle primacy in the U.S.A. is a barrier to both equity and sustainability. Automobility, the overarching construct of social, political, and physical systems that is centered on personal vehicle use, is deeply embedded in the American experience, leading to significant direct financial costs to households, and also external consequences, such as higher emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) ( 1 ). Strategies for reducing the negative impacts of automobility are varied, because approaches typically target only one negative outcome at a time. For example, to combat the emission of GHGs, vehicle electrification has been proposed ( 2 ). To combat limited mobility in lower-income households, subsidized vehicle ownership has been suggested ( 3 ). However, these strategies skirt around the edge of the larger problem, which is that vehicle primacy is a destructive mechanism that has a disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations and is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of sustainable and equitable places.

Existing research has demonstrated that automobility has a disparate impact on Black households. Black Americans are more likely to be hospitalized and killed by vehicles across all major modes of travel (4, 5). Raifman and Choma ( 5 ) found that compared with non-Hispanic White populations, Black fatality rates per 100 mi traveled are 348% higher for pedestrians, 118% higher for cyclists, and 73% higher in passenger vehicles. Black households experience higher rates of PM2.5 (particulate matter) exposure from cars and trucks, which can lead to worse cardiovascular and respiratory health consequences ( 6 ). Uneven outcomes also extend to policing. A study of traffic ticketing in Cleveland revealed Black drivers received the majority of tickets, and they were two and a half times more likely to receive a ticket than non-Hispanic White drivers, although they represented a minority of drivers ( 7 ). Black drivers are stopped and searched more frequently, often for less reason than their White counterparts (7 –9). Black pedestrians are ticketed at higher rates for jaywalking, a function of automobility that protects vehicle primacy in roadways ( 10 ). Black households are also less likely to benefit from vehicle-oriented infrastructure because of lower rates of vehicle ownership and historic patterns of racial segregation. Although rates of vehicle ownership have increased significantly for all households in recent decades, 18% of Black households do not have access to a vehicle, whereas just 6% of White households fall into this category ( 11 ).

Disparity in transportation affordability between Black and White households has received less attention than it merits. Some have examined the phenomena of drivers in areas with large minority populations paying significantly more vehicle insurance than do those in predominantly White zip codes of a similar risk, something that is potentially affected in part by higher rates of ticketing (12, 13). However, on the issue of affordability overall, several studies have shown that Black households actually devote less of their income to transportation than White households ( 14 ). A closer look shows that these studies do not account for the difference in vehicle ownership between racial groupings; this is an important distinction, because households without cars typically allocate an average of 4% of total spending to transportation compared with the 21% allocated to transportation by households with cars ( 15 ). When total spending on transportation is considered without distinguishing between the experiences of those who own or do not own vehicles, lower vehicle ownership rates depress overall transportation spending in Black households, potentially masking their disparate spending on vehicle ownership and access to vehicles.

In this paper, we take a deeper look at equity issues in relation to the out-of-pocket cost of transportation. In particular, we want to understand how automobility and the issue of forced car ownership can lead to disparate affordability outcomes for Black households vis-à-vis White households. Using an established understanding of sustainable development, we argue that sustainability and equity are intimately related and one cannot be achieved without the other. A better understanding of this fundamental issue is a key factor in improving racial inequity in transportation and in setting a framework for the development of a more sustainable transportation system in this era of the planetary climate crisis.

Literature Review

Our work weaves together various strands of literature, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of our assessment. Understanding the relationship between equity and sustainability is important in mitigating disparate impacts on protected, vulnerable, or historically disadvantaged populations, particularly those impacts in relation to transportation affordability.

Sustainable Development and Equity

Released earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023 confirms the immediacy of the once-future climate crisis. Climate change is happening now, and it is unequivocally driven by human activities, including those related to transportation-land use systems ( 16 ). The panel reports with very high confidence that humans are responsible for climate change, that human-caused climate change has increased mortality, and that although the bulk of climate finance is directed toward mitigation, it falls short of the cuts in emissions necessary to avoid warming of less than 2°C, a fear-inspiring level of certainty for an organization that requires all participant countries to approve the language used ( 16 ). Globally, transportation represents 15% of total direct GHGs, two-thirds of which are directly attributable to road transportation, including personal or light vehicle use ( 17 ). The U.S.A. has made enough progress on coal retirements to allow transportation to overtake electricity generation as the highest contributing sector to emissions of GHGs, and it is responsible for 28% of national annual emissions, nearly 60% of which are attributed to personal or light vehicle use ( 18 ). The IPPC summarizes several possible policy solutions for decarbonization of the sector, and although electrification features prominently in the short term, long-term strategies require more comprehensive changes to the interconnected physical, natural, and social infrastructure of cities via improved mixed-use density and transition to public transportation, cycling, and walking as opposed to vehicle use ( 16 ). Further integration of the social and economic dimensions of sustainability might stabilize inequity and encourage environmentally beneficial systems and behaviors over time ( 19 ).

