Also available as Adobe PDF (347 KB)
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
Location: |
Columbus, Ohio |
|---|---|
Date: |
December 15, 2015 |
Host Agency: |
FHWA Ohio Division Office and Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) |
Peer Agencies: |
Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) FHWA Washington Division Office Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) |
Federal Agencies: |
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) |
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE |
Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. |
|||||||||
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) |
2. REPORT TYPE |
3. DATES COVERED (From - To) |
|||||||
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Regional Cooperation and Environmental Justice in Transportation Planning in Ohio: A Regional Models of Cooperation Peer Exchange Summary Report |
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER |
||||||||
5b. GRANT NUMBER |
|||||||||
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER |
|||||||||
6. AUTHOR(S) |
5d. PROJECT NUMBER |
||||||||
5e. TASK NUMBER |
|||||||||
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER |
|||||||||
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Office of the Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Research and Technology John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02142 |
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-16-20 |
||||||||
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) |
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) |
||||||||
Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 |
FHWA |
||||||||
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT |
|||||||||
NUMBER(S) |
|||||||||
12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT |
|||||||||
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES FHWA Project Contact: Jody McCullough, Community Planner, Office of Planning, Email:Jody.McCullough@dot.gov |
|||||||||
14. ABSTRACT This report highlights key themes identified at the “Regional Cooperation and Environmental Justice in Transportation Planning in Ohio” Peer Exchange held on December 15, 2015 in Columbus, Ohio. The Regional Models of Cooperation Initiative, which is funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), sponsored this event. |
|||||||||
15. SUBJECT TERMS Environmental justice; regional cooperation; MAP-21; transportation planning; regional models of cooperation; metropolitan planning organization; state department of transportation; council of governments; cross-jurisdictional planning; multi-jurisdictional planning; every day counts; Ohio |
|||||||||
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: |
17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT |
18. NUMBER OF PAGES |
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON |
||||||
a. REPORT FINAL |
b. ABSTRACT N/A |
c. THIS PAGE N/A |
None. |
22 |
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code) |
||||
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 |
|||||||||
This report summarizes the presentations, key themes, and recommendations identified at a Regional Models of Cooperation peer exchange on December 15, 2015 in Columbus, Ohio. With support from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Planning, the FHWA Ohio Division Office hosted peers from Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the FHWA Washington Division Office. The purpose of the peer exchange was to share best practices in incorporating environmental justice into transportation planning and to determine how models of regional cooperation can inform this process. Regional Models of Cooperation is a program of the FHWA Every Day Counts 3 (EDC-3) initiative, co-led by the FHWA Office of Planning and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Office of Planning.
The Regional Models of Cooperation program extends a special thank you to the FHWA Ohio Division Office for sponsoring the workshop and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) for hosting the event at its offices in Columbus, Ohio. Special thanks go to BMC, FDOT, and the FHWA Washington Division Office for attending the workshop and sharing their experiences with environmental justice in transportation planning with their peers in Ohio. The program would also like to thank the FHWA Resource Center for their support in organizing, facilitating, and documenting the workshop. In addition, the program thanks the workshop participants, including representatives from Ohio’s metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), rural planning organizations (RPOs), and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for their valuable contributions to discussions about environmental justice and regional cooperation in transportation planning in Ohio.
Regional Models of Cooperation is a program of FHWA’s Everyday Counts Initiative. Through this initiative, FHWA and FTA work with State DOTs, MPOs, and other stakeholders to identify innovative technologies and process that are deserving of accelerated deployment nationwide. Regional Models of Cooperation was selected for accelerated deployment in the third round of Everyday Counts (EDC-3), for calendar years 2015-2016.
Regional Models of Cooperation describes enhanced processes for effective cooperation and communication between State DOTs, MPOs, transit agencies, and other transportation planning partners working across jurisdictions or traditional disciplines. When implemented, these techniques can improve collaboration, policy implementation, technology use, and performance management. Regional Models of Cooperation reaches beyond traditional borders and brings together entities from multiple jurisdictions and disciplines to support common goals in transportation planning, such as congestion management, safety, freight, livability, economic development, and project delivery and efficiency.
Successful implementation of Regional Models of Cooperation in transportation planning can improve decision-making, save time and money through the sharing of resources or data, and help agencies achieve more by working together. Examples of regional cooperation include jointly developing transportation plans and programs, cross-jurisdictional corridor studies, and project planning across MPO and State boundaries. It also includes collaboration between State DOT(s), MPOs, and operators of public transportation on activities such as collecting, storing, and analyzing transportation data.
One way that FHWA and FTA are supporting States and MPOs to help them implement Regional Models of Cooperation is through peer exchange workshops. These workshops bring representatives from multiple jurisdictions within a region together with peers from other regions to share experiences and best practices that can help move specific, locally-driven priorities forward. The Regional Models of Cooperation implementation effort also hosts webinars and documents cooperation case studies and techniques to promote notable practices in a variety of topic areas.
For more information, please visit the FHWA Regional Models of Cooperation website and the EDC-3 initiative summary page.
