DOCSLIB.ORG

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority’S (KCATA) Title VI Program, Adopted in October, 2016, with the Approval of the KCATA Board of Commissioners

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority’S (KCATA) Title VI Program, Adopted in October, 2016, with the Approval of the KCATA Board of Commissioners KANSAS CITY AREA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TITLE VI PROGRAM UPDATE DECEMBER 2016 [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Profile of KCATA ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Transit Service Contract Management ..................................................................................................... 4 RideKC Regional Transit ............................................................................................................................ 4 CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................................................. 7 General Reporting Requirements ............................................................................................................. 7 Public Participation Plan ........................................................................................................................... 9 Title VI Complaint Forms ......................................................................................................................... 12 Language Assistance Plan (LEP Plan) ...................................................................................................... 12 Membership of Non-Elected Committees and Councils ......................................................................... 13 Subrecipient Monitoring ......................................................................................................................... 13 Title VI Equity Analysis for Facility Construction ..................................................................................... 15 Board Approval of Title VI Program ........................................................................................................ 15 CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Requirements for Fixed Route Transit Providers .................................................................................... 17 Service Policies ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Demographic and Service Profile Maps and Charts ................................................................................ 21 Demographic Ridership and Travel Patterns, Collected by Survey ......................................................... 27 Service Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 27 Public Engagement Process .................................................................................................................... 51 Service and Fare Analyses Conducted Since Last Title VI Submission .................................................... 51 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................. 53 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................................. 59 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................................................. 61 APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................................................. 65 APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................................................. 67 APPENDIX F ................................................................................................................................................. 87 APPENDIX G ............................................................................................................................................... 119 APPENDIX H ............................................................................................................................................... 123 [PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION This document constitutes the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority’s (KCATA) Title VI Program, adopted in October, 2016, with the approval of the KCATA Board of Commissioners. It is prepared in accordance with FTA C 4702.1B, released by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on October 1, 2012. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that “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 subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” To fulfill this basic civil rights mandate, each federal agency that provides financial assistance for any program is authorized and directed by the United States Department of Justice to apply provisions of Title VI to each program by issuing applicable rules, regulations, or requirements. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of the United States Department of Transportation issued guidelines on May 26, 1988, FTA C 4702.1, describing the contents of Title VI compliance programs to be adopted and maintained by recipients of FTA-administered funds for transit programs. On May 13, 2007, these guidelines were updated with the publication of FTA C 4702.1A, which required that Title VI compliance programs include income status in addition to minority status. PROFILE OF KCATA Governance KCATA was formed with the signing of a Bi-State compact created by the Missouri and Kansas legislatures on December 28, 1965. Transit operations began on February 1, 1969. KCATA is governed by a 10-member Board of Commissioners, with five (5) Commissioners each from the States of Missouri and Kansas. Missouri Commissioners serve four-year terms and are limited to two (2) terms. KCATA’s transit district encompasses seven (7) counties in two (2) states (Kansas and Missouri). It is authorized to operate in Jackson, Cass, Clay, and Platte Counties in Missouri and Johnson, Wyandotte, and Leavenworth Counties in Kansas. Service Area KCATA currently has annual contracts with ten (10) area communities to provide transit service throughout the region. KCATA’s service area includes the ten (10) partner communities of Blue Springs, Gladstone, Independence, Kansas City, Lee’s Summit, Liberty, North Kansas City, Raytown, and Riverside in Missouri as well as Kansas City, Kansas. According to the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the KCATA service area total population is 968,290. Approximately 37.94% (367,347) of the service area’s population is minority. 1 Table 1: Minority Population Composition for KCATA's Ten Member Cities City Total Population Minority Population Percent Minority Blue Springs, Missouri 53,053 8,947 16.86% Gladstone, Missouri 26,032 3,867 14.85% Independence, Missouri 117,160 23,466 20.03% Kansas City, Kansas 147,598 88,655 60.07% Kansas City, Missouri 465,005 208,806 44.90% Lee’s Summit, Missouri 92,813 16,775 18.07% Liberty, Missouri 29,806 3,121 10.47% North Kansas City, Missouri 4,280 1,577 36.85% Raytown, Missouri 29,520 11,293 38.26% Riverside, Missouri 3,023 840 27.79% Total: 968,290 367,347 37.94% Route Services As of September 2016, KCATA operates a network of 61 bus routes, with the majority of service located and scheduled in minority block groups – block groups with a minority population higher than the KCATA core service area average (37.94%). Thirty-four (34) of the 61 routes currently operating are classified as “minority routes.” Most KCATA service is located in the urban core of Kansas City (Jackson County), Missouri. In general, the KCATA route system is based on a design that uses Kansas City’s central business district (CBD) as the system hub with routes radiating to and from various parts of the community. In the urban core, the street grid layout allows routes to operate on north-south and east-west arterials—allowing multiple connections for on-street transfers between routes. However, the street grid and population density is not present outside of the urban core. Routes outside of the urban core typically follow major arterials and parkways and connect with other routes at satellite transit centers in various suburban areas. Ridership is typically highest on routes serving the CBD and the urban core. In 2015, KCATA carried approximately 15.1 million passengers and averaged 50,000 passengers per weekday. KCATA operates four (4) types of transit services: 1.) Fixed-Route: KCATA operates local, express and community-based fixed-route service on 56 routes. These routes are provided with a mix of vehicles – ranging from full size (40’) transit buses to small buses of varying sizes. 2.) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)1: KCATA operates two (2) Bus Rapid Transit routes (MAX), Main Street MAX and Troost MAX. Currently a third BRT route is being designed for the Prospect Avenue Corridor. The 1 BRT is used in this context as a specialized
