Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5   Literature Review Introduction This literature review explores how transportation equity is currently defined, assessed, and incorporated into the bus network redesign process. It includes an overview of analytical approaches used to measure equity in the provision of transit service, and of existing literature on equity on the use of equity analyses in bus network redesigns. Finally, the literature review explores inclusive public engagement in the context of bus network redesigns. An annotated list of documents reviewed is found in Appendix A. Foundations of Transportation Equity The understanding of transportation equity and the role of equity in transit planning has evolved significantly over the last half century. This evolution applies both to legal frameworks, specifically new legislation, and to the progression of concepts that critique planning practices (Deka 2021, 305). Definitions of transportation equity vary, but a commonality among them is the concept that it involves proportional distribution of the benefits of transportation invest- ments and systems, and the avoidance of negative externalities or negative impacts (for example, the loss of transit service) to historically disadvantaged populations. Environmental justice (EJ), Title VI, nondiscrimination, and equity are distinct elements that together contribute to an “equitable transportation system” that taken together serve as the historical foundation for our understanding of transportation equity. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in the delivery of any activity supported by federal assistance, which includes the provision of transit service. The FTA C 4702.1B provides guidance to transit agencies on requirements they must complete to achieve compliance with the Civil Rights Act, including a process for larger transit agencies to evaluate transit service changes for potential discriminatory impacts. Title VI helped pave the way for the EJ movement (Deka 2021), which became a formal part of planning in the United States in 1994 when it was codified by Executive Order (EO) 12898: Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. EO 12898 aims to prevent and address the disproportionally high adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations from programs implemented with federal assistance. Beyond the EO, the concept of EJ is focused on the fact that “racial minorities and low-income populations disproportionately suffer from pollution and other adverse effects of transportation” and on ensuring that transportation infrastructure and services are designed and delivered in a manner that avoids disproportionately negative environmen- tal impacts to minority and low-income populations (Deka 2021, 306). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity and access for persons with disabilities. Per FTA’s ADA Circular “Title VI Requirements and C H A P T E R   2

6 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients” (FTA C 4702.1B), transit agencies operating fixed-route service must provide complementary paratransit to qualifying individuals with disabilities within ¾ mile of their fixed-route service (FTA 2012). A focus on nondiscrimination in the provision of benefits continues at the federal level today, most recently with EO 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Signed by President Biden in January 2021, this EO defines equity as “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment.” Notably, EO 13985 provides an expanded definition of equity communities that goes beyond minority and low-income communities to specifically name “Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality” as under- served communities. Definitions of transportation equity have also centered on the role (or lack thereof) of specific communities in the transportation decision-making process. The FTA and Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Transportation Planning Process Briefing Book defines transportation equity as pertaining “to the way in which the needs of all transportation system users are reflected in the transportation planning and decision-making process” and also states that it means that “transportation decisions deliver equitable benefits to a variety of users and that any associated burdens are avoided, minimized, or mitigated so as not to disproportionately impact disadvantaged populations” (FHWA and FTA 2019). Karner (2021) asserts that trans- portation equity focuses on how “the benefits and burdens of transportation investments fall on different groups,” with a focus on groups historically left out of planning and decision- making, including people of color, people with low income, older adults, youth, single parents, zero-vehicle households, and others. Toward Transportation Justice and Mobility Justice In recent years an understanding of equity has emerged that goes beyond how benefits or dis-benefits are distributed, and focuses on the ability of persons to meet their daily travel needs and access critical services including jobs, healthcare, education, and shopping (Figure 1). Alongside EJ, the theoretical concepts of transportation justice, which addresses an indi- vidual’s “potential mobility and accessibility” (Deka 2021, 307), and mobility justice, which addresses an individual’s “ability to travel” (Deka 2021, 308) have emerged. The “equity” Transportation Equity Environmental Justice Protecting racial minorities and low- income populations Transportation Justice Potential mobility and accessibility Mobility Justice Ability to travel Source: Content from Deka 2021. Figure 1. Transportation equity concepts.

