![](media/image1.wmf){width="0.45in" height="0.4465277777777778in"}

U.S. Department

of Transportation

**Federal Transit**

**Administration**

**Transportation Equity in Emergencies:**

**A Review of the Practices of State Departments of Transportation,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Transit Agencies in 20
Metropolitan Areas**

**Prepared for:**

**The Federal Transit Administration**

**Office of Civil Rights**

**Prepared by:**

**Milligan & Company, LLC**

**May, 2007**

**Table of Contents**

I. Executive Summary 5

II\. Introduction and Background 7

III\. Study Scope 15

IV\. Study Methodology 20

V. Overview of the Metropolitan Area Demographics 22

VI\. Results of the Agency Plan Assessment 38

VII\. Promising Practices 43

VIII\. Conclusions and Recommendations 46

IX\. Resources 48

[Appendix](#VConclusionsandRecommen) A: Summary of Demographic Profiles
51

Appendix B: List of Agencies Reviewed 62

[Demographic Profiles]{.underline}

A demographic profile of each metropolitan area featured in this report
is located at

<http://www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/civil_rights_6343.html>.

[List of Tables]{.underline}

Table II-1: Summary of Relevant Reports 9

Table V-1: Summary of Demographic Information Based on Arithmetic

Mean of Census Tracts 23

Table V-2: Minority Proportion Summary 25

Table V-3: Below Poverty Proportion Summary 27

Table V-4: LEP Proportion Summary 29

Table V-5: Zero-Car Household Summary 31

Table V-6: Summary of Correlation Coefficients 33

Table V-7: Summary of Natural and Man-made Disasters 37

Table VI-1: Summary of Agency Survey
Results......................................38

[List of Maps]{.underline}

Map V-1: Honolulu, HI CBSA Minority Population 26

Map V-2: St. Louis, MO-IL CSA Below Poverty Population 28

# Map V-3: Los Angeles CSA LEP Population 30

Map V-4: Baltimore, MD Zero-Car Households 32

Map V-5: Pittsburgh, PA CSA Zero-Car Population 35

Map V-6: Flagstaff, Arizona CBSA Zero-Car Population 36

**Acknowledgements**

This report was prepared with funds from the Transportation Equity
Research Program (TERP) under Section 3046(a) of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). This program provides funding for research and
demonstration activities that focus on the impacts that transportation
planning, investment, and operations have on low-income and minority
populations that are transit dependent.

The study featured in this report was conducted by Milligan & Company,
LLC.

**I. Executive Summary**

The Hurricane Katrina disaster of 2005 has prompted stakeholders in
government and civil society to ensure that the civil rights of persons
in the United States are protected during emergencies. While Katrina
affected hundreds of thousands of people along the Gulf Coast, those
populations that were least able to escape harm's way and most acutely
affected by the disaster included racial and ethnic minorities, people
with disabilities, and older adults whose civil rights America's
landmark laws were established to uphold. As policy makers at all levels
of government work to improve their emergency preparedness, disaster
response, and disaster recovery activities in the wake of recent
catastrophic events, government has a responsibility to ensure that
persons will not be denied the benefits of, be excluded from
participation in, or be subject to discrimination under these vital
programs and activities on the grounds of race, color, national origin,
disability, age or other classes covered under our nation's civil rights
laws and policy directives.

The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Office of Civil Rights
commissioned this report in order to promote nondiscrimination in the
emergency preparedness activities administered by recipients of FTA
financial assistance. This report reviews the extent to

which transit providers, metropolitan planning organizations, and state
departments of transportation in selected metropolitan regions in the
United States and Puerto Rico are identifying and addressing the needs
of populations that may be especially vulnerable in the event of a
natural or man-made disaster. The report also provides resources that
should assist officials in these and other metropolitan regions to
better incorporate attention to populations with specific mobility needs
into their ongoing emergency planning activities. This report does not
constitute a civil rights compliance review of any FTA recipient nor was
this report prepared in response to a complaint of discrimination
against a recipient.

This study focuses on emergency preparedness activities being conducted
in 20 metropolitan regions that have recently experienced natural or
man-made disasters and also have populations with relatively high
overall numbers and proportions of racial and ethnic minorities, persons
with low incomes, persons with limited English proficiency, and persons
living in households without vehicles. Our assumption was that officials
in these regions would be especially attuned to the emergency evacuation
needs of these populations and would be a source of effective and
promising practices. However, with some exceptions, the agencies
reviewed in this study have taken very limited steps towards involving
populations with specific mobility needs in emergency preparedness
planning, identifying the locations of and communicating emergency
preparedness instructions to these populations, or coordinating with
other agencies to meet the specific needs of these populations in an
emergency. While many agencies have conducted important outreach,
analysis, and coordinating activities to address the needs of their
general population in emergencies, few have targeted these activities to
assist their region's most vulnerable people.

Part 2 of this report discusses emergency preparedness for populations
with specific needs and summarizes federal civil rights requirements,
specific guidance on emergency preparedness issued by FTA, and the
findings of recent reports by other governmental and non-governmental
agencies. Part 3 describes this report's scope and Part 4 explains the
study's methodology. Part 5 summarizes the demography, transit coverage,
and disaster risks of the selected regions. Part 6 discusses the
activities of FTA recipients in these regions, as they relate to
emergency preparedness, and Part 7 highlights promising practices
gleaned from reviews of emergency preparedness plans and interviews with
agency staff members. Part 8 consists of conclusions and
recommendations, and the appendices present detailed demographic
profiles of the 20 metropolitan regions selected for study which should
help planners in these regions better target their activities towards
specific-needs populations (and planners in other regions might consider
preparing similar profiles of their area).

State departments of transportation, metropolitan planning
organizations, and public transportation providers have the potential to
play important supporting roles before, during, and after emergencies
that require evacuation. This report and accompanying technical
resources should assist these and other emergency management agencies in
facilitating the safe and efficient evacuation of people---particularly
those for whom community and public transportation is their primary
means of mobility---and ensuring equitable and inclusive public action
in times of need.

**II. Introduction and Background**

Public emergency evacuations in response to natural and man-made
emergencies occur frequently in the United States. According to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, emergency evacuations of at least 100
people occur more than once a week, and major evacuations of more than
1,000 people occur more than three times per month. While most prior
evacuations have proceeded safely and effectively, this nation's
experience during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina's August 29, 2005, landfall on the Gulf
Coast have raised concern that government at all levels is not
adequately prepared to respond to major disasters or catastrophic
incidents and, in particular, is not well prepared to assist members of
the public who, by virtue of their age, ability, income, national
origin, or medical history, will have specific mobility, sheltering,
communications, or other special needs in emergency events.[^1]

The incomplete evacuation of New Orleans prior to Hurricane Katrina's
landfall, combined with the widespread flooding after the hurricane,
required a post-hurricane evacuation of 70,000 people in New Orleans for
which federal, state, and city officials had not been prepared. Hundreds
of people who remained behind died as floodwaters enveloped low lying
neighborhoods in waters above the roof lines. Those who escaped to high
ground suffered horrible conditions in the Superdome, the Convention
Center, and other spontaneous gathering spots. Meanwhile, hundreds of
city buses and school buses that could have been used for an evacuation
sat flooded or without drivers.[^2]

Studies that have been issued after Katrina indicate that low-income
residents, most of whom were African American, as well as persons with
disabilities, older adults persons with limited English proficiency, and
other persons (such as tourists without access to private
transportation) were most likely to have remained in vulnerable areas
prior to Katrina making landfall and were most adversely affected by the
hurricane and subsequent flooding. Many low-income residents either did
not have access to private transportation or had exhausted their
disposable income by the end of the month and had no money for gasoline.
In a survey of people from New Orleans who were evacuated to the
Astrodome and other large facilities in Houston, 23% of respondents
stated they were physically unable to leave and an additional 23% of
respondents indicated that they had to care for someone who was
physically unable to leave.[^3] Other residents who could have left
chose not to heed evacuation orders. Older adults and people with
disabilities were disproportionately affected by the disaster. According
to the AARP, 73% of Hurricane Katrina-related deaths in the New Orleans
area were among persons aged 60 or over, although they comprised only
15% of the population of New Orleans. People who could not speak or
understand English may have also had difficulty accessing emergency
evacuation instructions.[^4]

The demography of New Orleans made many of its residents especially
vulnerable to the effects of the hurricane. Prior to Katrina, nearly
50,000 poor New Orleanians lived in neighborhoods where the poverty rate
exceeded 40% and the city ranked second among the nation's 50 largest
cities in the degree to which poor families, mostly African American,
were clustered in extremely poor neighborhoods. In addition, 15% of
households in New Orleans did not own personal vehicles, compared with
10% of households in the United States. Under these circumstances, many
people in New Orleans' high-poverty neighborhoods could not rely on
friends or relatives for transportation, shelter, or financial
assistance when disaster struck. Although New Orleans' geographic
characteristics meant that its residents were especially vulnerable to
the effects of hurricanes, many additional American metropolitan regions
that may also

be at risk for natural and man-made disasters also have racially
segregated areas with concentrated poverty and high proportions of
households without vehicles.[^5]

**[Previous Studies]{.underline}**

In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, reports published by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), multiple federal agencies, and
not-for-profit organizations have evaluated the state of emergency
preparedness in areas around the country. The scope and methodology of
recent reports vary, with some reports focusing on emergency
preparedness for a specific segment of society, such as people with
disabilities or older adults, and others examining measures for a wider
population of persons with specific needs. Likewise, some reports have
focused on a small sample of state or local government agencies while
other reports have a national scope. Regardless of the scope or
methodology, recent reports have consistently concluded that gaps remain
in emergency preparedness for populations with specific mobility needs.
Emergency management personnel may benefit from reviewing the following
reports (web links to these reports can be found in the "Resources"
section of this report).

**Table II-1: Summary of Relevant Reports**

  ------------------------------ ---------------- --------------- -------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------
  **Report Title**               **Sponsoring     **Publication   **Geographic   **Activities Reviewed**      **Focus Populations**
                                 Organization**   Date**          Area Studied**                              

  Catastrophic Hurricane         U.S. DOT         June 2006       5 Gulf Coast   Evacuation and sheltering    People with disabilities,
  Evacuation Plan Evaluation                                      states and                                  children, elderly, people
                                                                  selected                                    in institutions, people
                                                                  counties in                                 without vehicles
                                                                  these states                                

  In the Eye of the Storm        National Council February 2006   Areas affected Communications, evacuation,  Latinos
                                 of La Raza                       by Katrina and sheltering, employment       
                                                                  Rita                                        

  Nationwide Plan Review         U.S. DHS         June 2006       State,         Evacuation, sheltering,      People with disabilities
                                                                  territorial,   medical care, police, fire,  
                                                                  urban area     rescue                       
                                                                  emergency                                   
                                                                  plans                                       

  We Can Do Better               AARP             May 2006        Nationwide     Evacuation, sheltering,      Older adults
                                                                                 medical care, communication  

  Strategies in Emergency        National         September 2006  Nationwide     Coordination, identification Transportation-dependent
  Preparedness for               Consortium on                                   of transportation-dependent  populations
  Transportation-Dependent       Human Services                                  groups evacuation            
  Populations                    Transportation                                                               

  The Impact of Hurricanes       National Council August 2006     Gulf Coast     Evacuation, sheltering,      People with disabilities
  Katrina and Rita on People     on Disability                    areas affected medical care, housing,       
  with Disabilities                                               by Katrina and education, employment        
                                                                  Rita                                        

  Emergency Evacuation Report    American Highway October 2006    37 largest     Evacuation using highways    Highway users
  Card                           Users Alliance                   urban areas                                 

  Transportation-Disadvantaged   U.S. GAO         December 2006   California,    State and local              Low-income persons, people
  Populations: Actions Needed to                                  Florida,       transportation/evacuation.   with disabilities, older
  Clarify Responsibilities and                                    Louisiana, New                              adults, LEP persons
  Increase Preparedness for                                       York,                                       
  Evacuations                                                     Washington, DC                              
  ------------------------------ ---------------- --------------- -------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------

**"Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation," prepared by the
U.S. Department of Transportation (issued 2006).** In response to
requirements of Section 10204 of SAFETEA-LU and the FY 2006 DOT
Appropriations Act, U.S. DOT developed a systematic, analytical process
to evaluate the readiness and adequacy of state and local jurisdictions'
evacuation plans. Evacuation plans for all five Gulf states---Alabama,
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas---and a sample of 58 counties
and parishes in each state were assessed on how well they addressed
seven key elements of evacuation planning and implementation. The seven
areas are decision-making and management; planning; public communication
and preparedness; evacuation of people with special needs; evacuation
operations; sheltering; and training and exercises. This report
determined that plans in the Gulf Coast region for evacuating persons
with various special needs generally are not well developed. The report
recommended that state and local agencies should work with the special
needs communities to develop systems whereby those requiring specialized
transportation or sheltering services during evacuations can make their
needs known to emergency managers and operators of transportation and
sheltering services before evacuations.

