Thesis

i
A Thesis
entitled
Accessibility and Options for Transit Dependent Individuals with Food Security
Problems in Toledo, Ohio
By
Crystal R. Taylor
As partial fulfillment of the requirement for
The Master of Arts Degree in
Geography and Planning
_______________________
Adviser: Dr. David Nemeth
_______________________
Reader: Dr. Peter Lindquist
_______________________
Reader: Sylvia-Linda Kaktins
_______________________
Graduate School
The University of Toledo
May 2005

ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the members of the University of Toledo Department of Geography
and Planning for their dedication and guidance throughout my graduate studies. Specifically
I would like to thank Sylvia Linda Kaktins for her ability to focus my writing and keep me
on task, and Dr. David Nemeth for his guidance and instruction. Also, I want to express my
heartfelt thanks to the guys in the GISAG lab. Without the assistance of the staff, it would
have been virtually impossible for me to complete this task.
I would be remiss if I didn’t thank Stephen, Christopher and Corey for putting up with me
through my writing process. Maybe I didn’t tell you, but I don’t know what I would have
done without you.
I would also like to thank Rosa Turnbough Green for her introduction to the wonderful
world of Geography and Planning. Without knowing her, none of this would have been
possible.
Finally, thank you God for allowing me to meet such wonderful people throughout my life
journey.

iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents......................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ...............................................................................................................vi
Chapter One – Introduction ..........................................................................................1
1.1 Problem Statement and Background...............................................................................................1
1.2 Objective of Thesis..........................................................................................................................6
1.3 Methods.........................................................................................................................................6
1.4 Chapter Summary..........................................................................................................................8
Chapter Two - Food Security and Accessibility ............................................................9
2.1 Poverty and Food ...........................................................................................................................9
2.2 Food Security Issues .....................................................................................................................16
2.3 Community Food Security Movement............................................................................................23
2.3 Chapter Summary........................................................................................................................26
Chapter Three – Mobility.............................................................................................28
3.1 History of Public Transportation in the US..................................................................................28
3.2 The transit dependent...................................................................................................................34
3.3 How the transit dependent access food ...........................................................................................36
3.4 Chapter Summary........................................................................................................................38
Chapter Four – Food Retail Industry ..........................................................................40
4.1 History of Food Retail in US.......................................................................................................40
4.2 Retail Food Store Location ..........................................................................................................45
4.3 Typology of Grocery Stores............................................................................................................50
4.4 Chapter Summary........................................................................................................................53
Chapter Five – The Local Situation.............................................................................54
5.1 Case Study ..................................................................................................................................54
5.2 Food Security Issues .....................................................................................................................66
5.3 Community Food Security ............................................................................................................67
5.4 History of Public Transportation in Toledo...................................................................................68

iv
5.5 Transit Dependent in Toledo........................................................................................................71
5.6 How Transit Dependent Access Food...........................................................................................73
5.7 History of the Food Retail Industry in Toledo...............................................................................77
5.4 Chapter Summary........................................................................................................................90
Chapter Six – Findings and Recommendations.......................................................... 91
6.1 Research Finding .........................................................................................................................91
6.2 Recommendations.........................................................................................................................97
Chapter 7 -- Conclusion ............................................................................................. 104
7.1 Discussion of Findings .............................................................................................................. 104
7.2 Limitations............................................................................................................................... 105
7.3 Future Implications................................................................................................................... 105
Appendices................................................................................................................. 107
A.1 People and Families in Poverty by Selected Characteristics: 2002 and 2003 ............................. 108
A.2 Time Schedules for Route 5...................................................................................................... 109
A.3 Time Schedules for Route 16.................................................................................................... 110
Bibliography................................................................................................................111

v
List of Tables
Table 2.1 2004 Poverty Thresholds by Size of Family & Number of Related Children .........10
Table 2.2 Thrifty Food Plan .............................................................................................................20
Table 2.3 Hunger Predictors.............................................................................................................23
Table 4.1 NAICS Descriptions ........................................................................................................51
Table 4.2 Typology of Grocers ........................................................................................................52
Table 5.1 Comparison to Ohio, Lucas County and Toledo MSA ..............................................60
Table 6.1 Census Tract 34 Compared with Regional Statistics...................................................92

vi
List of Figures
Figure 5.1 Census Tracts over 35% Poverty..................................................................................61
Figure 5.2 Map of Toledo Poverty Census Tracts ........................................................................62
Figure 5.3 Map of New Single Family Developments in the Toledo Area ...............................64
Figure 5.4 Transit Dependency by Census Tract ..........................................................................72
Figure 5.5 Map of Census Tract 34 .................................................................................................74
Figure 5.6 Map of TARTA routes in Census Tract 34.................................................................75
Figure 5.7 Map of Grocery Stores In and Adjacent to Census Tract 34 ...................................76
Figure 5.8 Map of Retail Food Providers in Lucas County .........................................................89
Figure 6.1 Map of Nearest Conventional Grocery Stores to Census Tract 34.........................94
Figure 6.2 Map of Public Transit Trip to Closest Conventional Grocery Store in Census
Tract 34.......................................................................................................................................96

1
Chapter One – Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement and Background
This thesis looks at transit dependent populations in Toledo, Ohio and their
accessibility to conventional food stores. On April 28th
, 2005 the announcement of the
closing of Food Basic and the forthcoming closing of Aldi leaves the transit dependent
populations of Central Toledo with no conventional store, discount or otherwise, in their
local area. What this means is that the transit dependent population no longer has any
convenient access to healthy, affordable food. The transit dependent are those who depend
on public transportation for mobility and personal viability because of low income, age, or
disability. They are low wageworkers, majority women, people of color, the elderly, high
school students, the disabled, and those dependent on social services. They are often
representative of the majority of urban residents, living in poverty (Mann 2001).
By looking at the local situation in central Toledo, this writer hopes to increase
understanding of the internal and external factors that brought about this condition. Based
on the researcher’s observations, recommendations to help increase accessibility to healthy,
affordable food by the transit dependent will be offered.
Mobility strategies are various ways households overcome spatial constraints and
travel to various locations. Since its invention in 1903 by Henry Ford, the automobile has
been the preferred mobility strategy in America. Not only did this increased mobility change
the American lifestyle, it impacted almost every built environment found on the American

2
landscape. Spurred by political pressure from profit driven lobbyists, the built environment
began to expand exponentially after the early 1900’s. Cities were built around transportation
nodes, and once those nodes could be traveled quickly and safely, those who were able to
move, left the problems associated with overcrowded, uninviting urban centers and moved
further away to the suburbs. This was the birth of urban sprawl, which is low-density
development at, and sometimes beyond, the outer margins of our metropolitan areas and is
now the prevailing form of urban growth in North American cities (Kuby et. al. 2001).
Access to an automobile suggests an absolute freedom. However, only those who can afford
the increasing costs of automobile ownership enjoy that freedom. Noting the lower per
capita levels of auto ownership in inner city areas, particularly by those in poverty, they often
face mobility constraints. They must find other mobility strategies, usually public transit, to
meet their basic needs.
In many cities the urban poor, the working class, and the lowest income
communities of color are given shoddy mass transit service. This is particularly true in cities
that have a dwindling urban core, surrounded by affluent suburban communities. In large
cities like LA and Atlanta, the transit dependent are even discriminated against, often riding
on dilapidated buses, suffering long waits, longer rides, poor connections, and service cuts.
After the Watts Riots of 1965, the McCone Commission published a report identifying the
causal elements. Among the various forms of racial discrimination and segregation, there
was extensive discussion around inequalities in the public transportation system. The
commission found that many urban routes did not travel outside their local area that kept
the transit dependent trapped in economic and social isolation (Mann 2001).

3
The transit dependent tend to have lower income and congregate in the inner city.
Poverty exists when individuals or groups are not able to satisfy their basic needs adequately
(Gross 2002). This is important to note when, in September 2004 The US Census Bureau
revealed that 1.3 million additional Americans fell into poverty in 2003 with more than 12
percent of the population, that approximately 35.8 million people were living below the
poverty line. This report marked the second consecutive year of discouraging trends after
almost a decade of continuous improvement. For those living below the poverty line a
cyclical effect occurs when no money means reduced consumption, which means reduced
human development, which locks in poverty. Today, for 35.8 million Americans it is a daily
struggle to meet even the most basic of needs; shelter, warmth, and food.
In America, we are experiencing a variety of issues around food -- obesity, poor diet
and nutrition, and hunger. While it seems that obesity and hunger are at opposite ends of the
spectrum, research shows that, for varying reasons, particular populations experience both
(Center on Hunger and Poverty and Food Research and Action Center 2003). Low-income
households experience both hunger and obesity. The prevalence of obesity in low-income
households occurs because they lack adequate resources to purchase nutritional and healthy
food, they purchase processed, high-fat, convenient, cheap food. This creates serious public
health implications, including premature mortality, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary
artery disease, stroke, osteoarthritis and certain types of cancer (Koop 1996).
An extensive body of evidence exists linking low income, poor diet and poor health
(Graham 2000, Murcott 2002). A 1998 study the nutrition knowledge of food center
participants indicated that people in poverty have a lower intake of fruit, vegetables and
whole wheat bread, with correspondingly lower intake of essential nutrients that tend to lead
to poor health in adults, increased hospital admissions in children, and low vitamin and

