APRIL 2024

BEYOND TRAFFIC SAFETY

Building community
belonging and safety inpublic spaces

Table ofContents
Letter from the collaborators .................... 3
Personal Safety Toolkit summary ............ 6
Photo Data Analysis summary ................... 9
Community Engagement summary ........ 10
Partners profile ........................................... 11
Appendix .. ...................................................... 15
A: Personal Safety Toolkit ........................ 16
B: Photo Data Analysis ............................. 64
C: Community Engagement Report ....... 89
D: Photo ranking of
engagement activity ........................... 95
E: Post-activity participant survey ....... 106
F: Survey analysis ....................................113
G: Engagement activity protocol .......... 118
2

It is the policy of the City of Portland that no person shall be excluded from participationin, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in any city program, service,or activity on the grounds of race, color, national origin, disability, or other protectedclass status. Adhering to Civil Rights Title VI and ADA Title II civil rights laws, the Cityof Portland ensures meaningful access to City programs, services, and activities byreasonably providing: translation and interpretation, modifications, accommodations,alternative formats, and auxiliary aids and services. To request these services, contact thePortland Bureau of Transportation at 311 (503-823-4000), for Relay Service & TTY: 711.

Letter from thecollaborators
DIVISION MIDWAY ALLIANCE (DMA),COALITION OF COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR (CCC) & PORTLAND BUREAU
OF TRANSPORTATION (PBOT)The Portland Bureau of Transportation(PBOT) is committed to creating
safe streets for all Portlanders. This
goes beyond traditional traffic safety
investments and includes supporting
personal safety and a sense of
belonging. We need streets where
people feel safe from traffic violence
and feel free from threat and fear of
emotional, psychological, and physicalharm. Portland will not reach our racial
justice commitments, climate goals,
or Vision Zero goal without ensuringthat Portlanders feel safe traveling andoccupying public spaces. This Personal
Safety Toolkit provides concrete waysthat PBOT can integrate personalsafety elements into the design anddelivery of safe street projects.

3This report, “Beyond Traffic Safety:
Building community belonging andsafety in public spaces,” documents
community members’ experiences
and reflections on what personalsafety means to them and ways
government agencies and community-based organizations can engage tomake public spaces safer. By personalsafety, we mean freedom from threat
and fear of emotional, psychological,
and physical harm for Portlanders
most targeted by violence. We arethrilled to share the outcomes of the“beyond traffic safety” focus group
discussion held on May 20, 2023,
including feedback shared by about
40 participants from six different
language and ethnic backgrounds.

opportunities to improve community
safety in public spaces.

There are three primary elements inthis report: 1) Personal Safety Toolkit,2) Photo Data Analysis Report, and
3) Community Engagement Report.

The Division Midway Alliance (DMA)
led the culturally specific engagement
process using its successful culturalliaison model. Liaisons from Bhutanese,
Chinese, Karen, Latine, Vietnamese, andyouth groups recruited participants andfacilitated the focus groups. DMA used

The Personal Safety Toolkit
identifies infrastructure investments
and community programming

The Photo Data Analysis details
the qualitative data process,including community member
reflections, qualitative data
analysis, and summary findings.
The Community Engagement Reportprovides guidance on effective
community-led conversations andpractical approaches to increaselivability, enhance safety, andbuild welcoming spaces for all.
Our meaningful collaboration is an
example of a successful public-private
partnership between a government
agency, a local non-profit, and a
research-based community organization.

the analysis of focus group discussions
and photo exercises conducted by the
Coalition of Communities of Color tocreate the Personal Safety Toolkit. The
liaisons were instrumental in recruiting
members for the focus group activities
and facilitating the focus group.

We would like to express our deep
appreciation to all community
members who shared theirvaluable input, energy, and time.
None of this would have beenpossible without your dedication,
passion, and active involvement.

The Coalition of Communities of Color(CCC) led the analysis of the qualitative
data that participants shared in thefocus groups. CCC, in collaboration
with DMA and the Portland Bureauof Transportation (PBOT), designed
activities for the engagement session,
created questions for the focus
group discussions, trained liaisons tofacilitate the discussions, and analyzed
the data from the focus groups.

We would also like to thank ourfunding partner, the National
Safety Council’s Road to Zero
Coalition, for selecting this projectout of a competitive application
process and providing resources
to conduct this project.

The Portland Bureau of Transportation(PBOT) convened this project, secured
project funding, and provided
technical assistance for the successful
implementation of this project.

4

Together, let us forge ahead,embracing diversity and co-creating
a future that offers safety and asense of belonging to everyone.
The continued engagement andpartnership of public agencies
with community organizations isessential to shared success. We
invite you to join us in this effort
and utilize this toolkit for shaping
safe and vibrant communities.

Lisha Shrestha
Executive Director, Division Midway Alliance

Andres Lopez, PhD
Research Director,
Coalition of Communities of Color

Lale Santelices
Vision Zero Specialist,
Portland Bureau of Transportation

Clay Veka
Vision Zero Coordinator,
Portland Bureau of Transportation

Photos: Division Midway Alliance5Personal
Safety Toolkit
summary
The Personal Safety Toolkit identifies
14 ways that government agencies
and community organizations canpartner to improve community
members’ experience of safety
and sense of belonging while
traveling along Portland streets
and being in public spaces.
The toolkit is divided into two
sections: infrastructure tools andcommunity programing. Both sections
have a set of tools that addresscommunity concerns about safety.

6

INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS

The community experiences identified
in the toolkit reflect the safetyconcerns that community members
shared during the May 20, 2023
“beyond traffic safety” focus groupsession. The tools respond to theseexperiences. We include examples
of successful, hands-on projects
and photos that complement thetools. The examples show positive
community engagement, productive
government collaboration with community-based organizations, and

COMMUNITYPROGRAMMING

effective community-led programswith government support.
Most of the focus group participants
live in the Division-Midway service
area boundary, and some have been
direct recipients of DMA programs
and services. DMA has successfully
used some of the recommended
tools in their service area. This
toolkit has been created in responseto these communities’ concerns,
hopes, desires, and dreams.
View the full toolkit inAppendix A on page 16.

Infrastructure Toolkit
Summary ofCommunity Experiences

The infrastructure section
includes eight toolsthat can be delivered
with capital projects
and will be permanent
street installations.

» People associate nighttime with possible
danger. Dark places with insufficient lighting
are scary and add to people’s concerns about
crime, deterring them from going out.

1. Cultural amenities» Tight streets and public spaces with obstructed
views contribute to people’s fear and discomfort.

4. Display boards» Community members value streets withfeatures that help people sit, stay, andmove through the spaces, like restaurants,
seating areas, and clear signs at intersections that help them see and be seen.

6. Greenery» Community members are concerned about
speeding drivers not stopping for them anddesire interventions to slow people driving.
» Trees, plants, and flowers add beauty and shade
and are desirable when well maintained.

7

Tools
2. Cultural signage
3. Lighting

5. Security cameras

7. Slower streets
8. Mural and street art*

*The “mural and street art” tool
appears in both the infrastructure andcommunity programming sections.

Community Programming
Toolkit
Summary ofCommunity Experiences» Community members do not want
to feel alone in case something
bad happens to them.
» Idle, parked cars and people driving
recklessly create a sense of fear.

The Community Programming
category includes tools thatare focused on community
connections and space
activation. The resultsof such activities may or
may not be permanent.

» Empty and exposed spaces invite
unwanted attention and interactions.
» Community members feel deterredfrom using sidewalks where there aremany folks experiencing homelessness
if they are blocking the walking space,
if the sidewalk is dirty or smelly, andif they are perceived to be aggressive,
unpredictable, and/or using drugs.
» Community members feel afraid ofareas where there are reports orrumors of kids being kidnapped.

8

Tools
1. Mural and street art*
2. Community-led clean-up
and tree planting activities
3. Personal and transit safety
ambassador program
4. Community-led neighborhood walk and bike event
5. Lively vacant spaces
6. Small business leaders forsafer public space program
7. Community-led picnics/
potlucks in nearby parks*The “mural and street art” tool appears
in both the infrastructure and community
programming sections.

Photo Data Analysis
summary
The main takeaway of the qualitative
data analysis of the community
experiences across all five key topics
is that safety is felt when spaces
are designed and function like
community spaces. By community
spaces, we mean public spaces thatare inclusive and welcoming to all;spaces that facilitate people coming
together for shared activities, andthat foster a sense of belonging
within a neighborhood. Community
members repeatedly describedfeatures of community spaces as
being active, well-populated, colorful,vibrant, easy, and comfortable
to use. When they talk about bus
stops, crosswalks, neighborhood
gatherings, lighting, and sidewalks,participants valued these features
because they contribute to lively
vibrant spaces that bring people
together in a variety of ways.

For details about
the data collectedduring the session,
the approach toanalyzing these
data, and thefull descriptionsof the results,
see Appendix B
on page 64.

A sample of photos analyzed

9Community Engagementsummary
The goal of ourengagement strategy wasto center the experienceof community members
most impacted by violencein a trauma-informed
and culturally responsive
manner. To achieve thisgoal, we followed CCC
and DMA’s best practices
for equitable data
gathering and analysis
and relied on DMA’scultural liaison model.

Identify
communitygroupsConduct
community
engagement

Using existingdata of hate andbias incidents, andhonoring existing
relationships,
we identified thefollowing cultural andlanguage groups:• Using the culturalliaison model, we collaboratively developed
the community
engagement process,shared data, andagreed on an
approach to recording
experiences.

Build
framework

PBOT started bygathering andsummarizing inputthat community
members had sharedwith PBOT in previous
engagements.
This allowed theengagement process
to honor previous
community voices
and build upon thatshared knowledge.

•• Karen• Latine• Nepali••

10Graphic showing engagement process• Community liaisonsrecruited participants and hosted
intimate, small groupconversations about
their experiences.

Report backfindings

Honoring community
contributions to thiswork, the project
collaborators will hosta celebration to sharethe final Personal
Safety Toolkit withthe cultural liaisons,engagement participants, and DMA
members at large.

Partners profile

11

Division Midway Alliance
Established in 2012, Division Midway
Alliance (DMA) is a place-based, 501(c)(3) nonprofit with a mission to create
healthier neighborhoods, social
stability and economic prosperity forresidents and businesses. We workto achieve equity – in resources,
opportunity, and quality of life fordiverse communities. We value
grassroots community development,
creating inclusive economic opportunities, local ownership for placemaking
by valuing lived experiences andhonoring community voices.
DMA has six overarching programs
that touch on diverse aspectsof community development andcommunity resilience within the
Division Corridor and surrounding
areas. DMA uses a “cultural liaison”
model1 across all of its programs
planning and execution.
1 Cultural liaisons are members who have strong
relationships with their communities, speak the samelanguages, share similar life experiences, and are trusted
by the community to deliver information and services.

12

Our programs are:
COMMUNITY BUILDING
AND RESILIENCYECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DMA’s cultural liaisons provide
language assistance and organize
resource information sessions
and educational workshops
for low English proficiency
groups throughout the year.

DMA launched the Minority Business
Capacity Building Program in 2022.
Participants identifying as immigrants
or refugees who are interested instarting small businesses get individualized, long-term, culturally appropriate
support in designing business plans.

YOUTH DEVELOPMENTFESTIVAL OF NATIONSDMA’s Youth Development Program
serves young people transitioning tocollege professional careers, helping
them create practical, individualized
action plans, and connect with job
and school readiness opportunities.

DMA’s annual Festival of Nations
gala celebrates the accomplishments
and diversity of our community
with food, music, and resource
information in one of the largest multicultural events in East Portland.

ASSISTANCE PROGRAMSTRANSPORTATION EQUITYDMA participates in TriMet’s transit
fare relief programs, helping seniors
and low-income individuals apply
for reduced price and free passes.
We help community members enroll
in rental assistance program.

DMA partners with local transportation services to make our streets andpublic transportation safer, create asense of belonging, educate youth
and elders in prudent biking andwalking, and reduce discrimination.

Coalition of Communities
of Color Justice ResearchInstitute
The Coalition of Communities ofColor (CCC) is an alliance of culturally
specific community-based organizations with representation frommultiple communities of color. CCC’s
mission is to address the socioeconomic disparities, institutional
racism, and inequity of services
experienced by our families, children,and communities; and to organize
our communities for collective action
resulting in social change to obtainself-determination, wellness, justice,and prosperity. Members of CCC’s
Research Justice Institute (RJI) collaborated as part of this project.

13

Portland Bureau ofTransportation
The Portland Bureau of Transportation(PBOT) works with our community
to shape a livable city together. We
plan, build, manage, and maintainan effective and safe transportation system that provides people
and businesses the access andmobility they need and deserve. We
keep Portland moving. Through the
Vision Zero program, PBOT and ourpartners are working to eliminate
traffic deaths and serious injuries
on our streets. PBOT’s Strategic Plan
stipulates that all programs advanceequity and address structural racism,
and Vision Zero is committed toensuring that people traveling in
Portland are safe from traffic andother violence in our streets.

