TITLE VI TRIENNIAL PROGRAM UPDATE FOR METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT AND NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
AUGUST 2012
401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 699-1900
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I General Requirements and Guidelines...... 1 1. Overview ...... 2 2. Required Components of the Program Update ...... 2 3. General Requirements ...... 2
Chapter II Program-Specific Requirements and Guidelines for Recipients Serving Large Urbanized Areas ...... 13 1. Overview ...... 14 2. Program-Specific Requirements ...... 14
iii LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 MTS Inventory of Transit Stops within Low-Income Areas ...... 46 Table 2-2 MTS Inventory of Transit Stops within Minority Areas ...... 46 Table 2-3 MTS Inventory of Transit Stops within LIM Areas ...... 46 Table 2-4 NCTD Inventory of Transit Stops within Low-Income Areas ...... 47 Table 2-5 NCTD Inventory of Transit Stops within Minority Areas ...... 47 Table 2-6 NCTD Inventory of Transit Stops within LIM Areas ...... 47 Table 2-7 MTS SDTI Vehicles ...... 48 Table 2-8 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 53 Table 2-9 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 54 Table 2-10 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 55 Table 2-11 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 56 Table 2-12 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 57 Table 2-13 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 58 Table 2-14 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 59 Table 2-15 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 60 Table 2-16 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers ...... 61 Table 2-17 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers ...... 62 Table 2-18 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers ...... 63 Table 2-19 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers ...... 64
iv LIST OF TABLES (CONT’D)
Table 2-20 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($) ...... 65 Table 2-21 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($) ...... 66 Table 2-22 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($) ...... 67 Table 2-23 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($) ...... 68 Table 2-24 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost per Mile of Trip ($) ...... 69 Table 2-25 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost per Mile of Trip ($) ...... 70 Table 2-26 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)...... 71 Table 2-27 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)...... 72 Table 2-28 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($) ...... 73 Table 2-29 NCTD Non-Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($) ...... 74 Table 2-30 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)...... 75 Table 2-31 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)...... 76 Table 2-32 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 77 Table 2-33 MTS Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 78 Table 2-34 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 79 Table 2-35 NCTD Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 80 Table 2-36 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 81 Table 2-37 MTS Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 82
v LIST OF TABLES (CONT’D)
Table 2-38 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 83 Table 2-39 NCTD Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ...... 84 Table 2-40 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers ...... 85 Table 2-41 MTS Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers ...... 86 Table 2-42 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers ...... 87 Table 2-43 NCTD Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers ...... 88 Table 2-44 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($) ...... 89 Table 2-45 MTS Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($) ...... 90 Table 2-46 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($) ...... 91 Table 2-47 NCTD Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($) ...... 92 Table 2-48 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($) ...... 93 Table 2-49 MTS Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($) ...... 94 Table 2-50 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)...... 95 Table 2-51 MTS Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)...... 96 Table 2-52 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($) ...... 97 Table 2-53 NCTD Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($) ...... 98 Table 2-54 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)...... 99 Table 2-55 NCTD Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)...... 100
vi LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 MTS Low-Income Population ...... 16 Figure 2-2 MTS/NCTD Low-Income Population ...... 17 Figure 2-3 NCTD/MTS Low-Income Population ...... 18 Figure 2-4 MTS Minority Population ...... 19 Figure 2-5 MTS/NCTD Minority Population ...... 20 Figure 2-6 NCTD/ MTS Minority Population ...... 21 Figure 2-7 MTS LIM Population ...... 22 Figure 2-8 MTS/NCTD LIM Population ...... 23 Figure 2-9 NCTD/MTS LIM Population ...... 24 Figure 2-10 San Diego Region Census Tracts ...... 25 Figure 2-11 MTS Census Tracts ...... 26 Figure 2-12 MTS/NCTD Census Tracts ...... 27 Figure 2-13 NCTD/MTS Census Tracts ...... 28 Figure 2-14 MTS Transit Service ...... 29 Figure 2-15 MTS/NCTD Transit Service ...... 30 Figure 2-16 NCTD/MTS Transit Service ...... 31 Figure 2-17 MTS Low-Income Transit Access ...... 36 Figure 2-18 MTS/NCTD Low-Income Transit Access ...... 37 Figure 2-19 NCTD/MTS Low-Income Transit Access ...... 38 Figure 2-20 MTS Minority Transit Access ...... 39 Figure 2-21 MTS/NCTD Minority Transit Access ...... 40 Figure 2-22 NCTD Minority Transit Access ...... 41 Figure 2-23 MTS LIM Transit Access ...... 42 Figure 2-24 MTS/NCTD LIM Transit Access ...... 43 Figure 2-25 NCTD/MTS LIM Transit Access ...... 44
vii APPENDIX
Appendix A Rider Alert and Notice of Public Hearing Samples ...... A-1 Appendix B MTS/NCTD Title VI Complaint Procedures ...... B-1 Appendix C MTS/NCTD Information Request Policies ...... C-1 Appendix D Population by Census Tract ...... D-1 Appendix E MTS/NCTD Title VI Studies ...... E-1 Appendix F Coordinated Plan Performance Monitoring Chapter ...... F-1 Appendix G MTS Bus Stop Location Process ...... G-1 Appendix H NCTD Service Standards Final Report ...... H-1 Appendix I MTS Bus Maintenance Plan ...... I-1 Appendix J MTS/NCTD Transit Security Policies ...... J-1
viii CHAPTER I GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES
1 CHAPTER I
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES
OVERVIEW
The Federal Transit Agency (FTA) requires all transit operators who receive federal funds to conduct assessments of Title VI, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in order to demonstrate nondiscrimination of services and facilities for minority communities. In San Diego County, this responsibility was previously held by two transit agencies: the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD). Assessments conducted for MTS previously included the following transit operators/subcontractors: San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC), MTS Contract Services, and San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI).
With the approval of Senate Bill (SB) 1703 in 2002 and the consolidation of planning and programming functions, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) entered into a Master Agreement with MTS and NCTD and took responsibility for conducting the triennial Title VI Program Update on behalf of the transit agencies. This update for Fiscal Year 2011 is consistent with the Title VI Circular “Title VI and Title VI-Dependent Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients” (May 13, 2007, FTA C 4702.1A, hereinafter referred to as the “Circular”) as required.
Operational planning continues to be managed by the individual transit agencies, along with the responsibility to evaluate major service changes on an incremental basis. SANDAG is responsible for the evaluation of transit fare changes pursuant to the Master Agreement between the parties. Additionally, SANDAG reviews major service changes affecting regional transit service. A summary of these efforts is included in the SANDAG quadrennial program update prepared separately from this document.
REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM UPDATE
Two chapters of the Circular include instructions for the completion of the Title VI Program Update as they apply to MTS and NCTD. The following required components in this chapter are consistent with Section IV of the Circular while Chapter 2 of this update is consistent with the reporting requirements specified in Section V of the Circular.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements are imposed on all Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recipients and subrecipients to ensure that their programs, policies and activities comply with the Department of Transportation (DOT) Title VI regulations.
2 1. Requirement to Provide an Annual Title VI Certification and Assurance The annual Title VI Certification and Assurances were provided to the FTA via an update in the FTA’s Web-based Grants Management System (TEAM). The MTS certifications and assurances were updated on November 16, 2011, and the NCTD certifications and assurances were updated on December 1, 2011.
2. Requirement to Develop Title VI Complaint Procedures MTS and NCTD have developed procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints filed against them and have made their procedures for filing a complaint available to members of the public upon request. Details of the above are included in Section 5 of this Chapter.
3. Requirement to Record Title VI Investigations, Complaints, and Lawsuits MTS
MTS has one active Title VI claim from September 2011 alleging that an MTS Code Compliance Officer and a Transit Security Officer were rude and intimidating to a Mexican couple who wanted to board the trolley. The husband and wife allege that the officers made threats and racial slurs towards them about being Mexican and Jewish. The Risk and Claims Department is working with the Transit System Security Department in investigating this alleged incident.
NCTD
As of June, 18, 2012, NCTD has one active Title VI complaint related to an operator harassing a customer, using discriminatory language with the customer with threats, and the subsequent removal of the customer from the bus.
4. Requirement to Provide Meaningful Access to LEP Persons MTS
Most MTS public information documents are published and presented to the public in both English and Spanish, including vital documents such as Rider Alerts and Notices of Public Hearings (examples included in Appendix A). Information and warning signs posted along the Trolley lines and at bus stops are also available to both English and Spanish-speaking populations.
The Transit Store and the Telephone Information Department provide information on all MTS transit services and are staffed by Spanish-speaking employees. Bilingual personnel also are available at all major community events.
NCTD
NCTD provides public information materials (including Rider Guides, Rider Alerts, and Notices of Public Hearings) in both English and Spanish (examples included in Appendix A). In addition to providing public information materials in both English and Spanish (including Rider Guides, Rider alerts, mini guides, and Notices of Public Hearings), North County Transit District has added an equivalent website in Spanish so NCTD customers have access to all the 3 tools and benefits English-speaking segments of the population do including information about promotions, special events, and other notifications.
In addition, during the community outreach phase of the mobility plan of 2011, NCTD added a language box in our outreach materials that provided instructions about how to obtain information materials in alternative formats and languages including Vietnamese, Chinese, and Tagalog. Bilingual outreach staff was hired to conduct outreach at affect transit locations, transit centers, schools, and service organizations.
A Language Line service has been provided to staff members including customer service representatives that allows for real time over the phone interpreting services in any language needed when a customer requests information or needs assistance in alternative languages.
5. Requirement to Notify Beneficiaries of Protection Under Title VI The requirement to notify beneficiaries of protection under Title VI includes: A) a statement that the agency operates programs without regard to race, color, and national origin, B) a description of the procedures that members of the public should follow in order to request additional information on the recipient’s nondiscrimination obligations, C) a description of the procedures that members of the public should follow in order to file a discrimination complaint. MTS and NCTD compliance with these requirements is outlined below.
(5.a.1) A statement that the agency operates programs without regard to race, color, and national origin.
MTS and NCTD have displayed posters in the workplace, explaining that they are equal opportunity employers and summarizing the rights and entitlements of their employees. Web site and employment application information all contain the equal opportunity label.
MTS
All MTS public outreach materials (Rider Alerts and Public Hearing Notices) include a statement that MTS operators adhere to a nondiscrimination policy with regard to both services and facilities.
NCTD
The following is published in NCTD’s Customer Guide and NCTD’s Website:
“Complaints claiming discrimination (Title VI):
NCTD is responsible for civil rights compliance and monitoring, which includes ensuring that contractors, regardless of tier, and subrecipients, regardless of tier, properly abide by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations,” and the Department of Transportation’s Guidance to Recipients on Special Language Services to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Beneficiaries.
4 In the NCTD complaint investigation process, NCTD analyzes the complainant's allegations for possible Title VI violations. If violations are identified, they are investigated as provided in the NCTD Title VI Discrimination Complaint Process.”
(5.a.2) A description of the procedures that members of the public should follow in order to request additional information on the recipient’s nondiscrimination obligations.
MTS
The MTS procedures that members of the public are advised to follow in order to request additional information on the recipient’s nondiscrimination obligations are included in the MTS Information Request Policy. This document is included in Appendix C.
NCTD
NCTD’s Information Request Policy is also included in Appendix C. This document outlines the procedures that members of the public are advised to follow in order to request additional information on the recipient’s nondiscrimination obligations.
(5.a.3) A description of the procedures that members of the public should follow in order to file a discrimination complaint.
MTS and NCTD compliance with these requirements is outlined below.
MTS
MTS Board Policy (Previously Metropolitan Transportation Development Board [MTDB] Policy) No. 48 outlines the transit service discrimination complaint procedures. This policy was approved on May 13, 2004. Policy No. 48 can be found in Appendix B of this Program Update.
NCTD
NCTD’s Title VI discrimination complaint procedures were revised on April 9, 2009, and can be found in Appendix B of this Program Update. Complaints are taken in writing, via e-mail, in person, and over the phone.
6. Requirement to Provide Additional Information Upon Request Both MTS and NCTD will comply with any requests made by FTA to investigate complaints of discrimination or to resolve concerns about possible noncompliance with Title VI.
7. Requirement to Prepare and Submit a Title VI Program The Title VI guidelines also require submission of the following information:
(7.a.1) A summary of public outreach and involvement activities undertaken since the last submission and a description of states taken to ensure that minority and low-income people had meaningful access to these activities.
5 MTS
Public outreach and involvement activities undertaken for FY09-FY11 include:
June 14, 2009, services changes and July 1, 2009, fare increases:
Outreach – H Street Trolley Station, February 18, 2009
Outreach – UTC Transit Center, February 18, 2009
Outreach – America Plaza, February 19, 2009
Outreach – Mira Mesa Market Center, February 19, 2009
Outreach – Poway Road & Midland Road, February 20, 2009
Outreach – Fashion Valley Transit Center, February 21, 2009
Outreach – Euclid Trolley Station, February 21, 2009
Outreach – Old Town Transit Center, February 21, 2009
Outreach – El Cajon Transit Center, February 22, 2009
Outreach – Iris Avenue Trolley Station, February 22, 2009
Public Hearing – MTS Board Room, March 12, 2009
Advance notification of these meetings was provided in written form in both Spanish and English on all vehicles operating throughout the MTS system. Spanish speaking personnel were available at all meetings. The notifications also informed readers in English and Spanish that the information would be made available in alternative formats upon request and that the MTS system operators adhere to a nondiscrimination policy with regard to both services and facilities. Additionally, the above outreach efforts were conducted at major transit hubs on weekdays and weekends during both daytime and evening hours in order to maximize accessibility by low-income and minority populations. The transit centers were ideal locations readily accessible to low-income and minority populations via MTS services.
February 28, 2010, service changes:
Outreach - Plaza Bonita, November 21, 2009
Outreach - Bayfront/E Street, November 21, 2009
Outreach - Fashion Valley, November 21, 2009
Outreach - Santee Town Center, November 21, 2009
6 Outreach - Fashion Valley, November 22, 2009
Outreach - 24th Street, November 22, 2009
Outreach - Old Town, November 22, 2009
Outreach - Rancho Bernardo, November 22, 2009
Public Hearing - MTS Board Room, December 10, 2009
Broadway bus stops (Downtown San Diego) - February 28, 2010
City College Trolley Station - February 28, 2010
Fashion Valley Transit Center - February 28, 2010
Old Town Transit Center - February 28, 2010
El Cajon Transit Center - February 28, 2010
Chula Vista Trolley Stations - February 28, 2010
Euclid Trolley Station - February 28, 2010
Iris Trolley Station - February 28, 2010
University City Stations - February 28, 2010
Fashion Valley Transit Center - March 7, 2010
Old Town Transit Center - March 7, 2010
The above outreach efforts were conducted on weekends because the weekend service was most impacted by the service change proposals. They were held at major transit hubs, readily accessible via MTS services, in order to maximize accessibility by low-income and minority populations. English and Spanish speaking personnel were available at all of the outreach sessions. In addition to the outreach listed above, MTS Operations and Contract management staff had significant informal presence at major transit hubs during the changes, interacting with passengers in English and Spanish. Advance notification of the Public Hearing was provided in written form in both Spanish and English on all vehicles operating throughout the MTS system. The notifications also informed readers in English and Spanish that the information would be made available in alternative formats upon request and that the MTS system operators adhere to a nondiscrimination policy with regard to both services and facilities.
Low Floor Trolley Ramps
7 Public Hearing - MTS Board Room, August 19, 2010
NCTD
Public outreach and involvement activities undertaken since the last Program Update submission include:
An extensive outreach effort was conducted for this major service restructuring, consisting of the following workshops, presentations, and open houses:
DATE VENUE / ACTIVITY
2/14/2011 Encinitas Senior/Community Center Open House
2/15/2011 Escondido Senior Center Workshop
2/15/2011 Carlsbad Learning Center Open House
2/16/2011 Carlsbad Learning Center Open House
Oceanside Transit Center Open House
2/16/2011 Vista Transit Center Open House
Escondido Transit Center Open House
Westfield Mall Transit Center Open House
Oceanside - Crown Heights Resource Center Workshop
Vista Townsite Community Partnership Workshop
2/16/2011 Oceanside Transit Center Open House
Escondido Transit Center Open House
Vista Community Partnership - Presentation
2/17/2011 Vista Transit Center Open House
Catholic Senior Services-Escondido Apts. Open House
Escondido Transit Center Open House
Westfield Mall Transit Center Open House
Ramona Senior and Community Center Open House
8 2/17/2011 Escondido City Hall – Open House
2/17/2011 Oceanside Library Mission Rd. Branch Community Room Open House
2/17/2011 Oceanside Transit Center Open House
Vista Transit Center Open House
2/18/2011 Escondido Transit Center Open House
Westfield Mall Transit Center Open House
EMASS - Escondido Open House Open House
Oceanside Transit Center Open House
Vista Transit Center Open House
2/21/2011 Pacifica Senior Community Open House
2/22/2011 SD Center for the Blind Open House
2/22/2011 Casa Escondida - Presentation
2/22/2011 NCTD Administrative Offices – Presentation
2/23/2011 Escondido Transit Center Open House
Westfield Mall Transit Center Open House
Vista Senior Center Open House
Oceanside Transit Center Open House
Vista Transit Center Open House
Silvercrest Senior Apartments Open House
2/24/2011 Escondido Transit Center Open House
Oceanside Transit Center Open House
Vista Transit Center Open House
2/24/2011 Westfield Mall Transit Center Open House
SD Center for the Blind Presentation
9 Oceanside Transit Center Open House
Vista Transit Center Open House
2/25/2011 Escondido Transit Center Open House
Westfield Mall Transit Center Open House
Oceanside Transit Center Open House
Vista Transit Center Open House
3/1/2011 San Marcos Senior Center Open House
3/2/2011 Fallbrook Senior Center Open House
3/3/2011 Palomar College – Quad Open House
Solana Beach Senior Center Open House
Vista Public Library, Escondido Blvd. Branch Open House
Woodland Village Senior Community - Presentation
3/7/2011 Veterans Administration Hospital Open House
3/8/2011 Escondido Library, Kalmia St. Branch Open House
3/9/2011 El Corazon Senior Center Open House
3/10/2011 Presentation MP Transitions Program - Escondido
3/15/2011 Presentation City of Solana Beach Senior Commission
3/16/2011 Open House – Mira Costa College San Elijo Campus
Solana Beach Senior Center Open House
3/17/2011 Escondido Senior Apartments - Mobility Plan Presentation
3/24/2011 Vista Transit Center Open House
3/29/2011 Escondido Transit Center Open House
4/5/2011 Cape Cod Senior Apartments Open House
4/6/2011 Carlsbad Senior Center Open House
10 These outreach events were widely promoted via radio spots in Spanish, ads in the local newspapers, Spanish newspapers, and Customer Alerts listing the open houses and workshops available to the public. Most of these events had bilingual personnel available to answer questions and gather feedback, and the rest had an English speaking staff member aided by a Spanish speaking certified interpreter and translator.
The open houses were conducted during the day, in the evenings, and on the weekends to maximize accessibility by low-income and minority populations. Libraries, schools, community centers, and transit centers were all selected to allow for wide participation from low-income and minority populations. These locations were all accessible via NCTD services.
In addition, NCTD continues to participate in events that attract Spanish-speaking populations.
(7.a.2) A copy of the agency’s plan for providing language assistance for persons with limited English proficiency that was based on the DOT LEP Guidance or a copy of the agency’s alternative framework for providing language assistance.
SANDAG recently developed a regional Language Assistance Plan (April, 2012) that is available to the transit operators and will be included separately in the SANDAG Quadrennial Title VI Program Update. The Language Assistance Plan outlines the five federal guidelines: identifying limited English proficient (LEP) individuals who need language assistance, providing language assistance measures, training staff, providing notice to LEP persons, and monitoring and updating the Plan. The Plan’s Vital Documents Guidelines determined that Spanish is SANDAG’s language threshold for document and oral presentation translation where appropriate. The SANDAG Language Assistance Plan was completed with the assistance and support of the transit operators who will be using the information included in the plan to determine their approach to language assistance in the coming months. Additionally, and as stated previously in Section 4, both MTS and NCTD publish and present information to the public in both Spanish and English.
(7.a.3) A copy of the agency procedures for tracking and investigating Title VI complaints.
See Appendix B for both MTS’s and NCTD’s procedures.
(7.a.4) A list of any Title VI investigations, complaints, or lawsuits filed with the agency since the time of the last submission. This list should include only those investigations, complaints, or lawsuits that pertain to the agency submitting the report, bot necessarily the larger agency or department of which the agency is a part.
The fulfillment of this requirement is found in Section 3 of this Chapter, which lists the current claims.
(7.a.5) A copy of the agency’s notice to the public that it complies with Title VI and instructions to the public on how to file a discrimination complaint.
The fulfillment of this requirement is found in the above Section 5 (Title VI complaint procedures and instructions to the public regarding how to file a complaint). 11 8. Guidance on Conducting an Analysis of Construction Projects
These reports are included separately in the SANDAG Quadrennial Title VI Program Update.
9. Guidance on Promoting Inclusive Public Participation
The fulfillment of this requirement is found in the above Sections 4 and 7.
As stated in Sections 4 and 7, MTS and NCTD use a wide array of techniques to promote inclusive public participation. Some of these strategies include vital document and meeting presentation material translation into Spanish; using locations, facilities and meeting times that are convenient and accessible to low-income and minority communities; and placing public notices at all stations and in all vehicles, and measures targeted to overcome linguistic, institutional , cultural, economic, historical, or other barriers that may prevent minority and low-income people and populations from effectively participating in the decision-making process.
12 CHAPTER II PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR RECIPIENTS SERVING LARGE URBANIZED AREAS
13 CHAPTER II PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR RECIPIENTS SERVING LARGE URBANIZED AREAS
OVERVIEW
This chapter provides the requested information as specified under the “program-specific guidance” (Chapter V) of the Title VI Circular (FTA C 4702.1A). The guidance applies to the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD) since they are recipients of FTA funds and provide service to geographic areas with populations of 200,000 people or greater under 49 U.S.C. 5307.
PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements are provided in the order of the revised Title VI Circular (Chapter V).
1. REQUIREMENT TO COLLECT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA The FTA recommends that recipients implement one or more of the following three options to fulfill the requirement to collect demographic data: A) The preparation of demographic and service profile maps and charts, B) The collection of survey information on customer demographics and travel patterns, or C) The implementation of a locally developed alternative to collect and analyze demographic data on their beneficiaries.
On behalf of the transit agencies, SANDAG prepares demographic and service profile maps (Option A) for the evaluation of low-income and minority population groups. This information is updated every three years in the Program Update and also used by the transit agencies to evaluate the Title VI impacts of major services changes as necessary. Additionally, SANDAG collects survey data on customer demographics and travel patterns (Option B) which are used in the evaluation of transit service changes and fare proposals. Given SANDAG’s development of Options A and B, no locally developed alternative was created (Option C). Information collected under Options A and B are discussed in the following section.
Option A: Demographic and Service Profile Maps and Charts
(1) A base map of the agency’s service area that includes each Census tract, major streets and highways, transit facilities and major activity centers; and (2) A demographic map that plots the Census tracts where the percentage of the total minority and low-income population residing in these areas exceeds the average minority and low-income population for the service area as a whole. To fulfill the requirements for Part 1 and 2 of Option A, SANDAG used 2010 Census data and 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data to develop Low-Income, Minority, and
14 Low-Income and Minority (LIM) maps. SANDAG identified the region’s most vulnerable communities as the following:
Low Income: Any Census tracts where the percentage of the total low-income population1 (percentage of the population living at or below 100% of the federal poverty level) residing in these areas exceeds the average low-income population for the service area as a whole. The MTS service area is 12.9% low income, while NCTD’s service area is 10.8% low income.
Minority: Any Census tracts where the percentage of the total minority2 (non-White) population residing in these areas exceeds the average minority population for the service area as a whole. The MTS service area is 54.7% minority, while NCTD’s service area is 44.0% minority.
LIM: A LIM Census Tract is defined as any census tract in which the residents were considered either Low Income or Minority.
Using the established criteria above, the region was broken up into three smaller areas to produce sub-regional maps that are easier to read. Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 illustrate the Low-Income Census Tracts in the MTS and NCTD service areas, while Figures 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 illustrate the Minority Census Tracts. Figures 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9 illustrate the LIM Census Tracts in the MTS and NCTD service areas.
In addition, Figures 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, and 2-13 include the number and location of Census Tracts in the MTS and NCTD service areas. Figures 2-14, 2-15, and 2-16 show the transit facilities, rail/Premium Express stations, activity centers, and the distribution of transit services, including, fixed route, light rail, and heavy rail services located in each service area. Activity centers note the location of colleges and universities, government centers, hospitals, large private employers, school sites, and tourist attractions.
1 SOURCE: 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 2 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010
15 Figure 2-1 MTS Low-Income Population
16 Figure 2-2 MTS/NCTD Low Income Population
17 Figure 2-3 NCTD/MTS Low-Income Population
18 Figure 2-4 MTS Minority Population
19 Figure 2-5 MTS/NCTD Minority Population
20 Figure 2-6 NCTD/MTS Minority Population
21 Figure 2-7 MTS LIM Population
22 Figure 2-8 MTS/NCTD LIM Population
23 Figure 2-9 NCTD/MTS LIM Population
24 Figure 2-10 San Diego Region Census Tracts
25 Figure 2-11 MTS Census Tracts
26 Figure 2-12 MTS/NCTD Census Tracts
27 Figure 2-13 NCTD/MTS Census Tracts
28 Figure 2-14 MTS Transit Service
29 Figure 2-15 MTS/NCTD Transit Service
30 Figure 2-16 NCTD/MTS Transit Service
31 (3) A chart for each Census tract that shows the actual numbers and percentages for each minority group within the tract and the total population for each tract. Appendix D provides a complete breakdown of all populations that comprise each of the 627 census tracts in San Diego County (MTS and NCTD service areas). Tracts where low-income and minority percentages exceed the regional average have been highlighted, as well as those that are considered LIM.
Option B: Survey Information on Customer Demographics and Travel Patterns
SANDAG collects information on the race, income, travel patterns and household characteristics of transit riders in the two transit districts, MTS and NCTD. Onboard transit ridership surveys are conducted approximately every five years, or as funding is available. Additionally, public opinion surveys are conducted by telephone to collect information that will support and provide direction to future planning and marketing efforts related to transit use and operations in the San Diego region. The most recent complete onboard ridership survey effort took place in 2009. Beginning with the 2009 survey effort, the following information is currently being collected as recommended by the FTA in the May 2007 Title VI Circular (FTA C 4702.1A):
(1) Information on riders’ race, color, and national origin
(2) Whether the rider speaks or understands English “not well” or “not at all”
(3) Information on riders’ income or income range
(4) The frequency of transit use
(5) The typical number of transfers made
(6) The fare payment type and media most frequently used
(7) Riders’ auto availability
(8) Rider’s opinion of the quality of service they receive
The above information will be used to evaluate service and fare changes consistent with Chapter V Section 4 of the FTA Title VI Circular (FTA C 4702.1A). Studies conducted by the transit agencies utilizing the information currently available are included in Appendix E. Studies conducted by SANDAG will be available in the SANDAG quadrennial program update prepared separately from this document.
32 2. REQUIREMENT TO SET SYSTEMWIDE SERVICE STANDARDS A comprehensive performance monitoring program was developed by SANDAG to ensure that public transit in San Diego County is provided in an efficient, effective, and equitable manner. The goals and objectives of regional transit planning and development are provided in Chapter 3 of the FY 2012 – 2016 Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan (Appendix F).
Service standards are defined by indicators where quantitative data is available.3 SANDAG developed a comprehensive evaluation program to monitor transit service which includes the annual analysis of 26 transit indicators. Of those indicators, the four service standards monitored by SANDAG, as recommended by the FTA for Title VI purposes, include:
(1) Vehicle Load
The evaluation of vehicle load is included in the Coordinated Plan under the analysis of both productivity and comfort performance measures. The analysis of productivity involves the determination of desired minimum loads to understand the need for potential service adjustments for under-performing routes. The comfort analysis is geared toward providing the appropriate service for the markets being served and is the basis for the vehicle load analysis suggested by the FTA. The comfort indicator, rather than the productivity one, enables SANDAG to understand if the vehicle load on a certain route is consistently exceeding its service standard.
The standard used by SANDAG to evaluate comfort based on load factor is standee density. The measurement of standee density takes into account vehicle size and the available floor room of each vehicle and also takes into account the type of service provided.
Guideline - Regional and Community Service – No Standees.
Guideline – All Other Services – No more than 20 percent of revenue hours exceeding one standee per four square foot on local street operation.
(2) Vehicle Headway
SANDAG sets minimum headway goals by time of day (peak or off-peak), route class (Regional Rail, Regional Bus, Corridor Service, Local Bus Service, Community Bus, and Rural Service) and by population density (Urban, Suburban or Rural areas).
Peak Guideline - Minimum headways of 30 minutes for Urban/Suburban Regional Rail, 20 minutes for Urban/Suburban Regional and Corridor Bus, 30 minutes for Urban Local Bus/60 minutes for Suburban Local Bus, and 60 minutes for Urban/Suburban Community Bus.
3 On the other hand, service policies are not necessarily based on a quantitative threshold and are discussed separately in the next section as recommended by the FTA.
33 Off-Peak Guideline - Minimum headways of 120 minutes for Urban/Suburban Regional Rail, 30 minutes for Urban/Suburban Regional Bus, 20 minutes for Urban Corridor Bus/150 minutes for Suburban Corridor Bus, 60 minutes for Urban/Suburban Local Bus, and 60 minutes for Urban Community Bus/120 minutes for Suburban Community Bus.
(3) On-Time Performance
This service standard measures the reliability of the transportation system to ensure that the service is consistent with published timetables. This indicator helps maintain passenger ridership and provides a link between the published timetables (promised service) and actual service operated on the road.
Guideline – Regional Service - 92 percent of all services shall depart and arrive within five minutes of scheduled times (none early).
Guideline – Corridor Service – 90 percent of all services shall depart and arrive within five minutes of scheduled times (none early).
Guideline – Local and Community Service – 80 percent of all services shall depart and arrive within five minutes of scheduled times (none early).
(4) Distribution of Transit Amenities
The fourth transit service indicator recommended in the FTA Circular is the distribution of transit amenities. However, this process is individually monitored by the transit agencies. In the future, SANDAG will monitor transit amenities for its TransNet funding projects along major transportation corridors. MTS and NCTD distribute transit amenities in the following manner.
MTS Transit amenities for the MTS service area are distributed according to route type and depending upon the passenger demand of each stop. Benches and stops are added with increased amounts of boardings and alightings. The process that MTS uses in locating bus stops and distributing amenities is outlined in Appendix G.
NCTD COASTER/SPRINTER: One of the essential passenger amenities is the provision of current route maps and timetables at ALL Coaster and Sprinter stations. Future improvements include updates to the way finding signing system and possible additional amenities as part of joint development projects at stations. (Appendix H: NCTD Service Standards Final Report – November 2010, Sec. 3.3 pp.4)
BREEZE: Installation of passenger amenities at bus stops such as shelters, benches, passive and real-time schedule information displays is generally guided by passenger volumes supplemented by considerations of equity, safety and comfort. Street furniture such as benches can be provided at bus stops as appropriate when shelters are not provided. Priority
34 should be given to those stop locations, which are frequented by a significant number of senior citizens or persons with disabilities. Accurate and complete information concerning NCTD transit routes and services, bus stop and fare information should be made available to all service area residents. Current route maps and timetables are available at Coaster and Sprinter stations, bus transit centers, selected community locations, and aboard all NCTD buses. Route information is available by telephone during NCTD operating hours. (Appendix H: NCTD Service Standards Final Report – November 2010, Sec. 4.3 pp.14)
SANDAG
Objective To ensure that transit service and amenities provided in minority and low- income census tracts are on average comparable to the level of service and amenities provided in nonminority and non-low-income census tracts.
Target Percentage of minority and low-income census tracts with transit service must not be disparately impacted when compared to the average level of service and amenities provided in nonminority and non-low-income census tracts.
Figures 2-17 through 2-25 maps the distribution of transit services and amenities within Low- Income, Minority, and LIM census tracts, for each transit district.
35 Figure 2-17 MTS Low-Income Transit Access
36 Figure 2-18 MTS/NCTD Low-Income Transit Access
37 Figure 2-19 NCTD/MTS Low-Income Transit Access
38 Figure 2-20 MTS Minority Transit Access
39 Figure 2-21 MTS/NCTD Minority Transit Access
40 Figure 2-22 NCTD/MTS Minority Transit Access
41 Figure 2-23 MTS LIM Transit Access
. 42 Figure 2-24 MTS/NCTD LIM Transit Access
43 Figure 2-25 NCTD/MTS LIM Transit Access
44 (This page intentionally left blank)
45 Tables 2-1 through 2-6 include an analysis of transit amenities, for both the MTS and NCTD service areas, by stop. These tables show the number of amenities (benches, shelters, or neither) within the Low-Income, Minority, and LIM census tracts with an additional one- quarter mile buffer added to each tract to capture those within the traditional transit walking distance.
Table 2-1. MTS INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN LOW-INCOME AREAS
Within Quarter Mile Total Not Within Quarter Mile Buffer Of Low-Income Census Of Low-Income Census Stops Number Tract Tract # % # % Bench 2028 1286 63.4% 742 36.6%
Shelter 572 429 75.0% 143 25.0%
No Shelter Nor 2,180 1410 64.7% 770 35.3% Bench Total # of Stops: 4,780 3,125 1,655
Total % of Stops: 100% 65.4% 34.6%
Table 2-2. MTS INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN MINORITY AREAS
Within Quarter Mile Not Within Quarter Mile Total Buffer Buffer Stops Number Of Minority Census Tract Of Minority Census Tract # % # % Bench 2028 1104 54.4% 924 45.6%
Shelter 572 299 52.3% 273 47.7%
No Shelter Nor 2,180 1232 56.5% 948 43.5% Bench Total # of Stops: 4,780 2,635 2,145
Total % of Stops: 100% 55.1% 44.9%
Table 2-3. MTS INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN LIM AREAS
Within Quarter Mile Total Not Within Quarter Mile Buffer Stops Number Of LIM Census Tract Of LIM Census Tract # % # % Bench 2028 1493 73.6% 535 26.4%
Shelter 572 468 81.8% 104 18.2%
No Shelter Nor 2,180 1653 75.8% 527 24.2% Bench Total # of Stops: 4,780 3,614 1,166
Total % of Stops: 100% 75.6% 24.4%
46 Table 2-4. NCTD INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN LOW-INCOME AREAS
Within Quarter Mile Total Not Within Quarter Mile Buffer Of Low-Income Census Of Low-Income Census Stops Number Tract Tract # % # %
Bench 529 317 59.9% 212 40.1%
Shelter 145 77 53.1% 68 46.9%
No Shelter Nor 1,197 619 51.7% 578 48.3% Bench Total # of Stops: 1,871 1,013 858
Total % of Stops: 100% 54.1% 45.9%
Table 2-5. NCTD INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN MINORITY AREAS
Within Quarter Mile Not Within Quarter Mile Total Buffer Buffer Stops Number Of Minority Census Tract Of Minority Census Tract
# % # %
Bench 529 308 58.2% 221 41.8%
Shelter 145 94 64.8% 51 35.2%
No Shelter Nor 1,197 734 61.3% 463 38.7% Bench Total # of Stops: 1,871 1,136 735
Total % of Stops: 100% 60.7% 39.3%
Table 2-6. NCTD INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN LIM AREAS
Within Quarter Mile Total Not Within Quarter Mile Buffer Stops Number Of LIM Census Tract Of LIM Census Tract
# % # %
Bench 529 379 71.6% 150 28.4%
Shelter 145 101 69.7% 44 30.3%
No Shelter Nor 1,197 852 71.2% 345 28.8% Bench Total # of Stops: 1,871 1,332 539
Total % of Stops: 100% 71.2% 28.8%
47 (5) Service Availability
Service availability is a general measure of the distribution of transit routes within an agency’s service area. The evaluation of service availability in the SANDAG performance monitoring program takes into account population density but also includes proximity to park and ride locations for suburban areas. The guideline for the urban areas includes a walking distance assessment to transit for both residents and jobs. Accessibility targets have been established for bus stops as the requirements are federally mandated. In some cases, cities rather than transit operators may be responsible for bus stops. However, this objective is provided here to be consistent with the passenger-centered focus of this Coordinated Plan and to ensure that this indicator is tracked and the appropriate authorities are reminded of their responsibilities.
Objective1 In urban areas, transit and land use development should ensure a comfortable walking distance to transit for residents and jobs.
Guideline 1 80 percent of residents or jobs within one-half mile of a bus stop or rail station in urban areas.
Objective 2 Transit and land use development should attempt to ensure that in suburban areas, residents are within a reasonable distance of a park-and-ride facility with access to the transit network, or a bus stop and transit services should be provided to existing or planned smart growth areas.
Guideline 1 100 percent of suburban residences within five miles of a transit stop services.
Guideline 2 70 percent of residents and 75 percent of jobs within one mile of a bus stop or rail station in suburban areas.
Lifeline Services
The evaluation of lifeline services helps to ensure that at least some level of service is provided to areas that have been identified as smart growth opportunity areas.
Objective Transit should attempt to maintain existing lifeline services to currently identified rural village smart growth areas.
Guideline One return trip provided at least two days per week to destinations from rural villages identified on the Smart Growth Concept Map.
48 3. REQUIREMENT TO SET SYSTEMWIDE SERVICE POLICIES System-wide service policies differ from the above systemwide service standards in that they are not directly tied to a quantitative threshold. The two policies recommended by the FTA under this category include Vehicle Assignment and Transit Security. The description of these policies, which were independently developed by MTS and NCTD, are as follows:
(3.a.1) Vehicle Assignment
MTS Bus MTS bus vehicles generally are assigned at random by operating entities. Several MTS fixed- route vehicles are interlined with one another for efficiency and cost-saving purposes (one vehicle may be assigned to several routes in a service day). Certain operating conditions and/or route characteristics, however, may require special assignment, including:
Capacity: Articulated buses are first assigned to routes requiring the greatest amount of passenger capacity. Routes 7, 20, and 150 are frequently assigned in this manner. The remaining articulated buses then are assigned to routes with the next highest passenger load demands. MTS also operates a fleet of smaller cutaway “minibuses” that are used on neighborhood routes throughout the system that have lower ridership demands. These minibuses connect with the standard bus fleet at major transfer points and transit centers. Service Needs: The specific mileage and service needs of each block also help determine vehicle assignment. Certain services have dedicated fleets. The commuter express routes use over-the-road coaches, and the SuperLoop project uses branded buses. As MTS introduces “rapid bus” services throughout its service area, it is expected that these will also use a dedicated, branded fleet.
Further information on the bus fleet can be viewed in the MTS Bus Maintenance Plan (Appendix I). The document was updated and submitted to the FTA in December 2011.
MTS San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI)
All SDTI light rail vehicles (LRVs) are equipped with air-conditioning and have either ramps or wheelchair lifts. SDTI uses three types of LRV for operations (listed in Table 3):
Siemens U2: These are the oldest vehicles in the fleet and are in the process of being retired and replaced by new S70 cars. The U2 vehicles are not regularly used on the Orange or Green Lines, due to their more limited capabilities on these hillier lines. The U2 fleet is being retired as new S70 vehicles are delivered.
Siemens SD100: The SD100s are more powerful than the U2s and are, therefore, more equipped to handle the hilly terrain of the Orange Line. The SD100 vehicles, however, may be used on the Blue Line to help complete train requirements.
49 Siemens S70: The S70s are low-floor, have ramps, and can currently only operate on the Green Line, where station platforms have been raised. MTS is undergoing a major capital project to update the Blue and Orange Lines to also be able to also accommodate new S70 low-floor cars, 65 of which are ordered and in various stages of operation, delivery, or construction. Anticipated completion date of the capital project to upgrade those lines is 2014.
Table 2-7 lists all vehicles that are included in the SDTI fleet.
Table 2-7. MTS SDTI VEHICLES
Vehicle Number of Age Series Type Vehicles (in years)
1000 U2 60 28-32
2000 SD100 52 20-23
3000 S70 (S) 11 7
4000 S70 (US) 32 (65*) 0-1
Total 155
*Total order size; 32 are currently delivered to MTS and in-service or undergoing commissioning.
NCTD BUS (Breeze)
NCTD Bus vehicles are assigned by bus operators and according to the following vehicle/route characteristics:
Vehicle Age and Type
Fuel Capacity and/or Route Mileage
Length of the Route
Frequency of Service
Passenger Capacity
Operating Conditions (Including turns, dips, speed, and other road conditions)
System-wide service needs
NCTD SPRINTER
Train sets on the SPRINTER light rail consist of one or two low-floor Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs). There are a total of 12 DMUs in the SPRINTER fleet. Two DMUs are operated during peak hours each day.
NCTD COASTER
Train sets on the COASTER consist of one locomotive and five passenger cars. The seating arrangements of the newest cars have been modified to better comply with the latest FRA Safety Standards. Generally, however, special vehicle assignments are not necessary.
50 (3.a.2) Transit Security
MTS MTS Security and Code Compliance Inspectors (CCI) are deployed throughout the system to provide safety coverage and ensure proper fare use. CCI’s approach all patrons on vehicles and station platforms for proper fare and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin. The Standard Operating Procedures are included in Appendix J.
Additional targeted security deployment is based on known incidents of crime or gang activity, without regard to race, color, or national origin. For instance, when a station has experienced significant graffiti or thefts, extra security details will be sent to the area. Surveillance equipment is placed at transit facilities as funds become available based upon a ranking criterion that combines incidence of crime with terrorist threat. Each year as funds become available the location of new equipment is approved by the MTS Board. MTS also began adding surveillance equipment onboard transit vehicles.
NCTD
NCTD Security has a Departmental Instruction (No. 1.12 Admin) regarding discrimination (see Appendix J).
4. REQUIREMENT TO EVALUATE SERVICE AND FARE CHANGES
SANDAG, MTS and NCTD comply with the requirement specifications to evaluate service and fare changes found in Chapter 5, Section 4 of the FTA Title VI Circular (FTA C 4702.1A). The MTS and NCTD studies conducted under this requirement can be found in Appendix E of this document. The SANDAG fare studies can be found in the SANDAG quadrennial program update prepared separately from this report. Since the last Program Update two documents have been submitted by SANDAG regarding regional Fare Ordinance changes, four by MTS regarding major service changes and two by NCTD regarding major service changes.
5. REQUIREMENT TO MONITOR TRANSIT SERVICE
Transit Title VI service monitoring is conducted by SANDAG, on behalf of MTS and NCTD, based on the requirements detailed in Chapter V, Section 5 of the FTA Circular (FTA C 4702.1A). SANDAG conducts a Low-Income and Minority (LIM) analysis by implementing the Quality of Service methodology found in the Circular to fulfill this requirement. This methodology ensures that consistent service is delivered between different user groups and determines the degree to which transit service is responsive to the needs of Low-Income and Minority communities. To do this, Low-Income, Non Low-Income, Minority, and Non-Minority Census Tracts are compared using five different transit performance variables based on trips taken to the top three travel destinations. Census 2010 and 2006-2010 ACS data was utilized to determine the population characteristics while the fixed route transit networks (MTS and NCTD) were from fall 2011. Finally, the SANDAG four-step regional travel demand model (Series 12) was used to conduct the evaluation.
20 Low-Income, 20 Non Low-Income, 20 Minority, and 20 Non-Minority Census Tracts were randomly selected from each transit district (MTS and NCTD) to determine the quality of
51 service. The three most frequently traveled destinations were identified separately for MTS and NCTD using the most recent onboard passenger survey. For each of these most frequently traveled destinations, the following service quality variables were evaluated as recommended by the FTA, for each transit district:
Average peak hour travel time to destinations Average non-peak hour travel time to destinations Number of transfers required to reach the destination Total cost of trip to the destination Cost per mile of trip to the destination (tables for distance per trip have been added to explain cost per mile deficiencies)
The analysis of the above categories is included in the following tables (Tables 2-8 through 2- 55). The MTS and NCTD pairs of service quality variables for Low-Income tables are shown first (Tables 2-8 thru 2-31), and then the MTS and NCTD pairs of service quality variables of Minority tables are shown next (Tables 2-32 thru 2-55).
QUALITY OF SERVICE FINDINGS
Overall, the Low-Income and Minority Census Tracts (MTS and NCTD) were shown to have faster service, lower fares, and similar transfers to the top three major destinations in each service area. However, the Low-Income and Minority Census Tracts were generally shown to have a higher cost per mile based on the close proximity of these tracts to the major destinations.
52 Tables 2-8 and 2-9 present the average peak period travel time (in minutes) from the select MTS Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to each of the top three MTS transit trip destinations. Included in the average travel time is the travel time spent waiting for both initial vehicle boarding and any transfers required. The overall average for MTS Low-Income Census Tracts (53.5 minutes) is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (85.9 minutes).
Table 2-8 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17049 66.4 101.4 102.0 9400 55.2 70.0 88.7 8305 62.6 58.3 105.0 7600 48.1 55.3 88.7 13203 44.8 73.3 28.3 9000 37.4 41.9 77.1 8504 32.8 52.2 75.3 10106 35.4 63.9 11.4 7501 46.4 58.1 88.8 1300 27.9 20.7 64.2 2301 39.2 32.2 72.7 2710 46.6 40.2 71.5 2602 44.5 45.0 63.3 15802 63.8 55.2 90.1 10009 55.3 83.8 29.9 5700 13.5 36.2 54.7 4501 17.3 40.8 49.1 5000 25.1 53.6 42.8 11700 33.5 62.0 39.4 12700 34.7 63.2 26.8 Average: 41.5 55.4 63.5
Overall 53.5 Average:
53
Table 2-9 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17015 66.3 101.3 101.9 17040 84.1 119.1 119.7 17037 80.6 95.5 114.1 8351 79.6 87.7 109.9 8306 57.2 64.0 109.3 8102 47.0 61.7 89.6 9506 83.8 84.3 117.2 6900 38.3 45.5 78.9 100 71.0 70.7 107.6 4400 22.4 35.8 54.2 9603 80.6 56.4 114.7 9801 79.0 58.1 116.4 13601 64.1 75.3 90.4 16606 133.0 117.0 175.3 21205 131.5 123.0 157.9 13310 59.7 88.3 43.3 16702 87.9 79.4 114.3 11300 30.7 55.3 50.7 13411 80.6 109.1 76.1 9504 90.4 98.5 120.7 Average: 73.4 81.3 103.1
Overall 85.9 Average:
54 Tables 2-10 and 2-11 present the average peak period travel time (in minutes) from the select NCTD Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to each of the top three NCTD transit trip destinations. The overall average for NCTD Low-Income Census Tracts (88.0 minutes) is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (102.8 minutes).
Table 2-10 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17303 88.8 62.2 94.4 17603 110.1 85.8 65.5 17109 119.0 94.7 53.3 17900 104.0 45.1 98.8 18200 100.6 9.1 59.6 18603 107.6 15.7 67.9 18516 127.1 38.8 36.6 18518 140.1 48.5 52.6 19601 165.2 93.3 70.1 19903 118.2 81.1 23.1 20029 140.1 77.1 15.5 20305 149.7 151.8 106.4 20206 101.8 103.9 58.5 20602 98.1 100.2 54.8 20707 65.8 92.6 47.2 20806 162.0 164.1 118.7 18905 170.2 107.6 79.7 18610 124.1 32.2 58.1 18511 134.4 42.4 60.0 17809 126.3 64.1 98.3 Average: 122.7 75.5 66.0
Overall 88.0 Average:
55
Table 2-11 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17200 80.6 70.3 102.5 17106 127.2 116.2 83.9 17108 101.2 76.9 78.4 17601 112.0 87.7 63.4 20809 158.3 160.5 115.1 17801 123.1 45.6 79.8 18515 150.5 46.8 60.0 18700 166.8 74.8 127.0 18613 118.3 26.4 63.9 19301 147.5 51.0 57.1 19904 145.5 82.9 50.5 19203 144.5 82.0 54.1 18802 158.4 95.9 68.0 18903 172.5 110.0 82.1 19101 165.1 167.2 121.8 19106 170.8 173.0 127.5 20708 75.4 96.9 51.5 20106 148.0 150.1 104.7 20023 103.7 95.4 21.6 20307 111.5 105.9 60.5 Average: 134.0 95.8 78.7
Overall 102.8 Average:
56 Tables 2-12 and 2-13 present the average non-peak period travel time (in minutes) from the select MTS Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to each of the top three MTS transit trip destinations. The overall average for MTS Low-Income Census Tracts (60.9 minutes) is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (93.5 minutes).
Table: 2-12 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17049 142.6 161.5 179.3 9400 50.1 69.0 86.8 8305 73.0 60.5 118.6 7600 47.6 54.9 89.7 13203 46.6 75.2 30.2 9000 37.3 41.7 78.6 8504 53.5 51.8 99.1 10106 38.6 67.2 14.6 7501 46.5 84.9 93.6 1300 30.3 20.7 69.8 2301 36.6 32.2 73.3 2710 46.4 40.1 102.6 2602 49.3 44.9 66.3 15802 63.8 55.2 93.3 10009 58.5 87.2 33.3 5700 13.5 35.9 57.9 4501 19.7 43.2 54.8 5000 28.3 65.9 46.0 11700 36.6 81.1 42.6 12700 37.9 66.6 30.0 Average: 47.8 62.0 73.0
Overall 60.9 Average:
57
Table: 2-13 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17015 114.3 133.2 151.0 17040 132.2 151.1 168.9 17037 63.0 81.9 99.7 8351 75.5 103.6 112.2 8306 69.4 63.6 110.7 8102 45.8 84.8 95.4 9506 79.0 84.1 115.7 6900 43.9 51.2 86.0 100 70.8 70.5 110.7 4400 24.8 38.2 59.8 9603 97.9 63.8 116.2 9801 76.3 75.6 117.7 13601 64.0 75.2 93.6 16606 148.0 132.0 191.8 21205 131.4 122.9 161.0 13310 62.7 91.4 46.3 16702 87.9 79.3 117.4 11300 38.2 62.9 61.4 13411 83.6 112.2 79.1 9504 91.1 109.9 127.7 Average: 80.0 89.4 111.1
Overall Average: 93.5
58 Tables 2-14 and 2-15 present the average non-peak period travel time (in minutes) from the select NCTD Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to each of the top three NCTD transit trip destinations. The overall average for NCTD Low-Income Census Tracts (105.9 minutes) is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (121.7 minutes).
Table 2-14 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17303 102.3 62.0 94.4 17603 146.5 85.6 65.5 17109 155.1 94.2 56.6 17900 155.2 45.2 99.1 18200 146.3 9.1 59.6 18603 165.2 15.6 67.8 18516 177.4 38.9 36.6 18518 180.2 48.2 52.6 19601 214.8 93.1 69.5 19903 168.1 80.8 22.8 20029 190.3 95.9 34.3 20305 199.9 151.7 106.3 20206 152.1 104.0 58.5 20602 148.5 100.3 54.8 20707 116.5 92.7 47.3 20806 227.2 179.0 133.6 18905 235.1 121.9 94.3 18610 181.5 31.9 57.9 18511 189.1 42.3 60.0 17809 178.0 63.9 98.6 Average: 171.5 77.8 68.5
Overall 105.9 Average:
59
Table 2-15 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17200 94.3 70.0 102.4 17106 164.2 115.5 83.4 17108 137.7 76.8 78.3 17601 148.4 87.4 63.4 20809 223.5 175.4 129.9 17801 174.2 45.4 80.1 18515 184.7 46.8 60.1 18700 224.4 74.7 126.9 18613 175.8 26.1 63.7 19301 212.8 60.8 72.0 19904 195.8 82.6 55.0 19203 209.8 96.7 69.1 18802 223.4 110.3 82.7 18903 237.4 124.3 96.7 19101 215.7 167.5 122.1 19106 221.2 173.0 127.6 20708 112.2 97.0 51.5 20106 198.2 150.0 104.56 20023 153.88 95 21.49 20307 161.9 105.9 60.5 Average: 183.5 99.0 82.6
Overall 121.7 Average:
60 Tables 2-16 and 2-17 show the number of transfers required for travel to the top three trip destinations within the MTS service area. The overall average for MTS Low-Income Census Tracts (1.2 transfers) is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (1.6 transfers).
Table 2-16 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17049 0.0 2.0 1.0 9400 0.0 2.0 1.0 8305 1.0 2.0 2.0 7600 1.0 2.0 1.0 13203 1.0 3.0 1.0 9000 1.0 2.0 1.0 8504 0.0 2.0 1.0 10106 0.0 2.0 0.0 7501 0.0 2.0 1.0 1300 0.0 0.0 1.0 2301 0.0 1.0 1.0 2710 0.0 1.0 2.0 2602 1.0 2.0 1.0 15802 1.0 2.0 2.0 10009 1.0 3.0 1.0 5700 0.0 1.0 1.0 4501 0.0 1.0 1.0 5000 1.0 3.0 1.0 11700 1.0 3.0 1.0 12700 1.0 3.0 1.0 Average: 0.5 2.0 1.1
Overall 1.2 Average:
61
Table 2-17 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17015 1.0 3.0 2.0 17040 1.0 3.0 2.0 17037 0.0 2.0 1.0 8351 1.0 3.0 2.0 8306 1.0 2.0 1.0 8102 0.0 2.0 1.0 9506 1.0 1.0 2.0 6900 1.0 2.0 1.0 100 0.0 2.0 1.0 4400 0.0 1.0 1.0 9603 2.0 2.0 2.0 9801 1.0 2.0 2.0 13601 1.0 3.0 2.0 16606 2.0 2.0 2.0 21205 1.0 2.0 2.0 13310 1.0 3.0 1.0 16702 1.0 2.0 2.0 11300 0.0 2.0 1.0 13411 1.0 3.0 1.0 9504 1.0 3.0 2.0 Average: 0.9 2.3 1.6
Overall 1.6 Average:
62 Tables 2-18 and 2-19 show the number of transfers required for travel to each of the top three NCTD transit trip destinations. The overall average for NCTD Low-Income Census Tracts (1.0 transfers) is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (1.1 transfers).
Table 2-18 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17303 1.0 0.0 1.0 17603 1.0 1.0 0.0 17109 1.0 1.0 0.0 17900 1.0 1.0 1.0 18200 1.0 0.0 1.0 18603 1.0 0.0 1.0 18516 1.0 1.0 0.0 18518 1.0 0.0 1.0 19601 2.0 1.0 1.0 19903 1.0 1.0 0.0 20029 1.0 2.0 0.0 20305 1.0 2.0 1.0 20206 1.0 2.0 1.0 20602 1.0 2.0 1.0 20707 0.0 2.0 1.0 20806 1.0 2.0 1.0 18905 2.0 1.0 1.0 18610 1.0 0.0 1.0 18511 2.0 1.0 1.0 17809 1.0 1.0 1.0 Average: 1.1 1.1 0.8
Overall 1.0 Average:
63
Table 2-19 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17200 1.0 0.0 1.0 17106 1.0 1.0 1.0 17108 1.0 1.0 1.0 17601 1.0 1.0 0.0 20809 1.0 2.0 1.0 17801 1.0 1.0 1.0 18515 2.0 1.0 1.0 18700 1.0 0.0 1.0 18613 1.0 0.0 1.0 19301 2.0 1.0 1.0 19904 2.0 1.0 1.0 19203 2.0 1.0 1.0 18802 2.0 1.0 1.0 18903 2.0 1.0 1.0 19101 1.0 2.0 1.0 19106 1.0 2.0 1.0 20708 1.0 2.0 1.0 20106 1.0 2.0 1.0 20023 1.0 1.0 0.0 20307 1.0 2.0 1.0 Average: 1.3 1.2 0.9
Overall 1.1 Average:
64 Tables 2-20 and 2-21 present the total transit costs required for travel from the selected MTS Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to the top three MTS destinations. The overall average fares for Low-Income Census Tracts ($1.93) is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts ($2.05).
Table 2-20 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($)
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17049 $3.79 $3.79 $3.79 9400 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 8305 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 7600 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89 13203 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 9000 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 8504 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 10106 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 7501 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89 1300 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 2301 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 2710 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 2602 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 15802 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 10009 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 5700 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 4501 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 5000 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 11700 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 12700 1.9 1.9 1.9 Average: $1.91 $1.90 $1.99
Overall $1.93 Average:
65
Table 2-21 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($)
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17015 $3.79 $3.79 $3.79 17040 $3.79 $3.79 $3.79 17037 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 8351 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 8306 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 8102 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89 9506 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 6900 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89 100 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 4400 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 9603 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 9801 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89 13601 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 16606 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 21205 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 13310 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 16702 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 11300 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 13411 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 9504 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 Average: $2.02 $2.03 $2.08
Overall $2.05 Average:
66 Tables 2-22 and 2-23 present the total transit costs required for travel from the selected NCTD Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to the top three NCTD destinations. The overall average fares for Low-Income Census Tracts ($3.88) is lower than that for Non Low- Income Census Tracts ($4.05).
Table 2-22 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17303 $3.89 $1.33 $3.33 17603 $6.17 $3.33 $1.33 17109 $6.17 $3.33 $1.33 17900 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52 18200 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 18603 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 18516 $5.79 $3.52 $1.52 18518 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 19601 $5.79 $3.33 $3.33 19903 $5.79 $3.33 $1.33 20029 $5.79 $3.52 $1.33 20305 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20206 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20602 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20707 $3.79 $3.52 $3.52 20806 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 18905 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52 18610 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 18511 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52 17809 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52 Average: $5.77 $2.90 $2.96
Overall $3.88 Average:
67
Table 2-23 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17200 $3.89 $1.33 $3.33 17106 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52 17108 $6.17 $3.33 $3.33 17601 $6.17 $3.33 $1.33 20809 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 17801 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52 18515 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52 18700 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 18613 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 19301 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52 19904 $5.79 $3.33 $3.33 19203 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52 18802 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52 18903 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52 19101 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 19106 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20708 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20106 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20023 $5.79 $3.33 $1.33 20307 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 Average: $5.79 $3.09 $3.27
Overall $4.05 Average:
68 Tables 2-24 and 2-25 present the average cost per mile from the selected MTS Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to the top three MTS destinations. The overall average for Low-Income Census Tracts ($0.66 per mile) is higher than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts ($0.32). This is due to the locations of Low-Income tracts versus Non Low-Income tracts. In general, Low-Income tracts are closer to the top three evaluated destinations, yielding better overall travel times and lower fares as presented in previous tables. However, closer proximity to major destinations also includes higher costs on a per mile basis. This average trip distance for Low-Income riders is 12.87 miles compared to 20.20 miles for Non Low- Income riders. This is shown in Tables 2-26 and 2-27.
