Multi-Disciplinary Teams in Context-Sensitive Solutions (2007)

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.

The policies, directives, and initiatives driving CSS are still developing with few if any nationally accepted standards and procedures extant. Much of the information sharing on best practices has taken place at awards functions, conferences, in newsletters, on websites, and by means of feedback from CSS training courses. Still, finding specific information in the existing literature related to the formation, composition, and management of multi-disciplinary teams is challenging. Al- though numerous state DOT projects and programs have been recognized for achievements related to CSS and many have used multi-disciplinary teams to achieve CSS results, few have provided detailed information on the inner work- ings of such teams. Therefore, the richest source of informa- tion related to understanding the use of multi-disciplinary teams in the project development process came from the nationwide survey conducted as part of this synthesis. The first sections of this chapter provide a brief summary of the relevant literature. The latter part of the chapter reports on the results of the survey. LITERATURE REVIEW Research Although limited research is readily available with regard to multi-disciplinary teams in CSS, there are two efforts that have come to be regarded as seminal to the evolution of the CSS practice. In 2002, TRB released NCHRP Report 480 (6). Although the report itself does not speak explicitly or consistently about the importance, function, or effective- ness of multi-disciplinary teams, it does state that such teams are an important part of any CSS approach to trans- portation facility development. The report supports multi- disciplinary teams by organizing its content for the ease of use by the professional disciplines it expects to be involved in CSS work (6). The other research effort that speaks to the use of multi- disciplinary teams and CSS is NCHRP Web Document 69: Performance Measures for Context Sensitive Solutions—A Guidebook for State DOTs, posted online in October 2004 (8). This guidebook was intended to help state DOTs develop their own tailored and comprehensive CSS performance measurement programs. The approaches discussed in the guidebook are suitable for agencies that are just beginning to implement CSS programs, as well as those state DOTs more 8 advanced in their efforts. Multi-disciplinary teams are identified as important to implementing CSS. Well-managed, multi-disciplinary project teams enable a diverse array of factors that may influence project development. Team- driven project management philosophies that bring together planners, traffic engineers, public involvement specialists, de- sign engineers, environmental experts, safety specialists, land- scape architects, right-of-way staff, construction engineers, and others to work on projects are integral to their success (9, p. 12). Measuring performance and, by extension, success in- cludes determining if the right people are on the team, as well as how effectively the team functions. Both aspects are high- lighted as vital to the success of applying CSS principles to a particular project. It suggests that a “one-size-fits-all” ap- proach be avoided because projects and programs have their own unique context. Aside from these two reports, no other published research documents were found on multi-disciplinary teams and CSS. Specialized information searches were conducted using the Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) data- base and weekly e-mail newsletters featuring information on numerous transportation topics produced by the Bureau of National Affairs (9). These searches generated a number of papers, case studies, newsletters, and legislative briefs that mention the use of multi-disciplinary teams in transportation decision-making processes; however, very little in-depth description of the size, composition, or function of these teams was found. The professional organizations involved with transportation project development make varied reference to the concept. The American Society of Landscape Architects states that: A context sensitive design team should consist of multiple disci- plines tailored to the unique needs and circumstances associated with the project at hand. The team’s composition may change over the course of the project as different issues arise and require varying areas of expertise. The team members from certain core disciplines are essential “common threads” to the success of vir- tually all significant transportation projects. Civil engineers and landscape architects are chief among the essential core members of context sensitive design teams in transportation (10). The ITE suggests that: Successful CSS results from a collaborative, multi-disciplinary, and holistic approach to transportation planning and project CHAPTER TWO CONTEXT-SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS AND MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAMS: CURRENT PRACTICE