Person holding Vision Zero sign in Burmese.
Photo: Division Midway AllianceProject team

14

Lisha Shrestha(She/Her)
Executive Director
Division Midway Alliance
Lisha@DivisionMidway.org

Manuel Suarez(He/Him)
Former Program Coordinator
Division Midway Alliance

Andres Lopez, PhD(He/Him)Research Director
Coalition of Communities of Color
Andres@
CoalitionCommunitiesColor.org

Reema Mendoza, PhD(She/Her)
Former Senior Researcher
Coalition of Communities of Color

Clay Veka(She/Her)
Vision Zero Coordinator
Portland Bureauof Transportation
Clay.Veka@PortlandOregon.gov

Lale Santelices(She/Her/Ella)
Vision Zero Specialist
Portland Bureau of Transportation
Lale.Santelices@PortlandOregon.gov

Appendix» Appendix A: Personal Safety Toolkit» Appendix B: Photo Data Analysis» Appendix C: Community Engagement Report» Appendix D: Photo ranking of engagement activity» Appendix E: Post-activity participant survey» Appendix F: Survey analysis» Appendix G: Engagement protocol

15

APPENDIX A

Personal Safety
Toolkit16

APPENDIX | BEYOND TRAFFIC SAFETY: BUILDING COMMUNITY BELONGING AND SAFETY IN PUBLIC SPACES

Personal Safety
Toolkit
The Personal Safety Toolkit identifies
14 ways that government agencies
and community organizations canpartner to improve community
members’ experience of safety
and sense of belonging while
traveling along Portland streets
and being in public spaces.
The toolkit is divided into two
sections: infrastructure tools andcommunity programing. Both sections
have a set of tools that addresscommunity concerns about safety.
The community experiences identified
in the toolkit reflect the safetyconcerns that community members
shared during the May 20, 2023
“beyond traffic safety” focus groupsession. The tools respond to these17experiences. We include examples
of successful, hands-on projects
and photos that complement thetools. The examples show positive
community engagement, productive
government collaboration with community-based organizations, andeffective community-led programswith government support.
Most of the focus group participants
live in the Division-Midway service
area boundary, and some have been
direct recipients of DMA programs
and services. DMA has successfully
used some of the recommended
tools in their service area. This
toolkit has been created in responseto these communities’ concerns,
hopes, desires, and dreams.

The Portland Bureau of Transportation(PBOT) is committed to creating
safe streets for all Portlanders. This
goes beyond traditional traffic safety
investments and includes supporting
personal safety and a sense of
belonging. We need streets where
people feel safe from traffic violence
and feel free from threat and fear of
emotional, psychological, and physicalharm. Portland will not reach our racial
justice commitments, climate goals,
or Vision Zero goal without ensuringthat Portlanders feel safe traveling andoccupying public spaces. This Personal
Safety Toolkit provides concrete waysthat PBOT can integrate personalsafety elements into the design anddelivery of safe street projects.

The most important takeaway from
our analysis of the qualitative data
– grounded in the experiences ofcommunity members – is that safety
is felt when spaces are designed
and function like community spaces.
By “community spaces”, we mean
public spaces that are inclusive
and welcoming to all, that facilitate
people to come together for sharedactivities and interactions, and that
foster a sense of belonging within aneighborhood. Community members
consistently and repeatedly describefeatures of community spaces as
being active and well-populated,colorful, vibrant, and easy andcomfortable to use when they talkabout bus stops, crosswalks, neighborhood gathering spaces, lighting,and sidewalks. They value and desirethese features, because they recognize
how these features contribute tolively, vibrant spaces that bringpeople together in a variety of ways.

Infrastructure Projects

Community Programming

The “infrastructure projects”
category includes eight tools thatcan be delivered with capitalprojects and will be permanent
installations in the street.

The “community programming”
category includes tools that arefocused on community connections
and space activation.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Security cameras
6. Greenery
7. Slower streets
8. Mural and street art

1. Mural and street art
2. Community-led clean-up andtree planting activities
3. Personal and traffic safety
ambassador program
4.
5. Lively vacant spaces
6. “Small business leaders forsafer public space” program
7. Community-led picnics andpotlucks in nearby parks

18

Defining“personal safety”
DMA’s cultural liaisons who belong
to six different ethnic groups
reflected on the question, “Whatdoes personal safety mean to us andour community?” The DMA team andcommunity defines personal safety as:» Being aware of one’s surroundings and avoiding situations thatcan put one in danger or lead toa dangerous situation. Having
more vigilance and supervisionfrom the police in our neighborhoods and having surveillancecameras around the neighborhood.
» The guarantee of a discrimination-free environment so that
we can walk and drive in public
spaces without the fear of being
targeted or marginalized.
19

An environment that has no hazards,
contaminants, and health risks.
Well-lit streets, clean surroundings,
and a welcoming neighborhood.
» One can go about their daily
activities without the fear of harmor danger, as well as having thenecessary resources and support
to deal with threats. Community
safety is having a safe space forchildren to play outside freely.
» Everyone can do things in their
daily lives without being afraid
and worrying about danger
that may occur. Community
safety is when one feels securethat there is no harm and when
they have a sense of belonging.

Personal safety concerns
and antidotes identified
in the data analysis
The personal safety concernsthat community members sharedin the focus groups and theantidotes community members
identified are as follows:
WELL-LIT SPACES

People inherently associate nighttime
with possible danger. Dark places
with insufficient lighting are scary
and add to people’s concerns about
crime, deterring them from going out.
» Antidote: Community membersconnect safety with bright lights,
clear visibility, and populated areas.
Bright lights reduce these issues bycreating a sense of comfort, trust,and confidence through the ability
to clearly see and be seen while
they use streets and public spaces.

ACTIVE SPACES

CLEAN GATHERING SPACES:

Community members feel
protected when they are using
active, well-populated streets
because other people arearound who could provide aid if
something bad were to happen.
Tight streets and public spaces
with obstructed views contributeto people’s fear and discomfort.

Community members do not want
to feel alone in case something badhappens to them while in public.

» Antidote: Well-lit streets withspace for people, bicycles,
and cars are inviting. Lights
illuminate the beauty of streetswith houses, trees, benches, andclean sidewalks, which people
experience as calming andpleasant. Community members
value streets with businesses,
activities, and features that
help people sit, rest, andmove through the spaces, likerestaurants, seating areas, andclear signs at intersections.
20» Antidote: Community members
want to spend time in neighborhoods that are beautiful andwhere they feel welcome. They
want crossings that have trees,
plants, and colorful art to makethe spaces more welcoming,
while ensuring clear visibility
for drivers and pedestrians.
» Antidote: Community membersconnect safety with having
functional bus stops, protected
and clean bus stops, withaccessible bus stops and includes
same features of community
spaces like parks and plazas.
» Antidote: Community membersconnect safety with having neighborhood gatherings places thatare designed to bring people

together for recreation. Spacesthat bring people together forrecreation are beautiful and clean
and protected from cars and crime.
These spaces include features
such as benches, tables, space foractivities, and spots with shade.
» Antidote: People are most likely towalk on sidewalks in communities
where there are cars, stores,
lights, homes, and activities
because they feel less isolated.
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS:

Community members worry
about drivers not seeing themas they cross the street.
» Antidote: Sense of safety increases
with features that support crossings,
including signage, push buttons,
buttons that activate flashing lights,
and road markings to indicate
the presence of a crosswalk.

GREENERY AND SLOW SPEEDS:

CLEAN, CLEAR WALKING SPACE:

Idle, parked cars and people
driving vehicles recklessly
create a sense of fear.

Community members feel deterredfrom using sidewalks if there aremany folks experiencing homelessness who block the walking space, if
the sidewalk is dirty or smelly, andif there are perceived aggressive
and unpredictable behavior and/or drug use. They also reported fearof areas where there are reports orrumors of kids being kidnapped.

» Antidote: Community members
like sidewalks with trees, plants,
and flowers as long as they do notblock visibility. Well maintained
green areas create a sense of
tranquility. Streets designs thatencourage people to drive safely
increase sense of safety.
UTILIZING EMPTY LOTS:

Empty and exposed spaces invite
unwanted attention and interactions.
» Antidote: Coffee shops, bookstores,
cultural centers, food carts, otheractivated businesses, and street
paintings help make spaces vibrant.

21» Antidote: Community members
feel safe in spaces that feel andfunction as gathering spaces
and are protected from cars andcrime. Community membersconnect safety with clean and clear
sidewalks, active streets, vibrantspaces, and beauty from nature.
» Antidote: Clear, concrete sidewalks
that provide ample space.

Neighbors of varying ages riding bikes on atree shaded neighborhood street.
Photo: Simsshot Photography

Infrastructure
Tools
1. Cultural amenities
2. Cultural signage
3. Lighting
4. Display boards
5. Security cameras
6. Greenery
7. Slower streets
8. Mural and street art

22

Infrastructure Tool 1:

Cultural amenities

23

Infrastructure Tool 1:

Cultural amenities
Cultural amenities are objects thathave cultural or historical significance to a particular community.
The use of cultural amenities that
correspond to some people living
in a certain area is a way to honor
their cultural and linguistic identity.
Cultural amenities make an area
more vibrant with cultural representation and help create a senseof belonging for the community
members livings in the area.
In Portland, there are rich opportunities for adding cultural amenities
in East Portland where people
from about 70 ethnic groups live.
With the majority of immigrant andrefugee groups in Portland living
in East Portland, more than 55% of
the population is either bi-lingual or
non-English speaking. Therefore, tocreate a sense of belonging, respect
24

Street scape with Chinese decorative lanterns, Chinese style streetlights, and street seating

the cultural identity, and create vibrantand safe spaces, it is recommended
that transportation agencies build relationships with diverse communities
to learn about their cultural identity

and needs. With this approach, it
becomes easier to identify typesof cultural amenities that can be
added in public spaces and streets.

Infrastructure Tool 1:

Cultural amenities
Community experience» Community members want to spend time in neighborhoods that are beautiful and where they feel welcome.
They want crossings that have trees, plants, andcolorful art to make the spaces more welcoming, while
ensuring clear visibility for drivers and pedestrians.

How» Transportation agencies build
relationships with diverse
communities to understand theircultural identities and needs» Agencies partner with CBOs in thearea to initiate adding culturally
specific amenities on the street

PBOT TEAMSINVOLVED» Portland in
the Streets» Public Realm andStreet Activation» Street design
teams
Artful street seating on a plaza

25

Infrastructure Tool 2:

Cultural signage

26

Infrastructure Tool 2:

Cultural signage
To increase a sense of welcoming
in areas where large proportions of
the population speak non-English
languages, transportation agencies
should consider adding multi-lingual signage. This will increase
community understanding of traffic
laws, ability to navigate through an
area, and contribute to a sense of
belonging in the neighborhood.

Community experience» Lack of clear sign and light mean less safety» Lack of clarity about where pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers
go means more people are not well protected from cars

How
» Signage in languages that
community members canread and understand» Clear and visible signs

PBOT TEAMSINVOLVED» Portland in
the Streets» Public Realm andStreet Activation» Street design
teams

27

Infrastructure Tool 3:

28

Photo: Division Midway AllianceLighting

Infrastructure Tool 3:

Lighting

Community members strongly
believe that adding lights topublic spaces creates safety andprevents crime. More lights will
help increase visibility between
people driving and pedestrians.
Therefore, transportation agencies
should consider increasing
brightness in public spaces.

Community experience» Community members say that bright lights provide
clear visibility and help people feel confident to use thespace. Well-lit streets with ample space for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and people driving are inviting.
» Bright lights create a sense of comfort, trust, and confidence» Dark places with insufficient lighting are scary and add topeople’s concern about crime, deterring them from going out

How» Streetlights to increase
visibility and safety» Community members
generally preferred whitelight instead of yellow lights» Lights were particularly desired
at major bus stops and nearplazas and pedestrian bridges

29

PBOT TEAMSINVOLVED» Portland in
the Streets» Public Realm andStreet Activation» Street design
teamsInfrastructure Tool 4:

Display board

30

Infrastructure Tool 4:

Display board
Being able to plan your trip and let
your emergency contact know what
your location and estimated time ofarrival is provides a sense of control
and safety. In addition, posting theinformation in multiple languages
other than English helps people– especially non-English-speaking
elders – understand the informationand feel welcome at the transit stop.

Community experience» Signs at transit stops that display real-time bus and train
schedule information are helpful to transit riders

How» Display boards at transit
stops that display the bus and
MAX train arrival times» Multi-lingual signage and boards

PBOT TEAMS INVOLVED

These are not within
PBOT’s domain but
should be considered
as a community value.
» Portland Streetcar» Aerial Tram
» Street design teams

31

Infrastructure Tool 5:

Security cameras & services

32

Infrastructure Tool 5:

Security cameras & services
Security cameras and services givea sense of protection since they
may deter poor behavior fromother community members. They
also provide a sense of accountability in the case of an incident.

Community experience» Community members feel safer if there are visible security cameras
and suggest adding them to bus stops that don’t already have them
» The community members who desired security cameras were
explicit about their use for accountability purposes only, notany other surveillance purposes like profiling. Government
should communicate how they will honor these intentions.

How» Security cameras at major bus
stops and in public spaces» Inform the public of changes andprotocols for use of camera footage
and allow a comment period

PBOT TEAMSINVOLVED

These are not within
PBOT’s domain but
should be considered
as a community value.
» Portland Streetcar» Aerial Tram
» Street design teams

33

Infrastructure Tool 6:

Greenery34

Infrastructure Tool 6:

GreeneryWell-maintained greenery adds anatural, welcoming feel to a neighborhood and provides environmental benefits. NACTO’s Urban
Street Stormwater Guide explainsthat “green expressions makestreets more inviting by providing
a tree canopy, absorbing heat, andimproving the image of the street.”
They define green expressions as“including bioretention facilities,
street trees, and landscaping[to] enhance neighborhood mainstreets, creating more aestheticallypleasing public spaces even where
the street is relatively narrow.”

Community experience» Trees along the street help keep community members
cool in the summer heat while walking» Plants that make an area more welcoming without
blocking views for people driving are desirable» Trees create a welcoming space» People don’t like it when plants block sidewalks because
it makes it difficult to use the sidewalk and plants
could harm people trying to move past them
» When appropriately placed and well maintained, trees,
plants, and flowers create a sense of tranquility

How» Trees and plants should be incorporated into street projects» Community members should provide
input on locations to plant trees» Other agencies should provide
input on feasibility and options
for different greenery

35

PBOT TEAMS INVOLVED» Portland in
the Streets» Public Realm andStreet Activation» Street design teams

Infrastructure Tool 7:

Slower streets36

Infrastructure Tool 7:

Slower streets
Speeding is the number one traffic
concern that community members
report to the City of Portland.
Speeding was also a recurring safetyconcern shared in the Beyond Traffic
Safety community engagement, as
the qualitative data analysis captured.
“Community members talked about
the importance of features thattell drivers how to navigate street
crossings, including speed bumps toslow down, instructions to drivers thatpeople crossing go first, and lights
and signs showing drivers when andwhere to stop, and that people arecrossing.” Slower driving speeds isa crucial traffic safety outcome that
fosters belonging in a neighborhood.
We also know that slower driving
speeds support safety for everyone
using the streets. Safe driving
37

Person walking across intersection with slow street markings and treatments

speeds lower the risk of crashes and,
when crashes do occur, make it lesslikely that people are killed or seriously
injured. The World Health Organization
recommends that urban speed limits
should not exceed about 30 mph.

