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.

15 Using Qualtrics survey software, a 48-question survey was emailed to all 50 state DOTs on February 6, 2018, regarding OPI with a 1-month window for completion of the survey. The survey was developed by the project team from Rutgers POET with guidance, direction, feedback, and revisions from the members of the Topic Panel. The Topic Panel members and several colleagues at Rutgers VTC tested the survey. Further revisions were made to the survey based on the testing prior to emailing the contacts at all 50 DOTs. The complete list of questions from the online survey can be found in Appendix B. Follow-up interviews took place in April 2018 with five DOTs, and they were selected based on the survey responses. The five DOTs interviewed were North Carolina, Maryland, Nebraska, California, and Oregon. The interview summary reports are located in Appendix D. An effort was made to select interviews to represent both rural and urban/suburban states, as well as their level of use of OPI. This chapter summarizes the findings from both the survey responses and interviews. Of the 50 DOTs sent the survey, 43 DOTs (86% response rate) submitted responses. A list of those DOTs can be found in Appendix C. The findings from the surveys and interviews are grouped into seven themes: 1. Support for OPI 2. OPI Policies and Procedures 3. Types of OPI Tools and Approaches 4. Challenges, Benefits, and Measuring Effectiveness 5. OPI Staff and Organizational Structure 6. OPI Feedback Management 7. Reasons for Not Using OPI Theme 1: Support for OPI Thirty-nine (91%) of the 43 DOTs surveyed currently use OPI methods to support the development of projects, programs, and plans. Among these DOTs, more than half reported using OPI methods for 5 or more years. Survey respondents were asked to consider how their DOTs use OPI to create opportunities for two-way interaction between the agency and the public, and they were asked to exclude referencing one-way communication activities such as information dissemination. However, many respondents had interpretations of OPI that differed from the definition provided at the beginning of the survey, and they included examples of using online tools to facilitate information dissemination as well as using online tools to facilitate two-way interaction with the public. C H A P T E R 3 Results

16 Practices for Online Public Involvement Reasons for Use of OPI The ability to communicate efficiently and the ability to reach more people were the most common reasons reported for choosing any OPI method. Transparency was the third-most common reason overall, followed distantly by considering OPI to be an important new com- munications medium and reaching specific populations. Cost savings was the least common reason identified for choosing any OPI method. See Figure 1, which lists the reasons for DOTs to use OPI. Websites/blogs and social media campaigns are the most commonly used OPI methods (see Figure 3 for more detail). DOTs use websites because they enable efficient communication, greater reach, and transparency. Agency priority and public demand are also reasons websites are commonly used. DOTs use social media campaigns for similar purposes; however, the ability of this method to target specific populations is also a reason for its use. As an example, California DOT responded to the survey that OPI methods are used due to high public demand. A consulting firm hired by the agency found that members of the public want to have a meaningful impact and role in the transportation planning process, and they prefer online platforms such as their website and social media as the main communication channel. Nebraska DOT also described public demand for greater information accessible through a centralized, online source. Survey respondents and interviewees also stated that, in general, their DOTs use OPI methods because customers are already spending a considerable amount of time online. Oregon DOT, when interviewed, said the staff recognize “the mentality of going where the customers are, and people are online now.” Some responses also touched on the presence of trial and error in deploying OPI methods. For example, a method may need to be conveyed and used several times so that the public becomes familiar with it. Some respondents also expressed openness to trying something different if one method lacks effectiveness. According to California DOT: 187 183 167 132 124 102 98 95 9 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Communicate efficiently 17% Reach more people 16.7% Transparency 15.2% Important new communications medium 12% Reach specific populations 11.3% Public demand 9.3% Agency priority 8.9% Cost savings 8.7% Other reason >1% DOT Responses for Projects, Programs, and Plans Figure 1. DOT reasons for use of OPI.

