Transport Policy 30 (2013) 336344

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

Why do immigrants drive less? Conrmations, complications, and new

hypotheses from a qualitative study in New Jersey, USA
Daniel G. Chatman a,n, Nicholas J. Klein b
a
b

Department of City and Regional Planning, College of Environmental Design University of California, 410A Wurster Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1850, USA
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 33 Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Available online 12 November 2013

Recent immigrants to the United States drive autos less than the US-born, with rapid increases in their
ownership and use of autos over time, and a persistently lower level of auto use even when controlling
for socioeconomic characteristics and time in the US. Quantitative studies have not yet explained these
phenomena. Given that population growth in the US is largely dependent on immigration, understanding
auto ownership and use among immigrants is important for transportation sustainability.
We conducted six focus groups with US residents born in India, the Philippines, and Latin America.
Our ndings conrm, complicate and contradict the existing literature explaining differences in auto use
among immigrants and the US-born, and we identify some new hypotheses with implications for policyrelevant research. More difcult driving conditions in the US and remittances back home may contribute
to the initially lower auto ownership and use among immigrants. The rapid transition to auto use may be
a function of household changes having more dramatic effects among immigrants given their initially
high-density residential locations. The growth of non-English speaking transit riders, an increase in
private transit services, and different residential location priorities may all contribute to the persistently
lower auto use by immigrants even after many years in the US.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Immigration
Travel behavior
Sustainability
Residential choice
Public transit

1. Introduction
Immigrants account for a substantial share of all transit ridership, walking and carpooling in the United States and are much
less likely than the US-born population to own and drive personal
automobiles. Immigrants commute by transit at more than twice
the rate of US-born persons when they arrive, and they continue to
use transit at higher rates for up to 15 years (Blumenberg and
Shiki, 2007). When they arrive in the US, immigrants are one and a
half to two times as likely as US-born persons to carpool to work,
and remain more likely to carpool to work even after living in the
US for 15 years (Blumenberg and Smart, 2010). A similar pattern is
found in the case of cycling (Smart, 2010). While those who have
been in the country longer than 20 years use autos only slightly
less than the US-born population, studies typically still nd a small
persistent difference (Blumenberg, 2009; Blumenberg and Shiki,
2007; Chatman, in press; Chatman and Klein, 2009; Myers, 1997;
Purvis, 2003; Rosenbloom, 1998; Smart, 2010; Tal and Handy,
2010). But travel behavior among immigrants is far from uniform.
For example, immigrants from Latin America use autos at lower

Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 510 642 2454.

E-mail addresses: dgc@berkeley.edu (D.G. Chatman),
nick.klein@rutgers.edu (N.J. Klein).
n

0967-070X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.10.002

rates than US-born residents, and these differences can only be

partly explained by demographics, built environment characteristics (at home and at work) and residential preferences. But
after controlling for these same factors, the auto use of US-born
residents and immigrants from India are about the same
(Chatman, in press).
Previous research has identied a number of hypotheses to
explain lower auto use among immigrants, their transition to
greater reliance on autos, and the persistence of an immigrant
effect even after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics and
time in the US. Immigrants may have little experience driving in
their home countries, may arrive with a culture of transit ridership, or may have used alternative modes extensively in their
home countries, and changes in culture or habit may explain
changes in travel as immigrants stay longer in the US (e.g.,
Blumenberg, 2009; Blumenberg and Shiki, 2008; Blumenberg
and Smart, 2010, 2011; Tal and Handy, 2010). Immigrants often
initially settle in neighborhoods with a high concentration of other
immigrants from the same region of origin, which may enable
carpooling (Blumenberg and Smart, 2009, 2010; Cline et al., 2009),
with later moves to suburban neighborhoods making driving
alone the easiest option (Blumenberg and Shiki, 2007). Such
residential choices could be inuenced by a decreasing supply of
affordable housing in some cities (Thomas, 2010), or changes in
how immigrants choose neighborhoods as they become more

D.G. Chatman, N.J. Klein / Transport Policy 30 (2013) 336344

settled in the US, focusing on additional factors like school quality

and not prioritizing proximity to work so much (Parks, 2005).
The contexts of reception (Portes and Rumbaut, 2006) that
immigrants experience could also shape travel patterns and
residential locations: driving is an illegal or fearful proposition
for undocumented residents (Garni and Miller, 2008), and there is
discrimination against immigrants in the market for auto loans
(Cohen, 2006) and credit (Blumenberg and Smart, 2011).
Many of these hypotheses to explain the pattern of auto use
among immigrants are essentially speculative because they are
post-hoc explanations of quantitative patternsthey have not been
corroborated via qualitative research. Quantitative analyses can
provide only a limited understanding of what motivates decision
making. There has been some related qualitative research using
focus groups, but this has primarily addressed the personal travel
challenges that immigrants face. For example, an article using
focus groups with Latino immigrants in Georgia suggested that
relying on carpooling with coworkers limited immigrants' ability
to nd better housing in other neighborhoods and made it difcult
to travel for non-work purposes (Bohon et al., 2008). Research
drawn from focus groups with Latino immigrants in California,
many living in agricultural areas, highlighted the need to use cars
for a variety of trips and the challenges of owning and borrowing
cars (Lovejoy and Handy, 2008, 2011).
This paper is based on focus groups conducted with immigrants born in the Philippines, Latin America and India, three
regions that together account for more than half of all immigrants
who had arrived in the previous 5 years living in New Jersey,
according to the ACS 20062008 3-year sample (Ruggles et al.,
2010), as well as the top three sending regions for naturalizations
in the US between 2008 and 2011 (United States. Department of
Homeland Security, 2012a, b). By recruiting participants from
three areas of origin, our study differs from previous qualitative
studies of these topics, which have focused on Latin American
immigrants. While a slight majority of immigrants living in the US
were born in Latin America, the countries of origin for all US
immigrants are quite diverse (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d., 2010).
Whether this diverse immigration pattern will continue depends
on workforce openings, economic trends in the US and elsewhere
in the world, and immigration policy. New Jersey provides a useful
context to conduct research on this topic because it has a large
number and great diversity of recent and established immigrants,
with 21% of its population born abroad, third highest among US
states (Camarota, 2012), as well a wide range of accessibility and
built environments, and a high rate of alternative mode use
compared to the rest of the US.