PBOT’s speed limit setting
directive states that “most posted
speed limits in Portland should
be 20 to 25 miles per hour,” a goal
Portland is working toward.

Infrastructure Tool 7:

Slower streets
Community experience» Pedestrians cannot cross because drivers
speed up instead of stopping» Community members prefer crossing the street at
locations with medians that provide a protected
space to stop in the middle of a wide, busy street

How» Speed bumps, pedestrian lights, andclear signage support pedestrians
and can slow drivers down
» Speed limit signs inform people drivingof the maximum speed on all streets. In
particular, they support 20 mph speeds
on residential streets and Portland’sneighborhood greenways, which aredesignated pedestrian and bicycle streets.
» A slow street strategy developed incollaboration with community members
for a particular neighborhood
38

PBOT TEAMSINVOLVED» Portland in
the Streets» Public Realm andStreet Activation» Street design
teams

Person biking on a neighborhood crossing withpedestrian island and bike treatments

Infrastructure Tool 8:

Mural & street art projects*

39Infrastructure Tool 8:

Mural & street art projects*

40

Infrastructure Tool 8:

Mural & street art projects**Mural Artwork is part of both infrastructure and community programming as it is a perfect amalgamationof community participation in creating a tangible outcome in the form of artwork. Therefore, please use thisrecommended toolkit as part of both community programming and infrastructure projects.

Murals and street art provide
important ways to increase livability
in public spaces. This kind of artwork
can bring different communities
together to share input andcollaborate. This both contributes
to safety and vibrancy in a neighborhood, and enhances the socialand cultural capital in an area. For
example, the photo of mural artworkon the next page is the sharedvision of infrastructure improvements in the Division-Midway
corridor. Together, 105 community
members from eight different ethnic
groups (Bhutanese, Chinese, Karen,
Iraqi, Latine, Vietnamese, Somali,
and Tongan) in East Portland andNortheast Portland created theartwork. The mural on the staircase
41

Mural on Division Midway Alliance staircase depicting community members and culturally
relevant imagery. Photo: Division Midway Alliance(pictured above) is a youth-led collaborative artwork on cultural identity,
which has added value to the neighborhood and become a landmark forthe cultural representation of diverse
communities in East Portland. Publicagencies should collaborate with
community leaders in different
parts of Portland to create artworkthat improves livability for people
living in those neighborhoods.

Infrastructure Tool 8:

Mural & street art projects
Community experience» Public art becomes essential to build a sense of belonging sincecommunity members share a desire to have plants and art
that make the area welcoming without blocking drivers’ view.
In addition, they mention that evidence of crime and police
activity makes residents feel unsafe. By creating community-led
street murals and art projects, community members connect
with different ethnic groups. In addition, youth may partnerwith local artists to create public art that reflects a community’ssocial and cultural identity and showcase their “way of life.”

How» Street art that represents the cultural
identity of the neighborhood» Youth groups and ethnic community
members in a neighborhood
identify places and themes ofmurals and street art projects» Local artists create art with
community members
42

PBOT TEAMSINVOLVED» Portland in
the Streets» Street design
teams» Public Realm andStreet Activation

2023 Community Visioning Mural
Photo: Division Midway AllianceCommunity
ProgrammingTools
1. Mural and street art
2. Community-led clean-up and tree planting activities
3. Personal and transit safety ambassador program
4. Community-led neighborhood walk and bike event
5. Lively vacant spaces
6. Small business leaders for safer public space program
7. Community-led picnics/potlucks in nearby parks

43Community Programming Tool 1:

Mural & street art projects**Mural Artwork is part of bothinfrastructure and community
programming as it is a perfectamalgamation of community participation in creating a tangible
outcome in the form of artwork.
Therefore, please use this tool forboth community programmingand infrastructure projects.
Please refer to the section startingon Page 39 for toolkit details
on mural and street art projects.

44

Left photo: Rainbow striped painted neighborhood street aligned with cafe seating;
Right photo: Artist works with youth on community mural. Photo: Division Midway AllianceCommunity Programming Tool 2:

45Photos: Division Midway Alliance

Community-led clean up& tree planting activities

Community Programming Tool 2:

Community-led clean up& tree planting activities
Partnerships between government
agencies and local groups is important
to make streets clean and safe foreveryone to use. An example, shownin figures 11 and 12, was a cleanup day
collaboration between former county
commissioner Jessica Vega Pederson’s
office (District 3), SOLVE (Oregonbased non-profit), and Division
Midway Alliance (DMA). DMA helped
to mobilize local volunteers. The commissioner’s office coordinated withSOLVE. This collaboration helps local
communities feel a sense of responsibility for their neighborhoods, builds
the relationship between governmentand community organizations, andhelps share the burden of event
organizing. There are several streetsin East Portland and other areas of
the city where harmful materials like46

needles and various forms of plastic
litter the streets. Regular clean-up
events would build ownershipamong the local community andkeep the areas safe and clean.

PBOT TEAMS INVOLVED» Active Transportationand Safety

Community experienceHow» Cleanliness invites use of spaces» Quarterly, community-led neighborhood clean-ups, with a possible
focus at major transit stops» Garbage makes the space
dirty and deters use» Community members feel deterredfrom using sidewalks when there
are many folks experiencing homelessness who block the walking
space, when folks are perceived tobe aggressive, unpredictable, and/or using drugs, or if the sidewalk is
dirty or smelly. They also reported
fear of areas where there arereports or rumors of kidnapping.

» Trainings and materials to support
neighborhood clean-up crews» Resources to support people
residing on the sidewalks» Local CBO partnerships to
identify people to participate
in the clean-ups

Community Programming Tool 3:

47

Photos: Division Midway Alliance

Personal & traffic safety
ambassador program

Community Programming Tool 3:

Personal & traffic safety
ambassador program
The Personal and Traffic Safety
Ambassador Program will build
leadership among youth to educate
community members about safety inpublic spaces. In addition to building
youth leadership skills, the program
would connect with older adults inthe community and foster a relationship between community leaders,
PBOT, and other agencies. Key steps
to create this program are: 1) fostertransportation agency partnershipwith local community organizations,2) community organizations recruit
youth; 3) both community and agency
teams train youth on personal andtraffic safety in public spaces; 4)
trained youth become Traffic Safety
Ambassadors and further educate
others in the community. Community
members who participate in the48

training will document and report
safety issues in the neighborhood,know who to contact if they feelunsafe, know how to travel safely(especially crossing the street) and use
different traffic safety infrastructure.

Community experience» Pedestrians cannot crossand fear walking near folks
experiencing homelessness» Evidence of crime and police
activity makes pedestrians feel
uneasy in the neighborhood

PBOT TEAMS INVOLVED» Active Transportation& Safety»How» Create a “Personal and Traffic Safety
Ambassador Program,” including
local bilingual and bicultural
youth. They will receive trainings
from government agencies onviolence prevention, personalsafety, and traffic safety.
» Train-the-trainer approach: Once
youth receive the training, they
will lead additional trainings for
local businesses and community
members. The content of the
training can be translated into
multiple languages and sharedwidely via community members’social media group pages.

Community Programming Tool 4:

49

Photos: Division Midway Alliance

Community-led neighborhood
walk and bike event

Community Programming Tool 4:

Community-led neighborhood
walk and bike event
A guided walk can be botheducational and a fun way toengage people from different age
groups, abilities, and ethnicities.
The neighborhood walk and bikeride pictured here was conducted
in 2021 in the Division-Midway area,
during which participants learned
about Portland’s Neighborhood
Greenways for walking, biking,and rolling. Including raffle
prizes with these events canincrease recurring participationand make the event more fun.

Community experience» Community members do not want to feel alone
in case something bad happens to them
» Space with active people, cars, and community
makes people feel secure

How» Community-led neighborhood
walks and bike rides, quarterly oron another recurring schedule» Select community groups
will each be responsible for
conducting recurring organizedwalks and bike rides» Fun raffle prizes included

50

PBOT TEAMSINVOLVED» Street design
teams» Active
Transportationand Safety

Community Programming Tool 5:

51

Photo: Division Midway Alliance

Lively vacant spaces

Community Programming Tool 5:

Lively vacant spaces
An effective way to create safe
public spaces is to organize eventsin vacant spaces or parking lots. It
is recommended that city agencies
collaborate with local organizations
to identify vacant spaces and workwith local community members andbusinesses to organize events. Some
event ideas are pop-up markets to
support home-based small business,
cultural events, or combination of
both. These types of events create an
opportunity for people coming fromdifferent walks of life to gather in one
place, foster intergroup dialogue,
and celebrate diversity. They also
bring more visibility to an area,
making it more vibrant and safer.
Such events can also be a way togenerate income for small businesses
and help promote their businesses.

52

People interacting with colorful booths and activities on empty parking lot during 2023 Festivalof the Nations. Photo: Division Midway AllianceCommunity Programming Tool 5:

Lively vacant spaces
Community experienceHow» More colors and coffee
shops would help people
enjoy spaces more

» Make the vacant spaces vibrant,
bring visibility, and improve safety
in the area following this process:» Exposed, empty spaces
invite unwanted attention
and interactions» People are deterred from using
spaces when there is too muchtraffic, people are driving too fast,
there are rumors of break-ins,
there are many people experiencing homelessness, and there is
likelihood of thefts or kidnappings» Spaces with bookstores orcultural centers feel betterand safer for gathering» Idle, parked cars and people
driving vehicles recklessly
create a sense of fear
53

PBOT TEAMS INVOLVED» Public Realm andStreet Activation» Identify vacant spaces» Portland in the Streets» Partner with local businesses orbuilding owners to create a planto activate the vacant space» Active Transportationand Safety» Conduct quarterly “market
pop-ups” or marketplaces in the vacant space» Collaborate with home-based
businesses and other local
small businesses to develop theevent and invite them to be avendor at the market pop-up

People observing a presentation under a tent
lively decorated with multiple nation flags
during the Festival of the Nations.
Photo: Division Midway AllianceCommunity Programming Tool 6:

54

Photos: Division Midway Alliance

Small business leaders forsafer public spaces program

Community Programming Tool 6:

Small business leaders forsafer public spaces program
Local businesses and storefronts
are important elements of the
public realm. We learned from thefocus group conversations thatpeople sometimes feel unsafe
visiting spaces where folks experiencing houselessness are camping
nearby. This can also impact public
mobility and access to businesses.
Additionally, we frequently hearfrom businesses that vandalism
and break-ins have become
rampant. In order to addressthese issues, it is recommended
to work hand-in-hand with thelocal business community andcreate “Small business leaders forsafer public spaces” program, acollective mobilization of the business
community to better care for public
spaces. A place-based exampleof this program in East Portland
would be to support collaboration ofbusinesses in 122nd Division Plaza
with local agencies to build a safety
and activation plan for the plaza.
This approach can improve safety bycreating enhanced shared responsibility toward other businesses
located in the same space or plaza.

Person setting up their handmade
Jewelery booth55

Community Programming Tool 6:

Small business leaders forsafer public spaces program
Community experienceHow» Evidence of crime and police
activity can make pedestrians
feel uneasy in a neighborhood» Organize a “Small business leaders
for safer public spaces” program» Crimes, folks experiencing homelessness, and lackof space to walk can deter
people from using a space» People are deterred from using
spaces when there is too muchtraffic, people are driving too fast,
there are rumors of break-ins,
there are many people experiencing homelessness, and there is
likelihood of thefts or kidnappings

56» Encourage small businesses ina business district or corridor
to engage in the program;possibly offer incentives» Each participating business that is
adjacent to a plaza or other public
space is responsible for coordinatingwith other businesses inside the plaza,
being vigilant to safety needs, andidentifying opportunities for creating asafe business plaza. An example is thata participating business may take on
responsibility for collecting information
on vandalism in their business plaza
and informing the concerned authority.
» Identify two to three business districtleaders to coordinate the efforts

PBOT TEAMS INVOLVED

These are not within
PBOT’s domain but
should be considered as
a community value.
» Equity and Inclusion» Active Transportationand Safety» Public Realm andStreet Activation

Community Programming Tool 7:

57

Photo: Division Midway Alliance

Community-led picnics andpotlucks in nearby parks

Community Programming Tool 7:

Community-led picnics andpotlucks in nearby parks
Parks and public spaces provide
opportunities to spend time
outdoors. People living in impoverished neighborhoods or incramped apartments do not haveaccess to green spaces and cannot
afford many outdoor activities.
When people spend time in small,crowded spaces for longer periods,
it can negatively impact theiremotional and physical wellbeing.
Therefore, public spaces likeparks and surrounding neighborhoods should be safe for people
to walk and spend time in. Local
agencies like PBOT, Portland Parks
and Recreation, and Metro couldorganize a welcoming space forcommunities to gather for a fun
picnic. This kind of agency andcommunity partnership to organize
58

People sitting on tables decorated with American Flag colors scattered all over a park eating

community potlucks and picnics canbenefit everyone in multiple ways
– community members will enjoy
safer spaces for overall wellbeing,
get information about different
programs and access to resources,
and city agencies and community

organizations will better understandcommunities’ cultures and waysof life. In addition, local agencies
and community organizations canuse this time to share programs
and resources with participants.

