Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 10
10 exposure as to how other state DOTs conducted 20. DOT and MPO respondents reported that they worked public involvement. MPO respondents said that their with a mixture of groups, including citizens' advisory staffs tended to come from other agencies and had committees, the community, elected officials, census broad experience. data, churches, nonprofit organizations, and Title VI 11. Within the DOTs, respondents reported that there coordinators to help them make decisions about how were very few staff members that were dedicated part to tailor public involvement to a specific group. time or full time to public involvement efforts, as 21. DOT respondents identified multiple ways to develop opposed to the MPOs who said they generally had a public involvement plan, whereas MPO respondents one or more full-time staff members dedicated to by and large followed their mandated Public Partici- public involvement. pation Plans and Environmental Justice/Title VI Plans. 12. Almost all of the DOT and MPO respondents reported that they used consultants. 13. Very few DOT or MPO respondents required their PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS (LEVEL OF consultants to be certified or prequalified to conduct EFFORT, EDUCATION, AND DOCUMENTATION) public involvement. 22. Most DOT and MPO respondents said that the scope of the project and the type of environmental docu- COST QUANTIFICATION ment most often determined the amount of effort that would be devoted to public involvement. 14. Almost all DOT and MPO respondents replied that 23. DOT and MPO respondents replied that they provided they had never quantified the costs of doing public education to the public at a variety of types of meet- involvement. Some said they had never been asked to ings, using visualizations, writing documents in "plain do this, others that they had not been able to do this, speak," posting information on the website, playing and still others noted they had not quantified the cost interactive games, publishing monthly newsletters, of doing public involvement. and going door-to-door and personally contacting 15. Almost all DOT and MPO respondents reported that people. Some respondents were beginning to use they had not allocated the cost of doing public involve- photographs and videos and placing visualizations on ment, did not know how these costs were allocated, did Flickr, Facebook, and YouTube. not allocate cost this way, or did not break out cost 24. Most DOT respondents noted they had access to allocations. some but not all of the manuals, policies, guidance, 16. Almost all DOT and MPO respondents said they did and plans related to community impact assessment, not know how public involvement costs were quanti- environmental justice, public involvement, and con- fied (percent of project cost, cost per person in the text-sensitive solutions. Most of the MPO respon- project area, or other). dents referred to their Environmental Justice/Title VI Plan, which may or may not have been a part of their PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS (SOCIAL/ Public Participation Plan, guidance on environmental COMMUNITY ISSUES, STUDIES, AND REPORTS) justice and limited English proficiency, and other compliance requirements. 17. DOT respondents replied that consultants or their own planners generally provided technical studies or reports that addressed social, economic, and commu- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS (GOALS) nity issues as part of an environmental document. MPO respondents stated that they prepared Environ- 25. Most DOT and MPO respondents reported that their mental Justice/Title VI and community background agency had public involvement goals that included reports, as well as periodic population and economic ensuring that all interested parties had an opportunity forecasts in house. to participate fully in the transportation decision- 18. A few DOT respondents mentioned they had formal making process, making the public aware and pro- processes on how to prepare a community impact viding an opportunity for meaningful involvement in assessment or equivalent for each specific project. the process, and involving as broad an audience as MPO respondents tended to continuously collect and possible. update socioeconomic information as part of their 26. Both the DOT and MPO respondents said that their ongoing forecasts. goals were developed by working groups, agency 19. DOT respondents said they identified various segments leaders, public affairs managers, elected officials, of the populations through their site assessments and citizen advisory committees, regional transportation during field visits, whereas MPO respondents stated committees, and through their Public Participation that they identify segments of the populations as part Plans. Some of the respondents had not been with their of their mandated Public Participation Plans, through agency when the goals were established and could the use of their citizens' advisory committees, and their not provide any insight into how these goals had been relationships with community-based organizations. developed or who developed them.