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.

10 Public participation (or public involvement) in the transporta- tion field is the process through which transportation agencies inform people about and engage people in the transportation decision-making process. It has been described by some as the logical extension of our democratic principles that serve to strengthen our civil society (Bradham et al. 2007). Although the specifics of public involvement vary greatly by location, the organization leading the effort, and the project or study for which public input is sought, an overriding principle remains— to deliver communication mechanisms between governments and communities they serve (Innes and Booher 2000; Bicker- staff and Walker 2001). The benefits of public involvement have been written about extensively (see Hanna 2000; Corburn 2003; Van Herzele 2004; Von Hipple 2005; Bradham 2009). These benefits include public “ownership” of policies; “better” decisions that are sustainable, supportable, and reflect community values; agency credibility; less opposition; and faster implementation of plans and projects (Porter 2005; Bradham 2009). Public involvement also leads to the creation of new knowledge based on community understanding of issues and problems (Bradham 2009). Public involvement literature contains numerous case studies about transit projects around the country. However, these tend to be high-profile, high-cost projects such as new transit facilities in San Diego (Bates and Wahl 1997), Minneapolis/St. Paul (Clements 2008; U.S.DOT 2010), Den- ver (Springer 2007), and Silicon Valley (Childress 2008); multi-modal infrastructure projects (Keever et al. 1999); transit-oriented development (Porter 2005; Bailey et al. 2007); and examinations of environmental justice, community impact assessment, and context-sensitive solutions (Florida DOT and National Center for Transit Research 2002; Cairns et al. 2003; Ward 2005; Robinson 2007). What is missing from this literature is information on the more routine, day-to-day public involvement activities of tran- sit providers. This chapter attempts to fill that gap by provid- ing an overview of how agencies develop, execute, and eval- uate public involvement strategies. Based on the literature, survey results, and case study interviews, this chapter presents the following: an examination of how public involvement goals and objectives are developed; the type of information that is exchanged between the agency and the public; the pub- lic involvement techniques that are used to engage communi- ties; and how agencies evaluate their efforts. Given the diver- sity of project types, locations, agencies, and communities involved, public involvement strategies are highly dependent on specific project needs. To that end, what is presented here are examples and general observations that are meant to pro- vide ideas and stimulate thought rather than definitive pre- scriptions on how to develop public involvement strategies. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN TRANSIT Transit agencies engage the public for almost all of their major activities. The agency survey for this synthesis report specif- ically identified eight activities in which transit providers involve the public: long-range/corridor planning, capital proj- ects, facility design, services changes (including schedules and route changes, additions, or cuts), fare changes, daily opera- tions (including travel information and trip planning services), marketing (including advertising, public service announce- ments, and safety campaigns), and human services transporta- tion planning (transit planning for persons with disabilities, seniors, and low-income populations). More than half of the agencies that participated in the survey engaged the public for all of these activities. Approximately three-fourths of the agencies that do long-range/corridor and human services planning do so with the help of the public. In addition, almost all reported engaging the public for fare and service changes (see Table 3). “Other” activities where transit agencies engage the pub- lic were identified as air quality, transportation demand man- agement strategies, transit-oriented development planning, communications, and website design/redesign. DETERMINING AND DEFINING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goals and objectives play a key role in public involvement strategies. They guide the entire process, influencing who will be engaged, the level of participation desired, the type of infor- mation that will be needed, and the techniques to be used. Goals and objectives also set expectations about what the public involvement effort will achieve and provide a basis for eval- uating results and measuring effectiveness. The goals them- selves are most often defined based on the specific needs of the project—what are the questions that need to be answered, what are the missing pieces of information/data, what type of valida- CHAPTER THREE STATE OF PRACTICE IN THE INDUSTRY

11 tion or public buy-in is desired, what requirements need to be met, who is the agency trying to reach, etc. Most of these project-specific goals tend to fall under one of a few overarching goals as identified and defined in the Inter- national Association of Public Participation’s (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation. The spectrum helps agencies to iden- tify, broadly, the desired level of public participation based on project needs, schedules, available resources, and level of concern about the issue at hand. It has five distinct phases of increasing levels of public involvement: • Inform: to provide the public with balanced objective information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives, opportunities, and/or solutions. • Consult: to obtain feedback on analysis of alternatives and/or decisions. • Involve: to work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered. • Collaborate: to partner with the public in each aspect of the decision, including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution. • Empower: to place final decision making in the hands of the public (IAP2 2010) The IAP2 spectrum serves as a useful starting point for understanding how transit agencies define the purpose and scope of their public involvement efforts. In the survey of agen- cies, participants were asked to identify the primary goals of their public involvement efforts for eight transit provider activ- ities. The choices for goals were derived from the IAP2 spec- trum. Goal types included: (1) provide information (inform), (2) get feedback on specific issues (consult), (3) understand general customer issues and concerns (involve), (4) collaborate to identify solutions (collaborate), and (5) encourage/build ridership or support for transit. Across all activities, providing information and getting feedback on specific issues were considered important goals. This was particularly true for fare and service changes. Under- standing customer issues and collaboration were most impor- tant for long-range/corridor planning and human services planning. Encouraging ridership and building support for tran- sit ranked near the bottom of the five goals for most activities, with the exception of marketing and long-range planning. However, several of the case studies presented later in this report, as well as those from the literature, note the impor- tance of public involvement for building transit support and ridership. This synthesis did not identify a standard process or method by which goals and objectives are defined. Some agencies direct staff to develop them, whereas others are guided by advisory committees. Similarly, the public’s role in develop- ing goals and objectives is not clearly defined in the litera- ture. In some cases the public is given the opportunity to review and comment on the goals at public meetings, advisory committee meetings, or through written comments. In others, agencies approach the public with a problem or issue and col- laborate to develop the specific outreach goals. The feasibility of any of these approaches to develop and validate the purpose and scope of public engagement is dependent on the specific project, agency, and community issue surrounding the effort. Numerous factors can