IMPACTS & MITIGATION
DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS
DRAFT
TO ACCESS THE CURRENT 2045 HATS RTP, CLICK HERE.
The Vision and Goals established for this RTP by the Steering Committee require consideration of all communities and populations in the transportation planning process. Specifically, the ALL USERS AND ALL MODES goal guides HATS planning staff to “engage all populations and communities, including those traditionally under-served and under-represented” in transportation planning efforts and studies. The analysis that follows evaluates the condition of and access to the transportation system for low-income and racial or ethnic minority populations in the region. Similar analyses were completed for prior Regional Transportation Plans, which are reviewed to establish any persistent issues identified over the years.
IDENTIFYING POPULATIONS
For the purposes of this analysis, we’ve used the following definitions for each population from US Census Bureau:
Minority, meaning a person is:
-
Black -- a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
-
Asian -- a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent.
-
American Indian and Alaskan Native -- a person having origins in any of the original people of North America, Central America, or South America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
-
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander -- a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
-
Hispanic or Latino -- a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
Low-Income, meaning a person whose household income (or in the case of a community or group, whose median household income) is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.
Using data from the American Community Survey Data (2018-2022 5-year estimates), the concentration and distribution of minority and low-income populations were determined and mapped for the HATS region. Concentrations were mapped as “well below average” (less than 25% of the regional average), “below average” (between 25% and 75% of the regional average), average (between 75% and 125% of the regional average), “above average” (between 125% and 200% of the regional average) and “well above average” (greater than 200% the regional average).
Table 1 - Profile of Low Income & Minority Populations
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the HATS region demographic profile for Cumberland, Dauphin, and Perry counties individually, as well as for the region as a whole. The minority population constitutes 25.83% of the total regional population, while the largest concentration (37.08%) is located in Dauphin County. The low-income population comprises 9.69% of the total regional population, again with a majority (12.17%) in Dauphin County.
Table 2 - Population by Minority Populations Intervals
Table 3 - Population by Low Income Populations Intervals
Table 2 and Table 3 show the distribution of minority and low-income populations by percentage interval. Approximately 30.76% of the region’s total population and 68.83% of the region’s minority population lives within a block group whose minority population is above average or well above average. About 29.52% of the region’s total population and 70.39% of the region’s low-income population lives within a block group whose low-income population is above average or well above average.
Table 4 shows cross-tabulation of minority and low-income populations by percentage interval. This data shows that there tends to be a high degree of cross-over between minority and low-income populations as minority populations are more likely to be low-income than non-minority populations.
To view demographic data, click here for the interactive mapping application.
CONDITIONS
Table 4 - Profile of Low Income & Minority Populations
The following evaluation was conducted to provide an accurate picture of the impacts of transportation planning on our region’s minority and low-income populations. This will allow us to not just evaluate the impact of any one plan or program, but to examine the impacts of the decades of decisions made that comprise our comprehensive transportation planning process while identifying additional areas of need and gaps in our system. Working cooperatively with PennDOT, a variety of indicators were compared to the distribution and concentration of minority and low-income populations and are presented below.
BRIDGE CONDITION
Table 5 and Table 6 show the distribution of poor condition bridges and all bridges by minority population interval. There are a total of 111 poor condition bridges in the HATS region, of which 18 (16.2%) are located within census block groups whose concentration of minority population is above or well above the regional average. Overall, there are a total of 1,323 bridges in the HATS region, of which 198 (15%) are located within census block groups whose concentration of minority population is above or well above average.
Table 5 - Poor Condition Bridges by Minority Population
Table 7 - Poor Condition Bridges by Low Income Population
Table 6 - All Bridges by Minority Population
Table 8 - All Bridges by Low Income Population
Table 7 and 8 show the distribution of poor condition bridges and all bridges by low-income population interval. Of the 111 poor condition bridges in the HATS region, 39 (35.1%) are located within census block groups whose concentration of low-income population is above or well above the regional average. Of the 1,323 total bridges in the HATS region, 362 (27.4%) are located within census block groups whose concentration of low-income population is above or well above the regional average.
This analysis shows poor condition bridges are slightly over-represented in areas with above or well above average low-income populations. To view the bridge condition data by minority and low income populations, click here for the interactive mapping application.
PAVEMENT CONDITION
Table 9 and Table 10 show the distribution of poor condition pavement and excellent condition pavement by minority population interval. There are a total of 340.44 miles of poor condition pavement in the HATS region, of which 92.30 miles (27.1%) are located within census block groups whose concentration of minority population is above or well above the regional average. On the other hand, there are a total of 550.49 miles of excellent condition pavement in the HATS region, of which 55.91 miles (11.0%) are located within census block groups whose concentration of minority population is above or well above the regional average.