Community Programming Tool 7:

Community-led picnics andpotlucks in nearby parks
Community experience» Public spaces often lack places to gather and hang out» Spaces with bookstores or cultural centers
feel better and safer for gathering» Gathering spaces would be improved by adding benches, shade,spaced out tables, and barriers to separate cars and people

How» Government agencies and community
organizations identify nearby parks» Participating community members bringdishes or food from their cultures» Consider “best dish” contests with prizes» Opportunity for agency staff
to attend the picnics and shareproject or program information
59

PBOT TEAMSINVOLVED» Active
Transportationand Safety» Public Realm andStreet Activation» Street design
teams

Youth from Hip Hops Soulsation Academy
performing at park

About the Personal Safety Toolkit
The community experiences listed
in the previous pages reflect theconcerns shared at the May 20th,
2023, focus group session. The
corresponding “tools” respondto these experiences. We include
successful, hands-on projects andphotos that complement the tools
as examples. The examples show
positive community engagement,
productive government collaboration
with community-based organizations, and effective community-led
programs with government support.
Most of the participants in the focus
groups live in the Division-Midway
service area boundary, and somehave been direct recipients of DMA
programs and services. Therefore,
this toolkit is created envisioning
these communities’ concerns, hopes,
desires, and dreams. Some of therecommended tools and examples
60

have been successful along theouter SE Division Street corridor.
Having successfully tested tools
increases the benefit of replicatingthem in different parts of Portlandand surrounding neighborhoods.

People sitting on the sidewalk under the shade of a tree while kids areplaying on the street

Best practices to engage
diverse community members
Successful community engagement
has the following components:» eagerness to learn,» initiating conversations with nojudgment or pre-conceived notions,» active listening skills,» time commitment,» ensuring a long-lasting relationship of trust, respect, acknowledgment, and appreciation,» honoring the existing wisdom andknowledge of the community andincorporate these learnings aspart of the engagement model,» building on community members’
ideas and experiences, andbe explicit about how the
new engagement is buildingon those ideas shared,61» reporting back to community
to share findings, get feedback,and explore ways to further
collaboration, and» compensating community members
for their expertise and time.
It may seem that community
engagement is a simple interaction
with the community in a settingwith a well-defined agenda to geta productive outcome. However,real-life community engagement is
an interaction conducted in a sharedspace where people feel welcome
and safe. In order to create a sharedspace, the local agency team or
anyone who is planning to engage
a community need to understandthe social and cultural context ofthe community being engaged. It
is also important to understandthe landscape where community
members live, work, play, and pray.

A recent example is PBOT’s Vision Zeroteam effort in engaging the local community-based organization, Division
Midway Alliance, in this year-long“Beyond Traffic Safety” program. This
program goal is to provide hands-on
experience on ways to successfully
engage culturally and linguisticallydiverse community members andinvolve them in a dialogue about
their needs and issues around

Community members stand in front of bilingual
project timeline under a covered area in a public
space while a person explains the board.
Photo: Division Midway Alliancepersonal safety in public spaces.
Our model has been successful
because the community engagement
components listed above were
present throughout the partnership.
Here are steps that agency staff
should always consider whenengaging diverse communities:.
1. Collaborate with a local community-based organization
2. Trust the existing engagement
process of the identified community-based organization
3. Readily help out when needed

Diverse community members separated
by language spoken attentively listening incommunity space. Photo: Division Midway
Alliance

62

Division Midway Alliance has beenusing a cultural liaison model forthe past five years. This model has
ensured a 100% success rate in its
different programs, including direct
service projects and community-building projects. The cultural liaison
model is a tool that empowers youth
and young adult members of thecommunity who have strong relationships within the community, speak
the same languages, share similarlife experiences, and are trusted
by community members to deliver
information and services (as outlined
in DMA’s Community Visioning and
Beyond, 2023). This project used thismodel to reach out to, engage, andrecruit 39 community members fromsix different language and ethnic
groups. This process was effective inbringing people together who facechallenges in their daily lives due
to feeling unsafe in public spaces
and using transit. They wanted toparticipate because they look forward
to community-based solutions that canaddress identified issues. Therefore,
some important questions to ask
are, who is at the table and how havethey faced challenges? Focus groupsof people impacted by issues canlead to solutions that are beneficial
everyone involved in the engagement
process and overall program.
Community engagement
activities that help implement
the Personal Safety Toolkit:
Though there are many ways toengage community members tosolve problems and develop plans in
our city, there are a couple of basic
activities that are especially helpful tofoster trust and community building
with local agencies, including:
4. community walks to identify
specific locations and issues
that need to be discussed and
5. discussions with community leaders
to get ideas about types of infrastructure and issues that affectparticular communities and areas.

Best practices addressing
impacts of displacement
The DMA team thinks that there arealways some types of displacementthat happen with new infrastructure
projects. Such physical improvements sometimes displace somecommunity members, businesses,
or existing amenities in the project
area. Therefore, DMA recommends
conducting hyper-local community
engagement instead of broad
community engagement to seek input
from residents and businesses mostaffected by such projects. Overall, theDMA team describes gentrification as:» Gentrification negatively affects andimpacts the community in a neighborhood as they are displaced fromthe area in which they created their
history and culture. Additionally,
there are many struggles thatcome from being displaced suchas not being able to afford rent
63

payments, small business getting
affected and building stores inwhich products cost more.
» Gentrification concerns centeron issues of displacement, risingliving costs, and the loss of cultural
identity in changing neighborhoods, including ethnic local
businesses, places of faith, andcommunity spaces. Even if there
is affordable housing, the supply
will be less than the real demand.
» Gentrification has a negative
impact on local communities, as
it primarily benefits the wealthy
while displacing long-time residents.
Although there may be improvements and increased safety inthe area, these changes come at
the expense of the community’s
well-being and cultural heritage.

Youth skateboarding on neighborhood street
while volunteering at community event:Sunday Parkways

APPENDIX B

Photo Data Analysis

64

APPENDIX | BEYOND TRAFFIC SAFETY: BUILDING COMMUNITY BELONGING AND SAFETY IN PUBLIC SPACES

Photo Data Analysis
COALITION OF COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, RESEARCH JUSTICE INSTITUTE | 2024-01-16

About the engagement
session and activity
Portland Bureau of Transportation(PBOT), Division Midway Alliance(DMA), and Coalition of Communities
of Color (CCC) collaborated to planand host an engagement session with
communities of color to learn about
their perceptions and experiencesof safety in Portland’s public spaces.
This session focused on five topics
that community members in priorengagements had identified as
being important for safety: getting
to bus stops, safe street crossings,
public gathering spaces, lighting,and sidewalk accessibility.
During the current engagement
session, community members participated in one main activity – sortingand discussing photos of real places
in Portland. We created 5 sets of65

photos, with one set for each of the
key topics. Most sets had 6 photos(except for the Lighting set which had
7 photos). We selected the photos toshow a variety of spaces and places
that we thought would range in safety.
We asked community members totell us about their sense of physicaland emotional safety, based on their
lived experiences of these spaces
and places. Each community member
received a large piece of paper witha horizontal line – a Safety Spectrum
that went from “most safe” to “least
safe”. Community members individually placed the photos from one
set alone the line based on theirexperiences and thoughts about
the safety of the spaces and placesin the photos. They then wrote
down brief explanations about why
they placed the photos where they
did on sticky notes. Finally, they
discussed together as a group thesimilarities and differences in where
they had each placed the photos.
During these discussions, one person
was available to take notes. We
instructed note-takers to “capture as
many stories that are shared by thegroup as possible while they discusseach photo”, in order to “record therichness and nuance of what folkssay.” We encouraged note-takers toinclude details, and when possible,
exact quotes. The note-taker entered
their notes into a web-based form
that was designed to have one entry
box per photo. Each note-taker filled
out this form multiple times, once
per topic that their group discussed.
At the end of the session, community
members completed a survey that
asked about their transportationuse, their feelings of safety in public
spaces in Portland, and their identities(demographic information). We
created surveys in Chinese, English,
Nepalese, Spanish, and Vietnamese.

An overview of the data
Six groups of community members– a total of 39 individuals – participated in the engagement session.
These groups collectively sorted anddiscussed 74 sets of photos. This
yielded a dataset of 458 individual
photos. The table below shows thenumber of communities, people,
and photos per each of the five key
topics: getting to bus stops (“bus”),
safe street crossings (“crossings”),

Table 1. Amount ofdata per key topic

66

public gathering spaces (“gatherings”),
lighting (“lighting”), and sidewalk
accessibility (“sidewalks”). For
example, there were 6 photos in theset for the bus topic (Photo A - Photo
F). Three communities discussed thebus topic, which included a total of 14
people. This resulted in community
members rating a total of 84 individual
photos for the bus topic (14 of PhotoA + 14 of Photo B + 14 of Photo C+ 14 of Photo D + 14 of Photo E +14 of Photo F = 84 total photos).

TOPIC

PHOTOS(PER SET) COMMUNITIES PEOPLE

TOTALPHOTOS
RATED

Bus

6

3

14

84

Crossings

6

1

6

36

Gatherings

6

4

19

114

Lighting

7

2

14

98

Sidewalks

6

3

21

126

Data analyses
We had two goals for analyzingthese data: 1) to determine which
individual photos within each photoset showed places that community
members experience as physically
and/or emotionally safe or unsafe,and 2) to learn about why community
members experienced certain places
as safe or unsafe. In this section, we
explain the approaches we used toanalyze all the different types of data
generated during the engagement
session, which included the safety
spectrums of photos, the sticky
notes, notes from each group’s
discussions, and the survey. Then, in
the Results section, we present thefindings of these analyses, integrating
information across all the types ofdata to address the two goals above.
To make sense of the photo Safety
Spectrum data, we created 3 metrics:
1. “Section”: To assess where
people placed photos along the
Safety Spectrum, we divided

each spectrum into thirds. Welabeled photos placed in the thirdclosest to the “Least Safe” sideof as being in Section 1, photos
in the middle third as being in
Section 2, and photos closet to the“Most Safe” side as Section 3.
2. “Position”: To capture the orderin which people placed photos
along the Safety Spectrum, we
numbered photos 1 through n. We
gave the photo closest to the“Least Safe” side the number 1
and the photo closest to the “MostSafe” side 6-8 (depending on thenumber of photos in the set or on
the spectrum). The position value
indicates how each photo relates
to the other photos rather thanhow safe or unsafe community
members judged each photo to be.
3. “Safety Score”: In order tocompare one photo to anotherboth within and across topics, wecreated a composite, standardized
score to represent the photo’s
67

overall level of safety. First, we
multiplied the Section value by the
Position. This created one value
per person and per photo. We
then summed the values acrosspeople for each photo to create
one value per photo. Because thetopics had different numbers ofpeople and different numbers ofphotos, the summed values were
not comparable across topics. We
determined the maximum possible
sum by multiplying the number ofsections (3) by the highest possible
photo position (6-8) and by the
number of people per topic (6-21,
see Table 1). We then divided eachsummed value by the maximum
possible score and multipliedby 100. Thus, we created a final
composite, standardized Safety
Score with a possible range of 0-100,
where a higher score means that
community members considered
the photo to be more safe. We thencategorized the Safety Scores into
three levels: “Low” (0-33), “Medium”(34-66), and “High” (67-100).

We computed these metrics separately
for each topic. Then we visualized
the information in two ways: First,
we present a set of scatter plots by
topic, with one plot for each photo.
In these plots, Section is on thehorizontal axis and Position is on thevertical axis. Each dot represents
one person’s judgement of a photo.
Then, we show the composite, standardized Safety Score for each photo,with one bar graph per topic. The
height of the bar shows the value ofthe Safety Score, with higher values
indicating that community members
collectively considered the place inthe photo to be safer. We describe
these plots in more detail below.
Next, we analyzed the data in the
sticky notes on the Safety Spectrums
and the data in the note-taking
forms generated during the groups’
discussions. This analysis involved
two steps: first we created initialcodes by identifying words, phrases,or sentences in the data that convey
meaning and labeling each with a codeto capture its meaning. We generated
442 initial codes. We then reviewed
these initial codes, sorting them basedon both key topic and safety scorelevel (high, medium, low). Within eachset, we grouped initial codes by similarities or emerging themes. We used
these groupings to create a smaller
list of thematic focus codes. This
resulted in a total of 83 focus codes.
In Table 2, we present the numberof initial and focus codes per topic.

Results
On the following pages, for each topic, we first present and describe thescatter plot data visualization that reflects where community members
placed individual photos on the Safety Spectrums. Then, we include andexplain the bar graph of the Safety Scores for each photo within the topic.
We conclude each section with a table presenting the focus codes for each
topic, accompanied by a narrative description of our interpretation of the data
based on the community members’ conversations. In the Conclusion section,
we highlight the main takeaway from these findings, across all 5 key topics.

Table 2. Number of initial and focus codes
per topic
TOPIC

NUM. OF
NUM. OFINITIAL CODES FOCUS CODES

Bus

128

16

Crossings

76

20

Gatherings

108

20

Lighting

41

14

Sidewalks

89

13

68

Community members sitting around a table discussing PBOT’s asset image.
Photo: Division Midway AllianceGetting to the bus stop
The following analyses focus on the data for the Getting to the Bus Stop topic.
The “Bus” photo set had six photos. Fourteen people in three community
groups sorted photos for Bus. Thus, the Bus dataset has 84 photos.