influence the development of goals and objectives including: • Budget—the amount of funding available for public involvement. • Need for community input—the degree to which an agency values community input. • Political priorities—the value elected officials put on a project. • Agency priorities—the value agencies put on a project. • Type of project—the scale, purpose, and impact of the project. • Level of controversy—the degree of expected public opposition to the project. • Reducing risk exposure—the desire to proactively address opposition and minimize the potential for lawsuits. • Project schedule—the amount of time available to con- duct public involvement. • Environmental justice issues—whether a project impacts environmental justice communities. • Safety issues—whether the project significantly impacts safety conditions. • Legal requirements—the specific federal, state, and local legal requirement for public involvement that need to be met. Figure 1 shows the number of respondents who indicated that these 11 factors have at least a “very significant” influ- ence on the selection of public goals and objectives. The respondents indicated that the need for community input and concerns is the most critical factor in developing public involvement goals and objectives. Legal requirements were cited by a large share of agencies, as was a project’s Activity No. Long-range/Corridor Planning 23 Capital Projects 21 Facility Design 18 Service Changes 30 Fare Changes 30 Daily Operations 25 Marketing 24 Human Services Planning 24 Other 6 TABLE 3 SURVEY RESPONDENTS REPORTING USE OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES

level of controversy—although a desire to reduce risk expo- sure was not rated highly. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION After the identification of goals and objectives, the exchange of information between agencies and the public is the second key element of a public involvement strategy. Informed pub- lic input requires access to information, although agencies need access to that input if it is to have an effect on decision making. The amount and type of information exchanged affects the outreach process and vice versa. Despite the importance of this exchange, the public involvement literature does not provide any information on how this happens at transit providers. Providing Information to the Public Transit providers must often make complex decisions about the type and amount of information to provide to the public, balancing the risks of providing too little information and too much. This can be further complicated by the often tech- nical nature of the data and the risks of it being confusing or misinterpreted. However, information sharing is important not just for meaningful public involvement, but also for building trust within the community, creating transparency at the agency, enhancing advocacy efforts, and proactively guiding the public conversation instead of allowing others 12 (including the media or other interested parties) to dominate the debate. Agencies that participated in this synthesis differed in the amount of information they provide to the public, and are often guided by what they want the public to understand. Some agencies attempt to supply as much information as possible. The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC), for exam- ple, posts the results of its financial audits, the chief executive officer’s (CEO’s) contract, and employee wages and salaries to generate a sense of openness about the agency. Others pro- vide minimal information. Table 4 shows the type of informa- tion that agencies in this study’s survey provide. Other types of information agencies distribute include news articles, previous study results, and special analysis and 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Budget Need for community input and concerns Political priorities Agency input/priorities Type of project Level of controversy Reducing risk exposure Project schedule Environmental Justice issues Safety issues Legal requirements FIGURE 1 Survey respondents indicating which factors have at least a “Very Significant” influence on public involvement goals and objectives. Information Type No. Schedule/Route Changes 32 Current Service Information 32 Design, Construction, Route Alternatives 28 Ridership Statistics/Projections 27 Construction Updates/Impacts 23 Financial Information/Projections 19 Cost Estimates 14 Modeling Results 10 TABLE 4 SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY TYPE OF INFORMATION TYPICALLY MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC

13 research. It worth noting that other questions in this survey, case study interviews, and the public involvement literature all point to a desire among agencies for the public to under- stand the financial position of transit providers, their funding mechanisms, and the difference between agency operating and capital costs. Given this information, it is surprising that less than 60% of the survey respondents from transit providers supply financial or cost information to the public. Based on the survey, the decision about what information to share with the public is influenced by several factors. Fore- most among these are direct requests from the public; antici- pated reactions from the media, public, or elected officials; and direction from agency boards or senior management. As agencies have become more open and transparent, Freedom of Information Act requests and legislative mandates for shar- ing information have become less critical factors. The deci- sions about what information to share are also influenced by what the agency wants the public to understand. Based on the survey results, public understanding of service changes, fund- ing needs and constraints, and fare structures are the most important issues for transit providers. Receiving Information from the Public Equally important for shaping the public involvement process is the agency’s determination of what information it wants from the public. The survey results support the idea that for transit providers, public involvement provides the agency with critical missing information. When asked about the type of input agencies typically want from the public, respondents noted that they want to know about community issues that might impact transit service, as well as chronic customer ser- vice problems (Figure 2). This information exchange between agencies and the pub- lic is central to the public involvement process. What agencies need the public to understand and the public input they need in return provides the framework for the ensuing engagement effort. This framework influences how the agency identifies the target audiences for engagement as well as the specific tools and techniques that will be used to facilitate the exchange of information. IDENTIFYING THE “PUBLIC” Knowing and understanding target audiences and communi- ties is the third key element in a public participation strategy. This knowledge informs and shapes the outreach approach and allows an agency to tailor techniques to the specific cultural, linguistic, historic, or socioeconomic contexts of the commu- nity. This process is also important for identifying project sup- porters and opponents, as well as for understanding differing views and opinions. As Barnes and Langworthy (2004b) noted in their discussion of managing conflict in public involvement, identification and representation of major points of view are critical to the success of public involvement. Failure to do so can lead to feelings of exclusion among stakeholders and attempts to disrupt the planning process. The survey results showed that agencies typically try to engage a broad spectrum of the population, including tradi- tional transit users as well as non-transit users and choice riders (see Table 5). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Input and/or ideas for capital projects and plans Identification of chronic customer service problems Recurrent scheduling and timing problems Identification of community issues that will impact service Suggested service changes or improvements Desirability of potential new routes or services What the agency is doing well and not well Other (please specify) FIGURE 2 Survey respondents that seek different types of input.

