Environmental Justice Tookit - Baltimore Regional Environmental Justice In Transportation Project

Environmental Justice Toolkit Phase II of the Baltimore Region Environmental Justice in Transportation Project

Prepared for The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in Conjunction with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Cooperative Agreement XA-83085801-3 Contract DTF1161-06-P-00106

2008

Project Director and Principle Investigator Glenn Robinson Research Scientist, School of Engineering, Morgan State University Sponsor Baltimore Metropolitan Council – Transportation Planning Division

Institutional Support School of Engineering and Institute for Urban Research, Morgan State University Greater Baltimore Urban League Environmental Justice Partnership, Inc Johns Hopkins Center in Urban Environmental Health Ohio State University - School of Public Health

Community Support Miss Morton (Kirk Ave.) Sister Jean, St. Ann’s Church (Kirk Ave. Bus Depot) Art Cohen, Morgan State University (Historian, Highway to Nowhere) Shirley Folks, Cherry Hill Public Housing Tenants Association Diane Jones, Assistant Professor - Institute of Architecture and Planning, Morgan State University Ruth Pitts, Cherry Hill Public Housing Tenants Association Leon Purnell, Executive Director – The Men’s Center Zelda Robinson, President - Westside Baltimore Coalition Angela Wilkins, Graduate Research Assistant, Planning, Morgan State University (Cherry Hill)

Oversight Committee Tony Brown, Maryland Transit Administration Don Chen, Smart Growth America Richard Lloyd, Morgan State University Michael Mazepink, Peoples Homesteading Group Dorothy Morrison, Maryland Department of the Environment Paul Oberle, Maryland Department of Transportation Carol Payne, Department of Housing and Urban Development Dan Pontious, Citizens Planning and Housing Association Andrew Sawyer, Maryland Department of the Environment Scot Spencer, Annie E. Casey Foundation Rich Stoltz, Center for Community Change Filling The Gap Define it! Prioritize it! Analyze it! Evaluate it! Document it! 2

Acknowledgments

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the four community groups for their fine work, the support they gave to this research, as well as their willingness to continue to share their experience with us and with other communities. We wish them the best as they strive to ensure accessible, affordable and reliable transportation for people with disabilities, low incomes and others in their communities. Also, we wish to express our appreciation to federal representatives for their support as well, this includes: Victor McMahan (EPA), Sherry Ways (FHWA), and Gloria Shepherd (FHWA). A note of thanks to an early contributor to this project, Rick Kuzmyak, is also warranted.

i

Table of Contents Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................................................................................i Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................................................iii About this Toolkit ......................................................................................................................................................................iv Chapter 1 ▪ Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................1 Environmental Justice and Transportation..................................................................................................1 What is the Problem? Symptoms of Environmental Injustice......................................................................1 Who are the Key-Players? EJT Stakeholders................................................................................................3 Chapter 2 ▪ A Framework for Addressing EJT Concerns.............................................................................................5 The Triage Process.......................................................................................................................................7 Phase 1: Community-Driven Intergovernmental Engagement and Cooperation.........................................9 Phase 2: Community Assessment and Citizen Input..................................................................................10 Phase 3: Information Gathering and Analysis............................................................................................15 Phase 4: Developing a Community Profile ................................................................................................15 Phase 5: Drill Down to Assess the EJT Issues..............................................................................................16 Phase 6: Being Heard (Communicating).....................................................................................................17 Demographic Profile..................................................................................................................................19 Do Your Due Diligence...............................................................................................................................22 EJ Evaluation of Transportation Plans (Performance-Measures)...............................................................22 Land-Use Impacts......................................................................................................................................23 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional..........................................................................................................24 Revaluation................................................................................................................................................24 Public Health Risk.......................................................................................................................................25 Chapter 5 ▪ The Baltimore Experience............................................................................................................................30 Case Study Report: Kirk Avenue Bus Yard..................................................................................................31 Case Study Report: Cherry Hill Issues.........................................................................................................33 Case Study Report: Lexington Market........................................................................................................35 Case Study Report: US 40 Highway-to-Nowhere.......................................................................................37 Chapter 6 ▪ Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................................40 Appendix A: Literature Review...........................................................................................................................................45 Appendix B: Glossary..............................................................................................................................................................68

ii

Executive Summary The Baltimore Region Environmental Justice in Transportation Project (BREJT) is a collaborative effort between the Morgan State University School of Engineering and the Institute for Urban Research, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, John Hopkins Bloomberg Center for Urban Environmental Health, the Greater Baltimore Urban League, and the Environmental Justice Partnership, Inc. The second of two EJ efforts, is sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to provide a systematic process for the integration of environmental justice (EJ) into the transportation decision-making process since there is no such approach currently in place. BREJT’s goals are to advance the integration of EJ into the metropolitan planning process and to help low-income and minority communities and their planning agents better understand and more effectively deal with a wide range of urban transportation issues and problems. Since 2003, BREJT has been listening to low-income and minority communities describe the impacts of transportation on their environment and in their lives. BREJT utilized community stakeholders to identify local concerns and potential remedies. The EJ toolkit was developed to address these issues and to encourage government and communities to better work together to achieve sound solutions when addressing EJ concerns related to transportation. It is a vehicle for addressing community-based concerns through an informed public involvement process that is credibly responsive to public input particularly from low-income and minority communities. The toolkit provides a contextual framework, analytical tools, evaluation criteria, and performance measures that can be used by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), communities, and other stakeholders to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the social, economic, or environmental consequences of the local, regional, and statewide transportation planning decisions. Case studies of four Baltimore communities—Kirk Avenue, Cherry Hill, US 40 Highway–toNowhere, and Lexington Market—are included to demonstrate the elements of EJ analysis. From the Baltimore experience the clear message is that when communities are motivated, well organized, and educated on the issues and options a sense of ownership is created that better influences the project selection outcomes.

iii

About this Toolkit This EJ toolkit is a guide to assist metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), communities, and other stakeholders avoid, minimize, or mitigate the social, economic, or environmental consequences of transportation projects and policies. It is designed to help determine the extent of environmental justice and transportation (EJT) issues in low-income and minority communities (EJ communities). This toolkit includes six chapters that provide a framework to better understand environmental justice (EJ) issues related to transportation projects (existing and new) and methods to define, analyze, evaluate and document such findings. Throughout the toolkit, examples of four Baltimore communities are used to demonstrate how tools can work to identify and reduce EJT concerns. Chapter 1 introduces EJ and its relevance to transportation. Common symptoms of environmental injustice and insight from the BREJT project are provided. Stakeholders and their roles in transportation projects are detailed. Chapter 2 explains the contextual framework for addressing EJT concerns. It also introduces the triage process created from the BREJT and instructs why and when to use it. Chapter 3 outlines the six phases of any EJT process that are helpful for engaging key-players in the decision making process. A community driven model frames EJT issues so local community groups and MPOs can successfully engage one another in the transportation process. Chapter 4 contains a “recipe” for intervention, information access and analysis. This chapter includes a description of the nuts and bolts of creating committees, generating plans, and identifying milestones for EJT analysis and evaluation. Chapter 5 presents case studies from four Baltimore communities where BREJT employed the strategies in this toolkit. Chapter 6 concludes the toolkit and provides reflection on the BREJT process and how improvements to EJT are possible.

iv

Chapter 1 ▪ Introduction Environmental Justice and Transportation Environmental Justice (EJ) ensures that all people—regardless of race, color, national origin, or income—are able to benefit from environmental protection. It is fundamentally about fairness toward the disadvantaged and often addresses the exclusion of the disabled and racial and ethnic minorities from decision-making processes. It is rooted in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that required the elimination of discrimination in federally-funded activities. The official regulatory introduction of EJ came about in 1994 with Executive Order 12898 entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations.” This executive order urged federal agencies to take more aggressive actions to eliminate inequities associated with the planning, operation and development of infrastructure improvements. The federal government has identified EJ as a critical element in the transportation planning process. The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration issued a joint memorandum in 1999 titled “Implementing Title VI Requirements in Metropolitan and Statewide Planning.” This affirmed that compliance with Title VI is required, and non-compliance would mean that all federal funding for the region could be withheld. Over time, the federal government has created increasingly specific requirements for non-discrimination and environmental protection, but states can decide how to implement them. If they do not follow these directives they risk losing their federal money, which is usually a sizable share of their transportation funding. The Department of Transportation (DOT) promotes the principles of EJ in its 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.1 While federal regulations now exist that identify principles of EJ, the legal system recognizes no universally accepted definition of EJ and its standing as an enforceable right has been tested through the court system with mixed outcomes. It has only been since 1997 that plaintiffs began winning EJ cases, which did not require proof of intent. As a result, planning organizations are obliged to treat EJ communities equally in terms of the opportunities afforded them for meaningful public participation—they should have opportunities equal to those of the most “important” stakeholders. Indicators such as travel time, accessibility, number of trips, emissions, noise, and congestion are but a few of the measures which can typically be used to discern whether government funded projects conform to existing law. What is the Problem? Symptoms of Environmental Injustice Environmental injustice occurs when vulnerable communities lose control of their surroundings. This happens to communities when they lose population, lose land value, when development 1

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, An Overview of Environmental Justice, Available online at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ej2000.htm

1

pressures lead to land-use changes, or when their voice is left out of decision-making processes. Often, environmental injustice is documented in communities where low income and minority residents rely on transportation systems and where there is a perception that system benefits are not fairly distributed. While it is possible for non-residents to observe environmental injustice, symptoms are often defined by community members and vary according to location. Noise, air quality, exposure to odors, and safety are among several potential environmental risks that are cited as concerns of citizen groups. Location matters because exposure to these problems varies according to community proximity; neighborhoods adjacent to an airport experience different concerns than those near a freeway. Citizens experience symptoms of transportation-related environmental injustice when they: •

Do not benefit from funding for improved accessibility, faster trips, and congestion relief;

•

Suffer disproportionately from poor transportation design: air pollution, noise, traffic congestion, crashes, etc.;

•

Have to pay more (higher transportation taxes or higher fares) than others in relation to the services that they receive;

•

Endure transportation designs that are not contextually sensitive to pedestrians, cyclists, and the disabled.

Identifying the symptoms of environmental injustice involves direct engagement between community leaders, advocacy groups, and citizens. In case studies performed in Baltimore, BREJT sponsored a community dialogue among low-income and minority participants that identified approximately 100 issues that influence EJ scenarios (Figure 1).2

Figure 1: Community Identified Issues

During the event, participants engaged one another in small group breakout sessions and revealed their concerns about environmental injustices they experience. Overall, the concerns cited were related to air pollution and congestion, access to jobs, access to health care, poor bus service, and fairness in transportation funding. 2

November 4, 2004, Community Dialogue, Morgan State University

2

Who are the Key-Players? EJT Stakeholders Stakeholders are the people, organizations, and agencies that have a reason to care about EJT problems. Some of these groups may be directly affected by a project, such that their standard of living is reduced or they experience negative health outcomes. Other groups may need to comply with local, state, or federal regulations. Regardless of the reason, there are several groups that have a stake in most EJT problems. Neighborhoods and Communities Every EJT problem includes a group of people directly affected by the outcome of a project. For instance, a bus depot or a new road may be built in close proximity to residential dwellings, causing unintended outcomes such that the residents are adversely affected. These neighborhoods and communities are often made up of low-income and minority residents. Historically, these groups rely heavily on transit and experience greater separation from jobs and other needed services and activities as patterns of growth and development favor the relocation of employers, shopping and health providers away from the center city to outlying areas. Much less is known about their discretionary travel patterns, which are important factors for better understanding needs and the rationalization of funding priorities. Local Government Agencies Cities and counties make decisions about transportation projects, including road construction, repair, and maintenance, streetscapes, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit lines. They work with other local jurisdictions to plan and prioritize transportation projects, yet they manage those that occur within their boundaries. Impacts to EJ communities are not always considered during the planning phase of projects. However, local politicians do participate in the planning process and should be contacted by their constituents on issues of concern as soon as possible. Transit Providers Transit providers operate and maintain bus, subway, rail, and other mobility services throughout local communities. Within any region, there may be several transit providers and they may be government entities or private corporations or a combination of the two. They work with state and local jurisdictions to identify optimal routes for their services. EJ communities often rely on transit but often get overlooked when decisions are made. For example, the Cherry Hill neighborhood in Baltimore was the recipient of light rail service. However, the addition of light rail came along with a reduction in bus service to the community. As a result, accessibility to services declined and a portion of the residents moved out of the community. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) Metropolitan planning organizations or MPOs are regional policy-making bodies that are responsible for adopting long-range transportation plans every four years that identify how their respective region intends to invest in the transportation system. They are overseen by a board of officials from the jurisdictions in the region they serve; the board may be composed of elected officials that receive input from citizen advisory committees, a director, and technical staff. MPO’s are also responsible for administering a public participation process that provides meaningful opportunities for affected individuals and communities to influence transportation decisions.

3

They are required to comply with Title VI, in addition to any other EJ-related policies put in place by federal, state, or local governments. Typically MPO’s: •

Have analytical tools to measure transportation program compliance with Title VI.

•

Identify residential, employment, and transportation patterns of all residents in their regions, including low-income and minority populations, to identify and address needs and assure that benefits and burdens of transportation investments are fairly distributed.

•

Have a public involvement processes that eliminates participation barriers and engages minority and low-income populations in transportation decision making.

State Departments of Transportation State Departments of Transportation (DOT), or State Highway Administrations, manage the network of roadways within a specific state. They also participate in regional planning and implementation efforts, write regulations, initiate programs and policies, and administer grants for application within their boundaries. Like MPOs, they are subject to the compliance requirements of Title VI and other EJ regulations. They may even have EJ policies applicable within their agency and external rules for organizations they do business with. Though these conditions are in place, EJ issues still arise and it is important that concerns be addressed directly to the State DOT. Federal Agencies Federal agencies administer programs and revenue sources that impact local transportation projects. While there are many agencies that have transportation-related programs, it is not likely that any are directly involved in implementing the projects after funding has been released. Three agencies deal directly with EJT issues: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). EPA and its state counterparts set the rules about environmental pollution, while FHWA and FTA provide guidance on Title VI and EJ concerns in transportation planning. Although they do not necessarily participate directly in local transportation project implementation, they do deal with EJ problems by addressing complaints from communities and individuals that are brought to their attention.

4

Chapter 2 ▪ A Framework for Addressing EJT Concerns The best possible place to be is to have ongoing communications between all communities about their transportation needs and their local elected officials. After all of the needs are determined, communities would be involved in the difficult process of deciding how limited dollars are spent. Once decisions are made with public input communities would remain engaged with implementing agencies on how projects are planned and so forth. Short of that process working perfectly, some communities experience issues that they believe are EJ in nature. This framework addresses how communities and planning organizations can address those communities that feel they have been left out or simply mistreated in the process. Once an issue arises, a successful EJT endeavor begins with community engagement. BREJT’s experience revealed that communities are more motivated and better able to work toward a solution when they are educated on relevant issues, solutions and options; believing that they have a better chance of influencing the implementation of projects that have a positive local impact. In contrast to traditional transportation projects that tend to be hierarchical in nature and are limited to a few agencies, working from a bottom-up framework is more responsive to the needs and concerns of affected communities and plays an important role toward implementing sound solutions. This approach can also improve analysis methods for addressing issues of concern through the public involvement process which should lead to more community-relevant action from decision-makers. Community driven public participation in each of the Baltimore case studies demonstrates that bottom-up participation, because it involves or responds to local concerns are more likely to result in the active involvement of EJ communities. When contrasted to the perception of top-down public participation approaches and/or strategies, which are perceived by low income and minority communities to be less likely to result in actual, meaningful participation because of mistrust and suspicion. Yet, such an approach requires a two-way communication strategy because communities are not likely to know how to initiate contact with a transportation agency and the planners themselves may be uncertain about whom to contact in a community group. The framework illustrated in Figure 2 identifies a bottom-up, step-wise method for approaching EJT issues; it is a collaborative model that promotes feedback between transportation planners and EJ communities. The initial step involves identifying the EJ community affected by the transportation project. Local residents are the best source of problem identification, so outreach by the planning agency should be initiated. During the outreach process, it is important to identify the full-extent of the affected population and define the concerns and desired outcomes of the community. An initial attempt at problem screening occurs at this point to better understand the issues from a neighborhood perspective. It is important that the individual or community group communicate their concerns to the implementing agency, such as a transit agency, local planning department, highway department, or MPO. In instances where there is more than one affected community, it is equally important that the neighborhood or community groups seek each other’s support and knowledge to address the areas of concern. When the community perceives that they are experiencing inequity in the delivery of a public good or service they will likely be in need of additional information and/or analysis during this phase of the framework. As a result of identifying the issues, the transportation agency and the community can determine what potential

5

short-term impacts will occur within the affected community. In some cases this may involve having solutions or alternatives already in hand. If an agreement or consensus is achieved, then the project can move to the standard review process. If there is uncertainty as to whether shortterm impacts exist, then it is necessary to revisit problem identification. A third option occurs when disagreements persist or if there is no clear solution; in this case, a triage process is initiated.

COMMUNITY

Issues

Preempt/React

Scale

Simple/Complex

Severity

Near/Long term

Get more input

Dialogue w/agencies

Perform analysis

Document process

Outreach

Potential short-term impacts?

No

Unsure

Yes Standard Review Process

Triage Process

Seek solutions

Technical analysis needed?

No

Unsure

Yes Specify performance criteria

ANALYSIS TOOLBOX Simple

Obtain/Review Existing Data Perform More Detailed Interviews Conduct Focus Group Apply Sketch Planning Methods Regional Travel Model Applications Apply Traffic Simulation Tools Enhance GIS Tools, Population Synthesis

Advanced

Report suggested actions

New Tools and/or Special Studies

Yes

Outcomes acceptable?

