Transportation Equity: Balancing Interests & Promoting Justice - Prof. Susan L. Handy, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Public Policy

Download Transportation Equity: Balancing Interests & Promoting Justice - Prof. Susan L. Handy and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Public Policy in PDF only on Docsity! Environmental Justice & Transportation e a ous gl SHANNON CAIRNS _ JESSICA GREIG Environmental Justice & Transportation AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S The preparation of this document was made possible by a grant from the University of Califo r n i a Transportation Center (UCTC),which receives funding from the United States Department of Transportation and the California Department of Transportation.The authors express their ap p reciation to UCTC, its sponsors, and its Dire c t o r, P ro fessor Elizabeth Deakin, for this support . The views expressed are those of the authors who alone are responsible for any errors or o m i s s i o n s .We also wish to thank Phyllis Orrick for her valuable editorial assistance and Ju d i t h Green-Janse, who designed the document. We thank the following people who read drafts of the report and made numerous helpful comments:Donald Cairns,Elizabeth Deakin,Norman Dong, Janet Greig, Joe Grengs, Judith Innes,David Jones, Jonathan Kass,Trent Lethco, Rachel Peterson, Lisa Schweitzer, and Melvin Webber. Published by the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California Berkeley Copyright © 2003 University of California Regents B Y SHANNON CA I R N S J E S S I CA GREIG A N D M A RTIN WAC H S In spite of all these laws,several presidents have felt that discrimination and environmentally destructive practices still persist.In response, they issued Executive Orders (EOs) that require federal agencies to take specific measures to better achieve these goals.Executive orders 11063,12259,and 10479 all seek to provide equal opportunity in housing while EO 10482 provides for equal employment opportunities in the government.Most recently, former President Clinton issued Exe c u t i ve Order 12898, “ Federal Actions to A dd re s s Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” which extends federal environmental and nondiscriminatory protections to low-income people.This order directs each federal agency to develop a strategy for preventing its actions from having “disp ro p o rt i o n a t e ly high and adverse human health or env i ronmental effects” on low - i n c o m e and minority populations.However, it is important to realize that an executive order does not create any new rights or benefits that are enforceable by law. Federal agencies’compli- ance can’t be enforced in court. E xe c u t i ve orders and federal agency re g u l a t i o n s h ave detailed how avoiding discrimination and e nv i ronmental concerns should be built into federal decision making in order to implement these laws more rigo ro u s ly.The Department of Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n ’s final Env i ronmental Ju s t i c e O rder in 1997 directed agencies about ways to incorporate env i ronmental justice into their a c t i v i t i e s . Operating agencies within the depart- ment often give more detailed info r m a t i o n . Fo r e x a m p l e, the Federal Highway A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the Federal Transit Administration issued a joint memorandum in 1999 titled “Implementing Title VI Requirements in M e t ropolitan and Statewide Planning.” In it, t h e administrators announced that compliance with Title VI is re q u i re d , and non-compliance would mean that all federal funding for the region could be withheld. Over time, the federal government has c re a t- ed incre a s i n g ly specific re q u i rements for n o n - discrimination and env i ronmental protection,but states can decide how to implement them. If they do not fo l l ow these d i re c t i ves they risk losing their federal money, which is usually a sizable share of their transportation funding. E ven though the wo rds “ e nv i ronmental justice” have n ’t made it into legislation, the concept has made it into court decisions.These decisions form the foundation of future legal i n t e r p retations and are part of the common law of the United States. The principles of environmental justice have their basis in both the Constitution of the United States—notably the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—and United States civil rights law s . (On the state leve l ,m a ny states have similar provisions in their constitutions.) Titles Six (VI) and Nine (IX) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide pro t e c t i o n f rom discriminatory actions or results from fe d e r a l , or fe d e r a l ly assisted or ap p rove d ,a c t i o n s . Intentional discrimination can be very hard to prove.The U.S.Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division’s “Title VI Legal Manual” (September 1998) states that “[t]his requires a showing that the decisionmaker was not only aware of the complainant’s race, color, or national origin,but that the recipient acted,at least in part,because of the complainant’s race, color, or national origin.” Because proving intentional discrimination is so difficult,people have sought other ways to enforce nondiscrimination.An alternative approach has been to charge that Title VI was violated by unintentional discrimination that caused disparate impacts.When an otherwise nondiscriminatory policy or program causes unequal effects (on protected individuals—for example minorities, women,and disabled persons) without a legitimate reason,the policy or program is having a disparate impact.Whether this approach is valid has been argued in recent court cases. Environmental justice claims are being made on the basis of rights established years ago, but how those rights will be enforced is still being decided through the courts. During the sixties it became incre a s i n g ly obvious that people’s rights and freedoms are c l o s e ly tied to the well being of their env i ro n m e n t .Also during this time, l e g i s l a t o r s acknowledged that economic and social environments,in addition to the physical enviro n- ment,determine a person’s quality of life and ability to thrive in society.These realizations s h aped the National Env i ronmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA ) , which established the national policy for the env i ro n m e n t .N E PA re q u i res federal agencies to take a “ s y s t e m a t i c, i n t e r- d i s c i p l i n a ry approach” to planning and decision making when the results may have an impact on the environment. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 re q u i res that states and metropolitan planning organiza- tions (MPOs), which develop long-range plans, consider the “ overall social, e c o n o m i c, e n e r gy, and env i ronmental effects of transportation decisions.” (23 CFR. 450.208) Federal money may not fund programs or activities that result in the intentional or unintentional unequal tre a t- ment of persons solely based on their race, c o l o r, re l i g i o n ,s e x , or national origin. The following DEFINITIONS are excerpts from the appendix of the Department of Transportation’s final Environmental Justice order: L OW- I N C O M E means that a person’s household income is at or below the poverty level; THE PROTECTED LOW- I N C O M E AND MINORITY POPULAT I O N can be defined as a group of persons within ge og raphic proximity of each other or a gro u p that is dispersed but would be similarly affected by a proposal; A DVERSE EFFECTS i n clude those on human health, the env i ro n m e n t , and a gro u p ’s social and economic well-being; a n d D I S P RO P O RT I O N AT E LY HIGH AND A DVERSE EFFECTS ON MINORITY OR LOW- I N C O M E P O P U L AT I O N S a re effects that are p redominantly borne by a minority or low - income population, or effects borne by minori- ty and low-income populations that are more s ev e re than those borne by others. LEGAL HISTO RY Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s i t y o f Ca l i f o r n ia B er ke l e y 4 E nv i ronmental Justice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n 5 spending user fees and taxes from some citizens on services that benefit other citizens. But this should always be done with caution. In keeping with the spirit of environmental justice, this should only be used to protect the needs of the disadvantaged, whomever they might be and as they change. In order to e n s u re that the needs of the disadvan- t a g e d a re protected, specific re q u i re m e n t s should be met. First, everyone must be able to benefit from the policy. In the case of a bridge used by cars and trains, fares from train riders shouldn’t be used to resurface the bridge deck because some of the riders can’t use cars and therefore couldn’t benefit from the resurfaced deck. On the other hand, tolls collected from the cars could be used to improve the train service because everyone crossing the bridge could benefit from the improved train service (either by riding the train, or because people riding the train reduce congestion for car users). The important distinction between the two cases is that all car drivers could benefit from rail impro v e- ments but not all rail users could benefit from the deck resurfacing. Second, this approach should only be used when the least advantaged group of community members benefits the most. Take transit: quite often the debate is not whether to fund transit, but which transit to fund. In theory, everyone could benefit from an inequal- ity favoring transit (such as the train example above). However, funding rail s e rvice used by upper-income commuters at the expense of buses serving transit- dependent low-income commuters does not constitute environmental justice. The least advantaged are the transit- dependent, not those who have alterna- tives to transit. Working toward environmental justice doesn’t mean that advantaged members of society should never be p rovided projects that serve their needs and interests, nor should the wealthy and powerful be required to bear all of the costs of the transportation system. However, any unequal distribution of benefits and burdens should help the least advantaged. Clari fy the Approach In actual policy-making situations, some combination of the approaches outlined above will probably be imple- mented, working together to promote a just society. Other approaches might also surface in community discussions. For example, a group might want money generated from transportation sources (like gas taxes or bridge tolls) or money earmarked for transportation to be spent on non-transportation- related social services, such as