4
mineral intake in women (Calderon and Gorence 1998). Calderon and Gorence also found
that those with low incomes face various difficulties in maintaining a nutritionally adequate
diet. The fact that low-income people, on average, experience poorer health and nutrition
than higher income people suggests that there is an issue around the accessibility of healthy,
nutritious foods that is affecting this population. For many low-income households the lack
of access to transportation resources hinders the acquisition of healthy and affordable food
(Clifton 2004).
While several authors have studied how low-income people in mobility constrained
households get to work, (Ong and Blumenberg 1998, Murakami and Young 1997), there are
few studies undertaken about the non-work destinations of mobility-constrained households.
For many, the most important non-work destination is the food store. Studies have shown
that the transit dependent pay more in money, time, and energy for access to quality food
retail stores (Toronto Food Policy Council 1996). This lack of access to transportation
resources creates a situation where people do not have a lot of choice in where and when to
do food shopping. Furthermore, people in low-income households have limited flexibility
and personal control over their schedules, and considerable effort must go into planning and
procuring the mobility needed to reach a food store. The only options for the transit
dependent to access food are public transit, rides with family or neighbors, or walking. All
these options restrict their mobility.
Bus riders must often travel outside their neighborhoods to purchase food, resulting
in a higher cost of time, money, and missed opportunities. The transit dependent are further
hindered because they must make fewer, smaller trips as they must transport their purchases
home from the transit stop which could be, in urban areas a five minute walk or 3 blocks
(FTA 1996).

5
Transportation systems must relate accessibility to ones ability to move across space
with implicit temporal significance (Murray and Wu 2003). Accessibility is fundamentally
important to public transit service. The idea is that public transit meets the commuting
demands of riders and potential users; meaning it must be accessible in the broadest terms.
Another aspect of accessibility is the geographic space reachable from a particular location
within a given travel time budget (Murray and Wu 2003). In this research accessibility will be
defined as the processes associated with getting to and departing from a food store.
It is vitally important to re- evaluate existing transit services to ensure that systems
promote food store accessibility to the greatest extent possible, particularly in areas that have
a high number of transit dependent people. However, in many urban regions public transit
insures that the transit dependent have only minimal levels of accessibility to places that
provide healthy nutritious food.
Transportation policies and planning in many US cities ignore the inner city.
America will at some point, need to review its policy making practices to ensure that equity is
achieved, if not across the board, then at least in the basic necessity of food provisioning.
However, since studies on non-work travel have been overlooked in America, transportation
planners must look to other countries where the link between access to healthy food and
transportation has been discussed on the policy making level, such as the UK Nutrition Task
Force Low Income Project (Lang et al. 1995). This Task Force concluded that failures in
transportation policy compounded poor families’ lack of funds for food purchasing,
prompting them to suggest fixes to transportation policy.
While the process of suggesting and implementing policy is appealing, it is a long
process. The process requires the right mix of leadership, manpower, and above all funding,
to ensure success. The task is daunting for even the most adept social planner. In issues

6
dealing with accessibility to food, American public policy has been even slower to act. It was
only recently, 1995, when America began keeping statistics on food related issues. For transit
dependent individuals living in high poverty areas, immediate, local, neighborhood fixes are
necessary to address accessibility to healthy nutritious food.
1.2 Objective of Thesis
The objective of this thesis is to examine the relationship between public transit
routes and food shopping locations for transit dependent households in Toledo, Ohio. This
thesis will break down the multiple aspects associated with the transit dependent and their
ability to acquire healthy nutritious foods. The goal for this research is to provide
recommendations for transportation policymakers, local government policymakers,
community leaders, local food policy councils, low-income transit dependent individuals, and
emerging geographers in relation to non-work travel, specifically travel to food stores.
1.3 Methods
This thesis is employs a realist philosophy. In order to complete work under the
realist philosophy one must unpack or break down terms and concepts for a better
understanding of the situation. Realism is a complex ontology, allowing for the existence of
structures, processes and mechanisms to be revealed at different levels of reality (Cloke et al.
1991). It is a way of understanding the conditions that must prevail if a situation is occurring
with regularity. The explanatory causal relations uncovered by realism are useful for
explaining the real life interpretations of reality. This study will utilize an intensive research
methodology to study individual agents and the causal context of food security and transit
dependent households. There are noted limitations to this type of study. For example,

7
because the study area is small, concrete patterns and contingent relationships found may
not be representative or generalized. However, this work can be corroborated with further
study of other selective areas in order to determine if similar situations are occurring at a
regular rate, in other communities.
Although realism is a relatively new approach, several geographers have completed
works using the philosophy. Cloke et al. (1991) stated that the realist approach was used by
Allen in 1983 to study landlord tenant disputes, by Sarre (1987) to study ethnic housing and
by Lovering (1985) to study the location of defense industries. These studies took an in
depth look into the internal and external causes and provided insight into the lives of people
dealing with those issues. The contribution of realism is to ask new questions, prompt
sensitive analysis, and offer new directions to approach human geography and societal
phenomena. This work strives to do the same.
There are various methodological tools available to geographers to gain knowledge
and understanding of societal phenomena. To determine the accessibility to food stores
available to transit dependent persons in Toledo, research will analyze Toledo’s poorest
neighborhoods, access to food retail outlets in those areas, and available bus routes and
travel time to other food stores throughout the city. Identified TARTA transit routes will be
researched to identify the number of food retail outlets serviced by those routes, and travel
speed using those routes.
In addition to public transit routes, 2000 US Census data, and local history data from
the Toledo Lucas County Public Library will be used to support the analysis. The Census
Data already identifies the percentage of population in poverty within census tracts. To
approximate transit dependent populations as defined by Gee (1994), Mann (2001), and
Clifton (2004), the researcher will use census tract data to identify the number of cars

8
available to households (either 0 or 1), which will then be divided by the number of
households. Poverty census tracts with the highest percentage of households with no more
than one car will be identified as transit dependent neighborhoods.
Census tracts, transit routes, and food retail outlets throughout the city will be
displayed graphically using GIS mapping software to provide a visual depiction of the
relationships found. ArcView version 3.3, a commercial GIS package, will be used to support
operational analysis. Other methods will include a case study of the Toledo area, its
transportation system and food retail system. The thesis will conclude with discussion and
recommendations.
1.4 Chapter Summary
The need for mobility is central in all aspects of daily life, including work and non-
work activities. For transit dependent populations, which will be discussed in Chapter 3, the
role of public transportation in the acquisition of food resources is vital. In many urban
regions, public transit insures that the transit dependent have minimal levels of accessibility
to healthy, nutritious foods. Chapters Two and Three review food security and accessibility,
as well as the history of public transit. Chapter Four provides a review of the food retail
industry in America. Chapter Five presents a case study of the geographic study area in
Toledo, Ohio. Chapter Six concludes with a discussion of the findings and
recommendations.

9
Chapter Two - Food Security and Accessibility
2.1 Poverty and Food
Is it out of ignorance that the impoverished eat poorly? Is it from neglect that they
simply don’t care? Is it because they have the wrong priorities, smoking cigarettes and
drinking wine? Or is it that their resources are so limited that they cannot afford to buy the
food they ought to eat? Often times living in an impoverished environment makes it virtually
impossible for a low-income household to eat healthy. Any discussion of food security and
accessibility issues will have a common thread -- poverty. Therefore it is necessary to analyze
the occurrence of poverty in America.
A person in poverty is generally one without money. When the Social Security
Administration (SSA) created the poverty definition in 1964, it focused on family food
consumption. However, today, following the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that
vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family has a total
income less than the threshold, all members of the family are considered to be in poverty.
While poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, the thresholds are updated annually
using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to adjust for inflation (DeNavas-Walt, et al., 2004).

10
Table 2.1 2004 Poverty Thresholds by Size of Family & Number of Related Children
(Source: DeNavas-Walt 2004 )

11
Poverty statistics are used to measure the economic well-being of a country and
determine the need or eligibility for various types of public assistance including funds for
food, health care, and legal services. Additionally, Title 1 funds (providing poverty programs
for children), Home Energy Assistance funds, Public Housing/Section 8 Funds, and other
Public assistance programs are all allocated based on poverty statistics.
Two poverty statistics are the rate of poverty and the total of number of people
below poverty level. The rate of poverty is determined by percentage of people in an area
who fall below poverty thresholds. The total number of persons below the poverty level is
the sum of the number of persons in families with incomes below the poverty level and the
number of unrelated individuals with incomes below the poverty level (Bishaw and Iceland
2003)
The US Census Bureau lists the percentage of families in poverty for each census
tract. Census tracts usually have between 2,500 and 8,000 people, (averaging about 4,000)
and are designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic
status, and living conditions. Census tracts are designated as high poverty census tracts when
more than 40% of families are below poverty thresholds.
People in poverty tend to live in homogenous areas. The percentage of poor people
living in poverty census tracts is a measure of the concentration of poverty in urban areas. It
is widely believed that poor people are worse off living in areas of concentrated poverty than
they would be in other areas, and that society as a whole suffers when these areas of
concentrated poverty exist. Furthermore, growth in areas of concentrated poverty has
negative implications for the future because children reared in very poor neighborhoods are
at risk of poor developmental outcomes (Dowler 2003).

