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
is an incre a s i n g l y
i m p o rtant element of policy making in transportation. It is not specific
to any mode of transportation, particular community, or single policy
issue. It is fundamentally about fairness toward the disadvantaged and
often addresses the exclusion of racial and ethnic minorities fro m
decision making. The federal government has identified enviro n m e n t a l
justice as an important goal in transportation, and local and regional
g o v e rnments must incorporate environmental justice into transport a t i o n
p rograms. Because ideas about justice differ between communities,
local and regional governments have flexibility in how they change
their policies to reflect environmental justice. Communities and local
g o v e rnments struggle to balance competing interests and interpre t a t i o n s
of environmental justice.
To parents living in a neighborhood with a lot of bus service,
e n v i ronmental justice might mean converting buses from diesel
to natural gas, reducing their childre n ’ s exposure to air pollution.
A security guard working the night shift might feel that enviro n m e n t a l
justice has been served if the bus she takes deviates from its regular
route to drop her off closer to home. Environmental justice to a non-
English speaking neighborhood might mean having bilingual staff and
community leaders running a public meeting. To low- income workers
relying on bus service in a large downtown, environmental justice
might mean that a city increases the frequency of buses instead of
building a new light rail line that would serve upper- income c o m-muters.
In short, there is no single definition of environmental justice:
its meaning depends on context, perspective and timeframe.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I N T RODUCTION 1
THE GOAL OF ENVIRO N M E N TAL JUSTICE 3
IMPLEMENTING AN ENVIRO N M E N TAL JUSTICE POLICY 8
I N VO LVING EVERYO NE 18
C O N C L U S I O N S 2 5
Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s i t y o f Ca l i fo r n i a Be r ke l e y
1
THE GOAL OF
E N V I RO N M E N TA L
J U S T I C E
State and local transportation
agencies have a legal obligation to
p revent discrimination and to pro t e c t
the environment through their plans
and programs. The details of these
obligations are discussed in the box
titled “ Legal History” on page 4.
Although this requirement is non-negotiable,
agencies can decide how they
want to promote environmental justice.
Irrespective of how agencies promote
environmental justice, the fundamental
goal is to foster a more just and equitable
s o c i e t y. This goal is based on our civil
rights laws. Still, exactly what justice and
equity mean and how they are achieved
is the subject of much debate.
The following approaches to
managing benefits and burdens off e r
examples of how some people and
agencies work toward enviro n m e n t a l
justice. These examples focus on how
the benefits are spread among people,
but an equally important concern is
how burdens are distributed. Frequently
e n c o u n t e red burdens from transport a t i o n
a re air pollution, noise, vibrations,
c r a s h - related injuries and fatalities,
dislocation of residents, and division
of communities.
Equi ty Wi thin
Tr a n s p o rtat ion Pro g r a m s
Individuals and agencies often don’t
have a single policy for reaching a just
and equitable society. Instead, how this
goal is reached depends on the situation
at hand. In the case of transportation,
one approach to environmental justice
might be to promote equity within spe-cific
transportation programs. Providing
the same amount of the same service to
each person could accomplish this. An
example is supplying transit service to
everyone regardless of where they live,
where they need to travel, whether they
own a car, or whether they use transit.
This happens when people advocate
extending commuter rail service to an
outlying suburb in the transit district
based solely on the belief that everyone
in the district should have equal access
to the commuter rail service. Such a
policy treats everyone equally, but is
likely to produce an inefficient and
excessively expensive transportation
system.
Another way to promote equity
in transportation is to spend the same
amount of money per person on differ-ent
types of service according to needs
and preferences. A portion of funds
would be given to roads, a portion to
buses, and a portion to train service,
depending on how many people used
each. A transportation system of this
type responds to people’s diff e r i n g
needs and circumstances, but reinforces
current travel patterns, which limits
travel choice.
An attempt at equity within
t r a n s p o rtation also happens when
g o v e rnments– states, counties or
m u n i c i p a l i t i e s – receive back in trans-p
o rtation funds what their citizens
contributed in the form of taxes. This
is called “ re t u rn to source.” One
limitation of this approach is that when
applied to transportation alone, the
Environmental justice issues
arise most frequently when:
n Some communities get the benefits
of improved accessibility, faster trips,
and congestion re l i e f , while others
experience fewer benefits;
n Some communities suffer
d i s p ro p o rtionately f rom tra n s p o rt a t i o n
programs’negative impacts, like air
p o l l u t i o n ;
n Some communities have to pay
higher tra n s p o rtation taxe s or higher
fares than others in relation to the
services that they receive; or
n Some communities are less
re p resented than others when policy-making
bodies debate and decide what
should be done with transportation
resources.
