chrCity of Fresno Department of
Transportation/Fresno Area Express
Title VI Service Equity Analysis
June 2023
Prepared By:
1 Table of Contents
Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Relevant Policies ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Proposed Changes......................................................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Public Participation & Outreach ............................................................................................... 4 Service Equity Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 5 Data Sources ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Major Service Change Analysis ................................................................................................................. 9 Geographic/Population Analysis ............................................................................................................. 10 Ridership Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 12 Recommended Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................... 13
2 Overview
In compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires all transit agencies that receive federal funding to monitor the performance of their systems, ensuring services are made available and/or distributed equitably. One component of ensuring compliance is performing an equity analysis for all fare changes and any major service changes to determine its impact on minority (race, color, or national origin) and low-income populations.
Fresno Area Express (FAX) is the primary fixed-route transit operator in Fresno and is operated and administered by the City of Fresno, California. FAX has proposed changes to 4 of its routes.
This Title VI analysis will:
• Determine whether the proposed route changes constitute a major service change or not, • Evaluate how the proposed changes may impact low-income and minority populations, and • Identify strategies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any disproportionate burdens, disparate impacts, or any potentially negative outcomes.
Relevant Policies
This FAX service equity analysis was completed in accordance with FTA regulations outlined in FTA Circular 4702.1B, “Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients.” The circular requires this analysis to ensure or minimize any disparate impact on minority populations or disproportionate burden on low-income populations.
Disparate Impact Definition
Refers to a facially neutral policy or practice that disproportionately affects members of a group identified by race, color, or national origin, where the recipient’s policy or practice lacks a substantial legitimate justification and where there exists one or more alternatives that would serve the same legitimate objectives but with less disproportionate effect on the basis of race, color, or national origin. (FTA C 4702.1B, Chap. I-2)
Disproportionate Burden Definition
Refers to a neutral policy or practice that disproportionately affects low-income populations more than non-low-income populations. A finding of disproportionate burden requires the recipient to evaluate alternatives and mitigate burdens where practicable. (FTA C 4702.1B, Chap. I-2)
Each transit agency is responsible for establishing a threshold for what constitutes a “major” service change as well as what differential is considered a disparate impact or disproportionate burden.
Major Service Change
In 2022, FAX completed its Triennial Title VI Program. Per FAX’s Title VI policy, a major service change is any service change that:
• Adds or removes 25 percent or more of revenue miles on any route, or • Adds or removes 25 percent or more of revenue hours on any route. 3 Disparate Impact Policy
A disparate impact exists if a major service change, fare change, or fare media change requires a minority population to bear adverse effects by 20 percent or more than the adverse effects borne by the general population in the affected area.
Disproportionate Burden Policy
A disproportionate burden exists if a major service change, fare change, or fare media change requires a low-income population to bear adverse effects by 20 percent or more than the adverse effects borne by the general population in the affected area.
FAX has also recently completed four other Title VI analyses, including for a series of service changes in 2020, an analysis of a fare reduction in 2021, an analysis of a pilot program consisting of free fares for Reduced Fare passengers subsidized by Kaiser in 2022, and an analysis of reduced fares for students in 2022. This Title VI analysis will apply Title VI policies in a manner consistent with these earlier analyses.
Proposed Changes
FAX is continually evaluating its service to improve efficiency and optimize resources. FAX has proposed changes to four routes. Table 1 summarizes the proposed service changes. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show FAX’s network before and after the proposed changes, respectively.
Table 1: Summary of Proposed Service Changes
Route Description of Revised Service Origin and Destination of Revised Service
Route 3 Increase frequency from every 45
minutes to every 30 minutes
N/A
Route 20 Increase frequency from every 45
minutes to every 30 minutes
N/A
Route 34 Increase frequency from every 20
minutes to every 15 minutes; Extend the
southern end of the route to the North
Pointe Business Park, including the IRS,
Amazon, Ulta, and other businesses
From East Jensen Ave
and South Cherry Ave to
South Orange Ave and
East Central Ave
Route 45 Increase frequency from every 45
minutes to every 30 minutes; Extend the
western end of the route to serve Harvest
Elementary School, Glacier Point Middle
School, and Justin Garza High School
From North Polk Ave
and West Ashlan Ave to
North Bryan Ave and
West Gettysburg Ave
4 Figure 1: Existing Network
Figure 2: Proposed Network. New Coverage is Highlighted in Yellow.
