by Kristina Younger

ISTEA Planners Workbook

Public Involvement Under ISTEA: under ISTEA, public involvement is:

• Proactive;
• Tailored to local needs and conditions;
• Ongoing;
• Inclusive;
• Frequent;
• Encouraged to be innovative and use a combination of techniques;
• Educational - both on issues and technical matters;
• Most effective when supported by strong leadership and institutional support; and
• Intended to impact the results of the planning process.
  

This is not public hearings to meet a requirement - the presentation of a fait accompli to either an empty room or an angry mob. This is public access to information BEFORE decisions are finalized, in a variety of ways, in such a manner as to allow for actual influence over the outcome of those decisions. It's the difference between public information, public participation, and public involvement.

Effective public involvement is no small task. It requires commitment from management and policy-makers, a significant postage and publication budget, and more time than you will initially budget (guaranteed). But the payoff is large. Plans don't sit on shelves -- they get implemented! Policy-makers don't rubber stamp -- they ask questions! And best of all, transportation plans and programs are more likely to reflect the needs and desires of the community at large.

Key Decision Points: the public needs to know, before decisions are made:

1) How the overall public participation process will be structured. Federal regulations (23 CFR Parts 450.212, and 450.315 (b)) require that every metropolitan planning organization and state publish an overall plan for public participation and review it periodically for effectiveness in "assuring that the process provides full and open access to all." This is one of the most important decision points because the overall atmosphere and structure of public involvement is established. The design of the overall public involvement program communicates how much public participation is valued and desired. The regulations also specifically require that "explicit consideration and response to public input received during the planning and program development phases" be demonstrated. Essentially, the participants must reach agreement on the process by which the discussions will be conducted before the substantive discussions can begin.

2) What the long range transportation plan is proposed to include. The long range plan at both the state and metropolitan levels is a 20-year "blueprint" that includes both long-range and short-range strategies and actions that should "lead to the development of an integrated intermodal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods." (23 CFR Parts 450.214 & 322) This is where the major alternatives facing the region or state are defined, those alternatives are analyzed, and priorities set. ANY subsequent capital projects funded through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process MUST be consistent with the goals, policies, and priorities set in the long range plan. There is not one key point in long range plan development for public input -- there should be multiple points. These points must start with the initial proposal, process, and schedule for plan development. This initial proposal should identify key "milestones" in the process where input will specifically be solicited from a wide public, as well as mechanisms for ongoing input throughout the process from those with a high interest and/or stake in the process.

3) How that plan will be carried out in capital projects through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Public involvement in the development of the metropolitan TIP should start with: widespread notice of a) the start of the TIP process; b) how much money is available for new programming; c) project eligibility limitations; d) eligible project sponsors; e) the criteria by which the projects will be judged - or how those criteria will be determined; f) required materials needed to submit a project for consideration; and g) the schedule for TIP development, including any deadlines that will be adhered to. This would insure that a full universe of projects is considered. Note that the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) itself can (and has a responsibility to) put projects of regional significance on the table, particularly if they are necessary to implement the long range plan.

In TIP development, the second major point of public review is the results of the application of the evaluation criteria, usually accompanied by a preliminary recommended program of projects. This is generally when the formal "public review period" begins, and where, in areas of non-attainment of air quality standards, the required (23 CFR 450.324(c)) public meeting is held. Often, a summary document is used to disseminate the information widely, with the full document containing detailed project listings available upon request. A useful format for such a summary document is questions and answers, using pie charts to show overall program make-up and charts listing major projects to be undertaken.

Lastly, notice should be given that the final adopted program is available. The adopted TIP itself must be made readily available to interested parties.

STIPs consist of metropolitan TIPs plus additional projects not in metropolitan areas. The development of the non-metropolitan portion of the STIP should follow a process similar to TIP development, with modifications appropriate to the more rural nature of the geographic area covered and the generally smaller amounts of money available in these areas. The public involvement processes in metropolitan areas can be relied upon by states to insure adequate input on the metropolitan portions of the STIP, but the STIP should additionally contain statewide summary information. Summary materials should appropriately focus on the statewide policy implications of the STIP and its relationship to the long-range State Transportation Plan.

4) What technical studies of major metropolitan transportation investments are underway. While major metropolitan transportation investments are the subject of another paper in this series, they are a significant decision point in the process for public involvement. The regulations (23 CFR 450.318(b)) specify the need for a "scoping" meeting, but again input should be solicited at the initiation of the study, at the point where alternatives are defined, when technical information and the analysis of alternatives is available and preliminary recommendations are being formulated, and when final recommendations are available. In addition, there should be a mechanism for ongoing input from highly impacted agencies and communities in between these major study milestones.

