National Academies Press: OpenBook

Practices for Online Public Involvement (2019)

Chapter: Appendix C - Survey Responses

« Previous: Appendix B - Survey Questionnaire
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Practices for Online Public Involvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25500.
×
Page 130

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.

C-1 State Survey Submission Dates A P P E N D I X C Survey Responses STATE DATE SURVEY RECEIVED STATE DATE SURVEY RECEIVED Alabama 3/8/2018 Alaska 3/22/2018 Arizona 2/19/2018 Arkansas 2/19/2018 California 3/8/2018 Colorado 3/31/2018 Connecticut 2/26/2018 Delaware 3/19/2018 Florida 3/12/2018 Georgia No submission Hawaii 2/26/2018 Idaho 3/8/2018 Illinois 3/5/2018 Indiana 3/5/2018 Iowa No submission Kansas 3/27/2018 Kentucky 3/29/2018 Louisiana 3/8/2018 Maine 3/19/2018 Maryland 2/19/2018 Massachusetts 3/19/2018 Michigan 2/27/2018 Minnesota 2/23/2018 Mississippi 3/8/2018 Missouri 3/5/2018 Montana 3/8/2018 Nebraska 3/5/2018 Nevada 2/26/2018 New Hampshire 2/26/2018 New Jersey No submission New Mexico No submission New York No submission North Carolina 3/5/2018 North Dakota 3/22/2018 Ohio 3/1/2018 Oklahoma 3/13/2018 Oregon 2/26/2018 Pennsylvania 3/5/2018 Rhode Island No submission South Carolina 2/26/2018 South Dakota 3/31/2018 Tennessee 2/27/2018 Texas 2/26/2018 Utah 3/8/2018 Vermont 3/5/2018 Virginia 3/5/2018 Washington 2/19/2018 West Virginia 3/19/2018 Wisconsin No submission Wyoming 2/28/2018

C-2 Practices for Online Public Involvement 2. What methods of online public involvement has your agency used to support develop- ment, implementation, or evaluation of policies, plans, programs, and/or projects? Select all that apply. Websites or blogs and social media campaigns are the most commonly used methods of OPI across all DOT activities (plans, projects, programs, or policies). These next most commonly used methods are the use of electronic surveys, digital newsletters, and informational videos. The usage of online public meetings, video streaming of public meetings, discussion forums, mobile applica- tions, crowd mapping, and online scenario building and testing were less commonly reported. DOTs reported the greatest use of OPI methods to support projects. Of 546 reported instances of the use of OPI methods, 39% were used to support projects, 31.9% to support policies and plans, and 29.1% to support programs. 1. Does your agency currently provide opportunities for online public involvement? 39 DOTs reported providing opportunities for online public involvement (OPI), and 4 reported not providing opportunities for OPI. 39 4 Does your DOT currently provide opportunities for OPI? Yes No Response Percent Count Yes 90.70% 39 No 9.30% 4 Total 100% 43 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Policies and plans (e.g., long-range plan, emergency preparedness) Programs (e.g., Safe Routes to School, STIP) Projects (e.g., bridge project, corridor improvement, airport expansion) N um be r o f D O T s DOT Activity OPI Methods Used to Support DOT Plans, Programs, and Projects Website or blog Social media campaign Electronic surveys Informational videos Digital publications or newsletters Online public meetings Video streaming of public meetings Discussion forum Mobile application Crowd-mapping Other method Online scenario building and testing

OPI Methods Used to Support DOT Plans, Programs, and Projects OPI Method Policies and plans (e.g., long-range plan, emergency preparedness) Programs (e.g., Safe Routes to School, STIP) Projects (e.g., bridge project, corridor improvement, airport expansion) Total Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Website or blog 29 30.52% 32 33.68% 34 35.79% 95 100% Social media campaign 28 30.1% 30 32.26% 35 37.63% 93 100% Electronic surveys 24 34.78% 20 28.99% 25 36.23% 69 100% Informational videos 20 29.85% 20 29.85% 27 40.3% 67 100% Digital publications or newsletters 22 33.33% 20 30.3% 24 36.36% 66 100% Online public meetings 11 32.35% 7 20.59% 16 47.06% 34 100% Video streaming of public meetings 10 35.71% 6 21.43% 12 42.86% 28 100% Discussion forum 8 32% 7 28% 10 40% 25 100% Mobile application 5 21.74% 8 34.78% 10 43.48% 23 100% Crowd mapping 6 28.57% 4 19.05% 11 52.38% 21 100% Other method 4 28.57% 4 28.57% 6 42.86% 14 100% Online scenario building and testing 7 63.64% 1 9.09% 3 27.27% 11 100% Total 174 159 213 546

3. Please describe the other methods of online public involvement your agency has used. DOTs also reported using the following OPI methods that were not listed in the survey: project- or area-specific email addresses for public comment; interac- tive social media (Facebook Live with real-time Q&A); online public meetings that allow users to call in with questions or comments (Telephone Town Hall); webinars or online workshops; and community-based forums (like Craigslist). Paid online platforms (3) Online community forums (2) Webinars or online workshops (1) QR codes (1) Email address for public comments (2) Specific online engagement tools such as MetroQuest, etc. We are testing a Virtual Town Hall meeting this summer (2018) focused toward our Long-Range Plan. This will be a first for the agency and we hope to implement more events in the future. Interactive social media (Facebook Lives with video and real-time Q&A), Telephone Town Halls. Front Porch Forum is a Vermont neighborhood-based listserv that is widely used in some communities. This has been a very effective way to reach more people in a targeted community, although communication is largely one-way. We do monitor the site in case there are posts about our Agency, but that is infrequent. Craigslist. Webinars, satellite workshops. Requests for comments on environmental documents using QR codes. Comment forms are available on our meeting pages that the public may email to ODOT. We have asked the public to email questions or comments to email accounts created for specific projects and highway districts. For example, on January 17, 2018, on our Mountain Parkway Facebook page, the following message was posted: “We value your feedback. Reach out to the project team and let us know what you think about the Mountain Parkway Expansion! Email us at info@mtnparkway.com.”

4. Why did your agency choose the following methods of online public involvement for policies, plans, projects, and/or programs? Select all that apply. The ability to communicate efficiently and reach more people were the most common reasons DOTs reported for using any OPI method. Transparency was the third most common reason overall, followed distantly by considering OPI to be an important new communications medium and reaching specific popula- tions. Cost savings was the least common reason for choosing OPI. Websites or blogs and social media campaigns are the most commonly used methods. DOTs use websites because they enable efficient communication, greater reach, and transparency. Websites are also commonly used because of agency priority and public demand. DOTs use social media campaigns for similar reasons; however, the ability to reach specific populations is a greater factor. DOT Reasons for Choosing OPI Methods Transparency Reach specific populations Reach more people Public demand Other reason Important new communications medium Cost savings Communicate efficiently N um be r o f R es po ns es Agency priority 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ele ctr on ic s urv ey s Cro wd -m ap pin g So cia l m ed ia ca mp aig n Dis cu ssi on fo rum We bs ite or bl og Mo bil e a pp lica tio n Dig ita l p ub lica tio ns of ne ws lett ers Vid eo st rea mi ng of pu bli c m ee tin gs Inf orm ati on al vid eo s On lin e p ub lic me eti ng s Ot he r m eth od On lin e s ce na rio bu ild ing an d t esti ng

DOT Reasons for Choosing OPI Methods Response Electronic surveys Crowd mapping Social media campaign Discussion forum Website or blog Mobile application Digital publications or newsletters Video streaming of public meetings Informational videos Online public meetings Online scenario building and testing Other method Total Transparency 10.18% 17 3.59% 6 16.17% 27 3.59% 6 15.57% 26 4.79% 8 11.98% 20 8.38% 14 10.78% 18 9.58% 16 1.80% 3 3.59% 6 100% 167 Reach specific populations 10.48% 13 6.45% 8 20.97% 26 3.23% 4 12.10% 15 4.84% 6 12.10% 15 4.03% 5 9.68% 12 9.68% 12 3.23% 4 3.23% 4 100% 124 Reach more people 12.57% 23 4.92% 9 18.03% 33 2.19% 4 14.75% 27 4.37% 8 10.93% 20 6.01% 11 10.93% 20 9.29% 17 2.19% 4 3.83% 7 100% 183 Public demand 6.86% 7 4.90% 5 20.59% 21 2.94% 3 20.59% 21 5.88% 6 9.80% 10 3.92% 4 10.78% 11 7.84% 8 0.98% 1 4.90% 5 100% 102 Other reason 22.22% 2 0.00% 11.11% 1 0.00% 11.11% 1 0.00% 11.11% 1 11.11% 1 11.11% 1 11.11% 1 0.00% 11.11% 1 100% 9 Important new communications medium 8.33% 11 8.33% 11 23.48% 31 3.03% 4 14.39% 19 3.79% 5 7.58% 10 6.06% 8 10.61% 14 9.09% 12 2.27% 3 3.03% 4 100% 132 Cost savings 13.68% 13 5.26% 5 21.05% 20 3.16% 3 15.79% 15 3.16% 3 12.63% 12 2.11% 2 7.37% 7 11.58% 11 1.05% 1 3.16% 3 100% 95 Communicate efficiently 10.70% 20 5.35% 10 16.58% 31 3.21% 6 15.51% 29 4.28% 8 12.83% 24 5.88% 11 12.30% 23 8.56% 16 1.07% 2 3.74% 7 100% 187 Agency priority 7.14% 7 4.08% 4 20.41% 20 3.06% 3 22.45% 22 5.10% 5 10.20% 10 7.14% 7 8.16% 8 8.16% 8 0.00% 4.08% 4 100% 98 Total 113 58 210 33 175 49 122 63 114 101 18 41 1,097

5. Please describe the other reasons why your agency chooses to use online public involvement methods. Response As the audience increasingly moves online for their daily lives, public involvement needs to follow suit. There is a strong public expectation for some degree of online public involvement, but it cannot be at the expense of those without robust internet access. In addition to all the reasons cited above, we use online public involvement methods to provide broad public participation opportunities to a statewide audience in all regions of the state, including both rural and urban areas, who can participate at times that are convenient to them. Education — trying to share information where consumers are.

6. Please provide a specific example of when your agency used the following methods during the development, implementation, or evaluation of a policy, project, or planning process. ELECTRONIC SURVEYS Projects (6) Long-range transportation plans (5) Bike/pedestrian plans (4) Transportation user experience/customer satisfaction (5) Capital planning and programming (4) Understand public preferences for online public involvement (2) Other (5) Reconstruction/ widening of Interstate 17 in North Phoenix. Survey guided construction phasing. We used an online survey for the project Woodruff Road congestion relief in Greenville, SC. It was early in the process so we wanted to gauge where the public’s main concerns were before we put down any alternatives. Many specific projects (US 190, IH 35, etc.). Have used on projects during preliminary design. Business 40 project. When planning traffic flow for a project. In 2007 during the development of the 2030 SLRTP (long- range plan). Access Ohio. To inform an update of our Long-Range Transportation Plan. Public feedback in developing the 25-year long-range plan. Long-Range Transportation Plan. Pedestrian Plan. Statewide bike/pedestrian master plan (currently underway). Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. District 4 Bicycle Plan. Amtrak Cascades Wi- Fi System Performance Survey. Customer satisfaction, specific project amenities. Glenn Highway— survey users about experiences. https://glennstudy.metr oquest.com/ We have contracted with the vendor Opinionator to collect feedback from Rest Area visitors through an online survey. Statewide survey (paper) coupled with online interactive social media survey that allows people to update with videos, blogs, and comments about customer experience. Ohio STIP. Statewide Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan. To measure progress toward meeting the goals of our Strategic Plan. 5-Year Capital Investment Program. TranPlanMT - Public Involvement Survey. We used email surveys to find out people’s opinions about online public involvement. We use surveys to solicit input for the agency’s Title VI compliance program. Post-construction evaluation of outreach consultants. National Household Travel Survey California Add-on. California Truck Survey. Corridor studies.

CROWD MAPPING Highway projects (2) Capital planning and programming (3) Planning (4) Corridor studies (2) Other (5) Several specific projects (IH 37, US 69, etc.). CapCity Freeway (SR 51) multi- modal improvements. Prioritization 4.0 project submission and evaluation process. State Transportation Improvement Plan/12-Year Program. 5-Year Capital Investment Program. To identify characteristics of corridors for a statewide Bike Plan. Online geo-based comment tool for SR 17 Access Management Plan. SR 273 Multimodal Corridor Active Transportation Plan outreach. Statewide plan to identify priority corridors and issues within transportation planning regions. State Route 73 Environmental Study to evaluate the impacts of and determine preferred alignment for a future Freeway with Frontage Roads system https://vizmaps.wspis.com/sr73_ utah/crowdsource/map SR 37 Transportation & Sea- Level Rise Improvements corridor study. Some of our local counties have used these but haven’t been administered by DOT so I couldn’t say how it worked but we have several planned. KYTC is a Waze Connected Partner. We often ask the public to submit real-time traffic information via the Waze app to give us a better sense of traffic across the state that feeds into our online map, GoKY. During an online open house on congestion pricing. Traffic Safety, Roadway Departure Campaign. When determining construction zone for a project.

SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN Project promotion, information, and updates (10) Current emergency information, traffic, construction, and weather updates (3) Safety and educational campaigns (9) Plans (6) Paid posts (2) General news and promotion (4) Other (7) Construction project updates. We use social media to get the word out about new projects starting and lane closures associated with those projects. US-23 Flex Route project http://www.michigan. gov/mdot/0,4616,7- 151- 9621_11008_78923--- ,00.html We use social media for all if not most projects to get our message directly to our customers. Bonner Bridge Project. Specific, major construction projects. Dothan Bridge Slide Project. Many local construction projects in all 12 districts. SR 305 Agate Pass Bridge cleaning and maintenance https://business.facebo ok.com/WSDOT/posts /10155145718701975 Daily roadway conditions, weather and construction, emergency information. Social media is used across all agencies under MassDOT for project updates, service alerts, and just about anything that needs a timely delivery. Stormwater campaign, Zero Fatalities campaign. We use Facebook and other social media platforms to communicate projects, safety campaigns, and other events. For example, for the 2017 eclipse, we used social media to get the word out to that specific group of people. The Idaho Transportation Department used a social media campaign for this year’s Winter Safety Campaign. It included holding two Facebook live events to share information on driving safely on Idaho highways. UDOT Zero Fatalities Resistance campaign https://www.facebook. com/utahdot/posts/101 55491681181715 Access Ohio LRTP. Long-Range Transportation Plan. State bike/ped master plan. California Transportation Plan. SR 273 Multimodal Corridor Active Transportation Plan. SR 37 Transportation & Sea-Level Rise Improvement Plan. For a project I-526 widening in Charleston, SC, we used paid promotional posts to get our online video attention and was very cost effective and worked really well. Key transportation priorities with boost post to geo target audiences. General information. Agency-wide Facebook; numerous Twitter accounts; Instagram. Used during agency promotion of Build Nebraska Act. Agency-Wide Public Communication. An ongoing and daily effort, various social media platforms are used to collect comments, reflections, and questions from constituents. We use LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook to post notices about public meetings. New public transportation service (bus). Ohio STIP. National Household Travel Survey California Add-on. Statewide Speed Limit Study. Autonomous shuttle bus demonstration during Super Bowl Week.

Month. Winter driving—tips and info about what our crews do to respond, including the use of salt brine: https://business.facebo ok.com/AlaskaDOTP F/photos/a.310364832 322578.97680.307611 695931225/11107981 22279241/?type=3&th eater We requested work zone stories from the public to use to create graphics that we showed on social media during National Work Zone Awareness Week. Transportation safety campaigns. .provided via Twitter Road Construction projects. Project updates to public on I-55 widening from 4 to 6 lanes in Hinds County Statewide safety, policy, and operations campaigns. Work Zone Safety

DISCUSSION FORUM Projects (4) Capital planning and programming (2) Other (3) These are used on a project-by-project basis and dependent upon the level of impact a project may have on a given community. Complete 540 project. Willits Bypass Project (District 1) two Facebook groups, one pro and one against. Less used, but use it with projects, typically base in social media with project-specific Facebook page. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. Questions posted on STIP in discussion forum for public viewing, commenting, responding, and feedback. New public transportation service (bus) Passenger Rail EIS. Interstate 710 North and South scoping and public hearings. Mackinac Bridge Walk Public Meeting https://livestream.com/MDOT/2018BridgewalkPublicMe eting

WEBSITE OR BLOG Project web pages on the agency website to provide general information, status updates, contact info, and/or opportunity for public involvement (8) Separate websites for major projects (4) Blogs (4) Post news, public meetings, events, and/or public documents to the agency website (4) Public service requests and reporting (2) Other (10) Websites are launched for all projects/programs/studies to help facilitate an exchange of information with the public. We have project pages for most construction projects with all the relevant information that helps the public know about the project and its status. We have web pages within our website created to inform the public about specific projects such as the Jackson project currently taking place. Every major project and many other projects have either a dedicated website or more commonly we create web pages and/or link from our agency website. For general information on most projects, plans, or programs, including contact information and how to get involved or provide feedback. Bangerter Highway Improvement Project We now do project websites using GIS story maps for almost all of our projects. doesn’t include projects with minimal work like resurfacings. All of our projects have websites to provide information, status updates, and function as a repository of information. The transportation department used a website for a highly visible bridge project in Boise. A website was used for the rebuilding of the Broadway Bridge. I-59/20 Bridges Project www.5920bridge.com I-5 Willamette River Bridge (large project) had a blog. WSDOT Blog https://wsdotblog.blogspot. com/2018/01/traffic- change-on-its-way-to- northbound.html Largely used to support social media, the award- winning blog is a key communication tool for explaining information in a somewhat longer form— but still short. Blogs for each major capital project underway to keep community informed. We post all of our news releases to our website. We use our website to communicate to the public about public meetings, news, and other events that WYDOT holds. Whenever there’s a public meeting about a project, we have a specific page where we list all public meetings. http://www.penndot.gov/T ravelInPA/RideaBike/Page s/Master-Plan.aspx Long-range plan posted on website for transparency and evaluation. We regularly ask the public to report potholes and roadside hazards through an online form hosted on our Cabinet website. Customer Service Request submissions. New public transportation service (bus). Projects such as Access Ohio and STIP. Use widely from specific agency initiatives to large projects. Projects, Preconstructions, Traffic Safety. Rebuilding California Senate Bill 1 http://rebuildingca.ca.gov/ Various projects. California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Toward an Active California; http://www.dot.ca.gov/acti vecalifornia/theplan.html; California State Sustainable Freight Strategy (CSFS) Action Plan; Last Chance Grade (a segment of U.S. 101 in Del Norte County prone to geological instability); CapCity Freeway SR-51 Sacramento; Transportation plans and early project planning under the Planning Public Engagement Contract; &

WEBSITE OR BLOG Project web pages on the agency website to provide general information, status updates, contact info, and/or opportunity for public involvement (8) Separate websites for major projects (4) Blogs (4) Post news, public meetings, events, and/or public documents to the agency website (4) Public service requests and reporting (2) Other (10) http://www.udot.utah.gov/ bangerter/ Project web pages are particularly useful for capital construction projects in the Highway Dept. and MBTA. We create a web page for most large projects, programs, events, and issues. http://dot.alaska.gov/nreg/f oxspring/ information on all Department activities. Statewide Speed Limit Study. I-440 Improvements— Walnut to Wade. Run all projects through CODOT.gov website with specific project pages, same with any planning projects. Necessary to keep overall CDOT brand identity and not have orphan sites out there. Work on URLs for shortening address.

MOBILE APPLICATION Real-time traveler info map (9) Other (4) Real-time traffic conditions can be accessed through our mobile application. MDOT Mi Drive web page on the agency website has used mobile applications until recently. Traveler Information Map. UDOT Traffic app https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/udot-traffic/id477093147?mt=8 Travinfo mobile app. QuickMap app (shows real-time travel information and closures). WV 511 mobile app. We have the DelDOT app which is free to smartphone users. For our 511 program, we utilize a mobile app so users can access road conditions on mobile devices. Questions can be submitted through the device. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/alaska-511/id869870842?ls=1&mt=8 All of our project websites are mobile friendly. We are also using text to subscribe for the above-mentioned I-526 project. A mobile app is currently being developed for mapping all projects that have an impact to a commuter’s daily commute. Project specific, working on developing one for construction info, hiring info, etc. We use our mobile application primarily for the public to report concerns (i.e., potholes, traffic signal malfunctions, road issues, etc.).

DIGITAL PUBLICATIONS OR NEWSLETTERS Project-specific newsletters (16) Internal newsletters (2) Plans (3) Agency- or division-wide newsletters (3) Other (9) Tunnel project progress http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projec ts/Viaduct/tracking-progress Most highway projects. Use these for a lot of our major projects. We start building a database of email addresses from project scoping and send out regular newsletters. There isn’t a way for us to really gauge its effectiveness. We do this on nearly all projects. Project quarterly public newsletters. The I-375 Mega project utilizes a dedicated newsletter. http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/ 0,4616,7-151- 9621_11058_75084---,00.html We typically issue newsletters on a project-by-project basis and not generally for our programs. Business 40 project. Some construction projects (like I-76) have their own newsletters. The transportation department used a newsletter format for the Idaho 16 extension project. This was a project that had significant public interest, and the newsletters were shared at public meetings and public hearings. Project-specific newsletters are used for major construction projects. Internal biweekly department updates. Largely use for internal communication purposes. Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan newsletter updates. California Transportation Plan periodicals. Access Ohio LRTP. Caltrans News (highlights Department’s activities for internal & external stakeholders). Aeronautics. Aeronautics Division quarterly newsletters. Transportation Alternatives Program. Many community members still like e-newsletters and digital bulletins for reading about plans, projects, or efforts of the agency. The key is to make them interactive, as much as possible, and provide an avenue for feedback. We use GovDelivery to send information to subscriber lists. We use newsletters, brochures, and other printed publications to supplement our communications efforts. Again, whenever we have a public meeting about a project, we rely on printed publications to reach that specific group. Ohio STIP. Most of our newsletters are now digital (employee, legal, etc.). Every major study, to provide updates and transparency. Preconstruction. Project updates on I-269 provided to elected officials and legislators in monthly Legislative Update newsletter.

Project managers will provide communities with regular newsletter updates on projects. Used to give updates on ongoing projects: http://dot.alaska.gov/sereg/sr_ne wsletter/assets/SR_Dir_Quarterl y_2017-10.pdf During large projects to notify public of milestones hit. Projects. Every major project. VIDEO STREAMING OF PUBLIC MEETINGS Project meetings (3) Board or committee meetings (6) Safety and education (2) Other (5) Lincoln South Beltway project, biggest in state’s history to date. Complete 540 Project and I-26 Connector Project. The M-13/M-84 public hearing is an example. https://livestream.com/MDOT/M13- M84BasculeBridgePublicHearing Utah Transportation Commission meetings: https://youtu.be/tLLKU0EhwDs For Transportation Commission meetings. California Freight Advisory Committee (CFAC), and California Transportation Commission (CTC). Currently MassDOT and MBTA Board meetings are streamed live. Five Points Working Group. Public meetings with supplemental live webcast where others can participate at remote sites, e.g., Active Transportation and Livable Communities (ATLC) group. A public meeting on the Big Island was televised to inform the public of a new traffic pattern on one of their roadways. When Secretary of Transportation is speaking on issue of safety. Tree cutting. Roads to Prosperity Road Bond referendum. Alaska Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Palmer public meeting: https://www.facebook.com/events/708256 795995352/?active_tab=discussion Last Chance Grade Partnership (a segment of U.S. 101 in Del Norte County prone to geological instability). Fairly regular, though often we do it as an add on to the public meetings and do a video live even on Facebook for people who can’t come to meeting.

