Going the Distance Together: A Citizen’s Guide to Context Sensitive Solutions for Better Transportation (2012)

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.

Chapter V. Going the Distance Together: Partnership through Collaboration V-1 CHAPTER V GOING THE DISTANCE TOGETHER: PARTNERSHIP THROUGH COLLABORATION Summary ▪ Early and continuous collaboration and consensus building have many benefits. ▪ Collaborative partnerships achieve better project results. ▪ Collaboration is challenging. ▪ Citizens, practitioners, and decision-makers should adopt a proven method for achieving collaboration that fits the community’s needs and preferences. ▪ Citizens and practitioners should objectively measure project outcomes, including effectiveness of process and on-the-ground solutions. BENEFITS OF COLLABORATION AND CONSENSUS What if Saturday Night Live had been a top down production instead of a brilliant and zany collaboration? What if either Rogers or Hammerstein had decided that he alone would be the composer? Most of us probably agree that life is more bearable because SNL makes us laugh at outrageous caricature, and songs from The Sound of Music, Oklahoma, and South Pacific lift our spirits. Collaboration in the theater produces astonishing original results. Collaboration can do the same in transportation planning. Collaboration is defined as “cooperating with others in a joint endeavor or area of mutual interest in order to influence or affect the outcome.” The goal of collaboration is consensus. Rather than simply transmitting information, collaboration requires  Cooperation in sharing information for mutual education,  Defining workable and acceptable alternatives, and  Framing creative solutions. Collaboration is the highest form of community involvement. Research shows that when citizens and professionals develop a sustained working relationship, build consensus, and communicate frequently, projects take less time and money and result in a better product.3 Collaboration between transportation professionals and community residents begins with the research on Community Context; and it ends with evaluation of project results. 3 See Appendix C for research on effectiveness of CSS. “Collaboration can re- engage citizens in the political life of the nation by giving them a real stake in outcomes and, as a result, reverse long- term declines in political and civic engagement. Such effects are not trivial, as they lie at the heart of a thriving nation.” Source: Adapted from Public Deliberation: A Manager’s Guide to Citizen Engagement. Carolyn J. Lukensmeyer, Lars Hasselblad Torres, 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp /opengov_inbox/ibmpubdelib.pdf

Chapter V. Going the Distance Together: Partnership through Collaboration V-2 COLLABORATION Strategies Establish advisory committee: share decision making Tools Multi-stakeholder negotiation; policy consensus process ENGAGEMENT Strategies Face-to-face meetings with the public and online; delegate authority Tools Public and online deliberations CONSULTATION Strategies Face-to-face and online meetings with the public Tools Public meetings; e-consultations INFORMATION Strategies Written, electronic, verbal, and visual communications Tools Opinion polls/surveys; public comment periods; public hearings; poster and media campaigns Levels of Public Involvement Collaboration implies that everyone understands and respects everyone else’s points of view. Such was the case when MaineDOT heard local concerns that changes to the mid-coast section of Route 1 should retain the character of the community (see text box).

