Lessons Learned from Equity Analysis of TriMet s Orange Line MAX Light Rail. Alan Lehto, Director, Policy & Planning

Transcription

1 Lessons Learned from Equity Analysis of TriMet s Orange Line MAX Light Rail Alan Lehto, Director, Policy & Planning

2

3 Project overview 7.3 mile light rail line Opened September 12, 2015 Service launch included service and/or routing changes to 9 bus lines TriMet committed to reinvest savings due to route changes back into improved service in the area Growth Congestion Opportunities

4

5 Community engagement on potential bus service changes Surveys Mailers Open houses On-street outreach Web page s and social media Attendance at Community Meetings Initial service proposal in early 2014

6 Dept. of Diversity & Transit Equity Director Oversees agency Title VI and DBE programs Policy Advisor Coordinates agency Title VI compliance, including equity analyses and triennial program update Staffs Transit Equity Advisory Committee Representative Coordinates agency DBE program Manages diversity-related sponsorships and represents TriMet at diversity-related events

7 Transit Equity Advisory Committee

8 Proactively incorporating equity Equity Index tool Helps prioritize service improvements using 10 geographic indicators Equity assessments of Service Enhancement Plans Comparison of service for minority and low-income populations before and after vision implementation Review equity analysis when compiling draft Annual Service Plan Fare programs for low-income riders Currently: Free and reduced cost tickets and passes through nonprofit partners. Future: Daily and monthly fare caps with Hop Fastpass system. Researching possibility of comprehensive low-income fare program.

9 Standard equity analysis process

10 Process for 5309 CIG ( New Starts ) All related service changes

11 Demographic Comparison TriMet District Population: 1.5 million 27% minority 22% low-income MAX Orange Line Corridor Population: 172,000 16% minority 23% low-income

12 Two lenses for the analysis 1. Do minority and low-income populations stand to benefit equitably as compared to non-minority and higher income populations? 2. Do any service changes with potential adverse effects occur in areas of high concentrations of minority and/or low-income populations? Adverse effect defined as a decrease in level of transit service (span and/or frequency) and/or increase of access distance to beyond ¼ mile of bus stops or ½ mile of rail stations.

13 Lens 1: Equity of Benefits 30% Minority Population Comparison Lines with Service Improvements & TriMet District 27% 25% 22% 22% 21% Pct. Population Minority 20% 15% 10% 16% 15% 17% 16% 5% 0% Line 19 Line 28 Line 31 Line 34 Line 99 MAX Orange Line Corridor TriMet District

14 Lens 1: Equity of Benefits Summary: All lines proposed for service improvements are below district-wide average minority population %, but all except one are at or above corridor average minority population % Potential disparate impact

15 35% Lens 1: Equity of Benefits Low income Population Comparison Lines with Service Improvements & TriMet District 30% 30% 30% 31% Pct. Population Low income 25% 20% 15% 24% 26% 23% 23% 22% 10% 5% 0% Line 19 Line 28 Line 31 Line 34 Line 99 MAX Orange Line Corridor TriMet District

16 Lens 1: Equity of Benefits Summary: All lines proposed for service improvements are above district-wide average low-income population %, and all are at or above corridor average lowincome population % No disproportionate burden

17 Lens 2: Equity of Adverse Effects Minority Population Comparison Lines with Route Reductions & TriMet District 30% 27% 25% 22% Pct. Population Minority 20% 15% 10% 16% 16% 19% 16% 5% 0% Line 28 Line 31 Line 32 Line 33 Corridor TriMet District

18 Lens 2: Equity of Adverse Effects Summary: All lines proposed for service reductions (routing changes with stop removals) are below district-wide average minority population %, but all are at or above corridor average minority population % No disparate impact

19 Lens 2: Equity of Adverse Effects 35% Low income Population Comparison Lines with Route Reductions & TriMet District 30% 30% 30% Pct. Population Low income 25% 20% 15% 26% 25% 23% 22% 10% 5% 0% Line 28 Line 31 Line 32 Line 33 Corridor TriMet District

20 Lens 2: Equity of Adverse Effects Summary: All lines proposed for service reductions (routing changes with stop removals) are above district-wide and corridor average low-income population % Potential disproportionate burden

21 Example: Line 33-McLoughlin Proposal to discontinue service to downtown Portland, combine with Line stops meeting adverse effect definition (removal and no alternative bus service within ¼ mile or rail service within ½ mile) and meeting disproportionate burden threshold. Downtown Portland

22 Example: Line 33-McLoughlin Of 5 adverse effect stops, impacts of 3 determined to be minimal because: They were in an industrial area They were not within walking distance of residential area (McLoughlin barrier) Accessed almost exclusively by drivers (was a bus only P&R lot replaced by light rail line P&R) This left 2 stops with potential disproportionate burden

23

24 Example: Line 33-McLoughlin Rider survey at 2 remaining stops of concern Most respondents said they planned to use MAX Orange Line and/or other nearby bus lines after service changes Some respondents unsure of what they would do after service changes A few respondents were transit dependent

25 Options for leadership consideration 1. Provide bus service directly connecting 2 stops of concern to MAX Orange Line (avoid/minimize). 2. Review nearby Line 19 for further increased service (mitigate). 3. Keep service proposal as is. From the Title VI Circular: A finding of disproportionate burden requires the recipient to evaluate alternatives and mitigate burdens where practicable.

26 Options for leadership consideration 1. Provide bus service directly connecting 2 stops of concern to MAX Orange Line (avoid/minimize). 2. Review nearby Line 19 for further increased service (mitigate). 3. Keep service proposal as is. Balance of benefits to low-income populations outweighs potential negative impacts. Options 1 and 2 not practicable given cost and low potential ridership generated. May also require reducing service elsewhere in the corridor or system.

27 Lessons Learned Title VI Circular and TriMet Title VI policies better suited for service reductions than improvements. Written during Great Recession, when many agencies were facing budget shortfalls Circular guideline of conducting analysis six months prior to revenue operations not enough lead time. Fuller context important Other service improvements Other projects Is the system and the process equitable?

28 Fuller Context Restored Frequent Service between 2013 and out of 17 Frequent Service lines serve areas with above-district-average minority populations, and all 17 serve areas with above-district-average low-income populations service improvements Improvements on 15 bus lines + 1 new bus line 3 out of 5 major service changes on lines serving areas with above-average minority and lowincome populations