Making a good first impression: improving predesign and environmental public information and public involvement

              MAKING A GOOD FIRST
IMPRESSION: IMPROVING
PREDESIGN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC
INFORMATION AND PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
Final Report 579
Prepared by:
Robert S. Done, Ph. D.
Data Methods Corporation
805 N. Camino Miramonte
Tucson, AZ 85716
June 2007
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
in cooperation with
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the
Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names which may appear herein are
cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U. S.
Government and The State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA- AZ- 07- 579
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
MAKING A GOOD FIRST IMPRESSION:
5. Report Date
June 2007
IMPROVING PREDESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC
INFORMATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
Robert S. Done, Ph. D.
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Data Methods Corporation
805 N. Camino Miramonte
Tucson, AZ 85716
10. Work Unit No.
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR- PL- 1-( 61) 579
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
FINAL
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Project Manager: John Semmens
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
Current federal transportation legislation creates considerable responsibility for state departments of transportation and
metropolitan planning organizations to provide public information and public involvement to a diverse community and to
obtain feedback that satisfies legal mandate and results in improved planning and project development. The four main
domains of public participation are informing people, involving people, getting feedback, and applying special
techniques. The growing population in Arizona requires a constant roadway construction and maintenance effort that
naturally includes public participation during planning and implementation. Using data collected from internal and
external respondents, this study examines the current public information and public involvement structures and
functions as well as opportunities for improving these structures and functions.
17. Key Words
construction, customer communication, safety
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the
U. S. public through the
National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia
22161
23. Registrant’s Seal
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
41
22. Price
SI* ( MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac Acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons ( 2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
mg
( or “ t”)
mg
( or “ t”)
megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
1.102 short tons ( 2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE ( exact) TEMPERATURE ( exact)
º F Fahrenheit
temperature
5( F- 32)/ 9
or ( F- 32)/ 1.8
Celsius temperature º C º C Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
º F
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot- candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot- candles fc
fl foot- Lamberts 3.426 candela/ m2 cd/ m2 cd/ m2 candela/ m2 0.2919 foot- Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/ in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/ in2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESSES ............................... 5
INFORMING PEOPLE .............................................................................................................. 5
Underserved Populations ........................................................................................................ 5
Core Groups ............................................................................................................................ 6
Communicating Information................................................................................................... 7
INVOLVING PEOPLE .............................................................................................................. 7
Meeting Type .......................................................................................................................... 8
Meeting Structure.................................................................................................................... 8
GETTING FEEDBACK............................................................................................................. 9
Providing Information............................................................................................................. 9
Getting Feedback .................................................................................................................. 10
APPLYING SPECIAL TECHNIQUES ................................................................................... 11
Holding Special Events......................................................................................................... 11
Changing Meeting Approaches............................................................................................. 11
Finding New Communication Channels............................................................................... 12
IMPROVING PREDESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC INFORMATION AND
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................................... 13
METHOD ............................................................................................................................... . 14
Internal Survey...................................................................................................................... 14
External Survey..................................................................................................................... 14
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... . 14
Internal Survey...................................................................................................................... 14
External Survey..................................................................................................................... 19
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS........................................................................................................ 25
RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................. 29
APPENDIX 1 – AZDOT CCP ORGANIZATION CHART........................................................ 31
APPENDIX 2 – INTERNAL SURVEY....................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX 3 – EXTERNAL SURVEY...................................................................................... 35
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Best Experiences with the Public 15
Table 2. Worst Experiences with the Public 15
Table 3. Tools or Resources Needed to Improve Public Communication 17
Table 4. Public Input Documentation 18
Table 5. Tribal Public Information and Public Involvement 19
Table 6. Annual Public Information and Public Involvement Expenditures 20
Table 7. Public Information and Public Involvement Channels 20
Table 8. Feedback Channels 21
Table 9. Tribal and Special Population Communication Channels 22
Table 10. Public Information and Public Involvement Success Measures 22
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
AzDOT Arizona Department of Transportation
CCP Communications and Community Partnerships Section
DOT Department of Transportation
NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
SAFETEA- LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users
TDD Telecommunications device for the deaf
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Current federal transportation legislation ( including the National Environmental Policy
Act1) and responsible practice create considerable responsibility for state departments of
transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to provide public information and
public involvement to a diverse community and to obtain feedback, which satisfies legal
mandates and results in improved planning and project development. The four main
domains of public participation are informing people, involving people, getting feedback,
and applying special techniques. An important area of performance for the Arizona
Department of Transportation ( AzDOT) is predesign and environmental public
information and public involvement. The growing population in Arizona requires a
constant roadway construction and maintenance effort that naturally includes public
participation during planning and implementation. The purpose of this project is to
conduct an analysis of public information and public involvement structures and
functions.
This study examines data collected from employees of AzDOT and other transportation
agencies who have experience with public information and public involvement. The
overall nature of the responses to the internal survey suggests that AzDOT employees are
dedicated to providing the best public information and public involvement services that
are possible and are interested in additional opportunities and resources to improve these
services wherever possible. AzDOT employees are sensitive to the barriers to effective
public information and public involvement, including those unique to tribal communities,
and consistently seek to improve public information and public involvement. Information
provided by external respondents was consistent with that provided by internal
respondents. Responses provided by external respondents provided insight into channels
for public information and public involvement, channels for public feedback, issues
specific to tribes and other special populations, and measuring the success of public
information and public involvement efforts. The following are recommended to improve
public information and public involvement structures and functions:
• Improve project level and department level funding. Project level funding should
include allocations for the Communications and Community Partnerships Section
( CCP) services and improvements in departmental level funding will support the
development of relationships that transcend and survive any individual project.
• Increase use of the Internet. Increases in broadband Internet connectivity make it
more feasible to post large documents and maps for the public to download.
• Increase cultural competence with tribes. Successfully communicating public
information and public involvement to tribal communities requires continuously
maintaining strong relationships with these communities to build trust and
respect.
• Establish global and local performance measures. Global performance measures
should reflect the mission of CCP while local performance measures should be
tailored to the unique characteristics of individual projects.
1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Pub. L. 91- 190, 42 U. S. C. 4321- 4347.
2
• Provide technical training to CCP staff. If CCP staff members are going to be the
primary source of public information and public involvement, they must be
knowledgeable about the fundamentals of transportation engineering.
• Provide communication training to non- CCP staff. Although many AzDOT staff
members are not formally responsible for public communication, it is not possible
to completely prevent instances where public speaking skills are required.
• Increase CCP’s responsiveness. This could be accomplished by establishing CCP
responsiveness performance measures and hiring additional staff if needed to
achieve those performance measures.
• Decentralize CCP staff. Locating staff in each district office would provide
district staff with immediate access to CCP staff and would provide CCP staff
with more insight into local issues.
• Leverage CCP performance measures. Existing CCP performance measures and
performance reporting should continue to be utilized and adapted as needed to
determine the type and extent of additional needed public information and public
involvement resources.
3
INTRODUCTION
Current federal transportation legislation entitled Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users ( SAFETEA- LU) requires state
departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to “ provide
citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees,
freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of
transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users
of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, of the disabled, and other
interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation plan.” 2
In addition, the National Environmental Protection Act3 requires that transportation
agencies examine and avoid potential impacts to the social and natural environment when
considering approval of proposed transportation projects. These requirements, as well as
responsible practice, creates considerable responsibility for state departments of
transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to provide public information and
public involvement to a diverse community and to obtain feedback that satisfies legal
mandates and results in improved planning and project development.