Chapter V. Going the Distance Together: Partnership through Collaboration V-3 Case Study: MaineDOT and Local Communities Engage to Retain Community Character Source: Adapted from Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Project 8-36, Task 86 Final Report, Corridor Approaches to Integrated Transportation and Land Use. (June 2009). http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/notesdocs/NCHRP08-36(86)_FR.pdf. Route 1, a regional arterial and economic lifeline for the mid-coast of Maine, was reaching capacity as the population grew and development accelerated. Initially, MaineDOT wanted to widen the arterial, but mid-coast residents wanted a more collaborative approach that would focus planning on retention of community character along the corridor as a whole. In response, MaineDOT initiated the Gateway 1 process, a long-term strategic planning project for the midcoast Route 1 region that combined local land use and state-based transportation planning. The goal of Gateway 1 is to “preserve mobility while enhancing safety, transportation choice, economic strength, and quality of life along the corridor.” In the first phase of the project, MaineDOT concentrated on establishing trust with the communities along the corridor, so there would be support during the planning process. In the second phase, an action plan with various scenarios was developed to encourage local implementation. Project implementation is underway, and local communities are adopting the Gateway 1 plan into local plans. MaineDOT’s willingness to collaborate with the localities has created a multidisciplinary work environment that fosters consensus building and negotiating skills to balance transportation, environment, and neighborhood development. The agency’s refusal to rush the process left all participants feeling that Gateway 1 had been a wise investment of time and resources. COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS ACHIEVE BETTER RESULTS Successful projects – those that fit within the community context and meet high priority needs – are increasingly tied to collaboration between citizens and interdisciplinary teams of transportation professionals. As noted in the Introduction, citizens and transportation practitioners do not necessarily define the goals of a policy or a project in the same way. This makes it ever more important that they work together from the outset to understand each other’s perspectives and to achieve the best possible outcomes for all parties. A growing body of research suggests that true collaboration can improve virtually all aspects of a project including the following:  Project delivery  Public trust  Preparation for maintenance and operations of the new facility  Environmental, economic and social equity “The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime.” Babe Ruth

Chapter V. Going the Distance Together: Partnership through Collaboration V-4  Cost-effectiveness  Leveraging additional financing from non-traditional sources  Safety and mobility for all users  Quality of life and economic development In Chattanooga, TN, intense citizen/professional collaboration achieved ownership and benefits for the project beyond all expectations (see text box). Collaboration on the Chattanooga Riverfront Parkway Leads to Financial Partnership (Source: SHRP II C08: Linking Community Visioning and Highway Capacity Planning, The Louis Berger Group, 2009.) Collaboration creates an opportunity and place for people to come together to address issues and solve problems without predetermining the outcome. The City of Chattanooga adopted this approach in producing the 2001 Riverfront Parkway Transportation and Urban Design Plan as one piece of a larger citywide effort for revitalization that began in the 1980s with comprehensive visioning about community context and quality of life. The major tenets of the Plan emerged from an intensive three-day collaborative workshop. The sponsor, The RiverCity Company, a private not-for-profit organization focused on downtown Chattanooga revitalization projects, managed and financed the Riverfront Parkway Transportation and Urban Design Plan. Those participating included officials from the City of Chattanooga and Hamilton County, state and federal agencies, area foundations, the Tennessee Department of Transportation, the University of Tennessee, the Chattanooga Fire Department, Siskin Hospital, Friends of the Festival, adjacent property owners, and companies that use Riverfront Parkway to move freight. The plan resulted in the redesign of Riverfront Parkway from a high-speed access-limited highway to a true waterfront street that brings value to the downtown and provides local community access. With approximately $68,000 in consultant fees, RiverCity’s time, and volunteer time from the mayor and stakeholders, the RiverCity Company and Mayor Bob Corker were able to leverage their consensus to secure $60 million in private and foundation contributions—about half of the total funding needed—to finance the rerouting of Riverfront Parkway, develop new housing, and create new green spaces and public art along the waterfront. The remaining $60 million was financed through debt backed by revenue anticipated over time through a new hotel/motel tax. These improvements in turn attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in new downtown and waterfront investment. Implementation of the Riverfront Parkway Transportation and Urban Design Plan led directly to the creation and implementation of the 21st Century Waterfront Plan, a $120 million investment in further riverfront revitalization. The collaboration created a real sense of ownership that led to a public-private financial partnership and model for under-funded state departments of transportation. The conversion of the Parkway is nationally regarded as one of the most successful community-led transformations of outdated highway infrastructure into a catalyst for rebirth of a medium-sized city.

