Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity (2014)

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.

45 General Strategies for Working Well with Others A number of successful practices were used in the case studies to bring partners and public stakeholders into the transporta- tion decision-making process and work with them effectively. These general practices are briefly summarized here. Recognize Interests Collaboration among decision-making partners and stake- holders has one essential commonality: involvement is based on what matters to each of them. Recognition of the interests of those outside the process is as important as understanding the mission and requirements of those directly responsible for the transportation system. The interests need not be com- mon to all, but individual interests must be acknowledged, respected, and included in the process. Have a Win-Win Orientation: Let Go of Positions In Oregon, the step-by-step structured decision-making pro- cess used for the I-5 Beltline Interchange environmental assessment (EA) emphasized the importance of clearly artic- ulating the range of stakeholder needs before identifying a solution. Oregon DOT worked with the business community group on an alternative that was designed to meet everyone’s needs to the greatest extent possible. This process encouraged participants to compromise. They were forced to explain how their needs were met by the eval- uation criteria. Moreover, the facilitated discussion did not move on to discuss potential solutions until the evaluation criteria were accepted. A win-win attitude was brought to the process. Thus, by the end, everyone’s needs were in line to be met. Use Skilled Facilitators Oregon DOT felt it got the “A-team of the consultants” on the I-5 Beltline Interchange project. The consultants were good at explaining technical information, facilitating, and moving the process along. Meetings and processes were very inclusive, and everyone was allowed to speak. Their facilitator did not allow technical experts to dominate the conversation but rather strongly encouraged everyone to participate in the discus- sion. At the same time, the facilitator kept people on track and kept the meetings on schedule. Meetings were well organized and the facilitator well prepared. Materials were provided in an easy-to-understand format. Agendas were prepared ahead of time and everyone knew the topic for discussion and the deci- sion that had to be made at each meeting. In the Texas Kelly Parkway study, Texas DOT made clear that its use of a facilitator with knowledge of the local com- munity and the environmental justice issues that had arisen was essential to the project. Had it not been for the facilitator, the ability to identify local project champions would have been unrealized. Be Inclusive Idaho’s Transportation Vision 2033 project team invited local governments, businesses, university representatives, tribes, and a variety of community organizations to participate in its process. In turn, over 750 people participated in a series of regional and statewide workshops. In the Texas Kelly Parkway case, the team initiated an extensive public involvement program at the beginning of the project and directed its funding to establish personal contact with the community. The team created a neighborhood proj- ect office that was convenient and accessible. It started four advisory committees. Team members met with community members one-on-one. They attended career days at the local middle school and picked up trash through the neighborhood a p p e n D I x a General Strategies from the Case Studies for Working Well with Agencies and the Public

46 figure within the local Hispanic community, his opinions had considerable weight. In almost half of the cases studied, champions were identified outside of the formal structure of the project such as this. Gain Political Support As important as it is to have a project champion, it is equally important to have an influential one—namely, one who can lend political support. Politicians play a vital role in the pro- gramming and budgeting process and can play both prob- lematic and helpful roles. In addition to providing a public perspective on investment prioritization, local and state elected officials, appointees, and transportation commission mem- bers have significant influence over the overall transportation budget. In a number of cases, political leaders were key cham- pions for projects and critical to the amount of support the project received. For example, the I-5 Beltline Interchange project in Oregon was advanced, in part, by the involvement of a local commu- nity group, United Front, which lobbied for the project, thus ensuring funding for the study and design in the Transpor- tation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Further- more, a local congressman was a ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastruc- ture Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipelines. He supported the inclusion of $20 million for the construction of the interchange in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005. In the US-24 New Haven, Indiana, to Defiance, Ohio, project, the Fort to Port Organization was a major project champion. This organization formed after an Indiana state representative called a meeting to address safety concerns along the corridor. The representative invited Ohio legislators, local mayors, county commissioners, and other local elected officials. Also invited were chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, regional planning organizations, and interested citizens. The various stake holders coalesced to form the Fort to Port Organization. The group gained momentum, engaged other citizens, businesses, trucking orga- nizations, economic development planners, and others across the corridor, and became a significant driving force to move the project forward. Similarly, in both the Utah I-15 NOW project and the Maricopa Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) project, the respective state legislatures closely monitored the project and provided influential support. In Utah, the legislature saw the need for the project and pushed it into the planning process. It wanted I-15 NOW done quickly and efficiently, repeatedly funding the work. In Arizona, transportation plan- ning in Maricopa County had always been highly politicized, on weekends. Moreover, Texas DOT picked its consultant strategically and developed a good team with a combination of local people who had insight into the community, as well as those who brought insight and expertise to the process. Identify Leaders and Project Champions Having effective leadership and project champions was key to many of the case studies examined. A variety of leaders, ranging from citizen advocacy groups to elected officials, stepped forward and either initiated projects or propelled them forward at critical junctures. These project champions not only brought energy and excitement to a project, but typically, they brought the author- ity to commit their entire agency to a particular course of action. For instance, in Idaho’s