9development... and an interdisciplinary approach to planning and design incorporates the viewpoints of the various agencies, stakeholders, and professionals who have roles or areas of con- cern in the transportation project (11). The ITE discussion continues by noting that an interdisci- plinary team approach can also result in a broader range of potential alternatives that meet multiple objectives. They suggest that the makeup of planning and design teams can vary significantly depending on the nature of the project and can include anyone or any organization connected with the project, including, but not limited to: Transportation planners, highway/traffic engineers, environmen- tal scientists, resource agency representatives, land use planners, urban designers/architects, landscape architects/urban foresters, property owners, utility and transit owners/operators, community leaders/representatives, elected or appointed officials, and fire, police, and highway maintenance representatives (11). NCHRP Web Document 69 suggests that a well-managed, multi-disciplinary project team enables projects to be “under- stood and addressed efficiently.” This document makes an important distinction not found elsewhere in the literature. It notes that although the team may be composed of several dis- ciplines, some of those involved might only be involved in project design and some in only project delivery; that is, the team’s composition can vary according to the project stage (8). The Surface Transportation Policy Project, one of the non- profit entities involved in CSS, notes that a multi-disciplinary team should be established early, with disciplines based on the needs of the specific project, and with the inclusion of the public (12). DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POLICIES AND PROGRAMS In 2005, the AASHTO Task Force on CSS completed a sur- vey of all 50 state DOTs. This survey was comprised of open- ended questions designed to obtain a snapshot of state DOT CSS implementation activities, and identified CSS topics of interest to state DOTs. Thirty-eight states offered best prac- tice examples including formal CSS policies, case studies, project development guidelines, public involvement manu- als, performance measurement tools, and successful CSS pro- grams. Interestingly, despite the detailed attention to best practices for CSS, little mention was made of notable multi- disciplinary teams’ practices. In the AASHTO survey, state DOTs also indicated some barriers to fully implementing CSS principles including resistance to change, perceived cost increases, delays, and lack of a clear definition of what con- stitutes CSS. Improvements sought by the DOTs included enhancement to their CSS implementation processes, peer- to-peer learning, and better technological tools for CSS implementation. The results indicated that: • All states were aware of the CSS principles. • Thirty-seven states undertook steps to incorporate CSS into their project development process. • Twenty-five states developed or were developing pub- lic involvement plans or practice early stakeholder in- volvement (an important element of multi-disciplinary teams and of relevance to this report). • Eight states had formed CSS-dedicated internal com- mittees or teams. To directly examine the CSS policies and programs and references to multi-disciplinary team use, a review was con- ducted of all 50 state DOT websites during November 2005. Thirty-seven of the DOT public websites (74%) included statements that expressed recognition of the importance of having CSS as part of their wider mandate. Nineteen (38%) reported that they actually had programs in place, and 16 (32%) explicitly noted that multi-disciplinary teams are a part of their CSS philosophy. Although multi-disciplinary teams are mentioned some- what frequently by DOTs, their composition is rarely dis- cussed or documented in any detail. Investigation into those states considered pioneers and/or exemplars in implementing CSS practices yielded some information on multi-disciplinary teams. The New York State DOT, recipient of the AASHTO Best Practices in CSS Organization or Institution Change Award for 2005, reported that the use of an “inter-professional team” for project development is invaluable (13). MDSHA, another state recognized for its innovative CSS practices, alludes to an interdisciplinary approach, but provides little detail. MDSHA views CSS as a collaborative, interdisciplinary ap- proach that involves all stakeholders developing a trans- portation facility, but again provides little detail about its composition (14). The California DOT notes that CSS are reached through a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach involving all stakeholders (15). The Illinois DOT (IDOT) has a formally adopted CSS pol- icy as a response to a state legislative requirement that the agency use CSD and CSS in all of its policies and procedures. In March 2006, IDOT issued a memorandum that clarifies how the flexibility that is a part of highway design is to be used, as well as setting forth provisions for developing and im- plementing effective stakeholder involvement processes. The IDOT policy directs the formation of a “project study group,” which is described as the multi-disciplinary team that will de- velop the project (16). The team is comprised of agency staff as appropriate for the specific project, as well as representa- tives from the FHWA, IDOT Office of Planning and Pro- gramming, IDOT division for design and the environment, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The size and composition of the group are determined by the size and scope of the project, and can change during the process as needed. The recommended list of team members, however, is limited to internal staff and other applicable agencies with ju-

risdictional authority over parts of the project development process such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The multi- disciplinary team relies on stakeholder involvement, which includes public outreach to external stakeholders interested in the project development process. The Oregon DOT (ODOT) utilizes multi-disciplinary teams at both the program and project levels under its Context- Sensitive and Sustainable Solutions (CS3) process (17). The CS3 process is based largely on the principles of CSS, and provides the framework for the Oregon Bridge Delivery Pro- gram, although it is being adopted across the agency as the pri- mary strategy for project delivery. Aside from goals directly related to transportation, the Oregon Bridge Delivery Program also seeks to stimulate Oregon’s economy, capitalize on fund- ing partnership opportunities, and use efficient and cost- effective construction and delivery practices. This range of goals requires a multi-disciplinary approach. Therefore, at the program level, team members include specialists from the fol- lowing divisions of ODOT: Bridges, Economic Stimulus, Diversity, Public Involvement, CS3 Environmental Geotech- nical, Railroad, Right-of-Way, Survey, Traffic/Mobility, Utilities, [Computer-Aided Design and Drafting (CADD)], [Geographic Information System (GIS)], and Hydrology and Hydraulics. These discipline leads work directly with stake- holder groups including communities and transportation in- dustry organizations (e.g., Associated General Contractors and American Council of Engineering Companies). Team members and their staffs also work with stakeholders and the project team at the project level to help ensure that the goals of the entire CS3 program are included in the CS3 plan sub- mitted by each project’s team, and that the elements needed to meet those goals are implemented during project development and construction. Two DOTs have used multi-disciplinary teams in their ef- forts to develop agency-wide programs and policies. The Massachusetts Highway Department convened a 28-member task force to review and revise the department Design Man- ual to include more flexible design guidelines that can better respond to community values and constraints, and include complete and consistent guidance on accommodating pedes- trians and cyclists (18). The multi-disciplinary team included directors of public works for towns, highway engineers, city and regional planners, bicycle and pedestrian advocates, a legislative analyst, an attorney, a State Historic Preservation Office representative, a wildlife biologist, and a representative from FHWA. The guidebook they produced pays particular attention to integrated, multimodal approaches into roadway planning and design and setting forth a clear project develop- ment process. One of the major goals of revising the Design Manual was to ensure that context sensitivity is integrated in the project development and construction processes. Similarly, in 2001, the Washington State DOT convened the Safety and Aesthetics in Urban Roadway Design Inter- disciplinary Group (IDG) to develop policy guidelines for 10 urban roadway aesthetics design. The IDG was charged with making a comprehensive evaluation of design issues (includ- ing safety, operations, community aesthetics, and the natural and built environment) and to support the development of design standards for urban roadway design (19). IDG team members represented various disciplines, including planning, project development staff, managers of local programs, and landscape design, along with representatives from local and federal agencies. The IDG produced a number of documents describing design alternatives for various contexts, clarifica- tion of jurisdictions’ roles and responsibilities in project development, and guidance on funding frameworks for aes- thetics and enhancements. Public Involvement The scope of this synthesis report does not allow for a de- tailed discussion of public participation and outreach tech- niques used in the project development process. However, it is appropriate to mention this element of the transportation decision-making process in connection with multi-disciplinary teams because it is through public involvement that such teams learn of the community needs, priorities, and ideas that will inform each step of the process. One strategy used by DOTs to effectively make this con- nection is to include a public involvement professional on the multi-disciplinary team. The previously described CSS policy at IDOT is one example of this approach; the teams organized for each project include a public involvement specialist. Fur- thermore, one of the initial tasks of the team is to develop a stakeholder involvement plan. IDOT’s stakeholder plan in- cludes outreach to special interest groups, local officials, and community groups, as well as the general public. IDOT pol- icy states that a set of ground rules for stakeholder meetings and the goals and expectations for the process must be estab- lished at the outset. The project study group and stakeholders can then meet to develop the problem statement for the proj- ect, later moving into a “context audit” exercise, and finally to developing a set of project alternatives. The primary purpose of the IDOT policy is to ensure the early and continuous in- volvement of stakeholders through a structured involvement plan. This is a new policy for IDOT and experience imple- menting this policy is therefore limited. The interface mecha- nism between the project study group and the stakeholder involvement process is evolving. Currently the public in- volvement specialist is acting as the decision-making bridge between the multi-disciplinary team and the stakeholders. There are some examples of including public involvement specialists at the program level as well. Florida DOT’s (FDOT) Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process uses a multi-disciplinary team for each district in the state to streamline the transportation decision-making process. Each team includes a community liaison coordina- tor charged with engaging communities in the process and establishing a conduit for communities to receive project