healthcare or education. This may be seen as controversial, but it happens regularly with other revenue sources. For example, p ro p e rty taxes fund primary and secondary schools even though some property owners do not have children. R e g a rdless of the approach, it is import a n t that participants are clear about which one they are taking when they advocate a position. results of this policy do not respond to any history of inequality or any inequality in another part of society. For example, inadequate transport a t i o n service in a community may limit its citizens’ ability to reach well-paying jobs, resulting in lower average incomes, smaller tax contributions, and a smaller return of transportation funds. A policy that directs transportation investment to populations according to how much tax they pay may perpetuate a vicious cycle of high funding to rich communi- ties and low funding to poor ones. Using Tr a n s p o r tation as a Tool A different approach to environ- mental justice might use transportation services to compensate for inequalities in other areas of society. Instead of equally distributing transportation resources (be it funding, miles of road or track, number of buses, or the like) to promote environmental justice, this approach is to use the transportation system as a tool for improving justice in society as a whole. This could mean H OW ARE T R A N S P O RTATION P ROJECTS AND PLANS EVA L UATED? Although the focus of this handbook is environmental justice and its role in transporta- tion decision making,it is not the only factor considered.In addition to environmental justice, programs and projects are evaluated for their effectiveness and efficiency. How a program performs with respect to all three measures ultimately decides whether it is implemented. ■ E f f e c t i veness re f e rs to how well a proposal meets its objective s. For example, in a congestion relief plan,an alternative that reduces congestion by 25% is more effective than one that reduces it by 10%, all else being equal. ■ Efficiency re f e rs to the cost of a project re l a t i ve to its benefits. The most efficient project is the one with the highest benefit per dollar spent. When choosing what projects or alternatives to invest in,the preferred option is e f fe c t i ve, e f f i c i e n t ,a n d , of course, j u s t . In the example above, the alternative that reduces congestion by 10% might cost 10 times what the other alternative costs, meaning that it is neither the most effective nor the most efficient.However, if the a l t e r n a t i ve reducing congestion by 25% costs 10 times more than the other alternative, the choice is not as clear.When alternatives are judged on how just they are, the decisions become even more complicated. Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s i t y o f Ca l i f o r n ia B er ke l e y 6 E nv i ronmental Justice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n 7 IMPLEMENTING A N E N V I RO N M E N TA L JUSTICE POLICY How can a given approach to environmental justice be implemented? To start, identify specific impacts of the project, program, or plan. What are the benefits, and who will reap them? Are there burdens such as noise, diverted traffic, or additional congestion during construction? How much will it cost? Who will pay for it? It is only after these benefits and burdens are identi- fied that their effect on communities can be understood and, if appropriate, changed. With the answers to these questions, projects can be designed to promote environmental justice in basi- cally three ways, by: ■ Influencing who benefits from them; ■ Influencing who bears the burdens from them;and ■ Influencing who pays for them. Who benefits and who bears the burdens of these projects are discussed below. The importance of who pays for projects is discussed in the box on the facing page titled, “Who Pays for Tr a n s - portation and Why Does It Matter?” P e rf o rmance Measure s Many large organizations, like states and metropolitan planning org a n i z a t i o n s (MPOs), examine benefits and burd e n s with perf o rmance measures. They estab- lish specific objectives (which could apply to plans or to single pro j e c t s ) , choose indicators (called perf o rm a n c e m e a s u res) to track their perf o rm a n c e , and sometimes identify target values for those perf o rmance measures. A common objective of transportation projects is i m p roved mobility, which is the ability to move throughout a region. But it can be measured in diff e rent ways that can p roduce diff e rent results. If it is evaluated using rush-hour speeds on the fre ew a y, it will result in dramatically diff e re n t plans and projects than if it is measure d as the average time to get to work. Performance measures generally come in three varieties: input-oriented, output-oriented, and outcome-oriented. Input-oriented performance measures focus on investments in the transport a- t i o n system, such as the number of lanes and miles of highway. This could estimate mobility because increasing lane-miles increases how many people can travel on the highway. Output- oriented performance measures focus on what the transportation system produces, such as the volume of traffic on the expanded highway. This could estimate mobility because increasing the volume of traffic increases how many people are traveling on the high- w