Incorporating Equity into Transportation Plans: The Case of Pedestrian Master Plans
Amber Berg, MRCP Major Professor: Dr. Gregory L. Newmark Committee: Susmita Rishi, Katie Kingery-Page
Presentation Overview Introduction Literature Review Methodology Analysis Conclusions
Introduction
Introduction Transportation connects people to their communities and is important for essential tasks. Transportation has inequitable impacts historically and presently Equity and pedestrian planning have increasingly gained attention from practitioners
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Purpose Examine how cities are incorporating equity into their pedestrian plans and make recommendations for moving forward.
Discussion
Literature Review
Literature review Transportation Equity: Concept and Application A Lack of Equity Guidance Barriers to Incorporating Equity Active Transportation Equity
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Concept and Application Equity can be
Equity definition
• Procedural
providing equal transportation access across race and income levels by considering the unique circumstances impacting community members
• Geographic • Social • Horizontal • Vertical
What
Who
How
Specify the equity benefit or burden to be analyzed (e.g. access, pollution, safety)
Determine how to differentiate population groups from each other (e.g. income, race, ability, age)
Define the standard of the distribution to be considered equitable (e.g. equality or proportionality)
Derived from Lucas et al., 2019
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
A Lack of Guidance Recommended, no guidelines nor standards from federal legislation nor professional organizations to guide municipalities
Barriers to Addressing Equity • Traditional views of cost-benefits • Automobile-oriented culture • Considered intangible • No measurement standards • Flexible interpretations • Data manipulation • Not prioritized politically
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Active Transportation Equity • Greater reliance, greater crashes, less investment • Equity often overlooked in active transportation planning • Two reports on active transportation broadly: • McLeod: definitions, performance measures related to infrastructure • Lee et al.: inconsistent consideration for equity
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Methodology
Methodology Process
Introduction
1
Literature review
2
Plan collection manual scan
3
Thematic analysis
4
Framework formation
5
Plan assessment via Framework
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Sample Criteria Seattle 2017
Portland 2019
• Pedestrian Master Plan
Milwaukee 2019
2010
2012
San Francisco
Washington D.C.
2013
2014
San Diego
2018
2015
Charlotte
2012
2017
Fort Worth
• 15 most populous U.S. cities
2014
Austin 2016
3 plans were active transportation plans, 1 plan was a long-range transportation plan
Methodology
Raleigh
Oklahoma City
• Published after 2010
Literature Review
New York City
2012
Chicago
• Municipal plan
Introduction
Philadelphia
Analysis
Discussion
Jacksonville 2017
PMP Scan Manual highlighting
Equity definition
• Subjective
providing equal transportation access across race and income levels by considering the unique circumstances impacting community members
• Inductive • Qualitative Purpose
Terms
1. Observe what cities are doing 2. Capture all possibilities
• Social justice
• Low-income
• Disparities
• Communities of color
• Underrepresented populations
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
• Everyone
Emerging Themes Themes • The use of the word “equity” • Unclear terminology • Varied language • Outreach strategies • Goals and performance measures • Tools and measures • Prioritization & implementation
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Analysis
Proposed Framework
The Three A’s of Equity Acknowledgement
Recognizing equity as a value of the plan
Accountability
Establishing a commitment to address inequi�es through the plan
Applica�on
Iden�fying specific ac�ons that will be taken to move toward equity
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Proposed Framework
Element
The Three A’s of Equity
Component
Acknowledgement Men�on
Introduction
Defini�on
Accountability
Dispari�es
Literature Review
Outreach
Methodology
Goals
Analysis
Applica�on Performance measures
Discussion
Project priori�za�on
Policies
Projects
Mention 10/15 PMPs
• Expressly state that equity is a value of the plan • Explicitly use the word “equity” • State how equity is relevant to the plan
Definition • Clarify and specify • Answer “What is meant by equity?” • What? Who? How? • Unique to the community
“In Portland, inadequate pedestrian infrastructure and traffic safety concerns disproportionately impact low-income communities and people of color.” - PedPDX: Portland’s Citywide Pedestrian Plan, 2019
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Disparities • Locally contextualizes equity • Influences how equity will be measured • Establishes a baseline to improve from • Informs plan implementation strategies PedPDX: Portland’s Citywide Pedestrian Plan, 2019
How to identify disparities • Identify population groups • Spatial analysis • Calculate and compare
The New York City Pedestrian Safety Study & Action Plan, 2010
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Outreach Inform the plan through community input
Strategies • Informal meetings
• Intentionally include disempowered groups
• Translate materials • Provide childcare at meetings
• Give citizens power
• Compensate financially
• Tend to community needs
• Partner with community groups
• Improve transparency
Portland conducted “Walking While Black” focus groups to understand the needs of its black pedestrians
3/15 PMPs
- PedPDX: Portland’s Citywide Pedestrian Plan, 2019
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Goals Describe plan’s equity aspirations • Influence how equity is measured • Demonstrate understanding of and concern for inequities
“Reduce inequities among neighborhoods in serious injuries to pedestrians.” - San Francisco Pedestrian Strategy, 2013
• Committing to address inequities • Influence plan components to be equity-oriented
4/15 PMPs
“Make Seattle a more walkable and accessible city for all through public engagement, service delivery, accessibility, and capital investments that promote equity.” - City of Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan, 2017
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Performance Measures Interim objectives in pursuit of goals • Guide investment and policy decisions • Gauge progress toward goals
4/15 PMPs
• Address disparities • Specific and measurable • Relate to goals
“New trails or sidewalks accessing 30 out of 33 low-income Census Tracts and 17 designated redevelopment areas.”
