APPENDIX C

Focus Group Instruments and Summaries for Transit Agencies

Focus Group Cohort Recommendations

As detailed in the Data Collection Plan completed as part of Task 1, the research team will conduct at least three but not more than six virtual focus group sessions (based on availability) with subject matter experts and practitioners. The team will target 8-12 participants for each focus group, the majority of whom will have completed the Phase I study survey. The focus group sessions will capture qualitative data that will enable a more complete understanding of topics related to VPI practices and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Focus groups will enable delving deeper into VPI successes, failures, challenges, and benefits experienced and foster sharing and learning about VPI practices among participants.

To provide a diverse range of experiences and would like to propose the following cohorts for the focus groups:

• Large transit agencies: One group discussion with representatives from the 10 largest U.S. transit agencies by annual ridership. These agencies provide natural geographic diversity.
• Medium transit agencies: At least one and not more than two group discussions with midsize transit agencies by annual ridership. Agencies will be selected to provide geographic diversity.
• Small transit agencies: At least one and not more than two discussions with small transit agencies by annual ridership. Agencies will be selected to provide geographic diversity.

The focus groups will take place in May and June. Recruitment for the focus group discussions will begin once the survey analysis is complete. A draft discussion guide has been provided in this document for panel review. In addition to panel suggestions, final questions or prompts may vary based on survey results.

Focus Group Verbal Consent

This consent is part of an informed consent process for a research study and it will provide information that will help you decide whether you want to take part in this study. It is your choice to take part or not. After all your questions have been answered and you wish to take part in the research study, you will be asked to sign this consent form. You will be given a copy of the form to keep if you wish. Your alternative to taking part in the research is not to take part in it.

Who is conducting this research study and what is it about?

You are being asked to take part in research being conducted by Karen Alexander who is a senior researcher with the Voorhees Transportation at Rutgers University. The purpose of this study is to address a major gap in the public involvement guidance currently available to transportation agencies seeking to use virtual tools and techniques to facilitate two-way communication with the public.

What will I be asked to do if I take part?

This focus group will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. We would also like your permission to allow us to audiotape (digitally record) our interview today to ensure we capture your thoughts accurately. The recording(s) will be used for analysis by the research team. If you say anything that you believe at a later point may be hurtful and/or damage your reputation, then you can ask the interviewer to rewind the recording and record over such information OR you can ask that certain text be removed from the dataset. The recording(s) will be stored on a secure password protected server location maintained by Rutgers University. Upon completion of the project and subsequent publication of study results, the digital recording(s) will be permanently deleted.

What are the risks and/or discomforts I might experience if I take part in the study?

There are no foreseeable risks to participation in this focus group. Breach of confidentiality is a risk of harm but a data security plan is in place to minimize such a risk. Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may choose to not answer any questions you are not comfortable answering; and, if at any time during our conversation you wish to stop participating, you are completely free to do so with no consequence. If you decide to quit the interview your responses will NOT be saved.

Are there any benefits to me if I choose to take part in this study?

There are no direct benefits to you for taking part in this research. You will be contributing to knowledge that will help the research team understand your organization’s experiences and thoughts related to conducting public outreach using virtual tools and techniques.

Will I be paid to take part in this study?

You will not be paid to take part in this study.

How will information about me be kept private or confidential?

All efforts will be made to keep your responses confidential, but total confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. We will ask you to provide your name and job title during the interview. The research team, project sponsor, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Rutgers University are the only parties that will be allowed to see the data, except as may be required by law. Please note that the name of your agency/organization and the name of the program/service you discuss in our interview will be included in our final research report, any publication(s) of this research, and at presentations made at professional conferences. Your name will also be included unless you indicate that you do not want us to disclose your name.

What will happen to the information I provide in the research after the study is over?

All research data will be kept for at least three years. Research may be used or distributed to investigators for other research without obtaining additional informed consent from you.