INFORMATIONAL VIDEOS Driver education (9) Safety campaigns (5) Construction projects (8) Explain DOT processes (3) Other (6) Have used for roundabouts and transportation tidbits. Ramp Signals. How to Drive a Roundabout. https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=JqaFq4ZFNpo Roundabouts in El Paso and then Austin. We use informational videos to supplement public involvement with public education, such as how to drive on a roundabout. To teach public new type of merge. Navigating Roundabouts. Educational. District 12 Managed Lanes (in production). Informational videos have been a key component of the annual Winter Safety Campaign. Safe Winter Driving: https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=tVIgGf7PMNk Our Safety Staff put together commercials related to drunk driving. Traffic safety. YouTube training video “Safety Guidelines for the Adopt-A- Highway Program” https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=ZjNi5MCTl9g Projects, construction. Information videos are part of project websites generally used to describe a specific part of construction. Hwy 53 bridge relocation project: Here’s one: https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=gPH09BzVs8I For projects. Information on high-profile projects. Videos are a foundational effort, with resources committed to producing a variety of informational and “explainer videos” from across the state. For example, the recent demolition of the Hell Canyon Bridge garnered thousands of views on YouTube. Various construction project updates https://youtu.be/PxpVWuLw6sw Dothan Bridge Slide Project. 30 Crossing Project Development and NEPA Process. We have used several different project budgets to create “cartoon” videos of our processes and hydrology. These videos can be found on our website scdot.org. Use to jumpstart process. For instance, did information videos that helped lead people through an online meeting process on the I-70 Peak Period Shoulder Lanes. Videos used afterwards too. National Household Travel Survey California Add-on informational video. SR 17 Access Management Plan (including video shown at public meetings). Various videos are posted through NDOT social media accounts daily, weekly, monthly, depending on the message and importance to our targeted audience, currently Project NEON 2/2018, NDOT DBE program Community Connections, 2015, NDOT Stormwater 2016,2017 are examples. We do develop videos to promote our agency and certain programs; we are currently working on a video to raise awareness of our Long-Range Plan. For information on a specific policy (i.e., Snow and Ice Control). Northwest Washington Highway Resurfacing https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=kgTW25UgBbU

ONLINE PUBLIC MEETINGS Highway and bridge construction projects (8) Capital programming (4) Other (7) SR 509 Complete Project https://sr509openhouse.org/ Several projects (US 82, IH 45, etc.). Scottsbluff West Viaduct project. I-59/20 Bridges Project Go-to-Meeting. January 24, 2018. Project NEON public update. January 30, 2018, Tropicana Interchange NEPA Phase. We have run 2 online public meetings now where we have created on online presentation once using our internal video guy and once using Camtasia software. We then post those videos to the project website and advertise the 15-day meeting via social media, post cards, and emails. I-70 EIS. Typically, will do with major planning project in combo with live meeting, telephone town halls, with short videos and opportunity to ask questions (email). I-70 Peak Period Shoulder Lane example. STIP outreach for budget allocation. We have held two online public meetings for the biennial Twelve-Year Program update. http://www.talkpatransportation.com/ STIP. Funding meetings. 2018 Mackinac Bridge Walk public meeting. https://livestream.com/MDOT/2018BridgewalkPublicMe eting Proposing a road diet. Our toll rate hearings use Go-to-Webinar along with on- site meetings and also with required hearings for median openings. Facebook Town Halls. An online public meeting was held for the U.S. 20-26 Corridor Study, which had significant interest for residents who lived along the corridor, and businesses along the corridor. Recently shifted to Skype for business, and used for a variety of meetings, but focus is currently on planning projects, i.e., Bike Plan. Senate Bill 1 policy, public feedback. ONLINE SCENARIO BUILDING AND TESTING Long-range transportation planning (5) This tool is used for the long-range transportation planning efforts, which we call “Building a Quality Arizona.” Using available tools from an outside vendor, this scenario planning website allows community members to budget for priorities, which informs the planning process for agency staff. Programs such as our SLRTP, STIP. Long-Range Transportation Plan. California Transportation Plan. Adding in new capacity as part of statewide planning process. Haven’t done quite yet.

C-20 Practices for O nline Public Involvem ent OTHER METHOD Webinar (2) Members of the public email their comments (1) Online comment form (2) QR codes (1) Other (3) Webinar: California Transportation Plan; Statewide Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP); California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan “Toward an Active California.” Satellite workshops: California State Sustainable Freight Strategy (CSFS) Action Plan. The DRAFT STIP was posted on our website for 30 days for the public to review and they were asked to email questions and comments. We offer online comment forms for every project that has public involvement. Online comment tool: California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan “Toward an Active California.” Requests for comments on environmental documents (including QR codes): California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents in all 12 districts. Caltrans Districts use QR codes in the hard copy environmental documents that enable readers to email comments on the environmental document to District staff. Post about impacts to the traveling public (one-way). Several specific projects (FM 2818, SH 20, etc.). Regular user of telephone town halls and Facebook Lives.

Survey Responses C-21 CHALLENGE OPI methods less effective with some demographic groups (3) Sustaining outreach for long-term projects (3) Technical issues (2) Method lacks effectiveness (3) Learning about new forms of communication, offering the public options for involvement (2) Other (2) Challenge: using social media to increase participation by non-native English speakers in low- response regions of the state during a statistically random survey (National Household Travel Survey California Add-on). Challenge: Using Craigslist to recruit focus group participants was useful in urban areas; however, in rural areas, it was less successful, and we had to resort to cold- calling. Rural Internet access tends to be less well developed with spotty coverage. Rural focus group participants, although connected to the Internet, stated that their preferred method of communication was through traditional media and community meetings. Depending on the group we are reaching out to often determines how many electronic forms we receive. Most of our constituents choose to The largest challenge was providing regular blog posts as our goal was twice a week for this 5-year project. Websites are also often out of date because there is a long lapse between phases. Websites become challenging for several reasons, mostly stemming from the fact that the majority of our projects are led by consultants who control websites. When we move from phase to phase and a new consultant is on board, the previous website often disappears with no archival material maintained online. The only challenge we really run into is that we use GIS story maps and when you create those it created a weird web address that’s a random letter and number combination. These aren’t easy to use on signs or on post cards so we have to direct them to our main DOT page. For the electronic survey example above, we purchased a domain name www.woodruffroad.com to use on signs on the web in order to get people to our site. The logistics of setting up the M-13/M-84 public meeting at the Bay City Hall, in Bay City, MI, was challenging. The tech team would have been able to tie into the audio or mic system within the city council chambers where the meeting was held. However, the 8 MHz plug required to do so was in an area downstairs, so the MDOT tech team had to Teaching the public to merge in a zipper pattern rather than waiting in a large line was challenging. A video was created to show how to do this properly. It has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times, yet most of the public still does not merge in a zipper pattern. This could be because the video was not properly advertised on social media or the website. The online public meeting that was held for the U.S. 20-26 Corridor Study consisted of a PowerPoint format, that was accompanied by a project manager’s voice explaining each of the PowerPoint slides. The online public meeting also consisted of Q&A chat sessions that were held during the lunch hour, and during some evening hours. The transportation department had participation from the We’ve been relying more on social media to get the word out. It’s been challenging because it’s a different type of communication tool. With social media we have to be as brief as possible but still get vital information out. So we’ve found that using a combination of the website, social media, and printed materials, we have a better reach. Offering new methods for participation includes continuing to offer them to help the public remember that there are new tools and ways to communicate. I’ve spoken with transportation department staff who work in technology, and they said you have to continue to offer options, and not try them once or twice, then discontinue them if there aren’t a lot of people participating. A platform has to be used continually until it catches on with the public and stakeholders. Crowd mapping has been successful and challenging for different reasons. It is helpful because citizens can report exactly where they’re experiencing issues, but challenging because often their recollection of where something is taking place is not precise, and sometimes citizens just use the map as a way to vent frustrations, without any useful feedback. With STIP, our challenge was to engage people with the process; used social media to provide data and collect comments from the public. leave their comments at the public meeting or mail them in with a pre-stamped envelope. rely on its own audio during the Livestream of the meeting. Thankfully, all went well. The staff was also learning to field public comments and respond on the fly as this was our first time Livestreaming a public meeting for this MDOT region. public, but not as much as I’d thought there would be given the interest in the corridor. Unless short and succinct, most users don’t want to watch the videos we produce, they tend to not return the value for the amount of investment spent on them. 7. Please describe a particularly challenging or successful use of one or more of the above-listed methods, noting what about the method led to the success or challenge you identify.

SUCCESS More people participated (7) Educating the public (2) Share real-time information (3) Greater reach (6) Effective communication (5) Other (5) Promotion of public comment availability regarding the Arkansas Statewide Speed Limit Study was high due to promotion through social media and availability of the survey on our website. We installed “campaign” signs with the website info on there all along the corridor. We ended up having over 13,000 people visit our website and over 4,000 people take our survey. For a comparison when we had the in-person public information meeting we only had just over 100 in attendance. A successful use of an online engagement tool was with the new location Kendall Parkway project. We received an almost overwhelming amount of input which served to guide our decision-making. Use of MetroQuest in update of LRTP was highly successful. Nearly 8,000 participants and more than 5,000 comments. Prioritization4.0 of our STIP—Based on an idea I had, we worked with the MetroQuest team to develop new functionality that turned out to be a huge In March of 2015 we launched a new bus service on a bus-only roadway between two of Connecticut’s major cities. The “busway” also became a major link in a much larger network of bus routes throughout central Connecticut. So there was a great deal of educating to do in order to get people to understand the value of the service and then, of course, actually try it. It worked; ridership has far exceeded original expectations and projections. During the winter we rely on social media campaigns to share information about safe winter driving, updates on road conditions and to share information about how we respond during winter storms— specifically where plows are and how we use sand and salt on roads. Salt tends to be controversial; we share information when we are using salt, with facts about the product and the amount; we don’t respond to insults, but correct misinformation. This is an ongoing effort; we revisit these topics every winter. Recently there was a landslide in Wainiha, Kauai that led to the closing of the Kuhio Highway. We used our social media site to keep the public updated every few hours regarding the status of the clean-up. We received a very positive response from the public. They appreciated the consistent updates. Success: Caltrans social media is the most-effective tool in emergency communications, with the media and public getting road closure and other vital information quickly and accurately. In the fall of 2016, KYTC stopped using the 511 phone system for traffic notifications and moved all traffic and travel information to a new online map called GoKY. Through an innovative partnership with Waze that allows information sharing between the third-party vendor and the Cabinet, we ask the public to download the app and contribute real-time traffic reports to help us add valuable information to our online map. We recently had success with respondents to an online survey for our Long-Range Transportation Plan. I believe mail and phone had traditionally been used for this survey in the past, but we were hoping to get a more representative sample from all regions of the state. The response rate was higher than in previous years, with good representation from different locations and age groups. Very successful use of Facebook or Twitter Live events. Allows for people to see questions, can do boost post advertising to target specific users, large audience with even more on playback. Constantly have people monitor for questions and answers following the live event. Successful use expanding the reach for public involvement. Use of the online geo- based commenting tool for the Access Management Plan in District 5 allowed commuters to participate as well as local residents and businesses, making comments tied to specific locations on a map of the For success, individual websites for large projects has worked well. Provides a platform for continual and transparent communication on a project in an on-demand medium for the public. The agency’s Interstate 5 Willamette River Bridge project blog was a first for the agency. The blog was successful in communicating and providing a forum for citizens to learn about the project and ask questions. The proposed full closure of a busy intersection in Northwest Phoenix at U.S. Route 60 and Bell Road was only possible through electronic surveying of community members, commuters, and businesses to ensure that a full closure was feasible, and, if so, how it could be successfully executed. As a busy commuter and commercial intersection, there were many political challenges and skepticism. The surveying efforts collected key information for contractors (travel times, delivery schedules, busy times for restaurants, etc.) while helping the public feel engaged with Our largest, multi-faceted public involvement tool so far was the two TYP updates. We were recognized by TransComm (part of AASHTO) for this campaign. Lots of information on the survey, crowd mapping, public meetings, etc. here: http://www.talkpatransport ation.com/. We are required by state law passed four years ago to hold a public hearing whenever a median opening is changed. The first one of these was conducted as a traditional face-to-face hearing and one person came. We have since created a process by which we combine a live meeting with a go-to- webinar, reducing costs and staff time while providing the information to those who want it. We implemented crowd mapping 3 years ago to gather geographically specific input to projects that are important to residents of the Commonwealth. This led to greater awareness and planning of priority projects WV recently voted on a road bond referendum as success. It took about 6 months to develop, but highway corridor. the planning of the project. part of the Roads to Prosperity road program;

resulted in roughly a 1900% increase (or 19x) in participation and a 2400% increase (or 24x) in comments/ input. Electronic surveys made it possible for ALDOT to significantly increase the amount of public input and feedback received on the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. More than 1,500 survey responses were received. For the Long-Range Transportation Plan, we utilized iPads to take out to public events to have constituents take a brief survey and offer their thoughts on what was important to them as we plan for the future of transportation. Using this method, we successfully gathered several thousand responses. Use of the online discussion forums for the I-710 North and South scoping and public hearings in District 7 allowed the Department to engage members of the public who were unable to attend in person. In 2015 NDOT held an all- day event for the DBE community in Las Vegas for Project NEON. At this event, we held a meet and greet for the DBE vendors to connect with the prime contractors on Nevada’s largest highway project in Las Vegas, NV. Please see the NDOT YouTube video; https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=OieCsJWF6Ko. This event was both challenging and a huge success! In addition to utilizing our social media outlets in getting the word out and encourage participation from the DBE community, we also communicated with face- to-face meetings to gain trust and creditability with our minority, disadvantaged, and women owned businesses. The St. Croix crossing over the Mississippi River between Minnesota and Wisconsin was a years- long project. We kept the public informed by creating a web page for the project, doing videos of the project and having a live camera on the project so people could see the work. We then did a time-lapse video (https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=n9ZxkaRrkjc). We also did regular social media on the project, news releases about the progress, and stories in our internal digital newsletter. The videos were seen thousands of times. Social media has been extremely successful at INDOT as we’ve been able to communicate directly with our customers, project stakeholders, and communities throughout the state of Indiana. we utilized several strategies to communicate our message and allow public feedback and participation. Facebook reach tends to be higher for projects that impact small communities. We tend to see more shares with friends and neighbors.

