Skip to Content Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration
FHWA Home  |  FTA Home  |  Feedback   
 

Peer Exchanges, Planning for a Better Tomorrow, Transportation Planning Capacity Building

Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program

— Peer Exchange Report —

Implementing Effective Public Involvement Procedures throughout a Multi-Disciplinary Agency

Location: Tucson, Arizona
 
Date:
 
October 4-5, 2004
 
Exchange Host Agency:    
 
Pima Association of Governments
Wasatch Front Regional Council
Exchange Participants: Atlanta Regional Commission
Brevard Metropolitan Planning Organization
Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division
Federal Highway Administration, Resource Center
Federal Highway Administration, Utah Division
Maricopa Association of Governments (Phoenix, AZ)
Mid-Region Council of Governments (Albuquerque, NM)
Portland Metro
Sacramento Council of Governments
US DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

I. Summary

The following report summarizes the results of a Peer Exchange on effective practices for public involvement in metropolitan and regional transportation planning. The Exchange was held through the Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program, which is jointly sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Pima Association of Governments (PAG) and Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) hosted the Exchange; the FHWA Resource Center facilitated.

The Exchange was designed to provide the hosts - Pima Association of Governments (PAG) and Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) - with new techniques that could be applied to improve their public involvement processes. Specific questions addressed during the Exchange included the following:

  • What constitutes effective public involvement?
  • What are effective components of a good public involvement plan or program?
  • What techniques are the most effective?
  • How can a public involvement plan or program be evaluated and improved?
  • How can environmental justice communities be involved?
  • Representatives of eight MPOs from across the country presented their techniques and experiences. Participants then formed two groups to discuss specific recommendations for PAG and WFRC. Peer participants included the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), Brevard MPO, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Mid-Region Council of Governments (MRCOG), Portland Metro, Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG), FHWA Arizona Division, FHWA Utah Division, and US DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe).

II. Background

Both PAG and WFRC are seeking to improve their current public involvement processes. PAG is currently updating its 1994 Public Involvement Plan to address their evolving role as a regional planning agency. In April 2004, the Arizona State Legislature named PAG the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) with the responsibility of preparing a 20-year, multi-modal regional Transportation Plan. Public involvement will be critical to development of the Plan, which will seek voter approval of a half-cent sales tax in 2006 as a funding source for the RTA.

WFRC‘s public involvement needs are driven by the dramatic growth increase the area is expected to experience in the next 20 years. In order to prepare for this growth, WFRC will work with Envision Utah to create a visioning process to develop growth scenarios and analyze their related impacts. Envision Utah was formed in January 1997 as a public/private partnership to guide the development of a broadly and publicly supported Quality Growth Strategy addressing Utah‘s environment, economic strength, and quality of life for future generations. In addition to working with Envision Utah on growth strategies, WRFC is seeking more information on both internal and external public involvement techniques, including how to best have planners and engineers recognize public comments, and how to increase attendance at open-house meetings.

A. Pima Association of Governments: Preparing to be a Regional Transportation Authority PAG‘s 2030 Long-Range Plan was initiated in 2002. The Plan called for a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to develop the vision and goals of the region. The RTP is a three-year planning effort, which includes the transition of PAG to also serve as the RTA. The RTA is currently slated to be addressed during Phase II of the RTP, with the intention of integrating the two in the future.

PAG has completed Phase I of the RTP, which included the following extensive public outreach:

  • Training of facilitators from the community on RTP materials, including a guidebook on how to share information with the public.
  • Creation of a video highlighting PAG‘s role and vision
  • Telephone survey
  • Public Education Forums
  • Development of a vision and goals for the long range plan
  • Adoption of the vision and goals

As PAG prepares to begin Phase II of the RTP, along with the integration of RTA, they face several challenges that will need to be addressed in future efforts:

  • Coordination of the RTP and RTA Plan
  • Development of a core message by Regional Council and RTA Board that will be communicated to the public
  • Meeting expectations set in the original public outreach 2030 planning efforts

