Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

11/3/2007
Task I-3B, Case Study Work Group

Filling the Gap:

Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

Prepared for:

Federal Transit Administration

U.S Department of Transportation

In conjunction with:

Cooperative Agreement MD-26-8001-00

Transportation Equity Cooperative Research Program

11/3/2007

Lead Author: Glenn Robinson, MA. MM., Morgan State University

Not For Distribution All Rights Reserved

1
 Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

Abstract

Subject to task I-3B of the Transportation Cooperative Equity Research Program this technical
memorandum is a companion document to Task I-2. It describes a general framework for the collaborative
public participation activities that were previously presented. Because of the practical, community-based
nature of this Toolkit project, a team of community representatives and stakeholders will be identified to
engage in working with the technical analysis team on case studies. This is the same structure used in the
Baltimore Region Environmental Justice and Transportation Project (BREJTP)1, except that in this case
the study content will have been identified in advance of the group’s formation. Nevertheless, the
community members will be given an opportunity to influence the case study. Once convened, the
community case study team will work along with the technical analysis team to frame key issues, provide
insights into community objectives, and review alternatives. The case study team will have at least five
community representatives, who will meet up to five times during the course of the study. They will play
a vital role in shaping the analysis and case study.

This technical memorandum provides examples of public participation approaches, offers a framework for
addressing issues and discusses potential strategies for effective public participation. Particular attention
is directed to presenting an environmental justice transportation (EJT) framework with a triage-type
function, multiple entry points to the process, including explicit provision for feedback. What is useful
about this framework is that it identifies a point of convergence between public participation and the EJT
planning process. Insights and examples gleaned from the national examples and the ongoing BREJT
Project case studies are provided in the summary section of this memo. At the conclusion of this task, the
study team will brief the Oversight Committee on findings, and communicate the suggestions developed
by the community members.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 3

II. Environmental Justice and Public Participation 3

III. Public Participation Strategies and Collaboration 7

IV. A Framework for Public Participation 9

V. Summary 13

Staffing 13

Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Model Framework For Public Participation 11

1
See the BREJTP website at http://www.brejtp.org/ for more background and details about the project.

2
 Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

I. Introduction

This memo highlights a number of EJT case studies, identified in the Literature Review (TERP, Literature
Review Filling the Gap)2, with specific attention to the public involvement components. Drawing upon the
ongoing research being performed in Task I-2, the I-95 West Corridor community case study group will
continue to discuss the aspects of public involvement and participation in relation to the selected case
study topics. The first activity will be to review the findings from the research in Task I-2 related to what
other areas have attempted in terms of public participation, followed by a discussion of the
appropriateness and effectiveness of each example. The team will also draw upon its experience from the
Baltimore Region Environmental Justice and Transportation Project (BREJT) and information found in
such existing publications as the 2003 Citizens EJT Handbook developed by the Institute of
Transportation Studies at UC Berkeley.

These examples can be used to evaluate the mechanisms for local involvement and to review which
procedures they are currently aware of, their level of participation, and their assessment of those methods.
Particular focus will be on discussion of where in the planning, funding, or operations chain public input is
most needed or where access is currently least effective for the community. Alternative methods will also
be described.

The following guidance suggests the importance of exploring the institutional structure through which the
key decisions that affect outcomes are made. Limited authority of a given agency to address particular
issues will be discussed, with suggestions developed for possible ways to overcome these obstacles.
Similarly, the issue of projects or conditions occurring as a result of planning or funding decisions at a
higher political level will be discussed, and suggestions made for intervening in that process.

II. Environmental Justice and Public Participation

Listed below the summary profiles from the public participation section of the TERP Literature Review
(Task I – 2)3 for which summary profiles are supplied that briefly relate what issue was at hand, the public
participation mechanism that was applied, and a summary of the outcomes. These case studies offer
insight to those seeking increase public access to the planning and decision-making process, or for public
agencies who want to improve their efforts to involve the support of the community. When one reads
through these brief examples, it becomes clear that key segments of the population have historically been
overlooked, marginalized and unfairly treated by the planning process, particularly in transportation policy
and funding decisions. When “urban redevelopment” was occurring in the 1960s, accompanied in many
cases with highway-building activity, whole communities were destroyed. To this day the scars remain,
such as West Baltimore’s “Highway to Nowhere”. Several communities have not yet healed; the areas
remain abandoned and are a place of last resort for poverty, indigence, crime and despair.

