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.

13   Survey of Agency Practice Overview In the spring of 2021, a survey was undertaken to document transit agency approaches to integrating equity into the bus network redesign process. This chapter highlights key findings from the survey; full findings are found in Appendix C. The survey was completed by 38 transit agencies located in the United States and Canada. Survey respondents were solicited based on transit agencies that were believed to have completed, in the process of undertaking, or consid- ering undertaking a bus network redesign given information from the literature review, online searches, and industry knowledge shared by the panel. The survey was designed using skip logic to sort transit agencies by their stage in the redesign process, where answers of “my agency contemplated a bus system redesign in the past five years but decided against it,” and “none of the above” led respondents to the end of the survey. Five responding agencies (Alameda- Contra Costa Transit District, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, TransLink, Hampton Roads Transit, and Mountain Line answered “none of the above”). Accordingly, 33 responses were evaluated. One additional agency provided written comments. The survey included questions on the incorporation of equity in the goal setting process, equity-specific metrics and evaluations used in service planning and outcome evaluation, and public engagement. Skip logic was also applied to minimize the number of questions respondents needed to answer, and questions related to Title VI service equity analysis were designed to filter out transit agencies that were not subject to Title VI service equity require- ments. As a result, not all respondents answered all questions. Survey results were grouped for analysis based on the status of the redesign and agency size (small, medium, or large, based on annual bus revenue hours). Large transit agencies are those that operate 1.0 million annual bus revenue hours or greater, medium transit agencies are those that operate between 250,000 to 999,999 annual bus revenue hours, and small transit agencies are those that operate less than 250,000 annual bus revenue hours. COVID-19 Considerations The reader should note that this report was written during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within the study period and among survey respondents, no bus network redesigns were undertaken in direct response to COVID-19. However, one agency that provided written comments indicated that significant changes had been made to their service in March 2020 as a result of constraints on their agency’s resources that resulted from, or were exacerbated by, the pandemic. At the moment, this agency is in the beginning stages of evaluating what a redesign of its system could look like as its service area emerges from the pandemic, including an evaluation of whether any temporary changes made as a direct result of the pandemic should C H A P T E R   3

14 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns be transitioned into permanent changes. It is unclear which, if any, of these temporary changes will remain in place in the recovery period. Transit Agency Context Respondent agencies were in varying stages of the redesign process, as shown in Figure 4. A full list of surveyed agencies, their size, and their group (based on the status of their redesign) is included in Table 8 in Appendix C. Additional details are provided in a series of figures in Appendix C: Figures 24–26 discuss bus network planning and redesign status, Figures 27–29 discuss agencies incorporating microtransit, Figures 30 and 31 highlight planning measures and impact, Figures 32–41 give an overview of how equity is considered and addressed by agencies, and Figures 42–44 describe how community engagement has factored into system redesign planning. Of the total responses to the survey, 15 agencies (Group 1) had completed a bus system redesign plan (four small, five medium, and six large). Within Group 1, seven agencies had completed implementation and eight agencies were in the process of imple- menting the redesign. Eighteen agencies (Group 2) had not yet completed a redesign plan (one anonymous, three small, six medium, and eight large). Within Group 2, 15 agencies were currently engaged in redesign planning and three agencies were contemplating a redesign. Bus Service Redesign Characteristics The survey asked respondents to indicate the reasons for their agency’s bus system redesign (Question 5). As shown in Figure 5, seven agencies specifically mentioned equity concerns. The most frequently selected reason, changing employment or residential patterns, was cited by 24 agencies, and ridership decline was cited by 19 agencies. Responses to “Other” include “inefficient existing network,” “BRT [Bus Rapid Transit] coming in 2024,” “desire to set a community-driven policy on network design priorities and values,” and “need to use existing budget/resources more efficiently in a growing city.” Many agencies also cited a comprehensive operational analysis (COA) as a reason for their redesign. Figure 4. Bus network redesign status among respondents. (n = 38)

