Homeward Bound Page 1

INTRODUCTION

Page 2 Homeward Bound

In 1993, a UCLA research team publisheda comprehensive study of the food system, Seeds of Change: Strategies for

Food Security for the Inner City. The studyincluded a detailed case study evaluatingthe ability of the food system to meet theneeds of the residents of one South CentralLos Angeles neighborhood. As part of thatevaluation, the study documented a widerange of food insecurity indicators:

• 27% of area residents reported they wenthungry an average of five days everymonth;

• The absence of nearby supermarkets wascompounded by lower than average ve-hicle ownership. Further, bus lines didnot correspond to market location. As aresult, the lack of transportation for foodbuying purposes was defined by resi-dents as a major community problem;

• Food prices for residents of the casestudy area — who spent 36% of theirannual income on food — averaged $275more per year than residents of a selectedsuburban area who spent 12% of theirincome on food;

• The lack of fresh quality produce illus-trated the issue of nutritional deficien-cies and related health and learningproblems that are endemic in low incomeareas.1

In response to such pronounced food secu-rity needs, the Seeds of Change study alsoanalyzed a number of recent, largely explor-atory strategies designed to empower com-munities and shift the focus of interventionfrom “hunger” to “food security”, a conceptthat had up to then been used primarily inthe international development literature.The study pointed out that the concept ofhunger had been predominantly associated

with individual needs in securing an ad-equate diet, while the lack of food securityreferred to community and ownership is-sues: access, availability, resources, price,quality, environmental considerations, in-come levels, and other community-relatedfactors. Food security strategies might in-clude direct grower-to-consumer programslike farmers’ markets, urban agricultureopportunities such as community gardens,or community food production facilitiessuch as bakeries or tortillerias. Programsdesigned to address supermarket locationand transportation access needs also repre-sented possible food security initiatives.These could include joint venture operationsto attract supermarkets in low income areasas well as to create community benefits suchas new paratransit services for residentswithout cars, or other innovative transpor-tation programs for increased food access.Thus the concept of food security, particu-larly in the context of food access, empha-sizes the importance of location or place inregional, municipal, and neighborhood-level (e.g., community) settings.

Among the range of food insecurity indica-tors, the issues of access stand out as a pri-mary problem area in which several otherfactors such as price, nutritional quality, orstorage capability are significantly related.Yet despite the prominence of access needsin urban food systems, research by food sys-tem analysts regarding transportation issueshas been relatively sparse. Transportationplanners, meanwhile, have undertaken spe-cific research involving equity consider-ations in transportation planning, includingthe limits of transportation systems address-ing the needs of low income communitiesand the problems associated with low ve-hicle ownership in car-dependent commu-nities like Los Angeles.2 Only a few studies,however, have explored the connection be-tween access and availability of fresh, high

Homeward Bound Page 3

quality, competitively priced food in suchcommunities, even as surveys have indi-cated that the access/availability link re-mains a powerful concern in low incomecommunities.3

The most common focus, both of researchand advocacy work on those subjects, hasbeen the relationship between vehicle own-ership and supermarket location.4 As de-scribed in this Report, the trend towardssupermarket abandonment of low incomeneighborhoods that significantly escalatedduring the 1960s and 1970s exacerbated analready existing problemof transportation access.Even with the renewedinterest of food chains inrelocating to certain lowincome urban communi-ties, supermarkets havefailed to directly addressthe transportation ques-tion. In analyzing retailindustry approaches, forexample, project team re-searchers have noted thenearly complete absenceof any discrete transportation policy of themajor supermarket chains. This situationprevails despite the clear (and often recog-nized) benefits of such a policy, such as anincreased customer base or the possible re-duction in the replacement cost of shoppingcarts (which represent a considerable,though hidden, cost associated with transitdependency and the lack of food access).Where food retail managers have sought todevelop transportation programs for theirstores, they have been influenced primarilyby “goodwill” and “community service”considerations, rather than an evaluation oftransportation/access factors in the contextof store performance. 5

Despite the absence of a supermarket ap-

proach to customer transportation needsand the dearth of transportation planninginitiatives that incorporate food access, therehave nevertheless been recent attempts bycommunity organizations, food marketmanagers, and government agencies to ad-dress this issue. Out of these efforts, a vari-ety of transportation/food access programsare currently in operation, at a developmentstage, or represent concepts still needing tobe implemented. And while these programsdo suggest that opportunities for a food ac-cess approach do exist, they remain sepa-rate from any more integrated transporta-

tion strategies on the partof either retailers, trans-portation planning agen-cies, or various serviceproviders. For food ac-cess to be more success-fully addressed as a com-munity food security ap-proach it needs to becomepart of a transportationplanning as well as foodsystem planning process.

Homeward Bound is di-vided into five Sections. Section I, FoodAccess and The Transit Dependent, identi-fies a range of issues concerning the lack offood access in low income communities. Itelaborates the specific contributions to theproblems of food insecurity associated withaccess needs, such as supermarket locationor nutritional deficiencies. It includes a lit-erature review on access issues from both afood systems and transportation planningperspective. Section II, Current Policies,reviews and analyzes the nature of the pro-grams and policies that have been estab-lished regarding food access by both publicand private sector groups. These includelocal and federal food and transportationprograms, and the approach of the food re-tail industry. Section III, Exploratory Pro-

Even with the renewedinterest of food chains inrelocating to certain lowincome urban communi-ties, supermarkets havefailed to directly addressthe transportation ques-tion.

Page 4 Homeward Bound

grams — Case Studies, describes variousexploratory and innovative programs thathave emerged in recent years, representingopportunities available for improving foodaccess in low income communities. Theseprograms are primarily, though not exclu-sively associated with paratransit services.While many of these programs have beensuccessful in terms of their (often looselydefined) objectives (as well as certain unan-ticipated benefits), they remain discrete, dis-tinctive examples, not linked to any broaderpolicy or planning approaches.

Section IV, New Models for Greater FoodAccess, in seeking to build on the potentialapplicability of the kinds of programs de-scribed in Section III, identifies three typesof models for developing new policy andprogrammatic approaches in the food accessarea. These include a private, joint venture(public/private partnership), and non-profitapproach. Finally, a concluding section de-tails the Report’s policy and programmaticrecommendations for expanding food ac-cess.

Food access, we have concluded, is an issuethat has yet to fully locate its own policy andprogrammatic niche. Yet, in an era of transitdependencies and growing food insecurityindicators, food access has become a grow-ing topic for both anti-hunger activists, thefood industry, and policymakers. By inte-grating food security and transportationplanning and policy development,policymakers, transit officials, the food in-dustry (including most crucially the foodretail sector), and community groups havethe capacity to establish more expansivefood access strategies beyond the limited, adhoc measures that exist today. The opportu-nities, our Report makes clear, are available,even if programs and policies still need tobe nourished and systematized.

Homeward Bound Page 5

1. Seeds of Change: Strategies for Food Se-curity for the Inner City, Linda Ashman etal., Department of Urban Planning, Univer-sity of California, Los Angeles, June 1993

2. See for example “Social Impacts of UrbanTransportation Decisions: Equity Issues”,David Hodge, in The Geography of UrbanTransportation, Edited by Susan Hanson,New York: The Guilford Press, 1995; The Carand the City: The Automobile, the Built En-vironment, and Daily Urban Life, edited byMartin Wachs and Margaret Crawford, AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992

3. See for example Community Retail NeedsAssessment, A Market Research Report Pre-pared for RLA, ConsumerQuest, Los Ange-les, May 3, 1995; see also The RelationshipBetween Transportation Services and UrbanActivities: The Food Retail DistributionCase, Youngbin Lee Yim, University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley: Institute of TransportationStudies, June 1990.

4. See, for example, Public Voice for Foodand Health Policy, No Place to Shop: Chal-lenges and Opportunities Facing the Devel-opment of Supermarkets in Urban America,Washington D.C.: Public Voice, February1996

5. Seeds of Change, p.133 In one interview forthis Report, a supermarket executive actu-ally defined shopping cost losses as consti-tuting their transportation policy; that is,since stolen carts provided a means to trans-port the bags of groceries to the home, that,in effect, created a transportation “service”.

ENDNOTES: INTRODUCTION

Page 6 Homeward Bound

SECTION I:

FOOD ACCESS AND THE TRANSIT DEPENDENT:WHERE TO GET FOOD AND HOW TO GET THERE

Food Access and Community Food Security

Homeward Bound Page 7

A crucial beginning point in evaluating community food security is therelationship question of food access

and transit dependency. Food access can bedefined as the ability of people to obtain thefood items they need from the food outletsavailable in a given area, within the limitsof their ability to get there and get back,among other factors. Any part of that rela-tionship — the nature of the food items andoutlets available, the means and availabil-ity of transit, and the distance between resi-dence and outlet — contributes to the mea-sure of food access for the residents of a par-ticular community. Put another way, themeasure of access is one crucial yardstick ofhow much food insecurity exists within thatcommunity. 1

Transit dependent areas, in turn, can be de-fined as communities with a lower than av-erage vehicle ownership within a given re-gion, defined for the purposes of this studyas less than 80 percent. This definition re-flects the dominant role of the automobilein both transportation planning and thetransportation infrastructure that has beenestablished in relation to that dominance.The problem of transit dependency is par-ticularly exacerbated with respect to foodaccess concerns, given the problems of loca-tion, pricing, and quality of both food andtransportation services available. Indicationsof food insecurity then also underline theproblems associated with transit depen-dency.

This section describes access-related prob-lems in transit dependent communities in-volving two types of food outlets: full ser-vice food markets (e.g., supermarket chains)and direct marketing arrangements (e.g.,farmers’ markets). Several different dimen-sions of those food access/transit depen-dency relationships are explored: a) foodinsecurity indicators in low income commu-

nities, such as supermarket location, that areaccess-based or have food access implica-tions; b) the absence or availability of freshor high quality produce in different commu-nities, such as through farmers’ markets, andthe health or nutritional implications of lackof access to such fresh produce; and c) thenature of the transportation issues associ-ated with food access in low income com-munities, including equity considerations,and the focus or lack of focus on intra-neigh-borhood needs, such as food shopping, inrelation to some of the current transit plan-ning approaches.

FOOD INSECURITY INDICATORS

Supermarket Location and Food Access

Low income urban areas across the countryare disproportionately underserved by thesupermarket industry. In one analysis of 21medium to large sized cities sampled, su-permarkets in 19 of those cities were shownto be inequitably distributed.2 Of those 19cities, there were 30% fewer stores per capitain the lowest income zip codes than in thehighest income zip codes. Similarly, thosezip codes with the greatest number of per-sons on public assistance had 20% fewersupermarkets than the zip codes that havea low percentage of persons receiving pub-lic assistance.3 Studies in cities such asCleveland, St Paul, East St Louis, IL, SanFrancisco, Los Angeles, and Austin, Texas,underscore these statistics, painting a moredetailed picture of the lack of food access inspecific neighborhoods. 4

In Austin, Texas, for example, only one su-permarket serves every 3,910 households inthe primarily Latino low income neighbor-hood of the Eastside as compared to one per3,170 households in Travis County as awhole. An analysis of the supermarket in-

Page 8 Homeward Bound

dustry reveals that increasing levels of con-centration and centralization resulted in theloss to Texas communities of 500 supermar-kets from 1982 to 1987. Within the past year,three stores serving low income communi-ties in Austin have closed while anotherthree have opened up in suburban commu-nities. According to Kate Fitzgerald, direc-tor of Austin’s Sustainable Food Center, thesponsoring organization of “Access De-nied,” a report detailing food insecurity onthe Eastside, “Each of these supermarketrelocations show how affluent neighbor-hoods gain food resources at the expense oflower income areas.”5

Fitzgerald’s comments raise the issue of su-permarket redlining and abandonment ofinner city areas. Los Angeles represents anexcellent case study of how the industry re-structured over the past two decades, dis-proportionately affecting low income resi-dents. The issue of food access becamehighly visible as a result of the 1992 civil dis-turbances, and subsequent public commit-ments by virtually every supermarket chainto rebuild in the “impacted areas.” In whatis generally considered one of the most com-petitive food retailing markets in the nation,our research has documented how foodstore location patterns in Los Angelesevolved so that large areas came to be dra-matically underserved by the food retailingindustry.

Computer mapping of supermarket loca-tions overlaid with census data reveals thatover one million persons in Los AngelesCounty reside in areas where access to su-permarkets may be problematic. These “su-permarket deficient areas” (see Map 1) aredefined as places without a supermarketwithin walking distance (.5 mile radius), andwith a transit dependent population (>17.7% of households, or the 80th percen-tile in the 1990 Census). By way of compari-

son, in 1990, there was one full service foodstore for every 26,400 people in what isbroadly defined as inner city Los Angeles,versus one store per 15,200 people in thesuburban San Fernando Valley area. In eco-nomic development terms, this deficit canbe viewed in light of its potential for sup-porting new stores. In the 52 square mile“impacted area,” there exists $412 millionof unmet annual demand for groceries,which translates into 750,000 square feet ofselling space, or the equivalent of about 20average size supermarkets. 6

The absence of supermarkets in core urbanareas has not always been the case. The shiftfrom urban core locations has its roots in the1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, when supermarketindustry restructuring and the migration ofthe middle class to the suburbs led to whathas been identified by some analysts as an“abandonment” of inner city neighbor-hoods. Supermarket flight during this pe-riod has been documented in multiple loca-tions across the country. In Los Angeles, thenumber of chain supermarkets within anarea broadly defined as part of the inner cityor urban core shrunk from 44 in 1975 to 31in 1991.7 Also, in 1975, one study found thatlow income communities in eight cities (Bir-mingham, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, LA,Newark, St Louis, and San Antonio) had onthe average 32.7% fewer supermarkets thanhigher income areas within those same cit-ies.8 Similarly, in 1984, a Hartford, Connecti-cut report found that 11 of 13 supermarketswithin city limits had closed their doors.9

As described in several studies, the shift ofsupermarket locations outside the urbancore coincided and ultimately convergedwith parallel trends regarding populationshifts and new transportation corridors.10The move made sense from a developmentperspective. Further, it was easier to buildlarger stores in the suburbs because large

Homeward Bound Page 9

MAP 1

Page 10 Homeward Bound

tracts of land were still available. This en-abled stores to stock more non-food itemswith higher profit margins, increasing theircash flow and profits. Supermarkets alsohad an easier time extracting concessionsfrom expanding suburbs in need of a taxbase and services for their residents. Demo-graphics, development forces, shifts in trans-portation patterns and the pressures of themarket all pushed the supermarkets to tar-get their efforts toward the suburbs.

While the industry focused its resources onbuilding new stores in suburban locales, itsimultaneously began tosell or close down urbancore markets located in oradjacent to low incomeneighborhoods. This fur-ther reinforced the trendtoward increasing con-centration of the super-market industry. InSouthern California, ourresearch indicates thatfrom 1963 to 1991, thenumber of chains withfour or more stores decreased from 34 to 14,while the average number of stores operatedby each chain rose by 283%. The top fourchains controlled 73% of the stores in 1991as compared to 43% in 1963. The acquisitionof entire chains in this process fueled thedrive toward concentration in ownership,leaving the remaining companies withheavy debt burdens. In order to generateneeded capital, heavily indebted chains soldoff smaller, less profitable stores, many ofwhich were located in or adjacent to lowincome neighborhoods.

Location and Equity:Issues Facing Urban Supermarkets

The problem of location is exacerbated bythe operating conditions of inner city mar-

kets. Inner city stores tend to have higheroperating costs than suburban stores. Secu-rity costs, greater “shrink” (loss of productdue to employee theft, shoplifting, etc.),greater numbers of bad checks, and high la-bor costs, due to frequent turnover and moreinexperienced employees, account for alarge percentage of the difference in operat-ing expenses. Other factors include higherreal estate taxes, insurance, repair and main-tenance to older stores, depreciation, andshopping cart loss. 11 Intra-firm logisticsmake it more expensive and labor-intensiveto operate older inner city stores. Smaller,

less mechanized loadingdocks make for morecomplicated deliveryschedules and higher la-bor costs. The demand forculture specific foods alsocan be problematic forstandardized productmixes. 12 Finally, monthlyfood shopping patternsare uneven with pur-chases concentrated to-ward the beginning of the

month (when government benefits are dis-tributed), resulting in greater labor sched-uling costs and difficulties.

Inner city stores typically experience lowersales and profits. Because of customers’modest disposable incomes and large eld-erly populations which often inhabit innercity areas, per customer expenditures are fre-quently lower than average, affecting totalsales volume. Older, smaller stores have lessshelf space to stock non-food and luxuryitems with high profit margins. As a result,profit as a percentage of sales (and on a persquare foot basis) tends to be substantiallylower than for suburban markets.13

Despite an increasing concentration in own-ership, the supermarket industry remains a

Inner city residents notonly have fewer super-markets in their neigh-borhoods, but less foodaccess due to restrictedtransportation options.

Homeward Bound Page 11

highly competitive business with razor thinprofit margins that are as low as 1%. Com-petition results in lower prices, and is mostprevalent between chains in the same tradeareas (the geographical confines from whichmarkets draw their clientele), typically lim-ited to a few square miles. In inner city com-munities however, the absence of supermar-kets often translates into a lack of competi-tion, as a single store may dominate a giventrade area. Little competition combinedwith high operating costs and low sales vol-ume often results in higher prices for innercity shoppers.14 This problem is exacerbatedfor supermarkets in areas with low vehicleownership rates, which are likely to faceeven less competition, as patron immobilityshrinks the trade area.

Transportation Barriers for UrbanSupermarkets

Inner city residents not only have fewer su-permarkets in their neighborhoods, but lessfood access due to restricted transportationoptions. Automobile ownership is less com-mon among the poor than among the non-poor. Only 22% of food stamp recipientsdrove their own car to purchase groceriesas compared to 96% of non-food stamp re-cipients according to a USDA study.15 In themajority of the 21 cities studied by the Uni-versity of Connecticut’s Food Policy Market-ing Center, those zip codes with the fewestsupermarkets per capita also had the low-est percentage of vehicle ownership. In somecases, such as New York City, the poorestzip codes as defined by percentage of house-holds receiving public assistance, had carownership rates of less than 40%. In the othercities, it hovered between 60% to 80%. Bycomparison, wealthier neighborhoods inthese cities have vehicle ownership ratesgenerally in excess of 95% (with the notedexception of New York). 16

For those households without access to avehicle and at a lengthy distance (e.g.> 3-5miles) to a full service food market, trans-portation options are both limited and prob-lematic. Transport via taxis and/or buses orpaying for a ride can be costly, reducing afamily’s food budget by up to $400 peryear.17 Moreover, bus lines rarely are de-signed to serve intra-neighborhood foodshopping patterns, as described elsewherein this Report. Instead, as in the case of oneSouth Central Los Angeles community, theyare planned around commuter routes, feed-ing into downtown. 18 The recent examplesdescribed in Section III of the Austin circu-lator route and the K-Trans route extensionin Knoxville are especially significant as ex-ceptions to the rule.

Because of the high cost of door to doortransportation (taxis) and the inconvenienceof mass transit (long waits, multiple trans-fers, long walks to bus stops), carrying gro-ceries home becomes a frequent occurrencedespite its problematic nature. In one lowincome neighborhood in South Central LosAngeles, one third of the residents surveyedreported difficulties carrying their grocerieshome, roughly the same number of personswithout access to a vehicle.19 On a moreanecdotal level, a 1995 Los Angeles Times ar-ticle profiled a young woman with two chil-dren riding the bus back from the supermar-ket, descriptive of one of the numerous dailyobstacles confronting transit dependent ur-ban residents. The article specificallychronicled the woman’s struggles gettinghome while carrying several bags of grocer-ies. At the same time, shopping choices be-came constrained (e.g., she had to choosebetween purchasing a gallon of milk and ajug of laundry detergent, given her inabil-ity to carry both home). 20

As a result of the difficulties in carrying sev-eral bags of groceries long distances, many

Page 12 Homeward Bound

inner city residents opt to “borrow” grocerycarts. In some neighborhoods, removal of thecarts from the premises may be so endemicthat it results in cart shortages. Shopping cartloss has proven to be such a problem at oneEast St Louis store that they are locked upand patrons charged a quarter deposit. 21Waits of up to 20-30 minutes for a shoppingcart are not uncommon in another Austinmarket. 22 (Section II provides a more de-tailed discussion of the shopping cart/foodaccess link).

In sum, transportation obstacles prevent in-ner city residents from shopping where theywould like. For those households withoutaccess to a vehicle, distance, not price or se-lection, is the primary factor determiningchoice of food store.23 Food shopping be-comes a question of not what one would liketo buy, but what is available, given mobilityrestrictions. In this context, the developmentof a centralized supermarket-based fooddistribution system, as facilitated by thegrowth in popular ownership of the auto-mobile, and in conjunction with the unre-sponsiveness of the mass transit sector to thefood shopping-related transportation needsof the poor, has substantially diminished thefood security of many inner city communi-ties.

HEALTH AND NUTRITIONALIMPLICATIONS

The Small Store Syndrome

Poor food access negatively affects the healthof inner city consumers through three fun-damental avenues. As shown above, transitdependent residents often must dedicatesubstantial resources to obtain transporta-tion to and from the store, reducing fundsavailable for food purchases. Similarly, highprices reduce the buying power of the poor.

