Visualization for Public Involvement (2024)

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

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review A literature search found little published research on the specific topic of visualization for public involvement in transportation. An exception is the set of resources on virtual public involvement created by the FHWA through its EDC program. This multi-year initiative, which concluded in 2022, identified eight virtual methods for national promotion efforts, one of which was project visualization (Exhibit 2-1). The FHWA developed case studies, fact sheets, videos, and webinars on the selected methods and conducted a series of peer exchanges to discuss their implementation (FHWA 2022). The synthesis report authors also identified various case examples of transportation projects using visualization for public involvement. Most of these were found in conference papers and webinars rather than in formal publications. The synthesis study team also consulted several older publications for historical perspective, including a prior synthesis on visualization for highway projects (Hixon 2006) and a 2007 special issue of TR News on “Visualization in Trans- portation: Empowering Innovation” (Walker 2007). For additional insight, the synthesis study team examined relevant publications on visualization for public involvement from the fields of urban planning and landscape architecture. The following sections describe the status of the practice and current trends, existing guidance materials available to practitioners, and themes for further exploration. Current Status and Trends in Implementing Visualization for Public Involvement State DOTs use a broad range of visualization methods for public involvement. Exhibit 2-2 lists the visualization methods used in 11 recent case studies identified in the literature review, along with the public involvement context. The methods range from simple illustrations to VR simulations. Typically, the methods were used at in-person public meetings and events; in some cases, agencies also provided videos or other materials for online viewing. As visualization methods have matured and become more readily available, their potential to increase public understanding and inform dialog has expanded (see Exhibit 2-3). Current trends in public involvement practice, including the dramatic increase in the use of video for communication and the expansion of virtual public involvement, have made it easier for agencies to show visualization products to a broad audience (Salerno et al. 2023), including persons with limited English proficiency or low literacy. Other relevant trends include increased use of VR (Exhibit 2-4), the widespread agency adoption of drone technology, and the expanded use of geographic information systems (GIS) to provide a ready basis for interactive mapping tools. 7 

8   Visualization for Public Involvement Exhibit 2-1.   Visualization techniques fact sheet series. Exhibit 2-2.   Recent case studies of visualization for public involvement in transportation. Public Visualization Case Study Involvement Source Methods Used Context NCDOT, I-440/ 3D renderings shown on Show alternative design FHWA 2022 Glenwood Avenue touchscreens at public concepts and seek interchange meetings feedback on preferences WSDOT, diverging Narrated video with 3D Explain complex FHWA 2022 diamond interchange animation and infographics concept for public concept, I-5/Marvin shown on YouTube understanding Road CTDOT, Walk Bridge VR simulation shown in Help public envision FHWA 2022 Program, Norwalk, CT headset at welcome center program outcomes and and community events; 4D construction phasing renderings and animations NYMTA, Comparative illustrations and Help virtual meeting Szarkowski Interborough Express layered renderings shown in participants compare 2022 Feasibility Study PowerPoint and modified on alternative design the fly concepts and associated trade-offs Sarasota/Manatee Illustrations of place types Inform participatory Hutchinson MPO (e.g., sketches, photographs,) scenario planning and 2022 and infographics visioning process for long-range plan FDOT, Route 98 (and 360-degree project tours, Allow public meeting Poszich 2022 other project drive-through videos, drone participants to navigate examples) imagery, and StoryMaps a project concept or linking 3D images and text design or to review it again at home 

Literature Review   9 Exhibit 2-2.  (Continued). Public Visualization Case Study Involvement Source Methods Used Context GDOT, SR-400 VR open house “meeting Provide a virtual AASHTO 2021 Express Lanes room” platform alternative to in-person open house Florida Atlantic AR and VR immersive Use experimental public Hoermann 2019 University, environments shown in education tool in Visualization of Sea- headsets community meetings Level Rise Impacts, Fort Lauderdale, FL TxDOT, North Immersive drive-through Allow stakeholders to Schmeits 2019 Tarrant Express 35W with VISSIM traffic shown experience complex Project, TX on monitors weave section NDOT, Project Neon, 3D renderings, video, and VR Improve understanding Nevada DOT I-15, Las Vegas, NV tour with goggles and driving and build consensus for 2018 simulator used at public project meetings Iowa DOT, Mississippi VR simulation shown in Improve understanding Iowa DOT and River Bridge video and with headset at of project under Iowa State Replacement, I-74 public events construction University 2018 Exhibit 2-3.   Example of visualization use in virtual platforms. https://0001757.scoutfeedback.com/(As of August 15, 2023) Source: Georgia Department of Transportation, used with permission During the COVID-19 pandemic, GDOT began using a VR open house platform for public engagement in the SR-400 Express Lanes and other projects. A range of visualization methods was delivered via the online platform to simulate an in-person experience. 

