National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Report Contents
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"BIBLIOGRAPHY." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14388.
×
Page 68

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

31 BIBLIOGRAPHY Boyd, D. and A.G. Gronlund, “The Ithaca Model—A Practi- cal Experience in Community-Based Planning,” Trans- portation Research Record 1499, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 56–61. Commeau, P.S. and D.A. Rodriquez, “Picking Publics Prop- erly: An Artful Science,” Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1706, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 92–99. Grossardt, T., K. Bailey, and J. Brumm, “Structured Public Involvement: Problems and Prospects for Improvement,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- portation Research Board, No. 1858, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washing- ton, D.C., 2003, pp. 95–102. Harrison, B., “Public Involvement Best Practices: Linking Land Use and Transportation,” ITE 2006 Technical Con- ference and Exhibit Compendium of Technical Papers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, San Antonio, Tex., Mar. 19–22, 2006. “Metropolitan Planning Organization Database,” Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administra- tion, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www.planning.dot.gov/ overview.asp. “National Transit Database,” Federal Transit Administra- tion, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available: http://www. ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/links.htm [accessed Oct. 29, 2008]. Porter, C., “These Agencies Get It,” Planning, American Planning Association, Chicago, Ill., Vol. 71, No. 5, May 2005, pp. 41–45. Stich, B. and K. Eagle, “Planning to Include the Public. Transportation Policy Implementation with Effective Citizen Involvement,” Public Works Management & Policy, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2005, pp. 319–340. Springer, N., “Listen Up!,” Planning, American Planning Association, Chicago, Ill., Vol. 7, No. 5, May 2007, pp. 30–33.

32 ABBREVIATIONS ADA Americans with Disabilities Act BAC Business Advisory Committee BCC Board of County Commissioners BPAC Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee BRTB Baltimore Regional Transportation Board CAB Community Advisory Board CAC citizen advisory committee or community advisory committee CCT Community Coordination Team CRT Community Relations Team CTAC Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee FTAC Freight Transportation Advisory Committee IAP2 International Association of Public Participation IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act MPO metropolitan planning organization NEPA National Environmental Policy Act SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act—a Legacy for Users TARC Transportation Aesthetics Review Committee TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century UTA Utah Transit Authority

33 APPENDIx A SURVEY qUESTIONNAIRE qUESTIONNAIRE Project purpose: This TCRP synthesis project will document the state of the practice in involving Citizen Advisory Commit- tees (CAC) and other community-based advisory committees to support transit planning and operations. The transportation sector frequently employs advisory committees as a form of public outreach and involvement. In addition to documenting the responses to this questionnaire for the synthesis report, we will be using the information gathered to identify agencies that are using advisory committees in unique or innovative ways for case studies. Please indicate at the end of the survey if you would be willing to participate in a telephone interview if your agency is selected for a more detailed case study. The final report, to be published by the Transportation Research Board, will describe the state of the practice of involving advisory committees in transit planning and operations. The report will focus on the function, operations, management and participation in committees rather than on the substantive outcomes. This report will be useful to agencies developing public involvement programs. Questionnaire instructions: If you have not engaged an advisory committee in the past three years, please answer the first three questions. If you have engaged an advisory committee in the past three years, please complete the remainder of the survey. Participation in the survey by agencies choosing to work with and not work with advisory committees is important to ensure that the broadest range of experiences are captured in this synthesis. Please answer the questionnaire relative to one advisory committee. An agency may complete multiple questionnaires describ- ing experiences with different types of advisory committees. This survey should take about 30 minutes to complete. Thank you for your participation. All responses will be confidential. Please contact Kristin Hull at 503-736-4160 or Kristin.hull@ch2m.com with questions. You can complete this form electroni- cally and e-mail it to Kristin.hull@ch2m.com or print it and mail it to Kristin Hull, CH2M HILL, 2020 SW 4th Ave., Portland, OR 97201. 1. Tell us about yourself Name _____________________________________ Title ______________________________________ Agency ___________________________________ Phone _____________________________________ E-mail ____________________________________ Address ___________________________________

34 2. Has your agency included a Citizen/Community Advisory Committee, Stakeholder Working Group or other advisory committee primarily comprised of community members in a public involvement program to support transit planning or operations in the past three years? Yes…… No…… For those who have not involved advisory committees If your agency has included an advisory committee in a public involvement program to support project planning or operations in the past three years, please answer these questions. 3. Why does your agency choose not to involve advisory committees (choose all that apply)? We are not planning capital improvements or making operational changes that require public involvement…… Advisory committees are ineffective…… Advisory committees are expensive or time consuming to implement…… Advisory committee members expect to have decision-making authority…… Community members are not interested in serving on advisory committees…… Other public involvement methods are more effective…… Agency has had negative experiences with advisory committees in the past…… Other …… __________________________________ Please share any other information about why your agency does not involve advisory committees. For those who have involved advisory committees If you have involved an advisory committee in transit planning and operations, please answer the remaining questions. As committee structure and role can vary, please complete a separate questionnaire for each committee. Overview 4. What kinds of transit projects or programs have your agency involved advisory committees in during the past three years (choose all that apply)? General agency operations…… Major capital project (e.g., new light rail line, park-and-ride development)…… Planning for service changes…… Standing committee on a specific operational issue (e.g., ADA service, budget oversight, etc.)…… Other…… __________________________________ 5. What type of committee are you reporting on with this questionnaire (note: you may complete additional question- naires to report on other committee types)? Standing committee on general agency operations…… Major capital project (e.g., new light rail line, park-and-ride development)…… Planning for service changes…… Standing committee on a specific operational issue (e.g., ADA service, budget oversight, etc.)…… Other…… __________________________________

35 6. If the committee is a standing committee, how long are members’ appointments? Less than 1 year…… 1–2 years…… 3–4 years…… Longer than 4 years…… Indeterminate…… Not a standing committee…… 7. In general, how effective has your agency found advisory committees to be? Very effective…… Somewhat effective…… Neutral…… Somewhat ineffective…… Very ineffective…… COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 8. How were members selected (choose all that apply)? Open, advertised application process…… Agency invited specific community organizations to appoint members…… Agency invited local jurisdictions or other partners to appoint members…… Agency invited specific individuals to participate…… Other …… __________________________________ 9. Who did committee members represent? Own viewpoints (at-large members)…… A geographic area…… Neighborhood association…… Community, business or civic organization…… Interest not representing a formal organization (e.g., commuters, freight)…… Other …… __________________________________ 10. Did committee members represent more than one viewpoint or organization? Yes…… No…… Not applicable…… If yes, how did the committee member acknowledge his/her various roles?