This workshop summary report is organized in four sections:
The Key Themes and Strategies section synthesizes and discusses four areas that the workshop participants identified as priorities for successful Environmental Justice (EJ) analyses and engagement with EJ and Title VI populations:
This peer exchange focused on techniques to more effectively incorporate EJ in transportation planning efforts across Ohio. As a Regional Models of Cooperation workshop, presenters and participants from Ohio’s Metropolitan Transportation Organizations (MPOs) and Rural Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) and Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) discussed how to work across jurisdictional boundaries to implement activities and processes related to EJ.
Transportation agencies must conduct analyses in order to determine that their transportation plans, programs, projects, and activities comply with both EJ and Title VI requirements. Agencies determine their own methodologies and procedures for such analyses. The workshop focused on sharing notable practices transportation agencies can follow to ensure their plans and projects not only comply with EJ and Title VI requirements, but also contribute to developing equitable transportation systems in the region. The workshop also highlighted how agencies can work across jurisdictional boundaries to develop and implement new methods of analyzing the needs of EJ and Title VI populations.
The FHWA Office of Planning, the FHWA Ohio Division Office, and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) worked together to identify external peers with experience successfully identifying and working with EJ and Title VI populations to ensure that they are not disproportionately adversely affected by transportation plans and projects. FHWA invited the following peers to attend the workshop to share their stories and advice regarding EJ analysis and regional cooperation with the Ohio participants:
The peer exchange workshop’s goals were to train Ohio’s MPOs and RTPOs on the notable practices in identifying and communicating with EJ and Title VI populations, as well as evaluating their needs though data analysis and public engagement. Enhancing Ohio’s approach to EJ will better ensure that its transportation plans, projects, and programs comply with the EJ Executive Order 12898 and Title VI.
The one-day peer exchange consisted of two parts, described below:
The list of event participants can be found in Appendix A and the workshop agenda can be found in Appendix B.
During the course of the workshop several key themes and strategies emerged, which are summarized below and discussed in detail in the Key Themes and Strategies section of this report.
The following sections provide brief summaries of the presentations from the opening remarks and five workshop sessions. Please note that the Key Themes and Strategies section provides additional detail about some of the examples in presentations. Presentation slides are available on the Regional Models of Cooperation website.
During the introduction, speakers from MORPC and the FHWA Ohio Division provided context for the role of EJ in transportation planning in Ohio.
Thea Walsh, Director of Transportation Planning, MORPC, welcomed workshop participants to the event and discussed the importance of retroactively addressing past injustices, as well as currently ensuring EJ in transportation planning. To illustrate this point, she shared the story of the recently opened Cultural Wall on the Long Street Bridge in Columbus. The Cultural Wall physically and symbolically reconnects a community that was divided by the construction of Interstate 71 in the mid- 20th century. The project was participatory and inclusive, as community members helped design the mural along the wall, which won an American Planning Association, Ohio Chapter Award. Projects such as the Cultural Wall help to repair past harms inflicted on communities in transportation planning, exemplifying how recognizing and addressing past injustices plays an important role in EJ.
Robert Griffith, Assistant Division Administrator, FHWA Ohio Division Office, provided context for the legislative history of EJ in transportation planning. President Clinton signed the EJ Executive Order 12898 on February 26, 1994, at a time during which FHWA did not extensively consider EJ issues. Griffith emphasized how the process to learn about, evaluate, rectify, and address such issues has been ongoing at all levels of governments since then and encouraged participants to share new techniques they learn and develop with FHWA. Rather than view EJ as a ‘box to check’ in the planning and project development process, the goal is the deliver transportation plans and projects that serve all sectors of society. He concluded by stressing that, beyond the peer exchange workshop, the FHWA Ohio Division Office has resources available to assist MPOs with EJ considerations in the planning process.
Carmen Stemen, Environmental and Planning Specialist, FHWA Ohio Division Office provided an overview of EJ through showing a video developed by students at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland and reviewing the basic features of Title VI and the EJ Executive Order 12898. The video tracked the birth of the EJ movement in the 1980s and provided the following definition: EJ addresses the unfair distribution of environmental burdens, such as toxic facilities, air pollution and crime, and environmental goods, such as clean air, health care, open space, education, and so on. The presentation that followed outlined the EJ Executive Order 12898 and its impact on planning in Ohio. The EJ Executive Order 12898 requires that all federal programs, policies, and activities follow a process that identifies and addresses disproportionate impacts to populations vulnerable to environmental injustices, which includes low-income and minority populations. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on several additional statuses.
The goals of EJ are the fair treatments of all groups impacted by federal programs and projects, as well as the meaningful, active engagement of all communities potentially impacted by transportation plans and projects. EJ incorporates avoiding and mitigating potential disproportionately high and adverse social, environmental, and economic impacts to EJ populations and ensuring that EJ populations receive proportionate benefits from transportation plans and projects. In Ohio, incorporating EJ into transportation planning involves urban issues such as access to transit, impacts of fracking in rural areas, and a multitude of other issues. She concluded by commending MORPC, which has thus far developed a tool to assess the impacts of its plans on EJ populations and developed a three tiered public involvement process that includes a broad-based outreach program and specific advisory committees.
During this session, speakers from the FHWA Ohio Division Office and ODOT discussed Title VI and EJ in the Ohio context.
