1. Integrating Equity into Regional Transportation Planning
Kristine M. Williams, AICP
Hillsborough MPO School Transportation Working Group l January 25, 2017

2. Project Objectives What is the project team doing?
Identify best practices for evaluating equity in regional transportation planning
Develop methodology to address key transportation equity issues in plan and project screening
Apply methods in two diverse metropolitan areas: Tampa and Portland
Prepare equity analysis resource guide for MPOs
Source: mosesmi.org/issues/transprotationequity
What is the project team doing?
Examining current state of practice among MPOs
Develops a methodology to address equity in transportation investments and applies these methodologies to two regions (say cities and characteristics)
The completed project will be designed to serve as an equity analysis resource guide
Source:

3. Importance of Equity in Planning
Ensure equal access to affordable and reliable transportation
Ensure certain groups don’t accrue disproportionate benefits or burdens
Source:
Importance
To ensure equitable access to affordable and reliable transportation to essential services, shopping and job opportunities
Ensure that the benefits or burdens of transportation investments are equitably distributed
Why is equity in transportation planning important?
Low- and moderate-income households spend 42% of their total annual income on transportation, while middle-income households spend less than 22%.
Nearly 20% of African-American households, 14% of Latino households, and 13% of Asian households live without a car. (Brookings Institution and UC-Berkeley, Socioeconomic Differences in Household Automobile Ownership Rates)
Access to affordable and reliable transportation widens opportunity and is essential to addressing poverty, unemployment, and other goals like access to good schools and health care services. Yet in many metropolitan areas, transportation spending does not equally benefit all communities and populations. And the negative effects of some transportation decisions— such as the disruption of low-income neighborhoods — are broadly felt and have long-lasting effects. Providing equal access to transportation means providing all individuals in our community an equal opportunity to succeed.
Historically marginalized neighborhoods
Disproportionate impact on low income and minority neighborhoods in the past (e.g. urban renewal era highway building)
Access to healthcare, childcare, groceries, recreation, gainful employment

4. Transportation Equity Requirements
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI
Executive Order 12898
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation
Memorandum on Implementing Title VI Requirements in Metropolitan and Statewide Planning
Executive Order 12898
Addresses the issue of environmental justice in minority and low income populations
Reaffirmed in 1994 under Bill Clinton
Subsequent guidance by FTA and FHWA
Subsequent Additional Policies
Anthony Foxx’s Ladders to Opportunities
Residents in Dayton, Ohio march along highway to protest lack of bus service to area malls (June, 2013).
Source:

5. Distributional Equity
Dimensions of Equity
Affordability
Accessibility
Health and Safety
Distributional Equity
Affordability
Housing + Transportation costs
Distributional Equity – general measure of transportation investments by mode in COCs versus countywide. Currently cannot be evaluated for Hillsborough County as project investment data not disaggregated by type and mode. Total project investment irrespective of mode or type is a weak measure of equity as the project may not address identified accessibility, affordability or health issues of COCs.
Heath
Safety
Proximity to Roads
Availability of active transportation options
Accessibility
Bike/Ped accessibility to essential destinations
Transit access to jobs

6. Portland METRO
Case Study

7. Background
Metro adopted outcomes-based approach in 2010 with set of performance targets. Two equity related:
Affordability. By 2040, reduce the average household combined cost of housing and transportation by 25 percent compared to 2010.
Access to Daily Needs. By 2040, increase by 50 percent the number of essential destinations accessible within 30 minutes by bicycling and public transit for low-income, minority, senior and disabled populations compared to 2005
Portland Metro has population approaching 2.4 million
Long history of proactive land use regulations and long range planning
Has developed methods for identifying COCs, gathering input, and incorporating information into LRTP and transportation investments
No methods to measure and track success of these equity goals were developed when the goals were adopted

8. Current Planning Efforts
Goals of current RTP update:
Develop longer list of equity goals and measures based on community input
simplify targets
develop methods to measure plan over time
No.
Community Priority
System Measure Description 1.
Affordability
Combined Housing and Transportation Expenditure 2.
Accessibility-Access to Places
Access to Jobs 3.
Access to Existing Essential Destinations OR Existing Daily Needs 4.
Transit Access Disadvantage 5.
Accessibility-Infrastructure
Intersection of Transportation Investments, Timing, and Communities 6.
Safety- Infrastructure Disparities
Safety Investments on the High Injury Network 7.
Safety-Exposure
Non-Interstate Vehicles Miles Traveled Exposure 8.
Environmental and Social Impacts
Vehicles Miles Traveled Exposure 9.
Intersection of Transportation Investments, Resource Habitats, and Communities
10.
Assessing Directional Change of Investments to Health Outcomes
11.
Assessing the Magnitude of Transportation Impact to Public Health (Burden of Disease and Premature Death)
Using this research…

