13
PEL Implementation
Resource Guide
processes at the earliest possible time. U.S. Code
Title 23, Sections 134 and 135 provide specific
direction requiring consultation with resource
agencies, such as those responsible for land use
management, natural resources, environmental
protection, and conservation and historic preser-
vation in the development of long-range plans.
Stakeholder Involvement
PEL requires changes in stakeholder involvement
as traditionally conducted by state DOTs. With
a plethora of publicly available information via
electronic media, today's public is very informed.
Public officials now spend part of their day talking
with the community and relaying what they hear
back into their agency's work. This new form of
stakeholder involvement is integral to all planning
and project. It ensures that strategies and goals
developed during individual processes are consistent
with a community's vision for its quality of life.
With PEL, we also look at how to link stakeholder
involvement as it moves from one planning process
to the next. Stakeholder involvement is one of the
most important linkages created. Failure to link
stakeholder involvement may cause frustration and
disengagement from the public over time, which
could carry over from project to project.
Soliciting stakeholder input is more than an agency
requirement and more than a means of fulfilling
a statutory obligation. Meaningful public input is
central to good decision making. With meaningful
public input, it is possible to make a lasting contri-
bution to an area's quality of life, deliver projects that
the public really wants, and resolve transportation
needs. Linking public involvement between phases of
project development validates the legitimacy of prior
public involvement and acknowledges that public
input is being carried forward in future activities.
Credibility with the public is essential to increase
participation; building on previous efforts reinforces
that credibility.
In the past, each team of transportation professionals
approached the public with a clean slate, as though
no one had asked their views before. In actuality, the
public is asked for their opinions on transportation
projects many times by various parts of the same
entity (such as a DOT) and by other government
agencies. The public may become frustrated
and disengaged, especially if it is asked the same
questions repeatedly, seeing no beneficial outcome.
Even when the questions are different, it can help
build credibility with the public if prior involvement
and outcomes are acknowledged as part of the new
process.
Without meaningful public input throughout
the entire process there is a risk of making poor
decisions, or decisions that have unintended negative
consequences. However, there are many challenges to
conducting robust public involvement. Some of these
include:
A struggle with getting public input that is
·
truly representative of the community it serves,
particularly from those persons traditionally
underserved by existing transportation systems
(e.g., low-income or minority households).
Public skepticism about the ability to influence
·
the transportation decision-making process.
Public difficulty in relating to plans (as opposed
·
to tangible projects), at whatever stage in the
process, because the plans are too abstract and
long-term to capture and maintain the public's
attention.
Creating mechanisms and opportunities to assure
·
that the feedback portion of public involvement
is implemented.
The participants in the public involvement
·
process change over time so it can appear that