A

B

In the figure to the right, we show
where 14 community members placed
the 84 individual photos for the Bus
topic based on Section (horizontalaxis) and Position (vertical axis).
Each dot represents one person’s
judgement of a photo. Horizontally,
the farther to the left side of the space
a dot is, the closer it was placed to“least safe”. The farther to the rightside of the space a dot is, the closer it
was placed to “most safe”. Vertically,
the more clumped together to dots
are, the more people agreed about theorder of the photo relative to the other
69

C

D

E

F

photos in the set; whereas the more
spread out the dots are, the more
people disagreed about the order ofthe photo relative to the other photos
in the set. A dot closer to the bottomof the space indicates that a person
put the photo closer to “least safe”,
while a dot closer to the top of thespace indicates that a person put thephoto closer to “most safe”. We jittered
the dots, meaning we added a little bitof random space among the dots. This
makes it so that dots in the same place
are not directly on top of one another,so it’s easier to see how many photos
are in each location within this space.
The top-left panel shows where the
14 people placed Photo A. Most of
the dots are clumped together in thelower-left part of the plot, showing
high agreement across people. Thesefolks judged the place in Photo A as
being UNSAFE (Section 1) and placed
Photo A either closest (Position 1) or
second closest (Position 2) to “least
safe” relative to the other photos.
70

The dot in the upper-right part ofthe plot shows where one person
disagreed – this person judged theplace in Photo A as being safe (Section3) and put it closest to “most safe”(Position 6) relative to the otherphotos in the set. This pattern ofdots is similar to that of Photo B.
Let’s now look at the bottom-rightpanel, which shows where 14 people
placed Photo F. The dots are more
spread out here than for Photo A.
This indicates more disagreement
across people for Photo F versus for
Photo A. Looking horizontally, fivepeople put Photo F in Section 2 and9 put it in Section 3, meaning theyvaried in how safe or unsafe theyjudged the place in Photo F to be, but
overall judged it to be MORE SAFE
than unsafe. Vertically, four people
put Photo F in Position 3, 6 people
put it as Position 5, and 2 people eachput it as Position 5 or Position 6. Thisshows their disagreement about therelative order of the photos – although

Image of worksheet where community members
have sorted images between most to least safe.
Photo: Division Midway Alliancestops in Photos C, D, E, or F medium
Safety Scores. Community members
did not rate any of the photos inthis set with a high Safety Score.

the highest number of people put it
as Position 4. This pattern of dots issimilar to those of Photos C, D, and E.
The bar graph on this page condenses
the information across people
into one composite, standardized
Safety Score for each photo. The
height of the bar shows the value
71of the Safety Score, with higher
values indicating that community
members collectively considered
the place in the photo to be safer.
In the bar graph above, we show the
Safety Scores of the 6 photos in the
Bus topic. As we saw in the scatterplots, community members collectively gave the bus stops in Photos A
and B low Safety Scores and the bus

We examined the qualitative
information community members
wrote in the sticky notes and thenotes from their group discussionsof these photos to understand more
about WHY they judged these photos
in this way. In Table 3 below, we show
which photos from the Bus set werecategorized as “high”, “medium”, and“low” based on their Safety Score.
We also present a list of the final
focus codes for this topic. Below thetable, we provide a more in-depth
explanation of the findings that are
based on these thematic focus codes.
Based on the focus codes for the “Bus”
topic, we learned that community
members connect safety with having
functional bus stops, protected andclean bus stops, and accessible bus
stops. Community members feelsafe when bus stops are designed
in ways that make the wholeprocess of taking the bus easy andcomfortable for everyone. For getting
to and from bus stops, they noted
the importance of having multiple,
strategically placed crosswalks sopeople can easily and safely crossnearby roads (see the next section for
details about safety at crosswalks).
Once at the bus stop, community
members value having ample space
to wait. Bus stops that are clean andwell-maintained feel inviting to people.
Ones that have shelters provide
protection from various weather
conditions. Shelters also often provide
places to sit. Having trees and plants
at bus stops adds beauty and canalso provide shade. These features
make bus stops more pleasant andcomfortable for people to use.
Bus stops that are brightly lit help
people clearly see cars, bicycles, andothers who are passing through andusing the space. The physical designof bus stops can add or detract from

Table 3. What community says about safety for Getting to Bus Stops
SAFETYSCORE LEVEL PHOTOS

FOCUS CODES

High

None

N/A

MediumC, D,
E, F

Amenities and services make bus stops vibrant;
Brightly lit spaces help people to see and to be seen;
Bus reliability and frequency are important to riders;
Cleanliness invites use of the space;
Clear signs and markings orient pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers;
Shelters and tree canopy protect riders to use
the bus stop in any weather conditions;
Strategic placement of bus stops and crossings
makes them easier to use;
Sufficient space and accessible design are needed
for use by people of all ability types;
Users feel more protected in spaces withsteady flow of people and cars;
Visible and present security adds to safety

Low

A, B

Clean, active bus stops that are monitored
and well-maintained invite use;
Crime and violence deter people from waiting at
the bus stop and from using the bus;
Lack of clarity about where pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers
go means people are not well protected from cars;More bright lights are needed to help drivers
see pedestrians and street markings;
Physical assets of bus stops and roads do not deter reckless driving;72

People prefer driving cars to walking or using the bus

this, making it easier or harder for
people waiting at bus stops to seeeach other and others using thespace. Community members likebeing at vibrant bus stops that are
well-populated with a steady flowof people and cars. The presence ofother people makes them feel better
protected, knowing they’re not alone
and others are around who could
help them if anything bad were tohappen. Community members also
noted the importance of having bus
stops with accessible features, to makethem more inclusive. For example,
they mentioned having blind bricks
helps folks with visual impairments
and having the height of the bus
stop be even to the height of thebus helps folks using wheelchairs.
While community members
prefer active bus stops, they alsomentioned several features thatare critical to keeping everyone
safe at busy bus stops: Community
members value having easy-to-see
73

and easy-to-understand signs andmarkings to direct pedestrians,
cyclists, and drivers to their separate
designated areas. They also make eachtype of user better aware of whereother types of users are. When bus
stops lack clear signs and markings,
people are not well protected fromcars. Community members areconcerned about dangerous driving
near bus stops, especially when theyobserve that the physical assets ofroads and bus stops don’t necessarily
deter drivers from being reckless.
Seeing or hearing about crime andviolence also detracts from community
members’ ease and comfort, deterring
them from waiting at bus stops andfrom using the bus. In some cases,
these issues lead to people preferring
to drive or walk, rather than use thebus. Community members value
having visible security cameras
and suggest adding them to bus
stops that don’t already have them.
They also appreciate the presenceof security guards at bus stops.

When it comes to taking the bus,
it is not surprising that community
members value having buses that
arrive frequently and reliably. People
are more likely to use bus stops when
the bus schedules are convenient forthem and when they can count on thebus being on time. Signs at bus stops
that display real-time bus schedule
information are also helpful to riders.
In sum, community members want
bus stops to have the same featuresof community spaces like parks andplazas, such as being clean, vibrant,social, and accessible. This vision forbus stops as “hubs for community
activity” is consistent with how Projectfor Public Spaces (PPS) is working
to re-imagine public transit. In an
article about their work, PPS explainsthat “[w]hen created in close collaboration with the community, thesespaces [bus stops] become sharedresources for all people to occupy,
to interact with the neighbors, togather and celebrate their community,or to simply walk through.”Crossings
The following analyses focus on the data for the Safe Crossings topic.
The “Crossings” photo set had six photos. Six people in one community groupsorted photos for Crossings. Thus, the Crossings dataset has 36 photos.

A

B

In the figure to the right, we show
where 6 community members
placed the 36 individual photos
for the Crossings topic basedon Section (horizontal axis)
and Position (vertical axis).
In the Photo A panel, four of thedots are clumped together in theupper-right part of the plot area,
showing that most people judged
this photo to be SAFE (Section 3)
and that most placed this photoclosest to “most safe” (Position 6).
One person judged Photo A to be a
74

C

D

E

F

bit less safe, putting it in Section 2
and Positions 3. In the Photo C panel,
we see a similar pattern, except that
all of the dots are shifted closer to“least safe”. Four people put Photo
C in Section 2 while two put it in
Section 1. They placed Photo C in
Positions 1-4. For Photo F, community
members mostly agreed that thecrossing was UNSAFE, with mostplacing it in Section 1 and Position 2.
For Photos B, D, and E, we see disagreement in how the six people
rated these photos. Across the group,
they placed each of these photos inall three Sections, meaning somepeople rated these photos as SAFE
and others as UNSAFE. They also
placed each of these photos in either
3 or 4 different Positions, meaning
they disagreed about the order of
each photo relative to the others andwhich ones were more or less safe.
In the bar graph to the right, wecondense the information acrosspeople into one composite,
75

standardized Safety Score for eachof the six photos in the Crossing
topic. We see that community
members gave the crossing in PhotoA a high Safety Score, the crossingsin Photos D and E medium Safety
Scores, and the crossings in Photos
B, C, and F low Safety Scores.
In Table 4 below, we show whichphotos from the Crossings set werecategorized as “high”, “medium”,
or “low” based on their Safety
Score. We also present a list of the
focus codes, based on our analysisof the qualitative data from the
sticky notes and group discussion
notes. This information adds to ourunderstanding about what features
influence community members’
sense of safety at street crossings.

Based on the focus codes for“Crossings”, we learned that
community members connect safetywith having street crossings that aredesigned to protect pedestrians frompeople driving and that are locatedin neighborhoods where they feel
welcome. Community members
shared the importance of featuresthat tell drivers how to navigate street
crossings, including speed bumps
to slow drivers down, instructions
to drivers that people crossing go
first, and lights and signs showing
drivers when and where to stopand that people are crossing. When
street crossings lack these features,
community members worry about
drivers not seeing them as they cross.
Their concerns are elevated when
they observe drivers who drive too
fast, who speed up as they approacha crossing instead of slowing down,or who drive recklessly over medians.
Likewise, community members value
features that are designed for people
76

Table 4. What community says about safety for Street Crossings
SAFETYSCORE LEVEL PHOTOS

High

A

FOCUS CODES
Crossers desire plants and art that make the area
welcoming without blocking drivers’ view;
Crossers value features that protect them from getting hit by cars;
Evidence of crime and policy activity make crossers uneasy in this space;
Lack of other people in busy areas with folks experiencing
homelessness detracts from easy use of crosswalks;Lights, signs, markings, buttons, and wider sidewalks
help pedestrians cross big roads;
Lights, speed bumps, and stop signs direct cars to stop for people crossing

MediumD, E

Pedestrians can’t cross because drivers speed up instead of stopping;Pedestrians fear walking near folks experiencing homelessness;
Signs, buttons, markings, and the median help protect crossers from cars;
Signs, lights, and speed bumps tell drivers to slow and stop for people crossing;Space with active people, cars, and community make crossers feel secure;
Trees and colors create a welcoming space

Low

B, C, F

Drivers get angry about the median and drive recklessly;
Evidence of crime and policy activity makes crossers
feel uneasy about this neighborhood;
Lack of clear signs and lights means drivers might not see people crossing;Median provides protected space for crossers to watch and wait for cars to pass;More colors and a coffee shop would help people enjoy the space more;
Pedestrians can’t cross because drivers speed up instead of stopping;
Smaller street with stop signs helps prevent crossers
getting hit by cars driving too fast;
Trees are welcoming, if not too densecrossing to use in order to make iteasier to cross. These features include
buttons to push that activate signals
to tell crossers when to cross, buttons
that activate flashing lights to alertcars that people are crossing, andmarkings on the road to indicate thepresence of crosswalks. In addition tothese features, community members
also appreciate how physical assetsof roads and crosswalks can reduce
potential danger from drivers, suchas narrower streets to make crossings
faster, tall medians to divide wider
streets, and poles and markings to
separate pedestrians from drivers.
Community members especially likestreet crossings with medians thatprovide protected spaces for crossers
to stop in the middle of wide, busy
roads. This gives them a space to waitin the middle, essentially turning one
large road into two smaller roads tocross. Medians with waiting spaces
help people crossing to better see
people driving in each direction
77

and enable them to take more timeas they cross the entire street.
Beyond the street crossing itself,
community members care about theareas surrounding street crossings.
They want to spend time in neighborhoods that are beautiful andwhere they feel welcome. They wantcrossings to have trees, plants, andcolorful art to make the spaces morewelcoming, so long as these are placedin ways that don’t block drivers’ orcrossers’ views. Similarly to bus stops,
community members like street
crossings that are active and vibrant,
so they don’t feel alone and so they
feel protected if anything bad were tohappen. This is particularly importantto them when they are in areas where
there is evidence of crime and police
activity and/or where there are lotsof folks experiencing homelessness.
In another similarity to bus stops,
community members want the built
spaces near street crossings to beengaging and inviting. For example,
one idea they offered was to add
a coffee shop nearby to the street
crossing to help people using thecrossing better enjoy the surrounding
space. For this topic, like for bus stops,
community members did not simply
focus on how to get from one side ofa street to the other safely. Instead,they discussed how to make the wholeexperience of moving through spaces– and crossing streets along the way– easy, enjoyable, comfortable. They
consider safe street crossings to beanother important part of building
active and vibrant community spaces.

Neighborhood Gatherings
The Gathering photo set had six photos. Nineteen people infour community groups sorted photos for Gatherings; thus,
the Gathering dataset includes 114 individual photos.