Table 2-24 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($)
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17049 $0.16 $0.04 $0.09 9400 $0.42 $0.26 $0.05 8305 $0.41 $0.28 $0.04 7600 $0.81 $0.44 $0.15 13203 $0.56 $0.08 $0.52 9000 $0.97 $0.24 $0.16 8504 $0.66 $0.47 $0.06 10106 $0.49 $0.08 $1.22 7501 $0.81 $0.48 $0.15 1300 $1.51 $1.21 $0.07 2301 $0.92 $0.84 $0.06 2710 $0.88 $0.64 $0.19 2602 $0.71 $0.68 $0.20 15802 $0.33 $0.26 $0.11 10009 $0.23 $0.16 $0.79 5700 $7.62 $0.59 $0.22 4501 $4.11 $0.60 $0.22 5000 $2.60 $0.18 $0.25 11700 $1.11 $0.32 $0.30 12700 0.7 0.2 0.4 Average: $1.30 $0.41 $0.26
Overall $0.66 Average:
69
Table 2-25 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($)
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17015 $0.16 $0.04 $0.08 17040 $0.19 $0.09 $0.08 17037 $0.32 $0.19 $0.10 8351 $0.32 $0.19 $0.04 8306 $0.49 $0.34 $0.13 8102 $0.50 $0.28 $0.13 9506 $0.47 $0.27 $0.13 6900 $1.13 $0.25 $0.17 100 $1.08 $0.21 $0.17 4400 $2.40 $0.73 $0.21 9603 $0.54 $1.06 $0.13 9801 $0.45 $0.35 $0.11 13601 $0.41 $0.24 $0.13 16606 $0.22 $0.15 $0.08 21205 $0.17 $0.12 $0.08 13310 $0.38 $0.17 $0.32 16702 $0.25 $0.19 $0.10 11300 $1.09 $0.34 $0.21 13411 $0.40 $0.17 $0.09 9504 $0.32 $0.21 $0.11 Average: $0.57 $0.28 $0.13
Overall $0.32 Average:
70
Table 2-26 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17049 24.27 30.40 38.81 9400 14.76 12.73 29.41 8305 15.19 11.70 30.51 7600 7.65 7.49 22.93 13203 10.99 15.88 6.83 9000 6.36 5.45 21.60 8504 8.82 7.52 24.14 10106 12.55 17.44 2.88 7501 7.16 6.96 22.46 1300 3.83 2.76 18.76 2301 6.30 4.18 20.95 2710 6.57 5.50 18.20 2602 8.18 5.14 17.32 15802 17.67 13.43 30.63 10009 16.72 21.61 4.43 5700 0.76 5.98 15.93 4501 1.41 5.56 15.95 5000 2.37 7.26 13.94 11700 5.58 10.47 11.91 12700 8.47 13.36 8.28 Average: 9.28 10.54 18.79
Overall 12.87 Average:
71
Table 2-27 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17015 24.91 31.03 39.45 17040 29.94 36.06 44.48 17037 19.29 17.26 33.94 8351 19.02 17.11 33.56 8306 11.76 10.40 27.85 8102 12.24 12.08 27.42 9506 12.33 12.22 26.98 6900 5.44 5.28 20.72 100 5.73 6.22 21.03 4400 2.41 4.56 16.95 9603 10.67 3.14 25.79 9801 12.97 9.54 32.18 13601 14.03 14.16 26.98 16606 26.15 21.90 44.55 21205 33.37 29.12 46.32 13310 15.29 20.18 11.13 16702 22.81 18.56 35.76 11300 5.33 10.25 17.05 13411 14.50 19.39 15.61 9504 18.38 16.47 32.93 Average: 15.83 15.75 29.03
Overall 20.20 Average:
72 Tables 2-28 and 2-29 present the average cost per mile from the selected NCTD Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to the top three NCTD destinations. The overall average for Low-Income Census Tracts ($0.28 per mile) is higher than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts ($0.21). This is due to the locations of Low-Income tracts versus Non Low-Income tracts. In general, Low-Income tracts are closer to the top three evaluated destinations, yielding better overall travel times and lower fares as presented in previous tables. However, closer proximity to major destinations also includes higher costs on a per mile basis. This average trip distance for Low-Income riders is 22.61 miles compared to 25.57 miles for Non Low- Income riders. This is shown in Tables 2-30 and 2-31.
Table 2-28 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17303 $0.17 $0.09 $0.20 17603 $0.20 $0.26 $0.11 17109 $0.18 $0.21 $0.17 17900 $0.16 $0.90 $0.20 18200 $0.15 $1.73 $0.23 18603 $0.14 $0.75 $0.20 18516 $0.12 $0.52 $0.16 18518 $0.12 $0.15 $0.38 19601 $0.13 $0.21 $0.45 19903 $0.14 $0.20 $0.53 20029 $0.14 $0.20 $1.16 20305 $0.17 $0.13 $0.36 20206 $0.17 $0.14 $0.38 20602 $0.18 $0.14 $0.43 20707 $0.13 $0.14 $0.43 20806 $0.12 $0.08 $0.14 18905 $0.10 $0.12 $0.18 18610 $0.13 $0.19 $0.28 18511 $0.13 $0.59 $0.27 17809 $0.15 $0.60 $0.20 Average: $0.15 $0.37 $0.32
Overall $0.28 Average:
73
Table 2-29 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17200 $0.19 $0.07 $0.17 17106 $0.14 $0.14 $0.20 17108 $0.19 $0.23 $0.31 17601 $0.19 $0.25 $0.12 20809 $0.12 $0.09 $0.15 17801 $0.15 $0.72 $0.21 18515 $0.11 $0.47 $0.27 18700 $0.13 $0.28 $0.17 18613 $0.13 $0.27 $0.24 19301 $0.12 $0.34 $0.32 19904 $0.12 $0.20 $0.49 19203 $0.13 $0.21 $0.41 18802 $0.11 $0.15 $0.23 18903 $0.10 $0.12 $0.18 19101 $0.11 $0.08 $0.12 19106 $0.13 $0.10 $0.17 20708 $0.19 $0.13 $0.36 20106 $0.17 $0.14 $0.37 20023 $0.16 $0.16 $0.58 20307 $0.18 $0.16 $0.62 Average: $0.14 $0.21 $0.28
Overall $0.21 Average:
74
Table 2-30 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17303 23.13 15.64 16.62 17603 31.44 12.84 11.83 17109 34.41 15.81 7.96 17900 39.42 3.71 17.81 18200 42.11 0.77 15.36 18603 43.42 1.78 17.60 18516 46.98 6.73 9.61 18518 50.50 9.16 9.22 19601 45.21 15.54 7.42 19903 40.29 16.69 2.50 20029 41.63 17.43 1.15 20305 34.52 26.08 9.86 20206 34.02 25.59 9.36 20602 32.77 24.33 8.10 20707 29.30 24.38 8.15 20806 50.02 41.58 25.35 18905 56.69 26.91 19.32 18610 48.56 6.92 12.64 18511 47.24 5.60 12.91 17809 41.13 5.54 17.89 Average: 40.64 15.15 12.03
Overall 22.61 Average:
75
Table 2-31 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17200 20.38 18.38 19.36 17106 42.22 23.95 17.56 17108 32.99 14.39 10.91 17601 32.04 13.44 11.23 20809 48.66 40.22 23.99 17801 40.25 4.62 16.98 18515 50.38 7.06 13.01 18700 46.36 4.72 20.54 18613 46.61 4.97 14.59 19301 48.34 9.75 10.96 19904 46.83 17.04 6.77 19203 45.96 16.18 8.59 18802 52.36 22.57 14.98 18903 57.47 27.69 20.09 19101 54.38 45.95 29.72 19106 45.49 37.05 20.83 20708 30.47 26.09 9.86 20106 34.17 25.73 9.50 20023 35.61 21.37 2.30 20307 32.84 21.86 5.64 Average: 42.19 20.15 14.37
Overall 25.57 Average:
76 Tables 2-32 and 2-33 present the average peak period travel time (in minutes) from the select MTS Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to each of the top three MTS transit trip destinations. Included in the average travel time is the travel time spent waiting for both initial vehicle boarding and any transfers required. The overall average for MTS Minority Census Tracts (64.5 minutes) is lower than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (79.6 minutes).
Table 2-32 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17032 106.7 121.5 140.2 8352 80.8 88.9 111.1 8359 53.7 61.9 84.1 8348 66.7 74.8 97.0 8343 60.4 54.7 102.8 8600 67.2 52.3 108.4 16301 73.0 64.5 99.4 15901 63.2 54.7 89.5 1200 27.7 16.9 61.1 2707 44.4 37.9 73.7 1800 49.8 29.6 89.8 4100 19.4 38.4 51.3 4900 18.4 47.0 44.7 14400 44.7 63.9 71.1 13908 67.7 100.7 73.7 11801 46.1 74.7 48.3 3204 42.7 71.2 44.9 12900 62.8 91.4 38.8 10106 35.4 63.9 11.4 13416 56.2 84.7 48.3 Average: 54.3 64.7 74.5
Overall 64.5 Average:
77
Table 2-33 MTS Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17041 64.4 99.4 100.1 17033 84.1 98.9 117.5 17022 85.6 93.7 115.9 8340 72.9 66.0 115.3 7903 50.4 63.8 97.6 8506 41.6 39.9 84.0 9304 43.9 19.6 78.0 9703 90.4 66.8 125.1 16613 135.7 119.7 178.0 16806 84.5 76.0 110.8 15703 67.5 59.0 93.9 14902 61.1 70.9 87.4 97301 55.6 62.9 96.2 400 31.6 48.0 71.2 11100 36.4 61.0 56.3 21205 131.5 123.0 157.9 8101 52.5 67.2 95.1 9510 68.4 80.7 78.0 2904 50.0 46.7 83.4 9106 40.4 44.8 80.1 Average: 67.4 70.4 101.1
Overall 79.6 Average:
78 Tables 2-34 and 2-35 present the average peak period travel time (in minutes) from the select NCTD Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to each of the top three NCTD transit trip destinations. The overall average for NCTD Minority Census Tracts (87.9 minutes) is lower than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (103.2 minutes).
Table 2-34 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 18509 130.2 38.6 78.0 18904 172.5 110.0 82.1 19101 165.1 167.2 121.8 18400 102.0 10.0 62.2 18610 124.1 32.2 58.1 18514 128.7 36.8 53.5 18519 140.1 48.5 52.6 19502 127.7 52.7 37.3 19406 137.2 54.5 46.8 20018 130.3 81.7 20.1 20025 101.0 98.1 24.2 20601 69.1 89.6 44.2 20202 97.7 99.8 54.4 20207 101.6 103.7 58.3 20106 145.6 147.8 102.3 20109 100.0 102.1 56.7 20806 162.0 164.1 118.7 19205 131.6 48.8 41.2 20028 106.6 92.4 18.6 18603 107.6 15.7 67.9 Average: 124.0 79.7 59.9
Overall 87.9 Average:
79
Table 2-35 NCTD Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17106 127.2 116.2 83.9 17109 119.0 94.7 53.3 17200 80.6 70.3 102.5 17702 102.8 48.7 87.5 20014 111.1 73.7 78.8 22100 127.4 57.4 70.4 17900 65.4 104.6 136.8 18515 150.5 46.8 60.0 20105 151.3 153.4 108.0 20805 164.6 166.7 121.3 18801 164.2 101.7 73.8 18700 167.0 75.0 94.9 20706 133.4 135.5 90.1 20304 154.9 157.1 111.6 20027 130.2 92.4 30.8 19107 170.8 173.0 127.5 18504 124.7 33.2 67.4 17801 123.1 45.6 79.8 20016 107.6 77.1 76.0 17401 92.8 58.2 90.5 Average: 128.4 94.1 87.3
Overall 103.2 Average:
80 Tables 2-36 and 2-37 present the average Non-peak period travel time (in minutes) from the select MTS Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to each of the top three MTS transit trip destinations. The overall average for MTS Minority Census Tracts (67.7 minutes) is lower than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (87.1 minutes).
Table 2-36 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17032 88.8 107.7 125.5 8352 81.1 100.0 117.8 8359 54.4 73.3 91.1 8348 81.1 82.3 117.8 8343 71.0 56.8 116.7 8600 65.9 52.3 110.3 16301 73.0 64.5 102.6 15901 63.2 54.7 92.7 1200 25.1 16.9 61.8 2707 44.1 37.8 100.4 1800 49.2 29.7 92.4 4100 21.8 40.9 56.9 4900 18.4 47.1 48.0 14400 44.7 64.1 74.3 13908 70.7 100.2 76.7 11801 49.3 91.2 51.5 3204 45.9 89.8 48.1 12900 66.6 93.9 42.6 10106 38.6 67.2 14.6 13416 59.2 87.9 51.3 Average: 55.6 67.9 79.7
Overall 67.7 Average:
81
Table 2-37 MTS Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17041 139.9 158.8 176.6 17033 66.4 85.3 103.1 17022 86.2 105.1 122.9 8340 83.6 65.6 135.1 7903 49.2 62.7 98.4 8506 62.2 39.6 107.9 9304 45.4 19.6 79.5 9703 87.8 73.9 126.3 16613 150.7 134.6 194.5 16806 84.5 75.9 114.0 15703 67.5 59.0 97.1 14902 61.1 70.9 90.7 97301 56.2 63.5 98.3 400 32.1 47.8 72.5 11100 42.4 67.1 65.6 21205 131.4 122.9 161.0 8101 51.3 89.8 100.9 9510 82.5 80.5 119.2 2904 47.4 46.7 84.1 9106 40.4 56.3 81.6 Average: 73.4 76.3 111.5
Overall 87.1 Average:
82 Tables 2-38 and 2-39 present the average Non-peak period travel time (in minutes) from the select NCTD Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to each of the top three NCTD transit trip destinations. The overall average for NCTD Minority Census Tracts (107.1 minutes) is lower than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (119.4 minutes).
Table 2-38 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 18509 178.7 38.7 78.0 18904 237.4 124.3 96.7 19101 215.7 167.5 122.1 18400 159.6 10.0 62.2 18610 181.5 31.9 57.9 18514 186.1 36.5 53.3 18519 180.2 48.2 52.6 19502 178.0 52.4 37.2 19406 186.3 54.3 46.8 20018 176.5 115.5 35.1 20025 151.2 97.7 24.2 20601 119.5 89.7 44.3 20202 148.0 99.8 54.4 20207 152.0 103.8 58.3 20106 195.9 147.7 102.2 20109 150.3 102.1 56.7 20806 227.2 179.0 133.6 19205 181.9 48.5 41.1 20028 156.8 92.1 18.6 18603 165.2 15.6 67.8 Average: 176.4 82.8 62.2
Overall 107.1 Average:
83
Table 2-39 NCTD Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17106 164.2 115.5 83.4 17109 155.1 94.2 56.6 17200 94.3 70.0 102.4 17702 116.0 48.5 87.5 20014 147.5 73.3 79.3 22100 163.7 57.1 81.0 17900 64.3 103.9 136.4 18515 184.7 46.8 60.1 20105 201.4 153.3 107.8 20805 229.8 181.6 136.2 18801 229.2 116.0 88.4 18700 250.5 89.8 109.7 20706 198.7 150.5 105.0 20304 205.1 156.9 111.5 20027 166.1 105.1 45.7 19107 221.2 173.0 127.6 18504 165.0 33.0 67.5 17801 174.2 45.4 80.1 20016 144.0 76.7 75.9 17401 106.2 58.1 90.6 Average: 169.1 97.4 91.6
Overall 119.4 Average:
84 Tables 2-40 and 2-41 show the number of transfers required for travel to the top three trip destinations within the MTS service area. The overall average for MTS Minority Census Tracts (1.3 transfers) is equal to that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (1.3 transfers).
Table 2-40 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17032 0.0 2.0 1.0 8352 1.0 3.0 2.0 8359 0.0 2.0 1.0 8348 0.0 2.0 1.0 8343 1.0 2.0 2.0 8600 1.0 1.0 2.0 16301 1.0 2.0 2.0 15901 1.0 2.0 2.0 1200 0.0 0.0 1.0 2707 0.0 1.0 2.0 1800 0.0 1.0 1.0 4100 0.0 1.0 1.0 4900 0.0 2.0 1.0 14400 1.0 2.0 2.0 13908 1.0 3.0 1.0 11801 1.0 3.0 1.0 3204 1.0 3.0 1.0 12900 1.0 3.0 1.0 10106 0.0 2.0 0.0 13416 1.0 3.0 1.0 Average: 0.6 2.0 1.3
Overall 1.3 Average:
85
Table 2-41 MTS Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17041 0.0 2.0 1.0 17033 0.0 2.0 1.0 17022 1.0 3.0 2.0 8340 1.0 2.0 2.0 7903 1.0 2.0 1.0 8506 0.0 1.0 1.0 9304 1.0 1.0 1.0 9703 1.0 2.0 2.0 16613 2.0 2.0 2.0 16806 1.0 2.0 2.0 15703 1.0 2.0 2.0 14902 1.0 1.0 2.0 97301 1.0 2.0 1.0 400 1.0 2.0 1.0 11100 0.0 2.0 1.0 21205 1.0 2.0 2.0 8101 0.0 2.0 1.0 9510 1.0 1.0 1.0 2904 0.0 1.0 1.0 9106 1.0 2.0 1.0 Average: 0.8 1.8 1.4
Overall 1.3 Average:
86 Tables 2-42 and 2-43 show the number of transfers required for travel to the top three trip destinations within the NCTD service area. The overall average for NCTD Minority Census Tracts (1.0 transfers) is equal to that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (1.0 transfers).
Table 2-42 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 18509 1.0 0.0 1.0 18904 2.0 1.0 1.0 19101 1.0 2.0 1.0 18400 1.0 0.0 1.0 18610 1.0 0.0 1.0 18514 1.0 0.0 1.0 18519 1.0 0.0 1.0 19502 2.0 0.0 1.0 19406 2.0 0.0 1.0 20018 2.0 2.0 0.0 20025 1.0 1.0 0.0 20601 0.0 2.0 1.0 20202 1.0 2.0 1.0 20207 1.0 2.0 1.0 20106 1.0 2.0 1.0 20109 1.0 2.0 1.0 20806 1.0 2.0 1.0 19205 2.0 0.0 1.0 20028 1.0 1.0 0.0 18603 1.0 0.0 1.0 Average: 1.2 1.0 0.9
Overall 1.0 Average:
87
Table 2-43 NCTD Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Number of Transfers
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17106 1.0 1.0 1.0 17109 1.0 1.0 0.0 17200 1.0 0.0 1.0 17702 1.0 0.0 1.0 20014 1.0 1.0 1.0 22100 1.0 1.0 0.0 17900 0.0 1.0 2.0 18515 2.0 1.0 1.0 20105 1.0 2.0 1.0 20805 1.0 2.0 1.0 18801 2.0 1.0 1.0 18700 2.0 1.0 1.0 20706 1.0 2.0 1.0 20304 1.0 2.0 1.0 20027 1.0 2.0 0.0 19107 1.0 2.0 1.0 18504 1.0 0.0 1.0 17801 1.0 1.0 1.0 20016 1.0 1.0 1.0 17401 1.0 0.0 1.0 Average: 1.1 1.1 0.9
Overall 1.0 Average:
88 Tables 2-44 and 2-45 present the total transit costs required for travel from the selected MTS Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to the top three MTS destinations. The overall average fares for Minority Census Tracts ($1.85) is lower than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts ($1.93).
Table 2-44 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($)
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17032 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 8352 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 8359 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 8348 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 8343 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 8600 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 16301 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 15901 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 1200 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 2707 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 1800 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 4100 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 4900 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 14400 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 13908 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 11801 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 3204 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 12900 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 10106 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 13416 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 Average: $1.84 $1.81 $1.89
Overall $1.85 Average:
89
Table 2-45 MTS Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($)
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17041 $3.79 $3.79 $3.79 17033 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 17022 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 8340 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 7903 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 8506 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 9304 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 9703 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89 16613 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 16806 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 15703 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 14902 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 97301 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89 400 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 11100 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 21205 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89 8101 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89 9510 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89 2904 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89 9106 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89 Average: $1.91 $1.91 $1.99
Overall $1.93 Average:
90 Tables 2-46 and 2-47 present the total transit costs required for travel from the selected NCTD Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to the top three MTS destinations. The overall average fares for Minority Census Tracts ($3.83) is lower than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts ($3.87).
Table 2-46 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 18509 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 18904 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52 19101 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 18400 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 18610 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 18514 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 18519 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 19502 $5.79 $1.33 $3.52 19406 $5.79 $1.33 $3.52 20018 $5.79 $3.52 $1.33 20025 $5.79 $3.33 $1.33 20601 $3.79 $3.52 $3.52 20202 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20207 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20106 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20109 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20806 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 19205 $5.79 $1.33 $3.52 20028 $5.79 $3.33 $1.33 18603 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 Average: $5.80 $2.51 $3.19
Overall $3.83 Average:
91
Table 2-47 NCTD Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Total Cost of Trip ($)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17106 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52 17109 $6.17 $3.33 $1.33 17200 $3.89 $1.33 $3.33 17702 $3.89 $1.33 $3.33 20014 $6.17 $3.33 $3.33 22100 $6.17 $3.33 $1.33 17900 $1.70 $3.70 $3.70 18515 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52 20105 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20805 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 18801 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52 18700 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52 20706 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20304 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 20027 $6.17 $3.52 $1.33 19107 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52 18504 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52 17801 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52 20016 $6.17 $3.33 $3.33 17401 $3.89 $1.33 $3.33 Average: $5.45 $3.01 $3.15
Overall $3.87 Average:
92 Tables 2-48 and 2-49 present the average cost per mile from the selected MTS Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to the top three MTS destinations. The overall average for Minority Census Tracts ($0.20 per mile) is higher than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts ($0.18). This is due to the locations of Minority tracts versus Non-Minority tracts. In general, Minority tracts are closer to the top three evaluated destinations, yielding better overall travel times and lower fares as presented in previous tables. However, closer proximity to major destinations also includes higher costs on a per mile basis. This average trip distance for Minority riders is 15.39 miles compared to 18.63 miles for Non-Minority riders. This is shown in Tables 2-50 and 2-51.
Table 2-48 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($)
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17032 $0.07 $0.08 $0.05 8352 $0.10 $0.11 $0.06 8359 $0.11 $0.13 $0.06 8348 $0.10 $0.11 $0.06 8343 $0.13 $0.16 $0.06 8600 $0.23 $0.45 $0.08 16301 $0.10 $0.13 $0.06 15901 $0.11 $0.15 $0.06 1200 $0.40 $0.79 $0.10 2707 $0.28 $0.34 $0.10 1800 $0.27 $0.59 $0.09 4100 $0.89 $0.34 $0.11 4900 $0.97 $0.28 $0.13 14400 $0.18 $0.18 $0.08 13908 $0.15 $0.11 $0.10 11801 $0.26 $0.16 $0.16 3204 $0.22 $0.14 $0.15 12900 $0.11 $0.08 $0.23 10106 $0.15 $0.11 $0.66 13416 $0.14 $0.10 $0.14 Average: $0.25 $0.23 $0.13
Overall $0.20 Average:
93
Table 2-49 MTS Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($)
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17041 $0.16 $0.13 $0.10 17033 $0.09 $0.11 $0.05 17022 $0.11 $0.13 $0.06 8340 $0.13 $0.15 $0.06 7903 $0.18 $0.17 $0.08 8506 $0.17 $0.22 $0.07 9304 $0.23 $2.22 $0.08 9703 $0.15 $0.33 $0.07 16613 $0.07 $0.08 $0.04 16806 $0.09 $0.11 $0.05 15703 $0.10 $0.13 $0.06 14902 $0.15 $0.17 $0.07 97301 $0.21 $0.24 $0.08 400 $0.33 $0.34 $0.10 11100 $0.28 $0.16 $0.11 21205 $0.06 $0.06 $0.04 8101 $0.13 $0.14 $0.07 9510 $0.12 $0.15 $0.08 2904 $0.20 $0.27 $0.08 9106 $0.32 $0.53 $0.09 Average: $0.16 $0.29 $0.07
Overall $0.18 Average:
94
Table 2-50 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)
Downtown Census Tract San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro 17032 25.97 23.94 40.62 8352 19.34 17.43 33.89 8359 16.47 14.56 31.01 8348 19.59 17.68 34.14 8343 14.49 10.57 29.81 8600 7.25 3.81 22.42 16301 18.26 14.01 31.21 15901 17.11 12.86 30.06 1200 4.25 2.14 18.90 2707 6.06 4.99 18.71 1800 6.41 2.87 21.59 4100 1.91 5.06 16.45 4900 1.95 6.84 14.90 14400 10.51 9.52 23.47 13908 12.42 15.68 18.76 11801 7.22 12.11 11.70 3204 8.47 13.36 12.94 12900 17.74 22.63 8.07 10106 12.55 17.44 2.88 13416 13.85 18.74 13.66 Average: 12.09 12.31 21.76
Overall 15.39 Average:
95
Table 2-51 MTS Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)
Downtown Mission Census Tract San Diego Valley San Ysidro 17041 23.69 29.81 38.22 17033 20.03 17.99 34.67 17022 17.01 15.10 31.56 8340 14.92 11.03 30.24 7903 9.70 10.03 24.95 8506 10.94 7.64 26.26 9304 8.37 0.85 23.49 9703 11.28 5.70 28.34 16613 26.79 22.54 45.19 16806 21.72 17.47 34.67 15703 18.41 14.16 31.36 14902 13.03 9.81 25.98 97301 7.99 7.83 23.27 400 5.21 5.00 19.40 11100 6.02 10.94 17.74 21205 33.37 29.12 46.32 8101 13.45 13.30 28.63 9510 15.19 11.30 23.67 2904 8.53 6.41 23.18 9106 5.24 3.55 20.48 Average: 14.54 12.48 28.88
Overall 18.63 Average:
96 Tables 2-52 and 2-53 present the average cost per mile from the selected NCTD Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to the top three NCTD destinations. The overall average for Minority Census Tracts ($0.28 per mile) is higher than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts ($0.19). This is due to the locations of Minority tracts versus Non-Minority tracts. In general, Minority tracts are closer to the top three evaluated destinations, yielding better overall travel times and lower fares as presented in previous tables. However, closer proximity to major destinations also includes higher costs on a per mile basis. This average trip distance for Minority riders is 23.95 miles compared to 24.42 miles for Non-Minority riders. This is shown in Tables 2-54 and 2-55.
Table 2-52 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 18509 $0.14 $0.65 $0.25 18904 $0.10 $0.12 $0.18 19101 $0.11 $0.08 $0.12 18400 $0.15 $2.38 $0.21 18610 $0.13 $0.19 $0.28 18514 $0.12 $0.16 $0.31 18519 $0.12 $0.15 $0.38 19502 $0.13 $0.10 $0.54 19406 $0.13 $0.12 $0.49 20018 $0.15 $0.20 $0.95 20025 $0.17 $0.15 $0.45 20601 $0.13 $0.15 $0.47 20202 $0.18 $0.14 $0.43 20207 $0.17 $0.14 $0.39 20106 $0.17 $0.14 $0.40 20109 $0.17 $0.14 $0.39 20806 $0.12 $0.08 $0.14 19205 $0.13 $0.11 $0.48 20028 $0.16 $0.16 $1.05 18603 $0.14 $0.75 $0.20 Average: $0.14 $0.31 $0.41
Overall $0.28 Average:
97
Table 2-53 NCTD Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Cost per Mile of Trip ($)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17106 $0.14 $0.14 $0.20 17109 $0.18 $0.21 $0.17 17200 $0.19 $0.07 $0.17 17702 $0.14 $0.12 $0.24 20014 $0.17 $0.23 $0.32 22100 $0.15 $0.36 $0.11 17900 $0.11 $0.14 $0.13 18515 $0.11 $0.47 $0.27 20105 $0.16 $0.13 $0.34 20805 $0.11 $0.08 $0.14 18801 $0.11 $0.13 $0.20 18700 $0.10 $0.18 $0.14 20706 $0.17 $0.13 $0.34 20304 $0.16 $0.13 $0.31 20027 $0.16 $0.17 $0.28 19107 $0.13 $0.10 $0.17 18504 $0.13 $0.26 $0.27 17801 $0.15 $0.72 $0.21 20016 $0.18 $0.21 $0.31 17401 $0.16 $0.09 $0.22 Average: $0.15 $0.20 $0.23
Overall $0.19 Average:
98
Table 2-54 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 18509 43.39 2.06 13.97 18904 57.47 27.69 20.09 19101 54.38 45.95 29.72 18400 42.21 0.56 16.39 18610 48.56 6.92 12.64 18514 49.85 8.20 11.36 18519 50.50 9.16 9.22 19502 43.85 13.09 6.47 19406 44.60 11.16 7.22 20018 39.20 17.69 1.40 20025 34.94 22.03 2.96 20601 29.98 23.70 7.48 20202 32.89 24.45 8.22 20207 33.67 25.23 9.00 20106 33.45 25.01 8.78 20109 33.66 25.23 9.00 20806 50.02 41.58 25.35 19205 44.79 12.14 7.41 20028 36.64 20.34 1.27 18603 43.42 1.78 17.60 Average: 42.37 18.20 11.28
Overall 23.95 Average:
99
Table 2-55 NCTD Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations Distance of Trip (miles)
Downtown Palomar Census Tract San Diego Oceanside College 17106 42.22 23.95 17.56 17109 34.41 15.81 7.96 17200 20.38 18.38 19.36 17702 27.81 10.95 13.72 20014 36.05 14.61 10.34 22100 41.38 9.28 11.86 17900 15.87 27.00 27.98 18515 50.38 7.06 13.01 20105 35.10 26.66 10.44 20805 50.48 42.05 25.82 18801 54.87 25.09 17.49 18700 59.95 18.31 25.42 20706 34.96 26.52 10.29 20304 36.07 27.63 11.41 20027 38.55 21.00 4.71 19107 45.49 37.05 20.83 18504 46.37 5.04 13.14 17801 40.25 4.62 16.98 20016 34.88 15.77 10.60 17401 24.66 14.11 15.09 Average: 38.51 19.54 15.20
Overall 24.42 Average:
100 6. REQUIREMENT TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A TITLE VI PROGRAM
This report includes all of the items required in the revised FTA Title VI Circular, Chapters IV (Sections 1 through 9) and V (Sections 1 through 6). Additionally, the Circular includes a requirement (Chapter V, Section 6) to provide a copy of the equity evaluation of any significant service changes and fare changes implemented since the last report submission. These evaluations were conducted by the transit service agencies for major services changes and are included in Appendix E. Also, SANDAG conducted two equity evaluations regarding fare changes implemented since the last report submission. These reports also are included separately in the SANDAG Quadrennial Title VI Program Update.
101 APPENDIX
APPENDIX A RIDER ALERT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SAMPLES
4th Ave. Para acceder a Gaslamp Quarter, utilice la ruta 3 o la 120. la o 3 ruta la utilice Quarter, Gaslamp a acceder Para Ave. 4th
992 : La terminal del centro correspondiente a la ruta 992 cambia a Broadway y y Broadway a cambia 992 ruta la a correspondiente centro del terminal La : 27.01.08 el Desde
lease use Routes 3 or 120 for service into the Gaslamp Quarter. Gaslamp the into service for 120 or 3 Routes use lease P Scripps Ranch Pkwy. se suspende al norte de Carroll Cyn. Rd. Consulte el mapa a continación. a mapa el Consulte Rd. Cyn. Carroll de norte al suspende se Pkwy. Ranch Scripps
The downtown terminal of Route 992 is changed to Broadway and 4th Ave. 4th and Broadway to changed is 992 Route of terminal downtown The : 1/27/08 ffective E 92 9 el área de Mira Mesa Blvd. /Westview Pkwy. cada 60 minutos por Black Mtn. Rd. El servicio hasta hasta servicio El Rd. Mtn. Black por minutos 60 cada Pkwy. /Westview Blvd. Mesa Mira de área el y
International University cada 60 minutos por Carroll Cyn. Rd.; el ramal 964B llega hasta Miramar College College Miramar hasta llega 964B ramal el Rd.; Cyn. Carroll por minutos 60 cada University International See map inside. map See
días de semana y cuenta con dos ramales en la terminal este: el ramal 964A llega hasta Alliant Alliant hasta llega 964A ramal el este: terminal la en ramales dos con cuenta y semana de días 0mntsvaBakMn d evc oSrpsRnhPw.i icniudnrho arl y.Rd. Cyn. Carroll of north discontinued is Pkwy. Ranch Scripps to Service Rd. Mtn. Black via minutes 60
tos los tos minu 30 cada Dr. Coast Gold y Ruiz Camino hasta llegar para reconfigura se ruta La : 27.01.08 el Desde 964 via Carroll Cyn. Rd.; 964B serves Miramar College and the Mira Mesa Blvd./Westview Pkwy. area every every area Pkwy. Blvd./Westview Mesa Mira the and College Miramar serves 964B Rd.; Cyn. Carroll via
on weekdays, with two branches on the eastern end: 964A serves Alliant Int'l University every 60 minutes 60 every University Int'l Alliant serves 964A end: eastern the on branches two with weekdays, on : Se modifican los horarios matutinos y se agregan viajes para evitar el exceso de pasajeros. de exceso el evitar para viajes agregan se y matutinos horarios los modifican Se : 27.01.08 el Desde 960
Route is reconfigured to serve Camino Ruiz and Gold Coast Dr. every 30 minutes minutes 30 every Dr. Coast Gold and Ruiz Camino serve to reconfigured is Route : 1/28/08 Effective 964
las rutas 30, 48/49, 101 y 150. Consulte el mapa a continuación para obtener más detalles. más obtener para continuación a mapa el Consulte 150. y 101 48/49, 30, rutas las
: Morning schedule adjustments and added trips to alleviate overcrowding. alleviate to trips added and adjustments schedule Morning : 1/28/08 Effective 960 tinúa disponible en en disponible tinúa con pero suspendido, queda Dr. Myers de sur al Dr. Gilman en 921 ruta la de servicio El
Dr. Las paradas para ascenso de pasajeros provenientes del campus son Gilman Dr. en Villa La Jolla Dr Jolla La Villa en Dr. Gilman son campus del provenientes pasajeros de ascenso para paradas Las Dr. 48/49, 101, and 150. Please see map inside for details. for inside map see Please 150. and 101, 48/49,
UCSD. Las paradas de descenso para ingreso al campus de la UCSD son Gilman Dr. en Russell Dr. y Myers Myers y Dr. Russell en Dr. Gilman son UCSD la de campus al ingreso para descenso de paradas Las UCSD. Route 921 service on Gilman Dr. south of Myers Dr. is discontinued, but still available on Routes 30, Routes on available still but discontinued, is Dr. Myers of south Dr. Gilman on service 921 Route
La ruta 921 seguirá prestando servicio a VA Medical Center, por Villa La Jolla Dr., y al campus central de la de central campus al y Dr., Jolla La Villa por Center, Medical VA a servicio prestando seguirá 921 ruta La Russell Dr. and Myers Dr. The pick-up stop for service from campus is on Gilman Dr. at Villa La Jolla Dr. Jolla La Villa at Dr. Gilman on is campus from service for stop pick-up The Dr. Myers and Dr. Russell
La terminal oeste de la ruta cambia de VA Medical Center al campus de la UCSD. la de campus al Center Medical VA de cambia ruta la de oeste terminal La : 27.01.08 el Desde 921 CDcnrlcmu.US apsdo-f tp o evc nocmu r nGla r at Dr. Gilman on are campus into service for stops drop-off campus UCSD campus. central UCSD
VA Medical Center, via Villa La Jolla Dr., and the the and Dr., Jolla La Villa via Center, Medical VA the serve to continue will 921 Route campus. UCSD suspendida.
: The western terminal of the route is changed from the VA Medical Center to the the to Center Medical VA the from changed is route the of terminal western The : 1/27/08 Effective 921 tendrá aproximadamente la misma frecuencia y los mismos horarios de la actual ruta 878, la cual queda cual la 878, ruta actual la de horarios mismos los y frecuencia misma la aproximadamente tendrá
El Cajon Transit Center. El nuevo tramo de la ruta 833, entre Parkway Plaza y El Cajon Transit Center, Transit Cajon El y Plaza Parkway entre 833, ruta la de tramo nuevo El Center. Transit Cajon El be discontinued. be
Se reemplaza la ruta 878 por una extensión de la ruta 833 desde Parkway Plaza a Plaza Parkway desde 833 ruta la de extensión una por 878 ruta la reemplaza Se : 27.01.08 el Desde 878 Transit Center will run the same approximate hours and frequency as the current Route 878, which will will which 878, Route current the as frequency and hours approximate same the run will Center Transit
. The new segment of Route 833 between Parkway Plaza and the El Cajon El the and Plaza Parkway between 833 Route of segment new The . Center Transit Cajon días festivos. días y
: Route 878 is replaced by an extension of Route 833 from Parkway Plaza to the El El the to Plaza Parkway from 833 Route of extension an by replaced is 878 Route : 1/27/08 Effective 878 incrementa la frecuencia de los servicios entre Parkway Plaza y Santee Transit Center los fines de semana semana de fines los Center Transit Santee y Plaza Parkway entre servicios los de frecuencia la incrementa
misma frecuencia y los mismos horarios de la actual ruta 878, la cual queda suspendida. Asimismo, se se Asimismo, suspendida. queda cual la 878, ruta actual la de horarios mismos los y frecuencia misma between Parkway Plaza and Santee Transit Center on weekends and holidays. and weekends on Center Transit Santee and Plaza Parkway between
El nuevo tramo de la ruta 833, entre Parkway Plaza y El Cajon Transit Center, tendrá aproximadamente la la aproximadamente tendrá Center, Transit Cajon El y Plaza Parkway entre 833, ruta la de tramo nuevo El frequency Increased Also, discontinued. be will which 878, Route current the as frequency and hours mate
Se extiende la ruta 833 desde Parkway Plaza hasta El Cajon Transit Center. Transit Cajon El hasta Plaza Parkway desde 833 ruta la extiende Se : 27.01.08 el Desde 833 Transit Center will run the same approxi- same the run will Center Transit Cajon El the and Plaza Parkway between 833 Route of segment
: Route 833 is extended from Parkway Plaza to the El Cajon Transit Center. The new new The Center. Transit Cajon El the to Plaza Parkway from extended is 833 Route : 1/27/08 Effective 833 Se aumenta la frecuencia de los servicios los sábados, domingos y días festivos. días y domingos sábados, los servicios los de frecuencia la aumenta Se : 27.01.08 el Desde 832
: Increased frequency on Saturday/Sunday/Holidays. on frequency Increased : 1/27/08 Effective 832 también modificaciones en los horarios. Consulte el mapa a continuación para obtener más detalles. más obtener para continuación a mapa el Consulte horarios. los en modificaciones también 860 850,
Se han realizado cambios importantes en las rutas del centro de San Diego así como así Diego San de centro del rutas las en importantes cambios realizado han Se : 27.01.08 el Desde 820 810, changes. See map below for details. for below map See changes. 860 850,
:: Major routing changes in the Downtown San Diego area, plus schedule plus area, Diego San Downtown the in changes routing Major :: 1/28/08 Effective 820 810, 705
recoja un nuevo horario. nuevo un recoja favor, Por modificados. sido han rutas estas de horarios Los : 27.01.08 el Desde 704 701, 705
: Schedule adjustments on these routes; please pick up new timetables. new up pick please routes; these on adjustments Schedule : 1/27/08 Effective , 704 701, Sorrento Valley Rd. Valley Sorrento
de SVCS pasa a estar del lado de Roselle St., al sur del río. La ruta 89 ya no prestará servicio a las paradas de de paradas las a servicio prestará no ya 89 ruta La río. del sur al St., Roselle de lado del estar a pasa SVCS de will no longer serve the stops on Sorrento Valley Rd. Valley Sorrento on stops the serve longer no will
sur de la ruta, entre SVCS y UTC, se mantienen pero con modificaciones en los horarios. Asimismo, la terminal terminal la Asimismo, horarios. los en modificaciones con pero mantienen se UTC, y SVCS entre ruta, la de sur Also, the terminal at the SVCS is changed to the Roselle St. side, south of the river. Route 89 89 Route river. the of south side, St. Roselle the to changed is SVCS the at terminal the Also,
dos los servicios desde el norte de SVCS hacia Carmel Valley. Los servicios del tramo tramo del servicios Los Valley. Carmel hacia SVCS de norte el desde servicios los dos to suspenden Se (SVCS). . schedule revised a with maintained is UTC, and SVCS the between route, the of portion southern
La terminal norte de la ruta 89 pasa a ser la estación del coaster de Sorrento Valley Valley Sorrento de coaster del estación la ser a pasa 89 ruta la de norte terminal La : 27.01.08 el Desde 89 alley is discontinued. Service on the the on Service discontinued. is alley V Carmel to SVCS the of north service All (SVCS). Station
: The northern terminal of Route 89 is changed to the Sorrento Valley Coaster Valley Sorrento the to changed is 89 Route of terminal northern The : 1/28/08 Effective 89 obtener más detalles. más obtener
tarifa en efectivo correspondiente a la ruta 86 es de $2.00. Consulte el mapa a continuación para continuación a mapa el Consulte $2.00. de es 86 ruta la a correspondiente efectivo en tarifa fare on Route 86 is $2.00. See map below for details. for below map See $2.00. is 86 Route on fare
aaet aa3 iuo elnsavensycd 0mntslsfnsd eaayda etvs La festivos. días y semana de fines los minutos 60 cada y viernes a lunes de minutos 30 cada madamente mately every 30 minutes on weekdays and every 60 minutes on weekends and holidays. Cash Cash holidays. and weekends on minutes 60 every and weekdays on minutes 30 every mately
Thornton Hospital desde UTC, por Genesee Ave., Campus Point Dr. y Voigt Dr. El servicio fun ciona aproxi ciona fun servicio El Dr. Voigt y Dr. Point Campus Ave., Genesee por UTC, desde Hospital Thornton ., Campus Point Dr., and Voigt Dr. Service operates approxi- operates Service Dr. Voigt and Dr., Point Campus ., Ave Genesee via UTC, from Hospital
La ruta 86 es una nueva ruta que presta servicio a Scripps Memorial Hospital y y Hospital Memorial Scripps a servicio presta que ruta nueva una es 86 ruta La : 27.01.08 el Desde 86 : Route 86 is a new route serving Scripps Memorial Hospital & Thornton Thornton & Hospital Memorial Scripps serving route new a is 86 Route : 1/27/08 Effective 86
los siete días de la semana. La tarifa en efectivo correspondiente a la ruta 84 es de $2.00. de es 84 ruta la a correspondiente efectivo en tarifa La semana. la de días siete los 60-75 minutes, seven days per week. Cash fare on Route 84 is $2.00. is 84 Route on fare Cash week. per days seven minutes, 60-75
Catalina Blvd., Cabrillo Memorial Dr. y Rosecrans St. El servicio funciona cada 60-75 minutos aproximadamente, minutos 60-75 cada funciona servicio El St. Rosecrans y Dr. Memorial Cabrillo Blvd., Catalina Catalina Blvd., Cabrillo Memorial Dr., and Rosecrans St. Service operates approximately every approximately operates Service St. Rosecrans and Dr., Memorial Cabrillo Blvd., Catalina
También se presta servicio a las paradas de las antiguas rutas locales 28B y 28C a lo largo de Cañon St., Cañon de largo lo a 28C y 28B locales rutas antiguas las de paradas las a servicio presta se También Monument. Service is also provided to former local Route 28B and 28C stops along Cañon St., Cañon along stops 28C and 28B Route local former to provided also is Service Monument.
Conecta la ruta 28 en Shelter Island Dr. con la Base Naval Submarina y el Monumento Nacional Cabrillo Cabrillo Nacional Monumento el y Submarina Naval Base la con Dr. Island Shelter en 28 ruta la Conecta with the Naval Submarine Base and Cabrillo National National Cabrillo and Base Submarine Naval the with This route bridges Route 28 at Shelter Island Dr. Island Shelter at 28 Route bridges route This
28C. y 28B rutas las de sur tramo el reemplaza que ruta nueva una es 84 ruta La : 27.01.08 el Desde 84 : Route 84 is a new route replacing the southern segments of Routes 28B and 28C. and 28B Routes of segments southern the replacing route new a is 84 Route : 1/27/08 Effective 84
desde las 7:00 a.m. hasta el mediodía y en la ruta 49 desde el mediodía hasta las 6:00 p.m. 6:00 las hasta mediodía el desde 49 ruta la en y mediodía el hasta a.m. 7:00 las desde Route 48 from 7:00am to noon and on Route 49 from noon to 6:00pm. to noon from 49 Route on and noon to 7:00am from 48 Route
de lunes a viernes, se incrementa la frecuencia con servicios cada 15 minutos en la ruta 48 48 ruta la en minutos 15 cada servicios con frecuencia la incrementa se viernes, a lunes de Asimismo, See map on reverse for details. Also, weekday frequency is increased to every 15 minutes on on minutes 15 every to increased is frequency weekday Also, details. for reverse on map See
Mall y Executive Dr., utilice la ruta 31 o la 89. Consulte el mapa a continuación para obtener más detalles. más obtener para continuación a mapa el Consulte 89. la o 31 ruta la utilice Dr., Executive y Mall 48/49 shuttle Route 86. For service to the Executive Dr. and Eastgate Mall area, use Route 31 or 89. or 31 Route use area, Mall Eastgate and Dr. Executive the to service For 86. Route shuttle
Voigt Dr.) se ofrece a través de la nueva ruta 86 de autobuses directos. Para acceder al área de Eastgate Eastgate de área al acceder Para directos. autobuses de 86 ruta nueva la de través a ofrece se Dr.) Voigt y Scripps and Thornton Hospital (on Campus Point Dr. and Voigt Dr.) is offered on a new a on offered is Dr.) Voigt and Dr. Point Campus (on Hospital Thornton and Scripps
Medical Center y UTC. El servicio de MTS con destino a Scripps Hospital y Thornton Hospital (en Campus Point Dr. Point Campus (en Hospital Thornton y Hospital Scripps a destino con MTS de servicio El UTC. y Center Medical instead of Voigt Dr. between the VA Medical Center and UTC. MTS service to service MTS UTC. and Center Medical VA the between Dr. Voigt of instead Dr. Village
El tramo norte de la ruta 48/49 cambia de Voigt Dr. a La Jolla Village Dr. entre VA VA entre Dr. Village Jolla La a Dr. Voigt de cambia 48/49 ruta la de norte tramo El : 27.01.08 el Desde The northern half of Route 48/49 is changed to operate on La Jolla Jolla La on operate to changed is 48/49 Route of half northern The : 1/27/08 Effective 48/49
Publicación del 8/1/08 – 18/2/08 Post 1/8/08 – 2/18/08
TOME UNO TAKE ONE ESTA INFORMACION ESTA DISPONIBLE EN DIFERENTES FORMATOS. Para solicitar esta THIS INFORMATION WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATIVE FORMATS UPON REQUEST. información en un formato diferente, por favor llame al (619) 231-1466. To request this notice in an alternative format, please call (619) 231-1466. Los operadores del Metropolitan Transit System siguen una política que prohíbe la The Metropolitan Transit System operators adhere to a nondiscrimination policy with regard discriminación con respecto a los servicios e instalaciones. to both services and facilities. • Cambios en el servicio en enero de 2008 • January 2008 Service Changes • Servicios durante los días festivos • Holiday Service Muchos servicios de autobuses MTS sufrirán modificaciones en las rutas y/o en los Many MTS bus services will have route and/or schedule modifications in January horarios durante enero de 2008. La mayor parte de los cambios son menores. MTS 2008. Most changes are minor adjustments. MTS encourages passengers to refer to recomienda a los pasajeros que visiten el sitio web www.sdmts.com para obtener our website, www.sdmts.com, for more detailed maps, schedules, and information mapas, horarios e información más detallada acerca de estos cambios. about these changes. Los cambios en el servicio se implementarán de la siguiente manera: Service changes will take effect as follows: • Los cambios en los horarios de los domingos tendrán efecto a partir del domingo 27 de enero de 2008. • Sunday schedule changes take effect on Sunday, January 27, 2008. • Los cambios en los horarios de los días laborales tendrán efecto a partir del lunes 28 de enero de 2008. • Weekday schedule changes take effect on Monday, January 28, 2008. Asegúrese de recoger un nuevo horario para las rutas que tienen cambios en el servicio, según se indica a continuación. Please be sure to pick up a new timetable for the routes with changes, as listed below: Ruta: Descripción: Route: Description: Green Line Desde el 27.01.08: Se suspenden los dos últimos viajes entre Old Town y SDSU tanto en dirección este Green Line Effective 1/27/08: The last two eastbound and westbound trips between Old Town and SDSU are discontinued, como oeste, los siete días de la semana. El último viaje en dirección este a SDSU ahora partirá desde Old seven days a week. The last eastbound trip to SDSU will now depart Old Town at 12:00 midnight. The last Town a las 12:00 a.m. El último viaje en dirección oeste a Old Town ahora partirá desde SDSU a las 12:32 westbound trip to Old Town will now depart SDSU at 12:32am. a.m. 2, 9, 27, All of these routes have schedule adjustments, mostly to improve on-time performance and/or transfer 2, 9, 27, Se han efectuado ajustes en los horarios de todas estas rutas, principalmente, para mejorar la puntualidad 120, 864, connections. Please pick up a new timetable for these routes before 1/27/08 to ensure that you have a 120, 864, del servicio y los trasbordos. Por favor, recoja un nuevo horario para estas rutas antes del 27 de enero de 923, 928, current schedule. 923, 928, 2008 a fin de contar con los datos actualizados. 929, 933/934, 929, 933/934, 936, 955 936, 955 28 Desde el 27.01.08: La terminal sur para todos los viajes de la ruta 28 cambia a Shelter Island Dr. 28 Effective 1/27/08: The southern terminal for all Route 28 trips is changed to Shelter Island Dr. Routes 28B Se suspenden las rutas 28B y 28C. La nueva ruta 84 reemplazará el servicio con destino a la Base Naval and 28C are discontinued, and service to the Navy Submarine Base and Cabrillo National Monument is Submarina y el Monumento Nacional Cabrillo (ver a continuación). Las rutas 28 y 84 contarán con trasbordos replaced with new Route 84 (see below). Routes 28 and 84 will make timed transfers to ensure easy connec- sincronizados a fin de facilitar las conexiones. Consulte el mapa del interior del folleto para conocer los tions. See map inside for transfer location details. Route 28 between Old Town Transit Center and Shelter detalles de los puntos de trasbordo. La ruta 28 entre Old Town Transit Center y Shelter Island Dr. continuará Island Dr. will continue to operate every 30 minutes along Rosecrans St., but with a revised schedule and funcionando cada 30 minutos a lo largo de Rosecrans St., pero con modificaciones en los horarios y mayor increased frequency on weekdays between 6:20am and 8:20am (leaving Old Town every 15 minutes). frecuencia de lunes a viernes entre las 6:20 a.m. y las 8:20 a.m. (salidas desde Old Town cada 15 minutos). 30 Effective 1/27/08: Route 30A will begin operating at 7:00pm, replacing all night service on 30 Desde el 27.01.08: La ruta 30A comenzará a funcionar a las 7:00 p.m. y reemplazará el servicio nocturno Route 48/49. Service to La Jolla Village Dr. after 7:00pm remains available on Routes 41 and 101. en la ruta 48/49. El servicio con destino a La Jolla Village Dr. después de las 7:00 p.m. continúa disponible 31 Effective 1/28/08: Route 31 service is reduced to operate during rush hours only; midday service en las rutas 41 y 101. is discontinued. Miramar Rd. remains accessible on the far eastern end during the midday via 31 Desde el 27.01.08: El servicio de la ruta 31 funcionará solamente durante las horas pico. Se suspende el Route 20. servicio del mediodía. Miramar Rd. permanece accesible durante el mediodía en la terminal este a través de 41 Effective 1/27/08: The northern terminal of the route is changed from the VA Medical Center to la ruta 20. the UCSD campus. Route 41 will continue to serve the VA Medical Center, via Villa La Jolla Dr., 41 Desde el 27.01.08: La terminal norte de la ruta cambia de VA Medical Center al campus de la UCSD. and the UCSD central campus. UCSD campus drop-off stops for service into campus are on La ruta 41 seguirá prestando servicio a VA Medical Center, por Villa La Jolla Dr., y al campus central de la Gilman Dr. at Russell Dr. and Myers Dr. The pick-up stop for service from campus is on Gilman Dr. UCSD. Las paradas de descenso para ingreso al campus de la UCSD son Gilman Dr. en Russell Dr. y Myers at Villa La Jolla Dr. Route 41 service on Gilman Dr. south of Myers Dr. is discontinued, but still Dr. Las paradas para ascenso de pasajeros provenientes del campus son Gilman Dr. en Villa La Jolla Dr. available on Routes 30, 48/49, 101, and 150. Please see map inside for details. El servicio de la ruta 41 en Gilman Dr. al sur de Myers Dr. queda suspendido, pero continúa disponible en las rutas 30, 48/49, 101 y 150. Consulte el mapa a continuación para obtener más detalles. A-1 5
VIL K Horarios para el Día dePAR Martin Luther King Jr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Schedule El Día de Martin Luther King Jr. (Lunes, 21 de enero de 2008), todos los autobuses de MTS y NCTD y los servicios de Trolley, On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Monday, January 21, 2008), all MTS and NCTD Bus, Trolley, SPRINTER, and COASTER SPRINTER y COASTER funcionan con los horarios normales de los días de entre semana. La tienda “The Transit Store” estará cerrada. services operate on a regular weekday schedule. The Transit Store will be closed. CY RD Horarios para el Presidents’ Day MER Presidents’ Day Service Schedule El Presidents’ Day (Lunes, 18 de febrero de 2008), todos los servicios de autobús y Trolley de MTS funcionarán de On Presidents’ Day (Monday, February 18, 2008), all MTS bus and trolley services will operate on a Sunday schedule. acuerdo con el horario de los domingos. La conexión del coaster de Sorrento Valley y la ruta 89 funcionarán con el The Sorrento Valley Coaster Connection and Route 89 will operate with a modified weekday schedule. All other MTS horario de los días de entre semana modificado. Todos los demás servicios de MTS que no funcionan los domingos services that do not operate on Sundays will not operateSCRI onPP Presidents’S POWAY Day. tampoco se prestarán el Presidents’ Day. Todos los servicios de BREEZE, SPRINTER, FAST y COASTER de NCTD fun- All NCTD BREEZE, SPRINTER, FAST, and COASTER services will operate on a regular weekday schedule. cionarán con los horarios normales de los días de entre semana. Telephone Information (5-1-1) will be available during reduced hours, fromPKWY 7:00am through 7:00pm. Durante el horario reducido, habrá una línea telefónica disponible (5-1-1) para obtener información de 7:00 a.m. a The Transit Store will be closed. MTS Access and ADA Suburban Paratransit subscriptions are cancelled for February 7:00 p.m. La tienda “The Transit Store” permaneceráKAR cerrada.RD Las suscripciones a MTS Access y ADA Suburban EN 18, 2008. Subscription ADA passengers who want to maintain their trip on this day must call to arrange their Paratransit para el 18 de febrero 2008 quedanM canceladas. Los pasajeros suscriptos que deseen hacer uso del servicio transportation. este día deberán llamar para planificar su transporte.
L AQUARIUS BA DR Route 964A & 964B
BL ISTO CR Camino ZAPATA AV AC E D L M K CAL Village R
A
N OU Other routes also operate in the areas shown on the
W
M
O N maps. Please call, 5-1-1 or visit
O L
TA N E www.sdmts.com for route and schedule information.
K T R IN O C
N 964A APRICORN WY También funcionarán otras rutas en las áreas que
G D
CAMINO W
O aparecen en los mapas. E
S S 15
T Llame al 5-1-1 o visite www.sdmts.com
T
V
I
E para obtener información sobre rutas y horarios.
