3. public involvement process - alamo area mpo · 3. public involvement process accomplishments...

MOBILITY 2040 3 - 1 Adopted on December 8, 2014

3. Public Involvement Process

Accomplishments over the Past Five Years

The Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) continues to have a strong public participation program by taking advantage of new technologies and opportunities. The MPO continues its Walkable Community Program with workshops, safety classes, bike rodeos and bicycle helmet distribution; in-house development of English and Spanish language videos and public service announcements as well as English and Spanish language brochures; the MPO continues to publish its bi-weekly e-newsletter “Fast Track” and also continues to translate its quarterly newsletter to Spanish. The MPO also maintains a Facebook page, uses Twitter, and continually enhances its website. All committee (Transportation Policy Board, Technical Advisory Committee, Bicycle Mobility Advisory Committee and Pedestrian Mobility Advisory Committee) meeting materials are posted on the website one week prior to the meetings and are open to the public..

The MPO updated its Public Participation Plan and developed a Limited English

Proficiency Plan which was adopted by the Transportation Policy Board in December 2012. The MPO hosts a monthly regional Public Information Officers meeting where information is shared and events are cross-promoted. The MPO also participates several times a month in other organizations’ activities such as health fairs, Earth Day, Solar Fest and other events.

The MPO also conducts outreach to school age children through the annual GIS Day

event. Other newly developed outreach methods are V! News which is a monthly video presentation of upcoming events and activities throughout the month and “MPO Kids”, a series of informational comic strips, developed in-house, on air quality, safety, bicycling, walking, and riding the bus. Each comic strip includes a crossword and word search puzzle.

MPO staff also initiated a program of visiting senior centers, particularly those in

environmental justice areas, and making presentations in English and Spanish as needed. Staff also developed an “MPO Loteria” game to familiarize seniors with transportation topics and services.

Lastly the MPO completed successful public outreach efforts in the development of the FY 2015-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and this update of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) in the recently expanded MPO study area


Background

The MPO’s mission is to provide a continuous, comprehensive and coordinated (“3-C”) regional transportation planning process for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods consistent with the community’s overall economic, social and environmental goals.

The MPO believes in the proactive involvement of citizens, affected public agencies,

representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation, and other interested parties in the development and updates of the MTP. Effective public involvement is integrated throughout the entire process. A proactive approach to an effective public involvement process requires several elements:

Early, continuous, and meaningful public involvement; Reasonable public access to technical planning information; Collaborative input on transportation alternatives, evaluation criteria and

mitigation needs; Transportation planning meetings that are open to the public; and Access to the planning and decision-making process prior to closure.

Environmental Justice

In 1994 Executive Order No. 12898: Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations was issued. Executive Order 12898 expands on the Title VI Civil Rights Legislation and promotes nondiscrimination in federal programs that substantially affect human health and the environment. In addition, the order provides minority and low-income communities access to public information and opportunity for public participation in related matters. All programs that receive funding from federal agencies require Environmental Justice consideration in accordance with federal law.

More specifically, Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws. “Fair Treatment” includes policies and practices that ensure that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups bear disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects resulting from federal agency programs, policies, and activities. Environmental Justice seeks to:

Avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionally high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations.


Ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the

transportation decision-making process.

Prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations.

In addition to the definition above, the United States Department of Transportation

(DOT) issued specific guidelines to MPOs regarding Environmental Justice. MPOs are to:

Explore needs within minority communities Involve minority communities and disabled persons in the transportation planning

process Include minorities/disabled persons on boards and committees in leadership

roles Document Title VI efforts Advertise public meetings in places where minorities/disabled persons go Hold meetings at times and places convenient for the minority community Communicate in languages other than English Consider special needs in public accommodations Follow up with the minority community after public meetings, when decisions are

made and after project implementation

The MPO adheres to the DOT guidelines by conducting specific outreach in underserved communities by hosting public meetings in strategic locations, taking into account available transit service, translating information into Spanish, including minorities/disabled persons on committees, advertising public meetings and information in a variety of print media and documenting all efforts. Traffic Congestion and Safety Workshops

Prior to the formal start of the MTP development process, MPO staff conducted a Traffic Congestion and Safety Workshop in Bexar County in September 2012. A similar meeting had been conducted in September 2006, prior to the beginning of the 2035 MTP Update. In June 2014, after the MPO boundary had expanded MPO staff held similar Traffic Congestion and Safety Workshops in Boerne, New Braunfels and Seguin. The results were compiled into a single map for the region and posted on the MPO’s website.