Who is the Public? - The Identification of Stakeholders: ISTEA regulations do not define a minimum "public" that should be involved - this is left to local or state discretion to determine. Therefore, a process of identifying stakeholders - those affected or potentially affected - is a key step at the beginning of designing a public involvement program. There are three major approaches to identifying the "public" that will be affected by the transportation planning process: self identification, staff identification, and third-party identification.

Self identification: Anyone that has attended a public meeting, written a comment letter, or phoned a hot line has expressed an interest. If this is a small number, news stories, brochures, and well-publicized public meetings generate more people identified by this method.

Staff identification: Agency personnel are a rich source of information on "key players." Mailing lists from organizations ranging from the Chamber of Commerce to environmental groups to trucking associations will often be shared if requested. Records of the users of a given service (like carpool matching or dial-a-ride service) or development permits issued in a given community are another possible source of potentially interested parties. Yellow page listings of taxi companies, freight forwarders, or warehouses are another place for staff to look for potential participants.

Third party identification: Ask people who they think should be involved! Start by consulting known "leaders", but don't stop there. It should be a standard agency line - "If you know of anyone else who should be involved, ..."

After the universe of participants has been identified it's time to determine how to involve these people. Understand that:

• Not everyone's stake is equal. Those with more to gain or lose will be more willing to put in more time over a longer period of time. The opinions of those with peripheral interests or limited time can be captured with one-shot techniques like public meetings, surveys, or displays in malls. Those with ongoing stakes need a more continuous method of involvement - advisory committees, task forces, or visioning.
  
• Some groups don't realize that they have any stake. Education is an integral part of the process. One-shot techniques should be combined with more ongoing methods. Use the media to generate interest.
  
• Different interests will be motivated to participate at different stages of the process. The "general" public needs information in "digestible" form, before decisions are made, but after alternative choices are articulated. Large stakeholders want to have a say in articulating what those choices are. A mechanism for each should be provided - and the fact that there is a choice over level of involvement should be widely publicized.
• Know your bottom line. Long range plans and TIPs are ultimately officially adopted by policy-makers - usually elected officials. Political acceptability is likely going to be a determining factor in the ultimate adoption of these documents. Belief that sufficient effort was put into involving and informing those most affected enhances political acceptability, but does not insure it. If policy makers or management has a set idea of what projects should go forward, public involvement may not change it. If this is the case, credibility will suffer. People who put a lot of time into a process developing a plan or program, only to see it go down in flames because of deal-making at the end will remember being burned the next time that they are asked to be involved. If there are limits to your flexibility - be they political, financial, or philosophical - it is better to be up front about them than to raise false expectations of promised change. Don't promise a "new vision" if you don't have a reasonable chance of delivering on it.
  

Techniques for Public Involvement: public involvement techniques should be selected on the basis of careful analysis of exactly what it is you wish to accomplish, with whom, when, and ONLY THEN how. Long term planning processes requires different approaches than short-term project development. All processes face problems of maintaining interest and visibility throughout their duration. This is why, in general, a variety of techniques should be incorporated into all public involvement plans. No one method is sufficient to reach the right people, at the proper level of detail, at the right time.

Innovative Notification and Involvement Techniques: proactive public involvement requires creative thinking. It goes beyond the actual techniques used to direct the methods that let people know about the process and educate them about the issues. Here are some ideas for notification and innovative involvement that might help to get the creative juices flowing.

Notification:

• Try postcards or flyers instead of standard notices on letterhead. It may get more attention.
  
• Use a brochure instead of a report to communicate summary information. Preprinted brochure papers available through most office paper supply companies make basic word processing look like elaborate graphic designs. They are easily distributed, relatively inexpensive, can be designed as mailers, and are eye catching.
  
• Don't forget word of mouth. As any salesman can tell you, it's the most effective means of generating interest.
  
• Use other groups' newsletters to publicize your process. Well-written articles are often welcomed by harried staff or volunteers struggling to get out newsletters. The same article can often be modified as to length and style and used in a variety of formats.
  
• Youth Corps have contacts in the "traditionally underserved" community that provide an opportunity to reach low-income and minority populations. Many communities have job training programs or Youth Corps that often include community service components. There is an opportunity to form partnerships with these organizations to "spread the word" about the transportation planning process and what alternatives are being considered.
  
• Start your own newsletter. Particularly for a long-term process, this can provide a forum for regular progress reports that will maintain visibility.
  
• Newspaper inserts reach a lot of people. Big circulation. Relatively low price.

Innovative Involvement:

• Have a non-traditional conference. Conferences do not have to be structured as passive listening to keynote speakers and panel discussions, waiting for a chance to ask a question. The Capital District Transportation Commission is using conferences at key milestones in its long range planning process as a way to promote dialogue between people who would not normally talk to each other and to generate structured discussion about proposed alternatives.
  