10   Visualization for Public Involvement Exhibit 2-4.   VR visualization experience. Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation, used with permission For the Walk Bridge Program in Norwalk, CT, the CTDOT used virtual reality to create an immersive experience for the public at community events, schools, and in the program’s Welcome Center. The simulation helps convey the appearance and effect of this large-scale construction project that involves replacement of a major rail bridge and related infrastructure projects. The figure shows use of VR technology at a public meeting, which is an emerging innovation in visualization for public involvement. An FHWA fact sheet, “Emerging Uses of Visualization” (FHWA 2020), describes the trends in practice as follows: From simple sketches and renderings to 3D images and animations, transportation agencies increasingly rely on visualization technologies to explain proposed projects to the public. As these tools become more affordable, visualization is playing a bigger role in public meetings and online engagement. Agencies may use virtual reality and augmented reality applications to enrich the conversation at open house meetings. Others use drones to capture aerial photography, allowing rapid, cost-effective development of imagery for use in presenting existing conditions and construction updates. Moreover, data visualization tools are helping agencies create infographics and animated illustrations that help the public understand complex transportation trends. With a wide range of potential applications for visualization, some agencies have developed in-house visualization capabilities, while others rely on contractors. Another trend is the increased use of visualization for internal planning, design, construction, and maintenance purposes, such as in building information modeling (Mitchell et al. 2023). This is a departure from the early days of visualization for highway projects when agencies’ use of visual tools was largely driven by efforts to gain public acceptance for controversial projects (Hixon 2006). Greater use of integrated design tools such as building information modeling is expected to facilitate development of visualizations for public communication purposes, as byproducts of the design process (AASHTO 2021). Existing Guidance Materials No single comprehensive reference on effective practices for using visualization in transportation- related public involvement is available. However, several publications offer useful guidelines on specific aspects of visualization. These publications include NCHRP Web-Only Document 226: 

Literature Review   11 Data Visualization Methods for Transportation Agencies (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2017) and NCHRP Synthesis 584: Visualization of Highway Performance Measures, which provide instructive examples of data visualizations developed for external communication with stakeholders and the public but without addressing the public involvement process itself (Broen 2022). FHWA’s EDC virtual public involvement materials on project visualization provide general advice, tips for success, and insights from peer exchange participants. The following are examples of the tips for success included in the EDC fact sheets: • When presenting project visualizations, staff should clearly explain to viewers what is being shown (e.g., an initial concept, a series of alternatives, or a proposed final or near-final design). • If feasible, aim to show design concepts from more than one perspective to enhance viewer understanding. • Annotate visualizations with a combination of text labels, colors, icons and/or visual cues for improved understanding, usability, and accessibility. • For web-based visualizations, provide a text description of images for compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Several state DOTs have developed written guidelines on using visualization for public involve- ment. For example, Pennsylvania DOT’s (PennDOT’s) public involvement procedures manual includes a brief section on visualization techniques (PennDOT 2021) with suggested uses of photo renderings, 3D designs, and 3D animation for different purposes. The PennDOT guidance cautions that “the public . . . equates technological sophistication with expense” and suggests using methods that are effective without being costly. Virginia DOT (VDOT) provides guidelines for developing and using 3D models, including public involvement applications (VDOT 2020). The guidelines stress the need to consider how 3D modeling and visualization methods will be used during public stakeholder meetings: Thoughtful consideration should be given to how the model can be and should be used to engage public stakeholders. Projects should be evaluated for their potential to receive comments due to their complexity, sensitivity, or uniqueness. These types of projects should leverage the 3D model to develop VR drive-through, fly-over, or otherwise tour the project. The VDOT guidance further suggests determining whether users should be able to “look at what is important to them and provide important feedback about the design” (as is possible with a 360-degree video image) or see a predefined view (as in a recorded video to be embedded on the VDOT project page or played at public hearings). Suggestions are offered about visualiza- tion equipment, including the use of VR headsets at public meetings and the option of using 3D printing to produce scale models of projects with large vertical elements, such as bridges. Another section of the guide defines the level of detail to be included in visualizations for specific milestones, including the public hearing milestone. The most comprehensive guidance to date on selecting visualization tools for public involvement in transportation is the FTA’s Choosing Visualization for Transportation online tool, completed in 2010 (FTA 2010). This interactive tool uses a question-and-answer format to elicit contextual details about a project and the user’s public outreach goals as a basis for selecting visualization methods. For example, the tool asks about the project stage and geographic reach, the primary stakeholders and/or audience, how the agency plans to communicate with stakeholders, the type of activity the audience would engage in, and resource constraints. Exhibit 2-5 shows the first two questions. The first question (about expectations) makes important distinctions among potential purposes of public involvement, and the second question probes the type of engagement activity that will accompany the use of the visualization. 

12   Visualization for Public Involvement Exhibit 2-5.   Sample questions from Choosing Visualization for Transportation online tool. https://www.choosingviz.com (As of August 15, 2023). Areas for Further Exploration The findings of the literature review helped to inform the overall project and pointed to areas where further research may be fruitful. One area needing more study is the effects of visualiza- tion on participants’ understanding and their ability to provide meaningful input. A study of visualization for participation in infrastructure projects in Norway evaluated the effectiveness of various forms of visualization in producing better understanding of a project or greater interest in engaging in the project, which were evaluated separately (Skaaland and Pitera 2021). A study of visualization in landscape architecture suggests that the attributes of a visualization— such as realism, multi-dimensionality, immersion, interactivity, and combinations of these—have consequences for the quality of public participation (Nasr-Azadani 2022). Realism in visualizations can help to promote credibility, but it can also do the opposite, provoking skepticism about the purpose of visual communication by giving participants the impression that an initial concept is a final design. For this reason, public involvement practitioners have found that a hand-drawn sketch or simple rendering can be a better choice for visualization in the initial stages of a project (Lebeaux 2012). Other strategies for improving credibility in visualization may include using interactive models that allow an audience to “look behind the curtain” or enabling users to “toggle between before and after or alternative scenarios” (Walker 2007). Some of these themes were echoed in the interviews conducted for this synthesis study, as described in Chapter 4.