B. Wasatch Front Regional Council: Planning for Growth The Wasatch Front Regional Council‘s jurisdiction includes 65 percent of the state of Utah‘s population. The area was one of the top three with the highest growth in the country in the 1990s. WFRC has given Envision Utah $500,000 to implement a visioning process to address the region‘s growth. Envision Utah designed an exercise to gauge the effects of growth on the area, and also to address mixed-density in the Greater Wasatch area. Envision Utah‘s experience based on this exercise will be a useful tool in assisting WFRC. In addition, WFRC and Envision Utah plan to visit all 60 mayors in the region to discuss WFRC‘s Long-Range Plan‘s impacts on their specific areas.

Current public involvement practices used by WFRC include:

  • One open houses per county per year
  • Invitation to cities to showcase their own master plans
  • Plans to work with Utah DOT to hold joint-meetings on projects in order to encourage more attendance
  • Creation of strong media relationships by briefing media on WFRC projects and drafting newsletters or articles for them to publicize

WFRC will be developing a public involvement strategy to outline what they and Envision Utah will be doing during the visioning process. The strategy will address several needs:

  • Reaching non-English speaking communities
  • Having an outside evaluation of the WFRC website to determine changes or updates
  • Improving the tracking of public involvement activities
  • Reducing material costs and addressing related public involvement budget limitations

III. Peer Perspectives on Effective Public Involvement Practices

Effective public involvement practices can be implemented in a variety of ways in order to reach a particular audience and address a specific MPO plan or program. The MPOs participating in this exchange provided a wide range of techniques that can benefit agencies of all sizes and demographics. Below is a description of the practices used by these participants, including specific tools that can be transferable to assist PAG and WFRC in their current planning.

A. Portland Metro
The Portland Metro (Metro) is the only elected regional government in the country and includes 1.3 million residents covering 24 cities and 3 counties in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Metr‘s efforts have concentrated on creating informed consent as a broad-based decision-making tool that clarifies people‘s expectations and helps to lead to a knowledgeable decision. Informed consent focuses on people‘s understanding of the projects and their willingness to participate. Metro believes that if the public understands the purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and alternatives of a project, the ultimate outcome will be a better project based upon what the people want.

Metro‘s presentation highlighted four projects or program themes that are representative of strong outreach techniques that have led to a successful public involvement approach. Nearly all Metro projects begin with stakeholder interviews to determine who the audiences are and to ensure that the proper outreach is designed for the intended stakeholders.

  • "Let‘s Talk Program": Metro created a public involvement strategy designed to collect data on people‘s values in connection with four major efforts: expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary, natural resource protection, and parks and transportation funding. A multi-prong effort was created to include all cities and counties. One of the key aspects of this communications/outreach campaign was the organization and implementation of a series of "coffee talks". The program included:

    • Holding 93 small group dialogues known as "coffee talks" in people‘s homes, in coordination with community organizations and at local Starbucks coffee shops
    • Receiving support from 15 professional mediators and facilitators from the local area who volunteered to facilitate and record coffee talk discussions
    • A regional conference with over 500 participants who took part in panel discussions and facilitated small group dialogues to identify key priorities in each decision area
    • Partnering with a national coffee shop chain, a local network affiliated television station, and local regional newspaper for sponsorship and media support.
  • Town Hall Meeting: A formal agreement was created with the local television station KGW to host a town hall meeting focusing on the public‘s core values related to transportation, natural resource and growth management issues, rather than their personal or political preferences for specific outcomes. For example, the audience was asked how they could have improved access around the area, instead of focusing strictly on a light-rail proposal. This discussion helped to determine the factors involved in their decision-making instead of focusing on a particular mode or route. Metro provided the hosts with maps and data, and the local television anchors led the meeting. Metro provided the station with a list of invitees and the station was also able to expand on this list.
  • Highway 217 Corridor Study: In an area where 73 percent of the population uses the Internet, Metro decided to invest their outreach in a billboard that is seen by 65,000 commuters daily. The billboard provides the website address where more information on the corridor study could be found. The website offered opportunities to engage in virtual on-line public meetings in place of the more traditional site-based open house style meeting. It also provided specific off work hours for people to call-in and reach a live person to query.
  • Powell/Foster Corridor Study: The Powell/Foster Corridor Study includes an area of generally lower-income communities, few large employers and few opportunities for community engagement. To get feedback from members of this rather disparate community Metro partnered with the community‘s alternative high school to develop a dual-purpose program. A 10-week curriculum was developed that simultaneously taught students about transportation issues and also generated much needed input about potential changes to explore in the Powell/Foster corridor. It also provided an opportunity to teach students communication and presentation methods such as power-point presentations, document and analytical report preparation and the writing and development of media materials. The project allowed students to:

