Kristen’s article in the December 2009 American Planning Association’s Planning Magazine is part of the Dillingham Comprehensive Plan! She’s excited that someone actually read it and found it helpful!
Sarah presented on the legal framework of environmental justice analysis. You can watch Sarah’s portion of the presentation here:
The Present
Brandy presented on the current state of TxDOT guidance. One very interesting portion of her talk was a list of major elements of environmental justice analysis. Brandy asked a series of questions that I’ve outlined below.
Major Elements of Environmental Justice Analysis
1. Users and Options
Who is using the facility?
What are their choices?
How do you figure out who is using the facility?
Are there free, parallel access roads?
What are the non-toll routes?
2. Accessibility, Policies and Collection Methods
Where is the excess toll revenue going?
What kind of projects are being funding with the toll revenue?
How easy is it to get a toll tag?
Does a toll tag require a credit card?
What are the payment options other than a toll tag?
How far do people have to go to get a tag?
What are the payment choices?
How much more does it cost if users don’t have a toll tag?
3. Economic Analysis
Today, TxDOT uses a simple reasonable scenario analysis to determine economic impact.
How often is someone likely to use the facility?
How many times per year?
How much would a reasonable scenario cost (i.e. likely times to use the facility x number of times per year)?
What percentage of income would the reasonable scenario be for a person of low-income versus a person of medium income?
You can watch Brandy’s portion of the presentation here:
The Future
Finally, Jolanda presented her research on the Appraisal of Available Analytical Tools To Assess Environmental Justice Impacts of Toll Road Projects. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Texas is a leader in analysis of potential environmental justice concerns followed closely by Washington DOT. Learn more about the methods used by the different states in Jolanda’s portion of the presentation here:
Does your company block YouTube? If so, check out the PowerPoint of the presentation here.
Last fall, we sat down with Edd Manges, Environmental Planning
Department Manager, to talk NEPA, data gathering, the Census web site,
and Cubit.
Edd’s Project:
Tier 1 EIS Project studying a Toll Facility
3 geographic study areas
38 corridor sections with 31 alternatives
Edd’s Role:
Task Manager for the Tier 1 EIS
Had to complete the Socio-Economic analysis
Edd’s Problem:
Edd had a major data-gathering problem: “finding the socio-ec
data is easy enough, extracting it is the hard part.” How did
he normally do it? “I’d visit the Census web site, then
manually dumped the data into a spreadsheet. It takes days and days of
work. Plus, the census limits you in how much data you can pull at one
time.” For this project, Edd was looking at 38 corridor
sections with 31 alternatives. That’s a lot of data.
“The Census site has become a little easier to use over the
last couple of years. But even your GIS people sometimes have a hard
time.”
Edd’s Solution:
Edd used Cubit’s Socio-Economic report. “Your Socio-Ec
Data Report is amazing. As a long time environmental professional this
tool will save hours of work and effort. The report format is precise,
concise and usable as generated. There’s nothing missing, from
a NEPA perspective.”
On FHWA’s Re:NEPA, there’s a survey based on a long discussion entitled NEPA: 50% faster? The purpose of the survey to identify 2 or 3 big issues that consistently result in frustration and/or delay in the NEPA process. With this information, the Re:NEPA community can then brainstorm ways to address these big issues.
Over 50 people have already responded to the Sources of Delay and Frustration Survey. So far, the 2 issues that are “in the lead” are:
* Changes in project scope or unclear project scope
* Increased documentation levels (i.e. EAs now EIS size)
If you’ve already completed the survey, please email the link above to people whose input should be included. I’ll be sure and post more detailed survey results in the near future.
The Housing and Regional Economic Report now has more recent housing data from the American Community Survey 2006-2008. This report also has Building Permit data. Check out the revised Housing and Regional Economic Report Sample.
Leave me a comment about what other data should be included in this report.
Check out the Twitter @ TAEP2010 video on YouTube. Anthony and I had a great time showing Twitter off to environmental professionals.
At the conference, the majority of people who we talked to had heard of Twitter, but less than 5% knew what Twitter was. Most people thought Twitter was the same as Facebook. So if you’re not sure what Twitter is, you are not alone. If you want to learn more about Twitter, check out the blog post “Why Planners Should Use Twitter.”
