The 2020 Florida Transportation Plan: An Innovative Approach to the Collection and Analysis of Public Input
Stephen Beachy	© & Author Info

Abstract

While developing the 2020 Florida Transportation Plan the Florida Department of Transportation engaged in one of the most extensive and innovative public outreach efforts ever undertaken in the history of the Department. This process signaled a new era in the Departments efforts gather public input. A major component of this effort was the use of laptop computers and database software to record and analyze the public comments. This paper documents that effort and describes the lessons learned in the process.

THE 2020 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

With the enactment of the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21), and its predecessor the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (ISTEA), public involvement in transportation planning became increasingly important. ISTEA called for consultation and/or cooperation between state and local governments, Indian Tribes, Federal land agencies, employees of transportation agencies, private transportation providers, and "other interested parties" at a number of key junctures during development of plans and programs. Specifically, the act requires that the above mentioned parties must have "reasonable opportunity to comment" during the development of the statewide, long-range plan.

In 1994 The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) began the process of developing a long-range statewide transportation plan. This 25-year plan called the 2020 Florida Transportation Plan (2020 FTP), would set the policy framework for the future of Florida’s transportation system. Under the new ISTEA regulations FDOT realized that business as usual would no longer be appropriate. Historically, public involvement efforts for transportation projects in Florida were limited to formal public hearings. These hearings would typically draw few citizens and produce even fewer public comments that were useful for long-range transportation planning. (1) It was against this backdrop that the Florida Department of Transportation initiated what has been called the "granddaddy" of public involvement efforts. (2)

The process included more than 50 separate public events in 33 towns and cities. Locations for the meetings included airport terminals, FDOT offices, shopping centers and turnpike plazas. Over 3000 residents, travelers and shoppers participated in the process. Figure 1 identifies the variety of meetings included in the process. The meetings consisted of 24 public workshops, 14 focus groups, 9 technical brainstorming sessions and 4 transportation fair exhibits. A minimum of five events were held in each of the seven FDOT districts (See Maps 1 and 2).

The primary objective of this effort was to obtain broad input form the public on their desired outcomes and strategies for the Florida transportation system in the year 2020, and to provide different types of involvement at various points in the plan development. Another objective of the effort was to get input on the plan format and content from those involved in transportation issues. Five unique features of the 2020 FTP Outreach Program signaled a dramatic departure from previous efforts.

1. Participants were asked to give initial input rather than respond to a draft plan.
2. A small group format was used for gathering much of the input rather than the formal public hearing format.
3. All comments were recorded as they offered and entered into a database program by typist using laptop computers.
4. A team of professional facilitators were contracted to design the process and facilitate all public sessions.
5. The input was gathered in a uniform format, across the state over a very short time frame (3 weeks).

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Coordination of a public involvement process as large as the 2020 FTP effort was achieved by clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of all of the parties involved. The decentralized nature of FDOT was one of the key contributors to the successful implementation of the process. By having the district offices take the responsibility for coordinating the meetings in their areas, the Central Office FDOT staff was able to concentrate on coordinating the overall process. The Central Office of FDOT was responsible for planning the overall process and sending a team of six or seven staff members to each session site the day of the event to manage the session and to ensure that the process maintained a high level of continuity throughout the state. Central Office FDOT provided the laptop computers and template needed for entering the public comments. Central staff also managed the collection of information, and the synthesis of the comments and surveys used by plan drafters.

FDOT received assistance in designing and facilitating the meetings from the Florida Growth Management Conflict Resolution Consortium (FGMCRC). The Consortium provided facilitators for the public workshops, focus groups, and brainstorming sessions. FGMCRC was also responsible for providing orientation to the small group facilitators and scribes prior to the public workshops and brainstorming sessions.

While this public involvement effort was unique in several ways, it is the use of the laptop computers and a database program in this process that will be the primary focus of the remainder of this paper.

COLLECTION AND COMPILATION OF PUBLIC INPUT

The data collection system was central to the process. During each public workshop, brainstorming session, and focus group, an FDOT employee, who had received training in small group facilitation was at the table to guide the discussion and facilitate collection of data. Computer operators, or scribes, were available to record the participant’s comments into the database. The scribes were instructed, to the extent possible, to use the actual words of the speaker in entering the comment. Each computer was equipped with a FoxPro database template that was configured to operate like a Word Perfect document. Pull-down menus on the template allowed the scribe to place the comment in the database under an appropriate sub-heading of one of the following eight general headings (See Appendix 1 for a complete list of headings and subheadings):

Scribes sat with the participants at tables labeled by one of the eight general headings and entered their comments as they were being offered. In most cases the scribe was able to determine where the comment should be categorized. However, if there was any question the facilitator and the scribe would jointly determine the appropriate subheading for the comment. Each comment was identified with one sub-heading during the recording phase of the process. During the drafting phase of the process a comment that touched on several issues was listed under multiple subheadings.