Figure 2: Public Participation and Analysis Framework

6

No/Unsure

The Triage Process When problems cannot be resolved in the previous steps, it is recommended that a screening committee, or similar body, needs to come together to examine the EJT problem in more depth, or merely from a different perspective. This group is the EJT Triage Committee and should consist of non-traditional stakeholders, or key organizations that have a bearing on EJT issues and with the clout to accomplish politically sensitive actions. The Triage committee should consist of organizations/individuals with influence and the ability to get things done (Figure 3) and will vary with each region that implements such a group. Diverse representation and independent status (one vote per member) will allow it much greater freedom to pursue EJ concerns. The EJT Triage Committee will develop an agenda, lead analyses and evaluations, and make recommendations for solutions to EJT problems. It will review information obtained through the outreach process, and assess what to do with the information or take action (dismiss, recommend, additional research or forward to agency of responsibility). The committee will develop criteria to ensure that decisions will be made about how the EJ concern or issue will be treated, especiallyof in relation to its history, urgencyJustice and extent. Issues Evaluation Environmental

Public Health Institution Local Government

Urban Academic Institution

State DOT

Triage Committee

Business Group

MPO

Non - Profit Community Group

Figure 3: Potential Triage Committee Members

If it is determined that the EJ concern needs to be addressed in a relatively short timeframe, actions may include toolkit analysis (see Chapter 3), mediation, or legal action, as appropriate. Otherwise, the standard review process can be initiated or a particular action or remedy can be arrived at by consensus. Important questions are expected to arise in the creation of this group, its composition, and its authority. Given the many tasks and functions linked to the EJT Triage Committee, it might be expected that there would be a high level of activity. The corresponding concern would be whether its members would have the time to participate in all of these activities, and financially

7

how this group’s activities would be supported. Under full deployment, the Committee will either have to maintain very stringent rules in selecting the issues it examines, or have sufficient resources (in-kind, grant or endowment) to acquire supplemental assistance from staff or consultants; thus the critical need to ensure that communities are engaged in the planning process over time to avoid these types of concerns. Once technical analysis is complete and solutions have been suggested by either the Triage process or by consensus, performance measures or criteria must be set. Analysis will help determine whether the outcomes of the process are deemed acceptable. If the acceptability of an outcome remains in question, the EJ analysis framework needs to go back to the Triage Process where it can be re-evaluated along with any new information generated. Otherwise, the process can continue on to the Planning Board or other decision-making body for adoption.

8

Chapter 3 ▪ A Guided Tour of EJT Analysis This chapter builds on the framework presented in Chapter 2 by providing a detailed process for identifying EJT concerns and analyzing them to determine potential short-term impacts or to build consensus around a solution. All of the phases are meant to be inclusive of both the EJ communities and the transportation agency responsible for administering the project. BREJT used this process in each of the four case studies with positive results. Six phases are identified that move an EJ concern toward a solution: Phase 1 - Community-Driven Intergovernmental Engagement and Cooperation Phase 2 - Community Assessment and Citizen Input (Identify the Local Problems) Phase 3 - Information Gathering and Analysis (Due Diligence) Phase 4 - Developing a Community Profile (Analytical) Phase 5 - Drill Down to Evaluate the EJT Issues (Evaluation) Phase 6 - Being Heard (Communicating) Phase 1: Community-Driven Intergovernmental Engagement and Cooperation Community planning activities are shaped by local needs, priorities and circumstances. Thus, local community leaders are encouraged to form some type of committee or team that will consistently meet to examine the EJ issue and assure that the community’s needs are being met through the process. Members should prepare to serve as project advocates while effectively communicating EJ concerns to the transportation agency or MPO. Specifically, two things need to be done: (1) a team leader must be identified for each group, as well as appropriate supporting cast for facilitation and note-taking, and (2) identify at least five appropriate community members for team participation. Form a strategy at the project team meeting as to how these tasks will be accomplished. In the case of BREJT, a Transit Service Case Study Team comprised of nine members was formed. Members consisted of active community members, public health workers familiar with environmental issues and an individual from the Baltimore City Mayor’s Office. It should be noted that the committee needs to continue to function through the completion of the project. Specifically, in phases 2, 3, and 4, the committee should determine a meeting schedule: •

In phase 2, the committee should meet multiple times, or on average three meetings or sessions, to adequately come up with issues identification.

•

During the third phase, the committee should meet enough times to address each stage of the information-gathering process.

•

In phase 4, the committee will interact with the transportation agencies involved in the project.

Prior to this step, however, some organizational work must be done in order to ensure the best possible participation outcome with the community. The committee needs to develop a needs profile to enable community stakeholders (government agencies as well as, community leaders, organizers and planners) to define EJT concerns or problems, understand how they occurred, assess who is impacted and determine what can be done to fix or resolve the problems. BREJT

9

conducted a community dialogue to achieve this and used flip charts and sticky dots to allow participants the ability to identify their main concerns. For example, participants were given two sets of sticky dots. One dot was placed on their most important issue and one dot on their most important topic. When compiled, the case study team recognized similarities in the concerns and developed a needs profile as a result. The basic ground rules for conducting the community dialogue are:

1.) 2.) 3.) 4.)

Each person gets a chance to talk, Allow others to finish before you speak, Listen with an open mind and with respect, Seek to understand, rather than to persuade, and 5.) Keep comments short Of special note, in this section it is not our intent to say that “government” initiated public participation is undesirable. To the contrary it is required and quite desirable as a tool for meaningful interaction when addressing EJ issues that are initiated by the government. As shown in Table 1, who and how this process starts are of critical importance. Typically the top down public participation process is initiated at the bequest of the government with the objective of targeting particular community organizations and churches in high-risk areas to get input. As shown in the literature public participation is seen as an activity that is initiated by government sponsored agencies. Through the eyes of low income and minority community residents this process is often viewed suspiciously and not designed to address community based concerns and issues. On the other hand, a bottom up approach to participation, when initiated by high risk communities is more likely to get community involvement in the interest of seeing that remedies are implemented in their best interest. The art of knowing what, when, and how to ask for equitable environmental justice in transportation improvements is both evolutionary and iterative and is neither well defined nor linear. It is believed that an important characteristic of a successful environmental justice program is that it be dynamic, i.e., that it allow for “cycles” of involvement, information exchange, education, analysis of alternatives and their tradeoffs, and ultimately closure – where the stakeholders are witness to and feel ownership in the final outcome. Since, the types of issues that arise in EJ deliberations are typically not clear-cut the process of problem identification, understanding, and resolution involves multiple iterations of sifting through multiple variables and tradeoffs. Phase 2: Community Assessment and Citizen Input During this phase, the community planning committees are encouraged to create an initial timetable of three meetings. The objective of the first meeting is to develop a broad agenda. Everyone gets chance to give input about visions, concerns, and priorities. Then it’s up to the team to work through these priorities over the long term to ultimately make the project successful. The objective the second meeting is to better define project goals and vision. You should leave the meeting with a solid draft of a project description that clearly details what you are trying to achieve. Between the second and third meeting, draft and approve a document that states the agreed upon vision and goals. By the third meeting, an agreement should reach its final form and

10

be ready to be signed by all of the project team members. Everyone on the team should be present to sign the document together

11

Table 1: Level of Public Involvement

12

Verona Road & West Beltline Needs Assessment Study (Madison, WI), Ex. 1 Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Planning (Northern NJ), Ex. 2

CB

Yes

East-West Expressway EIS Statement (Durham, NC), Ex. 3

CB

Southern California Regional Transportation Plan (Los Angeles Region), Ex. 4

GOV

Yes

Yes

Cypress Freeway Replacement Project (Oakland, CA), Ex. 5

CD

Yes

Yes

Fruitvale BART TOD Project (Oakland CA), Ex. 6 MPO Environmental Justice Report (Columbus, OH), Ex. 7

CD CD

Yes Yes

Yes

South Park Avenue Improvement Project (Tucson, AZ) Ex. 8

CB

Yes

South Carolina Route 72 Environmental Assessment (Calhoun Falls, SC), Ex. 9 Environmental Justice & CRCOG’s Transportation Planning Program, Ex. 10 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), Ex. 11 Conflict of Public Policies: Hope VI. vs. PRWORA, Chicago, Illinois, Ex. 12

GOV

Yes

GOV

Yes

CB

Yes

Public Involvement in the MIS) Process, Denver, Col, Ex. 13

GOV

Yes

GOV

Yes

GOV

Yes

Bottom Up/Top Down

Minority/Low Income, Black, Asian, Latino Native American, Hispanic

Agency of Responsibility

B,A,LI

TD

Transit (R,U)

Data sources, GIS, Analytical Methods, MPO regional coordination Title VI complaint, housing of last resort, mitigation and enhancements, collaborative plans Data sources, analytical techniques, benefits/burdens, alternative dispute resolution Project development, right of way, public involvement, mitigation and Partnerships, enhancements Data sources, analytical techniques

MPO, Transit

M,LI

TD

State DOT,

B,LI

TD

MPO

M,LI

TD

State DOT

B,LI

BU

Transit Agency MPO

H,B,A,LI H,B,LI

BU TD

City DOT,

H,LI

TD

State DOT

B,LI

TD

MPO

B,A,LI

TD/BU

Highway,

Partnerships, enhancements, context sensitive design, public involvement Community impact assessment, public involvement Community impact assessment, public involvement Housing, Transit, Accessibility

MPO, Transit

B,A,LI

TD

Highway,

Housing

Housing

B,A,LI

TD

Housing (U)

Government Initiated Outreach Public

Transit District

N

TD/BU

Highway,

Transit (U) Highway,

Yes

Bike/Ped,

Yes

Highway (R) Highway,

Yes

Lessons Learned and Outcomes

State DOT

Yes

Yes Yes

Public Involvement

Highway (U)

Yes

Stakeholder Involvement

Highway (U)

Highway (U)

Yes

Topics and Effective Practices

Transportation Mode/ Geography (Urban/Rural)

Collaborative

Focus Adversarial

Deliberative

Impetus* Response Driver

Case Study Name/Location

13

Notes: CB Community Based, CD Community Driven, Gov. Federal, State, Regional or Local *Terry L. Cooper, Thomas A. Bryer, Jack W. Meek, Collaborative Governance Initiative, Citizen, PAR, Supplement to Volume 66, Centered Collaborative Public Management

14

and to commit to the agreement. This not only helps affirm team members’ commitment to the success of the project, but in case of staff or political leadership turnover helps subsequent team members or decision makers understand what has already been agreed to. Phase 3: Information Gathering and Analysis Analysis of EJ issues attempts to identify and measure inequalities that are associated with the traditional planning model. Transportation habits about low-income and minority individuals are not as well known as they should be and are generally left out of traditional transportation planning. For a variety of reasons, it is likely that unique characteristics of this population’s transportation needs and patterns are not well known, and this is an important disadvantage when trying to better account for these needs in the transportation planning or funding process. Difficulty in accessing employment and other basic services is a problem magnified by lower rates of vehicle ownership and public transportation systems that are not well suited to serving reverseflow travel patterns. Thus, travel patterns should be determined and it is recommended that a travel diary be administered to the EJ community (unless the EJ concern is unrelated). This phase can be broken down as follows: •

Conduct an initial screening that includes capturing information on travel patterns of the EJ community residents.

•

Test whether projects benefits are disproportional (three basic steps are required) 1. Identify affected populations, 2. Estimate the environmental and transportation impacts of the project, and 3. Perform data analysis (proximity, statistical).

Phase 4: Developing a Community Profile If the EJ issue under study is likely to have a major impact on a community, a profile of the EJ community should be developed to serve as a baseline against which various sorts of social and economic effects can be assessed, measured or verified. Construct a comparison trend analysis table using available data sources (Table 2). This data may be obtained from the MPO, or by accessing data sources on the Internet, such as the Census Bureau and Departments of Economic Security. Of course, the source will vary according to the type of data needed. Developing a community profile enables the EJ community and transportation planners to visualize the extent of the problems, understand how they occur, assess who may be impacted, and determine what can be done to fix or resolve the problems. This involves establishing whether or not various communities will be affected by the transportation project.3

3

Jill Alge, MPH in Environmental Health Sciences, Dr. Buckley- Academic Advisor, Dr. Crawford-Second Reader, The Ohio State University, January 2, 2008, Glenn Robinson, Morgan State University, School of Engineering, January 2, 2008

15

Table 2: EJ Trend Data Table

Category Geographic Unit Population Demographics Income

2000 - 2030 Metrics Census Tract Age Sex Income Median NonFamily Household Income Family households

Transportation Analysis Zone Household Size

Political Jurisdiction Public Health Characteristics

Persons Below the Poverty Level

Median Household Income

Travel Mode

Educational Attainment

25 years and more

Vacant Occupied, OwnerOccupied, RenterOccupied Less than high school

Travel Characteristic

Transit Dependant

Auto Ownership

Housing Characteristic s

Neighborhood

Corridor

Employment

Ethnicity

Multiple Units, Average rooms per unit

Owner and Renter Occupied Units

High school graduate

Junior College

Percent OwnerOccupied Units with a Mortgage Four College Degree

Regional

Median Value of Owner Occupied Units Advanced Degree

Phase 5: Drill Down to Assess the EJT Issues Once citizen input is gathered and information about travel patterns and a community profile have been compiled, there needs to be an assessment conducted.4 The drill down assessment process will: 1. Assess the general health of community, 2. Identify community perceptions associated with transportation impacts, and 3. Define community and intergovernmental interactions. This is a process of discovery and helps to better understand how to avoid planning decisions that may negatively impact low-income and minority groups. It is also a good time to frame the issues by asking these questions: What was done?, Who was impacted?, How did it happen?, What was the role of government and private sector?, and, What do you want done to fix the problem? Analysis Levels This involves establishing whether or not various communities will be affected by the transportation project. Screening should be done at two scales—regionally and at the neighborhood scale. Table 3 identifies methods showing three levels of detail for screening EJT community problems. They include: GIS buffer analysis, reviews of existing community resources, site visits, focus groups and public meetings. NCHRP Report 532 identifies three analysis levels for evaluating EJ issues. Generalizing from guidance provided by Report 532, the set of tools and procedures associated with the three degrees of application detail are summarized below. Table 3: Drilling Down 4

Community Assessment Survey, www.BREJT.org, Dr. Tim Buckley The Ohio State University, April, 2007 and Glenn Robinson, Morgan State University April 2007.

16

Initial Screening

Moderate Detail

•Assembly and review of existing data or forecasts;

•Standard four-step regional transportation planning model;

•Published reports and tables;

•Use of GIS to create maps for locating projects or impacts in relation to population subgroups at a TAZ or census tract level;

•Creation or analysis of maps; •Visual (field) inspections; •Simple surveys, interviews, or focus groups.

•Corridor traffic flow simulation models and analyses; •Transportation emissions forecasting models; •Physical measurement of noise, pollution, runoff impacts; •Visual preference surveys; •Formal surveys or operational data collection.

Most Detailed •Enhanced travel forecasting models (including activity-based methods); •Population synthesis and household micro simulation approaches using detailed GIS; •Pollution surface models to gauge air pollution exposure; •Regression or other advanced statistical analysis methods to isolate and quantify contributing factors.

At the initial screening level define the affected area, stratify the population by ethnicity and income, compare the general population and analyze past impacts against archived census data and local knowledge. Likewise at the moderate and most detailed levels of analysis more elaborate tools can be used to identify EJ impacts of improvement plans on affected populations. This is critical when measuring the special transportation needs of low-income groups against other income groups, inner city areas and suburban areas. Also, proximity data analysis is an important drill down analysis tool because it analyzes the activity space within which at-risk populations typically move about. This analysis will be keyed to a concise set of measures or indicators that are revealing in gauging and comparing impacts (a.k.a., benefits and burdens) on the target population. Probable indicators would include the following: total jobs available within (1) 30 minutes, (2) 45 minutes, (3) 1 hour by (1) transit, (2) auto/highway to (1) white households, (2) African American households, and (3) other [Hispanic, Asian] households by (1) over or (2) under the poverty line. Phase 6: Being Heard (Communicating) All too often community arguments are based on qualitative arguments. Strong presentations can happen by using some basic quantitative analysis components as depicted below in Table 4. The implied sets of tools and procedures shown above were used in BREJT’s case studies which are discussed in the following section. Generate a report to present at a public hearing and include these characteristics: frame solutions, analyze demographic and land-use trends and patterns, and define perceived deficiencies and demonstrate impacts. This report should act as a companion to the issues related to public health and accessibility.

Table 4: Drilling Down

17

Recommendations are another way to be heard. BREJT conducted a workshop to look at the

Things to Discuss

Level of Detail

Identified Issues

History and Background Controlling Policies and Programs Agency Technical Documentation Areas of Impact (Neighborhood, Corridor, Region, etc) Framed Solutions Land Use of the area of in question (Commercial, Industrial, Residential) Population Demographics Analyzed Trends and Patterns Transit Dependency Auto Ownership Number of Trips Impact Analysis Retail Manufacturing, Service Employment Social Services Route Coverage Service Frequency Perceived and Demonstrate Proximity to Car and Truck Traffic Impacts Incidence of Respiratory Aliment Incidence of Cancer Noise and Air Pollution community concerns in detail. Results identified actionable steps that may prevent injustices from occurring: • • • •

Instituting a quality control/customer service feedback system to improve accountability; Bringing about a more interactive and informed public participation process where the public is meaningfully informed and brought into the planning process when it is still possible to influence decisions; Providing better information and data for planning and, in particular, information on which communities had the greatest transportation needs; and Determining the amount of funding directed to those communities who depend on those transportation services, and how those services might be improved.