11 information. As previously mentioned, the team organized under ODOT’s CS3 program also includes a public involve- ment specialist to coordinate the public outreach effort. Performance Measurement of Multi-Disciplinary Teams The review of research literature and agency practice materi- als found no specific measurements of multi-disciplinary team members’ experience during project development. However, many states have used post-project critiques or lessons learned. MDSHA conducts post-project interviews with local leaders to assess teams’ successes and shortcomings. The breadth of these interviews includes concept development, preliminary engineering, and construction phases. As part of MDSHA’s business plan, the teams are required to achieve an overall satisfaction rating of at least 90% (20). Another state that does this is Connecticut, where post-project evaluations are used to analyze the multi-disciplinary team’s performance at the project level (8). Summary The review of current practices and literature related to using multi-disciplinary teams to reach CSS for transportation proj- ects found only a few publications, guidelines, and exam- ples. Very little research or empirical studies are available that describe or analyze how such teams are organized or how they function. However, the literature review does suggest that a core team of professionals be used to fully understand the context of potential projects during the project develop- ment phase of delivery. This core team of professionals should include transportation planners, highway and traffic engineers, environmental and social scientists, resource agency representatives, land-use planners, cultural resource managers, urban designers and architects, landscape archi- tects and urban foresters, and construction and maintenance engineers, as well as public involvement specialists. The con- cept of utilizing a core team of disciplines helps ensure that a broad range of perspectives is consistently and systematically informing the decision-making process for all projects. Additional members of a multi-disciplinary team could include property owners, utility and transit owners and oper- ators, community leaders and representatives, elected or appointed officials, fire departments, police departments, and artists. The goal is to ensure that the team fully represents the natural and human context as well as the community’s per- spective of a good quality of life. The literature review was informative concerning compo- sition of multi-disciplinary teams; however, the results of the survey of state DOTs discussed here help in understanding the current state of the practice. The survey primarily pro- vides information on how, when, and why teams are formed. The case studies presented in chapter three go a step further in revealing some notable practices for the function of multi- disciplinary teams. NATIONAL SURVEY Survey Methodology In addition to reviewing existing publications and guidelines, a survey was conducted to collect information from all state DOTs. The results of the nationwide survey provided good baseline information on where the industry stands in their understanding of multi-disciplinary teams. Systematically measuring the current state of these structures, processes, and attitudes can highlight areas where good progress is being made and where more attention is needed. The survey con- ducted in connection with this synthesis is an important con- tribution in this direction. The survey was designed to focus on state DOTs and their practices of applying CSS principles and practices as they relate to the use of multi-disciplinary teams during project develop- ment activities. E-mail contact information was obtained by the recent AASHTO CSS survey of state DOTs and supplemented by contact information obtained from the Context Sensitive Solutions website (www.contextsensitivesolutions.org), as well as personal contacts. The AASHTO survey respondents were used to ensure the best possible contact with state DOTs. The continuity between AASHTO’s survey and this synthesis sur- vey helped to ensure the quality of responses from high-level staff who know the agencies’ day-to-day activities and under- stand their progress in institutionalizing CSS. The survey format was created as an online web application with built-in reporting tools to generate “real-time” results. Po- tential respondents were sent an e-mail letter of project support provided by TRB. The survey was launched on the World Wide Web on March 24, 2006. Initially, participants were given a two-week time period to respond. However, to increase respondent participation, deadline extensions were allowed up to May 5, 2006. The survey had a response rate of 64%, with 32 states responding (see Figure 1). The survey instrument and accompanying materials are presented in Appendix B and the tabulated survey results are in Appendix C. The survey exam- ined the following issues and questions: • Current state DOT CSS practices including CSS poli- cies and initiatives, CSS practices and applications, and CSS training; • Defining multi-disciplinary teams and composition; • The role of public involvement in multi-disciplinary teams; and • Integrating multi-disciplinary teams and decision making. The following sections present the survey results orga- nized into these four areas. Context-Sensitive Solution Policies, Initiatives, and Directives This section presents information related to state DOT efforts to recognize CSS through various types of initiatives including

