An examination of severe environmental justice zones in Houston, TX.

PDFTech ReportSWUTC/14/600451-00046-1DTRT12-G-UTC06Environmental justiceEnvironmental impact analysisMetropolitan planning organizationsSurveysUrban transportationLow income groupsMinoritiesAccessibilityHouston (Texas)Southwest Region University Transportation Center (U.S.)Goodwin, GwenSchoby, JamaalCouncil, WalterTexas Southern University. Center for Transportation Training and ResearchUnited States. Dept. of Transportation. Research and Innovative Technology AdministrationUS Transportation CollectionDeclining federal subsidies are limiting transportation capacity at the regional and local levels. At the same time,federally funded agencies must comply with Executive Order (EO) 12898, which augments Title VI of the CivilRights Act of 1964. The EO states that agencies are to identify burdens and benefits to vulnerable populations. Priorto the 2010, demographic and socioeconomic data collected from the decennial census, the American CommunitySurvey (ACS) and the United States Department of Health and Human Services were used to classify environmentaljustice zones. In the 2010 decennial census, the U.S. Census Bureau eliminated the long-form, which reduced thedata available to perform adequate environmental justice analyses. Currently, metropolitan planning organizations(MPOs) use the ACS which provides limited data. MPOs must now develop innovative strategies to determineenvironmental justice zones. In previous work, a methodology for identifying EJZs in the Houston TMA was createdfor the MPO. This methodology analyzed the level of transportation investment in severe census tracts. Themethodology included a three-tier process. First, the EJZs and non-EJZs were identified based on the distribution ofvariables throughout the census tracts. Of the 1,066 tracts within the Houston transportation management area(TMA), there was usable data for 1,062 tracts. About 356 (34%) were classified as EJ Zones. Among EJ tracts, 209(20%) were low EJ, 107 (10%) were medium EJ, 32 (3%) were high EJ, and 8 (1%) were extreme EJ tracts. Forpurposes of this study, only these eight extreme EJ zones are discussed in more detail. The second tier analysisdeveloped community profiles for these extreme EJZs. In the third tier, transportation mobility accessibility optionswere described for the extreme EJZs, including an automobile versus public transit comparison. The study found thatone of the EJ areas had the best travel times and good access to transit and light rail. This was primarily due to itsclose proximity to the CBD. Study areas located the farthest from the CBD reported higher car ownership