Survey of Agency Practice 15   The survey asked the respondents to select all factors that they considered during the redesign process (Question 7). Service area and coverage, bus routing, and bus frequency were selected by all respondents. Span of service, cost impacts, ridership, impacts on low-income persons, and impacts on Title VI-protected populations (i.e., minority and populations with limited English proficiency) were also selected by most of the responding agencies. The aspects considered by the fewest respondents include facilitating mode shift to transit, impacts on other equity populations, bus stop placement, and impacts on persons with disabilities; however, those aspects were still selected by over half of the responding agencies. Equity in Bus Network Redesigns Definitions of Equity and Incorporation into the Redesign Goals There is no standard method for defining equity and incorporating it into the bus net- work redesign process. The survey indicated that transit agencies had varied approaches in whether and how they defined equity as well as the extent to which it became a goal of service planning. Of all survey respondents, 40% of transit agencies had an established definition of equity, 40% did not, and 20% were unsure (Question 18). Half of Group 2 transit agencies with in-progress redesigns had a definition of equity while only 28% of Group 1 transit agencies did. Despite a split between whether agencies had a definition of equity, most respondents (69%, Question 20) incorporated equity explicitly in the goals or as a guiding principle in the service redesign process. Based on redesign status, this includes 53% of Group 1 respondents and 67% of Group 2 respondents. The majority of transit agencies did not have specific equity concerns they hoped to address through the bus system redesign (Question 21). Among the 10 (out of 28 total) respondents that indicated specific equity concerns, examples include the following: • Expanding hours of service and improving off-peak headways to serve essential jobs and areas with lower access to opportunity. • High travel times and transfers in low-income peripheral neighborhoods. • Connecting high ridership neighborhoods to job centers in the suburbs. • Ensuring their large population with limited English proficiency is represented and that their agency accesses all riders and potential riders in surveys. More than half (16 out of 30) of respondents undertook or are planning to undertake an equity analysis that is not a required Title VI service equity analysis (Question 22). No significant 2 4 5 6 8 8 12 4 2 4 5 5 7 7 1 2 2 2 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Budget increase or decrease Equity concerns Other On-time performance Reevaluation of an existing wheel- and-spoke network Ridership decline Changing employment or residential patterns Large Medium Small Figure 5. What prompted your agency’s bus system redesign? Please select all that apply. There were 37 respondents surveyed; only 31 responded to the question, n = 31.

16 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns variation was observed based on redesign status or transit agency size. A few examples of the types of equity analyses undertaken included the following: • Analyzing access and measuring travel times between low-income neighborhoods and key destinations. • Assessing change in transit access based on residents living near a bus stop and residents living near a bus stop with a “frequent, all-day” service. • Using Origin-Destination survey data (with demographics) and General Transit Feed Speci- fication (GTFS) to evaluate anticipated travel time impacts on existing riders, particularly low-income and minority riders. • Evaluating service impacts to many demographic groups, including factors not explicitly mentioned in Title VI, such as income, educational attainment, disability status, nationality, nonworking populations, and zero-vehicle households. Of the eight transit agencies that completed an equity analysis, only two made changes to their service plan as a result of findings from an equity analysis at the time of the survey (Question 24). These changes included making minor modifications to components of the plan (e.g., modifying a route to better serve low-income housing), considering equity within the route planning process to assure that service changes are not overly disruptive in moving service from one political jurisdiction to another, and incorporating a transit equity score into a transit propensity index. Two transit agencies noted that their analyses were still underway, leaving the potential for future changes. Seven out of 14 total respondents considered equity in nonservice elements of their redesign (Question 26). These considerations included fare policy and structure, design of stop and station amenities with a focus on accessibility and perspectives of diverse users, stop location, and transfer policies. Title VI Service Equity Analysis While there are no specific requirements for when a Title VI service equity analysis is done (outside of when it is associated with the opening of fixed guideway service), or how many iterations of the analysis are done, FTA C 4702.1B assumes that adequate time and planning resources are available to address any findings of a Title VI service equity analysis. Out of 25 respondents, 10 transit agencies reported that they conducted the analysis at the conclusion of the service planning process (Figure 6). Thirteen respondents out of 21 total respondents indicated that they conducted a Title VI service equity analysis more than once during the service planning process (Question 14). Four respondents out of 26 total respondents indi- cated that their transit agency made modifications to its service plan as a direct result of the Title VI service equity analysis (Question 15). Inclusive Public Engagement Aside from equity analyses, six out of 13 total respondents incorporated information gathered through stakeholder and community engagement into their equity analyses (Question 25). Based on redesign status, this includes one Group 1 respondent and five Group 2 respondents. The ways in which agencies incorporated this information included the following: • Public-engagement-informed modifications to a route to better serve low-income housing. • Working with CBOs to assess the impacts of service redesign alternatives. • Over 400 meetings, workshops, pop-up events, and stakeholder meetings conducted, and 16,000+ comments informed one agency’s plan.