Involving community members in planning and project development is a major challenge
for transportation agencies. This challenge can be met by following basic guidelines for
improving public information and public involvement. The first, and perhaps most
important guideline, is the recognition that public involvement requires the active
participation of the public. Once this involvement is established, it must be maintained
through continuous contact between staff and the community, including special efforts
that target special segments of the population. This involvement is best maintained
through a variety of techniques that search out the public and encourage feedback on
transportation projects. Finally, the effort should focus on activities to make decisions
rather than activities to fulfill an obligation to involve the public.
2 P. L. 109- 59 § 6001( i)( 5)( A).
3 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Pub. L. 91- 190, 42 U. S. C. 4321- 4347.
4
5
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PROCESSES
The Federal Highway Administration at the U. S. Department of Transportation operates
the Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program. 4 This program was designed to
help decision makers, transportation officials, and staff to resolve the increasingly
complex issues they face when addressing transportation needs in their communities.
This comprehensive program for training, technical assistance, and support is targeted to
state, local, regional, and tribal governments; transit operators; and community leaders.
The current best practices in public information and public involvement for transportation
agencies are cataloged by this program and are reviewed here. 5 The four main domains of
public participation are informing people, involving people, getting feedback, and
applying special techniques.
INFORMING PEOPLE
A successful public involvement effort is predicated on effective communication.
Effective communication is necessarily two- way, and public participation must include
the identification of an audience, the communication of information, the solicitation of
feedback, and the incorporation of that feedback into transportation plans. Such an effort
requires an organization to establish a systematic, but flexible approach to providing and
obtaining information from the public. Informing the public requires attention to three
important topics: underserved populations, core groups, and communicating information.
Underserved Populations
Ethnic, minority, and low- income groups can face economic and cultural barriers to
engaging in the public participation process. The Virginia Department of Transportation
takes the initiative by including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People ( NAACP) on community advisory committees. 6 In addition, a number of
transportation agencies ( e. g., the City of Huntsville, Alabama) encourage the involvement
of underserved populations by advertising meetings and other public involvement events
in minority publications. 7
Other barriers can be created by disabilities. Federal laws such as the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act require the involvement of and provision of
information to those with disabilities. 8,9 Like many transit service providers, the Spokane,
Washington, Transit Authority employs “ Rider Alert” and paratransit programs to
increase the involvement of those with disabilities by providing information and
transportation services tailored for the disabled. 10 The California Department of
4) U. S. Department of Transportation. ( 2004). Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program Annual
Report Fiscal Year 2004.
5 U. S. Department of Transportation. ( 2002). Public involvement techniques for transportation decision-making.
6 Virginia Department of Transportation. ( 2002). Route 5 Bikeway Feasibility Study.
7 City of Huntsville, Alabama. ( 2005). Public Involvement Plan for Transportation Planning in the
Huntsville Urbanized Area.
8 42 USC 12204.
9 29 USC 794.
10 Spokane Transit Authority. ( 2006). 2005- 2006 Report to the Community.
6
Transportation makes the state’s long- range transportation plan available in Braille, large
print, on audiocassette, and computer disk. 11 During meetings, the City of Los Angeles,
California, provides sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, and adaptive
equipment for those who need it. 12
Core Groups
One approach to engaging the public’s participation is to begin with a core group of
individuals such as members of community- based organizations. For example, 37
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions in Washington, DC, consisting of elected
members, funnel citizen input on transportation and other government services. 13
Focusing specifically on transportation, eight transportation management associations
representing public- private partnerships in Colorado address traffic congestion and air
quality problems. 14
Similarly, citizen ( or civic) advisory committees are core groups of representative
stakeholders who meet regularly to discuss issues of concern to all members. For
example, the Metropolitan Washington ( DC) Council of Governments utilizes citizen
advisory committees consisting of individual citizens and representatives of
environmental, business, and civic interests concerned with regional transportation
matters as well as representatives of minority, low- income, and disabled groups. 15
Decision and policy boards are core groups created by statute, regulation, or political
decision whose members either make decisions or formulate policies that guide decision
making. Metropolitan planning organizations across the nation provide input on issues
such as regional transportation and mass transit systems in Portland, Oregon, integrate
political and technical engineering issues in central Arkansas, and achieve consensus on
binational border planning issues in San Diego, California. 16,17,18
Unlike other, permanent core groups, a collaborative task force is an ad hoc group
assembled to deal with a specific task and has a limited amount of time to achieve
consensus. Collaborative task forces have been used by the Oregon and Washington
departments of transportation to examine alternatives to the Columbia River Crossing on
Interstate 5; in Maryland to address the difficult issue of increasing the capacity of the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge; and by the Connecticut Department of Transportation to
evaluate the condition and operation of commuter rail facilities. 19,20,21
11 California Department of Transportation. ( Spring, 2003). California Transportation Plan Newsletter.
12 City of Los Angeles, California. ( 2004). Facts about the City of Los Angeles.
13 Washington, DC, Department of Transportation. ( 2005). North Capitol Street Transportation Study.
14) Colorado Department of Transportation. ( 2005). 2030 Statewide Transportation Plan.
15 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. ( 1999). National Capitol Region Transportation
Planning Board Public Involvement Process.
16 Metro. ( 2003). Metro Charter.
17 Metroplan. ( 2004). 2004 Central Arkansas Regional Transportation Study.
18 San Diego Association of Governments. ( 2007). Otay Mesa – Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor
Strategic Plan.
19 Columbia River Crossing. ( Winter 2007, Issue 4). Bridgenews.
20 Maryland Transportation Authority. ( 2006). Task Force on Traffic Capacity Across the Chesapeake Bay:
Final Report.
7
Communicating Information
Before the public can participate in transportation projects, they must first receive
information about the projects. Mailing lists are commonly used as a foundation for mass
communication, such as the 8,000 names maintained by the North Central Texas Council
of Governments in Arlington, Texas. 22 However, transportation information can also be
distributed to particular segments of the general public utilizing other media, such as the
publications, announcements, and Web content in Spanish and other languages provided
by the San Diego Association of Governments in San Diego, California. 23
Community leaders can collect information through key person interviews or provide
information through briefings. As a result of key person interviews, the West Michigan
Shoreline Regional Development Commission in Muskegon, Michigan, identified five
critical elements in the development of an area- wide plan. 24 Briefings can provide
comprehensive summaries of transportation planning processes, such as the annual
briefing provided by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization in
Indianapolis, Indiana. 25
Advancements in video technology increase the usefulness of that channel to
communicate information. For example, the Florida Department of Transportation
created a high fidelity visual simulation of traffic flow on Interstate 4 to study the effect
of additional truck lanes. 26 In the north- central states of Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, the state departments of transportation are
linked to each other as well as four universities ( Colorado State University, North Dakota
State University, University of Wyoming, and Utah State University) with a video
conferencing system. 27
Speakers’ bureaus provide an opportunity to communicate a consistent message on
transportation topics. This approach is used by the Baltimore Metropolitan Council in
Baltimore, Maryland, to inform the public about topics such as transportation and air
quality, the regional transportation planning process, the regional transportation plan,
pedestrian and bicycle safety, and demographic and development trends. 28
INVOLVING PEOPLE
Formal and informal meetings are the foundation of any public participation program. In
addition to providing a forum for communication, meetings allow community members
to meet the people who represent the transportation agency and allow agency staff to
directly respond to comments. The two most important characteristics of face- to- face
meetings are the meeting type and the meeting structure.
21 Connecticut Department of Transportation. ( 2005). Connecticut Rail Station Governance Study.
22) North Central Texas Council of Governments. ( 2006). 2006 Annual Report.
23 San Diego Association of Governments. ( 2005). Public Participation/ Involvement Policy.
24 West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission. ( 2004). Muskegon Area- wide Plan.
25 Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization. ( 2006). 2006 Briefing Paper.
26 Florida Department of Transportation. ( 2005). I- 4 Corridor Traffic Simulation and Visualization.
27 Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute. ( 2002). TEL8: The Development of a Transportation Video
Conference Network.
