Virtual public involvement (VPI) : guidance for encouraging public participation and soliciting feedback during the transportation planning process

GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 20-25 Final Report
VIRTUAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (VPI): GUIDANCE FOR ENCOURAGING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SOLICITING FEEDBACK DURING THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
PROCESS.
Office of Performance-based Management and Research
600 West Peachtree Street NW | Atlanta, GA 30308 September 2022

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.: FHWA-GA-22-2025

2. Government Accession No.: N/A

4. Title and Subtitle:

Virtual Public Involvement (VPI): Guidance for Encouraging

Public Participation and Soliciting Feedback During the Transportation Planning Process.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.: N/A
5. Report Date: September 2022
6. Performing Organization Code: N/A

7. Author(s): Baabak Ashuri, Gordon Kingsley, Colin Delargy and Digvijay Ambaliya, Eryn Kim
9. Performing Organization Name and Address: Georgia Institute of Technology Office of Sponsored Programs 505 Tenth Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0420

8. Performing Organization Report No.: 20-25
10. Work Unit No.: N/A
11. Contract or Grant No.: PI#0017469

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: Georgia Department of Transportation (SPR) Office of Performance-based Management and Research 600 West Peachtree St. NW Atlanta, GA 30308

13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Final Report (December 2020 September 2022)
14. Sponsoring Agency Code: N/A

15. Supplementary Notes: Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

16. Abstract: In transportation planning and decision-making processes, public involvement (PI) is critical as the daily users of transportation share useful insights, opinions, and observations on the performance and needs of the transportation systems. Virtual Public Involvement (VPI) is the use of digital technology to engage individuals in project planning and decision making. It is intended to supplement face-to-face information sharing with virtual tools, and thus broaden existing approaches to public involvement to include more voices. The overarching objectives of this research were to gather and evaluate information on existing approaches to VPI and to provide recommendations for the development of a single-platform VPI environment on ArcGIS Hub that encourages widespread participation, facilitates two-way communication, and integrates VPI requirements into an inter- office, cradle-tograve VPI process. The literature review provides examples of public participation design and key factors that contribute to the successful acceptance of VPI by the public. A review of GDOT practice identified the tasks, challenges, and goals for VPI by project phase and department and identified gaps in existing practice. A review of the community of practice was compiled to provide approaches to key tasks necessary for the design, implementation, and institutionalization of VPI across the country. Finally, 11 recommendations for institutionalizing VPI at GDOT were provided.

17. Keywords:

18. Distribution Statement:

Virtual Public Involvement; Public

No Restriction

Involvement; Institutionalization; Cradle-to-

Grave; Two-way communication; ArcGIS Hub

19. Security Classification (of this report): Unclassified
Form DOT 1700.7 (8-72)

20. Security Classification (of this page): Unclassified

21. No. of Pages: 22. Price:

228

Free

Reproduction of completed page authorized

.

GDOT Research Project 20- 25 Final Report
VIRTUAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (VPI): GUIDANCE FOR ENCOURAGING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SOLICITING FEEDBACK DURING THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS. By Baabak Ashuri, Ph.D. DBIA Gordon Kingsley, Ph.D. Colin Delargy Digvijay Ambaliya Eryn Kim Georgia Tech Research Corporation Contract with Georgia Department of Transportation In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
September 2022
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
ii

Symbol
in ft yd mi
in2 ft2 yd2 ac mi2
fl oz gal ft3 yd3
oz lb T
oF
fc fl
lbf lbf/in2

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

When You Know

Multiply By

To Find

LENGTH

inches

25.4

millimeters

feet

0.305

meters

yards

0.914

meters

miles

1.61

kilometers

AREA

square inches

645.2

square millimeters

square feet

0.093

square meters

square yard

0.836

square meters

acres

0.405

hectares

square miles

2.59

square kilometers

VOLUME

fluid ounces

29.57

milliliters

gallons

3.785

liters

cubic feet

0.028

cubic meters

cubic yards

0.765

cubic meters

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS

ounces

28.35

grams

pounds

0.454

kilograms

short tons (2000 lb)

0.907

megagrams (or "metric ton")

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

Fahrenheit

5 (F-32)/9

Celsius

or (F-32)/1.8

ILLUMINATION

foot-candles foot-Lamberts

10.76 3.426

lux candela/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

poundforce

4.45

newtons

poundforce per square inch

6.89

kilopascals

Symbol
mm m m km
mm2 m2 m2 ha km2
mL L m3 m3
g kg Mg (or "t")
oC
lx cd/m2
N kPa

Symbol
mm m m km
mm2 m2 m2 ha km2
mL L m3 m3
g kg Mg (or "t")
oC
lx cd/m2
N kPa

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

When You Know

Multiply By

To Find

LENGTH

millimeters

0.039

inches

meters

3.28

feet

meters

1.09

yards

kilometers

0.621

miles

AREA

square millimeters

0.0016

square inches

square meters

10.764

square feet

square meters

1.195

square yards

hectares

2.47

acres

square kilometers

0.386

square miles

VOLUME

milliliters

0.034

fluid ounces

liters

0.264

gallons

cubic meters

35.314

cubic feet

cubic meters

1.307

cubic yards

MASS

grams

0.035

ounces

kilograms

2.202

pounds

megagrams (or "metric ton")

1.103

short tons (2000 lb)

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

Celsius

1.8C+32

Fahrenheit

ILLUMINATION

lux candela/m2

0.0929 0.2919

foot-candles foot-Lamberts

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

newtons

0.225

poundforce

kilopascals

0.145

poundforce per square inch

Symbol
in ft yd mi
in2 ft2 yd2 ac mi2
fl oz gal ft3 yd3
oz lb T
oF
fc fl
lbf lbf/in2

* SI is the sym*SbIoisl ftohretshyemIbnotlefronrathtieoInnatel rSnyasttioenmaloSfyUstneimts.oAf Upnpirtso.prAipatperorporuiantedirnogunsdhinogulsdhobueldmbaedme atodectoomcopmlypwlyitwhitSheSceticotinon44oof fAASSTTMMEE338800.. (Revised Mar(cRhe2vi0s0ed3)March 2003)

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY......................................................................................1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO VPI .................................................................................................................1 Definition ..............................................................................................................................................................1 Institutionalization ...............................................................................................................................................1 COVID-19.............................................................................................................................................................2
RESEARCH PURPOSE ..........................................................................................................................................2 Research Significance ...........................................................................................................................................2 Research Objectives.............................................................................................................................................4 Report Structure ..................................................................................................................................................5
METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................5 External Sources ..................................................................................................................................................6 Internal Sources .................................................................................................................................................10
VPI IN CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................................11 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................................................................................11 Objectives of VPI in Transportation Planning................................................................................................15
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................................17 ACADEMIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND DESIGN MODELS FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESSES ...................................................................................................................................................................17 ACADEMIC LITERATURE REVIEW FOR VIRTUAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND E-PARTICIPATION ...................................................................................................................................................................20 Academic Literature on Virtual Public Involvement .....................................................................................21 Academic Literature on e-Participation ..........................................................................................................23 Academic Models for Planning and Designing e-Participation .....................................................................25 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................33
CHAPTER 3 VPI AT GDOT................................................................................................................................... 35 HISTORY OF VPI AT GDOT ..............................................................................................................................35 Early phase incorporation of digital tools into PI (2000 2016)....................................................................35 Every Day Counts and Focus on Implementation (2017 2020)...................................................................37 VPI during and after COVID-19 (2020 present)..........................................................................................39 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................44
OVERVIEW OF VPI POTENTIAL, IDENTIFIED NEEDS, AND AREAS OF EFFICIENCY.........................44 Agency-wide VPI................................................................................................................................................45 VPI tasks across a project's life cycle ..............................................................................................................50 GDOT Stakeholder Offices and VPI Tasks.....................................................................................................69 GDOT Current Practices using Esri suite .......................................................................................................81 GDOT needs for institutionalizing VPI ...........................................................................................................89
CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A VIRTUAL PROJECT INFORMATION PLATFORM..........90 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................90
iv

INTEGRATING VPI ENVIRONMENTS (ONE-STOP-SHOPS) .....................................................................93
Scattered VPI Systems ......................................................................................................................................93 Single-Environment VPI Systems ....................................................................................................................95 Multi-Environment VPI Systems .....................................................................................................................96 Comprehensive VPI systems.............................................................................................................................98
STRUCTURING CONTENT PAGES ................................................................................................................99
Single-Page Sites ..............................................................................................................................................101 Multi-Page Sites ...............................................................................................................................................104 StoryMaps.........................................................................................................................................................106 Consistency .......................................................................................................................................................109 Quality Control for Websites..........................................................................................................................110
SELECTING THE RIGHT TOOLS .................................................................................................................112
Tool Selection Matrices....................................................................................................................................112 Online Toolkits.................................................................................................................................................114 Customized Tools.............................................................................................................................................115 Dashboards .......................................................................................................................................................118
INTEGRATING FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE .............................................................................................121
Planning for Needs by Phase...........................................................................................................................122 Project Websites...............................................................................................................................................123 Databases ..........................................................................................................................................................126 Project Administrative Records ......................................................................................................................129
ARTICULATING VPI GOALS ...........................................................................................................................130
Regulatory Compliance ...................................................................................................................................130 International Association for Public Participation .......................................................................................131 Other Administrative Values ..........................................................................................................................133 Strategically Matching Goals and Procedures ..............................................................................................135
DIRECTING USERS TO INFORMATION ......................................................................................................138
Search Engine Optimization (SEO) ...............................................................................................................138 Public Involvement Portals and Wayfinding.................................................................................................139 QR Codes, Simple URLS, or Direct Access via Digital Outreach ................................................................143 Targeted Advertising .......................................................................................................................................145 Facilitating Content .........................................................................................................................................146 Small Group and Individual Outreach ..........................................................................................................150
TRAINING, RESOURCING, AND INSTITUTIONALIZING.........................................................................152
Training Portals and Learning Management Systems .................................................................................152 Pilots and Case Studies....................................................................................................................................154 Documented Procedures and Guidelines ........................................................................................................157 Templates..........................................................................................................................................................160 Roles, Responsibilities and Organizational Structure ..................................................................................160 Integrating VPI into Formal Workflow Processes........................................................................................163
IMPROVING EQUITY, ACCESSIBILITY, AND INCLUSION ....................................................................166
Identifying EJ and LEP Communities ...........................................................................................................167 Inclusive Invitations.........................................................................................................................................171 Accommodation................................................................................................................................................172
EVALUATING PERFORMANCE .....................................................................................................................176
Simple Web Metrics .........................................................................................................................................178 Integrated Evaluation Approaches ................................................................................................................180
v

Benchmarking ..................................................................................................................................................184 Innovative Uses of VPI Data ...........................................................................................................................186 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................186 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................189 Recommendations for Best Practices for VPI ....................................................................................................189 Further Research Opportunities .........................................................................................................................194 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................197 APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................................198 Appendix A............................................................................................................................................................198 Appendix B............................................................................................................................................................199 Overview of Esri Best Practices........................................................................................................................199 Appendix C............................................................................................................................................................219 StoryMaps for One-Stop-Shop Design and Esri Best Practices ......................................................................219 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................................223 Academic Literature.............................................................................................................................................223 Professional Literature.........................................................................................................................................225 Interviews ..............................................................................................................................................................228
vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Diagram. Methodological approach for research project................................................................6 Figure 2. Map. Key reference states and agencies .........................................................................................8 Figure 3. Diagram. Design Guidelines for Participatory Processes ..............................................................17 Figure 4. Diagram. Wirtz et al.'s framework for the strategic design of e-participatory initiatives.............27 Figure 5. Table. Steinbach et al.'s adoption of e-participation practices .....................................................30 Figure 6. Table. Steinbach et al.'s implementation of e-participation practices...........................................31 Figure 7. Table. Steinbach et al.'s institutionalization of e-participation practices......................................32 Figure 8. Diagram. Toots's failure model for e-participation.......................................................................33 Figure 9. Screenshot. STIP website from 2013............................................................................................36 Figure 10. Publication. GDOT Public Involvement Roadmap ca. 2017 ......................................................38 Figure 11. Screenshot. STIP website from 2021 ..........................................................................................40 Figure 12. Screenshot. GDOT custom open house software........................................................................41 Figure 13. Screenshot. GDOT 2020 PIOH video.........................................................................................42 Figure 14. Screenshot. Sample project webpage..........................................................................................42 Figure 15. Diagram. Hybrid outreach approach ...........................................................................................43 Figure 16. Diagram. VPI activities and deliverables by project phase ........................................................50 Figure 17. Diagram. VPI activities: Long and mid-term planning phases...................................................52 Figure 18. Diagram. VPI activities: Concept Phase.....................................................................................56 Figure 19. Diagram. MnDOT's Virtual Public Involvement in the scoping phase......................................59 Figure 20. Diagram. VPI activities: Preliminary and final design phases ...................................................61 Figure 21. Diagram. VPI activities: Public Information Open Houses (PIOHs) and Public Hearing Open
Houses (PHOHs)...................................................................................................................62 Figure 22. Diagram. VPI activities: Implementation and Operation Phases................................................66 Figure 23. Diagram. Diagram. GDOT organization chart showing coordinating (yellow) and
implementing (green) offices ...............................................................................................70 Figure 24. Diagram. Coordinating and implementing offices......................................................................71 Figure 25. Diagram. GDOT's current online environments run by OES (green), Planning (red) and joint
(green/orange) offices...........................................................................................................83 Figure 26. Screenshot. GDOT website on ArcGIS Hub: I-20 @ Savannah River Bridge Replacements ...85 Figure 27. Screenshot. GDOT website on ArcGIS Hub: Transform 285/400 with website header (left)
and public outreach tab (right)..............................................................................................86 Figure 28. Screenshot. GeoPI project database portal..................................................................................88 Figure 29. Screenshot. GeoPI project information page...............................................................................88 Figure 30. Diagram. Chapter 4 topics ..........................................................................................................91 Figure 31. Diagram. Topic structures for Chapter 4.....................................................................................91 Figure 32. Screenshot. Scattered VPI environments - DDOT......................................................................94 Figure 33. Screenshot. Multi-environment VPI systems: ODOT.................................................................96 Figure 34. Screenshot. Multi-environment VPI systems: NCDOT ..............................................................97 Figure 35. Screenshot. Project webpage content: ODOT ............................................................................99 Figure 36. Screenshot. Project webpage content guidelines: PennDOT....................................................100 Figure 37. Screenshot. Esri examples of website design planning.............................................................101 Figure 38. Screenshot. Single-page project sites: DDOT ..........................................................................102 Figure 39. Screenshot. Single-page project sites: MSHA..........................................................................103 Figure 40. Screenshot. Multi-page project sites: UDOT............................................................................104 Figure 41. Screenshot. Multi-page project sites: ODOT and WSDOT......................................................105 Figure 42. Screenshot. Corridor study StoryMap: VDOT .........................................................................107 Figure 43. Screenshot. Detour route StoryMap: GDOT.............................................................................107 Figure 44. Screenshot. Public Involvement Summary Report StoryMap: MaineDOT..............................108
vii

Figure 45. Screenshot.Standardized timeline graphics: WSDOT...............................................................109 Figure 46. Screenshot. Non-standardized timeline graphics: GDOT .........................................................110 Figure 47. Diagram. Tool selection matrix: NCDOT, MDOT, FHWA .....................................................113 Figure 48. Screenshot. Public Engagement Online Toolbox: NCDOT......................................................114 Figure 49. Screenshot. Customized open house application: GDOT .........................................................116 Figure 50. Screenshot. Customized EIS alternative screening application: UDOT ...................................117 Figure 51. Screenshot. Dashboards: City of Johns Creek...........................................................................119 Figure 52. Screenshot. Planning outreach by project phase: FDOT...........................................................123 Figure 53. Screenshot. VPI integration via project pages: GDOT .............................................................124 Figure 54. Screenshot. VPI integration via contact databases: FDOT........................................................127 Figure 55. Screenshot. VPI integration via contact databases: MassDOT .................................................128 Figure 56. Screenshot. Customer Relations Management (CRM): PIMA..................................................129 Figure 57. Diagram. IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation .....................................................................132 Figure 58. Chart. DOTs' motivation for VPI..............................................................................................133 Figure 59. Chart. Motivation for VPI adoption...........................................................................................134 Figure 60. Screenshot. Matching VPI to goals: MDOT .............................................................................135 Figure 61. Screenshot. Matching VPI to goals: NCDOT ...........................................................................137 Figure 62. Screenshot. Directing users to information via PI portal, including a PI portal and easy
search function ...................................................................................................................140 Figure 63. Screenshot. Directing users to information via wayfinding: MassDOT ...................................141 Figure 64. Screenshot. Directing users to information via mapping applications: TxDOT .......................142 Figure 65. Screenshot. Directing users to information via QR codes: ODOT ...........................................144 Figure 66. Screenshot. Facilitating content via explanatory videos (reading project maps): NCDOT ......147 Figure 67. Screenshot. Facilitating content via explanatory videos (EIS): UDOT ....................................147 Figure 68. Screenshot. Examples of visible automatic translation services: New Haven and GDOT .......149 Figure 69. Screenshot. Examples of language services: DDOT.................................................................150 Figure 70. Screenshot. Online VPI learning portals: MassDOT ................................................................153 Figure 71. Screenshot. Online ArcGIS learning portal: IowaDOT ............................................................154 Figure 72. Screenshot. Learning via case studies: NCDOT .......................................................................156 Figure 73. Screenshot. Implementation via online documentation : ODOT .............................................158 Figure 74. Screenshot. Implementation via online documentation and training: NCDOT ........................159 Figure 75. Screenshot. Implementation via role and responsibility assignment: MDOT ..........................162 Figure 76. Screenshot. Recommendations for ArcGIS Hub staffing: Esri.................................................163 Figure 77. Screenshot. Identifying communities for EJ and LEP compliance: EJ Screen.........................169 Figure 78. Screenshot. Identifying accessible venues for ADA compliance: MassDOT...........................170 Figure 79. Chart. Common barriers for participation in minority and low-access communities ...............174 Figure 80. Screenshot. Using surveys to collect demographic data: NCDOT ...........................................176 Figure 81. Screenshot. Measuring and evaluating VPI: ODOT .................................................................179 Figure 82. Screenshot. Developing VPI goals and indicators: FDOT........................................................181 Figure 83. Screenshot. Integrated evaluation approach: NCDOT ..............................................................183 Figure 84. Screenshot. Evaluating VPI via benchmarking: NCDOT.........................................................185
viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. List of agencies referenced in report ................................................................................................8 Table 2. GDOT goals for VPI ......................................................................................................................49 Table 3. Extension of IAP2 framework to include VPI .............................................................................132 Table 4. Evaluating performance on indicator "Equity": FDOT................................................................182 Table 5. Summary of takeaways from Chapter 4.......................................................................................188
ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In transportation planning and decision-making processes, public involvement (PI) is critical as the daily users of transportation share useful insights, opinions, and observations on the performance and needs of the transportation systems. Virtual Public Involvement (VPI) is the use of digital technology to engage individuals in project planning and decision making. It is intended to supplement face-to-face information sharing with virtual tools, and thus broaden existing approaches to public involvement to include more voices. VPI intersects with the activities of multiple stakeholder offices at Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), including the Office of Environmental Services, Office of Planning, Office of Strategic Communications, Office of Program Delivery, Office of Information Technology, and more.
This research project was developed to contribute to GDOT's VPI initiatives. The overarching objectives of this research were to gather and evaluate information on existing approaches to VPI and to provide recommendations for the development of a single-platform VPI environment on ArcGIS Hub that encourages widespread participation, facilitates two-way communication, and integrates VPI requirements into an inter-office, cradle-to-grave VPI process.
To achieve these research objectives, a thorough evaluation of academic and professional literature was conducted, as detailed in Chapter 2. The scant literature on Virtual Public Involvement was augmented by robust if fragmented literature from the fields of participation and e-participation. In particular, the literature review summarizes design-based models for participatory processes and systems. These models emphasize two sides of participation. On the one hand, VPI requires that the public adopt and use digital tools within the context of interacting with government agencies. On the other hand, institutionalization requires that the organizational characteristics of administrative agencies be taken into consideration when implementing new technologies into participation processes. Each of these approaches individually produces a wealth of recommendations for designing participatory systems, but no
1

existing theoretical literature merges them into the type of comprehensive design strategy necessary for VPI in practice. This review serves to provide a vocabulary and set of guiding principles for analyzing GDOT's practice of VPI, while acknowledging the limitations of applying e-participation literature to VPI. It also presents possible necessary steps for institutionalizing VPI and prioritizing the general public's conditions for choosing to participate using digital tools.
Chapter 3 presents the results of an evaluation of VPI practices at GDOT along four dimensions. First, a brief history of VPI adoption at GDOT is presented, where a tendency towards more standardization, professionalization, and institutionalization of VPI practices is documented. Next, VPI is analyzed according to overarching, agency-wide opportunities, challenges, and objectives for an integrated VPI system. Thirdly, VPI activities are broken down by project phase. Tasks, potential challenges, and opportunities for efficiency are identified by the phase of project development in which they occur. This section sketches out what the needs of an integrated cradle-to-grave VPI system might look like. Fourthly, VPI characteristics are assessed by implementing office to document where VPI intersects with operational tasks. Finally, all of these findings are summarized into a list of VPI needs for GDOT.
Chapter 4 presents best practices for institutionalizing VPI in the form of an extensive guidebook for a Virtual Project Information Platform, or one-stop-shop. In total, examples are pulled from over 25 transportation agencies and other public governments in North America. This section is structured according to needs for a one-stop-shop that were identified by GDOT and by the research team. It is designed to be read either as a list of individual, actionable topics for the consideration of the VPI coordinating team, or taken together as a recipe for a strategic approach to VPI. It presents a referenceable catalogue of VPI practices in a structured, bite-sized way. Each of the nine topics are broken down into practical approaches. For each approach, a brief description, pros, cons, examples, and practical tips are provided. The chapter concludes with best practice recommendations for designing, structuring, and implementing the ArcGIS Hub environment.
2

VPI exists at the intersection of many areas of activity at GDOT. An integrated VPI approach remains a challenge, as many design choices are not within the purview of a VPI team alone but reach more deeply into department policy and standards of practice. While VPI can exist as a standalone practice at departments of transportation, it is difficult to create a completely integrated VPI system without encountering policies from a range of areas that quickly supersede the scope of VPI. This report attempts to deliver actionable steps for coordinators and implementers of VPI while not glossing over the inherently complex nature of the topic and the many areas that remain open for consideration. The conclusion provides detailed recommendations for a guide to institutionalizing VPI best practices, which can be summarized as follows:
Align overarching goals and priorities for VPI across offices Familiarize with your publics' technology and participation habits Design and test VPI implementation Evaluate and document initial VPI implementation Structure GDOT website to prioritize public involvement Network with strategic project stakeholders via VPI tools Build VPI into existing workflows and processes Plan and create new workflows for VPI technology Document VPI expectations and centralize resources Evaluate and update VPI procedures as needed Consider larger organizational changes that might aid VPI
3

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
General Introduction to VPI
Definition
Virtual Public Involvement (VPI) is the use of digital technology to inform and engage the public and to meet federal public involvement requirements in transportation decision-making processes. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), other federal agencies, and state and local transportation agencies have all recognized the potential that VPI represents for improving communication with the public, making public involvement processes more efficient, promoting equity, engaging hard-to-reach populations, and improving internal evaluation and reporting as compared with traditional public involvement (PI) approaches. VPI advocates promise enhanced quantity, diversity, and quality of methods for interacting with the public. Increasingly, VPI has become a vital component of agencies' public engagement toolkits.
Institutionalization
The recent rapid development of VPI-related tools and techniques poses challenges for state departments of transportation (DOTs), who wish to standardize, institutionalize, and optimize the way that VPI is implemented. In addition to challenges associated with choosing and using the best digital tools, VPI processes often link with other online communication strategies, agencies' information technology (IT) standards, existing project delivery workflows, and PI processes as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For many DOTs, institutionalizing VPI presents the opportunity to get the most out of existing digital technology while simultaneously creating successful synergies and realizing efficiencies across these other areas of activity.
4

COVID-19
Research for this report has been conducted at a unique moment in time. For the last two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) around the country to experiment with, expedite, and evaluate new VPI tools and procedures. As face- toface meetings between DOTs and the general public were declared unsafe and in many cases were prohibited a key mechanism for informing the public about transportation projects, for gathering feedback, and for meeting federal public involvement requirements was interrupted. In response, DOTs and Municipal Planning Organizations (MPO) accelerated the development and deployment of their arsenal of virtual tools to continue to fulfill their obligations and engage the public within a virtual setting. Accordingly, there has been an explosion of hands-on experience within DOTs, as well as the publication of resource materials to facilitate VPI knowledgetransfer within and across agencies. These resources provide a wide range of advice, spanning highly specific practical recommendations and higher-level strategic recommendations. In many ways, materials produced during the COVID-19 pandemic facilitate the institutionalization of VPI practices by providing a large, diverse portfolio of test cases for different VPI strategies. However, VPI pre-dated the COVID-19 pandemic and will outlive it. As DOTs transition out of COVID-19 conditions, it is important to take advantage of lessons learned and skills gained during that period while adjusting and integrating those lessons to ever- evolving political, social, and funding priorities. The recommendations in this report always consider VPI an extension of not a replacement for traditional non-digital engagement practices.
Research Purpose
Research Significance
Public Involvement is a critical and complex task in transportation decision making, and one that has the potential to impact transportation processes and outcomes by providing important insights from daily users of transportation infrastructure. Increasingly, transportation agencies
5

are expected to update their public involvement practices to incorporate more and more sophisticated virtual technologies. These expectations stem from the rapid growth of virtual tools for public involvement, the changing demands of a public increasingly comfortable interacting digitally, and the urgency to implement virtual tools brought on by DOTs' pivot to online-only engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of these pressures, the strategic institutionalization of VPI also presents an opportunity to improve PI outcomes, increase transparency and better engage the public. We argue that GDOT should strive to provide a VPI product to the general public that encourages early and consistent two-way communication with the public and is integrated across stakeholder offices and phases of the project life-cycle.
The implementation of VPI requires coordination across offices, project leaders, and stakeholder groups. When institutionalizing VPI across the department, the specific needs of implementing offices must be addressed and integrated. Although GDOT has had some success in incorporating virtual tools and strategies into individual public involvement initiatives, a comprehensive and consistent department-wide approach is still missing. Documenting the practices, needs, and challenges of different offices is a key step in the implementation of a VPI strategy.
The increase in VPI rollout across the country has led to a profusion of technologies, practices, and recommendations on how best to implement virtual public involvement. Many DOTs have documented their efforts and engaged with their peers to share their knowledge and compare experiences. Processing through the ever-growing documentation, conference minutes, and webinar recordings about VPI can be challenging for practitioners, especially when faced with constrained staff and time resources. In order to successfully implement VPI, it is important to establish which VPI tools and practices are most applicable to a specific DOT's existing structures, practices, and strategic objectives, to organize these in a workable way, and to evaluate whether current DOT practices are on track.
6

In some cases, the potential of VPI can be realized by small changes to existing procedures. In other cases, strategic, department-wide organizational decisions would need to be made to maximize the role and effectiveness of VPI. While VPI can serve as a catalyst for new organization-wide policy for example, as a way to consider the department's relationship to open data and data transparency, or the department's relationship with external consultants it is up for departments to determine their own priorities for comprehensive integration of VPI systems. A reflection on areas of organizational adjustment for VPI may help GDOT evaluate its preparedness in these areas or define acceptable limitations to VPI institutionalization.
Research Objectives
The objective of this study is to develop recommendations and guidance for institutionalizing VPI at GDOT. The end goals are to:
1. Analyze GDOT offices' current practices and identify key areas of potential, as well as current gaps in VPI implementation;
2. Provide an overview of best practices from transportation agencies across the country and catalog good examples of VPI products and VPI implementation from peer agencies; and
3. Develop recommendations for institutionalizing VPI to encourage public participation, solicit two-way communication and public feedback, accelerate project delivery and support a cradle-to-grave interoffice VPI process.
Prior to the onset of this project, GDOT selected ArcGIS Hub, a cloud-based ESRI software service, to be its primary platform and "one-stop-shop" for VPI. The research team has paid particular attention to the ways in which ArcGIS Hub can be leveraged to meet VPI goals, both at the strategic and project-specific level. The project has also identified gaps in ArcGIS Hub's features which will need to be met by other technology solutions.
This report was developed within the Federal Highway Administration State Transportation Innovation Councils (STIC) Incentive program, which aims to standardize innovative practices in
7

state transportation agencies. Virtual Public Involvement is one area of FHWA's Every Day Counts 6 (EDC-6) Initiative.
Report Structure
This report is structured in three sections. The first section contextualizes VPI, especially within the context of public transportation agencies' regulatory requirements and gives an overview of the report's objectives and methodologies.
The second section presents this research's key findings. There are four chapters in this section. Chapter 2 presents a summary of academic and professional literature related to public involvement and virtual public involvement, emphasizing the importance of strategic design for maximizing the value of VPI and presenting design models. Chapter 3 summarizes GDOT's past and current VPI activities, products and protocol. This chapter identifies current practices by project life cycle phase and GDOT office and identifies lingering VPI needs. Chapter 4 provides an extensive review of VPI practices from DOTs across the country, organized by topics relevant to the needs identified in Chapter 3. Finally, the conclusion reflects on larger organizational areas that are related to VPI but for which in-depth analysis exceeds the scope of this research. The conclusion also presents recommendations for the institutionalization of VPI at GDOT. Supporting materials and additional resources are available in the appendix.
Methodology
The methodological approach for this report consists of two primary spheres of analysis. On the one hand, the researchers conducted an extensive review of external sources for VPI tools, approaches, and implementation recommendations. The results from this sphere are presented in Chapters 2 (for a review of academic and professional literature) and Chapters 4 and 5 (for a review of professional documentation and practices). The second sphere of analysis looks at internal GDOT practices surrounding VPI, including official documentation, training material (where it exists), and existing VPI environments (GeoPi, ArcGIS Hub). Regular exchanges with
8

GDOT offices were held to stay up to date on evolving needs and practices within the department and to discuss how deliverables should be formatted and communicated to maximize relevance to VPI teams. Figure 1 presents a diagram of the sources for this report.
Figure 1: Diagram. Methodological approach for research project. Source: own depiction
This research was conducted between January 2021 and September 2022, at a time when transportation agencies nationwide were still developing standard VPI practice to meet the rapidly changing needs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the course of the project, VPI professionals continued to publish literature and manuals of practice, and professional exchanges continued to mature and develop the state of practice. The literature review and recommendations contained within this report attempt to capture practices from this moment in time while also taking into consideration the more general evolution of VPI, as well as GDOT's operational goals. External Sources The research team for this report compiled and evaluated over 300 publications and resources over the course of the review period. Literature was obtained through a snowballing practice,
9

beginning with foundational literature and exploring related papers and reports that pertained to GDOT's stated interests. Further literature was identified in conversations with VPI practitioners. The catalog of literature reviewed for this paper includes peer-reviewed academic studies of e-participation and virtual public involvement, as well as professional literature from transportation research groups and national PI organizations.
Knowledge Exchange and Conferences
The COVID-19 pandemic also led to the proliferation of online events, webinars, and conferences that brought public engagement professionals together to discuss the development, implementation, benefits, and challenges of VPI. FHWA was a key sponsor of webinars as a part of the Every Day Counts initiative. These webinars thematically convened practitioners from around the country and presented case studies by leading agencies. The research team also attended and reviewed professional (e.g. TRB) and private-sector commercial (e.g. Esri User Conference) conferences.
VPI Review of Practice Identification of Benchmark States
From the onset of this research project, specific states, regional agencies, and municipalities were distinguished for their VPI practices and documentation. In conversations and interviews with these agencies and GDOT, the research team frequently asked about sources of inspiration and best practice. Additionally, the Transit Review Board's AJE45 (Public Engagement and Communication) provided guidance in their documentation, membership lists, and discussions about benchmark agencies for VPI practice and institutionalization. To narrow the scope of the research, the project team used a selection of DOTs and MPOs as the primary source for the state of practice. Many examples in this report are based on the practices of these agencies. Figure 2 shows a map of commonly referenced agencies, which are summarized in Table 1.
10

Figure 2: Map. Key reference states and agencies. Source: own depiction

Table 1: List of key reference agencies used in this report
Departments of Transportation
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Iowa Department of Transportation (IowaDOT) Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) Maryland State Highway Authority (MSHA) Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Washington D.C. Department of Transportation (DDOT) Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)

MPOs and local governments
Alamo Area MPO (AAMPO) - TX Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) GA Boston Metropolitan Area Planning Council
(MAPC) MA City of Johns Creek GA City of Salt Lake UT North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
(NJTPA) NJ Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation
System (PACTS) ME Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) - WA

11

Review of Manuals of Practice
Manuals of practice published by reference-state DOTs, including VPI guidelines, protocol, case study summaries, and templates were analyzed to determine common and best practices, including how VPI expectations are communicated by departments. Reference-state DOTs' agency-wide public involvement plans were reviewed for references to and strategies for VPI implementation.
External Interviews
To delve more deeply into specific practices and processes involved in the institutionalization of VPI at state DOTs, the research team conducted interviews with seven DOTs and three MPOs and local agencies. Organizational goals regarding VPI, technological tools, and their limitations as well as important organizational factors that impacted the success of VPI institutionalization were discussed in these interviews. Implementation materials were also collected from these DOTs. Further interviews were conducted with consultants who had experience working with ArcGIS Hub, including on GDOT projects. Interviews lasted between one hour and 90 minutes and were conducted via Microsoft Teams or by telephone. A standard question template was prepared in advance of the interviews, although not all questions were asked over the course of the interview. In many cases, the interviewee would host a screenshare to demonstrate some of the organizational processes and backend coordination that they used for their VPI processes. At least five interviewees from these organizations actively used ArcGIS Hub in their VPI approach.
The research team held discussions with Esri, PublicInput.com, and HNTB (who helped develop the PIMA application) to get insight into existing VPI technologies. In addition to getting an overview of how each company viewed their contribution to VPI, the research team used these opportunities to address specific implementation questions that GDOT had voiced.
12