18

Chapter 4 ▪ EJT Evaluation Tools, Procedures and Examples This chapter is the toolbox for performing analysis on the EJ issues and communities. Several of the tools presented here were used in the BREJT case studies. Demographic Profile Demographics refer to the characteristics of the residents of a community. This is an important type of data because it can show the baseline conditions of an EJ community before a transportation project is initiated and again after. It can also be used to perform comparisons against affected and non-impacted communities. Steps involved in gathering and analyzing demographic data are: 1. Identify targeted neighborhoods by census tract, block group, zip code or another geography with well-defined boundaries; 2. Select neighborhoods with a specific racial/ethnic composition; 3. Select neighborhoods with a specific poverty level; 4. Select neighborhoods with significant share of households with no vehicles; 5. Identify the geographic area impacted by governmental action. Where is the impact? Is it at the neighborhood, community, regional or corridor? Once the impact area boundaries are determined, a band measurement analysis can be performed using the following widths or arc within ¼, ½, or one mile from the facility analysis. This can be done through visual observation or you can use online GIS tools or contact your MPO for assistance. Surveys are another method to capture demographic data and are particularly useful when the neighborhood geography does not match a pre-defined source of data. Meaning, certain data sources only report data for specific geographic areas. It is reasonable to expect that some community boundaries do not overlap with these pre-defined datasets. The following categories are examples of demographic data needed to develop a community profile: • • • • • • •

Sex Race Number people in household # of Children less than 18 in household Education Age Employment

Surveys should also be used to determine the nature and extent of the EJ concerns in a community. The following questions were asked in the BREJT case study for the Kirk Avenue Bus Depot: These questions ask about your opinions as to the noise, air pollution, and economic impact of the Kirk Avenue Bus Depot on your household and community.

19

Think about how noise from the bus depot affects you and your family. 1.) The noise from the bus depot is bad for the health of my family and me. Strongly Agree Agree Either Agree or Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 2.) The noise from the bus depot is stressful to my family and me. Strongly Agree Agree Either Agree or Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 3.) The noise from the bus depot is annoying to my family and me. Strongly Agree Agree Either Agree or Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Think about how air pollution from the bus depot affects you and your family. 1.) The air quality from the bus depot is bad for the health of my family and me. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 2.) The air quality from the bus depot is stressful to my family and me. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 3.) The air quality from the bus depot is annoying to my family and me. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

20

Think about other ways that the bus depot affects you and your community. 1.) The bus depot has a bad affect on the value of my home. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Think about your interaction with the Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA) related to the bus depot. 1.) On average, how many times per week do you complain to the MTA about the bus depot? 0 1-2 3-4 5-7 8 or more 2.) The MTA is responsive to my complaints about the bus depot. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The following questions will help us to understand your transportation-related activities. 1.) What is your primary mode of transportation? Walk Bike Auto Bus Rideshare 2.) On average, how many round trip bus rides do take per week? None 1-5 6-10 11-15 16 or more

21

3.) On average, how many round trip bus rides do take per week? None 1-5 6-10 11-15 16 or more 1.) How many vehicles are there within your household? 0 1 2 3 4 or more 2.) What types of vehicles do you own? (Circle all that apply) None Car Truck SUV Motorcycle Do Your Due Diligence Due diligence suggests that the community has conducted a sufficient amount of research to know the history of the area. Information on transportation, land-use impact models and procedures and information on results—“What is analyzed and its impact” is available through the MPO, the DOT, and at the public library or on the Internet. A method to ensure that there is minority representation on local and regional transportation committees is to get policies on transportation committee membership and assess minority membership on policy and technical committees— calculate the number of minority members and compare to city regional minority population percentage. If the percentage difference is, less than 10 percent ask for greater representation. EJ Evaluation of Transportation Plans (Performance-Measures) In general, transportation projects are evaluated using performance metrics for their effectiveness (how well a proposal meets its objectives), efficiency (the cost of a project relative to its benefits) and equality (how equal are the burdens and benefits spread across geographic, income, racial and ethnic lines). Table 5 provides guides for using performance measures to evaluate equity. To better understand and frame community-based issues and to inform the decision-making process we recommend that input-oriented performance measures be used to focus how investments in the transportation system impact on low-income and minority communities and that output-oriented metric measures show how improvement plans enhance transportation system performance in terms of accessibility gains associated community strategies.

22

Land-Use Impacts Land use characteristics include zoning, building type, condition, and height. These factors impact the quality of life in a community. Information on long and short-range land-use plans are available at regional and city planning agencies. Land use maps that affect low-income and minority neighborhoods are particularly important. Documentation on the number of dilapidated, deteriorated structures provides the data to calculate the percentage of these structures in the neighborhood. a. b. c.

# dilapidated structures/total community structures = percentage # deteriorated structures/total community structures = percentage Trend Analysis—5-10 year period

Table 5: Measuring Equity Community Issues Job Access

Community Driven Public Participation Goal Economic Vitality and Competitiveness

Maintenance

Safety and Security (Motorized and Non)

Increased Accessibility

Increase Accessibility and Mobility Options

Reduce Air and Noise Pollution

Protect Environment, Conserve Energy and Improve Quality of Life Enhance Connectivity and Integration Across Modes for People and Freight Manage and Preserve Existing Transportation System Local Regional Statewide

Improved Transit Route Structure

Need Assessment

Funding Equity

Objectives Encourage Employment Opportunities Urban Communities Stop the Use of Old Equipment in Low Income Neighborhoods Access to Jobs

Clean Environment

Performance Measures Work Opportunities within 15, 30 and 45 minutes by car and transit door-to-door. Percent of transitdependent riders who can access jobs with 45 minutes by fixed route of transit Percent and characteristic of out of service buses coming into and area. Pedestrian/bicycle injuries & fatalities Vehicle Crashes, Age of Fleet Proximity to transit Level of Service Accessibility to health care facilities Accessibility to educational facilities Air pollution Concentrations, Incidence rates of Respiratory disorders, Number of Households exposed to noise. Asthma rates in communities adjacent to large transportation facilities,

Access to Shopping and Services

Number of fatalities locations improved per million passenger miles

Advocate for project funding to improve local conditions.

Condition of roads and streets Condition of side walks Ratio of uncontested travel time between origins and destinations Per Capita Transportation expenditures Per Capita Operating Expenses Number of fatalities Identity of user who benefit Locations improved per million passenger miles

Fairness in Transit Funding

23

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Acquire plans/maps that show industrial/commercial/institutional development from the city and regional planning agencies. To compare, sort the information by census tract, traffic analysis zones, and zip codes for minority and low-income neighborhoods. Industrial / commercial / institutional structures may be calculated as follows. Industrial Gross Square Feet of Floor Space (include parking)/Total Gross Square Feet Space in Neighborhood/Community = Percentage Revaluation Let’s take a look a look at the residential, traffic, transit usage and trip patterns. Residential -The following data is required to prepare a comparison table/ranking. Single Family, Two Families, Multi-Families, Townhouse, Condominiums, Manufactured, Demolition. Information can be obtained by review of U. S. Census data, city planning, and regional planning documents for both residential and non-residential development activity. Acquire program construction/demolition schedules from the city-housing agency. Traffic Data—Detailed information is needed for two purposes: to analyze existing problems and to develop mathematical models for forecasting travel. The most common units for measuring travel are as follows: • • • •

Traffic Volume (on a road segment) Person Trip and Vehicle Trip Passenger Vehicle Trip and Commercial/Freight Trip Person Miles Traveled and Vehicle Miles Traveled

This data is available at the MPO and is constructed in tabular format specifically in Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ). The data can also be refined to corridors. This data should be analyzed using the trend concept and will show the travel patterns (existing) on a particular facility or area. The information is often used with travel surveys to forecast future travel behavior. Calculations of the following may be required: # Persons x Avg. Trip Length x # of trips = Person Miles Traveled # Vehicles by Type x Avg. Trip Length x # of trips = Vehicle Miles of Travel Transit Dependency— Transit dependency is defined as persons who either have no driver’s license and/or no automobile. This information can be used to evaluate what mode and investment should be made into the transit system. Areas with high transit dependency characteristics should have more dollars per capita invested in transit. Obtain information to assess transit dependency through transit agency surveys or regional travel surveys. The following calculation is how to determine per capita invested in transit. Dollars spent on indirect miles in connection/# persons in service area ¼ mile of transit route = per capita invested in travel

24

Auto Ownership—Calculating auto ownership can be obtained directly from the 2000 Census data, and Regional Travel Surveys. Simply perform a trend analysis in the neighborhood or community. Trip Table/Traffic Volume—This data can be obtained in the following manner and should be analyzed at the neighborhood, community, and corridor levels. Trip table data will show trip purpose as well as the number of origin/destination/zonal pairs. Traffic volume data will indicate various levels of services on the street and highway network. Capacities and level of service are closely related and often are easily confused. While capacity is a measure of demand that a roadway facility can potentially service. Level of service is a measure of the operating conditions, the Highway Capacity Manual list operating conditions A-F. This data can be obtained from Regional Planning Agency, and the City Department of Public Works. Simply stated LOS Conditions D, E, F, indicate a problem with traffic flow and should be stated as a problem that needs investigation. The travel impact at these LOS levels is: Increase air pollution, Highway travel cost, Increase congestion, longer travel times and reduced accessibility. Public Health Risk There is a growing recognition among public health, planning, and transportation professionals that land-use and transportation planning decisions can have a substantial impact on the public’s health. The evidence relating a decision’s environmental effects to potential adverse health effects is clear. Table 6: Public Health Matrix5 Category and Citation Respiratory English et.al

Proximity

Traffic Density

Health Effects Assessed Prevalence of Asthma

Exposure Metric

Reported Effects with Positive Associations

95% CI

550 ft

5,500 -9,000

ADT Distance to Residence

Asthma Related Doctor Visits

1.10-

Asthma Lin et al.

200 m

≥% Heavy Trucks

Asthma Hospital Admissions

ADT Distance to Residence

Asthma Hospital Admissions

1.133.29

Mortality K et al.

100 m Freeway or 50 m Urban Roads

N/A

Cohort Mortality

Residential Distance to Freeway and Urban Road

Cardiopulmonary Mortality

1.09 – 3.52

Adverse Birth Outcomes

500 m

93,000 vehicles per day

Preterm Delivery

Residential Distance to Freeway

Preterm Delivery

1.03 1.65

Air Quality—The detrimental effects of poor air quality are numerous. The following calculations can be used to determine the amounts of Hydrocarbons and NO x, a generic term for a group of highly reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. Nitrogen 5

Nancy Kipp, NIH, 2007

25

oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a vehicle engine combustion process. The results of the calculations below will give you an indicator of the air quality in the neighborhood and community. 3.26 grams x Vehicle Trips = o.36 grams x Vehicle Miles Traveled = Hydrocarbons (HC) 1.56 grams x Vehicle Trips = 0.71 grams x Vehicle Miles Traveled = Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Incidence of Respiratory Ailments –Respiratory ailments are an ongoing EJ concern in urban communities. It is important to examine the potential links between high respiratory ailment rates in a neighborhood or community to the air pollution created by emissions from buses and trucks. The local Department of Health should be able to provide incidents of respiratory ailments (e.g. asthma) by number of cases and rates (e.g. per 100,000 population) within the geographical boundaries defined by the department. This data can be overlaid with Census 2000 data or zip codes to determine if there is a potential negative affect on the specific areas under analysis. In addition, neighborhood and community organizations can be solicited to identify persons in the neighborhoods and communities who are challenged by respiratory conditions. Influence on Cancer-There are various determinants for cancer, however, a polluted environment can exacerbate the Cancer Risk / Exposure Cancer Incidence symptoms of persons diagnosed with Identification of Identification of Environmental Cancers Chemical Carcinogens cancer. In particular, trachea, bronchus, MD Cancer and lung cancer are vulnerable to Exposure Mortality Rates Cancer Prevention By Source and Route deleterious effects of polluted air. The Priorities MD Cancer Cancer Potency Incidence Rates local Department of Health is charged Weight of Evidence Spatial Analysis with maintaining by number of cases Cancer Of Cancer Cases Risk and rates (e.g. per 100,000 population) Risk-Based Surveillance-Based the number of incidences of trachea, Cancer Incidence Cancer Incidence bronchus, and lung cancer within their Figure 4 prescribed geographical boundaries. This information can be overlaid with Census 2000 data or zip codes and compared to other areas to determine if there is a possible link of pollution to incidences of cancer and in the specific areas being analyzed. Strategies for the prevention of environmental cancer can be evaluated using a dual approach considering the spatial distribution of both cancer risk and incidence as depicted in Figure 4. The juxtaposition of the geographical distribution of mobile source-related ambient carcinogenic air toxic concentrations with cancer rates may inform prevention priorities. This approach is limited to the use of publicly available data. Although the primary concern among communities impacted by traffic relates to the nature and extent of the health threat, the actual health threat that can be attributed to air pollution from traffic is a difficult thing to directly assess. Challenges to being able to directly assess traffic related community health impacts include the following.

26

•

Multiple Sources. Traffic is not the only source for the noise and air pollution that impacts communities and therefore, it can be difficult to attribute health effects experienced by communities to any single source. For example, some of the same pollutants that are produced by traffic are also produced by auto body shops, tobacco smoke, or gas stoves.

•

Multi-factorial Diseases. The cause of health effects observed within communities such as cancer, asthma, or cardiovascular disease are multi-factorial, i.e. traffic-related air pollution may contribute, but is likely not the sole cause. The incidence rates for these diseases are relatively high so that it is difficult to detect the expected small increase attributed to traffic-related air pollution.

•

Statistical. Considering the two points above, communities may be too small to provide sufficient statistical power to tease out the influence of traffic.

Given these limitations, two related approaches are available to communities to help understand the health threat (Figure 5). The first examines the nature and extent of traffic-related air pollution exposure within the community. The second approach assesses the health risk from the estimated or measured exposure. For census tracks across the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated air toxics exposure and risk from source categories including traffic. These data may be useful to communities to compare their traffic-related air pollution risk to other source categories or other census tracts across the U.S. These data are publicly available as a part of EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) for the years 1990, 1996, and 1999 can be at http://www.epa.gov/nata/. Figure 5. Exposure and Risk to Bridge the Gap of Community Health Concern

The exposure research is clear in identifying four primary and interrelated determinants of community exposure to traffic related air pollutants. 1) Temporal variables of varying scale including time of day (e.g. rush hour), day of week (e.g. weekday versus weekend), and season. 2) Roadway proximity. Pollution levels drop exponentially with distance from the roadway source. Therefore, proximity of the roadway to the community is an important risk factor. 3) Roadway traffic level and class. The air pollution source strength is directly proportional to the traffic density and is influenced by vehicle fleet characteristics including engine type, fuel, age, and size. 4) Meteorology. Air pollution concentrations are strongly influenced by meteorological factors that affect fate, transport, and dilution including wind speed, wind direction, and mixing height. In addition, source emissions are influenced by temperature and relative humidity.

