Techniques for Effective Highway Construction Projects in Congested Urban Areas (2011)

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.

Two areas relating to public involvement and the media were explored in the course of this study effort. The first, covered in this chapter, relates to how the agencies engaged their stakeholders and advanced the typical public involvement activities. The second area, dealing with media relations, is included in chapter seven. BACKGROUND Stakeholder issues and public involvement increasingly have become a major component of urban projects across the country. The United States has become a nation of instant com- munications, with the Internet, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other means for sharing information real time. Transporta- tion agencies serve a society whose expectations for accurate and timely information have never been higher. Although this societal trend is not unique to urban projects, the need for more and better communication appears higher than for their rural counterparts. This survey analyzed what activities trans- portation agencies undertook to most effectively address these needs. WHO SPEAKS FOR THE AGENCY The first series of questions focused on who spoke for the agencies during construction. Table 15 shows how they responded to whether or not they have a project-specific spokesperson or individual to speak to the public or media on an urban project. Based on agency responses, one-half reported that they do so “Always” or “Very Often.” Respondents indicated that when a project-specific person is not assigned, existing staff with other responsibilities such as those within a central community relations/media office typically handle these duties. The resident engineer who is onsite, but not solely dedicated to public involvement, may also manage handle such communications. Table 16 identifies the individual who speaks for the agency. The question asked, when a specific person was assigned, were they an in-house employee, or if agencies used consultants for complex urban corridor projects. In most cases, transportation agencies retain this particular “spokesperson” role on urban projects. Anecdotally, agencies appear to indicate a level of trust and confidence in their own employees versus having an 22 “outsider” speak on their behalf. However, 81% of the agencies did use private contractors for this role at least sometimes. BRANDING Sometimes urban projects take on a separate identity. Virtually everyone in the transportation industry has heard of T-REX in Colorado. Those in the Indianapolis area are familiar with Super 70 because of a major improvement to that corridor some years ago. I-15 in Utah, the first major DB project constructed by a state DOT, has also achieved a somewhat iconic status. Urban projects are often so big, with a huge impact on large populations of people, that they become part of life for the affected citizens over an extended period. In some cases, agencies have even branded their work through special logos. The I-64 improvements in St. Louis, completed in late 2009, are a good example of this. This successful project was branded by using the logo found in Figure 14. Utah also adopted a project logo for a number of its urban projects. The ongoing expansion of I-15 in Utah County, costing in excess of $1 billion and resulting in a major expan- sion of this critical roadway over a three-year period, has been branded with the logo found in Figure 15. Surveyed agencies were asked if they specifically branded urban projects, with responses found in Figure 16. Although not uniform, the trend is to do something to identify large urban projects in ways that make them unique for communication purposes. INFORMATION STRATEGIES Keeping stakeholders informed throughout a project has become critical during complex urban work. It is a process that has evolved over time and demands sophisticated attention and effort. The challenge for agencies is not the decision to provide information but how best to do it and reach as many individ- uals as possible. During the I-15 Reconstruction Project in Salt Lake City in the late 1990s, the author determined that a 30-s television spot on the 10 p.m. news on the leading local station was discovered to be the most cost-effective way to get information to a large audience. It was more expensive than CHAPTER SIX STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

FIGURE 16 Percentage of individual projects “branded” for communication or other purposes (see Question 43). 23 FIGURE 14 I-64 project logo (St. Louis). FIGURE 15 I-15 core expansion logo (Utah). Does your agency assign a project specific individual to its urban corridor projects for the purpose of managing stakeholder issues or public/community involvement activities? Options for Answers % of State Response Never 4 Sometimes 35 Often 9 Very Often 17 Always 35 TABLE 15 PERCENT OF STATES WHO ASSIGN AN INDIVIDUAL TO MANAGE STAKEHOLDER ISSUES ON URBAN PROJECTS Options for Answers Is this person an agency employee? (% of state response) Is this person a private contractor? (% of state response 2) Never 0 13 Sometimes 32 64 Often 23 13 Very Often 27 5 Always 18 0 N/A 0 5 N/A = not available. TABLE 16 EMPLOYEE VERSUS PRIVATE CONTRACTOR TO MANAGE STAKEHOLDER ISSUES (IN REFERENCE TO QUESTION 40)