Definitions of sustainable transportation typically include three dimensions or domains of consideration: environmental; social; and economic (20, 21). The environmental domain’s concern with the direct contribution of GHGs to climate change is centered in discussions about sustainability by our need to avoid the strongest impacts of the ongoing climate crisis; however, the environmental, social, and economic domains are all required to meet Haughton’s definition of what constitutes a sustainable city ( 19 ). Haughton argues that without a pursuit of equity across time, sociodemographic classes, geography, policy, and species, the success of a sustainable place will be “critically undermined.” In transportation planning, this might be seen as a shift to electric vehicles without a more thorough upheaval of automobility, a system that prioritizes vehicle use over other modes of transport more compatible with the long-term recommendations of the IPCC. Although this will assist in reducing GHGs, it could exacerbate social/economic sustainability through its inequitable impact on transportation affordability via the current higher price point of electric vehicles, the comparatively limited ability to perform straightforward maintenance tasks without specialized equipment, and racial discrimination with regard to vehicle financing markets ( 22 ). Additionally, the prioritization of vehicle use, even electric vehicles, preserves the inequitable leasing, lending, and insurance markets that have contributed to disparate spending outcomes for Black Americans in the past. A more effective solution would be one in which people are able to choose from a variety of low-carbon, lower-cost transportation modes suited to their immediate social and economic needs. Once equity is understood to be a cornerstone of sustainability, efforts to promote sustainable development converge with those seeking to ensure transportation equity ( 23 ).

Transportation equity in the U.S.A. is well supported by legislation, namely, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and Executive Orders 12898/13985 ( 24 ), which posit that the federal government should act to identify and address areas of disparate impacts on populations who qualify as “historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality” ( 24 ). Although the literature surrounding transportation equity is broad, and covers topics such as racial segregation and social exclusion of the elderly, the implementation of transportation equity concepts has been uneven ( 25 ). In the past, they have been deployed primarily via Metropolitan Planning Organization project selection criteria in the analysis of new transit services, a rather limited scope that does little to address the existing systemic impacts on protected populations ( 26 ). New funding opportunities, such as the Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhood Grants program and the related Neighborhood Access and Equity Grant program, give local governments the ability to address pre-existing sociospatial inequities embedded in transportation-land use systems as a result of segregation, urban renewal, slum clearance, and highway building (27, 28). A focus on the effects of barriers to accessing surface transportation and efforts to improve access represents a larger paradigm shift from a mobility orientation that prioritizes vehicle use because of its compatibility with the landscapes of sprawl, to an access orientation in which co-location of jobs, residents, and necessary services is prioritized ( 29 ). Automobility has in many cases been a driver of inequality and, thus, unsustainable development, most clearly seen in differing outcomes for Black Americans. Disparate safety, legal, and environmental outcomes feature prominently in recent research, but not affordability, potentially as a result of the masking effect of lower vehicle ownership rates, the assumed universal employment benefit of increased mobility, and the black box of financial data collected by private companies.

Transportation Spending and Coercive Transportation Systems

The issue of transportation affordability, that is, the capacity of a household to pay transportation-related costs comfortably, is a pressing one in the U.S.A., where transportation spending has risen from around 2% of all spending to more than 16% in the last 120 years, largely a function of increased personal vehicle ownership (14, 30). Thus, millions of Americans are experiencing transportation burden, a situation in which they surpass the threshold of 15% spending on transportation ( 15 ). A larger proportion of people in the U.S.A. are burdened by transportation costs than not, and households that own personal vehicles, households that are lower-in-come, and households for which both are true, are more likely to exceed the burden threshold ( 15 ). The base cost of vehicle ownership is relatively high, even accounting for purchasing adjustments such as lower-income households more frequently buying used vehicles, meaning that these households are more likely to be burdened by vehicle ownership because of the high price point of vehicle use in any capacity. Examination of transportation spending by Molloy et al. ( 15 ) revealed that 15% of lower-income working households with no car experience transportation burden compared with 39% of their car-owning peers. The extreme differences in transportation spending between households that own cars and those that do not is of particular concern, because most transportation burden reports do not differentiate between these groups, reporting average transportation spending that is representative of neither experience. One of the consequences of this misrepresentation is that Black households, which historically had much lower rates of vehicle ownership than White households, are reported as having an artificially low transportation burden. In other words, the full impact of forced car ownership on affordability is masked by this inappropriate modeling of the situation.

