baltimoresun.com

Scrapping of traffic-congestion plan urged - Proposal tilts too heavily toward highways, mass-transit advocates say

By Michael Dresser

Sun Reporter

August 29, 2007

 

 

 

 

A coalition of mass-transit advocates urged the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board yesterday to scrap its $8.7 billion draft plan for traffic congestion relief over the next 28 years, contending that the proposal is heavily skewed in favor of highway projects.

The advocates are attacking a potential blueprint for what the region's transportation system would look like in 2035. They say the draft Transportation Outlook 2035, prepared by local governments and the transportation board's staff, directs too much money to road projects, including many that would encourage sprawl and violate the state's Smart Growth policies.

At a public hearing last night, speakers almost unanimously turned thumbs down on a plan that critics described as lacking in regional vision.

Advocates demanded a roughly even split of the funds to finance a full regional rapid transit network and MARC system improvements.

The Greater Baltimore Committee expressed disappointment that the draft didn't include a Metro system extension to Morgan State University and Good Samaritan Hospital.

Gregory Schaffer, president of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, asked why the East Baltimore campus, with more than 6,300 employees, had been left out of plans for a new transit line and a MARC system upgrade.

EJ maps from DVRPC

The Environmental Justice Assessment Draft Report examines NYMTC's transportation planning process in the context of the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Federal Executive Order of 1994, and other federal guidance on environmental justice. It was developed to meet Federal transportation planning requirements.

* Environmental Justice Report for the 2001 Regional Transportaiton Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (PDF)

Designing Travel Solutions
At the Local Level

MTC is taking a grass-roots approach to identifying barriers to mobility and working to overcome them. With its Community-Based Transportation Planning Program, MTC has created a collaborative planning process that involves residents in minority and low-income Bay Area communities, community and faith-based organizations that serve them, transit operators, county congestion management agencies (CMAs) and MTC.

Launched in 2002, the Community-Based Transportation Planning Program evolved out of two reports completed in 2001 - the Lifeline Transportation Network Report and the Environmental Justice Report.

The Lifeline Report identified travel needs in low-income Bay Area communities and recommended community-based transportation planning as a way for communities to set priorities and evaluate options for filling transportation gaps. Likewise, the Environmental Justice Report identified the need for MTC to support local planning efforts in low-income communities throughout the region.

MPO actions to address EJ -

 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Whether in response to non-compliance determinations, litigation, or because it’s just “the right thing to do”, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have become increasingly involved in identifying, providing special outreach, and engaging environmental justice populations in the development of transportation plans and programs.  Resources on this topic include the following:
 

The commission deserves a failing grade for representing the entire region's taxpayers, since Milwaukee is now a "minority-majority city" and most of the state's minority citizens live in the seven-county SEWRPC region (Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, Walworth, Racine and Kenosha).

Rotker asked about five major SEWRPC technical advisory committees, where policy recommendations eventually approved by the full commission are first formulated with help from staff and consultants.

 

Title:	Environmental Justice Analysis: Challenges for Transportation Planning
Accession Number:	(not assigned)
Record Type:	Component
Language 1:	English
Order URL:	http://pubsindex.trb.org/orderform.html
Source Data:	Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2007 Paper #07-2866

Abstract:	This research focuses on three major challenges of incorporating Environmental Justice into metropolitan transportation planning. Needed data is compared with what is currently available on spatial distribution of race and income, spatial distribution of trip ends, trip tables, network performance, and cost estimates of improvements. Several conflicting definitions of equity are offered, as well as applications for each within the context of Environmental Justice. The importance of choosing a correct unit of analysis is discussed, with particular emphasis on how the geographic unit of analysis is a poor proxy for the group unit – that is theoretically required as the analysis’ purpose is to compare performance measures between groups. The primary goal of this paper is to explore challenging topics such as these, raising questions and concerns. The answers to the questions raised will differ depending on each implementing agency’s objectives and resources.
Report Number:	07-2866
Media Type:	CD-ROM
Authors:	Duthie, Jennifer ; Cervenka, Ken ; Waller, S. Travis

Metro at odds with officials on highways
Regional transportation plan gets cold response from feds, state board

By Jim Redden  

The Portland Tribune, Feb 13, 2007 (28 Reader comments)

For months Metro leaders have said that the old way of solving transportation problems no longer works.

Led by Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder, officials at the regional planning agency repeatedly have said that building new highways is no longer the solution for the area’s growing congestion problems.

Instead, Burkholder and the others have said that the Regional Transportation Plan to be adopted next year will stress such land-use goals as encouraging people to live closer to where they work and shop, in part by encouraging more mass transit.

Fighting for Balanced Transportation in the Motor City

By Joe Grengs

No other governmental program comes close to influencing the divided geographic patterns of our metropolitan regions like that of federal transportation. Yet most citizens would be hard-pressed to name who decides how and where transportation dollars are spent. Metropolitan planning organizations, or MPOs, are the bodies through which billions of federal dollars are distributed to state and local governments each year in support of transportation projects. Nearly every transportation project you see-new roads, fixed roads, interchanges, bus lines-has federal transportation dollars behind it. MPOs decide which projects get funded and which do not. These projects, in turn, influence where homes, jobs and stores are located. Yet the people who make up these MPOs, and the manner in which they arrive at their decisive choices, are mysterious to all but the most dedicated citizen activists.