5 Summary of Public Participation & Outreach
To collect community feedback on the proposed service changes, FAX held a series of outreach events in May 2022 and August 2022. The May outreach events, which focused on the proposed changes to Routes 3, 20, and 45, consisted of five workshops, one of which was virtual, and six informal pop-up events at bus stops throughout the system. The August outreach events focused on the proposed changes to Route 34, and consisted of three workshops, one of which was virtual. Information about the proposed changes, as well as information about the workshops were placed on the FAX website. Flyers advertising the workshops in English and Spanish were placed at bus stops, on buses, on social media, and in the FAX newsletter. Appendix A includes the public outreach materials produced for these proposed changes.
Service Equity Analysis
The service equity analysis has three key parts:
• First, proposed service changes are analyzed to determine if those changes meet the major service change threshold as defined by FAX’s Title VI policy. • If any of the proposed service changes meet the major service change threshold, then the proposed route changes are analyzed to determine if those changes create a disparate impact or disproportionate burden according to FAX’s Title VI policy. • If a disparate impact or disproportionate burden is found, then mitigation measures will be recommended for the proposed service changes so that they no longer create a disparate impact or disproportionate burden.
Figure 3 illustrates FAX’s service equity analysis process. Because of the combination of proposed changes, FAX determined analyzing all proposed changes, regardless of if they meet policy thresholds, would provide consistent information for the decision-making process related to the proposed network changes.
6 Figure 3: Service Equity Analysis Process
As outlined in the FTA Circular, transit agencies should analyze available data for the general population (U.S. Census or American Community Survey data) or data specific to system ridership (survey data). To provide the most comprehensive findings, both population and ridership data were analyzed and are summarized in this document. (Care was taken not to “mix and match” in comparative analysis—always comparing ridership to ridership and population to population, as noted in FTA C 4702.1B, Chap. IV-15.) Data Sources
Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) and the 2022 FAX Customer Satisfaction Survey were used to perform the Title VI analysis.
American Community Survey
2021 ACS five-year estimates provide census block group-level population data for the geography-based analysis. The following tables were used in this analysis:
• C17002: Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months • B03002: Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race
FAX defines low-income as at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty line. Individuals who reported in the ACS that their income over the previous 12 months fell below 150 percent of the federal poverty line were defined as low-income for the geographic analysis.
7 For purposes of this analysis, the following origin by race categories are defined as minority:
• Black or African American alone
• American Indian or Alaska Native alone
• Asian alone
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone
• Hispanic or Latino
• “Other” race alone
• Two or more races
2022 FAX Customer Satisfaction Survey
The following questions from the 2022 Customer Satisfaction Survey were analyzed for the service equity analysis:
• Route: What is the bus route number that you are on? (Blank space for entering a number.) • Demographics, Ethnicity: Which of the following most closely describes your ethnic background? (1) Hispanic, (2) White/Caucasian, (3) African American/Black, (4) Asian/Southeast Asian- please specify national origin or Asian ethnic group, (5) American Indian, (6) Pacific Islander, (7) Middle Easterner, (8) other/please specify. • Demographics, Household Size: Including yourself, how many people live in your household? (Blank space for entering a number.)
• Demographics, Income: Which of the following categories best describes your total household income in 2013, before taxes? (1) less than $10,000 per year, (2) $10,000 to $19,999, (3) $20,000 to $29,999, (4) $30,000 to $39,999, (5) $40,000 to $49,999, (6) $50,000 to $74,999, (7) $75,000 to $99,999 per year, (8) $100,000 or more per year.
All respondents who indicated a race/ethnicity other than Non-Hispanic White/Caucasian were considered a minority for purposes of this analysis. If a respondent indicated more than one race/ethnicity, they were considered a minority. Furthermore, if a respondent indicated “other,” they were considered a minority. Records where the respondent did not answer the race/ethnicity question were excluded from the disparate impact analysis, as their minority status could not be determined.1 FAX’s definition of low-income is any person whose median household income is at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty line. The federal poverty guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services were used as the basis for determining low-income status. See Table 2.