What will happen if I do not want to take part or decide later not to stay in the study?

Your participation is voluntary. If you choose to take part now, you may change your mind and withdraw later. In addition, you can choose to skip interview questions that you are not comfortable answering or stop the interview at any time. You may also withdraw your consent for use of responses you provided during the interview, but you must do this in writing to the Principal Investigator, Karen Alexander.

Who can I call if I have questions?

If you have questions about taking part in this study, you can contact the Principal Investigator: Karen Alexander, Voorhees Transportation Center, by phone at 848-932-2831 or by email at karen.alexander@ejb.rutgers.edu.

If you have questions, concerns, problems, information, or input about the research or would like to know your rights as a research subject, you can contact the Rutgers IRB or the Rutgers Human Subjects Protection Program.

By beginning the interview, you acknowledge that you are 18 years of age or older, have listened to me read the consent information and agree to take part in the research, with the knowledge that you are free to withdraw your participation without penalty. Do you give your consent to participate and permission to digitally record our focus group with you?

Thank you.

Topic Guide

Welcome and Introductions

First, let me begin by saying thank you. We all know that everyone is extremely busy so we truly appreciate you volunteering to participate in our focus group today.

My name is _____________ and I’m honored to lead our conversation on your agency’s experience with virtual public involvement (VPI).

The information we collect today will be instrumental in helping us to report on the state of the practice for virtual public involvement. The report will provide guidance to agencies, organizations, consultants, and others who seek to implement effective, equitable, and efficient virtual public involvement (VPI) practices for transit. VPI refers to the use of digital technology to engage and interact with individuals or to visualize projects and plans. It can include virtual meeting platforms such as Zoom, interactive tools or engagement platforms, social media, and other methods. The COVID-19 pandemic forced all or most of us to transition to incorporation of some virtual public involvement into our outreach, engagement, and communications. It is important that we capture the lessons learned and integrate those lessons into our guidance to lay a path for future communications and engagement that employ the most effective, equitable, and efficient techniques.

If you have never participated in a focus group like this before, please know that these types of facilitated discussions are used in all kinds of research projects and they give us an opportunity to learn more about specific topics – like in this case we are interested in learning about your experiences and opinions related to your agency’s practices.

Before we start, I want to share with you some general guidelines for our discussion today:

• First, our discussion will last about 1 hour. You can share more afterward if you’d like.
• Second, I ask that each of you participate as much as you feel comfortable doing; that you are kind and respectful of one another, even if you have different opinions, and that you mute your microphone if you are not speaking to help reduce static/feedback.

Now I would like to read aloud a form to you that asks for your consent to participate in our discussion today. As researchers, any work we undertake that involves human subjects (which you are today) requires we receive consent from each of you before we begin. READ CONSENT, INCLUDING AUDIOTAPING REQUEST, ALOUD.

Let’s start by taking a few minutes to introduce ourselves.

Please tell us your first name and the transit agency you represent.

Now that we all know each other a little better, let’s begin our discussion.

Virtual Public Involvement (VPI) Techniques/Tools - General

What types of virtual public involvement tools have you used?

1. Before the pandemic
2. During the height of the pandemic
3. Continue to use today

Which tools did you find to be the most effective and why?

Which tools were the most challenging and why?

1. What specifically was challenging?
2. How did you overcome these challenges?

After discussing these challenges, please tell me which challenge you see as the MOST SIGNIFICANT related to VPI?

Can you give us one example of a virtual public involvement experience/initiative that was successful in a surprising or unexpected way?

In what contexts have you used VPI? For instance, do you use VPI for customer feedback, for planning projects, or for communicating service changes, public meetings, or hearings? Are there tools or techniques that are more or less useful for specific contexts?

What are some of the ways that you have used data gathered from VPI? For example, do you use VPI to influence service planning or for discretionary grant applications?