Results 17 If the tools used are not effective, we need to do something different. If there is a public meeting and no one shows up, we need to do something different. If they are not participating in what we’re offering, then let’s offer something else. Influences Interviewees were asked to name any influences, such as other state agencies, conference presentations, and/or research that may have shaped their agency’s use of OPI. Common influences include consulting firms contracted to perform public outreach, the practices of other state DOTs (especially ones similar in demography and geography), and lessons learned while networking or attending sessions at transportation and other conferences. The following influences were noted: Consulting firms contracted for OPI: • Nebraska DOT’s extensive work with professional consultants encouraged it to use OPI to generate content in a timelier manner that is impactful and meaningful. • California DOT’s public involvement consultants (who also participated in the interview with California DOT) learned from the technical expertise of a social media firm with which the staff members collaborate on various projects. • Oregon DOT worked with a consulting firm to implement extensive outreach for a large, statewide bridge replacement/repair program, which exposed it to current and emerging online public engagement practices, relying on websites, blogs, social media, and digital publications to engage with the public about the project. Practices from other state DOTs: • California DOT was inspired by Arizona DOT’s public participation strategies and digital publications, such as video news stories and public competitions to design traffic safety advertisements. • Nebraska DOT mentioned that Kansas DOT, which is geographically similar to Nebraska, quickly and successfully adapted its public involvement processes online. • Nebraska DOT also noted that Iowa DOT’s online participation practices were an influence and the agency had specifically reached out to Iowa DOT to learn more about their OPI practices. • North Carolina DOT mentioned collaborations with other DOTs at conferences such as the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Networks, conferences, and other influences: • California DOT noted professional connections with the American Planning Association and International Association for Public Participation. • California DOT also reviewed Pew Research Center studies about increased public use of mobile over desktop tools. • Maryland DOT mentioned that two recent online presentations by the Maryland Transporta- tion Authority to inform the public about the Bay Crossing Bridge project and the Governor Nice Bridge project influenced the Maryland DOT’s perceptions of the importance of OPI. The presentations were mostly informative; however, they included a participatory element. • North Carolina DOT’s Public Involvement Group Leader has a professional interest in OPI technologies. • North Carolina DOT Board members and upper-level management have provided initial and ongoing support as well as funding for OPI strategies. • Oregon DOT attended the AASHTO TransComm Annual Meeting, where it was “eye-opening” to learn that other state DOTs have public engagement departments that are distinct from communications and public relations departments.

18 Practices for Online Public Involvement Institutional Support for OPI During the interviews, DOT staff were asked if internal support influences the use of OPI methods at their agency. All interviewees cited support from upper-level management as key to their agency’s initial and continuing use of OPI. The presence of a public involvement staff person who drives the use of new online methods is another important factor. Specifically, interviewees described the following sources of support: • California DOT: Upper-level management appear in online videos and participate in the use of online tools. • Nebraska DOT: The public involvement manager is supported by a director who wants to expand overall public involvement at the agency. • North Carolina DOT: A former chief engineer provided initial support for the agency to begin using online outreach methods. He approved a contract for public engagement support with a private firm, including a customized engagement platform with visual preference, scenario ratings, interactive mapping, budget allocation simulation, and other interactive elements as well as technical assistance to implement these tools. Currently, the agency has a public involvement champion and upper management is open to creativity, innovation, and the incorporation of technology into all aspects of their work. • Oregon DOT: Public involvement staff receive support from several upper-level staff throughout the agency such as the Communications Director; the agency’s Assistant Director, who previously worked in government relations; and the new statewide Project Delivery Manager. Theme 2: OPI Policies and Procedures Survey respondents and interviewees answered questions about the policies currently in place at their agencies for the development and facilitation of OPI strategies, including the use of social media. Agency-Wide Public Involvement Plans Twenty-five (58%) of the DOTs surveyed have public involvement plans (PIPs) that include policies specific to OPI methods. Twenty-one DOTs uploaded their agency’s statewide PIP through the Qualtrics survey platform, for the project team to review and reference. In addition, eight DOTs uploaded other documents, such as guidance materials for rules and regulations that specifically guide OPI policies. Project-, Program-, or Plan-Specific Public Involvement Plans Twenty-five (58%) DOTs that were surveyed use project-, program-, or plan-specific PIPs, as shown in Figure 2. Survey respondents elaborated on the circumstances in which their DOTs use a project-, program-, or plan-specific PIP: • Construction Projects: DOTs most commonly create project-specific PIPs for large-scale highway and bridge projects. • Plans: DOTs gave examples of developing PIPs to guide outreach for long-range transpor- tation plans and bicycle and pedestrian plans. For example, the “Listening and Planning” section of the Minnesota Walks plan (available at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/peds/plan/) describes the community engagement strategies used to collect public input. • Specific PIPs Used Depending on Project Scale or Impact: Some DOTs require projects and plans to have PIPs if they are larger in scale or impact. For example, at Indiana DOT,

