Practices for Online Public Involvement (2019)

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.

3 Background Online public involvement (OPI), also referred to as online public participation, specifically refers to a process of two-way communication using the internet and/or mobile platforms to inform and obtain input from the public. Often OPI may be conducted to supplement tradi- tional or face-to-face public participation opportunities. OPI tools provide another mechanism, beyond the traditional face-to-face engagement methods, for the public to be informed about transportation decision-making and, most importantly, they allow transportation agencies to gather meaningful public input to a specific question, topic, project, or program to ensure that decisions are made in consideration of the public. As residents around the United States spend more and more time online, for work and for leisure, public agencies are motivated to engage on these platforms as a way to increase participation, reduce costs, and stay up-to-date on the needs of constituents. There are a variety of methods and tools that fall under the category of OPI platforms. Some OPI tools are readily available online platforms, such as websites, blogs, and social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and so forth). While most commonly used for sharing informa- tion and generating publicity, these platforms can also be used for two-way public involvement through the strategic use of comment functions, embedded surveys, and other means to collect information from users. In addition, other OPI tools have been specifically designed and devel- oped for the purpose of collecting user information and engagement with the public. Online crowd mapping, for example, collects geographically based input (often along with comments, opinions, and/or preferences) from the public to assist in decision-making about a particular project or program. Online public meeting or online open house platforms have been developed to re-create the traditional public meeting (including presenters, discussions, and feedback) through an open online platform, allowing for additional participation beyond those who can travel to meetings. Online scenario planning tools assist the public with making informed decisions on preferences, often with online visualization. There are also online comment and discussion forums for engaging in conversations, online survey tools for collecting input in a structured/ scientific format, interactive blogs, and a variety of other innovative tools. A full list of the types of online tools that were included in this survey is included as part of the Glossary in Appendix F. Legal Basis for Public Involvement Several important pieces of federal legislation mandate that state Departments of Transpor- tation (DOTs) seek public involvement throughout the span of a transportation project and engage underserved populations. Forming the foundation of most laws regarding public par- ticipation are two principal pieces of legislation: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which addresses rights of people based on race, color, or national origin, and the Americans with C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

4 Practices for Online Public Involvement Disabilities Act of 1990, which outlines rights for people with disabilities. Both acts prohibit discrimination against protected groups by any programs and agencies receiving federal fund- ing. These acts have informed other transportation-specific legislation since their inception. The most relevant transportation-specific legislation is summarized here: • TEA-21 of 1998, section 1203 states that when developing a program, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in cooperation with the state, should “provide citizens, affected public agencies . . . representatives of users of public transit, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed program.” States should do the same when developing a long-range transportation plan (23 U.S.C. §101, 1998). • SAFETEA-LU of 2005 outlines specific requirements for public outreach by the MPO or DOT. Public meetings must be accessible and convenient for the public, include adequate notice, and have information available online (23 U.S.C. §134). • The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requires that all states receiving federal highway funding provide “early and continuing opportunities” to give the public an opportunity to identify potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed project (23 CFR §771.111). • Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” specifically addresses federal agencies’ obliga- tion to examine the health and environmental effects of their proposed programs on minority and underserved populations. Each agency should ensure that communications related to the environment or public health are “concise, understandable, readily accessible to the public,” and translated into other languages “whenever practicable and appropriate” (Executive Order No. 12898, 1994). • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Under NEPA, agencies are required to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation in the consideration of impacts on natural, human, and physical environments during transportation decision-making. These opportu- nities for public participation include when an agency begins the NEPA analysis and when a NEPA document is published for public review and comment. Over the decades, federally mandated public involvement has traditionally consisted of face-to-face engagements, such as public workshops, town-hall meetings, tabling at events, public hearings, and panel discussions. Surveys and other communications were also common but primarily distributed by mail, in person, and via telephone. As technology has advanced, public involvement has broadened beyond those traditional approaches to include sending surveys via email and posting them online, along with a host of online tools and platforms now available to communicate directly with the public about transportation planning, projects, and programs. These OPI methods have become a viable option for state transportation agencies (in most cases known as the state “Department of Transportation,” though in some cases the agencies have other titles, such as Vermont Agency of Transportation or the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet) seeking to expand participation with the use of websites, social media, and other online plat- forms readily available at no or low cost. Unfortunately, these innovative involvement techniques may also present new challenges for state DOTs. The objective of this synthesis is to provide the current state of practice for OPI strategies used by state DOTs, provide examples of successful implementation and challenges that may occur, and recommend areas for further research. Study Approach This synthesis report gathered relevant information through a literature review and qual- itative and quantitative data collected from respondents at state DOTs by the project team, Rutgers Public Outreach and Engagement Team (POET). The literature review includes

