Transportation Justice, Sustainable Communities and

Metropolitan Equity

Bob Allen Urban Habitat

How Did We Get Here?• Post WW II development: climate change,

sprawl, and social equity issues share common origins

• Intersection of segregation, white flight and sprawl

• Maps of Exclusion• Transportation (In)Justice:

6 Big Winsfor the Bay Area Sustainable Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan

(SCS/RTP)

1. Community Power 2. Investment without Displacement 3. Affordable Housing4. Robust & Affordable Local Transit

Service 5. Healthy & Safe Communities 6. Economic Opportunity

What’s at Stake in a Region’s RTP/SCS?

Affordable housing: Will the affordable housing stock grow? Will it be located near transit, with access to jobs, good schools, healthy food, and other keys to opportunity?

Equitable transit: How will the region invest funding for transportation and transit? Will it provide more reliable and affordable local service for low-income communities?

Public health: Will all communities have access to healthy choices? Will air quality improve in the areas where the most vulnerable populations live?

Economic opportunity: Will the housing and transit networks provide access to jobs, schools, and services?

6 Big Winsfor the Bay Area SCS/RTP

Coordinating Committee: • Breakthrough Communities • Genesis • Non Profit Housing Association of Northern

California(NPH) • Public Advocates • Public Health Law & Policy • Urban Habitat

6 Big Winsfor the Bay Area SCS/RTP

Summer 2010 Planning October 2010 retreat: 30+ organizations Identification of “on-the-ground wins” Win Networks – the following slides reflect their workMonthly Coordinating Committee meeting

Community PowerWin: Greater low income and minority community power in

local and regional decision-makingPolicy Lever: MPO Public Participation Plan (PPP) – 50

groups signed on to comment letter calling for changes to PPP:

• Start with the needs • Get specific about key decision points • Ensure transparency and civil rights compliance by

counties, CMAs • Evaluate equity impacts of every alternative at each

decision point

Investment Without Displacement

Win: Investments and incentives strengthen and stabilize communities vulnerable to gentrification and displacement

• Policy Lever: Pursue establishment of conditions on regional funding – Example: Local jurisdictions only get regional infrastructure money if they have adequate anti-displacement policies, affordable housing

• Policy Lever: Protecting against displacement in the RTP/SCS performance measures

– MTC/ABAG Performance Target #2: House 100% of the region’s projected 25- year growth by income level (very-low, low, moderate, above-moderate) without displacing current low-income residents

– Continue monitoring displacement in MTC/ABAG’s performance indicators - Local policy levers are critical to this Win

Affordable HousingWin: More affordable housing near jobs, reliable public transit, good

schools, parks and recreation, and healthy neighborhoodsPolicy Lever: RHNA distribution is equitably distributed– Fair and realistic RHNA that takes advantage of jobs, transit and

community infrastructure like great schools across the region, recognizing the need to produce affordable housing in the suburban jurisdictions as well as the urban centers.

Other Policy Levers: Dedicated regional funding source & incentives– SCS should incorporate plans for a dedicated regional funding

source that is sufficient to invest in producing RHNA at all income levels, but especially for the most vulnerable

– Link increased transit and other infrastructure funds to zoning for or production of affordable housing

– Link CEQA relief to meeting affordable housing needs

Robust & affordable local transit service

Win: Service that includes more frequent, reliable, and affordable bus service, and an Eco Bus Pass

Policy Lever: RTP funds transit operations– Prioritize the maintenance, and operation at full capacity, of the

existing transit system over expansion. Ensure transit operating and capital shortfalls are filled before allowing expansion.

Other Policy Levers:– Address the local transit needs of low-income and people of color

communities, including those identified in the Community Based Transportation Plans, by providing the operating funding needed to restore service cuts, reduce fare, and close gaps in Lifeline.

– Youth Bus Pass: RTP provides funding to ensure that low-income youth receive a free bus pass.