Transportation Vision 2033 study, the state transportation director not only provided the initial motivation to create a statewide vision, he shepherded it through its various development stages. Similarly, in many of the case studies examined, project champions helped convince others that the mutual gain they would enjoy outweighed the costs associated with their effort. Acknowledge Common Purpose, Motivation, and Needs One of the project champion’s most important roles is iden- tifying and acknowledging common purpose, motivation, and the needs of project participants. He or she raises aware- ness of these elements and obtains commitment to what might be accomplished together. Project champions often enunciate the purpose of the collaboration and clarify how progress will be measured in terms understandable to those involved. They build trust among participants; and they evaluate what each participant brings to the collaboration and whether the contribution is sufficient to achieve the desired goals. For instance, in the Colorado STEP UP project, the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiated attempts to integrate land- use, environmental resource protection, and transportation planning. For both the US-131 S-curve replacement project and the New Jersey Route 31 project, it was elected officials that provided initial impetus for the project. In the Texas Kelly Parkway study, a local community and religious leader emerged. He championed the project by identifying commonalities his community held with the state DOT. As soon as he supported the project, community rela- tions improved. He talked with community members to help them see the benefits of Kelly Parkway, such as economic devel- opment, increased connectivity, and opportunities for beauti- fication of the community. As a highly respected authority

47 General Strategies for Working with Decision-Making partners The primary decision-making partnership in transportation is between U.S. DOT, state DOTs, metropolitan planning orga- nizations (MPOs), and the resource agencies that grant per- mits. Each of these entities has a mandated role to play when any capacity improvement is realized using federal funds. U.S. DOT guidance documents have supported a collaborative effort between these groups for many years. State DOTs have wrestled with various avenues to achieve buy-in from both partners and stakeholders on major investment studies, pre–transportation improvement program (TIP) efforts, and phased environmental studies to name a few. Consultation with state and local agencies responsible for land-use management, natural resources, environmental pro- tection, conservation, and historic preservation is now man- dated in SAFETEA-LU. Federal and state resource agencies are eager to act as early as possible to protect the human and natural environment from potentially harmful decisions made regarding transportation improvements. Many of the case studies noted successful strategies for bringing partners into the transportation decision-making process. Fund Liaison Positions at Resource Agencies Resource agencies continue to experience demands on staff to respond to the public and stakeholders as well as to ensure the protection of the natural and human environment as trans- portation projects are planned, funded, and designed. The early and ongoing involvement of these agencies is so essential that many state DOTs provide funding for staff positions within the agencies to ensure their participation in decision making for transportation improvement projects. Conduct Field Trips The involvement of resource agencies was not particularly innovative or high-tech in the corridor study for Colorado US-285. It simply involved field trips. The consultant team arranged for representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), EPA, the state historic preservation office (SHPO), and Colorado DOT to visit specific locations together to discuss potential solutions. Consensus solutions evolved from there. The wetlands biologist had the SHPO representative looking over his shoulder, so each knew why he had to budge one way or the other. We were able to chat about whether resources might be [significant] or not. The designers had 12-foot under- passes for the elk migrations, which impacted wetlands, but the Corps guys agreed it was the best trade-off and the wildlife underpasses should be built. with heavy involvement from both the state legislature and governors. This trend continued during development of the Maricopa RTP. In the Washington I-405 corridor study, the project was supported by an executive committee made up of local elected officials. The executive committee members focused on what they believed to be reasonable alternatives consistent with local land-use planning, which also helped get through the process in a timely manner. The executive committee took ownership of the decisions, and its members became advo- cates for the selected alternative. In turn, it publicly supported the project in front of regional constituents, the Washington State Legislature, and the Office of the Governor. Partner with the Business Community Case studies indicated that numerous leaders and project champions are found in the business community. In Arizona’s Maricopa RTP development, involvement of the business community was essential to the success of the transportation plan and area tax increase. Business leaders served as liaisons between the Maricopa County Association of Governments (MAG), area lawmakers, and the public. They were the glue that held the collaborative framework together. Representing diverse transportation, land-use, and business development interests, business leaders were the key to the success of local taxing initiatives. They demonstrated a strong respect for the technical ability of the MAG staff, the planning process, and the criteria used to establish transpor- tation needs. Their official public leadership role on MAG task forces provided credibility to decision making and inhib- ited alliances toward special interests. In addition, the business community had the ability to act outside of the constraints of elected officials to assess public interests and support for different plan structures. During development of the Maricopa RTP, the business community took polls and other measures to gauge public sentiment toward particular plan options. They were able to present a realistic perspective on those plan attributes that would lead to success. In the Washington I-405 corridor study, business leaders were invited to sit on the Citizen Committee, one of three committees crucial to the decision-making process. Far from being surprising, this was expected because key Seattle-area employers—such as Boeing, Microsoft, and PACCAR— regularly have influence in the transportation planning pro- cess. Business community leaders in the I-405 corridor were extremely well-informed and well organized. In fact, these leaders weighed in on almost every transportation or transit measure floated in the area. The foresight of the Washington State DOT (WSDOT) in including them from the beginning was vital to the program’s success.

