Transportation Justice,
Sustainable Communities and
Metropolitan Equity
Bob Allen
Urban Habitat
How Did We Get Here?
• Post WW II development: climate change,
sprawl, and social equity issues share
common origins
• Intersection of segregation, white flight
and sprawl
• Maps of Exclusion
• Transportation (In)Justice:
6 Big Wins
for the Bay Area Sustainable Communities
Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan
(SCS/RTP)
1. Community Power
2. Investment without Displacement
3. Affordable Housing
4. Robust & Affordable Local Transit
Service
5. Healthy & Safe Communities
6. Economic Opportunity
What’s at Stake in a Region’s
RTP/SCS?
Affordable housing: Will the affordable housing stock
grow? Will it be located near transit, with access to jobs,
good schools, healthy food, and other keys to
opportunity?
Equitable transit: How will the region invest funding for
transportation and transit? Will it provide more reliable
and affordable local service for low-income
communities?
Public health: Will all communities have access to healthy
choices? Will air quality improve in the areas where the
most vulnerable populations live?
Economic opportunity: Will the housing and transit
networks provide access to jobs, schools, and services?
6 Big Wins
for the Bay Area SCS/RTP
•
•
•
•
•
•
Coordinating Committee:
Breakthrough Communities
Genesis
Non Profit Housing Association of Northern
California(NPH)
Public Advocates
Public Health Law & Policy
Urban Habitat
6 Big Wins
for the Bay Area SCS/RTP
Summer 2010 Planning
October 2010 retreat: 30+ organizations
Identification of “on-the-ground wins”
Win Networks – the following slides
reflect their work
Monthly Coordinating Committee
meeting
Community Power
Win: Greater low income and minority community power in
local and regional decision-making
Policy Lever: MPO Public Participation Plan (PPP) – 50
groups signed on to comment letter calling for changes
to PPP:
• Start with the needs
• Get specific about key decision points
• Ensure transparency and civil rights compliance by
counties, CMAs
• Evaluate equity impacts of every alternative at each
decision point
Investment Without Displacement
Win: Investments and incentives strengthen and stabilize communities
vulnerable to gentrification and displacement
• Policy Lever: Pursue establishment of conditions on regional
funding –
Example: Local jurisdictions only get regional
infrastructure money if they have adequate anti-displacement
policies, affordable housing
• Policy Lever: Protecting against displacement in the RTP/SCS
performance measures
– MTC/ABAG Performance Target #2: House 100% of the region’s
projected 25- year growth by income level (very-low, low, moderate,
above-moderate) without displacing current low-income
residents
– Continue monitoring displacement in MTC/ABAG’s performance
indicators - Local policy levers are critical to this Win
Affordable Housing
Win: More affordable housing near jobs, reliable public transit, good
schools, parks and recreation, and healthy neighborhoods
Policy Lever: RHNA distribution is equitably distributed
– Fair and realistic RHNA that takes advantage of jobs, transit and
community infrastructure like great schools across the region,
recognizing the need to produce affordable housing in the suburban
jurisdictions as well as the urban centers.
Other Policy Levers: Dedicated regional funding source & incentives
– SCS should incorporate plans for a dedicated regional funding
source that is sufficient to invest in producing RHNA at all income
levels, but especially for the most vulnerable
– Link increased transit and other infrastructure funds to zoning for or
production of affordable housing
– Link CEQA relief to meeting affordable housing needs
Robust & affordable local transit
service
Win: Service that includes more frequent, reliable, and affordable bus
service, and an Eco Bus Pass
Policy Lever: RTP funds transit operations
– Prioritize the maintenance, and operation at full capacity, of the
existing transit system over expansion. Ensure transit operating and
capital shortfalls are filled before allowing expansion.
Other Policy Levers:
– Address the local transit needs of low-income and people of color
communities, including those identified in the Community Based
Transportation Plans, by providing the operating funding needed
to restore service cuts, reduce fare, and close gaps in Lifeline.
– Youth Bus Pass: RTP provides funding to ensure that low-income
youth receive a free bus pass.