Transportation systems coerce users toward different modes of transportation by providing or failing to provide high-quality, safe transportation options and land use systems that are amenable to these different modes. Systems users whose options are limited by financial, legal, geographic, health, or other reasons, are described as “captive,” whereas those who operate without these limitations are “choice” users (31 –33). Those without a vehicle, or the ability to procure one easily, are frequently referred to as “captive riders.” This framing simultaneously allows the concerns of these users to be ignored, as they must use public transportation systems regardless of quality, while positioning the personal vehicle as a universally beneficial and ideal means of transportation ( 31 – 33 ). Less time has been dedicated to the study of “captive riders” or of forced car ownership, a situation in which an individual might benefit from not owning a vehicle but requires one to meet their daily travel needs (34 –36). Instead, vehicle ownership is typically seen as a solution for low-income households that suffer from problems of access, such as the spatial mismatch of low-income households and high-paying job opportunities ( 37 ). Vehicle purchasing support programs are regularly suggested as a potential policy for encouraging employment participation, even though investment in vehicle ownership does not always result in a positive return and low-income households often have trouble financially maintaining ownership over time (38, 39). This policy direction is limiting, representing what Haughton terms a “light green” solution, in which elements of a system remain essentially intact without any necessary changes being made to the fundamental underlying problem: places are built to the scale of the automobile; people are burdened by the cost of the vehicles they need to navigate these places; and those with a limited income are the most burdened.

The understanding of differences in Black/White mobility patterns as a result of lower levels of Black vehicle ownership is advanced. However, we have a limited understanding of the comparison between transportation spending patterns in Black and White households that own or do not own vehicles.

Data and Methodology

The University of Michigan’s Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID) is the longest running longitudinal survey in the U.S.A., originating in 1968 ( 40 ). It is designed to be representative of the general population, with an initial oversampling of households experiencing poverty. The public release of the 1968 survey consists of 447 variables describing 4,802 households, and this was expanded in 2019 to 5,632 variables describing 9,569 households. The increased scope and changes to the structure of questions somewhat limit the backward compatibility of the survey. New households are typically added either by the children of surveyed households becoming economically independent and forming their own family units, which are then invited to join the survey, or through the periodic addition of households to reflect immigrant populations. A wide variety of descriptive information is available, including data on income, expenditure, health, and sociodemographic characteristics. Additionally, the PSID provides information on individuals, and on sensitive variables, for example, those concerning children or detailed geographic identifiers, which are available as part of a restricted access data program. The family data release observations are of “family units,” namely, distinct economic groups that allow the representation of cohabiting individuals who do not share economic resources, such as unrelated roommates or relatives who live in an accessory dwelling unit, but do not combine finances ( 40 ). Family units are almost always legally related, but unrelated household members may be considered part of a family unit if they share income and expenses, and cohabitate. We will refer to family units as households for the remainder of this document, because this is the more commonly understood term.

The PSID is an invaluable resource for social sciences but has several limitations with regard to our needs. First, the number and structure of questions changes over time, which restricts direct temporal comparison. Although representative of the general U.S. population, the survey is relatively small, limiting the accuracy of multicharacteristic subdivision of the data to analyze niche experiences. Because of the highly personal nature of the information collected, some variables have been deleted, bracketed, or restricted. The many variables limit the usability of the dataset; however, the 2021 data release has nearly 1,700 fewer data points than the previous assessment, so some attempt at concision has been made. Finally, PSID variables are self-reported. Even though participants are paid by the minute to encourage accuracy and completion, some may skip, misinterpret, or misremember responses. There may also be inaccuracy in financial variables because respondents occasionally feel uncomfortable reporting income or report a negative income that reflects investment, although they still continue to enjoy a high quality of life. Because of this, we use income only in the definition of income categories; all constructed variables, such as the transportation expenditure ratio and % burdened, use total expenditures as the denominator. The primary limitation of our use of the public-facing PSID data is the lack of access to highly relevant restricted variables, such as vehicle year/make/model, and geospatial information, which could be used to improve our understanding of household geographic context such as land use and employment patterns. Our dataset has been left mostly intact. We have removed households with no income or spending, households that did not respond to the car ownership question, and households with many vehicles compared with the number of household members. A total of 179 households were excluded, leaving 9,390 in our final 2019 dataset. When considering solely the differences between Black and White households, there are a total of 8,714 households that meet our definitions. We will use unweighted direct spending data as suggested in the literature ( 41 ). An initial screening revealed consistent findings between weighted and unweighted household results.

Several variables in the data have been compiled from multiple fields. Transportation burden was calculated using the percent of total household spending dedicated to transportation activities. Some reports on the transportation burden use total share of income instead of total share of spending. We use spending, because income is frequently inaccurate or not representative of quality of life when self-reported. The percent burdened represents the total number of households in each category that exceed the 15% transportation affordability threshold. Households are considered to be experiencing poverty if they are below 150% of their census needs threshold, and to have limited wealth if their total asset valuation is in the eighth decile or lower. This reassigns households that report low income, perhaps as a result of investments or business losses, but still have access to wealth. Households are assigned the race of the reference person; this could be improved in the future by considering individual household member data to identify families of mixed race. Best practices were followed as described in the PSID methodology and web training videos. A full description of data definitions is available on request from the corresponding author.