    • Design a survey, interview parents, administrative and teaching staff at four elementary schools during scheduled parents‘ nights, quantify results from the survey and produce visually appealing, easy to understand technical graphs.
    • Meet with professionals in the public opinion, planning, and public involvement fields to learn more about possible future career opportunities.
    • Reach out to the community, build interpersonal skills, build much-needed self-esteem, be seen in the community as productive young adults and even utilize some of their native language skills by translating materials to meet the needs of Spanish-speaking and Asian parents.
    • Prepare and present a professional report of their findings to the School Board and Metro Council.

B. Atlanta Regional Commission
The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) is the MPO for all or parts of 19 Georgia counties, representing a total population of over 4 million people. The population of this area is projected to increase by 50 percent by the year 2030. Its 25-year multimodal regional transportation plan (RTP), Mobility 2030, included the development of a financially unconstrained, aspirations-based plan created by ARC and its planning partners that proposed what was needed to address the mobility demands during this 25-year plan – resulting in a $74 billion "Aspirations Plan". ARC first developed the "Aspirations Plan" without financial constraints so that it could include a full range of transportation solutions. ARC released this first phase of RTP development in December 2003. ARC currently has $50 billion to address these needs, and will begin to focus on further fundraising and alternative strategies. Phase two of the RTP will be completed by the end of 2004 and will help identify current revenue sources and determine what the resulting gap will be to truly address the region‘s congestion challenges.

ARC plays many roles in the region – water management, leadership and planning training, aging and job training services. It uses these resources to inform the transportation outreach processes. The transportation planning division works very closely with the research, land use, transportation demand management and governmental services divisions to provide seamless and holistic public involvement throughout the region. The presentation highlighted a number of examples of specific mechanisms used by the ARC to incorporate public participation:

  • Community Outreach Coordinator: ARC has a community outreach coordinator working directly under the agency‘s director. This coordinator position focuses the majority of time on environmental justice issues and outreach.
  • Interactive Website Maps: The ARC website allows users to search for a specific project, see projects in a specific country, view projects by mode, and access a detailed fact sheet on any of the 2000+ projects in the database.
  • Tracking Public Comments: The Transportation Public Involvement Plan addresses what happens when a public comment is received and defines the process for how it is handled. A database was created to record comments on specific projects, counties, etc., and to track responses to these comments.
  • Survey Development: ARC contracts with an independent pollster to survey the MPO area at crucial planning times. The initial challenge when doing the survey internally was reaching internal agreement on how to frame the questions.
  • Outreach Successes: ARC has developed several public involvement techniques that have proven to engage stakeholders by offering meetings in a comfortable environment that meets their needs. These include:

    • Focus groups for Spanish-speaking audiences
    • Listening sessions with low-income or minority communities
    • Set-up of computers at meetings to allow users to search project database, view and print out maps, and obtain fact sheets on projects of interest
    • Webstreaming of public meetings which includes a plan video, a presentation video timed to a powerpoint presentation, and the ability to access any documents pertaining to the plan – current and historical
    • Partnering with local colleges and high schools to engage young stakeholders
    • Forums created for ARC to respond to public points; $40,000 was set aside for various outreach efforts: surveying, focus groups, web streaming
    • Working with Emory University and the Center for Disease Control to look at health and transportation issues
    • ARC is in the process of creating a website for children that provides games and interactive exercises to educate children on transportation issues

C. Maricopa Association of Governments
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) serves as the MPO for the Maricopa Region, including the 25 cities and towns within Maricopa County, Arizona. In 1994, MAG‘s Regional Council adopted a public involvement process and in 1998 enhanced the process to work with the Arizona DOT and Valley Metro transit agency. The 1999 Casa Grande Resolves brought together representatives from Federal, state, and regional organizations to create a new regionally-based transportation planning and programming process that includes merged timelines and projects linked to state plans.