8. In regards to projects, does your agency use different online public involvement strategies depending on the phase of the project? If so, please describe. Online outreach conducted in earlier project phases involves more two-way communication and the use of a wider variety of methods. DOTs indicated using online involvement platforms, crowd mapping, and electronic surveys to understand public preferences during project development, alongside using one-way communication channels to provide project information and meeting notices. This period of online involvement may be followed by or coincide with online and in-person meetings or open houses. In general, OPI strategies used during project construction have the goal of providing the public up-to-date information on construction timelines and travel impacts. OPI methods used during construction generally consist of one-way interaction with the public. OPI methods used for DOT projects may vary not only based on project phase, but by scope, scale, and/or sensitivity. Larger projects, particularly those that require an environmental impact statement, may be supported by a greater variety of OPI methods. The methods used may also depend on the staff person or consultant assigned to the project. Seven DOTs do not vary OPI methods depending on the project phase. Several of these DOTs appear to mostly utilize one-way methods to communicate with the public about projects, such as social media posts, emails, and websites. Different strategies are used depending on project scope, size, or sensitivity (7) Strategies used in early project phases (8) Strategies used in early phases vs. construction (5) Strategies used are the same throughout (7) Other (8) Yes. Relatively small projects do not warrant much online public involvement not even a web page. The larger projects (multi- year, high population areas or large geographic area) use a variety of online public involvement strategies. The online tactics vary largely depending on the experience and skills of the communication staff person assigned to the project or the consultant hired. It does depend on the stage of the project. Our new public Yes. A simple example might be if we are gathering citizen input early in project development, we might use online engagement software or crowd mapping to better focus us on public preferences. And then later in project development we might conduct online or virtual public meetings. Typically, for projects in Project Development, we have been using PublicInput.com more. We have used MindMixer/mySidewalk in the Yes, the transportation department uses different strategies depending on a project’s phase. When a project is in preliminary planning, environmental review, and development, project web pages focus heavily on maps and documenting the different stages a project is going through or will go through. Technical reports also are often posted. When a project moves to the construction phase, the focus shifts to updates that can be shared quickly, and using tools such as Facebook, No, roughly the same. Major projects have their own websites where public comment is encouraged. Responses from the project team are generally quite timely. No. We continually incorporate social media, print, and website as part of a comprehensive communications plan. Our stakeholders are varied and therefore use a different mix of communication tools. No. Yes. Depends on the project. Yes, we use everything from GIS mapping to rendered videos and allow for public comment online to make it easier for the public to provide their input. Yes, we try to incorporate as many different methods as possible to ensure we are reaching the broadest audience to inform of our work on infrastructure statewide. Yes. In the construction phase of projects, we use social media and

involvement strategies are fairly new so there are lots of websites out there that are more for informational purposes and there isn’t a comment period. For projects that are seeking feedback we have different info available for different stages. For example, we have 2 major interstate projects that are EIS NEPA documentation that we hired a consultant to create a very detailed website specific to that project that they update and maintain through each stage of the project. Most all other projects are launched once and aren’t changed a whole lot. Typically, public involvement and outreach increases once projects enter the NEPA phase of development. At the beginning of NEPA (environmental analysis) INDOT (with guidance from our Indiana FHWA) requires a public involvement plan be developed to outline a plan to engage and involve stakeholders as project development takes place. Based on the level of environmental impact and/or the type of environmental document being developed (CE, EA, EIS), the public involvement oftentimes varies from project to project. The online public involvement strategies including online comment forms, submission of frequently asked questions, report a concern, and other tools usually are implemented for those projects with greater impact (EA and EIS) levels. past as well. For Long-Range and Statewide/Strategic planning (MTPs, CTPs, STIP, Public Transit Division’s Strategic Plan) we have been using MetroQuest. Yes; however, no one set of strategies is always prescribed or used. In the planning phase, a variety of online and in-person techniques are used. During design, community open-house meetings are often popular. In the environmental phase, comments are solicited online and via QR codes. Prior to construction, public information officers may conduct a social media campaign. Electronic surveys are most common during planning and environmental study phases of projects. Throughout the life of a project, the public can submit questions through our online comment box or send questions to informational email addresses associated with large scale projects and district department of highway offices. In terms of the Environmental Assessment process, we do move from a study period where surveys may be used to holding public meetings, where the public can offer input and view displays. Eventually during the EA phase, once approval is granted, we’ll move to a public hearing phase. During the public hearing phase, we may use targeting mailings, public legal notices, press releases, and the placement of documents at Twitter, and Constant Contact to share information. There is still a project web page, but the focus shifts to sharing information quickly and not going into a lengthy summary of a project’s progress. Yes, during visioning we tend to do more table top exercises, in person and then layer with electronic “crowd sourcing.” During construction, we turn more toward interactive telephone town halls, advertising outreach, etc. During planning = public involvement where are looking for very engaged feedback; During construction = public education where are looking to educate public and address issues but not necessarily to change course, etc. Capital Improvement Projects have a website where the public can get more information on the project, schedule, lane closures, etc. There are also Public Informational Meetings held to gather public input before these projects begin. We also send out news releases to let the public know about all of our lane closures. Planning projects tend to be more proactive about experimenting with online engagement, and scoping projects are moving in that direction as well. Early stages of a project are much more focused on engagement compared to At this time, we are only using the online comment forms for online public involvement. We do hope to implement more ways in the future though! No, we typically utilize, for instance, social media resources, to communicate information on project phases. It stays consistent. Not really. The online public involvement strategies have been largely things like email inquiries and timely response to questions/concerns, email blasts for project updates. It would be extremely helpful if we could implement online public meetings but currently ADA requirements are a challenge. No, we evaluate based on the project and based on specific public response throughout the development of the project. the agency website. In the public involvement process, we use social media to promote meetings as well as the agency website. In Arizona, we have a philosophy of supporting public involvement through all phases of a project’s lifecycle. From planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation, we encourage people to be involved with us in their highways. This has been a successful strategy— people report graffiti, pot holes, overgrown landscaping, and other “minor” issues that in other places might go unreported. Because we are responsive to that input, the public sees a government agency that is customer oriented and focused on meeting community needs. When appropriate, NDOT uses Facebook Live at their public meetings and hearings to encourage participation from our online audience. By doing this, we can capture the demographics, numbers of views, and allow this audience to submit comments and questions to the project experts. We better publicize events, such as public involvement meetings. We provide email to better collect comments on upcoming projects. Most other online public involvement is done through traditional emails and newsletters.

Many of our CE projects will have public involvement but not necessarily an online presence, but rather more localized and focused outreach is performed (mailers, kiosks at the local library, requesting time to talk about a project at a local city council meeting, etc.). It varies based on the type, scope, location, and specifics of the project. Yes. If a project requires demolition, press releases and social media are crucial, but throughout the rest of the project social media and the web page of the project are sufficient to inform the public. We use social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram) to keep the public informed about the progress of bigger projects and to gauge how the public feels or thinks about them. We’ve used targeted Facebook posts to hit the exact audience affected by the project. We’d done online surveys, Facebook live events, and polls for this too. Generally, our teams don’t go beyond NEPA requirements with meetings unless the project is contentious/high-profile, or it gets close to construction. repositories to engage the public. The public may also be invited to offer comments via mail, email, fax, or online during the EA Assessment and public hearing phase. We use surveys and online open houses much more during the design and introduction of the project. The website, social media outreach, and newsletters happen during the entire process as our primary tool to get information out. We use online strategies for phase I (preliminary work), go completely dark during phase II (design), and sometimes have a web presence during construction, depending on the size, duration, and complexity of construction. We only conduct online meetings for median opening projects held during the design phase, described in the previous response. We do not use them for NEPA public involvement. construction, when the focus is mostly on one-way information sharing. Different strategies are used depending on project scope, size, or sensitivity (7) Strategies used in early project phases (8) Strategies used in early phases vs. construction (5) Strategies used are the same throughout (7) Other (8)

9. Does your agency generally use the following methods of online public involvement as a supplement to face-to-face or traditional outreach for policies, plans, projects, and/or programs, or as standalone involvement? In general, OPI methods are commonly used to supplement face-to-face or traditional outreach than used as standalone methods. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Supplemental method Stand-alone method Depends on the project N um be r o f R es po ns es OPI Method Characteristic OPI Methods as Supplemental or Stand-Alone Outreach Electronic surveys Discussion forum Digital publications or newsletters Online public meetings Crowd-mapping Website or blog Video streaming of public meetings Online scenario building and testing Social media campaign Mobile application Informational videos Other method

OPI method Supplemental method Stand-alone method Depends on the project % Count % Count % Count Electronic surveys 10.06% 18 6.25% 1 20.59% 7 Crowd mapping 6.15% 11 0.00% 0 5.88% 2 Social media campaign 14.53% 26 12.50% 2 14.71% 5 Discussion forum 3.35% 6 0.00% 0 14.71% 5 Website or blog 15.64% 28 6.25% 1 8.82% 3 Mobile application 5.59% 10 18.75% 3 0.00% 0 Digital publications or newsletters 12.29% 22 12.50% 2 11.76% 4 Video streaming of public meetings 6.70% 12 12.50% 2 5.88% 2 Informational videos 11.17% 20 12.50% 2 14.71% 5 Online public meetings 7.82% 14 12.50% 2 2.94% 1 Online scenario building and testing 2.79% 5 6.25% 1 0.00% 0 Other method 3.91% 7 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Total 100% 179 100% 16 100% 34

10. Please provide an example of online involvement that supplemented a traditional or face-to-face outreach approach. Did it enhance the overall public involvement in the plan, policy, project, and/or program? Online public meeting or forum (8) Website (4) Electronic surveys (3) Videos (2) OPI enhanced overall public involvement (6) Social media (7) Other (2) Use of an online open house supplemented the physical open houses. The OOH provided us with higher quality comments and to reach more people given the project covered a 100+ mile corridor. As mentioned on the previous page we have done 2 online public meetings instead of in- person meetings. The second one we did have over 700 people visit our page, whereas most of our in-person meetings get 30–50 people on average. We have had a few that were over 200 but not very many. https://sr509openhous e.org/—we have this for those who couldn’t make the myriad of meetings we had before this was launched. This year, we are launching greatly enhanced train service We provided information on the website about a new interchange being installed in Sheridan. We also held face-to- face meetings. The website gave those who couldn’t attend information about the project and also gave those who attended a place where they could revisit and get more information. We usually do the face-to-face meeting and then follow up by providing the same information online. We also usually included additional FAQs based on the questions/comments provided from the face-to-face meeting. And yes, it did enhance the overall public involvement. Use a dedicated website to gather public comments. Project plans posted on website and open for public comments. During the development of the State Highway Multimodal plan, we launched an interactive web page that included surveys. We promoted the surveys through social media and stakeholder emails. We used GetFeedback, MetroQuest, SurveyMonkey, and Qualtrics. Our social media strategy drove people to the website. We did Twitter polls to generate feedback and drive people to the website. We also did Facebook ads, Facebook video, and sent emails to stakeholders. Interactive versions of the plan were available online in addition to PDF and print versions. The interactive version includes a comment tool. Social media engagement reached more than 100,000 users and, overall, this online public Animated traffic model videos have been successful in the public involvement phase of our 30 Crossing project, which is an effort to widen Interstate 30 through Downtown Little Rock. Our educational videos such as the department’s Stormwater program has been a very useful tool to reach audiences that normally would receive information through a face-to-face meeting or classroom environment. We also include these educational videos as an information station at our traditional public meeting. A good example in Indiana would be our Project 421 in Madison, Indiana, http://www.Project421 .com. This project proposed to construct new roadway, connecting to an existing roadway, widening sections of roadway through a historic district. The project launched a very active social media, mobile phone application, and website campaign to raise awareness and involvement for the project. During a two- year period, INDOT held 6 public meetings, 1 public hearing when the environmental document was near approval, 8 community advisory meetings, and 4 Section 106 meetings to discuss the mitigation of impacts to historic properties. The level of face-to- face engagement was considerable but the Online activities include utilizing social media (Twitter and Facebook) platforms to engage the public, stakeholders, and local elected leaders in an effort to get the word out about public meetings. We use social media for the STIP process. The Caltrans tree mortality program (Public Affairs) was effective in communicating with the public that we are clearing roadsides of dead or dying trees due to drought. We used door hangers to inform property owners that they may have a hazardous tree on their property. We directed them to a website to fill out a permission to enter form, so we could legally remove the tree from their property along our right of way. In addition to publishing a news release, social In 2015, we conducted Capital Conversation in association with the development of our 5- year Capital Investment Program. Capital Conversations were face-to-face discussions across the Commonwealth but also included crowd- mapping technology, which allowed people who could not attend meetings to provide us with feedback on what projects are important to them. Online efforts, based on the population in Arizona, act only as a supplement to traditional public involvement. Our Federal Highway Administration- approved Public Involvement Guide is clear that online efforts should only supplement traditional efforts based on the “digital divide,” demographics, and access to technology in some communities.

