TxDOT December 2023 Required Federal Meetings Report:

The Voluntary Resolution Agreement between the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, under “Section 2. Displacements, Relocations, Housing, and Other Community Impacts,” outlines that:

“TxDOT will hold public engagement meetings—consistent with the public meeting provisions, including language access provisions, in its FHWA-approved Environmental Handbook for Public Involvement—twice each calendar year in each segment while design and construction is ongoing in the segment. TxDOT will provide FHWA a list of those invited to these meetings and its methods for publicizing the meetings a week before they occur. In advance of these meetings, TxDOT will engage affected communities and provide meeting notices in English and in the most common languages spoken by individuals with LEP in the 11 communities. During these public meetings, TxDOT will provide the community with up-to-date information regarding the Project, informational assistance regarding the implementation of this agreement, and will provide an open forum for the community to provide feedback, raise issues, and ask questions about the Project or TxDOT’s compliance with this agreement. TxDOT will include updates of public engagement meetings in the Progress Reports as required by Article VI of this VRA. These meetings will be held at times and locations that are convenient and accessible for affected communities, and TxDOT will take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access for persons with LEP, including the provision of language assistance services free of cost to the persons with LEP. TxDOT will consider and incorporate information provided at these meetings, as applicable, during the design and construction of the project.”

Stop TxDOT I-45 attended all six December 2023 public engagement meetings. We are issuing this report of both the in-person and virtual meetings. We are not aware of any persons from the Federal Highway Administration’s regional or Washington offices that were in attendance at these meetings to check for TxDOT’s compliance with the VRA. We hope that this report card conveys our deep belief that these meetings were insufficient, discriminatory, and in violation of the Voluntary Resolution Agreement. For each meeting, we have written an overview as well as highlighted different components based on language in the VRA.

Segment 3 In-Person & Virtual Meeting

The first in-person and virtual meetings in the series of federally required meetings were the Segment 3 meetings. The in-person meeting was held at St. John’s Downtown Church on Wednesday, December 6th, 2023. The meeting location is within the footprint of Segment 3, although notably not centrally located within Segment 3. It is far from the largest part of the expanded footprint, the historic Black and Hispanic neighborhoods of Second and Fifth Ward. Segment 3 is the only fully funded segment of the planned expansion and is the first to begin construction this August. 

Overall, this meeting met none of the requirements of the VRA, as follows:

Specifically regarding right-of-way changes, TxDOT indicated in the virtual meeting that decreases in ROW considerations are leaning more on stocking ramps and decreasing buffers than reducing the proposed number of lanes. TxDOT is actively not considering reduced lanes. 

TxDOT representatives refused to answer questions regarding whether the studies on reducing ROW will still be based on TTI’s Urban Mobility Report. In their September Progress Report, TxDOT included a table titled Summary of ROW Footprint Reduction Assessments (Table 1-1, p. 3). When asked if these reductions were made after the signing of the VRA, or were representative of overall reductions, TxDOT representatives gave conflicting answers, implying that some of these reductions were happenstance. 

If TxDOT intends these reductions to reflect efforts made after the VRA was signed, then this information is incredibly misleading. For instance, there is the claim that Parcel 706 was reduced from 419 ft2 to 261 ft2. Parcel 706 was surveyed in 2019 and the square footage surveyed was 261 ft2, not 419 ft2. If Parcel 706 was indeed reduced, then the reduction occurred five years ago, and prior to the signing of the FEIS. To include this parcel in the reduction chart is misleading.

TxDOT’s September Progress Report includes other misleading facts. Perhaps most egregious, TxDOT mentions in several presentations  “an additional” $30M for affordable housing, when the VRA resulted in only $3M additional funding from the $27M initially promised in the FEIS.

In the table below are individual requirements of the VRA and how TxDOT failed to meet the requirements:

VRA Text: “TxDOT will hold public engagement meetings—consistent with the public meeting provisions, including language access provisions, in its FHWA-approved Environmental Handbook for Public Involvement”

Although the public meetings were held, the general environment and accommodations for community stakeholders were significantly lacking. 

For the in-person meeting, backpacks and large-bags were prohibited, but this was not disclosed before the meeting. Due to the 5pm start time, many people came from work with their bags. Initially, participants carrying large bags were turned away, until a check desk was finally set up for bags to be stored behind the desk during the meeting. At the end of the meeting, some attendees found their belongings had been moved to the floor in the foyer and were seemingly unattended. 

