Citation

Linovski O, Baker DM. Transp. Res. Rec. 2023; 2677(6): 172-181.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences USA, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/03611981221145131

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Despite years of legally mandated public engagement for transportation planning, there is often little evidence that this results in more equitable processes or outcomes. Recently, there has been interest in improving engagement by having community-based or advocacy groups design, lead, and implement public engagement activities. This research examines two separate engagement processes--one led by a public agency, and one designed and carried out by community advocates--to understand the opportunities and barriers for community-led engagement in transportation planning. We assess how these processes differed in: (1) representation of equity-deserving groups in respondents, (2) conceptualization of equity and community needs, and (3) transportation priorities identified in the surveys. While neither process fully reflected city demographics, the community-led process was more representative of equity-deserving groups. We found key differences in priorities between the community- and agency-led surveys, and by respondent identity. Areas that were identified as a high priority in the agency-led survey, such as traffic congestion, were lowly ranked in the community-led survey, as respondents prioritized safety and lower fares. Critically, community- and agency-led processes used substantially different framings of transportation equity, along with different understandings of community needs and experiences, which could have a significant impact on the development of future transportation plans. Community-led strategies require significant resources and capacity to undertake, but meaningful participation in the design and implementation of engagement processes has the potential to better engage a diversity of perspectives and reflect community priorities.

Language: en