28 Baltimore Metropolitan Council. ( 2006). 2006 Annual Report.
8
Meeting Type
The type of meeting that is held is determined primarily by its purpose in the larger
public involvement effort. Public meetings are optional events that generate informal
input from local residents while public hearings are more formal in that they result in a
public record of information relevant to the transportation project. Public meetings and
public hearings can be linked, as demonstrated by the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation in the development of its 2030 regional transportation plan, when local
public meetings were followed by public hearings. 29
Open houses are similar to public meetings in that they are informal, but are different in
that there is no agenda. For example, the Washington State Department of Transportation
hosted an open house on intercity transit services following the closure of a local transit
operator. 30 Likewise, open forum hearings are hybrids of public hearings and open
houses, which the Georgia Department of Transportation used to create a shared vision of
the state’s transportation program. 31
Conferences, workshops, and retreats are also useful types of meetings. A conference is a
structured series of presentations and has been used by the Kansas Department of
Transportation for its long- range transportation plan. 32 Workshops are task- oriented
meetings, and retreats are workshops held in non- traditional settings to reduce
distractions. In 2005 the Washington State Department of Transportation’s Agency
Council on Coordinated Transportation held a retreat to focus on specific project and
legislative priorities for the 2005- 07 biennium. 33
Meeting Structure
Although transportation agencies determine the meeting type, it is common for meeting
participants to determine the meeting structure. One meeting structure, brainstorming,
can be effective in shifting participants away from conflict and toward consensus. As
currently operationalized, brainstorming sessions are not unstructured discussions but
rather freethinking forums such as those utilized by Pierce County, Washington, to
brainstorm ideas for projects addressing needs and gaps in transportation services for
people who cannot transport themselves due to age, disability, or income. 34
A charrette is a meeting to address and resolve a specific issue that can last from 4 hours
to several days. Accordingly, charrettes are issue- oriented, produce visible results, and
increase public involvement in transportation planning. A series of charrettes facilitated
by the Regional Planning Council in New Orleans, Louisiana, involving neighborhood
29 Wisconsin Department of Transportation. ( 2007). Connections 2030 Public Participation Plan.
30 Washington State Department of Transportation. ( 2005). WSDOT Public Transportation and Rail
Division Monthly Report, September, 2005.
31 Georgia Department of Transportation. ( 2001). Georgia Department of Transportation Public
Involvement Plan.
32 Kansas Department of Transportation. ( 2006). Kansas Long Range Transportation Plan Phase 1: Setting
the Vision.
33 Washington State Department of Transportation. ( 2005). ACCT 2005 Retreat Summary Report.
34 Pierce County, Washington. ( 2006). Coordinated Transportation Plan for People with Special
Transportation Needs in Pierce County.
9
residents and stakeholders, was used to evaluate neighborhood transportation problems
and possible solutions. 35
A visioning meeting structure is designed to result in a long- range plan. As an integrated
approach to policy development, visioning offers the most inclusive approach to
developing long- range plans. Because visioning solicits deep- seated feelings about the
future, it highlights the development of policies to get residents involved in important
topics such as transportation infrastructure. Many states, including Utah, Idaho, and
Oregon, have used the visioning technique to establish long- range goals. 36,37,38
The limited size ( less than about 20 members) of small groups facilitates the active
participation of each member. Small groups can include workshops, seminars,
community juries, roundtables, and study circles that make larger meetings more
productive. A variety of agencies have demonstrated the effectiveness of small groups,
including the San Francisco County Transportation Authority in San Francisco,
California, and the San Diego Association of Governments in San Diego, California. 39,40
GETTING FEEDBACK
Successful communication will generate feedback, and both positive and negative
feedback inform the planning and implementation of transportation projects. Feedback
also helps measure the public’s understanding of transportation issues and what
information is needed to increase that understanding. The key components of this public
participation effort are providing information and getting feedback.
Providing Information
Before community members can give informed feedback on transportation projects, they
must be provided with information about those projects. On- line services provide
information on a 24- hour basis and advances in mobile information technology are
allowing consumers to access information outside their homes and offices. Web sites that
offer information ranging from existing road conditions to transportation planning, such
as that hosted by the Tennessee Department of Transportation, are commonplace. 41
Hotlines provide a channel of real- time communication for transportation agencies to
provide information to the public. Hotlines are usually staffed during normal business
hours and many provide toll- free access for long- distance callers. Some hotlines, such as
the one provided by the Tri- County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, also
support a telecommunications device for the deaf ( TDD) for the hearing impaired. 42
35 Regional Planning Commission. ( 2005). Public Involvement Plan.
36 Utah Department of Transportation. ( 2007). UDOT Long Range Transportation Plan 2007- 2030.
37 Idaho Department of Transportation. ( 2004). Idaho’s Transportation Vision: 2034.
38 Oregon Department of Transportation. ( 2006). Oregon Transportation Plan.
39 San Francisco County Transportation Authority. ( 2007). Tenderloin- Little Saigon Neighborhood
Transportation Plan.
40 San Diego Association of Governments. ( 2006). A Commitment to Regional Priorities: SANDAG
Annual Report 2006.
41 Tennessee Department of Transportation. ( 2004). Report to Tennesseans: Biennial Report 2003- 2004.
42 Tri- County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon. ( 2006). Tri- County Elderly and Disabled
Transportation Plan.
10
Drop- in centers, whether in storefront or mobile operations, provide yet another outlet for
transportation information. Drop- in centers can be a convenient source of information to
consumers as well as being a visible commitment to the community. In addition, drop- in
centers can be used to overcome barriers between agencies and communities, as was
experienced by the California Department of Transportation during an access and
circulation study. 43
Getting Feedback
After the public has been provided transportation information, feedback must be
obtained. Even with opportunities to provide feedback at meetings and forums, some
people may be reluctant to voice their opinions. The small and informal nature of focus
groups can be effective in eliciting public opinion on transportation issues and still
produce a written record of input. For example, the New Jersey Department of
Transportation conducted a series of focus groups to obtain consumer feedback during
the development of a long- range transportation plan. 44
While focus groups tend to have less structure, surveys tend to have more structure.
Surveys can be administered with paper and pencil in person or by mail, with interviews
in person or by telephone, and electronically over the Internet. Surveys are often
employed with other techniques ( e. g., stakeholder interviews, workshops, and public
meetings) to achieve consensus, such as when the Michigan Department of
Transportation prepared its long- range transportation plan. 45
It is not surprising that not all feedback is consonant and disagreements must be resolved.
Facilitation is managed by a facilitator with the consent of the participants and can be
used to guide a group through a consensus building process. For example, facilitation was
used by design advisory teams to resolve issues between the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission and communities that were impacted by the Mon- Fayette Expressway. 46
If facilitation is not successful in resolving differences, then negotiation and mediation
may be in order. Nevertheless, negotiation and mediation follow a problem solving model
rather than an adversarial model. These forms of alternative dispute resolution provide a
structured and semi- formal venue for people to resolve disagreements, and are an
important element in a partnership agreement between the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the eleven Federally
recognized Indian tribes in Wisconsin. 47
43 California Department of Transportation. ( 2003). Public Participation Plan for Bishop Area Access &
Circulation Study.
44 New Jersey Department of Transportation. ( 2001). Transportation Choices 2025.
45 Michigan Department of Transportation. ( 2007). Moving Michigan Forward: 2005- 2030 State Long-
Range Transportation Plan.
46 Oakland Transportation Management Association. ( 2006). 2005- 2006 Annual Report: Building
Community Connections.
47 Wisconsin Department of Transportation. ( 2005). Partnership Agreement Between Wisconsin’s Eleven
Federally Recognized Tribes; Wisconsin Department of Transportation; and Wisconsin Division – Federal
Highway Administration.
