TO: AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM: Salvador Llamas, General Manager/Chief Executive Officer
SUBJECT: Adopt Title VI Policies
ACTION ITEM
AGENDA PLANNING REQUEST: ☐
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Title
Consider approving amendments to Board Policy 518 - Title VI and Environmental Justice Service Review and Compliance Report Policy.
Staff Contact:
Ramakrishna Pochiraju, Executive Director of Planning & Engineering
Body
STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE:
Goal - Strong Public and Policymaker Support
Initiative - Financial Efficiency and Revenue Maximization
Revisions to Board Policy 518 ensures the District remains in compliance with Board Policy 100 and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations on Title VI related to protected populations and the protection of low-income communities to reflect current service and programmatic operations. This results in increased support from stakeholders in the AC Transit community while demonstrating compliance with civil rights regulations to continue receiving funding from the Federal Transit Administration.
BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact resulting from adopting the proposed amendments to the policy.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that federally assisted programs and services are provided without discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. In 2014, following guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Circular 4702.1B, AC Transit established several Title VI policies governing transit service monitoring, equity analyses, disparate impact (DI) and disproportionate burden (DB).
To maintain alignment with District policy and state and federal priorities, staff hired WSP USA, Inc. (WSP) to review AC Transit’s DI and DB equity analysis policies, methodologies, peer practices, and the District’s existing 15 percent DI/DB threshold. While the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a rule change eliminating disparate impact policies and analysis requirements on June 11, 2026, AC Transit may still conduct analyses to ensure service and fare changes are not negatively impacting its communities and riders.
As a result of staff’s review of Board Policy 518, WSP’s comprehensive study, and community feedback, staff propose the following policy amendments for the Board to consider: 1) Maintain the current threshold at 15 percent; 2) adjust the language for clarity and consistency with federal regulations and guidance; 3) add “percentage points” to the policy; and 4) include mention of negative impacts.
Below is an overview of the proposed amendments to Board Policy 518 and recommendations outside the policy.
1) Maintain the current 15 percent threshold
AC Transit has developed thresholds to serve as benchmarks to identify potential disparate impacts on populations protected by Title VI and disproportionate burdens on communities with low-income when conducting a Title VI equity analysis or performing an analysis of the District’s transit service in its Title VI Monitoring Program.
Staff recommend maintaining the current thresholds. This decision was informed by the study conducted by WSP, who evaluated whether AC Transit’s DI/DB policies and 15 percent threshold remain appropriate for Title VI analyses. The study followed a four-phase process: 1) Establishing a policy and peer agency baseline via peer review; 2) applying a gap analysis to representative service and fare change scenarios; 3) incorporating public engagement, including feedback on the threshold; and 4) developing final recommendations based on the peer review, gap analysis, engagement findings, and follow-up sensitivity testing. Detailed study findings are included in Attachment 3 and public engagement results are included in Attachment 4.
Based on the substantial review and analysis performed by WSP and feedback provided by the community, staff recommend maintaining the current threshold and focusing near-term improvements on methodology and documentation (as described further in “Additional Study” below). Results from the gap analysis suggest AC Transit’s existing and current equity analysis practices capture potential impacts on populations protected by Title Vi and communities with low-income appropriately. AC Transit’s service change analysis is more extensive than several peer agencies, adequately capturing potential impacts on populations protected by Title VI and communities with low-income. Furthermore, staff have employed the amount of service methodology (measuring frequency changes) considerably well compared to two peer agency counterparts that use this methodology. By applying this methodology, staff can capture nuances and sensitivities to proposed service changes, which has allowed past equity analyses to show a much higher percent change than other peer agency methodologies.
AC Transit’s job accessibility analysis provides an additional approach to examining and capturing potential impacts of proposed service changes on Title VI protected populations and low-income communities. Out of the five peer agencies reviewed, AC Transit is the only agency to analyze impacts on job accessibility for proposed service changes. Overall, the review found that AC Transit’s equity analysis practices are comparatively robust and generally capture potential impacts on Title VI-protected populations and communities with low-income.
2) Adjust the language for clarity and consistency with federal regulations and guidance
Staff recommend several adjustments to the language throughout Board Policy 518. First, staff propose an adjustment in Section I, which contains general information about the purpose of Board Policy 518, citing federal guidance. To align with the latest state and federal advocacy programs adopted by the Board, staff propose to remove “equitable” and replace it with “all users.” Second, under “Title VI Fare and Service Equity Analyses,” staff propose to add language clarifying when AC Transit will conduct a Title VI equity analysis and the processes to complete them. Finally, staff recommend removing “environmental justice” and the requirement to submit Title VI equity analyses to the FTA from the policy to reflect the latest federal administration’s rescinding of Environmental Justice Circular 4703.1 (effective September 2025), and Executive Order 12898 (effective January 2025), and the Department of Transportation’s rule rescinding disparate impact liability regulations under Title VI (effective June 11, 2026). Removal of “environmental justice” and the requirement to submit Title VI equity analysis to the FTA ensures AC Transit’s operations are aligned with policy decisions at the federal level.
3) Add “percentage points” to the Policy
While findings from the gap analysis suggest the District should maintain its current thresholds, staff recommend adding “percentage points” to the disparate impact and disparate burden Policy language to clarify how potential impacts are calculated and reported. Currently, only “percent” is used to express a potential disparate impact and disparate burden for Title VI reporting. While “percent” remains appropriate for evaluating route performance under Board Policy 545 (Service Standards and Design), including “percentage points” clarifies that comparisons between groups are based on the absolute percentage point difference between their respective rates, rather than the proportional difference between those rates, improving consistency in future Title VI reporting. Although WSP found that all calculations in past equity analyses have been correctly accounted for, the inclusion of “percentage points” not only lends clarity about the type of calculation used to communicate potential disparate impacts or disproportionate burdens, but improves the quality and consistency of reporting while promoting accountability amongst future staff and the public about District processes.
4) Include language describing potential adverse effects on Title VI protected populations
AC Transit conducts equity analyses to examine potential adverse effects on populations protected by Title VI and populations with low-income. Adverse effects refer to negative impacts resulting from practices or policies that disproportionately affect populations protected by Title VI and populations with low-income.
The current language in the Policy does not explicitly define the potential negative effects populations with low-income and populations protected by Title VI may experience as a result of a service or fare change proposal. For this policy update, staff propose to define and include examples of adverse impacts to the Policy.
Additional Study Recommendation Outside Board Policy 518:
In addition to the proposed policy amendments, staff will consider and execute several activities outside Board Policy 518 as a result of the gap analysis, community feedback, and overall lessons learned from the study. To strengthen the existing connection between service monitoring information and Title VI analyses, the District will continue to explore several improvements to broaden public awareness of its service planning practices, operations, and overall service quality. For instance, information about service performance (such as on-time performance and crowding) can be more readily available to the public on the Title VI webpage. Finally, staff will continue documenting their findings on the most relevant data, methods, and approaches available to apply in equity analyses and service monitoring analyses. This ensures future Title VI reports are communicating potential disparities consistently and clearly.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
1) Maintain the current threshold at 15 percent
The primary advantage of maintaining the threshold is that the District continues to retain its ability to manage and run current operations with its limited resources. Except for the 2018 Transbay equity analysis-which showed impacts on a few routes to which the District provided a business justification explaining the discrepancies in the equity analyses-the District has not reached the 15 percent threshold nor received any findings from the FTA. This may demonstrate staff have consistently identified potential Title VI triggers when planning service to balance operational capacities and customer needs.
One disadvantage to maintaining the threshold is that it may not be as responsive to certain bus lines or areas where people are more sensitive to proposed service or fare changes. Across several peer agencies reviewed by WSP, AC Transit’s threshold remains the highest.
2) Adjust the language for clarity and consistency with federal regulations and guidance
The advantage of including adjusted language in this Policy is that it ensures the District is in line with state and federal priorities and programs. The added language regarding equity analyses offers a clearer understanding and direction to the equity analysis process.
There are no identified disadvantages.
3) Add “percentage points” to the policy
An advantage of adding “percentage points” to this Policy is increased clarity about the type of calculation used to communicate potential disparate impacts or disproportionate burdens in equity analyses. It also improves the quality and consistency of compliance reporting while promoting accountability amongst future staff and informing the public about District processes.
Inclusion of “percentage points” does not present any disadvantages.
4) Include language describing potential adverse effects on Title VI protected populations
The inclusion of language describing potential adverse effects in the policy does not present any disadvantages.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
The Board has three alternatives to staff’s recommendation: change the threshold; direct staff to conduct further study; or adopt none of the recommended changes.
1. Change the threshold
While the FTA requires transit agencies to set a numerical threshold, no specific guidance is provided on choosing the appropriate number. Developing disparate impact and disparate burden policies is uniquely specific for each agency and the population it serves. Therefore, the Board may consider changing the threshold. However, if the threshold is too high, the analyses will miss capturing meaningful impacts on riders who depend on AC Transit services the most. If the threshold is too low, the analyses may create operational and financial constraints on the District.
If the Board were to lower the threshold, one would be increased sensitivity to the impact of major service or fare changes on populations protected by Title VI and low-income populations. This addresses the District’s Strategic Plan equity goal. If disparate impacts or disproportionate burdens are triggered by a lower threshold, the District must consider modifying the proposed changes to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts of the proposed changes where practicable. Examples of corrective actions may include modifying service patterns, adjusting eligibility criteria, or increasing outreach to the community.
One disadvantage of lowering the threshold is that mitigating impacts or activities may not deliver outcomes to the public and therefore run the risk of overpromising resources, services, or programs it may not be able to deliver. This will also likely result in increased financial costs and increased District resources.
On balance, this alternative is less desirable to both the District and its riders than staff’s recommendation of maintaining the current threshold.
2. Direct staff to conduct further study
The Board may direct staff to conduct further analyses aimed at determining the appropriate threshold for AC Transit’s service area. While further analysis may provide additional information, ultimately the threshold itself is within the discretion of the Board, as the FTA requires no set threshold. Additional studies are unlikely to yield additional useful information, therefore staff do not recommend this option.
3. Adopt none of the recommendations
By not adopting the amendments to the Policy, the Policy will not be consistent with current federal regulations and guidance. Additionally, not adopting the recommended changes to the Policy will not reflect community feedback received.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION/POLICIES:
SR 13-305
SR 13-305a
SR 13-305c
SR 13-305d
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment 1 - Board Policy 518 (redline)
2. Attachment 2 - Board Policy 518 (clean)
3. Attachment 3 - WSP Final Report
4. Attachment 4-WSP Public Outreach and Engagement Report
Prepared by:
Kendra Ma, Title VI Senior Program Specialist
In Collaboration with:
David Berman, Senior Transportation Planner
Campbell Jung, Manager of Business Analytics
Diann Castleberry, External Affairs Representative
Approved/Reviewed by:
David Wilkins, Director of Regulatory Programs
Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development & Planning
Steven Jones, Director of Legislative Affairs & Community Relations
Ramakrishna Pochiraju, Executive Director of Planning & Engineering
Claudia Burgos, Executive Director of External Affairs & Customer Experience
Ahsan Baig, Chief Information Officer
Paul Kincaid, Assistant General Manager/Chief Executive Officer
Aimee L. Steele, General Counsel/Chief Legal Officer