27

The temporal variability is determined by commuting patterns resulting in differences from weekends to weekdays and within a weekday, due to morning and afternoon rush hour (Chetwittayachan et al. 2002; Nielsen 1996; Sapkota and Buckley 2003). Of particular public health relevance are assessments based on measurements that are time-resolved and that consider the multitude of mobile source emissions. Time-resolved measurements are informative in both assessing the health hazard as well as the source contribution (Gilliland et al. 2005). When these methods are linked with appropriately timed health outcome studies, it is possible to link specific source categories to health outcomes (Hopke et al. 2006; Thurston et al. 2005). National Air Toxics Assessment - As a part of the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) program, US-EPA has conducted national scale assessment of various hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), using a Gaussian dispersion model. The model - Assessment System for Population Exposure Nationwide (ASPEN) provides national annual estimates of ambient concentration of various air toxics for the base year 1996, with spatial resolution down to the census tract level (Caldwell et al. 1998; Woodruff et al. 2000). In deriving the ambient concentration, the model takes into account several important determents of air pollution including discharge rate & height, location of discharge, wind speed & direction, atmospheric decay, deposition and secondary formation (User Guide for ASPEN, EPA-454/R-00-017). These data can be used to estimate cancer risk at the spatial resolution of the census tract or scaled up to spatial scales relevant to the available cancer data (e.g. county). In our dual assessment of air toxin risk and cancer incidence, smoking prevalence is also considered because of its important contributory role in the development of cancer. Estimates of county-level current smoking prevalence among adults (≥18 years) can be obtained from survey data (State of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 2001). Cancer Incidence Data - A weight of evidence review was conducted to identify those cancers with epidemiological evidence of associations with environmental and/or occupational exposures. Occupational studies provide the strongest evidence of the association between chemical exposure and increased cancer risk. Based on this analysis (or criteria), seven cancer sites were identified including: 1) bladder (Silverman et al. 1986), 2) kidney (McCredie and Stewart 1993), 3) liver (Forman et al. 1985), 4) lung (Blot et al. 1983), 5) leukemia (Rinsky et al. 1987), 6) non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (Persson et al. 1989), and 7) multiple myeloma (Rinsky et al. 1987). For each of these sites, age-adjusted cancer incidence rates are potentially available with appropriate approvals that protect the confidentiality of data. County-level cancer risk, incidence, and smoking prevalence can be analyzed using a variety of approaches. First, their geographical distribution can be assessed via mapping using ESRI®ArcMap™8.2. Second, the distribution of risk can be compared to incidence graphically. Lastly, a 2x2 table can be used to group spatial units that are above (high) and below (low) the median for risk and incidence while at the same time taking smoking prevalence into account. Noise Pollution- Noise, the effect of noise on people can be substantial and stressful. Therefore, transportation related noise impact can range from annoyance to stress related illnesses. Noise can interfere with communication and concentration, an example being that noise diminishes the ability of students to learn in a classroom environment (Seep et. a. 2000). Noise can cause sleep

28

deprivation, and stress, contribute to high blood pressure and heart disease (Sandberg and Ejmont 2000, Fra 1998, and Lee and Fleming 2001). The measurement of noise as an indicator of transportation impact is generally expressed as an amplitude measurement, which indicates volume. To the right is the range and impact of audible sound on the human ear. The question of noise impact should be brought to the attention of local government, usually the Department of Public Works. In addition, most communities have noise ordinance laws, which can be enforced. Communities can also measure noise themselves or retain the services of a noise engineer. The measurements are obtained over a period of time; it is recommended that an environmental performance noise check is conducted using electric condenser microphone that provides improved reliability over standard condenser microphones. Table 7: Noise Levels

db A) Scale6)

6

Quiet suburban neighborhood (40)

Highway traffic 300 feet from hearer (60)

Train horn—200 feet from hearer (100)

Threshold of hearer (135)

Handbook of Transportation Engineering, 2004; Ed. Meyer Kutz, McGraw Hill, New York, New York

29

Chapter 5 ▪ The Baltimore Experience BREJT conducted four case studies in the Baltimore region, all in Baltimore City. This chapter reports the results of the case studies, including: the issues that would be explored in each case study and the information that we recommend be compiled before we take the case study recommendations back to the community work groups. This information is to illustrate possible approaches to EJT in other regions. Congestion and Environment: Will focus on the impacts and mitigation opportunities associated with the Maryland Transit Administration’s Kirk Avenue bus depot. This study is also viewed as a platform for addressing the “neighborhood” level of problem. Public Involvement: It is proposed that this study area focus on public involvement with transportation issues in the US 40/Red Line corridor extending through west Baltimore. This study will investigate how the public has been involved in planning decisions made in relation to the Red Line, their level of satisfaction, and parallels that may be drawn with earlier corridor efforts such as the “highway to nowhere”. It will also consider state and city efforts to generate support for TOD development around the West MARC rail station. This study will be the platform for investigating the “corridor” level of transportation impact. Quality and Adequacy of Transit Service: Focused on issues stemming from transit service changes at Lexington Market, but will extend to broader issues regarding integrity of transit service and the design of Lexington Market to successfully function as a regional transit hub and pedestrian center. This study will also provide the platform for “regional” impact. Quality and Adequacy of Transit Service II: During the course of Project Team discussions, concerns were raised as to the ability of the project to address the issues of transit service raised by the Cherry Hill community. Cherry Hill is in many ways an exemplary minority/low-income community that has had its transit service changed or curtailed in significant ways, and found its ability to generate interest in solving its problems to be limited and frustrated. Knowing the desire of this particular community to be heard and seeing transit service at the neighborhood level as an important toolkit application, the initial strategy was to try to incorporate Cherry Hill into the Lexington Market case study. As such, it would be investigated from the standpoint of “what happens on the origin end” of the trip when routing and service are changed to a key destination such as Lexington Market. The Project Team felt that this treatment by association with Lexington Market was too diffuse to assure a comprehensive, head-on study of this area’s concerns. The result was the decision to make Cherry Hill into a separate fourth case study, while also maintaining a “family” connection to the transit service changes at Lexington Market. A brief summary of how each case study was framed is shown in Table 8.

30

Table 8: Physical Community Profiles Questions To Ask Cherry Hill

Kirk Avenue

Lexington Market

Overall Access to and from Interstate Noise Barriers Transportation Issues Pedestrian & bicycles barriers Air Quality Safety Public Participation Substandard intersection Age of Facility interchange Suitability Annapolis/Waterview Proximity to Narrow and obstructed with neighborhoods utilities

Pollution from busses

Intercity mobility

Diesel exhaust

Regional mobility

Removal of bus stops

Safety

Regional Access Points

All Points CBD

I-95 & McComas

Greenmount Avenue

I-95 & Hanover

Harford Road

I-895 & Potee

Loch Raven Boulevard

US 40

Increased walking distances

Route 40, I-95, I-295, MLK. Boulevard

I-295 & Waterview Pedestrian Activity Generators

Cherry Hill Light Rail Station Kirk Avenue Automotive Citywide body shops Westport Light Rail

Schools

Main Traffic Street (Minor Arterials/Collectors)

Waterview Avenue

Kirk Avenue

Eutaw Street

Edmonson Avenue

Cherry Hill Avenue

25th Street

Paca Street

Monroe Street

Route 40

Fulton Avenue

Impacted Communities

Middle River

Homewood Avenue

Appleton

West Port

Bartlett Avenue

Harlem Park

Mid-Town Edmondson

Midtown

Harlem Park Orowso

TOD

TOD

What Government Wants

Hanover Street/Potee

Economic Development

Inner City Bus Facility

Enhanced Transit Access Points

Reduced Operating Cost Reduce CBD Congestion Red Line Economic Development

Market Priced Housing What the Community Better transportation Wants Better transit services

Impact Measures

Shopping

Keep Homes

Improve Transit &

Better transportation Better transit services

Find Land Use

Transportation

Low income affordable housing for residents of public housing

Clean Environment

Low income, affordable Community Cohesion public housing Economic Development

Land use impacts

Accessibility

Community Cohesion Bus Facility Moved

Individual Direct, indirect, secondary Select link analysis (VMT accessibility to Lexington Market and cumulative effects (based and VHT) on Traffic & population Crime statistics Time, distance, and forecast population proximity Employment accessibility and analyses service accessibility

Analyze accessibility using select link analysis and traffic flow data Collect data from adjacent communities.

Case Study Report: Kirk Avenue Bus Yard The Midway Community is one in which residential and industrial uses collide. The Kirk Avenue bus yard has been a point of contention between the surrounding community and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) for some time. The primary complaints have to do with the impact of noise and

31

emissions from bus operations on the community and its residents. The bus yard is located between industrial land to the north and east and residential neighborhoods to the west and south, that seem to have somewhat receded over time. What is not clear is the extent to which the operations at the Kirk Avenue bus yard have directly caused the decline of the neighborhood. Community Concerns •

Residents complain that the noise levels at the bus yard are too high and are causing physiological health impacts.

•

There are concerns about the impacts of engine idling on residents’ respiratory health. A number of residents have asthma and some have died of cancer.

•

The bus yard is too close to homes. The Kirk Avenue bus yard is 1 of 3 MTA bus yards located in or near residential areas.

•

Residents are concerned about the impact of the bus yard on property values, as the bus yard is perceived as having a negative impact upon the community.

•

Quality of life has declined for many residents due to an inability to fully use their homes because of exhaust and noise. Examples cited were: Not being able to open windows in rooms facing bus yard; No one with any respiratory problems can sleep in the back rooms; and No backyard cookouts.

•

Community representatives have appealed to the MTA on numerous occasions to address these conditions but feel their concerns are not being resolved or at time, even considered.

Analysis and Findings Bus Operations: • In terms of daily pullouts, the Kirk Avenue bus yard is the 2nd largest MTA bus facility.

•

All 4 of MTA’s bus yards have had a significant decrease in bus pullouts between 1997 and 2007; however Kirk Avenue has experienced the largest decrease (22.5%).

•

Some of the bus routes leaving from Kirk Avenue directly serve the Midway Community. Of the 12 bus routes that leave the Kirk Avenue bus yard, 4 are within a 1/2 mile radius of Kirk Avenue and 2 are within 1 mile.

Community Impacts:

•

Noise pollution noted at bus yard: Announcements over loud speakers, Engines running throughout day and night, Repairs and servicing.

•

Recorded noise levels exceeded Baltimore City ordinance levels during both day and night, nearly every day tested. Noise levels were higher during night hours, especially on weekends. This could affect residents’ health (loss of sleep, high levels of stress, etc).

•

Although the daily average of air pollution didn’t exceed the federal standard, the 2 week average indicates that the annual standard may be exceeded.

•

The effects of air pollution put residents at an increased risk for adverse health effects. Related illnesses and doctor/hospital visits were documented and mapped.

32

•

Property values are lower in the 1/4 mile residential areas surrounding the bus yard, particularly given the houses are larger units than those in the surrounding area.

Assessment and Recommendations:

•

MTA is currently responding to the community’s concerns with some mitigation measures (all new hybrid buses are located at the Kirk Avenue bus yard rather than diesel fueled buses, new operational procedures have been put in place, a new structure is replacing the old structure, etc).

•

The community should have ongoing, structured, negotiations with MTA regarding near-term and long-term strategies that will begin to provide some relief from the impacts which are substantially attributed to the bus yard.

•

The community should ask the MTA for a clear statement of the likely impacts of the new, planned facility and pursue mitigation for impacts from construction and implementation of the new facility.

Tools Used in this Case Study: • Residents maintained a Diary of concerns, that was made available to the team •

Community meetings

•

Map of bus routes

•

Socio-demographic profiling

•

Homeownership and property value analysis

•

Map of reported illnesses and health concerns

•

Indoor and outdoor air pollution measurements

Key Policy Questions • Should damage assessment fees be considered for transportation systems that disproportionately impact communities? •

Scaling upwards, how can the overall EJ concern of minorities be addressed within the existing transportation system? What practical solutions can be implemented?

•

How can future transportation systems be designed in a way to facilitate movement while minimizing distributional economic, environmental and health outcomes across communities?

Case Study Report: Cherry Hill Issues The Cherry Hill community is located in the southern section of Baltimore City, south of the Inner Harbor/Central Business District of Baltimore City. The Cherry Hill community was established in the late 1940’s when the Housing Authority of Baltimore City chose it as a site of a federal project for African American war workers migrating from the South. In those days of segregated housing, no neighborhood in the city was available for an influx of African Americans. Today , Cherry Hill is a mostly residential area with apartment complexes, row houses, and public housing projects. Some of the public housing has been demolished leaving large tracts of land in the middle of the community that can be redeveloped in the future.

33

Community Concerns • Residents feel there are too few buses •

The buses do not run on schedule

•

Bus stops, shelters, sidewalks are poorly maintained

•

Paratransit vehicles are poorly equipped

•

Drivers are impolite

•

As a poor community, residents are highly dependent on transit

•

People miss appointments or are left stranded

•

Employers see Cherry Hill residents as unreliable

•

Complaints go unanswered

Analysis and Findings Impact of Changes on Regional Accessibility: • Decreased transit access overall

•

Major areas of east Baltimore are inaccessible within 1 hour of travel time

•

Access to substantial areas of northeast Baltimore are no longer reachable without at least one hour of travel time

•

Light rail service has improved travel time to jobs in the BWI corridor

•

Overall access to jobs for transit dependent households in Cherry Hill has declined

Community Profile and Changes: Between 1990 and 2000 there was a marked change in the size of the Cherry Hill Regional Planning District (RPD). Here are some of the findings: • Overall population declined 21.1%, with the largest population decrease among whites (-46.8%) with the largest increases among non-whites (+77.8%) and Hispanics (+99%).

•

There was a 12.9% decline in the number of households

•

The largest decreases in households were seen among married couples with children (-51.4%)

•

Single person households increased by 15.8%

•

By age, the largest decreases were seen among 18 to 44 year olds (-31.7%) and in children under 5 (-29.6%)

•

The total reduction in housing was 9.3%, but percent change in vacant homes increased by 113%

•

The number of employed residents fell by 28.6% and the unemployment rate was 15.5% of total labor force – well above the national average

Assessment and Recommendations

34

•

An initial review shows the Cherry Hill community has experienced deferential treatment with regard to transit service, however additional investigations should be undertaken to quantify and legitimize residents’ claims. Recommended studies and actions are listed below.

•

Consider developing an independent monitoring and assessment program to document community concerns regarding both transit and paratransit services.

•

Implement a process to report back to the community about the status of investigations into complaints, including any changes implemented as a result.

•

Create a community advisory board.

•

Establish that the reductions in bus services after the Light Rail service that began in 1992 were not part of a much larger, system wide reduction in services due to financial restrictions

Tools Used in This Case Study • A Listening Session •

Maps showing changes to transit travel times

•

Regional travel model analysis

•

Population, housing, and employment statistics

•

Map of available transit in area

Key policy questions •

In the face of decline in bus service quality and frequency, what is the associated impact on community socio-economic performance?

•

What lessons can be learned from the Cherry Hill study to integrate in transit service decisions regarding the socio-economic impacts of route decisions?

•

How can the socio-economic concerns of communities be addressed through participatory public transportation system decision making process?

Case Study Report: Lexington Market Lexington Market is a major commercial destination in downtown Baltimore, providing fresh produce, meats, seafood, and a variety of vendors selling items in a large, historic building. The market is not only a major tourist attraction, but also a mainstay for a large portion of Baltimore’s minority community, who prize its selections, freshness and tradition. Beginning in 2001, the City of Baltimore Police Department, the Market Authority, and the MTA introduced a set of controversial changes when they moved the stops for several of the bus routes. Community Concerns • The public felt it had been marginalized and left out of the decision-making process •

Commercial interests were given preference over community well-being

•

Shoppers complained they had to walk longer distances to connect with buses

•

The public expressed concerned about exposure to vehicle exhaust as they walk to buses

•

Pedestrians have to navigate busy traffic to visit the market or transfer between transit services.

35

Analysis and Findings Changes in Regional Transit Access:

•

Historically, a large number of the city’s minority and low-income residents have traveled to the market by public transportation

•

Improvements in transit access to the market are seen in the communities to the north and west of the market. A significant improvement was also noted for Westport residents (-11 minutes).

•

In general, due to the addition of Metro and light rail, a much higher percentage of the region is within a 1-hour travel window of Lexington Market in 2000 over 1990.

•

The net effect of the added rail services seems to have improved transit access to the market.

Transportation statistics:

•

The crosswalks at Lexington Street are not signalized. The crosswalks supports major pedestrian traffic made up of visitors and transit users.

•

A 1996 City of Baltimore traffic report documents that 600 to 800 vehicles travel every hour along Eutaw Street in front of Lexington Market. This amounts to one vehicle every 4 to 6 seconds, making crossing without a signal difficult and dangerous.

•

Pedestrian counts taken at the same time show over 500 pedestrians crossing Eutaw Street. Given the narrow sidewalks, these high volumes of pedestrians and vehicles make for congested conditions.

Assessment and Recommendations • Some hardship may have been visited upon riders to Lexington Market as a result of the movement of bus stops. However, further information is needed to assess the actual impacts.

•

What is evident is the community was not included in the decision-making process of moving the bus stops. This “issue of process” is more a concern from an environmental justice perspective than the movement of the stops themselves, since they show a lack of consideration for an inclusive process. Recommend the following:

o Research ways to improve decision-making process o Implement improved process for notifying and involving transit riders of proposed changes to bus stops

•

Due to high traffic volumes, pedestrian safety remains a concern for both transit riders and visitors. Recommend the following to address these concerns:

o Collect updated traffic counts to determine current safety issues between pedestrian and vehicle traffic. o

Identify and evaluate alternatives to improve pedestrian safety and access.

Tools Used in This Case Study • Community meetings •

Measure vehicle and pedestrian traffic volumes

36

•

Study changes to travel times

Key policy questions •

What are potential distributional impacts of transit stop changes on minorities and low income riders?

•

How can potential community concerns with transit stop changes be addressed through a participatory public hearing?

•

What are the long-term impacts of transit changes on users and long-term uses?

•

How do transit changes impact local businesses through impact on volume of passengers to a particular location?

Case Study Report: US 40 Highway-to-Nowhere The “Highway to Nowhere” is a massive section of roadway that begins on the western edge of downtown Baltimore and heads due west out of the city as part of US 40 through the neighborhoods of Poppleton, Harlem Park, Lafayette Square and Rosemont. Once the starting point of an ambitious plan to connect I-95, as it passes through Baltimore, with I-70, which terminates at the Baltimore Beltway (I695) in the west, the highway would have been called as I-170. However, the plan ran out of momentum and support before it could proceed beyond the railway line, and thus it remains to this day–almost 30 years after it was opened to traffic – a grade-separated superhighway that is only 1.4 miles long. Community Concerns • The Highway to Nowhere is a ditch that cut the community into two halves.

•

The creation of the Highway to Nowhere led to a decline in property values and in increase in abandoned buildings.

•

There has been an increase in crime, especially drug-related.

•

The city and state have allowed the area to decay over the last 30 years and nothing significant has been done to help correct the mistake of the highway.

•

Residents fear being displaced again when new improvements are introduced.

Analysis and Findings Demographic Characteristics and Changes: • In the 3 main communities affected by the Highway to Nowhere (HTN), significant shifts in population were noted: a 67% decline in the central area and an 80% decline in the eastern area from 1950 to 2000, and a 39% decline in the western area from 1960 to 2000.

•

From 1940 to 2000, Baltimore’s White population fell 70%, while its Black population more than doubled (rising 253%).

•

The HTN corridor is mostly comprised of minority families with low-to-moderate incomes, many earning less than $30,000 per year.

•

Residents living closest to the eastern end of the HTN have a median-income of less than $15,000 per year.

37

•

Residents of the hard-hit eastern section also show signs of economic and social distress:

o 48% of residents over 25 have less than a high school education o 43.3% are living below the poverty level o

28% of housing is vacant

o

57% of homes are occupied by renters.

o 15% of homes are owner-occupied. Congestion, Air Quality, and Transit: • Some portions of the HTN corridor show congestion, particularly where the “expressway” ends.

