Overview |
|
|
BACKGROUND The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) called for a greatly expanded role for public involvement in the state and local transportation decision making process. At the same time, activists across the country have become increasingly aware of the impact of transportation investments in their communities. These community activists are concerned with a wide range of issues that require them to participate in different aspects of the ISTEA planning process. Communities that have identified a place for transit oriented development and urban revitalization are being immersed in the technicalities and politics of funding flexibility and foreign project selection processes. Others recognize that transportation directly impacts access to jobs and, since poor and minority communities are underserved by traditional transportation choices, are trying to merge civil rights and transportation improvement program processes. Still others understand the environmental impacts of transportation and are swimming in the details of air quality conformity decisions and environmental impact studies. While community groups have their own strengths and origin of commitment to transportation issues, they continue to struggle with accessing the decision making process even after five years under ISTEA. Unfortunately, many of these small, local nonprofits do not yet have the expertise and/or organizational capacity to effectively participate in the planning process. STATEMENT OF NEED Public participation activities within the state and metropolitan have shown mixed results. Since the December, 1991 passage of ISTEA, state and local governments have been charged with actively involving the public whom they serve. Time and time again agencies have become frustrated by the difficulty in generating public participation, while community groups remain disillusioned with the agency’s public involvement efforts. Many metropolitan areas have difficulty engaging the public in their planning processes because of a lack of emphasis on a few key issues. Issues of trust, language, accessibility, attitude, and understanding must be overcome before the public will fully engage in a long or short term planning process for their community. Until these issues are addressed people will fight to preserve what they have, and will be hesitant to dedicate time to a joint, proactive planning process. Trust Citizens frequently tell bureaucrats and elected officials that they are weary of city representatives studying their neighborhoods, especially since proposed changes do not often materialize. To overcome a history of distrust and to engage people in the planning process, proof that promises are sincere must be established. One way to do this is to implement some small neighborhood projects that are in the plan. This demonstrates to citizens that the planning and decision making process will positively impact their community. Language Few people have a reference point for technical language related to transportation processes. They will, however, respond with a plethora of ideas to questions like, ‘What kinds of improvements to sidewalks and streets are needed in your community? Are your streets safe? How can we improve transit service?’ These are questions that apply to people’s lives. People want to talk about issues that affect their life in a language that makes sense to them. Accessibility To participate, people need to be able to get to the chosen place at the chosen time. The format of the meetings should also allow for participation, rather than discouraging people from asking questions and engaging in a dialogue. Attitude Citizens will know if their opinions are not valued, and any existing trust will be eroded. The value of citizen involvement should not be underestimated because they often have creative, inexpensive solutions to pressing community problems. Understanding It will take several steps before the public can fully participate in regional transportation planning at the level many agencies would like. Citizens may need assistance understanding some of the issues, the process for making investments, and the tools available to the local agencies. The agencies and community groups need to think about how to empower citizens as they learn the issues and the process. From our experience as transportation professionals and community activists, we hypothesized that to achieve real public involvement, it is necessary to engage and empower the public; and we believe that community groups are one of the best vehicles to engage the public. To test this hypothesis STPP and the Federal Transit Administration initiated a Community Empowerment Program (CEP). THE PROGRAM In September 1994, five communities were chosen for a pilot CEP by STPP and FTA. Community involvement is essential to the shape and fabric of communities, so the CEP was structured to nurture public involvement in transportation decision making in different communities. The CEP sought to move each community from a base level of understanding to the ability to meaningfully participate in the decision making process. Through a small contract ($20,000) with each nonprofit organization, five communities took a step towards a more informed citizenry, and ultimately changes in the way decisions about transportation investments are made in their community. By empowering citizens within the ISTEA process, the CEP demonstrated the viability of the public participation process in general and tested specific involvement strategies for their effectiveness. It is critical to the success of ISTEA and the establishment of a more intermodal transportation system that communities be empowered to participate in the debate about future investments. Each community’s Empowerment Project offered hope for a collaborative process between citizens and government agencies, and provided a real opportunity for citizens to secure projects that foster walkable, more livable communities. The projects also tested involvement strategies that can be used elsewhere in the country to continually improve the nation’s transportation system and the role the public can play in developing that system. The five participating regions represented a broad range of types of cities, as well as diverse organizational representation. Each region coped with specific transportation issues of national consequence, including the development of various transit alternatives, rural transit, equitable access to jobs and services, urban revitalization, and environmental justice. The five organizations involved in the project were:
This program was innovative because it invested in community groups to ensure more effective and meaningful public participation. The experiences in these five communities should serve as a model for cites and counties across the nation. The chart below outlines the factors used to choose the five projects. The regions were selected based on their potential for success; the ISTEA process which would be advanced; the issues or projects of national consequence that would be addressed; and the involvement strategy or capacity-building potential that would be developed. All concerted efforts to involve the public and develop a truly representative plan of action will require patience, time and collaboration. Consideration of the characteristics listed above are the first step in developing a collaborative outreach and empowerment project with community organizations. 
