Introduction to Highway Design/Public Involvement

1. Introduction to Highway Design/Public Involvement CE 453

2. Ancient Roads • Early travel – foot, pack animals, sleds • 10,000 years ago – invention of wheel • Simple wheeled carts • More or less regularly traveled routes developed • 3000 BC, construction of road to build Great Pyramid in Egypt • 2000 BC, streets of Babylon paved • Early civilizations developed road systems • Island of Crete • Chinese • Carthaginians • Incas, Mayans http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/khufustory.html

3. Ancient Roads • Roman highway system – reached limits of Roman empire • Military roads • Many were stone and >= 3 feet thick • After fall of Roman empire formal road building ceased for 1,000 years

4. http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/techno/roads/photos/9.htm

5. http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/techno/roads/photos/9.htm

6. Modern Road building, 18th century

7. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/transport/front.html

9. 4 Categories for New Design or Highway Improvement • The existing physical structure needs major repair/replacement (structure repair). http://www.k5kj.net/jarrell.htm

10. 4 Categories for New Design or Highway Improvement • Existing or projected future travel demands exceed available capacity, and access to transportation and mobility need to be increased (capacity). http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2002/2002-09-19-06.asp

11. 4 Categories for New Design or Highway Improvement • The route is experiencing an inordinate number of safety and accident problems that can only be resolved through physical, geometric changes (safety). http://www.ems.ucla.edu/traffic/ta10.htm

12. 4 Categories for New Design or Highway Improvement • Developmental pressures along the route make a reexamination of the number, location, and physical design of access points necessary (access).

13. Planning Stage • Once problem is identified • Agree problem exists and should be fixed • Requires community consensus • Consider impact • How will the proposed transportation improvement affect the general physical character of the area surrounding the project? • Does the area to be affected have unique historic or scenic characteristics? • What are the safety, capacity, and cost concerns of the community? • Answered during planning level analysis as well as in public involvement during planning • Decisions in planning stage may affect and limit design later.

14. Project Development • Decisions at the project development level help define the major features of the resulting project through the remainder of the design and construction process • Basic steps: • Refinement of purpose and need • Development of a range of alternatives (including the "no-build" and traffic management system) • Evaluation of alternatives and their impact on the natural and built environments • Development of appropriate mitigation

15. Project Development - Identify and involve stakeholders and provide opportunity for involvement - Assess area • Consider context • Data collection • Identify constraints - Consider Factors and select preferred alternative

16. Project Development -- Context

17. Final Design • Occurs after a preferred alternative is selected and the project description agreed on upon as stated in the environmental document • Results in a complete set of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&Es) of required quantities of materials ready for the solicitation of construction bids and subsequent construction • Depending on the scale and complexity may take from a few months to several years.

18. Public Involvement

19. Doing things right - Engineering emphasis • Safe • Properly designed and built • Efficient • Cost effective • Doing the right thing - Planning emphasis • Consistent with long-range plan • Reflective of community values • Public acceptance and “ownership”

20. Public acceptance and “ownership” derives from public involvement. Who is the “public”

21. The Public   The FHWA defines the public broadly as including all individuals or groups who are potentially affected by transportation decisions. This includes anyone who resides in, has interest in, or does business in a given area that may be affected by transportation decisions. The public includes both individuals and organized groups.

22. Stages of Public Involvement (From the lowest level to the highest, 8 levels of citizen power) • Manipulation – People are placed on rubber stamp advisory committees or advisory boards to “educate” them or to engineer their support. The public involvement process is molded into a public relations vehicle. • Therapy – The focus of the response to a citizen’s concern or idea is to “cure” the person instead of addressing the concern. • Informing – A one-way flow of information from officials to citizens with no channel provided for feedback and no power for negotiation. • Consultation – Citizens provide input during the public involvement process, but the input is restricted.