Chapter V. Going the Distance Together: Partnership through Collaboration V-5 COLLABORATION IS CHALLENGING As noted in Chapter I, citizens bring many agendas and points of view to the table depending on their relationship to the project. They may be commuters, positively affected by the project; neighbors adversely affected by the project; agencies with regulatory authority; or advocates for the environment, safety, accessibility or other interests. While everyone may support the idea of collaborating with the DOT, some may not want to play by the rules of open and transparent collaboration. To be credible and effective, collaboration needs to take place at the time when it will have the greatest meaning. The graphic below relates the six stages in the life of a transportation project to the opportunities for meaningful stakeholder engagement. Citizens and other stakeholders have opportunities to participate throughout the process, but they have the most opportunities to influence outcomes when they are involved in the early stages. Collaboration is possible at all phases of decision making, as shown in Chapter 3, starting from policy creation to daily operations and local maintenance. In Stage 1—Policy and Visioning stakeholders can influence “big picture” decisions, but decisions made at this stage do not generally deal with specific projects. The two phases that are particularly well-suited to incorporate public involvement on specific plans and projects are Stage 2—Long-Range Planning & Programming and Stage 3—Environmental Studies & Preliminary Design. If collaboration were easy, then everyone would do it on all transportation projects. But just because it is not easy does not mean it is not worth pursuing. Some common barriers to collaboration may seem insurmountable at first, but really are solvable. A few recurring challenges to collaboration include:

Chapter V. Going the Distance Together: Partnership through Collaboration V-6 Different communication styles Different decision-making styles Different attitudes toward conflict Different attitudes toward disclosure Different approaches to completing tasks Different approaches to knowing Resource Link: http://www.pbs.org/ampu/crosscult.html What Keeps Us Apart? ▪ “I am an Island.” As social diversity and globalization impinge more deeply, individuals and groups struggle to assert their own selfhood and identity. To this end, they develop their own sets of principles, values, approaches, and solutions that can easily become rigid. We define ourselves in a certain way and everything else is “something else.” ▪ “Them and Us.” We have few processes that unite rather than divide us. We have developed the tension between opposites into a high art form. We see ourselves as right, and others as simply wrong, or at best, inadequate. We are not trained to see two, three, or four sides of an argument at the same time. ▪ “Let’s Get Together and Fight.” Any interchange over any topic is traditionally approached as a debate, and we are unable to reach a consensus. Trying to resolve a dispute with another dispute, even disguised as mediation, is not likely to create lasting solutions. Disharmony prevails, and we scratch our heads in wonder. ▪ “I Heard What I Said.” We report on many conversations by telling people what we said. Truly hearing a different perspective is not easy when the roar of our own thoughts drowns out everything else. Individuals and groups retreat to their own bunkers, not listening to anything else. ▪ “Who’s Got the Power?” All too often, our relationships and social systems are based on power relationships. Resolving difficulties and making decisions has become a matter of gaining or manipulating enough power to have one’s own way. Few understand how to use power to harness other people’s creativity so that it benefits everyone. ▪ “We Need to Find a Solution and I’ve Got It.” We tend to approach a lot of our conversations with our positions fixed. We arrive with answers rather than questions. It is difficult to take the conversation beyond the positions that individuals bring to the table. If the door is closed, the door is closed. Adapted from: Facilitating Conciliation, The Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs, 2000 ADOPT AND ADAPT PROVEN METHODS FOR COLLABORATION AND CONSENSUS-BUILDING Collaboration and consensus building are both important and difficult to achieve. Proven methods warrant adoption and adaptation to suit. When conversations lack structure, there is often no way to ensure that each person’s thinking patterns and insights will be available to the group. Conflict, chaos, and discouragement can result. Techniques to achieve collaboration and consensus are discussed in the following sections. FACILITATED DISCUSSIONS Facilitated discussions are those conversations and meetings that employ facilitators. The term “facilitator” means a person who makes progress easier. Facilitators are trained to remain neutral and focus on working with the group to achieve consensus or progress by building trust among group members. Facilitators are trained in a variety of methods to structure group discussion, to reduce conflict, and to promote mutual understanding and respect.

