Practices for Online Public Involvement (2019)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

D-1 Interview #1: North Carolina DOT Date: April 2, 2018 Participants: Rutgers VTC: Miriam Salerno, Trish Sanchez, Ted Metz, Sarah Tomasello North Carolina DOT (NCDOT): Jamille Robbins, Public Involvement, Community Studies & Visualization Group Leader, North Carolina DOT Interview Summary Who are the biggest institutional supporters of online public involvement and how have you been able to leverage their support? Mike Holder was the former chief engineer and was a huge supporter of online public involvement from the beginning. He approved the initial $100,000 contract to begin work with MetroQuest. The current administration, most importantly our Secretary Jim Trogdon, supports out-of-the-box thinking, innovation, and the incorporation of technology into all aspects of the work. Who and/or what are the biggest obstacles to effective online public involvement and how have you tried to overcome those obstacles? The major challenges are the pockets of rural North Carolina that are still without broadband internet connection. This probably is becoming less significant as broadband connections are becoming ubiquitous. In more marginalized communities such as Limited English Proficient, Environmental Justice, and low-income communities, there have been challenges in targeting these populations using online engagement. Through experience and research, NCDOT has had better involvement outcomes when traditional face-to-face tactics are used with these communities. NCDOT is also hopeful that using online methods of engagement will assist with gathering input from immigrant communities. Who or what has shaped your online participation presence? Are there any conferences, researchers, consultants, and/or staff members that have helped guide your online strategies? New public outreach technology is a professional interest of the interviewee. NCDOT has also collaborated with other agencies at conferences such as Transportation Research Board and has learned about some notable experiences from DOTs across the country. Mike Holder, as mentioned above, was a key supporter of initiating the use of online strategies. NCDOT currently has contracts with MetroQuest and PublicInput.com. A P P E N D I X D Interview Reports

D-2 Practices for Online Public Involvement In what ways does NCDOT make the distinction between public involvement and information dissemination? Public input is a part of the scoping, development, and research process for projects, plans, or studies. There are components of the STIP that include distinct public involvement and not just information dissemination. NCDOT has a separate communications office, which is distinct from public involvement, but we work in partnership to inform the public of our plans. Please describe your experience with MetroQuest. How has that experience shaped your practices with public involvement and how does that inform the planning process at NCDOT? MetroQuest consultants create websites that constituents can use to provide input on a project. Although the Communications Department is aware of the work that the Public Involvement Team is implementing with MetroQuest, it is a distinct contract solely with the Public Involvement Team. MetroQuest has been valuable in targeting the specific demographics that NCDOT wanted to reach, specifically young families. MetroQuest provides public feedback that is very data-oriented; therefore, writing reports and conveying feedback to planners is simpler. MetroQuest also allows for data to be compiled and summarized more quickly than with older public involvement tactics, which required attending a meeting and then summariz- ing and writing a report about the proceedings of the meeting. MetroQuest was an “easy sell” because it also increased government transparency, which is something desired by NCDOT constituents. Please explain your staffing structure around public involvement. How do communications and public involvement staff work together? Was this something you discussed with MetroQuest? Public involvement consists of four employees working under the leadership of interviewee; two of whom are embedded consultants from two private engineering firms. Given the current and foreseeable workload, along with the growing demand for government transparency, the public involvement staff will likely expand. The office is responsible for coordinating and super- vising public outreach efforts throughout the department, including the Project Management Unit, Transportation Program Management, Rail Division, Division of Aviation, and the state’s 14 Highway Divisions. The agency consists of several sections and units that work together to build and maintain state-owned bridges and highways. In addition to the central units, such as Administrative Services, Technical Services, and Transportation Mobility & Safety, there are 14 geographic regions, referred to as divisions, in which NCDOT distributes the duties of building and maintaining state infrastructure. The Communications Department consists of about 30 staff members and focuses primarily on internal and external communications. It is responsible for the strategic development and implementation of public affairs activities, media relations, and public awareness and education campaigns. That includes social media, publications, video, and the department website, and ensuring the public has correct and up-to-date information on projects and plans. The Com- munications Department has an individual Public Information Officer responsible for each of the 14 geographical divisions. Daily collaboration occurs between the two departments, particularly for the purposes of determining messaging and sharing information about public meetings and surveys on NCDOT social media pages. NCDOT’s use of MetroQuest and Publicinput.com are exclusive contracts managed by the Public Involvement team. As a result, the office keeps the Communications Department informed; however, they are not involved in day-to-day meetings and development of the various project sites.