12
An August 2004 report issued by the US Census Bureau provides insight into the
current poverty situation in America. The report provides detailed information about various
aspects of poverty, including race, geographic location, age, and gender of people in poverty
and provides reliable estimates of the net change from one year to the next in the overall
distribution of economic characteristics of the population (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004).
Since 2000, both the number and rate of people in poverty has risen for three
consecutive years. In 2000 the number of people in poverty was 31.6 million, or 11.3% of
Americans. While real median household income showed no change between 2002 and
2003, both the number of people in poverty and the poverty rate increased between 2002
and 2003. The official poverty rate in 2003 was 12.5% up from 12.1% in 2002. Additionally,
35.9 million people were in poverty, up 1.3 million from 2002. Surprisingly the White and
Asian populations were the only ethnic groups to experience a significant increase in poverty
numbers and rates (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004).
The report also provides breakdowns to show which sectors of society are most
affected. Children represented 35.9 percent of the people in poverty, compared with 25.4
percent of the total population. In 2003, the poverty rate and the number in poverty for
related children under 6 living in families increased from 18.5 percent and 4.3 million in 2002
to 19.8 percent and 4.7 million in 2003 (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004).
Geographic evidence is provided showing that the Midwest and the South were the
only regions showing increases in the number of people in poverty between 2002 and 2003.
The number in the Midwest rose from 6.6 million to 6.9 million. In 2003 the poverty rates
were unchanged from 2002, for the Northeast (11.3 %), Midwest (10.7 %), South (14.1 %),
and West (12.6 %), leaving the South with the highest rate (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004).

13
Poverty makes people geographically isolated and this geographic isolation increases
the chance that families remain in poverty over extended periods of time (Dowler 2003).
People in poverty usually live in homogenous urban environments that are beginning to
expand. For instance, the poverty rate and number in poverty increased for people living
inside central cities, from 16.7 % and 13.8 million in 2002 to 17.5 % and 14.6 million in
2003, while the poverty rate for people living in the suburbs, 9.1 % in 2003, remained
unchanged from 2002, although their number in poverty increased from 13.3 million in 2002
to 13.8 million in 2003. These figures lend credibility to the fact that Whites were one of the
only ethnic groups to show increases in the number and rates of poverty, as these groups are
often able to move out of urban areas into suburban environments.
Another group hard hit by poverty is single, female householders. The poverty rates
and numbers in poverty increased for female householders with no husband present to 28.0
% and 3.9 million in 2003, up from 26.5 % and 3.6 million in 2002. This bodes poorly for
children living in these households as well, as related children under 6 living in families with
female householders with no husband present, 52.9 percent were in poverty, over five times
the rate of their counterparts in married-couple families (9.6 percent). See appendix A1 for
people and families in poverty by selected characteristics.
Overall, it is important to note that those living in urban areas suffer long-term
poverty as a result of their environment. This is supported by the fact that between 1970 and
1990 the proportion of moderate poverty Census tracts in urban areas rose from 27% –
39%, while high poverty tracts more than doubled to 14%. (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004)
Today, more than half of the metropolitan poor live in low poverty tracts, 32% live in
moderate poverty tracts, and 17% live in high poverty tracts (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004).
These large concentrations of poor people create an environment experiencing

14
multidimensional affects of poverty over generations. For the people living here, it is often a
struggle to provide basic needs for all members of the household.
People with limited money have to make limited choices; often about which basic
need to fulfill. Unlike fixed expenditures, like rent and utilities, food consumption can be
altered in response to other necessities. A 1998 study exploring the food purchase behavior
of low-income households and found that low-income food shoppers spent less on food
purchases despite the evidence that they face higher purchase prices (Leibtag and Kaufman
1998). The study notes that since 1997, the Economic Research Service of the USDA has
been trying to determine if the poor face significantly different food prices because of where
they shop. The study concluded that in general, poor communities face higher prices because
they are shopping in urban locations where food prices tend to be higher, as opposed to
suburban locations.
In an effort to meet basic needs in this environment, many poor families economize
to ensure they have enough food for all members of their households. First, poor families
may shop in discount food stores or purchase a large portion of discounted food. Second
they may purchase more private label products, which are often lower priced and lower
quality food products (generic brands). Third, they may take advantage of volume discounts
by purchasing larger package sizes. Fourth, they may use coupons or in store promotions
(Leibtag and Kaufman 2003). Other adaptive strategies are used which include omitting
fruits, vegetables, and dairy in favor of meats and carbohydrates, and purchasing prepared
and processed foods (Eisenhauer 2001). These strategies, while effective, have negative long-
term health consequences.
Economizing practices are tied to the types of food stores available to make
purchases in areas where low income shoppers live. Leibtag and Kaufman state that in store

15
discounts, coupons, and volume discounted large package sizes are not available in “sub-
supermarket outlets” (2003, 6) that are easily accessible by the poor. Many of the places they
are forced to shop for food are discount chains, providing a reduced variety of products,
most of which are private label. This means that while purchasing generic brands is available,
the ability to use coupons and in store promotions is only available if they are in a food store
outside of their local environment.
The supply of fresh and unprocessed foods is often the least available in inner cities,
often because they are the least profitable to retailers. When they are, fresh vegetables and
meat are often in poor condition. Unfortunately, these foods are also the most health
promoting classes of foods. Highly processed foods have been linked to increased blood
glucose levels and lipids in the blood, contributing to diseases of lifestyle such as the diabetic
epidemic occurring in low-income communities. It is no coincidence that that while poverty
is growing in urban areas, the urban poor experience higher rates of morbidity and mortality
than their middle class and suburban counterparts; meaning that urban health will continue
to decline (Eisenhauer 2001).
These issues suggest that that access to healthy food is not available to people in
poverty. Many poverty level households do not have reliable transportation, further
hindering their ability to access a food store. For these families, shopping becomes even
more constrained. For transit dependent households, buying large amounts of products in
volume is impossible, as they must carry packages to and from bus stops. As a result, those
without a vehicle are more likely to live close to a supermarket and shop closer to home.
They wind up putting considerable effort into planning and procuring the mobility needed to
reach a food store, ultimately opting to shop for food at fewer places more often. Thereby
becoming a captive market; dependent on smaller, higher priced groceries or convenience

16
stores that do not have the same choice of quality, price and selection found in suburban
supermarkets (MacDonald and Nelson 1991, Chung and Myers 1999).
Historically, public and private policymakers patterns of resource allocations do little
to alleviate the multitude of problems that poverty creates. Often poverty policies only
intensify community distress levels and limit avenues for interaction; creating an
impenetrable barrier between the haves and the have-nots. When faulty planning occurs in
poverty programs such as Food Stamps, Women Infants and Children (WIC), and Senior
Nutrition, it leads to incorrect assumptions about the price of food in relation to other
essentials and its physical availability, thereby ignoring problems of access that people in
poverty face. This phenomenon creates the setting for food security issues in communities
that experience high rates of poverty in America.
2.2 Food Security Issues
Food security is defined as access by all people at all times to enough food for an
active, healthy life and includes at a minimum: a) the ready availability of nutritionally
adequate and safe foods, and b) the assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially
acceptable ways (e.g., without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, and
other coping strategies (Anderson 1990).
Food security is a community, national, global problem. The concept of food
security first appeared in international development work during the 1960s and 1970s. In
1974, the World Food Conference emphasized producing enough food for world needs;
focusing the public health concerns of third world and developing countries ravaged by
disease, drought, and internal conflict (Anderson and Cook 1999). They formed new
institutes to improve food self-sufficiency like the International Fund for Agriculture

17
Development (IFAD) that looked at the global food supply, pricing, and import/export
agreements. These institutes found there was a disparity between supply and access. Because
of the global focus, access to food was geared toward poor, third world countries. To
combat growing concerns there was a shift to new agricultural technology to assist with food
production, however it did little to improve food access for poor and basically introduced a
host of new environmental issues.
Over the years the concept of food security has shifted. During the 1980s price
shifts and supplies gave way to the theory of food entitlement (Anderson and Cook 1999).
Now global agencies focused on ensured access, poverty, and demand on the world’s
emergency food supply system as well as production. By the 1990s additional shifts occurred
including developing objective measures of food security, geared at assessing the quality of
food available.
Maxwell (1996) described additional shifts in food security. These included a shift
from food first, which provided emergency food supplies only, to a livelihood approach
where households are assured sustainable livelihoods necessary for long-term food security.
Additionally, agencies stopped relying on objective measures of food security like access to
daily caloric intakes and toward the quality of food available. It turns out, that this approach
eventually influenced the development of the food security movement in the US.
Until the 1990s, international governments and agencies focused on third world and
developing countries were still completing most work on food security issues. However, the
national interest in measuring food security came to the US in the 1975 when there was a
question included on the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS). This
small step was the first step in measuring food security as it applied to populations in high-
income countries. Even still, it took another twenty years for the United States to seriously