on an existing rail line from New Haven, CT, to Springfield, MA. We have had a number of public meetings for input (face-to-face) but are supplementing that through online forums and discussions. US 82: we conducted an online virtual public meeting which more than doubled the number of citizens involved in, and aware of, the project. The U.S. 20-26 Corridor Study web page and online involvement supplemented traditional public meetings that were held. The web page consisted of PowerPoint slides that were accompanied by a project manager’s voice explaining what was in each slide, as well as Q&A chat sessions that were offered during the lunch hour and during some evening hours. I believe offering the PowerPoint slides online and the Q&A chat sessions strengthened the project, but had initial expectations that more engagement was highly successful in reaching our stakeholders and getting their input. More details are on http://www.minnesota go.org/application/file s/8614/8642/6767/Ap pendix_D_- _Full_Engagement_S ummary.pdf We conducted an online survey about a specific project to supplement an in- person public meeting. It allowed people who were unable to attend the meeting to provide input into the project so yes, it enhanced public involvement. KYTC and INDOT are working on creating a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing. A series of in-person open houses have occurred in both Indiana and Kentucky to share progress and to request feedback from residents and business owners on their preferred alternative for crossing the Ohio River between Henderson, KY, and Evansville, IN. In support of online involvement was something the agency was and is very proud of and led to a very successful project in terms of receiving buy-in from the local community. Our TYP online public meetings and surveying/crowd mapping brought public engagement in our Twelve-Year planning process to new levels. Instead of a handful of interested stakeholders showing up at regional or “statewide” meetings we had 100+ people stay on for online public meetings, along with nearly 5,000 survey responses and more than 3,600 mapped transportation issues. The social media outreach and website for the Dothan Bridge Slide project gave more residents an opportunity to give feedback and receive project updates. Post- project surveys showed that we reached 80 percent of the population and that 75 percent were pleased with the media was also used to relay this information to the public, and the media covered the story due to this multi-platform approach. On a recent Environmental study, we supplemented open houses and public comment with a website, https://www.udot.utah .gov/sr73/#area, and a Facebook group, https://www.facebook. com/groups/30053126 3752763/?source_id= 227150311714. This has encouraged discussion, and help encourage public feedback, while being able to engage residents with concerns directly. Using social media to share information about a project, in conjunction with traditional face-to-face meetings. It enhanced the public involvement and resulted in more awareness. A social media post rather than a public meeting for a district that had little interaction with the community was Online public meeting or forum (8) Website (4) Electronic surveys (3) Videos (2) OPI enhanced overall public involvement (6) Social media (7) Other (2)

stakeholders and members of the public would participate. We offer virtual public workshops where a constituent can view information about an upcoming project without having to travel to a location to receive the same information. Will say that traditional face-to-face is now typically the least effective way of gathering public involvement though a necessary one. We strongly believe that layering all of the outreach is critical to a full process. For instance, working through planning on I- 25 Gap Project, which has controversial possibility of Express Lanes. Using series of small public listening sessions, combined with telephone town halls and online Facebook Live to engage the public. February, three electronic surveys were posted on the project website (two surveys for residents and one survey for business owners). One of the two surveys to residents solicited feedback on the open houses we hosted in February. We received responses from more than half the number of attendees who signed in to the open house events. The other survey sent to residents was mailed to 4,500 homes and an electronic version was posted online. A little more than half of the responses received for that survey were mailed back. It was very valuable to have the survey made available online because slightly less than half of our responses were submitted electronically, despite not having the targeted access mailing surveys to homes provided. project communications. Using a combination of online methods, electronic information-sharing, surveys, or small- group meetings, and traditional community meetings is our common approach under the Caltrans Planning Public Engagement Contract (Transportation Planning). Most of our planning efforts use broad-based web tools (e.g., SR 37 corridor transportation and sea- level rise improvements, SR 273 multimodal corridor, District 4 Bicycle Plan) that allow for broad participation. In some cases, (e.g., District 4 Bicycle Plan and SR 37 Transportation and Sea-Level Rise Improvements), online methods attracted thousands of participants. We supplement these methods with focus groups and small group interviews to better understand the comments and get input from specific groups. The multi-tool approach works well beneficial because it allowed the message to get out and the public to comment if there were concerns, yet it did not open the agency up to unnecessary criticism of the project. A Facebook Live discussion about our Roads to Prosperity program. and increases agency understanding of the public’s concerns. I-270 EA. Yes. I-440 Improvements— Walnut to Wade project. Yes.

C-32 Practices for Online Public Involvement 11. Approximately how long has your agency been using online public involvement? 19 out of 36 DOTs reported using OPI for over 5 years. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Up to 1 year Up to 3 years Up to 5 years Up to 10 years More than 10 years N um be r o f R es po ns es Number of Years Number of Years DOTs have Used OPI Methods Number of Years Percent Count Up to 1 year 5.56% 2 Up to 3 years 19.44% 7 Up to 5 years 22.22% 8 Up to 10 years 30.56% 11 More than 10 years 22.22% 8 Total 100% 36 12. Is your agency familiar with online public involvement tools? 4 DOTs do not use OPI. 2 of these agencies reported having no familiarity with OPI tools. Answer Percent Count Yes 50.00% 2 No 50.00% 2 Total 100% 4 13. Has your agency used online public involvement tools in the past? The 2 DOTs that have familiarity with OPI tools did not report previous usage. Answer Percent Count Yes 0.00% 0 No 100.00% 2 Total 100% 2 14. What types of online involvement tools/platforms has your agency used in the past? Se- lect all that apply. N/A

Survey Responses C-33 15. Please describe how your agency has used online public involvement in the past. N/A 16. Please describe why your agency is no longer using online public involvement. N/A 17. Has your agency considered using online public involvement tools? Both DOTs that are familiar with OPI methods reported that they have considered using them. Answer Percent Count Yes 100.00% 2 No 0.00% 0 Total 100% 2 18. What prevented your agency from using or continuing to use online public involvement? Select all that apply. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Cost Lack of training or familiarity Liability Inability to control messaging Takes too much time Other N um be r o f R es po ns es Factors Obstacles Preventing DOTs from Using OPI Methods Answer Percent Count Cost 12.50% 1 Lack of training or familiarity 25.00% 2 Liability 0.00% 0 Inability to control messaging 0.00% 0 Takes too much time 12.50% 1 Other 50.00% 4 Total 100% 8 Other-Text Don’t know. Concerns about meeting legal requirements . Federal requirements. Another department handles social media .

C-34 Practices for Online Public Involvement 19. How likely would you be to use online public involvement if the following were removed? 0 1 2 Cost Lack of training or familiarity Liability Inability to control messaging Takes too much time Other N um be r o f R es po ns es Obstacles Likelihood of Using OPI methods if Obstacles were Removed Extremely likely Somewhat likely Neither likely nor unlikely Somewhat unlikely Extremely unlikely Obstacle Extremely likely Somewhat likely Neither likely nor unlikely Somewhat unlikely Extremely unlikely Cost 0 0 1 1 0 Lack of training or familiarity 1 1 0 0 0 Liability 0 0 0 0 0 Inability to control messaging 0 0 0 0 0 Takes too much time 0 1 0 0 0 Other 2 1 1 0 0 Total 3 3 2 1 0

20. Please elaborate on how the selected factors impacted your agency’s decision to not use or to discontinue using online public involvement. Response We have legal requirements written into state code that require traditional newspaper advertising for public involvement hearings and willingness processes. There are also concerns about accurately receiving and documenting public input during public comment timeframes. We also may have issues about the website capacity for online public hearings. There also may be Title VI issues with providing accommodation upon request in online or electronic formats as opposed to in-person traditional public involvement hearings. Antiquated federal requirements have kept us from online public involvement up to this point. However, we’ve been discussing online public involvement for two years and are in the process now of updating our public involvement plan, which will include the option to use online tools. The MDOT SHA, OPPE, EPLD—Public Involvement Section is very interested in using online public involvement. We have started to research online public involvement methods and are very interested in what other state DOTs are doing as well as other agencies in Maryland. Office of Communications handles social media, and we are currently coordinating with them on online public involvement opportunities as well.

C-36 Practices for Online Public Involvement 21. Does your agency maintain a website? 42 respondents reported maintaining a website. 22. Does your agency maintain any project- or program-specific websites or social media accounts? 37 of 41 respondents maintain project- or program-specific websites or social media accounts. Answer Percent Count Yes 100.00% 42 No 0.00% 0 Total 42 37 4 Does your agency maintain any project- or program- specific websites or social media accounts? Yes No Answer Percent Count Yes 90.24% 37 No 9.76% 4 Total 100% 41

23. Please provide an example of a project- or program-specific website or social media account your agency currently uses or has used in the past. Programs (4) Highway and bridge construction projects (25) Travel information (2) Other (7) We have a Facebook page for the Minnesota Safe Routes to School program. Schools statewide are involved in helping kids learn safe walking and biking to school and to encourage healthy living. Walk Wise Hawaii is a program our Highways Safety branch maintains. Walk Wise has its own Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/WalkWiseHa waii/ where they post tips for pedestrians. The Idaho Transportation Department’s Office of Highway Safety has a program- specific Facebook page. It can be found at https://www.facebook.com/IDOHS/ The bottom of the INDOT website opening page is a listing of the “Major Programs” that make up our agency. www.rebuildingi93.com i95newhaven.com For the I-90 Inner Belt Project in Cleveland, Communications maintained a presence on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Flickr. On the opening page of the INDOT website http://www.in.gov/indot (left side of opening page) there is a “Major Projects” link that takes the reader to a listing of project-specific web pages. Projects Page: Maintained throughout the life of a project with information being added as the project evolves. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete5 40/ http://www.i91brattleborobridge.com ImproveI70.org We’re building a new North-South corridor called Mountain View Corridor. Because of the high anticipation of this route, it does have a dedicated website, https://www.udot.utah.gov/mountainview/ index.php, Twitter account, https://twitter.com/UDOTMVC, and Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/MountainVie wCorridor/. These tools are provided on a project-specific basis. Mini site: http://i64widening.org/default- hamptonroads.asp www.5920bridge.com 511la.org https://www.nhtmc.com/ MDOT studies determine project need and impact. These sites hold information for the general public such as the meetings that are scheduled and the reports generated by the study. Information on the page includes Feasibility Studies, Current Environmental Studies, Traffic and Environmental Studies, Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Studies, Environmentally Cleared Projects, Additional Studies, NEPA Guidelines. http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7- 151-9621_11058---,00.html https://www.facebook.com/kyhighwaysaf ety/ Not yet active, Roads to Prosperity website. Green Line Extension (GLX), Wollaston Station Renovation https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransporta tioninvestments/ California Transportation Plan is a dedicated website for the state’s long- range transportation plan http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/californiatra nsportationplan2040/2040.html. California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Toward an Active California (http://www.goactiveca.org/). We created a Roundabout website that provides educational material for both project managers and the public. http://www.fdot.gov/agencyresources/rou ndabouts/index.shtm Many of our projects have their own websites, unfortunately. It's a lot to manage and we are trying to move toward a practice that requires all projects be on our own website as a web page.

