Learning from indicators; Learning about indicators

Originally published in the April 2024 issue (v.45) of Streetsmart News

In the last of my dissertation-related newsletters, I want to point out the two types of learning and change that occurred within the planning process among my case cities. I'll also discuss the value of a public health frame and partnerships.

First, one type of learning and change that occurred within these transportation plans was simply including indicators; with the exception of Seattle, which had been using indicators for years, indicators were new to these transportation plans. While Memphis had been using indicators in other city efforts, this was the first time they had been introduced into the comprehensive plan. The drive to include indicators came from mayors (Denver, Memphis) and departmental or plan leadership (Boston, Indianapolis). Accountability was also a key value among city staff and advocates in all cases. In many case cities, the motive for this policy shift was to address inequitable funding and implementation of projects.

The major policy learning and policy change that occurred was about people-centered transportation, specifically with a stronger focus on access, safety, and equity and inclusion. In Denver, “(t)here's definitely been a change in the planning profession . . . in having a people first approach" (Informant 24). In Indianapolis, city staff discovered that the “desire for walkability was almost universal,” which had not previously identified as a community or planning priority (Informant 31). A people-centered transportation paradigm had emerged in the face of:

“. . . a mindset of ‘Our goal is to get people into the city as fast as possible and get them out as fast as possible and our major thoroughfares are for cars.’ But there is a different culture now where the people are pushing back saying ‘No, we want traffic calming; we don't want our seven-year-olds getting killed[1] . . . as they cross the street for school because they don't have a lot of pedestrian infrastructure’” (Informant 33).

I was curious whether using a public health frame was compelling to city staff and the public and found mixed results. While sometimes resonant in certain instances, public health never became the leading message in public communication. Most informants could articulate the link between health and the transportation plans, but the messaging to the community was focused on livability, quality of life, or economic vitality. One informant felt that it was helpful to have public health as yet another reason to promote active transportation.

However, some policy actors felt strongly that health was a concept capable of producing significant learning and insight because people could easily connect it to their own life. During the engagement process, one informant:

". . . realized how powerful a touchstone health really was. That health became this place where you could have conversations that you couldn't in other contexts . . . The beauty of the health piece. . . is that health. . . is a common experience" (Informant 21).

Partly for this reason, some informants suggested public health was an effective way to communicate equity impacts from transportation.

Where connecting to public health was most helpful was in building a people-centered transportation coalition:

"They're trying to continuously figure out how to get more people on board. And they have discovered that the environmental argument doesn't get a lot of new folks to the table, but the health argument has a bunch of allies that they were ignoring and are . . . excited to have at the table" (Informant 11).

A formal coalition of advocates existed in Denver, including public health organizations, although public health was still not a primary message in public communication:

"[The Denver Streets Partnership has] the American Heart Association, AARP, and groups who are worried about renters’ rights and displacement . . . .The YIMBY’s (Yes in my back yard) learn how to speak health and the transit people learn how to talk land use. I don't hear the health indicators, other than perhaps Vision Zero, from anyone else" (Informant 25).
 
This may suggest that public health need not be the leading frame to be successful in efforts to promote people-centered transportation. Alternatively, it could suggest that a public health frame is currently underutilized in public discussion and, if used as part of a dialogue, has the potential to generate insight among participants.

[1] In 2021, a seven-year-old was killed crossing the street with her mother and a crossing guard. This occurred after the adoption of the transportation plans I examined.