A

B

In the figure to the right, we show
where 19 community members placed
the 114 individual photos for theGatherings topic based on Section(horizontal axis) and Position (verticalaxis). Community members show
the same overall pattern of variable
ratings for all six photos. They placed
each photo across all three Sections
and across almost all six Positions.
This means that people varied in theirsense of safety for each of the neighborhood gathering places. The dotsin the panel for Photo A are slightly
more clustered in the bottom-left,
78

C

D

E

F

meaning more people rated thisgathering place as unsafe, placing it
in Section 1 and Positions 1 or 2. The
reverse is true for Photo F – more
people rated this gathering place
as safe, with more dots clusteredin Section 3 and Position 5 and 6.
In the bar graph to the right, wecondense the information acrosspeople into one composite, standardized Safety Score for each of the six
photos in the Gatherings topic. We seethat community members gave theneighborhood gathering place in PhotoA a low Safety Score, those in Photos
B, C, and D medium Safety Scores, andthat is Photo F a high Safety Score.
In Table 5 on the next page, we show
which photos from the Gatherings
set were categorized as “high”,“medium”, and “low” based on their
Safety Score along with summariesof the qualitative data from the sticky
notes and group discussion notes.
These data provide more nuanced
information about what contributes to79

community members’ senses of safety
in neighborhood gathering places.
Based on the focus codes for“Gatherings”, we learned that
community members connect safetywith having neighborhood gathering
places that are designed to bringpeople together for recreation,
beautiful and clean, and protectedfrom cars and crime. Community

members described vibrant spacesthat are used and enjoyed by children,
families, and neighbors. They
mentioned multiple features that
support people to come together forrecreation, such as benches where
people can sit and hang out, tables
where people can share a meal or doan activity, parks where people canrun, skateboard, play, and relax, andshady spots where people can staycool. Community members desire
lively and active gathering spaces,
because empty, exposed spaces invite
unwanted attention and interactions.
They take comfort in seeing lights
and activity from nearby stores, andthey suggest adding bookstores andcultural centers to make gathering
spaces more vibrant. Having clean,
beautiful spaces enhances community
members’ experiences while using
gathering spaces. Colorful art andstreet paintings are welcoming andadd beauty. Community members
noted how art might also prevent
drivers from hitting pillars or walls,
helping drivers be safer, as longas the art isn’t too distracting tothem. Gathering spaces located in
quiet neighborhoods with nearby
houses, lawns, and trees are inviting.
Community members enjoy spendingtime in clean gathering spaces, asgarbage makes these spaces dirty
and deters people from using them.
80

Table 5. What community says about safety for Neighborhood Gathering Places (like plazas)
SAFETYSCORE LEVEL PHOTOS

FOCUS CODESHigh

Colorful street painting is welcoming and vibrant;

F

People are protected from cars because traffic is residentsonly and cars have space outside of painted area;
Quiet neighborhood on a cul-de-sac with houses,
lawns, and trees makes the space inviting;Space encourages use by children and families,
even though children may be hit by cars;
Street with bench provides place for neighbors
to come together, adding vibrancy;

MediumB, C,
D, E

Crime, folks experiencing homelessness, and lack of space
to walk deter people from using this space;
Exposed, empty space invites unwanted attention and interactions;Garbage makes the space dirty and deters use;
Gathering space would be improved by adding benches, shade,barriers to separate cars and people, and spaced-out tables;
If not distracting to drivers, art adds beauty and vibrancy
and may prevent drivers from hitting pillars;
Lack of crossing lights and signs leads to cars driving
too fast and not stopping for people;
Pedestrian bridge makes crossing easier for those with no fear of heights;
Skate park and soccer field attract vibrancy, especially whenspaces are separate or buffered from busy streets;
Small road with little traffic that’s clear of plants
makes street activity easily visible;
Street closed to cars with plants and flowers
provides good place for people to gather

Another key feature of safety forgathering places is having spacesthat are protected from cars andcrime. People are deterred fromusing gathering spaces with too muchtraffic or people who drive too fast.
Community members prefer gathering
spaces where nearby roads are small
with little traffic or are closed off tocars. They desire having designatedareas for people and for cars, andthey appreciate physical barriers that
separate these spaces. For example,
they noted that pedestrian bridges
make it easier for people to crossstreets to get to gathering places, atleast for folks with no fear of heights.
When there are no crossing lights
or signs, community members areconcerned about speeding cars not
stopping for people. Having separationof cars and people is particularly
important to prevent children fromgetting hit by cars. This also helps
people to more fully enjoy gathering
spaces, as they do not have to81

Table 5 (continued). What community says about safety for Neighborhood Gathering Places(like plazas)
SAFETYSCORE LEVEL PHOTOS

FOCUS CODES

Low

Bright lights and activity from nearby stores improve people’s comfort;

A

Crashes and other dangers are more likely at night due to lack of light;
People are deterred from using this space by too much traffic,
cars driving too fast, rumors of break-ins, too many people
experiencing homelessness, and the likelihood of kidnappings;
This space lacks places to gather and hang out;
This space would be better for gathering if there
were a bookstore or cultural center

constantly monitor for cars while they
engage in their activities. People arealso deterred from using gathering
spaces in areas where there arerumors of break-ins and kidnappings,
where there are too many folks experiencing homelessness, or where
there are high rates of crime. They
are especially wary of these placesat night, when car crashes and otherdangers are more likely due to lack oflight (see the next section for details
about safety and lighting). We notethat there is considerable overlap
and similarities in how community
members describe safety for getting tobus stops and for crossing streets to
how they describe safety for gathering
spaces. This further supports theidea that community members feels
safe in places that feel and function
like community gathering spaces.

Lighting
The Lighting photo set had seven photos. Fourteen people across two community
groups rated photos for Lighting, resulting in a dataset of 98 individual photos.

A

B

In the figure to the right, we show
where 14 community members
placed the 98 individual photos for
the Lighting topic based on Section(horizontal axis) and Position (verticalaxis). Community members agreed
that the lighting in Photo A was SAFE,
placing it mostly in Section 3 andPositions 5-8. They rated the lighting
in Photo F similarly, although with alittle more disagreement about both
section and position. Folks mostly
agreed that the lighting in Photo B was
UNSAFE, placing it mostly in Section
1 and Positions 1-3. They rated the
82

C

D

E

F

G

lighting in Photo E similarly, but witha bit more disagreement. Community
members varied in their judgmentsof the lighting in Photos C, D, and G,
across both Section and Position.
In the bar graph to the right, wecondense the information acrosspeople into one composite, standardized Safety Score for each of
the seven photos in the Lighting
topic. We see that community
members gave the lighting in PhotoA a high Safety Score, the lighting
in Photos F and G medium Safety
Scores, and the lighting in Photos
B, C, D, and E low Safety Scores.
In Table 6 on the next page, we show
which photos from the Lighting
set were categorized as “high”,“medium”, or “low” based on their
Safety Score along with summariesof the qualitative data from the
sticky notes and group discussion
notes. We use this information to
help us understand the factors that
contributed to community members’
83

senses of safety in these areas
with different kinds of lighting.
Based on the focus codes for“Lighting”, we learned that community
members connect safety with bright
lights, clear visibility, and populatedareas. People inherently associatenighttime with possible danger. Dark
places with insufficient lighting arescary and add to people’s concerns
about crime, deterring them fromgoing out. Also, tight streets andpublic spaces with obstructed views
contribute to people’s fear anddiscomfort. Bright lights reduce theseissues by creating a sense of comfort,
trust, and confidence through theability to clearly see and be seen

while they use streets and public
spaces. Well-lit streets with ample
space for people, bicycles, and cars
are inviting. Lights illuminate thebeauty of streets with houses, trees,
benches, and clean sidewalks, whichpeople experience as calming andpleasant. Community members
also feel protected when they areusing active, well-populated streets
because other people are around
who could provide aid if something
bad were to happen. They value
streets with features that help
people sit, stay, and move throughthe spaces, like restaurants, seatingareas, and clear signs at intersections. While bright lights, clear
visibility, and populated areas might
not resolve all fears of nighttime
dangers, they assure community
members that the built environment
and active use of public space
support their safety and well-being.

84

Table 6. What community says about safety for Lighting
SAFETYSCORE LEVEL PHOTOS

FOCUS CODESHigh

Bright lights help people feel confident to use the space;A

Concerns about crime deter people from goingout, regardless of lighting levels;
Features that help people sit, stay, and move through spaces are inviting

MediumF, GLight adds beauty, making places more pleasant;Populated areas provide potential bystander aide;
Streets with lights, houses and trees, and space for people,
bicycles, and cars are calming and comfortable;
Well-lit streets invite use by pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers

Low

B, C,
D, E

Ability to see clearly helps protect people while they use streets;
Bright lights create a sense of comfort and trust;
Dark places with insufficient lighting are scary;
People perceive night time as inherently dangerous;
Populated areas provide potential bystander aide;
Spaces with activity, trees, and decorative lights have a calming vibe;
Tight spaces with obstructed views contribute to fear and discomfort

Sidewalks
The following analyses focus on the data for the Sidewalk Accessibility topic. The“Sidewalks” photo set had six photos. Twenty-one people in three community groups
sorted photos for Sidewalks. Thus, the Sidewalks dataset has 126 individual photos.

A

B

In the figure to the right, we show
where 21 community members
placed the 126 individual photos
for the Sidewalks topic based on
Section (horizontal axis) and Position(vertical axis). People had the highest
agreement about the sidewalk in
Photo E being unsafe, with everyone
placing it in Section 1 and Positions
1-3. Community members mostly
agreed the that sidewalks in Photos
B and C were safe, placing thesephotos in either Section 2 or 3. They
agreed less about the order of thesetwo photos relative to the other
85

C

D

E

F

photos, placing them in Positions
2-8. For Photos A, D, and F, people
varied more in their ratings. At least
one person put these photos ineach of the three Sections. However,more people put Photo A in Section
3, meaning more folks rated it assafer; and more people put Photos
D and F in Section 1, meaning morefolks rated these photos as unsafe.
Community members varied in how
they ordered these photos, placing
them in every Position from 1 to 7.
In the bar graph to the right, wecondense the information acrosspeople into one composite, standardized Safety Score for each of the six
photos in the Sidewalks topic. We
see that community members rated
the sidewalks in Photos A, B, andC with medium Safety Scores andthose in Photos D, E, and F with low
Safety Scores. In Table 7 below, wesummarize the qualitative data fromthe sticky notes and group discussion
notes for the Sidewalks topic,
86

combining it with the Safety Score
levels. We present this information to
help what about sidewalks contributed
to how community members
rated the safety of these places.
Based on the focus codes for“Sidewalks”, we learned that
community members connect safetywith clean and clear sidewalks andstreets, active and vibrant spaces,
and beauty from nature. Community
members feel deterred from using
sidewalks where there are manyfolks experiencing homelessness
who block the walking space, makethe area dirty and smelly, andmay be aggressive, unpredictable,
and/or using drugs. Community
members worry for children whoare sometimes kidnapped while
walking along sidewalks in theseareas. These fears are amplified
at night because darkness createsconditions for dangerous activities,
such as drinking and partying.
Community members likeclear, concrete sidewalks thatprovide ample space, because
these sidewalks are easy to use.
People are more likely to use
sidewalks when they are locatedin communities with cars, stores,
lights, homes, and activity, because
people feel more secure and lessisolated in these spaces, especiallyduring the daytime. When sidewalks
are distanced from streets, people
feel better protected from thepossibility of getting hit by a driver.
Idle, parked cars and people driving
recklessly create a sense of fearin sidewalk users. On roads withmore traffic, community members
desire speed bumps and signs toslow cars down, making it safer for
87

Table 7. What community says about safety for Sidewalks
SAFETYSCORE LEVEL PHOTOS

FOCUS CODES

High

None

N/A

MediumA, B, C

Clean, quiet streets with crosswalks that are
distanced from sidewalks invite use;
Clear, concrete sidewalks provide ample space for easy use;
Communities with people, cars, activity, and beautiful
homes feel more secure and less isolated;
People feel more comfortable here during the day than at night;
Police help if somethings happens, if they can arrive quickly;
Trees, plants, and flowers add beauty, tranquility, andshade, if they do not block the sidewalk;
Users desire signs and speed bumps to slow nearby traffic

Low

D, E, F

Dangerous for children because they are sometimes kidnapped here;
Parked cars and cars driving recklessly create sense of fear in sidewalk users;
Spaces with cars, activity, stores, plants, and lights makepeople feel more secure and less isolated;
Street is clean, clear, and calm;
Users are deterred from sidewalks by the presenceof folks experiencing homelessness;
Users feel more fear at night because darkness
creates conditions for dangerous activities

them to use the nearby sidewalks.
Crosswalks also help protect sidewalk
users from cars and traffic.
Finally, community members likesidewalks where there are trees,
plants and flowers. These add
beauty and provide shade. People
don’t like it when plants block
sidewalks, because it makes it
more difficult to use the sidewalk
and the plants could harm people
trying to move past them. Whenthey are appropriately placed andwell-maintained, trees, plants, andflowers create a sense of tranquility.

88

Conclusion
The most important takeaway from
our analyses of the qualitative dataand interpretation of the focus codes
across all five key topics – groundedin the experiences of community
members – is that safety is felt whenspaces are designed and function like
community spaces. By “community
spaces”, we mean public spacesthat are inclusive and welcoming
to all, that facilitate people to cometogether for shared activities andinteractions, and that foster a senseof belonging within a neighborhood.
Community members consistently
and repeatedly describe features ofcommunity spaces, such as being
active and well-populated, colorfuland vibrant, and easy and comfortable
to use, when they talk about physicaland psychological safety in relation
to bus stops, crosswalks, neighborhood gatherings, lighting, andsidewalks. They value and desire thesefeatures, because they recognize howthese features contribute to lively,
vibrant spaces that bring people
together in a variety of ways.
NOTES ABOUT THE DATALighting– one Safety Spectrum had
2 sets of Lighting photos on it, but it
was not possible for us to determine
how to separate them. Changed Table
1 to count this as 2 “People”, making
the total people =14, because there
are 14 sets of photos for this Topic.
However, the 14 individual photos
that were on this one spectrum weretreated as one group in the analyses.
Sidewalks – one Safety Spectrum had
3 sets of Sidewalks photos on it, but it
was not possible for us to determine
how to separate them. Changed Table
1 to count this as 3 “People”, making
the total people =21, because there
are 21 sets of photos for this Topic.
However, the 18 individual photos
that were on this one spectrum weretreated as one group in the analyses.

APPENDIX C

Community
Engagement
Report89

APPENDIX | BEYOND TRAFFIC SAFETY: BUILDING COMMUNITY BELONGING AND SAFETY IN PUBLIC SPACES

Community Engagement Report
Project Summary
The Portland Bureau ofTransportation (PBOT) partneredwith the Division Midway Alliance(DMA) and Coalition of Communities
of Color’s Research Justice Institute(CCC) to develop a toolkit to improve
personal safety in the street,providing freedom from threat andfear of emotional, psychological,
and physical harm for Portlanders
most targeted by violence.
The project goal is to engage
with community members in
Portland to understand more
about personal safety and transportation. This project capturescommunity-identified interventions
that improve safety on Portland
streets. DMA was selected as thecommunity-based consultant tolead the community engagement,90

outreach, facilitation, and write thefinal report. CCC was selected as
the research consultant to lead theengagement framework, conduct data
gathering and analysis, and coach
PBOT staff in the data process.