There was no bike parking and insufficient car parking, leading to many participants parking several blocks away. There was no accessible handicapped parking outside, as the spots had been blocked with either Hillday loading vehicles or pylons. 

The meeting was generally inaccessible for individuals with disabilities. It was held on the third floor, only accessible by steep stairs or a small elevator. There was no accessibility for individuals with hearing impairments, such as subtitles on the video, nor accommodations for individuals with visual impairments to access the poster presentations. TxDOT’s chosen venue provided insufficient space for community attendance; some community members reported the room was too crowded and left without going into the room. 

For the virtual meeting, the closed captioning was not accurate in English or Spanish, and the “Resources” feature was not available on Zoom running on older operating systems.

VRA Text: “Provide the community with up-to-date information regarding the Project”

The centerpiece of the meeting was a video presentation meant to update the public on the Project. The screen was small and, in the overcrowded room, difficult to both see and hear. The video presentation used technically dense language, which made it hard for community members to follow. These problems presented considerable challenges for the community in receiving up-to-date information. 

There were tables set up to assist people in understanding how the right-of-way affected their homes. Community members could receive assistance around a particular property, but there was no way to engage with the right-of-way as a whole. Several TxDOT staff at these tables were under-prepared in that they couldn’t clarify whether the GIS map had been updated with the new right-of-way changes from the Progress Report.

VRA Text: “Informational assistance regarding the implementation of this agreement”

The table for the implementation of the VRA was in the corner of the room and hard to find. One attendee said afterwards that they “didn’t know there even was a table to learn about the agreement because I couldn’t see what was happening through the crowd.”

VRA Text: “Provide an open forum for the community to provide feedback, raise issues, and ask questions about the Project or TxDOT’s compliance with this agreement”

The in-person meeting did not offer an open forum for the community to provide feedback or ask questions. The public comment cards were poorly advertised and hard to find, located at only one table buried in the crowd. They were not mentioned in the presentation. 

TxDOT representatives took no questions publicly at the in-person meeting. Community members were informed that questions would be taken on Zoom the next day, but this was not specified in any of the advertisements for either meeting. The choice to only hold public questions on Zoom where participants cannot connect or speak with each other negates the value of a public forum. 

The virtual meeting was highly complex, with concurrent video presentations, live Q&A (semi-public), private Q&A with subject matter experts (SMEs), digital resources, and digital surveys. The time frame, and the fact that presentations/Q&As were effectively continuous for the two-hour block, meant that community members couldn’t read or study any of the additional resources without missing other critical information.

The live Q&A only showed questions that TxDOT staff answered “publicly,” meaning that TxDOT staff could choose not to show questions to other participants that they didn’t want or were unable to answer. TxDOT relied heavily on this filtering ability to avoid answering questions publicly. For example, one participant asked nine questions. Of those nine questions, only four of them were answered, two publicly and two privately. This demonstrates a lack of commitment to public engagement. Participants asked multiple times about holding a meeting in Fifth Ward or East End, but TxDOT answered none of these questions, publicly or privately.

Similarly, questions posed in the “resource rooms” were answered privately by subject matter experts and were not publicly visible to other participants. Multiple participants didn’t trust that questions asked of SMEs, and questions not answered or answered privately in the live Q&A, would be published after the fact.

VRA Text: “These meetings will be held at times and locations that are convenient and accessible for affected communities”

The meeting was held at St. John’s Methodist on Crawford St, just south of Downtown. Kendra London, the Executive Director of the Fifth Ward non-profit Our Afrikan Family, explained, “Segment 3 meetings are being held outside of the impacted communities because they know we disapprove. TxDOT is aware of the transportation hardships and internet hardships. These meetings could’ve been held at Fifth Ward Multi Service Center or The Deluxe Theater. This is inconsiderate of our elders who may not know how to operate Zoom in the community or have internet access. It’s disrespectful to the grassroots organizations who would be willing to assist.”

