Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
9The requirements for public involvement are often traced back to the devolution of power from federal to state and local gov- ernment that began in the 1970s and accelerated in the 1980s (OâConnor et al. 2000). One of the consequences of this power shift was the empowerment of groups and individuals who demanded a voice in the government decisions that affected their communities. However, requirements for public involve- ment can be found as far back as the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, which required federal agencies to keep the pub- lic informed of an organizationâs procedures and rules (Chil- dress 2008). In 1962, the Federal-Aid Highway Act set âcommunity concernsâ as one of the ten basic elements of the continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative (3C) planning process. These efforts were often part of technical analysis with agencies identifying community concerns, but they only pro- vided minimal information to the public (Childress 2008). Public involvement became a more significant part of trans- portation planning in the late 1960s (Barnes and Langworthy 2004a). The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 required, for the first time, public hearings to address the economic, social, and environmental effects of proposed highway projects in order to protect the environment and reduce the negative impacts associated with highway construction (Barnes and Langworthy 2004a). One year later, the National Environmen- tal Policy Act (NEPA) mandated that agencies examine the potential environmental impacts for federally funded projects. For significant projects, an Environmental Impact Statement was required, compelling agencies to seek input from local jurisdictions, make documents available for public review and comment, and hold public hearings (Barnes and Langworthy 2004a; Hull 2010). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was one of the first pieces of federal legislation to call for on-going public involvement and marked a turning point for public involvement in transit. The act mandated involving the com- munity, particularly those with disabilities, in the develop- ment and improvement of transportation services. Specifi- cally, transit agencies were now required to do the following: develop outreach mechanisms (contact and mailing lists, as well as other means to notify the public to participate), con- sult with individuals with disabilities, supply opportunities for public comment, hold public meetings in accessible loca- tions, provide materials in accessible formats, summarize sig- nificant issues raised during public comment periods, and engage in ongoing efforts to involve the disability community in planning (FHWA 2010). Starting with the ADA in 1990 and continuing with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991, and subsequent reauthorizations of the federal trans- portation law, federal requirements for public involvement have shifted away from NEPAâs reactive mandates toward a more proactive approach. ISTEA required early and continu- ous involvement in the development of MPO and state DOT plans and Transportation Improvement Programs, and stip- ulated that the public receive complete information, timely notice, and full access to key decisions. It also instructed agen- cies to specifically seek out and consider the needs of tradi- tionally underrepresented groups (FHWA/FTA 1993; OâCon- nor et al. 2000; Jackson 2002; Stich and Eagle 2005). The 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) strengthened and added to the requirements under ISTEA and included minimum comment periods, consistency with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, periodic evaluation of public involvement, and coordination of state and metropoli- tan public involvement processes. TEA-21 also encouraged public transportation agencies to coordinate with the state and regional processes and to use the federal requirements as guidelines for developing their own locally appropriate public involvement programs (Hull 2010). In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) added public involvement requirements including formal Public Involvement Plans for MPOs, consultation with âinterested parties,â and the use of alternative format materials and visualization techniques (FHWA/FTA 2007). Two other federal mandates also influence public involve- ment practices at transit agencies. Any agency receiving federal funds is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. Executive Order 12898 on Envi- ronmental Justice requires agencies to explicitly consider the impacts of federal actions on minority and low-income com- munities (Hull 2010). These federal mandates, along with NEPA and the federal transportation laws, have created the framework for public involvement practiced throughout the United States by DOTs, MPOs, and transit agencies. NEPA brought public involvement into the project development process, ADA and the three âTEAsâ incorporated public input into the planning and programming processes, and Title VI and the Executive Order on Environmental Justice ensured that tra- ditionally underserved populations are actively included in the transportation decision-making process (Stich and Eagle 2005). CHAPTER TWO EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
