Civil Rights Implications of the Allocation of Funds between Bus and Rail (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

9 Although in the past 10 years there have been few cases against transit providers under Title VI for al- leged disparate-impact violations, in particular in con- nection with fare increases or allocation of funds be- tween bus and rail, there are some disparate-impact cases against defendants other than transit providers that are discussed elsewhere in this report (see Sections VI and VIII.A, infra). III. OUTCOME OF TITLE VI COMPLAINTS OF DISPARATE IMPACT CAUSED BY TRANSIT AGENCIES’ DECISIONS A. Discussion of Complaints and FTA Decisions The United States Commission on Civil Rights stated, in a 2003 statutory report, that [t]he Department of Transportation (DOT) receives rela- tively few Title VI complaints. DOT attributes the lack of complaints to its outreach efforts and requirements for early community involvement in transportation planning. This, however, may not account for the low number of re- ported complaints. The number of complaints filed may also be a function of affected communities being unaware of how and when to participate in the decision-making process, lack of access to technical and scientific informa- tion, cultural and language barriers, and insufficient ac- cess to clear guidance on how to file Title VI complaints.56 Consistent with the above report’s conclusion, FTA identified and produced files on eight Title VI com- plaints presenting an issue, inter alia, regarding alloca- tion of funds between bus and rail, a reallocation of funds but not necessarily between bus and rail, inequi- table impact of service and fare changes, or disparities in service or equipment, or both. The files produced by the FTA indicate that the outcomes on complaints for 56 Not in My Backyard: Executive Order 12,898 and Title VI as Tools for Achieving Environmental Justice, available at http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/envjust/ch3.htm. The United States Commission on Civil Rights, created by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 71 Stat. 634, 85 Pub. L. No. 315, pt. I, § 101 (Sept. 9, 1957), is empowered by statute: a) to investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices; b) to study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice; c) to appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal pro- tection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice; d) to serve as a national clearinghouse for information in re- spect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin; to submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress; and e) to issue public service an- nouncements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, available at http://www.usccr.gov/index.html. Title VI disparate-impact violations generally have been favorable to transit providers. Allocation of funds was at issue in Piras and Wil- liams v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, FTA No. 2000-0315. The complaint alleged that there had been disparate and inequitable treatment of minority and low income residents in parts of two counties in California comprising the AC Transit; that the MTC effectively discriminated against low-income and minor- ity bus riders when compared to passengers of other transit systems that operate heavy and commuter rail- roads in the region; and that there was a bias that fa- vored railroads and their suburban passengers and a denial of similar benefits to urban-core bus passengers. However, FTA concluded that the facts did not support the allegations. The MTC’s response to the complaint is discussed in more detail in Section IV, infra. In Washington Street Corridor Coalition v. Massa- chusetts Bay Transportation Authority, FTA No. 2001- 0177, the complaint alleged that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) “tore down” the ele- vated Orange Line that serviced the Washington Street Corridor; that MBTA promised to replace the Orange Line with service equal to or better than the old line, a promise never fulfilled; and that MBTA consistently provided better transportation service to predominately white communities. FTA did not find that there had been any Title VI violations. MBTA’s response also is discussed in Section IV, infra. In West Harlem Environmental Action v. Metropoli- tan Transportation Agency, FTA No. 2001-0062, the complaint alleged that the Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA) and NYC Transit had taken actions that discriminated against African-American and Latino residents of Northern Manhattan in the development and operation of bus parking lots and bus depots and in the placement of diesel bus depots and open-air bus parking lots for diesel buses. The complaint alleged that MTA and NYC Transit discriminated against minority residents of Northern Manhattan because the residents were exposed disproportionately to increased health risks from diesel exhaust. FTA concluded that MTA and NYC Transit were not in violation of Title VI. In Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Equity Coa- lition v. Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Authority, FTA No. 2001-0084, the complaint alleged disparate treat- ment by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Au- thority (MARTA) in its delivery of services to minority riders; in its decision to raise fares; in its delivery of services to disabled riders; in its poorly maintained rail stations in minority communities; in its decision to raise fares that disproportionately affected African- Americans; and in its decision to commit $464 million in construction costs to two new train stations that bene- fited primarily white suburban communities. FTA did not disclose the “MARTA Title VI Resolution Agree- ment.” In Brazen v. Harris County Metropolitan Transit Au- thority, FTA No. 2003-0110, the complaint alleged that there was a violation of the civil rights of poor and mi-

10 nority bus riders because of the transit authority’s “cal- lous slashing and gutting” of bus service throughout the service area while at the same time “continuing to spend precious taxpayer funds on a tram/trolley sys- tem.” The FTA concluded that a violation of Title VI had not been established. In Winkelman v. Bi-State Development Agency, FTA No. 2003-0241, the complaint, which requested FTA to require an amendment of the route alignment of the new Cross-County Metro Link Extension Project, al- leged that the project was discriminating against those who rely on public transit in an effort to benefit Wash- ington University. FTA determined that there had not been a violation of Title VI. In Payne v. Chicago Transit Authority, FTA No. 04- 0194, the complaint alleged that the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) discriminated against the predomi- nantly minority residents of Chicago’s South Side when the CTA chose not to fund the Gray Line transit route proposal and that the Gray Line Proposal was not im- plemented because of the complainant’s race. The FTA determined that there was no showing of a clear pat- tern of discriminatory impact. In Leese v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Rapid Transit, FTA No. 2006-0238, the complaint alleged that the Suburban Mobility Authority for Rapid Transit’s (SMART) implementation of a proposed service reduc- tion in November 2005 as a result of the decision of the City of Livonia, Michigan, to opt out of the Wayne County Transit Authority was discriminatory because state funds were shifted; however, the FTA found that no violations of Title VI had been established. SMART’s response to the complaint is discussed in Sec- tion IV, infra. B. Summary of Title VI Issues, Outcomes, and Trends FTA provided the foregoing files in response to a FOIA request for records of Title VI complaints alleg- ing, for example, disparate impact in allocation of fund- ing between bus and rail or in service and fare changes. Although complaints often involved more than one is- sue, at least two complaints involved allocation of funds between bus and rail; one complaint alleged that a fare increase benefited commuter lines serving predomi- nately white communities; and one complaint alleged an inappropriate allocation of funds but not necessarily between bus and rail. Two complaints alleged disparate impact caused by a reduction in the level of service. One complaint alleged that there was disparate impact caused by the siting in minority communities of bus depots and open-air park- ing facilities used by diesel buses that polluted the af- fected communities. Table 1 summarizes the above Title VI challenges. Table 2 shows that there has been a decline in the number of Title VI cases relevant to the subject of the report since the filing of four challenges in 2001. TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION TITLE VI COMPLAINTS—2000 TO AUGUST 2007 YEAR FILED CASE NAME ALLEGATIONS STATUS ACTION TAKEN 2000-0315 Piras and Williams v. MTC Discrimination in funding against buses in favor of heavy and commuter railroads Closed No violation 2001-0062 West Harlem Environ- mental Action v. MTA and MTA NYCT Siting of diesel bus depots and open-air parking lots in minority communities Closed No violation 2001-0084 Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Equity Coalition v. MARTA Fare increase, poorly maintained rail stations in minority communities, deliv- ery of services to the disabled, committing funding for construction of new rail sta- tions in primarily white suburban com- munities Closed Undisclosed me- diation resolution agreement 2003-0110 Brazen v. Harris County MTA Reduction in bus service in favor of funds for a tram/trolley system Closed No violation 2001-0177 Washington Street Corridor Coalition v. MBTA Failure to replace elevated Orange Line; level of service provided consistently bet- ter in white communities Closed No violation 2003-0241 Wimkelman v. Bi-State Route alignment of new Cross-County Metro Link Extension Project alleged to be discriminatory Closed No violation 2004-0194 Payne v. CTA Decision not to fund Gray Line transit route proposal alleged to dis- criminate against South Side minority riders Closed No violation 2006-0238 Leese v. SMART Reduction in level of service; shift in state funding Closed No violation