MAG has implemented a four-phase stakeholder process:

  1. Stakeholder meetings are held as open houses and group presentations to begin involvement early on. MAG sends out mailings to approximately 200 people on their public involvement list and extends a special invitation to environmental justice communities. This is the only phase where the staff does not respond to comments, and instead only tracks them.
  2. MAG receives input on draft plans through transportation fairs, open houses, and public hearings.
  3. Final comments are received through additional open houses and public hearings. There is a 30-day comment period, and MAG then responds to all comments.
  4. Ongoing involvement allows for year-round input opportunities through activities that MAG participates in, including small group presentations, special events, press releases, quarterly "MAG at the Mall" events, and electronic newsletter updates.

MAG has created several specific outreach activities designed to engage a variety of stakeholders:

  • Title VI and Environmental Justice Activities: Specific outreach activities have been created for the underserved communities. MAG‘s Associate Program employs a part-time consultant to address the needs of the disabled community and a full-time MAG employee dedicates his time to community outreach focusing on Title VI communities, including providing MAG materials in Spanish and other alternative formats.
  • Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Activities: MAG developed the website http://www.letskeepmoving.com/ to include information on its RTP. Activities to receive public input for the RTP include:

    • Public workshops to have the public provide input on what projects they think should be funded. Cards were provided as a tool to vote on what projects the public prioritized for funding. The results of this exercise were included in the draft RTP.
    • Public Hearings for businesses and citizens were held on the same day, and allowed either party to attend each other‘s sessions. The business stakeholder list included more than 800 businesses.
  • Outreach to State Legislature and Board Members: MAG sponsored a tour to Dallas, Texas – a peer metropolitan region with similar characteristics – for members of their Board and State legislative representatives. The trip focused on Dallas‘s rail system so that the legislators would see the system and understand the importance of having it as a consideration for the Maricopa area. This activity was instrumental in receiving funding for the light-rail system and how transit-oriented development could be integrated into the plans.

D. Sacramento Council of Government
The Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) is an association of local governments in the six-county Sacramento Region that includes 22 cities. The Region is primarily development-driven with all land-use decisions as local issues per California State Law. The population is expected to double in the next 50 years, with the most growth expected in the population over 55 years of age.

Blueprint 2050: With this large growth expected, SACOG created Blueprint 2050 to plan for land-use in the next 50 years. The Blueprint was designed to capture more information than the Master Transportation Plan and Community Design program in order to determine different land-use scenarios for the future. SACOG focused on data collection and gathered nearly 100 local plans as wells as numerous GIS data layers. Developers were interviewed to determine what land-use choices were made and what development was expected to be proposed.

A public involvement campaign was designed to determine the public‘s attitudes toward growth. The seven principles of smart growth were incorporated as the focus. Public involvement activities for Blueprint 2050 included:

  • Neighborhood Workshops: Thirty neighborhood workshops were held over a period of 18 months. Workshop participants sat in groups with a laptop and supporting materials on transportation, land use and smart growth and were asked to show what they wanted their community to look like. Materials included a printed menu of land use choices. The workshops used laptops with wireless Internet access so that participants could evaluate varying scenarios in real time using the web-based PLACE3S software. The software allowed workshop participants to compare alternative scenarios based on vehicle miles traveled, transportation modes, energy use and emissions, housing density, jobs/housing balance, mix of uses and economic feasibility. Politicians were able to learn about the proposed actions and developers were able to learn about the outcome of decisions and the economic impact.
  • County Workshops: Seven county workshops were held using neighborhood input to create the outcome at the county level. Attendees were asked to provide their zip code, interest, and role in the community. They were assigned seating so that tables would be mixed for participants to learn from each other. Four thousand people participated in the county-level workshops
  • Annual Forums: Annual forums were held in 2003 and 2004 to receive more input on the process. The events took place at the Convention Center; a registration fee of $75.00 was charged for each participant in order to pay for the cost of food and the venue; however, the actual cost per person amounted to $150.00. Sponsorships were sold to offset these costs. In addition, 25 percent of the seats for these forums were "scholarship seats", donated to underserved populations who designated specific individuals who would benefit from the event.