other methods, but the audience was substantially greater than that reached by any other tool; therefore, the “per impression” cost was very low compared with other strategies. This study solicited feedback concerning which information- sharing processes were most effective for large urban projects. Figure 17 shows how they responded, with additional com- ments in Table 17. Of note is the striking uniformity of the responses. This is reflected by the top four activities having at least a 90% rate among the agencies. Figure 18 then reflects on how these agencies felt about the effectiveness of various communication strategies used. The results presented in the figure illustrate the large array of com- munication methods with how agencies view effectiveness. Although few consider public newspaper notices as an effec- tive communications tool, legal requirements and tradition per- petuate this tool, which is employed by all agencies. Town hall meetings reflect how public comment has been sought since our nations’ early years and are a mainstay of many urban proj- 24 ect outreach programs. The second-most effective tool after town hall meetings is that which information stakeholders get from the agency website or a project-specific website. Addi- tional comments from agencies are listed in Table 18. Further examination of the data in both Figure 18 and Table 18 offers other insights. For example, even though there is strong correlation between the first six activities in terms of use, the first public notices in newspapers are seen as being very effective in the overall process of communicating with stakeholders. There may have been a time when this provided the best possible way to communicate with various interested parties to a project; however, agencies are now finding other means to be more effective. That they persist in dropping fliers on doorsteps is curious because this activity is not seen as useful. This perhaps represents an area for further research. TARGETING STAKEHOLDER GROUPS Those unfamiliar with urban corridor construction may not realize it but the list of stakeholders can be usually long. “Stakeholder,” when used in the context of complex urban FIGURE 17 Activities used to involve and inform stakeholder groups (see Question 44). Public hearings Illinois Have news conferences for individual projects Pennsylvania Transportation System Management (TSM) meetings Arizona Public announcements Illinois Mass text message notification Pennsylvania Metropolitan planning organizations have e-mail distribution about projects Pennsylvania TSM meetings include ADOT, local governments, contractors, media, DPS, and other interested agencies or groups. Arizona DPS = Department of Public Safety. TABLE 17 COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 44

Group Please check those groups which your agency has targeted mitigation strategies/plans for dealing with their concerns: (% of state response) Of these groups which are most important to deal with on your urban projects? (% of state response 2) Businesses 87 78 Residents 83 70 Travelers 61 9 Business deliveries 43 9 Truckers 61 4 Commuters 78 35 Elected officials 74 57 Recreationalists 22 0 Sports fans 52 4 Other 13 0 Owing to multiple choices percentages do not equal 100%. Focus groups, mass media Utah TSM meetings Arizona Public announcements Illinois Agency currently looking into social media as an outreach strategy Oregon TSM = transportation system management. 25 construction projects, identifies a wide array of groups and individuals. Each group often requires a specific message. When asked if they target specific stakeholder groups, the overwhelming majority of the agencies participating (89%) said they did. Table 19 explores further which groups were targeted for specific mitigation strategies. The questions asked for this area of the survey may be understood by context and correlation. The first question focused on targeted groups and indicated a “yes” or “no” response. Answers reflect the diversity of stakeholder groups agencies seek for communications purposes. The second question sought to assess which groups the agencies believe were most important to communicate with during a project. The majority of agencies focused on the following: • Businesses (78%) • Residents (70%) FIGURE 18 Activities found to be effective for involving and informing stakeholder groups (see Question 45). (Owing to multiple choices percentages do not equal 100%) TABLE 18 COMMENTS FOR QUESTION 45 TABLE 19 GROUPS STATE AGENCIES TARGET WITH MITIGATION STRATEGIES— WHICH GROUPS ARE MOST IMPORTANT

• Elected officials (57%) • Commuters or those using the corridor (35%). Communicating with stakeholders is a complex but essen- tial part of the delivery process for urban projects. Agencies employ a wide variety of strategies to reach out to an increas- ingly long list of stakeholders. Branding or some kind of unique identifier is used on most projects, with some focusing on the agency and others on a specific project. The list of com- 26 munication strategies offers a glimpse into the diversity of attempts to get the “message out” to the people affected by the project work. The agencies reflected a strong uniformity in the kinds of efforts they use to communicate with some tradi- tional means such as newspapers and fliers being joined by emerging strategies using the web-based communications. Of interest is that some activities or strategies are frequently used but not seen as being effective by the agencies. Why they per- sist in their use could be the subject of additional research.