• Consider cable TV options. The televised public meeting and other cable TV opportunities were used effectively by the Puget Sound Regional Council in their long-range planning process. It can generate interest and involvement that you might not otherwise get.
  
• Use focus groups as a tool to gauge public opinion. Focus groups are a long-standing marketing tool used to understand the reactions of customers, or potential customers, to different ideas. If used with other techniques, they can provide insight into what public reaction to a new direction in policy might be.
  
• Slide shows or videos provide a visual demonstration that can spark discussion. Not everyone can relate to written reports, charts and tables, or even maps. Sometimes just providing the information in another format can generate input that would not otherwise be received. Both the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in Oakland, California and the Southwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission have used this technique effectively.
  
• Transportation Fairs or other special events provide major media opportunities. Media coverage generates involvement.
  
• Hot lines are useful for "hot" issues. Staffing the line with knowledgeable staff or volunteers is important for this to be effective.
  
• Visual preference surveys are a technique to test alternatives among "non-experts." Computer technology in this area is only getting better. It is becoming easier and easier to provide pictures that describe impacts better than words ever could.
  
• E-mail and electronic bulletin boards are becoming increasingly popular. If you have the staff to maintain it, this can be a way to generate input on specific proposals. Some places have community computer networks, which, due to their geographic focus, would be an ideal place to disseminate basic information about the process and to gather comments.
  
• Speakers Bureaus provide a visible face to the community. The Genessee Transportation Council in Rochester, New York circulates a list of topics on which their staff people are available to give luncheon speeches or other presentations to civic groups, professional organizations, neighborhood-based groups, and others. This greatly enhances their perceived accessibility to the public.
  

Other Processes to Strengthen ISTEA Public Involvement Provisions: there are three other pieces of major federal legislation that can be used to strengthen the public involvement provisions of ISTEA. Viewed as a package, ISTEA, the Clean Air Act, National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, provide a strong set of policies to open up the transportation planning process.

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA): ISTEA requires states and MPOs to coordinate the development of long range plans and TIPs with the development of plans for attainment of national air quality standards. It includes restrictions on state and local transportation planning and programming to insure that such efforts are consistent with the Clean Air Act as expressed in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). (Program for Community Problem Solving, 4/93, Collaborative Transportation Planning: Guidelines for Implementing ISTEA and the CAAA). Specific minimum requirements for public involvement under ISTEA (23 CFR 450.316(b)) which includes one annual public meeting in non-attainment areas, a 30-day review for the long range plan, the TIP and any major amendments to the plan or TIP apply to the determination of conformity with the Clean Air Act that is part of the plan in TIP adoption process. Because the technical procedures involved in air quality conformity (40 CFR part 51) involve the use of computer models to determine emissions of air pollutants, assumptions as to project scopes and schedules must be clearly stated. All technical documents related to air quality conformity determinations must be made available in a timely fashion to interested members of the public.

Essentially, the required integration of these two major pieces of national legislation is a tool that can be used to provide more complete information on overall program or plan impacts.

NEPA and State Environmental Processes: implementing the long range plan and the TIP happens on a project-by-project basis. Projects funded with federal-aid funds will be required to go through the environmental review process specified by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This process, which culminates in either a Record of Decision or a Finding of No Significant Impact by the FHWA and/or FTA, has its own set of public participation requirements. In particular, draft environmental impact statements or environmental assessments have specified public review periods and notification of interested parties requirements. It is at this stage that alternatives must be clearly articulated. Many states have corresponding or additional state environmental laws that apply to project development, as well. This is another stage in the process where public input can impact project design, scope, and/or schedule. Mailing lists are specifically developed for each project. By contacting the sponsoring agency and expressing an interest in being informed of project development activities, getting added to these mailing lists should be easy.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): as much as 14% of the U.S. population has hearing, vision, or mobility limitations. If you count temporary disabilities that impact part of many people's lives - age, infirmity, or injuries that require recuperation -- even greater numbers are involved. All events held for programs or projects funded with federal-aid and open to the general public must be made accessible to everyone, including the disability community. Special requirements, like sign language interpreters, or large print materials may also be required. Accessible facilities are always required. The requirements of ADA dovetail nicely with other public involvement procedures, and their incorporation into the overall public involvement program makes it easier for everyone to participate.

What is "Reasonable Access" to Technical Documents and Plans: reasonable access to technical documents and plans produced at major process milestones is:

• Mailing to a full list of known interested parties of the availability of the document and process/deadline for public comment;
• Press releases or public service announcements in the major media to the general public of the availability of the document;
• The deadline being far enough in the future (30 to 60 day minimum) to allow for enough time for thorough review;
• Placement of the document in public libraries in the affected geographic area at the very beginning of the review period;
• Designation of an informed and available staff person to answer basic inquiries;
• Availability of a summary document in accessible formats (free of charge) to anyone that requests it; and
• Provision of the full document (printing and/or postage charges may apply) to anyone that requests it.
  

