The Sidewalks That Beat the Highway: Inclusive Infrastructure in Action

6 min read

Infrastructure can quietly widen inequality or become a force for justice- and the difference starts with who gets asked what they need. When planners leave city hall to listen in grocery lots, school pick-up lines, churches, and tenant meetings, priorities flip from moving cars faster to keeping people safer, drier, and better connected. Pairing residents’ on-the-ground knowledge with technical data lets cities redirect billions toward sidewalks, lighting, stormwater fixes, transit access, and broadband in places long overlooked- turning infrastructure from background noise into a visible promise of equity that people can actually feel in their daily lives.

Infrastructure decisions often define the physical and economic shape of a city for generations. When community engagement is done meaningfully, particularly with groups historically excluded from planning processes, infrastructure priorities shift to reflect a broader set of experiences. For example, in a mid-sized Midwestern city where I served as a planning director, an early draft of the comprehensive plan prioritized major arterial road expansions to reduce congestion. During a listening session at a neighborhood center in a predominantly Latino district, several residents voiced that their main concern was not congestion but pedestrian safety and bus stop accessibility. Many walked along unlit streets without sidewalks or waited at transit stops with no shelters. This input led to a reprioritization of capital improvements, redirecting funds to sidewalk infill, lighting, and transit infrastructure in historically disinvested areas. These changes were later adopted unanimously by the planning commission and city council.

This example illustrates how infrastructure planning can be transformed when planners shift from assuming needs to actively listening. Comprehensive plans often set the framework for decades of infrastructure investment, including water and sewer systems, roads, transit, stormwater management, and broadband deployment. When these systems are designed based on limited engagement, they risk perpetuating inequities. Engaging meaningfully with a wide range of residents allows planners to identify overlooked infrastructure gaps and align projects with the lived realities of those most affected. Such alignment increases the legitimacy and long-term success of capital improvement programs, while also strengthening trust in local government institutions.

Techniques for Inclusive Infrastructure Engagement

Designing outreach efforts that elicit infrastructure-related concerns from a full cross-section of the community requires both intention and adaptability. One effective tactic is to hold pop-up engagement events at locations where residents already congregate: grocery store parking lots, school pick-up areas, or community health clinics. Bringing visual materials like maps of stormwater basins or bike lane proposals allows residents to react to tangible ideas. For example, using printed aerial maps to discuss flooding hotspots often prompts residents to mark locations that engineers have missed. This technique proved effective during a watershed planning effort in Durham, North Carolina, where community-identified flooding points were later validated by rainfall and runoff data and incorporated into the final plan¹.

Facilitating small group discussions in multiple languages and providing childcare and food can also dramatically increase participation among residents who otherwise face barriers to engagement. Another method is to work through trusted intermediaries. Community-based organizations, local churches, or tenant associations can help co-host conversations around infrastructure topics that seem abstract or technical to residents. In Minneapolis, the Neighborhood and Community Relations department has formalized this approach through their Cultural Engagement Contractors program, which compensates community leaders to gather feedback on capital projects². These trusted messengers are critical in gathering nuanced input that might not emerge in general public meetings.

Synthesizing Community Input into Infrastructure Priorities

Turning community feedback into actionable infrastructure plans requires a structured approach to synthesis. First, planners must categorize input by infrastructure type: transportation, utilities, green infrastructure, and public facilities. Then, themes should be cross-referenced with technical assessments and existing asset data. For example, if residents flag frequent sewer backups in a neighborhood, engineers can verify this against maintenance logs and hydraulic modeling. This triangulation process helps distinguish isolated experiences from systemic issues and ensures that anecdotal input is grounded in data.

Once synthesized, community priorities should be reflected in both the narrative and implementation sections of the comprehensive plan. The City of Seattle’s Equity and Environment Agenda serves as a strong example, where infrastructure investments are explicitly tied to resident-identified priorities like tree canopy restoration and air quality improvements in specific neighborhoods³. Including community narratives and maps with resident comments in the plan appendix can also demonstrate transparency and accountability. This shows stakeholders how their voices shaped the final product and can support future funding applications by documenting community backing.

Building Trust Through Long-Term Infrastructure Relationships

Infrastructure planning often plays out over years or even decades, which requires planners to approach engagement as a long-term relationship rather than a one-time transaction. Many infrastructure improvements, such as stormwater basins or new transit lines, involve significant construction impacts and land use changes. When residents see planners return regularly to update them on progress, report back on how input was used, and remain accessible to troubleshoot concerns, trust grows. This kind of relationship-building is particularly important in neighborhoods that have experienced disinvestment or broken promises in past projects.

Practicing patience and humility is essential. During a corridor revitalization project in Richmond, Virginia, planners initially proposed a protected bike lane on a busy arterial without realizing that many nearby residents lacked access to cars and were concerned about losing on-street parking. When challenged, the project team paused implementation, hosted additional workshops, and ultimately adjusted the design to balance bike safety with parking needs. This process delayed construction by several months but built stronger community support and reduced future conflicts. Maintaining a growth mindset allows planners to see such moments not as setbacks but as opportunities to deepen understanding and co-create durable solutions⁴.

Embedding Equity into Infrastructure Decision-Making

One of the most powerful outcomes of inclusive engagement is the ability to embed equity into infrastructure decision-making. This means reallocating resources based on historical patterns of disinvestment and present-day need, rather than distributing improvements evenly across the city. Tools like equity scoring or priority area mapping can help planners justify why certain neighborhoods receive more sidewalk funds or expanded broadband first. The City of Portland’s Infrastructure Equity Index, for example, uses census and infrastructure data to guide investment toward communities facing the greatest barriers to mobility and essential services⁵.

Embedding equity also requires revisiting performance metrics. Traditional indicators such as vehicle throughput or miles of pipe replaced may not capture the full value of infrastructure improvements. Instead, planners can track metrics like reduced travel time to grocery stores, improved stormwater retention in flood-prone areas, or increased ADA-compliant curb ramps installed in older neighborhoods. These metrics reflect how infrastructure impacts daily life and whether investments are closing access gaps. By aligning goals, measures, and investments with community-identified needs, planners can ensure comprehensive plans produce tangible improvements for those who need them most.

Bibliography

Durham City-County Planning Department. "Third Fork Creek Watershed Plan." 2019. https://durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/28169/Third-Fork-Watershed-Plan.
City of Minneapolis. "Cultural Engagement Contractors Program." Accessed April 2024. https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/programs-initiatives/neighborhoods/cultural-engagement-contractors/.
City of Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment. "Equity & Environment Agenda." 2016. https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/OSE/EE_Agenda_FINAL.pdf.
City of Richmond. "Complete Streets Corridor Plan: Jefferson Davis Highway." 2021. https://www.rva.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/JeffDavisCorridorPlan_Final.pdf.
City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. "Infrastructure Equity Index." 2022. https://www.portland.gov/bps/infrastructure-equity-index.