Title VI• “No person in the

United States shall, on the grounds 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.”

42 U.S.C § 2000d, et seq

1

2

3

4

2

Race, Color & National Origin:the three protected classes

• Race– U.S. Census categories define race– Persons of any race are protected classes

• Color– Discrimination based on skin color or

complexion is prohibited

• National Origin– Foreign born ancestry

2

3

Program or Activity Applies institution-wide

• Title VI applies institution-wide; it is not limited to the program that receives FTA funding (e.g., planning, capital, operations)

• Examples?

• Are Title VI requirements limited to primary recipients?

3

4

Title VI applies to both Recipients & Subrecipients

• Recipient: • State DOT • Transit Agency • Any public or private agency, institution,

department or other organizational unit receiving funding from FTA

• Subrecipient: • Any entity that receives FTA financial

assistance as a pass-through from another entity

4

5

Discrimination Prohibitions

• Disparate Treatment (Intentional Discrimination): Actions that result in circumstances where similarly situated persons are treated differently because of their race, color, or national origin.

• Disparate Impact (Unintentional Discrimination): The recipient’s procedure or practice, while neutral on its face, has the effect of disproportionately excluding or adversely affecting members of the projected class without substantial legitimate justification.

• Examples?

FTA Direct Grant Recipients must meet Title VI obligations defined in the Circular

• FTA Title VI Circular 4702.1A – AKA “The Circular”

• Submission Cycle– Direct recipients every 3

years– MPOs every 4 yrs

8http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Title_VI_Circular_4702.1A.pdf

Disproportionate Service/Fare Changes

“Recipients can implement a service/fare increase that would have disproportionately high and adverse effects provided that the recipient (1) demonstrates that the action meets a substantial need that is in the public interest; and (2) that alternatives would have more severe adverse effects than the preferred alternative.”*

*Circular 4702.1A, Title VI Guidelines for FTA Recipients9

10

Establishing a Major Service Change Policy

• Recipient should have established guidelines or threshold for what it considers to be “major” change

• Often defined as a numerical standard– e.g. change effects greater than 25% of

service hours on any route

11

Should I conduct a

Service Equity Analysis?

13

Service & Fare Equity Analysis

• When: Conducted at programming stage• Who: Urbanized area with population of

200,000 or more that proposes major service change or fare change (Note: There is no threshold for fare changes – one penny makes a fare change.)

• Why: Required by FTA Circular 4702.1A

14

SERVICE & FARE EQUITY ANALYSIS

Customary Steps

15

16

Most agencies

use Option B

Analytical Approach• What dataset(s) will you use?

• At what geographic levels will you assess disparate impacts? (By route, for the entire service area, …)

• At what geographic level will you measure minority and low-income concentrations? (Census tract, block group, TAZ, … or by ridership)

• Within which population will you identify disparate impacts? (Riders, service area population, …)

• Regardless of option: analytical method for determining disparate impact

17

Golden Rule for Preparing Golden Rule for Preparing Service Equity AnalysisService Equity Analysis

APPLES

TO

APPLES

ORANGES TO

ORANGES

18

General idea of the analysis• Detail major service changes and how

they qualify as major relative to policy

• How would the proposed service changes impact L-I & minority populations at the geographic level(s) you identified?

19

Presentation of analysis• GIS Maps

• Impacts associated with each type of service change

20

21

Example: Impacts of route-level changes on surrounding populations

22

Maps with overlays

Example: impacts of span of service changes on ridership

23

- An agency proposes to eliminate late-evening service on ALL routes.

Example: impacts of span of service changes by route classification

24

- An agency has classified certain routes as “low-income” based on the Census tracts they serve. The agency proposes span of service changes to many of its routes.

Example: impacts of a service improvement on existing riders

25

- An agency proposes to replace an express bus route with a faster fixed guideway service. The agency analyzes travel time differences for existing riders based on their origin locations.

Average travel time by ridership group (minutes)

Existing bus service

New fixed-guideway

Change

Absolute Percentage

Minority 57.1 48.8 -8.3 -14.5%

Low-income 58.6 50.3 -8.3 -14.2%

Overall 62.1 53.8 -8.3 -13.4%

26

Example: impacts of headway changes by route classification

- An agency has classified certain routes as “minority” based on the Census tracts they serve. The agency proposes headway changes to many of its routes.

27

Mode Change

• If an agency operates multiple modes of service but proposed service changes only affect one mode: an equity analysis must be performed at the modal level based on proportions of L-I & minority ridership for each mode.

Alternative services available What alternative services are available

for people impacted by the service change?

How would the use of alternatives affect riders’ travel times and costs?

Example: Other lines or services, potentially involving transfers and/or other modes, that connect affected riders with destinations they typically access.

Can test alternatives using a trip planner

28

MITIGATE, MINIMIZE & OFFSET DISPARATE IMPACTS!

Alignment or frequency changes to nearby lines or services to offer more convenience to affected areas

Expansion of demand-response service in affected areas

Guaranteed ride home program Other budgetary actions to taken to limit

impacts to riders, i.e. internal cost-containment strategies

29

30

Conclusions• What are your conclusions as to the impact of

proposed service changes on L-I and minority populations?

• If disparate impact:– Meets a substantial need that is in the public

interest– Alternative strategies have more severe adverse

effects than preferred alternative– 1 & 2 not a pretext for discrimination– & considered alternatives & mitigation

31

32

• Is it always the case that, if a transit agency raises fares such that the percent increase is the same for all fares, then the increased fares are equitable?

Yes?

No?

2008 Customer Satisfaction Survey (Systemwide)WeekdayEthnicity by Fare TypeWeighted by originating rides

CountFare type Non-minority Minority TotalFR Cash 149,131 302,021 451,152FR Day Metro Pass 158,451 290,456 448,907Express Bus Cash 5,198 1,047 6,245Express Bus Day Pass 2,166 1,047 3,213Rail Cash 1-Zone 0Rail Cash 2-Zone 0Rail 1-Zone Day Pass 0Rail 2-Zone Day Pass 0Cash Single Ride Student 0Seniors 28,395 17,681 46,077Disability Fare card 9,321 29,280 38,600Active Duty/Military 0Disability Fare Card (ADA certified) 9,321 9,321 18,641Dillo 0STS 0Adult 31 31-Day R Pass 335,544 511,225 846,769Student 31-Day R Pass 130,489 192,661 323,150Adult 7-Day R Pass 0Dillo Monthly Pass 0Express & Rail Adult 31-Day Pass (all zones) 6,498 3,140 9,637Express & Rail Reduced fare 31-day rolling Pass (all zones) 11,262 1,396 12,658Stored Value Card 10,620 780 11,400STS Monthly Pass 11,789 10,497 22,286

STS 10-Ride Ticket Booklet 17306 15408 32,714RideShare Monthly 4,248Total 885,490 1,385,960 2,275,698

60.9%

Ethnicity

34

Example Fare Data:Is there a disparate impact?

Fare Type NonMin Minority Cost/Ride

Cash 1-ride 149,131 302,021 $1.00

Day Pass 158,451 290,456 $1.25

Monthly Pass 511,225 355,544 $0.75

TOTAL 686,930 1,122,250

35

Compare & Mitigate Proposed Fare Changes

• Analysis should compare the fares that would be paid under the change with fares that would be paid under available alternatives.

• Describe actions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of proposed fare changes on minority and low-income populations.

36

Service & Fare Equity AnalysisSummary Points

Evaluate changes during planning Determine if discriminatory impact Compare “apples-to-apples” Explain methodology Use graphics Describe actions to mitigate

37