W
RUIZ P
Mira Mesa K
20, 31, Mira Mesa W WESTMORERD 210, 921 Square Y Scripps Ranch MIRA M 964B ESA BLVD 20, 31, Mira Mesa S NEW SALEM ST 210, 921 C HILLERY DR MarketCenter R I Mira Mesa P Mira Mesa P Community Park Park & S Mall B R L Ride Route 964A A A
C N WES
LVD K MESA B Mira Mesa C Route 964B
IRA H NORTH
M 964B M 0 B Time point/Transfer point High School TON SC PPS LA
921, O RI KE DR L U
210 Miramar V Transfer point
N POM D HILL
D T College N R Walker-Wangenheim A Connecting routes
I R REAGA N D School Park Points of interestR 00 R Scripps Ranch D CEDA Mesa Verde D REHospital SCRIPPS TRL Park Junior Hourglass Field High School 964A High School Community Park Approximate Scale Shopping GOLD COAS T DR 0 1/2 mile GOLD COAS T DR 0 1/2 kilometer ANYON RD 20, 31, 210 CARROLL C ©2008 MTS T DR JADE COAS T RD JADECOAS 964A
K AV
K E W A IL PAR L R O
BUSINESS W CA NY 15 RD P DALE AV M 11 C O IN RE 964A AD O RUIZ VI E ER LL K R OM KETTNER BLVD A D P RD GRAPECOLUMBIA ST ST A INDIA ST FIR ST 11 V E N U KETTNER BLVD 5 E O ELM ST F Alliant NEW DowntownGRAPE ST RoutingGRAPE forCOLUMBIA ST ST ALL Premium Express Routes (Rts. 810,163 820, 850, 860) NA S FIR ST INDIA ST FIR ST TION International MIRAMAR RD University 5 WY MITSCHER DATE ST 5 ELM ST GRAPE ST County Center/ 163 FIR ST Little Italy CEDAR ST County CEDAR ST Admin. DATE ST 5 Center County Center/ Little Italy BEECH ST CEDAR ST Routes 41 and 921 County San Diego CEDAR ST RUS
KETTNER BLVD INDIA ST STATE ST STATE MYERS Admin. ST FRONT UNION ST PACIFIC HWY PACIFIC High School 1ST AV 1ST 7TH AV 3RD AV 2ND AV 9TH AV 10TH AV 8TH AV 5TH AV 4TH AV MIRAMAR RD 6TH AV Center ASH ST 11TH AV Star of India ASH ST BEECHASH STST RUSS15 BLVD DRSELL C San Diego University of KETTNER BLVD INDIA ST A ST STATE ST FRONT ST UNION ST PACIFIC HWY High School DR 1ST AV 7TH AV San Diego 3RD AV 2ND AV 9TH AV 10TH AV 8TH AV 5TH AV 4TH AV 6TH AV California, ASH ST A ST 11TH AV Santa Fe Depot K BLVD City College ASH ST ASH ST RUSS BLVD GILMAN DR Star of India AMTRAK, PAR San Diego
COLUMBIA ST B ST B ST B ST STATE ST STATE A ST Civic Center San Diego A ST Santa Fe Depot C ST K BLVD GILMAN DR MIRAMAR WY City College LA VILLA Cruise Ship DR HARBOR C ST
AMTRAK, PAR Terminal City College HallCOLUMBIA ST of BST B ST 5th Avenue B ST STATE ST MIRAMAR WY VA Medical Justice Civic Center 3, 120 41 & 921 Routing inbound to UCSD Ferry to 11TH AV
C ST BROADWAY Center DR A Coronado 41 & 921 Routing outbound from UCSD JOLL
Cruise Ship HARBOR DR & NASNI BROADWAY C ST City College Terminal Hall of 5th Avenue NORTH 41 & 921 Stops America PlazaJustice E ST 3, 120 Points of interest Ferry to 11TH AV Coronado BROADWAY Hospital & NASNI BROADWAY AmericaRD Plaza ©2008 MTS LUS E ST REGU Morning (inbound) Routing NORTH Afternoon (outbound) Routing Downtown Stops for Mornin810,g 820,(inbound) 850, 860Routing Routes 28 and 84 NORTH Afternoon (outbound) Routing ©2008 MTS Downtown Stops for Rt 84 to/from Rt 28 to/from 810, 820, 850, 860 SPAWAR & Old Town Cabrillo Mon’t ©2008 MTS University City Area 28 978 89 84 CAÑ 976 ON ST 977 921 Transfer point from 976 Rt 28 to Rt 84 GE Transfer point from NES EE Rt 84 to Rt 28 SHELTE 977 AV Scripps Shelter Memorial C R ISLAND DR A ST Island Hospital TT R 805 84 ROLL R LND ORYPNSRD PINES TORREY N SCO CAMPUS PT DR ECRANS ST UCSD V Rt 84 to/from 101 OIG ROS T VA Medical 89 Sub Base ANCHORAGE 101 30 31 150 Center 921 976 86 EASTGATE MALL VA Med Center 48/49 41 89 30, 41, 101, EXECUTIVE DR N 101
150, 921 A Thornton 921 MIRAMAR RD DR
M L
R Hospital
I R
D D G LA JOL GE UTC Transit Center L LA JUDICIAL DR A A VIL 30 L
L 30, 31, 48, 49, CENTRE O 50, 86, 101, J 105, 150, 921A, 960
A R OBEL D N
L N
D O
R
A B 48/49 TOWNE 960 S L E L V P NOBEL DR NORTH E I I A L A G Transfer Point N V L I 30A ES DR M M ENESEE R P
I O A
L 41 Hospital Y H L L
E
S L A
VIA R O
A ARRIBA ST 3 R ALICANTE R Approximate Scale : 4˝ = 1 mile
N LA JOLLA SCENIC DR AVE
O C
T A ©2008 Metropolitan Transit System
LA JOLL 150 50 105 A-2 BREEZE Bus Cambios en los horarios Changes for de los autobuses BREEZE January 25, 2009 a partir del domingo 25 de enero de 2009
Effective, January 25, 2009: Los próximos cambios en los The following routes will be horarios de los autobuses BREEZE completely eliminated due to se están acercando y estarán ongoing State funding issues of public acompañados de varios cambios de transportation: rutas. Las siguientes rutas serán 311/312, 324, 338/339, completamente eliminadas debido a los continuos problemas respecto a 341/442, 348, 349A/B, los fondos del Estado relacionados 365 and 397. con el transporte público: 311/312, 324, 338/339, 341/442, 348, 349A/ NCTD will also be altering the B, 365 y 397. following routes: 306, 347 and 388/389. NCTD también modificará las siguientes rutas: 306, 347 y Visit GoNCTD.com for new route 388/389. maps and schedules. New Rider’s Guides effective January 25 will be Cuando la información de las rutas, available on BREEZE buses the week incluyendo los mapas, esté of January 19. disponible, será colocada en nuestro sitio Web: www.gonctd.com
Complete trip planning information via Las nuevas guías del usuario estarán public transit in San Diego County is disponibles a partir del 19 de enero available by calling toll free, 511, or on-line en los autobuses Breeze. Los at: Transit.511sd.com. horarios entrarán en vigencia a partir del 25 de enero.
A-3
APPENDIX B MTS/NCTD TITLE VI COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101-7490 619.231.1466 Fax: 619.234.3407
Policies and Procedures No. 48
SUBJECT: Board Approval: 5/13/04
TRANSIT SERVICE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES
PURPOSE:
To carry out Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recommends that transit agencies adopt a procedure in which complaints alleging discrimination in provision of transit service are filed, investigated, and a determination made. This policy sets forth such procedures.
BACKGROUND:
It is the policy of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, hereinafter "MTS"; its subsidiaries, San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC), San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI); and its contractors to follow the established procedure for handling all alleged transit service discrimination complaints on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
The responsibility for the implementation of the discrimination complaint procedures is assigned to the Office of General Counsel. All management personnel within MTS, SDTC, and SDTI are expected to support and implement the following procedures.
PROCEDURES:
48.1 All complaints must be in writing and signed by the complainant or his/her representative before any action will be taken. The complaint must be filed within 180 days from the time of the alleged discrimination. The complaints shall provide all pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged discrimination that will help the MTS Chief Executive Officer reach a decision.
48.2 MTS will provide the complainant or his/her representative with a written acknowledgement within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint.
The MTS Chief Executive Officer will review all the information available from both parties (i.e., the complainant and the identified agency) to determine if the complaint has sufficient merit to warrant further investigation.
B-1 Should further investigation be warranted, the MTS Chief Executive Officer shall proceed with an informal hearing from all sides of the issue.
48.3 Upon completion of the hearing, the MTS Chief Executive Officer will evaluate all information received and make a final determination on the matter. If noncompliance with Title VI is determined, a recommendation on remedial action will be made.
48.4 The complainant or his/her representative may appeal MTS's final determination to the FTA.
LTresc/SChamp/JGarde POLICY.48.TRANSIT SVC DISCRIM COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES 7/21/06
This policy was adopted 3/12/98. Policy revised on 5/13/04.
B-2
TITLE VI DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Revised April 9, 2009
Individuals, or individuals as members of a specific class of persons, who feel they have been discriminated against with respect to transit services or benefits on the basis of race, color, or national origin may file a written complaint with North County Transit District.
Submission of Complaints
Complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin may be submitted to the Title VI Coordinator of North County Transit District, 810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 92054. The complaint may be submitted in writing or verbally, and should contain information about the alleged discrimination such as name, address, and phone number of complainant, and location, date and description of the problem. The description of the problem should include, if appropriate, bus or train number, time of day, employee name or badge number if available, and any person(s) involved or witnesses to the problem. Complaints may be submitted by e-mail, provided they identify the communication as "Title VI Complaint". Other alternative means of filing complaints, such as personal interviews or tape recording of the complaint, will be made available for persons with disabilities upon request. The request should be made to the Title VI Coordinator listed below.
The complaint should be submitted by the complainant and/or his/her designee as soon as possible but no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the alleged violation to:
North County Transit District Attn: Chief Administrative Officer 810 Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054 Office: (760) 966-6500 Fax: (760) 967-2001 E-mail address: [email protected]
Persons with hearing impairment please use California Relay Service (CRS): 711 North County Transit District will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within ten (10) working days.
Investigation of Complaints
North County Transit District will review all complaints to determine if there is sufficient merit to warrant investigation. In some cases the District may submit a written request to the complainant to provide additional information. If a complaint is found to have sufficient merit to warrant investigation, the District will proceed with an investigation. If the complaint does not warrant investigation, the District will respond within thirty (30) working days to the complainant and so state.
Disposition of Complaints
A written determination as to the validity of the complaint and a description of the resolution, if any, shall be issued by the Title VI Coordinator and a copy forwarded to the complainant no later than sixty (60) calendar days after its filing. Upon request, the determination will be made available in a format accessible to the complainant, such as large print, Braille, audio tape, or E-Mail.
B-3
APPENDIX C MTS/NCTD INFORMATION REQUEST POLICIES
1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101-7490 619/231-1466 FAX 619/234-3407 Policies and Procedures No. 32
SUBJECT: Board Approval: 03/25/04
HANDLING OF INFORMATION REQUESTS
PURPOSE:
To establish procedures that the Chief Executive Officer should use in responding to requests from members of the MTS Board of Directors, other local officials, and the general public.
POLICY:
32.1 MTS Board member requests for information or research will generally be reported to the Chairman by the Chief Executive Officer.
32.2 Requests for information from other local officials and the general public will be generally responded to within five working days.
32.3 In the Chief Executive Officer's judgement, any requests for information that require four or more hours of staff research will be reported to the MTS Executive Committee or Board of Directors for their review and consideration.
TFL:paw/SChamp/JGarde POLICY.32.HANDLING INFO REQUESTS 7/14/06
Policy adopted on 5/14/87. Policy revised on 3/25/04.
C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 APPENDIX D POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT
Appendix D ‐ Population by Census Tract
Total Total Census Population ‐ Transit Population ‐ Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2 or more Races Minority Population Low Income LIM Tract 2006‐2010 Agency 2010 Census ACS
MTS = 54.7%, MTS = 12.9%, NCTD = 44.0% NCTD = 10.8% # # #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%Region = 51.5% #%Region = 12.3 % 100 3,029 3,149 239 7.9% 26 0.9% 15 0.5% 73 2.4% 2 0.1% 1 0.0% 59 1.9% 415 13.7% not Minority 105 3.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 201 1,801 1,666 182 10.1% 28 1.6% 9 0.5% 79 4.4% ‐ 0.0% 1 0.1% 43 2.4% 342 19.0% not Minority 118 7.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 202 4,208 4,045 583 13.9% 101 2.4% 11 0.3% 194 4.6% 4 0.1% 12 0.3% 121 2.9% 1,026 24.4% not Minority 356 8.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 300 4,732 4,851 687 14.5% 110 2.3% 13 0.3% 298 6.3% 17 0.4% 10 0.2% 140 3.0% 1,275 26.9% not Minority 570 11.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 400 3,669 3,294 572 15.6% 151 4.1% 14 0.4% 353 9.6% 12 0.3% 12 0.3% 111 3.0% 1,225 33.4% not Minority 425 12.9% Low Income LIM MTS 500 2,722 2,675 394 14.5% 71 2.6% 11 0.4% 123 4.5% 7 0.3% 9 0.3% 80 2.9% 695 25.5% not Minority 110 4.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 600 3,108 2,867 509 16.4% 111 3.6% 14 0.5% 205 6.6% 5 0.2% 6 0.2% 104 3.3% 954 30.7% not Minority 347 12.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 700 3,754 3,615 587 15.6% 101 2.7% 13 0.3% 204 5.4% 9 0.2% 9 0.2% 108 2.9% 1,031 27.5% not Minority 314 8.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 800 4,280 4,197 903 21.1% 313 7.3% 18 0.4% 216 5.0% 19 0.4% 20 0.5% 148 3.5% 1,637 38.2% not Minority 387 9.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 900 5,178 4,604 1,534 29.6% 399 7.7% 22 0.4% 324 6.3% 28 0.5% 6 0.1% 184 3.6% 2,497 48.2% not Minority 1,042 22.6% Low Income LIM MTS 1000 4,733 4,642 1,229 26.0% 338 7.1% 12 0.3% 251 5.3% 17 0.4% 24 0.5% 179 3.8% 2,050 43.3% not Minority 747 16.1% Low Income LIM MTS 1100 3,098 2,864 826 26.7% 256 8.3% 14 0.5% 134 4.3% 13 0.4% 11 0.4% 113 3.6% 1,367 44.1% not Minority 655 22.9% Low Income LIM MTS 1200 5,660 5,420 1,899 33.6% 728 12.9% 27 0.5% 321 5.7% 26 0.5% 24 0.4% 236 4.2% 3,261 57.6% Minority 1,263 23.3% Low Income LIM MTS 1300 6,197 6,858 1,929 31.1% 763 12.3% 20 0.3% 470 7.6% 28 0.5% 25 0.4% 254 4.1% 3,489 56.3% Minority 1,412 20.6% Low Income LIM MTS 1400 3,084 2,602 702 22.8% 136 4.4% 15 0.5% 172 5.6% 8 0.3% 7 0.2% 94 3.0% 1,134 36.8% not Minority 409 15.7% Low Income LIM MTS 1500 3,934 3,677 1,229 31.2% 261 6.6% 22 0.6% 196 5.0% 5 0.1% 8 0.2% 123 3.1% 1,844 46.9% not Minority 520 14.1% Low Income LIM MTS 1600 5,651 5,235 3,051 54.0% 703 12.4% 17 0.3% 299 5.3% 18 0.3% 18 0.3% 158 2.8% 4,264 75.5% Minority 1,313 25.1% Low Income LIM MTS 1700 4,772 3,871 2,018 42.3% 484 10.1% 40 0.8% 209 4.4% 20 0.4% 13 0.3% 148 3.1% 2,932 61.4% Minority 878 22.7% Low Income LIM MTS 1800 5,319 5,365 2,130 40.0% 671 12.6% 16 0.3% 213 4.0% 20 0.4% 10 0.2% 190 3.6% 3,250 61.1% Minority 1,094 20.4% Low Income LIM MTS 1900 2,939 2,733 489 16.6% 85 2.9% 10 0.3% 93 3.2% 5 0.2% 6 0.2% 74 2.5% 762 25.9% not Minority 221 8.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 2001 3,354 3,300 328 9.8% 54 1.6% 9 0.3% 108 3.2% 5 0.1% 4 0.1% 82 2.4% 590 17.6% not Minority 109 3.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 2002 2,559 2,492 427 16.7% 145 5.7% 4 0.2% 111 4.3% 4 0.2% 1 0.0% 67 2.6% 759 29.7% not Minority 256 10.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 2100 5,259 4,666 1,928 36.7% 613 11.7% 20 0.4% 422 8.0% 23 0.4% 18 0.3% 170 3.2% 3,194 60.7% Minority 1,156 24.8% Low Income LIM MTS 2201 3,796 4,289 2,330 61.4% 670 17.7% 5 0.1% 401 10.6% 11 0.3% 10 0.3% 65 1.7% 3,492 92.0% Minority 1,750 40.8% Low Income LIM MTS 2202 4,859 4,733 2,975 61.2% 325 6.7% 13 0.3% 1,069 22.0% 7 0.1% 6 0.1% 70 1.4% 4,465 91.9% Minority 1,297 27.4% Low Income LIM MTS 2301 2,821 2,821 1,053 37.3% 357 12.7% 5 0.2% 704 25.0% 10 0.4% 4 0.1% 101 3.6% 2,234 79.2% Minority 919 32.6% Low Income LIM MTS 2302 6,589 6,384 3,781 57.4% 668 10.1% 16 0.2% 1,577 23.9% 10 0.2% 14 0.2% 100 1.5% 6,166 93.6% Minority 2,408 37.7% Low Income LIM MTS 2401 4,573 4,876 2,769 60.6% 498 10.9% 18 0.4% 345 7.5% 22 0.5% 11 0.2% 110 2.4% 3,773 82.5% Minority 1,622 33.3% Low Income LIM MTS 2402 5,254 4,547 3,610 68.7% 487 9.3% 9 0.2% 694 13.2% 15 0.3% 5 0.1% 98 1.9% 4,918 93.6% Minority 1,208 26.6% Low Income LIM MTS 2501 5,504 5,326 3,407 61.9% 484 8.8% 8 0.1% 816 14.8% 27 0.5% 15 0.3% 106 1.9% 4,863 88.4% Minority 1,341 25.2% Low Income LIM MTS 2502 6,264 5,949 3,165 50.5% 712 11.4% 29 0.5% 694 11.1% 37 0.6% 12 0.2% 160 2.6% 4,809 76.8% Minority 935 15.7% Low Income LIM MTS 2601 6,148 5,399 4,357 70.9% 254 4.1% 9 0.1% 1,070 17.4% 10 0.2% 5 0.1% 70 1.1% 5,775 93.9% Minority 1,455 26.9% Low Income LIM MTS 2602 4,450 4,427 2,784 62.6% 452 10.2% 11 0.2% 704 15.8% 13 0.3% 7 0.2% 80 1.8% 4,051 91.0% Minority 1,013 22.9% Low Income LIM MTS 2702 5,180 5,012 1,535 29.6% 945 18.2% 25 0.5% 670 12.9% 19 0.4% 29 0.6% 172 3.3% 3,395 65.5% Minority 1,634 32.6% Low Income LIM MTS 2703 6,900 6,797 2,780 40.3% 881 12.8% 20 0.3% 1,062 15.4% 26 0.4% 6 0.1% 246 3.6% 5,021 72.8% Minority 642 9.4% not Low Income LIM MTS 2705 4,300 3,667 1,233 28.7% 561 13.0% 4 0.1% 1,666 38.7% 8 0.2% 13 0.3% 114 2.7% 3,599 83.7% Minority 399 10.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 2707 5,369 4,673 3,132 58.3% 781 14.5% 11 0.2% 1,098 20.5% 13 0.2% 28 0.5% 63 1.2% 5,126 95.5% Minority 1,822 39.0% Low Income LIM MTS 2708 5,689 6,049 3,048 53.6% 844 14.8% 7 0.1% 1,180 20.7% 14 0.2% 28 0.5% 113 2.0% 5,234 92.0% Minority 2,614 43.2% Low Income LIM MTS 2709 3,945 3,619 2,074 52.6% 726 18.4% 18 0.5% 642 16.3% 12 0.3% 5 0.1% 83 2.1% 3,560 90.2% Minority 946 26.1% Low Income LIM MTS 2710 4,228 3,569 1,613 38.2% 980 23.2% 13 0.3% 1,189 28.1% 2 0.0% 5 0.1% 96 2.3% 3,898 92.2% Minority 989 27.7% Low Income LIM MTS 2711 3,200 2,948 1,150 35.9% 478 14.9% 11 0.3% 600 18.8% 54 1.7% 1 0.0% 134 4.2% 2,428 75.9% Minority 267 9.1% not Low Income LIM MTS 2712 4,652 4,568 1,558 33.5% 1,419 30.5% 6 0.1% 715 15.4% 23 0.5% 9 0.2% 124 2.7% 3,854 82.8% Minority 893 19.5% Low Income LIM MTS 2801 3,068 2,639 452 14.7% 103 3.4% 6 0.2% 343 11.2% 7 0.2% 3 0.1% 147 4.8% 1,061 34.6% not Minority 1,489 56.4% Low Income LIM MTS 2803 5,370 4,926 1,296 24.1% 567 10.6% 18 0.3% 848 15.8% 15 0.3% 8 0.1% 175 3.3% 2,927 54.5% not Minority 597 12.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 2804 4,638 3,528 779 16.8% 203 4.4% 11 0.2% 396 8.5% 4 0.1% 11 0.2% 167 3.6% 1,571 33.9% not Minority 654 18.5% Low Income LIM MTS 2902 5,277 5,374 1,255 23.8% 464 8.8% 24 0.5% 491 9.3% 17 0.3% 26 0.5% 173 3.3% 2,450 46.4% not Minority 1,097 20.4% Low Income LIM MTS 2903 3,717 3,823 1,356 36.5% 339 9.1% 11 0.3% 361 9.7% 25 0.7% 10 0.3% 116 3.1% 2,218 59.7% Minority 868 22.7% Low Income LIM MTS 2904 7,316 5,026 1,268 17.3% 432 5.9% 14 0.2% 976 13.3% 22 0.3% 21 0.3% 299 4.1% 3,032 41.4% not Minority 2,050 40.8% Low Income LIM MTS 2905 4,022 3,641 928 23.1% 424 10.5% 14 0.3% 370 9.2% 20 0.5% 10 0.2% 166 4.1% 1,932 48.0% not Minority 672 18.5% Low Income LIM MTS 3001 4,226 3,656 1,907 45.1% 1,666 39.4% 8 0.2% 221 5.2% 30 0.7% 9 0.2% 112 2.7% 3,953 93.5% Minority 694 19.0% Low Income LIM MTS 3003 5,062 4,972 2,273 44.9% 959 18.9% 38 0.8% 261 5.2% 32 0.6% 15 0.3% 211 4.2% 3,789 74.9% Minority 1,174 23.6% Low Income LIM MTS 3004 4,940 4,768 3,494 70.7% 782 15.8% 6 0.1% 179 3.6% 44 0.9% 2 0.0% 107 2.2% 4,614 93.4% Minority 1,253 26.3% Low Income LIM MTS 3101 3,785 3,652 1,677 44.3% 1,631 43.1% 11 0.3% 135 3.6% 41 1.1% 1 0.0% 77 2.0% 3,573 94.4% Minority 438 12.0% not Low Income LIM MTS 3103 6,256 5,853 2,670 42.7% 2,135 34.1% 5 0.1% 715 11.4% 41 0.7% 16 0.3% 173 2.8% 5,755 92.0% Minority 814 13.9% Low Income LIM MTS 3105 4,167 4,173 2,678 64.3% 469 11.3% 15 0.4% 292 7.0% 57 1.4% 9 0.2% 102 2.4% 3,622 86.9% Minority 844 20.2% Low Income LIM MTS 3107 5,992 6,257 2,322 38.8% 1,119 18.7% 34 0.6% 1,341 22.4% 103 1.7% 2 0.0% 277 4.6% 5,198 86.7% Minority 860 13.7% Low Income LIM MTS
D -1 Total Total Census Population ‐ Transit Population ‐ Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2 or more Races Minority Population Low Income LIM Tract 2006‐2010 Agency 2010 Census ACS
MTS = 54.7%, MTS = 12.9%, NCTD = 44.0% NCTD = 10.8% # # #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%Region = 51.5% #%Region = 12.3 % 3108 3,520 3,428 1,938 55.1% 286 8.1% 10 0.3% 298 8.5% 33 0.9% 14 0.4% 125 3.6% 2,704 76.8% Minority 545 15.9% Low Income LIM MTS 3109 3,358 3,484 336 10.0% 241 7.2% 5 0.1% 2,465 73.4% 20 0.6% 6 0.2% 92 2.7% 3,165 94.3% Minority 177 5.1% not Low Income LIM MTS 3111 6,183 6,147 3,103 50.2% 1,329 21.5% 7 0.1% 1,202 19.4% 109 1.8% 10 0.2% 184 3.0% 5,944 96.1% Minority 2,024 32.9% Low Income LIM MTS 3112 4,574 4,537 1,909 41.7% 1,091 23.9% 5 0.1% 1,007 22.0% 71 1.6% 4 0.1% 150 3.3% 4,237 92.6% Minority 641 14.1% Low Income LIM MTS 3113 5,043 4,993 1,028 20.4% 856 17.0% 3 0.1% 2,629 52.1% 73 1.4% 8 0.2% 157 3.1% 4,754 94.3% Minority 601 12.0% not Low Income LIM MTS 3114 3,341 3,642 494 14.8% 591 17.7% 1 0.0% 1,994 59.7% 13 0.4% ‐ 0.0% 119 3.6% 3,212 96.1% Minority 322 8.8% not Low Income LIM MTS 3115 6,454 6,526 2,048 31.7% 847 13.1% 10 0.2% 2,726 42.2% 82 1.3% 10 0.2% 207 3.2% 5,930 91.9% Minority 1,212 18.6% Low Income LIM MTS 3201 4,932 4,337 1,472 29.8% 592 12.0% 15 0.3% 1,507 30.6% 97 2.0% 15 0.3% 251 5.1% 3,949 80.1% Minority 405 9.3% not Low Income LIM MTS 3202 4,551 4,793 3,045 66.9% 250 5.5% 5 0.1% 449 9.9% 40 0.9% 4 0.1% 90 2.0% 3,883 85.3% Minority 1,033 21.6% Low Income LIM MTS 3204 3,453 3,413 1,779 51.5% 96 2.8% 18 0.5% 396 11.5% 15 0.4% 4 0.1% 74 2.1% 2,382 69.0% Minority 468 13.7% Low Income LIM MTS 3207 5,890 6,060 2,627 44.6% 298 5.1% 25 0.4% 619 10.5% 41 0.7% 19 0.3% 178 3.0% 3,807 64.6% Minority 355 5.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 3208 6,619 6,857 2,111 31.9% 1,105 16.7% 7 0.1% 2,369 35.8% 62 0.9% 15 0.2% 267 4.0% 5,936 89.7% Minority 623 9.1% not Low Income LIM MTS 3209 5,385 5,003 1,442 26.8% 860 16.0% 9 0.2% 2,228 41.4% 40 0.7% 11 0.2% 303 5.6% 4,893 90.9% Minority 421 8.4% not Low Income LIM MTS 3211 3,165 3,161 1,645 52.0% 191 6.0% 8 0.3% 699 22.1% 37 1.2% 3 0.1% 81 2.6% 2,664 84.2% Minority 138 4.4% not Low Income LIM MTS 3212 4,053 4,484 1,819 44.9% 441 10.9% 4 0.1% 924 22.8% 66 1.6% 7 0.2% 153 3.8% 3,414 84.2% Minority 666 14.9% Low Income LIM MTS 3213 4,193 4,190 874 20.8% 516 12.3% 5 0.1% 2,251 53.7% 57 1.4% 14 0.3% 148 3.5% 3,865 92.2% Minority 113 2.7% not Low Income LIM MTS 3214 4,610 4,923 1,520 33.0% 984 21.3% 2 0.0% 1,120 24.3% 43 0.9% 11 0.2% 214 4.6% 3,894 84.5% Minority 630 12.8% not Low Income LIM MTS 3301 3,337 3,438 2,207 66.1% 888 26.6% 1 0.0% 112 3.4% 19 0.6% 1 0.0% 45 1.3% 3,273 98.1% Minority 785 22.8% Low Income LIM MTS 3303 4,193 4,178 2,977 71.0% 614 14.6% 7 0.2% 314 7.5% 19 0.5% 9 0.2% 78 1.9% 4,018 95.8% Minority 1,581 37.8% Low Income LIM MTS 3304 3,563 3,451 2,339 65.6% 481 13.5% 4 0.1% 494 13.9% 17 0.5% 5 0.1% 49 1.4% 3,389 95.1% Minority 737 21.4% Low Income LIM MTS 3305 5,738 5,739 3,234 56.4% 1,755 30.6% 2 0.0% 383 6.7% 123 2.1% 7 0.1% 109 1.9% 5,613 97.8% Minority 1,778 31.0% Low Income LIM MTS 3401 6,065 5,957 2,406 39.7% 1,509 24.9% 16 0.3% 852 14.0% 29 0.5% 11 0.2% 167 2.8% 4,990 82.3% Minority 488 8.2% not Low Income LIM MTS 3403 4,283 4,174 3,223 75.3% 482 11.3% 9 0.2% 333 7.8% 22 0.5% 1 0.0% 63 1.5% 4,133 96.5% Minority 1,267 30.4% Low Income LIM MTS 3404 4,634 4,386 2,883 62.2% 770 16.6% 4 0.1% 723 15.6% 40 0.9% 3 0.1% 82 1.8% 4,505 97.2% Minority 865 19.7% Low Income LIM MTS 3501 4,255 3,953 3,589 84.3% 435 10.2% 7 0.2% 60 1.4% 9 0.2% 8 0.2% 37 0.9% 4,145 97.4% Minority 1,361 34.4% Low Income LIM MTS 3502 4,946 4,780 4,154 84.0% 583 11.8% 11 0.2% 24 0.5% 6 0.1% 8 0.2% 56 1.1% 4,842 97.9% Minority 1,654 34.6% Low Income LIM MTS 3601 3,250 2,687 2,912 89.6% 179 5.5% ‐ 0.0% 41 1.3% 7 0.2% ‐ 0.0% 16 0.5% 3,155 97.1% Minority 696 25.9% Low Income LIM MTS 3602 2,987 3,269 2,587 86.6% 191 6.4% 6 0.2% 86 2.9% 5 0.2% 4 0.1% 48 1.6% 2,927 98.0% Minority 1,039 31.8% Low Income LIM MTS 3603 4,320 4,397 3,739 86.6% 261 6.0% 6 0.1% 112 2.6% 13 0.3% 5 0.1% 15 0.3% 4,151 96.1% Minority 1,464 33.3% Low Income LIM MTS 3800 6,530 ‐ 1,024 15.7% 1,155 17.7% 60 0.9% 449 6.9% 40 0.6% 26 0.4% 281 4.3% 3,035 46.5% not Minority ‐ 0.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 3901 4,241 4,147 3,667 86.5% 423 10.0% 15 0.4% 27 0.6% 6 0.1% ‐ 0.0% 25 0.6% 4,163 98.2% Minority 1,811 43.7% Low Income LIM MTS 3902 4,927 4,145 4,372 88.7% 311 6.3% 12 0.2% 42 0.9% 13 0.3% 5 0.1% 27 0.5% 4,782 97.1% Minority 1,120 27.0% Low Income LIM MTS 4000 5,160 4,917 4,452 86.3% 450 8.7% 10 0.2% 51 1.0% 8 0.2% 5 0.1% 41 0.8% 5,017 97.2% Minority 2,135 43.4% Low Income LIM MTS 4100 6,546 6,203 3,794 58.0% 450 6.9% 29 0.4% 194 3.0% 13 0.2% 21 0.3% 145 2.2% 4,646 71.0% Minority 1,482 23.9% Low Income LIM MTS 4200 5,673 5,470 1,506 26.5% 193 3.4% 14 0.2% 213 3.8% 9 0.2% 13 0.2% 176 3.1% 2,124 37.4% not Minority 576 10.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 4300 3,665 4,433 776 21.2% 168 4.6% 15 0.4% 118 3.2% 6 0.2% 8 0.2% 143 3.9% 1,234 33.7% not Minority 554 12.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 4400 3,866 4,089 1,134 29.3% 116 3.0% 17 0.4% 105 2.7% 5 0.1% 12 0.3% 129 3.3% 1,518 39.3% not Minority 408 10.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 4501 2,875 3,296 1,455 50.6% 99 3.4% 6 0.2% 77 2.7% 10 0.3% 6 0.2% 54 1.9% 1,707 59.4% Minority 577 17.5% Low Income LIM MTS 4600 1,940 1,825 647 33.4% 111 5.7% 9 0.5% 74 3.8% 6 0.3% 6 0.3% 59 3.0% 912 47.0% not Minority 243 13.3% Low Income LIM MTS 4700 1,858 1,936 1,309 70.5% 115 6.2% 7 0.4% 21 1.1% 3 0.2% 1 0.1% 39 2.1% 1,495 80.5% Minority 827 42.7% Low Income LIM MTS 4800 4,115 3,919 3,640 88.5% 169 4.1% 5 0.1% 40 1.0% 4 0.1% 21 0.5% 32 0.8% 3,911 95.0% Minority 1,308 33.4% Low Income LIM MTS 4900 5,028 4,940 4,543 90.4% 236 4.7% 4 0.1% 32 0.6% 5 0.1% 3 0.1% 34 0.7% 4,857 96.6% Minority 1,558 31.5% Low Income LIM MTS 5000 2,227 1,910 2,010 90.3% 41 1.8% 4 0.2% 30 1.3% 1 0.0% 4 0.2% 16 0.7% 2,106 94.6% Minority 818 42.8% Low Income LIM MTS 5100 7,140 5,128 2,381 33.3% 1,100 15.4% 54 0.8% 365 5.1% 20 0.3% 20 0.3% 204 2.9% 4,144 58.0% Minority 2,160 42.1% Low Income LIM MTS 5200 4,563 4,047 911 20.0% 591 13.0% 43 0.9% 376 8.2% 19 0.4% 17 0.4% 214 4.7% 2,171 47.6% not Minority 1,165 28.8% Low Income LIM MTS 5300 6,667 3,347 2,209 33.1% 604 9.1% 35 0.5% 496 7.4% 13 0.2% 15 0.2% 178 2.7% 3,550 53.2% not Minority 783 23.4% Low Income LIM MTS 5400 7,435 6,986 844 11.4% 386 5.2% 21 0.3% 628 8.4% 14 0.2% 25 0.3% 170 2.3% 2,088 28.1% not Minority 792 11.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 5500 198 ‐ 34 17.2% 28 14.1% 3 1.5% 21 10.6% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 10 5.1% 96 48.5% not Minority ‐ 0.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 5600 4,463 3,314 681 15.3% 281 6.3% 15 0.3% 414 9.3% 10 0.2% 10 0.2% 134 3.0% 1,545 34.6% not Minority 343 10.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 5700 1,948 1,758 344 17.7% 246 12.6% 18 0.9% 119 6.1% 9 0.5% 3 0.2% 61 3.1% 800 41.1% not Minority 784 44.6% Low Income LIM MTS 5800 2,725 2,510 472 17.3% 87 3.2% 6 0.2% 164 6.0% 1 0.0% 7 0.3% 64 2.3% 801 29.4% not Minority 446 17.8% Low Income LIM MTS 5900 2,821 2,542 532 18.9% 105 3.7% 10 0.4% 126 4.5% 8 0.3% 8 0.3% 85 3.0% 874 31.0% not Minority 363 14.3% Low Income LIM MTS 6000 3,536 3,478 451 12.8% 75 2.1% 7 0.2% 167 4.7% 4 0.1% 16 0.5% 73 2.1% 793 22.4% not Minority 375 10.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 6100 2,237 2,184 430 19.2% 49 2.2% 9 0.4% 106 4.7% 4 0.2% 7 0.3% 64 2.9% 669 29.9% not Minority 259 11.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 6200 144 9 4 2.8% 2 1.4% ‐ 0.0% 4 2.8% ‐ 0.0% 1 0.7% 6 4.2% 17 11.8% not Minority ‐ 0.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 6300 3,435 ‐ 644 18.7% 141 4.1% 45 1.3% 87 2.5% 16 0.5% 8 0.2% 94 2.7% 1,035 30.1% not Minority ‐ 0.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 6500 2,569 2,680 479 18.6% 212 8.3% 16 0.6% 132 5.1% 8 0.3% 7 0.3% 71 2.8% 925 36.0% not Minority 716 26.7% Low Income LIM MTS 6600 1,920 1,693 542 28.2% 436 22.7% 9 0.5% 157 8.2% 25 1.3% ‐ 0.0% 185 9.6% 1,354 70.5% Minority 73 4.3% not Low Income LIM MTS
D -2 Total Total Census Population ‐ Transit Population ‐ Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2 or more Races Minority Population Low Income LIM Tract 2006‐2010 Agency 2010 Census ACS
MTS = 54.7%, MTS = 12.9%, NCTD = 44.0% NCTD = 10.8% # # #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%Region = 51.5% #%Region = 12.3 % 6801 2,503 2,551 316 12.6% 168 6.7% 17 0.7% 98 3.9% 8 0.3% 24 1.0% 70 2.8% 701 28.0% not Minority 526 20.6% Low Income LIM MTS 6802 5,032 4,860 1,210 24.0% 281 5.6% 12 0.2% 242 4.8% 22 0.4% 55 1.1% 192 3.8% 2,014 40.0% not Minority 760 15.6% Low Income LIM MTS 6900 5,148 5,476 523 10.2% 58 1.1% 27 0.5% 145 2.8% 7 0.1% 31 0.6% 128 2.5% 919 17.9% not Minority 601 11.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 7002 2,947 3,043 190 6.4% 13 0.4% 11 0.4% 52 1.8% 17 0.6% 10 0.3% 54 1.8% 347 11.8% not Minority 115 3.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 7100 5,032 4,348 299 5.9% 52 1.0% 12 0.2% 103 2.0% 8 0.2% 12 0.2% 90 1.8% 576 11.4% not Minority 326 7.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 7200 5,493 3,941 413 7.5% 54 1.0% 12 0.2% 118 2.1% 6 0.1% 8 0.1% 122 2.2% 733 13.3% not Minority 134 3.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 7301 4,948 4,992 445 9.0% 44 0.9% 16 0.3% 123 2.5% 8 0.2% 24 0.5% 138 2.8% 798 16.1% not Minority 454 9.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 7302 2,060 1,970 141 6.8% 7 0.3% ‐ 0.0% 46 2.2% 1 0.0% 4 0.2% 29 1.4% 228 11.1% not Minority 35 1.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 7400 6,590 6,167 820 12.4% 91 1.4% 27 0.4% 180 2.7% 15 0.2% 37 0.6% 224 3.4% 1,394 21.2% not Minority 458 7.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 7501 4,040 3,972 515 12.7% 68 1.7% 19 0.5% 72 1.8% 8 0.2% 14 0.3% 134 3.3% 830 20.5% not Minority 575 14.5% Low Income LIM MTS 7502 3,227 2,767 347 10.8% 53 1.6% 17 0.5% 74 2.3% 9 0.3% 25 0.8% 81 2.5% 606 18.8% not Minority 430 15.5% Low Income LIM MTS 7600 5,607 4,974 459 8.2% 49 0.9% 18 0.3% 134 2.4% 14 0.2% 11 0.2% 137 2.4% 822 14.7% not Minority 1,020 20.5% Low Income LIM MTS 7701 3,703 4,223 374 10.1% 32 0.9% 17 0.5% 121 3.3% 3 0.1% 22 0.6% 87 2.3% 656 17.7% not Minority 688 16.3% Low Income LIM MTS 7702 3,849 3,904 398 10.3% 41 1.1% 13 0.3% 138 3.6% 12 0.3% 18 0.5% 113 2.9% 733 19.0% not Minority 351 9.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 7800 5,724 5,275 1,481 25.9% 182 3.2% 15 0.3% 236 4.1% 18 0.3% 27 0.5% 205 3.6% 2,164 37.8% not Minority 719 13.6% Low Income LIM MTS 7903 4,487 4,571 519 11.6% 45 1.0% 6 0.1% 168 3.7% 7 0.2% 10 0.2% 107 2.4% 862 19.2% not Minority 978 21.4% Low Income LIM MTS 7905 2,584 2,349 216 8.4% 30 1.2% 9 0.3% 83 3.2% 5 0.2% 10 0.4% 70 2.7% 423 16.4% not Minority 421 17.9% Low Income LIM MTS 7907 3,048 2,986 361 11.8% 41 1.3% 9 0.3% 87 2.9% 5 0.2% 17 0.6% 96 3.1% 616 20.2% not Minority 665 22.3% Low Income LIM MTS 7908 2,819 2,573 537 19.0% 33 1.2% 7 0.2% 82 2.9% 11 0.4% 9 0.3% 76 2.7% 755 26.8% not Minority 337 13.1% Low Income LIM MTS 7910 2,797 2,702 272 9.7% 39 1.4% 4 0.1% 105 3.8% 2 0.1% 21 0.8% 70 2.5% 513 18.3% not Minority 190 7.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8002 2,522 2,511 169 6.7% 13 0.5% 4 0.2% 62 2.5% 4 0.2% 2 0.1% 54 2.1% 308 12.2% not Minority 144 5.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8003 3,334 2,893 333 10.0% 22 0.7% 7 0.2% 93 2.8% 10 0.3% 13 0.4% 110 3.3% 588 17.6% not Minority 111 3.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8006 3,805 3,496 343 9.0% 25 0.7% 9 0.2% 115 3.0% 10 0.3% 17 0.4% 105 2.8% 624 16.4% not Minority 358 10.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8101 4,009 3,586 386 9.6% 28 0.7% 6 0.1% 155 3.9% 6 0.1% 16 0.4% 90 2.2% 687 17.1% not Minority 77 2.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8102 3,395 3,414 226 6.7% 14 0.4% 8 0.2% 99 2.9% 8 0.2% 6 0.2% 103 3.0% 464 13.7% not Minority 114 3.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8200 3,022 2,776 208 6.9% 18 0.6% 1 0.0% 129 4.3% 1 0.0% 12 0.4% 51 1.7% 420 13.9% not Minority 192 6.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8301 3,094 3,015 235 7.6% 29 0.9% 7 0.2% 148 4.8% 4 0.1% 3 0.1% 72 2.3% 498 16.1% not Minority 188 6.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8303 3,446 3,610 324 9.4% 17 0.5% 2 0.1% 198 5.7% 1 0.0% 3 0.1% 84 2.4% 629 18.3% not Minority 215 6.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8305 10,482 2,051 1,168 11.1% 270 2.6% 9 0.1% 4,156 39.6% 5 0.0% 44 0.4% 480 4.6% 6,132 58.5% Minority 734 35.8% Low Income LIM MTS 8306 2,997 2,933 188 6.3% 21 0.7% 7 0.2% 266 8.9% 2 0.1% 16 0.5% 101 3.4% 601 20.1% not Minority 108 3.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8307 3,794 3,786 286 7.5% 31 0.8% 7 0.2% 445 11.7% 16 0.4% 8 0.2% 113 3.0% 906 23.9% not Minority 284 7.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8310 5,392 5,812 500 9.3% 35 0.6% 3 0.1% 409 7.6% 7 0.1% 17 0.3% 164 3.0% 1,135 21.0% not Minority 259 4.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8311 2,884 2,857 248 8.6% 6 0.2% 3 0.1% 141 4.9% 3 0.1% 7 0.2% 95 3.3% 503 17.4% not Minority 18 0.6% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8312 3,629 3,176 264 7.3% 21 0.6% 4 0.1% 270 7.4% 2 0.1% 10 0.3% 90 2.5% 661 18.2% not Minority 126 4.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8313 2,225 2,075 193 8.7% 8 0.4% 4 0.2% 192 8.6% ‐ 0.0% 18 0.8% 68 3.1% 483 21.7% not Minority 25 1.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8324 6,585 6,493 360 5.5% 46 0.7% 6 0.1% 519 7.9% 4 0.1% 29 0.4% 189 2.9% 1,153 17.5% not Minority 274 4.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8327 5,775 5,619 392 6.8% 30 0.5% 6 0.1% 1,137 19.7% 4 0.1% 9 0.2% 185 3.2% 1,763 30.5% not Minority 438 7.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8328 5,162 4,450 398 7.7% 46 0.9% 4 0.1% 1,183 22.9% 4 0.1% 11 0.2% 195 3.8% 1,841 35.7% not Minority 262 5.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8329 6,347 6,009 529 8.3% 86 1.4% 15 0.2% 1,485 23.4% 9 0.1% 12 0.2% 224 3.5% 2,360 37.2% not Minority 367 6.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8330 5,668 5,547 368 6.5% 26 0.5% 4 0.1% 1,574 27.8% 4 0.1% 18 0.3% 162 2.9% 2,156 38.0% not Minority 197 3.6% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8331 2,466 2,525 145 5.9% 10 0.4% ‐ 0.0% 332 13.5% 1 0.0% 5 0.2% 82 3.3% 575 23.3% not Minority 102 4.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8333 13,744 12,544 993 7.2% 122 0.9% 16 0.1% 4,177 30.4% 10 0.1% 46 0.3% 534 3.9% 5,898 42.9% not Minority 379 3.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8335 9,540 10,414 780 8.2% 178 1.9% 15 0.2% 3,460 36.3% 23 0.2% 17 0.2% 463 4.9% 4,936 51.7% not Minority 131 1.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8336 2,332 2,303 184 7.9% 27 1.2% 6 0.3% 495 21.2% 2 0.1% 1 0.0% 93 4.0% 808 34.6% not Minority 19 0.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8337 4,316 4,314 401 9.3% 101 2.3% 12 0.3% 1,097 25.4% 12 0.3% 6 0.1% 223 5.2% 1,852 42.9% not Minority 122 2.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8339 1,853 1,735 226 12.2% 24 1.3% 1 0.1% 685 37.0% 3 0.2% 5 0.3% 70 3.8% 1,014 54.7% Minority 494 28.5% Low Income LIM MTS 8340 8,988 9,291 944 10.5% 165 1.8% 12 0.1% 3,255 36.2% 9 0.1% 18 0.2% 324 3.6% 4,727 52.6% not Minority 2,087 22.5% Low Income LIM MTS 8341 7,614 7,228 536 7.0% 112 1.5% 1 0.0% 3,258 42.8% 22 0.3% 34 0.4% 248 3.3% 4,211 55.3% Minority 2,705 37.4% Low Income LIM MTS 8343 4,587 4,511 530 11.6% 88 1.9% 9 0.2% 1,836 40.0% 5 0.1% 11 0.2% 165 3.6% 2,644 57.6% Minority 1,215 26.9% Low Income LIM MTS 8344 3,462 3,810 315 9.1% 57 1.6% 3 0.1% 460 13.3% 4 0.1% 5 0.1% 112 3.2% 956 27.6% not Minority 597 15.7% Low Income LIM MTS 8345 3,254 3,404 335 10.3% 53 1.6% 3 0.1% 374 11.5% 7 0.2% 5 0.2% 81 2.5% 858 26.4% not Minority 356 10.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8346 4,615 5,126 364 7.9% 69 1.5% 4 0.1% 1,928 41.8% 2 0.0% 11 0.2% 177 3.8% 2,555 55.4% Minority 260 5.1% not Low Income LIM MTS 8347 6,358 6,520 766 12.0% 174 2.7% 8 0.1% 2,746 43.2% 43 0.7% 26 0.4% 291 4.6% 4,054 63.8% Minority 235 3.6% not Low Income LIM MTS 8348 5,259 5,470 654 12.4% 126 2.4% 15 0.3% 2,576 49.0% 35 0.7% 23 0.4% 276 5.2% 3,705 70.5% Minority 366 6.7% not Low Income LIM MTS 8349 3,514 3,375 561 16.0% 155 4.4% 8 0.2% 1,550 44.1% 21 0.6% 7 0.2% 166 4.7% 2,468 70.2% Minority 159 4.7% not Low Income LIM MTS 8350 6,493 6,716 662 10.2% 239 3.7% 12 0.2% 3,665 56.4% 32 0.5% 17 0.3% 263 4.1% 4,890 75.3% Minority 577 8.6% not Low Income LIM MTS 8351 4,261 4,504 591 13.9% 188 4.4% 12 0.3% 2,029 47.6% 22 0.5% 5 0.1% 197 4.6% 3,044 71.4% Minority 244 5.4% not Low Income LIM MTS 8352 3,517 3,777 586 16.7% 138 3.9% 5 0.1% 1,520 43.2% 48 1.4% 16 0.5% 189 5.4% 2,502 71.1% Minority 297 7.9% not Low Income LIM MTS
D -3 Total Total Census Population ‐ Transit Population ‐ Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2 or more Races Minority Population Low Income LIM Tract 2006‐2010 Agency 2010 Census ACS
MTS = 54.7%, MTS = 12.9%, NCTD = 44.0% NCTD = 10.8% # # #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%Region = 51.5% #%Region = 12.3 % 8353 5,048 5,399 593 11.7% 192 3.8% 16 0.3% 1,946 38.5% 25 0.5% 4 0.1% 311 6.2% 3,087 61.2% Minority 265 4.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 8354 5,972 6,084 604 10.1% 228 3.8% 7 0.1% 2,791 46.7% 24 0.4% 28 0.5% 266 4.5% 3,948 66.1% Minority 197 3.2% not Low Income LIM MTS 8355 3,365 3,870 339 10.1% 155 4.6% 7 0.2% 1,777 52.8% 14 0.4% 9 0.3% 173 5.1% 2,474 73.5% Minority 491 12.7% not Low Income LIM MTS 8356 3,629 3,366 357 9.8% 130 3.6% 13 0.4% 1,631 44.9% 25 0.7% 5 0.1% 154 4.2% 2,315 63.8% Minority 212 6.3% not Low Income LIM MTS 8357 4,345 4,754 523 12.0% 148 3.4% 10 0.2% 2,481 57.1% 24 0.6% 1 0.0% 210 4.8% 3,397 78.2% Minority 956 20.1% Low Income LIM MTS 8358 6,554 6,725 1,030 15.7% 261 4.0% 6 0.1% 2,880 43.9% 63 1.0% 15 0.2% 277 4.2% 4,532 69.1% Minority 645 9.6% not Low Income LIM MTS 8359 3,975 3,603 780 19.6% 234 5.9% 16 0.4% 1,473 37.1% 41 1.0% 18 0.5% 174 4.4% 2,736 68.8% Minority 488 13.5% Low Income LIM MTS 8360 5,857 5,961 1,169 20.0% 369 6.3% 9 0.2% 2,185 37.3% 44 0.8% 26 0.4% 301 5.1% 4,103 70.1% Minority 237 4.0% not Low Income LIM MTS 8361 2,642 2,779 242 9.2% 43 1.6% ‐ 0.0% 658 24.9% 1 0.0% 11 0.4% 106 4.0% 1,061 40.2% not Minority 1,169 42.1% Low Income LIM MTS 8362 3,141 3,158 336 10.7% 41 1.3% 3 0.1% 617 19.6% 1 0.0% 11 0.4% 96 3.1% 1,105 35.2% not Minority 649 20.6% Low Income LIM MTS 8363 4,921 4,761 452 9.2% 52 1.1% 6 0.1% 2,620 53.2% 1 0.0% 22 0.4% 158 3.2% 3,311 67.3% Minority 1,578 33.1% Low Income LIM MTS 8364 4,992 4,707 575 11.5% 71 1.4% 8 0.2% 1,399 28.0% 7 0.1% 22 0.4% 193 3.9% 2,275 45.6% not Minority 947 20.1% Low Income LIM MTS 8365 2,979 3,286 177 5.9% 46 1.5% 4 0.1% 1,104 37.1% 7 0.2% 2 0.1% 84 2.8% 1,424 47.8% not Minority 28 0.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8366 6,882 6,012 557 8.1% 119 1.7% 1 0.0% 2,458 35.7% 13 0.2% 21 0.3% 258 3.7% 3,427 49.8% not Minority 31 0.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8501 5,271 5,607 881 16.7% 62 1.2% 25 0.5% 266 5.0% 11 0.2% 11 0.2% 173 3.3% 1,429 27.1% not Minority 567 10.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8502 6,241 6,203 1,454 23.3% 86 1.4% 21 0.3% 544 8.7% 11 0.2% 15 0.2% 211 3.4% 2,342 37.5% not Minority 502 8.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8503 6,599 6,489 1,421 21.5% 93 1.4% 24 0.4% 354 5.4% 22 0.3% 22 0.3% 198 3.0% 2,134 32.3% not Minority 940 14.5% Low Income LIM MTS 8504 6,021 6,193 1,399 23.2% 76 1.3% 15 0.2% 394 6.5% 28 0.5% 21 0.3% 202 3.4% 2,135 35.5% not Minority 857 13.8% Low Income LIM MTS 8505 5,605 5,777 1,302 23.2% 105 1.9% 21 0.4% 773 13.8% 27 0.5% 9 0.2% 177 3.2% 2,414 43.1% not Minority 539 9.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8506 4,042 3,999 981 24.3% 73 1.8% 8 0.2% 578 14.3% 23 0.6% 8 0.2% 173 4.3% 1,844 45.6% not Minority 379 9.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8507 7,627 7,197 2,048 26.9% 294 3.9% 18 0.2% 1,094 14.3% 52 0.7% 13 0.2% 291 3.8% 3,810 50.0% not Minority 683 9.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8509 6,647 6,745 1,271 19.1% 500 7.5% 32 0.5% 822 12.4% 18 0.3% 28 0.4% 308 4.6% 2,979 44.8% not Minority 659 9.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8510 6,626 6,344 1,489 22.5% 355 5.4% 29 0.4% 1,195 18.0% 38 0.6% 16 0.2% 279 4.2% 3,401 51.3% not Minority 498 7.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8511 2,633 2,411 430 16.3% 118 4.5% 11 0.4% 585 22.2% 28 1.1% 7 0.3% 103 3.9% 1,282 48.7% not Minority 197 8.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8512 4,193 4,393 538 12.8% 67 1.6% 23 0.5% 285 6.8% 11 0.3% 11 0.3% 129 3.1% 1,064 25.4% not Minority 447 10.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8513 2,691 2,598 307 11.4% 41 1.5% 10 0.4% 211 7.8% 5 0.2% 4 0.1% 85 3.2% 663 24.6% not Minority 104 4.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8600 6,864 6,222 3,525 51.4% 338 4.9% 21 0.3% 1,382 20.1% 38 0.6% 29 0.4% 182 2.7% 5,515 80.3% Minority 1,505 24.2% Low Income LIM MTS 8701 3,361 3,378 646 19.2% 348 10.4% 20 0.6% 576 17.1% 22 0.7% 7 0.2% 213 6.3% 1,832 54.5% not Minority 281 8.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8702 5,206 4,027 1,204 23.1% 467 9.0% 38 0.7% 649 12.5% 33 0.6% 11 0.2% 254 4.9% 2,656 51.0% not Minority 313 7.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 8800 6,188 6,252 1,803 29.1% 451 7.3% 8 0.1% 2,621 42.4% 43 0.7% 13 0.2% 169 2.7% 5,108 82.5% Minority 1,299 20.8% Low Income LIM MTS 8901 4,805 4,873 1,261 26.2% 195 4.1% 21 0.4% 611 12.7% 19 0.4% 19 0.4% 166 3.5% 2,292 47.7% not Minority 698 14.3% Low Income LIM MTS 8902 2,221 2,118 342 15.4% 104 4.7% 3 0.1% 172 7.7% 13 0.6% 5 0.2% 66 3.0% 705 31.7% not Minority 100 4.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9000 3,861 3,844 1,638 42.4% 192 5.0% 7 0.2% 501 13.0% 31 0.8% 5 0.1% 117 3.0% 2,491 64.5% Minority 1,146 29.8% Low Income LIM MTS 9101 5,318 5,343 779 14.6% 70 1.3% 15 0.3% 265 5.0% 9 0.2% 24 0.5% 184 3.5% 1,346 25.3% not Minority 345 6.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9102 3,537 3,684 860 24.3% 117 3.3% 12 0.3% 307 8.7% 5 0.1% 8 0.2% 145 4.1% 1,454 41.1% not Minority 543 14.7% Low Income LIM MTS 9103 3,679 3,560 429 11.7% 51 1.4% 4 0.1% 165 4.5% 14 0.4% 15 0.4% 110 3.0% 788 21.4% not Minority 264 7.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9104 2,775 2,614 334 12.0% 15 0.5% 4 0.1% 80 2.9% 3 0.1% 4 0.1% 79 2.8% 519 18.7% not Minority 169 6.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9106 3,882 2,147 671 17.3% 67 1.7% 14 0.4% 226 5.8% 12 0.3% 13 0.3% 142 3.7% 1,145 29.5% not Minority 184 8.6% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9107 3,688 3,705 737 20.0% 117 3.2% 13 0.4% 276 7.5% 12 0.3% 14 0.4% 165 4.5% 1,334 36.2% not Minority 494 13.3% Low Income LIM MTS 9201 5,014 4,777 1,156 23.1% 767 15.3% 36 0.7% 700 14.0% 45 0.9% 14 0.3% 295 5.9% 3,013 60.1% Minority 667 14.0% Low Income LIM MTS 9202 4,152 3,879 682 16.4% 147 3.5% 18 0.4% 568 13.7% 28 0.7% 7 0.2% 212 5.1% 1,662 40.0% not Minority 144 3.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9301 4,164 4,451 833 20.0% 304 7.3% 13 0.3% 608 14.6% 36 0.9% 13 0.3% 230 5.5% 2,037 48.9% not Minority 481 10.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9304 7,944 7,221 1,374 17.3% 436 5.5% 31 0.4% 1,000 12.6% 50 0.6% 34 0.4% 328 4.1% 3,253 40.9% not Minority 1,243 17.2% Low Income LIM MTS 9305 4,764 4,233 773 16.2% 268 5.6% 18 0.4% 539 11.3% 21 0.4% 13 0.3% 156 3.3% 1,788 37.5% not Minority 655 15.5% Low Income LIM MTS 9306 5,589 5,715 918 16.4% 392 7.0% 36 0.6% 738 13.2% 32 0.6% 22 0.4% 292 5.2% 2,430 43.5% not Minority 226 4.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9400 5,028 1,562 1,028 20.4% 473 9.4% 53 1.1% 216 4.3% 34 0.7% 18 0.4% 222 4.4% 2,044 40.7% not Minority 254 16.3% Low Income LIM MTS 9502 3,659 4,555 474 13.0% 165 4.5% 12 0.3% 516 14.1% 9 0.2% 4 0.1% 181 4.9% 1,361 37.2% not Minority 299 6.6% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9504 5,914 5,247 438 7.4% 156 2.6% 9 0.2% 1,259 21.3% 13 0.2% 10 0.2% 218 3.7% 2,103 35.6% not Minority 350 6.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9505 6,442 6,479 616 9.6% 161 2.5% 21 0.3% 1,013 15.7% 19 0.3% 13 0.2% 278 4.3% 2,121 32.9% not Minority 288 4.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9506 4,258 4,204 533 12.5% 187 4.4% 11 0.3% 407 9.6% 22 0.5% 14 0.3% 230 5.4% 1,404 33.0% not Minority 108 2.6% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9507 3,369 4,155 440 13.1% 136 4.0% 10 0.3% 360 10.7% 15 0.4% 13 0.4% 168 5.0% 1,142 33.9% not Minority 202 4.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9509 4,136 3,616 595 14.4% 256 6.2% 12 0.3% 426 10.3% 24 0.6% 18 0.4% 174 4.2% 1,505 36.4% not Minority 409 11.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9510 5,087 5,156 1,181 23.2% 474 9.3% 28 0.6% 201 4.0% 47 0.9% 6 0.1% 412 8.1% 2,349 46.2% not Minority 371 7.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9511 4,427 4,610 1,147 25.9% 545 12.3% 34 0.8% 186 4.2% 25 0.6% 7 0.2% 354 8.0% 2,298 51.9% not Minority 386 8.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9602 3,775 3,705 539 14.3% 92 2.4% 14 0.4% 266 7.0% 21 0.6% 4 0.1% 124 3.3% 1,060 28.1% not Minority 363 9.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9603 4,533 4,266 944 20.8% 316 7.0% 20 0.4% 410 9.0% 14 0.3% 7 0.2% 193 4.3% 1,904 42.0% not Minority 352 8.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9604 3,179 3,519 604 19.0% 105 3.3% 19 0.6% 186 5.9% 12 0.4% 3 0.1% 126 4.0% 1,055 33.2% not Minority 557 15.8% Low Income LIM MTS 9703 3,446 3,620 478 13.9% 79 2.3% 13 0.4% 114 3.3% 7 0.2% 5 0.1% 105 3.0% 801 23.2% not Minority 162 4.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS
D -4 Total Total Census Population ‐ Transit Population ‐ Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2 or more Races Minority Population Low Income LIM Tract 2006‐2010 Agency 2010 Census ACS