18
track food security issues in America. By the 1990s the US was discussing the concept of
food security as it was related to awareness of and in response to the growing hunger
epidemic. Utilizing food intake surveys such as the NFCS and the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the US began making an attempt to track food
security in America. However, these and other instruments have not been adequate in
determining whether respondents had problems with availability, affordability, and
accessibility of food because they did not measure appropriate indicators.
In 1990, the Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO) of the Federation of American
Societies for Experimental Biology published a paper on food security and its measurement.
They determined that the periodicity and duration of episodes of food insecurity, as well as
specific barriers to food security such as poverty, disability, or restricted transportation must
be addressed (Anderson and Cook 1999). As a result a new tool was created. In 1995, the
Select Committee on Hunger of the US House of Representatives focused on creating food
security instead of ending hunger and in conjunction with Tufts University Center on
Hunger, Poverty, and Nutrition (TUCHPN 1995), completed a review of previously
determined hunger estimates in America. They used an estimation tool that provided a low,
medium, and high range of estimates to compare with those previously published by the
Breglio Poll of 1992. The Breglio Poll estimated that 30 million Americans were hungry, but
the medium ranges published by the Tufts Center suggested that the Breglio Poll had
underestimated. As a result, the Committee initiated a joint project leading to the creation of
a hunger/food security survey questionnaire (TUCHPN 1995).
Since 1995 food security in America has been monitored by the United States
Department of Agriculture study of household food security, titled, Household Food
Security in the United States. The US Current Population Survey began tracking changes in

19
food security to provide an important way to compare the severity of poverty related food
insecurity over time. Information is collected on food spending, food access and adequacy,
and sources for assistance in an annual US Census Bureau survey of 50,000 households. The
data is collected in December of each year and asks a series of questions concerning food
needs throughout the year (Nord et al. 2002).
According to the Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, in most US
households, the majority of food consumed by household members is purchased, either
from supermarkets or grocery stores. The amount a household spends on food is an
indicator of how adequately they meet food needs. In 2002, the average US household spent
$37.50 per person, for food each week, 25% more than the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) (Ribar
and Hamrick 2003). The TFP is a low cost market basket that meets nationally defined
dietary standards at a minimal cost and is used to set Food Stamp Allotments. A typical food
secure family spent about 32% more than the TFP. See table 2.2 for a weekly sample 1999
TFP for a family of four.
When a family is unable to obtain enough food for adequate dietary intake for all its
members, the household is said to be food insecure. The USDA defines food insecure
families as at some time during the year, uncertain of having, or unable to acquire enough
food for all members because of insufficient money or other resources. A typical food
insecure family spent 2% less than the TFP.

20
Table 2.2 Thrifty Food Plan
(Source: Ribar and Hamrick 2003)
Food insecurity arises specifically from lack of money or other resources to acquire
food. In 1997 half of the people in food insufficient households were also in poor families
(Ribar and Hamrick 2003). Food insecurity includes problems with the quantity and quality
of food available, uncertainty about the supply of food, and experiences of going hungry

21
(Aliamo et al 1998). Experiences of food insecurity include running out of food, running out
of money to buy food, skipping meals, experiencing hunger, and being unable to buy food,
or buying cheaper foods because of financial constraints (Immink 1994).
The occurrence of food insecurity has risen over the past 20 years. While less than
3% of the American population lived in food insufficient households in 1997, (Ribar and
Hamrick 2003), the USDA estimates that in 2000, 10.5 million U.S. households were food
insecure. Approximately 33 million people lived in these households, including 20 million
adults and 13 million children. By 2002, 11.1% of households (a whopping 12.1 million
households) were food insecure.
Food insecurity among US households varies along social and demographic lines.
Among food insecure households: 54% received Food Stamps, Free and Reduced Lunch, or
Women Infants and Children (WIC), 19.3% get emergency food, and 2.5% ate at a soup
kitchen at some time during the year. The following groups had rates of food insecurity
without hunger, much higher than the national rate (11.1%): households below the poverty
line (38.1%), households with children, headed by a single woman (32%), Black households
(22%), Hispanic households (21.7%), and central city households (14.4%) (Nord et al. 2002).
Ribar and Hamrick (2003) report that women and children are more likely than men
to live in poor families and food insecure households; that poverty rates and food insecurity
rates for blacks, Hispanics, and non citizens were three times higher than for Whites. They
also report that poverty and food insecurity decline with increased education; with those not
completing high school being 2 to 3 times more likely to experience poverty and food
insecurity than those who did graduate from high school, and 6 to 10 times more likely than
those who complete college. In addition, poverty and food insecurity rates varied with family
structure. Female-headed households with children had the highest rates of poverty and

22
food insufficiency of any demographic group examined. These figures prove that food
insecurity in America has, and continues to be, a real problem for a significant part of our
population.
These findings shed light on the future for people in poverty. Food insecurity
undermines ones ability to learn, work, and make progress (Mougeot 1999). It becomes clear
that food insecurity has the potential to lock in poverty conditions over long periods of time.
When families experience food insecurity for extended periods of time, some members may
add the experience of hunger to this already daunting list.
Hunger is a potential consequence of food insecurity affecting more than 30 million
people each year. Hunger is defined as the uneasy or painful sensation caused by a recurrent
or involuntary lack of food that, over time can result in malnutrition. Food insecurity with
hunger follows a similar pattern to that observed for food insecurity. Hunger rates were
higher than the 3.5% national average among families living in poverty (14.3%), households
headed by single women (8.7%), Black households (7.2%), Hispanic households (5.7%), and
central city households (5%). (Nord et al. 2002).
The effects of hunger and food insecurity include weight loss and poor growth,
illness, loss of productivity, anemia, abnormal eating habits, poor school performance in
children, and obesity. While not everyone who experiences food insecurity experiences
hunger, approximately 3.5% will go hungry (Nord et al. 2002). Table 2.3 provides statistics
that indicate that hunger will continue to be a problem:

23
Table 2.3 Hunger Predictors
(Source: US Census Bureau 2001, US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2003, USDA 2001)
# of American’s Living in
Poverty is rising
Number of American’s
Unemployed is rising
Number of Americans
Food Insecure and
Hungry is Rising
Between 2000 and 2001,
poverty rose to 11.7% or
32.9 million people, up from
11.3% and 31.6 million
(US Census, 2001)
Average unemployment rates
in the past year have risen…
2001 4.8%, 2002 5.7%
(US Bureau of Labor
Statistics)
In 2001 33.6 million
American’s food insecure,
hungry, or at risk of hunger a
rise over the year 2000 when
33.2 million American’s were
food insecure. The number
of people suffering from
hunger rose from 8.5 million
in 2000 to 9 million in 2001
(USDA, 2001)
2001 median household
income in US was $42,228, a
2.2% decline in real income
from 2000 levels of $43,162
(US Census, 2001)
The number of children who
are food insecure has also
risen since 2000 by 10,000 to
6.18 million (USDA, 2001)
2.3 Community Food Security Movement
As hunger and food security in America was being discussed, a movement erupted to
fight for the human right to food. After the Community Food Security Act of 1996 was
passed, the USDA launched the Community Food Security Initiative in 1999. Of course,
prior the USDAs Community Food Security Initiative of 1999, there were a multitude of
local agencies and community residents organizing and lobbying to address food insecurity
in America. The goal was to forge partnerships between members of local communities to
build local food systems, decrease need, and improve nutrition.
Community food security (CFS) came into popularity in the late 1980s as a response
to increasing national debate on hunger in America. Individuals and agencies involved in
CFS movements were and continue to be, populist in spirit, with strong feelings about civil
rights and social justice often with an underlying spirituality (Henderson 1998). CFS

24
movements brought together people from a variety of disciplines, including community
nutrition, nutrition education, public health, sustainable agriculture, and community
development in an effort to address the perceived food shortage. Of course, the Federal
nutrition assistance safety net (Food Stamps, WIC) is the first line of defense in addressing
hunger and food insecurity. However, to address the faulty planning that occurs in poverty
programs, local initiatives were needed.
CFS movement focuses on the underlying social, economic, and institutional factors
within a community that affect the quantity, quality and affordability of food (Kantor 2001).
Many participants in the CFS movement view it as an expansion of household food security,
which focuses on the ability of a household to acquire enough food for an active, healthy
life. To address these issues the major goals of the CFS movement include, direct farm
impact, guaranteeing access to food, research for sustainability, policy advocacy and analysis,
and a national campaign to enhance the Farm Bill (Henderson 1998).
CFS groups forge connections based on food in a community by giving the
community a say in what kind of food system they want, and ensuring access to food in the
community (Conroe 1999). The process is community based, involving programs that work
in tandem with various segments of the local population, to move people from poverty to
self-sufficiency and food security. CFS groups work to identify and connect food retailers
and processors (both local and chains), farmers, consumers, educators, clergy, and local
agencies. When stakeholders are brought together, discussion begins about what the local
food system looks like, how it can change, and ultimately a plan is put together to initiate
those changes. To do so, CFS groups utilize a wide variety of community based measures,
including: farmers markets, community gardens, food buying cooperatives, farm to school
initiatives, community supported agriculture (CSA), and food recovery programs. In