a y. Finally, an outcome-oriented p e rf o rmance measure considers whether a transportation investment meets its d e s i red goals. For example,t h e p e rc e n t a g e of people who get to work on time as a result of the expanded high- way is an indicator not only of mobility, but also the quality of the users’ mobility. Many objectives relevant to e n v i ronmental justice don’t have obvious perf o rmance measures because meaningful data don’t exist yet. This is especially true for outcome-oriented WHO PAYS FOR T R A N S P O RTAT I O N AND WHY DOES IT MAT T E R ? One way to implement environmental justice policies is by manipulating the balance between who pays and who benefits from a program.This balance has a profound impact on what can be achieved by the transportation system for two reasons: 1) Different funding sources,like income taxes,property taxes,sales taxes,fuel taxes,taxes on tires,and transit fares or bridge tolls impose burdens differently by income group. The list below gives common sources of transportation funds,with the most progressive first and the most regressive last.Progressive taxes charge a lower proportion of income among the poor than among the rich,while regressive taxes charge a higher proportion of income among the poor than among the rich.Generally speaking,progressive taxes are more just than regressive ones. ■ Income tax Progressive ■ Property tax ■ Gas tax ■ Sales tax Regressive 2) P rojects can impose change s ,i n t e n t i o n a l ly or unintentionally, on people’s incomes. An unintentional change in income distribution might occur when a road is widened.With a wider road,capacity increases,attracting drivers from slower or more congested routes.This could decrease benefits accruing to businesses along the route that drivers previously passed and increase them for businesses along the improved road. Providing subsidies to transit services for the poor is an intentional redistribution of income. Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s i t y o f Ca l i f o r n ia B er ke l e y 8 E nv i ronmental Justice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n 9 Whether the resulting distribution constitutes environmental justice also depends on what is considered fair or a p p ropriate. More discussion of common concepts of distribution is included in the box titled “Who Gets How Much?” on page 16. One concern with this regional approach is that it combines detailed information about individuals into a general profile of a group or neighbor- hood and results in decisions based on this “aggregated data.” Adding up the benefits and burdens for all the individ- u a l s in a group provides a proximate idea of how an average person in that group is faring. But individuals aren’t averages. If one person making $15,000 a year lives next to a commuter rail line, and 20 others with the same income live in quiet residential neighborhoods, an analysis using aggregated data will suggest that the average person making $15,000 is being subjected to a little bit of noise. This analysis overlooks the larger burden placed on the $15,000-a- year earner living near the train tracks. Aggregate analyses show how well the plan is performing as a whole, but they don’t show whether specific individuals or groups within these larger groups experience disproportionate burdens or benefits. Protecting against this requires a corridor-level analysis for areas where burdens are concentrated, such as along rail lines or around airports. Such an analysis led to the expansion of the Los Angeles International Airport being limited. Read about this case in the box titled “Responding to Community Needs (I),” on the facing page. NOISE ANALYSIS CHANGES AIRPORT PLAN The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) evaluated the distribution of noise impacts from aircraft on the basis of a geographical unit, called a traffic analy s i s zone (TAZ).SCAG identified the portion of each zone that would have residences within the area significantly impacted by airport noise. SCAG assumed that forecast growth in these areas would have the same demographic composition as the growth forecast for the entire TAZ.The findings of this analysis are summarized in the table below, with the right most column indicating the distribution of residents that would be impacted by airport noise. Low-Income and Minority Residents in Airport Noise Areas Demographic SCAG Region Within Airport Noise Group in 2025 Impact Areas Non-minority 29% 11% Minority 71% 89% Below Poverty 13% 10% These findings indicate that minority populations would be dispro p o rt i o n a t e ly affected by the proposed airport expansion plan:89 percent of the forecast population in the airport noise impact areas is minority, compared to 71 percent in the whole region. This analysis contributed to the decision to limit the expansion of the Los A n g e l e s International A i r p o rt in favor of a more re g i o n a l ly balanced airport expansion plan. Source: Desk Guide: Environmental Justice in Transportation Planning and Investments, California Department of Transportation, forthcoming. RESPONDING TO COMMUNITY NEEDS (I) Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s it y o f Ca l i f o r n i a Berke l e y 14 E nv i ronmental Justice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n 15 WHO GETS HOW MUCH? Evaluating a project or plan requires