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.
88 A P P E N D I X C Coordination and collaboration are vital to tailoring analysis and decisions to a particular corridor. Coordination and collaboration can be critical for defining local aspirations, under- standing local issues, and customizing strategies to be accepted and effective. Broadly accepted goals form the foundation of successful livable transit corridor partnerships, helping stakeholders and government agencies to apply their energy and resources toward shared aspirations and agreed upon strategies. Planning for livability requires that stakeholders have an opportunity to understandâand help others understandâkey issues and provide meaningful input on options and proposals. For informed decisions, planning relationships need to be explained clearly and reliably, along with the benefits and impacts of proposed strategies. When a corridor is planned using coordination and collaboration, the goals and strategies reflect the insights and aspirations of all stakeholders. Stakeholders with an interest in livability are diverse. The following are common stakeholders and their areas of interest: â¢ Regional agencies provide transportation planning and financing (e.g., MPOs) and land use coordination services (e.g., COGs) across municipal and county boundaries within metro- politan areas. MPOs are typically responsible for preparing regional transportation plans (RTPs) and regional transportation improvement programs (RTIPs) that provide important oppor- tunities to transit corridor plans and projects to receive funding and political support from local, state, and federal agencies. â¢ Transportation agencies are concerned with access along corridors generally and have specific concerns relating to transit ridership levels, capital investment decisions, and ongoing opera- tional decisions across various modes and at the local and regional scale. â¢ Municipal governments set land use and standards for private development and have direct authority over local streets and infrastructure. Municipal policies also relate to housing, economic development, and other dimensions of livability. â¢ State departments have responsibility for complementary policies pertaining to transporta- tion, housing, the environment, economic development, and social services. State departments of transportation (DOTs) are responsible for creating statewide transportation improvement programs (STIPs) where, like in the case of RTIPS, transit corridor improvement planning efforts can receive crucial financial and political support. â¢ Private developers and business interests deliver most nongovernment investments, including most forms of development within regulatory limits and procedures. â¢ Advocacy groups represent an array of concerns that may focus on a locale (e.g., community groups) or a specific interest (such as affordable housing or bicycling). â¢ Community members who live or work along a corridor are central stakeholders, regardless of whether they are represented by an organization. Coordination and Collaboration Strategies
Coordination and Collaboration Strategies 89 Effective planning for livable transit corridors requires coordination and collaboration on several levels. Corridor planning requires consideration of issues by diverse corridor stakeholders, each with a stake in associated outcomes. Livability targets a full spectrum of human needs, so livability planning requires participation by stakeholders to be responsive. Coordination and collaboration also cultivate broad-based support among stakeholders, which enables decision makers at all levels of government to successfully advance livable corridor planning principles. Coordination and collaboration must target both interjurisdictional cooperation and commu- nity engagement to succeed. Interjurisdictional cooperation addresses the multifaceted nature of livable transit corridors. Complete and integrated corridors only arise through separate but con- nected actions on the part of transit agencies, local governments, regional organizations, service care providers, real estate investors, and others. Active community engagement also plays a vital role, since it communicates the importance of livable corridor planning and its implications at the local level, while providing nongovernment stakeholders with opportunities for input as strate- gies and implementing actions are developed. Input by community stakeholders is important for aligning decisions with community values, mitigating potential negative impacts, and leveraging local benefits. Interjurisdictional Coordination A complete set of transit corridor livability opportunities can only be attained with strategies that encourage collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries. The actions of many government agencies and local jurisdictions need to be aligned. Each jurisdiction has specific interests and lim- ited authority, but few have a mandate to consider corridor livability in a holistic, integrated way. Pennsylvaniaâs âKeystone Principles for Growth, Investment and Resource Conservationâ recog- nizes the need for greater coordination among government agencies regarding decisions and invest- ments surrounding land use, transportation, and economic development, generally. The Keystone Principles prioritize state investments and coordination activities around smart growth criteria, including site location, infrastructure efficiency, land use density and diversity, affordable housing, job creation, and enhancement of environmental and cultural resources (Governorâs Economic Cabinet, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2005). Pennsylvaniaâs Keystone Principles