MTS = 54.7%, MTS = 12.9%, NCTD = 44.0% NCTD = 10.8% # # #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%Region = 51.5% #%Region = 12.3 % 9704 5,750 5,719 770 13.4% 236 4.1% 17 0.3% 369 6.4% 18 0.3% 12 0.2% 193 3.4% 1,615 28.1% not Minority 283 4.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9705 3,652 3,425 549 15.0% 179 4.9% 11 0.3% 144 3.9% 12 0.3% 22 0.6% 158 4.3% 1,075 29.4% not Minority 126 3.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9706 6,996 7,004 710 10.1% 176 2.5% 24 0.3% 389 5.6% 18 0.3% 9 0.1% 202 2.9% 1,528 21.8% not Minority 575 8.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9801 4,894 4,971 633 12.9% 183 3.7% 13 0.3% 258 5.3% 16 0.3% 9 0.2% 152 3.1% 1,264 25.8% not Minority 201 4.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9802 6,101 6,352 1,051 17.2% 326 5.3% 23 0.4% 366 6.0% 43 0.7% 22 0.4% 253 4.1% 2,084 34.2% not Minority 506 8.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9804 4,773 4,661 672 14.1% 124 2.6% 19 0.4% 254 5.3% 13 0.3% 10 0.2% 147 3.1% 1,239 26.0% not Minority 208 4.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9805 4,715 5,077 601 12.7% 125 2.7% 12 0.3% 198 4.2% 21 0.4% 9 0.2% 145 3.1% 1,111 23.6% not Minority 335 6.6% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9901 625 37 87 13.9% 63 10.1% 5 0.8% 19 3.0% ‐ 0.0% 2 0.3% 11 1.8% 187 29.9% not Minority ‐ 0.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 9902 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% not Minority ‐ 0.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 10001 4,097 3,741 2,573 62.8% 140 3.4% 2 0.0% 721 17.6% 31 0.8% 6 0.1% 126 3.1% 3,599 87.8% Minority 172 4.6% not Low Income LIM MTS 10003 5,906 5,245 3,823 64.7% 207 3.5% 13 0.2% 973 16.5% 50 0.8% 5 0.1% 155 2.6% 5,226 88.5% Minority 519 9.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 10004 4,679 4,571 3,585 76.6% 122 2.6% 5 0.1% 489 10.5% 25 0.5% ‐ 0.0% 77 1.6% 4,303 92.0% Minority 198 4.3% not Low Income LIM MTS 10005 7,366 7,059 6,787 92.1% 70 1.0% 3 0.0% 238 3.2% 27 0.4% 3 0.0% 49 0.7% 7,177 97.4% Minority 1,979 28.0% Low Income LIM MTS 10009 6,693 6,031 6,092 91.0% 164 2.5% 2 0.0% 190 2.8% 1 0.0% 6 0.1% 34 0.5% 6,489 97.0% Minority 1,436 23.8% Low Income LIM MTS 10010 5,510 5,388 4,007 72.7% 105 1.9% 7 0.1% 603 10.9% 12 0.2% 2 0.0% 91 1.7% 4,827 87.6% Minority 1,116 20.7% Low Income LIM MTS 10011 3,633 3,497 2,219 61.1% 206 5.7% 4 0.1% 634 17.5% 27 0.7% 13 0.4% 126 3.5% 3,229 88.9% Minority 301 8.6% not Low Income LIM MTS 10012 4,581 4,533 4,345 94.8% 30 0.7% 5 0.1% 62 1.4% 6 0.1% 4 0.1% 19 0.4% 4,471 97.6% Minority 700 15.4% Low Income LIM MTS 10013 5,484 4,488 5,336 97.3% 19 0.3% 5 0.1% 19 0.3% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 10 0.2% 5,389 98.3% Minority 1,785 39.8% Low Income LIM MTS 10014 17,679 11,916 8,943 50.6% 2,097 11.9% 57 0.3% 3,071 17.4% 31 0.2% 188 1.1% 401 2.3% 14,788 83.6% Minority 477 4.0% not Low Income LIM MTS 10015 2,803 2,094 2,323 82.9% 66 2.4% 7 0.2% 217 7.7% 4 0.1% 5 0.2% 43 1.5% 2,665 95.1% Minority 479 22.9% Low Income LIM MTS 10103 5,515 5,816 4,155 75.3% 165 3.0% 11 0.2% 246 4.5% 5 0.1% 7 0.1% 90 1.6% 4,679 84.8% Minority 719 12.4% not Low Income LIM MTS 10104 3,217 3,258 1,510 46.9% 62 1.9% 16 0.5% 417 13.0% 16 0.5% 3 0.1% 132 4.1% 2,156 67.0% Minority 286 8.8% not Low Income LIM MTS 10106 5,200 4,985 4,518 86.9% 76 1.5% 4 0.1% 200 3.8% 3 0.1% 1 0.0% 50 1.0% 4,852 93.3% Minority 1,007 20.2% Low Income LIM MTS 10107 6,498 6,028 4,685 72.1% 176 2.7% 9 0.1% 682 10.5% 12 0.2% 2 0.0% 124 1.9% 5,690 87.6% Minority 454 7.5% not Low Income LIM MTS 10109 4,595 3,972 3,271 71.2% 168 3.7% 4 0.1% 630 13.7% 9 0.2% 12 0.3% 112 2.4% 4,206 91.5% Minority 929 23.4% Low Income LIM MTS 10110 7,298 7,234 4,635 63.5% 229 3.1% 4 0.1% 1,336 18.3% 29 0.4% 5 0.1% 191 2.6% 6,429 88.1% Minority 848 11.7% not Low Income LIM MTS 10111 3,072 3,292 2,779 90.5% 39 1.3% ‐ 0.0% 69 2.2% 5 0.2% 1 0.0% 28 0.9% 2,921 95.1% Minority 1,237 37.6% Low Income LIM MTS 10112 4,764 5,596 3,953 83.0% 220 4.6% 12 0.3% 182 3.8% 11 0.2% 1 0.0% 77 1.6% 4,456 93.5% Minority 1,476 26.4% Low Income LIM MTS 10200 6,800 6,988 2,293 33.7% 312 4.6% 43 0.6% 297 4.4% 41 0.6% 9 0.1% 226 3.3% 3,221 47.4% not Minority 1,700 24.3% Low Income LIM MTS 10300 4,507 4,292 2,115 46.9% 131 2.9% 20 0.4% 292 6.5% 28 0.6% 12 0.3% 191 4.2% 2,789 61.9% Minority 287 6.7% not Low Income LIM MTS 10401 2,476 2,716 1,548 62.5% 101 4.1% 11 0.4% 113 4.6% 8 0.3% 6 0.2% 72 2.9% 1,859 75.1% Minority 688 25.3% Low Income LIM MTS 10402 5,558 5,881 3,223 58.0% 254 4.6% 35 0.6% 563 10.1% 44 0.8% 7 0.1% 204 3.7% 4,330 77.9% Minority 1,398 23.8% Low Income LIM MTS 10501 1,433 1,405 460 32.1% 16 1.1% 9 0.6% 80 5.6% 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 54 3.8% 622 43.4% not Minority 337 24.0% Low Income LIM MTS 10502 5,550 4,882 3,254 58.6% 249 4.5% 18 0.3% 279 5.0% 33 0.6% 18 0.3% 165 3.0% 4,016 72.4% Minority 704 14.4% Low Income LIM MTS 10601 2,127 2,239 442 20.8% 26 1.2% 8 0.4% 65 3.1% ‐ 0.0% 1 0.0% 52 2.4% 594 27.9% not Minority 19 0.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 10800 2,390 2,293 205 8.6% 16 0.7% 16 0.7% 41 1.7% 3 0.1% 5 0.2% 69 2.9% 355 14.9% not Minority 264 11.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 10900 1,750 1,708 152 8.7% 9 0.5% 2 0.1% 25 1.4% 1 0.1% ‐ 0.0% 38 2.2% 227 13.0% not Minority 42 2.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 11000 2,799 2,622 308 11.0% 53 1.9% 8 0.3% 139 5.0% 8 0.3% 10 0.4% 73 2.6% 599 21.4% not Minority 290 11.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 11100 3,698 3,276 430 11.6% 32 0.9% 10 0.3% 95 2.6% 3 0.1% 6 0.2% 109 2.9% 685 18.5% not Minority 100 3.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 11300 6,520 34 1,131 17.3% 1,223 18.8% 78 1.2% 377 5.8% 45 0.7% 10 0.2% 233 3.6% 3,097 47.5% not Minority ‐ 0.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 11601 5,891 6,069 4,863 82.5% 127 2.2% 15 0.3% 527 8.9% 9 0.2% 3 0.1% 57 1.0% 5,601 95.1% Minority 2,106 34.7% Low Income LIM MTS 11602 3,228 3,444 2,532 78.4% 123 3.8% 8 0.2% 253 7.8% 5 0.2% 4 0.1% 32 1.0% 2,957 91.6% Minority 632 18.4% Low Income LIM MTS 11700 6,773 7,139 4,173 61.6% 164 2.4% 13 0.2% 1,720 25.4% 47 0.7% 8 0.1% 145 2.1% 6,270 92.6% Minority 2,134 29.9% Low Income LIM MTS 11801 3,961 3,915 3,061 77.3% 87 2.2% 7 0.2% 419 10.6% 22 0.6% ‐ 0.0% 40 1.0% 3,636 91.8% Minority 542 13.8% Low Income LIM MTS 11802 6,741 6,429 5,179 76.8% 302 4.5% 8 0.1% 810 12.0% 52 0.8% 7 0.1% 83 1.2% 6,441 95.5% Minority 1,472 22.9% Low Income LIM MTS 11902 5,246 5,142 2,932 55.9% 265 5.1% 10 0.2% 1,282 24.4% 75 1.4% ‐ 0.0% 136 2.6% 4,700 89.6% Minority 375 7.3% not Low Income LIM MTS 12002 3,285 4,025 1,180 35.9% 183 5.6% 3 0.1% 1,630 49.6% 19 0.6% 3 0.1% 78 2.4% 3,096 94.2% Minority 1,501 37.3% Low Income LIM MTS 12003 3,351 2,862 1,956 58.4% 101 3.0% 5 0.1% 827 24.7% 45 1.3% 1 0.0% 71 2.1% 3,006 89.7% Minority 191 6.7% not Low Income LIM MTS 12101 2,235 2,202 1,724 77.1% 36 1.6% 10 0.4% 132 5.9% 17 0.8% ‐ 0.0% 21 0.9% 1,940 86.8% Minority 360 16.3% Low Income LIM MTS 12102 3,279 2,932 2,478 75.6% 78 2.4% 13 0.4% 291 8.9% 8 0.2% 4 0.1% 41 1.3% 2,913 88.8% Minority 595 20.3% Low Income LIM MTS 12200 3,326 3,418 2,364 71.1% 71 2.1% 7 0.2% 290 8.7% 26 0.8% 2 0.1% 66 2.0% 2,826 85.0% Minority 1,216 35.6% Low Income LIM MTS 12302 1,917 1,260 1,328 69.3% 109 5.7% 2 0.1% 112 5.8% 10 0.5% 1 0.1% 56 2.9% 1,618 84.4% Minority 104 8.3% not Low Income LIM MTS 12303 3,431 2,832 1,555 45.3% 163 4.8% 8 0.2% 215 6.3% 19 0.6% 11 0.3% 73 2.1% 2,044 59.6% Minority 240 8.5% not Low Income LIM MTS 12304 3,434 2,819 1,818 52.9% 103 3.0% 19 0.6% 168 4.9% 6 0.2% 9 0.3% 94 2.7% 2,217 64.6% Minority 139 4.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 12401 3,676 2,990 2,467 67.1% 221 6.0% 14 0.4% 225 6.1% 7 0.2% 6 0.2% 76 2.1% 3,016 82.0% Minority 599 20.0% Low Income LIM MTS 12402 5,445 4,517 3,736 68.6% 255 4.7% 16 0.3% 230 4.2% 29 0.5% 9 0.2% 124 2.3% 4,399 80.8% Minority 554 12.3% not Low Income LIM MTS 12501 3,858 2,920 2,729 70.7% 200 5.2% 18 0.5% 281 7.3% 9 0.2% 1 0.0% 89 2.3% 3,327 86.2% Minority 760 26.0% Low Income LIM MTS 12502 4,466 3,974 3,516 78.7% 199 4.5% 14 0.3% 222 5.0% 9 0.2% 3 0.1% 73 1.6% 4,036 90.4% Minority 914 23.0% Low Income LIM MTS
D -5 Total Total Census Population ‐ Transit Population ‐ Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2 or more Races Minority Population Low Income LIM Tract 2006‐2010 Agency 2010 Census ACS
MTS = 54.7%, MTS = 12.9%, NCTD = 44.0% NCTD = 10.8% # # #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%Region = 51.5% #%Region = 12.3 % 12600 5,047 4,712 3,818 75.6% 134 2.7% 19 0.4% 176 3.5% 22 0.4% 10 0.2% 95 1.9% 4,274 84.7% Minority 1,036 22.0% Low Income LIM MTS 12700 4,624 4,452 3,196 69.1% 198 4.3% 16 0.3% 235 5.1% 15 0.3% 16 0.3% 71 1.5% 3,747 81.0% Minority 1,531 34.4% Low Income LIM MTS 12800 3,913 3,814 2,413 61.7% 85 2.2% 9 0.2% 167 4.3% 13 0.3% 15 0.4% 52 1.3% 2,754 70.4% Minority 663 17.4% Low Income LIM MTS 12900 3,374 3,147 1,884 55.8% 58 1.7% 9 0.3% 100 3.0% 9 0.3% 2 0.1% 65 1.9% 2,127 63.0% Minority 268 8.5% not Low Income LIM MTS 13000 5,903 5,817 4,028 68.2% 226 3.8% 41 0.7% 318 5.4% 19 0.3% 18 0.3% 94 1.6% 4,744 80.4% Minority 944 16.2% Low Income LIM MTS 13102 6,487 4,905 4,892 75.4% 279 4.3% 28 0.4% 205 3.2% 37 0.6% 10 0.2% 91 1.4% 5,542 85.4% Minority 499 10.2% not Low Income LIM MTS 13103 2,668 2,314 2,128 79.8% 62 2.3% 10 0.4% 84 3.1% 36 1.3% ‐ 0.0% 23 0.9% 2,343 87.8% Minority 654 28.3% Low Income LIM MTS 13104 5,893 5,883 4,312 73.2% 363 6.2% 18 0.3% 284 4.8% 28 0.5% 6 0.1% 139 2.4% 5,150 87.4% Minority 535 9.1% not Low Income LIM MTS 13203 6,464 5,863 5,145 79.6% 195 3.0% 9 0.1% 416 6.4% 32 0.5% 13 0.2% 79 1.2% 5,889 91.1% Minority 1,781 30.4% Low Income LIM MTS 13204 4,014 3,815 3,489 86.9% 59 1.5% 3 0.1% 122 3.0% 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 40 1.0% 3,721 92.7% Minority 507 13.3% Low Income LIM MTS 13205 2,381 1,854 2,041 85.7% 68 2.9% 2 0.1% 53 2.2% 1 0.0% 4 0.2% 20 0.8% 2,189 91.9% Minority 361 19.5% Low Income LIM MTS 13206 6,544 5,942 5,148 78.7% 149 2.3% 9 0.1% 254 3.9% 12 0.2% 6 0.1% 68 1.0% 5,646 86.3% Minority 1,699 28.6% Low Income LIM MTS 13301 5,180 5,061 3,246 62.7% 118 2.3% 10 0.2% 158 3.1% 56 1.1% 4 0.1% 142 2.7% 3,734 72.1% Minority 533 10.5% not Low Income LIM MTS 13302 4,933 5,154 3,395 68.8% 88 1.8% 19 0.4% 245 5.0% 34 0.7% 1 0.0% 87 1.8% 3,869 78.4% Minority 502 9.7% not Low Income LIM MTS 13303 4,909 4,709 3,694 75.2% 110 2.2% 23 0.5% 219 4.5% 43 0.9% 3 0.1% 72 1.5% 4,164 84.8% Minority 351 7.5% not Low Income LIM MTS 13306 4,773 4,639 3,278 68.7% 170 3.6% 18 0.4% 326 6.8% 40 0.8% 2 0.0% 96 2.0% 3,930 82.3% Minority 225 4.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 13307 3,966 3,659 2,829 71.3% 175 4.4% 3 0.1% 338 8.5% 23 0.6% 5 0.1% 73 1.8% 3,446 86.9% Minority 157 4.3% not Low Income LIM MTS 13308 3,731 3,887 3,061 82.0% 129 3.5% 4 0.1% 118 3.2% 17 0.5% 2 0.1% 50 1.3% 3,381 90.6% Minority 109 2.8% not Low Income LIM MTS 13309 7,005 6,883 3,966 56.6% 188 2.7% 13 0.2% 965 13.8% 32 0.5% 3 0.0% 247 3.5% 5,414 77.3% Minority 440 6.4% not Low Income LIM MTS 13310 28,960 26,980 12,860 44.4% 1,654 5.7% 53 0.2% 8,212 28.4% 158 0.5% 61 0.2% 1,068 3.7% 24,066 83.1% Minority 1,793 6.6% not Low Income LIM MTS 13311 10,117 9,863 4,655 46.0% 576 5.7% 18 0.2% 2,151 21.3% 34 0.3% ‐ 0.0% 384 3.8% 7,818 77.3% Minority 328 3.3% not Low Income LIM MTS 13312 2,853 2,754 1,992 69.8% 80 2.8% 6 0.2% 155 5.4% 15 0.5% 1 0.0% 101 3.5% 2,350 82.4% Minority 280 10.2% not Low Income LIM MTS 13313 9,464 7,738 3,810 40.3% 518 5.5% 13 0.1% 3,136 33.1% 65 0.7% 11 0.1% 389 4.1% 7,942 83.9% Minority 218 2.8% not Low Income LIM MTS 13314 14,837 13,539 6,661 44.9% 802 5.4% 35 0.2% 3,664 24.7% 55 0.4% 20 0.1% 616 4.2% 11,853 79.9% Minority 473 3.5% not Low Income LIM MTS 13401 4,203 4,112 2,189 52.1% 35 0.8% 12 0.3% 217 5.2% 6 0.1% 8 0.2% 98 2.3% 2,565 61.0% Minority 314 7.6% not Low Income LIM MTS 13409 5,380 5,417 2,731 50.8% 222 4.1% 32 0.6% 639 11.9% 16 0.3% 9 0.2% 143 2.7% 3,792 70.5% Minority 332 6.1% not Low Income LIM MTS 13410 7,073 7,492 2,900 41.0% 276 3.9% 17 0.2% 1,315 18.6% 41 0.6% 9 0.1% 283 4.0% 4,841 68.4% Minority 493 6.6% not Low Income LIM MTS 13411 4,999 5,137 2,031 40.6% 118 2.4% 8 0.2% 633 12.7% 27 0.5% 1 0.0% 141 2.8% 2,959 59.2% Minority 48 0.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 13412 5,086 4,840 2,488 48.9% 174 3.4% 3 0.1% 732 14.4% 16 0.3% 8 0.2% 126 2.5% 3,547 69.7% Minority 321 6.6% not Low Income LIM MTS 13414 7,227 6,300 3,677 50.9% 234 3.2% 13 0.2% 1,277 17.7% 34 0.5% 21 0.3% 234 3.2% 5,490 76.0% Minority 99 1.6% not Low Income LIM MTS 13415 1,567 1,487 779 49.7% 70 4.5% 3 0.2% 194 12.4% 4 0.3% 10 0.6% 36 2.3% 1,096 69.9% Minority 101 6.8% not Low Income LIM MTS 13416 3,780 3,985 1,486 39.3% 179 4.7% 13 0.3% 423 11.2% 14 0.4% 5 0.1% 135 3.6% 2,255 59.7% Minority 76 1.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 13417 2,087 2,433 917 43.9% 127 6.1% 5 0.2% 354 17.0% 13 0.6% ‐ 0.0% 82 3.9% 1,498 71.8% Minority 230 9.5% not Low Income LIM MTS 13418 5,998 6,195 3,279 54.7% 214 3.6% 6 0.1% 827 13.8% 30 0.5% 3 0.1% 153 2.6% 4,512 75.2% Minority 449 7.2% not Low Income LIM MTS 13419 7,268 7,835 3,346 46.0% 343 4.7% 11 0.2% 1,396 19.2% 9 0.1% 20 0.3% 241 3.3% 5,366 73.8% Minority 309 3.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 13420 3,471 3,296 1,760 50.7% 197 5.7% 6 0.2% 694 20.0% 17 0.5% 5 0.1% 124 3.6% 2,803 80.8% Minority ‐ 0.0% not Low Income LIM MTS 13421 4,695 4,769 2,353 50.1% 175 3.7% 7 0.1% 1,115 23.7% 27 0.6% 5 0.1% 118 2.5% 3,800 80.9% Minority 312 6.5% not Low Income LIM MTS 13503 5,776 5,102 1,776 30.7% 685 11.9% 26 0.5% 235 4.1% 56 1.0% 6 0.1% 270 4.7% 3,054 52.9% not Minority 363 7.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 13504 3,471 3,611 788 22.7% 414 11.9% 7 0.2% 403 11.6% 14 0.4% 13 0.4% 138 4.0% 1,777 51.2% not Minority 329 9.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 13505 4,725 4,643 1,132 24.0% 520 11.0% 24 0.5% 191 4.0% 25 0.5% 21 0.4% 205 4.3% 2,118 44.8% not Minority 284 6.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 13506 3,509 3,378 1,213 34.6% 222 6.3% 12 0.3% 219 6.2% 17 0.5% 7 0.2% 121 3.4% 1,811 51.6% not Minority 321 9.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 13601 5,053 5,221 1,051 20.8% 375 7.4% 18 0.4% 177 3.5% 17 0.3% 13 0.3% 211 4.2% 1,862 36.8% not Minority 350 6.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 13604 6,147 6,132 957 15.6% 335 5.4% 15 0.2% 251 4.1% 16 0.3% 8 0.1% 250 4.1% 1,832 29.8% not Minority 190 3.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 13605 5,622 5,572 796 14.2% 148 2.6% 26 0.5% 204 3.6% 10 0.2% 15 0.3% 160 2.8% 1,359 24.2% not Minority 72 1.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 13606 6,386 5,679 1,068 16.7% 391 6.1% 14 0.2% 371 5.8% 15 0.2% 14 0.2% 324 5.1% 2,197 34.4% not Minority 213 3.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 13701 2,352 2,606 374 15.9% 84 3.6% 5 0.2% 98 4.2% 14 0.6% 4 0.2% 66 2.8% 645 27.4% not Minority 84 3.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 13702 5,357 4,864 2,150 40.1% 726 13.6% 19 0.4% 286 5.3% 47 0.9% 12 0.2% 200 3.7% 3,440 64.2% Minority 708 14.6% Low Income LIM MTS 13801 4,771 4,486 1,522 31.9% 452 9.5% 16 0.3% 175 3.7% 70 1.5% 7 0.1% 201 4.2% 2,443 51.2% not Minority 400 8.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 13802 2,957 2,952 1,432 48.4% 374 12.6% 12 0.4% 178 6.0% 22 0.7% 11 0.4% 104 3.5% 2,133 72.1% Minority 395 13.4% Low Income LIM MTS 13903 4,116 4,077 1,610 39.1% 399 9.7% 16 0.4% 508 12.3% 38 0.9% 1 0.0% 160 3.9% 2,732 66.4% Minority 303 7.4% not Low Income LIM MTS 13905 3,676 3,539 1,169 31.8% 566 15.4% 3 0.1% 293 8.0% 27 0.7% 6 0.2% 173 4.7% 2,237 60.9% Minority 395 11.2% not Low Income LIM MTS 13906 4,701 4,720 1,951 41.5% 678 14.4% 8 0.2% 258 5.5% 105 2.2% 5 0.1% 226 4.8% 3,231 68.7% Minority 328 6.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 13907 4,185 4,085 2,539 60.7% 549 13.1% 11 0.3% 250 6.0% 20 0.5% 8 0.2% 146 3.5% 3,523 84.2% Minority 1,748 42.8% Low Income LIM MTS 13908 3,708 3,420 2,106 56.8% 413 11.1% 11 0.3% 246 6.6% 41 1.1% 5 0.1% 110 3.0% 2,932 79.1% Minority 433 12.7% not Low Income LIM MTS 13909 4,489 5,081 2,418 53.9% 417 9.3% 22 0.5% 351 7.8% 39 0.9% 3 0.1% 167 3.7% 3,417 76.1% Minority 581 11.4% not Low Income LIM MTS 14001 4,630 4,635 1,828 39.5% 386 8.3% 24 0.5% 305 6.6% 32 0.7% 9 0.2% 159 3.4% 2,743 59.2% Minority 596 12.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 14002 4,488 4,442 1,789 39.9% 564 12.6% 22 0.5% 410 9.1% 31 0.7% 9 0.2% 187 4.2% 3,012 67.1% Minority 415 9.3% not Low Income LIM MTS 14101 3,507 4,070 1,630 46.5% 272 7.8% 15 0.4% 108 3.1% 24 0.7% ‐ 0.0% 113 3.2% 2,162 61.6% Minority 302 7.4% not Low Income LIM MTS
D -6 Total Total Census Population ‐ Transit Population ‐ Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2 or more Races Minority Population Low Income LIM Tract 2006‐2010 Agency 2010 Census ACS
MTS = 54.7%, MTS = 12.9%, NCTD = 44.0% NCTD = 10.8% # # #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%Region = 51.5% #%Region = 12.3 % 14102 3,768 3,908 1,477 39.2% 1,174 31.2% 5 0.1% 406 10.8% 46 1.2% 8 0.2% 161 4.3% 3,277 87.0% Minority 547 14.0% Low Income LIM MTS 14200 6,277 5,843 2,695 42.9% 654 10.4% 21 0.3% 400 6.4% 70 1.1% 14 0.2% 204 3.2% 4,058 64.6% Minority 897 15.4% Low Income LIM MTS 14300 3,618 3,616 1,612 44.6% 414 11.4% 17 0.5% 175 4.8% 40 1.1% 2 0.1% 136 3.8% 2,396 66.2% Minority 715 19.8% Low Income LIM MTS 14400 3,523 3,239 1,476 41.9% 934 26.5% 14 0.4% 118 3.3% 31 0.9% 4 0.1% 119 3.4% 2,696 76.5% Minority 1,071 33.1% Low Income LIM MTS 14500 3,749 3,865 1,163 31.0% 444 11.8% 28 0.7% 303 8.1% 31 0.8% 3 0.1% 132 3.5% 2,104 56.1% Minority 420 10.9% not Low Income LIM MTS 14601 4,795 4,517 1,266 26.4% 521 10.9% 22 0.5% 221 4.6% 20 0.4% 7 0.1% 199 4.2% 2,256 47.0% not Minority 507 11.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 14602 4,729 4,422 898 19.0% 417 8.8% 23 0.5% 406 8.6% 21 0.4% 11 0.2% 191 4.0% 1,967 41.6% not Minority 376 8.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 14700 7,600 7,332 1,547 20.4% 440 5.8% 35 0.5% 466 6.1% 34 0.4% 37 0.5% 300 3.9% 2,859 37.6% not Minority 1,026 14.0% Low Income LIM MTS 14803 4,690 4,786 766 16.3% 275 5.9% 14 0.3% 328 7.0% 21 0.4% 17 0.4% 186 4.0% 1,607 34.3% not Minority 540 11.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 14804 4,351 4,248 597 13.7% 205 4.7% 24 0.6% 172 4.0% 10 0.2% 16 0.4% 131 3.0% 1,155 26.5% not Minority 387 9.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 14805 4,328 3,909 850 19.6% 349 8.1% 14 0.3% 254 5.9% 15 0.3% 9 0.2% 133 3.1% 1,624 37.5% not Minority 499 12.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 14806 2,577 2,387 674 26.2% 361 14.0% 16 0.6% 151 5.9% 17 0.7% 7 0.3% 103 4.0% 1,329 51.6% not Minority 717 30.0% Low Income LIM MTS 14901 4,243 4,103 772 18.2% 357 8.4% 23 0.5% 134 3.2% 54 1.3% 15 0.4% 200 4.7% 1,555 36.6% not Minority 132 3.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 14902 3,186 3,279 705 22.1% 116 3.6% 14 0.4% 107 3.4% 9 0.3% 9 0.3% 115 3.6% 1,075 33.7% not Minority 273 8.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 15000 6,193 5,839 1,339 21.6% 394 6.4% 17 0.3% 348 5.6% 23 0.4% 14 0.2% 241 3.9% 2,376 38.4% not Minority 1,260 21.6% Low Income LIM MTS 15100 4,769 4,704 827 17.3% 177 3.7% 14 0.3% 199 4.2% 16 0.3% 9 0.2% 166 3.5% 1,408 29.5% not Minority 318 6.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 15200 3,879 3,800 449 11.6% 86 2.2% 12 0.3% 96 2.5% 4 0.1% 7 0.2% 81 2.1% 735 18.9% not Minority 33 0.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 15301 3,179 3,407 970 30.5% 135 4.2% 22 0.7% 144 4.5% 57 1.8% 10 0.3% 128 4.0% 1,466 46.1% not Minority 1,149 33.7% Low Income LIM MTS 15302 4,075 3,835 663 16.3% 107 2.6% 11 0.3% 168 4.1% 5 0.1% 8 0.2% 141 3.5% 1,103 27.1% not Minority 343 8.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 15403 2,508 2,377 226 9.0% 30 1.2% 7 0.3% 77 3.1% 11 0.4% 2 0.1% 81 3.2% 434 17.3% not Minority 153 6.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 15404 7,626 7,417 1,431 18.8% 292 3.8% 31 0.4% 146 1.9% 14 0.2% 12 0.2% 452 5.9% 2,378 31.2% not Minority 1,282 17.3% Low Income LIM MTS 15405 5,765 5,914 882 15.3% 83 1.4% 19 0.3% 147 2.5% 8 0.1% 7 0.1% 177 3.1% 1,323 22.9% not Minority 429 7.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 15406 2,492 2,619 265 10.6% 31 1.2% 14 0.6% 59 2.4% 7 0.3% 5 0.2% 74 3.0% 455 18.3% not Minority 41 1.6% not Low Income not LIM MTS 15501 4,955 4,945 796 16.1% 45 0.9% 41 0.8% 80 1.6% 8 0.2% 2 0.0% 110 2.2% 1,082 21.8% not Minority 175 3.5% not Low Income not LIM MTS 15502 2,748 2,433 443 16.1% 19 0.7% 108 3.9% 53 1.9% 3 0.1% 1 0.0% 79 2.9% 706 25.7% not Minority 144 5.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 15601 5,937 5,865 1,525 25.7% 223 3.8% 30 0.5% 122 2.1% 15 0.3% 13 0.2% 225 3.8% 2,153 36.3% not Minority 804 13.7% Low Income LIM MTS 15602 2,536 2,541 361 14.2% 35 1.4% 21 0.8% 48 1.9% 8 0.3% 6 0.2% 84 3.3% 563 22.2% not Minority 54 2.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 15701 6,239 5,622 2,156 34.6% 629 10.1% 30 0.5% 218 3.5% 21 0.3% 41 0.7% 354 5.7% 3,449 55.3% Minority 1,847 32.9% Low Income LIM MTS 15703 7,102 6,815 2,056 28.9% 460 6.5% 17 0.2% 251 3.5% 27 0.4% 30 0.4% 419 5.9% 3,260 45.9% not Minority 2,510 36.8% Low Income LIM MTS 15704 4,024 4,093 1,279 31.8% 257 6.4% 16 0.4% 129 3.2% 8 0.2% 9 0.2% 158 3.9% 1,856 46.1% not Minority 634 15.5% Low Income LIM MTS 15801 3,550 3,520 1,326 37.4% 406 11.4% 28 0.8% 83 2.3% 18 0.5% 8 0.2% 203 5.7% 2,072 58.4% Minority 1,170 33.2% Low Income LIM MTS 15802 4,673 4,819 1,494 32.0% 307 6.6% 34 0.7% 141 3.0% 29 0.6% 12 0.3% 234 5.0% 2,251 48.2% not Minority 1,170 24.3% Low Income LIM MTS 15901 3,450 3,536 1,683 48.8% 341 9.9% 7 0.2% 148 4.3% 10 0.3% 3 0.1% 183 5.3% 2,375 68.8% Minority 1,361 38.5% Low Income LIM MTS 15902 5,220 4,879 1,837 35.2% 360 6.9% 21 0.4% 133 2.5% 20 0.4% 14 0.3% 206 3.9% 2,591 49.6% not Minority 1,551 31.8% Low Income LIM MTS 16000 2,419 2,710 602 24.9% 86 3.6% 5 0.2% 97 4.0% 2 0.1% 3 0.1% 112 4.6% 907 37.5% not Minority 426 15.7% Low Income LIM MTS 16100 5,788 5,958 1,081 18.7% 178 3.1% 38 0.7% 184 3.2% 20 0.3% 12 0.2% 189 3.3% 1,702 29.4% not Minority 323 5.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16201 5,843 6,245 753 12.9% 100 1.7% 11 0.2% 202 3.5% 37 0.6% 14 0.2% 171 2.9% 1,288 22.0% not Minority 383 6.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16202 3,337 2,937 1,117 33.5% 438 13.1% 20 0.6% 163 4.9% 36 1.1% 7 0.2% 139 4.2% 1,920 57.5% Minority 206 7.0% not Low Income LIM MTS 16301 4,919 4,912 1,801 36.6% 488 9.9% 28 0.6% 203 4.1% 17 0.3% 15 0.3% 207 4.2% 2,759 56.1% Minority 1,053 21.4% Low Income LIM MTS 16302 5,444 4,548 2,238 41.1% 391 7.2% 14 0.3% 177 3.3% 40 0.7% 34 0.6% 255 4.7% 3,149 57.8% Minority 1,482 32.6% Low Income LIM MTS 16401 4,996 5,084 958 19.2% 164 3.3% 13 0.3% 140 2.8% 22 0.4% 8 0.2% 168 3.4% 1,473 29.5% not Minority 362 7.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16402 7,452 6,774 1,924 25.8% 378 5.1% 55 0.7% 243 3.3% 24 0.3% 3 0.0% 299 4.0% 2,926 39.3% not Minority 1,705 25.2% Low Income LIM MTS 16502 6,915 6,226 1,987 28.7% 352 5.1% 28 0.4% 181 2.6% 43 0.6% 6 0.1% 376 5.4% 2,973 43.0% not Minority 1,218 19.6% Low Income LIM MTS 16503 2,784 2,813 599 21.5% 154 5.5% 13 0.5% 88 3.2% 6 0.2% 6 0.2% 125 4.5% 991 35.6% not Minority 288 10.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16504 6,253 6,151 1,934 30.9% 573 9.2% 21 0.3% 213 3.4% 33 0.5% 11 0.2% 264 4.2% 3,049 48.8% not Minority 1,290 21.0% Low Income LIM MTS 16605 7,339 7,235 1,211 16.5% 148 2.0% 44 0.6% 279 3.8% 35 0.5% 10 0.1% 218 3.0% 1,945 26.5% not Minority 463 6.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16606 3,388 3,191 554 16.4% 21 0.6% 15 0.4% 174 5.1% 20 0.6% 12 0.4% 130 3.8% 926 27.3% not Minority 245 7.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16607 6,365 6,579 967 15.2% 52 0.8% 20 0.3% 225 3.5% 31 0.5% 4 0.1% 227 3.6% 1,526 24.0% not Minority 410 6.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16608 2,526 2,503 328 13.0% 23 0.9% 22 0.9% 71 2.8% 4 0.2% 2 0.1% 80 3.2% 530 21.0% not Minority 93 3.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16609 5,227 4,989 745 14.3% 63 1.2% 32 0.6% 102 2.0% 20 0.4% 7 0.1% 192 3.7% 1,161 22.2% not Minority 342 6.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16610 4,163 3,938 627 15.1% 48 1.2% 17 0.4% 142 3.4% 11 0.3% ‐ 0.0% 171 4.1% 1,016 24.4% not Minority 30 0.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16612 6,143 5,515 856 13.9% 77 1.3% 50 0.8% 181 2.9% 21 0.3% 10 0.2% 225 3.7% 1,420 23.1% not Minority 219 4.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16613 1,860 1,783 288 15.5% 12 0.6% 8 0.4% 57 3.1% 14 0.8% 2 0.1% 41 2.2% 422 22.7% not Minority 71 4.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16614 3,912 3,808 639 16.3% 46 1.2% 11 0.3% 165 4.2% 23 0.6% 5 0.1% 129 3.3% 1,018 26.0% not Minority 320 8.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16615 3,059 1,978 609 19.9% 206 6.7% 26 0.8% 159 5.2% 18 0.6% 6 0.2% 90 2.9% 1,114 36.4% not Minority 102 5.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16616 4,067 3,911 719 17.7% 98 2.4% 22 0.5% 195 4.8% 16 0.4% 5 0.1% 142 3.5% 1,197 29.4% not Minority 445 11.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16617 3,102 2,748 591 19.1% 70 2.3% 22 0.7% 114 3.7% 5 0.2% 9 0.3% 88 2.8% 899 29.0% not Minority 137 5.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16701 8,666 8,517 1,543 17.8% 214 2.5% 43 0.5% 251 2.9% 35 0.4% 14 0.2% 326 3.8% 2,426 28.0% not Minority 611 7.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS
D -7 Total Total Census Population ‐ Transit Population ‐ Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2 or more Races Minority Population Low Income LIM Tract 2006‐2010 Agency 2010 Census ACS
MTS = 54.7%, MTS = 12.9%, NCTD = 44.0% NCTD = 10.8% # # #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%Region = 51.5% #%Region = 12.3 % 16702 6,944 7,107 1,494 21.5% 100 1.4% 79 1.1% 94 1.4% 17 0.2% ‐ 0.0% 241 3.5% 2,025 29.2% not Minority 354 5.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16802 6,942 7,242 859 12.4% 61 0.9% 42 0.6% 107 1.5% 8 0.1% 10 0.1% 137 2.0% 1,224 17.6% not Minority 357 4.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16804 7,292 7,195 1,702 23.3% 83 1.1% 50 0.7% 83 1.1% 22 0.3% 4 0.1% 265 3.6% 2,209 30.3% not Minority 1,152 16.0% Low Income LIM MTS 16806 4,081 3,758 905 22.2% 113 2.8% 31 0.8% 56 1.4% 42 1.0% ‐ 0.0% 160 3.9% 1,307 32.0% not Minority 569 15.1% Low Income LIM MTS 16807 7,135 7,158 1,325 18.6% 117 1.6% 34 0.5% 105 1.5% 18 0.3% 4 0.1% 163 2.3% 1,766 24.8% not Minority 382 5.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16809 5,486 5,357 1,072 19.5% 100 1.8% 51 0.9% 146 2.7% 6 0.1% 6 0.1% 165 3.0% 1,546 28.2% not Minority 201 3.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16810 2,792 2,957 381 13.6% 17 0.6% 13 0.5% 52 1.9% 5 0.2% 3 0.1% 71 2.5% 542 19.4% not Minority 195 6.6% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16811 4,374 3,927 606 13.9% 36 0.8% 24 0.5% 78 1.8% 11 0.3% ‐ 0.0% 104 2.4% 859 19.6% not Minority 102 2.6% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16901 6,909 7,534 972 14.1% 186 2.7% 49 0.7% 124 1.8% 13 0.2% 7 0.1% 175 2.5% 1,526 22.1% not Minority 242 3.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 16902 2,341 2,328 363 15.5% 22 0.9% 495 21.1% 27 1.2% 9 0.4% 2 0.1% 49 2.1% 967 41.3% not Minority 141 6.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17006 2,876 2,842 215 7.5% 25 0.9% 11 0.4% 205 7.1% 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 66 2.3% 526 18.3% not Minority 35 1.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17009 4,024 3,809 815 20.3% 54 1.3% 15 0.4% 303 7.5% 17 0.4% 9 0.2% 124 3.1% 1,337 33.2% not Minority 313 8.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17010 3,152 2,958 473 15.0% 30 1.0% 13 0.4% 243 7.7% 10 0.3% 6 0.2% 84 2.7% 859 27.3% not Minority 39 1.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17014 2,416 2,365 112 4.6% 27 1.1% 6 0.2% 123 5.1% 4 0.2% 1 0.0% 19 0.8% 292 12.1% not Minority 198 8.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17015 7,295 7,263 712 9.8% 198 2.7% 10 0.1% 1,065 14.6% 13 0.2% 8 0.1% 280 3.8% 2,286 31.3% not Minority 236 3.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17018 3,834 3,984 517 13.5% 148 3.9% 9 0.2% 1,293 33.7% 12 0.3% 8 0.2% 200 5.2% 2,187 57.0% Minority 438 11.0% not Low Income LIM MTS 17019 5,883 5,949 315 5.4% 73 1.2% 16 0.3% 292 5.0% 6 0.1% 6 0.1% 122 2.1% 830 14.1% not Minority 57 1.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17020 3,694 3,588 298 8.1% 35 0.9% 6 0.2% 184 5.0% 6 0.2% 1 0.0% 85 2.3% 615 16.6% not Minority 108 3.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17021 3,177 2,927 229 7.2% 24 0.8% 11 0.3% 207 6.5% 2 0.1% 4 0.1% 66 2.1% 543 17.1% not Minority 54 1.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17022 5,316 5,226 559 10.5% 165 3.1% 7 0.1% 450 8.5% 10 0.2% 19 0.4% 199 3.7% 1,409 26.5% not Minority 202 3.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17031 3,853 3,831 551 14.3% 128 3.3% 18 0.5% 522 13.5% 16 0.4% 7 0.2% 143 3.7% 1,385 35.9% not Minority 167 4.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17033 4,689 4,909 403 8.6% 122 2.6% 6 0.1% 1,294 27.6% 21 0.4% 13 0.3% 239 5.1% 2,098 44.7% not Minority 290 5.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17034 4,752 4,546 617 13.0% 146 3.1% 18 0.4% 874 18.4% 15 0.3% 16 0.3% 215 4.5% 1,901 40.0% not Minority 125 2.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17035 2,354 2,755 360 15.3% 100 4.2% 3 0.1% 583 24.8% 4 0.2% 8 0.3% 170 7.2% 1,228 52.2% not Minority 745 27.0% Low Income LIM MTS 17036 3,276 3,661 365 11.1% 105 3.2% 13 0.4% 729 22.3% 18 0.5% 13 0.4% 194 5.9% 1,437 43.9% not Minority 434 11.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17037 5,880 6,300 647 11.0% 133 2.3% 8 0.1% 1,603 27.3% 16 0.3% 18 0.3% 288 4.9% 2,713 46.1% not Minority 296 4.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17039 6,921 7,096 627 9.1% 120 1.7% 6 0.1% 2,074 30.0% 6 0.1% 14 0.2% 272 3.9% 3,119 45.1% not Minority 122 1.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17040 4,363 4,141 779 17.9% 80 1.8% 18 0.4% 587 13.5% 9 0.2% 7 0.2% 160 3.7% 1,640 37.6% not Minority 192 4.6% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17041 6,147 6,554 1,229 20.0% 99 1.6% 14 0.2% 619 10.1% 22 0.4% 11 0.2% 184 3.0% 2,178 35.4% not Minority 253 3.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17042 7,869 8,146 647 8.2% 169 2.1% 13 0.2% 2,557 32.5% 16 0.2% 12 0.2% 367 4.7% 3,781 48.0% not Minority 262 3.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17043 5,535 5,486 539 9.7% 178 3.2% 13 0.2% 1,837 33.2% 9 0.2% 20 0.4% 282 5.1% 2,878 52.0% not Minority 119 2.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17044 5,570 5,836 401 7.2% 88 1.6% 16 0.3% 1,679 30.1% 4 0.1% 18 0.3% 245 4.4% 2,451 44.0% not Minority 107 1.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17045 2,790 2,724 185 6.6% 52 1.9% 18 0.6% 720 25.8% 4 0.1% 5 0.2% 118 4.2% 1,102 39.5% not Minority 29 1.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17046 3,678 3,901 302 8.2% 41 1.1% 1 0.0% 740 20.1% 9 0.2% 3 0.1% 108 2.9% 1,204 32.7% not Minority 144 3.7% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17047 4,021 4,075 371 9.2% 55 1.4% 9 0.2% 424 10.5% 8 0.2% 15 0.4% 132 3.3% 1,014 25.2% not Minority 91 2.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17048 6,123 5,962 1,728 28.2% 163 2.7% 23 0.4% 868 14.2% 7 0.1% 14 0.2% 211 3.4% 3,014 49.2% not Minority 240 4.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17049 2,919 3,267 559 19.2% 54 1.8% 8 0.3% 318 10.9% 6 0.2% 10 0.3% 118 4.0% 1,073 36.8% not Minority 576 17.6% Low Income LIM MTS 17050 3,068 2,787 667 21.7% 38 1.2% 13 0.4% 423 13.8% 3 0.1% 4 0.1% 93 3.0% 1,241 40.4% not Minority 61 2.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17051 4,301 4,114 393 9.1% 138 3.2% 6 0.1% 753 17.5% 6 0.1% 9 0.2% 106 2.5% 1,411 32.8% not Minority 158 3.8% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17052 4,796 4,651 444 9.3% 86 1.8% 9 0.2% 1,305 27.2% 15 0.3% 8 0.2% 164 3.4% 2,031 42.3% not Minority 145 3.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17053 3,364 3,155 172 5.1% 37 1.1% 8 0.2% 204 6.1% 6 0.2% ‐ 0.0% 96 2.9% 523 15.5% not Minority ‐ 0.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17054 5,810 5,754 510 8.8% 89 1.5% 9 0.2% 532 9.2% 13 0.2% 11 0.2% 206 3.5% 1,370 23.6% not Minority 119 2.1% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17055 5,086 5,334 459 9.0% 163 3.2% 12 0.2% 1,349 26.5% 24 0.5% 15 0.3% 267 5.2% 2,289 45.0% not Minority 63 1.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 17056 4,541 3,943 403 8.9% 105 2.3% 15 0.3% 1,184 26.1% 11 0.2% 9 0.2% 169 3.7% 1,896 41.8% not Minority 274 6.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 20710 1,749 1,639 252 14.4% 18 1.0% 13 0.7% 129 7.4% 7 0.4% 9 0.5% 22 1.3% 450 25.7% not Minority 99 6.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 20902 2,122 1,310 217 10.2% 32 1.5% 5 0.2% 24 1.1% 1 0.0% 7 0.3% 40 1.9% 326 15.4% not Minority 165 12.6% not Low Income not LIM MTS 20903 3,192 2,443 467 14.6% 42 1.3% 498 15.6% 50 1.6% 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 77 2.4% 1,138 35.7% not Minority 243 9.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 20904 3,075 2,695 381 12.4% 11 0.4% 38 1.2% 26 0.8% 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 49 1.6% 509 16.6% not Minority 193 7.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 21000 4,440 2,988 1,528 34.4% 16 0.4% 39 0.9% 20 0.5% 2 0.0% 1 0.0% 31 0.7% 1,637 36.9% not Minority 370 12.4% not Low Income not LIM MTS 21100 8,689 6,768 3,072 35.4% 541 6.2% 126 1.5% 180 2.1% 32 0.4% 37 0.4% 250 2.9% 4,238 48.8% not Minority 1,494 22.1% Low Income LIM MTS 21202 3,156 2,622 553 17.5% 38 1.2% 288 9.1% 39 1.2% 15 0.5% 5 0.2% 73 2.3% 1,011 32.0% not Minority 323 12.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 21204 5,239 4,668 592 11.3% 43 0.8% 44 0.8% 92 1.8% 12 0.2% ‐ 0.0% 92 1.8% 875 16.7% not Minority 184 3.9% not Low Income not LIM MTS 21205 6,801 6,213 1,205 17.7% 95 1.4% 96 1.4% 157 2.3% 20 0.3% 4 0.1% 172 2.5% 1,749 25.7% not Minority 509 8.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 21206 2,995 3,079 418 14.0% 21 0.7% 45 1.5% 54 1.8% 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 54 1.8% 600 20.0% not Minority 191 6.2% not Low Income not LIM MTS 21302 6,261 4,483 2,141 34.2% 291 4.6% 215 3.4% 67 1.1% 7 0.1% 6 0.1% 41 0.7% 2,768 44.2% not Minority 669 14.9% Low Income LIM MTS 21303 8,981 7,836 2,597 28.9% 211 2.3% 29 0.3% 1,003 11.2% 11 0.1% 9 0.1% 253 2.8% 4,113 45.8% not Minority 315 4.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 21304 2,616 2,367 654 25.0% 43 1.6% 7 0.3% 32 1.2% 3 0.1% 8 0.3% 58 2.2% 805 30.8% not Minority 78 3.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 21400 7,225 5,979 1,221 16.9% 356 4.9% 29 0.4% 366 5.1% 33 0.5% 29 0.4% 275 3.8% 2,309 32.0% not Minority 656 11.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS
D -8 Total Total Census Population ‐ Transit Population ‐ Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2 or more Races Minority Population Low Income LIM Tract 2006‐2010 Agency 2010 Census ACS
MTS = 54.7%, MTS = 12.9%, NCTD = 44.0% NCTD = 10.8% # # #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%Region = 51.5% #%Region = 12.3 % 21500 8,850 8,656 761 8.6% 50 0.6% 7 0.1% 2,054 23.2% 5 0.1% 18 0.2% 327 3.7% 3,222 36.4% not Minority 173 2.0% not Low Income not LIM MTS 21600 3,391 1,652 535 15.8% 160 4.7% 21 0.6% 92 2.7% 27 0.8% 5 0.1% 127 3.7% 967 28.5% not Minority 137 8.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 21800 2,022 1,918 151 7.5% 8 0.4% 8 0.4% 50 2.5% 6 0.3% 1 0.0% 35 1.7% 259 12.8% not Minority 101 5.3% not Low Income not LIM MTS 21900 6,816 1,992 2,507 36.8% 883 13.0% 57 0.8% 558 8.2% 36 0.5% 10 0.1% 215 3.2% 4,266 62.6% Minority 461 23.1% Low Income LIM MTS 22000 4,186 4,369 2,186 52.2% 139 3.3% 9 0.2% 1,381 33.0% 59 1.4% 3 0.1% 96 2.3% 3,873 92.5% Minority 938 21.5% Low Income LIM MTS
17029 8,823 7,068 618 7.0% 97 1.1% 14 0.2% 1,037 11.8% 9 0.1% 29 0.3% 307 3.5% 2,111 23.9% not Minority 366 5.2% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17030 17,064 14,727 1,497 8.8% 388 2.3% 26 0.2% 4,977 29.2% 17 0.1% 48 0.3% 811 4.8% 7,764 45.5% Minority 838 5.7% not Low Income LIM NCTD 17032 13,593 13,144 1,263 9.3% 305 2.2% 18 0.1% 4,204 30.9% 47 0.3% 31 0.2% 627 4.6% 6,495 47.8% Minority 334 2.5% not Low Income LIM NCTD 17104 3,907 3,759 447 11.4% 18 0.5% 6 0.2% 168 4.3% 3 0.1% 15 0.4% 97 2.5% 754 19.3% not Minority 307 8.2% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17106 4,973 4,315 321 6.5% 17 0.3% 1 0.0% 158 3.2% 4 0.1% 14 0.3% 86 1.7% 601 12.1% not Minority 268 6.2% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17107 2,871 2,673 207 7.2% 9 0.3% 1 0.0% 171 6.0% ‐ 0.0% 1 0.0% 97 3.4% 486 16.9% not Minority 255 9.5% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17108 4,658 4,429 567 12.2% 18 0.4% 11 0.2% 210 4.5% 8 0.2% 17 0.4% 149 3.2% 980 21.0% not Minority 27 0.6% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17109 6,650 6,531 638 9.6% 37 0.6% 9 0.1% 454 6.8% ‐ 0.0% 12 0.2% 270 4.1% 1,420 21.4% not Minority 832 12.7% Low Income LIM NCTD 17110 10,622 9,552 1,555 14.6% 144 1.4% 27 0.3% 743 7.0% 14 0.1% 25 0.2% 390 3.7% 2,898 27.3% not Minority 1,003 10.5% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17200 4,161 4,041 175 4.2% 9 0.2% 2 0.0% 115 2.8% 1 0.0% 11 0.3% 76 1.8% 389 9.3% not Minority 148 3.7% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17303 3,018 3,451 283 9.4% 10 0.3% 6 0.2% 85 2.8% 5 0.2% 6 0.2% 66 2.2% 461 15.3% not Minority 427 12.4% Low Income LIM NCTD 17304 5,508 5,067 1,501 27.3% 20 0.4% 13 0.2% 177 3.2% 11 0.2% 14 0.3% 91 1.7% 1,827 33.2% not Minority 405 8.0% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17305 2,969 2,858 172 5.8% 13 0.4% 9 0.3% 157 5.3% 3 0.1% 4 0.1% 69 2.3% 427 14.4% not Minority 77 2.7% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17306 2,818 2,809 154 5.5% 22 0.8% 1 0.0% 165 5.9% 2 0.1% 6 0.2% 53 1.9% 403 14.3% not Minority 79 2.8% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17401 5,355 5,618 375 7.0% 21 0.4% 26 0.5% 159 3.0% 6 0.1% 19 0.4% 149 2.8% 755 14.1% not Minority 688 12.2% Low Income LIM NCTD 17403 4,922 4,918 519 10.5% 17 0.3% 8 0.2% 179 3.6% 5 0.1% 25 0.5% 106 2.2% 859 17.5% not Minority 306 6.2% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17404 6,338 6,309 1,045 16.5% 29 0.5% 25 0.4% 204 3.2% 12 0.2% 14 0.2% 141 2.2% 1,470 23.2% not Minority 314 5.0% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17501 3,571 2,573 835 23.4% 18 0.5% 13 0.4% 150 4.2% 13 0.4% 28 0.8% 107 3.0% 1,164 32.6% not Minority 314 12.2% Low Income LIM NCTD 17502 2,839 3,773 656 23.1% 20 0.7% 6 0.2% 37 1.3% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 21 0.7% 740 26.1% not Minority 232 6.1% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17601 4,941 4,608 322 6.5% 35 0.7% 5 0.1% 171 3.5% 8 0.2% 14 0.3% 96 1.9% 651 13.2% not Minority 274 5.9% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17603 2,476 2,125 548 22.1% 12 0.5% 7 0.3% 58 2.3% 2 0.1% 8 0.3% 56 2.3% 691 27.9% not Minority 232 10.9% Low Income LIM NCTD 17604 7,040 6,466 1,150 16.3% 63 0.9% 15 0.2% 468 6.6% 10 0.1% 17 0.2% 151 2.1% 1,874 26.6% not Minority 588 9.1% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17701 5,275 4,971 937 17.8% 30 0.6% 15 0.3% 137 2.6% 11 0.2% 11 0.2% 137 2.6% 1,278 24.2% not Minority 615 12.4% Low Income LIM NCTD 17702 2,777 2,750 310 11.2% 3 0.1% 7 0.3% 51 1.8% 3 0.1% 9 0.3% 65 2.3% 448 16.1% not Minority 236 8.6% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17801 6,539 6,170 1,040 15.9% 66 1.0% 24 0.4% 271 4.1% 4 0.1% 8 0.1% 151 2.3% 1,564 23.9% not Minority 624 10.1% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17808 5,975 6,106 365 6.1% 43 0.7% 13 0.2% 446 7.5% 3 0.1% 16 0.3% 203 3.4% 1,089 18.2% not Minority 90 1.5% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17809 2,293 2,286 347 15.1% 5 0.2% 8 0.3% 54 2.4% 1 0.0% 5 0.2% 72 3.1% 492 21.5% not Minority 281 12.3% Low Income LIM NCTD 17810 4,942 4,960 572 11.6% 31 0.6% 20 0.4% 169 3.4% 10 0.2% 10 0.2% 135 2.7% 947 19.2% not Minority 234 4.7% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17811 6,355 6,088 539 8.5% 49 0.8% 8 0.1% 598 9.4% 16 0.3% 19 0.3% 186 2.9% 1,415 22.3% not Minority 267 4.4% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17813 4,106 3,992 324 7.9% 24 0.6% 13 0.3% 224 5.5% 5 0.1% 21 0.5% 90 2.2% 701 17.1% not Minority 247 6.2% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 17900 6,958 6,247 2,510 36.1% 65 0.9% 31 0.4% 201 2.9% 23 0.3% 12 0.2% 156 2.2% 2,998 43.1% not Minority 998 16.0% Low Income LIM NCTD 18000 3,711 2,993 435 11.7% 46 1.2% 10 0.3% 134 3.6% 9 0.2% 8 0.2% 76 2.0% 718 19.3% not Minority 321 10.7% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 18100 5,659 5,388 1,173 20.7% 100 1.8% 36 0.6% 143 2.5% 40 0.7% 9 0.2% 174 3.1% 1,675 29.6% not Minority 346 6.4% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 18200 6,847 7,002 3,818 55.8% 180 2.6% 31 0.5% 107 1.6% 47 0.7% 11 0.2% 143 2.1% 4,337 63.3% Minority 2,382 34.0% Low Income LIM NCTD 18300 2,166 2,894 269 12.4% 29 1.3% 11 0.5% 38 1.8% 2 0.1% 3 0.1% 55 2.5% 407 18.8% not Minority 642 22.2% Low Income LIM NCTD 18400 3,566 3,097 1,338 37.5% 146 4.1% 20 0.6% 194 5.4% 28 0.8% 9 0.3% 95 2.7% 1,830 51.3% Minority 511 16.5% Low Income LIM NCTD 18504 6,631 7,014 1,327 20.0% 237 3.6% 28 0.4% 256 3.9% 64 1.0% 9 0.1% 238 3.6% 2,159 32.6% not Minority 413 5.9% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 18507 9,097 8,891 4,109 45.2% 429 4.7% 15 0.2% 868 9.5% 119 1.3% 11 0.1% 308 3.4% 5,859 64.4% Minority 693 7.8% not Low Income LIM NCTD 18509 4,968 5,290 2,848 57.3% 264 5.3% 27 0.5% 173 3.5% 42 0.8% 13 0.3% 140 2.8% 3,507 70.6% Minority 1,695 32.0% Low Income LIM NCTD 18510 2,975 2,828 1,424 47.9% 121 4.1% 2 0.1% 186 6.3% 55 1.8% 7 0.2% 97 3.3% 1,892 63.6% Minority 342 12.1% Low Income LIM NCTD 18511 5,003 5,389 2,190 43.8% 217 4.3% 13 0.3% 220 4.4% 75 1.5% 4 0.1% 139 2.8% 2,858 57.1% Minority 1,079 20.0% Low Income LIM NCTD 18512 3,397 3,596 587 17.3% 124 3.7% 10 0.3% 145 4.3% 26 0.8% 5 0.1% 104 3.1% 1,001 29.5% not Minority 324 9.0% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 18513 9,081 8,642 2,132 23.5% 538 5.9% 22 0.2% 870 9.6% 108 1.2% 27 0.3% 440 4.8% 4,137 45.6% Minority 541 6.3% not Low Income LIM NCTD 18514 7,947 7,323 1,746 22.0% 535 6.7% 24 0.3% 836 10.5% 72 0.9% 10 0.1% 293 3.7% 3,516 44.2% Minority 211 2.9% not Low Income LIM NCTD 18515 4,494 3,629 672 15.0% 158 3.5% 8 0.2% 283 6.3% 25 0.6% 20 0.4% 145 3.2% 1,311 29.2% not Minority 162 4.5% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 18516 3,992 4,267 1,506 37.7% 113 2.8% 14 0.4% 254 6.4% 57 1.4% ‐ 0.0% 144 3.6% 2,088 52.3% Minority 503 11.8% Low Income LIM NCTD 18517 4,127 4,517 1,260 30.5% 185 4.5% 14 0.3% 240 5.8% 39 0.9% 15 0.4% 115 2.8% 1,868 45.3% Minority 315 7.0% not Low Income LIM NCTD 18518 3,175 2,690 1,941 61.1% 91 2.9% 17 0.5% 131 4.1% 64 2.0% 4 0.1% 90 2.8% 2,338 73.6% Minority 341 12.7% Low Income LIM NCTD 18519 5,891 5,981 3,703 62.9% 161 2.7% 31 0.5% 288 4.9% 119 2.0% 10 0.2% 166 2.8% 4,478 76.0% Minority 757 12.7% Low Income LIM NCTD 18601 4,779 4,832 1,334 27.9% 127 2.7% 20 0.4% 499 10.4% 44 0.9% 23 0.5% 197 4.1% 2,244 47.0% Minority 121 2.5% not Low Income LIM NCTD 18603 6,810 6,088 4,336 63.7% 357 5.2% 46 0.7% 181 2.7% 88 1.3% 18 0.3% 164 2.4% 5,190 76.2% Minority 1,040 17.1% Low Income LIM NCTD 18608 3,175 3,015 773 24.3% 269 8.5% 15 0.5% 320 10.1% 58 1.8% 10 0.3% 179 5.6% 1,624 51.1% Minority 196 6.5% not Low Income LIM NCTD
D -9 Total Total Census Population ‐ Transit Population ‐ Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2 or more Races Minority Population Low Income LIM Tract 2006‐2010 Agency 2010 Census ACS
MTS = 54.7%, MTS = 12.9%, NCTD = 44.0% NCTD = 10.8% # # #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%Region = 51.5% #%Region = 12.3 % 18609 6,133 5,968 3,226 52.6% 361 5.9% 16 0.3% 452 7.4% 96 1.6% 11 0.2% 213 3.5% 4,375 71.3% Minority 514 8.6% not Low Income LIM NCTD 18610 7,635 7,123 4,320 56.6% 409 5.4% 15 0.2% 478 6.3% 177 2.3% 9 0.1% 270 3.5% 5,678 74.4% Minority 1,063 14.9% Low Income LIM NCTD 18611 8,052 7,157 2,857 35.5% 284 3.5% 14 0.2% 862 10.7% 178 2.2% 12 0.1% 299 3.7% 4,506 56.0% Minority 505 7.1% not Low Income LIM NCTD 18612 3,331 3,363 1,209 36.3% 203 6.1% 16 0.5% 196 5.9% 42 1.3% 4 0.1% 123 3.7% 1,793 53.8% Minority 58 1.7% not Low Income LIM NCTD 18613 3,477 4,383 1,285 37.0% 277 8.0% 20 0.6% 251 7.2% 52 1.5% 18 0.5% 170 4.9% 2,073 59.6% Minority 153 3.5% not Low Income LIM NCTD 18614 6,494 5,651 2,830 43.6% 299 4.6% 38 0.6% 420 6.5% 102 1.6% 15 0.2% 238 3.7% 3,942 60.7% Minority 481 8.5% not Low Income LIM NCTD 18700 37,452 21,595 8,192 21.9% 2,739 7.3% 407 1.1% 1,016 2.7% 284 0.8% 71 0.2% 1,417 3.8% 14,126 37.7% not Minority 2,200 10.2% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 18801 3,614 3,979 683 18.9% 27 0.7% 14 0.4% 79 2.2% 2 0.1% 7 0.2% 81 2.2% 893 24.7% not Minority 78 2.0% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 18802 8,122 8,962 1,021 12.6% 58 0.7% 27 0.3% 226 2.8% 16 0.2% 13 0.2% 147 1.8% 1,508 18.6% not Minority 558 6.2% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 18803 4,564 4,720 1,017 22.3% 57 1.2% 22 0.5% 141 3.1% 5 0.1% 12 0.3% 104 2.3% 1,358 29.8% not Minority 397 8.4% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 18903 4,861 4,711 2,350 48.3% 33 0.7% 22 0.5% 68 1.4% 11 0.2% 7 0.1% 82 1.7% 2,573 52.9% Minority 400 8.5% not Low Income LIM NCTD 18904 5,640 5,620 3,006 53.3% 50 0.9% 27 0.5% 81 1.4% 9 0.2% 7 0.1% 91 1.6% 3,271 58.0% Minority 957 17.0% Low Income LIM NCTD 18905 6,765 6,220 4,165 61.6% 131 1.9% 19 0.3% 95 1.4% 18 0.3% 16 0.2% 126 1.9% 4,570 67.6% Minority 1,064 17.1% Low Income LIM NCTD 18906 6,033 5,406 3,025 50.1% 149 2.5% 21 0.3% 126 2.1% 10 0.2% 4 0.1% 117 1.9% 3,452 57.2% Minority 411 7.6% not Low Income LIM NCTD 19001 5,946 6,294 1,219 20.5% 30 0.5% 12 0.2% 151 2.5% 6 0.1% 7 0.1% 97 1.6% 1,522 25.6% not Minority 403 6.4% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19002 1,759 1,650 748 42.5% 18 1.0% 5 0.3% 43 2.4% 16 0.9% ‐ 0.0% 22 1.3% 852 48.4% Minority 159 9.6% not Low Income LIM NCTD 19101 7,458 6,903 2,697 36.2% 97 1.3% 1,082 14.5% 262 3.5% 21 0.3% 13 0.2% 185 2.5% 4,357 58.4% Minority 727 10.5% not Low Income LIM NCTD 19103 6,373 6,016 1,558 24.4% 24 0.4% 38 0.6% 180 2.8% 13 0.2% 9 0.1% 127 2.0% 1,949 30.6% not Minority 359 6.0% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19105 5,722 6,747 840 14.7% 72 1.3% 19 0.3% 369 6.4% 11 0.2% 4 0.1% 123 2.1% 1,438 25.1% not Minority 421 6.2% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19106 9,131 7,644 2,890 31.7% 72 0.8% 687 7.5% 216 2.4% 15 0.2% 25 0.3% 254 2.8% 4,159 45.5% Minority 464 6.1% not Low Income LIM NCTD 19107 2,104 2,124 512 24.3% 6 0.3% 239 11.4% 24 1.1% ‐ 0.0% 1 0.0% 39 1.9% 821 39.0% not Minority 96 4.5% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19203 2,866 2,600 838 29.2% 61 2.1% 12 0.4% 99 3.5% 4 0.1% 7 0.2% 84 2.9% 1,105 38.6% not Minority 139 5.3% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19205 6,163 5,452 3,215 52.2% 171 2.8% 13 0.2% 227 3.7% 54 0.9% 10 0.2% 126 2.0% 3,816 61.9% Minority 630 11.6% Low Income LIM NCTD 19206 5,614 5,231 4,093 72.9% 123 2.2% 24 0.4% 104 1.9% 22 0.4% 8 0.1% 105 1.9% 4,479 79.8% Minority 1,102 21.1% Low Income LIM NCTD 19207 8,416 7,676 3,644 43.3% 206 2.4% 24 0.3% 293 3.5% 57 0.7% 11 0.1% 159 1.9% 4,394 52.2% Minority 1,010 13.2% Low Income LIM NCTD 19208 3,537 2,850 988 27.9% 66 1.9% 15 0.4% 101 2.9% 17 0.5% 7 0.2% 137 3.9% 1,331 37.6% not Minority 69 2.4% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19301 6,936 7,262 1,579 22.8% 206 3.0% 26 0.4% 653 9.4% 63 0.9% 11 0.2% 243 3.5% 2,781 40.1% not Minority 354 4.9% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19302 7,344 6,969 1,993 27.1% 318 4.3% 30 0.4% 426 5.8% 81 1.1% 10 0.1% 252 3.4% 3,110 42.3% not Minority 285 4.1% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19303 6,538 6,826 2,114 32.3% 199 3.0% 18 0.3% 280 4.3% 41 0.6% 13 0.2% 236 3.6% 2,901 44.4% Minority 514 7.5% not Low Income LIM NCTD 19403 5,255 5,389 2,578 49.1% 132 2.5% 18 0.3% 316 6.0% 70 1.3% 8 0.2% 120 2.3% 3,242 61.7% Minority 466 8.6% not Low Income LIM NCTD 19404 3,984 4,166 3,216 80.7% 29 0.7% 8 0.2% 34 0.9% 33 0.8% 8 0.2% 65 1.6% 3,393 85.2% Minority 1,182 28.4% Low Income LIM NCTD 19405 3,592 3,517 1,880 52.3% 173 4.8% 13 0.4% 146 4.1% 49 1.4% 9 0.3% 106 3.0% 2,376 66.1% Minority 388 11.0% Low Income LIM NCTD 19406 4,628 4,469 2,068 44.7% 174 3.8% 25 0.5% 177 3.8% 20 0.4% 10 0.2% 115 2.5% 2,589 55.9% Minority 286 6.4% not Low Income LIM NCTD 19501 4,147 3,435 3,581 86.4% 55 1.3% 22 0.5% 68 1.6% 25 0.6% 11 0.3% 49 1.2% 3,811 91.9% Minority 822 23.9% Low Income LIM NCTD 19502 5,715 5,037 4,695 82.2% 125 2.2% 21 0.4% 53 0.9% 27 0.5% 6 0.1% 72 1.3% 4,999 87.5% Minority 1,188 23.6% Low Income LIM NCTD 19503 4,795 4,223 2,758 57.5% 163 3.4% 20 0.4% 169 3.5% 26 0.5% 5 0.1% 112 2.3% 3,253 67.8% Minority 1,034 24.5% Low Income LIM NCTD 19601 6,291 6,040 2,277 36.2% 186 3.0% 28 0.4% 180 2.9% 48 0.8% 16 0.3% 250 4.0% 2,985 47.4% Minority 940 15.6% Low Income LIM NCTD 19602 5,466 5,211 2,329 42.6% 127 2.3% 30 0.5% 116 2.1% 19 0.3% 5 0.1% 109 2.0% 2,735 50.0% Minority 727 14.0% Low Income LIM NCTD 19701 6,022 5,542 1,734 28.8% 324 5.4% 28 0.5% 338 5.6% 29 0.5% 29 0.5% 208 3.5% 2,690 44.7% Minority 348 6.3% not Low Income LIM NCTD 19702 4,933 4,802 1,367 27.7% 77 1.6% 15 0.3% 134 2.7% 40 0.8% 8 0.2% 172 3.5% 1,813 36.8% not Minority 570 11.9% Low Income LIM NCTD 19803 4,465 4,328 701 15.7% 60 1.3% 24 0.5% 389 8.7% 13 0.3% 13 0.3% 163 3.7% 1,363 30.5% not Minority 177 4.1% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19804 4,447 4,219 574 12.9% 38 0.9% 6 0.1% 190 4.3% 14 0.3% 5 0.1% 127 2.9% 954 21.5% not Minority 268 6.4% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19805 3,763 3,937 1,432 38.1% 136 3.6% 13 0.3% 123 3.3% 23 0.6% 15 0.4% 90 2.4% 1,832 48.7% Minority 597 15.2% Low Income LIM NCTD 19806 10,858 10,533 1,757 16.2% 260 2.4% 36 0.3% 1,134 10.4% 36 0.3% 32 0.3% 427 3.9% 3,682 33.9% not Minority 270 2.6% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19808 4,502 4,219 438 9.7% 83 1.8% 4 0.1% 207 4.6% 7 0.2% 6 0.1% 87 1.9% 832 18.5% not Minority 97 2.3% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19809 4,082 4,003 572 14.0% 64 1.6% 11 0.3% 204 5.0% 5 0.1% 9 0.2% 96 2.4% 961 23.5% not Minority 201 5.0% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19902 4,078 3,931 1,991 48.8% 92 2.3% 11 0.3% 117 2.9% 16 0.4% 2 0.0% 120 2.9% 2,349 57.6% Minority 420 10.7% not Low Income LIM NCTD 19903 4,137 4,064 1,170 28.3% 81 2.0% 14 0.3% 121 2.9% 5 0.1% 2 0.0% 53 1.3% 1,446 35.0% not Minority 562 13.8% Low Income LIM NCTD 19904 6,538 6,330 1,452 22.2% 211 3.2% 13 0.2% 495 7.6% 13 0.2% 9 0.1% 215 3.3% 2,408 36.8% not Minority 624 9.9% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 19905 4,256 3,815 795 18.7% 131 3.1% 11 0.3% 274 6.4% 10 0.2% 9 0.2% 133 3.1% 1,363 32.0% not Minority 333 8.7% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20013 12,473 11,882 1,730 13.9% 228 1.8% 20 0.2% 1,351 10.8% 18 0.1% 37 0.3% 452 3.6% 3,836 30.8% not Minority 786 6.6% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20014 7,006 6,446 636 9.1% 117 1.7% 20 0.3% 494 7.1% 19 0.3% 8 0.1% 195 2.8% 1,489 21.3% not Minority 275 4.3% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20015 3,841 3,445 329 8.6% 27 0.7% 12 0.3% 221 5.8% 3 0.1% 12 0.3% 112 2.9% 716 18.6% not Minority 95 2.8% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20016 9,314 9,477 755 8.1% 38 0.4% 13 0.1% 601 6.5% 7 0.1% 15 0.2% 245 2.6% 1,674 18.0% not Minority 822 8.7% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20017 3,282 2,796 1,567 47.7% 100 3.0% 24 0.7% 190 5.8% 30 0.9% 18 0.5% 85 2.6% 2,014 61.4% Minority 334 11.9% Low Income LIM NCTD 20018 7,708 6,482 5,400 70.1% 141 1.8% 17 0.2% 282 3.7% 16 0.2% 16 0.2% 92 1.2% 5,964 77.4% Minority 1,270 19.6% Low Income LIM NCTD 20019 6,832 7,132 1,806 26.4% 149 2.2% 11 0.2% 374 5.5% 8 0.1% 11 0.2% 161 2.4% 2,520 36.9% not Minority 482 6.8% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20020 7,108 6,757 2,056 28.9% 86 1.2% 12 0.2% 955 13.4% 36 0.5% 12 0.2% 290 4.1% 3,447 48.5% Minority 552 8.2% not Low Income LIM NCTD