•

Fulton and Monroe Streets also experience congestion, as they are major arteries bringing substantial traffic through the west Baltimore neighborhoods.

•

A substantial amount of traffic on the HTN comes from outside Baltimore City. This traffic stream is growing each year – daily volumes have increased by 24.5% just since 2000.

•

The principal population subgroups that use the HTN corridor appear to be of a very different socio-economic mix than those live along the corridor.

•

Along the 1.4 mile HTN corridor, daily production of emissions equal 39.2 tons a year of Hydrocarbons and 26.9 tons a year of NOx.

•

Bus transit service is good in the corridor, with MTA bus routes No. 10 and 40 providing frequent east - west from downtown to Social Security, and various cross-routes providing north-south connection.

•

There is access to a commuter train, but no local rail transit in the corridor. However, the proposed Red Line would occupy or parallel the US 40 right-of-way along much of its length.

Assessment and Recommendations • It is clear that the communities in the W. Baltimore neighborhood adjacent to the HTN have had a difficult time. The dislocation of several thousand residents left the remaining African America homeowners and communities struggling to sustain a proud past.

•

The HTN remains 30 years later as a daily reminder for residents of “planning gone wrong.”

•

The local residents bear the burden of 36,000 vehicles a day passing through their communities, generating an estimated 1/4 ton of ozone-producing pollutants each day, while the commuters from Baltimore, Howard, Frederick and even Montgomery Counties have the benefit of access.

•

A significant community planning effort is needed to address the disproportionate burden that is borne by this predominately low-income, minority community.

•

Baltimore City and the MDOT have initiated planning processes in West Baltimore related to the Red Line transit project and West Baltimore MARC station improvements. It will be key for residents to work closely together with planners to ensure community needs are met as planning moves forward on these two projects.

Tools Used in This Case Study • Map congestion levels

38

•

Regional travel forecasting model

•

Review of U.S. Census data

Key policy questions •

An assessment of the distribution of opportunities and burdens of proposed road projects needs to be communicated to communities to generate public support. What are the mechanisms through which proper information on the distribution of the impacts associated with new road projects be communicated to communities?

•

How do transportation planners and decision-makers integrate potential economic and environmental distributional impacts of transportation systems?

•

How can communities be engaged and well-informed to make choices about transportation routes in and near their communities?

39

Chapter 6 ▪ Conclusions This toolkit attempts to provide particular guidance on the selection of the appropriate analysis tools and measures or analysis procedures. During the course of this project we have concluded that effective environmental justice analysis requires that the user first frame the problem to determine what sets of measures are most appropriate for its investigation (in relation to benefits and burdens) and then assess how those measures will be used and interpreted (especially distributional considerations). In developing the framework of analysis for our toolkit we believed that there was a need to address a wide range of demands with the limited guidance available from the existing body of studies and guidebooks. We also believe that there are aspects of the transportation EJ analysis and problem resolution process that are not effectively dealt with in the existing body of information and that this body of information informally constitutes guidance to practitioners and agencies. Pondering the range of problems and concerns that emerged from the Phase I Listening Sessions and Community Dialogue, and later by Phase II and the completion of a comprehensive literature review and the development of four case studies, the BREJT team developed a framework analysis tool with a range of drill down analysis capabilities. The following observations of system gaps are factors that shaped the development of this toolkit. • That public outreach and involvement is extremely important for disadvantaged groups to have a greater say in the planning and decision-making process. Special efforts must be made to reach, inform and involve them. To be credible, that involvement should be continuous through the planning process, early enough to have an impact on the outcome, and there must be a mechanism to ensure closure. • That agency fragmentation may have a lot to do with the inability to have a particular problem properly addressed or acted upon, since the full authority for the problem may not fall within the jurisdiction of a single agency. • That there really is no step-by-step guidance offered (or intended) by any of the federal regulations or directives on EJ, which means that there are no established protocols for conducting EJ assessments and, hence, each federal-aid recipient is free or responsible for its own approach. • In particular, there are no guidelines on what variables are critical and should be included in appraising benefits and burdens. Studies are evolving toward a greater use of outcome measures such as accessibility to jobs and opportunities, but whether or how this is done is left to the discretion of the respective agency, and may be determined by either data limitations or local policy norms. • That different measure, analysis techniques and responses should be indexed to the level of the problem at hand, with allowance for use of more simplistic methods when the circumstances would not benefit from greater detail or accuracy, but where more informative methods are brought into play when the nature of the issue demands them.

• That analytic tools, data and capabilities are highly variable across the many agencies that engage in environmental justice evaluations and problem solving. • That correct understanding and definition of “the problem” is 9/10ths of the task of identifying the correct analysis approach and, ultimately, the solution. This places great weight on the process of problem diagnosis and recommendation for further action. • That every problem or assessment of equity or proportionality in benefits or burdens involves “tradeoffs” to all parties; effective solutions must involve compromise which comes from informed awareness of the relevant benefits and burdens and their distribution. • That the technical elements and the public involvement elements in an EJ process should be interconnected and reinforcing; in other words, the design of the analysis should not left wholly in the domain of technicians nor should the public involvement process be denied critical information, even if it is complex (or potentially controversial). Ability to Influence Decision-Making We have also concluded that agency fragmentation may have a lot to do with the inability to have a particular problem properly addressed or acted upon, since the full authority for the problem may not fall within the jurisdiction of a single agency. Closely tied to this is the paramount question of how minority, low-income and other disadvantaged groups are truly able to gain access to “the system” and trust it to hear their concerns and to get things done. In most areas, the process of defining needs and setting planning and project priorities is a closely held privilege. Triage Process: In the best of all possible worlds, ongoing outreach and community input would address many concerns of low-income and minority communities. Next, in response to complaints regarding a particular issue could be undertaken with the assistance described in the toolkit. In the end, some issues appear intractable, run counter to prevailing policies, or may require substantial capital to mitigate. Therefore a final step in the process is recommended that serves to provide an outlet to communities that have been rebuffed by “the system”, and this is the Triage process. Several factors limit the EJ population’s ability to seek remedy for EJ concerns or to ensure adequate representation in the decision-making process. One important factor may be the fragmented network of organizations authorized or equipped to address these issues. For example, the regional MPO may have difficulty speaking out to raise concern about an issue with transit service, or with planning or land use decisions in a local jurisdiction. Moreover, the single agency would probably find it difficult to recommend a particular type of investigation or response if that response had implications for responsibility outside of the agency. For this reason we have engineered an EJT Triage process at the center of our framework as an institutional strategy for accomplishing collaboration among all the key players, and as an advocacy group for the EJ community. We see this entity as comprised of sufficient expertise and authority to be able to direct an analysis or investigation that will be broad enough to appropriately deal with the critical underlying factors in the given problem, and not simply those which are pertinent to the particular agency. We believe such a collaboration could be an effective way of not only bringing more expertise and resources to bear on a complex EJ problem, but reduce the exposure or risk of any given agency in having responsibility for recommending or implementing an action. Performance Measures, Analytic Tools, and Distributive Impacts

NCHRP reports 8-36(11) and 532 are excellent resources on the concept of benefits and burdens, measures which can be used to quantify those elements, and technical assistance on availability and use of analytic tools and data. NCHRP 532 even attempts the important next step of suggesting when the use of particular tools and measures is most appropriate, i.e., at what level of the planning process. These reports (which build upon the initial benchmark efforts of the Atlanta Benefits and Burdens study) offer substantial aid to practitioners (chiefly planners and modeling specialists) on the tools for performing EJ analysis. There are also issues in how the analytic capabilities are used. As a primary example, most regional planning agencies have GIS capability, and most are now attuned to use of GIS tools to perform buffer analysis showing the location of target populations in relation to transportation system features or service envelopes. However, the use of GIS as a serious planning tool is still largely in the early stages. When combined with population synthesis techniques and household micro-simulation methods, GIS can be a powerful tool for analyzing impacts and their distribution across discrete population segments. NCHRP 8-36(11) and Report 532 should help greatly in illuminating these capabilities, but practicing agencies will still have to be acquainted with the need and benefit of making the effort to embellish and apply them in this manner.

Table 9 Performance Measures by Planning Goal Area

Performance Measures

Application

Analytical Method

Economic Vitality and Competitiveness Accessibility to regional jobs Accessibility to entry-level/semi-skilled jobs Employer accessibility to workers Number of jobs by type and location Business receipts by location Property values by location Safety and Security for Motorized and non-Motorized Travelers Pedestrian/bicycle injuries & fatalities Vehicle Crashes Increase Accessibility and Mobility Options Proximity to transit by type (bus, rail, etc.) Level of service (headways, days/hours of service Average travel times for selected O/D pairs by mode Accessibility to regional educational institutions Accessibility to regional healthcare facilities Average age/condition of buses by area served Protect the Environment, Conserve Energy, and Improve Quality of Life Number of households living with X-feet of busy highway Air pollution concentration by type pollutant Incidence rates of respiratory disorders Number of households exposed to noise exceeding Xdecibels Number of households living within X-feet of a bus terminal Percent of buses servicing area which use alternative fuels Percent takings, household dislocations, access restrictions Enhance Connectivity and Integration Across Modes Number of transfers required for transit trips between select origin/destination pairs Percent of travel time accounted for by transfers in select origin/destination pairs Manage Existing Transportation System for Maximum Efficiency Percent of congested to un-congested travel time between select origin/destination pairs Preserve the Existing Transportation System Condition of roads and streets Condition of sidewalks Funding Equity Transportation capital expenditures per capita Transportation operating expenditures per capita Identity of users benefiting from new project or program

C PL F PL F PL F PL PL

RM GIS RM GIS RM GIS DA GIS DA GIS

C PL F PR DA C PR DA

GIS GIS

C PL F PR RM GIS C PL F PR DA RM GIS C PL RM GIS PL F GIS PL F GIS C F DA GIS C PL F PR DA GIS C PL PR RM GIS EM C PL DA GIS C PL

PR DA RM GIS

C PL DA C PL F DA PL F PR DA

C PL

GIS GIS GIS

RM GIS

PL F

RM GIS

PL

RM GIS

PL F PL F

DA DA

GIS GIS

PL F PR DA PL F PR DA PL F PR DA

GIS GIS GIS

C=Current Concern, PR=Project, PL=Planning, F=Programming, DA=Data Analysis, RM=Regional Travel Models, GIS=GIS-Aided, EM= Emission Models

Pollution Exposure and Human Health Finally, we draw issue with the fact that the most central and urgent tenant of environmental justice overall – protection of human health – is not part of current EJ evaluations or included in the guidance.

This is perfectly understandable, since the state of the practice in EJ evaluation is still attempting to reach an acceptable level of analytical competence while the analysis of health effects raises the capabilities bar to still another level. As earlier discussed, two elements must be in place in order for a health determination to be feasible: (1) data and analytic methods which can relate pollutant concentrations in a particular location, and (2) statistical relationships that connect pollutant exposure with incidence of particular health problems. To date, health impacts have been overlooked because of (perceived) shortcomings in each of these areas. However, based on the guidance on Air Quality evaluation in Chapter 3 of NCHRP Report 532, new methods seem to be emerging that would make it possible to depict pollutant concentrations at a finite geographic level through creation of “pollution surfaces”. This GIS-based methodology combined with ever-increasing evidence from medical research on the pollution exposure-health link; make it possible to begin to assess health consequences of transportation plans or projects. Our proposed research and development of an EJT Toolkit will address these presumed deficiencies in EJ guidance in the following ways: Public Outreach and Involvement: This toolkit builds on the Phase I screen of regional EJ issues to build a collaborative process with the community through development of the toolkit. Specifically, several of the identified issues were selected as projects for study and resolution in Phase II, where we worked interactively with the community in developing the analytic and institutional responses. The community was be at the table with us as we undertook to better understand the concern, identify and assess its underlying causes (and history), and conduct the necessary data assembly and analysis to fully understand the nature and impact of the concerns. The public worked directly with us as we investigated alternative solutions, assessed tradeoffs, and developed a plan for implementation. These problem-solving vignettes were documented as case studies, intended to relate the thinking behind, as well as the outcomes, of the process. We then drew upon this practical and comprehensive experience in developing the toolkit.

Appendix A: Literature Review Introduction A basic premise motivating development of the proposed Environmental Justice in Transportation (EJT) Toolkit is that there is an outstanding need for a practical toolkit to effectively address environmental justice concerns and requirements and to blend EJ into the metropolitan planning and decision-making process. Environmental justice is a bold policy objective of the Federal Government to bring about fairness and equity to disadvantaged populations who might otherwise not be fully represented in societal decisions about funding priorities, or able to affect the implications of those decisions on their mobility, health, or quality of life. That work is still needed to advance this objective is confirmed by the outcomes of Baltimore Region Environmental Justice and Transportation Project community meeting, held in December 2004 at Morgan State University; where members of the region’s minority and lowincome communities were engaged at the neighborhood and regional level in a dialogue unique to the Baltimore region to gain input on the whole ranges of concerns held by the affected community. The identified concerns ranged from issues as immediate as the quality of bus service in poor neighborhoods to exposure to transportation pollution, to patterns in regional transportation funding. Each of these concerns were compelling because of their importance to the community, the multiple dimensions to the problem, and the fact that the community had not found a way to work within the “system” to find a solution. While federal statutes and regulations delineate procedural steps for incorporating EJ requirements into the planning process, those directives provide no practical or systematic guidance on how a comprehensive EJ program or evaluation should be done. While the absence of hard rules and guidance provides important flexibility to implementing agencies, it also invokes a level of conjecture as to what a proper EJ process or analysis should look like. It is argued that there is no single source that an interested party can look to for assistance in negotiating this complex process. In the absence of such guidance, it is further argued that implementing agencies have to do more primary research on their own, leading to trial and error methods, or worse, an EJ analysis or process that falls short of its potential. It is believed that an important characteristic of a successful environmental justice program is that it be dynamic, i.e., that it allow for “cycles” of involvement, information exchange, education, analysis of alternatives and their tradeoffs, and ultimately closure – where the stakeholders are witness to and feel ownership in the final outcome. This process is neither well defined nor linear. However, the types of issues that arise in EJ deliberations are typically not clear-cut, but involve multiple variables and tradeoffs, and also multiple iterations of the process of problem identification, understanding, and resolution. Effective guidance, therefore, must reflect this evolutionary and iterative nature. The need for a toolkit is both aided and made uncertain by the growing number of case studies and research reports on EJ. In the course of developing our proposal to construct an EJT Toolkit under Phase II of the Baltimore Region Environmental Justice and Transportation (BREJT) project, we have conducted a preliminary review of the literature to establish whether our premise is valid. This paper summarizes our review of what we believe to be the key studies and reports that have been produced to date on environmental justice in transportation. In particular, we have reviewed EJ case studies that have been published by FHWA or FTA, or that have been 45

sponsored by these agencies and their documentation made available on the respective websites. We have also reviewed a more recent set of overview studies and handbooks that begin to fill the gap on the “how to” part of EJ. Most of this work is excellent and serves a valued role in the library on this evolving subject, and most should be incorporated in any future guidance activity. To make clear our purpose, this review is to ascertain whether the type of comprehensive approach we are suggesting already exists in substantial whole or part. This document is organized as follows: Section II lists and summarizes a number of studies that represent profiles of existing practice. They are essentially documents built around case studies, and their value is in illustrating how particular areas approached particular EJ initiatives, thus providing a model for others that may be in need of considering similar initiatives. Section III then examines a series of key research studies or guidebook efforts with objectives of providing more generalized directions on different aspects of environmental justice, ranging from community involvement through analytic methods and measurement. Section IV addresses the specific area of health impacts. While environmental justice has always maintained that human health is one of the most critical concerns, EJ studies and guides have invested comparatively little time on this complex subject. Since we are proposing to include health impacts among the key elements of our Toolkit, we summarize in Section IV the treatment of human exposure and health both in the existing EJ literature as well as feature studies that exist that would be drawn upon to incorporate this element into the Toolkit. Finally, Section V provides an overall summary of the findings from this review in relation to what we believe is needed in the way of comprehensive guidance on environmental justice in transportation. Examples of Current Practice Environmental Justice and Transportation Case Studies7 The FHWA and FTA jointly published this compendium of case studies to provide support to others engaged in EJT studies or assessments. The expressed intent of the booklet is “to put environmental justice at the center of transportation decision making”, and to demonstrate that “when properly implemented, EJ principles can improve all levels of transportation decisionmaking – from the first thought about a transportation plan through project development, rightof-way, construction, operations and maintenance”. The premise is that “pursuing environmental justice is not a simple task, but one that stretches the imagination of the transportation agency, calling upon the practitioner to explore new methods and new partnerships”. It further possible that “eliminating discrimination, and the appearance of discrimination, often requires probing analysis of transportation issues, broad-based community outreach, and a particular sensitivity to the needs [sic] of people who have not traditionally been participants in the decision-making process”. The case study booklet illustrates how 10 different areas independently approached EJ aspects in a variety of planning, project or impact resolution contexts. The intent is to present a “story” of how a given area recognized an EJ problem or need and dealt with it – usually documenting the process from beginning to end in an attempt to illustrate the “learning curve” for the given agency. The essential characteristics of the 10 case studies are illustrated in Table 10. Clearly, the studies cover a wide range of planning activities, setting, techniques used and organizations involved. The examples in the booklet provide assurance as to how agencies, practitioners, 7

Federal Highway Administration & Federal Transit Administration, Transportation & Environmental Justice Case Studies. US Department of Transportation, Pub. No. FHWA-EP-01-010 (December 2000).

