Best Practices Public Participation
Reference
Prepared for:
California Department of Transportation
1120 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact: Del Deletetsky
Prepared by:
Jones & Stokes
2600 V Street
Sacramento, CA 95818- 1914
Contact: Danielle Wilson
916/ 737- 3000
Funding for this document was provided by the California
Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning,
State Planning and Research Program
June 2005
Jones & Stokes. 2005. Best Practices Public Participation Reference. June.
( J& S 05245.05) Sacramento, CA.
Contents
Page
Chapter 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1- 1
Chapter 2 Best Practice Tactics— Primer on Public Participation
Tactics ................................................................................................... 2- 1
Introduction............................................................................................. 2- 1
Public Participation Principles................................................................. 2- 1
Stakeholder Assessment .................................................................. 2- 2
Public Participation Plan ( Communications Plan)
Development........................................................................................... 2- 4
Public Participation Tools and Techniques............................................. 2- 5
Communication Materials ................................................................. 2- 5
Database Development and Contact Lists ....................................... 2- 6
Meetings, Forums, Charrettes, and Workshops ............................... 2- 7
Facilitation Tips................................................................................. 2- 9
Reaching Underrepresented Groups.............................................. 2- 11
Media Relations .............................................................................. 2- 11
Strengthening Ties to Communities................................................ 2- 12
Getting the Job Done...................................................................... 2- 13
Monitoring and Evaluating Success—.................................................. 2- 13
Chapter 3 Additional Resources........................................................................... 3- 1
Public Participation References.............................................................. 3- 1
Environmental Justice....................................................................... 3- 1
Transportation Planning.................................................................... 3- 1
Media Relations ................................................................................ 3- 2
Facilitation......................................................................................... 3- 2
Other................................................................................................. 3- 3
Chapter 4 Best Practices in Action....................................................................... 4- 1
How to Use Best Practices Sections ...................................................... 4- 1
General Strategies.................................................................................. 4- 1
Educate the Public About Caltrans ................................................... 4- 2
Publicize Outreach Plan and Results ............................................... 4- 2
Think Comprehensively .................................................................... 4- 2
Best Practices— Statewide and Regional Planning ................................ 4- 3
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
i
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
Introduction ....................................................................................... 4- 3
Opportunities & Challenges .............................................................. 4- 3
Best Practices Strategies.................................................................. 4- 4
Best Practices in Action .................................................................... 4- 4
Best Practices— Route and Corridor Specific Planning .......................... 4- 6
Introduction ....................................................................................... 4- 6
Opportunities & Challenges .............................................................. 4- 6
Best Practices Strategies.................................................................. 4- 7
Best Practices in Action .................................................................... 4- 7
Best Practices— Interagency Planning ................................................. 4- 10
Introduction ..................................................................................... 4- 10
Opportunities & Challenges ............................................................ 4- 10
Best Practices Strategies................................................................ 4- 10
Best Practices in Action .................................................................. 4- 12
Best Practices— Context Sensitive Solutions & Main Street
Planning................................................................................................ 4- 13
Introduction ..................................................................................... 4- 13
Opportunities and Challenges ........................................................ 4- 13
Best Practices Strategies................................................................ 4- 13
Best Practices in Action .................................................................. 4- 14
Chapter 5 Tribal Consultation .................................................................................. 1
Overview.................................................................................................... 1
Attachment A Stakeholder Surveys
Attachment B Automated Polling
Attachment C Focus Group Material
Attachment D Stakeholder Interview Results
Attachment E Public Participation Plan
Attachment F Newletters/ Announcements/ Flyers
Attachment G Brochures
Attachment H Key Messages/ Q& A
Attachment I Database Entry Screen Snapshots
Attachment J Translated Materials
Attachment K Focus Group Material
Attachment L Planning Charette Material
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
ii
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
Attachment M Community Briefing/ Workshop Material
Attachment N Open House Material
Attachment O Reaching Underrepresented Groups
Attachment P Media Relations
Appendix A Quick Reference Meeting Checklist
Appendix B Electronic Library of Sample Products
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
iii
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Office of Community Planning Division of Transportation Planning commissioned this Best
Practices Public Participation Reference in order to provide the California Department of
Transportation ( the Department or Caltrans) personnel with additional public outreach guidance.
This reference is a culmination of the activities supported by the Department’s Planning Public
Participation Contract over the past three years, and provides examples and samples of the many
deliverables from the task orders executed under the contract.
As a precondition to receiving federal funds for transportation projects, federal law requires
departments of transportation ( DOT) to involve all constituents, including the public. The
Federal Highway Administration’s ( FHWA’s) and the Federal Transit Administration’s ( FTA’s)
Interim Policy on Public Involvement also requires that DOTs provide an active role for the
public in developing transportation plans, programs, and projects— from the early stages of
planning through detailed project development, construction, and maintenance. Many DOTs also
emphasize public involvement in their planning efforts and projects simply because they believe
it is the right thing to do.
Recent polls across the country and throughout this state have also highlighted the public’s
concerns over land use and transportation issues, concerns that empowered the public in general
to make historic advances in their levels of involvement. The Department recognizes the need for
the continued attention to public involvement in the earliest planning stages— before a project is
designed unalterably or without extensive additional costs. Local agencies more than ever feel
the need to be involved in the land use and transportation planning efforts that impact the
communities they are trying to build.
This contract was executed in June 2002 in order to enhance public outreach efforts in the
Department’s transportation planning activities and to help meet legal requirements, including
engaging the public in the transportation planning process, meeting Title VI requirements to
include traditionally underrepresented groups, and consulting Indian Tribal Governments.
It is important to note that while FHWA Policy on public involvement requires that DOTs
provide an active role for the pubic in developing transportation plans and programs, getting the
“ general” public to actively participate is often no small task. Overcoming hurdles like the
“ suspicion of government, the emotions of stakeholders, and the politics of power plays ( as in the
resistance of neighborhood associations),” 1 requires extensive work upfront to plan and execute
successfully.
1 Forester, John F. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
1- 1
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Introduction
The purpose of this reference is to provide planners and project managers useful outreach
strategies, tools, and techniques used during the execution of this contract to help ensure panning
effort and project success. The contract supplements the Public Participation Guide prepared in
August 2002 and complements other Department efforts and policies. The Department’s policy
on context sensitive solutions is a process- driven policy that demands a fundamental shift
involving communities. This community involvement process demands that all stakeholders be
engaged, influential, and informed decision makers.
Another goal of this reference is to provide planners the consensus- building strategies, tools, and
techniques that help balance stakeholder values during transportation planning activities.
Collaboration with local communities is needed to ensure that both the Department and the
communities understand the local context of long- range transportation planning. The keys
presented in this reference will help planners acquire the skills needed to successfully
communicate the local context of their long- range transportation planning.
This reference should assist districts interested in moving to a more active public involvement
and collaboration approach early in the planning process. Effectively changing the trajectory of
public participation efforts beyond just notification and information by more actively engaging
and collaborating with stakeholders, including the broader general public, will ultimately benefit
the Department’s transportation decision making.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
1- 2
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
Chapter 2
Best Practice Tactics— Primer on Public
Participation Tactics
Introduction
This section outlines the general principles to apply in the development of a public participation
strategy as well as a brief description of typical outreach tactics. It is not intended to be an
exhaustive discussion, but rather to provide an introduction to the types of activities to consider in
the development of a public participation strategy. Electronic versions of the examples provided
in Attachments A– P are made available to you in the electronic library contained in Appendix B.
All materials in Appendix B are filed by both the attachment number and the District number for
ease of use.
Many resources are available that describe the variety of public participation activities, outreach
techniques, and factors associated with effective implementation. A list of suggested resources
and references is included in Chapter 4.
Public Participation Principles
A key element of any public participation effort is to identify the desired level of public
engagement. This varies depending on the specific planning effort. In some cases, the desired
level will be to inform the public about decisions that have already been made and to
communicate the anticipated planning effort or project impacts. In other cases, it will be to ask
for public input about decisions that are being considered and have already been analyzed to
some extent. In still other cases, the focus of the public participation program will be to engage
the public in assisting with identifying planning solutions and, potentially, participating in the
decision- making process. According to the International Association for Public Participation
( IAP2) 1, public engagement in transportation planning can be conceptualized at the following
levels:
􀂄 informing the public— providing the public with balanced and objective information to help
them understand the problems, alternatives and/ or solutions;
􀂄 consulting the public— obtaining public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/ or decisions;
1 Practitioner Tools, International Association for Public Participation ( IAP2) website, 2005, Available at:
< http:// iap2. org/ practitionertools/ index. shtml>.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 1
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
􀂄 involving the public— working directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that
public issues and concerns are consistently understood and considered;
􀂄 collaborating with the public— partnering with the public in each aspect of the decision
including the development of alternatives and the identification of a preferred solution; and
􀂄 empowering the public— placing the final decision- making in the hands of the public.
Based on the desired level of public engagement, the public participation strategy will vary.
Strategy is also influenced by the identified target audiences, past history, and other external
factors associated with a planning effort or project . Regardless of the planned activities,
audiences, and levels of desired engagement, the most effective public participation activities are
guided by the following key principles.
􀂄 The public tends to support what it helps create.
􀂄 Public participation/ public involvement programs must be sincere attempts to involve the
public in decision- making.
􀂄 Communication must be targeted to everyone who has a stake in the planning activity, not
just the public at large or a select few individuals or groups that demand the most attention.
􀂄 The outreach program must be sensitive to accommodate multi- cultural demographics and the
traditionally underrepresented.
􀂄 Information must be factual, accurate, consistent and presented in a timely fashion.
􀂄 Information must be presented to the public in terms and formats that they can understand.
􀂄 Communications need to be regular, consistent, and repetitive to compete effectively with the
many other messages/ issues in the marketplace.
􀂄 Issues must be communicated in terms of the local context, particularly long- range
transportation planning issues.
Stakeholder Assessment
The typical process for developing a public participation strategy involves some form of
assessment to identify audiences, issues, and potential challenges. Once baseline information is
collected, which could be obtained through primary research ( surveys or interviews) secondary
research ( review of past documents, previous outreach results, anecdotal information, etc.), or a
combination of the two, a series of outreach tactics are prescribed. The information below
provides a brief definition of each public participation tactic and when it is most effectively
applied.
If transportation planners want to communicate in terms of the local context, they must know the
stakeholders and understand the stakeholder issues. Stakeholders include anyone who is
determined to have a stake in the planning effort. This could be impacted residents; businesses;
neighborhood associations; business organizations; elected officials; local, regional, state and
federal representatives; environmental groups, and anyone else that may be impacted or interested
in the planning effort. Stakeholder assessments lead to the determination of key stakeholder
issues and concerns, how stakeholders should be involved and consulted, and how to best meet
their needs. Examples of tools to conduct these assessments include the following.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 2
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
􀂄 Telephone/ Mail- Back Surveys are used to gather input from a cross- section of the public.
Statistically valid results are more persuasive with political bodies and the general public, but
can be expensive and labor intensive, as response rates are generally low.
