3 Strategies for Urban Transportation Planning for People
Who will you meet?
Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.
Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.
If you’ve ever sat in traffic crawling at 5 miles per hour or been late to an appointment because of inadequate public transportation, I don’t need to tell you that transportation represents a constant challenge across the United States. But let’s not kid ourselves about which people bear the most transportation burdens.
People of color breathe disproportionate levels of toxic smog from transportation-related emissions, which contributes to higher rates of asthma, cancer, and other illnesses than their white counterparts. In addition, low-income people—who are disproportionately people of color—spend a greater proportion of their income on transportation costs compared to wealthier people. The poorest 20 percent of Americans spend 40.2 percent of their take home pay on transportation (mostly for private vehicle expenses), while those who make $71,898 and greater only spend 13.1 percent.
At the same time, private mobility companies have seized on the opportunity of our woefully inadequate transportation system. Bikeshare, carshare, Uber, and scootershare have taken our cities by storm. But not all mobility options are created equal, particularly in their impact on communities of color and low-income neighborhoods. While these new mobility options enable people to get around, there are concerns about their unfair labor practices, poaching public transit ridership, and increasing congestion and pollution. Too often, these mobility services are not designed to meet the needs of marginalized communities, who are left out of the decision-making processes. Now many cities are working to retroactively regulate these mobility companies, to insist that their services both benefit and avoid harm to low-income people of color, the elderly, and people with disabilities.
After decades of planning and building for cars, it is time to make mobility about people. Transportation planning and decision-making must specifically take into account the people whose needs have traditionally been marginalized or ignored altogether, and prioritize communities of color and low-income neighborhoods. With this flood of new mobility options, we need a way to determine which options are the most equitable and sustainable, and which options best meet the needs of the community—especially when compared to traditional modes like walking, biking, and public transit.
We have some ideas about how to accomplish this.
With the help of a technical advisory committee with multifaceted experiences and expertise in transportation, environmental justice, academia, and philanthropy. The Greenlining Institute has put together a Mobility Equity Framework that lays out a new path for transportation planning.
We propose that transportation planners and decision makers follow three steps:
1. Conduct a community needs assessment.
Start by asking, “What are the most pressing, unmet mobility needs of a particular underserved community?” But don’t just pose that question to a room full of politicians and bureaucrats. Instead, reach out to the underrepresented communities via community meetings, surveys, online forums and other mechanisms, following a process known as participatory budgeting. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel: A wealth of guides and toolkits can be found in the Participatory Budgeting Project’s Resource Center. In 2017, Chicago residents identified their greatest needs and voted to fund nearly a million dollars on projects, including street, curb, and sidewalk repairs.
2. Do a Mobility Equity Analysis.
For our Framework, we’ve identified 12 crucial mobility equity indicators that can be used to assess and compare mobility options based on their impacts on low-income people of color. Looking closely at these 12 factors forces planners to consider issues like affordability, accessibility, air quality, fair labor practices, and job opportunities, as well as other issues that impact under-resourced communities. A systematic, community-based review of these factors (which can, of course, be augmented based on individual community needs) can help distinguish and lift up the mobility options that deliver the most benefits and avoid the most harms to the target community. We were involved in San Francisco’s development of an evaluation process of new mobility services. This evaluation examines how new mobility services impact equity, sustainability, labor, and seven other guiding principles. Similar to our Mobility Equity Analysis, San Francisco’s evaluation tool serves as a framework to embed a community’s values into programs, regulations, and policies around mobility services. San Francisco has now granted permits to the two scooter share companies that performed the highest on the evaluation, particularly on their commitments to equitable access and safety.
3. Elevate community decision-making power.
It’s not enough to make a show of listening to the community but then shut the public out of the actual decision-making process. With the information from the mobility equity analysis about which mobility options delivers the most benefits, give the community the decision-making power to vote on which mobility options best meets their needs—and then implement them. Public participation throughout the processes of identifying needs, brainstorming project ideas and voting can take place in the form of town halls, community meetings, mail-in ballots, or other formats best suited to the community. There are many different ways to empower communities to be the ultimate decision-makers. When implementing a bikeshare program, the City of Austin requested suggestions from the public on bike dock locations and color preferences, and then put the final decision before the community to vote.
Asking impacted people what they need, and giving them an opportunity to be at the decision-making table is just common sense. Participatory budgeting has been replicated around the world and has gained popularity in New York City and Chicago. Some transportation agencies have already started putting some of these ideas into practice. For example, the San Francisco Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission just became the first transportation funding agency to utilize participatory budgeting, and will now fund pilot projects in disadvantaged communities. And, thanks to transportation justice advocates, California’s Department of Transportation is uplifting participatory budgeting as a best practice in its planning grants.
What we propose does represent a major shift away from how cities and counties have traditionally done transportation planning. But look around. Look at the snarled traffic, the unreliable public transit systems, the inequitable impacts of new mobility companies, and the wretched air quality in so much of our country. Look at the widening inequality due to the growing burden of transportation costs on low-income families.
If our mobility needs are not being met, isn’t it time to try something new?
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
People seem frequently to assume that the terms “sustainability” and “resilience” are synonyms, an impression reinforced by the frequent use of the term “climate resilience”, which seems to enmesh both concepts firmly. In fact, while they frequently overlap, and indeed with good policy and planning reinforce one another, they are not the same. This article picks them apart to understand where one ends and the other begins, and where the “sweet spot” lies in achieving mutual reinforcement to the benefit of disaster risk reduction (DRR).
As extreme weather conditions become the new normal—from floods in Baton Rouge and Venice to wildfires in California, we need to clean and save stormwater for future use while protecting communities from flooding and exposure to contaminated water. Changing how we manage stormwater has the potential to preserve access to water for future generations; prevent unnecessary illnesses, injuries, and damage to communities; and increase investments in green, climate-resilient infrastructure, with a focus on communities where these kinds of investments are most needed.
A few years ago, I worked with some ARISE-US members to carry out a survey of small businesses in post-Katrina New Orleans of disaster risk reduction (DRR) awareness. One theme stood out to me more than any other. The businesses that had lived through Katrina and survived well understood the need to be prepared and to have continuity plans. Those that were new since Katrina all tended to have the view that, to paraphrase, “well, government (city, state, federal…) will take care of things”.
While the experience after Katrina, of all disasters, should be enough to show anyone in the US that there are limits on what government can do, it does raise the question, of what could and should public and private sectors expect of one another?