Although our work focuses on the differences between Black and White households, other ethnic and racial identities were included in our screening process, and Hispanic populations would benefit from additional study. An initial review of transportation spending in households in which the reference person identifies as Latino revealed burden rates roughly in line with the general population, but Hispanic White populations that own cars are 6% more frequently burdened than non-Hispanic White populations that own cars. Intersecting racial and ethnic identities complicate our approach of using publicly available data, and as such, these groups should be studied in more detail independently of this analysis. Households in which the reference person identified as American Indian or Alaska Native were much more likely to be burdened than White households, but had a very small sample size. Targeted assessment of transportation burden among American Indian or Alaska Native households would be a promising avenue for future research, because these populations also experience disparate direct effects of automobility such as higher pedestrian fatality rates.

Results and Discussion

Initial examination of the data revealed significant differences between Black and White household spending across income and vehicle ownership categories (Table 1). Most notably, Black households with vehicles are much more likely to experience transportation burden than White households across all income categories. The total number of Black households burdened by transportation costs is 59%, relatively comparable with 56% of White households. When the households are split by vehicle ownership status to account for lower rates of vehicle ownership in Black households, 76% of Black households that own vehicles are burdened compared with the 60% of all White households that own a vehicle. This is generally consistent across our income categories. Black households with vehicles average 4% more transportation spending annually than White households with cars, even though they have fewer average cars per household. When total transportation spending is normalized by number of vehicles owned, Black households experiencing poverty spend an average of $1,115 more per car annually than White peers, and Black households not experiencing poverty spend an average of $882 more per car annually than White peers. Impoverished Black households with cars average more than 10 times the annual transportation spending of those without cars. Because the total percent of transportation spending is a function of total annual spending, this often represents thousands of dollars. It is important to note that although households in poverty have a very similar average income regardless of race, Black households that exceed the poverty threshold have a significantly lower average income and lower spending than their White counterparts. When considering only the households in the highest three income deciles with minimum household incomes of around $90,000, Black households still allocate nearly 4% more of their total annual spending to transportation, and 74% are burdened compared with 58% of high-income White households.

Table 1.

Household Differences in Transportation Burden by Race and Vehicle Ownership

	HH	Income $	Spending $	Transport $	% Cars	# Cars	# HH	# Children	Transport %	Burdened %
Black	3610	53,591	37,278	7,737	75	1.27	2.49	0.82	18.7	58.8
No car	886	25,500	20,302	893	0	0.00	2.07	0.66	4.0	6.1
Poverty, limited wealth	564	13,282	16,870	659	0	0.00	2.16	0.83	3.6	6.0
Exceeds poverty threshold	322	46,900	26,314	1,302	0	0.00	1.90	0.37	4.9	6.2
Car	2724	62,729	42,799	9,964	75	1.68	2.63	0.87	23.5	76.0
Poverty, limited wealth	618	19,541	28,074	6,554	52	1.30	2.98	1.37	23.5	72.3
Exceeds poverty threshold	2106	75,402	47,120	10,964	87	1.80	2.53	0.72	23.4	77.1
White	5104	97,433	54,114	10,178	92	1.86	2.60	0.74	18.2	55.5
No car	409	45,268	26,604	894	0	0.00	1.78	0.37	3.5	5.1
Poverty, limited wealth	183	12,279	16,975	632	0	0.00	1.73	0.45	3.8	7.7
Exceeds poverty threshold	226	71,980	34,402	1,106	0	0.00	1.81	0.31	3.3	3.1
Car	4695	101,978	56,510	10,986	92	2.02	2.67	0.78	19.5	59.9
Poverty, limited wealth	477	19,396	27,895	5,757	72	1.41	2.84	1.19	20.3	61.2
Exceeds poverty threshold	4218	111,317	59,746	11,578	95	2.09	2.65	0.73	19.4	59.8
Grand total	8714	79,271	47,139	9,167	85	1.62	2.55	0.78	18.4	56.9

Note: HH = households.

Insurance and Gasoline

Insurance and gasoline are primary spending categories for many Black and White households (Table 2). Of the Black households that spend the most on these categories, far more are burdened than White households, 56% and 61%, respectively. Insurance payments are higher in Black households, which spend an average of $2,545 compared with $1,880 in White two-member households with no children. When isolated, Black two-member, vehicle-owning households with no children paid more across all age categories, although they averaged fewer total vehicles. Black households in which the reference person is between 35 and 44 had the smallest difference in number of vehicles owned, yet averaged $725 more on insurance spending and averaged 9% more of their transportation spending allocated to this category. Notably, the amount of insurance spending varies across households because of the influence of driving records, but the consistency of higher spending might support other evidence of disparate ticketing outcomes for Black drivers or spatial discrimination by insurance companies.

Table 2.

