Not Just for EJ Anymore?

May 2009.

TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference

Bruce Kaplan

Central Transportation Planning Staff

Environmental Justice Legislation

• Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964• Executive Order 12898 (1994)

Identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations

Travel Forecasting – The Forgotten Tool for EJ Analysis

• EJ focus is often on:– Planning process of enfranchisement,

outreach, goal setting, definitions, needs assessment

– Public participation– Current equity, not future equity

• Identifying communities of concern• Present-day problems and empirical data• The magic of GIS overlays

– Evaluation of future projects not usually done

Benefit-vs.-Burden Evaluation of Future Projects

• Few MPOs appear to have used future-year regional model results for EJ evaluation

• Mostly done at the level of the whole Regional Transportation Plan, not for individual projects

• Yet there is a growing body of “how-to” literature– NCHRP 8-36(11) (2002)

– NCHRP 532 (2004)

– EJ and Transportation Toolkit – www.brejtp.com

Who Has Done It at Least Once?

• Atlanta• Baltimore• Bay Area (MTC)• Boston• Chicago• Columbus, OH

• Hartford• Greater LA

(SCAG)• Milwaukee• Seattle• San Antonio• Washington, DC

Recent Application for Boston Region MPO – Green Line Extension

Step 1: Locating Residential Target Populations in the Study Area

• Identify Cambridge, Medford, and Somerville Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) that are low income or minority:– Low income – Median household income at

or below 80% of the 2000 MPO median ($44,640)

– Minority – Minority population share greater than the 2000 MPO average (21.4%)

Performance Measures

• Accessibility to Jobs and Services– Within a 20-minute Auto or 40-minute

Transit trip (unweighted travel times) :• Basic, retail, and service employment

• Health care and higher education

• Averaged by number of TAZs in each category

– Average unweighted travel times to accessible jobs and services

Performance Measures

• Mobility, Congestion, and Environmental– Average Highway and Transit door-to-

door unweighted travel times for trips Produced in and Attracted to TAZ

– Vehicle-Miles Traveled per square mile

– CO emissions per square mile

Scenarios Studied

• 2030 No-Build Scenario Preferred Alternative for 2030 from Regional Transportation Plan without Green Line Extension

• Representative 2030 Build Scenario2030 No-Build Scenario with D Branch extended to Mystic Valley Parkway (with 300 parking spaces) and E Branch extended to Union Square

Transit Accessibility to Jobs

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

Average Number of Jobs within 40 Minutes via TransitBasic Retail Service

EJ Non-EJ EJ Non-EJ EJ Non-EJNo-Build Scenario 57,953 45,652 51,617 40,824 384,920 301,423Build Scenario 61,485 48,140 55,085 43,789 407,592 320,678Build vs No-Build 6.1% 5.5% 6.7% 7.3% 5.9% 6.4%

Average Transit Travel Time (minutes) to Transit-Accessible JobsNo-Build Scenario 32.9 34.4 32.1 34.0 32.0 34.1Build Scenario 32.5 34.2 31.6 33.8 31.3 33.7Build vs No-Build -1.2% -0.7% -1.5% -0.5% -2.1% -1.0%

Highway Accessibility to Jobs

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

Average Number of Jobs within 20 Minutes via HighwayBasic Retail Service

EJ Non-EJ EJ Non-EJ EJ Non-EJAll Scenarios 151,055 155,007 116,377 116,692 702,381 695,968

Average Highway Travel Time (minutes) to Highway-Accessible JobsAll Scenarios 13.1 14.3 12.3 13.6 12.0 13.7

Transit Accessibility to Services

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

College Enrollment Hospital BedsEJ Non-EJ EJ Non-EJ

No-Build Scenario 51,875 34,333 3,039 2,337Build Scenario 55,808 36,450 3,337 2,553Build vs No-Build 7.6% 6.2% 9.8% 9.3%

No-Build Scenario 32.1 33.5 32.5 34.3Build Scenario 31.9 33.4 32.0 33.9Build vs No-Build -0.5% -0.2% -1.5% -1.0%

Average Number of Services within 40 Minutes via Transit

Average Transit Travel Times (minutes) to Transit-Accessible Services

Highway Accessibility to Services

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

College Enrollment Hospital BedsEJ Non-EJ EJ Non-EJ

All Scenarios 98,994 91,081 8,957 8,183

All Scenarios 11.8 13.6 12.7 13.2

Average Number of Services within 20 Minutes via Highway

Average Highway Travel Times (minutes) to Highway-Accessible Services

Changes in Mobility

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

Average Transit Door-to-Door Travel Times (minutes)Trips Produced Trips Attracted

EJ Non-EJ EJ Non-EJNo-Build Scenario 35.8 38.3 40.5 40.6Build Scenario 35.1 37.9 40.0 40.4Build vs No-Build -2.0% -1.1% -1.2% -0.5%

Average Highway Door-to-Door Travel Times (minutes)All Scenarios 11.8 11.5 15.3 12.6

Changes in Congestionand Air Quality

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

VMT per Sq Mi CO per Sq miEJ Non-EJ EJ Non-EJ

No-Build Scenario 189,606 142,358 1,623,838 1,225,150Build Scenario 188,488 141,870 1,614,202 1,220,942Build vs No-Build -0.6% -0.3% -0.6% -0.3%

Step 1 Again, but for Disability

Identify Disability Population TAZs in Cambridge, Medford, and Somerville:

TAZs in which the percentage of population with a disability (persons over 5 yrs. old reporting themselves as having a disability) is greater than the eastern Massachusetts average (17.6%).