Racial and ethnic minority groups,
low- income people, the elderly, and
people with disabilities have all been
the victims of environmental injustices
in transportation. Sometimes an affect-ed
community is primarily geographic,
consisting of those living in a particular
corridor or in a neighborhood near a
certain transportation facility. Or those
affected might share similar racial, eth-nic,
or economic characteristics. These
groups are often referred to as “ environ-mental
justice communities.” But
because power and needs change over
time and space, the term “ environmen-tal
justice communities” is problematic.
Environmental justice is used to protect
the needs of the powerless, whomever
they might be, and as they change.
Many community members are
becoming involved with transportation
decisions that impact their mobility
needs, health, and overall quality of life.
A member of the public concerned with
e n v i ronmental justice might be involved
with making transportation decisions as:
n A citizen appointed to an environ-mental
justice task force or committee;
n A member of a disempowered group,
representing the group’s interests to an
advisory committee for the purpose of
discussing and influencing transportation
policy choices;
n A member of an advocacy group active
in transportation issues;
n An employee of a non- profit agency
that wants to be involved because of the
effect that transportation policies have
on its constituents; or
n A resident or business owner affected
by a transportation decision.
Although there is no substitute for
the knowledge that can be gained over
time through experience, this handbook
will help those who are new to trans-p
o rtation decision processes influence
how environmental justice is incorpo-r
a t e d into decisions about transport a t i o n
policy and projects. Various approaches
to environmental justice are discussed,
along with steps in the planning process
when citizen involvement is particularly
effective, suggestions for how environ-mental
justice can be incorporated into
a project, and legal requirements for
environmental justice.
Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s it y o f Ca l i for n i a Be r ke l e y
2
E nv i ronmental Justice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n
3
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 fo 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.
Cl ar i 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.
Us ing 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.
n 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.
n 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 fo 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:
n Influencing who benefits from them;
n Influencing who bears the burdens
from them; and
n 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 rmanc e 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.
n Income tax Progressive
n Property tax
n Gas tax
n 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 v e r s i t y o f Ca l i fo 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
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
O B J E C T I V E I n p u t - O r i e n t e d O u t p u t - O r i e n t e d O u t c o m e - O r i e n t e d
M o b i l i t y Number of new lane- Ave r age peak period Work opportunities
miles built s p e e d within 45 minutes by
c a r, d o o r- t o - d o o r
A c c e s s i b i l i t y Number of fixed transit Pe rcent of the Pe rcent of transit-routes
in a city population who live dependent riders who
within 1/ 4 mile can access jobs within
of a fixed transit 45 minutes by fixe d
ro u t e route transit
E nv i ro n m e n t Pe rcent of vehicles C o n formity with the Asthma rates in
passing SMOG tests Clean Air A c t c o m munities adjacent
a c c o rding to measure s to large transport a t i o n
of certain pollutants f a c i l i t i e s
S a fe t y Number of guard rails Number of high crash Number of fatalities
installed locations improve d per million passenge r
m i l e s
p e rf o rmance measures. However, a good
analysis must be based on re l e v a n t
objectives and performance measures
( see chart above). Although it might
seem futile to develop performance
measures that can’t be evaluated now,
i t ’ s better to understand what the actual
data needs are and to request better
data from an agency in the future, than
to restrict an analysis to data that was
collected for other purposes. Useful
performance measures demonstrate
that a given transportation service is
available and whether it is successful
at meeting a real need like getting
people to work or enabling them to
pick up their children from school.
Sometimes, promoting enviro n -
m e n t a l justice may require introducing
new projects into a transportation plan
rather than evaluating existing plans
with an eye for environmental justice.
A disadvantaged community that lacks
transit, auto, bike or pedestrian infra-s
t ru c t u re may want to propose a pro j e c t
to increase its mobility. Metropolitan
Planning Organizations and transit
agencies have boards designed to
re p resent citizen intere s t s . The text box,
“ Being Heard,” on page 12, describes
the various agencies involved in trans-p
o rt a t i o n planning and how to get
involved in their activities.
SAMPLE OBJECTIVES AND
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
A d d re s sing Dive r se Ne eds
Keep in mind that circumstances
change, and a person cannot know
whether he or she will always be a car
d r i v e r, a paratransit rider or a pedestrian,
whether he or she will live in the city
or the suburbs, be rich or poor, seeing
or blind. Performance measures should
not be chosen to reflect the specific
condition of any particular group or
community member because trans-portation
projects serve a variety of
people, and their needs may change
over time.