Primary Spending Category by Race

Highest	Black			White			Difference
Highest	HH	Rank	% Burdened	HH	Rank	% Burdened	% Burdened
Insure	677	1	56.1	874	3	27.2	28.9
Gas	584	2	61.0	1,093	1	40.3	20.7
Other Vehicle	514	3	94.4	781	4	80.9	13.4
Loan	461	4	94.8	876	2	85.6	9.2
Transit	317	5	9.8	127	8	13.4	−3.6
Lease	216	6	93.5	271	7	68.6	24.9
Taxi	150	7	18.0	76	9	9.2	8.8
Down	139	8	92.1	460	5	91.5	0.6
Repair	102	9	62.7	272	6	44.9	17.9
Other	102	10	11.8	61	10	23.0	−11.2
Parking	4	11	50.0	22	11	31.8	18.2

Note: HH = households.

Households that did not report any transportation spending and are excluded from this table.

Although in White households gasoline/fuel is likely to be their highest transportation spending category, they are generally less burdened by it than Black households. Black households with vehicles spend on average more on gasoline across income categories, although spending is relatively similar. Black households that own a vehicle and are in poverty average $185 more spending annually on gasoline than White households in the same category. Although this is a relatively small difference, Black households average fewer cars. There is some likelihood that the types of vehicles used by households may have an impact on this spending. As a protected variable, car make/model is not available in public-facing data, but market research has suggested that Black households are more likely to purchase a previously owned car with associated higher fuel costs for reasons of affordability (14, 42).

Vehicle Purchasing, Leasing, and Loans

Payments related to vehicle purchasing are burdensome for Black households. When loan payments are the primary purchasing category for Black households, 95% are burdened compared with 86% of White households. Other vehicle purchasing or lease expenses that do not fall within the downpayment/loan structure are similarly burdensome, and 94% of Black households are burdened compared with 81% of White households. Other vehicle purchasing or lease expenses might include purchasing of vehicles outright or some other less common payment plan. Vehicle loan discrimination may contribute to higher loan rates or loan rejection, leading to outright vehicle purchase by necessity or the purchasing of lower-quality alternatives (43, 44). Leasing is also much more burdensome for Black households, potentially as a function of credit scores ( 43 ). Leasing is often promoted as a way for households to experience newer vehicles without committing to a long-term purchase but may be used by lower-income households that do not have the capital for a downpayment or outright purchase. This may further compound disparate impacts on households because the leased vehicle cannot be resold and does not allow for the building of equity, and it remains a very high monthly expense. More detailed data on the make, model, and year of owned vehicles are not publicly available, but variations in the prevalence of vehicle type might have an impact on these trends. Vehicle preference by consumer category falls into the domain of market research reporting, and as such is not widely studied. What research does exist suggests that Black households are more likely to purchase used vehicles than White households, and these are typically associated with lower insurance payments and higher fuel costs as a result of efficiency improvements in newer models ( 42 ). Regardless, there are established discriminatory practices and patterns present in vehicle financing and use, and these should be further studied, monitored, and mitigated.

Transit

Households that spend the most on transit are unlikely to dedicate a large portion of their transportation spending to any other category. Households in either race category are less likely to be burdened by transit than any other dominant spending category, with 10% of Black households that are majority transit spenders experiencing transportation burden, compared with 13% of White households, a total of 51 households in the full dataset of all races. This is meaningful, because more than half of transit majority spenders meet our poverty definitions. Transit spending does very occasionally lead to transportation burden, but is dwarfed by vehicle spending, both in the number of households that may struggle to afford these costs and the amount they spend. Black households that are majority transit spenders average $631 on transit spending per household member annually, whereas White households average $908. For most of these households, this is the entirety of their annual transportation spending. Households that are not majority transit spenders average $4,304 on total transportation spending per family member annually. Many local transit agencies have implemented or considered a fare-free transit service in the past few years, signaling a willingness by local jurisdictions to recognize transportation burden as a problem for system users (45 –48). Although these programs may be beneficial to low-income transit users, they should be complimented by policy addressing the larger cohort of vehicle-owning households that are burdened by transportation costs. A relatively small number of households in our analysis are specifically burdened by transit costs compared with a majority of vehicle owners who exceed the affordability threshold. We should consider the improvement of transit frequency, coverage, and reliability to be necessary transportation affordability policy along with free or subsidized fares for low-income transit system users, because transit system improvements can reduce vehicle ownership and use ( 49 ).

Haughton’s Intragenerational Equity

“Seeking to address the underlying causes of social injustice, not simply dealing with redistributive measures” (19).

Recent strategies to reduce transportation burden are varied. Some operate within the confines of automobility as it exists today, for example, subsidized vehicle ownership programs, which have shown some success in improving workforce participation but are not scalable. They target low-income households and are unlikely to be expanded to support middle- or high-income families that also experience transportation burden, more of whom are Black. Similarly, fare-free transit promotes affordability for passengers on the lowest incomes, while attempting to entice back lost ridership after the COVID-19 hiatus. Such strategies are useful because they can be implemented fairly quickly; however, they do not support a shift away from vehicle primacy and the racial inequities of vehicle ownership. Fare-free transit when not paired with service improvement, has not been proven to lead to a reduction in vehicle ownership, as is the case in one ongoing example in the Estonian city of Tallin (49, 50). Most importantly, both subsidized vehicle ownership and fare-free transit are expensive, politically charged programs that must be perpetually maintained for recipients to receive benefits.