Examples: As part District 9’ s Bishop Area Access and Circulation Study, the Department
implemented several public opinion surveys to identify top transportation issues, priorities and
acceptable solutions to improve downtown congestion. Three separate surveys were
conducted from December 2004 through April 2005, which included
􀂉 a statistically valid telephone survey targeting 400 Bishop area residents and businesses
to gauge top transportation issues,
􀂉 a business specific paper survey targeting area businesses located primarily on Main
Street, and
􀂉 a Mammoth- bound paper survey to obtain data from travelers passing through Bishop to
get to Mammoth.
The survey instruments varied for each study but all posed questions having to do with
downtown traffic and potential new roadway alignments in order to identify issues, concerns
and potential social, economic, and overall lifestyle affects of these various population
segments when posed questions having to do with downtown traffic and potential new relative
to a new roadway alignments. Examples of these surveys can be found in Attachment A.
􀂄 CoNexus Automated Polling Technology is useful for capturing real- time opinion
assessments from large groups. Participants “ vote” or cast their opinions on a variety of
topics with user- friendly remote control “ clickers.” Immediate, visual results prompt
discussion and provide useful data for staff analysis. CoNexus Automated Polling
Technology allows the entire group to understand the demographic categories of the meeting
attendees— while still maintaining the audience’s anonymity. Multiple approaches can be
used to gather information such as paired comparison questions, forced ranking, and
multiple- choice questions.
Examples: District 10 utilized automated polling to establish a partnership with Metropolitan
Planning Organizations ( MPOs) for its integrated planning effort. See the District’s results
for an example of how this technology can enhance your workshop and associated planning
efforts ( Attachment B).
􀂄 Focus Groups are comprised of randomly selected members of target audiences who are
brought together to obtain input on a specific topic. They are typically used at the beginning
of an outreach effort and may inform future research studies. They provide a relatively
inexpensive way of gathering data from stakeholders and allow for in- depth exchange of
information about a particular topic. Professional focus group facilities and random
recruitment can be expensive; however, informal groups of specifically targeted participants
can be very effective for testing key messages, obtaining reactions to planned outreach
activities, or understanding challenges and roadblocks to potential planning and project
elements.
Example: As part of its ongoing planning efforts, District 3 employed a series of focus
groups to obtain information about obstacles to bicycling, impediments to effective
implementation, and opinions about specific routes. Results from these focus groups are to
be used in a district- wide bicycle strategy to guide bicycle planning for the next ten years.
Examples of the focus group agenda, questions, and sample letter are provided for reference
( Attachment C).
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 3
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
􀂄 Stakeholder Interviews are direct one- on- one contact with individual stakeholders. Often, a
pre- set list of questions is developed so that all stakeholders address some of the same
questions. In addition, flexibility is built in to allow for stakeholders to share additional
information, related issues and/ or address specific or new issues in more detail. They can be
an effective tool for identifying key obstacles that assist in refining the outreach plan and
project elements of the planning effort, and are also effective for building relationships
between stakeholders and planning team members. If possible, in- person contact is preferred;
however, phone interviews are often just as informative and can be a relatively quick and
cost- effective method for obtaining useful information.
Example: District 3 engaged in a series of stakeholder interviews as part its efforts in the
development of the Tahoe Basin Communications Plan ( TBCP) and supporting materials.
These discussions included one- on- one conversations and situation analysis relating to the
current perceptions of the Department’s outreach efforts in the Tahoe Basin. Telephone
interviews were conducted with key community leaders, business leaders, and public agency
representatives that are well respected and recognized within the Tahoe Basin. The results of
these discussions were used to develop the TBCP and the public outreach brochure . A copy
of both are provided for reference ( Attachment D).
Public Participation Plan ( Communications Plan)
Development
The goal of a Public Participation Plan is to provide a blueprint public involvement that is
conducive to collecting meaningful and timely stakeholder and general public input related to
developing and implementing a particular planning effort. A secondary result will be public
support for the final plan or design, and a shared vision for the future implementation of the
planning effort among planning partners, stakeholders, and the public.
Participation by the public in the design and development of a particular planning effort is a
critical component to ultimately implement a successful effort— one that will be used and enjoyed
by the community for many years to come. A successful public participation plan should be
developed with the following objectives.
􀂄 Establish an understanding of the problem solving and decision- making process that will be
used on the effort, so that the citizens know how they can participate and what is being done.
􀂄 Review and determine the validity of previous assumptions and earlier decisions on the
effort.
􀂄 Identify all the potentially relevant problems associated with the effort.
􀂄 Generate alternatives for solving, preventing, and rectifying problems created by the effort.
􀂄 Articulate and clarify the key issues.
􀂄 Communicate information so that it is received and is understandable.
􀂄 Establish methods so that the problem solvers and decision makers receive information.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 4
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
The techniques used to accomplish these objectives and achieve informed consent for a planning
effort or project should correspond to the desired level of public participation. Those techniques
and the associated guidelines for when and how to use them are provided below.
Example: District 11 planning staff developed a comprehensive public participation plan and
consent- building strategy to support its on- going efforts along the region’s northern portion of the
I- 5 corridor. This document will serve as a roadmap for developing and implementing targeted
outreach and public involvement activities to encourage early and sustainable public support for
the Department’s on- going improvements on this corridor. A copy of this plan is provided for
reference ( Attachment E).
Public Participation Tools and Techniques
Communication Materials
The following materials can be used to help communicate about the planning effort where
applicable.
􀂄 Newsletters/ announcements/ flyers⎯ These printed materials can be used to reach large
targeted audiences with key planning information. They can be re- purposed for other uses
such as news releases and edited for use in other organizations’ newsletters to leverage
outreach to additional audiences. They also can be used to encourage planning effort or
project input, through the inclusion of survey information or a simple “ tear off and return”
comment card. Materials should be written in plain language, be short and concise,
communicate key messages, and incorporate an appealing design to attract attention
Example: District 5, through its efforts related to State Route 227, produced a series of
materials used to encourage public involvement. Provided for reference are examples of the
materials developed for this purpose including an initial meeting announcement with a
subsequent postcard reminder for the two meeting outreach effort ( Attachment F).
􀂄 Brochures⎯ Developing a visually pleasing and informative brochure can go far in
furthering a broad or a specific effort. Through the use of photos, key messages, and targeted
information, these materials should be used to grab and hold the public’s attention, thus
informing and generating support for the effort it is promoting.
Examples:
District 10, through its efforts related to the District System Management Plan, created a
brochure about transportation planning and local assistance. Topics covered in the brochure
include an overview of different programs, the life cycle of a project, functions of the
transportation planning department, and partners in transportation planning.
District 3 developed a brochure to provide information about its Transportation Concept
Report ( TCR) document and process. Specifically, the brochure contained information in an
effort to ( 1) get the public involved in the TCR planning process; ( 2) assist the public in
providing information about the TCR through a detachable comment card; and ( 3) provide
information about the TCR in an easy, understandable format. The general TCR brochure
was also developed in Spanish and Braille.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 5
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
Copies of both of these brochures are provided for reference. ( Attachment G).
􀂄 Key messages and/ or Q& A Fact Sheet⎯ Include typical and anticipated planning effort and
community- related questions and answers. If stakeholder interviews or assessments are part
of the proposed outreach effort, they can provide a good foundation. These can be provided
to planning effort spokespersons, stakeholders and community leaders in advance of public
events.
Example: A question and answer fact sheet ensures that standard and consistent information
is communicated accurately. Prior to a public outreach meeting for its San Pablo Dam Road
Interchange Project, District 4 and other project partners brainstormed anticipated questions
from the public based on inquiries received and on educated guesses about particular topic
areas. Answers to the questions were then developed and utilized in the final materials. It is
important to receive approval from all project members, including Public Information
Officers, while developing answers ( Attachment H).
􀂄 Website⎯ This tool can be used to inform and educate, as well as to provide an opportunity
for feedback. Websites ( particularly interactive websites) are often optimal for the public
because users can access a wide variety of information and provide feedback at their
convenience. When important new information is added to websites, a notification about its
availability will help ensure that the public takes full advantage of web- based planning effort
engagement.
􀂄 Video⎯ Use this tool for education and to address comments received from the public in the
early stages of the planning effort. In general, videos are rarely used due to the significant
time and resources required to produce and distribute them.
Database Development and Contact Lists
Whether or not a stakeholder assessment is undertaken, an outreach effort database is a key
element of any public participation strategy. The database is used to communicate key
information through meeting announcements invitations, newsletters, summaries, and other event
and activity information about the planning effort. Database enhancements include a separate
email database for quick, efficient and inexpensive outreach; inclusion of both site address and
property owner to reach absentee property owners; and a useful “ notes” section that includes
community newsletter information ( timing of publication, specifications of communication
materials). Databases and supporting software should be designed for easy manipulation and
should allow users to sort data by category depending on the particular need at each stage of the
outreach effort. Examples of categories ( or data fields) that may be useful for identifying a
particular contact for future sorting and creation of mailing labels include community- based
and/ or faith- based organizations, advocacy groups, MPOs, schools, Tribal Governments, and so
forth. Specific planning databases are a work in progress, augmented throughout the life of the
planning effort as other stakeholders become informed or interested in the planning effort or
project.
Example: Department Headquarters Grants Program developed a database to not only maintain
and manipulate key contact data, but also to track correspondence generated by the Department
and its constituents pertaining to a particular grant- related effort and the types of the information
distributed by Headquarters Grants Program in response to the inquiry. Provided for reference is
the brochure created for the Grants Program ( Attachment I). Additionally, the database is
designed to track and manipulate the types of grants applied for, the number of applications
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 6
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
submitted, and the types of funding awarded. The ability to track and manipulate information in
this nature makes responding to requests for information by elected officials much more
expedient and efficient. ( See Attachment I for database snapshots.)
Meetings, Forums, Charrettes, and Workshops
Public meetings, open houses, community forums, charrettes, and visioning workshops are held
primarily to inform, consult, and involve the public. Successful public forums require extensive
upfront planning. It is key to remember these four tips when preparing to reach out to your
community in a public setting.
1. Implement activities in association with advocacy groups, civic leaders, ministers, and local
school districts that serve the identified communities.
2. Provide information in formats and languages that are relevant and readily understood.
3. Create information materials that educate and inform the various audiences about the
planning effort and highlight opportunities for involvement.
4. Hold meetings in a convenient and familiar location within the community, using one of the
following venues.
a. One- on- one briefings⎯ A dynamic component of public involvement that helps to break
down barriers between people and the planning effort. Provide a time and a place for
face- to- face contact and two- way communications.
b. Stakeholder meetings— Best used in a small group setting, this forum provides
opportunities to check- in with your key project partners and constituents. Ongoing
contact with stakeholder helps to avoid surprises and unexpected opposition as well as to
encourage continued broader community support through informed stakeholder outreach
efforts. When working with stakeholders, it is useful to create a contact sheet at the
initiation of an effort. Maintaining a list of planning effort partner contacts, key
stakeholders, and consultants for easy information gathering and distribution is an
effective timesaving tool for managing related tasks.
c. Small group briefings— For a handful of individuals and representatives of larger
organizations with similar issues/ objectives and who typically share philosophies.
Example: For purposes of supporting the three above- referenced forums, use of
translated materials is highly encouraged; Districts 4, 6, and 10 developed a variety of
materials in the languages primarily understood by their constituents. Examples of some
of these translated meeting announcements and brochures can be found in Attachment J.
d. Focus Groups— As stated earlier, is a tool used to gauge public opinion. This venue is a
way to identify customer concerns, needs, wants, and expectations. A focus group
informs planning effort sponsors of the attitudes and values that customers, constituents
or stakeholders hold and why. It can help drive policy development, programs and
services and resource allocation.