11
APPLYING SPECIAL TECHNIQUES
Beyond traditional meetings and processes, special techniques can be applied as
circumstances warrant. These circumstances include declining or static participation in
meetings, a lack of questions by meeting participants, or doubts that progress is being
made. These symptoms of a disaffected public may grow into larger problems that can
derail a transportation project and an effective public participation strategy will include
techniques to treat this condition. These techniques include holding special events,
changing meeting approaches, and finding new communication channels.
Holding Special Events
Special events such as transportation fairs provide opportunities for exposure to
transportation information in a fun, low- stress environment. These events focus on visual
interest and excitement, multiple exhibits, accessibility by the target audience, and the
ability to get feedback from those in attendance. A transportation fair can be an annual
event that is heavily promoted to encourage attendance ( e. g., the events held in
recognition of National Transportation Week) or can be a road show that is held in
various locations ( e. g., the road shows included in the strategy to create an understanding
of and to demonstrate the value of airstrips as one of Idaho’s transportation assets). 48,49
Games and contests provide additional opportunities to facilitate public participation. In
addition to providing entertainment, games and contests challenge people to think about
different alternatives in transportation planning that they might not otherwise. For
example, the Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization in Knoxville,
Tennessee, uses a transportation planning simulation game to increase understanding of
the transportation planning process. 50 The participants’ choices about where to put
development in relation to transportation reveals the relationships between land use and
transportation, the perspectives of others, and the implications of decisions.
Changing Meeting Approaches
Because meetings are the foundation of any public participation program, they may
become dull from overuse. Consequently, improving meeting attendance is a special
challenge that can be overcome by making public input count in the decision making
process. To maintain high levels of public involvement, the Mid- America Regional
Council in Kansas City, Missouri, conducts surveys to identify opportunities to
continually engage the public. 51
Role playing is an activity that encourages active participation in meetings by defining
contexts and roles for people to play in those contexts. Because the contexts and roles are
hypothetical, participation in a role play is a risk- free experience for participants that
exposes them to alternative viewpoints. For example, the New Jersey Department of
48 36 USC 133.
49 Idaho Transportation Department. ( 2005). The Idaho Airstrip Network Action Plan.
50 Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization. ( 2004). Knoxville Regional Transportation
Planning Organization Public Involvement Plan.
51 Mid- American Regional Council. ( 2001). Mid- American Regional Council Transportation Department
Public Involvement Plan.
12
Transportation used role playing exercises to explore the facets of transportation planning
during its long range transportation plan education program. 52
Additionally, site visits allow the public to engage in the transportation planning process
by traveling to project areas. Site visits also improve agency credibility and give
participants a common frame of reference. Sioux City, Iowa, included site visits into the
planning process for Vision 2020 where its Task Force took a citywide bus tour. 53 Task
force members were able to view issues in all parts of the city as a group and agency staff
reported that the site visits were a valuable overview of local concerns.
Finding New Communication Channels
New communication channels are emerging on a regular basis, largely due to advances in
information technology. Interactive television and teleconferencing allow participants to
meet virtually face- to- face across long distances without the need for travel. Interactive
video displays and kiosks in public areas are also useful communication channels because
many people are familiar with this technology from their experience with automatic teller
machines.
Improvements in computer graphics make computer presentations, geographic
information system mapping, and three- dimensional visualization practical for most
transportation agencies. Computer presentations of digitized photography, video
brochures, and video simulations attract attention through color, movement, and sound.
Geographic information systems allow users to develop custom maps by merging layers
of spatial information. Similarly, three- dimensional visualization allows projects to be
rendered in life- like presentations before construction ever begins.
As an extension of three- dimensional visualization, visual preference surveys allow a
community to determine how a transportation project will affect its overall image by
comparing implementation alternatives through sketches and pictures. Instant voting
technology, such as that used by marketing firms, allows voters to cast ballots on a large
number of topics and allows agencies to automate the ballot counting and reporting
process. Mark- up software also allows participants to record their preferences by
electronically marking up project plans with notes and questions. And finally, remote
sensing technology is useful in collecting data for use in geographic information systems.
52 New Jersey Department of Transportation. ( 2006). Transportation Choices 2030: New Jersey’s Statewide
Long- Range Transportation Plan Education Program.
53 City of Sioux City. ( 2005). Sioux City Comprehensive Plan.
13
IMPROVING PREDESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC
INFORMATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
An important area of performance for AzDOT is the predesign phase. This phase occurs
before the design of the roadway is undertaken and involves an environmental
assessment, disseminating public information and conducting public involvement
sessions. The growing population in Arizona requires a constant roadway construction
and maintenance effort that naturally includes public participation during planning and
implementation. Previous research has established the importance and success of
AzDOT’s construction communication efforts, and extending this line of research into
predesign and environmental public information and public involvement will further
improve AzDOT’s performance. 54
The purpose of this project is to conduct an analysis of public information and public
involvement structures and functions. AzDOT has historically concerned itself with
improving transportation decision making by maximizing public involvement. The
analysis of public information and public involvement structures and functions that is
handled by CCP is designed to fulfill this organizational priority. 55 The AzDOT
organizational unit primarily responsible for public involvement is CCP. The structure of
CCP ( see Appendix 1) includes a wide variety of positions to provide communication and
develop community partnerships. About 65% of AzDOT’s $ 4.6 million predesign budget
is allocated to external consultants who work on projects across the state and the remaining
35% of the budget is allocated to the cost of internal staff and the services they provide.
An interview with a senior member of the CCP staff revealed an ironic series of events
that limits the ability of CCP to provide needed services. Previously, public involvement
funding and activities were determined on a project- by- project basis. The creation of
CCP was intended to capitalize on the increased level of service that a more centralized
public involvement unit could provide. However, the structural reorganization was not
followed by a budgetary reorganization. That is, CCP was provided with a minimum
funding for staff, but very little funding to deliver services. Meanwhile, projects no
longer received specific allocations for public involvement. Funding that had previously
been allocated on a project- by- project basis was not shifted to CCP. Accordingly, CCP
faces challenges in its ability to provide responsive customer service.
Based on analysis of data collected from those who have knowledge of and experience
with public information and public involvement structures and functions, the following
research questions will be answered:
• What are the current AzDOT public information and public involvement
structures and functions?
• How can the current AzDOT public information and public involvement
structures and functions be improved?
( 54) Done, R. S. ( 2004). Improving construction communication. ADOT Report No. FHWA- AZ- 04- 560.
( 55) Bailey, K. & Grossardt, T. ( 2006). Structured public involvement in context- sensitive noise wall design
using casewise visual evaluation. Transportation Research Record, 1984, 112- 120.
14
Thus, this research project will yield information that can be used by AzDOT to identify
and improve public information and public involvement structures and functions. The
results will be useful to AzDOT and help maintain AzDOT’s position as a leader in
public information and public involvement.
METHOD
Internal and external survey instruments were designed to collect quantitative and
qualitative data from transportation professions to answer the research questions. These
data included numeric, multiple choice, and narrative responses. Respondents were not
limited in the extent of detail that they could provide in their responses.
Internal Survey
An internal survey was designed to capture AzDOT’s current public information and
public involvement structures and functions ( see Appendix 2). The internal survey was
sent via e- mail on May 22, 2006, to a sample of 81 transportation professionals at AzDOT
and other organizations within Arizona. The sample was selected by the technical advisory
committee for this project. Two follow- up reminders were sent via e- mail over a 6 week
period. Thirty- four surveys were returned via e- mail and four surveys were returned via
fax. Two surveys were found to be duplicates and were not included in the dataset.