In both cases, the ensuing result of reducedpurchasing power from an individual stand-point is increased hunger and reduced abil-ity to purchase non-staples with greaterprice elasticity such as fruits and vegetables.Up to one billion dollars in food stamp pur-chasing power may be lost due to higherprices in inner city markets. 24 A price com-parison in Los Angeles found that a marketbasket containing items necessary for a mini-mally nutritionally adequate diet would costa family of three $285 more per year whenpurchased in inner city supermarkets thanin comparable suburban markets. 25 Whilesupermarkets in low income neighborhoodsmay charge high prices (for the reasons de-scribed in the previous section), corner momand pop stores’ prices are often astronomi-cal. With their lack of an economy of scale,small stores often purchase their items atnear retail prices at “cash and carry” out-lets, and must charge substantial margins ontheir goods. Prices at mom and pop storeshave been reported to be 42%-64% higherthan at surrounding supermarkets. 26

Just as mom and pop stores must chargehigh margins to be economically viable, theymust stock goods with high profit margins.Limited shelf and cooler space combinedwith the costs of spoilage preclude themfrom carrying a full line of healthy foods andproduce. Surveys of mom and pop storeshave found little in the way of produce,which, when present, includes an abun-dance of packaged processed foods, is oftenof poor quality and aged, and often provideslittle selection of low-fat products, such asskim milk. Research of Los Angeles “momand pops” found it impossible to purchasea nutritionally adequate diet as defined bythe USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan in any one orcombination of these stores. By way of ex-ample, in another low income community,only five of 38 convenience stores stockedthe ingredients for a balanced meal. Of these

Homeward Bound Page 13

stores, only half carried milk, while all soldalcohol.27

Diet and Health Consequences

The lack of availability of healthy foods canaggravate high rates of diet-related diseasesto which Latinos and African Americans(who often are the primary demographicgroups in inner cities) are most vulnerable.One of the most important outcomes of poornutrition is increased incidence of chronicdisease; studies show that 35-60% of all can-cers in the US are diet-related. 28 Accordingto a leading expert on the relationship be-tween disease and diet among minorities:

Dietary factors are epidemiologicallylinked to chronic diseases, includeoverconsumption of kilocalories, andfat, leading to diabetes mellitus, obe-sity, cardiovascular disease and certaincancers, excess intakes of sodium orsalt- cured or pickled foods-, leadingto hypertension or stomach cancer andinadequate consumption of foods ornutrients that may protect against car-diovascular disease, cancer, or os-teoporosis, (e.g. vitamin A,caretenoids, vitamin C,potassium, calcium, fi-ber, and complex car-bohydrates, fruits andvegetables, cruciferousvegetables, or betacarotene rich fruits andvegetables). 29

Latinos and African-Americans in the US suf-fer from higher than average rates of chronicdisease. Poverty, lack of education, and ac-cess to health care may influence dispropor-tionate morbidity levels for many minori-ties. African-Americans have a 110% higherrate of low birth weight infants, which is a

typical measure of maternal nutrition. Child-hood anemia, due to poor nutrition, is foundin 20-33% of all black children. Heart dis-ease (related to saturated fat intake amongother factors) is twice as common among Af-rican Americans as among whites. AfricanAmericans tend to suffer from obesity atgreater rates than among whites. Blacks alsohave higher rates of diabetes and stomachcancer than whites. 30

Latinos suffer from higher rates of a varietyof diet related diseases than whites. Latinoshave three times the likelihood of contract-ing diabetes than whites. Latinos also sufferfrom excess incidence of cancers of the stom-ach, pancreas, esophagus, gallbladder, andcervix, and lower rates of breast and coloncancer. Obesity and higher prevalence ofcardiovascular diseases are also commonamong Latinos. 31

Farmers Markets: Unrealized Opportuni-ties

Farmers markets can play an important rolein providing access to healthy foods in in-ner city communities. Farmers’ marketscarry fresh, high-quality produce, often

picked the very day ofsale. They are relativelyeasy to establish, requir-ing only a few thousanddollars in start up costsand perhaps 6 months toone year lead time, ascompared to a new super-market which may re-quire 2-5 years and mil-lions of dollars in capital

outlays. Produce is usually priced competi-tively with or below supermarket prices,depending upon the season and loss lead-ers. 32

However, farmers’ markets have not

Food shopping becomesa question of not whatone would like to buy,but what is available,given mobility restric-tions

Page 14 Homeward Bound

emerged as a option for improving inner cityfood access to high quality foods. Farmers’markets, to begin with, carry only a finiteselection of goods, such as produce, eggs,nuts, honey, fish, juices and jams, andbreads. Canned and dried goods, or othermanufactured foods are normally prohibitedfrom sale. They are also limited in time andspace, open only once a week for a few hoursa day, when many people are at work orhave other access constraints. Moreover,efforts to establish farmers’ markets in lowincome neighborhoods have been few andnot universally successful. In Los Angeles,while there are eight farmers marketsin the relatively compact middleand upper income Westsideneighborhoods, there areonly two serving the geo-graphically more expan-sive supermarket deficientareas of the city. These pat-terns have been repeatedin other urban communi-ties as well.

TRANSPORTATION BIASES

Equity Issues

Low income/transit dependent communi-ties almost invariably face a double bind re-garding food access issues. On the one hand,as described above, low income communi-ties have fewer full service food markets,fewer farmers’ markets, higher priced fooditems, and health and nutritional problemsexacerbated by the lack of food outlets. Atthe same time, low income communitieshave fewer automobiles per capita and ulti-mately rely on transportation services thatare often not only inconvenient but also in-equitable in their pricing and in the waytransportation routes are established. Whilesome attention has been paid to this double

bind from food system analysts, most of theanalysis of the nature of transportation ser-vices for low income communities has beenlimited to the discussion of concerns aboutequity — particularly pricing — and onlytangentially to the question of access to com-munity services, such as food shopping.

Equity issues have primarily been examinedby evaluating the net distributional effectsof benefits and costs of transit subsidiesamong different income and racial/ethnicgroups.33 Benefits are typically defined asincluding the level and quality of service,

access to transit services, and types ofservice (e.g., bus, rail, subway).

Costs are defined as includingrevenue sources such as

taxes, and fares chargedper customer. Equity con-siderations also addressthe allocation as well asthe types of benefits andcosts. While a few studies

have pointed to certain fa-vorable distributional im-

pacts on the poor, other stud-ies that have focused on alloca-

tion decisions have clearly suggested thatfederal policies, including subsidy pay-ments, create powerful inequities in transitresource allocations which ultimately en-courage regressive fare pricing approacheswhich most heavily impact lower-incometransit riders. 34

Among such inequities, the most prominentform of transit subsidy, above and beyondthe historic funding of automobile-orientedinfrastructure such as the federal highwaysystem, has been the federal focus on com-muter rail, which in turn has been the modeused by the most affluent transit users. Bysubsidizing longer distance commutes be-tween home and work (primarily designedto accommodate central business districts as

Ultimately, inner citytransit services havenot been oriented to-ward intra-neighbor-hood needs such asfood shopping.

Homeward Bound Page 15

opposed to neighborhood locations), othertransit operations such as inner city busroutes tend to cross-subsidize the longertrips. As a consequence, low income and/or minority riders receive fewer subsidybenefits than their more affluent, primarilyAnglo counterparts. This problem of un-equal subsidies is further exacerbated inperiods of fiscal retrenchment among pub-lic agencies, including the federal govern-ment. When there is decreasing federal rev-enue support for transit, combined withsuch factors as declining farebox revenuesand/or falling transit patronage, transit op-erators, such as the Los Angeles Metropoli-tan Transit Authority (MTA), have raised thefares impacting low income transit users,reinforcing rather than reversing the biastoward longer as opposed to shorter trips.In the case of the MTA, this longer distance/higher fares for the poor transit bias ulti-mately became the basis of a class action suitbased on Title VI of the 1994 Civil RightsAct.35

Food Access Implications

The long distance/commute bias in transitoperations has significant consequences interms of food access. Food outlets withinurban areas are primarily residential based;that is, locations are determined in relationto such factors as housing density, neighbor-hood demographics, and land availabilityfor such considerations as store and park-ing lot size. Where transportation factorscome into play are those areas of lower den-sity offset by more favorable demographics(e.g., suburban locations which were respon-sible for much of the growth in the food re-tail sector during the 1970s and 1980s). Butthe transportation focus in these instanceshas been associated with auto use factorssuch as proximity to a freeway exit and park-ing lot size. Along these lines, the extensionof the freeways into suburban areas has had

a dynamic effect on both the size and loca-tion of food retail outlets during the post-war period, most notably in the decades ofthe 1970s and 1980s. One study, which fo-cused on the interaction between transpor-tation systems and food retail distributionsystems in the Seattle metropolitan area,emphasized that supermarket trends in lo-cation and size had become most heavilyinfluenced by freeway location in that re-gion. Thus the development of a postwarfreeway system, the trends towardssuburbanization, and the shift towardslarger food stores requiring longer trips forroutine food shopping became the dominantpattern in the food retail/transit relation-ships.36

The current concerns regarding food access,however, have coincided with the modestthough nevertheless significant reorienta-tion of the food retail sector toward urbaninner city sites and variations in store size,particularly in regions such as southern Cali-fornia where the availability of favorablesuburban sites has decreased. While freewaytravel and high rates of automobile owner-ship favored suburban locations and thedevelopment of food stores (including thesuperstores) of 50,000 square feet andgreater, the problems of scarce (and expen-sive) land, lower rates of automobile own-ership and a transit system favoring longerdistance/commute rather than communityneeds have created significant barriers forthe development of full service food mar-kets in the inner city while increasing theproblems of food access. Even in areas whereinner city transit systems such as bus ser-vice have been operational, the issues ofquality of service, the routing of the bus ser-vice, and fare/equity considerations havecompounded food access concerns. Ulti-mately, inner city transit services have notbeen oriented toward intra-neighborhoodneeds such as food shopping.

Page 16 Homeward Bound

The Promise and Limits of Paratransit

The conceptual failure in transportationplanning to link transit development withcommunity services has been most directlyassociated with the lack of services for spe-cific constituencies, including commuters aswell as special needs populations, such asseniors, the disabled, and others who are notcapable of using (as opposed to owning) anautomobile. New paratransit servicesemerged in recent years in part to fill thatvacuum. Two of the groups that became tar-geted constituencies for such services wereAIDS victims and seniors. During the 1980sand 1990s, when the debilitating effects ofthe AIDS pandemic started to becomeclearer, it also became apparent that thosewith AIDS were a prime food access/tran-sit dependent constituency. Many AIDS vic-tims, for example, were no longer able todrive and had major dietary concerns. AIDSservice organizations in turn established arange of paratransit services to address thoseneeds and consequently emerged as a sig-nificant advocate for food security andgreater food access.37 At the same time,paratransit programs for seniors orientedtowards such needs as shopping, foodpreparation and delivery, and health care,were developed and expanded in this sameperiod. Aside from these efforts, paratransitoptions also became linked, during the 1980sand 1990s, with the increased focus on workrelated automobile trip reductions as a con-sequence of increased air quality regula-tions. Paratransit services were specificallyinitiated through employer-based commuteprograms, such as ride sharing or van com-mute programs, in response to such air qual-ity regulations as the South Coast Air Qual-ity Management District’s Regulation XV.

These trends began to elevate paratransit asa promising transportation strategy, particu-larly for transit-dependent constituencies

and communities. A term coined in the 1970sto describe the “full spectrum of transpor-tation options that fell between the privateautomobile and the conventional bus,”38paratransit has come to be seen by transpor-tation planners as a more flexible, service-oriented approach that is capable of connect-ing multiple places with multiple publics,including potentially for food access consid-erations. By way of example, the NationwidePersonal Transportation Survey (NPTS),which evaluates travel patterns from ran-domly sampled households, indicated, in its1990-1991 survey, that passenger vans ac-counted for 4.7% of all motorized shoppingtrips, compared to less than 1% (0.8%) bybus transit. (The survey did not account forwalk-in traffic, which other estimates haveplaced as high as 1/4th to 1/3rd of shop-ping trips at inner city food markets).39

Despite its promise as a flexible transit strat-egy, and the strong indications that existingparatransit programs, such as van and jit-ney services, have been substantially usedfor shopping purposes, the development ofa “shopping” focus for paratransit has re-mained minimal. Moreover, the concept ofparatransit has yet to establish a specificfood access dimension (that is, transporta-tion strategies designed to facilitate accessto food markets). Ultimately, the intersect-ing problems of food access and transit de-pendency continue to reside at the marginsof or distinct from the domains of food andtransportation planning.

Homeward Bound Page 17

1. Food access is sometimes used as a termthat serves as a surrogate for food securityitself. For example, one USDA study definesaccess as “the availability of a variety ofnutritious and affordable food from placesthat are well maintained and offer productsreflecting the cultural makeup of the com-munity. Underserved areas are those inwhich residents face barriers to access, suchas high prices, limited food choices, poorquality products or long distances to storesor markets. This latter factor — distance toa food outlet — is the key determinant (asused in this report) linking food access totransit dependency. See “Study Fact Sheet”,Study of Access to Nutritious and Afford-able Food, United States Department of Ag-riculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Con-ducted by CRP Inc., FY 1995-1996.

2. Data from the 21 SMSAs reviewed wereorganized by zip code. Sources includedcensus data and the 1995 database from Pro-gressive Grocer, a food retail industry tradepublication. See, The Urban Grocery StoreGap, Ronald Cotterill and Andrew Franklin,Food Marketing Policy Center, Storrs, CT:University of Connecticut, April 1995

3. No Place to Shop: Challenges and Oppor-tunities Facing the Development of Super-markets in Urban America, WashingtonD.C.: Public Voice for Food and HealthPolicy, 1996

4. Grocery Store Market Potential Study. LosAngeles: RLA, October 1995; Whetten,Michelle. The Development of the East StLouis Farmers’ Market. Winstanley/Indus-try Park Neighborhood Organization, EastSt Louis, IL May 1994; Improving Access toFood in Low Income Communities: An In-vestigation of Three Bay Area Neighbor-hoods. San Francisco: California Food Policy

Advocates, January 1996; Ashman, Linda et.al. Seeds of Change: Strategies for Food Se-curity for the Inner City. Los Angeles: UCLADepartment of Urban Planning, 1993; Sus-tainable Food Center, “Access Denied: AnAnalysis of Problems Facing East AustinResidents in Their Attempts to Obtain Af-fordable Nutritious Food.” Austin, Texas,1995; A Status Report on Hunger andHomelessness in America’s Cities, Washing-ton D.C.: U.S. Conference of Mayors, Decem-ber, 1992.

5. Access Denied, p. 11

6. See Grocery Store Market Potential Study,pp. 2-3

7. Seeds of Change, p. 86

8. “Toward Revitalizing Inner-City FoodRetailing”, Donald Marion, USDA/Eco-nomic Research Service, National Food Re-view, Summer 1982, No. 19, pp. 22-25

9. The Poor Pay More: Food Shopping inHartford, Hartford, Ct.: Citizens ResearchEducation Network, et al., February 1984. p.ii

10. Shopping Trips and Spatial Distributionof Food Stores, Youngbin Yim, University ofCalifornia Transportation Center Workingpaper No. 125, Berkeley, CA: UCTC, 1993

11. “Toward Revitalizing Inner-City FoodRetailing”, p. 23

12. Poor Pay More, pp.8-9

13. See Poor Pay More, pp. 6-8; “TowardRevitalizing Inner-City Food Retailing”,pp.22-23

ENDNOTES: SECTION 1

Page 18 Homeward Bound

14. See, for example, price comparisons inSeeds of Change, pp. 161-166; See also, PoorPay More, p. 12; No Place to Shop, pp. 34-35.

15. Store Selection by Food Stamp House-hold, Paul Nelson & James Zellner, NationalFood Review, Summer, 1980, p. 24, Cited inObtaining Food: Shopping Constraints onthe Poor, Report of the U.S. Select Commit-tee on Hunger, U.S. House of Representa-tives, December 1987, p. 5.

16. See The Urban Grocery Store Gap

17. Access Denied

18. Seeds of Change, pp. 155-156

19. Seeds of Change, pp. 171-172

20. “Getting There the Hard Way EveryDay”, Jane Gross, Los Angeles Times, July 16,1995, p. 1

21. The Development of the East St. LouisFarmers’ Market

22. Access Denied

23. Seeds of Change, p.170

24. No Place to Shop, p. 10

25. Seeds of Change, pp. 161-165

26. Improving Access to Food in Low IncomeCommunities

27. Seeds of Change; Access Denied

28. “Nutrition and Cancer PreventionKnowledge, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Practices:the 1987 National Health interview Survey”,N. Cotugna, A.F. Subar, et. al, Journal of theAmerican Dietetic Association, 92 (8), August

1992.

29. “Diet and Chronic Disease for Minoritypopulations”, Shiriki Kumanyika, Journal ofNutrition Education, 22(2) as cited in Seedsof Change, pp. 31-32

30. “Hispanic Health in the United States”,Council on Scientific Affairs, JAMA, 265 (2);“The Slave Health Deficit: Racism andHealth Outcomes”, W. Michael Byrd &Linda Clayton, Health PAC Bulletin, 1991

31. “Food Sources, Dietary Behavior, and theSaturated Food Intake of Latino Children”,C.E. Basch, S. Shea, and P. Zybert, Ameri-can Journal of Pediatric Health, 82 (6), June1992; “Hispanic Health in the United States”

32. Interview with Marion Kalb, SouthlandFarmers’ Market Association, January 1996;Seeds of Change, pp. 212-213

33. On equity issues in transit resource allo-cation and financing, see “Equity in transitfinance: Distribution of transit subsidy ben-efits and costs among income classes”, JohnPucher, American Planning Association Jour-nal, 1981, 47:387-407; “Socioeconomic char-acteristics of transit riders: Some recent evi-dence”, John Pucher, C. Hendrickson, andS. McNeil, Traffic Quarterly, 1981, 35:461-83;“Distribution of the Tax Burden of TransitSubsidies in the United States”, John Pucherand I. Hirschman, 1981, Public Policy, 29:341-367; Efficiency and Equity Implications ofAlternative Transit Fare Policies, RobertCervero, M. Wachs, R. Berlin, & R. Gephart,1980, Washington: Urban Mass Transporta-tion Administration.

34. “Literature Review: Social Equity in Pub-lic Transportation Finance”, Eugene Kim,Working Paper, School of Public Policy andSocial Research, University of California atLos Angeles, August 1995; see also “Tax Eq-

Homeward Bound Page 19

uity and the Finance of Transit”, RobertCervero, 1983, Transportation Quarterly,37(3):379-394

35. “Variations in Fare Payment and PublicSubsidy by Race and Ethnicity: An Exami-nation of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Tran-sit Authority”, Brian Taylor et al., WorkingPaper, UCLA Institute of TransportationStudies”, January 1995

36. Shopping Trips and Spatial Distribu-tions of Food Stores, Youngbin Yim, Work-ing Paper UCTC No. 125, Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Transportation Center,1993; also Travel Distance and Market Sizein Food Retailing, Youngbin Yim, WorkingPaper UCTC No. 124, Berkeley: Universityof California Transportation Center, July,1990; The Effects of Transportation Serviceson the Scale of Food Retailing, YoungbinYim, Working Paper No. 112, Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Transportation Center,July, 1992

37. Testimony of Marcy Fenton at the Hear-ings on Food Security and Hunger, Los An-geles Voluntary Advisory Council on Hun-ger, April 20, 1995

38. Commercial Paratransit in the UnitedStates: Service Options, Markets and Perfor-mance, Robert Cervero, University of Cali-fornia Transportation Center, Working Pa-per No. 299, Berkeley: UCTC, January 1996,p. 11

39. 1990-91 Nationwide Personal Transpor-tation Survey, cited in CommercialParatransit in the United States, p. 13

Page 20 Homeward Bound

SECTION II:

CURRENT FOOD ACCESSPLANNING AND POLICIES

Homeward Bound Page 21

The absence of any well developedfood access framework for planningor policy activity has meant a rela-

tive dearth of food access legislation as wellas federal, state, or local agency programs.Food planning is itself a relatively new con-cept, often segmented into distinctive andseparate constituent and policy arenas, suchas the federal food commodity or nutritionprograms. Recent efforts to establish foodplanning initiatives at the state and locallevel, discussed below, are perhaps the mostpromising forms of government related ac-tivity with the potential to address food ac-cess needs. These planning initiatives, how-ever, are limited in scope, and at best repre-sent the seeds of a new type of planning pro-cess capable of intervening in the food se-curity and food access arenas.

Federal Initiatives: USDA and the Commu-nity Food Security Act

At the federal level, the Department of Ag-riculture is the government agency that mostdirectly addresses food system issues, pri-marily in terms of producer/grower relatedissues. The origins of many of the food pro-grams associated with consumer needs, suchas the food stamp program, were primarilylinked to efforts to support farmers throughgovernment acquisition of certain surpluscommodities rather than efforts designed toincrease the food security of program par-ticipants.1 More recently, the Food and Con-sumer Service (with its focus on consumernutrition issues), the Agricultural Market-ing Service (with its interest in direct mar-keting strategies such as farmers’ markets),and the Office of Analysis and Evaluationwithin FCS (which has sponsored researchon issues facing low income residents, suchas food stamp recipients) have all touchedon food access issues. However, none ofthese offices has established programs,grants activities, or policy initiatives specifi-

cally in the food access area.The most substantial effort to develop suchan approach was a September 1995 USDAFood Access conference hosted by the Of-fice of Analysis and Evaluation. This twoday meeting brought together anti-hungeractivists, supermarket executives, commu-nity development practitioners, academics,representatives from the financial commu-nity, and government officials from a vari-ety of agencies to explore the multi-facetedissues associated with food access in lowincome communities. The conference prima-rily focused on the specific dynamics asso-ciated with supermarket development, andonly tangentially explored other communityfood security strategies such as farmers’markets, urban agriculture, and community-based transportation programs. The goals ofthe conference included:

•Present successful strategies for increasingaccess to food through the development offull-line food stores and alternative meanssuch as farmers’ markets. Transportationoptions were also noted as a potential goal;

•Provide a discussion forum for experts insupermarkets and food-store development,economic development, and food policy;

•Identify and support continued efforts tolink improved food access to local economicdevelopment.2

While participation in the conference wasbelow USDA expectations, the conferencewas nevertheless significant for a numberof reasons. First, it gave prominence to theissue of food access within the frameworkof USDA. While the Office of Analysis andEvaluation, the sponsor of the event, hadcontracted for a couple of studies related tofood access, including a food security ques-tionnaire to be included in a Census Bureausurvey, it had not formally addressed the

Page 22 Homeward Bound

issue through any program or policy.3 TheSeptember 1995 conference represented in-stead a type of surrogate planning effort bya subagency to frame a complex issue thatcuts across subagency and department linesand has no actual institutional home for anyplanning or policy initiative. As such, theconference (and related FCS sponsored stud-ies) provided at best tentative first steps to-ward formalizing inter-agency linkagesidentified through the conference, with thelonger term objective of developing compre-hensive policy responses to food access de-ficiencies.

However, the conference also reflected theinfluence of a growing national movementaround community food security and foodaccess, and legitimized food access as a mat-ter of national policy significance. Whilefollow-up activity from the conference byUSDA (and FCS in particular) remains un-certain, the most likely constituency for pro-grammatic development in the food accessarea are food stamp recipients, especially interms of their purchasing power and needto access nutritious foods. Another arena forpossible food access activity through USDAis the Community Food Security Act. Thislegislation, the outcome of an eighteenmonth campaign by a wide range of foodsecurity advocates, may also come to repre-sent a new policy direction for the USDAinvolving the funding of policy-relatedgrassroots projects.

Recently enacted as part of the 1996 FarmBill, the Community Food Security Act(CFSA) provides $16 million in competitivegrants to non-profit organizations over thenext seven years for food-related projects inlow income communities. Its stated goals areto meet the food needs of low-incomepeople; increase the self reliance of commu-nities in providing for their own food needs;and promote comprehensive responses to

local food, farm and nutrition issues. Thepassage of the CFSA within the context ofmassive budget cuts in nutrition and agri-culture programs proposed by the 104thCongress attests to its political appeal. Itenjoyed the support of a broad range ofstakeholders in the food system, includingfamily farming, anti-hunger, communitygardening, food banking, community devel-opment, and environmental organizations.4

The CFSA is especially significant for theissue of food access through a number ofcontexts. First, improving access to healthyfoods is a core component of communityfood security and to the legislative mandateof the Act. A number of the proposals sub-mitted to the USDA under this Act duringits first funding cycle included programsdesigned to improve access to food for lowincome communities.5 Second, as food ac-cess remains largely a local issue, with localcauses and local solutions, the CFSA pro-vides a basis for funding community-basedstrategies, such as transportation programs,farmers’ markets, and community gardens.Finally, the CFSA establishes the validity ofmulti-sectoral strategies to food access prob-lems. In doing so, it provides a frameworkfor the USDA to develop a more coordinatedinter-agency policy approach to this issue.

