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.

20 Case Examples Introduction The six case examples presented in this chapter provide results from the survey of agency practice that determined which transit agencies were selected for case examples. Researchers conducted one-hour virtual interviews with representatives from each of the six selected transit agencies (Table 1). Case example agencies were selected on the basis of their ability to provide a “lessons learned” or “best practices” report in regard to incorporating equity in bus network redesigns, as well as for diversity in terms of geographic location, service area characteristics, and transit agency size. A customized list of interview questions was developed for each interview based on the transit agency’s survey responses. To ensure transit agency participants would be prepared for the interview, questions were sent to interviewees in advance of the interview date. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) Interviewee: Senior Executive Officer, Operations LA Metro provides heavy rail, light rail, bus, and bus rapid transit service throughout the Los Angeles metropolitan region. As displayed in Table 2, the transit agency’s service area encompasses 1,469 square miles and captures a service population of 8,621,928. LA Metro served 379,718,121 unlinked passenger trips in 2019 (FTA 2019). In 2018, LA Metro started the NextGen Bus Study to better meet the needs of current and future riders. This led to the development of the NextGen Bus Plan to develop a new, competi- tive bus system that is “fast, frequent, reliable and accessible” (LA Metro 2021b). The Plan was approved on October 22, 2020, by the Metro Board of Directors. The three-phase roll-out began in December 2020 and was to continue through the end of 2021. Agency Definition of Equity In 2018, the LA Metro Board of Directors approved an Equity Platform Framework. This framework was composed of four pillars: Define and Measure; Listen and Learn; Focus and Deliver; and Train and Grow. The NextGen Bus Study was informed and guided by the frame- work. Equity is both an outcome and a process to address racial, socioeconomic, and gender disparities, and to ensure fair and just access to opportunities, including jobs, housing, education, mobility options, and healthier communities. The Define and Measure pillar of the framework focuses on the need for a common basis to build an equity agenda (LA Metro 2018). The NextGen Bus Study used Title VI criteria as a C H A P T E R   4

Case Examples 21   baseline for identifying communities with the greatest needs and supplemented the data with market research to identify segments of the population and trips with the highest need and propensity for transit use. Bus network changes were evaluated based on customer-focused performance metrics, with particular focus on communities with the greatest mobility needs. The Listen and Learn pillar emphasizes the need for meaningful public engagement with measurable and actionable equitable outcomes. The technical work of the NextGen Bus Study identified important information about Metro’s current and potential customers. This data was validated by the robust countywide public engagement effort, including engaging customers onboard buses, outreach sessions at community events, stakeholder briefings, interactive public workshops, an external working group established to steer the project, digital engagement, and print advertising. Comments received were incorporated into the systemwide service design as well as individual route changes. The Focus and Deliver pillar recognizes that Metro leads and partners to carry out its long-range transportation plan (LRTP). Transportation crosscuts other topics beyond LA Metro’s purview, such as land use, gentrification, displacement, and affordable housing and LA Metro cannot address these issues without the help of partners. For the NextGen Bus Study, LA Metro’s service design concepts were established to address the recurring themes identified from the public outreach and market research, including faster and more frequent service, better reliability and accessibility to key destinations, better connectivity particularly with the municipal operators, and improved perception of security on board buses and at bus stops. In addition, a Transit Service Equity score was developed to identify areas in need of greatest transit improvement and investment. The Train and Grow pillar notes the need for top-to-bottom ownership on equity topics. The Board adopted Transit Service Policy was updated to reflect the Regional Service Concept as adopted by the Board, including the goals and objectives of the bus network, measures of success, route and network design concepts based on public input and data analysis, and framework for balancing trade-offs in consideration of Metro’s Equity Platform Framework. An annual monitoring program will be established to track the progress of achievement toward the goals and objectives, with an additional focus on impacts/benefits to transit equity areas. Focus Populations During the NextGen project, LA Metro considered impacts on Title VI-protected popula- tions, low-income persons, persons with disabilities, and other equity populations. The agency expanded upon these standard focus populations to incorporate the presence of school age students, seniors over 55, and single mothers. A study of women’s travel indicated that more than 50% of the agency’s customers are women; about one-third of women riders are single Metric 2019 Data Service Area Square Miles 1,469 Service Area Population 8,621,928 Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips 379,718,121 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 126,325,069 Modes Operated Heavy Rail, Light Rail, Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, Vanpool Source: FTA 2019. Table 2. LA Metro – agency profile.

22 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns mothers. This customer segment has specific concerns about safety and trip-chaining, and sometimes moves children, groceries, or packages with them through the system. Title VI Service Equity Analysis Any changes of at least 25% to a line’s route miles, revenue miles, number of trips, or span of services in any period within 36 consecutive months since the last major service change are considered by LA Metro to be major services changes that require a Title VI service equity analysis. A Disparate Impact may occur if at least 78.5% of the impacted population is minority (5% or greater than the 73.5% of regional population that is minority). A Disproportionate Burden may occur if at least 22% of the impacted population is low-income (5% or greater than the system wide service area’s low-income population of 17.0%). A Title VI equity analysis was conducted on the NextGen bus network redesign by lines/line groups, service type, and service council area. Out of 112 lines/line groups, 12 weekday, 10 Saturday, and seven Sunday lines/line groups had disparate impacts due to line restructuring and discontinuation. However, all lines/line groups were replaced or mitigated with either new lines, line restructuring, or Metro Micro (microtransit) service. Only the Rapid service type had a finding of disparate impact and disproportionate burden, as all Rapids (except three) were consolidated with local service, a move that technically “discontinued” the Rapid lines. There was no disparate impact nor disproportionate burden by service council area. Equity Analyses Other than Title VI Service Equity Analyses Throughout the redesign, LA Metro moved the focus from minimizing negative impacts to adding benefits to transit equity communities. This shift not only considers mitigating decreased service in transit equity areas, but also how to improve service for equity populations. The agency developed two equity analysis methodologies: the Transit Equity Score and the Transit Propensity Score (which includes the Transit Equity Score). The Transit Equity Score uses socioeconomic data from the Census to identify where transit is most needed (LA Metro 2021c). It utilizes data from the Census (normalized to Census tract density) for seven demographic indicators which include 1. Zero-car households per acre (weighted double), 2. Poverty/low-income households per acre, 3. School age students (age 10–19) per acre, 4. Seniors over 55 as of 2010 per acre, 5. Single mothers per acre, 6. Disabled persons per acre, and 7. Minorities per acre (weighted double). All tracts are scored for each of the seven indicators, and then all seven scores are combined and divided by seven (the total number of indicators) to develop a final score. The final score is also broken into five groups according to natural (Jenks) breaks. Zero-car households and minorities are both weighted double in this score, as these criteria were found to be significant determinants of transit equity in the analysis conducted for the LRTP. These indicators are also consistent with the Equity Focused Communities adopted by the LA Metro Board for use in developing the LRTP. The Transit Propensity Score provides a way to understand potential transit markets, based on a set of indicators (LA Metro 2021a). Research indicates that while population and employ- ment density may be leading factors contributing to transit propensity, it is more important

Case Examples 23   to analyze trip-making characteristics and intensity. The LA Metro’s Transit Propensity Score evaluates transit propensity at the Census tract level and uses three categories of indicators: 1. Elements of demand (e.g., trip-making intensity, population and employment densities); 2. Market segments (which includes the Transit Equity Score); and 3. Built environment. The total Transit Propensity Score comprises 21 indicators grouped under these three cate- gories. Ultimately, the NextGen plan increased all-day service frequency (expanding service frequencies in the off-peak period) and span in areas that tend to have high transit propensity. A screenshot of the Transit Propensity Index is show in Figure 8. LA Metro also utilized location-based services data to develop a model that allowed them to explore where, how, and when trips were being made throughout their service area. This data included on-transit trips and trips taken on other modes, and provided a foundational understanding of how the agency’s service was performing versus automobile travel by time of day and by time of trip. It also allowed the transit agency to model changes in the transit mode share ratio under the NextGen system (as transit becomes more competitive with auto trips) and apply these changes to all trips. This allowed the agency to estimate the benefits and impacts of implementing NextGen. However, this analysis did not consider the benefits to equity populations versus other populations. Figure 8. Screenshot of the Transit Propensity Index.

24 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns Community Engagement The bus network redesign had an expansive community engagement component. Outreach efforts were guided by the agency’s Public Participation Plan, which includes Metro’s Equity Platform Framework and its CBO strategy (LA Metro 2019). The engagement process included: over 400 meetings and events; an external working group with over 70 organizations, such as faith-based institutions and union groups; and over 16,000 comments received. Other engage- ment included community “drop-in” workshops, where community members could show up and stay as long as they liked to learn about the study, provide comments, and enjoy compli- mentary food. The redesign also had a significant online presence, with online tools to analyze how far riders could travel within a specific length of time, a GIS-based StoryMap that provides an overview of NextGen, an easy-reference tool that allows riders to explore changes to their bus routes, and a tool that allows riders to compare trips on the existing bus network and the NextGen bus network (Figure 9). The NextGen website received more than 120,000 website visits during the development of the service plan. Source: https://la-metro.maps.arcgis.com/. Figure 9. LA Metro website tool that allows riders to compare their ability to access destinations throughout the service area in the current and NextGen bus networks.

