Public Participation Strategies for Transit (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.

Public participation in the transportation field is the process through which transportation agencies inform and engage people in the transportation decision-making process. The ben- efits of engaging the public are many and include “ownership” of policies; “better” decisions that are sustainable, supportable, and reflect community values; agency credibility; and faster implementation of plans and projects. The transit industry regularly seeks public input on topics as varied as long-range, corri- dor, or local planning; facility design; and fare or service changes, to name a few. The strate- gies used often vary by agency, purpose, and target audience. However, engaging the public has proven difficult for many transit agencies. Across many public involvement efforts, low levels of participation can be traced to a lack of awareness about the importance of partici- pation, as well as other interests and obligations that compete for people’s time. Additional challenges include time and mobility constraints, language barriers, social isolation, and dis- trust of and cynicism about government. Finding ways for transit providers to overcome these challenges and meaningfully engage the public (both current and potential riders) will be crit- ical as the nation looks to transit to help meet future mobility needs. Much of what is written about public involvement for transit focuses on large-scale “mega projects” and efforts to engage Environmental Justice populations. Little has been written about engaging the public for the more day-to-day activities of transit providers such as under- standing community issues, soliciting service suggestions, and proposing fare or service changes. This synthesis is an effort to begin to fill that gap by documenting the experiences of transit providers in engaging the public for transit-related activities. In so doing, it looks at the strate- gies transit agencies employ to identify methods, tools, and techniques for: • Defining the purpose and scope of public engagement; • Determining the relevant information to be exchanged between agencies and the public; • Identifying, reaching, and engaging target audiences; • Eliciting relevant information from the public; and • Assessing the effectiveness of public engagement relative to the agency’s purpose. The goal of this synthesis is to provide transportation agencies and public involvement practitioners with ideas and insights into the practices and techniques that agencies around the country have found to be successful, as well as to explore some of the challenges they have faced. The survey of transportation agencies, designed for this synthesis, provided the majority of this report’s information. Survey participation was solicited through requests posted on APTA web forums, direct e-mails sent to participants of the National Transit Institute’s Public Involvement for Transportation Decision-Making course, and suggestions from this TCRP study’s review panel members, as well as other industry professionals. A key limitation of the survey effort was the mindset of the respondent. Some participants responded with a particu- lar project in mind or within their area of responsibility, whereas others provided responses covering the entire agency. SUMMARY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGIES FOR TRANSIT

In total, 61 transportation agency representatives expressed interest in participating in the survey. Of those, 50 actually participated, a response rate of 82%. Thirty-three respondents, or 66%, provide public transit service; 4 (8%) are a state or local department of transporta- tion (DOT); and 16 (32%) act as regional planning agencies such as metropolitan planning organizations and rural planning organizations. These divisions by agency function are not mutually exclusive. Some agencies, such as Metro Transit in Minneapolis, serve as both the regional public transit provider and the metropolitan planning organization. This synthesis revealed that public participation strategies at transportation agencies are as diverse as the communities and locations the agencies serve and are without a standard or prescribed method of implementation. What works for one agency for a certain project in one community may not work for another agency or even for the same agency in a different com- munity or for a different project. This lack of definition allows flexibility to agencies to tai- lor their outreach to match the unique set of circumstances surrounding the agencies, their projects, and the communities they serve. The specific public involvement techniques, and the methods by which transit providers execute public involvement strategies, are constantly evolving and bounded only by the creativity of their practitioners. To that end, this synthesis should not be seen as a “how to” manual for public involvement. Examples are provided throughout this report, but each can be seen as one practical application of a broader idea or concept meant to trigger additional thoughts about how a technique or idea could be applied to different situations. There are, however, some overall generalizations about the elements of agency public partic- ipation strategies and the processes for creating them. For most transit agencies, the overarching goals of public involvement are to provide information to the public and obtain feedback on analysis, recommendations, or decisions. Although the goals and objectives are heavily depen- dent on the specific project, the desire for input, meeting legal requirements, and a project’s level of controversy are all key determinants of the purpose and scope of the engagement effort. The two-way exchange of information between agencies and the public is directly linked with the goals and objectives. Clarification of what the agency wants the public to understand, information that is needed from the public, and what information the public wants all influence the type and amount of information and questions that are presented. Transit providers typically supply information to help better inform the public about decisions and issues surrounding proj- ects. In turn, from the public, agencies are looking for community-specific information that the agency lacks, such as chronic service problems or issues that that may have an impact on the agency’s service. Standard, methodical approaches among transit providers for identifying the target audience for engagement did not emerge out of this synthesis. Most participants have used a variety of approaches that rely on institutional knowledge, committees, local officials, or community organizations. Once identified, transit agencies use a multitude of specific techniques to engage their audiences. Groups of techniques that agencies use are presented with specific examples of their application for particular projects or purposes. Evaluation emerged as the weakest part of the public participation process as it is currently practiced by transit providers. Methods exist for quantitative and qualitative evaluation; how- ever, standard processes are missing for measuring “successful” and “effective” participation. This gap is a potential area of future public involvement research. The six case studies presented offer examples—across a wide range of agency sizes, project types, and locations served—of what the agency has identified as successful public involve- ment. The agencies were identified through survey responses, literature, and recommendations of industry professionals. Those who rated their overall public involvement efforts as “good” or “very good” in the survey were then reduced to those who were willing to be considered as 2