Utilizing the survey questions related to household income and number of persons per household, each survey respondent was coded as low-income (below 150 percent of the poverty line) or non-low-income (above 150 percent of the poverty line) according to
1 If these respondents did not answer the race/ethnicity question but did answer the questions related to household size and income, they were still included in the disproportionate burden analysis. The FTA directs recipients to analyze disparate impact and disproportionate burden separately. 8 Table 3, below. For ranges where a significant portion of the range fell below 150 percent poverty line, the entire range was classified as low-income/”below” to ensure no low-income individuals were mistakenly classified as non-low-income. Households with 13 or more members making more than $100,000 were considered low-income for the same reason.
Table 2: 2022 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and D.C.
Persons in
Family/Household
Poverty
Guideline
150 Percent of
Poverty Guideline
1 $13,590 $20,385
2 $18,310 $27,465
3 $23,030 $34,545
4 $27,750 $41,625
5 $32,470 $48,705
6 $37,190 $55,785
7 $41,910 $62,865
8 $46,630 $69,945
9 $51,350 $77,025
10 56,070 $84,105
11 $60,790 $91,185
12 $65,510 $98,265
13 $70,230 $105,345
14 $74,950 $112,425
9 Table 3: Low-Income Status by 2018 FAX Customer Satisfaction Survey Categories (Below or Above 150 Percent of Federal Poverty Guideline)
Reported Annual Household Income in 2022
Persons in
Household
Less than
$10,000
$10,000 -
$19,999
$20,000 -
$29,999
$30,000 -
$39,999
$40,000 -
$49,999
$50,000 -
$74,999
$75,000 -
$99,999
$100,000
or More
1 Below Below Below Above Above Above Above Above
2 Below Below Below Above Above Above Above Above
3 Below Below Below Below Above Above Above Above
4 Below Below Below Below Below Above Above Above
5 Below Below Below Below Below Above Above Above
6 Below Below Below Below Below Below Above Above
7 Below Below Below Below Below Below Above Above
8 Below Below Below Below Below Below Above Above
9 Below Below Below Below Below Below Below Above
10 Below Below Below Below Below Below Below Above
11 Below Below Below Below Below Below Below Above
12 Below Below Below Below Below Below Below Above
13 Below Below Below Below Below Below Below Below
14 Below Below Below Below Below Below Below Below
Major Service Change Analysis
The first step in determining if the proposed service changes would cause a disparate impact or disproportionate burden is determining which proposed changes, if any, constitute a major service change under Fresno’s policy. To do so, revenue miles and revenue hours were compared for each route in the existing and proposed network. See Table 4. Routes with a 25 percent or greater change in revenue miles or revenue hours from the existing network to the proposed network are considered major service changes.
Table 4: Change in Revenue Hours and Revenue Miles, Existing and Proposed Revenue Hours (Annual) Revenue Miles (Annual)
Route Existing Proposed
Percent
Change Existing Proposed
Percent
Change
Major
Change?
3 16,360 25,463 55.6% 208,686 321,297 54.0% Yes
20 12,912 20,539 59.1% 172,895 250,465 44.9% Yes
34 32,327 48,584 50.3% 380,522 553,757 45.5% Yes
45 13,121 24,406 86.0% 182,731 310,037 69.7% Yes
Every proposed change qualifies as a major service change due to a greater than 25 percent increase in revenue hours and/or revenue miles. Because each proposed change exceeds the major service change threshold, analysis is provided for all proposed changes. 10 Geographic/Population Analysis
This report summarizes two layers of analysis. The first layer considers the population living within ¼ mile of FAX system bus stops. There are two parts to this first layer of analysis. First, the percent of minority and low-income populations along current routes with proposed changes are compared against the system-wide percentages of minority and low-income populations. This identifies which routes are considered “minority routes” or “low-income routes.” Typically, only minority and low-income routes would be considered for further analysis. In this case, all routes will receive additional analysis. The second step is to compare the difference in the minority share of population between the existing and proposed route. If the difference is 20 percentage points greater than the difference for non-minorities, this indicates a disparate impact. For example, say the demographic makeup of existing Route A is 78 percent minority and the makeup of proposed Route A is 50 percent minority. The minority population with access to that route has decreased by 28 percentage points, while, conversely, non-minority access has increased by 28 percentage points. This exceeds the 20 percent threshold for a disparate impact, indicating some mitigation might be required. Results of this analysis are summarized in Table 5 and the analysis was repeated for low-income populations, as shown in Existing Proposed Difference
Route
Total
Population
within ¼
mile
Percent
Minority
Total
Population
within ¼ mile
Percent
Minority
Percentage
Point Change
Minority
Disparate
Impact
3 33,384 56.0% 33,384 56.2% 0.2% No
20 69,319 76.0% 69,319 76.0% 0.0% No
34 59,978 76.9% 62,623 76.8% -0.1% No
45 54,238 74.3% 54,045 74.3% 0.0% No
System Total 371,108 76.3% 379,671 76.3% 0.0% No
Table 6.
