The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutATTAC Agenda - 2024-01-09J KiTc��R Active Transportation and Trails Advisory Committee Agenda January 9, 2024, 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. HR Learning Room - Second Floor City Hall City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 People interested in participating in this meeting can email Manager, Active Transportation and Development, Darren Kropf at darren.kropf@kitchener.ca. Please refer to the delegation section on the agenda below for the registration deadline. Written comments received will be circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Chair: Victoria Hand Vice -Chair: Matthew Bells Pages 1. Commencement The meeting will begin with a Land Acknowledgement given by the Chair: The City of Kitchener is situated on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee Peoples. We recognize our responsibility to serve as stewards for the land and honour the original caretakers who came before us. Our community is enriched by the enduring knowledge and deep-rooted traditions of the diverse First Nations, Metis and Inuit in Kitchener today. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared, please visit www. kitchener. ca/conflict to submit your written form. 3. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. All delegations must register in order to participate in the meeting. Delegation registration is permitted up to the start of the meeting. 3.1 None at this time. 4. Discussion Items 4.1 Schneider and Shoemaker Creek Naturalization 30 m 3 Environmental Assessment Chris Nechacov, Design and Construction Project Manager (Sanitary and Stormwater), City of Kitchener will provide a presentation on this matter. 4.2 Cycling Equity Toolkit 15 m 21 The Committee will review and discuss Part Three of the Cycling Equity Toolkit. 4.3 2023-2026 Strategic Plan: Areas of Interest 15 m 82 The Committee will review the City of Kitchener strategic actions and discuss areas where the Committee is interested in being further involved. 4.4 Education and Community Building 20 m The Committee will provide recommendations on ways to provide newcomers to the city with cycling or other active transportation knowledge, community, and resources. 4.5 Subcommittee Updates 30 m Subcommittees will review achievements in 2023 and goals for 2024. 5. Information Items 5.1 Shared Micromobility Program Update 5.2 Staff Updates 6. Adjournment Page 2 of 86 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE 4t3 Schneider and Shoemaker Creek Naturalization J nvi Eronmental Assessment December 12, 2023 Flockvvay Golf Club r025 FlockvvayY[itchenerDr. ONI Spm - Bprn Please pick up an information sheet See staff for slide package in Portuguese, Spanish and Arabic ;R Project website: www.en aqewr.ca/SchneiderCreekEA (:10 Stantec Page 3 of 86 Purpose of this Public Information Centre (PIC) and Back -around Studies r •Ind ,} WN 0,0 Al "� •wJ" !� •tlr•aI • !'w 1P,T� t �^^Y IAS ,.' �ir� v �" i � / ` t r � f'� 1p . r—A" low 0 a a KL 7 f. ^ti . • . `tel A �: •, % � ' � �i.�! - Apt i'. fti- dr 4. r • .. 'tom► - , -� "�`..• + r=+e! "■■./ , JUA �, .! ` . .t '� { +I,. 'fit • 4, s. ?'fr itF+N At•s„' '! Inti _ !.•s 4y A'' i 's"'i'r"+' r'x: .. - ,:� . - Yr • 11 • ' Ar Mc r _ ,fr j 1 44 A_I' e j • � �+ � - � �� '+c7��y�,, , �. f r, � w�" _ !� '� 1 • i +I' I. .� , A- �% -`, .rj � t kr r ,F X1 V NZ �•\ '- �- ':a►' -. ._ ;•� �-\r+.., _ �.� � _ R a Vis+ �i' '� j rfi w-� �r 'C t - s " �a �► Sr ��$if. � �`�� ' I•''" a „ 4 4 �•�'•� L � •••S - '{�''' � . u _ `' T C , � lrl � } ` , ` ��, ,F . � � Jws � � ' .r'/ ' i� l .+� /� J y m 10 V —din& 1p lli, t Y P 7i' e y - 3�. :+'moi _ ,• _ r v a . ,_ •ale. -- - ,,,,.'.•C: �j •� !- T ,ANI;• 'atf ` - - - - - YT ` � �. i r• - - - Y s ' " (`ice � `"'_ _ - ��• r - � -, r - .�"� dr„ =�.. �'� . irL �-,yes"': �7R. �1 s -t3 �~ -� ' y " _ ' _�.-:• _ . • .. - A- —.. �' �•—r--�=+ � _ r� - '- _ ' _F ,ris+4, f •r .�•- - - .�, � L � .- — _ �.:�...�•` _ .. _ - -. �t , - moi' � '-,.. _ �� " �►_ ^s I �' ,- ,,,. � ,rte �,' ,� - - =ti •- �_ - _ -tea` --.. — - '� '"" J`S`•_ '• s-'.-- v.r`k =- OK i�i .: -r - _.sr-!''-'=.. ..:? - yam` sem'+"•+' Sow qp ANOF � - - - - . ' — .r� . 'a,,(� -' . F � i► " � -'ter ,.�-_ — .►r- �•'�:'..�_ - _ ''' .,....�di _ y . � _ _ - - .,- _ ' •+' �f' �'�''' Vis. +* i ' .. "'r �•``_,--•-�-• --r' ` _�'- o": �r ��`. r - • _ .p- �. � yr _-�'�'e�li� _ _ .� j'µ - . _ r`..+ •1�': �` - '" ,�1 .ate +_ .+`�,.-` !' � .'. - - "�. 4 i, l - •i•... _ �� _ „tea _ %.. a . ik'1 J , 'r sa Q �`• 41 � '�• ��•• _ — �,a -X_ r _al...s yj • - - _ Opportunity for Naturalization: is Design a solution to naturalize the creek corri is Reduce flooding impacts is Improve natural envir • Create recreational spaces io enjoy the natural elements of the creek onment a Mf dors which achieve the following objectives: PIC 2 presented 4 Alternative Solutions: • Alternative 1: "Do Nothing" • Alternative 2: Concrete Channel with Naturalized Valley Bottom is Alternative 3: Natural Channel with Retaining Structure at One or Both Valley Walls is Alternative 4: Natural Channel and Valley - PREFERRED Trail J Vegetated Valley Vegetated Floodplain Natures[ Channel H A (Type) (30 Stantec Page 5 of 86 unicipai Class Environmental Assessment Process Phase 1: Problem or Opportunity Notice of Study Commencement First Public Information Centre - April 2023 has rnativ luti r- 1 laotv %D: rnativ nc referr esign epts for d Solutol Consultation Throughout Second Public Information Centre - Summer 2023 h h ird Public formation Centr Fall 2 e 5: ntation Notice of instruction - 025-2026) Page 6 of 86 Page 7 of 86 Ij 3 ! lk Ar ,ea 46 o. /� • eR � t #. /rAti i. ! fib- .. x s y + i , , t. ! f P,• , It r �rI ' • fg _ AT/,� 7 til - ♦ . P • r " db ,r r• t _ + r y ,�►t-� .'` � dr r � "tib tea+' '' r �G+. .^ y- r r ! r Jft N r �.s- n Y r� ifi '� .•�, "'4441`.'''. . a_ f � ° :�' y%'.-` Floodplain •.. -� f. / 1y ,rk A� amu_ .�- �• �• 4I lk` ! 1 ♦ Ir r `.. 1r •, I r • �_ _ �� , �''a� ,. 'x►' ., � � � Pim • * R �, h FF u� 4 S• 1r.. IV, IT11-- •y r « k a P' P `«'A r r . 46 « • 4 1 y�F it fe - • Sl � xxp 40 • ,%ALAo 4 4j lo ;r • 4` w / r♦�. - a • i Adv 40 .41 r { • i .x i Rockway Golf Course In ACon 177 g -ado --Odom walk PP 4A, # -e 0z" W CL *Wt V6 &.A ao-a S:C ne go iii t: 0I 4 1 1W 4(( Id ap or 14do, Fr 44 A�. 4� V11 ti0 C� oft 40p* fop do 4114:7 lop to V dop Opp• 4 40* 4% dOp 4�0 - 41,* 40t C, 0 4�' ,fir 4# dt 4:Zl- jot el 3r x 401 4ke 44 P 40# 0.t 0 1Q17 F_ tGJ 0" Legend Study Area Stage 2 d, Potential Bat Habitat Archaeological Assessment Required Floodplain Limit Tree Quality (by area) (REV Railway % Iron Horse Trail High Quality Medium Quality Watercourse Low Quality ._ �, _,* rY {;� �I 0 100 200 f '0 0 N MEN Metres Existing Conditions - Ecosystems 1. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (P King's Printer for Ontario, 2023.2. Orthoirnagery (P First Base Solutions, 2023. Date of Imagery 2022? 9 o 86 ;;;i4eirl�/=rP Ali rjr. a ' �1 6.._ -.A Exi,I) i iI iy riUvu[Jiuir 1 1_11 1 iii - Proposed Channel Alignment r0 , 4S1 Railway FO` tt: O Watercourse O Existing Floodway a, z O Existing Floodplain Potential Future Floodway** . Dnceptual floodway, to be refined during future City studies. ' ,9 t �� ks : Dordinate System:NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N ise features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and y . stry © King's Printer for Ontario, 2023. 1W46thoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2023. Date of Imagery 2022. 75 150 metres P ood Mapping AVW .� . 4. �, • - 00 ~ Ar �� j Mir Evaluation Criteri 0 Noise / Vibration & Air Quality Terrestrial / Species at Risk k ~ I �i t Climate Change w"� NATURAL ENVIRONME Land Use / URAL ENVIRONMENT Aesthetics =�Ar S • }� di quatic / Water I I ty ua _ 4 A Of 11kit L- 1 swl - N Trees & Vegetation Health &Safety } AL ArchaeologyIY Communit°I. Access Heritage r a' Econmic Opportunity ECHN19A NVIRONMENT Functionality �Ji in IlTarnaTIVA ia.0 MIJITI= a i rani arc :4 10 1:4 A 119 91 :4'&FIVo I I 10 0 mra �,� V%I 10 [:=I 0 • This option has 2 pedestrian creek crossings: - Schneider Creek between Stirling Ave and Kent St - Shoemaker Creek • No multi -use trail between Ottawa St. and Sydney St. • Maintain existing on -road cycling route on Nyberg St. is Remove existing trail along the north side of Schneider Creek between Kent Ave. and Bordon Ave. st for • Added co pedestrian creek crossings What do you like about this alternative? What don't you like about this alternative 0 0 111 zjp%—1 0 •I. 4 "` Stirling to Kent eJop AL Pedestrian Phase 2 Trail Alignmerit 4 a f JjMMjjjj_,.jjjjjL!1111jjjj IL - Phase 1 Trail AlignmentQ) Am 71 -.- 5� s,46 . �'v Mail 4 -.; $e �• _� K rr 4y '�pr A 46 IW, Ar �HENER 4 4 M-1 Existing Cu Iv rt %T J F. e - ye e : a # `. e 01 Existing TII t be Removed -4, _�_ IL. Creek ro s sin �. -� � .ter • ° •. a i x 40 p a t e ILn e a Existing On -Road Cycling Rout s. to Connect fired Sections. Retaining Structure _ T _ • e sZOTO an le #� Page 12 of 86 PLizern tive i no. ri i rif nhn i r Cr i; • Adds amenity features to the Alternative 1a alignment 0 • Amenity could include seating and step-down area for public access to greater connect with nature • Costs more than Alternative 1a because of amenities • Will consider safety because of access into the valley (example: high flow, ticks) What do you like about this alternative? What don't you like about this alternative? J Stantec 6AU -.- Aft IF Am A& z AM Am MI I I I I 91W CON PHASE 2 Stirling to Kent 1400 11 R"14001 [01 Ile _._ Am do ;7 do •tc do • F ° �F - yf ` b d • i. 1- f _ J - Existing elver 41 At Pedestrian Ak. Creep Crossing NIV Pedestrian Creek Crossing • Phase 2 Tra IRI n rent n 40 01% R Phase 1 Trail Alignment Q_ � ■ i - E 1st1ng Tall t ° be Removed r • ° 4C Mf .ulder-Step=Down Feature apt I�/lontgomy Creek kL V , Page of :• 6�O'! 11TArnaTIVIF 100111011110 11r!b1tL61,;Arir: • 0 • Matches the trail alignment of Alternative 1a at the upstream part of the study area • Pedestrian creek crossing of Schneider Creek will replace an existing culvert crossing • Maintains the current Iron Horse Trail between Kent Ave. and Ottawa St. • Remove the on -road cycling route along Nyberg St. and fill i n the existing gap with a new . section of trail r 0 What do you like about this alternative? What don't you like about this alternative • • r1•AW1 i�. PHASE 2 Stirling to Kent r 1 ,dop 119"040, 110 _._ 0 Am 611119 •,� - n �a A � .a° yy r 41 .. A -Ir 46ap 3 t 4W1 Af_ - " PV Existing Culvert e' m 1if r_ ° - Fedestflan Creek Crossing Phase 2 Troll Alignment A " Phase I `gall Alignment 4t a Existing Tafl 46 0 amp e . - T Y Esting On -Road Cycling Route to be Removed c - r - Retaining �r m " Ar #: _-jN ip. F If Stantec d Ldor. - � T►�+ TM Page 14 of 86 a � Ptizernative z....: Nat ra117,e %;reep combination of the North and Soi side-.of.Shoemaker- Creek. Addeo' • Adds amenity features to the Alternative 2a alignment • Amenity could include seating and step-down area for public access to greater connect with nature • Costs more than Alternative 2a for amenities. Costs less than 1a due to maintenance of Iron Horse Trail segment. • Will consider safety because of access into the i valley (example: high flow, ticks) What do you like about this alternative? What don't you like about this alternative J Stante 0 J PHASE 2 k Stirling to Kent r1 0 Ufa[= 100 11010 10 ff"00 _._ Ah do a s -07 H d � .1 �.4N _ p! ir pr q e ll Y a �r _ *, _ Existing Culvert a _ ir .e. 1 Pedestrian Creek Crossing r Potential Stepdown - 041, Potential Lookout ' 11 Phase 2 Trait Alignment and Seating Area Existing Tall 0 Phase 1 Trail Alignment - 1 ir 00 i 1 � y— ®NA1 .. 43-lit—M& -.. 61� K F 7. we 41 46 u --" '� - • y �• f' 4 is . v r • � •a rrKL e .. •� _. .- - .� �+''-•fir a� �. e _J - 1 c .4 dP 1 �r. d°Creek Evaluation of Alternative Solution Table Natural Environment Socio -Economic & Cultural Environment Technical Environment Conclusion Alternative 1a Multi -Use Trail along the South side o Schneider Creek and East Side of x Shoemaker Creek anon -1: Alternative lb f Multi -Use Trail along the South side o Schneider Creek with Trail Amenity Features and Trail East side of Shoemaker Creek Alternative 2a Alternatvei2b f Multi -Use Trail along a combination of Multi -Use Trail along combination of he North and South side ofthe North and South side of Schneider Creek and West side of Schneider Creek and West side of Shoemaker Creek Shoemaker Creek. Added Amenity Features (up to three) • anon -1: •,ZA"M Droforornnd in Preliminary Preference: 2B) Naturalized Creek with MI ti -Use Trail along a Combination of the North and South Side of Schneider Creek with Trail Fea.....t re p to Three) nd Wes...,.t ide of Shoem ker Creek y yY `IF 7 lit roei;:_. r_ r * a I Pa Lil rm .•_ ° 1 ••._ r■• UM 76 a. , 1.1 r r� r fa .y • • - Tr - . yff. IL il A6_ j • 91 _ p 599 • •1Pi • , � ` �+� � •,baja , • • Ya.r. — , E % m �: .f A 1 } 4 ■ _ • '�� 4 Art L 0 lip IA • d i a r ■6 w<_ _ r' r a I _ Amb6i -.l Vol , • MillN a _y .., • ,. ' . • of � .. ,: • • n . _ m ar ill jr6 _e �y, 5 � � a 1 1 - e ,n C ..mom - •,.� �� . _ � . ° ' - � 1 �' 1'i•° � 1 � •a ,.. � � • a° ,� ®� • � : - _ .,� - '. .. � � , . .' •1. • fir 1 ar ,, r , 51•,1, _ iff , 1' _ a y.- -Lol ., 1•a• . . ° a 1 •, , r 4 ' .r, .. •. 17 1 ° r "-� k~ y 1, N _TW _IF Mi fir• • � r.„ * iP _ �.,- , k � •6 •I d .V _ �� _ .: fry .> „ � ' . , • T Re al, .� •1" � o Y St . 1 1 m ®• _ _ _ �, 'P i i m � 1 i �, 1 y 6 . r ,'r. � 1 • �`mmmr '� � . ' ,- `"�'a�� i•, J' ° ,• it 1 1NVIl_ `m �Y _ a e ' _ 1••1�, `.tee 'Mr 95 • . , s -. . 4 k 1 I M added aME �ecreationa AmIff ��Aft olpl to, [me 0 AftirAWAM Provides opportunities to enjoy a interact with naturalized areas Largely maintains the existing IH' through the study area New section of trail along the not side between Ottawa St. & y ne Remove the on -road cycling rout, along Nyberg St. Requires one less pedestrian tree crossing than Alternative 1 % ru in ;� _7 An s + Volie T+ Oka Y4. s 1' W - .