Contents
10
Public Participation ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.1
The Importance of Participation ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.2
Industry Standards of Practice ................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.2.1
Goals and Objectives ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.2.2
Principles of Participation ................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.2.3
The Passive Versus Active Approach ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.3
Challenges to Public Participation ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.3.1
Internal Challenges ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.3.2
External Challenges ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.4
Tools and Tactics ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.5
Surveys ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.5.1
Public Forums.................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.5.2
Small Group Meetings ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.6
Focus Groups ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.6.1
Committees .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.6.2
Civil Society Organizations .................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.6.3
Engaging Local Networks ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10.7
Measuring Success: Process Versus Outcomes .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
10 Public Participation
Tell me and I’ll forget. Show me and I’ll remember. Involve me and I’ll understand.
—Confucius, philosopher, 551–479 BC
In Chapter 9: Strategic Planning for Communications, we reviewed stakeholders and
target groups, and how they should be considered as part of your overall
communications strategy. A comprehensive communications plan facilitates the
interaction between project leaders and the stakeholders, including transport providers,
passengers, and the general public. It is also a helpful tool for reviewing entrenched
ideas and perceptions of public transport.
This chapter takes a more in-depth look at public participation and the outreach
necessary to achieve it, reviewing research on participation methods, tools and tactics,
and desired outcomes. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the importance of
participation and engagement as strategies for BRT realization and success and to offer
some best practice guidance for effecting a participatory process. Participation as a
whole is more than “information-sharing,” “communication,” or “marketing,” although
a well-thought-out strategy will integrate all these elements.
Public participation in the transportation field is the process through which
transportation agencies inform and engage people in the decision-making process. The
benefits of engaging the public include community ownership of policies; better, more
informed decisions that are sustainable, supportable, and reflect community values;
increased agency credibility; and faster implementation of plans and projects.
The most effective transport planning draws on specific insights from the public, civic
organizations, existing operators, private sector firms, and other government entities
to complement the knowledge of planning staff and consultants. To achieve community
ownership of the project, BRT proponents must engage with people’s needs, fears, and
interests. Public input on corridors and feeder services can be invaluable, as can insights
from existing transport operators. Moreover, incorporating public views on design and
customer service features will help ensure that the system will be more fully accepted
and utilized by the public.
Fig. 10.1 A stakeholders meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Image courtesy of ITDP.
10.1 The Importance of Participation
We always hear about the rights of democracy, but the major responsibility of it is
participation.
—Wynton Marsalis, trumpeter and composer, 1961Early development and implementation of a formal strategy addressing the spectrum
of stakeholders and their concerns are fundamental to the success of BRT. The best
participation strategies are built on the strengths of the situation on the ground and
develop a widespread sense of project ownership while managing resistance to change.
When done well, this will enhance the legitimacy of the project by providing
stakeholders with a sense that they are being listened to, and it will improve the quality
of the decisions made by the public transport agency, as they will better reflect the
interests of the general public.
In most countries, transport-system management suffers from some form of bias.
Planners are primarily professional men from twenty-five to fifty-five years of age, who
often do not use the public transport systems they are creating, and lack both firsthand
knowledge and credibility with many stakeholder groups. This can lead to a biased
system design, focusing on just one kind of commute that benefits professional adults
working standard business hours, but excludes students, parents with small children,
the elderly, the disabled, people who use the system for shopping and may have large
bags, workers with their tools, or people who combine multiple errands such as work,
shopping, and child care into one trip, also known as trip chaining (discussed in more
detail in Chapter 4: Demand Analysis and Chapter 6: Service Planning).
Proper management of stakeholders and public involvement increases the chances of
a project’s success because they result in improved understanding of issues on the part
of proponents and increased buy-in and appreciation among other stakeholders.
Although agencies sometimes fear that participation could exacerbate the
disapproval of a service, the reality is that a well-developed participatory strategy will
bring people on board—literally and figuratively. Participation should be seen as a longterm strategy that can provide:





