Allyship and Equity Community

When people talk about the "ideal" modern street or curb as it relates to equity, the surface-level picture usually includes bike lanes, transit lanes, parklets, and other improvements that often replace traditional parking. The intentions behind these changes aim for greener streets and more equitable mobility. But pulling back the curtain, the transition to that end state can sadly come with real tradeoffs.

None of this is news to anyone in this group, but fast changes to neighborhoods, with reducing parking being a real example, can create challenges for longtime residents or others who rely heavily on their cars for work or simply getting through daily life. Households also often have multiple drivers because that's what it takes to make ends meet. Encouragement to use public transit may be the long-term goal, but when changes happen quickly or without the right support to make the change (just instead pushing changed behavior), it can feel like the rug gets pulled out from under people. In those cases, the "old way" may not be forward-looking, but it's still the most practical system for a community that has long adapted to it.

When cities start redesigning streets or rethinking curb use, equity depends on making sure all voices are actually heard. I've seen examples where cities try to do this thoughtfully. Minneapolis and Boston come to mind for leaning heavily on community engagement before major curb or transportation changes, really trying to understand how residents use the street.

How do cities hear from the people who can't attend meetings, can't access or navigate a survey, who may not have reliable internet access, or who simply aren't plugged into the planning conversation? I know it's naive to think that 100% participation is achievable, but just as curb management and mobility continue to evolve, so should the ways we make communication equitable and accessible. 

In the spirit of continuing conversations about how we get better at listening and hearing the voices that don't always come forward easily (especially when barriers make it harder)…I'm curious what communication tactics you've seen as effective? What approaches outside the go-to's - think neighborhood meetings, surveys, planning studies - have you seen that actually bring those harder-to-reach voices into the conversation when big mobility or curb changes are being considered? 

Julia

This is a great conversation and one I am going to distill down even further, how do we have these conversations regardless of the size of the parking universe. 

I get to see things from both sides, I have always overseen a major city, with 2-5k in paid parking spaces, and countless timed parking spaces, but I live in a town of less than 5K.  Small parking program one small parking garage for the commuter train riders.

However, having said that maybe communication can be broken down into smaller parts to make sure you are speaking to the whole body.

Instead of trying to find one method for a big city like Boston, think boroughs and ward level communication.  If you can fold the Alderman, City Councilors, or Selectman into the conversations they have those communication portals aimed at their constituents already in place.  If you can avoid reinventing the wheel I highly recommend it.  They are part of the decision making, whether its finance or route changes on street all of that happens because of a vote, they will have to make at some point.

They hold regular ward/borough meetings, send out constant communications to the areas they represent.   It doesn't solve everyone's problem with this, but for those of us serving municipalities, it could be helpful in two ways, improving communication with residents and parkers, improving political relationships with parking and city leadership. 

When people talk about the "ideal" modern street or curb as it relates to equity, the surface-level picture usually includes bike lanes, transit lanes, parklets, and other improvements that often replace traditional parking. The intentions behind these changes aim for greener streets and more equitable mobility. But pulling back the curtain, the transition to that end state can sadly come with real tradeoffs.

None of this is news to anyone in this group, but fast changes to neighborhoods, with reducing parking being a real example, can create challenges for longtime residents or others who rely heavily on their cars for work or simply getting through daily life. Households also often have multiple drivers because that's what it takes to make ends meet. Encouragement to use public transit may be the long-term goal, but when changes happen quickly or without the right support to make the change (just instead pushing changed behavior), it can feel like the rug gets pulled out from under people. In those cases, the "old way" may not be forward-looking, but it's still the most practical system for a community that has long adapted to it.

When cities start redesigning streets or rethinking curb use, equity depends on making sure all voices are actually heard. I've seen examples where cities try to do this thoughtfully. Minneapolis and Boston come to mind for leaning heavily on community engagement before major curb or transportation changes, really trying to understand how residents use the street.

How do cities hear from the people who can't attend meetings, can't access or navigate a survey, who may not have reliable internet access, or who simply aren't plugged into the planning conversation? I know it's naive to think that 100% participation is achievable, but just as curb management and mobility continue to evolve, so should the ways we make communication equitable and accessible. 