36 11. Did the committee include elected officials or agency staff members in addition to community members (choose all that apply)? Elected officials…… Agency or jurisdictional staff…… Only community members…… Other …… __________________________________ If the committee was comprised of a mix of community members and elected officials or agency staff, what benefits and drawbacks do you think this approach had? 12. If elected officials served on the committee, what was their role (choose all that apply)? Participant…… Observer or non-voting member…… Chair…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ 13. If the committee included agency staff or elected officials, did all committee members participate in decision making? All members participated in decision making…… Only community members participated in decision making…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ 14. Did your agency identify committee members with the purpose of including all likely viewpoints? Yes, we tried to include all likely viewpoints…… No, we did not consider members’ viewpoints in forming the committee…… Not applicable…… 15. Did committee reflect the community’s or project area’s diversity (check all that apply)? Ethnic…… Geographic…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ 16. Did the committee include members who required special accommodations (e.g., translation services)? Yes…… No…… How did you accommodate members who required special accommodations? 17. Did the committee include members who had limited experience interacting with government or serving on advisory committees? Yes…… No…… If so, how did you educate these members about how to fulfill their role?

37 18. How many members did the committee include? Less than 10…… 10–15…… 16–20…… 21–25…… More than 25…… COMMITTEE START-UP AND ORGANIZATION 19. Did the committee agree to ground rules or protocols at the beginning of the process? Yes…… No…… 20. What topics did the ground rules and protocols include? Committee member responsibilities…… Meeting guidelines…… Internal communication…… External communication…… Decision-making process…… Decision-making quorum…… Dispute resolution…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ 21. Were the protocols generally enforced or followed by group members? Yes…… No…… Sometimes…… Not applicable…… 22. How many times did the committee meet? Fewer than five times…… Five to eight times…… Nine to twelve times…… More than twelve times…… On-going, permanent committee…… Other …… __________________________________ 23. Did the committee meet according to a regular schedule or according to project or program milestones? According to milestones…… Regularly recurring schedule…… Other …… __________________________________

38 24. If the committee met on a regular schedule, what was the frequency of meetings? Weekly…… Monthly…… Quarterly…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ 25. How long were meetings? 1 hour…… 2 hours…… 3 hours…… Longer than 3 hours…… 26. How did you communicate with the committee between meetings (choose all that apply)? Phone…… E-mail…… Individual meetings…… Mail…… Did not communicate between meetings…… Other …… __________________________________ 27. At the beginning of the project, did the agency plan topics for all or most of the committee meetings (even if they changed as the project progressed)? Yes…… No…… FACILITATION AND ROLE OF CHAIR 28. Did the committee have a chairperson? Yes…… No…… Please answer these questions if your committee included a chairperson: 29. If your committee had a chairperson, how was he or she selected? Selected by agency…… Selected by committee members…… Other …… __________________________________

39 30. Please select all of the chairperson’s responsibilities: Assistance in agenda setting…… Meeting management…… External spokesperson …… Media spokesperson…… Other …… __________________________________ 31. Who facilitated committee meetings? Elected official…… Staff member…… Consultant …… Not facilitated…… Other …… __________________________________ 32. If the committee was facilitated by a staff member or consultant, did the facilitator have specific expertise in committee facilitation? Yes…… No…… Not applicable…… Unsure…… 33. How effective was the facilitator? Very effective…… Somewhat effective…… Neutral/don’t know…… Somewhat ineffective…… Very ineffective…… Not applicable…… 34. Who developed meeting agendas? Agency/consultant developed agendas…… Agency/consultant developed agendas in consultation with chairperson…… Agency/consultant developed agendas in consultation with committee…… Committee developed agendas…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________

40 COMMITTEE PURPOSE AND ROLE 35. Was the committee assigned a specific charge by the agency? (If your committee was given a charge, please consider e-mailing the charge to kristin.hull@ch2m.com.) Yes…… No…… 36. If the committee had a charge, who assigned it? Board of directors…… Other policy-making body …… Staff…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ 37. Was this advisory committee’s role specified in your agency’s charter, policies or bylaws, or was the committee formed in response to a specific agency or project need on an ad-hoc basis? Role specified…… Ad-hoc basis…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ 38. What functions did the committee fulfill (check all that apply)? Sharing information with community members…… Gathering information from community members to share with agency…… Acting as spokesperson (e.g. speaking engagements, media contacts)…… Providing input…… Developing recommendations…… Making decisions…… Other …… __________________________________ 39. How did committee members interact with the media? The media did not contact committee members…… A committee spokesperson represented the group…… An agency spokesperson represented the group…… All committee members were free to speak with the media…… Other …… __________________________________ 40. Was this media protocol agreed upon ahead of time? Yes…… No…… Not applicable……

41 41. Did the committee accept comment from public observers at meetings (choose all that apply)? Verbal comment…… Written comment…… Public comment was not accepted…… Other …… __________________________________ 42. How much of a typical committee meeting consisted of the following activities? Less than 10% 10–25% 26–50% 51–75% 67–100% Presentations from staff or consultants … … … … … Question and answer periods or discussion … … … … … Presentations from committee members … … … … … Public comment … … … … … Other __________________________ … … … … … Other __________________________ … … … … … COMMITTEE DECISION MAkING 43. What was the committee’s highest level of authority? Community liaison…… Individual input/sounding board…… Advice/recommendations…… Decisions…… 44. What kinds of decisions or milestones were committee members asked to provide input about (choose all that apply)? Issues related to project scope, schedule or budget…… Issues related to public involvement or outreach…… Evaluation framework or criteria…… Technical issues (e.g., design, alignment, alternatives)…… Policy issues …… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ 45. To whom did the committee primarily provide input? Agency board of directors, councilor or other policy makers…… Multi-agency policy committee or steering committee…… Executive-level management…… Program or project managers…… The committee did not provide input…… Other …… __________________________________