Useful instruments for framing BRT positively, getting it on public agendas,
and keeping it there for the time necessary for successful implementation;
Knowledge and support for BRT among the key stakeholders and target
groups, including opinion leaders and politicians;
Crucial input regarding users’ needs and preferences that can offset age,
ethnic, socioeconomic, and gender biases, often built into the urban transport
planning system;
Innovative perspectives that can enhance the usefulness and public
perception of existing and new BRT routes, often based on relevant
experiences from walking and cycling advocacy networks;
Credible citizens’ initiatives and organizations capable of advocacy,
education, campaigning, and other work to build and maintain long-term
support for BRT.
To optimize these potential contributions, the project’s management will need to
take an “integrative approach,” weaving together the input received from an array of
engagement venues. Specific activities include traditional approaches based on one-off
events (public hearings, formal and informal consultations, surveys, and focus groups)
as well as methods based on civil society initiatives, which typically involve activities
like campaigning, education, organization-building, and other initiatives.
For an innovative approach like BRT, building support among residents contributes
substantially to putting it on public agendas and keeping it there throughout the typical
turbulence of implementation. Citizens involved in participatory events can offer
uniquely detailed, contextual knowledge of the urban spaces (and life systems) that are
in design or under intervention. Moreover, in rapidly democratizing societies, their
opinions influence politicians.
Finally, citizens’ organizations are able to contribute crucial BRT-related information
in a timely and credible way through a vast network of contacts. For example, a
participatory process that creates a very BRT-literate neighborhood association
executive enables that person to become an effective conduit as well to his/her local
religious institution, health clinic, planning advisory board, or parents’ group at the
local school.
Table 1: Factors influencing Goals and Objectives of Participation
Factor
Observations
Political
Priorities
Support through participation may focus on breadth—lots of people
across different constituencies—or depth, key spokespeople willing
to support, or a combination of both.
Agency
Priorities
Keeping these in line with current and potential users’ preferences
can save money and reduce risks.
Level of
Controversy
Thinking outside the box, consultation, and bringing key citizens’
groups on board can help improve a difficult decision or build a
better understanding of it.
Reducing Risk
Exposure
Participation helps to “learn from the future as it emerges.”
Project
Schedule
Participation can reduce delays due to unforeseen controversies or
barriers.
Environmental
Justice Issues
A legal requirement in the United States, other cities should still
consider them as they influence perceptions of BRT.
Safety Issues
Detailed knowledge from citizens of their micro-environments can
avoid costly errors and loss of lives.
Legal
Requirements
It helps if participatory requirements are built into laws and
regulations, so all companies are subject to the same rules.
Source: Giering 2011
Fig. 10.2 Building support among residents and customers paid off well for Mexico City’s
Metrobús BRT, which has enjoyed popular support during major expansions. Image
courtesy of ITDP.
10.2 Industry Standards of Practice
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others.
—Julius Henry "Groucho" Marx, comedian and actor, 1890–1977
Public participation strategies are as diverse as the communities, locations, and
agencies they serve. Specific public involvement techniques and the methods by which
public transport providers execute public involvement strategies are constantly
evolving. There are, however, some overall generalizations about the elements of
agency public participation strategies and the process for creating them.
Although this chapter focuses primarily on agency-government-user/civil society
interactions, the principles of participation outlined here apply to other stakeholders
including operators and drivers (addressed more comprehensively in Chapter 16: Vehicle
Operator Contracting and Industry Transition).
Governments, private sector, and civil society actors have diverse and sometimes
contradictory views of what citizen participation in urban transport planning should be.
Maximizing success in participation requires a fundamental shift from viewing public
engagement and participation as an obligation to understanding it as an opportunity to
improve and build the short- and long-term viability of the system. A well-designed
participatory process can also strengthen the long-term credibility and viability of
organizations that build civil society.
Fig. 10.3 This design charette in Rio de Janeiro brought together government, civil
society, and private sector representatives in preparation for the TransOeste BRT. Image
courtesy of ITDP.
10.2.1 Goals and Objectives
Just as in communications planning, goals and objectives play a key role in public
involvement strategies. They guide the entire process, influencing who will be engaged,
the level of participation desired, the type of information that will be needed, and the
techniques to be used. Goals and objectives also set expectations about what the public
participation effort will achieve and provide a basis for measuring outcomes.
The goals themselves should be based on the specific needs of the project. What are
the questions that need to be answered? What are the missing pieces of information?
What type of public buy-in is desired? Below are common project-specific goals from the
International Association of Public Participation.

Inform: To provide the public with balanced objective information to assist them
in understanding the problems, alternatives, opportunities, and/or solutions;

Consult: To obtain feedback on analysis of alternatives and/or decisions;

Involve: To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that
public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered;

Collaborate: To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision, including
the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution;