Having the scribes at the tables assisted the facilitator’s efforts to maintain an orderly discussion. In many cases the participants were visibly aware that their comments were being recorded and adjusted their speech patterns to allow the scribes time to record their comments. If the scribe fell behind in recording a comment the speakers would often wait until the scribe was able record the full comment. Many participants wanted to see their comments on the computer screen in order to verify accurate recording of comments. This demonstrated that the participants believed that their comments would be put to use in the drafting of the FTP.

SAMPLE COMMENTS

Two examples that document how the comments were recorded appear below:

FDOT District: District 4

Location: West Palm Beach

Type of Meeting: Public Meeting

General Heading: Environment

Sub-heading: Air Quality

Comment: Palm Beach County public health unit-air quality section

We fully support:

1. Tri Rail
2. High Speed rail
3. Other multimodal forms of transportation which would help achieve the goals of the clean air act of 1990 by reducing energy consumption and related air pollution.

FDOT District: District 7

Location: St. Petersburg

Type of Meeting: Public Meeting

General Heading: Public and Alternative Transportation

Sub-heading: Bicycles

Comment: Education for drivers for how to careful of bicyclists. Whenever possible provide bicycle facilities separated from car traffic, is possible, better design for bicycle. Safe, secure storage, changing and showering facilities – to convert from bicycle to work attire w/o getting arrested.

The first comment, while entered under the general heading of environment and sub-heading of air quality, it could also be categorized under the general heading of ports and rails and the sub-heading of high speed rail and commuter service. During the analysis phase of the process this comment would have been review for its content related to multiple headings and subheadings.

ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

By entering and coding the comments as they were given, and utilizing a database program, FDOT was able to rapidly organize and sort the comments at the conclusion of the process. Data collected in this format allowed those drafting the Florida Transportation Plan to develop a more in-depth level of analysis than would have been possible with data collected in a more conventional format. (3) Each comment was categorized by location, type of session, and general area of interest. The drafters were then able to assemble and reassemble the data in meaningful groupings in order to see trends and themes in the data. Such analysis would have been more difficult or missed in a conventional data compilation effort

Data collected in this format also allowed those drafting the FTP to analyze the data faster than would have been possible with data collected in a more conventional format. Within three weeks after the intensive three-week public meeting period the comments were tabulated according to topic area and disseminated to a select group of local, regional and statewide transportation officials and leaders. This group was invited to a Statewide Consensus Building Workshop where the participants reviewed the comments and discussed and integrated the varying regional and statewide issues. Through a facilitated process the participants took the diverse and often conflicting public comments and synthesized them into a useable form. Without the ability to rapidly compile and distribute the public comments this type of meeting would have been impossible. Those drafting the FTP were confident that the participants in the consensus-building workshop had access to all the public comments in groupings that allowed for accurate review.

GIS APPLICATIONS

The FDOT did not incorporate Geographical Information System applications into the analysis or presentation of this data, however the data base format would have lent itself to such uses. Each comment was coded with geographical identifier that would have allowed FDOT to present general themes by location of the comment.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the author’s review of this process, the advantages of utilizing an on-site data entry system and database coding of public comments include the following:

1. Participants can see their comments recorded on an electronic format and feel more confident that their specific comments will be carried forward to the analysis stage of the process.
2. The collection of public comments is an orderly process when participants are aware a scribe is recording their comments.
3. Tabulation and analysis of comments can be completed in a short timeframe.
4. It is easier to identify themes and geographic trends if the comments can be ordered and grouped on a database.

The disadvantages of utilizing and on-site data entry and database coding of public comments include the following:

1. It is a highly labor intensive process to collect the data.
2. The potential for incomplete or inaccurate recording of comments increases due to the rapid rate at which comments are offered.
3. Unless the participants stay focused on ones specific issue the recording and collecting of data can disrupt small group discussions.

The data collection efforts utilized in the 2020 FTP process were developed specifically for this process. They were appropriate for this type of process, however they may not be appropriate for other situations. In this case, FDOT required a process that enabled them do the following:

1. Collect large amounts of information and covering a variety of topics.
2. Compile and sort the information in a short time frame.
3. Identify the type and location of the meeting in which the comment was offered.

Additionally, participants were not focused on a specific issue. Instead they were encouraged to think expansively and to take the time collect their thoughts. Therefore, they did not mind waiting for their turn to speak and have the attention of the scribe and facilitator. These factors shaped the design of the public involvement process and the specific characteristics of the template on which the data was entered. The process worked effectively for FDOT’s purposes.

The 2020 FTP Public Involvement Process clearly demonstrates that on-site recording of public comments and database assisted analysis can be an effective planning tool. While this approach to collecting public comments is not appropriate for every type of public meeting, it should be recognized as valuable tool that can enhance public participation goals.

Endnotes

1. Karen Bryant, "Connections: Bringing Florida Together," Journal of Advance Transportation, Vol. 31, No. 2, (December 1996): 215-231.

2. Tara Bartee, " Public Involvement in Public Transit," Transportation Policy Forum, Vol. 5, No. 1, (spring, 1998): 5-7.

3. Terry Kraft, P.E., AICP, Administrator, Statewide Transportation Planning, Office of Policy Planning, Florida Department of Transportation, interview by author, telephone, Tallahassee, Florida, January 13, 1999.

Appendix 1