**"Nationwide Plan Review," prepared by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) (issued June 2006).** The purpose of this report was to
assess the status of catastrophic planning and draw initial conclusions
for strengthening plans and planning processes at the federal, state,
and local levels of government. The review defines special needs as
encompassing an extremely broad segment of the population, including
people with disabilities, minority groups, people who do not speak
English, children and the elderly, those who live in poverty or are on
public assistance, and those who rely on public transportation. Specific
weaknesses in planning areas noted include: (1) there is a widespread
inability to provide messages to the public in multiple languages, (2)
overall, planners have not thoroughly and/or realistically determined
how they will manage special needs populations that require evacuation,
and (3) traditional sheltering procedures do not adequately accommodate
special needs populations. The review outlines 15 initial conclusions
for states and 24 for the federal government. Most conclusions focus on
the need to make specific improvements in plans and to modernize
planning efforts.

"Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed to Clarify
Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for Evacuations," prepared by
the United States Government Accountability Office (issued December
2006). This report reviews the practices of emergency management, public
safety, and transit and transportation agency officials in five major
cities---Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; New Orleans, LA; Buffalo, NY; and
Washington, DC---as well as state emergency management and
transportation officials in Florida, Louisiana and New York, to
determine the extent to which officials in these states and localities
were addressing the needs of transportation-disadvantaged populations,
which included people with disabilities, older adults, and people with
low-income and limited English proficiency. The GAO report determined
that state and local governments are generally not well prepared to
evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations, but some have begun
to address challenges and barriers. The report also concluded that the
federal government could do more to assist state and local governments
to address the needs of transportation-disadvantaged populations.

"We Can Do Better -- Lessons Learned for Protecting Older Persons in
Disasters," prepared by AARP (issued May 2006). This report highlights
lessons learned from a conference of national, state, and local leaders
on the needs of older adults in disasters as well as a literature review
and data from a survey of persons aged 50 or older conducted by Harris
Interactive on behalf of AARP in November 2005. The report notes that
government emergency planning documents or processes at any
level---federal, state, or local---rarely mention the needs of
vulnerable older persons. The report recommends establishment of clear
lines of authority among federal, local, and state governments as well
as with private sector entities, and that the federal Interagency
Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with
Disabilities also address the needs of vulnerable older persons who do
not have disabilities.

"The Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on People with Disabilities:
A Look Back and Remaining Challenges," prepared by the National Council
on Disability (NCD) (issued August 2006). This report focuses on the
effects of hurricanes on people with all types of disabilities and
highlights the need for plans to be more inclusive of disabled persons.
It highlights some of the challenges faced by the disabled community in
evacuation, shelter, and recovery operations. These include barriers to
accessible emergency information and accessible transportation. The
emergency preparedness and response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita are
presented. The NCD found that almost immediately after Katrina, there
were roughly 155,000 people with disabilities over the age of 5---or
about 25% of the cities' populations---living in the three cities
hardest hit by the hurricane: Biloxi, MS; Mobile, AL; and New Orleans,
LA. The report notes NCD's findings on communications actions during
Katrina, including those by the Federal Communications Commission and
FEMA and the failure to use the Emergency Alert System. The report notes
that local evacuation plans failed to adequately provide for the
transportation needs of people with disabilities for two reasons. First,
many local planners reported they were unaware that people with
disabilities have special evacuation needs. Second, when local planners
were aware of the need to plan for people with disabilities, the plans
failed because they did not involve people with disabilities in the
development of the plans.

**"In the Eye of the Storm," prepared by the National Council of La Raza
(issued February 2006).** This report examines how the needs of Latinos
and other communities were addressed by the federal government and the
American Red Cross. The report focuses on communications, evacuation,
sheltering and employment, and includes recommendations to improve
public and private response in future disasters. This report addressed
the importance of providing emergency information and instructions in
multiple languages.

"Strategies in Emergency Preparedness for Transportation-Dependent
Populations," prepared by the National Consortium on Human Services
Transportation (issued September 2006). According to this report,
identifying and tracking the locations and needs of
transportation-dependent people during emergencies are considerations
that require a preemptive communitywide effort. Before an emergency
occurs, this would mean establishing information that confirms the
locations of, and particularly concentrations of, individuals who
require transportation during an evacuation. This report discusses the
need for collaboration, especially among transportation interests, with
organizations and agencies involved in emergency response, and a variety
of community-based groups, in planning for the transportation needs of
residents requiring mobility assistance during an emergency.

**"Emergency Evacuation Report Card 2006," prepared by the American
Highway Users Alliance (issued 2006).** This report evaluates and rates
the evacuation capacity of America's 37 largest urban areas and
concludes that 25 urban areas could face greater challenges than New
Orleans experienced after Hurricane Katrina. The report notes that each
urban area examined needs to be prepared to evacuate its citizens in the
event of catastrophe, and that urban areas are preparing disaster
readiness plans that include detailed plans for evacuations. The report
recommends the establishment of a National Standards and Reporting
System in a cooperative effort of governments at every level, expansion
of roadway capacity, expansion of automobile access, and completion of
urban area evacuation operations planning.

**[Existing and Pending Federal Guidance on Emergency Preparedness for
Populations with Specific Needs]{.underline}**

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), together with their partners in the
transportation industry, have issued or are in the process of issuing
guidance on emergency preparedness, disaster response, and disaster
recovery based on lessons learned from recent disasters and on
information learned from the above reports.

FTA's Disaster Response and Recovery Resource for Transit Agencies was
developed in August of 2006 (see
[**http://www.fta.dot.gov**](http://www.fta.dot.gov/)). This resource
provides best practices and links to specific resources for transit
agencies concerning critical disaster elements such as emergency
preparedness, disaster response, and recovery. One section of this
resource includes guidance on identifying and addressing the specific
needs of predominately minority and low-income communities, persons with
limited English proficiency, persons with disabilities, and older adults
in the delivery of emergency services. The resource recommends several
tips for ensuring that transit agencies and MPOs adequately address the
needs of these populations in the emergency preparedness planning
process. These include:

-   Encouraging and securing the participation of special needs
    populations in the planning process when developing emergency
    preparedness plans;

-   Identifying areas with high concentrations of minority and
    low-income persons, persons with limited English proficiency,
    persons with disabilities, and older adults who may require
    additional assistance in an emergency, including evacuation;

-   Partnering with faith- or cultural-based, social service, and other
    nonprofit organizations that are active in local communities to link
    residents with emergency preparedness information and services;

-   Ensuring adequate resources, including the appropriate numbers and
    types of vehicles for evacuating special needs populations during an
    emergency; and

-   Providing information regarding emergency evacuation and
    transportation with local partnering agencies and organizations.

Strategies in Emergency Preparedness for Transportation-Dependent
Populations, including the Transportation and Emergency Preparedness
Checklist, was prepared in September of 2006 by the National Consortium
on Human Services Transportation (see
[**http://www.emergencyprep.dot.gov**](http://www.emergencyprep.dot.gov/))
with input from the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report
highlights the essential strategies for providing safe and efficient
transportation for persons requiring mobility assistance in the event of
an emergency. These include:

-   Planning and coordinating the transportation needs of vulnerable
    populations in advance;

-   Developing strong community partnerships;

-   Identifying and locating transportation-dependent populations;

-   Developing effective and innovative methods to communicate with
    those in need of mobility prior to and during emergency situations;
    and

-   Ensuring appropriate access to necessary equipment and vehicles for
    evacuation.

In addition, FHWA and FTA are collaborating in producing a series of
primers on evacuation for use by state and local agencies. This material
is expected to be completed in 2007 and will provide specific guidance
for conducting evacuations and include information addressing the needs
of transportation-disadvantaged populations.

**[Civil Rights Directives]{.underline}**

In addition to existing guidance on emergency preparedness, civil rights
statutes and policy directives may apply to the emergency preparedness
programs, policies, and activities administered by recipients of federal
financial assistance. These directives include:

**Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the U.S. DOT Title VI
Regulations under 49 CFR 21.** Title VI provides that no person in the
United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin,
be denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or subject to
discrimination under programs or activities receiving federal financial
assistance. The U.S. DOT Title VI regulations effectuate the provisions
of Title VI for recipients of DOT funding. They prohibit recipients, in
the course of determining the types of services, financial aid,
benefits, and facilities that they will provide, from using criteria or
methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting persons to
discrimination on the basis of their race, color, or national origin,
and require recipients to take affirmative action to ensure that no
person is excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the
recipient's programs or activities on the grounds of race, color, or
national origin.

**U.S. DOT Order on Environmental Justice** (issued April 1997). This
order states that it is the policy of DOT to promote the principles of
environmental justice (as embodied in Executive Order 12898, "Federal
Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations") through the incorporation of those principles
in all DOT programs, policies, and activities. The principles of
environmental justice are to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations
and low-income populations, to ensure the full and fair participation by
all potentially affected communities in the transportation
decision-making process, and to prevent the denial of, reduction in, or
significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income
populations.

**U.S. DOT Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients' Responsibilities to
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons** (issued December 2005). This
policy guidance clarifies the responsibilities of recipients of federal
financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation and aids
them in fulfilling their responsibilities to limited English proficient
persons, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons With
Limited English Proficiency."

**The December 12, 2005, Memorandum from Assistant Attorney General for
Civil Rights Wan J. Kim to the Directors of Civil Rights at all Federal
Agencies.** This memorandum from the Department of Justice requested
that federal agencies provide assistance in responding to the urgent
needs of limited English proficient and other vulnerable communities
affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The memorandum urged each
agency to consider civil rights issues in all aspects of its hurricane
response, both in the short term and the long term.

**Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.** This section of the
Act provides that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in
the United States shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be
excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
federal financial assistance or under any program or activity.

**Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the DOT ADA
Regulations at 49 CFR Parts 37 and 38.** The ADA prohibits
discrimination and ensures accessible transportation for persons with
disabilities. The DOT ADA regulations contain provisions on acquisition
of accessible vehicles by private and public entities, requirements for
complementary paratransit service by public entities operating a
fixed-route system, and other provisions of nondiscriminatory accessible
transportation service.

**Executive Order 13347, Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency
Preparedness** (issued July 2004). This order states that it is the
policy of the federal government to ensure the safety and security of
individuals with disabilities in situations involving disasters,
including earthquakes, tornadoes, fires, floods, hurricanes, and acts of
terrorism. According to the order, each federal agency is required to
consider, in its emergency preparedness planning, the unique needs of
agency employees with disabilities and individuals with disabilities
whom the agency serves. The order also encourages the consideration of
the unique needs of employees and individuals with disabilities served
by state, local, and tribal governments and private organizations in
emergency preparedness planning.

**Age Discrimination Act of 1975** prohibits discrimination on the basis
of age in programs and activities receiving federal financial
assistance.

III\. Study Scope

This study was designed to complement existing or pending assessments of
the state of emergency preparedness activities in jurisdictions across
the United States. Given limited resources, the study focused on
activities designed to address the needs of some but not all populations
that could be defined as having "special needs" in an emergency.
Likewise, the study surveyed activities in a limited number of
metropolitan regions across the United States and focused on the
activities of some but not all of the agencies that have a role to play
in emergencies.

**[Populations]{.underline}**

This study focused on emergency preparedness activities designed to
address the needs of the following populations:

**Racial and ethnic minorities.** These populations comprised a
disproportionate share of persons who remained in New Orleans during the
hurricane Katrina disaster and are more likely to have low incomes or
live in households without vehicles.[^6] Persons who are members of
racial and ethnic minority groups may not necessarily need additional
transportation assistance in an emergency because the inability to
provide personal transportation or access conventional public
transportation is usually a function of income or age or disability.
However, it is essential that government agencies secure the trust and
cooperation of the affected public in an emergency and, in this respect,
a recent study indicates that racial and ethnic minorities may be more
likely to discount information received from government agencies in
emergency situations.[^7] This report sought to determine the extent to
which the focus agencies were taking specific steps to communicate and
build relationships with the racial and ethnic minority populations
served by the agencies.

**Persons with low-incomes.** This population comprises a
disproportionate share of persons who do not have ready access to
personal transportation or could not afford to use personal
transportation in an emergency. Low-income populations may also have
difficulty obtaining shelter, medical assistance, and other services
during and after an emergency.[^8]

**Persons with limited English proficiency.** People who have a limited
ability to read, write, speak, or understand English represent a growing
population in the United States.[^9] According to the 2000 census, the
number of people with limited English proficiency increased by 65% from
1990 to 2000. Among limited English speakers, Spanish is the language
most frequently spoken, followed by Chinese (Cantonese or Mandarin),
Vietnamese, and Korean. Public transit is a key means of achieving
mobility for many LEP persons. According to the 2000 census, more than
11% of LEP persons aged 16 years and over reported use of public transit
as their primary means of transportation to work, compared with about 4%
of English speakers. In emergency situations, LEP persons may need to
receive information and instructions in languages other than English and
may need additional transportation assistance in an emergency that
requires an evacuation.

**Persons living in households without vehicles.** This population
includes households that cannot drive or cannot afford to own a vehicle
as well as persons who have chosen not to own vehicles.[^10] Households
with incomes under \$25,000 comprise a disproportionate share of
zero-vehicle households, as do recent immigrants and racial and ethnic
minorities. People with disabilities and older adults may also be
disproportionately represented in this category. The 2000 census
reported a total of 10.9 million zero-vehicle households and such
households are concentrated in the northeast United States. While some
zero-vehicle households may be able to rely on friends, neighbors, or
extended families to evacuate in emergencies, this population is likely
to depend on government assistance to evacuate.