a case study. The resulting list of agencies was the basis for selecting the case studies. The fol- lowing six agencies were then chosen to provide geographic diversity, represent a range of populations served, and encompass different agency sizes and project types. • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), California, Westside Subway Extension. LACMTA’s success at engaging the public for the West- side Subway Extension can, in part, be traced to its effective use of social media, adap- tive outreach strategies, and structuring its public involvement to allow input through a variety of means. • Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), D.C., Route 79 Metro Extra bus service. When WMATA wanted to introduce limited-stop bus service it engaged those with intimate knowledge of the community, took a “hands on” approach to engagement, took advantage of Internet technologies, and continuously involved the public in the planning for the new route. • Laketran, Ohio. With declining revenues, Laketran faced the prospect of dramatic ser- vice cuts. What it found in its outreach efforts was that giving the public direct access to decision makers and building a reputation for being open and transparent allowed the agency to work with the public and its strategic partners to find new solutions to its fund- ing problems. • Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC), Pennsylvania, Transit Development Plan. The PAAC case study demonstrates how bringing the agency message directly to the com- munity, using a broad spectrum of communication mechanisms and continually engaging the community, led to success in developing its Transit Development Plan. • Sunset Empire Transportation District (SETD), Oregon. In a time when many agencies were raising fares and cutting service, SETD managed to grow its ridership by more than 50% and offer new payment options to its riders. It did this through strategic partner- ships, staff volunteer work in the community, and empowering agency employees to act as an extension of the agency’s outreach efforts. • Pierce Transit (PT), Washington State, PT Tomorrow. PT shows that scale, breadth, and coordination of outreach matters, as does commitment at all levels of the agency and working within existing community structures. The challenges transit providers face when engaging the public are many. They arise from specific issues within the agency, such as inadequate resources, or from the public, such as feel- ings of cynicism and distrust, lack of time, and lack of awareness. These challenges are magni- fied when trying to engage traditionally hard to reach populations such as people with limited English language proficiency and low-income and minority communities. The responses to these challenges have varied among agencies as has their success at rising above them. What has worked for some agencies has not always worked for others; however, many have been successful and there are common themes that have tended to lead transit agencies to greater success in public involvement. • The more public involvement, the more likely an agency is to judge the outcomes of that involvement as successful. • Determining the “right” questions to ask to public is important. • Dedication of resources to public involvement is important, but these do not have to be strictly financial resources. • The value that an agency places on public involvement is critical to its success. • Openness and transparency matter, and in many cases are the most important as far as the public is concerned. • Understanding, partnering with, and empowering communities can significantly bene- fit public involvement efforts and the agency. When reviewing the specific application of various techniques, there are also certain com- monalities that appear that can lead to greater success. 3