Rachyl Smith, Civil Rights Program Manager, FHWA Ohio Division Office, shared the basic elements of Title VI, federal expectations for compliance, and intersections between Title VI and EJ. Title VI requires that programs and activities receiving federal funds do not exclude, deny benefits to, or discriminate against any person, including citizens and non-citizens, based on race, color, or national origin. Program coverage expands the groups of persons protected to include exclusion and discrimination based on sex, age, limited English proficiency, low-income, and disability. The Federal government expects that States have a Title VI Coordinator and produce a Title VI Program Plan that identifies Title VI populations in the State, a Goals and Accomplishments report that records whether a State has acted upon its Program Plan, and a Limited English Proficiency Plan. It also expects that States conduct Program Area Reviews, establish an Interdisciplinary Team with representatives from sectors such as construction, planning, and the environment, conduct data collection and analysis, and monitor sub-recipients of federal funds for Title VI compliance. She underscored that States must comply with Title VI, but that they determine the method in which they comply given the local context and their resources. Within the context of transportation, she discussed how, similar to EJ, Title VI compliance requires that projects and plans do not disproportionately affect Title VI populations.
Sarah Johnson, ADA/504 Program Manager, ODOT Division of Opportunity, Diversity, and Inclusion, discussed Ohio’s status with Title VI compliance and shared the story of one local government. The FHWA had found that ODOT’s Civil Rights Program has staffing deficiencies, which prompted a narrowing in the scope of each staff members’ responsibilities and other structural changes. The division will begin program area reviews in January 2016 and is currently revising its review and data collection and analysis process. She also discussed a case study of Beavercreek, Ohio, a municipality near Dayton that the FHWA found had violated Title VI, in order to illustrate the difficulties the state faces with EJ. Beavercreek was a sub-recipient of federal funding, making Title VI applicable to Beavercreek. However, city residents pressured their local government to not partake in Dayton’s plans to expand its bus service in Beavercreek, a service that would provide transportation to college students, elderly people, and other groups, citing concerns that the bus stops would bring increased crime and litter. After media attention and an FHWA investigation that found that the process was not compliant with Title VI, the transit agency successfully constructed three state of the art bus stops and has received no reports of violence or debris at the stops. FHWA also mandated that ODOT monitor and aid Beavercreek in becoming Title VI compliant.
During this session, peer speakers from the FHWA Washington Division and FDOT shared their experience with identifying EJ and Title VI populations and their needs in the planning process.
Jodi Petersen, Civil Rights Program Manager, FHWA Washington Division Office, discussed methods for identifying the scope of needs, collecting relevant data, and engaging the public. While transportation projects have a narrow, well-defined geographic scope that simplifies the identification of affected EJ and Title VI populations, the broad scope of transportation plans makes EJ analysis more difficult in the planning stage, rather than project development stage. She recommended analyzing relevant data to determine whether programs and activities are inclusive, equitable, and do not create adverse impacts on EJ and Title VI populations. Such a process included collecting demographic data from service and planning areas, cataloguing the demographic makeup of relevant boards and committees, analyzing the spatial distribution of transit, highway, and nonmotorized transportation projects, assessing the funding distribution process, and determining percentage and location of populations with limited English proficiency, among others. She provided examples of alternative data sources and analytical tools that aided identifying EJ and Title VI populations, such as greatschools.org, which provides data on income and language proficiency, and mapping state literacy rates, which was used to identify two counties with lower literacy rates that might require alternative communications materials.
Beyond data analysis, she stressed the importance of building relationships with EJ populations to foster public engagement and better understand their needs. Such engagement could occur through attending events and visiting centers in a community, scheduling meetings at convenient times and in convenient locations, and addressing literacy, language, and disability issues. MPOs can integrate EJ needs into their MTPs, TIPs, and UPWPs through analysis and public engagement. This type of integration also provides a basis for MPOs to evaluate the benefits and burdens of transportation investments and plans. She concluded by providing links to a number of EJ data sources and guides, available in the presentation slides and Appendix C.
Rusty Ennemoser, Public Involvement and Community Resources Coordinator, FDOT, described the process Florida uses to capture the diversity in the state. Florida contains a number of EJ and Title VI populations evidenced by a large percentage of residents over 65, growing black and Hispanic populations, public schools with students who speak 300 languages and 4.6 million residents who speak a language other than English at home, and six federally-recognized Tribal governments. The State developed Sociocultural Effects (SCE) Evaluation as a process through which MPOs and FDOT districts could evaluate, analyze, and address or mitigate the impacts of transportation on a community and its quality of life. This process fulfills EJ requirements of analyzing the impacts on and needs of low-income and minority population, as well as addresses Title VI protected classes and other demographics of interest. This process is referred to as a Community Impact Statement in some other states. The process analyzes the effects of transportation on the following six issues: social (demographics, community cohesion, emergency response), economic (business presence, employment, property values), land use patterns, mobility (access to transit, traffic patterns), aesthetic (visual compatibility, noise), and relocation (displacement and changes in a community). SCE Evaluation uses a three-pronged approach to identify EJ and Title VI populations that includes analyzing data at the individual, household, and community level; visiting and/or driving through a community to provide context; and engaging the community through communication with members and organizations. She encouraged MPOs to avoid lumping different groups together, such as populations from different Spanish speaking countries or all senior citizens, when using demographic analysis to identify affected groups and their needs regarding transportation project. She also recommended determining the best ways to communicate with different groups and subgroups about transportation projects. She concluded by describing the numerous resources FDOT makes available, which include demographic analysis guides, sociocultural data reports, and 14 instructional videos on various topics.
