Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 16, 2013 3:00pm-3:31pm PDT

3:00 pm
service was completely replaced by the 10 and we didn't think it was a service change because there was no disruption of service to the customers even though had a new name and capital projects are part of the service definition regardless whether the proposed change meets the criteria above. in developing this definition we were trying to find a delicate balance between ongoing system maintenance and addressing important equity issues. we consider the needs of minority and low income populations when we make any change, and this is really identifying the point at which we go through the much more formal process and circular work. the challenge is if you make the definition too narrow you really risk locking in the existing service and not able
3:01 pm
to make incremental changes but at the same time you want to make sure you're capturing important equity issues. we did make several changes to this definition based on the public process. one of the key things was that we added this rolling 24 month period to the system changes. what the concern was in the public process was that we would make a 2% change one year and then a 1% change six months later and a 3% change six months after that, and that we would be stringing together these smaller changes and not ever reach this larger threshold. that certainly would never be the intent of me or my staff but we felt it was important in the policy to call out that concern, so what this would mean is if we were considering a 3% change and a 2% change already put in place within the last 24 months we
3:02 pm
would evaluate the full 5% proposal and not just the 3% proposal. we also had originally had the span of service before hours, and one of the things we heard in the public process was four hours seemed too high so we reduced it to three hours. we didn't reduce it as far as the cac recommended and one hour and we received comments to do two hours and again we felt it was very close to what we consider more of a minor service change. we also received questions on why this policy does not specifically call out stock consolidation? and there again our stock removal policy is guided by our service standards where we look at stop spacing
3:03 pm
based not only space between stops but transfer points and grades, so when we make proposals to remove stops they're within that standard which we felt was not considered a major service change, but that doesn't mean it's not an important policy issue and one of the things we tried to explain throughout the outreach process is that this was not our only avenue for looking at different service changes, and that it's important that we particularly consider the needs of our vulnerable users when we're making service decisions. the other two things that we have before you today are our disparate impact policy and our disproportionate burden policy. disparate impact policy determines when the adverse effect of a service change are
3:04 pm
borne disparately by minority populations and our policy rear view mirrors that the changes or major packet of. >> >> changes and have disparate impact on minority populations if a percentage impacted by the change and system wide is 8% or more and i can walk you through some of the examples and i know that's a heavy policy. we recommend the same policy of 8% threshold for low income populations and here is an example of how it works. here are fictitious changes here. and system wide 58% minority and if we were looking at changes for the frequency routes and only went through neighborhoods 40% minority that would be considered a disparate impact even though we're not reducing
3:05 pm
service. we're adding service and in a way minority populations benefit more than non minority populations. a second example is shown that we are reducing frequency and heavily minority more so the 58% minority city wide and again that is considered a disparate impact. i think that the nuance of the threshold is shown in the third example. in the third example we're eliminating a set of routes and those routes run through neighborhoods that are 63% minority and while that is more than our city wide average of 58% because it's below that threshold of 8% it would not be considered a disparate impact. my second example here talks about the cumulative nature of these changes. you may have noticed we talked both individual change and a set of
3:06 pm
changes in the disparate impact definition. in this example if we were only making changes to route a which is 70% minority it would be considered a disparate impact, but because we're balancing those changes with similar changes to route b we look at those cumulatively, and because those routes collectively go through neighborhoods are 62% minority and within the policy threshold that is not considered a disparate impact. sorry to make you guys do a lot of math, but this is kind of the nature of these thresholds as we're trying to find really the point at which there's a significant difference between the routes we're changing and city average. the last example is here and this is fictitious data we will have real data as soon as the survey
3:07 pm