25
addition, the CFS movement has also developed a national network and an effective policy
wing (Henderson 1998).
National networks of CFS organizations have sprung up throughout America, with
many community groups joining regional coalitions like the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture
Working Group, and even national coalitions such as the National Campaign for Sustainable
Agriculture and the Community Food Security Coalition. These regional and national
networks have created a non-partisan, non-religious movement that recognizes the
importance of food security for all Americans. Even more, the members are capable of
working together to change public policy, as was evidenced when the Community Food
Security Coalition worked with the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture to link
over 500 groups across the county in an effort to lobby for the passing of the Community
Food Security Act as part of the 1996 Farm Bill.
The CFS movement should be effective in assuring equitable food access. However,
the movement is under criticism because there is no clear theoretical framework for CFS
groups to guide policy making. The CFS movement is vague because the definition of
community is different to different populations. Also there is no picture of a food secure
community. A practical consequence of a clear CFS theory is knowledge of best measures or
indicators, however loose definitions of CFS still remain.
Even under criticism, CFS organizations were able to work together to effectively
change public policy. The Community Food Security Act in the 1996 US Farm Bill was the
first attempt at policy making focused around the issue of food security. Under the CFS Act,
projects funded had to meet the food needs of low income people by increasing their access
to fresher, more nutritious food supplies; increase self reliance of communities in providing

26
for their own food needs; and promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm and
nutrition issues (Pelletier et al. 1999).
Food policy councils performed much of the organizing to bring about the CFS Act
of 1996. Food policy councils are a distinguishing element of CFS in US (Winne et al. 1998).
They operate independently and build local food policies from scratch. According to the
Food Security Learning Center (FSLC), food policy councils are advisors to government
agencies, advocates for policies and programs, a forum for information exchange, and an
educational resource for the public (FSLC 2005). The food policy council provides an
avenue for various organizations, associations and individuals to work together to impact
food policies at local, state, regional, and federal levels. They provide formalized power and
the necessary relationships that allow previously scattered groups to come together under the
common theme of food, to begin a comprehensive planning process designed to ensure
food security. By utilizing the power of the masses, the CFS movement has proven to be a
useful and important extension of food security research, planning and policy
implementation in America.
2.3 Chapter Summary
In order to access healthy, nutritious food a family must have enough income to
purchase food and a place to purchase it nearby. Urban poverty and food insecurity will
continue to expand considerably as our country continues to focus dollars on the pursuit of
foreign opportunities. To combat growing numbers of food insecure and hungry families,
the Community Food Security movement has brought together a host of organizations,
agencies, and individuals to address food needs. While CFS has taken on a planning

27
mentality for food security, people in poverty still face other barriers to the access of healthy,
nutritious food; mobility.

28
Chapter Three – Mobility
3.1 History of Public Transportation in the US
Public transit provides mobility to many low-income, elderly, and disabled people.
However, since World War II, public transit funding in the US has steadily declined. The
cycle of declining ridership, fare increases, and service reduction is a direct response to
suburban growth and automobile usage.
While primarily low-income populations utilize public transportation, transportation
policies and funds have been allocated to improve community conditions between the
suburbs and the Central business district. (Minshull 1996) This creates a situation today,
where accessibility issues related to public transit disenfranchise people living in low-income
communities yet again. To fully understand the plight of low-income populations as it relates
to public transit, it is necessary to review the formation of public transit policy in the United
States, according to the National Transportation Library.
Urban mass transit began in New York City in 1830 with the omnibus service. By
1832 rail transit had emerged, incorporating horse drawn streetcars and inlaid trolley rails. As
Americans ventured west and north, cities responded by installing horse drawn streetcar
designs in major cities. The pioneering spirit of Americans soon made the horse drawn
streetcar obsolete and by 1837 the cable car was introduced in San Francisco. Stories of
rapid transit in the West circulated throughout the country as other metropolitan areas began
planning to install the new cable lines. While efficient, regarding time and volume; the
installation of cable car lines required specialized workers and could only be installed in areas

29
where horse drawn streetcars were unable to operate. If a city could raise the capital for the
installation, the projected profit margins were not sufficient, as most areas where cable lines
could be installed did not provide enough passenger traffic.
By 1888 the electric streetcar was introduced and quickly became the dominant form
of mass transit. The electric lines solved the problems cable cars could not: they were faster,
held more people, and were inexpensive to install. With the inception of the electric car,
previously undeveloped land quickly emerged around streetcar lines.
In response to technological advancements in the transportation industry, cities were
built at a more rapid pace. Speed and cost of mass transit were acceptable as families moved
farther away from the central business district.
Between the 1880’s and 1900 metropolitan cities across America had multiple transit
companies at their disposal. After some time mergers and acquisitions occurred in urban
areas that created a dominant public transit system which linked city governments,
transportation providers, and the electric utility industry. These mergers created monopolies,
increased profits, and electrified neighborhoods across America.
By World War I public transportation experienced a drop in profits as the costs for
materials and supplies for streetcars soared. The country was utilizing its steel, rubber, and
cable for war purposes creating a limited supply; as a result, materials were often unavailable.
However, those suppliers with materials were able to charge higher prices to transportation
companies.
Between WWI and the Great Depression another competitor for steel and rubber
entered the market. The mass production of the automobile meant that personal cars were
more affordable for new families rebuilding after the war. Public transit profits continued to
decline. However, by 1930 the country was in the midst of its worse economy in history,

30
reducing reliance on the automobile. The minimized impact of the automobile on the public
transit system meant a peak in profits at a time when other markets were barely surviving.
Public transit was coming back into style.
In 1942, when World War II began, mass transit was booming. Everyone in the
country was working; women were working in factories and men were in the military. The
rationing of gas and tires and a government imposed moratorium on new automobiles from
1942 – 1945 created a captive market for the mass transit industry. Unfortunately,
maximized profits were soon to be no more as the war ended.
Post WWII fared poorly for the mass transit industry. Once the restrictions of the
Great Depression and WWII were lifted the preferred method of travel again became the
automobile. The return of war veterans with money meant families moved to suburbs in
droves, escaping the quality of life issues associated with urban areas. The creation of the
Federal Highway System under the Federal Highway Act of 1956, gave people a way to
move quickly from their new suburban homes to the urban areas where they worked
decentralizing the central city and permanently changing the landscape of public
transportation in America. Traditionally, profits for mass transit had been directly related to
population density, and this migration of a once captive market meant the need for public
transportation had diminished to its lowest levels.
Many companies were unable to survive in the new auto driven market. During this
period transportation moved away from electric lines and into the automotive trend as
existing companies tried to incorporate the autobus into their fleets. Remaining electric
transit routes remained fixed as costs to extend transit lines to suburban areas would have to
be borne by current transit users in the form of immediate price increases. As a result, over
the next twenty years more than two hundred providers went out of business. For transit

31
dependent families living amidst urban ills, this meant transportation options ceased to exist.
Private ownership of transportation companies was no more. Responding to this loss of
mobility for people living in urban areas, the federal government stepped in.
In 1961 the Federal government provided financial assistance under the Housing and
Urban Development Act (HUD Act), to cities interested in ownership of transportation
functions. As the ownership was transferred, the focus of mass transit transferred. Profit no
longer drove the decisions related to public transportation, now the needs of the community
became the driving force. Public ownership meant the transportation industry had to assess
its ability to provide accessible and affordable transportation to urban communities. The
HUD Act of 1961 was the first piece of legislation to provide funds for mass transit. HUD
authorized $25 million for new transit projects and $50 million in loans for transit
companies. The Act also specified that transit issues be included in planning programs
financed by Federal Government funds.
In 1964 congress passed the Urban Mass Transportation Act. This act established
the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA). The UMTA is now known as the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). UMTA was designed to direct the Federal mass transit
program. Duties included development and improvement of public transit and provided
$225 million in planning funds to be used during 1965 – 1967. In later years the Act was
amended to include engineering and design of mass transit systems as well as research and
development.
State and local governments requested more and more assistance from the Federal
government to meet mass transit needs and again Federal government responded. In 1974
the Federal Highway Act increased the federally funded portion of transit capital projects
from 2/3 to 80%. The Act also authorized the use of federal highway funds for transit

