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.

36 Despite a growing understanding and acceptance of public participation as an integral part of the transportation planning process, agencies still face numerous barriers that have the potential to undermine the effectiveness of public participa- tion. These obstacles can exist within the agency or externally as efforts are made to link directly with a community, but all can pose a significant threat to an agency’s public involve- ment efforts. Failure of public involvement can lead commu- nities to feelings of alienation from the political and planning system, animosity, lawsuits, battles at the ballot box, and increased fragmentation of an already highly divided govern- ment and society (Innes and Booher 2000). Following is a discussion of the challenges agencies face in engaging the public and the problems many have encountered involving harder to reach populations. Woven into this is an explanation, derived from the case studies, survey responses, and literature review, of how some agencies have been able to overcome these obstacles. INTERNAL CHALLENGES The survey for this effort indicated that the most significant internal challenges to public involvement are inadequate financial and staff resources, difficulties obtaining interest from elected officials, and lack of time/compressed sched- ules. Support from upper management, public involvement training, and coordination among agencies were less impor- tant challenges (see Figure 15). Other challenges noted by agency participants included a lack of will within the agency and difficulty coordinating staff availability to coincide with convenient meeting times for the public. Transit providers have responded to these challenges in various ways and some have had greater success than others. Many of the strategies used to overcome certain obstacles have benefits in other areas as well. For example, building and maintaining partnerships with community organizations can alleviate internal challenges associated with a lack of resources, as well as such external challenges as community distrust and difficulty in engaging hard to reach populations. Lack of Resources A lack of resources, both financial and staff, was identified in the survey as a critical barrier to public involvement. Research showed that there are several ways for agencies to respond to the problem of limited resources and that successful public involvement can be achieved on a modest budget. SETD offered the clearest example of this. In a time of financial cri- sis across the public transit industry, this small transit agency was able to expand its transit service by integrating public involvement into all of its activities and employee job func- tions, as well as by developing strategic partnerships. Public involvement is not seen as a discrete task at SETD, but instead takes place on a continual basis led by many staff members. Informal conversations between bus drivers, riders, SETD staff, and members of the community all provide bits of infor- mation that is channeled back to the agency to help it better understand customer needs and attitudes about transit. As evidenced by Metro (in Los Angeles), even large-scale projects with significant public involvement can incorporate low-cost elements. For the Westside Subway Extension, agency staff maintains and updates the project’s presence on social media sites. This requires minimal financial resources from the agency. The Orange County Transportation Authority has created low-cost videos using a hand-held video recorder for distribution on YouTube. The agency has found it to be a quick, easy, and cost-effective mechanism for getting informa- tion to the public. The amateur appearance of the videos has given them an air of authenticity and has played well with the public during the economic recession of 2008–2009. Building partnerships with community organizations can also address the resource problem. It is an effort that takes time and commitment, but can reap rewards for an agency in both the short and long term. Pierce Transit’s engagement with neighborhood councils in Tacoma and Lakewood allowed it to take advantage of council resources to disseminate project information far more widely than it would have been able to do on its own. For the Hiawatha LRT project, the Metropolitan Council reimbursed community organizations for costs asso- ciated with distributing information about the project, an action that saved the agency money (e.g., labor costs) and allowed it to tap into local distribution channels. Maintaining these rela- tionships rather than having to rebuild them for each project will also provide efficiencies for future efforts. EXTERNAL CHALLENGES External problems often pose a more significant challenge than internal ones. Public cynicism or distrust of the planning process; work, household, or other personal obligations; and CHAPTER FIVE OBSTACLES TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