Example: District 9 utilized a focus group to further its efforts related to the Bishop Area
Access and Circulation Study. The chief purpose of this focus group was to gather
perceptions and opinions about the potential impacts of a proposed bypass or alternate
route ( Attachment K).
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 7
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
e. Charrettes— Intensive sessions in which participants create or review concepts and/ or
designs. Charettes serve to empower participants to work together in support of future
planning efforts. Charrettes are invaluable in that they allow participants to understand
several sides of the issues. The resulting “ buy- in” or consensus often has a positive effect
in reducing opposition at later stages of planning and project implementation.
Remember, charrettes are intensive efforts usually requiring several back- to- back
meetings and a continuous commitment from management to support the effort over
some period of time.
Example: District 5 conducted a series of planning charrettes to support its efforts related
to State Route 227. The Department, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments aimed to build a community vision for a residential area
of the City along a portion of State Route 227. The outcome of the planning charrettes
was a successful and diverse community planning process that resulted in useful input,
including a preferred area map and prioritized community values, for the planners.
Outreach efforts to support this effort included background research, internal planning
meetings, a stakeholder database, preparation and multi- language translation of fact
sheets, meeting announcements, news releases, and radio spots, community meeting
facilitation, and media relations. Related planning charrette materials, including small
group facilitation guides developed, are included for reference ( Attachment L).
f. Community briefings or workshops— Informational meetings with a community group
and/ or leader. Elected officials, business leaders, the media, regional groups, or special
interest groups can participate. These venues usually involve issue- focused
communication between agency administrators, project managers, board members or a
specific group or part of the community.
Example: District 10, in support of its District System Management Plan efforts, met
with local community based organizations prior to workshops scheduled in the planning
area. District 10 staff met with the Modesto NAACP, representing the African American
Communities; El Concilio, representing the Latino community; and a Hmong
Community Services Center in Merced, representing the Hmong community ( Attachment
M).
g. Open House— An informal setting in which people get information about a plan or
project, open houses have no set formal agenda. Unlike in meetings, no formal
discussions and presentations take place, and there are no audience seats. Instead, people
get information informally from exhibits and staff and are encouraged to give opinions,
comments, and preferences to staff either verbally or in writing.
Example: D11, in partnership with SANDAG, conducted a series of open houses to
encourage public participation and preferred project alternative selection. Open houses
were held at times and locations that were convenient and readily accessible. Media,
legislative staff, public agency staff and the community at large attended and provided
input on the project alternatives. Materials encouraging participation at the open house
and the project in general are provided for reference ( Attachment N).
Other suggestions for a successful open house include the following.
􀂄 Provide transportation, childcare services, and refreshments as part of open houses to
encourage participation.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 8
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
􀂄 Use visual aids and community leaders to facilitate discussions about problems, alternatives,
and possible outcomes.
􀂄 Bring the Public Information Officers ( PIO) into the outreach efforts for the planning
activities as early in the process as possible.
􀂄 Coordinate with project partners’ media relations departments to determine the approach and
timing for both news media and editorial board endorsement. This will help reach a larger
audience and educate the public on the purpose, need and associated activities of the planning
effort or project. Prepare processes for proactive and reactive media scenarios. Identify
media targets and create a media contact list, including print, broadcast and electronic
sources. Identify media spokespersons and conduct media training as necessary.
􀂄 Consider providing a trained, qualified facilitator. A facilitator can ensure a public meeting
runs as smoothly as possible. Facilitators define roles, responsibilities and limitations up
front. The use of ground rules, flipchart note- taking and comment time limits help control
information flow. Use of a neutral or third party facilitator for topics with perceived conflict
helps ensure implementation of a process that participants deem to be fair.
Many of these strategies may be applied during both the early outreach development and
implementation stages. For additional tips on successful public meetings and community
outreach, refer to Appendix A for a quick reference meeting checklist.
Facilitation Tips
The role of a facilitator is to create an atmosphere and process to assist a group in increasing its
effectiveness. Group problem- solving, decision- making, creation of a trusting and effective
group culture, effective communication, and accomplishing stated goals are all essential elements
of group dynamic. Some key points for successfully facilitating a discussion include the
following.
Starting the Meeting
􀂄 Have a clear agenda.
􀂄 Arrange the room to create a comfortable setting conducive to discussion.
􀂉 Participants and facilitator can hear and see one another.
􀂉 Meeting room temperature, seating, visual aids, and space are comfortable.
􀂉 Participants can visually access any visual aids.
􀂄 Provide refreshments whenever possible.
􀂄 Start on time.
􀂄 Introduce a brief warm- up or icebreaker to serve to introduce participants.
􀂄 Post and review the agenda; ask for additions/ changes to agenda. ( Note: agenda should
point out a clear objective for the meeting.)
􀂄 Post group ground rules, if developed.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 9
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
􀂉 Develop group ground rules, if not developed.
During the Meeting
􀂄 Support participation from all members.
􀂉 Ask open- ended questions.
􀂉 Encourage the use of examples.
􀂉 Applaud creativity and “ off the wall” ideas.
􀂉 Use “ tell me more…” to explore ideas.
􀂉 “ Listen” for nonverbal cues.
􀂄 Maintain focus on the task.
􀂄 Help build agreements.
􀂄 Stay positive.
􀂄 Remain neutral.
􀂄 Translate the community’s input into real decisions— try to make at least one decision.
􀂄 Use visuals- flip charts, other aids.
􀂄 Use humor whenever possible.
􀂄 Acknowledge participation.
Ending the Meeting
􀂄 End on time unless the group agrees otherwise.
􀂄 Review and acknowledge meeting accomplishments.
􀂉 Determine next steps: what needs to happen before the next meeting, what is the
tentative agenda for the meeting?
After the Meeting
􀂄 Evaluate outreach efforts after a meeting/ event.
Reaching Underrepresented Groups
Beyond complying with specific environmental justice public outreach requirements, promoting
more involvement from underrepresented groups at all levels fosters a mutually beneficial
relationship between public agencies and the communities they serve. To be meaningful to these
communities, public information about plans or projects should show consideration for specific
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 10
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
cultural sensitivities such as how information is shared within these communities and what
translation and interpretation needs may be associated with a target audience. Preliminary
screening to identify minority and low- income populations ( and other demographic variables,
such as age or disability status), even prior to the preparation of environmental documentation, is
important for the selection of appropriate outreach tactics. Tailoring outreach techniques can be
as simple as holding public meetings that are sensitive to non- traditional work schedules in an
effort to reach a lower- income audience or working through existing communication networks
that are important to under- represented groups ( such as local churches).
A few key points to adhere to when engaging underrepresented communities are the following.
􀂄 Respect cultural diversity.
􀂄 Aim to build relationships.
􀂄 Meet in their communities.
􀂄 Invest in long- term communication strategies.
􀂄 Remember to include youth, seniors, and the disabled.
􀂄 Use specialists for specific groups when appropriate.
􀂄 Be certain to follow- up.
Example: The Headquarters Grants Program, in conjunction with District 6, conducted a
workshop to promote the availability of public funding ( grants) to communities for enhancing
transportation- related needs. District 6 encouraged attendance by providing on- site childcare,
translation services, translated materials, and refreshments that were representative of the
communities it hosted. Additionally, District 6 engaged in targeted outreach efforts to community
and faith- based organizations, media, public agencies and other key stakeholder through
telephone contact and written material distribution. Examples of the materials designed for this
effort, are provided for reference ( Attachment O).
Media Relations
Good media relations are critical for effective information dissemination. Be prepared for media
encounters and be as informative and helpful as possible. Before planning efforts or projects are
ready for publicity, spend time with reporters and editors to educate them on the issues so that
when the time comes for a story, they already have a firm understanding based on accurate
information. Effective relations with print, television and radio media can reach the general
public at large; use this opportunity to portray planning efforts in clear, accurate light and to
publicize opportunities for public input such as websites, public meetings, and open houses.
Press releases and public service announcements are inexpensive ways to solicit news coverage
and to communicate information; soliciting editorial board support can help sway public opinion
about a planning effort, and working directly with reporters to develop feature stories can provide
valuable planning context for the general public.
Example: Through their use and engagement with the media, Districts 6 and 10 successfully
generated great public interest and support in their Highway 99 planning efforts. Media outreach
efforts included distribution and publication of news releases, calendar notices, public- service
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 11
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
announcements, and radio and newspaper advertisements. Special focus and attention were
directed to reaching and encouraging participation from underrepresented community media
outlets. The result of these efforts was a high participation rate at the meetings from members of
the media and the public. Multiple television, radio, and newspaper interviews and stories
resulted from this extensive media outreach effort. Copies of the media materials used can be
found in Attachment P.
Strengthening Ties to Communities
It is important to note that when engaging in public involvement, planners should seek to
maintain relationships with communities even after a planning effort has been completed. These
relationships build trust between public agencies and the communities they serve, and they
provide a valuable channel of communication to address emerging issues and needs in a timely
manner.
The following are some strategies for strengthening ties to communities.
􀂄 Establish a collaborative relationship with local, regional, and tribal governments, and
leverage local resources whenever possible.
􀂄 Build capacity in communities by providing assistance to non- profit organizations to facilitate
meetings, publicize events, and utilize ethnic media.
􀂄 Keep working on the “ relevance” message— be able to successfully communicate to
stakeholders the local context of the Department’s long- range transportation planning.
􀂄 Form citizen’s advisory committees, if not already established.
􀂄 Arrange for managers from various functional areas/ agencies, as appropriate ( including PIO),
to be present at public hearings.
􀂄 Consider the cultural and historical aspects of communities in planning and implementing
outreach efforts.
􀂄 Foster a constructive dialogue among all stakeholders— including minority and low- income
communities and tribal governments— to incorporate community values in planning and
project development.
􀂄 Provide feedback and updates through newsletters, websites, and press advisories.
􀂄 Demonstrate responsiveness to the comments and questions raised at public meetings.
These strategies are applicable during the life of a planning effort ( e. g., during public scoping
meetings), as well as during ongoing planning activities, policy development, and public
education.
Getting the Job Done
The most important element for outreach of planning activities is to develop a proactive strategy
for communicating with and engaging the public. Identifying stakeholders and assessing issues
will help to ensure selection of the most appropriate tactics for reaching the public; soliciting
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 12
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
input will help achieve the planning objective; and timing outreach will help keep the planning
effort on schedule. The most common mistake regarding public participation is to underestimate
the time and expertise it takes to engage the public, especially for planning efforts that may have
environmental justice implications. Do not hesitate to bring in a professional public participation
team or expert to assist with the design and implementation of your planning effort.
Monitoring and Evaluating Success—
A critical element of public participation planning and implementation is monitoring and
evaluating success. To be most meaningful and to ensure outreach effectiveness during the life of
a particular planning effort or project, evaluation and assessment should take place continually
throughout the process. This provides the opportunity to adjust and re- evaluate, as necessary, and
provides critical feedback for the development and implementation of future outreach efforts.