**[Geographic Areas]{.underline}**

This study focused on metropolitan areas (as defined by the U.S. Census)
because many natural and man-made disasters affect entire regions. The
study examined data from the 2000 census to identify metropolitan areas
with both high total numbers and high proportions of the study's focus
populations. The regions selected for study ranked among the top 20
metropolitan statistical areas in at least five of the following
categories:

1.  The total number of minority persons residing in the region

2.  The proportion of total persons in the region who are members of
    minority groups

3.  The total number of low-income persons residing in the region

4.  The proportion of total persons in the region who are low income

5.  The total number of persons in the region with limited English
    proficiency

6.  The proportion of total persons in the region with limited English
    proficiency

7.  The total number of households in the region without vehicles

8.  The proportion of total households in the region without vehicles

The region selection also reflected an intention to study areas in
geographically diverse parts of the country, with large, mid-sized, and
small populations and that are particularly vulnerable to natural
disasters, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, forest fires, and
winter storms, and man-made disasters, such as industrial accidents and
terrorist attacks.

This screening resulted in the selection of the following metropolitan
regions (the regions are presented in this section and in the remainder
of the report and Appendix, geographically from the west to east):

1.  Honolulu, HI Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)

2.  San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Core Statistical Area (CSA)

3.  Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA

4.  Seattle-Bellevue-Tacoma, WA CSA

5.  Flagstaff, AZ CBSA

6.  Brownsville-Harlingen, TX CBSA

7.  Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA

8.  Lafayette, LA CBSA

9.  Pine Bluff, AR CBSA

10. St. Louis, MO-IL CBSA

11. Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI CSA

12. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA CBSA

13. Albany, GA CBSA

14. Pittsburgh, PA CBSA

15. Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL CBSA

16. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA

17. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA, NJ, DE-MD CSA

18. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA

19. Boston-Worchester-Manchester, MA-NH CSA

20. San Juan-Caguas-Fajardo, PR CSA

Of the 20 metropolitan areas selected for study six regions have
populations of less than 1 million people, 12 have populations of
between 1 million and 10 million, and two regions (Los Angeles and New
York) have populations of over 10 million. The median population of the
metropolitan areas is 3,604,165. The region's total geographic area
ranges from 604 square miles in the case of Honolulu CBSA to over 18,000
miles for the Flagstaff CBSA. Additional data on these regions are
presented in this report's Appendix A and accompanying metropolitan area
profiles.

**[FTA Recipients]{.underline}**

[]{.mark}

FTA assessed the emergency preparedness programs and activities of its
three primary grant recipients: public transportation providers,
metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), and state departments of
transportation (State DOT). It is important to note that in emergency
situations it is not these agencies but the local government
authorities, usually the city or county emergency management agency,
that provide initial response capabilities. Local government emergency
management agencies are responsible for coordinating the other entities
that have responsibilities during a crisis and the local political
executive has the authority to issue an evacuation order. At the same
time, transit agencies, MPOs, and State DOTs have the potential to play
important roles in an emergency and some of these entities have provided
important support in past events. (A complete list of the agencies that
were examined for this report is included in Appendix B.)

>  

**State departments of transportation** are usually the primary agency
for their state's emergency support function (ESF) #1 (Transportation).
State DOTs provide technical assistance and resources to local
governments prior to an emergency and provide transportation resources
in the event that local resources become overwhelmed in an emergency.
State DOTs may provide resources to local and state governments in
neighboring jurisdictions through mutual assistance agreements and the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). State DOTs typically
collect and analyze traffic information, provide evacuation route plans,
conduct traffic incident management with first responders and local law
enforcement, and order and provide traffic operations resources to
support evacuation and other movement coordination.

**Metropolitan planning organizations** generally have information that
could be useful for evacuation planning, including demographic data,
roadway capacity data, information on planned roadway and transit
improvements, and traffic count data, as well as transportation modeling
capabilities to predict traffic congestion. Some MPOs may also have the
responsibility to support the State DOT, local government, and/or
emergency management agency in evacuation modeling. In addition, some
MPOs are also operational organizations that may coordinate transit
services and have other resources to assist in evacuations. Because the
impacts of many man-made and natural disasters are experienced at the
regional level, MPOs could act as a forum where local agencies
coordinate with their regional counterparts.

**Transit agencies** are a potential source of vehicles and personnel
during emergencies.[^11] Agency staff and vehicles could be used to
transport people from an affected area to shelters or to designated
staging areas for intercity transportation, if necessary. Transit
agencies that provide fixed-route service are also required to provide
complementary paratransit service for eligible persons with
disabilities, and these providers have information on the locations and
mobility needs of their clients. The ability of transit agencies to
participate in evacuations will vary depending on the nature of the
emergency, whether local agencies have advance warning of the event,
whether the affected population is within the transit agency's service
area, and whether local planning and coordination has taken place within
the transit agency and between the agency and local stakeholders.

Researchers for this study sought to obtain information from 18 State
DOTs, 20 MPOs, and 34 transit agencies that serve the 20 metropolitan
regions selected for study. (A list of agencies where information
requests were made is included in Appendix B to this report.)[^12]

 **IV. Study Methodology**

[]{.mark}

This study took place between June 2006 and January 2007 and consisted
of the following steps:

[]{.mark}

**[Metropolitan Area Profiles]{.underline}**

Researchers prepared demographic profiles for each of the 20 regions
selected for study. The profiles are designed to identify the
transportation resources in each region, the types of disasters that
have affected the regions in the past or may occur in the region in the
future, and any populations that might be particularly at risk during an
emergency and can be found at
<http://www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/civil_rights_6343.html>.

Each profile contains the following information:

[]{.mark}

> 1\. The geographic boundaries of the region and the political
> jurisdictions that comprise the region
>
> 2\. The state department(s) of transportation, metropolitan planning
> organization(s), and transit agencies serving the region
>
> 3\. The number and proportion of minority, low-income, and limited
> English proficient persons residing in the region, including any areas
> within the region where the proportion of minority and low-income
> residents is greater than the regional average
>
> 4\. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps highlighting areas where
> the proportion of minority, low-income, and limited English proficient
> residents is greater than the regional average overlaid on a map of
> the transit routes serving these areas
>
> 5\. The number and proportion of households without vehicles available
> and areas within the region where the proportion of households without
> vehicles available is greater than the regional average
>
> 6\. GIS maps that highlight areas where the proportion of households
> without vehicles available is greater than the regional average
> overlaid on a map of the transit routes serving these areas
>
> 7\. Correlation tables of minority persons, low-income persons,
> limited English proficient persons, and households without vehicles
>
> 8\. A brief description of the natural and/or man-made disasters that
> have directly affected the region in the past 20 years
>
> 9\. A description of which types of natural and/or man-made disasters
> are most likely to affect the region in the future[^13]

**[Emergency Plan Reviews]{.underline}**

Based on the information collected in the metropolitan area profiles,
researchers attempted to identify and obtain any emergency preparedness
plans or information documents produced by the State DOTs, MPOs, and
transit agencies in the regions. Researchers searched agency websites
for emergency preparedness information and contacted agencies that did
not have such information on their website with an invitation to share
any emergency preparedness plans with FTA. The FTA Office of Civil
Rights informed these agencies that it was producing a technical
assistance report and was not conducting a compliance review or
investigating a complaint of discrimination.

The FTA Office of Civil Rights also communicated that it was not asking
the recipients to provide any sensitive security information in response
to this request.

Researchers reviewed agency emergency preparedness plans for information
on the following six topics:

> 1\. Any public involvement process that contributed to the agency's
> emergency preparedness plan and, in particular, any opportunities for
> minority, low-income, and LEP persons and households without vehicles
> to participate in this process.
>
> 2\. The extent to which unique emergency response needs for each of
> the above groups were identified and accounted for.
>
> 3\. Any provisions for communicating the emergency plan and emergency
> preparedness instructions to the public and, in particular, any
> provisions to communicate emergency information to minority,
> low-income, and LEP persons and households without vehicles.
>
> 4\. Any provisions for evacuating persons in emergency situations and,
> in particular, evacuation procedures that address the needs of
> minority, low-income, and LEP persons and households without vehicles.
>
> 5\. Any provisions to use the region's transit system or coordinated
> human services transportation to assist in an evacuation prior to or
> following an emergency, and use of transit and coordinated human
> services transportation to return people to their communities after
> the emergency has ended and it is safe to return.
>
> 6\. Any provisions for coordinating emergency preparedness with
> relevant local, state, and federal agencies and, in particular, any
> coordination plans that focus on emergency preparedness for minority,
> low-income, and LEP persons and households without vehicles.

**[Follow-Up Interviews with Selected Agencies]{.underline}**

After reviewing the emergency preparedness information that was either
published on-line or provided by the agencies, researchers invited
representatives from nine State DOTs, nine MPOs, and nine transit
agencies to discuss their emergency preparedness, disaster response, and
disaster recovery plans in greater detail. These interviews, which were
conducted via phone and e-mail, were designed to clarify existing agency
plans and identify effective or promising practices that could be shared
with other FTA grantees.

**V. Overview of the Metropolitan Area Demographics**

The 20 metropolitan areas in this study are home to thousands of
low-income racial and ethnic minorities without ready access to private
transportation and whose demographics mirror the thousands of New
Orleanians who remained in the city during and after the Hurricane
Katrina disaster. Many of these people live in high-poverty
neighborhoods similar to New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward and may be
especially vulnerable in an emergency because of the social isolation,
degraded infrastructure, high crime rates, low population density, and
other social problems common to many high-poverty urban
neighborhoods.[^14]

 

This chapter provides an overview of the information contained in the
metropolitan area profiles prepared for this study and includes the
following findings:

-   Most of the metropolitan areas contain neighborhoods with high
    levels of racial segregation. Thirteen of the 20 areas contain
    census tracts where the proportion of minority persons was at least
    twice the average for the region and 12 out of 20 areas contained
    census tracts where racial and ethnic minorities comprised 80% to
    100% of the population of that tract.

-   Most of the metropolitan areas also contain neighborhoods with
    concentrated poverty. Fifteen of the 20 areas contain census tracts
    where the proportion of persons below the poverty line was twice the
    average for the metropolitan area. Fourteen of 20 metropolitan areas
    include census tracts where the proportion of persons living below
    the poverty line is at least 40%.

-   Ten of the 20 metropolitan areas include census tracts where the
    proportion of LEP persons is at least 40%.

-   Fifteen of the 20 metropolitan areas contain census tracts where at
    least 40% of the households are without vehicles. These areas
    consist of the 14 metropolitan areas with populations of 1 million
    or more as well as the Honolulu Hawaii metropolitan area.

-   There appears to be a great deal of geographic overlap between the
    neighborhoods with high levels of racial segregation, concentrated
    poverty, and zero-vehicle households.

-   The metropolitan regions with populations of 1 million or more have
    extensive transit coverage and most of the census tracts with high
    proportions of low-income persons and households without vehicles
    reside within the public transit service area.

-   The metropolitan areas with populations of under 1 million have less
    extensive public transit coverage and a number of census tracts in
    these regions with relatively high proportions of households without
    vehicles may not have easy access to public transportation.

-   All of the metropolitan areas have experienced a wide range of
    natural or man-made disasters in recent years, including severe
    storms, tornados, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, severe
    winter weather, heat waves, and terrorist attacks. No one type of
    disaster predominates across the 20 metropolitan areas.

The remainder of this chapter details the results of the demographic
analysis of the metropolitan areas studied.

**[Summary of Demographic Information]{.underline}**

The table below summarizes the demographic information developed and
utilized during this study for the 20 regions. For the purpose of
comparison, statistics for the United States and for pre-Katrina New
Orleans are also provided in this and the following tables.

