What lessons are to be learned from stakeholder engagement in transportation planning when broad efforts to engage fall short of actual public consultation?
In “Whose Opinion Matters: Lessons from a Stakeholder Engagement Process for Penang, Malaysia” Dr. Minal Pathak conducted an evaluation of the ongoing stakeholder engagement process for the transport master plan in Penang, Malaysia. Proposed funding for the plan’s estimated 11 billion USD cost – involving highways, roadways, LRT, monorail, a BRT network, and electric trams – was through reclamation of three islands along the Penang coast. Concerns about the plan raised by stakeholders range from high costs, environmental impacts, effects on fisheries, and aesthetic and heritage considerations. Key issues with timing, strategy and communication in the engagement process have contributed to various stakeholders’ continued opposition to the project. Dr. Pathak’s evaluation draws out recommendations for a more effective stakeholder engagement process that can be applied both within Malaysia and beyond.
There are few urban issues that touch as many nerves as parking, which resides in the often uncomfortable overlap of transportation, environmental protection, land use, and economic growth. To determine how much parking cities should have—and where that parking should be—a wide variety of stakeholder need to interact in a complex political process. Debates over parking policy, it turns out, are rarely just about parking.
In her thesis, Cara Ferrentino (MCP ’13) took a close look at the formation of parking policy in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She shows how three distinct groups—the “growth coalition”, “limited growth” advocates, and “smart growth” bureaucrats—have nudged the city into adopting and reforming policies regarding parking supply.
Cambridge was forced to confront parking in the 1970s, when EPA regulations enforced a mandatory parking freeze on the city’s non-residential parking supply to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act. But, driven by concerns over the freeze’s impact on Cambridge’s commercial growth, the city lifted the freeze in 1997 and adopted instead a variety of demand-side approaches to managing parking supply. Today, Cambridge uses a number of incentives to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. These are often implemented in cooperation with the city’s major employers.
Cara evaluates the success of these efforts and finds that, while many employers have taken steps to encourage alternative transportation, the city nonetheless builds more non-residential parking than it uses. She notes that the city will need to rethink both the supply side and the demand side of parking policy in the near future if it is going to provide just the right amount of parking in all the right places. Read more about the past, present, and future of parking policy in Cambridge in Cara’s thesis.
Nicknamed the “Emerald City” for its lush evergreen forests, Seattle has a reputation as a forward-thinking and environmentally-minded city. However, even in the progressive Pacific Northwest, powerful institutional barriers can materialize to oppose environmental planning efforts. Kim Foltz (MCP ’10) tells the story of Seattle’s decades-long flirtation with interurban rail and reveals the great difficulty with which progress has been made.
Transportation planning is one of the most intractable problems in sustainability. Transport systems are incredibly complex and deal with multiple and diverse barriers in the realms of finance, logistics, and politics. Also, because they often depend on special tax increases, large transit projects are generally subject to voter approval. Beginning in the mid-1990s, transportation planners in the Seattle area tried to establish public support for a light rail system through the electoral process. Transit advocates have made incremental electoral gains over the years–most recently in 2008–but as Kim shows, these victories have been hard-won and reflect the resistance that planners face in securing public mandates for ambitious projects.
Kim demonstrates the vulnerabilities that transit planners were subject to in the political process. Politically savvy rail opponents were initially able to hijack the public conversation by framing the region’s transportation problem solely as one of congestion, favoring new road-building campaigns and ignoring mass transit’s environmental benefits. Additionally, the need for public support throughout a three-county area led to competition among the various cities involved in the interurban rail project. These problems were exacerbated by what was originally a poor public outreach campaign on the part of the transit agency, and have resulted at several points in watered-down plans and concessions to political opponents. While transit advocates were eventually able to build support for a rail system in the Seattle area, the political process that led to their ultimate victory was exhausting and time-consuming.
In her thesis, Kim weighs the benefits and drawbacks of making planning decisions through the ballot box. Read more here, or engage in a discussion about the public’s role in planning on EPP’s Facebook group.