Other important target audiences not included in the survey, but listed by respondents as key stakeholders, were advocacy groups, elected officials, local jurisdictions, agency partners, and the business community. A “stakeholder” typically refers to anyone with a “stake,” or interest, in the project. Broadly defined, this can be synonymous with the public at-large. How- ever, in most cases it is meant to refer to a subset of the public who have an elevated interest in the project or represent key constituents from whom ideas and opinions are desired. Agencies identify their target audiences for engagement through data collection and consultation with key stake- holders. Consultation often entails working with elected officials, advisory committees, partner agencies, and other 14 stakeholders to identify important groups and issues. Inter- nal data from customer survey results and ridership statistics also provide significant help in defining the target audience. Finally, institutional knowledge and information from pre- vious studies give agencies further clarification on whom to engage. Table 6 shows the specific data sources transit providers cited in the survey to assist in identifying target audiences for engagement. Irrespective of how audiences are identified, the identi- fication process continues throughout the duration of the engagement effort. As new information is gained from stake- holders, it opens up new opportunities for engagement with different groups. Transit provider success at reaching specific subgroups is highly variable. Figure 3 shows the number of transit providers Population Sub-Group No. Seniors 31 Persons with Disabilities 30 Transit Dependent 29 Low-income 28 Minorities 27 Students 27 Choice Riders 27 Urban Transit Users 26 Suburban Transit Users 23 Non-English Speakers 20 Rural Transit Users 12 Note: Individuals may be part of multiple sub-groups. TABLE 5 SURVEY RESPONDENTS WHOSE AGENCIES ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE THE FOLLOWING POPULATION SUB-GROUPS Information Sources No. Customer Surveys 27 Ridership Statistics 25 Planning Studies 22 Human Service Agencies 19 Historical Data 16 Census Data 15 Focus Groups 9 Fare Box Data 8 TABLE 6 INFORMATION SOURCES TRANSIT PROVIDERS USE TO IDENTIFY TARGET AUDIENCES 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Lo w -in co m e M in or iti es Se ni or s St ud en ts Tr an si t d ep en de nt Ch oi ce ri de rs N on -E ng lis h sp ea ke rs R ur al tr an si t u se rs Ur ba n tr an si t u se rs Su bu rb a n tr an si t u se rs Pe rs on s w ith di sa bi lit ie s Good/Excellent Failing/Poor FIGURE 3 Survey respondents rating their engagement of population sub-groups.