Case Examples 25   Despite the large scope, resources were leveraged as efficiently as possible to start the out- reach process and keep the project moving. As a large agency, LA Metro has many resources at its disposal. LA Metro’s in-house communications team was brought into the process early along with an external communications consultant to develop, manage, and implement the engagement plan. The external communications consultant carried out much of the logistics work of in-person meetings, like the one depicted in Figure 10, such as setting up meetings and pop-up tents and ordering food. By the time the project was ending, consultants knew so much that the agency trusted them to conduct outreach on their behalf. This was only possible because the communications team knew LA Metro’s ridership and community and already had established relationships with stakeholders. As outreach began prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency also needed to pivot toward virtual engagement as the process continued. The agency held six public hearings, five service council meetings, and two board meetings virtually that were open to public participation and/or viewing. In addition, the agency made targeted phone calls to stakeholders in equity communities. These individuals were identified through LA Metro and communications consultant contacts, external working group members, other LA Metro equity efforts, and LA Metro’s Chief Executive Officer’s Faith Leaders Group. There are several key takeaways from the engagement process. A good communications consultant that knows the community and already has contact with them is critical, especially with underrepresented communities. Communities should be engaged with on their terms, in a way that is convenient and familiar to them. Stakeholder groups should capture a range of perspectives. In addition, proactively responding to community concerns, neighborhood councils, stakeholders, and accessibility communities was beneficial. Microtransit Agencies across the country are examining the potential for microtransit to supplement or replace existing fixed-route service. LA Metro is implementing a microtransit pilot called Metro Micro in nine zones of its service area (Watts/Willowbrook, LAX/Inglewood, El Monte, North Hollywood/Burbank, Compton/Artesia, Highland Park/Eagle Rock/Glendale, Altadena/ Pasadena/Sierra Madre, Northwest San Fernando Valley, and UCLA/Westwood/Century City). On-demand shuttles providing shared rides will replace underperforming fixed-route Figure 10. NextGen in-person outreach (2019).

26 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns bus service. This 3-year pilot is being developed hand-in-hand with the bus network redesign. Equity was also considered in developing the microtransit pilot. Although the agency did not conduct a formal evaluation of Metro Micro, it conducted a formal Title VI evaluation of the bus network redesign that incorporated how the Metro Micro service was being used to mitigate potential findings of disparate impact or disproportionate burden. During a redesign, some bus routes are deleted, spliced, receive extensions, or are otherwise restructured. From a technical perspective, the agency “eliminated” some lines, but only by combining them with other lines (e.g., the 2 and 200 will be combined to form Line 2). Even though this is technically considered a route elimination which led to a disparate impact, this was mitigated as the line is still there but is now tied to a different line. To mitigate the potential disparate impact, the agency changed the zone to cover the area that the deleted line would cover, and with the same with span of service. Mitigation was done via this method or by deploying microtransit. Mitigation was done during the planning process versus at the end as an evaluation because microtransit was moving forward in parallel with NextGen. For this pilot, the agency has a vendor that supplies the dispatch software (including driver and customer app) and back-office monitoring, evaluation, and dispatch algorithms. The drivers and call center staff are Metro employees and the vehicles are leased and maintained through vendors. The microtransit pilot had its own use cases, zones, and time periods to test. As a result, the pilot was able to be adapted to cover bus needs. Although bus service and microtransit are competing in the same market, they were able to partner to supplement and/or augment service where fixed-route bus was not the best alternative. Lessons Learned The agency shared several lessons it learned regarding successfully integrating equity into the bus network redesign process. A redesign is an iterative process, not a single evaluation. Outreach and engagement, especially with traditionally underrepresented communities, is critical. Advocates have their own priorities which may not always align with those of under- represented groups. Engaging with community and faith-based leaders to gain trust and engage with many underrepresented communities is beneficial, as is trying to meet people in their own communities at times that are convenient to them. Ultimately, the approach led to LA Metro being able to successfully engage participants in the NextGen planning process that were rep- resentative of the broader community in terms of their demographic and ethnic backgrounds. It is not possible to “rush” a process to gain trust, respect, input, and ultimately concurrence and understanding in service proposals. As a result of the transit agency’s careful and deliberate approach to equitable community engagement, public comments were “manageable” when it came time for the draft final plan to be considered for adoption. Lane Transit District (LTD) Interviewees: Development Planner, Director of Planning and Development, and Service Planner Transit Tomorrow LTD serves Lane County, Oregon, including the Eugene and Springfield metropolitan areas, as well as the neighboring cities of Coburg, Junction City, Creswell, Cottage Grove, Veneta, and Lowell. First established in 1970, the transit agency has served the region for more than 50 years. As displayed in Table 3, LTD’s service area covers 482 square miles and has a service population of 302,200. In 2019, the system provided over 10.5 million unlinked trips (FTA 2019).

Case Examples 27   In June 2018, LTD embarked on the Transit Tomorrow system redesign study. An example of community engagement for this study is shown in Figure 11. Prior to Transit Tomorrow, a COA of LTD’s service had not been completed in 20 years. LTD’s existing hub and spoke network served the region well for two decades, and service changes made in this period were on the scale of a route being moved or trip added. However, LTD found that over time system-wide ridership declined, and this ridership decline provided the main impetus for pursuing Transit Tomorrow. Transit Tomorrow included increased funding and was undertaken with the aim of providing more useful service better aligned with where transit service is needed today. A redesigned transit system, that transitions from a primarily hub-and-spoke model to one that increases cross-town trips while also increasing service frequencies, will also allow LTD to serve more riders and increase operational efficiency. The proposed Transit Tomorrow network provided less coverage than the existing network, removed stops, and required some people to walk further to reach a bus stop (Figure 12). Despite these challenges, the proposed network provided many benefits, including improving weekday and weekend frequent service for many riders, operating half of all routes at 15-minute or better frequency on weekdays, simplifying routes and schedules, and shortening transit travel times for most people (LTD 2020c). The Transit Tomorrow Plan was paused before it could be reviewed by the LTD Board or implemented. In April 2020, the LTD Board of Directors decided to put Transit Tomorrow on hold, citing the need to focus on providing transportation to those who need to make essential trips and postpone work with Transit Tomorrow until the public has an opportunity to partici- pate in a meaningful way (LTD 2020a). The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted both LTD’s budget and the travel needs of those whom LTD serves. The agency’s experience with equity in the development of Transit Tomorrow, as well as an enhanced focus on equity by agency Source: Lane Transit District. Source: FTA 2019. Metric 2019 Data Service Area Square Miles 482 Service Area Population 302,200 Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips 10,528,027 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 8,349,990 Modes Operated Demand Response, Demand Response-Taxi, Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, Vanpools Table 3. LTD – agency profile. Figure 11. Transit center “pop-up” outreach for Transit Tomorrow.

28 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns leadership in 2020, also led LTD to examine how the agency can “center equity” in the transit redesign process. As a result, LTD will not implement Transit Tomorrow and now intends to restart the transit system redesign planning process and create a new plan for a system redesign in the future. Equity in the Service Planning Process Transit Tomorrow’s planning process was guided by the following three “community values” that were reflected in the plan’s service plan (LTD 2020d): • Social Equity: Increase access to service across various segments of the community. • Fiscal Responsibility and Efficiency: Allow resources to be better used, including facilitating increases in weekend and night service. • Climate Change and Sustainability: Increase ridership to contribute to the need to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Consistent with the “community values” guiding the redesign, LTD examined its service with an equity lens in three trade-offs exercises, including: frequency of service versus coverage of service, meeting the needs of individuals versus the broader community, and lowering fares versus increasing service levels. People of color, people experiencing poverty, and seniors (65 and over) were considered equity populations. Source: https://www.ltd.org/proposed-new-system/. Figure 12. Full proposed LTD network map.