Chapter V. Going the Distance Together: Partnership through Collaboration V-7 FOCUSED CONVERSATION METHOD (SOURCE: INSTITUTE OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS) Focused conversation is a method of exploring many facets of a question in order to design the most effective solution. People work in groups to answer questions on four different levels: objective, reflective, interpretive, and decisional (http://www.top.ica- usa.org/index.php?pr=coursestop). A facilitator or a group member can lead the conversation, drawing on the wisdom of each member of the group. INTERACTIVE ANALYSIS Interactive analysis includes a whole suite of tools that allow practitioners and citizens to investigate different aspects of a problem or a proposed solution. If a basic visioning process is the end product, low-tech brainstorming approaches may work. If it is a large-scale plan, scenario planning or geographic information systems (GIS) may be useful. If it is a specific project, then visualization tools can make the project come to life through design sketches, computer visual simulation, videos or scale models. These tools make accessible to the public more difficult concepts like differences in lane widths. MEETING IN A BOX “Meeting in a Box” is a self-guided and individually hosted workshop useful for any club, service organization, neighborhood group, or informal group of friends meeting in someone’s home. Professional facilitators who ran a series of small group meetings in Aspen, Colorado’s community visioning, developed the materials in the box including multi-media tools. This method is more free-form and appealed to a wide range of people. Additionally, participants found it beneficial to hold an informal meeting in an environment where everyone could feel comfortable with friends, neighbors, and peers. This promoted open dialogue more satisfactorily than in a traditional public meeting. The organizers gained valuable information and public opinion to better understand the context of the project. SOCIAL MEDIA Social media involves a whole host of evolving online communication tools that are accessible to the public. This may include items for public involvement such as:  Information distribution through general list serves, podcasts and audiocasts, and RSS feeds  Consultation through online surveys, blog dialogues, Facebook/Twitter, etc.  Engagement through wikis on activities such as public photo contests, etc.  Collaboration through an online community to complement traditional public meetings What's in the Box? (From Aspen, CO) 1. Instructions 2. A set of 10 colored cards shows one of 10 topics and provides some background information on each topic (your group can decide to focus on any topic you wish, or 3 or 5 or all 10) 3. A document titled "How To Build Your Vision," which includes prompting questions that ask you to envision the area 10 or more years from now 4. Pens and notepads 5. Popcorn for you and your group

Chapter V. Going the Distance Together: Partnership through Collaboration V-8 KEYPAD POLLING Keypad polling is a particularly useful tool in larger groups. Ron Thomas, AICP, a nationally recognized planner and expert in stakeholder involvement, along with Jones and Jones Architecture and Landscape Architecture, used keypad polling very effectively in the Paris Pike, KY, project--one of the earliest and most highly praised CSS projects in the country--to quickly understand how local residents felt about historic and scenic values and design alternatives. http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/kentucky_paris/ Keypad polling requires that each participant have an electronic keypad on which to register opinions on specific issues during public meetings. Their responses are recorded as electronic data and show up quickly on a projection screen. Advantages include:  Instant feedback  Anonymity  Accurate recording of opinions expressed throughout a meeting  An indicator of preferences so that valuable time is not spent on issues where there is already consensus Keypad polling should never be used to eliminate major policy options or to make final decisions. Rather, this technique is an efficient way of gauging participant opinions and preferences throughout the process. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR COLLABORATION METHODS AND STRATEGIES Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Hear Every Voice” Public and Stakeholder Participation Guidance Link http://www.dot.state.mn.us/publicinvolvement/index.html Michigan Department of Transportation, Guidelines for Stakeholder Engagement Link http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Guidelines_For_Stakeholder_Engagement_26485 0_7.pdf New York State Department of Transportation, Public Involvement Manual Link http://environment.transportation.org/pdf/context_sens_sol/PublicInvolvementManual.pdf Florida Department of Transportation, Public Involvement Handbook Link http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/public_involvement/pubinvolve1.shtm FHWA, Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision Making Link http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/REPORTS/PITTD/cover.htm Environmental Protection Agency Tools for Public Involvement Link http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/involvework.htm Cultural Affairs’ Technology of Participation Courses Link http://www.top.ica-usa.org/index.php?pr=coursestop America Speaks Link http://americaspeaks.org/ International Association for Public Participation Link http://iap2.org