Table V-1: Summary of Demographic Information Based on Arithmetic Mean
of Census Tracts

+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| **   |   | **R     | **Popul | **M     | *        | **P    | *        |
| Regi |   | egion** | ation** | inority | *Limited | ercent | *Percent |
| on** |   |         |         | Pop     | English  | of     | of       |
|      |   | *       |         | ulation | Pro      | Popu   | Zero-Car |
| **   |   | *Name** |         | (%)**   | ficiency | lation | Hous     |
| Numb |   |         |         |         | Po       | Below  | eholds** |
| er** |   |         |         |         | pulation | Pov    |          |
|      |   |         |         |         | (%)**    | erty** |          |
+======+===+=========+=========+=========+==========+========+==========+
|      |   | United  | 281,    | 25%     | 8%       | 12%    | 10%      |
|      |   | States  | 421,906 |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
|      |   | **New   | 1,      | 43%     | 3%       | 18%    | 15%      |
|      |   | Orl     | 316,510 |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | eans-Me |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | tairie- |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | Kenner, |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | LA      |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | (       |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | 2000)** |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 1    |   | Ho      | 876,151 | 77%     | 14%      | 11%    | 12%      |
|      |   | nolulu, |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | HI      |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 2    |   | San     | 7,      | 40%     | 17%      | 9%     | 10%      |
|      |   | Jose    | 088,410 |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | -San    |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | Fran    |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | cisco-O |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | akland, |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | CA      |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 3    |   | Los     | 16,     | 44%     | 24%      | 15%    | 11%      |
|      |   | Angel   | 365,553 |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | es-Long |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | Be      |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | ach-Riv |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | erside, |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | CA      |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 4    |   | Sea     | 3,      | 20%     | 6%       | 9%     | 7%       |
|      |   | ttle-Be | 604,165 |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | llevue- |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | Tacoma, |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | WA      |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 5    |   | Fla     | 116,320 | 34%     | 11%      | 17%    | 7%       |
|      |   | gstaff, |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | AZ      |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 6    |   | B       | 335,227 | 20%     | 37%      | 34%    | 12%      |
|      |   | rownsvi |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | lle-Har |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | lingen, |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | TX      |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 7    |   | Housto  | 4,      | 30%     | 15%      | 14%    | 9%       |
|      |   | n-Bayto | 815,122 |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | wn-Hunt |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | sville, |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | TX      |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 8    |   | Laf     | 239,086 | 30%     | 5%       | 17%    | 10%      |
|      |   | ayette, |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | LA      |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 9    |   | Pine    | 107,341 | 49%     | 1.2%     | 18%    | 10%      |
|      |   | Bluff,  |         |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | AR      |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 10   |   | St.     | 2,      | 26%     | 2%       | 12%    | 11%      |
|      |   | Louis,  | 698,687 |         |          |        |          |
|      |   | MO-IL   |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 11   | C |         | 9,      | 38%     | 11%      | 13%    | 17%      |
|      | h |         | 302,726 |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | c |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | g |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | N |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | p |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | v |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | l |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | l |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | J |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | l |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | I |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | L |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | I |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | N |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | W |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | I |         |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 12   | A |         | 4,      | 40%     | 6%       | 11%    | 10%      |
|      | t |         | 247,981 |         |          |        |          |
|      | l |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | S |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | d |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | y |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | S |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | p |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | g |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | s |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | M |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | G |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | A |         |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 13   | A |         | 157,833 | 54%     | 1.4%     | 23%    | 14%      |
|      | l |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | b |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | y |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | G |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | A |         |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 14   | P |         | 2,      | 13%     | 16%      | 12%    | 15%      |
|      | i |         | 431,087 |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | s |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | b |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | u |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | g |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | h |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | P |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | A |         |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 15   | M |         | 5,      | 28%     | 19%      | 14%    | 11%      |
|      | i |         | 007,564 |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | m |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | F |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | . |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | L |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | u |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | d |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | d |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | l |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | M |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | m |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | B |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | c |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | h |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | F |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | L |         |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 16   | W |         | 7,      | 40%     | 6%       | 9%     | 14%      |
|      | a |         | 572,647 |         |          |        |          |
|      | s |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | h |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | g |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | B |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | l |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | m |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | N |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | . |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | V |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | A |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | D |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | C |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | M |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | D |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | V |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | A |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | W |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | V |         |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 17   | P |         | 5,      | 28%     | 5%       | 11%    | 15%      |
|      | h |         | 883,585 |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | l |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | d |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | l |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | p |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | h |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | C |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | m |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | d |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | V |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | l |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | d |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | P |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | A |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | N |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | J |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | D |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | E |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | M |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | D |         |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 18   | N |         | 21,     | 39%     | 16%      | 13%    | 29%      |
|      | e |         | 361,785 |         |          |        |          |
|      | w |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | Y |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | k |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | N |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | w |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | k |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | B |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | d |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | g |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | p |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | N |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | Y |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | N |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | J |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | C |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | T |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | P |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | A |         |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 19   | B |         | 5,      | 16%     | 8%       | 9%     | 13%      |
|      | o |         | 715,698 |         |          |        |          |
|      | s |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | W |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | c |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | h |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | s |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | M |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | c |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | h |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | s |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | t |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | M |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | A |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | N |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | H |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | C |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | S |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | A |         |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
| 20   | S |         | 2,      | 21%     | 71%      | 44%    | 29%      |
|      | a |         | 518,893 |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | J |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | u |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | C |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | g |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | u |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | s |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | - |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | F |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | j |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | d |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | , |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | P |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | R |         |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+
|      | T |         | **100,  | **34,03 | **14,2   | **     | **5      |
|      | o |         | 445,861 | 4,895** | 39,582** | 11,842 | ,874,874 |
|      | t |         | 35%**   |         |          | ,121** | 5%**     |
|      | a |         |         | **33%** | **14%**  |        |          |
|      | l |         |         |         |          | *      |          |
|      | & |         |         |         |          | *11%** |          |
|      | A |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | v |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | a |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | g |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | f |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | 2 |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | 0 |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | g |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | o |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | n |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | s |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | r |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | v |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | i |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | w |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | e |         |         |         |          |        |          |
|      | d |         |         |         |          |        |          |
+------+---+---------+---------+---------+----------+--------+----------+

# 

# For each of the areas summarized above, details of the demographics for each region and correlations among the populations examined are presented on the following pages. 

**[Racial and Ethnic Minorities]{.underline}**

-   The average minority population proportion across all 20 regions is
    33%.

# The minority proportions range from 13% in Pittsburgh, PA, to 77% in Honolulu, HI. 

# Ten out of 20 regions had census tracts where the proportion of minority persons was greater than the 33% 20-region average. Only one region has a proportion of minority persons that is more than double the 20-region average.

The following table ranks the 20 regions based on minority population
proportion.

**Table V-2: Minority Proportion Summary**

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.0in" height="4.613194444444445in"}

**Map V-1: Honolulu, HI CBSA Minority Population**

# This map of the Honolulu, HI CBSA illustrates a region where 63% of the census tracts located in the CBSA have an above average percentage of minority population. 

**[Persons with Low-Incomes]{.underline}**

# 

# The average below poverty population proportion across all 20 regions is 11%.

# The low-income proportions range from 9% in the Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC metropolitan areas to 44% in the San Juan metropolitan area.

# Twelve out of 20 regions had census tracts where the proportion of below poverty persons was greater than the 11% 20-region average. 

The table on page 27 ranks the 20 regions based on below poverty
population proportion.

**Table V-3: Low-Income Population Summary**

  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------
  **Region**                                   **Proportion Below
                                               Poverty**

  United States                                12%

  **New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA (2000)**   18%

  San Juan-Caguas-Fajardo, PR                  44%

  Brownsville-Harlingen, TX                    34%

  Albany, GA                                   23%

  Pine Bluff, AR                               18%

  Flagstaff                                    17%

  Lafayette, LA                                17%

  Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA         15%

  Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL         14%

  Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX               14%

  New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA      13%

  Pittsburgh, PA                               12%

  St. Louis, MO-IL                             12%

  Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA, NJ, DE-MD  11%

  Honolulu, HI                                 11%

  Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA           11%

  Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI          10%

  San Jose -San Francisco-Oakland, CA          9%

  Seattle-Bellevue-Tacoma, WA                  9%

  Boston, MA                                   9%

  Washington-Baltimore-No. VA, DC-MD-VA-WV     9%
  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="3.375in" height="3.05625in"}

**Map V-2: St. Louis, MO-IL CSA Below Poverty Population**

The map of the St. Louis metropolitan area illustrates a region with
relatively low proportions of persons living below poverty in the
outlying areas but with neighborhoods in the urban core where up to 66%
of the persons are below the poverty line.

**[Persons with Limited English Proficiency]{.underline}**

# The average limited English proficient population proportion across all 20 regions is 14%.

# The limited English proportions range from 1.2% in Pine Bluff, AR to 71% in San Juan-Caguas, PR. 

# Eight out of 20 regions had census tracts where the proportion of limited English proficient persons was greater than the 14% 20-region average. Only the San Juan-Caguas, PR region, which is a native-Spanish-speaking territory, has a proportion of limited English proficient persons that far exceeds the 20-region average. Brownsville- Harlingen, TX, located near the U.S.-Mexico border had an LEP proportion that was more than double the 20-region average.

The following table ranks the 20 regions based on limited English
proficient population proportion.

**Table V-4, LEP Proportion Summary**

# 

# 

# 

# 

# ![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.25in" height="3.902083333333333in"}

# Map V-3: Los Angeles CSA LEP Population

# The map of the Los Angeles CSA illustrates a metropolitan area with some neighborhoods with high proportions of persons who may be LEP. The census tracts shaded in yellow have between 46% and 67% of persons who speak English less than "very well" and the tracts shaded in red have between 67% and 100% of the population who speak English less than "very well." 

**[Zero-Car Households]{.underline}**

# The average zero-car household proportion across all 20 regions is 5%.

# The zero-car household proportions range from 7% in Seattle-Bellevue-Tacoma, WA and Flagstaff, AZ to 29% in the New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA and San Juan-Caguas-Fajardo, PR CSAs. 

# All 20 regions had census tracts where the proportion of zero-car households was greater than the 5% 20-region average. Thirteen of the regions had a proportion of zero-car households that was more than double the 20-region average.

The following table ranks the 20 regions based on zero-car household
proportion.

**Table V-5: Zero-Car Household Summary**

  ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------
  **Region**                               **Proportion Zero-Car
                                           Households**

  United States                            10%

  **New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA        15%
  (2000)**                                 

  New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA  29%

  San Juan-Caguas-Fajardo, PR              29%

  Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI      17%

  Pittsburgh, PA                           15%

  Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA, NJ,    15%
  DE-MD                                    

  Washington-Baltimore-No. VA, DC-MD-VA-WV 14%

  Albany, GA                               14%

  Boston-Worchester-Manchester, MA-NH CSA  13%

  Honolulu, HI                             12%

  Brownsville-Harlingen, TX                12%

  Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA     11%

  Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL     11%

  St. Louis, MO--IL                        11%

  Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA       10%

  San Jose -San Francisco-Oakland, CA      10%

  Pine Bluff, AR                           10%

  Lafayette, LA                            10%

  Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX           9%

  Seattle-Bellevue-Tacoma, WA              7%

  Flagstaff, AZ                            7%
  ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------

**Map V-4: Baltimore, MD Zero-Car Households**

# ![](media/image6.wmf)

# 

# 

# The above map from the Washington, DC-Baltimore metropolitan area is an example of a region where zero-vehicle households are concentrated in urban neighborhoods. Some Baltimore neighborhoods have between 44% and 100% of households without vehicles. 

**[Correlations]{.underline}**

As discussed in the Methodology section, four demographic populations
taken from the census data (minority persons, low-income persons,
limited English proficient persons (LEP), and households without
vehicles available) were examined to determine if there were any
correlations among the data. The following charts compare each
individual demographic with the other three demographics used in the
study. The closer the correlation coefficient is to 1.0, the stronger
the correlation between the data. Using correlations, emergency
preparedness coordinators may be able to determine where and how they
may need to adjust or improve their preparedness plans to meet the needs
of the transit-dependent populations in their area.

The table below presents a summary of the correlation coefficients for
the demographic data examined as part of this study. The table columns
are arranged in descending order of the number of areas with
correlations over 0.50. These data are further discussed below.

**Table V-6: Summary of Correlation Coefficients -- Minority Population\
** (Correlations over 0.50 shown in **bold**)

  -------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------
  **Region**     **Below    **Minority   **Minority   **Below    **Minority   **Zero-Car
                 Poverty -- -- Below     -- Zero-Car  Poverty -- -- LEP**     HH -- LEP**
                 Zero-Car   Poverty**    HH**         LEP**                   
                 HH**                                                         

  Honolulu       **0.57**   0.50         0.18         **0.58**   **0.76**     0.50

  San Jose       **0.63**   **0.51**     0.37         0.40       **0.73**     0.36

  Los Angeles    **0.68**   **0.75**     0.45         **0.77**   **0.79**     0.50

  Seattle        **0.62**   **0.64**     0.34         **0.57**   **0.89**     0.34

  Flagstaff      **0.76**   **0.91**     **0.65**     0.26       0.32         0.14

  Brownsville    **0.58**   **0.65**     0.40         **0.83**   **0.83**     0.47

  Houston        **0.82**   **0.71**     **0.57**     **0.77**   **0.65**     **0.54**

  Lafayette      **0.79**   **0.87**     **0.78**     **0.62**   0.31         0.27

  Pine Bluff     **0.83**   **0.68**     **0.65**     0.12       0.02         -0.01

  St. Louis      **0.79**   **0.71**     **0.60**     0.18       0.10         0.30

  Chicago        **0.82**   **0.74**     **0.70**     0.08       0.05         0.06

  Atlanta        **0.90**   **0.63**     **0.63**     0.13       0.15         0.05

  Albany         **0.68**   **0.81**     **0.64**     -0.27      -0.06        0.16

  Pittsburgh     **0.71**   **0.52**     **0.60**     0.23       0.21         0.35

  Miami          **0.63**   **0.66**     0.22         0.50       0.16         0.29

  Washington, DC **0.76**   **0.56**     0.42         0.19       0.41         0.09

  Philadelphia   **0.82**   **0.79**     **0.70**     **0.61**   0.44         0.44

  New York       **0.65**   **0.77**     **0.57**     **0.70**   **0.63**     **0.51**

  Boston         **0.73**   **0.72**     **0.57**     **0.76**   **0.76**     **0.62**

  San Juan       **0.70**   0.42         0.41         **0.68**   0.49         0.44

  Number of      20         18           12           10         8            3
  Areas with                                                                  
  Correlations                                                                
  \> 0.50                                                                     

  New Orleans    **0.88**   **0.75**     **0.72**     -0.13      -0.11        -0.13
  -------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------

-   [Below Poverty Population and Zero-Car Households]{.underline} --
    The table shows that below poverty population is most strongly
    associated with zero-car households. All 20 areas show correlations
    of over 0.50 between these two statistics. The correlation
    coefficients range from a low of 0.57 (Honolulu, HI) to a high of
    0.90 (Atlanta, GA).