show how states can play the role of stakeholder orches- trator, providing policies, rules, guidelines, and a forum for different governmental actors to collaborate. This statewide directive set a framework for the Philadelphia regionâs âLand Use, Transportation, and Economic Development Planâ (LUTED), which sets transportation invest- ment priorities and promotes smart growth principles. LUTED was developed with an advisory committee comprising interested agencies at the state, regional, and local level (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 2008). Intergovernmental coordination, particularly at the corridor level, also benefits when regional government takes an active role. Livable corridor planning requires coordinated guidance by MPOs, transit agencies, and local governments, both between governments and among agencies within the same government. Jurisdictional coordination acknowledges that implementation involves numerous players, including government agencies, social service providers, and private developers. Interjurisdictional cooperation often occurs by sharing information, approaching corridors as an integrated unit, and working together to develop a shared vision. Chicagoâs âGo to 2040â regional plan supports coordination among local jurisdictions and regional agencies and notes that â[w]ith local autonomy over land use comes responsibility to consider how those decisions shape a communityâs livability, including how they affect neighboring communities and the
90 Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies region as a whole. As a region, we need to implement policies and investments that make livability the highest priority. Intergovernmental approaches are often the best way to solve planning prob- lems in housing, transit, economic development, and other areas, . . . [including] collaborative planning groups that are organized around a transportation corridor. . . . At a less formal level, coordination between municipalities is beneficial for information sharing . . . [and] fostering networked collaboration to share ideas and strategies. . . .â (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 2010). Interjurisdictional coordination for livable corridor planning benefits from the following strategies: â¢ Shared informationâgathering and synthesizing data relevant to corridor planning. â¢ Corridor focusâexamining issues of interjurisdictional importance along corridors. â¢ Shared visionâmaking multilateral agreements that transcend geographic boundaries and narrow perspectives. Shared Information When government agencies convene to focus on a corridor, livability issues and opportuni- ties are understood more completely. Corridors are geographic areas thatâwith comprehensive planningâcan offer high levels of livability opportunities. Jurisdictions should appreciate the benefits of corridor-focused planning and think about livability issues through that lens. Good information sets a foundation for understanding issues that cross jurisdictional bound- aries at the corridor level. Shared information improves access to data for planning purposes by governments and also nongovernment stakeholders such as developers and health providers. Station Area Profiles. Station area profiles can identify issues for interested jurisdictions to consider. These profiles gather information relevant to planning decisions, such as land use pat- terns, inventories of development opportunity sites, market assessments for TOD uses, and levels of connection between stations and surrounding areas. While they often lead to a shared vision among multiple jurisdictions, they can also be used where jurisdictions are not ready or are unable to initiate a process for arriving at a shared vision. Network and Corridor Assessments. Profiles can be the basis for analyzing and creating a larger system of transit catchment areas, and can help prioritize corridors for further planning. For Los Angeles, the Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD) authored âCreating Successful Transit-Oriented Districtsâ to â[e]ducate public agency staff, advocacy groups . . . and policymakers on the benefits of TOD, and best practices in TOD policymaking and implementation. . . . Given the fragmentation of public agencies within the City of Los Angeles and other local jurisdictions, and the multi-department structure required to plan and implement TOD, many local government and private actors do not fully understand the regulatory, plan- ning, and implementation steps needed to promote successful TOD.â The report defines goals (similar to this Handbookâs Livability Principles) and evaluates performance for light rail station areas and for the city as a whole. Shared information in the report provides a foundation for future decision making, as CTOD concludes by noting that its âstation profile sheets, affordability index, and other screen mapping all provide data-driven tools to understand the performance of station areas . . . to more comprehensively and systematically plan for transit-oriented districts . . .â (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2010, pp. 9â10). Background Reports. Shared information also includes reviews of existing planning docu- ments, including adopted plans and studies. Relevant documents set a framework for moving forward. Adopted plans set policy and regulator parameters and may offer implementation tools;