State Programs: Proposals for Texas andConnecticut

At the state level, most food-related pro-grams are associated with grower-relatedactivities, such as technical assistance pro-grams or agri-chemical use regulations. Thestate’s role in more “urban”-oriented anti-hunger or food assistance related programsis primarily administrative in nature or in-volves pass-through activities related to fed-eral food programs.

One potential route for state-level food ac-

Homeward Bound Page 23

cess planning or policy activity can be foundin the model legislation developed in Texasin 1995. The legislation, introduced as anamendment to the Human Resources Code,sought to establish a broad based planningand funding entity called the Texas FoodSecurity Council. The bill was passed by theTexas legislature in 1995, but vetoed by Gov-ernor George Bush Jr.. The legislation,drafted by the Austin, Texas SustainableFood Center, provided for the establishmentof a Council composed of representatives ofstate agencies and nonprofit organizationsto inventory resources and develop foodsecurity programs, in-cluding the developmentof “a coordinated plan tocreate opportunities toincrease access to food inlow-income communi-ties.”6 While transporta-tion/food access plan-ning mechanisms and/orpolicy initiatives were notspecifically identified inthe legislation, the Coun-cil concept intended toprovide a statewide entrypoint for stimulating foodaccess activity, whether through a planningprocess, pilot projects, or grants activities.

Another approach, more elaborate in nature,is the legislative package proposed by theAd Hoc Task Force on Food Security of theConnecticut General Assembly. This legis-lation was passed by the General Assemblyin 1996, but did not make it to a vote in theSenate. The legislation called for a numberof measures, including the formation of atask force to guide the Connecticut Depart-ment of Agriculture in playing a lead rolefor the development and implementation ofa food security policy for the state. In termsof food access and transportation, it pro-posed that Connecticut Development

Authority’s bond funds be used to leverageprivate financing of supermarkets in innercities across the state. It also called for theDepartment of Transportation to create apilot program that would improve food ac-cess through local transportation coordina-tion. Despite the bill’s failure to be enactedduring the 1996 legislative session, the mea-sure establishing a Food Security Task Forcewas included in other legislation which waspassed and signed into law. According toMark Winne, director of the Hartford FoodSystem and a likely member of the TaskForce, food access and transportation will

continue to figure promi-nently in the task force’sfuture work. 7

Local Initiatives: FoodPolicy Councils

At the local level, much ofthe interest in food plan-ning is of recent origin. Itis noteworthy that mu-nicipal and regional plan-ning departments acrossthe U.S. have few if anyfunctions associated with

food security or overall food system func-tions. Most of these are handled by other de-partments, agencies, or through state or fed-eral programs, such as food stamp adminis-tration. During 1995 and 1996, the absenceof municipal food planning functions wasfurther underlined by food program-relatedchanges proposed in the 104th Congress,based on the devolution to the states andcities of a number of federal anti-hungerprograms. Yet such a transfer of funds andresponsibilities was being promoted at apoint when the capacity to handle such is-sues among local and regional governmentscontinued to be minimal or non-existent.

The most visible, contemporary forms of

It is noteworthy thatmunicipal and regionalplanning departmentsacross the U.S. have fewif any functions associ-ated with food securityor overall food systemfunctions.

Page 24 Homeward Bound

local food security planning have involvedthe development of Food Policy Councils(FPCs), or Food Policy Commissions, thathave been established in several differentcommunities and regions (e.g., Hartford,Knoxville, St. Paul, and Toronto), andbroadly parallel the type of statewide Coun-cil established through the Texas legislationdescribed above. FPC structures and activi-ties have varied. The two most prevalentmodels are municipal/government-basedentities and non-profit organizations. FPCroles also vary, whether in terms of policydevelopment or program implemen-tation, or whether they serve ascatalyst or facilitator. All,however, have sought toconstruct a comprehen-sive approach to agricul-ture and food relatedproblems. 8

Food Policy Councilshave generally soughtto focus on the multiplepathways of the food sys-tem, including both urbanfood security concerns suchas hunger, nutrition, access,community development, and ur-ban agriculture opportunities, as well asgrower-related considerations such as directmarketing. Despite their system-wide focus,however, Food Policy Councils and commu-nity food planning efforts have tended to re-main marginalized efforts at advocacy andintervention, primarily due to a lack of fundsand institutional support. Even organiza-tions established within municipal govern-ments have suffered from limited resources,due to tight government budgets, jurisdic-tional issues, and the problem of institu-tional autonomy.9

FPCs, nevertheless, represent a potential re-gion-wide or municipal organizational and/

or administrative home for food securityplanning, including food access and trans-portation initiatives. As described in SectionIII, a number of food access/food transpor-tation programs have been developed byFPCs in cities like Knoxville, Tennessee andAustin, Texas. Such programs have been de-signed to meet specific neighborhood con-cerns (e.g., access to a supermarket) ratherthan through an overall planning and evalu-ation process. Beyond those programs, theefforts to design an FPC in Los Angeles, de-scribed in Section IV, identifies one possible

model for food security and foodaccess planning.

T R A N S P O RTAT I O NSERVICES AND PRO-GRAMS

Federal Programs

Within the world oftransportation plan-

ning, the focus on foodaccess has been, at best,

a stepchild to the largeremphasis on commuting

and vehicle mobility. Whereavailable, links between federal

transportation policies and local programsand food access for inner city transit depen-dent residents are primarily found in an adhoc assortment of services which attempt tomeet the intra-neighborhood needs of com-munities. These paratransit services tend tocomprise the workhorses of such transit sys-tems. Such programs, which most often in-clude the use of vans, taxis, carpools, andjitneys, are well suited to enhancing mobil-ity for food shoppers, given their ability torespond flexibly to variations in travel de-mand as well as route, and their generallylow capital and operating costs with respectto conventional transit.10

Despite their system-widefocus, however, FoodPolicy Councils and com-munity food planning ef-forts have tended to remainmarginalized efforts

Homeward Bound Page 25

While no federal transportation policies dealexplicitly with the issue of food access or ofthe servicing of intra-neighborhood needs,the 1991 Intermodal Surface TransportationEnhancement Act (ISTEA) and the 1990Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) docreate certain opportunities for addressingthese issues. The ADA, which includes a setof detailed regulations for both private andpublic entities, specifies, among other pro-visions, that transportation vehicles and fa-cilities be made accessible for those who usewheelchairs. Creating this legislative focuson access, moreover, has also brought atten-tion to the disabled as a transit dependentpopulation, including this population’s sig-nificant concerns about food access. Thoseprograms and services that were ultimatelydeveloped as a direct or indirect result ofADA, however, have remained tailored tothis specific constituency.

ISTEA

Without a direct constituency focus as withthe ADA, ISTEA nevertheless provides pos-sible funding for a wide range of urbantransportation programs, a few of which alsohave the potential to address food shoppingneeds. The proposed ISTEA legislationevolved as the National Interstate and De-fense Highway Program was winding downin the late 1980s, and the principal transpor-tation policy thrust among legislators andtransportation planners focused on urbancongestion issues. A strategic planning pro-cess, including 65 public forums across thecountry, was initiated through the Transpor-tation 2020 Task Force. The Task Force’s fi-nal recommendations included more fund-ing for surface transportation and increasedattention to land use and environmental con-siderations that were also embedded in the1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. That plan-ning and political process contributed to thedrafting of the Intermodal Surface Transpor-

tation Enhancement Act of 1991, a complexpiece of legislation that seeks to take intoaccount land use considerations and theirrelationship to different transportationmodes. The legislation authorizes the ex-penditure of $155 billion over six years for awide range of programs ranging from high-way construction and environmental im-provements such as stormwater mitigationto “transportation demand management”,the area in which support for paratransitprograms can be located. Within that con-text of program support, mobility (e.g., re-duced congestion) remains ISTEA’s primarymeasurement of success. Transportationcontrol measures for reducing traffic conges-tion and achieving air quality standards arealso prominent.11

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (suchas the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA)in Los Angeles) are given great flexibility insetting funding priorities, within broad cat-egories. For example, in Los Angeles, whilethe MTA has employed ISTEA funds for railprojects, it has also made funding availablefor the transportation demand management(TDM) programs that are the primary routefor food access initiatives. TDM guidelines,in a 1995-96 MTA application package, al-low for such projects as “innovative shuttleservices... that serve a variety of needs andthat have new or innovative features. Suchprojects may serve multi-modal transporta-tion centers, community based needs, andcommunity based purposes”.12 However,despite its potential applicability, ISTEAfunding for food access planning or pro-grams has yet to be pursued, a function inpart of the lack of interaction and functionalseparation between food or human serviceand transportation policy.

Page 26 Homeward Bound

Local Programs: Los Angeles and Cam-bridge

In Los Angeles, most of the paratransit ini-tiatives established through the City of LosAngeles Transportation Department, underthe heading of the city’s Community Tran-sit Program, are targeted toward elderly anddisabled clients, and establish no direct foodaccess/transit dependency relationship.(See Chart 1.) The City’s Dial-a-ride pro-gram, for example, provides shared rides tothe elderly and disabled in lift-equippedvans. Fares are subsidized, typically cost-ing 2 scrip vouchers (60 vouchers may bepurchased quarterly for $12, or $7 for lowincome individuals). Recent data suggestsmoderate usage for an undifferentiated“shopping” category and for “nutrition”purposes. For December, 1995, the “shop-ping” category comprises from 0-10% oftotal rides in the different geographical ar-eas of the City. Interestingly, trips for “nu-trition,” presumably to congregate meals forthe elderly, comprise up to 41% of total ridesduring the same period (which is also thehighest in the low income South Centralarea).13 Shopping is apparently limited byspace constraints; the service restricts pa-trons to three grocery bags per trip, and doesnot allow shopping carts on the vehicle.14

For the general public, however, the Citydoes operate DASH shuttles in 16 targetedcommunities. These circulator routes cost 25cents, operate in clockwise and counter-clockwise directions, and are designed tofacilitate non-commuter needs, such asmedical appointments, shopping trips, etc.According to Chief of Transit James Okazaki,the DASH program was established to ad-dress concerns about conventional transit’shigh price and inconvenience for local in-tra-neighborhood trips. Community resi-dents from different areas of the city playeda crucial role in advocating for these shuttles

as well as planning their routes, developedin consultation with community leaders. In-terestingly, the DASH shuttles are fundedwith sales tax receipts rather than federalmonies, because of DOT concern that thereare “too many strings attached” associatedwith union approval of expenditures.Okazaki also noted that the DASH shuttlesrepresent a cost efficient means of transpor-tation, receiving a one dollar subsidy perpassenger, as compared to over $30 for railpassengers, and a comparable amount forthe city’s dial-a-ride curb to curb service forthe elderly.

Recently surveyed Midtown and CrenshawDASH riders cited price and convenience astheir primary reasons for riding DASH. Rid-ers referred to bus stop distances from homeand/or travel destination as well as timefactors (upwards of 45 minutes or more forshort distance trips) on a RTD bus. TheDASH service travel time within each com-munity, on the other hand, was estimated atless than 20 minutes, while the cost for theservice was a dollar less than RTD. Tripswere scattered among a variety of purposes,the most common being work or school.Grocery shopping was cited by 8% and 7%respectively, of the riders.15

The development of the “smart shuttle” alsorepresents another possible direction towardfacilitating food access in Los Angeles. Ageneric term for a wide range of serviceswith flexible routes driven by customer de-mand, and advanced technologies such asGlobal Positioning Systems (GPS) and com-puter dispatching, the smart shuttle oper-ates akin to a taxi, and will be operated pri-vately. The City of Los Angeles Transporta-tion Department has put out requests forproposals on the operation of a two yeardemonstration project in the high density,low income immigrant neighborhood ofWestlake. According to MTA planner Scott

Homeward Bound Page 27

Green, this service will cost 75 cents, (25cents for a transfer), and take riders to anylocation of their choice within a defined ser-vice area, with an approximate 1.5 mile ra-dius. The shuttle will be able to operate onnarrow streets that conventional transit isnot capable of entering, increasing accessi-bility for individuals who have limited mo-bility. The project will be heavily subsidizedwith local funding in its first two years, andthen will have to operate as an entrepreneur-ial activity, free of subsidies. Future MTAplans incorporate the construction of a newsupermarket adjacent to the recently con-structed Red Line subway station, which thesmart shuttle could help service.16

Interestingly, Tom Connor, the deputy gen-eral manager of the city of Los Angeles’Transportation Department was not famil-iar with any food transportation programinvolving the use of paratransit services suchas vans, by either the city or by food stores.17However, MTA planner Scott Green didmention that after the 1992 civil disturbancesRTD established special routes to help resi-dents of impacted areas get to supermarkets.Entitled Operation Foodbasket, this project,no longer in existence, is noteworthy in thatit was defined within the context of emer-gency/natural disaster planning. By subse-quently eliminating the program, it furtherindicated the lack of any food access frame-work in the ongoing transportation plan-ning and implementation process. Food ac-cess became a concern as a result of a large-scale social upheaval, not as a day-to-dayproblem.

In Cambridge, Massachusetts, food accessissues have been directly linked to commu-nity concerns about the lack of nearby su-permarkets in specific Cambridge neighbor-hoods. During the late 1980s and early 1990s,two Cambridge area supermarkets closeddown, leaving significant neighborhood ar-

eas within the city’s boundaries withoutproximity to a full service market. In 1991,an advisory “Food Policy Referendum” washeld in the Cambridge Township that calledfor the city to establish food access as acitywide priority. While the referendum didnot specifically direct any policy or agencyactivity, with 80% of the voters voting insupport of a food access approach, electedofficials and municipal agencies quickly el-evated food access, and specifically newsupermarket development, to the top of thepublic agenda.

In December 1994, the Community Devel-opment Department issued a Report to theCambridge City Council that focused onhow the city itself could become part of aprocess of ensuring “adequate access” forall Cambridge residents to full-service mar-kets”, as well as identifying alternativemethods of providing access to food.18 TheReport defined supermarket access in termsof “walking radius” (identified as one halfmile or less) rather than “driving radius”(defined as two miles or less). Cambridge,like a number of other eastern seaboard cit-ies, had a significant percentage of house-holds without vehicle ownership, thoughtransit dependency concerns were mediatedin part by the fact that Cambridge is a pe-destrian-oriented city with an extensive pub-lic transportation system. Given the highpercentage of walk-in shoppers, the issue ofsupermarket proximity was particularly sig-nificant.

The CDD Report both provided informationto inform an access approach while callingfor a series of public initiated activities de-signed to address the access problem. Theseincluded: a site analysis of possible super-market locations as defined by food accessconsiderations; regulatory interventions,such as permitting waivers or zoning ap-proaches to facilitate the siting of supermar-

Page 28 Homeward Bound

kets; and the development of special grocerystore regulations, transfer of developmentrights, and exemptions regarding store sizein areas where there were retail limits.19

The Cambridge situation is also of interestinsofar as a community-based political ac-tion (the advisory referendum) in responseto a food access concern (supermarket de-parture) resulted in a set of municipal ac-tions, which included a broad-based analy-sis and review, a set of recommended ac-tions, and the beginnings of a public pro-cess to support for food access initiatives.

Today, transportation planning’s nexus tofood access is often limited to a discussionof bus stop location and routing in terms ofshopping centers, rather than a more com-munity-based approach to helping connectthe transit dependent with food retailers. Butas the Cambridge situation reveals andISTEA legislation suggests, an integration oftransportation and food access planning re-mains a viable option at both the legislativeand agency level.

FOOD RETAIL SECTOR APPROACHES

Industry Attitudes

The food retail industry has played a sig-nificant role in both contributing to and be-ing impacted by access related issues. Thisstudy has elaborated how supermarket lo-cation decisions have exacerbated transpor-tation concerns of residents in areas withlower than average vehicle ownership whoneed to travel longer distances to use fullservice food markets. At the same time, thesupermarket industry in particular has cometo recognize that “inner city” locations to-day represent a relatively undeveloped mar-ket for a highly competitive industry. Im-proved access could potentially expand a

market’s customer base; access-sponsoredprograms, in turn can enhance a market’scommunity good will, a crucial concern fora customer based industry. Access-relatedproblems may also be reflected in other ad-ditional costs, notably the loss of shoppingcarts and the threat of impoundment chargesfrom municipalities. The ability to addressaccess concerns for supermarkets (and thefood retail sector as a whole), then, repre-sents both a business opportunity and acompetitive advantage.

Yet, similar to the absence of food access re-lated planning among transportation andother public agencies, the food retail indus-try has not developed a consistent or sys-tematic program to meet customer transpor-tation needs. “There is no organized discus-sion within the food retail industry abouttransportation approaches”, according to astaff member of the California Grocer’s As-sociation, an absence that is also reflected intrade publications and program initiatives.20For example, the Food Marketing Institute’s“Urban Initiatives Task Force” establishedin the wake of the Los Angeles civil disor-ders of May 1992, was specifically chargedwith “recommending ways for the super-market industry to broaden and strengthenits participation in neglected communitieswhile serving the FMI membership”.21These recommendations included programinitiatives in such areas as education, jobtraining, mentoring, and store development,but not specifically access or transportationneeds. Other FMI publications listing super-market initiatives in “underserved commu-nities” have failed to include any transpor-tation or access-related programs.22 Simi-larly, an awards program of FMI and theNational League of Cities that highlightedseventeen different successful collaborativeprograms between communities and super-markets, listed only one transportation-re-lated program, a shuttle service sponsored

Homeward Bound Page 29

The divorce of “access needs” from “com-munity function” is noteworthy for an in-dustry that is so heavily place-based andcustomer-oriented in its economic or mar-ket share considerations. Where a store islocated is considered to have direct bearingon how to attract customers to a store, andvice versa. At the same time, availability ofland (influenced significantly by parkingrequirements which in turn elevates cartransport as the primary if not exclusivetransport factor to be considered) representsa major barrier to supermarket developmentin inner city areas, according to the FMI Ur-

ban Initiatives TaskForce.25 At the same time,the customer focus tendsto be linked to productavailability and differen-tiation, often tailored tocustomer demographics.Inner city stores, despitelower than average ve-hicle ownership and apattern of increased walk-in traffic, have tended tobe focused more on crime(e.g., by making parkinglots safer) than access.

Walk-in customers, in turn, have become theprime constituency for the use of shoppingcarts, given the absence of any defined trans-portation approach at the inner city store.Ultimately, the use and disposal of shoppingcarts becomes, as one food retail executiveput it, a substitution for a store-based trans-portation program. 26

Shopping Cart Loss As A Food AccessProxy

For the food retail industry, shopping cartloss has emerged as a major financial bur-den and highly sensitive policy question.Cart loss in turn has been directly linked totransportation and access issues; i.e., cart

The divorce of “accessneeds” from “commu-nity function” is note-worthy for an industrythat is so heavily place-based and customer-ori-ented in its economic ormarket share consider-ations.

by the Kroger Co. in the city of Savannah,Georgia. Even when food retail chains haveestablished transportation programs, theyhave been employee rather than customer-based. In Southern California, for example,the Vons company, influenced in part by lo-cal air quality regulations, purchased twovans through CalTrans grant funds to pro-vide a rideshare/van service program foremployees. Although the vans were not inuse during non-commute down times, Vonsdecided against any customer shuttle pro-gram because of possible additional insur-ance costs.23

Discussions with — andpresentations by — foodretail industry executivesreveal a similar lack oforganized response totransportation and accessquestions. Former LuckyStores executive vicepresident John Benner, ina presentation at the 1995California Grocer’s Asso-ciation annual meeting,detailed a range of foodsecurity and anti-hungerinitiatives that could be undertaken by su-permarkets in recognition of the “commu-nity” role of the industry. Such initiativesincluded product donations to food pantriesand food banks (e.g., damaged cans, unsoldproduce), financial contributions to anti-hunger organizations through shopper re-ceipts and other charitable donations, andeducational materials made available atstore sites. Access and transportation initia-tives, however, were not included.24 In thatcontext, a “community” role is defined asthe broad social responsibilities of the busi-ness rather than reorienting or restructuringthe activities of the business to address com-munity needs.

Page 30 Homeward Bound

losses tend to be greatest at stores located incommunities with lower than averagevehicle ownership. The financialimpact of cart losses is clearlya significant expense forfood retailers. The replace-ment cost of a single cartruns between $60 and$120, depending on cartsize. More than a dozencities in California alsohave shopping cart im-poundment laws that con-tribute to the costs and poten-tial liabilities for supermarkets.Where impoundment laws exist, afood store can be charged for each cart re-trieval, with charges in California rangingfrom as low as $4 to as high as $25 a cart.

Many supermarkets contract with privatecart recovery or retrieval services to locatemissing carts, and, in some cases, have es-tablished their own Shopping Cart RetrievalService which in turn pays independent con-tractors to retrieve carts. Payments for re-trieved carts also vary, both in terms of thecost per load and the cost per cart (depend-ing on the size of the load), although cumu-lative payments can be substantial in areaswhere the number of carts taken off the storepremises might run as high as 10% or moreof the carts in use. 27 In 1992, FMI estimatedthat the grocery industry lost 1.85 millioncarts, including a loss of 190,000 carts in cardependent southern California. The Califor-nia Grocer’s Association has estimated that750,000 carts are taken from stores in Cali-fornia, with losses about $17 million a year,and $9 million a year in Southern Californiaalone. The cart retrieval business, thoughoften operating as a kind of fly-by-nightoperation, has nevertheless, according toForbes magazine, come to represent a $12million market, partly a reflection of the highvolume and expense of cart loss.28 One in-

dependent contractor for a Los Angeles-based Shopping Cart Service esti-

mated that he alone retrievedabout 200 to 250 carts a day,

and that as many as onefourth of some store’s cartsmight be taken off siteduring a shopping day.The City of Inglewood,with a population of114,000 as well as 19 small

to medium size indepen-dent food stores and gen-

eral merchandise stores, es-timated that as many as 400-500

shopping carts are removed fromInglewood stores and abandoned on citystreets each day, with figures increasingduring periods of holiday shopping. As an-other example, A-State Kart Kleen, a Mesa,Arizona-based cart retrieval company, witha staff of nine “retrievers”, picks up an av-erage of 900 carts a day in the Phoenix area.A-State Kart Kleen’s largest customer, a foodchain with 16 stores, many of which oper-ate in low income, transit-dependent com-munities, alone loses 700 carts a day. AnotherSouthern California food store executive es-timated that the Food-for-Less chain (nowmerged with Ralphs) made upwards of fif-teen cart retrieval trips per day, and that cartloss and retrieval costs could amount to up-wards of $67,000 a year in some inner citystores. 29

There is widespread recognition both insideand outside the food retail industry that cartloss is a direct outcome of lack of transpor-tation. “Carts go AWOL because they areused as wheels for folks who don’t havecars”, according to a Forbes article on the is-sue, a sentiment widely shared by cart re-trievers who are constantly seeking to iden-tify neighborhoods where the highest num-ber of abandoned carts may be located. Ac-cording to a Public Voice report on urban

Cart loss and re-trieval costs couldamount to upwardsof $67,000 a year insome inner citystores.