42 46. How were minority viewpoints captured (choose all that apply)? In meeting notes …… In a minority report…… In verbal reports…… Not captured…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ 47. How was committee input communicated (choose all that apply)? Written reports by staff…… Verbal reports by staff…… Verbal reports by committee member…… Written report by committee member…… Meeting minutes…… Individual written letters or statements from committee members…… The committee did not provide input…… Other …… __________________________________ 48. If the committee’s input was not reflected in final decisions, how was this explained and communicated to committee members? Not applicable…… Not explained or communicated…… Explained by e-mail or in writing…… Explained in committee meeting…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ 49. How did the group make decisions or recommendations? Consensus or modified consensus…… Majority voting…… Did not make group decisions or recommendations…… Other …… __________________________________

43 Please answer the following questions if the committee made decisions or recommendations by consensus. 50. How was consensus defined by the committee? 100% agreement and support…… 100% willing to accept the outcome as best for the group as a whole…… 50% support…… Some other level of support between 50% and 100%…… Consensus was not defined…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ 51. If committee members could not reach consensus, how did the group move forward (choose all that apply)? Tabled discussion until more information was available…… Continued discussions in the hope of reaching a compromise…… Asked minority opinion holders what changes would be required to gain their support…… Voted and noted majority and minority viewpoints…… Designated a sub-committee to develop more options for the committee’s consideration…… Designated a sub-committee to resolve issue…… Not applicable…… Other …… __________________________________ FEEDBACk AND MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 52. Were committee members asked about the committee’s effectiveness and their satisfaction with participation during the process (choose all that apply)? Yes—through a written questionnaire…… Yes—through individual interviews or phone calls…… Yes—during a meeting…… No…… 53. Were committee members asked about the committee’s effectiveness and their satisfaction with participation at the end of the process (choose all that apply)? Yes—through a written questionnaire…… Yes—through individual interviews or phone calls…… Yes—during a meeting…… No…… 54. Were individual meetings evaluated (choose all that apply)? Yes—through a written questionnaire…… Yes—through individual interviews or phone calls…… Yes—during a meeting…… No……

44 55. Were committee meetings or other practices changed based on feedback? Yes…… No…… Not applicable…… Please explain. 56. Did the agency evaluate the effectiveness of the CAC in reaching agency goals? Yes…… No…… If yes, how was the evaluation done? STAFF SUPPORT AND BUDGET 57. How many staff or consultants generally attended committee meetings? 1 …… 2–4…… 5–7…… More than 7…… 58. How many hours did staff or consultants generally spend preparing for, conducting and following up from each meeting? 0–5 hours…… 5–10 hours…… 10–15 hours…… More than 15 hours…… 59. How were meetings documented or recorded? Meeting minutes or summaries prepared by staff person or consultant…… Meeting minutes or summaries prepared by a committee member…… Meeting minutes or summaries were not prepared…… OTHER INFORMATION 60. Which aspects of the advisory committee process worked well? 61. Which aspects of the advisory committee process would you change? 62. Would you be willing to participate in a one-hour telephone interview if your agency is selected to be featured in a case study for this synthesis report? Yes…… No……

45 APPENDIx B LIST OF RESPONDENTS AGENCY CITY STATE Access Services Los Angeles CA ACCESS Transportation Systems Pittsburgh PA Alaska Railroad Corporation Anchorage AK Allegany County Transit Cumberland MD Altamont Commuter Express Stockton CA Anaheim Transportation Network Anaheim CA Annapolis Dept. of Transportation Annapolis MD Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County Lafayette IN Area Transportation Authority of NC PA Johnsonburg PA Arrowhead Regional Development Commission Duluth MN Ashland Area MPO/FIVCO Area Development District Grayson KY Atlanta Regional Commission Atlanta GA ATS Miami FL Baltimore Metropolitan Council Baltimore MD Bangor Area Comprehensive Transportation System Bangor ME Bannock Planning Organization Pocatello ID Beaver County Transit Authority Rochester PA Bend Area Transit (City of Bend) Bend OR Bend MPO Bend OR Berks County Planning Commission Reading PA BHJ Metropolitan Planning Commission Steubenville OH Bismarck/Mandan MPO Bismarck ND Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Montgomery Area MPO Christiansburg VA Bloomington/Monroe County MPO Bloomington IN Bloomington–Normal Public Transit System Bloomington IL Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Boston MA Butte County Assoc. of Governments/Butte Regional Transit Chico CA Capital District Transportation Authority Albany NY Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency Bristol CT Central Mass. Metropolitan Planning Organization/Worcester Regional Transit Authority Worcester MA Charles County Department of Community Services Port Tobacco MD Charlotte County–Punta Gorda MPO Port Charlotte FL Chatham Area Transit Authority Savannah FL Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority Chattanooga TN Cheyenne MPO Cheyenne WY Cheyenne Transit Program Cheyenne WY City of Asheville Asheville NC City of High Point High Point NC

46 AGENCY CITY STATE City of Jefferson–Jefftran Jefferson City MO City of Laguna Beach Laguna Beach CA City of Las Cruces—RoadRUNNER Transit Las Cruces NM City of Lompoc Lompoc CA City of Loveland Transit Loveland CO City of Modesto Modesto CA City of Moorhead—Metro Area Transit Moorhead MN City of Nashua NH—Nashua Transit Nashua NH City of Newark Newark OH City of San Luis Obispo/SLO Transit San Luis Obispo CA City of Sioux City, Iowa Sioux City IA City of Thousand Oaks Thousand Oaks CA City of Tucson, DOT Tucson AZ City of Turlock, California Turlock CA Coast Transit Authority Gulfport MS Community Coach Paramus NJ Concho Valley Transit District San Angelo TX Corpus Christi MPO Corpus Christi TX COTPA/METRO Transit Oklahoma City OK County of Muskegon—Muskegon Area Transit System Muskegon Heights MI Cowlitz–Wahkiakum COG Kelso WA Crater Planning District Commission Petersburg VA CTTRANSIT Hartford CT Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Philadelphia PA DMMPC Muncie IN Dubuque MPO Dubuque IA Duluth Transit Authority Duluth MN DVRPC Philadelphia PA East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Menasha WI East–West Gateway Council of Governments St. Louis MO Endless Mountains Transportation Authority Athens PA Erie County Regional Planning Sandusky OH Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority Erie PA Escambia County Area Transit Pensacola FL Everett Transit Everett WA Fairfax County Department of Transportation Fairfax VA FAMPO Fredericksburg VA Fayette Area Coordinated Transportation Lemont Furnace PA Fayetteville Area System of Transit Fayetteville NC Fort Bend County Public Transportation Department Sugar Land TX Galveston Island Transit Galveston TX Great Falls Transit District Great Falls MT Greater Bridgeport Transit Bridgeport CT Greene County Transit Board Xenia OH

