MTC Funding Analysis

1

• MTC Funding Analysis
• To Implement EJ Principle 2
• Partnership Board Meeting
• October 20, 2006

2
Timeline

• March 2006 First two EJ principles adopted
• April 2006 MCAC requested EJ Subcommittee with
  Partnership
• July 2006 interim update to Commission
• Oct Nov 2006 next subcommittee mtgs
• December 2006 report back to Commission

3
EJ Subcommittee Members
Partnership MCAC________

• Suzanne Smith
• Mary King
• Rich Napier
• Henry Gardner
• Jim Helmer

Carlos Valenzuela Raphael Durr Frank Gallo Candy
Gayles Charles Rivasplata
4
EJ Principle 2

• Collect accurate and current data essential to
  defining and understanding the presence and
  extent of inequities, if any, in transportation
  funding based on race and income.

5
Proposed EJ Principle 3

• MTC should change its discretionary investment
  decisions and actions to mitigate identified
  inequities.

6
Key Question

• Do funding inequities as defined in principle
  2 -- currently exist?

7
Table 1 MTC Analysis Under EJ Principle 2
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
Key Findings Cells 1 4

• More per capita on CoCs Transit-Dependent
  Households
• Result of more spent on transit both
  discretionary non-discretionary
• Does not mean there arent gaps in transportation
  network that impact CoCs
• Everyone is underfunded

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Key Questions Cell 7

• 1. Why do differences in funding amounts among
  transit operators exist in Cell 7?
• 2. How could these differences be addressed and
  minimized?

16
Cell 7 Background

• Rail systems cost more to maintain
• VTA/Caltrain benefit from fed formulas
• MUNI sales tax less for SF vs. others
• BART has significant non-discretionary
• AC Transit lacks stable non-discretionary
• MTC capital funds more for rail, MTC operating
  funds more for bus

17
Next Steps/Schedule

• Oct 26 EJ Subcommittee mtg
• Nov 17 EJ Subcommittee mtg
• Nov/Dec MCAC mtg
• Dec 8 MTC Legislation Committee