Case Examples 29   Frequency versus Coverage The balance of service provided between frequency of service and coverage of a service area is a trade-off faced by all agencies undertaking a bus network redesign. To better align transit service with transit demand and increase ridership, Transit Tomorrow focused LTD’s resources on populations that rely on transit and are its most frequent users today. This focusing included significant expansions in all-day and frequent service in the primary travel corridors in the City of Eugene, which is also where the highest concentrations of equity populations and transit- dependent populations reside. A desire to provide more frequent service along major corridors led the agency to identify traffic congestion as an emerging equity concern. In the City of Eugene many communities are oriented linearly, and most of the traffic congestion is generated by communities situated adjacent to the system’s major corridors. LTD’s planning staff want to prioritize capital invest- ments, such as exclusive lanes, to maintain bus speeds and the quality of transit service for their riders, including the equity populations the agency serves. Transit Tomorrow focused on near-term operations; a separate process will look at capital investments. In partnership with the City of Eugene, LTD is conducting the Moving Ahead study, examining investments for people walking, biking, and riding transit. The Needs of Individuals Versus the Broader Community One theme LTD struggled with during the Transit Tomorrow process was how to balance the needs of individuals with those of the broader public whom they serve. As LTD explored how best to balance the distribution of service in their service area, numerous individuals who were low-income, a senior citizen, or from another equity population, but who resided in neighbor- hoods where the majority of residents were not from an equity population and where service was relatively less productive, voiced concerns about the potential for a loss of service under the Transit Tomorrow plan. When LTD’s planning staff examined these individual comments, in almost all cases the individual in need of transit service did not reside along a major corridor. When LTD examined the Transit Tomorrow service plan in aggregate, focusing more resources on delivering frequent, all-day transit service along major corridors would provide better service for a larger proportion of equity populations. However, in recognition of the inclu- sive nature of equity, in the next redesign planning process LTD is planning to explore new options (including services other than fixed-route transit) to meet the needs of individuals who rely on transit service, but who reside in areas or need to travel in areas where providing fixed-route transit is not an efficient use of resources. Within the metro area, LTD provides an origin-to-destination paratransit service for eligible users that reside within three-quarters of a mile from fixed-route service. Transit Tomorrow reduced the LTD service area, but the transit agency decided to grandfather in users who previously had access to paratransit service. LTD also recognizes that they do not have the resources to meet the needs of all individuals who are in need of transportation assistance. As a result, the agency intends to work more closely with CBOs and social services agencies to identify ways to support individuals whom LTD cannot serve with transportation assistance. Lowering Fares versus Increasing Service Levels As LTD’s Transit Tomorrow redesign was undertaken with the understanding that financial resources for transit service were to increase, the transit agency needed to determine where and how to allocate the additional operating funds. When considering how to utilize the additional financial resources, LTD weighed the options of lowering fares overall, but not necessarily eliminating them, or increasing service levels.

30 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns In the City of Eugene, a large proportion of the community was already entitled to fare free transit, including all persons over the age of 60, students attending two local universities (including the University of Oregon), and many workers of employers participating in LTD’s employer pass program. LTD also provided half-priced fares to people with disabilities and had a low-income fare program that provided a free pass to individuals working with partner community organizations. LTD solicited public input on the desire for extending fare free transit versus expanding service, and the public indicated a preference for increasing service over implementing a fare free system. As a result, LTD planned to extend free fare transit to more populations (including all school children age 18 and under) and expanding their low-income pass program to bring the cost for community organizations from half-price to a quarter of the regular cost, but not transitioning to a fare free system as a part of Transit Tomorrow. As the existing fare structure enables many people to ride fare free today, staff felt that a targeted extension of fare free transit to youth and low-income individuals would allow LTD to both extend fare free transit to more individuals who truly need it and also enable the transit agency to use the additional funding to meaningfully increase service levels. Title VI Service Equity Analyses LTD used a “people-trips” methodology on the proposed network to complete the service equity analysis required by FTA C 4702.1B. In this procedure, a buffer is applied to each route. For every minority or low-income person who resides within the buffer area, one “people-trip” is added each time a trip goes by. LTD measures disparate impact and disproportionate burden as when “benefits are being provided to minority or low-income populations” at a rate less than 80% (four-fifths) than the benefits being provided to nonminority or non-low-income popula- tions. Disparate impact and disproportionate burden are measured at the route level. LTD uses Census data to conduct their service equity analyses; however, one of the drawbacks of using Census data in their service area is that 80% of the population might reside in 10 or 20% of a Census block group. Eugene’s urban growth boundaries, which restrict where development can occur, often result in the population clustering in a small fraction of a Census block group. The linear layout of several communities (including Springfield) further exacerbates this issue. To address this limitation, LTD used Census data connected to each address to more accu- rately represent people-trips. Census data is joined to address points in ESRI ArcMap. Then, the quantity of points and weighted averages are used to estimate the number of people in different demographic categories. LTD planners acknowledge that while the Title VI Service Analysis is required to achieve legal compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, it does not adequately address their equity concerns associated with changes to transit service. For example, it does not measure the full effects of service changes. The service change may indicate no “disparate impacts,” but the service may not have been equitably distributed to begin with. In acknowledging this short- coming, LTD employed additional analyses to understand the impact of Transit Tomorrow’s proposed service changes. Access-Based Equity Analysis As part of the Transit Tomorrow project, LTD developed an accessibility-based analysis to study the equity impacts of the proposed service plan. Using American Community Survey data, LTD planners calculated the number of jobs, residents, people of color, people experienc- ing poverty, and seniors within a quarter-mile of each route in the existing versus proposed

Case Examples 31   systems. Headway data was then associated with each route to allow demographic informa- tion to be further sorted based on frequency. While the Title VI service equity analysis’s “people-trips” concept is dicult to explain to the public, the access-based equity measures helped the public understand the equity impacts of Transit Tomorrow using metrics that are intuitive. Visuals showing access to frequent service under the existing versus proposed system (Figure 13) were created to help convey the perfor- mance of the existing system and the benets of a planned Transit Tomorrow system. Public Engagement LTD’s relatively small service area of 300,000 people makes it easier to connect with a number of organizations that serve the region. Although LTD has long-standing relationships with many CBOs, one of the key lessons learned from Transit Tomorrow was that LTD needed to work more intentionally with CBOs throughout the redesign planning and implementation process to ensure equitable planning outcomes. While the City of Eugene has a strong, long- standing tradition of facilitating public participation via neighborhood associations, relatively few residents engage in their neighborhood organization. LTD hopes that through enhancing engagement with their CBO partners for the next redesign they will ensure that the varied and unique transit needs of equity populations are well represented in the planning process. ey also hope that by working more closely with CBOs they will be able to better reach communi- ties that lack a forum for well-organized advocacy for their needs and interests. No accessEvery 60+ minutesEvery 30 minutesEvery 10–15 minutes JOBS ALL RESIDENTS PEOPLE OF COLOR PEOPLE EXPERIENCING POVERTY SENIORS (65+) Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing 42% 42% 7% 9% 70% 12% 9% 9% 22% 56% 9% 13% 57% 18% 7% 18% 22% 61% 6% 11% 63% 17% 6% 14% 31% 53% 7% 9% 71% 11% 7% 11% 13% 62% 10% 15% 49% 22% 9% 20% Data source: GTFS March 2019, ACS 2016 (5-Year Estimates) Source: Lane Transit District (https://www.ltd.org/ridership/). Figure 13. Access to frequent service between the current system and the proposed system.

32 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns Working with CBOs is also key to understanding how individuals from specific commu- nities (e.g., the unhoused, or persons with low income) use the current transit system, what their travel needs and challenges are, and what types of service changes may best serve their needs. Quantitative data and equity analyses can provide insight into the accessibility or levels of service available to an individual community, but they are limited in their ability to help us understand the lived experience and needs of individuals using the transit system. The com- munities of concern that we understand as equity populations have varied needs—for example, even within the disabilities community, what a person with a disability needs from their transit system will vary by the type of disability. Capturing qualitative data from the full range of individual communities that comprise equity populations is key to creating a service plan that enhances transportation equity. Enhanced Focus on Equity In 2020, separate from the Transit Tomorrow planning process, LTD’s leadership led a new focus on diversity and equity. LTD created a new definition for equity (LTD 2020b): Equity is promoting justice, impartiality and fairness within the procedures, processes, and distribu- tion of resources by institutions or systems. Tackling equity issues requires an understanding of the root causes of outcome disparities within our society. As a result of this renewed focus on equity, equity will play a more central role in future planning efforts, including the next redesign. The transit agency is also contemplating how Title VI requirements may be aligned with the agency’s diversity and equity initiatives. Next Steps LTD staff are currently preparing to begin their transit system redesign planning process anew. The new system will take into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and address questions around the future of work-related trips that were replaced with remote work during the pandemic. The new redesign will center equity throughout the planning process. It will also consider the role of new mobility options (e.g., on-demand transit) and the role of social services organizations in meeting transit needs throughout the LTD service area. Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) Interviewees: Director of Strategic Research, Transportation Planner, and Spatial Analyst Better Bus and the Bus Network Redesign MBTA provides local bus service, bus rapid transit, trolley bus, demand response, ferry, light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail services in the Boston region and to surrounding regions in Central Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Across all modes, MBTA provided 366,716,896 unlinked passenger trips in 2019, in a service area that is over 3,200 square miles and is home to 3.1 million people (FTA 2019). As displayed in Table 4, the MBTA bus network served nearly 450,000 trips each weekday across more than 50 cities and towns prior to the pandemic. MBTA’s bus riders are the most likely to be lower-income, people of color, seniors, or people who live in households with few or no vehicles among riders on all MBTA modes (MBTA 2021c). In 2018, MBTA initiated the Better Bus Project, an umbrella initiative that itself is part of the MBTA’s $8 billion, 5-year capital investment program, with the aim of making significant improvements to bus service and bus facilities. The Better Bus Project began with an extensive public outreach campaign that featured seven regional public meetings, 15 briefings, listening