training opportunities. Information regarding CSS applications and practices is presented to understand how state DOTs view CSS within the construct of their agency. CSS training infor- mation is included to understand which disciplines receive training (see Appendix C, Questions 10–18). Survey Results Each state was asked what types of CSS policies, directives, and initiatives are in place at their agency. The results are shown in Figure 2. Nearly 60% of the state DOTs responding have adopted DOT CSS policies and nearly half have CSS guidance. Six states—Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, Texas, Ver- mont, and Washington—indicated that there is CSS-specific legislation in their state. Other related policies, directives, and initiatives included aesthetic, environmental stewardship, and streamlining policies, and design manuals that include a CSS policy statement. Five of the 32 states indicated that there were no current CSS policies, directives, or initiatives in place in their agency (see Figure 2). In addition to current DOT CSS policies and initiatives, context-sensitive applications and practices were also as- sessed. All respondents indicated one or more CSS applica- tion and practice employed throughout their agencies, al- though five states responded that they had no current policy initiatives in place. All five that indicated they had no CSS policies, directives, or initiatives identified consultation with environmental resource agencies and multi-disciplinary team participation as a CSS application at their agency. Figure 3 highlights these findings. 12 Other applications and practices receiving high numbers of responses included consultation with environmental re- source agencies (28 states), CSS training (25 states), com- munity visioning (21 states), innovative public involvement techniques (21 states), funding community partnerships (18 states), and CSS work/task groups (17 states). Twelve states indicated that they are incorporating CSS into local transportation planning. The state of Utah reported incorpo- rating CSS curriculum into university and elementary school education as another CSS application. Twenty-nine states responded that their agency receives CSS training. Most often this training is provided through the state DOT (15 states), National Highway Institute courses (13 states), and private consultants (9 states). Six DOTs receive training from universities and one state re- ceives training from a nonprofit organization. Most of the agencies are in the initial stages of staff training. Fully 50% of respondents report that 100 or fewer employees have received CSS training. Additionally, it should be noted that the training is pre- dominately provided to staff involved in the project devel- opment phase of the transportation delivery process. The breakdown of functional groups that receive CSS training is shown in Table 1. Although most states indicated that multiple disciplines in their organization receive CSS training, the majority, more than 90% (29 of 32), are from an engineering back- ground. The extent of the training by profession is shown in Figure 4. FIGURE 1 Geographic distribution of survey respondents.

13 15.6% 5 18.8% 6 31.3% 10 18.8% 6 46.9% 15 31.3% 10 18.8% 6 59.4% 19 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CS S St at e Le gi sla tio n A do pt ed CS S D O T Po lic y C SS G u id an ce A do pt ed A es th et ic Po lic y En v iro n m en ta l St ew ar ds hi p Po lic y D es ig n M an u al (w ith CS S po lic y) St re am lin in g Po lic y N o tA pp lic ab le /N o n e St at e Re sp on de n ts , % an d N u m er ic Co u n t FIGURE 2 Policies, directives, and initiatives in place. 16% 5 56% 18 78% 25 53% 17 91% 29 66% 21 66% 21 88% 28 38% 12 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% In co rp o ra te CS S in to Lo ca l Tr an sp or ta tio n Pl an n in g Co n su lta tio n w ith En v iro n m en ta l R es o u rc e A ge n ci es Co m m u n ity V isi o n in g In n o v at iv e Pu bl ic In v o lv em en t Te ch ni qu es M u lti -d isc ip lin ar y Te am Pa rt ic ip at io n CS S W o rk /T as k G ro u ps CS S Tr ai n in g Fu n di n g Co m m u n ity Pa rt n er sh ip s O th er St at e Re sp on de n ts , % an d N u m er ic Co u n t FIGURE 3 CSS applications and practices by agency.

