TCRP Synthesis J-07/Topic SB-24 [Final (Synthesis)]
Methods for Title VI Fare and Service Equity Analysis
[ TCRP J-07 (Synthesis of Information Related to Transit Practices) ]
| Project Data
|Authorization to Begin Work:
||5/18/2012 -- estimated |
||KFH Group, Inc.|
TERMINATED BY THE REQUEST OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires that providers of public transportation who meet specific criteria conduct a Title VI equity analysis in the course of planning a major service change or any magnitude of fare change. Equity analyses are required regardless of whether proposed changes would be detrimental or beneficial to riders on the whole: a service expansion or fare decrease must be evaluated according to a similar process as a service reduction or fare increase.
There is a wide variation among transit agencies in the performance of fare and service equity analysis. Additionally, recently FTA has issued new Environmental Justice and Title VI circulars. Various analytical tools, geographic information system applications, transit rider surveys, census data, and other data sources could be used to support fare and service equity analysis. However, data sources to do fare and service equity analysis may be dated, incomplete, or insufficient to undertake fare and service equity analysis.
This synthesis will report on successful practices for undertaking fare and service equity analysis. It will identify methods for collecting data, including geographic and demographic information, transit survey techniques, and information available from government and private sources. Additionally, the analytical methods used to complete the fare and service equity analysis may be identified for a variety of fare and service change applications. This would be helpful to small, medium, and large transit agencies which are required to undertake the Title VI Equity Analysis when a fare change or major service change is proposed.
The Synthesis will document, but not be limited to the following:
• Institutional relationships
• Survey methods, including instruments used
• Data sources
• Evaluation measures and analytical techniques
• Presentation and reporting
• Definitions, including “major service change”, “disparate impact”, “minority route”, etc.
• Community engagement efforts and outreach strategies, including LEP
• Costs and resource commitments, including staffing
• Impact mitigation examples
• Sub-recipient requirements and monitoring
A synthesis will explore these issues and document successful practice. A literature review, survey of selected transit agencies and/or other stakeholders, and detailed case studies/profiles will be accomplished to report on the state-of-the-practice, including lessons learned and gaps in information.
First Meeting: October 5, 2012, Washington, D.C.
Conference Call: October 25, 2012, 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m., EDT
Second Meeting: April 22, 2013
Johnell Bell, TriMet
Joyce D. Brown, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit District
Cyndi Harper, Metro Transit--Minneapolis/St. Paul
David A. Lee, Connecticut Transit
Steven F. Ponte, Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority
Franklin L. Spielberg, Consultant
Bruce Turner, University of Nevada
Amber Ontiveros, Federal Transit Administration
Jennifer A. Rosales, Transportation Research Board
Sue Knapp, KFH Group