– Reform “committed” funds policy
Healthy & Safe Communities
Win: Healthy communities that have clean air, safe streets that are
bikeable, walkable, with good access to jobs, opportunities,
amenities
Policy Lever: RTP/SCS performance measures include health
indicators
• Reduce premature deaths from exposure to particulate emissions
• Reduce by 50% the number of injuries and fatalities from all
collisions
• Increase the average time walking or biking per person per day for
transportation by 60% (to an avg of15 minutes per day)
• And going beyond: Focus on most impacted communities/Use
Environmental Justice Screening Methodologies/Finding balance
between CEQA thresholds/guidelines and infill development
Access to Economic Opportunity and Jobs
Win: More quality green jobs and access to economic
opportunity Policy Levers:
• More transit operations funding in RTP = more jobs
Ensure transit networks provide access to jobs for
communities that need it most
• Preservation of existing jobs via Zoning for industrial
lands
• Protection against displacement of local businesses
• More framing and policy recommendations around this
issue are under development
Progress and where to go from
here
Process wins so far include:
• Equity analysis up-front of RTP process
• Revision of “committed” projects/funds policies
• Regional guidance to counties/CMAs on TitleVI civil rights
obligations
• Displacement and affordable housing measures included in
performance targets
• What's’ Next:
• Win Networks to identify and develop more policies
•
Capacity building to increase engagement by most impacted
communities
EJ Framework
President Clinton’s Executive Order 12898 (1994) on
“Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations”
“To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,
and consistent with the principles set forth in the report
on the National Performance Review, each Federal
agency shall make achieving environmental justice
part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of its
programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations.” (§ 1-101.)
Civil Rights and Title VI
“No person in the United States shall, on
the ground of race, color, or national
origin, be excluded from participation in,
be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.”
Obligation of MPOs:
monitor and certify Title VI compliance
throughout their region
“. . . the MPO shall certify at least every
four years that the metropolitan
transportation planning process is being
carried out in accordance with all
applicable requirements including: . . . (3)
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . .”
(23 C.F.R. § 450.334 (a) (3).)
Obligation of MPOs
• “. . . MPOs should have an analytic basis in
place for certifying their compliance with
Title VI. . . .”
• “An analytical process that identifies the
benefits and burdens of metropolitan
transportation system investments for different
socioeconomic groups, identifying imbalances
and responding to the analyses produced.”
(FTA Circular 4702.1A, ch. VII)
Evaluating Equity in Long
Range Planning
• MTC conducted an RTP Equity Analysis
in: 1998, 2001, 2005 and 2008.
• Concerns have remained the same: travel
demand model is incapable of measuring
equity in the RTP and, in fact, it has
repeatedly concluded that the proposed
RTP investments make “LIC and COC as
well off and, in many cases, better off than
all other communities.”
“Modeling” Transportation
Equity
TDM stands for Travel Demand Model. The
modeling technology the TDM is based on
was developed for mainframe computers
in the 1950s to help planners reduce
congestion on increasingly overcrowded
freeways.
Evaluating Equity in Long
Range Planning
• Critiques of MTC’s Travel Demand Model (TDM)
1) Doesn’t compare real alternatives (no project vs
project); 2) Forecasts 25 years into the future; 3) Misses
gaps within TAZes; 4) Doesn’t account for cost barriers
to transit use; 5) Doesn’t account for the fact that LIC
and COC are much more likely to be transit-dependent;
6) assumes bus service stays the same
• Also the current analysis occurs AFTER all of the
investment decisions have been made.)
Baseline Analysis Alternative
“Snapshot”
• Not a 25 year projection – a baseline analysis of
current conditions
• Can be updated as data becomes available (not
dependent on RTP update)
• Not a “black box” model – real measurable
indicators
• MTC’s version is currently online as pdfs of
maps
• We envision clickable maps to zoom to the
neighborhood level
Source: MTC Snapshot Analysis Development Report, June 2010
Sample “Snapshot” Map
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/snapshot/
Today’s Equity Analysis
What’s different?
• Multiple components & earlier in the process
• New forecasting model – “Activity Based”
• More bench strength
• Equity Analysis is being framed by the Targets
that were adopted:
–
–
–
–
Housing 100% of the population w/o displacement
Reducing PM and death from exposure
Reduce Housing & Transportation costs
Increase walking and biking
Today’s Equity Analysis
Components of the Equity Analysis
1. Initial Vision Scenario Analysis
2. Individual Project Performance Assessment
3. Alternative Scenarios Comparison (same as
traditional Equity Analysis)
4. Indicators and the Snapshot Analysis (2.0?)
Questions
Contact
bob@urbanhabitat.org
Information on Snapshot Analysis:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/snapshot/