Inclusive Public Participation in Transit Decision-Making (2023)

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.

1   Inclusive Public Participation in Transit Decision-Making Introduction Public participation is critical to the decision-making process, and it inuences planning initiatives for public transportation agencies. Each transit agency’s public participation plan, guided by the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Guidance and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, must explicitly describe proactive strategies, procedures, and desired outcomes to solicit input from communities of color, limited and no-English prociency and low-income populations, and persons with disabilities (here referred to as “underserved communities”). Additionally, transit agencies receiving Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula funds must design and implement public participa- tion programs that allow the public the opportunity to comment when raising fares or proposing a major route reduction. Further, those agencies must consider the public’s input in the decision-making process. Agencies are challenged to develop inclusive and equitable engagement activities that share information, solicit ideas, and communicate appropriate messages, understanding that each community is diverse with complex needs and concerns. TCRP commissioned Project J-07/Topic SH-22, “Inclusive Public Participation in Transit Decision-Making,” in response to the importance of examining how to meaningfully reach and include underserved populations in transit planning and implementation processes. e goal of this synthesis was to gather and document public engagement and input practices intended to ensure the participation and inclusion of the underserved. e objective was to document current, eective, and ongoing public participation mechanisms resulting in and instilling participation from underserved communities. e synthesis highlights practices that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations as well as those that go beyond the ADA requirements. e synthesis describes innovative approaches and challenges from multiple perspectives: the transit agencies’, customers’, communities’, and stakeholders’. e study process for this synthesis included three components: a literature review (see Appendix A), a survey of agency practices (see Appendix B), and case examples. A literature review of current public participation and engagement regulatory requirements and known practices and strategies was conducted to document the existing body of knowledge about how agencies develop engagement plans and, when necessary, tailor strategies to reach the underserved. A survey instrument was deployed to 109 transit agencies with responses from 32 agencies (29%), ranging in system size and mode of transportation (see survey responses in Appendix C). ese agencies also served diverse populations, with 79% of agencies surveyed reporting their service area to include urban areas, 43% suburban, and 32% rural. Interviews were conducted with transit agencies of varying geographic locations, service areas, and sizes (see Appendix D for the interview guide). Six case examples were selected. S U M M A R Y

2 Inclusive Public Participation in Transit Decision-Making During the interviews, representatives were asked to discuss or provide examples of the following: • Strategies used to partner with communities and organizations • Methods for soliciting and collecting public comments from underserved communities • Use and effectiveness of transit rider and advisory committees • Public participation monitoring and tracking practices • Methods for assessing the effectiveness of their public participation mechanism, including which metrics and/or other determining factors • Feedback and follow-up given to outreach participants • Lessons learned • Impacts of health pandemics on public participation (lessons learned and practices conducted and retained) Results from the transit agencies surveyed and case examples conducted indicate the following key findings: • Meeting people where they are creates meaningful public engagement. Traditional, centrally located, public meetings assume people have time to attend and participate in the public meeting process. Hosting stakeholder meetings at local events or community resource centers such as food banks and health centers can effectively help transit agencies reach more underserved communities. • The variability of how often and when public meetings happen can directly influence the level of participation. Several agencies discovered increased participation and better project awareness when public meetings were scheduled over a series of weeks with a variety of start times. • The number of methods available for input can measure effectiveness. Some agencies’ definitions of success included quantifying the mechanisms available to the public to provide input, comment, and participate in the engagement process. • Before deploying a public engagement plan, identifying barriers for different audiences using a target audience analysis can help determine which populations may not be reached. A comprehensive review of the available resources (e.g., technology), language barriers, cultural concerns or hesitancies, and other challenges can help reduce potential barriers during the agency’s public engagement efforts. • Incrementally deployed education and engagement efforts are equally as effective as tradi- tional methods. In two of the case examples (Pittsburgh Regional Transit and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority), the participants found that incrementally providing information increased public knowledge and understanding. The frequent project milestones and accessible opportunities to provide input and comments ultimately increased public participation in the planning effort. The agencies informed the public that their input influenced next steps for every decision. This process meaningfully impacted public acceptance and consensus. • Including operators and/or front-line workers in engagement planning and the public launch can increase participation and help shape messaging. Including front-line workers in the planning, development, and launch of public engagement initiatives allowed several agencies to gain an understanding of their employees’ perspectives on how the public would receive the proposed plan or change. • Securing staff approval and consensus before a public launch enabled informed staff members to engage with participants and help communicate a change or solicit input. • Many transit agencies face the dilemma of measuring effectiveness. Hosting a public meeting, public participation, and creating a comprehensive online presence are avenues to solicit public comment, but they require varied resources to yield significant engagement across underserved communities.

Summary 3   Based on information derived from the literature, responses from the transit agencies surveyed, and case examples, the following areas and issues require further research or analysis: consistent use of public input mechanisms, evaluation of varied public input channels’ inuence on transit agencies’ decision-making, and how to measure the eective- ness of transit agency public engagement activities systematically and accurately. Filling these gaps would provide further insights for transit agencies to consider as they develop their public engagement plans in the future. Key Denitions Relative to Transit Underserved communities – Communities comprised of Title VI-protected classes, including minority races, color, or national origin; as well as low-income populations; and persons with disabilities. Public engagement/participation – Successful public engagement or involvement utilizes two-way communication, traditionally with in-person outreach such as workshops, town hall meetings, and public hearings. More recently, online methods including email, social media, websites, and virtual meetings have been used in place of or in addition to in-person methods. Online Public Involvement (OPI) – e process of utilizing Internet-based, two-way communication between the agency and the public to facilitate interaction and feedback. Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)/Committee – is group consists of individuals with specic knowledge or experience, oering insight and experience pertaining to a particular aspect of a project or service.