    • The Fall 2003 Annual Forum served as the kick-off for the outreach effort. The event focused on the use of interactive clickers to receive demographic information from the attendees. This was an effective game that allowed SACOG to receive valuable information from the citizens, including their key areas of interest.
    • The Spring 2004 Annual Forum was the culmination of the county workshops and showcased four case studies for participants to vote on. 25 percent of the attendees had participated in the previous workshops.
  • Key themes of the public involvement effort created through Blueprint 2050 included:

    • Create partnerships: Finding connections to the community can lead to more effective outreach because the people will listen. Creating a "big tent" of outreach partners will be useful.
    • Ensure project recognition: "Brand" the project so that it is easily recognizable.
    • Listen and Learn: It is important to continuously reevaluate the process. SACOG did weekly evaluations to ensure that everyone was involved.
    • Develop materials in other languages: Look at census data to determine the top three or four languages that should be addressed.

E. Brevard Metropolitan Planning Organization
The Brevard MPO (Brevard) serves Brevard County in central Florida. The area is linear in shape- 72 miles long and 20 miles wide- which presents many transit challenges when trying to "connect" either ends of the area. Twenty percent of the county‘s population is over the age of 65 and 87 percent is Caucasian. The MPO has a staff of seven people, and utilizes a joint technical and citizen advisory committee and ad-hoc growth management subcommittee to make annual recommendations. The State of Florida has 25 MPOs, most of which are single county MPOs like Brevard. An alliance of 7 MPOs in central Florida, including Brevard, has also been created to provide a regional approach for the area.

One of Brevard‘s successful public involvement practices was the creation of the Public Involvement Evaluation Handbook, which was adopted in 2000 and amended in 2002 along with Brevard‘s Public Involvement Plan (PIP). The Handbook and PIP serve as an effective framework to simultaneously conduct, evaluate, and refine Brevard‘s public involvement policy and techniques.

The Evaluation Handbook focuses on two main objectives – evaluation criteria and performance goals. For a complete list of Brevard‘s public involvement tools, and their respective criteria and goals, visit Brevard‘s Evaluation Handbook online at http://www.brevardmpo.com/.

  • Evaluation criteria: Public involvement techniques for a given project are measured using qualitative surveys and statistical analysis. The analysis typically looks to stakeholders who are active in the MPO process, either continuously or during specific projects, and can communicate the effectiveness of the outreach based on what they have learned at a given meeting. Evaluation information can be obtained in several ways:

    • With only 50 percent of the population in the area receiving the area newspaper, Brevard communicates their notices through a direct mail card. The database for the direct card mailings is based on the names and addresses of those who have attended past meetings in the area.
    • Surveys are an excellent method to determine how people found out about meetings and if the information presented was useful. Brevard conducts surveys by phone, mail, and online in order to reach everyone.
    • An inexpensive and efficient method for gathering evaluation information is to utilize sign-in sheets and comment forms to capture an immediate response from activity participants. Questions such as "How did you find out about this meeting?" can provide valuable information regarding the benefits of using specific outreach techniques.
  • Performance goals: Specific performance measure thresholds were adopted by Brevard as part of the PIP. In addition, implementation methods designed to meet each goal have been created by Brevard staff and agreed upon by the technical and citizens committees. The performance goals and methods to meet these goals can help identify possible improvement strategies for similar projects. Whether a goal was met or not can determine what approaches worked and what did not, and what is transferable and what is not.

