Public Participation
Plan
0 0 R
0 0 R
Adopted February 22, 2018
Updated May 27, 2021
i
HOW TO GET INVOLVED
Email
| General inquiries: rvarc@rvarc.org
| Social Engagement Manager, FOIA Officer, Elizabeth Elmore, eelmore@rvarc.org
| Title VI Coordinator, Public Involvement: Alison Stinnette, astinnette@rvarc.org
| es-MXPara español, póngase en contacto con Amanda McGee al correo es-MXamcgee@rvarc.orges-MX o
llame al número (540) 343-4417.
| ADA Coordinator: Bryan Hill, bhill@rvarc.org
Visit
| 313 Luck Ave SW, Roanoke VA 24016
| Normal business hours Monday through Friday, 8:30 am – 5:00 pm
Call
| (540) 343-4417
| Normal business hours Monday through Friday, 8:30 am – 5:00 pm
Write
Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization
313 Luck Ave SW
Roanoke, VA 24016
Visit us online
| Website: http: / /rvarc.org /transportation /mpo-urban-transportation /
| Facebook: Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission,
https: / /www.facebook.com /rvarc /
| Twitter: Roanoke Valley TPO, @roanokempo
Come to an event
| The RVTPO hosts special events and workshops throughout the Roanoke Valley. Visit
the RVTPO website at http: / /rvtpo.org to learn more.
| Attend an RVTPO Policy Board or Transportation Technical Committee meeting.
x The RVTPO Policy Board meets on the fourth Thursday of the month at 1:00 pm.
x The RVTPO Transportation Technical Committee meets on the second Thursday of
the month at 1:30 pm.
0 0 R0 0 Rii0 0 R
RESOLUTION
by the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization to Update the Public
Participation Plan
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) is the
regional transportation planning agency for the Roanoke Valley Area and is the federally designated
metropolitan planning organization for the Roanoke Valley Area; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley TPO seeks to involve citizens, public agencies and
officials, private providers of transportation, and other interested parties in the development of
transportation plans and programs, in a manner consistent with the federal Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-DQG)L[LQJ$PHULFDV6XUIDFH7UDQVSRUWDtion Act (FAST-
Act); and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2018 the Roanoke Valley TPO adopted public involvement
procedures, in furtherance of its commitment to provide citizens with access to the decision-making
process, and pursuant to requirements of the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Transit Administration that metropolitan planning organizations adopt and periodically update public
involvement strategies; now, therefore, be it.
RESOLVED, that the Roanoke Valley TPO updates the public involvement strategies
contained within the Public Participation Plan; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Public Participation Plan may be revised periodically by the Roanoke
Valley TPO as part of its ongoing assessment of efforts to include Roanoke Valley Area citizens in
its decision-making process; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Executive Director of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional
&RPPLVVLRQLVDXWKRUL]HGWRLPSOHPHQWDQGDGPLQLVWHUWKH5RDQRNH9DOOHVSXEOLF
involvement strategies on behalf of the Roanoke Valley TPO; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Designated Officer for Civil Rights Complaints shall submit a copy of
this resolution to the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, and
other agencies as appropriate.
Bill Martin, Sr.
Chair
0 0 R0 0 Riii0 0 R
RVTPO Policy Board
Steve Clinton, Botetourt County Board of Supervisors
Steve Fijalkowski, Montgomery County Board of
Supervisors
Robert L. Jeffrey, Roanoke City Council
Mickey Johnson, Bedford County Board of Supervisors
Bill Jones, Salem City Council
Ken King, Virginia Department of Transportation
Keith Liles, Vinton Town Council
Billy Martin, Sr., Botetourt County Board of Supervisors
Stephanie Moon Reynolds, Roanoke City Council
Phil North, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Kevin Price, Greater Roanoke Transit Company
David Radford, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Daniel Sonenklar, Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation
Mike Stovall, Vinton Town Council
Renee Turk, Salem City Council
Non-Voting Members
Richard Caywood, Roanoke County Designee
Bob Cowell, City of Roanoke Chief Administrative Official
Kevin Jones, Federal Highway Administration
Gary Larrowe, Botetourt County Chief Administrative Official
Anita McMillan, Town of Vinton Designee
Craig Meadows, Montgomery County Chief Administrative
Official
J. Lee E. Osborne, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional
Commission
Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Secretary
Ben Tripp, Chair of the RVTPO Transportation Technical
Committee, City of Salem Designee Transportation Technical Committee
Dorian Allen, Greater Roanoke Transit Company
Liz Belcher, Roanoke Valley Greenway
Commission
Dan Brugh, New River Valley Metropolitan
Planning Organization
Chris Chittum, City of Roanoke
Will Crawford, Roanoke County
Megan Cronise, Roanoke County
Marial Fowler, Bedford County
Michael Gray, Virginia Department of
Transportation
Mark Jamison, City of Roanoke
Nathan McClung, Town of Vinton
Anita McMillan, Town of Vinton
Melinda Payne, City of Salem
Nathan Sanford, Unified Human Services
Transportation System
Cody Sexton, Botetourt County
Daniel Sonenklar, Virginia Department of Rail
and Public Transportation
Ben Tripp, City of Salem
Peter Volosin, Botetourt County
Non-Voting Members:
Kevin Jones, Federal Highway Administration Regional Commission Staff
Rachel Ruhlen, Project Manager,
Transportation Planner
Cristina D. Finch, Director of Transportation
Bryan Hill, Regional Planner III
The Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning
Organization (RVTPO) fully complies with Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and
regulations in all programs and activities. For more
information, or to obtain a Discrimination Complaint
Form, see www.rvarc.org or call (540) 343-4417.