Results 19 project-specific PIPs are “more or less robust depending on the level of impact a project is anticipated to have.” Categorical Exclusion (CE)-level projects may require a minimal plan, while projects that require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will require a more robust PIP. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet requires a project-specific PIP for all EIS-level projects as well. • Programming: DOTs also create PIPs to inform their statewide transportation improvement programs (STIPs). Social Media Policies Survey respondents were asked about policies that guide their agency’s use of social media. Seventeen (40%) DOTs have an agency-wide PIP that includes a formal policy for the use of social media. Fifteen (35%) agencies have formal social media policies that are not included within an agency-wide PIP. Eleven (26%) DOTs have no social media policies or procedures either in an agency-wide PIP or in any other written form. Theme 3: Types of OPI Tools and Approaches A list of OPI methods or tools was provided in the survey for DOTs to select for respective projects, programs, and policies. A definition of each of these methods or tools is provided in Appendix F. As previously mentioned, DOTs responded that use of OPI tools was intended for two-way interaction of receiving feedback; however, some DOTs also used the online tools for information dissemination or one-way interaction. Figure 3 shows which OPI methods are most commonly used by DOTs. Websites/blogs and social media campaigns are the most commonly used OPI methods across all DOT activities (plans, projects, programs, or policies). These methods are followed closely by the use of electronic surveys, informational videos, and digital newsletters. Together, these five methods make up 71.2% of the OPI methods deployed across all DOT activities for survey respondents. 25 16 Yes No Does the DOT use project-, program-, or plan-specific public involvement plans (PIPs)? Figure 2. DOT use of project-, program-, or plan-specific public involvement plans.

20 Practices for Online Public Involvement The use of online public meetings, video streaming of public meetings, discussion forums, mobile applications, crowd mapping, and online scenario building and testing was less common, comprising 25.9% of the OPI methods used across all DOT activities from survey respondents. Figure 4 shows which OPI methods are most commonly used depending on the DOT activity. In addition to the OPI methods listed as answer choices within the survey, DOTs also use project- or program-specific email addresses for public comment; interactive social media func- tions (such as live video sharing accompanied by a Q&A); online public meetings that enable participants to call in or write questions or comments; webinars or online workshops; and com- munity-based online forums. Most Commonly Used Tools Websites or Blogs: Websites are the most commonly used form of OPI reported by survey respondents (see Figure 4). All DOTs that responded to the survey maintain a website. DOT websites often include individual web pages for specific projects and programs, while large projects may warrant a separate website with a unique URL. Generally, project- and program- specific web pages and websites supply a project or program overview, contact information, and public meeting notices, and some websites may have a form for the public to electronically provide input or ask a question. Survey respondents provided a few examples of DOT use of blogs. In two examples, blogs inform the public about specific projects or construction-related traffic conditions. The Arizona DOT stated that their “award-winning blog is a key communication tool for explaining infor- mation in a somewhat longer form—but still short.” Social Media Campaigns: Social media is the second most commonly used OPI method. Survey respondents provided many examples of using social media to disseminate information, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Website or blog 17.4% Social media campaign 17.0% Electronic surveys 12.6% Informational videos 12.1% Digital publications or newsletters 12.1% Online public meetings 6.2% Video streaming of public meetings 5.1% Discussion forum 4.6% Mobile application 4.2% Crowd-mapping 3.8% Other method 2.6% Online scenario building and testing 2.0% Number of DOTs Figure 3. Most commonly used OPI tools.

Results 21 particularly for construction projects. However, many of these were examples of one-way information dissemination rather than two-way interactions. Social media appears to be a communication channel through which DOTs can easily share time-sensitive information about emergencies, traffic, service status, and weather conditions. DOTs also use social media to circulate safety and educational campaigns on topics such as winter driving, pedestrian and traffic safety, and work zone safety. Use of Social Media and Other OPI Methods Survey respondents were asked what social media platforms DOTs use specifically to facilitate two-way communication with the public, including encouraging and responding to online comments, posting informal polls, or distributing online surveys. Twitter and Facebook were the most commonly reported social media platforms, used by nearly all DOTs surveyed. Survey respondents provided a number of examples of how DOTs interact with the public via social media. Social media can facilitate two-way communication directly within the platform, such as through comments, or by directing members of the public to online or in-person involvement opportunities, such as public meetings or online surveys. Several survey respondents stated that simply having a social media presence creates the opportunity for the public to provide feedback through online comments. North Carolina DOT has a policy of not 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 Ts DOT Activity 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 Figure 4. OPI tools used for agency policies and plans, programs, and projects.