-   [Below Poverty and Minority Populations]{.underline} -- Below
    poverty and minority populations also show correlations of over 0.50
    among the areas examined. All but two of the areas in the study had
    correlations above this range between these two statistics. The
    lowest correlation among these 18 areas was observed in San Jose, CA
    with a coefficient of 0.51 and the highest was observed in
    Flagstaff, AZ with a coefficient of 0.91.

-   [Minority Population and Zero-Car Households]{.underline} -- These
    two statistics exhibit a correlation of over 0.50 in more than half
    (12 of 20) of the areas. The correlation coefficients in these 12
    areas appear to be clustered between 0.57 and 0.78. Furthermore, the
    areas in which this stronger positive relationship is observed are
    mostly in the Eastern and Midwest regions of the country.

-   [Below Poverty and LEP Populations]{.underline} -- Half of the areas
    examined in this study exhibit a correlation of over 0.50 between
    below poverty and LEP populations. Correlation coefficients in these
    10 areas range from a low of 0.58 (Honolulu, HI) to a high of 0.83
    (Brownsville, TX).

-   [Minority and LEP Populations]{.underline} -- Eight of the areas
    showed a correlation of over 0.50 between minority and LEP
    populations. The highest correlation coefficient (0.89) was observed
    for Seattle, WA. Brownsville, TX also shows a particularly strong
    positive correlation with a coefficient of 0.83.

-   [Zero-Car Households and LEP]{.underline} -- Only three of the 20
    areas showed a correlation of over 0.50 between zero-car households
    and LEP population. These areas are: Boston, MA (0.62); Houston, TX
    (0.54); and New York, NY (0.51).

By using correlations such as those discussed above, emergency
preparedness coordinators can identify how they can better serve the
needs of transportation-disadvantaged populations in their areas. For
example, they could ensure that emergency notices and broadcasts are
made in languages other than English in order to reach those populations
with limited English proficiency. Also, emergency planners can identify
areas in which not only transportation, but other resources might be
needed (e.g., temporary housing, emergency living expenses, and
relocation expenses).

**[Public Transportation Coverage]{.underline}**

Overall, most areas examined in this study have extensive public transit
coverage, particularly among the larger urban areas (e.g., New York,
Boston, Washington, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles,
Seattle, and San Francisco-San Jose). These areas also tend to operate a
diverse mix of services---motorbus, paratransit, heavy rail, light rail,
and commuter rail. While there are pockets of census tracts with higher
than average minority, below poverty, and LEP populations and zero-car
households that are not served by public transit, most of the census
tracts fall within the transit service areas. An example of some of
these areas are described below:

-   [Houston CSA]{.underline} -- Nearly all of Harris County is served
    by transit. There are, however, small pockets of
    transit-disadvantaged populations in the surrounding areas that are
    not served by transit.

-   [San Juan CSA]{.underline} -- There is a considerable concentration
    of census tracts with higher than average minority and below poverty
    populations and above average zero-car households in the transit
    service area. Although many similar census tracts exist outside the
    transit service area, these tend to be in the less densely populated
    suburban and rural areas.

-   [Atlanta CBSA]{.underline} -- The disadvantaged areas of DeKalb,
    Fulton, and Clayton counties appear to be well served by transit
    service from the different transit agencies that operate in the
    region. The areas not served by transit tend to be distant from the
    urban core and have relatively few census tracts with higher than
    average transit-disadvantaged populations.

-   [Pittsburgh CBSA]{.underline} -- The urban areas of Allegheny
    County, including Pittsburgh, are served well by transit services.
    As such, nearly all of the census tracts with minority and LEP
    populations, and zero-car households are within the transit service
    boundary. However, a relatively small number of below poverty census
    tracts are located in the rural areas of Butler, Armstrong, and
    Fayette counties outside the transit service boundary.

-   [Honolulu CBSA]{.underline} -- Nearly all of the Island of Oahu is
    served by the transit system. Only a sparsely populated area at the
    island's interior lacks access to transit.

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="1.5291666666666666in"
height="2.1458333333333335in"}

Map IV-5: Pittsburgh, PA CSA Zero-Car Population

The map of the Pittsburgh, PA CBSA illustrates a region where nearly all
of the census tracts with an above average percentage of zero-car
households are within the transit service boundary. As shown, the census
tracts with higher than average proportions of zero-car households are
predominately in the urban core, which is very well served by transit.

Transit service coverage is less extensive in the smaller urban areas,
particularly in the outlying communities. The smaller urban areas tend
to have fewer agencies providing transit service as well as a less
diverse mix of operations. The transit systems tend to provide only bus
and paratransit services. Examples of some of these areas are described
below:

-   [Lafayette CBSA]{.underline} -- The areas to the south and east of
    the city are not within the transit service boundary. These areas
    also have a number of census tracts with higher than average
    minority, below poverty, and LEP populations and to a lesser extent
    zero-car households.

-   [Brownsville-Harlingen CBSA]{.underline} -- There are a large
    proportion of census tracts that are not within the transit service
    area---24 of the 39 census tracts with above average minority
    populations are outside the transit service boundary.

-   [Pine Bluff CBSA]{.underline} -- This area also has a fair number of
    census tracts that are not served by transit and also have above
    average concentrations of minority, below poverty, and LEP
    populations and zero-car households.

-   [Flagstaff CBSA]{.underline} -- The transit service area is confined
    to the urban core of the city. Large areas outside the urban center,
    including areas with some of the highest concentrations of minority,
    below poverty, and LEP populations and zero-car households, are not
    served by the transit system.

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="4.473611111111111in"
height="5.059722222222222in"}

**Map IV-6:** **Flagstaff, Arizona CBSA Zero-Car Population**

The map of the Flagstaff, AZ CBSA illustrates an area where many of the
census tracts with an above average percentage of zero-car households
are outside the transit service area.

While the transit service area is not necessarily a direct indicator of
a region's ability to adequately respond to an emergency incident, the
availability of transit assets and facilities may factor into a region's
response. As such, it is important for emergency planners to know which
communities within their region are potentially vulnerable and how the
regional assets and resources can be used to mitigate the negative
impacts of emergency incidents when they occur.

**[Vulnerabilities to Natural and Man-made Disasters]{.underline}**

The table below summarizes some of the identified occurrences of natural
and man-made disasters that have occurred in the regions of this study
over the past 10 years as well as the types of disasters for which the
metropolitan areas are most at risk.

**Table IV-7: Summary of Natural and Man-made Disasters**[^15]

  --------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------
  **Region**      **Past Event**               **Risk of Future Event**

  Honolulu        Wild fire, flood             Earthquake

  San Francisco   Earthquake, wild fire,       Earthquake
                  mudslide                     

  Los Angeles     Earthquake, wild fire,       Earthquake
                  mudslide                     

  Seattle         Severe storm, flood, tornado Earthquake

  Flagstaff       Wild fire, flood, tornado    Wild fire

  Brownsville     Hurricane, flood             Hurricane

  Houston         Hurricane, flood, tornado    Hurricane

  Lafayette       Hurricane                    Hurricane

  Pine Bluff      Severe storm, flood, tornado Severe storm

  St. Louis       Severe winter weather        Winter weather, heat wave

  Chicago         Heat wave, severe winter     Winter weather, heat wave
                  weather                      

  Atlanta         Severe storm                 Severe storm

  Albany          Severe storm, tornado        Severe storm

  Pittsburgh      Severe storm, severe winter  Severe storm, winter
                  weather                      weather

  Miami           Hurricane                    Hurricane

  Washington DC   Terrorist attack, hurricane  Terrorist attack,
                                               hurricane

  Philadelphia    Hurricane, severe winter     Hurricane, severe winter
                  weather                      weather

  New York        Terrorist attack, blackout   Terrorist attack,
                                               hurricane

  Boston          Severe winter weather        Hurricane, severe winter
                                               weather

  San Juan        Hurricane                    Hurricane
  --------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------

**VI. Results of the Agency Plan Assessment**

As noted in the Methodology section of this report, emergency response
plans

were obtained either through agency websites or by written request from
FTA's Office of Civil Rights. While researchers did not request any
sensitive security information, many agencies were nonetheless reluctant
to share information not currently available in the public domain, as it
was incorporated into their security plans. For this study, FTA
requested information on emergency response plans of 72 entities;
consisting of 18 State DOTs, 34 transit agencies, and 20 MPOs and
received information from 53 entities; consisting of 15 State DOTs, 25
transit agencies, and 13 MPOs was reviewed.

The table below presents the results of the analysis of emergency
preparedness activities on the six topics listed in the methodology
section.

**Table VI-1, Summary of Agency Survey Results**

  ------------------------------------------- --------- ------------ ----------
  **Topic**                                   **State   **Transit    **MPOs**
                                              DOTs**    Agencies**   

  1\. General Public Involvement              1 of 15   2 of 25      1 of 13

  1a. Involvement on focus populations        0 of 15   0 of 25      0 of 13

  2\. Accounting for the needs of focus       3 of 15   3 of 25      0 of 13
  populations                                                        

  3\. Communicating emergency Information to  11 of 15  14 of 25     3 of 13
  the public                                                         

  3a. Communicating to focus populations      0 of 15   3 of 25      2 of 13

  4\. General Evacuation Planning             9 of 15   14 of 25     6 of 13

  4a. Evacuation planning for focus           2 of 15   1 of 25      0 of 13
  populations                                                        

  5\. Use of the transit system in an         9 of 15   14 of 25     12 of 13
  evacuation                                                         

  6\. General Coordination Procedures         12 of 15  25 of 25     13 of 13

  6a. Coordination activities targeted at     0 of 15   0 of 25      0 of 13
  focus populations                                                  
  ------------------------------------------- --------- ------------ ----------

**[Topic #1: Public Involvement in Emergency Preparedness
Planning]{.underline}**

Researchers sought information on any public involvement process that
contributed to the agency's emergency preparedness plan and, in
particular, any opportunities for minority, low-income, and LEP persons
and households without vehicles to participate in this process.

Very few of the State DOTs, MPOs, or transit agencies surveyed sought to
involve the public in general or members of the focus populations of
this study in the course of assembling an emergency preparedness plan.

One State DOT does encourage general public involvement in the
development of local and regional plans, but does not specifically focus
on the populations that were a part of this study.

In some instances, plans produced by MPOs are made available to the
public through various means, including through publications, at public
meetings, and on their websites. The Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments has as a goal in its National Capital Region Homeland
Security Strategic Plan to provide opportunities for individuals to
become involved in emergency preparedness.

Two transit agencies, Chicago Transit Authority and New York's
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), did note that they had
provided for comment and feedback from the public on the plan once it
was developed. (Because transit agencies were not generally the lead
agency in the local or regional emergency response plan, there typically
was no public input sought or utilized by transit agencies in developing
these emergency preparedness plans.)

**[Topic #2: Identifying the Needs of Focus Populations]{.underline}**

[]{.mark}

Researchers reviewed plans to determine the extent to which the plans
identified and responded to the unique needs of the focus populations.

None of the plans prepared by State DOTs, MPOs, or transit agencies
identified any specific mobility needs associated with racial and ethnic
minorities, persons with low-incomes, persons with disabilities, and
households without vehicles.

State DOT staff communicated to researchers that, in general, the county
or local government is responsible for managing logistics for special
needs groups and requesting additional transportation support from the
state if needed. The Arizona and Louisiana DOT included portions of
these groups in their plans, but did not provide information on the
numbers or locations of these populations. Arizona includes LEP persons
in its category of special needs and Louisiana includes
institutionalized and non-institutionalized persons. Additionally,
Louisiana includes persons without their own transportation in their
state planning.

California's Office of Emergency Services encourages the use of
community-based organizations to address the disabled, homeless,
elderly, children, non-English speakers, people living in poverty, and
people who are culturally or geographically isolated. However, it was
noted the focus was not on transportation, but primarily the
post-disaster needs of these vulnerable populations.

> []{.mark}

None of the MPOs had incorporated information on the focus populations
into

the emergency response plans in which they had a coordinating role. One
MPO did note that the area covered was culturally diverse, and one MPO
has as an action item to review Geographic Information System data in
support of its plan.

Among the transit providers, the City and County of Honolulu includes in
the group of primary evacuees, persons at home without cars and
non-drivers. The Chicago Transit Authority noted that it has identified
the rail lines that primarily serve minority communities, but that it
had limited additional information integrated into its plan. One transit
agency, New York's MTA, which has a major role in its city's evacuation
plan, noted that estimates on the number of people that would need
evacuation took into account income and access to a private vehicle.
Additionally, this agency noted that the public information on the
city's plan is available in 11 languages.