Monitoring and evaluation take place in two ways: ( 1) through two- way communication –
through input gathered at meetings, feedback gained from interaction with target audiences, and
comments provided through comment cards or surveys, and ( 2) through proactive identification
of deficiencies by outreach practitioners. Both methods should be employed throughout the
outreach process and provide essential insight into outreach effectiveness. In the Practicing
Planner article “ Evaluating With the Public,” Willi Paul noted, “ Joining public participation and
project evaluation can also help promote inclusiveness and accountability, two objectives that are
important to planners. By evaluating as we go, we will be more cognizant of whether the
participation process is inclusive and project sponsors are accountable.” 2
Monitoring and evaluation should be addressed in a holistic and project- specific manner. For
every outreach effort, evaluation should be a key component. This includes obtaining input and
feedback early in the process from the constituencies that are targeted as key audiences and
confirming which public outreach opportunities are the best ways to reach them. Evaluation
continues through the life of the planning effort or project⎯ through interim post- meeting
debriefs, review of comment cards, and solicitation of direct verbal comments from meeting and
agency participants. The Department can also directly solicit input from target audiences, such as
advisory committees and members of the general public who are playing a continuous role in the
planning effort or project, to gain input on how they view the effort, the effectiveness of the
outreach activities in reaching all affected groups, and the Department’s responsiveness to input.
Soliciting such input will assist the Department in determining whether the goals and objectives
of the public participation program are being achieved as well as help confirm the public’s and
other stakeholders’ general perceptions about the Department and past and current activities.
At the conclusion of each effort, a planning, project or outreach summary should be developed to
assess the program’s effectiveness. This should include, at a minimum, a summary of the
outreach activities conducted, comments and conclusions reached at public outreach venues,
media coverage, key communication materials and distribution methods, identification of targeted
stakeholder groups, and an analysis of the number of participants including representation from
traditionally underrepresented groups. Each summary should also include a “ lessons learned”
2 Paul, Willi. Evaluating With the Public. The Planning Practice article. Vol. 2. No. 3. 2004,
http:// www. planning. org/ practicingplanner/
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 13
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Primer on Public Participation Tactics
section, describing how the process and various outreach products can improve effectiveness in
the future
In addition, through the use of surveys, general comment cards, and talking directly with
members of the public or other stakeholder groups, the Department should periodically undertake
efforts to assess general perceptions about Caltrans. This type of input can be collected at public
meetings and through attendance at community group meetings. Often these perceptions are
shaped by specific interactions or responses to a particular planning effort or project. In other
cases, perceptions are formed by word- of- mouth communications, evidence of Caltrans activities
on state highways and, in some cases, through experience⎯ both bad and good⎯ with totally
unrelated planning efforts or projects. The Department should make it a regular practice to seek
general and project- specific input at public meetings and other outreach venues. The Department
may want to consider providing a “ Caltrans Information Station” at each public interaction venue.
This station would provide general information about Caltrans as well as information about
related Caltrans planning efforts or projects, providing a one- stop center for interested
stakeholders to become informed and engaged in the planning process.
Lastly, remember that the number of participants, while important, do not tell the whole story
when assessing successful outreach. There is always “ value” in getting a few “ committed” and
“ civic- minded” participants to engage in transportation activities.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
2- 14
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
Chapter 3
Additional Resources
Public Participation References
Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice In California State Government, Office of Governor Gray Davis, October
2003, < http:// www. opr. ca. gov/ publications/ PDFs/ OPR_ EJ_ Report_ Oct2003. pdf>.
General Plan Guidelines, Governors Office of Planning and Research, 2003,
< http:// www. opr. ca. gov/ planning/ PDFs/ General_ Plan_ Guidelines_ 2003. pdf>.
Environmental Justice In Transportation Planning and Investments, January 2003,
< http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tpp/ offices/ opar/ EJDeskGuideJan03. pdf>.
Transportation Planning
A Citizen's Guide to Transportation Decision- making Federal Highway Administration, 2001,
< http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ planning/ citizen/ index. htm>.
Conferences, Workshops and Retreats, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration, < http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ reports/ pittd/ confwksp. htm>.
Moore, C. Nicholas and Dave Davis, Participation Tools for Better Land- Use Planning:
Techniques and Case Studies, 2001, Sacramento, CA, Center for Livable Communities, Local
Government Commission.
Public Participation Guide, Caltrans, Division of Transportation Planning, Office of Community
Planning, August 6, 2002, < http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tpp/ offices/ ocp/ pp. htm>.
Public Involvement Techniques, Federal Highway Administration & Federal Transit
Administration, 2002, < http:// www. planning. dot. gov/ Pitool/ toc. asp>.
Public Involvement Techniques, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration, < http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ reports/ pittd/ pubmeet. htm>.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
3- 1
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Additional Resources
Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision- making, Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration. 1996,
< http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ reports/ pittd/ cover. htm>.
Smith, Steve A., Report 435 – Guidebook for Transportation Corridor Studies: A Process for
Effective Decision- Making, Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 1999.
Media Relations
Bernstein Crisis Management, www. bernsteincrisismanagement. com
Media Strategies, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration,
< http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ reports/ pittd/ media. htm>.
Mitchell Friedman Communications, < http:// www. mitchellfriedman. com>.
Facilitation
Cogan, Elaine. Successful Public Meetings: A Practical Guide, Chicago, IL, 2000, American
Planning Association Planners Book Service.
Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, New York, Simon and Schuster,
1989.
Doyle, Michael and David Straus. How To Make Meetings Work. New York: The Berkley
Publishing Group, 1976.
Heron, John. The Facilitator’s Handbook, 1989, Kogan Page.
Iacofano, Danie. Meeting of the Minds: A Guide to Successful Meeting Facilitation, 2001,
Berkeley, CA, MIG Communications.
Institute for Cultural Affairs “ Group Facilitation Methods” Training ( Contact: 800- 742- 4032).
Kaner, Sam. Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision- Making, 1996, Gabriola Island, BC,
Canada, New Society Publishers.
Schwarz, Roger M. The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups.
Jossey- Bass, Inc., 1994.
Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New
York: Doubleday, 1990.
Tropman, John E. Successful Community Leadership: A Skill Guide for Volunteers and
Professionals. NASW Press, 1997.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
3- 2
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Additional Resources
Van Oeck, Roger. A Whack on the Side of the Head. Warren books, 1990.
What is a Charrette? National Charrette Institute website, 2005,
< http:// www. charretteinstitute. org/ charrette. html>.
Other
Practitioner Tools, International Association of Public Participation ( IAP2) website, 2005,
< http:// iap2. org/ practitionertools/ index. shtml>.
Forester, John F. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes,
1999, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Paul, Willi. Evaluating With the Public. The Planning Practice article. Vol. 2. No. 3. 2004,
< http:// www. planning. org/ practicingplanner/>.
Youth VOICES in Community Design Handbook California, Center for Civic Participation and
Youth Development. 2004, < http:// www. californiacenter. org/ voices/ frames_ case. html>.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
3- 3
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
Chapter 4
Best Practices in Action
How to Use Best Practices Sections
This chapter presents recommended strategies and actions, or “ Best Practices,” designed to
improve the effectiveness of public outreach for a range of specific planning efforts. In
particular, these Best Practices focus on approaches to gather public input for the purposes of
improving planning and project design and implementation, increasing public awareness of
Department responsibilities, and building trust for its motivations and actions.
Planning efforts always involve challenges in identifying and responding to public concerns.
Best Practices are strategies that help integrate outreach tactics to respond to these challenges and
opportunities. The Best Practices discussed below point out specific considerations such as level
of awareness of the general public, complexity of issues that confront the impacted public,
planning effort timing, and others.
Typically, multiple outreach tactics exist that can be used to implement a particular strategy; for
example, tactics for a given education strategy might include public workshops, fact sheets, and
one- on- one meetings. Stakeholder assessments are important to determine which specific tactics
would be most effective for a given transportation effort.
Each section of this chapter outlines the opportunities and challenges presented by a type of
planning effort, followed by a description of the Best Practices strategies that will help address
these opportunities and challenges. This discussion is followed by a case study that illustrates
tactics that a specific district used to carry out an overall outreach plan for soliciting public input.
Sample materials from the case studies can also be found in electronic format, filed in Appendix
B by both the attachment letter and the District number.
When referring to the materials contained in this reference guide, planning staff must reference
the primer in conjunction with the individual planning effort chapters and with the results of the
stakeholder assessment.
General Strategies
The following general strategies should be considered when implementing a public outreach
effort for any planning process in the Department that is designed to raise public awareness and
understanding about the agency and to strengthen its credibility.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 1
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
Educate the Public About Caltrans
In order to form an accurate opinion of the Department’s planning efforts, the public must
understand what the Department does and does not do. Include an educational component in your
public outreach effort that explains the scope of the Department’s responsibilities. This can be
provided through separate, background informational materials about the Department’s mission,
its approach to carrying out that mission, and staffing units. Information about the Department
can also be woven into outreach documents that support specific planning efforts.
Publicize Outreach Plan and Results
Transparency of the outreach efforts enhances the credibility of the planning process. Make the
outreach plan and the public input received available to the public. For example, make the
outreach plan itself available on planning effort websites or among the list of planning level
documents available to the public. Include a timeline whenever available.
Think Comprehensively
Transportation planning touches everyone’s lives. When considering stakeholders in the planning
process, be comprehensive about the various “ publics” that may have an interest, including the
immediately impacted public, community groups, community- based organizations ( CBOs), faith-based
organizations ( FBOs), interest- based groups ( business, environmental, and transportation
organizations), government agencies and special districts, the general public, underrepresented
organizations, and the traveling public.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 2
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
Best Practices— Statewide and Regional Planning
Introduction
The Department’s statewide and regional planning efforts offer unique opportunities for capturing
the diversity of public opinion on a wide array of transportation topics through community input.
Successful public outreach for long- term transportation planning over a broad geography requires
both deep penetration into communities, to provide a framework for effective public evaluation of
transportation issues, and public education to explain the role of the Department in ensuring safe
mobility throughout the state. Successful public outreach efforts must be flexible ( able to adapt
as new information is received) because outreach efforts are likely to tease out public perceptions
about the agency and planning process that can inform ways to make public outreach more
effective throughout the planning process.
The following planning efforts inform public participation Best Practices for statewide and
regional planning:
􀂄 Statewide California Transportation Plan,
􀂄 District 3 Tahoe Basin Communications Plan,
􀂄 District 3 Bike Strategy Focus Groups,
􀂄 District 4 Regional Express Bus Plan,
􀂄 District 10 Partnership for Integrated Planning, and
􀂄 District 10 District System Management Plan.
Opportunities & Challenges
The lack of immediacy in statewide and regional planning projects is both a challenge and an
opportunity. More immediately urgent issues can compete for public attention; for example, a
controversial local development project can challenge public engagement on less tangible public
issues such as long- term transportation planning. However, if public outreach is managed
appropriately, the lack of immediacy can stimulate positive interactions with the community that
will stand the Department in good stead for years to come. Sincere attempts to engage the
community in envisioning its transportation future— multiple aspects of transportation planning
such as highway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian, and goods movement— can result in ongoing and
productive relationships with community leaders, an improved framework for public
understanding of transportation issues, and local knowledge of communities that will enhance
future transportation planning and construction efforts.