15 that rate their engagement of specific population sub-groups as “good/excellent” or “failing/poor.” Owing in part to the require- ments of the ADA, transit providers have had the most success engaging the disabled community. Choice riders, seniors, those who are transit-dependent, and urban transit users were also noted as groups that agencies have had good success in engag- ing. By far, transit providers have had the most difficulty reach- ing populations with limited English proficiency (see chapter five for discussion on hard to reach populations). ENGAGEMENT TECHNIQUES Techniques and methods for engaging the public are the prac- tical realization of any public participation strategy. The tech- niques and applications described here are meant to provide an overview of some of the ways that agencies have tried to engage the public. Where possible, examples are supplied to illustrate possible uses of a technique; however, these should be seen as only one concrete possibility of how a larger con- cept could be put into action. They are most useful as a stim- ulus for additional thought on the issues and target popula- tions identified rather than as a definitive answer to a public participation question or problem. None of these techniques should be seen as “the solution” for public participation. Each must be viewed as part of a larger overall strategy that relies on multiple outreach approaches and techniques. Questions of organization, costs, and leadership will vary dramatically depending on the scope of implementation. Public participa- tion practitioners constantly strive to find new methods to reach their audiences and raise general public interest in the participation process. As technology evolves, altering the ways our society communicates and interacts, so too will the appli- cation of these techniques. Public Meetings The category of “public meetings” encompasses a wide range of techniques where an agency organizes an event at a specific date, time, and location. Included here are formal hearings, public meetings, open houses, workshops, charrettes, and small group meetings. What they have in common is that they pro- vide a structured environment for the public to learn about a project, interact with the sponsoring agency, and provide input. The traditional public meeting—including hearings, open houses, and town hall meetings—is the outreach tech- nique most widely used by transit providers. Responses to the agency survey showed significant use of public meet- ings across the spectrum of their outreach activities. Not surprisingly, given legal requirements, most of the sur- veyed transit providers use public meetings to discuss fare and service changes (see Table 7). Although public meetings are still the norm, a significant level of doubt has been raised by transit providers about their usefulness. Survey respondents noted numerous problems with the public meeting format. The meetings were criticized as ineffective at engaging and interacting with the public, fail- ing to attract sufficient numbers of participants, encouraging only the most vocal opponents of a project or plan to attend, ignoring the time and financial constraints that limit the pub- lic’s ability to participate, and serving as an agency formality to meet legal requirements rather than an honest and open forum to gather meaningful input. These agency sentiments are supported in public involve- ment literature that points to the failures of public meetings and hearings at achieving genuine public participation. This failure is viewed as leading to a series of consequences for the planning process. Limited participation, often only by those negatively impacted, and short question and answer sessions, leave officials without enough valuable public input to meaningfully influence their decisions or actions (Innes 2000; Stich and Eagle 2005). The public often leaves these meetings feeling unsatisfied with the process and that their opinions will not have any influence over final deci- sions (Leighter et al. 2009). Worse still, the public meeting format has the potential to antagonize the public, where avid supporters and opponents are vehemently pitted against each other. All of this serves to further discourage public participation (Innes 2000). This raises the question of why transit providers still conduct public meetings. For many the answer comes down to legal requirements, public expectations, and inadequate resources to engage in more proactive public involvement. However, there are agencies that see the benefit of public meetings, especially when adapted to various settings and realities. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), for example, has improved the tra- ditional open house format by conducting meetings at key public transit stops over a period of hours. By meeting the customers directly on the system, the agency is able to reach transit-dependent and minority riders who are less likely to attend the agency’s formal public meetings. Workshops (including intense and often lengthy “charrette” sessions) and small group meetings provide a more interactive format that allows for greater public discussion and interaction Data Collection Technique Activity Rider intercept surveys Focus groups Other surveys Capital Projects 5 8 10 Daily Operations 14 7 16 Facility Design 5 8 9 Fare Changes 13 6 11 Human Services Planning 10 7 11 Long-range/Corridor Planning 15 11 21 Marketing 16 13 15 Service Changes 16 10 18 TABLE 7 NUMBER OF TRANSIT PROVIDER RESPONDENTS THAT USE DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES FOR DIFFERENT AGENCY ACTIVITIES

with agency staff and decision makers. Washington D.C.’s DDOT used charrettes and workshops during their Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center Feasibility Study to allow stakeholders and station tenants to share informa- tion and ideas about the function of the station and ways to improve the overall experience for station users. Metro Transit in Minneapolis found that splitting attendees of large workshops into small groups to work through specific problems (in this case landscape design using puzzle pieces and a large site diagram) was an effective way of capturing creative ideas from the public. The results of both of these efforts had a direct impact on the final designs of their respective projects. Committees Although not explicitly called out in the agency survey, com- mittees were still mentioned by numerous survey respondents as a valuable public engagement technique. Committees as defined here include any agency-created or sanctioned group meant to represent diverse opinions and aid in planning or operations decision making. These committees go by various names, such as working groups or citizen, community, tech- nical, or steering advisory committees. As Hull notes in her Synthesis Report on community advisory committees (CAC), management, membership, structure, and function of com- mittees vary among agencies. Where successful, they are able to act as a conduit to provide information to the public and representative feedback to the agency. Their success stems from carefully matching the needs of the agency and the com- munity, explicitly stating the expectations of the committee, clarifying