VPI Technological Review and Examples of Practice
One advantage of VPI is that online platforms for public engagement continue to exist online after an individual public meeting or project is complete. Because of this, the research team could evaluate the existing virtual interfaces of DOTs and MPOs around the country and gauge how agencies use virtual tools to communicate with the public. In addition to a traditional literature review, the research team investigated the actual VPI products deployed by transportation agencies for public involvement and documented practical examples from the community.
One parameter for this study was to evaluate potential uses of Esri's ArcGIS Hub platform for VPI. The research team reviewed common and best practices of Hub, including examples highlighted by Esri, examples discussed and promoted in online fora, as well as examples found by exploring other agencies' online interfaces.
Internal Sources Manuals of Practice
GDOT literature was reviewed for references to VPI activities and expectations. The agencywide Public Involvement Plan (PI Plan), Plan Development Process (PDP), Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) and Context Design Manual (CSD) were all extensively reviewed, as well as PI and VPI reports from major studies and programs, such as the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) studies. Where available, existing webinars and trainings on the GDOT platform were reviewed.
Internal Interviews and Quarterly Meetings
Throughout the research process, interviews were conducted with individual GDOT offices responsible for conducting or coordinating VPI. These offices provided information about current VPI practice, future goals, anticipated challenges, and expected benefits of VPI. These
13

interviews also discussed existing good practices and existing documentation of previous VPI efforts. In the form of quarterly meetings, the research team communicated with multiple offices simultaneously, presenting updates of the research process and hosting conversations about the research's applicability to GDOT operations and expectations.
VPI in Context
Regulatory Framework
Before developing a Virtual Public Involvement (VPI) strategy, it is important for state Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and other transportation agencies to review the existing laws that guide the public involvement processes. Most VPIrelevant legislation is carried over from public-involvement requirements. Some regulations specifically focus on requirements in the digital space.
Federal Law
According to federal law, state DOTs are required to interact with the public throughout the scope of their (federally funded) activities. These regulatory requirements, created for traditional public involvement, also pertain to VPI activities. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) serves as the backbone for most public involvement requirements and has been fine-tuned and extended by subsequent law. The Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) and U.S. Code (U.S.C.) specify (1) when and (2) how NEPA requirements should be fulfilled; they also enumerate (3) minimum requirements for meaningful public involvement. Other federal statutes extend (4) special consideration to specific groups and prohibit discrimination against those groups in decision-making processes. For details about each of the enumerated topics, see the bulleted lists below.
14

When Is Public Involvement Required?
State agencies which receive federal funding are required to provide the public early, continuing, and meaningful opportunities to identify potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of the agencies' decisions. Federal law mandates that state Departments of Transportation seek public involvement:
When developing long range transportation plans (SAFETEA-LU, 23 U.S.C. 134) For proposed projects (23 C.F.R. 771.111) In transportation-related actions (NEPA; 23 U.S.C. 139) For decisions regarding noise barriers (23 C.F.R. 772.11(f))
How Should Public Involvement Be Undertaken?
Federal code also determines the quality of public involvement opportunities. Opportunities for input must be:
Meaningful (23 U.S.C. 139) Early and continuous (23 C.F.R. 450) Offered prior to decision-making (40 C.F.R. 31, V 1500-1508) Fair, consistent, equitable (in cases of property acquisition and relocation - 49 C.F.R.
24) Fully considered (23 U.S.C. 109 (h))
Proposed planning processes must include: Public hearings, including early announcement of upcoming hearings (23 U.S.C. 128) Reasonable access to comment (23 U.S.C. 135)
Minimum Requirements
Federal code also stipulates minimum requirements for information presented at public meetings for DOTs (23 C.F.R. 771.111). These include:
The project's purpose, need, and consistency with the goals and objectives of any local urban planning,
The project's alternatives and major design features, The social, economic, environmental, and other impacts of the project,
15

The relocation assistance program and the right-of-way acquisition process, and The state highway agency's procedures for receiving both oral and written statements
from the public.
Statutorily Protected Populations Other statutory regulations guarantee specific populations protection from processual discrimination in federally funded decision-making processes. These include: Individuals with disabilities (Americans with Disabilities Act) Individuals on the basis of race, color or national origin (Civil Rights Act) Individuals on the basis of sex (Federal-Aid Highway Act) Low-income and minority communities (Executive Order 12898) Individuals with limited English proficiency (Executive Order 13166)
NEPA Process Recent Changes
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) establishes substantive requirements and regulations for the NEPA process. For the first time since 1986, these rules were updated in 2020. The most relevant change of these processes for VPI is the forfeiture of untimely public comments. According to the new regulations, any public comments received outside of the window of public comment for a project's draft Environmental Impact Statement are "unexhausted and forfeited" (Council on Environmental Quality 2020). For DOTs wishing to use digital tools to gather early and regular feedback from constituents, it will be important to distinguish between formal and informal comments and comment periods. The 2020 CEQ update generally aims to streamline and shorten the NEPA process, a goal some advocates claim VPI can help to accomplish. In October 2021, the CEQ under the Biden administration issued a proposed rule to reverse some of the recent changes (Council on Environmental Quality 2021).
Virtual Public Involvement
Few laws or regulations dictate how to take public involvement virtual. There are two areas of statute, regulation, and executive orders that specifically address the virtual aspect:
16

electronically provided information and visualization. 23 C.F.R. 450.210 and 450.316 stipulate that public information must be made available in electronically accessible formats, such as the World Wide Web. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 also requires the use of electronic and information technology to allow access to information and data by individuals with disabilities at a level that is comparable to individuals without disabilities. Regarding visualization, 23 C.F.R. 450.210(a) and 450.316(a) require the use of visualization techniques to supplement proposed long-range statewide transportation plans.
In addition to federal law, federal guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic were published to help DOTs develop their VPI plans. FHWA issued guidelines for transitioning to digital-only or digital-first PI processes (Federal Highway Administration n.d.). In these temporary guidelines, FHWA recognized VPI as a change in how public involvement was to be implemented, not in the overall objective of public involvement. So long as the public could engage with the PI process as extensively in a virtual setting as in an in-person one, virtual processes would serve as an appropriate substitute. FHWA insists that participation by minority and low-income populations as well as by non-English speakers and individuals with disabilities continue to be ensured. These guidelines also draw attention to non-computer alternatives to participation for individuals with limited internet connectivity or with low digital proficiency. Importantly, FHWA continued to require that Public Hearing Open Houses (PHOHs), a central part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) PI process, be offered as an in-person meeting throughout the COVID19 pandemic.
State Law
It is also important to review Georgia state's existing open meeting and so-called sunshine laws during the COVID-19 pandemic and note requirements that would conflict with virtual public meetings. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the State of Georgia did not release special guidance for VPI and PI compliance, although the statewide "Empowering a Healthy Georgia" plan placed restrictions on in-person public gatherings above 50 people (Exec. Order 03.12.21.01 2021).
17

Objectives of VPI in Transportation Planning
Most DOTs and MPOs acknowledge that successful VPI implementation has the potential to greatly improve the performance, reliability, transparency, and accessibility of public engagement processes in transportation decision-making. The objectives of VPI range from higher-level strategic goals to practical improvements for day-to-day VPI operations.
Federal VPI Objectives
Both federal and state transportation administrators advocate for the expansion of VPI tools and processes, citing that these tools can help DOTs improve upon their public involvement efforts, expedite transportation decision-making processes, and improve the outcomes of these processes (Federal Highway Administration, May 2021). For the last two, two-year cycles, FHWA has included VPI in its Every Day Counts (EDC) program, a federally-led initiative to encourage the expansion and adoption of innovative practices amongst state DOTs. EDC provides federal coordination and guidance and creates a platform for states to exchange knowledge, tools, and practices for the identified innovation areas. VPI has been named by the fifth (EDC-5, from 2018-2020) and sixth (EDC-6, from 2020-2022) cycle of the program as a sponsored area of innovation. EDC focuses on improving DOTs' service to the public through the sequence of developing, demonstrating, assessing, and institutionalizing new innovations. State DOTs report their baseline status at the beginning of the two-year program as well as their targeted status after two years.
The EDC-6 guidelines lay out benefits and broad objectives for VPI from the federal standpoint. VPI allows DOTs to "enhance agencies' efforts to engage the public, make public involvement more accessible,... offer convenient, low-cost methods to inform the public, encourage participation, illustrate projects and plans, and get feedback. Virtual public involvement can aid in establishing a common vision for transportation and ensure the opinions and needs of the public are understood and considered during planning and project development. Virtual tools
18

can also engage wider, more diverse audiences more efficiently and address barriers to public participation such as potential participants' busy schedules" (Federal Highway Administration, May 2021; emphasis added). Many of these goals stem from the legal mandates that require DOTs to solicit feedback from the public and provide public information about activities and are expanded to address common challenges that DOTs face when doing public engagement.
GDOT's EDC Objectives for VPI
GDOT self-identified its 2021 VPI baseline at the demonstration level in documentation for the EDC-6 program. Its goal at the end of the EDC-6 cycle is to have institutionalized VPI: "[to adopt] the innovation as a standard process or practice and use it regularly on projects" (Federal Highway Administration, May 2021). Further GDOT objectives are discussed in Chapter 3.
Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility (IDEA) objectives
One central objective for PI processes is to improve the inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility (IDEA) of public decision-making processes and outcomes. Many advocacy groups, federal agencies, and state and local practitioners publish literature highlighting IDEA challenges and strategies (e.g. Michigan Department of Transportation 2021). At the national level, FHWA and U.S. DOT have increasingly emphasized the importance of IDEA in transportation decision-making, for example through the newly announced Justice40 project (Council on Environmental Quality 2022). For DOTs and MPOs, the appeal of VPI lies exactly in its potential to increase the accessibility to department activities for populations who have been historically and systemically excluded from decision-making processes (Kramer & Tremblay 2019). These include communities whose systemic exclusion is due to race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, wealth/income, geography (often rural, but also those in dense population centers), physical or mental ability, language, and more.
19

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Academic Literature Review and Design Models for Public Involvement Processes Academic literature surrounding participation has long assessed the significance of public input in administrative decision-making processes. Whereas participation is often analyzed for its democratic promises, the administrative motivations for soliciting and incorporating public input provide a second insightful evaluative framework (Eckerd and Heidelberg 2020; Nabatchi 2012). Existing literature reinforces again and again that administrative motivations for engaging in public participation processes include, among other things, a desire to improve both the quality and legitimacy of administrative decisions, and to do so while balancing expected costs and benefits. As literature on public involvement has matured, a design-based approach has emerged as a promising framework through which to improve the outcomes of participatory processes (Bryson, Quick, Slotterback, & Crosby 2013). Many models have been posited to ensure that the design of these processes maximizes the benefits of participation, especially for administrative agencies. One of the most widely cited models, by Bryson et al., is summarized in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Diagram. Design Guidelines for Participatory Processes. Source:
Bryson et al. 2013
20

This design model, as well as others from the literature, lay a foundation for this project's research findings and for the design considerations which will be discussed in ensuing chapters. Public Involvement at transportation agencies is often considered in the context of legally mandated processes, but specific design decisions are expected to impact the performance of those processes even in this constrained environment. This report does not confine recommendations to any given design model but rather employs those models as sources of consideration when facing specific challenges in the planning and deployment of PI processes.
Design-based models differ in their detail, area of application and theoretical backing, but some common design considerations do emerge which are especially relevant for transportation decision-makers. Those include:
Knowledge and legitimacy: Public knowledge about and the perceived legitimacy of decision-making processes are considered instrumental for soliciting public buy-in and willingness to participate. Public knowledge can be increased by understanding the relevant public and their respective barriers to participation and targeting these barriers directly. Legitimacy is determined by general trust in the agency, perceived representativeness of the process, accountability of administrative agency, and perceived opportunity to participate in a meaningful way. (Ianniell, Iacuzzi, Fedele, & Brusati 2019; Langella, Anessi-Pessina, Botica Redmayne, & Sicilia 2021; Berner, Amos & Morse 2011; Williamson and Fung 2004; Cascetta and Paliara 2013)
Importance of context: social, demographic, political, and technological features within the participatory arena, as well as key stakeholders, mandates and available resources. Transportation processes have a long, sometimes fraught history for many communities which will affect design decisions. Transportation agencies should tailor the intensity of planned participatory processes to resources at hand and demonstrably commit resources, especially in contexts of low trust or low perceived agency legitimacy (Bryson et al. 2013; Nabatchi and Amsler 2014; Schafer 2019; Clark 2018).
21

Definition of purpose(s): Clearly defining goals and expectations of participation helps to get the administrative team on the same page and appropriately tailor participatory tools to the task at hand. Communicating these goals and setting the public expectation helps avoid resentment or other negative outcomes. Note, these are the goals of the participation process, not of the underlying transportation project. Agenda setting (deciding what will be discussed and how) is a highly contentious task in policy design; some participants may refuse to participate if they feel that the purpose of participation does not correspond with their priorities. The highly regulated environment of transportation-related participation may cause a rift between public expectation and administrative requirement. Moreover, public involvement processes in transportation undergo multiple phases that correspond to the phases of the physical infrastructure design; the purpose of participation in each phase should be considered separately and together (Quick & Zhao 2011; Bryson et al. 2013).
Stakeholder identification and preparation: No participatory process is possible without the buy-in of stakeholders, and the profile of stakeholders will also determine the perceived legitimacy of the process. Tools and content should be designed to match the capabilities and desires of the target audience. Because of the complexities of transportation projects, some members of the public may require preparation and support to be able to participate fully and meaningfully. Power imbalances can also be equalized, if desired, by providing resources to prepare less-resourced participants prior to taking part (Nabatchi & Amsler 2014; Schafer 2019; Bryson et al. 2013; Quick & Zhao 2011; Cascetta & Pagliara 2013; Berner et al. 2011; Fink, Ruffing, Burst & Chinnow 2021; Clark 2018)
Selection of tools: Tools differ in their ability to solicit different degrees of participation, their usability by different populations, and their cost to use. Flashy tools are not as important as appropriate tools. Especially with the proliferation of online engagement technologies, tool selection should be handled carefully and should serve the purposes and stakeholders at hand. User expectation and ability will determine whether a tool will actually be used (Bryson et al. 2013; Quick & Zhao 2011).
22

Centrality of evaluation: Evaluation of participatory processes allows for long-term documentation, comparison, and performance review. Evaluation also allows processes to be changed which were unsuccessful. In most cases, especially with digital tools, evaluation needs to be carefully planned for to make sure that appropriate data can be collected. Even successful processes will need to be innovated to ensure that they stay relevant and continue to keep pace with changing public expectations (Bryson et al. 2013; Quick & Zhao 2011; Berner et al. 2011).
The following section will turn its attention to a review of Virtual Public Involvement in academic research. In part due to its novelty and in part due to its relevance to a broad, multidisciplinary array of academic disciplines, VPI literature tends to be less unified or comprehensive. The next section will attempt to identify broad trends in the literature and highlight useful models for practitioners.
Academic Literature Review for Virtual Public Involvement and e-Participation Beginning in the early 2000s, the academic literature on participation in public administrations experienced a strong revival with the emergence and diffusion of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). These two fields converged into a field known broadly as eparticipation (Alcaide-Muoz, Rodriguez-Bolivar, Cobo & Herrera-Viedma 2017). Much of the most popular early e-participation literature concerned itself with the categorization of digital tools that could be used to improve interaction and communication between the public and governmental decision-makers; the benefits of specific digital tools for government processes; as well as ICT's potential to facilitate a normative (re)imagination of the role of government within public life and public input within governmental operations (e.g. Medaglia 2012; Macintosh 2004; Scott 2006; Bonsn, Torres, Royo, & Flores 2012; Lazer, Neblo, Esterling & Goldschmidt 2009). However, the multi-disciplinary and inchoate nature of the field, while producing a broad scope of research, has resulted in fragmented literature and empirical base for e-participation. As a result, there is a lack of comprehensive theoretical contributions, a frequent lack of depth within and between empirical studies, and an inconsistency of central
23

concepts in the literature on e-participation, as well as its implementation (Lember, RandmaLiiv & Vooglaid 2022; Kubicek and Aichholzer 2016; Susha and Grnlund 2012; Steinbach, Sieweke & S 2019; Alcaide-Muoz et al. 2017).
Academic Literature on Virtual Public Involvement
Still, e-participation has enjoyed academic attention from a wide array of disciplines for over two decades, with thousands of articles dedicated to exploring different aspects of the field. Virtual Public Involvement (VPI) as a functional term, on the other hand, is almost entirely absent from the academic literature. As a concept, VPI seems to be primarily reserved for ICT tools used to fulfill legally mandated public involvement processes in transportation projects. Empirical and analytical reports of VPI practices, systems, and theory are more present in professional literature (for example, in thematic reports and departmental documentation from state departments of transportation, or in publications by FHWA) and professional-adjacent research (for example, literature sponsored by the Transportation Research Board, TRB, or the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO). The small scholarly footprint that does exist for VPI tends to completely miss the e-participation scholarship, framing VPI as a standalone system within transportation planning and using practices or policies from transportation agencies to ground and analyze the subject (e.g. Uddin, Bright & Foster 2022; Salerno, Sanchez, Tomasello, & Metz 2019). This report will reserve the use of the term "Virtual Public Involvement" or VPI for the narrow scope of planning, design, and implementation led by US transportation agencies (especially state-level, but also regional and, rarely, local). "e-Participation" will be used to discuss the use of ICT tools for government participatory processes or the e-participation literature more generally.
Salerno et al. have conducted one of the only comprehensive overviews of existing practices of VPI based on a literature review and interviews with DOTs and MPOs (2019). Unlike eparticipation literature, Salerno et al. do not conduct any causal tests of effectiveness or usage or provide a theoretical model for their analysis, instead summarizing practices across the country. Their summary is structured along seven themes (with brief descriptions of findings):
24

1. Support for VPI: upper-level management, emulation of other DOTs, and public demand often encouraged DOTs to explore VPI.
2. VPI Policies and Procedures: formal procedures for ICT tools in VPI exist either as standalone policies (e.g. social media) or as a part of public involvement plans for projects and programs.
3. Types of VPI tools and approaches: one-way and two-way approaches are common, especially websites, social media, surveys, and informational videos.
4. Challenges, Benefits and Measuring Effectiveness: technology limitations, inexperienced staff, and budget constraints are all common challenges, and DOTs use metrics provided by website and social media platforms to self-evaluate.
5. VPI Staff and Organizational Structure: VPI is either the purview of communications staff, dedicated public involvement staff, or a collaboration between offices.
6. VPI Feedback Management: More feedback can cause strains on staffing and resources 7. Reasons for not using VPI: Lack of training, concerns about compliance with federal
law, and technical issues were most common reasons for not incorporating VPI.
Salerno et al.'s report provides an excellent overview of existing practices in a format tailored to professional use. Salerno is currently conducting a second research project for the Transportation Research Board entitled "Virtual Public Involvement: A Manual for Effective, Equitable, and Efficient Practices for Transportation Agencies" due for completion in 2024.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) produced a research synthesis in June of 2021 called "Public Engagement Practices during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Disruptive Events" which surveyed existing practices and professional literature, and which aimed to provide practical advice for DOTs implementing VPI (Kline 2021). Their report gives a broad overview of general guidelines for VPI, virtual meetings, and other engagement platforms but does not provide a comprehensive framework for designing and planning VPI systems.
25

Alluri, Nafis, Soto, Gonzalez, and Gan produced a 2018 report for Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on emerging communication technologies' potential use to enhance public involvement. In that report, they assessed the functions of new ICT, DOTs current practices using those technologies, user satisfaction with those technologies, and developed guidelines for use. Overall, they found that ICT technologies increase public involvement when used properly. They found that different populations are more or less familiar with new technologies, and that certain technologies can be deployed to target specific audiences within a multipronged outreach approach. They recommend a hybrid approach of digital and traditional tools to maximize the effectiveness of public involvement.
Our report builds on these existing forays into VPI by adding a foundational approach derived from e-participation literature. This theoretical framework aims to help practitioners justify their VPI design decisions and to put practitioners in a position to confidently pursue new VPI strategies and establish implementation strategies that maximize the benefits of VPI.
Academic Literature on e-Participation
There are three reasons to question whether the findings from e-participation literature can apply to the specific field of VPI. First, e-participation is focused on either national or municipal governments' use of ICT for participation (e.g. Randma-Liiv, Vooglaid, & Lember 2022; Scott 2006; Bonsn et al. 2012; Bonsn, Royo, & Ratkai 2017). Because of the wide degree of interpretive freedom granted to state governments in the United States when implementing participatory processes (see e.g. Eckerd and Heidelberg 2020), there is an interesting gap in the e-participation literature when it comes to state governments and state-level agencies in the US (Alcaide-Muoz et al. 2017).
Second, although e-participation literature will often analyze cases from the US context, some of the most robust examples, comparative studies, and theoretical backings are found in Europe, where the regulatory context, public expectations of governmental agencies, and
26

resources for doing participation are much different (e.g. Royo, Yetano, & Acerete 2014; Bonsn et al. 2017; Zheng 2017; Porwol, Ojo, & Breslin 2018; and many more).
Third, e-participation literature is often unclear about the types of participatory activity being examined. Some studies focus on long-term projects (e.g. Yetano and Royo 2017), others on long-term participatory platforms which are not project-specific (e.g. Randma-Liiv et al. 2022) and which overlap more with broader notions of open government (e.g. Lember et al. 2022; Steinbach et al. 2019), and still others appear to be specific to one-off, short- to mid-term projects (e.g. Wang and Bryer 2013). Because VPI is typically considered within a strict regulatory context often associated with NEPA compliance, with its formal mandates and administrative norms, objectives, and focus strategic implementation do not allow it the full freedom that other e-participatory programs might enjoy, limiting the variables over which implementing agencies, such as state DOTs, have control. The impact of legally-mandated participation on the design, scope, and objectives of participation processes, both virtual and in-person, has been documented by scholars (e.g. Eckerd and Heidelberg 2020).
Despite the gaps between e-participation literature and Virtual Public Involvement, there are enough affinities between the fields to point to valuable lessons that the former can provide practitioners of the latter.
The e-participation literature recognizes that both the public and administrative agencies are needed for e-participatory processes to work, and moreover that the design and selection of ICT tools will depend on the particular needs and expectations of each group. Designing tools and processes to turn the public into active e-participants has long been cited as a challenge for practitioners (Medaglia 2012). Within the literature, the costs and benefits to governments and to the public are each discussed in turn, and trade-offs between the two are acknowledged.
Evaluative literature on the effectiveness of e-participation recognizes that poor design can leave potential benefits on the table (e.g. Royo et al. 2014). The design of individual elements
27

such as websites or web-applications (Scott 2006; Zheng 2017) may not effectively engage the public, while process and system design may create redundancies or result in mutually cannibalizing practices by failing to consider e-participation measures strategically (Wirtz, Daiser, & Binkowska 2018; Toots 2019). Administrative agencies are expected to identify the desired benefits and design systems which can meet those benefits at low cost. The literature details the potential negative consequences that poor design can educe, especially if there is a disconnect between public expectation and government performance in e-participation, or when the government promises benefits which its internal systems are not capable of fulfilling. In both cases, trust in e-participation may be damaged, perhaps irreparably (Bonsn et al. 2017; NaranjoZolotov et al. 2018a). The storage of personal data and data privacy also represent areas where public trust can be broken in a digital setting (Alcaide-Muoz et al. 2017). Susha and Grnlund similarly recognize that "among other things technology tools can help create facades or even barriers to genuine public participation" (2012). Poor design can further exacerbate existing inequalities of access and voice and deteriorate legitimacy (Medaglia 2012).
No consensus design models for e-participation exist which can immediately be put into practice. Instead, models exist which focus on particular aspects of e-participation, for example the selection of ICT tools or the institutionalization of e-participatory practices. Although none of these models suffice as a standalone framework for e-participation, they do each correspond with different aspects of design models from the previous chapter. The e-participation literature does offer the potential for extensive practical advice for implementing agencies. Rather than attempting to comprehensively treat these findings here, four of the most comprehensive models will be briefly summarized below.
Academic Models for Planning and Designing e-Participation Strategic Tool Design and Selection
Wirtz et al. develop an integrated strategic framework to advise public officials on how to design e-participation processes (2018). Their integrated model combines e-participation goals, forms,
28

strategies, instruments, demand groups, and external drivers of e-participation. The model is designed to help practitioners link instruments to demand groups, e-participation forms and targets. Different tools will be appropriate in different contexts and with different objectives. Matching available instruments to each function, objective, intensity, and demand group is a major task in the design of e-participation systems.
Additionally, the authors discuss the benefits and challenges to horizontal integration within their model, whereby strategies are selected based on their fit with respect to existing tools. Where coordination and integration are possible given existing organizational factors, horizontal integration should be prioritized in order to maximize efficiencies and synergies and promote trust in and legitimacy of e-participation functions. Horizontal integration factors also include homogenous appearances across tools and a central database system for managing instruments and gathered data (Wirtz et al. 2018). The authors distinguish between three strategies of e-participation design: isolated, combined and integrated.
An isolated strategy is characterized by low integration and independent coordination of instruments; instruments are managed individually. Pros: less coordination and integration effort required. Cons: potential synergies are not realized; possible cannibalization of demand groups across tools which serve similar ends; possible frustration or confusion by demand groups
In a combined strategy, instruments are managed independently, but loosely interconnected to achieve a coordinated response between demand groups. Pros: some instrumental synergies may be realized. Cons: some integration between tools and management teams required; some strategic synergies not realized between tools.
In an integrated strategy, all instruments are coordinated; strengths and weaknesses of different tools and applications are managed to complement one another. Pros: synergy effects
29

can be fully realized; redundancies can be reduced. Cons: high cost of coordination, integration and management by administrative officials. This strategic framework (pictured in Figure 4) is meant to overcome what the authors view as a shortcoming in the existing literature: that without a comprehensive framework, "eparticipation initiatives in practice often fall short of expectations" (Wirtz et al. 2018). The authors claim that the model can help practitioners develop integrated designs for their eparticipation tools and processes.
Figure 4: Diagram. Wirtz et al.'s framework for the strategic design of e-participatory initiatives. Source: Wirtz et al.
2018. Wirtz et al.'s framework for strategic e-participation addresses many of the common challenges facing practitioners of VPI, in particular how tools should be selected. The authors note that
30

tools need to be matched to goals, demand groups and contextual factors in order to be effective. Importantly, tools also need to be matched to one another in a strategic way in order to create a comprehensive system and avoid common pitfalls (e.g. redundancy, lack of clarity, inappropriateness of tools) associated with e-participation (2018).
Systems theories of public acceptance of e-participation design
Information Systems approaches to e-participation ask what characteristics determine the likelihood that the public will use and be satisfied with ICT tools within e-participatory processes. Naranjo-Zolotov et al. conducted a meta-analysis of existing literature on this topic from studies conducted in the 21st century and identified what they call "best" and "promising predictors" of e-participation amongst the general public (2018b). The study found two widely accepted theoretical models for predicting use of e-participation processes: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. Each of these models attempts to analyze what leads certain technologies to be taken up and adopted within different contexts. The study found that perceived usefulness, public attitude about the process, social influence amongst users, trust in government and effort expectancy were all best predictors of intention to use, which itself was a predictor of actual use. According to these models, the determinants of use are not as straightforward as simply weighing perceived benefits and costs. When public administrators are left puzzled by why their e-participation processes have failed, it may be attributable to these factors (e.g. Toots 2019).
Naranjo-Zolotov et al. note some implications for practice. For example, within the TAM model, it is the perceived usefulness of a technology, not necessarily the perceived ease of use, that impacts the intention of the public to use an ICT tool (2018b). The authors suppose the public is more sensitive to what a tool can do for them than how hard it is to use. The authors also use the findings of this study to make recommendations for design and selection priorities of ICT tools. "The meta-analysis... [suggests] that governments should put special attention on strategies that help to preserve positive attitude, the perception that the platform is useful, and trust of
31

citizens in the long term. The implementation of e-participation should not only lie on the use of cutting-edge technology and innovative interface design" (2018b). This finding aligns with many others from these schools, who emphasize that e-participation success is not based simply on the design and use of technical tools, but social factors like leadership, trust in government and past experience (e.g. Megdalia 2012).
A second study, conducted in the same year by those authors and based on the UTAUT model, found that performance expectancy and facilitating conditions (i.e. the availability of support resources for users) were strong predictors of intention to use; users wanted to know that they would benefit from using e-participation and that resources were available to them should they need help using ICT tools (Naranjo-Zolotov et al. 2018a). Although significant for that study, these findings have not been widely replicated in other settings.
Trust is a major topic for other scholars in e-participation, and many models of public trust in eparticipation processes have been posited. In a well-cited study, Welch, Hinnant & Moon relate trust in online processes to satisfaction, the convenience of using online platforms, the reliability of information on those platforms and the interactivity of digital products (2005). Kim and Lee identify government responsiveness, usefulness and reliability of ICT tools as important determinants of satisfaction, perceptions of transparency, and ultimately trust in eparticipation (2012). Scherer and Wimmer report that public trust in a ICT tool is based on the functionality (what a tool does), helpfulness (or usefulness, i.e. whether the tool's function corresponds with users' needs and expectations) and reliability of the tool (2014).
These models suggest that agencies need to take social factors into consideration when designing and selecting ICT tools. Understanding user expectations for tools and for e- participation processes whenever ICT tools are deployed is an important first step to selecting the right tool for the job. Moreover, ensuring that the tool consistently does what it says it is going to do (reliability), that users are able to quickly find the tools that they perceive to be useful to them and that users are provided support when they need it are other important
32

design considerations from this branch of literature. Each of these considerations is important for the general functioning of an e-participation system. Implementation and institutionalization Steinbach et al. provide a comprehensive literature review on many organizational factors affecting the institutionalization and integration of e-participation practices within administering agencies (2019). Based on theories of policy diffusion, the authors present three stages of diffusion of ICT technologies for e-participation: Adoption, Implementation and Institutionalization. Adoption is the process by which organizations learn about ICTs, gather information about potential benefits and decide to acquire and apply ICTs. Adoption of e-participation (Figure 5) relates to organizational culture, demands from external sources (the public or political leaders), organizational capacity, and participation in professional networks with other agencies. Microlevel factors such as public officials' belief in ICT solutions for public input and leadership support are also shown to affect adoption of e-participatory technologies and practices.
Figure 5: Table. Steinbach et al.'s adoption of e-participation practices. Source: Steinbach et al. 2019 Implementation (Figure 6) is the process through which innovations and practices are integrated into organizational processes and structures. Implementation has been a principal
33

focus of e-participation literature at the organizational level. Administrative power structures and cultures, departmental rivalry, and silo mentality all hamper implementation of eparticipation processes. Lack of management or positions for coordinating e-participation has been shown to slow implementation (Panopoulou, Tambouris, Sanchez-Nielsen, Zotou, & Tarabanis 2011; Criado & Rojas-Martn 2013), as have a lack of internal training, funding, and IT capacities. Each of these can affect the quality of interaction between the administration and the public. Process and communication design, interaction management, and relationship management are all important for implementation and the achievement of strategic goals related to e-participation (Steinbach et al. 2019). Designing and embedding organizational processes (workflows), structures (departments or positions), or policies within existing structures can improve the implementation of e-participation and make it more rapid, consistent, and efficient. Finally, "evaluations showed that public administrations can learn a lot from evaluating aspects of their e-participation practices, including their technological feasibility, the political advantages, and their impact in the specific organizational context" (Steinbach et al. 2019).
Figure 6: Table. Steinbach et al.'s implementation of e-participation practices. Source: Steinbach et al. 2019
Institutionalization (Figure 7) is the process through which e-participation becomes a known and routinized activity within an organization. Less research has been done on the institutionalization of e-participation. Institutionalization can be positive or negative; institutionalizing new tools and practices may open agencies up to new ways of doing business, but they may also reduce creativity and standardize processes. Steinbach et al. note that
34

managing active relationships can help promote institutionalization while preventing practices from getting stale. By implementing mechanisms to stay informed on stakeholder needs, preferences, and skills, agencies can ensure that their practices are continuously being adjusted to meet those needs.
Figure 7: Table. Steinbach et al.'s institutionalization of e-participation practices. Source: Steinbach et al. 2019 System failure
Toots provides a model for understanding why e-participation processes and systems might fail (2019). She uses a case study from Estonia where a public participation portal failed to sustain long-term public engagement after initial success. Figure 8 demonstrates the potential failure model employed by Toots. Some of Toots' observations relate to demand-side factors introduced in the overview of UTAUT above, whereas others directly pertain to implementation challenges by the local government. In particular, ambiguity of goals (especially by the local government), underestimation of contextual challenges, poor integration into existing organizational processes and policies, loss of individual champions over the project lifetime (which reduced innovation and adaptability), the lack of guidelines for internal use or
35

management, and the failure to analyze past activity and adapt strategy were all cited as contributing factors to the failure of the initiative.

Summary

Figure 8: Diagram. Toots's failure model for e-participation. Source: Toots 2019

The previous chapter only begins to touch on existing design models from the literature on e-participation, focusing on where

challenges emerge when applying ICT tools to participation design. Because e-participation scholarship overlaps with areas of concern in VPI, the former may provide a wealth of valuable insights to designing VPI systems. Of particular value for VPI practitioners are the variables that predict use of ICT tools for participation. These include: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, trust in government, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, convenience, reliability, responsiveness of government, and interactivity. These factors will all be important when considering the design of a one-stop-shop for VPI (see e.g. Chapter 4). Still, the lack of a single coherent design model for e-participation means that design principles as well as ultimate design decisions will need to be modified to the specific VPI context at hand.

The e-participation literature suggests that challenges to VPI implementation, which include a lack of integrated strategy, may be explained by institutional factors. Lack of appropriate organizational structures (including leadership buy-in, positions, or offices), ambiguous goals and competing organizational values, inadequately integrated IT systems for managing data and technology or for self-evaluation, lack of formalized rules and guidelines, and a lack of

36

resources for training and implementation were among the many barriers to effective eparticipation cited in the literature. The next chapter switches gears and provides an overview of past and current VPI practices at Georgia Department of Transportation. From this overview, this report seeks to define existing practices and lingering needs for VPI implementation at GDOT. Throughout the remainder of this report, the insights from the academic literature will provide vocabulary and inspiration for possible approaches to VPI system design and practice at the department.
37

History of VPI at GDOT

CHAPTER 3 VPI at GDOT

Early phase incorporation of digital tools into PI (2000 2016)

The public demand for and internal proliferation of digital tools to aid the public involvement process at GDOT has increased over the past few years, but this is by no means the department's first foray into Virtual Public Involvement. Tools as diverse as project websites, digital project databases, and online public forums date back at least to the early 2000s (e.g. Georgia Department of Transportation 2002). For the past decade, public involvement documentation at GDOT has increasingly recognized the importance of digital technologies for all phases of public involvement at the project and program level. Already in 2012, the online Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) documented best practices with digital tools by project teams involved in NEPA-related initiatives. It was around this time that GDOT launched its Twitter (2010) and Facebook (2011) accounts to inform the public of developments and upcoming events. Among other tools, online Geographic Information System (GIS) databases for identifying Environmental Justice (EJ) populations and historical resources, online document libraries for sharing and accessing archival information about a project area, digitally shared templates for public involvement activities, websites for better project communication, and visualizations for communicating with the public have been advocated (Georgia Department of Transportation 2012). The 2013-16 STIP process included a dedicated STIP webpage, which received more than 1,200 page views during the public comment period (Georgia Department of Transportation 2013). The Public Outreach report from that year's STIP listed the lack of online comment opportunities as a setback in the PI process and an area of improvement for future STIPs (GDOT 2013). A screenshot from the STIP website from that same period (Figure 9) demonstrates a lack of interactive features or two-way communication opportunities.

