A Simple Methodology to Evaluate the Disproportionate Impacts of Fare and

Service Changes on Protected Populations

in a Fixed Guide-way System

By Vijay Mahal

HDR Engineering

May 11, 201113th TRB Applications Conference

Reno

Presentation Purpose

Objectives:• Define the problem / Explain equity

impacts• Review existing methods• Discuss HDR method• Present an example

The Problem

Public transportation is• A public service• Most often uses Federal funds• Service and Fare changes impacts people• Are protected populations impacted

disproportionately?• If so, mitigation is required

Equity Impacts: Title VI requirements

• What is “Title VI Requirements” ?• Who needs to comply ?• When is it required ? • Why is it required ?

Fare and Service Changes

Fare:• Across the board increase• Increase on minimum fares only• Increase on some selected modes only• Increase in transfer fares

Service:• Route modifications• Service reductions• Service elimination

How do you measure impacts?

• Using travel models• Surveys• Simple sketch planning techniques

Note: FTA does not endorse any

particular method

HDR’s Methodology

• Developed in 2010 for a fixed guide-way system.

• First applied to BART. • It is a Sketch planning approach.• Does not require large data. • Easy to understand (most FTA reviewers are

not modelers)

HDR’s Methodology

Six steps involved

Step 1: Identify where protected populations live (in GIS)

Step 2: Delineate station catchment area. Estimate average boarding fares at each station before and after fare increase

Step 3: Determine magnitude of protected populations in the station catchment area

HDR’s Methodology

• Step 4: Compute system wide average fare for each protected group (before & after)

• Step 5: Compare % increase in fares for protected groups with non-protected groups

• Step 6: Use professional judgment or statistical tests to determine if disparity exists

Example

Ex: Lagrange County Transportation Authority (LCTA)• LCTA wants to increase

rail fares by 10 %. CBD surcharge by 5 %.

• System has distance based fare

Question: Will there be any disproportionate impacts associated with this fare increase ?

Data needed

• Fare tables• Station to station passenger flows (if

available)• Census Data / ACS Data• Catchment area definition

Step 1: Identify Protected Groups

• Map the Distribution of minority, non-minority, low-income and non-low-income populations.

• Definitions must be consistent with MPO’s standards

Step 2: Delineate catchment Area / Estimate Ave. fares

Delineate catchment area

• Use data from survey• Or 1/3 mile for rail• Or 1/4 mile for Bus

Estimate average boarding fares for each station

• Simple average• Average weighted by

trips

Step 2: Estimate Average Boarding Fares

Ave. Boarding Fares Before Fare Increase

FARES TRIPS

Bear Oak Newton Main South McHard Sycamore Bear Oak Newton Main South McHard Sycamore

Creek Street Ctr Street Street Rd Ctr Creek Street Ctr Street Street Rd Ctr

Bear Creek 75 125 175 225 225 300

Bear Creek 400 600 1,200 1,600 300 200

Oak St 75 100 150 200 200 275 Oak St 350 300 700 500 100 300

Newton Ctr 125 100 100 150 150 225

Newton Ctr 600 250 200 400 600 100

Main Street 175 150 100 100 125 175

Main Street 1,100 650 250 200 400 100

SouthStreet 225 200 150 100 75 125

SouthStreet 1,500 550 400 200 100 100

McHardRd 225 200 150 125 75 75

McHardRd 250 75 550 400 100 50

Sycamore Ctr 300 275 225 175 125 75

Sycamore Ctr 250 300 75 75 120 45

Step 2: Estimate Average Boarding

Fares Calculation of average fares - Before fare Increase

Row sum of Row sum Weighted average

fare x trips of trips boarding fare

Bear Creek 802,500 4,300 1.87

Oak Street 363,750 2,250 1.91

Newton Center 292,500 2,150 1.89

Main Street 402,500 2,700 2.52

South Street 547,500 2,850 4.06

McHard Road 215,000 1,425 1.83

Sycamore Center 205,875 865 3.35

Step 2: Estimate Average Boarding Fares

Ave. Boarding Fares After Fare Increase

FARES TRIPS

Bear Oak Newton Main South McHard Sycamore Bear Oak Newton Main South McHard Sycamore

Creek Street Ctr Street Street Rd Ctr Creek Street Ctr Street Street Rd Ctr

Bear Creek 85 150 210 250 250 330

Bear Creek 400 600 1,200 1,600 300 200

Oak St 85 110 170 225 220 300 Oak St 350 300 700 500 100 300

Newton Ctr 150 110 110 170 170 260

Newton Ctr 600 250 200 400 600 100

Main Street 210 170 110 110 140 210

Main Street 1,100 650 250 200 400 100

SouthStreet 250 225 170 110 85 150

SouthStreet 1,500 550 400 200 100 100

McHardRd 250 220 170 140 85 85

McHardRd 250 75 550 400 100 50

Sycamore Ctr 330 300 260 210 150 85

Sycamore Ctr 250 300 75 75 120 45

Step 2: Estimate Average Boarding Fares

Calculation of average fares - After fare Increase

Row sum of Row sum Weighted average

fare x trips of trips boarding fare

Bear Creek 917,000 4,300 2.13

Oak Street 406,250 2,250 2.14

Newton Center 335,500 2,150 2.16

Main Street 468,000 2,700 2.93

South Street 612,250 2,850 4.54

McHard Road 241,250 1,425 2.05

Sycamore Center 229,575 865 3.73

Average boarding fares

Sycamore Ctr:

Ave. Boarding Fare: $ 3.35

(before fare increase)

What does it represent?

Percent increase in boarding fares

Sycamore Ctr:

Ave. Boarding Fare: $ 3.73

(after fare increase)

Fare Increase: 11.40 % for all people in the catchment area

Percent increase in boarding fares

Percent increase is a function of:•Trip flows•Increase in min. boarding fee•Increase in CBD surcharge

Fare Increase for the System

• Simple average• Average

weighted by population

• Average weighted by protected population

Step 3: Estimate the magnitude of Protected Populations

• US Census, ACS• Dealing with

Overlapping areas

Step 4: Compute System wide Average Fare

Minority Non-minority % Fare population population increase

in the in the in the Minority Non-minority Whole catchment catchment catchment population population population

area area area

Bear Creek 11,500 17,100 14.2 163,300 242,820 406,120Oak St 9,000 13,100 11.7 105,300 153,270 258,570Newton Ctr 11,200 9,800 14.3 160,160 140,140 300,300Main Street 3,200 500 15.9 50,880 7,950 58,830South Street 3,400 200 11.6 39,440 2,320 41,760McHard Rd 21,000 12,900 12.2 256,200 157,380 413,580Sycamore Ctr 4,300 19,000 11.4 49,020 216,600 265,620

63,600 72,600 824,300 920,480 1,744,780

System wide percent increase in fare 12.961 % 12.679 % 12.810 %

System wide weighted average

Step 5: Compare Percentages

Ave. fare for Minorities: 12.96%

Ave. fare for Non-minorities: 12.67%

Ave. fare for Low-income pop: 12.31%

Ave. fare for Non-low-inc pop: 12.01%

Step 6: Determination of Disparate Impact

• Use professional judgment• Use statistical methods

Closing Remarks

HDR method is • Simple and logical• Doesn’t require large data• Can be expanded to any system• Acceptable to FTA