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.

41 This synthesis has attempted to document the specific expe- riences of transit providers in engaging the public for transit- related activities. The 50 survey respondents (82% response rate) provided valuable insight into the public participation strategies their agencies are employing. Supplementary study and case study interviews provided additional information to assist in identifying the methods, tools, and techniques transit providers are using 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 relative to the purpose. Public participation strategies at transit providers are as diverse as the communities and place types they serve and there are few, if any, standard methods for developing or exe- cuting them. 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 community or for a differ- ent project. The specific nature of public involvement creates a formidable challenge to identifying standard methods or strategies that are universally applicable. What emerged from this synthesis are more general observations about how agen- cies develop and execute their strategies. The overriding pur- pose of transit providers’ outreach efforts tends to be to pro- vide information to the public and receive specific input on issues or needs. Specific goals and objectives are often deter- mined on a project-specific basis and who participates in their development is at the discretion of the agencies. Similarly, determining the type of information to exchange with the public and the type of feedback needed for projects cannot be neatly compartmentalized—it is intimately linked to project- specific goals. Generally, this information exchange is influ- enced by what the agency wants the public to understand, information that it needs from the public, and information requests from the public. The identification of target audi- ences for engagement happens through active involvement of those knowledgeable about the impacted area, through institutional knowledge, and through data collection efforts, and each agency has its particular method for this. Specific public involvement techniques and the methods by which they are implemented by transit providers are con- stantly evolving and bounded only by the creativity of their practitioners. Many have found ways to take fundamental con- cepts (such as a public meeting) and transform them into phe- nomenally successful events. Others stay within the confines of what is tried and true. Given the variability in development and execution of participation strategies, evaluation is likewise difficult to standardize among agencies. Although many may measure similar outcomes and outputs, such as the number of attendees at meetings or the number of comments received, the threshold of success is one that is defined by those directly involved with the engagement effort. For some, 15 people at a public meeting might indicate success, whereas for others it might mean failure. This lack of easily identifiable standards and procedures actually may offer advantages; it may indicate that agencies are customizing and adapting their strategies to what works in their jurisdictions. Despite the varying specifics of public participation strate- gies, there are common challenges that transit providers face when attempting to engage the public. These are not dissim- ilar to the challenges that other planning entities encounter, including resource constraints, difficulties getting the public’s attention, and convincing the public to participate in project or service planning efforts. WHAT IS “SUCCESS”? One of the most difficult aspects of synthesizing public involvement across the agencies that participated in this effort is defining “success.” There is a need and a desire among agen- cies to quantify public involvement outputs and outcomes in a way that can be used in a benefit-cost analysis. However, no consistent methods emerged for defining success through the literature review, survey effort, or case studies. Both quantita- tive and qualitative methods are readily available and used for evaluating public involvement, but the threshold that defines “success” is unclear and dependent on the complex interplay of numerous variables including the size, type, and level of controversy surrounding a project; the size and resources of the organization; the community involved; and the overall intent of the public involvement effort. The case studies presented in chapter four highlight agen- cies that have involved from a few hundred to a several thou- sand people. Each is deemed “successful” primarily because those evaluating the effort believed it had a positive impact. These positive impacts take several forms: successful imple- mentation of the project; clear public influence on the design, CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS

scale, or scope of the project; enhancing public understanding of the project or agency; and engaging the public to the point where they felt involved and that their opinions mattered. However, there is no easily transferrable method for measuring success among the various agencies. SUCCESSFUL PRACTICES: PUTTING STRATEGIES INTO ACTION There are certain common threads that can be extracted from this synthesis. The following discussion describes general observations and is not meant to be prescriptive guidance for public participation. It represents many of the common themes noted throughout this report derived from the literature review, agency survey, and case studies. When specifically looking at the application of various tech- niques, there are certain commonalities that appear to lead to greater success. 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 project, interact with the sponsoring agency, and pro- vide 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 is to: • Identify the audience to whom information needs to be provided and from whom information is needed. The Washington D.C. Department of Transportation (DOT) brought together both station uses and station tenants in its Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center Fea- sibility Study in a charrette-type setting to share infor- mation and ideas about the function of and experience using the station. • Ensure the event is interesting and engaging to make the effort worthwhile for participants. Pierce Transit’s inter- active quizzes and prioritization exercises engaged meet- ing participants and allowed them to see how their input was being used by the agency. • Engage partner organization with contacts in the local community who can promote and encourage attendance by the local community as Laketran (Lake County, Ohio) did with the local Rotary Club, Red Hat Society, cham- ber of commerce, and others. • Make 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, stakeholder, passenger, techni- cal, or steering. However they are termed, they are generally an agency-created or sanctioned group meant to represent diverse community opinions and assist the agency in decision making. 42 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 responsibili- ties, and balancing the desire for broad representation with the need for managing the committee. By giving a clearly defined area of responsibility, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (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 specific type of feedback that is needed and determine the most appropriate means to engage the public. SETD found that sending out survey cards with postage-paid reply cards yielded a disappointingly low response rate. The agency responded by sending staff to ride the buses with customers and assist them in completing the survey forms. Not only did this boost response rates but it 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, to name a few. 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 diversity of people reached. Each of the case studies in this synthesis used some form of proactive engage- ment. LACMTA took their public meetings to centers of employment and held events at lunch time to gather criti- cal input from commuters. The Port Authority of Allegheny County’s (PAAC’s) Tell Us Where to Go Bus took the mes- sage of the agency deep into the heart of communities to hear directly from the affected public. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (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. SETD developed strong relationships with its local schools and colleges to promote transit use and Pierce Transit used the neighborhood councils in Tacoma and Lake- wood, Washington, to disseminate information and encour- age attendance at its local meetings. Internet and mobile technologies have opened new chan- nels of communication and interactivity that agencies are using to expand the scope of their outreach, engage new audi- ences (particularly younger generations), and push the bound- aries of traditional public meetings and visualization. By keeping its content updated and relevant, LACMTA has kept its followers on Facebook interested in the planning for the Westside Subway extension and managed to translate this