C-38 Practices for O nline Public Involvem ent Programs (4) Highway and bridge construction projects (25) Travel information (2) Other (7) The only PennDOT managed, separate social media page is for Route 422 projects at this time. At this time, we are not interested in adding social accounts that would have to be managed by consultants or that apply for anything other than construction projects. This allows us to leverage our existing online assets and presence and ensures that there is solid two-way communication occurring. We use project-specific websites for most of our large projects, here is an example: http://dot.alaska.gov/nreg/danby- wembley/. As a general rule, we do not use project-specific social media accounts; we share project information from our department social media platforms. My 5 LA a dedicated website for a large Interstate 5 project in the Los Angeles area (http://my5la.com/); Last Chance Grade Project a dedicated website for a critical project to find a long-term solution for a segment of U.S. 101 through an area prone to geological instability and slope failure (http://www.lastchancegrade.com/). Project-specific Facebook pages. https://www.deldot.gov/information/proje cts/us301/ www.roads.maryland.gov has specific project web pages. Alaskan Way Viaduct Project https://twitter.com/BerthaDigsSR99, http://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/viaduct Longfellow Bridge Project. Lewis and Clark Viaduct bridge reconstruction has its own website and social media account. Carolina Crossroads Corridor Project http://www.scdotcarolinacrossroads.com/ I-35 corridor news, projects, and road conditions www.my35.org Spaulding Turnpike Newington-Dover Project http://www.newington-dover.com/ https://www.tdot.tn.gov/projectneeds/spot#/

Survey Responses C-39 24. Please select all online social media platforms that your agency currently uses for public involvement. Using social media for public involvement means creating opportunities for two-way interaction between your agency and the public. Examples of two-way in- teraction on social media include encouraging and responding to comments, posting informal polls, and distributing online surveys. Twitter, Facebook, and agency website are the most commonly used online social media plat- forms, followed by YouTube. DOTs also reported using Snapchat and Reddit. Other - Text Snapchat Email; Requests for comments using QR codes Go-To-Meeting MetroQuest Reddit Flickr Vimeo Social media platform Percent Count Agency website 17.99% 34 Facebook 17.99% 34 Twitter 18.52% 35 LinkedIn 6.88% 13 Pinterest 1.59% 3 Instagram 7.94% 15 YouTube 14.29% 27 Social media management platform (e.g., Hootsuite) 8.47% 16 Google Plus 2.12% 4 Tumblr 0.00% 0 Other 3.70% 7 None 0.53% 1 Total 100% 189 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 N um be r o f R es po ns es Social Media Platform Social Media Platforms Used by DOTs Ag en cy w eb sit e Fa ceb oo k Tw itte r Lin ke dIn Pin ter est Ins tag ram Yo utu be So cia l m ed ia ma na ge me nt pla tfo rm Go og le Plu s Tu mb lr Ot he r No ne

25. Please provide an example of how your agency uses social media for public involvement. Post event and public meeting notices (5) Education and safety campaigns (4) Encourage and respond to comments and questions (8) Contests, games, informal surveys (3) Travel and emergency information (8) Management of DOT online presence (3) Other (8) Opportunities to attend public involvement meetings are Tweeted. Social media has become a fundamental aspect of the agency’s efforts to involve and inform the public. Specific to public involvement, the agency uses social media to inform the public of upcoming formal meetings as well as surveys the agency uses to guide our decision-making. We post information about public meetings, events that are happening, and direct people to our website to learn more. On our website we provide information before a meeting so the public is prepared and informed. We continually update the website so it has the latest information. We then post reminders to the public through social media to visit the website. Press releases that I write announcing a Our agency used Hootsuite to post to Twitter and Facebook. We post our news releases, lane closures, and messaging for drunk driving, motorcycle safety, pedestrian safety, etc. We use social media in a variety of ways ranging from promoting safety awareness campaigns to weather and emergency information. For our Facebook and Twitter accounts, the content focuses more on statewide communications; however, some programs do have their own accounts (i.e., Traffic Incident Management). INDOT recently launched a statewide toll-free telephone number (1-855- INDOT4U; 1-855- 463-6848) to make it easier for our customers statewide to contact INDOT, communicate concerns, inquire The NHDOT Facebook account encourages public involvement and feedback on a daily basis on matters related to all aspects of the Agency’s mission, including projects and operations. On Facebook we encourage public comment on specific projects (although not on the agency itself). Facebook is used to encourage public comments for feedback and response on the Hwy 12 project in Starkville. Any post we make on Facebook provides opportunities for public involvement. We encourage it, within parameters. We share project, policy, and emergency information on social media. We respond to misinformation or questions. We respond to general questions and comments that we Mackinac Bridge Social Media Contest: MDOT and the Mackinac Bridge Authority (MBA) ask the public to share their Labor Day Mackinac Bridge Walk memories each year via social media. One lucky winner is chosen at random for a free tour of the top of the Mackinac Bridge. http://www.michigan. gov/mdot/0,4616,7- 151-9620-448120-- ,00.html One of the most engaging posts we create is a biannual guessing game of when a seasonal road will be opened or closed. We have done one or two Facebook surveys/quizzes (one was regarding bicycle facts/laws). We use our social accounts to do posts about online surveys and initiatives. When we have traffic advisories, we will post those on social media for extended reach. Often the public will comment with specific concerns about a closure, and we have the opportunity to provide additional information. Reach out to the public and media about projects going on throughout state, information during emergency situations. Twitter and blogs are used to communicate real-time information about projects, service alerts, and just about anything that requires immediate distribution We use social media on a daily basis to communicate any significant traffic issues and also social media has been an important vehicle during storm events for residents to ask questions and receive updates on conditions and any other vital information. We use YouTube for project information as well as for educational purposes; for example, use of LIDAR, replacing a culvert, etc. Projects web pages are located on the agency’s website. We no longer allow for specific project website due to lack of oversight and transparency. Our agency has a pretty tight grip on the overall DOT social media page so mostly they just send out alerts for us. However, we have 2 project- specific Facebook pages that we maintain that we do online polling, promoted posts, and occasionally respond to comments that can actually be addressed. Need to explain why answered no on project- or program- specific web pages. We host all of those, but we do not let them be on separate URLs or websites. Need to maintain brand We used a Facebook ad, posts, and a Snapchat filter to get people to ride the autonomous shuttle bus during Super Bowl Week. FB ads involving MDT projects and public meeting. Social media—like YouTube—is effective for taking community members behind the scenes and showing them what they are paying for, and how their inconvenience is paying off, and how their input is influencing a project. Sometimes, describing those aspects is difficult in a news release, but showing a project to residents can bring the project to life and build support and encourage engagement, especially when residents see how their input influences the project. At this time, social media is more used for public information

public meeting or public hearing are posted to the transportation department’s Twitter and Facebook pages. Upcoming events. about the status of projects and programs, inquire about public meetings, hearings, etc. INDOT invested considerable resources developing a centralized customer call center to take in calls and emails and then route those calls to a resolution specialist based in each of our 6 district office locations around the state who are assigned to resolve inquiries. In order to raise awareness and educate the public, a massive social media campaign was launched to communicate directly with our customers to alert them of the new call center and statewide toll-free number. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet participates in National Work Zone Awareness Week every April with the goal of making work zones safer by compelling drivers to practice safe driving behaviors. Last year, we used Twitter and Facebook to request the public to submit work zone stories receive through our Facebook page, website, and Twitter (emergency situations only). With the bridge slide in Dothan, AL, the Facebook page that ALDOT created for this project allowed residents to give input on the project and give real-time feedback on traffic flow. We also use Twitter and Facebook to inform the public about an ongoing planning effort, draft document reviews, and public engagement opportunities. http://www.dot.ca.gov /paffairs/social- media.html. As an example, Caltrans participated in two Facebook groups, one pro and one against, created by local residents, related to the Willits Bypass Project, a challenging, high-visibility 6-mile bypass project on US 101 in Mendocino County. Our Public Information Officers joined both groups and monitored them for years, correcting misinformation and Social media is a primary way for us to get information to and interact with the public for project, planning, and emergency communications. One example is a recent Amtrak train derailment. We set up a blog the day of the derailment and created posts on all of our social media channels linking to it. We continued to update the blog with the latest status of the clearing of the closed roadway and what challenges our crews were facing. This blog story received considerable amount of traffic as the public came to rely on it for up-to-date information. https://wsdotblog.blog spot.com/2017/12/amt rak-cascades- derailment- dupont.html Last-minute information about lane closings. We use Twitter and Facebook to let the public know that they can report highway maintenance concerns, such as a pothole or broken sign, to our identity. Same with separate Twitter feeds or Facebook. We use hashtags or create project- or program- specific subpages on Facebook. than public involvement. As another example, our most recent effort for the National Household Transportation Survey used social media to target regions and demographics with low participation rates. The Department created an informational video in both English and Spanish that was posted on the main Caltrans Facebook page as well as on District-specific social media pages. Caltrans also posted videos to be shown in specific regions appearing on the Facebook newsfeeds in target communities and households (Spanish- speaking residents, families with four or more members, and communities in the Central Valley). We use social media to alert people to job opportunities, surveys, and public meetings. It’s two-way interaction to the extent that people choose to comment. We typically use social media to inform

capturing an experience that will inspire others to drive safely. We provided a link to a form they could submit their stories through. We then created graphics of the stories we received and posted them on social media. During April, we also asked the public to post photos wearing high-visibility wear using the hashtag #vestedinwzsafety. answering public questions. Customer Service Request website and mobile app. Traffic updates. people or increase awareness about plans, studies, and public meetings/hearings. We also use it to drive people to our website and/or public engagement portals. We use it to give notice of every project, every safety campaign, every initiative. Post event and public meeting notices (5) Education and safety campaigns (4) Encourage and respond to comments and questions (8) Contests, games, informal surveys (3) Travel and emergency information (8) Management of DOT online presence (3) Other (8)

Survey Responses C-43 26. Does your agency have a public involvement plan? 10 of 42 DOTs do not have an agency-wide public involvement plan. Yes No 32 10 Does your agency have a public involvement plan? Answer Percent Count Yes 76.19% 32 No 23.81% 10 Total 100% 42 27. Please upload your agency’s public involvement plan. 21 uploads

In the process of developing or updating a plan (4) Plans are developed on a project-by-project basis (3) Agency commitment to public involvement is stated elsewhere (5) We are in the process of developing a Communications/Public Involvement Plan. We are currently working to update it. We have one but it is outdated and we are updating it so we don’t have a finished document yet. We do not have a public involvement plan for the agency overall but we are in the process of developing one. Basically, the agency has taken for granted that we provide decent outreach even with little-to-no guidance, standards, and consistency. We have only had a designated public involvement officer for 6 months (myself). Prior to my start, the other folks carried on other jobs and then also did some public involvement. A PIP was started, but never completed. I am attending a public involvement training next week that is being offered by NHI and FHWA and hope to come home with valuable information that will allow me to update, complete, and finalize our PIP. We approach each project or program individually and assess based on the specific need. The agency develops project-specific public involvement plans. Individual projects do have PI plans. We have a commitment to be transparent to the public and to engage with them with all projects, but it’s not in the form of a plan. The agency’s public involvement efforts are driven by federal and state law, federal and state regulations, and agency guidance. Significantly, the agency has an overarching public involvement policy that is the backbone of all outreach efforts. The combination of policy and guidance form the basis of all public involvement. We do have a strategic communications plan that addresses the need for public involvement. We just don’t have a formal written plan. We do overall communications plans and regional staff ensure that we’re following requirements for public involvement on various projects or initiatives. 28. Please describe why your agency does not have a public involvement plan.

Survey Responses C-45 Answer Percent Count Yes 60.98% 25 No 39.02% 16 Total 100% 41 29. Does your agency have public involvement plans for specific projects or programs? 25 of 41 DOTs have project- or program-specific public involvement plans, while 16 do not. 25 16 Does your agency have public involvement plans for specific projects or programs? Yes No

30. For what types of projects or programs does your agency have a project- or program-specific public involvement plan? Construction projects (9) Plans (4) Based on the project’s scale or level of impact (3) Most projects/programs have a specific public involvement plan (3) Other (8) Primarily for highway projects and planning projects (long- range and modal plans). Almost all appropriate highway projects have at least some form of public involvement plan or planning effort associated with it. The more involved the project is, the more likely that a project- specific public involvement plan has been created. All major highway projects have PIP. We have a plan for our STIP outreach and other statewide initiatives. Roadway or bridge projects, particularly those that require an outreach consultant. We have a formalized PIP for our public-private partnership for bridges, the Rapid Bridge Replacement Program. Most large projects. We also have plans to involve the public in our construction projects. Preconstruction and construction. Federal and state construction projects. For many of our plans, we include a plan for public involvement. In our pedestrian plan (called Minnesota Walks), there was a plan to involve the public at community events. This plan is available at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/peds/ plan/ Caltrans routinely prepares public involvement plans at various levels of detail for a variety of plans, programs, and projects. For each planning effort (transportation plans and programs/projects in early stages of development) under the Planning Public Engagement Contract (PPEC), we prepare a service request, which includes a description of the planning effort, the public engagement goals and objectives, expected results, task descriptions, and schedule. (The Division of Transportation Planning has used four, multi-year PPECs since 2002.) These service requests essentially serve as an internal plan for public outreach and involvement. Each service request is tailored to the particular plan or project. For larger, more complex (often statewide) planning efforts and projects (e.g., the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan), the first phase is often to develop a INDOT’s public involvement policy is located on the INDOT website at http://www.in.gov/indot/2366.ht m via the public involvement web page. A public involvement plan is required for every project. The plan may be more or less robust based on the level of impact a project is anticipated to have. CE level projects may require a minimal public involvement plan while EA and EIS level projects will require a more robust public involvement plan. Many INDOT programs require public involvement plans as well including our Long- Range Plan, our Title VI and ADA programs, and when we develop our statewide transportation improvement program (STIP), a public involvement plan is developed. Major Highway, Transit, Rail, and Aeronautics depending on the scope. A public involvement plan (PIP) is required on Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) level projects. The plan should be based on the needs of each project. The plan may range from individual property owner contacts for small projects to a series of public involvement meetings or public hearings for more complex projects. Some Most project teams develop a public involvement plan at the initiation of a project, especially in Project Planning. All projects and major programs have public involvement plans that comply with the agency public involvement guidelines, including audience identification and stakeholder analysis. Each project has its own PI written into each scope of services. Every project is unique and has its own challenges. Identifying the community demographics is one aspect to the success of the project and the department’s creditability. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. STIP. Public involvement procedures that cover federal-aid projects. All projects that have funding from Federal Highways. Environmental studies. For specific projects we hold public informational meetings and send out news releases to the media, legislators, and the public. Environmental Justice Guidance for Michigan Transportation Plans, Programs, and Activities (http://www.michigan.gov/docu ments/mdot/mdot_EJ_Guidance_ Document_345493_7.pdf); Context Sensitive Solutions and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (http://www.michigan.gov/docu ments/MDOT_Session_05_CSS __NEPA_with_speaker_notes_1 56650_7.pdf); Title VI Implementation Plan (http://www.michigan.gov/docu ments/mdot/2017_FHWA_Title_ VI_Plan-Signed_605862_7.pdf); Guidelines for Stakeholder Engagement (http://www.michigan.gov/docu ments/mdot/MDOT_Guidelines_ For_Stakeholder_Engagement_2 64850_7.pdf); Public

detailed public involvement and engagement plan. We are currently preparing a Public Involvement Plan for Caltrans and our partner agencies for the San Diego Region Autonomous Vehicle Proving Ground. Long-range plan. Long-Range Transportation Plan. public involvement plans may include formation of a citizens advisory committee to involve a large number of property owners or special interest groups when significant environmental issues or concerns must be addressed. The key is to create a plan that allows the Cabinet to communicate with the public in order to make the best transportation decision. The PDT should establish an outline of the public involvement plan early in the project development phase. The plan must include any federally required public hearings and may be supplemented by additional public involvement meetings that will contribute to better decisions on the location or detail of a project. This plan may be adjusted as the project advances and should be reviewed by the PDT at critical stages in project development. The plan should also consider other means of communication to obtain public input such as telephone surveys, newsletters, social media, web sites, and focus groups. Involvement Guidelines for NEPA Activities (http://www.michigan.gov/docu ments/mdot/Public_Involvement _Hearing_Procedures_613195_7. pdf). For projects, issues, and most programs.