Coordination and Collaboration Strategies 91 existing studies highlight issues relevant to livability planning. Two types of studies are most common: â¢ Studies focused on TOD market opportunities and overcoming barriers to feasibility. â¢ Studies that develop station area profiles to guide decisions on how to target policies and resources. Corridor Focus Focus on the corridor and how multiple factors need to come together to enhance livability. Address challenges along the corridor in multifaceted and integrated ways that includes coop- eration among jurisdictions. Convening Interested Agencies. The development of the âOrange Line Bus Rapid Transit Sustainable Corridor Implementation Planâ in Los Angeles, California, offers a case in point. Throughout the development of the plan, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the consultant team worked closely with community members, NGOs, and public agency staff at Metro, LAâs transit agency, and the city of Los Angeles. The process included one-on-one stakeholder interviews, public workshops, an online survey for each station area, Corridor Working Group meetings, and meetings with individual neighborhood councils and neighborhood associations (Raimi + Associates and Sargent Town Planning 2012). Local governments can also convene agencies and develop partnerships to address issues. The Village of Niles, Illinois (a suburb adjacent to the city of Chicago), has been working to advance livability along the Milwaukee Avenue corridor by getting the attention of areaâs transit agency, highway authority, and MPO to receive funding for corridor-level planning and implementation (Camiros Consultants 2014). Such leadership by decision makers and planners is sometimes needed to highlight corridor opportunities and attract the interest and support of other political decision makers. Community Assessments. Community assessments can also be initiated by nongovernment organizations with an interest in the issues faced by particular corridors. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) is a nonprofit research and education organization, which often convenes panels of experts to consider special urban challenges. In 2013, ULI published a Transit Corridor Report that examined three transit corridors in Los Angeles. In a short time, ULI experts in planning and development generated comprehensive assessments of each corridorâs development potential and made recommendations relating to policy and regulatory changes, physical improvements, and overcoming obstacles to implementation (Urban Land Institute-Los Angeles 2013). Because organizations such as ULI operate outside of government, they can initiate public dis- course more easily, particularly around controversial issues. One ULI recommendation was to designate a staff person in the Los Angeles Mayorâs office to focus on each corridor of interest, by facilitating discussion among city departments and other agencies, to address corridor concerns in a more integrated way (Urban Land Institute-Los Angeles 2013). Shared Vision Interjurisdictional visioning and plan development provide forums for goal setting and deci- sion making that transcend narrow perspectives and geographic and organizational boundaries. Common Goals. Shared goals align policies across jurisdictional boundaries, so separate actions add up to increased livability along a corridor. Coordination occurs in the process of working together to implement shared goals, not only after goals are adopted. Interjurisdictional
92 Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies cooperation can go beyond goal setting to include implementation programs, but must be accom- panied by modes of governance (joint powers agreements and memorandums of understanding, for example) that allow such actions to occur. Prioritizing Investments. A shared vision encourages more systematic ways of prioritizing corridor livability and TOD-related investments, such as the phasing of new development and intensification of stations with significant land opportunities. Because corridor livability and TOD integrate issues and disciplines, there are diverse funding sources that would better promote livability if brought under a single plan umbrella (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2010). Partnerships. A shared vision aligns the actions of regional and local jurisdictions. Inter- views conducted for this Handbook found that in many areas, including Fort Worth, Texas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Minneapolis-St. Paul, to name a few, transit agencies, MPOs, and local governments are working closely with each other to encourage TOD. Often, these agencies partner to create a TOD Guidebook, conduct economic development studies, and coordinate master planning activities to gain developer interest. Public-private partnerships can be criti- cally important as well, with many regions focusing on working closely with affordable housing developers, often on publicly owned properties. Public investment in transit can leverage private investment and coordinate funding sources to promote more effective TOD planning and implementation. Community Engagement Community engagement makes planning more responsive to local needs, builds broad-based support, and helps remove barriers to implementation. It enables participants to examine issues together, find connections, articulate values, discuss priorities, and anticipate implementing actions. Strive for broad-based participation when conceiving of and implementing decisions, and reduce barriers to participation by low-income, minority, and other populations who tend to be underrepresented (McConville 2013). The results are decisions tailored to issues and per- spectives unique to each corridor, greater transparency in decision making, and higher levels of agreement moving forward. The St. Louis regionâs East-West Gateway COGâs âPublic Engagement Planâ sums up the importance of community engagement this way: âMeaningful engagement is critical because it ensures that the widest cross section of citizens can weigh in. . . . Furthermore, engagement can improve the resulting plan by considering development from a variety of perspectives, lending it greater legitimacy because the very people whose lives it will impact have helped develop it.