MTP Public Involvement

For the development of the MTP, in order to thoroughly engage the public and gather input, the MPO hosted three formal rounds of public meetings throughout the region. Opportunities to participate online were also available through the MPO website at www.alamoareampo.org and through the MTP website at www.mobility2040.org. Meeting participants were asked to provide input on:

Phase 1: the regional vision statement and goals Phase 2: the three population and employment growth scenarios for the region Phase 3: transportation projects to be included in the Plan and the Plan

document

Phase I: Regional Vision and Goals

Public workshops were held to kick-off the MTP development process, obtain feedback on the draft vision and on priorities related to specific transportation issues for the region, and provide opportunities for the public to get involved in the process. From September 23, 2013 through October 3, 2013, eight public workshops were held – five in Bexar County and one meeting in Comal, Guadalupe and Kendall counties.

The locations and times of the meetings were selected to allow meaningful coverage of the study area and ensure that no individual was more than 25 miles from a meeting location. The study team was also careful to identify locations that were ADA accessible with good access to transit, where available. Following is a list of the meeting locations, dates, and times.

Northeast Public Meeting Monday, September 23, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Woodlake Hills Middle School, 6625 Woodlake Pkwy, San Antonio

Northwest Public Meeting Tuesday, September 24, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Leon Valley Community Center, 6421 Evers Rd., Leon Valley

Southwest Public Meeting Wednesday, September 25, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Indian Creek Elementary School, 5830 Old Pearsall Rd., San Antonio

Southeast Meeting Thursday, September 26, 2013, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Highland Hills Elementary School, 734 Glamis, San Antonio

Central Public Meeting Saturday, September 28, 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. VIA Community Room, 1021 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio


Seguin Public Meeting

Tuesday, October 1, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Guadalupe County Coliseum, 950 S. Austin St., Seguin

New Braunfels Public Meeting Wednesday, October 2, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. New Braunfels Civic Center, 375 S. Castell Ave., New Braunfels

Boerne Public Meeting Thursday, October 3, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Boerne Civic Center, 820 Adler Rd., Boerne

The map in Figure 3.1 shows the graphic distribution of the meeting locations

and the attendees based on mappable addresses from the meeting sign-in sheets.

Figure 3.1 MTP Meeting Attendance: September 23, 2013 – October 3, 2013


These meetings were a combination of presentation and facilitated small group discussion. Participants were assigned to tables of 8-10 persons. A volunteer facilitator, who was part of the study team or oversight committee and attended a facilitators' training session, was assigned to each of the groups. The meeting began with an overview presentation of the MPO’s planning process in general and Mobility 2040, the long-range transportation plan and the focus of the meetings, in particular.

Attendees were asked to respond to a series of questions about the information in

the presentation such as: what was your reaction to the presentation? and what words or phrases stood out for you in the presentation?

Next, a room-wide poll of 23 land use/transportation issues was conducted using polling devices and the results were projected onto a screen. Participants were asked to consider the issues and then use the polling device to indicate whether the issue was a high priority, low priority, or not a priority for them and their community. Following are the issues participants were asked to respond to:

Public transportation for those with special needs Passenger rail within a city Passenger rail between cities Rural public transportation Transportation needs of people who are dependent on transit Bike sharing (B-Cycle) Bicycle facility connectivity Carpooling Coordinated traffic signals Neighborhood connectivity Pavement/roadway condition Additional lanes on highways and roadways Managed lanes (ex. high occupancy vehicle, high occupancy toll, transit priority

lanes) Complete Streets, or streets that accommodate all modes Relationship between economic development and transportation Transportation needs of an aging population Encouraging growth downtown Relationship between how land is developed and the transportation system Implementation of improvements that enhance safety Managing growth in undeveloped areas Additional funding for transportation Sidewalk connectivity


Then the participants were asked to look at individual and group priorities and consider why some were and some were not priorities for the area.