0 0 R0 0 Riv0 0 RContents
1. Introduction to Transportation Planning ……………………………………………………………………………… 5
1.1 Transportation Funding ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
1.2 Six Core Functions of Metropolitan Planning Organizations …………………………………………….. 6
1.3 Opportunities for Public Participation ………………………………………………………………………….. 10
2. Purpose and Objectives ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
Objective 1: Meaningful to the public ……………………………………………………………………………….. 13
Objective 2: High quality ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
Objective 3: Variety of input ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 14
Objective 4: High quantity ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
3. Toolbox ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19
4. Evaluation …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
Glossary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
Development of the Public Participation Plan ……………………………………………………………………. 28
2021 Update Public Input Survey Results …………………………………………………………………………. 31
Title VI Implementation Plan …………………………………………………………………………………………… 38
0 0 R0 0 R50 0 R1. Introduction to Transportation Planning1
Transportation planning for how people and goods can get from one place to another takes place at
the local, regional, and state levels. Regional transportation agencies such as the Roanoke Valley
Transportation Planning Organization (RVTPO) work with local and state governments and
members of the public to determine transportation needs and envision goals for the future
transportation system(s).
Under the federal law that governs planning for highways and transit (which includes walking and
bicycling), the RVTPO must create a Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan every five years.
The Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan lays out a vision of what the transportation system
will look like in the future. It includes a list of the transportation projects that are planned for funding
and scheduled over the next 20 years. The RVTPO is also responsible for creating a shorter-range
plan called a Transportation Improvement Program. The Transportation Improvement Program
includes all of the transportation projects that will be funded, designed, and built over the next four
years.
A transportation project listed on either the Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan or the
Transportation Improvement Program might be little more than a concept or it might be VKRYHO-
UHDGWKRURXJKOVWXGLHGDQGGHYHORSHG:KLOHWKH/RQJ-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan
and the Transportation Improvement Program each have a public input process, projects on the list
may have their own focused public input processes, depending on their scope and funding sources.
1.1 Transportation Funding
Surface transportation projects are mostly funded by a mix of local, state, and federal sources. Often
when a project uses federal funds, the local or state government must match those funds with their
own. The amount of the match may be 50% or 20%, based on the type of federal funding. Federal
funding for roads, rail, and transit is generated by a tax on gasoline and deposited into an account
called the Highway Trust Fund, which is divided into the Highway Fund and the Mass Transit
Account.
Transportation funding is in transition, with decreasing funding and increasing oversight. From the
HVWDEOLVKPHQWRIWKHQDWLRQDOKLJKZDVVWHPLQWKHVWRWKHFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHLQWHUVWDWH
system iQWKHHDUOVWUDQVSRUWDWLRQIXQGLQJFOLPEHGVWHDGLODQGSUHFLSLWRXVOKRZHYHUVLQFH
1993, the federal gas tax has stayed at 18.3 cents per gallon as gas prices rose and fell, regardless
of the economy. Due to modern higher fuel efficiency standards, people use less gas, which means
less gasoline tax into the Highway Trust Fund. The cost of land and construction materials, like steel
and concrete, has increased. Funds are spread across a growing total mileage of roads, transit
systems, and other transportation infrastructure. Transportation funding relies increasingly on
1
$GDSWHGIURP(YHU3ODFH&RXQWV/HDGHUVKLS$FDGHP86’HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
https: / /www.transportation.gov /sites /dot.gov /files /docs /ToolkitFinal2017.pdf
0 0 R0 0 R60 0 Radditional government transportation revenue – including from state and local government – such as
vehicle registrations, state fuel tax, general funds, bonds, highway tolls, sales tax, etc.
In addition to dwindling and changing funding, transportation funding oversight has changed. The
internal combustion engine and the road network that supports it profoundly changed our world,
putting opportunities and experiences within easy HYHUGDUHDFKRIPRVWSHRSOH%XWLWKDVQWEHHQ
without a cost. The heyday of highway building coincided with urban renewal which devastated
communities across the nation and left us with roads and bridges that are expensive to maintain and
difficult to UHWURILWIRUWRGDVQHHGV2YHUVLJKWLQFOXGLQJSXEOLFSDUWLFLSDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWVHQVXUHV
WKDWWRGDVWUDQVSRUWDWLRQSURMHFWVDUHIDLUDQGEHQHILFLDO
Even with less funding than in the past, the RVTPO area will receive hundreds of millions of state
and federal transportation dollars during the next 20 years for maintenance and new construction.
Public input helps the RVTPO Policy Board use these funds wisely on transportation projects that
will provide the greatest benefits and least burdens now and in the future.
1.2 Six Core Functions of Metropolitan Planning Organizations2
Federal legislation passed in the early 1970s requires that any urbanized area with a population
greater than 50,000 have a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). As the MPO of the Roanoke
Valley urbanized area (Figure 1), the RVTPO has authority and responsibility for transportation
policy-making in the urbanized area, which covers seven jurisdictions: Bedford, Botetourt,
Montgomery, and Roanoke Counties, the Cities of Salem and Roanoke, and the Town of Vinton.
The RVTPO ensures that current and future expenditures for transportation projects and programs
are based on a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive planning process.