37 a lack of interest or lack of awareness and understanding of the planning process were the most common external chal- lenges noted in the survey results. Confirmation of these find- ings is given by a survey conducted for TRB (NuStats 2009). Its results showed that low levels of interest and difficulties securing broad-based involvement ranked high as external challenges. Figure 16 shows the survey results conducted for this synthesis. Other external challenges identified by this study’s survey respondents included the point in the process when most peo- ple typically get involved. Many planning agencies have found a tendency for the public to become more involved as a proj- ect moves nearer to implementation or construction and that generating interest during the planning stage is often difficult. Cynicism and Distrust Public cynicism and distrust of the process can arise from a feeling that participation is not worth the effort—that deci- sions have already been made and the opportunity for public input is merely a formality. Overcoming these feelings among the public requires building trust within the commu- nity. Laketran and the PAAC believe they have done this by being open and transparent. Both agencies make all of their financial information and audits available for public review to demonstrate that they are good stewards of public funds. Pierce Transit has built trust by structuring public meetings to allow participants to work through and identify solutions to specific problems. This has helped the public feel that it has a meaningful impact on the planning process. SETD has built trust by being an active participant in its community through volunteer work. The trust that these agencies have built with their communities has translated directly into trust of the public involvement process. Cynicism can also be countered by demonstrating how public involvement is used to inform the planning process. WMATA and the PAAC offer two examples of this. Contin- uous engagement throughout their planning processes for Route 79 and the Transit Development Plan, respectively, allowed these agencies to show how and where public input was used. After each round of technical analysis, both agen- cies took the results to the public and asked for validation that the alternatives accurately reflected the community’s input. The Laketran example offers a different approach to dif- fusing cynicism. Board members sit in the front row of pub- lic meetings listening directly to the input from citizens, unfiltered by staff or the media. This provides assurance to the public that their issues are being heard and understood at the highest level of the agency. Competing Interests and Obligations Public involvement opportunities must compete for the pub- lic’s attention with the various other interests and obligations that occupy people’s lives. Finding time to participate in a 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Not enough staff Difficulty coordinating between various departments/agencies Lack of public involvement training/skills among staff Lack of financial resources Aligning with the priorities of elected officials Lack of time/compressed schedules Lack of support from upper management/agency leadership FIGURE 15 Average transit provider rating of internal challenges for public involvement. Note: Average rating of responses where “Not Significant” = 1, “Somewhat Significant” = 2, “Moderately Significant” = 3, “Very Significant” = 4, and “Highest Significance” = 5.

38 meeting may not be high on the list of priorities of working individuals who have limited relaxation or family time. Agencies have addressed this problem by providing multiple participation opportunities, bringing opportunities into the community, and offering opportunities that are not depen- dent on time or place. Each of the case studies presented in this report provides examples of using multiple engagement techniques to increase participation, and there are others as well. In the Hiawatha LRT example, workshops and meetings were supplemented with fact sheets, newsletters, cable TV programs, and door- to-door canvassing. This variety of techniques helped ensure the broadest reach of opportunities to educate the public and receive feedback about the light rail line. To develop its regional paratransit plan, Valley Metro implemented a range of options including stakeholder groups, focus groups, work- shops, web-based media, social media, and partnerships with community organizations that serve persons with disabilities. The result was significant support for the plan, as well as sup- port for a planned regional ADA in-person assessment center— an outcome of the plan’s development. PAAC’s Tell Us Where to Go Bus demonstrates one tech- nique for bringing outreach directly to the community. By driving the bus to community activities such as festivals, fairs, and farmers’ markets, the agency allowed members of the public to learn about the Transit Development Plan and offer their input on their own terms and in their own time. LACMTA provides a different, but still effective, strategy for taking participation opportunities to the public. Its use of social media, particularly Facebook, affords the public the opportu- nity to participate at the time and place of its choosing with- out being dependent on the physical presence of agency staff or representatives. Lack of Interest or Understanding Lack of interest in the planning process may stem from insuf- ficient public understanding of the following: the planning The public does not have sufficient ways (methods, places, times) to provide input The public is not aware or does not understand the planning process The public does not get sufficient or timely information for effective participation Work, household or other personal obligations deter participation Meeting locations are not accessible enough for environmental justice or other disadvantaged communities The public is not interested in the planning process The public is cynical or distrustful of the planning process Cultural and/or language barriers deter participation in some communities 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 FIGURE 16 Average transit provider rating of external challenges for public involvement. Note: Average rating of responses where “Not Significant” = 1, “Somewhat Significant” = 2, “Moderately Significant” = 3, “Very Significant” = 4, and “Highest Significance” = 5.

