Title VI Approval of Major Service Change, Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden

Transcription

1 Customer Service and Operations Committee Board Action Item III-A October 10, 2013 Title VI Approval of Major Service Change, Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Page 3 of 42

2 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary Action Information MEAD Number: Resolution: Yes No TITLE: Title VI Required Definitions PRESENTATION SUMMARY: Proposed policy definitions for Major Service Change (Metrobus and Metrorail) and Disparate Impact/Disproportionate Burden PURPOSE: To request Board approval for required Title VI program definitions for: major service change (Metrobus and Metrorail); disparate impact (minorities) and disproportionate burden (low income). DESCRIPTION: FTA s Title VI Circular requires WMATA to prepare and submit service and fare equity analyses for major service changes and all fare changes prior to implementing service and/or fare changes. The analyses are to determine whether the planned changes will have a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, or national origin, or if low-income populations will bear a disproportionate burden of the changes. Upon completion of a service or fare equity analysis, WMATA must brief the Board of Directors on the equity impacts of the service and/or fare change. As the foundation of this process, WMATA must identify what constitutes a major service change for its fixed route service as only major service changes are subject to a service equity analysis. In addition, WMATA must develop policies for measuring disparate impacts on minority populations and disproportionate burdens on low-income populations. These polices establish a threshold for determining when adverse effects of service changes or fare changes are disparate or disproportionate. In establishing these policies, WMATA must engage the public in the decision-making process to develop the disparate impact and disproportionate burden policy. Key Highlights: Management is seeking Board approval of the definitions for major service changes, disparate impact and disproportionate burden at this time for two reason: 1) to allow the November Metrobus service changes to go forward (no agency is allowed to make major service changes without Board approved definitions under the new circular) and 2) to build the foundation for the agency s Title VI plan, which requires Board approval in its entirety in June 2014 for submittal to FTA in September Staff has evaluated a number of approaches to defining disparate impact and disproportionate burden; has collected public input on proposals; has conducted Page 4 of 42

3 peer review; and has consulted FTA Headquarters and Region III. The recommended definitions have been tested with WMATA s analytic approach to conducting equity analyses and meet all desired objectives. Background and History: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, as well as subsequent legislation and regulation, seeks to ensure that no person in the United States shall, on the ground 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. The FTA is the agency that provides oversight to WMATA s Title VI program. WMATA has a depth of institutional experience with Title VI. In the history of WMATA s filings, the FTA has never rejected, or found substantial fault with our Title VI filings. The only requests from FTA have been for minor editing changes and clarifications. Other transit agencies have contacted WMATA for peer sharing based on a suggestion from FTA. In October of 2012, the FTA released the most recent update to its Title VI Circular. This circular presents guidance and instructions for recipients of Federal financial assistance to comply with current U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Title VI regulations. Changes made in this revision include the addition of several requirements, including Board adoption of policy definitions for what constitutes a major service change, disproportionate burden and disparate impact. Last month, staff discussed the proposed major service change policy and detailed the objectives staff would meet in the development of disparate impact and disproportionate burden definitions. Discussion: WMATA has established policies for determining major service changes on Metrobus and now must establish such policies for Metrorail. An interdepartmental working group was established to develop the major service change proposal for Metrorail as well as to evaluate several approaches to create a policy definition for disparate impact and disproportionate burden that reflects peer transit agency approaches, considers input from the public who will be affected by it, recognizes the complexity of Metro services, has been tested using our approach to equity analysis and is easy to understand. This past August, staff collected public input on the proposals for all definitions through focus groups with community organizations and an online survey. WMATA staff met with around 100 customers and community organization staff that represented diverse populations. In total, nearly 400 survey responses were collected. The majority of survey participants agreed with the proposed Title VI definitions for major service change for Metrorail and Metrobus. Respondents also believed even small differences between impacts on minority and non-minority riders are considered major. Since the Committee last met, WMATA briefed the Jurisdictional Coordinating Committee on September 27 to gain input on our approach and learn of their plans to address the Title VI circular requirements. The majority of the jurisdictions are still in the beginning Page 5 of 42