Two other outreach challenges for statewide and regional planning projects include creating
public messages that speak to the variety of perspectives of urban, suburban and rural
communities; and providing consistency in statewide outreach when each Department district
implements its outreach program.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 3
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
Best Practices Strategies
Outreach for statewide and regional planning projects should include the following as strategic
elements.
Multi- Faceted
Outreach should include a variety of tactics to effectively reach the breadth of audiences and
public input sought. For example, presentations at community- based organizations can
effectively reach underrepresented groups, well publicized and convenient public meetings
can engage the general public in planning efforts, and stakeholder briefings can effectively
reach multiple interest- based organizations that have similar philosophies.
Promote Visioning
Tactics and key messages should create a framework for public visioning of its transportation
future. For example, public workshops should include opportunities for brainstorming
around transportation modes.
Outreach Across Department Districts
Statewide efforts require outreach across Department districts, which have a role in
implementing outreach within their jurisdictions. Establishing a Department protocol for
involving the public will ensure consistency across the state. At a minimum, outreach efforts
across districts should be integrated to ensure that outreach efforts are all related to a specific
statewide communications goal.
Best Practices in Action
California Transportation Plan Outreach
A plan for all of California, the California Transportation Plan ( CTP) is a long- range, multi-modal
transportation plan that will guide transportation decisions and investments in the
twenty- first century. It offers a transportation vision in 2025 and beyond, setting goals,
policies and strategies to achieve this vision. The Department developed and implemented an
extensive statewide public outreach program to share information with the public and to
solicit comments from the public about the draft CTP. Comments from the public were used
to help guide the development of the final CTP.
The targeted audience included residents of California; under- represented communities
including Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, and African American
populations; community- based organizations; and local agencies. Key strategies and tactics
included the following.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 4
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
Public Workshops
The Department hosted seven regional workshops to gather public comments on the
effort. The workshops were held across California and involved all 58 counties and the
12 Department districts. The workshop format included an open house, using visual
displays and allowing the public to informally talk with project representatives; a
presentation on the draft CTP; and a question- answer- and discussion period using
CoNexus Interactive Polling Technology. At all meetings, meeting participants were
given the opportunity to provide verbal and written comments. The interactive polling
technology allowed for guided discussions and facilitated the expression of opinions from
meeting participants; this polling also assisted the Department in gathering demographic
information such as gender, age, ethnicity, and household income information from those
attending.
Public Outreach
In an effort to generate awareness of the effort and to garner public participation in the
public workshops, a public outreach strategy was implemented with an emphasis on
reaching statewide underrepresented populations such as Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander,
Native American, and African American populations. This involved translating the
workshop announcement and the informational brochure into other languages and
providing an interpreter, as needed, at public meetings. In all, the brochure and workshop
announcement were distributed to more than 6,000 interested parties.
Media Relations
Media relations efforts were designed to reach a broad audience, with an emphasis on
ethnic media. Outreach included drafting and disseminating news releases, media
advisories, calendar notices, and purchasing radio and print advertisements in media
outlets in the relative vicinities of the public workshops.
Public Comment
Open communication was fostered by providing a conduit for public comment using the
Department website, fax, questionnaire, and comment cards.
Highlights of the public outreach efforts and workshops include statewide exposure of the
CTP, substantial number of useful comments and questions about the CTP ( more than
1,100 written comments alone), involvement of local elected officials, attention to unique
regional issues, and productive public workshops that effectively encouraged meeting
participants to express their opinions.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 5
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
Best Practices— Route and Corridor Specific
Planning
Introduction
Route and corridor specific planning efforts offer unique opportunities for the Department to
obtain and use region- wide community input about a single transportation corridor. Because
corridors span multiple jurisdictions within a region, planning efforts must take care to address
individual community issues, along with region- wide issues. These issues can range from local
traffic flow, on- and off- ramps, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and regional mobility and safety
issues. Successful public outreach efforts for route and corridor specific planning projects must
be designed to capture and integrate both the individual community and the regional aspects of
corridor planning and to deepen the understanding among participants about how each aspect
impacts one another.
The following experience informs Best Practices for route and corridor and specific planning.
􀂄 District 3 TCR for SR 16,
􀂄 District 5 TCR for SR 1,
􀂄 District 6 Rte 99 Corridor Master Plan,
􀂄 District 7 Arroyo Seco Parkway Phase I,
􀂄 District 11 I- 805/ I- 5 Corridor Strategy, and
􀂄 District 11 North Coast Corridor Plan.
Opportunities & Challenges
The diversity of populations living near and using state routes and corridors offers the
Department an opportunity to integrate divergent viewpoints into the planning process and to
educate the public about how issues along one portion of the route or corridor impact safety and
mobility along another portion. Public outreach activities can assist the Department in engaging
the public to help them understand the wide range of impacts and effects of the Department’s
operations on the surrounding communities and the relationships involved among the
participating facilities. Moreover, route and corridor specific planning offers an opportunity to
involve the public in identifying and prioritizing corridor improvements. The main challenge is
finding successful ways to bring divergent viewpoints into one planning document in a manner
understood by a variety of audiences including the lay public, interest groups, and decision-makers.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 6
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
Best Practices Strategies
Outreach for route and corridor specific planning efforts should include the following as strategic
elements.
Dual Focus on Communities and Corridor
Target audiences should include the land use and transportation planning agencies of
communities in close proximity to the relevant Department facilities, transportation and land
use interest groups, underrepresented communities, and travelers. Key messages should be
tailored to connect corridor impacts on the communities affected, and to demonstrate the
benefit of corridor improvements on its regional users.
Connecting with Community Leaders
Outreach efforts should connect with community leaders to gain a better understanding about
their perceptions of route and corridor issues, as a way to help frame planning issues in a
manner that will resonate with the public; and to gain the leaders’ support in generating local
interest in the transportation planning efforts.
Media relations
The media closely watches congestion on state routes and corridors as a measure of quality of
life. Consequently, media interest in long- term planning efforts can be high. Providing
background information about the plan and its relevance to the community and a schedule of
planned public outreach events can be an effective way of reaching the general public.
Best Practices in Action
Route 99 Corridor Master Plan
Department Districts 6 and 10 conducted a joint public outreach effort for the draft Route 99
Corridor Master Plan, which covers 274 miles of Route 99 from Bakersfield to Lodi. The
Master Plan is meant to bring together the various stakeholders along Route 99 in order to
unify freeway improvements along the entire route. The Master Plan will also illustrate
corridor- wide community design concepts that would both strengthen individual
communities’ identities and promote a Valley- wide identity. In addition to aesthetic concerns
such as vegetation and litter, the Master Plan will address the increased regional and
interregional traffic that is expected to further stress the corridor as the region continues to
grow. Although the Master Plan effort focuses primarily on aesthetic improvements to the
corridor, these improvements will be made in conjunction with capacity and safety projects.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 7
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
The objectives of the public participation effort included the following:
􀂄 gain input and ideas for the Master Plan, and provide forums for stakeholders to
comment;
􀂄 facilitate effective communication between transportation decision- makers, the public
and private sectors, and underrepresented communities affected by transportation
planning along the identified route;
􀂄 clearly identify and communicate future segment improvement needs;
􀂄 provide general and technical information about the corridor to interested groups and
individuals in the planning effort or project area; and
􀂄 generate confidence and credibility in the process and final product.
The target audience included underrepresented communities, elected officials, Native
Americans, Indian Tribal Governments, community- based organizations, and the general
public. Specific strategies used during Route 99 outreach included the following.
Public Participation Plan
At the onset of the public participation effort, stakeholder interviews were conducted, and
a public participation plan was drafted to gather specific information about the corridor.
The public participation plan identified detailed tactics to reach out to the general public,
elected officials, CBOs, and traditionally underrepresented populations. The public
participation plan consisted of several outreach tactics, including refining and expanding
a mailing list, developing and distributing a meeting announcement/ newsletter,
conducting media relations efforts, contacting community and stakeholder contacts to
solicit participation and to disseminate information, and contacting elected officials.
Elected Official Outreach
Elected officials can serve as vehicles to mobilize the community and inform their
constituents. Throughout the Master Plan development, elected officials were kept
informed about ongoing activities, milestones, and other related issues. Specific ways to
ways to reach out to elected officials include speaking engagements at board meetings,
distributing material to staff and officials, and one- on- one briefings.
Public Outreach/ Publicity
In an effort to garner participation at the public meetings, an aggressive public outreach
campaign was conducted to reach community members along the corridor. This included
an extensive outreach effort to reach out to underrepresented minority communities,
including Hispanic and Hmong populations. Specific tactics included the following:
􀂄 a mailing list of more than 1200 contacts, obtained through stakeholder interviews,
Internet research, and previous Department project lists, comprised of CBOs, ethnic-
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 8
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
based organizations, service clubs, elected officials, and other individuals and
organizations interested in transportation planning;
􀂄 meeting announcement/ newsletter providing information about the public meetings;
􀂄 media outreach throughout the corridor, including free media publicity ( news release)
and paid advertisements ( radio spots and display print advertisements) in radio
stations and newspapers; and
􀂄 community and stakeholder outreach to more than 300 organizations, obtained
through stakeholder interviews and internet research, to inform their organization
members and constituents.
Public Meetings
Five public meetings were held in strategic cities along the corridor. Each meeting
followed the same format, including an open house session, followed by a presentation
and overview of the Master Plan effort, an interactive polling session/ facilitated
discussion, and a question and comment session.
Interactive Polling
Interactive polling was used to obtain real- time information, including demographic
information and specific data with regard to the draft Master Plan.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 9
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
Best Practices— Interagency Planning
Introduction
The majority of the Department’s planning efforts require the coordination and integration with
federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. Systematic outreach designed to gather
information from agencies in a timely and transparent way can build trust among long- term
partners and promote better understanding of agency functions. Conducting public outreach
about interagency planning provides an opportunity for Caltrans and other agencies to understand
public perceptions about how well agencies work together to meet public need and respond to
them programmatically.
Two outreach efforts focused on improving interagency planning efforts:
􀂄 District 3 Tahoe Basin Communication Plan ( TBCP), and
􀂄 District 10 Partnership for Integrated Planning ( PIP).
Opportunities & Challenges
Outreach in support of the interagency planning process offers the Department the opportunity to
understand and integrate the relevant functions of other jurisdictions into its transportation
planning process in a timely and meaningful way. It provides a critical communication pathway
by which the Department and other jurisdictions can educate one another about transportation
planning and land use needs in advance of major planning documents. It also provides an
opportunity to integrate the participating communities’ vision and values into the planning
process. Moreover, interagency planning efforts provide the Department with an opportunity to
conduct outreach to the general public more efficiently. One key challenge is to merge the
sometimes disparate goals of agencies and projects. Another challenge to interagency planning
outreach is working effectively with other agencies to reach agreement on key messages and
approach.
Best Practices Strategies
The following strategic elements should be incorporated into interagency planning efforts.
Engage Planning Partners First
Caltrans has two audiences for interagency outreach: ( 1) other agencies with which it is
partnering; and ( 2) the general public, which can consist of multiple levels of
stakeholders, including interest- based groups, community groups, and the public- at- large.
Before engaging other planning partners, identify the purpose, accomplishments, and
desired outcomes of agency coordination. All of the Department’s messages to engage
other agencies should address the Department’s specific interests, the benefits of
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 10
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
collaborating, and the proposed process for collaborating. Advance the Department’s
messages to partner groups and, if necessary, refine or combine messages to be
consistent.
