For all STAR posts on SmartRide, see the category ‘SacRT SmaRT Ride‘.

The SacRT application to Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA) for SmartRide funding includes page 11 on disadvantaged communities (pdf). We have not seen this presented elsewhere, so are using the application and map.

The text from this page is: “SmaRT Ride, like most transit service, tends to be heavily used by low-income populations. Passenger surveys conducted in 2021 determined that approximately 26 percent of SmaRT Ride customers have household income under $25,000. 4 This compares favorably to the 20 percent rate of households under $25,000 in household income throughout SacRT’s service area. Smart Ride customers are only 37 percent minority, which is below the 57 percent rate for SacRT’s service area. However, the areas that are served by SmaRT Ride are 56 percent minority, almost identical to the 57 percent rate that minority populations make up of SacRT’s overall service area. SmaRT Ride is therefore being made available to minority populations in proportion to their representation in the overall population; they just are not using it at a proportionate rate. How to increase their utilization of SmaRT Ride is an important goal for further exploration. As shown in the map above, the parts of the Downtown zone Citrus Heights zone (i.e., in Antelope, Fair Oaks, and Orangevale) that SacRT is proposing to eliminate are not predominately in Disadvantaged Communities (shown in blue).” The map referred to is below. Note that this map shows the SmartRide zones before August 2023. They are now different, as shown on a map below.

As you can see, there are large areas within zones which are NOT disadvantaged, and there are large areas not in zones which ARE disadvantaged.

The real problem with maps like this, though, is that they do not show the range of disadvantage, and are not population weighted. Census tracts rated as disadvantaged range from 3.71 residents per acre to 20.71. So showing census tracts as a constant blue obscures rather then illuminates demographic information. It is not only SacRT that is guilty of this, most agencies use these types of maps rather than maps symbolized for variable range, and/or population weighted.

The disadvantaged communities page has a footnote: “Base map is 2020 Disadvantaged Communities, provided via SACOG’s Open Data Portal”. However, there is no dataset named ‘disadvantaged communities’ on the SACOG Open Data Portal. The relevant dataset is Environmental Justice, but it is from 2016, not 2020. The most commonly used disadvantaged communities mapping is SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities from OHEEA, finalized in 2022, but that is not a SACOG dataset.

STAR’s Maps

First, STAR’s map of the SmartRide zones, by themselves (pdf). The maps used in the previous high frequency post is very busy, so these may be more readable. Note that, except for the original Citrus Heights zone, these zones are traced from low resolution maps, so the boundaries are not exact.

Next, STAR’s map of OHHEA SB 535 disadvantaged communities (pdf), which we guess comes comes closest to the data SacRT used to create the map above.

Next, STAR’s map of the SmartRide zones and SB 535 disadvantaged communities, but with symbology that shows the levels of disadvantage from low (yellow) to high (red) (pdf). Notice how much more useful this is in identifying neighborhoods that most need some sort of transit service.

Next, STAR’s map of the SmartRide zones and SB 535 disadvantaged communities, but with symbology weighted to the population of the census tract (pdf). The range of census tract populations is 1123 to 10676, with a median of 4972. Census tract 6067005301, the river district, again shows up prominently, not because it has a high population (1598), but because it has such a high CIscore (disadvantaged community measure).

Lastly, STAR’s map of the SmartRide zones and SACOG’s Low Income High Minority dataset (pdf). LIHM is used by SACOG and some other agencies for planning and funding allocation.

Conclusion

The maps offered don’t offer a solution to the issue of planning a on-demand micro-transit system, or any part of the entire transit system. But the more detail is available, and the better service matches to those who need the service and use the service, the better expenditure of limited funds the service is likely to be. We think that the maps show that SacRT did not and does not take seriously disadvantaged communities in designing the SmartRide services. There is just too much mismatch between the area included in zones and the disadvantaged communities that would benefit from such service. STAR believes that SacRT should either drop disadvantaged communities as a justification for SmartRide and the zones, or should really take an in-depth look at how on-demand micro-transit can serve disadvantaged communities.

Next

The next, and perhaps final post will be about the sustainability of the SmartRide service. Does it make sense to be spending operations and capital funds on this service? Who is it really serving? And how well?

• SacRT SmaRT Ride