M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 1 2011 TIP Investment Analysis Presentation to the FTIP Workshop for the 2013 TIP.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Oregon Freight Plan July 28, Linking Freight Improvements to Economic Growth Travel Time Freight Transportation Improvements Productivity Competitiveness.
Advertisements

Demographics and Market Segmentation: China and India
Missoula Planning Summit Milestone 14 August, 2008 Missoula, Montana.
Title VI and Fares March 18, 2013 Jonathan Ocana Equal Opportunity Specialist.
Overview of Title VI and Environmental Justice. n Title VI Legislation and Regulations n Current Transportation Laws n Environmental Justice Executive.
Brian A. Harris-Kojetin, Ph.D. Statistical and Science Policy
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Overview and Considering Greenhouse Gas Emissions in MTC’s 2035 RTP Joan Sollenberger, Chief Lisa Klein Division of.
Clean Water Act Integrated Planning Framework Sewer Smart Summit October 23, 2012.
Infrastructure Planning and Funding MID-REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS MID-REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MARCH 19, 2015 NAIOP-NEW MEXICO CHAPTER.
Local Highway Technical Assistance Council Joint Senate and House Transportation Committees January
Colorado Transportation Finance and Implementation Panel Overview Fort Morgan,Colorado September 13, 2007.
Page 1 Recent GAO Reviews of Federal Education Programs Presentation to Association of Educational Federal Finance Administrators Annual Conference October.
Workshop on Transportation Corridor Evaluation With a focus on Economic and Community Development.
Social Equity in Distance Based Fares Steven Farber, University of Utah GIS in Transit October 16-17, 2013.
1 Item 9: (DRAFT) Briefing on the Draft Update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the National Capital Region Michael Farrell DTP Presentation to the.
Metro Vision 2035 Regional Growth Scenarios. Scenario Workshop.
Environmental Justice: Principles, Policies, Guidance, and Effective Practices FTA Region VI Civil Rights Colloquium March 29, 2006.
Environmental Justice: Policies, Guidance, and Answers to Frequently Asked Questions FTA Region VII Civil Rights Training.
Framework for Model Development General Model Design Highway Network/Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) Development of Synthetic Trip Tables Development of.
King County Metro Long Range Public Transportation Plan Kirkland Transportation Commission_ April 10, 2015.
Program Update Baltimore MPO November 25, Internal Draft AGENDA  Program Overview  Alternatives Development  Stakeholder and Public Outreach.
Socio-Economic Impact Analysis of the Preliminary Draft Regional Housing Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin: 2035 Fall 2012 Presented by Center for Economic.
TFESSD - November 18, 2009 Aleksandra Posarac, Lead Economist and Team Leader.
06/20/2007 Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) Update on FTA New Initiatives on Transportation Services.
PLEASE SIGN IN 1 Welcome to the Title VI Plan Workshop.
A Simple Framework to Access Potential Impact of Regional Toll System on Environmental Justice Population Chi Ping Lam, Houston-Galveston Area Council.
1 Current Funding Streams in New York State The 2008 Equity Symposium Comprehensive Educational Equity: Overcoming the Socioeconomic Barriers to School.
Presentation to ***(group) on ***(date) 1.  Cities - 11  Highway districts – 3  Ada and Canyon Counties  School districts – 2  Valley Regional Transit.
Environmental Justice Managing the Environmental & Project Development Process Presented by the Ohio Department of Transportation.
Data and Analysis Methods for Metropolitan-Level Environmental Justice Assessment Chuck Purvis, MTC January 2001.
2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Update Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council 2 nd Public MeetingFernando de Aragón TCPL May 26, 2009Staff Director.
PRESENTED BY: RAHIMA NJAIDI MJUMITA 3 RD APRIL 2012.
Draft Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area ACT February 24, 2009.
1 Transportation Policy and Performance: The challenges and opportunities of performance-based programs Deputy Administrator Therese McMillan Federal Transit.
Financing of health services: A district perspective Annual Health Forum BMICH 9-10th February 2007 Dr. Ravi P. Rannan-Eliya Institute for Health Policy.
FTIP/FSTIP Development and Public Participation Environmental Justice and Self-Certification Scott Carson, FHWA-California Division Caltrans 2013 FSTIP/FTIP.
Mobility energy use for different residential urban patterns in India Anil Kashyap, Jim Berry, Stanley McGreal, School of the Built Environment.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: FROM PLANNING TO PROJECT Ohio Planning Conference July 16, 2014.
A MBER O NTIVEROS (O NTIVEROS & A SSOCIATES ) E THAN C ONNER -R OSS (E CONSULT S OLUTIONS ) July 13, 2015 Title VI Implications of State of Good Repair.
Plan and TIP Prioritization Process September 2015.
Not Just for EJ Anymore? May TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference Bruce Kaplan Central Transportation Planning Staff.
Title VI Program Overview Benjamin Limmer Valley Metro Corridor & Facility Development Manager Phoenix, AZ.
On the Road to a New Metropolitan Transportation Plan Spokane Regional Health District Board of Health April 25, 2013.
Local Pots of Gold Local Pots of Gold Maintaining Fiscal Constraint for Local Funds in the TIP Srikalyani Srinivasan Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Who Does What Susan Handy TTP282 October Players Government Industry Citizens/ Consumers.
Palm Beach MPO Draft Complete Streets Policy Palm Beach MPO Draft Complete Streets Policy Advisory Committees September
JUNE 27, 2013 ARB INFORMATIONAL UPDATE: ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS’/ METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION’S DRAFT SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY.
San Joaquin Valley Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) Update July 25,
DEVELOPING PARENT INVOLVEMENT POLICIES Title I No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Section 1118.
Environmental Justice: Context Sensitive Planning Grant Program California Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Planning Office of Community.
Lakes Region Transportation Workshop November 15, 2013.
Implementation of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 FHWA Georgia Division February 25, 2009.
Comprehensive Plan Update. General, far-reaching vision to benefit the whole community Takes a long term view of issues Focuses on physical development.
Defining Alternative Scenarios MTC Planning Committee and ABAG Administrative Committee May 13, 2011.
The Kern Regional Transportation Plan A Vision and Guidebook for Kern County in 2025.
Shaping our Future Transportation Transportation trends Influencing trends through land use decisions Alternative futures: Base Case and Scenario Complementary.
National Civil Rights Conference 2015 Environmental Justice Panel Discussion Environmental Justice and NEPA Reviews Kedric L. Payne Deputy General Counsel.
City Council – Project Update September 14, 2015.
Industry Briefing 25 May 2016.
Overview of Sustainability Policy Issues CMAP Board of Directors October 10, 2007.
Update on New gTLD Auction Proceeds 17 October 2015.
RPS Modeling Results Second Round
2007 Household Travel Survey
Title VI Program Overview
What is the Regional Transportation Plan?
School Travel Patterns in Utah
An Overview Title VI Applicability Public Outreach Fare Policy
Presentation transcript:

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N TIP Investment Analysis Presentation to the FTIP Workshop for the 2013 TIP January 2012

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 2 Purpose of the 2011 TIP Investment Analysis  Assist in the public assessment of the 2011 TIP  Address the equity implications of the proposed TIP investments  Provide accurate and current data to help inform decision-makers and the public, and to inform and encourage engagement in the public participation process.  Evaluate key question – “Are low-income and minority populations sharing equitably in the TIP’s financial investments?”

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 3 Background and Recent Related Efforts  Transportation 2035 Equity Analysis (February 2009)  Snapshot Analysis for MTC Communities of Concern (June 2010)  First investment analysis for the TIP  TIP analysis around the country predominantly use GIS, examples  Capital District Transportation Committee - Environmental Justice Analysis  Capitol Region Council of Governments - Equity Assessment: FFY Transportation Improvement Program  Mid-America Regional council – Chapter 6: Environmental Justice Analysis of the Transportation Improvement Program

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 4 About the 2011 TIP  Includes nearly 1,000 surface transportation projects  Total investment level of approximately $11.1 billion  Covers four-year period through Fiscal Year 2014  Local share is largest share, even though TIP is focused on projects with a federal interest

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 5 Key Differences: 2011 TIP and Transportation 2035  Period covered – 4 years versus 25 years  Mode and type of projects – the share of expansion and road/highway projects is greater in the 2011 TIP than Transportation 2035

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 6 Reason for Differences 2011 TIP and Transportation 2035  2011 TIP is roughly 50% of the investment captured in Transportation 2035, even for same 4-year period  2011 TIP generally includes only capital projects that are regionally significant, have federal funds, or require a federal action  Transportation 2035 includes all planned transportation projects  Transit and roadway O&M are under-represented in the 2011 TIP because these investments are predominantly locally-funded and not required to be in the TIP

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 7 Equity and Environmental Justice Considerations  Legal, regulatory, and policy framework for addressing equity and environmental justice as it relates to transportation planning process includes:  1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act;  2) Federal Guidance on Environmental Justice; and  3) MTC’s Environmental Justice Principles.  No specific federal guidance on completing an investment analysis for the TIP.  MTC is building on the Transportation 2035 work

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 8 Context – Bay Area Demographics  Roughly 25% of Bay Area population is low-income  Roughly 54% of Bay Area households are minority Population Distribution by Household Income Population% of Total Low-Income (≤ $50,000)1,753,18025% Not Low-Income (> $50,000)5,155,59975% Total6,908,779100% Share of Share of Population by Race/Ethnicity Number of Households% of Total Minority3,721,07954% White Non-Hispanic3,176,80446% Total6,897,883100% Sources: American Community Survey (ACS): Public Use Microdata Sample 2008 and ACS

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 9 Context – Bay Area Demographics  Majority of Bay Area trips are made by motor vehicle (80%) followed by non-motorized and transit.  This trend holds for low-income and minority populations, but the transit and non-motorized shares increase. Sources: American Community Survey (ACS): Public Use Microdata Sample 2008 and ACS

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 10 Analysis Approach  Demographic and geographic data is used to estimate the shares of 2011 TIP investments attributed to low- income and minority communities  This investment share is then compared with the group’s proportional population and trip-making

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 11 Methodology Overview Two methodologies were used:  Population Use-Based Analysis:  Use-based  Compares % of investment for low-income and minority populations to % of use of the transportation system by the same populations.  Geographic-Based Analysis:  Location and access-based; it does not take into account system use.  Compares the % of investment in communities of concern (CoCs) to % population or infrastructure located in these communities.

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 12 Key Findings: Overall  Key question posed - “Are low-income and minority populations sharing equitably in the TIP’s financial investments?”  Several results suggest the 2011 TIP invests greater public funding to the benefit of low-income and minority communities than their proportionate share of the region’s population or travel as a whole  Findings do not show a systematic disbenefit to low- income or minority populations

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 13 Key Findings: Total Investments  Both methodologies – for total investments – show a higher proportional investment in the 2011 TIP than either the proportionate share of trips taken by minority and low-income populations, or communities of concern populations 2011 TIP Investment Share Share of Total Trips/Population Population Use-Based Low-Income23%16% (total trips) Minority49%42% (total trips) Geographic-Based37%33% (population - community of concern)

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 14 Key Findings: In-Depth Transit Investments  Results mixed for modal investment slice using Population Use-Based methodology  Share of transit investment was slightly lower than the share of trips for low-income populations  Share of transit investment was slightly lower than the share of transit trips made by minority populations

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 15 Key Findings: In-Depth State Highway/Roadway $  Results mixed for modal investment slice using Population Use-Based methodology  Share of road investment equal to vehicle miles traveled by low-income populations  Share of road investment was slightly higher than the share of vehicle miles traveled by minority populations

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 16 Next Steps for Investment Analysis  Continue to research and identify best practices  Improve mapping of GIS data  Update and make more consistent available survey data sets for Bay Area travel behavior and demographics  Improve the analytical framework for assessing benefits and burdens to low-income and minority populations for a set of planned infrastructure

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N 17 Questions?  MTC Contacts: For questions on the 2011 TIP Analysis - Sri Srinivasan For questions on the equity analysis on the RTP – Jennifer Yeamans  MTC Website link to Report: Report_September_16.pdf