My favorite Twitter moment of the TAEP conference was when my new friend Bill sent out a tweet on my account (@cubitplanning). Within minutes of his tweet, one of my followers asked him question in response. So I got to chase Bill down and bring him back to the Twitter table to reply. It was a perfect demonstration of how Twitter results in conversations. I wish I could claim that I planned it!
On the board behind our Twitter table, we provided 3 reasons why environmental professionals should use Twitter. While there are many great reasons to tweet, here are the 3 reasons that we focused on:
1. Meet People
2. Find/Fill Jobs
3. 2 Volunteers to Help You Get Started
So a big thank you goes out to the TAEP Conference Planning Committee, especially Leslie Yoo of Perennial Environmental (@lyoo5) and Shannon Tyrell of ALS Laboratory Group. Thanks to Ryan Link of Michael Baker (@Ryan_Link), who had the original idea for a volunteer Twitter table at conferences. And a huge thank you to all of the curious environmental professionals who let Anthony and I share our passion for Twitter and using social media for business last Thursday.
–
So are we crazy for using Twitter as part of our business marketing? Or are you an environmental professional and have questions about Twitter? You should leave me a comment below.
I find myself googling for this data once a month or so. I just can’t seem to remember where to find it on the Federal Highway Administration’s website. Below are states by total 2008 lane miles–which is the most recent dataset available today and is dated October 2009.
When planners need demographic data, they often turn to the US Census. But Census 2000 data is now horribly outdated. Even when Census data is up-to-date, there are potential inaccuracies as highlighted by Justin Wolfers in his New York Times post “Can You Trust Census Data.” When having accurate demographic data is vital to the success of a project, planners should consider using a Community Social Assessment (CSA).
What is a Community Social Assessment (CSA)?
A community social assessment is a self-completion survey that measures a geographically-defined community’s demographics, the relationships within the community and the opinions about current neighborhood conditions and future roposed projects. Some people refer to CSAs as social assessments, community impact assessments and several other names; while to others, a community impact assessment is another thing entirely. I’m focusing on the survey tool only in this blog post.
For example: Dr. Richard Krannich from Rocky Mountain Social Science recently used a CSA in an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Utah Department of Transportation’s Geneva Road project. Krannich’s CSA asked dozens of questions about issues such as resident and household characteristics, neighborhood social integration and cohesion, resident use of the project corridor, resident opinions about traffic and road conditions and about action alternatives.
Now I can hear you thinking–”What a waste of time. No one would respond to a self-completion survey for a new road.” But Dr. Krannich was able to achieve a nearly 80% response rate. I’ll tell you how he did it below.
But first, when would I use a CSA?
If you have time and money in a project’s budget, a CSA can provide more current and thorough social data. This data could prove invaluable for projects that are likely to have environmental justice or community cohesion impacts. In an article for the American Behavioral Scientist Journal, Krannich stated that community studies may be better predictors than socio-economic data for obtaining what people think about their environment.
How do I conduct a CSA and get people to respond?
Step 1: With your project area in mind, write a questionnaire that can measure the community cohesion, public opinion and the social impact of your project. Some interesting questions from Krannich’s CSA include:
Are you likely to move in the next two years?
How sorry would you be if you had to move away?
How many personal friends live within 2-3 blocks?
How often do you socialize on the other side of the road?
Step 2: Mail the questionnaire to either all people in your area of interest (if it’s small) or to a random sample (if it’s large). Local appraisal districts are an excellent source of name and address information for residents in a project area. Include a self-addressed, pre-paid postage envelope for responses.
Step 3: Keep track of the questionnaires that are mailed back to you. For those questionnaires that are not returned to you, follow up with multiple callback attempts. Appraisal districts may have telephone numbers of residents. If they don’t, try looking up phone numbers via a reverse phone book like WhitePages.com. A reverse phone book allows you to enter an address, and it will provide a phone number.
Step 4: And for the residents that you can’t reach via mail and phone calls, consider a field visit to knock on doors and speak with them in person.