Disability TAZs

Transit Accessibility to Jobs

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

Average Number of Jobs within 40 Minutes via TransitBasic Retail Service

DisabilityNon-

Disability DisabilityNon-

Disability DisabilityNon-

DisabilityNo-Build Scenario 44,718 59,788 40,259 53,018 296,392 396,302Build Scenario 49,501 61,530 45,026 55,054 329,022 408,314Build vs No-Build 10.7% 2.9% 11.8% 3.8% 11.0% 3.0%

Average Transit Travel Time (minutes) to Transit-Accessible JobsNo-Build Scenario 34.2 33.0 33.8 32.1 34.0 31.9Build Scenario 33.6 32.8 33.2 32.0 33.1 31.6Build vs No-Build -1.5% -0.6% -1.9% -0.4% -2.5% -0.9%

Highway Accessibility to Jobs

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

Average Number of Jobs within 20 Minutes via HighwayBasic Retail Service

DisabilityNon-

Disability DisabilityNon-

Disability DisabilityNon-

DisabilityAll Scenarios 159,161 147,308 119,085 114,389 697,522 701,665

Average Highway Travel Time (minutes) to Highway-Accessible JobsAll Scenarios 13.6 13.5 12.9 12.7 12.7 12.7

Transit Accessibility to Services

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

Disability Non-Disability Disability Non-DisabilityNo-Build Scenario 36,284 51,802 2,284 3,143Build Scenario 41,481 53,370 2,735 3,255Build vs No-Build 14.3% 3.0% 19.8% 3.6%

No-Build Scenario 33.9 31.6 34.0 32.5Build Scenario 33.6 31.6 33.4 32.3Build vs No-Build -0.8% 0.0% -1.9% -0.7%

Average Number of Services within 40 Minutes via Transit

Average Transit Travel Times (minutes) to Transit-Accessible Services

College Enrollment Hospital Beds

Highway Accessibility to Services

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

College Enrollment Hospital BedsDisability Non-Disability Disability Non-Disability

All Scenarios 91,767 99,120 8,439 8,814

All Scenarios 13.0 12.1 12.6 13.1

Average Number of Services within 20 Minutes via Highway

Average Highway Travel Times (minutes) to Highway-Accessible Services

Changes in Mobility

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

Average Transit Door-to-Door Travel Times (minutes)Trips Produced Trips Attracted

Disability Non-Disability Disability Non-DisabilityNo-Build Scenario 39.2 34.9 41.6 39.7Build Scenario 38.2 34.6 41.0 39.5Build vs No-Build -2.6% -0.7% -1.4% -0.5%

Average Highway Door-to-Door Travel Times (minutes)All Scenarios 12.0 11.5 14.0 14.5

Changes in Congestionand Air Quality

Using Unweighted Total Travel Times

VMT per Sq Mi CO per Sq miDisability Non-Disability Disability Non-Disability

No-Build Scenario 185,946 158,003 1,598,700 1,352,455Build Scenario 184,891 157,294 1,589,598 1,346,358Build vs No-Build -0.6% -0.4% -0.6% -0.5%

Summary of Findings

• In all cases measured, Green Line Extension will benefit Environmental Justice and Disability Population TAZs

• In most cases measured, benefits are greater for the Environmental Justice and Disability Population TAZs than for other TAZs

Methodological Issues/Problems Specific

to the CTPS Model• Use of current target population geography

and definitions for future assessment (for example, ethnicity stays constant)

• Geographic mismatch between census geography and TAZs

• Health care = hospital beds• Income not a mode choice parameter• Mismatch between employment needs of

low-income populations and “accessible” jobs

• Room for expansion of air quality analysis

General Methodological Issues/Problems

• Severe demographic uncertainty, especially at TAZ level

• Getting around using current-year definitions and geography for future-year work

• Defining “Disabled” and/or other “non-EJ” communities of concern

• Difficulty associated with Project/Study Area level vs. RTP level

• Weighted time vs. unweighted time vs. impedance

• Benefit/Burden threshold

Further Thoughts

More dialogue needed between modelers and others involved in EJ process/analysis– Others unaware of how model outputs can

be used for evaluation and assessment– Modeling community needs to take

proactive stance

Further Thoughts

• Room for methodological refinement• Room for expansion of slate of

performance measures• When model-related work is done for EJ

or other “community” analysis, make sure it sees the light of day and is incorporated into documents

Contact InformationBruce Kaplan

bkaplan@ctps.orgPrincipal Transportation Planner

Ian Harringtonianh@ctps.org

Chief Transportation Planner

Scott Petersonscottp@ctps.org

Manager of Transportation Systems Analysis

Central Transportation Planning Staffto the

Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization www.bostonmpo.org