an examination of where and on whom its benefits and burdens fall.Below are several concepts of distribution that have evolved over time; they can be applied to different approaches to environmental justice.These distributions can ap p ly to benefits such as reduced travel times, costs such as tax pay m e n t s ,b u rdens such as air pollution,or the balance among all three.The distributions discussed here are based on Public Finance in Theory and Practice, 5th Edition, by Richard and Peggy Musgrave, and “Operationalizing Concepts of Equity for Public Project Investments,” in Transportation Research Record 1559 by C.J. Khisty. E Q UA L I T Y exists when eve ryone re c e i ves an equal share of a particular good. This exists in the transportation system when all bus users pay the same fare for the same bus service regardless of their ability to pay the fare or whether they have transportation alternatives. ABILITY TO PAY distributions recognize that individuals have different abilities and earning potentials and that they are entitled to receive all the benefits for which they can pay, assuming that they compensate for any burdens produced. This logic is used when a wealthy community is experiencing heavy conges- tion and decides to increase its own property taxes to pay for a new road. The cost of the project includes relocation expenses for families who are displaced,the cost of soundproofing houses that will experience higher noise levels,and pollution control measures for air pollution resulting from the road.In this case, upper-income households reap the majority of the benefits from the project,and they also bear the costs associated with it. Using this distribution method,the wealthy community benefits from the project,and the individuals who carry the burdens of the project are com- pensated.This concept will direct more benefits to the people and commu- nities who can pay for them,but it is unlikely to serve the most needy. Under the MAXIMUM BENEFIT distribution,the greatest benefit is created for the most people. An airport expansion that produces large benefits for a region may be jus- tified using this distribution concept.Simply comparing costs and benefits, airport investments might appear very successful.However, it is important to see where the benefits and burdens fall.Most of the benefits go to the business community and to wealthier individuals who fly re g u l a r ly. A l t h o u g h they won’t benefit to the same degree , poorer residents help pay for the expansion through taxes and might experience more of the negative impacts because poorer neighborhoods tend to be closer to airport s .T h e overall benefit of this project might be high, but those who need the most help are helped the least. S E RVE THE LEAST- A DVA N TAGED FIRST is a distribution that works to remedy existing inequalities. For example, a region has the option of funding increased commuter rail service (benefiting wealthier individuals who tend to live in the suburbs and own cars), or it can fund a series of We l f a re - t o - Work pro g r a m s ,w h i c h i m p rove wo r k - related transportation for we l f a re re c i p i e n t s . A decision based on serving the least-advantaged first would direct funds to the Welfare-to-Work programs.This distribution works toward the goal of justice in society rather than focusing solely on the transportation system. MIXED CRITERIA are often used because it is difficult to choose a single concept of distribution.Many groups combine concepts to better match their communal values of fairness. A mixed criteria distribution works best when applied to alternatives that have been studied in a cost-benefit analysis and have monetary estimates of the benefits and burdens of the alternatives.One way to mix criteria is to maximize the minimum benefit received by any group, also called “maxi- min.” Another is to maximize the average net benefit while ensuring that everyone receives a specified minimum benefit. The theories described above can be hard to implement in practice because funding decisions depend heav i ly on federal legislation.The most current transportation legislation is the Tr a n s p o rtation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).The trend in federal legislation has been to have series of funding categories,which explicitly state how much m o n ey is available for distribution, what the money in each catego ry can be spent on, a n d who can claim the money (whether it be local governments,congestion management a g e n c i e s , or transit operators). Because of this structure, governments and planning organizations are often unable to fund a project that they want. Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s i t y o f Ca l i f o rn i a B er ke l e y 16 E nv i ronmental Justice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n 17 I N VO LVING EVERYO N E Elected officials, staff at transporta- tion agencies, and community members are all involved in the planning process. Although agency staff members are an important part of the decision-making process, they alone should not make moral decisions that affect the commu- nity. The community and its representa- tives must make these decisions. But who is the community? Frequently the simplest way to identify the community affected by a plan or project is to identify the agency responsible for funding it. The popula- tion within that agency’s jurisdiction is a good approximation of the community. In the case of a metropolitan planning organization, the community is all of the residents who live or work within the agency’s jurisdiction (most of whom contribute, in the form of taxes, to the agency). This large group is a community because it is affected by the agency’s policy, not because everyone in the group is in agreement or has the same characteristics. Smaller neighborhoods and groups exist within this larger community and may have distinct needs. If these groups have different desires for a project, it is particularly important that they participate and make their wishes known. After identifying the community, agencies engage its members in public involvement. These individuals can also be thought of as stakeholders because they have something to gain or lose from the actions of the agency. The aim is to include as many people, with as many backgrounds and transportation needs, as possible. However, agencies cannot know all of a community’s needs. In this case, members of the community can present their ideas at public meetings and to elected off i c i a l s . The citizens of North Richmond, C a l i f o rnia, alerted the local transit provider of their unmet needs, which led to the creation of a new bus line. Read more about this case in the text box titled “Responding to C o m m u n i t y Needs (II)” on the facing page. Public involvement can take many forms; some are right for one situation, but not others. Tr a n s p o rtation planning is the responsibility of many agencies at many different levels of government and draws funding from many diff e re n t sources. The box titled “Being Heard” on page 12 gives an overview of the p r i m a ry agencies involved in trans- p o rtation decisions. Using this inform a- t i o n , you can direct comments to the appropriate agencies and individuals. All transportation plans require a public comment period when anyone may write, call, e-mail, fax or present his or her opinion in person. When getting involved at this point, it is more e ffective to address comments to elected o fficials rather than agency staff because elected officials sit on agency boards and have significant input into what is approved. A signed letter sent to every- one involved is the best way to get on record. It is also possible to be involved by attending and speaking at committee and board meetings. Another form of involvement is to be on a citizen a d v i s o ry board or committee. COLLABORATING ON A NEW BUS ROUTE In the summer of 1997,many residents of North Richmond,California, feared an impending disaster from the looming requirements for welfare reform.Given their severely limited access to jobs and services,transit service was an important compo- nent of the success or failure of welfare reform.These residents and their represen- tatives described to AC Transit,the local transit agency, some important problems with the community’s bus service. In one instance, the nearest bus route was located at the edge of the commu n i t y, operated infre q u e n t ly and stopped for the night at 7 p. m . In response,AC Transit representatives met with community members to design trans- portation services for Welfare-to-Work needs.Out of these meetings came a new route, Number 376,which operates from 8 p.m.to 1:30 a.m.,seven days a week.The route connects North Richmond and the nearby community of Parchester Village to employment sites,a community college, a medical clinic, and shopping centers,as well as regional bus routes and BART trains.The bus schedule is coordinated with shift changes at major employment sites.The collaborative effort in North Richmond also led to an innovative plan for route deviation:bus riders can ask the driver to go off the fixed route a block or two to take them closer to their homes at night. F rom: World Class Transit for the Bay Are a , Tr a n s p o rtation and Land Use Coalition, January 2000. RESPONDING TO COMMUNITY NEEDS (II) Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s i t y o f Ca l i f o rn i a B er ke l e y 18 E nv i ronmental Justice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n 19 In order to change or stop a pro j e c t , community members have to get in- volved by attending public hearings, making comments, or ultimately taking an agency to court. It is hoped that legal battles can be avoided through the involvement of multiple stakeholders working together and shaping a project to benefit their diverse interests. CONCLUSIONS Definitions of environmental justice abound, but the goal of environmental justice is unchanging: to foster a more just and equitable society. It is this spirit that should guide the discussion and implementation of environmental justice in transportation policies. This handbook identified points in the planning process at which citizen involvement is particularly effective and discussed various approaches to envi- ronmental justice. Incorporating these approaches into policies and projects will ensure that the spirit of the law is met. Knowing how decisions are made will help citizens participate effectively; being involved is the first step to foster- ing a more just and equitable society. The following are the basic steps in preparing an EIS based on “Final Guidance For Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses, April 