Like most MPOs, RVTPO neither owns nor operates the transportation systems it serves, rather, it
performs an overall coordination and consensus-building role in planning and programming funds for
projects and operations. The RVTPO is a coalition of agencies and local and state governments:
x Bedford County
x Botetourt County
x Montgomery County
x Roanoke County
x City of Roanoke
x City of Salem
x Town of Vinton
x Greater Roanoke Transit Company (Valley Metro)
2
The Transportation Planning Process Briefing Book: Key Issues for Transportation Decisionmakers, Officials, and
Staff. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015.
https: / /www.fhwa.dot.gov /planning /publications /briefing_book /fhwahep15048.pdf
0 0 R0 0 R70 0 Rx Roanoke-Blacksburg Regional Airport
x Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
x Virginia Department of Transportation
x Federal Highway Administration (non-voting)
x Federal Transit Administration (non-voting)
x Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (non-voting)
Federal transportation agencies participate in the RVTPO but are not involved in decision-making.
The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, a planning district commission of eleven local
governments (Figure 2), staffs and participates in the RVTPO but is not involved in decision-making.
The RVTPO performs the six core MPO functions:
1. Establish a setting for effective decision-making. Establish and manage a fair and impartial
setting for effective regional decision-making in the metropolitan area.
Figure 1. RVTPO area
0 0 R0 0 R80 0 R2. Identify and evaluate transportation improvement options. Develop transportation
improvement options and use data and planning methods to evaluate whether those options
Figure 2. Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Region
0 0 R0 0 R90 0 Rsupport criteria and system performance targets. Planning studies and evaluations are included
in the Unified Planning Work Program.
3. Prepare and maintain a Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Vision 2040 LVWKH59732V
Metropolitan Transportation Plan which covers a planning horizon of at least 20 years, using
performance measures and targets. To guide planning processes, the RVTPO considers these
planning factors:
x Support the economic vitality of the United States, the States, metropolitan areas, and
nonmetropolitan areas, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and
efficiency;
x Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
x Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users;
x Increase accessibility and mobility of
people and freight;
x Protect and enhance the environment,
promote energy conservation, improve the
quality of life, and promote consistency
between transportation improvements and
State and local planned growth and
economic development patterns;
x Enhance the integration and connectivity
of the transportation system, across and
between modes throughout the State, for
people and freight;
x Promote efficient system management and operation;
x Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system;
x Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate
stormwater impacts of surface transportation; and
x Enhance travel and tourism.
4. Develop a Transportation Improvement Program. Develop a short-range, four-year program
of priority transportation improvements drawn from the Long-Range Multimodal Transportation
Plan. The RVTPO creates the Transportation Improvement Program with spending, regulating,
operating, management, and financial tools. The Transportation Improvement Program identifies
LPPHGLDWHSULRULWDFWLRQVWRDFKLHYHWKHDUHDVJRDOVDQGDVVRFLDWHGVVWHPSHUIRUPDQFH
targets.
5. Identify performance measure targets and monitor whether implemented projects are
achieving targets. The RVTPO coordinates with State and public transportation operators to
establish performance targets that address performance measures, as set forth in Federal law,
related to surface transportation and public transportation. The RVTPO prepares plans that 0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 0 R0 0 R100 0 Rinclude performance targets addressing performance measures and standards. In addition to
Federally required performance measures, the RVTPO may identify locally significant
performance indicators that support decision-making.
6. Involve the public. Involve the general public and other affected constituencies related to the
essential decision-making elements listed above. The metropolitan transportation planning
process must engage the public and stakeholders on an ongoing basis in all facets of planning,
to spur dialogue on critical issues facing regions and provide opportunities for the public to
contribute ideas. This is especially important in the early and middle stages of the process, when
the Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program
are developed. Special attention should be paid to
groups that are underrepresented in the
transportation planning decision-making process or
have been underserved in terms of the expenditure
of transportation dollars.
The RVTPO is responsible for actively involving all
affected parties in an open, cooperative, and
collaborative process that provides meaningful
opportunities to influence transportation decisions.
Decisionmakers must consider fully the social,
economic, and environmental consequences of their
actions, and assure the public that transportation programs support adopted land use plans and
community values.
1.3 Opportunities for Public Participation
The RVTPO is responsible for actively involving all affected parties in an open, cooperative, and
collaborative process that provides meaningful opportunities to influence transportation decisions. In
the past, federal legislation required a public comment period on the final draft of a document, but
now, planning efforts incorporate opportunities for public participation earlier and more frequently in
the planning process. At a minimum, the public has opportunities to participate in the Long-Range
Multimodal Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program, and the Public
Participation Plan (Table 1). 0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 0 R0 0 R110 0 RTable 1. Planning efforts with opportunities for public participation
Plan Updates
Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan Every five years, 20-year time frame
Transportation Improvement Program Every three years, four-year time frame
Public Participation Plan Reviewed for updates every three years
Amendments and other regional plans and studies As needed or requested
Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan3
The Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan lays out a vision of the transportation system of the
future. It includes all of the transportation projects that will be funded and scheduled over the next 20
HDUV)HGHUDOODZUHTXLUHVWKDWWKHSODQLQFOXGH both long-range and short-range program
strategies /actions that lead to the development of an integrated intermodal transportation system
WKDWIDFLOLWDWHVWKHHIILFLHQWPRYHPHQWRISHRSOHDQGJRRGV
The Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan is prepared through active engagement with the
public and stakeholders, the State, and public transit operators using an approach that considers
how roadways, transit, nonmotorized transportation, and intermodal connections can improve the
operational performance of the multimodal transportation system.
The Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan typically includes:
x An assessment of current transportation issues and future considerations
x Performance measures and targets.
x Evaluation of whether the transportation system is meeting those targets.
x Scenario analyses on transportation system conditions and performance.
x An evaluation of regional land use, development, housing, and employment goals and plans.
x Projected demand for transportation services over 20 years.
x Recommended policies, strategies, and projects.
x Cost estimates and reasonably available financial sources for operation, maintenance, and
capital investments.
x Ways to preserve facilities and efficiently use the existing system.