The in-person meeting was scheduled from 5-7pm on a Wednesday evening, which is difficult for anyone with a 9-5pm job, and/or with a commute, to attend. In the announcements for these meetings, TxDOT advertised the presentation would begin at 5:15pm. The presentation was the update video that played on a loop for the entirety of the meeting. Community members did not know the format of the meeting in advance, therefore many reasonably assumed that if they didn’t arrive by 5:15 they would miss the presentation. All of these community meetings were held in December, during the holiday season. 

VRA Text: “TxDOT will take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access for persons with LEP”

Participants requesting Spanish-language translation were provided with headsets for translation of the update presentation video. When being provided with the headsets, two participants asked about translation for the rest of the meeting. In response, a TxDOT staff member stated they needed to go talk to other representatives who spoke Spanish, but the staff member did not follow up. While the same participants were figuring out their headsets, a woman who looked like staff came up and attempted to inconspicuously take a picture of the participants. When confronted, she admitted that she had taken a photo of them. Not only was the event not accessible to individuals with LEP, but those who requested assistance were harassed. TxDOT should hire a  third party accredited interpretation service for public meetings instead of using TxDOT staff. 

VRA Text: “TxDOT will consider and incorporate information provided at these meetings, as applicable, during the design and construction of the Project.”

The deadline to submit feedback on segment 3B design changes was January 5th, 2024. Given that the meeting was held on December 6th, and the month between included multiple major holidays, this deadline did not provide participants with sufficient time to review materials and submit comments.

Segment 2 In-Person & Virtual Meeting

After the Segment 3 meeting, Stop TxDOT submitted a formal request to TxDOT to fix the Limited English Proficiency accommodations at their upcoming meetings, and we requested our elected officials to submit formal requests as well. We also sent TxDOT a list of the boards and QR codes that were not functioning so they would have an opportunity to fix them. As a result, this meeting was marginally better, but the boards were still not up to date with correct information.

TxDOT staff could not provide complete or consistent answers to key questions about air pollution or flood mitigation. One participant asked at the VRA board for information about air and noise pollution concerns. She was directed to one box on the boards that discussed air monitoring, but TxDOT representatives could not confirm the type of air monitor or details on data since its installation in August 2023. Similarly, flood mitigation on the Main to Cottage portion is reliant on new pumping and bayou widening, but no further detail was provided

Key details emerged only after extensive questions. TxDOT representatives re-confirmed that the cap from Main to Cottage will not be developed in this project. If no other partners come forward to fund it, it will be a wide-open concrete slab on top of the freeway. Not developing the cap park will contribute to the “Urban Heat Island” effect and will inhibit walkability. 

VRA Text: “TxDOT will hold public engagement meetings—consistent with the public meeting provisions, including language access provisions, in its FHWA-approved Environmental Handbook for Public Involvement”

There was little improvement in TxDOT’s public engagement efforts from the Segment 3 meetings to the Segment 2 meetings. The Segment 2 meeting was held at the Moody Community Center, which did relieve the room capacity issues.  However, once again there were issues with technology malfunctions, mostly importantly in the translation and interpretation services. As of 2019, the Near Northside community is 82% Hispanic. Several of the QR codes to translate the boards into Spanish were not working. Language access is a crucial aspect of public engagement in these meetings. To not have working language access technology prohibits the community from accessing necessary information regarding the Project.

VRA Text: “Provide the community with up-to-date information regarding the Project”

Similar to the Segment 3 meeting, the boards were not updated  with the most current information. One TxDOT representative noted that the “day counter” was behind. Another TxDOT representative at the Segment 3 Board noted that a schematic on the Board included proposed changes, but not approved changes. Representatives at the right-of-way stations could not show where the right-of-way had been adjusted.

It was challenging to read the boards. Any person with visual impairment would need to be very close to them to read the font/print size and image complexity, which was difficult even for those without visual impairments. There was only one board for Segment 2, which was the area this meeting was supposed to cover. 

VRA Text: “[Provide] Informational assistance regarding the implementation of this agreement”

Similar to the Segment 3 meeting, there was only one board available to explain the VRA and the staff member was difficult to find. 

VRA Text: “Provide an open forum for the community to provide feedback, raise issues, and ask questions about the Project or TxDOT’s compliance with this agreement”

There were no “open” discussions among the entire group assembled. There was a notable armed-police presence, and they required a bag check for “security purposes.” 