1998,” which is a compre h e n s i ve discussion of NEPA and env i ronmental justice requirements that was produced by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency: S C O P I N G is the first step when an agency must file an EIS and is the first o p p o rtunity for public input into the EIS.At this stage, the lead agency inv i t e s re p re s e n t a t i ves from all government agencies that might be invo l ve d , the p ro j e c t ’s support e r s , and interested members of the public to a meeting to identify all of the issues invo l ved with the project that could have a significant i m p a c t .A l t e r n a t i ves for a project can be developed at this stage.These meetings a re a d ve rtised in local new s p apers and on the lead agency’s Web site, a n d announcements are sent to people who have been invo l ved with the agency’s activities in the past or are on their mailing list. Getting on this mailing list is a good way to hear about scoping sessions and other public meetings. DRAFT EIS is the first document pro d u c e d ; it discusses the impact of each a l t e r n a t i ve on the human and natural env i ronment and how serious the impacts a re. In cases where the effects of a project are significant but they can be re d u c e d , a mitigation strategy is pre s e n t e d .The draft is circulated to all invo l ve d p a rt i e s ,i n t e rested individuals and organizations, and is available to the public at libraries and other public offices. PUBLIC COMMENT is the second major opportunity for public invo l ve m e n t in the EIS pro c e s s .H e re, s t a keholders or members of the general public can voice concerns with the technical analy s e s , the elimination or inclusion of specific a l t e r n a t i ve s , mitigation strategies, or anything else add ressed in the Draft EIS. Comments can be made in writing to the lead agency or orally at a pubic hear- i n g. This comment period lasts for 180 days from the time the draft is issued. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS All comments on a draft EIS must be a dd ressed either by modifying an alternative, d eveloping and evaluating add i t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i ve s ,i m p roving the analy s i s , making corre c t i o n s , or documenting why no action was take n . FINAL EIS is the resulting document after all comments on the draft EIS have been add re s s e d . An important aspect for citizens to know about the EIS is that in order to bring a court suit challenging a particular project or plan, a person must have submitted comments during the period of public comment. THE ENVIRO N M E N TAL IMPAC T S TAT E M E N T Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s i t y o f Ca li f o rn i a B er ke l e y 24 E nv i ronmental Just ice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n 25 26 E nv i ronmental Justice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n F U RTHER READINGS Robert D. Bullard and Glenn S. Johnson. Just Transportation. Gabriola Island,British Columbia: New Society Publishers,1997. David J. Forkenbrock and Lisa A.Schweitzer.“Environmental Justice and Transportation Planning,” Journal of the American Planning Association,Vol.65,No. 1 (Winter 1999),pp. 96-111. David J. Forkenbrock and Glen E.Weisbrod. Guidebook for Estimating the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 456. Washington,DC:National Academy Press,2001. Susan Hanson,ed. The Geography of Urban Transportation, 2nd Edition.New York:Guilford,1995. Michael D. Meyer and Eric J.Miller. Urban Transportation Planning:A Decision-Oriented Approach, 2nd Edition.NewYork:McGraw Hill,2001. Transportation Research Board. Refocusing Transportation Planning for the 21st Century:Proceedings of Two Conferences.Washington,DC:National Research Council,National Academy Press,2000. USEFUL INTERNET LINKS Environmental Justice:A Citizen's Handbook can be viewed and downloaded for free on the Web site of the Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies at the University of Califo r n i a ,B e r ke l ey, at the URL listed here. It also can be ordered in hard copy for a nominal charge or for free, based on ability to pay (see ordering information on the back cover). http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/ejhandbook/ejhandbook.html Title Six (VI) Legal Manual f rom the Civil Rights Division of the U. S .D e p a rtment of Justice is available online. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/grants_statutes/legalman.html Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality, January 1997. A handbook for any interested parties that outlines general principles,and describes ways to analyze cumulative effects. http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm Environmental Justice:Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality, December 1997.A handbook created to guide federal agencies in their compliance with Executive Order 12898 with information helpful to lay readers. http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf Bound copies can be ord e red by sending an email to ITS Publications at itspubs@socrates.berkeley.edu or calling the ITS Publications Director at 510-643-2591. Single copies are fre e. O rders up to five copies are $5 apiece. Discounts can be negotiated for bulk orders, for non-profits, and for individuals on the basis of need. ISBN 0-9673039-9-0