Engage Public Together with Planning Partners
Once Caltrans receives outside agency buy- in and is actually performing the interagency
planning, the second step is to combine the general public outreach with the other
agencies. It is important to come to agreement with the other agencies on how to present
the coordinated effort to the general public audience. Key factors to consider in
presenting a coordinated effort include:
􀂄 Development and distribution of combined outreach materials that include
coordinating agency logos, integrated goals and communicating united community
goals,
􀂄 Orchestration of joint meetings and presentations to communicate unity – through
selection and sequence of speakers, room arrangements and graphic displays, and
􀂄 Coordination of responses to portray consistent messages of all participating
agencies.
Tailor Outreach According to Planning Effort
Once the interagency planning effort is underway, public outreach strategies that the
collaborating agencies may want to consider will be driven by the specific effort that the
agencies are actually collaborating on ( for instance, regional & statewide effort, corridor
specific effort, or main street effort).
Include Key Messages About Interagency Planning
In addition to developing key messages about the planning effort itself, include key
messages that describe the independent purposes of collaborating agencies, why they are
partnering in an interagency planning effort, and the anticipated results ( i. e. public
benefit) of that effort.
Establish Clear Roles and Responsibilities
Establish clear roles among partnering organizations identifying who will be responsible
for carrying out what effort. This includes the technical planning process or project as
well as the public outreach plan. If possible, identify a planning effort spokesperson who
will have information about the importance of public participation in the planning process
and how the public can participate.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 11
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
Best Practices in Action
The Merced County Association of Governments ( MCAG) received a grant from District 10 to
establish a pilot project for the regional transportation planning process.
The Partnership for Integrated Planning: Merced Pilot ( PIP) is an innovative methodology to
analyze and predict the cumulative impacts of transportation and land use policies. The
demonstration is supported by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), the Federal
Highway Administration ( FHWA), the Department, and the MCAG. It is anticipated that early
analysis of cumulative impacts will promote policies and decisions that avoid environmental
resources and streamline the delivery of future land- use development and transportation projects.
A stakeholder group of federal, state, and local environmental resource and transportation
agencies and other interested parties was convened on February 18, 2004 in Merced, California,
to be briefed on the status of PIP and other jurisdictional planning activities in the study area.
The stakeholder group also participated in a demonstration of the GIS modeling tool ( UPLAN)
that is being used to predict the cumulative impacts of existing and alternative land- use and
transportation strategies.
As part of the UPLAN demonstration, the meeting participants were asked to prioritize the
relative importance of the following six resource and development categories:
􀂄 vernal pools,
􀂄 hydrology and aquatic habitats ( not including vernal pools),
􀂄 endangered species habitat,
􀂄 habitat connectivity,
􀂄 prime agricultural lands, and
􀂄 other agricultural lands ( grazing).
Using the relative priority of the categories, the UPLAN model was used to project the future
impacts on critical land- use and environmental resources. The participants then rated the extent
to which they believed that the new growth pattern protected the land use and environmental
resource.
Interactive polling technology was used to help the group prioritize the list of resource and
development categories and assess the extent of protection. Each participant was provided with a
remote FM radio input terminal to respond to questions generated by computer and projected on a
large screen. The technology provided the ability to quickly assess the categories. The results
were tabulated and immediately presented back to the group for discussion. Demographic
information was collected to assess different perspectives of participants based on where they
lived, their agencies, and their responsibilities.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 12
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
Best Practices— Context Sensitive Solutions &
Main Street Planning
Introduction
More than serving only to ensure safe mobility, many state routes are an integral part of their
communities. A destination for shopping and enjoying public amenities, state routes can reflect
community identity by preserving architectural heritage and maintaining accessibility for local
residents traveling by car, bicycle or on foot. When a state route also functions as a community’s
main street, public outreach for planning efforts affecting the state route require a
communications plan, strategies, and tactics to capture the interest and input of a variety of
publics. Director’s Policy 22 instituted the Department’s Context Sensitive Solutions ( CSS)
program to ensure that transportation planning efforts balance community history, values,
architecture and sense of place with the State’s transportation needs. Community involvement is
a huge element of this CSS process.
Outreach for Main Street planning using a Context Sensitive Solutions approach includes the
following:
􀂄 District 4 San Pablo Avenue ( SR 123) Visioning,
􀂄 District 5 TCR for SR 1 SR 227 Charrettes,
􀂄 District 9 Bishop Area Access and Circulation Study ( BAACS), and
􀂄 District 7 Arroyo Seco Parkway Phase I.
Opportunities and Challenges
Main Street planning efforts offer a unique opportunity for in- depth community involvement
within a localized geographic area. At the heart of the community involvement, Main Street
planning efforts typically have a high degree of public visibility and interest. A proactive public
outreach plan that is comprehensive in planning issues and outreach audiences will help to sustain
public interest, focus input on relevant planning issues, and build public ownership of the
outcome. A key challenge to Main Street outreach can be the complexity of the planning process,
which strives to integrate multiple transportation elements and their impact on local land use.
The Department should use its outreach program to broaden public perception about the
Department from “ cars and roads” to the importance of planning to accommodate multiple
transportation modes while preserving community identity. Many communities demand these
accommodations of the Department.
Best Practices Strategies
Outreach for Main Street planning efforts should include the following as strategic elements.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 13
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
Gather Information Up Front
Instead of starting the planning process from a Department perspective, it is more
effective to identify and contact community stakeholder groups at the outset of the
planning process to solicit information about what planning aspects are important to them
as the Main Street planning process gets underway. Values might include public safety,
open space and other amenities, accommodating non- motorized activities, traffic
calming, accessibility to local businesses, adequate parking, and more. Surveys, focus
groups, and stakeholder interviews are all good tactics for gathering information on
important issues and concerns up front.
Promote Visioning
Pubic meetings and charrettes are good ways to promote public visioning of the Main
Street into the future. Artist renderings and computer simulations of activities on and
around the future Main Street are effective tools to engage the public and solicit reaction
to both the visual and feasibility of planning ideas.
Targeted Key Messages
Printed informational materials should include key messages targeted to the variety of
audiences interested in the planning effort. For example, informational items to local
businesses might stress maintaining economic viability as key goal of the planning effort.
Outreach to the bicycling community might include key messages about the importance
of design for bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Provide for Tangential Issues
Often during local and complex planning processes, the public asks questions or wishes
to provide input on specific issues tangentially related to the planning effort and outside
the Department’s jurisdiction. For example, local residents may raise concerns about bus
stop maintenance, accumulation of trash in an area, and so forth. To accommodate this
need, outreach representatives should be prepared to provide the public with useful
information about how and where to get their questions answered. This helps the public
outreach and input process stay on track. Agencies with jurisdiction over the tangential
issues should be updated about the Department planning effort.
Best Practices in Action
Bishop Area Access and Circulation Study— Public
Participation Program
Traffic concerns in the Bishop area date back more than 40 years when a proposed bypass
study was initiated to alleviate through- traffic in the downtown Bishop area. In October
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 14
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
2002, the Inyo County Local Transportation Commission requested that the Department’s
District 9 study Bishop area traffic. The Department launched the Bishop Area Access and
Circulation Study ( BAACS) to identify traffic and circulation concerns with hopes of
improving traffic for all modes of transportation. The District participated in a wide- ranging
public participation program to collect community input that would identify and select
transportation alternatives to improve local circulation within the Bishop area.
The target audience included residents, businesses, key stakeholders, community
organizations, regional transportation planning organizations, and local officials. The
BACCS public participation program has been successful at generating awareness and
knowledge about the study and transportation issues in Bishop. Key strategies and tactics
were implemented to spark community interest, solicit input about the study, and provide
outreach to a variety of stakeholders through a multi- faceted approach. This approach
included the following.
Surveys
A statistically valid public opinion survey was administered both in English and in
Spanish within the study area to gauge the community’s perceptions with regard to
transportation objectives, priorities, and potential solutions. Full consideration of Title
VI was considered in the design and implementation of the survey to ensure an accurate
reflection of the general representation of various groups within the community. More
than 400 surveys were completed. The survey results revealed key perceptions and
information about the Bishop area community that would ultimately be used in designing
the public workshops and used as a guide the overall study.
As a follow up to this survey, a business specific survey was administered to understand
the key transportation issues faced by businesses along the U. S. Highway 395 corridor.
More than 75 surveys were completed.
Mailing List
In order to target all stakeholders within the BAACS study area, a detailed list of more
than 6,200 contacts was collected from a property database service, stakeholder research,
and pre- existing Department contacts. The resulting database included all properties
within a seven- mile radius of Main Street, community based organizations, businesses
and other stakeholders and was used to distribute all meeting materials. It also included
an e- mail database of approximately 100 contacts from stakeholder research and contact
information provided by individuals during previous planning outreach efforts.
Media Relations
To heighten awareness and solicit increased public participation, a comprehensive media
relations campaign was implemented. Press releases and radio announcements were
distributed in both English and Spanish, ensuring that underrepresented groups and those
stakeholders not on the mailing list were also reached.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 15
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
California Department of Transportation Best Practices in Action
Public Workshops
To gain public input, an workshop was developed to solicit input from community
members using interactive technology. The meeting facilitated discussion about the
study and helped foster open, two- way communication. A second workshop was held to
share recent developments with regard to the study, and also to obtain input from the
public on what the Department should further consider as it evaluates proposed study
alternatives. In all, close to 200 people attended the meetings, including Bishop area
residents, local businesses, local government, the local media, Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power, and the Bishop Indian Tribal Council.
Stakeholder Outreach
Additional efforts were undertaken to reach out to key stakeholder groups in the Bishop
area. The Department made presentations to groups to provide an update on BAACS and
to obtain input for the evaluation of proposed study alternatives. The stakeholder groups
included local Indian tribes, local government, and the local high school and hospital.
A key goal of District 9 has been to remain open and “ transparent” in their planning
efforts for this planning effort. The public participation effort has provided a process for
District 9 staff to be more responsive and responsible planners. Various tools, including
newsletters, a website, community workshops and public opinion research, have
contributed to community understanding and to consistency and follow- through from
District staff, as well as a willingness to consider other options.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
4- 16
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
Chapter 5
Tribal Consultation
Overview
Coordination of Indian Tribal Governmental transportation needs on a government- to-government
basis reflects recognition that these Tribes are unique and separate governments
within the United States. Government- to- government consultation ( rather than public outreach or
public involvement) is the key component of Tribal- related activities.
In order to determine these transportation needs, this contract supported and facilitated
consultation with Indian Tribal Governments. Specific Tribal Government Consultation planning
efforts in the Districts included:
􀂄 District 1 – Government- to- government consultation strategies training for staff and
transportation planning workshops.
􀂄 District 4 – Government- to- government consultation and transportation planning workshop
and development of supporting materials.
􀂄 District 6 – Government- to- government transportation planning survey and one- on- one
interviews with Tribal Governments.
􀂄 District 11 - Government- to- government transportation planning survey and one- on- one
interviews with Tribal Governments.
Sample materials for each listed effort are included in electronic format in the Tribal Consultation
folder in Appendix B.