is analyzed but in this example if we make changes to the cash fare and used by this amount of people and 160,000 are minority and because of the percent and the 8% threshold this isn't considered a disparate impact. alternatively if we were making changes to the youth pass and in this example it's used by 75% minority that is considered a disparate impact but if we're making changes to the two at the same time we would look at them collectively and collectively they would be found to have a disparate impact because the percent minority using the two pass types are more than our city wide average
3:08 pm
plus the threshold. the threshold -- developing the thresholds as i said they need to be sensitive enough to distinguish between differences and disparate impact on minority and non minority populations. we essentially set the threshold at 15% and brought them down to 8% based on analysis of all of the spectrum of minority and low income populations on each of our routes. we also compared ourselves to peers as a second check to make sure we were on the lower end of the spectrum in terms of these thresholds. the comments from the public process are summarized in your calendar item but there was really a range. there were people that attended to talk about specific route and service -- route and fare concerns, and we listened
3:09 pm
and tried to communicate those in the calendar item. there were also comments that we received as i said about the system wide over time issue as well as span. there was also the recommendation made that we reevaluate that the thresholds every three years as part of the title six program update which we agree is sound practice. the thresholds are intended to apply for the entire three year period because fta doesn't want you to be changing the rules of the game in the middle of your program update but as we get familiar with the thresholds we do equity and analysis we will learn over time so we think that's a sound recommendation. we also -- an issue came up at both the public process as well as in the written comments asking if we could extend these programs to seniors or people with disabilities? and at the staff level we really understand these concerns and think it's
3:10 pm
really important that all of our service and fare policies are sensitive to the needs of seniors and needs of people with disabilities. title six however is not the right policy tool for that. it's very specific and narrowly focused and i think it's important that we sort of acknowledge the limitations of it as a tool to understand these issues. in terms of next steps if you approve these policies today all future fare and service equity analysis will use these definitions including any dialogue we have around service increases or decreases or fare increases or decreases as part of the upcoming budget dialogue they anticipate will start this fall. the title six program update as i said is happening this fall as well and we will be bringing that to you in november
3:11 pm
or late october for your approval. we're also really excited as i said to get the demographic data to really find out if the demographics of the neighborhood is indicative or reflective of the dem graph ikts of the routes. in some cities it is and some cities it isn't. for example los angeles is 70% minority but the ridership is 85% minority so you can certain see variations and i expect that we will see some variation here. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. anyone from the public wish to speak to us? >> one person turned in a speaker card. herbert wiener. >> let's hear from mr. wiener. >> herbert wiener impaled stakeholders and also senior citizen. one question i have about this i really feel that
3:12 pm
seniors and handicapped and severely ill should be considered part of minority because basically they're a significant part of the population, and they can also be adversely impacted. now, if you adopt this this would possibly be a legal basis and criteria for provekz of services to minorities and i feel that seniors and the disabled should be considered part of that, and if you don't decide to innercorporate seniors and the disabled maybe the government does and this could be a point of legal contest. the second thing is in respect to minorities throughout the richmond district there are asian speaking people. they are not -- many don't speak english and they have been severely impacted by the transit
3:13 pm
effectiveness projected and one stopped at park presidio and my understanding you're going to curtail the service further and like the ft. sutter run and the trolleys are still there and basically a violation of civil rights with the transit effectiveness project. it really is wrong headed. it's based on supply and demand. it's not based on moral principles and sufficient rights and that is fundamentally wrong and i think. >> >> will be contested in the future, if not by me by someone else and it will come down hard on you and you will pay the consequences. >> thank you very much. anyone else care to speak? there is another slip over there. is that the same one, same item? oh okay. thank you. we have heard from the public. members of the board. good presentation. >> yeah good presentation.