22 Practices for Online Public Involvement responding to or accepting feedback received through social media. Instead, it uses social media to direct constituents to other opportunities for involvement and input. Other interactions on social media often include information about road conditions, construction-related travel information, specific projects, general questions/comments, correcting misinformation, and engaging in informal games/contests. Examples of two-way communication on social media include the following: One of the most engaging posts we create is a biannual guessing game of when a seasonal road will be opened or closed. These posts help educate the public about the restrictions of this unique road, and also generates a conversation about potential improvements or changes that could be made to the road. Comments and questions are passed on to subject matter experts. These posts also help grow our base of followers for potential future engagement in other topics posted on social media. —Vermont Agency of Transportation 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. —Alabama DOT Any post we make on FB [Facebook] provides opportunities for public involvement. We encourage it, within parameters. —West Virginia DOT 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, six-mile bypass project on US 101 in Mendocino County. Our Public Information Officers joined both groups and monitored them for years, correcting misinformation and answering public questions. —California DOT As described previously, social media is often used to advertise other forms of public involvement offered by the DOT, both online and in person. DOTs use social media posts to notify the public about upcoming meetings and events. They also share news, direct users to the agency website, correct misinformation, and encourage people to take online surveys. Electronic Surveys: Electronic surveys are one of the most common OPI methods DOTs reported using to collect public input on a variety of topics. Survey respondents provided examples of using electronic surveys for highway projects, long-range transportation plans, and capital programming, as well as to gauge customer satisfaction. Montana and Florida DOTs have used surveys to solicit input on public involvement preferences. In the case of highway projects, surveys collect feedback on both project planning and construction schedules and detours. Informational Videos: DOTs disseminate online videos to facilitate ongoing public education and information sharing. Facebook and Twitter are mentioned as cost-effective ways to dis- seminate and promote the videos, and YouTube provides opportunities for viewers to comment and leave feedback on the videos. Nine survey respondents described using videos to teach the public about new or difficult driving skills related to roadway features such as roundabouts. Videos also often feature tips and reminders as part of DOT safety campaigns on topics like winter driving, traffic safety, and drunk driving. Eight respondents described DOT videos that inform the public about construction projects, providing project overviews, updates, and education about construction techniques. Digital Publications or Newsletters: Digital newsletters are one of the most common ways DOTs perform online public communication. Sixteen survey respondents provided examples of DOT use of project-specific newsletters that inform subscribers about construction time- lines and updates. Out of 32 examples of DOT use of newsletters, only one survey respondent, Arizona DOT, described an effort to include interactive elements for feedback in the agency’s newsletter.

Results 23 Breakdown of OPI Methods by DOT Activity DOTs reported the greatest use of OPI methods to support projects. Of the 546 reported instances (see details of these instances in Appendix C) 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 (see Figure 5). The kind of OPI method used varies only slightly by DOT activity (project, plan, or pro- gram), as illustrated in Figure 6. Websites/blogs and social media campaigns are slightly more common for programs. Online public meetings are more commonly used to support projects, and online scenario building and testing are more common for planning; however, these differences are slight. OPI to Support Projects DOT use of OPI methods to support projects usually varies depending on the project phase. OPI conducted in earlier project phases, such as development and design, involves more two-way communication and the use of a wider variety of methods. DOTs employ online engagement platforms, crowd mapping, and electronic surveys to understand public preferences early in the project, along with using one-way communication channels to deliver project information and meeting notices. This period of more extensive 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 with up-to-date information on construction timelines and travel impacts. OPI methods used during construction generally consist of one-way interaction with the public. Seven DOTs do not vary OPI methods depending on the project phase. Three of these seven DOTs appear to mostly use one-way methods, such as social media posts, emails, and websites, to communicate with the public about projects. The survey results showed that the choice of OPI methods used for DOT projects varies depending on project scope, scale, and/or sensitivity. Survey respondents indicated that larger projects are generally more likely to use OPI methods beyond social media, such as customized public involvement platforms, survey tools, and interactive websites. 31.9% 29.1% 39.0% Policies and plans Programs Projects Figure 5. OPI tools use for policies and plans, programs, and projects.