Homeward Bound Page 31

supermarkets, the Cleveland-based FinastSupermarket chain reported that it loses anaverage of 300 shopping carts annually inurban locations, compared to 20 in its sub-urban locations. Another transit dependentconstituency, senior citizens, are also seenas potentially responsible for cart loss prob-lems. In the Phoenix area, with its large num-ber of retirement communities, for example,there is a high volume of shopping cartlosses in middle class areas with majorityretiree/senior populations. 30

However, despite the significant concernsregarding cart loss and its assumed links totransit dependencies, no transportation-based intervention within the food retailsector has emerged as a preventative strat-egy to reduce or eliminate the problem. Moststores create or contract with retrieval ser-vice companies to minimize their losses, al-though retrieval costs have also come to rep-resent a significant, stand-alone expense.Other factors, such as organized theft opera-tions, are also identified as major contribu-tions to the problem. However, organizedtheft rings often represent “after-the-fact”manifestations of the issue; that is, the carttheft operations are the mirror opposites ofcart retrieval services by searching for cartsthat have been abandoned by those whohave already used them. Where programshave been initiated, shopping cart loss hasoften been institutionalized as the store-based transportation policy. For example,KV Mart, a 13 unit chain headquartered inCarson, in southern California, has estab-lished a program that allows customers totake their groceries home in carts and thencontracts with a private retrieval companyto locate the carts that are not brought backto the store. Since KV Mart estimates thatas many as 35% of its customers walk to thestore, the cost of loss and retrieval payments— upwards of $300,000 annually — is ab-sorbed in order to maintain its transit-de-

pendent customer base, while avoiding thecost of instituting its own transit service.31

The issue that has generated the most con-cern among food retailers is the recent in-terest of municipalities in impoundmentlaws, particularly in cities with high num-bers of abandoned shopping carts. Althougha few cities have targeted the taking of cartsas their focus of action — e.g., the city ofLawndale in southern California stipulatedin a municipal ordinance that abandonedshopping carts created a “visual blight” andcontributed to “a reduction in the value ofproperties within the community”, and thatit would thus be illegal to remove them fromstore premises32 — most of the ordinanceshave targeted food stores themselves. Forexample, the city of Inglewood establishedan “Abandoned Shopping Cart Ordinance”in 1995 that sought to remove abandonedcarts by forcing retail stores to pay a $15administrative fee for each cart that the Cityhad retrieved. After carts have been locatedand stored at a city facility, a notice is sentto the retailer, and the retailer has thirty daysto pick up and pay for the cart. After the 30day period has passed, the city then sells theunclaimed carts to a private retrieval serviceat a reduced cost (between $5 and $25 de-pending on the size and type of cart).Though Inglewood evaluated its first yearof operation as a money loser (more than1600 carts had been retrieved in that time,but the fees and sales of carts did not fullyoffset the costs of the program, which in-cluded primarily staff time in the collectionand administering the program, as well asstorage costs, according to Inglewood staff),its primary motivation for the ordinance wasto eliminate the “blight and nuisance” fac-tors associated with abandoned carts. Theretail industry, however, continued to re-main strongly opposed to the municipalimpoundment approach, and in 1996, theVons company filed a law suit against the

Page 32 Homeward Bound

city of Inglewood challenging the city’s rightto impound carts.33

By 1995, seventeen cities in California hadenacted abandoned shopping cart ordi-nances similar to Inglewood and upwardsof thirty more cities had begun making in-quiries about enacting similar laws. In re-sponse, the California Grocer’s Associationpushed legislation that would restrict citiesfrom enacting such ordinances, partly bylimiting the impoundment/retrieval fee to$5 per cart and exempting any store that haditself retained a cart retrieval service, includ-ing their own in-house as well as contractedservice. The CGA-endorsed legislation,which was also supported by many of thelargest food chains in the state, was opposedby the California League of Cities and 26different California municipalities. Thoughthe bill passed both houses of the Legisla-ture, it was vetoed by Governor Wilson.34

The Inglewood example is noteworthy, sinceboth city officials and food retailers engagedin extensive discussions prior to the enact-ment of the ordinance concerning possiblesolutions to the problem of shopping cartsleaving store premises. Both store ownersand city officials recognized that a primaryreason for the problem was inadequatetransportation to the stores and the largenumber of walk-in customers. Most of thediscussion, however, centered on the cartretrieval process; namely, how could storesmore effectively get the carts off the streets.One transportation-based program was ini-tiated: a subsidized taxi service for foodshoppers. This program, however, neversucceeded, given the difficulty of “bunch-ing” up customers and creating a higher ra-tio of shoppers to rides.35

The shopping cart loss problem, despite itsobvious relation to food access and transitdependency, remains a concern defined out-

side the framework of a transportation/foodaccess approach. Whether seen as a prob-lem of “blight” or homelessness, as manymunicipalities have defined it, or, for foodretailers, an unwelcome though widely an-ticipated cost of business in transit depen-dent communities, shopping cart loss hasemerged as the one single, consistent sub-stitute for transportation/food access plan-ning. This problem of policy (or lackthereof), promises to become more pro-tracted, given current and anticipated foodinsecurity and transit dependency indica-tors.

Homeward Bound Page 33

ENDNOTES: SECTION II

1. Farm Policies of the United States, 1790-1950: A Study of Their Origins and Devel-opment, Murray R. Benedict, New York:Twentieth Century Fund, 1953.

2. United States Department of Agriculture,Food and Consumer Services. Conference onAccess to Food. Conference Program, Sep-tember 18-19, 1995, p. 1

3. Contracted studies are cited in PublicVoice for Food and Health policy, Inner CitySupermarket Task Force Meeting Summary,Washington D.C.: Public Voice, May 1995,pp. 1-2

4. “We Did It! CFS Act Passes”, CommunityFood Security News, Winter/Spring 1996, p.1; See also Fisher, Andrew & Robert Gottlieb,Community Food Security: Policies for aMore Sustainable Food System in the Con-text of the 1995 Farm Bill and Beyond, TheLewis Center for Regional Policy Studies,Working Paper No. 11, University of Cali-fornia, Los Angeles, May 1995

5. More than 150 proposals were forwardedto the Community Food Security Coalition,the leading advocate of the CommunityFood Security Act. These proposals weredeveloped in less than two months after theAct was passed and in advance of the ac-tual publication of the RFP for the Act’sgrants program. Memo from Andy Fisher toCommunity Food Security Coalition Steer-ing Committee, June 20, 1996.

6. Texas CSHB 2856, 1995, p. 3.

7. Presentation by Mark Winne, ExecutiveDirector, Hartford Food System, RutgersUniversity, February 7, 1996.

8. Dahlberg, Kenneth, “Food Policy Coun-

cils: The Experience of Five Cities and OneCounty,” Paper presented at the Joint Meet-ing of the Agriculture, Food, and HumanValues Society and the Society for the Studyof Food and Society, Tucson, Arizona, June11, 1994; See also “History of the Implemen-tation of the Toronto Food Policy Council”,Prepared for the Toronto Food Policy Coun-cil Board, March 6, 1991; Annual Report, Cityof Hartford, Connecticut, Advisory Com-mission on Food Policy, September 1, 1993.

9. Interview with Robert Wilson, ProjectTeam Member of the Local Food SystemProject, Co-Founder Knoxville Food PolicyCouncil, March 1996.

10. Ronald Kirby et al Paratransit: NeglectedOptions for Urban Mobility. Urban InstituteWashington DC, n.d.; Cervero, Robert, Com-mercial Paratransit in the United States: Ser-vice Options, Markets, and Performance,University of California Transportation Cen-ter, Working Paper UCTC No. 299, Berke-ley: UCTC, January 1996.

11. Kristine Williams, “ISTEA: New Direc-tions for Transportation Land Use Law”,Land Use Law, July 1993, pp. 3-9; Marya Mor-ris, “New Transportation Law Benefits Plan-ning”, PAS Memo, American Planning As-sociation, February 1992.

12. Metropolitan Transit Authority. Applica-tion Package: Fiscal Year 1995-1996 through1998-99 Transportation Improvement Pro-gram. Call for projects.

13. Cityride Dial-a-ride Monthly StatisticalReport, Los Angeles Department of Trans-portation, December 1995; For backgroundon the origins of Dial-a-ride at the nationallevel, see John R. Meyer and Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez, Autos, Transit and Cities, Cam-

Page 34 Homeward Bound

bridge: Harvard University Press, 1981, pp.73-77.

14. City Ride Users Guide, Los Angeles De-partment of Transportation, p.21

15. Draft DASH Midtown and DASHCrenshaw On-Board Survey Results, LosAngeles Department of Transportation, n/d

16. Interview with Scott Green, May, 1996

17. Interview with Tom Connor by LindaO’Connor, January, 1995.

18. Supermarket Access in Cambridge, AReport to the Cambridge City Council, Com-munity Development Department, Cam-bridge, MA: CDD, December 19, 1994.

19. Supermarket Access in Cambridge, pp.8-12.

20. Interview with Beth Beeman, CaliforniaGrocer’s Association, March 1996.

21. “Urban Initiatives Task Force Recom-mendations”, Adopted by the Food Market-ing Institute Board of Directors, May 8, 1993,Food Marketing Institute, Washington D.C.

22. See FMI packet of publications under theheading “Supermarket Initiatives inUnderserved Communities”, Food Market-ing Institute, Washington D.C., 1996.

23. Cities and Supermarkets: Case Studiesof Successful Collaborative Programs, The1995 NLC-FMI Neighborhood PartnershipAwards, National League of Cities and theFood Marketing Institute, Washington D.C.,1995; Interview with Jan Dell, VonsRideshare Department, April 1995

24. Presentation by John Benner, California

Grocer’s Association Annual Meeting, SanDiego, September 30, 1995.

25. Urban Initiatives Task Force Recommen-dations, p. 2

26. See Interview with Patrick Barber, Food-For-Less (Merged with Ralphs), cited inSeeds of Change, p.133

27. In the city of Lawndale in southern Cali-fornia, for example, a cart retrieval serviceused by the three main supermarkets in thatcommunity (Boys, Alpha Beta, and ValuePlus) charges $12.50 per load, with a loadvarying from a minimum of 12 carts to 25carts. Costs of retrieval per cart, through thisservice, would then vary from 50 cents tomore than $1 per cart. Letter from WilliamWoolard, Community Development Direc-tor, City of Lawndale, to the City Council,August 28, 1995.

28. Interview with Beth Beeman; “CartWars”, Damon Darlin, Forbes, October 11,1993, v. 152, n.8: 137-139; “Carting AwayProfits”, Jennifer Pellet, DiscountMerchandizer, January 1994, v. 34, n.1:68

29. Interview with Donald Anthony, Presi-dent, A-State Kart Kleen Inc., 4/11/96;“Abandoned Shopping Cart Ordinance”,Memorandum to the Mayor and City Coun-cil, December 20, 1994, City of Inglewood;Interview with Hilda J. Kennedy, Adminis-trative Analyst, City of Inglewood, April 5,1996; see also, “Cart Catastrophe”, Progres-sive Grocer, February 1994, p. 10; “Supermar-ket Puts Brake on Wayward Carts”, SarahKlein, Los Angeles Times, April 30, 1996;“Mike Cornejo: Corralling Stray ShoppingCarts all over Westside”, Andrew Bridges,Los Angeles Times, November 5, 1995; Seedsof Change, p. 133.

30. No Place to Shop: Challenges and Op-

Homeward Bound Page 35

portunities Facing the Development of Su-permarkets in Urban America, WashingtonD.C.: Public Voice for Food and HealthPolicy, February 1996, p. 55; Interview withDonald Anthony, 4/11/96. Anthony com-mented on the cart loss/transit dependencyrelationship this way: “Major cart loss, ac-cording to my experience, is where peopledon’t have cars.”

31. No Place to Shop, Ibid. p. 56

32. Ordinance No. 787-95, City of Lawndale,Adopted September 11, 1995.

33. Interview with Hilda Kennedy, May1996; Ordinance No. 94-11, “An Ordinanceof the City of Inglewood, California Amend-ing the Inglewood Municipal Code Relatingto Shopping Carts, December 20, 1994;Memorandum from Darryl B. Brown to KenDuke, Public Services Director, City ofInglewood, “Shopping Cart Retrieval Pro-gram”, March 3, 1995.

34. See Assembly Bill 182, Introduced byAssembly Member Granlund. “An Act toadd Section 22435.7 to the Business and Pro-fessions Code, relating to shopping carts”.Introduced January 24, 1995; Letter fromEdward Vincent, Mayor, City of Inglewood,to Governor Pete Wilson, August 1, 1995;Letter from Larry Guidi, Mayor, City ofHawthorne, to Governor Pete Wilson, July25, 1995; Interview with Hilda Kennedy, Cityof Inglewood, March 25, 1996.

35. Interview with Beth Beeman, CaliforniaGrocers Association, March 24, 1996

Page 36 Homeward Bound

SECTION III:EXPLORATORY PROGRAMS:

CASE STUDIES OFFOOD ACCESS INITIATIVES

Homeward Bound Page 37

can-American. Income levels and vehicleownership are significantly lower thancountywide averages. Although the area isdensely populated and there are some busroutes that cross near the store’s location, theneighborhood is also considered a highcrime area and there is substantial commu-nity concern about the safety of bus stopsafter dark. Dial-a-Ride services are also mini-mal in the area.

Soon after the family-owned El Tapatioopened its store in 1993, its manager decidedto initiate a Customer Shuttle Service pro-gram. The van service idea was a familiarone to store management, since it had beenpreviously utilized at the Numero Uno mar-ket, another medium sized independentmarket in South Central Los Angeles whichhad been owned and operated by anothermember of the family. 1

From its inception, the El Tapatio shuttleprogram established itself as a high profile,customer-oriented service providing thestore with a strong community/ethnic-re-lated reputation and loyal clientele. Theshuttles offer a “store-to-home” service inorder to address the needs of such transit-dependent customers as senior citizens andfamilies with small children. There is nocharge to the customer for use of the shuttle.There is, however, a $25 minimum purchaserequirement which is loosely monitored bystore personnel (e.g., by checking the num-ber of bags per passenger). The shuttle op-erates 7 days a week from 7:00 AM to 9:30PM.

The immediate success of the programcaused the store to expand its fleet of 3 vansto 5 shuttle buses with 6 drivers who workstaggered hours. Each shuttle bus holds be-tween 12 to 14 people. There is no set route;instead, passengers announce their destina-tions when the van is full. The service seeks

Despite the absence of any comprehensive food access-related transportation programs initiated by

government agencies or through the foodretail industry, a small number of explor-atory programs have been developed at thestore or local government level. These pro-grams have been established in response tospecific concerns, primarily those that havebeen constituent or customer-driven. ThisSection describes a number of these pro-grams as individual case studies groupedtogether in relation to the type of transpor-tation service offered or the constituenciesserved. What primarily characterizes theseprograms is their ad hoc nature as well astheir lack of relationship to broader policyor industry-wide efforts. As programs oftenassociated with the ability to establish “goodwill” in a customer service industry, theyhave not been evaluated for certain keytransportation or food access-related crite-ria, such as increased store sales, decliningcart losses, or even, for some, the overall costof service itself. They are presented here assignposts of both the opportunity and needfor such programs, despite the difficulty ofbeing able to analyze criteria (e.g., costs andbenefits or customer feedback) that could beused to evaluate program objectives andimplementation.

STORE INITIATED VAN SERVICES(From the Store to the Home)

El Tapatio Supermercado/Los Angeles

Located in a former tortilla factory in SouthCentral Los Angeles, El Tapatio, an indepen-dent full service market with 18,000 squarefeet and outdoor merchandise displays, runsone of the more popular shuttle serviceswithin the food retail industry. The imme-diate area served by the store (within asquare mile) is 80% Hispanic and 10% Afri-

Page 38 Homeward Bound

to maintain a 3-4 mile radius to the route,although the program’s popularity has at-tracted customers from far greater distances.First time requests to use the service are hon-ored; however, customers are alerted to thepreferred boundaries for drop off locations.The service is most heavily used duringevening hours and van departures duringthese peak periods tend to be a half hour orless.

The El Tapatio Customer Shuttle Service rep-resents a classic trade off between opera-tional costs and multiple customer-relatedbenefits, many of which are not quantified.El Tapatio’s manager, Ed Torres, estimatesthat the service costs about $4,000 permonth. This includes labor costs (primarilythe drivers) which amount to $2,200/month,as well as vehicle purchase/replacement,maintenance and insurance. There are alsosignificant permitting and licensing require-ments for the operation, including the needfor a Class B (bus driver) license for the vandrivers. Competing transportation servicessuch as taxi companies have also sought toundermine the program by filing complaintsregarding permit or license infractions.

Despite the costs and operational burdens,the Customer Shuttle Service has become theprimary marketing tool for El Tapatio in at-tracting customers and developing strongcommunity support. Advertising the servicein itself represents a powerful publicity ad-vantage. The use of the service also helpsreduce parking lot overflow, a key issue fora store requiring a continuing customer flow.Reducing shopping cart loss is anothershuttle service objective. Although there hasbeen no direct comparative analysis regard-ing cart loss, store manager Torres arguesthat there has been a relationship betweenthe success of the shuttle program and thedeclining number of carts taken off the pre-mises. Ultimately, the most significant ben-

efit of the program, according to Torres, hasbeen its “goodwill” dimension. A large signon the front of the store says, “SHOP HEREAND WE WILL TAKE YOU HOME”, a mes-sage that directly expresses the communityservice/access link that El Tapatio manage-ment wishes to convey.2

Fine’s Community Van Service/East LosAngeles

Fine’s Market in the East Los Angeles neigh-borhood of Boyle Heights is a 15,000 squarefoot full service independent food market.A family-owned business for fifty years witha nearly exclusive Latino customer base,Fine’s offers a number of additional pro-grams beyond its grocery store business,including a Friday/Saturday swap meet inits parking lot. In 1990, the store initiated a“store-to-home” van service in response tothe store’s largely elderly clients who wereconcerned about both crime and access is-sues. Though Fine’s sold bus tokens at thestore, given the large numbers of customerswho took public transportation, the devel-opment of the van program was seen as as-sisting those who might not otherwise shop(or reduce their amount of purchase) atFine’s, including seniors without cars andfamilies with children.

Currently the program operates a single,brightly painted van which holds ten pas-sengers and runs daily on a nearly continu-ous basis from 9:00 Am to 6:00 PM.. Onweekends, the van runs every ten minutesand averages more than fifty trips a day.Shoppers are required to purchase at least$30 worth of groceries in order to obtain theirride, though the driver doesn’t check re-ceipts. There is no charge for the ride.

Van routes are not predetermined. Thedriver asks for passenger destinations beforeleaving the parking lot and brings custom-

Homeward Bound Page 39

ers directly to their doorstep and assiststhem with their bags if they need help. Mostroutes fall within a one mile radius of thestore. On occasion, customers, on request,are picked up to come to the store. To makethat arrangement, a customer first calls thestore to order the pick-up service. The storethen beeps the van driver. Once the van’sroute has been set, the van driver phonesthe customer and arranges a pick up on thevan’s return to the store.

Similar to the El Tapatio program, the Fine’svan service is costly, estimated to run as highas $4,000/month. Although Fine’s has nospecial permits from the city to run the ser-vice, it is obliged to insure the van throughan automobile insurance company, whichhas become a major expense of the program.There is no special driver for the vehicle;instead the store’s regular employees areutilized. The popularity of the program hasgrown steadily and Fine’s is consideringexpanding to a second van.

Despite the costs, the Fine’s managers seethe program as creating significant benefits.Although it has not emerged as the type ofsignature program that El Tapatio offers, theFine’s Customer Van Service has establishedimportant benefits, including increased mer-chandise sales (although only estimated, notmeasured), reduction of parking lot use(again an estimate) and, primarily, its good-will function. The van service is advertisedthroughout the store and in distributednewsprint flyers which in turn represents animportant marketing tool for the store itself.Customer goodwill has also expressed itselfin a number of ways, most notably duringthe May 1992 civil disorder when Fine’s cus-tomers stopped people from breaking intothe store. As a community service, the vanprogram establishes, according to storeowner Allan Fine, a way for Fine’s to “putsomething back into the community”. Rec-

ognition of that role creates an intangiblevalue for a business seeking a communityidentity. 3

STORE INITIATED VAN SERVICES (Pick Up and Drop Off)

Fiesta Market/Houston, Texas

Fiesta Market is a major Texas grocery chainwith 33 stores; 30 in Houston, Texas, 2 inDallas, and 1 in Austin. A number of the Fi-esta stores are located in low income orbridge communities, and several of theseserve immigrant populations (mostly,though not exclusively, Latino). Part ofFiesta’s marketing approach for these storeshas been to recreate an environment famil-iar to immigrant shoppers by “importing theconfusion and profusion of food of a ThirdWorld Market,” according to one Fiesta storemanager.4 This strategy includes offeringadditional services, ranging from cashingpayroll and government checks onsite, pro-viding free vaccinations, an ear piercing ser-vice, and the sale of money orders and bustokens. Among its other operations, Fiestaalso owns an airport shuttle service. Cur-rently, at two of its stores, Fiesta provides avan shuttle service that picks up and subse-quently returns Fiesta shoppers to theirhomes.

The most innovative Fiesta shuttle origi-nated as a program conceived by an Afri-can-American employee of what was then aSafeway store. When the Safeway store wentout of business, a group of its workers pur-chased the store and created a new foodmarket, known as Appletree. The van ser-vice continued and expanded under the newAppletree management. When Fiestabought out Appletree, it decided to continuethe van service, a decision that reflected theprogram’s popularity. Fiesta store manage-

Page 40 Homeward Bound

ment also sought to restructure the programto tie it directly to its airport shuttle busi-ness.

The Fiesta service has pick up and drop offdestinations at a set route, with regular stopsat eleven different apartment complexeswithin approximately a one mile radius fromthe store. The stop locations have been iden-tified in conjunction with managers of theapartment complexes who in turn take re-sponsibility for posting bilingual van sched-ules at each building site. The van operatesseven days a week, with at least one apart-ment complex served each day and somecomplexes served several times during theweek. Van service begins at 10AM and runscontinuously until 5 PM, at about 30 minuteintervals during the busiest periods such asweekends. The vans have a 17 person capac-ity and groceries can be placed on the lug-gage racks. The service is free. Most custom-ers tend to be women and children (a sec-ond Fiesta program about four miles awayserves primarily senior citizens). On a givenweekend day, the program might transport60-70 shoppers from a single apartmentcomplex. The three drivers used for the ser-vice are employed by Fiesta and also workin other capacities for the store. Fiesta’sumbrella insurance plan covers the vans andcosts (and benefits) are not segregated out.