46

others have faced similar problems or circumstances and developed an approach to deal with it. There are good insights in this book on public participation methods, analytic approaches, and institutional mechanics, all of which add to the knowledge base and awareness of the dimensions of environmental justice. The limitations of the case study booklet as “guidance” are: •

The examples are somewhat random in topic coverage, and while interesting, require the user to ascertain which studies and which aspects they find relevant.

•

It is not always clear that the path chosen by the particular case study is either optimal or inclusive of all important considerations, nor that they necessarily reached an effective solution.

•

This guidance requires the user to try to decide how much of the particular process to replicate in their respective situation.

47

Table 10: Summary of FWHA Case Studies

X

Cypress Freeway Replacement Project (Oakland, CA)

X

X

X

South

Junction

Carolina

Interchange Environmental Assessment (Yavapai County, AZ) Route 72 Environmental Assessment (Calhoun Falls, SC)

X

B,LI

M,LI

X

X

X

Fruitvale BART TOD Project (Oakland CA)

Cordes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

B,LI

X

H,B,A,LI

X

H,B,LI

X

H,LI

X

N

X

B,LI

Geography (Urban/Rural)

Type of Stakeholder

Highway

State DOT

Transit

MPO,

U

Highway

State

U

Highway,

MPO

U

Highway

State DOT

U

Transit

Transit Agency

U

Highway,

MPO

enhancements, context sensitive design, public involvement Tribal consultation, cultural resources assessment

U

Bike/Ped,

City

R

Highway

State DOT

Community impact assessment, public involvement

R

Highway

State DOT

Topics and Effective Practices

Minority/Low Income, Black, Asian, Latino Native American, Hispanic M,LI

X

Southern California Regional Transportation Plan (Los Angeles Region)

B,A,LI

Research Topics

Agency Involved

X

X

East-West Expressway EIS Statement (Durham, NC)

MPO Environmental Justice Report (Columbus, OH) South Park Avenue Improvement Project (Tucson, AZ)

Public Involvement

Community Impact Assess.

ROW Evaluation

X

EJ Cat.

Transportation Mode

Verona Road & West Beltline Needs Assessment Study (Madison, WI) Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Planning (Northern NJ)

Project Develop./NEPA

Type Activity Planning

Case Study Name/Location

Early public involvement Data sources, GIS, Analytical Methods, MPO regional coordination Title VI complaint, housing of last resort, mitigation and enhancements, collaborative plans Data sources, analytical techniques, benefits/burdens, alternative dispute resolution Project development, right of way, public involvement, mitigation and enhancements Partnerships, enhancements, public involvement Data sources, analytical techniques Partnerships,

48

U R,U

Transit

DOT,

DOT,

City,

FTA,

Two of the case studies in the FHWA/FTA compendium with a high degree of applicability to the type of toolkit contemplated in the EJT framework are Southern California’s (SCAG) regional plan update, and Mid-Ohio’s (MORPC) environmental justice assessment. Both are reviewed separately below. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): “Community Link 21”8 The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 1998 update of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) became a national example of the methods and processes for assessing the benefits and burdens of a regional transportation plan. The 1998 RTP, known as CommunityLink 21, developed and adopted performance indicators that gauge the social and economic effects of transportation investment decisions on the region’s minority and lowincome populations. SCAG’s initial RTP (long range plan) update was faulted for inadequate treatment of equity and accessibility issues. A coalition of groups led by Environmental Defense claimed that the plan offered few benefits to those living below the poverty line, and that SCAG had failed to meaningfully involve low income and minority communities in the planning process. Under threat of a lawsuit, SCAG revised its process in several important ways to better serve low-income communities: •

• • •

It recommended a transit restructuring strategy to better serve low-income communities. It incorporated a transportation equity performance indicator in their plan evaluationprocess. It employed the measure of accessibility with a new emphasis toward differentiating impacts by transportation mode, income group and ethnicity. It examined parity between the tax burden shouldered by individual income groups and then developed a method to assess the distribution of transportation benefits along the same lines.

As a result of these efforts, SCAG was able to earn the support of EDF, and the resulting RTP was hailed for “bringing transportation equity to the planning table.” Lessons Learned In terms of the value of this case study for comprehensive EJ guidance, we note the following contributions (as summarized in Table 11):

• • •

Use of accessibility as a key measure of transportation performance Explicit consideration of benefit/burdens disparities in relation to both existing and proposed transportation investments Active incorporation of these findings in the regional planning process and subsequent plan updates Emergence of the MPO as a regional forum for debating EJ issues and concerns

8

Southern California Association of Governments, “CommunityLink 21, Regional Transportation Plan: Equity and Accessibility Performance Indicators.” Transportation & Environmental Justice Case Studies. US DOT Pub. No. FHWA-EP-01-010 (December 2000).

49

However, the following are areas where the case study may not provide sufficient guidance: • • • • •

The public participation process was engineered “after the fact”, with some interesting new techniques only beginning to be tested at the time of the case study’s preparation. Not clear how the EJ population was materially involved in the actual drafting of the revised RTP. The 10-member Peer Review Committee had no community members Analytic tools employed were unremarkable Health impacts not considered

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC): Environmental Justice Report9 In response to the October 1999 joint memorandum from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) directing that environmental justice compliance be made part of the MPO certification process, MORPC undertook a comprehensive review of its transportation planning activities to ensure its compliance with Title VI. The review was built around four steps: • • • •

Mapping the locations of minority and low-income populations Identifying the transportation needs of the targeted population Documenting the public involvement process Quantifying the benefits and burdens of existing and proposed transportation plans

MORPC’s first step was to convene a 12-member task force to serve as an advisory group for the process, including members from local governments, the transit agency, the state environmental agency, several public interest groups and two members of the target community. The committee played a key role in helping define the target population, identify its needs, evaluate the public involvement process, and develop measures to assess benefits and burdens. MORPC used a combination of census block data, the regional travel model (TAZ level aggregation) and GIS to profile and map the target population. Transportation needs were ascertained from existing studies, and focused chiefly on bus transit access. A series of accessibility and travel time measures were developed to assess benefits and burdens of alternative transportation system investment plans (2020 no-build, 2020 current TIP, and 2020 full RTP improvements). From this assessment MORPC determined that its low income and minority residents were at least as well served by existing and proposed investments as other segments of the population. In April 2000, based on recommendations of its Citizen Advisory and Transportation Advisory Committees, MORPC adopted the Environmental Justice Assessment into its regional transportation plan, and presumably satisfied the USDOT’s certification requirements. Lessons Learned Value of this case study for EJ guidance purposes would be in the following areas (as summarized in Table 2):

9

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, “MPO Environmental Justice Report.” Transportation & Environmental Justice Case Studies. US DOT Pub. No. FHWA-EP-01-010 (December 2000).

50

• • •

Creation of a diverse 12-member regional EJ Task Force to steer the process, including 2 community members Use of accessibility and travel time measures to assess benefits and burdens in relation to both existing and future transportation opportunities Use of GIS methods to help locate and map EJ populations, and subsequently to incorporate these data in regional travel model runs

The following are areas where the information in the case study is in doubt as guidance: • • •

• •

Actual public participation process was minimal and not worthy of replication: it was after the fact and involved only one community Open House with 50 attendees. It is unclear what community input derived from this process. Transportation needs were extracted from existing studies and/or model runs, and did not involve the public. Major focus was on connecting EJ urban populations with decentralizing job opportunities, and particularly through reverse commute bus service. Accessibility measures and analytic tools used are fairly primitive. It appears that they compare accessibility for EJ groups by transit within a 40-minute acceptable time envelope with 20-minute envelope for regular population. Hence, they conclude no existing or future disparities in benefits. Long term continuing spatial mismatch between people in jobs is cited as an issue but not raised outside the chosen accessibility measures/assessment. Speaks to the narrow range of vision adopted by study. Health impacts not considered

Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG): EJ Challenge Grant Project10 CRCOG was one of four agencies selected in 2001 to participate in a federal Environmental Justice Challenge Grant program. These grants were for the purpose of allowing each agency to assess how well their transportation planning programs were meeting the goals and requirements of Title VI and to identify ways to improve involvement of minority communities in those programs. The CRCOG process had three objectives: (1) to develop a current profile of the region’s minority and low-income communities; (2) to find ways to increase public involvement in all phases of the planning process; and (3) to develop quantitative methods for use in assessing whether the target community is receiving a fair share of the region’s transportation benefits or burdens. CRCOG’s documentation of its work unabashedly notes that its emphasis was much more on developing a process-oriented strategy and improving the involvement of the minority and low-income community in the planning process than on developing quantitative methods for assessing transportation needs, benefits and burdens. In that vein, it would appear that CRCOG made significant efforts to involve the public in its process, to the extent of dropping an early strategy to run the entire process with a single committee to on that relied instead on a series of community workshops. These were located in different areas at different times and each addressed a different set of questions dealing with some aspect of the regional planning process. Considerable insights were gained with respect to methods of outreach and involvement, ways to communicate information, needs and 10

Capitol Region Council of Governments, “Environmental Justice & CRCOG’s Transportation Planning Program”, Environmental Justice & Title VI Challenge Grant, Hartford, CT (December 2002).

51

concerns, and areas of the planning process most in need of improvement. A particular goal of CRCOG in its evaluation was to identify ways to increase the involvement of the target population in core decision-making activities, like project selection, TIP development, and update of the regional long range plan. To increase the odds of this happening, CRCOG recommended two key organizational changes: (1) formation of an Environmental Justice Advisory Board to advise the decision-making Transportation Committee, and (2) appointment of an Advisory Board member as a voting member of the Transportation Committee. CRCOG did investigate and attempt some improvements to its quantitative methods, but admitting that this was not a prime area of interest, most of the outcomes were at the definition and recommendation stage. Lessons Learned Value of this case study for EJ guidance purposes would be in the following areas (as summarized in Table 10): • • •

• •

Significant experimentation with public outreach methods and good success in getting input of transportation needs and ways to improve the planning process (Proposed) Creation of an EJ Advisory Committee to advise the voting Transportation Committee on EJ issues bearing on planning and programming decisions (Proposed) Inclusion of a member of the EJ Advisory Committee as a voting member on the Transportation Committee Extensive use of GIS methods help locate and map EJ populations, coupled with definition of thresholds (i.e., what constitutes minority or low-income) Development of analysis methods and measures to evaluate Equity in both the shortterm TIP and in the long-term regional transportation plan. Used GIS to co-locate target populations and transportation projects to determine equity in project funding; used regional travel model to develop accessibility measure for LRP

The following are areas where the information in the case study is in doubt as guidance: • •

• •

Much of what is in the documentation is in the way Action Plan recommendations; they are interesting and ambitious recommendations but it is not clear how many have actually been implemented and with what effect An aversion over “complex” technical measures steered the study away from measures like accessibility, although they came back to adopt it in their recommendations. Unfortunately, the only accessibility measure they used in the study was access to jobs by transit for zero-car households (from pre-existing work), so there is no real sense for whether the near term or long term plans achieve equity The short term measure – percent of TIP investments vs. percent EJ population – is not an outcome oriented measure of performance, and may be tainted also by the inclusion of transit subsidies in the cost accounting for the EJ population Health impacts not considered

Case Studies in Environmental Justice and Public Transit Title VI Reporting11 11

Ward, B. Case Studies in Environmental Justice and Public Transit Title VI Reporting. University of South Florida, National Center for Transit Research. Final Report, TCRP J-06, Task 47 (Sept. 2005).

52

This study was jointly funded by TCRP and the National Center for Transit Research at the University of South Florida for the purpose of identifying examples of environmental justice solutions and Title VI reporting and implementation that demonstrate commitment to equitable distribution of public transportation resources. In an earlier study by NCTR, Title VI reporting was identified as a tool for assessing the impacts of transportation decisions, particularly as related to environmental justice. This is one of the comparatively few EJ case studies emanating from the transit sector, and hence has value in taking a slightly different view of EJ requirements. A theme echoed in the study is that persons of color and with low incomes tend to walk, bike and use transit more than the general population, are more likely to be victims of auto-pedestrian incidents, and are more likely to be affected by decisions that direct transportation resources into suburban highway improvements over urban transit. The study suggests that five topics encapsulate many of the facets of environmental justice issues in transportation: (1) justice in decision making; (2) the geographic placement of transportation facilities; (3) public transit access to government services; (4) equity in transportation investments; and (5) transportation, land use, economic development, and social equity. The study is built around five case studies, each of which provides an example of actions taken by transit agencies to respond to environmental justice and Title VI concerns, and documents techniques used to achieve community buy-in and support. Four of the case studies entail metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Chicago, Denver and Miami), while the fifth is a national assessment of EJ issues facing native Americans and Alaskans. The study report concludes with a section on “Suggested Guidance” for transportation agencies addressing civil rights and environmental justice issues, which includes the following elements: Improving agencies’ public outreach and involvement efforts • • • • • • •

Providing access to the decision making process at all levels, from the MPO long range planning process through service delivery and maintenance. Impacts associated with the siting of transportation facilities, with goals for ensuring equitable distribution of benefits and burdens. Fragmented government authority problematic in dealing with multi-faceted problems Equity in transportation investments, and financial and other implications of these investments Disconnect between land use and transportation decisions and authority Use of Title VI program guidelines to support collection of data which supports identification of minority/low-income populations and analysis of service standards and policies in these areas. Consideration of the differential effect of cuts in bus service, routing changes, location and maintenance of stations and equipment on minority populations, who are more likely to be impacted.

The value of this study as a guidance tool is primarily in its shaping of issues and practices that relate to transit and non-motorized transportation, both of which have greater impact on the EJ community. This would be important in the areas of public involvement, access to the decisionmaking process, and awareness of differential impacts. Where this study may fall short in its

53

guidance potential is that it has relatively little information on specific performance measures, analytic approaches, and step-by-step guidance on process. Existing Research Studies and Technical Assistance Guides Atlanta Transportation Benefits & Burdens Study12 This project was the result of a 1997 agreement between the USDOT and a coalition of nongovernment agencies (Environmental Defense, Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice, and Georgia Coalition for a People’s Agenda) to conduct a study of environmental justice in the Atlanta region. The work was to be performed in two phases – a Phase 1 assessment of public participation followed by a Phase II assessment of the distribution of transportation benefits and burdens on minority and low-income populations. Phase I was completed during 1999 and 2000, tied to the solicitation of comments and opportunities for change in participation in the 2000 Regional Transportation Plan update. FHWA’s Office of Human Environment, its Office of Metropolitan Planning, and FTA’s Office of Planning participated in this review, for which the Phase I report 13 concluded that the Atlanta Regional Commission needed to be more proactive in engaging minority and low-income populations, better documenting their public involvement activities, increasing their capacity to sustain outreach to local communities, and removing institutional and logistical barriers between the public and decision makers. The main purpose of Phase II of this study was to evaluate quantitative measures of transportation benefits and burdens for minority and low-income populations in the Atlanta region. This work was done by private consultants contracted by FHWA using a framework that first established a baseline of current distributions of benefits and burdens, which were then compared with conditions likely to occur over the next 25 years due to demographic trends and transportation investments. Given the timing of the study, 2000 Census data were not yet available so the researchers were forced to assemble information from various sources representing different points in time from 1990 to 2000. Therefore the approach used was to set up a template representing “current conditions” which could be updated when new data became available or in relation to future scenarios for RTP updates. Two different groups of participants were used to comment on the work: a Review Panel that ensured that the analyses produced clear and understandable information, and a Technical Committee that determined whether the work was technically reliable and consistent with good practice. Both groups had a diverse membership that included government agencies, non-profit interest groups, and EJ community advocates. Phase I served to solicit the community’s input on appropriate benefits and burdens to measure. The study team recognized that it didn’t have the tools or data to address all the questions that were raised, and that no single measure would provide a complete answer. It was clear that the dimensions of geography, demographic characteristics, transportation system attributes and model data would have to be synthesized from different sources, levels of aggregation or even points in time in order to portray travel patterns or impacts by race, ethnicity and income. GIS 12

USDOT, FHWA, FTA, Transportation Benefits & Burdens in the Atlanta Region, Final Draft, May 2002 USDOT Office of Civil Rights. Assessment of Environmental Justice and Public Involvement in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area”. Phase I Report (April 2000). 13

54

was the key tool used for this synthesis, and for presenting the information in understandable formats. Given the focus of the Phase II study effort on “measures”, and the objective of FHWA to identify measurement tools that could be used in a variety of planning scenarios, RTP updates or focused planning studies, the research team evaluated a rather lengthy list of measures. Each of these measures was derived from the Phase I outreach process, including input from both the community and transportation agencies. The key measures that were recommended by the study were: • • • •

Population within walking distance of transit Percent of employment accessible within 60 minutes by transit for lower income groups Average congested travel time by income Potential impact to historic areas

Other measures that were evaluated included: transit load factors (as surrogate for service quality); effect of congestion on neighborhood safety; quality of transportation system maintenance; proximity of population to point source emissions (represented by bus yards); proximity to mobile source pollution (population near major highways as proxy); effect of taking property for transportation on community cohesion; distribution of crashes; incidence of transportation costs. For each measure the study documented: • • • • •

Description and importance of the measure Measurement tools Lessons learned/areas for further consideration Important technical considerations Alternative approaches not taken, and why

Lessons Learned Value of this case study for EJ guidance purposes would be in the following areas (as summarized in Table 10): •

• • •

The major value of this study is that of a technical aid in understanding the challenge of defining and measuring benefits and burdens, and in particular trying to effectively measure these commodities (performance measures) in relation to the impacted populations. Starts addressing the issue of tradeoffs – what is benefit to one may be a burden to another. Question is how to balance. Provides assistance in identification, appraisal and manipulation of data (how to work in an imperfect information world, although some issue as to how the Atlanta situation compares to other areas) Health impacts are approached, with good reference information

The following are areas where the information in the case study is in doubt as guidance: •

While this is a comprehensive list of measures, it is not particularly an exhaustive or well-categorized list. It does not link particular issues with appropriate measures. 55

•

•

No lesson on how this came out of the regional planning process, or even if the recommendations will find their way into use. It was done for, not by, the locals (with their participation but difficult to ascertain ownership) A practical consideration in the value of this study is that – to our knowledge -- a final Phase II report has never been released. Since the study was completed in 2002, this raises the question of whether the study or its findings have been accepted by the sponsoring agencies.