External Survey
An external survey was designed to assess how current AzDOT public information and
public involvement structures and functions could be improved ( see Appendix 3). The
external survey was sent via e- mail on May 24, 2006, to a sample of 61 transportation
professionals at organizations outside Arizona. Two follow- up reminders were sent via e-mail
over a 6 week period. Fourteen surveys were returned via e- mail and two surveys
were returned via fax. Two surveys were found to be duplicates and were not included in
the dataset.
RESULTS
The contents of the completed internal and external surveys were extracted into separate
data files for analysis. Quantitative and multiple response data were subjected to
statistical analyses and qualitative data were subjected to content analyses. This section
describes the results of the respective analyses.
Internal Survey
Respondents to the internal survey ( n = 36) reported years of employment in the field of
transportation ranging from 0 to 44, with an average of 17.2 years and a standard deviation
of 11.4 years. These respondents also reported years of employment with AzDOT ranging
from 0 to 41, with an average of 13.5 years and a standard deviation of 10.2 years.
Almost all ( 97%) of the respondents described their best experience with the public and
the primary cause of this experience ( see Table 1). The single most commonly ( 39%)
reported best experience with the public was a public meeting. Public involvement
techniques ( e. g., workshops, citizens’ advisory teams, charrettes, and facilitated work
groups) were reported by 17% of the respondents. The least commonly reported best
15
experiences with the public were personal communication ( 6%) such as telephone and e-mail;
and media events ( 6%) such as speaking engagements and dedication ceremonies.
The remaining respondents ( 31%) did not provide a specific description of their best
experience with the public.
Table 1. Best Experiences with the Public
Experience %
Public Meeting 39
Public Involvement 17
Media Events 6
Personal Communication 6
Other ( unspecified) 31
Note. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to non-response
and/ or rounding error.
Respondents reported a wide variety of causes for the positive nature of their best
experience with the public, such as:
• Allowing the public to view displays and ask questions before a presentation.
• Engaging the public through charrettes and facilitated work groups.
• Meeting with people that would be affected by the project on a one- on- one.
• Presenting technical information in an understandable format.
• Allowing ideas and concerns to be expressed in a casual and upfront way.
Most ( 94%) of the respondents described their worst experience with the public and the
primary cause of this experience ( see Table 2). As with best experiences, the single most
commonly ( 41%) reported worst experience with the public was a public meeting. Public
involvement processes ( e. g., consensus building, dialogue, special interest groups) were
reported by 15% of the respondents as being their worst experience with the public.
Experiences with collaborators ( e. g., consultants, political leaders, and other institutional
entities) were reported by 9% of respondents as being their worst experience with the
public. Personal communication ( e. g., profanity, abuse) was reported by 6% of
respondents as being their worst experience. The remaining respondents ( 29%) did not
describe a specific worst experience with the public.
Table 2. Worst Experiences with the Public
Experience %
Public Meeting 41
Public Involvement 15
Collaboration 9
Personal Communication 6
Other ( unspecified) 29
Note. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to non- response and/ or rounding error.
16
Respondents reported a wide variety of reasons for the negative nature of their worst
experience with the public, including:
• Difficulty in explaining complicated technical issues to lay audiences.
• Pre- existing misconceptions based on misunderstanding or misinformation.
• Low levels of attendance at public meetings and presentations.
• Public perceptions that AzDOT is not responsive to public input.
• Anger and frustration created by consultants and political leaders.
It is important to note that comments on the involvement of collaborators such as
consultants and political leaders in transportation projects were not universally negative.
Some respondents reported decidedly positive experiences with consultants under very
difficult circumstances. Other respondents commended consultants for their
professionalism in handling volatile situations involving an emotional public.
Respondents were asked what tools or resources they need to improve their
communication with the public, and almost all ( 97%) provided an answer ( see Table 3).
The most common theme that emerged from the responses was that of AzDOT’s CCP
office. About one- fifth ( 22%) of respondents reported that the resolution of issues with
CCP is the single most important tool or resource needed to improve their
communication with the public. 56 The primary frustration specified by respondents was
that the CCP staff does not provide public communication support in a timely manner.
Another frustration among respondents is the centralized nature of CCP and the
additional delays and miscommunication created by routing public communication from
the field to the central office and back out to the field again.
Enhanced Internet technology was identified by 17% of respondents as being needed to
improve communication with the public. According to these respondents, enhancements
are needed on both AzDOT’s intranet and Internet websites. Examples of enhancements
provided by respondents include increasing the availability of project plans, descriptions,
updates, and changes; increasing the interactivity and navigability of the Internet website;
and constantly updating the intranet and Internet websites with the most current
information. Courses or other training in public speaking were identified by 11% of
respondents as being needed to improve their public communication skills. Finally, the
remaining 31% of respondents identified the need for a variety of tools and resources that
would increase attendance at public meetings, track public comments about specific
projects, increase funding to support public communication, and communicate the correct
information to the correct audience.
56 One individual refused to complete the survey, citing frustration with CCP.
17
Table 3. Tools or Resources Needed to Improve Public Communication and
Public Involvement
Tools or Resources %
Timely Support from CCP 22
Enhanced Internet Technology 17
Public Speaking Courses 11
Other 31
None 19
Note. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to non- response and/ or rounding error.
Respondents were also asked how the lack of these tools or resources resulted in poor
communication with the public. This question was answered by 89% of respondents, and
the remaining 11% of respondents noted that this question was not applicable to them.
Among respondents who indicated that issues with CCP resulted in poor communication
with the public, the primary cause of the poor communication was the delay in
responding to the public. In some instances, there was no response to the public. Some
respondents noted that public communication is confounded because the technical staff
has the knowledge to provide the most complete and accurate information but lack the
communication skills to do so, while the CCP staff has the requisite communication skills
but lack the technical background to provide meaningful information to the public.
Alternatively, even if technical staff members have both the knowledge and the
communication skills to convey that knowledge, they are required to channel public
communication to CCP. This requirement can then result in the delayed ( or nonexistent)
communication described previously.
The lack of more fully developed intranet and Internet websites has resulted in poor
communication with the public for a number of reasons. The primary reason is the
interrupted or discontinued communication caused by the need to locate information that
is only available on hard copy or that is stored electronically but only locally. The
inaccessibility of this information is especially acute for the public in rural areas who
may rely on the Internet for a larger share of their communication than the public in
urban areas. In addition, the unavailability of some information on the AzDOT intranet
requires staff in rural districts to postpone accessing information until their next trip to
Phoenix. One respondent noted that improving the AzDOT website with a regularly
published newsletter would result in more fluid communication with the public, rather
than accumulating information in more formal, but less frequently, published public
information and public involvement documents.
Other respondents reported that the lack of public communication training prevented
them from conveying their intended message and that they experienced frustration and
anger when they were not able to successfully communicate with members of the public
who firmly believed misinformation that they had been provided. Finally, several
respondents noted that the lack of public communication tools and resources which
results in delayed or inadequate communication can create anger and suspicion among
the public, which, in turn, creates yet another barrier to subsequent communication.
18
Almost all ( 97%) of the respondents described how they document public input and what
happens to that input ( see Table 4). The most commonly reported ( 33%) method for
documenting public input was notes and/ or minutes recorded by AzDOT staff at public
meetings. Individual correspondence ( e. g., letters, e- mail) was the next most commonly
reported ( 11%) method for documenting public input. The difference between
documentation through notes/ minutes or correspondence was driven by the context of the
communication rather than personal discretion. Another 8% of respondents reported that
public input was documented through transcription. This transcription was accomplished
at public meetings through either on- site stenographers or the meeting was recorded on
tape and then later transcribed. Finally, 8% of respondents also reported that public
relations consultants documented public input, including observations at meetings,
feedback on surveys, and comments on flip charts. The remaining respondent did not
describe a specific method for documenting public input.
Table 4. Public Input Documentation
Documentation %
Notes/ Minutes 33
Correspondence 11
Transcription 8
Consultants 8
Other ( unspecified) 39
Note. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to non- response and/ or rounding error.