Literature Review 7   framing has been used by governmental entities to describe a change in the redistribution of social goods, while the “justice” framing has been used by activist and nongovernmental entities to describe a change in social structures (Karner et al. 2020, 3). Instead of focusing on redistribution, critics argue that more attention should be paid to the power configurations and processes responsible for generating outcomes (Verlinghieri and Schwanen 2020, 3). The inherent value of justice framing is that it takes a more society-centric approach, described as a message of social change that parallels the EJ movement (Karner et al. 2020). Measuring Equity Impacts in Transit Planning Transit agencies today use a variety of methods to assess the equity impacts of proposed transit service changes. Over half of the agencies surveyed for TCRP Synthesis 140: Com- prehensive Bus Network Redesigns used or were planning to use two or more approaches to assess the equity impacts of their redesign (Byala et al. 2019, 41, 49). Commonly used approaches to measuring equity impacts include analyses of accessibility (to jobs, frequent transit, or core services), exploring the role of travel demand and the use of O-D data, the use of population weights, and creating indices that measure equity needs. The literature suggests it would be most beneficial for a transit agency to use multiple approaches to measuring equity, includ- ing quantitative measures and planning oriented approaches. This multifaceted approach encourages transportation equity to be pursued as an overarching system-wide goal rather than as a box that needs to be checked as an agency seeks to narrowly satisfy requirements (Karner 2021, 87). Measuring Accessibility One of the most common approaches to measuring equity impacts of a transit system or a transit plan is to measure access to a particular destination, such as jobs, within a specific period of time. (These types of accessibility analyses should not be confused with those that focus on ensuring physical access to transit for persons with disabilities.) In 2011, the Brookings Institu- tion published a comprehensive analysis that found that the majority of the nation’s zero- or one-vehicle households cannot reach the majority of jobs in a given metropolitan area within 90 minutes via transit (Puentes and Tomer 2011). While accessibility measures at the network level are prevalent among transit agencies today, the literature suggests such measures should not be solely focused on a demographic group’s proximity to transit. A revised approach would employ route-level accessibility measures that consider the system’s ability to link potential passengers to employment opportunities (Karner 2018, 18). Travel Demand and Origin-and-Destination Data One shortcoming of measuring access to opportunities is that such measures generally fail to consider travel demand (Karner 2021, 57). Since race has been linked to travel behavior, analyzing travel demand could help safeguard service plans from creating racial disparities (Karner and Niemeier 2013). Transit ridership demand forecasting can be performed with FTA’s Simplified Trips-on-Project Software (STOPS), as well as other travel demand fore- casting models, to predict the number of transit passenger trips that will utilize a proposed change in transit service. When combined with transit rider survey information that identi- fies the origin-to-destination travel of transit riders of specific population groups of interest to an equity analysis, a STOPS user is able to identify the travel time impacts of a proposed change in service on each group. Importantly, the literature points out that “using travel demand models introduces the potential to project how travelers will modify their behavior in response to service changes” (Karner 2021, 66). STOPS is freely accessible on the FTA’s website (transit.dot.gov).

8 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns Karner (2021) discusses two methods for calculating trip characteristics to assess the impact of transportation changes: the use of O-D surveys and the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP). While transit rider surveys that ask about a rider’s origin-to-destination travel can yield robust information about travel patterns within a bus network, conducting such surveys require significant resources. CTPP data is readily available; however, as it uses data from the American Community Survey, the data available is restricted to commute trips (Karner 2021). MBTA is utilizing location-based services data (LBS) from cell phone data to embed O-D data for trips taken on all modes (including bus, rail, walk, bike, and car) in the planning for their bus network redesign. This approach is described in detail in the case example for the MBTA later in this synthesis. Population-Weighted Approaches Twaddell and Zgoda (2020) outlined a five-step equity analysis framework for regional trans- portation plans and programs. In the chapter on measuring equity, the guide describes a population-weighted approach to measuring equity that can be achieved by assigning weights to geographic areas relative to the share of the population group they cover. This method can be used to calculate “average trip times for given purposes,” “average number of destinations accessible within a given trip time,” and the “percentage of the population with reasonable access to important destinations” (Twaddell and Zgoda 2020). Examining population counts and/or shares of groups in proximity to transit has also been referred to as a measure of accessibility. The disadvantage of this approach is that neither transit demand nor the demographics of existing riders are considered (Karner 2021, 51). Indices that Measure Transportation Need Equity indices allow transit agencies to score proposed transit service changes based on the concentrations of specifically identified equity communities. The Port Authority of Allegheny County’s (PAAC) service planning decision-making process is based on the use of a defined set of service guidelines that provide guidance on the base level of service as well as an established equity index. The equity index creates an equity “score” that identifies areas that have a higher proportion of residents who are disadvantaged or in populations that may have greater mobility needs, including • Low-income households, • Minority race and ethnicity populations, • Households with older adults (over age 65), • Persons with disabilities (persons protected under the ADA), and • Households with no available vehicle (Port Authority of Allegheny County 2019). Similarly, the City of Oakland, California has an equity index which includes the same groups as PAAC’s as well as single parent families and cost-burdened renters, and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) has an equity index that includes youth, older adults, females, racial minorities, ethnic minorities, foreign-born persons, persons with limited English proficiency, persons with disabilities, and low-income households (Port Author- ity of Allegheny County 2019). The District Department of Transportation (DDOT), operator of the DC Circulator bus service, developed an index of “transportation need” as part of their long-range planning effort, moveDC (https://movedc-dcgis.hub.arcgis.com/pages/equity). To identify areas with the greatest “transportation need,” moveDC combines inputs from three measures, proximity to frequent transit, access to jobs and destinations, and safety risks (Figure 2). Each measure is comprised of a set of sub-metrics; for example, safety risk is based on high-stress/low-comfort cycling routes, sidewalk gaps, and Vision Zero high-crash corridors (DDOT 2021).

