table of contentswfmpo.com/uploads/plans/3/chapter_6_-_special_matters.pdf · and activities on...

CHAPTER SIX – SPECIAL MATTERS

i

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................1 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT................1

Low-Income Population ..........................................................1 Minority Population...............................................................2

Environmental Justice as a Distinct Analysis ....................................2 Environmental Justice: A Multi-Faceted Analysis ...............................2 Identifying EJ Populations ..........................................................4

Documenting Effort ...............................................................5 Assessing Adverse Impacts .........................................................5

Analysis.............................................................................6 Documentation ....................................................................6

Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation, and Enhancement .....................6 Coordination .......................................................................7 Documentation ....................................................................7

APPLICATION OF EJ TO WICHITA FALLS ..........................................7 Procedural Policy ....................................................................8

Goals and Objectives .............................................................8 Analysis Tools Used...............................................................9 Methodologies .....................................................................9 Data Sources..................................................................... 10

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT POLICY.......................................................10 Specific PIP Practices ............................................................. 12

Public Meetings and Hearings ................................................. 12 Public Review and Comment.................................................. 12 Public Appearances ............................................................. 12

REGIONAL BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN PLAN.........................................12 Elements for Consideration ...................................................... 13

An Environmental JusticeNeighborhood Street

It is wrong to immediately considerlow-income and minority

neighborhoods as unkempt and run-down. Many Environmental Justice

neighborhoods exhibit great pride andpositive sense of place.


1

INTRODUCTION

Since the previous Metropolitan Transportation Plan was adopted, the Wichita Falls Metropolitan Region has made progress in two areas of “special matters.” First, the region has been active in establishing protocols for dealing with Environmental Justice and Public Involvement. Second, the city has progressively worked toward completing a continuous loop trail around the city. Both of these special matters illustrate a region that seeks to improve the living and quality of life standards for its inhabitants.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Fiscal-Year 2005 Unified Planning Work Program includes sections that cover both Environmental Justice (EJ) and a Public Involvement Policy (PIP).

In the mid-1990s, transportation planning began a new direction in how project approval was conducted. Although the Federal Highway Administration had since 1987 abided to a policy of civil rights and a requirement of documentation, Executive Order 12898 by President Clinton in 1994 formalized the requirement to treat EJ as a unique matter. The Order specifies that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Since 1994, other documents have been written to clarify the Executive Order, but these documents underscore the importance of analysis.

For many people and planning agencies, the term Environmental Justice is difficult to understand and the sub-classifications are not self-explanatory. First Environmental Justice (EJ) is an effort to level the playing field of decision-making for those who otherwise would be disadvantaged either because of their socioeconomic status and/or racial background.

A common and incorrect notion is that barrier-free access to decision-making is guaranteed in a desegregated and democratic society. In fact, while access is a basic right, language and socioeconomics are barriers that prevent disadvantaged peoples from expressing their needs. Because they do not have the wealth, may not speak the language, and do not understand the culture, low-income and minority populations traditionally have felt they are restricted from participating. Because decision-makers who have the wealth, speak the language, and engage in the culture do not understand EJ needs, there is a gap of comprehension which often results in decisions that work for a large segment of society but fail EJ populations.

Environmental Justice populations are made up of two groups: Low-Income and Minority. Often, but not always, these two groups are coincidental; a low-income and minority population share boundaries. The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) has established definitions for both groups.

Low-Income Population “Any readily identifiable group of low income persons who live in geographic proximity and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient


2

persons (such as migrant workers) who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity.”

Minority Population

“Any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers) who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity.”

These DOT definitions are very similar and could easily overlap with each other.

Environmental Justice as a Distinct Analysis

As well as many people and agencies not understanding what EJ is, they do not understand how EJ differs from other policy areas such as Civil Rights. It is true that there are many similarities, but there are as many differences.

First, the EJ Order was not designed to stand alone, but to support and

broaden the Civil Rights (CR) Act. The CR Act is regressive, in that it restricts activity, while the EJ Order is progressive in that it requires activity. Further, there are three fundamental principles of EJ. The first is stated within the Order: to avoid. The second principle extends the first by saying that EJ ensures the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. The third principle joins and implements the first two principles by saying that EJ prevents denial of, reduction in, or significant delay of the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations. Table 6.1 on this page presents the major similarities and differences between the EJ Order and the CR Act.

Environmental Justice: A Multi-Faceted Analysis

Environmental Justice is a suite of activities and analysis. In all areas EJ includes conducting public outreach to ensure that concerns are effectively integrated into transportation decision-making. A cornerstone to public outreach is that it is early and continuous through the decision-making process. However, outreach cannot be driven by ulterior or insincere motives, as EJ populations have a history of being disadvantaged, and violation of trust could lead to mistrust of the decision-making process.

An important element of EJ is that it should not be done in a “cookie-cutter” format; each outreach program should be unique, in order to demonstrate an earnest desire to uphold the dignity of the EJ community and the decision-making process.

Conducting a public outreach program is not an independent

Table 6.1: Similarities of, and Differences Between, Environmental Justice and Civil Rights Legislation

Similarities Differences

1. Both address non-discrimination. 2. Both Identify minority populations. 3. Both are rooted in the constitutional

guarantee (14th Amendment) that all citizens are created equal and are entitled to equal protection.

4. Both address involvement of impacted citizens in the decision-making process through meaningful involvement and participation.

1. EJ covers minority and low-income, while CR and supplemental legislation cover race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, and disability.

2. EJ is an Executive Order (an Order of the President of the United States), while CR is a law (an Act of Congress).

3. EJ mandates a process, while CR prohibits discrimination.


3

concept to the overall decision-making process. Already, integrating public outreach is integral to decision-making; EJ only guarantees that low-income and minority populations are equitably included.

The benefits of EJ public outreach are plentiful. Primarily, involving the public means that problems in project approval are minimized. The earlier the outreach occurs, the sooner that problems can be averted. For example, the EJ population can:

1. Advise of issues, concerns, and needs of their communities;

2. Catalogue local resources and how previous planning decisions have created negative effects or have produced failed projects;

3. Suggest project alternatives;

Assist in the negotiation of avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement strategies.

Public outreach involves certain principles. First, there is no project or EJ population too small to warrant and benefit from an outreach program. Also, an EJ population could be homogeneous in minority or income status to qualify for consideration.

The second principle is that the program goes to the affected population. This means that approaches should include methods for overcoming language, institutional, cultural, economic, historical, religious, or other barriers.

This also applies to accessibility for handicapped persons. The meeting facility, and access, should meet all Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The site should also be in an area well serviced by

public transit. Advertising of meetings should also indicate a way to contact meeting organizers to confirm any special needs.

The third principle is that advertising should be varied. Not all people have access to a wide range of media; for example, many people do not subscribe to an English-language newspaper, watch English-language television. The Internet and E-mail, as pervasive in society as they are, do not reach all homes. A multi-pronged approach is necessary, and it should meet the linguistic, cultural, and socio-economic needs of its audience.