47 AGENCY CITY STATE GRTC Transit System Richmond VA Hernando County MPO Brooksville FL Indian River MPO Vero Beach FL King County Dept. of Transportation/Metro Transit Division Seattle WA KIPDA Louisville KY Knoxville Area Transit Knoxville TN Kokomo/Howard County Governmental Coordinating Council Kokomo IN Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Org. Spokane WA La Crosse Area Planning Committee La Crosse WI Lafayette, Louisiana MPO Lafayette LA Lane Transit District Eugene OR Lee County Transit Fort Myers FL Lee–Russell Council of Governments Opelika AL Lima Allen County RPC Lima OH Lincoln–Lancaster County Planning Dept. (also MPO) Lincoln NE Long Island Rail Road Jamaica NY Longview Transit Longview TX Los Angeles County MTA (Metro) Los Angeles CA Loudoun County Transit Leesburg VA Madera County Transportation Commission Madera CA Mass Transportation Authority Flint MI McLean County Regional Planning Commission Bloomington IL Memphis/Shelby County Dept. of Regional Services Memphis TN METRA Transit System Columbus GA Metro Los Angeles CA METRO—Valley Metro/RPTA Phoenix AZ Metro–North Railroad New York NY METROPLAN ORLANDO Orlando FL Metropolitan Area Planning Agency Omaha NE Metropolitan Council St. Paul MN Metropolitan Transit Authority Nashville TN Miami County Public Transit Troy OH Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Dayton OH Miami–Dade MPO Miami FL Michiana Area Council of Governments South Bend IN Midland Odessa Urban Transit District Odessa TX Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Columbus OH Milwaukee County Transit System Milwaukee WI Monterey–Salinas Transit Monterey CA Montgomery County Division of Transit Services Rockville MD MOTOR MPO Midland TX Mount Carmel Borough/LATS Mount Carmel PA Mountain Line Transit Authority Morgantown WV Mountainland MPO Orem UT

48 AGENCY CITY STATE MTA Metro–North New York NY Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage AK NAIPTA Flagstaff AZ Nashville MTA Nashville TN New Castle Area Transit Authority New Castle PA Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Buffalo NY NIRCC Fort Wayne IN North Florida Transportation Planning Organization Jacksonville FL Opportunity Enterprises Valparaiso IN Orange County Transportation Authority Orange CA Pace Arlington Heights IL Palm Beach MPO West Palm Beach FL Palm Tran West Palm Beach FL PARTA Kent OH PCACS Valparaiso IN Petaluma Transit Petaluma CA Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG) Colorado Springs CO Pima Assoc. of Governments Tucson AZ Port Authority of Allegheny County Pittsburgh PA Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Jersey City NJ Portland Streetcar, Inc. Portland OR Razorback Transit Fayetteville AR Red Rose Transit Authority Lancaster PA Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Las Vegas NV Richland County Transit Mansfield OH Rock Hill–Fort Mill Area Transportation Study (RFATS) Rock Hill SC Rock Island County Metro Transit District Moline IL Rockford Metropolitan Agency for Planning Rockford IL Rogue Valley Council of Governments Central Point OR Rogue Valley Transportation District Medford OR Rome-Floyd Co. Planning Department Rome GA RTC Vancouver WA Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Services (STARS) Saginaw MI Salem–Keizer Transit Salem OR San Antonio–Bexar County MPO San Antonio TX San Diego Metropolitan Transit System San Diego CA San Luis Obispo Council of Governments San Luis Obispo CA San Mateo County Transit District San Carlos CA Santa Barbara County Assoc. of Governments Santa Barbara CA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority San Jose CA Sarasota/Manatee MPO Sarasota FL Savannah MPO Savannah GA Savannah MPO and Chatham Area Transit Authority Savannah GA SCAG Los Angeles CA

49 AGENCY CITY STATE SEMCOG Detroit MI Senior Services of Snohomish County Mukilteo WA SEPTA Philadelphia PA Shasta County Regional Transportation Planning Agency Redding CA Southwestern Pennsylvania Planning Commission Pittsburgh PA St. Cloud Area Planning Organization St. Cloud MN St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners St Augustine FL St. Johns County Council on Aging, Inc. St. Augustine FL St. Lucie TPO Fort Pierce FL Star Tran/Public Works & Utilities Department Lincoln NE StarMetro Tallahassee FL Stateline Area Transportation Study Beloit WI Sun Cities Area Transit System, Inc. Peoria AZ Texarkana Urban Transit District Texarkana TX THERTA Worcester MA Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority Toledo OH Toledo Metro Area Council of Governments (MPO) Toledo OH Triangle Transit RTP NC TriMet Portland OR UNC–Charlotte Charlotte NC Union City Transit Union City CA Unitrans/UC Davis Davis CA University of Michigan—Parking & Transportation Services Ann Arbor MI Venango County Transportation Franklin PA Virginia Railway Express Alexandria VA VVTA Hesperia CA Warren County Transit Authority Warren PA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Washington DC Wave Transit Wilmington NC Wenatchee Valley Transportation Council Wenatchee WA Western Contra Costa Transit Pinole CA Western Piedmont COG Hickory NC Westmoreland County Transit Authority Greensburg PA Whatcom Transportation Authority Bellingham WA Wilmington Area Planning Council (MPO) Newark DE Yolo County Transportation District Woodland CA Yuba–Sutter Transit Marysville CA