Nick Gill, P.E., Assistant Director, Transportation Systems & Funding, MORPC, shared how MORPC conducts technical EJ analysis. MORPC developed a method for conducting EJ Analysis in the early 2000s that it has used in each of its MTPs and TIPs since then. MORPC developed measures that compare the impacts of transportation projects on population groups and in specific geographic areas with high levels of EJ and Title VI populations as well as other populations of interest, including people older than 65, people with disabilities, and zero car households. MORPC maps the locations of these populations and identifies where they are concentrated. It then conducts accessibility analyses using its travel demand model, which factors in access to employment, education, and other destinations. The analysis graphs the change in the level of access to destinations by car and transit for each population group between the current state and with the full implementation of the TIP. The analysis also produces maps that illustrate access to these destinations spatially. MORPC overlays these geographic analyses with the maps displaying EJ population concentrations to analyze the geographic impacts. Finally, the analysis also measures the congested vehicle miles of travel and distribution of transportation investments for disproportionate impacts affecting EJ and Title VI populations. He emphasized that using multiple measures and displaying data in multiple ways, such as through maps, graphs, and interpretive text allows a broader group of people to understand the transportation and equity issues at hand.
Michael Kelly, Executive Director, BMC, discussed how the organization uses its Vulnerable Population Index (VPI) to evaluate transportation access to employment and job training opportunities. The VPI defines populations vulnerable to environmental injustices such as low-income, Hispanic, non-white non-Hispanic, limited English proficiency, elderly, disabled, or car-less populations. Therefore, the tool allows BMC to assess conditions beyond those required by the EJ Executive Order 12898 and includes analysis of Title VI protected classes and other demographics of interest. Using the index, BMC locates concentrations of these populations to determine vulnerable areas and uses this information to evaluate transportation plans, guide public involvement, and collaborate and share with partners.
BMC is using VPI to implement a Housing and Urban Development grant for improving linkages between transportation planning, housing, and workforce development initiatives. A Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant BMC received supports implementation of VPI. BMC conducted an analysis of the location of job opportunities for low-income populations with less than a four-year college degree and found that the region suffers from a shortage of mid-skilled jobs. BMC identified the industries which had the most potential to create these types of jobs in the region, which included healthcare, services, and hospitality. However, they identified that many of these jobs would be located outside of the city, in locations that are difficult for people who rely on public transit to access. If the Baltimore region could connect unemployed people to some of these jobs, BMC projected that half of the currently unemployed population could find employment. BMC spatially analyzed how long it would take residents from the city to reach a number of job centers by public transit, including an Amazon warehouse facility located southeast of the city and the Baltimore airport, two examples of clusters of mid-skill job opportunities, in order to assess accessibility. The analysis illustrated how residents would face difficulty accessing these locations during non-peak hour periods, when public transit operated less frequently. As many jobs at these locations require availability for shifts at night and during the weekend, this would be a difficult problem for residents seeking to commute during non-peak periods. However, they also identified alternative solutions, such a private shuttle service for Amazon’s employees and working with foundations to provide ridesharing services to residents.
David Harris, Transportation Specialist, FHWA Office of Planning, provided a brief overview of the Regional Models of Cooperation program and its relation to EJ. Similar to numerous topics in planning, EJ issues do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries. Coordinating activities related to EJ analysis and evaluation can lead to improved planning outcomes. The Columbus peer exchange workshop is the first Regional Models of Cooperation initiative focused on EJ, but a number of previous case studies point to cooperation techniques that could apply to EJ issues. For example, the San Joaquin Valley case study discusses how a region worked together to develop two planning processes, one for rural and one for urban communities, to more efficiently use planning resources and better reach populations. In New Hampshire, the Granite State Future case study describes how the state conducted its largest public outreach effort, which included visioning sessions and other efforts, to create a statewide plan among the state’s nine regions. Finally, the Indiana MPO Council case study discusses how Indiana’s MPOs have been cooperating for more than 30 years to distribute transportation funds and conduct other planning activities. All these cases illustrate cooperation methods that could apply to EJ in transportation planning.
Following the five presentation sessions, the group split into five breakout groups that each focused on one of the presentation topics. The breakout groups had the following instructions:
Each breakout group chose a member who would record key themes and report these back to the larger group. After the breakout groups met, all the participants came back together to discuss the key themes and ideas each group reported. The breakout groups reported the following notes:
Breakout Group A: Ohio Title VI Overview and Connections with Environmental Justice – Ohio Update
This breakout group identified the following methods to engage EJ and Title VI populations in the planning and project implementation process:
Breakout Group B: Environmental Justice Needs (How are they determined? How are they integrated into the overall planning program?
