The buildout and operation of public transit and expansion of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure contributes to climate action in the city by enabling a mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicle use.

Transportation choices are inextricably connected to housing affordability, work, proximity to daily needs, available services, safety, and income. The needs of seniors, youth, people with disabilities, health disparities and low socio-economic status should be prioritized to ensure they have expanded transportation options.

1. What are you trying to achieve with this action?

• Increased accessibility to jobs, education and other activities due to greater options and lower cost of travel
• Health benefits from reduced pollution and collisions, better air quality, and increased physical activity as a result of more transit and Active Transportation options
• Increased property values and commercial activity associated with improved Active Transportation infrastructure, in previously under-invested, equity-deserving communities
• Improved safety, as adequate, reliable, and safe transportation options reduces reliance on vehicles and allows people to safely and affordably access services for their daily needs
• Direct employment of local equity-deserving groups, firms, and businesses in construction, operation, and maintenance of sidewalk, transit, and cycling infrastructure
• Increased social connection and overall wellbeing; communities with Complete Streets have demonstrated higher levels of mental wellness and connection

2. Who has traditionally participated in/benefitted from this action?

• Neighbourhoods that have received vision zero/complete streets retrofits, or benefited from Active Transportation infrastructure
  • Traditionally, these are higher income, white neighbourhoods; benefits have not been distributed equally over time

3. What groups are most in need of this action?

• Socio-economically disadvantaged people tend to live in areas with poorer transit and Active Transportation services and therefore stand to benefit from these improvements
  • These same communities are also more likely to be harmed by road violence and experience the negative health impacts associated with living in areas with car-centric infrastructure
• Investments should be made considering not only where people work but also where they live, as these areas may be different
  

4. What has prevented these groups from participating in the past?

• A heavy emphasis on how to move as many vehicles as quickly as possible in overall land use and transportation planning
  
• Lack of investment in Active Transportation infrastructure
• Lack of diversity in audiences consulted in decision-making processes

5. What design can address barriers from those most in need of action or to increase wider participation? Barriers can be physical or perceived (perceptual/psychological)

• Community outreach and engagement can help determine the needs of the most vulnerable communities (check out this Oakland Slow Streets program example!)
• Using multiple engagement methods is critical for reaching underserved communities
  
• Hire community members to engage with their own community
  
• Disaggregate data to ensure that factors such as age, accessibility, race, gender, etc. are being considered; this data should complement and support engagement efforts
  
• Increasing the frequency and reliability of service or reducing or integrating fares could incentivize greater transit use and especially benefit more disadvantaged users
• By decreasing motor vehicle traffic and associated air pollution, increased use of Active Transportation infrastructure can improve the physical health of residents, particularly those near major highways and arterial roads

6. Can you identify any negative impacts that this action may cause? Are there measures that can help to proactively prevent that harm?

• Making areas more transit-rich, with better cycling infrastructure can often lead to increased property values and gentrification, thereby pushing out the communities most in need of that infrastructure
• Extensive consultation of equity-seeking groups can be time-consuming and energy intensive; communities must be adequately compensated

7. Who hasn't yet been engaged that would be good to engage? Why would they be good to engage? What may limit their engagement interest/ability?

• Municipalities and decision-makers should engage the public (prioritizing equity-seeking communities) by offering educational opportunities and conducting consultations to determine communities' needs, ensuring all such initiatives are accessible and collaborative - accessibility includes physical, social, and economic dimensions
  • How are municipalities engaging their communities? What are the advantages of talking with people on the street vs. sending online surveys? How might the audience differ? Which option is most effective?
• Cross-sectoral collaboration with other social justice initiatives or stakeholders such as anti-racism or accessibility groups is critical for strengthening AT initiatives
  
• AT can often exclude or further marginalize people with disabilities; extra care should be taken to ensure that they are consulted in the planning process
  

Important Reminders:

• Projects should not end once infrastructure is in place. After this, municipalities should engage in ongoing evaluation and community engagement to ask:
  • Who is benefiting from this project?
    
  • What changes do we need to make?
    
  • Have the community demographics and/or needs changed?
• Municipal staff should constantly consider community demographics and ask questions such as: who gets to exist on the streets safely? Do women, people with disabilities, underhoused individuals, LQBTQ+ folks, and racialized communities feel safe on the streets? On public transit? On bikes?

Do you have additional suggestions for climate and equity synergies related to Active Transportation/vision zero/complete streets? Add them here.