Case Examples 33   sessions with bus operators, and feedback from over 3,000 bus riders collected via outreach activities that took place at bus stops and stations and through an online feedback form. What MBTA heard in the Better Bus Project is that the primary desires of their riders are to make the bus faster, more reliable, and safer, and to provide more direct service. As a result of the Better Bus Project’s initial public outreach, the transit agency subsequently initiated several projects including the Bus Network Redesign, as well as projects to increase bus priority infrastructure, improve bus stop accessibility, electrify the bus fleet, modernize bus facilities, and implement real-time passenger information (MBTA 2021a). The MBTA’s existing bus network was designed to facilitate connections with the rapid transit system as well as to provide crosstown service to connect the rapid transit lines. Boston’s bus network emphasizes one-seat rides that feed into rapid transit, rather than seeking to maximize the utility of the bus network for bus riders. As a result, almost every primary arterial in Boston’s core is served by multiple bus routes, creating significant duplication of service. Furthermore, while participants in the Better Bus Project’s outreach indicated a strong preference for more frequent bus service, only 19 of MBTA’s 176 routes provide service of 15 minutes or better from at least 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Analysis undertaken for the Better Bus Project also revealed that more than half of jobs in the MBTA service area were not served by a route that offered all-day, frequent service. It also found that while the core of Boston is well served with bus service, there are gaps in the demand for frequent bus service and its availability in several communities (MBTA 2018). MBTA’s Bus Network Redesign is being undertaken as a clean slate, cost-neutral redesign. However, the agency intends to develop recommendations for future expansions of bus service that could be implemented, should additional funding become available in the future. Planning for the Bus Network Redesign will take place through the spring of 2022, with a phased implementation of the new routes starting in summer 2022. Additional service changes will be made through 2026 in conjunction with facility modernization and planned bus fleet expansion (MBTA 2021b). Centering Equity in the Bus Network Redesign MBTA views equity as the center of the planning process for the Bus Network Redesign. The prominent role of equity is demonstrated explicitly in the first goal of the Bus Network Redesign, which is to “create a more equitable network that connects people, in particular low-income people, people of color, and people with disabilities, to where they need and want to go with a high-quality transit option.” The remaining six goals of the Bus Network Redesign reflect the desire for a “more logical system that is more adaptable to change” and higher-frequency service, identifying geographic areas underserved relative to transit demand, meeting current travel needs, and creating bus service that is more competitive with other modes; all of these goals Source: FTA 2019. Metric 2019 Data Service Area Square Miles 3,244 Service Area Population 3,109,308 Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips 366,716,896 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 93,969,960 Modes Operated Commuter Rail, Demand Response, Ferryboat, Heavy Rail, Light Rail, Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, Trolleybus Table 4. MBTA – agency profile.

34 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns reect public feedback received during the outreach for Better Bus. e Bus Network Redesign’s goals also include creating “a framework for a future bus network that can be implemented over time” and creating “metrics that are exible, data-driven, and assess service quality so that as the region evolves, so will the bus network.” MBTA has integrated equity into each of the metrics used to assess service quality, as the transit agency determined that if there is a metric that is important enough to be measured it should be measured for performance for equity populations as well. Equity is not a stand-alone analysis or measure, but in this manner is integrated into every analysis done to support service planning for the Bus Network Redesign. MBTA denes equity as: “Improving access and quality of service for transit-critical popula- tions (low-income populations, people of color, seniors, people with disabilities, or people who live in households with few or no vehicles).” MBTA invested time at the outset of Better Bus in exploring the denition of equity, and how to create a denition that could be operationalized in a meaningful way in the planning process. Since the bus carries the highest proportion of equity populations across all of MBTA’s modes, they started with the recognition that improving bus service is therefore advancing transporta- tion equity. MBTA’s overarching approach to analyzing service quality for equity is to base it on how people travel, as opposed to where they live. e transit agency created two baseline indices related to equity and travel behavior to facilitate this methodology: transit-critical populations and transit-dependent populations (Figure 14). e denitions for these groups were developed using a mix of sources, including information from public engagement, internal data sources, and ndings from recent research. ese indices are applied in a scoring framework in use to rank the demand for bus service across the transit agency’s service area. Recognizing that an individual may belong to more than one equity population and that the needs of equity populations are not monolithic, MBTA developed these denitions to respond to what equity populations need from their bus service. A service design that would serve transit- critical populations (who need fast, frequent, all-day service, and can walk longer to access service and accommodate transfers) may not score well with populations that rely upon transit service as their primary mode of transportation (who need point-to-point service, can walk less, and nd it more dicult to transfer). One objective of the rst phase of outreach for the Bus Network Redesign is to better understand the nuances in the travel needs of individual popu- lations. MBTA expects that transit-critical populations may have travel needs that are similar to nonequity populations, but that what constitutes a “competitive” service for groups such as seniors and persons with disabilities may fundamentally dier from other populations. In the redesign planning process, MBTA sta are examining transit-critical and transit-dependent riders’ access to key destinations (regionally and locally), as well as service quality. If there is an area that sees a lot of travel by transit-critical or transit-dependent populations, that area gets a lot of points (especially if these groups overlap) in the scoring used to evaluate transit demand. Transit-Critical Populations • Populations: People of color, people with low incomes, and those with no cars or one car. • Type of bus service needed: Fast, frequent, direct, and all-day transit service. Transit-Dependent Populations • Populations: Seniors, persons with disabilities, female householders. • Type of bus service needed: Direct service (point-to-point). Figure 14. Two baseline indices: transit-critical populations and transit-dependent populations.

Case Examples 35   Title VI Service Equity Analysis MBTA intends to conduct a Title VI service equity analysis that uses the same methodology that is used for every major service change. However, MBTA staff noted that the Title VI service equity analysis methodology consistent with the requirements of FTA C 4702.1B was designed to analyze incremental changes to bus service and not a full-scale, clean slate redesign like that they are currently undertaking. They also felt that the Title VI service equity analysis methodology focuses on what service is today, and not where service is needed or how people travel, and that they need a broader analysis to truly understand the equity implications of service proposals under consideration as a part of the Bus Network Redesign. As a result, they have developed several innovative methods for analyzing the impacts of the Bus Network Redesign that will accompany the Title VI service equity analysis. Equity Analyses Other than Title VI Service Equity Analyses Travel Patterns Analysis and Use of Location-Based Data MBTA has developed a baseline analysis of transit travel needs that utilizes a Location- Based Services (LBS) dataset from a provider of cell phone data to understand who was travel- ing where throughout their service area. The transit agency realized that analyzing current O-D survey data would only help them understand how people are using their current system, and not how they are traveling in general. LBS data providers include information on the demographics of travelers (including minority and low-income status) in their datasets, and MBTA also compares travel flows in LBS data to the known residential locations of equity populations. The LBS dataset identifies the home Census block group for each device. The MBTA designates Census block groups as low-income if their median income was below the MBTA service area median and as communities of color if the percent of residents of color was higher than the service area median using data from the American Community Survey. The MBTA then “tags” devices from these block groups with an equity label, and thus is able to under- stand the travel patterns of low-income persons and those from communities of color, includ- ing their trip making to areas that are predominantly nonminority and/or non-low-income. While MBTA knew that they wanted to increase bus service frequencies throughout the day and that work trips account for 20% of all trips, staff were surprised by the extent to which mid-day travel was essential for transit-critical and transit-dependent populations. Given the peak period orientation of MBTA’s current bus network, these are not trips that the system is currently serving well. They also learned that mid-day trips tended to be shorter than peak- period trips. In recent years there was also a great deal of interest in Boston around overnight service; however, the LBS data analysis demonstrated few trips were happening in the overnight hours. Another finding made possible by LBS data was insight into the level of trip-chaining among low-income persons. Academic research reviewed by MBTA indicated that low-income individuals and minorities tend to take shorter trips and more trips, and LBS data supported this. For seniors and those with disabilities, their travel may be more dispersed across locations and/or time of day, although these groups are underrepresented in LBS data. The findings from the travel analysis undertaken with LBS data will be fundamental in the Bus Network Redesign’s service design. MBTA’s identification of corridors for high-frequency bus service (Figure 15) is based on the LBS data analysis. MBTA’s first phase of outreach specific to the Bus Network Redesign, started in June 2021, will focus on confirming the locations and corridors where service is needed as identified using the LBS data, as well as the metrics used in these analyses. The transit agency recognizes that quantitative analysis alone will not yield a well-designed bus network, and they expect that new destinations not identified in the LBS data analysis may be identified via public

36 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns Source: Personal communication with MBTA. High Frequency Corridors Figure 15. MBTA Bus Network Redesign high-priority corridor planning (January 2021).