Finally, participants were asked to review and discuss the draft goals for the MTP

and help develop action steps for accomplishing their favorite goals. Each group was asked to appoint a spokesperson who briefly reported out the results of their discussion with an emphasis on the top three issues or themes discussed by their group.

The first round of public involvement is thoroughly documented in the Public

Workshop Report: Round 1 on file at the MPO office. Phase II: How will we grow as a region?

From February 25, 2014 through March 6, 2014, the MPO conducted six public workshops at various locations around the study area. The purpose of these workshops was to get input and feedback for the Mobility 2040: Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Speci-fically, members of the public were asked to comment on the three growth and employment scenarios. These meetings were held in conjunction with the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) meetings in order to enhance participation in the transportation planning process and to reduce the number of transportation-related meetings the public was asked to attend.

The locations and times of the meetings were selected to allow meaningful coverage of the study area. The study team was also careful to identify locations that were ADA accessible with good access to transit, where available. Following is a list of the meeting locations, dates, and times.

Northwest Bexar County Public Meeting Tuesday, February 25, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Leon Valley Community Center, 6421 Evers Rd., Leon Valley

New Braunfels and Comal County Public Meeting Wednesday, February 26, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. New Braunfels Civic Center, 375 S. Castell Ave., New Braunfels


Northeast Bexar County Public Meeting Thursday, February 27, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Woodlake Hills Middle School, 6625 Woodlake Pkwy, San Antonio

Seguin and Guadalupe County Public Meeting Monday, March 3, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Guadalupe County Coliseum, 950 S. Austin St., Seguin

Boerne and Kendall County Public Meeting Wednesday, March 5, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Boerne Civic Center, 820 Adler Rd., Boerne

South Central Bexar County Public Meeting Thursday, March 6, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Harlandale Civic Center, 115 W. Southcross Blvd., San Antonio

The map in Figure 3.2 shows the graphic distribution of the meeting locations

and the attendees based on mappable addresses from the meeting sign-in sheets. Figure 3.2 MTP Meeting Attendance: February 5, 2014 – March 6, 2014


These meetings consisted of a presentation on the process for the TIP and the MTP followed by the opportunity to ask clarifying questions in their table group. During the MTP part of the presentation, participants learned about the three scenarios for population and employment growth that were being considered.

The scenarios are documented in Chapter 2 Scenario Planning. In summary the

three scenarios are defined as follows: Scenario 1: Demographic growth trend over the past 15 years Scenario 2: Demographic growth trend over the past 5 years Scenario 3: Demographic growth that occurs in selected activity centers and

corridors

After the presentation, participants had the opportunity to ask questions of a table facilitator and get clarification as needed. Once their questions were answered, participants were asked to complete a form where they would indicate their opinion about the scenarios and give feedback on the information presented. Exhibits of the scenarios were posted for participants to look at and staff and consultants were available to answer any questions.

The format of the meeting was designed to allow maximum flexibility of participation because it was assumed that some participants would attend solely to indicate their preferences on the TIP. They had the flexibility to indicate their TIP priorities as well as their MTP preferences, if they chose to do so.

Participants were asked to indicate their thoughts about which of the scenarios:

was the best for the region concerned them the most, they would like to see move forward; and was the most implementable.

Which scenario do you think is best for the region?

Overall, Scenario 1 was seen as the best for the region. It was preferred slightly over Scenario 2. Scenario 3 came in third.

In Bexar County, Scenario 3 was preferred with Scenario 2 coming in second and Scenario 1 in third place.

In Comal County, Scenario 2 was preferred, with Scenario 1 slightly ahead of Scenario 3.

Guadalupe County participants also favored Scenario 2, although the preference for Scenario 2 above both Scenarios 1 and 3 was significantly more than in the other counties.


Kendall County showed a clear preference for Scenario 1 with Scenario 2 in second place and Scenario 3 in third place. Kendall County also had a significant number of “None” responses,” indicating they did not like any of the scenarios.

With which scenario do you have the most concerns?