�do �- IL W i A, OI LOP ,r- 1 r i % N. y � a JA Mk IL IN W - , 64P DORM 4T 0 44 ,414 map dw ty r « w ` ILI r�'P !ip r or. • P, 3 w :II[ 0I1F+`i10 Trete W� Biophysical Considerations: • Potential bat habitat within the Project Limits • Increase to other habitat and species diversity • Reduce construction disturbance footprint by maintaining portion of existing Iron Horse Trail • Removal of barriers to upstream fish passage, providing access to species currently located downstream of Sydney St. S. • Availability of natural substrates to support invertebrates • Increase riparian vegetation to provide habitat for birds while providing shade and organic debris to the creeks • Re -connect Rockway Golf Course green space to Schneider Creek • Re -connect creek to flood plain, which can provide improved water quality Archaeological Considerations: • sage2Arc aeoogica Assessment has beencompete withnofindings Construction Phasing: • Project is proposed to be completed in phases: downstream of Kent is proposed to be completed in Phase 1 and upstream of Kent is proposed to be done as part of Phase 2 Stantec Page 18 of 86 Next Steps i JI 0 i -it w t VA -9 jo •` AM do 40 f4% t%, "+ • • ''�I . • • s� .r ka mr: Vol ' i • 7� CJ CJ M 9 I'm]m,2t6, 4 s _ too _ dw V o % • AhI rAh1 r mAkTAN WAN IAM 21 r 2U2z • a • i ,,,r►MP • + J . • • litAF ,,► 40 46 IL �Z _ 141,1 •, e d 410 MOO 41 Opb- i s w • � 1 f " 1 � ' � W♦ 1 7 'I, J24 -2C 4 IJ ou: Chris Nechacov, C. T. Project Manager City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 SchneiderCreek A@kitchener-ca Steve Brown, MBA, P.Eng. Project Manager Stantec Consulting Ltd. 519-585-7446 SchneiderCreek A@stantec-com Stantec Page 20 of 86 CYCLING CQUI� Developed by Jay Pitter Pl ging eight through a C collaborative process engaging eight cycling and CO -LEARNING ACTION TOOLKIT active transportation organizations across Canada Authored by Jay Pitter July 2023 Page 21 of 86 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jay Pitter Placemaking acknowledges the important role that cycling advocates, working across a broad range of grassroots and professional contexts, have played in championing active and sustainable transportation. Participating Organizations 8 80 Cities Bike Hub Cycling BC Cycle Toronto Ecology Action Centre Ontario Good Roads Association (0 G RA) The Centre for Active Transportation (TCAT) Winnipeg Trails Association Cycling Equity Experts & Advocates Adrian Alphonso, Tamika Butler, Armi De Francia, Sabat Ismail, Christopher McGarrell, Simone Mutabazi and Anthony Taylor Jay Pitter Placemaking Contributors Gelek Badheytsang, Communications Lead Jake Tobin Garrett, Collaborating Sub -Consultant Christina Hoang, Junior Planner Jay Pitter, Principal Placemaker and Toolkit Author Debra Scott, Community Development and Design Lead Jim Sheppard, Editor (Retired Executive Editor, Globe and Mail) WHO IS THIS TOOLKIT FOR? This Toolkit is for everyone invested in moving around their communities in a manner that is more affordable, accessible, sustainable and joyful. Specifically, this Toolkit is written in a manner that primarily responds to the growth opportunities and possibilities of the following groups: • Cycling organizations, volunteer groups and individual advocates committed to enhancing their internal organizational practices, policies and community engagement using an equitable and compassionate approach,- Policymakers pproach; Policymakers and land -use professionals—placemakers, urban planners, transportation planners, urban designers, engineers, etc.—committed to integrating an equitable approach in their respective fields, specifically as it relates to cycling and broader mobility infrastructure; • Professors and teaching assistants working in planning, geography and other related fields who inform how next -generation land -use professionals understand and prioritize cycling and broader mobility infrastructure. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page Z of 86 HOW DO I USE THIS TOOLKIT? This Toolkit has been developed to prompt personal reflection, professional development processes and organizational transformation. It can be used by an individual, team or entire organization. Part One presents key concepts, frameworks and evidence -based information to support individual and group understanding of what cycling equity and broader mobility are. It is advisable to take the time to carefully review and internalize this section before proceeding to other sections. After doing so, you may engage with the Toolkit in a linear manner— meaning reading and completing consecutive pages—or you may opt to delve into specific sections most aligned with your interests and needs. The Toolkit is not prescriptive and leaves enough space for you to learn at your own pace and to chart your own learning journey. We encourage all individuals and groups to embrace the principles, concepts and precedents that resonate with them, and to reflect on why some sections may evoke discomfort or feel unaligned with your interests and needs. Also, it is advisable to focus on internal work—both individual and organizational—prior to engaging external groups as a way of building confidence and mitigating potential harm to others. As with all equitable placemaking and personal growth work, it is important to allocate the proper space and reflective time for truly integrating the learnings derived from the Toolkit, along with your own expertise—both formal training and lived experiences. The following are additional suggestions for using this Toolkit: • Each week, or every two weeks, unpack one section of Part One—Cycling Equity Principles, Intersectionality Framework, Mobility Equity and Freedom Framework —individually or with a group. This exploration may be carried out by dedicating regular staff meeting time, hosting lunch and learns or establishing a bi-weekly coffee meetup with friends and/or colleagues with shared cycling equity learning goals. • Host a cycling equity action planning event, using one or more sections of the Toolkit such as the Organizational Policy Review, Equitable Community Engagement and/or Equity -Based Communication and Advocacy. Collectively develop an action plan for making three to five short-term changes within your institution or group. Also, you may opt to use this Toolkit to inform broader © Jay Pher Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page123 of 86 strategic communication and/or community engagement plans. Relatedly, sections of this Toolkit may be used to enhance existing cycling advocacy plans— both institutional and grassroots. • Isolate sections unpacked in Part One—with written consent and clear attribution—such as the Cycling Equity Principles, Cycling Equity Policy Checklist, Equitable Community Engagement and/or any of Three Conceptual and Practice Frameworks for Achieving Cycling Equity, and use as a learning tool at conferences and in classrooms. Understanding that the changemaking process begins from within, this Toolkit may be used to create an individual learning agenda. Commonly used within institutional contexts to both identify and address knowledge gaps that may be impeding informed decision-making, change management efforts and progressive policy, the spirit of the learning agenda is applicable to individual growth and professional development. Identify core questions and be forthright with responses. Questions may include.. • What is one personal and one professional hindrance you have in addressing cycling inequity within your professional or advocacy efforts? • What makes you most uncomfortable or reluctant to engage in practices and/or conversations focused on cycling inequity—particularly aspects related to racial injustice? • What are your top three knowledge gaps? Knowledge gaps may include not knowing how to respectfully engage equity -deserving groups, not knowing how to receive critical feedback from equity -deserving groups, and/or not knowing how to decentre yourself and/or moderate your emotions in cycling equity conversations. These are just a few examples illustrating how this Toolkit may be used. Again, it is both non -prescriptive and flexible, so feel free to amend the recommended uses above and add your own. © Jay Pher Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page124 of 86 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowlegements 2 Who Is This Toolkit For? 2 How Do I Use This Toolkit? 3 Introduction 6 Methodology 8 PART ONE: Principles, Facts & Frameworks Acknowledging the Problems to Unlock the Possibilities 10 What Is Cycling Fquity? 11 Cycling Equity Principles 13 How do we know that there is inequity within the cycling sector and other sectors mandated to advance active transportation? 14 Three Key Conceptual & Practice Frameworks for Achieving Cycling Equity 19 1. Intersectionality & Intersectionality Matrix 19 2. Mobility Equity & Freedom Framework 22 3. Fquitable Placemaking 26 PART TWO: Organizational Policy, Roles & Precedents Organizational Policy Review 30 Cycling Equity Policy Checklist 34 Entrenching Fquitable Approaches Across Organizational Roles 35 Fquitable Policy & Program Precedents 39 PART THREE: Community Engagement, Communication & Advocacy Fquitable Community Engagement 45 Fquitable Community Engagement Reflection 47 Equity -Based Communication & Advocacy 52 Cycling Equity Fvaluation Framework 57 © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page125 of 86 INTRODUCTION How we move around our communities is as important as where we're going. This particular "how" is intertwined with numerous structural inequities such as roadway engineering privileging cars, infrastructure investments across privileged urban geographies and identities that have historically been granted greater amounts of social privilege. These and other forms of privilege have historically pre -determined, and restricted the movement of, equity -deserving individuals and groups—diminishing genuine choice, joy and freedom. Human -centred modes of movement—walking, rolling, skipping and cycling—have existed since our earliest explorations. However, for the past century, these modes of movement have taken a backseat to the automobile, deleteriously impacting people and the planet. Fortunately, advocates on the front lines of mobility equity and environmental movements have made significant inroads for decades in challenging car -centric culture and infrastructure. In recent years, a growing number of racialized activists and those from other equity -deserving groups, both within and outside these movements, have called for a greater level of intersectional advocacy. This advocacy not only considers, but also centres, social justice analysis alongside infrastructure— responding to the ways that race, class, disability and gender profoundly increase barriers for individuals living at the complex intersections of these and other identities. While recognizing the importance of infrastructure and the bicycle itself, this Toolkit integrates urgently needed socio -spatial analysis across the cycling and broader active transportation landscape. This Cycling Equity Toolkit—and perhaps more importantly the process which informed its development—is a long-awaited answer to that call. It is a result of a year-long engagement process with several cycling organizations across Canada. © Jay Pher Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pagel 26 of 86 These organizations, primarily white -led, are engaged in important advocacy work while acknowledging growth opportunities related to equitable principles, practices and policies. Core areas of capacity -building were identified and addressed in this Toolkit after insightful, spirited and sometimes uncomfortable conversations, along with transparent sharing of the inner workings of the organizations. Consistent with Jay Pitter Placemaking's approach, this evidence -based Toolkit contains cycling equity principles, frameworks, precedents and, most importantly, hands-on engagement prompts for not only thinking but doing. The goal of this Toolkit is to contribute to the kind of change that will make the exhilarating, embodied and sustainable experience of cycling available to a larger and more diverse group of people, while deepening equitable approaches across cycling and the broader mobility sectors, and in powerful advocacy movements. It is our hope—and the hope of all of the participating organizations—that this Toolkit builds capacity, compassion and momentum for integrating equitable approaches across all aspects of cycling and human -centred mobility advocacy. In respectful solidarity, Jay Pitter, MES Principal Placemaker, Jay Pitter Placemaking Adjunct Professor and Practitioner -in -Residence, University of Waterloo Visiting Fellow, University of Windsor Law Centre for Cities © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pagel27 of 86 METHODOLOGY This Toolkit was developed through a deeply participatory, co -learning process led by Jay Pitter Placemaking in collaboration with a diverse range of leaders committed to mobility equity across Canada. Key components of the process were: • Conducted a pre -session organizational survey to assess specific challenges, strengths and goals; • Provided each participating organization with an equity -based placemaking policy review and a one-page personalized summary with recommendations, supporting immediate structural change within their capacity; • Devised and implemented one cycling -equity training session that unpacked the socio -spatial history of the public realm; the discriminatory policies restricting free and joyful mobility; intersectional ity theory within the context of cycling equity; and key cycling equity principles,- * rinciples;• Devised and implemented one equitable community -engagement session that unpacked various types and depth of community engagement; barriers to engaging historically marginalized groups, capacity -building through community engagement principles; and practice precedents exemplifying creative and equitable approaches,- * pproaches;• Co-ordinated a peer-to-peer training panel including special guests, Tamika Butler and Anthony Taylor, two of the foremost cycling equity experts in North America, alongside Canadian cycling equity leaders Simone Mutabazi, Armi De Francia, Christopher McGarrell, Sabat Ismail and Adrian Alphonso,- * 1phonso;• Developed the framework for this Toolkit, on which all the participating organizations commented; then integrated their feedback. Following the aforementioned process, the Practice leveraged its analysis and frameworks, along with additional research to develop this Toolkit. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page128 of 86 PART ONE. Principles, Facts & Frameworks • © Jay Rtter Racemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Acknowledging the Problems to Unlock the Possibilities Again, cycling advocates, working across a broad range of grassroots and professional contexts, have played an integral role in championing active and sustainable transportation. This work is often under -compensated, sometimes heart -breaking and always challenging. Cycling advocates should be commended for their important work contesting car -centric infrastructure, organizing ghost rides to humanize individuals killed by cars, or courageously challenging governments to advance active transportation policies, initiatives and investments. It is also true that like all land -use and land use -adjacent sectors, cycling advocacy has a significant growth opportunity when it comes to deeply integrating an equitable placemaking approach across all disciplines, types of initiatives and roles. Relatedly, the leaders within the sector rarely reflect the communities facing the greatest cycling equity issues and broader mobility equity barriers. However, a critical mass of cycling advocates working across non- profit, governmental and grassroots contexts are increasingly acknowledging these and other growth opportunities, and are rethinking what it means to deeply integrate equity into cycling advocacy to unlock optimal possibilities—social, environmental and health—for everyone. ® Before reading the content on the following page, take one moment to brainstorm— by yourself or with others—a few key concepts or definitions of cycling equity based on your expertise (both formal training and lived experiences). © Jay Pher Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page130 of 86 What Is Cycling Equity? Like most terms, there isn't a singular definition for cycling equity. However, a recently published article, The Pursuit of Cycling Equity, provides the definition below, which is aligned with the shift towards more structural analysis and intersectional thinking among professional and grassroots advocates working within the cycling sector and related sectors mandated to advance active transportation. The following definition also recognizes a broad range of socio -spatial barriers related to cycling, including and beyond infrastructure, while centring community stakeholders. "Cycling equity can be defined as a situation where cycling is a safe, secure mode of travel that improves mobility and accessibility fairly, enabling all people to participate in socio-economic life. To provide for cycling equity, planners and decision -makers recognize and address the needs and concerns of disadvantaged groups by including such groups throughout the entirety of the planning process, and by employing methods of analysis that assess a plan or project's potential to generate equitable outcomes. Plans and projects are prioritized in areas home to the most disadvantaged but are shaped under the consideration of key concerns and barriers such as physical safety, personal security, racism, policing and harassment, and fear of displacement from gentrification associated with cycling investments. The highlighted words and concepts above provide an excellent foundation for understanding the primary tenets of cycling equity. Additional context and analysis should include clarification that the "disadvantage" referenced above emanates directly from institutions that perpetuate structural discrimination, both inadvertently and intentionally, long-standing and present. Moreover, it's important to be explicit about who these "disadvantaged" groups are—Indigenous Peoples, racialized people, women, disabled people, and people living on lower incomes outside downtown cores. Additionally, it's paramount to clarify the structural barriers, such as policies that perpetuate car -centric infrastructure, prioritization of investments in downtown cores, urban planning bylaws and discriminatory policing practices. Moreover, an environmental analysis must be tethered to every equitable placemaking definition and framework. Doran, A., EI-Geneidy, A. & Manaugh, K. (2021). The pursuit of cycling equity. Journal of Transport Geography, 90, 1-9. p.8. https://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/Cycling_Equity_pdf © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pago 31 of 86 Using the definition above (with particular emphasis on the highlighted words and concepts) along with the subsequent analysis and additions, co -create your own cycling equity definition with colleagues and community stakeholders. .