Survey of Agency Practice 17   Public Engagement Plans Public engagement plans provide a blueprint for communications and engagement. In general, they also include information about timelines, content, and the stakeholders that will be engaged. Twenty-five out of 29 respondents utilized a public engagement plan for their bus system redesign (Question 28). As displayed in Figure 7, agencies were asked if their public engagement plans identified specific equity populations or communities in their service area (Question 31). The most common response was yes, using “Census data or other local data and stakeholder input.” Strategies for Inclusive Public Engagement Transit agencies employed many strategies and methods for conducting public engagement. Some of the most popular engagement methods based on survey responses included community Figure 6. At what point in the process of the bus system redesign did or will your agency conduct the Title VI service equity analysis? (n = 25) Figure 7. Did you identify specific equity populations or communities and their presence in your service area in your public engagement plan? Please select only one. (n = 27)

18 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns or public meetings, conducting meetings at times other than weekday nights, in-person and virtual meetings with key community stakeholders, providing interpretation for languages other than English, online surveys, pop-up engagement events, social media, translating materials, and physical signs at stops and on buses. Of these methods, 92% of respondents reported con- ducting “pop-up” engagement at transit centers, community facilities, retail locations, festivals, or other activity centers in the community, which was the most popular engagement method (Question 32). Focused engagement with CBOs and advisory committees was another way in which transit agencies engaged with communities, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, when tradi- tional engagement methods were not feasible. CBOs are trusted in the community and can provide insight and assistance with reaching their clients or constituents, and thus are important partners in any engagement effort. During the pandemic, transit agencies • Conducted outreach with community and faith-based groups to reach diverse populations within the community; • Continuously met with a group of stakeholders representing different equity populations, including advocacy groups, social service providers, and municipal staff; • Worked with community leaders and neighborhood groups and monitored participation; and • Reached out to stakeholder groups that represent low-income and minority communities. Nineteen percent of respondents actively measure success in their inclusion of equity popula- tions (Question 35). Some of the metrics they used include the following: • Tracking the demographic information of participants in public meetings and surveys. • Looking for diversity in age, race, income, and other demographic factors of public engagement participants. • Collecting demographic data for online surveys to see the breakdowns of respondents. Outreach During the COVID-19 Pandemic The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 created an unprecedented change in public life. Agencies that were in the middle of bus network redesigns and public engagement processes during the pandemic needed to find ways to ensure the participation of equity populations during their outreach. Forty percent of surveyed agencies rose to this challenge by taking specific actions to ensure the participation of equity populations in the engagement process during the pandemic. In open-ended responses, some strategies that transit agencies mentioned included the following: • Virtual community meetings, visiting local stakeholder meetings, and pop-ups at grocery stores in areas with low responses. • Creating multiple options for accessing information to account for changing habits during the pandemic that the agency would not have normally used. • Engaging social service agencies that represent low-income populations and people of color. • Personal phone calls to stakeholders in equity communities to ask if they would like special virtual briefings or to have information sent to them. • Working with refugee communities to get surveys into the hands of their members with information about changes to service that will impact them.

Survey of Agency Practice 19   In open-ended responses, transit agencies detailed engagement strategies that were particularly successful in engaging equity populations. Engagement with CBOs received the highest number of responses. Other methods included community workshops; targeted briefings (e.g., with the disabilities community); on-street engagement events and pop-ups at key locations; and virtual engagement. One transit agency explained how informing their bus operators was a successful way to disseminate information to their riders. The transit agency prepared plain-language English information about the redesign and placed it in the operators’ lounge. Bus operators took this information and distributed it to their riders. Summary Survey responses provide some general insight about transit agencies’ approaches to equity and how they are incorporated into the bus network redesign process. All agencies considered service area and coverage, bus routing, and bus frequency during their redesign. Survey results and open-ended responses noted that expanding coverage to serve equity populations, combined with shifts toward frequent, all-day service to take people to the places they want to go can help transit agencies meet both the equity-specific goal of their redesigns (69% of all responses noted that equity was an explicit goal of their redesigns) as well as other, agency-related goals. Respondents were divided on equity definitions at their transit agencies, as 40% indicated that their agencies had an established definition of equity and 40% did not, while 20% were unsure. Even though agencies varied in whether they had an established definition of equity, it did not prevent over half of respondent agencies from pursuing additional analyses to understand the equity impacts of their bus network redesigns beyond the minimum requirements of Title VI service equity analysis.