39 process, project specifics, the importance of public input, and how or where to participate. A vast majority of the agencies in the survey are taking active steps to mitigate this problem— 30 provided information about how and where transit users can participate through a range of outreach mechanisms, including flyers, e-mail, direct mail, websites, and advertise- ments. In addition, 23 provided information on why the agency is seeking input. Techniques that transit providers have used to improve the impact of outreach include empha- sizing a project’s impacts on transit riders’ daily lives to make messages personal and compelling, clarifying why public input is important and how it will be used, using customer- friendly language, identifying multiple means for the public to get information and provide input, and summarizing the proposal and alternatives under consideration. Transit providers also take more proactive approaches to educating the public and raising interest in planning efforts. The Denver RTD’s Ride to Dream School Program was established to involve local students in RTD’s I-225 light rail corridor planning. RTD sought to educate students about the corridor, help them identify career opportunities in trans- portation, and provide mentoring. An additional benefit of stimulating student interest in the project was the ability to engage their parents. Transit providers have also been able raise awareness and interest through partnerships with local organizations and institutions. SETD worked closely with local schools to raise awareness and use of transit, whereas Laketran worked with staff from county human services departments to help them teach their clients about transit and raise awareness of its importance for the community. HARD TO REACH POPULATIONS Federal regulations mandate that transportation agencies take into consideration the needs of traditionally underserved populations. This has typically meant low-income popula- tions, minorities, persons with disabilities, seniors, those with limited English proficiency, and others. Agencies have had some success reaching senior and disabled populations through special advisory committees and active advocacy/ support organizations. Social media has opened up opportu- nities to engage younger generations. However, many transit providers still find it challenging to engage Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations, as well as low-income and minority populations. Communities with Limited English Proficiency The survey results revealed that 23 of the transit providers serve a significant population of persons with LEP. Of those, 22 provide information and encourage participation in multi- ple languages. Despite this, agencies, on average, rated their own success at reaching LEP populations as poor. Many of these communities are immigrant communities; therefore, in addition to language barriers there may be cultural barriers to participation. Adaptation of public involvement techniques is critical to overcoming these barriers. As one survey respon- dent commented: All engagement strategies are useful but the key is choosing the best one for the audience . . . For example, Spanish-speaking communities tend to like smaller group settings or one-on-one interactions versus large public meetings where you are asked to comment for the record (survey participant). To address cultural and linguistic barriers in the Min- neapolis area the Metropolitan Council employed students at the University of Minnesota who were fluent in the region’s widely spoken foreign languages, (primarily Spanish and Somali) to canvass neighborhoods and go door-to-door to discuss and provide information about the project in resi- dents’ native languages (U.S.DOT 2010). This helped build trust and understanding within the community and provided the input that the Metropolitan Council needed. However, for- eign language speakers do not guarantee success. LACMTA is one example of a transit agency that is still struggling to engage an immigrant community. The proposed Westside Subway Extension traverses through the heart of Los Angeles’ Koreatown. Despite the agency’s efforts to engage this com- munity, in part by providing Korean translators at meetings, participation rates among Korean–American residents have been disappointingly low. Minority and Low-income Communities Engaging low-income and minority communities has increased in importance for transit providers over the past several decades. In many instances these communities are disproportionately high users of transit. However, transit providers often find it challenging to reach these populations. Best practices for engaging low-income and minority com- munities have been documented extensively in literature dis- cussions of environmental justice, community impact assess- ment, and context-sensitive solutions (see Florida DOT and National Center for Transit Research 2002; Weeks 2002; Cairns et al. 2003; Ward 2005; Robinson 2007). Many of these best practices are similar to those for increasing partici- pation rates in general—making the outreach personally rel- evant, working with community leaders and institutions, providing day care and food, and offering reimbursement for travel expenses. From the case studies in this report, proactive engagement in minority communities offered the most significant benefit. For its Route 79 limited-stop bus service, WMATA went directly to the impacted communities for input. The agency worked through local structures and people more familiar with the community to identify key stakeholders. Staff also worked in the corridor directly with bus riders on the buses and at transit stops to gather their input. PAAC took a broader approach and created a dedicated community outreach posi- tion (from a vacant staff position) responsible for working

with neighborhood organizations in minority communities. By ensuring that these groups have direct access to informa- tion about the agency, PAAC has seen a significant increase in the participation from low-income and minority commu- nity members. DIFFICULTIES ENGAGING THE PUBLIC The challenges transit providers face when engaging the pub- lic are many. They arise from specific issues within the agency, such as inadequate resources, or from the public, such as feelings of cynicism and distrust, lack of time, and 40 lack of awareness. These challenges are magnified when try- ing 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 worked for others. However, many have been able to suc- ceed, especially when agencies (1) have taken the time and effort to understand the challenges and their causes; (2) have a firm understanding of community issues, needs, and local support networks; and (3) approach projects and planning efforts in a collaborative fashion with communities.