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Town of Leesburg
    DRAFT LOUDOUN COUNTY Transit Management Analysis Report Prepared for: Prepared by: October 2013 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................3 Background ..............................................................................................................................................................................................3 Study Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................................3 2. Institutional Stakeholders and Existing Funding .....................................................................4 Loudoun County .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Town of Leesburg .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) .................................................................................................. 4 Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC) ........................................................................................... 4 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) ...............................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical
    METRORAILICOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 & TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT Technical Memorandum Number 3 Prepared for Prepared by IIStB Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 METRORAIUCOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 Prepared for Prepared by BS'R Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY DESCRiPTION ........................................................................................ 1 3.0 TRANSIT MODES DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 4 3.1 ENHANCED BUS SERViCES ................................................................... 4 3.2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT .............................................................................. 5 3.3 TROLLEY BUS SERVICES ...................................................................... 6 3.4 SUSPENDED/CABLEWAY TRANSIT ...................................................... 7 3.5 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSiT ....................................................... 7 3.6 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT .............................................................................. 8 3.7 HEAVY RAIL ............................................................................................. 8 3.8 MONORAIL
    [Show full text]
  • Process for Congestion Relief Link and Project Priority Ranking for CIS FY 1322
    Process for Congestion Relief Link and Project Priority Ranking for CIS FY 1322 Congestion Management System (CMS) congestion link priority rankings were developed for all the links in the CMS. These link rankings serve two purposes. First is to rank the links so that priority can be established by location so that the highest priority congested locations can be identified. Second, for highway projects that have already been identified, they can be prioritized for congestion. The link rankings were developed using scores from “0” to “10” for each measure and the weighted by the percent for each measure to obtain a 100% score. A score of “10” was given for the highest priority values for each given measure used. The Congestion Relief priority rankings are primarily based on congestion performance measures, with consideration also given to related roadway usage characteristics. Congestion performance measures include volume to capacity (V/C) ratios and delays. Roadway usage characteristics include AADT traffic volumes, function class and strategic network. The congestion performance measures comprise 70% of the ranking while the roadway usage characteristics comprise the remaining 30%. As V/C ratios have been the most common performance measure used for congestion priority rankings, the V/C ratio scores were given 40% of the overall weight for the overall score, split evenly between AM and PM V/C ratios. The highest one‐way AM V/C was given 20% of the overall weight, while the highest one‐way PM V/C was also given 20% of the overall weight. Delays were given 30% of the overall weight, split by two types of delays.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Johnson County Transit Plan
    Southwest Johnson County Transit Plan Prepared for: January 2018 Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 Plan Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................................................1 Existing Transit Service ...............................................................................................................................................................1 Document Review ........................................................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2 | NEEDS ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................ 6 Employment and Travel Pattern Analysis ...............................................................................................................................6 Transportation Disadvantaged Population Analysis .......................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 3 | PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ...................................................................... 15 Phase 1: Planning Kick-Off ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • __History of Kew Depot and It's Routes
    HISTORY OF KEW DEPOT AND ITS ROUTES Page 1 HISTORY of KEW DEPOT and the ROUTES OPERATED by KEW Compiled and written by Hugh Waldron MCILT CA 1500 The word tram and tramway are derived from Scottish words indicating the type of truck and the tracks used in coal mines. 1807 The first Horse tram service in the world commences operation between Swansea and Mumbles in Wales. 12th September 1854 At 12.20 pm first train departs Flinders Street Station for Sandridge (Port Melbourne) First Steam operated railway line in Australia. The line is eventually converted to tram operation during December 1987 between the current Southbank Depot and Port Melbourne. The first rail lines in Australia operated in Newcastle Collieries operated by horses in 1829. Then a five-mile line on the Tasman Peninsula opened in 1836 and powered by convicts pushing the rail vehicle. The next line to open was on 18/5/1854 in South Australia (Goolwa) and operated by horses. 1864 Leonard John Flannagan was born in Richmond. After graduating he became an Architect and was responsible for being the Architect building Malvern Depot 1910, Kew Depot 1915 and Hawthorn Depot 1916. He died 2nd November 1945. September 1873 First cable tramway in the world opens in Clay Street, San Francisco, USA. 1877 Steam tramways commence. Victoria only had two steam tramways both opened 1890 between Sorrento Pier to Sorrento Back Beach closed on 20th March 1921 (This line also operated horse trams when passenger demand was not high.) and Bendigo to Eaglehawk converted to electric trams in 1903.