[]{.mark}

**[Topic #3: Communicating to the General Public and to Focus
Populations]{.underline}**

[]{.mark}

Researchers sought information on any provisions for communicating
emergency plan information and emergency preparedness instructions to
the public and, in particular, any provisions to communicate emergency
information to minority, low-income, and LEP persons and households
without vehicles.

[]{.mark}

Most State DOTs, MPOs, and transit agencies assessed had plans to
communicate emergency preparedness information to the general public,
but only a few of these agencies had plans for targeting emergency
communications to the focus populations of this study.

Eleven State DOTs indicated that they have plans to communicate with the
public prior to and during an emergency, but none of the State DOT
communications plans specifically addressed this report's focus
populations. It was noted during plan review and interviews that during
emergency events, DOTs may set up their own Emergency Operations Centers
(EOC), if appropriate, and coordinate with the state EOC through
appointed liaisons. In general, it was described that emergency
information generated by the DOT and meant for the public is typically
sent to the public information officer in the state EOC for
dissemination. The types of communications to the public included
information on the locations of the disaster and evacuation route
information. Five of the states described information on a process
similar to that described above.

[]{.mark}

Among the MPOs, San Francisco's Metropolitan Transportation Commission
has a role in testing the communications systems of the local area
transit systems and conducts an annual exercise to test information
dissemination from them to the public. The Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments has as a goal in the National Capital Region
Homeland Security Strategic Plan to establish public emergency message
templates for disseminating information to special needs populations,
which include people with disabilities and non-English speakers.

[]{.mark}

Fourteen transit agencies provided information on providing emergency
information to the general public. Three agencies, Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York's Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, and Chicago Transit Authority, noted their
ability to communicate in multiple languages in the event of an
emergency. While these agencies all noted that they were not the lead
coordinating agency, they did note their ability to communicate with the
public in multiple languages. New York's MTA and the Chicago Transit
Authority also cited their localities' use of a "311" phone number to
disseminate emergency information to the public and the staffing of
these call centers with bilingual personnel. New York's MTA also noted
its locality also has a website that makes emergency preparedness
materials available on the Internet in multiple languages.

[]{.mark}

**[Topic #4: Evacuation Planning for the General Public and Focus
Populations]{.underline}**

[]{.mark}

Researchers sought information on any provisions for evacuating persons
in emergency situations and, in particular, evacuation procedures that
address the needs of minority, low-income, and LEP persons and
households without vehicles.

Most agencies assessed had plans for evacuating the general public in
emergencies, but only a few agencies had plans targeted at evacuating
the focus populations. Nine of the State DOTs provided information on
coordinating either evacuation or sheltering aspects during an emergency
with transportation, and Arizona and Louisiana discussed those with
"special needs." Arizona includes LEP persons in its category of special
needs and Louisiana includes institutionalized and non-institutionalized
persons. Arizona included in its Evacuation ESF, for which the DOT is a
support agency, the need to ensure that at the county or local level,
consideration be given to ensuring that persons with special needs,
including LEP persons, are identified, located, and evacuated.

None of the MPO plans reviewed focused on the evacuation or sheltering
of the focus populations, however, information from six of the agencies
reviewed included evacuation and sheltering in general for emergencies.

[]{.mark}

Transit agencies expressed that they have a key role in the
transportation services for evacuation and safe return, but coordination
is generally managed by the local or regional lead agency. One agency,
New York's MTA, did utilize the local area's projected numbers of
evacuees, which took into account income and access to a private
vehicle, along with its own demographic and system information to
develop detailed information on where service may need to be enhanced to
facilitate an evacuation. Its plan also included providing increased
personnel at key locations to control crowds and provide customer
information.

> []{.mark}

**[Topic #5: Use of Public Transportation in Emergencies]{.underline}**

Researchers sought information on any provisions to use the region's
transit system or coordinated human services transportation to assist in
an evacuation prior to or following an emergency, and use of transit and
coordinated human services transportation to return people to their
communities after the emergency has ended and it is safe to return.

The majority of agencies assessed indicated that the transit system
would play a role in an emergency evacuation.

Nine State DOTs provided information on using transit in evacuations.
Most DOTs examined divide their states into DOT districts, each having
its own administrative headquarters. The districts are typically
responsible for coordinating availability, procurement, and use of
transit assets with local entities such as transit agencies and school
districts, and evacuation routes with local jurisdictions. Memoranda of
understanding and other agreements, usually managed by the DOTs or the
states, are in place with local jurisdictions, transit agencies, and
private/public transportation entities for agreement on transit assets
availability to the partnering agencies as needed.

Twelve MPOs included information on how public transit and other
transportation functions would be coordinated in an emergency. Most of
the plans, even those in draft form, provide an inventory of
transportation assets or have made provisions to include them in future
drafts of their plans. In addition, 14 of the transit agencies provided
specific information on their roles in an emergency.

**[Topic #6: Interagency Coordination]{.underline}**

[]{.mark}

Researchers sought information on any provisions for coordinating
emergency preparedness with relevant local, state, and federal agencies
and, in particular, any coordination plans that focus on emergency
preparedness for minority, low-income, and LEP persons and households
without vehicles. The majority of agencies that were assessed, including
all the MPOs and all the transit agencies that provided information to
the researchers, indicated that they had procedures in place for
coordinating with other agencies prior to and during an emergency, but
none of the agencies had coordination measures in place that focused on
emergency preparedness for the focus populations.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

> []{.mark}

**[VII.]{.smallcaps} Promising Practices**

Although most State DOTs, MPOs, and transit agencies had few specific
policies and procedures in place for responding to the specific needs of
racial and ethnic minorities, low-income or LEP populations, and
households without vehicles, researchers identified a number of
promising practices developed by the agencies that were assessed and
have the potential to be implemented in other metropolitan areas. This
section summarizes such practices being developed or implemented by
State DOTs, MPOs, and transit agencies.

**[State Departments of Transportation]{.underline}**

In general, the decentralization of DOT emergency management functions
among territorial districts enables DOTs to better coordinate transit
asset utilization among county and local governments, transit agencies,
school districts, and public/private transportation companies. This also
can promote emergency management response with the establishment of an
Emergency Operations Center in close proximity to the impact area and
could be adopted by other agencies.

Memorandums of understanding or similar agreements among parties ensure
full knowledge of assets available to potential impact areas, and assure
the parties of full cooperation should their area be affected by an
emergency event. Arizona's ESF-15 (Evacuation), for which Arizona DOT is
a support agency, includes a concept of operations that is the
responsibility of county and local governments (another set of ESF-15
support agencies). The concept states, "Consideration will be given to
ensuring that special needs persons, i.e., non-English speaking,
elderly, physically or mentally disabled, latchkey children, etc., are
identified, located and evacuated from the danger area."

[]{.mark}

While there was not wide evidence of specific considerations of
emergency services for households without vehicles addressed in State
DOT plans, the State of Louisiana's Emergency Operations plan designates
Louisiana DOTD as responsible for ESF-1 (Transportation). Attachment 8
to ESF-1 provides a general framework for Bus Staging
Operations/Movement Control Center for ESF-1. The goal of Attachment 8
is to provide bus transportation for persons needing assistance
evacuating from risk parishes, including special needs individuals.

[]{.mark}

**[Metropolitan Planning Organizations]{.underline}**

While MPOs are not typically the lead agency in emergency response plan
development, several of them appear to be developing or assisting in the
coordination of these plans. For example, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission in the San Francisco region is involved in
coordinating the region's plan and the East West Gateway Coordinating
Council in the St. Louis region is developing a plan for which it
expects to have an outline completed in early 2007.

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments provided information
on extensive emergency plan coordination that it has performed in its
region which includes a Community Engagement objective and initiatives
on participation, education, and communication to be completed through
2009.

**[Transit Agencies]{.underline}**

Some transit agencies are coordinating with state, county, and/or local
emergency agencies and other emergency management partners to prepare to
respond to populations with specific needs in an emergency. Miami-Dade
Transit has representatives from bus and rail operations to act as
liaisons to the appropriate city or county emergency operations center.
AC Transit coordinates with county-level emergency response providers,
and MTC has an emergency preparedness committee that works with local
transit operators to help test emergency response plans. Sound Transit
cited integration into regional and cross-jurisdictional planning
activity as an effective practice for its agency.

Additionally, ongoing unified command training and operations among
emergency management partners can serve to strengthen the effectiveness
of emergency response plans. Chicago Transit Authority participates in
unified command training and operations with governmental agencies, and
coordinates with the City of Chicago, Cook County, Chicago Fire and
Police departments, and the 40 suburban municipalities served by the
authority.

[]{.mark}

One of the most far-reaching plans was prepared by the New York City
Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and was provided by the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority. OEM contracted with U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to conduct analyses detailing the number of persons
and the demographics of the people who would have to be evacuated for
three scales of emergency, and developed an evacuation and sheltering
plan that is scalable according to the severity of the event. Public
transportation is a key component of the New York City plan. The
Metropolitan Transportation Authority has developed operating plans in
support of the New York City Coastal Storm Plan that incorporate the
analysis provided by OEM. []{.mark}

[]{.mark}

New Yorkers can learn their assigned evacuation center by calling 311,
the Citizen Service Center, which can provide assistance in 170
languages. Additionally, maps of the city's evacuation centers are
available in 11 languages on OEM's website at
[NYC.gov/oem](http://nyc.gov/html/oem/html/home/home.shtml). MTA NYC
Transit provided travel directions from evacuation zones to evacuation
centers for use by 311 and for the City's online Hurricane Evacuation
Zone Finder tool hosted on OEM's website (available in English only).
Printed materials are also provided by OEM in multiple languages; for
example, the Ready New York household preparedness guide is available in
ten languages.

[]{.mark}

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority addresses
emergency concerns of LEP persons using announcements in other than
English. The agency also has a staff of translators available through
telephone. New York City has addressed emergency needs of LEP persons as
well.

For the regions reviewed, the lead agencies for emergency management
response are typically responsible for communications plans. Transit
agencies generally provide a supporting role to these agencies regarding
the transportation components of plans developed on the regional/local
level. An increased use of the Internet as a communication tool was
noted in many regions. Additionally, emergency response campaigns, such
as the "Ready New York" efforts are becoming more prevalent to prepare
communities for differing types of communities.

### VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations 

The twenty metropolitan areas surveyed in this report have neighborhoods
where large

numbers of people may have difficulty evacuating in advance of or in the
aftermath of a natural or man-made emergency. Each of the metropolitan
areas surveyed includes racially segregated high-poverty areas with
relatively high proportions of people with limited English proficiency
and zero-vehicle households. In the event of an emergency, many of the
residents of these neighborhoods may be more likely to discount
emergency instructions or may not have the money or the mobility to
evacuate independently.

Most of those neighborhoods with higher than average proportions of
minority, low-income, and LEP persons and zero-vehicle households were
well served by existing public transportation agencies, which, in theory
and depending on the circumstances of the emergency, could play a role
in evacuating people without other means of transportation. However most
of the transit agencies as well as the metropolitan planning
organizations and state departments of transportation surveyed in this
report had taken limited steps to address the needs of these populations
in an emergency.

In general, emergency response procedures of the focus agencies of this
study do not routinely or systematically address the needs of the focus
populations of this review.

Many states, regions, and transit agencies have not thoroughly
identified these transportation-disadvantaged populations within their
areas. The inclusion of evacuation, sheltering, and return
considerations for these populations in emergency response plans could
be greatly enhanced.

**[Recommendations]{.underline}**

-   **Demographic profiles should be developed and incorporated into
    emergency response plans.** No matter who is the lead agency for
    developing the plans, an understanding of the populations that
    comprise the subject area of the plan would greatly improve the
    plans' applicability and effectiveness. Knowledge of the number and
    location of transportation-disadvantaged populations during an
    emergency is essential in evaluating if current assets or deployable
    assets will be available and adequate.

> The demographic profiles prepared in conjunction with this report (and
> which are located at
> <http://www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/civil_rights_6343.html>) can
> assist agencies in estimating the number of people who may not be able
> to self-evacuate, in planning evacuation routes and staging areas, and
> in conducting targeted community outreach on emergency preparedness.

-   **Strategies should be developed for more public input into the
    establishment of the plans.** There are sources of knowledge within
    communities on the particular needs of the
    transportation-disadvantaged. In addition to those noted in other
    reports, such as faith-based organizations, there are networks of
    community-based organizations that serve disadvantaged populations
    and could provide valuable input into the emergency response,
    evacuation, sheltering, and return plans of local areas. Developing
    ways for these organizations to be involved in plan development
    would add to the sufficiency of these plans and the ability to carry
    them out.

-   **Strategies should be developed for effective communication of the
    plans.** Knowing the concentrations of limited English proficiency
    populations and what their communications needs are will aid in the
    ability to communicate effectively with these populations during an
    emergency. Using demographic data and outreach to community-based
    organizations will aid in the plans' overall effectiveness.

-   **Transit agencies should improve emergency management and response
    communication and coordination with county and state emergency
    management agencies.** In several instances during the study,
    transit agencies could not clearly define their role in the event of
    an emergency, beyond internal procedures. Because there is a wide
    range of types of agencies that lead the development and enactment
    of emergency response plans, transit agencies should be certain of
    their role in the event of emergencies, understand the command and
    control procedures for their assets, and provide input using the
    knowledge they have on moving the public.