â (Public Agenda and FOCUS St. Louis et al. 2012) Fundamental components for effective community engagement include: â¢ Outreach and educationâdisseminating public information and inviting broad-based participation. â¢ Community assessmentsâunderstanding local issues and aspirations through the eyes of stakeholders. â¢ Meaningful inputâgiving diverse stakeholders meaningful opportunities to have a say and collaborate. Outreach and Education Outreach and education encourages anyone with a stake in corridor livability to participate as plans are formulated. Reach out to diverse stakeholders to understand planning issues, evaluate
Coordination and Collaboration Strategies 93 options, develop shared objectives, and coordinate implementing actions. Outreach invites broad-based participation, such as with public information campaigns using traditional media and new media. Education keeps the public informed of issues surrounding livable corridor planning and upcoming decisions, helps community members understand the effects of corridor plans at the local level, and explains how plans respond to local issues and concerns. Lessons Learned. A 1960s attempt to build a freeway in Bostonâs southwest corridor met strong community opposition. Plans for the freeway were replaced by cooperative planning through outreach and education, which is credited with redirecting land and money for the freeway toward transit (Bostonâs heavy rail Orange Line) and neighborhood-serving land uses (Pierce and Guskind 1993). MBTA planning for the Orange Line focused on community outreach âto build consensus within the bureaucracy and neighborhoods.â MBTA helped lead an effort characterized as âpeople power.â Two principles guided community engagement: âOne was that weâd look at everything together. And the second was that we wouldnât do anything that we didnât talk to people in the neighborhood about.â The Orange Line opened with broad community support in 1987 (Pierce and Guskind 1993). Encouraging Participation. Outreach that draws people into the planning process can help address skepticism around the benefits of livable corridor planning. âIn order to engage the full participation of community members in the planning process, and thus gain broad support for future development or other changes that make neighborhoods more transit supportive, there needs to be more education about TOD planning concepts [and best practices], and the potential benefits of density as well as other [practices] that make station areas more transit supportiveâ (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2010) and livable. A variety of communication and outreach techniques are available and hands-on workshops and interactive online tools can boost participation and inform decisions. Public Participation Planning. Outreach and education have become broadly accepted as part of the mission of MPOs and other government agencies. The CMAP has a Public Partici- pation Plan that details how CMAP should maintain âa proactive public participation process . . . that provides complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions, and supports early and continuing involvement of the public in developing and implementing regional plans and capital programs.â To encourage participation, messages need to make planning issues relevant to each target audience (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 2013). Informed Decision Making. Education plays a vital role in helping raise awareness around the relationship between transit and livability, and the need for integrated planning. The East-West Gateway Council of Governmentâs âTOD Framework Master Planâ developed partly as a way to better inform decision makers of alternative development patterns. âIn a metropolitan area that is growing relatively slowly and that has traditionally followed lower-density suburban patterns of growth over the last several decades, leaders from throughout the region have continued to search for appropriate strategies to promote transit-oriented development. . . . [T]his regional TOD study helps metropolitan areas similar to St. Louis understand what TOD means for smaller and mid-sized cities that have instead focused on suburban sprawl over the last several decadesâ (East-West Gateway Council of Governments 2013). St. Louisâ âTOD Framework Master Planâ succeeds as a guiding document not because it makes strong recommendationsâit doesnât. It focuses on issues that matter to decision makers, including these basic components: â¢ A regional demographic and market analysis, â¢ Site analysis and development feasibility analysis for each station area,