38

Figure 9: Screenshot. STIP website from 2013. Source: STIP 2013-2016 Public Involvement Report
The 2015 and 2016 Public Involvement Plans for NEPA projects provide further examples and benefits of online tools for public involvement. In these manuals, contemporary tools such as virtual public meetings, all-in-one public input platforms, online survey tools, social media engagement, and more are presented as "new tools" to help online engagement. Importantly, these tools were presented in the plans as options for public engagement, rather than standard operating procedure or internal requirements for public involvement (Georgia Department of Transportation 2015; Georgia Department of Transportation 2016). These documents also begin to explore the importance of evaluation and data tracking for VPI activities. They list website hits and social media engagement as digitally-oriented metrics in their list of evaluative measures of public involvement performance. The Context Sensitive Design Online Manual from 2016 similarly makes mention of many virtual tools available in the public involvement
39

process. This document recorded minimum requirements and optional features for a project website, including project description, contact information, message boards, and photo galleries. Some of the recommendations from this manual are no longer common practice on publicfacing websites, such as guest logs and visible site hit counters. Internally, GDOT began requiring its Hear Every Voice! and Serve Every Customer! trainings as a part of its broader PDP training for Project Managers, NEPA specialists and consultants (GDOT 2016). These workshops were and are a joint effort by the offices of Program Delivery, Communications, and Environmental Services and focus on public involvement processes as a whole, but also included some virtual elements.
Every Day Counts and Focus on Implementation (2017 2020)
In the years leading up to 2020, GDOT began focusing more on the implementation of VPI strategies and tools. In an extensive 2017 review of existing public engagement tools, strategies, and procedures, Georgia Southern University noted shortcomings of GDOT's projected webpage, visualization strategy, and social media usage with engaging the public and made recommendations for improving the use of these virtual tools (Maghiar, Aasheim, Kowalewski, & Maldonado 2017). The theoretical model of that report emphasized two key determinants of successful online PI processes: public knowledge of political processes and public trust in GDOT as a good steward of public discourse. In particular, many of the difficulties facing GDOT's online success stemmed from a perceived disconnect between the public knowledge and experience and the VPI-related deliverables being developed by GDOT (Maghiar et al. 2017). Beyond this report, interviews with GDOT offices and an evaluation of archived internal documentation indicate that another challenge that GDOT faced in this period was the short internal shelf life of many technological solutions used by the department to conduct public involvement initiatives. Internal coordination around GIS usage, for example, has been inconsistent over the past decade, as has the routinized use, maintenance, and continued innovation of PI-related databases (for example PIMA, GeoPI, GDOT Family of Partners database, etc.).
40

GDOT circulated a Public Involvement Roadmap around 2017 which laid out goals and next steps for the rollout of the department's PI plans (see Figure 10). Although this document was not specifically about VPI, many of the proposed steps involve additional digital tools or improved digitization of existing practices. Although some specifics have since grown out of date (for example the use of a PIMA website has been replaced by ArcGIS Hub), among the recommendations from this document are the creation of a VPI working group, development of an online repository of VPI tools, templates, and visualizations, and better incorporation of VPI into existing departmental implementation documents (PDP and PI Plan). Many of the milestones presented in this roadmap still influence the conversation around VPI today, in particular the introduction of an online resource library, internal training, and incorporating PI and VPI into the PDP.
Figure 10: Publication. GDOT Public Involvement Roadmap ca. 2017. Source: GDOT
41

In 2019, GDOT participated in the Every Day Counts 5 program for VPI, with a goal of moving from EDC's designated Development phase to Demonstration (FHWA, April 2021). A 2019 Year in Review report by the Division of Program Delivery highlighted the initiation of four virtual PIOH pilots, as well as the use of spreadsheets to communicate project status to local governments. Similarly, the Office of Planning documented the use of some digital tools over the course of the public involvement process as a part of the 2018-21 STIP. One highlight from that document was the use of an internal stakeholder database, which built upon the existing GDOT Family of Partners database, as well as on data collected in previous studies (GDOT 2018).
VPI during and after COVID-19 (2020 present) The prohibition of in-person meetings as a public health and safety precaution during the COVID-19 pandemic led GDOT offices to quickly pivot to online-only involvement techniques that accelerated the implementation of VPI across the department and amongst the public. To facilitate this transition, an inter-office VPI working group was developed to align on public involvement goals and discuss strategic steps, and the IT and procurement departments were brought on board to facilitate the use and dissemination of digital tools for project teams.
Although GDOT had previously employed a wide variety of VPI-related software (including MetroQuest and PIMA), the department acquired a license for Esri's ArcGIS Hub software to serve as its primary software solution for VPI activities during this period. It was during this period as well that GDOT participated in the Every Day Counts 6 initiative, with the goal of accelerating VPI practices from the demonstration to institutionalization designations (Federal Highway Administration, May 2021).
42

Figure 11: Screenshot. STIP website from 2021. Source: https://stip-gdot.hub.arcgis.com/

Documentation from the 2021-24 STIP process shows an example of how public involvement moved online, emphasizing a much more robust and comprehensive VPI strategy than the plan from only a few years before (Georgia Department of Transportation, 2021). This strategy included a STIP-specific website (hosted on ArcGIS Hub, see Figure 11), targeted social media advertisements (with special focus on environmental justice communities) and online comment forms. The STIP website from this cycle included much more structured, interactive content than in previous years. Other VPI materials included informational videos about the STIP and the STIP process, interactive maps and social media posts. In total, 1,360 interactions with the STIP website were recorded, compared to 76 in-person visitors from the 2018 2021 cycle.

VPI was also further integrated into the environmental review process of specific projects. In particular, public involvement for many larger investments from the Major Mobility Investment Projects (MMIP) program was moved to online portals, which provided the public with project information, upcoming meeting details, visualizations, and the opportunity to comment. The look and feel of GDOT project websites in this period started to achieve more consistency, thanks to the adoption of standard technologies and a GDOT rebranding in 2018. Still, the

43

hosted content and interfaces for many individual projects displayed wide variance from one another (e.g. the I-20 @ Savannah Bridge and the I-285 North Express Lanes pages). This variance is in part attributable to the specific project teams and consultants assigned to different projects. A custom public meeting application was developed by the Office of Strategic Communications to host Public Involvement Open Houses (PIOHs) within the ESRI platform (Figure 12). This application allowed easy uploading of project material in an interactive format meant to resemble an in-person experience. The PIOH software provided clarification and guidance for users unfamiliar with the app, as well as automatic translations of website content. GDOT also began conducting virtual meetings, primarily on the Microsoft Teams virtual meeting platform (see Figure 13).
Figure 12: Screenshot. GDOT custom open house software. Source: https://85study- gdot.hub.arcgis.com/
44

Figure 13: Screenshot. GDOT 2020 PIOH video. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt4TfEOAs1Y
Beginning in 2021, GDOT began institutionalizing the VPI practices from the previous year. The department conducted a soft-launch of a Public Involvement platform with ArcGIS Hub, which hosts all projects currently in the public involvement and comment phases (see Figure 14). These websites, equipped with templates, intend to increase the speed of deployment and standardize content and appearance of project pages in the public comment period.
Figure 14: Screenshot. Sample project webpage. Source: https://sr-54-sr-74-updates-0013726-gdot.hub.arcgis.com/
45

As restrictions for in-person meetings have expired, department documents also reflect a transition back to hybrid methods of public involvement (see Figure 15). Focus groups with department staff indicate a firm intention to maintain VPI practices developed during the COVID-19 pandemic into the future.
Figure 15: Diagram. Hybrid outreach approach. Source: GDOT July 14, 2020 46

Finally, the Department released an updated version of the Public Involvement Plan in 2021, in which virtual tools for public involvement take on a much larger role than in previous PI Plans. Virtual meetings, visualization, the GDOT website, and surveys are all cited as important tools in the PI toolkit. The newest PI Plan also confirms the institutionalization of VPI tools as a goal of PI efforts.
Summary
Over the last two decades, GDOT offices have increasingly recognized the value of deploying virtual tools in the public involvement process and have introduced increasingly sophisticated tools for select projects. VPI tools have received more attention in the last few years, both in practice and in departmental manuals and guides, cementing their place in the GDOT repertoire. Although the desire to standardize the use of these tools has been expressed in some strategic documentation and in interviews with staff, existing practices and tools have not yet achieved department-wide consistency or staying power over time. As a result, it has been difficult for the department to recognize, replicate, and build from successes, learn from failures, or build a reputation for VPI infrastructure both with the public and with department leadership. Moreover, the most mature VPI implementations at the department are implemented only for the largest and best-resourced projects; almost no VPI exists on smaller or medium-scale projects, representing a major gap in existing implementation. Although many stakeholder offices commit time, resources, and aspirations to VPI, increased attention to consistency, benefits of scale, and appropriate training can help the department develop a strategic approach to VPI to multiply benefits across projects and programs, expand the use of VPI, and achieve organizational goals through the implementation of VPI initiatives.
Overview of VPI Potential, Identified Needs, and Areas of Efficiency Over the course of this project, the research team has conducted interviews with GDOT offices and held task force meetings in the form of quarterly project updates. From these discussions,
47

the opportunities, challenges, and objectives of an integrated agency-wide VPI system have crystallized. At the same time, conversations with individual offices have revealed particular responsibilities, practices, goals, and challenges that define the day-to-day operations of VPI and that add additional detail to department-wide objectives. This section will lay out how and why VPI is done at GDOT, and what intentions GDOT staff articulate for the institutionalization of VPI practices.
Agency-wide VPI
GDOT staff recognize that VPI extends beyond the activities of a single office or agency initiative. Because VPI exists at the intersection of technology and data systems, public relations policy, department branding, and image-integrated project delivery and innovation policies, it requires a comprehensive approach. The promises and challenges of VPI accordingly span department activities, goals, and responsibilities.
Opportunities
Based on conversations with stakeholder offices, the following list summarizes the potentials for VPI that have been identified by the department. Successful institutionalization of VPI has the opportunity to:
Streamline compliance with federal public involvement regulations, improve reporting practices, and free up resources for strategic PI efforts
Expand, standardize, and disseminate GDOT branding and image and improve public familiarity with GDOT services, activities, and processes
Enhance department data mining and data usage protocol and explore new data use cases for improved decision-making
Develop integrated IT systems, protocol and practices across the department, while also providing a technical foundation for other statewide and regional partners
48

Establish formal recordkeeping and institutional memory protocols to increase internal retention of knowledge and practices while also improving the public-facing transparency and reliability of the department
Establish PI and IT practices and systems which can be comfortably and quickly scaled to respond to new state or federal requirements, opportunities and initiatives, positioning the department to stay competitive on a federal level
Improve relationships with local stakeholders, elected officials, regional transportation offices, and other statewide departments by being a reliable source of information and steward of diverse priorities, values and concerns
Reduce strain on project teams when engaging with the public, improve efficiency of PI systems, and encourage a positive relationship to PI by practitioners
Retain control of PI materials to maintain source-of-truth data and consistency across projects, and use clear guidelines and contracts to better communicate expectations with consultants and contractors
Maintain a stable, consistent communications and public relations strategy across integrated project phases, cradle-to-grave, while retaining data and insights from project initiation to finish
Increase diversity, breadth, size and quality of public input by incorporating new and previously unheard perspectives, knowledge, and values while reducing barriers to engagement faced by disadvantaged populations
Increase opportunities for the public to interact with GDOT offices and tools to improve understanding and public acceptance of GDOT decisions
Produce data-backed performance metrics that regularly evaluate performance and identify potential opportunities for improvement and adjustment
Stay up to speed with peers, share knowledge with other DOTs, and further GDOT's reputation as a leading institution nationwide
49

Challenges
However large the promises of VPI, there are also significant overarching challenges to implementing and institutionalizing an agency-wide VPI strategy. The following challenges recurringly emerged in conversations with GDOT:
Integrating IT systems and usage standards across offices and deciding on technological products that can reliably fulfill the needs of practitioners
Identifying, coordinating, and prioritizing values for public involvement, including different goals and driving motivators across offices
Launching individual VPI initiatives early and consistently in the life-cycle of a project Maintaining compliance in a changing system, both due to emergency measures such as
the COVID-19 pandemic, but also natural shifts in political and administrative orientation and values Developing an in-house, comprehensive understanding of and familiarity with the ArcGIS Hub environment to ensure that maximum value is gained from existing licenses Fostering a culture of innovation and accurately predicting which innovations represent the best return on investment for the future Maintaining consistency and conformity across an increasingly diverse set of VPI stakeholders, including internal offices, contractors, district offices, regional partners (MPOs), and community stakeholders Selecting the best tools and visualization techniques that maximize public interaction with, understanding of, and trust in GDOT operations Integrating VPI procedures to meet the needs, goals, demands, and constraints of various stakeholder offices
These opportunities and challenges cannot necessarily be resolved easily, and many have farreaching implications for how the department is structured and operates. It may be the case that Virtual Public Involvement is not reason enough for the department to pursue such changes. Across the country, DOTs have found a way to improve their VPI offerings without
50

dramatically upending other operational protocols. Nevertheless, the systems and procedures that characterize a successful VPI system have the potential to impact the above areas in long- term, substantial ways.
Existing Documentation GDOT documentation of VPI practices can be found in the agency-wide Public Involvement Plan. Other documents which refer to the public involvement process, including the use of virtual tools, include the Plan Development Process (PDP) manual and the Environmental Services Manual (ESM). The Context Sensitive Design Manual (CSDM) contains many recommendations which overlap with VPI concerns and may be a good starting point to begin to build a comprehensive VPI policy. These are the major documents that trace how the VPI process works at GDOT.
Objectives
Overall, the following goals for a strategic VPI system were discussed. These objectives represent normative values that GDOT has expressed and should inform decisions made by the department when institutionalizing VPI. VPI is expected to improve department performance on traditional PI tasks and activities, as well as provide a catalyst for other types of integration and department improvements. VPI is touted for its ability to improve substantive outcomes such as number or diversity of participants, quality of information exchange, and understanding of project information as well as processual outcomes: integration of different project phases, efficiency of inter-office collaboration, recordkeeping, and evaluation of performance. Improvements are identified in terms of increasing the benefits of PI activities and decreasing the costs of those activities, opening up the opportunity to dedicate resources to other priorities.
51

Table 2: Overarching goals for a complete Virtual Public Involvement system

Objectives: VPI should be...

Examples of criteria

COMPREHENSIBLE

Users know how and why to use VPI tools Digital Project information is clear, visually compelling, and interactive
Digital Project information is easy for general public to find and access Web presence is easy to navigate Complex project material is simplified and easy to engage with Public and stakeholders understand the value and usefulness of their contributions

CONSISTENT

Project VPI is in line with overarching department VPI plan Standard VPI product does not require excessive resources and even saves
resources for other tasks Project information is consistent, while being scalable to project size Single platform web infrastructure is easy to maintain across projects
Branding standards are consistent across all projects Internal workflows are standard and easy to replicate even with changing
circumstances (contractors, contract type, project teams, size, budget)

COLLABORATIVE

Meaningful, continuous, on-demand, two-way feedback is easy for public to provide; feedback is well managed and maintained long-term
VPI is used to increase quantity, quality, and diversity of participants VPI information gaps are effectively bridged between project phases and
offices All collaborators are working with same toolkit (e.g. internal teams, external stakeholders, consultants) GDOT is trusted as a faithful steward and reliable partner

COMPLIANT

All VPI efforts adhere to federal, NEPA, and state EJ requirements Potential compliance lapses during COVID-19 can be brought up to speed
Performance standards are clearly defined, easily measured and met Departmental data governance and security guidelines are established and met

EQUITABLE INNOVATIVE

Project information is accessible and engaging across demographics, language capacity, skill sets, ability levels, and geographies
Outreach is expanded to engage broader populations for longer duration "Missing" publics are identified and intentionally included No person's access or ability to comment is hindered by how they make
contact with GDOT or where they live or commute All environmental justice considerations are met and exceeded ArcGIS Hub is used to maximum ability for VPI VPI planning anticipates current and future challenges and tech solutions State-of-the-art practices are matched to internal capacity, developed internally,
and delivered to project partners High-quality best practices are documented and standardized

52

VPI tasks across a project's life cycle Individual VPI tasks tend to be distinguished by the project phase in which they occur, providing a framework for planning and cataloging VPI requirements. These project phases, along with the regulatory requirements of each, determine the context and setting in which VPI processes take place. Phases span the life cycle of a project, from the earliest planning where overarching objectives and challenges are identified through scoping and where realistic opportunities are investigated, to construction, management, and operation of roadways. Although the same VPI tools and tasks may be required in a variety of planning phases (for example outreach or public comment analysis), each phase in the PI process has its own target audiences, goals, tasks, and stakeholder offices, and therefore its own challenges, expectations, best practices, and evaluative criteria. VPI can neither be considered a one-size-fits-all operation between projects, nor a stopgap within the life cycle of a single project. This section will look at PI and therefore VPI responsibilities by project phase. Considerations and needs at individual phases will also be discussed.
The following diagram (Figure 16) summarizes existing VPI-related responsibilities, organized by project phase. It was compiled by analyzing where VPI and PI appear in the department manuals of practice, including the Public Involvement Plan, Plan Development Process (PDP), Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM), Context Sensitive Design Manual (CSDM), and Right of Way Policies and Procedures Manual. These manuals of practice often delegate specific decisions as to the scope and depth of public involvement to project teams and monitoring offices on a case-by-case basis. Because of this, no list of possible VPI activities will be exhaustive. The chart below should be seen as a baseline overview of VPI, not a complete catalog of possible VPI activities over a project life cycle.
Figure 16: Diagram. VPI activities and deliverables by project phase. Source: own depiction, from PDP, EPM, CSD Manual and PI Plan (next page)
53

Office of Information Technology (supporting) Office of Strategic Communications (supporting)
Office of Planning

Long Term Planning: SWTP/SSTP
Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC)
Project Information: "electronically
accessible": website
"Visualization Techniques"

Mid Term Planning: STIP/PEL Studies

Public Outreach

Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC)

EJ compliance, EJ Outreach

EJ compliance, EJ Outreach

Community Advisory Committee

Public Outreach

Public Meetings
Public Comment Period: 45 days
Evaluation: "Review of effectiveness of
process"

Coordination with MPOs, Regional Commissions for TIP
Public official outreach (with GMA,
ACCG)
Project Information: "electronically
accessible": website

Public Meetings
Public Comment Period: 45 days
Evaluation: "Review of effectiveness of
process"

SWTP/SSTP Public Involvement Report

"Visualization Techniques"

STIP Public Involvement Report

Office of Program Delivery Office of Environmental Services

Project Development: Concept Phase
Project Team Initiation Process
Acquire project information and
purpose
Project Team Initiation Process
Early coordination of agencies and key stakeholders (EPM 44)
Submit notice of intent
Initial Concept Meeting

Draft Concept Report (Review & Approve by
OES, OPD)
Community Advisory Committee
Project Information: "electronically
accessible": website
"Visualization Techniques"

Context Sensitive Design practices

EJ compliance, EJ Outreach

Public Involvement Strategy

PIOH (Box A)

Identify & coordinate stakeholders

Monitor informal feedback

Public Involvement Plan U.S. 23 CFR 450.210.

Plan Development Process (PDP) Public Involvement Plan
Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) Context Sensitive Design (CSD) Manual
Scoping & PE authorized funds

Office of ROW

Construction Team

OSC (primary)

Project Development: Preliminary Design Phase

Environmental Assessment (EA)
Project-Specific Public Involvement
Plan

Environmental Impact Study (EIS)
Project-Specific Public Involvement
Plan

PIOH (Box A)

PIOH (Box A)

Detour Meetings (can be combined with PIOH)

Detour Meetings (can be combined with PIOH)

Project Development: Construction
Transition and PreCon Meetings from
Design
Public and Stakeholder Outreach
for Detours

Operations and Management

Categorical Exemption (CE)
Targeted or general PIOH

Draft EA Report PHOH (Box B)

Draft EIS Report PHOH (Box B)

Detour Meetings (can be combined with PIOH)

Other direct/indirect PI activities (see EPM
80)

Other direct/indirect PI activities (see EPM
80)

Project Information: "electronically
accessible": website
"Visualization Techniques"

Monitor informal feedback
Quantitative and Qualitative
Community/Social Impact Analysis

Monitor informal feedback
Quantitative and Qualitative
Community/Social Impact Analysis

Monitor informal feedback

Community & Social Impact Assessments

Community & Social Impact Assessments

Plan Development Process (PDP) Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) Public Involvement Plan Context Sensitive Design (CSD) Manual

Project Development: Final Design Phase
Publish EIS findings
Updated project information (website)
PI for Revisions of Environmental Document
PI Summary to FHWA

Project Development: Right-of-Way Acquisition
Property Owner Outreach

Outreach for Project Updates
EJ and LEP outreach
Announcements of Updates

Property Owner Meeting

Construction Awareness outreach

GDOT Questionnaire to property owners
ROW Plan Sheet
Right of Way Policies and Procedures

511 Coordination
Lane Closure and Detour Informational
Meetings

Data Access/Open Data Portal
VERG Visualizations
Operations and PR Videos
Provide information to local policymakers as
requested
Media Requests
Other Outreach (Emergency, Traffic
Demand, etc.)
Public Involvement Plan

End of Environmental Procedures

Transition - Construction

Open to Traffic

Summary of VPI-adjacent activities by project phase

Activity

For activities, always consider EJ, IDEA, LEP and other statutory inclusionary requirements

Deliverable
Transition Task
Statutory or Administrative Basis

For deliverables, always consider making material as digitally friendly (including mobile), visually appealing and accessible as possible
Two-way communication One-way communication (GDOT to public) One-way communication (public to GDOT)
[optional or conditional element]

Box A - Public Information Open House (PIOH) Process

PIOH Request
PI Worksheet (before public meeting)
PIOH Handout and material
(web, in-person)

Develop ad strategy

Launch PIOH online

PIOH Announcement & Outreach (t-3 weeks, t-1week)

PIOH Meeting (live inperson, live virtual, asynchronous, hybrid)

Coordination with districts on tech needs for PIOH

Public Comment Period (t+10 days)

Summary of comments and SME
assignment
Coordinate feedback on Public Comment
(t+21days)
Public comment response letter (t + 30
days)

EJ compliance, EJ

PIOH dry run (t-10

Public comment

Outreach

days)

synopsis

54

Box B - Public Hearing Open House (PHOH) Process

PHOH Request

EJ compliance, EJ Outreach

PI Worksheet (before public meeting)

Develop ad strategy

PHOH Announcement & Outreach (t-30 days,
t-1week)
Coordination with districts on tech needs for meeting

PHOH Handout and material (web,
in-person), incl. ROW relocation, land
acquisition information

Invite state and local elected officials
Coordinate outreach to local stakeholders

PHOH dry run (t-10 days)
Launch PHOH online

PHOH Meeting (live in-person, hybrid
synchronous, hybrid asynchronous)
Public Comment Period (t+10 days)

Coordinate feedback on Public Comment
(t+21days)
Public comment response letter (t + 30
days)

Public comment synopsis

Summary of comments and SME
assignment

SME = subject matter expert

Long- and Mid-Term Planning
Figure 17: Diagram. VPI activities: Long and mid-term planning phases. Source: own depiction
52

Long-Term Planning Tasks
The long-term planning phase is largely conducted within the framework of the federally mandated Statewide Transportation Plan (SWTP) and the State of Georgia's accompanying Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan (SSTP), each the purview of the Office of Planning. Each of these plans is updated every five years and has a time horizon of at least 20 years. Most recently, GDOT has published the SWTP and SSTP as a single document which fulfills the requirements of each separate plan. The most recent publication projects planning activities until 2050 and contains planning goals, anticipated transportation and freight demand, estimated costs, and possible funding sources. Federal law mandates that the public be engaged and allowed to comment during the development of long-term plans.
Mid-Term Planning Tasks
Mid-term planning is an important step in turning departmental goals into proposed projects and is conducted within the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). The STIP details proposed projects in four-year increments and is updated approximately every four years. The most recent STIP encompasses the years 2021-2024 and was published in 2021. The central Office of Planning is responsible for conducting the STIP process in rural areas of the state and for coordinating the state's 16 Metropolitan Planning Organizations to conduct the STIP's urban counterpart Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). GDOT also reviews the public involvement activities of MPOs in the development of the TIP. The public outreach activities for the STIP are documented in the planning document itself as well as in the accompanying Public Involvement Report. GDOT's STIP-related PI is highly focused on rural outreach.
53

Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) and Other Project Studies Tasks
The Office of Planning will conduct public involvement within the framework of Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) studies. PEL studies are a federally-encouraged means of better integrating environmental and planning processes. PEL studies can range in size and scope, so public involvement will vary depending on the particular context. Currently, GDOT employs PEL methods for larger studies, most notably the I-85 Corridor Study, for which a Public Involvement Plan and Public Involvement Phase Reports were developed and published. The I85 Corridor Study has a three- to four-year time horizon and has employed many of the same PI and VPI techniques as the most recent STIP (GDOT, July 14 2020).
Summary of Needs and Challenges
Long- and mid-term planning and planning studies are granted some liberty in how they design participatory processes. They usually have a much larger territorial footprint and timeframe than project-based public involvement, and are as important for gauging public concerns, values, and knowledge as they are for informing the public about GDOT plans. This makes them good candidates for participatory designs which are less formal and more collaborative, deliberative, or exploratory, and many DOTs use these sorts of studies to pilot new VPI practices and test their effectiveness (MnDOT in AASHTO 2021). However, expectations for the impacts of participants' input need to be carefully clarified to avoid disappointment and broken trust. Because the impacts of public input into long- and mid-term planning are not immediately visible in concrete project plans, DOTs should consider how to be sufficiently responsive to the public in order to build trust and communicate that providing input is worthwhile. Consider more visible documentation of public responses, such as discussion forums or interactive comment maps, to improve feedback, or consider developing a communications strategy which emphasizes back-and-forth discussion between the department and the public to get an early read on public values, capacities, and concerns. Long- and mid-term planning phases are opportunities to begin building trust relationships and establishing GDOT as a worthwhile, reliable partner with whom to share knowledge and explore solutions. Coordination between the Communications and Planning staffs can help workshop messaging and stakeholder relationships. Establishing when exactly Planning should reach out to Communications or IT offices can help cue Planning staff to the resources available to them.
54

GDOT expends a lot of resources to conduct in-person PI at a statewide scale. There are many efficiencies which can be realized by converting some of these practices to the digital realm, some of which have already been realized in recent STIP cycles. However, the scale of inequalities in skillsets, knowledge, and accessibility related to digital participation is also more pronounced at the statewide level. Currently, GDOT deploys a wide range of VPI and PI tools during long- and mid-term planning to maximize reach and encourage broad participation of targeted demand groups. Coordination and individual evaluation of activities become more difficult as the number of activities rise. Having a single, unified online presence that can serve as a toolbox for VPI tools and as a repository to funnel and collect data from in-person activities can be a way to balance standardization with project-specific customization in the field. Integrating MPOs' TIP processes and contractor VPI activities into GDOT's STIP documentation is a prospective long-term goal with the potential of building substantial institutional knowledge for future activities.
55

Concept Phase
Figure 18: Diagram. VPI activities: Concept Phase. Source: own depiction
56

Once projects from the STIP have been slated for development, they begin the Concept Phase of Project Development. (V)PI for the concept stage is planned and conducted by both the Office of Environmental Services and the Office of Program Delivery, the latter of which oversees the development of the Project Team. It is in this phase that the earliest outreach to stakeholders occurs, usually targeting key administrative and political leaders and regional agencies. Project teams will initiate some preliminary PI activities (coordinating stakeholder and citizen advisory groups, publishing project websites, planning public meetings) while also determining the appropriate level of future public involvement and developing a standalone public involvement plan, if deemed necessary (Georgia Department of Transportation 2021). The level of public involvement will usually correspond to the type of environmental report that is federally required. Categorical Exemption (CE) projects require only limited environmental surveys and tend to only include minor PI. Projects which require an Environmental Assessment (EA), even in the case of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), require more extensive and iterative public involvement. The largest projects which require an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) will also include multiple, rigorous public involvement phases and will tend to have their own standalone PI Plan and often a PI consultant. In some cases, especially for projects in sensitive areas or with a lot of public attention, the level of PI can be scaled up, even if expected environmental impacts are low. Both the past and planned PI activities are reported in the Concept Report. As a part of this phase, other scoping activities are conducted, including preliminary Public Input Open Houses.
Summary of Needs and Challenges
The concept phase is among the earliest phases of project delivery, and therefore provides the most opportunity for the public to impact the project's design. However, because many project decisions have not yet been finalized in this phase, and because the concept phase occurs early in the project's realization, the public is rarely aware of the project, rarely has sufficient access to decision-makers and has yet to formulate a strong opinion or community response to project features. A key challenge is explaining still unfinalized or undetailed project information in a way that is nonetheless informative to the public and builds public knowledge.
57

In the concept phase, DOTs tend to have extensive freedom to design and implement participatory processes compared to later phases where NEPA requirements are more stringent or concrete. While this can lead to positive freedoms in the participatory design, it can also be legally and regulatorily fuzzy for development teams. Concerns about resources and unrealistic community expectations can discourage project teams from engaging too much with the public, especially on standard projects where resources are scarce, or highly technical projects where communication between the engineering team and the public is difficult. This ambiguity can lead to unclear expectations or misunderstood promises about the potential impact of participation. Establishing concrete goals within the project team in this phase is as important as managing expectations vis--vis the public about what they can expect from their participation. Pulling data from key stakeholders or from previous PI processes in the planning phases can be a good way to get a rough picture of expected community engagement and shore up VPI resources accordingly. Communicating the value of participation and regularly demonstrating responsiveness to public input (either in communications or in design outcomes) is also crucial to convey to the public the value of their participation. Because of the freedom of process design, this phase presents a good opportunity to build trust with key stakeholders specific to the project area, and to keep track of how stakeholders have impacted the design to communicate these results to the public in subsequent phases.
The scoping process, which precedes the formal concept phase and is a way of slating projects from mid-term planning for development, is a potentially important opportunity both to interact with the public and implement good VPI practices within project teams. As an institutional practice, for example, MnDOT has moved most of their stakeholder engagement activities to the scoping phase, allowing the public to get a very early opportunity to weigh in on departmental activities (AASHTO 2021). Figure 18 is an example of the types of questions that are asked in this process.
58

Figure 19: Diagram. MnDOT's Virtual Public Involvement in the scoping phase. Source: AASHTO 2021
The transition of VPI from previous planning processes into the concept phase also presents challenges and opportunities for establishing good practices for VPI. The earlier a project is in its development cycle, the less of a concrete data footprint it has in GDOT's databases, which can complicate the initial sharing of data or information about public input from past phases. Still, in this phase, project impacts are increasingly localized, meaning that local stakeholders' and communities' interest in a project will grow. Geolocating projects and project areas may be a way to share VPI data across periods of time when a project does not yet have a project number or formal identity but where the department has existing experience and insights about local conditions. MassDOT, for example, developed a web application where project teams can define geographic areas of interest and view live online databases of contacts, open house facilities and environmental justice communities that correspond to potential areas, even if a project's exact footprint has not yet been determined (Daniels, Anacki, Rushley, Keyser and Alkhayri 2021). Knowledge about an area, key stakeholders, or past processes can also be
59

shared by inviting Planning, Communications or IT staff to present existing material to early meetings of the project team. The project team initiation process and concept report development processes represent some of the earliest opportunities for project teams to be introduced to VPI and develop a web- or mobile-first PI strategy. Here, project teams can already build and publish public-facing websites, have access to VPI training materials, templates, and departmental resources and define expectations, roles, and responsibilities for VPI. Maryland State Highway Authority, for example, tries to publish a website as soon as a project receives a project number and a project lead is identified, regardless of project size or later PI intensity (Interview: Maryland State Highway Authority, August 2021). This gives the public a dedicated online portal for information and interaction as early as possible. In the earliest parts of the concept phase, project teams begin sharing technical documentation and files and establishing a database presence for a project, into which data sharing practices for VPI (which may include contact lists, past reports, web applications, website templates and more) could be integrated.
60

Environmental, Preliminary Design, and Design Phases
Figure 20: Diagram. VPI activities: Preliminary and final design phases. Source: own depiction
61