When asking state DOTs about training for groups exter- nal to the agencies, 15 states (47%) responded that local government officials and staff receive CSS training. Only 7 states (22%) responded that key community leaders and/or community organizations and neighborhood groups re- ceived CSS training through the agency. Only three states (approximately 9%) responded that citizen action groups receive training. 14 Finally, participants were asked whether the CSS training was representative of a multi-disciplinary team. This ques- tion was posed to ascertain whether the CSS training initia- tives of the state were inclusive of the previously mentioned groups (functional groups, disciplines, and other groups and individuals) and to aid in the definition and composition of multi-disciplinary teams in the following section. More than 70% of those responding (21 states) reported that training is provided to a range of individuals who are representative of a multi-disciplinary team. Of additional note is that 7% noted that the training provided was not to individuals representa- tive of multi-disciplinary teams, and 23.3% provided no re- sponse to this question. Summary Points • Nineteen states surveyed have an adopted CSS policy and 15 have guidelines for using CSS. • The most common CSS applications selected by the 32 states that responded to the survey include use of multi- disciplinary teams, consultation with resource agencies, and CSS training. More than half of the responding states have some type of work group that is related directly to CSS. The survey results do not provide enough data to re- flect on the differences between what the state considers to be a multi-disciplinary team versus a CSS work group. • Twenty-nine states have offered CSS training to their staff; however, overall the number of individuals being trained is relatively low, with more than half training Group (Staff) Percentage No. of States Design* 88 28 Environmental* 81 26 Long-Range Planning 56 18 Right-of-Way* 44 14 Operations and Maintenance 40 13 Programming 34 11 Other 13 4 Agency/Organization Does Not Provide CSS Training at this Time 6 2 *Project Development Staff. TABLE 1 WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING FUNCTIONAL GROUPS IN YOUR AGENCY RECEIVED CSS TRAINING? 15.6% 5 37.5% 12 53.1% 17 90.6% 29 6.3% 2 12.5% 4 46.9% 1537.5% 12 25.0% 8 68.8% 22 12.5% 4 68.8% 22 46.9% 15 53.1% 17 59.4% 19 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Tr an sp o rt at io n Pl an n er s Tr an sp o rt at io n M o de le rs En v iro n m en ta lS ci en tis ts A rc ha eo lo gi sts H ist o ric al A rc h. /H ist o ria n s La n ds ca pe A rc hi te ct s G eo lo gi sts La n d A cq u isi tio n Sp ec ia lis ts Co m m u n ity Pl an n er s So ci al Sc ie n tis ts Ec o n o m ist s En gi n ee rs Co n st ru ct io n Pr o fe ss io n al s M ai nt en an ce Pr o fe ss io n al s O th er St at e R es po nd en ts ,% an d N u m er ic Co u n t FIGURE 4 CSS training extent by profession.

15 fewer than 100 persons within their organization. This reflects a low level of training effort among most of the states responding to the survey. • The majority of those trained come from project develop- ment. The disciplines receiving the most training are engineers (91%), transportation planners (69%), and environmental scientists (69%). Local government staff and officials are the external stakeholders most often receiving training through the DOTs. Although engineers, transportation planners, and environmental scientists tech- nically constitute a multi-disciplinary team, it may not be reflective of the characteristic of multi-disciplinary teams that should fully represent the natural and human context as well as the community’s perceptive of a good quality of life. These results can be explained because in most state DOTs these disciplines are more heavily represented than other disciplines. Consequently, it appears that DOTs are focused primarily on training internal staff and exter- nal staff such as local government staff that often have legal jurisdiction over process elements. There is evidence that some state DOTs are training other disciplines, in- cluding community members and special interest groups. For example, the Minnesota DOT reserves a third of its CSS classes for external stakeholders who represent community interests. This is an interesting example of relationship building that can build trust and increase the potential for consensus towards CSS. Definition and Composition of Multi-Disciplinary Teams This section reviews how state DOTs define and structure multi-disciplinary teams, including how team members are selected, and participating organizations, and how DOTs decide when to use a multi-disciplinary team. The survey results reported in this section relate to Questions 19–24 (see Appendix C). Survey Results Thirty-one states (97%) responded that their agency used multi-disciplinary teams in the project development process. Twenty state DOTs use multi-disciplinary teams structured as internal teams and 18 state DOTs use internal/external (in- clusive of community representation). One-quarter of the DOTs responded that they use formalized, internal/external team charters (outside organizations and agencies only). Twenty-four states DOTs (75%) responded that partici- pants of the team are generally selected for inclusion based on the context or project-specific information. Local govern- ment input (17 states, 53%), and upper management deci- sions and standard DOT policies (13 states, 41% for each) also played a substantial role in how participants are selected for teams. Approximately one-third of the responding state DOTs noted that resource agency and MPO/rural planning office (RPO) input was used in participant selection. Furthermore, the survey queried participants about what groups or organizations had been asked to participate on a CSS-based, multi-disciplinary team. Thirty state DOTs re- sponded that state and federal agencies were part of a multi- disciplinary team, with 27 reporting that local government was included on these teams (see Figure 5). Nineteen states included key community leaders, community organizations, neighborhood groups, and citizen action committees as 9.4% 3 46.9% 15 15.6% 5 53.1% 1750.0% 16 59.4% 19 59.4% 19 68.8% 2265.6% 21 93.8% 30 93.8% 3084.4% 27 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Lo ca l St at e Fe de ra l K ey Co m m u n ity Le ad er s/L ia is o n s Co m m u n ity O rg an iz at io n s N ei gh bo rh oo d G ro u ps Ci tiz en A ct io n Co m m itt ee O th er Pu bl ic En tit ie s Lo ca lB u sin es se s Ch ar te r O rg an iz at io n s In di v id u al s O th er s St at e R es po n de n ts , % an d N u m er ic Co u n t FIGURE 5 Groups or organizations asked to participate in CSS-based multi-disciplinary terms.