4 stages of developing their plans. A number of jurisdictions indicated they are monitoring Metro s progress on the circular to help guide their own process and approach. We will continue to work with the jurisdictions on this process. Major Service Change Policies: Subsequent to the staff work and public input, staff recommends the following definitions for major service change on Metrorail and Metrobus be approved: Parameters Metrobus Definitions Compact Public Hearing Required? Span Increase or decrease in span of service on a line of more than one hour in a single fiscal year. Yes, if there is a reduction of more than one hour in span of service on a line Frequency Coverage / Availability Increase or decrease in revenue miles on a line of more than 20% in a single fiscal year. Increase or decrease in route miles on a line of 15% in a single fiscal year. Projected Increase or decrease of 10% of the riders on a line in a single fiscal year. Yes, if there is a reduction of more than 20% in revenue miles Yes, if there is a reduction of 15% in route miles Yes, if there is a reduction of 10% of riders Parameters Metrorail Definitions Current Operations Compact Public Hearing Required? Span Coverage / Availability Change in span of normal operations above or below the current service levels. Complete and permanent scheduled station closure for one or more days in a week; opening of a new station. Addition or abandonment of a line. Start: 5 AM Monday- Friday; 7 AM on weekends. End: 12 AM Sunday- Thursday; 3 AM Friday and Saturday. Yes, if service is reduced Yes Page 6 of 42

5 Parameter Metrorail Definition When Core Interlined Frequency Change in Weekday 3 Min. frequency of Rush * normal 6 Min. operations Weekday above or below Midday the current 15 Min. service levels Weekday Evening * 12 minutes at Arlington Cemetery on Weekday Rush Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Definitions (DI/DB) All Others 6 Min. 12 Min. 20 Min. Compact Public Hearing Required? Yes, if service is reduced To develop the policy for measuring adverse impacts, staff conducted a peer review of transit properties nationwide and found a wide variety of compliance approach proposals. Most of the agencies whose policies we reviewed are either still developing their approach or are waiting for FTA concurrence with their proposals FTA s Civil Rights staff confirmed that only LA Transit s Title VI definitions have been approved. At the same time, staff conducted the outreach described earlier to determine what our customers and the public consider to be adverse impacts. With this feedback in mind, a policy was developed that additionally recognized the accuracy of WMATA s passenger survey data and also took in to account the complexity of WMATA s system with respect to mode, jurisdictional distribution and fare structure. Since the Board was last briefed, staff met with the FTA Civil Rights staff to begin working collaboratively on establishing the standards. We received valuable feedback on our proposal and are optimistic that we will receive positive comments after incorporating some of their suggestions. In developing a measure or standard most appropriate for WMATA, staff considered a number of models and formulas, including the thresholds being used by peer transit agencies and newly developed modeling approaches. The various approaches were tested using more than 200 past and hypothetical service changes. The final approach and thresholds consider WMATA s passenger survey data and reflect feedback received from the FTA. Staff proposes the following definition for determining disparate impact (minorities) and disproportionate burden (low-income) in an equity analysis. For major service changes: WMATA will consider a proposed service change to be disparate/disproportionate when the difference between the systemwide percentage of minority and low-income ridership and the percentage of minority/low-income ridership affected by the service change differs by the amount shown in the following table for the size of the change. For example, our Page 7 of 42

6 systemwide minority ridership is 55%. If riders impacted by a service change affecting 100,000 riders were 58% minority, the difference is less than 5%, so would not be considered disparate. The same thresholds shall apply for proposed service reductions and increases. * Based on natural breaks in WMATA passenger survey data Exceptions to using the above thresholds may occur if Metro has limited survey data available and the margin of error in the data is 10% or greater. In such cases, Metro will collect new data to ensure a margin of error consistent with this definition. For fare changes: A disparate impact or disproportionate burden may exist if the difference between the average fare increase (represented as a % change) for minority/low-income populations and the average fare increase (represented as a % change) non-minority/non-low-income populations is greater than 5% (percentage points). For example, if the average fare increase on minority riders was 10% and the average fare increase on non-minority riders was 4%, the difference is greater than 5% and would be considered disparate. FUNDING IMPACT: TIMELINE: Total Riders Acceptable difference between groups Affected by Service Change (per weekday) Up to 10,000 8% 10,001 to 20,000 7% 20,001 to 40,000 6% Over 40,000 5% Project Manager: Tawnya Moore-McGee Project Human Resources/Equal Opportunity and Employee Relations Department/Office: Previous Actions Anticipated actions after presentation 02/2000 Rules and Regulations for Metrobus Operations 09/2013 Information: Title VI Required Service Standards, Policies and Definitions 06/2014 Action: Approval of WMATA s Title VI Program Update 09/ Title VI Program Submittal to FTA RECOMMENDATION: Approval of proposed definitions for major service change, disparate impact and disproportionate burden. Page 8 of 42