Many MPOs have consultants implement an overall review of public involvement tools, however this is often determined by an MPO‘s budget limitations. Brevard informally evaluates the PIP to see what tools are and are not included in their projects, and what tools were viewed favorably by the public. This ongoing evaluation allows Brevard to continuously adapt and update the techniques used in order to create the most effective outcome.

F. Mid-Region Council of Governments

The Mid-Region Council of Governments (MRCOG) is the MPO for the Albuquerque, New Mexico metropolitan planning area. The MPO‘s four-county region contains the largest single concentration of population in the state and is also the fastest growing area in the state.

Key to MRCOG‘s success in implementing public involvement techniques has been its focus on communication- both internally and externally. Key concepts include:

  • Clear communication among engineers and planners allows for full understanding.
  • Communication efforts to citizens and engineers should be of equal importance.
  • Recognition of the integrated role of public involvement staff so that the message can be clearly communicated.
  • Remaining constantly aware that the goal of public involvement is to assist citizens to identify and solve problems in their community.

Other activities that MRCOG has implemented to ensure clear communication and effective public involvement are:

  • Tracking Comments: MRCOG records project-specific comments and sends them to the local government through a letter or phone call. They also send comments to elected officials with a copy going to the city‘s planning staff. At other times, they may provide the caller with a phone number of a specific contact who can further address the comments. All of these options help to ensure that the public‘s comment are being shared, while adding accountability on the agencies to respond to these comments.
  • Transit Coordination: MRCOG has worked extensively to achieve buy-in from both transit agencies and the New Mexico DOT. They spent six to twelve months building relationships with these agencies so that they are more willing to participate with them in the future.

IV. Recommendations to PAG and WFRC on how to Apply Effective Public Involvement Practices

Following the peer MPO presentations, the participants were asked to form two groups to discuss specific recommendations for PAG and WFRC to consider in enhancing their public involvement programs. The groups worked with the PAG and WFRC participants, respectively, to determine what priorities and existing gaps needed to be addressed. Based on the groups‘ extensive experience, proposals were created that suggested next steps at a policy level and implementation level.

  • Recommended Next Steps for PAG: The group agreed that before specific techniques can be implemented PAG would need to define its new structure now that their role will be integrated with the role of the RTA. Once the structure is determined, PAG will need to concentrate its efforts on communicating the new message to it stakeholders so that the public involvement practices are able to reach everyone while clearly communicating the role of RTA. To reach this end, four steps were recommended by the group:
    1. Determine the organizational structure: Internal stakeholders will need to work together to create a well-defined structure for the agency that integrates the responsibilities as an RTA. Both a vision "message" and plan will need to be developed, along with an evaluation mechanism to determine the success of the integration and related activities.
    2. Educate the public about the structure: PAG will need to work closely with the media and use them as a partner to help educate the public. Branding (e.g., logo, images, etc.) of specific studies and projects can also help the public identify key PAG efforts.
    3. Communicate "project bundles" to public: A grouping of projects determined during Phase I of the RTA and RTP integration should be shared with the public after they have been introduced to the initial structure. Input on the projects should be collected at this time.
    4. Evaluate the public input: Once public comments are received on the project bundle, they should be addressed accordingly and incorporated into the bundle.
  • Recommended Next Steps for WFRC: The group‘s recommendation for WFRC concentrated on the visioning effort about to be underway in conjunction with Envision Utah. The discussion focused on specific techniques and approaches that participants find useful when doing visioning exercises. The recommendations were as follows:
    1. Do not duplicate the Envision Utah effort. Build on it.
    2. Engage new people in the process, e.g., manufacturers, Chamber of Commerce, etc.
    3. Bring in prior supporters, e.g., newspapers, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    4. Use visual information to illustrate scenarios
    5. Determine technique to overcome negative preconceptions

    V. Other Success Stories

    Beyond the techniques described above, each participant shared other successes from their respective experiences with public involvement:

    • Developed "About PAG" brochure to inform the community about what PAG does (PAG)
    • Formed strong relationships with local news media. (WFRC)
    • Created a Public Involvement Advisory Group (PIAG) including specialists, neighborhoods, consultants, etc., who work to create a regional group for a regional approach. (ARC)
    • Reached public consensus on Arizona Rt. 179, Sedona Project. (FHWA-AZ)
    • Strengthened public involvement for MPO certification review process. (FHWA-UT)
    • Developed a multidisciplinary computer-interactive mobile information bus (MILT) that was pre-scheduled at community events and activities, farmer‘s markets, at local Fred Meyer shopping centers and other venues. More than 25,000 people participated on the bus during three summer seasons. (Metro)
    • Participated in special events to serve as a venue to share information through booths and games. (MAG)
    • Engaged the Walking and Bicycle Advisory Group to shape changes in Long-Range bicycle facility plan. (MRCOG)
    • Designed a MPO 101 Executive Seminar is a 90-minute course for MPO Board Members, new staff, and others. (FHWA)
    • Developed "ZigZag: Real Stories, New Angles", a television program and web site that explores how transportation choices affect our lives and communities through the personal stories of seventeen families across the region. The television program features five to six of the families telling their own stories with minimal narration. Their stories provide diverse viewpoints and life experiences related to transportation issues. (Metro)

    All participating MPOs have stated that they continue to expect increasing growth. Having effective public involvement techniques in place is essential in order to plan for this growth and communicate change to stakeholders. This Peer Exchange created an opportunity for these MPOs to network and share information, learn from one another, and leave with new ideas and new techniques that can potentially be applied to their own areas.

    VI. For More Information

    Key Contact(s): for host agency(s): Natalie Clark
     
    Sam Klemm
     
    Address: 177 N. Church Avenue
    Suite 405
    Tucson, Arizona 85701
     
    295 N. Jimmy Doolittle Road6
    Salt Lake City, UT 8411
     
    Phone: (520) 792-1093
     
    (801) 363-4250
     
    E-mail: nclark@pagnet.org sklemm@wfrc.org

    VII. Contacts

    AGENCY PARTICIPANTS PHONE E-mail address
    Pima Assoc. of Governments Natalie Clark (520) 792-1093 nclark@pagnet.org
    Portland Metro Gina Whitehill-Baziuk (503) 797-1746 whitehillg@metro.dst.or.us
    Atlanta Regional Commission Judith Dovers (404) 463-3272 jdovers@atlantaregional.com
    Maricopa Association of Governments Kelly TaftJason StephensCarlos Jurado (602) 254-6300 ktaft@mag.maricopa.gov
    jstephens@mag.maricopa.gov
    cjurado@mag.maricopa.gov
    Brevard MPO Kama Dobbs (321) 690-6890 kdobbs@brevardmpo.com
    Sacramento Council of Governments Joan Madeiros (916) 340-6207 JMedeiros@sacog.org
    Mid-Region Council of Governments, Albuquerque, NM Loretta Tollefson (505) 247-1750 ltollefson@mrcog-nm.gov
    Wasatch Front Regional Council, Salt Lake City UT Sam Klemm (801) 363-4250 sklemm@wfrc.org
    FHWA Utah Division Steven Call (801) 963-0078 x233 Steven.Call@fhwa.dot.gov
    FHWA Arizona Division Maurice Light
    Nathan Banks
    Ed Stillings
    Jermaine Hannon
    (602) 379-3645 Maurice.Light@fhwa.dot.gov
    Nathan.banks@fhwa.dot.gov
    Ed.Stillings@fhwa.dot.gov
    Jermaine.Hannon@fhwa.dot.gov
    FHWA Resource Center Brian Betlyon (410) 962-0086 Brian.Betlyon@fhwa.dot.gov
    US DOT Volpe Center Rachael Barolsky (617) 494-6352 Rachael.Barolsky@volpe.dot.gov

    back to top


FHWA Home   |  FTA Home   |  Privacy Statement   |  Website Feedback   |  Site Map
  United States Department of Transportation