24 Practices for Online Public Involvement 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. —South Carolina DOT OPI to Support Plans Survey respondents provided many examples of DOT use of OPI methods for long-range transportation plans. The use of OPI for statewide or regional bicycle and/or pedestrian plans is also common. Survey respondents commonly described using electronic surveys, crowd mapping, newsletters, and online scenario building and testing to collect public input for these types of plans. Vermont Agency of Transportation noted that the greater flexibility of plans allows for more varied and creative two-way OPI strategies than OPI used for projects. Respondents provided examples of websites that included bicycle-pedestrian plans, long-range plans, and corridor improvement plans. Similarly, Alaska DOT used a visually appealing and user-friendly interactive website to provide information and obtain input on plans for a corridor revitalization in Fairbanks. OPI to Support Programs Survey respondents described the use of OPI methods to support DOT capital programming processes. They most commonly gave examples of the use of electronic surveys, crowd mapping, discussion forums, and online public meetings. 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 12% 14% 13% 5% 3% 3% 16% 16% 19% 5% 5% 4% 16% 17% 20% 5% 3% 5% 11% 13% 13% 6% 6% 4% 13% 11% 13% 8% 6% 4% 1% 4% 1% 3% 2% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Projects Plans Programs Percent of DOTs Reporting OPI Method Use DO T Ac tiv ity Figure 6. Comparison of the use of OPI tools for DOT activities.

Results 25 OPI to Supplement In-Person Outreach As shown in Figure 7, most OPI methods are used to supplement traditional or face-to-face forms of involvement and are rarely used as stand-alone methods. Eight survey respondents described the use of real-time virtual meetings or discussion forums to supplement in-person public meetings. DOTs also use social media to supplement face-to-face outreach and other online opportunities for public involvement. For example, social media may be used to promote an in-person public meeting or direct the public to the DOT website or an online survey. A number of survey respondents described how supplemental online outreach greatly increased their reach by attracting a larger number and/or wider variety of participants. For example, Pennsylvania stated that participation in its 12-year plan reached “new levels” due to the use of online public meetings, surveying, and crowd-mapping tools. While past meetings yielded a handful of attendees, over 100 people attended online meetings, 5,000 responded to surveys, and 3,600 mapped their transportation issues. As another example, California DOT’s public involvement staff prefer to employ both online and in-person involvement approaches because they can reach a broader variety of constituents. For example, the DOT needed to conduct outreach to several groups of stake- holders to formulate a highway safety access plan. The DOT used workshops and in-person outreach for area business owners and residents, and online tools to reach the commuters who would also be affected. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Supplemental method Stand-alone method Depends on the project N um be r o f D O Ts OPI Tools Electronic surveys Social media campaign Website or blog Digital publications or newsletters Informational videos Online scenario building and testing Crowd-mapping Discussion forum Mobile application Video streaming of public meetings Online public meetings Other method Figure 7. OPI tools as supplemental or stand-alone outreach.

26 Practices for Online Public Involvement OPI for Targeted Outreach Over half of DOTs surveyed use OPI methods to reach specific populations. As shown in Figure 8, DOTs most commonly use OPI tools to target urban populations (19), rural popula- tions (15), and Millennials (14), as well as minority populations (12). To a lesser extent, DOTs also use OPI methods to target other groups, such as multimodal transportation advocates, tribal groups, and residents within a geographic area. Fifteen survey respondents reported that their agency has conducted OPI in a language other than English. The most common language is Spanish (15), followed by Vietnamese (6), and Chinese (4). One DOT has conducted OPI methods in seven different languages. Mobile versus Desktop Thirty (77%) DOTs tailor OPI tools for both computer desktop and mobile phone use, and 13 of those DOTs indicated that they only tailor online OPI “sometimes.” Of the 17 agencies that tailor OPI for both desktop and mobile use all of the time, five prioritize desktop and two priori- tize mobile use when choosing or designing online tools. Ten agencies prioritize either desktop or mobile use depending on the project. Seven DOTs do not specifically tailor OPI methods for both formats. Currently, many online platforms are automatically optimized for both desktop and mobile use. However, survey respondents may not be aware of this feature. Theme 4: Challenges, Benefits, and Measuring Effectiveness External Challenges The digital divide, which refers to a lack of available internet access for some residents, is the most commonly reported external challenge that DOTs face when implementing OPI. As shown in Figure 9, 24 DOTs reported a lack of internet access among members of the 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Lo w- inc om e p op ula tio ns Note: LEP = limited English proficiency. N um be r o f D O Ts Figure 8. DOT use of OPI to reach specific populations.