The following briefly discusses the two primary components of EJT public participation process, 1) the
community and 2) public agency. While public involvement can be administered by private agencies such
as transportation planning consultants, the purpose of the intended involvement or feedback is typically
part of a publicly sponsored project. We then provide several examples of EJT public participation
activities that will inform the analytical tool-building process.

The Community

2
Insert URL for Literature Review
3
Insert URL for Literature Review

3
 Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

On the Community side of public involvement, the clear message is that communities that are motivated,
well organized, and educated on the issues and their options have a good chance of influencing future
projects. The emphasis here is on proactive involvement – the community is better positioned when it can
anticipate projects that potentially have negative social, economic, or environmental consequences.
Several effective approaches are demonstrated in the case studies presented in this memo, which are
categorized and described below:

1. React to a Major Issue or Project: Probably the most transparent way of getting involved in the
planning and decision-making process is to when an issue or major project directly impacts the
community. There are excellent examples from the set of reviewed case studies:

 Cypress Freeway Replacement (West Oakland): When an earthquake caused the collapse of
the Cypress Freeway, the community responded quickly to prevent the state department of
transportation from replacing it and maintaining the separation it had inflicted on the West
Oakland community for over 20 years. Within 48 hours of the quake, residents and leaders
formed the Citizens Emergency Relief Team (CERT), with sufficient civic history and broad
representation among its membership that it was able to have the freeway relocated and the
community restored.

 Fruitvale Transit Village (Oakland): A strong network of community organizations allowed

the community of Fruitvale to intervene in the transit operator’s (BART) plan to construct a
major parking facility at the Fruitvale station and thus cut off access to the town’s struggling
commercial district. The credibility of the town’s Unity Council led to a partnership with
BART and the City of Oakland that resulted in a completely different product for the site – a
mixed-use transit village that has had major influence on revitalization of this community.

2. Effective Community Representation: In a number of cases, the opportunity presents itself but the
community is not ready or equipped to respond. In the examples below, other organizations
“seeded” the process for the community and gave it time and resources to respond:

 Verona Road (Madison): The disadvantaged community of Allied Drive was separated by
two major commute arteries, where an intersection improvement project was planned. The
community was able to use this need for improvement to accomplish some important local
objectives in terms of getting sidewalks and safe crossing between the residential and
commercial areas. It should be noted, however, that it was the City’s reputation as a
progressive community that raised the issue of the disadvantaged community’s needs, and in
the absence of a solid neighborhood structure, basically caused the neighborhood’s case to
be addressed.

 East-West Expressway (Durham): Plans to complete an urban expressway called for going
through Crest Street, a small African-American neighborhood, and would have displaced
residents to other locations throughout the city. An environmental group, ECOS, caused the
state DOT to have to prepare an EIS. The preparation of the EIS caused attention to be raised
to the plight of the Crest Street neighborhood, which eventually led to a comprehensive
mitigation and enhancement plan for the community. It is worth noting again, however, that
the community did not offer the first response. An environmental group (ECOS) brought the
initial intervention for unrelated reasons. It then received key assistance from a Duke
University group, got volunteer assistance from a traffic engineer, and also acquired legal
assistance through a state program. During this time the community strengthened its own
resources and position, and worked effectively through its Community Council and a special
task force to get an acceptable outcome.

4
 Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

 South Park Avenue Improvement Project (Tucson): This was another case of a once-thriving
African-American community falling into hard times, and being further damaged by having a
road built connecting the city and airport that effected a bypass of the community’s remaining
and struggling businesses. In this case the Urban League took up the case of the South Park
neighborhood and instrumented acquisition of HUD funds to prepare a Community
Development Plan, and subsequently bring in the University of Arizona School of
Architecture as a partner in working with the community to reinvent itself. The Tucson
Department of Transportation also became a major supporter of the project, stimulating a high
level of interest and involvement in public meetings and design sessions, and also taking the
lead to acquire a major FTA grant to further enhance the project. The community succeeded in
this instance because of the significant parental interest and dedication of the various
community and public agencies.

 Calhoun Falls (South Carolina): In this situation, plans were announced by the state to
widen Route 72 through the town of Calhoun Falls to both improve intercity access but also
stimulate economic development of struggling Calhoun Falls. One of the alternative routes for
the through-town widening was thorough the minority neighborhood of Bucknelly. In this
instance, the State DOT made unusually proactive efforts to apprise the disadvantaged
community of the potential impacts, and to urge it to participate in the weighing of
alternatives. Because of the level of poverty and illiteracy, as well as resident distrust, it
proved very difficult to reach this community and get them involved. In the end, however, the
myriad efforts were successful and an alignment was selected that aided the town but spared
the neighborhood.