    [Show full text]
  • Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’S Report (Final) July 2011
    Barrier system (from TOA) Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COUNTYWIDE BUS RAPID TRANSIT STUDY Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Key additional elements of BRT network ...................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Relationship to land use ........................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 Station access ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1.3 Brand identity ........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Organization of report .................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ 5 2 Study Methodology ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 High-level roadway screening ...................................................................................... 9 2.2 Corridor development and initial
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution #20-9
    BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BALTIMORE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD RESOLUTION #20-9 RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE THE UPDATED BALTIMORE REGION COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Baltimore region, encompassing the Baltimore Urbanized Area, and includes official representatives of the cities of Annapolis and Baltimore; the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen Anne’s; and representatives of the Maryland Departments of Transportation, the Environment, Planning, the Maryland Transit Administration, Harford Transit; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Baltimore region, has responsibility under the provisions of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act for developing and carrying out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process for the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration, a modal division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, requires under FAST Act the establishment of a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. Previously, under MAP-21, legislation combined the New Freedom Program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program into a new Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program, better known as Section 5310. Guidance on the new program was provided in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1G released on June 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration requires a plan to be developed and periodically updated by a process that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Biennial Report
    1 Bethesda Transportation Management District Bethesda Transportation Solutions Montgomery County, Maryland BIENNIAL REPORT FY2008 – FY2009 Operating under a contract between Montgomery County, Maryland and the Bethesda Urban Partnership Executive Director Director David Dabney Danielle Milo Contributing Staff : Rachel Porter Anne Kaiser Allison Kemp Tom Robertson Jennifer Zucker Bethesda Transportation Solutions Biennial Report FY2008 - FY2009 MARCH 2010 2 Bethesda Transportation Management District Montgomery County, Maryland Biennial Report FY2008 – FY2009 Completed: March 2010 Prepared by: Bethesda Transportation Solutions Request additional copies from: Bethesda Transportation Solutions 7700 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (301) 656-0868 Fax: (243) 223-0200 Email: [email protected] www.bethesdatransit.org www.bethesda.org Bethesda Transportation Solutions Biennial Report FY2008 - FY2009 3 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 7 II. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11 III. TMD Operations, Programs & Services....................................................................... 13 A. TMD Objectives ....................................................................................................13 B. TMD Operations ...................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Part 1: Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle
    Howard Research and Development Corporation Downtown Columbia Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle Feasibility Study: Part 1 - Downtown Transit Center & Downtown Circulator Shuttle (Part of CEPPA #5) DRAFTDecember 2011 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. iv Chapter 1. Downtown Columbia Transit Center ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Downtown Columbia Circulator Shuttle ............................................................................................... 12 Appendix A. Regional Transit System Evaluation .............................................................................................. 21 Appendix B. Regional Transit Market Analysis .................................................................................................. 46 Appendix C. Transit Circulator Design ................................................................................................................ 64 Appendix D. Transit Center Site Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 764 Appendix E. Transit Development Plan ............................................................................................................... 79 DRAFT Page i• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table of Figures Figure 1 Existing
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Location Database Technical Documentation and User Guide