7 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Title VI Definitions 1 General 1. What do FTA regulations require? FTA s Title VI Circular requires WMATA to prepare and submit service and fare equity analyses for major service changes and all fare changes prior to implementing service and/or fare changes. The analyses are to determine whether the planned changes will have a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, or national origin, or if low-income populations will bear a disproportionate burden of the changes. Upon completion of a service or fare equity analysis, WMATA must brief the Board of Directors on the equity impacts of the service and/or fare change. As the foundation of this process, WMATA must identify what constitutes a major service change for its fixed route service as only major service changes are subject to a service equity analysis. In addition, WMATA must develop policies for measuring disparate impacts on minority populations and disproportionate burdens on low-income populations. These polices establish a threshold for determining when adverse effects of service changes or fare changes are disparate or disproportionate. In establishing these policies, WMATA must engage the public in the decision-making process to develop the disparate impact and disproportionate burden policy. 2. What populations are protected under Title VI regulations? Title VI populations are very specific: Low Income WMATA uses a threshold of household income below $30,000 to define the low-income population. This is approximately 60% of the Compact area median income, and slightly exceeds the Department of Health and Human Services poverty threshold for a family of four. Minority This includes all populations defined in Census as non-white or Hispanic. Limited English Proficient Individuals who have a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English. Proficiency thresholds are defined by Census. 3. If WMATA s plan is due to the FTA in September 2014, why are we developing these definitions now and asking for Board approval? The new FTA Circular requires that all major service changes and fare changes implemented on or after April 1, 2013 be analyzed using Board approved definitions for major service change, disparate impact and disproportionate burden. In short, we would not be able to go forward with our planned FY13 Fall bus changes or any other service adjustment or fare adjustment, without obtaining a waiver from the FTA to use our existing Title VI plan methodology. Note that the FTA allowed WMATA to use the policies in our existing Title VI Plan for the Silver Line assessment. Since then, staff has been working to ensure that the requirements are met for subsequent service or fare changes. Page 9 of 42

8 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Title VI Definitions 2 4. In the development of the definitions, what did we consider? An interdepartmental working group was established to evaluate several approaches to create a policy definition for major service change, disparate impact and disproportionate burden that reflects peer transit agency approaches (see peer review tables attached), considers input from the public who will be affected by it, recognizes the complexity of Metro services, has been tested using our approach to equity analysis and is easy to understand. This past August, staff collected public input on the proposals for all definitions through focus groups with community organizations (see table below) and an online survey. WMATA staff met with around 100 customers and community organization staff that represented diverse populations. In total, nearly 400 survey responses were collected. The majority of survey participants agreed with the proposed Title VI definitions for major service change for Metrorail and Metrobus. Respondents also believed even small differences between impacts on minority and non-minority riders are considered major. Major Service Change 5. What is the current policy and why does it have to change? WMATA s current major service change policy addresses major service decreases for Metrobus based on revenue, route miles, span of service, or boarding. It also defines major service increases as changes to rush and non-rush hour headways. FTA requires that the major service change policy address both service reductions and service increases for all fixed modes of service. Additionally, these policies must be vetted with the public and approved by the Board. FTA regulations do not require a major service change policy for paratransit service such as MetroAccess. When evaluating the impacts of fare adjustments on low-income and minority populations, MetroAccess riders are included in the equity analysis because changes to fixed route fares impact MetroAccess riders. Page 10 of 42

9 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Title VI Definitions 3 6. What is being recommended as WMATA s Major Service Change Policy? Subsequent to the staff work and public input, staff recommends the following definitions for major service change on Metrorail and Metrobus be approved: Parameters Metrobus Definitions Compact Public Hearing Required? Span Change in span of service on a line of more than one hour in a single fiscal year. Yes, if there is a reduction of more than one hour in span of Frequency Coverage / Availability Change in revenue miles on a line of more than 20% in a single fiscal year. Change in route miles on a line of 15% in a single fiscal year. Projected change of 10% of the riders on a line in a single fiscal year. service on a line Yes, if there is a reduction of more than 20% in revenue miles Yes, if there is a reduction of 15% in route miles Yes, if there is a reduction of 10% of riders Parameters Metrorail Definitions Current Operations Compact Public Hearing Required? Span Coverage / Availability Change in span of normal operations above or below the current service levels. Complete and permanent scheduled station closure for one or more days in a week; opening of a new station. Addition or abandonment of a line. Start: 5 AM Monday-Friday; 7 AM on weekends. End: 12 AM Sunday- Thursday; 3 AM Friday and Saturday. Yes, if service is reduced Yes Page 11 of 42