It is important to emphasize that there are a wide range of EJT planning situations that can be addressed
by community groups or organizations. At the same time, there are also a range of different approaches
that can be used depending on the nature and scope of project or community impacts. Innovative and
creative partnerships also prove to be valuable in building coalitions with sufficient energy and resources,
to confront federal, state, regional, and local jurisdictions making significant transportation investments.
Knowledge of public agency processes is important as well, especially in cases where opportunities for
involvement are not apparent to the public. The following briefly discusses how public agencies can
better align themselves with community groups or organizations to solicit feedback and effectively
incorporate the information into the planning process.

Public Agency

On the Public Agency side, there are several tools that can be used for ensuring meaningful and effective
participation of the disadvantaged community. These include:

1. Knowledge of the Disadvantaged Population: The first step to meaningful involvement is to identify
the location and characteristics of disadvantaged populations. This serves both as a means to help
contact impacted populations to engage their participation, as well as provide the basis for subsequent
analysis of benefits and burdens. Examples from the set of reviewed case studies include:

 Demographic analysis: the data first needs to be collected and put in a meaningful form.
 Mapping: Map the locations having concentrations of disadvantaged populations.4

4
See for example, the New Jersey WorkFirst program, SCAG Community Link 21, MORPC Environmental Justice
Report, and CRCOG Environmental Justice and Transportation Planning Program.

5
 Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

 Develop and Maintain Contact Lists: A variety of different methods (i.e., databases) can be used
to maintain lists of potential participants.5

2. Effective Outreach: Simply knowing the location of minority/low-income neighborhoods is a first step
toward actually reaching, informing, and involving these communities in the planning process. Due to
problems of literacy, access to media such as TV and Internet, language, and distrust/fear based on
prior experience, frequently special efforts must be made to reach these communities. Examples of
conventional and creative methods include:

 Public Meetings and Open Houses: Take plans or proposals out to the community through
presentations, exhibits, and open forums. Good examples include: Verona Road (Madison);
SCAG’s Community Link 21; Cypress Freeway (West Oakland); MORPC EJ Report; South Park
Avenue (Tucson); Calhoun Falls, SC; and Denver RTD MIS process. These efforts found it was
effective when the meetings were scheduled at times and in locations/settings that were
convenient and accessible for the target population.

 Informal Contacts: These methods are perhaps most noteworthy because they involved extra
effort and creativity to reach a wary or difficult-to-identify population. Perhaps the best example
of such an effort is the Tucson South Park example, in which project stewards conducted
community “walk-arounds” to make direct contact and show concern through in-home interviews
with community leaders. Another good example is Calhoun Falls, SC, where illiteracy and low
home ownership rates made it difficult to get notices and information to the affected community.
This called for an expanded program of in-person community tours, communication through the
faith community, and conscious location of meetings and workshops in key locations. The
Denver RTD example has also employed door-to-door outreach as a first contact measure, as well
as meeting with community group and speaking at business meetings.

 Maintaining Feedback Channels: While it is important to ensure that information gets out to the
public, it is equally important that the public is able satisfy its own needs to secure information,
ask questions, or even register a complaint. Actually, few if any of the studied examples have
created a formal way for the public to approach them with questions and concerns. MARTA
(Atlanta) maintains an Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity, which has a staff of 20, and
also a Title VI liaison for each area of the agency, which comprises the Title VI Advisory
Committee. This committee meets quarterly and considers service level and quality variations
across different areas. However, we found no examples of citizen input mechanisms at this end of
the process (which is an aspect that the BREJT project is determined to establish through the EJ
Triage Committee).

3. Involving the Public in the Planning and Decision-Making Process: This is the principal objective of a
public involvement process, where the emphasis is not only on informing the public about what is
going to happen, but in actively seeking their input. The following are among the most noteworthy
approaches and examples:

 Educating the Public in the Planning Process: SCAG retains communications consultants to
facilitate Environmental Justice Community Dialogues, which are typically early-evening
meetings in which a tutorial is offered on SCAG, the RTP process, and the nature of the MPO and
the regional planning process. Specific needs and issues are also identified and recorded at these
meetings as input for the RTP development process. In evaluating the effectiveness of its
Environmental Justice efforts, CRCOG staged a series of workshops in the disadvantaged

5
See for example the SCAG Community Link 21

6
 Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

communities to educate the public on the steps in the planning process, focusing on the role and
importance of the RTP and the TIP.

