chapter 3 - public involvement process

Hilltop Community Mobility PlanOctober 2010 29

Chapter 3 - Public Involvement Process

Hilltop Community Mobility Plan October 201030

This Page Intentionally Left Blank


In order to enhance the Hilltop transportation network and achieve the project goals, the study team listened to the public’s concerns and collaborated with community members on solutions. The study team reached out to the public in a number of ways, using a tiered approach to attempt to reach neighborhood leaders and the general Hilltop population.

Steering Committee The community mobility planning process depended on extensive input and collaboration with members of the community. The Greater Hilltop Area Commission (GHAC) is an elected, volunteer body, established by city charter and serving as a liaison between the Greater Hilltop community and Columbus City Hall. At the outset of the plan, the study team worked with the GHAC to identify a geographically diverse group of individuals who could attend meetings and take responsibility for guiding the mobility plan over the following year. This group included the Chair of the GHAC as well as other elected GHAC commissioners. It also included other individuals with an established history of dedication to the Hilltop community. The twelve members of the Steering Committee represented:

Greater Hilltop Area Commissioners •

Hilltop Business Association •

Block Watch Captains •

Church Pastor •

Friends of the Hilltop •

Westgate Neighbors Association •

Geographic representation among neighborhoods •

The Steering Committee acted as a working group for the area commission. By being actively engaged throughout the planning process, this group could take ownership of the resulting plan. They assisted in communicating the project’s goals and opportunities for participation to the greater Hilltop community. They attended meetings at the outset and at each critical juncture throughout the planning process to get updated information and provide important feedback. After the initial public involvement stage, they helped the study team prioritize the top issues and locations for analysis. Once proposed solutions were developed, the group gave initial feedback. After the general public commented on solutions, the Steering Committee used that information to help prioritize implementation of the solutions. After the plan’s completion, the Steering Committee can ensure that the City implements the improvements according to the plan. Furthermore, the Steering Committee members can represent the plan within the community, support the plan’s components, and educate the community of the planning process that occurred.

Steering Committee meeting


Stakeholder Group meeting

StakeholdersWhile the Steering Committee was the guiding community group most involved in the plan, the public involvement also included a larger Stakeholder Group. Stakeholder meetings were held at the outset of the plan and then again after proposed changes were presented for comment. Stakeholder meetings included formal presentations followed by discussion. The study team acknowledged that a large community such as the Hilltop could have hundreds of community leaders from a diverse array of organizations. While not every one of these leaders might have the time or desire to participate at the level of the Steering Committee, these leaders are still key to the success of the mobility plan. Invitations for Stakeholder Group meetings were sent to over 240 stakeholders by e-mail or mail.

These stakeholders were identified through city data, discussion with other community members, and extensive online searches. When reaching out to identify community stakeholders, the study team first and foremost wanted to contact all organizations operating in any sort of capacity within the Hilltop. Additionally, groups that may operate outside of the Hilltop, but represent an important constituency for the mobility plan, were included on the Stakeholder contact list. This includes citywide bicycle groups, citywide cultural organizations that may have insights to the needs of a particular Hilltop demographic group, and other government agencies involved in Central Ohio’s transportation. The Stakeholder Group invited to events are included in Figure 5 below:

African Refugee Educational and Cultural Services

American Legion Post 98 Camp Chase

Block T Blockwatch Camp Chase BlockwatchCatholic Social Services Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA)Child day-care centers Churches and other faith groups (fifty-

five)Columbus Neighborhood Health

Centers, Inc.Columbus Outdoor Pursuits

Columbus Public Health Columbus Recreation and ParksColumbus Transportation and

Pedestrian CommissionCommunity Refugee and Immigration

ServicesConsider Biking Franklin County

Friends of the Hilltop Friends of Westgate ParkGreat Western Blockwatch Greater Hilltop Area Commission - all

commissionersGreater Hilltop Area League for the

ArtsGreater Hilltop Community Theater

Hardesty Heights Association Highland Village SocietyHilltop Branch Library Hilltop Business Association leadership

and businessesHilltop Community Health Center Hilltop Historical Society

Hilltop Kiwanis Club Hilltop Lion’s Club


Hilltop Ministerial Association Hilltop Neighborhood Action GroupHilltop Reunion Committee Hilltop Senior Village Blockwatch