Interview Reports D-3 How do you integrate the feedback gathered through online public involvement into your planning? Input collected is compiled and exported into spreadsheets, which can easily be presented as graphs and shared with the team. Working with MetroQuest and Publicinput.com has made processing feedback easier and quicker. After working with consultants there is a significant amount of feedback that is quantifiable. This allows for the information gathered to be efficiently shared and comprehended by planning teams within the agency. With the amount of input gathered from online public involvement methods, how does your agency measure and evaluate the feedback? Most of the feedback collected is quantitative, gathered through quick voting. Additionally, increasing the number of people who participate is a priority for the agency. Current feedback from online public involvement is not as qualitative since limited open-ended feedback is collected online. How has NCDOT expanded beyond social media and onto other online platforms? Does the Communications Department remain involved when social media is not used? NCDOT has a policy to not respond or accept any feedback that is provided through social media channels. NCDOT uses social media to direct constituents to other public involvement methods. Interview #2: Maryland DOT Date: April 4, 2018 Participants: Rutgers VTC: Miriam Salerno, Trish Sanchez, Ted Metz, Sarah Tomasello Maryland DOT (MDOT): Jessica Pilarski, Senior Public Involvement Coordinator, Environmental Planning Division, Public Involvement Section Interview Summary What are the strengths of public involvement at MDOT? What parts of the public involvement and planning process does your office participate? The Environmental Planning Division collaborates with teams and project managers agency- wide throughout the NEPA process, including highway design, planning, and construction. The division assists teams with meeting their major milestones. The public involvement process has functioned well for a long time, and the division is always looking to improve and expand the process to meet the needs of projects. Please describe the staffing structure at MDOT for public involvement. Joe Harrison is the Assistant Division Chief, and under his leadership are two Public Involve- ment Coordinators, two Graphic Designers, and two staff responsible for coordinating with newspapers, securing facilities for meetings, and other logistics. The Graphic Designers help with creating direct mailings, and they work with the Public Involvement Coordinators almost every day. The staff work closely with the Office of Communications, which handles day-to-day inquiries, such as ongoing construction projects. Inquiries are usually directed to the Communications Office, which forwards projects that are the responsibility of the Public Involvement Section.

D-4 Practices for Online Public Involvement MDOT seems receptive to using online public involvement but has not yet been able to do so. Please describe any discussions about using online public involvement at MDOT and any challenges to getting it off the ground. MDOT is interested in an online component and understands the value it adds toward getting information out and obtaining feedback from the public. MDOT is sharing ideas with and learning from the experiences of other Maryland transportation agencies that have con- ducted an online public meeting. The Public Involvement Section is interested in trying an online public meeting and is considering the suitable project and opportunity; however, they have concerns about selecting the appropriate online tool and handling the increased online activity to the MDOT website. Public involvement staff have been meeting with the Office of Communication and their social media expert to advertise public involvement opportunities through social media. Describe how public involvement and communications staff collaborate on social media. Is the Public Involvement Section able to maintain a social media presence? The Public Involvement Section does not manage social media. The Office of Communica- tions manages social media, although the Public Involvement Section would like to use social media for projects. Social media is predominately used for daily updates; however, it is not used much for planning. Is the Public Involvement Section more involved in outreach for planning and long-range planning projects? Public involvement staff are involved in planning efforts and are involved in larger construc- tion projects. Since the goal is to collect public feedback, public involvement staff are not always involved in current projects. How does coordination between the Public Involvement and Communications Offices work? The offices work collaboratively, complement each other well, and meet frequently. Are there any colleagues or other state agencies that influence online public involvement for your agency? Two recent online presentations about the Bay Crossing Bridge and the Governor Nice Bridge by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) were influential. The presentations were informative and included a participatory component. The MDTA primarily used the outreach to show videos and information to the public. MDOT reached out to the Project Manager at MDTA for information about conducting online presentations. In the future, if MDOT uses online public involvement, what do you hope to get out of it? Online public involvement strategies can make MDOT more accessible. Public meeting attendees often ask about websites or Facebook pages that provide project updates. Although some projects do not have day-to-day updates, and web pages for projects and public informa- tion are available. However, this is an area where MDOT can improve so that constituents have a more specific place to look for updates. Interview #3: Nebraska DOT Date: April 11, 2018 Participants: Rutgers VTC: Miriam Salerno, Trish Sanchez, Ted Metz Nebraska DOT (NDOT): Jason Prokop, Director of External Affairs; Sarah Soula, Public Involvement Manager