members of a multi-disciplinary team. Other team members listed included consultants, charter organizations, environ- mental groups, and fire and police departments. Eight state DOTs indicated that multi-disciplinary teams are used as standard policy (see Figure 6). About half the respondents stated that public contro- versy and the size of a project determined the use of multi- disciplinary teams. Natural resource issues and the level of NEPA documentation required are also common decision triggers for the use of multi-disciplinary teams. The survey asked about the different names used for multi-disciplinary teams. Some examples are highlighted here (the complete list can be found in Appendix C). • Aesthetic review teams • Design advisory committee • Interagency leadership teams • Process improvement teams • Programmatic environmental stewardship • Road design manual review teams • Stakeholder working group • Statewide transportation planning work groups • CSD&S steering team • Environmental technical advisory teams • Merger teams • Technical advisory committee • Project steering team • Scoping group • Value engineering team • Project study group. 16 Summary Points • Thirty-one of 32 respondents reported that they use multi-disciplinary teams in project development. Twenty-four state DOTs use internal teams; however, an almost equal number mentioned that they use internal/ external teams with community representation. A few states have team requirements as part of their CSS pol- icy directives. It is clear from the responses that DOTs perceive themselves to be utilizing multi-disciplinary teams, but it is not clear whether the practice of using internal teams fully represents multiple perspectives as defined by the project context. • Twenty-four state DOTs review the project context to de- termine the composition of multi-disciplinary teams. The next most common method is to rely on local government input and/or upper DOT management recommendation, or to adhere to standard DOT policy or procedure. It is encouraging that state DOTs are using project context to guide team participant selection; however, the process used to determine the context is unknown. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the efficacy of this context-driven approach. Because internal multi-disciplinary teams were the most commonly reported type of team, many state DOTs may view internal team members of varied disci- plines to represent all facets of a project context. If this practice is as common as the survey data suggests, then DOTs should be cautious in assuming that internal team members represent all aspects of the context, particularly community perspectives. Even local government rep- resentation may not be adequate to fully represent community perspectives. Measuring the satisfaction of community members regarding project decisions could 21.9% 7 25.0% 8 25.0% 8 50.0% 16 9.4% 3 40.6% 1337.5% 12 12.5% 4 43.8% 14 53.1% 17 0% 25% 50% 75% Pu bl ic Co n tr o v er sy N at u ra lR es o u rc e Is su es Fe as ib ili ty St u dy Co rr id or St u dy N EP A D oc u m en ta tio n Le v el U rb an v s. Ru ra l Si z e o fP ro jec t U se d o n A ll Pr o jec ts St an da rd Po lic y/ Pr o ce du re O th er St at e R es po n de n ts , % an d N u m er ic Co u n t FIGURE 6 Reasons cited for using multi-disciplinary teams.

17 help in determining if these internal teams are making decisions that reflect community values. • Twenty-nine states responded that federal and state agencies are most often the likely team members of the external teams. Local government representatives are the next group that was selected as a participant on the multi-disciplinary teams. Again, the data points toward state DOTs focusing primarily on team members who have legal jurisdiction over some part of the decision- making process. Although half of the respondents did include other participants who represent community perspectives, half did not. Further probing that exam- ines the effectiveness of a team that consists primarily of state, federal, and local government officials and staff is necessary to assess if these teams fully represent the human and natural environment, as well as the commu- nity’s perception of a good quality of life. • More than half of the respondents said that the decision trigger for using a multi-disciplinary team is based on the size of the project and the expected level of public con- troversy. Natural resource issues and the level of NEPA documentation were the second most commonly identi- fied decision trigger. Only eight states reported that multi- disciplinary teams are used on all projects and/or are part of their standard policy and procedures. These responses are of particular concern owing to the national push by FHWA and AASHTO to have CSS become a business practice that is applicable to all phases of project delivery. Thirty-one states noted that they used multi-disciplinary teams, but the results of this question suggest that those teams are used for large, complex projects that attract the most concern from local, state, and federal agencies. However, it is well known that small projects, such as bridge replacement projects, are often located in sensitive environments where defining the context with adequate stakeholder involvement is crucial to developing accept- able solutions. Public Involvement and Multi-Disciplinary Teams The survey sought to discover how community perspectives are being represented in multi-disciplinary teams, what processes govern their selection of representation, and the tech- niques used to inform the larger community of the work of multi-disciplinary teams (see Appendix C, Questions 25–29). Specific areas addressed in this section include inclusiveness of community representation, process of selection, guidance and governance of teams, techniques to ensure that community needs and interests are included in decision-making processes, and methods of information sharing within the team. Survey Results Participants were first asked to define how community per- spectives are represented on the multi-disciplinary teams. Twenty-eight states use a summary of public meeting com- ments to represent community perspectives and 24 states select the input of local elected officials as the mechanism to represent community views (see Figure 7). Figure 8 highlights the processes used in selecting commu- nity representation on multi-disciplinary teams. Twenty-four state DOTs (75%) use local government input as the process to 87.5% 28 62.5% 20 59.4% 19 34.4% 11 75.0% 24 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Lo ca lE le ct ed O ffi ci al In pu t D O T Pr o jec t M an ag er R ep re se n ts Co m m u n ity Co n ce rn s M PO /R PO In pu t Co m m u n ity Le ad er /L ia iso n Su m m ar y o fP ub lic M ee tin g Co m m en ts St at e R es po nd en ts ,% an d N u m er ic Co u n t FIGURE 7 How community views are represented on multi-disciplinary teams.

