Safeguarding Minority Civil Rights and Environmental Justice in Service Delivery and Reductions Alla Reddy Thomas Chennadu, Alex Lu System Data & Research Operations Planning Presented at the 89 th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Washington D.C. (2010) T R A N S I T Notice: Opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Metropolitan Transportation Authority or MTA. TRB Paper #10-1155 1
Title VI at NYCT: Overview Agencies in the U.S. receiving Federal financial assistance shall not discriminate based on race, color, or national origin Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964) Environmental Justice (EJ) requirements added in Executive Order 12898 and 13166 FTA audited NYCT in 2003 Bus assignments by depot Transit access (proximity to service) Distribution of transit amenities Quality of service monitoring (survey and travel analysis) FTA Circular C4702.1A (2007) Triennial FTA submission and review TRB Paper #10-1155 2
Environmental Justice (EJ) Analysis Three major areas: Long range capital investment decision making Short range service planning Tactical service delivery operations Three major constitutencies: Minority (Title VI) Low income (Executive Order 12898) Limited English Proficiency (EO 13166) TRB Paper #10-1155 3
Requirements Photo: Fred Guenther Demographics and Service Profile Maps Set Systemwide Service Standards (Quantitative) Set Service Policies Evaluate Service and Fare Changes Monitoring Service TRB Paper #10-1155 4
Minority Demographic County Total Non- Minority Minority % Minority Bronx 1,332,650 193,651 1,138,999 85.47% Kings 2,465,326 854,532 1,610,794 65.34% New York 1,537,195 703,873 833,322 54.21% Queens 2,229,379 732,895 1,496,484 67.13% Richmond 443,728 316,316 127,412 28.71% NYC Total 8,008,278 2,801,267 5,207,011 65.02%* * This percentage establishes the threshold for the minority/non-minority definition of Year 2000 census tracts in the NYCT service area. TRB Paper #10-1155 5
Income Demographic County Total At or Below Poverty Level % Low Income Population Bronx 1,288,234 395,263 30.68% Kings 2,434,939 610,476 25.07% New York 1,491,423 298,231 20.00% Queens 2,203,306 321,102 14.57% Richmond 436,628 43,866 10.05% NYC Total 7,854,530 1,668,938 21.25%* * This percentage establishes the threshold for the below or at poverty/above poverty definition of Year 2000 census tracts in the NYCT service area. TRB Paper #10-1155 6
Queens County Minority Base Map TRB Paper #10-1155 7
Queens County Subway Lines TRB Paper #10-1155 8
Queens County NYCT Bus Routes TRB Paper #10-1155 9
Queens County Highway Map TRB Paper #10-1155 10
Queens County Maintenance Facilities TRB Paper #10-1155 11
Queens County Subway Station Rehab TRB Paper #10-1155 12
Standards and Policies Service standards allow quantitative comparison between different neighbourhoods FTA-prescribed measures Agency-wide standards must be adopted e.g. load, headway, on-time performance, amenities, service availability Service policies are not necessarily quantitative Must apply equally to all users e.g. vehicle assignment Includes transit security policies TRB Paper #10-1155 13
Service Monitoring Level of Service methodology Vehicle loads (peak/off-peak) at the maximum load point Vehicle headway (peak/off-peak) On-time performance (NYCT Wait Assessment) Transit amenities (trash receptacles, refuse bins, benches, fare media vending machines, passenger information center) Service availability (transit access) Vehicle assignment (fleet age by depot, subway car by line) Quality of Service methodology Average travel time and cost study (top 3 origins and destinations) Using multimodal shortest-path algorithm Analysis of marketing survey Includes 10 indicators: speed, security, reliability, safety, overall comfort, value-for-money, frequency, predictability/regularity, cleanliness, rush hour crowding NYCT uses all three methods (locally developed alternative) to monitor service delivery TRB Paper #10-1155 14
Service & Fare Change Evaluations Demographic impact analysis is required Fare changes evaluated during planning stages Major service changes (route or span) evaluated Agencies define major service change through planning process: >25% route length >25% annual revenue miles (service frequency changes) >1 hour service span If disparate impact found, mitigation action is required TRB Paper #10-1155 15
Route Change Analysis Photo: David J Greenberger Select Census tracts within ¼ miles of affected part of route as origins Classify these origins into minority and non-minority Find top five origins using the Census Journey-to-Work data Find top three destinations (citywide) in these markets Use Google Transit to get before and after trip times Compute trip costs Use statistical t-test Compare minority and non-minority markets See if travel time/cost changes showed significant differences TRB Paper #10-1155 16
Span Change Analysis Identify routes affected by similar types of span changes: Span reduction by up to two hours Overnight service elimination Weekend service elimination Classify routes as either minority or non-minority Compute passenger load factor During the hours proposed for elimination, for each route Use statistical t-test Compare minority and non-minority markets See if passenger load factor showed significant differences TRB Paper #10-1155 17
Booth Closure Analysis Classify all 638 booths (station entrance and fare control area) at 468 stations as minority or non-minority Booth in or adjacent to a minority Census tract is a minority booth All other booths are non-minority Indicate whether booths are subject to staffing reductions Use statistical χ 2 -test Compare staffing reductions (yes/no) versus minority/non-minority See if minority booth is correlated with staffing reductions Photo: NYC Transit DRAW TRB Paper #10-1155 18
Fare Change Analysis Compute current average fares for riders entering during AM rush Separately for minority and non-minority booths, and for each fare media class Exclude commuter hubs (Penn Station, Grand Central, Port Authority Terminal) Use standard fare elasticity model Determine fare media mix and ridership for each fare increase scenario Forecast expected average fares Use statistical t-test Compare minority and non-minority See if change in systemwide average fare showed significant differences See also AP030 TRB Session 462, Paper #10-0280 Using Quantitative Methods to Inform Fare Restructuring Decisions Hilton, Tue January 12, 2010 at 10:15am Photo: NYC Transit DRAW TRB Paper #10-1155 19
Income: At or Below Poverty Level Re-classify routes, stations, booths, Census tracts: As At or Below Poverty (Low Income) or Above Poverty Federal poverty line based on household income Repeat all statistical analysis using income as demographic variable Ensures service planning and operating decisions do not inadvertently result in disproportionate impact on lowincome customers Photo: David Pirmann TRB Paper #10-1155 20
Observations Title VI has focused on capital program and funding impacts But service planning and operating impacts are also important Statistical tests monitor both: Service delivery: Compare protected group with others (e.g. low vs high income) to detect significant differences and take corrective action if necessary Service planning: Compare the before or current condition with the after or proposed condition, and tweak service plans accordingly Using statistics ensures compliance is monitored both objectively and in a systematic way TRB Paper #10-1155 21
Acknowledgements Photo: Fred Guenther NYCT Bus Planning Alexander Barron Colin Foley Robert Newhouser Gwen Harleston (MTA) NYCT Title VI Group Lana Rudenko Anthony Cramer Santosh Kumar TRB Committee ADD50 Anonymous Paper Reviewers TRB Paper #10-1155 22