I completely agree, most often public hearings are designed to minimize meaningful public comment. Even if the process were more democratic, it might produce the same results unless people are encouraged to think more long-term.
More generally, I think a lot of engineers just don't see their role as one of advocacy. It's not usually part of the job description. There are exceptions--I personally have colleagues who talk with the media and voice their "expert" opinions on projects--unfortunately, these people don't work in Detroit.
Another point: as an urban planner [[I am also trained as a planner), I don't think it's productive to continue to portray engineers as the enemy. I agree with rbdetsport that a lot of engineers do understand the problems caused by 1950s-era planning, especially younger ones. Engineers can design good things just as well as bad things: a good engineer would be happier designing a two-lane street with a bike lane and sidewalk than a six-lane highway, as long as it met standards. It's true that a lot of old-school engineers are resistant to change, but there are plenty of transportation departments that have done good design recently. Take the NYC DOT under Sadik-Khan. Ok, the process hasn't been that democratic, but she has gotten a hugely bureaucratic organization to do new things and the dept is full of people who are interested in designing bike lanes and mounting public education campaigns.
Bookmarks