3
The Transportation Planning Process Briefing Book: Key Issues for Transportation Decisionmakers, Officials, and
Staff. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015.
https: / /www.fhwa.dot.gov /planning /publications /briefing_book /fhwahep15048.pdf
0 0 R0 0 R120 0 RThe RVTPO must show that the expected revenue sources for transportation investments balance
with the estimated costs of the projects and programs described in the plan. A key element of the
Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan is the Fiscally Constrained List of Projects.
The prioritization framework adopted by the RVTPO identifies key considerations for the Long-
Range Multimodal Transportation Plan:
x Transportation needs
x Regional and local priorities
x Solutions
x Projects
x Alignment review (meet needs, attain goals)
Transportation Improvement Program
The Transportation Improvement Program is a comprehensive list of highway, transit, and other
projects slated to use federal transportation funds over the next four years. The federal government
leaves the final decision about what projects go in the Transportation Improvement Program up to
the RVTPO. The Transportation Improvement Program is the last approval of many that projects go
WKURXJKLQRUGHUWREHIXQGHGLQFOXGLQJWKHLQGLYLGXDOJUDQWSURJUDPVSURFHVVDQGWKHVWDWHV6L[-
Year Improvement Program process. Projects funded through the Virginia Department of
Transportation highway funding programs are included and fully funded as shown in its Six-Year
Improvement Program. The Department of Rail and Public Transportation only programs funds one
year out with the remaining five years in the Six-Year Improvement Program as projections, so
funding has not been allocated yet to all the transit projects on the Transportation Improvement
Program.
Public Participation Plan
RVTPO staff will review the Public
Participation Plan every three years and
determine whether an update or full
redevelopment of the plan is necessary. If
only minor updating is necessary, staff
may choose to use the Transportation
Technical Committee and the final public
comment and review period as the means
for involving the public in the adoption of
the updated plan. 0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 0 R0 0 R130 0 ROther Opportunities for Public Participation
Amendments to the Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement
Program, and the Public Participation Plan involve opportunities for public participation. The RVTPO
develops and updates other plans and studies as needed or requested, which may also offer
opportunities for public participation. The Congestion Management Process, the Pedestrian Vision
Plan, and the Transit Vision Plan are examples of regional efforts which included a public
participation component.
2. Purpose and Objectives
This document describes how the RVTPO obtains public participation. The purpose of public
participation is to support transportation planning and promote the integrity and transparency of the
transportation planning process.
RVTPO wants public participation to be:
x Meaningful to the public – People should feel that their comments matter. Public input into a
transportation plan should be timely, happen early enough to influence the outcome, and
continue as the plan develops. The RVTPO is accountable to the public for their input. RVTPO
Policy Board decisions reflect the diversity of viewpoints.
x High quality – When people understand that transportation planning is complex, regional, and
long-term, they can give input that is relevant, thoughtful, and practical. The RVTPO educates
and explains transportation planning. Clarity of purpose and clarity of expectation improve the
quality of public input.
x Variety of input – The RVTPO seeks a breadth of representation in public input that is from
different points of view, different needs, and different backgrounds.
x High quantity – The more people who are engaged, the better the RVTPO can understand the
transportation needs and priorities of the region. The RVTPO will provide convenient and
delightful ways to participate with many options of how to participate and continue to seek new
ways to invite participation.
Objective 1: Meaningful to the public
People should feel that their comments matter.
Many people lose interest when they realize that the Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan
ZRQWIL[WKHSRWKROHVRQWKHLUVWUHHWRUH[WHQGHYHQLQJEXVKRXUVQH[WHDUEXWLVD-year,
0 0 R0 0 R140 0 Rregional, big-picture plan. For participation to be meaningful to citizens, they must understand the
relevance of transportation planning to their lives.
We can communicate this relevance by:
x Posting articles on our website and blog
x Giving presentations to groups.
Public input into a transportation plan should be timely, happening early enough to influence the
outcome, and continue as the plan develops.
Traditional public comment periods and public hearings that occur on near-final drafts of plans and
studies provide opportunities for final approval or objections but not opportunities to be involved in
setting goals or identifying solutions. To be meaningful, public engagement must be timely,
occurring early enough in the process to influence the outcome with additional opportunities for
participation at later stages as well.
The RVTPO is accountable to the public for their input. RVTPO decisions reflect the diversity of
viewpoints.
People need to feel that their comments make a difference. Did anyone listen? The RVTPO
reassures the public that their participation is meaningful by:
x Documenting public input, summarizing feedback, and including it in plans and studies.
x Incorporating public input into plans and studies and documenting how input was included.
x Documenting responses to comments in plans and studies.
Objective 2: High quality
When people understand that transportation planning is complex, regional, and long-term, they can give
input that is relevant, thoughtful, and practical. The RVTPO educates and explains transportation
planning.
Online pXEOLFSDUWLFLSDWLRQFDQDFKLHYHPXFKEXWFDQWHQWLUHOUHSODFHLQ-person interactions with a
person who will explain and answer questions immediately. Relying too much on surveys may exclude
SHRSOHZKRDUHQWFRPIRUWDEOHZLWKWHVWVRUZULWLQJDQVZHUV$Ealance of in-person and online public
participation strategies achieves high quality efficiently.
Clarity of purpose and clarity of expectation improve the quality of public input.
High quality surveys with clear purpose and expectation can elicit high quality public input. Poorly
designed surveys yield poor quality input.
Objective 3: Variety of input
The RVTPO seeks a breadth of representation in public input that is from different points of view,
different needs, and different backgrounds.