50 APPENDIx C RESPONSES TO MULTIPLE CHOICE qUESTIONS 1. HAS YOUR AGENCY INCLUDED A CITIZEN/COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUP OR OTHER ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRIMARILY COMPRISED OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN A PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM TO SUPPORT TRANSIT PLANNING OR OPERATIONS IN THE PAST THREE YEARS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 83.2% 193 No 16.8% 39 answered question 232 skipped question 1 2. WHY DOES YOUR AGENCY CHOOSE NOT TO INVOLVE ADVISORY COMMITTEES (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count We are not planning capital improvements or making operational changes that require public involvement 50.0% 10 Advisory committees are ineffective 20.0% 4 Advisory committees are expensive or time consuming to implement 5.0% 1 Advisory committee members expect to have decision-making authority 20.0% 4 Community members are not interested in serving on advisory committees 35.0% 7 Other public involvement methods are more effective 55.0% 11 Agency has had negative experiences with advisory committees in the past 10.0% 2 Other (please specify) 14 answered question 20 skipped question 213 3. WHAT KINDS OF TRANSIT PROJECTS OR PROGRAMS HAVE YOUR AGENCY INVOLVED ADVISORY COMMITTEES IN DURING THE PAST THREE YEARS (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count General agency operations 56.2% 104 Major capital project (e.g., new light rail line, park-and-ride development) 40.0% 74 Planning for service changes 55.7% 103 Standing committee on a specific operational issue (e.g., ADA service, budget oversight) 42.7% 79 Other (please specify) 30.3% 56 answered question 185 skipped question 48

51 4. WHAT TYPE OF COMMITTEE ARE YOU REPORTING ON WITH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE: YOU MAY COMPLETE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONNAIRES TO REPORT ON OTHER COMMITTEE TYPES)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Standing committee on general agency operations 44.5% 81 Major capital project (e.g., new light rail line, park-and-ride development) 14.3% 26 Planning for service changes 15.4% 28 Standing committee on a specific operational issue (e.g., ADA service, budget over- sight, etc.) 15.4% 28 Other (please specify) 22.5% 41 answered question 182 skipped question 51 5. IF THE COMMITTEE IS A STANDING COMMITTEE, HOW LONG ARE MEMBERS’ APPOINTMENTS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Less than 1 year 0.0% 0 1–2 years 22.1% 40 3–4 years 18.2% 33 Longer than 4 years 2.2% 4 Indeterminate 31.5% 57 Not a standing committee 26.0% 47 answered question 181 skipped question 52 6. IN GENERAL, HOW EFFECTIVE HAS YOUR AGENCY FOUND ADVISORY COMMITTEES TO BE? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Very effective 34.2% 63 Somewhat effective 49.5% 91 Neutral 9.2% 17 Somewhat ineffective 5.4% 10 Very ineffective 1.6% 3 answered question 184 skipped question 49 7. HOW WERE MEMBERS SELECTED (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Open, advertised application process 31.4% 55 Agency invited specific community organizations to appoint members 42.9% 75 Agency invited local jurisdictions or other partners to appoint members 38.9% 68 Agency invited specific individuals to participate 40.0% 70 Other (please specify) 21.1% 37 answered question 175 skipped question 58

52 8. WHO DID COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPRESENT? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Own viewpoints (at-large members) 45.5% 80 A geographic area 36.4% 64 Neighborhood association 18.8% 33 Community, business or civic organization 55.1% 97 Interest not representing a formal organization (e.g., commuters, freight) 26.7% 47 Other (please specify) 26.7% 47 answered question 176 skipped question 57 9. DID COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPRESENT MORE THAN ONE VIEWPOINT OR ORGANIZATION? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 51.4% 90 No 40.6% 71 Not applicable 8.0% 14 If yes, how did the committee member acknowledge his/her various roles? 51 answered question 175 skipped question 58 10. DID THE COMMITTEE INCLUDE ELECTED OFFICIALS OR AGENCY STAFF MEMBERS IN ADDITION TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Elected officials 35.9% 61 Agency or jurisdictional staff 60.6% 103 Only community members 45.3% 77 If the committee was comprised of a mix of community members and elected officials or agency staff, what benefits and drawbacks do you think this approach had? 92 answered question 170 skipped question 63 11. IF ELECTED OFFICIALS SERVED ON THE COMMITTEE, WHAT WAS THEIR ROLE (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Participant 34.8% 54 Observer or non-voting member 5.2% 8 Chair 9.7% 15 Not applicable 55.5% 86 Other (please specify) 1.9% 3 answered question 155 skipped question 78

53 12. IF THE COMMITTEE INCLUDED AGENCY STAFF OR ELECTED OFFICIALS, DID ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS PARTICIPATE IN DECISION MAKING? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count All members participated in decision making 50.0% 84 Only community members participated in decision making 11.9% 20 Committee did not make decisions or recommendations 3.0% 5 Not applicable 31.0% 52 Other (please specify) 4.2% 7 answered question 168 skipped question 65 13. DID YOUR AGENCY IDENTIFY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WITH THE PURPOSE OF INCLUDING ALL LIKELY VIEWPOINTS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes, we tried to include all likely viewpoints 75.4% 129 No, we did not consider members’ viewpoints in forming the committee 10.5% 18 Not applicable 14.0% 24 answered question 171 skipped question 62 14. DID COMMITTEE REFLECT THE COMMUNITY’S OR PROJECT AREA’S DIVERSITY (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Ethnic 43.7% 76 Geographic 67.2% 117 Not applicable 15.5% 27 Other (please specify) 32.8% 57 answered question 174 skipped question 59 15. DID THE COMMITTEE INCLUDE MEMBERS WHO REQUIRED SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS (E.G., TRANSLATION SERVICES)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 52.6% 91 No 47.4% 82 How did you accommodate members who required special accommodations? 94 answered question 173 skipped question 60 16. DID THE COMMITTEE INCLUDE MEMBERS WHO HAD LIMITED EXPERIENCE INTERACTING WITH GOVERNMENT OR SERVING ON ADVISORY COMMITTEES? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 76.6% 134 No 23.4% 41 If so, how did you educate these members about how to fulfill their role? 101 answered question 175 skipped question 58