43 interest into greater participation from younger residents in the Los Angeles area. Beyond the specific public involvement techniques, there are also certain overriding factors that tend to lead toward greater success across all public involvement techniques. • Those who “do more” tend to have greater success Successful public involvement strategies tend to include broad-based approaches to engaging communities through multiple mechanisms and by providing continu- ous opportunities for the public to learn about and engage in the process. There is no single technique that works in every situation. Success comes from a combination of an agency’s sustained public involvement efforts work- ing together in a holistic, coherent strategy. Doing more allows an agency to learn what works and does not work for its communities and the institutional knowl- edge created over time helps enhance future public involvement efforts. Pierce Transit offered an example of a broad-based approach to outreach where multiple tools and techniques were used to deliver messages and solicit feedback from specific audience groups. As a result, the agency was able to directly and indirectly engage nearly 60,000 people throughout Pierce County, Washington. • Those who ask the right questions tend to have greater success Agencies that take time at the beginning of their public involvement process to identify where input is needed, how it will be used, and the specific questions that need to be answered by the public are able to create a structure for public input and ensure that the feedback received is the most useful for decision makers at all levels. Building this structure requires coordination with technical staff responsible for planning and design, as well as those responsible for making final decisions. LACMTA’s philosophy for engaging the public in the Westside Subway Extension project was to receive as much input as possible through as many channels as possible. By crafting specific communication plans, LACMTA identified how the public would use feedback channels and structured the process around specific ques- tions on issues such as project phasing, station design, and construction impacts. By guiding the public dialogue and framing questions, LACMTA has been able to receive useful and actionable input from the public. • Those who dedicate more “resources” tend to have greater success The allocation of resources to public involvement is a prerequisite for success. Significant public involvement can be expensive, such as the Colorado DOT’s substan- tial effort to engage the community (often door-to-door) along its I-70 East corridor. However, resources do not have to be financial; the incorporation of public involve- ment into daily job functions and routine agency activi- ties at SETD has opened new channels of communica- tion with the public without significant additional costs. As e-mail has now become a common tool for commu- nication and an expected part of work duties, other web- based technologies are offering agencies the chance to reach significant numbers of people quickly and at min- imal cost. Over time, these too will be incorporated into daily work responsibilities. • Those who genuinely value public involvement tend to have greater success Genuine institutional support for, and belief in, public involvement is important. Recognizing the value of public involvement is important at all levels of an agency. Senior leadership, as seen with Pierce Tran- sit, can open opportunities to engage with key stake- holders and decision makers. Senior leadership can allocate internal resources and set agency priorities to support public outreach. Commitment from other lev- els is also important. Agencies as varied as WMATA and SETD have used their bus operators and employ- ees as frontline troops in public outreach, allowing them to better understand and adapt more quickly to customer issues and needs. • Those who are more open and transparent tend to have greater success Openness and transparency build trust among com- munities. Withholding information fosters antagonistic relationships between the public and an agency, as well as disenchantment with the participation process. Those who are proactive in providing information are better able to guide public dialogue about the agency and its activities. Laketran and the PAAC are two examples of this openness and transparency. By making agency data (financial, ridership, etc.) easily accessible to the public, being open and honest about the agency’s fiscal health, and seeking community input for ways to deal with financial shortfalls, they have built trust with their com- munities and the local media. This has proven invaluable for the agencies as they worked with their communities when service cuts and route consolidation were needed to address budget shortfalls. • Those who understand, partner with, and empower the community tend to have more success In each case study presented in this report, proactive engagement and partnerships with communities and neighborhood organizations have been important fac- tors in the agency’s success. This type of engagement