Hilltop YMCA Homes on the Hill CDCJ. Ashburn Jr. Youth Center Mid-Ohio Regional Planning

Commission (MORPC) Ogden Avenue Blockwatch Ohio Department of Transportation

(ODOT)Ohio Hispanic Coalition Parkview Community Outreach Team

Pride of the Hilltop Masonic Lodge No. 110

Rails-To-Trails Conservancy

School principals (twenty-two) Somali Community Association of OhioSomali Development Agency, Inc. St. Aloysius Family Service Center

Terrace Avenue Blockwatch Wayne Avenue BlockwatchWedgewood Blockwatch West High Alumni Association

Westgate Blockwatch Westgate Neighbors AssociationWestside Free Store Ministries Westside MessengerWilshire Heights Blockwatch WOW Blockwatch

Yay Bikes

The study team held Stakeholder meetings in January and August of 2009 in the weeks prior to public open houses. The strategy was that stakeholders could be informed of project information, then they could go out to their constituencies and the general public and spread the word about the upcoming open houses. Similarly, the stakeholders provided an opportunity for the study team to get initial feedback from community leaders so that the study team could be prepared with more information if necessary at the public open houses.

In addition to inviting community leaders to mobility plan events, the study team attended meetings of several community groups throughout the planning process, including:

Greater Hilltop Area Commission •

Hilltop Business Association •

Hilltop Kiwanis •

Friends of the Hilltop •

Highland West Neighbors Association •

Westgate Neighbors Association •

: Stakeholders ListFigure 5

Community member provides comments at a public open

house in August


Children enjoy snacks at a public open house in August

Public Open HousesWhile the Steering Committee and Stakeholder Group meetings were essential to getting input from and providing information to community leaders, the study team wanted to also reach out to the general Hilltop public. Public open houses were held at the outset and then again towards the end of the planning process. The initial open houses were aimed at getting feedback regarding transportation problems, and the subsequent open houses were aimed at getting feedback regarding potential solutions. The initial open houses received advance news coverage from the Westside Messenger, Columbus Dispatch, and NBC4. Advertising for the initial open houses included:

Hundreds of fliers sent to community leaders and institutions so that they •could spread the word to their constituencies

Posters placed in approximately forty locations throughout the Hilltop, such •as gas stations, convenience stores, and recreation centers

Changeable message sign placed along West Broad St •

Project website advertising open house •

Similar advertising efforts were attempted for subsequent public events. Attendance at the initial open houses in January 2009 seemed to be affected by inclement weather caused by snowstorms. Attendance at the second round of open houses in August 2009 was better with over 70 people attending.

Community Walk AuditsDuring two Saturdays in June 2009, the study team led Walk Audits throughout the Hilltop community. The Walk Audits were interactive workshops in which residents walked their streets with the study team and discussed the transportation system. As the walks progressed, the group found problem areas and collaborated on potential solutions. The Walk Audits were fun, healthy, and educational events. Residents learned about traffic calming and the types of considerations the City evaluates before solutions are implemented. At the same time, City engineers learned how residents felt about their neighborhood streets and the type of transportation problems that residents faced.

Each day walks began at 9:00 a.m., 12:30 p.m., and 3:00 p.m., with each walk traveling through a different neighborhood in the Hilltop. This meant that the study team conducted six Walk Audits over sixteen hours in two days. Community members could participate in all walks or just for part of a single walk. Each walk covered a few miles and attempted to be representative of the diversity of Hilltop streets.

The second day of Walk Audits was coordinated to occur on the morning of the “Hilltop Bean Dinner” festival and associated yard sales around Westgate Park. This offered an opportunity for the public to participate in Walk Audits that started and ended at the annual community festival. The large amount of residents walking and sitting in front yards also offered the opportunity for the study team to talk to additional residents.