Results 27 public, and 14 reported slow internet access among members of the public. Online trolling was reported as a challenge by 13 respondents. Internal Challenges When asked about the internal challenges their agencies have experienced, 21 respondents reported a lack of staffing resources and 12 reported budget challenges, as illustrated in Figure 10. Additional internal challenges include legal considerations and lack of training. Four DOTs described a lack of internal protocols for using, tracking, and documenting comments from social media as internal challenges to using OPI methods. Survey respondents and interviewees also provided examples of the challenges their DOTs have experienced when implementing OPI. Examples encompassed the following themes: • Gaps in Effectiveness Across Demographic Groups: Some DOTs have discovered OPI methods are less effective in reaching particular demographic groups; however, this experience varies. For example, a number of DOTs reported that online involvement to rural populations is challenging due to limited internet connectivity or community preference for in-person 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 D O Ts External Challenge Figure 9. External challenges when using OPI tools. 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 D O Ts Internal Challenge Figure 10. Internal challenges when using OPI tools.

28 Practices for Online Public Involvement involvement. Conversely, California DOT described successfully using OPI methods to reach rural populations due to widespread internet access, networking, and existing relationships. As another example, North Carolina DOT uses OPI to engage people under the age of 40; however, OPI methods are reported as less effective for reaching lower-income communities. • Sustainability for Long-Term Projects: Some responses cited issues with maintaining online involvement for long-term projects, particularly when moving from one project phase to the next. Illinois DOT reported losing consultant-created websites when switching to a new consulting firm. Other DOTs reported the difficulty of regularly and continually producing web content and keeping online information current. • Technical Issues: Michigan DOT described experiencing technical issues when setting up a live, online broadcast of a public meeting. South Carolina DOT stated that the randomized URLs generated from an online mapping platform are difficult to use and promote on marketing materials. • Did Not Fully Meet Expectations/Adapting to New Communication Form: Some DOTs have employed OPI methods and found them to be less effective than expected. For example, Idaho DOT held online public meetings scheduled during evenings and lunchtimes that did not attract as many people as expected and noted that perhaps the online public meetings needed to be offered more often or at different times, as it may take more time for the public to adapt and attend online meetings. Wyoming and Idaho DOTs stated that there is a need for DOT staff and members of the public to become acclimated to new online outreach methods, and this can delay successful implementation. 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 have 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 are not a lot of people participating. A platform has to be used continually until it catches on with the public and stakeholders. —Idaho DOT Benefits of OPI Survey respondents also provided examples of their perceived benefits of using OPI. These benefits include: • Increased Public Participation: Survey respondents and interviewees frequently described online methods generating large (“sometimes-overwhelming”) increases in the number of comments collected during public input periods. For example, Alabama DOT received 1,500 online survey responses to a bicycle-pedestrian plan, and North Carolina DOT cited a 1,900% increase in feedback on the STIP when a consultant helped it create online plat- forms to reach more constituents. While DOTs receive an increase in online feedback, it may also take more time to process and synthesize the feedback as part of the overall public involvement process. • Public Education and Information: DOTs use online platforms to educate and inform cus- tomers about topics like safety and new transportation services. For example, Connecticut DOT’s ability to share more information with the public about a new bus rapid transit line contributed toward exceeding its expected ridership goal. Online platforms are also used to correct and clarify information. • Share Real-Time Information: A number of DOTs cited the use of social media for quick and effective communication of real-time information such as weather updates, emergency alerts, and road closures. • Reach Wider Audience: In addition to attracting a greater number of participants, DOTs reported using online methods to expand outreach to include a wider variety of participants from different demographic groups and locations.

Results 29 • Effective Communication: Survey respondents described how OPI methods create effective communication channels between DOTs and constituents that yield transparent, direct, and meaningful interactions. Measuring Effectiveness DOTs use various metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of OPI tools on public involvement outputs. As displayed in Figure 11, survey respondents most commonly reported using metrics that can be viewed through a website or social media platform, such as page views, web-traffic, video views, and social media shares. In an interview with California DOT, staff elaborated that for just a few hundred dollars the agency can use Facebook advertising to yield data on who is clicking and sharing the content. North Carolina DOT explained that OPI provides clear quan- titative feedback (such as survey results) that can be easily shared with planners and engineers, as opposed to more qualitative reports written from the feedback at public meetings. Other metrics that DOTs use include general public recognition, number of participants, comment quantity, comment quality/relevance, and diversity of participants. Three DOTs do not evaluate online involvement, although one of these respondents indicated that DOT is planning to implement OPI evaluation in the near future. Theme 5: OPI Staff and Organizational Structure There is a great deal of variation among DOTs on the departments and specific positions that are responsible for establishing guidelines for OPI, facilitating OPI, and managing social media content. A matrix in Appendix C provides detail on the breakdown of staffing responsibilities at each DOT, as indicated on survey responses. 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 D O Ts Evaluation Metric Figure 11. DOT use of OPI evaluation metrics.