    SMART LOCATION DATABASE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION AND USER GUIDE Version 3.0 Updated: June 2021 Authors: Jim Chapman, MSCE, Managing Principal, Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. (UD4H) Eric H. Fox, MScP, Senior Planner, UD4H William Bachman, Ph.D., Senior Analyst, UD4H Lawrence D. Frank, Ph.D., President, UD4H John Thomas, Ph.D., U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization Alexis Rourk Reyes, MSCRP, U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization About This Report The Smart Location Database is a publicly available data product and service provided by the U.S. EPA Smart Growth Program. This version 3.0 documentation builds on, and updates where needed, the version 2.0 document.1 Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. updated this guide for the project called Updating the EPA GSA Smart Location Database. Acknowledgements Urban Design 4 Health was contracted by the U.S. EPA with support from the General Services Administration’s Center for Urban Development to update the Smart Location Database and this User Guide. As the Project Manager for this study, Jim Chapman supervised the data development and authored this updated user guide. Mr. Eric Fox and Dr. William Bachman led all data acquisition, geoprocessing, and spatial analyses undertaken in the development of version 3.0 of the Smart Location Database and co- authored the user guide through substantive contributions to the methods and information provided. Dr. Larry Frank provided data development input and reviewed the report providing critical input and feedback. The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance, review, and support provided by: • Ruth Kroeger, U.S. General Services Administration • Frank Giblin, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Al Roshdieh, Director, Department Of
    AGENDA ITEM #47 May 7, 2019 Subject: FY20 Operating Budgets, Transportation: General, Mass Transit, and Leaf Vacuum Collection Funds; related FY20 NDAs Budgets; Selected FY19-24 CIP projects-transportation; FY19 supplemental appropriation, Resurfacing: Residential/Rural Roads Analyst: Glenn Orlin, Deputy Director I Committee: T&E Keywords: #FY20operatingbudget, transportation EXPECTED ATTENDEES Al Roshdieh, Director, Department of Transportation (DOT) Emil Wolanin, Deputy Director, DOT Christopher Conklin, Deputy Director for Transportation Policy, DOT Tim Cupples, Chief, Division of Transportation Engineering, DOT Richard Dorsey, Chief, Division of Highway Services, DOT Dan Hibbert, Chief, Division of Transit Services, DOT Fred Lees, Chief, Management Services, DOT Michael Paylor,,Chief, Division of Transportation Engineering and Operations, DOT Brady Goldsmith, Alison Dollar-Sibal, and Deborah Lambert, Budget Analysts, Office of Management and Budget (0MB) Department ofTransnortation (excludin2 Parkin!! Lot District Funds) FY20CEREC: $196,720,309 l,220.7FTE Increase/Decrease from FYI 9 +$7,105,329 (+3.7%) +30.0FTE (+2.5%) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED CHANGES 1. Postpone a decision on the Executive's supplemental appropriation request and CIP amendment for Resurfacing: Residential/Rural Roads until CIP Reconciliation. 2. Do not approve the Executive's request for $500,000 (Current Revenue) in FY20 in Bus Rapid Transit: System Development for environmental studies for the MD 355 BRT. In the summer the Council will consider whether to proceed with funding for Veirs Mill Road BRT, MD 355 BRT, or both. 3. In Facility Planning-Transportation, do not defer the planning studies for North High Street and Summit A venue Extended, accelerate the completion of the Clarksburg Transit Center study by one year, defer the start of the Old Columbia Pike study by two years and its completion by one year, and do not accelerate $30,000 for miscellaneous non-transit studies from FY21 to FY20.
    [Show full text]
  • Altavista Community Transit System (ACTS)
    FY2015 DRPT's Making an Impact Report - Transit Agency Reporting Form for Significant Transit Initiatives in FY2015 Altavista Community Transit System (ACTS) Initiative Description of Initiative New or Enhanced Transit Service or Facilities Describe new or improved transit service implemented or new facilities or enhancements to an existing facility None noted New or Refurbished Vehicles Describe purchases of new or effort to refurbish buses and rail cars. Specify if this was for new or expanded service or replacement vehicles. New or Refurbished Vehicles Ordered replacement bus that should be delivered in November 2015 and will go into service at that time. Examples: Implemented WiFi on buses or rail cars: real-time bus locator app for public; new or updated scheduling or GPS locator system; website Technology Improvements and New Amenities improvements) Technology Improvements and New Amenities GPS Locator system installed on the buses along with camera system. Bus Stop Improvements Description or examples of new or improved bus/transit stop implemented 3 bus shelters installed 3 bus shelters were purchased and will be installed by September 30, 2015 Safety and Security Improvements Description or examples of new or improved safety and security initiatives Cameras Installed Cameras installed in ACTS buses in FY2015 Marketing Initiatives and Incentives Provide examples of advertising, promotion, direct mail, social media/facebook/twitter, events, free "try it" rides, rewards etc. Free Summer Fares A generous citizen has provided free
    [Show full text]