Community Walk Audit towards Wilshire Heights


Schedule and LocationsBelow is a timeline of the mobility plan events for community members throughout the planning process:

December 3, 2008 - Steering Committee meeting - problem identification •

January 13, 2009 - Stakeholder Group meeting - problem identification •

January 29, 2009 - Public Open House - problem identification •

January 13 to February 13, 2009 - additional community outreach •

March 4, 2009 - Steering Committee meeting - prioritization of problems •

June 20 and 27, 2009 - Community Walk Audits •

August 6, 2009 - Steering/Stakeholder meeting - feedback on proposed •solutions

August 19 and 25, 2009 - Public Open Houses - feedback on proposed •solutions

August 19 to September 18, 2009 - additional community outreach •

October 21, 2009 - Steering Committee meeting - prioritization of solutions •implementation

When planning events, the study team chose meeting locations that were easily accessible within the Hilltop community:

J. Ashburn Jr. Youth Center •

Parkview United Methodist Church •

Hilltop Branch Library •

Crossroads United Methodist Church •

Walk Audits through areas across six neighborhoods, beginning at J. Ashburn •Jr. Youth Center, Westgate Park, and West Mound Elementary School

The majority of these locations can be accessed by bus, bike, or foot. The study team thanks the facilities that hosted mobility plan events.

Barriers to Public ParticipationAlthough Steering Committee meetings, Stakeholder Group meetings, public open houses, public Walk Audits, and attendance at other organizations’ meetings provided numerous comments regarding the community’s transportation problems and potential solutions, the study team wanted to get additional comments from the general Hilltop public. The study team acknowledged that too often transportation planning projects rely on a small group of individuals that may not represent the average community member.

Issues that affect the ability of community members to participate in a planning activity such as the mobility plan include:

Public open house in January

Changeable message sign on West Broad Street and Chase

Avenue advertising open house


Community Walk Audit through the Westgate

neighborhood

Digital divide: This refers to the gap between those individuals who have •access to the internet and those who do not. Although many people are now perpetually online all day with a variety of digital devices, there are still many people who do not have computers or knowledge about how to use the internet. In a community with a variety of income levels, education levels, and an elderly population, residents need to be reached in other ways besides e-mail notices and the project website.

Economic barriers: Low income families may not be able to afford a car, a •computer, an internet subscription, child care, newspaper subscription, or many other amenities that assist in their ability to participate in community activities such as the mobility plan. People may work second or third shift jobs, or have two jobs, which decrease their ability to attend meetings. A local newspaper, which is often a good way to communicate local events, may not exist in certain low-income areas because of economic factors. This is the case in the Hilltop, where the local newspaper is not available in all neighborhoods.

Language barriers: Residents may want to help plan the future of their •community but speak another language besides English. Additionally, English speakers may not be able to read or write. Consideration must be made for these individuals during the mobility planning process.

Cultural barriers: Attending public meetings may not be a part of all cultures. •For some groups, government may have a bad connotation. The Hilltop includes many immigrants, many of whom may not feel comfortable giving their opinions to government representatives. Even some lifelong U.S. residents may not want to attend meetings in government buildings, for example, if they have poor experiences with officials in their past.

In order to overcome these barriers to participation from the general Hilltop public, the study team used a variety of measures. While e-mail notices and a project website were important for those individuals who have internet, the team used posters throughout the neighborhood and encouraged word of mouth to spread news among community members. In addition to offering meeting locations accessible by a variety of transportation modes, the team provided snacks at events. Children who came to events were encouraged to participate and provide their opinions about how they experience their local streets. Meetings and events were held at a variety of times, including weekday nights and the Saturday Walk Audits, so that everyone’s schedules could be accommodated.

The Hispanic and Spanish-speaking population is the fastest growing in the Hilltop. In order to overcome language barriers, surveys with questions were provided in English and Spanish. It also helped to provide materials in visual formats. By showing aerial photographs and street views of proposed changes, a resident could provide their opinion without having to read anything. Conducting outreach through a Latino community center allowed Spanish-speaking residents to feel more comfortable giving their opinion than if they were at an official public meeting.


Going to the Public In conjunction with the measures described above, the study team used a philosophy of “going where the people are” in order to increase public involvement in the mobility planning process. On top of the barriers listed already, the study team acknowledged that many people with good intentions and helpful insights simply may not have the time to attend meetings outside of the requirements of their job and family. Even repeated e-mails to community members asking for a quick response to brief transportation questions went widely unanswered, showing that it is difficult to obtain even a few minutes of people’s time as they sit at their computer. Human nature dictates that the immediate concerns of day-to-day personal life often trump the desire to plan for the community years into the future.