select community representatives. Twenty states select team members based on decisions by DOT management. Responding DOTs were also asked about the types of rules and processes used in connection with multi-disciplinary teams. Sixteen state DOTs reported using team charters (inclusive of defined roles and responsibilities) and general DOT policy (inclusive of time limits, review periods, and crit- ical milestones) as frameworks to govern the multi-disciplinary team process. Ten states (31%) use neutral facilitators for meetings, and three (9%) reported that they have a dispute resolution process. The methods through which information and decisions from the multi-disciplinary teams are disseminated to the public are indicative of how multi-disciplinary teams inter- act with the larger community. Figure 9 shows various in- formation dissemination methods as indicated by the survey respondents. Twenty-seven state DOTs use public comments presented by DOT staff to multi-disciplinary teams as the means to affect decision making. Figure 10 shows how information from and decisions by the multi-disciplinary team are disseminated to the general public. The most common methods are open forum meetings, websites, and newsletters. Summary Points • The survey reveals that community views are most often represented on multi-disciplinary teams by a 18 summary of public comments and from local govern- ment input. • The process for selection of community representation on multi-disciplinary teams is predominantly by means of local government input and state DOT management selection. Both of these methods rely on either local government staff or state DOT management to fully understand the community dynamics to make the best representation choices. If a selection is made without the input of the wider community, the multi-disciplinary team may not fully represent the community’s perspec- tives of a good quality of life. If the community does not support the selected representative then trust in the overall process may be in question, as well as a reluc- tance to own the outcome. • Sixteen state DOTs, half of the respondents, noted that multi-disciplinary team processes are governed by DOT policy and team charters. This suggests that many DOTs may not have any type of rules that govern their multi-disciplinary team process. Set rules and responsi- bilities agreed on by team members can promote an atmosphere of collaboration, build trust, encourage good information sharing practices, and ultimately forge a consensus on project outcome. • Public comments are the primary mechanism by which most state DOTs ensure that public interests and needs are brought into the decision-making process. Taking this response with the previous question about how views are represented on multi-disciplinary teams, it is clear that DOTs are relying on public comments to inform decision making. This calls into question the effectiveness of public involvement techniques in re- trieving these public comments. If multi-disciplinary 25.0% 8 62.5% 20 6.3% 2 18.8% 6 75.0% 24 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% L oc al G ov er nm en t In pu t K ey C om m un ity L ea de r Su rv ey s S ta te E le ct ed O ff ic ia ls S el ec ti on D O T M an ag em en t S el ec tio n G en er al A pp lic at io n Pr oc es s St at e R es po nd en ts ,% an d N um er ic C ou nt FIGURE 8 Process for selecting community representation on multi-disciplinary teams.

19 teams are using public comments to inform their decision- making efforts then efforts to measure the effectiveness of public involvement activities are essential to ensure that the community’s perspectives are accurately and fully reflected in the public comments. • The primary public information and decision dissemi- nation methodologies used by state DOTs are open forum meetings, websites, and newsletters (listed in order of use). These techniques are considered tradi- tional public involvement that may not reach nontradi- tional populations such as illiterate and/or low-income individuals. Effective and meaningful public involve- ment is critical to full representation of community per- spectives on multi-disciplinary teams. Further research 62.5% 20 84.4% 27 59.4% 19 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% St at e R es po n de n ts , % an d N u m er ic Co u n t St ru ct u re d Fe ed ba ck M ee tin gs Pr es cr ib ed B et w ee n th e Co m m u n ity Le ad er /L ia iso n & Co m m u n ity a t L ar ge Pu bl ic C om m en ts Pr es en te d by D O T St af f t o M u lti -d isc ip lin ar y Te am R ec or ds o f M u lti -d isc ip lin ar y Te am M ee tin g R es u lts D iss em in at ed to th e G en er al Pu bl ic v ia V ar io u s M et ho do lo gi es FIGURE 9 Mechanisms, approaches, and techniques to ensure public interests and needs affect the decision-making process. 18.8% 6 9.4% 3 56.3% 18 18.8% 6 53.1% 17 12.5% 4 21.9% 7 62.5% 20 62.5% 20 68.8% 22 87.5% 28 71.9% 23 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% W eb sit es O pe n Fo ru m M ee tin gs N ew sle tte rs Sm al lG ro u p M ee tin gs N ew sp ap er A rt ic le s Ra di o Pr o gr am s TV Pr o gr am s M D T M ee tin gs O pe n to th e Pu bl ic Te le ph o n e Ca lls M ai lin g Li st G IS O nl in e W eb A pp lic at io n s Pu bl ic Po st in gs St at e R es po nd en ts ,% an d N u m er ic Co u n t FIGURE 10 Public information and decision dissemination methodology.