94 Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies â¢ An outline of key issues impacting development viability at station areas, â¢ Recommendations for local jurisdictions, Metro, and other stakeholders, and â¢ A menu of available implementation tools (East-West Gateway Council of Governments 2013). Outreach Techniques. Strive for broad-based participation when conceiving of and imple- menting decisions and reduce barriers to participation by low-income, minority, and other populations who tend to be underrepresented. A host of outreach and education techniques are available, including traditional and new media, public forums and workshops, and surveys and questionnaires. Interactive, hands-on participation can boost participation and provide opportunities for meaningful input. Education is also vital, as stakeholders can appreciate plans moreâand participate in more meaningful waysâwhen conditions and considerations are explained clearly and reliably. Outreach techniques include: â¢ Resources and guidelines for workshops and other forms of outreach, â¢ Traditional media (newspapers, radio and television), â¢ New media (internet and social media), and â¢ Targeted outreach (for example, interviews, focus groups, language translation, direct out- reach at events like farmers markets) (Lennertz 2013). Underrepresented Populations. Targeted outreach is particularly important for encouraging participation among population groups who otherwise might not be engaged. This includes low- income households, immigrants, people of color, small business owners, and youth. Interviews conducted with public agency staff in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region found that their Partnership for Regional Opportunity program uses a host of proactive and integrated strategies for including underrepresented populations in decisions. The program combines direct outreach emphasizing two-way conversations to provide people with opportunities for input with a corridor-level steer- ing committee representing a cross section of interests and selected grant recipients. Results include programs that target the needs of underrepresented populations, such as programs for small busi- nesses, including entrepreneurial training, professional skill building, small business loans, and assistance with leasing in emerging TOD locations (Metropolitan Council undated). Conditions and Assessments Develop a thorough understanding of livable corridor strengths and needs by engaging stake- holders with diverse yet intersecting interests (see Sections 2 and 3 of this Handbook). Local conditions and stakeholder aspirations can be understood through community engagement, where stakeholders have an opportunity to frame local issues, articulate aspirations, and tailor strategies. Planning agencies can miss conditions and opportunities that are readily understood by com- munity members. Local conditions and aspirations can be revealed in several ways including, but not limited to: â¢ Station area and corridor-level analysis, â¢ Community workshops on issues and aspirations, and â¢ Design charrettes to explore local issues and opportunities. Meaningful Input Direct Dialogue. Community engagement helps to align recommendations with stake- holder interests and preferences. Inclusive dialogue allows direct input from constituents who will be affected by corridor plans and an opportunity to address their issues and concerns. While agencies and planners focus on a vision for a corridor as a whole, inclusive dialogue can reveal
Coordination and Collaboration Strategies 95 local opportunities and allows local interests to advocate for context-sensitive interventions. Engagement creates more transparency around decision making and tends to broaden support for recommendations. The CMAPâs âPublic Participation Planâ (PPP) âseeks to develop a proactive public participa- tion process in northeastern Illinois that provides complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions, and supports early and continuing involvement of the public in developing regional plans and capital programs.â The PPP further asserts that: â¢ The public should have opportunities for input in decisions that affect their lives, and have information needed for informed input. â¢ The participation process should capture the interests and needs of all participants. â¢ The publicâs contribution should be considered in the decision-making process, and the pro- cess should communicate how participantsâ input influenced the decisions that were made (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 2013). Steps for Public Decision Making. The East-West Gatewayâs âPublic Engagement Planâ for their Regional Plan for Sustainable Development (RPSD) says that â[m]eaningful citizen engagement is critical because it will ensure that the widest cross section of citizens can weigh in on the plan, the RPSD is well understood, and ultimately, the RPSD is accepted by citizens and elected officialsâ and stakeholders. âFurthermore, public engagement can improve the resulting plan by considering sustainable development from a variety of perspectives, lending it greater legitimacy because the very people whose lives it will impact have developed it. . . . [The RPSD] is not meant as a prescriptive or strict protocol; rather at each step along the way, local leaders and stakeholders can consider how best to tailor both the principles and the meeting structure to the local contextâ (Public Agenda and FOCUS St. Louis et al. 2012). The âPublic Engagement Planâ was developed by a nonpartisan research and public engagement organizationâPublic Agenda with FOCUS St. Louis. The organization facilitated brainstorming and conversation, using real-time polling, prioritization exercises, and online information and surveys. Community members are given a voice in decision making through the following process: â¢ Articulate values, â¢ Collect information, â¢ Foster awareness, â¢ Articulate priorities, and â¢ Consider scenarios (Public Agenda and FOCUS St. Louis et al. 2012). At the local level in St. Louis, community workshops and advisory committees gave community members opportunities to shape the Great Streets Initiative along South Grand Street. Community engagement to develop a corridor plan used the following process: â¢ Review analysis, â¢ Develop project goals, â¢ Evaluate alternatives, and â¢ Comment on recommendations (DW Legacy Design Foundation 2010).