The problem with MPOs is that most of them are biased against central cities in their voting structure. By allotting votes on a "one government-one vote" basis instead of a "one person-one vote" basis, MPOs grant outlying suburban jurisdictions considerably more political power in the decision-making process compared with center cities. Scholars and activists contend that this bias exacerbates sprawling urban development and further disadvantages poor households and people of color in the urban core. Whether this bias leads to worsening social equity remains an open question, but on a procedural basis a highly skewed representational scheme within an MPO may be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, thus making such a structure unconstitutional.

Should the actions of transportation officials be subject to democratic accountability? Not in the state of Michigan, according to a judge's ruling in August 2004. A civil rights lawsuit alleged that transportation officials in the Detroit metropolitan region choose projects and spend public dollars in a way that favors the largely white and wealthy suburbs and unfairly ignores the needs of the central city and its inner suburbs. At issue was the voting structure of the MPO. The judge found that voting strength of an MPO need not be in proportion to population because an MPO has limited responsibility as a special-purpose government. Unfortunately, as a result of the ruling, Detroit's famously segregated metropolis will continue to develop under the influence of a skewed procedure that builds in a bias toward building roads for suburban commuters over strengthening transit service for inner-city bus riders. But the case does offer important lessons that planners elsewhere can learn from to mount challenges against undemocratic practices in transportation funding.

...

DVRPC's Public Participation Plan: A Strategy for Citizen Involvement

While today's public is far more sophisticated and modern standards are more all-inclusive, the basic tenet of public participation remains the same , to reach out to and satisfy as many populations as possible and to do so in an equitable and timely manner. Public participation is the only real way to ascertain the needs of a wide variety of citizens , the underinvolved and often unconcerned, the private sector, special interest activists, mature citizens, educators and parents, public officials, and the physically and economically disadvantaged. DVRPC believes that planning must be done with the public's full involvement and consensus.

We, therefore, have issued this publication which is designed for the DVRPC's Board, staff and the general public as an outline of the Commission's overall strategy for public participation, as well as the policies that have been adopted as inherent to the operation of this agency as we move into the 21st century.

 

The purpose of this memorandum is to issue clarification to you in implementing Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) and related regulations, The President's Executive Order on Environmental Justice, the U.S. DOT Order, and the FHWA Order.

Title VI states that "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Title VI bars intentional discrimination as well as disparate impact discrimination (i.e., a neutral policy or practice that has a disparate impact on protected groups).

The Environmental Justice (EJ) Orders further amplify Title VI by providing that "each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations."

Increasingly, concerns for compliance with provisions of Title VI and the EJ Orders have been raised by citizens and advocacy groups with regard to broad patterns of transportation investment and impact considered in metropolitan and statewide planning. While Title VI and EJ concerns have most often been raised during project development, it is important to recognize that the law also applies equally to the processes and products of planning. The appropriate time for FTA and FHWA to ensure compliance with Title VI in the planning process is during the planning certification reviews conducted for Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) and through the statewide planning finding rendered at approval of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

This memorandum serves as clarification pending issuance of revised planning and environmental regulations.

Title:    Planning Styles in Conflict.
Authors:    Innes, Judith and Gruber, Judith
Source:    Journal of the American Planning Association; Spring2005, Vol. 71 Issue 2, p177-188, 12p, 2 diagrams

Abstract:   
In a 5-year study of the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission, we found four planning styles at work: technical/bureaucratic, political influence, social movement, and collaborative. Each involved differing assumptions about knowledge, participation, and the nature of a good plan. Players using one style were often mistrustful or contemptuous of those working in others. Regional actions--as opposed to packages of projects for parochial interests--were rare. The few regional initiatives emerged from collaborative planning and social movements. We argue that where diversity and interdependence of interests are high, collaboration is the most effective approach. Key barriers to collaboration included state and federal funding formulas, earmarking, and the substantial documentation required by state and federal regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bay Area Transportation Decision Making in the Wake of ISTEA: Planning Styles in Conflict at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Innes

Environmental Justice Reports and Information.

MPO Environmental

Justice Report

Mid-Ohio regional planning commission

MORPC's efforts are noteworthy for using analytical techniques and public involvement. The agency effectively used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping to locate low-income and minority populations within the Columbus metropolitan area. This information was incorporated into a travel-demand forecasting model to assess the benefits and burdens of existing and planned transportation system investments on target populations.

...

Central to MORPC's study plan was the agency's use of the travel-demand forecasting model that it had used to prepare its Vision 2020 Transportation Plan. This model employed land use and demographic information for each TAZ within the MORPC planning area to forecast existing and future traffic patterns and volumes on the regional transportation network. By expanding the modeling process to take into account the distribution of target versus nontarget populations within each TAZ, MORPC was able to estimate the extent to which low-income and minority populations were equitably served for each measure conside

Following the issuing of the Executive Order to address environmental justice in 1994, it became clear that the U.S. Department of Transportation would hold metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) accountable for how well their transportation plans and programs avoided adverse effects on human health and the environment for minority and low-income populations. MPOs that could not meet this standard would lose federal funds. How should public agencies avoid disproportionate impacts on these populations when siting infrastructure improvements? How should planning efforts incorporate input from disadvantaged populations? This article discusses how the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) in Columbus, Ohio, grappled with these questions, and were eventually commended for their efforts.

Following the issuing of the Executive Order to address environmental justice in 1994, it became clear that the U.S. Department of Transportation would hold metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) accountable for how well their transportation plans and programs avoided adverse effects on human health and the environment for minority and low-income populations. MPOs that could not meet this standard would lose federal funds. How should public agencies avoid disproportionate impacts on these populations when siting infrastructure improvements? How should planning efforts incorporate input from disadvantaged populations? This article discusses how the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) in Columbus, Ohio, grappled with these questions, and were eventually commended for their efforts.