The fourth principle is that meetings should be inviting. The meeting should be staged to encourage participation and convey a genuine concern for gathering and implementing public input. This can be done in various ways. Meetings could be held at various times of the day, to encourage a wide cross-section of the population. Having childcare, food, and refreshments available would stimulate participation of families. Holding meetings in non-government buildings reduces the apprehension some people have toward bureaucracy. A meeting location near a transit facility would encourage people who do not have personal transportation.

Many people have difficulty speaking in large groups; they become intimidated by peer pressure. Some people feel their concerns are not adequately conveyed unless they have one-to-one interaction. For these types of people, the meeting should have a flexible format where multiple options are available for expressing concerns.

Organizers need to remember the importance of respecting a person’s time; socioeconomics or cultural

Urban Housing Myths

Many people think that a low-income area where the physical environment is weatherworn with non-manicured vegetation and litter has no neighborhood pride or livability. This is generally not true, and, in the late 1950s to mid-1960s, was a mistake that city planners and managers made. In fact, neighborhood pride is often very active in areas that many see as severely deteriorated. This is one of the reasons that EJ is so important when planning transportation projects.

Another myth is that low-income areas are, by definition, run-down areas. Although there are examples of low-income areas that are poorly maintained, many low-income households are in areas that are very well maintained. The involvement of organizations such as Habitat for Humanity has greatly raised the profile of low-income housing pride.


4

background does not determine the value of time. A brief meeting means that people do not lose too much of their day or are kept away from other activities. Public meetings should fit into people’s schedules.

The fifth principle is docu-mentation. Sign-in sheets record attendance, and comment forms record concerns. These can be used later in the outreach program to convey developments. In recent, the public has become very concerned about “racial profiling;” recording personal data that can be used to discriminate against a particular racial, ethnic, or other cultural background. Any documentation that records such data should be voluntary, collected as sampling, and non-specific to the target audience. Additionally, agency representatives should be of the same or a similar background to the group from whom the input is desired.

Finally, documents should be available to the public. They should be placed at locations where low-income or minority people frequent. Libraries, community centers, municipal halls, motor vehicle licensing offices, recreation centers, schools, and churches are examples of such venues. It is also important that documents are available after 5:00 PM.

Identifying EJ Populations

As with public outreach, identification of EJ populations should occur early in the process; where possible, it should continue throughout of the process.

Sources of population data are available from traditional and non-traditional sources. The U.S. Census Bureau is a good place to start. The Bureau keeps data on

several characteristics that identify income and race. A second good source is the Texas State Data Center. Other governmental sources of data include the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Workforce Commission, school breakfast and lunch programs, and free and reduced meals programs.

Other, non-traditional sources of data are sources that collect data on a semi- or informal basis. Local housing authorities, community centers, cultural centers, churches, soup kitchens, benevolent organizations, community service organizations, civic clubs, senior citizens’ organizations, civil rights organizations, neighborhood associations, ethnic food stores and shops, and recreation centers. Elected officials also may have data on low-income and minority populations.

An emerging type of data collection is a field approach. In this approach, researchers look at such things as telephone books, cell phone records, and shopping cart use. The philosophy is that many low-income and minority people are reluctant to interact directly with a government representative or agency, the source of most traditional types of data. In some cases, Chambers of Commerce, business and trade associations, and minority business associations have contacts with hidden populations. Many low-income and minority people work in itinerant labor positions and in low-income occupations. Rural and agricultural organizations and labor recruiters often know of pockets of hidden populations. Environmental activist and EJ

The Hunt In 1957, the government of the Province of British Columbia, Canada began planning a major hydroelectric project on a river system in the far north of the province. The Peace River flows into the Peace-Athabasca Delta, a prime area for ecological diversity, and a critical area for local First Nations (Native Americans) populations; two bands depended heavily on this delta for food, shelter, and economic wellbeing. In 1962, actual construction began, and in 1967 the dam was completed and backflow began filling the Williston Lake reservoir. With an overall height of 600 feet and a reservoir capacity of 47 million acre-feet, Williston Lake became, at the time, the eighth largest man-made reservoir in the world. Generators began producing hydroelectricity in 1968, but the reservoir did not fill until 1971.

Built in the absence of today’s more stringent environmental assessment laws and under the belief that bigger was better, First Nations peoples and other local residents were not told of the dam project until well into the construction phase. The attitude was that the land was remote, non-agricultural, and desolate and that the influx of jobs and revenue would offset any financial loss. The actual location of the dam was well away from any human settlement, native or non-native.

Shortly after the dam was completed, social and community workers, as well as law enforcement agencies, began seeing a rise in domestic disturbance amongst some quarters of the population. After some research was conducted, it became clear that the dam had indeed caused non-monetary social damage.

Continued Next Page


5

organizations also develop informal contacts with EJ populations.

Documenting Effort

Documentation is very important in working with EJ populations. In addition to knowing that concerns have been properly addressed, funding agencies need to know that all possible steps were taken to, identify, locate, contact, and meet with EJ groups. Records need to be kept that detail methodologies and results so that, if audited, the project proponent can show due diligence.

A summary report would explain how the proponent arrived at assumptions of the EJ population, the contacts used, the types of contact attempted, and the responses to the contact. The report would also note the characteristics of the EJ population (racial and/or income composition, size, general location, age, etc.). If no EJ population is in the area, or if the project is not anticipated to affect the EJ population, the Federal Highway Administration has a

boilerplate statement that the proponent can use.

However, proponents of projects should be extremely cautious about using the boilerplate statement. Just because the project may not come directly in contact with the EJ population does not mean the EJ population will not feel affects. Cumulative and long-term affects can result in significant social and/or cultural impacts (See sidebar “The Hunt”). Although EJ analysis has made significant strides for inclusion of disadvantaged and minority populations, and though this example is from an era that did not recognize the need for EJ analysis, the lessons of cumulative effect are as relevant today as they were in the late 1950s. Transportation planners must take a wide view of how their projects can impact EJ populations.

Assessing Adverse Impacts

There is no formula for assessing impacts. Each project is different and will have different affects. Further, each alternative (build or

The Hunt, continued

The initial flooding of the reservoir above the dam resulted in immediate reductions in the water flow. Water levels remained low for three succeeding years after 1967, and Lake Athabasca dropped 4-5 feet below pre-dam levels. Shallow lakes in the delta were reduced to mud flats, and in the winter, some lakes froze to the bottom. The vegetation almost immediately began transition toward dominant willow communities. Willows are an ecological early succession species and replace former species; this change may in turn alter habitat or food sources for animals dependent on them. Under normal conditions, the succession process may take thousands of years. The dam caused this change in the span of a few growing seasons.