Empower: To place final decision making in the hands of the public (IAP2 2010).
As with communications planning, each goal should be followed by specific,
measurable objectives. For more information on defining goals and objectives,
see Chapter 9: Strategic Planning for Communications.
10.2.2 Principles of Participation
An essential part of having a well-designed participatory process is setting clearly
defined principles that all participants agree to abide by, which are enforced by leaders
or coordinators of participant groups. The Community Development Society
(http://www.comm-dev.org) suggests the following five principles of good practice in
community development:
1. Promote active and representative participation toward enabling all community
members to meaningfully influence the decisions that affect their lives.
2. Engage community members in learning about and understanding community
issues, and the economic, social, environmental, political, psychological, and
other impacts associated with alternative courses of action.
3. Incorporate the diverse interests and cultures of the community in the community
development process; and disengage from support of any effort that is likely to
adversely affect the disadvantaged members of a community.
4. Work actively to enhance the leadership capacity of community members,
leaders, and groups within the community (so that they may be ambassadors for
BRT).
5. Be open to using the full range of action strategies to work toward the long-term
sustainability and well-being of the community.
There are many versions of these good practice principles, and they may be adjusted
for local context and to address specific concerns.
Fig.10.4 A community workshop in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, asked participants to give
input on the future of transportation in their city. Image courtesy of ITDP.
10.2.3 The Passive vs. Active Approach
In the past, agencies have offered suggestion boxes, toll-free telephone numbers,
leaflets, or advertising campaigns as examples of “participation.” While these offerings
are not without value—high-quality collateral and information is a precondition for
participation—they do not constitute a participatory process.
Public transport providers must often make complex decisions about the type and
amount of information to provide to the public, balancing the risks of providing too little
information and too much. This can be further complicated by the often technical nature
of the data and the risks of it being confusing or misinterpreted. However, information
sharing is important not just for meaningful public involvement, but also for building
trust within the community, creating transparency at the agency, enhancing advocacy
efforts, and proactively guiding the public conversation instead of allowing others
(including the media or other stakeholders) to dominate the debate.
Equally important for shaping the public involvement process is the agency’s
determination of what information it wants from the public. The survey results support
the idea that for public transport providers, public involvement provides the agency
with critical missing information. When asked about the type of input agencies typically
want from the public, respondents noted that they want to know about community
issues that might impact public transport service, as well as chronic customer service
problems.
Fig. 10.5 Surveys, which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 9: Strategic Planning
for Communications, are an important and simple way to begin public outreach. Image
courtesy of ITDP.
Fig. 10.6 Results from an interview of thirty public transport providers about the type
of input agencies typically wanted from the public. Graph courtesy of Transportation
Research Board.
Informational campaigns take place along a spectrum. At one end, you have one-way
communication, which means providing information, usually to a broad public with no
ability to receive feedback from the audience. This is what is known as a “passive
approach.” Further along the spectrum are limited two-way communications processes,
such as feedback surveys or Internet voting on preferences, which tend to be more
sophisticated and have more of an impact on people’s thinking, although usually not on
their behavior. At the other end, you have a genuine participation process or an “active
approach” that involves more complex two-way or multi-directional communication,
usually referred to as deliberation.
Fig. 10.7 A passive approach to participation as information versus an active approach,
where bidirectional communication, feedback and change foster optimum results.
Developed by Carlos Felipe Pardo and Lake Sagaris.
Generally speaking, the more active the approach, the better the results. For
example, in deliberation, groups are engaged in an intense form of facilitated
communication meant to bring crucial information to the surface, including the
participants’ knowledge, interests, feelings, and fears. In the urban sphere, deliberation
occurs in formal or informal spaces as preferred so people can hammer out agreements
in a more relaxed, trusting environment. It can involve being active in the spaces being
planned by conducting walking, cycling, or neighborhood access audits and reviews. This
should happen in planning phases and be facilitated by the BRT team in conjunction
with community groups. A well-organized participation process can transform people’s
thinking and, more important, their actions.
10.3 Challenges to Public Participation
We are like islands in the sea, separate on the surface but connected in the deep.
―William James, philosopher and psychologist, 1842-1910
Public transport providers face many challenges when engaging the public. These
challenges arise from specific issues within the agency, such as inadequate resources,
or from the public, such as feelings of cynicism and distrust, lack of time, and lack of
awareness. These challenges are magnified when trying to engage traditionally hard-toreach populations such as people with limited language proficiency and low-income and
minority communities. Responses to these challenges have varied among agencies, as
has their success at rising above them. What has worked for some agencies has not
always worked for others; however, many have been successful and there are common
themes that have tended to lead public transport agencies to greater success in public
involvement (TCRP Synthesis 89—Public Participation Strategies for Transit: A Synthesis
of Transit Practice. Transportation Research Board. 2011):

The more public involvement, the more likely an agency is at having successful
outcomes;

Determining the “right” questions to ask is important;

Dedicating resources to public participation is important, but these do not have
to be strictly financial resources;

The value that an agency places on public involvement is critical to success;

Openness and transparency matter, and in many cases are the most important
as far as the public is concerned;