3:14 pm
thank you very much. i did have one question. i know we do the a letter from the bcdc asking that question about seniors and i understand in your presentation you said this is actually not the appropriate tool to address the question of seniors and people with disabilities and i'm sorry did you say which one is the correct tool and i missed it? or is that something we approach on a granduear level. >> exactly. through our service standards so for stops for example and one of the things the standards speaks to is go to a shorter stop spacing with grades or considering the adjacent land uses. it's part of the information that staff will prepare for you as you make decisions about service changes and it's also built into the
3:15 pm
outreach process, so for example we are looking to do a pilot of service improvements on fulton as part of the transit effectiveness project and one of the things we're doing is working closely with the senior center that's on fulton and 38th to make sure that our stop proposals work for their needs so we try to address a number of levels, both through your lens as you make policy decisions, but also through outreach and technical length as well. >> thank you. that's the only question i had. >> can i ask given the concerns that has been raised i see this as an exercise in community engagement and awareness building. you know one of the other things that was articulated in the letter from the bcdc they see stop consolidation as a way to speed
3:16 pm
up service or i can't remember -- reduce run times and i don't know that's necessarily the intent of the stop consolidation. from what i understand the intent is really make the system more efficient and to conserve resources so we can protect service that is threatened because of the current cost of operations, and i'm concerned that there's a lot of hype that's out there on the part of people that are understandably concerned about bus stops being removed but they're exploiting the idea with the intent of stopping it, but not being all together fully informed of what the purpose of things like this are for and/or other reasons, so i am concerned that a lot of folks don't understand title six. you're right. it's very complicated,
3:17 pm
but i'm also very concerned about an organization like the bcdc which is a pretty amazing organization with respect to their capacity to organize seniors, people -- particularly minority populations. i wish other communities had such an organization like the bcdc advocating for them, so the letter this morning that we got this morning raised a few concerns for me that i am wondering if we have the time to address -- if nothing else to do the due diligence of a conversation to help them understand what is at stake so they're not making statements like they said in that letter. like i said earlier i have a lot of respect for that organization because nobody organizing that demographic better but if they have concerns what about the other communities we haven't
3:18 pm
reached out to and a level they can reach and a little misinformed or uninformed, so can i ask specifically what is the price or the problem with bringing this back after you've had more due diligence of a conversation with the c cdc to make sure this conversation has been resolved? >> i don't see any immediate concern with continuing the item. the vulnerability is that we are not going to be able to make major service changes or fare changes until you as a board adopt these policies because the previous circular requirements are no longer
3:19 pm
applicable after last april so we're in kind of a transition period where we don't have these policies on the books, but i also don't anticipate in the next several weeks any fare service changes coming up, so there would be a concern with sort of a longer term continuance of the item, but there is nothing in the short term that requires immediate action. >> yeah, and the reason i am particularly concerned about this with the tep and the -- what we're going to need to do to increase efficiency and really make our system work to keep the service where it needs to be it has to be a very sensitive conversation and this title six work is the place for that, or at least initiating that conversation and i think it's important that people understand fully what we're trying to do when we do service changes and i would error on
3:20 pm
the side of being more conservative with a situation like this. the title six work particularly with my understanding is expressly work out with communities under represented and typically don't have a voice and while seniors are vulnerable most seniors are more active than the majority of us and they have more time and can get engaged but there are non english speaking communities and people aren't inclined to participate in processes like this that you know they're harder to reach, and so it might take a little more time, so if we have the time i would ask that we continue it unless there is some reason to expressly move this thing forward in a way that can't take into consideration the things that have been raised. >> members, thoughts? >> honestly so i disagree respectfully. i think those points are -- obviously we want
3:21 pm
to be careful and sensitive when we make service changes. i think you have done a tremendous job with the policy and well thought out. i am the first person to have persons with disability it is represented with the service change but i think you're right. this isn't the tool for it. this sigh specific tool to comply with this. >> >> federal law and specific to what population its encompasses and i am comfortable with it the way it is and we continue to work on the other mechanisms to make sure the other populations are included at the table with policy changes but i don't see this as part of this tool but i am comfortable moving forward. >> i have a lot of respect for director ramos and he has a lot of experience doing outreach in the communities and i take your concerns very seriously. do you feel that we can address those concerns? are you confident?