Overall, the scenario that was the most concerning was Scenario 3 (120), followed by Scenario 1 (80), then Scenario 2 (20). Less than 20 respondents did not have a concern with any of the scenarios. Only in Guadalupe County did more people indicate a concern with Scenario 1 than with Scenario 3.

Which scenario would you like to see move forward?

Although Scenario 1 was seen as the best for the region by more respondents, Scenario 2 was identified as the one participants would like to see move forward by a slight margin (8). This was true in all the counties except Kendall County whose participants clearly preferred Scenario 1 (40) while Scenarios 2 and 3 received almost the same number of preferences (20). Bexar and Guadalupe Counties preferred Scenario 2 and then Scenario 3. Comal County participants preferred that Scenario 2 move forward followed by Scenario 1.

Which do you think is the most implementable?

Scenario 1 was seen as the most implementable (100), followed closely by Scenario 2 (98). Scenario 3 received the least amount of “votes” (30) in Bexar, Comal and Kendall Counties. In Guadalupe County, Scenario 3 received essentially the same preference as Scenario 1. Table 3.1 shows the results of the public meetings by county.

Table 3.1 Public Meeting Results by County Best scenario for

the region Scenario that

concerns you the most

Scenario to move forward

with

Scenario most likely to be

implemented

MPO selected Scenario

Bexar Activity Centers/Corridors

Activity Centers/Corridors

5 year trend 5 year trend 5 year trend

Comal 5 year trend Activity Centers/Corridors


Guadalupe 5 year trend 15 year trend 5 year trend 5 year trend 5 year trend

Kendall 15 year trend Activity Centers/Corridors


The second round of public involvement is thoroughly documented in the MTP Round 2 Public meeting Report Public Workshop Report: on file at the MPO office.


Phase III: Prioritizing Projects

From October 1, 2014 through October 15, 2014, the MPO conducted six public workshops at various locations around the study area. The purpose of these workshops was to get input and feedback on the draft Mobility 2040: Metropolitan Transportation Plan document and the region’s project priorities.

The locations and times of the meetings were selected to allow meaningful coverage

of the study area. The study team was also careful to identify locations that were ADA accessible with good access to transit, where available. Following is a list of the meeting locations, dates, and times.

Boerne and Kendall County Public Meeting

Wednesday, October 1, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Boerne Civic Center, 820 Adler Rd., Boerne

New Braunfels and Comal County Public Meeting Thursday, October 2, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. New Braunfels Civic Center, 375 S. Castell Ave., New Braunfels

Northeast Bexar County Public Meeting Monday, October 6, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Woodlake Hills Middle School, 6625 Woodlake Pkwy, San Antonio

South Central Bexar County Public Meeting Thursday, October 9, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Harlandale Civic Center, 115 W. Southcross Blvd., San Antonio

Seguin and Guadalupe County Public Meeting Monday, October 13, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Guadalupe County Coliseum, 950 S. Austin St., Seguin

Northwest Bexar County Public Meeting Wednesday, October 15, 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Leon Valley Community Center, 6421 Evers Rd., Leon Valley

These meetings consisted of a presentation on the MTP development process to date including an MPO overview, vision and goals, growth scenario development, and the objectives for this third round of public meetings.

After the presentation, participants had the opportunity to ask questions and once their questions were answered, participants were asked to review the display boards and maps and complete a form prioritizing the five most important from a list of 50 priority projects for the region. At the exhibits, agency staff and consultants were available to answer any detailed questions.

An online “virtual meeting” was available to persons interested in the process but not

able to attend any of the public meetings in person. The presentation was narrated, the display board information was available and participants could complete an online survey prioritizing their top five projects for the region.


The map in Figure 3.3 shows the graphic distribution of the meeting locations and the attendees based on mappable addresses from the meeting sign-in sheets

The third round of public involvement is thoroughly documented in the MTP Round 3

Public meeting Report Public Workshop Report: on file at the MPO office. The results of the third round of public meetings, along with agency priorities, was

used to develop the list of transportation projects included in the MTP. The project list is provided in Chapter 11 Financial Information.

Figure 3.3

3. public involvement process - alamo area mpo · 3. public involvement process accomplishments...

Documents