Targeting Specific Populations

Thinking back on your experiences using virtual public involvement, have there been any specific populations that engage less with VPI than traditional outreach and communication methods?

1. Who?
2. Why do you think that was?
3. What strategies did you use to get the word out about your virtual meetings/events?

Have there been any populations for which virtual public involvement made it easier to reach?

1. Who?
2. Why do you think that was?
3. What strategies did you use to get the word out about your virtual meetings/events?

Can you tell us a little bit about your experience with VPI and the following groups:

4. People with disabilities
5. Seniors
6. Low and limited income
7. Limited English Proficient residents

Has there been a particular tool or strategy that was most helpful in reaching these vulnerable groups?

Has your transit agency quantified participation for vulnerable groups or your general customer base? If so, has VPI improved the quality of that data?

Have you noticed concentrations of residents with a lack of connectivity or impacted by the digital divide?

Are there locations in your service area that lack internet or cell phone coverage? In what if any ways have you addressed that challenge?

Staffing and Skills

Now we have a pretty good picture of the types of VPI tools you’ve used and some of the challenges you faced, I would like to turn our attention to discussing staffing and training for VPI.

How prepared were you and your staff for implementing the shift to VPI during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Did you provide your staff/team with any formal training on virtual public involvement?

1. If so, what type of training was most effective?
2. What kinds of skills were most lacking that needed to be targeted with formal training?

What types of resources relating to VPI have you used to help guide your efforts and your initiatives? Has there been any resource that was particularly effective or helpful?

What do you see as the most useful/most vital skillsets for employees implementing VPI?

Looking Ahead: Concluding Questions

Let’s conclude by stepping back for a minute and thinking about how VPI might continue to shape public involvement in the future. We want to hear your thoughts/impressions about bigger trends and impacts on your agency and the transit field.

How do you think virtual public involvement will change your needs or create unexpected opportunities? What kinds of new engagement opportunities might there be that otherwise would not have been available?

How do you think virtual public involvement will integrate with in-person engagement? Do you see a future for a hybrid approach that is sustainable and effective?

1. Have you conducted hybrid meetings?
2. If so, what were some challenges? Some successes?

Is there anything we didn’t discuss that you feel is important to share with the group?

Thank you again for your time and commitment. This research will be published later this year in a technical report.

Thank you for participating today!

Small Transit Agency Focus Group

August 3, 2022, 3–4:30 PM EST

Introduction

On August 3, 2022, the research team conducted a focus group with small transit agencies from across the country to obtain feedback on their experiences using virtual public engagement (VPI) prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and currently.

The facilitated focus groups were held virtually on the Microsoft Teams platform.

The study team identified potential participants from a database of transit agency representatives who completed the Phase I study survey. The potential participants were sorted by agency size and region to ensure that invitees represented agencies across the country. Small agencies are identified as those with four million or fewer annual trips, medium agencies with four to 20 million annual trips, and large agencies with more than 20 million trips.

Focus Group Participants

Focus group participants included:

• Julia Castillo, executive director, HIRTA, IA
• Gray Johnston, transit planner, Greensboro Transit Agency, NC
• Matt Pentz, chief financial officer, Norwalk Transit, CT
• Melody Reebs, director of planning and marketing, Central Costa County Connection, CA
• Jason Rose, community engagement manager, Valley Regional Transit, Boise, ID

Method

A focus group discussion guide was shared with participants prior to the meeting to help them prepare. Focus groups were led by a facilitator from the study team. Participants joined the virtual meeting unmuted with their cameras on. Following the reading of study participation ground rules and a round of participant and facilitator introductions, the facilitator led the discussion using questions from the discussion. General topics included:

• Types of VPI tools used
• Ways that VPI tools have been effective or challenging
• Examples of successful VPI
• Impact of VPI on service planning or grant applications
• Using VPI to reach specific populations
• Staffing and skills required to use VPI tools
• Future use of VPI tools

General Summary

Participants reported that each of their agencies was currently using forms of VPI and that VPI usage had increased because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Agencies saw an increased volume of public participation due to the implementation of VPI. Some participants reported that some in-person outreach activities were paused at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and have not resumed. Technology was not a significant issue for the agencies, as they were able to adapt quickly, with one transit agency even providing support to other non-transit agencies in their state. Technology has been a limiting factor in the expansion of some VPI techniques, particularly the ability to conduct hybrid virtual/in-person meetings.