3:22 pm
i mean you have done a lot of work on this. are you confident going forward we can address the concerns of the community and we can make this clear and we can really get the input and the message out that we need to? >> we had initially reached out to c cdc. i speak to cindy wu personally about four weeks ago to engage them in the process so i am really glad they provided feedback. it's unfortunate we weren't able to sit down with them in advance. i do think that some of their questions about wanting to make sure there is clear language around the disparate impact disproportionate burden policies we could easily address it and it's prescriptive in the circular. there are other things they're recommending like -- for example, expanding the
3:23 pm
analysis that i think we could try to do our due diligence to explain but i don't think that the calendar item that we are bring being back to you would be substantially different. for example, one of the things that they request is that rather than having 25% definition for a route change that we reduce it down to 10% that. is on the order of going from a nine minute headway to eight minute headway which i again would strongly argue is incremental schedule change to address crowding on a route or address where we don't see crowding on a route, so i reviewed these comments carefully this morning and i think there are important issues that we need to proactively engage with c cdc and others like stop consolidation but i don't think that the staff recommendation would be substantially different
3:24 pm
coming back to you. >> okay. >> well, given this afternoon we only have four members here and takes four votes to do something. the question to you director ramos and can you go along with this and outreach continue after this or you want it back and not the support for it we have to do that. >> well, i think there could be changes to the resolution that have been thought about or to the language that could be added to address some of the concerns that i raised if staff would feel it's appropriate, and i'm sorry i don't have copies, but it's a couple of whereas phrases they would add to the language that -- not whereas phrases, but phrases that would be added to the disparate impact policy clause, package of major
3:25 pm
changes along routes and cumulatively and service changes collectively and negative evaluated collectively as well, so there are things to tighten up that i could submit for review or to be adopted as well. i don't know what the specific process would be if i have to make copies of it right now and get everybody looking at it, or do i have to articulate it? >> i think when we do any kind of amendments we do need to have language prepared for; right? >> i think there needs to be clarity exactly what would be different. >> okay. so if folks can bear with me i am happy to read that off what i think is good for the policy to be included, and it would be on the -- let's see on the first -- i'm sorry, on page
3:26 pm
two under the first set of bullets and sfmta staff recommends that the disparate impact policy be adopted by the sfmta board of directors -- >> where are you? >> page two. the second whereas on the page. >> thank you. disparate impact policy specifically. >> i'm sorry? page two of the staff report? >> no. of the resolution. >> of the resolution? okay. >> disparate impact policy a fare change or package of changes or major service change or package of changes deemed to have disparate impact on minority populations if the percentage of the difference between the population impacted by the changes and the percentage of the minority population system wide is 8% points or more and so the specific language for the board to consider adding packages of
3:27 pm
service changes across multiple route it's. >> could you speak slower? >> of course. i apologize. package of major service changes across multiple route will be evaluated cumulatively -- >> hold on. >> will be evaluate cumulatively with poz service changes evaluated collectively and negative service changes -- >> hold on. >> sorry. >> positive service changes evaluateed collectively. >> yeah. and negative service changes evaluated collectively -- >> hold on. i can't type that fast. >> packages of fare increases will be -- >> packages of fare increases.
3:28 pm
>> across multiple fare instruments. >> yes. >> will be evaluated cumulative ly with fare increases evaluated collectively and fare -- >> evaluated -- >> collectively and fare decreases evaluated collectively. >> i think this is getting a little too involved doing it like this. if we have a motion to approve this as the staff recommendation and a second then we can go forward and come back to it, or we can postpone it for a couple of weeks or something. what's the pleasure of the board? >> i will move to approve. >> is there a second? >> yes. >> okay. we have a motion and a a second to approve as is, right? >> i am supportive of director ramos' comments -- >> this is really -- >> understood. >> we have a motion and a second on the floor. all in favor say
3:29 pm
aye. opposed? >> no. >> the motion fails. next item. >> mr. chairman at this point you may wish to revoke the point and continuing the entire matter to the next meeting so issues can be addressed and returned to the board. >> another public hearing about it. is that the idea? is that what you're saying? >> yes. flrd to bring it back you need to bring back because you technically vote today down and more appropriately to rescind the vote and continue the matter to the next meeting. >> okay. is there a motion to rescind the vote? >> motion to rescind. >> all in favor say aye? okay. we will take a 10 minute break and be back in two weeks to continue this item. >> item -- >> we're taking a break. >> okay. thank you
3:30 pm