This Fiesta van service is considered a modelprogram by its store manager, and has re-ceived national attention (most notably aNational Public Radio news segment thataired November 22, 1995). However, theprogram is also a product of the store’s ownhistory, circumstances and management in-terests (the van service is store specific andnot a company wide policy), including itsorigins as a Safeway/Appletree program.There is significant walk-in traffic and cartloss has also been a major factor. Fiesta hasmaintained its own cart retrieval service,

which, at its peak, (before the expansion ofthe van program) had included two driversand an 18 foot trailer used almost continu-ously. “Lack of transportation is a significantissue my customers face,” explains Fiestamanager Tom Skelley, arguing further thatthe program has successfully allowed Fiestato develop both a loyal customer base and ahighly visible marketing strategy with re-spect to its major constituency from theapartment complexes. Food access in thiscontext represents more than a transporta-tion service, but the ability to identify com-munity needs and interests and maintain avaluable historical identity.

The Spirit of Kroger TransportationShuttle/Savannah, Georgia

In March 1993, the Kroger Company initi-ated a transportation service called “TheSpirit of Kroger Transportation Shuttle”. Theshuttle was established to pick up shoppersat specific sites, such as public housing unitsand senior citizen complexes, and deliverthem to the Kroger stores closest to each site.At a designated time (usually one hour af-ter shoppers had been dropped off at thestores), those using the service would be re-turned to each of the pick up points. A fewof the shoppers using the service (e.g., apart-ment residents, those who are physicallyhandicapped, etc.) are brought directly totheir doorsteps. The driver is a Kroger em-ployee (a former department head) who iswell versed in the customer service aspectof the program; that is, helping establish anenvironment of Kroger service for peoplewith specific transportation needs. 5

The Spirit of Kroger shuttle operates six daysa week, Monday through Saturday, between9AM and 7PM. There is no cost to the shop-per, and, in its first three years of operation,five of Kroger’s ten stores in the Savannah

Homeward Bound Page 41

area participated in the program. There are27 routes as part of the program, three ofthem repeat routes. The shuttle has a 15 per-son capacity and, as of April 1996, approxi-mately 200 to 220 customers used the ser-vice each week. The shuttle’s schedule isprinted in the “Penny Saver” magazinewhich in turn has served as an importantsource of positive publicity for the storechain. Kroger has not undertaken a full cost-benefit analysis of the program, but has as-sumed that, aside from the public relationsbenefits, the service has created a larger vol-ume of sales to partially offset the specificcosts of the program. Cart loss issues havenot figured prominently in the program’sassessment, although some of the participat-ing Kroger stores have had a chronic prob-lem with carts being taken by walk-in cus-tomers.

The primary motivation for the program hadits origins in the public controversies asso-ciated with Kroger’s decision to close oneof its stores located in a low income com-munity where there had been considerablewalk-in traffic, according to Ken Lane, theshuttle program’s director. “We received alot of adverse publicity about the store clos-ing,” Lane commented, “including com-plaints that local area residents would nolonger be able to shop at a supermarket.” 6By establishing the shuttle service, Krogerhoped to counter the negative publicity andenhance its reputation as a service-orientedoperation in a highly competitive market. Interms of that objective, Kroger managementsees the program as an important success.

CONSTITUENT SERVICES(Transportation for Senior Citizens)

Von’s Leisure World Shuttle ServiceLaguna Hills, California

One of the primary constituencies for foodaccess programs are senior citizens, particu-larly in communities with large senior popu-lations and residential homes or centers,such as retirement communities. Among thebest known retirement communities inSouthern California (where many suchhousing arrangements can be found) is theLeisure World complex in Laguna Hills inOrange County. Leisure World houses18,000 residents in a 3.27 square mile area.Although a number of residents own anduse cars, a substantial constituency of resi-dents cannot or do not choose to use theirvehicles for getting around Leisure Worldor to access neighboring services, includingfood stores. The closest full service foodmarket for the majority of Leisure Worldresidents is a Vons’ market, a major retailerin the region (Vons is the second largest su-permarket chain in Southern California).While there is public transportation adjacentto the Leisure World complex and a shuttlebus service within the complex with 12routes serving nearly 60,000 riders permonth, a number of residents prefer or needa door to door service for their grocery shop-ping. By having to carry groceries from theLeisure World bus stop to their homes, it lim-its the amount of groceries that could bepurchased.7

Until the early 1990s, one of the more fre-quently used door-to-door services was theDial-a-ride program. When Dial-a-ride can-celed its services in Orange County in thefall of 1994 due to budget cuts, SuperShuttle,a transport service primarily used for air-port routes, was approached by LeisureWorld residents to provide a replacement

Page 42 Homeward Bound

service for Dial-a-ride for two grocery stores,the nearby Vons store as well as anAlbertsons market which was at a slightlyfurther distance from Leisure World. Dial-a-ride had charged each customer 90 centsper trip, while the SuperShuttle programwas established at a $2.00 charge per per-son. The SuperShuttle program, despite a feeof $2 per passenger for the door-to-doordelivery, was a money loser forSuperShuttle, which estimated a charge of$4.00 per person in order to make any profit.The program, however, in response to strongcommunity interest, was also initiated inpart as a loss-leader to establish specificmarketing goals (e.g., attracting seniors touse the airport shuttle). The Leisure Worldcitizen group hoped to make the programmore permanent by obtaining long termfunding from Leisure World’s own GoldenRain Foundation. When the foundationfunding was not obtained, the citizen’sgroup started a “Shopping Shuttle Group”to raise the additional $2 per person. As aresult of that effort, the program kept oper-ating for another several weeks.SuperShuttle, however, finally suspendedthe service when the additional funds wereno longer generated.8

As soon as the shuttle service was canceled,Leisure World residents began mobilizing toreestablish a shuttle program. Albertsons,meanwhile, contracted with another char-ter transportation company (which hadother Albertsons accounts) to provide a vanservice, though the service did not includedoor to door service. Vons then became thefocus of community activity, with residentsmobilizing for a service which representedtheir only venue for continued grocery shop-ping at that store. In response to the vigor-ous and well organized campaign as wellas the fear of competition represented by theAlbertsons service, Vons decided to initiateits own program, based on the use of

SuperShuttle resources. A new store-to-home shuttle service from Vons to LeisureWorld was initiated in March 1995, just onemonth after the SuperShuttle service hadstopped, with an increase in service fromtwo to three days a week.

The program consists of the following: resi-dents are encouraged to take the publictransportation to the store and then Vonsreturns customers to their doorstep, with thedriver frequently carrying groceries into thehomes. Vons leases the shuttle and driverfrom SuperShuttle at a slightly discountedhourly rate. (The general, non-discountedhourly charter rate for SuperShuttle vans inOrange County has been $40/hour — $30/hour at the time the Vons program was ini-tiated). In return, SuperShuttle assumes allvehicle labor, insurance, and maintenancecosts and liabilities. The shuttle runs be-tween 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM Mondays,Thursdays, and Fridays. The service is lim-ited to Leisure World residents who shop atVons. There is no charge to the passenger,though a number of residents tip the driverwhen bags are carried into the home. Thestore has an in-house passenger numberingand announcement system to help custom-ers queue up for rides when they finishshopping. Departures are not scheduled;instead, the van leaves when it is full ornearly full, depending on the elapsed timeinvolved. Each run is about one hour inlength and the van holds a maximum ofseven passengers. There is an average of sixruns a day, and the van is almost always full.The average passenger count is 35-40 pas-sengers on Mondays, and 45-50 passengerson Thursdays and Fridays. There is also as-sistance for mobility-impaired riders.9

The shuttle service is advertised in the localpaper and is seen by Vons as a useful mar-keting tool. Though Vons was pressured byresidents to continue the service, store man-

Homeward Bound Page 43

agement subsequently recognized the sig-nificant community benefits of the program,even though no effort had been made toquantify such benefits as increased pur-chases or reduction in car use. The programinstead is seen as a “community service” thathelps distinguish Vons from its competitors,as store manager Barry Kidd characterizedit. Soon after the service was reinstated, forexample, Vons received upwards of 100 to200 letters from Leisure World residentscomplimenting the store’s action. It has ul-timately become a showcase for that Vonsoutlet. 10

Grocery Delivery Service for HomeboundSeniors/Hartford, CT

In 1978, the city of Hartford, Connecticutprovided the startup resources for an inde-pendent food security advocacy organiza-tion, the Hartford Food System. This orga-nization helped sponsor a range of innova-tive food security-oriented programs, in-cluding a downtown farmers’ market ori-ented towards low income buyers, commu-nity gardens, local food stands, and a coop-erative buying program. The organizationalso focused on issues of transportation andfood access, noting both the lack of super-markets in Hartford’s low income commu-nities and the low vehicle ownership figuresfor those same communities. Many residentsin low income communities in Hartford andother cities in Connecticut had also becomeheavily dependent on public transportationfor food shopping; one ridership survey byConnecticut Transit found that 25% of theresponding bus passengers indicated theyused the bus specifically for trips to foodstores.11 These transit dependencies are par-ticularly a concern for senior citizens wholack both mobility and transportation re-sources.

In response to this need, the Hartford FoodSystem established in 1992 a grocery deliv-ery program for home bound seniors. Theprogram, formally known as the GroceryDelivery Service for Homebound Seniors(the “Service”) is largely supported throughsmall grants and provides about 150 deliv-eries per month. Between January 1, 1995and September 30, 1995, for example, theService made 1,156 deliveries to 92 differentcustomers for a total grocery value of$40,000, with average order size approxi-mately $35. The most frequently cited rea-sons for using the service were access related(e.g., those who “could not get out” or “justgot out of the hospital”, according to a Gro-cery Delivery Service survey of programparticipants). Though the program has beensmall and limited in its ability to address theneeds of homebound seniors in the GreaterHartford area, it nevertheless represents amodest beginning, according to HartfordFood System executive director MarkWinne. “Seniors as a group are often left outof the food system,” Winne argues. “Thistype of program helps them maintain theirindependent lifestyle. In many cases it isthe only way people can get affordablefood.” 12

PUBLIC TRANSIT PROGRAMS

Bus Services/Knoxville, Tennessee

Use of public transportation continues torepresent one of the most important yet of-ten more problematic methods of achievingfood access. People without cars rely onbusses, and, occasionally where available,public paratransit programs to reach foodstores not immediately accessible by foot.Bus routes and services, however, as previ-ously discussed, are not oriented towardsintra-neighborhood needs such as foodshopping. However, some communities

Page 44 Homeward Bound

have developed programs that have soughtto influence existing municipal bus andtransportation services to address access is-sues. Programs initiated through the Knox-ville, Tennessee Food Policy Council providean important example of that effort.13

The Knoxville Food Policy Council, one ofthe first such Councils to be established atthe municipal level, initiated several bus-related access programs soon after it wascreated. The most ambitious of those efforts,the Knoxville Shop and Ride Program, wasdeveloped as a direct food transit service.The Food Policy Council received from themunicipal transit agency a full sized buswhich was retrofitted with racks and shelvesfor grocery bags to serve as a “grocery bus”.The bus route included both a low incomehousing project and a senior citizen high risehousing complex that terminated at a localfood store. The service was partly subsidizedthrough general bus operation funds, withremaining funds generated through a smallcharge for bus riders. In order for the ser-vice to break even, riders needed to bebatched; though efficiency of service re-mained a continuous problem when therewere not enough riders to batch effectively.The program worked best when a key vol-unteer helped outreach efforts to identifyriders for the program; when that volunteerleft the program, effective batching becameeven more problematic. As a result, the ser-vice was terminated after only a few months.

The Knoxville Food Policy Council wasmore successful in lobbying the municipaltransportation agency to extend by a fewmiles regular bus service from a low incomeneighborhood to a shopping center with aconcentration of grocery stores situated in amiddle income neighborhood. This pro-gram was judged a success, both in terms ofincreased sales at the stores (including anincrease in sales of individual mini folding

carts) and in establishing a better commu-nications link between the Food PolicyCouncil and the transit agency. Subse-quently, the transit agency began to regu-larly consult with the FPC regardingchanges in bus routes with respect to foodaccess issues. One notable example includeda remapping of another bus service route toinclude stops at a shopping center and anearby farmers’ market which had previ-ously not been well served by public trans-portation. In this case, while transit planningcame to be associated with food accessneeds, it was facilitated by the presence of afood policy and planning process.

The Grocery Bus/Austin, Texas

Austin, Texas’s “Grocery Bus” is perhaps theonly publically run bus line in the countryspecifically designed to take shoppers froma food access deficient community to super-markets in neighboring communities. Trav-eling north-south through the low income,primarily Latino community known as theEastside, its endpoints are two supermar-kets, each a few miles to the north and southrespectively of the heart of the Eastside com-munity. This line provides access for 23,000Eastside residents, many of whom are with-out vehicles and have been dependent onmore costly and/or inaccessible food out-lets.

Initiated in January 1996, the Grocery Busruns 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, at 30minute intervals. Passengers are charged 50cents per ride. It was established at the re-quest of the Austin/Travis County FoodPolicy Council, in response to a study issuedby the Sustainable Food Center (SFC), a foodsecurity policy and advocacy organizationdescribed in Section I. The study, AccessDenied, chronicled the lack of competitivelypriced supermarkets on the Eastside while

Homeward Bound Page 45

documenting the need for affordable trans-portation programs to take transit depen-dent residents to outlying supermarkets.

The route was developed as a collaborationbetween Capital Metro (the local transit au-thority), the Food Policy Council, commu-nity members, and the supermarkets. KateFitzgerald, executive director of the SFC andmember of the Food Policy Council, notesthat it was relatively easy to convince Capi-tal Metro to start up the route. “After seeingthe need for the route, they inventoried theirresources and determined that they coulddo it.”14 Capital Metro did however requireproof of community interest and need. Aspart of this process, the Sustainable FoodCenter conducted more than 200 interviews,documenting where community memberswanted the bus line to go, where they liketo shop, and at what times they would likethe bus to run. As a consequence, CapitalMetro decided to establish the programbased on a circular route pattern; that is, aroute that remains primarily within a de-fined community or neighborhood’s bound-aries. Shifting to such an approach reflecteda change in route planning for Metro. It was,according to Metro’s general manager,Michael Bolton, “the whole notion of hav-ing the bus work within the neighborhood.Everything doesn’t have to go down-town.”15

Fitzgerald believes that the primary reasonthat Capital Metro established the GroceryBus was to improve its public image, whichhas suffered due to poor service. This strat-egy appears to be working. In its first fewweeks of operation, ridership was low. Soonafter the service began to receive greater vis-ibility within the community, however, theprogram took off. “It was like wildfire, withpacked busses and lots of word of mouth”commented Grocery Bus driver MaryMitchell to the Austin Statesman..16 Commu-

nity members have embraced the programfor its added convenience and financial ben-efits. Cost savings are associated with boththe reduced time in getting to a store whichhas lower prices, and, for many, the elimi-nation of one or more bus rides, or taxi fares.In addition, the route may not prove ascostly as initially anticipated. While CapitalMetro has lost money and thus needed tosubsidize its other routes, preliminary indi-cations suggest that the Grocery Bus mightachieve the strongest financial results amongall Capital Metro routes. Thus, the agencyhas become extremely pleased with the ini-tial outcome, and has approached the FoodPolicy Council about expanding this serviceinto other underserved communities.

Key to the success, both present and future,of the Grocery Bus is the partnership be-tween the Sustainable Food Center’s com-munity connections and innovative outreachefforts, the resources provided by CapitalMetro, and the interest of the supermarkets.While Capital Metro paid for the printingof 50,000 flyers announcing the new line inboth Spanish and English, SFC obtained thevolunteer services of a graphic artist to de-sign the flyers, and has taken responsibilityfor distributing them. Once Capital Metrodedicates buses entirely to this route, theSFC would like to have them painted withcolorful illustrations of different food itemsto assist in outreach to non-English speak-ing and/or non-literate Eastside residents.Finally, the two supermarkets being servicedby the route have been very supportive. Oneof these, a Fiesta Market, has noted that theBus has made a positive difference in theirbusiness, while a second store, HEB, hasexpressed interest in placing an advertise-ment in a local paper, showcasing the im-proved access to the store provided by theGrocery Bus. Nevertheless, there are still anumber of residents who do not know aboutthe new route, and continue to take other,

Page 46 Homeward Bound

more inconvenient bus lines, according toFitzgerald. Continued and innovative out-reach is the key to making the new bus linea more permanent success.17

The HOP Shuttle/Boulder, Colorado

In 1994, The City of Boulder, Colorado initi-ated an innovative, alternative fuels,paratransit shuttle service called the HOPservice. The program consisted of eight liq-uid propane shuttles that travelled a circu-lar loop connecting Downtown Boulder(which included a pedestrian-only open airmall), the University of Colorado, and an-other major commercial thoroughfare whichhoused a large indoor shopping mall. Sixshuttles run the route at any one time, at tenminute frequencies. The shuttles are smallerthan busses and have periphery seating andlarge windows. One goal of the program hasbeen to create a more inviting environmentassociated with the smaller, quieter, andairier vehicles, demonstrating a “different”way of providing transit service.18

Part of that difference included establishingthe shuttle service as an integral part of streetlife, since the shuttles were low to theground, had a large number of windows forviewing both in and out, and had been con-ceived of as pedestrian friendly (that is, notan obstacle or danger to pedestrian activity).In addition, by designing the programaround the use of alternative fuel vehicles,the HOP also sought to create an environ-mental identity for the service.

The HOP program is advertised as a conve-nient way to access shopping, work, andrecreational activities. While not specificallyorganized to address food shopping needsas such, one key aspect of the program thathas been emphasized is its ability to provideaccess to a food store and a farmers’ market

that are on the HOP route, particularly foruse during working hours. More generally,shopping has been identified as a primaryobjective by HOP riders.

The HOP was initially funded through a $1.4million federal ISTEA grant which paid forcapital costs, staff time in developing theprogram, and operating expenses for thefirst three months. The largest up front ex-pense was the purchase of the liquid pro-pane vehicles which cost $125,000 per ve-hicle. Operating funds are now derived froma public-private joint venture between theCity’s Public Works Department (which pro-vides 75% of the funds) and three other en-tities — the Central Area General Improve-ment District, the Boulder Urban RenewalAuthority, and the University of Colorado,which account for the remaining 25%. Whileidentifiable service costs (estimated at 95cents per passenger or $710,000 annually,including capital recovery costs) are greaterthan revenues derived from cash fares (25cents per passenger, 15 cents for seniors, andvarious student passes and promotionalfares), intangible benefits derived from re-duced drive-alone trips, reduced congestion,and increased shopping, among others, areconsidered significant.

The HOP, in fact, has been judged success-ful from its beginnings. Ridership levelswere originally forecast at 2000 riders perday, but already achieved 4300 riders a dayby 1996. Those numbers are in excess ofHOP’s original perceived optimum carryingcapacity of 4000 riders a day. A recent sur-vey on municipal programs has also indi-cated widespread support for the conceptof the shuttle service — 92.6% of survey re-spondents either “strongly supported” or“somewhat strongly supported” shuttle pro-grams like the HOP, which represented thehighest percentage received of any of theprograms surveyed. However, the issue of

Homeward Bound Page 47

access and transit dependency has remainedsecondary to the visual and environmentalattractiveness and “street life” aspects of theprogram.

HOME DELIVERY AND SHOPPER SERVICES

“Byerly’s To You” Store-to-Door Service —Byerly’s/Twin Cities

One of the more rapidly expanding trans-portation-based food related activities inrecent years has been the development ofhome shopping and food delivery services.These services, primarily defined as servicesfor middle income consumers (particularlysingle parent or dual income households),are also likely to significantly expand in con-junction with growing computer on line ser-vices where food orders can be taken anddeliveries set. These programs depend onphone, fax, or internet connections to placeorders, many of which are catalogue based.19

The primary factors influencing the devel-opment of on-line services have been con-venience and time savings rather than foodaccess. Food markets participating in suchprograms tend to seek out higher end de-mographics for more expensive items. Thehome shopping/home delivery programs,moreover, are costly in their own right, of-ten several times more expensive for thecustomer than a van service or other store-based transport program. Yet even highercost programs may involve food access/transit dependent-related participation aswell.

One recent example of this type of service is“Byerly’s To You” Store-to-Door Service pro-gram. The Byerly’s program, primarilyaimed at the chain store’s higher end demo-

graphics, is based on a home shopping ser-vice program where orders (based on spe-cific items identified through an 8,000 itemByerly’s catalogue) can be processed byphone (at a charge of $9.95 per order) orthrough fax or computer (at a charge of$8.95).20 The service is available at nine ofthe ten Byerly’s markets located in the Min-neapolis-St. Paul area, and is under consid-eration but not yet available at Byerly’sstores in Chicago. Orders placed before nooncan be delivered between 6-9PM that day.Orders placed after 12 noon will be deliv-ered the next day either between 1-4 PM or6-9 PM. Although most of the orders are ini-tiated by phone, as much as one third of theordering has been done through fax or com-puter. Customers of the service, which wasinitiated in the Spring of 1996, have includedworking parents (including, for example,fathers with part time jobs), senior citizens,disabled, and other (largely middle income)transit dependent constituents. In its firstseveral months of operation, about 200 or-ders per week were being processed.21

The motivation for establishing a home de-livery service for Byerly’s management hasbeen to extend a service (and attract newcustomers) for those customers seeking timesaving options, and for whom weekly shop-ping has become a time constraint. Linkinga delivery service to a transport program,however, has not been explored. Instead, thedelivery vehicles and labor utilized havebeen purchased through a third party con-tract. However, those evaluating the pro-gram for Byerly’s have estimated that se-niors and disabled — key transit dependentconstituents — account for as much as onethird of the delivery service customer base.Constituents have also inquired whether theprogram could include unpacking and put-ting away food items at a customer’s home.Currently, there is no store-based transit pro-gram (other than the home delivery service)

Page 48 Homeward Bound

at any Byerly’s market, although a few se-nior citizen high rise developments haveestablished their own van service, whichincludes stops at Byerly’s stores.