A public meeting is used here to describe any agency-organized event at a specific date, time, and location that provides a structured environment for the public to learn about a proj- ect, interact with the sponsoring agency, and supply input. This includes traditional public meetings, public hearings, open houses, workshops, charrettes, small group meetings, etc. What has worked for transit providers who participated in this synthesis includes: • Identifying the audience to whom information needs to be provided and from whom information is needed. The Washington D.C. DOT successfully brought together both station uses and station tenants in its Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center Feasibility Study in a charrette-type setting to share information and ideas about the function of and experience using the station. • Ensuring that the event is interesting and engaging enough to make the effort worth- while for participants. Pierce Transit’s interactive quizzes and prioritization exercises engaged meeting participants and allowed them to witness how their input was being used by the agency. • Engaging partner organization with contacts in the local community who can promote and encourage attendance by the local community as Laketran did with the local Rotary Club, Red Hat Society, chamber of commerce, and others. • Making personal connections in the target community to build trust and credibility for the agency. The Sunset Empire Transportation District (SETD) showed this by being an active participant in its community through staff volunteer work and driver contact with customers. Advisory committees can go by any number of names including citizen, community, stake- holder, passenger, technical, or steering. However they are labeled, they are generally an agency-created or sanctioned group meant to represent diverse community opinions and assist the agency in decision making. Their success stems from carefully matching the needs of the agency and the community, explicitly stating the expectations of the committee, clarifying committee roles and responsibilities, and balancing the desire for broad representation with the need for managing the committee. By providing a clearly defined area of responsibility, LACMTA’s Service Governance Councils have created an effective mechanism to receive public input and respond quickly and appropriately to address important community concerns. Surveys and focus groups are two of the most common types of data collection techniques. Their success stems from an agency’s ability to frame questions appropriately to get the spe- cific type of feedback that is needed and determine the most appropriate means to reach the public. SETD found that distributing survey cards with postage-paid reply cards yielded a dis- appointingly low response rate. The agency responded by designating staff to ride the buses with customers who could assist them in completing the survey forms. In addition to a higher response rate, this also provided a more nuanced understanding of customer issues than could be gained through just the survey responses. Proactive engagement can include attending community events, speaking at community meetings, holding open events at public gathering places, or partnering with local organiza- tions. The common theme among these efforts is to take the agency’s message directly to the public and use local communication and support networks to broaden the number and diver- sity of people reached. Each of the case studies in this synthesis used some form of proactive engagement. LACMTA took its public meetings to centers of employment and held events at lunch time to gather critical input from commuters. PAAC’s Tell Us Where to Go Bus took the message of the agency deep into the heart of communities to hear directly from the affected public. WMATA partnered with local organizations to reach bus riders along its Route 79 bus route. Laketran worked with its local Jobs and Family Services Department to broaden its outreach about transit service cuts and educate potential riders about transit. SETD developed strong relationships with its local schools and colleges to promote transit use, and Pierce Transit used the neighborhood councils in Tacoma and Lakewood, Washington, to dissemi- nate information and encourage attendance at its local meetings. 4

Internet and mobile technologies have opened new channels of communication and inter- activity that agencies are using to expand the scope of their outreach, engage new audiences (particularly younger generations), and push the boundaries of traditional public meetings and visualization. By keeping its content updated and relevant, LACMTA has kept its fol- lowers on Facebook interested in the planning for the Westside Subway extension and has managed to translate this interest into greater participation from younger residents in the Los Angeles area. Finally, the work for this synthesis uncovered gaps in information, knowledge, or practice for public involvement, as well as areas of interest that need further investigation. These include: • Defining and measuring successful public involvement. • Determining the continued relevance of traditional public involvement techniques. • Understanding the use of social media as a tool for enhancing public participation. • Using frontline employees as an extension of public involvement. • The role of the media in building trust for an agency. 5