A more comprehensive transportation-land use change is required to meet Haughton’s definition of a sustainable city exhibiting intragenerational equity ( 19 ). Location affordability, which suggests that transportation costs are tempered by increased access by proximity through residential/activity collocation and diverse transportation options, is a conceptual foundation of the paradigm shift from car-oriented access by mobility or speed ( 29 ). Critics of location affordability take issue with its omission of the social determinates of vehicle ownership, such as increased income or having children, but regardless of this, the baseline ability of a place to support car-free households is important ( 51 ). A study of car-free families with children shows that this situation relies heavily on access by proximity through mixed-use zoning, and diverse transportation modes, such as walking, cycling, transit, and car share programs ( 52 ). Because these strategies are already used by households without vehicles, creating places where they are more widely available might encourage a reduction in vehicle use where possible. To amplify this point, in our previous work we found that New York State has a very high prevalence of choice riders, namely, households that could afford to own a vehicle, but do not, suggesting that density and transportation diversity can divert households from vehicle ownership when it is more easily achieved ( 15 ).

Upstream racial discrimination may have an impact on transport costs, for example, housing discrimination that pushes households further away from amenities, thereby increasing fuel spending, or unequal policing that may lead to higher insurance rates. Upstream transportation spending effects are an area for which more research is needed. In addition, more localized data on household transportation spending and rates of vehicle ownership would provide researchers and practitioners with a better foundation for promoting future sustainable development.

To put it simply, vehicle ownership or access to a vehicle is extremely expensive. It should be the primary issue of concern with regard to addressing transportation affordability, and it is often associated with disparate outcomes for Black households, which face higher rates of burden than White households across income categories. More strict regulation of leasing, lending, and insurance markets to protect against existing, identified racial discrimination is part of a suite of consumer protections necessary to promote equitable vehicle affordability, but to also foster what Haughton deems “deep green” solutions to transportation spending, households need to be able to easily opt out of vehicle ownership entirely without being disadvantaged. We found there is minimal disparity in spending between Black and White households that do not own a vehicle, and the activity-dense, transportation-diverse places where vehicle ownership is less common are beneficial to both the promotion of transportation equity and development of sustainable places.

Conclusions

The disparate transportation burden between Black and White households that own vehicles is greater than previously understood. In some ways, transportation spending is quite complicated, but from one key perspective it is very simple: owning a vehicle is expensive, and those with systemically depressed incomes are more likely to be burdened by the cost. A majority of households in the U.S.A. experience transportation burden, but this is not an evenly distributed problem. Average transportation spending in the U.S.A. has not been differentiated regularly enough to clarify the distinct spending experiences of households with and without cars.

Black households are much more likely not to own vehicles; thus, total averages of transportation spending in Black households have been routinely misrepresented. When we adjusted for this disparity, 76% of Black households that own cars are burdened by transportation costs compared with 60% of White households. Black households with cars average 4% more on annual transportation spending than White households across income categories. All households without cars are similarly unburdened and the difference in spending between races is relatively small. Vehicle ownership is a driver of disparate transportation spending by Black households, and other transportation options must be made available to these households if parity is to be achieved.

Disparities are embedded in almost every element of vehicle ownership. More than 90% of Black households are burdened in a situation in which their largest spending categories are recurring access charges, such as leasing (94%) and loans (95%), compared with 69% and 86%, respectively, of White households. Black two-member households with no children average $2,545 insurance spending annually, compared with an average of $1,880 in White households. Higher average insurance costs in Black households are present across a variety of ages and family structures, even though these households maintain a consistently lower number of vehicles on average, spend less overall on transportation, and have lower incomes. There is some evidence in supporting literature that these higher costs are related to historic and contemporary racism, such as residential segregation, discrimination in ticketing, or loan dispersal. This pattern is not present in households that do not have vehicles. Households without vehicles allocate less than 5% of their total spending to transportation, a relatively static level of spending across race and income categories. These households may suffer from a lack of access in geographies characterized by sprawl, but transportation burden is a less prevalent and disparate problem.

Vehicle ownership is treated as a panacea for issues of mobility, but this is a solution that creates additional external and direct inequities that are particularly harmful to Black households. With regard to social, environmental, and economic factors, automobility as a construct is too damaging to vulnerable populations to be the framework under which sustainable, equitable places can be achieved. There are people who live without vehicles, and they benefit from the provision of diverse transportation options and spatial proximity to activities. To reduce the racial disparity in transportation affordability between Black and White households with vehicles, the best solution would be to focus on creating places where vehicle use is not necessary for meeting daily travel needs, and to ensure the establishment of legal protections that guard against displacement of Black households from these places.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: Q. Molloy, N. Garrick, C. Atkinson-Palombo; data collection: Q. Molloy; analysis and interpretation of results: Q. Molloy, N. Garrick, C. Atkinson-Palombo; draft manuscript preparation: Q. Molloy, C. Atkinson-Palombo, N. Garrick. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Quinn Molloy

Carol Atkinson-Palombo

References

Sheller

Urry

The City and the Car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2000, pp. 737–757.