 Providing a Role in Decision Making: Increasingly, MPOs and transportation agencies are
developing mechanisms to give members of the disadvantaged community a more direct say in
key transportation decisions. In Madison (Verona Road), a representative of the community’s
Neighborhood Center was appointed to a Mayor’s Advisory Committee, which included members
of the city council, and various civic and business leaders, for the purpose of building a
constituency for the project. In Durham, NC, a Task Force was created which included the
neighborhood’s Community Council and the principal public agencies and private organizations
involved in the proposed project; the Task Force was instrumental in developing an acceptable
mitigation and enhancement plan. In Hartford, CRCOG used its final workshop on the regional
planning process to have the community help it frame an Action Plan for fixing those parts of the
process deemed most in need of improvement. The core group of participants at this final meeting
was retained as a permanent Advisory Board, which included both community members as well as
members of CRCOG’s Transportation Committee and its Policy Board. Further, a community
member of the Advisory Board was given a seat on the Transportation Committee. And in
Atlanta, MARTA found it productive to work with the Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation
Equity Coalition – a grassroots organization made up of transit riders, civil rights group, EJ
advocates, faith-based organizations, academics and labor representatives – to help it make better
decisions on transit service and vehicle allocations.

 Engaging the Public in Project Design: Another effective way of gaining the public’s trust and
support, while ensuring that the eventual project or decision will provide the greatest benefit to the
community, is to directly involve the disadvantaged community in the planning and design steps.
In the Verona Road example, WisDOT conducted a comprehensive community charrette to brief
the community on its needs study and to brainstorm short and long-range solutions. In Oakland,
BART engaged the neighborhood in setting the objectives for the Fruitvale Transit Village Project
(which the community initially protested because of its auto orientation), and subsequently
involved the community in the elements of design. In Tucson, the City department of
transportation closely involved the community in the planning and design, holding design
workshops where the public was encouraged to “view and vote” on key concepts. The
community was also engaged in beautification aspects, being provided with training to develop
their artistic skill and actually creating local artwork for the project. Denver’s RTD makes use of
neighborhood meetings and issue work group to get input on planning and design elements.

III. Examples of Public Participation Strategies and Collaboration

Typically the top down public participation process is initiated at the bequest of the government and from
its perspective with the objective of targeting particular community organizations and churches in high-
risk areas to get input reactions. This top down approach has lead to community mistrust and
dissatisfaction. The literature on public participation shows that it is seen as an activity that is initiated by
government sponsoring 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 bottom up participation when initiated by; high risks communities are more likely to get
involved in the interest of seeing that remedies are implemented in their best interest. With the bottom up
approach it is easier to explain the interaction between a community and government/non-profit agencies
that have responsibilities and interest in these high risk areas.

7
 Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

IV. A Framework for Public Participation

Many neighborhoods are challenged by forces that threaten community cohesion. There are plenty of
examples in the literature that show that neighborhoods once viable are now unstable or losing population.
In some cases development pressures result make disadvantaged neighborhoods vulnerable to
gentrification and displacement. The development of this framework for public participation (see Figure
1) recognizes this but also the reality that there are significant educational needs, low level of community
involvement, requiring much from disadvantaged communities seeking change in the face of constantly
changing political and bureaucratic systems.

Outreach

Outreach should be regarded as multiple mechanisms for engaging the public in the EJT process. It may
consist of proactive outreach, such as occurred in the Phase I EJT community issues scan, but more
functionally, it is envisioned as the interface – i.e., a 2-way communication – through which information
is exchanged with the public. Examples of the ways in which this information exchange might function
include:

• Eliciting Comment and Feedback: Like the Phase I regional scan of EJT issues, developing
mechanisms for encouraging participation and gathering input in relation to general or specific
issues, at any level of geographic coverage, from neighborhood to regional. This mechanism
would also develop methods for identifying and notifying key participants, and maintain contact
databases for future related activities.

• Receiving, Processing and Organizing Comments, Questions, and Concerns: Developing a

reliable and flexible process for receiving public comments or questions on a variety of EJT-
related issues, either directly or through a networking arrangement with partner agencies. This
information could be initially received through letters or phone calls to relevant agencies, captured
through a website, or perhaps even be initiated by media reports.

• Information Dissemination: Being an outlet for information of a general or specific nature, such
as providing information to targeted subgroup advising them of impending issues of some
importance to them, providing information to help understand the implications of those issues,
tabulating results of responses to earlier questions, etc.