Case Examples 37   engagement, and that operational and political considerations will also inuence the nal service plan for the Bus Network Redesign. Competitive Access Framework MBTA created the Competitive Access Framework in response to a need that they saw to measure not just which destinations a transit rider can reach within a specied amount of time, but to measure bus network quality in relation to actual travel demand (i.e., where travelers want to go) and the competitiveness (i.e., travel time) of that transit trip with the same trip taken via auto. Equity is a critical component of the Competitive Access Framework, and equity is measured for each of the network quality measures in the Competitive Access Framework. e trip is the basic unit of measure for the Competitive Access Framework, with all trips aggregated to “bus analysis zones” that are clusters of Census block groups that create a roughly half-mile square radius to evaluate competitiveness at the network level for both access to local and regional destinations as well as the number of trips that have a competitive transit option (calculation shown in Figure 16). e results of these measures are aggregated to measure the proportion of trips (or destinations) for which transit is a competitive option (Gartsman et al. 2020). e framework is also designed to be exible enough to incorporate multiple denitions of “competitiveness.” is means that a measure can be recalculated to evaluate specic types of trips. For example, the network can be evaluated on how well it serves specic populations (e.g., persons with disabilities), or travel by time of day. e main categories for measuring transit service quality in the Competitive Access Framework are the elements of the sched- uled network (e.g., distance to access service, scheduled frequency, number of transfers, and scheduled trip travel times) and elements of provided service quality (e.g., actual frequency, travel times, and reliability and variability of travel times). Travel time, travel time variability, cost, and parking availability and costs are considered in the denition of “competitiveness” for auto trips. e framework does not recommend an explicit target or indication of when a transit network is “competitive” with transit. As the framework is exible, transit agencies can use it to create locally derived measures of “competitiveness” (e.g., a certain percentage of trips network-wide that have a competitive transit option), reducing the disparity between access to competitive transit for specic populations such as persons with disabilities (Gartsman et al. 2020). MBTA is using LBS data as the O-D dataset for their application of the Competitive Access Framework in the Bus Network Redesign. e service plans developed for the Bus Network Redesign will be evaluated using the Competitive Access Framework for all populations, transit- critical populations, and transit-dependent populations. ey describe the metrics in use for the framework as “living and breathing” and they intend to use the framework to measure how Trip Coverage Measure • The proportion of the region’s trips (by low-income people and people of color) that have a competitive transit option. • All trips (origin and destinations) in the region are analyzed. Regional Access Measure • The proportion of residents (in environmental justice communities) who can reach their local and regional destinations with a competitive transit option. • A set of origin and destinations from each residential geographic area to a set of important destinations is analyzed. Figure 16. Competitive Access Framework trip coverage and regional access measures.

38 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns well service proposals for the Bus Network Redesigns (and service changes planned subsequent to the redesign) perform, rather than to design the system explicitly to a specific set of metrics. The incorporation of LBS data in the framework is critical as it reflects real-time travel demand and will enable the MBTA to measure the performance of their system in a way that reflects changes in travel demand over time. The Competitive Access Measure will also be applied to MBTA’s rail modes in the future. Public Engagement MBTA was just beginning public engagement to receive input on their first iteration of their system plan for the Bus Network Redesign at the time the interview for this synthesis took place in June 2021. MBTA staff noted that extensive outreach was conducted for Better Bus, and the transit agency is very cognizant of the potential for engagement fatigue. The agency does not want to ask the public to answer the same questions (e.g., “What do you want for your bus service?”), when they have heard through Better Bus and other past outreach activities that riders primarily want more frequent service throughout the day, serving the locations that they want to go. For this reason, MBTA waited until they had meaningful questions to inform service design upon which to solicit public input to initiate public engagement activities explicitly focused on the Bus Network Redesign. This first phase of the Bus Network Redesign’s public engagement is also focused on building support for the redesign itself. MBTA realizes that any change is disruptive, and a change on the scale of the Bus Network Redesign will assuredly raise concerns among some in the public. The transit agency therefore wants its riders to understand why they are undertaking the Bus Network Redesign at this time, and what the benefits of a successful redesign will be for those using the bus system. At this stage of public engagement, MBTA is also focused on confirm- ing that they have the right definitions of “competitiveness” used in the Competitive Access Framework. Going forward, MBTA also intends to clearly demonstrate how input gathered in this first phase of outreach is used, to ensure that the public can see the value of their time spent on engagement activities. MBTA determined that it was best to pause any significant outreach activities during the onset and height of the COVID-19 pandemic. In MBTA’s past experience, the best way to engage equity populations is by holding events and conducting outreach in the field where these populations are located (including pop-ups at bus stops, which has proven to be a very successful strategy for inclusive engagement in the past). Therefore, agency staff believed that an online-only outreach approach would limit their ability to achieve inclusive public engagement. However, MBTA’s standing external advisory task force, which consists of more than 30 CBOs including social service agencies and advocacy groups, has met throughout the pandemic. Throughout the Bus Network Redesign’s planning process to date, findings from MBTA’s initial research and metrics were shared with this group to receive feedback from those who represent or serve a variety of equity populations throughout the MBTA’s large service area. Additionally, the transit agency created a new public outreach team for the Bus Network Redesign that includes community liaisons (many of whom can provide interpretation in a variety of languages other than English) whose focus is building strong, ongoing relationships between MBTA and the community. MBTA staff emphasize that while they feel confident that the Competitive Access Framework has provided a solid foundation for planning a bus network that accomplishes their equity goals, the role of public engagement in shaping the bus network is equally as important as quantitative analyses. The Bus Network Redesign should be informed by “lived experiences” and MBTA staff anticipate that the information gleaned from LBS will be inaccurate in some

Case Examples 39   places. The transit agency is undertaking special measures to target two groups whom they know are underrepresented in LBS, older adults and persons with disabilities, to ensure that the data informing the Bus Network Redesign is reflective of their travel and ideas of competitiveness. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a decrease in bus ridership; however, throughout the pandemic, the bus maintained a greater proportion of its pre-pandemic ridership than other modes operated by MBTA. This disparity demonstrated the key role that bus plays in serving equity populations (including essential workers) and prompted internal discussions on how this newfound recognition of the relative importance of the bus may change MBTA’s priorities at the agency level. Although the Bus Network Redesign is cost-neutral, it will include recom- mendations for future service that cannot currently be funded. The Bus Network Redesign will be the first time that MBTA’s leadership and internal stakeholders will have the opportunity to build consensus on where future service will be implemented and will be able to understand who and what trips the transit agency is not effectively serving. Next Steps MBTA staff are anticipating long-term benefits from their investment in creating the Competitive Access Framework. Post-pandemic travel patterns remain unknown; MBTA staff used pre-pandemic travel data in the Competitive Access Framework to inform the Bus Network Redesign. The Competitive Access Framework will be re-run with the redesigned network once the pandemic has concluded. This will ensure that it is meeting post-pandemic travel needs and confirm that the new bus network will serve post-pandemic travel patterns. The Bus Network Redesign is also planned for a phased implementation, and thus findings from the future of the Competitive Access Framework may impact the ultimate implementation of the Bus Network Redesign. Going forward, MBTA staff expect to use the metrics in the framework to gauge their performance on an ongoing basis, and anticipate major benefits from the ability to periodically reevaluate the performance of the entire bus network using the Competitive Access Framework as conditions change over time. This will ensure that the bus network will evolve as the Boston region and the needs of its residents also evolve. Metro Transit Interviewee: Transit Planner Metro Transit provides bus transportation in Madison, Wisconsin. As displayed in Table 5, the agency’s service area covers 71 square miles and has a service population of 249,056. In 2019, the system provided over 12.9 million unlinked trips (FTA 2019). Source: FTA 2019. Metric 2019 Data Service Area Square Miles 71 Service Area Population 249,056 Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips 12,969,815 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 5,731,573 Modes Operated Demand Response-Taxi, Bus Table 5. Metro Transit – agency profile.

40 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns The Metro Transit Network Redesign began in late 2020 and was under development at the time of this synthesis. The existing system, developed in 1998, is a hub-and-spoke system that is centered upon Downtown Madison and four transfer points (North, East, South, and West) around the city (Metro Transit 2021). Equity concerns, on-time performance, reevaluating the existing network, meeting the needs of a growing city, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service slated to begin in 2024 all prompted the redesign, which should be completed by early 2022 and implemented by August 2023. The agency anticipates that it will have the same budget as prior to the COVID-19 pandemic by the time the redesign is implemented in 2023–2024. In the past, some level of budget growth could be assumed, but due to the impact of the pandemic the agency now anticipates similar funding levels while providing the same number of total service hours. Metro Transit Network Redesign Goals and Equity The agency was guided by several goals during the redesign. The goals are simplifying the route network, reducing travel times, increasing ridership, reducing vehicle miles traveled, improving service for underserved and disadvantaged communities, improving evening and weekend service, and complementing the pending BRT system. Equity was a motivating factor, as the agency often heard from residents that transit travel times were too long, making transit a less attractive option for some residents. Equity was also incorporated as a guiding principle in the agency’s service planning process from the very beginning. The agency explained in its request for proposal for consultant support for the redesign plan that improving service for underserved and disadvantaged communities is a key outcome for the redesign. In 2019, the agency’s peak to base ratio was already very high—and Metro Transit was providing a very peak-oriented system. The existing bus network includes several routes that were designed as half-hour loops departing from transit centers. Extending these routes before the pandemic was challenging, as the agency had a limited number of buses and a high peak- to-base ratio making it difficult to provide service in off-peak periods. The peak-to-base ratio refers to the number of buses in service during peak periods to those available during base off- peak operating periods. Shifting to more consistent all-day service as well as improving evening and weekend service had been the desire of Metro Transit for some time. Additionally, Metro Transit’s system as it existed before the pandemic included some overlay, including rush-hour routes that overlay existing all-day service, which was both confusing for riders and duplicative. The goal is to make service simpler and easier to use throughout the day, which will better serve riders with nontraditional commutes. Commuter overlay service, which covers the traditional 8–5 weekday peaks, was largely cut during the pandemic. Most of the overlay commuter rush hour service was cut to preemptively implement a flatter, all-day service. The agency’s approach recognizes that providing frequent, all-day service intersects with equity goals. An agency report explains ridership in further detail and emphasizes expanded access as a key goal of the redesign (Jarrett Walker & Associates and Urban Assets 2021). Aside from the redesign goals, the city is also working on other projects with equity compo- nents that are integrated with the redesign. This includes a new 15-mile-long BRT network that will run east-west and serve the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus and other downtown and governmental destinations. A second phase will run north-south and connect low-income communities. In the interim, the current bus network redesign will better connect these communities to the first phase of the BRT network. Impacts on Title VI-protected populations, low-income persons, persons with disabilities, and impacts on other equity populations are all being considered during Metro Transit’s redesign. The agency relied on Census information (such as data related to poverty, zero-car