48 and other state, federal, and local governments and led the agencies to reexamine the entire transportation planning and project development processes within their respective agen- cies. First, agency heads agreed to participate in the develop- ment of the process. Then, through a series of interagency work groups and task teams, the new process was developed for Florida. Under the leadership of FDOT’s Central Environ- mental Management Office, process refinements have been ongoing since the ETDM Process began. Regularly scheduled ETDM coordinator meetings are conducted to identify and address issues that arise during ETDM implementation. If necessary, special interagency task teams are formed to address these issues. Every agency, as well as FDOT, adjusted its business practices to accommodate the new ETDM Pro- cess and the workload requirements to support the new pro- cess. FDOT reorganized staff and management positions to accommodate the responsibilities, while other agencies opted to create new positions or sections within their existing struc- ture. The roles, responsibilities, and expectations for agency participation throughout the ETDM Process are codified in agency agreements. As needed, funding for dedicated staff is made available through funding agreements. Beyond development of the process, early and continuous agency involvement is a key component to the success of the implementation of the ETDM Process. Agency interaction occurs throughout the life of a project to ensure that transpor- tation decisions are balanced with effects on natural, cultural, and community resources; land-use decisions; and other agency goals or objectives. This is accomplished through an environmental technical advisory team (ETAT). An ETAT, con- sisting of planning, regulatory, and resource agencies, has been established for each of the seven geographic FDOT districts. Each agency appoints a representative or representatives who are responsible for coordinating and performing all actions to satisfy their responsibility with respect to the planning and development of transportation projects. The ETAT rep- resentatives have authority and responsibility to coordinate internally and represent their agency’s positions. The role of the ETAT representatives changes from advisory during the planning and programming phases to coordination during environmental review and permitting. Through the ETAT, the ETDM Process fosters a team approach to identifying trans- portation solutions that are responsive to environmental and cultural preservation goals and to community livability objec- tives. Early coordination and consultation among the FDOT, MPOs, and resource agencies improves the mutual awareness and understanding of mobility needs and environmental pro- tection, which continues through each phase of the ETDM Process. It is important to note that early involvement in the ETDM Process begins during project planning, before signifi- cant resources have been spent on technical studies and proj- ect design. Establish Forums for Stakeholder Discussions In the Colorado US-285 case, forums allowed the project team to meet with representatives from USACE and SHPO. Together, they discussed how best to balance impacts to and trade-offs among wetlands and historic resources. Similarly, the US-24 team in Ohio met with USACE and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to discuss how to reduce impacts to high-quality wetlands and endangered species habitat. Though the design change resulted in more impacts to low-quality wetlands, the change became the pre- ferred alternative. In Utah I-15 NOW, the project team used a steering com- mittee as an effective forum for mediating among the different stakeholders. Each person had the opportunity to hear the other’s perspective and understand his or her motivations. Competing interests revolved around not only traffic solu- tions but also the socioeconomic concerns of funding and spending. The forum helped balance competing interests. Collaboration before major design decisions enables many community and resource issues to be worked out ahead of time, minimizing impacts that might otherwise be signifi- cant. This approach was effective in parts of the Colorado US-285 case, in which wetlands and historic properties were also a concern. USACE and SHPO reached agreement on these areas, facilitated by meetings in the field (1). Have Appropriate Experts Available to Answer Questions As illustrated by the North Carolina US-64 case, having the right people in the room is a must. One of the major goals in the merger process in North Carolina was to achieve consen- sus at each specified concurrence point. Consequently, when- ever a team meeting was set up for the specific purpose of reaching a consensus, the agencies carefully planned the meet- ing to ensure that appropriate experts were present. If resource agencies were being asked to balance their resource concerns against highway safety and other design requirements, they wanted the opportunity to hear directly from the hydraulics expert. As the merger process developed, North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) recognized this need and made a stronger effort to have the appropriate experts available at concurrence point meetings. Involve Partners in the Design and Implementation of the Decision-Making Process The creation of Florida’s Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Process was collaborative in that it was devel- oped to support transportation decision-making procedures for the state of Florida, not just the Florida DOT (FDOT). It came into being through a joint effort among FDOT, FHWA,