10 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Title VI Definitions 4 Parameter Metrorail Definition When Core Interlined Frequency Change in frequency of normal operations above or below the current service levels Weekday Rush * Weekday Midday 3 Min. 6 Min. All Others 6 Min. 12 Min. 15 Min. 20 Min. Weekday Evening * 12 minutes at Arlington Cemetery on Weekday Rush Compact Public Hearing Required? Yes, if service is reduced 7. What impact will the new major service change policy have on the Compact? The Compact states that WMATA may not raise any fare or rate, nor implement a Metrobus major service reduction without holding a public hearing. Developing major service change policies for Metrobus and Metrorail in accordance with FTA regulations does not modify the Compact nor will it create an obligation to hold compact public hearings. The major service change policies will trigger the need to conduct a Title VI equity analysis of the proposed change which will be presented to the Board for approval. Disparate Impact/Disproportionate Burden (DI/DB) 8. How did we develop the methodology to measure adverse impacts? In developing a measure or standard most appropriate for WMATA, staff considered a number of models and formulas, including the thresholds being used by peer transit agencies and newly developed modeling approaches. The various approaches were tested using more than 200 past and hypothetical service changes. The final approach and thresholds consider WMATA s ridership database and reflect feedback received from the FTA. 9. What makes us different from other transit properties? When undertaking Title VI analysis, assessments must be made about rider demographics. WMATA riders differ from riders in other large properties (i.e. MTA-NYC, CTA, MTA-LA) in that WMATA s system is somewhat of a hybrid of commuter and subway passengers. Many WMATA riders drive from the suburbs to the system meaning that census data (a common data set for other properties to use) around a given rail station would not be an appropriate indicator of rider demographics. Therefore, WMATA collects its own ridership data on a regular basis (for both bus and rail). The datasets are comprehensive origindestination logs and provide an accurate picture of trips made in the Metro DC region. So, Page 12 of 42

11 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Title VI Definitions 5 while some properties estimate ridership demographics from census data and others make generalizations about entire stations, WMATA accurately portrays its ridership population and therefore, more accurately assesses impacts. 10. What is the recommendation? Staff proposes the following definition for determining disparate impact (minorities) and disproportionate burden (low-income) in an equity analysis. For major service changes: WMATA will consider a proposed service change to be disparate/disproportionate when the difference between the systemwide percentage of minority and low-income ridership and the percentage of minority/low-income ridership affected by the service change differs by the amount shown in the following table for the size of the change. For example, our systemwide minority ridership is 55%. If riders impacted by a service change affecting 100,000 riders were 58% minority, the difference is less than 5%, so would not be considered disparate. The same thresholds shall apply for proposed service reductions and increases. *Total Riders Affected by Service Change (per weekday) Threshold for Significant Disparity (between % minority/low-income riders affected by service change and % of minority/low-income riders for the system or mode) Up to 10,000 8% 10,001 to 20,000 7% 20,001 to 40,000 6% Over 40,000 5% * Based on natural breaks in WMATA passenger survey data Exceptions to using the above thresholds may occur if Metro has limited survey data available and the margin of error in the data is 10% or greater. In such cases, Metro will collect new data to ensure a margin of error consistent with this definition. For fare changes: A disparate impact or disproportionate burden may exist if the difference between the average fare increase (represented as a % change) for minority/low-income populations and the average fare increase (represented as a % change) non-minority/non-low-income populations is greater than 5% (percentage points). For example, if the average fare increase on minority riders was 10% and the average fare increase on non-minority riders was 4%, the difference is greater than 5% and would be considered disparate. Page 13 of 42