> These recommendations are similar to the guidance developed in the
> special needs section of FTA's Disaster Response and Recovery Manual,
> which was published in August of 2006, and the Transportation and
> Emergency Preparedness Checklist issued in September of 2006 by the
> National Consortium on Human Services Transportation. FTA's manual can
> be found at [http://www.fta.dot.gov](http://www.fta.dot.gov/) and the
> National Consortium's checklist and accompanying strategy paper can be
> found at
> [http://www.disabilityinfo.gov](http://www.disabilityinfo.gov/).

###  IX. Resources

The links below connect the reader to source documents and other
resources summarized or referenced in this report. Additional
information on emergency preparedness, disaster response, and disaster
recovery activities can be found at the following links:

-   The FTA Safety and Security web page at
    <http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/>

-   The FTA Civil Rights web page at
    <http://www.fta.dot.gov/civil_rights.html>

-   The U.S. DOT web page on emergency transportation for people with
    disabilities at
    [http://www.emergencyprep.dot.gov](http://www.emergencyprep.dot.gov/)

-   The FHWA emergency transportation web page at
    <http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publications.htm#eto>

**Links to Guidance**

-   [DOT Title VI
    Regulations](http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/49_CFR_21.doc)\
    <http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/49_CFR_21.doc>.

-   DOT [**Limited English Proficient Persons
    Guidance**](http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-23972.htm)
    [**http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-23972.htm**](http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-23972.htm).

-   [**SAFETEA-LU**](http://www.fta.dot.gov/index_4696.html)

> [**http://www.fta.dot.gov/index_4696.html**](http://www.fta.dot.gov/index_4696.html).

-   [**Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
    1973**](http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm)

> [**http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm**](http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm).

-   [**Executive Order 13347, Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency
    Preparedness**](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040722-10.html)

> [**http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040722-10.html**](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040722-10.html).

-   [**Age Discrimination Act of
    1975**](http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/agedisc.htm)

> <http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/agedisc.htm>.

-   [**Americans with Disabilities Act of
    1990**](http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm)

> [**http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm**](http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm).

Links to Related Reports

-   [The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons
    Learned](http://www.whitehouse.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned.pdf)
    <http://www.whitehouse.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned.pdf>.

-   [We Can Do Better -- Lessons Learned for Protecting Older Persons in
    Disasters](http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/better.pdf)

> <http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/better.pdf>.

-   [Strategies in Emergency Preparedness for Transportation-Dependent
    Populations](http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/Documents/Emergency/Emergency Preparedness Strategy Paper.doc)
    [http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/Documents/Emergency/Emergency
    Preparedness Strategy
    Paper.doc](http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/Documents/Emergency/Emergency Preparedness Strategy Paper.doc).

-   [National Workshop on Transportation
    Equity](http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Masterdocument.doc)
    <http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Masterdocument.doc>.

-   [The Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on People with
    Disabilities](http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2006/pdf/hurricanes_impact.pdf)
    <http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2006/pdf/hurricanes_impact.pdf>.

-   [Government Accountability Office--Disaster
    Preparedness](http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06790t.pdf)
    <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06790t.pdf>.

-   [Emergency Evacuation Report Card
    2006](http://www.highways.org/pdfs/evacuation_report_card2006.pdf)
    <http://www.highways.org/pdfs/evacuation_report_card2006.pdf>.

**Summaries of Other Related Materials**

-   [Transit Agency Security and Emergency Management Protective
    Measures](http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/publications/security/ProtectiveMeasures/PDF/ProtectiveMeasures.pdf),
    November 2006. This guidance, prepared by the Federal Transit
    Administration in consultation with the Department of Homeland
    Security Transportation Security Administration and the Office of
    Grants and Training and the American Public Transportation
    Association, provides a comprehensive approach for transit agencies
    to integrate their entire security and emergency management programs
    with the Department of Homeland Security Advisory System threat
    conditions.
    <http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/publications/security/ProtectiveMeasures/PDF/ProtectiveMeasures.pdf>.

-   [Disaster Response and Recovery Resource for Transit
    Agencies](http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/publications/safety/DisasterResponse/HTML/DisasterResponse.htm),
    August 2006. Prepared for the Federal Transit Administration, this
    report provides best practices and links to specific resources for
    transit agencies concerning critical disaster elements such as
    emergency preparedness, disaster response, and recovery.

> [http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/publications/safety/DisasterResponse
> /HTML/DisasterResponse.htm](http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/publications/safety/DisasterResponse /HTML/DisasterResponse.htm).

-   [Memorandum from Norman T. Mineta, Emergency Preparedness for People
    with Disabilities]{.underline}, August 2003. This memorandum
    provides answers to basic questions about emergency preparedness and
    the needs of people with disabilities in the Department of
    Transportation.
    <http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/documents/dotpart/pwd_guidelines.htm>.

-   [The Public Transportation System Security and Emergency
    Preparedness Planning
    Guide,](http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/Publications/security/PlanningGuide.pdf)
    January 2003. This guidance, prepared for the Federal Transit
    Administration provides information to support the activities of
    public transportation systems to plan for and respond to major
    security threats and emergencies.
    <http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/Publications/security/PlanningGuide.pdf>.

-   [U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order
    1900.9](http://www.dot.gov/ost/oet/1900-9.pdf), April 2000. This DOT
    order describes the department's roles, responsibilities and actions
    that apply to emergency transportation management during domestic
    and national security emergencies.
    <http://www.dot.gov/ost/oet/1900-9.pdf>.

-   [Critical Incident Management
    Guidelines](http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/security/FinalCrisisManagementGuidelines.pdf), 1998.
    Prepared for the Federal Transit Administration, this document
    provides comprehensive discussion of community activities necessary
    to support emergency preparedness, mitigation, response, and
    recovery.
    <http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/security/FinalCrisisManagementGuidelines.pdf>.

-   [Recommended Emergency Preparedness Guidelines for Urban Rural and
    Specialized Transit
    Systems](http://www.ctav.org/Downloads/Rec_Emer_Prep_For_Urban_Rural_Spec_Tran_Sys.pdf), 1991.
    These guidelines, prepared for the Federal Transit Administration,
    provide recommendations designed to assist transit system and
    emergency response organization personnel to evaluate and modify
    their emergency response plans to address the needs of urban, rural,
    and specialized transit passengers.
    <http://www.ctav.org/Downloads/Rec_Emer_Prep_For_Urban_Rural_Spec_Tran_Sys.pdf>.

[]{.mark}

### Appendix A

# Summary of Demographic Profiles

#  

**Region 1: Honolulu, HI Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)**

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  604

  Census Tracts                                   216

  Total Population                                876,151

  Minority Population                             689,668

  Below Poverty Population                        83,937

  Population (5 years and older)                  814,820

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              113,550

  Total Households                                286,450

  Zero-Car Households                             36,614
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **Honolulu, HI CBSA**
regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.76 between minority and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.58 between below poverty and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.57 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.50 between minority and below poverty populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.50 between LEP populations and zero-car households

-   correlation of 0.18 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

**Region 2: San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Core Statistical Area
(CSA)**

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  8,818.6

  Census Tracts                                   1,465

  Total CSA Population                            7,088,410

  Minority Population                             2,923,892

  Below Poverty Population                        607,698

  Population (5 years and older)                  7,783,306

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              1,147,090

  Total Households                                2,571,456

  Zero-Car Households                             254,141
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **San Jose -San
Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.73 between minority and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.63 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.51 between minority and below poverty populations

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.40 between below poverty and LEP populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.37 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.36 between LEP populations and zero-car households

# 

# Region 3: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA 

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  34,000

  Census Tracts                                   3,373

  Total Population                                16,365,553

  Minority Population                             7,344,772

  Below Poverty Population                        2,510,110

  Population (5 years and older)                  15,124,980

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              3,707,686

  Total Households                                5,347,107

  Zero-Car Households                             537,885
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Riverside, CA CSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.79 between minority and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.77 between below poverty and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.75 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.68 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

Correlations between other populations that were below .50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.50 between LEP populations and zero-car households

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.45 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

# 

# Region 4: Seattle-Bellevue-Tacoma, WA CSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  8,247

  Census Tracts                                   784

  Total Population                                3,604,165

  Minority Population                             741,164

  Below Poverty Population                        303,090

  Population (5 years and older)                  3,368,005

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              213,575

  Total Households                                1,410,381

  Zero-Car Households                             108,408
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the
**Seattle-Bellevue-Tacoma, WA CSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.89 between minority and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.64 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.62 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.57 between below poverty and LEP populations

Correlations between other populations that were below .50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.34 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.34 between LEP populations and zero-car households

# Region 5: Flagstaff, AZ CBSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  18,658

  Census Tracts                                   27

  Total Population                                116,320

  Minority Population                             42,939

  Below Poverty Population                        20,609

  Population (5 years and older)                  107,876

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              10,836

  Total Households                                40,448

  Zero-Car Households                             2,790
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **Flagstaff CBSA**
regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.91 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.76 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.65 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.32 between minority and LEP populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.26 between below poverty and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.14 between LEP populations and zero-car households

# Region 6: Brownsville-Harlingen, TX CBSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  953

  Census Tracts                                   86

  Total CBSA Population                           335,227

  Minority Population                             66,088

  Below Poverty Population                        107,970

  Population (5 years and older)                  303,483

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              106,588

  Total Households                                119,654

  Zero-Car Households                             11,305
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the
**Brownsville-Harlingen, TX CBSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.85 between below poverty and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.83 between minority populations and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.65 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.58 between below poverty and zero-car households

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.47 between LEP populations and zero-car households

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.40 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

## Region 7: Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  1,134

  Census Tracts                                   908

  Total Population                                4,815,122

  Minority Population                             1,785,856

  Below Poverty Population                        649,801

  Population (5 years and older)                  4,429,761

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              674,321

  Total Households                                1,689,003

  Zero-Car Households                             130,092
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the
**Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.82 between below poverty population and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.77 between below poverty and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.71 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.65 between minority and LEP populations

-   a correlation of 0.57 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

-   a correlation of 0.54 between LEP and zero-car households

# Region 8: Lafayette, LA CBSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  1,087

  Census Tracts                                   50

  Total Population                                239,086

  Minority Population                             67,288

  Below Poverty Population                        39,477

  Population (5 years and older)                  221,495

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              11,337

  Total Households                                89,536

  Zero-Car Households                             7,883
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **Lafayette, LA CBSA**
regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.87 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.79 between below poverty and zero-car households

-   correlation of 0.78 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.62 between below poverty and LEP populations

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.31 between minority and LEP populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.27 between LEP populations and zero-car households

***Region 9: Pine Bluff, AR CBSA***

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  2,085.3

  Census Tracts                                   33

  Total Population                                107,341

  Minority Population                             49,832

  Below Poverty Population                        19,689

  Population (5 years and older)                  101,333

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              1,178

  Total Households                                38,093

  Zero-Car Households                             4,124
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **Pine Bluff, AR
CBSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.83 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.68 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.65 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.12 between below poverty and LEP populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.02 between minority and LEP populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of -0.01 between LEP populations and zero-car households

# Region 10: St. Louis, MO-IL CBSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  8,831

  Census Tracts                                   551

  Total Population                                2,698,687

  Minority Population                             569,975

  Below Poverty Population                        264,721

  Population (5 years and older)                  2,519,595

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              49,291

  Total Households                                1,048,279

  Zero-Car Households                             93,475
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **St. Louis, MO-IL
CBSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.79 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.71 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.60 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.30 between LEP populations and zero-car households

-   correlation of 0.18 between below poverty and LEP populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.10 between minority and LEP populations

**Region 11: Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI CSA**

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  8,573

  Census Tracts                                   2,105

  Total Population                                9,302,726

  Minority Population                             3,051,134

  Below Poverty Population                        954,168

  Population (5 years and older)                  8,617,563

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              1,017,833

  Total Households                                3,355,583

  Zero-Car Households                             453,809
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the
**Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI CSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.82 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.74 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.70 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.08 between below poverty and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.06 between LEP populations and zero-car households

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.05 between minority and LEP populations

**Region 12:** Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA CBSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  8,483.9

  Census Tracts                                   690

  Total CBSA Population                           4,247,981

  Minority Population                             1,552,523

  Below Poverty Population                        397,037

  Population (5 years and older)                  4,190,991

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              259,256

  Total Households                                1,554,154

  Zero-Car Households                             492,166
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **Atlanta-Sandy
Springs-Marietta, GA CBSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.90 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.63 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.63 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.15 between minority and LEP populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.13 between below poverty and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.05 between LEP populations and zero-car households

**Region 13:** Albany, GA CBSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  1,960

  Census Tracts                                   46

  Total Population                                157,833

  Minority Population                             79,972

  Below Poverty Population                        33,002

  Population (5 years and older)                  145,995

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              2,037

  Total Households                                57,403

  Zero-Car Households                             6,556
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **Albany, GA CBSA**
regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.81 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.68 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.64 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.16 between LEP populations and zero-car households

-   correlation of -0.06 between minority and LEP populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of -0.27 between below poverty and LEP populations

Region 14: Pittsburgh, PA CBSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  5,336