54 17. HOW MANY MEMBERS DID THE COMMITTEE INCLUDE? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Less than 10 26.3% 46 10–15 37.1% 65 16–20 16.0% 28 21–25 8.0% 14 More than 25 12.6% 22 answered question 175 skipped question 58 18. DID THE COMMITTEE AGREE TO GROUND RULES OR PROTOCOLS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 77.6% 132 No 22.4% 38 answered question 170 skipped question 63 19. WHAT TOPICS DID THE GROUND RULES AND PROTOCOLS INCLUDE? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Committee member responsibilities 64.8% 105 Meeting guidelines 64.8% 105 Internal communication 32.1% 52 External communication 27.8% 45 Decision-making process 52.5% 85 Decision-making quorum 40.7% 66 Dispute resolution 16.0% 26 Not applicable 13.6% 22 Other (please specify) 20.4% 33 answered question 162 skipped question 71 20. WERE THE PROTOCOLS GENERALLY ENFORCED OR FOLLOWED BY GROUP MEMBERS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 75.6% 124 No 1.2% 2 Sometimes 7.3% 12 Not applicable 15.9% 26 answered question 164 skipped question 69

55 21. HOW MANY TIMES DID THE COMMITTEE MEET? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Fewer than five times 14.1% 24 Five to eight times 13.5% 23 Nine to twelve times 8.8% 15 More than twelve times 2.9% 5 On-going, permanent committee 51.2% 87 Other (please specify) 9.4% 16 answered question 170 skipped question 63 22. DID THE COMMITTEE MEET ACCORDING TO A REGULAR SCHEDULE OR ACCORDING TO PROJECT OR PROGRAM MILESTONES? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count According to milestones 21.8% 37 Regularly recurring schedule 67.6% 115 Other (please specify) 10.6% 18 answered question 170 skipped question 63 23. IF THE COMMITTEE MET ON A REGULAR SCHEDULE, WHAT WAS THE FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Weekly 1.3% 2 Monthly 44.7% 71 Quarterly 17.6% 28 Not applicable 16.4% 26 Other (please specify) 20.1% 32 answered question 159 skipped question 74 24. HOW LONG WERE MEETINGS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count 1 hour 24.3% 41 2 hours 73.4% 124 3 hours 2.4% 4 Longer than 3 hours 0.0% 0 answered question 169 skipped question 64

56 25. HOW DID YOU COMMUNICATE WITH THE COMMITTEE BETWEEN MEETINGS (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Phone 59.4% 101 E-mail 91.2% 155 Individual meetings 17.1% 29 Mail 51.8% 88 Did not communicate between meetings 3.5% 6 Other (please specify) 8.2% 14 answered question 170 skipped question 63 26. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT, DID THE AGENCY PLAN TOPICS FOR ALL OR MOST OF THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS (EVEN IF THEY CHANGED AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSED)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 72.5% 121 No 27.5% 46 answered question 167 skipped question 66 27. DID THE COMMITTEE HAVE A CHAIRPERSON? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 72.4% 123 No 27.6% 47 answered question 170 skipped question 63 28. HOW WAS THE CHAIRPERSON SELECTED? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Selected by agency 16.4% 20 Selected by committee members 75.4% 92 Committee did not have a chair 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 8.2% 10 answered question 122 skipped question 111 29. PLEASE SELECT ALL OF THE CHAIRPERSON’S RESPONSIBILITIES: Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Assistance in agenda setting 78.9% 97 Meeting management 96.7% 119 External spokesperson 50.4% 62 Media spokesperson 21.1% 26 Not applicable 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 8.1% 10 answered question 123 skipped question 110

57 30. WHO FACILITATED COMMITTEE MEETINGS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Elected official 3.5% 6 Staff member 70.0% 119 Consultant 7.1% 12 Not facilitated 7.1% 12 Other (please specify) 20.0% 34 answered question 170 skipped question 63 31. IF THE COMMITTEE WAS FACILITATED BY A STAFF MEMBER OR CONSULTANT, DID THE FACILITATOR HAVE SPECIFIC EXPERTISE IN COMMITTEE FACILITATION? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 50.6% 85 No 22.6% 38 Not applicable 19.0% 32 Unsure 7.7% 13 answered question 168 skipped question 65 32. HOW EFFECTIVE WAS THE FACILITATOR? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Very effective 49.4% 82 Somewhat effective 24.7% 41 Neutral/don’t know 9.6% 16 Somewhat ineffective 1.2% 2 Very ineffective 0.0% 0 Not applicable 15.1% 25 answered question 166 skipped question 67 33. WHO DEVELOPED MEETING AGENDAS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Agency/consultant developed agendas 35.3% 60 Agency/consultant developed agendas in consultation with chairperson 25.3% 43 Agency/consultant developed agendas in consultation with committee 14.1% 24 Committee developed agendas 12.9% 22 Not applicable 1.2% 2 Other (please specify) 11.2% 19 answered question 170 skipped question 63

58 34. WAS THE COMMITTEE ASSIGNED A SPECIFIC CHARGE BY THE AGENCY? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 50.3% 82 No 49.7% 81 answered question 163 skipped question 70 35. IF THE COMMITTEE HAD A CHARGE, WHO ASSIGNED IT? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Board of Directors 19.1% 29 Other policy-making body 7.2% 11 Staff 15.1% 23 Committee did not have a charge 2.6% 4 Not applicable 36.8% 56 Other (please specify) 19.1% 29 answered question 152 skipped question 81 36. WAS THIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S ROLE SPECIFIED IN YOUR AGENCY’S CHARTER, POLICIES OR BYLAWS, OR WAS THE COMMITTEE FORMED IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC AGENCY OR PROJECT NEED ON AN AD-HOC BASIS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Role specified 38.8% 64 Ad-hoc basis 34.5% 57 Not applicable 15.2% 25 Other (please specify) 11.5% 19 answered question 165 skipped question 68 37. WHAT FUNCTIONS DID THE COMMITTEE FULFILL (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Sharing information with community members 72.7% 120 Gathering information from community members to share with agency 74.5% 123 Acting as spokesperson (e.g., speaking engagements, media contacts) 15.8% 26 Providing input 91.5% 151 Developing recommendations 86.7% 143 Making decisions 23.6% 39 Other (please specify) 12 answered question 165 skipped question 68