Interview Reports D-5 Interview Summary Who are the biggest institutional supporters of online public involvement and how have you been able to leverage that support? The current public involvement manager has been an important driver of online public involvement as well as the agency director who has sought to expand overall public involve- ment throughout the agency. The impetus began about four years ago when the agency noticed a significant public demand for greater accessibility of information. Constituents wanted a centralized place where information could be disseminated and the most logical location was online. Who/what are the biggest obstacles to effective online public involvement and how have you tried to overcome those obstacles? The greatest obstacles to effective online involvement have been internet usage and con- nectivity in rural locations. The agency as a whole is very supportive of online public involve- ment and its implementation. Since communications and public involvement staff are under the leadership of one supervisor and in the same department, collaboration across staff responsible for involvement, communications, digital content, social media, as well as external consultants is seamless. Who or what has shaped your online participation presence? Are there any conferences, researchers, consultants, or staff members that have helped guide your online strategies? Nebraska DOT has looked extensively to Kansas DOT regarding online public engagement practices. Kansas DOT is geographically similar to Nebraska and quickly and successfully adapted public involvement to the online sector. Additionally, Nebraska DOT has communi- cated with Iowa DOT about some of their online participation practices. Nebraska DOT has worked extensively with consultants in recent years. Within the public involvement department, consultants accounted for 30% of work, and to date they account for 70% of online engagement work. Consultants can produce a greater volume content more quickly and can be distributed in a timely manner allowing for impactful and meaningful involvement. Describe your use of online public meetings. While online meetings were conducted, Nebraska is transitioning away from them due to minimum attendance. Broadband connectivity issues remain in rural pockets of the state, and targeting specific populations is project dependent. Furthermore, rural community members prefer traditional in-person meetings rather than online public meetings. Explain your agency’s use of websites for projects, and how do you collect information and feed- back from these websites? Have you utilized consultants in the past to assist you in developing these websites? The Build Nebraska Act was such a huge piece of legislation that had a great deal of attention and press. The public involvement and communications divisions created the Build Nebraska Act Tour and built a website including all of the information that would be discussed at public meetings. The public responded very enthusiastically to this initiative. The agency experienced a demand for reliable, up-to-date information that could be used to supplement meetings. A website was created where residents could view the projects and submit comments about them. During the initial design phase, there were online forums for people to comment and add their opinions about the projects, along with visuals and information. Those components have since been taken down since the design phase is completed; however, as construction continues,

D-6 Practices for Online Public Involvement the websites will remain active so that people can still access the information. Videos, coordi- nated between the communications and digital/social media staff, are also posted on the website to supplement existing projects. Are there instances when online public involvement is the only method of public involvement? For smaller projects, it is difficult to get people to attend meetings, in which case online involvement is more efficient. Also, lack of staff and resources precludes traditional in-person involvement; therefore, providing information online along with a feedback form is effective for collecting feedback from the public. Please describe your staffing structure for communications and public involvement. Public involvement, communications, social media, and digital content are all departments within Communications Division. While there are separate departments, there is a great deal of collaboration among the division, particularly for projects that may need the technical expertise from consultants or communication staff. How is feedback and input collected from online public involvement and how is it disseminated throughout the agency? Depending on the project size and phase, feedback collected is both quantifiable and qualita- tive and passed onto the appropriate department, which can be the