Topic Summary

Types of VPI Tools Used

• Early in the pandemic, agencies used Zoom to replace many of their in-person meetings and events. As it became safer to meet in person, some agencies started offering hybrid meeting options.
• Agencies used social media more frequently to connect with riders.
• Agencies reported using Facebook Live to hold meetings, Remix, Citizen Lab and MetroQuest to gather input from riders, and Constant Contact to send updates about service to riders.
• Agencies used virtual engagement tools like Alert Media to communicate with employees since many were working remotely.
• One transit agency explained that they were concerned about introducing new technologies to riders that were not digital natives so they stuck to using platforms that many riders might have already been familiar with, like Facebook.
• Agencies reported using project websites more actively to drive engagement and report out information.

Ways VPI Tools Were Effective or Challenging

• Agencies that used Zoom noted that it helped to increase participation; one transit agency noted that their offices are difficult to reach so offering a virtual option for meetings was extremely useful.
• Agencies who used social media explained that they experienced more engagement and interactions with posts and that more people followed their pages following the start of the pandemic and the associated pause in in-person activity.
• One transit agency noted that not all their riders have access to computers or the internet. As a provider of paratransit services, they possess contact information for many of their customers and were able to call customers directly to check-in on needs.

Examples of Successful VPI

• Agencies reported that offering meetings both virtually and in-person has led to the highest public engagement levels for projects they have seen.
• Agencies reported that groups like Advisory Committee and Board meetings were also seeing more participation now that meetings could be attended virtually.
• One transit agency noted that by calling riders without computer or internet access, they were able to offer not only transit information but additional connections to services such as meal delivery.

Impact of VPI on Service Planning or Grant Applications

• Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency (HIRTA) reported that their outreach campaigns during the pandemic allowed them to reach populations that they had not previously been able to reach. They were able to use data collected through VPI to secure discretionary grants to better reach those populations. See www.ridehirta.com/doyouhavetransportation and www.ridehirta.com/its4us
• Another transit agency reported receiving a grant to design a wireless network for use on buses and at bus stops.

Using VPI to Reach Specific Populations

• Agencies reported that VPI tools do not offer easy solutions to reach older populations, people who live with disabilities, LEP populations, and refugee or undocumented populations.

• Some agencies have been using translation services and staff that speak languages other than English to translate more of their content to try and connect with LEP populations.
• One transit agency reported that engagement with those with LEP did decline.

Staffing and Skills Required to Use VPI Tools

• Most agencies reported that staff went virtual during the beginning of the pandemic. Many staffers are now back in person, but managers are now more flexible with people’s requests to work remotely.
• Some agencies reported that there was a learning curve for using new technologies but that the curve was the same as outside the transit world; staff had to learn to remember or unmute when talking and refine settings of Zoom meetings to limit opportunities for malicious behavior. One transit agency said that they helped train other smaller agencies in their state who did not have as much access to resources or staff.

Future Use of VPI Tools

• Agencies reported that they are continuing to use virtual tools to connect with riders and staff.
• Some agencies are moving to hybrid systems for staff and have purchased new tools to allow them to make the transition successful.

Medium Transit Agency Focus Group

September 21, 2022, 3–4:30 PM EST

Introduction

On September 21, 2022, the research team conducted a focus group with medium transit agencies from across the country to obtain feedback on their experiences using virtual public engagement (VPI) prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and currently.

The facilitated focus groups were held virtually on the Microsoft Teams platform.