committee roles and responsibilities, and balancing the desire for broad representation with the need for manag- ing the committee (Hull 2010). In planning for the Hiawatha Light Rail Line in Minneapo- lis, the Metropolitan Council (the region’s MPO) created a 40-member CAC. The CAC played a critical role in public participation by providing information to residents, transit riders, and the general public, and keeping them involved in the planning process. It facilitated multi-directional commu- 16 nication between and among the MPO and neighborhood groups and advised on issues such as station area land use, station design, feeder bus routes, and impacts on local resi- dents and businesses (U.S.DOT 2010). The San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) formed a Project Review Committee (PRC) during a Major Investment Study for a new light rail line after a small, but vocal and powerful group began to monopolize the public dialogue. From previous environmental studies the MTS knew there was significant public support for the line. It created the PRC to provide balanced representation and ensure that all sides were expressed in the public conversa- tion. Critical to the success of this effort was the hiring of a neutral facilitator to run the PRC meetings. The process generated preferences about modes and alignments that were used to modify agency decision making. By respond- ing to community issues and concerns raised through the PRC, the MTS built trust with the community and support for the eventual construction of the light rail line (Bates and Wahl 1997). Data Collection Data collection strategies for transit providers rely primarily on surveys and focus groups. As shown in Table 8, these efforts are used most often in long-range/corridor planning, service changes, and marketing. Surveys can take many forms and use various methods of delivery including rider intercept surveys, printed sur- veys, web-based surveys, phone surveys, and short message service or text message surveys (for cell phones). Much has been written about successful techniques for developing and administering surveys [see TCRP Synthesis Reports by Schaller (2005) and Spitz et al. (2006)]. For transit providers, what has made surveys, and particularly rider intercept sur- veys, successful is determining the most useful questions to ask to capitalize on the captive audience waiting for or riding transit services. Information Dissemination Techniques Activity Seat drops Ads on transit vehicles Public service announcements Handouts Flyers/ newsletters Hotline/ call-in centers Information booths/kiosks Capital Projects 1 2 3 7 15 5 6 Daily Operations 6 14 10 12 16 11 10 Facility Design 1 3 2 5 9 2 3 Fare Changes 11 23 18 19 24 13 9 Human Services Planning 3 8 5 8 11 5 0 Long-Range/ Corridor Planning 2 4 4 9 15 4 6 Marketing 8 19 8 15 17 5 12 Service Changes 11 21 15 22 21 13 10 TABLE 8 NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS THAT USE INFORMATION DISSEMINATION TECHNIQUES FOR DIFFERENT AGENCY ACTIVITIES

17 The Broward County Transit Division (BCTD) uses rider intercept surveys, coupled with web-based surveys, to engage riders in long-range/corridor planning. Questions are framed to explain the direct impact plans will have on riders’ daily experiences with transit. Since 2007, WMATA has been con- ducting rider surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of limited stop bus service on high-ridership corridors. From these surveys the agency has learned that customers value one- seat rides, bus cleanliness, frequency of service, appearance of vehicles, and driver courtesy among other issues. When changes are implemented, WMATA follows up with another survey to understand if and how riders perceive that service has improved. In both cases, each agency brought the survey directly to transit users either while waiting for or riding buses. Focus groups are most often used when agencies desire information about specific issues. Critical to their success is striving for balanced representation and keeping the group at a manageable number so that each person is able to contribute to a substantive discussion. The Denton County Transporta- tion Authority held a focus group for its ADA community when the agency updated its policies and procedures. One of the changes the agency proposed was adding penalties for no- shows on its paratransit service. The Authority wanted the sys- tem users to set the parameters for enforcement and appeals. The focus group approach allowed a small, representative group of users to participate in a frank discussion about the impact of no-shows. The result was a user-influenced enforce- ment strategy rather than an agency-imposed one. Disseminating Information Techniques for disseminating information include marketing and advertising materials, flyers and newsletters, direct mail, public service announcements, seat drops on transit vehicles, handouts, posters, call-in centers, hotlines, and information booths/kiosks. (For websites, see Internet and Mobile Tech- nologies.) Their primary function is to provide agency, ser- vice, or project information to the public. Although transit providers use these techniques in almost all of their activities, their use is concentrated in two particular areas—fare changes and service changes. The techniques are much less likely to be used for capital projects, facility design, and human services transportation planning (see Table 9). Agencies in this survey have successfully used many of these techniques. Both Laketran and DART have used infor- mation booths and kiosks in local shopping malls to promote transit use among current non-riders and to solicit informa- tion about services from current users. DART has also found that hotlines offer people a chance to “vent” when they choose not to participate in other outreach opportunities. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority has found flyers to be an effective mechanism to explain specific projects to communities. For these techniques to be successful, agencies need to ensure the messages are both engaging and of interest or concern to the public and reach the appropriate populations. BCTD, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), and Mid Mon Valley Transit Author- ity (MMVTA; Charleroi, Pennsylvania) have used direct mail to capture the public’s attention and boost attendance at public meetings. The successful strategy for BCTD and LACMTA involved direct mail to reach riders in specific geographic areas. In Broward County this meant mailing to residents along specific bus routes. In Los Angeles, as part of the proposed subway extension, all residents within a predefined radius of new stations received post cards encour- aging attendance at meetings to discuss station location and details. MMVTA took a broader strategy when soliciting input for its Transit Development Plan. By including an insert in the local PennySaver it was able to reach most of the residents in its service area. The insert provided infor- mation about how and why MMVTA was developing the plan, how the public could provide input, and where and when the agency would be out in the community to present information. Proactive and Collaborative Engagement Proactive or collaborative