A more elaborate delivery service that hasbecome its own “food business” is the PinkDot program in southern California whichhas focused on both transportation and con-venience factors for building its business.Initiated in 1988 at a single location, the PinkDot program today consists of five locationswith three different food stores providingthe items ordered. Pink Dot items, listed ina catalogue that is widely distributed in thearea to be serviced, includes standard brandname food items as well as bakery items,salads, sandwiches, and other preparedfoods. Non-food items ranging from medi-cines to video games are also available. Thecost of delivery is only $1.99, although theitems to be ordered are priced above mostequivalent items at supermarkets. Ordersare also made through phone or computer.The Pink Dot attraction is the delivery ser-vice itself rather than the items carried. Andalthough convenience is the core marketingstrategy, access issues for those who arehomebound or without cars has also con-tributed to Pink Dot’s attraction as a deliv-ery service.22

“Groceries-to-Go” — Kroger Stores/At-lanta, Georgia

The Kroger Stores, the largest food chain inthe state of Georgia, established a food de-livery program called “Groceries-to-Go”,which had originated in a program estab-lished in conjunction with an order and de-livery service jointly owned by IBM andSears. Though the program, as it evolved,was developed at several locations, by 1996only one store in Atlanta continued to oper-ate the program.23

“Groceries-to-Go” operates on the followingbasis. A customer calls in a grocery orderover the phone to a Kroger employee whothen does the “shopping” for the order. Thegroceries are subsequently delivered to thecustomer’s house the next day. Orders mustbe placed at least a day in advance and canbe faxed as well as phoned. Deliveries aremade Monday through Saturday, duringdaytime and evening hours, at prearrangedtimes. If a question about a particular itemarises during the “shopping”, or if an itemis unavailable, the employee immediatelycalls the customer to clarify the order or toask if the unavailable item should be re-placed by an alternative product. The costof the service is $7.50 for seniors, and $10for all other customers. Payment for the gro-ceries is made on delivery. Food stamps arealso accepted. A modified “pick up” serviceis also available at a $3 charge, where Krogeremployees undertake the shopping based onthe order, but the customer subsequentlypicks up the groceries at a specified time.

Several Kroger employees are used at dif-ferent times to staff the program, includingfilling the approximately 20 to 30 orders thatare received on average each day withinapproximately a five mile radius from thestore. Most of the “Groceries-to-Go” cus-tomers are seniors. A few others are busi-nesses, and as many as 4 orders a day comefrom low income customers who are as-sumed to not have access to a car. OneKroger employee identified 15 regular “Gro-ceries-to-Go” customers who fit this low in-come/transit dependent profile.24 For thisconstituency and others, “Groceries-to-Go”represents Kroger’s only transportation-re-lated program.

Homeward Bound Page 49

EMPLOYEE AND COMMUNITYPROGRAMS

Multicultural Relations/Dallas-Fort Worth,Texas

In 1994, Minyard Stores, a food retail chainwith 80 stores in the Dallas-Fort Worth area,decided to establish a new community out-reach staff role which it called the“multicultural relations coordinator” posi-tion. The Minyard Stores chain, several ofwhose outlets had been located in low in-come communities, served a broad and di-verse constituency of shoppers. These in-cluded walk-ins or those dependent on pub-lic transportation systems. Those area tran-sit systems, in turn, had not been orientedtowards food or other intra-neighborhoodservices. Minyard management was alsointerested in drawing on a more ethnicallydiverse work force, hoping especially to hirea larger number of Spanish speaking em-ployees.

Minyard’s multicultural relations coordina-tor position was unique for the food retailindustry. The position’s definition was rela-tively open-ended. It included efforts at in-creased purchasing from minority and fe-male vendors; community liaison activity atdifferent store sites; creating linkages be-tween store employees and their ethniccounterparts in communities; and establish-ing stronger ethnic representation in theMinyard work force. While store specific is-sues such as access, cart loss, or other trans-portation-related issues were not part of theprofile of the position, the community rela-tions aspect of such an outreach positioncould conceivably draw attention to suchissues. However, decision-making on trans-portation programs at Minyard remainedsignificantly a financial issue outside themulticultural relations coordinator’s sphereof activity. 25

This division of power was most notable inthe situation that unfolded in the Fairparkarea of Dallas, a low income, ethnically di-verse neighborhood where, until August1995, Minyard had operated two full servicefood markets, sized at 16,000 and 20,000square feet, respectively. In August 1995,Minyard closed both stores and opened in-stead a much larger, 51,000 square foot fullservice market (equivalent to a small sizedsupercenter). By doing so, Minyard createdsignificant food access problems for the largewalk-in trade associated with the stores thathad closed, particularly for one site moredistant from the new market. A number ofcommunity meetings ensued, which in-cluded discussions with the multiculturalrelations coordinator, but the issue of a newaccess-related program was never ad-dressed. Minyard management insteadsought to change the bus routes of the Dal-las Area Rapid Transit agency (DART) sothat shoppers could access the store by tak-ing only one rather than two busses. At thesame time, Minyard allowed an informal“transit” service provided by an “indepen-dent contractor”; that is, a retired personwho would offer a shopper a ride home fora fee that was less expensive than taxi ser-vice.

Minyard had, during this process, privatelyexplored the option of developing a com-munity van service program. But store man-agers quickly dropped the idea due to liabil-ity concerns and the uncertain benefits andcommunity relations issues associated withsuch a service. Minyard’s Director of RealEstate, David Hardin, explained that the areathat needed to be served was a “roughneighborhood”, conceivably jeopardizingthe driver of the van. The difficulty of de-termining benefits in relation to costs wasalso never resolved; for example, cart loss,which was substantial, was never factoredin on the benefit side. Even the good will

Page 50 Homeward Bound

aspect of such a program was discounted onthe basis that if a program were initiated butthen discontinued because of concerns re-garding costs and/or liabilities, then com-munity discontent could become a trouble-some and unwelcomed factor. “It’s hardenough to figure out the benefits,” Hardinargued, “but what happens when you takethem away. We decided to let DART and theindependent contractor handle the accessissue. It is, after all, their business.” 26

Worker Transit/Chaska, Minnesota

The issue of community responsibility andtransit needs associated with the food retailsector extends to questions of employee ac-cess to food manufacturing, food packaging,or retail store locations. Food companies thatdepend on and/or seek to recruit workers(many of whom reside in low income com-munities) to be employed at company sites(several of which are located at suburbansites often distant from worker residences)also confront the possibility of needing toaddress significant transportation needs. In1991, Preferred Products inc., the private la-bel operation of the Supervalu food storechain in the upper Midwest, sought to ad-dress this problem by establishing a van ser-vice program in collaboration with a non-profit inner city agency for one of its loca-tions. PPI had a candy rebagging operationin Chaska, Minnesota which employedabout 50 people year round. The companyhad a particular need for an additional 100employees during its “seasonal spike” pe-riod from June to December when much ofthe packaging work was undertaken. Unem-ployment was low in the Chaska area, butsignificantly higher in low income commu-nities in the Minneapolis region. The com-pany at first sought to develop a taxi ser-vice for a few of its “hard-to-hire” employ-ees who had been hired in part through the

company’s relationship with the non-profitagency. A van service was subsequently de-veloped, which expanded the possibilitiesof inner city recruitment. Between 12 and 15employees used this reverse commute pro-gram while it was operating. The van pro-gram was eventually folded when the candyrebagging operations were sold.27

Though the van service idea was never ex-tended to other operations, it did lead to in-creased attention to employee transporta-tion needs, given the company’s emphasison recruiting a low wage labor force. Dis-cussions were initiated with the area trans-portation agency, Southwest MetropolitanTransit, to extend bus service to variousChaska business sites, as part of a more ex-tensive “reverse commute” strategy. Meet-ing employee transportation needs throughimproved bus service also became the goalof two suburban Cleveland food retail out-lets (Twin Valu supercenter stores) withinthe Supervalu chain. About 40% of the twostores’ employees required public transpor-tation to get to work but the bus systems inthose areas were not reliable. Store manag-ers worked with transportation officials tocreate new bus stops, bus shelters, and ar-ranged to sell bus passes at service desks.An unintended benefit of the changes in busservice was improved access for shoppers,many of whom relied on public transporta-tion.28 Despite those benefits, Supervalu hasnot explored further a shopper-based trans-portation program for its various outlets.

California Food Policy Advocates/SanFrancisco, California

Still in a planning phase is California FoodPolicy Advocates’ (CFPA) paratransit servicefor senior citizens in San Francisco. The sixmonth planning phase will be completed bythe Fall of 1996 at which time a year long

Homeward Bound Page 51

demonstration project will begin. The projectwill consist of connecting corporate ownedand associated vans during their downtimeperiod to senior housing projects in theSOMA neighborhood for the purpose offood shopping at a local Safeway store. Theprogram has multiple goals. These includeimproving senior nutrition, increasing salesand enhancing community relations for thesupermarket, fostering vanpooling throughcost reduction for the corporations as wellas encouraging corporate-required trip re-ductions, and meeting the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) requirements for themultiple transit agencies involved.

Operating on a fixed schedule five days/week, five hours a day, the van (Chevron hasalready promised the use of a vehicle) willpick up the seniors living in high rise hous-ing projects (population 2,000) near down-town San Francisco, take them to a Safewayadjoining the Mission District, and returnthem home again. According to Ken Hecht,co-director of CFPA and project director,many of the residents at the senior homesare low-income, with a high percentage ofAsian descent. The residents obtain theirfood from a number of sources. Some havetheir families bring in food; others go shop-ping either in Chinatown or nearby super-markets; a small percentage of the foodcomes from local convenience stores; whileothers (30%) participate in the housingprojects’ congregate meals program. 29

The program hopes to extend the servicesprovided beyond those offered through thevan drop off/paratransit-type services com-monly associated with food stores, such asthose described in this report. Concernedabout the problems associated with drop-ping off seniors in a potentially confusingand disorienting environment, volunteer“guides” will be made available to shepherdthe seniors through the store as needed.

Safeway has expressed its eagerness in ac-commodating the seniors, many of whomare monolingual Chinese, through hiringChinese-speaking clerks. Similarly, the Na-tional Coalition on Aging, a non-profit or-ganization, has committed to using job train-ing funds to train and paySafeway-employed seniors in these mentorpositions. Hecht noted that though the do-nated mentoring may make the programmore successful, it also could reduce theproject’s replicability.

While the stated purpose of the project is tobe self-sustaining beyond the first year’sdemonstration project, with Safeway to op-erate the service, numerous barriers exist.Senior citizens typically spend little on food.There is not a significant amount of shop-ping cart loss that can be attributed to se-nior citizens. To date, the seniors have ex-pressed resistance to paying for the service.Like many other programs cited in this re-port, this program may have a high com-munity relations value rather than a highmonetary value from the supermarket’s per-spective. Hecht identified other barriers, in-cluding initial reluctance to pursue the pro-gram from both Safeway as well as from theseniors themselves.

Nevertheless, the project might have itsgreatest chances for success through its in-novative links to other public benefits andplayers. Connections with transit agencies -who also have a stake in meeting theproject’s public policy goals of trip reduc-tions and access for disabled persons- as wellas with corporations with a desire forlow-cost public relations efforts, bring ad-ditional stakeholders and resources into thefood system. This diversification may makethe difference between the project’s successand failure.

Page 52 Homeward Bound

JOINT VENTURES(COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS)

New Communities Center-Pathmark JointVenture/Newark, New Jersey

The Pathmark store in Newark’s CentralWard is located in a neighborhood reminis-cent of a bombed-out war zone, or down-town Managua, Nicaragua after the 1972earthquake. Vast blocks of empty lots,strewn with rubble, weeds, and chain linkfences dot the landscape. Nearby can be seenhigh-rise housing projects, a vast hospital,and a medical school. For nearly 25 yearsthis Ward had no local supermarket. Super-markets avoided the neighborhood, (due inpart to its troubled history as a 1960s era riotzone) and its extreme poverty -- 40% of thepopulation residing in census tracts adjoin-ing the store have incomes under the pov-erty line. This has occurred despite evidencethat the area could support a full servicemarket. Although incomes are low, the areais densely populated.

New Communities Corporation (NCC), acommunity development corporation thatwas formed following the 1967 riots, initi-ated the process of developing a supermar-ket anchored shopping center in the area. In1980, NCC met with Supermarkets GeneralCorporation (SGC), the parent company ofPathmark supermarkets, to discuss the pos-sibility of a joint venture. A few years ear-lier, SGC had completed a similar project ina joint venture with the Bedford-StuyvesantRestoration Corporation. AlthoughPathmark management was initially hesi-tant about the Newark project, the Rever-end William Linder, NCC’s founder, even-tually persuaded them to participate.30

After a lengthy ten year process in assem-bling the land and obtaining the necessarypermits, the shopping center opened in July,

1990. It contains a 44,000 square foot super-market, and 23,000 square feet of satelliteshops, including a restaurant and donutshop. The store has been extremely success-ful, with the highest sales per square feet ofall the Pathmark stores, and the most prof-itable store per square feet in all of New Jer-sey. Its sales have exceeded managementprojections by over 20%, encouraging NCCto consider its expansion, despite a lack ofavailable adjoining land.31

New Communities owns all of the shoppingcenter property, while Community Super-market Corporation (CSC), a joint ventureof NCC and Supermarkets General, ownsthe store itself. As a landlord, NCC receivesrent from CSC. Since New Communities hasa 2/3 interest in CSC, it receives 2/3 of thestore’s profits. Supermarkets General in turnreceives a management fee, and the remain-ing 1/3 of the profits. In fiscal year 1993, thestore generated $1.2 million in profits.

The supermarket is only one of a series ofprojects that NCC operates. It is one of thelargest CDCs in the country, and the largestnon-profit housing developer in New Jersey.It has constructed 2,500 units of affordablehousing for more than 7,000 people, andprovides its own management, mainte-nance, and security. It also has developed avariety of health services, including a HomeHealth Care program, a Medical Day CareProgram, and an Extended Health Care Fa-cility. In addition, NCC is affiliated withBabyland Nursery, which operates six daycare centers with more than 600 children,including a center for children with AIDS.Other projects include two employment cen-ters, a credit union with approximately $2million in assets, and a for-profit monthlynewspaper.32

Community participation occurs throughNew Communities Programs as well as in

Homeward Bound Page 53

more direct ways. The CSC board is com-posed of community members, and meetsmonthly with Pathmark to discuss problemsor issues related to the store. Board mem-bers have made a number of recommenda-tions which have contributed to the store’ssales. For example, Pathmark followed theBoard’s suggestion to swap its proposed lob-ster tank for a fresh fish department.Pathmark also took the group’s advice tostyle its produce department after a farm-ers’ market, and include a selection of spe-cialty fruits and vegetables targeted towardsthe area’s largely African-American andCaribbean residents. Both recommendationshave been successful: according to store sur-veys the two departments are the mostpopular in the store.

Another one of New Communities innova-tions is its van service. This service was anatural outgrowth of a transit program thatthey had operated previous to the openingof the Pathmark store, which took seniorsfrom NCC-owned housing to other storesin Newark. Faithful to the needs of seniorsliving in their housing projects, NCC con-tinues to operate a drop-off service, whichtakes them to the store on a weekly basis.Lynn Mertz, a planner with NCC explainedthis community-based approach, noting thatthe store “belongs” to the seniors, whohelped them get it after ten years of fightingCity Hall. The seniors formed the core of aneffort to petition the Governor with 12,000signatures to condemn the abandonedbuildings on the 61 lots comprising the prop-erty through eminent domain.33

The primary focus of NCC’s van service,however, lies in providing shoppers with aride home after purchasing their groceries.While the store does have an ample parkinglot, the majority of the store’s customer baseeither walk-in (an estimated 40%) or take thebus, according to Mertz. Initially, the van

service charged a per cart load ($2 + $1 perchild), but has since changed their fareschedule to $5 per trip, with discounts forseniors ($3) and for residents of NCC-ownedsenior housing projects ($2). The van ser-vice does not have geographic boundaries,nor set routes, although most trips remainwithin a five mile radius. By comparison,one van driver estimated that $5 will buy ataxi ride of 1.5-2 miles.

A dispatcher coordinates the service, whichcarries an average of 400 persons per day.NCC varies the number of vans it operatesaccording to the store’s monthly cash flowcharts. During the first ten days of eachmonth, the peak shopping period, the ser-vice will carry about 500 persons per day,employing all eight vans. During peaktimes, customers may have to wait only fiveminutes for a ride. By comparison, duringoff-peak times, when typically five vans arein operation, the wait may be about 15-20minutes. Normally, the service operatesfrom 9 am to 9 pm, without a set schedule.On Sunday the service stops at 6 pm. Theservice employs 13 drivers, all of whom arenon-union, unlike the store employees,which, in turn, has lowered operating costs.

After initiating the service during the earlydays of the store’s operation, sales per cus-tomer increased from $8 to $18, parallel tochain-wide averages. Mertz argues that it isdifficult to evaluate exactly what percentageof this increase is due to the van service, asa number of other changes were made si-multaneously. Unlike other stores that op-erate van services such as El Tapatio in LosAngeles, Pathmark does not advertise itsvan service. Mertz asserts instead that cus-tomers are already familiar with it, and thereis no need to do so.

The built-in consumer base, comprised ofseniors living in NCC owned housing as

Page 54 Homeward Bound

well as a number of other factors make theNewark Pathmark a unique store. Acrossthe street from the store is the University ofDentistry and Medicine of New Jersey aswell as a hospital which provides the storewith a not unsubstantial flow of students,visitors, and employee shoppers. Througha series of actions, NCC has formulated whatamounts to a broadly conceived “transpor-tation policy”, encouraging the use of its vanservice. First, for security reasons, it hasfenced and walled off the property, provid-ing only one entrance and exit to the street.In the middle of this narrow driveway, sitsa booth, occupied by a security guard. Thephysical constraints of the property and thepresence of the guard ensure that shoppingcarts are not taken off the premises. Second,the management has taken steps to removethe gypsy cabs which cluttered the narrowlanes of the parking lot, and competed withNCC for van customers.

Furthermore, NCC’s vehicle pool is central-ized into a separate business unit (the gro-cery delivery business), which operates thevan service. The grocery delivery businessleases the vehicles from the credit union armof NCC which owns the vehicles. Duringtheir downtime, the vans are “borrowed”,without payment, to the parent corporationor to other programs of NCC such as itsMeals on Wheels program. This arrange-ment acts as a de facto subsidy on the partof the grocery delivery business to the par-ent corporation, making it difficult to iden-tify an overall financial accounting of the vanservice itself.

Not only does the grocery delivery businesssubsidize NCC proper, but also SGC.Through paying the full cost of the servicewhile owning only two-thirds of the store,NCC has in fact subsidized Pathmark’sshare in the operating costs of the service.Pathmark has incurred no expenses for the

van service, yet has gained through eitherincreased sales volume or improved good-will and community relations. Despite thisgeneral inattention to the financial costs ofthe van service, NCC pledges to continue it,insofar as it enjoys great popularity amongthe store’s shoppers, primarily due to theCDC’s commitment to serving the needs ofthe community. Ultimately, NCC’s van ser-vice has served to reinforce the overall vi-ability of the joint venture agreement, ratherthan the joint venture itself assuming re-sponsibility for initiating and underwritingthe program.

Homeward Bound Page 55

1 . Seeds of Change, p. 134

2 . Interview with Ed Torres, May 1995; Seealso Andy Fisher & Robert Gottlieb, “Bring-ing Home the Broccoli: Innovative FoodRelated Transit Programs”, Community FoodSecurity News, Winter/Spring 1996, p. 1

3 . Interview with Allan Fine, May 1995

4 . Interview with Tom Skelley, February1996

5 . Interview with Ken Lane 4/8/1996. Seealso “The Kroger Co. and the City of Savan-nah, Ga.” in Cities and Supermarkets: Part-ners in Progress: Case Studies of SuccessfulCollaborative Programs, Washington D.C.:National League of Cities and Food Market-ing Institute, 1995, p. 28

6 . Interview with Ken Lane, 4/8/96

7 . Interview with Colleen Leslie (Profes-sional Community Management Inc) May1996; Leisure World Transportation — BusRidership Totals by Month, 1996.

8 . “Super Deal?”, Los Angeles Times, OrangeCounty edition, December 6, 1994; “To theRescue: Market Comes Through withShopper’s Van”, Leisure World News, Febru-ary 16, 1995. Interview with Lou AnnLaPorte, SuperShuttle, June 1996

9 . Letter from Lou Ann LaPorte to BobGottlieb, June 6, 1996. Interview withVeronica Gnasso, SuperShuttle, 9/19/95;Interview with Julie Reynolds, Vons, Janu-ary 1995.

10 . Interview with Barry Kidd, September1995.

11 . The survey results are cited in TowardFood Security in Connecticut, A Report ofthe City of Hartford’s Planning and Devel-opment Committee’s Ad Hoc Food SecurityCommitttee, Hartford, Ct., April 1996, p.15

12 . See, “The Grocery Delivery Service forHomebound Seniors and The Senior Farm-ers’ Market Coupon Program: Reports for1995", Hartford Food System, 1995; “GroceryDelivery Service Fills Need”, Mark Winne,Hartford Courant, June 28, 1993; Interviewwith Mark Winne, April 1996

13 Interview with Robert Wilson, March1996

14 Interview with Kate Fitzgerald, May,1996

15 . “Cap Metro Adds Route for E. AustinShoppers”, Debbie Hott, Austin AmericanStatesman, January 22, 1996.

16 . Cited in Austin American Statesman, Janu-ary 22, 1996.

17 Interview with Kate Fitzgerald, May1996. See also Community Food Security News,Winter/Spring 1996, p. 1

18 . ”HOP Shuttle Service Profile”, City ofBoulder, Colorado, May 24, 1995

19 See, for example, the new “ShoppingAlternatives” home page (shopalt@intr.net)that lists several internet-based home deliv-ery service programs in such communitiesas Charlotte, North Carolina andSpartanburg, South Carolina.

20 . “Byerly’s To You” Store Catalogue, 1996

ENDNOTES : SECTION III

Page 56 Homeward Bound

21 . Interviews with Tracy Weesie, June 1996,and Tammy Laska, April 1996

22 . Interview with Darren Jordan, Pink Dot,May 1996

23 . Lauren Lekoski, “Grocers Deliver theGoods”, Supermarket Business, vol. 44, no. 1,January 1989:43-46

24 . Interview with Rhonda Taylor, Kroger’s“Groceries-to-Go”, 4/3/1996.

25 . Interview with Gwen Yarbrough,Minyard Multicultural Relations Coordina-tor, April 1996; “Expanding the CorporateCulture”, Supermarket Business, May 1994, p.48; “Bridging the Gap”, Progressive Grocer,August 1993, p. 12

26 . Interview with David Hardin, MinyardStores, Director of Real Estate, 4/25/96

27 . Interview with Mike Overline, PreferredProducts Inc., Director of Human Resources,4/24/96.

28 . “Getting Them There”, Progressive Gro-cer, May 1993, p. 126

29 . Interview with Ken Hecht, CaliforniaFood Policy Advocates, May 1996.

30 . See Testimony of Rev. Msgr. William J.Linder, Founder, New Communities Corpo-ration, before the U.S. House of Representa-tives Select Committee on Hunger, Septem-ber 30, 1992

31 . Interviews with Lynn Mertz, New Com-munities Corporation, May 1995, andRaymond Codey, May 1995.

32 . “Building New Communities”, NormanJ. Glickman, CUP Report, Spring 1996, Vol.7, No. 1, p.1; “Pathmark and New Commu-

nities Corporation — Joint Venture HelpsRevitalize Newark”, FMI Issues Bulletin,Food Marketing Institute, January 1993.