Case Examples 41   households, and race/ethnicity) to identify these populations in addition to local knowledge about pockets of poverty and information about who uses the transit system. Title VI Service Equity Analysis At the time that this synthesis was prepared, the agency had not yet completed a Title VI service equity analysis. Upon completion of the redesign, the agency will prepare their standard Title VI report that analyzes any signicant service changes and identies any adverse impacts and ndings of potential disparate impact and disproportionate burden. e redesign’s service alternatives are being evaluated with the goal of avoiding any potential ndings of disparate impacts and disproportionate burden in the dra service plan. To date, the agency has used Census data to guide their understanding of where Title VI-protected populations reside to inform service planning. Equity Analyses Other than Title VI Service Equity Analyses e concept of access is the main metric that the agency is using to assess the racial equity and social impacts of potential changes. Access is a measure of the freedom of movement people have, based on the number of jobs and points of interest they can reach within a certain amount of time. Metro Transit Network Redesign’s Choices Report (Jarrett Walker & Associates and Urban Assets 2021) provided an overview of access to jobs within 45 minutes, and it evaluated how far one could travel by bus within 45 minutes at noon on a weekday from various points in the city (Figure 17). Additionally, the Choices Report noted the role that the built environment, particularly unsafe pedestrian environments and physical barriers such as highways, plays in actual accessibility across the transit system (Metro Transit 2021). Metro Transit has used other metrics to understand the impacts of the redesign, such as access to frequent service, service hours on routes that serve predominantly moderate- and low-income riders, and access to amenities. Quantitative data was also critical to understand- ing equity considerations in the redesign. Initial analyses did not yield any results that were unexpected by Metro Transit sta. e agency will continue to analyze the impacts of the redesign with a view toward access by race and evaluate metrics indicating, for example, the number of people and the number of jobs they can reach in a given time period. Source: https://www.cityofmadison.com/. Figure 17. Access to jobs within 45 minutes at noon and poverty density in the Metro Transit network.

42 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns This access-based approach aligns with larger city-level equity-related goals. Other equity- related measures include the second phase of the BRT that will run north to south and serve low-income communities. As a separate but parallel effort from the Metro Transit Network Redesign, the agency is conducting a fare study that includes a review of its fare structure and the potential for a fare-free system, as well as changes in how fares are paid, and the infrastructure used for collection. Community Engagement Community engagement during Metro Transit’s bus network redesign is guided by a public engagement plan (Metro Transit 2021). The plan aims to educate and engage a diverse array of stakeholders about trade-offs related to transit and to gather community feedback through broader outreach methods such as branding and online and print ads, as well as targeted tech- niques. Outreach strategies also include social media, email blasts, a community survey, flyers, stakeholder workshops, public meetings, and blogs. Although most engagement was online, the agency was able to table at a handful of events. A summary report will provide detailed information about the community engagement campaign and its results. The agency has closely engaged with CBOs during the redesign process. This included the distribution of a targeted, pre-outreach flyer that went to 37 community hubs and businesses (e.g., community centers, kiosks, libraries, and neighborhood centers). As part of the redesign, the agency will also conduct three stakeholder workshops (one during each phase of the redesign). Participants for these workshops come from a range of groups, including advocacy groups, schools and youth organizations, community groups, and faith-based groups. The agency hired a local consultant to assist with community engagement and this consultant is leveraging their long-standing community ties to engage with equity communities. However, the realities of the pandemic have made robust engagement with neighborhood and community groups challenging. The agency has frequently heard from organizations that their communi- ties are focused on other concerns, including eviction and other adjustments made during the pandemic related to caregiving, childcare, and changes in employment. Given these realities, many individuals in equity communities with whom Metro Transit wishes to engage have limited availability to provide input. This has created a challenge for Metro Transit. As several other related city projects are occurring simultaneously, there may also be a level of engage- ment fatigue since populations may be engaged on multiple fronts. The pandemic has also made some traditional methods of outreach more difficult, including in-person engagement at transit centers. The agency has not put flyers on buses due to COVID-related precautions. Metro Transit has developed a few strategies to meet communities where they are and make engagement easier during the pandemic. For example, the agency will combine efforts with the city to hold engagement events that combine multiple, ongoing efforts such as their BRT planning, Vision Zero, and other infrastructure projects. For its initial survey, the agency is also using word of mouth to boost awareness of the survey and hopefully increase the number of responses, which is already near 3,000. Once restrictions loosened, the agency was able to start conducting surveys in the field near transit facilities in early June 2021. Public meetings have also been held via virtual channels such as Zoom and have regularly hosted at least 100 attendees. These meetings have been fairly successful in emulating in-person meetings with similar atten- dance numbers and types of people. In some instances, virtual meetings can be a lower barrier to entry. In Madison, much of the poverty is spread out around the periphery, and since people are more dispersed, online engagement is easier than asking people to travel for in-person meetings. Efforts in the pandemic recovery period will focus on gaining a representative sample through tabling, in-person surveys, and increased engagement with community organizations.

Case Examples 43   Impact of the Pandemic Metro Transit’s desire to provide more off-peak service, with the aim of better serving transit- dependent equity populations, was an impetus for undertaking a redesign prior to the pandemic. However, the travel patterns and needs that have emerged during the pandemic have validated Metro Transit’s understanding of the need to implement more frequent and consistent all-day service. When the pandemic began, peak period travel fell significantly while demand for all-day service experienced less of a decline. From a geographic perspective, ridership downtown and at the UW campus fell drastically, while the decline in ridership in the periphery of the service area fell less precipitously. The agency anticipates that peak period travel will not return as quickly to pre-COVID levels as mid-day service, even following the end of the pandemic. Next Steps As Metro Transit continues planning for the redesign, they are working on how to balance the use of quantitative and qualitative data to inform decision-making. Policy guidance is found in long-range plans and other equity policies and includes guidelines about providing transit service to new developments. There are also quantitative metrics guiding the amount of service that should be provided based on the number of residents. All quantitative and qualitative data points need to be combined as the agency aims to create a Metro Transit Network Redesign plan that accomplishes its goal of creating a transit network that better serves equity populations. Regional Transit Service (RTS) Interviewees: Director of Service Planning and Mobility Services Manager Reimagine RTS RTS provides fixed-route bus service, on-demand transit, and paratransit services across 293 square miles of New York’s Genesee/Finger Lakes region, including Monroe, Genesee, Livingston, Ontario, Orleans, Seneca, Wayne, and Wyoming counties. As shown in Table 6, in 2019, RTS provided over 14.7 million unlinked passenger trips for the nearly 700,000 people who reside in its service area (FTA 2019). RTS embarked on their Reimagine RTS bus network redesign in September 2017, and the redesigned system was launched on May 17, 2021. The Reimagine RTS system was planned to launch in 2020, however, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a 1-year delay of the system’s launch. RTS’s system prior to the redesign was designed on a hub-and-spoke model, with many long, linear routes that went to and from the RTS Transit Center in down- town Rochester. Reimagine RTS focused on shortening these routes, matching bus capacity to Source: FTA 2019. Metric 2019 Data Service Area Square Miles 293 Service Area Population 694,394 Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips 14,712,832 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 6,944,033 Modes Operated Demand Response, Bus, Vanpool Table 6. RTS – agency profile.

44 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns demand for bus service, expanding weekend service, and simplifying bus service patterns, with the aim of creating a system that better meets the needs of their ridership today. e new system responded to the public’s desire for more frequent and reliable service and made it easier to ride RTS. e Reimagine RTS system features 10 routes that have a 15-minute frequency from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. It also features RTS On Demand, a brand-new service type for RTS. Plans for RTS On Demand were developed as a key component of the Reimagine RTS system to be fully integrated with the xed-route bus network. Rochester has a comparatively high rate of vehicle ownership for persons living in poverty. Prior to the redesign, two-thirds of trips on RTS were work trips. RTS sta believe that because the pre-redesign RTS system was oriented toward serving peak period travel and so complicated to understand that it underserved nonwork trips. Additionally, many of the Rochester region’s jobs are in the suburbs, while there is a concentration of low-income populations in the City of Rochester. RTS surveys and community outreach revealed that for many people, regardless of the income level, getting a job in the suburbs oen necessitates buying a car. Given how expen- sive it is to own and operate a vehicle, RTS is hoping that the redesigned system will better serve reverse commute and nonwork trips, and thus contribute to a reduction in transportation costs for residents with lower incomes. Equity and the Development of Reimagine RTS e Reimagine RTS plan was developed in a ve-step process that started with the redesign of the xed-route system, then a determination of where and what types of on-demand service to implement in RTS’s new On Demand Zones, followed by a focus on paratransit service, the plan’s nalization (which received unanimous approval from its Board of Commissioners), and the subsequent implementation (Figure 18). RTS incorporated equity into each stage of the planning process. At the outset of the planning process, RTS completed a thorough analysis of the O-D survey data, with the aim of under- standing which populations were traveling to which destinations. e O-D survey included not just the bus routes the rider was taking, but their actual origin and destination locations. e majority of RTS riders fall within a population group that is considered to be an “equity popu- lation,” which for RTS includes persons with disabilities, persons living in poverty, racial and ethnic minorities, older adults, persons under the age of 18, households without vehicles, persons with limited English prociency, and female householders with no husband present (i.e., single mothers) (Regional Transit Service 2020). Engagement with RTS’s customers is Source: Personal communication with RTS. Figure 18. Reimagine RTS process.

