Module 2 Lesson 4

1. Module 2 Lesson 4 Social Change and Justice Dr. Jill Hough TL 786 Public Transportation

2. Objectives After attending this lesson, students will be able to recognize: • The role of public transportation in promoting equity and social justice

3. Overall Context Public transportation serves many purposes. • Public transportation is not just a mobility option for many people – it is the only option • Provides travel opportunities for historically disadvantaged populations and others with limited transportation options • While access to school and other destinations is important, access to employment a critical piece of mobility

4. Access to Employment • Access to employment via public transportation critical. • 10 percent of households in the largest 100 metropolitan areas have no access to vehicles at home • Job suburbanization over the last several decades • Low-income, transit dependent populations have also suburbanized as well. • Most public transportation offered at much lower service levels in suburbs • Most public transportation oriented towards suburb to city trips, not suburb to suburb.

5. Access to Employment

6. Mismatch of Jobs • In 2010, Brookings Institution did a landmark study on transit and access to jobs. • This study broke down 100 major metropolitan areas, and the accessibility of employment via transit in those areas. • The study looked at the percentage of accessible jobs in a metropolitan area via transit at for a maximum trip time (90 minutes)

7. Transit and Access to Jobs • Significant portions of the country – even in cities – do not even have access to transit. • Coverage is more universal in the Northeast and West. • Lack of access to transit is particularly pronounced in the South

8. Transit and Access to Jobs The frequency of transit service, as well as the availability is also critical. Nationwide, the average wait time during rush hour was 10.1 minutes. Even during rush hour, waits in some parts of the country are often very significant.

9. Transit and Access to Jobs Poor service levels (as well as limited coverage) led to a large percentage of metropolitan jobs inaccessible by transit.

10. Transit and Access to Jobs Even in the 10 largest metropolitan areas, transit still is limited in the number of jobs it provides access to.

11. Transit and Access to Jobs Transit is much more likely to connect a rider to their jobs if they live in a city, not a suburb.

12. Transit and Access to Jobs Most problematic is the fact that the low and middleskill industry jobs are the ones that are least accessible by transit. These industries are the ones that are more likely to have transit dependent riders.

13. Transit and Access to Jobs • Transit is often asked to serve as a mobility method in congested urban areas, but also the last mobility option for those that depend on it. • Transit has to continue to adapt to meet the needs of transit –dependent populations who rely on it as their sole mode of access. • Transit also has to stay relevant to the greater population of choice riders – people who need to commute to their jobs but can choose a different method.

14. Environmental Justice and Major Transit Projects • Minority and low-income communities have historically borne the brunt of impacts for large transportation projects. • Projects often utilized marginal land (which meant lower desirability) in areas of less organized political resistance. • Impacts potentially include • Health impacts • Residential displacement • Job loss through business relocation

15. Environmental Justice • Many highways were built through urban areas with the availability of federal money for roads. • The freeway revolts of the 1960s and 1970s were significant . Many cities scaled back and canceled freeway projects as a result of citizen backlash • Washington, DC • New York City • Baltimore • Many other cities

16. Backlash against large disruptive projects like these, which disproportionately affected low-income and minority populations, led to many laws and regulations requiring requiring reasonable compensation for relocation A rigorous process for public participation An evaluation of the environmental impacts Proof that impacts did not disproportionately fall upon certain communities – low-income and minority populations among them

17. Case Study: The Consent Decree between the Bus Riders Union and Los Angeles County Transportation Authority • LACMTA operates transit within the majority of Los Angeles • Provides bus and rail service through its service area • In the city of Los Angeles, roughly 12% of residents take transit to work. • Majority of ridership rides bus (80% of trips) – light and heavy rail account for the remaining • Los Angeles metropolitan area is very large, and it is difficult to meet that demand for mobility through transit • Transit service has been expanding to meet this demand. • The method to do this has been through rail projects, the construction of which is quite expensive.

18. Case Study • On the verge of a major fare increase, Bus Riders Union (a ridership advocacy group) filed a lawsuit against LACMTA • Charged disproportionate spending on rail versus bus service • Because rail ridership (50%) was far more white than the rest of the system (20%), this was charged to be allegedly discriminatory. • In 1996, LACMTA signed a consent decree to avoid litigation.

19. Case Study 1996 Consent decree required: • * Maintain the current cash fare of $1.35 and 90-cent token for two years. • * Put more transit police on buses to increase security. • * Continue the sale of monthly passes for three years, cutting the price from $49 to $42. Sell 15-day passes for $21 and a weekly pass for $11. • Cut off-peak fares to 75 cents on some lines used chiefly by those dependent on public transit. • Add 102 buses by the end of June 1997 • Add 50 buses on heavily used lines in the next two years to improve access by those dependent on public transit to travel to destinations such as medical facilities, job sites and vocational schools.

20. Case Study • Consent decree lasted till 2007, at which point a request to extend it by the BRU was rejected by a judge. • One of the most visible examples of citizen involvement to guarantee certain levels of transit service

21. Discussion • There is a variety of different perspectives on this topic. Where is each perspective coming from? Why? • What forces could have caused LACMTA to need to raise fares? • Was LACMTA’s focus on rail versus bus discriminatory, or just the byproduct of building up new infrastructure? • What reasons would LACMTA have to focus on improving rail versus increasing bus service? • Look at the impacts mentioned in the LACMTA CEO’s presentation. What impacts did LACMTA experience as a result over this ten year period? • Other questions?

22. Required Readings • “MTA Pledges Better Bus Service in Suit Accord”, September 26, 1996. Los Angeles Times. • Mann, Eric: “Chapter 2: Los Angeles Bus Riders Derail the MTA”. Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism & New Routes to Equity. • Text of 1996 Consent Decree between Bus Riders Union and LACMTA • “MTA Compliance With Consent Decree Has Cost the Valley Better Service”, April 15, 2001. Los Angeles Times. • LACMTA Consent Decree 1996 -2010: Experience & Lessons Learned, Presentation at APTA CEO Conference • “Metro plans to cut L.A. bus service as rail capacity expands”. March 19, 2011. Los Angeles Times.

23. Contributor Jarrett Stoltzfus, Transportation Program Specialist Federal Transit Administration United States Department of Transportation