Service Guidelines Task Force Social Equity and Transit System - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
service guidelines task force
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Service Guidelines Task Force Social Equity and Transit System - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 13, 2023 92 likes •419 views

Service Guidelines Task Force Social Equity and Transit System Values April 30, 2015 Discussion and trade offs What problem are we trying to solve? What outcomes do you want to achieve? Should Metro account for social equity any

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Service Guidelines Task Force

Social Equity and Transit System Values April 30, 2015

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Discussion and trade‐offs

  • What problem are we trying to solve? What
  • utcomes do you want to achieve?
  • Should Metro account for social equity any

differently than it does now? Are they defining social equity correctly? Are they using the appropriate measures in their analysis?

  • Would you suggest any changes to service

guidelines or the planning process to account for social equity objectives?

2

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Presentation Overview

Social equity and…

  • 1. Public transportation
  • 2. Metro’s service guidelines
  • 3. Metro’s planning and community engagement

process

  • 4. Destination data
  • 5. Discussion and trade‐offs

3

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Social Equity and Public Transportation

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Metro’s rider demographics

5

Service Guidelines Task Force

Metro riders by income (Rider/Non‐Rider) Metro riders by race/ethnicity (Rider/Non‐Rider) Caucasian ‐ 76% Asian‐ 11% Hispanic ‐ 6% Other ‐ 4% Black ‐ 4% $35k‐$75k ‐ 30% Less than $35K ‐ 26% $75k‐ $100k ‐ 12%

Median Household Income All Riders $67,988 Regular Riders $65,396 Infrequent Riders $72,811 King County Households $71,811

*American Community Survey, 2009‐2013

King County Demographics (Census) White 71% Other 7% Black 6% Hispanic 9%* Asian 16% *Included in other categories

Greater than $100k ‐ 31%

slide-6
SLIDE 6

People with lower incomes and minority populations tend to rely more on public transit

6

Service Guidelines Task Force

  • Households in King County

making less than $35,000 per year are 50 percent more likely to use transit than other income groups

  • Minority populations in

King County are 40 percent more likely to use transit to get to work than non‐ minority populations

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Equity is a guiding factor, reinforced by laws and policies at all levels of government King County Definition: All people have full and equal access to opportunities that enable them to attain their full potential.

7

Service Guidelines Task Force

Laws and Policies related to Equity

Federal

  • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990
  • Environmental Justice in Low Income and

Minority populations

  • Improving Access to Persons with Limited English

Proficiency

  • National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

State/ Regional

  • Washington State Environmental Policy Act
  • PSRC Transportation 2040
  • Washington State Growth Management Act

King County

  • “Fair and Just” Principle
  • Advancing Equity and Social Justice
  • Executive Translation Policy
  • Metro Strategic Plan and Service Guidelines
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Social Equity in Metro’s Service Guidelines

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Productivity Social Equity Geographic Value

Households Riders in low‐ income areas

Connections to regional centers

Jobs and Students Riders in minority areas

Connections to transit activity centers

Ridership 50% 25% 25%

Service Guidelines Task Force

Social Equity is reflected in our data analysis

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Social Equity factors included in annual analysis affects 68% of corridors

10

Methodology

  • 1. Identify Census Tracts

based on Social Equity factors

  • 2. Calculate Boardings
  • 3. Identify systemwide

average

  • 4. Meets Systemwide

Threshold  Receives ‘Points’

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Metro’s 2014 investment need reflects Social Equity factors

  • 486,500 hours identified on 58 corridors
  • Social Equity factors reflected in 44 corridors
  • 26 corridors meet both low‐income and minority

thresholds

  • 10 corridors meet only minority threshold
  • 8 corridors meet only low‐income threshold

11

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Social Equity factors increase investment need

12

Service Guidelines Task Force

  • Social Equity factors

identify higher target service levels

  • If Social Equity

factors were not included, over 50%

  • f corridors would

be identified as needing less investment

Change to current corridor investments if social equity removed from analysis No change to investment need (27 corridors) Lose all investment (19 corridors) Change in investment (12 corridors)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Social Equity factors decrease a route’s potential for reduction

  • 4 Reduction Priorities

1. Lowest performing routes (bottom 25%), at or above target service level 2. Restructures 3. Low performing routes (25%‐50%), at or above target service level 4. Lowest performing routes (bottom 25%), below target service level