Respondents reported a number of dispositions for documented public input, including:
• Stored in local files.
• Published in reports.
• Posted on AzDOT Internet website.
• Forwarded to supervisor.
Some ( 11%) respondents reported that public input was not consistently documented or
that it was not documented at all. Respondents also described the need for a database to
store and manage public input. This database would allow AzDOT staff to sort and
categorize public input as it relates to specific projects or issues.
Most ( 94%) of the respondents described how they provide feedback to the public after
input is received. The vast majority of respondents indicated that they use multiple
methods and that the particular method of feedback they provided typically depended on
the method and/ or urgency of the original input. The most common methods included
letters ( 31%), telephones calls ( 28%), e- mails ( 28%), and meetings ( 25%). The least most
commonly reported methods of providing feedback to the public after input is received
were face- to- face conversation ( 6%) and the AzDOT Internet website ( 6%). Other
respondents reported that they provide feedback to the public after input is received but
did not describe the mechanism for providing the feedback.
19
The final question on the internal survey was directed to respondents who were tribal
representatives. This question probed for opportunities for AzDOT to improve its
communication and public information and public involvement process with tribes and
was answered by 6% of respondents. However, throughout the survey almost every
question was answered by 20% of respondents with experiences and observations while
working with tribes. This information is collectively reported here to develop the basis of
recommendations for AzDOT to improve its communication and public information and
public involvement process with tribes.
Several consistent and overlapping themes emerged from the 20% of respondents who
provided information on improving communication and public information and public
involvement processes with tribes ( see Table 5). Half ( 50%) of these respondents noted
the importance of trust between tribes and AzDOT in order to yield positive
transportation outcomes. Two- thirds ( 67%) of these respondents emphasized the
significant roles that protocol, engagement, and communication play during tribal public
information and public involvement processes. All of these themes are also important
during public information and public involvement efforts with non- tribal communities,
but are defined differently among tribal communities ( and sometimes even defined
differently between tribal communities).
Table 5. Tribal Public information and Public Involvement
Theme %
Trust 50
Protocol 67
Engagement 67
Communication 67
Note. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
In addition to identifying important considerations when providing public information
and public involvement to tribal communities, the respondents reported specific tactics
that have proven successful during public information and public involvement efforts.
The most common tactics were:
• Cultivating trust through a respect for the sovereignty of tribal communities.
• Observing established tribal protocols for meetings and other processes.
• Centering engagement efforts in tribal communities which are often rural or
remote.
• Communicating with individuals or groups as indicated by tribal norms.
The themes and tactics identified by respondents are equally important for tribal and non-tribal
communities but underscore the importance of cultural competence during tribal
public information and public involvement efforts.
External Survey
The external survey was designed to collect information on public information and public
involvement methods used by other transportation agencies to provide a benchmark for
20
AzDOT public information and public involvement efforts and to identify potential
opportunities to improve those efforts. The external survey was completed by 13
respondents from other state departments of transportation. Respondents reported state
populations ranging from 1.2 to 33.9 million people, with an average of 7.2 million
people and a standard deviation of 9.0 million people. Annual expenditures on public
information and public involvement were reported to range from less than $ 500,000 to
more than $ 2,000,000 ( see Table 6).
Table 6. Annual Public Information and Public Involvement Expenditures
Expenditure %
< $ 500,000 29
$ 500,001 – 1,000,000 14
$ 1,000,001 – 1,500,000 21
$ 1,500,001 – 2,000,000 7
> $ 2,000,000 29
Note. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to non- response and/ or rounding error.
All of the respondents indicated how they provide transportation information to the
public ( see Table 7). All of the respondents reported that they use electronic media ( e. g.,
radio and television) and print media ( e. g., newspapers and billboards) to communicate
public information and public involvement. Almost all ( 92%) of the respondents reported
that they communicate pubic information in person at venues such as public meetings and
open houses. Other and more specific communication channels were reported, including
letters to directly affected landowners, flyers, electronic message boards, booths and
kiosks, videos, and speakers’ bureaus.
Table 7. Public Information and Public Involvement Channels
Channel %
Do not provide public information and public involvement 0
Electronic media ( e. g., telephone, television, radio, web site, e- mail) 100
Print media ( e. g., newspaper, billboard, surface mail) 100
In person ( e. g., public meetings, open houses, focus groups) 92
Other 38
Note. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Respondents were also asked which of the communication channels is the most effective
and why it is the most effective. Electronic media was identified as the most effective
communication channel by 38% of respondents who favored it because it can reach many
people with current ( potentially real- time) information. Almost one- quarter ( 23%) of
respondents indicated that providing information in person was the most effective
communication channel. For these respondents, communicating in person was favored
above other channels because it is effective when building relationships, provides
opportunities to get specific questions addressed, establishes rapport and credibility with
the public, and humanizes the department of transportation. Some respondents ( 15%)
reported that print media is the most effective communication channel. These respondents
reported that newspapers often have transportation beat writers while television news
21
may provide little coverage of transportation issues unless they are controversial. In
addition, other forms of print media ( e. g., direct mail) can be directed to a specific target
audience. Finally, 23% of respondents noted that no single channel is universally
effective for communicating public information and public involvement. Instead, for
these respondents a combination of channels was reported to be the most effective
strategy for public information and public involvement. A combination of channels can
be the most effective approach for reaching the most people, and the particular
combination of channels could depend on the characteristics of the target audience or the
type of transportation project.
All of the respondents indicated how they receive feedback from the public ( see Table 8).
All of the respondents reported that they use electronic media ( e. g., telephone and e- mail)
to receive feedback from the public. Almost all ( 92%) of the respondents indicated that
they receive feedback from the public in person ( e. g., public meetings and focus groups)
and through print media ( e. g., surveys and comment cards). Other specific feedback
channels were reported, including comment forms at public meetings, letters to the editor,
telephone surveys, and a toll free telephone number posted at construction projects across
the state.
Table 8. Feedback Channels
Channel %
Do not receive feedback from the public 0
In person ( e. g., public meetings, open houses, focus groups) 92
Electronic media ( e. g., telephone, e- mail) 100
Print media ( e. g., surveys, comment cards) 92
Other 31
Note. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Respondents were also asked which of the feedback channels is the most effective and
why it is the most effective. Print media was identified as the most effective feedback
channel by 38% of respondents, who favored it because large volumes of data can be
collected, quantified, measured, and subjected to statistical analyses. Almost one- quarter
( 23%) of respondents indicated that electronic media was the most effective
communication channel. For these respondents, electronic media was favored above other
channels because it provides the opportunity for immediate and specific feedback from
the public. Some respondents ( 15%) reported that feedback received in person was most
effective because it allowed department of transportation ( DOT) representatives to
personalize the feedback experience for the public and acknowledge that feedback. Other
channels ( e. g., community task forces) were identified by 8% of respondents. Task forces
can provide feedback that is more representative of the general public than members of
the public who initiate feedback by attending public meetings. Although both task forces
and public meetings provide the opportunity for individualized feedback, attendance at
public meetings may be motivated by anger or frustration and thus result in feedback that
is not representative of the general public.
22
Almost all ( 92%) of the respondents indicated how their agencies communicate with
tribes or other special populations ( see Table 9). Less than one- tenth ( 8%) of respondents
reported that they do not target communication to tribes or special populations. About
one- quarter ( 23%) of respondents indicated that they communicate with tribes or special
populations through formal religious or faith groups. Slightly more than two- thirds ( 69%)
of respondents report that they communicate with tribes or special populations through
formal community or civic groups. Less than half ( 46%) of respondents indicated that
they communicate with tribes or special populations through translators, bilingual
speakers, or consultants. The same percentage of respondents indicated that they
communicate with tribes and special populations through other channels, including
special liaison staff, formalized communication processes, and tribal governments.