Understanding, partnering with, and empowering communities can significantly
benefit public involvement efforts and the agency.
Fig. 10.8 Proposed increases in bus fares led to violent protests in Quito, Ecuador. Image
courtesy
of
Diego
Pallero,
El
Comercio.
10.3.1 Internal Challenges
A survey by the Transportation Research Board in 2011 showed that the biggest
internal challenges to public participation are inadequate financial and staff resources,
difficulty in getting elected officials interested, and lack of time for public
participation. Other challenges included lack of support from upper management, lack
of public involvement training for staff, and lack of coordination among agencies.
Fig.
10.9
Average transit rating of internal challenges for public involvement. Note: Average
rating of responses where: “Not Significant” = 1, “Somewhat Significant” = 2,
“Moderately Significant” = 3, “Very Signficant” = 4, and “Highest Significance” = 5.
Graph courtesy of Transportation Research Board.
A lack of resources is almost always a major challenge for public transport agencies.
However, there are many ways to ensure successful public involvement that can be done
with a modest budget. The best way this can be managed is to integrate public
engagement into all of the agency’s public transport activities, rather than rely on a
separate budget. Even informal conversations among drivers, riders, agency staff, and
community members all provide important information that can be taken back to the
agency.
Building partnerships with community organizations can also address the resource
problem. It is an effort that takes time and commitment, but it can reap rewards for an
agency in both the short and long term. For the Hiawatha LRT project in Minnesota,
USA, the Metropolitan Council reimbursed community organizations for costs associated
with distributing information about the project, an action that saved the agency money
(e.g., labor costs) and allowed it to tap into local distribution channels. Maintaining
these relationships rather than having to rebuild them for each project will also provide
efficiencies for future efforts.
Most of the other internal challenges have to do with the failure to prioritize public
participation in the overall BRT process. This is a common problem that does not have
a simple answer. We recommend that public participation plans be built into the system
planning from the outset, including in the very first funding proposal (see Chapter 9:
Strategic Planning for Communications on the importance of public participation).
10.3.2 External Challenges
There are many complex challenges to overcome in managing external stakeholders,
such as feelings of cynicism and distrust, lack of time, and lack of awareness. Agencies
are best able to succeed when they (1) have taken the time and effort to understand
the challenges and their causes; (2) have a firm understanding of community issues,
needs, and local support networks; and (3) approach projects and planning efforts in a
collaborative fashion with communities.
Public cynicism and distrust of the process can arise from a feeling that participation
is not worth the effort—that decisions have already been made and the opportunity for
public input is merely a formality. Overcoming these feelings among the public requires
building trust within the community. The best way to counteract this is by being as open
and transparent as possible.
Some agencies have found that by structuring public meetings to allow participants
to work through and identify solutions to specific problems, they have helped
participants feel as though they have a meaningful impact on the planning process. In
addition, demonstrating exactly how public involvement is used to inform the planning
process can reduce levels of distrust.
All opportunities for public involvement must compete with the other obligations of
people’s lives. Finding time to participate in a community meeting is not generally high
on the list of priorities for working people. Providing multiple opportunities for
participation, including outside of regular business hours, and offering opportunities
that are not dependent on time and place, such as online and mobile engagement, can
help increase participation levels. In addition, active engagement, such as going out and
meeting people where they are, is essential. These are discussed later in this chapter.
Lastly, making your financial information and audits available for public review
demonstrates that you can be trusted with public funds.
Fig.
10.10
Average transit rating of external challenges for public involvement. Note: Average
rating of responses where: “Not Significant” = 1, “Somewhat Significant” = 2,
“Moderately Significant” = 3, “Very Signficant” = 4, and “Highest Significance” = 5.
Graph courtesy of Transportation Research Board.
10.4 Tools and Tactics
Do not wait; the time will never be 'just right.' Start where you stand, and work with
whatever tools you may have at your command, and better tools will be found as you
go along.
—Napoleon Hill, author, 1883-1970
Methods of public participation range in type, and they reflect the specific
characteristics of each place. Thus, while the basic toolbox for participation is relatively
similar everywhere, how these tools are combined and how each tool is used can and
should be adapted to local conditions and needs. Indeed, they should evolve constantly
along with local conditions and be limited “only by the creativity of their practitioners”
(Giering 2011, p. 2).
Table 10.2 The Main Participatory Tools
Tool
Quality
Type
Uses
Risks
Examples
Surveys, data
collection
Consult
Information
Minimal input
Superficial
Online vote on location of
cycle parking, new line,
etc.
Consult
Information
exchange
Receiving inputs from
broad audience
Superficial,
formulaic,
meaningless,
frustrating
Public hearings when
written briefs can be
submitted, must be
considered and receive
response
Involve
One-off or shortterm
deliberation
Generate new ideas,
problem solving,
planning along
corridors
Irrelevant, high
energy wasted
Charettes, working groups,
manual development
Focus groups
Consult
Information
gathering
Traditional research
and analysis
Difficult to
identify capacity
for change,
potential
User intercept, statement
of choice, user satisfaction
Committees
Collaborat
e
Long-term
relationship
building and
deliberation
Generate new ideas,
problem solving,
strategic development,
earning broader
support
Procedural, no
real influence,
no access to
decisions
Advisory committees at
the system-wide,
corridor/neighborhood
levels
Civil society
initiatives and
local networks
Empower
Two-way,
extensive, deep
Building users’ and
others’ knowledge into
the system
Too small,
potentially high
conflict
Users’ associations,
cooperation with
neighborhood,
environmental and other
groups
Online
engagement
Inform
Information
Offering up-to-theminute, user-specific
information
Superficial
Informational websites,
plan-your-route, SMS
texting of schedules for
specific lines
Corporate
social
responsibility
Collaborat
e
Two-way, but
tends to be
paternalistic,
hierarchical
power relations
Community outreach,
bridge building,
greater understanding
PR,
"greenwashing,"
no real change
Sponsorship car-free days,
cycling Sunday routes,
cycle parking, cycle taxis
for users
Community
engagement
Involve/co
llaborate
Short-term
deliberation
Gain new insights into
community issues and
how to make BRT more
relevant to needs,
interests, aspirations
PR, no real
change
Speaking at local fairs,
services, meetings, events
Public forums
and large
public meetings
Small group
meetings
Categories based on Giering 2011 and other sources. Classification based on IAP2
Spectrum of Public Participation: http://www.iap2.org.
When it comes to choosing between a bus-based system and rail, politicians and
citizens alike tend to prefer surface and underground rail systems. Thus, being careful
to frame a new BRT with a name and a set of associations relevant to the specific project
and the lives of potential users is important.
BRT can learn from nonmotorized transport modes that have attracted powerful
advocates in groups, movements, and among key planners and politicians who have
organized to push these modes onto policy agendas and keep them there as banners for
friendlier, more socially just, and sustainable cities. Enrique Peñalosa, the former mayor
of Bogotá, has played this role in the case of BRT, but even in his home city efforts have
flagged relative to other priorities in the face of recent political turnover and a lack of
an engaged civil society that could offer continued support through the mercurial nature
of politics.
As a rule of thumb, large-scale efforts will reach more people, but will impress them
less. Small-scale efforts, especially ongoing work with a relatively small group of diverse
but representative individuals, require more work, but can produce deep change.
10.5 Surveys
USA Today has come out with a new survey—apparently, three out of every four people
make up 75% of the population.
—David Letterman, former television host and comedian 1947–
The process of identifying stakeholders should result in a long list of individuals and
groups. There are a variety of ways to determine your stakeholder groups’ positions.
Reviewing discussion in local press, on public transport blogs, or on social media can be
a good place to start, but any information gleaned that way should be confirmed with
more direct outreach. The most common method is through the use of surveys. Surveys
are a great way to initiate a dialogue with stakeholders that will continue throughout
the public participation process outlined in this chapter.
Surveys are administered to a representative sample of the population and, if
properly designed, will elicit answers that provide an overview of the group’s attitudes,
knowledge, or practices. Surveys are a qualitative instrument with quantitative
properties: their results are numbers that can be examined through statistical analysis.
They produce massive amounts of qualitative information (many peoples’ opinions,
fears, desires) using quantitative tools. For the data to be accurate, however, a large
and representative sample of the population must be obtained.
Since the quality of any survey will determine the accuracy of the information it
yields, working with a trained professional to design a survey is recommended. Local
universities can be great resources for this.
Another consideration is determining which of the many options for survey
dissemination to use. Methods include personal interviews, telephone or mail surveys,
or surveys distributed in person, via e-mail, or on a website. Choice of survey method
will depend on several factors, such as:

Speed: E-mail and web page surveys are the fastest methods, followed by
telephone interviewing. Mail surveys are the slowest;

Cost: Personal interviews are the most expensive followed by telephone and then
mail. E-mail and web surveys are the least expensive for large samples;

Internet usage: Web and e-mail surveys offer significant advantages, but you
may not be able to trust the data enough to generalize for the population as a
whole;

Literacy levels: Illiterate and less educated people tend not to respond to mail
surveys;

Sensitive questions: People are more likely to answer sensitive questions when
interviewed directly by a computer in one form or another;

Video, sound, and graphics: A need to get reactions to an image or sound limits
your options to in person or online.
Source:
Creative
Research
Systems
http://www.surveysystem.com/sdesign.htm.
advice
for
survey
design—
10.5.1 Public Forums
Public meetings, open houses, town halls, and hearings are examples of the most
prevalent forms of public participation. Public forums can serve as “curtain raisers,”
places to present a lot of basic information about a new corridor or project, or changes
in an existing system. They can also serve as “lightning rods,” bringing out potential
opposition, criticisms, and critics, and these forums can often become very contentious.
In some countries, the law requires these kinds of meetings to discuss fare and service
changes.
In a study by the Transport Research Board (TRB), public transport agencies heavily
criticized these kinds of meetings, however, as “ineffective at engaging and interacting
with the public, failing to attract sufficient numbers of participants, encouraging only
the most vocal opponents of a project or plan to attend, ignoring the time and financial
constraints that limit the public’s ability to participate, and serving as an agency
formality to meet legal requirements rather than an honest and open forum to gather
meaningful input” (p. 15, Giering 2011).
These sentiments are supported by research that indicates that public forums on
their own are not only largely unsuccessful at achieving genuine participation, but they
can also have negative impact on the planning process for the reasons stated above. In
addition, the often-negative tone of the events discourages so many people from
attending that it is unlikely that officials are hearing from a representative sample of
the public.
Some public transport agencies have tried to improve the effectiveness of these
meetings by changing their venue and have found some success. By holding small public
meetings at bus stops and stations, including creative visual and audiovisual elements,
they have been able to reach out directly to riders who may not have otherwise attended
a public forum.
10.5.2 Small Group Meetings
There are other options for direct public participation that have often proved to be
more useful than the standard public forum, and one of those is the small group meeting.
Mechanisms that involve smaller groups of people, including focus groups, charettes,
and workshops, allow for more discussion and interaction among stakeholders, target
groups, agency staff, and officials.
Charettes and workshops involve a range of stakeholders coming together to review,
assess, or make plans. Like focus groups, they provide a forum for ideas, but also offer
the unique advantage of giving immediate feedback to the designer. Charettes typically
consist of intense and possibly multiday meetings, involving small groups of municipal
officials. A successful charette promotes joint ownership of solutions and attempts to
defuse typical confrontational attitudes among project designer and end users.
Charettes require considerable preparation and good facilitation, but have become
a popular way of finding win-win solutions and building strong networks and positive
support for innovative initiatives.
Finding a representative group of participants—in terms of age, sex, socio-economic
level, ethnic background, or religious background, for example—may be an initial
challenge but is important to finding solutions that work for the broadest possible group
of those affected. A participatory strategy could get more out of these resources by
creating an ongoing panel and bringing it together regularly to discuss new ideas,
problems, issues, and their potential solutions.
Fig. 10.11 Small group meetings are often more useful for gathering information from
the public than a public forum, which can be an intimidating experience for some. Image
courtesy of ITDP.
10.6 Focus Groups
I believe in accessibility. I believe in honesty and a culture that supports that. And you
can't have that if you're not open to receiving feedback.
—Mindy Grossman, CEO of the Home Shopping Network (HSN), 1958Focus groups can provide significant qualitative information quickly and in depth,
based on a group discussion guided by an interviewer. A delicate science of complex
interactions with ethical implications, focus groups should be facilitated by social
science professionals to encourage full discussion among all participants, usually six to
twelve people, and to provide useful data. A typical session lasts about two hours.
The main components to consider for any focus group, however, are:

Participant selection: It is essential that participants be representative of the groups
you are targeting with respect to ethnicity, age, income, and any other relevant
factor in the local context;

Rapport with group: It is important for whomever is guiding the discussion to
establish a good rapport with the group, such that the group feels free to give their
honest opinions on the topic;

Mix of targeted and free questions: Participants should be guided toward providing
the information needed, but also encouraged to speak freely, as they can introduce
opinions and ideas that had not occurred to the group previously;

Equality of attention: All individuals in a group should be heard. It is a good idea for
moderators to give priority to those who have not spoken, to avoid a tendency for
one or two outspoken individuals to dominate, or get into lengthy debates. Ground
rules should be laid out in advance, explicitly to the whole group, and the group
should acknowledge and accept them;

Reports and conclusions: The focus group leader should provide an extensive data
set on responses and analysis, including conclusions and suggestions for achieving
communications goals;

Knowledge of BRT: Ideally, the social science professionals involved should have
experience with transport planning and know the specific BRT project well. Ideally,
the team should include core project team members who have full and up-to-date
information of the project;