Best Practices Public Participation Reference
1
June 2005
J& S 05245.05
Attachment A
2012 H Street, Suite 100 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • ( 916) 325- 1222 ( office) • ( 916) 325- 1224 ( fax)
Bishop Area Access & Circulation Study
Community Survey
Methods:
Field Dates: • Pretest: December XX, 2003
• Field Dates: December XX, 2003
Sample Size: • 400 completed interviews with Bishop area residents
Sampling Error: • +/- 4.9% ( calculated at 95% confidence level)
Unit of Analysis: • Household
Population: • Adult residents of Bishop in area code 706, prefixes: 872, 873,
& 387
Screening: • Resident of the study area for the Bishop Area Access &
Circulation Study
Sampling Frame: • Random- digit- dialing telephone sample
Budgeted Length of Interview: • 10 minutes
• REQUEST •
Hello, my name is __________ from Meta Research. We are interviewing Bishop area residents
about transportation issues in your area for the California Department of Transportation. Your
opinions on these issues are very important to Caltrans and the Bishop community.
Would you have about 8- 10 minutes ( depending upon your answers) now for a brief confidential
interview?
[ IF NECESSARY, CONTINUE WITH: This is a public opinion survey, NOT SALES. Your
answers will be summarized with other peoples’ answers; results will not be reported
individually.]
01) Yes { BEGIN SURVEY}
02) No { ARRANGE FOR A CALLBACK TIME}
99) Refusal { THANK & TERMINATE}
This call may be monitored for quality control purposes.
• S C R E E N I N G Q U E S T I O N S •
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
S1: What community do you live in ( in the Bishop area)? [ READ LIST BELOW]
01) Bishop Paiute (“ Pie- Yoot”) Reservation
02) West Bishop
03) Dixon Lane- Meadow Creek
04) Rocking K
05) Rocking W
Bishop Area Access & Circulation Study Community Survey Page 2
Draft Questionnaire
© Meta Research
06) Starlight/ Aspendale
07) Wilkerson
08) Highlands/ Glenwood Mobile Home Park
09) Roundvalley/ Mustang Mesa/ Paradise
10) ( the) City of Bishop ( Within the city boundaries), OR
11) ( the) Unincorporated area of Inyo County ( please specify)
50) Other [ THANK & TERMINATE]
97) Undecided [ THANK & TERMINATE]
99) Refused [ THANK & TERMINATE]
S2: CODED, NOT ASKED: Interviewers Check Racial/ Ethnic Targets
01) Total Hispanic respondents needed: 28
02) Total Native American respondents needed: 32
03) Total business respondents needed: 40
S3: CODED, NOT ASKED: Interview language
01) English
02) Spanish
• TRANSPORTATION RELATED ISSUES •
First…
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
01. What would you say is the number one transportation issue in the Bishop area?
[ PSUEDO OPEN ENDED: ASK AS OPEN- ENDED; CODE FIRST RESPONSE INTO
APPROPRIATE CATEGORY; DO NOT PROMPT]
CATEGORIES FOR CODING:
01) Congestion on Main Street/ Highway 395
02) Too many trucks on Main Street/ Highway 395
02) Congestion on West Line Street/ Highway 168
03) Ability to safely ride a bike around town
04) Inadequate Parking
05) Driving behavior
06) Need for passenger air service
07) Getting around town as a pedestrian
08) Inefficient local road network ( poor circulation/ road connections)
08) Transit/ Bus service
50) Other ( please specify)
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED; SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED; SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
02. Thinking about the [ insert answer from previous question] issue, what, if any, solution
would you suggest? [ PSUEDO OPEN ENDED: ASK AS OPEN- ENDED; CODE FIRST
RESPONSE INTO APPROPRIATE CATEGORY; DO NOT PROMPT.]
CATEGORIES FOR CODING:
01) Bypass ( any type)
Bishop Area Access & Circulation Study Community Survey Page 3
Draft Questionnaire
© Meta Research
02) Create truck route
03) Create more cycling options throughout the city
04) Improve parking throughout the city
05) Improve the local road network
06) Make downtown/ Main Street safer for pedestrians
07) Bring in passenger air service
08) Driver education/ Enforcement
09) Traffic calming
50) Other ( please specify)
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
03. I’m going to read you a list of transportation issues. Please rate the seriousness of each
issue in the Bishop area as Very serious, Somewhat serious, or Not serious.
CATEGORIES FOR CODING:
01) Not serious
02) Somewhat serious
03) Very serious
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ RANDOMIZE ORDER]
a. Congestion on Main Street/ Highway 395
b. Too many trucks on Main Street/ Highway 395
c. Congestion on West Line Street/ Highway 168
d. Ability to safely ride a bike around town
e. Inadequate Parking
f. Driving behavior
g. Lack of passenger air service
h. Getting around town as a pedestrian
i. Inefficient local road network ( poor circulation/ road connections)
j. Transit/ Bus service
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
04. What, if any, solutions to these issues would you suggest? [ ASK AS OPEN- ENDED;
CODE INTO APPROPRIATE SOLUTION] Anything else?
CATEGORIES FOR CODING:
01) Mentioned
02) Not Mentioned
a. Bypass ( any type)
b. Create truck route
c. Create more cycling options throughout the city
d. Improve parking throughout the city
e. Improve the local road network
f. Make downtown/ Main Street safer for pedestrians
g. Bring in passenger air service
h. Driver education/ Enforcement
Bishop Area Access & Circulation Study Community Survey Page 4
Draft Questionnaire
© Meta Research
i. Traffic calming ( trees pulled out, streetscape, traffic circles…)
j. Other ( please specify)
k. Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED] ( only code if 1st response)
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
05. Several alternatives can be considered as a way to handle local transportation issues in
the Bishop area. Please tell me if you Strongly Oppose, Somewhat Oppose, Somewhat
Support, or Strongly Support each of the following:
CATEGORIES FOR CODING:
01) Strongly Oppose
02) Somewhat Oppose
03) Neutral [ VOLUNTEERED]
04) Somewhat Support
05) Strongly Support
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ RANDOMIZE ORDER]
a. Construct an alternate route for through traffic
b. Construct an alternate route specifically for truck traffic
c. Improve the options for riding a bicycle in the Bishop area
d. Improve parking throughout the Bishop area
e. Improve the local road network by adding to and connecting existing roads
f. Make no improvements
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
06. If improving the movement of pedestrian travel downtown required decreasing the
movement or diverting the flow of traffic through downtown, how supportive would you
be? [ READ CATEGORIES BELOW]
01) Not Supportive
02) Supportive
03) Very Supportive
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
07. How important do you think out- of- town travelers are to the economic livelihood of the
Bishop area? Very, Somewhat, or Not important?
01) Not important
02) Somewhat important
03) Very important
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
08. How much do you think truck traffic contributes to the transportation issues and
congestion in the downtown area? [ READ CATEGORIES BELOW]
Bishop Area Access & Circulation Study Community Survey Page 5
Draft Questionnaire
© Meta Research
01) Not at all
02) A little
03) A lot
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
09. How much do you think out- of- town travelers contribute to the transportation issues and
congestion in the downtown area? [ READ CATEGORIES BELOW]
01) Not at all
02) A little
03) A lot
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
10. How much weight should be given to the opinions of out- of- town travelers in the
decision- making process on highway transportation issues in the Bishop area? [ READ
CATEGORIES BELOW]
01) None
02) A Small Amount
03) Some Amount
04) A Large Amount
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
Changing subjects slightly…
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
11. Are you an Owner or a Manager of a business located in the Bishop Area?
01) Yes [ CONTINUE]
02) No [ SKIP TO NEXT BLOCK]
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK OF BUSINESSES]
12. What is the type of business? Is it a … [ READ LIST BELOW]
01) Hotel or Motel
02) Restaurant
03) Fast Food
04) Gas station
05) Sporting Goods
06) Other tourist or recreation business
07) Other retail
08) Professional Services, OR
08) Other type of business
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
Bishop Area Access & Circulation Study Community Survey Page 6
Draft Questionnaire
© Meta Research
[ ASK OF BUSINESSES]
13. Where is your business located? [ READ LIST BELOW]
01) On Highway 395 ( Highway Service)/ Main Street
02) On 395 North Sierra Hwy
03) Within two blocks of Highway 395
04) Somewhere else in the Bishop area
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK OF BUSINESSES]
14. How dependent is your business on out- of- town travelers, such as truck traffic and
recreational through traffic? [ READ LIST BELOW]
01) Not dependent
02) Somewhat dependent
03) Very dependent
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK OF BUSINESSES]
15. Do you think altering the flow of traffic through downtown on Main Street would have a
Negative effect, a Positive effect, or No effect on your business? [ IF HAVE EITHER
NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE EFFECT, FOLLOW UP WITH, “ Would that be a Significant or
Moderate effect?”]
01) Significantly negative effect
02) Moderately negative effect
03) No effect
04) Moderately positive effect
05) Significantly positive effect
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
• TRANSPORTATION HABITS •
Now I’m going to ask you some questions about your typical transportation habits…
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
16. What is your primary mode of transportation?
01) Automobile
02) Motorcycle/ Moped [ SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
03) Bike [ SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
04) Walking [ SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
05) Public Transit/ Bus [ SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
50) Other ( please specify)
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED; SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED; SKIP NEXT QUESTION]
Bishop Area Access & Circulation Study Community Survey Page 7
Draft Questionnaire
© Meta Research
[ ASK OF AUTOMOBILE USERS]
17. Do you typically drive alone or with one or more other people?
01) Drive alone
02) Drive with others/ Carpool
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
18. Do you ever use any other form of transportation? ( IF YES, Which?)
01) Automobile
02) Motorcycle/ Moped
03) Bike
04) Walking
05) Public Transit/ Bus
06) Other ( please specify)
07) No; Do not use any other form of transportation
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
19. In a typical weekday, how many times do you travel on Main Street/ Highway 395 in the
Bishop area?
[ NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: If respondent answers anything over “ 0” say: “ We’re looking
for each time you travel on Main Street in one direction. So, would that be ( INSERT
NUMBER) one- way trips or ( INSERT NUMBER) round- trips?”]
01) Enter Number of One Way Trips
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
• DEMOGRAPHICS •
Just a few more questions for statistical purposes. [ IF NECESSARY, CONTINUE WITH: All
responses are kept confidential. All government entities are legally required to gather this data to
show that they are serving the public equitably].
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
20. How long have you lived in the Bishop area? [ READ LIST BELOW, IF NECESSARY]
01) Less than 1 year
02) 1 - 4 years
03) 5- 10 years
04) 11- 20 years, OR
05) More than 20 years
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
Bishop Area Access & Circulation Study Community Survey Page 8
Draft Questionnaire
© Meta Research
21. Please stop me when I read the category that contains the highest level of education you
have completed. . .. [ READ CATEGORIES BELOW]
01) High school or less
02) Some college
03) Trade or vocational school
04) Two- year college degree
05) Four- year college degree
06) Post graduate degree
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
22. Please stop me when I read the category that contains your age... [ READ CATEGORIES
BELOW]
01) 18- 24
02) 25- 34
03) 35- 44
04) 45- 54
05) 55- 64
06) 65 and up
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
23. What is your racial or ethnic background? [ READ CATEGORIES BELOW]
01) Anglo/ White
02) Hispanic/ Chicano/ Latino
03) American Indian/ Native American
04) African American/ Black
06) Asian/ Oriental/ Pacific Islander
50) Other
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
One final question...