Low water levels also destroyed habitat for the muskrat, fish, and other species, destroying ecological communities. The region was known for large-mammal and water fowl migration routes, and in several locations at certain times of the year, wildlife traversed the river. With the dam in place, migration routes were broken and hunting and trapping traditions were lost. First Nations peoples were forced to leave their hunting grounds, sometimes for other grounds, sometimes to rely more on commercially available food. Firm economic impacts are unknown but direct losses in traditional economic activities (trapping, hunting, fishing, and gathering for food) in Fort Chipewyan have been estimated at between $112,500 and $210,000 per year. The Fort Ware community in British Columbia, home to the Sekani people and some 250 km (150 miles) from the Yukon border, had its traditional hunting and fishing grounds flooded to make way for the W.A.C. Bennett dam. A Provincial Judge in a 1993 case surrounding the dam commented, “the project has been described as a primary source of hydroelectric power in British Colombia and a primary source of sorrow for the Sekani people” (Globe and Mail, Feb. 27, 1993). Alcoholism and drug dependency amongst males increased, as did other socially deviant activities. Ultimately, there were escalations in the occurrences of domestic violence and rates of suicide.


6

no-action) will have unique impacts. Assessing disproportionate impacts must occur on a case-by-case basis.

Very often, the proponent of the project is unaware of how significant impacts on a community can be. Therefore, the community should be asked whether the project is advantageous or not to their interests, remembering that a project can be positive for one group but negative for another. Even within a single group, some may find problems while others only

see benefits. Some of those effects can be on human health, the natural and social environment, the economy, and the function of the community.

Analysis

The actual analysis of impacts is case-dependent and can take on many approaches. It would be necessary to evaluate each case separately. Since there is no formula, there are five areas of consideration.

1. Does the EJ population bear the majority of the effects?

2. Will this impact be more intense in the EJ area than in non-EJ areas?

3. Is the impact to a critical community resource, without which the community cannot survive or would struggle?

4. Can anything be done to soften serious impacts?

5. Have the same impacts to non-EJ areas been analyzed to see their effects?

Documentation

The same principles of documentation that apply to determining EJ populations apply to documenting potential impact upon them.

Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation, and Enhancement

This pertains to corrective action for EJ populations, and summarizes the difference between Civil Rights (CR) legislation and EJ legislation. While CR legislation prevents action, avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement are actions that can be taken to restore the well-being of EJ communities.

If a project is determined to have disproportionately high and adverse impacts, the document needs to explain why those impacts could not be avoided or minimized, how the EJ community was involved in the decision-making process, and what type of mitigation is forthcoming. Also, the document must explain why other alternatives that would not have the same impacts were not chosen. Such an explanation would involve a discussion on meeting project needs, severe adverse impacts, social, economic, environmental and human health impacts; and extraordinary magnitudes of cost.

The approach is to avoid impacts, then minimize impacts, then mitigate for unavoidable impacts, and finally enhance areas where impacts occurred. The following are definitions for each term, prescribed by the FHWA:

Figure 6.1: Neighborhood in Transition through Down-Filtering

Source: City of Wichita Falls, Transportation Division A driving force in the process of neighbourhood decline is “down-filtering.” Down-filtering occurs when exiting residents are replaced by less-affluent residents. This is a progressive trend and can lead to urban blight. In some cases, neighborhoods are reclaimed and restored, a process some call gentrification.


7

Avoid – To alter a project so an impact does not occur

Minimize – To modify the project to reduce the severity of an impact.

Mitigate – To take an action to alleviate or offset an impact or to replace an appropriated resource.

Enhance – To add a desirable or attractive feature to the project to make it fit more harmoniously into the community; this will not replace lost resources or alleviate project impacts.

Often, proponents of projects within EJ areas express a concern that the impacts will preclude the development of any facility, regardless of its need and value to the community or region. It is important to remember that the decision to reject the project should be made after all minimizations, mitigations, and enhancements are included. The litmus test is whether, after all these corrective actions are taken, the project has disproportionately adverse affects.

A second concern is how to apply EJ corrective actions. The action should be equal to the amount of impact so that if the severity of impact for the EJ area is less than the severity to non-EJ areas the corrective action for the EJ area should also be less than for non-EJ areas.

Finally, a disproportionately high and adverse affect on an EJ population can only occur if all other corrective actions are impractical or prohibitive.

Coordination

Arriving at the proper corrective action without consulting and coordinating with the affected

population can be a “mine-field” of frustration for all involved. Without coordinating with the EJ population, the solution could be worse than the problem. Also, the solution may be ill-fitted to the population so that, while it is not a bad solution, it causes other long-term problems. Finally, if it is a complex EJ population, the solution could work in one area, but fail in another. In any case, coordination and comments from the EJ population should be forthcoming at the earliest stage possible. These comments, as with outreach, should be gathered in as many ways as possible, to ensure that all voices are heard as clearly as possible.

Documentation

The same principles of documentation that apply to determining EJ populations apply to documenting corrective action.

APPLICATION OF EJ TO WICHITA FALLS

A 2002 report of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) found that “the strengths of the MPO are numerous and worthy of being noted. In the past when issues and concerns have risen, the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) has deliberated and worked through the issues rendering a conclusion that most would consider to be reasonable and fair.” The MPO is diligent to retain a high level of responsiveness to community issues, including Environmental Justice, and, when, through public comment, the MPO became aware of an opportunity to strengthen its EJ responsibilities it moved quickly to review its current position and include a more thorough Environmental Justice section in its Public Involvement Policy.