The most useful performance
measures will guide the transportation
system toward meeting the needs of a
f o rever changing population rather than
toward the requirements of specific
g roups or areas. For example, if the
goal of the transportation policy is to
increase mobility of transit- dependent
people and their access to jobs, one
performance measure might be the
number of buses serving the inner city,
w h e re poor people, who are dispro p o r-tionately
transit- dependent, have
traditionally lived. However, changes
in land- use and in the economy have
led to entry- level jobs being scattered
throughout the region, and housing
patterns have changed so that an in-creasing
number of transit- dependent
people live in the suburbs. Because of
this, the number of buses serving the
inner city will not be a measure of transit-dependent
people’s mobility and their
access to jobs. A better performance
m e a s u re is the percent of transit-dependent
riders who can reach their
jobs within 45 minutes. This applies
equally to people who live in the inner
city and commute to jobs in the
suburbs and to those transit- dependent
people who live in the suburbs and
commute to jobs in the suburbs. Note
that this perf o rmance measure has
nothing to do with the race, income or
location of the transit- dependent riders;
rather it responds to the needs of a
population whose individual members
might change over time.
At times, people will be unhappy
when their project isn’t funded, or a
project with undesirable consequences
is built. However, with carefully chosen
p e rf o rmance measures, the same people
or groups should not be continually
unhappy with the outcome. If there are
repeated problems with individual
decisions, the performance measures
need to be re- evaluated.
Analyzing Data
After agreeing on the project’s
purpose, identifying objectives and
performance measures, and collecting
a p p ropriate data, the data can be
analyzed, but how? Checking for
e n v i ronmental justice re q u i res an exam-ination
of the distribution of benefits
and burdens over time, space, and
across various population groups. At
a regional level, some agencies have
looked for environmental justice prob-lems
by comparing the benefits ( such
as travel time saved or accessibility to
jobs) from a regional transportation
plan to the costs ( amount of taxes paid
by each income group) and by looking
at how the burdens ( such as deteriorat-ed
air quality and noise) are distributed
across income, ethnic, and age groups.
Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s i t y of Ca li fo r n i a B er ke l e y
10
E nv i ronmental Justice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n
11
BEING HEARD
KNOWTHE PLAYERS
In order to make sure community input is heard and is effective, members need to
know whom to talk with and when. Transportation planning is done by local, regional,
state and federal organizations, and there are several agencies at each of these levels.
Some agencies are responsible for transit projects, some for roadway projects, and some
oversee compre h e n s i ve plans involving all types of projects including bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. The best time to get involved in the transportation planning process is early, and
the best place to start is at the local level. Once a project is listed in a regional or state
plan, its course is set, and input is harder to incorporate. The same is true for introducing
a project into a plan: start with the local service provider. In order to find the responsible
agency for your concern, contact your state’s department of transportation or metro p o l i t a n
planning organization.
LOCAL AGENCIES
Cities and counties have planning and public works departments where
many decisions are made about road repair and maintenance, streetscape,
and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Quite often local politicians are on
the boards of these agencies, and a community’s voice can be amplified
through them.
TRANSIT PROVIDERS
The transit agencies that provide bus or rail service in local commu n i t i e s
for the most part control their own budgets and service decisions. On
transit matters, the first contact should be with the transit prov i d e r.
Transit providers have governing boards usually made up of local elected
officials who are either appointed by each mayor within a transit district,
or elected to their positions on the board. Contacting an elected official
not on the board is a way to have an impact on the board ’ s decisions— as
well as direct contact with the board members themselves.
REGIONAL AGENCIES OR METRO P O L I TA N
PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS ( MPOS)
These agencies have less to do with the planning or designing of
specific transportation projects than the organizations listed above
or than state transportation depart m e n t s . MPOs act as coord i n a t o r s
of the many agencies invo l ved in transportation planning. T h ey
create regional plans that follow federal guidelines for air quality
and serve as a check on agency budgets. Regional plans are a com-pilation
of projects from the local departments and transit prov i d e r s .
Planning at this level looks 25 years into the future. These agencies,
l i ke all of the others, h ave a formal public participation pro c e s s , a n d
c o m munity input is stro n g ly encouraged and ve ry import a n t .
Regional agencies have more to do with the overall process that
guides transportation planning and the distribution of funds among
agencies, modes and geography than they do with the planning of
specific projects. However, they do have a legal responsibility for
selecting the projects that go into the plans. To influence the overall
process and system of transportation planning, funding, and decision
making, it’s best to become involved in the public participation
process here.
