1 / 17

MTC Funding Analysis To Implement EJ Principle #2 Partnership Board Meeting October 20, 2006

MTC Funding Analysis To Implement EJ Principle #2 Partnership Board Meeting October 20, 2006. Timeline. March 2006 – First two EJ principles adopted April 2006 – MCAC requested EJ Subcommittee with Partnership July 2006 – interim update to Commission

sheryl
Download Presentation

MTC Funding Analysis To Implement EJ Principle #2 Partnership Board Meeting October 20, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MTC Funding Analysis To Implement EJ Principle #2 Partnership Board Meeting October 20, 2006

  2. Timeline March 2006 – First two EJ principles adopted April 2006 – MCAC requested EJ Subcommittee with Partnership July 2006 – interim update to Commission Oct & Nov 2006 – next subcommittee mtgs December 2006 – report back to Commission

  3. EJ Subcommittee Members Partnership MCAC________ Suzanne Smith Mary King Rich Napier Henry Gardner Jim Helmer Carlos Valenzuela Raphael Durr Frank Gallo Candy Gayles Charles Rivasplata

  4. EJ Principle #2 Collect accurate and current data essential to defining and understanding the presence and extent of inequities, if any, in transportation funding based on race and income.

  5. Proposed EJ Principle #3 MTC should change its discretionary investment decisions and actions to mitigate identified inequities.

  6. Key Question Do funding inequities – as defined in principle #2 -- currently exist?

  7. Funding Inputs Service Outputs Mobility and Accessibility All Funding By Communities of Concern CELL #1 1a – T2030 1b - FY 98-FY05 CELL #2 No analysis envisioned CELL #3 Equity Analysis Small update completed All Funding By Transit-Dependent Households CELL #4 4a – T2030 4b - FY 98-FY05 CELL #5 No analysis envisioned CELL #6 No analysis envisioned Transit Funding By Operator By Ridership CELL #7 7a – T2030 7b - FY 98-FY05 CELL #8 e.g. Lifeline report No new analysis at this time but future study has been requested CELL #9 No analysis envisioned Table 1: MTC Analysis Under EJ Principle #2

  8. Key Findings: Cells 1 & 4 • More $ per capita on CoC’s & Transit-Dependent Households • Result of more $ spent on transit both discretionary & non-discretionary • Does not mean there aren’t gaps in transportation network that impact CoC’s • Everyone is underfunded

  9. Key Questions: Cell 7 1. Why do differences in funding amounts among transit operators exist in Cell 7? 2. How could these differences be addressed and minimized?

  10. Cell 7: Background • Rail systems cost more $$ to maintain • VTA/Caltrain benefit from fed formulas • MUNI sales tax less for SF vs. others • BART has significant non-discretionary $ • AC Transit lacks stable non-discretionary $ • MTC capital funds more for rail, MTC operating funds more for bus

  11. Next Steps/Schedule Oct 26 – EJ Subcommittee mtg Nov 17 – EJ Subcommittee mtg Nov/Dec – MCAC mtg Dec 8 – MTC Legislation Committee

More Related