Introduction 5 sources from academic and professional research on online engagement practices. An online survey was emailed to all 50 state DOTs to gather data and information about their OPI prac- tices. Additional information was collected through phone interviews with coordinators of OPI at select DOTs based on their responses to the survey, to provide further detail and perspective on the current strategies deployed when using OPI. Literature Search The literature review includes studies that explore social media usage, social media strategy, the definition and public adoption of OPI, and the current dominant participation processes used in community and transportation planning. The research examines academic studies that include surveying, workshops, interviews, examination of current practices, and literature. In addition to academic research, this review covers non-academic materials that are professional resources for communications specialists in the planning field. Sources were gathered using a Rutgers University Library literature search on transporta- tion, public involvement, and public sector social media use. This included 24 academic journal publications and public reports, a survey publication, and two NCHRP synthesis reports. Three professional resources were consulted as well for further information. An annotated bibliogra- phy is included as Appendix A. Survey Design and Distribution The survey conducted for this synthesis report was developed by the project team along with guidance and feedback from the topic panel for this synthesis. The survey was tested by the members of the topic panel and by colleagues of the project team from the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center (VTC) at Rutgers. Once approved and finalized, the survey was deployed using an online survey platform called Qualtrics and was distributed to contacts at all of the 50 state DOTs in the United States. As the subject of the survey was the agency itself and not the individuals responding on behalf of the agency, an Institutional Review Board (or independent ethics committee) exemption was received for this research. The survey was sent via email to a single point of contact at each agency, and each DOT was asked to submit only one survey response on behalf of the entire agency. If input was needed from more than one staff member or department within the state DOT, staff were asked to coordinate and compile information together into one response. Extensive outreach and research were conducted to ensure that the email with the survey information reached the most appropriate point of contact within each DOT. Initial points of contact were made using the contact list from the AASHTO Committee on Transportation Communications (TransComm). The project team called each person on this list to confirm the appropriate point of contact for the survey distribution, in some cases making multiple phone calls to ensure accuracy and completeness. Once a point of contact was established for each state DOT, additional phone calls were made to those contacts to inform them of the upcoming survey and encourage participation and completion of the survey. The survey included both closed and open-ended questions focused on key areas of interest and use of OPI, as follows: • Use of OPI for projects, plans (including long-range plans), and/or programs • Purpose and reasons for deploying OPI methods • Guidelines and procedures for using OPI, either formal or informal • Types of tools and approaches of OPI deployed by state DOTs • Issues and challenges of using OPI • Perceived benefits of using OPI and any criteria used for measuring success