Figure 21: Diagram. VPI activities: Public Information Open Houses (PIOHs) and Public Hearing Open Houses (PHOHs). Source: own depiction
Preliminary Design Phase
Most of GDOT's formal, project-based public involvement activities occur during the Preliminary Design Phase (GDOT 2021a). Usually, the Environmental Analyst from OES will collaborate with the Project Lead from OPD to ensure that public involvement activities run onschedule, conform to the project's PI Plan (where applicable) and are compliant with state and federal laws. In this phase, project information is widely disseminated, public opinion and comment is informally and formally solicited, public meetings are held, and feedback is both responded to and incorporated into primary and alternative design plans. Oftentimes, this phase will build off of networks of established GDOT contacts both within GDOT districts and MPOs and other on-the-ground agencies in affected areas. Input from the public is
62

incorporated into the Community Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment (part of the EA and EIS documents) where applicable (GDOT 2021a). Close coordination between the Project Team, Design Team and Subject Matter Experts is required to ensure that public feedback is appropriately integrated into project design and adequately responded to (EPM).
Final Design Phase
In the Final Design Phase, a project's environmental reports will be published and PI activities will wind down. PI for this phase tends to involve one-way communication about final environmental findings and upcoming plans for the project. It is in this phase, as well, that evaluations of the PI process and reports are sent to department leadership and FHWA.
Summary of Needs and Challenges
The environmental, preliminary design, and design phases entail the most formal phases of the PI process. Many of the tasks in these phases are regulated by federal and state statute, and VPI activities need to be conducted such that projects meet compliance requirements while still staying on delivery schedule and within budget. Although the public has an opportunity to weigh in on alternatives and certain design elements in this phase, it is important to communicate where and how public feedback has already been incorporated into designs. This may include providing facilitating resources to the public to explain the formal NEPA process, as well as when and how their feedback will be considered.
Public input from the planning and concept phases should be communicated to design teams and their integration into designs should be documented in a clear and visually appealing way. A common source of discontent for the public in this phase is that they are unable to contribute substantively to design choices; stakeholders, if not engaged early enough, might complain that their involvement is pointless and that most decisions have already been made. VPI in these phases should attempt to maintain involvement with stakeholders who have already participated while still continuing to invite new voices to the conversation. This requires careful
63

maintenance of a stakeholder database, as well as a protocol for managing ongoing relationships with the public. Geolocated stakeholder databases can help to make sure that as many stakeholders and communities are being addressed as possible, and gaps analysis can help identify which groups are not being effectively included. Barriers to digital involvement, including lack of access to internet, struggles navigating digital tools or a lack of awareness about projects should be kept in mind, and possible adjustments to formal timelines should be made to account for ensuing delays. MaineDOT, for example, extends the formal public comment period by a week to account for these difficulties (Interview: MaineDOT, February 2022). Although many of the requirements of this phase are mandated by federal regulation, these requirements serve as floors, not ceilings, for potential VPI activities. Project teams should be prepared to be flexible as needed.
Maintaining up-to-date project information is also important. In some cases, as the project develops, online content, websites, PDFs and public outreach should all be updated to maintain transparency, quality of information and reliability with the public. Website content will also need to be adjusted to reflect the changing priorities in different phases; during the public hearing phase, for example, a project website should communicate details of public meetings, and that public feedback is sought and clearly show users how and where to provide that feedback. During the draft EA and EIS phases, succinct summaries and downloadable links to documentation should be made prominently available on the website. NCDOT also changes the quality of visualizations during these phases to communicate to the public what types of decisions are being deliberated (AASHTO 2021). More detailed visualizations will be deployed later in the decision-making process, while simpler, general visualizations will be used at the beginning.
On the other hand, sometimes project delivery goes much slower than the public might expect, leading to long periods of limited or no communication. Consider communicating with the public about a project even when no discernible updates are available to keep the project "on their radar."
64

Good data management will not only help the project team efficiently evaluate VPI activities in an ongoing way, but will also help manage and respond to comments received after the formal comment period has ended, building more reliable relationships with the public. Good data management is also necessary to maintain records of decision-making, how input was used and formal documentation for legal and internal purposes. Consistent data protocol and sharing agreements between internal offices and external consultants can help ensure that GDOT retains ownership of all project material and VPI content after consultant contracts expire at the end of this phase. Many different GDOT offices and consultants are involved during the environmental, preliminary design and design phases. While this all-hands-on-deck approach requires more coordination, it also allows teams the opportunity to take advantage of divergent skillsets between offices. Clearly assigning roles and responsibilities during specific VPI tasks (such as open houses) as well as overarching responsibilities can take advantage of this expertise without costing teams too many resources to upkeep coordinating activities. Because of compliance concerns, innovation can be the most risky in this phase, so developing good, vetted practices for VPI and codifying them into clear workflows is crucial for improving performance over time.
65

Implementation and Operation Phases
Figure 22: Diagram. VPI activities: Implementation and Operation Phases. Source: own depiction
66

Right of Way Acquisition
Many GDOT projects involve the acquisition of privately-held property through the Right of Way (ROW) acquisition process. During this period, Project Teams, together with the Office of Right-of-Way, are required to hold what are often sensitive meetings with affected property owners and residents (GDOT 2021a). These meetings include both informational sessions and one-on-one advisory discussions between members of GDOT and affected parties. Effective communication and outreach during the ROW acquisition period is essential to maintain an ontime project delivery schedule.
Construction
Although many of the federally required PI activities are already completed by the time a project enters into construction, communication about project progress, changes, and upcoming detours and closures are all important steps to ensure that PI is a cradle-to-grave operation. A continuous transition from project design to construction often requires careful communication and coordination between teams at different scales (headquarters, districts, private contractors) and across offices. District construction offices are often the parties responsible for maintaining communication with the public in this phase. Because of the time delays often encountered before construction, it is important to re-engage the public at the initiation of and throughout the Construction Phase (GDOT 2021a). Construction teams will also coordinate with other agencies, including the 511 system and public utilities, to ensure that any traffic or utility disturbances expected in construction are effectively communicated throughout the development of the project. Oftentimes, it is in the Construction Phase that members of the public first encounter a project. For this reason, PI during this phase should ensure that information and communication is still easily accessible, even if the opportunities for formal public input have expired.
67

Operations and Maintenance
Communication with the public extends far beyond the end of construction and beginning of open-to-traffic phases. The Office of Strategic Communications (OSC) supports public outreach and communication throughout the lifespan of GDOT's built assets. This includes communicating roadway conditions, potential safety or traffic hazards, and department updates and information. It may also include publishing and facilitating Open Data portals and dashboards that improve transparency and allow residents and local leaders more meaningful, self-directed engagement with GDOT operations. OSC works with other offices to ensure that GDOT can provide accurate, on-demand information about operations to local decision-makers, community leaders and stakeholders.
Summary of Needs and Challenges After the final design has been decided, the federally regulated environmental processes conclude and new VPI tasks emerge. The first and most critical of these is ROW outreach and coordination with property owners and residents. ROW outreach uses many of the same tools as other PI responsibilities, including outreach strategies, public meetings and one-on-one contact with the department. Privacy and online safety protocol are important to develop here to ensure that conversations and ownership information stay private.
Another challenge of the implementation and operations phase is still ensuring that relevant VPI information and practice are properly communicated to the construction and maintenance teams. The PI process should have collected a wealth of information that is valuable for these teams, and existing stakeholder databases can be used to communicate detour schedules, major changes to project timelines, and other updates, especially for commuting populations. Some of these events require formal meetings. These meetings may be conducted virtually or in a hybrid fashion, and construction teams should communicate with VPI coordinating offices to train for and conduct these meetings according to department protocol.
68

Oftentimes, the teams that are most visible to the public, such as district offices or on-the- ground construction teams, are also those least familiar with the VPI inputs and decisions. Maintaining the project website as a single, go-to spot for past and present project activities is a good practice that can help bridge the gap between design and construction teams. Many DOTs continue to produce videos and images during construction to inform the public of progress and maintain good relationships between the department and the commuting public. These can be uploaded to the project website, and updates can be communicated through pre- existing email lists and social media campaigns. Communication of successes, including ways in which public concerns are being addressed during the construction phase, is another way that GDOT can build trust with the public and communicate that their input was valuable.
Communication continues during operations. Two-way channels of communication can be used to communicate safety issues, changes in policy, or future engagement opportunities. Many DOTs will also use GIS software to develop applications for specific commuting publics outside of the project delivery cycle. 511 apps, traffic apps, and apps for EMS drivers or truck drivers are all ways to continue using existing software while building relationships with stakeholders and the public.
GDOT Stakeholder Offices and VPI Tasks
From an administrative standpoint, the key stakeholders in Virtual Public Involvement design and implementation are categorized by GDOT office. While coordination between these offices must exist throughout VPI processes and especially within specific project phases, each of these offices also has its own tasks, ICT tools, goals and challenges for VPI. GDOT is currently in the process of establishing clear, transparent roles for different offices in the institutionalization of VPI. The following section summarizes the different offices' VPI profiles, based on interviews with those offices) to map out the scope of perspectives and priorities across GDOT.
Affected offices can be divided into two types: coordinating and implementing offices. Coordinating offices are responsible for developing department-level (V)PI protocols and
69

facilitating their translation into practice. To date, the Office of Environmental Services,the Office of Strategic Communications, and the Office of Information Technology have played predominantly coordinating roles. OES is especially important for coordinating and conducting VPI as a requirement of federal and state law, and is pivotal in planning, implementing, and reviewing VPI activities within the environmental review phases of projects. Coordinating offices will often also play a monitoring role, ensuring that all VPI procedures and materials adhere to federal, state, and departmental expectations. Coordinating offices also have responsibilities in the implementation of VPI processes, and the distinction between coordinating and implementing offices should not be viewed as absolute.
Figure 23: Diagram. GDOT organization chart with VPI offices showing coordinating (yellow) and implementing (green) offices. Source: https://www.dot.ga.gov/AboutGeorgia/Documents/OrgChart.pdf with modifications
70

Implementing offices are those responsible for the delivery of public involvement actions and reports. Alongside OES, implementing offices include the Office of Program Delivery, Office of Planning, Office of Program Control, Office of Right of Way, and more. Many other offices serve as subject matter experts during public meetings and are called upon intermittently within PI processes. Finally, consultants, MPOs, and GDOT districts are also responsible for participating in, performing, and producing reports on VPI activities. An overview of offices with core VPI responsibilities is included in Figure 23 and Figure 24. Offices in yellow are those with a primarily coordinating function, while offices in green are those who are responsible for implementing VPI within their assigned activities. Understanding the different stakeholder offices, their responsibilities, challenges, priorities, and roles, is important for the design of VPI systems and their institutionalization. Siloed departments can hinder institutionalization of new processes, as well as result in poor coordination, wasted resources, cannibalization of demand groups, and lack of unified presence for participating publics (Wirtz et al. 2018; Steinbach et al. 2019). The following section lays out core characteristics of different offices with respect to VPI to provide a single catalog of VPI- related concerns and begin to identify synergies between them.
Figure 24: Diagram. Coordinating and implementing offices. Source: own depiction
71

Coordinating Offices
Office of Environmental Services
Office of Environmental Services is responsible for overseeing and supporting PI processes for NEPA projects, informing project teams about requirements and activities and ensuring that QA/QC processes are adhered to. For larger projects, OES ensures that public involvement plans appropriately address and engage all project stakeholders, especially those protected by environmental statute so called Environmental Justice (EJ) populations. OES also ensures that project teams appropriately conduct PIOH and PHOH events and help in the planning and execution of mandatory public meetings (including for detours and right of way acquisitions). OES helps organize training sessions for project teams to ensure that they are up-to-date on department protocol and practices. Because of their central role in all environmental public involvement processes, OES is a key decider in the adoption of new VPI-related technologies and practices.
OES VPI Tasks
OES has many tasks that involve VPI, including:
Maintaining NEPA compliance across all project types and sizes, including open houses, public comment periods, and reporting requirements while using new technologies
Maintaining and documenting environmental justice objectives, reaching limited-English populations, as well as Title VI, ADA, and other compliances
Conducting resource-efficient, consistent, conformant implementation across project types
Providing opportunities for two-way communication between the public, key stakeholders, project teams, and coordinating offices during environmental processes
OES VPI Technologies
To conduct these tasks, OES uses the following tech stack: Esri's ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Hub websites are used to present project information and host public comment periods
72

SharePoint and ProjectWise store and share important project files, templates and versions between project stakeholders
Microsoft Teams hosts virtual meetings (internal and external) GDOT website serves as a platform for MMIP and scattered PI-related content Esri 2D Project viewer hosts the department's virtual open house application
OES Manuals of Practice
OES PI and VPI tasks are documented in the Environmental Procedures Manual and agencywide Public Involvement Plan. Some OES tasks are listed in the Context Sensitive Design Manual and the Plan Delivery Processes Manual
OES VPI Goals
Improve and sustain outreach Improve user access to and comprehension of relevant project information Realize efficiencies in PI workflows and practices, including through effective training Improve evaluation, recordkeeping and reporting on VPI performance with consistent
data analytics
OES VPI Challenges
Choosing appropriate content and digital formats to convey OES-relevant project information and keeping these updated throughout a project's life cycle
Training and onboarding project teams to conduct VPI Responsibly managing and allocating required staff and monetary resources for VPI Establishing and implementing evaluation and reporting protocol
Office of Strategic Communications
Office of Communications works closely with other coordinating offices and project teams to ensure that branding, outreach and public relations are done efficiently, consistently, effectively and in line with the goals of the project. The Office of Strategic Communications has been an important lead for the development of VPI at GDOT in the last few years, working with OES as well as other offices, such as Planning, to implement useful, consistent VPI tools. The office has been responsible for developing GDOT's online public involvement pages and open
73

house interface. It has also participated in knowledge shares with practitioners around the country, developed software, built and managed GDOT and project websites and developed templates for digital and analog public-facing material.
OSC VPI Tasks
OSC has many tasks that involve VPI, including: Building trust, recognizability and interactivity between the department and the general public Developing online VPI platform and VPI-relevant content and integrating across offices Assisting on project-level public outreach requirements as needed Maintaining relationships with key stakeholders, including local community and political leaders
OSC VPI Technologies
To conduct these tasks, OSC uses the following tech stack: ArcGIS Hub is being developed as a new department-wide public involvement and public meeting portal GeoPI is used as primary georeferenced project database Facebook and Twitter are used as primary social media presence for outreach and communications Other softwares like MetroQuest, PIMA serve intermittently as portals for VPI initiatives GDOT Website hosts the primary online public-facing portal for department Esri 2D Project viewer hosts the department's virtual open house application
OSC Manuals of Practice
OSC's PI and VPI tasks are outlined in the agency's Public Involvement Plan. Other policies exist for specific OSC functions, such as the department's Social Media Policy.
OSC VPI Goals
Create a standardized, consistent, useful, and visually appealing one-stop-shop Improve transparency and trust between GDOT and key stakeholders and GDOT and
public Improve quality of information exchange between GDOT and public in decision-making Expand outreach and opportunities to engage to hard-to-reach populations
74

Improve retention and usability of gathered data, as well as self-evaluation by collecting and managing consistent performance data
OSC VPI Challenges
Improving accessibility and function of VPI products and content, especially within ArcGIS Hub environment
Improving outreach and opportunities to engage hard-to-reach communities Integrating technologies, workflows and pre-developed content to reduce the strain of
VPI on implementing offices Training project teams, standardizing and implementing new practices
Office of Information Technology
Often overlooked in traditional PI processes, the Office of Information Technology (OIT) plays an important role in ensuring that VPI runs smoothly and that all online communications adhere to departmental data privacy and security policies. The office develops VPI technology policies, standards and strategic planning functions. The GIS subunit has helped develop web applications and manage spatial data for VPI within the Esri online environment. OIT also advises on procurement decisions.
OIT VPI Tasks
OIT has many tasks that involve VPI, including: Ensuring that VPI IT needs are met and consistent across projects and programs Maximizing workability and value-add of Esri suite (ArcGIS Online, Hub and Enterprise) for VPI Serving project teams' data needs for smooth project delivery
OIT VPI Technologies
To conduct these tasks, OIT uses the following tech stack Sharepoint and Bentley ProjectWise serve as database and for file storage, sharing, and editing and as project management software Oracle Business Intelligence OBIEE is used as a database, and for reporting and developing analytics dashboards GeoPI is used as spatial database for project information, especially for internal use Oracle Primavera serves as a project management, scheduling, and resource management software
75

Esri ArcGIS Portal and Enterprise host internal spatial data Esri ArcGIS Online and ArcGIS Hub store and present public-facing content
OIT Manuals of Practice
No manuals of practice exist that explicitly document OIT's role, responsibilities or workflows with respect to VPI or PI.
OIT VPI Goals
Maximize use value of existing technology stack in VPI by expanding implementation opportunities and use cases
Improve user experience of digital tools, especially Esri suite, for all users Use VPI as a catalyst to standardize data governance practices, especially for GIS and
other related environments
OIT VPI Challenges
Staying up-to-date on Esri use cases, best practices, troubleshooting and training opportunities
Integrating existing digital environments seamlessly and instructing implementing offices on best and appropriate uses
Maintaining robust data privacy and security protocol in line with department standards across all VPI activities
Wrangling data generated in diverse environments by diverse users to maximize value of collecting and generated data, and maintaining data-based records and archives of practice
Summary
The coordinating offices are aligned in that they all expressed the desire to improve the outwardfacing VPI products and user experience of VPI at GDOT. All coordinating offices expressed that identifying state-of-the-art practices was a big challenge in achieving this goal. Standardizing procedures, content specifications and data protocol across GDOT offices, district offices, contractors, and project teams were all challenges for coordinating offices trying to institutionalize VPI.
76

Implementing Offices
Office of Program Delivery
The Office of Program Delivery (OPD) is responsible for the on-time and on-budget delivery of GDOT projects. Because public input is essential and legally required for the planning, concept, and design phases, the alternative assessment, and the environmental evaluation, OPD is closely involved in conducting VPI tasks, as well as basing design decisions on VPI input. The concept and preliminary design phases entail the bulk of PI activities for OPD, with additional outreach and communication required in ROW and Construction. The vast majority of public involvement activity is outsourced to PI consultants and specialists during project development. Usually, a PI specialist firm develops the PI strategy and leads stakeholder engagement, especially for larger projects. As the contact office for most projects, OPD is often responsible for maintaining good communication with the public from cradle to grave of project development, as well as for guiding the public and key stakeholders to requested project information or engagement opportunities. The OPD team and project manager works closely with OES staff and consultants to implement VPI programs during environmental processes.
OPD VPI Tasks
OPD has many tasks that involve VPI, including: Working with project teams and coordinating departments to implement VPI activities while ensuring timely and on-budget delivery of all projects Managing stakeholder relations cradle-to-grave during and between projects
OPD VPI Technologies
To conduct these tasks, OPD uses the following tech stack: GeoPI is used to access project documentation and as a geodatabase ArcGIS Hub is used to host public-facing material for some projects ROADS Library of Templates and Documentation is used as a resource hub for OPD staff and contractors Oracle Primavera is used for project management, scheduling and resource management
77

TPROWEB is used for project management, database management and reporting ProjectWise is used for the for Project Team Initiation Process (PTIP),
including document initiation and sharing
OPD Manuals of Practice
OPD uses the Plan Delivery Process to integrate environmental activities, including PI, into program delivery. The Public Involvement Plan is also available for reference.
OPD VPI Goals
Conduct public involvement as early as possible and improve quality of public interactions
Improve on-time and on-budget delivery of projects and public involvement by integrating VPI practices into PDP
Improve integration of public feedback into decisions to improve decision-making, including gathering more robust data on project proponents and opposition
Improve recordkeeping, documentation and reporting, including maintaining a record of successes
OPD VPI Challenges
Integrating VPI protocols early, consistently, and resource-sparingly into existing workflows for different types of projects and from cradle to grave
Training staff to conduct VPI according to department standards and to know when and how to do VPI
Documenting successes for future evaluation and learning
Office of Planning
The Office of Planning is responsible for developing the Statewide Transportation Plan (SWTP), the Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan (SSTP), Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and individual studies for special corridors or areas. Each of these plans require extensive public involvement, either covering stakeholders from across the state or because of the unique complexities of the study area. Every five years (SWTP, SSTP) or four years (STIP), the Office of Planning conducts public outreach, information sessions and open houses across the state to obtain feedback about long-term plans (SWTP, SSTP) and short-term improvements
78

(STIP). Corridor studies require a similar, multipronged approach and are often conducted in tandem with local and regional partners. To date, the I-85 study is the only PEL study conducted in the state of Georgia. Because of the broad geographic scope of many of their activities, the Office of Planning usually must have a deep arsenal of public engagement tools to properly collaborate with Georgia's highly diverse statewide communities. Moreover, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Office of Planning was conducting hybrid meetings to minimize the amount of travel for residents and GDOT employees and affiliates. The Office of Planning works closely with local governments, MPOs and GDOT district offices to ensure broad representation in PI processes.
Office of Planning VPI Tasks
Office of Planning has many tasks that involve VPI, including: Designing and coordinating diverse and extensive VPI programming within plans and studies from start to finish Serving as contact partner for public and stakeholders during and after plans and studies Ensuring compliance with federal and state laws and expectations for plans and studies, especially regarding engagement opportunities for statutorily protected publics, and monitoring and advising MPOs on public involvement
Office of Planning VPI Technologies
To conduct these tasks, Planning uses the following tech stack: ArcGIS Hub hosts study web pages, mapping applications and project information and provides automated translation for site content MetroQuest applications publish study information and collect public comment (phasing out) SurveyMonkey is used to distribute surveys and analyze responses Email blasts and newsletters inform registrants of project updates and participation opportunities Esri 2D Project viewer hosts the department's virtual open house application SharePoint and ProjectWise store and share important project files, templates and versions between project stakeholders Microsoft Teams environment hosts small stakeholder and large public virtual meetings (internal and external) and is used for virtual office hours Stakeholder databases and lists are used to maintain partnerships and target outreach (together with OES)
79

Telephone hotline allows public a second medium of communication Radio advertisements are used to target commuting and rural populations
Office of Planning Manuals of Practice
The Office of Planning uses the agency's Public Involvement Plan to coordinate and plan for PI and VPI.
Office of Planning VPI Goals
Improve design of VPI activities and coordination with other offices Improve diversity, equity, and access to VPI program for the general public, key
stakeholders, and specifically targeted populations Develop a toolkit of templates, case studies, and tools to expand the repertoire of office
VPI activities and achieve consistent performance Improve recordkeeping and data-driven performance evaluation to plan future VPI and
learn from past activities
Office of Planning VPI Challenges
Integrating technology into PI processes while ensuring the PI goals are met and software is consistent with other activities
Navigating digital divide, coordinating multiple streams for participation, and expanding access, especially in rural and underserved communities
Gathering data and information from the public without overburdening them, building off of past relationships and archiving successful activities
Maintaining an overview of available tools and recommended practices all in one convenient online location
Other offices
Other offices that are involved with some level of Public Involvement activities include the Office of Program Control, Office of Right of Way, Office of Roadway Design, and Office of Alternative Delivery. Each of these offices has its own responsibilities to coordinate and implement PI and VPI activities as dictated by their assignments. In particular, the Office of Right of Way is responsible for informing property owners and affected tenants about upcoming ROW acquisitions, hosting one-on-one and group meetings with affected parties, negotiating financial terms for acquisitions and coordinating relocation services, if necessary.
80

These meetings are often personnel-intensive, as enough ROW agents must be present to effectively conduct one-on-one meetings. With the approval of the state ROW program manager, these meetings may be held virtually (see Chapter 5, page 6 of the ROW Procedures and Processes Manual). Because their involvement with members of the public involves sensitive private information, VPI solutions for ROW staff require careful digital privacy and security protocol.
Summary
The implementing offices conduct VPI as a way to improve the quality and process of the tasks they are assigned. Planning and OPD recognize the benefit of PI and VPI, both for improving relationships with the public and for improving the quality of plans and designs of projects. The two offices face challenges when trying to find and implement technological solutions for PI that work consistently, are easy for staff and the public to use and do not require extensive training or resources to implement. Both offices recognize the importance of maintaining dialogue with the coordinating offices in the design and deployment of new VPI technologies and protocol, and both expressed a strong desire to codify VPI best practices, either in a toolkit or within existing workflow documentation to reduce uncertainty and improve outcomes.
GDOT Current Practices using Esri suite GDOT offices and contractors work with a wide array of digital widgets, tools, and platforms to help conduct public involvement. Many tools are selected to match specific functions or are chosen because the implementing agency has experience with or has licensed that tool. This section focuses on ArcGIS Hub as a digital one-stop-shop and (desired) primary location for GDOT's VPI activities. GDOT is currently striving to migrate as much VPI activity as possible to the ArcGIS Hub platform, an Esri product which aims to provide multiple replicable publicfacing and organizational functionalities within a single consistent, easy-to-use environment. GDOT currently requires that both implementing offices and outside contractors use GDOTbranded ArcGIS Hub sites to host public-facing content.
81

In interviews with GDOT offices, challenges surrounding the design and integration of ArcGIS Hub within GDOT tech systems have emerged. These challenges involve both the outwardfacing and internal management of the software. Many users, including key stakeholders such as local officials, are not finding or using GDOT's one-stop-shop as desired. They will often directly contact GDOT teams to obtain project information, costing the department scarce human resources and sometimes resulting in inconsistent or conditional answers. Coordinating offices at GDOT have also expressed challenges structuring and curating content pages across the wide spread of project types that GDOT and establishing consistent practices across projects. This section will give a brief overview of GDOT's current use of the ArcGIS Hub environment as a digital one-stop-shop for VPI. Figure 25 diagrams GDOT's current use of ArcGIS Hub in relation to other online environments it uses for VPI.
82

Figure 25: Diagram. GDOT's current online environments run by OES (green), Planning (red) and joint (green/orange) offices. Source: own depiction
The Office of Environmental Services together with the Office of Strategic Communication are rolling out a standardized Public Involvement page for NEPA-related VPI activities, including a public comment period (represented by green boxes in Figure 25). These pages follow a similar template and include a geodatabase-powered interactive map showing the location of the project, text and visual information explaining the project, a link to a Survey123 feedback form that collects project feedback, evaluation feedback for VPI, and external links to further project documentation, including visuals.
83

Larger projects, like special Bridge Replacements, MMIPs, and urban highway lane widenings have ArcGIS Hub pages that are often designed and managed by consultants and contractors using GDOT branding (orange-green gradient boxes in Figure 25). While these pages tend to display a broader range of ArcGIS Hub features, there is a lack of consistency across projects due to differences in contractor performance and design decisions. Some examples of features used include embedded Twitter feeds, embedded project-related and standard videos (including videos depicting standard department information), multi-tab pages to organize information, external links to GDOT social media sites, external links to MailChimp and other platforms for feedback, and the GDOT custom-built Virtual Public Meeting web app. They also include links to contractor-developed websites (e.g. Rome-Cartersville Development Corridor), Flickr albums (e.g. Transform 285/400), and externally hosted PDFs with project information.
Consultants represent an important resource for DOTs to inspire their own VPI practices, including getting the most out of one-stop-shops (Salerno 2019). Increasingly, GDOT consultants are familiarizing themselves with ArcGIS Hub and trying out the different functionalities of the software. Even among similar content types (for example project timelines, visualizations, or communicating detours) there are substantial differences in consultant practice, design elements, and sophistication. Some screenshots of existing larger projects already hosted on ArcGIS Hub are visible in Figure 26 and Figure 27. Most projects contain the same types of content, but they are presented and hosted in different ways. A one- stop-shop portal alongside department guidance can help create consistency among these deliverables. FDOT offers advice on managing consultant-produced websites (Florida Department of Transportation, April 25, 2019).
84

Figure 26: Screenshot. GDOT website on ArcGIS Hub: I-20 @ Savannah River Bridge Replacements. Source: https://i20savannahriverbridgereplacements-gdot.hub.arcgis.com/.
85

Figure 27: Screenshot. GDOT website on ArcGIS Hub: Transform 285/400 with website header (left) and public outreach tab (right). Source: https://transform285400-gdot.hub.arcgis.com/
The Office of Planning also hosts virtual public involvement initiatives on ArcGIS Hub sites (represented by red boxes in Figure 25). The STIP FY 2021-24 presented information and collected feedback using an ArcGIS Hub web interface that included a web application designed
86

to give an overview of all the program projects. These sites provided visual and textual information about STIP, embedded YouTube videos to explain the program, and included links to the MPO websites where the public could get information about urban projects. Some MPOs also utilize ArcGIS applications to share TIP-related project information (e.g. Atlanta Regional Commission's TIP map), but this is not standard practice. Additionally, the planning department works with contractors to publish PEL studies and other mid-term planning studies to ArcGIS Hub. These sites include links to the Virtual Public Meeting web app, an embedded Twitter feed, embedded videos, and extensive use of visualizations for communication.
Outside of ArcGIS Hub, GDOT hosts most of its public-facing and stakeholder-relevant information on its own website. Portals that direct the public to project sites are hosted there, as are aggregating web applications like GeoPI, which are more prominently used for internal and contractor functions. The ROADS document portal is a useful tool for sharing GDOT documentation and guidelines with contractors, districts and the public, as well as for providing training resources for its internal staff. GDOT also conducts some backend and frontend VPI tasks in other digital environments. These include social media platforms for public outreach and contact, Microsoft Teams for virtual public meetings, including one-on-one and stakeholder meetings, and project and file management environments such as ProjectWise and SharePoint for sharing VPI-related data across offices and project teams. Interviews with GDOT conveyed that the implementation of virtual public meetings has been largely standardized to the satisfaction of implementing teams.
87

Figure 28: Screenshot. GeoPI project database portal. Source: http://www.dot.ga.gov/DS/Maps/geopi
Figure 29: Screenshot. GeoPI project information page. Source: http://www.dot.ga.gov/applications/geopi/Pages/Dashboard.aspx?ProjectID=0009430
GDOT has used other digital One-Stop-Shop platforms in the past, especially during PI periods for larger planning programs. These included MetroQuest (used in the I-85 PEL study) and PIMA. Previously, the department developed the GeoPI platform to host project material. This platform was designed for internal use and has not been an effective means of communicating project information to key stakeholders or the general public. Figure 28 and Figure 29 show
88

screenshots of the GeoPI portal. The department prefers to migrate all public-facing project information to ArcGIS Hub in the future.
GDOT needs for institutionalizing VPI Based on the assessment of current GDOT practice and in line with insights from the academic literature review in Chapter 2, the following needs have been identified by the research team for institutionalizing VPI at GDOT: Alignment of goals and priorities for VPI across offices Clear identification of roles and responsibilities for VPI across project phases, including moments of coordination and transfer of responsibility Integration of VPI technologies, including data management practices, with PI processes and project team priorities Unified, structured, and complete ArcGIS Hub digital environment Consistent VPI opportunities and consistent and effective projects websites in ArcGIS Hub Codification of VPI tasks and practices into existing manuals of practice and workflows, development of VPI workflow for Office of Planning, and integration of OIT into all workflows Online repository of VPI resources, documentation, tools and templates, preferably within the ArcGIS Hub environment Training material for ArcGIS Hub and other VPI environments, incorporated into existing training protocol Data clearinghouse protocol public-facing content published by GDOT Data protocol for content provided by public or external actors on GDOT projects and programs Established use cases and protocol for data generated during VPI, especially to improve project decision-making and evaluate performance
89

CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A VIRTUAL PROJECT INFORMATION PLATFORM
Introduction
The systems and organizational goals that undergird Virtual Public Involvement are complex and integrated across GDOT offices and programs. Making substantial changes to VPI across the department will involve taking a look at larger systems and processes and interrogating fundamental priorities systemically. However, there are many components of VPI which can also be tackled in a less comprehensive way, for which existing evidence from academic literature, professional practice, and private sector resources can provide helpful insights. This section provides an overview of some key topics that have emerged over the course of the research process and examines the current community of practice related to those topics. These topics have been selected based on their salience to GDOT operations. They are organized as follows: (1.) topics which are articulated by GDOT staff in conversations as being areas of challenge, (2.) topics that directly address identified needs in GDOT operations, according to Chapter 3 above. Finally, (3.) sections on equity, accessibility, and inclusion and approaches to evaluation are included because of their prevalence in the current discourse on VPI. Figure 30 presents a diagram of this chapter's structure. Some topics which are central to VPI practices but which do not represent a major need for GDOT, such as virtual public meetings, are not addressed in this section or are only touched on in passing.1
1 Many DOTs post extensive resources for the troubleshooting and planning of virtual public meetings, cf. https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/programs/public-involvement/toolbox/virtual-pi and https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/About-Us/Commissions/FHWAPartnership/STIC/VPI-Guidebook.pdf?rev=14552f8fe84e45fe9cce15313230cb88
90

Figure 30: Diagram. Chapter 4 topics. Source: own depiction
This section is meant to be read on a section-by-section basis. Each of the topics can serve as a standalone consideration for the design and institutionalization of VPI, or all topics can be viewed as integrated components of a comprehensive Virtual Project Information Platform, or one-stop-shop. Each topic is divided into distinct approaches currently practiced by DOTs or gathered from insights in gray and professional literature. Pros and cons to each approach are presented, as are concrete examples and helpful tips. See Figure 31 for a diagram of the structure of each topic.
Figure 31: Diagram. Topic structures for Chapter 4. Source: own depiction
91

Where possible, this section incorporates Esri recommendations for the ArcGIS Hub environment. In many cases, vocabulary from the e-participation literature (Chapter 2) will be recycled in this section to inspire the possible integration of design ideas from that review. Focus is placed, where appropriate, on integrating GDOT stakeholder offices and responsible parties, both coordinating and implementing offices. Examples within these sections represent different successful approaches from practice. Some discretion is left to GDOT administrators to decide which practices are most in line with department goals, interoffice workflows, IT capacities, organizational structures, and VPI priorities.
92

Integrating VPI Environments (One-Stop-Shops)
DOTs use many different digital tools to achieve departmental and public involvement goals, such as social media, virtual meeting software, email newsletters, and backend datamanagement systems. Usually, these different tools are organized within web environments, which serve as the primary location for communication between the department and the public about specific VPI initiatives. Departments' decisions for how to organize their web environments usually reflect deeper structural features of the department, such as its degree of centralization, organizational structure, reliance on outside contractors, and integration between offices. VPI environments can be categorized as scattered, single-environment, multienvironment, or comprehensive systems.
Scattered VPI Systems
Each VPI initiative is hosted in its own web environment. VPI pages tend to be built by independent project teams or consultants. Centralized lists link to project pages.
Pros: Often very sophisticated pages can be tailored to the exact needs of a project and, taking advantage of consultant expertise in web design and PI, consultants may have more flexibility in using the state-of-the-art VPI system most suited for the project. Internal and external DOT stakeholders can retain flexibility in selecting and setting up the most appropriate VPI system for their projects.
Cons: Inconsistent pages differ from one another in structure, PI opportunities, visual identity, and look-and-feel. Another consideration is the difficulty of integrating IT systems centrally. Different VPI systems may not convey the same message about the department (i.e. branding issues).
93

Example: Washington, D.C. DOT (DDOT, see Figure 32). Many of DDOT's projects feature very sophisticated, visually appealing websites. Nevertheless, many project sites differ substantially from one another.
Figure 32: Screenshot. Scattered VPI environments - DDOT. Source: Top: https://ddot-capitalprojects-dcgis.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/florida-ave-ne-streetscape-an
94