49 design, and work with designers and planners to codevelop concepts and proposed designs that enhanced and preserved the natural environment, the built environment, and the social environment of the community. The project team made clear to prospective panel members, however, that alternatives would not be revisited and that the preferred alternative was the focus of the panel’s work. Give Stakeholders Some Influence On the I-5 Beltline Interchange project, Oregon DOT devel- oped a planning study (the Interstate 5/Beltline Interchange Facility Plan) for the interchange, recommending five alterna- tives for further evaluation. However, despite Oregon DOT’s coordination with local stakeholders, considerable disagree- ment remained with regard to the best solution. Oregon DOT recognized that a new approach was needed to complete the next step in the process, an EA. The department used a highly structured decision-making process to engage a stakeholder working group (SWG) made up of technical experts and rep- resentatives of businesses, neighborhood associations, special interests, and elected officials. One of the most unusual aspects was the shared authority of the decision team. Decision team members signed a formal agreement that established protocols for communications and decision making among a wide range of stakeholder interests, including individual property owners, neighborhoods, interest groups, business representatives, and local jurisdictions. The roles and responsibilities were spelled out in protocols agreed to in writing by each member of a SWG. The protocols for communications included requirements for meeting atten- dance, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, agreement to keep an open mind and be respectful of others’ views, and accord to include minority opinions when unanimity was unattained. Decisions were made by majority vote with the team reaching consensus at each decision point. The local governments—Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County—had great say in the process. It was unusual for local governments to have this much influence in the process when they are relying on outside funding. In fact, at one point, FHWA and Oregon DOT were outvoted by local officials. Per the process, the two agencies ended up submitting a minor- ity report. Statutorily, FHWA and Oregon DOT had final decision-making authority regarding the preferred alterna- tive, but without local support, the project would not have moved forward. Although not everyone was happy with the final decision, all agreed the process was excellent. Many stakeholders believed this was a more transparent decision-making process. Some noted that, had Oregon DOT started this process with the development of the facility plan, the entire project would have gone much faster and the opportunity for distrust and confusion would have been significantly reduced. Provide Training Training and the availability of support were found to be essential for the successful implementation of the ETDM Process. Through regular training events, ETDM participants are taught about the ETDM Process and use of the tech- nology and tasks within the ETDM Process. These training opportunities are also used to inform participants of success- ful practices used throughout Florida. The ETDM training program includes the following courses: ETDM Process Overview, Overview of Sociocultural Effects Evaluations and Public Involvement, the Project Development Process, and Using the Environmental Screening Tool (EST). Training is provided through a number of innovative mediums, includ- ing hands-on workshops, web-based conferences, a staffed ETDM help desk, and training conferences. Online materials, including documents in the ETDM library, are accessible from the Help menu on the EST. The ETDM library includes manuals, handouts, and other documentation supporting the ETDM Process. A lack of understanding of the process is typical when pro- cesses are highly technical or are different from traditional methods. For example, in the development of Caltrans’s cor- ridor system management plan (CSMP) for the I-880 corri- dor in Alameda County, Caltrans based performance measures on traffic operations data. Given the technical nature of the data components used to develop performance measures, many of the local jurisdictions and elected officials participating in the process had to go through a learning process to develop an understanding of traffic operations strategies and the effective- ness of traffic operations measures. To help participating agen- cies understand the methods that were used to develop the performance measures used in the screening process, Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) pro- vided a series of workshops that gave participants the required technical background to move forward. General Strategies for Working with public Stakeholders Establish Clear Roles for Stakeholders One of the first steps in creating an environment of trust is to identify affected stakeholders and clearly establish their roles. For instance, in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge case, FHWA formed stakeholder participation panels. FHWA proposed and organized four panels: the Telegraph Road Interchange Panel, Jones Point Park Panel, Route 1/Washington Street/ Urban Deck Panel, and Maryland Interchanges Panel. FHWA defined stakeholders as those individuals and groups directly affected by the project, including bridge users. The purpose of the panels was to identify valued community characteris- tics, define community goals and guidelines for the final