Literature Review 9   Equity in Bus Network Redesigns Bus network redesigns are local bus network service changes characterized by a holistic transformation of a transit system’s bus service; these efforts involve analysis, planning, and public engagement at the bus network level (Byala et al. 2019, 7). Transit agencies tend to take either a “blank slate” approach or make a “comprehensive modification” to their existing system. The blank slate approach involves rebuilding the network from scratch while the latter approach involves relying on the existing structure. Common considerations made during the redesign process include: • Providing more service area coverage versus more frequent service that is limited to a smaller geographic area, • Taking a cost neutral approach versus funding additional service hours, and • Considering how new mobility should be incorporated into the network (Byala et al. 2021, 17). Bus network redesigns are a transportation planning trend considered to be in vogue (Vock 2017). The trend can be explained by an interest in modernizing outdated and neglected route structures to meet today’s needs, a desire to make more effective use of financial resources and limit operating costs, and a response to a nationwide decline in transit ridership (Byala et al. 2019, 5). When undertaking a bus network redesign, transit agencies typically identify key objectives that will guide the bus network redesign planning process, such as • Improving transit service for both current and potential riders and improving the image of the transit agency, • Supporting urban sustainability and addressing congested corridors, • Increasing operational efficiency and effectiveness and matching operating costs to available resources, Source: moveDC. Figure 2. moveDC’s transportation equity dashboard.

10 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns • Counteracting ridership losses and/or increasing ridership, and • Adapting to other public transit investments and new technologies (Byala et al. 2019, 73). In the survey conducted for TCRP Synthesis 140: Comprehensive Bus Network Redesigns, ways to “better serve transit dependent populations” was one of the big picture goals transit agencies hoped to achieve through a network redesign. During the redesign planning process, “equity” was found to be one of the most common metrics teams sought to quantify in order to assess the impacts of potential network scenarios (Byala et al. 2019). Equity is a crucial issue for bus network redesigns as “at most transit agencies, buses carry a higher proportion of low-income, minority, and riders with limited English proficiency than other transit modes, therefore, changes to the bus network may have a greater impact on these populations” (Byala et al. 2021, 4). Many bus network redesigns focus on improving efficiency and service on high-frequency corridors, and this may result in inequitable outcomes for specific groups. For example, an increase in walking distance to transit may limit the ability of persons with disabilities and seniors to access transit service or it may add additional overall trip travel time by increasing the walk time to/from the bus stop. This can negate the benefits of any in-vehicle travel time savings achieved through redesign changes. As a result, bus network redesigns need to examine the impacts of potential service plans on individual population groups and their unique needs (Byala et al. 2021, 5). TCRP Research Report 221: Redesigning Transit Networks for the New Mobility Future found that many transit agencies were incorporating analysis into their planning process in ways that went beyond required Title VI service equity analyses to examine other factors, such as employ- ment locations with low-income workers, and connections to healthcare and social services (Byala et al. 2021, 4). Transit agencies such as the Maryland Department of Transportation’s Maryland Transit Administration (MDOT MTA), IndyGo, and Capital Metro analyzed changes in access to transit, including frequent transit, for equity populations in their redesign planning activities. Utah Transit Authority’s Service Choices used a transit propensity index to identify neighborhoods in their service area with higher proportions of low-income and minority populations and then weighted these areas more heavily in the development of their service plans, prioritizing access to both fixed-route and on-demand transit service in the identified areas. The Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) and IndyGo both incorporated the design of new bus rapid transit services to provide frequent transit service in some of their most dis- advantaged communities as a part of their bus network redesigns (Byala et al. 2021, 45). TCRP Research Report 221: Redesigning Transit Networks for the New Mobility Future also found variation in when the Title VI service equity analysis happened, how many times it was conducted, and which departments led the Title VI service equity analysis. While transit providers have latitude in elements of the service equity analysis methodology, they are required to follow the process described in FTA C 4702.1B. In the methodology estab- lished in FTA C 4702.1B, transit providers can use population or ridership datasets to conduct their analysis, but they must provide their rationale for using a particular dataset. The popula- tion approach measures equity in terms of the demographic composition of affected Census blocks or block groups, the ridership approach uses ridership data to examine the demographic composition of the impacted routes. The literature asserts that the outcome of service equity analyses can be affected by the data source used (Karner and Golub 2015). For example, a study assessing service equity in Phoenix, Arizona, found that Census data was more useful in expos- ing inequities of service cuts, and ridership data was more useful in exposing inequities of service improvements (Karner and Golub 2015). The unit of analysis for a service equity analysis is typically a route, and the methodology described for a service equity analysis in FTA C 4702.1B presumes service changes occur at the individual route level. A bus network redesign, particularly a clean slate redesign, in which the