Some points of view that should be represented include:
0 0 R0 0 R150 0 Rx Demographics, including race, ethnicity, age, income, disability, limited English proficiency,
gender, and sexual orientation
x Economic, health, and education interests
x All modes of transportation
x Geography
Demographics
7KHH[LVWLQJWUDQVSRUWDWLRQVVWHPGRHVQRWPHHWHYHURQHVQHHGVHWLGHQWLILQJDQGHQJDJLQJ
citizens from a variety of backgrounds in public
participation can be challenging. Sometimes this is due
to the transportation logistics that bar them from
attending a public meeting. Often the issues are more
complex, involving cultural mistrust of government
stemming from unjust urban renewal practices, not
being aware of public participation opportunities, or not
understanding the relevance. Community surveys and
needs assessment, such as the United Way
&RPPXQLW/LVWHQLQJ7RXUDQGWKH$3V$JH-
Friendly Community Project (2017), reveal that
transportation issues contribute to unmet needs and
reduce quality of life for people of demographics who
DUHXQGHUVHUYHGEWKH5RDQRNH9DOOHVWUDQVSRUWDWLRQVVWHP7KH597327LWOH9,DQG/LPLWHG
English Proficiency Plan4
addresses involving traditionally underserved populations in transportation
decision making. Choosing words, images, concepts, and languages that resonate with
stakeholders will encourage their participation. 0 1 R
4
The Title VI and Limited English Proficiency Plan is available on the RVARC website: http: / /rvarc.org /wp-
content /uploads /2016 /02 /RVTPO-Title-VI-and-LEP-Plan-FY15-Approved-12-10-15-Adjusted-January-28-2016.pdf
Survey response from the United Way Community Listening Tour 0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 0 R0 0 R160 0 REconomic, health, and education
interests
Many other interests intersect with
transportation. Considering these interests
during transportation planning promotes a
more comprehensive transportation
system.
x Economic, health, and education
interests intersect with transportation
around access to jobs, healthcare, and
schools.
x Land use and transportation influence
each other, and housing that is
affordable may be offset by expensive
or difficult transportation to service.
x Traffic safety best practices promote
incorporating engineering,
enforcement, and emergency
management, which can be done at
the planning stage as well as other
opportunities.
x Considering the environment during
transportation planning helps preserve
and steward resources now and for future generations.
All modes of transportation
For many decades, planners and engineers prioritized moving large numbers of automobiles
quickly. As concerns about congestion and safety have risen, the focus has shifted to safety and
convenience for all modes of transportation. Transportation modes include:
x Passenger motor vehicle
x Freight motor vehicle
x Public transportation
x Walking, wheelchairs, and mobility aids
x Bicycling, scooters, etc.
The RVTPO does not plan for rail, air, and water transportation directly, but considers access to
these modes. 0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 0 R0 0 R170 0 RGeography
The RVTPO covers the urbanized area of the Roanoke Valley. Member governments are:
x City of Roanoke
x City of Salem
x Bedford County
x Botetourt County
x Montgomery County
x Roanoke County
x Town of Vinton
The Roanoke Regional Airport Commission is also a governmental agency member of the RVTPO.
Localities routinely engage the public at various points in the development of projects. Most projects
on the Fiscally Constrained List of Projects in the Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan have
already received public input through locality efforts.
Objective 4: High quantity
The more people who are engaged, the better the RVTPO can understand the transportation needs
and priorities of the region. The RVTPO will provide convenient and delightful ways to participate
with many options of how to participate and continue to seek new ways to invite participation.
Public participation requirements have evolved since the earliest days of planning and zoning. Early
laws required only that the public be given an opportunity to comment. Later regulations tightened
the loopholes, spelling out how long the comment period was and how it must be advertised. Today,
LWLVQWHQRXJKWRPDNHVXUHWKHUHDUHRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRFRPPHQW. The RVTPO actively seeks broad
public participation. MetroQuest, a leading public engagement software, emphasizes that the public
SDUWLFLSDWLRQH[SHULHQFHPXVWEHGHOLJKWIXOWRHQJDJHDKLJKTXDQWLWRISHRSOH
Before adoption of this Public
Participation Plan, the RVTPO typically
received few or no comments during
public comment periods, which consisted
of the document posted on the website
with contact information for comments to
be submitted. Nearly all public comment
periods now include a brief survey often
made available online to assess support
for the new content in a plan or program
to be adopted. With this process, the 0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R0 1 R
0 1 R0 1 R
0 0 R0 0 R180 0 RRVTPO has received hundreds of survey responses with dozens of comments.
Strategies that promote high quantity include:
x Creating online surveys during public comment periods,
x Promoting surveys and participation opportunities through social media, including paid social
media ads,
x Maintain a database of interested stakeholders to keep informed of opportunities for public
input,
x Making participation easy and pleasant,
x Continual evaluation of public participation,
x Review the Public Participation Plan every three years and update as necessary to keep up
with changing technology.
Final Comment Period and Public Hearing
The final comment period and public hearing is the last chance for public input before the plan is
adopted. The Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement
Program, the Public Participation Plan, and major amendments to these must include a final
comment period and public hearing. Other plans, studies, and key decision points may include a
public comment period or public hearing as well.
Because the projects listed in the Transportation Improvement Program are typically also included in
the Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan with early and continuous opportunity for public
input, a final comment period and public hearing is sufficient public input opportunity for the
Transportation Improvement Program. If the Transportation Improvement Program is significantly
different than the Fiscally Constrained List of Projects in the Long-Range Multimodal Transportation
Plan, a more extensive process should be followed.
1. The comment period will be 45 days for the Public Participation Plan and at least 14 days for
other plans.
2. Hold a public hearing on the draft, with provisions upon request to allow people with visual or
hearing impairment or limited English proficiency to participate.