Table 5: Population within ¼ Mile of FAX Stop by Minority Status, Existing and Proposed Existing Proposed Difference
Route
Total
Population
within ¼
mile
Percent
Minority
Total
Population
within ¼ mile
Percent
Minority
Percentage
Point Change
Minority
Disparate
Impact
3 33,384 56.0% 33,384 56.2% 0.2% No
20 69,319 76.0% 69,319 76.0% 0.0% No
34 59,978 76.9% 62,623 76.8% -0.1% No
45 54,238 74.3% 54,045 74.3% 0.0% No
System Total 371,108 76.3% 379,671 76.3% 0.0% No
Table 6: Population within ¼ Mile of FAX Stop by Income Status, Existing and Proposed Existing Proposed Difference
11 Route
Total
Population
within ¼
mile
Percent
Low-
income
Total
Population
within ¼ mile
Percent
Low-
Income
Percentage
Point Change
Low-Income
Disproportionate
Burden
3 33,384 15.4% 33,384 15.7% 0.3% No
20 69,319 36.2% 69,319 36.2% 0.0% No
34 59,978 43.5% 62,623 43.5% 0.0% No
45 54,238 37.0% 54,045 37.0% 0.0% No
System Total 371,108 40.3% 379,671 40.2% -0.1% No
Route 3
Increasing service frequency on Route 3 meets the major service change threshold. Additionally, the percentage of minority individuals living within ¼ mile of Route 3 stops is significantly smaller than that of the existing system-wide percentage. However, because the proposed change is a service improvement and the percent of minority individuals with access within ¼ mile to the route increases, there is no disparate impact, and no mitigation measures need to be considered.
The percentage of low-income individuals living within ¼ mile of the proposed Route 3 stops is also significantly smaller than the existing system-wide percentage. As the difference is greater than 20 percent, the proposed addition therefore meets the disproportionate burden threshold. Similarly, however, because the proposed change is a service improvement and the percent of low-income individuals with access within ¼ mile to the route increases, there is no disparate impact, and no mitigation measures need to be considered.
Route 20
The increase of service frequency of Route 20 meets the major service change threshold. The population living within ¼ mile of existing stops has a slightly smaller percentage of minority individuals than the system-wide average, and that percentage does not change under the proposed network. As a result, and because the changes to Route 20 are a service improvement, there is no disparate impact, and no mitigation measures need to be considered.
The percentage of low-income individuals living within ¼ mile of Route 20 stops is slightly lower than the system-wide average. However, the proposed network does not affect that percentage. As a result, there is no disproportionate burden, and no mitigation measures need to be considered.
Route 34
The increase in service frequency and addition of new coverage on Route 34 meets the major service change threshold. The percentage of minority individuals living within ¼ mile of Route 34 is slightly above the system-wide average, and there is only a 0.1 percentage point decrease in the percent of minority individuals who have access to the route. The changes to Route 34 also represent an increase in coverage, meaning the changes are a service improvement. As a result, there is no disparate impact, and no mitigation measures need to be considered.
The percentage of low-income individuals living within ¼ mile is slightly above the system-wide average.
