Promoting Partnerships to Support Community-informed Active Transportation Safety and Mobility
Background
Active transportation planning and programming may be elusive to communities who are historically underserved, under-resourced, or marginalized. Further, these communities face disproportionate traffic risk. Meaningful engagement with communities is critical for developing culturally and context-sensitive active transportation projects. In California, UC Berkeley SafeTREC and the non-profit CalWalks implement the Community Pedestrian Bicycle Safety Training (CPBST) program, which uses principles of Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to work with communities to address traffic safety through community organization principles advanced in public health theory and practice.

Scope/Objectives
The CPBST aims to eliminate pedestrian and bicycle injuries from traffic crashes. Results are measured at the community and program levels through several process and outcome objectives. This paper reports on evaluation of community-level objectives.

Outcome: Increase safety measures in participating communities, including infrastructure, policy, programs, events and campaigns that aim to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Process: At each workshop, facilitators and participants develop solutions to local pedestrian and bicycle safety issues.

Methods
Three selection criteria are used to identify communities for the workshops: collision/injury history; social and geographic equity; community readiness to act on actions developed at the workshop. Community readiness is fundamental to ensuring CBPR elements. Once communities apply and are selected, they participate in a several month facilitated workshop planning process designed to build on existing partnerships and safety efforts. The community partner develops a planning committee of representatives from stakeholder groups and professionals, which determines the focus and logistics of the workshop. The project team reviews documents prior and conducts a site visit with the committee to understand local collision data and qualitative safety concerns. Workshops last about three hours and include an educational and interactive presentation by the project team, a group walking/bicycling audit near the site,
facilitated brainstorming, and development of actionable next steps addressing health and safety improvements. Within two months, the project team provides the community with a report that summarizes activities and potential next steps, such as applying for grants, developing plans and programs, or convening working groups. Upon request, the facilitation team will provide follow-up support to the community.

Results
Follow-up interviews of thirteens sites informed outcomes and progress on increased local solutions and safety measures objectives. Five communities reported that the walking assessments helped prioritize projects for improvements. Seven sites had or were submitting new proposals for safety infrastructure projects or programs. Two communities had installed safety infrastructure in the workshop’s focus area in the 6-9 months between workshops and the follow-up interviews.

Conclusion
Evaluation of the CPBST found workshops often provided the catalyst to enhance partnerships among professionals to address local safety issues and spearhead tangible improvements for walking and bicycling safety in communities. Further, the social aspect of the walking audit also enabled community participants to identify and coalesce around common safety improvement priorities.

Presenter: Jill Cooper
Agency Affiliation: UC Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center

Presenter Biographical Statement: [bio]