33 . Interview with Lynn Mertz, May 1995

Homeward Bound Page 57

SECTION IV:THREE APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM:

ESTABLISHING THE FRAMEWORK FOR FOOD ACCESS

The Need for Planning

Page 58 Homeward Bound

Food access programs today remainproblematic for both transportationagencies, local governments, and the

food retail industry. Though issues such ascost of service are often cited, the difficul-ties in establishing such programs have beenreinforced by the inability of governmentand industry to connect the issues of accessand transportation needs to food securityand food planning considerations. As a con-sequence, the costs of such programs almostinvariably seem to outweigh their benefits,underlined by the fact that many of the ben-efits of a food access approach appear hardto quantify and are thus seen as items dis-tinct from traditional balance sheet consid-erations. Transportation planning, oftenframed at the regional (or statewide and in-trastate) scale, also tends to ignore the com-munity side of transportation as related tosuch services as health care or food shop-ping. Where community-level transporta-tion planning occurs, it is most often associ-ated with special needs populations or otherlimited, constituency-driven programs.These programs are not, however, primarilydefined by the type of access need, includ-ing, most prominently, food security consid-erations (i.e., where food markets are locatedand how to get there). Where food access/transportation initiatives exist, they alsotend to be incidental to a broader agency orindustry planning process and thus do notprovide an easily reduplicated model.

This Section identifies three possible ap-proaches with respect to food access for bothsupermarkets and farmers’ markets or di-rect marketing outlets. These can be de-scribed as the private sector approach; thejoint venture approach; and the non-profitapproach. While none of these approachesis representative of the activities of marketsor agencies at this time, possibilities of theirdevelopment are reflected in variousprojects or programs that have been estab-

lished at varying levels. Such programscould be further extended or restructured toincorporate additional aspects of each of theapproaches presented here. The purpose ofthe Section then is not so much to proposereplicability as to explore the ability of eachapproach to help frame a food access plan-ning process. These approaches, further-more, are derived from the southern Cali-fornia region where problems of transit de-pendence and food insecurity remain sub-stantial and clearly require some form of in-tervention and/or planning approach toidentify solutions. Thus, the question of howthe policy framework for such approachescan be established remains paramount, anissue explored below in the context of theevolving debate regarding food securitypolicy in Los Angeles.

ESTABLISHING THE PLANNING ANDPOLICY FRAMEWORK

The Los Angeles Food Security and Hun-ger Partnership

The lack of a planning and policy frameworkregarding food security (including food ac-cess) has been seen for a number of years asa particularly compelling concern in LosAngeles where Seeds of Change and othersimilar studies had documented the natureand extent of food security problems in theregion, including questions of food access.In 1994, a Voluntary Advisory Council onHunger (VACH), appointed by the Mayor,the City Council President, and the Commu-nity Development Department, was estab-lished to document conditions of hungerand food insecurity and propose a food-re-lated hunger policy for the City. Authoriza-tion for the VACH had its roots in a 1989City Council action that called for the cre-ation of a nine member advisory body tooversee the development, coordination and

Homeward Bound Page 59

promotion of a city policy on hunger. Imple-mentation of the Council action, however,only occurred several years later in the af-termath of widespread publicity surround-ing the publication of the Seeds of Changereport, including a Los Angeles Times edito-rial supporting the report’s recommendationcalling for the creation of a local Food PolicyCouncil.1

Once appointed, the VACH, recognizing thebroader, community-based concerns associ-ated with food insecurity in the region, un-dertook a series of Hearings on such issuesas nutritional concerns, food concerns ofchildren and seniors, implications of the fed-eral devolution of safety net programs, andalternative strategies such as communitygardens and farmers’ markets. While foodaccess was specifically highlighted duringone of the Hearings, it was also referencedas a major food security indicator at severalof the other sessions. At the conclusion ofthe Hearings, the VACH developed its pro-posed policy document on food security andhunger, which it issued in draft form in No-vember 1995. A final policy document, aswell as an organizational plan for implemen-tation, was approved by the VACH in April1996. Both the policy, the implementationplan, and initial funding for the approachwere approved by the Los Angeles CityCouncil in June 1996. 2

The VACH proposal called for the creationof a “Food Security and Hunger Partner-ship” and adoption of a food security andhunger mission statement for the City thatwould provide the framework for futurepolicy. The partnership concept was elabo-rated in part from an analysis of the activi-ties of Food Policy Councils established inother communities, and discussed in SectionII.3 L.A.’s “Partnership” concept sought todraw from both the municipal/governmentand non-profit models by linking a type of

quasi-government commission with a non-profit arm, which would be capable of rais-ing separate funds and stimulating pilotprojects. The Partnership, in turn, would beguided by a board of directors consisting ofspecified slots for food system stakeholders,including one ex officio slot reserved for atransportation agency official. A third non-governmental entity, a research partnershipbetween universities in the region, was alsoproposed to analyze issue areas and targetopportunities for innovation and interven-tion. For the partnership concept to succeed,VACH members argued, it would need tobe a central part of the regional policy andplanning process, while also stimulating andmobilizing a non-governmental or commu-nity response to the issues. The value of suchmobilization had been further underlined bythe parallel development of a Los AngelesCommunity Food Security Network, con-sisting of a number of food security focusedNGOs who had been monitoring the pro-ceedings of the VACH while simultaneouslydeveloping their own community initiativeson these issues. 4

Although food access emerged as only oneof several issue areas under considerationby the VACH, it has nevertheless occupieda central place in relation to the planningaspects of the Partnership process. In thatcontext, each of the three kinds of food ac-cess initiatives explored below (private; jointventure; non-profit) involve strategic plan-ning based programs that could be stimu-lated and/or enhanced through the Partner-ship framework. The private initiative relieson a more elaborated form of cost-benefitanalysis that incorporates certain factors(e.g., shopping cart loss) that have been ab-sent from such calculations. The joint ven-ture proposal addresses the link betweenfood access, land use considerations (e.g.,parking lot size) and supermarket location.The non-profit program identifies the food

Page 60 Homeward Bound

access issues and opportunities availablethrough a grower-to-consumer direct mar-keting approach. Thus, the approaches pre-sented here, similar in some respects to sev-eral of the case studies described in SectionIII, combine a food planning as well as trans-portation planning process as the means bywhich such programs could be imple-mented. The existence of the Food Securityand Hunger Partnership could at the sametime initiate and/or help implement thepolicy dimensions of such programs.

PRIVATE OPPORTUNITIES: StimulatingGreater Access to Supermarkets

One of the major barriers for initiating su-permarket based transportation programshas been the prevailing assumptions — andnarrowly construed information available —concerning the costs and benefits of suchprograms. Developing an approach for aprivate initiative, such as a van/transportservice for local residents in transit depen-dent communities to and/or from a super-market, requires a framework that is able toincorporate factors often ignored or definedas intangible or non-quantifiable in finan-cial terms. It also needsto expand the kinds of cal-culations from whichcost-benefit assessmentsare derived. Those typesof calculations have oftenbeen associated with vari-ous environmental evalu-ation techniques, particu-larly a pollution preven-tion-linked total cost as-sessment (or full cost ac-counting) approach.TCA, in turn, providesone type of framework forcost-benefit analysis thatsupermarkets could uti-

lize in exploring the viability of a food ac-cess/transport service. 5

TCA, for one, tends to be industry and evenfacility specific. As elaborated in Section III,the key to any transportation service for su-permarkets are the local dynamics that in-fluence each particular program (e.g., neigh-borhood vehicle ownership per capita, pub-lic transit availability, housing and residen-tial densities, crime concerns, centralizedlocations for pick-ups, permit requirements,and so forth). Within each local setting, cer-tain key aspects of a program can be identi-fied, providing a broader cost accountingstructure. By way of example, program costsfor a supermarket store-to-home van servicemay include:

• Purchase of Vehicle• Labor Costs for Vehicle Operation• Insurance Costs• Non-Labor Operation & MaintenanceCosts• Permit and Operating Fees• Promotional Costs

On the other side of the assessment process,the sources of program revenues and ben-

efits (both tangible andintangible) may include:

• Additional ShoppingTrips from New andLong Term Customers• Customer and Com-munity Goodwill• Free Publicity• Increased Store Salesfrom Larger Purchases• Van Service Fees• Reduced ShoppingCart Loss

When retailers evaluate

Ultimately, a more completeworksheet or evaluativemethod is needed for any pri-vate venture to assesswhether a food access/trans-port program is completelyor even partially viable interms of the presumption ofstrict bottom line consider-ations.

Homeward Bound Page 61

new programs to determine what are con-sidered bottom line considerations, most as-sessments will attempt to quantify what isreadily available information, such as ve-hicle and labor costs, permitting and insur-ance, and revenues generated from use ofthe service as well as any potential subsi-dies to mitigate start up costs. What doesnot get included are the intangibles (e.g.,customer goodwill) as well as informationthat could be quantified but is often not as-sociated with such a service (e.g., free pub-licity, increased store sales, or reduced cartloss).

Elaborating on those examples, promotionalcosts for retailers constitute an importantexpense, particularly in highly competitivemarkets like Los Angeles, where store dif-ferentiation (by product mix, price, etc.) iscritical to the success of such promotion andadvertising. Thus, quantifying in dollarterms the publicity generated with little orno cost (e.g., through scheduling informa-tion, media coverage, community newslet-ters) can have significant bearing for any costevaluation matrix.

Similarly, the quantification of additionalstore sales would require a type of longitu-dinal analysis that, unfortunately, has notbeen undertaken to date, even by storescommitted to a van service program suchas those described in Section III. However,several of the programs profiled here haveassumed but not calculated increased sales,in part due to the popularity of the program.Through anecdotal evidence and personalobservation, store managers have statedtheir opinion that there have been new storecustomers and additional sales on the basisof their use of the service. By analyzing morespecifically customer sales figures over timewhile controlling for other variables asidefrom the van service, the ability to quantifyadditional revenues as a result of the pro-

gram could become a more straightforwardevaluative task. Information for such evalu-ation could include the number of new cus-tomers using the service; estimated salesreceipts; average profit margin on sales; andincreased purchases from long term custom-ers due to participation in the service.Finally, an evaluation of reduced cart losscan also be directly translated into informa-tion about decreased costs, influencing anyoverall assessment. However, determiningthe full extent of such reduced costs, more-over, is best addressed through the use of atotal cost assessment framework. For ex-ample, the costs from cart loss should notbe quantified solely in terms of the replace-ment cost of the cart. In addition, the re-trieval costs of carts returned, the labor costsassociated with handling retrieval and re-placement of the carts, and the present orfuture costs associated with fees through im-poundment laws or other regulations, needto be represented. By calculating, in turn, thecost savings accruing from the reduction ofcart loss, fewer cart retrievals, lower laborcosts, and lower fees, among other variables,all associated with a food access/transportprogram, a food market could, on the basisof a TCA approach, identify savings thatcould conceivably amount to several thou-sand dollars a year, representing a signifi-cant revenue offset.6

Ultimately, a more complete worksheet orevaluative method is needed for any privateventure to assess whether a food access/transport program is completely or evenpartially viable in terms of the presumptionof strict bottom line considerations. Beyondthat type of calculus, the store’s communityidentity (which itself can represent an eco-nomic value) is likely to be significantly en-hanced through any food access program.For supermarkets, such considerations ofcommunity (and thus customer service) willremain paramount as long as place matters.

Page 62 Homeward Bound

JOINT VENTURES:A Public/Private Partnership

Inner city locations present unique chal-lenges and opportunities for the construc-tion of new supermarkets and associatedmarket-based transportation services. In LosAngeles, perhaps the most significant bar-rier to building new stores in the inner cityis a lack of sites of adequate size. Develop-ers often must cobble together numerousparcels in an expensive and time-consumingprocess. This land scarcity, however, pre-sents an opportunityfor supermarkets andmunicipalities to re-vise their transporta-tion policies in accor-dance with the needsand resources of innercity communities.

Municipal planningand supermarkettransportation policieshave largely revolvedaround anauto-centered ap-proach to getting shoppers to and fromstores. This approach is best seen throughthe large parking lots that legally must ac-company all supermarket developments. Inthe City of Los Angeles, planning regula-tions require supermarkets to provide atleast four parking spaces per thousandsquare feet of floor area. The parking lot fora typical 40,000 square foot store occupiesabout 57% of the total lot size, while a typi-cal parking space itself is 333 square feet.

While large parking lot requirements maymake sense for communities with virtuallyuniversal automobile ownership and abun-dant land, they can be burdensome for in-ner city areas with scarce land, poor foodaccess, and high rates of households with-

out access to a vehicle. Retailoring parkinglot sizes to meet community demographicscombined with alternative transportationprograms, such as van services, can form thecornerstone of a revised inner city supermar-ket transportation policy. In Los Angeles, forexample, 24% of the households in the FoodAccess Deficient Area (see Section 2 for moredetails) don’t have access to an auto, as com-pared to only 7% in the comparably sizedsuburban San Fernando Valley. Assumingthat parking requirements are appropriatefor the San Fernando Valley, such require-

ments may then beexcessive for innercity areas where ahigh percentage ofcustomers arewalk-ins or arrive bybus.

Parking needs are af-fected by a variety offactors, including fre-quency and durationof shopping trips,number of personsserved by the store,

and weekly and monthly shopping patterns.While supermarkets serve more persons inthe inner city - 29,505 in inner city areas inLos Angeles, as compared to 16,629 for theaverage in Los Angeles County — targetedareas for inner city supermarket customersmay be smaller, given the relatively high per-centage in those areas of elderly residents,who often have limited mobility. Similarly,inner city consumers have been character-ized as making frequent shopping trips, yettheir trips may be of less duration given thefew items purchased. Monthly shoppingpatterns also affect demand on parking. Al-though all markets have peak times such asweekends and evenings, purchases at innercity supermarkets also entail monthly cycles,with the first few days of each month the

While large parking lot re-quirements may make sensefor communities with virtuallyuniversal automobile owner-ship and abundant land, theycan be burdensome for innercity areas with scarce land,poor food access, and highrates of households without ac-cess to a vehicle.

Homeward Bound Page 63

busiest.

Community members and developers maypresent barriers to revising parking lot regu-lations. Businesses and residents want theirneighboring supermarket to have adequateparking, in order to avoid overflow into theirlots and streets. Smaller supermarket park-ing lots could in some cases result in adverseeffects on surrounding residents and busi-nesses, especially during peak shoppingperiods. Likewise, developers and super-market chains also want large parking lots.They know from experience that adequateand “easy” parking lures customers whilepacked lots can present a serious barrier forpotential customers, leading them to shopelsewhere.

Decreasing parking lot requirements couldsave supermarkets a substantial amount inland acquisition, paving, landscaping, andmaintenance. With a 20% reduction, a 40,000square foot store could reduce its parkinglot size by 13,000 square feet. At a conserva-tive price of eight dollars per square foot inthe inner city, a store could save a total of$85,200 in land costs alone, without count-ing development costs.7 In exchange forgranting the parking waiver, the city couldstipulate that these savings be used by themarket to amortize a van service. An annu-ity of $10,300 per year for fifteen years (in-vested at 8.5%) could conceivably be createdto partially subsidize such a service. Supple-mental funding could be calculated on thebasis of the kinds of revenue opportunitiesdescribed above, such as reduced shoppingcart loss and retrieval fees, additional busi-ness generated, and user fees.

The concept of reducing parking require-ments to help establish a food access/trans-port program could be most effectivelyimplemented through a public/private part-nership, or joint venture, where a public

good (i.e., a food access/transport program)is established simultaneously with a privatebenefit (i.e., reduced parking lot size). Sucha partnership would also in effect reorientthe supermarket’s and city’s transportationpolicy toward a more realistic assessment ofthe needs and capacities of the surroundingcommunity. As we have seen from multipleexamples across the country, this type ofapproach is best achieved when it includesa measure of community ownership andengagement in the process.

Community involvement in developing anappropriate transportation policy can beimportant for a number of reasons. First, itcreates a mechanism by which the retailercan receive input on the specific circum-stances of the neighborhood, rather thanassume a generic community with no dis-tinguishing needs and resources. Commu-nity organizations can educate developersand chain executives about the issues asso-ciated with parking lot size relative to ashuttle service for the transit dependent.They can also work with the surroundingcommunity to ameliorate parking overflowproblems at peak times if required.

Community engagement can also prove fi-nancially beneficial to an inner city super-market on the basis of other kinds of publicgood/private benefit arrangements. Thepartnership between New CommunitiesCorporation and Pathmark Supermarkets inNewark led to a number of changes in thestore’s format, including the grocery deliv-ery service (see section 2), that enabled it tobe one of the most profitable stores in NewJersey. A sense of community ownership andcontrol over the market also can help reducecosts associated with security and shrink, aswell stimulate sales and customer loyalty.Community organizations can help organizeand conduct outreach to maximize the useand successful operation of transportation

Page 64 Homeward Bound

projects.

Finally, as the planning process in siting asupermarket can take years (and at times adecade), and be quite costly, the commu-nity plays a critical role in blocking or facili-tating the store. Community ownership andsupport can help speed up the process, sav-ing the supermarket thousands of dollars.It would also be essential to advocating forand obtaining a waiver in parking lot sizerequirements.

The most common and well-developed fo-rum for community engagement in the su-permarket industry is through the vehicleof a joint venture arrangement with a com-munity development corporation (CDC).CDCs are private non-profit organizationsinvolved in economic development projectsin a disadvantaged neighborhood, such aschild care facilities, real estate development,job training, and affordable housing.

Joint ventures vary in structure accordingto the needs and situation of the partnershipinterests, but generally fall into one of twocategories. In the first type, the CDC ownsand develops the land, in partnership witha commercial developer. This partnershiporganization acts as landlord, and leases thebuilding to the supermarket. The supermar-ket has full responsibility for store manage-ment and operation, pays rent and some-times a percentage of sales to the CDC. Inaddition, the lease may require the super-market to meet other conditions, such asproviding job training programs, hiringfrom the surrounding community, or sellingcertain products. In the second form, theCDC is actually a partner and co-owner ofthe supermarket. The supermarket is incharge of day to day operations, and receivesa fee for this service. Profits are shared ac-cording to each partner’s investment pro-portion in the project. 8

Joint ventures offer significant benefits to thecommunity (and the CDC) as well as to thesupermarket. The roles of the partners arecomplementary, with the CDC providing itscommunity development expertise and un-derstanding of community needs, and thesupermarket lending industry expertise inreal estate and business operations.

The community profits in numerous waysfrom a joint venture project. Supermarketscreate jobs, provide employment training,meet community needs for goods and ser-vices, and revitalize distressed neighbor-hoods. Satellite shops can provide entrepre-neurial opportunities for local businesses.The CDC’s participation creates a sense ofcommunity engagement and ownership,encouraging community involvement. Also,the CDC’s share of the profits is reinvestedinto their economic development projects.In this way, local dollars are recycled backinto the community. 9

The joint venture also offers many advan-tages to the supermarket partner. With aCDC as partner, the project is likely to enjoythe support of community members, en-hancing its potential for success. Commu-nity input can help management to moreaccurately fine-tune its product mix and ser-vices, contributing to higher sales volume.Shared ownership minimizes negative per-ceptions of outsiders exploiting low incomeresidents by charging high prices for infe-rior goods. In addition, CDCs can attractgrants and low-cost loans, reducing totalproject costs. 10 Aside from the NewarkNCC/Pathmark arrangement, several jointventures related to supermarket locationhave been established or are in the processof formation. Two of the most prominentadvocates of food retail joint ventures arethe Local Initiatives Support Corporation(LISC) and the Los Angeles-based RLA. TheFord Foundation-sponsored LISC organiza-

Homeward Bound Page 65

tion had been a significant player in the lowincome housing development arena for anumber of years but came to the conclusionin the early 1990s that successful housingneeded to be associated with increased jobsand commercial activity in inner city areas.Formally launching what it called The Re-tail Initiative (TRI) in 1994, LISC sought toestablish a framework for joint venture in-ner city commercial development, anchoredby a local supermarket, similar to the New-ark example. LISC hoped that the infusionof capital made possible through its limitedparternship investment model combinedwith community participation through ajoint venture would prove attractive to bothsupermarkets and communities. However,LISC found some of its proposed venturescontroversial, partly a reflection of the largesize of the markets proposed (60,000-80,000square feet) and the issue of competitionbetween small stores and the incoming (andsubsidized) proposed food market.11

RLA (formerly Rebuild Los Angeles) is theorganization established in the wake of the1992 civil disorders, and was created in partto identify job creating, community eco-nomic development opportunities in theareas hardest hit by the riots. Originally con-ceived as an organization capable of “re-building” the community solely throughprivate sector initiatives, the issue of super-market location (or relocation) figuredprominently in RLA plans, influenced inpart by early supermarket chain pronounce-ments of interest in relocating into the innercity. However, the early ambitious targets ofRLA quickly became casualties of the diffi-culties, complexities, and lack of private sec-tor support for inner city reinvestment. RLAsoon evolved into a research and servicetype organization, seeking to identify oppor-tunities for specific investment and public/private type ventures, including for super-market development. It demonstrated

through community surveys that the desirefor greater food access, particularly accessto supermarkets, was identified as the singlelargest community need by residents of onelarge South Central area. Unlike LISC, how-ever, RLA sought to identify opportunitiesfor smaller scale markets, at the 20,000 to40,000 square foot size, which would requiresmaller investment and a more manageablejoint venture type operation. 12

While approaching the issue with a differ-ent set of considerations and a range of vari-ables to address, both RLA and LISC havenevertheless identified the joint venture ap-proach as the most effective method of se-curing supermarket investment in the innercity. While representing a breakthrough inidentifying a new type of approach, whatremains to be addressed is the access issueitself, namely how can the CDC/joint ven-ture facilitate a program to increase access,above and beyond the siting of the super-market into an inner city location where nosupermarket previously existed. By includ-ing access in the negotiated arrangement, thejoint venture approach extends the commu-nity development framework into the arenaof food and transportation planning as well.

Non-Profit Initiatives: Bringing the Farmerto the Consumer and the Consumer to theFarmer

In 1994, the Southland Farmers’ Market As-sociation (SFMA), a trade and lobbying or-ganization representing 19 farmers’ marketsin the Los Angeles region, in partnershipwith the UCLA Community Food SecurityProject, sought to explore the possibility ofinitiating and evaluating the developmentof a Community Supported Agriculture(CSA) type arrangement through theGardena Farmers’ Market in southwest LosAngeles. CSAs, as they have been developed

Page 66 Homeward Bound

in recent years, typically establish a contrac-tual relationship between a single growerand a group of urban residents or “share-holders” who agree to purchase on an an-nual basis some or all of the crops producedby that grower. CSAs have generally tendedto be characterized for their emphasis on akind of “lifestyle choice” for middle classconsumers rather than for the range of foodsecurity benefits, particularly for low incomeresidents, that can flow from grower-to-con-sumer relationships. A few CSAs, such asTwinhawks Hollow Farm in Wisconsin,have linked their program with low incomeparticipants by accepting food stamps as aform of payment, utilizing a subsidizedprice in their payment schedule, and estab-lishing other innovative relationships.13 Butemphasizing the long term commitment ofshareholders (e.g. payments on an annualbasis) as a way to insulate the grower fromthe dictates of the food economy makes theparticipation of low income urban residentsdifficult. Most importantly, from the per-spective of this study, CSAs have not em-phasized issues of location and access fromthe urban side of the arrangement, therebylimiting the community or neighborhoodappeal of such a program.