This proposed alignment change has no impact on the percent of low-income individuals who have access within ¼ mile to Route 34 stops. As a result, there is no disproportionate burden, and no mitigation measures need to be considered.
12 Route 45
The addition of new coverage on Route 45 meets the major service change threshold. The proportion of minority individuals living within ¼ mile of Route 45 is slightly less than the system-wide average, and there is no change in that share under the proposed network. However, these changes can be classified as a service improvement because there is an increase in coverage on the route. As a result, there is no disparate impact, and no mitigation measures need to be considered.
The percentage of low-income individuals living within ¼ mile of Route 45 is slightly below the system- wide average, and the proposed changes do not change that percentage. As a result, there is no disproportionate burden, and no mitigation measures need to be considered.
13 Ridership Analysis
The second layer of analysis considers FAX ridership based on the demographic information gathered through the 2022 Customer Satisfaction Survey. To consider known FAX riders specifically, rather than the population that merely could be using FAX due to geographic proximity, the most recent customer satisfaction survey was also analyzed for impacts. The purpose of considering this data is to determine if there are any routes that were not identified as minority or low-income routes based on geographic population analysis but have above-average minority or low-income ridership (Part 1 of the population analysis). Findings are summarized in Table 7. Highlighted cells indicate routes that are above the 20 precent threshold and cells with asterisks indicate very low response rates.
Table 7: Minority and Low-Income Ridership Shares by Route, Compared to System Total Minority Low-Income
Route
Percentage
Minority
System Avg %
Difference
Percentage Low-
Income
System Avg %
Difference
3 60.0%* -13.4% 75.0%* -4.1%
20 66.7% -6.7% 58.8%* -20.3%
34 76.9% 3.6% 82.7% 3.6%
45 44.4%* -28.9% 66.7%* -12.4%
System-Wide 73.4% 79.1%
Route 3
Similar to the ACS analysis, the percentage of minority riders on Route 3 is less than the percentage of minority riders, system wide. The percentage of low-income riders is also slightly lower on Route 3 than system-wide, but not significantly so, and remains quite high overall. As a result, there is no disparate impact or disproportionate burden, and no mitigation measures need to be considered.
Route 20
The percentage of minority riders on Route 20 is also below the system average, and the percentage of low-income riders is below average and breaks the 20% difference threshold. The differences in the case of low-income riders identifies a potential disproportionate burden, and mitigation measures need to be considered.
Route 34
The percentage of minority riders on Route 34 is slightly above average. The percentage of low-income riders is also above the system-wide average, although by significantly less than that of the disproportionate burden threshold. As a result, there is no disparate impact or disproportionate burden, and no mitigation measures need to be considered.
Route 45
The percentage of minority riders on Route 45 is below the system-wide percentage, by 28.9 percentage points, and the percentage of low-income riders is slightly below. The difference in the minority riders on Route 45 compared to the system average is more than enough to cross the 20% threshold. As this could indicate a disparate impact, mitigation measures need to be considered. 14 Alternative Remix Analysis
In addition to the usual analysis, FAX also conducted an analysis using the Remix Title VI tool. Remix’s Title VI tool looks at the overall impact of proposed changes by calculating annual person trips. For each route, the tool takes the number of low-income and minority individuals within a quarter mile before and after the proposed change, then multiplies those numbers by the number of trips on that route.
This method captures the difference in total amount of service available to minority and low-income populations and can catch some impacts in ways the usual analysis cannot. For example, a route that is moved to a less dense part of town may provide less service to minority and low-income populations, even if the percentage of minority and low-income populations remains the same.
Applying this analysis to the changes proposed by FAX shows that the proposed changes are not an impact. Even though a larger number of trips are being added to routes that have below average minority and low-income percentages, those additions are balanced by the fact that the total number of minority and low-income individuals that live within a quarter mile of improved service on Route 34 is much larger. The Remix Title VI Analysis can be seen in Appendix C.
Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are necessary; the proposed changes, when examined in context, do not suggest that the service changes as a whole cause a disparate impact or disproportionate burden.
Of the proposed changes, Route 20 was found to have potential disproportionate burdens based on the ridership analysis; it is an increase in service that disproportionately benefits non-low-income individuals. Route 45 was found to have potential disparate impacts because it is an increase in coverage for a route with high non-minority ridership. However, the results from the analyses suggest that the other proposed changes already mitigate the impacts of Routes 20 and 45, and that no additional mitigation measures are necessary. It is important to take these ridership numbers with a grain of salt because the survey response rate for some of the routes was incredibly low, as noted in the chart above.
The survey was taken in 2022, when ridership was still recovering from the COVID pandemic.
When looking at the geographic population analysis, it was found that the difference in percent of minority and low-income individuals between the existing and proposed networks overall is very small, a total decrease by 0.1%. While the Route 3 change increases service in areas with lower-than-average minority and low-income individual percentages, the increase in frequency on Route 34 expands service in areas that meet or exceed the system average for minority and low-income individuals. This route also serves a greater share of the total population within ¼ mile of FAX stops than Routes 3, 20, and 45 which helps to balance the impacts. In addition, Route 3 provides service to a number of medical facilities, a community college, and two regional shopping centers. Public outreach conducted when the route was originally introduced indicated that minority and low-income showed strong support for improved service to these areas, suggesting that although the route itself may not pass through neighborhoods with higher than average minority and low-income population, the route does provide connections to locations that minority and low-income riders feel are valuable.
The Route 34 change, for example expands route coverage to an Amazon facility and other major employment sites. This route provides access to jobs for an area with an above average share of minority and low-income individuals. Additionally, the route is above average for the share of minority and low-income riders that use the route.
In addition, the analysis done using the Remix Title VI tool also shows that, while much of the increased service is concentrated in areas that are more likely to be non-minority and non-low income, that 15 increased service is balanced by the additional service on Route 34. With this context along with the analysis, the combined impact of the service changes does not cause a disparate impact or disproportionate burden.
16 Appendix A: Community Outreach Materials
Figure 4: Flyer for May Workshops
17 Figure 5: Flyer for August Workshops
18 Figure 6: Excerpt from April 2022 Newsletter (continues on following page)
19 20
Appendix B: Route Maps
Figure 7: Route 3 Current
Figure 8: Route 3 Proposed
21 Figure 9: Route 20 Current
22 Figure 10: Route 20 Proposed
23 Figure 11: Route 34 Current
24 Figure 12: Route 34 Proposed
25 Figure 13: Route 45 Current
26 Figure 14: Route 45 Proposed
Appendix C: Alternative Remix Analysis
Route Name
Population
(within 1/4
mi)
Low
Income Minority
Trips
(Annually
)
Population
(within 1/4
mi)
Low
Income Minority
Trips
(Annually
)
Population
(within 1/4
mi)
Low
Income Minority
Trips
(Annually
)
Population
(within 1/4
mi)
Low
Income Minority
Trips
(Annually
)
People-Trips
(Population * Trips)
Low Income
People-Trips
Minority People-
Trips
Change Borne
By Low
Income
Change
Borne by