Planning, Environmental or Roadway Projects divisions. Interview #4: California DOT Date: April 18, 2018 Participants: Rutgers VTC: Miriam Salerno California DOT (Caltrans): Bruce Kemp, Headquarters (HQ) Office of Regional Planning; Patrick Olson, HQ Office of Public Affairs and Social Media Manager; Joan Chaplick, Principal, MIG, Inc.; and Tim Carroll, Director of Social Marketing, MIG, Inc. (MIG is the prime contractor for the current statewide, on-call Caltrans Planning Public Engagement Contract [PPEC]). Interview Summary Would you please describe the public engagement services contract that you have and explain how it works? We haven’t heard of that arrangement elsewhere. You have an on-call consultant team that can be deployed as needed throughout the state? Yes, that’s essentially correct. The Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning (DOTP) has managed this sort of contract—what we call the Planning Public Engagement Contract, or the PPEC—since 2002. Currently, we are in the fourth iteration of these multi-year contracts. The PPEC is a task-based, on-call contract that provides contractor services in public outreach and engagement for transportation planning efforts to any of our 12 Caltrans districts throughout the state and in our Headquarters programs. Each “service request” is specifically tailored to meet the particular needs of the plan or project in the program or district. The contractors provide a wide range of services, and each project can be as small as a few neutral-party-facilitated meet- ings or as large as a statewide campaign for a major transportation plan. Public involvement efforts can range from district-level projects, such as a plan for a multi- modal corridor, to statewide long-range planning efforts like the recent California State Bicycle

Interview Reports D-7 and Pedestrian Plan. The consultants also help build professional capacity by working directly with staff and by providing training. Through emails and various unit meetings, transportation planners throughout Caltrans are generally aware of the contract, and they arrange the service requests through Headquarters. Services used by the district offices and programs include public participation process design, agency coordination, stakeholder identification, meeting facilitation, graphics support, translation and interpretation services, and technical assistance. The PPEC is really aimed at getting good public input that shapes what the Department is doing in terms of transportation planning; it gives us that essential element of public participation that we need to know to improve our work. Given the size of your agency and the size of California, how does Caltrans coordinate statewide public participation efforts across various regions? Is there a central office or hub for public par- ticipation, or is it broader and more dispersed than that? It’s more like the latter. For a state DOT as large as Caltrans, the PPEC is just one of many methods—a slice of the overall work by the Department to reach out and engage with the public, affected communities, other agencies, and stakeholders. In addition to Planning, other types of outreach efforts are conducted by other functional units, like Public Affairs, Environmental Analysis, and Project Delivery and Management. Public engagement can be conducted or coordinated by the Headquarters offices, or it can be initiated by the districts. The focus is really on the outreach and engagement itself, and what we do depends on what’s needed. For example, Public Affairs assists various divisions with public outreach by advertising a new draft plan, or by using social media to solicit comments, or with a news release or news flash video. We often use a 2-minute video that we produce internally, if that’s the best way to get out the message. We can also use Facebook or create a blog—all sorts of things that help move a process along, as determined by that office, division, or district. You’ve mentioned several types of online and social media strategies. Would you say that the Public Affairs Office staff are the go-to experts within Caltrans as far as using those platforms for two-way involvement? Public Affairs is sort of the keyholder to all our social media assets. Each district has its own social media unit as well as Headquarters, but it’s all coordinated because we’ve found that having too many different accounts may dilute the message. We’ve built up quite a following on Facebook and Twitter, so we already have a built-in following. In each district, if some public information is important for a specific project, they can post it out, and Headquarters can re-Tweet it; or Headquarters can send it and then ask the districts to resend. We’re all in contact with each other, and each district has its own social media point person. So we can effectively get things out very quickly. For the most part, Public Affairs is the face of Caltrans, and they do all kinds of things to engage and talk with the public on many different levels, primarily through the media. Public Affairs does have standards in place for social media, and provides oversight in terms of tone, messaging, and various things that Caltrans staff and our contractors are required to adhere to in order to make sure that the public outreach is appropriate and consistent with the overarching Caltrans mission and directives. What process does your Department go through, or what processes do your offices go through— understanding that there may be various perspectives—to decide what strategies, methods, or messages are best for a project or plan, including deciding what online involvement strategies or tools are best? What’s your internal process like? Department staff in general take overall direction from the higher-up (cabinet-level) agency, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA). We have the largest and probably most complex transportation system in the nation. We also work closely with the California Transpor- tation Commission (CTC), which is the appointed board responsible for programming funds