The study team identified potential participants from a database of transit agency representatives who completed the Phase I study survey. The potential participants were sorted by agency size and region to ensure that invitees represented agencies across the country. Small agencies are identified as those with four million or fewer annual trips, medium agencies with four to 20 million annual trips, and large agencies with more than 20 million trips.

Focus Group Participants

Focus group participants included:

• Drew Bargmann, customer service director, Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District, IL
• Ross McDonald, public transit program manager, GO Vermont
• Andrew Plambeck, public affairs manager, Portland Streetcar, OR
• Kathleen Podrasky, community outreach and public engagement supervisor, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, CA

Method

A focus group discussion guide was shared with participants prior to the meeting to help them prepare. Focus groups were led by a facilitator from the study team. Participants joined the virtual meeting unmuted with their cameras on. Following the reading of study participation ground rules and a round of participant and facilitator introductions, the facilitator led the discussion using questions from the discussion. General topics included:

• Types of VPI tools used
• Ways VPI tools were effective or challenging
• Examples of successful VPI
• Impact of VPI on service planning or grant applications
• Using VPI to reach specific populations
• Staffing and skills required to use VPI tools
• Future use of VPI tools

General Summary

Participants reported that their agencies were currently all using forms of VPI and that VPI usage had increased because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Agencies saw increased public participation due to the implementation of VPI. Some participants reported the use of a hybrid mode for outreach activities. There were some steep curves in learning how to properly use some virtual tools.

Topic Summary

Types of VPI Tools Used

• Early in the pandemic, agencies used Zoom and Teams in place of in-person meetings and events. As it became safer to meet in person, more agencies started offering hybrid meeting options.
• Agencies used social media and website portals more frequently to connect with community residents.
• Agencies reported using MURAL and Jamboard to gather input from the public.
• Agencies reported using project websites more actively to drive engagement and report out information.

Ways VPI Tools Were Effective or Challenging

• Agencies that use Zoom noted that it has helped to increase participation.
• Agencies who used call and video tools explained that they were getting more engagement and interactions. Virtual tools also help to keep things a little more orderly through use of in-platform features such as the chat, mute button, and hand raising.
• One agency noted that lack of personal connection in virtual tools was a challenge. Similarly, in virtual environments, several agencies noted that it can be more difficult to lower tensions—without personal connection, tempers can run away.

Examples of Successful VPI

• One state-wide transit agency noted that one virtual meeting had more participants (68) than the combined five in-person meetings held around the state on the same topic (48). The transit agency reported being able to save emissions, travel time, and administrative time with VPI.

Using VPI to Reach Specific Populations

• One transit agency noted that one of their virtual meetings advertised and facilitated entirely in Spanish was very well attended. That participation dropped off when the next meeting was in English with Spanish interpretation.
• One transit agency reported that it has been difficult to reach people from specific ethnic groups including refugee communities to take part in virtual meetings.
• Some agencies have been using live interpreters for Zoom meetings. Meeting participants choose Zoom breakout rooms staffed with interpreters (Spanish, Vietnamese) to connect with limited English proficiency populations.
• Several agencies reported that they have difficulty engaging communities of color and low-income populations virtually. There was speculation that technology access may be a barrier but also the time commitment required to participate.
• Several agencies reported working with external community and advocacy groups to improve connections with specific populations. One agency, Portland Streetcar, noted that its work with an environmental justice advocacy group (OPAL) has been effective at increasing EJ community participation. OPAL’s Bus Riders Unite! Campaign (www.opalpdx.org/bus_riders_unite) was effective at increasing participation in virtual meetings.

Staffing and Skills Required to Use VPI Tools

• Most of the agencies reported that staff went virtual during the beginning of the pandemic. They learned on the fly, hosting live Zoom calls. It was an intimidating challenge starting VPI meetings because agencies felt the need to project professionalism and competence and wanted to deliver high-quality meetings.