2. Data collection
We conducted six focus groups, two each with participants
born in the Philippines, India, and Latin America, each including
812 participants and lasting about 2 h. We secured the cooperation of immigrant support services groups to recruit participants
and to host the groups. Each focus group participant was paid an
incentive of $75 and we also provided funds to defray expenses for
each of the host organizations. While focus groups are not
representative in a statistical sense, we sought participants with
a range of experiences and backgrounds. In addition to immigrant
status, the primary criteria for inclusion in a focus group were
having signicant out-of-home responsibilities and being between
the ages of 20 and 64. We varied the groups geographically and by
professional background, and within each group we sought a
roughly equal share of habitual transit users and drivers as well
as variance in the time participants had lived in the US.

337

Fig. 1. Map of focus group locations.

We conducted the focus groups from July through October,

2009 in different parts of the state (see Fig. 1). We moderated the
Philippine- and Indian-born groups in English, and the LatinAmerican-born groups in Spanish.1 The rst author moderated
or co-moderated all of the groups; the second author attended all
of the English-speaking groups. The lead moderator for the
Spanish-speaking groups was Lou Kimmel of New Labor, a community based organization serving immigrant workers in New
Brunswick.
We asked the focus group participants to describe their travel
patterns currently and when they rst arrived; to discuss the
reasons for their changes in travel habits over time; and to explain
how they decided where to live, both when they rst arrived in
the US and in subsequent moves. We used a topic guide as an
outline script (see Appendix:A), from which we diverged frequently to follow the natural course of conversation. In order to
allow for and elicit free-owing conversation on topics and issues
that we did not anticipate, we used open-ended questions and
statements as much as possible (Marshall and Rossman, 2010).
We also administered a short pre-focus group questionnaire
that provides a basic socioeconomic and travel prole of the study
participants (Table 1). More than 80% of participants reported
using transit at least once per month, and 56% commuted by
transit. Participants had a higher average educational attainment
but lower average household incomes than the state averages

1
This decision was based on the English prociency of these groups in recent
Census data, as well as the advice of our partner organizations. According to the
2009 American Community Survey, 97% of Philippines-born and 90% of Indian-born
New Jersey residents speak English well, very well, or exclusively, while only 67% of
New Jersey residents born in Latin American countries speak English at the
same level.

338

D.G. Chatman, N.J. Klein / Transport Policy 30 (2013) 336344

Table 1
Summary statistics on focus group participants.

Participants
Gender
Male
Female
Age (mean)
Years in the US (mean)
English as the primary
Language
Household income
Less than $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
Greater than $100,000
Educational attainment
High school degree or less
College grad or some
college
Graduate study or degree
Commute by transit
Rode transit during past
month

Philippinesborn

Indianborn

Born in Latin
America

21

17

17

7
14
52
21.6
60%

11
6
41.7
8.8
33%

7
10
36.1
6.9
0%

42%
19%
39%

56%
6%
38%

94%
6%
0%

5%
75%

6%
42%

53%
47%

20%
62%
80%

53%
80%
94%

0%
37%
88%

Table 2
Focus group reference codes, locations and dates.
Reference Code

Area of Origin

Location

Language

Date

P1
P2
I1
I2
S1
S2

Philippines
Philippines
India
India
Mexico
South America

Jersey City
Paramus
Jersey City
Princeton
New Brunswick
Hackensack

English
English
English
English
Spanish
Spanish

July 2009
October 2009
August 2009
October 2009
October 2009
October 2009

based on the 20062008 American Community Survey data for

New Jersey.
While focus groups cannot be expected to yield generalizable
information, they are useful in suggesting hypotheses, and to
inform existing hypotheses involving meaning and rationale that
cannot be directly conrmed with quantitative data (Coffey and
Atkinson, 1996). We did not include US-born participants, and we
selected participants who use transit at rates higher than the
immigrant population as a whole. Most participants had ties to
community groups we used for recruiting, and may therefore be
different than other immigrants. We recruited immigrants working outside of the home and had very few participants who were
students, retired or unemployed. Table 2

3. Results
The focus groups addressed transportation needs, household
responsibilities, shared-ride travel, changes over time in daily travel,
residential decision-making, job decision-making, and work and
home location choices (see Appendix:A). While moderating, we
provided verbal summaries of the group's experiences or opinions,
and noted heterogeneity among participants in the groups. Our
analysis and interpretation reects this distinction between group
summaries and individual experiences. A transcript and translation
(as needed) were prepared for each focus group. We analyzed the
transcripts using an iterative process that employed inductive and
deductive codes, using qualitative analysis software to tag and index
blocks of texts addressing particular themes, concepts and ideas (e.g.,
Gaber and Gaber, 2007, Ch. 5). First, we identied portions of the
transcript that related to the broad categories used in the topic guide:

initial residential location or changes in residential location, initial

travel patterns or changes in travel, common transportation problems,
and unconventional travel modes. Second, we coded the transcripts
inductively and iteratively to explore nuances in each of the broad
categories. Finally, we analyzed the coded transcripts for interpretation, often returning to re-code for emerging themes. Rather than
describing or counting the instances of coded phenomena, or
attempting to draw generalizations to the larger population using
such quantitative metrics, we used the transcripts and codes to
describe participants' experiences, and develop theories drawn from
them (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Finally, while we do quote individual
participants, we note that each focus group can be thought of as a
single observation, as each group had its own dynamic. Some
participants spoke more than others, and while we tried to steer
the group in a way that suggested a consensus about the topics being
completely covered in all of their nuances, the group dynamic
inevitably means the views and experiences of some participants
were not fully represented (Morgan, 1997).
We focus on three phenomena noted in previous literature:
lower initial auto use, increases in auto use over time, and the
persistent difference in auto use even when controlling for socioeconomic characteristics and duration of stay in the US. Our
discussion of the focus group results is organized around these
three themes. In each section we discuss results that tend to
conrm existing explanations in the literature, others that complicate or contest them, and present hypotheses that have not
been previously discussed in the literature, to our knowledge. New
hypotheses are set off with sub-headings below.
3.1. Initially lower auto use
Why do immigrants rely on autos so much less than the US-born
population? Much of what we heard from the focus group participants reected explanations found in previous literature. For example,
participants in the Philippines- and Latin American-born focus groups
discussed how undocumented immigrants face limited employment
and travel options, often relying on paid alternatives for travel (transit,
paid carpooling, employer provided vans, and private for-hire vehicles) or non-motorized modes. As others have found (Garni and
Miller, 2008), undocumented participants expressed a desire to own a
car to get to work, but feared being detained by police. Our
participants also described sharing rides with co-workers to get to
work, sometimes with a payment that might be meant to cover costs
or as a way to earn extra income (Bohon et al., 2008; Lovejoy and
Handy, 2008; Mahler, 1995). The use of transit was reported as an
inconvenient necessity by many of our participants, while at the same
time transit access was cited by many as a factor in deciding where
to live.
On the question of why immigrants initially drive less, the focus
groups also provided complications to existing research. One example
has to do with arranging carpools for commute trips. Previous
research has focused on the role that social networks embedded in
residential ethnic enclaves play in both work and non-work travel
(Blumenberg and Smart, 2010, forthcoming). In more than a halfdozen spontaneously offered descriptions of carpool formation,
participants in our focus groups reported that they formed carpools
with people they worked with. They never discussed forming
commuting carpools by seeking out people who lived near them or
with them. These two theories of carpool formation are not necessarily in conict, since workers living in the same neighborhood also
enable commuting carpools. Nevertheless, this implies the importance of employment niches in fostering carpools, rather than
residential enclaves, which has been the primary focus of the
literature.
Previous research has also suggested that immigrants' initially
lower auto use may be due to a habit or culture of transit ridership,

D.G. Chatman, N.J. Klein / Transport Policy 30 (2013) 336344

walking and cycling that immigrants bring from their home

countries. Some of our participants relied heavily on alternative
modes in their home countries and continued to do so when they
rst arrived in the US. Many of these participants complained
bitterly about the relatively low frequency and the unreliability of
transit in the US, which they felt particularly keenly because they
were unaccustomed to cold and inclement weather in the US. But
we also repeatedly heard the opposite story. A number of our
participants habitually drove in their countries and became
habitual transit users only after arriving in the US. The explanations for this had little to do with culture and more to do with
documentation status, licensing restrictions, economic circumstances, and the spatial context and options on rst arrival. For
example, several members of one focus group had habitually
driven in Mexico, but were not able to do so in the US largely
due to their inability to get a legal license. Several participants in
one Indian-born focus group, comprised largely of professionals
and business people, said they were habitual drivers in their home
country, but used transit habitually on arrival in the US because of
the location of their jobs or because of initial difculty in getting a
driver's license.
Finally, we also heard two reasons for initially lower auto use
that are not found in previous literature. These are discussed
under separate headings below.
Hypothesis 1. Difcult driving conditions reduce initial auto
ownership and use.
Trafc congestion, parking difculties, and inclement weather
in many places where immigrants settle in the US may make the
transition to driving difcult. Participants in the Indian-born focus
group held in Jersey City said that what generally stopped them
from getting a car or driving was difcult street parking. Participants in the Indian and Filipino focus groups agreed on the
difculty of driving in intense trafc or of having to drive on a
different side of the road than in the home country. For example,
one participant in the second Filipino group who worked in New
York City said, It was real difcult to drive in New York City;
it's true so that was a factor for me. I didn't drive for more than six
months and then I started driving. Another participant from India
said, I used to drive in India but in India most of the cars are
right-hand driving. Here it is left-hand driving. That gives you a
little bit of shocking or kind of paranoid.
Hypothesis 2. Remittances delay auto ownership.
Some immigrants forgo the expense of auto ownership for
some time after arriving in order to send money to relatives in the
place of origin. Quantitative analysis of immigrant travel typically
does not include data on such expenses. Several of our participants
reported that sending remittances to relatives back home reduced
the speed of auto acquisition, as in the following exchange:
PARTICIPANT 1: [A] car is very necessary, but it takes years for
us to purchase the car. Filipinos are some are stingy. [group
laughter] PARTICIPANT 2: They don't want to spend money.
[laughter] PARTICIPANT 3: We have to save the money to buy a
car. PARTICIPANT 2: Save money. To send it back to the
Philippines. MODERATOR: So, you have obligations to your
relatives in the Philippines. GROUP: Yes. Yeah. PARTICIPANT 1:
Priority. MODERATOR: And that's your rst priority. PARTICIPANT 1: Yes. MODERATOR: So, buying a car is kind of down low
on the list. PARTICIPANT 4: It's only a luxury [P1].
3.2. Increasing auto use over time
As a group, immigrants rapidly increase their use of autos over
time, but there is little longitudinal data available to investigate