  Census Tracts                                   721

  Total Population                                2,431,087

  Minority Population                             248,643

  Below Poverty Population                        256,990

  Population (5 years and older)                  2,296,228

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              35,276

  Total Households                                995,505

  Zero-Car Households                             127,554
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **Pittsburgh, PA
CBSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.71 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.60 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.52 between minority and below poverty populations

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.35 between LEP populations and zero-car households

-   correlation of 0.23 between below poverty and LEP populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.21 between minority and LEP populations

## Region 15: Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL CBSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  5,441

  Census Tracts                                   891

  Total Population                                5,007,564

  Minority Population                             1,397,512

  Below Poverty Population                        692,014

  Population (5 years and older)                  4,695,898

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              1,008,963

  Total Households                                1,905,394

  Zero-Car Households                             210,173
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **Miami-Ft.
Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL CBSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.66 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.63 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.50 between below poverty and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.29 between LEP populations and zero-car households

-   correlation of 0.22 between minority and zero-car households

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.16 between minority and LEP populations

**Region 16: Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV** CSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  10,120

  Census Tracts                                   1,682

  Total Population                                7,572,647

  Minority Population                             2,813,359

  Below Poverty Population                        608,605

  Population (5 years and older)                  7,055,969

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              484,644

  Total Households                                2,857,170

  Zero-Car Households                             341,145
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the
**Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA** regional
populations:

-   correlation of 0.76 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.56 between minority and below poverty populations

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.42 between minority and zero-car households

-   correlation of 0.41 between minority and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.19 between below poverty and LEP populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.09 between LEP populations and zero-car households

# 

# Region 17: Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA, NJ, DE-MD CSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  12,164

  Census Tracts                                   1,504

  Total Population                                5,883,585

  Minority Population                             1,610,875

  Below Poverty Population                        619,316

  Population (5 years and older)                  5,455,406

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              269,492

  Total House Holds                               2,183,587

  Zero-Car Households                             336,339
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the
**Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA, NJ, DE-MD CSA** regional
populations:

-   correlation of 0.82 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.79 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.70 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.61 between below poverty and LEP populations

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.44 between minority and LEP populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.44 between LEP populations and zero-car households

**Region 18: New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA** CSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  12,164

  Census Tracts                                   5,194

  Total Population                                21,361,785

  Minority Population                             7,628,665

  Below Poverty Population                        2,697,696

  Population (5 years and older)                  19,913,957

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              3,080,373

  Total Households                                7,799,409

  Zero-Car Households                             2,221,628
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **New
York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.77 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.70 between below poverty and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.65 between below poverty and zero-car households

-   correlation of 0.63 between minority and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.57 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.51 between LEP populations and zero-car households

> **Region 19: Boston-Worchester-Manchester, MA-NH CSA**

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  7,497

  Census Tracts                                   1,210

  Total Population                                5,715,698

  Minority Population                             840,864

  Below Poverty Population                        464,431

  Population (5 years and older)                  5,350,416

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              387,430

  Total Housing Households                        2,182,343

  Zero-Car Housing Units                          264,431
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the
**Boston-Worchester-Manchester, MA-NH CSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.76 between minority and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.76 between below poverty and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.73 between below poverty and zero-car households

-   correlation of 0.72 between minority and below poverty populations

-   correlation of 0.62 between LEP populations and zero-car households

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.57 between minority populations and zero-car
    households

**Region 20:** San Juan-Caguas-Fajardo, PR CSA

  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Statistic**                                   **Value**

  Area (sq. mi.)                                  1,700

  Census Tracts                                   540

  Total CBSA Population                           2,518,893

  Minority Population                             529,874

  Below Poverty Population                        1,120,365

  Population (5 years and older)                  2,323,928

  LEP Population (5 years and older)              1,658,826

  Total Households                                838,664

  Zero-Car Households                             234,356
  ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------

Positive correlations greater than 0.50 among the **San
Juan-Caguas-Fajardo, PR CSA** regional populations:

-   correlation of 0.70 between below poverty populations and zero-car
    households

-   correlation of 0.68 between below poverty and LEP populations

Correlations between other populations that were below 0.50 are as
follows:

-   correlation of 0.49 between minority and LEP populations

-   correlation of 0.42 between minority and below poverty populations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   correlation of 0.44 between LEP populations and zero-car households

-   correlation of 0.41 between minority and LEP populations

**Appendix B\
List of Agencies Reviewed**

  ----------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------
  **Region**              **Agency**                    **Type**

  **Honolulu**            Hawaii DOT                    State DOT

                          Oahu Metropolitan Planning    MPO
                          Organization                  

                          Oahu Transit Service          Transit provider

  **San Francisco**       California DOT                State DOT

                          Metropolitan Transportation   MPO
                          Commission                    

                          AC Transit                    Transit provider

                          Bay Area Rapid Transit        Transit provider

                          San Francisco Municipal       Transit provider
                          Railway                       

                          San Mateo County (Sam Trans)  Transit provider

                          Santa Clara Valley Transit    Transit provider

                          Golden Gate Transit           Transit provider

  **Los Angeles**         California DOT                State DOT

                          Southern California           MPO
                          Association of Governments    

                          Southern California Regional  Transit provider
                          Rail Authority (METROLINK)    

                          Los Angeles County            Transit provider
                          Metropolitan Transportation   
                          Authority (METRO)             

  **Seattle**             Washington State DOT          State DOT

                          Puget Sound Regional Council  MPO

                          King County Department of     Transit provider
                          Transportation                

                          Sound Transit                 Transit provider

  **Flagstaff**           Arizona DOT                   State DOT

                          Flagstaff MPO                 MPO

                          Mountain Line Transit/ VanGO  Transit provider
                          Paratransit                   

  **Brownsville**         TXDOT                         State DOT

                          Brownsville MPO               MPO

                          Brownsville Urban System      Transit provider

  **Houston**             TXDOT                         State DOT

                          Galveston Area Council        MPO

                          Metro                         Transit provider

  **Lafayette**           Louisiana DOT                 State DOT

                          Lafayette Transit System      Transit provider

  **Pine Bluff**          Arkansas DOT                  State DOT

  ** **                   Southeast Arkansas Regional   MPO
                          Planning Commission           

                          Pine Bluff Transit            Transit provider
  ----------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------

**List of Agencies Reviewed (Continued)**

  ----------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------
  **Region**              **Agency**                    **Type**

  **St. Louis**           Missouri DOT                  State DOT

  ** **                   Illinois DOT                  State DOT

  ** **                   East West Gateway Council of  MPO
                          Governments                   

                          Metro (Bi-State)              Transit provider

  **Chicago**             Illinois DOT                  State DOT

                          Indiana DOT                   State DOT

                          Wisconsin DOT                 State DOT

                          Southeastern Wisconsin        MPO
                          Regional Planning Commission  

                          Chicago Area Transportation   MPO
                          Study                         

                          Chicago Transit Authority     Transit provider

                          Metra                         Transit provider

                          City of Kenosha DOT           Transit provider

                          Lake County                   Transit provider

  **Atlanta**             Georgia DOT                   State DOT

  ** **                   Atlanta Regional Commission   MPO

                          Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid    Transit provider
                          Transit Authority             

                          Georgia Regional Transit      Transit provider
                          Authority                     

                          Cobb Community Transit        Transit provider

                          Gwinnett County Department of Transit provider
                          Transportation                

  **Albany**              Georgia DOT                   State DOT

  ** **                   City of Albany Planning and   MPO
                          Development Services          
                          Department                    

                          Albany Transit System         Transit provider

  **Pittsburgh**          Pennsylvania DOT              State DOT

  ** **                   Southwestern Pennsylvania     MPO
                          Commission                    

                          Port Authority of Allegheny   Transit provider
                          County                        

  **Miami**               Florida DOT                   State DOT

                          Miami Urbanized Area MPO      MPO

                          Miami-Dade Transit Agency     Transit provider
  ----------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------

**List of Agencies Reviewed (Continued)**

  ----------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------
  **Philadelphia**        Pennsylvania DOT              State DOT

  ** **                   Delaware Valley Regional      MPO
                          Planning Commission           

                          South Jersey Metropolitan     MPO
                          Planning Commission           

                          Southeastern Pennsylvania     Transit provider
                          Public Transit Authority      
                          (SEPTA)                       

                          New Jersey Transit            Transit provider

                          Delaware Transit Corporation  Transit provider

  **New York**            New York State DOT            State DOT

  ** **                   Connecticut DOT               State DOT

  ** **                   New Jersey DOT                State DOT

  ** **                   North Jersey Transportation   MPO
                          Planning Authority            

  ** **                   New York Metropolitan         MPO
                          Transportation Council        

                          MTA (Includes LIRR, MNR, and  Transit provider
                          NYCT)                         

                          New Jersey Transit            Transit provider

  **Boston**              Massachusetts DOT             State DOT

                          Boston MPO                    MPO

                          MBTA                          Transit provider

  **San Juan**            Departamento de               DOT/MPP
                          transportacion y obras        
                          publicas                      

                          METRO -- San Juan             Transit provider
  ----------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------

> []{#VConclusionsandRecommen .anchor}

[^1]: As noted in the Department of Homeland Security's Nationwide Plan
    Review, published in June 2006, no singular definition of the term
    "special needs" exists although the term is widely used within the
    emergency management world. The term "special needs" generally
    includes people with disabilities, minority groups, people who do
    not speak English, children, and the elderly as well as people who
    live in poverty, people without private transportation, people who
    rely on caregivers for assistance, and people who live in facilities
    such as nursing homes and supervised group homes as well as people
    living independently. This report focuses on a subset of this larger
    population of persons who may have specific needs in an emergency.

[^2]: Detailed accounts of the impacts of and government action before,
    during, and after Hurricane Katrina can be found in reports
    published by the White House, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland
    Security and Government Affairs, and the U.S. House of
    Representatives Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the
    Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina.

[^3]: *Survey of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees*, the Washington Post/Kaiser
    Family Foundation/Harvard University, September 2005.

[^4]: The U.S. DOT Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Assessment
    describes minimal disaster response efforts to help evacuate the
    Spanish-speaking community of the Gulf Coast.

[^5]: *Katrina's Window: Confronting Concentrated Poverty Across
    America*, by Alan Berube and Bruce Katz, the Brookings Institution,
    October 2005.

[^6]: For the purposes of this study, "minority" means a person who is:
    (1) Black (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups
    of Africa); (2) Hispanic (a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,
    Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin,
    regardless of race); (3) Asian American (a person having origins in
    any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the
    Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands); or (4) American Indian
    and Alaskan Native (a person having origins in any of the original
    people of North America and who maintains cultural identification
    through tribal affiliation or community recognition).

[^7]: The New York Academy of Medicine's *Redefining Readiness* included
    a nationwide survey in which participants were given scenarios of a
    smallpox outbreak and a dirty bomb explosion in their communities
    and asked how they would respond. In response to the smallpox
    outbreak scenario, 41% of survey respondents said they were worried
    that government officials would tell them to do something that is
    not in their best interests and/or that government officials would
    decide to do something that the government knew would harm them in
    some way. These concerns were more prevalent among people who are
    Hispanic (61%), African American (57%), foreign born (55%), have low
    incomes (51%), or did not attend college (51%) and these concerns
    would make 26% of the population afraid to go to a vaccination site
    in the scenario.

[^8]: Low income is defined in the U.S. DOT Order on Environmental
    Justice, and for the purposes of this study, as a person whose
    median household income is at or below the Department of Health and
    Human Services poverty guidelines.

[^9]: The U.S. DOT Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients'
    Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons states
    that individuals who do not speak English as their native language
    and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand
    English can be limited English proficient. This report categorized
    as LEP persons who reported to the 2000 census that English was not
    their native language and that they spoke English less than "very
    well."

[^10]: The data on zero-vehicle households featured in this report are
    derived from the "vehicles available" question on the 2000 census
    long form.

[^11]: This study did not examine the programs, policies, or activities
    of providers of school bus, charter bus, or intercity bus
    transportation or intercity rail transportation, although these
    entities have been and continue to be involved in emergency
    preparedness and disaster response activities.

[^12]: FTA did not seek to obtain information for every transit agency
    serving each of the 20 metropolitan areas. In large metropolitan
    areas, such as the San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York regions,
    this study sought information from agencies that served the areas
    within the region with high proportions of the study's focus
    populations.

[^13]: An inventory of natural and man-made disasters in each
    metropolitan area was compiled by accessing information on the
    National Climatic Data Center "Billion Dollar Weather Disasters"
    website at <http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html>.
    These data were cross-referenced with the disasters listed on FEMA's
    disaster website at <http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema>.
    Information on past and potential man-made disasters was complied
    through web and Wikipedia searches and by the NRC's list of nuclear
    facilities in each state.

[^14]: The relationship between urban environmental depravation and
    mortality during a natural disaster is discussed in *Heat Wave: A
    Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago*, by Eric Klinenberg. *Heat
    Wave* describes the characteristics of Chicago neighborhoods whose
    residents experienced a disproportionately high number of
    heat-related deaths in the 1994 heat wave. The Chicago community
    areas with the highest heat-related mortality rates also included
    high rates of elderly individuals living alone, high crime rates,
    and high proportions of people living in poverty.

[^15]: Sources: National Climatic Data Center "Billion Dollar Weather
    Disasters" website at
    <http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html> and FEMA's
    disaster website at <http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema>.