Chapter V. Going the Distance Together: Partnership through Collaboration V-9 MEASURE PROJECT OUTCOMES INCLUDING EFFECTIVENESS OF PROCESS AND ON-THE-GROUND SOLUTIONS The ultimate test of CSS is whether it succeeds in producing a result that ▪ Solves transportation problems without creating new problems; ▪ Respects physical context and community values; ▪ Enhances quality of life including public health, safety, and welfare; ▪ Makes effective and efficient use of all resources including professional and citizen involvement; and ▪ Satisfies the majority of the stakeholders involved in the process. Transportation project development and delivery benefit greatly from outcome assessment. Understanding what went wrong – and what went right – can lead to better policies, processes and procedures that cut costs and time to complete. Measuring how well a particular solution functions in real-world conditions in terms of its safety, mobility, and accessibility can provide valuable precedence for future projects. Quantitative measures of project performance can also be developed for each aspect of quality of life, such as measures of social, economic, and health impacts. PUBLICATIONS ON RECOMMENDED CSS PERFORMANCE MEASURES Quantifying the Benefits of Context Sensitive Solutions (NCHRP Report 642, Project 15-32, 2009) Link Report: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_642.pdf. Appendices: http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/Quanntifying_the_Benefits_of_Context_Sensitive_Solu_162 282.aspx Performance Measures for Context Sensitive Solutions – A Guidebook for State DOTs (NCHRP Document 69, 2004) Link http://www.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_w69.pdf Guidelines for Environmental Performance Measurements (NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 23, 2008) Link http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/NotesDocs/25-25(23)_FR.pdf Non-traditional Performance Measures: AASHTO Peer Exchange Series on State and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Issues (NCHRP Project 8-36 (53)(2), 2006) Link http://www.transportation.org/sites/planning/docs/NCHRP%208- 36(53)(2)%20NonTraditional%20Perf%20Measures.pdf Washington State DOT Accountability and Performance Information: Gray Notebook. Includes a variety of traditional and nontraditional performance measures. Link http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/ Florida DOT Mobility Measures Link http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/mobilitymeasures/

Chapter V. Going the Distance Together: Partnership through Collaboration V-10 Florida DOT Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Public Involvement Programs (from the Public Involvement Handbook) Link http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/public_involvement/Chap%2010%20Evaluation%20Of%20The %20Effectiveness%20Of%20PI%20Programs.pdf New Mexico DOT “Guide to Context Sensitive Solutions.” 2006. Incorporates measures for each phase of project development including operations and maintenance. Link http://www.nmshtd.state.nm.us/upload/images/environmental_urban_design_unit/NM_Guide_to_ Context_Sensitive_Solutions.pdf PennDOT and NJDOT “Smart Transportation Guide.” 2008. Includes discussion of the quantifiable benefits of smart transportation. Link http://www.smart-transportation.com/guidebook.html State DOT Performance Measurement Library Link http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/Publications/Library.htm “Community and Social Benefits of Transportation Investment.” January 2002. NCHRP Project 8-36, Task 22 Demonstrating Positive Benefits of Transportation Investment. Link http://www.transportation.org/sites/planning/docs/nchrp22_3.pdf “Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making.” 2009. SHRP CO2 Capacity Project Link http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/shrp2_pb_c02_a.pdf “Integrating Context Sensitive Solutions into Transportation Practice.” 2009. FHWA. Link http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/integrating_context_sensitive_s_/resourc es/Integrating_CSS_into_Transportation_Practice_Guide.pdf CONCLUSION Quantifying quality of life benefits resulting from CSS is difficult. To be most effective, the transportation agency, in collaboration with citizens, should establish performance measurements at the outset of the project, before a project begins, rather than after the fact. Collecting information during the project using pre-established criteria is less costly and more likely to be accomplished than doing so later when the project team has dispersed.