D -10 Total Total Census Population ‐ Transit Population ‐ Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Hawaiian Other 2 or more Races Minority Population Low Income LIM Tract 2006‐2010 Agency 2010 Census ACS
MTS = 54.7%, MTS = 12.9%, NCTD = 44.0% NCTD = 10.8% # # #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%Region = 51.5% #%Region = 12.3 % 20021 6,423 6,191 3,916 61.0% 143 2.2% 14 0.2% 727 11.3% 25 0.4% 17 0.3% 179 2.8% 5,021 78.2% Minority 886 14.3% Low Income LIM NCTD 20022 7,773 7,381 2,186 28.1% 227 2.9% 32 0.4% 1,015 13.1% 30 0.4% 22 0.3% 213 2.7% 3,725 47.9% Minority 772 10.5% not Low Income LIM NCTD 20023 3,941 3,771 1,501 38.1% 71 1.8% 9 0.2% 148 3.8% 27 0.7% 18 0.5% 75 1.9% 1,849 46.9% Minority 153 4.1% not Low Income LIM NCTD 20024 4,175 3,914 1,519 36.4% 66 1.6% 15 0.4% 161 3.9% 30 0.7% 6 0.1% 65 1.6% 1,862 44.6% Minority 308 7.9% not Low Income LIM NCTD 20025 4,626 4,505 1,442 31.2% 130 2.8% 29 0.6% 277 6.0% 13 0.3% 5 0.1% 147 3.2% 2,043 44.2% Minority 145 3.2% not Low Income LIM NCTD 20026 4,089 4,332 700 17.1% 44 1.1% 17 0.4% 258 6.3% 1 0.0% 10 0.2% 122 3.0% 1,152 28.2% not Minority 239 5.5% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20027 12,627 11,586 1,914 15.2% 295 2.3% 32 0.3% 1,337 10.6% 47 0.4% 22 0.2% 590 4.7% 4,237 33.6% not Minority 755 6.5% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20028 3,479 3,553 2,866 82.4% 83 2.4% 7 0.2% 174 5.0% 7 0.2% 2 0.1% 27 0.8% 3,166 91.0% Minority 1,456 41.0% Low Income LIM NCTD 20029 4,819 5,125 3,014 62.5% 67 1.4% 37 0.8% 219 4.5% 23 0.5% 19 0.4% 55 1.1% 3,434 71.3% Minority 752 14.7% Low Income LIM NCTD 20103 10,235 10,323 2,405 23.5% 198 1.9% 34 0.3% 1,094 10.7% 23 0.2% 30 0.3% 257 2.5% 4,041 39.5% not Minority 638 6.2% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20105 3,801 2,946 1,120 29.5% 118 3.1% 32 0.8% 170 4.5% 12 0.3% 1 0.0% 81 2.1% 1,534 40.4% not Minority 167 5.7% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20106 3,803 3,463 1,652 43.4% 42 1.1% 22 0.6% 285 7.5% 5 0.1% 4 0.1% 85 2.2% 2,095 55.1% Minority 245 7.1% not Low Income LIM NCTD 20107 3,837 3,716 1,453 37.9% 68 1.8% 24 0.6% 252 6.6% 8 0.2% 8 0.2% 79 2.1% 1,892 49.3% Minority 228 6.1% not Low Income LIM NCTD 20108 5,813 5,488 4,021 69.2% 159 2.7% 32 0.6% 305 5.2% 4 0.1% 1 0.0% 87 1.5% 4,609 79.3% Minority 745 13.6% Low Income LIM NCTD 20109 5,127 5,590 2,929 57.1% 50 1.0% 18 0.4% 347 6.8% 15 0.3% 1 0.0% 78 1.5% 3,438 67.1% Minority 748 13.4% Low Income LIM NCTD 20202 6,689 6,380 5,318 79.5% 178 2.7% 19 0.3% 167 2.5% 2 0.0% 5 0.1% 85 1.3% 5,774 86.3% Minority 1,978 31.0% Low Income LIM NCTD 20206 5,217 4,922 3,997 76.6% 115 2.2% 9 0.2% 122 2.3% 7 0.1% 7 0.1% 58 1.1% 4,315 82.7% Minority 951 19.3% Low Income LIM NCTD 20207 4,765 4,988 3,583 75.2% 88 1.8% 6 0.1% 136 2.9% 12 0.3% 4 0.1% 64 1.3% 3,893 81.7% Minority 1,142 22.9% Low Income LIM NCTD 20208 2,501 2,459 1,560 62.4% 20 0.8% 9 0.4% 59 2.4% 14 0.6% 6 0.2% 33 1.3% 1,701 68.0% Minority 275 11.2% Low Income LIM NCTD 20209 4,748 4,149 2,480 52.2% 179 3.8% 26 0.5% 302 6.4% 7 0.1% 1 0.0% 100 2.1% 3,095 65.2% Minority 821 19.8% Low Income LIM NCTD 20210 4,639 4,532 2,175 46.9% 105 2.3% 19 0.4% 363 7.8% 18 0.4% 5 0.1% 96 2.1% 2,781 59.9% Minority 325 7.2% not Low Income LIM NCTD 20211 6,702 6,341 4,124 61.5% 161 2.4% 35 0.5% 371 5.5% 23 0.3% 12 0.2% 151 2.3% 4,877 72.8% Minority 978 15.4% Low Income LIM NCTD 20213 4,028 3,575 3,493 86.7% 43 1.1% 2 0.0% 69 1.7% ‐ 0.0% 6 0.1% 22 0.5% 3,635 90.2% Minority 1,041 29.1% Low Income LIM NCTD 20214 5,143 4,567 4,025 78.3% 89 1.7% 27 0.5% 124 2.4% 10 0.2% 4 0.1% 47 0.9% 4,326 84.1% Minority 1,584 34.7% Low Income LIM NCTD 20304 6,061 5,755 1,083 17.9% 67 1.1% 18 0.3% 385 6.4% 9 0.1% 9 0.1% 151 2.5% 1,722 28.4% not Minority 320 5.6% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20305 5,984 6,409 1,602 26.8% 161 2.7% 28 0.5% 461 7.7% 10 0.2% 13 0.2% 134 2.2% 2,409 40.3% not Minority 1,064 16.6% Low Income LIM NCTD 20306 9,746 7,283 1,754 18.0% 259 2.7% 21 0.2% 1,012 10.4% 28 0.3% 29 0.3% 331 3.4% 3,434 35.2% not Minority 837 11.5% Low Income LIM NCTD 20307 7,156 6,921 2,025 28.3% 146 2.0% 32 0.4% 514 7.2% 10 0.1% 6 0.1% 185 2.6% 2,918 40.8% not Minority 176 2.5% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20308 5,743 5,270 2,036 35.5% 224 3.9% 14 0.2% 381 6.6% 17 0.3% 9 0.2% 164 2.9% 2,845 49.5% Minority 706 13.4% Low Income LIM NCTD 20309 3,945 3,553 1,682 42.6% 55 1.4% 30 0.8% 445 11.3% 12 0.3% 7 0.2% 133 3.4% 2,364 59.9% Minority 221 6.2% not Low Income LIM NCTD 20401 2,369 2,493 177 7.5% 12 0.5% 5 0.2% 85 3.6% ‐ 0.0% 5 0.2% 34 1.4% 318 13.4% not Minority 85 3.4% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20403 4,107 3,851 1,651 40.2% 56 1.4% 30 0.7% 284 6.9% 5 0.1% 3 0.1% 73 1.8% 2,102 51.2% Minority 690 17.9% Low Income LIM NCTD 20404 5,070 5,574 1,283 25.3% 136 2.7% 15 0.3% 507 10.0% 13 0.3% 11 0.2% 142 2.8% 2,107 41.6% not Minority 1,102 19.8% Low Income LIM NCTD 20405 3,412 3,360 370 10.8% 16 0.5% 4 0.1% 224 6.6% 1 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 79 2.3% 694 20.3% not Minority 254 7.6% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20500 5,196 4,351 3,595 69.2% 48 0.9% 8 0.2% 162 3.1% 9 0.2% 8 0.2% 65 1.3% 3,895 75.0% Minority 728 16.7% Low Income LIM NCTD 20601 5,560 4,667 4,202 75.6% 118 2.1% 28 0.5% 93 1.7% 26 0.5% 8 0.1% 58 1.0% 4,533 81.5% Minority 1,060 22.7% Low Income LIM NCTD 20602 5,859 7,126 2,789 47.6% 153 2.6% 41 0.7% 171 2.9% 6 0.1% 2 0.0% 109 1.9% 3,271 55.8% Minority 2,044 28.7% Low Income LIM NCTD 20705 4,635 5,682 1,540 33.2% 54 1.2% 15 0.3% 231 5.0% 7 0.2% 3 0.1% 88 1.9% 1,938 41.8% not Minority 355 6.2% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20706 6,286 6,290 1,140 18.1% 55 0.9% 26 0.4% 262 4.2% 11 0.2% 17 0.3% 132 2.1% 1,643 26.1% not Minority 344 5.5% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20707 4,734 4,341 2,537 53.6% 160 3.4% 21 0.4% 234 4.9% 13 0.3% 11 0.2% 127 2.7% 3,103 65.5% Minority 1,312 30.2% Low Income LIM NCTD 20708 3,437 3,130 708 20.6% 60 1.7% 6 0.2% 334 9.7% 6 0.2% 20 0.6% 104 3.0% 1,238 36.0% not Minority 253 8.1% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20709 8,007 7,698 2,074 25.9% 114 1.4% 15 0.2% 640 8.0% 16 0.2% 12 0.1% 154 1.9% 3,025 37.8% not Minority 386 5.0% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20801 5,230 4,811 697 13.3% 79 1.5% 24 0.5% 98 1.9% 5 0.1% 6 0.1% 80 1.5% 989 18.9% not Minority 269 5.6% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20805 3,501 3,790 1,226 35.0% 31 0.9% 25 0.7% 55 1.6% 9 0.3% 1 0.0% 71 2.0% 1,418 40.5% not Minority 490 12.9% Low Income LIM NCTD 20806 5,846 6,116 2,239 38.3% 46 0.8% 53 0.9% 100 1.7% 12 0.2% 9 0.2% 139 2.4% 2,598 44.4% Minority 730 11.9% Low Income LIM NCTD 20807 2,599 2,325 476 18.3% 7 0.3% 20 0.8% 23 0.9% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 46 1.8% 574 22.1% not Minority 192 8.3% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20809 6,778 7,352 2,302 34.0% 24 0.4% 48 0.7% 55 0.8% 32 0.5% 10 0.1% 107 1.6% 2,578 38.0% not Minority 740 10.1% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20810 5,266 5,558 636 12.1% 36 0.7% 26 0.5% 62 1.2% 10 0.2% 8 0.2% 131 2.5% 909 17.3% not Minority 75 1.3% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 20811 5,650 5,921 634 11.2% 49 0.9% 44 0.8% 83 1.5% 18 0.3% 7 0.1% 134 2.4% 969 17.2% not Minority 394 6.7% not Low Income not LIM NCTD 22100 9,082 8,794 1,614 17.8% 204 2.2% 22 0.2% 867 9.5% 15 0.2% 17 0.2% 335 3.7% 3,074 33.8% not Minority 748 8.5% not Low Income not LIM NCTD
D -11
APPENDIX E MTS/NCTD TITLE VI STUDIES
*R EV ISED PUBLIC H EA R IN G A tt. E, AI 25, 3/12/09
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Title VI, Environmental Justice, and Limited-English Proficiency Analysis of Proposed Service Changes
The San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) faces a budgetary funding deficit of $11 million in FY2010. The causes are primarily low sales tax revenues and elimination of funding from the State of California. The elimination of all State Transit Assistance funding by the State of California and declines in sales tax revenue have resulted in a fiscal crisis by which MTS is projected to have negative working capital by August 2009. MTS has issued a resolution declaring a “fiscal emergency.” MTS proposes to bridge the gap between revenues and expenditures through reducing labor costs, increasing non-subsidy revenues, and adjusting services.
This Title VI analysis addresses the proposed FY 2010 service changes and will be presented to the MTS Board of Directors on March 12, 2009.
1) What service and/or fare changes does MTS propose? Please describe the nature of the change, the basis or rationale for the change, the modes of service impacted, and the communities affected by the change.
There are two alternatives that the MTS Board of Directors might consider:
••• Alternative #1: Adjustments to MTS services for a total subsidy savings of $4.7 million.
••• Alternative #2: Adjustments to MTS services for a total subsidy savings of $10.85 million.
This Title VI analysis will analyze major adjustments to service for Alternative #1 based on staff’s recommendation. If Alternative #2 is chosen, staff will perform an additional Title VI analysis for the Board’s March 26, 2009, meeting.
Alternative #1 Detail
Route 14 Nature of Change: Reconfigure this route so that it operates only between La Mesa and Grantville, and only Monday-Friday. A separate shuttle would be operated for part of the route, seven days a week, between Old Town Transit Center and Hotel Circle. Basis for Change: Route 14 has a very high subsidy per passenger ($6.42), low passengers per hour (12.5), and low farebox recovery (11.7%). (MTS system farebox recovery is currently 41%.) It is the lowest performing directly-operated MTS route. MTS is precluded by California Assembly Bill 117 from contracting the route for a lower cost structure. However, even as a contracted route, its productivity would likely be a basis for service reduction. Mode of Service Impacted: Motorbus Communities Affected: Mission Valley, Grantville, Allied Gardens, College Area, La Mesa
Route 84 Nature of Change: Eliminate service on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Basis for Change: Overall, Route 84 has a relatively high subsidy per passenger ($2.53), but on the weekend the subsidy per passenger is closer to $8. Therefore, weekend service elimination is being proposed to address the funding shortfall. E-1
E-1
Mode of Service Impacted: Motorbus Communities Affected: Point Loma, La Playa
Route 86 Nature of Change: Discontinue service on this route. Basis for Change: Overall, Route 86 has a high subsidy per passenger ($6.19), low passengers per hour (6.8), and low farebox recovery (11.3%). Therefore, discontinuation of this route is being proposed to address the funding shortfall. Mode of Service Impacted: Motorbus Communities Affected: University City Note: This service is planned to be replaced with Super Loop implementation.
Route 820 Nature of Change: Cut one trip in the a.m. and one trip in the p.m. Basis for Change: Route 820 is a Premium Express service that operates along the I-15 corridor. Service would be reduced by one round trip to help address the agency’s budgetary shortfall. However, the route would be re-scheduled in order to minimize the impact to riders. Mode of Service Impacted: Motorbus Communities Affected: Sabre Springs, Poway
Route 832 Nature of Change: Reduce frequency of service to 60 minutes on weekdays, and 90 minutes on weekends. Basis for Change: This community circulator route has a high subsidy per passenger ($3.11) and low farebox recovery (22.9%). Therefore, reduced frequency on this route is being proposed to address the funding shortfall. Mode of Service Impacted: Motorbus Communities Affected: Santee
Route 871/872 Nature of Change: Reduce frequency of service to 60 minutes on weekdays, and discontinue weekend service. Basis for Change: This community circulator route has a relatively high subsidy per passenger ($2.05) and low farebox recovery (33%), especially on the weekends. Therefore, reduced frequency on this route and discontinuation of service on weekends is being proposed to address the funding shortfall. Mode of Service Impacted: Motorbus Communities Affected: El Cajon
Route 965 Nature of Change: Eliminate the 965B loop, and retain the 965A loop. Discontinue all service after 7 pm. Discontinue Sunday service. Basis for Change: This community circulator route has a high subsidy per passenger ($7.61) in during the times being proposed for change. Therefore, reduced frequency on this route is being proposed to address the funding shortfall. Mode of Service Impacted: Motorbus Communities Affected: City Heights, Azalea Park, Chollas Creek, Fairmount Park
E-2
E-2
2) What are the impacts of the service changes on minority and/or low-income communities?
An analysis was completed to assess the potential impacts on low-income and minority communities by comparing the percentage of census tracts considered low-income and minority (2000 U.S. Census) through which the route will travel to the entire MTS service area average. The results are shown in the figure below. A map is included as an attachment.
LOW-INCOME AND/OR MINORITY (LIM) TOTAL
LIM POPULATION IN CENSUS CENSUS TRACTS SERVED TRACTS SERVED LIM TOTAL PCT LIM LIM TOTAL PCT LIM Route 14 3 23 13% 41,797 105,247 40% Route 84 0 5 0% 2,915 18,373 16% Route 86 2 4 50% 8,744 17,770 49% Route 820 0 8 0% 12,728 37,891 34% Routes 871/872 4 10 40% 20,527 42,819 48% Route 932 0 7 0% 6,074 28,495 21% Route 965 12 12 100% 59,146 65,691 90% TOTAL 21 69 30% 151,931 316,286 48% TOTAL 21 62 34% 145,857 287,791 51%
SERVICE AREA (ENTIRE AREA) 205 452 45% 1,045,459 2,017,735 52% SERVICE AREA (NEAR SERVICE) 203 409 50% 999,848 1,860,778 54% Combined, the major changes do not show a disproportionate impact on low-income and minority populations.
In census tracts served by those routes with major changes, 48 percent of the population is low-income or minority. This compares to the MTS Service Area average of 52 percent. If only census tracts currently served by transit are considered, the low-income and minority population in the MTS Service Area is 54%.
Additionally, only 30 percent of the census tracts affected by these changes have a higher- percentage of low-income and minority residents than the Service Area as a whole. This compares to 45 percent of all census tracts in the Service Area.
On a route-specific level, only Route 965 shows a disproportionate impact to low-income and minority residents. Ninety percent of residents in census tracts served by Route 965 are low- income or minority, and all census tracts are identified as low-income or minority tracts. These residents will be losing some frequency on weekdays and a discontinuation of service after 7pm and all day on Sunday. The majority of these residents, however, will still be well served by Routes 7 and 13 – both of which are very frequent services.
3) What are the transit alternatives available for riders who would be impacted by proposed service changes?
For changes that relate to span or frequency of service, riders will have the option to take an alternate trip. For the discontinued Route 86, a new shuttle service is proposed by the San Diego Association of Governments to start in May, 2009, which will provide a better level of service. For riders on Route 84 on the weekend, there are no other transit alternatives.
E-3
E-3
4) What, if any, measures would MTS take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the service and/or fare change on minority and low-income populations? What, if any enhancements or offsetting benefits would MTS implement in conjunction with the service and/or fare change?
MTS has sought to minimize the impact of service changes on minority and low-income populations. Wherever possible, MTS sought changes that would continue to provide the public with other alternative modes of transport. Minor changes spread throughout the agency’s service area were emphasized in the strategy for dealing with the fiscal crisis.
5) Would the proposed service and/or fare change have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations? No.
6) What steps does MTS plan to take to seek out and consider the viewpoints of minority and low-income populations in the course of conducting public outreach and involvement activities?
MTS has printed and distributed 90,000 “Rider Alert” flyers that are posted on all MTS bus and trolley vehicles. Additionally, a Notice of Public Hearing was posted in the San Diego Daily Transcript, a newspaper of general circulation in the MTS area. These materials were published in English and Spanish.
MTS will receive feedback and input in five ways for the Public Hearing regarding these proposals: 1) The Public Hearing will be held during a regularly noticed public meeting, with a pre-published agenda. The MTS Board of Directors will listen to public comments during the hearing. Recognizing that the Public Hearing will be held on a weekday and many interested parties, especially working low-income populations, are unable to attend, MTS will also accept public testimony via: 2) telephone hotline; 3) email; 4) U.S. Mail; 5) on-line survey. Comments received via the last four methods are transcribed and provided to the Board of Directors for their consideration at the public hearing.
MTS held 10 publicly-noticed Outreach Events at transit facilities throughout its service area to explain the proposed service adjustments and gain public comment. These events were heavily publicized, and held during the day and evening, weekdays, Saturday and Sunday. Spanish speakers were available to assist in communication, and bi-lingual handouts were passed to customers. A special website was set up to communicate the proposed changes, and was available in both English and Spanish.
7) Does MTS believe that it is necessary to disseminate information on the service changes/fare increases that is accessible to limited English-proficient persons? If so, what steps to provide information in languages other than English does MTS propose?
Due to the high percentage of Spanish-speaking persons that use MTS services, MTS finds it necessary to publish all public materials in English and Spanish. All public information materials related to these proposals will be published and provided in both English and Spanish. The information will also be on the MTS Web site (www.sdmts.com) in English and Spanish.
Title VI Self-Analysis template from: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Newequityquestions.doc (Recommended Title VI, Env. Justice, and LEP Analysis of Proposed Service and Fare Changes)
MAR12-09.25.AttE.PUB HRG SVCC.COONEY.doc E-4
E-4
E-5
E-5
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Title VI, Environmental Justice, and Limited English Proficiency Analysis of Proposed Changes to Premium Express Route 880
In March 2009 the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) began a new Premium Express route serving the 4S Ranch, Rancho Bernardo, Mira Mesa, Sorrento Valley, and University Towne Center (UTC) areas. Funding for the route was provided by mitigation funding from the developers of 4S Ranch (4S Kelwood), and the funding is required to be spent on transit improvements for 4S Ranch residents.
At that time, using surveys and demand analysis, MTS determined the most cost-effective use of the funds, for both 4S Ranch residents and residents of the greater San Diego area, was to establish the aforementioned express route. However, use of the route has been poor (fewer than six passengers per trip) and staff proposes to alter the routing. The current Route 880 operates three AM peak trips from 4S Ranch and three PM peak trips to 4S Ranch. The adjusted route would operate two round trips daily and serve Downtown San Diego, a market that surveys indicated would be of equal interest as a destination for 4 S Ranch residents. The 4 S Ranch community currently does not have access to the Downtown San Diego area via transit. This change would affect more than 25 percent of the route’s miles.
This Title VI analysis addresses the proposed new route, which will be presented to the MTS Board of Directors on December 10, 2009. The route will be considered a pilot project, and is subject to service reductions or discontinuation if it is under-utilized or over budget.
1) What service and/or fare changes does MTS propose? Please describe the nature of the change, the bases or rationale for the change, the modes of service impacted, and the communities affected by the change.
MTS proposes adjusting Route 880 to provide express service between 4S Ranch and downtown San Diego.
Nature of Change: It is proposed that Route 880 be adjusted to serve downtown San Diego. This change would discontinue this Route’s service to Mira Mesa, Sorrento Valley and University Towne Center (UTC) areas.One round trip will also be discontinued.
Basis for Change: The developers of 4S Ranch provided developer mitigation funding to be used for 4S Ranch transit purposes. After surveying the community, and assessing regional travel patterns, an express route to Sorrento Valley and UTC was determined to be the best use of the funds. However, operation of this pilot has demonstrated poor demand for the current routing. Since the surveys showed equal interest in the 4S community for the downtown destination, MTS is proposing to reroute the service to try to develop greater route productivity.
Mode of Service Impacted: Motorbus
Communities Affected: 4S Ranch, Rancho Bernardo, Mira Mesa, Sorrento Valley, University Towne Center (UTC), Downtown San Diego.
2) What are the impacts of the service changes on minority and/or low income communities?
Route changes. An analysis was completed to assess the potential impacts on low-income and minority communities by comparing the percentage of census tracts considered low-
E-6
income and minority (2000 U.S. Census) through which the route will travel to the entire MTS service area average. The results are shown in the figure below. A map is included as an attachment.
Figure 1: LOW-INCOME AND/OR MINORITY (LIM) TOTAL
LIM POPULATION IN CENSUS CENSUS TRACTS SERVED TRACTS SERVED
LIM TOTAL PCT LIM LIM TOTAL PCT LIM Route 880 2 6 33% 9,646 25,568 38%
MTS SERVICE AREA 205 452 45% 1,045,459 2,017,735 52%
3) What are the transit alternatives available for riders who would be impacted by proposed service changes?
Funding for this route may only be used to fund transit services for residents of 4S Ranch pursuant to the development permit. Under the proposed change, the 4S Ranch community could use the re-designed Route 880 to access the Rancho Bernardo Transit Station, transfer to Route 20 there, and then transfer to Route 921 in Mira Mesa. The community of Mira Mesa will continue to have better service to Sorrento Valley and UTC via the existing Route 921, which operates every 30 minutes from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
4) What, if any measures would MTS take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the service and/or fare change on minority and low-income populations? What, if any enhancements or offsetting benefits would MTS implement in conjunction with the service and/or fare change?
The route will benefit low-income and minority populations. There should be minimal noise impacts to residential areas, as the route will operate along already well-traveled corridors. The greatest impact of the change will be felt by those 4 S Ranch residents who currently use the service to gain access to Sorrento Valley and UTC. However, 4 S Ranch is not a LIM community.
5) Would the proposed service and/or fare change have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations?
While a straight analysis of the census tracts through which Route 880 runs would show a disproportionately high impact overall, this would be misleading. The community of Mira Mesa, which does have an 880 stop and which would not be served by Route 880 if the proposed changes to the Route are implemented, is disproportionately LIM, but this community will have the alternative of Route 921 to gain access to Sorrento Valley and UTC communities served by the current Route 880 routing. In addition, Route 921 is a lower cost alternative to the current Route 880, which is a Premium Express service (with a fare more than double that of Route 921).
6) What steps does MTS plan to take to seek out and consider the viewpoints of minority and low-income populations in the course of conducting public outreach and involvement activities?
E-7
MTS will print and distribute “Take One” flyers that will be posted on all MTS bus and trolley vehicles. These flyers will be printed in both English and Spanish. A public hearing will be held on December 10. Eighteen outreach events, including one at the Rancho Bernardo Transit Station, which is currently served by Route 880, will be held.
7) Does MTS believe that it is necessary to disseminate information on the service changes/fare increases that is accessible to Limited English Proficient persons? If so, what steps to provide information in languages other than English does MTS propose?
Due to the high percentage of Spanish-speaking persons that use MTS services, MTS finds it necessary to publish all public materials in English and Spanish. All public information materials related to these proposals have been published and provided in both English and Spanish (see Take One below). The information is also on the MTS website, www.sdmts.com, in English and Spanish.
Title VI Self-Analysis template from: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Newequityquestions.doc (Recommended Title VI, Env. Justice, and LEP Analysis of Proposed Service and Fare Changes)
E-8
Att. E,AI25,12/10/09
E-4
E-9 ?¦ %&s( Tierrasanta LEGEND La Jolla Ag Kearny Mesa !"a$ Proposed Express Route ^"! Clairemont Mesa Percentage of Population Pacific Beach Either Low-Income or Minority Navajo Aä Serra Mesa < 25% Non-LIM 25% - 51.8% Tracts
Linda Vista 51.8% - 75% LIM ¯ Mission Bay Park Tracts Mission Beach Mission Valley > 75% College Area Sources: SANDAG, U.S. Census (2000) !"_$ Mid-City:Kensington-Talmadge 012 Mid-City:Normal Heights Miles !"_$ Old San Diego ?à Midway-Pacific Highway Ocean Beach Uptown Greater North Park ?à Mid-City:City Heights Mid-City:Eastern Area Lindbergh Field Peninsula !"^$ Balboa Park
Greater Golden Hill AË
Centre City AË Southeastern:Encanto Neighborhoods
?à Southeastern:Southeastern San Diego
Barrio Logan Skyline-Paradise Hills
A² 32nd Street Naval Station Harbor %&s( ?p !"^$
LIM POPULATION IN CENSUS CENSUS TRACTS SERVED TRACTS SERVED TITLE VI ANALYSIS - LIM TOTAL PCT LIM LIM TOTAL PCT LIM Tierrasanta vicinity 1 1 100% 5,762 10,101 57% Naval Base vicinity 1 2 50% 6,834 11,506 59% Route 830 (proposed route) Murph Express Total 2 3 67% 12,596 21,607 58% E-10 MTS SERVICE AREA 205 452 45% 1,045,459 2,017,735 52% E-11 E-12 E-13
E-14 Draft Transmittal Letter to FTA
Date
Mr. Derrin Jourdan Civil Rights Officer Federal Transit Administration, Region IX 201 Mission Street, Suite 2210 San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Mr. Jourdan:
Subject: NCTD Title VI Major Service Change Report
Enclosed is the North County Transit District (NCTD) Title VI Major Service Change Report developed in accordance with the Federal Title VI Circular C 4702.1A dated May 13, 2007. The report covers the major changes to the existing fixed route bus and the new flexible services proposed for FY 2012. It also covers the changes to the fare system to incorporate the proposed flexible services. Two copies of the report are enclosed for your use. This Title VI report was prepared for NCTD by its Transit Planning on‐call consultant.
Should you have any questions regarding this report or need any additional information, please contact Tom Lichterman, Chief of Bus Operations, Planning, and Safety at (760) 967‐2855.
Sincerely,
Matthew Tucker Executive Director NCTD cc: Gary Gallegos Executive Director, San Diego Association of Governments
Enclosure: Title VI Evaluation of Proposed Mobility Plan Service Changes (2)
E-15 Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 CHAPTER IV GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES ...... 2 LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY ...... 2 CHAPTER V PROGRAM‐SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR RECIPIENTS SERVING LARGE URBANIZED AREAS ...... 3 (1) ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGE ON MINORITY AND LOW‐ INCOME POPULATIONS THROUGH THE ANALYSIS OF ROUTE CHANGES AND SPAN OF SERVICE CHANGES ...... 3 (2) ASSESS THE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THE MAJOR SERVICE CHANGE ...... 18 (3) DESCRIBE THE ACTIONS THE AGENCY PROPOSES TO MINIMIZE, MITIGATE, OR OFFSET ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES ON MINORITY AND LOW‐INCOME POPULATIONS ...... 35 (4) DETERMINE WHICH, IF ANY OF THE PROPOSALS UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH AND ADVERSE EFFECT ON MINORITY AND LOW‐INCOME RIDERS ...... 35
i E-16 List of Figures
Figure 1 Proposed Mobility Plan Service Changes ...... 7 Figure 2 Segments of Existing Route Network Unserved Under Proposed Service Changes (Flexible Service Areas Included) ...... 8 Figure 3 Existing Route Network with Travel Times/Fares Analysis Locations ...... 19 Figure 4 Proposed Route Network and Travel Times/Fares Analysis Locations ...... 20
List of Tables
Table 1 Proposed Mobility Plan Changes Summary by Route ...... 5 Table 2 Proposed Mobility Plan Changes Summary by Change Type ...... 9 Table 3 Replacement Services for Discontinued Routes ...... 9 Table 4 Number of Census Tracts with Service Change Impacts ...... 10 Table 5 Population Characteristics of Affected Census Tracts ...... 10 Table 6 LIM Rider Analysis for Route with Changes ...... 12 Table 7 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Annual Revenue Hours of Routes with Frequency Changes by LIM Route Type ...... 15 Table 8 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Operating Hours of Routes with Service Span Changes by LIM Route Type ...... 17 Table 9 LIM and Non‐LIM Tracts Used in Analysis...... 18 Table 10 Peak LIM Travel Times (minutes) ...... 23 Table 11 Peak Non‐LIM Travel Times (minutes) ...... 24 Table 12 Off‐Peak LIM Travel Times (minutes) ...... 25 Table 13 Off‐Peak Non‐LIM Travel Times (minutes) ...... 26 Table 14 Peak LIM Number of Transfers ...... 27 Table 15 Peak Non‐LIM Number of Transfers ...... 28 Table 16 Off‐Peak LIM Number of Transfers ...... 29 Table 17 Off‐Peak Non‐LIM Number of Transfers ...... 30 Table 18 Peak LIM Fares ($) ...... 31 Table 19 Peak Non‐LIM Fares ($) ...... 32 Table 20 Off‐Peak LIM Fares ($) ...... 33 Table 21 Off‐Peak Non‐LIM Fares ($) ...... 34
ii E-17 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
INTRODUCTION
This Title VI report was prepared in March 2011 to document the analysis of the proposed service and fare changes scheduled to begin being phased in throughout the North County Transit District (NCTD) area of San Diego County in August 2011, and completed by August 2012 (referred to hereafter as the Mobility Plan changes). These changes require an examination in advance of the upcoming public hearing to determine whether they will have a Title VI impact. This assessment has been made in accordance with the Federal Title VI guidance issued by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with the release of Circular C 4702.1A dated May 13, 2007.
When completely implemented, the anticipated service changes will include: Discontinue certain routes Restructure portions of existing routes to improve operations/efficiency Increase weekday frequency or spans of service Decrease weekday frequency or spans of service Introduce weekend service or changes to weekend frequency or span of service Create new routes and flexible services to replace discontinued routes and connect destinations
BACKGROUND
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) 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 subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The scope of Title VI was expanded by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (P.L. 100‐209) to include all of a recipient’s and contractor’s programs or activities whether federally assisted or not.
The February 11, 1994, Executive Order 12898 on Environment Justice added low‐income to minority and requires that disproportionately high and adverse impacts be identified and addressed. Environmental justice applies to all programs, policies, and activities of the transportation program and is consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Executive Order 12898 also requires public involvement and mandates that transportation agencies ensure there is no exclusion from participation, no denial of benefits, and no discrimination in the services which they provide.
FTA requires all transit operators who receive federal funds to conduct assessments of Title VI to demonstrate nondiscrimination of services and facilities for minority communities. In San Diego County, this responsibility has been shared by SANDAG and the two transit agencies: the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), formerly Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), and NCTD.
This Title VI Report was prepared for NCTD by IBI Group under the Transit Planning Services contract. The section numbering is congruent with the sections regarding major service changes in Chapter V, Section 4 of the final Federal Title VI Circular C 4702.1A.
1 E-18 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
CHAPTER IV GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
FTA Title VI Circular 4702.1A introduces the requirement to provide “meaningful access to Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons” (Chapter IV, Part 4) to comply with Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so that LEP persons can have meaningful access to them. To fulfill this requirement, FTA recipients must take responsible steps to ensure meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and other important portions of their programs and activities for individuals who are LEP.
NCTD publishes and presents public information documents in both English and Spanish. Information and warning signs posted at BREEZE bus stops, and COASTER and SPRINTER stations are presented in English and Spanish. The telephone information department provides information on all NCTD transit services and is staffed by individuals speaking English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Filipino languages.
In addition, NCTD staff includes bilingual coach operators and customer service representatives to communicate proposed service changes and fare increases. All transit service changes, including the Mobility Plan service changes, have been issued by NCTD in the form of “Rider Alerts,” published in both English and Spanish on the NCTD website (www.gonctd.com), as well as on all buses, trains, SPRINTER vehicles, and transit centers. As a standard NCTD policy, bilingual staff members also are available at transit centers and are present at public workshops to ensure that LEP persons are well‐informed.
Specifically with regard to the Mobility Plan, NCTD initiated a major Community Outreach program to inform residents and patrons throughout north county of the proposed service changes. A 90‐page “Guide to Proposed Mobility Plan Changes” was printed in English and Spanish and made available at multiple locations and on BREEZE fixed‐route buses. The Guide includes information on how to obtain information for those with limited English proficiency, in languages other than Spanish. NCTD staff also conducted outreach sessions and open houses at numerous locations throughout the service area in February and March, 2011, as well as at major Transit Centers.
In addition to printing the guide in English and Spanish, page 3 of the guide featured an offer in Vietnamese, Chinese and Filipino to make the guide available in those languages.
2 E-19 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
CHAPTER V PROGRAM‐SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR RECIPIENTS SERVING LARGE URBANIZED AREAS
NCTD has proposed a set of service changes in an effort to become the area’s transportation broker. This approach requires an expansion of the services and delivery options considered to fully incorporate all appropriate technologies and service provision models. The proposed service changes identify opportunities to restructure to increase efficiency, focus increased service on the most productive routes, and introduce flexible demand responsive service delivery, among other measures.
An evaluation of the proposed service changes was conducted to assess the potential for disproportionate impacts to relevant populations as a result of the proposed route eliminations and/or alignment changes, increases in weekend service, and the creation of flexible service areas.
In addition, an assessment of the alternatives available for those affected by the service changes was also conducted through an analysis of travel times, transfers, and fares to major destinations in the region. The results of this analysis are presented in this document.
(1) ASSESS THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGE ON MINORITY AND LOW‐INCOME POPULATIONS THROUGH THE ANALYSIS OF ROUTE CHANGES AND SPAN OF SERVICE CHANGES
The release of Executive Order 12898 in February of 1994 enhanced the Title VI responsibilities of Federal agencies by mandating the inclusion of “minority populations and low‐income populations (LIM)” in the analysis of environmental justice. To comply with this order, an assessment of the proposed Mobility Plan service changes was conducted to determine the potential Title VI impacts to LIMs in the region. A LIM Census Tract is defined as any Census Tract where the percentage of the LIM population is greater than the LIM percentage for the service area as a whole. Based on data from the 2000 United States Census, SANDAG has determined the LIM average for the NCTD service area is 40 percent.
(a) Route Changes
Fixed Route Alignment Changes
NCTD is proposing to refine its fixed‐route operations in an effort to increase efficiencies and direct more of its resources to better‐performing routes. To accomplish this goal, several existing fixed‐route services are to be altered significantly. Generally, the route changes involve re‐routing and replacing existing fixed‐route services with new routes or new alternative service types, although there will be a limited number of segments where there will be no service. The specific fixed‐route changes are reported in Table 1, and can be seen in Figures 1 and 2.
These changes, together with the accompanying span of service changes, were plotted on a GIS‐based map to highlight those census tracts where the total LIM population is greater than the 40 percent service area average (see Figure 1). In addition, an analysis of the effect on LIM and non‐LIM census tracts was undertaken by service change type. The results are presented below.
3 E-20 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Flexible Service Areas
In an effort to continue to provide service for residents and employees in areas where the Mobility Plan changes would result in a loss of fixed‐route transit service, a new service concept has been developed. Called “Flexible Service Areas,” they will function as a hybrid between fixed‐route service and ADA‐style, demand response services. Customers within the Flexible Service areas would pre‐book trips from a central dispatcher, and would be able to access regional destinations and NCTD fixed‐route services after using the service to travel to a fixed‐route access point such as a Transit Center, bus stop, or rail station. The service would have a fare structure separate from NCTD BREEZE, but would be included in the RegionPlus Day Pass. Figure 2 shows the five proposed Flexible Service Areas.
A more complete discussion of the service’s fare structure and its impact on LIM populations is presented in the Fares section of this document.
4 E-21 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Table 1 Proposed Mobility Plan Changes Summary by Route
Route Existing Route Description Specific Nature of Proposed Change 101 Oceanside to UTC via Highway 101 Truncate service at VA Medical Center Reroute bus at Plaza Camino Real for faster travel time. More frequent service 302 Oceanside to Vista via Mission Avenue running every 15 minutes peak and every 20 minutes off peak on weekdays. More frequent service running at 20 minute headways on weekends. Route will 303 Oceanside to Vista via Mission Avenue service the new San Luis Rey Transit Center starting June 2012. 304/304 Encinitas to San Marcos via Rancho Sante Fe Rd. Reroute 304/404 to improve circulation in Encinitas. New service on Saturday. 305 Escondido to Vista via Mission Rd. & S. Sante Fe. No change. Extend route in Fallbrook. More frequent service running every 30 minutes in 306 Fallbrook to Vista via Mission Road the afternoon peak weekdays. 308 Solana Beach to Escondido via Del Dios Hwy Less frequent weekday service running every 60 minutes all day. New, more direct routing to Towne Center North and new routing at Plaza 309 East Oceanside to Encinitas via El Camino Real Camino Real for faster travel time. New weekday peak route serving Douglas Road, Rancho Del Oro, Ocean Ranch 311 East Oceanside to Rancho Del Oro SPRINTER station Business Park, MLK Middle School, and El Camino High School. 313 Oceanside to Towne Center North via Mesa Dr. Route discontinued and replaced by sections of Routes 309, 311 and 315. Route extended to College Boulevard SPRINTER Station. More frequent service 315 College Boulevard SPRINTER Station to Camp Pendleton running 30 minutes on weekdays. New one bus shuttle running a short route through Ocean Ranch Business Park 316 Ocean Ranch Shuttle meeting trains from 6am to 6pm weekdays. 317 Vandegrift & Gold to Rancho Del Oro Station Route discontinued and replaced by Routes 311 and 315. Route extended to Bobier and East Vista Way, covering the northern half of 318 Oceanside to Vista via Oceanside Blvd existing Route 334/335. El Corozon Senior Center‐Rancho Del Oro SPRINTER Station‐Mira Route discontinued. Service to Mira Costa College to be provided by Routes 302 319 Costa College and 325. New weekend only route providing express service between Plaza Camino Real 320X Oceanside to Plaza Camino Real Express and Oceanside Transit Center. Route discontinued. Service to the western half of the route provided on routes 321 Carlsbad Village to College Boulevard SPRINTER Station 444/445/446, and Southwest Carlsbad flexible service. Service to portions of the eastern half of the route provided on routes 304 and 347. Route significantly changed. New segments and destinations include Mira Costa 325 Carlsbad Village to College Boulevard SPRINTER Station College, and Vista Way between Rancho Del Oro and Jefferson. Eliminated segments replaced by Routes 315 and Quarry Creek flexible service. Route discontinued. Service on route 332 altered to serve former route 331 331 Buena Creek Station to University Drive destinations.
5 E-22 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes Route Existing Route Description Specific Nature of Proposed Change Route extended on south end to serve Buena Creek SPRINTER Station, providing 332 Vista to Buena Creek SPRINTER Station via Business Park‐Melrose more direct service to Vista Business Park from Escondido. Service on Shadowridge discontinued. 333 Towne Center North to Vista via Old Grove Rd and Oceanside Blvd Route discontinued and replaced in sections by Routes 309, 318, 332, and 334. Route shortened to operate a loop serving portions of the former 334/335. 334/335 Vista Circulator Other portions replaced with service on 305, 306, and 318. This route discontinued. Service to CSUSM incorporated into Route 347, linking 340 Cal State San Marcos Shuttle the CSUSM SPRINTER Station to Craven Circle every 30 minutes on weekdays. New service on Saturday. Current route split in half, with Route 347 continuing to serve between CSUSM 347 Cal State San Marcos to Palomar College via Creekside and Palomar College, and new Route 353 replacing route 347 between Nordahl Marketplace and Escondido. New faster BREEZE Rapid service, with shorter trip times and improved bus 350 Escondido to Del Lago Park and Ride via North County Mall stops and customer information. More frequent service on weekend evenings. Route shortened to Midway Drive, with new Route 355/357 replacing service on 351/352 Escondido Circulator El Norte and Valley. More frequent service running every 15 minutes in the peak, every 20 minutes in the midday, and every 30 minutes on the weekend. New route which replaces Route 347 east of Nordahl Marketplace and also 353 Nordahl Marketplace to Palomar Hospital connects the current and new Palomar Pomerado Medical center campuses. 354 Orange Glen HS via Mission‐Lincoln‐Midway No changes. New route providing service on El Norte Parkway east of Broadway, and 355/357 El Norte Parkway‐Valley Parkway replacing Routes 358/359 on Broadway and Route 386 on Valley Parkway. 356 Morningview Drive‐Escondido Blvd No changes. Route discontinued with service replaced by new Route 355/357 and new 358/359 North Broadway‐Country Club‐El Norte Escondido‐San Marcos Flexible service. Route discontinued with service on Valley Parkway replaced by new route 386 Escondido to Ramona via Safari Park 355/357 and Ramona and Safari Park service replaced by Ramona Flexible Service. 388/389 Escondido to Pala‐Rincon‐Valley Center No changes. 395 Oceanside to San Clemente via Camp Pendleton No changes. Route restructured, in conjunction with 445 and new 446, to provide faster, 444 Palomar Airport Road COASTER Shuttle more direct service between Poinsettia Station and Carlsbad employment centers. Route restructured, in conjunction with 444 and new 446, to provide faster, 445 College Blvd and Farraday Ave COASTER Shuttle more direct service between Poinsettia Station and Carlsbad employment centers. New route, designed to provide faster, more direct service between Poinsettia 446 Paseo Del Norte ‐ Legoland COASTER Shuttle Station and Carlsbad employment centers.