C-48 Practices for Online Public Involvement 31. Please upload a project- or program-specific public involvement plan your agency has used. 14 uploads 32. Does your agency’s public involvement plan(s) include guidelines, procedures, or recom- mendations for using online public involvement? 25 of 33 DOTs have public involvement plan(s) that include guidelines, procedures, or recommendations for using online public involvement. Yes No 25 8 Does your agency’s public involvement plan(s) include guidelines, procedures, or recommendations for using online public involvement? Answer Percent Count Yes 75.76% 25 No 24.24% 8 Total 100% 33

Survey Responses C-49 33. Does your agency’s public involvement plan(s) include a social media policy or procedure? 17 of 32 agencies do not include a social media policy or procedure in the agency public involvement plan. Yes No 15 17 Does your agency’s public involvement plan(s) include a social media policy or procedure? Answer % Count No 53.13% 17 Yes 46.88% 15 Total 100% 32 34. If your agency does not have a public involvement plan that includes a social media policy or procedure, does your agency have any written policies or procedures for online public involvement or use of social media? 11 DOTs do not have any written policies or procedures for OPI or the use of social media, while 15 do. Yes No 15 11 Does your agency have any written policies or procedures for online public involvement or use of social media? Answer Percent Count Yes 57.69% 15 No 42.31% 11 Total 100% 26

C-50 Practices for Online Public Involvement 35. Please upload any other policies or procedures that your agency has for online public involvement or use of social media. 8 uploads 36. Does your agency tailor online public involvement tools for both computer desktop and mobile phone use? Most DOTs tailor OPI for both computer desktop and mobile phone use at least some of the time. 7 DOTs do not tailor OPI for both formats. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Yes Sometimes No N um be r o f R es po ns es Does your agency tailor online public involvement tools for both computer desktop and mobile phone use? Response Answer Percent Count Yes 45.95% 17 Sometimes 35.14% 13 No 18.92% 7 Total 100% 37

Survey Responses C-51 37. Does your agency prioritize computer desktop use or mobile use when choosing or designing online tools? Of the 17 agencies that tailor OPI for both desktop and mobile use, 5 prioritize desktop and 2 prioritize mobile use when choosing or designing online tools. 10 agencies prioritize either desktop or mobile use depending on the project. Mobile Desktop Depends on the project N um be r o f R es po ns es 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Response Does your agency prioritize computer desktop use or mobile use when choosing or designing online tools? Answer Percent Count Mobile 11.76% 2 Desktop 29.41% 5 Depends on the project 58.82% 10 Total 100% 17

C-52 Practices for Online Public Involvement DOT Online Public Involvement Staffing Structure Matrix (based on responses to questions 38–40, shown below)

Survey Responses C-53 38. What position or title within your agency is responsible for establishing guidelines for online public involvement? List as many titles or positions as are responsible. Responses Media and Community Relations Bureau Chief Design Bureau Chief Communication Director Public Information Officers Communications Director Environmental Division Office of Public Affairs, Assistant Deputy Director of Public Affairs Bureau Chief, Policy and Planning Bureau Chief, Public Transportation Director of Community Relations ADA Coordinator Director of Planning State Community Resource and Public Involvement Coordinator The Idaho Transportation Department’s Manager in the Office of Communication, the Idaho Transportation Department’s Public Involvement Coordinator Bureau Chief of Outreach Bureau Chief of Communication Services Director, Office of Communications The INDOT Office of Public Involvement, The Division of Communications and our E-Communications team Director of Communications Communication Director Office of Disability and Civil Rights All other agencies create plans tailored to specific projects Public Involvement and Hearings Officer Director of Communications Social Media Coordinator Chief Counsel Environmental Division Director, Public Affairs Director, Public Information Officer State Design Engineer, Transportation Planning Director, Communications Manager, Transportation Project Manager Communications Division (Public Involvement Manager, Communication Services Manager, External Affairs Manager) Director of Communications No known position for this Public Involvement & Community Studies Group Leader and Communications Director Environmental Coordinator Communications managers PIOs Planning This is new territory for us and as I said we use more online public information than involvement. Public Information Representative Communication Manager Community Affairs Manager Community Affairs Coordinator Senior Project Manager Depends on the project. Could be any of or a mix of the following: press secretary, communications director, deputy communications director, community relations coordinator, project manager, statewide bike/pedestrian coordinator, public involvement consultant. Environmental Services Office (ESO) - Public Involvement Coordinator, NEPA Manager, and Director of ESO Director of Public Involvement Director of Communication Digital Communication Specialist Public Information Officer Regional Communication Manager Public Outreach Manager Communications Director, Assistant Communications Director, Lead Digital Strategist, Planning Lead, Lead Planning Communications Officer DOT Environmental Group Communications Director Deputy Secretary The Public Affairs Office, specifically the public affairs manager oversees this component.

C-54 Practices for Online Public Involvement 39. What position or title is responsible for implementing online public involvement? List as many titles or positions. Communications Manager Public Involvement Manager, Communication Services Manager Public Hearings Officer Environmental Specialist Director of Communications No known position for this Responses Environmental Technical Administrator Region Engineer Public Information Officer Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Communication Director Public Information Officers Publication Specialists Communications Director, Assistant Communication Director for Community Relations Public Information Section Public Information Officer, Media Relations Manager, Public Affairs Branch Chief, Assistant Deputy Director of Public Affairs Planning Public Engagement Contract (PPEC) Manager, Division of Transportation Planning, Transportation Planning Division Assistant Division Chiefs District Chief Environmental Planner and Senior Environmental Planners Bureau Chief, Policy and Planning Bureau Chief, Public Transportation Director of Community Relations Director of Planning ADA Coordinator Project Manager The Idaho Transportation Department’s Manager in the Office of Communication, the Idaho Transportation Department’s Public Involvement Coordinator, the Public Information Specialists assigned to the transportation department’s districts Director, Office of Communications Bureau Chief of Outreach Outreach Liaison Project Manager Engineers The INDOT Office of Public Involvement, the division of Communications and our E-Communications team Director of Communications Communications Specialist Graphic Designer Social Media Coordinator Public Affairs Managers Public Information Officers, Executive Director, and contracted marketing/PR firms Communication Director, Public Information Office, Project Manager, Customer Service Manager MassDOT Government Affairs Office, MassDOT Planning, Mass Bay Transit Authority Public Involvement and Hearings Officer Public Affairs Coordinator District Engineer Project Manager Social Media Coordinator Special Projects Officer IV—Environmental Division, Public Information Officer, Social Media Strategist Public Involvement & Community Studies Group Leader and Public Involvement Officers Environmental Coordinator Communications Managers PIOs Planning Public Information Representative Communication Manager Community Affairs Manager Community Affairs Coordinator Senior Project Manager Planner Project Leader Consultant Project Manager Local Agency Liaison

Survey Responses C-55 Responses Depends on the project. Could be any of or a mix of the following: press secretary, communications director, deputy communications director, community relations coordinator, project manager, digital/deputy digital director. Environmental Services Office (ESO)—Public Involvement Coordinator District Engineer Deputy District Engineer Director of Transportation Planning and Development Advanced Planning Director Environmental Specialist Public Information Officer Director of Public Involvement Public Involvement Specialist Director of Communications Regional Communication Manager Public Involvement Specialists Public Outreach Manager, Digital Outreach Coordinator, Public Outreach Coordinator, Outreach Consultants, Project Manager for any planning or construction project Digital Strategist, Social Media Lead same as above The Public Affairs Office under the supervision of the Public Affairs Manager

C-56 Practices for Online Public Involvement 40. What position or title is responsible for maintaining your agency’s social media presence? Responses Media and Community Relations Bureau Chief Public Information Officer Marketing and Communication Specialist Publications Specialists Public Information Officers Communication Director Communications Director, Assistant Communications Director for Public Information, Supervisory Public Information Officer Public Information Section Public Information Officer No one single position Director of Community Relations Marketing Specialist The Idaho Transportation Department’s Manager in the Office of Communication, the Idaho Transportation Department’s Public Involvement Coordinator, the Public Information Specialists assigned to the transportation department's districts Bureau Chief of Communication Services Director, Office of Communications Public Information Officer Social Media Manager our E-Communications team Director of Communications Communications Specialist Graphic Designer Social Media Coordinator Public Affairs Managers Paid consultants managing projects, District Public Information Officers, Executive Director of Public Relations, Central Office Public Information Officer, Kentucky Office of Highway Safety Information Officer, Department of Vehicle Regulation Systems Consultant II Communication Director, Public Information Officer, Customer Service Manager MassDOT Media Relations Communications Representative Social Media Coordinator Digital Media Manager, Social Media Strategist Communications Specialist Public Information Officer Communication Services Manager Public Information Officer Communications Director and our Social Media Coordinator Press Sec. Social Media Specialist PIOs Our Media Public Relations department maintains our social media presence. Public Information Representative Communication Manager Chief Content Strategist Digital director and deputy digital director, community relations coordinators, press secretary, and other communications staff as needed Agency’s Director of Communications Director of Communications and Customer Service Director of Communications Division Digital Communication Specialist Public Outreach Manager, Digital Outreach Coordinator, Public Outreach Coordinator Social Media Lead Director of Communications The Public Affairs Office under the supervision of the Public Affairs Manager

Survey Responses C-57 41. Are there instances when a consultant team or outside party may implement online public involvement on behalf of your agency? 31 of 35 DOTs use consultants to implement OPI on behalf of the agency. Response Percent Count Yes 88.57% 31 No 11.43% 4 Total 100% 35 Yes No 31 4 Are there instances when a consultant team or outside party may implement online public involvement on behalf of your agency?