• Agencies reported that high-speed internet access has been an issue. Rural states have large pockets that lack connectivity and satellite services such as Starlink are expensive.
• Some agencies reported that there was a learning curve for using new technologies. One transit agency said that they hired IT staff to focus on setting up virtual tools. One transit agency noted that other state and local agencies shared knowledge and abilities. They described hearing through informal channels that one person in one department was an expert at one tool and someone else at another department was an expert in another tool. They then relied on their expertise for training and crossdepartmental support.

Future Use of VPI Tools

• Agencies reported that they are continuing to use virtual tools to connect with riders and staff.
• Some agencies are moving to hybrid systems for staff and have purchased new tools to allow them to make the transition successful. Others noted that hybrid meetings can be difficult and so they plan to offer an in-person meeting one night and a virtual meeting at another time.
• Some agencies are going to stay virtual to a large degree and use it to reach more of the underserved communities.

Large Transit Agency Focus Group

September 29, 2022, 3–4:30 PM EST

Introduction

On September 29, 2022, the research team conducted a focus group with large transit agencies from across the country to obtain feedback on their experiences using virtual public engagement (VPI) prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and currently.

The facilitated focus groups were held virtually on the Microsoft Teams platform. The study team identified potential participants from a database of transit agency representatives who completed the Phase I study survey. The potential participants were sorted by agency size and region to ensure that invitees represented agencies across the country. Small agencies are identified as those with four million or fewer annual trips, medium agencies with four to 20 million annual trips, and large agencies with more than 20 million trips.

Focus Group Participants

Focus group participants included:

• Denise Brown, community engagement, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, GA
• Renee Cianciolo, Office of External Relations, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, DC, MD, VA
• Sophia Ginis, director of community affairs, Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN
• Nevin Grinnell, chief marketing officer, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, TX
• Javieree PruitHill, Office of Civil Rights, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, CA
• Josh Rickman, interim deputy general manager, CTtransit, Hartford
• Maggie Daly Skogsbakken, chief communications officer, PACE Suburban Bus, Arlington Heights, IL
• Michele Stiehler, chief of paratransit, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Boston
• Doraleen Taulanga, community engagement specialist, Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City

Method

A focus group discussion guide was shared with participants prior to the meeting to help them prepare. Focus groups were led by a facilitator from the study team. Participants joined the virtual meeting unmuted with their cameras on. Following the reading of study participation ground rules and a round of participant and facilitator introductions, the facilitator led the discussion using questions from the discussion. General topics included:

• Types of VPI tools used
• Ways that VPI tools were effective or challenging
• Examples of successful VPI
• Impact of VPI on service planning or grant applications
• Using VPI to reach specific populations
• Staffing and skills required to use VPI tools
• Future use of VPI tools

General Summary

Participants reported that their agencies were currently all using different forms of VPI and that VPI usage had increased because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The implementation of VPI helped these large agencies to notice a substantial increase in public participation. Some participants

reported using a hybrid mode for outreach activities and many of them are planning to use hybrid approaches in the future. Many of the agencies reported issues with their IT departments when implementing VPI and reliance on consultants to overcome those barriers. Generally, these agencies had greater experience using VPI before the pandemic than medium and smaller-sized agencies. Several agencies noted that while hybrid outreach will be expected or required going forward, they will be placing greater emphasis on reestablishing in-person outreach channels in the near- to mid-term.

Topic Summary

Types of VPI Tools Used

• Agencies used YouTube, Webex and Zoom for public engagement.
• Agencies reported using PublicInput.com, Bang the Table, MetroQuest, and Facebook and Instagram live to connect and gather input from the public.
• Early in the pandemic, some agencies used Zoom and Teams in place of in-person meetings and events. Others use Webex to hold town meetings.
• Agencies reported using Social Media Apps more actively to drive engagement and provide important information, including NextDoor to reach target geographies.
• Some agencies place ads via the Transit App to link customers to VPI opportunities.
• One transit agency reported using onboard WiFi login screens to prompt links to participation opportunities.