Sacchi

Bauer

Cox

Mutel

When, Where and How Can the Electrification of Passenger Cars Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 162, 2022, article 112475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112475.

Klein

N. J.

Subsidizing Car Ownership for Low-Income Individuals and Households. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 2020, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X20950428.

Jeffries

Puls

H. T.

Hall

Bettenhausen

J. L.

Markham

J. L.

Synhorst

D. C.

Dowd

M. D.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Pediatric Unintentional Injuries Requiring Hospitalization. Journal of Hospital Medicine, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2022, pp. 19–27.

Raifman

M. A.

Choma

E. F.

Disparities in Activity and Traffic Fatalities by Race/Ethnicity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 63, No. 2, 2022, pp. 160–167.

Tessum

C. W.

Paolella

D. A.

Chambliss

S. E.

Apte

J. S.

Hill

J. D.

Marshall

J. D.

PM2.5 Polluters Disproportionately and Systemically Affect People of Color in the United States. Science Advances, Vol. 7, No. 18, 2021, article eabf4491. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf4491.

Dunn

R. A.

Measuring Racial Disparities in Traffic Ticketing within Large Urban Jurisdictions. Public Performance and Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2009, pp. 537–561.

Stelter

Essien

Sander

Degner

Racial Bias in Police Traffic Stops: White Residents’ County-Level Prejudice and Stereotypes Are Related to Disproportionate Stopping of Black Drivers. Psychological Science, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2022, pp. 483–496.

Pierson

Simoiu

Overgoor

Corbett-Davies

Jenson

Shoemaker

Ramachandran

, et al. A Large-Scale Analysis of Racial Disparities in Police Stops across the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 4, No. 7, 2020, pp. 736–745.

10.

PolicyLink. National Equity Atlas. USC Equity Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, 2023.

11.

Sewell

Horsford

C. E.

Coleman

Watkins

C. S.

Vile Vigilance: An Integrated Theoretical Framework for Understanding the State of Black Surveillance. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, Vol. 26, No. 3–4, 2016, pp. 287–302.

12.

Ong

P. M.

Stoll

M. A.

Redlining or Risk? A Spatial Analysis of Auto Insurance Rates in Los Angeles. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2007, pp. 811–830.

13.

Larson

Angwin

Kirchner

Mattu

How We Examined Racial Discrimination in Auto Insurance Prices. ProPublica, 2017. https://www.propublica.org/article/minority-neighborhoods-higher-car-insurance-premiums-methodology. Accessed February 9, 2024.

14.

BLS. Consumer Expenditures Report 2019: BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/consumer-expenditures/2019/home.htm#BLStable_2020_12_18_13_36_footnotes. Accessed August 1, 2021.

15.

Molloy

Garrick

Atkinson-Palombo

Atkinson-Palombo. A New Approach to Understanding the Impact of Automobile Ownership on Transportation Equity. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2023. 2678: 366–376.

16.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed.). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva.

17.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed.). Technical Summary. Climate Change 2022 – Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2023.

18.

EPA. Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed April 26, 2021.

19.

Haughton

Environmental Justice and the Sustainable City. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1999, pp. 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9901800305.

20.

Zheng

Atkinson-Palombo

McCahill

O’Hara

Garrick

N. W.

Quantifying the Economic Domain of Transportation Sustainability. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2011. 2242: 19–28.

21.

Kraus

Proff

Sustainable Urban Transportation Criteria and Measurement—A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 13, 2021, p. 7113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137113.

22.

Woodley

Rossetti

Nunes

Targeted Electric Vehicle Procurement Incentives Facilitate Efficient Abatement Cost Outcomes. Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 96, 2023, article 104627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104627.

23.

Agyeman

Bullard

R. D.

Evans

Exploring the Nexus: Bringing Together Sustainability, Environmental Justice and Equity. Space and Polity, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2002, pp. 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562570220137907.

24.

US DOT. Planning Topics – Transportation Equity. US DOT, Washington, D.C., 2022.

25.

Bullard

Addressing Urban Transportation Equity in the United States. Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2003, pp. 1183–1209.

26.

Karner

London

Rowangould

Manaugh

From Transportation Equity to Transportation Justice: Within, through, and beyond the State. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2020, pp. 440–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220927691.

27.

US DOT. Justice40 Initiative. https://www.transportation.gov/equity-Justice40. Accessed July 25, 2023.

28.

US DOT. Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Grant Program. https://www.transportation.gov/grants/rcnprogram. Accessed July 25, 2023.