Horizontal process: It is also essential that any communications process be handled
as a horizontal process, where there is no expectation or indication of powerful and
powerless actors. That is, meetings should not be held in a way that emphasizes or
creates a sense of “the knowledgeable versus the ignorant” or “powerful versus
powerless.” This includes such details as setup of tables, chairs, and in general an
atmosphere of horizontality, with no differences in level between participants and
group moderators.
Fig.10.12 Spatial setup of investigators and focus group participants (I = investigator, H
= man, and M = woman). Image courtesy of Lake Sagaris and Carlosfelipe Pardo.
Fig. 10.13 Focus groups should be held at a convenient and comfortable location for
participants, such as this focus group held in a village in Jagatpur of the Chitwan District
in Nepal. Image courtesy of Save the Children, Image courtesy of Save the Children
Nepal, Flickr.
10.6.1 Committees
A particular form of the small group meeting, which usually lasts and evolves over a
much longer period, is the advisory committee made up of civic, private, and
government representatives. Committees have become so relevant to public transport
planning in the United States that the Transportation Research Board (TRB)
commissioned a specific study of how they function (Hull 2010). Key lessons included:
• Clear expectations about committee roles and responsibilities contribute to an
advisory committee’s success;
• For committee membership, the need for representation of all viewpoints can be
balanced with the need to maintain a manageable committee size;
• Agencies find value in the input provided by advisory committees and think of them
as an indispensable part of the public involvement process;
• Many agencies employ professional public involvement staff to support committees
and other outreach activities;
• Committee evaluation can lead to improved effectiveness (pp. 1–2, Hull 2010).
These committees may function at the regional or local level, on a project basis, or
they may simply be standard practice for all aspects of public transport planning and
operations, including monitoring contractor activities and financial incentives.
Training of members is an integral part of the process in most cases. Often a standing
committee that functions at the regional level forms subcommittees to deal with
specific projects. This permits greater precision, while still maintaining the panoramic
view of the whole.
The TRB study identified several core characteristics of community-based advisory
committees:
•
•
•
•
•
Interest groups from the project study area are represented;
Meetings are held regularly;
Comments and participants’ points of view are recorded;
Consensus on issues is sought, but not required;
The committee is assigned an important role in the process;
• Representatives truly represent users and are accountable to them.
Often, governments or agencies think first of selecting people they feel comfortable
with, but this is usually counterproductive and can undermine the benefits of
participation. One way of selecting people to encourage a more representative,
accountable advisory committee is to have interested groups and organizations register
with the organizing body. These groups then nominate potential committee members,
and vote to select them. Typically, highly respected individuals or organizations win
many of these slots, as they would probably do in a situation where the authority selects
them, but a vote-based system increases the legitimacy and therefore the credibility of
advisory committee members.
Fig.
10.14
Dar es Salaam BRT project team leaders discuss the proposed DART BRT system with an
association of Daladala owners. Image courtesy of ITDP.
The most effective committee representatives not only attend meetings and offer
their opinions, but they also take what they have learned back to their community,
group, or broader constituency for discussion and additional input. This helps spread the
learning acquired through expanding networks of people and also expands the
catchment area of the data/feedback received through participation. Clear articulation
of their roles and good training can ensure that this happens.
Having participants who genuinely represent functioning organizations also improves
results. Many neighborhood associations or federations have their own publications, for
example, that can spread the word about new BRT programs more effectively than can
an individual.
These kinds of participants function as information transmitters. They tend to be
gatekeepers for particular communities: when they agree and support a policy, their
credibility, won through years of work and immediacy, can greatly enhance acceptance
throughout an entire territory
Advisory committees must have demonstrable impact on BRT decision making. It is
no good trying to win women cyclists’ support for BRT, for example, if suggestions to
include cycle parking at key stations or permit cycles on vehicles during off-peak hours
are never formally integrated into projects. If committee members see integration of
at least some of the ideas they put forth, they are more likely to believe in and support
the participatory process.
10.6.2 Civil Society Organizations
Building civil society organizations is a complex task that largely falls outside the
mandate of BRT initiatives. Nonetheless, it can be the single most relevant factor in
generating strong political support for an existing or new BRT system. BRT initiators
should learn as much as possible about the civil society environment in which their
projects are located and make an effort to ensure that their project is functioning
optimally.
In practical terms, this means ensuring solid communication, especially with
neighborhood or other citizens’ organizations, providing training to improve the
knowledge of BRT, and planning charettes or other kinds of activities that effectively
integrate proposals for improvements. Incorporating skilled citizen representatives
(neighborhood leaders familiar with the various issues surrounding BRT) can greatly
enhance effectiveness and build a sense of mutual respect and solidarity among
different system players who might otherwise generate considerable friction.
Civil society representatives should be included in advisory committees of the BRT
agencies, if they exist, and should also be involved in additional activities, such as
visiting other BRT systems around the globe. One of the ways that cities and countries
have found to do this with regard to other sustainable transport modes, particularly
walking and cycling, is to earmark funds that encourage civil society development in
general and/or specifically for neighborhood associations. These funds enable NGOs to