6 Practices for Online Public Involvement • Organizational structure and staffing pertaining to use and management of OPI, including the role of consultant teams retained by state DOTs • Interpretation, management, and use of comments/input received via OPI • If the DOT reported not using OPI, the reasons that OPI is not used Survey Results The survey was emailed to designated contacts at all 50 state DOTs and was available to complete online from February 6, 2018, to March 30, 2018. The original closing date of the survey was scheduled for March 6, 2018; however, due to an insufficient number of responses, the survey deadline was extended to March 30, 2018. Forty-three states (86%) submitted survey responses, with varying degrees of thoroughness and completeness. Two states started the survey but did not finish, and five did not respond at all. During the period in which the survey was open for completion, follow-up phone calls were routinely made to the points of contact from the state DOTs to encourage them to participate, answer any questions, and offer assistance in completing the survey. Follow-Up Interviews Using the survey responses, the project team identified five DOTs for follow-up interviews. An effort was made to select interviews to represent both rural and urban/suburban states. Furthermore, interview selection was based on both the completeness of the survey responses and the presence of unique characteristics of the responses, such as a particularly successful experience with OPI or a creative use of OPI. The project team also looked for opportunities to speak with DOT staff who represented different offices/functionalities within the agency, such as communications staff, dedicated public involvement staff, and consultants. Finally, one inter- view was selected from a DOT that reported that it did not use OPI to better understand some of the criteria and decision-making that prevented these tools from being used at that agency. The one-hour interviews were conducted over the phone by research staff from Rutgers POET during the month of April 2018. These interviews were recorded to ensure accuracy in note taking and representation of the conversation. Summary reports from these interviews were approved by the interviewees and are provided in Appendix D. Interview questions were prepared ahead of time for each of these agencies, although not all of the questions were asked during the actual phone interview due to time constraints and natural conversation flow. How- ever, in every case the most important points were discussed and summarized in the interview reports located in Appendix D. The following DOTs were interviewed: • North Carolina Department of Transportation on April 2, 2018 • Maryland Department of Transportation on April 4, 2018 • Nebraska Department of Transportation on April 11, 2018 • California Department of Transportation on April 18, 2018 • Oregon Department of Transportation on April 24, 2018 Limitations of the Study During the preparation of this synthesis report, the project team identified a few limitations of the study that may have influenced the results and should, therefore, be acknowledged. 1. OPI Definition: The survey included a specific definition of OPI as a form of two-way public involvement with constituents and asked respondents to answer the survey questions based only on their use of OPI for this purpose (rather than one-way information dissemination).

Introduction 7 However, it was clear from the survey responses that it was sometimes difficult to draw a clean distinction between the two types of engagement (one-way versus two-way). Some respondents defined OPI more broadly and provided answers and examples of OPI that were both two-way involvement and one-way information dissemination, while some agencies more strictly defined OPI only in the context of two-way involvement that meets federally mandated legal requirements. The project team acknowledges that there is a range in the interpretation of terms as some agencies were inexact with their examples of OPI (such as including information dissemination through social media) and others were more precise in what they included within their responses. In some cases, DOTs may have indicated in their responses that they do not conduct OPI at all, when, if adhering to the broader interpretation of the term, they may have used OPI. 2. Staffing and Survey Distribution: As noted previously, the survey was distributed to a single point of contact at each state DOT, with the request that each agency only submit a single survey response. Typically, the individuals responding to the survey worked in a statewide capacity, at headquarters or another central services position. These individuals often needed to collect information from colleagues within the agency for responses to be complete and may not have been able to contact everyone within the agency who conducts public involve- ment activities. Furthermore, there may be differences between the statewide perspective of OPI practices and the experiences of local implementation staff regarding their use of public involvement. The project team acknowledges that there might have been instances when the individual tasked with responding to the survey may not have been able to collect all relevant information on the agencies’ use of OPI and may interpret the use of OPI differently from local project managers. Therefore, some responses from the DOTs may be unintentionally incomplete. 3. Survey Design: This synthesis report relied primarily on the use of an online survey, with both open-ended and closed-ended questions. Given the amount of information the project team sought to collect, and the complicated nature of the questions, it is possible that respon- dents found it difficult to provide all relevant information and examples in their responses. Furthermore, the survey took a significant amount of time to complete, and this may have pre- vented some participants from being able to provide detailed responses to every question due to time and resource constraints. Therefore, the project team acknowledges that there may be examples of OPI use or other relevant information pertaining to state DOTs’ relationship with OPI that was not captured by the responses to the survey questions. The project scope and budget did not afford the capacity to conduct follow-up interviews with all respondents. Organization of This Report Chapter 1 provides relevant background information and an overview of the technical approach and results. Chapter 2 summarizes the findings of the literature review. Chapter 3 provides a summary of the results of the online survey and follow-up interviews organized by key themes. Chapter 4 provides recommendations and conclusions for further research based on the literature review, results of the survey, and the follow-up interviews. The references follow Chapter 4. The appendices include the following items: • Appendix A: Annotated bibliography from the literature review • Appendix B: Online survey questionnaire that was distributed to all 50 state DOTs • Appendix C: A compilation and summary of all survey responses organized by question • Appendix D: Interview reports for follow-up interviews with five state DOTs • Appendix E: Survey points of contact by state and department • Appendix F: Glossary of terms