With such a large Hilltop population, the study team wanted to get a sufficient number of residents to participate that represented the Hilltop both geographically and demographically. The study team was told of a different planning project in which 3,000 fliers were sent out to a community and only three were returned. The team did not want to replicate this costly strategy, especially since sending fliers to everyone in the Hilltop would require tens of thousands of mailings.

In order to use time and cost efficiently, the study team aimed to speak to people where they already went in their daily lives. The study team approached several businesses and community gathering places, but many refused to allow team members to speak to their customers. Outreach opportunities were denied as solicitation at local branches of Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, the post office, and Walgreens, among others.

In contrast to large chain stores, many local establishments were happy to help reach out to the community. Partnerships were forged with the following places:

Hilltop Library •

Center for Latin Hope •

Hilltop Neighborhood Health Center •

Gearhart’s True Value Hardware •

Ohio Thrift Store •

Outreach at the above locations allowed the study team to get a cross-section of the community, across a variety of backgrounds, abilities, and income levels. The Hilltop Library became the most important partnership, because the majority of comments came from that location. The library provided a great place to reach the community for several reasons:

Located in center of study area •

Accessible by walking, bicycling, and bus •

Attractive, comfortable, safe environment •

Free services: Homework Help Center, English as Second Language, computers •with internet, wireless access, Job Help Center, Books, CDs, DVDs

Multicultural, multilingual, economically diverse patrons •

Study team speaks to a resident during a Walk

Audit in the Highland West neighborhood


Community members provide input at Hilltop library

Study team members administered multi-platform, multi-lingual outreach at the Hilltop library. Wireless internet allowed the team to staff tables with laptops where passers-by could complete a transportation questionnaire online through the project website. Paper versions were available as well for those not comfortable with a computer. Spanish-language questionnaires and visual materials were available to help those with limited English abilities. Although the questionnaire could be completed quickly to ensure high participation, the majority of respondents took extra time to provide written comments in addition to checking the survey’s boxes.

Where internet access was not available, the staff used only paper surveys. Study team members emphasized to passers-by how quick and easy participation was, and many people obliged. Those that did not want to complete a survey could provide comments verbally. Snacks were provided at locations such as the thrift store and hardware store so that respondents and their children could have an additional incentive to stop for a few minutes.

In addition to staffed tables, surveys were left at a variety of locations, including those above and others. This strategy aimed to allow customers to pick up a survey near a store’s register, fill it out, and leave it with the store’s staff. Then the study team would pick up completed surveys at a later time. Unfortunately, this strategy was not successful, and almost no input was received this way. When surveys were left unattended, people simply did not pay attention to them.


The majority of public comments were received by staff through face-to-face interactions. By engaging in face-to-face interactions, the study team was able to overcome illiteracy or language barriers, facilitate a relationship of understanding, emphasize how quick and easy participation is, and use visual materials to supplement verbal communication. When showing maps, team members pointed out landmarks and other visual cues to assist individuals in understanding the material.

The study team went out to the library and other locations for 2-3 hours at a time across several weeks throughout the planning process. The time spent covered various times of day and week, including weekends. This outreach corresponded with the weeks of public open houses and the subsequent public involvement periods. These public outreach periods existed between January 13-February 13, 2009 and August 19-September 18, 2009.

In addition to spending time at community gathering places, the study team walked through some neighborhood streets during the public involvement in September to talk with residents in their yards and on their porches. In fact, two study team members sat on some residents’ porches and discussed transportation as they watched cars pass on the road. This informal setting allowed the residents to be more comfortable talking with study team members, an important consideration when looking for frank comments.

In addition to the outreach periods in which the study team requested public input, comments were also accepted at all times throughout the planning process. An additional outreach period was provided in November to obtain additional comments from businesses and residents in coordination with the Hilltop Business Association.

Public Involvement ResultsOver 950 people in the Hilltop provided comments during the yearlong mobility planning process. The majority of this input came from the additional outreach at local businesses and institutions, especially the library. In fact, by “going to the public” at local institutions and businesses, the study team increased public participation by more than 800% over the attendance at official mobility plan meetings and events.