Single-Environment VPI Systems
All or most VPI content is hosted within a single web environment. VPI pages tend to be designed by internal staff and handed over to project teams. In some cases, consultants have access to website development
Pros: Consistent look-and-feel, scope of PI opportunities and branding. Consistent, integrated IT systems. Clear unity between projects. Templating greatly reduces staff requirements to publish web pages. Easy to scale VPI efforts and establish a department's brand.
Cons: Functionalities are limited. Workarounds are often needed to match system capabilities to specific DOT requirements. Legacy software solutions may become obsolete over time.
Example: Maryland State Highway Authority (MSHA) uses ArcGIS Hub for almost all of its project sites, regardless of project size. MSHA has used Survey123 instead of Esri's featured Follow button to integrate contact information into an email management software with better customization options than ArcGIS Hub. MSHA has also faced limitations with group membership limitations (512) for its internal staff. MSHA has an Asana group with Esri to identify areas of need and collaborate on developing solutions within the environment (Interview: MSHA, August 2021).
Example: FDOT publishes guidelines for consultant-built sites to ensure consistency across pages and backend integration on Sitefinity (FDOT, April 25, 2019).
Example: Single-environment systems are not always restricted to the functionalities of one software. MaineDOT embeds ArcGIS StoryMaps into its single-system PIMA sites.
95

Multi-Environment VPI Systems VPI content is hosted on a limited number of department-approved environments, usually depending on specific need. Different systems are used for different VPI tasks. This differs from a scattered system by being more strategically deployed from a central office. Pros: Relative advantages of multiple systems can be balanced. Cons: This approach requires careful planning and coordination, including training project teams on multiple systems. It is potentially confusing for users who do not understand what the systems do. It can also increase costs if multiple licenses are required. Examples: ODOT (InnovateOhio Platform and PublicInput.com, see Figure 33) and NCDOT (department website and PublicInput.com, see Figure 34) each use two web environments to host VPI material. Department websites are used as the standard location for project material,
Figure 33: Screenshot. Multi-environment VPI systems: ODOT. Source: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/programs/public-involvement/toolbox/virtual-pi
96

and PublicInput.com is used for more detailed content and public feedback opportunities. Both DOTs publish protocols for how to use each respective platform.
Figure 34: Screenshot. Multi-environment VPI systems: NCDOT. Source: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/EAU/PICSViz/PI Documents/NCDOT%20Practitioners%20Guide_2022.pdf
Example: PennDOT hosts different environments for different user groups. Operational data intended for internal staff is hosted in one environment, and public-facing data and PI opportunities are hosted in another.
97

Comprehensive VPI systems Comprehensive VPI systems integrate multiple platforms, tools, and infrastructure into a network of strategic VPI environments designed to maximize value-add across platforms. They can be accompanied by an integrated data management policy. Pros: This approach balances advantages of all systems. It does not require redundant software or licensing, and implementing agencies can find new use cases for data and tools as needed. Cons: Usually coordination and centralized leadership is required. High front-end costs, and clear role assignments are also necessary. It may result in institutional lock-in. Example: MassDOT provides one of the most comprehensive VPI systems. Their public-facing interface is consistent across project sizes, types, and locations, offers excellent navigation for users, and caters to different user types (for example contractors, the general public, and special interest groups). Behind the scenes, MassDOT uses the PIMA system to collect public comment and manage their comment response. Mass DOT also leads the development of a PIMA integrable web app to bring public involvement directly to mobile systems. The department has a training portal which offers extensive documentation, training resources, and videos to project teams to ensure consistency and compliance. Massachusetts has had some of the most dedicated executive leadership in the VPI space, as well as a dedicated VPI team that has initiated and executed their web environment.
98

Structuring Content Pages One of the key challenges to developing project pages is organizing what can be a vast amount of project data into a simple, easy-to-digest format. This process involves curation of content, selection of best medium for communicating content, anticipating public demand for and perceived usefulness of content, anticipating public comprehension and stamina, reducing barriers to access, and iteratively updating site structure in response to public sentiment. From a management standpoint, designing and maintaining websites should not put a strain on project teams, websites should have some consistency across projects, and specific pieces of content should match the purpose of the project and capacities of the department.
Figure 35: Screenshot. Project webpage content: ODOT. Source: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/programs/public-involvement/toolbox/publicmeeting
99

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) publishes documentation about the content that project web pages should include (see Figure 35), while other DOTs make this content implicit and standard across projects by using website request forms and website templates (NCDOT, MSHA). Although these types of lists are helpful to give project teams a rough estimate of the scope of content they are expected to publish, they are not exhaustive and they do not explain how that content should be organized. PennDOT recommends that webpage developers plan the goals and structure of websites in advance (Figure 36). NCDOT warns against information overload on websites in its Connect NCDOT toolkit but does not provide specific guidance for how to avoid this, especially for large projects.
Figure 36: Screenshot. Project webpage content guidelines: PennDOT. Source: PennDOT PI Plan (2021)
There are many resources that exist for optimizing website design which go beyond the scope of this report. Esri provides recommendations for designing and launching websites on ArcGIS
100

Hub. Among other things, Esri recommends careful website planning, dedicating staff to website design, developing site maps (for an example of site map design provided by Esri, see Figure 37), creating a portal home page as a springboard to other sites, creating a wide variety of content types, keeping pages simple, and making the most use of photos (Hudgins 2020). Esri recommends testing with a broad range of potential users to build relationships and identify glitches early. For deeper customization needs, Esri recommends enabling metadata for data and websites and using applications to host visuals, rather than uploading them directly on a website (Hudgins and Prather 2020).
Figure 37: Screenshot. Esri examples of website design planning. Source: Hudgins 2020. Single-Page Sites
All project content is hosted on a single webpage. Webpages structure content horizontally and vertically, with more important content hosted at the top of the page. Jump menus or accordion menus can help organize content. Pros: Sites tend to be efficient and easy to publish. They can "tell a story" from top to bottom without worrying about navigation or finding the right material. Sites are easily updated and clearly structured.
101

Cons: Single-page sites are quickly overwhelming or cluttered. Updating single-page sites to reflect current project priorities (for example during public comment periods) requires staff resources. Definition: "Above the fold" content is content immediately viewable on a project page. "Below the fold" content is content that requires scrolling. Practical tip: Include navigation, explanatory videos and translation functions above the fold. Practical tip: Pop-up surveys, including opportunities to follow a page, can increase above-thefold content without changing a website's design. Examples: MSHA's templated, single-page sites clearly structure content in consistent ways and feature a drop-down navigation option above the fold (see Figure 39). DDOT's 16th Street NW Bus Lanes Project features an above-the-fold jump menu at the top of the screen that directs users to content further down the page (see Figure 38).
Figure 38: Screenshot. Single-page project sites: DDOT. Source: https://ddotcp-16-st-nw-bus- dcgis.hub.arcgis.com/
102

Figure 39: Screenshot. Single-page project sites: MSHA. Source: https://mdot-sha-us219brg-over-youghiogheny-riv- ga1735180-maryland.hub.arcgis.com/.

103

Multi-Page Sites Project content is hosted across multiple webpages, usually referenced via tabs at the top of the page. Tabs organize content by subject area or content type. Multi-page sites usually have a tab for department contacts and project documentation. Pros: Wayfinding is improved with multi-page sites. Above the fold information is increased. Tabs can communicate desired behavior from users ("Leave a comment," "Follow this page," and "Register for Public Hearing" are all possible tab labels). Cons: Multi-page sites may be more resource intensive for designers and website builders. MDOT estimates a 3-week development time (compared to 1-week for single-page sites). Example: UDOT tailors tabs to different user types. "Home" tab features content for the general public, while "Details" features content intended for internal staff or technical experts (Figure 40).
Figure 40: Screenshot. Multi-page project sites: UDOT. Source: https://www.udot.utah.gov/projectpages/f?p=250:2007:0::NO:2007:P2007_EPM_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2007_PROJECT_TYPE_ IN D_FLAG:9061
104

Examples: WSDOT and ODOT embed multi-page sites into a single-page site to guide users through project content during open-house periods (see Figure 41).
Figure 41: Screenshot. Multi-page project sites: ODOT and WSDOT. Source top: https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/battery-street-tunnel- and-north-surface-streets. Source bottom: https://publicinput.com/G3825
105

Practical tip: Build multi-page sites into your templates, including dedicated pages for key VPI activities like public hearings or commenting. Use visibility toggles and templating to prepare individual pages before they go live.
Practical tip: Use hidden tabs within a site template to provide training materials and standard protocol to project teams. This ensures that project teams have access to core VPI material.
StoryMaps
StoryMaps are an Esri-built web application that provides a user-friendly medium for hosting text, map, image, video, and web application content to build and convey a narrative. StoryMaps are single-page websites that offer more intuitive user experience. StoryMaps can include jump menus to navigate to specific parts of the site.
Pros: StoryMaps can help designers guide users through content, explaining complex or difficult to understand material one piece at a time. StoryMaps can curate a diversity of content types in an interactive and visually compelling way. StoryMaps are good for explaining narratives, summarizing results, or telling a story about a project site.
Cons: StoryMaps can be difficult to develop and slow to load. In 2022, Esri added a StoryMap module to its 2.0 version ArcGIS API for Python, a feature that will hopefully improve development times.
Example: VDOT uses StoryMaps to summarize planning studies, document outreach methodologies, and justify decision-making. These StoryMaps have value as public-facing documents and archives for internal documentation (see Figure 42).
106

Figure 42: Screenshot. Corridor study StoryMap: VDOT. Source: https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=04b13c69fdb94a9898d03dc49da5eef0
Example: GDOT used StoryMaps to explain detours in the design and construction phases of one leg of its Transforming State Route 316 project (see Figure 43).
Figure 43: Screenshot. Detour route StoryMap: GDOT.
107

Example: MaineDOT summarizes design decisions and public comment period outcomes in StoryMaps which are hosted on project pages (see Figure 44).
Figure 44: Screenshot. Public Involvement Summary Report StoryMap: MaineDOT. Source: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/a277eab211bc4c72b8ab56915bdc7c19
108

Consistency Consistent website designs use the same graphic design elements and communication tools across project pages. Consistency can include visual identity, website structure, content type, and available facilitating content Pros: Legibility and professionalism of a website is improved. Workflows, backend tech requirements, and resources are standardized to improve scalability. Cons: Coordination between website design staff, IT departments, and project teams is required. Decisions on best format for visual communication (icons, timelines, colors) must happen in advance. There is also the potential for lock-in over time. Examples: WSDOT's project sites contain visually consistent elements such as timelines and calendars (see Figure 45). Across GDOT's consultant-developed sites, individual elements such as timelines, project documentation, and project benefits will have different visual styles and content depth, reflecting differences in consultant styles and content complexity (Figure 46). Although every project will require different amounts of information to be presented to the public, developing a unified style could help users locate information more quickly and present consistent branding.
Figure 45: Screenshot.Standardized timeline graphics: WSDOT
109

Figure 46: Screenshot. Non-standardized timeline graphics: GDOT
Quality Control for Websites
When the website design team and individual website authors are not the same parties, discrepancies in expectations and quality can emerge. Quality control protocols ensure that department expectations are met and resources are efficiently used. Quality control protocol will vary based on department design and centrality.
Pros: A good quality control protocol can improve consistency, accessibility, functionality, and reliability and can help build trust between the public and the department. Quality control can allow for better management and timing of website updates.
110

Cons: Quality control protocol can be demanding for centralized staff. If project teams are required to be more hands-on in website development, training and clear guidelines are necessary. Delays in the quality control process can delay other important milestones. Example: NCDOT gathers information from project teams using a standardized template early in the concept phase period. NCDOT publishes initial project websites. Project teams update websites as needed, and content is reviewed by Communications staff (Interview: NCDOT, July 2021). Example: MSHA provides project teams with templates, which are filled in by project staff. ArcGIS Hub's drag-and-drop website building approach is easy to learn, easily decentralized and does not require programming knowledge to create websites, allowing project teams to publish and update project information as needed. MSHA central staff forwards questions and concerns about website content to project teams, who decide how to incorporate (Interview: MSHA, August 2021).
111

Selecting the Right Tools
Selecting digital tools is another important task when designing VPI systems. ICT tools are often developed to meet particular needs. Moreover, digital tools vary in their ease of use, the publics' familiarity with the tool, their backend infrastructure and technical requirements, their size and accessibility, and their customizability. With the proliferation of VPI tools available, DOTs often struggle to determine which tools best meet their needs.
Tool Selection Matrices
Tool selection matrices evaluate individual tools based on cost and perceived benefit. Costs and benefits can be categorized depending on department needs.
Pros: Matrices facilitate quick planning for required resources to deploy different tools. Tools can be compared for functionality and cost to aid procurement. Matrices can be pre-filtered to include only department-approved software, providing project teams and coordinating offices with quick references for available VPI solutions.
Cons: Matrices are limited in their ability to analyze and compare benefits, especially for diverse use-cases. Depending on how tools are presented, inconsistencies across projects can emerge.
Examples: NCDOT, MDOT, and FHWA compare tools based on three resource types: cost, time, and skills. Selection criteria inform the tool's use (see Figure 47 for a compilation of the three).
Example: MDOT's tool selection matrix compares cost, use cases, selection criteria, production timeline, anticipated learning curve, synchronicity, and comments in a single, easy-to-use matrix (MDOT 2021).
112

Figure 47: Diagram. Tool selection matrix: NCDOT, MDOT, FHWA. Source: own depiction from NCDOT, March 2020; MDOT 2021; FHWA, December 2018 Example: PennDOT's PI Handbook provides design considerations to project teams for approved VPI tools, including web conferencing, webinars, webcasts, podcasts, telephone town halls, virtual public meetings, online surveys, interactive maps, GIS and web maps, project visualizations, videos, websites, and newsletters. This resource provides an extra level of design assistance to project teams.
113

Online Toolkits
Online toolkits are centralized repositories of techniques, guidelines, case studies, and other documentation which aim to inform, inspire, and teach practitioners. Toolkits are often filterable based on use case.
Pros: Toolkits represent a wealth of information and departmental knowledge in a single, easyto-find location. Toolkits allow for self-directed learning and experimentation by project teams. Toolkits can serve as a resource bank and can help project teams think through major questions of public involvement, linking tools to specific purposes or stakeholders. Toolkits can help customize VPI approaches to context in a structured, managed way.
Cons: Toolkits are very expensive to set up and are usually only developed with the help of a grant or support from leadership. Toolkits can be overwhelming for practical use if not

Figure 48: Screenshot. Public Engagement Online Toolbox: NCDOT. Source: https://connect.ncdot.gov/site/toolkit/Pages/PubInvTech.aspx

114

accompanied with guidelines for prioritization or standard protocol. Maintaining and updating toolkits to match current department standards can be costly.
Example: NCDOT used an FHWA grant for long-range planning to develop its PI toolkit. NCDOT's database is filterable by the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation to match tool selection to intensity of PI outreach. NCDOT's toolkit includes lengthy descriptions of the use of tools, best practices from across the country, special considerations for implementation, and links to further resources (see Figure 48).
Example: NJTPA's Engage! Toolkit was developed in partnership with a research team from Rutgers University. Tools can be filtered by audience, geographic scope, geography (urban/rural), tool type and timeframe of PI.
Practical tip: To reduce upfront costs, consider tailoring existing publicly-accessible toolkits from other agencies to departmental needs.
Practical tip: Toolkits are usually reserved for cases when PI processes allow for flexibility in PI design. A toolkit oriented around NEPA PI may require a different structure to facilitate efficient completion of mandatory tasks.
Customized Tools
Some DOTs develop their own tools to meet highly specific VPI needs. Tools may be customized to fit project needs during a given phase, to meet the needs of specific user groups, or to meet broader departmental goals. ArcGIS Online allows licensees to develop and share web applications.
Pros: Highly-tailored functionality with proprietary control of features, content, and functionality. A well-designed application can greatly improve understanding of complex
115

content and encourage interaction with the product. Customized web applications can be very useful for particular audiences. Cons: Customized web applications can be very costly to develop and maintain, and if there are bugs or poor design choices, usefulness and reliability can drop dramatically. Customized web applications require intimate knowledge of existing needs and VPI procedures to ensure value and operability. If the functionality is too niche, web applications can become irrelevant. Example: GDOT developed a PIOH application to host open-house material and guide users through content (Figure 49). The web application includes instructions for use and has been templated so that it can be deployed in different contexts.
Figure 49: Screenshot. Customized open house application: GDOT. Source: https://85study-gdot.hub.arcgis.com
Example: UDOT's Heber Valley EIS process developed a web application intended specifically to compare alternatives in Level 1 and Level 2 screening. Dashboards allow users to compare
116

alternatives based on travel time, level of service, and whether criteria for consideration are met. Impacts on buildings, waterways, parcels, and historical sites are also available (see Figure 50).

Figure 50: Screenshot. Customized EIS alternative screening application: UDOT. Source: https://hebervalleyeis.udot.utah.gov/alternative-screening/

117

Examples: VDOT and MSHA developed web applications tailored to specific targeted stakeholders, including truck drivers and EMS responders.
Practical tip: Consider developing web applications for key stakeholder groups, such as local political leaders, DOT leadership, internal DOT offices (e.g. ROW), or contractors.
Practical tip: Pilot test web applications with intended user group before launching to ensure usefulness and usability. Consider researching user needs and skill sets before initiating the development process.
Practical tip: Esri offers some templates for web applications which can be customized to fit department needs. The Citizen Problem Reporter application can be tailored for map-based feedback surveys. The Capital Projects Dashboard can be tailored for project portal dashboards.
Dashboards
Dashboards communicate summarized information and report on department performance. Dashboards can be simple or comprehensive and can be organized by topic. Dashboards can be interactive or static.
Pros: Dashboards have the potential to improve transparency, reliability, and trust in departments, especially when accurate, useful data is conveyed. Dashboards can help structure underlying data and improve communication and understanding of complex information. Dashboards can also expedite evaluation or help keep a project on-track.
Cons: Dashboards can be expensive to develop and can easily be overwhelming. Dashboards must convey information that the audience is interested in. Dashboards can only convey certain types of data and may blur important nuances or qualitative descriptions. Data-heavy dashboards can fail to load, especially in areas with low bandwidth capacities.
118

Example: Johns Creek uses ArcGIS Hub dashboards extensively throughout its web environment. These dashboards feature ArcGIS-hosted content and use iFrames to embed Tableau graphs (see Figure 51).
Figure 51: Screenshot. Dashboards: City of Johns Creek. Source: https://environment.johnscreekga.gov/pages/stormwater
Examples: In 2020, FHWA hosted a peer exchange on data dashboards. AZDOT, MDOT, NCDOT, OKDOT, and WVDOT participated. Dashboards were used to communicate performance and provide overviews of specific topics. They were used for internal communication, communication with key stakeholders and for communication with the general public. Among other recommendations, dashboards need to be technologically and visually accessible, meet specific demands of the targeted user groups and communicate their value. Data needs must be planned in advance. (Office of Planning, FHWA, October 20, 2020).
119

Practical tip: Include an explanation of the relevance and impact of metrics, as well as their limitation, within or alongside the dashboard. Practical tip: Dashboards are usually built on a structured database. Data protocols are necessary to ensure that dashboards stay accurate and up-to-date.
120

Integrating from Cradle to Grave
Integrating project content across project phases can be a challenge for DOTs, especially because offices or departmental subunits responsible for engaging the public will change over the course of a project's life-cycle. Maintaining a cradle-to-grave approach to VPI involves organizational, institutional and data management processes which are not necessarily easy to implement if they are not already at hand. Cradle-to-grave integration is important for communication with the public about project development. It allows the public to follow a process, understand how a project has developed, and comprehend the rationale behind key decisions across phases. Integration of project content allows DOTs to articulate how and when public input has been used, even if that input was provided when the project was the responsibility of a different office or project team. Cradle-to-grave also allows DOTs to anticipate public values or identify possible concerns that have emerged in previous phases and integrate these into design decisions and communication resources. Finally, federal regulation requires that project materials be kept "available to the public electronically until the project is constructed and open for operations," themselves constituting a type of cradle-to-grave project content repository (23 C.F.R. 771.111).
The Communications office at NCDOT noted in an interview that engagement timing does not always map onto project development timing. During project development, updates may take months or even years to occur. Successful public engagement needs to happen at a much more frequent pacing in order to keep people involved. Planning project VPI around this principle can help strengthen relationships with key stakeholders and the affected audience (Interview: NCDOT, July 2021).
121

Planning for Needs by Phase VPI needs differ by project phase. Planning by project phase allows PI managers to identify where and how VPI tasks should be completed and anticipate moments where integration may be difficult. Pros: Planning for VPI needs by phase can improve scalability and integration of VPI efforts. It is a way to practice good design principles while recognizing different contexts and specific VPI needs. It is a way of communicating VPI priorities to project teams. Resources, responsibilities, and appropriate workflows can be assigned to phases. Cons: Not all projects will have the same needs, even within the same phase. Phase planning must consider outreach, website development, regulatory requirements, necessary tasks, and more. Protocols for specific VPI activities are required to supplement phase planning. Some phases may be underrepresented (e.g. scoping). Additional research is needed to determine the best tools and approaches within each phase.
122

Example: FDOT offers an outreach guide across five phases of project development, from planning to operations and management. The purpose of engagement, types of outreach, and key stakeholders are included in this document (see Figure 52).
Figure 52: Screenshot. Planning outreach by project phase: FDOT. Source: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default- source/public-engagement-resource-guide/105-outreach-during-projectphases.pdf?sfvrsn=d07f23fd_2
Example: MnDOT has codified phase planning for integrating VPI into its policy and guidance documents to encourage consistent PI approach throughout a project life cycle and across projects (AASHTO 2021). Practical tip: Include data resources and existing databases in phase planning to improve integration of data and stakeholder contacts. Website material and structures can also be planned by project phase.
123

Project Websites As the principal portal for project content, websites can also serve as consistent repositories of project data and decisions across the project life cycle. Websites can be updated to reflect current project needs, and past project material can be stored on websites and later archived. Pros: Project pages can be published early with few resources and can stay live throughout the project life cycle at no cost. Archived project pages can be stored and recalled as needed in the future. Cons: Project pages require upkeep. Stale project pages can increase public frustration and reduce departmental reliability. Disorganized project pages can discourage integration. Example: Many project pages include a document repository where relevant project information is stored. This is for legal and transparency purposes. GDOT's SR400 page provides document descriptions on the documentation page to improve perceived usefulness. Long documents can also be broken up into chapters to improve accessibility (see Figure 53).
Figure 53: Screenshot. VPI integration via project pages: GDOT. Source: https://0001757-gdot.hub.arcgis.com/
124

Examples: NCDOT notes, however, that "seeing how recently the information was added and how recently the whole page was updated adds credibility and a sense of immediacy. It also makes the online service more of a here-and-now resource." PennDOT recommends keeping website content updated for the public and documenting when and how websites were updated in a separate, live project file for transparency and later evaluation (PennDOT, May 2021).
Example: MSHA builds websites downwards as projects grow. Project updates, videos and pictures are hosted on websites from planning through construction. Once they switched to ArcGIS Hub, MSHA could use ArcGIS Hub sites as an organized way to store all past project data from across phases in a single location to improve transparency and recordkeeping (Interview: MSHA, August 2021).
Practical tip: PDF files "cannot be considered best practice" (Cherman 2017). PDF files are static documents fixed at a point in time and cannot be easily updated the way web-based content or applications can. Try to host project information directly on web pages to improve functionality, accuracy, and discoverability (PDFs are not search engine optimized unless metadata is complete). PDF content cannot be translated by most automatic website translators. Use PDF files only for archiving out-of-date project content. Date all PDFs so users know when content was generated. If possible, include links to up-to-date content in PDFs.
Practical tip: Prepare for maintenance of websites and assign responsibilities early on. Use website templates to improve consistency, plan ahead, communicate expectations, and reduce costs. Don't forget to plan for obsolescence.
125

Databases
Databases are repositories of project-relevant content and data stored in a central location. Databases can contain VPI data, processual data, project content, contact information, and more.
Pros: Well-designed databases with storage and recall protocols can greatly improve consistency across project phases and increase use cases of VPI-related data. Databases can doubly serve as the foundation of data-driven applications and dashboards. Databases allow for easy recall of past project data for integration into new activities and for self-evaluation. Contact list databases can help improve relationships with stakeholders, especially if updated and used throughout a project life cycle.
Cons: Databases require carefully planned protocols to ensure that they are populated consistently and reliably. Database software must be compatible with other VPI tools and file formats. Databases require some identifying feature to link projects across life cycles. Project numbers may not be available in the earliest planning phases, so workarounds are required.
Examples: FDOT builds and maintains proprietary contact databases with key stakeholders and new contacts procured during outreach phases. FDOT uses contact lists to ensure that all affected parties are kept in the loop from planning through to operations. FDOT's protocol ensures that past contact lists are retrieved for new projects or project phases. FDOT manages contact data through a customer relations management system (CRM) and through a geospatial database (in cases where a project number is not yet generated). FDOT integrates its contact lists with other organizations', such as county tax assessors, MPOs, and local agencies (see Figure 54).
126

Figure 54: Screenshot. VPI integration via contact databases: FDOT. Source: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/public-engagement-resource- guide/402-buildinga-contact-list.pdf?sfvrsn=6909f39f_2
Example: MassDOT's ArcGIS-powered web portal hosts geolocated contact and community data to facilitate outreach efforts early in a project's planning and development. There is limited functionality to this tool. For example, users cannot print filtered contact lists, and data on organizations does not contain the focus of the organization or past or current projects the organization has participated in (see Figure 55).
127

Figure 55: Screenshot. VPI integration via contact databases: MassDOT. Source: https://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MinimalGallery/index.html?appid=19884cc0048241cdbaf6f7b6a2856371
Example: The PIMA application includes a comment and contact management system so DOTs can monitor and coordinate responses to public feedback. This database leaves a digital record of all feedback, which can be stored as a geodatabase and integrated into future project development tasks (see Figure 56). Currently, PIMA data is not directly integrated with other databases (Interview: MaineDOT, February 2022). Practical tip: Storing content in a DOT-owned and centrally-maintained database improves longevity and reliability of data. This avoids potential data loss if a consultant is only hired for certain phases of project development.
128

Figure 56: Screenshot. Customer Relations Management (CRM): PIMA.
Project Administrative Records
Project Administrative Records are single-location stores of project documents and materials considered directly or indirectly in agency decision-making.
Pros: Project administrative records can improve transparency and build trust and relationships with stakeholders. They can aid decision-making and ensure that community feedback is carried over between project phases. They can facilitate qualitative process evaluation and help determine whether goals were met, and they can be used in legal proceedings if needed.
Cons: Project administrative records require careful planning and department-wide standards in order to be effective tools.
Examples: NCDOT and FDOT both provide checklists for project administrative records in their PI guidelines (NCDOT n.d.).
129

Articulating VPI Goals
In most of the literature surrounding public participation and e-participation, a key first step to the successful design of participatory systems is to clearly define what goals an implementing agency has for the participatory process. In their VPI and PI documentation, DOTs around the country have provided frameworks for defining goals, and in some cases have defined overarching goals for VPI. This section highlights some ways in which VPI goals are communicated by departments, as well as which goals frequently appear.
Regulatory Compliance
Regulatory compliance underlies most PI and VPI activity. Many DOTs structure their values and objectives for VPI around compliance.
Pros: Designing VPI systems with compliance in mind reduces risk of violations and improves relationships with federal regulators.
Cons: Regulatory compliance is usually viewed as the floor not the ceiling for VPI performance. Limiting VPI goals to compliance can risk alienating users, discouraging active participation, and reducing trust in government processes. This perpetuates the stereotype that PI is just there to meet the minimum regulatory standards, rather than meaningfully engaging the public.
Example: In its guidelines for integrating VPI into PI processes, MDOT highlights that VPI can help provide early and continuing opportunities for public involvement (from 23 C.F.R. 450.210), can improve public outreach for specific proposed operational improvements (in line with 23 C.F.R. 771.111) and include documentation of outreach activities (also in line with 23 C.F.R. 771.111). MDOT also focuses its VPI guidance on meeting EJ and LEP requirements.
130

International Association for Public Participation
The International Association for Public Participation's (IAP2) spectrum of public participation is the most widespread tool used to establish PI goals and match goals to tools. This framework is used in academic work as well as practical guidelines by DOTs. The IAP2 spectrum is based roughly on a ladder of participation framework (see Arnstein 1969) and recognizes that different tools and promises correspond to different VPI goals.
Pros: IAP2 is a widespread and easy to understand framework for establishing VPI goals. Provides practical implementation strategies.
Cons: IAP2 can sometimes ignore administrative values for participation, like building legitimacy or improving policy decisions. IAP2 can be difficult to apply to regulated processes such as NEPA. IAP2 also does not offer insights into how to increase the effectiveness of certain tools or approaches.
Examples: NCDOT, MnDOT, MDOT, and others use this framework to determine overarching goals for public involvement and plan actions accordingly. MnDOT assigns IAP2 values to different moments in the PI process. NCDOT organizes tools by IAP2 level in its online toolkit. The IAP2 spectrum typically matches level, public participation goal, promise to the public and example techniques (e.g. see Figure 57).
Example: The Local Institute for Governments expanded the IAP2 spectrum to apply to VPI techniques (see Table 3). This reference table is aimed to help administrative agencies pick tools appropriate to specific goals. The IAP2 framework recognizes that different levels of participation are appropriate at different moments in the public involvement process. It is not always appropriate to aim for the highest level of participation, especially in phases where the public does not have a meaningful opportunity to influence decision-making. Academic
131

literature emphasizes the importance of being straight-forward and transparent with the actual ability for the public to get involved and to tailor the level of engagement to that promise.

Figure 57: Diagram. IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. Source: Fedorowicz, Arena and Burrowes 2020

Table 3: Expansion of IAP2 spectrum to include digital tools (Local Institute for Government n.d.)