59 38. HOW DID COMMITTEE MEMBERS INTERACT WITH THE MEDIA? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count The media did not contact committee members 47.6% 79 A committee spokesperson represented the group 5.4% 9 An agency spokesperson represented the group 10.2% 17 All committee members were free to speak with the media 21.7% 36 Other (please specify) 15.1% 25 answered question 166 skipped question 67 39. WAS THIS MEDIA PROTOCOL AGREED UPON AHEAD OF TIME? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 25.2% 41 No 27.6% 45 Not applicable 47.2% 77 answered question 163 skipped question 70 40. DID THE COMMITTEE ACCEPT COMMENT FROM PUBLIC OBSERVERS AT MEETINGS (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Verbal comment 83.5% 137 Written comment 63.4% 104 Public comment was not accepted 7.9% 13 Other (please specify) 15.2% 25 answered question 164 skipped question 69 41. HOW MUCH OF A TYPICAL COMMITTEE MEETING CONSISTED OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES (PLEASE ESTIMATE, ANSWERS DO NOT NEED TO TOTAL 100%)? Answer Options Less than 10% 10–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–100% Response Count Presentations from staff or consultants 11 39 65 40 7 162 Question and answer periods or discussion 2 69 65 16 10 162 Presentations from committee members 71 47 11 3 2 134 Public comment 94 29 9 3 1 136 What other activities did committee meetings include? 24 answered question 164 skipped question 69

60 42. WHAT WAS THE COMMITTEE’S HIGHEST LEVEL OF AUTHORITY? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Community liaison 1.2% 2 Individual input/sounding board 11.0% 18 Advice/recommendations 76.7% 125 Decisions 8.6% 14 Other (please specify) 2.5% 4 answered question 163 skipped question 70 43. WHAT KINDS OF DECISIONS OR MILESTONES WERE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ASKED TO PROVIDE INPUT ABOUT (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Issues related to project scope, schedule or budget 48.8% 79 Issues related to public involvement or outreach 62.3% 101 Evaluation framework or criteria 34.0% 55 Technical issues (e.g., design, alignment, alternatives) 56.2% 91 Policy issues 61.1% 99 Not applicable 1.2% 2 Other (please specify) 12.3% 20 answered question 162 skipped question 71 44. TO WHOM DID THE COMMITTEE PRIMARILY PROVIDE INPUT? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Agency board of directors, councilor or other policy makers 48.5% 79 Multi-agency policy committee or steering committee 15.3% 25 Executive-level management 36.8% 60 Program or project managers 33.7% 55 The committee did not provide input 0.6% 1 Not applicable 0.6% 1 Other (please specify) 9.2% 15 answered question 163 skipped question 70 45. HOW WERE MINORITY VIEWPOINTS CAPTURED (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count In meeting notes 69.8% 113 In a minority report 3.7% 6 In verbal reports 23.5% 38 Not captured 3.7% 6 Not applicable 17.3% 28 Other (please specify) 6.2% 10 answered question 162 skipped question 71

61 46. HOW WAS COMMITTEE INPUT COMMUNICATED (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Written reports by staff 55.6% 90 Verbal reports by staff 40.7% 66 Verbal reports by committee member 27.8% 45 Written report by committee member 17.3% 28 Meeting minutes 72.2% 117 Individual written letters or statements from committee members 20.4% 33 Not applicable 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 8.0% 13 answered question 162 skipped question 71 47. IF THE COMMITTEE’S INPUT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE FINAL DECISION, HOW WAS THIS EXPLAINED AND COMMUNICATED TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Not applicable 58.1% 90 Not explained or communicated 1.9% 3 Explained by email or in writing 3.2% 5 Explained in committee meeting 31.6% 49 Other (please specify) 5.2% 8 answered question 155 skipped question 78 48. HOW DID THE GROUP MAKE DECISIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Consensus or modified consensus 48.8% 80 Majority voting 38.4% 63 Did not make group decisions or recommendations 7.9% 13 Other (please specify) 4.9% 8 answered question 164 skipped question 69 49. HOW WAS CONSENSUS DEFINED BY THE COMMITTEE? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count 100% agreement and support 3.8% 3 100% willing to accept the outcome as best for the group as a whole 39.2% 31 50% support 0.0% 0 Some other level of support between 50% and 100% 22.8% 18 Consensus was not defined 30.4% 24 Other definition of consensus was used 3.8% 3 answered question 79 skipped question 154

62 50. IF COMMITTEE MEMBERS COULD NOT REACH CONSENSUS, HOW DID THE GROUP MOVE FORWARD (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Tabled discussion until more information was available 35.4% 28 Continued discussions in the hope of reaching a compromise 38.0% 30 Asked minority opinion holders what changes would be required to gain their support 13.9% 11 Voted and noted majority and minority viewpoints 12.7% 10 Designated a sub-committee to develop more options for the committee’s consideration 7.6% 6 Designated a sub-committee to resolve issue 5.1% 4 Not applicable 38.0% 30 Other (please specify) 6.3% 5 answered question 79 skipped question 154 51. WERE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ASKED ABOUT THE COMMITTEE’S EFFECTIVENESS AND THEIR SATISFACTION WITH PARTICIPATION DURING THE PROCESS (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes—through a written questionnaire 7.9% 13 Yes—through individual interviews or phone calls 9.7% 16 Yes—during a meeting 37.0% 61 No 52.1% 86 answered question 165 skipped question 68 52. WERE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ASKED ABOUT THE COMMITTEE’S EFFECTIVENESS AND THEIR SATISFACTION WITH PARTICIPATION AT THE END OF THE PROCESS (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes—through a written questionnaire 9.4% 15 Yes—through individual interviews or phone calls 9.4% 15 Yes—during a meeting 30.8% 49 No 56.6% 90 answered question 159 skipped question 74 53. WERE INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS EVALUATED (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes—through a written questionnaire 4.9% 8 Yes—through individual interviews or phone calls 6.2% 10 Yes—during a meeting 14.2% 23 No 79.6% 129 answered question 162 skipped question 71