6 E-23 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Figure 1 Proposed Mobility Plan Service Changes
7 E-24 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Figure 2 Segments of Existing Route Network Unserved Under Proposed Service Changes (Flexible Service Areas Included)
8 E-25 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
LIM Population Spatial Analysis from Census Data
As seen in Figure 1, the NCTD service area consists of 153 Census tracts. To further examine the effects of the proposed service changes, a GIS analysis was conducted to identify the extent of the changes on both the LIM and non‐LIM census tracts. The results of the analysis are reported in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2 Proposed Mobility Plan Changes Summary by Change Type
Type of Change Routes (LIM Routes in Bold)1 Discontinue all service 313, 317, 319, 321, 331, 333, 340, 358/359, 386 Restructure or eliminate portions of existing routes to 101, 302, 304/404, 306, 309, 315, 318, 325, 332, improve operations/efficiency 334/335, 347, 351/352, 444, 445 302, 303, 304/404, 306, 309, 315, 325, 334/335, 347, Increase service frequency 350, 351/352 Reduce service frequency 308 Increase span of service 304/404, 334/335, 347, 351/352 Decrease span of service 334/335 (effective August 2012) Create new routes to replace discontinued routes and 311, 316, 320X, 353, 355/357, 446, 5 flex zones connect destinations
Table 3 Replacement Services for Discontinued Routes
Discontinued Route LIM/Non LIM Replacement Service(s) 313 LIM 303, 309, 311 317 LIM 309, 311, 315 319 LIM 325 321 Non LIM 309, 444, 445, 446, Southwest Carlsbad Flex (no replacement service between Melrose Dr. and Rancho Santa Fe Rd.) 331 Non LIM 332 333 LIM 303, 309, 311, 315, 318 340 Non LIM 347 358/359 Non LIM 355/357, Escondido ‐ San Marcos Flex 386 Non LIM Ramona Flex
Table 4 highlights the way in which the population of these tracts will be affected by the proposed Mobility Plan changes. Route eliminations affect more LIM tracts than non‐LIM (38 of 66 LIM, 58 percent, compared to 31 of 87 non‐LIM tracts, 36 percent). However, LIM tracts are more than twice as likely to have new routes implemented in them (23 of 66 tracts, 35 percent, compared to 15 of 87 non‐ LIM tracts, 17 percent).
Further, LIM tract residents are more likely to experience route alignment changes, with over 80 percent of the LIM tracts in the NCTD service area having a realignment within their boundaries, (53 of 66), while only 63 percent of non‐LIM tracts would see a realignment.
1 LIM Routes are defined as routes with a higher proportion of LIM riders than the BREEZE system average of 83.8%.
9 E-26 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Lastly, in keeping with NCTD’s objective to concentrate fixed‐route service among transit‐dependent LIM populations and create flexible, demand‐response services for other residents, flexible service areas are more likely to be located in non‐LIM tracts than LIM (52 percent to 35 percent).
It is important to remember, however, that the overwhelming majority of service changes in the proposal are actually service frequency increases, so LIM‐heavy population areas would actually have a greater increase in their level of transit service than would non‐LIM populations. Service frequency is discussed at length later in this report.
Table 4 Number of Census Tracts with Service Change Impacts
Tracts Affected by Proposed Tracts Within Census Tracts in Tracts Affected by Tracts Affected Route Proposed Census Tract NCTD Service Proposed Route by Introduction Alignment Flexible Service Type Area Discontinuations of New Routes Changes Areas LIM 66 38 23 53 23 Non‐LIM 87 31 15 55 46 Total2 153 69 38 108 69
Table 5 looks at the changes from a different perspective‐ that of total population within the tracts.
Table 5 Population Characteristics of Affected Census Tracts
Population Population Affected Population in Population Population Affected by Within NCTD Service Affected by Affected by Proposed Route Proposed Census Tract Area by Tract Proposed Route Introduction of Alignment Flexible Service Type Type Discontinuations New Routes Changes Areas LIM 374,677 206,978 127,537 314,448 122,373 Non‐LIM 421,421 150,801 76,750 276,445 219,489 Total 796,098 357,779 204,287 590,893 341,862
It is important to remember that while the NCTD service area contains 153 census tracts, several of these tracts have more than one fixed‐route service option, so summary calculations will not always add up to 153 due to the frequent occurrence of individual tracts simultaneously having some combination of reduced levels of service, eliminated levels of service, or no change to an existing route that passes through the tract itself.
LIM Rider Analysis from Onboard Survey Data
While the previous evaluation focused on transit service changes from a land use/route alignment perspective, this evaluation focuses on the demographic and economic characteristics of the users of the services. The analysis was completed with information generated from weekday onboard ridership surveys conducted by SANDAG in 2009.
2 Sums may not equal total amounts of census tracts due to multiple routes present within a particular Census Tract.
10 E-27 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Due to the extensive nature of the proposed service changes, an attempt was made to evaluate each route proposed for either a reduction of its span of service or elimination of a portion of its service altogether. Due to the lack of available weekend survey information, in instances where only a route’s weekend service was impacted, that route’s weekday ridership survey information was used. New, proposed routes were not included in the analysis.
Survey data was calculated for applicable NCTD fixed routes to determine the percentage of that route’s riders who are LIM. These surveys were then compared to the characteristics of the remaining NCTD services to determine the percentage LIM for all other NCTD fixed route service. Through this evaluation, a comparison was drawn to determine if LIM riders are disproportionately affected by the proposed service span changes. The comparison was made for the system without the COASTER or SPRINTER survey data to better isolate the LIM percentage of BREEZE fixed‐route transit users. (A high proportion of COASTER riders are non‐LIM and there were a high number of COASTER survey responses, which could have potentially skewed the results if included.)
Statistical tests are commonly used with sample data when inferring results to the rest of a population (i.e., the sample of bus route riders represents all the riders that ride that bus route). An odds ratio comparison was used to measure the odds of one group’s propensity for something versus another group’s (i.e., one route having more low‐income or minority riders than the remainder of the routes).
An odds ratio of 1.0 means that both the route being tested and the remaining routes have equal likelihood of possessing LIM riders, while an odds ratio of less than 1.0 means the route being tested is less likely than the remaining routes to carry LIM riders. Conversely, an odds ratio of more than 1.0 means it is more likely to carry LIM riders.
Isolating the BREEZE services from rail services for the analysis, the observed percentage of LIM riders in 2009 was 83.8%. These percentages were the result of the 13,635 survey responses gathered through SANDAG’s 2009 data collection efforts. The highest odds ratio of any routes affected by the proposed service was observed along Route 335, with an odds ratio of 1.49.
Table 6 includes the routes with service span changes and compares each route with proposed service changes to the remaining NCTD fixed‐route services.
11 E-28 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Table 6 LIM Rider Analysis for Route with Changes
Proposed Changes LIM Percent Higher than Percent Percent LIM BREEZE LIM Riders Riders for All Number Hours of Days of System for This Other NCTD Odds of Route Description Alignment Frequency Operation Operation Average? Route3 Routes Ratio Responses 101 Route restructured – No 65.4% 86.4% 0.42 1,679 Route restructured, + + 302 increased weekday Yes 86.5% 83.4% 1.09 1,506 service frequency Increased weekend 303 + + Yes 90.6% 82.4% 1.25 2,281 service frequency Route restructured, 304*4 + + No 78.9% 83.9% 0.85 265 added Saturday service Route restructured, 404* + + Yes 86.9% 83.7% 1.18 154 added Saturday service Route extended, + + 306 increased weekday Yes 90.9% 83.5% 1.22 550 service frequency Reduced weekday 308 – No 78.7% 83.9% 0.85 197 service frequency Route restructured, + + 309 increased Saturday No 74.1% 84.5 0.70 963 service frequency 313 Route discontinued – – – – Yes 86.5% 83.7% 1.08 444 Route extended, + + 315 increased weekday Yes 84.6% 83.8% 1.02 188 service frequency 317 Route discontinued – – – – Yes 94.4% 83.7% 1.32 89
3 Note: NCTD BREEZE system‐wide LIM Rider percentage 83.8 percent (Does NOT include COASTER/SPRINTER survey responses)
12 E-29 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Proposed Changes LIM Percent Higher than Percent Percent LIM BREEZE LIM Riders Riders for All Number Hours of Days of System for This Other NCTD Odds of Route Description Alignment Frequency Operation Operation Average? Route3 Routes Ratio Responses 318 Route extended. + Yes 86.8% 83.8% 1.09 114 319 Route discontinued – – – – Yes 90.0% 83.7% 1.19 150 321 Route discontinued – – – – No 60.9% 84.0% 0.32 138 Route restructured, – increased weekday 325 No 83.5% 83.8% 0.99 375 service frequency, added Saturday service 331 Route discontinued – – – – NA NA NA NA NA 332 Route restructured + No 81.5% 83.8% 0.93 248 333 Route discontinued – – – – Yes 83.8% 83.8% 1.00 191 Route restructured, – + + added Saturday‐only 334* service, increased Yes 98.3% 83.6% 1.44 172 weekday service frequency Route restructured, – + + added Saturday‐only 335* service, increased Yes 100.0% 83.7% 1.49 94 weekday service frequency Route discontinued, 340 – – – – NA NA NA NA NA absorbed into Route 347 Route restructured, – + + increased weekday 347 No 78.0% 83.8% 0.83 141 service frequency, added Saturday service
13 E-30 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Proposed Changes LIM Percent Higher than Percent Percent LIM BREEZE LIM Riders Riders for All Number Hours of Days of System for This Other NCTD Odds of Route Description Alignment Frequency Operation Operation Average? Route3 Routes Ratio Responses Increased weekend + service frequency, faster 350 travel times with queue No 77.4% 84.1% 0.80 705 jumps and traffic signal preference Route restructured, – + 351* increased service Yes 91.4% 83.5% 1.24 488 frequency Route restructured, – + 352* increased service Yes 95.7% 83.5% 1.36 325 frequency 358* Route discontinued – – – – No 77.6% 83.8% 0.82 76 359* Route discontinued – – – – Yes 86.6% 83.8% 1.08 67 386 Route discontinued – – – – No 78.2% 83.8% 0.83 119 444 Route restructured + No 23.8% 83.9% ‐0.77 21 445 Route restructured + No 72.2% 83.8% 0.66 18 NA – data not available * Survey data was collected and tabulated by route number, therefore direction‐specific BREEZE route numbers (Routes 304/404, 334/335, 351/352, and 358/359) are reported here individually to allow for direction‐specific analysis. The designations as LIM and Non LIM routes is based on the results of surveys of the specific direction of each route. **Proposed Changes: – Reduction, +Increase, Blank No Change
14 E-31 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Service Frequency
The proposed service changes now include service frequency changes not evaluated in the previous section. These proposed changes in service frequency are evaluated in this section to determine whether LIM routes identified in the previous table are less likely to see increases in service frequency than non‐ LIM routes.
By examining NCTD operations data relating to existing and proposed annual hours of operation by route, it is possible for the effect of the changes in service frequency to be isolated and compared. As noted previously, the Mobility Plan envisions a phased implementation of service changes, with the final series of changes being implemented by August 2012. This is the date used in the comparisons below.
As seen in Table 7 below, under the Mobility Plan, LIM routes are much more likely to have an increase in service frequency than non‐LIM routes.
Table 7 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Annual Revenue Hours of Routes with Frequency Changes by LIM Route Type
Percent Change In Annual Revenue LIM Routes Nature of Proposed Change Hours, Existing vs. August 2012 302 Route restructured, increased weekday service frequency +31.2% 303 Increased weekend service frequency +5.8% 306 Route restructured, increased weekday service frequency +9.9% 315 Route restructured, increased weekday service frequency +30.2% Route restructured, added Saturday‐only service, 334/335 ‐54.0% increased weekday service frequency 351/352 Route restructured, increased service frequency +23.7% Average Percent Change +7.8%
Non‐LIM Percent Change In Annual Revenue Route Nature of Proposed Change Hours, Existing vs. August 2012 308 Reduced weekday service frequency ‐27.0% 309 Route restructured, increased Saturday service frequency ‐6.7% Route restructured, increased weekday service frequency, 325 +26.8% added Saturday service Route restructured, increased weekday service frequency, 347 +9.4% added Saturday service 350 Increased weekend service frequency 0% Average Percent Change +0.5%
15 E-32 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
(b) Span of Service
The proposed Mobility Plan service changes include service span (hours and days of operation) changes not evaluated in the previous section. These proposed changes in service span are evaluated in this section to determine whether LIM riders are more likely to use the service during the hours and/or days that would be affected. The analysis was completed with information generated from weekday onboard ridership surveys conducted by SANDAG in 2009.
Due to the nature of the proposed service changes, an attempt was made to evaluate each route proposed to experience a reduction of its span of service. In instances where only a route’s weekend/holiday service was impacted, that route’s weekday ridership survey information was used to determine whether a route was LIM or not.
The Mobility Plan proposed relatively few span changes, typically the addition of Saturday service along a route or slightly longer hours of operation on weekends. To evaluate the effects of span changes on population, an analysis was conducted that compared the total weekly hours of operation by routes. Only routes with span changes were evaluated, and each route was designated as either a LIM route or a non‐LIM route. For BREEZE Route 304/404, the routes weekly hours were noted twice, as one direction(404) was LIM, while the other was non‐LIM. The results of the analysis are seen in Table 8 below.
In summary, five BREEZE routes will experience some sort of span change. Of these five, all but Route 351/352 will see an increase in weekly operating hours. The 6.8 percent decrease in operating hours of the 351/352 is largely offset by the newly‐created BREEZE Routes 353 and 355/357, as well as the flexible service areas in and around the area served by the 351/352, the net result being an increase transit service options for Escondido riders, both LIM and non‐LIM..
16 E-33 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Table 8 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Operating Hours of Routes with Service Span Changes by LIM Route Type
Existing Hours of Proposed Hours of Existing Proposed Operation by Day Operation by Day Weekly Weekly Nature of Proposed (Rounded to Nearest (Rounded to Nearest Operating Operating Percent LIM Routes Span Change Half‐Hour) Half‐Hour) Hours Total Hours Total Change Added Saturday Weekday: 4:30am‐8:30pm Weekday: 5:00am‐7:00pm service, slightly shorter 334/335 Saturday: None Saturday: 10:00am‐6:00pm 80 86 + 7.5% weekday span of Sunday: None Sunday: None service Weekday: 4:00am‐12:00am Weekday: 5:00am‐10:00pm Shorter span of service 351/352 Saturday: 5:30am‐9:30pm Saturday: 7:00am‐9:00pm 132 123 ‐6.8% on all days Sunday: 5:30am‐9:30pm Sunday: 7:00am‐9:00pm Weekday: 5:00am‐9:00pm Weekday: 5:00am‐9:00pm Added Saturday 4045 Saturday: None Saturday: 7:00am‐9:00pm 80 94 +17.5% service Sunday: None Sunday: None Total Including Route 404 292 303 +3.8% Total Without Route 404 212 209 ‐1.4%
Existing Hours of Proposed Hours of Existing Proposed Operation by Day Operation by Day Weekly Weekly Non‐LIM Nature of Proposed (Rounded to Nearest (Rounded to Nearest Operating Operating Percent Routes Span Change Half‐Hour) Half‐Hour) Hours Hours Change Weekday: 5:00am‐9:00pm Weekday: 5:00am‐9:00pm Added Saturday 3041 Saturday: None Saturday: 7:00am‐9:00pm 80 94 +17.5% service Sunday: None Sunday: None Slightly longer Weekday: 5:30am‐9:00pm Weekday: 5:00am‐9:00pm 308 weekday span of Saturday: 6:30am‐7:30pm Saturday: 6:30am‐7:30pm 103.5 106 +2.4% service Sunday: 6:30am‐7:30pm Sunday: 6:30am‐7:30pm Added Saturday Weekday: 6:00am‐8:00pm Weekday: 5:00am‐9:00pm service, slightly longer 347 Saturday: None Saturday: 7:00am‐9:00pm 70 94 +34.3% weekday span of Sunday: None Sunday: None service Total Including Route 304 253.5 294 +16.0% Total Without Route 304 173.5 200 +15.3%
5 Survey data for directional routes were collected and tabulated by route number; data is reported here as recorded when both directions were LIM. Route 304/404 was LIM as the 404, and Non‐LIM as the 304.
17 E-34 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
(2) ASSESS THE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THE MAJOR SERVICE CHANGE
Travel time, transfers, and passenger fares were evaluated to determine the impacts of the Mobility Plan service changes. The evaluation compared existing travel time, number of transfers required, and fares to the travel time, transfers, and fares of the network with the proposed service changes in place. The analysis included an assessment of these factors for 13 LIM and 12 non‐LIM census tracts in the NCTD service area for travel to four frequently‐traveled destinations for all NCTD riders (Santa Fe Depot, Palomar College, Escondido Transit Center, and Plaza Camino Real). Table 8 shows the specific tracts used in the analysis.
The tracts were selected using a combination of tracts previously used by SANDAG in earlier Title VI evaluations, and additional tracts with service changes proposed within them. The effects were examined for weekday trips during the peak and off peak periods using the NCTD website and Google Transit, along with hand estimates for travel using the proposed service network. For peak travel, a trip start time of approximately 8:00am was used, while for off‐peak travel, a trip start time of approximately 11:00am was used. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the location on the existing and proposed system maps. The location identifications are described in Table 9.
Table 9 LIM and Non‐LIM Tracts Used in Analysis
LIM Tracts Non LIM Tracts Map Census Map Census ID Tract Starting Location ID Tract Starting Location
1 185.16 Oceanside Blvd. & College Blvd. A 193.01 Rosewood Dr. & Sagewood Dr. Olive Dr. & N. Melrose Dr. 2 194.06 B 200.25 Nordahl Rd. & Mission Rd. W. Borden Rd. & N. Twin Oaks 3 200.2 Valley Rd. C 185.14 College Blvd. & Chroma Dr.
4 196.02 S. Santa Fe & Escondido Ave. D 199.03 York Dr. & Kent Place Carlsbad Village Dr. & El Camino 5 185.13 Old Grove Rd. & Mission Ave. E 180 Real Palomar Airport Rd. & Camino Vida 6 186.08 Douglas Dr. & N. River Rd. F 178.12 Roble Rd.
7 195.01 E. California Ave. & N. Santa Fe Dr. G 181 Cassidy St. & Myers Ave.
8 185.07 Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd. H 197.02 Hacienda Dr. & Vista Village
9 185.11 Oceanside Blvd. & Foussat Rd. I 203.06 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & Craven Dr.
10 199.02 University Dr. & Sycamore Ave. J 204.03 W. Felicita Ave. & S. Redwood St.
11 201.09 N. Ash St. & E. Lincoln Ave. K 178.12 Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Ln. Woodland Parkway and Borden Rd. 12 208.06 Main St. & 10th St. L 200.23 Escondido
13 203.02 Nordahl Rd. & Rock Springs Rd.
18 E-35 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Figure 3 Existing Route Network with Travel Times/Fares Analysis Locations
19 E-36 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Figure 4 Proposed Route Network and Travel Times/Fares Analysis Locations
20 E-37 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Travel Times
Existing and proposed travel times were derived from the NCTD website and Google Transit with adjustments as needed for the proposed travel times based on existing transit schedules and the proposed service changes. Trips were assumed to start around 8:00 am for the peak travel time, and around 11:00 am for the off peak period. Included in the travel time estimate was the travel time on the initial (and subsequent) vehicles and any transfer/waiting time to additional vehicles. For the proposed service network, a transfer time of 15 minutes was assumed when connecting to routes with 30‐minute service and 8 minutes for connections to routes with 15‐minute service.
Tables 10 and 11 report the weekday travel times for LIM and non LIM census tracts during the peak period. The average peak weekday travel time for LIM populations using the existing services is 68.5 minutes, which would increase by 3.1 percent to 70.6 minutes with the proposed service changes. The average non‐LIM peak travel time is 76.2 minutes, which would decrease 3.3 percent to 73.7 minutes with the proposed changes.
As seen in Tables 12 and 13, the average off‐peak travel time for LIM populations using the existing services is 71.6 minutes, which would increase 8.7 percent to 77.8 minutes with the proposed changes. The average non‐LIM off peak travel time is 78.2 minutes, which would increase by 0.4 percent to 78.5 minutes with the proposed changes.
Fares
The proposed service changes would affect fares in two ways. First, the number of transfers required for a given trip may change due to new connections that would be required in using the restructured service. Second, the introduction of the flexible services, with a single ride cash fare of $5.00, would affect the fare for riders using those services. Both the change in the number of transfers and the change in the total one‐way cash fare were analyzed and are reported in this section.
The current adult cash fares were used for the analysis, including the BREEZE at $1.75, the SPRINTER at $2.00, and the COASTER at $5.50 for the three zone fare. The cash fare for the new Flex service is assumed to be $5.00. Cash fares for the MTS services included $2.50 for Express service (Routes 20 and 150) and $2.50 for the Trolley. Day passes were also applied as appropriate in the amount of $5.00 for the Regional Day Pass which covers the SPRINTER, BREEZE, Trolley, and MTS regular service. The RegionPlus Day Pass, which includes the services covered by the Regional Day Pass plus the COASTER, Premium Express Bus (Route 810), and the proposed Flex services, is priced at $14.00 and was used for trips involving the premium services.
The Regional Day Pass and the RegionPlus day passes are used extensively by riders when transferring is required. Most riders make round trips and use the passes if one or more transfers are involved, since there is a significant savings on the return trip. Although the fare analysis considers one‐way trips, an approach was developed to reflect this pass buying behavior. For trips involving one or more transfers, it was assumed that a day pass would be purchased, and the one‐way fare would be one‐half the cost of the pass. This approach avoids the unrealistic assumption that riders would buy several one‐way cash fares to complete their trip as long as they totaled less that the cost of the day pass.
An assessment of the number of transfers required was performed to help calculate the fare amounts. As shown in Tables 14 and 15, the average number of transfers for peak LIM trips decreased by 2.9
21 E-38 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes percent, from 0.65 to 0.63. For non LIM riders, the average number of transfers in the peak period increased by 10.8 percent, from 0.77 to 0.85. Tables 16 and 17 report that for off peak LIM travel, the average number of transfers increased by 1.5 percent, from 0.83 to 0.85, while the non LIM average increased by 11.9 percent, from 0.88 to 0.98.
As reported in Tables 18 and 19, for peak travel by LIM populations, the average fare increased by 7.7 percent, from $3.33 to $3.58. For non LIM populations, the fares increased 17.7 percent, from $3.18 to $3.74. Tables 20 and 21 report that the average fare for off peak travel by LIM populations increased 10.4 percent, from $2.77 to $3.06. The off peak average fare for non LIM riders grew 22.7 percent, from $2.82 to $3.46.
22 E-39 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Table 10 Peak LIM Travel Times (minutes)
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Oceanside Blvd. & 1 185.16 College Blvd.110110484830304531 Olive Dr. & N. Melrose 2 194.06 Dr. 125125444427275050 W. Borden Rd. & N. 3 200.2 Twin Oaks Valley Rd.127127323221218282 S. Santa Fe & 4 196.02 Escondido Ave. 124 124 35 35 18 18 55 55 Old Grove Rd. & 5 185.13 Mission Ave. 135 142 74 78 57 62 66 41 Douglas Dr. & N. River 6 186.08 Rd. 9797778160653751 E. California Ave. & N. 7 195.01 Santa Fe Dr.119119383821214848
8 185.07 Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd. 132 132 76 86 59 70 67 65 Oceanside Blvd. & 9 185.11 Foussat Rd.108108585841413333 University Dr. & 10 199.02 Sycamore Ave. 132 132 33 33 16 16 67 67 N. Ash St. & E. Lincoln 11 201.09 Ave. 145 160 15 15 38 38 98 98
12 208.06 Main St. & 10th St. 118 149 56 71 80 100 130 162 Nordahl Rd. & Rock 13 203.02 Springs Rd. 103 96 28 28 34 34 94 94
Average for Destination 121.2 124.7 47.2 49.8 38.6 41.8 67.1 67.5
Overall
Existing 68.5
Proposed 70.9
Percent Change 3.5%
23 E-40 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Table 11 Peak Non‐LIM Travel Times (minutes)
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Rosewood Dr. & A 193.01 Sagewood Dr. 123 123 67 67 50 50 78 66 Nordahl Rd. & Mission B 200.25 Rd. 139 139 8 8 12 12 73 73 College Blvd. & Chroma C 185.14 Dr. 127 127 72 63 55 47 63 66
D 199.03 York Dr. & Kent Place 129 129 50 50 33 33 76 76 Carlsbad Village Dr. & El E 180 Camino Real 128 128 73 73 56 56 13 13 Palomar Airport Rd. & F 178.12 Camino Vida Roble Rd. 121 94 88 119 54 103 39 43
G 181 Cassidy St. & Myers Ave. 77 77 68 68 51 51 20 20 Hacienda Dr. & Vista H 197.02 Village 131 131 48 48 31 31 43 43 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & I 203.06 Craven Dr. 197 184 30 30 20 20 93 96 W. Felicita Ave. & S. J 204.03 Redwood St. 137 137 17 17 42 42 103 103 Aviara Parkway and K 178.12 Poinsettia Ln. 141 84 144 122 127 91 75 67 Woodland Parkway and L 200.23 Borden Rd. Escondido 165 165 32 30 37 38 103 99
Average for Destination 134.6 126.5 58.1 57.9 47.3 47.8 64.9 63.8
Overall
Existing 76.2
Proposed 74.0
Percent Change -2.9%
24 E-41 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Table 12 Off‐Peak LIM Travel Times (minutes)
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Oceanside Blvd. & 1 185.16 College Blvd. 121 121 48 48 31 31 48 39 Olive Dr. & N. Melrose 2 194.06 Dr. 165 165 44 44 27 27 51 51 W. Borden Rd. & N. 3 200.2 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. 168 168 32 32 20 20 87 87 S. Santa Fe & 4 196.02 Escondido Ave. 171 171 35 35 20 20 56 56 Old Grove Rd. & 5 185.13 Mission Ave. 130 120 74 78 57 62 64 41 Douglas Dr. & N. River 6 186.08 Rd. 108 108 75 75 58 58 37 51 E. California Ave. & N. 7 195.01 Santa Fe Dr. 135 135 38 38 21 38 49 49
8 185.07 Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd. 132 132 76 86 59 70 67 65 Oceanside Blvd. & 9 185.11 Foussat Rd.9696585841413328 University Dr. & 10 199.02 Sycamore Ave. 166 166 33 33 16 16 70 70 N. Ash St. & E. Lincoln 11 201.09 Ave. 154 154 14 14 38 38 96 96
12 208.06 Main St. & 10th St.* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Nordahl Rd. & Rock 13 203.02 Springs Rd. 164 172 29 20 34 48 91 110
Average for Destination 142.5 142.3 46.3 46.8 35.2 39.1 62.4 61.9 * It is not possible to compare Existing to Proposed for off peak travel Overall from Ramona because only peak period service is currently operated.
Existing 71.6
Proposed 72.5
Percent Change 1.3%
25 E-42 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes Table 13 Off‐Peak Non‐LIM Travel Times (minutes)
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Rosewood Dr. & A 193.01 Sagewood Dr. 122 122 74 74 53 53 69 66 Nordahl Rd. & Mission B 200.25 Rd. 144 144 8 8 13 13 73 73 College Blvd. & Chroma C 185.14 Dr. 126 126 72 63 55 47 64 66
D 199.03 York Dr. & Kent Place 171 171 50 50 33 33 76 76 Carlsbad Village Dr. & El E 180 Camino Real 152 153 81 81 64 64 10 10 Palomar Airport Rd. & F 178.12 Camino Vida Roble Rd. 150 95 106 119 70 103 34 43
G 181 Cassidy St. & Myers Ave. 130 130 68 68 51 51 20 20 Hacienda Dr. & Vista H 197.02 Village 184 184 48 48 31 48 44 44 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & I 203.06 Craven Dr. 167 184 30 30 21 21 84 89 W. Felicita Ave. & S. J 204.03 Redwood St. 133 133 17 17 43 43 104 104 Aviara Parkway and K 178.12 Poinsettia Ln. 95 84 122 122 78 91 66 67 Woodland Parkway and L 200.23 Borden Rd. Escondido 183 183 27 30 36 38 103 99
Average for Destination 146.4 142.4 58.6 59.2 45.7 50.4 62.3 63.1
Overall
Existing 78.2
Proposed 78.8
Percent Change 0.7%
26 E-43 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes Table 14 Peak LIM Number of Transfers
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Oceanside Blvd. & 1 185.16 College Blvd.11000010
2 194.06Olive Dr. & N. Melrose Dr.11000000 W. Borden Rd. & N. Twin 3 200.2 Oaks Valley Rd.22000011 S. Santa Fe & Escondido 4 196.02 Ave. 11000011 Old Grove Rd. & Mission 5 185.13 Ave. 12111110 Douglas Dr. & N. River 6 186.08 Rd. 11111101 E. California Ave. & N. 7 195.01 Santa Fe Dr.11000000
8 185.07Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd.11111110 Oceanside Blvd. & 9 185.11 Foussat Rd.11000000 University Dr. & 10 199.02 Sycamore Ave.11000011 N. Ash St. & E. Lincoln 11 201.09 Ave. 22001122
12 208.06 Main St. & 10th St.11001122 Nordahl Rd. & Rock 13 203.02 Springs Rd.11000011
Average for Destination 1.15 1.23 0.23 0.23 0.38 0.38 0.85 0.69
Overall
Existing 0.65
Proposed 0.63
Percent Change -2.9%
27 E-44 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes Table 15 Peak Non‐LIM Number of Transfers
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Rosewood Dr. & A 193.01 Sagewood Dr. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 Nordahl Rd. & Mission B 200.25 Rd. 11000011 College Blvd. & Chroma C 185.14 Dr. 11111100
D 199.03 York Dr. & Kent Place 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 Carlsbad Village Dr. & El E 180 Camino Real11111100 Palomar Airport Rd. & F 178.12 Camino Vida Roble Rd. 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
G 181 Cassidy St. & Myers Ave. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hacienda Dr. & Vista H 197.02 Village 11000000 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & I 203.06 Craven Dr.34000022 W. Felicita Ave. & S. J 204.03 Redwood St. 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 Aviara Parkway and K 178.12 Poinsettia Ln.11222211 Woodland Parkway and L 200.23 Borden Rd. Escondido 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 2
Average for Destination 1.42 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.67 0.67 0.75
Overall
Existing 0.77
Proposed 0.85
Percent Change 10.8%
28 E-45 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Table 16 Off‐Peak LIM Number of Transfers
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Oceanside Blvd. & 1 185.16 College Blvd.1 1000000 Olive Dr. & N. Melrose 2 194.06 Dr. 3 3000000 W. Borden Rd. & N. 3 200.2 Twin Oaks Valley Rd.3 3000011 S. Santa Fe & 4 196.02 Escondido Ave. 3 3000011 Old Grove Rd. & 5 185.13 Mission Ave.1 1111100 Douglas Dr. & N. River 6 186.08 Rd. 1 1111101 E. California Ave. & N. 7 195.01 Santa Fe Dr.1 1000000
8 185.07Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd.21111110 Oceanside Blvd. & 9 185.11 Foussat Rd.1 1000000 University Dr. & 10 199.02 Sycamore Ave.3 3000011 N. Ash St. & E. Lincoln 11 201.09 Ave. 3 3001122
12 208.06 Main St. & 10th St. NA 3 NA 0 NA 1 NA 2 Nordahl Rd. & Rock 13 203.02 Springs Rd.3 3000021
Average for Destination 2.08 2.08 0.25 0.23 0.33 0.38 0.67 0.69
Overall
Existing 0.83
Proposed 0.85
Percent Change 1.5%
29 E-46 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes Table 17 Off‐Peak Non‐LIM Number of Transfers
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Rosewood Dr. & A 193.01 Sagewood Dr.11111110 Nordahl Rd. & Mission B 200.25 Rd. 33001011 College Blvd. & Chroma C 185.14 Dr. 12111100
D 199.03 York Dr. & Kent Place33000011 Carlsbad Village Dr. & El E 180 Camino Real22111100 Palomar Airport Rd. & F 178.12 Camino Vida Roble Rd.11111100
G 181Cassidy St. & Myers Ave.11000000 Hacienda Dr. & Vista H 197.02 Village 11000000 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & I 203.06 Craven Dr.34000022 W. Felicita Ave. & S. J 204.03 Redwood St. 22001122 Aviara Parkway and K 178.12 Poinsettia Ln.11121201 Woodland Parkway and L 200.23 Borden Rd. Escondido 33000112
Average for Destination 1.83 2.00 0.42 0.50 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.75
Overall
Existing 0.88
Proposed 0.98
Percent Change 11.9%
30 E-47 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Table 18 Peak LIM Fares ($)
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Oceanside Blvd. & 1 185.16 College Blvd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 1.75
2 194.06 Olive Dr. & N. Melrose Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 W. Borden Rd. & N. Twin 3 200.2 Oaks Valley Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 S. Santa Fe & Escondido 4 196.02 Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 Old Grove Rd. & Mission 5 185.13 Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 Douglas Dr. & N. River 6 186.08 Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 2.50 E. California Ave. & N. 7 195.01 Santa Fe Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
8 185.07 Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 Oceanside Blvd. & 9 185.11 Foussat Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 University Dr. & Sycamore 10 199.02 Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 N. Ash St. & E. Lincoln 11 201.09 Ave. 7.00 7.00 1.75 1.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
12 208.06 Main St. & 10th St. 6.75 7.00 1.75 5.00 2.50 7.00 2.50 7.00 Nordahl Rd. & Rock 13 203.02 Springs Rd. 7.00 6.75 1.75 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
Average for Destination 6.98 6.98 2.06 2.31 2.19 2.54 2.27 2.50
Overall
Existing 3.33
Proposed 3.58
Percent Change 7.7%
31 E-48 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Table 19 Peak Non‐LIM Fares ($)
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Rosewood Dr. & A 193.01 Sagewood Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 Nordahl Rd. & Mission B 200.25 Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 College Blvd. & Chroma C 185.14 Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75
D 199.03 York Dr. & Kent Place 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 Carlsbad Village Dr. & El E 180 Camino Real 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 Palomar Airport Rd. & F 178.12 Camino Vida Roble Rd.7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 1.75 2.50 1.75 1.75
G 181 Cassidy St. & Myers Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 Hacienda Dr. & Vista H 197.02 Village 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & I 203.06 Craven Dr. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 W. Felicita Ave. & S. J 204.03 Redwood St. 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Aviara Parkway and K 178.12 Poinsettia Ln. 7.00 7.00 2.50 7.00 2.50 7.00 2.50 6.75 Woodland Parkway and L 200.23 Borden Rd. Escondido 7.00 7.00 1.75 5.00 1.75 7.00 2.50 7.00
Average for Destination 6.25 6.25 2.17 2.81 2.17 3.04 2.13 2.85
Overall
Existing 3.18
Proposed 3.74
Percent Change 17.7%
32 E-49 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Table 20 Off‐Peak LIM Fares ($)
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Oceanside Blvd. & 1 185.16 College Blvd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
2 194.06 Olive Dr. & N. Melrose Dr. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 W. Borden Rd. & N. Twin 3 200.2 Oaks Valley Rd. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 S. Santa Fe & Escondido 4 196.02 Ave. 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.50 2.50 Old Grove Rd. & Mission 5 185.13 Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 Douglas Dr. & N. River 6 186.08 Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 2.50 E. California Ave. & N. 7 195.01 Santa Fe Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
8 185.07 Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 Oceanside Blvd. & 9 185.11 Foussat Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 University Dr. & Sycamore 10 199.02 Ave. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 N. Ash St. & E. Lincoln 11 201.09 Ave. 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
12 208.06 Main St. & 10th St. NA 7.00 NA 5.00 NA 7.00 NA 7.00 Nordahl Rd. & Rock 13 203.02 Springs Rd. 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
Average for Destination 4.75 4.92 2.06 2.29 2.15 2.52 2.13 2.50
Overall
Existing 2.77
Proposed 3.06
Percent Change 10.4%
33 E-50 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
Table 21 Off‐Peak Non‐LIM Fares ($)
Escondido Transit Santa Fe Depot Center Palomar College Plaza Camino Real Map Census ID Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Rosewood Dr. & A 193.01 Sagewood Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 Nordahl Rd. & Mission B 200.25 Rd. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 College Blvd. & Chroma C 185.14 Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75
D 199.03 York Dr. & Kent Place 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 Carlsbad Village Dr. & El E 180 Camino Real 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 Palomar Airport Rd. & F 178.12 Camino Vida Roble Rd.7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75
G 181 Cassidy St. & Myers Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 Hacienda Dr. & Vista H 197.02 Village 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. & I 203.06 Craven Dr. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 W. Felicita Ave. & S. J 204.03 Redwood St. 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Aviara Parkway and K 178.12 Poinsettia Ln. 7.00 7.00 2.50 7.00 2.50 7.00 1.75 6.75 Woodland Parkway and L 200.23 Borden Rd. Escondido 2.50 7.00 1.75 5.00 1.75 7.00 2.50 7.00
Average for Destination 4.75 5.13 2.17 2.81 2.23 3.04 2.13 2.85
Overall
Existing 2.82
Proposed 3.46
Percent Change 22.7%
34 E-51 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
(3) DESCRIBE THE ACTIONS THE AGENCY PROPOSES TO MINIMIZE, MITIGATE, OR OFFSET ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES ON MINORITY AND LOW‐INCOME POPULATIONS
Previous onboard surveys indicate that approximately 83.8 percent of BREEZE riders are LIM. As a result, the proposed Mobility Plan service changes will affect a high number of these populations, regardless of the types of changes proposed. Potential mitigations for the changes are described below.
Most of the services proposed for elimination are in the vicinity of other existing or new fixed route or light rail services. Longer access times may be required, but significant levels of fixed route service options will still be available. In addition, the introduction of the flexible services will provide transit service to intra‐community destinations and access to the regional system. These services will help to ensure the availability of transit service to most of the areas losing fixed route service.
The following actions will help to mitigate the potential adverse effects of the proposed changes.
For the discontinued routes, other fixed routes will be available in the vicinity of many of the corridors. These include existing routes, and in some cases, new replacement routes or route extensions.
The introduction of flexible services in five designated service areas will help lessen the loss of fixed route services.
Extensive and targeted information on alternative services will be provided as part of the service change implementation.
Encouraging increased monthly pass use will help lessen the effects of the changes in cash fares resulting from the introduction of the flexible services.
(4) DETERMINE WHICH, IF ANY OF THE PROPOSALS UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH AND ADVERSE EFFECT ON MINORITY AND LOW‐INCOME RIDERS
The impact of the proposed Mobility Plan changes on LIM populations in the NCTD service area is summarized below.
Service Changes
While residents of LIM tracts are more likely to have some sort of service change in their neighborhoods than residents in non‐LIM tracts, the effects of these changes are not necessarily negative, nor disproportionate. As mentioned in the introduction, NCTD has proposed an overall increase in service throughout its service area, and as such, LIM residents stand to benefit as much or more than non‐LIM residents.
Residents of LIM tracts are more likely to have new routes implemented in their neighborhoods, and they are more likely to be the recipients of increased service frequency. For routes that are discontinued, new routes have been proposed in all but a select few areas of the NCTD existing route network, offsetting the loss of these routes for LIM and non‐LIM tracts alike.
35 E-52 NCTD Title VI Analysis of Mobility Plan Service Changes
For routes with increased frequency, LIM tracts are likely to have a more direct, more frequent replacement route to serve their transportation needs than non‐LIM tracts. Existing NCTD riders stand to be impacted roughly equivalently as well. Four of the nine routes being discontinued are LIM, and 7 of the 14 routes scheduled for realignment are LIM. In addition, frequency increases proposed under the Mobility Plan are more likely to benefit LIM riders, with 6 LIM routes seeing an average of a 7 percent increase in their annual operating hours, compared to a less than 1 percent increase in the 5 non‐LIM routes scheduled for frequency increases. The one route scheduled for a decrease in mid‐day frequency is non‐LIM.
Span of Service
The Mobility Plan proposes relatively few span changes, typically the addition of Saturday service along a route or slightly longer hours of operation on weekends. Of the routes with significant span changes (more than a few minutes’ worth of change to weekly hours of operation), two have LIM rider percentages below the BREEZE system average, and three have LIM rider percentages above the BREEZE system average, and none of the changes represents a disproportionate impact to LIM populations.
Of the five routes, all but Route 351/352 will have an increase in weekly operating hours. The 6.8 percent decrease in operating hours of the 351/352 is largely offset by the overall increase of service in its catchment area, including the new Routes 353, 355/357, and two new flexible service areas. The net result is an increase transit service options for Escondido riders, both LIM and non‐LIM.
Travel Times
Peak travel time would increase by 3.5 percent for LIM populations and decrease by 2.9 percent for non LIM populations. In the off peak period, LIM travel time would increase by 1.3 percent, while non LIM travel time would increase 0.7 percent. The peak period changes are relatively small and balanced between LIM and non LIM populations. Similarly, the effect on both LIM and non LIM populations for off peak travel is relatively small.
Fares
The introduction of the flexible services and their $5.00 cash fare have an impact on average fares for both LIM and non‐LIM populations. However, these impacts are mitigated somewhat through the use of day passes. During the peak period, LIM fares would increase by 7.7 percent, while the non LIM fares would increase by 17.7 percent. In the off peak period, LIM fares would increase by 10.4 percent, while non LIM fares would rise 22.7 percent. The increase in fares in both the peak and off peak is larger for non LIM populations.
E-53
APPENDIX F COORDINATED PLAN PERFORMANCE MONITORING CHAPTER
CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
3.1 Purpose
The performance monitoring program was developed to retain a regional perspective on the transportation system as a whole, but it also was conducted to assist the transportation agencies with their evaluation of current or future service expansions or contractions. In addition, with an understanding that public transit is not always an appropriate or applicable service, social service transportation evaluation has been included to round out the entire context of available transportation solutions within the region. Monitoring of these programs helps to develop an understanding of their contribution to the host of transportation solutions available.
This chapter begins with an overview of the goals and policies of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (2050 RTP) and how they have been refined and enhanced in this Coordinated Plan to evaluate the transit and social service transportation system. This is followed by the overall goals and objectives to guide the development of the transit and social service transportation systems over the next five years. Finally, since transit funding also is tied to state funding sources, a description of the state-mandated evaluation process is included in this chapter.
3.2 Vision and Goals
The SANDAG 2050 RTP is the long-range blueprint for a regional transportation system that further enhances the quality of life, promotes sustainability, and offers more mobility options for people and goods. The Coordinated Plan implements the RTP transit and social service transportation vision on a rolling five-year time period. The RTP vision describes a transportation system that:
. Supports a prosperous economy . Promotes a healthy and safe environment which includes climate change protection . Provides a higher quality of life for all San Diego County residents
The development of transit and specialized transportation services can enhance these elements in developing a more sustainable future transportation system. Furthermore, the RTP expands this vision into six specific goals surrounding two themes:
1. Quality of Travel & Livability
. Mobility: The transportation system should provide convenient travel options; . Reliability: The transportation system should be reliable; and . System Preservation and Safety: The transportation system should be well-maintained to protect the public’s investments in transportation.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-1 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
2. Sustainability
. Social Equity: The transportation system should be designed to provide an equitable level of transportation services to all segments of the population; . Healthy Environment: The transportation system should promote environmental sustainability and foster efficient development patterns that optimize travel, housing and employment choices; and . Prosperous Economy: The transportation system should play a significant role in raising the region’s standard of living.
In order to specifically evaluate transit and social service transportation in the San Diego region, a series of 11 goals for the coordinated transportation network was developed. These goals were based on the visions of the four agencies (Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD), Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA), and SANDAG involved in planning and operation of the transportation system, along with the overarching goals of the RTP identified above.
The coordinated transportation network goals along with their relevant RTP goals are:
Develop a network of fast, flexible, reliable, safe, and convenient transit services that maximize the role of transit in the region and reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions (Mobility and Healthy Environment);
Offer accessible public and social service transportation services in San Diego that are reliable, offer competitive travel times to major destinations, and provide consistent travel times for the same trip and mode of transportation (Reliability);
Reinforce and upgrade existing transit services in key urban corridors, and pursue new transit projects in the most urbanized areas of the region using a broad combination of transit modes (System Preservation & Safety);
Maximize the farebox recovery rate and ensure that operation of the transit system is fiscally responsible (System Preservation and Safety);
Offer accessible public and social service transportation services in San Diego without discrimination on the basis of race, color, language, national origin, or disability (Social Equity);
Enhance the mobility choices of the transportation disadvantaged by improving coordination and developing alternative models of transportation (Social Equity);
Provide accessible lifeline public and social service transportation to all populations (Social Equity);
Develop a strong link between transit and transit supportive land use patterns to maximize the cost-effectiveness of future transit investments (Healthy Environment);
Offer accessible public and social service transportation services that support the smart growth policies as outlined in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (Healthy Environment);
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-2 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Offer affordable and accessible public and social service transportation services that are productive, coordinated, convenient, and appropriate for the markets being served (Healthy Environment and Prosperous Economy);
Provide an accessible transit network in the urban areas that offers frequency and span of service to support spontaneous use for a wide range of needs to support a diverse economy (Prosperous Economy).
3.3 Regional Performance Evaluation Program
The objectives and performance indicators included in the regional performance evaluation program evaluate transit service on a five- year time horizon. This allows SANDAG to more carefully evaluate transit performance and to ensure that additional planning and funding resources are allocated appropriately. This section provides the evaluation of transit service and also includes indicators to monitor social service transportation as required by the federal government in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
Regional Transit Service Monitoring, Implementation and Links to the RTP
The monitoring of transit performance provides a tool to annually assess the overall health of the regional public transit system. The objectives explored in this section are derived from the RTP and Coordinated Plan goals and specifically fall under two categories, fixed-route transit and specialized transportation. As articulated in the 2050 RTP, the development of an ambitious and far-reaching transit network that significantly expands the role that transit plays in meeting the region’s mobility needs is dependent on the development of three key strategies:
Improvements to the current system that will improve the convenience and travel speeds of bus and rail services
Implementation of new transit services that will improve transit connections and access in key urban areas and offer new service types designed to attract new riders to transit
Enhancements to the transit customer experience to make transit easier, safer, and more enjoyable to use
The 2050 RTP also places more attention on transportation for seniors, people with limited means, and individuals with disabilities. While the 2050 RTP provides a broad framework for these services, the Coordinated Plan provides the specific strategies to guide these investments. To accomplish this, the 2050 RTP includes additional funding for supplemental specialized transportation services, which is estimated to be five percent of the cost of fixed-route transit.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-3 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Guidelines vs. Targets
Under these 2050 RTP action items, the general approach to evaluating transit and social service transportation includes the setting of guidelines where the requirement is in a SANDAG policy or the requirement is a target in state or federal regulations. The guidelines presented in this chapter are based on a five-year service objective, which can be adjusted, as needed, to reflect changing conditions. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, funding, energy costs, and the health of the local economy. The guidelines also may be updated to reflect changes in funding levels or from a desire to adjust service levels. On the other hand, the identified targets are based on requirements established by state and federal legislation or regulations.
Interpreting the Results
The results of the performance indicators give the transit agencies, SANDAG, the public, and elected officials valuable information, including:
Evaluation of regional transit system performance;
Determination of whether sufficient funding is being provided to the regional transit system to meet the guidelines and targets;
Indication of the need for transit priority measures and, once implemented over time, how well they are performing in terms of improving transit performance;
Assessment of regional efforts to better link transit and land use planning through regional smart growth programs; and
Identification of deficiencies or service gaps.
Methodology and Performance Indicator Development
Care has been taken to identify objectives that can easily be quantified and indicators that can be objectively measured with existing or proposed data sources. Should the development of new transportation funding sources arise, or if unspent fund balances are re-allocated for local programs, the evaluation of transit service performance may enable the justification for the programming of future funds for transit given the ongoing evaluation of actual quantitative performance data.
The goals and objectives influence the design and quality of the transit service and implement the transit vision of the RTP. The RTP policy goals and objectives are to be applied across the entire county, while the performance indicators and guidelines have been tailored to specific environments. The guidelines help provide clarity for decision makers and the public regarding the level of transit service proposed to be provided regionally and assist individuals in making decisions on where to locate their residence, place of employment, choose a school, or location for their business.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-4 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Categories
The comprehensive objectives are based on regional issues as they relate to transit and social service transportation. These objectives include multiple variables or results which have regional impacts beyond transit or social service transportation. The passenger-centered comprehensive objectives address the following categories:
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Measures
Regional Growth
Transit Performance Evaluation Categories
The transit objectives are based on subregional areas that group similar geographic or demographic areas. These objectives either relate to the goals of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), the RTP, or have consistently been tracked through the annual Transportation Development Act (TDA) performance improvement program. The transit objectives address the following categories:
Financial
Productivity
Access
Convenience
Reliability and Speed
Environmental Justice
Comfort
A brief description of the performance results relating to these categories is included in this chapter, while the detailed statistical tables are included in Appendix L. This report also includes data sets reported in prior years in order to ensure statistical continuity between previous Regional Short-Range Transit Plans and future Coordinated Plans (Appendices B and C). It is anticipated that in future plans, this data set will be improved and expanded as new data from automated sources becomes available to encompass social service transportation.
Service Zones
The Coordinated Plan must integrate the transit vision of the 2050 RTP, the smart growth objectives of the RCP, the short-term service objectives of the MTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) and NCTD’s forthcoming Mobility Plan. To do this, San Diego County was divided into three distinct types of service zones based on land use, demographics, and travel behaviors in order to more carefully evaluate transit service in these zones. These three zones are urban, suburban, and rural, which are shown in Figure 3.1. The objectives, indicators, and guidelines or targets provide policy direction to the two transit agencies as they implement service to ensure that it is provided efficiently, effectively, and equitably across the entire service area. The objectives and indicators usually apply across all zones, but the guidelines will generally vary by zone reflecting the different needs and markets in the urban, suburban, and rural zones.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-5 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Figure 3.1: Service Zones
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-6 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
The urbanized area boundary was developed through the 2050 urban area transit strategy shown in Figure 3.1. The largest urban area within the urban zone covers the denser central, south, and east county areas and extends from University City on the north to Imperial Beach in the south and from the coast east to El Cajon. The northern urbanized area follows the SPRINTER corridor in North County and includes parts of Oceanside, Escondido, Carlsbad, Vista, and San Marcos. The coastal urban zone generally covers the lands between I-5 and the Pacific Ocean from La Jolla to Oceanside. The urban zones are characterized by two key factors that support high levels of transit service: higher-density, transit-oriented land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional) and good access to transit via a network of arterial and collector roadways. A rich transit network in this zone should be provided and designed to allow for spontaneous use for a wide range of destinations and trip needs throughout the day, including early evening.
The suburban zone surrounds the urban zone. The suburban zone is characterized by low-density development and street patterns that make access to transit difficult. These areas may include some smart growth development, including pockets of transit-oriented residential, commercial, and institutional uses; however, the overall development pattern is not always transit friendly for fixed route services. The result is that spontaneous transit use is more challenging here, requires a greater sensitivity to local conditions, and a larger repertoire of solutions to be effective. Thus, transit services in the suburban zone are best oriented toward providing peak-period commuter services, linkages to major destinations in key travel corridors, and community-based services tailored to individual community needs. The provision of park-and-ride facilities is needed to maximize access to the peak-period commuter services.
The third zone (rural) extends from the eastern edge of the suburban zone into the backcountry areas. The limited transit services are designed to maintain lifeline access to rural villages.
The zones were initially developed to support planning for public transportation; however, in the future they also may become a useful tool in planning for social service transportation. It may become necessary in the future to use the zones as means of prioritizing social service transportation needs and expenditures. For example, it seems unlikely that the region will be able to provide the same level of social service transportation services and mobility choices for people living in rural areas as for those people who are living in urban areas.
Comprehensive Objectives
The comprehensive objectives outlined below involve more than just transit or social service performance data. The climate change indicator includes an evaluation of the future benefit of transit toward regional GHG reduction targets, while the growth objectives looks at transit ridership compared to other growth measures in the region.
GHG REDUCTION OBJECTIVE
Public transit can play an important role in the reduction of regional GHG emissions to combat global climate change. In doing so, transit can contribute to the emissions reductions targets included in California Senate Bill (SB) 375 (Government Code § 65080 et seq.) for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. Quantifying potential GHG emissions reductions from transit operations will help achieve the draft targets set by the California Air Resources Board required by SB 375. This analysis also will support the SANDAG development of a Sustainable Community Strategy, also required by
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-7 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
SB 375. Since passenger cars and light-duty trucks account for about 41 percent of the region’s cumulative GHG emissions1, transit’s role is potentially substantial in order to curb GHG emissions down to desired levels. The anticipated benefits of transit ridership on GHG reductions will be quantified and incorporated into future Coordinated Plans2.
The transit GHG reduction objective and guideline are as follows:
Objective Reduce regional GHG emissions
Guideline Reduced carbon emissions from the expansion or addition of regional transit services
Result No regional services were added or changed in FY 2011
GROWTH OBJECTIVE
In the San Diego region, ridership growth is measured against growth in population and against growth in employment and growth in vehicle registrations. The need to increase transit ridership is a corollary to the service growth projected in the RTP. In addition, many existing services have additional capacity to handle more riders at no additional cost; however, much of the capacity is in the off-peak direction or during off-peak periods. To take advantage of this capacity may require land use change and significant transit-oriented development, which is beyond the direct control of SANDAG and the transit operators.
Objective The ridership for each transit agency shall grow faster than the rate of growth in population, jobs, and private vehicle registrations within their service area.
Guideline Year-over-year growth in transit ridership by operator.
Results Between FY 2006 and FY 2011, transit ridership increased by 5 percent. This was due to a steep decline in jobs (-5 percent) during this time period. Additionally, population was slightly up over this analysis period (+2 percent) and vehicle registration was up by 1 percent. This information is shown in the following chart.
1 From the September 2008 “San Diego County GHG Inventory” report prepared by the Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego.
2 Available reporting methodologies include the Climate Registry’s “Performance Metrics for Transit Agencies” (June 2010, Version 1.0), which include three specific metrics: emissions per passenger-mile traveled, emissions per vehicle-mile and emissions per revenue vehicle-hour.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-8 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Figure 3.2: Transit Ridership Growth Compared to Jobs, Population, and Vehicle Registration (FY2006 – FY2011)
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-9 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
TRANSIT OBJECTIVES
The objectives outlined below are designed to provide the quantifiable outcomes for the transit- related goals articulated earlier in this chapter. As with the evaluation of the TDA performance measures included later in this chapter, poor performance by any particular operator or service is not to be seen as a criticism of the service itself, but rather a validation of the need for additional funding sources. Services also exhibiting negative trends may use the data to re-evaluate all or part of the service and seek ways to coordinate components to achieve greater efficiencies or to combine services to achieve greater productivity.
The performance of each agency is summarized, while the detailed tables listing the quantitative performance data are included in Appendix L. The data specifically used to evaluate the environmental justice objective is included in Appendix H with the smart growth maps included in Appendix I.
FINANCIAL OBJECTIVE
This objective addresses the farebox recovery goal to ensure fiscally responsible operations. The cost recovery goal and objective provides an evaluation of the financial health of the systems and their continued eligibility for state financial support. The financial objective has been split into two parts: targets emanating from the TDA of California and guidelines set forth in SANDAG policy. The TDA objective has a target rather than a guideline as SANDAG is required by the TDA to establish firm cost-recovery targets for MTS and NCTD. The cost-recovery indicator helps to determine the appropriateness of the fare structure and the ability of the system to generate ridership and revenue. The TDA of the State of California requires that MTS generate a cost recovery of at least 31.9 percent for all services except the Commuter Express Service, which must achieve a 20 percent cost recovery. NCTD must achieve a minimum cost recovery of 18.8 percent for all services. Additionally, the SANDAG guideline stems from Board of Directors’ direction to obtain a farebox recovery ratio that is higher than the TDA targets to encourage revenue growth and ridership (SANDAG Policy 29). To do this, the SANDAG guideline was developed to track farebox recovery growth in terms of trends above the TDA thresholds.
Objective For each transit agency to meet or exceed minimum farebox cost-recovery targets or guidelines.
TDA Target Percentage of operating costs recovered from fare revenue for fixed-route and demand responsive services (31.9 percent MTS, 20 percent MTS Commuter Express, 18.8 percent NCTD, and 10 percent MTS ADA and NCTD ADA).
Results Both transit agencies met the performance targets for this objective.
SANDAG Farebox recovery should improve annually above the minimum TDA targets. Guideline
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-10 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Results MTS met this objective for fixed-route and an analysis of MTS ADA services was unavailable. This was due to the accounting methodology for overhead costs changed during this time period which affects the calculation of the MTS ADA Paratransit farebox recovery. For fiscal years 2009 and 2010, overhead expenses were allocated as an annual amount in the fourth quarter of each fiscal year. Starting in FY 2011, MTS began allocating monthly, with the beginning of this analysis period (FY 2008) having no overhead costs. MTS also updated the cost allocation methodology used during this evaluation cycle. Each operator allocated costs using passenger count ratios in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Since the small passenger volume within Paratransit does not accurately reflect the effort required to serve these passengers, the methodology for the cost allocation was changed to revenue miles in FY 2011. This spreading of the overhead costs created a more equitable cost distribution among the operators but created a challenge in evaluating five year trends. NCTD met the objective for ADA Paratransit services but fell just shy of the fixed-route objective with a change from 26 percent farebox recovery in FY 2008 to a farebox recovery of 25 percent in FY 2012. This was due to a large increase in unemployment over the evaluation period given that NCTD relies on the commute sector for one of its major services (COASTER heavy rail).