12 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Title VI Definitions 6 Staff believes that the recommended approach brings a reliable, defensible, and easy-tounderstand means to evaluate the potential impacts of fare and service change proposals to our riding populations. 11. How does our approach compare to other transit agencies? Our peer review of 15 transit properties indicated that there is no one way to develop DI/DB thresholds. The policies varied widely depending on local context, including the data available for equity analyses. Some agencies simply chose a percentage difference (ranging from 5% - 20%) between the impacts on minority/low-income populations versus the impacts on non-minority/non-low-income populations. Some policies included different thresholds for analyses at the transit line versus system levels; some had different thresholds for evaluating service changes versus fare changes. At least two systems developed an approach using statistical methodologies. Our analytic approach for both service and fare changes evaluates impacts at the trip-making level. Both our rail and bus passenger survey data allow us to look at how individual riders make trips. We believe that this level of analysis brings a greater level of precision to understanding the impacts of fare and service change proposals to our riding populations. 12. What approaches are the agencies in the jurisdictions applying? Since the Committee last met, WMATA briefed the Jurisdictional Coordinating Committee on September 27 to gain input on our approach and learn of their plans to address the Title VI circular requirements. The majority of the jurisdictions are still in the beginning stages of developing their plans. A number of jurisdictions indicated they are monitoring Metro s progress on the circular to help guide their own process and approach. We will continue to work with the jurisdictions on this process. Page 14 of 42

13 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Title VI Definitions 7 Service Change Policies Transit Agency DI/DB Thresholds Comparison Population BART Bay Area, CA 5% for major changes to existing service, 10% for new service Impacted non-minority/ non-low-income population CTA Chicago 15% (riders or vehicle revenue hours) Impacted non-minority/ non-low-income population DART Dallas Any statistically significant difference Proportion of minority/low-income population in service area Metro Los Angeles 5% absolute difference or 20% differential Systemwide average minority/ low-income population Metropolitan Council Twin Cities Four-fifth s rule: benefits provided to minority/low-income populations at rate less than 80% of benefits provided to non-minority/nonlow-income populations, or adverse effects borne by non-minority/ non-lowincome populations at rate less than 80% of adverse effects borne by minority/low-income Impacted non-minority/non-lowincome population MTA New York City Transit & MTA Bus OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority populations Statistically significant differences at 95 +/- 5% confidence level Any difference (where changes have an adverse effect) Impacted non-minority/ non-low-income population Depends on type of service change, may compare to systemwide average minority/low-income population, or compare minority routes and non-minority routes Average minority/low-income Pierce Transit Pierce Co., WA 10% for Disparate Impact, 5% for Disproportionate Burden population of service area RTD 10% Impacted non-minority/ Denver non-low-income population Sacramento RT 20% Percent minority/low-income of overall ridership SamTrans 20% Impacted non-minority/ San Mateo Co., non-low-income population CA SEPTA Southeastern Pennsylvania SFMTA San Francisco TriMet Portland, OR Valley Metro Phoenix 10% Impacted non-minority/ non-low-income population 8% Systemwide average minority/ low-income population Any difference (where changes have an adverse Percent minority/low-income effect) at transit line level, population of service area at transit 20% at system level line level, impacted non-minority/ non-lowincome population at system level Any difference Average percentage of system s minority/low-income riders, by transit service classification Page 15 of 42

14 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Title VI Definitions 8 Fare Change Policies Transit Agency DI/DB Thresholds Comparison Population 5% for across the board and other fare changes, 10% for changes to individual fare types and new fares BART Bay Area, CA CTA Chicago DART Dallas Metro Los Angeles Metropolitan Council Twin Cities MTA New York City Transit & MTA Bus OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority Pierce Transit Pierce Co., WA RTD Denver 10% for one fare change or each fare change in a package, 5% for total package of fare changes Any statistically significant difference Looks at individual fare types, 20% differential and 5% absolute difference Four-fifth s rule: benefits provided to minority/low-income populations at rate less than 80% of benefits provided to nonminority/non-low-income population, or adverse effects borne by non-minority/ nonlow-income populations at rate less than 80% of adverse effects borne by minority/low-income populations Statistically significant differences at 95 +/- 5% confidence level Changes in average fare for impacted non-minority/non-low-income population; except for changes to individual fare types, comparison population is systemwide average minority/low-income population Percentage of impacts on overall rider population Proportion of minority/low-income population in the service area Average percent change in cost of all fare changes Impacted non-minority/non-low-income population Average fare media cost for impacted non-minority/non-low-income population 10% Percentage change in fare product for impacted non-minority/non-low-income riders 10% for Disparate Impact, 5% for Disproportionate Burden Average minority/low-income population of service area none (only developed DI/DB policies regarding major service changes) Sacramento RT 20% Average fare (aggregated over all fare types) for overall ridership SamTrans 20% Impacted non-minority/ San Mateo Co., CA non-low-income population SEPTA 5% for fare changes, Percentage change in average fare of Southeastern 5% for difference between divisional modes impacted non-minority/non-low-income Pennsylvania riders SFMTA San Francisco TriMet Portland, OR Valley Metro Phoenix 8% Systemwide average minority/lowincome population Any difference evident at the 95% Percent overall riders impacted by confidence level change, per fare type 4% Fare rate change (by fare type) of impacted non-minority/non-low-income population Page 16 of 42