– Reform “committed” funds policy

Healthy & Safe CommunitiesWin: Healthy communities that have clean air, safe streets that are

bikeable, walkable, with good access to jobs, opportunities, amenities

Policy Lever: RTP/SCS performance measures include health indicators

• Reduce premature deaths from exposure to particulate emissions• Reduce by 50% the number of injuries and fatalities from all

collisions• Increase the average time walking or biking per person per day for

transportation by 60% (to an avg of15 minutes per day)• And going beyond: Focus on most impacted communities/Use

Environmental Justice Screening Methodologies/Finding balance between CEQA thresholds/guidelines and infill development

Access to Economic Opportunity and Jobs

Win: More quality green jobs and access to economic opportunity Policy Levers:

• More transit operations funding in RTP = more jobs Ensure transit networks provide access to jobs for communities that need it most

• Preservation of existing jobs via Zoning for industrial lands

• Protection against displacement of local businesses• More framing and policy recommendations around this

issue are under development

Progress and where to go from here

Process wins so far include:• Equity analysis up-front of RTP process• Revision of “committed” projects/funds policies • Regional guidance to counties/CMAs on TitleVI civil rights

obligations• Displacement and affordable housing measures included in

performance targets• What's’ Next:• Win Networks to identify and develop more policies• Capacity building to increase engagement by most impacted

communities

EJ FrameworkPresident Clinton’s Executive Order 12898 (1994) on “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” 

“To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” (§ 1-101.)

Civil Rights and Title VI

“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 

Obligation of MPOs:monitor and certify Title VI compliance

throughout their region “. . . the MPO shall certify at least every four years that the metropolitan transportation planning process is being carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements including: . . . (3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . .” 

(23 C.F.R. § 450.334 (a) (3).) 

Obligation of MPOs• “. . . MPOs should have an analytic basis in

place for certifying their compliance with Title VI. . . .”

• “An analytical process that identifies the benefits and burdens of metropolitan transportation system investments for different socioeconomic groups, identifying imbalances and responding to the analyses produced.”

(FTA Circular 4702.1A, ch. VII)

Evaluating Equity in Long Range Planning

• MTC conducted an RTP Equity Analysis in: 1998, 2001, 2005 and 2008.

• Concerns have remained the same: travel demand model is incapable of measuring equity in the RTP and, in fact, it has repeatedly concluded that the proposed RTP investments make “LIC and COC as well off and, in many cases, better off than all other communities.”

“Modeling” Transportation Equity

TDM stands for Travel Demand Model. The modeling technology the TDM is based on was developed for mainframe computers in the 1950s to help planners reduce congestion on increasingly overcrowded freeways.

 

Evaluating Equity in Long Range Planning

• Critiques of MTC’s Travel Demand Model (TDM) 1) Doesn’t compare real alternatives (no project vs

project); 2) Forecasts 25 years into the future; 3) Misses gaps within TAZes; 4) Doesn’t account for cost barriers to transit use; 5) Doesn’t account for the fact that LIC and COC are much more likely to be transit-dependent; 6) assumes bus service stays the same

• Also the current analysis occurs AFTER all of the investment decisions have been made.)

Baseline Analysis Alternative“Snapshot”

•  Not a 25 year projection – a baseline analysis of current conditions

• Can be updated as data becomes available (not dependent on RTP update)

• Not a “black box” model – real measurable indicators

• MTC’s version is currently online as pdfs of maps

• We envision clickable maps to zoom to the neighborhood level

Source: MTC Snapshot Analysis Development Report, June 2010

Sample “Snapshot” Maphttp://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/snapshot/

Today’s Equity AnalysisWhat’s different?• Multiple components & earlier in the process• New forecasting model – “Activity Based”• More bench strength • Equity Analysis is being framed by the Targets

that were adopted:– Housing 100% of the population w/o displacement– Reducing PM and death from exposure– Reduce Housing & Transportation costs – Increase walking and biking

Today’s Equity Analysis

Components of the Equity Analysis1. Initial Vision Scenario Analysis 2. Individual Project Performance Assessment3. Alternative Scenarios Comparison (same as

traditional Equity Analysis)4. Indicators and the Snapshot Analysis (2.0?)

QuestionsContact

bob@urbanhabitat.org

Information on Snapshot Analysis:http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/snapshot/