PRODUCTIVITY OBJECTIVE
This objective addresses the goals to operate productive services that also are convenient and appropriate for the markets being served. In order to meet this goal, an objective was developed to measure productivity and to judge whether appropriate levels of service are being provided. Separate guidelines have been established for each service type to reflect differing expectations. A guideline was chosen instead of a target, as this is a SANDAG policy objective, rather than a state or federal requirement. The productivity evaluation includes an evaluation of passengers per revenue- hour and average percentage of seats occupied. Both measures provide a passenger-centric means of evaluating productivity and the attractiveness of a service.3 Calculating a load factor for a transit service has some similarity to a capacity analysis for a roadway. Both roads and transit services are well utilized during peak periods, but when measured over an entire operating day, the capacity utilization is much less. Transit systems reduce capacity or headway during off-peak hours to keep their load factors from falling too low. Roads, as fixed facilities cannot usually reduce capacity in off-peak hours4.
3 Transit productivity is impacted by nonproductive time resulting from deadhead, layovers, and operator makeup time (time for which drivers are paid, but are not driving), which means that load factor may be a less valuable measurement for analyzing specific routes. MTS and NCTD will need to continue to look at other more detailed measurement techniques to determine potential service adjustments at the route or route segment level. 4 In urban areas, transit services that manage an overall daily load factor average of at least 20 percent are doing well. A typical urban arterial, such as Balboa Avenue in San Diego, El Camino Real in North County, and H Street in Chula Vista also have a typical all-day capacity utilization rate by all vehicles of about 20 percent. Sample capacity calculations for these arterial roadways are provided in Appendix G.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-11 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Objective To operate transit services that are productive and appropriate for the markets being served.
Guideline 1 Average annual revenue passengers per revenue service-hour by operator (at least 35 revenue passenger boardings/service-hour for MTS and at least 20 revenue passenger boardings/service-hour for NCTD).
Results Both MTS and NCTD met both guidelines for this objective.
Guideline 2 Average percentage of seats occupied (load factor) at or above the set thresholds included in Appendix L, which vary by service type, zone and time of day (peak/off peak).
Results In FY 2011 MTS met all of the guidelines for this measure with the exception of the Urban Peak Community bus service (guideline of 25 percent with performance of 24 percent). It is notable; however, that MTS improved performance on the Urban Weekday Community bus service which was above the set guideline in FY 2010 and FY 2011. NCTD met all but the Urban Corridor (SPRINTER) guidelines in FY 2011. This can be attributable to the downturn in the economy. It is notable, however, that NCTD improved performance on the Urban Regional (COASTER) service with performance exceeding the threshold it FY 2011. This may be attributable to the fare decreases that took place in FY 2011. NCTD Rural Local Bus service also improved between FY 2009 and FY 2010/2011 from 14 percent to 24 percent.
ACCESS OBJECTIVES
Transit access can involve issues such as walking distance to a bus stop, the provision of wheelchair lifts or ramps, and the provision of complementary ADA dial-a-ride service. The access objectives identify guidelines on how far people must walk or drive to access transit, as well as linking transit accessibility to the SANDAG smart growth program. Accessibility targets have been established for bus stops as the requirements are federally mandated. In some cases, cities rather than transit operators may be responsible for bus stops. However, this objective is provided here to be consistent with the passenger-centered focus of this Coordinated Plan and to ensure that this indicator is tracked and the appropriate authorities are reminded of their responsibilities.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-12 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Walking Distance
Walking distance to a bus stop is one of the major determinants of transit usage. The closer a bus stop is to a person’s point of origin or destination, the more likely they are to choose transit. Several research studies in the United States and Canada have shown that about half of all transit passengers walk less than 750 feet to a bus stop. The graph in Figure 3.3 illustrates the results of this research.
The topography of hills and canyons in San Diego County means that the street network is discontinuous, and pedestrian routes are often interrupted by geographic barriers. Therefore, it is very difficult to provide good transit coverage, even in many parts of the urban zones. This means the guidelines are relatively conservative. Smart growth will encourage future population growth to occur near transit stops, which should increase the percentage living within the specified distance. The land use change will be a slow process that will occur over many years.
In addition to nonwork trips, the proposed guideline recognizes that employment is a major generator of transit trips. Focusing the guideline on employment reinforces the role of the transit system as supporting economic activity and access to jobs.
The results for this indicator are derived through the use of actual walking (or driving) distance from origin to destination utilizing advanced geographic information systems extensions.
Figure 3.3: Walking Distance Behavior
Source: Canadian Transit Handbook, Third Edition, Canadian Urban Transit Association
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-13 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Objective1 In urban areas, transit and land use development should ensure a comfortable walking distance to transit for residents and jobs.
Guideline 1 80 percent of residents or jobs within one-half mile of a bus stop or rail station in urban areas.
Results Both MTS and NCTD met the guidelines for this objective.
Objective 2 Transit and land use development should attempt to ensure that in suburban areas, residents are within a reasonable distance of a park-and- ride facility with access to the transit network, or a bus stop and transit services should be provided to existing or planned smart growth areas.
Guideline 1 100 percent of suburban residences within five miles of a transit stop services.
Results Both MTS and NCTD met the guidelines for this objective
Guideline 2 70 percent of residents and 75 percent of jobs within one mile of a bus stop or rail station in suburban areas.
Results NCTD met both guidelines for this objective (suburban residential and employment access). MTS fell just shy of the two indicators. This is primarily due to the sprawling employment sites which are difficult for MTS to serve all sites under current budget constraints.
Smart Growth
To provide consistency with the smart growth objectives of the SANDAG RCP, the following performance measure recognizes the critical link between land use and transportation services.
Objective 3 Transit service should be designed to support smart growth.
Guideline Transit service should be designed to support the smart growth areas located on the SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-14 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Results All of the “existing/planned” smart growth areas included in the SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map are served by the requisite levels of transit specified in the RCP. The vast majority of “potential” smart growth areas also are served by transit. Several areas do not have the level of transit service called for in the RCP, including 4 areas5 without the desired levels of regional transit service. This analysis was based on the update of the Smart Growth Concept Map Site Descriptions (last updated January 27, 2012) identified in the RCP. The Smart Growth place types have been significantly redefined since the 2010-2014 Coordinated Plan.
According to the updated Smart Growth Concept Map Site Descriptions, there were 20 areas which require high–frequency, local service under the operational purview of the transit agencies. Fourteen areas6 are located in the MTS service area, and six7 are located in the NCTD service area. Maps illustrating these areas along with the regionally deficient areas are shown in Appendix I. There is a recognition that, while service to smart growth areas is desirable, implementing higher levels of service needs to be justified based on the overall transit demand potential of the area. As such, MTS and NCTD will continue to review the demand potential in these potential smart growth areas compared with the demand potential in other areas where service improvements are needed. Given the current budget shortfall faced by the transit agencies, the ability to implement service improvements will likely be constrained over the next several years.
Lifeline Services
The evaluation of lifeline services helps to ensure that at least some level of service is provided to areas that have been identified as smart growth opportunity areas.
5 Poway, 100% corner (at Poway Road and Community Road) (PW-1), Poway, Pomerado Hospital area (on Pomerado Road south of Bernardo Heights Parkway) (PW-2), San Diego Clairemont Mesa, Mesa College Drive (SD-CM-9), San Diego Navajo (along Mission Gorge Road north of Zion) (SD-NV-2 6 El Cajon, Grossmont Community College (at SR 125 and Grossmont College Drive) (EC-3), La Mesa, La Mesa Boulevard (between Spring Street and Fletcher Parkway) (LM-6), La Mesa, El Cajon Boulevard (between 73rd Street and La Mesa Boulevard, extending on La Mesa Boulevard until University Avenue) (LM-9), San Diego Black Mountain Ranch (southwest of intersection of Camino del Sur and Black Mountain Road) (SD-BMR-1), San Diego City Heights, Euclid Avenue (from El Cajon Boulevard to University Avenue) (SD-CH-2), San Diego Otay Mesa (South of I-905 and Oceanview Hills Parkway) (SD-OM-1), San Diego Pacific Highlands Ranch (East of Carmel Valley Road and Del Mar Heights Road) (SD-PHR-1), San Diego Torrey Highlands (North side of SR 56 and Camino del Sur) (SD-THD-1), San Diego Uptown – San Diego Avenue (from Old Town to Washington Street and India Street from Washington Street to Palm Avenue) (SD-UP-3), Santee, Cuayamaca Street (between Mission Gorge Road and Prospect Avenue) (ST-2), Santee, Magnolia Avenue and Mast Boulevard (ST-3), Santee- Mission Gorge Road and West Hills Parkway (ST-4), County of San Diego- Lakeside-Bostonia (CN-7), County of San Diego, Jamacha Boulevard (at Sweetwater Springs) (CN-10). 7 Carlsbad, Plaza Camino Real (at State Route 78 and El Camino Real Carlsbad) (CB-2), Carlsbad, Quarry Creek Area (at Marron Road and north of Tamarack Avenue) (CB-3), Escondido, Citricado Parkway and Centre City Parkway (ES-6), San Marcos, Rancho Santa Fe Road (between Mission Road/South Santa Fe Road and San Marcos Boulevard) (SM-7), San Marcos- San Elijo Hills (at San Elijo Road and Elfin Forest Road) (SM-8), Vista, East Vista Way/Foothill (VS-6).
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-15 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Objective 4 Transit should attempt to maintain existing lifeline services to currently identified rural village smart growth areas.
Guideline One return trip provided at least two days per week to destinations from rural villages identified on the Smart Growth Concept Map.
Results Both MTS and NCTD met both guidelines for this objective.
Accessible Services
The evaluation of accessible services helps to ensure that accessible services are provided to disabled populations in the region.
Objective 5 Attempt to provide fully accessible bus stops and transit stations.
Guideline 100 percent of bus stops and transit stations that are fully accessible.
Results Neither MTS nor NCTD currently meet the guidelines established for this category. MTS has finished developing a comprehensive inventory of the top 100 bus stops and will be developing a plan to prioritize and retrofit non ADA-compliant stops. Additionally, NCTD has developed a program to look beyond the accessibility of the stop to look comprehensively at the path of travel to the stop; however, the identified deficiencies point to the need for additional funding in this category.
CONVENIENCE OBJECTIVES
Five of the regional transit goals relate to developing a transit system that is convenient for users and potential users. The goals in this section all relate to convenience but note that different levels of service are appropriate for different markets or zones.
The span of service guidelines define the times that transit service will be provided. For the Urban Zone, the objective is to ensure that service is convenient and can accommodate travel during most hours of the day. In the suburban zone, the emphasis on providing excellent commuter services in major corridors is backed by a guideline to provide a limited network of lifeline services. In the rural areas, the policy objectives and guidelines only contemplate lifeline levels of service. The MTS and NCTD Boards of Directors also may decide to provide higher levels of service in specific areas where there is higher ridership or special market conditions.
The frequency of service also influences people’s modal choice. The urban core is the area that requires and can support a high-level of frequency that will enable passengers to travel spontaneously. The COA has developed an extensive network of routes with headways of 15 minutes or better in the urban zone. Experience in San Diego and elsewhere shows that better headways almost always result in more riders.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-16 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
The minimum regional service headway goals are set at 20 minutes for bus and 30 minutes for rail, consistent with the vision of the RTP. With the additional investment described in the 2030 RTP, the headways will be enhanced in future plans with the goal of bringing bus services in key travel corridors up to the service goal of 15 minutes or better for all-day service. The current goals recognize the high cost of reducing rail headways below 30 minutes and take into account current funding or facility limitations.
Objective 1 To provide an appropriate span of service to bus stops based on the zone designation.
Guideline Percentage of stops that have transit service within the specified timeframes for each zone and day of week (weekday/Saturday/Sunday) that are at or above the thresholds included in Appendix L.
Results Both agencies did not meet weekday guidelines for this objective. It is recognized, however, that limited financial resources have an impact on reduced service spans at “shoulder” time periods where service is less efficient.
Objective 2 To provide frequency appropriate for spontaneous travel on major corridors and convenient travel to all parts of the urban core.
Guideline Minimum headways expressed in minutes that are at or below the thresholds included in Appendix L, which vary by service type, zone, and time of day (peak/off peak).
Results Updated GIS files were unavailable for FY 2010 and 2011. However, the performance results for the frequency performance measure were mixed in FY 2009, with both MTS and NCTD exceeding several frequency thresholds. The results show that, while the service guidelines are certainly reasonable expectations for our transit system, funding for public transportation in the region is not sufficient for MTS and NCTD to provide this desired level of service.
RELIABILITY AND SPEED OBJECTIVES
Reliability and speed are very important to existing and prospective transit users. As such the transit service goals recognize the importance of reliability and maintaining or improving travel times. The reliability objective provides a link between the published timetables (promised service) and actual service operated on the road8.
The guideline for local and community bus service was lowered to 80 percent in the 2008-2012 Coordinated Plan from 95 percent. This was done to reflect experience from other transit agencies that have shown that the previous manual schedule adherence-checking often overstates reliability,
8 Service reliability is a critical factor that influences people’s modal choice. The automatic vehicle location (AVL) system now being installed on the transit fleet will provide useful data for evaluating the schedule reliability of the system. These guidelines are consistent with the capabilities of the electronic data reporting that will be feasible with AVL.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-17 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
and to distinguish local and community buses from regional and corridor cars where greater reliability is expected due to use of reserved rights-of-way and priority systems. In future years, the guidelines can be adjusted as more data is received and analyzed. The evaluation of completed trips also is included under the first objective since it is important to evaluate whether the overall transit routes are adequately serving the public. While on-time performance helps evaluate scheduling or congestion issues, this indicator quantifies maintenance or driver issues for vehicles that are taken out of service.
The guidelines for ADA paratransit meet federal rules that establish guidelines for ADA paratransit service. The federal law does not specify performance levels for missed trips or schedule performance, but does require a high level of service be provided. MTS considers an Access trip to be on time if the passenger is picked up within a 10-minute window surrounding the promised pickup time. NCTD considers NCTD LIFT to be on time if the passenger is picked up within a 20- minute window.
The second objective is to ensure that transit services do not lose speed over the course of the evaluation period. Slower services cost more in operating expenses and are less attractive to passengers. It becomes increasingly difficult to maintain service speed in the face of growing traffic congestion; however, implementation of transit priority measures can mitigate this problem. Deficiencies in this area can point to the need for additional funding for signal priority systems which can be developed through partnerships between Caltrans, SANDAG, various cities, transit agencies, developers, or other organizations.
Objective 1 To operate transit services that are reliable, offer competitive travel times, and adhere to published timetables or service intervals.
Guideline 1 Percentage of trips on time at departure, arrivals, and enroute timing points.
Results MTS met the 80 percent on-time guideline for regional and corridor services (including Premium Express Bus) in FY 2011, but fell shy of the guidelines for local and community bus service. NCTD met the 80 percent on-time guideline for its rail services (regional and corridor) but fell shy of the guidelines for local bus service by 1 and 4 percent.
Guideline 2 Percentage of completed trips.
Results MTS and NCTD met both guidelines for this objective for the categories with available data.
Guideline 3 Percentage of ADA trips with pickup within schedule window.
Results MTS and NCTD met the guidelines for this objective. Objective 2 To maintain or improve existing average speeds on existing transit services within the geographical zones.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-18 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Guideline Average transit operating speed in each zone.
Results Both MTS and NCTD generally met the speed guidelines within 1 mile per hour with the exception of NCTD suburban service, which was 2 miles per hour lower than the guideline. This issue will be evaluated as the NCTD Mobility Plan is implemented.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE OBJECTIVE
This objective supports the federal environmental justice, federal Title VI legislation, and RTP equity goals articulated in Chapter 3.
Objective To ensure that transit service and amenities provided in minority and low- income census tracts are on average comparable to the level of service and amenities provided in nonminority census tracts.
Target Percentage of minority and low-income census tracts with transit service must not be disparately impacted when compared to the average level of service and amenities provided in nonminority census tracts.
Results An updated Title VI evaluation was conducted for FY 2011 and found that the transit operators provided service in minority and low-income census tracts that was equal or of better quality than service typically provided in nonminority and non-low-income census tracts. The results of this analysis are included in Appendix H.
COMFORT OBJECTIVE
This objective addresses the goal to provide appropriate service for the markets being served. One of the least welcomed aspects of public transit is the need to stand on board crowded, moving buses or trains during peak periods. Standing can be uncomfortable and is perceived by some passengers as being unsafe, particularly for Express/Bus Rapid Transit services operating at freeway speeds. In extreme conditions, standing also may be the result of crowding that exceeds the comfort level in terms of personal space. People are generally uncomfortable in an environment where they must stand shoulder to shoulder with complete strangers. As a result, most transit systems have policies that define the maximum capacity of bus and rail vehicles. This objective sets guidelines for transit occupancy based on standee density using available floor space.
This policy proposes to adopt guidelines for transit occupancy based on standee density using only the available floor space in the calculation. This requires the measurement of the floor area for each vehicle type in the fleet, but represents the only accurate means of measuring standee density. This indicator will require on-board observations. However, automatic passenger counting (APC) data, when it becomes available, will be used to highlight any routes not meeting the guidelines.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-19 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Objective Occupancy on board vehicles should be appropriate for the distance, speed, fare, and type of service being operated.
Guideline 1 Density of standees per square foot of available standing area.
Results Data is not yet available to measure this objective. Guideline 2 No peak-hour standees on regional and community services.
Results MTS and NCTD met the guideline for this service objective.
Specialized Transportation
In the past SANDAG has had a very limited role in specialized transportation. SANDAG has coordinated the local process for awarding FTA Section 5310 money for elderly and disabled transportation. SANDAG also has overseen the CTSA for San Diego County and participated in some coordination strategies such as the STRIDE (Specialized Transportation Referral & Information for the Disabled and Elderly) Web site and coordinated training programs for specialized transportation operators. As a result of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- LU), SANDAG was given the responsibility to develop a Coordinated Plan and to administer grant program funding to agencies providing specialized transportation. Additionally, the TransNet Extension Ordinance contained a provision for a Senior Transportation Mini-Grant program that also has increased SANDAG’s role in specialized transportation services in the region.
SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIVES
The objectives outlined below are designed to provide the quantifiable outcomes for each of the goals related to specialized transportation from Section 3.2. As required by the Government Performance Results Act, the federal government has identified five indicators for measuring relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes for each of its programs. It is the responsibility of the FTA to collect and report this data at the program level, and is not used to assess individual grants, however to remain consistent SANDAG has adopted these indicators for the purposes of the Coordinated Plan. Because of the close parallels of the goals of the Senior Mini-Grant program to these federal specialized transportation programs, indicators for projects funded through the Senior Mini-Grant program are included in this section with the detailed results included in Appendix L. Because of the wide array of projects funded through these specialized transportation grant programs with differing service parameters and associated costs, these indicators should not be used to analyze or evaluate the performance of individual projects or the grant programs.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-20 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
NEW FREEDOM PROGRAM MEASURES
The New Freedom program is a federal program intended to improve mobility choices for persons with disabilities. The three measures established by the FTA for the New Freedom Program are:
Measure 1 Increases or enhancements related to geographic coverage, service quality, and/or service times for transportation services for persons with disabilities in the current year, to be measured by:
Geographic area in square miles where services are being provided under the New Freedom program
Enhanced service quality for disabled transportation
Enhanced frequency of service for disabled transportation
Results The geographic coverage including operating projects in 30 zip codes and mobility management services in 120 zip codes. All projects to date have represented new projects and therefore there have not been any enhancements to service quality or frequency of service for existing programs funded through New Freedom.
Measure 2 Additions or changes to environmental infrastructure, technology, and vehicles that impact the availability of transportation services for the disabled in the current year, to be measured by:
Improved infrastructure and technologies
Improved vehicles
Results Two accessible vehicles were purchased with New Freedom funds in FY 2010 and FY 2011. No improved infrastructure or technology projects have been funded,
Objective 3 Actual or estimated number of rides (as measured by one-way trips) provided for individuals with disabilities as a result of the New Freedom projects
Results The number of one-way trips provided under the New Freedom program was 7,435 in FY 2009, 11,172 in FY 2010, and 12,204 in FY 2011. Additionally, for mobility management projects, 26,041 units of service were provided in FY 2010 and 20,483 in FY 2011.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-21 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
JARC PROGRAM MEASURES
Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) is a federal program intended to improve mobility choices for employment related travel for reverse commuters and persons of limited means. The two measures established by the FTA for the JARC Program are:
Measure 1 The actual or estimated number of jobs that can be accessed as a result of geographic or temporal coverage of JARC projects implemented.
Results The estimated number of jobs that can be accessed as a result of JARC projects in FY 2011 were 349,590.
Measure 2 The actual or estimated number of rides (as measured by one-way trips):
Results The number of one-way trips provided by JARC projects was FY 2010 was 1,163,245 trips and 1,201,428 in FY 2011. Additionally in FY 2011 a mobility management project delivered 407 units including individuals receiving travel training and assistance with route planning.
SENIOR MINI-GRANT PROGRAM MEASURES
The Senior Mini-Grant program is a local program funded through the TransNet Extension Ordinance. SANDAG has included the requirement that all projects funded through the Senior Mini- Grant program be included in the Coordinated Plan, similar to the federal requirements under the JARC and New Freedom programs. The program and evaluation criteria were developed with stakeholder input and through this process, a performance indicator was established to measure the performance of projects funded under this program. The measure established for operational projects funded by the Senior Mini-Grant program is:
The actual or estimated number of rides (as measured by one-way trips): Measure 1
Results 53,656 trips one way trips were provided through Senior Mini-Grant funded projects in FY 2010 and 70,898 one way trips were provided in FY 2011.
Objective 1 To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a project, to be measured by:
Operating cost in dollars per passenger
Results The operating cost in dollars per passenger was $32.50 in FY 2009, $21.55 in FY 2010, and $20.11 in FY 2011.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-22 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Specialized Transportation Project Monitoring and Reporting
With the responsibility of coordinating the local process for awarding and providing grant money for the JARC, New Freedom, and Senior Mini-Grant programs, SANDAG has developed a consolidated approach to monitoring the projects funded through these programs. This monitoring program is specifically laid out in the Program Management Plan, which is available on the SANDAG website at http://www.sandag.org/CoordinatedPlan. SANDAG developed a Monitoring Checklist that assesses the project’s compliance with the terms of the grant agreement and the project delivery. As part of the Monitoring Checklist, SANDAG measures that grantee’s progress towards project delivery by measuring the cost per unlinked one way passenger trip (or other measurable unit of service) and comparing it with the cost per unit original proposed by the grantee in their grant application. The Monitoring Checklist is completed during site visits performed for all grantees at regular intervals.
SANDAG also monitors the projects on an ongoing basis through the progress reports that are required to be submitted with each invoice packet in order to be eligible for reimbursement. SANDAG uses the information from these report forms and associated data along with information from site-visits to report on the performance of the grantees and the programs as a whole to stakeholders annually. The performance report (also available on the website) includes a qualitative assessment of each of the projects and their progress along with a quantitative analysis related to the level of service provided and the cost per unit, in comparison to the grantee’s proposal. This performance report is annually presented to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee, and Transportation Committee.
Operating Projects/Trip-Based Services
. Total number of one-way passenger trips . Operating cost per trip . Geographical coverage . Number of targeted jobs (JARC only)
Mobility Management Projects
. Total number of service units provided . Operating cost per service unit . Geographical coverage . Number of targeted jobs (JARC only)
Capital Projects
. Total number of units added . Operating cost per unit . Number of targeted jobs (JARC only)
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-23 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Additional indicators, such as operating cost per revenue-hour and passenger seat utilization, and evaluation for capital projects will be added in future years per the guidelines list in the previous section.
Maps of the Job Access & Reverse Commute (JARC), New Freedom, and Senior Mini-Grant projects that received funding in 2011 are shown in Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. These figures only include service and route-based projects; other projects such as travel training and infrastructural improvements are not displayed on the maps.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-24 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Figure 3.2: Job Access & Reverse Commute (JARC)
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-25 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Figure 3.3: New Freedom
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-26 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Figure 3.4: Senior Mini-Grant Program
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-27 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
CTSA OBJECTIVES
The major initiative of SANDAG to improve transportation coordination among social service transportation providers has been the creation and funding of the CTSA. In 2006 SANDAG designated Facilitating Access to Coordinated Transportation (FACT) of Oceanside to be the CTSA for San Diego County.
The role of the CTSA is to improve transportation service that is needed by social service recipients by promoting consolidation of social service transportation, incorporating such benefits as centralized dispatching, combined purchasing of necessary equipment and supplies, centralized maintenance, centralized administration to eliminate duplicative administrative tasks, and consolidation of existing sources of funding. This consolidation results in more efficient and effective use of vehicles throughout the region.
The core mission of the CTSA is to consolidate and coordinate transportation services to people with disabilities, senior citizens, social service agencies, health care providers, various organizations, and individuals within that particular service area.
Now that SANDAG has actively managed several grant recipients over the past several years, SANDAG can begin to evaluate the coordination of the various grant projects. The following objective was set by SANDAG to develop and encourage coordinated transportation.
Objective 1 To effectively advance coordinated access to the full spectrum of community transportation options for populations in need (seniors, persons with disabilities, and persons of limited means) through mechanisms such as mobility management, data tracking for unmet needs, vehicle brokerage, coordinated service, etc., to be measured by:
Increase in the number of social service programs including, coordinated transportation as an integrated component.
Objective 2 To fulfill the scheduled tasks and activities as identified in the CTSA contract between SANDAG and FACT (Contract No. 5000644) as follows:
Maintain an information and referral web site;
Provide information and referral assistance on transportation for seniors, persons with disabilities, and other transportation disadvantaged populations;
Organize trainings for the community;
Maintain an active (minimum four times per year) advisory council of the CTSA (CAM) that can serve as a forum for local health and social service transportation agencies to coordinate and disseminate information on specialized transportation;
Develop an annually updated strategic business plan;
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-28 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Maintain an inventory of existing resources;
Coordinate surveys;
Maintain a CTSA mailing list;
Provide newsletters, brochures and other information materials;
Report on actions and activities of the CTSA;
Ensure that at least 50 percent of the FACT Board of Directors is comprised of officials elected to municipal or county positions in San Diego County, including one member who is a sitting member of the SANDAG Transportation Committee;
Work with SANDAG on the development and updating of the Coordinated Plan;
Conduct quarterly workshops and safety roundtables;
Assist with the federal capital grant process;
Maintain a supplemental transportation programs best practice library;
Give community presentations and technical assistance;
Identify partnerships between public and private services;
Facilitate combined purchasing to achieve cost savings among providers of social service transportation;
Provide consolidated driver training for social service transportation providers;
Coordinate centralized maintenance of vehicles;
Provide transit travel training;
Conduct ADA paratransit/alternative transportation training;
Provide centralized dispatch of vehicles for social service transportation providers;
Develop an administrative model that would eliminate numerous duplicative and costly administrative burdens;
Identify and consolidate existing sources of funding for social service transportation service to provide a more effective and cost efficient use of scarce resources;
Ensure that local elected officials are involved in developing local actions necessary for the success of the CTSA;
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-29 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
Participate in regional disaster preparedness planning for coordinated emergency evacuation; and
Identify target area for deployment outside the pilot project area.
3.4 TDA Productivity Improvement Program and Performance Monitoring
Another component of the transit monitoring process is the Transportation Development Act (TDA) productivity improvement program and performance audit, which is included in the Coordinated Plan. This program is updated and evaluated annually so that SANDAG may distribute state TDA monies to the transit agencies.9 The productivity improvement program ensures that state and local requirements are met and that these programs improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the regional transportation system.
Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99244, an operator can be allocated no more in FY 2013 than it was allocated in FY 2012 unless SANDAG determines that the operator made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvement recommendations adopted by the Board of Directors for the current fiscal year. This reasonable effort is developed through the evaluation of 3-year trend data and through a determination of whether or not those trends are positive.
The Productivity Improvement Program includes all of the performance measures explicitly stated in the state TDA Manual Section 99246(d). Additionally, SANDAG tracks multiyear trend analysis since it is recognized that steps taken by the transit agencies to improve system performance often take several years to be fully realized. The Productivity Improvement Program for FY 2012 included the evaluation of the following TDA performance measures over a three-year (12 quarter) period:
Operating Cost Per Passenger (adjusted for annual inflation) – measures cost-effectiveness
Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour (adjusted for annual inflation) – measures cost-efficiency
Passengers Per Revenue Hour – measures service productivity
Passengers Per Revenue Mile – measures service productivity
Revenue Hours Per Employee – measures labor productivity
Farebox Recovery Ratio – measures service cost-efficiency10
These performance indicators are measured separately for fixed-route (MTS Trolley, MTS Bus, NCTD SPRINTER, NCTD COASTER, and NCTD BREEZE Bus), demand-based services (NCTD FLEX), and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Paratransit services (MTS ADA and NCTD ADA).
The indicators help determine if the agency is obtaining the desired results from the system and if overall performance is improving based on updated regional strategies or service operation plans. Also, these indicators help the transit agencies determine where improvements can be made. These
9 The TDA provides funding for the region’s public transit operators and for nonmotorized transportation projects and, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, SANDAG administers the TDA funds. 10 Based on the TDA Manual Sections 6633.2 and 6633.5, this measure includes the evaluation of the last four quarters of available data (Quarter 2 of FY 2011 through Quarter 2 of FY 2012).
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-30 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
improvements can be incorporated into each operator’s Service Improvement Plan, which are included in the Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan prepared by SANDAG.
Performance trends were evaluated in FY 2012 to determine whether the transit agencies improved their performance in light of external circumstances (e.g., fuel prices and reduced state funding levels for transit). To facilitate a greater understanding of each individual service (MTS Bus, MTS Paratransit, MTS Trolley, NCTD Breeze, NCTD COASTER, NCTD SPRINTER, and NCTD Paratransit), a composite index of the six TDA performance measures is included in the Productivity Improvement Program to help determine overall trends.
Appendix J includes the composite evaluation of each service from Quarter 2 of FY 2009 to Quarter 2 of FY 2012. The overall composite charts are followed by charts that specifically illustrate the percent change through the reporting period as discussed below.
MTS FY 2012 Performance
The results of the FY 2012 MTS performance trend analysis indicate that:
MTS Trolley performance declined by 4 percent based on the Quarter 2 FY 2009 to Quarter 2 FY 2012 analysis. The main reason for the slight decline was a 13 percent decrease in Trolley ridership over the three-year period, due primarily to the economic recession that led to large job losses in the San Diego region. As a result, operating costs per passenger have increased, and passenger productivity (passengers per revenue hour and mile) also declined. Despite the drop in ridership over the three year period, the trolley farebox recovery rate remained stable resulting in a recent four-quarter average of 51 percent. This farebox recovery is well above the 36 percent system average and almost double the national light rail average of 28 percent. This was largely due decreased operating costs coupled with a 4 percent increase in fare revenue over the evaluation period. Trolley ridership has begun to increase, with FY 2011 ridership up 3.8 percent over the previous year, and year-to-date ridership up 5.1 percent.
MTS Bus overall performance improved by 1 percent through the Second Quarter of FY 2012. Factors contributing to the improved performance included large increases in productivity from a 10 percent reduction in revenue hours and miles without proportionately affecting ridership (which increased by 1 percent). Bus ridership had a year to date FY 2012 increase of 5.9 percent. Overall improvements also were seen in labor productivity.
MTS ADA overall performance declined by 13 percent over the past 12 quarters. Positive signs were seen in productivity (passengers per revenue mile and revenue hour). Additionally, operating costs slightly increased while ridership, revenue hours and revenue miles declined. The accounting process for overhead, however, changed during this time period. For fiscal years 2009 and 2010, overhead expenses were allocated as an annual amount in the fourth quarter of each fiscal year. Starting in FY 2011, MTS began allocating overhead monthly, so the beginning of the analysis period had no overhead costs. MTS also changed the cost allocation methodology used during this evaluation cycle. Each operator allocated costs using passenger count ratios in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Since the small passenger volume within Paratransit does not accurately reflect the effort required to serve these passengers, the methodology for the cost allocation was changed to revenue miles. This spreading of the overhead costs created
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-31 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
a more equitable cost distribution among the operators but created a challenge in evaluating composite trends for the MTS ADA service.
MTS Farebox Recovery Rates exceeded the minimum TDA requirements for fixed-route and ADA Paratransit services. TDA requirements include a minimum annual farebox recovery of: 31.9 percent for fixed-route rail and bus (41.1 percent was achieved); 20.0 percent for Premium Express (46.8 percent achieved); and 10 percent for MTS ADA services (13.3 percent was achieved).
NCTD FY 2012 Performance
The results of the FY 2012 NCTD performance trend analysis indicate that:
NCTD COASTER overall performance declined by 5 percent during the last 12 quarters due mainly to declines in ridership and passenger fares coupled with increased operating costs, revenue hours and Full Time Equivalent Employees (FTEs). However, despite high unemployment levels, ridership has increased over the last four quarters by 26 percent, as a result of several factors, including increased fuel prices, increasing traffic congestion, increased marketing efforts, and the reduction in passenger fares which was introduced in the Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2011. It is important to note that while the overall composite performance is slightly down for the three year term, performance has been improving since the reduction of COASTER passenger fares.
NCTD SPRINTER performance improved by 7 percent over the last 12 quarters. The SPRINTER performance improvement was primarily due to the decline in operating costs matched by increased passengers, revenue hours and fares. This yielded improvements in cost-effectiveness and productivity. Farebox recovery also was up 7 percent in the year-over-year analysis.
NCTD BREEZE overall performance did not change over the 12 quarter evaluation period. Gains in cost-effectiveness were offset by slight reductions in farebox recovery. BREEZE farebox recovery, however, has improved by 2 percent over the last two years. Service and labor productivity held constant from the Quarter 2 FY 2009 to the Quarter 2 FY 2012.
NCTD ADA service improved by 13 percent over the previous 12 quarter period. This was the result of large improvements in cost-effectiveness and productivity based on increased passengers (+8 percent), declining costs (-21 percent) due to the transition away from a dedicated fleet service model to a brokerage model, increased revenue hours (+10 percent) and increased fares (+1 percent).
NCTD Farebox Recovery minimum TDA requirements were exceeded for fixed-route and ADA Paratransit services. TDA requirements include a minimum annual farebox recovery of: 18.8 percent for fixed-route (25 percent was achieved); and 10 percent for ADA (13.7 percent was achieved) services.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-32 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
3.5 TDA Performance Audit Recommendations
In addition to the three-year performance monitoring associated with the annual TDA claim, the triennial performance audit included the development of improvement recommendations for the transit agencies. The most recent performance audit completed in April 2010 included some recommendations on possible strategies to improve efficiency and effectiveness for both transit operators. These recommendations and the associated MTS and NCTD action plans to implement them (from Form B of the 2012 TDA Claim) were updated by MTS and NCTD and are included in Attachment J.
3.6 Technical Advancements and Automation
As outlined in this chapter, the Coordinated Plan provides a comprehensive performance analysis of transit service from the regional and passenger perspectives. However, as more detailed data becomes available from new technologies, this evaluation can be further expanded in future years. Automated and consistent data collection is critical to ensuring that performance is tracked over the five-year timeframe discussed in this chapter, including the three years outlined in the TDA section. The following section discusses the status of technical advancements and improvements to the data collection process expected over the next several years.
Transit System
SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD rely on numerous tools for performance monitoring. The Regional Transit Management System (RTMS) is a sophisticated management tool for providing real-time performance monitoring and reporting. The RTMS relies on data from automatic vehicle locator (AVL) technology for real time vehicle location. AVL data is used for on-time performance monitoring, as well as real-time dispatch control.
Figure 3.5: AVL and APC Fleet Deployment (FY 2012)
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-33 CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
The passenger counting program (PCP) provides stop-by-stop boarding and alighting information for every weekday trip, as well as a sample of weekend trips. The PCP relies heavily on manually collected data, but has recently been using data from APC units from a subset of the system. To increase the reliability of PCP data and reduce data collection costs, APC units will be purchased on most new vehicles and retrofitted on older buses and rail cars. The long-term goal for the region is to have 100 percent of transit vehicles equipped with APC units.
Figure 3.5 shows the percentage of vehicles (in some cases purchased but not yet deployed) with AVL and APC technology within each fleet, as well as regionwide.
T-PeMS
Planned improvements to the highway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) program (developed by U.C. Berkeley in cooperation with Caltrans) include the development and integration of transit (T-PeMS) and arterial (A-PeMS) modules. These features will allow PeMS to perform as a multimodal performance measurement and evaluation tool for the San Diego region. These improvements will supplement the SANDAG transit performance monitoring program over the next several years by providing the ability to gather, track, and analyze real-time transit data.
The Coordinated Plan (2012 – 2016) F-34 APPENDIX G MTS BUS STOP LOCATION PROCESS
G-1 G-2 G-3
APPENDIX H NCTD SERVICE STANDARDS FINAL REPORT
NCTD Mobility Plan Service Standards Final Report
November 22, 2010
H-1 Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...... 1
2.0 Transit Services Overview...... 1
3.0 Rail Service Design, Performance, and Amenities...... 2 • Rail Service Design Criteria 2 • Rail Performance Targets 4 • Rail Passenger Amenity Guidelines 4
4.0 Fixed Route Bus Service Design, Performance, and Amenities...... 5 • Fixed Route Bus Service Design Criteria 7 • Fixed Route Bus Performance Targets 11 • Fixed Route Bus Passenger Amenity Guidelines 14
5.0 Community-Based Transit Service Design, Performance, and Amenities...... 15 • Community-Based Transit Service Design Criteria 18 • Community-Based Transit Performance Targets 19 • Community-Based Transit Passenger Amenity Guidelines 20
6.0 Ongoing Performance Monitoring and Reporting...... 21
Attachments...... 22
H-2 List of Figures Figure 1 RPI Calculation...... 11 Figure 2 Typical Community Based Routing Options...... 16
List of Tables Table 1 Sprinter and Coaster Spans of Service...... 3 Table 2 Rail Capacity Targets...... 3 Table 3 Rail Service Frequency Targets...... 3 Table 4 Rail Service Performance Targets...... 4 Table 5 Corridor Routes...... 6 Table 6 Local Routes...... 7 Table 7 Commuter Routes...... 7 Table 8 Population Density Thresholds...... 8 Table 9 Threshold Activity Levels for Transit Service to Non-Residential Destinations...... 9 Table 10 Bus Stop Spacing by Service Area Type...... 9 Table 11 Bus Stop Spacing by Population Density...... 10 Table 12 Service Frequency Targets by Route Category...... 10 Table 13 Service Span Targets...... 11 Table 14 Load Factor Targets...... 13 Table 15 Range of RPI Ratings by Route Category and Service Day...... 14 Table 16 Community Based Transit Service Options...... 16 Table 17 Community Service Design Criteria...... 18 Table 18 Operating Efficiency & Effectiveness Performance Targets...... 19 Table 19 Service Quality Performance Targets...... 20
i
H-3 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
1.0 Introduction
It is a good practice to routinely measure transit performance both at the system level and by individual route level by service day, and to periodically update the targets and standards where appropriate for systemwide and individual route performance. Developing the tools for performance measurement is an important first step in reviewing existing services and restructuring them in a way to maximize their performance and utility. Service standards are used to ensure the services operated by NCTD meet their customers’ needs and expectations, and are provided in a cost-effective, fiscally responsible manner. They provide guidance and information for the following purposes: • Service development • Evaluation • Budgeting • Public accountability • Title VI This technical report outlines the types of services currently operated by NCTD, followed by a discussion of service design guidelines, service performance standards, and passenger amenity guidelines for each service type. The memo concludes with suggestions for the ongoing monitoring and reporting of service performance. 2.0 Transit Services Overview
NCTD currently operates five types of transit services: Coaster – The Coaster operates Monday – Saturday providing commuter rail (CR) service between the Oceanside Transit Center and the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego. Five of the eight Coaster stations are located within the NCTD service area: Oceanside, Carlsbad Village, Poinsettia, Encinitas and Solana Beach. The Coaster serves primarily work trips made during peak periods. The current weekday schedule consists of 11 round trips spread over a 13-hour period between 5:18 am and 8:01 pm. On Fridays, two additional round trips are added at night extending coverage to 11:46 pm. The current Saturday schedule consists of six southbound and seven northbound trips. Sunday Coaster service is limited to special events with no regularly scheduled trips. As part of the LOSSAN corridor, there are plans to increase the mileage of double tracked sections and increase the number of daily trips. The 2050 Regional Transportation Plan currently being prepared by SANDAG calls for full double tracking of the LOSSAN corridor as part of the unconstrained alternative. Sprinter – Operating since March 2008, the Sprinter provides light rail transit (LRT) along 22 miles of track running generally parallel to the CA 78 Freeway between Oceanside and Escondido. Sprinter serves 15 stations and accommodates a wide range of trip purposes. Service frequency presently is limited to every 30 minutes due to extensive single track segments. There also is interest providing express “skip-stop” services (which would require additional trackwork), and a longer service day (freight operations would be limited to Sundays). Similar to plans for the Coaster, the unconstrained alternative currently being developed for the 2050 RTP includes full double tracking for the Sprinter. Breeze – Fixed route bus service is provided throughout the NCTD service area. The Breeze network includes three types of routes: • Corridor routes that cover heavily traveled main streets; • Local routes that operate within communities; and • Commuter routes that operate on weekdays only during peak hours. Breeze service includes the Coaster Connection (Routes 444 and 445) that provides links between the Carlsbad Poinsettia Station and key employment destinations in Carlsbad. The productivity and financial performance of
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-4 1 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
the routes varies widely. Community Based Non-Fixed Services – No general public demand responsive services are currently operated. NCTD formerly operated FAST services in Encinitas, Fallbrook, Ramona, San Marcos, and Vista, but these services were eliminated due to budget constraints. This type of service is being reconsidered in the development of the Mobility Plan as part of the restructuring of fixed route service in selected areas. ADA Service – NCTD operates the LIFT service to provide mobility for disabled users who are unable to use the Breeze system. It is designed to conform with state and federal requirements for ADA service in corridors served by fixed routes. 3.0 Rail Service Design, Performance, and Amenities
NCTD services include two distinct rail transit modes, commuter rail and light rail transit. With significant differences in purpose, ridership base, and fare structure, as well as their relationship to the Breeze bus system, the Coaster and Sprinter are not readily comparable to one another. Coaster – The Coaster is an important regional service designed to provide a viable commute alternative to driving the I-5 Freeway between Oceanside and downtown San Diego. Given its limited service span and frequency, the Coaster is not designed to function as an integral part of the local transit network, although a critical function of the Breeze is as a feeder service to the five commuter rail stations in the NCTD service area. Coaster stations also serve as favorable terminal points for Breeze bus routes covering coastal communities, providing both connectivity for customers and meeting operational requirements. Sprinter – From a design perspective, the Sprinter provides a foundation for the Breeze bus network. Recognizing the need to funnel as many longer-distance passengers as possible into the Sprinter line when it opened in 2008, NCTD developed and implemented structural service changes in 2008 and 2009 to improve bus-train connections throughout the system. Primary transfer points were established at the Escondido, Oceanside and Vista stations where pre-existing transit centers already accommodated timed-transfer bus locations. Several new short-distance feeder routes were created to serve Mira Costa College (Route 319), Kaplan College (Route 331) and California State University San Marcos (Route 340). In addition, connections between Sprinter and Coaster trains at Oceanside were coordinated where possible.
3.1 Rail Service Design Criteria The alignments for the Coaster and Sprinter rail services are fixed for the short to medium term and it is understood that future investments in track capacity and station improvements are long-term in nature. Thus the primary options available to NCTD for adjusting these services in the next several years involve changes to service span (i.e., days and hours of operation) or train capacity (i.e., number of cars per train - up to six per train on Coaster, up to two per train on Sprinter). Rails service frequency adjustments are limited by both physical and financial constraints. Similarly, it may be difficult to operate Sprinter trains in express or limited- stop service until additional double track line segments are constructed. There are opportunities to add some trips to the Coaster schedule and extended service hours are being considered for the Sprinter in January 2011.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-5 2 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Rail Service Span Existing and target service span for Sprinter and Coaster rail services are shown below. Table 1 - Sprinter and Coaster Spans of Service Service Weekday Saturday Sunday SPRINTER Existing 4:03am-9:26pm 4:33am-9:26pm 4:33am-9:26pm Target 4:00am-12:00am 4:30am-11:00pm 5:00am-9:00pm COASTER 5:18am-8:01pm Existing 8:30am-11:46am Special Events Fridays until 11:46pm 5:00am-9:00pm Target 7:00am-9:00pm As-Needed Fridays until 12:00am
Rail Service Capacity Passenger load targets guide the need to add capacity through additional cars or increased frequency. Weekday peak passenger loading targets are shown below. Table 2 - Rail Capacity Targets Service Maximum Load SPRINTER 125% of Seated Capacity COASTER 100% of Seated Capacity
Rail Service Frequency NCTD’s substantial investment in rail infrastructure warrants a commensurate level of service. Sprinter service frequency currently is limited to 30 minutes due to track capacity. This is low relative to typically 5-15 minute peak service frequencies encountered on comparable LRT systems in the United States. Coaster service frequency also is constrained due to track agreements as well as the cost of rolling stock and commuter rail operations. NCTD has long-range plans to improve service frequencies on both services as funding permits. Existing and target frequencies for Sprinter and Coaster rail services are indicated in the following table. Table 3 - Rail Service Frequency Targets Weekday Base / Service Weekday Peak Evening Saturday Sunday SPRINTER Morning & Evening - 60 Morning & Evening - 60 Existing 30 30 Midday - 30 Midday - 30 Target 15* 15* 20 30 COASTER AM NB 26-46 Existing 2 Trains 6 Round Trips Special Events PM SB 30-54 Target 30 60 60 120
*currently limited to 30 minutes by track configuration.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-6 3 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
3.2 Rail Performance Targets A summary of proposed standards for net cost per passenger and passengers per revenue hour is shown below, based on recent Sprinter and Coaster performance. Table 4 - Rail Service Performance Targets Standard Service Target Sprinter $0.60 Net Cost Per Passenger Mile Coaster $0.25 Sprinter 100 Passengers Per Hour Coaster 225
3.3 Rail Passenger Amenity Guidelines Rail service passenger facilities include stations and rolling stock provided through a significant capital investment. One of the essential passenger amenities is the provision of current route maps and timetables at all Coaster and Sprinter stations. Future improvements include updates to the wayfinding signing system and possible additional amenities as part of joint development projects at stations. Real-time transit information systems are key technology applications within the transit industry designed to provide better customer service by disseminating timely and accurate information. Riders use this information to make various decisions about modes of travel, travel routes, and travel times. Real-time transit information generally includes information on projected vehicle arrival and departure times, service disruptions and delays, transfers and other transportation services, as well as other related information such as date and time, weather, public announcements, security related information and updates during emergency events, and other general events in the local area. This information is provided to assist riders in making pre-trip and en route (including in-vehicle) trip decisions. Moreover, the provision of real-time transit information helps improve the visibility of transit agencies within their communities. Access to this information is made through a variety of media including dynamic message signs (DMS) at stops and stations, kiosks (at bus shelters, office buildings, shopping centers, and other locations), cable television, cell phones/personal digital assistants (PDAs), the Internet, and telephones.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-7 4 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
4.0 Fixed Route Bus Service Design, Performance, and Amenities
NCTD adopted transit system performance standards initially as part of the 2002 Fast Forward Strategic Plan that reflected a “Productivity and Coverage” strategy to guide service distribution and to set performance standards. This approach refers to two types of routes: Productivity-oriented routes that carry the highest possible ridership in areas with higher ridership and employment densities; and Coverage-oriented routes that serve transit-dependent and other niche markets. Within these two route orientations, various route types are defined: • Corridor Routes generally run on major arterials at higher average speeds and focus on inter-community travel. These routes operate at least every 30 minutes on weekdays and carry at least 25 passengers per revenue vehicle hour if considered to be productivity-oriented, or operate every 60 to 120 minutes and carry at least 15 passengers per hour if considered to be coverage-oriented. • Local Routes generally serve one or two communities and provide circulation within rather than between communities. These routes operate every 30 to 60 minutes on weekdays and must carry at least 20 passengers per revenue vehicle hour if considered to be productivity-oriented, or operate every 60 minutes and carry at least 12 passengers per hour if considered to be coverage-oriented. • Commuter Routes address particular needs for service to major employment and educational centers. These routes are considered productivity-oriented and must carry at least 20 passengers per revenue vehicle hour and 15 passengers per trip. • Local Peak Capacity Routes include supplemental tripper services required to alleviate overloading during peak hours and at school bell times. These are considered productivity-oriented for purposes of performance evaluation and must carry at least 30 passengers per revenue vehicle hour and 20 passengers per trip. • Coaster Connection Routes provide “last mile” feeder services between major employment sites and the Carlsbad Poinsettia commuter rail station. These are considered coverage-oriented for purposes of performance evaluation and must carry at least 10 passengers per revenue vehicle hour. • Special Event and Supplemental Services such as Padre and Charger service are no longer operated due to changes in charter regulations. Limited special event service (e.g., San Diego County Fair) is provided because it has the same fare as regular service. In addition, extra trips on bus routes and rail service bridges are operated when required by service interruptions. For the most part the route categories developed for the Fast Forward Strategic Plan still fit current conditions. However some adjustments to NCTD policies and approach to service standards and performance monitoring are recommended. The most significant adjustment needed is precipitated by the introduction of Sprinter LRT service in March 2008, which altered the basis for Breeze network design such that the distinction between “productivity” and “coverage” among bus routes now is less relevant. System design now depends more on Sprinter’s substantial capacity to provide longer distance trips between communities at operating speeds that are faster and more predictable than Breeze buses running on surface streets. It is anticipated that future bus service changes will lead to more local feeder connections to Sprinter stations as well as short-distance neighborhood trips. Meanwhile, the number of “corridor” routes will be limited to those operating in areas peripheral to, perpendicular to, or beyond the influence of the Sprinter line. Going forward, Breeze routes should be differentiated not only by function relative to Sprinter and Coaster services but also on the basis of geographic and demographic characteristics of the areas they cover, ridership volumes and vehicle size. Suggested route categories are described in the following paragraphs.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-8 5 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Corridor Routes should continue to serve moderate and higher density travel corridors using primarily arterial streets to provide direct connections between communities that are not linked by the Sprinter. Corridor routes tend to be longer with round trip cycle times of 120 to 240 minutes and end-to-end one-way travel times of 50 to 100 minutes. Level of service characteristics should reflect the prevailing geographic and demographic conditions in the service area. In areas of higher population and employment density (i.e., primary transit corridors) for example, these routes likely are “full-service” in terms of coverage, span and frequency. Existing targets for productivity (25 passengers per revenue vehicle hour) and frequency (30 minutes or better) are appropriate for these routes, although peak period target frequencies of 15 minutes should be considered for the medium-range future (3-5 years). In addition to service productivity, new measures of service utilization and cost-effectiveness are proposed as part of a three-part Route Performance Index (RPI) described later in this section. In areas of lower population and employment density (i.e., secondary transit corridors), corridor routes may be less than “full-service”, but nevertheless sufficient to meet the basic transportation needs of transit dependent and mobility-challenged persons. Target service productivity for all corridor routes should be at least 25 passengers per revenue vehicle hour. This represents a 16% increase over current weekday productivity (21.6 passengers per hour); a 33% increase over current Saturday productivity; and a 71% increase over current Sunday productivity among corridor routes. Frequency targets should be 30 minutes during peak hours and 60 minutes during off-peak hours. The following Breeze routes are included in the “corridor” group for purposes of performance measurement. Table 5 - Corridor Routes Breeze Route Communities Linked Corridors Served Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, 101 Pacific Coast Hwy Del Mar, San Diego 302 Oceanside, Vista Vista Way 303 Oceanside, Vista Mission Ave, N. Santa Fe 304/404 San Marcos, Encinitas Rancho Santa Fe 305 Escondido, San Marcos, Vista Mission, S. Santa Fe 306 Fallbrook, Bonsall, Vista Mission Ave, Vista Way 308 Escondido, Solana Beach Del Dios Hwy, Via De La Valle 309 Encinitas, Carlsbad, Oceanside El Camino Real 315 Oceanside, Camp Pendleton Vandegrift Blvd 347 Escondido, San Marcos Mission Rd, Barham Dr, Craven Rd 388/389 Escondido, Pala, Rincon Valley Center Rd, Pala Rd 395 Oceanside, Camp Pendleton, San Clemente Camp Pendleton
Local Routes should focus on circulation within communities and increasingly should accommodate short- distance feeder trips to and from Sprinter stations. Local routes tend to be moderate in length with round trip cycle times of 60 to 90 minutes and end-to-end one-way running times of 25 to 40 minutes. Existing targets for productivity (20 passengers per revenue vehicle hour) and peak frequency (30 minutes or better) should be retained for local routes in the short-term. However, higher medium-term targets should be considered in view of the current weekday average productivity of 22.1 passengers per hour among local routes; 19.5 passengers per hour on Saturdays and 15 passengers per hour on Sundays. The following Breeze routes are included in the “local” group for the purpose of performance measurement.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-9 6 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Table 6 - Local Routes Breeze Route Communities Served Coverage Area 313 Oceanside Mission Ave, Mesa Drive 318 Oceanside Oceanside Blvd 319 Oceanside Rancho Del Oro 325 Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista Carlsbad Village Dr, College Blvd 331 Vista University Dr Kaplan College 332 Vista Melrose Dr, Sycamore Ave 333 Oceanside, Vista Old Grove Rd, Oceanside Blvd, Melrose Dr 334/335 Vista Loop Circulator 340 San Marcos Csu San Marcos – Civic Center Sprinter Station Escondido Blvd, Bear Valley Pkwy (Soon To Be Upgraded To 350 Escondido Rapid Service) 351/352 Escondido Loop Circulator Via Grand Ave, Washington Ave 354 Escondido Lincoln Ave, Midway Dr 356 Escondido Escondido Blvd, Morning View Dr 358/359 Escondido N. Broadway, El Norte Pkwy, Country Club Ln
Commuter Routes combine “commuter” and “Coaster Connection” routes into a single category defined by common function and level of service characteristics. These routes focus on niche ridership markets and therefore are less likely to require all-day service span or a constant service frequency. Applying the above criteria, the following Breeze routes are included in the commuter group. Table 7 - Commuter Routes Breeze Route Communities Served Coverage Area 317 Oceanside College Blvd 321 Carlsbad Palomar Airport - San Marcos Blvd 386 Escondido, Ramona San Pasqual Valley Rd 444/445 Carlsbad Palomar Airport Rd & Faraday Ave Corridors
Finally, it is recommended that the separate route designation “local peak capacity” be dropped. Alternatively the need for supplemental capacity on NCTD routes should be considered holistically as a level of service characteristic associated with overall demand for corridor, local or commuter routes defined as proposed in this section.
