Presentation Transcript

1. Transportation Justice, Sustainable Communities and Metropolitan Equity Bob Allen Urban Habitat
2. 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:
3. 6 Big Winsfor the Bay Area Sustainable Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan (SCS/RTP) Community Power Investment without Displacement Affordable Housing Robust & Affordable Local Transit Service Healthy & Safe Communities Economic Opportunity
4. 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?
5. 6 Big Winsfor 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. 6 Big Winsfor 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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.)
15. 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.”
16. 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).) 
17. 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)
18. 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.”
19. “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.
20. 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.)
21. 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
22. Source: MTC Snapshot Analysis Development Report, June 2010
23. Sample “Snapshot” Map http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/snapshot/
24. 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
25. Today’s Equity Analysis Components of the Equity Analysis Initial Vision Scenario Analysis Individual Project Performance Assessment Alternative Scenarios Comparison (same as traditional Equity Analysis) Indicators and the Snapshot Analysis (2.0?)
26. Questions Contact bob@urbanhabitat.org Information on Snapshot Analysis: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/snapshot/