42. Please provide an example of when your agency worked with a consultant to enhance online public involvement. Highway and bridge construction (12) Challenge with consistency (2) Educational campaigns (3) Long-range planning (5) Always use consultants for large projects (3) Other (6) Currently in development of our 30 Crossing project. www.30crossing.com The South Mountain Freeway, a 22-mile long greenfield route in Phoenix, requires support from consultants to best implement online and traditional public involvement strategies. Consultants are used, based on the scope and assessment of the project’s concerns. Numerous projects (IH 45 PEL, IH 35, SH 114, etc.). Project 421 in Madison, Indiana http://www.Project421.co m The Idaho Transportation Department worked with a public involvement consultant, RBCI, to offer online Q&A chat sessions for the Idaho 55/Eagle Road lane/traffic changes. RBCI organized the chat sessions, and helped build/create PowerPoint slides that explained what changes were going to be occurring for sections of Idaho 55/Eagle Road. Consultants often manage construction project This online open house was done by a consultant: https://sr509openhouse.org / We use consultants for communications quite often as there are more projects than in-house staff. Our challenge is keeping the public involvement a consistent experience across multiple consultant firms. For almost all of our major roadway and bridge projects, and some major maintenance projects, we engage a consultant to work with the Project Manager to develop and execute a Public Involvement Plan. Most major projects have a project website with contact information and a link to sign up for project alerts. Some consultants have created social media accounts that are project- specific, but they have not been consistent or widely used. One challenge we have seen with using consultants for outreach is they sometimes set up their own website or social media channels that are affiliated with their businesses, rather than with the Agency. Planning We used an outside agency for an Anti-texting campaign. We also use outside agencies for Work Zone Safety. We work with a consultant to get the word out about our Walk Wise Campaign. All efforts under the Planning Public Engagement Contract (PPEC) involve consultant support. Public Affairs also uses consultant services for media campaigns (e.g., the Protect Every Drop campaign creates and posts content on our behalf to make the public aware of storm water pollution, and offers prevention tips). Access Ohio. Long-Range Transportation Plan. Consultants manage our Twelve-Year Program communications process in concert with our communications office. DelDOT worked with a consultant to develop its Long-Range Transportation Plan: Innovation in Motion and to encourage online participation. https://deldot.gov/Publicati ons/reports/plan/index.sht ml We frequently work with consultants on long-range plans or studies. Example, Minnie Street study— http://www.minniestreet.co m/ Large-scale projects such as Green Line Extension, Commonwealth Ave over I-90, Wollaston Station Closure and Renovation project Large, multi-year projects will typically have a consultant providing our online public involvement on our behalf. The majority of the public involvement we do on major projects is contracted to an outside agency. The only projects that are handled internally are smaller, maintenance projects. During the development of the state’s latest U.S. Bicycle Route, a consultant was used to use interactive online tools so people could see a map where a possible route could be developed and actually draw the route. The CTfastrak (busway) launch mentioned previously. The Hartford Line rail project mentioned previously. Build Nebraska Act: http://dot.nebraska.gov/pro jects/tia/cap-improve/ For stakeholder relations meetings. Frequently—many of our phase I projects are completed by consultants and they take responsibility for online PI in that instance. Consultants work on nearly all of our projects.

websites if a separate site is deemed necessary. GeauxWider Project, GeauxPass Tolls, Huey P. Long Bridge, I-49 South The I-59/20 Bridges project is working with a communications consultant to enhance online public involvement. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet contracted with C2 Strategic Communications on the I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project between Kentucky and Indiana. They are responsible for executing the Public Involvement Plan which includes online public involvement methods, such as online surveys and responding to comments and questions on the project website I69ohiorivercrossing.com The consultant for the I-94 project is HNTB Corporation; nearly 30 years ago, MDOT recognized the need to reconstruct I-94 in Detroit. In the 1990s, the department conducted an extensive Environmental Impact Study (EIS) aimed at (among other things) building community consensus on how to repair I-94. In 2005, the Federal Highway Administration projects seem to be more proactive about online public involvement, such as the example cited with our Statewide Bike Plan, which has used a consultant to assist with the overall plan, but includes outreach aspects including online public meetings, crowd-sourced mapping, and surveys.

Highway and bridge construction (12) Challenge with consistency (2) Educational campaigns (3) Long-range planning (5) Always use consultants for large projects (3) Other (6) (FHWA) issued a record of decision (ROD) that approved the reconstruction of a 6.7- mile segment of the freeway in the city of Detroit, from just east of the I-94/I-96 interchange to east of Conner Avenue; Online activities include utilizing social media (Twitter and Facebook) platforms to engage the public, stakeholders, and local elected leaders in an effort to get the word out about public meetings and using a dedicated website to gather public comments. http://www.michigan.gov/ mdot/0,4616,7-151- 9621_11058_53088_53115 ---,00.html For our Carolina crossroads project that I used as an example of the project specific website. The consultant produces and manages all online videos, content, and meetings under SCDOT’s direct supervision. Project NEON, in Las Vegas, NV.

Survey Responses C-61 43. Has your agency used online public involvement to specifically target any of the following groups? Select all that apply. 15 DOTs do not use OPI to target specific populations. Among the DOTs that do, they most commonly target urban populations (19), rural populations (15), and Millennials (14), as well as minority populations (12). DOTs also use OPI to target other groups, such as multimodal trans- portation advocates, tribal groups, and people in specific project areas rather than demographics. Note: LEP = limited English proficiency 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 N um be r o f R es po ns es Population Agency Use of OPI to Reach Specific Populations Answer Percent Count Urban populations 15.70% 19 No, my agency’s online outreach does not target specific groups. 12.40% 15 Rural populations 12.40% 15 Millennials 11.57% 14 Minority populations 9.92% 12 Individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) 7.44% 9 Individuals with disabilities 7.44% 9 Older adults 6.61% 8 Youth 6.61% 8 Low-income populations 6.61% 8 Other, please describe: 3.31% 4 Total 100% 121 Other - Text Not that I’m aware of. Advocates of multimodal transportation Tribal groups If we do any targeted messaging, it’s to the project area not a demographic.

C-62 Practices for Online Public Involvement 44. If your agency has conducted online public involvement in a language(s) other than English, please list the language(s) below. Language Count Spanish 15 Vietnamese 6 Chinese 4 Russian 1 Tagalog 1 Polish 1 Arabic 1 Mandarin 1 Sudanese 1 Somali 1 Japanese 1 Korean 1 Punjabi 1 Hindi 1 Khmer 1 Portuguese 1 Responses (15) Spanish Spanish, Vietnamese, Russian, Tagalog Spanish Spanish For our major projects we have included some materials in Spanish and have a Spanish line for them to call. Spanish, Polish Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Sudanese, Somali Spanish Spanish Spanish frequently. Also, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Punjabi, Hindi, and Vietnamese. Spanish and Vietnamese Depending on the community we have offered the comment forms in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese. Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Khmer, Portuguese Spanish Spanish

Survey Responses C-63 45. Has your agency faced any of the following external challenges when using online public involvement? Select all that apply. Issues with internet access are the most common challenges DOTs face when using OPI. 24 DOTs reported a lack of internet access among members of the public, and 14 reported slow internet access. Online trolling is another common challenge, reported by 13 respondents. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Digital divide Slow internet access Online trolling Limited English proficiency None Low literacy Other N um be r o f R es po ns es External Challenge External Challenges When Using OPI Methods Answer Percent Count Digital divide (members of the public lacking internet access) 31.17% 24 Members of the public experience slow internet access 18.18% 14 Online trolling 16.88% 13 Members of the public have limited English proficiency 12.99% 10 None 10.39% 8 Members of the public have low literacy 9.09% 7 Other 1.30% 1 Total 100% 77 Other - Text Older folks not wanting to use the internet but most of them do have it.

C-64 Practices for Online Public Involvement 46. Has your agency faced any of the following internal challenges when using online public involvement? Select all that apply. 33% of DOTs reported experiencing lack of staffing resources and 19% reported budgeting as internal challenges when using OPI. Some DOTs also are concerned about legal challenges and lack of training. Several DOTs described a lack of internal protocols for using and tracking comments from social media. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Lack of staffing resources Budgeting Legal considerations Lack of training None Lack of internal protocols Other N um be r o f R es po ns es Internal Challenge Internal Challenges When Using OPI Methods Response % Count Lack of staffing resources 33.33% 21 Budgeting 19.05% 12 Legal considerations 12.70% 8 Lack of training 11.11% 7 None 11.11% 7 Lack of internal protocols, please elaborate: 6.35% 4 Other, please describe: 6.35% 4 Total 100% 63 Other - Text We don’t have the experience or mechanisms available to conduct two-way online communication outside of responding to social media comments. Reluctance to increase interaction with public/have to be accountable to the feedback gathered. Acceptance by FHWA. Lack of experience in doing this. Lack of internal protocols, please elaborate - Text No social media guidelines. We need to formalize a social media policy and change policy related to social media access at the agency to allow for additional authorized users. Use of social media is focused on one-way information—no good way to track feedback internally. We have very little control over social media and there is so much more we want to do with it but can’t.

Survey Responses C-65 47. What metrics does your agency use to evaluate the effectiveness of online public involve- ment methods? DOTs reported using a variety of metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of OPI methods. 3 DOTs reported not using any metrics. The most commonly used are metrics available through website, social media, or email platforms, such as number of page views, likes, or opened emails. General public recognition of the plan, program, or project is also a common metric, used by 29 DOTs. 24 DOTs evaluate OPI by number of participants, and 22 evaluate OPI by number of comments received. The least reported metrics are quality of comments received and diversity of participants; however, these are still used by 17 and 11 DOTs, respectively. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Metrics available through website and other platforms Metrics available through social media platforms General public recognition Number of participants Comment quantity Comment relevance or quality Diversity of participants None Other N um be r o f R es po ns es Evaluation Metric Agency Use of OPI Evaluation Metrics Answer Percent Count Metrics available through website and other platforms (e.g., number of page views, number of people who opened an email, number of clicks on a survey link, etc.) 18.82% 32 Metrics available through social media platforms (e.g., number of likes, number of page views, number of comments, etc.) 17.65% 30 General public recognition of the plan, program, or project 17.06% 29 Number of participants 14.12% 24 Quantity of comments received 12.94% 22 Quality and/or relevance of comments received 10.00% 17 Diverse demographic makeup of participants 6.47% 11 My agency does not evaluate online public engagement. 1.76% 3 Other 1.18% 2 Total 100% 170 Other - Text Number of responses to surveys. Amount of traffic (vehicles) reduced.

48. Please include any additional comments regarding your agency’s use of online public involvement. Responses Policies for social media are not part of the public involvement plan because we consider them part-and-parcel to modern communications, rather than a standalone strategy. Our online public involvement has evolved, as employees in various departments learn about our online capabilities. Some employees, for example, didn’t know how to use SurveyMonkey, or they had no idea how to target Facebook posts or that we could even do that. We’ve increased the use of LinkedIn to post job openings, but also use Facebook to drive people to job fairs we’re having or involved in or to the online job postings. Although we have a public involvement policy online it is very outdated. We have written a new one with the inclusion of all of our online strategies but it has not been signed yet. However, we are mostly operating under this new policy anyway but I can’t share it because it isn’t finalized. It is a fundamental aspect of TxDOT’s overall approach to ensuring that we engage the public in a meaningful manner. We are continuously seeking additional opportunities to increase dialogue with the public and online engagement is a part of that effort. As I mentioned before—we are in the middle of updating our current public involvement plan. The one I’ve shared with you for the purpose of this survey is getting a major overhaul. Please keep that in mind as you’re compiling the data. INDOT like most DOTs continues to monitor its public involvement program looking for ways to enhance our engagement efforts with the communities we serve. We strive to reach a balance between effective online engagement for those who prefer to be engaged in that manner, but also not leaving out those customers who prefer face-to-face meetings, reading about projects in their local paper, and/or viewing project plans at a local viewing location (libraries, community centers, etc.). Our agency uses online methods more to communicate about projects and engage the public in a dialogue than as part of the project development to receive comments during the official public involvement phase to meet federal and state requirements. We have project specific communications plans for informing the public, but not public involvement plans for specific projects. We do have some more detailed plans for NEPA studies that are more procedural for receiving required public involvement on those studies. We are not very sophisticated when it comes to using online PI for project or program outreach. We do very little beyond a website/web page and some postings in social media. With respect to our PIP, we have a new plan that is just about to undergo the approval and adoption process. I did not want to share until it is approved and adopted. The new plan provides policy, as well as guidance on implementing public involvement processes/procedures. We are focused on providing online public information (one-way), and struggle to allocate enough resources to even do that effectively. The low-hanging fruit for our Agency would likely be offering web-based meetings, which is something that is occasionally, but not consistently done. In general, most two-way engagement is done in person, but one-way information sharing is widely used through our website, multiple mobile friendly applications, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr. I would also like to note that we are in the process of reviewing and updating our social media policies. In a large organization like Caltrans (http://www.dot.ca.gov/), online public involvement varies considerably among the Divisions, Districts, offices, and programs. The Department uses a wide combination of public involvement methods and techniques, involving both in-person meetings, technologies, and internet-based tools. Online public involvement is typically part of a package of methods for engaging the public. Traditional low-tech and high-touch methods are frequently used effectively. One significant occasion for using primarily in-person communication is in coordination with Native American Tribes (110 federally recognized tribes in California), where face-to-face meetings and in-person listening sessions are generally preferred over online approaches. Also, low-tech efforts (and incentives) may help reach more low-income, minority, and non-English-speaking households. In the end, it’s the results of public involvement that matter most—obtaining meaningful, informed input that positively affects the outcome.

Next: Appendix D - Interview Reports »
Practices for Online Public Involvement Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 538: Practices for Online Public Involvement summarizes current practices regarding online public participation strategies being used by state departments of transportation (DOTs), as well as explores the effectiveness of using these strategies and tools.

Online public participation methods offer agencies the potential for expanded participation and also present new challenges and demand new thinking about the appropriate mix of techniques in a public participation program, communication protocols, staffing and skill requirements, and how best to integrate emerging online engagement tools with traditional face-to-face methods such as public meetings.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!