A Framework for Addressing EJT Concerns

The best possible place to be is to have ongoing communications between all communities about their
transportation needs and their local elected officials. After all of the needs are determined, communities
would be involved in the difficult process of deciding how limited dollars are spent. Once decisions are
made with public input communities would remain engaged with implementing agencies on how
projects are planned and so forth. Short of that process working perfectly, some communities
experience issues that they believe are EJ in nature. This framework addresses how communities and
planning organizations can address those communities that feel they have been left out or simply
mistreated in the process.

Once an issue arises, a successful EJT endeavor begins with community engagement. BREJT’s
experience revealed that communities are more motivated and better able to work toward a solution
when they are educated on relevant issues, solutions and options; believing that they have a better
chance of influencing the implementation of projects that have a positive local impact. In contrast to
traditional transportation projects that tend to be hierarchical in nature and are limited to a few
agencies, working from a bottom-up framework is more responsive to the needs and concerns of
affected communities and plays an important role toward implementing sound solutions. This
approach can also improve analysis methods for addressing issues of concern through the public
involvement process which should lead to more community-relevant action from decision-makers.

Community driven public participation in each of the Baltimore case studies demonstrates that bottom-
up participation, because it involves or responds to local concerns are more likely to result in the active
involvement of EJ communities. When contrasted to the perception of top-down public participation
approaches and/or strategies, which are perceived by low income and minority communities to be less
likely to result in actual, meaningful participation because of mistrust and suspicion. Yet, such an
approach requires a two-way communication strategy because communities are not likely to know
how to initiate contact with a transportation agency and the planners themselves may be uncertain
about whom to contact in a community group.

The framework illustrated in Figure 2 identifies a bottom-up, step-wise method for approaching EJT
issues; it is a collaborative model that promotes feedback between transportation planners and EJ
communities. The initial step involves identifying the EJ community affected by the transportation
project. Local residents are the best source of problem identification, so outreach by the planning
agency should be initiated. During the outreach process, it is important to identify the full-extent of the
affected population and define the concerns and desired outcomes of the community. An initial
attempt at problem screening occurs at this point to better understand the issues from a neighborhood
perspective. It is important that the individual or community group communicate their concerns to the
implementing agency, such as a transit agency, local planning department, highway department, or
MPO. In instances where there is more than one affected community, it is equally important that the
neighborhood or community groups seek each other’s support and knowledge to address the areas of
concern. When the community perceives that they are experiencing inequity in the delivery of a public
good or service they will likely be in need of additional information and/or analysis during this phase
of the framework. As a result of identifying the issues, the transportation agency and the community
can determine what potential short-term impacts will occur within the affected community. In some
cases this may involve having solutions or alternatives already in hand. If an agreement or consensus is
achieved, then the project can move to the standard review process. If there is uncertainty as to
whether short-term impacts exist, then it is necessary to revisit problem identification. A third option

1
occurs when disagreements persist or if there is no clear solution; in this case, a triage process is
initiated.

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

Figure 2: Public Participation and Analysis Framework

The Triage Process

When problems cannot be resolved in the previous steps, it is recommended that a screening
committee, or similar body, needs to come together to examine the EJT problem in more depth, or
merely from a different perspective. This group is the EJT Triage Committee and should consist of non-

2
traditional stakeholders, or key organizations that have a bearing on EJT issues and with the clout to
accomplish politically sensitive actions.
The Triage committee should consist of organizations/individuals with influence and the ability to get
things done (Figure 3) and will vary with each region that implements such a group. Diverse
representation and independent status (one vote per member) will allow it much greater freedom to
pursue EJ concerns. The EJT Triage Committee will develop an agenda, lead analyses and evaluations,
and make recommendations for solutions to EJT problems. It will review information obtained through
the outreach process, and assess what to do with the information or take action (dismiss, recommend,
additional research or forward to agency of responsibility). The committee will develop criteria to
ensure that decisions will be made about how the EJ concern or issue will be treated, especially in
relation to itsEvaluation
history, urgency andof Environmental Justice Issues
extent.

Public
Health
Institution
Local State
Government DOT

Urban Triage
Academic Committee MPO
Institution

Business
Group Non - Profit

Community
Group

Figure 3: Potential Triage Committee Members

If it is determined that the EJ concern needs to be addressed in a relatively short timeframe, actions
may include toolkit analysis (see Chapter 3), mediation, or legal action, as appropriate. Otherwise, the
standard review process can be initiated or a particular action or remedy can be arrived at by
consensus.

Important questions are expected to arise in the creation of this group, its composition, and its
authority. 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 will either have to maintain
very stringent rules in selecting the issues it examines, or have sufficient resources (in-kind, grant or
endowment) to acquire supplemental assistance from staff or consultants; thus the critical need to
ensure that communities are engaged in the planning process over time to avoid these types of
concerns.

3
Once technical analysis is complete and solutions have been suggested by either the Triage process or
by consensus, performance measures or criteria must be set. Analysis will help determine whether the
outcomes of the process are deemed acceptable. If the acceptability of an outcome remains in question,
the EJ analysis framework needs to go back to the Triage Process where it can be re-evaluated along
with any new information generated. Otherwise, the process can continue on to the Planning Board or
other decision-making body for adoption.