50 In the I-405 corridor study, WSDOT focused on key strat- egies of public involvement, including staying on message about the transportation problems, instilling confidence in the program, giving special interest groups the opportunity for meaningful dialogue, and providing project information in a timely and responsive manner. The program was awarded multiple regional and national awards for its outstanding community outreach program. Don’t Let Language Be a Barrier Differences in language and culture were common barriers in the case studies. For example, in the North Carolina US-64 case, four of the most feasible alternative routes for the bypass project would have adversely affected a predominantly His- panic community. Language barriers initially prevented NCDOT from obtaining the input of area residents or explain- ing the available relocation benefits of the bypass. The agency decided to seek out the advice of the Hispanic community, talking to leaders there about how best to tailor its outreach. NCDOT ended up working with the local school district to distribute bilingual project information. This unique idea worked. NCDOT was able to reach residents it previously could not and inform them of the pending project. The pro- cess gave the community opportunities to participate and included financial assistance for displacements. Based on this collaboration, NCDOT added a new bridge to the bypass that carried subdivision traffic over it and prevented the bypass from fully dividing the Hispanic community. Use Public Relations and Mass Media In many cases, the proactive use of the media is the only rea- sonable means to keep the public informed. Most members of the public do not attend screening or project meetings. Few people, if any, read project mailings. But the public regu- larly tunes in to television, radio, and newspaper reports. Rec- ognizing upfront that the media is critical to the success of a project is crucial. If the public is better educated about a proj- ect, the chance of unknown risks diminishes and the poten- tial for success increases. In the US-131 S-curve replacement project, Michigan DOT met with the local media early to explain its plans and elicit feedback. The media was regularly taken on project tours. Communication with the media was coordinated through a single DOT spokesperson, who was dedicated to providing information on construction plans, detour planning, and alter- native commuting options. In the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project, the project team had dedicated staff to field media requests and questions. The project team regularly contacted the media to communicate driver alerts and announce major project milestones. In addi- tion, this project illustrated how some nontraditional uses of Foster Excellent Communication with the Public and Stakeholders Time and time again, participants in the case studies attrib- uted success to early, open, and honest communication with stakeholders. A transparent decision-making process seemed to be central to any successful collaboration. Agencies were able to achieve this transparency through a variety of means. Be Flexible and Responsive Successful project teams were responsive to the public and demonstrated flexibility. One of the first key decisions points for the Oregon I-5 Beltline Interchange SWG was to under- stand the transportation problem that would later become the basis for the purpose and need statement. SWG members disagreed about how well the traffic model represented actual site conditions. To fully appreciate the traffic problems and community concerns, the SWG embarked on a field trip to the intersection. They witnessed firsthand the interplay between actual traffic volumes, signal timing, left-hand turn opportunities, signage, and pedestrian access, as well as how changes in the alignment would affect private and commer- cial properties. Public involvement and collaboration does not always have to be cutting edge; it just needs to be effective. Effectiveness requires exploration of what will enhance communication. At the start of the US-24 project, Ohio DOT decided to imple- ment a new public involvement process that was different from past practice, including use of open-house sessions. Ohio DOT added overview presentations and sit-down question-and- answer sessions. The latter allowed everyone to hear the same questions and answers before moving into an open-house for- mat, with stations for more personal or small group question- and-answer discussions. These informal meetings allowed the department to establish more personal relationships with the stakeholders and to gain public trust. Ohio DOT found this format to be popular and effective in the small rural commu- nities. Meetings often drew over 100 participants. Ohio DOT was able to sustain this high level of public involvement throughout the project. NJDOT showed its flexibility and responsiveness when the Route 31 project team undertook a fiscal impact analysis to resolve residents’ concerns that zoning changes in Raritan Township would overwhelm the township’s ability to pro- vide public services. This analysis mollified concerns that certain land-use changes would create fiscal burdens. With the information from this analysis, Raritan Township was able to develop a mix of land uses that addressed community needs while having a minimal net impact on public budgets. Local leaders said that the township would not have pur- chased such a study on its own, and members of the project team had seen few examples of this type of study being used in this context.