Table 9. Tribal and Special Population Communication Channels
Channel %
No targeted communication with tribes or special populations 8
Through formal religious or faith groups 23
Through formal community or civic groups 69
Through translators, bilingual speakers, or consultants 46
Other 46
Note. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
Respondents were also asked how they measure the success of the pubic information
efforts ( see Table 10). More than three- quarters ( 77%) of respondents indicated that they
measure public information and public involvement success with satisfaction surveys.
Conversely, 61% of respondents reported using the number of complaints received as a
measure of public information and public involvement success. Slightly more than half
( 54%) of respondents indicated that they use focus groups or small meetings to collect
data on the success of their public information and public involvement efforts. Other
techniques and measures of success were reported by 38% of respondents, including
information provided by consumers on a toll- free telephone line, comment cards
distributed at public meetings and mailed after project completion, and the establishment
of success criteria customized to individual projects.
Table 10. Public Information and Public Involvement Success Measures
Measure %
No measure of public information and public involvement
success
0
Satisfaction surveys 77
Focus groups or small meetings 54
Number of complaints received 61
Other 38
Note. Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
23
Respondents were also asked which of the success measures is the most effective and
why it is the most effective. Satisfaction surveys were identified as the most effective
success measure by 46% of respondents who noted that the resulting data can be
anonymous, quantifiable, and project specific. Slightly less than one- third ( 31%) of
respondents reported that comprehensive satisfaction criteria ( including baseline
measures) established before each project are the most effective because the target
audience can be effectively integrated into the public information and public involvement
efforts. A reduction in the number of complaints received was identified by 8% of
respondents as the most effective measure of public information and public involvement
success as an indication that the public information and public involvement was
effectively communicated.
Finally, respondents were asked how satisfied ( silent) customers are identified and how
feedback is obtained from them. Slightly less than one- third ( 31%) of respondents
reported that they use surveys to identify and obtain feedback from satisfied customers.
Likewise, 31% of respondents indicated that they identify satisfied customers through
proactive community based public information and public involvement efforts and that
feedback is obtained through a variety of channels that are tailored to specific public
information and public involvement campaigns. Focus groups and individual
communication ( e. g., e- mail, telephone, etc.) were each reported by 8% of respondents as
techniques for identifying satisfied customers.
24
25
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the results of the survey administered to
internal respondents ( who had an average of more than 17 years of experience in the field
of transportation). The best public information and public involvement experiences were
public meetings and other pubic involvement events. Given the prevalence of public
meetings and events in public information and public involvement efforts, these
experiences could have emerged as the most positive due to the mere frequency with
which they occur rather than their capacity for producing positive public information and
public involvement experiences. The reasons provided for the positive experiences
provide insight into the characteristics of positive experiences, whether they are with
groups or individuals. The reasons suggest that positive experiences are more likely to
occur when the public is allowed to assimilate information about a project in an informal,
self- paced environment; when the public understands the information, and when public
interaction is on an individualized basis.
The worst public information and public involvement experiences were also public
meetings and other public events. This result supports the possibility that the frequency of
public meetings and events is responsible for these pubic information efforts being
reported as being the best ( and worst) public information and public involvement
experience rather than their capacity ( or lack thereof) for positive public information and
public involvement experiences. Nevertheless, the reasons provided for the negative
experiences are not necessarily the opposite of the reasons provided for the positive
experiences. Although one reason was the difficulty of explaining complicated technical
issues to lay audiences, the other reasons reflected barriers to the communication of
public information and public involvement, such as pre- existing misconceptions about
the project, pre- existing misconceptions about AzDOT, and intermediation by third
parties ( e. g., consultants and political leaders.).
Timely responsiveness from AzDOT’s Communication and Community Partnerships
section was the most frequently identified resource or tool needed to improve
communication with the pubic. The lack of timely responsiveness has resulted in delayed
responses to the public, and in some instances, no response at all. Almost as frequently
mentioned were resources for improved Internet technology to provide the most current
information to the public. The lack of adequate Internet technology prevents the public
from independently accessing information and requires staff to take the time to locate the
information, which may not exist in an electronic format. The lack of other resources,
such as courses or other training in public speaking, techniques to increase attendance at
public meetings, and tools to track public comments about specific projects, has resulted
in additional barriers to the communication of public information and public
involvement.
Public input is most often documented in notes or minutes by AzDOT staff at public
meetings and contained in local files, reports, and the AzDOT website. As with the best
and worst public information and public involvement experiences described previously,
this result may be an artifact of the prevalence of public meetings relative to other public
information and public involvement efforts. This possibility is consistent with the
frequency of other reported forms of public input documentation such as correspondence,
26
transcription of live or taped input, and the use of consultants. While input was most
often received at meetings or other collective venues, feedback to the input was provided
through a variety of methods ranging from individual ( e. g., correspondence and telephone
calls) to collective ( e. g., meetings and the AzDOT website). The choice of feedback
channel depends primarily on the channel or urgency of the original input.
The distribution of responses based on experiences with tribes suggests that many more
AzDOT employees have experience in communicating with tribes than are formally
assigned to communicating with tribes. The majority of respondents noted the importance
of cultural competence in the successful provision of public information and public
involvement to tribal communities. Many of the concepts ( e. g., trust, protocol, and
communication) important to tribal public information and public involvement efforts are
also important to other public information and public involvement efforts, but are defined
differently by ( and sometimes between) tribal communities. Thus, cultural competence is
of paramount importance to successful public information and public involvement efforts
with tribes.
A number of conclusions can also be drawn from the results of the survey administered to
external respondents. Although it may seem intuitive that annual public information and
public involvement expenditures would have a meaningful relationship with state
population, this was not the case. The correlation coefficient between state population
and annual public information and public involvement expenditures was 0.17, suggesting
that other differences between states ( e. g., public information and public involvement
extensiveness) are more important drivers of public information and public involvement
expenditures.
All of the external respondents reported using electronic media ( e. g., radio and
televisions) to communicate public information and public involvement. Electronic media
was also identified as an effective communication channel due to its scope and currency,
but neither it nor any other channel was found to be the most effective communication
channel by a majority of the respondents. Others found that in person communication is
the most effective because of its capacity to build trust and credibility with the public.
Some respondents reported print media such as newspapers to be the most effective
because their content tends to be more deliberate than television or direct mail.
Respondents feel this is the most effective because it can be directed at a specific target
audience. Perhaps most importantly, a number of respondents noted that no single
channel is necessarily the most effective and a combination of channels should be
selected based on a totality of the circumstances.
Similarly, all of the external respondents reported using electronic media ( e. g., telephone
and e- mail) to receive feedback from the public due to its specificity and currency, but
neither it nor any other channel was found to be the most effective feedback channel by a
majority of the respondents. Feedback was also commonly received in person through
public meetings and focus groups, and in print media through surveys and comment
cards. In person communication allows feedback to be personalized and print
communication allows large volumes of data to be managed and analyzed. Although
public meetings and focus groups represent a collective feedback process, focus groups
27
can have the advantage of producing feedback that is generally representative of public
sentiment, while public meetings may produce feedback that is representative of only
extreme public sentiment.
Not all respondent jurisdictions include tribal communities. However, those that do
include these communities use a variety of channels to communicate public information
and public involvement. Most respondents use formal community or civic groups to
communicate with tribal communities, but other channels are also commonly used. For
example, translators, bilingual speakers, and consultants are frequently used, as are other
channels such as special liaison staff, formalized communication process, and tribal
governments. The least most commonly reported channel for communicating with tribal
communities was formal religious or faith groups.