Process
We began by discussing the purposeof the project: to identify tools that
respond to community members’
concerns for their personal safetyin public spaces in Portland, andconnect it to Portland’s Vision Zerocommitment. As a team, we discussed
the investigation that needed totake place before we developed thecommunity engagement. The investigation looked at what PBOT and DMA
had already heard from community
and PBOT and DMA‘s assumptions of

Photo: Division Midway Alliancethe meaning of what we had heard.
From this, we developed a framework
to confirm with community members
what we understood from previous
engagements and go deeper on
specific topics. This step – setting up
what we needed to know and who we
needed to hear from – required timeand attention. Once the investigation
process was outlined, CCC guided theteam to identify potential participating demographic groups, the type ofengagement, data collection activity,and incentives for participants.

responsible for creating the activity,
survey, and data collection system

The types of details covered in project
team meetings included: date, activity,
venue, agenda, number of participants, supplies, promotion, staffing,
and roles and responsibilities. DMA
was responsible for creating theflyer and agenda, conducting theoutreach, and contracting with culturalliaisons to facilitate the activity andtake notes at the event. CCC was

For the community engagement
component of this project, wefirst created and translated a flyerthat cultural liaisons distributed tocommunity members. With the help of
the liaisons’ networks, 39 community
members attended and participatedin the event. To conduct engagement
at the event itself, the organizing
team involved outside assistanceas facilitators and notetakers sinceliaisons were occupied providing
culturally relevant interpretation.

Event Summary
On May 20th, 2023, DMA, PBOT, andCCC brought together 39 community
members to participate in an activity
to discuss personal safety. Participants
included 11 members from theVietnamese community, four fromthe Latine community, six from the
Chinese community, seven from the
Photo: Division Midway Alliance91Karen community, four from the
Bhutanese/Nepali community, andseven youth community members
from diverse backgrounds.
As part of the community
engagement, participants opted tofill out a survey that included somedemographic information like genderand ability. Of the twenty-five participants who disclosed their genderand ability status, 16 identified as
female and nine identified as male; 20
identified as not having a disability andfive identified as having a disability.
The few folks who opted to share thenature of their disability reported
difficulty with hearing and difficultywith walking or climbing stairs.
Lastly, out of PBOT assets, survey
respondents reported most often
using sidewalks and roadways. They
travel in their own cars and TriMetbuses most often. They reported
least often using the Aerial Tram,
BIKETOWN, Portland Streetcar,
and do not often use bike lanes.
92

The project team, with DMA’s
leadership, identified these six
different demographic groups toparticipate in the engagement. The
goal of the focus group was to identify
what makes streets in Portland safeand unsafe. DMA used a “culturalliaison” model to outreach, inform,
and recruit community members
to participate in the focus group.
Cultural liaisons are members
who have strong relationships
with their communities, speak thesame languages, share similar life
experiences, and are trusted by thecommunity to deliver information andservices. The engagement activity
asked participants about five different
types of infrastructure that PBOT
manages, including street lighting,crosswalks, gatherings spaces likeplazas, sidewalks, and access tobus stops. These 5 aspects wereidentified from review of previous
community engagements and reports.
As community members arrived at
the event, tables were set up with thename of their specific demographic
group, markers, pens, sticky notes,
maps, photos from the Divisionarea and outside examples thatshowcased a range of spaces, and adesignated facilitator and notetaker.
At the event, light refreshments were
provided to start the day and theevent kicked off with a brief presentation from DMA Executive Director,

Photo: Division Midway AllianceLisha Shrestha, welcoming participants to the event, detailing DMA’stransportation work, presenting theagenda for the day, and introducing
PBOT and CCC teams. Clay Veka withPBOT described Portland’s Vision Zero
program and shared feedback PBOT
has previously heard from community

members. Reema Mendoza with
CCC introduced the activity.
The activity consisted in participantsarranging a set of photos from oneof the five identified topics (street
lighting, crosswalks, gatherings spaces,
sidewalks, and access to bus stops)
from least to most safe and using

sticky notes to describe what makesthat photo safe or not safe. Facilitators
at each table asked questions andencouraged conversation to go deeper
into the sticky note comments.
To guide the conversation, facilitators asked questions such as:» Why do you think you put
Photo A in the same spot?
» Why did some of you put Photo B
closer to least safe, while others put
Photo A closer to the most safe?
» Could some of you share withthe group what you wrote on
your sticky notes about why you
put Photo D where you did?
» What would you change to makethis space or place feel safer?
CCC set up a Qualtrics form
where notetakers typed notes
based on the small group
discussions for later analysis.

Photo: Division Midway Alliance

93

Facilitators and notetakers concluded
the discussion of the first set of

photos in time for lunch. Lunch wasprovided to participants and madeby a local community chef andmember of the minority businesscapacity program. As lunch was
wrapping up, we moved on to thesecond set of photos and repeatedthe group activity. Participants shared
their stories and lived experiencesusing public transportation androaming the neighborhood.
After completing the second setof photos, participants filled out asurvey that included three questions
about the use of transportation andfeelings of safety in public spaces inPortland and had nine demographic
questions. Responses helped uslearn more about who was at theevent and about what is mostimportant to them when thinking
about safety on Portland’s streets.
The survey was in the languages
represented, and the facilitators
helped participants with questions.

94

Photo: Division Midway AllianceAPPENDIX D

Photo ranking of
engagement activity

95

APPENDIX | BEYOND TRAFFIC SAFETY: BUILDING COMMUNITY BELONGING AND SAFETY IN PUBLIC SPACES

Photo ranking of engagement activity
Participants in the engagement activity ranked photos frommost safe to least safe. Below is a summary of the aggregate
scores of each photo. A higher score means that community
members considered the photo to be more safe.

Table 1: Photos for Getting to the Bus Stop topic
PHOTO
LABEL

A
122 &
Clinton96

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

13.89
(Low)

PHOTO

PHOTO
LABEL

B
122 &
Division

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

16.67
(Low)

PHOTO

Table 1: Photos for Getting to the Bus Stop topic (continued)
PHOTO
LABEL

C

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

53.17(Medium)

122nd &
ClintonD
122 &Division
Eastbound

97

PHOTO

PHOTO
LABEL

E

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

62.70(Medium)

135 &Division

64.29(Medium)F
Division
& 122

62.30
(Medium)

PHOTO

Table 2: Photos for Street Crossings topic
PHOTO
LABEL

A

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

88.89(High)

122nd &
Division

B
130 &Ramona

98

PHOTO

PHOTO
LABEL

C

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

28.7
(Low)

Division
& 131

27.78
(Low))

D
122nd &
Woodward

53.7(Medium)

PHOTO

Table 2: Photos for Street Crossings topic (continued)
PHOTO
LABEL

E

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

56.48(Medium)

Division& 133

F
Division
& 131

99

22.22
(Low)

PHOTO

Table 3: Photos for Neighborhood Gatherings topic
PHOTO
LABEL

A

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

22.81
(Low)

132 &
DivisionB
126 & Stark

100

PHOTO

PHOTO
LABEL

C

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

38.3(Medium)

Division& 136th37.43(Medium)D
Powell Blvd
& 101

40.35
(Medium)

PHOTO

Table 3: Photos for Neighborhood Gatherings topic (continued)
PHOTO
LABEL

E

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

57.31(Medium)

MontevillaF
134 & Pine

101

67.84
(High)PHOTO

Table 4: Photos for Lighting topic
PHOTO
LABEL

A

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

72.32(High)

112 &PowellB
121 &Division

102

PHOTO

PHOTO
LABEL

C

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

31.85
(Low)

122nd &
Clinton

13.69
(Low)

D
Clinton
& 121

23.51
(Low)

PHOTO

Table 4: Photos for Lighting topic (continued)
PHOTO
LABEL

E
Stark & 126

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

20.24
(Low)

PHOTO

PHOTO
LABEL

F

67.56
(Medium)

Stark & 127

G
Park

103

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

52.68(Medium)

PHOTO

Table 5: Photos for Sidewalk Accessibility topic
PHOTO
LABEL

A

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

49.8(Medium)

Division& 127thB
Mill &
122ndk

104

PHOTO

PHOTO
LABEL

C

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

54.37(Medium)

Powell& 101

58.33(Medium)

D
Lincoln
& 117

23.21
(Low)

PHOTO

Table 5: Photos for Sidewalk Accessibility topic (continued)
PHOTO
LABEL

E

SAFETYSCORE(LEVEL)

6.15
(Low)

Division& 145thF
122 and
Division

105

19.25
(Low)

PHOTO

APPENDIX E

Post-activity
participant survey

106 APPENDIX | BEYOND TRAFFIC SAFETY: BUILDING COMMUNITY BELONGING AND SAFETY IN PUBLIC SPACESPost-activity
participant survey

ENGLISH SURVEY
5/19/23, 10:01 AM

Qualtrics Survey Software

English

Download the PDF surveys
at the links below:» English» Chinese (traditional)» Nepali» Spanish» Vietnamese

Default Question BlockThank you for joining us for today’s community
conversation about Trafﬁc Safety. As part of yourparticipation, Division Midway Alliance, in partnership with
the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) and the
Coalition of Communities of Color, would like you tocomplete this survey. The survey has 3 questions about
your use of transportation and feelings of safety in public
spaces in Portland and 9 demographic questions.

Your responses will help us learn more about who is here
today and about what is most important to you when

thinking about safety on Portland’s streets. Your responses
are completely anonymous. You can choose not to answer
any question you don’t want to. We will combine what welearn from this survey with what we hear during today’s
conversations. Then, PBOT will use all of this information to
guide their work to change and improve their programs
https://coalitionofcolor.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_5mRq8tIjdSI4KwK&ContextLibraryID=UR_eQjE…

107

1/11

5/19/23, 10:01 AM

Qualtrics Survey Software

5/19/23, 10:01 AM

Qualtrics Survey Softwareand services. PBOT’s ultimate goal is for everyone to feel
physically and emotionally safe in Portland’s public spaces.
Never

Less
than
once
per
week

Once
per
week

2-3
times
per
week

4-6
times
per
week

Once
per
day

Multipletimes
per day

Aerial Tram
Biketown Bikes

Here’s what we mean when we talk about physical andpersonal or emotional safety.

Bike Lanes
Bus (TriMet)

Physical safety: Encountering minimal risks or hazards –such as broken sidewalks, busy roads, or poorly lit plazas –Car or Motor Vehicle(your own, a family
member's, or afriend's)that could result in harm to one’s body, while using andmoving through Portland’s public spaces.

Car or Motor Vehicle(taxi or ride share
service like Lyft or
Uber)

Personal or Emotional safety: Encountering minimal risks

MAX (TriMet)or hazards – such as disrespect, harassment, or
discrimination – that could result in harm to one’s mental

Neighborhood
Greenways

wellbeing, while using and moving through Portland’s public
spaces.

Pavement(Roadways)
Pedestrian Bridges
SidewalksStreetcar (PBOT)

In a typical week during the last year (since May 2022),
how often did you use these forms of transportation orservices? Please select one choice per row.

https://coalitionofcolor.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_5mRq8tIjdSI4KwK&ContextLibraryID=UR_eQjE…

108

Walking, rolling with awheelchair, or
moving with anothermobility device

2/11

https://coalitionofcolor.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_5mRq8tIjdSI4KwK&ContextLibraryID=UR_eQjE…

3/11

5/19/23, 10:01 AM

Qualtrics Survey Software

5/19/23, 10:01 AM

Qualtrics Survey Software

Please describe your gender in any way you prefer:Think about where in Portland you feel physically and/or
emotionally safe. Are there any particular public spaces orplaces that come to mind beyond the ones you looked at in
the photos today? If so, please list them here:

In what year were you born? (YYYY)

Is there anything else that you’d like to share about whatmakes you feel physically and/or personally or emotionallysafe, thinking in particular about lighting, public gathering
spaces (like plazas), street crossings, sidewalks, andWhat is the 5-digit zip code where you live?

getting to bus stops?

How do you identify your race, ethnicity, tribal afﬁliation,
country of origin, or ancestry?

The following questions are about you, which will help us
understand who is here today and about the various
communities that are collectively represented. You may
skip any question or choose “I don’t want to answer” if you
are not comfortable answering.

https://coalitionofcolor.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_5mRq8tIjdSI4KwK&ContextLibraryID=UR_eQjE…

109

Which of the following describes your racial or ethnic
identity? Please select ALL that apply.
4/11

https://coalitionofcolor.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_5mRq8tIjdSI4KwK&ContextLibraryID=UR_eQjE…

5/11

5/19/23, 10:01 AM

Qualtrics Survey Software

5/19/23, 10:01 AM

Qualtrics Survey Software

Hispanic or Latino/a/x

CHamoru (Chamorro)

Native Hawaiian or Paciﬁc Islander

Marshallese

White

Communities of the Micronesian Region

American Indian, Alaska Native, or Tribal Afﬁliation

Native Hawaiian

Black or African American

SamoanMiddle Eastern or North African

Other Paciﬁc Islander

Asian

I don't know
Other, please list:

I don't want to answer

I don't know
I don't want to answer

Which of the following describes your racial or ethnic
identity? Please select ALL that apply.
Eastern European

Which of the following describes your racial or ethnic
identity? Please select ALL that apply.

