Project Review

One of the driving programs at the City to rationalize sidewalks everywhere is a mis-labeled “green streets initative”

The City’s Transportation Policy and Planning Board (TPPB) voted to pass the Mayor’s “Complete Green Streets” (CGS) Initiative on February 14, 2022. City staff presented its report on CGS, which can be found here.  Given the initiative’s title, one might presume that much attention would be given to the environment and its protection. Surprisingly the word “environment” does not appear once.

Madison has a long and rich history of environmental activism. Also, one of Madison’s signature characteristics is its bodies of water.  These priorities appear nowhere in any meaningful way in the Green Streets initiative and without them, the use of the word “green” cannot be taken seriously. Reducing environmental harm should be a priority ON PAR WITH other priorities in the CGS initiative so that it gets elevated as such and given careful and deliberate consideration.

In the City’s community engagement work involved hiring the consulting firm EQT by Design to conduct the engagement work related to CGS. The final report can be found here.  Of note, 87% of respondents to a “Let’s Talk Streets” survey by EQT by Design supported the value of fostering sustainability: “promote walking, biking, and public transit and use streets to expand the urban tree canopy and clean stormwater” (p. 16, italics added for emphasis).  In fact, it achieved the highest level of agreement of any value asked about in the survey. But the latter half of this definition is not evident in the Mayor’s so-called Complete Green Streets initiative. There’s not even a layer in the proposed model graphic (p. 20) that depicts trees and water.

Context is important in the community engagement business.  National data or survey results that present answers to more general questions, asked outside of the context in which specific projects are happening, are not sufficient and often aren’t even relevant. While EQT’s efforts were both necessary and helpful to starting a conversation about street design in Madison, they should not represent the end result, nor should they be viewed as leading to a “one-size-fits-all neighborhoods” approach to street design. Efforts such as those employed by EQT by Design should be used much more frequently and in the context of specific projects. But these efforts are all meaningless if the City leadership refuses to listen.  EQT by Design noted the following in their report:

“In July, when attempting to engage with a community based organization they shared that many of the residents were burned out from past city engagements. These engagements specifically were around transportation and how their information was not used, and in particular by TPPB. The feedback was that they felt their feedback and engagement efforts went into a black box or it wasn’t taken seriously; especially by the TPPB. Additionally, they added the populations didn’t feel respected and didn’t think it would be worth their time to engage, even though we were a different entity. Lack of transparency and respect were the main themes as it pertained to questions around hurdles of engagement and when mentioning the city or city representatives” (p.8).

The above paragraph sums up how an increasing number of Madisonians are feeling about the Rhodes-Conway administration and the Common Council leadership not only about the City’s transportation policies, but about a broad range of issues.

The City of Madison does not have infinite resources.  Our leaders are charged with being good stewards of these resources, not the least of which is taxpayer money.  Including elements, especially expensive ones, in projects where the need for these elements is low relative to other geographic areas where need is high is not only fiscally irresponsible, it also creates and exacerbates inequities on a broader scale, given finite City resources.

Access and equity are empty words if you don’t take steps to engage the very people you are claiming to stand for, in the contexts where they live their lives.  In the Design Engagement Interim Report for CGS, “centering equity” is defined as both outcomes AND PROCESS. Efforts were made to solicit community input on the model being proposed in a more general way, as outlined in that report, but community engagement should be an integral requirement for each individual project, and it needs to begin at project conception, as well as be authentic and as rigorous as possible.  Anecdotal stories from a handful of people or survey data derived from people outside of the context in question is woefully inadequate. Presuming what people want or need in their own contexts is not equity. It’s paternalism. Ignoring broad input from people with mobility limitations in the contexts of specific transportation projects does not honor the principle of access. It marginalizes them further.

Community engagement is merely performative when it happens after planning begins or after the City has already decided on a top-down approach. This leaves people feeling powerless, stressed, and it sets up an adversarial situation. There is a much better way, but it requires extra work, resources, and time up front and through the life of each project, in order to engage with residents and stakeholders and to listen to and seriously consider their needs, concerns and ideas. This creates project buy-in and support from residents. There could be some truly amazing projects that emerge from this better approach, things that could set the standard around the country, and that could be a source of pride not only for the City but for the residents they impact. Let’s hope a new Mayor will help realize this vision.