Questions in the Segment 2 virtual meeting appeared to be more broadly answered “publicly” than in the earlier, Segment 3 virtual meeting. All questions  posed by a Stop TxDOT representative were answered, and no other participants mentioned it in the Q&A. One person whose questions were not answered previously said their questions were answered this time, but only when submitted anonymously. 

VRA Text: “These meetings will be held at times and locations that are convenient and accessible for affected communities”

The format of the virtual meeting was still very complex and required that participants request LEP assistance if needed. There was an additional Q&A “chatroom,” totaling five chat options with subject matter experts and the general Q&A with TxDOT staff, primarily Varuna Singh, Eliza Paul, Raquelle Lewis, and Steve Hrncir.

VRA Text “TxDOT will consider and incorporate information provided at these meetings, as applicable, during the design and construction of the Project.”

As with the Segment 3 meetings, the comment period was over the holiday season. 

It is unclear where public comments from these meetings will be posted and what, if any, considerations TxDOT took from these public comments. 

Segment 1 In-Person & Virtual Meeting

The Segment 1 meetings were both poorly attended. We believe that is not a reflection of community outcry, but rather that Segment 1 is slated last for development and has yet to be funded.  Some elements, like the QR codes and LEP accessibility, improved. One participant noted that a TxDOT staff member checked the QR code on the board to make sure the Spanish translation was accessible. We know that these improvements from the Segment 3 meeting were a direct reflection of the efforts made by community members and elected officials to address concerns. However, one TxDOT staff member, when addressing the public, made a joke which suggested the need for interpretive services was arbitrary and comic. These services should never be viewed as superfluous and arbitrary, but rather as a vital and substantive aspect of compliance with the VRA’s requirements of public engagement, especially with communities of color. 

Additionally, TxDOT staff mentioned to one participant that there is no possibility of changing the number of lanes in the Project design, and that only minimal adjustments to shoulders would be allowed. This appears to be in violation of the VRA’s requirement that TxDOT make a good faith effort to reduce the footprint of the Project.

Conclusion

On their website regarding the VRA, TxDOT states, “The purpose of the VRA is to resolve the FHWA investigation of TxDOT regarding the North Houston Highway Improvement Project (Project) under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) by setting forth specific mitigation actions for the Project.” 

In this report we have described multiple instances where TxDOT failed to meet standards set by the VRA. Many basic requirements of community engagement during these meetings went unmet, and as a result the community’s ability to engage with information about the Project suffered. Attention to these issues is vital to create spaces that are inclusive, accessible, and welcoming to the communities who will be most impacted by the Project. 

Language accessibility within these meetings was consistently mishandled. The lack of language translation and interpretation during the meetings not only highlights a deficiency in TxDOT's preparedness but also points to a broader issue of language justice, the principle that all individuals, regardless of their language proficiency, should have equal access to information and opportunities for meaningful participation in decision-making processes that affect their lives. By failing to provide adequate language access, TxDOT undermined the fundamental principles of fairness and inclusivity in public engagement, particularly in communities where Spanish is the predominant language. The VRA is meant to protect against such discrimination, but as we have shown, TxDOT has failed to meet the requirements of the VRA.

Another important aspect of the VRA overlooked at these meetings was the requirement for an open forum. An open forum is a space that encourages dialogue and gives a community the ability to raise concerns as a collective. The format of the supposedly VRA-compliant Community Meetings in December 2023, consisting of individual displays, siloed community members from one another and did not meet the requirement of an open forum in good faith. We believe that the community has a right to also hear from their neighbors. We strongly urge TxDOT to ensure that future meetings embody this sentiment and include an open Question and Answer portion. In addition we request the following for future meetings:

• That a representative of the FHWA be in attendance at all subsequent meetings to ensure TxDOT’s compliance with the VRA. 

• That TxDOT hosts the first set of meetings for 2024 in a timely manner. With Segment 3 commencing the letting process this summer, it is crucial for the communities affected to receive prompt updates regarding changes to the Project.

• That Spanish translation and interpretation services are fully developed prior to meetings. The interpreters at these meetings should not be TxDOT staff but rather staff who are hired solely as interpreters, with adequate English to Spanish interpretation proficiency. 

• That all TxDOT meetings be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and include accommodations for anyone, no matter their disability, to be able to access the physical space and the content of the meetings.