30 Practices for Online Public Involvement In some DOTs, public involvement staff are part of the department of planning, engineering, or environmental review, while the communications department is separate. In these cases, there is a great deal of coordination and collaboration between the public involvement staff and the communications department. Survey results showed that online content is primarily managed and approved by communications staff. At most of the DOTs surveyed, communications and public involvement staff are under the same division or department. Some respondents were unclear who controls online content for their DOT. Staff Who Establish Guidelines DOTs were asked to specify who at their agency is responsible for establishing guidelines for OPI. The positions and titles varied greatly from state to state and included several types of DOT departments or divisions such as public affairs, communications, public involvement, policy and planning, and environmental review. Some of the positions include: • Public Information Officer or Representative • Director of Communications • Public Affairs Director • Director of Community Relations • Public Involvement Hearings Officer Implementation Staff Survey respondents provided details about who at the DOT is responsible for the implemen- tation of OPI. Similar to the staff that establish guidelines, the responsibility for implementation lies with different departments and divisions depending on the state DOT’s practices. While consultants perform some implementation responsibilities, agency positions with OPI oversight include: • Communications Manager • Publication Specialist • Regional or Division Communication or Public Information Officer • Social Media Coordinator • District Engineer • E-Communications or Digital Media Team Social Media Staff Survey data and interviews with DOTs indicated that social media is often the responsibility of the communications department, and public involvement staff work with the communica- tions department to post social media content about public input opportunities. Interviewees from North Carolina and Nebraska DOTs highlighted this staffing structure. Both DOTs have distinct public involvement divisions that collaborate continually with communications staff to disseminate information about public involvement opportunities. This is also the case at the Maryland DOT, which indicated that they do not use OPI methods; however, public involve- ment staff do collaborate with the communications division to advertise in-person involvement events using social media. Staff responsible for social media at DOTs, according to the survey responses, include: • Communications Director • Public Information Officer • Digital Content Specialist • Social Media Coordinator

Results 31 Use of Consultants Of the 39 DOTs that use OPI, 31 (80%) reported using external consultants to assist in implementing OPI strategies. Of the four interviews conducted with DOTs that use OPI, all are currently working with consultants. DOTs hire consultants to execute a range of public involvement tasks. Consultants may fill DOT needs for supplemental staffing and technical skills on a project-by-project basis, or they may provide ongoing support through a multi-year contract with the DOT. For example, at Oregon DOT, consultants supplement the work of DOT public involvement staff, while at Nebraska DOT, consultants account for approximately 70% of the public involvement work. Nebraska DOT substantially increased its use of consultants in recent years, noting that they can produce a greater volume of work more quickly. On the other hand, Oregon DOT has recently shifted from consultants to in-house management of the department’s online public meeting program. Consultants supplement DOT staff by doing “ground work” such as setting up a table (tabling) at community events, knocking on doors, and designing outreach materials and websites. California DOT has a multi-year contract with a public involvement consulting firm. The firm provides “on-call” support to the DOT by reviewing the early stages of projects and plans as well as identifying and facilitating strategies to generate public involvement. For example, consultants assist by designing graphics or by functioning as neutral meeting facilitators. California DOT has a decentralized structure, and district offices can use the consulting firm’s services as needed. DOTs provided further comments on how consultants have implemented OPI projects at their agency. Their comments encompassed the following: Highway and Bridge Construction Projects: DOTs most commonly provided examples of consultants aiding in OPI tools for highway and bridge construction projects. For example, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet contracted with a communications firm to execute the PIP for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project, which included conducting online surveys and responding to public comments and questions received through the project website. Educational and Safety Campaigns: DOTs provided examples of working with consultants to publicize educational and safety campaigns. For example, consultants create and post content for California DOT’s stormwater pollution educational campaign, “Protect Every Drop.” Long-Range Transportation Planning: Five DOTs have worked with consultants to create and promote long-range transportation plans. Large Projects: DOTs contract with consultants to conduct the public involvement for major, multi-year projects. Utah DOT uses OPI internally for smaller maintenance projects. Challenges with Consistency: DOTs reported some consistency challenges when working with consultants, such as maintaining a consistent experience with branding or style particularly if working with multiple consultants. Social media and/or websites may be affiliated with or managed by the consulting firm rather than the DOT. Style and design may also vary when working with several consulting firms. Theme 6: OPI Feedback Management DOTs were asked about how the feedback received through OPI strategies is incorporated into their decision-making processes. Interviewees and survey respondents indicated that OPI could generate more public input in terms of quantity than traditional involvement methods, as well as gather greater demographic information about the participants.