Inform Introductory web pages with links to go deeper Issue-specific newsletters
Infographics, videos, podcasts

Consult Surveys and polls
Comments and questions
Ability to vote on others' comments

Involve Invitation to produce new suggestions Prioritization and tradeoff exercises
Mapping

Collaborate Interactive platforms
Citizen reporting apps and crowdsourced data Collaborative writing and hackathons

Visual summaries and simulations

Budget challenge

Online forum

Neighbor-to-neighbor apps

132

Other Administrative Values Administrations can choose to use public involvement to achieve many internal goals, which can overlap with but are not limited to IAP2 goals or regulatory compliance. Examples: Salerno et al. surveyed DOTs about their motivations for pursuing VPI. Efficient communication, improved breadth of outreach and transparency were among the most commonly cited reasons for VPI (2019, see Figure 57).
Figure 58: Chart. DOTs' motivation for VPI. Source: Salerno et al. 2019. Examples: Alluri et al., in a different survey, found that the ability to reach new population groups, the value of input and affordability trumped even NEPA compliance as guiding motivators for DOTs (see Figure 58).
133

Figure 59: Chart. Motivation for VPI adoption. Source: Alluri et al. 2018
Example: MDOT listed increased participation, diversity of respondents, inclusion, convenience, transparency, improved access to PI processes, and increasing demands of the public as guiding values for its adoption of VPI (MDOT 2021).
Practical tip: Be upfront about agency goals and values to improve public trust. Not being transparent about values and goals even purely administrative goals can lead to public disappointment in VPI processes and result in less participation over time, especially among populations with low trust in government processes. Practical tip: Zhang and Feeney have found that prioritizing bureaucratic over participatory values is negatively related to adoption of digital tools (2020). Legal mandates increase adoption but not actual use of tools. They emphasize that an administrative culture that values involving the public and getting good input is more important than meeting administrative requirements for e-participation.
134

Strategically Matching Goals and Procedures Defining VPI goals at the project and project phase levels allows practitioners to match goals, procedures, and tools. In line with design models from Chapter 2, goals will shape the design of VPI tools, as well as their use.
Figure 60: Screenshot. Matching VPI to goals: MDOT. Source: MDOT 2021 135

Pros: Matching goals with procedures and tools can help ensure that goals are transparent and met.
Cons: Procedural protocol that is too rigid can come across as technocratic and may risk a focus on fulfilling procedural requirements, rather than the spirit of the goal. Make room for reviewing and updating procedures and goals and obtain feedback from users to ensure that goals are met from both ends.
Example: MSHA's prior project information database prioritized financial and technical project information before the department decided to tailor their online presence to better meet the demands and skillsets of the public by switching to ArcGIS Hub (Interview: MSHA, August 2021).
Example: MDOT recommends that implementing teams consider goals, audience, budget, and schedule when planning VPI. MDOT assigns goals to different project phases and outlines workflows necessary to achieve those goals. This framework includes normative goals (e.g., safe environment, stakeholder trust, and open communication) with practical steps and tools.
Example: NCDOT provides project teams with a checklist to ensure that PI processes match desired goals, PI intensities, and stakeholder profiles. This resource is not exclusive to VPI tools, but can be used for this context as well. Moreover, this checklist can be distributed virtually to project teams and responses can be stored in a consistent way to allow comparison between projects and comprehensive evaluation.
Example: A research report from University of Arizona in 2021 found that agencies' VPI response to the pandemic required rapid transition and may have undermined strategic goals. The authors recommend that agencies review practices and goals when planning VPI processes into the future (Iroz-Elardo, Erickson, Howell, Olson, & Currans 2021).
136

Figure 61: Screenshot. Matching VPI to goals: NCDOT. Source: NCDOT n.d. Practical tip: Not all tools will be useful for all stakeholders. If your goals involve broad stakeholder engagement and quality of involvement, multiple tools may need to be used. Research stakeholder preferences or communicate with stakeholders in advance, and plan for flexibility. Practical tip: Design checklists, benchmarking, recommended tools and data protocols centrally and distribute to project teams to ensure consistent goals, procedures, opportunities for engagement and data products across projects.
137

Directing Users to Information
One of the key challenges for any VPI system is effectively directing users to content they are interested in. VPI systems convene users with different levels of engagement demands, from casual consumers of information to active co-collaborators and internal staff. Sometimes, DOTs have an obligation to meet the content needs of stakeholders with a specific interest, such as local decision-makers or federal regulators. If users cannot find information they are looking for, they may either abandon the search, reducing the total amount of involvement on a project, or use other media to contact the department for requests. A local policymaker may, for example, contact DOT staff directly for project information because she could not locate that information on the public website, expending unnecessary staff resources and potential damaging department credibility.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
SEO is a process of improving website traffic to a given page or portal from search engines such as Google or Bing.
Pros: Most members of the public are more familiar with search engines. SEO allows the department to meet users digitally "where they are at." SEO can be improved on a case-by-case basis through fairly low-effort activities.
Cons: SEO should accompany other outreach efforts. Certain data practices, such as storing data in PDFs, are not optimized for SEO. Very few DOTs or transportation agencies report on their use of SEO for VPI.
Example: ODOT uses its proprietary InnovateOhio Hub to improve SEO compared to PublicInput.com.
138

Example: The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) employed SEO for their IH30 Insider program as part of a multipronged marketing strategy. NCTCOG emphasized a desire to standardize SEO protocol to improve their web resources.
Practical tip: Esri advertises ArcGIS Hub's SEO functionality as a key distinction over their Enterprise environment.
Practical tip: SEO may be a way to reach commuters who cannot access DOT content at the point of contact. Pairing SEO with catchy slogans allows drivers to easily find relevant content when they are in a position to do so.
Public Involvement Portals and Wayfinding
Wayfinding refers to design features that enable users to navigate within a web environment to material that interests them. Once users locate a department website, the structure and design of that website can inhibit or facilitate their movement through the site.
Pros: Wayfinding can help users identify content that is useful to them and easily explore other types of content at their own convenience. Wayfinding can improve empowerment and perceived usefulness of a website if users can self-identify information they are interested in.
Cons: Good wayfinding may require large changes to department website structure. Optimizing wayfinding for the general public may reduce website functionality for internal staff or key stakeholders. State DOT practices vary drastically when it comes to navigability and "wayfinding" on websites. A 2017 report "Data Presentation on Transportation Agency Websites: Trends and Best Practices" rates data discoverability and accessibility as generally very poor across DOT websites (Cherman 2017). Examples: ODOT and NCDOT clearly indicate from the department home page how to access PI content and opportunities to engage. This intuitive structure guides users quickly to project
139

information as well as information about departmental PI processes and other resources. ODOT guides users to a PI page that explains the ins and outs of PI before providing a link to their project search portal (Figure 61).
Figure 62: Screenshot. Directing users to information via PI portal, including a PI portal and easy search function: ODOT Source Left: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/programs/public-involvement. Source Right: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects#page=1&commentPeriod=public
140

Practical tip: Consider hosting all public-facing VPI content on a single, well-structured page on the department website to improve wayfinding. GDOT currently provides project information under the "Projects" tab, whereas public input opportunities are hidden under the "About GDOT" tab. Example: MassDOT's website uses helpful buttons that anticipate users' needs to help users navigate around the website in an intuitive way (see Figure 63). Users can discover content of interest to them, understand the relevance of the content they are consuming, access resources to help explain confusing content and locate opportunities to leave feedback.
Figure 63: Screenshot. Directing users to information via wayfinding: MassDOT
Practical tip: PennDOT and Esri recommend developing comprehensive site maps and plotting out potential use cases centered around different user types to improve wayfinding. If possible, test your website's structure with actual members of the public, encouraging them to find specific material or leave a comment on a specific project. Examples: UDOT and MSHA use map-based applications to guide users to projects of interest to them. Maps can be filtered by location and often feature popular or larger projects prominently. Overview maps are hosted on PI landing pages, which structure and present other relevant VPI data. The choice of filter options for maps, as well as the design of the application interface, will depend on the anticipated expectations of the target audience.
141

Practical tip: Although map-based applications can aid in project discovery for many users, maps are limited in their ability to present a large scope of information in a non-cluttered way. Many existing map-based project portals are very difficult to decipher and present barriers to accurately accessing relevant projects because of the quantity of information presented in a single view. The first interface on TxDOT's ProjectTracker map (Figure 64) contains a wealth of information from past and present projects, including location, detailed information, project status, and more. While much of this information is important for the public, the interface may be illegible and difficult to navigate. Moreover, if members of the public are not familiar using online maps, they may be discouraged from further participation if this is the only way to identify project information. MSHA provides an alternative way to access project via a list, organized by district, as well as through the mapping application.
Figure 64: Screenshot. Directing users to information via mapping applications: TxDOT.
Practical tip: If map-based applications are used, links to project pages should be clearly indicated within the software (compare Figure 63 and Figure 64). The inability to navigate from a portal to the relevant public involvement page drastically reduces the functionality of the
142

map-based application for users and detracts from realizing the benefits of an integrated system.
Practical tip: Chatbots are another artificial intelligence-backed digital wayfinding tool that enjoys extensive proliferation in the private sector. The research team could not find any mature examples of chatbots being used by DOTs, although the US General Services Administration's Digital.gov does provide some recommendations for incorporating chatbot functionality into public administrations' websites.
QR Codes, Simple URLS, or Direct Access via Digital Outreach
In some cases, DOTs link directly to project websites and engagement opportunities. Direct access can be communicated in analog form, with QR codes, simplified URLs that link directly to digital content, or from other digital platforms through links. A 2021 survey from The Drum and YouGov found that 45% of all respondents had used a QR code in the prior 3 months. This number drops to 31% for consumers 65 and older (Hein 2021).
Pros: Inexpensive and easy way to connect existing outreach efforts to a digital portal. QR codes require the least amount of effort for engagement. Simplified URLs can serve as an alternative. Direct access is a way to ensure that users are seeing the desired material.
Cons: QR codes may not be familiar to or trusted by all audiences and require a smartphone for access. Mistyped URLs or damaged QR codes can hinder access.
Example: Hernando and Macas found that the use of QR codes in an educational setting corresponds with high levels of user acceptance, usability, satisfaction, usefulness, ease of use, and ultimately learning (2022).
143

Example: ODOT includes a QR code on postcard templates distributed to project teams, as well as on project notification letters and other outreach material mailed directly to the public (Figure 66). ODOT recommends removing the site map from postcards to make room for QR codes, reasoning that postcards are a geo-targeted outreach method, and most users are familiar with roads by their name. Example: MaineDOT includes a link to their main VPI portal in every mailing, rather than directly to sites. Users can then access supporting materials and navigate to relevant projects.
Figure 65: Screenshot. Directing users to information via QR codes: ODOT
Practical tip: Codify in social media and PI policy documents how and when to inform the public about key moments in the project life cycle, as well as desired frequency of communication.
144

Practical tip: Services like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok, which are tailored to mobile use, should only direct users to sites which are completely mobile-functional. Esri offers the ability to toggle visibility of certain features and apps for mobile optimization.
Practical tip: Many DOTs recommend an all-of-the-above approach to help as broad a range as possible of individuals reach the desired digital content. Email newsletters and text message blasts can serve as further means of directing recipients to project websites, although these require prior collection of contact information by the DOT.
Practical tip: QR codes or direct links to Survey123 surveys can be customized to automatically populate certain fields, an easy and non-intrusive way to evaluate how users accessed the site.
Targeted Advertising
Many social media platforms and online advertising companies allow users to buy targeted advertising to reach specific geographic areas or demographic groups.
Pros: Targeted outreach can be used for areas and groups who have not been traditionally engaged in PI processes. Targeted online outreach is typically much less expensive than offline. Different content can be tailored to different audiences, including links to pre-translated surveys or websites and video content.
Cons: Targeted advertising often relies on existing social media platforms, which may skew who is actually reached. Targeted advertising should be carefully measured to ensure that it is meeting its stated goals. Targeted advertising may need to be regularly updated to meet new needs or stakeholder characteristics.
Examples: MDOT, NJTPA, PennDOT, MaineDOT, and NCDOT, among others, all use targeted advertising in all of their PI campaigns. NJTPA targets advertising based on geographic location
145

(Interview: NJTPA, June 2021). In their 12-year-plan, PennDOT targeted people aged 18-24 (AASHTO 2021). NCDOT used a combined geographic and demographic approach to target areas with high concentrations of Hispanic residents for their NC Moves 2050 project (AASHTO 2021).
Example: Caltrans created different videos to be shown to different demographic groups and targeted groups with historically low participation, including Spanish-speaking residents, large families and communities in the Central Valley (Salerno et al. 2019).
Practical tip: Some DOTs have expressed success advertising on NextDoor, while others have been hesitant. The application offers a special feature for public agencies.
Facilitating Content
Facilitating content is any material produced by an agency to provide assistance and support in using an ICT tool. Examples of facilitating content are instructional videos, translation services, and links to alternative opportunities to provide input.
Pros: Facilitating content is a low-cost, reproducible way to reduce the cost of participation for users. Facilitating content can improve the ease of use and confidence of users on a platform. Facilitating content can also communicate to users how to provide content best usable for DOTs, improving responsiveness and perceived usefulness.
Cons: Facilitating content must be researched and evaluated. Providing unnecessary or overlycomplicated resources can exacerbate barriers. Facilitating content will have to be tailored to the project and audience at hand, potentially making standardization difficult.
Example: NCDOT is a leader in creating short videos to improve public understanding of content and processes. NCDOT circulates scripts and templates to project teams for these
146

videos (Interview: NCDOT, July 2021). One unique video provides users with a tutorial for how to read and understand public meeting maps, which is placed on project websites before and during public comment periods and public meetings (see Figure 67).

Figure 66: Screenshot. Facilitating content via explanatory videos (reading project maps): NCDOT Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLf5-ryabuY&t=73s
Example: UDOT frequently publishes videos explaining the EIS process and findings from the draft EIS to improve understanding of these documents and processes. UDOT prepares a new video for each EIS project, allowing content to be tailored to the project's particularities (see Figure 68).

Figure 67: Screenshot. Facilitating content via explanatory videos (EIS): UDOT. Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCaaE3e6AT4

147

Example: MaineDOT's VPI portal prominently features a video entitled "Why Virtual Public Meetings?" This video is intended to be the first video that users see. It explains why meetings are being conducted, how to use the portal, and features the Director of Planning. Practical tip: MaineDOT, TxDOT, and PennDOT all recommend keeping videos short and clearly labeling videos so users can decide what content interests them. A commuter may only be interested in a detour video, for example, while neighbors to a project may choose to watch multiple videos to get a more comprehensive understanding of a project (Interview: MaineDOT, February 2022). Practical tip: Videos serve many functions beyond just facilitating participation. They can establish the DOT's brand. Videos that feature upper management (Caltrans), on-the-ground workers (ODOT) or DOT project employees can build recognition and trust between the public and DOT operations and communicate institutional cohesion (Salerno et al. 2019). Example: Many DOTs offer automatic translation of websites, and Esri's automatic translations are very accurate across a number of languages. The City of New Haven features the translation widget prominently at the top of each website so that it is the first thing that users see. It is important that users know where and how to translate sites. Users may not see small buttons,
148

graphical representations of translation services, or buttons "below the fold" (compare examples in Figure 68).
Figure 68: Screenshot. Examples of visible automatic translation services: New Haven and GDOT
Practical tip: Many DOTs offer automatic translation of websites. ArcGIS Hub websites use a tool that relies on Google web services, but Esri states that this feature is set to be phased-out. Esri recommends manually translating sites and material as best practice moving forward until an alternative solution is developed.
149

Example: DDOT uses a customized ArcGIS Hub widget on all Hub pages that clearly indicate where users can go for language assistance, rather than using automatic translation of websites (see Figure 69).
Figure 69: Screenshot. Examples of language services: DDOT
Practical tip: Facilitating content can help ease the learning curve for new users, potentially increasing accessibility, and improving satisfaction and likelihood of participation in the future. Academic literature has found that first-time participants in PI activities are the least familiar with the PI process and therefore difficult to capture. Satisfaction with previous engagement is a key predictor of future engagement (Schafer 2019). Facilitating content is a promising strategy to reduce barriers to first time participation and encourage long-term engagement with the department. Small Group and Individual Outreach Stakeholder databases, one-on-one virtual meetings, virtual office hours, and stakeholder committee meetings are all tools to facilitate small group and individual outreach. Usually DOTs
150

employ these strategies to get more detailed input from key stakeholder groups, to build and foster long-standing relationships, or to reduce barriers to participation. Pros: Smaller groups can improve engagement, especially within hard-to-reach populations or local decision makers. Small group and individual engagement can provide better quality interactions or can tailor communication to specific topics of interest. Two-way communication is improved in this format. Cons: Smaller group engagement requires more staff resources. It requires more targeted and intentional outreach efforts. More intimate interactions can create unrealistic expectations about what is done with input. Example: MDOT announced virtual office hours during their US-12 PEL study to improve one- on-one communication between staff and the public (MDOT 2021). Practical tip: Esri offers a more hands-on option for engaging key stakeholders. Users with ArcGIS Online accounts can be granted permissions to view or edit certain content in advance of publication. Although no DOTs from this research use this collaborative feature, Esri advertises it as a good opportunity to co-produce outreach efforts.
151

Training, Resourcing and institutionalizing
Institutionalization is a wrap-around term meant to indicate that DOTs have organizational, technological, procedural, and cultural structures in place that ensure the frequent and widespread use of practices, values, and processes. This section evaluates tools and practices that DOTs have in place to support the institutionalization of VPI. For the sake of this section, institutionalizing elements are those that help departments translate tacit knowledge of employees and associates into documented records of practice. Institutionalization practices can lead to organizational lock-in as much as they can facilitate innovation, growth, and transparency. As in all organizational practices, a robust review, audit, and adjustment protocol is necessary to ensure that DOTs stay up-to-speed and on-target with VPI initiatives.
Training Portals and Learning Management Systems
A common difficulty cited by DOTs trying to institutionalize VPI is a lack of staff training and conformity of VPI uses and protocol (e.g., Salerno et al. 2019; Iroz-Elardo et al. 2021; Kramer and Tremblay 2019). Training portals and Learning Management Systems (LMS) are online repositories where core documentation on department practices, workflows, and protocol are stored. Employees are given access to these materials for training and reference during VPI implementation.
Pros: Training portals and LMS safely and securely aggregate current practices for VPI. They are convenient first-stops for practitioners to access necessary resources, and can be an effective way to establish consistent VPI protocol. Training portals can save financial, human and organizational training resources.
Cons: Some researchers have found low use of LMS, even where in place, due to insufficient expertise and tight budgets. LMS and training portals can be expensive to develop and maintain. These systems require close collaboration with subject matter experts, DOT
152

leadership, IT staffs, and VPI teams to make sure that content is up-to-date, accessible and useful to day-to-day practices. Stale material can result in institutional lock-in. Example: MassDOT's searchable training portal includes extensive documentation on VPI, including online curricula, guidance documents, and educational events (see Figure 70).
Figure 70: Screenshot. Online VPI learning portals: MassDOT.
Examples: VDOT and IowaDOT both train staff on ArcGIS Online using ArcGIS products such as StoryMaps. This approach not only presents content in a user friendly way, but it also gives hands on experience with the software and its capabilities. All of these training materials are hosted in ArcGIS Online, giving employees hands-on experience with the platform during training (Figure 71).
153

Figure 71: Screenshot. Online ArcGIS learning portal: IowaDOT. Source: https://trainingiowadot.opendata.arcgis.com/
Practical tip: Elliott investigated why only a quarter of TxDOT employees used its LMS system (2019). He found that the LMS design, lack of training, and lack of best practices are common challenges. He also found that leaders trying to implement an LMS need to work closely with trainers and practitioners to ensure that content and tools reflect actual practices.
Pilots and Case Studies
Pilots and case studies are ways to try out new technologies and workflows and document successes so that they can be reproduced. Case studies may reflect entire VPI processes, use of individual tools, or approaches for reaching particular stakeholder groups.
Pros: Case studies provide more detailed understanding of the approaches to, challenges of and successes of VPI approaches than other quantitative evaluation frameworks. They can help
154

evaluate bigger impacts of VPI approaches, such as policy changes (Nabatchi 2012). They can help project teams troubleshoot tricky situations or can inspire PI planners at the beginning of a project with techniques and practical knowledge. Case studies add to the institutional knowledge of an organization. Pilots can help teams overcome learning curves by dedicating special resources to the initial deployment of new approaches. Pilots can be good for managing risk before full implementation of a project.
Cons: Case studies can be difficult to conduct and may highlight priorities at odds with departmental goals. Case study reports cost staff time to conduct and need to curate relevant content. Pilots can set unrealistic expectations with the public. Pilots sometimes fail, and a failure protocol needs to be planned. Pilots can be risky, especially when they cost departmental resources for software procurement or digital infrastructure development. Pilots need to be chosen carefully so they are representative of actual VPI activities and requirements (Salerno et al. 2019). If pilots and case studies are not properly recorded or shared, they will not be useful for department operations.
Example: MDOT, alongside FHWA's Michigan Division, strategically identified seven projects of varying sizes and purposes, including PEL studies, long-range plans and corridor design projects, to test VPI opportunities and troubleshoot VPI problems. These pilots were used to test new processes, improve integration across project phases, provide clear documentation about best and worst practices, and institutionalize practical solutions to common problems. Each pilot project was led by a project champion, whose contact information was shared with department staff.
Examples: IowaDOT and MaineDOT first piloted the PIMA application for standardizing its use across all NEPA projects. MaineDOT now uses PIMA for all of its projects in development and long-term planning.
155

Examples: FDOT leverages consultant resources to help plan and execute pilot programs. FDOT uses competition between consultants to obtain a wide spectrum of available visualization techniques, and requires consultants to conduct all VPI using their own website and backend data infrastructure (Interview: FDOT, July 2021). Salerno et al. note that almost all DOTs use consultants to supplement and influence VPI activity (2019). Example: NCDOT hosts a case study library on their Connect NCDOT platform to give indepth, qualitative overviews on the use value of PI tools in practice (see Figure 72).
Figure 72: Screenshot. Learning via case studies: NCDOT
Practical tip: Esri notes in the webinar "Esri Best Practices: Implementing ArcGIS Hub" that ArcGIS Hub was designed to be rolled out in iterative steps, simplifying the process of adopting and institutionalizing best VPI practices within the environment. A well-planned and designed single-use case of Hub can be quickly templated, adapted and re-deployed, or expanded into a
156

new agency initiative. VDOT parrots this incremental approach to innovative VPI in a 2021 peer exchange (District of Columbia Quality Initiative 2021).
Documented Procedures and Guidelines
Departments use published documents and guidelines to communicate requirements and expectations for VPI. Almost all DOTs use agency-wide PI Plans to discuss VPI tools and strategies (Salerno et al. 2019). Few DOTs have formal standalone VPI plans; this project found that only MDOT had a standalone document for integrating VPI into NEPA projects, and even this document builds off of existing PI procedures, virtual meeting documentation, and social media community guidelines (Michigan Department of Transportation n.d.). Guidelines tend to be topic-specific and address specific known areas of difficulty for implementing staffs.
Pros: VPI policies are codified and clearly establish department protocols and orientation towards a subject. Guidelines can communicate department expectations and help troubleshoot common areas of concern. Guidelines can also direct practitioners to further resources, such as template or visualization libraries. Guidelines help institutionalize knowledge and practices.
Cons: Guidelines and policies must be developed and approved by leadership and can sometimes get mired in bureaucratic red tape. Guidelines and policies may not reflect the most up-to-date practices or needs, and can become outdated if not updated. Practices must be vetted before being integrated into official guidelines.
Examples: ODOT, TxDOT and FDOT organize PI and VPI material in robust online documentation libraries. Guidelines, templates and best practice cases are stored in a single location. ODOT features checklists, advice on terminology, and expected timelines for VPI activities (see Figure 73).
157

Figure 73: Screenshot. Implementation via online documentation : ODOT. Source: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/programs/public-involvement/toolbox/public-meeting
158

Example: FDOT's resource library includes relevant chapters from departmental environmental procedures and design manuals. FDOT provides guidance on specific tasks, like compiling contact lists and ensuring EJ compliance. Example: NCDOT's practitioner's guide is a single document with practical resources for PI and VPI deployment, specifically targeted to implementation teams (Figure 74). While this document is not as comprehensive as the PI plan, it provides links to allow PI leads to immediately request project content or VPI products.
Figure 74: Screenshot. Implementation via online documentation and training: NCDOT.
Practical tips: Creating a single online repository for all VPI material can help institutionalization of VPI practices. These not only standardize expectations within the department, they can
159

communicate standards with consultants and other third-party collaborators and improve transparency between the department and general public.
Templates
Templates of websites, emails, and material intended for the public are used in online and offline communications efforts to standardize PI deliverables.
Pros: Templates ensure a standard look and feel for all public-facing materials. They can help establish brand trust, ensure consistency of content, and reduce project team resources for VPI. Templates can also communicate expectations to a project team early in the project development process, improving the ability to initiate public-facing communication in an early and continuous way.
Cons: Templates can discourage flexibility or customization. Templates should be designed with VPI goals and user expectations in mind. Templates need to be able to be adjusted according to different phases in the project life cycle.
Roles, Responsibilities and Organizational Structure
One approach to institutionalizing VPI is assigning VPI tasks and responsibilities to specific positions or offices. DOTs vary in how they dedicate and formalize staff resources to VPI activities. Salerno et al. find that the structural organization of VPI responsibilities differs across DOTs. Some DOTs have formalized PI and VPI positions and offices, whereas others conduct VPI through Communications, Environmental, Project Delivery, or IT offices. Still others coordinate VPI through working groups outside of official organizational structures.
Pros: Dedicated staff communicate the seriousness of VPI and can improve inter-office coordination and integration. Empowering specific roles with decision-making power can
160

expedite institutionalization or good practices or changes in department protocol, while mitigating the effects of unclear roles and responsibilities that can lead to inconsistent or incomplete VPI performance.
Cons: VPI may not be the first priority for extensive human resources. New positions may not be easily integrated into existing workflows. New positions can cause redundancies if not wellcoordinated. Unclear roles can create competition between existing departments.
Example: MassDOT's VPI committee was convened by executive leadership to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and quickly adopted, integrated, and standardized VPI technologies and practices (Interview: MaineDOT, February 2022). A project champion with institutional authority moved VPI higher up the departmental priorities list.
Practical tip: Salerno et al. report that "the presence of a public involvement staff person who drives the use of new online methods is [an]...important factor" (2019, 18). They report that support from upper-level management has been key to agencies' initial and continuing use of VPI technologies.
Examples: MnDOT and Oregon DOT have each developed dedicated staff positions and offices to equity and environmental justice. This approach can serve as an example for VPI to communicate department commitment to the topic and institutionalize roles and responsibilities (Daniels et al. 2021).
Examples: MaineDOT and MSHA each initiated informal online chat groups to exchange knowledge and best practices for VPI internally (Interview: MaineDOT, February 2022; Interview: MSHA, July 2021). MaineDOT's group consists of over 100 members, hosts ongoing chat opportunities for members, and meets biweekly to discuss pressing issues. This approach helps prevent the siloing of data and practices (Interview: MaineDOT, February 2022). Siloed
161

data and resources are common challenges for DOTs trying to institutionalize VPI, especially when new approaches or technologies are developed bottom-up (DCQI 2021). Example: MDOT publishes simple assignments of roles within the VPI process (Figure 75). They identify the task leader and additional required coordinating offices. Many of the responsibilities for the VPI team fall under the umbrella of the project manager, and all assignments require some sort of coordination, either with statewide staff or the project team. The centrality of the project manager to VPI further emphasizes the importance for consistent VPI protocols and design components, especially because that role is not often assigned based on expertise in public involvement.
Figure 75: Screenshot. Implementation via role and responsibility assignment: MDOT. Source: Michigan Departmet of Trasnportation (n.d.)
162

Figure 76: Screenshot. Recommendations for ArcGIS Hub staffing: Esri. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHCrDOuwwTM
Practical tip: Esri provides recommendations for roles required to properly implement ArcGIS Hub. The Core Hub Team and Organizational Stakeholders may come from leadership offices or PI specialists, whereas initiative teams correspond to project teams (see Figure 76). In their supporting resources, Esri emphasizes that the above diagram is a best-case scenario, and that an ArgGIS Hub environment can be put together without all of these positions in place. Many of the roles in Figure 77 may correspond with the delegation of responsibilities for VPI at GDOT. The Core Hub Team might consist of members from a VPI working group or consortium of champions from coordinating offices and leadership. Organizational stakeholders may be pulled from champions within implementing offices, as well as coordinating offices. Key community partners might be district offices or local partners. Initiative Teams correspond to those members of Project Teams who are already involved in VPI.
Integrating VPI into Formal Workflow Processes
163

VPI can also be institutionalized by formalizing VPI activities within existing workflow processes, such as a Plan Development Program (PDP).
Pros: Most project teams use existing workflow processes continuously through development; integration can be tailored to existing workflows. Integration into workflow documents reduces vagueness and ensures that VPI tasks are completed when they need to be.
Cons: Not all VPI tasks are easily fit into pre-determined project development timelines. Project staff may not be the best equipped to conduct or initiate VPI. VPI processes require vetting before being implemented into existing protocol; decisions for best practices have to be decided before integration can occur. Existing project development protocols may not be structured in a way that optimizes VPI (AASHTO 2021).
Example: ODOT has integrated PI into its PDP manual. In this document, they establish the value of PI for project delivery (PI links stakeholders into the process, helps with early identification of issues, documents inputs, and justifies decision-making) and clearly indicate when and how PI activities need to take place.
Example: MaineDOT's program delivery office spearheaded VPI in order to maintain high ontime delivery metrics for projects. The clear value of VPI for that office helped justify the institutionalization of the PIMA platform for other offices (Interview: MaineDOT, February 2022).
Practical tip: Including VPI at key moments of the PDP can be helpful to establish a web-first or mobile-first approach to communication about a project. MnDOT uses the scoping phase before concept development as its principal stakeholder engagement period and increases resources for VPI during this phase. Including VPI and website material into Project Team Initiation Phase material can establish a baseline that can help institutionalize practices. This may align with the goal of many at GDOT to begin the public involvement process as early as
164

possible, and to do so in a way that maps onto existing program delivery procedures and timelines.
165

Improving Equity, Accessibility, and Inclusion
DOTs around the country have found opportunities and challenges old and new in ensuring equitable and inclusive participation using VPI (e.g. Salerno et al. 2019; AASHTO 2021; IrozElardo et al. 2021; Daniels et al. 2021). DOTs have found that VPI tools improve the participation of groups that were once difficult to encourage to participate, including younger audiences and certain audiences of color. VPI tools and on-demand digital information also improve the convenience and accessibility of participation. Some practices, such as the use of accessibility-checking software for online content, have become ubiquitous (e.g. MDOT 2021). At the same time, the use of ICT tools for outreach risks potentially alienating legacy audiences, older audiences, audiences from diverse backgrounds, and audiences with limited digital access or literacy.
Many resources exist to consult DOTs on how to improve their involvement opportunities for disadvantaged communities, environmental justice communities, and communities with low English proficiency. These recommendations range from process strategies at the project-level to comprehensive organizational, staff training, and cultural changes that could promote more equitable outcomes (e.g. Daniels et al. 2021). As with all process design, DOTs committed to improving EJ outcomes in a systemic way have to plan for long-term, structural interventions that clearly articulate goals and allocate resources to meet them.2 Ongoing challenges to participation, such as communicating that getting involved makes a difference and building trust in public agencies, will continue to require strategic solutions.
Some immigrant and refugee communities' trust in local government officials have been harmed due to a history of neglect, oppression, over-policing, and gentrification in their
2 One particularly interesting strategy recommended by Daniels et al. does not directly apply to VPI but does align with goals to integrate VPI and GIS systems across statewide departments. They suggest that Ohio DOT work with other statewide agencies who conduct EJ and LEP outreach, such as the Departments of Education, Housing, and Health. They highlight the opportunity to learn from others' best practices and save resources, while building a more comprehensive trust in government among those communities (2021).
166

communities. In some cases, discrimination, segregation, and a lack of belonging, lead immigrant populations to feel detached from official government authorities, and these groups may be indifferent about transportation projects. Guidance from DEI-focused resources, as well as from the literature review above, indicate that trust needs to be built prior to and during VPI processes if these are going to achieve the desired goals of increasing participation among diverse communities.
This section will limit its consideration to the VPI tools that DOTs are using to improve equitable involvement, then divert briefly into specific populations which are more difficult to reach through VPI.
Identifying EJ and LEP Communities
Many DOTs recommend the use of ICT tools to identify communities targeted by Environmental Justice (EJ) and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) regulations. Census data, stakeholder databases and other data sources are common resources for project teams initiating outreach strategies. Web applications and shared databases can be used directly by project teams to plan EJ and LEP approaches.
Pros: ICT tools based on existing demographic datasets are cheap, easy-to-use ways to establish a baseline understanding of EJ and LEP communities and potential project needs. Web applications can be designed to locate communities based on specific legal requirements or departmental priorities.
Cons: ICT tools cannot replace community engagement and building strong networks, especially within the identification phase. Every guide to improving diversity, equity, and inclusion using VPI stresses the importance of building relationships and working within existing communities. ICT tools provide a baseline and yardstick, not a comprehensive identification strategy.
167

Example: Many DOTs use EJ Screen early in their PI planning to anticipate outreach strategies and required resources (see Figure 77). EJ Screen is a popular web application provided by the Environmental Protection Agency that allows users to identify geographic areas with high concentrations of EJ populations along relevant indicators. EJ Screen features an online mapping tool, an API and downloadable data so that users can customize their inquiries, identify areas of overlapping indicators and incorporate data into their own web environments. EJ Screen compares census tract performance on select indicators with state and national averages to identify potential areas where additional resources are needed. Because of the centrality of EJ requirements to VPI, tools like EJ Screen can help get an early start planning their outreach methods. Specific indicators can and should be linked with specific VPI tools and approaches. The Council on Environmental Quality's Justice40 mapping application, another tool for identifying EJ and LEP populations, is in the Beta phase of development. This tool identifies communities defined as disadvantaged by federal standards. The Justice40 geodatabase has been uploaded to Esri's Living Atlas and is available on-demand to ArcGIS Online users.
168

Figure 77: Screenshot. Identifying communities for EJ and LEP compliance: EJ Screen.
Example: MassDOT's Engage tool is an example of how a DOT has incorporated LEP data into a custom web application to be used by project teams (see Figure 78). Areas can be filtered by languages spoken, and infrastructural resources such as accessible meeting locations and public transit infrastructure are identified to help plan for future in-person meetings. This platform also stores community data from past initiatives to quickly identify interested stakeholders.
Practical tip: Daniels et al. note that data at the census tract level can sometimes obscure small but important LEP and EJ communities (2021). They recommend site visits, phone calls, and coordination with local groups to produce more granular identification. MassDOT collects data on past community partners to help initiate identification and build sustained, trusted partnerships between the DOT and local groups. WSDOT recommends sharing data with other
169

Figure 78: Screenshot. Identifying accessible venues for ADA compliance: MassDOT.
local and statewide agencies that might have more up-to-date demographic data than the census (for example statewide Departments of Health, Community Affairs, or Education).
Examples: NCDOT uses identification tools to evaluate whether additional outreach strategies are necessary and whether participants are representative of the greater community in their NC Moves 2050 study. ODOT's AccessOhio 2045 outreach initiative identified gaps in outreach strategies based on results from their identification phase and tailored new approaches to ensure that all communities were being involved (AASHTO 2021).
Practical tip: Demographic mapping should be a starting point, not an end point, for the identification of EJ, LEP, and other populations. It can be used as a way of establishing baseline expectations for later VPI activities, targeting outreach, and anticipating necessary resources for outreach.
170

Inclusive Invitations Once identification is complete, ICT tools can be used to cater invitation strategies to ensure broad accessibility. A list of recommended outreach tools based on specific populations is located in Appendix A.
Pros: Digital tools can be an adaptable and low-cost way to target outreach to diverse communities and invite participation.
Cons: Not all outreach tools are applicable to all audiences. Tools and messaging will have to be adapted to address specific concerns of target populations.
Example: UDOT observed that Facebook groups were popular amongst their target population and leveraged them to achieve deeper social reach. For example, they tapped into hiking and fishing groups to announce VPI initiatives (Interview: UDOT, April 2021).
Example: Place/Matters recommends using personal invitations from trusted partners within the community to promote outreach (2014). Partnerships with local community groups and leaders is one of the most commonly cited ways of improving equitability of PI processes. Although this method does not make distinct use of ICT tools, it can be updated to include digital outreach methods, such as messaging groups or email notifications from partners (Daniels et al. 2020; AASHTO 2021).
Practical tip: DOTs should be familiar with the agency's virtual community, their preferred channels for interaction, and their motivations for participating. This can help identify appropriate tools to invite people to participate (Brabham 2013; Lyons 2017).
Practical tip: The website http://www.abyznewslinks.com/unitega.htm allows users to identify local newspapers and websites and sort by the communities or interest groups they serve. This
171

is another approach to extending invitations for involvement to EJ or LEP communities (Daniels et al. 2021).
Practical tip: Many communities in the United States have historically been left out of decisionmaking conversations, resulting in a general lack of awareness of community events where they are able to offer input. These communities are also less likely to be subscribed to electronic newsletters or email listservs that circulate information about public events.
Accommodation
Even if target audiences have been identified and invited to participate, not all websites or VPI material can be used the same way by all people. VPI planners should consider necessary accommodations for diverse user groups on the VPI platform to ensure diverse, equitable opportunities for involvement. Automated site translations, visualizations, and explanatory material are all common accommodation tools.
Pros: Many accommodating features are low-cost to implement. Small accommodating features can have big impacts in lowering the barriers to participation. VPI will naturally lower some barriers to access (such as convenience).
Cons: User testing can be difficult to plan and costly. Automatic translations can be limited, especially for difficult or subtle content. VPI will naturally raise some barriers to access (such as comfort with and trust in digital tools). VPI accommodations may have to be adjusted for each target population.
Examples: MnDOT sought to build lasting relationships with affected communities. To do so, the department hosted virtual meetings and digital content on the history of development at the site and conducted virtual and self-guided tours of the project area for people to navigate. The San Francisco Metropolitan Transit Authority (SFMTA) circulated auto-translated ArcGIS
172

StoryMaps to improve messaging and user experience of online content. They found that only 25% of users read these StoryMaps in the original English language (CATE conference 2021).
Example: MaineDOT accommodates for the needs of underserved communities by opening up formal comment periods for longer than the NEPA-mandated 14 days (Interview: MaineDOT, February 2022). This gives residents more opportunity to comprehend information, discuss with their community members, and plan a response.
Practical tip: Closed captioning and translations of videos whether recordings of public meetings or short pre-recorded videos can improve access for hearing impaired or LEP communities, as can providing hotlines in commonly spoken languages in a study area.
Practical tip: Multi-stream commenting can help encourage participation in a way that is most comfortable to the user. Integrating comments that arrive in a variety of formats and languages can be a challenge for data management.
Practical tip: Survey123 surveys must be translated manually, even when a project site has been automatically translated. The translation function of ArcGIS Hub does not always translate documents which are in PDF form. These will either have to be translated manually, or else content will have to be posted directly onto the project site.
Example: Capire provides a framework for designing an engagement process that takes common barriers to VPI into consideration (Figure 79). They propose five types of engagement formats, ranging from one-directional communication to large group engagement, and identify which are best suited to accommodate for different personal and cultural barriers. This framework corresponds with many of the challenges brought up in the academic literature review. Although many barriers can be addressed by one-to-one interactions, these may come
173

with higher production costs. Using other formats where appropriate may be helpful in minimizing barriers to participation. Interaction
Figure 79: Chart. Common barriers for participation in minority and low-access
communities. Source: Capire 2020 174

