M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

1

2011 TIP Investment Analysis

2011 TIP Investment Analysis

Presentation to the FTIP Workshop for the 2013 TIP

January 2012

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

2

Purpose of the 2011 TIP Investment Analysis Purpose of the 2011 TIP Investment Analysis Assist in the public assessment of the 2011 TIP

Address the equity implications of the proposed TIP investments

Provide accurate and current data to help inform decision-makers and the public, and to inform and encourage engagement in the public participation process.

Evaluate key question – “Are low-income and minority populations sharing equitably in the TIP’s financial investments?”

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

3

Background and Recent Related EffortsBackground and Recent Related Efforts

Transportation 2035 Equity Analysis (February 2009)

Snapshot Analysis for MTC Communities of Concern (June 2010)

First investment analysis for the TIP

TIP analysis around the country predominantly use GIS, examples Capital District Transportation Committee - Environmental Justice Analysis

Capitol Region Council of Governments - Equity Assessment: FFY 2010-2013 Transportation Improvement Program

Mid-America Regional council – Chapter 6: Environmental Justice Analysis of the Transportation Improvement Program 2012-2016

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

4

About the 2011 TIPAbout the 2011 TIP Includes nearly 1,000 surface

transportation projects

Total investment level of approximately $11.1 billion

Covers four-year period through Fiscal Year 2014

Local share is largest share, even though TIP is focused on projects with a federal interest

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

5

Key Differences: 2011 TIP and Transportation 2035Key Differences: 2011 TIP and Transportation 2035 Period covered – 4 years versus 25 years

Mode and type of projects – the share of expansion and road/highway projects is greater in the 2011 TIP than Transportation 2035

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

6

Reason for Differences2011 TIP and Transportation 2035Reason for Differences2011 TIP and Transportation 2035

2011 TIP is roughly 50% of the investment captured in Transportation 2035, even for same 4-year period

2011 TIP generally includes only capital projects that are regionally significant, have federal funds, or require a federal action

Transportation 2035 includes all planned transportation projects

Transit and roadway O&M are under-represented in the 2011 TIP because these investments are predominantly locally-funded and not required to be in the TIP

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

7

Equity and Environmental Justice ConsiderationsEquity and Environmental Justice Considerations Legal, regulatory, and policy framework for addressing

equity and environmental justice as it relates to transportation planning process includes: 1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act;

2) Federal Guidance on Environmental Justice; and

3) MTC’s Environmental Justice Principles.

No specific federal guidance on completing an investment analysis for the TIP.

MTC is building on the Transportation 2035 work

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

8

Context – Bay Area DemographicsContext – Bay Area Demographics

Roughly 25% of Bay Area population is low-income

Roughly 54% of Bay Area households are minority

Population Distribution by Household Income

  Population % of Total

Low-Income (≤ $50,000) 1,753,180 25%

Not Low-Income (> $50,000) 5,155,599 75%

Total 6,908,779 100%

Share of Share of Population by Race/Ethnicity

 Number of

Households % of Total

Minority 3,721,079 54%

White Non-Hispanic 3,176,804 46%

Total 6,897,883 100%

Sources: American Community Survey (ACS): Public Use Microdata Sample 2008 and 2005-2007 ACS

Sources: American Community Survey (ACS): Public Use Microdata Sample 2008 and 2005-2007 ACS

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

9

Context – Bay Area DemographicsContext – Bay Area Demographics

Majority of Bay Area trips are made by motor vehicle (80%) followed by non-motorized and transit.

This trend holds for low-income and minority populations, but the transit and non-motorized shares increase.

Sources: American Community Survey (ACS): Public Use Microdata Sample 2008 and 2005-2007 ACS

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

10

Analysis Approach Analysis Approach

Demographic and geographic data is used to estimate the shares of 2011 TIP investments attributed to low-income and minority communities

This investment share is then compared with the group’s proportional population and trip-making

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

11

Methodology OverviewMethodology OverviewTwo methodologies were used:

Population Use-Based Analysis:

Use-based

Compares % of investment for low-income and minority populations to % of use of the transportation system by the same populations.

Geographic-Based Analysis:

Location and access-based; it does not take into account system use.

Compares the % of investment in communities of concern (CoCs) to % population or infrastructure located in these communities.

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

12

Key Findings: OverallKey Findings: Overall

Key question posed - “Are low-income and minority populations sharing equitably in the TIP’s financial investments?”

Several results suggest the 2011 TIP invests greater public funding to the benefit of low-income and minority communities than their proportionate share of the region’s population or travel as a whole

Findings do not show a systematic disbenefit to low-income or minority populations

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

13

Key Findings: Total InvestmentsKey Findings: Total Investments Both methodologies – for total investments – show a higher

proportional investment in the 2011 TIP than either the proportionate share of trips taken by minority and low-income populations, or communities of concern populations

2011 TIP Investment

Share

Share of Total Trips/Population

Population Use-Based

Low-Income 23% 16% (total trips)

Minority 49% 42% (total trips)

Geographic-Based 37% 33% (population - community of concern)

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

14

Key Findings: In-Depth Transit InvestmentsKey Findings: In-Depth Transit Investments Results mixed for modal investment slice using Population

Use-Based methodology Share of transit investment was slightly lower than the share of trips for

low-income populations

Share of transit investment was slightly lower than the share of transit trips made by minority populations

Popluation Use-basedTransit

Comparison of 2011 TIP Investment and Passenger Trips by Low-Income Population

54%56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Share of Transit Investment for Low -Income Passengers Share of Transit Trips by Low -Income Passengers

Sources: 2011 TIP and 2006-2007 Transit Passenger Demographic Survey (Godbe Research)

Population Use-basedTransit

Comparison of 2011 TIP Investments and Passenger Trip Distribution by Race/Ethnicity

41%

59%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

White Non-Hispanic All Racial Minorities

% of Investment by Trips

% of Passenger Trips

Source: 2011 TIP and Transit Passenger Demographic Survey (Godbe research)

60%

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

15

Key Findings: In-Depth State Highway/Roadway $Key Findings: In-Depth State Highway/Roadway $ Results mixed for modal investment slice using Population

Use-Based methodology Share of road investment equal to vehicle miles traveled by low-income

populations

Share of road investment was slightly higher than the share of vehicle miles traveled by minority populations

Population Use-basedLocal Streets and Roads, State Highway, and Toll Bridge

Comparison of 2011 TIP Investment and Vehicle Miles Traveled by Low-Income Population

13% 13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Share of Road, Highway & Bridge Investment for Low-Income Population

Share of Vehicle Miles Traveled by Low-IncomePopulation

Source: 2011 TIP and 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey

Population Use-basedLocal Streets and Roads, State Highways and Toll Bridge

Comparison of 2011 TIP Investments and VMT Distribution by Race/Ethnicity

58%

42%

60%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

White Non-Hispanic All Racial Minorities

% of Investment by VMT

% of Population VMT

Source: 2011 TIP and 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

16

Next Steps for Investment AnalysisNext Steps for Investment Analysis

Continue to research and identify best practices

Improve mapping of GIS data

Update and make more consistent available survey data sets for Bay Area travel behavior and demographics

Improve the analytical framework for assessing benefits and burdens to low-income and minority populations for a set of planned infrastructure

M E T R O P O L I T A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

17

Questions?Questions?

MTC Contacts:

For questions on the 2011 TIP Analysis - Sri Srinivasan

ssrinivasan@mtc.ca.gov

For questions on the equity analysis on the RTP – Jennifer Yeamans

jyeamans@mtc.ca.gov

MTC Website link to Report: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/tip/2011/TIP_Investment_Analysis_Report_September_16.pdf