• Multidimensional How to create equity measures • Quantify transportation efforts
- Move DC LRTP: Pedestrian Element, 2014
• Apply an equity lens Source: Zgota, 2020
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Project Prioritization Determining which projects will be implemented first • Formulated using data • Address disparities • Develop tools • Assess potential impacts
PedPDX: Portland’s Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan, 2019 (web)
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
City of Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan, 2017
Discussion
Policies • Influence a more pedestrian-friendly transportation system • Address systemic or institutional inequities • Influence the pedestrian realm beyond infrastructure
“Explore traffic citation policy and structural changes to address inequitable impact of fines and fees on people with lower incomes.” - PedPDX: Portland’s Citywide Pedestrian Plan, 2019
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Programs • Clear and specific
“Work with community partners to ensure education and enforcement are culturally appropriate.”
• With whom? For whom? • Identify action to be taken
- Milwaukee Pedestrian Strategy, 2019
“Study the impact of plan implementation on responsive or vulnerable populations. Evaluate potential health outcomes and incorporate findings to ensure projects and policy changes have positive impacts.”
4/15 PMPs
- bikewalkokc: moving toward a healthy future, 2018
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Discussion
Summary Plan
Year
New York City Chicago Philadelphia Raleigh San Francisco Fort Worth Washington D.C. San Diego Austin Charlotte Jacksonville Seattle Oklahoma City Milwaukee Portland Share of plans
2010 2012 2012 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 2017 2018 2019 2019
Acknowledgement Mention
Definition
Disparities
67%
7%
60%
Accountability Outreach
Goals
Performance measures
20%
27%
27%
Note: 73% of plans included at least one Acknowledgement component; 40% included Accountability; 80% included Application
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Application
Prioritization
Policies
Programs
66%
7%
26%
Total 33% 22% 11% 22% 22% 22% 56% 11% 11% 22% 44% 67% 44% 22% 100%
Plan
Share of plans Portland Milwaukee Oklahoma City Seattle Jacksonville Charlotte Austin San Diego Washington D.C. Fort Worth San Francisco Raleigh Philadelphia Chicago New York City Outreach
Goals
Performance measures
Prioritization
Policies
Programs
2/15 plans • Ack. without both Acc. & App.:
9/15 plans • Race:
4/15 plans
Application
• Application only:
Accountability
26%
0/15 plans
Disparities
7%
• Accountability only:
Definition
66%
2/15 plans
Acknowledgement
27%
• Acknowledgement only:
Mention
27%
0/15 plans
100% 22% 44% 67% 44% 22% 11% 11% 56% 22% 22% 22% 11%
22%
33%
Total
2019 2019 2018 2017 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2014 2013 2012 2012 2012 2010
Year
Discussion Analysis Methodology Literature Review Introduction
4/15 plans • All Three A’s:
20%
• No components:
60%
1/15 plans
7%
• All nine components:
67%
Discussion
Change over time Cities, listed in chronological order of PMP publication New York City
Chicago
2010
Philadelphia
Raleigh
2012
San Francisco 2013
Fort Worth Washington D.C. 2014
San Diego
Austin
2015
2016
Charlotte
Jacksonville 2017
(out of 9 possible)
Number of equity components
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Acknowledgement Accountability Application
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Analysis
Discussion
Seattle
Oklahoma City 2018
Milwaukee 2019
Portland