3. Advertise the comment period and public hearing on the web page and Facebook before the
beginning of the comment period and at least 7 days in advance of the public hearing.
Newspaper ads are not an effective way to reach people, but Virginia state law requires that
local governments publish newspaper ads for public hearings for funding allocation decisions.
Newspaper ads, when used, should be published in the Roanoke Times and the Roanoke
Tribune.
0 0 R0 0 R190 0 R3. Toolbox
The appropriate public participation tools depend on the situation, the objectives, and the resources
available. Not all tools listed here will be used for every public participation effort but will be selected
to meet the public participation objectives given the purpose and context. This list is not
comprehensive but contains the tools typically used by the RVTPO. The tools available to the
RVTPO changed during the COVID-19 pandemic when groups could not gather for meetings and
events. However, the RVTPO had already moved away from in-person public meetings and open
houses because they were less effective tools.
Description of public participation tools
Blog. Informal and easy to digest. To be most effective, update weekly.
Comment period. A final comment period is an opportunity to publicly approve or object to a plan.
May not have much effect on the outcome but can gauge public sentiment. Can be effective if a
survey is part of the comment period.
Display, flyers. Used to promote other strategies, such as meetings or surveys.
Email. Maintain an email list of partner agencies and interested individuals and email links to
surveys, blog posts, and other material, announcements of public participation opportunities, and
information about transportation planning. Emails to a list of interested stakeholders yields a higher
response rate than any other method.
Focus group. Structured small group discussion led by a trained facilitator. Participants may be
selected to represent specific stakeholders or interests.
Interviews. In-person, virtually through the computer, or phone, interviews enable open discussions
to gather information. Participants may be selected to represent specific stakeholders.
Media. Radio, television, newspaper. Selecting specific outlets can increase engagement from a
select population. For example, the Roanoke Tribune newspaper and the WTOY radio station are
African-American media outlets.
Multimedia. Video, maps, images, podcasts. May be on website, social media, media. To increase
engagement with select population, choose words, images, concepts, and languages that resonate
with them.
Open House. Drop-in event. Traditionally attended by only the most motivated citizens, it is more
effective if a remote or online option is offered. It should be held at convenient times for citizens and,
if there is an in-person option, at a location frequented by stakeholders.
Paid ads. Radio, television, newspaper, social media. Ads can target specific groups.
Partners. Other agencies or groups provide RVTPO with opportunity to reach their members, by
sending information out, letting RVTPO staff speak at their meeting, etc. Partners allow RVTPO to
0 0 R0 0 R200 0 Rtap into the intersection of transportation and other interests, such as health or a locality.
Collaborating with partners can increase engagement with stakeholders by reaching out to partners
with networks with stakeholders. Localities are important partners and may provide local public input
on projects that are on the Fiscally Constrained List of Projects in the Long-Range Multimodal
Transportation Plan.
Policy Board and committee meetings. RVTPO Policy Board and committee meetings are open
to the public unless otherwise indicated, and a public comment period is included on the agenda of
each meeting.
Pop-up booth. Staff engage the public at a high-traffic location, such as a grocery store, or event,
such as a festival. This may include a survey or other activity and participation incentives. Set up
pop-up booths at locations frequented by specific stakeholders.
Presentation. Civic groups, employers, neighborhood associations, etc.
Public hearing. A final public hearing, typically during the Policy Board meeting, is an opportunity to
publicly approve or object to a plan. As described in the Title VI Implementation Plan, public
hearings will include provisions upon request to allow people with visual or hearing impairment or
limited English proficiency to participate. Public hearings that have a remote or online option for
participation are more accessible to more people.
Public meeting. Presentation or discussion that uses the entire block of time. Traditionally attended
by only the most motivated citizens, it is more effective if a remote or online option is offered. It
should be held at convenient times for citizens and, if there is an in-person option, at a location
frequented by stakeholders.
Social media. While there are many social media platforms, the most common is Facebook, with
80-95% of users of other platforms also using Facebook. To be most effective, update regularly and
engage with followers. Studies show that nearly all demographics use social media. Social media
can reach specific stakeholders through Facebook groups and Twitter hashtags.
Stakeholder group. A group that meets regularly, either ongoing or a limited time. Participants may
be selected to represent specific stakeholders or interests tailored to the needs of the plan, study,
amendment, or key decision point. The committee may advise the Policy Board, the Transportation
Technical Committee, and /or staff.
Survey. Questionnaire that may be online or paper. There are many online survey platforms, and
the right one depends on cost, effort required, and what is needed from the survey. MetroQuest
surveys have a high response rate but are expensive and may be best suited for major efforts, such
as priority setting and /or project selection in the Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan. For
smaller efforts, the Regional Commission subscription to Survey Monkey may be more appropriate.
Website. Central repository and archive of information. Other strategies can work in conjunction
with the website, such as a Facebook post that directs people to the website. Once adopted, plans
are available on the website.
0 0 R0 0 R210 0 RThe appropriate tool to use depends on the situation and desired outcome (Table 2). Some tools
achieve one or more objectives better than other tools. Passive tools wait to be found, such as an
article on the website. Others actively seek the public, such as direct mailings. Some tools are better
suited for outreach or for input, and some tools are suitable for both. Newer technology may reduce
staff time and reach more people, but traditional methods should not be neglected to reach people
unable or unwilling to use technology. Finally, some tools are more time and resource intensive than
others. All of these and other factors are taken into consideration for each planning effort.