32
projects. Also in 1974 the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act provided additional
funds, increasing approved discretionary capital to cities in the form of a formula grant. The
grant program was developed to determine allocations amounts to cities. By 1978 the
Federal Public Transportation Act expanded the formula grant program to allow categories
for allocation including operating assistance, aid for capital bus purchases and operating
assistance for non-urban areas. At the end of the 1970’s the transit system in America was
completely funded by the Federal government.
The 1980’s ushered in changes in government leadership, which meant changes in
federally funded programs. The Federal Public Transportation Act of 1982 stopped
allocations from the general fund and transferred the expense to anyone purchasing gasoline.
There was a five-cent/gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax that year, with one cent of
the increase transferred to the new Mass Transit Account (MTA). Both the Regan and Bush
administrations continued the trend, creating policies that called for less federal support and
more state and local funding. From 1980 – 1990, federal transit funding was cut by 50%.
In the midst of federal policy changes and funding cuts, the federal government has
been able to keep public transportation operating in America. However, two significant
federal laws were passed in the early 1990s that meant more financial woes for mass
transportation: the Clean Air Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To
comply, transit agencies had to begin to purchase new cleaner fuel buses and retrofit buses
with wheelchair lifts, rather than spending new funds on operations. At the same time, in the
mid-1990s, the federal government slowly eliminated transit operating assistance funds, a
major source of operating assistance for many cities.
As the focus of public transportation changed in response to the needs of the
increasing numbers of elderly and disabled and while responding to environmental concerns

33
regarding the damage caused by auto emissions, another adaptation was in sight. During the
1990’s, although the bus was still the primary method of mass transit, a variety of new modes
were designed. According to the 1998 National Transit Summaries and Trends that collected
data from 1991– 1998, fifteen different transit modes were identified. The major
transporters were, the ADA compliant bus, the commuter rail, demand response (which had
increased 23% since the last report), heavy rail, light rail, and vanpool (which had increased
by 50% since the last report). The same report notes that operating expenses had increased
14.1% as a result of the institution of the demand response and vanpool modes. However, as
the number of riders went up, cost effectiveness and service effectiveness both went down.
Funding trends have remained the same since the 80’s with 52% of all funding for
transit coming from federal funds, leaving the state and local governments to come up with
the rest (NTST 1998). 1998 saw the inception of the Transportation Equity Act for the
Twenty-first Century. This legislation authorized approximately $217 billion for highways,
highway safety and mass transportation until Fiscal Year 2003.
In the 21st
Century the federal government has continued its declining trend of
funding mass transit. This was due in part to American dependence on the automobile. In
2000, there was an average of 1.69 vehicles per household, and 55.4% of households had 2
or more vehicles. Making the number of vehicles exceed the number of licensed drivers
(Hemily 2004).
Even so, as gas prices have reached record highs in cities across America mass transit
ridership has continued to increase. Transit ridership in the U.S. was over 9.65 billion in
2001, the highest level in 40 years. Ridership grew 24% between 1995 and 2002, and had
gained two billion passengers since 1970 (APTA 2004). However, transit is facing numerous

34
complex challenges in the future, as a result of changing demographic and socio-economic
trends, changes in land-use and mobility patterns, societal changes, and concerns.
There have been over the last decade, a significant number of new approaches being
discussed by transportation planning and land development practitioners and officials, all
focusing on the concept of "sustainable community" and "smart growth". Some regions are
currently working to create a modal shift to public transit to decrease congestion or promote
sustainability and provide a multitude of initiatives designed to strengthen the link between
transit and the community. These include: joint development, Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) and location-efficient initiatives, Transportation for Livable
Communities, and the Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP)
Program (Hemily 2004).
While all this planning is occurring, the transit dependent living in urban areas
continue to struggle with the after effects of reduced federal funding for transportation. For
them, mass transit represents the lifeblood of cities, fulfilling an essential and multi-
functional role to ensure the livability and sustainability of urban communities.
3.2 The transit dependent
Affordable transportation is valued in every urbanized area in the United States.
Private vehicle operation is the norm. But every community contains children, elderly
people, and others who cannot safely drive and many who cannot afford cars. Local budgets
extend transit services for these needs.
The transit dependent have no access to, or are unable to use personal
transportation. The transit dependent often include those with low incomes, the disabled,
the elderly, children, families whose travel needs cannot be met with one car, and those who

35
choose not to own personal transportation (Gee 1994). This is a declining group in America,
as the proportion of households without access to a vehicle has been in continuous decline,
dropping from 21.53% in 1960 to 10.29% in 2000.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) Conference on Transportation Issues in
Large U.S. Cities (TRB 1999) focused much attention on the social and economic
implications of current patterns of land use and transportation, and their implications on
economic opportunity, quality of life, and institutional governance. A key aspect concerned
the implications of the lack of auto ownership in an auto-dependent built environment.
Although only 7% of white non-Hispanic households are without vehicles, 30% of black
households do not own vehicles, and the rate is 15% for Hispanic households.
The lack of auto ownership is not surprisingly much more pronounced for black
households in central cities rising to 37%, and much higher in some cities-61% in New York,
47% in Philadelphia (TRB 1999). Actually, the proportion of households without
automobiles is higher among Blacks regardless of wealth. Current research indicates that
African American women are more likely to be dependent on public transportation than
their counterparts in other ethnic groups. A 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey
found that minority women account for the majority of transit users. Urban dwellers are
often dependent on public transportation, and this dependency is aggravated by the
limitations of public transportation in small urban areas, and creates considerable equity
issues in an auto-dependent built environment.
In addition to mobility constraints, low-income bus riders also face cutbacks and
limitations on public assistance programs that serve them. To further complicate this
situation, in areas of the country with small pockets of low-income residents, there is little

36
hope of additional funding from federal resources that are based on US Census poverty
statistics.
Studies to date have focused on the work issues related to the transit dependent and
suggest that the limitations they face are far reaching (Kain and Fauth 1978, Raphael and
Rice 2002). Public transit policies must also consider access to destinations other than work
sites. Access to childcare, job training, and education is crucial for transit-dependent
households, particularly those participating in benefit programs.
Fielding (1986) outlined trip purposes of those using transit and found that transit
markets include work trips to the central business district, education, medical and shopping.
For transit dependent people in the survey, medical and shopping trips accounted for 11%
of travel. Fielding’s study also found that using transit for medical appointments and
shopping was not convenient. Realizing that work is not the only place transit dependent
people must travel, discussion follows on how the transit dependent access food.
3.3 How the transit dependent access food
Most people do their grocery shopping within two miles of their homes (Eisenhauer
2001). But for many low-income households, barriers to mobility affect their ability to access
food, goods, and services necessary for maintaining their households and thereby exacerbate
the conditions brought about by living in poverty. People in low-income households have
limited flexibility and personal control over their schedules, and considerable effort must go
into planning and procuring the mobility needed to reach a food store. Unfortunately, public
transit is poorly suited for most household provisioning tasks. Studies have shown that
populations without cars pay more in money, time, and energy for access to quality food
retail stores (Toronto Food Policy Council 1996). This lack of access to transportation

37
resources creates a situation where people do not have a lot of choice in where and when to
do food shopping. For those without vehicles, options such as catching the bus, getting a
ride with family or neighbors, or walking are the only way to make sure food is brought into
the household.
Households without a vehicle are more likely to live close to a supermarket and shop
closer to home. However, the relative shortage of food retail establishments in low-income
urban communities has been well documented (Berry 1963, Andreasen 1975, Alwitt and
Donley 1996). This is due in part to trends in supermarket location and the consolidation of
retail structure over the past thirty-five years (Clifton 2004). These trends have led to the
creation of an urban grocery store gap (Cotterill and Franklin 1995).
As a result of living in areas abandoned by food retailers, the transit dependent often
wind up shopping for food at smaller, higher priced groceries or convenience stores that do
not provide the quality, price or selection found in suburban supermarkets (Chung and
Myers 1999).
Insufficient time and transportation often restrict the transit dependents ability to
find the lowest cost goods, given their budgetary limitations (Andreasen 1975). Allwit and
Donely (1996) found that Chicago inner city residents had to travel more than 2 miles to get
cheaper food prices. For them, shopping becomes a question of what is available, given
mobility restrictions.
Often the transit dependent must walk from bus stops to stores, and home. This
means that their trips are further limited to what can be easily transported. And for those
traveling with small children, the trip is further complicated. Because the amount they can
carry is limited, the transit dependent are forced to shop more frequently, making trips every
few days and increasing the amount of time dedicated to purchasing food. They must also

38
purchase items in smaller quantities, which increase the unit price, and limits use of
economizing strategies, all of which results in a higher percentage of income spent on food.
Since bus riders go to the store more frequently, budgeting and managing purchases
is crucial. Money for food purchases must be available throughout the month, and bus riders
must refuse the urge to buy on impulse. Occasionally a taxi is used for the return trip to
allow for a large quantity purchase as some point during the month.
Income, mobility and time constraints limit places within reach of low-income bus
riders, creating limited choices for them. As a result, transit dependent populations are more
dependent upon local options, which are virtually non-existent. This lack of adequate retail
food stores within urban communities means that food shopping is often another reminder
of things that poor families cannot afford.
As evidenced in Section 3.2, the characteristics of the transit dependent mirror the
characteristics of people in poverty. They are often low income, minority, and female. To
compound problems with mobility, these populations also suffer cutbacks to and limitations
on public assistance programs that serve the poor (Clifton 2004). Declines in welfare and
food stamp benefits means that these populations now have less money to shop with,
regardless of the increased costs they face when performing provisioning activities.
3.4 Chapter Summary
The need for mobility is central in all aspects of daily life, including work and non-
work activities. For low-income people the lack of access to transportation resources hinders
the acquisition of healthy and affordable food (Clifton 2004). Bus riders cope with mobility
and economic disadvantage in complex, logical, and varied ways. For these families, public
transit and walking are critical forms of mobility as it relates to food shopping. Bus riders

39
suffer with higher food prices, multiple trips and a higher percent of their income spent on
food. They must often travel outside of their neighborhoods to purchase food, which means
increased costs in money, time, and missed opportunities. To compound problems faced by
transit dependent populations, the food retail industry in America has followed the trends
associated with the automobile, they have moved further and further away from the urban
core.