Minorities
1 Fax Q (A) 29,112 48.8% 80.8% 26,101 29,703 49.2% 81.5% 25,486 29,112 48.8% 80.8% 26,101 29,703 49.2% 81.5% 25,486 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 Fax Q (B) 14,737 58.0% 88.4% 978 0 0 14,737 58.0% 88.4% 978 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 Fax Q (C) 0 0 16,344 41.7% 74.2% 726 0 0 16,344 41.7% 74.2% 726 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 3 Herndon 16,843 15.6% 55.2% 7,068 16,541 15.3% 56.8% 7,320 0 0 0 0 -240,126,444 -37,036,436 -134,455,332 15.4% 56.0% 3 Herndon (Proposed) 0 0 0 0 16,843 15.8% 55.5% 10,365 16,541 15.5% 56.9% 10,365 346,025,160 54,212,532 194,340,225 15.7% 56.2% 9 Shaw (A) 21,532 36.2% 67.3% 9,565 24,192 34.7% 65.9% 9,676 21,532 36.2% 67.3% 9,565 24,192 34.7% 65.9% 9,676 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 9 Shaw (B) 25,835 35.9% 67.1% 8,217 24,723 36.3% 66.7% 8,469 25,835 35.9% 67.1% 8,217 24,723 36.3% 66.7% 8,469 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 12 Brawley / Inspiration Park 9,599 40.8% 83.4% 11,091 10,606 38.4% 80.9% 10,980 9,599 40.8% 83.4% 11,091 10,606 38.4% 80.9% 10,980 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 20 Hughes / Mckinley 34,114 37.6% 76.1% 7,320 35,205 34.8% 76.0% 7,320 0 0 0 0 -507,415,080 -183,518,890 -385,873,800 36.2% 76.0% 20 Hughes / Mckinley (Proposed) 0 0 0 0 34,114 37.6% 76.1% 10,617 35,205 34.8% 76.0% 10,617 735,959,823 266,177,603 559,675,155 36.2% 76.0% 22 West Ave / Tulare (A) 46,663 43.9% 78.5% 8,490 50,026 41.6% 76.2% 9,105 46,663 43.9% 78.5% 8,490 50,026 41.6% 76.2% 9,105 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 22 West Ave / Tulare (B) 26,941 40.5% 72.5% 504 30,557 37.3% 69.5% 837 26,941 40.5% 72.5% 504 30,557 37.3% 69.5% 837 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 22 West Ave / Tulare (C) 21,539 48.9% 85.7% 474 0 0 21,539 48.9% 85.7% 474 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 22 West Ave / Tulare (D) 24,854 44.3% 84.2% 252 21,513 48.5% 85.7% 504 24,854 44.3% 84.2% 252 21,513 48.5% 85.7% 504 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 22 West Ave / Tulare (E) 49,978 42.1% 78.2% 756 0 0 49,978 42.1% 78.2% 756 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 22 West Ave / Tulare (F) 0 0 21,103 33.5% 67.7% 252 0 0 21,103 33.5% 67.7% 252 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 26 Palm / Butler (A) 45,413 41.1% 73.7% 8,883 44,861 41.6% 74.1% 9,246 45,413 41.1% 73.7% 8,883 44,838 41.6% 74.1% 9,246 -212,658 -88,637 -184,920 41.7% 87.0% 26 Palm / Butler (B) 23,099 31.1% 61.0% 978 23,720 32.9% 62.1% 726 23,099 31.1% 61.0% 978 23,696 32.9% 62.0% 726 -17,424 -8,537 -14,520 49.0% 83.3% 26 Palm / Butler (C) 24,121 51.1% 86.0% 726 23,184 50.9% 86.5% 615 24,121 51.1% 86.0% 726 23,184 50.9% 86.5% 615 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 28 Dss / Manchester / West Fresno (A) 30,610 44.1% 75.8% 14,115 29,369 43.9% 75.5% 14,145 30,610 44.1% 75.8% 14,115 29,369 43.9% 75.5% 14,145 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 28 Dss / Manchester / West Fresno (B) 14,423 41.4% 66.2% 452 13,885 41.7% 68.4% 502 14,423 41.4% 66.2% 452 13,885 41.7% 68.4% 502 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 28 Dss / Manchester / West Fresno (C) 6,070 48.4% 93.1% 978 0 0 6,070 48.4% 93.1% 978 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 28 Dss / Manchester / West Fresno (D) 0 0 23,473 42.7% 72.5% 615 0 0 23,473 42.7% 72.5% 615 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 28 Dss / Manchester / West Fresno (E) 0 0 19,782 43.9% 74.0% 302 0 0 19,782 43.9% 74.0% 302 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 