in the area of evaluating how the results of effective public involvement are transmitted to and from a multi- disciplinary team should provide state DOTs with effective strategies for making sure communities’ inter- ests and needs are fully represented. Multi-Disciplinary Teams and Decision-Making Process This section of the report focuses on understanding how state DOTs use multi-disciplinary teams in their project develop- ment decision-making process, including what types of proj- ects use multi-disciplinary teams and the time frames for forming such teams. It also seeks to understand how long- range planning efforts are linked to project development ef- forts through multi-disciplinary teams and how satisfaction with the performance of multi-disciplinary teams is measured by state DOTs. The survey results reported in this section relate to Questions 30–36 (see Appendix C). Survey Results Twenty-seven states indicated that they are using multi- disciplinary teams as part of the project development process. However, as previously indicated, the type and scale of the project is most often the largest predictor of where multi- disciplinary teams play a role. Because public controversy, size of project, and level of NEPA documentation were highlighted as the primary de- ciding factors in whether to use a team approach, it makes sense that projects requiring environmental assessments 20 (EA), environmental impact statements (EIS), or corridor studies are the most common type of projects in which multi- disciplinary teams are used (see Figure 11). Other types of projects that involve multi-disciplinary teams include cate- gorical exclusions and feasibility studies. Eight state DOTs use multi-disciplinary teams on all projects. State DOTs reported various ways of linking the long- range transportation planning process to the project develop- ment work of multi-disciplinary teams. The most common approach was including a representative from the MPO/RPO on the team (19 states, 59%). Consultation with MPO/RPO Advisory Committee members was reported by 10 states (32%). The use of documentation from the long-range trans- portation plan and the inclusion of the long-range transporta- tion planner on multi-disciplinary teams are used by 13 states and 12 states (41% and 38%), respectively. States generally reported that multi-disciplinary teams are formed early in the transportation decision-making process. Fully one-third of responding states reported that teams were formed before the determination of project purpose and need. Eleven (36%) form teams during the project scoping process. Only four (13%) reported forming teams when the range of alternatives was selected, and no states reported doing so during the preferred alternative selection phase. Six (19%) reported that the timing of team organization was either at other points in the process or was project dependent. The most common response to a question on methods to assess DOT satisfaction with a teams’ performances was the use of post-project critiques or “lessons learned” discussions (12, 38%). Four states (13%) use surveys. Other methods 18.8% 6 25.0% 8 53.1% 17 25.0% 8 65.6% 2159.4% 19 15.6% 5 0% 25% 50% 75% Sm al l( ca te go ric al ex cl u si o n ) M ed iu m (en vir on me nta l as se ss m en t) La rg e (en vir on me nta l im pa ct st at em en t) Fe as ib ili ty St u di es Co rr id or St u di es A ll Pr o jec ts O th er St at e R es po nd en ts ,% an d N u m er ic Co u n t FIGURE 11 Multi-disciplinary team usage by project.

21 used included “review and comment,” “discussion for future processes,” and “level of support for final product.” One re- spondent stated, “Our typical approach tends to be inconsis- tent and informal.” When state DOTs were asked how multi-disciplinary teams affected the project development process, 23 re- sponded that it resulted in greater public acceptance. Four- teen state DOTs responded that expedited project delivery was a result of using a multi-disciplinary team and 10 re- sponded that shared funding through partnerships was a pos- itive effect of multi-disciplinary teams (see Figure 12). Six states responded that teams delayed project delivery. It should also be noted that those same six state DOTs also noted positive benefits including greater public acceptance (five), opportunities for shared funding (three), and, interest- ingly, expedited project delivery (two). Summary Points • Multi-disciplinary teams are most often used for large projects such as those requiring an EIS or medium proj- ects that require an EA. In addition, corridor studies were ranked high for utilizing multi-disciplinary teams. This is not surprising in that these projects usually require extensive coordination with a wide range of stakeholders, including environmental regulatory agen- cies, local governments, and special interest groups. • Thirty-six percent of the respondents selected the scop- ing process as the point when a multi-disciplinary team is formed in the project development process. Thirty- three percent responded that the teams were formed before the purpose and need statements. It is encourag- ing to see that teams are being formed early in the proj- ect development process; however, many state DOTs chose not to respond to this question, so it is difficult to know if this is representative of the larger DOT com- munity of practice. • Most state DOTs use MPO or RPO representation on a multi-disciplinary team to link long-range planning to project development. • Post-critique and lessons learned discussions were selected by 38% of respondents as the method to gauge satisfaction of the team’s performance. Because many DOTs chose not to answer this question, it appears that they may not have a process in place to evaluate the effectiveness of their team’s performance. • More than 70% of respondents believe that the use of CSS multi-disciplinary teams results in greater public accep- tance, and 44% believe that they expedite project delivery. This suggests that DOTs do value multi-disciplinary teams as a method for stakeholder involvement. 0.0% 0 12.5% 4 15.6% 5 31.3% 10 18.8% 6 43.8% 14 71.9% 23 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% G re at er Pu bl ic A cc ep ta n ce Ex pe di te d Pr o jec t D el iv er y D el ay ed Pr o jec t D el iv er y Sh ar ed F u n di ng th ro u gh Pa rt ne rs hi ps U na bl e to D et er m in e O th er Br o u gh tN o Ch an ge St at e R es po nd en ts ,% an d N u m er ic Co u n t FIGURE 12 Impacts of using multi-disciplinary teams.