Ways VPI Tools Were Effective or Challenging

• Virtual tools like zoom helped agencies incorporate speakers and experts from outside the geographic area for project meetings.
• One transit agency noted that Facebook and Instagram live were very effective and efficiently provide broadened reach to customers.
• Agencies that used virtual meeting platforms such as Zoom, explained that there is now a customer expectation that there will be a virtual option. If there is an in-person meeting, people expect that there will be a virtual way to join. Additionally, customers have grown to expect long comment periods that stay open virtually for days or weeks as opposed to at a single event.
• Agencies noted that internal IT departments often present the biggest hurdle when adopting new VPI tools. Their security standards or technology protocols often prevent the adoption of new and novel tools. These agencies reported that they often rely on consultants to provide services to overcome those challenges.
• One transit agency noted that the lack of person-to-person contact through virtual tools was a challenge and that there is a human connection that is difficult to establish using VPI.
• It was reported that presenting technical data through video makes it difficult for people to explore the information at their own pace.

Examples of Successful VPI

• One transit agency reported increasing the volume and frequency of social media posting for paratransit users with great success during the pandemic.

Impact of VPI on Service Planning or Grant Applications

• None of the agencies reported utilizing data collected via VPI to bolster grant applications or for service planning efforts.

Using VPI to Reach Specific Populations

• While VPI offers pathways for understanding the demographic characteristics of engaged participants, only one transit agency reported actively gathering that information, a practice

they have employed as a standard operating procedure for in-person meetings predating the pandemic.

• Several agencies reported using paid social media to reach specific community groups.
• Several agencies have been using external community-based groups to host and support outreach events to connect with groups of customers.
• One transit agency, SF BART, described contracting with community-based organizations to host virtual meetings for an effort called Co-Creation. The CBOs were able to host well-attended virtual meetings with their constituencies while SF BART provided subject matter experts to attend and present (https://link21program.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/1-OUTR-PH0-Link21_FS_Co-Creation_FINAL-2022-04-01_English-SDHa_ADA.pdf).
• One transit agency leveraged relationships with local governments and social service agencies to reach people and establish trust with customers.
• One transit agency noted people with ambulatory issues are often happy with virtual meetings, but many people would prefer to be in person because they are not comfortable with technology.
• DC Metro reported using paid advertisements on the Transit App to reach target demographics in nine languages. The platform allows for the provision of advertisements to audiences that use the app in each of those languages so communications can be served directly to transit users in the language that they prefer.

Staffing and Skills Required to Use VPI Tools

• One transit agency noted that when the pandemic began, they did not have any VPI tool licenses and that the Office of External Relations had to conduct a research effort to review VPI options and evaluate whether they were Americans with Disabilities Act compliant as well as compliant with internal IT standards.
• Others reported that they conducted internal trainings on how to use new VPI technologies.
• One transit agency said that they hired contractors to host all meetings on their platforms.

Future Use of VPI Tools

• Many agencies are moving to hybrid systems for staff and have purchased new tools to allow them to make the transition successful.
• Agencies reported that they are continuing to use virtual tools to connect with riders and staff.
• There was a general consensus that hybrid approaches are here to stay. VPI offers another set of tools to make engagement more accessible to more customers, but in-person outreach is also a necessity.
• Similarly, agencies reported a divide in how their customers prefer to engage. Some older adults may want to return to in-person public involvement, but younger people may prefer to continue VPI.
• As a suggested topic for further research, one transit agency requested guidance on how to facilitate virtual meetings for controversial projects. The topic is of interest as agencies seek to use VPI to strike a balance during virtual meetings with regard to hearing public complaints and concerns without allowing meetings to be overrun by project opponents or malicious actors.

This page intentionally left blank.