339

this directly. Our focus groups enabled a factual discussion of

changes over time as well as a discussion of reasons and rationales
for decisions. Much of what we heard from our participants
complicates the assumptions in the existing literature about
immigrants transition to owning and using autos.
Almost universally, the reasons given for a shift over time to
auto use were either a change in the location of work or home, or
the need to access childcare before, during, or after work. The
most frequently discussed reason for residential moves was a
change in the place of employment, or a move in order to seek
new employment. This pattern was consistent among all of the
focus groups, and among both those participants who were
habitual auto users, and those who relied on alternative modes.
Participants did not bring up access to shopping or other services
as a reason or factor in movingfor example, in the many things
they mentioned that they liked or disliked about their previous or
current neighborhoods.
In the existing literature, a common explanation for immigrants' transition from alternative modes to driving over time is
that they initially settle in transitaccessible locations and later
move to auto-dependent suburbs. A number of participants in our
focus groups told a different story, particularly those in the Latin
American focus groups. Several participants mentioned that
transportation difculties led to their moving away from initial
locations that required driving to get around, and relocating to
neighborhoods with better alternative mode accessibility. This
pattern often occurred because when they arrived in the US, they
moved in or near relatives or friends from their home regions,
which were not necessarily accessible to well-matched employment opportunities.
Another explanation for the increase in driving is that immigrants purchase and use autos as soon as they acquire the
economic means to do so. While this is undoubtedly the case for
many immigrants, a large share of our focus group participants
who had been in the country for ten years or longer reported that
their travel patterns had changed little since arriving in the US,
in many cases because they had not moved. Although some of
these participants were economically constrained, others reported
that they had chosen to stay in their neighborhoods because of
social networks and amenities, and not because of economic
constraints. This complicates the story that immigrant travel and
residential location is largely about economic exigencies that delay
auto ownership and use. Instead, there could be a substantial
fraction of immigrants whose travel changes are entirely because
of residential relocations. In turn, among our participants those
residential moves occurred in order to obtain employment, higher
quality schooling, or lower crime rates.
Scholars have also suggested that the American ideal of auto
ownership a seeking out of privacy, comfort, convenience, and
status offered by autos is an impetus for purchasing a car and
driving. We did not hear this from anyone in our focus groups;
instead the explanations were uniformly about other factors that
required driving, or an increase in income that led to the purchase
of a car, typically concurrent with a residential relocation that
required (or was enabled by) driving. Several participants said that
they or their immigrant friends learned to drive only after they
moved to neighborhoods or cities without transit service. More
often than not, the reason for a switch to driving appears to have
been the residential move itself, often occasioned by a new job,
rather than the long-delayed purchase of a car making a move
elsewhere possible. In only one focus group did participants offer
a cultural explanation for changes in travel. In the rst Indian-born
group, held at a religious and cultural center, two or three
participants suggested that some Indian immigrants became selfish or individualistic when deciding to move out of Jersey City,
to own autos and to drive. Interestingly, in the same group many

340

D.G. Chatman, N.J. Klein / Transport Policy 30 (2013) 336344

participants said that they themselves would move out of Jersey

City if they could afford it, because of the crime, crowdedness or
noise. Thus even in this focus group, non-cultural explanations
were offered for residential moves resulting in more driving.
Our focus groups also provided context for understanding why
some immigrant groups quickly transition to autos while others do
not. Many of the highly educated and skilled professional immigrants in our focus groups reported rapidly adopting autos, settling
in the suburbs and raising families there. Professionals who were
recruited to work in the US, including many of our Indian- and
Philippines-born participants, reported a greater variety of opportunities when choosing housing, employment and travel. Lowerskilled or undocumented immigrants, including a large share of
those in the Latin American groups, typically reported few changes
over time in their travel habits and residential location.2 These
descriptions of very different travel habits and residential location
choices for high- and low-skilled immigrants are likely related to
the often-discussed economic outcomes for low- and high-skilled
immigrants in the US (Portes and Rumbaut, 2006; Portes and
Zhou, 1993).
Hypothesis 3.. Larger households increase auto use dramatically
for immigrants.
It is already well-established in previous literature that many
immigrants arrive without partners or children in tow, either
because they are single adults or because their families are still
living in the country of origin. There was widespread agreement
among participants in all six focus groups that the arrival of
children into a family often resulted in more auto ownership and
use, either directly, or indirectly because of a move predicated on
meeting children's educational needs. This theme was particularly
salient in the focus groups that had a larger share of participants
who had been living in the US more than a decade. Several focus
group participants with children mentioned that they had purchased or borrowed cars in order to both work and have quick
access back home to children, not only in case of emergency but
also to lower costs of childcare by reducing their travel time. As
one participant noted, I think about having my [own] car in the
near future adding, more than anything I need it for my son
(S2). In addition to purchasing cars, participants also discussed
residential moves because the arrival of children, and stressed
moving over time to specic areas with better public schools for
children. For example, a participant in one focus group said, For
the Indian community, you know we tend to focus on Edison,
North Brunswick, South Brunswick, Princeton [because of the
schools] Once they get married and they have kids, that's when
they start [to move] (I2).
It is not a new observation that changes in the household,
particularly the arrival of children into a family, result in more
complex household activity patterns for which using an auto is
easier (e.g., McGuckin and Murakami, 1999). But the change for
immigrants may be more dramatic simply because the average
starting rate of auto use is so much lower.
3.3. Persistently lower auto use
Our last set of results pertains to the persistently lower use of
autos by immigrants that is still measurable after some time in
2
Although we did not ask our participants about their employment directly,
participants talked about their work during our discussions and, in some cases,
focus group participants were recruited through professional networks. Participants in the second Philippines-born group were primarily healthcare workers; the
second Indian-born focus group consisted primarily of professional class workers,
many of whom worked in Manhattan; and many participants in the rst Latin
American-born focus group were employed by temp agencies in warehouses.