51 and graphically clear. The PowerPoint presentations were well prepared, and the associated voiceovers included clear explanations of the study methodologies employed. Informa- tion was effectively conveyed by all of the media developed. Handouts were colorful, concise, and easy to understand. A key innovation affecting the implementation of Idaho’s Transportation Vision 2033 was that the vision document was to be no more than 15 pages. Project leaders set the goal at the beginning of the process and maintained it to the end. They wanted something that was digestible in one sitting, was easy to read and understand, and could be adopted by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) and agencies throughout the state and used to ensure better cohesion in decision making within and between agencies. Use Visualization SAFETEA-LU promotes greater use of visualization tech- niques in envisioning future solutions and their implications. The power of visualizations, from simple to sophisticated, was a success factor in some of the cases. For instance, in the New Jersey Route 31 case, the project team turned stakeholder input into maps or other visualiza- tions practically overnight. Those who had been involved in similar studies said that they expected to wait several weeks to see stakeholder input fashioned this way. Workshop partici- pants asserted that this rapid production of visual aids was very important to the development of consensus around a preferred alternative. In the Oregon I-5 Beltline Interchange case, one technique the state DOT used was switching from line sketches to full aerial pictures with markers. Overlaying the alternatives on the aerial photos helped all of the SWG participants visualize the community impacts of the project. In the North Carolina US-64 case, although NCDOT and the North Carolina Zoo had established an effective working relationship, zoo officials had a continuing question about how the final design would meet its aesthetic and land-use concerns. Zoo officials wanted a design that was consistent with the natural setting of the zoo as well as the environmen- tal features of the surrounding area. NCDOT resolved this issue by creating a video visualization. The visualization showed the natural design of a connecting bridge as well as the parkway-like appearance of the connector road as it ran from the bridge to the entrance of the zoo. references 1. Gaskill, C. Cost-Benefit Study of Applying Context-Sensitive Solu- tions to US-285 West of Denver, Colorado. Presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Wash- ington, D.C., 2007. 2. TrafficLand.com—Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project Demolition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmpHlkEhqbU. the media can be a means to educate the public. In one instance, the project team used the media to advertise its Toughest Bridge Commute contest, recognizing the sacrifice of regu- lar bridge crossers both before and during construction by honoring the commuter who endured the worst. The driver who endured the toughest commute over the old bridge earned the right to trigger detonation charges that brought it down. Media outlets covered the implosion at length (2). In another instance, when a pair of bald eagles took up refuge near the bridge during construction, the project team leapfrogged on their popularity by naming them and providing regular media updates on their progress. All the while, the team highlighted the project’s attention to the environment. In the I-15 NOW case, Utah DOT hired a public relations firm to handle external communications. This was essential because, although the project had the advantage of being well funded, it had a major disadvantage, too. Its prominence shined light on other projects in the state that were short on funding. In fact, I-15 NOW received well over half of Cen- tennial Highway Fund (CHF) monies. Other municipalities demanded a more balanced division of CHF funds—they wanted their share. Thus, the I-15 project team needed addi- tional public relations support to handle this thorny issue. Take Advantage of Opportunities to Colocate Locating operations in the same place creates trust and facilitates communication. On the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project, FHWA faced a complex task in coordinating project planning between two states, the District of Columbia, all of the jurisdictional components, and several major federal agencies. To reduce the communication problems that could arise with so many parties involved, FHWA assigned key envi- ronmental, legal, and project management staff to the two project offices. The resource agencies noted that this coloca- tion was critical in simplifying communications and obtain- ing timely guidance. Keep It Simple In many of the case studies, simpler was better. The Prairie Parkway study in Illinois is an example of a process in which basic methods carried out in an effective manner were found to be successful. The purpose of the Prairie Parkway study was to take an in-depth look at current and future transporta- tion needs in an area that was experiencing growing regional development demand and increasing traffic congestion. The study also identified a transportation system improvement to enhance north-south mobility between Interstate 80 and Inter- state 88 in Illinois, which addressed project needs. Information was provided to stakeholders through newsletters, handouts, PowerPoint presentations, and graphic displays at work- shops. The information prepared was simple, easy to read,