4.1 Fixed Route Bus Service Design Criteria Design criteria include a combination of static indicators and active measures of transit system functionality that embody NCTD policies, level of service preferences, customer expectations and transit industry peer performance levels. Design criteria influence the form and function of the various transit routes by distinguishing among different types of routes in three major characteristics: service coverage; service
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-10 7 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
frequency; and service span. There are at least two purposes for design criteria: one is to guide the allocation of resources in relation to physical service area and demand characteristics; and the other is to identify whether NCTD is meeting prescribed targets or minimum thresholds for service quantity and quality. Service Coverage Transit system coverage is the product of several design criteria including proximity to residential origins and primarily non-residential destinations, bus stop spacing, and comparative travel time. It should be noted that transit coverage typically is less quantifiable than service span or frequency, given the often unique topographic conditions, prevailing land use patterns and development densities observed among transit system service areas. These physical characteristics, as well as demographic and behavioral differences among population segments, weather variations and even the image of the transit system itself all contribute to wide differences in the rates of transit trip-making. The significance of these issues to the Breeze bus system is discussed in the following paragraphs. Proximity to Residential Locations measures the walking distance and time required for transit riders to travel between home and the nearest NCTD bus stop. Traditionally, the design standard for measuring pedestrian access to transit has been ¼-mile, which is the distance traversed within five minutes walking at a pace of three miles per hour. Although accepted without question for many years, this assumption may be changing over time for reasons that include the increased cost of personal automobile ownership, changing lifestyles; availability of bicycle racks on buses and, improved accessibility of bus stops to meet ADA mandates. These factors tend to increase the time and distance that many transit customers are willing to travel to reach the nearest bus stop. Therefore, it is proposed that reasonable access to transit be redefined as 0.4-mile, which is the distance traversed within 10 minutes at a pace of 2.5 miles per hour. The following table indicates the targeted percentage of households located within this threshold, depending on the population density of the service area. It is noted that 95% of all residents in the NCTD service area live within 0.4 miles of existing fixed route service, based on SANDAG 2010 population estimates. Table 8 - Population Density Thresholds Population Density Persons per Acre Percent of Households within 0.4-Mile High 16 or Above 90% Medium 11-15 75% Low 6-10 50% Rural 5 or Below 10%
Access to Non-Residential Destinations may be used to identify those commercial and institutional trip generators such as downtown areas, office parks and factories, hospitals, colleges and secondary schools, shopping centers, public buildings, popular visitor destinations and other facilities that should be accessible via public transportation. Generally transit trip generation by land use or development type is not researched exhaustively at the industry level, nor is there a single organization (e.g., Institute for Transportation Engineers) engaged in forecasting the number of daily transit riders generated by various types and sizes of property development. Therefore, setting a minimum number of passenger boardings that should be required to justify new transit service to a particular destination can be problematic or even misleading. NCTD should be guided by a combination of factors when determining the need for service to non-residential destinations, including actual ridership levels achieved at comparable developments, anticipated deviation travel times for existing riders on the routes affected, customer requests, financial or other support from property owners and major tenants, and operating considerations. While specific standards for service to non- residential destinations are not necessarily recommended, the following threshold (i.e., targets) are suggested and summarized in Table 9.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-11 8 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Table 9 - Threshold Activity Levels for Transit Service to Non-Residential Destinations Types of Development Examples of Destinations Threshold Size or Activity Level Central Business District, 100 Employees Per Shift Employment Office Parks And Buildings (Common Start/Quit Times) Medical Hospital, Medical Offices 50 Employees And Significant Out-Patient Facilities Government Offices, Human Frequent Public Visitation During Regular Business Public Facilities Service Agencies, Libraries Hours And Senior Centers Regional mall; neighborhood 100,000 Sq. Ft. Of Retail Space With At Least One Retail shopping center “Anchor” Store College, High School And School / Training 500 Combined Students, Faculty & Employees Middle School
Bus Stop Spacing, which measures the physical distance between consecutive bus stops along a route, reflects an important balance between convenient access for transit customers on one hand, and faster onboard travel time on the other. For example, closely spaced stops (e.g., every 1-2 blocks) yield short walking distances for customers, but more frequent stops for passengers on board and a longer bus trip overall for the majority of passengers. Conversely, bus stops located farther apart yield longer walk distances for some passengers, but fewer stops for passengers on board and a shorter bus trip for the majority of passengers. Bus stop spacing depends on several factors ranging from service area density and prevailing land use to the specific orientation of destinations relative to street intersections, availability of sidewalks, crosswalks and traffic signals. TCRP Report 19 offers general guidance concerning bus stop spacing shown in Table 10. Table 10 - Bus Stop Spacing by Service Area Type Typical Number of Stops per Di- Service Area Characteristics Spacing Range Typical Spacing rectional Route Mile CBD core 300 – 1,000 feet 600 Feet 9 Urban areas 500 – 1,200 feet 750 Feet 7 Suburban areas 600 – 2,500 feet 1,000 Feet 5 Rural areas 650 – 2,640 feet 1,250 Feet 4 Source: TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Placement of Bus Stops; Chapter 3, p. 18. TCRP’s guidance focuses on physical and operating factors rather than on minimum utilization of bus stops as a criterion for stop placement. This is part reflects substantial variations in passenger volumes among transit systems as well as among routes within each system. It also is reasonable to factor in the current and predicted future utilization characteristics of bus stops in the NCTD service area to help achieve a balance between access for boarding customers and bus travel times experienced by those already on board. Considering the unique topography and prevailing land use conditions observed in the NCTD service area, however, it may be preferable to assess the need for bus stops on a case-by-case basis rather than to impose a minimum level of boarding/alighting activity in order to warrant a bus stop. Several “common-sense” considerations should be brought to bear on this question. For example, a bus stop may be warranted (or even be regarded as essential) when used by a small number of riders (e.g., 5-10 per day) if the presence of the bus stop serves a particular purpose and does not contribute significantly to the onboard travel times of most riders. This logic might apply when most or all riders board a single trip serving a school bell time or workplace shift time. Alternatively, a smaller number of boardings may nevertheless warrant a bus stop when they occur at night or in a neighborhood where issues of personal security may exist. Similarly, special consideration may be justified when the bus stop serves a destination frequented by senior citizens or persons with disabilities.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-12 9 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Optimal bus stop spacing guidelines by population density are summarized in Table 11. Minimum activity levels (boardings plus alightings) are suggested as a means to selectively eliminate the least utilized bus stops in the system. Fewer stops will generate incremental running time improvements and nominally improve schedule reliability. The objective is to achieve a balance between reducing access times for boarding and alighting customers and onboard travel times experienced by all customers. It should be noted that even spacing is more critical in higher density communities than in suburban and rural locations where direct proximity to specific destinations be required for safety reasons. Table 11 - Bus Stop Spacing by Population Density Bus Stops Per Population Persons Per Directional Route Distance Between Stops Minimum Average Weekday Density Acre Mile (Feet) Boardings & Alightings High 16 Or Above 7 – 8 750 Or Less 20 Medium 11 – 15 5 – 7 750 – 1,000 20 Low 6 – 10 4 – 5 1,000 – 1,300 15 5 Or Rural 2 – 4 1,300 – 2,600 10 Below
Service Frequency Service frequency refers to the interval of time, or “headway” between consecutive buses passing a given point along a route. Transit riders clearly prefer higher frequency service while the U.S. transit industry perspective generally is that 10-15 minute headways are a minimum threshold for “high frequency” service. A systemwide 15-minute weekday service frequency is a reasonable long-range design target for the Breeze network. In the short and mid-range however, transit service frequency decisions must be tempered by current demand for service at existing service frequencies and financial constraints. A realistic objective is to improve service frequency selectively on those routes that exhibit the best combination of existing and potential ridership as funding permits. Mid-range (3 – 5 years) targets for route frequency by route category are provided in Table 12. Beyond functional route classification, increases or decreases in service frequency should be made in consideration of population and population density of the area served, demographics, actual and anticipated ridership, topography and street network, and operating conditions. Table 12 - Service Frequency Minimum Targets by Route Category Route Classification Weekday Peak Weekday Base Saturday Sunday Corridor 15 15 30 30 Local 30 30 60 60 Commuter 30 As needed As needed As needed
Service Span
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-13 10 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Service span refers to the days and hours during which transit service is provided on a route. Target spans of service are summarized in Table 13. Table 13 - Service Span Targets Route Classification Weekday Saturday Sunday 4:30 am – Corridor 5:30 am – 9:30 pm 6:30 am – 7:30 pm 9:00 - 11:00 pm 5:00 am – Local 6:00 am – 7:00 pm 7:00 am – 6:00 pm 8:00 - 9:00 pm Per Conditions – Typically Commuter NA NA Peak Periods
4.2 Fixed Route Bus Performance Targets This section proposes significant changes to NCTD’s existing approach to performance measurement and service standards for the Breeze fixed route bus system. Use of performance targets rather than minimum standards is recommended, for two reasons. First, NCTD needs to provide assurance to customers that the system is stable and may be relied upon into the future. The use of targets makes it clear that services will be reviewed in a multifaceted way rather than against a fixed performance level. Second, the use of targets affords the ability to better respond to the prospect of reduced State and local transit operating funds by allowing flexibility in making adjustments to specific services. The targets can represent minimum performance levels, such as passengers per revenue hour, or they can represent maximum acceptable levels, such as the load factor targets. Diversification of performance measurement is recommended as well. For the last decade at least, NCTD has relied on a single productivity measure -- Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour -- as the primary metric underlying service adjustments, including the budget-driven service reductions implemented in 2009 and 2010. Going forward, two additional metrics are proposed: Passenger Miles per Seat Mile, which is a measure of Breeze service capacity utilization; and Net Cost per Passenger, which is a measure of cost-effectiveness of service provided. These three performance measures will be blended into a Route Performance Index (RPI) designed to show the relative strength of each Breeze route within its functional route category. The Breeze RPI is illustrated in Figure 1 and described in the following pages. FY 2010 RPI tables for weekday, Saturday and Sunday services are provided in Attachment C. Figure 1 - RPI Calculation
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-14 11 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Productivity – Passengers per Revenue Hour The average number of passengers carried per revenue hour of bus service is a common measure of how effectively the service is distributed. It is calculated by dividing the productivity of the individual route by the average productivity of all routes in the same category for the same service day. For example, the average productivity among corridor routes on weekdays is 21.6 passengers per hour. The category average is equivalent to a numerical rating of “1.0”, meaning that above-average routes have ratings above 1.0 while below- average routes have ratings below 1.0. The higher the rating, the more productive a route is considered to be. The relative productivity of Breeze routes is measured against other routes within route categories (i.e., Corridor, Local, Commuter) and by service day (i.e., Weekday, Saturday, Sunday). Service productivity is weighted as one-third of the overall RPI. While not specifically part of the RPI calculation, ‘passenger trips per capita’ is another common measure of service productivity. Frequently applied at the system level rather than the individual route level, it is an indicator of transit “market share” and reported in the National Transit Database (NTD). It is calculated by dividing total annual ridership by the service area population. For example, NCTD served approximately 13.5 passenger trips per capita in 2008, based on a reported 12,337,600 total passenger trips on all modes, and an estimated service area population of 914,500 residents. Trips per capita may be calculated by individual route assuming that reasonable population estimates for neighborhoods served by each route can be accurately determined. Utilization – Passenger Miles per Seat The average number of passenger miles per seat mile is less commonly used but nevertheless a good way to measure the extent to which service supply conforms to passenger demand. Passenger miles are calculated as the product of average daily ridership multiplied by the average transit passenger trip length. Seat miles are calculated as the product of total scheduled revenue miles multiplied by the seating capacity of the buses operating those miles. Utilization is calculated by dividing total daily passenger miles by total daily seat miles. For example, the average utilization rate among corridor routes operating on weekdays is 0.26 passengers per seat mile. The category average is equal to a numerical rating of “1.0”, meaning that above-average routes have a rating above 1.0 while below-average routes have a rating below 1.0. The higher the rating, the more highly utilized a route is considered to be. Service utilization is weighted as one-third of the overall RPI. As with productivity, the relative relationship of capacity and demand of Breeze routes is measured against other routes within route categories (i.e., Corridor, Local, Commuter) and by service day (i.e., Weekday, Saturday, Sunday). While not specifically part of the RPI calculation, it is appropriate to establish maximum acceptable loading conditions to prevent excessive overcrowding on Breeze bus services. Passenger loading conditions are measured by a ‘Load Factor’ that is calculated as the number of passengers on board at the maximum load point in each travel direction on the route, divided by the seating capacity of the bus. A load factor of “1.0” means that a bus is carrying a full seated load at the maximum load point. A load factor of less than 1.0 means that seats are available. A reasonable expectation is that passengers should have access to a seat while riding NCTD buses most of the time. During peak hours when passenger demand is heaviest, some standees must be tolerated but total passenger loads should not become excessive. Accordingly, maximum loading targets by route category and service day/time period are recommended in Table 14.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-15 12 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Table 14 - Load Factor Targets Service Day / Maximum Route Category Time Period Load Factor Weekday Peak 1.25 Corridor Other Times 1.10 Weekday Peak 1.10 Local Other Times 1.00* Weekday Peak 1.25 Commuter Other Times 1.00* * By policy, small vehicles cannot have a load factor greater than 1.00.
Cost Effectiveness – Net Operating Cost per Passenger The average net operating cost per passenger is one indicator of the cost effectiveness of transit services provided. It measures the “bottom line”; that is, how much does it cost on average to provide a one-way way trip after fares and other passenger revenues have been deducted. Unlike passengers per hour and passenger miles per seat mile, both of which reflect improvement as the numerical value increases, the net cost per passenger improves as the numerical value decreases. Therefore it is calculated as a reciprocal of the others by dividing the cost effectiveness of all routes in the same category for the same service day by the cost effectiveness of the individual route. For example, the average net cost per passenger for all corridor routes operating on weekdays is $4.37. The category average is equated to a numerical rating of “1.0”, meaning that routes that have a lower-than-average net operating cost per passenger have a rating above 1.0 while routes with a higher-than-average net operating cost have a rating below 1.0. The higher the rating, the more cost effective a route is considered to be. Cost effectiveness is weighted as one- third of the overall RPI. Similar to productivity and utilization, the net operating cost per passenger is measured against other routes within route categories (i.e., Corridor, Local, Commuter) and by service day (i.e., Weekday, Saturday, Sunday). Composite Route Performance Index Rankings The sum of the individual ratings of service productivity, utilization and cost effectiveness are reflected in a single numerical value with “3.0” identifying a route that is average in the combined three categories. Routes with better than average performance score higher than 3.0, while lower performing routes score less than 3.0. The RPI range for routes in each of the three categories are summarized in Table 15 by service day. The values for routes in each group of varies, but the ranking within each group is a strong indicator of how the route performs relative to its peers. As noted earlier, detailed RPI ratings are shown in the tables in Attachment A.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-16 13 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Table 15 - RPI Ratings by Route Category and Service Day Route Category Service Day / Number of Routes Time Period RPI Range 3.0 or Above Weekday 4.32 – 1.75 4 of 12 Corridor Saturday 5.05 – 1.15 4 of 10 Sunday 5.25 – 1.15 4 of 11 Weekday 3.92 – 0.55 5 of 13 Local Saturday 5.24 – 0.74 4 of 8 Sunday 3.50 – 0.39 2 of 5 Weekday 4.87 – 1.97 3 of 4 Commuter Saturday NA NA Sunday NA NA
4.3 Fixed Route Bus Passenger Amenity Guidelines Installation of passenger amenities at bus stops such as shelters, benches, passive and real-time schedule information displays is generally guided by passenger volumes supplemented by considerations of equity, safety and comfort. TCRP Report 19 offers general guidance in terms of the following utilization warrants for shelters and benches while acknowledging that the “…decision to install a shelter is a result of systemwide policy among transit agencies. • Rural stops = 10 boardings per day • Suburban stops = 25 boardings per day • Urban stops = 50 to 100 boardings per day Beyond boarding volumes, other criteria may be used to evaluate the potential for providing a shelter, including: • Number of transfers at a stop • Availability of space to construct shelters and waiting areas • Number of older adults or physically challenged individuals using the stop • Frequency of service • Adjacent land use compatibility • Availability of shelter from other sources (e.g., building entrance, awning) Other street furniture such as benches can be provided at bus stops as appropriate when shelters are not provided. Priority should be given to those stop locations, which are frequented by a significant number of senior citizens or persons with disabilities. Accurate and complete information concerning NCTD transit routes and services, bus stop and fare information should be made available to all service area residents. Current route maps and timetables should be available at Coaster and Sprinter stations, bus transit centers, selected community locations, and aboard all NCTD buses. Route information should be available by telephone whenever NCTD buses are in operation and the volume of incoming calls exceeds five per hour.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-17 14 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
5.0 Community-Based Transit Service Design, Performance, and Amenities
“Community-based transit” is the term selected to characterize an array of services that respond to local transit needs, generally in areas where traditional fixed-route transit utilizing standard transit coaches does not work. This includes flexible services such as dial-a-ride, route deviation (or “flexroute”), and shared ride taxi services. According to TCRP Report 140 – A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation, many agencies that have implemented flexible public transportation services have realized real benefits while others have attempted this approach and abandoned the effort after several months or years. Often, in rural and small urban areas, flexible public transportation services can serve senior citizens and persons with disabilities at a lower cost than demand responsive service. Also, in suburban communities, a flexible public transportation service with small buses may encourage first-time public transit users to leave their cars at home and use the service to connect with regional transit services to reach nearby destinations.
For the purposes of the TCRP report, the concept of flexible public transportation services included the following:
• Route Deviation – vehicles operating on a regular schedule along a well-defined path, with or without marked bus stops, which deviate to serve demand-responsive requests within a zone around the path. The width or extent of the zone may be precisely established or flexible. • Point Deviation – vehicles serving demand-responsive requests within a zone and also serving a limited number of stops within the zone without any regular path between the stops. • Demand-Responsive Connector – vehicles operating in demand-responsive mode within a zone, with one or more scheduled transfer points that connect with a fixed-route network. A high percentage of ridership consists of trips to or from the transfer points. This concept is similar to the former NCTD “FAST” Demand Response services. • Request Stops – vehicles operating in conventional fixed-route, fixed-schedule mode and also serving a limited number of undefined stops along the route in response to passenger requests. • Flexible-Route Segments – vehicles operating in conventional fixed-route, fixed-schedule mode, but switching to demand-responsive operation for a limited portion of the route. • Zone Route – vehicles operating in demand-responsive mode along a corridor with established departure and arrival times at one or more end points in the zone.
While community-based transit services may include fixed-route, fixed schedule elements, they differ from traditional fixed-route transit typically on three accounts: one, use a smaller, purpose built bus with a seating capacity often less than 20 passengers; two, attain productivity/ performance of something less than 15 passengers per hour; and three, operate typically in a community setting rather than on major arterials. The following table provides a summary of community-based transit services, all of which would be ADA compliant. Further options include provision for a hybrid of the service types described below that may include specific provision to accommodate ADA eligible passengers. This may negate the need to provide complementary ADA paratransit services.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-18 15 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Table 16 - Community Based Transit Service Options ADA Compli- Type Route/Schedule Stops Vehicle Market ant1 Fixed, But Deviates Fixed along Between Stops. General arterials, Deviations Require Cutaways, 25-30 Foot Public, Route Deviation collectors, Yes Reservations (May Buses Seniors, Ada deviates to curb Be Exclusively For Eligible at destination Ada Eligible) General Community Dial- Many-To-Many, Cutaway, Modified Van Public, Curb or door Yes a-Ride Demand Response Chassis Seniors, Ada Eligible Many-To-Many, General Sedans, Minivans, Demand Response Public, Shared Ride Taxi Curb or door Wheelchair-Equipped Yes (May Be Exclusively Seniors, Ada Vans For Ada Eligible) Eligible Sedans, Minivans, Curb or door ADA Paratransit Many-To-Many, Wheelchair-Equipped (LIFT is curb-to- ADA Eligible Yes (LIFT) Demand Response Vans, Purpose-Built curb) Buses
1Satisfies ADA requirements and does not require a separate complementary service.
Figure 2 - Typical Community Based Routing Options
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-19 16 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Each of the community based options is described in more detail below. Route Deviation: Route deviation service (also called flexroute) combines features of traditional fixed route bus service with demand response elements. The bus follows a defined route, picking up and dropping off passengers at designated stops, which are usually located farther apart than on a traditional fixed route. The bus can also “flex” off its route: the driver will re-route the bus to locations within 3/4 of a mile of its usual route when a passenger has made a reservation in advance. The reservation is usually required a day ahead of time, although some flexroute services try to accommodate day of requests. Opportunities for a hybrid scenario may include route deviation, door-to-door service provided exclusively for ADA eligible passengers, while maintaining select stop access for the general public. In order to maneuver off of the main arterials, smaller buses, less than 30 feet long, are usually required. The maximum allowable size depends upon local community tolerance and the turn radius required negotiating the particular streets involved. Some slack is added to the schedule to facilitate deviations. If deviations are not made, then the driver is instructed to slow down or to hold at time points. If the stops on the initial route prove to be less popular than anticipated and particular points prove popular for deviations, the route can easily be reconfigured. Thus, route deviation also serves as a dynamic demand probe for establishing routes. In addition to serving scheduled time points, some flexroute services allow passengers to flag down the bus or be dropped off at any safe point along the route. From the side of the road, passengers simply wave to the driver with enough time for the bus to stop safely. Flexroute services have several advantages over more conventional transit. First, especially in sparsely populated areas, they fulfill the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement for transit services for the disability community without creating a separate complementary paratransit system. Second, fares are generally lower for flexroute than for dial-a-ride services, encouraging higher ridership. Lastly, flexroute service is able to accommodate increasing demand without increases in capacity, service hours, and annual costs. Community Dial-a-Ride: Dial-a-ride is a curb-to-curb, demand response, shared ride paratransit service. Dial- a-ride services are generally designed to be ADA complementary services, serving disabled passengers and seniors who cannot use conventional fixed route transit. In some communities, dial-a-ride is available to the general population. Passengers call the dispatcher to reserve a ride. Phone reservations are generally required at least one day in advance, although some dispatchers will attempt to accommodate same day requests. Subscription trips, also called standing orders, are trips that are made on a regular, predictable basis (work trips, for example), and do not require individual reservations for each trip. Shared Ride Taxi: Shared ride taxi services are a way to incorporate taxis into public transportation – often providing feeder service to fixed route transit services. Transit agencies contract with taxi companies to provide the service. As with regular taxi service, passengers call ahead to request door-to-door transit. Unlike regular service, the taxi will pick up other passengers in the same general area. Trips take longer than with a regular taxi, as the taxi must service multiple different destinations, but are often faster and more convenient than conventional public transit and significantly cheaper than normal taxi service. Shared ride taxi trips usually need to be arranged at least one day in advance. In most cases, agencies will attempt to accommodate same day requests. Customers call ahead to reserve a taxi, providing their name, pickup address, destination address and phone number, number of passengers, phone number, and need for a wheelchair accessible vehicle. As with dial-a-ride, many shared ride taxi services will accommodate subscription trips. ADA Paratransit (i.e., NCTD’s LIFT): The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires public transportation agencies to provide paratransit services (which complement regular fixed route bus service) for individuals who do not have the functional ability to ride public transit buses. ADA paratransit is to be provided within 3/4 mile of fixed-route transit services. Dial-a-Ride ADA services provides shared ride public transportation that complies with these requirements.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-20 17 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
5.1 Community-Based Transit Service Design Criteria Several communities in the NCTD service area may not support traditional, fixed-route transportation. Unique density and travel patterns may require transit programs tailored to the needs of the community. Small capacity flexible service strategies will allow NCTD to provide mobility options for people who live or work outside the fixed route service network. Non-fixed route transit service should only be considered in cases where there is sufficient potential ridership to support approved non-fixed service standards but insufficient ridership to support Breeze fixed route service performance standards. Non-fixed route service can also be considered in service areas with street patterns and widths that will not accommodate the safe and effective operation of fixed route transit service. Proposed service design criteria are summarized in Table 17. Table 17 - Community Service Design Guidelines Type of Service Criterion Target Density Requirements 4 to 6 du/acre, 7,000 to 10,000 persons/sq.mi. Defined O/Ds along a corridor; Service Area Configuration Deviate as required (to expand service coverage) Route Deviation Operate during hours when average farebox recovery Span Of Service does not drop below 20%. Weekday Peak - 30-60 Frequency Weekday Off-Peak - 90 Weekend - 90
Density Requirements 3.5 to 6 du/acre, more than 1,000 persons/ sq.mi. No viable trip attractors/generators Service Area Configuration Community Dial- Opportunity for connections to higher order transit a-Ride Operate during hours when average farebox recovery Span Of Service does not drop below 20%. Frequency Variable
Density Requirements Less than 4 du/acre, less than 1,000 persons/ sq.mi. Service Area Configuration Low trip & population densities Shared Ride Taxi Operate during hours when average farebox recovery Span Of Service does not drop below 20%. Frequency Variable
Density Requirements LIFT service area will include all NCTD fixed route origins and destinations within the NCTD service area. This area shall also include an area with a ¾ mile radius at the end Service Area Configuration of each fixed route with a ¾ mile width or buffer on each ADA Paratransit side. Lift Same hours and days of service as NCTD’s fixed route ser- Span Of Service vice for each route area. Frequency Variable
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-21 18 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
5.2 Community-Based Transit Performance Targets Performance targets provide a framework for measuring the performance of NCTD services and are used as a part of a service evaluation process. Such a process may be used to determine whether an individual existing service performs at acceptable levels and to evaluate potential service changes. Further, as in the case of possibly introducing new community-based services, performance targets are also used to compare the projected performance of proposed new services to prioritize the allocation of resources within the system. Adherence to the performance targets will ensure that NCTD provides quality transit services that meet the needs of the riding public and that are consistent with all enabling legislation and other external mandates, such as the State’s Transportation Development Act (TDA). The performance targets to be used to evaluate these services is summarized in Table 18. Table 18 - Community-Based Transit Services Operating Efficiency & Effectiveness Performance Targets
Proposed Target / Description Measure Variation by Service Type Net Operating Cost Per Operating Cost/ Completed One- Service Type Passenger* Way Trip Net Operating Cost Route Deviation $4.00 - $8.00 (Function of Specifics of Deploy- Per Passenger Community Dial-A-Ride $8.00 - $15.00 ment Strategy) Shared Ride Taxi $10.00 - $15.00 Ada Paratransit (Lift) $25.00 - $30.00 Passengers Per Revenue Service Type Hour* Completed One-Way Passenger Route Deviation 10 – 12 Passengers / Trips/ Scheduled Revenue Vehicle Community Dial-A-Ride 5 – 10 Revenue Hour Hour Shared Ride Taxi VARIABLE
ADA Paratransit (Lift) 2 – 2.5**
Maximum Vehicle Number Of Passengers Divided By 100% Of Seating Capacity Loading The Seating Capacity
* to be determined annually as part of budget (and contract provisions/negotiations) **current actual is 2.02 trips/hour
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-22 19 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Table 19 - Community-Based Transit Service Quality Performance Targets
Description Measure Proposed Target On-Time Performance / Schedule Adherence Actual departure time No bus should leave early and no bus should leave later Community Dial- compared to scheduled than 5 minutes beyond the scheduled pick-up time window, a-Ride departure time 98% of the time. Actual departure time No bus should leave early and no bus should leave later Route Deviation compared to scheduled than 5 minutes from the time point, 98% of the time. departure time Actual departure time No taxi should leave early and no taxi should leave later Shared Ride Taxi compared to scheduled than 5 minutes from the time point or scheduled pick-up departure time time window, 98% of the time Actual departure time No bus should leave early and no bus should leave later Ada Paratransit compared to scheduled than 5 minutes beyond the scheduled pick-up time window, (Lift) departure time 100% of the time. On-Time Performance/ Scheduled Pickups % of pick-ups within plus or 90% of all pick-ups will be within plus or minus 10 minutes minus 10 minutes of the scheduled time Complaints Number of complaints per 1,000 one-way passenger 1 trips
5.3 Community-Based Transit Passenger Amenity Guidelines Passenger amenities are typically not provided for non-fixed route services. An exception may be tribal transit services/remote areas if using designated pick-up locations. In these cases, standards for shelter and bus stop placement as discussed for fixed route service would be noted as an exception to address unique situations. Similarly, amenities at fixed route transit stops and transit centers would be available to community transit users if they connect to fixed route services at these locations.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-23 20 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
6.0 Ongoing Performance Monitoring and Reporting
The performance targets described in this report will be used to monitor and improve system performance. The design guidelines will be used when services are modified to respond to operational issues, or when improvement programs are developed. The amenity guidelines will assist in developing capital improvement programs. The performance of the services in meeting their targets will be reported to the Board and the committees on a quarterly and annual basis, and will be incorporated into the Service Improvement Plan annual submittal to SANDAG. The report will be based on the performance targets developed for each service type. The fixed route analysis will focus primarily on the Route Performance Index, describing performance in the current period, changes in performance compared to previous periods, and actions proposed to address underperforming services. A summary table listing the targets for each type of service is provided in Attachment B.
Attachments: A – Route Performance Index (RPI) Tables B – Summary Table of Performance Targets
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-24 21 Attachment A - Route Performance Index (RPI) Tables
WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE INDEX rev. 102910 Productivity Utilization Cost Effectiveness Average Revenue Passengers Average Daily Revenue Bus Daily Passenger Operating Daily Average Daily Net Net Cost Cost- Percent Weekday Vehicle per Productivity Trip Passenger Vehicle Seating Seat Miles per Utilization Cost per Operating Fare per Farebox Operating per Effectiveness Farebox INDEX Route Alignment Boardings Hours RVH Index Distance Miles Miles Capacity Miles Seat Mile Index Revenue Mile Cost Passenger Revenue Cost Passnger Index Recovery CORRIDOR ROUTES 303 Oceanside - Vista via Mission 4,244 138.6 30.6 1.4 3.6 15,279 1,730.7 35.4 61,268 0.25 1.0 8.32 14,400 1.05 4,456 9,944 2.34 1.93 30.9% 4.32 302 Oceanside - Vista via Vista Way 2,144 71.3 30.1 1.4 4.7 10,076 961.7 35.4 34,044 0.30 1.2 8.32 8,001 1.05 2,251 5,750 2.68 1.68 28.1% 4.24 305 Escondido - Vista via Mission & RSF 1,686 72.3 23.3 1.1 3.4 5,733 979.5 19.0 18,610 0.31 1.2 6.91 6,768 1.05 1,770 4,998 2.96 1.52 26.2% 3.82 101 Oceanside - UTC via Hwy 101 2,690 121.6 22.1 1.0 7.8 20,979 1,798.2 35.4 63,657 0.33 1.3 8.32 14,961 1.05 2,824 12,137 4.51 1.00 18.9% 3.33 306 Fallbrook - Vista via Mission 711 37.5 19.0 0.9 6.9 4,903 560.3 35.4 19,834 0.25 1.2 8.32 4,661 1.05 746 3,915 5.51 0.52 16.0% 2.55 304/404 Encinitas - San Marcos via Rancho SF 824 46.1 17.9 0.8 5.5 4,532 638.7 35.4 22,610 0.20 0.8 8.32 5,314 1.05 865 4,449 5.40 0.84 16.3% 2.45 347 Escondido - Palomar via CSUSM 357 27.1 13.2 0.6 4.0 1,429 324.3 19.0 6,161 0.23 0.9 6.91 2,241 1.05 375 1,866 5.22 0.86 16.7% 2.39 388/389 Escondido - Pala 576 31.3 18.4 0.8 14.9 8,582 853.4 35.4 30,210 0.28 1.1 8.32 7,100 1.46 841 6,259 10.87 0.42 11.8% 2.39 309 Oceanside - Encinitas via El Camino Real 1,980 121.8 16.3 0.7 6.3 12,477 1,833.9 35.4 64,920 0.19 0.8 8.32 15,258 1.05 2,079 13,179 6.65 0.68 13.6% 2.19 395 M-Th Oceanside - San Clemente via Pendleton 171 12.8 13.4 0.6 15.7 2,685 297.2 35.4 10,519 0.26 1.0 8.32 2,472 1.05 180 2,293 13.41 0.34 7.3% 1.96 308 Escondido - Solana Beach via Del Dios 592 42.5 13.9 0.6 9.0 5,331 774.1 35.4 27,402 0.19 0.8 8.32 6,440 1.05 622 5,818 9.82 0.46 9.7% 1.87 315 Oceanside - Pendleton via Vandegrift 449 32.6 13.8 0.6 6.0 2,694 477.1 35.4 16,888 0.16 0.7 8.32 3,969 1.05 471 3,498 7.79 0.37 11.9% 1.75 Total 16,424 755.4 21.7 1.0 5.8 94,698 11,228.9 376,123 0.25 1.0 8.16 91,586 1.06 17,481 74,105 4.51 1.00 19.1% 3.00 LOCAL ROUTES 356 Escondido via Morning View, El Norte, Escondido Bl. 470 16.3 28.8 1.3 2.0 941 150.5 35.4 5,329 0.18 0.8 8.32 1,253 1.05 494 759 1.61 1.77 39.4% 3.92 350 Escondido TC - Del Lago P&R 2,035 66.0 30.8 1.4 3.2 6,512 786.9 35.4 27,857 0.23 1.1 8.32 6,547 1.05 2,137 4,411 2.17 1.31 32.6% 3.83 351/352 Escondido Circulator 1,595 60.0 26.6 1.2 2.4 3,828 557.3 35.4 19,728 0.19 0.9 8.32 4,637 1.05 1,675 2,962 1.86 1.53 36.1% 3.66 318 OTC - ECR via Oceanside 269 13.7 19.6 0.9 1.8 484 111.5 19.0 2,118 0.23 1.1 6.91 770 1.05 282 488 1.81 1.57 36.7% 3.54 354 Escondido via Mission, Lincoln & Midway 770 31.6 24.4 1.1 2.7 2,080 380.4 25.2 9,566 0.22 1.0 7.44 2,829 1.05 809 2,020 2.62 1.09 28.6% 3.22 325 Carlsbad - Oceanside N via College 684 44.6 15.3 0.7 4.6 3,145 539.5 19.0 10,250 0.31 1.2 6.91 3,728 1.05 718 3,010 4.40 1.03 19.3% 2.95 332 Vista Busniess Park 564 23.6 23.9 1.1 4.5 2,538 333.3 35.4 11,798 0.22 1.0 8.32 2,773 1.05 592 2,181 3.87 0.74 21.4% 2.84 313 Oceanside - Town Center N via Mesa 664 30.2 22.0 1.0 3.8 2,523 392.6 30.9 12,128 0.21 1.0 7.93 3,114 1.05 697 2,417 3.64 0.78 22.4% 2.77 333 Oceanside N - Vista via Old Grove & Oceanside 423 29.4 14.4 0.7 2.9 1,228 305.6 19.0 5,807 0.21 0.8 6.91 2,112 1.05 445 1,667 3.94 1.15 21.1% 2.65 358/359 Es condido via N Broadway, Country Club, El Norte 236 15.7 15.0 0.7 3.0 708 164.0 19.0 3,116 0.23 1.1 6.91 1,133 1.05 248 885 3.75 0.76 21.9% 2.51 334/335 Vista Circulator 570 30.4 18.7 0.9 3.6 2,052 320.9 35.4 11,360 0.18 0.8 8.32 2,670 1.05 599 2,071 3.63 0.78 22.4% 2.49 319 Mira Costa - Rancho del Oro via RDO 135 13.4 10.1 0.5 1.3 175 129.1 19.0 2,453 0.07 0.3 6.91 892 1.05 141 751 5.57 0.51 15.9% 1.31 331 Buena Creek - Kaplan via University 41 13.7 3.0 0.1 1.2 49 74.0 19.0 1,406 0.04 0.2 6.91 511 1.05 43 468 11.39 0.25 8.4% 0.55 Total 8,457 388.6 21.8 1.0 3.1 26,263 4,245.5 122,915 0.21 1.0 7.77 32,969 1.05 8,879 24,090 2.85 1.00 26.9% 3.00 COMMUTER ROUTES 317 Oceanside North - Rancho del Oro via College 188 7.7 24.4 1.4 2.8 528 106.3 19.0 2,019 0.26 1.3 6.91 734 1.05 198 536 2.85 2.13 27.0% 4.87 321 Carlsbad Village - Palomar via Legoland 357 18.4 19.4 1.1 5.5 1,963 246.6 32.9 8,124 0.24 1.2 8.11 2,000 1.05 375 1,625 4.55 1.33 18.7% 3.68 444/445 Carlsbad Poinsettia Coaster Connection 114 5.3 21.5 1.3 4.4 502 75.3 35.4 2,666 0.19 0.9 8.32 626 1.05 120 507 4.45 1.37 19.1% 3.57 386 Escondido - Ramona 232 20.7 11.2 0.7 7.3 1,695 392.4 27.2 10,672 0.16 0.8 7.62 2,988 1.05 244 2,744 11.82 0.51 8.2% 1.97 Total 892 52.2 17.1 1.0 5.3 4,687 820.6 23,481 0.20 1.0 7.74 6,349 1.05 936 5,412 6.07 1.00 14.7% 3.00
System Total 25,772 1,196.1 21.5 1.0 4.9 125,649 16,295.0 522,520 0.24 1.0 8.03 130,904 1.05 27,297 103,607 4.02 20.9% 3.00
H-25 SATURDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE INDEX rev. 102910 Productivity Utilization Cost Effectiveness Average Revenue Passengers Average Daily Revenue Bus Daily Passenger Operating Daily Average Daily Net Net Cost Cost- Percent Weekday Vehicle per Productivity Trip Passenger Vehicle Seating Seat Miles per Utilization Cost per Operating Fare per Farebox Operating per Effectiveness Farebox INDEX Route Alignment Boardings Hours RVH Index Distance Miles Miles Capacity Miles Seat Mile Index Revenue Mile Cost Passenger Revenue Cost Passnger Index Recovery CORRIDOR ROUTES 303 Oceanside - Vista via Mission 2,209 68.4 32.3 1.7 4.1 9,055 890.5 35.4 31,522 0.29 1.07 8.32 7,409 1.05 2,319 5,090 2.30 2.26 31.3% 5.05 302 Oceanside - Vista via Vista Way 1,979 65.7 30.1 1.6 4.6 9,102 878.6 35.4 31,101 0.29 1.09 8.32 7,310 1.05 2,078 5,232 2.64 1.97 28.4% 4.67 388/389 Escondido - Pala 443 31.7 14.0 0.7 16.9 7,487 426.5 35.4 15,100 0.50 1.85 8.32 3,549 1.46 647 2,902 6.55 0.80 18.2% 3.39 309 Oceanside - Encinitas via El Camino Real 1,259 58.4 21.6 1.1 6.3 7,934 872.9 35.4 30,902 0.26 0.96 8.32 7,263 1.05 1,322 5,940 4.72 1.11 18.2% 3.21 305 Escondido - Vista via Mission & RSF 971 65.4 14.9 0.8 4.0 3,884 861.6 19.0 16,371 0.24 0.89 6.91 5,954 1.05 1,020 4,934 5.08 1.03 17.1% 2.70 101 Oceanside - UTC via Hwy 101 1,672 110.7 15.1 0.8 7.9 13,212 1,618.1 35.4 57,282 0.23 0.86 8.32 13,463 1.05 1,756 11,707 7.00 0.75 13.0% 2.41 306 Fallbrook - Vista via Mission 473 29.9 15.9 0.8 6.3 2,982 431.2 35.4 15,263 0.20 0.83 8.32 3,587 1.05 497 3,090 6.53 0.41 13.9% 2.05 308 Escondido - Solana Beach via Del Dios 335 24.0 13.9 0.7 10.2 3,412 464.4 21.6 9,324 0.37 1.37 7.14 3,314 1.05 351 2,963 8.86 0.59 10.6% 2.70 395 Oceanside - San Clemente via Pendleton 355 46.8 7.6 0.4 17.3 6,146 1,057.3 19.0 20,088 0.31 1.14 6.91 7,306 1.05 373 6,933 19.52 0.27 5.1% 1.81 315 Oceanside - Pendleton via Vandegrift 272 28.5 9.5 0.5 5.6 1,521 421.0 35.4 14,904 0.10 0.43 8.32 3,503 1.05 285 3,218 11.85 0.23 8.1% 1.15 Total 9,968 529.3 18.8 1.0 6.5 64,734 7,922.2 241,856 0.27 1.00 7.91 62,657 1.07 10,648 52,009 5.22 1.00 17.0% 3.00 LOCAL ROUTES 351/352 Escondido Circulator 714 25.6 27.9 1.4 2.5 1,785 238.0 19.0 4,522 0.39 1.67 6.91 1,645 1.05 750 895 1.25 2.13 45.6% 5.24 350 Escondido TC - Del Lago P&R 868 25.6 33.9 1.7 3.4 2,952 295.2 35.4 10,451 0.28 1.19 8.32 2,456 1.05 912 1,545 1.78 1.50 37.1% 4.45 356 Escondido via Morning View, El Norte, Escondido Bl. 235 10.1 23.2 1.2 2.0 470 91.2 19.0 1,734 0.27 1.15 6.91 630 1.05 247 384 1.63 1.64 39.1% 3.98 354 Escondido via Mission, Lincoln & Midway 232 10.1 22.9 1.2 2.4 557 118.9 19.0 2,258 0.25 1.04 6.91 821 1.05 244 578 2.49 1.07 29.7% 3.30 318 OTC - ECR via Oceanside 151 12.7 11.9 0.6 1.9 287 103.5 19.0 1,967 0.15 0.62 6.91 715 1.05 159 557 3.69 0.73 22.2% 1.96 333 Oceanside N - Vista via Old Grove & Oceanside 234 25.4 9.2 0.5 3.0 701 264.9 19.0 5,032 0.14 0.52 6.91 1,830 1.05 245 1,585 6.78 0.77 13.4% 1.78 331 Buena Creek - Kaplan via University 47 10.7 4.4 0.2 1.0 47 58.1 19.0 1,104 0.04 0.18 6.91 402 1.05 49 353 7.56 0.35 12.2% 0.76 325 Carlsbad Village - Oceanside N via College 39 9.7 4.1 0.2 4.6 182 128.7 19.0 2,445 0.07 0.28 6.91 889 1.05 41 848 21.48 0.24 4.7% 0.74 Total 2,520 130.0 19.4 1.0 2.8 6,980 1,298.5 29,513 0.24 1.00 7.23 9,389 1.05 2,646 6,743 2.68 1.00 28.2% 3.00
TOTAL 12,488 659.3 18.9 1.0 5.7 71,714 17,142.8 271,369 0.26 1.00 4.20 72,045 1.06 13,294 58,752 4.70 1.00 18.5% 3.00
H-26 SUNDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE INDEX rev. 102910 Productivity Utilization Cost Effectiveness Average Revenue Passengers Average Daily Revenue Bus Daily Passenger Operating Daily Average Daily Net Net Cost Cost- Percent Weekday Vehicle per Productivity Trip Passenger Vehicle Seating Seat Miles per Utilization Cost per Operating Fare per Farebox Operating per Effectiveness Farebox INDEX Route Alignment Boardings Hours RVH Index Distance Miles Miles Capacity Miles Seat Mile Index Revenue Mile Cost Passenger Revenue Cost Passnger Index Recovery CORRIDOR ROUTES 303 Oceanside - Vista via Mission 1,759 68.5 25.7 1.81 4.3 7,566 890 35.4 31,522 0.24 1.18 8.32 7,409 1.05 1,847 5,561 3.16 2.25 24.9% 5.25 302 Oceanside - Vista via Vista Way 1,405 66.0 21.3 1.50 4.5 6,323 879 35.4 31,101 0.20 1.00 8.32 7,310 1.05 1,475 5,834 4.15 1.71 20.2% 4.22 388/389 Escondido - Pala 406 31.6 12.8 0.91 16.0 6,496 427 35.4 15,100 0.43 2.12 8.32 3,549 1.46 593 2,956 7.28 0.98 16.7% 4.00
309 Oceanside - Encinitas via El Camino Real 929 58.1 16.0 1.13 6.8 6,317 873 35.4 30,902 0.20 1.01 8.32 7,263 1.05 975 6,287 6.77 1.05 13.4% 3.19 305 Escondido - Vista via Mission & RSF 740 65.4 11.3 0.80 4.3 3,180 862 19 16,371 0.19 0.96 6.91 5,954 1.05 776 5,177 7.00 1.02 13.0% 2.77 101 Oceanside - UTC via Hwy 101 1,310 110.8 11.8 0.83 9.0 11,787 1,618 35.4 57,282 0.21 1.01 8.32 $13,463 1.05 1,375 12,088 9.23 0.77 10.2% 2.62
395 Oceanside - San Clemente via Pendleton 295 46.9 6.3 0.44 18.4 5,437 1,055 19 20,051 0.27 1.34 6.91 7,292 1.05 310 6,982 23.63 0.30 4.3% 2.08 306 Fallbrook - Vista via Mission 401 29.9 13.5 0.73 6.7 2,690 431 35.4 15,263 0.18 0.77 8.32 3,587 1.05 422 3,166 7.89 0.37 11.8% 1.87 308 Escondido - Solana Beach via Del Dios 262 23.9 11.0 0.77 9.9 2,597 464 19 35,923 0.07 0.36 6.91 3,209 1.05 275 2,934 11.19 0.64 8.6% 1.77 Oceanside N - Vista via Old Grove & 333 Oceanside 166 25.4 6.5 0.46 3.2 531 265 19 5,032 0.11 0.52 6.91 1,830 1.05 174 1,656 9.98 0.71 9.5% 1.69 315 Oceanside - Pendleton via Vandegrift 189 28.2 6.7 0.36 6.0 1,131 421 19 7,999 0.14 0.62 8.32 3,503 1.05 198 3,305 17.53 0.17 5.7% 1.15 Total 7,862 554.5 14.2 1.00 6.9 54,054 8,185.1 266,546 0.20 1.00 7.86 64,369 1.07 8,422 55,946 7.12 1.00 13.1% 3.00 LOCAL ROUTES 350 Escondido TC - Del Lago P&R 664 25.6 25.9 1.40 3.6 2,390 295 35.4 10,451 0.23 1.00 8.32 2,456 1.05 697 1,759 2.65 1.09 28.4% 3.50 351/352 Escondido Circulator 467 26.3 17.8 0.96 2.9 1,331 238 19 4,522 0.29 1.29 6.91 1,645 1.05 490 1,154 2.47 1.17 29.8% 3.42 Escondido via Morning View, El Norte, 356 Escondido Bl. 177 10.1 17.5 0.95 1.9 337 91 19 1,734 0.19 0.85 6.91 630 1.05 186 444 2.51 1.16 29.5% 2.95
354 Escondido via Mission, Lincoln & Midway 165 10.1 16.3 0.88 2.8 462 119 19 2,258 0.20 0.90 6.91 821 1.05 173 648 3.92 0.74 21.1% 2.52 331 Buena Creek - Kaplan via University 18 8.7 2.1 0.11 1.2 22 48 19 904 0.02 0.10 6.91 329 1.05 19 310 17.15 0.17 5.8% 0.39 Total 1,491 80.9 18.4 1.00 3.0 4,542 790.9 19,869 0.23 1.00 7.44 5,881 1.05 1,566 4,315 2.89 1.00 26.6% 3.00
TOTAL 9,354 635.3 14.7 1.00 6.3 58,596 8,976 286,414 0.20 1.00 7.83 70,250 1.07 9,988 60,262 6.44 1.00 14.2% 3.00
H-27 IBI GROUP NCTD MOBILITY PLAN SERVICE STANDARDS - FINAL REPORT
Attachment B - Service Performance Targets
Service Type Performance Indicator Target Rail Net Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.25 Coaster Passengers Per Hour 225 Net Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.60 Sprinter Passengers Per Hour 100 Fixed Route Bus Breeze Route Performance Index (RPI) 3.0 Community-Based Transit Net Operating Cost Per Passenger $4.00 – $8.00 Route Deviation Passengers/ Revenue Hour 10 - 12 Maximum Vehicle Loading 100% Of Seating Capacity Net Operating Cost Per Passenger $8.00 – $15.00 Community Dial-A-Ride Passengers/ Revenue Hour 5 - 10 Maximum Vehicle Loading 100% Of Seating Capacity Net Operating Cost Per Passenger $10.00 – $15.00 Shared Ride Taxi Passengers/ Revenue Hour Variable Maximum Vehicle Loading 100% Of Seating Capacity Net Operating Cost Per Passenger $25.00 – $30.00 Ada Paratransit (Lift) Passengers/ Revenue Hour 2 – 2.5 Maximum Vehicle Loading 100% Of Seating Capacity
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 H-28 25 APPENDIX I MTS BUS MAINTENANCE PLAN
100 16th Street San Diego, CA 92101 Tel 619.238-0100 Fax 619.232-8351
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
Bus Maintenance Plan
December 13, 2011
Prepared By:
Julio Ortiz Director of Maintenance
I-1
Bus Maintenance
Claire Spielberg COO Transit Services
Salvador Avila Tim Burrie Rosa Gallegos Julio Ortiz Division Manager Division Manager Maintenance Clerk Director of Maintenance KMD IAD
Jerry Stafford Socorrito Maintenance Grabowski Analyst Admin Assistant I
Thomas Frantz Assistant Manager 3:00 PM 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM 7:00 AM - AM Foremen AM Foreman M. Silva (Shop) J. Chaney (Shop) E. Valdez (Body) 3 J. Garcia (P.M.) 4 S. Shoemaker (P. M.) M. Mitchell (P.M.) G. Story (Floater) 11:00 PM 2:30 PM - 11:00 PM 3:00 PM -
Swing Foremen Swing Foremen D. Buck (Shop) D. Ellis (P.M.) W. Thomas (P.M.) 3 R. Leal (Shop) 3 R. Poynor (Lanes) E. Cota (Lanes) 7:00 AM 10:30 PM - 7:00 AM 11:00 PM -
Night Foremen Night Foremen G. Ledesma (Shop) F. Navarro 1 2 S. Perez (Lanes)
Kearny Mesa Division Imperial Avenue Division
I-2
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE PLAN Revised: December 13, 2011
INTRODUCTION
This vehicle maintenance plan provides standards for performance, facilities descriptions, employee ratios and preventive maintenance schedules. There are two facilities located throughout San Diego that perform preventive, corrective maintenance, cleaning and storage of vehicles. These facilities are called (IAD) Imperial Avenue Division and (KMD) Kearny Mesa Division. Both Divisions provide repairs for all major components of the bus including engine overhaul, transmission and major body shop repair from accidents. The KMD facility is equipped with a state of the art painting booth. For further information on this plan contact the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System’s Director of Maintenance.
OBJECTIVES
Standards for performance for the Maintenance Department are as follow:
1 ENSURE MAXIMUM UTILITY FROM REVENUE VEHICLES
A. Maintain condition of fleet for long-term reliability to achieve up to 15 years of service from each revenue vehicle.
B. Develop Maintenance procedures and practices to achieve and maintain a spare fleet ratio of 20 percent.
C. Improve average miles per chargeable roadcall to at least the following standard for year FY12, 10000 miles between breakdowns
D. Active SDMTS Bus Fleet:
Bus Series Year Model Engine Fuel Type # Active 300 2008 New Flyer 40LF Cummins ISLG CNG 50 400 2005 New Flyer 40LF Cummins C8.3G+ CNG 7 500 2009 New Flyer ISC ISE Hybrid Drive GAS/Hybrid 12 G35LF Hybrid 600 2010 New Flyer 40LF Cummins 8.9 ISLG CNG 26 1000 2008 NABI 60 FT BRT Cummins 8.9 ISLG CNG 26 1600 2000 New Flyer 40LF Cummins C8.3G+ CNG 31 1800 2001 New Flyer 40LF Cummins C8.3G+ CNG 71 1900 2001 New Flyer 60LF DD Series 50 Diesel 13 TOTALS 236
I-3
E Maintain condition of revenue vehicles to allow 99.0 percent completed trips.
F. Maintain a fleet minimum of 100 percent of heaters and air conditioners in working order.
G. Maintain passenger lifts to a 100 percent successful operations level.
2 MAINTAIN A QUALIFIED AND DEDICATED STAFF
A. Increase availability of training programs and encourage personnel to enter our apprentice program
B. Continue and improve recognition and incentive programs for maintenance staff.
C. Develop leadership skills of management personnel. 3 OPERATE EFFICIENTLY
A. Continue development of "team effort" within the department.
B. All shifts to enforce rules, procedures and safety standards.
C. Continue to reduce absenteeism.
D. Maintain a close working relationship with labor union officers.
EMPLOYEE RATIOS
The approved work force for the Maintenance Department in FY 12 is 149 employees. The total number of mechanics for FY12 is 101 plus 48 service men. Out of the 101 mechanics (22) are dedicated to body repair and (3) are dedicated to radio/cameras/destination sign repair, and (3) mechanics are dedicated to brake kit fabrication, and there are currently (11) Apprentices in the program. The total dedicated mechanics to maintain our fleet is 73.
During FY 12, San Diego Transit will maintain 236 revenue vehicles. The maximum peak bus requirement will be 193 revenue vehicles. With a total of 73 mechanics, this results in the following employee ratios:
REVENUE VEHICLE PEAK BUSES PER PER Mechanic 3.23 2.64 Servicemen 4.92 4.02
I-4
FACILITIES DESCRIPTION:
San Diego Transit operates two maintenance facilities: one at 100 16th Street, referred to as Imperial Avenue Division (IAD), and one at 4630 Ruffner Rd., referred to as Kearny Mesa Division (KMD).
IMPERIAL AVENUE DIVISION:
This site was the sole maintenance facility for San Diego Transit since it became a publicly owned corporation in 1968. In 1972, a new building for bus maintenance and administrative offices was opened. Presently, there is a mix of this 32-year-old facility with a recently completed CNG/Diesel state of the art facility that opened in December 2000.
The new running repair area has 14 bays, twelve of which have hoists and one a pit for suspension and front-end work. Most of the hoists are utilized for brake, wheelchair lift and transmission/engine minor repairs. The F.A.C.E. (Farebox, Air-conditioning and Electronics) department also works out of this garage.
The new storeroom was design to allow expansion and houses thousands of parts.
The service lanes have three service lanes/islands, which have the capability to service 25 buses per hour. A bus washer is also in this area.
The body and paint shop has one bay area to repair glass, body, rubber, and upholstery. It has one hoist able to accommodate a standard 40-foot bus.
The tire shop is outside with sheds for tool/equipment storage. Tires and personnel are operated by GoodYear contractors.
KEARNY MESA DIVISION:
The Kearny Mesa Division (KMD) is designed to be modern, efficient, and a well- equipped CNG/Diesel facility.
The facility consists of a 52,000 square foot maintenance building, which includes a 16,000 square foot warehouse and a 10,000 square foot body and paint shop, and a transportation building for bus drivers containing approximately 8,000 square feet. It has a three-lane service island, a bus washer, a tire shop, and a brake inspection pit. Also included are parking spaces for 175 employees.
I-5
Staff studies have indicated a substantial monetary saving is achieved by the reduction of deadhead time and mileage for buses in utilizing KMD. Approximately (98) buses are operated out of the facility.
Maintenance performed at KMD includes servicing and cleaning, preventative maintenance, running repairs, and body and paint repairs.
Along with the 98 buses, there are twelve (19) support vehicles maintained at the facility.
Body and paint repairs are a major function at KMD. Most personnel and equipment were relocated from IAD. The shop is more productive as a whole because a "production line" type work method can be initiated. The "production line" work method enables work to be done progressively.
COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS BUSES
Currently, SDTC operates 211 CNG buses, the Imperial Avenue division is a 100% Alternative Fuel Division operating CNG and advanced Hybrid Electric Gasoline buses. Kearny Mesa Division only operates 13 Diesel buses in addition to its fleet if 85 CNG buses. Both Divisions are equipped with fast fill compression stations.
CONTRACT SERVICES
Currently SDMTS oversee the contracting of route and maintenance service from VEOLIA and First Transit for Para-transit services.
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULES
Scheduled preventive maintenance at San Diego Transit is on mileage intervals. Each series of bus has a P.M. schedule derived from manufacturer's recommendations experience. Table-1 identified San Diego Transit's Inspection by bus series.
SCHEDULED PM:
Scheduled preventive maintenance is done on mileage intervals.
Each series of buses are assigned mileages for different types of inspection/PM. The types of inspections/PM are:
I-6
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE MILEAGE INSPECTION SCHEDULE Table -1
Inspection
MST# 8006 8012 8018 8024 8030 8036 8042 8048 8054 8060 8066 8072 Std Job Name Insp6 PM12 Insp18 PM24 Insp30 PM36 Insp42 PM48 Insp54 PM60 Insp66 PM72
GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GWC GWC GWC GWC GWC GWC GAC GAC GAC GAC GAC GAC GEL RADIO GEL GEL GCL GCL GCL GGF GGF GGF GPM24 GPM24 GPM24 FBOX FBOX GPM72 FBOX RADIO
GBRK = BRAKE INSP GLOF = LUBE AND OIL FILTERS NOTE: Individual bus mileages are tracked through our computer system. A daily printout informs the GPM = GENERIC PM INSPECTION Maintenance Department Staff on the status of GWC = WHEEL CHAIR LIFT/RAMP INSP inspection schedules for all buses in the fleet. GAC = AC INSP
GEL = ELECTRICAL INSP GCL = COOLING INSP GGF = GAS/FIRE SYS INSP FBOX = FAREBOX INSP GPM24 = OLD C INSP ( TRANS FLUID ) PM72 = OLD D INSP ( DIFF FLUID/DIAPHRAMS )
I-7
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
INSPECTION PROGRAM
a. The first part of this program is the bus inspection by our PM TEAM; the team consists of a PM foreman, an Electrical and body shop mechanic “C” plus a Mechanic “A” from the mechanical department.
The team is required to conduct a comprehensive inspection to ensure that the vehicle is in safe, clean and reliable condition. If any item is found to be unsafe, the inspectors will make an immediate report to Preventive Maintenance foreman to generate a job repair for the vehicle.
The PM Foreman maintains an ongoing report of all defects while the vehicle is being inspected. After the vehicle has been completely inspected all write- ups are required to be documented in our ELLIPSE system (job repairs#), then they are distributed to the PM repair team on the second shift. The PM foremen will review this work and make a schedule of repairs based on parts/manpower availability.
The report meets state law requirements and provides an adequate information base that alerts the maintenance department of potential problems before a failure happens. From time to time parts availability become a challenge that is out of our hands, therefore we have established a limit of 10 buses held at anytime before bringing more buses as the schedule of 10 per week requires.
When the vehicle has been completely inspected and repaired, it is signed off by the two PM foremen, their teams and the Managers or the Assistant Manager of Maintenance., only then is the bus allowed to be released for service.
b. The second part of this program involves the bus servicers while operating/servicing the vehicle. The servicers have inspection procedures to comply with, and if they find items in need of repair, the vehicle is brought to the garage for repairs before parking vehicle in the ready for service area. They also file a report along with the vehicle and repairs are made and noted on the report.
In conjunction with the services lanes procedures, certain vehicles at a specified mileage go through a brake inspection/adjustment and undercarriage inspection. A report is made for repairs.
I-8
RECORDS
Currently our software system is ELLIPSE and it keeps all history records of all job repairs performed in our buses
Mileage is updated daily by way of each night's fueling. All consumables information is loaded into the system and processed, whereby exception reports are generated.
Road Call Action Order - Identification by categories, the cause, location, time of day, vehicle number, and operator number.
Job Card Action Order - Deals with ten different series of buses owned by SDT and five types of inspections based upon mileage; also allows historical documentation of specific component performance/failure.
Foreman's Request Action Order - Generates repair order based on operator report of inspection; interactive with Preventive Maintenance Action Order to coordinate with maintenance schedule, thus reducing down time.
Accident/Damage Action Order - to repair damaged vehicles.
Service/Cleaning Action Order - Daily record of fueling, cleaning and brake inspections.
Unit Rebuild Action Order - to schedule repair or rebuild of each vehicle components.
GENERAL RUNNING REPAIRS
General Running Repairs are initiated by Operator daily report, preventive maintenance inspections, roadcalls, or Serviceman inspection. Most all of these types of repairs are performed on the night shift. A mechanic “C” performs this type of work in most cases.
The mechanic reads the reported problem and then identifies the problem. At that point he/she may request a Repair Order from the shop foreman. Then the mechanic performs the necessary work, signs off the action order that the work was completed, and parks the coach in a ready lane. A mechanic “A” may perform some of the running repair work, depending on the expertise required for the job.
MAJOR REPAIRS
Major repairs are performed by mechanic A's, and in most cases, take longer than one day. San Diego Transit mechanics are capable of performing any job on a coach, including everything from major engine and transmission overhauls, to accident body
I-9
repairs. We currently have ten (10) mechanics A's that are experts on repairing and maintaining front door wheelchair lifts. San Diego Transit maintains an excellent record of reliability on the 236 wheelchair lifts in our fleet
SERVICE AND CLEANING
San Diego Transit maintains a very detailed procedure for the service and cleaning of coaches. The coach operator parks the coach on the lot, a cleaner/hostler or serviceman boards the coach, checks the operator daily report for defects, closes all windows, and drives the coach to the service lane. In the service lanes the farebox is emptied, the inside of the coach is cleaned, fueled and all the fluid levels are brought up to full. The next step is to cycle the wheelchair lift, and run it through the washer.
While the bus is being washed, the cleaner hostler mops the floor, wipes the seats and ledges. The coach brakes are checked or adjusted if necessary while it goes through an inspection pit, then the bus is parked ready for the next days sign-out. In addition to our daily cleaning, MTS has partnered with a cleaning by the name of Association for Disabled Citizens (ARC). ARC performs a magnificent job by deep cleaning all of our buses before being released from the PM program.
WARRANTY TRACKING
The warranty tracking on new buses is under the responsibility of the Quality Assurance department. All new buses go through an acceptance period and any defects that get noted, are documented and submitted for reimbursement by the bus manufacturer. Quarterly warranty reports are submitted to the Chief Operating Officer.
I-10 APPENDIX J MTS/NCTD TRANSIT SECURITY POLICIES
J-1