Figure 6.2: An Example of Low-Income Housing in Wichita Falls’ EJ Neighborhoods

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

Sheppard Air ForceBase

PETE

RSON

RD

SOUT

H

£¤287

§̈¦44

£¤82

FM 369

£¤281

SPUR 370

LOOP 473

LOOP

11

FM 2380

SPUR

325

SPUR

447

£¤82!(79

£¤277

!(240

!(79

FM 171

FM 17

40

£¤281

£¤82

FM 36

9

£¤281

!(79

FM 367

£¤287

£¤277

£¤277

!(240

FM 1634

FM 890

FM 3492

10 ST

RIVE

R RD

CENTRAL FRWY

BACON SWITCH RD

5 ST 7 ST

KEMP

BLVD

IOWA PARK RD

11 ST

JACKSBORO HWY

ROGERS RDHU

NTIN

GTON

LN

BAILEY RD

BROAD

RIFL

E RAN

GE R

D

PETE

RSON

RD

NORT

H

SEYMOUR HWY CENTRAL FRWY E

CITY

VIEW

DR

HAMM

ON R

D

SISK

RD

WIND

THOR

ST R

D

AIRPORT DR

FAIR

WAY

BLVD

KELL FRWY

EASTSIDE DR

REILLY RD

E SCOTT AVE

KEMP

BLVD

HOLLIDAY

MIDWESTERN PKWY

E HATTON RD

RATHGEBER RD

MCKI

NNEY

RD

BURKBURNETT RD

AVE H

WELL

INGT

ON LN

15 ST

PECANWAY DR

SOUTHWEST PKWY

35 ST

KOVARIK RDSEYMOUR RD

CLYD

E MO

RGAN

RD

HAMPTON RD

AREN

A RD

HORSESHOE LAKE RD

LAKE

PAR

K DR

ARMO

RY R

D

PARK

ER R

ANCH

RD

MISSILE RD

CALL FIELD RD

22 ST

NAPIER RD

FRIBERG CHURCH RD

TURK

EY R

ANCH

RD

TURT

LE C

REEK

RD

GOOD

MAN

RD

N SCOTT AV

NORTHWEST FRWY

N 9 ST

EMME

RT R

D N

ANCHOR RD

LANGFORD LN

AVE O

KINCALL RD

HENR

Y S G

RACE

FRWY

COLQ

UIT R

D

LAKE WICHITA

HAMMON RANCH RD

LAKE SHORE DR

TAFT

BLVD

WEEK

S PAR

K LN

HARDING STMARCONI ST

26 ST

SHEPPARD ACCESS RD

N 5 ST

N 1 ST

OLD WINDTHORST RD

HARR

ISON

ST

MIDWESTERN PKWY

BRAZOS ST AVE C

AVE S

E 2 ST

28 ST

WILLIAMS AV

KRAJCA RD

BROO

K AV

ECHAPARRAL LN

STEPHENS DR

HUNT

INGT

ON LN

KIEL LN

KIEL LN

4 ST

KELL BLVD

REILLY RD

WELL

INGT

ON LN

KELL BLVD

FM 36

9

KEMP BLVD

FISHE

R RD

GREG

G RD

Big W

ichita

River

Big Wichita River

East Fork Pond Creek

Holliday Creek

Main Branch Plum Creek

West Fork Pond Creek

Middle Fork Pond Creek

Stream

Holliday Creek

Buffalo Creek

North Side Canal

Bear Creek

Bear Creek

North Side Canal

Big Wichita River

Holliday Creek

North Side Canal

Lake WichitaPark

WeeksPark

LucyPark

SoftballComplex

WilliamsPark

MidwesternState

University

SikesSenter

CITY OF WICHITA FALLSMetropolitan Transportation Plan Update2005 - 2030

¯Source: Environmental justice area - City of Wichita Falls, 2004, edited by Knudson & AssociatesMTP projects: City of Wichita Falls, January 2005Date: January 13, 2005

Environmental Justice Area

0 1 20.5Miles

Environmental Justice AreaMTP Projects Displayed as Points!( <$750,000!( $750,000 - $999,999!( >=$1,000,000

MTP Projects Displayed as Lines<$750,000$750,000 - $999,999>=$1,000,000Wichita Falls Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Boundary

City of Wichita Falls City LimitsCity of Pleasant Valley City LimitsCity of Lakeside City City Limits

UNMAPPED TEN-YEAR PROJECTS Roadway MPO ID CSJ Limits Description of

Work Estimated

AMT PM BR RR SF LD

VA WFS PM-3 0903-00-931 Various Locations in Wichita Falls MPO

Preventive Maintenance $10,000

VA WFS LD-3 0903-03-910 Wichita Falls Metropolitan Region

Miscellaneous Work - Landscaping $100,000 $100,000

VA WFS LD-4 0903-03-911 Wichita Falls Metropolitan Region

Miscellaneous Work - Landscaping $100,000 $100,000

UNMAPPED LONG-RANGE PROJECTS Roadway MPO ID Limits Description

of Work Estimated

AMT PM BR RR SF LD VA WFS BR-10 On-System Bridges Various

Locations $15,144,300 $15,144,300

VA WFS BR-11 Off-System Bridges Various Locations $5,348,000 $5,348,000

VA WFS PM-14 Wichita Falls Metropolitan Region

Interstate Highway Maintenance

$1,460,000 $1,460,000

UNMAPPED UNFUNDED PROJECTS Roadway MPO ID Limits Description of Work Estimated

AMT Lakeside City West Enrance 77.5 WFS LSC-4 Lakeside City West Enrance 77.5 Islands in Poor Condition -

Need to be Redesigned $77,500

SH 79 Turn Lane on SH 79 North/East bound Lane WFS LSC-5 SH 79 Turn Lane on SH 79

North/East bound Lane To Provide Safe Turn into Lakeside City N/A

Hungtington Lane WFS PV-1 Hungtington Lane from FM 287 to FM 367 Widen N/A

Unmapped MTP Projects:

Note:MTP projects outside map extent are not shown.


8

At the time of the report, MPO staff members were using a Census Development Block Group (CDBG) and Qualified Census Tract (QCT) map to identify low to moderate-income census tract levels. MPO Staff focused on finding areas with 51% or greater concentrations of low to moderate-income and minority populations; subsequently, 31 census tracts were examined. 82 census block groups reside within these census tracts. Of that number, 33 census block groups contain low to moderate-income populations equal to, or in excess of, 51% of total population for their block group. Furthermore, 7 of the 33 block groups contain minority populations that exceed 51% of total population for their block group.

At the same time, MPO Staff were working to close other gaps in their Public Information Policy (PIP). A directive from the TxDOT Transportation Planning and Programming Division (TPP(S)) called for increased transparency; Wichita Falls MPO Staff answered by amending their documentation practices. EJ sections were expanded and Staff began posting documents on the City of Wichita Falls Web Site, and documenting these procedures in the MPO public involvement process. Also part of the amendment to the PIP concerned providing a 48-hour notice for special needs services and retention of records for five years as stipulated in the Wichita Falls-TxDOT Contract.

To assure relevance, the MPO Staff sought ways to acquire the most accurate EJ population data possible. By the release of the 2005 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), the MPO was using Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) EJ data. This was only because such

data was not available until 2005 and because technical concerns had delayed the implementation of traffic modeling.

Instead of delaying analysis, and in the absence of truer data, Staff used the census block data that became available in 2002. This was an initiative that TxDOT’s District Study Office recommended as a good first step until TAZ data became available. Previously, the MPO was using a 51% standard, based on the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) standard, for determining EJ target areas.

The MPO Staff stipulated that, upon receipt of the MPO traffic model and the future acquisition of Census 2000 data, the TPC would hire a consultant to update all TAZ information for the UPWP using the Census 2000 data. Figure 6.3is a map showing EJ areas in Wichita Falls.

Procedural Policy

As a demonstration of its earnest desire to comply with TxDOT policy and use the most accurate data available, the Wichita Falls MPO has adopted a procedural policy for guiding and monitoring analysis.

The Wichita Falls MPO asserts that effective analysis must have elasticity and that its methodology is dynamic; the MPO consistently reviews its procedures to maintain its application of best practices. Since the methodology is dynamic and routinely reviewed, this section is a discussion on broad goals and general practices, illustrating more of a framework than a prescriptive model for analysis.

Goals and Objectives

• Identify and address disproportionately and

Previous Page.

Figure 6.3: Environmental Justice

Areas


9

adversely affected low-income and minority populations.

• Measure the effect, whether negative or positive, that MTP projects will have on human health and the environment, including social and economic effects.

• Schedule public meetings, in Environmental Justice areas, for discussion of MTP projects, to ensure full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities, being careful not to exclude populations outside the EJ area.