® Cycling Equity Is ... © Jay Pher Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page 32 of 86 Cycling Equity Principles While the socio -spatial and structural issues hindering cycling equity are complex, its aspiration is simple—all bodies moving joyfully, sustainably and safely through place. Cycling equity issues are social justice issues; no single cycling equity initiative can address all issues but all of the issues can be respectfully acknowledged. Cycling is not strictly a recreational activity or an environmentally conscious choice; many stakeholders groups rely on cycling as an essential mode of travel. Acknowledging social justice issues such as racism, gender-based discrimination and ableism in no way diminishes cycling advocacy efforts,- to fforts;to the contrary, aligning with other stakeholder groups and broader mobility equity issues strengthens the sector and movement. While all individuals on bikes are vulnerable due to unsafe car -centric infrastructure and entitled car -centric attitudes, this inarguable situational risk should not be conflated with historical marginalization, or with positioning all individuals on bikes as an equity -deserving group. Cycling equity is not strictly about the bike; it is primarily about people and broad benefits derived from the bike. Cycling equity is an important aspect of a broader mobility equity practice and conceptual framework. Many individuals and groups do not identify as "cyclists," they identify as people who use and/or enjoy cycling—humans are typically multi -modal so the noun can be alienating for many. Perceptions of cycling have cultural dimensions as many individuals and groups, especially those who have been historically excluded, have bought into the single -family -home -and -car dream perpetuated by dominant, mainstream culture. Many individuals and groups, especially those disproportionately impacted by cycling and broader mobility inequities, have been leading this movement at the grassroots level; their courage and creativity are to be honoured. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page �33 of 86 How do we know that there is inequity within the cycling sector and other sectors mandated to advance active transportation? The following section, entirely predicated on academic research, contains so many citations that it would be unreadable if we used our usual method of footnoting. Instead, we have used in -text citations that we have greyed out to make them less disruptive to the text, and we have added a bibliography directly following this section. First and foremost, we know inequity exists because people from historically marginalized groups who are worthy of being believed have said so. However, as an evidence -based, placemaking practice, we know that the word of community stakeholders is sadly often not enough for others. We also understand the power of situating the lived experiences of historically marginalized groups within formal knowledge -production processes. These findings—resulting from an in-depth, multi- disciplinary research process—illuminate the urgency and extent of the inequities that exist within cycling: Cycling and Gender Inequity A 2019 article in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian, titled "Why are female cyclists targeted by aggressive drivers for abuse?" (Jelly, 2019) is centred around one woman's personal cycling experiences, backed by international research. Key points from the article include: Female cyclists are twice as likely to be abused and harassed (i.e., sexual harassment, including catcalling and verbal abuse) compared to male cyclists, according to a 2015 report (Aldred & Crosweller, 2015). Individuals driving are more likely to pass closely (i.e., within three feet) of women cyclists than men, according to research from the University of Minnesota (Lindsey, 2019). While cycling can usually be considered a safe(r) way for women to travel— in comparison to walking or public transit—unsafe experiences for women occur more frequently during early mornings or late nights. "Women are told they must take responsibility for their own safety, and then challenged by the same forces when they try to do just that." ** We advise against using the term "cyclist" to be more inclusive of individuals who cycle because they may not identify in this manner. However, the term cyclist is used in this section to reflect the language used in the research. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page 34 of 86 The 2015 report, "Cycling Near Misses: Findings from Year One of the Near Miss Project," (Aldred et al., 2015) which was cited in the above Guardian article, offers further details on those themes: Women cyclists have higher near -miss rates than men, although on average they cycle more slowly. • Individuals driving pass more closely to women by 50% per mile, compared to men. • Non -injury incidents, such as near misses from passing cars, are important to consider in data and cycling policy to better address cycling inequities, specifically aspects of safety linked to women's ridership rates. 2. Cycling and Racial Inequity A 2021 report, "The Pursuit of Cycling Equity: A Review of Canadian Transport Plans," (Doran et al., 2021) outlines details from a series of studies about harassment of racialized people (mainly Black and Latino/a people) while cycling. Among the findings: The Tampa Police Department issued 80% of its cycling citations to Black residents, who comprise only 25% of Tampa's population. Also, Black and Latino/a people are subject to higher rates of profiling and police bias in stop, question and frisk encounters (Mitchell & Ridgeway, 2018). • Black people are disproportionately subject to harm and harassment from not just the police, but also road users (Goddard et al., 2015; Mitchell & Ridgeway, 2018). Immigrant and racialized minority populations cycle more than their white, U.S.- born counterparts but are underrepresented in cycling advocacy groups (Barajas, 2018; Stehlin & Tarr, 2017). ' Cycling advocacy by communities of colour is overshadowed by cycling advocacy from wealthier and pre -dominantly white groups (Stehlin & Tarr, 2017). A 2020 online article in Bicycling, "Black Cyclists Are Stopped More Often Than Whites, Police Data Shows," (Roe 202o) highlights how anti -Blackness specifically manifests within the context of cycling: • According to information from the Oakland Police Department, between 2016-2018, Black riders in Oakland represented almost 60% of bike stops by police. This is three times more than their white counterparts (although Black people account for less than one-quarter of the city's population). © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page Z5 of 86 Data from the D.C.'s Metropolitan Police, between 2010-2017 showed that Black cyclists represented 88% of stops—a rate nearly twice the Black population. For example, 22 Black cyclists were stopped by police who cited suspicious activity and 26 were stopped by police who claimed they were suspicious persons, while only one white cyclist was stopped based on suspicion during the same time frame. This disturbing cycling discrimination also impacts young people. In Washington, children under 18 were twice as likely to be stopped as compared to their white counterparts. 3 Cycling and Disability Inequity The brief 2020 Bloomberg article, "When Street Design Leaves Some People, Behind," (surcio, 2020) contains important insights on disabled peoples' experiences on streets made dangerous or inaccessible for them because of cycling infrastructure. These include: People who are hard -of -hearing face difficulty picking up the quiet sound of cycling traffic, which can be especially dangerous in multi -use lanes and street crossings. Flattened curbs offer no distinction between a sidewalk and cycling lane for people who are blind or partially sighted. ® Dockless e -bikes and bikes left on sidewalks can lead to injury for blind or partially sighted, as well as people with mobility challenges. A 2017 survey conducted by Wheels for Wellbeing, (Wheels for Wellbeing, 201 7) a cycling advocacy group for disabled people in the U.K., includes key findings on disabled peoples' experiences with cycling.- 69% ycling: 69% of disabled cyclists find cycling easier than walking, contrary to some assumptions that cycling is exclusively for people without disabilities. While 57% of respondents said they received support while cycling, 36% of disabled cyclists encountered abuse or disability hate crime. More than 36% of respondents experienced being unable to park or store their bikes due inadequate facilities. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagO136 of 86 Finally, a 2020 report by the U.S. group Shared Mobility Inc. (Shared Mobility Inc., 2020) looked at how mobility can be inclusive for older adults and people with disabilities. Its major finding: "Following a discussion on e -bikes, nearly half of all participants surveyed from the project's focus groups said they believed e -bikes would help to increase their community mobility. Specifically, 60% of older adults surveyed agreed with this statement." 4. Cycling and Disparities in Infrastructure The 2021 report cited above, "The Pursuit of Cycling Equity: A Review of Canadian Transport Plans," (Doran et al., 2021) also reviews the literature on cycling equity, with these major findings around the theme of disparities in cycling infrastructure'. The least safe forms of cycling infrastructure are often found in low-income, immigrant and racialized minority neighbourhoods (Barajas, 2018; Golub et al., 2016; Grise & EI-Geneidy, 2018; Tucker & Manaugh, 2018; ). In New York City, pedestrian and cycling crashes were higher in census tracts with larger immigrant populations, possibly due to poor cycling and walking infrastructure (Rebentisch et al., 2019; Rothman et al., 2019). Cycling infrastructure disproportionately emerges in gentrified neighbourhoods or can drive gentrification itself (Ibsen & olesen, 2018). The article, "How Toronto Fails its Racialized and Low -Income Cyclists," (Yogarajah, 2021) looks at Toronto's cycling infrastructure, and unpacks the following important findings: Not only do policing ordinances disproportionately affect racialized and low- income people, but so does bike -sharing infrastructure. Most bike stations are concentrated in Toronto's downtown core, which leaves inner/suburban communities, which are increasingly populated by racialized and low-income people, to be underserved. • In a recent proposed expansion on cycling infrastructure in Toronto, 15 bike lanes were to be added, but none of them were to be located in Scarborough, a largely racialized and low-income borough. Inadequate community consultations also hinder the implementation of cycling infrastructure in racialized and low-income neighbourhoods. Such engagements do not consider participation barriers including evening working hours for essential workers, language diversity, technological literacy and child-care requirements. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pago �37 of 86 Bibliography Aldred, R., Brooke, E., Crosweller, S., Danova, D., Dunk, W., Jungnickle, K., Lytton, N., & Thurston, J. (2015). Cycling Near Missing: Findings from Year One of the Near Miss Project. The Near Miss Project. htt : racheialdred.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Nearmissreport-final-web.pdf Aldred, R., & Crosweller, S. (2015). Investigating the rates and impacts of near misses and related incidents among UK cyclists, Journal of Transport & Health, Volume 2, Issue 3, Pages 379-393, ISSN 2214-1405, https://doi.org/10.10161i.ith.2015.05.006 Barajas, J. M. (2018). Supplemental infrastructure: how community networks and immigrant identity influence cycling. Transportation. Doran, A., EI-Geneidy, A., & Manaugh, K. (2021). The pursuit of cycling equity. Journal of Transport Geography, 90,1-9. https://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/Cycling_Equity_pdf Goddard, T, Kahn, K., & Adkins, A. (2015). Racial bias in driver yielding behavior at crosswalks. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 33,1 —6. Golub, A., Hoffmann, M. L., Lugo, A. E., & Sandoval, G. F. (2016). Introduction. In: Golub, A., Hoffmann, M. L., Lugo, A. E. & Sandoval, G. F (eds.) Bicycle Justice and Urban Transformation: Biking for All? London, United Kindgom: Routledge. Grise, E., & EI Geneidy, A. (2018). If we build it, who will benefit?A multi -criteria approach for the prioritization of new bicycle lanes in Quebec City, Canada. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 11, 217 235. Ibseon, M. E., & Olensen, K. (2018). Bicycle urbanism as a competitive advantage in the neoliberal age: the case of bicycle promotion in Portland. International Planning Studies, 23, 210-224 Jelly, K. (2019, October 4). Why are female cyclists targeted by aggressive drivers for abuse? The Guardian. https://www.theg uardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/oct/04/why-are-female-cyclists- targeted-b__y:iaggressive-drivers-for-abuse Lindsey, G. (2019, July 15). Bicycles, Gender, and Risk: Driver Behaviors When Passing Cyclists. The Gender Policy Report. The University of Minnesota. https://genderpolicyreport.umn.edu/bicycles-gender- and-risk/ Mitchell, 0., & Ridgeway, G. (2018). Assessing the Fairness and Effectiveness of Bicycle Stops in Tampa. Police Quarterly, 21, 461-485. Rebentisch, H., Wasfi, R., Piatkowskil, P, & Manaugh, K. (2019). Safe Streets forAll?Analyzing Infrastructural Response to Pedestrian and Cyclist Crashes in New York City, 2009-2018. Journal of the Transportation Research Record, 2673, 672 685. Roe, D. (2020, July 27). Black Cyclists Are Stopped More Often Than Whites, Police Data Shows. A Bicycling Analysis of Three Major Cities Finds Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Police Interactions with Riders. Bicycling. https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a33383540/cycling-while-black-police/ Rothman, L., Cloutier, M. Manaugh, K., Howards, A., Macpherson, C., & Macarthur, C. (2019). Spatial distribution of roadway environment features related to child pedestrian safety by census tract income in Toronto, Canada. Injury Prevention. Doi: doi: 10.1136/injuryprev 2018 043125. Shared Mobility Inc. (2020). Inclusive Shared Mobility: Enabling the Participation of Older Adults and People with Disabilities. https://mobilitydevelopment.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/SMI_NADTC_ research_report.pdf Stehlin, J. G., & Tarr, A. R. (2017). Think regionally, act locally?: gardening, cycling, and the horizon of urban spatial politics. Urban Geography, 38,1329 1351. Surcio, J. (2020, August 13). When Street Design Leaves Some People Behind. Bloomberg. https://www. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-13/do-bike-I anes-have-an-accessib i l ity_prob lem Tucker B., & Manaugh, K. (2018). Bicycle equity in Brazil: Access to safe cycling routes across neighborhoods in Rio de Janeiro and Curitiba. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 12, 29-38. Wheels for Wellbeing. (2017). Experiences of disabled cyclists — 2017 survey. P 2. htt s: wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Report.pdf Yogarajah, M. (2021). How Toronto Fails its Racialized and Low -Income Cyclists. Azure. https://www. azuremagazine.com/article/how-toronto-fails-its-racialized-and-low-income-cyclists/ © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagO138 of 86 Three Key Conceptual & Practice Frameworks for Achieving Cycling Equity Again, while the socio -spatial and structural issues hindering cycling equity are complex, its aspiration is simple—all bodies moving joyfully, sustainably and safely through place. To fulfil this audacious aspiration, three primary conceptual and practice frameworks are required: Intersectionality, Mobility Equity and Equitable Placemaking. Intersectionality Mobility equity challenges span an unwieldy range of historical eras, divergent geographies, place -based policies and legal contexts tied to our social identities. This is why no two demographic groups, or even individuals within the same demographic group, have the exact same mobility needs, experiences and aspirations. Intersectionality—a theoretical and analytic framework introduced by African American scholar Kimberle Crenshaw—helps us understand this complexity. This framework illuminates the interconnectedness of social identities such as race, class, gender, sexual orientation and ability—and how they can overlap, deepening discrimination. Translated to cycling equity, this means that while all individuals on bikes are vulnerable due to unsafe car -centric infrastructure and entitled car -centric attitudes, individuals who cycle who are racialized, women, disabled and/or visibly poor face compounded vulnerabilities. Many individuals are inclined to lean into tropes such as "we have more in common than differences," but it isn't differences that we must be wary of—it's the denial of differences. While differences are often wrongly conflated with divisiveness, formidable activist and author Audre Lorde reminds us, "It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences." Within the context of cycling equity, differences in vulnerability among individuals who cycle certainly shouldn't be accepted and/or celebrated but they should be recognized. Discounting the differences of bodies moving through place diminishes joy and safety, and ultimately makes the cycling sector and related sectors alienating for many individuals from historically marginalized groups. © Jay Pher Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page139 of 86 Intersectionality Matrix 49 justice system technical and complicated language citizenship immigration status SS outdated bylaws race + class discrimination Socio -Spatial Factors .. In stigmatized neighbourhoods ri ableism physical barriers to access 00 (Om social network historical displacement of Indigenous Peoples 0 active and public transportation access © Jay Pitter Placemaking © Jay Pher PJacemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PageAO of 86 d and gender and sexxualual id bridge the economic/decent wage gap 49 justice system technical and complicated language citizenship immigration status SS outdated bylaws race + class discrimination Socio -Spatial Factors .. In stigmatized neighbourhoods ri ableism physical barriers to access 00 (Om social network historical displacement of Indigenous Peoples 0 active and public transportation access © Jay Pitter Placemaking © Jay Pher PJacemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PageAO of 86 ® Which concept in this framework most resonates with you—both personally and professionally? Why? ® Which concept in this framework is currently being practised in your organization? ® Which concept in this framework could you employ to enhance equity within your current professional practice and/or advocacy efforts? .® Additional Reflections: © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pago Al of 86 Mobility equity refers to the provision of transportation policies, funding, infrastructure and services that are responsive to diverse demographic needs and aspirations. This entails recognizing how state -sanctioned policies and planning approaches have significantly limited mobility options for Indigenous Peoples, Black people (particularly those descended from enslaved people), disabled people, 2SLGBTQ+ people and other groups. In addition to acknowledging and rectifying these fraught histories, mobility equity tenets include sustainable approaches that counteract car - centric infrastructure, require interdisciplinary knowledge exchange among scholars, and promote cross -sectoral and intergovernmental collaboration. Most importantly, mobility equity strives to ensure that everyone—regardless of race, class or any other social identity—is able to access safety, joy and prosperity with dignity while journeying. It is not simply about moving people from point A to point B. Mobility equity is freedom. Planning, Placemaking & Development • Active & Public Transportation Infrastructure • Cross -Sector Collaboration • Integrating Placemaking Into Transportation Planning • Community Engagement Collective Wellness & Prosperity • Individual & Collective Wellness • Local Economy • Employment & Procurement • Route Connectivity • Dignity & Joy Governance FREEDOM • Participatory Policy Reform Environmental Justice & Development & Sustainability • Inter- Governmental • Environmental Collaboration & Investment\\ • Economic •Participatory Decision- `� • Community Resilience Decision- making & Stewardship • Non -Discriminatory Safety &Security \\ Accessibility . Physical Social • Economic • Service Provision © Jay Pitter Placemaking © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagOA2 of 86 Planning, Placemaking and Development: It is impossible to enhance mobility -related services, infrastructure and policies without an understanding of the community's context. Far too often, strategic decisions and design approaches pertaining to mobility -related development such as street infrastructure investments or establishing new transit routes are informed by traditional, often quantitative data such as traffic counts, mode of travel, revenue, carbon dioxide emissions, and trip origins and destinations. While this data is extremely important, it is also essential to gather additional and under -collected data such as the social identities of community stakeholders, unsafe public realm pockets, sacred sites, commute complexity and the uneven power dynamics that mediate all bodies in motion. Responding to a broader range of mobility -related data requires an equitable and holistic placemaking approach, which considers social, spatial, cultural and policy factors that determine the mobility mode and quality of each individual's experience in the public realm. This approach will also reveal hidden routes and fraught histories that are not represented on a map or visible from a design studio. Cross -sector collaborations, within and beyond land -use professions, as well as resources are required for positive change. Given the complexity of this approach and the plethora of issues creating barriers to achieving mobility equity, these collaborations should optimize expertise from both formal training and lived experiences. Collective Wellness and Prosperity: A body in motion enhances both health and mental wellness within a matter of moments. Numerous bodies in motion enhance a sense of community, improving our collective wellness and prosperity, while addressing growing issues such as loneliness, lack of civic participation and growing social divides. Equitable mobility contributes to this collective benefit in multiple ways, such as ensuring that local businesses and residents benefit from infrastructure projects, reforming the procurement process to create greater pathways for vendors from historically marginalized groups, and ensuring that community stakeholders can access opportunities and social networks across suburban neighbourhoods and not just downtown cores. Moreover, the quality of movement—in terms of feelings of joy, dignity and belonging—must be reframed from being a "soft" aspect of mobility to being central to realizing the audacious goal of freedom. Environmental Justice and Sustainability: The vast majority of sustainability discourse, both policy and practice, is hyper -focused on mitigating the climate crisis. This is a time -sensitive issue and a collective concern. However, mainstream sustainability efforts must continue to centre this urgent collective concern while tethering it to an environmental justice lens. These efforts must explicitly acknowledge a range of long-standing mobility -related environmental issues such as sacred © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PageA3 of 86 Indigenous sites being paved over for roadways, numerous occurrences of racialized and poor people residing dangerously close to health -diminishing highways (particle and noise pollution), and the adverse impact of tourism travel on natural ecosystems in developing countries. Also, economically just and supportive solutions that protect the livelihoods of everyday people need to be concurrently considered alongside environmental imperatives. This integrated approach reduces occurrences of relatively privileged advocates speaking over, or down to, community stakeholders facing the greatest harms, while strengthening movements to heal and honour the Earth by creating greater pathways for co -learning. The result would be increased positive behavioural change, knowledge co -production and hyper -local stewardship models. Accessibility: For centuries, abhorrent physical accessibility barriers have restricted the movement of individuals living with a range of disabilities, elders and in some cases families with young children. In addition to addressing these issues— considering visible and invisible disabilities—it is imperative to consider how other aspects of accessibility can create barriers to free and joyful movement. Accessibility barriers include an economic issue such as not being able to afford both food and transit fare, a social issue such as being racially profiled on public transit and streets, and a service issue such as residing in a rural community without a diverse range of transportation options. It is important to remember that these barriers are not mutually exclusive nor are they in competition with one another. Mobility equity requires nuance and a commitment to removing all forms of accessibility barriers. Governance: Historically, numerous state -sanctioned policies were instituted to restrict the mobility of Indigenous Peoples, enslaved Black people, disabled people, poor people, women and other historically marginalized groups. These structural mobility inequities continue to exist while being compounded by an intractable and lengthy list of additional governance issues such as state- and corporate -sanctioned strategies promoting car culture, lack of pathways for community stakeholders to contribute to decision-making processes, and the proliferation of partisan politics obstructing transportation planning and development—all of which have created considerable mobility equity barriers. Addressing these and other mobility -related governance issues requires new governance models including the reformation of laws policing particular bodies, participatory policy development processes, and the institution of clearer social justice and environmental metrics. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PageA4 of 86 ® Which concept in this framework most resonates with you—both personally and professionally? Why? ® Which concept in this framework is currently being practised in your organization? ® Which concept in this framework could you employ to enhance equity within your current professional practice and/or advocacy efforts? .® Additional Reflections: © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PageA5 of 86 I Equitable Placemaking The overall quality of the public realm is largely defined by bodies in motion in terms of modes of travel, interpersonal interactions and synchronous spatial rhythm. A placemaking lens is required for fully understanding and responding to the body - motion -place proposition. Placemaking is conventionally defined as a collaborative approach to the design, programming and policy of public and semi-public spaces. It brings community knowledge and vision to the forefront of design processes pertaining to the public realm, historically going beyond the urbanism status quo and hierarchy. Equity - Based Placemaking—an approach largely advanced by Jay Pitter Placemaking in both academic and practice contexts—recognizes structural, historical and socio - spatial factors that shape the character of public spaces. This particular framework is informed by theories such as critical urban planning theory, spatial feminism theory, environmental justice and human geography, and place -based theories asserted by sociologists such as Henri Lefebvre and W.E.B. Du Bois. Although distinct, all of these theories pose questions related to power, equity and ownership while striving towards human -centred, sustainable and just approaches for co -creating places where everyone prospers. Key approaches include, but are not limited to, the following: Acknowledge the complex histories and socio-political dynamics of public spaces, and how they inform people's mobility, safety and joy. ® Identify and address power imbalances and multiple dimensions of safety (physical, psychological and historical) through all stages of placemaking processes. Embrace multiple forms of community power, cultural expressions and assets. Develop strong social plans and programming that address competing interests among young families, elders, people experiencing homelessness, disabled people, sex workers and other groups that use and steward public spaces. • Co -create public spaces where community members are not simply "user groups" but are respectfully recognized as stewards. ® Consider multiple dimensions of accessibility—physical, economic and social. ® Recognize that the character of a place is shaped through interactions with humans, other living beings and the natural environment. By combining community knowledge with professional land -use and policy expertise, equity -based placemaking contests status quo urban design, planning and development. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagOA6 of 86 ® Which concept in this framework most resonates with you—both personally and professionally? Why? ® Which concept in this framework is currently being practised in your organization? ® Which concept in this framework could you employ to enhance equity within your current professional practice and/or advocacy efforts? .® Additional Reflections: © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagOA7 of 86 Together, the aforementioned frameworks address structural, personal and environmental aspects of cycling equity while contending with histories of harm. That approach is essential for working towards more equitable mobility futures. Together, these frameworks unearth the nuance of overlapping socio -spatial issues and invisibilized power dynamics that, if overlooked, can inadvertently cause tremendous harm. They may be used in conjunction with other frameworks, which also provide a premise for the type of ongoing structural analysis and self -reflection required for collectively achieving cycling equity outcomes. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagOA8 of 86 PART TWO-, Organizational Policy, Roles & Precedents • © Jay Rtter Racemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY, ROLES & PRECEDENTS The vast majority of organizations and grassroots volunteer groups within the cycling sector and related active transportation sectors can attest to the need for all orders of government and funding bodies to address policies hindering the advancement of cycling equity. It's also true that cycling advocates themselves have a role to play in transforming policies within their own organizations and groups, because change almost always begins with reflexive self -interrogation and ground -up action. This section of the Toolkit begins by unpacking findings, themes and a cycling equity policy -transformation checklist informed by the examination of the policies of all participating organizations. Recognizing that policy transformation without action is both futile and performative, the Practice also presents a matrix unpacking equitable actions tethered to key organizational roles, followed by precedents (both policy and practice) indicative of the structural change required to move forward. Organizational Policy Review Again, as part of this project, Jay Pitter Placemaking undertook a review of organizational policies submitted by the project's participating groups. These included internal organizational policies, as well as policies and procedures related to community engagement and participation. The insights shared in this section reflect common growth opportunities that—while derived from the participating organizations—apply to a wider landscape of non-profit and advocacy -related organizations working in mobility at the city level. Fundamentally, institutional policies articulate overarching tenets and values, which guide big -picture missions and strategies. Policy documents serve and reflect the goals of institutions, as well as consider the broader social, environmental and economic context in which the institution is operating. In many ways, institutional procedures reflect and respond to the same. The major difference between policies and procedures is that procedures are far more rooted in day-to-day operations and specific instances. Procedures are the opposite of big -picture or strategic; they are a step-by-step outline of how to respond in specific circumstances that may arise within the institution. Ideally, policies and procedures should be aligned with institutional vision, values and goals. They should also be flexible and responsive, although procedures are generally revised more frequently than policies. Moreover, policies are most effective when they are co -created with staff and community members, and tethered to financial resources and evaluation metrics. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page 50 of 86 Many of the policies reviewed, both within and beyond our participant group, did an excellentjob articulating organizational values, vision and commitment to public good. Many of these policies demonstrated a deep understanding of workplace harassment, and a commitment to equitable and relational community engagement. The following themes are a summary of growth opportunities. Overarching policy statements often extend beyond the scope of organizational influence. The organizational policies reviewed often made claims about addressing intractable structural inequities well beyond the scope or capacity of the organizations. Clearly acknowledging structural inequities such as racism, gender-based discrimination and poverty faced by many historically excluded communities is a good thing. However, claiming to address these issues without clearly unpacking the aspects that can actually be addressed—based on the organization's scope of influence and capacity—contravenes transparency and trust -building. While cycling programs open up a new, desperately needed transportation option, intractable issues such as unsafe infrastructure, racism, ageism, etc. may prevent some individuals from accessing articulated policy benefits or goals. Overpromising and/or not being aware of the aspects of large structural issues that a single organization with a cycling or active transportation mandate can undertake is a red flag for historically marginalized groups. To avoid setting up both the community and organization for failure, consider what constitutes the organization's sphere of influence in creating structural change to increase cycling equity and develop policies within that sphere. All organizational statements pertaining to equity should be reflected in policy. Over the past few years, many organizations across planning and placemaking sectors have made superficial and/or performative equity -based statements. One way organizations that are genuinely committed to equity can distinguish themselves from this harmful and deceptive professional conduct is to couple all statements to tangible organizational actions. For example, claims such as being "committed to equity and diversity" or "being a learning organization" should be coupled with clear policy points that support these goals. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pago 51 of 86 Policy statements should not conflate equity with diversity, inclusion or even equality. Many organizations wrongly, and sometimes intentionally, conflate equity with diversity and inclusion. For clarity, diversity and inclusion are focused on the presence of different people with different perspectives, then creating the conditions for them to feel a sense of comfort and belonging. Equality is the practice of treating people the same without considering individual diversity, history and systemic marginal ization. However, equity is firmly situated in the milieu of historical and contemporary structural inequities, and responds to specific group and individual needs, so people have fair opportunities to not only participate but to prosper, heal, make decisions, co - create and ultimately alter institutional agendas and cultures that are creating barriers in their lives. While equity is not mutually exclusive from diversity and inclusion, its goals are structural change, which can occur only when space is ceded, power is shared, past harms are reconciled, and professional reflexivity and compassion are transformed from soft skills to core competencies. This online article, "What's the difference between diversity,equity, n in lusion,"2 offers a clear delineation between all three concepts with correlating actions/examples. Equitable policy does not diminish the agency and expertise—both formal training and lived experiences —of individuals from equity -deserving groups. In an attempt to be more equitable, many organizations diminish the agency and expertise of individuals from equity -deserving groups. For example, policies that reference treating these groups "more favourably" in hiring processes or that overly focus on identity without recognizing expertise have unintended adverse impacts. Remember, prioritizing job applicants or community participants from equity - deserving groups isn't favourable treatment or special treatment; it's simply a remova of long-standing structural barriers. The assumption that these individuals lack core competencies (and other skills and professional exposure derived from navigating structural barriers) or fall beneath organizational standards reveals implicit biases while stigmatizing the recipients of equitable policies. Also, this approach contributes to division and resentment between equity -deserving groups and those whose identities, ways of knowing and credentials have historically been centred 2 Pantic, Vanja. (2021, February 25). What is the difference between diversity, equity, and inclusion? Citizen Lab. https://www.citizenIab.co/bIog/civic-engagement/whats-the-difference-between- diversity-equity-and-inclusion/ © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pag$52 of 86 and embraced. Rather than over -emphasizing the trauma or lack, create balance by acknowledging historical exclusions and clearly amplify how structural barriers are being removed to accommodate equitable participation that will benefit everyone. Do not shy away from naming racial injustice and discrimination. While many organizational policies demonstrate a commitment to address workplace harassment and discrimination, particularly related to gender, there is a significant growth opportunity in recognizing structural racism, classism, credentialism, mental health stigma, and homophobia and transphobia as forms of structural discrimination. When outlining procedures related to addressing a broader dimension of workplace harassment and discrimination, striking gaps pertaining to resolution processes (within and outside policy documents) were observed. For example, many policies indicated that investigations would be carried out by managers and executive directors, discounting the possibility that individuals in these roles may be perpetrators. Also, in many instances, little consideration was given to the likelihood of staff people and/or community members fearing reprisal, breach of confidentiality and/or a traumatic process led by an individual lacking expertise in the various forms of workplace harassment and discrimination. Clarity, transparency and expertise are fundamental requirements for addressing harassment and discrimination policies, and organizational policies overall. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pag$353 of 86 Cycling Equity Policy Checklist The following checklist is intended to support organizations within the cycling sector and active transportation sector to develop, review and/or update their internal policies. Was this organizational policy developed using a participatory policy development approach—meaning a democratic process enabling all levels of staff members and community stakeholders to meaningfully contribute? Was this organizational policy developed with a specific purpose or vision in mind? If so, is it clearly stated? Was this organizational policy developed with the support of a cycling and/or mobility equity expert (formally trained and/or with lived experience)? If not, has it been reviewed by a cycling and/or mobility equity expert? Was this organizational policy informed by a review of similar policies within or beyond the sector to ensure good and emergent practices? Was this organizational policy developed as part of a knee-jerk reaction or a thoughtful response to cycling inequities? Does this organizational policy centre respectful asset-based, person -first plain language, and include accompanying definitions to ensure accessibility? Does this organizational policy reference culture, dress codes or professionalism in a way that could be alienating for stakeholders from equity -deserving groups? Does this organizational policy clearly state who are the impacted stakeholders as well as the stakeholders tasked with implementing it? Does this organizational policy align with other guiding organizational documents such as strategic plans, staff onboarding handbooks and board governance documents? Does this organizational policy reflect current priorities and practices? Does this organizational policy clearly state procedures for updates, revisions and approvals? Does this organizational policy include measurable goals and/or indicators; if so, how will it be evaluated? ® Insert your own important equitable organizational checklist points below. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pag$354 of 86 Roles and responsibilities must emanate from equitable policies as part of the organizational transformation process. The following unpacks high-level equitable approaches across key organizational roles, which organizations can build upon and use as a prompt to better clarify specific stakeholder contributions. Individuals and Groups Who Cycle: In keeping with the equitable practice of centring the stakeholder groups being served, engaged and advocated for, individuals and groups who cycle must meaningfully contribute to increasing equity across the cycling sector and related active transportation sectors. Individuals and groups who cycle and are from equity -deserving groups may consider hosting informative pop -ups at community events such as cultural celebrations and community cleanups; invite peers to culturally responsive cycling groups such as Slow Roll, Black Girls Do Bike and PRiDEOUT; and use social media to share their distinct cycling experiences, if they are comfortable doing that. Individuals and groups who cycle but who do not belong to equity -deserving groups can host bike assembly and repair clinics in partnership with organizations located in low-income, racialized and/or rural communities; partner with no -waste groups to collect used bikes in good condition; and invite individuals from equity -deserving groups to cycling events that centre community connection rather than the bike. Also, individuals and groups of all identities who cycle may consider using the term "individuals and groups who cycle" versus "cyclist" as a way of resonating with all people who use bikes. .