Case Examples 45   primarily with persons in equity populations, and RTS was guided by early public engagement that demonstrated that their customers’ top three priorities for Reimagine RTS were faster, more direct service, 30 minutes or less wait time, and more frequent service (Regional Transit Service 2019). RTS’s Board decided that no one who had access in the pre-redesign should lose access to transit with the Reimagine RTS system. When designing on-demand service, RTS initially considered both point-to-point (i.e., service from one’s exact origin to one’s exact destination) and deviated fixed-route service options, but ultimately opted for a point-to-point service. RTS believes that the point-to-point model for on-demand service is easier for customers without smartphones to understand and access as opposed to designated virtual bus stops. The point-to-point model also provides more flexibility for the transit agency and the riders. The placement of the RTS On Demand Zones was entirely based on areas where fixed-route ridership was low, and where development patterns were dispersed. Of the seven zones, six are in the suburbs outside of the City of Rochester. One of the zones is primarily industrial in nature, and many of the riders in this area are using RTS On Demand to reach entry-level jobs. Due to the need to avoid any potential disparate impacts or disproportionate burden findings in a Title VI service equity analysis, RTS did not replace fixed-route service with on-demand service in any area where there was a significant concentration of populations protected by Title VI. RTS’s Board directed that paratransit be incorporated in Reimagine RTS. The ADA requires transit agencies to provide complementary paratransit service three-quarters of a mile around any fixed route, including the start and end points of a route. The Reimagine RTS fixed-route network covers a smaller geographic area than the pre-redesign system, and as a result the geo- graphic areas where RTS is required to provide paratransit service also decreased. RTS created a four-tier system of paratransit service to enable paratransit users to retain access to transit system regardless of their proximity to fixed-route service. Paratransit customers are also entitled to ride both fixed-route service and RTS On Demand service free of charge. Title VI Service Equity Analysis Throughout the Reimagine RTS planning process, staff were cognizant of how changes under discussion may impact Title VI-protected populations and low-income persons. RTS developed a service equity analysis to accompany the draft Reimagine RTS plans, as well as the final plan. As a result, there were several changes that were considered in the draft plan that could have resulted in a disparate impact or disproportionate burden that were not advanced in the plan- ning process. The service equity analysis on the draft plans also allowed RTS to identify two areas where, on the basis of existing transit demand, they may have eliminated service or replaced fixed routes with other service options. Instead, RTS preserved service in these areas to provide a “lifeline” for Title VI-protected populations. The final Reimagine RTS plan did not result in any findings of disparate impact or disproportionate burden. Equity Analyses Other than Title VI Service Equity Analyses Index of Mobility Need In the period between when the system was originally slated to launch in June 2020 and its actual launch in May 2021, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic led to many questions regarding whether the Reimagine RTS plan was still the right plan to meet the needs of the community. Unlike many transit agencies across the United States, RTS never reduced service as a result of the pandemic. This was due to the fact that at the height of the pandemic the transit

46 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns system was at 55% of its typical ridership, while its buses had a 50% capacity limit. RTS’s staff believe that the high rate of ridership retention at their agency reflects its ridership’s intensively transit-dependent nature. RTS’s riders remained in “essential jobs” and needed to continue commuting. This is also reflected in the fact that while peak period travel declined significantly during the pandemic, off-peak period travel was far less impacted by the pandemic. In response to the questions raised about whether the Reimagine RTS system should go forward, RTS staff developed a new equity analysis, the Index of Mobility Need, to evaluate the efficacy of their pre- and post-redesign systems in meeting the needs of equity populations. RTS based their Index of Mobility Need on one developed by the Port Authority of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Index of Mobility Need is an index of the presence of persons in specific equity populations (including persons in poverty, racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, households with older adults or persons under 18, persons with limited English proficiency, households with no vehicle ownership, and female house- holder families) at the Census-block-group level to create a composite index of the presence of persons in equity populations. Each of the eight equity population groups in the Index of Mobility Need were given a score ranging from 0–1, to allow for each to be on an equal platform to be averaged for a final score. For each Census block group, all eight scores were averaged into one final score which serves as the Index of Mobility Need (Figure 19). The specific equity populations selected for inclusion in the index were based on prior research and data showing that they are known to correlate with higher mobility needs and transit ridership. All data used in the Index of Mobility Need is from the U.S. Census Bureau, apart from O-D data from RTS Access which was incorporated in the index for persons with disabilities (Regional Transit Service 2020). The results of RTS’s Index of Mobility Need were used to create an Overall Mobility Need Index Score for all of the jurisdictions in Monroe County, as well as for all of the routes in both the pre- and post-redesign RTS system. Among the top 10 highest-scoring routes for the Index of Mobility Need in the Reimagine RTS system, six were frequent routes. In a number of cases, new routes actually had higher scores on the Index of Mobility Need than the route(s) they were replacing. The Index of Mobility Need demonstrated that overall, the Reimagine RTS system would better serve equity populations than the existing system. As a result, RTS decided to move forward with the implementation of Reimagine RTS as originally planned. Evaluating Equity Outcomes RTS is currently working on updating the agency’s service development and transit service development and monitoring guidelines (which provides guidance on how to identify areas to study for service changes) to incorporate all of the equity metrics utilized in the Index of Mobility Need. The Index of Mobility Need will also be used in the design of new services, and areas with higher scores in the Index of Mobility Need will be prioritized for future service expansions. With the system now implemented, RTS will soon create a working group of agency staff that meets monthly to examine route performance, including ridership and the use of the system by equity populations. The increased availability of real-time operational data has made it possible for the transit agency to respond to issues of route performance in ways that were not previously possible, and RTS is currently determining what the frequency of future service changes will be. Public Engagement RTS conducted robust public engagement for Reimagine RTS, including conducting a survey that received nearly 12,000 responses, and over 200 unique community meetings and

Case Examples 47   community outreach events, as well as extensive employee in-reach activities. Taking outreach to where equity populations are, including conducting frequent engagement with riders at their downtown transit center, is a best practice that RTS uses to ensure inclusive engagement. While all of RTS’s public engagement for the Reimagine RTS plan took place prior to the pandemic, the transit agency did experience challenges in reaching equity population for public education activities leading up to the launch of the redesigned system. RTS had planned extensive “face-to-face” public education, knowing that they needed to reach their riders and equity populations where they were. However, the pandemic limited in-person public educa- tion activities. To overcome this challenge, RTS made educational materials available online, held a virtual training session that was recorded and shared, created an interactive system map (Figure 20), and provided training for community organizations and businesses to help reach and educate their customers in person. Despite the altered education and engagement plan, the launch of the redesigned xed-route system was without incident and immediately resulted in an increase of on-time performance. One challenge that has resulted from the limitations on in-person engagement during the launch period has been with the brand-new RTS On Demand service. In the rst several weeks Source: RTS Index of Mobility Need 2020. Figure 19. Overall index of mobility need for Monroe County, New York.

48 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns following the launch of the Reimagine RTS system, customers without smartphones faced a learning curve related to how they can book and track their rides. At the time the interview for this synthesis was conducted, RTS sta were working to increase the functionality of the RTS On Demand system for individuals who do not own smartphones. Lessons Learned One of the key lessons learned for RTS from the Reimagine RTS planning process was that the integration of the xed-route and on-demand services was integral to making the redesigned system eective. During the planning process, the idea of splitting the launch of the xed-route and on-demand services was discussed at length. However, ultimately RTS launched both the redesigned xed-route and on-demand services contemporaneously. While the RTS On Demand services are serving lower-density areas predominantly in Rochester’s suburbs, they are also serving key job centers for residents of the City of Rochester’s central/ downtown areas, and as a result RTS determined that they were integrally linked with the xed-route system. e rst few weeks of the performance of the redesigned system has borne out the critical nature of the link that RTS On Demand is providing to suburban jobs for urban Rochester residents, many of whom fall within one or more equity population groups. WeGo Interviewees: Senior Transit Planner and Director of Planning and Grants WeGo’s Transit System Planning e Nashville Metro Transit Authority, known as WeGo, is the public transportation agency that serves Nashville, Tennessee. As displayed in Table 7, the agency’s service area covers Figure 20. Reimagine RTS interactive system map on the RTS website.