the US for immigrants from some regions of origin, even when

controlling for other factors like household income. Several new
explanations arose in our conversations, as described below.
Hypothesis 4. A critical mass of non-English speaking transit
riders is growing.
According to participants in our focus groups, the growth in the
Latin American immigrant population in many parts of New Jersey
has made using transit easier. A larger group of Spanish-speaking
transit patrons appears to have lowered linguistic barriers to using
transitmaking it easier for newly arrived immigrants to learn
about the transit system, get directions and feel comfortable using
transit. Enabled by this critical mass of Spanish-speaking transit
riders, recent arrivals to the US from Latin American may use
transit more than their earlier arriving counterparts. The presence
of Spanish-speaking passengers may also be contributing to higher
rates of transit use among more established immigrants to the
extent that they are more comfortable using transit. One participant who had lived in the US for many years noted:
I think that for us who came here more than 15 years ago,
everything was different. Now, people who come they
already have friends, they already have siblings, everybody
[is] here You have the option of nding a friend on the
street I want to go shopping at a store. Do you know what
bus I'm going to take? But more than 15, 16, 17 years ago you
couldn't ask anybody, because an American, a Gringo, or a Black
person [would] look at you funny because maybe you didn't
know how to say it correctly. [S1]
This hypothesis also describes why cross-sectional comparisons
of recently arrived and longer-staying immigrants might show a
more dramatic difference in auto use.
Hypothesis 5. Private shared transit modes are becoming more
important.
Throughout northern New Jersey, private companies operate
frequent service along busy corridors, utilizing 2225-seat minibuses, a relatively recent phenomenon of the past decade or two.
There are also many private shared ride options readily available
to immigrants through their networks, ranging from formal taxis,
to informal taxis with a lower cost, to informal shared rides where
payment is exchanged. Participants saw the privately run buses in
particular as a response to the increasing number of immigrants:
There are also more dollar buses now, than 10, 15 years ago
Here in Hackensack [and] in other places where there are more
Hispanics (S2). One participant even referred to these to these
buses as immi-buses because they are operated by and for
immigrants (P1). The increase of private transit operators who
cater to immigrant clienteles in immigrant enclaves may contribute to immigrants' higher rates of transit use compared to USborn persons, even after many years in the US, as reported in
Census data and other surveys that do not distinguish public
transit and privately run intracity buses. In contrast to these
increases in private transit, participants in our focus groups
described public transit service staying the same or even declining.
As one participant who has lived in the US for 18 years put it,
Public transportation hasn't changed at all. The only thing that
changed were the bus route numbers: the #15 to the #18, and the
#515 to #518. [S1]
Hypothesis 6. Different residential priorities lead to lower
auto use.
Immigrants may prioritize different factors from the US-born
when deciding where to live. Both the initially large differences in
auto use, and the persistence of some margin of difference as

D.G. Chatman, N.J. Klein / Transport Policy 30 (2013) 336344

immigrants stay in the US, may be related to these residential

location priorities. Participants in our focus groups noted that
when they rst arrived in the US, their choice of where to live was
largely dominated by a desire to live near their workplace or to
live with family or friends, what one participant called a stepping
stone (P2). As one participant put it,I choose to live in a place
where [work] is close by (P2). Another participant said, Why we
chose to come here to New Jersey? For the most part, immigrants
don't choose to come here, but because relatives who support
them are here. And the work [is here] (S1). As noted above, many
other factors were simply not identied as important in the initial
location decision upon arriving in the US. The reliance on living
near work, and nding housing or work via social networks, could
both contribute to immigrants' initially lower auto use and to
persistently lower auto use even after many years. Living near
work could make traveling via non-motorized modes or transit
easier, and living with relatives and using social networks to nd
jobs could easily contribute to immigrants initially high rates of
carpool use. Our focus group participants also reported that they
continued to prioritize employment in subsequent moves, which
may also partly account for the persistence of differences in travel
behavior over time, despite increasing afuence and knowledge of
different residential options.

4. Conclusions
Increased auto ownership and use among immigrants over
time could be largely caused by increasing income, along with a
cultural assimilation process into the love of auto ownership, the
status that owning an auto may confer, and an adoption of the US
ideal of owning a large suburban residence with a yard. If these
reasons are sufcient to explain the increase over time in auto use
by immigrants, perhaps there is little policy and planning could or
should do to retain the higher alternative mode share of immigrantsbeyond transit agency marketing campaigns, and current
smart growth and transit-oriented development policies, which
may apply just as well to rapidly acculturating immigrants as they
do to the US-born market.
Our focus groups, however, suggest an alternative story to the
idea that immigrants culturally assimilate with respect to auto use
and ownership as they become more afuent. We heard little
evidence of such a process in the groups, even though many
participants lived in suburbs and habitually drove. But it was clear
that immigrants are different from the average US-born resident
initially, if only because of the fact of a long-distance move to a
new country, often to seek work in a big city. Immigrants arrive in
a particular neighborhood in a particular city for material reasons
typically to be near work or near family. Living in those places
means experiencing conditions, such as more difcult driving and
parking, better access via transit and walking, better carpooling
opportunities, and relative proximity to work, that may lead to
habitual alternative mode use. Spatially distributed factors such as
employment, schools, crime, and of course, transit infrastructure
(Glaeser et al., 2008) could be important causes of initially lower
auto use among immigrants regardless of income or previous
travel habits. Those travel habits adopted by immigrants upon rst
arriving in the US may persist among many immigrants, and may
condition where they seek to live in subsequent moves. As other
researchers have shown, past experiences can form habits and
affect future travel decisions (Weinberger and Goetzke, 2010).
The sheer fact of immigration could play a role as well,
selecting a group of people that have different motivations and
priorities than the average US-born person. Many immigrants are
motivated to immigrate to the US because they seek employment,
education, and safety, and they may be less concerned with

