Despite the limited response, the synthesis team learned enough about two transit agencies to prioritize them for case examples—Envida and Durham Regional Transit. Additional information gleaned from the data collection process is presented in the following list:

• Large or standardized data sets [e.g., the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS)] can be useful in measures that gauge access to opportunities, although some transit agencies do not have the staff capacity and/or capability to create and update such data sets.
• In general, staff capacity and data analysis capability are leading limiting factors for equity measurement.
• Data availability can hamper efforts to measure equity or require aggregated analyses that may lack nuance (e.g., sidewalk networks or specific rider constraints).
• Most efforts to measure access to opportunities, according to a consultant that facilitates such work, begin with an assessment of available resources (e.g., data, staffing) to gauge what type and/or depth of measurement is possible.

Data Collection Lessons

Based on responses from practitioners during the data collection process, the synthesis team believes multiple factors limited the response rate. While these factors are not the focus of this particular synthesis, they are presented here as lessons learned to aid future projects and provide insight into the challenges of the work associated with transit equity. If it is difficult to find the time to promote the work being done on equity, it is also likely difficult to gain traction and buy-in at the local level, which may curtail change.

• Staff are overburdened and under-resourced.
  • During direct outreach, the synthesis team received multiple responses from participants who expressed a lack of time to participate and no one to delegate to. Based on these responses and conversations with other transit practitioners, the synthesis team considers it likely that one to two more people could not even take the time to turn the request down for each of these responses. This consideration could also indicate that some agencies lack leadership and/or dedicated guidance for staff related to the agency’s priorities, approach, or stance on equity.
  • Equity has become a popular research topic and mainstream media buzzword. One TCRP project’s data collection is not onerous to respond to; however, when multiple projects are happening simultaneously, in addition to all the other research requests agencies receive, it is easy to become overwhelmed. This fact is especially true for transit agencies considered “notable” in the industry, and staff from these agencies have stated as much while conversing with the synthesis team for this project and others.
• Discussing and addressing equity is difficult and intimidating.
  • Those who work on equity are emotionally connected and often bring lived experience (sometimes traumatic) to their work. The idea of expending additional emotional energy to explain their work may be one step too far when they already fight every day to be understood in their own local environment.
  • Equity work is politically charged and often forced to “fly under the radar” to avoid being curtailed or otherwise limited. When functioning with such challenges, the prospect of one’s work being documented in a widely published and/or read document may be seen as counterproductive due to the unwanted attention it could attract.
  • Political realities facing transit agencies, such as the need to pursue public acceptance or buy-in one moment and the need to appease decision-makers the next, may contribute to fluctuating levels of priority and/or bandwidth depending on the current need to promote specific initiatives or objectives.

• Varying understanding exists regarding what equity in transit means.
  • Often, the synthesis team finds evidence of variability with regard to the definition of equity in transit, which was also evident in the literature review. While some practitioners see equity as being limited to Title VI requirements, others view equity as providing service throughout a jurisdiction that is the same and affordable, and still others approach equity as an aspect of public engagement. While these concepts of equity are relevant, it may not be obvious to those with such perspectives that equity can inform a comprehensive approach to transit provision and, therefore, be associated with dedicated goals and measurements.