builds trust with communities; helps agencies identify key stakeholders and issues; shows respect for community values, customs, and traditions; and provides access to communication networks and support structures not typi- cally available to public agencies. ITEMS FOR FURTHER STUDY Several items for further study are presented in this final section. Each speaks to a gap in information, knowledge, or practice for public involvement. Exploration of these issues will give transit providers and public involvement practition- ers valuable information to improve their processes for engag- ing the public. • Defining and measuring successful public involvement The most critical gap is identifying how to define and measure successful public involvement. This synthesis has already indicated some of the difficulties with defin- ing success, but agencies are increasingly looking for a performance-based public involvement model. The chal- lenges in developing this model are many, including mea- suring the qualitative data and intangible outcomes of out- reach efforts, comparing formal with informal public involvement approaches, and incorporating the public’s own perception and value of public involvement. Study is needed into how these can be quantified, the costs versus benefits of formalizing performance measures for pub- lic involvement, and any current models or best prac- tices that exist. • The continued relevance of traditional public involvement techniques Survey respondents for this synthesis indicated that public meetings (including hearings) were a critical part of their outreach efforts. Given the current legal requirements for public involvement this is not surpris- ing. However, in narrative comments, many respondents also believed that the traditional public meeting did not serve to significantly enhance public engagement. As new technologies emerge that change the way society communicates and interacts, an evaluation of the con- tinued relevance of mandated traditional public out- reach tools is warranted. This study could investigate expanding the notion of “public meeting” or “public hearing” to incorporate newer Internet technologies. Similarly, as printed newspaper circulation continues its decline (New York Times, April 26, 2010), investi- gation is needed of how and where public notices are placed. Finally, as new visualization technologies such three-dimensional modeling and animation become more accessible, it will be important to determine what level of visualization is needed—and expected by the public. 44 • Reaching across cultural barriers As evidenced by the LACMTA case study, even robust outreach strategies can encounter difficulties in reach- ing various communities. In the Los Angeles example it was the challenge of reaching the Korean–American community. Urban centers around the country are home to multitudes of ethnic communities, each with their own language, customs, and traditions. Significant research has already been done on reaching environmental jus- tice communities, but this has not typically extended to reach diverse immigrant communities. The Metropol- itan Council in Minneapolis found that sending native Spanish and Somali speakers into neighborhoods with large immigrant populations was an effective way to ensure that those groups were included in the planning process. Further study is needed to identify other suc- cessful approaches agencies have found to reach across cultural barriers and engage different types of immi- grant communities. • Social media as a tool for enhancing public participation As social media increases in importance as a public par- ticipation tool, practitioners are seeking direction on what to use, when, and how. This is a rapidly evolving field that needs a thoughtful approach to study the benefits of social media, adaptable concepts for its use, the legal and privacy issues surrounding it, and whether or not it improves the overall outcome of public involvement efforts. In addition, there is conflicting information about the applicability of web-based tools for engaging various segments of the population. There is a widespread belief that the “digital divide” prevents the use of new tech- nologies from engaging low-income and minority resi- dents. However, research from the Pew Foundation and others has found that minorities are more likely to use advanced features of cell phones (Internet, texting, appli- cations, etc.) than others. In addition the demographic profile of Facebook users now mirrors that of the United States as a whole. • Frontline employees as an extension of public involvement A consistent challenge for agencies is getting sufficient participation from those who actually use the transit sys- tem. Some of the obstacles already stated include com- peting obligations, cost, cynicism, and distrust. In two case studies (WMATA and SETD) the agencies used their employees (bus operators and staff) as an extension of their outreach process. This raises the question of how viable a technique this is for other agencies. A more rig- orous study of the benefits of integrating public involve- ment into the job responsibilities of employees who interact daily with customers and other members of the public is needed. Issues such as potential liability, union issues, and labor–management relations all need to be investigated. A model for how to do this successfully

45 would help numerous agencies throughout the country who are struggling with understaffed and underfunded public involvement departments. • The role of the media in building trust for an agency The Laketran case study offered an example of how an agency can work with the media to promote openness and transparency on the part of the agency and build trust with the public. Further study into this potential role for the media is needed and could provide a model for other agencies around the country. Issues to be investi- gated could include how the media can influence public opinion of the agency, how a relationship with the media can be developed and cultivated, what a successful agency–media relationship entails, how confidence is built between the two, and how this relationship can transition to the world of social media (including blogs) as the influence of traditional media wanes.