Public transportation equity in mid-sized and large German cities: Immigrant neighborhoods benefit from fixed-rail, low-income areas rely more on buses in large German cities

This study investigates public transportation accessibility in relation to neighborhood-level poverty and immigrant concentration across all mid-sized (100,000–500,000 inhabitants) and large (>500,000 inhabitants) German cities. Using 1 km-by-1 km grids, the analysis draws on 2015 data on poverty rates, immigrant shares, neighborhood centrality, and access to tram/subway, bus, and train systems. Accessibility is defined as the proportion of each grid's residential area located within specified distances of transportation stations meeting minimum service thresholds. Spatially lagged X (SLX) regression models account for both local effects and spatial spillovers from adjacent grids. Results reveal significant disparities: in both city types, clusters with higher immigrant shares have markedly better access to tram/subway and train systems, independent of centrality. In contrast, clusters with higher poverty rates show improved tram/subway access only in mid-sized cities. In large cities, high-poverty areas, especially when spatially clustered, are associated with better access to bus services, but not to generally more reliable fixed-rail systems. Immigrant-dense neighborhoods also tend to be more centrally located, while low-income neighborhoods are more peripheral. These patterns challenge the assumption that disadvantaged communities in German cities are predominantly central. Although the cross-sectional design limits causal inference, the findings suggest that low-income populations in large cities may have been disproportionately displaced from central areas, losing access to high-quality transportation and relocating to neighborhoods served primarily by buses. • Analyzes transit access by poverty and immigrant shares in German cities • Uses 1 km grids and SLX models to capture spatial effects on accessibility • Immigrant clusters have better access to tram/subway and train systems. • Low-income areas in large cities rely more on buses, not fixed-rail transit. • Centrality varies: immigrant areas are more central, poor areas more peripheral