SlavicWestern European

Central American

Other White

Mexican

I don't knowSouth American

I don't want to answer

Other Hispanic or Latino/a/x
I don't know
I don't want to answer

Which of the following describes your racial or ethnic
identity? Please select ALL that apply.
American Indian

Which of the following describes your racial or ethnic
identity? Please select ALL that apply.
https://coalitionofcolor.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_5mRq8tIjdSI4KwK&ContextLibraryID=UR_eQjE…

110

Alaska Native
Canadian Inuit, Metis, or First Nation
6/11

https://coalitionofcolor.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_5mRq8tIjdSI4KwK&ContextLibraryID=UR_eQjE…

7/11

5/19/23, 10:01 AM

Qualtrics Survey Software

5/19/23, 10:01 AM

Qualtrics Survey Software

Indigenous Mexican, Central American, or South American
Tribal Afﬁliation:

Which of the following describes your racial or ethnic
identity? Please select ALL that apply.

I don't know
I don't want to answer

Asian Indian
Cambodian

Which of the following describes your racial or ethnic
identity? Please select ALL that apply.

ChineseAfrican American

Hmong

Communities of Myanmar
Filipino/a

Afro-Caribbean

Japanese

Ethiopian

KoreanSomali

Laotian

Other African (Black)

South Asian

Other Black

Vietnamese

I don't know

Other Asian

I don't want to answer

I don't know
I don't want to answer

Which of the following describes your racial or ethnic
identity? Please select ALL that apply.

If you checked more than one category above, is there
one you think of as your primary racial or ethnic identity?

Middle Eastern
North African

Yes. Please list your primary racial or ethnic identity:

I don't know

I do not have just one primary racial or ethnic identity.

I don't want to answer
https://coalitionofcolor.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_5mRq8tIjdSI4KwK&ContextLibraryID=UR_eQjE…

111

8/11

https://coalitionofcolor.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_5mRq8tIjdSI4KwK&ContextLibraryID=UR_eQjE…

9/11

5/19/23, 10:01 AM

Qualtrics Survey Software

5/19/23, 10:01 AM

Qualtrics Survey Software

No. I identify as Biracial or Multiracial.
N/A. I only checked one category above.
I don't know.

If yes, please describe the nature of your disability. Please
select ALL that apply.

I don't want to answer.

Blind or have serious difﬁculty seeing, even when wearing glasses
Deaf or have serious difﬁculty hearing

What language or languages do you use at home? Please
select ALL that apply.

Have serious difﬁculty communicating using your usual (customary)language

Have serious difﬁculty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions

Cantonese

Have serious difﬁculty with mood, intense feelings, controlling your behavior,or experiencing delusions or hallucinations

EnglishKaren (Burmese)

Have serious difﬁculty walking or climbing stairs

Mandarin

Not listed above, please describe:

Nepali
Russian

I don’t want to answer

SpanishVietnamese
I don't know
I don't want to answer

Powered by Qualtrics

Do you identify with having or living with a disability?
Yes
No
I don't know
I don't want to answer
https://coalitionofcolor.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_5mRq8tIjdSI4KwK&ContextLibraryID=UR_eQj…

112

10/11

https://coalitionofcolor.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_5mRq8tIjdSI4KwK&ContextLibraryID=UR_eQj…

11/11

APPENDIX F

Survey analysis

113 APPENDIX | BEYOND TRAFFIC SAFETY: BUILDING COMMUNITY BELONGING AND SAFETY IN PUBLIC SPACES

Survey Analysis
COALITION OF COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR, RESEARCH JUSTICE INSTITUTE
2024-01-16

114

Survey Participants. Thirty
community members completed
the survey during the engagement
session. The survey was available
in multiple languages. 5 folkscompleted it in Chinese, 17 in English,
3 in Spanish, and 5 in Vietnamese.
Community members self-described
their gender as “Female”, “female.”,or “Mujer” (n=16) and “Male” or “men”(n=9). Survey respondents rangedin age from 14 to 81 years old, withthe following distribution: 7 youth(ages 14-25), 11 adults (ages 36-69),
and 6 elders (ages 70-80). They camefrom 8 different zip codes in thearea of Portland, OR and Gresham,
OR. Community members self-described their races and ethnicities
as “Asian”, “Asian/Karen”, “Chinese”,“Hispana”, “Karen”, “Latina”, “Latinx”,“Mexicana”, and “Vietnamese”. Survey

respondents reported speaking
Cantonese, English, Karen, Nepali,
Spanish, and Vietnamese at home.
Community members responded
that they either did (n=5) or did not(n=20) have a disability. The few folks
who opted to share the nature of
their disability reported difficulty withhearing and difficulty with walking or
climbing stairs. Several community
members chose not to report theirgender (n=5), birth year (n=5), zip
code (n=5), race/ethnicity (n=6),home language (n=3), disability status(n=5), or disability nature (n=26).
Survey respondents rated how
often they used several forms oftransportation and services. In thetable on the next page, we show thenumber of respondents who selectedeach frequency category for eachtransportation form or service.

Table 1. Number of respondents
who selected each frequency option.

HOW OFTENNEVERLESS THAN
ONCE
ONCE
PER WEEK PER WEEK

Aerial Tram

23

5

BIKETOWN

26

2

Bike Lanes

20

4

Bus TriMet

1

8

4

4

5

1

4

Own Car

3

1

2

4

5

4

7

Ride Share Car

13

6

2

2

2

1

MAX TriMet

2

14

6

3

1

1

Greenways

11

3

3

5

1

2

Roadways

6

4

1

6

3

2

5

Ped. Bridges

11

6

6

4

1

11

3

2

8

4

1

1

Sidewalks

115

18

Walk Roll

14

4

4-6 TIMESPER WEEKONCEPER DAY

MULTIPLETIMESPER DAY

1
1

2

PortlandStreetcar

2-3 TIMESPER WEEK

2

1

2

5

Table 2. Weighted totals and corresponding percents.
TRANSPORTATIONWEIGHTEDTOTALPERCENT

Aerial Tram

2.5

0.39

BIKETOWN

3.5

0.55

Bike Lanes

11.0

1.72

Bus TriMet

86.0

13.46

Own Car

128.5

20.11

Ride Share Car

27.0

4.23

MAX TriMet

41.5

6.49

Greenways

36.0

5.63

Roadways

92.0

14.40

Ped. Bridges

24.0

3.76

Sidewalks

129.5

20.27

PortlandStreetcar

9.0

1.41

Walk Roll

48.5

7.59

116

We then weighted each frequency
category as follows: 0 (never), 0.5(less than once per week), 1 (onceper week), 2.5 (2-3 times per week), 5(4-6 times per week), 7 (once per day),and 9 (multiple times per day). We
multiplied the number of respondents
per frequency category by theseweighted values, and then we added
up those values to create a weighted
total for each form of transportationor service (see Table 2). Based on theseweighted totals, survey respondents
reported most often using sidewalks,
their own cars, roadways, and TriMetbuses. They reported least often
using the Aerial Tram, Biketown bikes,
the PBOT streetcar, and bike lanes.
Survey respondents answered two
open-ended questions. The firstone asked: “Think about where in
Portland you feel physically and/or emotionally safe. Are there any
particular public spaces or places

that come to mind beyond theones you looked at in the photos
today? If so, please list them here.”
Several community members
listed specific places, including
temples, parks, Division Street,the mall, downtown Gresham,and stores, like Fred Meyer.
“Te sientes bien en el centro comercial
y en el centro de Portland en loslugares, rancho donde vive tu hija
en Gresham.” / “You feel good in themall and in the center of Portland
in the places, ranch where yourdaughter lives in Gresham” [trans.]
Some respondents noted featuresof places that contribute to feelingphysically and/or emotionallysafe, including places with lots ofchildren and people, “quiet neighborhoods”, places where there are
not many folks experiencing homelessness, places close to where
they live, and well-lit places.

A couple folks commented on how
places are not particularly safe:“Downtown needs much work to
be feel safe, clean and overall to
become something to be proudof as a resident of Portland.”“It’s not like before where it used
to be safe to walk around…”
The second open-ended question
asked: “Is there anything else thatyou’d like to share about whatmakes you feel physically and/or personally or emotionally safe,
thinking in particular about lighting,public gathering spaces (likeplazas), street crossings, sidewalks,
and getting to bus stops?”
In response, community members
mentioned feeling physically and/or emotionally safe while taking
the bus (especially during the day),when there are streetlights, traffic
lights, and traffic signs, while using
well-build sidewalks, in parks

117

where there are a lot of children
and families, and at the mall.
“the buses feel so safe, good
service, and stop; more patience
with the elderly; 8 am until 1
pm and don’t go out at night —night time is a bit dangerous”“Me siento segura cuando tomo
el bus porque hay personas alalreadedor y también los parques
por qué hay mucho movimiento”/ “I feel safe when I take the bus
because there are people around me
and also the parks because there
is a lot of movement.” [trans.]
A couple folks mentioned feelingunsafe in public parks due topeople experiencing homelessness and lack of street lights.
“Street light was not enough for mostcases on the picture we observed.
Community parks were safe before
but right now they are not due tohomeless tents and unclean.”APPENDIX GEngagement
activity protocol

118 APPENDIX | BEYOND TRAFFIC SAFETY: BUILDING COMMUNITY BELONGING AND SAFETY IN PUBLIC SPACES

Engagement activity protocol
Photo Activity, 90 minutes» 6 groups based on language;
one group per table» Each group has a facilitatorand a note taker» Each table has sticky notes,
pens or markers, and tape
» Each person gets 2 sets of photos» Each person gets 2 papers withthe safety spectrum line

FACILITATOR’S INSTRUCTIONSFOR THE ACTIVITY:

In this activity, we will be focusing on the
key topics that PBOT would like to learn
more about: lighting, public gathering
spaces (like plazas), street crossings,
sidewalks, and getting to bus stops.
We are curious to learn what makesthese places and spaces physicallyand emotionally safe or unsafe, basedon your own everyday experiences.
As a reminder, physical safety means
encountering minimal risks or hazards– such as broken sidewalks, busy roads,
or poorly lit plazas – that could resultin harm to one’s body, while using andmoving through Portland’s public spaces.
And personal or emotional safetymeans encountering minimal risks
or hazards – such as disrespect,harassment, or discrimination – that
could result in harm to one’s mental

119

wellbeing, while using and moving
through Portland’s public spaces.
Let’s go through one example photo
before we get into the details of theactivity. [Read photo description;then ask the following questions
allowing for 2-3 responses to each].
» When and how do move throughthis place in your everyday lives?
» How do you use this place? For
example, would you eat lunch
here, play with your kids here,
go for a walk here, and so on?
» Does how you use or move throughthis place change during different
times of day, like in the morning
versus at night? What about during
different times of the year?
» When you think about thisplace, what comes to mind
related to physical safety?

» When you think about this place,what comes to mind related topersonal or emotional safety?
Now that we’ve gone through an
example, do you have any questions
so far about what we mean by physicaland personal or emotional safety or
about what we’re going to be doing?
Great! Let’s talk about the whole activity
now. Each group has two sets of photos
that show a variety of places and spaces.
Most photos are of real places andspaces in Portland. Each set highlights
one of the key topics. Our group has:_______ and _______ [read the topics
from the labels on the photo sets].
For each set we’d like you to complete
three tasks. First, you’ll start by working
on your own to place the photos inorder from least safe to most safe.
We’ve given you each a paper with a line
representing this spectrum of safety,
with least safe on the left and most safeon the right. You will tape the photos
along the line on your paper based on120

your experiences and thoughts about
the safety of these spaces and places.
After you’ve placed your photos along
the line, we’d like you to take somesticky notes and write down some of
the reasons that you placed each photowhere you did. What about the space orplace makes you feel safe or unsafe?
Then, I’ll collect each of your papers andline them up, so that we can discuss
the similarities and differences in where
you each placed each of the photos.
Any questions about the overall task?
Ok, so we’ll have about an hour now
and then another 30 minutes after
lunch to work on this. So we’re hoping
to get through both sets of photos.
Which one do you want to start with?
Let me tell you about the photos
in our first set [read the written
description on each of the photos].
So, we’d like you to think about times
during your day-to-day lives that you
move through or use these places

and spaces. Of course, a photo shows
one particular point in time. We’d like
you to think about your experiencesin these places and spaces during
different times of the year, different
times of day, and for different kindsof activities. What about the physicalstructures or layouts of these places andspaces makes you feel safe or unsafe?
What about the things you do in theseplaces and spaces or how you use
them makes you feel safe or unsafe?
If you’d like any help with taping
the photos or writing on the
stickies or any other part of thisactivity, please let me know.
You’ll have about 15 minutes to put
your photos along the line and towrite your sticky notes. Then we’ll
spend 20-30 minutes discussing theactivity as a group. Then we’ll do it all
again for the second set of photos.

FACILITATOR’S GUIDE FOR
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION:

Lay out each paper in one column,
so that the lines are stacked.
Guide the group through reviewing
each of the photos, using
questions from the examples
below that make sense based onwhere they put the photos.
Take notes.
Let’s start with Photo A. It looks like...
all of you put Photo A…; some ofyou put Photo A here versus there...
[describe where on the line Photo
A is located for each paper].
» Why do you think you all put
Photo A in the same spot?
» Why did some of you put Photo A
closer to least safe and some of you
put Photo A closer to most safe?

121

INSTRUCTIONS FOR NOTETAKING:» Could some of you share with thegroup about what you wrote on
your sticky notes about why you
put Photo A where you did?
» What would you change tomake this space or place feel
more physically safe?
» What would you change tomake this space or place feel
more emotionally safe?
» What else do you think of when you
think about this space or place?
Repeat for each photo in the set.
Then, pass out the second set ofmaterials, describe the second setof photos, and instruct the groupto start on the second set.

CCC will set up a Qualtrics form where
notetakers can type notes based on
the small group discussions. DMA will
also have large flip charts available
for notetaking. Liaisons can use theQualtrics form, the flip charts, orboth – whichever is easiest for them.
For the Qualtrics form -- liaisons
can use their own phones or oneof the tablets available at the eventto access the Qualtrics form. The
form will have spaces to take notes
for each photo in the set. The form
will also have an “Other Notes”
section where the notetaker candocument information about theconversation that may be beyond a
specific photo. The liaison should fillout the form once per photo set.