This breakout group identified the following challenges in EJ and planning, as well as potential solutions:
Breakout Group C: EJ Analysis
This breakout group focused on how to overcome issues related to EJ data collection and analysis and developed the following list of strategies:
Breakout Group D: Techniques for Identifying EJ Populations
This breakout group identified issues related to engaging EJ and Title VI populations and evaluating their needs:
Breakout Group E: Regional Models of Cooperation
This breakout group identified four key strategies to address EJ and Title VI issues by working cooperatively across jurisdictions on EJ planning topics:
After the breakout groups met, the participants came back together to share the key ideas they developed. Brian Betlyon, the workshop facilitator, led the group through a discussion identifying potential overarching opportunities and challenges to identifying EJ and Title VI populations and analyzing their needs. The breakout sessions and facilitated discussion provided participants an opportunity to pull together the information from the presentations and apply it to their context in Ohio. They identified key areas of opportunity and key challenges regarding EJ analysis in transportation planning in Ohio, which they can use to shape future coordinated efforts to improve EJ analysis across the State. The lists below summarizes the key opportunities and challenges identified in this discussion.
Opportunities:
Challenges:
This section synthesizes ideas and discussion from the workshop participants and attempts to summarize the group’s takeaways on how to best incorporate EJ into transportation planning, as well as how to use Regional Models of Cooperation to achieve this objective.
During the course of the workshop several key themes and strategies emerged, which are summarized and discussed below:
Several workshop participants stressed the importance of collecting and analyzing data in a way that identifies how transportation plans and projects affect different communities and how to address those communities’ needs. This process often requires collecting and analyzing data from multiple jurisdictions and modes of travel. Working with other agencies to obtain data and conduct analyses can result in a more extensive understanding of EJ and Title VI populations and the issues they face.
The peers discussed a variety of data sources pertaining to income and race or ethnicity, which planners can use to identify and provide information about communities vulnerable to environmental injustices. Jodi Peterson and Rusty Ennemoser both pointed to learning about a community through information about public schools. Peterson recommended resources like GreatSchools.org, which can provide demographic information by school district indicating the number of students in English as a Second Language, special education, and free lunch programs. Ennemoser used public school information to understand the extent of languages spoken in the state. Students in public schools speak 300 different languages at home, which demonstrates the vast number of languages spoken in Florida households. Although these data are available through the US Census, school information may be more detailed or recent.
Furthermore, Peterson also recommended using data about literacy to learn where communities with lower literacy rates exist, regardless of the language spoken at home. In the same vein, Michael Kelly recommended looking at educational attainment rates when conducting economic analyses that pertain to employment, as the level of educational attainment in a community is tied to the types of jobs for which members of a community may be qualified. These data sources, as well as the others listed in Appendix C, provide information about communities from multiple perspectives. Planners can use these sources not only to identify EJ and Title VI populations, but also to learn about how communities are vulnerable to discrimination covered in EJ and Title VI, as well as to social and equity issues that MPOs and States are continually working to reduce. For example, planners can learn how communities face communication, employment, educational, or physical barriers. As discussed below, such data can inform further analyses and, more importantly, how planners will address barriers to participation in transportation planning activities.
Nick Gill and Michael Kelly discussed the spatial, travel demand, statistical, and economic analyses MORPC and BMC conduct, illustrating the variety of tools and measures planners can use to better understand where different EJ and Title VI populations are located and how transportation plans and projects affect these populations. MORPC conducts analyses to calculate how long it would take, on average, for different EJ and Title VI populations to reach key destinations, such as jobs, retail locations, schools, and hospitals by car and transit. It also measures how many jobs, shopping opportunities, and other trip purposes are within certain time limits of locations. Such analyses require mapping the locations of EJ and Title VI populations, usually by Census block or tract, and the locations of relevant destinations, and then calculating the time it takes to reach these destinations by car and by transit using network analysis tools. For example, Figure 1 illustrates the results of mapping high poverty populations in the greater Baltimore area. MORPC calculates these measures for each EJ population as a whole as well as for geographic regions, or ‘target areas,’ with high concentrations of EJ population groups. MORPC then uses its travel demand models to determine how these travel times will change given the projects included in its transportation plans. The organization then compares both the current and projected travel times with the travel times for non-EJ and Title VI populations to determine if different EJ and Title VI populations incur excessive travel times or will incur longer travel times after implementing a transportation plan. Such analysis inherently incorporates understanding how these issues reach beyond jurisdictional boundaries. Populations spread across such boundaries and, increasingly, job centers are located outside of the city in other jurisdictions or states.
Michael Kelly described how BMC uses spatial analyses to identify potential disparate impacts and opportunities to improve transportation access for vulnerable populations. BMC conducted an economic analysis to identify the types of jobs that would best serve unemployed residents and EJ and Title VI populations in Baltimore, both of which have lower levels of education. The economic analysis found that the middle-income jobs available for people with a high school education or less in the Baltimore region were likely in the service, transportation, and shipping sectors. BMC then mapped where these jobs were likely to be located and found that job growth was likely to occur outside the city – in 2010, 50% of jobs were located between 10 and 35 miles outside the city center. The targeted populations, however, are located disproportionately within Baltimore City, leading to a reverse commute situation. BMC conducted analyses to determine how easily EJ and Title VI populations could access these job locations using public transit. The results, which demonstrate the difficulty city residents would have accessing future jobs, will inform future transit plans and initiatives.