341

amenities such as low-density housing or shops and services, at

least initially. When they arrive, many immigrants may be focused
primarily on work or higher education, or upon living with family
or in social networks to get their bearings and get information on
how to make a life in the US.
In agreement with Parks (2005), our ndings suggest that there
are changes over time in the factors that inuence immigrants'
residential location decisions. More specically than that research,
our focus groups suggest that immigrant moves may be largely
due to employment, schools, and access to immigrant enclaves
and social networks, and not to other factors. However, as workplace relocations and changes in families occur, the effective
neighborhood choice set may become small, and other considerations may trump the desire for proximity and alternative mode
accessibility. Changing residential choice processes may inuence
the rapid transition among immigrants from alternative modes to
driving, rather than auto ownership enabling the cultural transition to suburbia.
4.1. Research and policy implications
These results generally reinforce the importance of accounting
for heterogeneity in quantitative research. Cross-sectional comparisons of recent and settled immigrants may miss trends by
making incorrect inferences about change over time based on
cross-sectional differences among individuals. For example, if
recent immigrants to the US are more likely to use transit than
earlier arrivals, then cross-sectional comparisons of recent and
settled immigrants would tend to show larger decreases in
transit than is actually the case longitudinally. There may be
cross-cohort reductions in auto use due to the recent introduction
of private shared transit such as the Spanish buses or dollar
vans that would result in a similarly incorrect overestimate of the
increase in auto use over time among individuals.
Another failure to account for heterogeneity is that quantitative
research has compared immigrants to the native born, but has not
accounted for the possibility that changes in income, household
type, or other demographic factors may affect auto use and
ownership for immigrants more (or less) dramatically than such
changes do for the US-born. That is, immigrant status has not
typically been interacted with demographic factors when conducting quantitative analysis. For example, comparing the difference in auto use between immigrant households with and without
children to the same difference among US-born households would
provide evidence about whether household changes appear to
have larger effects on auto use among immigrants than among the
US-born.
These hypotheses imply the need for a continued but more
pointed and directed analysis of existing data sources, using
condential Census or NHTS microdata with better geographic
specicity, and the need to conduct surveys collecting specic
information about current and previous residential location
choices and motivations for those choices among immigrants
and the US-born.
Finally, there are also two main policy implications of these
hypotheses. First, it is possible that private shared transit may be
becoming more important in New Jersey while public transit
service quality may in many places be stagnant or in decline.
If this is true, then the deregulation of jitneys and other private
shared transit modes is not only a tool for economic development
and higher rates of employment (Garnett, 2001), but may imply an
increasing need for policies to encourage private shared transit
modes in order to delay the adoption of autos by immigrants. The
increasing importance of new immigrant-receiving regions in the
south and the sunbelt that do not have well-developed traditional
public transit systems could make private shared transportation all

342

D.G. Chatman, N.J. Klein / Transport Policy 30 (2013) 336344

the more important. There are a number of safety and regulatory

issues that stand in the way of such expansion in many parts of the
US. Few locations are as lenient with policies to permit such
services as northern New Jersey.
The second policy implication comes from the hypothesis that
material conditions leading to residential location choices may be
more important in explaining the pattern of increasing auto use
among immigrants than a cultural assimilation process in which
automobility is adopted in order to conform to American cultural
norms, to achieve status, or to avoid alternative modes. Inuencing cultural changes with plans and policies is not only a
daunting task, but is likely an intrusive and inappropriate public
policy goal. But if material factors are indeed more important
than cultural assimilation, it implies an argument for re-orienting
land use and transportation policies to focus on accommodating
the needs of immigrants. Immigrant residential relocations after
arrival, and their subsequent increased reliance upon autos for
daily travel, are perhaps one of the main factors in the future
transportation sustainability of US cities. Land use and transportation planning may have an important role to play in retaining
the alternative travel mode share among immigrants, who will be
the driver of population growth in the US for decades to come
(Heavey 2013).

Acknowledgments
Many people participated in the research leading up to this article.
We are particularly grateful for the assistance of Marc Weiner and Orin
Puniello for coordination and logistics support. Participant recruitment
was coordinated by Nicholas Montalto of the New Jersey Immigrant
Policy Network, who relied in turn on a number of organizations to
recruit participants and to provide sites to hold the groups, including
Pan American Concerned Citizens Action League (PACCAL), Govinda
Sanskar Kendra Center, Bergen County Subchapter of the Filipino
Nurses Association of New Jersey, New Labor of New Brunswick,
International Business Chamber of Commerce, and Bergen County
Community Action Partnership. We thank these groups for their
involvement. Lou Kimmel of New Labor also assisted with the
recruitment of participants for critical commentary and feedback from
the Spanish-speaking focus groups, and did a superb job of providing
primary moderation for those groups. Funding for the focus groups
was provided as part of a NJDOT research contract, The Impact of
Demographic Changes on Transit Patterns in New Jersey, through the
New Jersey Department of Transportation, with Federal funds from the
Federal Transit Administration. Vincent Nichnadowicz of NJDOT was
the funding manager. Stephanie DiPetrillo provided project and budget
management for that project. Tom Marchwinski, Pippa Woods, Vivian
Baker, and Janice Pepper of NJ TRANSIT provided helpful feedback on
the research. Many thanks to Renia Ehrenfeucht for reading and
making helpful suggestions on the article in late stages of writing.
Finally, thanks for critical commentary and feedback from anonymous
reviewers from the TRB committee on Social and Economic Factors of
Transportation and anonymous reviewers for Transport Policy.

Appendix: A. Example Focus Group Topic Guide

" We are interested in everyone's opinion. There are no right

or wrong answers.

" Please turn off your cell phones.

3. Time limit: we'll be done and you'll be on your way in about

90 min.
" You'll receive the incentive when we're nished, just as
you leave.

Statement of Condentiality (25 min).

Tonight, we want to talk to you about transportation, how
people get from place to place. We also want to hear how people
decide where to live and where to work. And we would like to
hear about changes in how people travel, where people live, and
where people work the longer they live in the United States.
Before we begin, I want to make two points.
First, your participation is in this focus group is completely
voluntary. Your opinions are very important to us and will be a
critical part of the success of this research. You may choose not to
answer any questions that you are not comfortable answering.
If at any time during our conversation you wish to stop participating, you are completely free to do so.
Second, your participation is anonymous. Anonymous means that
we will not record your name, address, phone number, date of
birth, etc. and your comments will not be directly associated with
your participation. The research team, research sponsor and the
Institutional Review Board are the only parties that will be
allowed to see the data. If a report of this study is published, or
the results are presented at a professional conference, only group
results will be stated. There are no foreseeable risks to participating in this focus group.