develop studies, training, education, and other programs; to support corporate social
responsibility initiatives; and to coordinate with other funders to make focus on
transport-related issues part of the criteria for awarding funds.
10.6.3 Engaging Local Networks
While the above processes all offer opportunities for interested members of the
public to engage with the planning process, having a truly representative public
participation process also requires proactively endeavoring to meet people where they
live, work, and play.
Proactive or collaborative engagement can take many forms: attending festivals,
farmers markets, local fairs, flea markets, or other special events; speaking at
community organizations, resident or business associations, or clubs; engaging the
public at public transport centers, malls, and other gathering places; canvassing
neighborhoods; engaging elected officials; or partnering with other agencies,
organizations, institutions, or places of worship. The concept is to take the message of
the agency directly to the public and broaden the number and diversity of people
reached by using established local communication and support networks. This type of
engagement offers agencies the chance to interact directly with their customers, learn
about neighborhoods, and build relationships for future outreach.
One example of proactive engagement that has been particularly useful in other
planning processes and before the system has been launched involves installing a
prototype station in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic. This allows users to familiarize
themselves with the BRT concept in advance and also generates excitement for the new
system. In Ahmedabad, India, the city built a sample station a year before operations
began on the Janmarg BRT. The prototype allowed the city to showcase the station
design and help educate the public about how it would operate. At the same time, the
prototype allowed the city to test and tweak certain design elements.
In Bogotá, the city used a program known as “Mission Bogotá” to reach out directly
to members of the public. The city trained and employed more than three hundred
young people from low-income communities as “ambassadors” for the proposed system.
The campaign began six months before the city’s BRT TransMilenio started up and took
place mainly at bus stations and on board regular buses, along with civic gathering places
and local schools. The outreach team of Mission Bogotá would discuss the project
directly with the public and personally answer any questions or concerns. Many cities
now use these techniques to impart transport information in a friendly, lighthearted
manner.
Online Engagement
Public transport agencies have embraced the Internet as a means of communication
with the public since the 1990s. Internet-based communication can be broken down into
two phases. The initial phase was dominated by one-way communication, where agency
websites were geared primarily toward marketing their services online, much like an
online brochure. These websites allowed customers to retrieve information such as
maps, schedules, guides, and fare information, but provided little opportunity for
Example: Showcasing Janmarg
The Ahmedabad, India, Janmarg BRT was very successful with proactive
engagement in the lead-up to the launch of the system in 2010. The Janmarg
communications team took advantage of many options to showcase the system by
developing and displaying prototypes and offering free trial rides over an extended
period of time. This made it easy for people to become familiar with how to use
the system. It also alerted systems planners to user-interface problems, giving
them a chance to resolve these issues before customers started paying for their
rides, thereby heading off many potential public relations problems before they
began.
Fig. 10.15 Janmarg BRT station in Ahmedabad, India. Image courtesy of ITDP.
interactivity (Morris et al., 2010). Today, websites are more interactive. Project
websites routinely offer customers the ability to submit comments. In some cases these
comments are shared on a discussion board or blog. For its 2035 long-range plan update,
the Virginia, USA, DOT developed a web-based workshop to mirror the information and
interactive opportunities available at its in-person meetings held throughout the state.
The convenience afforded by the Internet in allowing users to participate from the
location and time of their choosing helped push online participation above the total
combined participation at all of the in-person meetings (VTrans2035).
The rise of social media tools and mobile phone and tablet applications offers a host
of options for multi-directional communications, reaching people in their preferred way
of receiving and interacting with information.
Many public transport providers have discovered the benefits that social media offers
for public participation. It also allows direct communication in real-time and unfiltered
by the media, which can help foster an interactive dialogue with the public (Eirikis and
Eirikis 2010). Social media can provide an easy and accessible forum for public
participation, but it should be used to supplement, rather than replace, other more
personal options for participation. Although it may be easy to solicit feedback on
Twitter, the responses you receive are very unlikely to represent an accurate sample of
your population. (See more about social media in Chapter 9: Strategic Planning for
Communications.)
10.7 Measuring Success: Process vs. Outcomes
Failure is the condiment that gives success its flavor.
—Truman Capote, writer, 1924-1984
As with communications planning (see Chapter 9: Strategic Planning for
Communications), it is important to define what a successful public participation
program will look like as you plan your outreach. There are no consistent methods for
defining success in a public participation process for BRT, although there are both
quantitative and qualitative methods available for evaluating public involvement. The
threshold that defines “success” is dependent on the complex mix of variables including
the size, reach, and level of controversy surrounding a given project, the resources
available for a project from the organization, the community in question, and the
overall intent of the public participation effort.
Criteria for measurement are set by the goals and objectives of the project. While
measuring things like numbers of meetings and participants is relatively straightforward,
outcomes are more complex to quantify. The International Association for Public
Participation offers guidelines for evaluating participatory processes. Basic criteria
regarding the process of participation includes whether:





The public had access to appropriate resources and clear information to allow
them to meaningfully participate;
The purpose of the participation tasks were clearly defined;
The decision-making process was structured appropriately to allow for and
incorporate public input;
Efforts were cost-effective;
Views were diverse and representative.
Measuring success of outcomes is trickier to quantify because of the diversity of
preferred results. For example, an agency might consider public support or ease of
implementation as an appropriate outcome, while the public might consider the extent
to which the community can achieve its goals or block decisions as better measures of
success. Outcome-based success measures can include:
 Project or decision acceptability;
 Project efficiency;
 Cost avoidance;
 Mutual learning and respect;
 Improved understanding;
 The amount of conflict resolution required;
 The degree of consensus achieved;
 Influence on decision making;
 Participant satisfaction with the results of the process.
Preestablished metrics, including performance indicators, benchmarks, and
performance standards, set beforehand and based on key project goals, can help gain
up-front agreement on what to measure. These metrics can also be integrated into the
project plans. Regardless of the evaluation method used, it is essential to keep
evaluation in mind as part of public participation planning from the outset. While some
approaches will be more fruitful than others, clearly delineating expectations at the
beginning will help determine what needs to be changed as the project develops, and
what you can do differently in the future. Public participation, if managed properly, is
a gold mine of information and a source of knowledge that cannot be achieved in any
other way.