® Additional Ideas: Board Members: Boards, oftentimes critiqued for being monolithic, play a significant governance and leadership role. Board members can contribute by benchmarking current equitable practices and assessing whether their cultures are flexible enough to embrace multiple ways of knowing and leading. They can also develop mentorship- © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pago�65 of 86 based succession plans focused on reaching out to new members from equity - deserving groups and embedding equitable practices within their board performance frameworks. Additionally, board members can raise or reallocate financial resources to both build the organization's capacity to effectively implement equitable approaches across all aspects of their organizations and to create roles that are explicitly geared towards individuals with combined lived experiences and expertise. All of these and other efforts must be accompanied with a clearly allocated budget line for required accommodations such as child care, language support and professional development training to support everyone's success. ® Additional Ideas: Executive Directors and Other Leaders: One of the roles of organizational leaders working in close proximity with staff and community members is to model equitable practices in ways that are reflexive, humble and transparent on a daily basis. This does not mean having all aspects of equity figured out or being entirely comfortable amid change. What it does mean is having a simple plan for when missteps are made—it's a matter of when, not if—openly sharing growth opportunities, creating safe(r) spaces for staff and community members to do the same, and not over -promising or rejecting bold ideas in a manner that destroys trust and hope. Also, organizational leaders should work with internal or external experts to entrench equity within the description of every role, every performance review and ongoing team meetings. ® Additional Ideas: © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagO356 of 86 Community Engagement & Communication Staff: Although distinct, community engagement and communication roles overlap in terms of how they regularly represent their organizations within the public sphere. Community engagement facilitators/experts can enhance equitable approaches within their organizations by ensuring that equitable policies guide all community engagement initiatives. They can do so by including and compensating community members as part of their team, and by partnering with organizations with established presence and trust among equity -deserving groups. Working in close collaboration, communication staff/experts can develop asset-based messaging that highlights both community challenges and capacity, and that document and amplify engagements which amplify successes while earning trust. Communication staff/experts can also gather stories that infuse life into statistics and key messages encouraging cycling equity. Both of these front -facing roles require considerable emotional intelligence, empathy and reciprocity towards community members. .® Additional Ideas: Program Team: In addition to board members, organizational leaders, and community engagement and communication staff/experts, every single team member has an important role to play in enhancing equity. Whether conducting administrative, program co-ordination, or policy -related tasks, each person has a responsibility to also model equitable approaches through professional reflexivity, humility and transparency. In addition to acknowledging inevitable missteps, this means being open to critical feedback, augmented job descriptions and embracing colleagues with vastly different lived experiences and professional perspectives. The latter is applicable to all organizational roles. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page -57 of 86 Volunteers: Although not contractually bound, volunteers represent and contribute to carrying out the important work of organizations. Some volunteers such as bike mayors and grassroots advocates play an integral role in amplifying the broader challenges and benefits of biking. Regardless of volunteer title or tenure—short, medium or long term—all volunteers should be apprised of organizational policies and practices pertaining to equity. This can be achieved through training sessions, succinct orientation guides and informal capacity -building experiences such as onboarding lunches. Volunteers may possess cycling equity capacities and insights, which they may be eager to share, if given the opportunity and respectful acknowledgment. Also, numerous individuals such as Indigenous Peoples, racialized people, women, disabled people, and people living on lower incomes lack the luxury of time and finances to volunteer. As such, it's important to extend honorariums and accommodations such as child-care allowance and transit tokens whenever possible. Individuals of all identities should never have to pay to volunteer. ® Additional Ideas: The aforementioned roles are both distinct and overlapping. No two individuals will carry out any one role in the exact same manner due to factors such as regional differences, personality variances and priorities. However, unpacking roles contributes to discerning when it is appropriate to lead and when it is appropriate to support, while also identifying a broad range of equally valuable contributions from the cycling and the broader mobility sector. C) Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page�,58 of 86 Equitable Policy & Program Precedents The following policy and programming precedents reflect good and emergent practices intended to increase equity within cycling and broader mobility contexts. Equity Analysis in Transportation Planning Type: Equitable Program Organization: City of Toronto City: Toronto, Ontario Vulnerable Road Users N [As Income Abiliry I End Users ( I Health/ COVID-19 Age Sexual Orientation Race/ Ethnicity HTOROMM Source: City of Toronto. 2021 Cycling Network Plan Update Four -Year Growth Plan Type: Equitable Program Organization: Bike Share Toronto City: Toronto, Ontario Source: BikeShare Toronto The City of Toronto's Transportation Services Division has developed a "Transportation Equity Lens Tool" meant to help City staff "identify needs, remove barriers, and support a deeper dive into program impacts on equity deserving groups." The equity -deserving categories they've identified are: vulnerable road users,- geography-based sers;geography-based equity; ability -based equity; age -based equity; means -based equity; race -based equity; gender- based equity; and health -based equity. The tool prompts City staff to methodologically consider the transportation barriers and the impact—both positive and negative—of its initiatives on various equity -deserving groups. There is also a section where City staff are prompted to consider negative -impact mitigation. Bike Share Toronto, a City program run out of the Toronto Parking Authority, integrated an equity lens in planning its Four -Year Growth Plan, a document intended to guide its system expansion including the addition of 375 stations and 3,150 bikes. The equity component of the plan is intended to "identify areas currently underserved by mobility options and where people may have greater barriers to accessing services." Analysis was drawn from the City's Neighbourhood Improvement Areas as well as census data pertaining to low-income households. This shows that while some neighbourhoods considered low-income are well -served by the current system, there are opportunities to expand bike share access to other neighbourhoods with a high number of individuals from equity -deserving groups. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagO359 of 86 Safe Routes to School Type: Equitable Program Organization: Ohio Department of Transportation City: Columbus, Ohio Source: Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Safe Routes to School East Portland in Motion Plan Type: Equitable Planning Policy Organization: Portland Bureau of Transportation City: Portland, Oregon 1990 2010 go 18 Source Racial Equity tra egy Guide Presented by Portland's Partnership for Racial Equity Recognizing the importance of creating safe routes for children and their parents to walk or bike to school, the Ohio Department of Transportation funds the Safe Routes to School program. It provides $5 million annually for infrastructure projects within two miles of a school, reimbursing 100% of the project costs up to $500,000. Importantly, the program also provides funding for education, encouragement and evaluation, such as campaign supplies, safety education programs and other program incentives. According to a U.S. Department of Transportation 2016 White Paper on equity in transportation planning, to receive funding from the program, schools must complete "school travel plans," which include a socio-economic analysis of their students. In the city of Columbus, the program funds projects at two "underserved" schools whose students were shown to be 85% economically disadvantaged (compared to 48% statewide), and where children needed to cross active rail lines to get to school. East Portland, a more ethnically and racially diverse area than the city of Portland as a whole, was found to be lacking in safe cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. In response, the 10 -year East Portland in Motion Plan, led by the Portland Bureau of Transportation, identified equity as a priority. The Racial Equity Strategy Guide, co -developed by community stakeholders, highlighted primary goals, including the establishment of a racial equity strategy with measurable targets, development of tools to track progress and professional development. The municipality allocated nearly $320 million over the decade to projects that included completing missing sidewalks, building a network of greenways, and installing pedestrian crossings. The program is still active today. © Jay Rtter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pag0460 of 86 Transportation Equity Atlas Type: Equitable Data Use, Equitable The Pratt Center for Community Development, which Planning has a long-standing history of addressing transportation Organization: The Pratt Center for equity, developed a Transpgrtation Equity Atlas. Through Community Development City: New York, New York data visualization (mapping), it showed that lower- income, racialized communities were overrepresented Type of employment by residence �, in areas of the city where people spent more than 60 minutes commuting each way for work. The Center's -Director of Policy, Joan Byron, notes that, "social, i„ `=economic, and environmental justice advocates work W�r z F on a vast array of issues and there wasn't a sense of"Zr ownership of transportation as a social justice issue. ' The disparity in commute times across race and issue fY showed how commuting time was, in fact, a racial k 2" and social justice issue." This initiative contributes to numerous powerful outcomes, including building on the data findings by forging partnerships with organizations such as Communities United for Transportation Equity Ato create a plan for a Bus Rapid Transit Network, which influenced the creation of the Select Bus Service Source: Pratt Center program by the City of New York—including features of the Center's rapid bus plan. The City also adopted the Pratt Center's equity analysis in its plans to further review underserved transit areas. Safe Oakland Streets Type: Equitable Program Organization: City of Oakland's Department of Transportation City: Oakland, California Source: City of Oakland : City of Oakland Conceived in 2020 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic as a way to support physical activity outdoors, the City of Oakland's Department of Transportation now runs Safe Oakland Streets as a permanent program. This change was spurred by the department's own analysis of the program, which noted "those responding to surveys are more likely to be white, have high incomes and live in North Oakland." Together with low-income racialized communities, the program prioritizes safety improvements at key places such as schools, libraries and health centres to create a network of slow cycling and pedestrian -friendly streets. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pago,61 of 86 Two -Hour Timed Transfers Type: Equitable Policy Organization: Toronto Transit Commission City: Toronto, Ontario Source: CBC News Complete Streets Ordinance Type: Equitable Policy Organization: BikeWalkKC City: Kansas City, Kansas Source: Kansas City Public Works Department The Toronto Transit Commission, the public agency that operates Toronto's network of buses, streetcars, and subways, has a policy of two-hour transfers for passengers, allowing them unlimited use of transit within two hours of their first fare in any direction across the system. This cost-cutting and convenient intervention for its passengers is a result of considerable grassroots advocacy from powerful mobility equity advocates such as TIC Riders. Thought leaders such as scholar Anna Kramer told the Toronto Star that this policy change is "generally a fairly progressive, gender - supportive measure," due to the number of women using transit to carry out multiple tasks that require transfers such as grocery shopping and child-rearing activities. Similarly, Dr. Kara Santokie notes, "timed transfers would ease the burden on low-income women, who are disproportionately new immigrants or from racialized groups." Overall, this policy is responsive to all individuals living on low incomes who are dependent on public transit for essential daily travel. Kansas City has a Complete Streets Ordinance co - written by the advocacy group BikeWalkKC. As part of the organization's work, BikeWalkKC built a coalition of organizations to help support the policy, including non- profits, hospitals, schools and community organizations. While this policy applies to the entire city, the ordinance states, "the City shall develop plans and set goals to prioritize and ensure successful implementation of Complete Streets in low and moderate -income neighborhoods, neighborhoods with poor health outcomes, and neighborhoods with diminished access to transportation options." The ordinance guides the implementation of a complete streets framework that works for everyone, including "pedestrians, wheelchair users, bicyclists, public transportation users, and motorists, regardless of age or ability...." This initiative exemplifies the shift towards participatory policy development in partnership with community stakeholders. © Jay Rtter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page,�32 of 86 Nice Ride Neighborhood Type: Equitable Program Nice Ride, a Minneapolis-based bike share program, Organization: Nice Ride organized a successful three-year pilot program called City: Minneapolis, Minnesota "Nice Ride Neighborhood," which focused on improving bike share services in underserved communities by tailoring the program to people with financial and cultural barriers to owning and/or riding a bike. It partnered — with local bike shops and organizations such as St. - Paul Women on Bikes to connect with stakeholders o who would benefit most from the program. Rather yon than simply expanding bike stations and implementing \� their standard borrowing structure on a time -and -cost a � basis, Nice Ride Neighborhood gave bicycles—along with helmets, locks, lights, backpacks and educational 1 Q'41 materials—to participants for three months. Bikes and cycling accessories were distributed to different ti0� c� neighbourhoods and communities, such as North ... y Minneapolis and Little Earth, an Indigenous community Photo: Raymond Boyd/Getty Images in South Minneapolis. All participants were eligible to earn a $200 voucher to a local bike shop by participating in a minimum of four groups rides and by riding their bikes at least twice per week (self-reported). While the pilot program has ended, Nice Ride continues to operate a bike share service in the city. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pag$43 of 86 PART THREE-, Community Engagement, Communication & Advocacy © Jay Rtter Racemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, COMMUNICATION & ADVOCACY A significant aspect of advancing cycling equity is effectively establishing two-way discourse with external stakeholders such as colleagues across sectors, community members and all orders of government. This section of the Toolkit provides three primary conceptual and practice frameworks required for addressing this aspect of the work: Equitable Community Engagement, Equity -Based Communication and Advocacy. Equitable Community Engagement The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proposes an unusually comprehensive and progressive definition of community engagement, calling it a "process of working collaboratively with and through groups of people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to address issues affecting the well-being of those people. It is a powerful vehicle for bringing about environmental and behavioral changes that will improve the health of the community and its members. It often involves partnerships and coalitions that help mobilize resources and influence systems, change relationships among partners, and serve as catalysts for changing policies, programs, and practices." A significant aspect of addressing these aspects of community engagement goals is "realizing the role of race, power and injustice."3 According to Kip Holley, an Ohio State University researcher and civic engagement expert, when community members ignore injustices experienced by their neighbours, they risk alienating those whose lives have been shaped by those injustices. Important knowledge and wisdom that can help solve problems may be lost as a result. It is important therefore to address the history of racism, classism and unjust abuses of power. Power dynamics strongly influence the experiences in a community. For this reason, it is often impossible to change the power dynamic without first explicitly naming and disrupting it. Moreover, some people, no matter how well-meaning, rarely give up their power without resistance. It is important therefore that community engagement processes honestly address resistance from traditionally powerful community members and organizations. 3 Holly, K. (2016). The Principles for Equitable and Inclusive Civic Engagement, A Guide To Transformative Change. Kirwan Institute, The Ohio State University. p. 33. https Hkirwaninstitute. osu.edu/sites/default/files/2016-05//ki-civic-engagement.pdf © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pag$,65 of 86 Equitable Community Engagement Principles The following equitable community engagement principles and approaches consider the comprehensive definition of community engagement, power imbalances, social location, and histories of harm and exclusion.- Urban xclusion:Urban design is not neutral; it either perpetuates or reduces social inequities. Always begin by asking: "Who's not here?" The community itself should always be reflected on the community engagement team. There is no such thing as a monolithic community; seek the pluralistic publics within the public, including stakeholders who challenge the project and/or process. Provide and clearly communicate accommodations such as accessible community engagement spaces, meals, transit fare and child care, so everyone can participate. Everyone is entitled to express their "truth" during city -building processes as long as that truth doesn't contravene history, systemic inequities, facts or hate speech laws. Deeply listen to a diverse range of viewpoints and embrace discomfort. Acknowledge the Indigeneity, complex histories and intangible cultural heritage of places. Don't expect people to come to you; engage people within the community and incorporate creative tactics such as place -based storytelling, public walks and collaborative cooking. There is no such thing as a safe community engagement space; create safe(r) spaces. Avoid technical jargon and co -create a common vocabulary for all community engagements that responds to multiple communication styles and types of knowledge. Do not over -promise; outline the community's actual scope of influence. Tangibly demonstrate reciprocity and accountability. Make the process JOYFUL. © Jay Pitter Placemaking © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagO466 of 86 ® Which of these equitable community engagement principles and approaches resonate with you and why? ® Which of these equitable community engagement principles and approaches specifically apply to your work? ® Which of these equitable community engagement principles and approaches are you currently applying to your work? ® Which of these equitable community engagement principles and approaches would you like to apply to your work but you aren't quite sure how to do that? © Jay Pher Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page,67 of 86 ALSO, WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT NOT EMPOWERING PEOPLE. While we take systemic power imbalances seriously and understand the well -intended sentiment of empowering people, this construct negates the fact that people—even those facing considerable social challenges—are inherently powerful. Instead of empowering people, it is preferable to share space, information and resources within urbanism processes. Stop Empowering Peon' Diagram: Stop Empowering Pe Olay Pitter. 2 Acknowledge Histories + Systems » that have contributed to social inequity and urban stratification Define + Celebrate Multiple Forms of individual + community-based power • » Create Space + Share Resources Co -create City -Building Processes/ Systems that foster individual + community-based power © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Pago468 of 86 ® How do you actively share space, information and resources during community engagement initiatives in recognition of inherent community power? TRANSLATION IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS. The success of the community engagement initiatives, and of this overall process, hinges on the team's ability to translate. The translation process is three -fold: 1. Translating technical land -use and design jargon to residents; 2. Translating the community's social context, concerns and desires to technica experts on the team; 3. Translating all inputs to the decision-making process, investments and final design. ® How do you translate and validate community engagement data? © Jay Pher Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page469 of 86 Within the Practice, we believe that informal conversations are the first step towards earning trust with individuals who have been excluded, harmed and/or disappointed by formal municipal community engagement processes. Conversing over a shared meal or during a long walk creates an intimacy and an opportunity for deep listening that simply cannot be replicated in a large room with hundreds of community stakeholders, or through an online survey. It's imperative to create the time and space for nuance when exploring challenging, often divisive, city -building issues. This isn't to suggest that large-scale engagements do not serve a valuable function; they are simply not a good starting point for what we describe as human -scale community engagement. ® Are you currently integrating informal community engagement approaches in your work? If so, which types of informal community engagement approaches are you integrating? If not, why not? © Jay Pher Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagO570 of 86 �� •_� � \ �, q\,\ ./\ �/. ' • . ,% j� �� : i �/�� •� � � '• �. �� •�• /� ,, l `\� _�. 1 '7 - � � � � . - �� . • �.• 4' �•. .� .. .• .• .• � � ._ • �/ ale � � � � �� Equity -Based Communication & Advocacy Internal communication refers to the processes, platforms and guidelines governing effective communication among a group of individuals within the same organization or participating in the same project. To ensure equity -based internal communication approaches are followed, consider the following.- Encourage ollowing: Encourage all staff and partners to bring forward practice approaches, stories, qualitative data and other types of knowledge to inform internal conversations. Build an internal story bank with a diverse range of images and personal narratives. Audit internal resources and references related to cycling and mobility equity to ensure that a diverse range of experts and ways of knowing are included. Gather evidence -based data, much like the content presented in this Toolkit, that respond to cycling and broader mobility equity barriers to build capacity and inform internal discussions. Assess whether internal colloquial and technical language is inadvertently discriminatory, disrespectful or based in implicit bias. Develop messages and tactics for collecting identity -based data in a manner that is democratic, flexible and supportive of equity goals. Practise having uncomfortable and complex conversations about social identity, social justice and socio -spatial issues on an ongoing basis. External communication is the transmission of information such as project updates, research reports and community stakeholder profiles between an organization and outside audiences. It also refers to social media conversations, in-person community conversations and advocacy initiatives. Increasingly, external communication is characterized by inclusive and dynamic two-way conversations, versus one-way information dumping. To ensure equity -based external communication approaches are followed, consider the following: Underscore the strengths, agency, power and resilience of individuals from equity - deserving and sovereignty -deserving groups disproportionately impacted by cycling inequity and broader mobility inequity while making the case for change. Consider replacing the term "cyclist" with "individuals who cycle" or "individuals who travel using bikes" to resonate with a broader range of community stakeholder groups. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PageF72 of 86 Discontinue the hyper -focus on the daily frustrations and risks of cycling because this does not contribute to behavioural change; create balance by including asset- based messaging. Do not conflate all individuals who cycle who are situationally vulnerable while riding bikes—as they all are—with being part of an equity -deserving or historically marginalized group. Use person -first language and underscore structural challenges rather than the shortcomings of individuals, whenever possible. Use plain language, photos, infographics and easy -to -understand maps across various collateral to increase accessibility and meet the communication styles of a diverse range of external stakeholders. Advocacy, a component of external communication, is distinctly and primarily focused on engendering support for a specific cause, recommendation or policy change. To ensure equity -based advocacy approaches are followed, these ideas with accompanying questions should be considered: Ensure that goals, strategies and actions are co -created with impacted groups so that organizations are not advocating for people, but advocating with people. Does this advocacy initiative include one or more individuals disproportionately impacted by the advocacy issue? Is the advocacy goal defined in collaboration with numerous individuals and/or groups disproportionately impacted by the advocacy issue? Have we allocated resources and accommodations for individuals and/or groups disproportionately impacted by the advocacy issue? Collaborate with academic institutions, think tanks and community stakeholders to ensure that public education and research initiatives are grounded in theory, practice and everyday lived experiences. Is this evidence -based advocacy initiative posing the right research questions, co -developed by individuals and/or groups disproportionately impacted by the advocacy issue? © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page 73 of 86 Are statistics and theory cross-referenced by stories, and are stories cross- referenced by statistics and theory, to both validate accuracy and reinforce the complexity and urgency of the advocacy issue? Identify external stakeholders across sectors that support, contest or are agnostic about your advocacy issue to proactively build solidarity and prepare for resistance. Which sectors and organizations outside of cycling and active transportation more broadly are advocating for similar goals and benefits? How can the advocacy issue be better presented to agnostic stakeholders who are currently apathetic and/or unengaged? How can the advocacy issue be presented to resistant, and even problematic, stakeholders in a manner that is challenging without being unnecessarily alienating? Integrate emotional intelligence in advocacy initiatives to humanize the advocacy issue and model community care. Are you attending to the emotional wellness and material needs of individuals on the front lines of grueling, often -uncompensated and long- term advocacy initiatives? Are there designated resources and accommodations in place to support staff and community advocates? Do you have a formal structure for celebrating small wins, and publicly recognizing and celebrating advocates who are often unsung? Leverage creative, cross -platform approaches for branding your advocacy initiative and ensuring that it resonates with multiple target audience groups. Who are the target audience groups for your advocacy initiative, and what are the online and offline platforms where they frequently engage? Does your advocacy initiative clearly introduce external stakeholders to the advocates, rationale and collective benefits? Is your advocacy initiative interesting, creative and participatory? © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagO574 of 86 Have you identified your professional and personal growth opportunities in relation to the advocacy issues? Have you developed public education materials formatted for various platforms, lengths and learning styles? Does your advocacy initiative include education pertaining to taking short - and long-term actions, at varying degrees of commitment, to achieve the advocacy goal? 7. As with all aspects of cycling equity and broader active transportation work, evaluation is paramount in terms of measuring impact, prioritizing initiatives and demonstrating accountability. Have you identified key metrics and milestones tethered to your advocacy initiative goal? Do you have multiple ways to measure impact, both tangible and intangible? What is your process for recalibrating and/or incorporating feedback—both positive and critical—into the advocacy initiative process? ® Which of these equity -based communication and advocacy approaches are most urgent to integrate into your work? © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagO575 of 86 w wk I / Sources: p - , -� • (Top to Bottom & Left to Right) ro►°•, .`�Winnipeg Trails Association, $8Q _� . • �\ • Cities, Cycle Toronto, colourbox, • \.� Zoe Bennett, colourbox, colourbox © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page576 of 86 �.: .V�:-; ilii. ..