Basic info (5 min)

We would like you to talk not only about your own experiences
but also about the experiences of other [immigrant group]
immigrants you know.
Before we get to that, let's go around the room and share with
each other some basic information.
Assistant Moderator ips page on easel to show the following
items pre-listed on the next page.
a. To get to know each other a little please share:
Your rst name or a nickname?
b. How long have you been in the US and how old were you
when you arrived?
c. Have you lived in any other countries besides the US?
Also, please write your rst name or a nickname on the tent
card in front of you.
Wait until everyone has had a chance to introduce him or herself.
Now that we all know each other a little better, let's begin our
discussion.

Introduction (10 min)

1. Moderators introduce themselves and identify [NAME OF UNIVERSITY] as the research team.
2. Explain what focus groups are for and how they work:
" We use a Topic Guide, but it's primarily an open discussion.
" Only one person speaks at a time. Please start your comments by saying your name rst.

Again, tonight we will discuss transportation, how people get

from place to place. We also want to hear about the places where
you live and work now. And we would like to hear about changes
in how you have traveled, where you have lived, and where you
have worked, over time. Our rst set of topics is about what you do
now; our second set of questions is about choices you have made
in the past.

D.G. Chatman, N.J. Klein / Transport Policy 30 (2013) 336344

Transportation Needs (1020 min)

Let's start by talking about the different ways that you or others
you know travel to work? What are the different ways that you
can travel to work?
# Moderator gets up and writes these up on the large pad/easel.
# If necessary, prod with follow-up such as For example, you
might drive, take the train, walk, etc.
# Now, that we have listed the different options. What do you see
as the advantages and disadvantages of each of these options?
Now let's do the same thing but for other trips you make. For
example what are the different ways you might travel to go
shopping, to go visit friends or relatives to go eat, etc.
# Moderator gets up and writes these up on the large pad/easel.
# Now, that we have listed the different options. What do you see
as the advantages and disadvantages of each of these options?
Thinking about these transportation options for work and for
other trips what sort of problems do you or others you know on
a regular basis?
# Can you think of problems that are particular to [immigrant
group] immigrants in general, in New Jersey?
# Do you think these challenges/problems have gotten worse
over time or are they lessening?
# What do you think transportation planners could do to better
address the needs of [immigrant group] immigrants in New Jersey?
If it got a lot more expensive to travel to work or to the other
regular places you go, what would you do?
Household size and responsibilities
In different households people have different responsibilities
that require travel, like buying groceries, taking children to school,
or taking elderly parents to medical appointments. Some people
live in large households with many children and grandparents, and
other people live with fewer people.
Who lives with you, and how do your household responsibilities affect how you travel to work and whether you own a car?
Do you know other people who live in different household
situations than you? (For example, with their parents or without
their parents? With or without children? In small or large households?) How do you think this affects the kinds of things they have to
do outside the home, and how they get around to do those things?
Shared ride travel (510 min)
Another thing we want to learn more about are the various
transportation services that you pay for. Do you use raiteros or
other services typically run by other immigrants?
# What is different about these services as compared with public
transit? How would you describe them to an American who
knew nothing about them?
# What is good about these services and what is bad about them?
What about paying for car trips? Do you give rides to other
people or get rides from other people to go to and from work,
shopping, elsewhere in exchange for money?
What is good about this type of arrangement and what
is bad?
Are there other transportation services that you pay for?

Work and home neighborhoods (10 min)

What are some of the towns or neighborhoods in New Jersey
where there are concentrations of [immigrant group] immigrants
living, working or shopping?

343

If you live in a neighborhood with many other [immigrant group]

immigrants, do you think it affects how you travel? [FOLLOW UP: If
so, why?]
Follow-up if necessary: Are [immigrant group] immigrants who
live in these areas more or less likely to make short trips, to walk,
to carpool, to travel far/short-distances to get to work, etc. ?
Do you work or shop near where you live? Please describe the
neighborhood where you work or shop. Do many other [immigrant
group] immigrants work or shop there?
Let's move on. Now we will talk about some of the same things,
but in the past and in the future.
Daily travelchanges over time (1020 min)
Is the way you travel in the US different from how you traveled
every day in your home country (or other countries where you
have lived)? How?
Follow-ups:
a. During your time in the US what has changed about how you
travel on a day-to-day basis? What led to these changes?
i. Do you think this was typical of [immigrant group] immigrants
who live in New Jersey? If not, what is different?
b. Do you think that the experiences of [immigrant group] immigrants moving to the US is different than from when you arrived?
What about compared to people who arrived 5, 10, 20 years before
you? Why do you think that is?

Residential decision-making (10 min)

Thinking back to when you rst came to the US, how did you
decide where to live?
Follow-ups:
a. If you've moved since then, how did you decide where to live when
you moved?
i. What was different about how you made decisions about
where to live when you rst arrived in the US compared with
later moves?
ii. What factors were more or less important?
b. Do you think that your experience was typical?
c. Why do you stay where you are living now? Why don't you move?
What keeps you there?
d. Do you see yourself moving in the future? Why?

Job decision-making (10 min)

For those of you who work outside the home or who have
worked outside the home in the past, thinking back to when you
rst came to the US, how did you nd your rst job?
Follow-ups:
a. If you've switched jobs since then, how did you nd subsequent
jobs?
i. What was different about how you found that job?
ii. What factors were more or less important?
b. Do you think that your experience was typical?
Do you think transportation affects the places where [immigrant group] immigrants might live or the jobs they can get?