Table 2. Overview of Public Participation Tools
Tool Objective Active /
passive
strategy Outreach /Input Technology
required of
public Resources
and
challenges
Blog Meaningful,
High quality Passive Mostly outreach Internet Staff time to
update
Comment
period Meaningful Passive Input Access to
material, ability to
submit comment,
awareness of
opportunity Low staff time,
inexpensive
Display,
flyers Depends on
what it is
coupled with Active Outreach None High staff time
Email Meaningful,
High quality,
Variety Active Outreach Internet Staff time to
maintain list
Focus group Meaningful,
High quality,
Variety of
input Active Interactive Time and
transportation to
attend,
awareness of
opportunity High staff time
and skill
Interviews Meaningful,
High quality,
Variety Active Interactive Time, opportunity High staff time,
skill
Media Variety of
input Active Outreach Radio, TV, print
or online
newspaper Staff time to
write press
release
0 0 R0 0 R220 0 RTool Objective Active /
passive
strategy Outreach /Input Technology
required of
public Resources
and
challenges
Multimedia Meaningful,
High quality May be
either Outreach Internet Staff time, skill
Paid ads Can be used
for any
objective Active Outreach Radio, TV, or
internet Expensive
Partners Meaningful,
Variety, High
quantity Active Can be either None Efficient
Pop-up
booth Meaningful,
High Quality,
Variety of
input Active Interactive None Obtaining
permission from
property
manager, Staff
time, Incentives
Presentation Meaningful,
High quality,
Variety of
input Active Interactive None High staff time
Public
hearing Meaningful Passive Input Time and
transportation to
attend,
awareness of
opportunity Low staff time,
inexpensive
Social media Variety of
input, High
quantity Active Interactive Internet, social
media Staff time to
post and
respond
Stakeholder
group Meaningful,
High quality,
Variety of
input Active Interactive Time and
transportation to
attend,
awareness of
opportunity High staff time
Survey Primarily
Quantity Can be
either Mostly input Ability to take
surveys Skill and /or
expense
0 0 R0 0 R230 0 RTool Objective Active /
passive
strategy Outreach /Input Technology
required of
public Resources
and
challenges
Website Meaningful,
High quality Passive Mostly outreach Internet Staff time to
update
A stakeholder group may be an important element of each step of public participation efforts. Table
3 describes the stakeholder group role in each activity and identifies which activities may be
employed during the development of the Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan, Public
Participation Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program, and amendments to them. This is
intended as a guide; the RVTPO may select these or other activities for each planning effort
depending on the context.
Table 3. Potential Public Participation Activities by Planning Effort
Step Activity LRTP PPP TIP
Identify stakeholders Identify partners
Ongoing Establish
relationships
Maintain database
Early and continuous engagement, ample
opportunity for comment Develop outreach
materials 7 7
Survey 7 7
Events 7 7
Interviews 7 7
Reasonable opportunity for comment Comment period 14
day 45 day* / 14
day 14
day
Public hearing 7 7 7
LRTP = Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan, PPP = Public Participation Plan, TIP =
Transportation Improvement Program
*PPP requires a 45-day public comment period
24
0 0 R4. Evaluation
By consistently documenting public participation efforts and recording the effectiveness of each tool
used for quantity, quality, and diversity of public input, the RVTPO can be efficient and effective.
The RVTPO may follow these guidelines to evaluate public participation, adjusting the details as
needed and in response to experience. Evaluation determines how effective public participation
tools were in eliciting input, engaging and reaching people, and engaging and reaching stakeholders
(Table 4). RVTPO may track how much staff time each step took and note unexpected hurdles or
outcomes. Evaluation generally occurs after each public participation event.
Table 4. Evaluation Methods
Tool Criteria Methods to improve performance
Display, flyers Number of people reached,
number of flyers /displays Choose locations convenient to stakeholders.
Create material that resonates with stakeholders.
Email Number of emails sent,
number of recipients,
number of responses Maintain email database. Collect email contacts
with every survey.
Interviews Number of interviews,
number of interviewees
who feel satisfied with the
interview Incentives.
Media Reach Submit press releases to media.
Multimedia Number of views, viewers,
listeners Create videos, podcasts, graphics, promote with
other tools.
Paid ads Number of participants /
respondents indicating they
saw the advertisement Use separate survey collectors to track survey
response rate through paid social media ads.
Partners Number of partners,
number of presentations to
potential partners Maintain database of partners.
25
0 0 RTool Criteria Methods to improve performance
Pop up booth Number of interactions,
number of participants
reporting satisfactory
interaction Incentives, crowd draws, hold booths at events
and locations to reach stakeholders, use visual
displays and staff interactions.
Presentation Number of presentations,
number of people attending
presentations Keep presentations short and focused on a few
key points.
Public hearing,
comment
period Number of public who
attend hearing, number of
comments Advertise in newspaper, publicize on blog,
Facebook, and email list.
Public
Participation
Plan Required by law. No
measure Update and incorporate feedback from
evaluations. Review every 3 years and update or
redevelop if necessary.
Social media Number of messages,
number of views, number
RI)DFHERRNIULHQGV Promote through partners, post regularly.
Stakeholder
group, focus
group Number of participants,
number of participants who
report feeling engaged Schedule at convenient times and locations on
transit routes and in accessible venues, choose
locations convenient to stakeholders, promote
with other tools, administer survey to assess
engagement, consider virtual meetings.
Survey Number of survey
responses, number of
survey respondents who
feel satisfied with the
survey Use public-friendly words and phrases and
common names of roads. Avoid acronyms,
jargon, and numerical road designations. Have a
member(s) of the public review the survey and
provide feedback.
Website, blog Number of website hits,
number of blog articles Link to partner organizations, post relevant,
useful information, update website, use
accessible formatting, promote with other tools.
26
0 0 RAppendices
Glossary
Americans with Disabilities Act: The disabled communities shall be involved in the development and
improvement of transportation services. People with disabilities shall be able to access meeting sites
and have access to the information.