You can save money and time by using low cost touch methods (i.e. mail) first and then following up with only the residents that don’t respond with high cost touch methods (i.e. a personal visit).
What results can I expect when I conduct a CSA?
This process can give planners access to information that they could not find in Census data, such as how much a community is physically active. For example, Krannich’s CSA included questions like: “How often do you get out to walk, jog, or bicycle?” and “Do your children walk or bike to school?”
Also, obtaining more accurate data is possible with a CSA. For example, in Krannich’s case, the project area’s Census 2000 data reports that 10.1% of the population is Hispanic, whereas their 2007 CSA survey reports that 13.6% of the residents are Hispanic. Granted in this case, there is not a huge difference between 10.1% Hispanic and 13.6% Hispanic. But some regions in the United States have seen large demographic shifts in the past decade years (see “Diversity Spreads Out: Metropolitan Shifts in Hispanic, Asian, and Black Populations Since 2000“)
Where can I get more information on conducting CSAs?
The Social Assessment and Social Impact Assessment page on HD.gov has some good links to guidance documents for conducting CSAs or social assessments. I think the best place to go to get more information is to read actual CSAs and see how planners used this tool for real projects. Here are two examples of projects that used CSAs:
Geneva Road EIS – This project studies proposed improvements to two major roadways, Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street in Utah.
Tortugas Ecological Reserve – To protect the reef from further degradation, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary oversaw a three-year collaborative process, dubbed “Tortugas 2000.” Sanctuary advisory members, stakeholders, and government agency members were represented throughout the process. “Tortugas 2000″ resulted in the implementation of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, a fully protected marine reserve within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
Your Thoughts?
Have you worked on or reviewed projects that used CSAs? If so, leave me a comment below. Was it a helpful tool? If possible, please link to your project for others to review.
So for now, the 2009 poverty guidelines will remain in effect until at least March 1, 2010. The 2009 guidelines are as follows.
2009 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family
Poverty guideline
1
$10,830
2
14,570
3
18,310
4
22,050
5
25,790
6
29,530
7
33,270
8
37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for
each additional person.
2009 Poverty Guidelines for
Alaska
Persons in family
Poverty guideline
1
$13,530
2
18,210
3
22,890
4
27,570
5
32,250
6
36,930
7
41,610
8
46,290
For families with more than 8 persons, add $4,680 for
each additional person.
2009 Poverty Guidelines for
Hawaii
Persons in family
Poverty guideline
1
$12,460
2
16,760
3
21,060
4
25,360
5
29,660
6
33,960
7
38,260
8
42,560
For families with more than 8 persons, add $4,300 for
each additional person.
SOURCE:Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 14, January 23,
2009, pp. 4199–4201
NOTE: The poverty guideline figures above are NOT the figures the Census Bureau uses to calculate the number of poor persons. The figures that the Census Bureau uses are the poverty thresholds.
The article does an amazing job to telling the story of how Cubit got started. It also hits the nail on the head describing Anthony as a “software whiz.”
However, Cubit operates in a niche market. Sometimes, the details of our niche market get a little fuzzy to people on the outside. So there are a few details that we wanted to clarify from the article.
Detail 1. “Carney said her software allows planners, like herself, to simply draw a line on a map and immediately access all the pertinent environmental impact data…” Cubit doesn’t provide ALL pertinent environmental data today. We’re working on it, but today, Cubit provides socio-economic, housing, regional economic and biological data.
Detail 2. “get [Cubit] in front of the environmental engineers, policy makers and college students that comprise her target audience.” College students aren’t a part of Cubit’s target audience. Our customers are environmental engineering firms, government agencies and planning firms.
Detail 3. “The short term is very negative for our outlook.” Hmmm…the short term is POSITIVE for Cubit. In 2008, there were 66,000 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reports commissioned, and the Obama Administration has pledged $1.5 billion in grants for new federal infrastructure projects. Cubit’s goal is to get to “Ramen-profitability” in the current economic situation.
All in all, it was a great article. We saw a 700% increase in web traffic the day the article appeared on Reuters. So a big thank you to Jon and Reuters!