NCHRP Project 8-36(11): Technical Methods to Support Analyses of Environmental Justice Issues 14 This project was undertaken as a special study for AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Planning to provide assistance to state DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies and others attempting to address environmental justice requirements in planning and project studies. The primary focus was on identifying and developing an inventory of technical approaches that could be in both systemslevel and corridor/subarea planning to quantify benefits and burdens and their distribution across individual population groups. To perform this review, the study both articulated and offered interpretation for the array of existing environmental justice laws and policy directives, and also collected information on current practice and challenges from a large number of practicing agencies. Based on interviews with 15 state DOTs, 21 MPOs, and three transit agencies, the study determined that there is considerable uncertainty among agencies as to the appropriate level of analysis that is necessary, the correct mix of public involvement and technical analysis, and the manner in which environmental justice should be treated during systems planning. The existing practice review confirmed that the approaches in use for project planning are much better defined and accepted than they are for statewide or regional systems planning. The report describes methods, including examples, for defining and identifying population groups, conducting public outreach and involvement, defining measures of benefit and burden, defining disproportionate impacts, and responding to environmental justice issues. Its primary strength, however, is in its description of methods for identifying and examining the distribution of risks, benefits and burdens. It provides both a solid overview of the definitions of benefits and burdens, and the procedures for assessing disparate benefits. Lists of each type of measure are provided, along with descriptions on how they may calculated, agencies which have used the measures and their experiences. An emphasis is placed on currently available methods that can be applied immediately without further research, but the study also makes note of other methods that are currently in use which may be valuable in environmental justice applications, but which are not being routinely applied in that context. Lessons Learned As a guidance tool, NCHRP 8-36(11) has considerable value in the following areas: •

Improving understanding of the legal issues driving environmental justice evaluations, and the guidance given or not given by the various statutes and directives.

14

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Technical Methods to Support Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues. NCHRP Project 8-36(11) (April 2002).

56

• • •

Offering a sense of what other transportation and planning agencies are doing to address EJ in their different levels of planning and project activities. An inventory of and orientation to measures of benefit and burden, their meaning, value and methods of computation. Solid grounding in the definition and assessment of disproportionate impacts.

Where NCHRP 8-36(11) falls somewhat short in its guidance is in the following areas: • • •

Illustrating application and actual use of these measures in real world situation Incorporation of public outreach and involvement Nuance of introducing these measures within the institutional planning and decisionmaking process.

CalTrans: Desk Guide -- Environmental Justice in Transportation Planning and Investments15 The purpose of the Desk Guide is to provide those involved in making decision about California’s transportation system (public agencies, concerned citizens, community-based organizations concerned citizens, community-based organizations, and elected officials) with information and examples of ways to promote environmental justice. In section 5 of the Desk Guide it states that there are “only a few resources providing guidance on assessing the distribution of transportation project impacts on low-income and minority population”. While the Desk Guide covers the full breath of regulatory, procedural, and technical issues, it does not provide detailed guidance or background in any specific area. Rather, each section of the Desk Guide points to resources (reports, papers, guidance documents, Internet sites, etc.) that provide greater detail for interested readers. Table 11 summarizes the types of information that are included in this reference guide, by individual chapter. The value of the Desk Guide in the guidance area would seem to be as a convenient reference guide.

15

California Department of Transportation, Desk Guide, Environmental Justice in Transportation Planning and

Investments. Division of Transportation Planning, Office of Policy Analysis & Research (January 2003).

57

Table 11: Desk Guide Highlights

Ch.

Focus

Highlights

1

Impacts

Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts (Air pollution, Noise and Water)

2

Legal and regulatory context

Historical Beginnings, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Title VI Application to Transportation in the Los Angeles MTA Lawsuit, Changes in the VI Enforcement.

3

How public agencies incorporate environmental justice issues into their planning processes

Developing Agency-Specific Environmental Justice Policies, Training and Education, National Highway Institute Courses, Establishing a Citizens’ Advisory Committee, Need for Citizens’ Advisory Committees, Roles for Citizens’ Advisory Committees and Environmental Justice and Public Involvement (Attitude, Active Engagement, Public Information Materials, Language, Effective Public Meetings and Operating Support for Community-Based Organizations)

4

When and how environmental justice issues can be addressed

Overview of the Long-Range Transportation Planning Process, Defining Population Groups (Regulatory Definitions and Current Practice in California) Data Sources (U.S. Census, The American Community Survey, National Household Transportation Survey and Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) and Non-Traditional Public Data Sources. Developing Vision, Assessing Needs and Identifying Investment Alternatives, Involving the Public Early to Generate Real Alternatives, Using Community Groups In Needs Assessment., Performance Measures (Accessibility, Employment Accessibility, Access to other Activities, Travel Time, Transportation Service Provision, Other Performance Measures, Evaluating Disproportionate Impacts (Spatial Distribution versus Area Wide Analysis, Travel Models and Key Assumptions and The use of GIS and Mapping)

5

How environmental justice relates to transportation

Defers to Technical Methods to Support Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues, NCHRP Project 8-41, Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment (Forthcoming at the time of this publication) and Environmental Justice and Transportation Investment Policy

6

Application highlights of various techniques

Public Participation: Arterial corridor Needs Assessment in Madison, Wisconsin, Road Widening in Calhoun Falls, south Carolina, Intersection Rebuilding in Yavapia County, Arizona. Assessment Methods: Southern California Association of Governments 2001 Regional Transportation Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2001 Regional Transportation Plan, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Livability Footprint Equity Analysis, Regional Transportation Planning in Columbus, Ohio

58

Environmental Justice and Transportation: A Citizens Handbook16 The Citizens Guide was written with the general public in mind. It provides introductory detail for investigating and advocating environmental justice and transportation issues. Its intent is help those who are new to the transportation planning and decision making process influence how environmental justice is incorporated into decisions about transportation policy and projects. It provides a basic orientation to environmental justice and the legal requirements for its inclusion in the transportation planning process identifies steps in the planning process when citizen involvement is particularly effective, and provides suggestions on how environmental justice can be incorporated in a project. The Citizen’s Guide appears to be a valuable resource for the layperson, and as guidance instrument would appear to have its greatest value in relation to the EJ community itself. This guide can help educate the community or its advocates on how to engage the planning process and have an impact. NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment17 NCHRP Report 532 is a guidebook designed for planning practitioners in state DOTs, MPOs, and local planning agencies who must consider environmental justice impacts in planning, programming, and implementing transportation projects. It presents as a step-by-step guide that provides technical assistance in selecting appropriate methods of analysis for calculating any of a number of relevant impacts. While intended primarily as a planning guide, it is also promoted as an educational resource on the concepts, tools and procedures currently employed for assessing environmental justice issues in the context of transportation planning decisions. The guidebook is a continuation of research begun in project 8-36(11), focusing more on the modification of existing methods and developing new methods that are needed. The methods in the handbook are organized by topic in order to facilitate use by practitioners in assessing EJ issues within specific application categories. The categories included are: • • • • • • • • • • •

Air quality Hazardous materials Water Quality and drainage Safety Transportation user effects (primarily accessibility) Community cohesion Economic development Noise Visual quality Land prices and property values Cultural resources

Each of these categories is presented as a stand-alone chapter with the following information included: •

Overview of the measure: the effect being addressed and why it would have EJ implications

16

Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), Environmental Justice and Transportation: A Citizens Handbook. University of California at Berkeley (2003). 17 Forkenbrock, D.J. and Sheeley, J. NCHRP Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Transportation Research Board (2004).

59

• • • • •

State of the practice: how the effect is evaluated by the profession and used for EJ Selecting an appropriate method of analysis: guidance on which method to use for particular situations, scaled to level of focus and type of decision pending Methods: discusses each alternative method in detail Resources: cites articles, book and other sources with additional, more detailed information References: lists the sources that used in compiling the chapter

The Guidebook also provides a basic foundation on the essentials of environmental justice, its place in the planning process, the concepts of benefits, burdens and distributive effects, and the basic challenges facing planning professionals. There is a separate chapter dealing with the identification of “protected populations”, including a summary and assessment of the many different data sources, tools and methods which have been used. The appendices include more detailed information on EJ requirements and case law, as well as detailed sections on how to use GIS systems and Decennial Census data to evaluate EJ issues. Although it bears a lot of similarity to NCHRP 8-36(11) in its coverage, NCHRP Report 532 stands as an important addition to the library of guidance on environmental justice. Its primary value as a guidance tool is to aid technical specialists and planning practitioners in selecting the most appropriate methods for their particular analysis. Of considerable value in this regard is the attempt to scale the analysis tools selected to the geographic scale and precision needs of the particular issue, which may be different, based on the stage of the planning process and the gravity of the issue under consideration. Where Report 532 may be deficient in providing EJ guidance is in the following areas: • •

It does not attempt to address public involvement or how this information may be relevant to interaction with the public – it assumes that this is the domain of the larger planning process It does not deal with the how or why of where these measures are appropriate or important to be considered – it assumes that these directives will come out of the larger planning process

60

Table 12: Coverage of Key Environmental Justice Elements in Source Studies Public Participation Methods

Implementation Body/ Process

Performance Measures

Tools

Broad spectrum of public participation examples involving needs assessment and reaction.

Varies

10-member Peer Review committee formed to challenge process, but no community members & not an implementation body

Jobs accessibility

SCAG RTP Update (1998)

Employed ADR process to arbitrate positions; no special public involvement during 1998 update but created several channels for next plan

MORPC EJ Compliance Report (2000)

Held one Open House 3 months into process – not clear what real input to process

Created 12-member EJ Task Force as advisory committee – diverse membership, 2 community members

Various accessibility measures;

FHWA Case

Analytical

Accessibility, highway investment analysis & minority displacement caused by highway projects.

Analysis of Distributive Impacts

Regional travel models;

Demographic breakout

GIS; Census data.

by income, age and proximity.

Primarily regional travel model using TAZ level aggregation (no GIS); HBW travel only

Explicit consideration of benefit distribution from existing and planned transportation investments by mode, race and income

Census data, regional travel model, GIS used to map population & estimate accessibility measures

Compared performance of existing & planned systems on poor & minority vs. overall

Studies

Opportunities accessibility. Equity – percent of hours saved vs. percent of total expenditures (by income group

Travel times; Congestion, fiscal, displacements

CRCOG EJ Challenge Grant (2002)

USF EJ & Title VI Case Studies (2005)

Most intensive aspect of process; Adopted work shop format to increase reach and coverage of topics

Involving EJ population in planning process and decision making a prime concern; Recommended an EJ Advisory Board plus inclusion of one of its members on the Transportation Committee

Job opportunities access by transit for single car households; other measures proposed

Combination of GIS techniques and regional travel model; Spent considerable time defining target areas and establishing thresholds

Used GIS to layer TIP projects on Target areas & determine equitable share of funding

By example through case studies

Articulates importance of involvement in the entire planning an decision making process

Issues raised which can be translated into critical performance measures

Not covered

Issues raised shine light on types of analyses which should be done

61

For LRP, used travel models to develop measures of cumulative travel time and access to jobs

Table 13: Coverage of Key Environmental Justice Elements in Source Studies (continued) Public Participation Methods

Atlanta EJ Benefits & Burdens Study (2002)

Phase 1 was an evaluation of existing efforts by ARC: basically lots of recommendations on how & where to improve; Phase II did not have direct public input, but representation on the 2 oversight committees

NCHRP Project 8-36(11) (2002) Desk Guide (2003)

ITS Citizens EJ&T Handbook

Report 532 (2004)

Performance Measures

Two committees formed to oversee work on measures in Phase II: Review Panel to ensure results were relevant and understandable, Technical Committee to ensure results were technically sound.

Long list of measures studied – good information on their function & value;

However, an academic study with no attempt to integrate results into the planning process yet

Overview of the need to define and identify population groups; Good general discussion of public involvement techniques

Not covered

Full chapter on types of public involvement, techniques, committees (primarily via reference)

Discusses need for & function of Citizens Advisory Committees; where in planning process issues can be raised

What to do guide. How to respond to community needs. Involving everyone.

Not a coverage item

(2003) NCHRP

Implementation Body/ Process

Analytical Tools Had to synthesize data from multiple sources, using GIS to do the spatial relationships

Four key measures selected:

Benefits & burdens evaluated for most of the measures, particularly the key measures Some concern about focus on income over minority status;

1. Walking distance to transit; 2. Jobs access-ability by transit; 3. Avg. congested travel time; 4. Potential impact to historic areas

Inventories and details lists of measures of benefits and burdens;

Analysis of Distributive Impacts

Also some concern about using “history” to explain how things got this way?

Covers both tools in existing use and potential use: GIS, regional travel models, census & other data sources; also household microsimulation

Describes benefit & burden measures and discusses conduct of disproportionate benefit analysis in some detail

Extensive citations on performance measures via reference

Defers to upcoming NCHRP 8-41 report on Technical Methods to Support Analysis of EJ Issues

Citations for evaluating disproportionate impacts; suggests SCAG, ABAG, MTC and MORPC RTP efforts as examples

Details how the transportation planning process works and key steps in which to get involved

Provides a good generalist’s overview on types of measures, how they are used, why they are important

Not addressed

Discusses concept of benefits and burdens, how it must be dealt with in the transportation planning process

Not a coverage item

11 different categories of measures covered, with guidance on use scaled to the type of analysis & setting

A multitude of common and less common methods linked to each type of measure and analysis approach

Covered in the background sections but not in the development of measures of deployment of tools

Calculation methods described

62

Environmental Justice and Human Health One of the major “missing links” in environmental justice studies and analytic capabilities is the ability to evaluate the relationship between transportation activity and human health. Developing transportation-related indicators to measure public health impacts is actually a requirement under Title VI. While transportation may impact health in many ways, for example vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, noise and exhaust odors, one very tangible connection is through transportation’s contribution to poor air quality. Poor air quality has a detrimental effect on persons with asthma or other pulmonary health problems, children and the elderly. An ever-increasing body of empirical research is able to demonstrate an epidemiological link between the proximity of exposure to air pollution concentrations and higher incidence rates of a variety of health abnormalities. Not surprisingly, there is also a body of evidence which indicates that minority and low-income populations tend to live and work closer to sources of air pollution than does the general population, and hence face greater health risks.18,19,20 Chapter 3 of NCHRP Report 532 provides the most current and comprehensive review of the role of air quality in environmental justice assessments among current guidance materials. It is particularly on point in laying out the issues, the tools and the challenges with regard to air quality impacts. It points out that transportation-related air pollution’s effect on communities can occur in two primary ways: • •

Through increased ground-level concentrations of pollutants like carbon monoxide (CO) or particulate matter (PM) caused by motor vehicle traffic and congestion Atmospheric concentrations of ozone and particulate-causing pollutants like VOCs, NOx, SOx, and also CO.