Literature Review 11   new network’s routes may not be comparable to the existing network’s routes, can present challenges in the application of the service equity methodology described in FTA C 4702.1B. MDOT MTA developed a methodology that measures adverse effects (changes in span, presence and absence of service, changes in frequencies) at the bus-stop level and then summarized at Census block group by time of day (peak and off-peak periods) and by weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays for use in their bus network redesign. The use of bus stops and Census block groups as the units of analysis allowed the transit agency to understand at a very localized level how proposed service changes were impacting access to and the quantity of transit service and avoided the need to try to compare individual routes pre- and post-redesigns in the absence of equivalent routes. MDOT MTA used this bus stop and Census block group-based service equity methodology in conjunction with each draft service plan and made a number of changes to their redesign during the service planning process as a result to ensure the transit agency produced an equitable plan. MDOT MTA did this even though their agency’s established Title VI policies measured cumulative effects across the service area as a whole. In contrast, many other transit agencies have waited to conduct a service equity analysis until their final service plan was complete (Byala et al. 2021). Public Engagement Beyond quantitative analyses of transportation equity, public transportation agencies have also sought to incorporate equity in bus network redesigns and service planning activities through goal setting and equitable public engagement. Public engagement is a critical com- ponent of any transportation planning process, and meaningful public engagement is far more than a count of public meetings held or the number of participants. Literature indicates that traditional public engagement approaches often do not provide meaningful opportunities to impact outcomes (Karner and Marcantonio 2017, 3) or fall short of true engagement (Ezike et al. 2020, 9). Established best practices for inclusive public engage- ment include: establishing advisory committees, building intergovernmental partnerships and advocacy partnerships, collaborating with regional planning organizations to enhance the public engagement process, and creating leadership champions (Karner 2021, 24-25). Other practices may include engagement with CBOs and civic advisory committees (FHWA 2015, 13–17). Local perspectives play an important role in the creation of equitable plans by helping to supplement quantitative analyses (Karner 2021, 76). Meaningful engagement and just outcomes are unlikely without a just process, the latter of which is difficult to provide (Karner and Marcantonio 2017, 7). Some challenges to attaining a just process include low participation rates or respondents that do not accurately reflect targeted populations (Karner and Marcantonio 2017, 7). Most analyses use Census data to identify geographies with high concentrations of target populations (e.g., low-income house- holds or persons with limited English proficiency). However, if individuals that may be target populations based on their characteristics do not live in an area with high concentrations of people sharing the same characteristics, they may be left out of the engagement process although they may be impacted by its outcomes (Ezike et al. 2020, 10). TCRP Research Report 221: Redesigning Transit Networks for the New Mobility Future found that the success of a redesign is dependent on community acceptance. There are at least two rounds of public engagement in bus network redesigns, the first being devoted to issues and priorities (the “visioning” stage), with the second (in one or multiple rounds) occurring during the service planning process. Some agencies also elect to do public education-focused engage- ment following the finalization of the bus network redesign plan (as indicated in Figure 3). Ongoing engagement throughout the bus network redesign, via website updates, social media, earned and paid media, onboard advertisements, and continued meetings with key stakeholder groups, is also key.

12 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns Engaging disadvantaged populations through inclusive public participation strategies and ensuring diversity of input in stakeholder groups that serve in an advisory capacity are critical to the success of any bus network redesign. Gwinnett County Transit Division, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, LA Metro, and IndyGo are all transit agencies that engaged with CBOs to solicit input and engage otherwise hard-to-reach communities. For example, Gwinnett County Transit Division engaged organizations serving the local Vietnamese and Korean communities to ensure that these specic communities were included in their redesign’s public engagement process. IndyGo worked with the AARP and their Mobility Advisory Committee which represents the disabilities community to ensure input from older adults and persons with disabilities was appropriately represented in their redesign’s public engagement process (Byala et al. 2021). Source: TCRP Research Report 221: Redesigning Transit Networks for the New Mobility Future, 2021. Visioning Draft Plan(s) Final Plan Identify issues, priorities, and goals. Educate on purpose and trade-offs. Determine desired plan modifications, educate on benefits, achieve buy-in. Communicate forthcoming service changes and educate on new system. Figure 3. Public engagement and education objectives for each bus network redesign stage.