This process was initiated during Phase I of the BREJT Project. Considerable information and was
acquired that (1) gives a sense for the range and relative importance of EJT issues in the community, and
(2) also provides insight into the various ways in which future public involvement and information
gathering can occur. We have incorporated much of what was discovered in Phase I of the BREJT Project
in developing this model framework.

One important issue to be explored is in delineating what organizational entities would have responsibility
for these various outreach activities. While the MPO might take the leadership for outreach in conjunction
with development of regional transportation plans (RTP) and programs (TIP), for project or service issues
the relevant implementing or operating agency might be the most appropriate lead. As discussed in the
section that follows, this collaboration will be motivated by engaging these various entities into the
management structure of the framework.

8
 Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

EJT Triage Process

This is the stage that determines what the problem is about, what information should be collected, and
then what action should be taken. The function in the framework has been labeled a Triage Process as a
metaphor for how complex problems are diagnosed and directed for treatment in a hierarchical medical
environment. The analogy here is that the treatment prescribed should be appropriate to the extent,
severity and potential consequences of the problem. For example, a patient visiting a health care facility
with a dirt speck in their eye doesn’t necessarily need to see a surgeon for relief, but can be examined and
effectively treated by a staff nurse. This saves the hospital the cost of tying up a scarce resource, and
spares the patient the potential inconvenience of a long wait, over-treatment or a large bill. At the same
time, should the professional (nurse) who treats the patient discover that there is a more severe problem
present, he/she can recommend the next stage of proper treatment.

In a similar manner, the resource utilized will use its skills, experience, and available information to
understand and categorize the type of problem presented, sufficient to make informed recommendations
on how to proceed. Such a resource may bear some resemblance to the Environmental Justice Advisory
Board conceived in Phase I 6, although the envisioned functions are not identical (many of the functions of
such a body are already present in MPO’s Transportation Equity Task Force). What is pictured here is a
committee, perhaps labeled the EJT Triage Committee that would be comprised of key organizations that
have a bearing on EJT issues. These might include the MPO, the state and city departments of
transportation, planning, health/environment, urban public academic/research organizations, and perhaps
one or more community organizations.

An EJT Triage Committee would develop an agenda, lead analyses and evaluations, and make
recommendations for solutions to existing or prospective EJT problems. It would review information
obtained through the outreach process, and assess what to do with the information utilizing criteria such as
those described earlier. Important questions are expected to arise in the creation of this group, its
composition, and its authority. One question to be addressed in the project is in how such a committee
would relate with the MPO. While anchored within the MPO and regional transportation planning
process, the wide range of EJT issues framed in Phase I suggest that many of these issues may not fall
immediately within the purview of the MPO. For example, in the case of the concern about quality of
local transit service, it might be argued that the responsibility for resolving the issue rests with the transit
operator, and that the MPO would be stepping outside its bounds in directing the operator to make
changes. On the other hand, if review of the concern shows that there is a pattern in such service
decisions, then the MPO should ascertain whether regional planning goals and objectives for equitable
transit service and access were being met. Hence, the MPO would share in the responsibility for
disparities in service and access. Nevertheless, this position could still put the MPO in a difficult position
if it had to assume responsibility for directing some other entity to take a corrective action. The likely best
way to deal with this authority concern is to assemble the committee in a way that it shares responsibility
for EJT issues across the wide spectrum reflected in the Phase I recommendations. In this way, the
committee internalizes these different responsibilities and it, as a body (not the MPO), makes the
recommendation for action. And in doing so, raises the opposing question as to what status or authority
this committee has with the MPO or any of the other organizations that may be implicated in an EJT issue.
If the MPO Board sanctions the committee then it will likely have to adopt a narrower agenda that is
consistent with the authority of the Board. On the other hand, if it is an independent collaboration, it will
not enjoy formal rights and privileges of a sanctioned MPO committee, such as formal review and
comment on plans or proposals.

6
See description in Section 1.4

9
 Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

Figure 1: Model Framework For Public Participation

Issues Preempt/React

COMMUNITY Outreach Scale Simple/Complex

Severity Near/Long term

No Potential Unsure
short-term
impacts?

Yes
Get more input Dialogue w/agencies
Standard
Review Triage Process Perform analysis Document process
Process
Seek solutions

No Technical Unsure
analysis
needed?