32 Fresno St (A) 33,893 47.9% 79.4% 10,224 34,481 46.5% 78.8% 10,365 33,893 47.9% 79.4% 10,224 34,481 46.5% 78.8% 10,365 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 32 Fresno St (B) 10,619 63.6% 89.8% 1,178 10,241 62.8% 89.6% 804 10,619 63.6% 89.8% 1,178 10,241 62.8% 89.6% 804 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 32 Fresno St (C) 0 0 26,082 41.2% 74.3% 474 0 0 26,082 41.2% 74.3% 474 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 33 Belmont 21,014 59.5% 90.6% 8,136 20,170 59.9% 90.1% 8,025 21,014 59.5% 90.6% 8,136 20,170 59.9% 90.1% 8,025 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 34 First Street (A) 37,865 43.4% 76.9% 13,248 38,115 43.7% 76.9% 12,885 0 0 0 0 -992,747,295 -432,106,959 -763,231,683 43.5% 76.9% 34 First Street (B) 7,887 62.7% 86.6% 978 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7,713,486 -4,839,713 -6,678,762 62.7% 86.6% 34 First Street (C) 0 0 32,205 39.7% 74.4% 726 0 0 0 0 -23,380,830 -9,292,144 -17,401,494 39.7% 74.4% 34 First Street (Proposed) (A) 0 0 0 0 37,738 43.3% 76.8% 16,020 38,115 43.7% 76.9% 15,657 1,201,329,315 522,339,651 923,184,831 43.5% 76.8% 34 First Street (Proposed) (B) 0 0 0 0 7,887 62.7% 86.6% 978 0 0 7,713,486 4,839,713 6,678,762 62.7% 86.6% 34 First Street (Proposed) (C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,205 39.7% 74.4% 726 23,380,830 9,292,144 17,401,494 39.7% 74.4% 35 Olive 30,357 48.5% 85.7% 10,728 31,595 47.9% 85.3% 10,728 30,248 48.4% 85.7% 10,728 31,595 47.9% 85.3% 10,728 -1,169,352 -719,310 -1,051,344 61.5% 89.9% 38 Cedar (A) 52,745 44.9% 78.8% 16,524 52,357 45.0% 78.9% 16,272 52,800 44.9% 78.8% 16,524 52,382 45.0% 78.9% 16,272 1,315,620 660,738 1,183,932 50.2% 90.0% 38 Cedar (B) 27,709 48.8% 85.3% 754 29,202 48.5% 84.5% 452 27,709 48.8% 85.3% 754 29,202 48.5% 84.5% 452 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 38 Cedar (C) 0 0 40,410 51.3% 86.1% 50 0 0 40,410 51.3% 86.1% 50 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 39 Fyi / Clinton 26,766 42.5% 78.5% 9,357 26,816 41.7% 79.1% 10,113 26,766 42.5% 78.5% 9,357 26,816 41.7% 79.1% 10,113 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 41 Malaga / Shields / Chestnut (A) 54,100 45.2% 83.0% 9,609 55,744 45.0% 82.8% 9,357 54,100 45.2% 83.0% 9,609 55,744 45.0% 82.8% 9,357 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 41 Malaga / Shields / Chestnut (B) 20,155 39.8% 76.3% 504 0 0 20,155 39.8% 76.3% 504 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 41 Malaga / Shields / Chestnut (C) 0 0 14,140 43.3% 82.6% 504 0 0 14,140 43.3% 82.6% 504 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 41 Malaga / Shields / Chestnut (D) 0 0 35,339 47.9% 86.5% 252 0 0 35,339 47.9% 86.5% 252 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 45 Ashlan 27,317 37.3% 74.5% 6,816 26,921 36.7% 74.1% 7,068 -376,470,300 -139,307,131 -279,703,368 37.0% 74.3% 45 Ashlan (Proposed) 0 0 0 0 27,124 37.3% 74.4% 9,861 26,921 36.7% 74.1% 9,861 532,937,745 197,199,832 395,751,513 37.0% 74.3% 58 Ne Fresno 8,370 14.0% 53.4% 3,912 9,631 13.0% 53.5% 3,912 8,370 14.0% 53.4% 3,912 9,631 13.0% 53.5% 3,912 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 58E E Childrens Hospital 1,578 29.5% 69.4% 3,801 1,738 32.3% 71.9% 3,801 1,578 29.5% 69.4% 3,801 1,801 32.9% 72.5% 3,801 239,463 114,276 212,856 47.7% 88.9% All Changes (both directions) 371,108 40.3% 76.3% 405,331 380,394 40.2% 76.3% 429,649 699,648,573 247,918,730 509,833,545 35.4% 72.9% Low Income Minority
Change Borne By35.4% 72.9%
Area Average 34.5% 72.8%
Delta 0.9% 0.0%
Before (Inbound) Before (Outbound) After (Inbound) After (Outbound) Difference