• Examine projects that, if not built in a timely manner, may deny, reduce, or significantly delay the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations.

• Analyze projects to see if they will meet the needs of the population and will fit harmoniously in the community.

Analysis Tools Used

• Distribution of Benefits – Quantify the beneficial effect a project will have on a specific group or community.

• Households by Income Group and by Mode of Transportation – Examine the effect MTP projects will have on low-income households under various modes of transportation.

• Percentage of Households with No Automobiles – Determine the viability of projects in areas where there is limited access to personal vehicles.

• Allocation of Funds Per Capita – Assess the distribution of funds per MTP project per person across the entire MPO area. Purpose: to determine if

there is an equitable balance of spending on MTP projects between the Environmental Justice area and those areas not considered to be low-income or minority in nature.

Performance Measures

• Mobility – Ease of Movement and Goods: Substantiate the effectiveness of a proposed project and whether or not it will increase mobility.

• Accessibility: Evaluate a project’s ability to increase or decrease access to jobs, medical care, emergency services, shopping and entertainment.

• Environment: Assess the effects a project will have on sustainable development and preservation of the existing system.

• Reliability and Safety: Are the proposed projects reliable and safe?

Methodologies

• Advertising – MPO staff shall target low-income and minority populations with appropriate advertising, using language translations as needed, to inform them of MTP projects that could potentially have an effect on their quality of life.

• Article Publications – MPO staff, in conjunction with TAC and TPC, shall provide relevant information on projects listed in the MTP for public consumption. Purpose: to better inform the public how a proposed project will impact the population living in that area. Special emphasis shall be directed toward low-income and minority populations by printing articles in Spanish or other languages as needed.


10

• Public Meetings – The MPO shall host public meetings for the purpose of informing all populations, specifically those in Environmental Justice areas, about proposed MTP projects and to gather comments, negative or positive, on these same projects.

• Focus Groups – MPO staff shall endeavor to assemble focus groups made up from low-income and minority populations living in the Environmental Justice target area. Purpose: to obtain guidance on the transportation needs of those living in those areas.

• Build and No-Build Alternatives – Each project affecting the Environmental

Justice area will be analyzed on the basis of negative or positive contribution to the area. In other words, if a MTP project will have a positive effect then it should be built; if it will have a negative effect then it should be built in a different manner or not at all.

• Environmental Justice Findings – EJ findings on proposed MTP projects, within the Environmental Justice target area, shall be included, as needed, with such NEPA documents as Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Reevaluations, etc.

Data Sources

• HUD 2000 CDBG Census Tracts

• HUD 2003 Qualified Census Tracts

• U.S. Census Bureau 2000 TAZ Boundary Files (GIS Shapefiles)

• U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP)

• TxDOT Travel Demand Model (TRANSCAD)

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT POLICY

Legislation requires that the MTP update process involve the public, and that EJ populations receive special outreach efforts. Much of how this is done is elaborated in the previous section. This section is to describe policy.

In April 2003, the Wichita Falls MPO revised its Public Involvement Policy (PIP) to include a more thorough examination of the elements of outreach. Specific attention was given to how outreach should occur. In general,

Figure 6.4: Adaptive Reuse

Source: City of Wichita Falls, Transportation Division

Old buildings often outlive their original purposes. The process of adaptive reuse takes an existing building and adapts it for new uses while retaining its historic features. An old church could become an apartment building. In this case, a fire station has become a residential property.


11

the MPO was eager to demonstrate its continual efforts in achieving standards that meet and exceed legislated requirements. To that end, the MPO implemented five procedural goals:

• Provision of timely information regarding transportation issues and processes

• Provision of reasonable public access to technical and policy information

• Requirement of adequate public notice of public involvement activities

• Demonstration of explicit consideration of, and response to, public input

• To seek out and consider the needs of traditionally underserved areas and populations

Moreover, the Wichita Falls MPO is concerned that its policy should always reflect the policies of government agencies that regulate compliance. Therefore, the MPO seeks periodic review of its PIP from TxDOT, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

The breadth of the policy embraces the concept of transparency in decision-making. Question and comment periods are scheduled into each aspect of transportation planning. For example, the public is given 45 days to review and comment on any changes to the MPO’s PIP. No less than two public meetings are required of any MTP update process, and the public is given no less than six months prior to the start of the update process to submit improvement recommendations. When it comes to Transportation Improvement Plans (TIP), the public will have an opportunity to

attend at least two meetings, and one of the meetings will occur at least 10 days before the TIP is adopted. Changes to transit routes and fares also must go before the public in at least two meetings, at least 30 days before the changes area made. Minutes of public meetings and information and agenda packets for TPC/TAC meetings are open and freely available to all who ask. There are special requirements for how the MPO deals with Native American tribal governments; they are always sent information packets unless they specifically request otherwise.

The public is strongly encouraged to make itself a part of the transportation planning process, and various methods are available for this. Meetings of the TPC are open to the public. The public is notified of meetings where MPO staff and representatives of TxDOT and the TPC are present to answer questions. Public meetings are freely open to all interested parties, and are held in areas where access is ADA-compliant and where other events or activities would generate spillover attendance. Public appearances give interested parties direct access to decision-makers. Review and comment periods and project solicitation occur separately or in conjunction with each other. The City of Wichita Falls Transportation Planning Division is the source for all public information materials.

Various events have individual notification processes, but, since the MPO eagerly requests public involvement, there is overlap. Newspapers and local television broadcast notices, and flyers are posted in various civic buildings throughout the metropolitan region. In some cases, EJ populations will be directly contacted to encourage participation.


12

In the chapter on finance and implementation, special mention is given to significant economic participants, such as:

• Sheppard Air Force Base • Multi-Purpose Events Center

(MPEC) • Wichita Falls Transit System • Railroads

In order to generate interest and awareness of transportation planning, members of these organizations, as well as freight forwarders and handlers, will be notified whenever the agendas of TAC and TPC meetings touch on relevant issues and projects.

Specific PIP Practices

Some practices are prescribed by senior governmental agencies. The Wichita Falls MPO adopts changes to these practices whenever thosechanges are adopted by the responsible agency.

Public Meetings and Hearings

There are various ways to ensure that meetings and document preparation are conducted correctly. The following list is how Wichita Falls ensures it abides by policy whenever meetings are held.

• All public meetings and hearings will comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act, as amended

• The agenda of meetings shall include a public comment period

• The MPO will retain meeting minutes for at least five years

• The MPO will retain proof of notice posting for at least five years

• TxDOT will receive a copy of all meeting minutes.

Public Review and Comment • The MPO will have copies of

documents at its Transportation Planning offices

• The MPO will publish public comments and staff analysis and response

• The MPO will retain oral and written comments for five years

• TxDOT will receive copies of public comment summaries and analyses

• Additional time for comment will be given whenever the final draft of a document differs substantially from its public comment draft

• The TPC will be directly involved in soliciting comments

The appendix outlines the public involvement process that was conducted for this MTP.