D-8 Practices for Online Public Involvement for the construction of highways, passenger rail and transit improvements, and active trans- portation projects throughout California. CTC and CalSTA provide Caltrans with guidelines, policies, and goals that should be adhered to or considered. Often the CTC will program funds for projects and plans, and before that, they will ask Department staff to engage with the public. For instance, they may seek input on grant funding, and Public Affairs will decide the best method for outreach, whether a social media plan, news flash, press release, that sort of thing. Caltrans seeks to use the most effective tools for each situation. Online engagement can be cost-effective, but Caltrans is well aware that other media may be needed to reach those who cannot or choose not to use online resources. Caltrans tries to apply these policies consistently in urban and rural communities, even in rural areas where the quality of internet and cell service connectivity may have gaps. Do the directives from CalSTA and CTC favor pushout of information or two-way communication? Both CalSTA and CTC want to make sure that they are being transparent and accountable. One of the PPEC service requests last year dealt with getting public and stakeholder input for new guidance for how our regional partner agencies should conduct their transportation plan- ning processes. Most public engagement strategies are largely policy-driven. Public Affairs has a finger on the pulse of many things at Caltrans, so they often know what’s coming up that might need to be promoted. In other cases, the direction to Caltrans comes from the higher agencies (CalSTA and CTC); or the Department may receive input from our partner agencies or inter- nally from a division or district. For example, for SB 1 (Senate Bill 1), the gas tax increase, which is providing a large influx of money, we must make sure that the Department obtains public input on projects and how the money will be allocated so we can make good decisions. Some people may want more bike lanes, others may place a higher priority on getting local roads fixed. Another example is a freight survey some time ago to track goods mobility throughout Cali- fornia and improve mobility for freight. The Planning Division conducted a survey, which Public Affairs helped promote; the Department implemented a variety of both online and traditional public involvement strategies—including a public information release and a news flash video—to increase response rates. So the Department was able to use the power of the Public Affairs Office and its media tools to drive participation on the planning survey. How do you determine which projects are ripe for online public involvement? And how do you decide between online tools versus the more traditional face-to-face engagement? When you use both, how do you decide the balance between the two for a particular project? The types of engagement activities depend on the particular project or plan and the goals of the public outreach and engagement. It really depends on what we’re trying to accomplish. The first thing is to figure out who we want to reach and for what purpose—what we want to get out of the participation process. That helps us understand what tools to use. And in that regard, the consultants often give us advice as we work through the process design. In nearly every case in Planning, we write a public participation plan, even if it’s just the task descriptions in the service request. We identify the public engagement goals and objectives, the target audiences, and then the best methods for accomplishing those objectives and reaching those audiences. As an example, we did a recent public engagement project for a State Route that crosses four counties around the top of a bay and large wetland area, where we are seeking input for design alternatives for highway improvements to adapt to sea-level rise. The public engagement included open house meetings, which could only accommodate so many, so we also did a web- based survey, which the four counties pushed out through social media. We ended up getting more than 5,000 responses on that survey. Then we also took into account that digital methods may exclude people who don’t have access to the internet or may not have the interest or ability