  • Metro seeks to preserve service to the fourth

reduction category so that we do not worsen the deficiency between the network we have and our target network

  • When reducing service, Metro maintains connections

to urban areas surrounded by rural land

13

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Social Equity and Metro’s Planning and Community Engagement Process

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Metro addresses social equity throughout its planning process

15

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-16
SLIDE 16
  • All planning processes include outreach

to populations with the greatest needs based on social and economic factors

  • Metro develops and maintains

partnerships with community

  • rganizations
  • Metro maintains service to all

designated centers regardless of productivity, which benefits those with limited transportation options

  • Service equity analysis identifies the

impacts of major service changes

16

Equity is a guiding factor in how Metro plans service

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-17
SLIDE 17
  • Make network connections
  • Serve multiple purposes and

destinations

  • Provide service that is easy to

understand

  • Space routes appropriately
  • Provide direct service
  • Consider route length and

neighborhood route segments

17

Service Guidelines Task Force

Service design guidelines influence how routes are planned and implemented

slide-18
SLIDE 18
  • Construction at the VA Medical Center required Metro to

remove direct service to the facility

  • Metro will reinstate service on Route 50 to the Medical Center
  • nce construction is complete

18

Case study: Route 50

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-19
SLIDE 19
  • Route 27 was

identified for reduction during the service reductions process due to route spacing design guidelines and performance

19

Case study: Route 27

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Social equity and destination data

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Destination data sets considered by Metro

21

Service Guidelines Task Force

  • Hoovers Dataset
  • 7,092 Healthcare facilities
  • 7,495 Retail facilities
  • 2,758 Social service providers
  • 2,065 Grocery stores
  • 3,490 Personal services
  • Total of 22,900 records
slide-22
SLIDE 22

Example – how to value 7,000 healthcare destinations

22

Service Guidelines Task Force

Healthcare Facilities in King County

Source: Hoovers Data Set, 2012

  • Ambulatory Health Care

Services

  • Chiropractors
  • Dentists
  • Hospitals
  • Kidney Dialysis Centers
  • Mental Health &

Substance Abuse Services

  • Nursing Homes
  • Offices of independent

physicians

  • Optometrists
slide-23
SLIDE 23

Healthcare facilities in the Central District

23

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Health care facilities in Auburn and Bellevue

24

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Destination data use

  • Destination data difficult to use in service

guidelines analysis

  • Planning and community engagement process

could benefit from its use

  • Identify a database of social service agencies
  • Contact those in impacted areas when considering

changes to service

25

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Discussion and trade‐offs

  • What problem are we trying to solve? What
  • utcomes do you want to achieve?
  • Should Metro account for social equity any

differently than it does now? Are they defining social equity correctly? Are they using the appropriate measures in their analysis?

  • Would you suggest any changes to service

guidelines or the planning process to account for social equity objectives?

26

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Transit System Values

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Values are reflected in Metro’s transit products

28

Service Guidelines Task Force

Transit products Description Rationale Peak‐only commuter‐

  • riented service

Predominately freeway‐based and oriented to commuters Policy‐driven, helps to manage our region’s roadways, supports economic development Urban all‐day service Predominately all‐day service that connects high density land uses Productive, well used service that meets a variety of needs Suburban all‐day service Predominately all‐day service that connects medium‐density land uses Provides less productive, poorer performing service to ensure regional mobility Rural service Service that connects low‐ density land uses to centers Provides less productive service to meet baseline mobility needs for all Alternative services Provides alternatives to fixed‐ route services, including VanPool, Rideshare, and other services Provides mobility to places where fixed‐route services may not be as effective

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Discussion and trade‐offs

  • Would you suggest any changes to the values

that currently shape Metro’s transit services? If so, what changes and why?

  • Where would services be gained and where

would they be decreased? From a county wide perspective, are those trade‐offs acceptable?

29

Service Guidelines Task Force

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Service Guidelines Task Force

Social Equity and Transit System Values April 30, 2015

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Geographic Value factors increase investment need

31

Service Guidelines Task Force

  • Geographic factors

improve target service levels

  • If Geographic Value

factors were not included, 28% of corridors would receive less investment need

Change to current corridor investments if geographic value removed from analysis No change to investment need (40 corridors) Lose all investment (8 corridors) Change in investment (10 corridors)