engagement can take many forms: attending festivals, farmers markets, local fairs, flea markets, or other special events; speaking at community organiza- tions, resident or business associations, or clubs; engaging the public at transit centers, malls, and other gathering places; canvassing neighborhoods; engaging elected offi- cials; or partnering with other agencies, organizations, insti- tutions, or places of worship. The concept is to take the mes- sage of the agency directly to the public and broaden the number and diversity of people reached by using established local communication and support networks. The survey results showed that roughly half of the participating transit providers used some form of partnership with community organizations to enhance their outreach for many of their activities (see Table 10) This type of engagement offers agencies the chance to interact directly with their customers, learn about neighbor- hoods, and build relationships for future outreach. Examples of the success of this type of outreach are plentiful, both in the literature (see Springer 2007; Clements 2008; U.S.DOT Activity Partnership with Community Organizations Capital Projects 16 Daily Operations 11 Facility Design 12 Fare Changes 13 Human Services Planning 16 Long-range/Corridor Planning 14 Marketing 18 Service Changes 15 TABLE 9 NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS THAT USE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR DIFFERENT AGENCY ACTIVITIES

2010) and from comments provided in the survey. In devel- oping its human services transportation plan, Valley Metro in Phoenix, Arizona, partnered with senior centers, independent living councils, and retirement communities to identify meet- ing locations and distribute invitations. DART (Dallas, Texas) works with community groups, churches, and neighborhood organizations to generate participation at meetings and has been particularly effective at targeting the disabled commu- nity, minorities, and those with limited English proficiency. Laketran engaged the local Red Hat Society (a social organi- zation for women) to promote a bus familiarization event and works with the local health and human services department to train staff about using transit. Proactive public engagement played a significant role in the development of the Hiawatha Light Rail Line. The Met- ropolitan Council staff gave nearly 200 presentations to civic groups during the planning process. Foreign language speak- ers (mostly Somali and Spanish) from the University of Min- nesota canvassed local neighborhoods, going door-to-door to provide project information in residents’ native languages. The agency also provided up to $2,000 in funding to various neighborhood groups to cover reproduction and distribution costs of approved project material including meeting notices and surveys. Finally, the Metropolitan Council built a wooden mock-up of a light-rail transit (LRT) vehicle and brought it to the Minnesota State Fair, where more than 100,000 people toured the mock-up and received information about the proj- ect (U.S.DOT 2010). Internet and Mobile Technologies Beginning in the mid-1990s, public agencies began to embrace the Internet as a means of communication with the public. The technology and mechanisms for initiating Internet-based communication can be broken down into two phases. The initial phase was dominated by one-way commu- nication, where agency websites were geared primarily toward marketing their services online. These websites allowed customers to retrieve information (services, maps, schedules, guides, fare information, etc.), but provided little opportunity for interactivity (Morris et al. 2010). Beginning 18 around the turn of the twenty-first century, the Web 2.0 era began, characterized by a range of technologies and appli- cations that have transformed the Internet into a viable plat- form for multi-directional communication and interaction. Most prominent among these new communication channels is social media—an umbrella term describing a vast array of user-friendly publishing and broadcasting tools that pro- mote user interaction and dialogue through content creation and responses to that content. It includes a diverse set of technologies such as social networking, blogging, and video and photo sharing. Table 11 shows the use of websites and social media tech- nologies in public involvement among transit providers partic- ipating in the survey. Although websites are more commonly used, social media is used by more than half for at least some of their activities. Websites became a primary source of information for the public when the Internet joined traditional print and broadcast as a key medium for content delivery. As technology improved, along with cell phone and Internet access, user sophistica- tion, and understanding of the web’s capabilities, customers increased their expectations. Provision of trip planning ser- vices and real-time transit information has grown and has sig- nificant implications for promoting both understanding and use of transit. By sharing schedule data online, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has allowed local transit advocates to create ride-sharing forums that allow people to carpool effi- ciently to and from transit stations. Software developers unaf- filiated with BART have also used these data to create transit applications for “smart” phones. These are services that BART does not have the time or resources to provide on its own, yet help increase public understanding and use of transit (McGray 2009). Large transit systems are not the only ones who have been successful with websites. The SETD, with only 8,000 weekly riders, has seen its website usage grow four-fold since including trip planning. In addition to providing new information, websites are now more interactive. Project websites routinely offer the ability for customers to submit comments. In some cases these comments are shared on a discussion board or blog. For its 2035 long- Activity Partnership with Community Organizations (%) Capital Projects 52 Daily Operations 35 Facility Design 39 Fare Changes 42 Human Services Planning 52 Long-range/Corridor Planning 45 Marketing 58 Service Changes 48 TABLE 10 PERCENTAGE OF TRANSIT AGENCY RESPONDENTS THAT USE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR DIFFERENT AGENCY ACTIVITIES Internet Techniques Activity Websites Social Media Capital Projects 18 7 Daily Operations 22 14 Facility Design 15 6 Fare Changes 21 13 Human Services Planning 12 7 Long-range/Corridor Planning 20 9 Marketing 24 17 Service Changes 22 14 TABLE 11 NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS USING WEBSITES AND SOCIAL MEDIA TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES

19 range plan update, the Virginia DOT developed a web-based workshop to mirror the information and interactive opportu- nities available at its in-person meetings held throughout the state. The convenience afforded by the Internet in allowing users to participate from the location and time of their choos- ing helped push online participation above the total combined participation at all of the in-person meetings (VTrans2035). Many transit providers have discovered the benefits that social media offers. From a marketing perspective, it offers a less-expensive alternative to traditional advertising and can reach more people faster, build brand awareness, and drive traffic to agency websites through links to additional infor- mation (see Eirikis and Eirikis 2010; Morris et al. 2010). Social media can help to personalize the agency by projecting a “human” face. It also allows direct communication, in real- time and unfiltered by the media, which can help foster an interactive dialogue with the public (Eirikis and Eirikis 2010). Use of social media among transit providers shows tremen- dous variety. LACMTA in Los Angeles has used Facebook, Twitter, YouTube videos, and blogs to build support for, and foster participation in, its Westside Subway extension proj- ect. The Houston Metro looks for the appropriate tool for different occasions. Typically, it uses Twitter to broadcast immediate service issues, Facebook for corporate communi- cations, and blogs for providing detailed information about new services or routes. The Orange County Transportation Authority (California) uses multiple Internet techniques to enhance its outreach and communication processes. By directly participating in online conversations, by means of any of the social media channels, it allows the agency to share information and insights and shows the public that it is listening and is responsive to their needs (Eirikis and Eirikis 2010). The Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) has been a pioneer in using YouTube as an educational tool for the public. Its FasTracks videos provide information about both planning and construction. Posting these videos on its Facebook page also allows RTD to directly receive public comments. An emerging Internet technology that has significant potential for public involvement in transit, but has not as of yet been widely used, is crowdsourcing. The term is a merger of “crowd” and “outsourcing.” It harnesses the col- lective intelligence and creativity of online users to gener- ate concepts and ideas that are then reviewed and critiqued by other members of the online community (Bradham 2009). The business world has been using this concept for several years—for example, a problem is broadcast online to vast numbers of users and potential solutions are solicited. Users “vote” on the concept that best addresses the problem and the winner is awarded some form of recognition (financial or otherwise) by the sponsoring agency. The Utah Transit Authority is currently experimenting with crowdsourcing to improve a major public transit hub in Salt Lake City. The challenge it has posed to the public is to develop the best ideas (physical improvements, route changes, or schedule changes) to improve the transit hub (see www.nextstop design.com). A second emerging technology that may offer benefits for public involvement is the use of virtual worlds. These are dig- ital representations of the real or fantasy world where users interact through virtual persona (avatars). Users interact with one another, socialize, and participate in social and economic activities (Morris et al. 2010). Second Life is perhaps the best known of these. Although no examples of transit providers using this technology were uncovered during this research, it has been used in planning to receive public input. When the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced plans to invest more than $100 million to renovate LaGuardia Airport and the surrounding area, a local planning board in Queens, New York, took the opportunity to develop ideas for redesigning a park next to the airport (Landing Lights Park). The planning board hired a developer to build a replica of the park within Second Life so users could suggest designs (Steins 2007). The Internet is also changing how and where visualization occurs. Mapping is no longer dependent on expensive and pro- prietary geographic information systems and “mashup” tech- nologies allow integration of data from disparate sources. Three-dimensional modeling tools are also now freely avail- able and accessible, as are simulation and animation programs. Each of these will push the bounds of how agencies visually depict information and concepts to the public and what the public expects in terms of visualization. EVALUATION Evaluation serves multiple purposes as a part of an overall public participation strategy. First, it provides evidence of what public involvement activities are achieving and their tangible results. Second, evaluation helps agencies know if they are attaining their stated goals. Third, it demonstrates whether or not resources have been effectively and efficiently allocated. Fourth, it gives an understanding of why outcomes occurred and the value gained through public involvement. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it identifies which ele- ments of the program are working and which are not. When done throughout the process, evaluation also allows adjustments to be made to the engagement strategy to achieve the desired outcome. However, evaluation of public involve- ment is difficult. It is a multi-dimensional process for which there are no consensus definitions, methods, goals, or out- comes (Szyliowicz 2002). For some, public involvement is holding a required public hearing; for others, it is a multi- faceted broad-based effort to engage as many people as pos- sible. Success of public involvement is also relative. Twenty attendees at a meeting might be a success when the goal is 15, but perhaps not when the goal is 50. A quantitative measure,

such as the number of attendees, may not be indicative of suc- cess or failure. Fifty attendees from an advocacy group repre- senting one or very few points of view may be less useful than 15 diverse opinions. The literature on public involvement identifies multiple forms of evaluation. Aparicio (2007) identified three measures of evaluation: (1) the consensus of the output, measuring the degree to which public involvement promotes a democratic process; (2) the quality of the participation process itself, look- ing at whether or not it yielded decisions of technical merit; and (3) improvement in the quality of transportation policies, if legitimacy is accorded to the final outcome. Radow and Winters (2010) identified four ways to measure performance— effectiveness (participation rates compared with opportuni- ties); efficiency (participation compared with cost); quality (usefulness of the input); and impact (the result of participation on final outcomes). Methods and Process of Evaluation In the survey, 26 of the responding transit providers evaluated their public involvement effort. Typical methods include pre- and post-engagement surveys of customers and non-riders, on-board transit surveys, focus groups, and third-party research including telephone surveys. The benefits to doing so can be seen in the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit (LRT) example. The Metropolitan Council in Minneapolis evaluated its public participation efforts twice a year through surveys and focus groups. It was from this evaluation that the Council learned that the public did not feel that its input was influencing decisions. The staff began a conscious effort of document- ing public input and