Both MORPC and BMC conduct extensive spatial analyses to pinpoint the locations of EJ and other populations and, more importantly, take into account the nuances of the challenges these populations face in transportation. Each agency follows a process that other planners can models to conduct analyses of how the transportation network serves different populations. Most importantly, each agency uses this process to inform future planning initiatives and address challenges faced by EJ and Title VI communities. Successful solutions to such challenges frequently involve multiple jurisdictions and agencies, as populations, job centers, and other key factors are often geographically spread across regions.
Workshop participants discussed the importance of building strong relationships with trusted leaders in communities with EJ and Title VI populations in order to better understand the issues they face and serve their needs. Highway construction in the mid-20th century disrupted poor and minority communities across the country and there often remains deep-seated skepticism in EJ and Title VI populations that transportation planners are working in their interests. Building relationships with these communities can help restore trust and increase participation in planning activities. Agencies can work together to share contacts and conduct outreach to communities, taking advantage of the fact that different agencies have different connections and/or the ability to offer different types of engagement to EJ and Title VI populations.
Rusty Ennemoser recommended driving or walking through a community as a first step towards understanding its environment. While data and maps provide important information for conducting analyses, driving or walking through a community can provide an on-the-ground perspective of the built environment and neighborhood cohesion that is often inaccessible in data. A field trip through a community can also reveal locations where planners could hold public meetings.
Workshop participants discussed a number of recommendations for getting to know a community and involving its residents in the planning process. For example, multiple speakers recommended building relationships with community leaders who could inform planners about a community’s history, facilitate meetings with community members, help distribute information about transportation planning efforts through already established communication channels, and speak on behalf of community members who are unable to attend meetings.
Furthermore, workshop participants also discussed recommendations for successfully engaging EJ and Title VI populations in transportation planning activities. The peers stressed the importance of choosing locations and times for meetings that were easily accessible to EJ and Title VI populations, such as locations on transit routes and in community centers, churches, or other buildings used by the community. While night meetings accommodate community members who work during the day, daytime meetings accommodate community members who are uncomfortable traveling in the dark or those who work at night. Therefore, hosting meetings at varied times of day could help reach a wider audience. Peers and speakers also suggested attending local events to gather public input rather than hosting a separate meeting. Finally, the peers recommended addressing literacy, communication, and physical barriers by providing translation, offering to record or write down comments for those who cannot record their own comments, and hosting the meeting in a facility with handicap accessibility. Overall, participants stressed that the key to successfully engaging members of the public in EJ communities is understanding how the community could most easily provide feedback and communicate their ideas about transportation and adapting to those circumstances.
When agencies work together to conduct outreach and engage different communities, they can build a wider network and reach larger audiences. As agencies work in a variety of areas and on a variety of topics, working together will increase the opportunity for them to engage a community with the issues that concern them most. For example, it is helpful to include transit agencies in conversations with communities that have low rates of car ownership. Building relationships across agencies can benefit building relationships with EJ and Title VI communities.
The workshop participants also discussed recommendations for producing accessible planning documents and communications materials. For example, workshop participants suggested enabling automatic translation of web content and providing contact information in additional languages for inquiries about full translations of documents. Rusty Ennemoser provided an example of an MPO that communicated with a population of native Guatemalans who spoke a native language using that communities’ radio station. For low literacy populations, planners could also use the radio to communicate upcoming meetings and information. Participants also discussed the value of presenting information in multiple ways. As Nick Gill of MORPC pointed out, using a mixture of maps, charts, and text enables readers to access information in the way that is most comfortable for them, broadening the reach of planning documents. Planners can work across agencies to share staff knowledge and resource regarding languages and familiarity or ties with different communities.
Workshops participants noted that MPOs and State DOTs often produce separate EJ analyses at different stages in the planning process. MPOs conduct EJ analysis to inform their MTPs and other planning work. State DOTs more commonly conduct EJ analyses during the project development and environmental review phases of the transportation project lifecycle.
Workshop participants identified the opportunity to increase the consistency of EJ analyses so that the State DOTs could build off the analyses conducted by MPOs, instead of starting over. They discussed using a Regional Models of Cooperation approach to develop a set of common EJ metrics for all transportation planning jurisdictions in the State, which would allow ODOT to use MPO analyses in their project development and environmental review work. Individual MPOs and RTPOs may add additional metrics of importance to stakeholders in the region, but the core EJ metrics and methodologies could be standardized throughout Ohio.
Developing consistent methods for collecting EJ related data and conducting EJ analyses across jurisdictions and planning processes would increase efficiencies and reduce costs. A universal process would be particularly helpful for smaller MPOs and RPOs that have access to fewer resources for such work. However, developing a consistent methodology would require overcoming a number of challenges. The State DOTs that work on EJ analysis and all the MPOs and RTPOs in their service areas would have to agree on a process that addresses all the needs of different regions, as well as the information needs for different phases of the planning process. Furthermore, the process would need to address the different resources available to different MPOs and RPOs. The workshop participants discussed the potential to establish statewide data sharing or joint analyses in some areas to help address these challenges.