63 54. WERE COMMITTEE MEETINGS OR OTHER PRACTICES CHANGED BASED ON FEEDBACK? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 46.3% 76 No 18.9% 31 Not applicable 34.8% 57 Please explain 52 answered question 164 skipped question 69 55. DID THE AGENCY EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CAC IN REACHING AGENCY GOALS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Yes 25.9% 42 No 74.1% 120 If yes, how was the evaluation done? 30 answered question 162 skipped question 71 56. HOW MANY STAFF OR CONSULTANTS GENERALLY ATTENDED COMMITTEE MEETINGS? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count 1 10.9% 18 2–4 70.9% 117 5–7 11.5% 19 More than 7 6.7% 11 answered question 165 skipped question 68 57. HOW MANY HOURS DID STAFF OR CONSULTANTS GENERALLY SPEND PREPARING FOR, CONDUCTING AND FOLLOWING UP FROM EACH MEETING? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count 0–5 hours 40.2% 66 5–10 hours 32.3% 53 10–15 hours 14.0% 23 More than 15 hours 13.4% 22 answered question 164 skipped question 69 58. HOW WERE MEETINGS DOCUMENTED OR RECORDED? Answer Options Response Frequency Response Count Meeting minutes or summaries prepared by staff person or consultant 84.2% 139 Meeting minutes or summaries prepared by a committee member 9.7% 16 Meeting minutes or summaries were not prepared 2.4% 4 Other (please specify) 3.6% 6 answered question 165 skipped question 68

need SPine Width TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE* CHAIR ANN AUGUST Santee Wateree Regional Transportation Authority MEMBERS JOHN BARTOSIEWICZ McDonald Transit Associates MICHAEL BLAYLOCK Jacksonville Transportation Authority LINDA J. BOHLINGER HNTB Corp. RAUL BRAVO Raul V. Bravo & Associates JOHN B. CATOE, JR. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority GREGORY COOK Veolia Transportation TERRY GARCIA CREWS StarTran KIM R. GREEN GFI GENFARE ANGELA IANNUZZIELLO ENTRA Consultants JOHN INGLISH Utah Transit Authority JEANNE W. KRIEG Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority JONATHAN H. MCDONALD Stantec Consulting GARY W. MCNEIL GO Transit MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY Motor Coach Industries FRANK OTERO PACO Technologies KEITH PARKER VIA Metropolitan Transit PETER ROGOFF FTA JEFFREY ROSENBERG Amalgamated Transit Union RICHARD SARLES New Jersey Transit Corporation MICHAEL SCANLON San Mateo County Transit District BEVERLY SCOTT Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority JAMES STEM United Transportation Union FRANK TOBEY First Transit MATTHEW O. TUCKER North County Transit District PAM WARD Ottumwa Transit Authority ALICE WIGGINS-TOLBERT Parsons Brinckerhoff EX OFFICIO MEMBERS WILLIAM W. MILLAR APTA ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR. TRB JOHN C. HORSLEY AASHTO VICTOR MENDEZ FHWA TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LOUIS SANDERS APTA SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS TRB *Membership as of February 2010.*Membership as of June 2009. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Vice Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. BARRY BARKER, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY ALLEN D. BIEHLER, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg LARRY L. BROWN, SR., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA WILLIAM A.V. CLARK, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles NICHOLAS J. GARBER, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, and Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Virginia, Charlottesville JEFFREY W. HAMIEL, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN EDWARD A. (NED) HELME, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC RANDELL H. IWASAKI, Director, California DOT, Sacramento ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley SUSAN MARTINOVICH, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City DEBRA L. MILLER, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka PETE K. RAHN, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City SANDRA ROSENBLOOM, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson TRACY L. ROSSER, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA STEVEN T. SCALZO, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO BEVERLY A. SCOTT, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GA DAVID SELTZER, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA DANIEL SPERLING, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis DOUGLAS W. STOTLAR, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin EX OFFICIO MEMBERS THAD ALLEN (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC PETER H. APPEL, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC ANNE S. FERRO, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LEROY GISHI, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC DAVID T. MATSUDA, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT VICTOR M. MENDEZ, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT PETER M. ROGOFF, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT DAVID L. STRICKLAND, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT JOSEPH C. SZABO, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT POLLY TROTTENBERG, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA Air Transport Association ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation TRANSPO TATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS CHAIR: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Profess r of Civil Engineering, University California, Berkeley VICE CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Edward . (Ned) Helme, President, Center fo Cl an Air Policy, Washington, DC Randell H. Iwasaki, Director, California DOT, Sacramento Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA Rosa Clausell Rountree, CEO–General Manager, Transroute International Canada Services, Inc., Pitt Meadows, BC Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO C. Michael Walt n, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair i Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNX–Central Florida Regional Transportat on Authority, Orlando Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC James E. Caponiti, Acting Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT Cynthia Douglass, Acting Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC Edward R. Hambe ger, President and CEO, Association of Amer can Railroads, Washington, DC John C. Horsley, Executive Di ector, Ame ican Associ tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC Rose A. McMurry, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Ronald Medford, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC ACRP OVERSIGH COMMITTEE* CHAIR James Wilding Independent Consultant VICE CHAIR Jeff Hamiel Minneapolis–St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission MEMBERS James Crites Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport Richard de Neufville assachusetts Institute of Technology Kevin C. Dolliole Unison Consulting John K. Duval Beverly Municipal Airport Kitty Freidheim Freidheim Consulting Steve Grossman Jacksonville Aviation Authority Tom Jensen National Safe Skies Alliance Catherine M. Lang Federal Aviation Administration Gina Marie Lindsey Los Angeles World Airports Carolyn Motz Hagerstown Regional Airport Richard Tucker Huntsville International Airport EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Sabrina Johnson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Richard Marchi Airports Council International—North America Laura McKee Air Transport Association of America Henry Ogrodzinski National Association of State Aviation Officials Melissa Sabatine American Association of Airport Executives Robert E. Skinner, Jr. Transportation Research Board SECRETARY Christopher W. Jenks Transportation Research Board *Membe ship as of October 2009.*Membership as of October 2009. MASTERS

92+ pages; Perfect Bind with SPine COPY = 14 pts Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning and Operations TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMTCRP SYNTHESIS 85 TCR P Syn Th eSiS 85 effective Use of Citizen Advisory Com m ittees for Transit Planning and Operations need SPine Width Job no. XXXX Pantone 648 C TRAnSPORTATiOn ReSeARCh BOARD 500 F ifth S treet, n .W . W ashing to n, d .C . 20001 A D D R eSS SeR ViCe R eQ UeSTeD TRB A Synthesis of Transit Practice Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration

Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 85: Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning Operations examines the involvement of advisory committees in transit planning and operations by exploring the experiences from a few agencies in detail.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!