During the problem identification phase at the outset of the study, the study team obtained surveys from approximately 700 people. Comments were allowed from anyone who “lives, works, or travels through the Hilltop”, but the large majority of people were in fact residents of the Hilltop. Those from outside the community were visitors to Hilltop businesses and institutions at the time they completed the survey. Of the 700 comments, over 50 were in Spanish. Only about 110 surveys were collected online from people’s homes or businesses, so the majority of people who participated did so in person in front of a study team member at locations such as the library or thrift store.

One benefit of the extensive public input received at the beginning of the project was that the project contact list gained hundreds of new individuals from the public. These new contacts were notified of project updates and further opportunities to get involved, such as open houses and future online surveys available to obtain additional comments.

Local thrift store where study team spoke to customers

about transportation issues

Discussion during Walk Audit along Mound St


: Participant Age and Hilltop Census DataFigure 6

: Participant Race and Hilltop Census DataFigure 7

: Hispanic Ethnicity of Participants and Hilltop Census Figure 8Data

Demographics of respondents were compared to U.S. census data after the initial public involvement period. The people who participated in the survey corresponded well across demographic measures, as can be seen in Figures 6, 7, and 8.

The demographics of age, race, and ethnicity showed that the outreach strategy at institutions such as the library seemed to provide a general representation of the Hilltop community. The surveys did not ask for income or other information deemed too sensitive because that could have resulted in people being uncomfortable participating.

The extent to which public involvement must include people from all backgrounds is demonstrated by some differences found among respondents. One example of differences among groups is that people who are Hispanic rated public transit more difficult to use than non-Hispanic people. The reason for the difficulty was that people


who are Hispanic were more likely to state that they did not know how to use the public transit system.

During the second phase of public outreach in August and September 2009, the study team received comments from approximately 240 people regarding proposed solutions. Similar methods of outreach were followed as in the initial round of outreach. During this phase, significantly more time was needed to describe the proposed solutions to individuals in the public than was needed for transportation problem identification earlier in the planning process.

Respondents to surveys and attendees at events were asked to provide their address to the study team. Map 12 Participant Locations, at the end of the chapter, shows the locations of participants throughout the planning process. It should be noted: each dot on the map represents one person; many participants did not provide their address/location information and are not mapped; there are about 600 dots on the map; dots show approximate locations; dots outside of the Hilltop represent visitors to Hilltop businesses or institutions; and the areas with the most dots are generally the areas with the densest populations in the Hilltop. At locations such as the community library, survey respondents were not required to provide their address, because the study team understood that some people’s willingness to participate could be affected by the requirement for sensitive information. Even without the ability to map all participant locations, this map shows that participants were included from across the Hilltop areas within the City of Columbus boundaries, and the areas with more people were generally represented by more participants.

ConclusionThe multifaceted outreach strategy was effective at obtaining input from a large and diverse sample of the Hilltop community. “Going to the public” and engaging people in face-to-face interactions proved time and again to provide valuable public input.

The combination of official project meetings and events, plus the additional comments from hundreds of people who did not attend project events, was extremely important. Spending a significant amount of time within the community was vital for the success of the Hilltop Community Mobility Plan.

Community members crossing West. Broad Street with the study team during a Walk

Audit


This Page Intentionally Left Blank


: Locations of Public Involvement ParticipantsMap 12

0 0.5 10.25 Mile

Participant Locations

Legend Survey Respondent Location

Study Area

City of Columbus

Parks

Railroad

Major Roads

Roads

270

270

70

270 W Broad St

Sullivant Ave

Eakin Rd

Briggs Rd

Clime Rd

Mound St

Dem

ores

tRd

Wils

onR

d

Hag

ue A

ve

Alkire Rd

Geo

rges

ville

Rd

Phill

ipiR

d

Fisher Rd

Valleyview Dr

670

71

Sullivant Ave

W Broad St

Big Run South Rd

Hall Rd

- Many participants did not provide address/location information and are not mapped- About two-thirds of participants could be mapped- Dots show approximate locations- Dots outside of Hilltop represent visitors to Hilltop businesses or institutions- Areas with most dots are generally areas with densest populations in the Hilltop

chapter 3 - public involvement process

Documents