Conducting EJ analyses and building relationships with EJ and Title VI populations is a vital component to creating more equitable transportation systems. Recognizing EJ and Title VI populations and identifying their needs requires understanding that no single ‘public’ exists in transportation planning. In other words, thorough public engagement will often illustrate how the needs and opinions of, as well as the impacts to communities vary widely. Transportation planners must work to identify and reach out toallEJ and Title VI communities in a region in order to ensure that plans and projects will not adversely or disproportionately affect them. Agencies can expand the types of analysis they conduct, relationships they form, and create more efficient processes to ensure not only compliance with the EJ and Title VI requirements, but also the creation of a more equitable transportation system.
Throughout the peer exchange, peers from Baltimore, Florida, and Washington State, as well as speakers from MORPC, ODOT, and FHWA discussed notable practices for identifying EJ and Title VI populations, conducting relevant analyses, and engaging communities with EJ and Title VI populations in the transportation planning process. Using these strategies and approaches, MPOs can assess how past and current efforts in transportation planning affect EJ and Title VI populations as well as work to rectify inequality in current plans.
Key themes regarding EJ analysis that emerged through the presentations and discussion include:
Agencies can work together to collect data, develop analytical techniques, and build relationships with EJ and Title VI communities. Expanding the geography and resources employed in data analysis can ensure that agencies better identify EJ and Title VI populations and understand their needs. Furthermore, developing relationships with their communities as well as other transportation agencies opens up opportunities to inspire transportation planning initiatives that could address communities’ needs and alleviate challenges. Communication is another vital component of building relationships and addressing challenging issues – ensuring that all published material in print and on the web is accessible to audiences with limited English or reading abilities allows a greater portion of the population to learn about and respond to transportation planning initiatives and programs. Finally, streamlining the analysis processes between the MPO level, typically in the transportation plan phase, and the DOT level, typically at the project development phase, will allow for increase efficiency in complying with EJ and Title VI requirements. Together, these strategies can help agencies work towards a more equitable transportation system.
The Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration look forward to continuing to support the transportation planning agencies in Ohio as they continue to implement Regional Models of Cooperation for improving EJ practices in Ohio.
First Name |
Last Name |
Agency |
|---|---|---|
Bill |
Austin |
Morgantown Monongalia MPO |
Brian |
Betlyon |
FHWA Resource Center |
Todd |
Blankenship |
Richland County Regional Planning Commission |
Jeff |
Blanton |
FHWA Ohio Division Office |
Frank |
Burkett |
FHWA Ohio Division Office |
Darrell A. |
Davis, Sr. |
Ohio Department of Transportation |
Fleming |
El-Amin |
FHWA Office of Human Environment |
Rusty |
Ennemoser |
Florida Department of Transportation |
David |
Gedeon |
Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments |
Nick |
Gill |
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission |
Cory Lynn |
Golden |
Clark County - Springfield Transportation Coordinating Committee |
Rob |
Griffith |
FHWA Ohio Division Office |
Nicole |
Grohe |
Erie Regional Planning Commission |
Dave |
Harris |
FHWA Office of Planning Office |
Chandra |
Inglis-Smith |
FHWA West Virginia Division Office |
Claire |
Jennings |
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission |
Andy |
Johns |
FHWA Ohio Division Office |
Sarah |
Johnson |
Ohio Department of Transportation |
Michael B. |
Kelly |
Baltimore Metropolitan Council |
Nick |
Kroncke |
Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission |
Randy |
Lane |
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency |
Alexandra |
Markiewicz |
U.S. DOT Volpe Center |
Andy |
Martin |
Regional Intergovernmental Council |
Glen |
Massie |
Clark County-Springfield Transportation Coordinating Committee |
Thomas |
Mazur |
Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission |
Kevin |
McCoy |
U.S. DOT Volpe Center |
Noel |
Mehlo |
FHWA Ohio Division Office |
Matt |
Mullenax |
Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle MPO |
Leigh |
Oesterling |
FHWA Ohio Division Office |
Florence |
Parker |
OKI Regional Council of Governments |
Karen |
Pawloski |
Buckeye Hills-Hocking Valley Regional Development District |
Jodi |
Petersen |
FHWA Washington Division Office |
Vincent |
Post III |
Wood-Washington-Wirt Interstate Planning Commission |
Aisha R. |
Powell |
Ohio Department of Transportation |
Jason |
Pyles |
Buckeye Hills-Hocking Valley Regional Development District |
Ellen |
Roeth |
Belomar Regional Council |
Eric |
Ross |
FHWA Ohio Division Office |
Saleem A |
Salameh |
KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission |
Kathy |
Sarli |
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency |
Kathryn |
Sharpnack |
Richland County Regional Planning Commission |
Andrew |
Shepler |
Ohio Department of Transportation |
Ken |
Shonkwiler |
Ohio Mid-Eastern Governments Association |
Terri |
Sicking |
KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission |
Dannielle |
Slusher |
Region II Planning and Development Council of West Virginia |
Ellen |
Smith |
Maumee Valley Planning Organization |
Rachyl |
Smith |
FHWA Ohio Division Office |
Carmen M. |
Stemen |
FHWA Ohio Division Office |
Ken |
Sympson |
Eastgate Regional Council of Governments |
Laura |
Toole |
FHWA Ohio Division Office |
Veronica |
Trecazzi |
Ohio Department of Transportation |
Jeannette |
Wierzbicki, P.E. |
Ohio Mid-Eastern Governments Association |
Jason |
Workman |
FHWA West Virginia Division |
Jing |
Zhang |
Morgantown Monongalia MPO |
Regional Models of Cooperation and Environmental Justice – Peer Exchange Workshop
December 15, 2015 9:00 am – 4:00 pm
Where: Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) 111 Liberty St. Columbus, OH 43215
Contact: Carmen Stemen (614) 578-6256
Overview
The FHWA Ohio Division is sponsoring and has cooperatively developed, with FHWA’s Office of Planning and FHWA Resource Center, a one-day Environmental Justice (EJ) Planning Workshop for Ohio MPOs, RTPOs and the Ohio DOT. The workshop was scheduled partially in response to the Division’s program identified risks in Title VI and EJ and also to promote Every Day Counts initiative for Regional Models of Cooperation framework for an enhanced process for effective communication and improved collaboration. Sessions will include speakers from the Ohio Division, Washington Division, Ohio DOT, FHWA Office of Planning, FHWA Resource Center, Florida DOT and the Baltimore Regional Commission. The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) is hosting the workshop in Columbus, Ohio on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 from 9 am – 4 pm.