Public Appearances

The PIP recognizes that no matter how effective the MPO has been in reaching concerned individuals and parties, some people cannot be reached by conventional means. For this reason, the MPO will make every effort to attend functions of civic or professional groups, organizations or committees in the metropolitan region. Such meetings could also occur with neighborhood groups.

REGIONAL BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN PLAN

Chapter Ten, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, is a comprehensive analysis of a bicycle plan. Many communities and regions are looking at bicycle and pedestrian mobility as a way to achieve various social, economic, and environmental agendas.

The plan that accompanies this MTP is a regional plan. A regional

Figure 6.6: The Bike Plan is a Regional Document that is Inclusive of all Need

and Facilities

Figure 6.5: At Public Meetings and

Hearings, participants were made to comfortable in giving their comments and concerns and asking questions.


13

plan looks at global issues surrounding bicycle and pedestrian mobility, and gives many, several, or few candidate routes.

In most communities, the single-occupant automobile is the dominant form of transportation between the home, workplace, and community and commercial areas. This has led to environmental and human health impacts. Communities are also beginning to recognize that dependence on foreign resources could have far-reaching economic impacts. In an effort to mitigate or minimize these impacts, many communities are developing alternative circulation systems such as bikeways and pedestrian walkways. These systems can lead to reductions in automobile-related urban problems such as congestion and pollution, as well as improving pedestrian and motorist safety, parking-to-building area ratios, and natural resources consumption. In historic communities, increases in automobile emissions could have direct impacts on prized architectural and public art treasures by accelerating the weathering of structures. Providing a system of bikeways and walkways can offer convenient, efficient, and aesthetically pleasing pathways, and may create opportunities for healthful activity.

However, before a system is developed there are several important questions that should be considered.

The Federal Highway Administration’s Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center notes that “presently, there is no methodology widely accepted by engineers, planners, or bicycle coordinators that helps them to determine how compatible a roadway is for allowing comfortable and efficient operation

of both bicycles and motor vehicles. Determining how existing traffic operations and geometric conditions impact a bicyclist's decision to use or not use a specific roadway is the first step in assessing the bicycle compatibility of the roadway.” The goal of any bicycle plan should be to increase compatibility by meeting the safety needs of bicyclists.

Elements for Consideration

No one plan can meet all needs for all users in all communities and regions. Since every area is unique, it is unwise at best and dangerous at worst to use any approach that approximates “cookie-cutter” planning. Also, within the bicycling and pedestrian worlds are many types of user groups with different preferences and needs. For example, a marathon runner needs different facilities than a mother and toddler, and a trainer needs different facilities than does a novice bicyclist. To assume one type of facility can meet all needs in all categories could result in poor use by all groups.

The regional bicycle and pedestrian plan addresses major issues associated with planning. The standards document upon which the region bicycle and pedestrian plan was built is available in the Appendices.

• Bicycle / Roadway Compatibility

• Primary User Group(s) • Bikeway Types:

o Class I: Bike Path o Class II: Bike Lane o Class III: Bike Route o Sidewalks

• Bikeway Network o Shared Roadway (No

Bikeway Designation) o Signed Shared Roadway


14

o Bike or Bicycle Lane o Shared Use Path o Sidewalks

• Selection of Bicycle Facilities • Methodology of Design • Process of Design • Amenities • Signage Standards • Parking Standards • Bikeway Width Standards • Bike Lanes at Intersections

Standards • Bike Lanes and Turning Lanes

Standards

When the regional bicycle and pedestrian plan was being developed it was important to make it as comprehensive and inclusive as possible, with elements that would encourage users and would meet a range of needs. The plan includes amenities and way-finding tools, as well as an education program to teach proper use.

• Need for Bicycle Planning • Why Plan for Bicycles in

Wichita Falls • Wichita Falls Statistics and

Demographics • Mission Objectives, and Goals

of the Plan • Benefits of Bicycle Plans • Bicycle Safety • Facility Inventory • Bicycle Traffic Generators • Best Design Practices • Bicycle Facility Design

Guidelines • Way Finding Strategies • Education, Encouragement,

and Enforcement • Conclusions and

Recommendations

The full Bicycle Plan may be found in Chapter Ten.

CHAPTER SIX, APPENDIX – SPECIAL MATTERS

I

2005-2030 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update Public Involvement Protocol

This section is an outline of the process that was used in the development of this MTP. In particular, this section of the Appendix outlines the public process, and presents milestone events. The table included here is the timeline of the Public Involvement Protocol. MTP Steering Committee Selection • MTP Steering Committee appointed by Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) at the October

24, 2003 open meeting. Request for Proposal • TPC authorizes staff to issue a Request for Proposal at the December 19, 2003 Special Called

open meeting. • RFP was published in area newspapers, mailed to 103 prospective consulting firms, and posted

on the MPO web page. Consultant Selection • TPC approves Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam, Inc. for the MTP consulting position at the

March 24, 2004 Special Called open meeting. First Round of Public Meetings • The first meeting was held at Barwise Junior High School, in the evening, on May 3, 2004. The

second meeting was held at the Wichita Falls Public Library, at noon, on May 4, 2004. The third meeting was held at Barwise Junior High School, in the evening, on May 4, 2004.

• The meetings were advertised, following established Public Involvement Policy guidelines, in the Times Record News, using the 5 x 8 block style ad, on April 24, 26 and 27, 2004. They also appeared in the legal section of the classified ads. Notices were sent to the Archer County Courthouse, the Martin Luther King Center, the Wichita County Courthouse and the City Clerk’s office for posting. A postcard style notice was mailed to everyone on the Transportation Planning Newsletter mailing list. A Public Service Announcement was filmed and ran 18 times on the City’s cable channel 11 prior to the meetings. The advertisement was also made available on the MPO’s web page and as leaflets around various City offices.

• Total attendance at the May 3rd meeting was fifteen people (including City and TxDOT staff). Total attendance at the May 4th noon meeting was eight people (including City and TxDOT staff). Finally, total attendance at the May 4th evening meeting was thirteen people (including City and TxDOT staff).

Bicycle Master Plan Workshop • The MPO sponsored a workshop for all interested stakeholders and citizens wanting to provide

input into the Bicycle Master Plan component of the MTP. The workshop was held on July 22, 2004 in the Central Services Complex conference room.

• The workshop was advertised in accordance with established Public Involvement Policy guidelines.

• There were twenty-two people that attended the workshop. Second Round of Public Meetings • The first meeting was held at the Wichita Falls Public Library, in the evening, on October 19,

2004. There were eight people that attended the meeting. The second meeting, which also convened in the Public Library, was held in the evening on October 20, 2004. There were thirteen people that attended the meeting.