23. Stages of Public Involvement (From the lowest level to the highest, 8 levels of citizen power) 5. Placation – During the public involvement process, a few people represent a constituency in the community on an advisory board or committee, but they do not hold the majority of the votes. 6. Partnership – The decision-making power is distributed through negotiation between citizens and officials. 7. Delegated Power – Negotiations between officials and citizens result in citizens achieving dominant decision-making authority. To resolve differences, officials need to start the bargaining process rather than respond to pressure from the other end. 8. Citizen Control – This situation exists when there are no intermediaries between a group of citizens and a source of funds.

24. Public involvement in transportation investment decision-making is central to effective development, operation and maintenance of a quality transportation system. • Transportation investment decisions have far-reaching effects and thus transportation decisions must consider a wide array of factors including land use impacts and the overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions. • These factors often reflect community values and may be difficult to quantify. • Seeking out public input is essential to adequately considering them.

25. Benefits of Public Involvement • A well-implemented public involvement program can bring major benefits to the transportation policy process and lead to better decision outcomes. Beneficial results include: • Public involvement promotes citizen “ownership” of policies. • Decisions are more reflective of community values. • Decision makers understand the concerns of the public and can be more sensitive to those concerns in the implementation process. • Decision makers interact more with their constituents.

26. Strategies to Involve the Public • Presentation – Information (mostly non-interactive) flows one-way to the public. Examples are: • Newspaper articles, radio & TV programs, speeches & presentations to groups, exhibits, school programs, brochures, newsletters, reports, letters, and websites.

27. Strategies to Involve the Public • Receipt - Information flows from the public. Examples are: • Public hearings, survey questionnaires, public inquiry, media balloting, public meetings.

28. Strategies to Involve the Public • Exchange – Information is exchanged amongst a smaller group of professionals and interested citizens. Examples are: • Workshops, special task forces, interviews, advisory boards, informal contacts, study group discussions, and interactive cable TV.

29. Effective Public Involvement An effective public involvement process provides for an open exchange of information and ideas between the public and transportation decision makers. The overall objective of a public involvement process is that it be proactive, provide complete information, timely public notice, full access to key decisions, and opportunities for early and continuing involvement (23CFR450.212(a) and 450.316(b)(1)). It also provides mechanisms for the public agency to solicit public comments and ideas, identify circumstances and impacts which may have been known or anticipated by the public agency, and, by doing so, to build support among the public who are stakeholders in transportation investments which impact their communities.

30. Ineffective Public Involvement An ineffective public involvement process is one that relies on one or two public meetings or hearings to obtain input immediately prior to decision making on developed draft programs or projects.

31. Effective Public Involvement A good indicator of an effective public involvement process is a well-informed public that feels it has opportunities to contribute to transportation decision-making processes through a broad array of involvement opportunities at all stages of decision-making. Public meetings that are well attended, frequent news media coverage on transportation issues, public forums where a broad representation of diverse interests are in attendance, and a transportation program that reflects an understanding and consideration of public input are all indicators that the public involvement process is effective.

32. Additional Observations Promoting public involvement is consistent with the principles of a democratic government. One of the most efficient forms of government is a dictatorship, where one person makes all of the decisions. However, a government that promotes public involvement puts a higher priority on showing respect and concern for its people than it does on being efficient. One of the most difficult tasks that engineers face is to seek out public input, and then exhibit patience and understanding with it.

33. In Class Exercise Summarize your thoughts on the following 2 discussion items based on the lecture. Provide information in a bullet point format 1. You are an engineer for the state DOT assigned to develop a bypass around a community. You widely advertise a public information meeting. The meeting is attended by a small group of people, but they include the mayor, city engineer, city manager, president of the chamber of commerce, and all city council members. Every elected official from the community attended. The unanimous response by the conclusion of the meeting is that the project is good for the community. Is the public involvement process so far effective for this project?

34. 2. You are an engineer for a consulting firm assigned to develop a street extension (collector) that will connect two neighborhoods currently separated by a natural barrier (river). You widely advertise that preliminary ideas will be presented at the next city council meeting. The meeting is packed and after much questioning by the council and discussion, the response to your ideas are favorable. The meeting was broadcast on the local network cable channel, and the news article and an editorial in the next day’s newspaper are very positive. What public input (if any) do you still need to seek?