In the spirit of continuing conversations about how we get better at listening and hearing the voices that don't always come forward easily (especially when barriers make it harder)…I'm curious what communication tactics you've seen as effective? What approaches outside the go-to's - think neighborhood meetings, surveys, planning studies - have you seen that actually bring those harder-to-reach voices into the conversation when big mobility or curb changes are being considered? 

When people talk about the "ideal" modern street or curb as it relates to equity, the surface-level picture usually includes bike lanes, transit lanes, parklets, and other improvements that often replace traditional parking. The intentions behind these changes aim for greener streets and more equitable mobility. But pulling back the curtain, the transition to that end state can sadly come with real tradeoffs.

None of this is news to anyone in this group, but fast changes to neighborhoods, with reducing parking being a real example, can create challenges for longtime residents or others who rely heavily on their cars for work or simply getting through daily life. Households also often have multiple drivers because that's what it takes to make ends meet. Encouragement to use public transit may be the long-term goal, but when changes happen quickly or without the right support to make the change (just instead pushing changed behavior), it can feel like the rug gets pulled out from under people. In those cases, the "old way" may not be forward-looking, but it's still the most practical system for a community that has long adapted to it.

When cities start redesigning streets or rethinking curb use, equity depends on making sure all voices are actually heard. I've seen examples where cities try to do this thoughtfully. Minneapolis and Boston come to mind for leaning heavily on community engagement before major curb or transportation changes, really trying to understand how residents use the street.

How do cities hear from the people who can't attend meetings, can't access or navigate a survey, who may not have reliable internet access, or who simply aren't plugged into the planning conversation? I know it's naive to think that 100% participation is achievable, but just as curb management and mobility continue to evolve, so should the ways we make communication equitable and accessible. 

In the spirit of continuing conversations about how we get better at listening and hearing the voices that don't always come forward easily (especially when barriers make it harder)…I'm curious what communication tactics you've seen as effective? What approaches outside the go-to's - think neighborhood meetings, surveys, planning studies - have you seen that actually bring those harder-to-reach voices into the conversation when big mobility or curb changes are being considered? 

Hi Julia,

This is a great topic. There is currently a project group in the city I work in for Curb Management Planning. This group is discussing use of curb for all aspects, some of which you mentioned like bikes and micromobility parking corrals. Others are for Food truck parking, better loading zones with different time frames to try and accommodate where possible. In the few meetings I have been in, there has not been any discussion topic revolving around community engagement - this is something I will now ask in the next meeting. 

The area of concern for me regarding parking is there is a push to remove as much parking as needed, however this does not bode well for residents who live in the affected areas who own vehicles. This topic is providing me with insights on avenues of conversation to explore with the internal stakeholders and how communication needs to be expanded for true community involvement.

When people talk about the "ideal" modern street or curb as it relates to equity, the surface-level picture usually includes bike lanes, transit lanes, parklets, and other improvements that often replace traditional parking. The intentions behind these changes aim for greener streets and more equitable mobility. But pulling back the curtain, the transition to that end state can sadly come with real tradeoffs.

None of this is news to anyone in this group, but fast changes to neighborhoods, with reducing parking being a real example, can create challenges for longtime residents or others who rely heavily on their cars for work or simply getting through daily life. Households also often have multiple drivers because that's what it takes to make ends meet. Encouragement to use public transit may be the long-term goal, but when changes happen quickly or without the right support to make the change (just instead pushing changed behavior), it can feel like the rug gets pulled out from under people. In those cases, the "old way" may not be forward-looking, but it's still the most practical system for a community that has long adapted to it.

When cities start redesigning streets or rethinking curb use, equity depends on making sure all voices are actually heard. I've seen examples where cities try to do this thoughtfully. Minneapolis and Boston come to mind for leaning heavily on community engagement before major curb or transportation changes, really trying to understand how residents use the street.

How do cities hear from the people who can't attend meetings, can't access or navigate a survey, who may not have reliable internet access, or who simply aren't plugged into the planning conversation? I know it's naive to think that 100% participation is achievable, but just as curb management and mobility continue to evolve, so should the ways we make communication equitable and accessible. 

In the spirit of continuing conversations about how we get better at listening and hearing the voices that don't always come forward easily (especially when barriers make it harder)…I'm curious what communication tactics you've seen as effective? What approaches outside the go-to's - think neighborhood meetings, surveys, planning studies - have you seen that actually bring those harder-to-reach voices into the conversation when big mobility or curb changes are being considered?