reporting back to the community on how their input was incorporated into the overall plans and where and why some of it was not used (U.S.DOT 2010). For those that do evaluate their public involvement, the number of comments received and number of participants at outreach events were the two most common quantitative mea- sures (26 and 25 respondents, respectively). Others measures used, but less important, are hits on websites (19), size and diversity of the population reached (17), number of names on 20 mailing lists (16), and number of articles written about the project (11) (see Figure 4). Although quantitative measures may allow for relatively easy analysis of public involvement, they do not provide a complete picture of the success or failure of an outreach effort. Additionally, this output-based approach to evaluation does not provide any inherent indication of what threshold might be crossed to determine “successful” outcomes of public involve- ment. An inadequate response to a request for comments, for example, could be indicative of a failure to supply enough information or it could be a sign of public acceptance and agreement. Qualitative evaluation measures offer agencies the opportunities to look beyond specific outputs and gauge pub- lic involvement outcomes, such as degree of satisfaction, intensity of opposition/support, and level of public under- standing, which cannot be easily measured numerically. The survey revealed that virtually all of the transit providers that participated also used qualitative measures to evaluate their efforts: (1) 24 review the nature of comments they receive, (2) 18 evaluate whether enough and appropriate information was provided to the public and if the input was used in deci- sion making, (3) 17 look at whether information was provided proactively, and (4) 15 review the nature of media reporting (see Figure 5). Assessing the Effectiveness of Public Participation A major gap in academic literature and practical application of public involvement emerged in trying to identify methods and processes for determining the “effectiveness” of public participation efforts. Although the quantitative measures out- lined earlier can help differentiate between effective and in- effective public participation processes, they offer little help in determining good or beneficial public involvement out- comes. Quantitative measures offer some help but fall short of providing a baseline for standardizing evaluation. For exam- ple, a shift in public opinion over the course of a project may be considered a “good” outcome, but the magnitude of the shift needed to claim public involvement was effective or suc- cessful is unclear. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Size and diversity of the population reached Number of articles written about the project Hits on project web sites Number of names on a mailing list Number of participants at outreach events Number of comments received FIGURE 4 Survey respondents using the following quantitative evaluation measures.

21 As Szyliowicz (2002) points out, without ways to measure the effectiveness of public involvement, agencies may waste time and resources on efforts that fail to provide the public with meaningful chances to influence decision making. Rowe and Frewer (2000) attempted to address the gap in standard measures of effectiveness by proposing an evaluation frame- work based on a set of process and acceptance criteria. Process criteria include whether or not (1) the public had access to appropriate resources and information to allow them to meaningfully participate, (2) the purpose of the participation tasks were clearly defined, (3) the decision-making process was structured appropriately to allow for and incorporate public input, and (4) efforts were cost-effective. Acceptance criteria include whether or not the public that participates is broadly representative of the affected public, the process was conducted independently and without bias, opportuni- ties for involvement were provided early in the process, pub- lic input had a genuine impact on policy decision, and the process was open and transparent where the public could see and understand how decisions were being made (Rowe and Frewer 2000). PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGIES FOR TRANSIT Research for this synthesis did not reveal significant standard- ization in the development or execution of public participation strategies. The specific needs of projects and communities tend to be the primary determinants of why, when, where, and how the public is engaged for transit activities. There are, however, some overall generalizations about the elements of transit provider public participation strategies and the processes for creating them. The purpose and scope of public participation is typically detailed as goals and objectives. For most transit providers, the overarching goals of public involvement are to provide information to the public and obtain feedback on analysis, recommendations, or decisions. Although the specifics of the goals and objectives are heavily dependent on the 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 under- stand, 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 agen- cies typically provide information to help better inform the public about decisions and issues surrounding projects. From the public, agencies are looking for community-specific infor- mation that the agency lacks such as chronic service problems or community issues that may have an impact on the agency current or future service. With the understanding of what information is needed from the public and the level of public education that is needed, agencies can identify their target audiences for engagement. Standard, methodical approaches among transit providers for identifying the audience did not emerge out of this synthesis. Most have used a variety of approaches that rely on institu- tional knowledge, committees, local officials, or community organizations. By building off of the defined goals and objectives, amount and type of information to be exchanged, and clarification of target audiences, transit providers identify and use a multitude of specific techniques to engage the public. Groups of tech- niques that transit providers use were presented with specific examples of how techniques were used for particular projects. These were meant to trigger additional thoughts about how the techniques could be adapted to different circumstances and projects. Finally, evaluation emerged as the weakest part of the pub- lic participation process as it is practiced today by transit providers. Methods exist for quantitative and qualitative evalu- ation; however, standard processes are missing for measuring “successful” and “effective” participation. The gap is called out in chapter six as a potential area of future public involvement research. Whether information was provided to the public proactively Whether appropriate information was provided to the public Whether public input was useful in the decision-making process Nature of media reporting Nature of comments received 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 FIGURE 5 Number of survey respondents using the following qualitative evaluation measures.