Interview Reports D-9 to use computers and electronic devices. So we did some targeted work through focus groups to reach lower-income communities and Spanish-speaking populations. Online involvement is typically supplemented with other methods of engagement to ensure that all people can participate who want to. But definitely, the choice of tools and methods relies on a clear understanding of the communication and planning goals as well as an understanding of the audiences—who they are, where they are, how they like to get their information, whether it’s a rural or urban community, the nature of the project, and whether we are soliciting feedback or just getting information out. When is online engagement the most effective or advantageous? In what sort of scenarios—perhaps with a certain type of project, a certain size or scale, or a particular demographic group or audience— have you found the most success? What often matters most is how we are relating to people’s everyday lives. The public may have little interest if we talk about the statewide California Transportation Plan, but we’ll likely get more participation if we ask them more personal questions like inviting them to tell us how they travel. Being effective with online engagement can happen for a variety of reasons: in a rural area, we may have had a good online platform and multiple ways to access people using those platforms. Perhaps they were already Facebook friends, or we started with a good email list, or we had active partners who were willing to do the promotion. Meanwhile, the nature of digital media is rapidly evolving, and we need to stay on top of that. And when we are doing outreach for a transportation project, we’re also aware that we’re com- peting with everyone else. So we have to have a “hook” that gets people’s attention, and we also need clear messages and compelling graphics. The quality of the outreach—the questions, the graphics, the message—is really a great determinant of success. As another example, for a controversial highway project in a rural, northern California area, the district Chief Public Information Officer (PIO) came to realize that local citizens had set up two Facebook pages, one that was for the project and one that was against. The PIO joined the discussions on both pages, monitoring the postings for misinformation, providing correct information, and responding to questions. So that was a case where we went to the people to help dispel any rumors, correct misinformation, and get the facts out there on the real project. The tools vary depending on what you wish to accomplish—we may use Twitter, for example, elsewhere, such as for commuter traffic—but if there’s a genuine concern and it’s starting a discussion, the PIO staff will typically chime in. To some extent, each public outreach and engagement situation is unique and may often require a combination of both online and in-person involvement. We typically need to do other things in addition to online tools to reach people who are lower-income, minority, and limited English-speaking. And the many Native American tribes here in California also present a special case; they usually expect us—typically at an executive level—to show up in person, which is appropriate. So in our experience, public outreach and engagement is typically a combination of high-tech and soft touch, rather than one or the other exclusively. As another example of online and in-person methods, we conducted a public engagement program for an access management plan, which sought to improve points of access on a high- speed, winding, hilly highway with a traffic barrier in the median. This road goes from the southern Bay Area to the coast and serves as a major commuter route, as well as a local route for residential areas and businesses. The online tools included a dedicated website with an inter- active mapping tool, where the public could post comments tied to specific points on a map. Many people used the website and mapping tool, but it was particularly convenient for commuters, who couldn’t be expected to stop along the route to attend a community workshop.

D-10 Practices for Online Public Involvement We also reached out to the public with public workshops, booths at local community events, phone calls to community leaders, and targeted small group meetings. Speaking of community workshops, it’s worth commenting that they are often still considered to be the “golden standard” of public outreach, even while they are somewhat archaic. They cater to a narrow band of the population, but we still do them because there’s an expectation, and to some extent, they are still critical for certain populations. But digital tools and online involve- ment is a time-flexible alternative to meetings. People can participate when it’s convenient for them, and generally, the online tools are more specific and briefer. Online surveys can take just a few minutes to complete and generate high response rates—like the survey where we received more than 5,000 responses. There is no single engagement method that works best every time for every project. Still, several years ago, as part of developing the public participation plan for the California Transportation Plan, a survey we conducted clearly indicated that, overall, the public wants to express their opinions and have them matter, and, overall, they preferred the internet as the main communication medium. Who or what has shaped your ideas on the use of online public participation? Are there other states, conference presentations, or other sources that inspire you to continue to innovate in terms of online public engagement? The public encourages us to innovate, as they have responded well to the Department’s use of online participation tools. Also, our work with consultants has exposed us to additional exper- tise, changed some of our practices, and brought additional capacity to develop online tools. The consultants, in turn, learn from other consultants—for example, when partnering with a firm that specializes