Case Examples 49   484 square miles, has a service population of 692,587 and as of 2019, operated a transit system with 9,686,880 unlinked trips (FTA 2019). In 2016, the transit agency adopted nMotion, a 25-year strategic plan to improve transit in the region. Many recommendations came from the nMotion plan including that a COA be conducted on the existing transit system (Nashville MTA 2016). nMotion suggested goals for a COA including simplifying and improving existing service, making service more direct, improving connections, developing through-city routes, and improving schedules (Nashville MTA 2016, 5-2). COA and Service Cuts In late 2017, just as the COA had begun, Nashville’s then-mayor Megan Barry filed legislation to initiate a referendum ballot, “Let’s Move Nashville,” that would have expanded funding for transit. However, the referendum did not pass, and WeGo subsequently went from hoping that additional transit funding would be available for COA implementation to a 2019 operating budget deficit that required eliminating 10% of their service hours. The COA’s service plan, along with draft scenarios completed by late 2018, served as a guide to the subsequent service cuts and restructuring efforts that resulted from the operating budget deficit. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic Like many transit agencies across the country, WeGo reduced its service levels because of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated reduction of travel demand. Following the onset of the pandemic, demand for peak period travel significantly decreased, while demand for travel throughout the day experienced less of a decline. This dynamic has validated the agency’s goal of expanding all-day service that serves more trip types, and allowed WeGo to advance elements of its COA that prioritize all-day frequency improvements on its busiest corridors more quickly than they anticipated. Better Bus Transit Network Redesign In the fall of 2020, building on the COA, WeGo announced a new plan to improve transit, called Better Bus. Better Bus is a major component of the new mayor’s transportation plan, adopted by the Nashville City Council in December 2020. Once more, WeGo is hopeful that additional funding will be available to implement the recommendations of Better Bus. Better Bus aims to increase service hours by 30% over the next 5 years and make improvements to the existing transit system including • Bus fleet and service-hour expansion to meet increased frequency, new crosstown/circulator routes, and WeGo access improvements; • Neighborhood transit centers; Source: FTA 2019. Metric 2019 Data Service Area Square Miles 484 Service Area Population 692,587 Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips 9,686,880 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles 9,453,445 Modes Operated Demand Response, Demand Response-Taxi, Bus Table 7. WeGo – agency profile.

50 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns • Downtown transit priority; • A secondary downtown transit hub; • New and expanded shelters; • Access/mobility-on-demand improvements; and • Fare capping. The improvements are estimated to require $180 million in capital investments and $29.5 million in annual operating expenses. Although the Better Bus service expansion remains unfunded, WeGo intends to implement the program incrementally as funding sources become available (Cooper 2020, 13). Engagement Challenges WeGo reported that engagement has been one of the challenges faced by the transit agency over the past several years. The transit referendum vote and budget cuts happened in consecutive years and engagement was conducted for both events, limiting the capacity of other engage- ment efforts at that time. WeGo has also had to contend with a budget cycle and budget uncertainty that leaves only a limited amount of time for public engagement prior to a service change. For each service change, the transit agency has a three-week minimum public engagement period. Engagement includes a multitude of activities including but not limited to public meetings, ad placement on buses, signage at bus stops, onboard engagement, and surveys. In 2019, WeGo formed an advisory committee made up of transit riders, advocates, commu- nity organizations, and government partners. WeGo planners met with the group several times in 2019 and 2020 as they responded to budget reductions and began formulating what would become the Better Bus Plan. In early 2020, Mayor Cooper’s staff began engagement for the new transportation plan which Better Bus later became a part of. Title VI Service Equity Analysis TBEST WeGo uses the Transit Boardings Estimation and Simulation Tool (TBEST) software’s Title VI service equity analysis tool and population (Census) data to conduct its Title VI service equity analysis. In this model, calculations are prepared for both an existing and proposed network. Per WeGo’s 2019 Fall Service Change Service Equity documentation, this “tool assigns service levels, represented by total bus arrivals at each stop, to the Census block groups which contain stop locations. Route-level trip counts are multiplied by the population and households within walking distance to stops to determine the ‘people trips’ accessible to transit. Likewise, minority and low-income populations are evaluated in regard to ‘people trips’ to create a mea- sure of both transit service to total population and transit service to minority and low-income populations. This calculation is performed for both the base scenario network and the service change network to determine if a disproportionate burden of the service modifications has been placed on minority and low-income populations” (WeGo 2019). Typically, WeGo planners would conduct a Title VI service equity analysis for their COA as a whole, however, the agency’s financial constraints necessitated smaller system changes over the past few years. As a result, a Title VI service equity analysis was conducted for each individual service change as it occurred. In the fall of 2019, WeGo planners conducted a TBEST analysis to study service reductions and fare changes. The final results, shown in Figure 21, did not indicate disparate impacts. Negative

Case Examples 51   values indicate minority and low-income populations are less impacted than the remaining population. Equity Analyses Other than Title VI Service Equity Analyses Incorporating Origin-and-Destination Survey Information into Equity Analysis WeGo has begun using O-D survey information to inform its understanding of when, where, and how equity populations are using its system. WeGo conducts periodic O-D surveys of their riders to capture information on travel patterns within the system. To analyze service increases and route restructuring, the agency is using O-D survey data to analyze travel time impacts of service changes on specic subgroups of equity populations. As part of the current Better Bus planning eort, WeGo utilized O-D survey analysis output data to inform the development of a web-based transit travel time (isochrone) analysis tool developed by the consultant Conveyal. WeGo planners provided information on the Better Bus’s service improvement scenario as well as their O-D survey data on trips, both of which Conveyal input into their web-based tool. e O-D pairs included origin address and destination address coordinate information, were grouped by time of day, and provided a unique identier for each record. Conveyal processed the data, matching the O-D pairs with time periods. Conveyal’s tool then produced a travel time dierence in minutes for each O-D pair by time of day. Travel time included walking time to the stop, wait time, transit travel time, and transfer time. is enabled WeGo to analyze impacts to total travel time that resulted from their service improvement plan across the system. WeGo’s planning sta then utilized this travel time analysis and joined it with the demo- graphic data collected in the O-D survey to examine how individual equity populations would be impacted by service changes. e results of this analysis enable WeGo to understand the proportion of the minority and nonminority and low-income and non-low-income riders that would experience increases or decreases in travel time. is data was reviewed in small increments (e.g., 3–5 minutes, 5–10 minutes) and also reviewed for travel time increases and decreases as a whole (Figure 22). While this analysis has proved useful in the service planning process, one limitation is that WeGo’s current system has signicant dierences from the one that existed in 2017 when their most recent O-D survey was conducted. ere were some O-D pairs in the service improvement scenario that were no longer feasible or exceeded Conveyal’s 120-minute trip-time limit. Source: WeGo Fall 2019 Service & Fare Change Title VI Report. Figure 21. Sample TBEST output.

52 Assessing Equity and Identifying Impacts Associated with Bus Network Redesigns However, the process provided a model for how the same analysis could be conducted in the future with updated origin-destination data. Accessibility-Based Measures WeGo planners are using access-based metrics, such as the percentage of the population accessible to frequent bus services, the percentage of boardings occurring at sheltered bus stops, and the percentage change of access to jobs within an hour, to evaluate the impacts of pro- posed service plans for Better Bus (Figure 23). They want to be mindful not to overweight trips people are currently taking as they consider new service plans in the Better Bus project, but they are using the O-D analysis to inform their understanding of how system changes may impact people, including people in equity communities. In the future, WeGo planners hope to incorporate additional accessibility metrics, in partner- ship with key partners in their community. For example, the Nashville Metro Public Health Department is working with WeGo to develop a current list of grocery stores that will allow WeGo planners to assess access to grocery stores for equity populations and their riders as a whole. WeGo planners have been using basic high-level statistics from the equity analysis to discuss the potential for the service increase. They believe accessibility measures have the potential to help inform community engagement and conversations about coverage and to illustrate the “why” of where service is being planned. The intuitive nature of the accessibility tool and its associated metrics will be particularly informative in working with local communities, including for the 40 City of Nashville Council Members (35 district council representatives and five at-large council members), who collectively reside over 500 square miles that feature very diverse land uses and local transportation needs. Next Steps The many challenges faced by WeGo over the past few years led to rapid service changes. Seeing who was riding during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the transit agency to shift service. WeGo pivoted its focus and, as a result, was able to advance some aspects of the redesign more quickly than they anticipated. Source: Personal correspondence with WeGo. Figure 22. WeGo origin-destination survey-based travel time impacts analysis output data.

Case Examples 53   In parallel with the Better Bus project, WeGo has started to explore pilot options for mobility on-demand services. In summer 2021, WeGo is launching a pilot with Uber and a local taxi company to serve an area that had a route cut during the pandemic. WeGo planners believe on-demand services including microtransit may be a way to maintain service coverage in lower density areas that do not work well for xed-route service. Today WeGo continues work on the Better Bus project. As part of this project and with future transit planning eorts, they hope to expand their equity analysis beyond Title VI, using O-D survey data to examine the impacts of particular demographic groups and build accessibility-based measures. Source: https://wego-betterbus.taui.conveyal.com/. Figure 23. Better Bus Explorer.