40
Chapter Four – Food Retail Industry
4.1 History of Food Retail in US
At the beginning of the 20th
century the food retail system was dominated by locally
based, independent grocers. These included specialized stores such as small grocers,
butchers, bakeries, fruit and vegetable stands, and dairy. In addition to specialized products,
many provided credit and delivery services. Because of the specialized nature of the stores
there was a low profit margin and high turnover. (Eisenhauer 2001). This was due in part, to
the time commitment required to keep small shops open.
The big box trend was foreshadowed in 1916 when a handful of merchants moved
from small, full service stores to large self service models, allowing them to increase
inventory, offer discount prices and increase profits. (Eisenhauer 2001). In order to remain
competitive with new models, the1920s saw independent merchants banding together to
retain market share. These partnerships kept many independents afloat in the increasingly
competitive food retail industry, in part because they had substantial political power. Some
progressive independents of the day formed warehouse grocery stores similar to the 1916
models. They set up large plain buildings on the outskirts of towns and cities. These stores
had night hours, provided cash and carry service only, and used aggressive advertisements.
The warehouse approach proved profitable as these stores could sell groceries at 8 –
15% cheaper than other local stores of the day. This allowed these stores to take over a large
portion of the market as Depression Era shoppers looked for ways to save their money. As a

41
result, in the early 1930’s legal action resulted in state and federal trade laws, as well as food
pricing controls, in order to compete with the first chain stores that held wholesalers hostage
by purchasing large quantities at drastically cheaper prices than what independent grocers
were offered. The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, often referred to as the Anti A&P law,
prevented wholesalers from charging retailers different prices in the same market, when
costs were not different (Eisenhauer 2001).
To add to the woes of the independent grocer, technological advances in
transportation, communications, and home appliances also contributed to supermarket
success. By 1930 the Federal Public Works program had built over 41,000 miles of new
highway to accommodate automobiles. Print media and radio gave supermarkets a vehicle
for mass advertising. Food retailers used media to promote brand recognition for products
they offered. This created brand loyal customers. Additionally, as better home refrigeration
became available, families were able to make larger purchases and get better prices at the
supermarket as opposed to the local bakery, butcher, or dairy.
During the 1940’ s supermarket popularity began to grow, creating added problems
for the independent grocer. At the onset of World War II the country was experiencing food
shortages and the loss of manpower, as men left for war. As a result, many independent
grocers went out of business. Post WWII found the food retail industry continuing toward
the self-service, large format store, this time in response to the new middle class families
building on the outskirts of town. At a time when automobile registration increased 55%,
home electricity increased 84%, and the doubling of the population, as the suburbs emerged,
the food market followed (Fetter 1992).
By the 1950’s the suburban rush was on. Suburban communities grew seven times
faster than the rest of the US, adding 12 million new households. In response, there was a

42
new retail design in place: the shopping center. The original shopping center had a multitude
of stores anchored around a food store in suburbia, so that middle class families could shop
close to home.
In the corporate world of food retail, it was apparent that the trends that stimulated
suburban developments powered a similar boom in supermarket building. Foreseeing the
future, many large chains began purchasing vast open spaces of land in these areas prior to
new housing starts.
During this same period, new food stores were continuing to grow in size. Average
grocery store size grew from the old 10 –15,000 square feet to a new 20 –25, 000 square foot
shopping environment. This meant larger inventories of food and non-food items. Larger
format stores pull a greater market share, taking customers from smaller, local independent
grocers. Between 1950 and 1960 the supermarket share of retail food jumped from 35% to
70%, creating a no win situation for independent grocers who could no longer compete
(Eisenhauer 2001). Many independents were either bought out, or closed to avoid a
takeover, meaning virtual extinction of a local food source in urban communities by the
1960’s.
Also in the 1960’s computers were introduced into the food retail industry, fast-
forwarding the food retail business. The Universal Product Codes (UPC) and scanners
allowed retailers to have direct access to consumer behavior and sales. Previously wholesale
suppliers had access to this information and told food retailers what was selling. The UPC
allowed retailers to respond to demand faster, ordering smaller more tailored deliveries
directly to the store. This reduced warehousing costs, wholesaler interaction, and increased
profits for supermarkets (Eisenhauer 2001). So much so, that toward the end of the 60’s
parent corporations of retailers were larger than wholesale suppliers, giving food retailers

43
more control over pricing, making the Robinson Patman Act unenforceable. During this
period new convenience-oriented products took over the market place increasing the average
number of items in supermarkets to 8000 by the end of the decade.
At the beginning of the 1970’s oil prices and inflation caused large supermarkets to
increase food prices. The increasing costs of refrigeration, warehousing and trucking caused
many supermarkets to leave the shopping center ideal and move back towards a warehouse
supermarket, offering bulk products and cheap prices by cutting out rising warehousing and
trucking expenses.
By the late 1970’s price wars between chains dominated in communities with two or
more chains battling for market share. The few remaining independents folded, as they could
not begin to compete with this new wave of pricing. Further worsening conditions for
independents were the fact that federal controls on pricing and mergers were not being
enforced. However, by the late 1980’s the Federal Trade Commission responded to
allegations of ineffective policymaking by saying there was no clear distinction between
competitive pricing and predatory pricing (Eisenhauer 2001).
The 1980’s also ushered in the Leveraged Buy Out (LBO). LBO’s allowed larger
chains to survive the price wars and hostile takeovers that independents could not. Large
corporate entities would acquire other smaller retailing organizations in an effort to increase
market share (horizontal integration), or, retailers would make supply agreements with
certain manufacturers (vertical integration) in an effort to maintain profitability in an
increasingly competitive market. As a result, LBOs created a concentrated retailing system in
America, allowing a few, large retailing organizations to take a commanding lead in the
market share of retail food by taking power and control over warehousing, transportation,

44
and production portions of food systems and away from former food manufacturers
(Guptill and Wilkins 2001).
The LBO had far reaching repercussions for urban communities as less profitable
stores were sold or spun off to discount versions of the more profitable stores, often
offering a more limited, less fresh variety and cheap packaged foods. This also prompted the
emergence of a more demanding and less brand loyal customer (Guptill and Wilkins 2001)
Additionally, pricing would stay steady or drop in profitable stores located in competitive
markets, while prices would be raised in profitable stores in less competitive markets. A
competitive market is one that creates a profit at the highest possible margin. For all
intensive purposes less competitive meant urban. The LBO meant that for urban dwellers,
food costs went up as quality and selection went down.
This trend occurred in every city in America. For example, Safeway, closed more
than 600 urban stores between 1978 and 1984 (Eisenhauer 2001). By 1984, as store openings
exceeded store closings, cities experienced a net loss of supermarkets, meaning that food
stores continued to open in competitive, middle and upper income markets, while in urban
areas, food stores closed more often than they were opened. Some have called this
phenomena supermarket redlining (Eisenhauer 2001).
After several decades of growth, the food retail industry in America was experiencing
declining net profits and slower growth rates by the 1990s. In addition to LBOs, alternative
store formats including mass retailers with grocery sections (WalMart), warehouse
superstores (Sams Club), and discount pharmacy chains (the Pharm) introduced new threats
to the traditional grocery/supermarket concept. A 1992 Food Marketing Institute Study
found that these types of stores enjoyed a 26% cost advantage over conventional grocers
because they provided lower service levels, and experienced lower costs for warehousing,

45
transportation and advertising (Guptill and Wilkins 2001). The stores were more than
100,000 square feet, allowing them to gain market share in some of the most profitable food
product categories and eventually captured the food dollars from suburban families with
children, who comprise the most lucrative segment of the shopping public. Since 2000, these
entities have become the fastest growing segment in food sales nationwide.
4.2 Retail Food Store Location
The food retail system encompasses traditional food stores, a growing population of
warehouse clubs and super centers, and food service operators like restaurants and fast food
outlets. In 2002 there were 224,300 food stores that sold $449 billion of retail food and
nonfood products. (US Census Bureau 2002) Food stores rely on volume of sales to create
those profits. To ensure that volume remains high, food retail stores must have a steady
stream of sales. This requires populations with incomes that allow them to meet basic needs.
People in poverty have always been defined in America, based on their ability to meet basic
needs. With this in mind, the food retail industry has tended to shy away from poverty areas,
opting to follow middle and high-income families to suburban locations.
Since the 1950’s numerous supermarket chains and independent grocers have left
low income, inner city neighborhoods as convenience stores and food service operators have
replaced them. Cotteril and Franklin, in a 1995 study of 21 US metropolitan areas, compared
the presence of supermarkets with the proportion of the population on public assistance in
each zip code. They found the households with the lowest incomes had the fewest stores,
sometimes 69% less than surrounding affluent areas (Cotteril and Franklin 1995). They also
suggested that in most cities, the higher the number of people on aid, the smaller the
number and size of food stores. Alwit and Donley completed a similar study in Chicago and