\ i� � 't � CYCLING EQUITY EVALUATION FRAMEWORK The following evaluation framework contains substantive core content that can be built upon to design customized cycling equity evaluation processes. METHODS Annual Survey Infrastructure Audit Case Studies Dyadic &Triadic Interviews Bean Count Jars & Feedback Boards KEY PREPARATORY STEPS Equity -Deserving Groups Cycling Experience Journals Documented Informal Conversations Collage -Making Focus Groups Respectful Program Participation & Observation Community Asset Mapping Prior to leading an equitable evaluation process, core actions should be implemented that include, but are not limited to, the following steps: Reflect on your identity/social location and how that may both support and impede the evaluation process. Assess your working knowledge of, and experience implementing, cycling equity processes. Secure additional support if required. Secure resources, including honorariums for individuals from equity -deserving groups, and identify required accommodations for guiding an equitable and accessible process. Assess and confirm the required administrative and logistical support. Identify the key audience group(s) you intend to engage and the ways they may benefit from participating in the evaluation process to ensure respect and reciprocity. Convene a small group of individuals with lived experience of the core issue or initiative you're evaluating to collaboratively clarify the key problem and/or growth opportunity. Co -create key evaluation questions with this group to ensure resonance and to proactively identify any risk, resistance and/or conflict of interest. Select two to three accessible methods for collecting both qualitative and quantitative data. Compose evaluation key messages aligned with your two to three selected data -collection methods. Identify evaluation indicators, milestones and validation approaches. Create a critical path with firm yet flexible milestones. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit Page577 of 86 INDICATORS 1W Equitable Organizational Practice Indicators Equitable practice and policy indicators include, but are not limited to, the following: Percentage of Indigenous and racialized staff occupying leading, decision-making roles; Percentage of Indigenous and racialized staff, and those from other equity -deserving groups, who feel a sense of physical and emotional safety and who feel relatively safe to express their full identities at work; Percentage of Indigenous and racialized staff, and those from other equity -deserving groups, retained in the organization for three or more years; Percentage of overall staff and volunteers who have participated in cycling equity capacity -building processes and mutual mentorship; Percentage of budget dedicated to professional development courses and experiences aligned with cycling equity capacity -building; Percentage of board members who are reflective of the demographic diversity aligned with the organization's geographic mandate; Percentage of staff and volunteers involved with co -creating organizational policies; Percentage of workplace practices and other cultural norms that have been discontinued or amended to create a safe(r) environment for individuals from equity -deserving groups; Percentage of statements about equitable vision, values and principles, supported by three aligned actions each, that the organization is taking to demonstrate that it lives its values. Equitable Community Engagement Indicators Equitable organizational practices indicators include, but are not limited to, the following: >> Percentage of resources (time, budget and expertise) allocated to earning trust with Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups,- >> roups;>> Percentage of time spent meeting Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups where they are and attending their community events outside of formal community engagement processes; Percentage of paid community stakeholders from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups who have co -created, designed and/or co -led annual community engagement processes; Percentage of individuals from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups who experience a relative sense of physical and emotional safety while participating in your community engagement initiatives; Percentage of individuals from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups who experience a sense of agency and/or stewardship when participating in your organization's community engagement initiatives; Percentage of individuals from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups who participate in your organization's activities three or more times a year; Percentage of community engagement events that are accessible and offer specific accommodations to individuals from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagO578 of 86 Equitable Communication and Advocacy Indicators Equitable communication and advocacy indicators include, but are not limited to, the following: Percentage of individuals from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups who co -create communication and advocacy strategies; Percentage of stories and case studies featuring individuals from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups that use a respectful asset-based lens to highlight both the challenges and the immense power among these groups,- >> roups;>> Percentage of individuals from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups who are visually represented as community leaders and experts—notjustclients—across your organization's communication platforms; Percentage of public speaking opportunities—conferences, panels and media—extended to individuals from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups so they can directly share their own lived experiences and insights; Percentage of advocacy initiatives assessed using a lens that considers potential, inadvertent harm to individuals from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups; Percentage of individuals from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups who take the lead on all advocacy efforts that are about, or that disproportionately impact, them; Percentage of individuals from Indigenous, racialized and other equity -deserving groups who confirm that advocacy efforts resulted in some degree of meaningful benefit to them in terms of community capacity -building, increased safety, access to resources and/or other indicators aligned with their urgent priorities and values. © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagO579 of 86 Additional Insights & Ideas © Jay Pitter Placemaking I Cycling Equity Co -Learning & Action Toolkit PagO580 of 86 Jay Pitter Placemaking is an award-winning, bi-national practice mitigating growing divides in cities across North America. The Practice leads institutional city -building projects focused on public space design and policy, mobility equity, cultural planning, gender -responsive design, transformative public engagement and healing fraught sites. Additionally, Jay Pitter, Principal Placemaker, shapes urgent urbanism discourse through media platforms such as the Los Angeles Times and Canadian Architect. Ms. Pitter is a sought-after speaker who has delivered keynotes for organizations such as United Nations Women and the Canadian Urban Transit Association, and is also an urban planning lecturer who has engaged students at Cornell University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Princeton University and numerous other post -secondary institutions. Guided by Ms. Pitter's expertise, which is located at the nexus of urban design and social justice, the team translates community insights into the built environment and urban policy. Jay Pitter Placemaking Jay Pitter, Principal Placemaker Adjunct Professor and Practitioner -in -Residence, University of Waterloo Visiting Fellow, University of Windsor Law Centre for Cities Forthcoming books with McClelland and Stewart, Penguin Random House Canada O©0 jaypitter.com Page 81 of 86 1/3/24, 10:00 AM Strategic plan and business plan - City of Kitchener l FiTcHENER Strategic plan and business plan Home / Strategic plans and projects / Strategic plan and business plan Our vision is "building a city for everyone where, together, we take care of the world around us - and each other." This vision guides our 2023-2026 strategic plan, strategic goals and actions. Read our 2023-2026 strategic plan On this page: Cn 1. 2023-2026 strategic plan v 2. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 1< O 3. Annual business plan CL 4. Accountability n 2023-2026 strategic plan Our strategic plan is our community's shared vision for the future of Kitchener. Thank you to everyone who has planned with us through surveys, in-person conversations or through our resident panel! In August 2023, city council approved our 2023-2026 strategic goals, goal statements and our actions that we will be taking in the first two years of this strategic plan. Learn about each goal below, or read the full plan. Read our 2023-2026 strategic plan Building a connected city together We live in all kinds of neighbourhoods and types of housing. We work together to ensure that we each have secure and affordable homes. We get around easily, sustainably and safely to the places and spaces that matter most to us. Page 82 of 86 https://www.kitchener.ca/en/strategic-plans-and-projects/strategic-plan-and-business-plan.aspx 1/5 1/3/24, 10:00 AM Actions: Strategic plan and business plan - City of Kitchener • Housing for All implementation • localized transportation safety improvement program • City-wide active transportation routes • Official Plan comprehensive update Cultivating a green city together We follow a sustainable path to a greener, healthier city. We work together to enhance and protect our parks and natural environment while transitioning to a low - carbon future. We support businesses and residents to make more climate -positive choices. Actions: • Corporate Climate Action Plan 2.0 • clean energy transition strategy • district energy business case 3 green development standards v • implement tree canopy target plan • implementing actions from Parks Master Plan CL • parkland acquisition strategy • Grand River park strategy Creating an economically -thriving city together We use our collective strengths to grow an agile and diverse local economy powered by talented entrepreneurs, workers and artists. We work together to create opportunities for everyone and a resilient future that propels our city forward. Actions: • accelerate commercial business approvals • implement health/medical technology innovation campus • creative industries school • strategy for events and festivals • entertainment venue management • implement Arts and Culture Master Plan Page 83 of 86 https://www.kitchener.ca/en/strategic-plans-and-projects/strategic-plan-and-business-plan.aspx 2/5 1/3/24, 10:00 AM Strategic plan and business plan - City of Kitchener Fostering a caring city together We welcome residents of all ages, backgrounds and lived experiences. We work together on the decisions that matter to us and have a meaningful influence in our community. We're healthy and thriving as we easily access the diverse and inclusive programs and services we need to succeed. Actions: • advance Truth and Reconciliation • municipal newcomers strategy • enhance City's engagement practices • community centre operating model • City -led recreation and leisure program review • Leisure Facilities Master Plan update • community grants review Stewarding a better city together Cn v We, the City's employees, are stewards of Kitchener's present and its future. We're responsive, innovative, diverse and accountable public servants who work together efficiently to serve residents. We remove barriers and champion residents' collective CL vision for a better city and a better world. N Actions: • Digital Kitchener strategy • implement city-wide data strategy • strengthen employer identity/value proposition • support a psychologically safe workplace • procurement innovation United Nations Sustainable Development Goals At the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015, world leaders from Canada and other member states adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to end poverty, fight inequality, confront injustice and tackle climate change by 2030. Page 84 of 86 https://www.kitchener.ca/en/strategic-plans-and-projects/strategic-plan-and-business-plan.aspx 3/5 1/3/24, 10:00 AM Strategic plan and business plan - City of Kitchener The UN SDGs outline the ways to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. Based on leading global research, input from politicians across the globe and hundreds of non-governmental organizations including United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), the SDGs identify key factors that contribute to prosperity, inclusion and sustainability. We're committed to working with the Government of Canada in embracing the 2030 Agenda and to supporting the implementation of the SDGs in Canada and internationally. The SDGs are global, but with a local lens, we can do our part to contribute to their success. All the SDGs have targets related to the responsibilities of local and regional governments, particularly to our role in delivering direct services and programs. Annual business plan Staff develop the annual business plan with direction from council and guidance of the corporate leadership team. The business plan highlights the core service work of each department and projects to be achieved. The projects include actions that advance the goals of the strategic plan and other significant projects that reflect council priorities. View the current business plan and business plan progress updates. 0 0 CL Accountability N 77 The 2023-2026 strategic plan is a reflection of significant feedback from residents. Your priorities are our priorities. As we work together toward building a city for everyone where, together, we take care of the world around us - and each other, our corporate leadership team commits to be accountable for progress towards the strategic plan's goals and to regularly report our progress. To support this commitment to accountability, these principles will guide the work we do to support making meaningful progress: • equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility • strong relationships with the community and partners • innovation as an enabler of success Our Compass Kitchener Citizen advisory committee will review and assess our progress and will report publicly each year on how well we're doing. Page 85 of 86 https://www.kitchener.ca/en/strategic-plans-and-projects/strategic-plan-and-business-plan.aspx 4/5 1/3/24, 10:00 AM Strategic plan and business plan - City of Kitchener We are taking an adaptive approach to setting actions for this strategic plan in order to better respond to emerging community needs and opportunities over the four- year period. While we have identified initial actions to take in its first years, the plan is a living document rooted firmly in community goals yet offering flexibility for the future actions available to us. Progress updates Visit our progress update page to see an overview of our progress across all 25 actions in our 2019-2022 strategic plan or download a detailed update from the list below. We'll continue to update this page with progress updates on our 2023-2026 strategic plan. • August 2023 business plan update • April 2023 business plan update • December 2022 business plan update • August 2022 business plan update • April 2022 business plan update • December 2021 business plan update • June 2021 business plan update • April 2021 business plan update • December 2020 business plan update • August 2020 business plan update © 2024 City of Kitchener 1 200 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario I Telephone: 519-741-2345, TTY: 1-866-969-9994, Email us By GHD Digital (https://ghddigitalpss.com/) Page 86 of 86 https://www.kitchener.ca/en/strategic-plans-and-projects/strategic-plan-and-business-plan.aspx 5/5