9. Hillsborough County (Tampa)
Case Study

10. Guiding Principles for Methodology
Easily replicated
Uses widely available data sets
Inclusive

11. Communities of Concern in Hillsborough County
Minority
Low-Income
Zero-Vehicle
Youth <18
Elderly 65+
LEP
Disability
We used several variables to define communities of concern based on those identified in legislation as well as the literature and current practice.
Our first step was to define and locate concentrations of transportation disadvantaged persons. We defined these using the variables shown.
Obtained countywide average for each COC variable from US Census
Identified block groups with more than 1 standard deviation above average
Blockgroups where 2 or more COCs identified

12. Affordability -Transportation Costs
% of income spent by COCs on transportation
On average nationally, low- and moderate-income households spend 42% of their total annual income on transportation, while middle-income households spend less than 22%. This map illustrates % of income spent by COCs on transportation in Hillsborough County in relation to the countywide average for all populations (24%). Darker areas spend more of their income on transportation. (MacDill AFB is outlier – data may not be accurate)

13. Low Job Accessibility via Transit
COC’s with lowest job accessibility via 45 minutes by transit
Smart Location Database (EPA)
No transit service outside of shaded areas
Block groups with lowest number of jobs accessible via 45 minute transit commute that are also communities of concern. Current through Uses GTFS (general transit feed specification) data that addresses stops, routes, schedules and is available from the transit agency.
Only transit served block groups.

14. Identifying Essential Destinations
Jobs
Shopping
Healthcare
Government services
Schools
Average employment density was calculated across the county for all jobs.
Blockgroups with employment density 1 standard deviation or more above the county-wide average were identified as Essential Destinations.
Employment statistics from US Census LEHD data (NAICS codes) were used as a proxy for jobs.

15. Low Sidewalk Coverage Ratio of sidewalk to centerline miles <1
Excluding <500 persons per square mile
Sidewalk coverage from MPO
Ratio of sidewalk to centerline miles <1 (sidewalks on both sides = ratio of 2)
Excluded block groups with <500 persons per mile – half of rural threshold.

16. Pedestrian Accessibility
COCs with low sidewalk coverage
within 1 mile of essential destinations
This map illustrates COCs with low sidewalk coverage within 1 mile of the essential destinations.
Essential destinations were identified
COCS within 1 mile of these essential destinations with low sidewalk coverage were identified
Prioritize investment.

17. Ratio of centerline miles to bicycle lane miles <1
Bicycling Facilities
Ratio of centerline miles to bicycle lane miles <1
Excluding <500 persons per mile

18. Bicycle Accessibility
COCs with low bicycle facility coverage within 1 mile of essential destinations
Essential destinations with low number of bicycle facilities were identified
COCS within 1 mile of these essential destinations with low number of bicycle facilities were identified
Prioritize investment.

19. Pedestrian Safety
COCs within areas with the highest number of pedestrian crashes per capita
Average per capita crash rates calculated countywide and block groups greater than one standard deviation above the countywide average were identified as having a higher crash rate (same process for bicycle crashes).

20. Bicycle Safety
COCs within areas with the highest number of bicycle crashes per capita

21. Example Performance Measures for Hillsborough MPO
Accessibility Dimension
Example Performance Targets
Countywide
Communities of Concern
Pedestrian Accessibility to Essential Destinations/Sidewalk Coverage
By 2040, increase the ratio of centerline miles to sidewalk miles by 25% compared to 2014.
By 2040, increase the ratio of centerline miles to sidewalk miles in communities of concern by 50% compared to 2014.
By 2040, achieve a ratio of centerline miles to sidewalk miles of 1 within 1 mile of all essential destinations.
Bicyclist Accessibility to Essential Destinations/Bicycle Facility Coverage:
By 2040, increase the ratio of centerline miles to bicycle facility miles by 25% compared to 2014.
By 2040, increase the ratio of centerline miles to bicycle facility miles in communities of concern by 50% compared to 2014.
By 2040, achieve a ratio of centerline miles to bicycle facility miles of 1 on all collectors and arterials within 1 mile of all essential destinations.
Transit Access to Jobs:
access to jobs within 45 minutes by bus
By 2040, Increase percentage of jobs accessible via 45 minute transit commute by 20% compared to 2014.
By 2040, increase the percentage of jobs accessible via 45-minute transit commute from COC block groups by 50% compared to 2014.
Development of performance measures and targets for each equity dimension

22. Kristine M. Williams, AICP
Questions?
Kristine M. Williams, AICP
Program Director, Planning and Corridor Management
Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida