Public Participation Framework

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 bottomup 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 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 short-term impacts exist, then it is necessary to revisit problem identification. A third option 1

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?

No/Unsure

Figure 2: Public Participation and Analysis Framework

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 non2

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, especially in relation to itsEvaluation history, urgency andof extent. Environmental Justice Issues

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 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.

3

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.

4