CONTEXT FOR INITIATING AN EMPOWERMENT PROJECT In applying the lessons learned from each project, the circumstances in the community must be considered. Are there established community organizations with paid staff? Do community groups work on transportation issues currently? What are the major issues in the public debate? Each of the five projects faced different challenges and had different goals, as is described in the individual case studies. In some communities, the participating groups found they needed to educate citizens about the decision making process and help them identify transportation issues in their neighborhood. In others, the biggest challenge was overcoming a deep feeling of skepticism that any effort would make a difference in their community, because of many false promises in the past. Still others faced the challenge of a volunteer based community group working to bring people into a complex regional debate. Each project realized successes and faced challenges from which others can learn. The successes and difficulties experienced by the five project sponsors are similar to those other communities will experience, especially those with similar demographics. A few characteristics about any community to consider before choosing a community empowerment strategy are:
The CEP demonstrated that when resources are dedicated to involving community residents in the planning process, amazing results can be achieved. Community consensus can be reached, interest can be generated in neighborhoods that have never had a voice in the transportation debate, new partnerships can be formed between residents and local government agencies, and the realm of possibilities is expanded. The elements that enable these successes are time, dedication, patience, community trust, an understanding of the community’s needs and knowledge, creativity, and a willingness to work within neighborhoods. One of the main reasons these projects were successful is that they were based in the community: initiated by the community, structured by the community and conducted by the community. City and regional planners have been struggling since ISTEA passed to engage the public in decisions about transportation investments. However, to involve the public, it is necessary to engage the public. The most significant problem for each of the projects was time. As with most joint efforts, it took more time to accomplish each step than anticipated. The more people involved in a project and the more diverse the levels of understanding, the longer it will take. Some of the time difficulties can be overcome with more staff members assigned to the project, but some elements cannot be rushed. There are many steps between a first meeting with a community development organization and a successful design charrette in that neighborhood. Skipping steps and rushing the process will sacrifice quality and community buy-in to the long term goals. The other major difficulty was dedicated staff time. Most of the projects had only a part of one person’s time dedicated to the project, due to the small amount of resources available. One group was volunteer based, further limiting the scope of their work on the project and on transportation issues in the region. Two fundamental lessons are:
The CEP demonstrates what is possible with the wise investment of resources and a serious commitment to engage community organizations and the public. The initiatives undertaken by the five project sponsors highlight the strengths of community based organizations and provide ideas for agencies and nonprofit organizations to further engage their communities in the transportation debate. The STPP/FTA pilot project on Community Empowerment further shows that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and state agencies can contract directly with, or provide grants to, nonprofit organizations as a part of their public involvement and community planning efforts. An investment in public empowerment can result in new ideas, better identification of problems, and an engaged citizenry. After partnering with communities, state and local agencies should be prepared to relax their control over the process and content; keep an open mind about new ideas; and answer questions that they did not know anyone would ask. Community residents and transportation agencies must come to the table with open minds to achieve an open dialogue. The result of a collaborative approach will be investments that better suit community needs and more consensus about priorities of the region. One of the goals of the CEP was to provide ideas and lessons to other communities. The following case studies outline the specific projects undertaken in each of the five regions. Each case study describes the initiatives attempted, how successes were achieved and the difficulties the groups faced. The five projects provide typical examples of public involvement that is not only meaningful, but fulfilling for both the community and the local agencies. STPP, FTA, and the five project sponsors invite you to learn from their experience and take the risk of investing in not only community projects, but a community empowerment effort. The CEP’s pilot project has spurred ongoing activity in five regions and we hope the Program will continue in cities and states around the country with investment from city governments, MPOs, transit agencies, and state departments of transportation.
|