Table 9 - Poor Pavement by Minority Population
Table 11 - Poor Pavement by Minority Population
Table 10 - Excellent Pavement by Minority Population
Table 12 - Excellent Pavement by Low Income Population
Table 11 and Table 12 show the distribution of poor condition pavement and excellent condition pavement by low-income population interval. There are a total of 340.44 miles of poor condition pavement in the HATS region, of which 143.91 miles (42.3%) are located within census block groups whose concentration of low-income population is above or well above the regional average. Conversely, there are a total of 550.49 miles of excellent condition pavement in the HATS region, of which 151.63 miles (29.9%) are located within census block groups whose concentration of low-income population is above or well above the regional average.
These analyses show poor condition pavement is over-represented in areas with above or well above average minority and low-income populations. To view the pavement condition data by minority and low income populations, click here for the interactive mapping application.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASHES
Table 13 shows the distribution of bicycle and pedestrian related crashes (2019-2023) by minority population interval. Of the total 640 bicycle and pedestrian related crashes in the HATS region, 302 (47.2%) occurred within census block groups whose concentration of minority population is above or well above the regional average. The number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes per 1000 population is approximately 106% higher in census block groups whose concentration of minority population is above average or well above the regional average (1.65 average) than in census block groups whose concentrations of minority population is below or well below average (0.80 average).
Table 14 shows the distribution of bicycle and pedestrian related crashes (2019-2023) by low-income population interval. Of the 640 bicycle and pedestrian related crashes in the HATS region, 341 (53.3%) occurred within census block groups whose concentration of low-income population is above or well above the regional average. The number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes per 1000 population is approximately 200% higher in census block groups whose concentration of low-income population is above or well above the regional average (1.96 average) than in census block groups whose concentration of low-income population is below or well below average (0.65 average).
Table 13 - Bike/Ped Crashes by Minority Population
Table 14 - Bike/Ped Crashes by Low Income Population
Overall, as the percent of minority or low-income population increases, the number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes increase. We can attribute this correlation to the fact that alternative modes of transportation, such as walking and biking, are more commonly used in low-income and minority communities. To view the bicycle and pedestrian crash data by minority and low income populations, click here for the interactive mapping application.
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES
Table 15 shows the distribution of fatal and serious-injury related crashes (2019-2023) by minority population interval. Of the 1,063 fatal and serious-injury related crashes in the HATS region, 339 (31.9%) occurred within the census block groups whose concentration of minority population is above or well above the regional average. 600 (56.4%) occurred within census block groups whose concentration of minority population is below or well below the regional average. The average crashes per 1000 population was almost the same between those census blocks whose concentration of minority population is above or well above the regional average (1.86 average) and those census blocks whose concentration of minority population is below or well below the regional average (1.88 average).
Table 15 - Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes by Minority Population
Table 16 - Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes by Low Income Population
Table 16 shows the distribution of fatal and serious-injury related crashes (2019-2023) by low-income population interval. Of the 1,063 fatal and serious-injury related crashes in the HATS region, 357 (33.6%) occurred within census block groups whose concentration of low-income population is above or well above the regional average. 546 (51.4%) fatal and serious-injury related crashes occurred within census block groups whose concentration of low-income population is below or well below the regional average. The number of average crashes per 1000 population was higher (2.05 average) in census blocks whose concentration of low-income population is above or well above the regional average than in those that are below or well below the average (1.65 average).
The analysis shows that fatal and serious injury crashes are slightly more likely to occur in census block groups with above average or well above average concentrations of low-income populations. To view the fatal and serious injury crash data by minority and low income populations, click here for the interactive mapping application.
TRANSIT ACCESS
Figure 1 shows about 26% of the minority population and 58% of the non-minority population lives within a census block group with no designated SRTA bus stops, while approximately 43% of the minority population and 19% of the non-minority population lives within a block group with more than 5 designated SRTA bus stops. Figure 2 shows that 52% of the non-low-income population and 35% of the low-income population lives within a block group with no designated SRTA bus stops, while approximately 38% of the low-income population and 24% of the non-low-income population lives within a block group with more than 5 designated SRTA bus stops.
This data shows that concentrations of both minority and low-income populations have greater access to transit stops than non-minority and non-low-income populations. To view the SRTA route/stop data by minority and low income populations, click here for the interactive mapping application.
PROGRAM ANALYSIS
CURRENT PROGRAM
Figure 1 - Transit Access by Minority Population
Figure 2 - Transit Access by Low Income Population
The HATS Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the PennDOT 12-Year Transportation program (TYP), and the HATS Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) will be used to assess the impact that our current transportation program has on minority and low-income communities in the HATS region. The HATS TIP covers the next four years of transportation programming, while the PennDOT TYP covers the next 12 years of transportation improvements (including the TIP as its first four years). Both include relatively well-developed estimated costs and project details, with the TIP being the most accurate and well-developed. The HATS RTP, however, identifies the long-range transportation needs of the region, but it does not contain reliable information pertaining to cost projections and project details. The projects within the TIP and TYP will undergo our quantitative analysis, while the long-rang needs identified in the RTP project pipeline will undergo a more qualitative analysis.