in social media and assists with technical tracking and question testing. In terms of other sources, research organizations provide useful insights into the use of digital media and the rising adoption of smart phones as the primary focus for accessing information. That knowledge increasingly informs the outreach content and approach. Caltrans staff who are involved with public communications and participation often have a professional interest in this sort of work, and are members of professional organizations like the American Planning Association and the International Association for Public Par- ticipation. Caltrans also maintains a robust in-house training program, which, for planning staff, includes week-long “planning academies” and a periodic forum called Planning Horizons, where public engagement has, from time to time, been a topic. We also derive inspiration from other state DOTs. For example, Arizona does a good job with public outreach, and we have appreciated their website and a variety of their digital products. The video news stories that ADOT produces were the inspiration for Caltrans Public Affairs to try the same thing in our state. What lessons can you impart in terms of leveraging internal support for online public involvement? A key benefit of digital engagement is that it can provide detailed metrics. Facebook posts can be targeted at the cost of a few hundred dollars in advertising. Data from online sources can reveal how many viewed the site, opened the survey, and completed all questions; and depend- ing on the medium and how the survey is set up, some demographic data are also possible. Videos can be useful because they can be posted not only on a website but also on social media, and online forums can provide feedback and greater participation in more remote and rural locations. As far as leveraging internal support, it really depends on upper management. At Caltrans, upper management show support by appearing in videos and participating in online forums and discussions. Caltrans also derives support by being under the umbrella of CalSTA, and we can cite, for example, the effectiveness of aligning our messages with other agencies during

Interview Reports D-11 emergency situations. Caltrans recognizes that the benefits of online public involvement tools include the lower cost and the ease in reaching a broad audience. Online tools allow people to receive information and share their opinions at a time that is convenient for them, which boosts participation significantly. Online surveys are generally easy to create, have greater reach, and are less expensive than other survey methods. At the same time, Caltrans recognizes that digital online tools can’t be used exclusively because it is critical that all popu- lation segments be included and none left behind because of limited access to the internet and mobile devices. Even with online tools, some in-person follow up such as focus groups may be appropriate. Interview #5: Oregon DOT Date: April 24, 2018 Participants: Rutgers VTC: Miriam Salerno, Trish Sanchez, Ted Metz Oregon DOT (ODOT): Jyll Smith, Senior Project Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation Interview Summary What is the staffing structure at Oregon DOT for public involvement and in particular for online public involvement? The public involvement staff at Oregon DOT includes seven individuals in our regional offices. There are five regional offices, and currently seven (but soon to be nine) dedicated public participation employees, while four public information officers from the communica- tions department collaborate directly on projects related to involvement. All community affairs staff work on online involvement and the senior project manager in community affairs creates the online open houses as well as the standards and practices for online involvement. Public involvement is often outsourced to public involvement firms. There are two people in ODOT headquarters who are responsible for social media (one full time and one has a percentage of their time for social media). Regarding the Oregon DOT website, the agency has approximately 50 web editors; 26 within Highway Division managing the project information pages. How does Oregon DOT manage one-way information that is pushed out and two-way commu- nication that is more participatory? For some public information officers and communication staff, online public involvement is a new tool, in terms of publishing content, receiving input, and processing feedback. The project managers have to adjust their strategy for online public involvement, and collaborate with departments throughout the agency including planning, project delivery, and construction. The Oregon Transportation Commission, which oversees the agency, is focused on public engagement and is interested in public input and how the information is applied toward decisions. Please provide an example of how online feedback was incorporated into decision-making at Oregon DOT. A great example is the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This past year Oregon DOT initiated a new approach of gathering feedback prior to budget allocation from both Oregon DOT partners and the public. Through the monthly bulletin, newsletters, and an online open house, Oregon DOT gathered feedback on transportation priorities and issues. The monthly bulletin acknowledged the input received, summarized responses, and allocated some of the funding based on the feedback.