S TATE DEPA RTMENTS OF T R A N S P O RTATION
Each state has a Department of Tr a n s p o rtation that is responsible fo r
c e rtain highways and ro a d s . P roblems with projects on those high-w
ays and roads should be brought to the attention of state officials.
THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The federal government owns and maintains very few roads, only
those on federal lands such as national parks and military bases. In
a ddition to these re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , the federal government funds many
other transportation pro j e c t s . T h e re fo re, federal re p re s e n t a t i ves such
as senators and members of congress can help address concerns
about these projects. However, the state or local agency that owns
the project should be contacted first.
Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s it y o f Ca l i fo r n ia Be r ke l e y
12
E nv i ronmental Justice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n
13
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 for n i a Be r ke 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 of Ca l i fo r n 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 of Ca l i fo r n 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
The following definitions are adapted from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
which is the metropolitan planning organization for the San Francisco Bay Area:
The REGIONAL T R A N S P O RTATION PLAN ( RT P )
is re q u i red by state and federal law and is a ro a d m ap to guide the re g i o n ' s
transportation development for a 25- year period. Updated every three
years to reflect changing conditions and new planning priorities, it is
based on projections of growth and travel demand coupled with
financial assumptions.
The federally required T R A N S P O RTATION IMPROV E M E N T
P ROGRAM ( TIP) is a comprehensive listing of all regional trans-portation
projects that receive federal funds or that are subject to a
federally required action, such as a review for impacts on air quality.
The metropolitan planning organization prepares and adopts the TIP
eve ry two ye a r s . By law, the TIP must cover at least a thre e - year period
and contain a priority list of projects grouped by year.
Transit, highway, local roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian investments are
included in the T I P. A p a rt from some improvements to the region's
a i r p o rt s , s e ap o rt s , and privately owned bus and rail facilities, all significant
transportation projects in the region are part of the TIP.
Federal legislation requires that both plans include only those projects
that the region can afford. Further, if a region is not in compliance with
air quality standards the plan must improve air quality.
In these activities, citizens
encounter a wide range of agency
attitudes and approaches to their
involvement. Agencies frequently
p rovide details on plans, projects and
the agency itself. Distributing informa-tion
is critical for educating the public
but it only allows a very basic level of
involvement. With information, com-munity
members can have a greater
impact when attending meetings and
voicing their opinions. The agency’s
timing, tone, and method of running
public meetings are crucial to making
the distribution of information a positive
step in public involvement. For example,
inviting the public to comment on a
plan or decision once all or most deci-sions
have been made is a misuse of
the process. In such a case, the agency
is fulfilling the legal requirement of
p a rticipation but is not genuinely seek-i
n g input; nor is it open to change.
Perhaps the greatest impact a per-son
can have is to be an active member
of a board or committee. In this way,
citizens share power with staff and
elected officials. Real power sharing
happens when citizens or groups of
citizens can vote on decisions, contro l
some amount of budget or funding,
and ensure that their decisions are
carried out. Whether this is the case
can depend on the agency and the
particular committee.
The key to successful involvement
is making participation meaningful.
Participation is meaningful when public
input could change a feature of the
project or plan, how the project is eval-uated,
or how decisions are being made.
Most meaningful involvement happens
at the beginning of the planning
process— when the objectives and per-formance
measures are chosen.
A community member’s ability to
influence decisions is more limited once
a project has become part of a plan.
However, there are still other chances
to influence a project in the later stages
of the planning process. Some of the
mandatory plans that play a big role in
the planning process are detailed in the
box titled “ Required Transportation
Plans” on the facing page.
Choos ing Alt e rnat ives and
the Envi ronme ntal Impac t
S t a t e m e n t
When a community identifies a
transportation need, the responsible
agency ( e. g. a city, county, or MPO) will
explore alternative ways of meeting that
need. This is frequently called a major
investment study ( MIS) or an alterna-tives
analysis. Major investment studies
are required by federal law to
“ consider the direct and indirect
costs of reasonable alternatives
and such factors as mobility
improvements; social, economic,
and environmental effects; safety;
operating efficiencies; land use
and economic development;
financing; and energy consump-tion.”