From an environmental justice perspective, the methods for dealing with either type of effect are not especially good. The ground-level effects are analyzed using hot-spot or micro-scale techniques which relate vehicle activity levels at roadway intersections with readings at pollution measurement receptor sites. While the models are fairly accurate at creating this linkage between activity and receptor reading, they are not able to project what concentrations are or will be in non-receptor areas, e.g., along sidewalks or inside neighborhoods. And for the measurement of atmospheric pollutants, the standard regional air quality models used for transportation conformity and addressing NAAQS standards do not provide geographic distinctions; rather, they are obliged to assume that distributions are uniform across large areas. Hence, the ability of standard tools and data to tie transportation activity to pollution concentrations in particular geographic areas – i.e., those with EJ populations – is very challenged. What these methods also do not allow for is accounting for any cumulative effect on health of pre-existing activity and pollution concentrations. Second, however, is the fact that none of the methods presented directly address the causal connection between vehicle generated pollution and health effects, such as asthma or cancer rates. Report 532 notes that the assessment of health effects is an emerging field of research, and because this type of research is very time and resource intensive and requires considerable expertise in health and Forkenbrock, D.J. and Sheeley, J. Chapter 3, p 60 cites Bullard 1996 and Bryant and Mohai 1992. Green R.S., Smorodinsky, S., Kim, J.J., McLaughlin, R., and Ostro, B. 2004. “Proximity of California Public Schools to Busy Roads”, Environmental Health Perspective, 112:61-66 (2004). 24 Gunier, R.B., Hertz, A., Von Behren, J., and Reynolds, P. “Traffic Density in California: Socioeconomic and Ethnic Differences Among Potentially Exposed Children”. J Expo Anasis Environ Epidemiol 13:240-246. (2003). 18

19

20

63

epidemiology, the evaluation of health effects would be beyond all but a few extreme EJ/transportation situations. Hence, methods are not included in the guidebook, although references to several exposure-based EJ studies are provided. The first of the two problems – ascertaining pollutant concentrations in particular areas – may find an interesting solution in the “pollution surface” concept introduced as the fourth method in Chapter 3 of Report 532. This creation of a pollution surface makes it possible to estimate pollution concentrations within particular geographic sub areas of a region. Two different approaches are described for creating a pollution service – model-based methods and statistical methods. Model-based methods estimate emissions based on roadway geometry, traffic volumes and vehicle fleet emissions characteristics. A prototype model known as MEASURE (Mobile Emission Assessment System for Urban and Regional Evaluation), supported by the EPA, is described as an example of a model-based approach. Although the MEASURE model is built in a GIS framework which allows it to not only produce more accurate estimates of emissions than conventional MOBILE6 approaches it is not widely used outside of the research community. However several of its components have been incorporated into the development of EPA’s Move model replaces Mobile 6. The Move model like its predecessor Mobile 6 can be integrated with GIS technologies to provide better spatial and temporal resolution of the emissions and be sensitive to how changes in transportation system design can affect the emissions rates. Statistical models predict pollution surfaces by fitting regression models to observations at monitoring sites based on known values for predictor variables such as land use, population, and vehicle miles traveled. Because monitoring networks are sparse, Report 532 advises that a larger monitoring network and a larger number of samples over time will yield a more accurate model. Assuming that the approach of creating a pollution surface proves to be a more accurate and responsive way to estimate pollution concentrations imposed on specific geographies or populations, the second part of the health impacts equation is the link between concentrations and health. Whereas Report 532 suggests that this research area is too complex or not quite ready to incorporate in an EJ evaluation, the presence of Johns Hopkins University and affiliate Dr. Timothy Buckley on the BREJT team lead us to believe that we are much closer to making the tie with health than may be perceived. This is evidenced by the large and growing number of credible studies on the subject, ranging from non-specific outcomes of mortality (Finkelstein et al. 2004 21) to more specific effects including injury (Kumanyika, 200122), obesity (Frank et al. 200423), cancer (Pearson et al. 2000; Knox, 200524), cardiovascular (Bigert et al. 200325), and a range of respiratory effects (Brunekreef et al. 1997, Wjst et al. 199326), (Weiland et al. 1994, Friedman et al. 2001 27). Parallel public health studies suggest that this health threat is disproportionately borne by racial minority and socio- economically disadvantaged 21

Finkelstein MM, Jerrett M, Sears MR. Traffic air pollution and mortality rate advancement periods. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Jul 15;160(2):173-7. 22

Kumanyika SK. Minisymposium on obesity: overview and some strategic considerations. Annu Rev Public Health. 2001;22:293-308. 23 Frank LD, Andresen MA, Schmid TL. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. Am J Prev Med. 2004 Aug;27(2):87-96 24

Pearson et al.. “Distance-Weighted Traffic Density in Proximity to a Home Is a Risk Factor for Leukemia and Other Childhood Cancers”. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 50:175-180. (2000); Knox EG. Oil combustion and childhood cancers. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Sep;59(9):755-60 25 Bigert C, Gustavsson P, Hallqvist J, Hogstedt C, Lewne M, Plato N, Reuterwall C, Scheele P. Myocardial infarction among professional drivers. Epidemiology. 2003 May;14(3):333-9. 26 Brunekreef, Hoek, Goldbohn, Fischer, van den Brandt. “Association Between Mortality and Indicators of Traffic-Related Air Pollution in the Netherlands: A Cohort Study”. Lancet, 360 (9341): 1203-9. (2002)

64

subpopulation groups (Green et al. 2004; Gunier et al. 2003; Apelberg et al. 2005 28). A brief profile and citation for some of these key studies is provided below. Air Pollution from Busy Roads Linked to Shorter Life Spans for Nearby Residents 29: Dutch researchers looked at the effects of long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollutants on 5,000 adults. They found that people who lived near a main road were almost twice as likely to die from heart or lung disease and 1.4 times as likely to die from any cause compared with those who lived in less-trafficked areas. Researchers say these results are similar to those seen in previous U.S. studies on the effects of longterm exposure to traffic-related air pollution. The authors say traffic emissions contain many pollutants that might be responsible for the health risks, such as ultra-fine particles, diesel soot, and nitrogen oxides, which have been linked to cardiovascular and respiratory problems. Truck Traffic Linked to Childhood Asthma Hospitalizations: A study in Erie County, New York (excluding the city of Buffalo) found that children living in neighborhoods with heavy truck traffic within 200 meters of their homes had increased risks of asthma hospitalization. The study examined hospital admission for asthma amongst children ages 0-14, and residential proximity to roads with heavy traffic30. Pregnant Women Who Live Near High Traffic Areas More Likely to Have Premature and Low Birth Weight Babies: Researchers observed an approximately 10-20% increase in the risk of premature birth and low birth weight for infants born to women living near high traffic areas in Los Angeles County. In particular, the researchers found that for each one part per million increases in annual average carbon monoxide concentrations where the women lived, there was a 19% and 11% increase in risk for low birth weight and premature births, respectively31. People Who Live Near Freeways Exposed to 25 Times More Particle Pollution: Studies conducted in the vicinity of Interstates 405 and 710 in southern California found that the number of ultra-fine particles in the air was approximately 25 times more concentrated near the freeways and that pollution levels gradually decrease to near normal (background) levels around 300 meters, or 990 feet, downwind from the freeway. The researchers note that motor vehicles are the most significant source of ultra-fine particles, which have been linked to increases in mortality and morbidity. Recent research concludes that ultra-fine particles are more toxic than larger particles with the same chemical composition. Moreover, the researchers found considerably higher concentrations of carbon monoxide pollution near the freeways32. 27

Weiland SK, Mundt KA, Ruckmann A, Keil U. (1994): Self-reported wheezing and allergic rhinitis in children and traffic density on street of residence. Ann Epidemiol. 4(3):243-7 28

Green RS, Smorodinsky S, Kim JJ, McLaughlin R, Ostro B. 2004. Proximity of California public schools to busy roads. Environ Health Perspect 112:61-66; Gunier RB, Hertz A, Von Behren J, Reynolds P. 2003. Traffic density in California: Socioeconomic and ethnic differences among potentially exposed children. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 13:240-246; Apelberg, B. J.; Buckley, T. J.; White, R. H. Socioeconomic and racial disparities in cancer risk from air toxics in Maryland; Environ. Health Perspect. 2005, 113, 693-699 29 Hoek, Brunekreef, Goldbohn, Fischer, van den Brandt. (2002). Association between mortality and indicators of trafficrelated air pollution in the Netherlands: a cohort study. Lancet, 360 (9341): 1203-9 30 Lin, Munsie, Hwang, Fitzgerald, and Cayo. (2002). Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic. Environmental Research, Section A, Vol. 88, pp. 73-81. 31 Wilhelm, Ritz. (2002). Residential Proximity to Traffic and Adverse Birth Outcomes in Los Angeles County, California, 1994-1996. Environmental Health Perspectives. doi: 10.1289/ehp.5688 32 Zhu, Hinds, Kim, Sioutas. Concentration and size distribution of ultrafine particles near a major highway. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. September 2002. Zhu, Hinds, Kim, Shen, Sioutas. Study of ultrafine particles near a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic. Atmospheric Environment. 36(2002), 4323-4335

65

Asthma More Common for Children Living Near Freeways: A study of nearly 10,000 children in England found that wheezing illness, including asthma, was more likely with increasing proximity of a child’s home to main roads. The risk was greatest for children living within 90 meters of the road33. Children Living Near Busy Roads More Likely to Develop Cancer: A 2000 Denver study showed that children living within 250 yards of streets or highways with 20,000 vehicles per day are six times more likely to develop all types of cancer and eight times more likely to get leukemia. The study looked at associations between traffic density, power lines, and all childhood cancers with measurements obtained in 1979 and 1990. It found a weak association from power lines, but a strong association with highways. It suggested that benzene pollution might be the cancer promoter causing the problem34. Emissions from Motor Vehicles Dominate Cancer Risk: The most comprehensive study of urban toxic air pollution ever undertaken shows that motor vehicles and other mobile sources of air pollution are the predominant source of cancer-causing air pollutants in Southern California. Overall, the study showed that motor vehicles and other mobile sources accounted for about 90% of the cancer risk from toxic air pollution, most of which is from diesel soot (70% of the cancer risk). Industries and other stationary sources accounted for the remaining 10%. The study showed that the highest risk is in urban areas where there is heavy traffic and high concentrations of population and industry35. Proximity of a Child’s Residence to Major Roads Linked to Hospital Admissions for Asthma: A study in Birmingham, United Kingdom, determined that living near major roads was associated with the risk of hospital admission for asthma in children younger than 5 yrs of age. The area of residence and traffic flow patterns were compared for children admitted to the hospital for asthma, children admitted for non-respiratory reasons, and a random sample of children from the community. Children admitted with an asthma diagnosis were significantly more likely to live in an area with high traffic flow (> 24,000 vehicles/ 24 hrs) located along the nearest segment of main road than were children admitted for non-respiratory reasons or children form the community36. EPA’s Hot Spot Exposure Assessment Program In addition to the above studies from the medical and academic research field, the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has established a monitoring plan to assist regulatory agencies in the development of models to accurately identify and assess personal exposures to air toxics in microenvironments. The emphasis of this monitoring plan is to quantify the impacts from mobile source- generated toxics. A number of studies have been or are currently being conducted by the EPA and other environmental agencies to assess personal exposures to air toxics. OTAQ plans to participate in a number of these studies to specifically investigate impacts from mobile sources in select microenvironments. This literature review identifies and summaries the: • • •

Baltimore Traffic Study, 2001 – 2003 Los Angeles School Bus Exposure Assessment, summer 2001- spring 2003 Fresno Asthmatic Children’s Environment Study (FACES)

Venn et al. (2001). Living Near A Main Road and the Risk of Wheezing Illness in Children. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Vol. 164, pp 2177-2180 34 Pearson et al. (2000). Distance-weighted traffic density in proximity to a home is a risk factor for leukemia and other childhood cancers. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 50:175-180. 35 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study-II. March 2000 36 Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic, Shao Lin, Jean Pierre Munsie, Syni-An Hwang, Edward Fitzgerald and Michael R. Cayo, Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology, New York State Department of Health, Troy, New York, 12180 33

66

The objectives of these studies have in common the intent to demonstrate particular aspects of the public health and transportation linkage at various spatial scales (regional, local near road, local Bus Stops, inside and outside bus cabin, neighborhood/local and indoor mobile trailers. Together the results of these studies further demonstrate the association that pollution from mobile source emissions has on health. Table 14: EPA’s Hot Spot Exposure Assessment Program

Baltimore

37

LA38

FRESNO39

Objectives

Analyzed

Assessment of mobile source impacts on indoor and outdoor air pollution concentrations of PM and gaseous toxics in a home and a school located in an ambient hot spot location. Assess exposures by comparing continuous, fixed-site measurements with the timecourse, sensitivity and specificity of biomarkers among volunteer subjects occupying the fixed-site row home. Characterize the exposure distribution and investigate the health effects of mobile source-related air pollution among inner-city asthmatic children. Associations among environmental exposures and biomarkers used to identify and quantify the exposure levels. Temporal and spatial variability of air toxics, including multiple microenvironments (in-home, in school, near roadway); source apportionment of mobile source-generated contaminants for outdoor, indoor, and personal measurements. Quantify in-vehicle, outside vehicle, near vehicle (bus stop), and ambient exposures to diesel exhaust. Identify specific scenarios and factors that lead to the highest air pollutant exposures of children while commuting on diesel school buses or waiting at bus stops. Obtain measurements of in-bus and near-bus pollutant concentrations during normal school bus operations across the full range of anticipated conditions. Comprehensive vehicle characterization: fuel analysis, vehicle/engine information, tailpipe emission characterization, assessment of high emitters, with emphasis on obtaining measurements during operations expected to lead to realistic high-end exposures and assessment of effects of control technology (diesel retrofits). Study of the effect of air pollution on 450 asthmatic children. Examines short-term effect of daily air pollution on the symptoms, medication use, and lung function of these children and the longer-term effect on the progression of asthma. Assess temporal and spatial distributions of particulate matter (PM), including toxic components, at multiple microenvironments including homes (~100), schools (~25), and near roadways. Associations among environmental exposures and adverse health effects for asthmatic children Temporal and spatial variability of air toxics, including multiple microenvironments (in-home, in-school, near roadway); source apportionment of mobile source generated contaminants for outdoor, indoor, and personal measurements.

Airborne Particulate Matter (PM), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), PM2.5 Metals by ICP-MS, EC/OC, Aldehydes by fluorescence, VOCs by GC/ MS, Nitrogen Oxides (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO); Meteorological Station (temperature, wind speed/direction, humidity); Traffic volume, speed, type, pattern by video analysis; Atmospheric boundary layer by LIDAR.

EPA Hot Spot Exposure Assessment Program Hot Spot Exposure Assessment Program 39 Hot Spot Exposure Assessment Program 37 38

67

Obtain measurements of in-bus and nearbus pollutant concentrations during normal school bus operations across the full range of anticipated conditions. Comprehensive vehicle characterization fuel analysis, vehicle/engine information, tailpipe emission characterization, assessment of high emitters, with emphasis on obtaining measurements during operations expected to lead to realistic high-end exposures and assessment of effects of control technology (diesel retrofits). Particle Matter (mass, metals, ions, elemental and organic carbon), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) - gas and particle phase; Nitrogen oxides Ozone, Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS); Biological agents include Endotoxin, Pllens, and Fngal Spores in the air, and Endotoxin and Allergens in house dust.

Appendix B: Glossary Barrier Analysis - A more sophisticated use of GIS is Barrier analysis. This is used to estimate how many people are likely to experience problems accessing their neighbors or community activity centers as a result of a transportation change. Transportation projects that widen roads or increase traffic may create barriers to community cohesion by diminishing access to neighbors or neighborhood resources. This type of analysis requires several types of digital data including information on demographics, the street or transportation network, facilities that are important activity centers, and local community landmarks. A limitation of barrier analysis relates to its data requirements. Because micro level data may not be available, larger units of analysis may excessively generalize changes in travel time, safety and distance. Buffer analysis - A buffer is an area of a specified width that surrounds one or more map features. This is best used as a screening tool to determine if social or economic effects actually are likely in the predicted impact area before proceeding with a more in-depth analysis. Case study (comparison analyses) - The value of case studies is that one can learn from the experiences of others who may have addressed issues similar to those one is currently facing. Although it may be difficult to find case studies that are very similar to a particular set of circumstances, general lessons may be transferable. Environmental Justice (EJ) - Environmental justice assures that services and benefits allow for meaningful participation and are fairly distributed to avoid discrimination Evaluation of Alternatives - A synthesis of the information generated by an analysis in which judgments are made on the relative merits of alternative actions. Financial analysis - Estimating costs, establishing a revenue baseline, comparing revenues with costs and evaluating new revenue sources. Focus groups - Focus groups, interviews and surveys are a good means of acquiring information about residents’ values, attitudes, and day-to-day travel needs. In the early stages of the research they can provide insights into preferences and priorities; later, they are a means for gauging reactions to estimated effects. One of the most productive uses of surveys and focus groups is to learn about the types of trips and the destinations that are important to various types of community residents. Another use is to assess which social and economic effects are considered most important or serious within the community. A general problem with these approaches is ensuring full participation from community members. GIS (Geographic Information System) - Geographic Information System (GIS) technology should be used for effective review and evaluation of environmental justice issues. The ability to juxtapose layers of demographic information onto layers which detail the transportation system (or other prominent physical or socioeconomic feature) makes it possible to directly link transportation or travel-related information with the areas and people who are affected by it. The good news is that GIS applications are popping up on the internet to support these analysis activities. Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) - A document resulting from regional or statewide collaboration and consensus on a region or state's transportation system, and serving as the defining vision for the region's or state's transportation systems and services. In metropolitan areas, the plan indicates all of the transportation improvements scheduled for funding over the next 20 years. Micro-simulation - Travel modeling techniques forecast travel by modeling a set of actual or synthetic individuals or households that represent the population. A full micro-simulation of a population is yet to be commonly implemented in practice due to computational requirements. The advantage of this approach is that travel patterns, and therefore travel benefits of transportation improvements, can be tracked across any population characteristic that is included in the sample of persons modeled. 68

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) - Regional policy body, required in urbanized areas with populations over 50,000, and designated by local officials and the governor of the state. Responsible in cooperation with the state and other transportation providers for carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning requirements of federal highway and transit legislation. Performance Measures - Indicators of how well the transportation system is performing with regard to such things as average speed, reliability of travel, and accident rates. Used as feedback in the decision-making process Programming Prioritizing proposed projects and matching those projects with available funds to accomplish agreed upon, stated needs Spatially-Based Analysis - This method compares the distribution of impacts among spatial units, which can be classified by characteristic, for example low-income, or predominately minority ethnic. Spatially based analyses to assess the impacts of transportation policies on disadvantaged groups can include the following steps: • Identify disadvantaged groups • Identify disadvantaged geographical areas using census data • Identify degrees of disadvantage in each geographic area • Identify the location of important public services and destinations • Evaluate transportation plans according to how they affect accessibility between disadvantaged communities and important destinations Stakeholder - Person or group affected by a transportation plan, program or project. Person or group believing that are affected by a transportation plan, program or project. Residents of affected geographical areas. Travel demand Modeling - Travel demand models are usually constructed to estimate the benefit of a change to a region as a whole. Travel demand modeling involves a series of mathematical models that attempt to simulate human behavior while traveling. Model output should show total changes in travel times and travel patterns expected to result from a transportation project as they would affect low-income or minority residents of affected communities. Travel diaries - Travel diaries are a means of gathering information about the origins, destinations and modal choices of particular groups of people. Data can then be aggregated and presented in various forms including mapping and descriptive statistics. Although they are effective at providing detailed behavioral data, travel diaries are time-consuming and expensive to administer and rely upon the participant completing them accurately Title VI - Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination in any program receiving federal assistance.

69