D-12 Practices for Online Public Involvement How often are online open houses utilized? Oregon DOT has implemented online open houses since about 2009, utilizing the technical assistance of consultants. This past year Oregon DOT started to conduct them “in-house” by acquiring a custom-built online open house management system. All online open houses have consistent look, feel, and branding, and users learn and are comfortable with the navigation. The senior project manager who manages that system experienced an increase in the number of regional offices and departments interested in online open houses, such as the DMV. In addition to gathering information from Oregonians in the traditional sense of an online open house, we are also using the online open house system to push information out in a more interactive manner than our website allows. Is the platform open and can anyone participate? It is an open platform so each project can collect distinct demographics and information. Users do not need to sign up or sign in, thereby protecting their privacy; however, they can sign up for the newsletter. Who moderates the open houses? Depending on the project, either the public involvement staff, the project manager, or in many cases both moderate the open houses. Past open houses are archived and can be accessed at any time by the public. How does Oregon DOT utilize public involvement firms? It varies depending on the size of the project. A standard contract involves performing on-the-ground work such as tabling and face-to-face dialogue as well as creating the materials for both print and online. Some community affairs staff perform technical assistance for public involvement approaches; however, consultants often assist when and where needed. All online content for websites now resides on the Oregon DOT for consistency with branding and acces- sibility. This prevents issues with consultants who purchase a URL, provide content and when their contract expires, Oregon DOT no longer has access to the URL nor the content. What role does transparency play with online public involvement? Transparency has always been an important goal for the agency. Last summer the state legislature passed a new funding package of over $5 billion and called for the agency to be more transparent and accountable. Oregon DOT is required to report public involvement strategies in order to obtain additional funding for the agency. Oregon DOT is in the process of setting up a new oversight committee that will report feedback to the legislature. This may risk loss of funding resulting from transparency issues thereby elevating the importance of trans- parency. The senior project manager collaborates with staff and the public about transparency by showing the public involvement process and how decision are made. Does online public involvement target specific populations? Providing online content that is easily understandable and accessible is a goal for ODOT’s OPI initiatives. Oregon DOT wants to interact with people where and when they want and online involvement meets that need. Initially, the agency targeted Millennials, as there was evidence and preference for online involvement as opposed to other methods; however, some older adults and those with families also prefer online involvement. Oregon DOT is working to improve engagement with low-income and communities of color, and the hope is to use OPI to improve involvement with these communities and the public overall.

Interview Reports D-13 Does online involvement influence urban and rural populations to participate? Who is more likely to prefer online engagement? The agency receives more input from traditional involvement in metro areas than from online engagement primarily due to more staff in the Portland office. The projects using online open houses are in rural locations because the populations are expansive. More information is available and accessible online than direct mail, flyers, or face-to-face involvement. Have you been able to measure if more people are involved because of online public involvement? Not yet because the online platform is so new. However, recently online involvement for a passenger rail project experienced a 250% increase in comments and participation. How do you collaborate with the planning department? How is the feedback distributed to the appropriate department(s)? The public involvement officer collaborates with engineers in the highway division. The planning department appreciates the efficiency of feedback that online public involvement offers and can utilize the information to make decisions more quickly. Do you plan to include online components in your public involvement plan (PIP)? The senior project manager is in the process of writing a statewide PIP. Oregon DOT has a public engagement guidebook that the PI team is currently updating and covers a number of disciplines including technical considerations, use of consultants, and evaluating online engagement. What states, organizations, research, consultants, and/or others have shaped your perceptions of online participation? The public involvement senior project manager led the online engagement for a state bridge program that replaced or repaired over 300 bridges across the state. The legislation that governed the bridge program demanded a significant amount of involvement, and working with a consul- tant informed the agency on current online engagement practices. The senior project manager also attended a TRANSCOM conference several years ago that was “eye-opening.” Other state DOTs have dedicated offices for public engagement that are separate from communications and Oregon DOT would like to move toward that model. What internal support for online involvement exists at Oregon DOT? The communications director understands the importance of online involvement. The assistant director at Oregon DOT has a background in government relations and also is a big supporter of online involvement. The new statewide project delivery manager is currently working toward more online involvement standards in place. Have you encountered any internal obstacles? Engineering departments may not always be current regarding online technical issues and processes regarding involvement so collaboration and communication on expectations is critical.