29.

Litman

Evaluating Transportation Equity: Guidance for Incorporating Distributional Impacts in Transportation Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, BC, 2022.

30.

Bureau of Statistics of Labor, Massachusetts. Annual Report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor, Embracing the Accounts of Its Operations and Inquiries From …, 35 Volumes, 1872. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012508034.

31.

Lai

W.-T.

Chen

C.-F.

Behavioral Intentions of Public Transit Passengers—The Roles of Service Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Involvement. Transport Policy, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2011, pp. 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.09.003.

32.

Taylor

B. D.

Morris

E. A.

Public Transportation Objectives and Rider Demographics: Are Transit’s Priorities Poor Public Policy?

Transportation, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2015, pp. 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9547-0.

33.

Zhao

Webb

Shah

Customer Loyalty Differences between Captive and Choice Transit Riders. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2014. 2415: 80–88.

34.

Curl

Clark

Kearns

Household Car Adoption and Financial Distress in Deprived Urban Communities: A Case of Forced Car Ownership?

Transport Policy, Vol. 65, 2018, pp. 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.01.002.

35.

Currie

Delbosc

Pavkova

Alarming Trends in the Growth of Forced Car Ownership in Melbourne. Proc., Australian Transport Research Forum 2018, Darwin, Australia, 2018.

36.

Mattioli

“Forced Car Ownership” in the UK and Germany: Socio-Spatial Patterns and Potential Economic Stress Impacts. Social Inclusion, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2017, pp. 147–160.

37.

Kain

J. F.

The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: Three Decades Later. Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1992, pp. 371–460.

38.

Blumenberg

Manville

Beyond the Spatial Mismatch: Welfare Recipients and Transportation Policy. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004, pp. 182–205.

39.

Klein

N. J.

Smart

M. J.

Car Today, Gone Tomorrow: The Ephemeral Car in Low-Income, Immigrant and Minority Families. Transportation, Vol. 44, 2017, pp. 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9664-4.

40.

Institute for Social Research. PSID Main Interview User Manual: Release 2021. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 2021.

41.

Mattioli

Lucas

Marsden

Transport Poverty and Fuel Poverty in the UK: From Analogy to Comparison. Transport Policy, Vol. 59, 2017, pp. 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.07.007.

42.

Aboagye

Abrams

Stewart

III Zegeye

Rules of the Road: Equitably Serving Black Automotive Consumers. McKinsey Institute for Black Economic Mobility, New York City, NY, 2022.

43.

Charron-Chénier

Fink

J. J.

Keister

L. A.

Race and Consumption: Black and White Disparities in Household Spending. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2017, pp. 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649216647748.

44.

Butler

A. W.

Mayer

E. J.

Weston

Racial Discrimination in the Auto Loan Market. SSRN, 2020. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3301009.

45.

Pallack

Tucson’s Public Transit System Is Now Officially Free to Ride. AZ Luminaria, May 2023. https://azluminaria.org/2023/05/09/tucsons-public-transit-system-is-now-officially-free-to-ride-a-first-in-arizona/. Accessed February 9, 2024.

46.

WRAL. GoRaleigh Riders Can Take Buses for Free through June 2024. WRAL News, June 2023. https://www.wral.com/story/goraleigh-riders-can-take-buses-for-free-through-june-2024/20908382/#:~:text=The%20Raleigh%20City%20Council%20voted,fares%20through%20June%2030%2C%202024.&text=GoRaleigh%20riders%20won't%20have,fares%20through%20June%2030%2C%202024. Accessed February 9, 2024.

47.

Whitlatch

Iowa City’s Transit Goes Fare-Free: A Step towards a Sustainable Future. KGAN, August 2023. https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/iowa-citys-transit-goes-fare-free-a-step-towards-a-sustainable-future. Accessed February 10, 2024.

48.

Andersson

Björklund

Wallén

Lättman

Warner, K.

Adell

The Complexity of Changes in Modal Choice: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 96, 2023, pp. 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.05.015.

49.

Walker

Orozco

Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives. Island Press, Washington, 2012.

50.

Limb

Tallinn: Cars Were a Status Symbol after the Soviets. Now Bike, Bus and Tram Are Overtaking. Euronews, 2023. https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/10/04/tallinn-cars-were-a-status-symbol-after-the-soviets-now-bike-bus-and-tram-are-overtaking#:~:text=Now%20bike%2C%20bus%20and%20tram%20are%20overtaking,-From%20Soviet%20lines&text=10%20years%20after%20it%20made,not%20come%20out%20of%20nowhere. Accessed February 9, 2024.

51.

Smart

M. J.

Klein

N. J.

Complicating the Story of Location Affordability. Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2018, pp. 393–410.

52.

Lagrell

Thulin

Vilhelmson

Accessibility Strategies beyond the Private Car: A Study of Voluntarily Carless Families with Young Children in Gothenburg. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 72, 2018, pp. 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.09.002.