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
[email protected] Transportation Planner
Chief Transportation Planner
Scott [email protected]
Manager of Transportation Systems Analysis
Central Transportation Planning Staffto the
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization www.bostonmpo.org