344

D.G. Chatman, N.J. Klein / Transport Policy 30 (2013) 336344

Written post-scripts and post-focus group questionnaire (5 min)

Assistant Moderator: Hand out one large index card to each
participant.
Finally, I'd like each of you to write down three of the most
important things you think that were mentioned tonight or
things we did not mention but we should have talked about.
We also would like you to ll out this questionnaire so that we
know something about the group. This information is completely
condential.
Adjourn focus groups
Thank you for participating.
Your input is extremely valuable to us.
Please leave the index card at your seat, and move into the next
room where we will distribute the incentives.
Again, thank you for your help.
References
Blumenberg, E., 2009. Moving in and moving around: Immigrants, travel behavior,
and implications for transport policy. Transp. Lett.: Int. J. Transp. Res. 1 (2),
169180.
Blumenberg, E., Shiki, K., 2007. Transportation assimilation: Immigrants, race and
ethnicity, and mode choice. In:Proceedings of the Transportation Research
Board 86th Annual Meeting. Transportation Research Board. Washington DC.
Blumenberg, E., Shiki, K., 2008. Immigrants and resource sharing: The case of
carpooling. In: Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 87th Annual
Meeting. Transportation Research Board. Washington DC.
Blumenberg, E., Smart, M., 2009. Travel in the 'hood: Ethnic neighborhoods and
mode choice. The Transportation Research Board 88th Annual Meeting. The
Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC.
Blumenberg, E., Smart, M., 2010. Getting by with a little help from my friendsand
family: immigrants and carpooling. Transportation 37 (3), 429446.
Blumenberg, E., Smart, M., 2011. Migrating to driving: Exploring the multiple
dimensions of immigrants' automobile use. In: Lucas, K., Blumenberg, E.,
Weinberger, R. (Eds.), Auto Motives: Understanding Car Use Behaviours.
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, United Kingdom.
Blumenberg, E., Smart, M., 2013. Brother can you spare a ride? Carpooling
in immigrant neighborhoods. Urban Studies, (forthcoming), /10.1177/
0042098013502825S.
Bohon, S.A., Stamps, K., Atiles, J.H., 2008. Transportation and migrant adjustment in
Georgia. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 27 (3), 273291.
Camarota, S.A., 2012. Immigrants in the United States: A prole of America's
foreign-born population. Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC.
Chatman, D.G., 2013. Explaining the immigrant effect on auto use: the inuences
of neighborhoods and preferences. Transportation, in press /http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11116-013-9475-4S.
Chatman, D.G., Klein, N., 2009. Immigrants and travel demand in the United States:
Implications for transportation policy and future research. Publ. Works Manage.
Policy 13 (4), 312327.
Cline, M.E., Sparks, C., Eschbach, K., 2009. Understanding carpool use among
Hispanics in Texas. Transp. Res. Rec. 2118, 3946.
Coffey, A., Atkinson, P., 1996. Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary
Research Strategies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Cohen, M.A., 2006. Imperfect competition in auto lending: Subjective markup,
racial disparity, and class action litigation. Vanderbilt Law and Economics
Research Papers. Vanderbilt University, Owen Graduate School of Management,
Nashville, TN.

Corbin, J.M., Strauss, A.L., 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE, London.
Gaber, J., Gaber, S., 2007. Qualitative Analysis for Planning and Policy. Planners
Press, Chicago.
Garnett, N.S., 2001. The road from welfare to work: informal transportation and the
urban poor. Harv. J. Legislation 38 (1), 48.
Garni, A., Miller, A., 2008. 'Localized immigration policy and migrant life experiences: The case of Mexican migrants in southern California'. J. Immigr. Refugee
Stud. 6 (3), 435450.
Glaeser, E.L., Kahn, M.E., Rappaport, J., 2008. Why do the poor live in cities? The role
of public transportation. J. Urban Econ. 63 (1), 124.
Heavey, Susan, 2013. Immigration to outpace U.S. population growth from births
soon: Census. Reuters Wed May 15, 2013.
Lovejoy, K., Handy, S., 2008. A case for measuring individuals' access to privatevehicle travel as a matter of degrees: lessons from focus groups with Mexican
immigrants in California. Transportation 35 (5), 601612.
Lovejoy, K., Handy, S., 2011. Social networks as a source of private-vehicle
transportation: the practice of getting rides and borrowing vehicles among
Mexican immigrants in California. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 45 (4),
248257.
Mahler, S.J., 1995. American Dreaming: Immigrant Life on the Margins. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, N.J..
Marshall, C., Rossman, G.B., 2010. Designing Qualitative Research. SAGE, Los
Angeles.
McGuckin, N., Murakami, E., 1999. Examining trip-chaining behavior: comparison
of travel by men and women. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1693,
7985.
Morgan, D.L., 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Myers, D., 1997. Changes over time in transportation mode for journey to work:
Effects of aging and immigrationDecennial Census data for transportation
planning: Case studies and strategies for 2000Transportation Research Board,
Location: Irvine, California.
Parks, V. (2005) The Geography of Immigrant Labor Markets: Space, Networks and
Gender. LFB Scholarly, New York.
Portes, A., Rumbaut, R.G., 2006. Immigrant America: A portrait. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Portes, A., Zhou, M., 1993. The new second generation: segmented assimilation and
its variants. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 530 (1), 7496.
Purvis, C., 2003. Commuting patterns of immigrants'. CTPP 2000 Status Report. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. Federal Transit Administration. Washington DC.
Rosenbloom, S., 1998. Transit markets of the future: the challenge of change, Transit
Cooperative Research Program. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Ruggles, S., Trent, A.,J., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Schroeder, M.B., Sobek, M., 2010.
Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 (Machine-readable database). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Smart, M., 2010. US immigrants and bicycling: Two-wheeled in autopia. Transp.
Policy 17 (3), 153159.
Tal, G., Handy, S., 2010. Travel behavior of immigrants: an analysis of the 2001
National Household Transportation Survey. Transp. Policy 17 (2), 9.
Thomas, R., 2010. Integrating housing and transportation choices using structural
change: a case study of Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA. Association of
Collegiate Schools of Planning Annual Conference, Minneapolis.
United States. Department of Homeland Security, 2012a. Annual Flow Report. U.S.
Naturalizations: 2011. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Ofce of Immigration Statistics. Washington, DC.
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010. American Community
Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B05006, generated by Nicholas J. Klein, using
American FactFinder, /http://factnder2.census.govS (1 September 2013).
United States. Department of Homeland Security, 2012b. Yearbook of Immigration
Statistics: 2011. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Ofce of Immigration
Statistics. Washington, DC.
Weinberger, R., Goetzke, F., 2010. Unpacking preference: How previous experience
affects auto ownership in the United States. Urban Stud. 47 (10), 21112128.