• The meetings were advertised, following established Public Involvement Policy guidelines, in the Times Record News in the legal section of the classified ads. Notices were sent to the Archer County Courthouse, the Martin Luther King Center, the Wichita County Courthouse and the City Clerk’s office for posting. In order to generate more interest and to reach more people, three billboard ads were place on major thoroughfares around the City. A second Public Service Announcement was filmed and ran several times on the City’s cable channel 11 prior to the meetings. The advertisement was also made available on the MPO’s web page and sent out as a media release with the help of the City’s Public Information Office. Two local television stations


II

came to the meetings and conducted on-the-spot interviews with staff about the purpose of the meetings.

Full Draft of MTP Becomes Available • The first, full draft of the MTP becomes available for public inspection and comment. Staff posts

the draft on the MPO’s web page on November 23, 2004 and mails out CD’s containing the entire draft to all members and stakeholders on the mailing list.

Final Project List Presented to TPC for Approval • The final project list was presented to TPC for review and approval at the Special Called

December 3, 2004 TPC open meeting. The list was approved with changes and corrections. MTP Public Hearing • The final draft of the MTP update was presented at the January 12, 2005 Public Hearing. The

meeting was recorded using a Certified Stenographic Reporter. • The meeting was advertised, following established Public Involvement Policy guidelines, in the

Times Record News in the legal section of the classified ads. Notices were sent to the Archer County Courthouse, the Martin Luther King Center, the Wichita County Courthouse and the City Clerk’s office for posting. A third Public Service Announcement was filmed and ran several times on the City’s cable channel 11 prior to the meetings. The advertisement was also made available on the MPO’s web page and sent out as a media release with the help of the City’s Public Information Office. One local television station interviewed staff the morning of the meeting and produced a segment on their evening broadcast. A second television station came to the hearing and interviewed some of the participants. Two local television stations came to the meetings and conducted on-the-spot interviews with staff about the purpose of the meetings.

• There were eighteen people that attended the hearing.

III


MTP Process Timeline October 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 May 2004 July 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005

Milestone 1 MTP Steering

Committee Selected

Milestone 2 TPC Approves RFP

for Consultant

Milestone 3

RFP Mailed to 103 Prospective Consultants

Milestone 4 Interviews Begin Milestone 5 Interviews End

Milestone 6

TPC Selects Lockwood, Andrews

& Newnam, Inc

Milestone 7

1st Round of Public Meetings - May 3rd (1) and May 4th (2)

Milestone 8 1st Meeting of MTP Steering Committee

Milestone 9 Bicycle Master Plan

Workshop

Milestone 10 2nd Meeting of MTP Steering Committee

Milestone 11

2nd Round of Public Meetings - Oct. 19th (1) and Oct. 20th (1)

Milestone 12 3rd Meeting of MTP Steering Committee

Milestone 13

MTP Project List Review by

TAC/Steering Committee - Nov.

17th

Milestone 14

MTP Draft Available for Public Inspection & Comment - Nov.

23rd

Milestone 15

Present Final MTP Project List to TPC -

Dec. 3rd

Milestone 16 MTP Public Hearing

- Jan. 12th

Milestone 17

TPC Final Approval/Submissio

n to FHWA & TxDOT - Jan. 20th


IV

Public Involvement Process

INTRODUCTION

The public was involved at all steps of this MTP update; this section explains how the public educated, informed, and updated on the events of this MTP document. The process was a communicative one, where the public was informed and drawn into the planning and, in turn, provided valuable local input and information.

The major elements of the process were:

1. Developing and exercising a comprehensive mailing list of citizenry and stakeholders 2. Meeting notices and press releases 3. Development of a public meeting format that gives everyone equal opportunity for

participation 4. Project handout materials 5. Public meetings and hearing 6. Public opinion surveys 7. Media relations

METHODOLOGY

Public involvement focused around three meetings: two public meetings, one public hearing. Public meetings differ from public hearings, in that their purpose changes. Public meetings are designed to get the public’s feedback on proposals. During these meetings, the MPO is seeking local knowledge and advice. Consequently, there is great effort to meet with as many people as possible and to discuss issues as thoroughly as possible. In a public hearing, the MPO is presenting what it has learned from the public and how that knowledge has shaped the final plan. During this meeting, the MPO is still seeking feedback and revising the plan, but these are not as extensive as in earlier revisions based on local knowledge. The hearing is to get the public’s final response to the plan.

Working with the MPO, a decision was made to hold public meetings that gave the most opportunity to attend. For this reason, central locations were used, where the public would have the most ease accessing. Additionally, each public meeting was held at multiple times. It was felt that this would give people the opportunity to pick a date that was most convenient for them.

The public meetings were conducted in a combination “open house/presentation” format. This type of format has various advantages, including that it satisfies those people who are auditory learners as well as those who are visual/experiential learners. Pedagogical research has found that there are several types of learners. Auditory learners learn best if there is live discussion. Visual learners require graphics and presentation boards, video, and other visual stimulants. Experiential learners need to manipulate things in their mind. Textual learners are best satisfied if they can read a document. The public meetings addressed each of these learning types. Additionally, the design of the format created a relaxed environment, where people could get involvement in the process without feeling out-of-place or on the spot. The intent was to focus on the concern, not necessarily the person with the concern.

The Database

A public involvement process requires notification of events. Notification can be done in numerous ways, and diversity of notification can happen simultaneously. One of the foremost methods for getting the word to the people is through mail-outs. For this to occur, a database of key contacts in necessary. These contacts then pass the word out to their constituents, as them deem necessary. It is important to keep this database up-to-date, as people and positions can change through the course of an MTP update. The database is also used to develop a directory for direct mail-outs.


V

The database included, but was not limited, to these major groups of key contacts.

• Media contacts • City, County, State, and Federal elected officials • Local landowners • Businesses within the metropolitan region • Special interest groups • Chambers of commerce • Citizen action groups • Consultant team members

The database included 450 persons and businesses and the comprehensiveness ensured that all persons in the metropolitan region had access to MTP update events and publications.

Logo Development and Use

In consultation with all parties of the MPO, it was decided that a logo was needed for the MTP update. At the same time, it was agreed upon that the logo should not appear pretentious or draw attention to itself, but should embody the spirit of the community. Therefore, it was decided that the use of the existing City logo, for a working draft document, was most suitable.

The logo is an important aspect of the MTP project. It demonstrates that the project is official. Therefore, the logo was used on all documents pertaining to the MTP update, as well as news releases and correspondences.

News Releases

Although the term “Press Release” is still used, the new term, coined in the early 1980s to reflect the growing diversity of the news industry, is simply “News Release.” This MTP update, written in the dawning years of the new millennium, emphasizes the fact that the MPO has progressed well past the “Press Release,” using the Internet to broadcast the news of the update.

News releases were developed cooperatively between the MPO staff and the consultants, and were distributed to appropriate contacts.

There were four news releases during the MTP update process. The first one announced the project. This type of news release is called a W5 release. It states the: who, what, why, where, when, and how of the project. The second and third releases announced the open house public meetings. The final release was a summary of the MTP update.

Media Relations

The media plays a huge role in a public process. People access community information in many ways, so it is important to reach out in as many ways as possible. In addition to the aforementioned news releases to newspapers and other venues, interviews were conducted by newspaper, television, and radio reporters. As well, the Wichita Falls community television station interviewed MPO staff as well as the consultants and played a running advertisement for the MTP update events.