VPI may exacerbate existing barriers to participation within EJ and LEP communities, such as lack of trust in governmental processes and outcomes, a lack of perceived impact of their input, and a lack of understanding of VPI material or processes. ICT tools can be used to allow direct interaction between users and DOTs to try to overcome these limitations.
Examples: Several DOTs are highly committed to EJ and equity goals and have dedicated resources to ensuring that interactions with EJ communities happen and take advantage of the many benefits of the digital setting. For instance, Tennessee DOT made its planners and PI staff available for one-on-one virtual consultations (Daniels et al. 2021). MnDOT and NCDOT try to communicate directly with EJ and LEP communications to demonstrate how community values are reflected in design decisions (AASHTO 2021).
Practical tip: Some immigrant populations come from diverse cultures with a different understanding of collective decision-making. Language and cultural concepts do not translate perfectly, and oftentimes, a confirmation bias intrudes relationships with authorities where immigrants feel that there are responses that authorities want to hear and do not open up to offer authentic insight.
Measuring Reach
Measuring how well a VPI process included and accommodated EJ and LEP populations is important for establishing best practices and learning from past attempts. Across DOTs, measurement and evaluation of equity performance in VPI initiatives is very immature.
Pros: Ongoing measurement of performance allows for adjustments mid-process. After-the-fact measurement allows for documentation and reproduction of successes. Standardizing measurement processes can help compare VPI initiatives and create statewide overviews of additional needs.
175

Cons: Obtaining demographic or language information is difficult with ICT tools. In most cases, users must volunteer demographic information.
Example: NCDOT publishes a standalone survey opportunity on its website that specifically asks for demographic information and explains why providing this information is beneficial (see Figure 80). Other DOTs will include optional demographic questions at the beginning or end of feedback surveys.
Figure 80: Screenshot. Using surveys to collect demographic data: NCDOT.
Practical tip: Asking for too many different types of information in a single survey can be more confusing and overwhelming for users than publishing standalone surveys. However, standalone surveys run a higher risk of being skipped and missing out on important information. Consider testing different approaches to determine which provides better and more consistent outcomes. Remember that while registered responses might not fully reflect who participated or engaged with material, they can be used to identify possible gaps.
Practical tip: Targeted outreach approaches can be equipped with customized URL links to help track which efforts were successful. This approach may serve as an approximation for demographic data if demographic data is not directly available.
Evaluating Performance
Performance measurement is a process of defining and monitoring objective indicators to assess and report organizational performance on a regular basis. More simply, indicators are things that are measured in order to evaluate progress toward goals and objectives. Although
176

Virtual Public Involvement (VPI) is a subject that has been discussed for several years, there is not a standard approach on how to define success when involving the public virtually. The ongoing pandemic forced several entities to jumpstart their VPI practices that were still in their infancy, which consequently resulted in entities trying to determine performance metrics along the way. In conversations with practitioners, establishing a consistent and comprehensive evaluation system came up frequently as an area of particular difficulty, and many DOTs could not provide a concrete, data-backed assessment of their VPI performance to date (e.g. Interview: FDOT, July 2021; Interview: MaineDOT, February 2022; Interview: NCDOT, July 2021).
Evaluation frameworks allow DOTs the opportunity to use indicators to review the performance of a VPI process, compare VPI processes to one another and track overarching trends in VPI performance and design. However, DOTs naturally face difficulties in deciding which criteria should be measured, especially given that public involvement is an inherently complex activity with no one-size-fits-all approach.
Some but not all evaluation indicators require collecting data from the public. This extra data collection costs team resources. Online surveys can reduce the costs of administering and analyzing data, but can also result in less participation by the public, less accurate response rates and in less useful collected data. Communicating the purpose of the survey and the value of user feedback is one way to potentially increase the response rate. It is important to distinguish between data collected for evaluation purposes and data collected as a part of the request for public comment on a project.
In gathering data, DOTs must often trade off between maintaining the public's right to privacy, overburdening the public with lengthy evaluation surveys, and missing out on valuable information to improve VPI performance. Some DOTs, such as TxDOT and NCDOT, have gotten creative as to how to use existing metrics to derive valuable data (see below). Building trust is one way to improve the quality of evaluation data coming back to the DOT. Finally, successful evaluation and adjustment cost team resources and must be planned for accordingly. Many DOTs aspire to developing consistent and reliable evaluation protocols (e.g., Interview: FDOT, July 2021). As in all VPI initiatives, evaluation techniques should be accompanied by a robust data governance protocol to ensure that value is being maximized.
177

Simple Web Metrics
Simple web metrics are data automatically collected by third-party tracking services when users visit and navigate a web page. These metrics include: number of web page visits, number of unique visitors, number of page views, average visit length and time of day of visits. YouTube videos track number of views, average view duration, number of shares, number of unique viewers, number of impressions, and number of visits from U.S.-based internet service providers. Number of survey responses, average completion rate of surveys, language in which a survey was taken, number of participants in online meetings, and number of interactions on social media are further simple web metrics which can be used to evaluate performance in different contexts. ArcGIS Hub uses Google's analytic tracking services and employs session and statistics cookies. Data is anonymized and IP addresses of users cannot be tracked.
Pros: Simple web metrics are free, unintrusive, and can be combined in innovative ways to highlight performance considerations. Simple web metrics tend not to have data privacy issues, unless IP addresses or personal information is collected.
Cons: Simple web metrics are naturally limited in amount, type, and quality of data that they provide.
Example: ODOT offers examples of topics that can serve as a basis for the evaluation process (Figure 81). In addition to evaluating performance against PI goals, ODOT provides examples for how to measure successful stakeholder outreach (Contacts), resource efficiency (Budget), and coordination between implementation teams (Consultant and Self). A few of these metrics can be obtained through simple web analytics.
178

Example: TxDOT regularly tracks many of the metrics above to evaluate and compare VPI performance across projects and offer workable solutions. In a 2020 review of its VPI activities,
Figure 81: Screenshot. Measuring and evaluating VPI: ODOT. Source: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/programs/public-involvement/toolbox/public-involvementresponsibilities
TxDOT compared average page visit length with number of words on a site to determine whether and how users were consuming information. TxDOT also discovered that viewers tended to watch 30% of a video, regardless of length. This led the department to recommend
179

front-loading videos with important content and providing annotated or linked YouTube videos to facilitate direct navigation to topics of interest within a single video:
"According to research, a reasonable benchmark for average visit length is between 2 to 3 minutes. The longer the average visit length, the better. The median average visit length for all TxDOT virtual online web pages was 3 minutes 31 seconds. The average visit length, when compared to the estimated reading time of the web page, computed at an average of 200 words per minute, was found to be greater than the estimated median reading time of 2 minutes 10 seconds. It can be inferred from this finding that, on average, visitors to the TxDOT virtual online web pages spend a sufficient amount of time reviewing the content on the web page" (TxDOT 2020).
Practical tip: Consider a wider use of Google Analytics, including referral visits and page views by source to evaluate wayfinding. Search queries and most popular content can also be evaluated and adjusted as needed. Google Analytics can also help determine whether landing pages are getting traffic and how people are navigating from landing pages to other content pages. This can help evaluate SEO performance and behavior. Page loading times is another helpful feature that can identify barriers to access, especially for users without access to broadband, or those who are using mobile devices.
Integrated Evaluation Approaches
Measuring key indicators is one step, integrating them into VPI design and evaluation is another. Professional and academic literature have developed frameworks for matching VPI goals, activities, and evaluative indicators to track performance.
Pros: Integrating evaluation design into VPI processes can make evaluation data more useful. A good indicator can also inform decision-making and process design. Clearly communicating
180

expected performance on key indicators can improve transparency with project teams, consultants, department leadership, and other stakeholders. Cons: Poor indicators and targets can leave VPI teams pursuing the wrong goal. Sometimes abstract goals are hard to fit to concrete measurements. Quantitative measurements should be paired with more qualitative assessments. Example: FDOT designs indicators and targets to match four overarching PI goals: equity, information, methods, and responsiveness (see Figure 82). Each goal corresponds with between one and six objectives, each with an indicator and target. An example of how objectives are matched to targets for the topic of equity is given in Table 4. These indicators allow for early identification of areas of improvement. Not all metrics pertain to VPI, but some can be more easily collected through online surveys. Some questions, especially regarding demographics, are more difficult to collect through digital methods.
Figure 82: Screenshot. Developing VPI goals and indicators: FDOT. Source: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default- source/publicengagement-resource-guide/901-public-involvement-performancemeasures.pdf?sfvrsn=8828149d_2
181

Table 4: Example of FDOT matching PI objectives and targets for the overarching goal "Equity." Source: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/public-engagement-resource-guide/901-publicinvolvement-performance-measures.pdf?sfvrsn=8

Objective Access to information and participation opportunities by persons with disabilities

Target
[100%] of disabled persons that requested accommodations were satisfied with efforts made to accommodate their needs [100%] of meetings, events and project-related information sources are accessible to persons with disabilities

Convenience of meetings and events to public transportation, where available
Geographic dispersion of involvement opportunities
Convenience of meeting or event time Convenience of meeting or event location
Diversity of participants in public involvement events Diversity of project committee representation
Availability of information in languages other than English

[60%] of public involvement events are within [1/8 mile] of a transit stop. [60%] of public involvement events are within paratransit service areas.
At least one meeting or opportunity is located in each affected neighborhood within the study area. At least one meeting or opportunity is located in each county and each municipality with a population over [25,000].
At least [75%] of participants and invitees felt the meeting or event was held at a convenient time. At least [75%] of participants and invitees felt the meeting or event was held at a convenient location.
Percent of participants by age, racial/ethnic, income, gender and employment characteristics reflects demographics of affected population.
Percent of participants in project committees by age, racial/ethnic, income, gender and employment characteristics reflects demographics of affected population.
Information is provided in languages other than English where the affected population comprises a high proportion of non-English speakers Translators are available at public meetings in areas where a high proportion of the affected population comprises non-English speakers

Practical tip: Nabatchi distinguishes between process and outcome evaluations (2012). Process evaluations measure how PI was implemented, and impact evaluations measure whether participation inputs were reflected in process outcomes and results. Nabatchi recommends

182

planning evaluation by setting goals, allocating resources, and ensuring data gathering and surveying the public. She recommends Likert scales to get insight into more qualitative topics. Practical tip: Many resources for evaluation require surveying the public. Although this may provide good information for project teams, online participants tend to spend less time participating than in-person participants. NCHRP conducted a study in 2019 called Measuring the Effectiveness of Public Involvement in Transportation Planning and Project Development. In it, the researchers developed a toolkit to evaluate performance on public involvement effectiveness. This toolkit was designed to create comparability between substantively different PI initiatives. It included surveys to the public, as well as to agency staff. Despite its innovativeness and potential usefulness, the researchers noted that its length and complexity may not be practical for regular implementation. These concerns may be exacerbated in an online format. Example: NCDOT has a comprehensive approach to evaluating PI and attempts to match goals with specific, measurable indicators (see Figure 83 for excerpt). NCDOT identifies six areas of evaluation: number of participants, diversity of participants, geographic distribution of participants, level of participant awareness, level of agency responsiveness to public input, and scope, schedule and budget adjustments due to public involvement. Most of these indicators
Figure 83: Screenshot. Integrated evaluation approach: NCDOT. Source: NCDOT 2020
183

do not require additional input from the public (with the exception of geographic and demographic scope of participants in online settings).
Practical tip: To collect consistent, complete evaluation data, DOTs can create a Survey123 intended to be filled out by internal project teams.
Benchmarking Some DOTs evaluate performance by creating expected performance on predefined metrics and comparing actual performance.
Pros: Benchmarking is an easy-to-implement, standardized way of collecting and tracking project data. It can help quickly identify areas where improvement or more nuanced understanding is required.
Cons: Benchmarks may miss bigger qualitative issues within participation. For example, a 30 second webpage visit cannot be compared to a visitor who spent 15 minutes on a site. Benchmarking must either be carefully planned or only serve as a baseline evaluation, possibly indicating a need for deeper investigation.
Example: FDOT and NCDOT have benchmarks for PI performance. These targets are based on indicators and PI goals (see Figure 84). NCDOT, like FDOT, matches overarching PI goals with specific objectives and indicators. They then use past PI performance for comparable projects to assign target values for each of the indicators. Figure 85 indicates how detailed these indicators can be, allowing for microtargeting of specific objectives. For example, outreach to specific EJ groups can be identified early as a target, or the successful dissemination of specific VPI tools. By continuously updating targets and evaluative measurements, project teams can identify poor performance early and coordinate to overcome challenges.
184

Figure 84: Screenshot. Evaluating VPI via benchmarking: NCDOT. Source: NCDOT 2020
Example: MnDOT collects data on the cost of different VPI outreach methods per participant and compares new methods with traditional methods to develop benchmarks and measure effectiveness. In their 2017 Joint Statewide Transportation Plan Update, they found that Facebook advertisements cost the department an average of $14 per interaction, whereas stakeholder forums cost $192 per interaction (AASHTO 2021). The department is careful to differentiate between the quality of interaction in these two cases. Cost benchmarking across projects can be an effective way to establish expectations and monitor deviations.
Practical tip: Benchmarks may need to be adapted to project size, scope, and location. Over time, benchmarks can be compared to past performance in a certain area, with a certain
185

project type or within a certain demographic community. If consistent data is managed over time, these comparisons become more and more useful.
Innovative Uses of VPI Data
The potential wealth of data generated from VPI processes cannot be overestimated. No DOT has established a robust set of use cases for this data to date. However, a few interesting examples came up in this research that could be explored and expanded upon.
Examples: Michigan DOT recommends using social media to ascertain public sentiment about an area, project type, or specific plan. While social media interactions do not enter the public record per department policies, they do provide a useful barometer to determine what types of messaging may be effective and what responses the department is likely to receive. Driss, Mellouli, & Trabelsi provide a framework for extracting valuable information from social media conversations (2019).
Examples: Boukchina, Mellouli, & Menif present frameworks for using natural language processing to analyze open-form public comments (2018). These tools are becoming more ubiquitous, even within off-the-shelf softwares. SurveyMonkey offers natural language processing to visualize responses, conduct topic modeling and categorize open-ended text responses. IBM Watson is among many free natural language processing softwares with low learning curves.
Conclusion
The chapter above presents concrete examples from the community of practice on topics most salient to GDOT's operations and the broader VPI discourse. It can be read as a design guidebook for developing a Virtual Public Involvement platform.
186

The topics and examples in this chapter detailed the ways in which DOTs are trying to make

more comprehensive, integrated, consistent, useful, and accessible VPI content. They present

varying approaches that DOTs are taking to tackle many of the same issues that GDOT offices

are facing when trying to enhance involvement opportunities, integrate VPI activities across

offices, and institutionalize best practices. Many of the practices above align with

recommendations from design models within academic literature, especially from e-

participation. In particular, examples were chosen based on their attempts to improve the

perceived usefulness, ease-of-use, and satisfaction of VPI interfaces while also building trust in

government, providing facilitating resources, and reducing barriers to participation. Table 5

summarizes key takeaways from each of the 9 topics from this chapter.

Table 5: Summary of takeaways from nine guidebook topics.

Topic Integrating VPI environments

Key takeaways
Not all environments will be strong in every area, but a balance of functionality and consistency across environments is important. Communicate the values and use cases of every environment to ensure that consultants, project teams and leadership are on the same page and the public knows what they can expect.

Structuring content pages

Plan, pilot and user test project sites, especially those that will serve as templates for later work. Single-page sites may be sufficient for many projects, but content will have to be limited. Multi-page sites and StoryMaps may be better to guide users through complex or unfamiliar material. When using templates, plan and document protocol for creating content, populating sites and publishing.

Selecting the right tools

Public engagement toolkits can be especially effective when planning and designing VPI initiatives and for more diverse outreach. Esri offers resources to custom-build tools. Ensure that custom-built tools aren't trying to do too much at once and that stakeholders are kept in mind during development.

Integrating from cradle-tograve

Data collection, storage and access protocol are important tools for integration which can be facilitated for VPI. Databases and websites can be useful one-stop-shops for project data needs and past VPI activity. Plan for key transition phases and recognize different needs across project phases. Clearly identifying roles and responsibilities can help in early transition phases.

Articulating VPI goals

Often overlooked, clear goals can help efficiently use resources, maintain transparency and accountability with the public, build trust and self-evaluate. IAP2 is an industrystandard framework to identify VPI objectives, but other 187 department and implementation goals should be standardized across projects and clearly identified by implementing teams.

Directing users to information
Training, resourcing and institutionalizing
Improving equity, accessibility and inclusion
Evaluating Performance

In many VPI scenarios, the public is responsible for searching for, finding, consuming, understanding and responding to content with very little immediate guidance from agency staff. Ensuring that users are able to find information that is relevant to them, understand its relevance and comprehend the information is key. Facilitating content, including explanatory videos, translation services and articulation of VPI objectives, can help reduce barriers. Remember: if the public doesn't know what to do or how to do it, they won't.
DOTs that are furthest in institutionalizing VPI have a robust culture of documentation, self-evaluation and publishing resources. Online repositories of guidance, case studies, policies and FAQs not only allow staff to self-navigate the complexities of VPI, thereby reducing resources, they create predictable, replicable standards. Without a well-documented foundation, institutional knowledge can get lost, or stale practice may be passed on. Documenting what goes wrong, especially in case studies and pilot tests, can be as valuable as documenting successes.
VPI tools have the potential to improve the identification of, invitation towards and accommodation of more diverse groups of participants than traditional public involvement. Still, outreach, engagement and resources have to be planned. Historically neglected or disregarded groups have special concerns, technology habits and trust relationships to public entities. VPI tools will not change these on their own, even as they can help more quickly identify needs and work with them.
Generally speaking, VPI allows DOTs to collect more data about participation than traditional PI methods. Data should be considered an asset, and planning for which data is to be collected and why can help to design better VPI systems. However, the value of collected data should match specific VPI goals and be clearly communicated to the public; issues of privacy and unnecessary data gathering have the potential to reduce the trustworthiness of the agency and reduce participation.

188

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
Recommendations for Best Practices for VPI The following list of recommendations for VPI best practices is loosely organized around the diffusion model of e-participation presented by Steinbach et al. (2019) presented above, as well as other design-based participation models from Chapter 2. Concrete recommendations either refer directly to GDOT needs as assessed by this report in Chapter 3 or are derived from the cases of best practice in Chapter 4. VPI is a multifaceted topic that touches on the activities, legal requirements and objectives of various offices throughout GDOT. An integrated VPI strategy brushes against policies from a range of areas that quickly supersede the scope of VPI, including information technology, data governance, organizational structure, project resourcing, federal compliance, and communications policy. This report has attempted to deliver actionable steps for coordinators and implementers of VPI while not glossing over the inherently complex nature of the topic.
Recommendations for institutionalizing best practices for VPI at GDOT:
Align overarching goals and priorities for VPI across offices o Define VPI priorities and document them o If appropriate, pick an integrated design framework o Assign roles and responsibilities to stakeholder offices to match priorities o Identify VPI champions from each office, including from department leadership if possible o Align tech and data requirements with overarching goals. Identify challenges to integration of technology early o Track and communicate how VPI activities fulfill goals
Familiarize your department with the publics' technology and participation habits
189

o Invest time and resources into knowing common reasons that diverse stakeholder groups participate or do not participate in VPI processes.
o Develop VPI content and infrastructure to meet those concerns o Explain PI processes and communicate the value of participation to diverse
stakeholders o Update stakeholder databases from past involvement
Design and test VPI implementation o Allocate resources for planning, piloting, and reviewing initial VPI endeavors o Establish risk appetite and management approaches for new VPI methods o Plan rollout phases, including how ArcGIS Hub use will grow o Conduct pilot tests across a representative range of projects and programs o Leverage consultants in pilot phases to develop website and social media templates and standardize best visual communication practices. Base decisions on past project needs and user feedback. o Establish platforms of communication to troubleshoot and coordinate through implementation process o Pilot workflows and data sharing protocol in this phase as well
Evaluate and document initial VPI implementation o Document successes, failures, and solutions via case studies o Develop guidelines for recreating good practices; store, organize, and share these guidelines in a central location o Maintain a list of technological needs and coordinate with Esri about possible development and integration into ArcGIS Hub
Structure GDOT website to prioritize public involvement o Create easy-to-find single public involvement portal on the GDOT website
190

o Merge project information and public involvement portals into single environment
o Prioritize, test, and measure wayfinding throughout one-stop-shop o Structure one-stop-shop using ArcGIS Hub initiatives according to project type,
program types, or other VPI requirements o Prioritize users' ability to find, understand, and trust content over producing new
VPI tools o Produce facilitating content for all pages to minimize barriers to use,
communicate usefulness, and build trust with users o Plan for diverse use cases, including different key stakeholders, diverse user
groups, and project types o Standardize tech solutions within ArcGIS Hub platform and document protocol
for project teams
Network with strategic project stakeholders via VPI tools o Create a stakeholder geo-database and contact list maintenance protocol o Establish protocol for managing relationships, including digital outreach methods, with attention to engaging diverse audiences o Use identification and measurement tools to determine where gaps in outreach occur and dedicate resources to filling those gaps o Coordinate sharing of VPI tools, data products and web applications with other departments, MPOs, and local agencies
Build VPI into existing workflows and processes o Integrate website development into scoping, PTIP, and concept development processes and share project, stakeholder, and environmental data from planning and past VPI projects
191

o Make a strategic website maintenance plan within each project and assign staff; Include website launch protocol, planned update schedule and archiving protocol
o Develop sample timelines, checklists, templates, document logs, and evaluation forms to create consistency across projects. Where possible, use ArcGIS Hub technologies to communicate with project teams (e.g., StoryMaps; guidance within website templates) and collect data from them (e.g. Survey123)
o Update QA/QC protocol to include VPI products and practices, especially website o Integrate VPI into existing PDP and EPM, noting especially when
coordination with OSC, OIT, and OES is recommended for project teams o Establish consistent data generation, measurement and reporting workflows
across all projects to improve comparability and overall performance evaluation. Store this data in a centralized (geo-)database. o Expand GDOT brand to include ArcGIS Hub website elements such as timelines, document tables, FAQs, comment boxes, web maps, fonts and more
Plan and create new workflows for VPI technology o Standardize consultant workflows for gaining access to, operating within and releasing content to ArcGIS Hub o Develop data sharing agreements with consultant staff that prioritize GDOT's ownership of data and websites o Standardize data clearinghouse protocol to ArcGIS Online o Develop workflow for migrating data between ArcGIS Hub and Bentley suite (ProjectWise, Microstation) o Establish and train staff on comment management and response protocol within ArcGIS Hub o Develop protocol for requesting and custom building web applications tailored to specific use cases
192

o Build VPI toolbox within one-stop-shop platforms or instruct on use of existing toolboxes from other agencies
o Publish VPI-related documentation for Offices of Planning and IT
Document VPI expectations and centralize resources o Publish and share documentation to explain overarching VPI goals and policies, as well as guidelines for small topics (build off of most recent PI Plan) o Create web-oriented templates and sample workflows for all public-facing material o Develop more comprehensive training material for VPI tools and processes. Consider developing this content within ArcGIS Hub or integrating into existing training resources
Evaluate and update VPI procedures as needed o Design evaluation procedures to match VPI goals o Develop benchmarks for VPI performance within and across projects o Be creative with available data o Maintain channels of communication between implementing and coordinating offices, including opportunities to propose changes o Use efficiencies from VPI to improve targeted outreach where VPI fails o Develop protocol for updating practice and technologies
Consider larger organizational changes that aid VPI o Centralized or decentralized workflows o In-house or consultant-driven involvement o Open Data policies o Social Media and communications plans, including how to leverage social media content o Establishment of new office for PI or VPI
193

Further Research Opportunities Over the course of this research project, discussions about VPI best practice consistently gave way to other, larger topics that, although beyond the scope of VPI, directly and indirectly impacted the viability of a comprehensive, institutionalized VPI system. Many of the DOTs referenced in the chapters above are integrating a system-wide approach to VPI, considering VPI in the context of other policies and protocols, and leveraging VPI to maximize value in other areas. Below is a short list of VPI-adjacent topics that warrant additional examination and research by GDOT.
1. Data Governance and IT resources: VPI generates a wealth of data that needs to be authored, shared, organized, updated, stored and evaluated. Many of the challenges GDOT has expressed come from incomplete or inconsistent data governance practices. Data governance in GIS systems for transportation agencies has been the topic of FHWA and AASHTO research in recent years (see e.g. Butler et al. 2019; FHWA 2019b; Spy Pond Inc. and Iteris Inc. 2015; Green and Lucivero 2018; Gharaibeh, Oti, Schrank and Zmud 2017). The accessibility and accuracy of transportation data, as well as the access to data by the general public has the potential to improve VPI opportunities and outcomes. Planning for collecting, storing and recalling data is also critical to integrating VPI across projects and project phases and reviewing and improving VPI performance.
2. Online communications and social media policy: Social media is a key tool for online communications between transportation agencies and the public. Department social media policies include how and when to post content, how to structure social media accounts, what messaging to use for social media, how to best utilize data and public comments generated from social media and how to ensure that social media usage complies with federal and state public involvement and data security regulations. Academic literature on social media use by governments can provide some initial guidance. For a cursory literature review, see Salerno et al. 2019.
194

3. Institutional knowledge and knowledge retention: Many agencies improve the institutionalization of VPI by ensuring that department protocol and best practices for VPI are documented and readily available to project teams (e.g. NCDOT, FDOT, MassDOT). These efforts build off bigger department-wide policies for knowledge management, including documentation procedures, training, establishment of new roles and offices and more. Knowledge management is increasingly becoming an important area of research for transportation agencies. A new TRB committee, AJE45, has been organized to discuss Knowledge and Information Management, for example. Very little direct research has been conducted linking institutional knowledge with public involvement, although there are affinities. In particular, building a lasting relationship with the public, retaining successful approaches for public interaction, and evaluating VPI performance require and reinforce institutional knowledge retention.
4. Personnel management and outsourcing: Public Involvement is often conducted by external consultants who specialize in engaging with the public on transportation topics. However, the demands for consistency, internal expertise and data management have led some departments to move VPI initiatives in-house (e.g. ODOT, NCDOT, MaineDOT). The relationship between GDOT and external consultants impacts the ability for the department to conduct VPI. For example, these policies dictate resources available for staffing project teams to conduct VPI, how VPI-related data is owned and shared, how innovation takes place and more. Although some departments have explored the relationship between outsourcing VPI and performance, very little research has been conducted examining this unique relationship between the public and private sectors. These relationships also impact departments' relationships to risk in innovating and experimenting with new approaches.
5. Public Involvement policies: This report has focused on VPI as an offshoot of existing PI policies. However, VPI opens up new opportunities to expand and improve existing PI uses, including the relationship between public involvement and tangible decision-making in transportation planning. The department's openness to allowing the public more influence
195

over decisions falls under the academic fields of co-production and participation in public administration. Although these are VPI-related, looking at the potential impacts of decentralizing decision-making or inviting external stakeholders into decision-making processes would require additional research, especially at the state-level, where this research is almost non-existent (see an overview of e-participation, above). 6. Equity and inclusion policy: VPI is closely linked to Environmental Justice and principles of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. Departments with existing equity policies use VPI to enhance performance in these areas, improve relationships between the department and historically disenfranchised communities, and build institutional trust (e.g. MNDOT, NCDOT). Additional research into GDOT's history, existing relationships between GDOT and the state's diverse communities, and best practices for equity are synergetic with VPI policies, even as they represent a stand-alone sphere of action.
196

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research project was supported by the Georgia Department of Transportation through Research Project 20-25 as a part of the Every Day Counts initiative from FHWA. The authors acknowledge and appreciate the extensive help of GDOT employees from multiple offices over the course of the research and writing process. From the Office of Environmental Services:
Mr. Eric Duff, Mr. Doug Chamblin, Ms. Amber Phillips, Ms. Rachel Rosenstein and Mr. Ed Caddell From the Office of Strategic Communications: Mr. Scott Higley, Ms. Katina Lear and Mr. Ron Battle. From the Office of Information Technology: Mr. Teague Buchanan and Ms. Hong Liang From the Office of Planning: Mr. Matt Markham, Ms. Megan Weiss, Mr. Radney Simpson, Mr. Charles Robinson, Mr. Jomar Pastorelle and Mr. Habte Kassa From Program Delivery: Mr. Albert Shelby, Ms. Kimberley Nesbitt From the Office of Performance-based Management and Research: Ms. Supriya Kamatkar, Mr. Sunil Thapa and Mr. William "Bradley" Bilsback From the Office of Construction: Mr. Beau Quarles From the Office of Right of Way: Mr. Troy Hill
197

Appendix A

APPENDICES

The following table provides an overview of some strategies for reaching specific populations whose access to VPI processes may be limited.

Stakeholder Commuters
Underserved communities (Minority and LowIncome)
LEP populations

VPI tool suggestion
Social Media partnerships with local cities, counties and regional organizations
Targeted social media advertisements on Waze, NextDoor, Facebook
Advertisements on buses that travel corridor Use of mobile apps and notifications Partnerships with organizations people are already likely
to follow Radio advertisements (especially for rural areas) Make billboards with catchy project names and easy
online wayfinding/SEO Potential: Streetlight Insight integration for data on who
is travelling through an area

source MDOT 2021; Interview: ODOT, March 2021

Partnerships with local organizations (food banks, community organizations and assisted living communities) for dissemination
Provide virtual meeting transcripts at local libraries Multi-pronged strategy with non-online options for low-
internet areas
Use EPA's EJ Screen (or similar tool) to determine need in advance
Partner with other statewide departments (education, health, community affairs) to strategize
E-Mail Blasts Virtual Meetings Facebook YouTube Podcasts Increase staff awareness through training

MDOT 2021; Alluri et al. 2018; PACTS 2019

Explore local newspapers for community events in the area
Announce free language assistance on all materials and initiatives
Ask community organizations about successful strategies for reaching communities
Use plain language and clear graphics to convey project information
Use manual translations for communities with large populations
Double-check automatic translations

MDOT 2021; Alluri et al. 2018; PACTS 2019

Twitter (for information dissemination)

E-Mail Blasts (for information dissemination)

YouTube videos (with translated closed-captioning)

198

SurveyMonkey (with automatic translations)

GoogleMaps

Rural users
Low digital access users
Older Populations

Radio advertisements Many DOTs have not experienced a significant reduction
in rural involvement because of VPI, and in fact, CalTrans, Maine DOT, IowaDOT and Minnesota DOT have all experienced an increase in rural engagement via VPI Transitioning from live to pre-recorded videos to preserve bandwidth in low-broadband areas Make VPI materials mobile-friendly Avoid digital tools that require downloads or heavy data use
Provide call-in number for online meetings Provide recordings of all meetings on-demand Move all PIOHs to online-only, on-demand to reduce
streaming requirements Provide local libraries or Wi-Fi zones with information Make public presentations understandable without
visuals for call-in listeners San Antonio Housing Authority brings wifi-
equipped buses to areas of in-person or hybrid PI Increase length of public comment period Offer to mail hard copies of presentations
E-Mail Blasts Text Messages Facebook YouTube Google Maps Phone calls Provide tutorials for use of digital tools

Interview: MaineDOT, February 2022; Salerno et al. 2019; District of Columbia Quality Initiative 2021; PACTS 2019; FHWA 2019a, April
MDOT 2021; Interview: MaineDOT, February 2022; FHWA 2019a, April; FDOT 2020; GPCOG 2020
Alluri et al. 2018; GPCOG 2020

Appendix B Overview of Esri Best Practices
ArcGIS Hub as a One-Stop-Shop
Esri touts ArcGIS Hub as an effective way to organize departmental goals, manage open data and work collaboratively on initiatives. ArcGIS Hub is a component of the cloud-based ArcGIS Online environment (see Figure 85). The Basic license allows users to build sites and publish open data, whereas the Premium license offers more comprehensive functionalities that

199

facilitate the development of a One-Stop-Shop for public-facing project-based content. Esri views ArcGIS Hub as a conduit between executive goals of a department and underlying data (spatial and non-spatial) that departments use to communicate progress made on those goals. Functionalities differ between Esri environments. ArcGIS Hub is designed as a collaborative, public-facing tool to present and consult on public-facing data.
Figure 85: Schematic of Esri ArcGIS products and functionalities. Source: Hudgins and Prather 2020. ArcGIS Hub can host many different content types which can be used to populate sites. Some of these content types are simple data files, including image, video and document files. Other content types are content created within the Esri environment, including map-based web applications, StoryMaps, dashboards, events, surveys and open GIS data repositories. These formats can be used to convey project information in a way that is convenient and appropriate for users. Content hosted within an organization's ArcGIS Hub environment can be deployed as many times as needed. Content is populated into ArcGIS Hub sites via "cards", which can also
200

hold pre-programmed widgets for more functionality on sites. In cases where content is required that is not compatible with the ArcGIS Hub environment, iFrames can be used to link to external content sources. The City of Johns Creek, for example, uses iFrames to embed Tableau dashboards into their ArcGIS Hub pages. ArcGIS Hub provides developers with different tools to structure the online environment. Initiatives structure people, pages and data around a common theme or objective, while websites organize data and content visually on a page. ArcGIS Hub also allows team members to be managed and assigned to different initiatives. Permission restrictions allow developers to determine which content can be viewed or edited by different user types; templates can include content only visible to project teams, and content can be prepared by teams before being made accessible to the general public. Finally, ArcGIS Hub makes it easy to organize and publish searchable content libraries, allowing users to search for applications, spatial data and other data products. Open Data and Application portals featuring predominantly spatial data are among the most commonly used Esri features for state DOTs. IowaDOT, for example, uses PIMA for its public involvement, but still shares applications and GIS data using ArcGIS Online.
201

Figure 86: ArcGIS Hub readiness assessment chart produced by Esri in the webinar "Esri Best Practices: Implementing Hub." In that webinar, the moderator emphasizes that implementation teams should strive to meet as many but not necessarily all of these targets. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHCrDOuwwTM
ArcGIS Hub is designed to grow with an organization's use cases. Esri provides resources to help an organization plan and track its growth. A sample readiness matrix (Figure 86) can be used to assess how mature an organization's structural support for Hub is. This readiness matrix is similar to the Hub Team capabilities matrix (Figure 76), but it adds to it by recognizing the importance of technology and data protocol, culture, training and collaboration. Like the Hub Team matrix, Esri recognizes that not all of the components of the readiness matrix will be in place at the time of deployment or implementation of the ArcGIS Hub environment. Still, this tool provides useful navigation and conceptualization as GDOT advances its use of ArcGIS Hub.
Esri also provides an overview of a case study for ArcGIS Hub growth from the City of Brampton (Figure 87). The City of Brampton started using Hub as a data lake for all internal departments. It soon began hosting the value-added data products developed from the open data repository on Hub as well. This led the city to realize synergies and new services it could provide to outside agencies, encouraging widespread collaboration across organizations.
202