46
found that poor zip codes have fewer supermarkets than non-poor zip codes (Nayga and
Weinberg 1999). Reasons for supermarket redlining include declining middle class, civil
unrest, higher cost of doing business, and more spacious secure suburban locations (Nayga
and Weinberg 1999). The trend has increased as the decades go by.
Between 1970 and 1990 over half of all supermarkets in the three largest cities in the
US closed, leaving urban residents to depend on small stores with limited selection of foods
sold at substantially higher prices (Nayga and Weinberg 1999). The low point for urban
retailing occurred during the 1980’s when cities experienced a net loss of supermarkets. At
the same time, across the nation, store openings exceeded store closings. This is indicative of
trends toward fewer, larger stores on the outside of city.
There are a host of issues related to putting and keeping supermarkets in low-income
neighborhoods. According to Nayga and Weinberg, the issues include site availability and
selection, financing, construction and profitability, and are outlined below.
Site availability. The 1950s brought about vast changes in the food retail industry.
One major change was the size of food stores. Due to continuing trends in opening larger
stores, most supermarket companies look for large sites zoned for commercial enterprise.
Zoning laws in many urban communities to not allow for large, big box stores. As a result,
locating large lots can be an impossible task. This means that many urban supermarkets fall
below the industry average size, which has a direct bearing on product variety, and customer
satisfaction. To further exacerbate this situation, local governments are often focused on
more productive areas of the city. Demographics such as homeownership, employment and
unemployment statistics, crime rates and proximity to warehouses and distribution centers
also mean that new food providers best overlook sites in the inner city.

47
Partnerships. Many partners are required to collaborate to bring any business to
new areas – non-profits, government, realtors, and community organizations are all
stakeholders in economic activity in urban centers. It takes an alliance of public and private
agencies and joint ventures to make supermarket development in the inner city successful.
Often times it can be increasingly difficult to work with the multiple needs of each entity to
create a successful building or relocating project in urban centers. Commonly a community
development corporation (CDC), experienced in neighborhood revitalization spearheads
these types of projects. Consequently, there are fewer agencies requesting services in urban
areas that are willing to take the lead on such a daunting, and potentially unprofitable,
venture.
Financing. In order to develop a major supermarket today, partnerships must
formulate multi million dollar packages. Public sector funding such as the Community
Development Block Grant, which provide operating funds for CDCs have continued to
receive decreased funding, making it virtually impossible to add new demands on an already
constrained budget. Private sector funding includes Community Reinvestment Act funds,
Local Initiatives Support Corporation funds and Tax Credits (Nayga and Weingberg 1999).
These funds have also been restricted to supporting ongoing development and have tended
to shy away from funding new commercial developments, in low-income areas.
Construction. In the event that these hurdles have been overcome, food stores
must then go through the construction phase. In the inner city, construction costs are
generally higher than in suburban areas, mainly because of regulatory requirements of city
governments like zoning, architectural codes and permits. In order to successfully complete
construction of new developments businesses must complete complicated requirements and

48
gain approval from community residents. Other construction issues include obtaining local
skilled labor and addressing the security concerns of construction sites in urban areas.
Profitability. Historically, profit margins in grocery stores have been low and are
based on volume and efficiency. If a supermarket is constructed in a low-income
neighborhood it is generally affected by the unique shopping patterns of low-income
residents. Issues such as lower per customer spending, weekly business fluctuations, and
receipt of public assistance all factor into the difference in shopping patterns in inner cities.
Food Stamp and WIC purchases are higher, and weekly fluctuations in sales occur around
benefit issuance. To combat this issue, some states have staggered food stamp issuance
throughout the month to each cash flow problems in supermarkets located in inner cities
(Nayga and Weinberg 1999).
Management and operations. Issues that need resolving in this area include sales
volume, operating costs, security, labor force, shopping carts and product selection.
Although inner city areas provide good marketing opportunities because of high
concentrations of people in immediate neighborhoods, customer counts and per capita
spending are often cyclical and are dependent upon public assistance issuance dates.
Additionally, low-income shoppers shop more frequently but make smaller than average
purchases. In order to stay profitable, food store managers must create fixes that offset these
volume-oriented concerns. Other concerns involve wholesale purchasing. Because of
fluctuations throughout the month, inner city stores often are unable to approach
wholesalers with large enough volumes to ensure good prices, particularly with perishable
items like fresh fruit and vegetables, and also dairy. If savings are not seen at the wholesale
level, they cannot be passed on to consumers. This often occurs in inner city supermarkets,
as prices can be 10% or higher than stores in suburban areas. Another operating concern

49
includes higher utility rates. These rates can be a problem for inner city supermarkets
because there is often a need for increased lighting to ensure safety for shoppers and
employees. The high crime rates associated with inner city areas keep customers away and
create situations were supermarkets have to take expensive measures to maintain a safe
shopping environment (Nayga and Weinberg 1999). One of those measures includes
safeguarding shopping carts. Because of a lack of transportation, many low-income shoppers
“borrow” carts to carry purchases home. Shopping carts can cost hundreds of dollars each,
thereby creating additional operational costs to supermarkets.
Human resources. Because supermarket operations are labor intensive it is
necessary to recruit, train, and retain quality employees. The work patterns of inner city
residents have been well documented (Porter 1997) to show that a disproportionate number
have problems with long-term employment. However, many store operators make a special
effort to employ local labor because supermarket employment is much higher per square
foot than most other retail entities (Eisenhauer 2001). Other reasons include improving
neighborhood relations, creating customer loyalty and developing a product mix that appeals
to local shoppers. When located in urban areas, where the work force has limited educational
backgrounds and low skill levels, it is difficult to meet human resource needs. However,
supermarkets located in urban centers often must deal with high turnover when opting to
employ local residents. In order to recruit efficient employees, supermarkets must have a
direct connection to the community the store is located in. Training and skills development
programs for employees can be costly to inner city supermarkets and often require
partnerships with local education institutes.
These and other issues create real problems and hinder corporate owned, chain
stores from considering location in inner cities. However, other categories of food stores

50
may opt to give the inner city a chance. In order to delineate types of food stores, it is
necessary to discuss the definitions and classifications used to determine food store
categories.
4.3 Typology of Grocery Stores
In order to clarify types of stores it is necessary to provide a typology that defines the
general characteristics of food stores by category. The US Census Bureau uses the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to do this. NAICS was developed to
provide a consistent framework for the collection, analysis and dissemination of industry
statistics. Utilizing an economic concept, establishments are grouped together into industries
based on the production processes used to produce goods and services (Ambler 1998).
Selected 2002 NAICS codes and definitions for the food retail industry are included in Table
4.1.
While NAICS descriptions are beneficial for classifying food store types, it is
necessary to further classify food stores based on sales, size, and product offerings. Guptill
and Wilkins (2001) provide a typology of grocery stores that distinguishes nine types of
grocery stores, grouped into four categories, which will be used in utilized to discuss food
stores in the local setting in Chapter 5.

51
Table 4.1 NAICS Descriptions
(Source: NAICS 2002)
4451
Grocery Stores
This industry group comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing a
general line of food products.
445110 Supermarkets and Other
Grocery (except
Convenience) Stores
This industry comprises establishments generally known as supermarkets and
grocery stores primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food, such as
canned and frozen foods; fresh fruits and vegetables; and fresh and prepared
meats, fish, and poultry. Included in this industry are delicatessen-type
establishments primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food.
445120
Convenience Stores
This industry comprises establishments known as convenience stores or food
marts (except those with fuel pumps) primarily engaged in retailing a limited
line of goods that generally includes milk, bread, soda, and snacks.
4452
Specialty Food Stores
This industry group comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing
specialized lines of food.
445210
Meat Markets
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing fresh,
frozen, or cured meats and poultry. Delicatessen-type establishments primarily
engaged in retailing fresh meat are included in this industry.
445220
Fish and Seafood Markets
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing fresh,
frozen, or cured fish and seafood products
445230 Fruit and Vegetable
Markets
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing fresh
fruits and vegetables
44529
Other Specialty Food
Stores
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing specialty
foods (except meat, fish, seafood, and fruits and vegetables) not for
immediate consumption and not made on premises.
445291
Baked Goods Stores
This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing
baked goods not for immediate consumption and not made on the premises
445292
Confectionery and Nut
Stores
candy and other confections, nuts, and popcorn not for immediate
consumption and not made on the premises.
445299
All Other Specialty Food
Stores
miscellaneous specialty foods (except meat, fish, seafood, fruit and vegetables,
confections, nuts, popcorn, and baked goods) not for immediate consumption
and not made on the premises.

Thesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Thesis

Similar to Thesis (20)

Thesis