Figure 1: Interim Logo


VI

The media was important to the process. It provided a way for the public to access the MPO staff and it put a human face to the update. This is an important factor in building a rapport with the community.

The total effort for the first round of public meetings included:

• Three days of quarter page advertising in the Times Record News, • The MPO web page, • The City cable channel, • Post cards to the MPO newsletter, The Planning Review, • A mailing list of approximately 450 people and businesses

Use of the Internet

As it was outlined in the section on news releases, the Internet has become an important vehicle for dissemination of public information. According to a 2002 report of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, almost 54 percent of the American public uses the Internet. A similar study in 20031 found that close to 61 percent of the American public used the Internet. This type of technology use growth means that people are turning to the Internet for their primary newsgathering source. In fact, all major traditional news publications in the United States now provide a web site to monitor local, national, world, sports, business, entertainment, political, and weather events.

The Wichita Falls MPO tapped into this news dissemination resource by placing all its documents and all activities on their web site. This means that all persons with access to the Internet can keep informed with the proceedings of the MTP update. As each chapter and graphic became publishable, it was put up for viewing and comment. All reports of the MPO were also posted, as were Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings and agendas, and MPO meeting schedules.

Public Meetings

As previously explained, the public meetings were designed to make people as comfortable as possible in giving their comments and questions. For this, an open house format was chosen, combined with a short presentation. No comments or questions were taken from the floor, but were taken at various displays.

• An open house meeting has numerous benefits that other forms of public meetings do not. These include:

• Separation of plan elements • One-on-one discussion • Prevention of “grand-standing” and “meeting derailment” • Direct access to expert knowledge • Direct access to local knowledge • Individual participant pacing • Prevention of “spotlighting” where, in a presentation format, a person must rise amongst

their peers and strangers to ask a question or make a comment (for many, this can be a terrifying and prohibitive proposition)

The open house stations were divided into three main sets. Aspects of the update were discussed in one set. This included the update process; the vision, goals, and objectives; and items addressed in the updated plan. The second set of stations was “did you know?” stations. This included: the benefits and breakdown of the plan and a general description of the MPO. The final set was the

1 Effects of Multifarious Internet Activities on Online Content Creation. School of Journalism and Mass Communication. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, Wisconsin. 2003.


VII

drawings that explained the plan. These drawings included: MTP projects, land use, a bicycle plan, and the existing on-system roadways2.

All people that attended the plan were asked to sign an attendance sheet, giving the MPO a record of who was participating directly in the process.

Public Announcements were published in the newspaper. The following exhibits are newspaper postings.

Figure 2: This announcement ran in the April 24, 26, and 27, 2004 issues of the Wichita Falls Times Record

News

2 On-system roadways are roadways built and maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation.


VIII

Figure 3: This announcement ran in the October 16 and 17, 2004 issues of the Wichita Falls Times Record

News


IX

Exhibits of the Meetings

Stations were designed to be user friendly. They were colorful, simple exhibits that focused on specific elements or issues. Non-graphic displays (the first two sets) each had a different background that included a regional scene that reflected the message of the display. Each graphic display included a title that identified the display. The displays were very helpful in sparking conversation. All displays were developed by the consultants.

Unique and Unusual Advertising

At the mid-point of the MTP update, it was determined unique, and perhaps, unusual, advertising was necessary to attract participants. Participation to this point was below expectations and the MPO and consultants hoped something unusual might get people’s attention. These billboards were posted in conjunction with the October 16 and 17 announcements in the newspaper

The MPO authorized the use of three billboards to advertise meeting events. The billboards were mounted in high-visibility locations, using a simple, easy-to-understand message: “OPEN HOUSE!”

Figure 6: Location 3

Figure 5: Location 1 Figure 4: Location 2


X

Public Meeting Implementation

Two sets of two meetings were held. The first set was held on May 3 and 4 at Barwise Junior High School in the evening, and on My 4 at the Wichita Falls Public Library in the afternoon. The second set was held on 19th and 20th at the Wichita Falls Public Library.

Public Meeting Participation

As stated in the document, direct public involvement in public meetings was minimal, giving the MPO grounds to assess general public satisfaction with the planning process and its outcome. The MPO also believes that the public is generally satisfied with how the MPO is handling the MTP update. In spite of repeated efforts and exhortations to participate in public meetings, attendance remained very low. By-and-large, the public meetings provided insufficient grounds to declare any community consensus – positive or negative – with the plan.

Special Presentations

One group was very vocal in the public meetings. The bicycle advocacy people were very concerned that a good plan should be developed. This plan should improve the existing facilities and provide new ones. The plan should also highlight the existing bicycle race events and develop ways to expand on its economic viability. The involvement of the bicycle group was very instrumental in preparing the plan. A special workshop was held to identify potential routes, hazards, and missing links, as well as show areas where improvements could be made to the existing facilities to encourage and assist heightening awareness and expanding use.

Figure 7: Billboard Location Map


XI

Public Hearing

The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) held a Public Hearing on January 12 2005. The Hearing was announced in the local newspaper thirty days in advance and, again, ten days in advance. On the day of the Hearing, two of the regions major national television network affiliates carried stories and interviews. Static advertisements were also televised on the Wichita Falls’ community news channel.

The Public Hearing was met with good response. Total attendance was 11 concerned citizens and seven staff and officials. One member of the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) also attended. Special Interest groups were also represented; an official with the region’s bicycle action group attended the Hearing .

Comments and questions to the floor consisted of transit and roadway expansion. In this section, comments and questions are listed with subsequent responses in italics.

1. A concerned citizen enquired about transit service to the Cityview Neighborhood, and when transit would reach this area.

The citizen also wondered how the public would be notified and involved.

The citizen also wondered how he could find commuter transit service for his disabled child.

MPO Staff advised that the UPWP for <<?>> included a transit route analysis for the purpose of route re-alignment.

Staff also advised that all route alignment decisions must go through a public process and that such meetings are advertised in newspapers and other regular channels. A representative of the City Council advised that regular meetings are held on the third week of each month, and that the citizen was encouraged to attend.

Staff advised the citizen that the State’s 211 service was designed to assist in this effort, by finding a suitable transit operator to provide service for the disabled.

2. A concerned citizen enquired about Loop 11 and when the extension from IH 44 to US 287 was to occur.

The citizen also wanted to know if the Kell Interchange project could be accelerated.

A TxDOT representative advised the citizen that the project was scheduled for implementation in Fiscal Year 2007, and that, due to logistics of land acquisition, design, and other necessary functions, it would be difficult to speed up the project.

The TxDOT official also advised that the Kell Interchange project had been prioritized to 2008 from 2015. Again, due to logistics of design and other necessary functions, it would be difficult to speed up the project beyond that.

table of contentswfmpo.com/uploads/plans/3/chapter_6_-_special_matters.pdf · and activities on...

Documents