Finally, the majority of external respondents reported measuring the success of their
public information and public involvement efforts ( including from silent satisfied
customers) with satisfaction surveys because they can be used to collect data that is
anonymous, quantifiable, and focuses on a specific project. External respondents also
frequently use the number of complaints received as an indicator of their public
information and public involvement success, as these can also be quantified and
measured. Focus groups are also used by many respondents to obtain a more balance
measure of success than might be available at public meetings, especially for satisfied
( silent) customers.
28
29
RECOMMENDATIONS
AzDOT engages in public information and public involvement efforts that are consistent
with federal transportation legislation and responsible practice. The overall nature of the
responses to the internal survey suggest that AzDOT employees are dedicated to
providing the best public information and public involvement services that are possible
and are interested in additional opportunities and resources to improve these services
wherever possible. Public information and public involvement is provided by AzDOT
through a variety of channels and provides ample opportunity for the public to provide
feedback on the transportation issues at hand. This feedback is acknowledged,
documented, and responded to as appropriate. AzDOT employees are sensitive to the
barriers of effective public information and public involvement, including those unique to
tribal communities, and consistently seek to improve public information and public
involvement. The following recommendations, indicated by data collected with the
internal and external surveys, represent some opportunities for improvement:
• Improve project level and department level funding. Project level funding should
include allocations for CCP services. Improvements in departmental level funding
will support the development of relationships that transcend and survive any
individual project.
• Increase use of the Internet. The increase in broadband Internet connectivity
makes it more feasible to post large documents, drawings, and maps for the public
to download.
• Increase cultural competence with tribes. Successfully communicating public
information and public involvement to tribal communities requires continuously
maintaining strong relationships with these communities with trust and respect.
• Establish global and local performance measures. Since there currently are no
performance measures applied to CCP’s functions, it is recommended that global
performance measures be established to reflect the mission of CCP and local
performance measures be established to reflect the unique characteristics of
individual projects.
• Provide technical training to CCP staff. If the CCP staff is going to be the primary
source of public information and public involvement, it must be knowledgeable
about the fundamentals of transportation engineering.
• Provide communication training to non- CCP staff. Although many AzDOT staff
are not formally responsible for public communication, it is not possible to
completely prevent instances where public speaking skills are required.
• Increase CCP’s responsiveness. This could be accomplished by establishing CCP
responsiveness performance measures and hiring additional staff if needed to
achieve those performance measures.
• Decentralize CCP staff. Locating staff in each district office would provide
district staff with immediate access to CCP staff and would provide CCP staff
with more insight into local issues.
30
Director
Partnering
Director
Public
Involvement
Director
Creative
Services
Director
Executive
Administrative
Assistant
Partnering
Office Manager
Partnering
Measurement &
Process
Improvement
Partnering
Office
Coordinator
Automation &
User Support
Coordinator
Partnering
Workshop
Coordinator
Partnering
Workshop
Coordinator
Partnering
Education &
Special Events
Coordinator
Videographer
Videographer
Newsletter
Editor
Graphic Artist
Graphic Artist
Public
Involvement
Deputy
Director
Community
Relations
Director
Community
Relations
Officer
Public
Involvement
Officer
Public
Involvement
Officer
Public
Involvement
Officer
ADOT
Spokesperson
Community
Relations
Project
Manager
Community
Relations
Project
Manager
Public
Information
Officer
Community
Relations
Officer
Community
Relations
Officer
Community
Relations
Officer
Program and
Projects
Specialist
Constituent
Services Officer
APPENDIX 1 – AZDOT CCP ORGANIZATION CHART
31
32
33
APPENDIX 2 – INTERNAL SURVEY
SPR579
Making a Good First Impression: Improving Predesign and Environmental Public
Information and Public Involvement
Internal Survey
My name is Robert Done and I am conducting a study sponsored by the Arizona Trans-portation
Research Center for the Communications and Community Partnerships division
of the Arizona Department of Transportation. The purpose of this study is to identify
opportunities for improving the public information and public involvement process.
You are being asked to participate in an interview because of your background and
experience with transportation and public information and public involvement. All
information you provide will be anonymous and nothing will be reported in a way that
could identify you. If you have questions or comments about this survey then you can call
John Semmens at the Arizona Transportation Research Center at ( 602) 712- 3137.
Please think about your public information and public involvement experience when you
answer the following questions:
1. How many total years have you been employed in the transportation field?
2. How many of those years have been with the Arizona Department of Transportation?
3. Describe your best experience with the public and the primary cause of this
experience.
4. Describe your worst experience with the public and the primary cause of this
experience.
Please think about your current public information and public involvement
responsibilities when answering the following questions:
5. What tools or resources do you need to improve your communication with the public?
6. Describe how the lack of these tools or resources resulted in poor communication
with the public.
7. How do you document public input and what happens to that input?
8. How do you provide feedback to the public after input is received?
Question for tribal representatives only:
9. How can the Arizona Department of Transportation improve its communication and
public information and public involvement process with your tribe?
34
35
APPENDIX 3 – EXTERNAL SURVEY
SPR579
Making a Good First Impression: Improving Predesign and Environmental Public
Information and Public Involvement
The Arizona Transportation Research Center ( ATRC) is conducting a study for the
Communication and Community Partnerships division of the Arizona Department of
Transportation. The purpose of this study is to identify opportunities for improving the
public information and public involvement process.
You are being asked to participate in a survey because of your background and
experience with transportation and public information and public involvement. All
information you provide will be anonymous and nothing will be reported in a way that
could identify you. If you have questions about this survey, you can contact John
Semmens at the ATRC at ( 602) 712- 3137 or jsemmens@ azdot. gov.
1. a. How do you provide public information and public involvement?
Mark ALL that apply.
􀁻 Do not provide public information and public involvement
􀁻 In person ( e. g., public meetings, open houses, focus groups)
􀁻 Electronic media ( e. g., telephone, television, radio, web site, e- mail)
􀁻 Print media ( e. g., newspaper, billboard, surface mail)
􀁻 Other ( please describe):
1. b. Which of the above methods would you say is most effective?
1. c. Could you briefly describe why you feel this method is the most effective?
2. a. How do you receive feedback from the public?
Mark ALL that apply.
􀁻 Do not receive feedback from the public
􀁻 In person ( e. g., public meetings, open houses, focus groups)
􀁻 Electronic media ( e. g., telephone, e- mail)
􀁻 Print media ( e. g., surveys, comment cards)
􀁻 Other ( please describe):
2. b. Which of the above methods would you say is most effective?
2. c. Could you briefly describe why you feel this method is the most effective?
36
3. a. How does your agency communicate with tribes or other special populations?
Mark ALL that apply.
􀁻 No targeted communication with tribes or special populations
􀁻 Through formal religious or faith groups
􀁻 Through formal community or civic groups
􀁻 Through translators, bilingual speakers, or consultants
􀁻 Other ( please describe):
3. b. Which of the above methods would you say is most effective?
3. c. Could you briefly describe why you feel this method is the most effective?
4. a. How do you measure success of public information and public involvement efforts?
Mark ALL that apply.
􀁻 No measure of public information and public involvement success
􀁻 Satisfaction surveys
􀁻 Focus groups or small meetings
􀁻 Number of complaints received
􀁻 Other ( please describe):
4. b. Which of the above methods would you say is most effective?
4. c. Could you briefly describe why you feel this method is the most effective?
5. a. What is your service area?
Mark only ONE.
􀁻 City
􀁻 County
􀁻 State
􀁻 Other ( please describe):
5. b. What is the approximate total population of your service area?
37
6. How much does your agency spend per year on public information and public
involvement?
Mark only ONE.
􀁻 < $ 500,000
􀁻 $ 500,001 – 1,000,000
􀁻 $ 1,000,001 – 1,500,000
􀁻 $ 1,500,001 – 2,000,000
􀁻 > $ 2,000,000
7. How do you identify satisfied ( silent) customers and obtain feedback from them?