This workshop will assist agencies with strengthening their planning program development concerning EJ requirements while working toward accommodating MAP-21 provisions. It will assist them in defining EJ, how to identify EJ populations and their needs. The workshop will use a combination of best practice presentations and first-level experiences along with small group discussion to learn techniques to assess how the planning program may impact EJ populations and techniques to actively engage EJ communities. The workshop will also outline Regional Models of Cooperation efforts regarding EJ, such as presenting techniques, tools and notable practices to institute and/or improve interaction among MPOs and between MPOs and DOTs to address environmental justice in a cooperative manner.
Agenda (with speakers):
9:00 – 9:30
Introduction – Welcome by MORPC Thea Walsh (Director – Transportation Systems and Funding)
Speaker: FHWA Ohio Division Office
9:30-10:00
Session 1 – Ohio Title VI Overview and Connections with Environmental Justice
Speakers: Rachyl Smith, FHWA Ohio Division Office and Ohio DOT
10:00–11:00
Session 2 – Environmental Justice Needs (How are needs determined? How are they integrated into the overall planning program?)
Speakers: Rusty Ennemoser, Florida DOT and Jodi Petersen, FHWA Washington Division Office
11:00–11:30
Session 3 - EJ Analysis – The Ins and Outs – from Experience!
Speaker: Nick Gill, MORPC
11:30 – 1:00 Lunch (on your own)
1:00–1:30
Session 4 – Techniques for Identifying and Interfacing with Multiple Communities
Speaker: Michael Kelly, Baltimore Regional Commission
1:30-1:45
Session 5—Regional Models of Cooperation Overview: Working Together Across Jurisdictions
Speaker: Dave Harris, FHWA Office of Planning
1:45–2:15
Breakout Sessions
Muskingum Room/Mike Kelly and Carmen Stemen and Alexandra Markiewicz /12
Darby Room/Jodi Petersen and Rusty Ennemoser/8
Scioto Room/Nick Gill and Kevin McCoy/9
Dave Harris and Brian Betlyon/8
Rachyl Smith and Aisha Powell/9
2:15—3:30
Report Out and Panel Discussion
Facilitator: Brian Betlyon
Panel: Rusty Ennemoser, Jodi Petersen, Nick Gill, Michael Kelly, Rachyl Smith
3:30–4:00
Sharing and Wrap up
Regional Models of Cooperation Initiative
Regional Models of Cooperation
FHWA Resources
Federal Highway Administration – Environmental Justice Information
Federal Highway Administration – Title VI Information
FHWA Planning Website on Public Involvement/Participation
FHWA Publication “Community Impact Assessment – A Quick Reference for Transportation”
FHWA EJ Reference Guide (April 2015)
Peer Presenter Resources
Baltimore Metropolitan Council
FHWA Washington Division Office – Civil Rights Program
Florida Department of Transportation Environmental Management Office
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Resources
NCHRP Report 407 “Effective Public Involvement Using Limited Resources”
NCHRP Report 532 “Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment”
Other Resources
EPA’s EJSCREEN (EJ Screening & Mapping Tool)
BMC |
Baltimore Metropolitan Council |
|---|---|
DOT |
Department of Transportation |
EDC-3 |
Every Day Counts |
EJ |
Environmental Justice |
FHWA |
Federal Highway Administration |
FDOT |
Florida Department of Transportation |
FTA |
Federal Transit Administration |
MORPC |
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission |
MPO |
Metropolitan Planning Organization |
MTP |
Metropolitan Transportation Plan |
NEPA |
National Environmental Policy Act |
ODOT |
Ohio Department of Transportation |
RTP |
Regional Transportation Plan |
RTPO |
Rural Transportation Planning Organization |
SCE Evaluation |
Sociocultural Effects Evaluation |
TIP |
Transportation Improvement Program |
UPWP |
Unified Planning Work Programs |
VPI |
Vulnerable Population Index |