[ ASK ALL RESPONDENTS]
24. Please stop me when I read the category that best describes your total household income
from all sources before taxes in 2002… [ READ CATEGORIES BELOW]
01) Less than $ 10,000
02) $ 10,000 to just under $ 25,000
03) $ 25,000 to just under $ 35,000
04) $ 35,000 to just under $ 50,000
05) $ 50,000 to just under $ 75,000
06) $ 75,000 to just under $ 100,000
07) $ 100,000 or more
97) Undecided/ Don’t know [ VOLUNTEERED]
99) Refused [ VOLUNTEERED]
Bishop Area Access & Circulation Study Community Survey Page 9
Draft Questionnaire
© Meta Research
That’s the end of our survey. This has been a confidential interview conducted by at
Meta Research. Someone may call you from Meta to verify that this interview was conducted. May I
please have just your first name? Thank you very much for your time and have a good evening
25. Gender ( NOT ASKED; CODED BY OBSERVATION)
01) Female
02) Male
Bishop Area Access and Circulation Study
Highway Corridor Business Survey
June 5, 2004
Dear Business Owner/ Manager,
This survey is part of the Bishop Area Access and Circulation Study ( BAACS) and is intended
to gather valuable information from the business community.
Since the study began in 2002, Caltrans has been working with residents and businesses to
obtain community input about Bishop area transportation issues and concerns. Several public
workshops and a telephone survey have been conducted to capture community input about
this topic.
Because your business success is essential to maintaining community economic vitality, and
because study alternatives may impact traffi c and circulation in downtown Bishop, this survey is
designed to capture the specifi c interests and concerns from area businesses located along the
Highway 395 corridor.
Please complete this survey from the point of view of how these issues affect your business
– owner or top- level manager is preferred. Your response is greatly appreciated.
Please complete and fold the attached self- addressed survey ( so that the mailing
panel is shown), seal it with the “ peel off” tab, and mail it by June 21, 2004. You
may also fax your completed questionnaire to: ( 916) 325- 1224, Attention: Shannon.
A research fi rm in Sacramento is tabulating survey responses. All responses will be kept
confi dential.
If you have questions, please don’t hesitate to call me at 872- 5214.
Thank you,
Brad Mettam, Project Manager
BISHOP
168
395
395
6
BAACS Study Area
Bishop Area Access
and Circulation Study ( BAACS) 168
395
395
6
BAACS Survey. indd 3 6/ 1/ 2004 2: 43: 03 PM
Bishop Area Access and Circulation Study
Highway Corridor Business Survey
01. What would you say is the number one transportation issue that affects your business in the Bishop area?
02. What, if any, solution would you suggest to the number one transportation issue?
03. Several alternatives can be considered as a way to
handle local transportation issues in the Bishop area.
Please tell me if you support or oppose each of the
following.
a. Construct an alternate route for through traffi c
b. Construct an alternate route specifi cally for
truck traffi c
c. Improve the options for riding a bicycle, walking,
and other non- motorized modes
d. Improve parking
e. Improve the local road network by adding to
and connecting existing roads
f. Make no improvements
04. Is the existing supply of parking adequate for your business needs?
Please choose one
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
05. What would most benefi t your business?
Please choose one
[ ] More parking
[ ] Shorter parking time limits/ faster turnover
[ ] Less through truck traffi c on Main Street
[ ] Less congestion on Main Street
[ ] Streetscape enhancements ( lighting, street furniture, landscaping, etc.)
[ ] No changes/ none of the above
[ ] Other ( please specify) _______________________________
06. What effect would reducing the volume of current traffi c through downtown on Main Street have on your business?
Please choose one for reduced visitor traffi c
[ ] Signifi cantly negative effect
[ ] Moderately negative effect
[ ] No effect
[ ] Moderately positive effect
[ ] Signifi cantly positive effect
Please choose one for reduced truck traffi c
[ ] Signifi cantly negative effect
[ ] Moderately negative effect
[ ] No effect
[ ] Moderately positive effect
[ ] Signifi cantly positive effect
Please choose one for reduced local traffi c
[ ] Signifi cantly negative effect
[ ] Moderately negative effect
[ ] No effect
[ ] Moderately positive effect
[ ] Signifi cantly positive effect
07. Please indicate your opinions on improving the look and feel of downtown Bishop on Main Street.
a. Are you interested in improving the look and feel of downtown ( improving streetscape, adding more street
furniture, lighting, etc)? [ ] Yes [ ] No
b. Would improving the look and feel of downtown have a positive impact on your business? Yes[ ] No[ ]
c. Would you be supportive of helping to pay for downtown improvements like those listed in ( a) above? Yes[ ] No[ ]
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Neutral/
Oppose Oppose Support Support Don’t Know
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
BAACS Survey. indd 1 6/ 1/ 2004 2: 42: 35 PM
08. Where is your business located?
Please choose one
[ ] On Highway 395/ Main Street
[ ] On 395 North Sierra Highway
[ ] Within two blocks of Highway 395
[ ] On Highway 168/ Line Street
09. How many years have you been in business? _______
10. How many total ( full and part time) employees are currently employed with your business? _______
11. What is the type of business?
Please choose one
[ ] Hotel or motel
[ ] Restaurant
[ ] Fast food
[ ] Gas station
[ ] Sporting goods
[ ] Entertainment ( ex: movie theater)
[ ] Government agency ( please specify) ___________________________________________
[ ] Quasi- governmental ( ex: library, school)
[ ] Social service ( ex: mental health, seniors)
[ ] Medical/ dental
[ ] Professional services ( please specify)___________________________________________
[ ] Other retail ( please specify) _________________________________________________
[ ] Other tourist or recreation business ( please specify) _______________________________
[ ] Other type of business ( please specify) _________________________________________
12. Approximately, what percentage of your business is from out- of- town travelers, such as truck traffi c and visitor
through traffi c ( compared to customers who live in Bishop)?
[ ] 0% out- of- town travelers
[ ] 20% out- of- town travelers
[ ] 40% out- of- town travelers
[ ] 60% out- of- town travelers
[ ] 80% out- of- town travelers
[ ] 100% out- of- town travelers
13. In an effort to determine traffi c generated by local businesses, please estimate how many customers visit your
location per week, on average?
[ ] 1- 50
[ ] 50- 100
[ ] 100- 200
[ ] 200- 500
[ ] 500- 1000
[ ] 1000 +
Meta Research
c/ o Bishop Area Access and
Circulation Study
2012 H Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
PLACE
STAMP
HERE
Bishop Area Access
and Circulation Study ( BAACS) 168
395
395
6
BAACS Survey. indd 2 6/ 1/ 2004 2: 43: 03 PM
Meta Research
c/ o Bishop Area Access and Circulation Study
2012 H Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
PLACE
STAMP
HERE
Bishop Area Access and Circulation Study
Highway Corridor Business Survey
Time Sensitive!
Let Your Voice Be Heard!
How Do You Feel About Transportation Issues In Bishop?
Complete and Mail Back Survey by June 21!
Time Sensitive Survey Inside
Bishop Area Access
and Circulation Study ( BAACS) 168
395
395
6
BAACS Survey. indd 4 6/ 1/ 2004 2: 43: 04 PM
Bishop Area Access and Circulation Study ( BAACS)
168 Out of Town Traveler Survey
395
395
6
Please Give Us Your Opinion! Did you travel through Bishop to get here? If so, Caltrans wants to
hear from you! Take a moment to help Caltrans and the Bishop community with their transportation
planning eff orts. This survey is part of an access and circulation study in Bishop. Your responses will be kept
completely confi dential. Please return completed surveys to the check- in counter. Your response is greatly
appreciated. Caltrans would like to hear from you by February 28.
1. Where are you visiting from? ( Please fi ll in Zip Code)
2. On average, how often do you travel through/ past Bishop?
Less than once a year Four times a year
Once a year Once a month
Twice a year Several times a month
3. When you travel to Mammoth, how often do you stop in Bishop?
Always Sometimes Seldom Never
If you checked always, sometimes, or seldom, go to question 5 to continue the survey.
If you checked never, please answer one last question ( Question 4).
4. Why don’t you stop in Bishop?
Don’t need any services Just want to make it to my destination
Other ( please specify): _______________________________
5. Why do you stop in Bishop? ( Check all that apply)
Fill up for gas Recreation Business trip
Food Shopping Part of a touring group
Lodging Family vacation To get off the highway and take a break
Other ( please specify): _______________________________
6. How much do you typically spend while stopping or staying in Bishop?
$ 20 or less $ 100 - $ 500
$ 20 - $ 50 $ 500 or more
$ 50 - $ 100
7. How long do you typically stay, while stopping in Bishop?
Just a quick stop 1 overnight stay
A couple of hours 2 overnight stays
Less than 24 hours more than 2 overnight stays
8. How would you rate the following in downtown Bishop?
9. What would make Bishop’s main street more appealing? ( Check all that apply)
More shopping opportunities More parks and pedestrian areas
More diverse dining options More public restroom facilities
More diverse lodging options More restaurants
More streetscaping ( lighting, street furniture, landscaping, etc.) Less truck traffi c
Well marked and convenient parking Less downtown congestion
Other ( please specify):__________________________________
10. If a bypass or alternate route were constructed that allowed you to bypass downtown Bishop on
your way to Mammoth, how often would you stop in Bishop?
Always Sometimes Seldom Never
If you checked always, sometimes, or seldom, why would you continue to stop? ( Check all that apply)
Fill up for gas Recreation Business trip
Food Shopping Part of a touring group
Lodging Family vacation To get off the highway and take a break
Other ( please specify):_________________________________________________
11. If constructed, would you take a highway route that bypassed Downtown Bishop, even if there was
no savings in distance or time?
Yes No
12. What suggestions do you have for encouraging travelers to stop in Bishop?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your time and input. Your responses will help towards Bishop’s transportation planning eff orts.
Parking........................................................................................................................ ....
Overall access and circulation ( is it easy to get around)................................
Small town atmosphere and ambiance...............................................................
Getting around as a pedestrian..............................................................................
Shopping opportunities............................................................................................
Gas station opportunities.........................................................................................
Restaurant choices......................................................................................................
General amenities........................................................................................................
Other ( please specify):................................................................................................
Very Good
Somewhat Good
Not Very Good
Poor
Attachment B
You’ve helped develop a vision for Merced County . . .
You’ve decided on transportation goals . . .
You’ve identifi ed problems and offered solutions . . .
You’ve picked future transportation scenarios . . .
Now, the results are in!
Help us decide where we are going.
oin us for an open house and ask questions about the 20- year Regional Transportation
Plan. Representatives from Caltrans and the Merced County Association of Governments
( MCAG) Governing Board will be there, as well as other elected offi cials. We’ll have some
very nice refreshments to make your visit even more enjoyable!
There will be lots of maps, charts and results to look at and think about during the open
house. Following the open house, we’ll sit down to vote on the preferred plan.
Meeting facilities will be accessible to persons with disabilities. To RSVP, request more information, or request
translation services, please contact Candice Steelman at ( 209) 723- 3153, ext. 308 or visit www. mcag. cog. ca. us.
MCAG is an association of local governments that meet to discuss and resolve jointly- held problems such as transportation, transit, air quality and
solid waste. These meetings are part of the Partner