Public Participation Strategies for Transit (2011)

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.

7The transit industry regularly solicits public input on issues as varied as long-range, corridor, or local planning; facility design; and fare or service changes. The strategies used often vary by agency, purpose, and target audience. How- ever, engaging the public has proven difficult for many tran- sit agencies. As documented by many public involvement efforts, low levels of participation can be traced to insuffi- cient awareness concerning the importance of participation, and other interests and obligations that compete for people’s time. Other challenges include time and mobility constraints, language barriers, social isolation, and a distrust of and cyn- icism about government. Discovering the means for transit providers to overcome such challenges and meaningfully engage the public, both current and potential riders, will be critical as the nation looks to transit to help meet future mobility needs. Literature on public involvement contains numerous case studies about transit projects around the country. However, these tend to be high-profile, high-cost projects or examina- tions of specific issues such as environmental justice or com- munity impact assessment. What is missing from this literature is information on the more routine, day-to-day public involve- ment strategies of transit agencies. This synthesis begins to fill that gap. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS SYNTHESIS This synthesis documents the experiences of transit providers, departments of transportation (DOTs), and planning organi- zations in engaging the public for transit-related activities by reviewing the public participation strategies transit agencies are employing to identify, where possible, methods, tools, and techniques for: • Defining the purpose and scope of public engagement; • Determining the relevant information to be exchanged between agencies and the public; • Identifying, reaching, and engaging target audiences; • Eliciting relevant information from the public; and • Assessing the effectiveness of public engagement rela- tive to the agency’s purpose. The goal of this synthesis is to supply transit providers and public involvement practitioners with ideas and insights into practices and techniques that agencies around the coun- try have found to be successful, as well as to explore some of the challenges they have faced. Specific public involvement strategies vary greatly among agencies and are without a single standard or prescribed method of implementation. This lack of definition can deliver flexibility to agencies to tailor their outreach to match the unique set of circumstances sur- rounding the agencies, their projects, and the communities they serve. Therefore, this synthesis should not be viewed as a “how to” manual for public involvement. Examples are provided throughout this report, but each can be taken as one practical application of a broader idea or concept designed to trigger additional thought about how it could be applied to different situations. METHODOLOGY The development of this synthesis report involved three pri- mary tools—a literature review, agency survey, and case study interviews. The literature review of professional and trade pub- lications provided a theoretical foundation of public involve- ment and best practices in the industry. It also revealed, through written case studies, how agencies currently engage the pub- lic, the challenges they face, and the innovative techniques employed. A full reference list of sources is supplied at the end of the report. The survey of public involvement practitioners at trans- portation agencies provided the majority of this report’s infor- mation. Overall, 61 agency representatives expressed interest in participating in the survey, with 50 submitting completed surveys, a response rate of 82%. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix A, the participating agencies in Appen- dix B, and the survey responses in Appendix C (transit agen- cies) and Appendix D (all agencies). Thirty-three respondents’ agencies supply public transit service; 4 are a state or local DOT and 16 act as regional planning agencies such as metropolitan planning organiza- tions (MPOs) and rural planning organizations (see Table 1). These divisions by agency function are not mutually exclu- sive. Some agencies, such as Metro Transit in Minneapo- lis, serve as both the regional public transit provider and the MPO. Most agencies that participated in the survey do not exclusively provide service in urban, suburban, or rural CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

areas, but serve multiple types of areas. Statewide agencies, such as NJ TRANSIT and the Maryland Transit Authority, supply service in all three location types. Nearly all transit agencies in the survey (45) provide service in urban areas. Less than half (22) provide service in rural areas, of which only one—Sunset Empire Transportation District (SETD)— delivers service exclusively in rural areas (see Table 2). Interviews with public involvement professionals at six transit providers were used to develop the case studies in chapter four. These case studies were identified through survey responses, the literature review, and recommenda- tions from industry professionals. Respondents who rated their overall public involvement efforts in the survey as “good” or “very good” were then screened by those respon- dents who were willing to be considered for inclusion in this report as a case study. This list of agencies was the basis for selecting the case studies. Specific agencies were then cho- sen to provide geographic diversity, represent a range of pop- ulations served, and encompass different agency sizes and project types. Additional material such as studies, outreach materials, and public participation plans were used to supple- ment the case studies as much as possible. The six case study subjects are: • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), Los Angeles, CA—Westside Subway Extension. • Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Washington, DC—Route 79 Metro Extra bus service. • Port Authority of Allegheny County (Port Authority), Pittsburgh, PA—Transit Development Plan. • Pierce Transit (PT), Pierce County, WA—PT Tomorrow. • Laketran, Lake County, OH—Fare and service changes. • Sunset Empire Transportation District (SETD), Clatsop County, OR—Fare and service changes. 8 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT Chapter one is an introduction to the purpose and structure of the synthesis and the methodology used in completing it. Chapter two presents an introduction to public involvement, including a history of the federal regulations that mandate it. Chapter three provides an overview of the state of prac- tice among transit agencies for developing, implementing, and evaluating public participation strategies, and explores the following: the range of public involvement goals and objec- tives among transit providers, the type of information agen- cies supply the public, the type of input agencies desire from the public, processes agencies use to identify and define their target audiences for engagement, techniques employed to engage the public, and methods agencies use to evaluate their public involvement processes. Chapter four contains an in-depth investigation into spe- cific activities at six transit providers. These case studies range from some of the largest transit systems in the country to small and rural providers. Each covers a broad range of issues and planning areas that offer insight on how agencies conduct pub- lic involvement and includes a specific section on the factors that led each agency to determine that its public involvement efforts were successful. Chapter five examines the challenges transit agencies face, both internally and externally, when trying to engage the pub- lic. Examples are derived from the literature, the survey, and case studies to illustrate how agencies have attempted to over- come barriers to participation. Chapter six concludes the report, and synthesizes the key issues and themes that emerged from this study and provides suggestions for future research. TABLE 1 AGENCY FUNCTIONS AS INDICATED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS Agency No. Public Transit Provider 33 State or Local Department of Transportation 4 Metropolitan or Rural Planning Organization 16 Note: Five agencies serve more than one function. TABLE 2 TRANSIT PROVIDERS THAT PROVIDE SERVICE IN URBAN, SUBURBAN, AND/OR RURAL AREAS Area No. Urban 45 Suburban 37 Rural 22 Note: 36 agencies serve multiple location types (urban, suburban, rural).