The following sections will outline the ways in which ArcGIS Hub can function as a One-StopShop. The first section presents Esri's recommendations for designing the structure of the OneStop-Shop. The second section highlights specific tools which can be used within the ArcGIS Hub One-Stop-Shop environment and which can be used for the design of individual initiatives.
203

Figure 87: Diagram of the progression of ArcGIS Hub adoption in the City of Brampton. Esri comments how the city was able to find new use cases that could be easily integrated into the existing ArcGIS Hub environment, allowing an organic development of the platform. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHCrDOuwwTM
204

Initiatives In addition to producing and hosting a wide variety of content types, data products and web applications, it is important that a One-Stop-Shop is well-structured. ArcGIS Hub is structured around Initiatives, which are collections of webpages, data and users that all pertain to a specific departmental goal or area of work. Whereas pages serve as the interface between the user and ArcGIS Hub, initiatives bring these informational sites together with data and applications to present a narrative to the data and structure the logic of departmental campaigns. Initiatives are an important part of the user experience of a website, because they help to guide users to the content they need, inform them of the purpose of the content and instruct them on how they should interact with that content. Initiatives are often embedded within other initiatives. The City of Johns Creek's Hub portal (see Figure 88), for example, hosts links to a variety of initiatives based on citywide goals (Environment, Identity, Quality, etc.). These initiatives guide users to specific collections of datasets that detail the city's work on those goals:
Figure 88: City of Johns Creek ArcGIS public portal
205

Each initiative page contains sub-initiatives, which specify areas of interest within the broader initiative. The "Environment" initiative, for example, includes sub-initiatives related to tree inventory, impervious surfaces and stormwater management (see Figure 89). Subinitiatives are used to divide and arrange data to match governmental or public interests.
Figure 89: City of Johns Creek Environment Initiative
The pages of each subinitiative host all of the data, content, widgets, dashboards and web applications pertaining to the subject of the subinitiative. The Tree Inventory subinitiative gives an overview of the project, contains a video explaining the goals, includes summary dashboards and a mapping application to provide as much information as possible about the city's tree initiatives (see Figure 90). The city also includes links to the underlying datasets to allow users the ability to investigate the data in line with their own interests, although this requires other technological skillsets than the general public might have at their disposal.
206

Figure 90: Example of a sub-initiative from the City of Johns Creek
Whereas each initiative lives on a web page, webpages should be seen as subordinate elements of the initiative. Initiatives also incorporate existing web apps, data sources, links, media and all the content that a user might need to understand and navigate a given topic. Behind the scenes, initiatives might also consist of workflows, website templates, assigned staff and user permissions in order to manage the production and maintenance of initiative sites.
Esri strongly recommends making extensive use of the initiative feature to organize the content that GDOT produces, and it is one of the predominant features that distinguishes the ArcGIS Hub Premium license from the Basic license. When an initiative is created, three sub-datasets are created; one contains the content of the initiative, including webpages and project files. The second contains the project team members who serve as the initiative's core team, and the third are members of the general public who have followed the project. In interviews, users frequently struggled with the follow feature. The current state of the feature contains bugs,
207

decreasing its functionality. Moreover, the follow feature requires that users create an account with ArcGIS Online, which increases the perceived costs of participation, requires high trust in the platform and runs up against potential regulatory violations during formal public comment periods. Maryland State Highway Authority (MSHA) uses a brief Survey123 survey as a surrogate to the follow feature, where users can enter their name and email address to stay updated on the project. The database of respondents can then be integrated into the department's CRM and email management systems.
Structuring content around thematic initiatives helps users navigate, locate and engage with GDOT content in a comprehensible way, improving wayfinding and usability of the environment for users. Initiatives can also target specific stakeholder groups with content relevant to them, such as local political leaders looking for GDOT projects in their jurisdiction. Esri provides initiative templates to help licensees begin to structure their content. The Capital Projects portal initiative most closely matches GDOT's One-Stop-Shop needs for hosting active projects, and contains a pre-made Capital Projects web application which can be customized and populated with the department's own project datasets. 3Esri's initiative template builder allows licensees the ability to create their own custom templates which can be quickly deployed and simplify the site creation process for project teams. Developing initiative templates ensures a standard, reliable product can be streamlined with minimum staff requirements while still allowing project teams the flexibility to customize their specific initiative to meet unique project needs. One interview with an Atlanta-based planning company which uses ArcGIS Hub emphasized the ease at which new initiatives and websites could go live using these templates and the software's drag-and-drop development flow. Esri recommends planning site maps around initiative structures to improve user experience and overall performance of the OneStop-Shop.
3 The capital projects web application template can be found by following this link: https://capital-project-trackingstatelocaltryit.hub.arcgis.com/apps/3a2ac997cabf41c79d58a5de4f140d20/explore).
208

Initiatives can also be used to tailor sub-environments of the One-Stop-Shop to specific VPI requirements for the department. Initiatives lend themselves well to fulfilling specific PI purposes, targeting stakeholders to participate, articulating necessary IT and communications tools required for the process and isolating evaluative measures of the project. Initiatives therefore align with PI design principles discussed above. Moreover, standardized content that addresses recurring concerns for the department can be easily hosted within subinitiatives that can be deployed repeatedly as needed. Examples include pages which explain the NEPA public involvement or ROW processes, detail the department's and governor's executive goals, collect and summarize public comment or explain frequent DOT projects like roundabouts, bridge replacements and lane widening projects. These initiatives need only be created once and can be deployed by project teams as needed, improving cost efficiency at scale.
Snapshot of an Initiative: Maryland SHA's Project Portal
Link: https://mdot-sha-project-portal-maryland.hub.arcgis.com/
Maryland's State Highway Authority (MSHA) uses initiatives to structure their projects portal (see Figure 91). Rather than just creating detached webpages for each of the department's projects, the agency built a project portal to serve as a landing page and guide users to the particular project or geographic area they are interested in. This page also allows the department to prioritize content and provide an overview of the agency's entire work catalog for the year. Individual project pages serve as subinitiatives, which are either accessed directly via QR code or URL, or else can be accessed from the project portal by clicking on a project of interest. Almost all MSHA projects have informational websites, regardless of whether they require public involvement for NEPA compliance. The landing page itself is structured as an initiative with a variety of apps, media types and text content to help users orient themselves. The initiative provides additional content which may be of interest to the general public or special interest groups.
209

While the landing page gives some information about Maryland SHA content and work, it mainly serves as a way of organizing and prioritizing different individual pages where the public can access more detailed information. Think of the landing page as a multi-media table of contents for DOT project- and program-related materials. MSHA uses a variety of structures to organize the underlying initiatives, including by geography (the map), completion status (the icons), prioritization (the urban area maps), featured status (the "featured project" section [not pictured]) and by upcoming activity (events calendar). This gives the public a number of ways of locating the specific pages they are interested in and caters to different use cases. MSHA does not filter by projects with current public comment periods, but this filter could be added to the page to further accessibility.

Figure 91: MSHA's landing page guides users to most relevant content and projects and allows users to use the interactive map to identify projects relevant to them.

The Project search web application contains all current projects, organizing

this data by geography and completion status. Users can search for or click on a project to

navigate to that individual project's site. If projects are open for public comment, the top of the

210

project page will host a button to access the public comment form. Fully completed projects are archived and removed from the map, and newly updated projects include blinking icons for quick reference. For users who don't want to use a map or know the name of their project, a tab at the top of the page links to the department's comprehensive project list, organized by district, with links to project pages. This serves as an alternative way to search for and locate project pages and is also useful for district offices and local and regional political leaders.
The Project Portal hosts a variety of other content that may be interesting to the general public looking for information about MDOT SHA's operations. A miniature web application library includes links to apps regarding storms and roadway applications. Summary reports from previous years provide transparency to users about DOT performance. An events calendar at the bottom of the page allows users to quickly know which projects are currently engaged in public input-related activities without having to search through individual project pages, although MSHA's calendar is empty, suggesting challenges with the feature. Finally, the bottom of the project portal embeds a live Twitter feed from the department and other department contact information in the footer.
Snapshot of an initiative: Washington D.C. DOT's Capital Projects Portal Link: https://ddot-capital-projects-dcgis.hub.arcgis.com/
The District of Columbia DOT has also created an initiative of all of its Capital Projects. Similar to Johns Creek's structure, the Capital Projects Initiative hosts a number of sub-initiatives, in this case organized by administrative ward. Each ward subinitiative contains data about that ward as well as links to specific projects taking place within the ward (see Figure 92). Alternately, similar to MDOT SHA, users can search for and navigate to specific projects directly from the
211

project portal using the interactive map. This feature circumvents needing to go to the ward subinitiatives to find a project page.

The project portal initiative also includes

links to initiative pages for DOT projects

which are city-wide and cannot be assigned

to a single ward. An events calendar allows

users to navigate directly to projects with

upcoming events. Other features include a

Figure 92: DDOT's ArcGIS Hub landing page for its capital projects initiative. In addition to organizing sub-initiatives by district and content type, DDOT allows users to search for projects and link to project pages via its map application.

live Twitter feed and very visible widget to allow for page translation.

Snapshot of an initiative: Move DC
Link: https://ddot-capital-projects-dcgis.hub.arcgis.com/
In addition to presenting content from individual projects, initiatives can also be used to summarize complex content from comprehensive planning programs in an organized and easyto-understand way. These initiatives are structured to lead users not to projects of interest but topics of interest within the overarching comprehensive plan. Move DC is the District of Columbia's Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan (see Figure 93). Move DC is structured as an overarching initiative for the plan with sub initiatives which correspond to different phases, missions or topics within the plan. Users can navigate from the homepage to a topic of interest either by using the navigation tabs at the top of the screen or clicking on one of the buttons below.

212

Figure 93: MOVE DC is another ArcGIS Hub-hosted initiative that hosts many of the district's long-term planning initiatives.
Each subinitiative, for example the STIP below, contains videos, data products, textual content, graphics and links to further resources (see Figure 94). Comment cards are also prominently displayed in cases where public input is sought. Esri-built dashboards and graphs help to summarize data from the STIP process and present it in an easy-to-follow way. Facilitating content using graphics and videos explains the STIP process. The banner at the top of the page allows users to return to the main initiative's home page or navigate to other pages of interest quickly.
213

Figure 94: Screenshots from the Move DC STIP platform
Initiatives are designed to bring data, webpages and people together around a specific administrative purpose, in line with design-based VPI deployment models.
Initiative and Site Templates
ArcGIS Hub recommends using templates to reuse and share successful initiatives, groups, websites or apps and realize benefits of scale. A template solution contains a set of items that can be activated again and again across initiatives. Templates include item details, data, thumbnails and other resources, as well as dependencies between items, allowing for easy configuration of complex initiatives. Templates are distinct from direct clones of sites and initiatives, in that templates allow more user control over activation and content updates and can include variables to allow for better customization. Templates can also be shared between groups, both within your organization and beyond.
Templated initiatives allow for easy consistency between project websites and quick scalability of ArcGIS Hub pages. In a template's metadata, template designers can include instructions for how to use the template and links to further documentation. Templates can also be bundled with other recommended applications and features so that project teams have quick access to all the material they need to create a Hub site. Templates can be customized using the JSON
214

formatter to include variables, reconfigure dependencies and allow more customization at the project site level. In addition, Hub offers pre-made templates that can serve as springboards for the Hub design team within an organization. The Project Site and Capital Project Tracking templates are closely related to GDOT needs. The Citizen Problem Reporter is another pre-made template that features functionalities similar to what would be required in a public comment period. Snapshot of a template: MSHA project pages MSHA project websites use a project template that allows consistency between individual initiatives and greatly reduces the amount of time required to publish new websites (see Figure 95). These templates have row cards which can be toggled off and on depending on their relevance to the project at hand. Note, below, that the US219 page has a "Graphics and Media" section absent on the MD468 page. The office responsible for designing templates can decide which features are required and which can be toggled off and on. Feature relationships are updated from template to template. The Page Site Navigation menu on the upper right of each page will adjust automatically to the sections available on that page, for example (see Figure 96).
215

Figure 95: Examples of project site templates from MSHA. Site templates are stored as individual initiatives that can be deployed on a quick, as-needed basis. Sections of the website can be hidden or made visible depending on project phase and needs
216

Figure 96: Although MSHA's ArcGIS Hub sites are a single page, a navigation widget at the top of each page allows users to quickly navigate to content of interest.
For design tips surrounding MSHA's project sites and examples from other jurisdictions, a StoryMap has been developed by the research team. It can be found at this link: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/8672f70e67d34ba6b1266cc865175823. Some design highlights of MSHA's pages include: reducing number of PDF files, using pre-designed modules for a consistent look and feel, keeping color and design simple, breaking up individual rows into multiple columns to avoid screen lock, putting most important information high on the page, and keeping the project map small and unobtrusive. To the latter point: although interactive maps are important visualization tools, they do not provide much standalone information and therefore do not require much space on a project page.
ArcGIS Hub Communities
Another common core feature of ArcGIS Hub is the community building and following features. Every new Hub initiative creates two backend groups. One is for members of the initiative team: ArcGIS users who are allowed to view, edit and share non-published ArcGIS Hub
217

initiatives. The other is for initiative followers: registered ArcGIS members who want to stay upto-date on the initiative. Although there are many aspects of ArcGIS Hub's community building and team management capabilities featured in Esri documentation, DOTs that were interviewed for this report all commented on the difficulty using this feature, including persuading users from the general public to create an ArcGIS Online account in order to follow (Interview: VDOT, August 2021; Interview: MSHA, August 2021). Those practitioners still left the Follow function on their webpages while also developing other workarounds to capturing user contact information. In particular, a pop-up Survey123 survey was created that allowed users to enter their data, which was then populated into another email client management software (Interview: MSHA, August 2021).
Esri customized web application development tools
Esri offers two resources to develop customized web applications: Web AppBuilder and Experience Builder. Each allows the integration of pre-made and customized widgets with spatial data and web maps to target specific departmental needs. Experience Builder is a relatively new addition to Esri's catalog. Experience Builder is a JavaScript-run application that expands and improves the drag-and-drop usability of Web AppBuilder. Experience Builder can be used to create stand-alone websites or web apps that can be embedded into Hub sites. Experience Builder currently offers fewer out-of-the-box apps than Web AppBuilder, but this is likely to change. Web apps made with Experience Builder will need to be customized to GDOT's needs.
Resources for Web AppBuilder: https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-webappbuilder/overview
Resources for Experience Builder: https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgisexperience-builder/resources
218

Appendix C StoryMaps for One-Stop-Shop Design and Esri Best Practices
Over the course of the research project, the research team developed StoryMaps to highlight specific topics of concern and provide guidance on designing GDOT's online portal. Screenshots and links to the StoryMaps are provided below: Topic 1: Project Site Design for VPI Link: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/8672f70e67d34ba6b1266cc865175823 Summary: This StoryMap outlines suggestions for designing project sites for different sizes of NEPA projects while meeting VPI requirements. It defines three sizes of projects: Small, Medium and Large and provides examples for project sites for each. Additionally, it takes a close look at specific design elements and how they can help guide and inform the public most effectively. It also provides examples of some Esri tools, as well as example workflows for getting project sites live.
219

Figure 97: Screenshot of StoryMap 1, providing design recommendations for small project sites
220

Figure 98: Screenshot of StoryMap 1, providing sample workflows for publishing project sites.
Topic 2: Project Portals and Orientation Link: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/13e622c180764fdb9162013dcc6c7aa6 Summary: This StoryMap provides recommendations for the development of a project portal and web application to help users discover the content they are most interested in. It builds off existing GDOT efforts to create a One-Stop-Shop for all VPI-related information. The StoryMap outlines the existing site map of GDOT's ArcGIS environment, provides examples of successful portal dashboards, links to resources to develop web applications using Esri services and provides a schematic for the design of an application. It also provides sample workflows for developing web apps as needed by VPI teams.
221

Figure 99: Screenshot from StoryMap 2, providing recommendations and needs for developing a project portal.
Figure 100: Screenshot from StoryMap 2, demonstrating a possible layout for a project portal page
222

REFERENCES
Academic Literature
AlcaideMuoz, L., RodrguezBolvar, M. P., Cobo, M. J., & HerreraViedma, E. (2017). Analysing the scientific evolution of e-Government using a science mapping approach. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 545555.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216224.
Berner, M.M., Amos, J.M. & Morse, R.S. (2011). What Constitutes Effective Citizen Participation in Local Government? Views from City Stakeholders. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 128 163.
Bonsn, E., Royo, S., & Ratkai, M. (2017). Facebook Practices in Western European Municipalities: An Empirical Analysis of Activity and Citizens' Engagement. Administration & Society, 49(3), 320 347.
Bonsn, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123132.
Boukchina, E., Mellouli, S., & Menif, E. (2018). From Citizens to Decision-Makers: A Natural Language Processing Approach in Citizens' Participation. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 7(2), 20-34.
Brabham, D. C. (2013). Using crowdsourcing in government (pp. 1-42). Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing Public Participation Processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 2334.
Cascetta, E., & Pagliara, F. (2013). Public Engagement for Planning and Designing Transportation Systems. SIDT Scientific Seminar 2012, 87, 103116.
Clark, J. K. (2018). Designing public participation: Managing problem settings and social equity. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 362-374.
Criado, J. I., & Rojas-Martn, F. (2013). Social media and public administration in Spain: A comparative analysis of the regional level of government. In E-government success around the world: Cases, empirical studies, and practical recommendations (pp. 276298). IGI Global.
Driss, O. B., Mellouli, S., & Trabelsi, Z. (2019). From citizens to government policy-makers: Social media data analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 560-570.
Eckerd, A., & Heidelberg, R. L. (2020). Administering Public Participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(2), 133147.
Fink, S., Ruffing, E., Burst, T., & Chinnow, S. K. (2021). Less complex language, more participation: How consultation documents shape participatory patterns. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 10(3), 199 220.
Ianniello, M., Iacuzzi, S., Fedele, P., & Brusati, L. (2019). Obstacles and solutions on the ladder of citizen participation: A systematic review. Public Management Review, 21(1), 2146.
Iroz-Elardo, N., Erickson, H., Howell, A., Olson, M., & Currans, K. M. (2021). Community Engagement in a Pandemic. Drachman Institute: University of Arizona.
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819828.
Kubicek, H., & Aichholzer, G. (2016). Closing the evaluation gap in e-participation research and practice. In Evaluating e-participation (pp. 11-45). Springer, Cham.
Langella, C., Anessi-Pessina, E., Botica Redmayne, N., & Sicilia, M. (2021). Financial reporting transparency, citizens' understanding, and public participation: A survey experiment study. Public Administration.
Lember, V., Randma-Liiv, T., & Vooglaid, K. M. (2022). Engaging citizens in policy making: The potential and challenges of e-participation. In Engaging Citizens in Policy Making (pp. 110). Edward Elgar Publishing. 223

Macintosh, A. (2004, January). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.
Medaglia, R. (2012). eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (20062011). Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 346360.
Nabatchi, T. (2012). A manager's guide to evaluating citizen participation. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Nabatchi, T., & Amsler, L. B. (2014). Direct public engagement in local government. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(4_suppl), 63S-88S.
Naranjo-Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., & Casteleyn, S. (2018a). E-participation adoption models research in the last 17 years: A weight and meta-analytical review. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 350 365.
Naranjo-Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., & Casteleyn, S. (2018b). Citizens' intention to use and recommend eparticipation: Drawing upon UTAUT and citizen empowerment. Information Technology & People.
Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Sanchez-Nielsen, E., Zotou, M., & Tarabanis, K. (2011). Learning from eParticipation initiatives of regional and local level authorities in Greece and Spain. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 13(01), 7796.
Porwol, L., Ojo, A., & Breslin, J. G. (2018). Social Software Infrastructure for e-Participation. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4, Supplement), S88S98.
Quick, K., & Zhao, Z. (2011). Suggested Design and Management Techniques for Enhancing Public Engagement in Transportation Policymaking [Report]. University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies.
Randma-Liiv, T., Vooglaid, K. M., & Lember, V. (2022). Framework for analysis of the management and organization of e-participation initiatives. Engaging Citizens in Policy Making, 1124.
Royo, S., Yetano, A., & Acerete, B. (2014). E-Participation and Environmental Protection: Are Local Governments Really Committed? Public Administration Review, 74(1), 8798.
Schafer, J. G. (2019). A systematic review of the public administration literature to identify how to increase public engagement and participation with local governance. Journal of Public Affairs, 19(2).
Scherer, S., & Wimmer, M. A. (2014, September). Conceptualising trust in E-participation contexts. In International Conference on Electronic Participation (pp. 64-77). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Scott, J. K. (2006). "E" the People: Do U.S. Municipal Government Web Sites Support Public Involvement? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 341353.
Steinbach, M., Sieweke, J., & S, S. (2019). The diffusion of e-participation in public administrations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 29(2), 6195.
Susha, I., & Grnlund, . (2012). eParticipation research: Systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 373382.
Toots, M. (2019). Why E-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia's Osale. Ee. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 546559.
Wang, X., & Bryer, T. A. (2013). Assessing the Costs of Public Participation: A Case Study of Two Online Participation Mechanisms. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 179 199.
Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-Government and Trust in Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371 391.
Williamson, A., & Fung, A. (2004). Public deliberation: Where are we and where can we go? National Civic Review, 93(4), 315.
Wirtz, B. W., Daiser, P., & Binkowska, B. (2018). E-participation: A strategic framework. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(1), 112.
Yetano, A., & Royo, S. (2017). Keeping Citizens Engaged: A Comparison Between Online and Offline Participants. Administration & Society, 49(3), 394422.
224

Zhang, F., & Feeney, M. K. (2020). Engaging through technology: The role of administrative culture and mandates. Public Management Review, 22(10), 14231442.
Zheng, Y. (2017). Explaining citizens' E-participation usage: Functionality of E-participation applications. Administration & Society, 49(3), 423442
Professional Literature
Alluri, P., Nafis, S., Soto, F., Gonzalez, M., & Gan, A. (2018). Use of Communication Technologies to Enhance Public Involvement in Transportation Projects. Florida Department of Transportation Contract No. BDV29-977-32.
American Association of State Highway Officials (2021, June). AASHTO Public Involvement Peer Exchange Summary Report. URL: https://environment.transportation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/09/AASHTO-PI-Peer-Exchange-Summary_Final.pdf.
Butler, J., Scopatz, R., Anderson, S., VHB Inc., Hausman, J., Federal Highway Administration (2019, October). Applications of Enterprise GIS for Transportation: Guidance for a National Transportation Framework (AEGIST Guidebook). FHWA, Office of Planning. URL: https://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/documents/AEGIST_Guidebook.pdf
Capire (2020). Inclusive community engagement in a time of physical distancing. URL: https://iap2content.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/marketing/Resources/COVID19/Capire_Inclusive+Community+Engagement+Toolkit_2020.pdf
Cherman, F. (2017). Data Presentation on Transportation Agency Websites: Trends and Best Practices (No. CA17-2968). Mineta Transportation Institute.
Council on Environmental Quality; Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool Beta Version, 87 Fed. Reg. 10176 (2022, February 23). Request for information. URL: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-02-23/pdf/2022-03920.pdf
Council on Environmental Quality; National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions, 86 Fed. Reg. 55757 (2021, October 7) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. parts 1502, 1507, 1508). Notice of proposed rulemaking. URL: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-1007/pdf/2021-21867.pdf
Council on Environmental Quality; Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 85 Fed.Reg. 127 (2020, July 16) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1515, 1516, 1517 and 1518). URL: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-07-16/pdf/2020-15179.pdf
Daniels, S., Anacki, A., Rushley, L., Keyser, L., & Alkhayri, C. (2021). Division of Planning Research on Call (ROC) Task 5: Effective EJ and LEP Engagement Strategies and Methods for Statewide Plans (No. FHWA/OH-2021-11). Ohio. Department of Transportation. Office of Statewide Planning and Research.
District of Columbia Quality Initiative (2021, August 9). DCQI Innovation Webinar Series: Virtual Public Involvement. Webinar. URL: https://web.mtbma.org/events/DCQI-Innovation-WebinarSeries- Virtual-Public-Involvement-32515/details.
Elliott Jr, M. (2019). The Challenges, Barriers, and Resources in the Integration of Technology in a Department of Transportation Training Program (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
Exec. Order 03.12.21.01 (2021, March 12). "Providing additional guidance for Empowering a Healthy Georgia in response to COVID-19." The State of Georgia. URL: https://gov.georgia.gov/document/2021-executive-order/03122101/download
Federal Highway Administration (2018, December). Virtual Public Involvement: A Collection of Tools, Techniques and Examples. FHWA-HEP-19-012. U.S. Department of Transportation. URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/vpi/fact_sheets/vpi_booklet_final.pdf
Federal Highway Administration (2019a, April). Data Governance and Data Management: State Examples. 2019 AASHTO GIS-T Symposium. Kissimee, FL. Presentation. URL: https://gist.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2019/04/GIS-and-Data-Governance-Peer-
225

Exchange-GIST2019.pdf
Federal Highway Administration (2019b, April). Virtual Public Involvement Technical Assistance Workshop Summary Report: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Virtual Workshop. Every Day Counts: On-Ramp to Innovation. URL: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/50737/dot_50737_DS1.pdf Federal Highway Administration (2020, October 20). Data Dashboards Summary Report: Virtual Peer Exchange. U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe Center. Office of Planning. URL: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/56423 Federal Highway Administration (2021, April). Every Day Counts: Innovation for a Nation on the Move. EDC-5 Final Report. U.S. Department of Transportation. URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/reports/edc5_finalreport.pdf?utm_sour ce=rotator Federal Highway Administration (2021, May). Every Day Counts: Innovation for a Nation on the Move. EDC-6 Summit Summary and Baseline Report. U.S. Department of Transportation. URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/reports/edc6_baseline_report_508.pdf Federal Highway Administration (n.d.). "Temporary Virtual Public Involvement During the COVID-19 Pandemic." U.S. Department of Transportation. URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/coronavirus/virtualPI.cfm Fedorowicz, M., Arena, O., & Burrowes, K. (2020). Community Engagement during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond A Guide for Community-Based Organizations. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute. Florida Department of Transportation (2019, April 25). FDOT Consultant Managed Website Guidelines. URL: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/defaultsource/agencyresources/web/consultantsites889583302.pdf?sfvrsn=856b3b6f_2 Florida Department of Transportation (2020, May). Addressing Accessibility Challenges for reaching people virtually. Quick Start Resources for Public Involvement. Office of Planning. URL: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/planning/policy/publicinvolvement/accessibilitychallenges_vpm_quickstartresources_opp_2020_0526_final.pdf?sfvrsn =2a72961f_2 Florida Department of Transportation (2021). Public Engagement: The New Normal. Florida Department of Transportation. Powerpoint Presentation. Office of Policy Planning. Georgia Department of Transportation (2002). State Route 316 Corridor Study. Chapter 8 Public Involvement. URL: http://www.dot.ga.gov/BuildSmart/Studies/Documents/316/chapter_8.pdf Georgia Department of Transportation (2012). Online Environmental Procedures Manual. URL: http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/Environmental/GDOTEPM.pdf Georgia Department of Transportation (2013). Annual Public Involvement Report. GDOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): FY 2013-2016. URL: http://www.dot.ga.gov/BuildSmart/Programs/Documents/STIP/2013-2016/2013-2016FINALSTIP-PI-Report.pdf Georgia Department of Transportation (2015). Public Involvement Guide 2015. Georgia Department of Transportation (2016). Public Involvement Plan for NEPA Projects 2016). Georgia Department of Transportation (2017). Statewide Transportation Improvement Program FY 2018-2021. URL: http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/STIP/FY18-21/FinalSTIP-FY18-21.pdf Georgia Department of Transportation (2018). Annual Public Involvement Report. GDOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program FY 2018-2021. URL: http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/STIP/FY1821/FINALSTIPAnnualPublicInvolvementReport_20182021.pdf Georgia Department of Transportation (2020, July 14). I-85 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study. Public Involvement Summary: Phase 1 Report. URL:
226

http://www.dot.ga.gov/BuildSmart/Studies/Documents/I85%20Corridor%20Study/I85%20PEL%20Study_Public%20Involvement%20Summary%20Phase%20I%20Report.pdf Georgia Department of Transportation (2021a). Public Involvement Plan for Georgia DOT Projects 2021. URL: http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/Environmental/Public%20Involvement%2 0Plan/PublicInvolvementPlan.pdf Georgia Department of Transportation (2021b). Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Public Involvement Report: FY 2021-2024. URL: http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/STIP/FY2124/STIP_PublicInvolvementReport_FY21-24.pdf Gharaibeh, N., Oti, I. Schrank, D. and Zmud, J. (2017). Data Management and Governance Practices: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Issue Project 20-05, Topic 47-05. Greater Portland Council of Governments (2020, September 18). Inclusive and Accessible Virtual Engagement: Lessons from the field. GPCOG: Portland, ME. URL: https://www.gpcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/1375/GPCOG_Virtual-Engagement-WhitePaper_Final_91620 Green, M. and Lucivero, A. (2018, July). Data Governance & Data Management Case Study. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Planning. Cambridge, MA. URL: https://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/GIS_Data_Governance_and_Data_Management_Case_St udies.aspx Hudgins, G. (2020). Designing Enterprise Sites. Presented at: 2020 Esri Developer Summit, Palm Springs, CA. URL: https://www.esri.com/content/dam/esrisites/enus/events/conferences/2020/developer-summit/designing-enterprise-sites.pdf Hudgins, G. and Prather, J. (2020). Deep Customization of Hub & Enterprise Sites. Presented at: 2020 Esri Developer Summit, Palm Springs, CA. URL: https://www.esri.com/content/dam/esrisites/enus/events/conferences/2020/developer-summit/deep-customization-of-hub-and-enterprise- sites.pdf Institute for Local Government (n.d.) Broadening Public Participation Using Online Engagement Tools. URL: https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/broadening_participation_via_online_tools_final_draft_1.pdf. Kline, C. F. (2021). Public Engagement Practices During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Disruptive Events. Minnesota. Dept. of Transportation. Office of Policy Analysis, Research. Kramer, J. and Tremblay, N. (2019). 2018 Assessment of the Practice of Public Involvement in Florida. Project Number: FDOT BDV25-977-46. Florida Department of Transportation: Tallahassee. URL: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/research/reports/fdotbdv25-977-46-rpt.pdf Lazer, D., Neblo, M. Esterling, K. & Goldschmidt, K. (2009). Online Town Hall Meetings: Exploring Democracy in the 21st Century. Congressional Management Foundation: Washington DC. URL: https://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/online-town-hallmeetings.pdf Lyons, S. H. (2017). Digital Engagement, Social Media & Public Participation. International Association for Public Participation. Maghiar, M., Aasheim, C., Kowalewski, J., & Maldonado, G. (2017). Delivering GDOT's Work Program: Developing Strategies for Successful Communication at Public Meetings and Open Houses to Enhance the Conceptual Understanding and Awareness of Need and Purpose, Transportation Deficiencies, and Consequences of Not IMP. Georgia Southern University. Michigan Department of Transportation (2021). Virtual Public Involvement Benefits and Barriers: A Practical Guide to VPI Tools. Prepared by HNTB Corporation. URL: https://www.michigan.gov//media/Project/Websites/MDOT/About-Us/Commissions/FHWA-Partnership/STIC/VPIGuidebook.pdf?rev=14552f8fe84e45fe9cce15313230cb88 Michigan Department of Transportation (n.d.). Inclusion of Virtual Public Involvement (VPI) in Michigan Department of Transportation's Public Involvement Procedures. URL: https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/News-and-Outreach/PublicInvolvement/Guidance-Inclusion-Virtual-Public-
227

Involvement.pdf?rev=3aaa7c3018b54f9db7fb5369197758cf National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019). Measuring the Effectiveness of
Public Involvement in Transportation Planning and Project Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. URL: https://doi.org/10.17226/25447. North Carolina Department of Transportation (2020, March). Statewide Public Involvement Plan. NCDOT. URL: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/PDEA%20Procedures%20Manual%20Docu ments/NCDOT%20Statewide%20PI%20Plan.pdf North Carolina Department of Transportation (n.d.). Public Involvement Practitioner's Guide. NCDOT. URL: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/EAU/PICSViz/PIDocuments/NCDOT%20Pra ctitioners%20Guide_2022.pdf Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (2021, May). Project Level Public Involvement Handbook. Pub 295 (5-21). PennDOT. URL: https://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20295.pdf Place/Matters (2014, February). Engagement Technology For All: Best practices for using technology in engaging underrepresented communities in planning. Place/Matters and Ford Foundation. URL: https://todresources.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/PlaceMatters_EngagementTechForAll_Final_20140310.pdf Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (2019). Inclusive Transportation Planning Toolkit. Greater Portland Council of Governments and Catalyst Collaboratives. Portland, ME. URL: https://www.gpcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/1259/PACTS-Inclusive-Transportation-PlanningToolkit-2019 Salerno, M., Sanchez, T., Tomasello, S., & Metz, T. (2019). Practices for Online Public Involvement. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Issue Project 20-05, Topic 49-11. Spy Pond Partners, LLC, Iteris, Inc. (2015). Data to Support Transportation Agency Business Needs: A Self-Assessment Guide. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Issue Project 0892. Texas Department of Transportation (2020, August). Virtual Public Involvement Summary. Public Involvement Section: Trasnportation Planning and Programming. Uddin, M. M., Bright, C., & Foster, K. (2022). Delphi Study to Identify Best Practices for Rural Community Engagement in Transportation Planning. Transportation Research Record, 03611981221083611. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221083611
Interviews
Florida Department of Transportation (2021, July). Personal Interview. Maine Department of Transportation (2022, February). Personal Interview. Maryland State Highway Authority (2021, August). Personal Interview. North Carolina Department of Transportation (2021, July). Personal Interview. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (2021, June. Personal interview Ohio Department of Transportation (2021, March). Personal Interview. Utah Department of Transportation (2021, April). Personal Interview. Virginia Department of Transportation (2021, August). Personal Interview.
228