32 Practices for Online Public Involvement Increase in Feedback DOTs noted that OPI methods attract a larger pool of participants, generating more feed- back from a broader range of constituents. Texas DOT received an “almost overwhelming amount of input” using OPI for a project. In another example, Colorado DOT’s live social media events attract a large audience as well as growth in the playbacks of the recorded event. DOT staff monitor the event for users’ questions and comments. In addition, Missouri DOT had 8,000 participants and 5,000 comments on its long-range transportation plan using an OPI platform. Along with the large quantity of public feedback, OPI methods also generate an increase in information about who is participating and how they are doing so. California DOT explained that the cost efficiency of data generated by social media posts and advertisements, such as videos or articles, could yield a high number of clicks, views, shares, and likes accompanied by a greater amount of user demographic information captured. Management of Increased Feedback Survey responses suggested that OPI methods appear to generate an increase in public feedback over traditional methods, and can have an impact, both positive and negative, on the process of managing the feedback. Respondents indicated that OPI provides quantifiable feed- back that can be more efficiently incorporated into the public involvement process. Increased feedback can also potentially affect resources needed to receive and process the feedback. For example, North Carolina DOT noted the increased speed at which public feedback generated from OPI methods can be processed. Previously, traditional, in-person methods of public involvement yielded formal reports with a great deal of qualitative comments to be processed. Currently, by using OPI methods, such as surveys and online comments, con- sultants to the North Carolina DOT can quickly collect public feedback and easily synthesize a brief report containing quantitative and demographic-specific information. The DOT no longer relies solely on reports from public meetings, although that information is still part of the public involvement process. Theme 7: Reasons for Not Using OPI Of 43 DOTs surveyed, four agencies reported that they do not currently provide opportu- nities for OPI, nor have they done so in the past. All four of these DOTs have a variety of social media accounts and websites, which they use to communicate with the public about projects and plans, but they do not currently use online tools to conduct formal public involvement to gather input as part of a decision-making process. Of these four DOTs, two reported having no familiarity with OPI methods. The other two DOTs are familiar with OPI methods and have considered using them. The four DOTs that reported they do not use OPI cited several reasons. They reported a lack of training or familiarity with OPI methods. In addition, cost, the amount of time needed to conduct OPI, and staffing structure were also cited as factors. They also stated that they do not use OPI because of concerns about meeting state or federal requirements. When asked how likely they would be to use OPI if the selected factors were removed, such as cost, staffing, time, and federal requirements, respondents answered that they would be somewhat to extremely likely to use OPI. Survey respondents were asked to elaborate on how the selected factors affected their DOT’s decision to not use OPI. One DOT detailed how state and federal requirements have affected the agency’s use of OPI:

Results 33 We have legal requirements written into state code that require traditional newspaper advertising for pub- lic 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. Two DOTs indicated that while federal requirements and staffing structure (e.g., social media is handled by a communications department, which is separate from the public involve- ment staff ) have been obstacles, their DOTs are currently taking steps to implement OPI in the future. In an interview, public involvement staff at Maryland DOT provided more detail about the agency’s mounting effort to include OPI in public input processes to gather feedback. Staff described taking time to learn from the experiences of and share ideas with other Maryland transportation agencies that already use online tools, particularly virtual public meetings to gather public input. They are “looking for the right project and the right opportunity” to use OPI methods for the first time and are concerned that the agency website may be unable to handle an influx of online meeting attendees. Staff explained that the agency currently uses websites and social media to provide public information on projects and programs; however, members of the public desire more frequent and timelier updates through the website or social media platforms. The need to expand the ability for the public to access information and give feedback drives the agency’s interest in OPI methods.