Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 67


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 66
Interview Findings 69 support from the state legislature, and in the D.C. region, funding and implementation of a fed- eral pricing workshop played a significant role. Fiscal constraint legislation: Federal legislation mandating fiscal constraint in regional planning can bring attention to RP as an innovative source of local funds. This helped bring RP into the planning process in Dallas and Seattle. Air quality standards: Experience from Dallas showed that federal air quality standards such as the ozone standard may encourage attention to RP in planning since RP goals can be related to air quality improvement in non-attainment areas. 4.6 Public/Stakeholder Involvement in RP Plans Key aspects regarding the involvement of multiple stakeholder groups are discussed in this section. Organized stakeholder involvement: RP implementation is generally accompanied by involve- ment of one or more organized multiple-stakeholder groups as seen in San Francisco, Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Portland. Negotiations among stakeholders who are part of the key RP committee or task force can help arrive at consensus and arrive at acceptable plans. Examples of discussion and consensus building points include how to allocate revenues for transit and HOT corridor improvements as seen in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City, and Seattle; how to address equity concerns seen in Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and New York City, and how to address issues of privacy and double payment as seen in Portland. The following paragraphs contain additional examples. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the MTC HOT Executive Committee was established to over- see the overall network plan, with further plans for specific corridors. Los Angeles uses the South Bay Council of Governments to reach out to local elected officials and seeks support of grassroots organizations in specific corridors to generate support. The D.C. area attends to the chambers of commerce, trucking interests, and environmental community and involves the Transit Advisory Committee. In the MinneapolisSt. Paul region, a community task force was formed represent- ing city councils, trucking, automobile associations, and state legislators. In Dallas, all elected officials of the MPO supported the RP plans, and planners worked closely with state legislators to build understanding and consensus. Neighborhoods, businesses, and other groups in opposition initially were assessed and planners worked to assess concerns and address them in emerging plans. In Los Angeles, the Metro Board worked closely with influential state legislators to ensure acceptance. The New York mayor's office led widespread communica- tions directed to community boards and specific interest groups. The ODOT used a 12-member task force with a mix of decision makers and key interest groups, set up presentations by high- level federal officials, and met with transportation advocacy groups. In Washington State, an inde- pendent group called the Committee for 520 interceded with elected officials, civic groups, and elected officials. Constant outreach and communication: Attention to acceptance and resistance from various stakeholder groups via constant communication is part of RP development. Outreach is aided by reference to experience from other RP projects as was the case in D.C., Minneapolis, and New York City. Outreach and communication are often supported by detailed analysis and technical studies. For instance, in Texas, key aspects were strong, focused monthly communication; constant use of media; framing of equity issues around opportunity costs of time; and emphasis on sustainability of revenue source. In Los Angeles, outreach involves numerous meetings and presentations along affected corridors. In the D.C. area, the three states conducted multiple public hearings to disseminate information, launched websites and marketing campaigns, tailored messages to