1 / 23

Recommended Four-Month Plan for EJ Analysis of Principle #2

Recommended Four-Month Plan for EJ Analysis of Principle #2. Presentation to MCAC by Urban Habitat Program May 18, 2006. Equity Question: Does the population at large…. receive better service receive more funding per capita have more mobility

veda-everett
Download Presentation

Recommended Four-Month Plan for EJ Analysis of Principle #2

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. Recommended Four-Month Plan for EJ Analysis of Principle #2 Presentation to MCAC by Urban Habitat Program May 18, 2006

  2. Equity Question: Does the population at large…. receive better service receive more funding per capita have more mobility …than identifiable low-income or minority populations?

  3. Two Steps of Analysis: WHO: Which Minority and Low Income Populations can be identified? (Examples: Households with income below 200% federal poverty level Households with fewer autos than adults Neighborhoods with residents >30% Low Income Neighborhoods with residents >70% Minority Transit Operators’ Riderships >30% Low Income Transit Operators’ Riderships >70% Minority) WHAT: How are we comparing these populations? (Examples: Subsidy per rider Dollars per transit dependent person Frequency of Transit Service Number of jobs reachable in 1 hour)

  4. Analysis Proposal:

  5. Analysis Proposal:

  6. Cell #1: MTC Funding Analysis Proposal • Over what time period should the funds be analyzed? • How do we define equity in terms of funding? • What can this analysis show us in terms of data gaps? • How should the funding analysis be performed? • How do we assign benefits to funding for projects with regional impacts?

  7. Cell #1: MTC Funding Analysis Proposal • Over what time period should the funds be analyzed? • Staff proposes 5-10 years of retrospective review • 20 years would be ideal, 10 minimum • How do we define equity in terms of funding? • What can this analysis show us in terms of data gaps? • How should the funding analysis be performed? • How do we assign benefits to funding for projects with regional impacts?

  8. Cell #1: MTC Funding Analysis Proposal • Over what time period should the funds be analyzed? • How do we define equity in terms of funding? • Staff proposes equal dollars per capita • We agree • What can this analysis show us in terms of data gaps? • How should the funding analysis be performed? • How do we assign benefits to funding for projects with regional impacts?

  9. Cell #1: MTC Funding Analysis Proposal • Over what time period should the funds be analyzed? • How do we define equity in terms of funding? • What can this analysis show us in terms of data gaps? • We agree that additional data is needed • How should the funding analysis be performed? • How do we assign benefits to funding for projects with regional impacts?

  10. Cell #1: MTC Funding Analysis Proposal • Over what time period should the funds be analyzed? • How do we define equity in terms of funding? • What can this analysis show us in terms of data gaps? • How should the funding analysis be performed? • Staff proposes geographic analysis • We believe other populations are definable • How do we assign benefits to funding for projects with regional impacts?

  11. Cell #1: MTC Funding Analysis Proposal • Over what time period should the funds be analyzed? • How do we define equity in terms of funding? • What can this analysis show us in terms of data gaps? • How should the funding analysis be performed? • How do we assign benefits to funding for projects with regional impacts? • No accepted methodology

  12. Analysis Proposal:

  13. Cell #4: Transit Dependent Funding Analysis

  14. Allocating the Benefits of Transit Funding • Allocate operators’ funding based on percentage of transit-dependent riders • Example: VTA’s Bus ridership is 71% transit dependent. Therefore 71% of its bus funding is allocated to transit dependent people, and 29% to auto-users

  15. Allocating Benefits of Streets, Highways and Bridges Funding • Funds are assigned based on use and benefits of roads, etc. • Auto users travel more on roads, and therefore derive more benefit. Funds would be assigned to them accordingly • Transit users use roads according to level of transit service provided, and funds are assigned accordingly

  16. Analysis Proposal:

  17. Cell #7: Funding Analysis by Operator • Gather data on operating and capital subsidies (all revenues other than fare revenues) over 10-20 year period • Look separately at different modes operated by one operator (e.g. VTA Bus & VTA Light Rail) • Based on ridership data some operators/modes ridership are “communities of concern” • Compare subsidies per passenger (trip)

  18. Analysis Proposal:

  19. Cell #8: Revisit Gap Analysis (Lifeline Study) • The 2001 Lifeline Transportation Network study identified temporal and spatial gaps in “lifeline” routes • This analysis should be brought current to answer whether gaps have improved or gotten worse

  20. Analysis Proposal:

  21. Cell #3: Add Composite Accessibility Measure to MTC’s Equity Analyses Analysis shows that CoCs benefit from future investment scenarios similarly to remaining populations. For example, the number of jobs accessible by transit and auto is shown to increase for all groups:

  22. We propose to use these results to create a composite outcome measure • Use neighborhood transit dependency information in conjunction with the MTC results to calculate an overall number of job accessible, etc. • From there, a total (not divided into auto or transit) number of jobs accessible for CoC neighborhoods can be compared with the remaining population • Each project scenario will show an overall number of jobs for CoC and others – allowing a direct overall comparison.

  23. Conclusions • Staff’s funding proposal is a good start, but not feasible • Our funding analyses track funds to end users to determine benefit to each • transit dependents compared to auto users • specific operators’ riders • We also recommend analyses of other dimensions of equity • Service levels • Mobility outcomes

More Related