References Brown, M., S. Zimbabwe, C. Hawkinson, and K. Peterson. Move DC LRTP: Pedestrian Element. District Department of Transportation, Washington D.C., 2014. Brown, M., S. Zimbabwe, C. Hawkinson, and K. Peterson. Move DC: The District of Columbia’s Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan. District Department of Transportation, Washington D.C., 2014. City of Charlotte Department of Transportation Pedestrian Program. Charlotte Walks Pedestrian Plan. City of Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, 2017, pp. 1–174. Couch, J., L. Johnson, A. McDermid, G. Butler, A. Jager, J. Tankard, P. Walters, M. Harris, D. Blind, R. Entz, and M. Sandidge. Bikewalkokc: Moving toward a Healthy Future. City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2018. Grove, K., L. Hamilton, C. Wuellner, J. Weiner, C. Richer, and S. Carlson. Chicago Pedestrian Plan. Chicago Department of Transportation, Chicago, Illinois, 2012. Ingles, A., B. Killingsworth, L. Santana, S. Zarkis, N. Caparas, and D. Chaplick. Jacksonville Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. City of Jacksonville, Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, 2017. KTU+A Planning and Landscape Architecture, Stepner Design Group, Walk San Diego, M.W. Steele Group, Katz, Okitsu, and Associates, Alta Planning + Design, CityWorks, Boyle Engineering, Walk San Diego, RBF Consulting, and Stuart Engineering. City of San Diego Final Draft Pedestrian Master Plan Vol 1. City of San Diego, San Diego, California, 2015. Kubly, S., M. Bandy, B. Gray, T. Krawczyk, K. Melanson, K. O’Neill, K. Simpson, and D. Watson. City of Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan. Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle, Washington, 2017. Lamb, E., J. Baldwin, L. Potts, D. Eatman, D. Fix, A. Hair, C. Johnson, M. Kennon, J. Niffenegger, E. Alley, H. Chaney, R. Kemp, and J. Hummer. Raleigh Pedestrian Plan. City of Raleigh, Raleigh, North Carolina, 2012. Lee, R. J., I. N. Sener, and S. N. Jones. Understanding the Role of Equity in Active Transportation Planning in the United States. Transport Reviews, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2017, pp. 211–226. Lucas, K., K. Martens, F. Di Ciommo, and A. Dupont-Kieffer, Eds. Introduction. In Measuring Transport Equity, Elsevier, Cambridge, MA. 2019, pp. 1-12. Luecke, K., J. Dempsey, S. Handy, T. Huber, M. Loughran, E. Moorman, F. Proulx, M. Seib, and B. Tang. Milwaukee Pedestrian Plan. City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2019. Marx, M., L. Rahman, F. Patricolo, T. Phillips, K. Donohue, Z. Wagner, N. Falbo, M. Berkow, I. Marion, M. Serritella, C. Hanako Montana, and K. Aszklar. PedPDX: Portland’s Citywide Pedestrian Plan. Portland Bureau of Transportation, Portland, Oregon, 2019. Mayor’s Pedestrian Safety Task Force. San Francisco Pedestrian Strategy. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, San Francisco, California, 2013. McCleeary, J., D. Burghdoff, K. Beck, E. Fladager, A. Parks, S. Murray, N. Fares, L. Acevedo, G. Roberts, C. Hurt, D. Ondich, P. Dupler, J. Ebel, S. Penn, Y. Jones, M. Beckman, C. Rodriguez, B. McGibson, N. Heath, M. Conlin, Q. Johnson, J. Whitacre, and D. Jodray. Walk Fort Worth Pedestrian Plan. Fort Worth Planning and Development Department, Fort Worth, Texas, 2014. McLeod, K. Active Transportation Equity: A Scan of Existing Master Plans. Advocacy Advance, 2015. Schaaf, D., J. Barr, J. Brugger, D. Fecteau, C. Johnson, D. Knapton, I. Litwin, A. Meloney, D. Ortiz, C. Pankey, M. Pini, C. Randall, B. Rodda, A. Santaniello, L. Spina, M. Thompson, and A. S. Urek. Philadelphia Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. Philadelphia City Planning Commission, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2012. Spillar, R., and L. Dierenfield. Sidewalk Master Plan / ADA Transition Plan Update. City of Austin, Austin, Texas, 2016. Viola, R., M. Roe, and H.-S. Shin. The New York City Pedestrian Safety Study & Action Plan. New York City Department of Transportation, New York, New York, 2010.