15 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Title VI Definitions 9 Organization Name Organization Location Populations Served Emmaus Services for the Aging th Street, NW Washington, DC Elderly, Low Income, Minority, Asian Americans Hispanic Committee of Virginia 5827 Columbia Pike Falls Church, VA Limited English Proficient (LEP), Low Income, and Minority Montgomery County Refugee Training Center 7600 Takoma Avenue Takoma Park, MD LEP, Low Income, Minority, Political asylums, Refugees Boat People, SOS, Inc Leesburg Pike, Suite 100 Vietnamese Population, Low Central Union Mission Women Veterans Interactive Prince Georges Community College Next Step Program Falls Church, VA th Street, NW Washington, DC Berry Road Accokeek, MD Largo Road Largo, MD Income, LEP Homeless men, underprivileged women, seniors, veterans, Hispanic community, Low Income Women Veterans, Low Income, Disabled Veterans Welfare to Work, Low income, Minority, students Page 17 of 42

16 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Title VI Required Definitions Customer Service and Operations Committee October 10, 2013 Page 18 of 42

17 Purpose Obtain Board Approval for required Title VI policies: Major service change Disparate impact Disproportionate burden Page 19 of 42

18 Major Service Change Policy for Title VI Equity Analysis Required for fixed route service Will not o modify the Compact o create the need for additional Compact public hearings Establishes o service reduction and service increase thresholds o major service change policy for Metrorail Page 20 of 42

19 Title VI Definition: Major Service Change - Metrobus Parameters Span Frequency Coverage / Availability Metrobus Definitions Change in span of service on a line of more than one hour in a single fiscal year. Change in revenue miles on a line of more than 20% in a single fiscal year. Change in route miles on a line of 15% in a single fiscal year. Projected change of 10% of the riders on a line in a single fiscal year. Page 21 of 42

20 Title VI Definition: Major Service Change Metrorail Parameters Metrorail Definitions Current Operations Start: 5AM Monday-Friday; 7AM on Change in span of normal weekends. Span operations above or below End: 12AM Sunday-Thursday; 3AM the current service levels Friday and Saturday. Coverage / Availability Complete and permanent scheduled station closure for one or more days in a week; opening of a new station. Addition or abandonment of a line. Page 22 of 42

21 Title VI Definition: Major Service Change Metrorail Parameters Metrorail Definition When Core Interlined All Others Frequency Change in frequency of normal operations above or below the current service levels Weekday Rush * Weekday Midday Weekday Evening 3 Min. 6 Min. 15 Min. 6 Min. 12 Min. 20 Min. *12 minutes at Arlington Cemetery on Weekday Rush Page 23 of 42

22 Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policies Assesses adverse impact of a major service change or fare change on protected populations Establishes threshold for disparate impact and disproportionate burden Takes into consideration public input Page 24 of 42

23 Metro s Considerations in Defining DI/DB Policy Tested with Our Analysis Peer Review (15 Transit Properties) Federal Transit Administration Public Outreach Page 25 of 42

24 Public Outreach Community Based Organization Focus Groups (weeks of 8/12 and 8/19) Online Comment Survey (wmata.com) (Starting 8/14) Press Release (8/14) Listserv Notification (Starting 8/14) Posting on PlanItMetro 392 Questionnaires received Overall agreement with proposed major service change policies Most believed even small differences between impacts on minority and non-minority riders are considered major Page 26 of 42

25 Metro s Definition of DI/DB For Service Changes: A disparate impact is when the impacted riders are significantly more minority/low-income than the system as a whole. Riders/Day Impacted Acceptable Difference Between Groups Up to 10,000 8% 10,001 to 20,000 7% 20,001 to 40,000 6% Over 40,000 5% For Fare Changes: A disproportionate burden is when the average fare for minority/low-income riders is more than 5% points higher than non-minority and non-low-income riders. Page 27 of 42

26 Recommendation The Board approve proposed definitions for: Major service change Disparate impact Disproportionate burden Page 28 of 42

27 Page 29 of 42

28 Page 30 of 42

29 Page 31 of 42

30 Page 32 of 42