To perform the quantitative analysis, GIS software was used to compare minority and low-income populations and the investment projections for the various TIP/TYP projects. As we saw in the last RTP, programmed Interstate projects greatly impacted the analysis, comprising nearly 70% of the projected total spending over the next 12 years and primarily taking in place in census block groups whose minority or low-income population is above or well above the regional average.
Table 17- TIP/TYP Investment by Minority Population
As shown in Table 17, per capita spending not including interstate projects is generally higher in census block groups whose minority population is above average or well above average ($2,323 per capita average) than in census block groups whose minority population is below or well below average ($1,134 per capita average). When looking at all projects, including the interstate projects, the per capita spending increases as the percentage of the minority population increases. 54% of Bridge investments and 50% of Roadway investments are located in census block groups whose low-income population is above or well above the regional average. In terms of Bicycle and Pedestrian (Bike/Ped) investments, 53% are within census block groups whose minority population is above or well above the regional average. 52% of all Bike/Ped, Bridge, and Roadway investments are within census block groups whose minority population is above or well above the regional average while 42% of all investments are within census block groups whose minority population is below or well below average.
Table 18- TIP/TYP Investment by Low Income Population
As seen with the minority population trends, per capita spending, not including interstate projects, increases in each subsequently higher low-income population percent interval. The average per capita spending is $597 in census block groups whose low-income population is below or well below average and $2,821 in census block groups whose low income-population is above or well above the regional average. 66% of Bridge investments and 34% of Roadway investments are located in census block groups whose low-income population is above or well above the regional average. Bicycle and Pedestrian takes up only 3% of programmed funds, but 53% of the Bike/Ped investments are located within census block groups whose low-income population is above or well above the regional average. 62% of all Bike/Ped, Bridge, and Roadway investments are within census block groups whose low-income population is above or well above the regional average while 26% of investments are within census block groups whose low-income population is below or well below the regional average.
To view the TIP and TYP project location data by minority and low income populations, click here for the interactive mapping application.
FUTURE NEEDS
The process of compiling transportation needs in the region begins with analysis of conditions, research of existing plans and studies, and outreach to the public, regional stakeholders, and municipalities. Exact projects and implementation efforts are rarely developed at this stage, which makes substantive quantitative analysis difficult since information related to the exact cost and scope is often not known.
These long-term needs identified in the RTP are primarily related to maintaining or enhancing our existing transportation system, minimizing the need to acquire significant right-of-way or displace people, businesses, or communities. The notable exceptions to this are the identified interchange/interstate needs. These projects can involve significant right-of-way acquisition, prolonged construction periods, and increased traffic volumes upon completion. Outreach to low-income and minority communities early in the project development process is key to ensuring the benefits and burdens of transportation improvement projects are shared equally among all populations and communities.
To provide some guidance, the table available here shows the needs identified on the Project Pipeline, and the size of the low-income and minority populations present within the census block groups intersecting with the identified need. While the early stages of every project should involve outreach to potentially-impacted populations and communities, this table provides an overview of the projects for which these outreach efforts will be particularly crucial.
CONCLUSION
The analysis of conditions highlighted two primary areas of concern – road condition and bicycle/pedestrian crashes. Each are disproportionally represented in block groups with concentrations of minority populations or low-income populations above or well above average. The quantitative analysis shows the majority of bicycle/pedestrian projects are located in block groups above average or well above average concentrations of low-income populations (53.4%) or minority (52.7%) populations. Roadway projects (which includes resurfacing projects) are also distributed so that approximately half of the investment is being made in block groups with above average or well above average concentrations of minority (49.5%) or low-income (54.0%) populations.
Both of these areas of concerns have been consistently identified in similar analyses conducted in recent Regional Transportation Plans. HATS is already implementing efforts to address these discrepancies. As discussed above, the RTP Implementation Grant Program has provided funding to studies and projects that make walking, biking, and using transit safer and easier. HATS is also working with PennDOT and local municipalities to collect and analyze locally owned assets so that they will be equally considered during the Project Pipeline and TIP project selection processes. The Project Pipeline evaluation criteria include concentration of minority and low-income populations. Finally, HATS staff has continued expanding public outreach to include working more closely with our region’s Plan Sect communities and organizations like Tri-County Community Action.
The analysis conducted is only a snapshot captured of this point in time. Continued refinement of the methodology and analysis of trends in both system condition and programmed investments will be required to fully understand how well we are addressing demographic impact concerns. These efforts, along with improved data sources and expanded public outreach must be a goal for HATS moving forward.