Given the difficulties of low income resi-dents participating in farmers’ markets orCSAs, the UCLA/Southland Farmers’ Mar-ket Association team sought to establish apilot program that would utilize features ofboth CSAs and farmers’ markets, with ac-cess a major component of the program, inan effort to attract both low and middle in-come participation. It was decided that sucha project would be located in the Gardenaarea bordering Southwest and South Cen-tral Los Angeles. This area is highly diverse,both in terms of its income and ethnicitycharacteristics. City of Gardena residents areapproximately 23% African-American, 23%Latino, 23% Anglo, and 33% Asian/Pacific

Islander. A substantial majority of the cen-sus tracts radiating for approximately threemiles from Van Ness Avenue and ElSegundo Avenue, the site of the GardenaFarmers’ Market, have a median incomebelow the county average, including thosein Gardena itself, although several censustract areas are higher income areas. Bus ser-vice for intra-neighborhood needs inGardena is limited, with the closest bus lineto the Van Ness and El Segundo intersec-tion stopping more than a half a mile away.14

The Gardena Farmers’ Market, establishedin 1979, is one of the oldest established mar-kets in the Los Angeles region. Many of thegrowers participating in the market havebeen involved from its origins, and derive amodest, though still significant share of theirrevenue stream from market sales. How-ever, sales in recent years have been rela-tively flat, and the Farmers’ Market has notbeen able to expand its customer base, par-ticularly in several of the surrounding lowand middle income communities.15 This hasoccurred despite the possibility of substan-tial interest in the program, given the smallnumber of full service food markets (andsources of fresh produce) in those areas. Ex-pansion, however, has been limited in partby the lack of any transportation-related pro-gram such as a van service that could bothimprove access and heighten awareness ofthe market itself, which has remained lim-ited despite its lengthy history. 16

Responding to the growers’ need to expandsales and the desire to attract a constituencywhose participation might otherwise be lim-ited due to access problems, the SFMAsought to explore a CSA model that could,at the same time, be associated with thefarmers’ market operation itself. With sup-port from the USDA’s Sustainable Agricul-ture Research and Education Program andthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Homeward Bound Page 67

the UCLA/Southland team designed a Mar-ket Basket Subscription Program to serve asa possible model for this and other regions.

The Gardena Market Basket Program waslaunched in October 1995, with the follow-ing features:

• Step 1: Several of the growers who sellat the Gardena Farmers’ Market agree tosell some of their harvest through theMarket Basket Program, at a price thatis 15% below farmers’ market prices.

• Step 2: Each week, the grow-ers and the Market Basketcoordinator decide,based on crop quality,quantity, and the needfor diversity in thebasket, which type ofproduce each growerwill sell through theprogram. By combiningthe harvests of severalfarmers, the Market Basket isable to offer a variety of locallygrown, seasonal produce.

• Step 3: The produce, purchased in bulk,is then assembled into “shares” and thendistributed at drop-off points where theyare picked up by participant subscribers.These drop off points, located in differ-ent areas of the city, are designed to re-duce the distance subscribers have totravel.

The baseline price for a basket of produce($10) provides a cost savings over farmers’market prices. Subscribers pay up to a weekin advance, with food stamps accepted as aform of payment. There are three shareprices established: the baseline price, a sub-sidized price (30% below the baseline price)and a subsidizing price (at a cost 30% greater

than the baseline figure, but still competi-tive with supermarket prices).17

A core Market Basket Program goal was toutilize the resources of the community inorder to build sustainability, with outreachto community organizations and constitu-ency groups essential to the process of in-creasing community ownership of theproject. For example, one successful link tothe program was the partnership establishedwith Crystal Stairs, an organization whichserves over 2,600 family child care provid-

ers in Southern California. Amongother activities, Crystal Stairs

administers a program thatestablishes dietary/nutri-tional requirements forchild care providers toqualify for income sup-port for purchasing foodfor meals. By identifying asubscription to the Market

Basket program as qualifica-tion, Crystal Stairs established

a strong incentive for providerparticipation.18 In this way, contin-

ued outreach can be conducted throughcommunity institutions like Crystal Stairs,as well as schools, churches, social serviceagencies, and emergency food providers,among others, while seeking to reduce theneed for a continual Market Basket “sub-scription drive.” This institutional link alsoaids in the process of identifying both thosein need and those who can pay more. It alsohelps to identify specific barriers, such asaccess/transit dependencies, that limit par-ticipation.

In the first seventeen weeks after the pro-gram was launched, 69 individual subscrib-ers purchased a total of 219 baskets, includ-ing 39 baskets at the subsidized price. (SeeFigure 1) A far greater number of potentialsubscribers (more than 175) made inquiries

A core Market Bas-ket Program goalwas to utilize theresources of thecommunity in or-der to buildsustainability

Page 68 Homeward Bound

about the program from articles that werepublished in the Los Angeles Times and SouthBay Daily Breeze. Many of these respondents,however, indicated an inability or unwill-ingness to participate for a variety of factors.Of those factors, problems of access or trans-portation figured most prominently (27% ofthose surveyed cited access-related reasonsfor non-participation). A similar concernabout transportation needs was also ex-pressed by the nearly two dozen churchesand community organizations who haveindicated an interest and/or participated inthe program. Despite the intent of the pro-gram to provide greater access by the de-velopment of “drop off points” that wouldshorten distances for participants, a num-ber of potential shareholders, such as seniorcitizens, disabled, shut-ins, or those withoutcars, have remained unable to participate ina program that seeks to offer significant com-munity food security benefits not otherwiseobtainable. Thus, transportation and accessneeds have emerged as the single largestneed for the stabilization and future expan-sion of the program.19

Figure 1:

UCLA researchers have been seeking toevaluate the community food security, foodaccess, and environmental benefits of theMarket Basket program. These benefits po-tentially include: a) enhancing the viabilityof local growers and evaluating whethertheir participation in this type of direct mar-keting program influences their growingpractices, such as pesticide use; b) expand-ing the availability of high quality, fresh fromthe farm, affordable produce for low andmiddle income city residents, many ofwhom lack access to any kind of fresh pro-duce (with the project in turn seeking todetermine reasons for participation or un-willingness or inability to participate); andc) evaluating the applicability of the pro-gram to other locations in California. Hav-ing identified, through this evaluation, thattransportation and access-related needs rep-resent a central, crucial factor for theprogram’s success, the Market Basket projectis currently exploring methods of address-ing those needs. One area of research thathas been identified involves assessing thefeasibility of a delivery/transportation pro-gram as an additional component of theMarket Basket program.

A Food Delivery and Transport Service

In evaluating various food transport pro-grams, some of which were described inSection III, one major consideration regard-ing such programs has been the existence ofsubstantial “down time” when the use of thevehicle involved (most often a van) is not inoperation and many of the program costsare not able to be recouped. A more cost-ef-fective program would clearly require con-tinuous use of the vehicle, most likely inconjunction with other programs. In termsof the Market Basket program, those wish-ing to shop at farmers’ markets but whohave transportation problems represent one

Homeward Bound Page 69

participants, particularly if central deliveryand/or transit stops were included (e.g.,senior citizen homes or centers, child carecenters or providers, large housing projectsor commercial centers, etc.).

Such a transport/food access system couldfurther establish key environmental benefits(as well as identify important sources of sup-port for start-up costs) by utilizing an ultralow emissions vehicle, similar to the Boul-der, Colorado HOP program. Though somealternative fuel vehicles are still in the dem-onstration stage, others are now available foruse. A ULEV for a food access/transportprogram would be attractive for several rea-sons:

• Alternative fuel vehicles have been mar-keted for certain niche uses, such as fleetservices, or for the environmentally-aware consumer, most often identified asthe middle or upper income car ownerwho is interested in an additional, moreenvironmentally benign vehicle for lim-ited uses. By linking a ULEV to a pro-gram that significantly addresses theneeds of low income residents, such aconnection establishes a new andbroader constituency for ULEV use. Partof the purpose of the project would be tomake such links explicit to demonstratetheir feasibility.

• ULEVs provide the most substantial pol-lutant reduction potential (in compari-son to gasoline-powered vehicles) whenused for travel characterized by shortdistance, non-freeway driving with mul-tiple stops at reduced speeds. ULEVbuses in center city areas offer one suchopportunity; a food transport/deliveryservice could provide another importantexample.

• While the program under consideration

additional and logical use of such a trans-portation service. By linking access to farm-ers’ markets to a transportation strategy forthe Market Basket program, that is, by com-bining a Market Basket “delivery service”with a farmers’ market “van service” pro-gram transporting farmers’ market shoppersto their homes, the “down time” problemcould potentially be eliminated. There areindividual farmers’ markets that operateevery day of the week in the Los AngelesRegion; thus a van service could operate upto seven full days a week. (See Figure 2)

Figure 2:

Monday West Hollywood

Tuesday Culver City

Wednesday Santa Monica; San DimasAdams/Vermont

Thursday Redondo BeachWestwood

Friday Venice; Monrovia

Saturday Gardena; Santa Monica Pico

Sunday Encino

Such a delivery/transport service wouldoperate most efficiently if deliveries andtransport were limited to the immediatecommunities surrounding the farmers’ mar-ket and/or Market Basket assembly point.This can be accomplished by establishing athree to four mile radius from the delivery/transport point, which has been the demar-cation point for outreach and participationin the Gardena Market Basket program.Thus the van would make frequent stops atshort distances on each of the days it oper-ated, maximizing the potential number of

Page 70 Homeward Bound

is designed for specific uses (deliveryservice for the Market Basket; transpor-tation service for farmers’ markets), it hassignificant potential applicability for awide range of food service needs (e.g.,van service for farmers’ markets or su-permarkets; meals-on-wheels, etc.) andfor overall paratransit programs for tar-geted constituencies (e.g., van servicesfor senior citizen centers).

In sum, this model food access programcould entail developing a delivery and trans-port service, potentially utilizing an ultralow emissions vehicle for market basket sub-scription programs in Gardena and farmers’markets throughout a region where suchmarkets are concentrated, such as the LosAngeles region. Through such a transporta-tion service, direct marketing opportunitiescan be expanded (e.g., by establishing addi-tional Market Basket sites and increasingfarmers’ market participation), made fea-sible in part by expanding the transit-depen-dent constituent base for such a programthrough an already existing transport/de-livery service. The key to such a service isthe enlargement of functions and constitu-encies which have the potential of reducingthe cost per service provided (by maximiz-ing vehicle use) while significantly expand-ing food access opportunities.

The Market Basket delivery and transportservice concept is also instructive in termsof identifying the central role of the non-profit organization (in this case, theSouthland Farmers’ Market Association/UCLA team) in stimulating food access ap-proaches. To facilitate those approaches,policy considerations also need to be ad-dressed; for example, how to offset the po-tential permitting, insurance, and liabilitycosts associated with such a venture. In LosAngeles, the development of the Food Se-curity and Hunger Partnership represents a

potential critical intermediary in facilitatingand addressing those policy considerations(e.g., arranging for permit exemptions on thebasis of a non-profit operation). To accom-plish the goal of food access in this and theearlier approaches described in this Sectionremains, ultimately, a policy and planningas well as constituency and organizationalmatter.

Homeward Bound Page 71

1. “Council OKs Funds for New FoodAgency”, Jodi Wilgoren, Los Angeles Times,June 19, 1996; “Committee Transmittal:Community Development Department Rec-ommendations for the Voluntary AdvisoryCouncil on Hunger Proposed Policy”,Memorandum from Mayor Richard Riordanto the Los Angeles City Council, January 25,1996.

2 . “For Hunger, More than a Handout”,Robert Gottlieb, Carolyn Olney, ElizabethRiley, Los Angeles Times, November 24, 1994;Hunger and Food Insecurity in Los Ange-les: Findings of the Volunteer AdvisoryCouncil on Hunger, Final Report, April 1996,Los Angeles: Voluntary Advisory Council onHunger, City of Los Angeles; See also Letterfrom Richard Riordan, Mayor, City of LosAngeles, to Robert Farrell, Chair, VoluntaryAdvisory Council on Hunger, January 25,1996. “Council OKs Funds for New FoodAgency”, Jodi Wilgoren, Los Angeles Times,June 19, 1996.

3. One of the authors of this paper (RobertGottlieb) is a member of the nine memberVACH; the other (Andrew Fisher) is an al-ternate member as well as consultant.

4. See the Mission Statement, in the Minutesof the Los Angeles Community Food Secu-rity Network, June 14, 1996.

5. Deborah Savage and Allen White, “NewApplications of Total Cost Assessment”, Pol-lution Prevention Review, Winter 1994-1995,pp. 7-14; Stephan Schmidheny and FedericoJ.L. Zorraquin, with the World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development, Fi-nancing Change: The Financial Community,Eco-Efficiency, and Sustainable Develop-ment, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996, pp. 137-148

ENDNOTES: SECTION IV

6. One estimate from a Los Angeles-basedsupermarket executive placed aggregate in-ner city store cart losses at $67,000/year.Seeds of Change, p. 133

7. Development costs, such as demolition,paving, and grading costs are estimated at$5/square foot. Land costs are estimated at$8 per sq. ft. Interview with Lisa Padilla,Associate, Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partner-ship, May 1996.

8. See Food Marketing Alternatives for theInner City, Community Nutrition Institute,The Consumer Division, Washington D.C.:CNI, 1982, pp. 12-37; Seeds of Change, p. 248

9. See Jane Buckwalter, “Securing ShoppingCenters for Inner Cities”, in Urban Land,Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute,1987, p. 23; James J. O’Connor and BarbaraAbell, Successful Supermarkets in Low-In-come Inner Cities, Arlington, VA: O’Connor-Abell Inc., August 1992

10. Seeds of Change, p. 249

11. Interviews with Denise Fairchild, Janu-ary 1995, Ralph Lippman, October 1995; TheRetail Initiative: Models for Success, LocalInitiatives Support Corporation, New York:LISC, September 1995; “City Sites”, Progres-sive Grocer, November 1994, p. 12

12. Interviews with Linda Wong, RLA, Sep-tember 1995, Virginia Oaxaca, May 1995;Rebuild LA (RLA): Progress Report, LosAngeles: RLA, March 9, 1995; CommunityRetail Needs Assessment: A Market Re-search Report, Prepared for RLA byConsumerQuest, Los Angeles, May 3, 1995.

13. Interview with Sandy Eldridge,Twinhawks Hollow Farm, by Michelle

Page 72 Homeward Bound

Mascarenhas, May 10, 1995

14. For a description of the background tothe Market Basket project, see New Environ-mental Links: An Ultra Low Emissions Ve-hicle Food Delivery and Transport ServiceConnecting Farmers and Low-Income Com-munities, Prepared for U.S. EPA Region IXby the UCLA Pollution Prevention Educa-tion and Research Center, April 1996.

15. Interview with Mark Wall, SouthlandFarmers’ Market Association, January 1995.

16. “Survey of Gardena Farmers’ MarketGrowers”, March 18, 1995. Revenues gener-ated from sales through direct marketing atfarmers’ markets accounted from less than10% to 100% of the total revenue stream ofthe farmers surveyed. A similar survey con-ducted at six farmers’ markets in April andMay 1993 for the Seeds of Change studyfound equivalent numbers, with farmermarket sales averaging approximately 50%of grower revenues. Sales at the GardenaMarket have also varied over time, accord-ing to the grower’s survey, but have prima-rily remained flat.

17. New Environmental Links, p. 4

18. Interview with Karen Caldwell, CrystalStairs, February 1996.

19. New Environmental Links, p.5

Homeward Bound Page 73

SECTION V:FRAMING FOOD ACCESS:

Policy and Planning Recommendations

Page 74 Homeward Bound

This report has evaluated the intersection of transportation and food accessissues. While specific programs and

initiatives have been established, primarilyat the community or facility level, there hasbeen a notable absence of any directed plan-ning or policy framework for food access forthe transit dependent, either through gov-ernment agencies or by the private food re-tail sector. This lack of planning and policydevelopment represents the most substan-tial barrier in the development and imple-mentation of a food access approach. Thus,the recommendations that follow are prima-rily directed at planners and policymakers,although much of the creative activity todate in the food access arena has been stimu-lated by constituent groups seeking to ad-dress a visible and often transparent foodsecurity need.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Federal Policy:

• Reauthorization of the Intermodal Sur-face Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA) should incorporate language tospecifically encourage funding of foodaccess-related programs by metropoli-tan transportation organizations.

ISTEA provides a major source of fundingfor innovative transit programs. Two of theobvious advocates for such an approach arethe Surface Transportation Policy Project, acoalition of organizations working on trans-portation and urban planning issues and aprimary advocate of ISTEA, and the Com-munity Food Security Coalition, a nationalnetwork of food security organizations thathelped secure passage of the CommunityFood Security Act. The development of analliance between these natural allies and oth-ers could begin the political process needed

to develop such language for a reauthorizedISTEA.

• USDA’s Food and Consumer Servicesand Department of Transportationshould create an interagency task forceon transportation as related to food ac-cess.

This task force could break ground for amore integrated policy approach on theseissues. It could conduct research into foodaccess and transportation on a national level,identifying arenas for collaboration betweenthe two agencies, as well as administrativeaction that could be taken to improve foodaccess. The task force could also assist in thedevelopment and funding of food accessrelated transportation demonstrationprojects in targeted communities.

• The USDA Farmers’ Market Task Forceshould provide funding for demonstra-tion programs that improve access tofarmers’ markets in transit dependentand/or food access deficient communi-ties.

Farmers’ markets represent an importantaccess point to high quality affordable pro-duce in communities where such access isoften lacking. As with supermarkets, accessto farmers’ markets in transit dependentcommunities can be problematic. The recentformation of a Farmers’ Market Task Forcewithin USDA with a mission that includesdirect marketing to low income communi-ties presents an opportunity to develop in-novative programs to help link communi-ties with these valuable food resources.

Homeward Bound Page 75

Regional Policy:

Metropolitan Transportation Organizations(MTO) should take an active role in improv-ing food access-related transportation. Thisshould include:

• Conducting needs assessments in tran-sit dependent neighborhoods to deter-mine transportation related food accessdeficiencies (in conjunction with mu-nicipal food policy organizations,where such organizations exist);

MTOs operate much of the mass transit inthe country. Their attention to the food shop-ping needs of transit dependent communi-ties is vital to addressing existing food ac-cess deficiencies. As a first step, MTOsshould identify those communities wheresupermarkets are inadequate and food ac-cess is hindered by a lack of appropriatelystructured transportation services. In com-munities where food policy organizationsexist, such as Toronto, Hartford, Knoxville,Los Angeles, St Paul, and Austin, these or-ganizations can assist the MTO in identify-ing food access deficient neighborhoods,and structuring any needs assessment pro-cess.

• Formulate services specific to the needsof each community, including the cre-ation and expansion of circulator routessuch as Los Angeles’s DASH programand Austin’s Grocery Bus;

Beyond the research and evaluation process,MTOs should develop and implement spe-cific services which improve food access.These services should be tailored to theneeds of each community. The kinds ap-proaches that could involve services pro-vided by MTOs (e.g., community paratransitservices) have been identified in Section III.

• In Los Angeles, reallocations of transitfunds from rail to buses, if and whensuch a process were to occur, shouldinclude funds set aside for food access-related services.

In particular, the lawsuit described in Sec-tion II that has been brought against theMetropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) un-der the 1994 Civil Rights Act seeks a redis-tribution of funding from rail to bus services.If successful, any settlement agreement orjudicial directive could specify that part ofthat funding be earmarked towards estab-lishing food access related transportationprograms.

• Local planning agencies should con-sider reducing parking lot size for newsupermarkets constructed in transit de-pendent communities, with the provisothat the supermarket be required tosupport a food access transportationprogram for transit dependent consum-ers, made feasible in part by utilizingcost savings from the reduced land re-quirements.

Municipal planning regulations for super-market parking lots are designed for middleincome communities, many of which have95% or higher per capita automobile own-ership. Such regulations in turn can inhibitthe construction of sorely needed new su-permarkets in low income neighborhoodswhere per capita auto ownership figures aresignificantly lower. Reducing lot size in ac-cordance with the vehicle ownership ratesof the surrounding neighborhood wouldenable supermarkets to be located onsmaller parcels, as well as fund serviceswhich better serve the transportation needsof the customer base.

Page 76 Homeward Bound

• Local planning agencies should requirethat new supermarkets develop a spe-cific transportation plan tailored tomeet the transportation needs of thesurrounding community as part of thepermitting process.

The absence of a food access transportationpolicy has not been limited to the public sec-tor. Most supermarkets have not formallyarticulated a transportation policy. Instead,such actions as the construction of largeparking lots and the cycle of removal-re-trieval of shopping carts has comprised sucha de facto policy. The creation of an explicittransportation policy would force new storesto address the characteristics and needs ofthe communities in which they locate, ratherthan adopt a “cookie cutter” or “hands-off”approach to the ways in which shopperstransport their goods home.

Private Policy:

• Supermarkets located in transit depen-dent communities should voluntarilydevelop transportation plans and pro-grams tailored to meet the needs of thestore’s customer base.

Many supermarkets have recognized thatstore-based transportation programs can beexcellent community relations, if not profit-able operations when accounting for in-creased sales and reduced costs associatedwith shopping cart removal. Supermarketsoperated as a joint venture between a chainand a community development corporation(CDC) are best positioned to take the leadin this arena, given the community relation-ships that are embedded in the structure.

• The Local Initiative Support Corpora-tion should require that transportation

plans and programs be incorporated inall of its supermarkets developedthrough The Retail Initiative (TRI), aspart of its financing process.

The Local Initiative Support Corporation(described in Section IV) enjoys a uniqueopportunity to greatly strengthen transpor-tation planning and programming as a vitalcomponent of inner city supermarketsthrough its financing of multiple supermar-kets across the nation. It should direct CDCsapplying for TRI equity to develop transpor-tation plans appropriate to the needs of thestore’s customer base.

• Communities should develop foodplanning/policy organizations thatcould facilitate food access, and, morebroadly, food security approaches.

The development of the Food Policy Coun-cil model, such as the Los Angeles Food Se-curity and Hunger Partnership, representsa crucial opportunity to help identify andimplement a range of policy and planningfood access and food security initiatives.Such initiatives (which, absent a Food PolicyCouncil, might not otherwise be under-taken) could be constructed at the neighbor-hood, community, or regional scale.

These recommendations constitute whatamounts to a preliminary assessment anddevelopment process in reconstituting andultimately integrating food access and trans-portation planning. Given the growing con-cerns and political interest in the subject,these recommendations can be considereda modest beginning for a new type of policyand planning process. Without such an ini-tiative, the ability to address food access forthe transit dependent remains uncertain atbest. In the long run, without a proactiveapproach, lack of food access is likely to re-

Homeward Bound Page 77

main a problem area deeply entrenched inthe realities of food insecurity that will existfor significant numbers of communities andfor their resident populations.