Yes

Specify performance
criteria

ANALYSIS
Obtain/Review Existing Data
TOOLBOX
Perform More Detailed Interviews
Simple
Conduct Focus Group

Apply Sketch Planning Methods

Regional Travel Model Applications

Apply Traffic Simulation Tools

Enhance GIS Tools, Population Synthesis
Advanced
New Tools and/or Special Studies

Report
Yes Outcomes No/Unsure
suggested acceptable?
actions

Source: Baltimore Region Environmental Justice and Transportation Project, Master Proposal, 2005

10
 Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

Response

Upon review of the evidence, and in relation to available resources and other factors, the EJT Triage
Committee will provide a response that will include a collection of possible approaches. At a minimum,
this response should include formal documentation of the issue, its genesis, and a summary of its initial
assessment in relation to the criteria. This documentation is extremely important to the continuity and,
hence, the credibility of the EJT process. The documentation may also be important in the event that legal
actions are brought by community groups.

There are several ways in which an EJT Triage Committee can respond to a particular issue. It can:

• Get More Input: The Committee may realize that it does not have enough information to form a
credible response, and recommend collecting additional information. Alternatively, the
Committee may conduct initial investigations and then elect to go back to the public for additional
information.

• Dialogue with Agencies: The first (and final) step in addressing a problem is to discuss it with
the agency or agencies whose activities are implicated in the concern. This allows the Committee
to apprise the agency of the problem, gain insight as to other factors that may be contributing to
the problem, and to work through an initial menu of possible solutions.

• Perform Analysis: At some point the Committee will probably determine that it needs better
information (i.e., better detail) on the nature and extent of a given problem, because of its
complexity or other factors critical to taking action. This is where the Triage function comes into
play, as the type of analysis recommended may be quite varied as to depth and sophistication,
based on the particular problem or on the stage at which the committee is currently investigating
the problem.

• Seek Alternatives: More than likely, some type of remedial action may be necessary to address
the problem or concern, and the Committee will need information on potential alternative
solutions and on their impacts – pro and con. Again, this investigation will probably require use
of analysis tools, whose use must be scaled to fit the magnitude of the problem and the weight of
the result.

In practice, the activity “boxes” shown as alternative responses in the framework may be highly
interconnected. At any given time, the Committee might be coordinating with the relevant agencies,
talking with members of the subject community, gathering information on alternatives, and seeking to
better understand the nature of the problem through analysis methods. This dynamic interaction is
envisioned throughout the entire framework: as new information is gained or new questions asked, any or
all elements in the framework may be brought back on line to assist in the analysis or to refine the focus.

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 would either have to have very stringent rules in
selecting those issues that it gets involved with, or have sufficient resources (in-kind, grant or endowment)
to acquire supplemental assistance from staff or consultants.

11
 Filling the Gap: Environmental Justice in Transportation Toolkit

IV. Summary

The main components of a productive public participation effort as utilized by this project is the ability to:
(1) have a local presence and experience working with the affected low-income, minority community and
(2) have knowledge of transportation issues. Collaboration with Universities that have a history, physical
presence, and mission to support the targeted group (minority and low income) as well as the needed
transportation planning infrastructure and experience can partner with the active participation from the
community (particularly low income and minority populations), community organizations, civil rights
group, and planning organizations. The unique characteristics and capabilities include the following:

Group diversity is an important and required step to provide the quality of thought, support resources and
techniques needed for a successful, inclusive and targeted community-based, community-driven
environmental justice in transportation planning process. This is important for effectively addressing the
following questions:

1. How to deal with the community change?

2. What happens when infrastructure disrupts a community?
3. How does government and communities build effective relationships?
4. How to deal with pressures of where things are located?
5. How to deal with mistakes of the Past?
6. How to prevent them from happening again?

There are many examples where the community has said “not again” and mobilized to create important
changes, or the public sector has actively and creatively engaged the community in trying to not repeat
past mistakes. An assessment of these findings may say that they are mainly attributable to Title VI and
the subsequent federal leadership on Environmental Justice. However, more optimistic observers may
conclude that an concerned, informed, and active public, equipped with appropriate tools, stands a much
better chance today of correcting past wrongs and guarding against a repeat of history – intended or
unintended. The objective of this process is to not only identify and correct EJT problems, but to also
increase the awareness of public participation opportunities within disadvantaged communities.

Staffing

The following are the primary staff responsibilities for this case study:

 Glenn Robinson and Morgan State: Overall study manager.

Schedule
2nd and 3rd Quarter (April – August) 2007

12