( 23 CFR 450.318)
REQUIRED T R A N S P O RTATION PLANS
Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i v e r s i t y o f Ca l i fo r n ia B er ke l e y
20
E nv i ronmental Just ice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n
21
MIS AND COST- BENEFIT A N A LYS I S
Brainstorming in public and committee meetings by members of the public, staff, and
consultants identifies the possible alternatives to address a transportation problem or
need. After options are identified there is a systematic method for comparing them—
called the cost- benefit analysis, which identifies all of the costs and benefits due to a
p roject and assigns monetary values to them. This allows analysts and decision make r s
to gauge whether the benefits from a project exceed its costs, and if the benefits
make the project worth undertaking. Although this may seem straightforward, it is
not. There are many opportunities for value judgments that can distort the process,
and there is much debate about how to quantify some types of benefits and costs.
Common criticisms of cost- benefit analyses are that:
n Costs ( construction, o p e ra t i o n , m a i n t e n a n c e, and the like ) , a l t h o u g h
generally easier to quantify than benefits ( shorter travel times,
improved safety, better air quality, and so on), are typically underes-timated,
especially in the long- term;
n Many costs and benefits are hard to quantify— for example, the
costs of noise that make sitting in the backyard unpleasant, or the
costs of speeding traffic that make it dangerous for children and
pets to be outside unsuperv i s e d , or the benefits of an improve m e n t
in neighborhood appearance— and are often left out of typical
cost- benefit analyses;
n In order to complete the analysis, decision makers have to agree
on how to quantify benefits ( such as travel time savings) and costs
( such as loss of life in traffic accidents);
n Even if overall benefits exceed overall costs, there are individuals or
groups impacted by the project for whom the costs will exceed the
benefits; and
n Cost- benefit analyses generally do not look at the distribution of
benefits and costs, which is a key issue in environmental justice.
E ven though the cost- benefit analysis takes place within a technical framewo r k ,
it is inherently political and can be influenced by people involved in the evalu-ation
of a project ( politicians, agency staff, or members of the general public).
I rrespective of the name given to
this step, it is a key opportunity for
public involvement because the impacts
of alternatives vary widely. More details
on how these decisions are made are
given in the text box, “ MIS and the Cost-
Benefit Analysis” on the facing page.
Here is an example of a trans-p
o rtation need and alternative solutions.
A freeway connecting two cities has
become congested, and the metro p o l i t a n
planning organization has identified
reducing congestion as a need that its
t r a n s p o rtation plan should addre s s .
A l t e rnatives to reduce congestion might
include turning one of the existing
lanes on the freeway into a carpool
lane, adding a general- use lane to the
f re e w a y, adding a carpool lane, incre a s i n g
express bus service on the freeway, or
building a rail line parallel to the fre e w a y.
Each of these alternatives will distribute
benefits and burdens differently, for a
given cost.
After choosing the locally preferred
alternative, how that alternative could
be built is explored in more detail. This
step examines things like where exactly
the project might be built, what tech-nology
is used ( e. g. bus, commuter rail,
or light rail), and what different designs
might look like. This is also the point
at which the environmental impacts of
these more specific alternatives are
examined. If an agency doesn’t believe
that the project will have significant
negative environmental impacts, it may
choose to produce an Environmental
Assessment. After the analysis, if the
effects are found to be significant, an
agency must prepare the more detailed
Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS).
Alternatively, if the impacts are not
significant, the agency can file a
Finding of No Significant Impact to
satisfy federal environmental require-ments.
The federal requirements of an
EIS are discussed in the text box titled,
“ The Environmental Impact Statement”
on page 24. However, some states’
re q u i rements are more stringent, such
as Californ i a ’ s under the state
Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA).
Questioning the accuracy and
validity of an MIS ( or equivalent) or an
EIS is one of the most powerful ways
for individuals and communities to
prevent projects from being built, to
achieve major changes in pro j e c t
design, or to receive compensation to
offset burdens from a project. When
the explicit re q u i rements of these studies
aren’t followed, federal funding can be
revoked— delaying or completely stop-ping
a project.
Compensation for project burdens
in each alternative of an EIS is called
mitigation. Mitigation may address
specific problems caused by a project,
such as paying to soundproof houses
near an a i r p o rt, or it may compensate
a commun i t y in a diff e rent way, such
as funding a health care clinic. Even
though these steps are taken to offset
certain impacts, they don’t negate the
fact that a community is being subjected
to them. Environmental justice re q u i re s
that specific neighborhoods, ethnic
groups, and demographic groups don’t
bear these burdens repeatedly, even if
mitigation measures are incorporated
in plans for a project.
Institute of Tr a n s p o rtation Studies U n i ve r s i t y of Ca li fo r n i a B er ke l e y
22
E nv i ronmental Justice & Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n
23
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 fo r n 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. NewYork: 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