A Framework for Addressing EJT Concerns

The best possible place to be is to have ongoing communications between all communities about theirtransportation needs and their local elected officials. After all of the needs are determined, communitieswould be involved in the difficult process of deciding how limited dollars are spent. Once decisions aremade with public input communities would remain engaged with implementing agencies on howprojects are planned and so forth. Short of that process working perfectly, some communitiesexperience issues that they believe are EJ in nature. This framework addresses how communities andplanning organizations can address those communities that feel they have been left out or simplymistreated in the process.Once an issue arises, a successful EJT endeavor begins with community engagement. BREJT’sexperience revealed that communities are more motivated and better able to work toward a solutionwhen they are educated on relevant issues, solutions and options; believing that they have a betterchance of influencing the implementation of projects that have a positive local impact. In contrast totraditional transportation projects that tend to be hierarchical in nature and are limited to a fewagencies, working from a bottom-up framework is more responsive to the needs and concerns ofaffected communities and plays an important role toward implementing sound solutions. Thisapproach can also improve analysis methods for addressing issues of concern through the publicinvolvement 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 activeinvolvement of EJ communities. When contrasted to the perception of top-down public participationapproaches and/or strategies, which are perceived by low income and minority communities to be lesslikely to result in actual, meaningful participation because of mistrust and suspicion. Yet, such anapproach requires a two-way communication strategy because communities are not likely to knowhow to initiate contact with a transportation agency and the planners themselves may be uncertainabout whom to contact in a community group.The framework illustrated in Figure 2 identifies a bottom-up, step-wise method for approaching EJTissues; it is a collaborative model that promotes feedback between transportation planners and EJcommunities. The initial step involves identifying the EJ

community

affected by the transportationproject. Local residents are the best source of problem identification, so

outreach

by the planningagency should be initiated. During the outreach process, it is important to identify the full-extent of theaffected population and define the concerns and desired outcomes of the community. An initialattempt at problem screening occurs at this point to better understand the issues from a neighborhoodperspective. It is important that the individual or community group communicate their concerns to theimplementing agency, such as a transit agency, local planning department, highway department, orMPO. In instances where there is more than one affected community, it is equally important that theneighborhood or community groups seek each other’s support and knowledge to address the areas ofconcern. When the community perceives that they are experiencing inequity in the delivery of a publicgood or service they will likely be in need of additional information and/or analysis during this phaseof the framework. As a result of identifying the issues, the transportation agency and the communitycan determine what potential short-term impacts will occur within the affected community. In somecases this may involve having solutions or alternatives already in hand. If an agreement or consensus isachieved, then the project can move to the

standard review process

. If there is uncertainty as towhether short-term impacts exist, then it is necessary to revisit problem identification. A third option1

occurs when disagreements persist or if there is no clear solution; in this case, a

triage process

isinitiated.

Figure 2: Public Participation and Analysis Framework

The Triage Process

When problems cannot be resolved in the previous steps, it is recommended that a screeningcommittee, or similar body, needs to come together to examine the EJT problem in more depth, ormerely from a different perspective. This group is the EJT Triage Committee and should consist of non-2

COMMUNITY

Outreach

Potentialshort-termimpacts?

Triage Process

IssuesScaleSeverityPreempt/ReactNear/Long termSimple/Complex

Technicalanalysisneeded?

Get more inputPerform analysisDialogue w/agenciesSeek solutionsDocument process

Specify performancecriteria

StandardReviewProcess

New Tools and/or Special Studies

ANALYSISTOOLBOXSimpleAdvanced

Enhance GIS Tools, Population SynthesisApply Traffic Simulation ToolsRegional Travel Model ApplicationsApply Sketch Planning MethodsConduct Focus GroupPerform More Detailed InterviewsObtain/Review Existing Data

Outcomesacceptable?

Reportsuggestedactions

UnsureNoYesNoYesUnsureYesNo/Unsure

COMMUNITY

Outreach

Potentialshort-termimpacts?

Triage Process

IssuesScaleSeverityPreempt/ReactNear/Long termSimple/Complex

Technicalanalysisneeded?

Get more inputPerform analysisDialogue w/agenciesSeek solutionsDocument process

Specify performancecriteria

StandardReviewProcess

New Tools and/or Special Studies

ANALYSISTOOLBOXSimpleAdvanced

Outcomesacceptable?

Reportsuggestedactions

UnsureNoYesNoYesUnsureYesNo/Unsure

traditional stakeholders, or key organizations that have a bearing on EJT issues and with the clout toaccomplish politically sensitive actions.The Triage committee should consist of organizations/individuals with influence and the ability to getthings done (Figure 3) and will vary with each region that implements such a group. Diverserepresentation and independent status (one vote per member) will allow it much greater freedom topursue 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 throughthe 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 toensure that decisions will be made about how the EJ concern or issue will be treated, especially inrelation to its history, urgency and extent.

PublicHealthInstitutionStateDOTMPONon -ProfitCommunityGroupBusinessGroup

UrbanAcademicInstitution

LocalGovernmentTriageCommittee

Figure 3: Potential Triage Committee Members

If it is determined that the EJ concern needs to be addressed in a relatively short timeframe, actionsmay include toolkit analysis (see Chapter 3), mediation, or legal action, as appropriate. Otherwise, thestandard review process can be initiated or a particular action or remedy can be arrived at byconsensus.Important questions are expected to arise in the creation of this group, its composition, and itsauthority. Given the many tasks and functions linked to the EJT Triage Committee, it might beexpected that there would be a high level of activity. The corresponding concern would be whether itsmembers would have the time to participate in all of these activities, and financially how this group’sactivities would be supported. Under full deployment, the Committee will either have to maintainvery stringent rules in selecting the issues it examines, or have sufficient resources (in-kind, grant orendowment) to acquire supplemental assistance from staff or consultants; thus the critical need toensure that communities are engaged in the planning process over time to avoid these types ofconcerns.3