Extended access includes free provision of the document (particularly if large), reasonable availability of staff to the public, including public informational meetings with visual displays, open houses, and an extensive media campaign that extends to more localized or specialized media.

Reasonable access to working papers and other interim documents is somewhat harder to define. Continuous 30-day periods for review would extend a planning process beyond a reasonable overall time period for completion. As a rule of thumb, working documents should be provided one week in advance of meetings where they are discussed and made available to those expressing a genuine interest on request.

Public Involvement at the State vs. Local Level -- Measures of Success: different participants in the transportation planning process are going to use different measures of success. Here are some sample questions that different players will ask themselves.

• Did we win?
• Was the process fair?
• Was I heard and respected?
• Will people participate the next time I ask them?
• Did it sell politically?
• Was consensus reached among the major stakeholders?
• Was the best technical solution chosen?
• Was the right decision made?
• Do we feel like celebrating?
  

The ISTEA regulations don't specify what constitutes success, but do require periodic evaluation of effectiveness of the methods used. Early on, it's important to figure out which of the measures of success YOU use to define effectiveness, and then to design a program (or insist on a program designed) to meet that goal.

Meaningful public involvement at the state level has some special considerations. The necessity of travel to attend meetings, difficulties of finding true representatives of statewide interests, and the need for strong interagency cooperation makes the application of certain techniques, such as Advisory Committees hard. The most successful approach is one that provides strong support, guidance, and partnership for MPO processes, supplemented by programs for non-metropolitan areas, and guided by explicit policies of statewide significance. It is appropriate for statewide processes to focus on policy matters that "fill the gaps" between metropolitan areas and provide "unifying themes" and guidance for the work of MPOs. Many of the techniques outlined above apply to state-level transportation planning processes, as do the "reasonable access to documents" provisions. ISTEA regulations (23 CFR 450.212) allow for public involvement activities carried out in metropolitan areas to satisfy state public involvement requirements in those areas (by mutual agreement). This only works if the state is providing consistent guidance, broad policy direction, and adequate support in an atmosphere of partnership.

Resources/Publications: there are a number of outstanding publications and resources available to help in both the design and execution of good public involvement programs in transportation planning. They include (but are by no means limited to):

Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) 1400 Sixteenth Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036. (202)-939-3470. An excellent source of information on the role of the public in implementing ISTEA, successful models of implementation, and much more.

The Network for Efficient, Safe and Sustainable Transportation (NESST), (202) 659-8475. Provides citizens and activists with useful information on effective participation in transportation planning.

National Association of Regional Councils (NARC). 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 1300, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 457-0710. NARC has developed regional workshops, materials, and demonstration projects to guide MPOs in the use of collaborative approaches for implementing ISTEA.

Program for Community Problem Solving, 915 15th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005. 202-783-2961. This non-profit group has been working with NARC to develop various conference materials and publications, including Working Together: Collaborative Approaches to Transportation Planning, and Collaborative Transportation Planning: Guidelines for Implementing ISTEA and the CAAA (4/93).

USDOT has published a variety of useful (and free!) publications that provide basic information about ISTEA, the Clean Air Act, public involvement, and other subjects. Contact your local FHWA Regional Office for a list of available publications. Noteworthy among these publications are:

Innovations in Public Involvement for Transportation Planning. January 1994.

Involving Citizens in Metropolitan Regional Transportation Planning. 1977 (FHWA/SES 77/11)

ISTEA: A Summary.

Air Quality Programs and Provisions of ISTEA: A Summary.

Transportation Programs and Provisions of the CAAA: A Summary.

Opportunities for Local Government under ISTEA.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Opportunities under ISTEA.

Transportation Research Board. Committee on Citizen Participation in Transportation. Contact: Florence Mills, Chairperson, FHWA Office of Environment and Planning (HEP-32), 400 7th Street, SW, Washington DC 20590, (202-366-2062). This committee sponsors research, conferences and workshops and collects "best case" examples of public participation under ISTEA.

James L. Creighton. The Public Involvement Manual. Abt Books, Cambridge, 1981. This textbook from the 1980s is now available through the American Planning Association's Planners Bookstore. It is an excellent "how to" manual.

The author wishes to acknowledge John Poorman, Dave Jukins, Christopher O'Neill, Ellen Griffin, A. Dean Wheatley, King Cushman, and Bill Habig for review and comment on an earlier draft of this paper. In addition, the format of Table 1 is based on a similar chart included as Attachment 4 of the Wisconsin Public Participation Process for Metropolitan Planning and Programming, published by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Division of Planning and Budget in November 1993.