Environmental Justice: Fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race,
color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement
of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
Federal Highway Administration: An agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible
for funding highways and trails.
Federal Transit Administration: An agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible for
funding and providing technical assistance to public transit systems.
Limited English Proficiency: An executive order mandating that agencies receiving federal financial
assistance have a plan for accommodating people with limited English proficiency. The Title VI and
Limited English Proficiency Plan is available on the RVARC website.
Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan (LRTP): A long range plan that identifies area
transportation needs in light of projected growth patterns and broadly charts major capital
investments for transportation system development to meet these projected needs.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): A planning body required by the federal government
which is responsible for the transportation planning and project selection in its region. It is a coalition
of local governments that provides a forum for cooperative decision making for the metropolitan
SODQQLQJDUHD59732LVWKH5RDQRNH9DOOHXUEDQL]HGDUHDV032
Public Participation Plan (PPP): Outlines how the RVTPO will work to achieve public participation in
all planning activities.
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission: The Planning District Commission, a coalition of
local governments, that includes the RVTPO area. A Planning District Commission is based on a
community of interest and is authorized by state and federal legislation. The Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Commission staffs the RVTPO.
Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (RVTPO): The Metropolitan Planning
Organization for the Roanoke Valley urbanized area. The RVTPO is staffed by the Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Commission.
27
0 0 RTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Ensures that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color,
sex, national origin, or physical handicap, be excluded from participation in transportation programs.
The Title VI and Limited English Proficiency Plan is available on the RVARC website.
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): Spending plan for funding expected from all sources for
transportation projects of all types in the RVTPO over the next four years. RVTPO prepares the
Transportation Improvement Program annually based on information submitted by local and state
governments.
Transportation Technical Committee: An RVTPO committee, comprised of a broad representation of
RVTPO jurisdictions and related agencies. The Transportation Technical Committee reviews the
Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program, and makes
recommendations to the RVTPO Policy Board.
Virginia Department of Transportation: A State agency responsible for building, maintaining and
operating the state’s roads, bridges and tunnels. Through the Commonwealth Transportation Board,
it provides funding for airports, seaports, rail and public transportation.
28
0 0 RDevelopment of the Public Participation Plan
The RVTPO sought extensive public collaboration in developing the draft Public Participation Plan
which was originally approved in 2018.
Public Participation Plan Ad-hoc Committee
The Public Participation Plan Ad-hoc Committee extended invitations to 82 agencies and individuals
representing:
x RVTPO member jurisdictions and agencies
x Business interests
x Economic development
x Communications and marketing
x Environmental protection
x Environmental justice
x Transportation
x Freight
x Safety & emergency management
x Health
x Education
x Housing
x Transportation workers
Thirty-eight people from thirty agencies attended at least one meeting, and several others provided
feedback. The committee met six times between May 8 and Oct 23, 2017. During this time, the
committee:
x Reviewed public participation plans from eleven MPOs
x Identified agencies and demographic groups missing from the table, and assisted staff in
reaching out to them
x Learned about the transportation planning process and opportunities for public participation
x Drafted public participation Purpose and Objectives
x Provided feedback on survey questions to capture public input on the Purpose and
Objectives
x Brainstormed and discussed public participation tools with respect to the Purpose and
Objectives
x Provided feedback on the draft Plan
x Responded to feedback from the Transportation Technical Committee on the draft Plan
29
0 0 RMinutes from these meetings available online (http: / /rvarc.org /wp-
content /uploads /2018 /01 /Compiled-Minutes.pdf) or by request.
The RVTPO thanks the members of the committee for their hard work developing this plan:
Dee King, Chair City of Salem citizen representative
Ben Bristoll, Vice Chair City of Roanoke citizen representative
John Busher Botetourt County citizen representative
Tim Martin City of Roanoke business representative
alternate Melinda Mayo
Bruce Mayer Vinton business representative
Carl Palmer Valley Metro
Kevin Jones Federal Highway Administration
Olivia Byrd Grandin Village Business Association
Wendy Jones Williamson Road Area Business Association
Michael Shelton Brambleton Area Business Association
Josh Baumgartner Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce
Morgan Romeo Western Virginia Workforce Development Board
Landon Howard 9LVLW9LUJLQLDV%OXH5LGJH
Amar Bhattarai Refugee and Immigration Services
Bethany Lackey Roanoke Refugee Partnership
Aaron Fallon Total Action for Progress
Antwyne Calloway Blue Ridge Independent Living Center
Michelle Via Roanoke Area Visually Enabled
Kim Gembala Roanoke Rescue Mission
Shawn Hunter The Peacemakers, Inc.
Paul Workman Blue Ridge Bicycle Club
Liz Belcher Greenway Commission
Jeremy Holmes Ride Solutions
alternate Tim Pohlad-Thomas
Robert Stutes Uber
David Foster Rail Solution
James Humanik Fetch
Marci Stone Roanoke City Emergency Manager
Aaron Boush Carilion
alternates Sierra Steffan, Amy Michals
Sean Pressman Lewis Gale
Stacie Turner Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare
Forest Jones Salem Public Schools
alternate Lewis Armistead
Crystal Hall Roanoke Housing Authority
Wayne Leftwich
30
0 0 RPublic Input
In addition to the contributions of the committee, there were early and late opportunities for public
input. Two surveys sought input on the newly developed Purpose and Objectives early in the
development of the draft. A 45-day public comment period and a public hearing were opportunities
for final comments on the draft. The comments and responses, early and late, are available at
http: / /rvarc.org /wp-content /uploads /2018 /01 /Public-input-summary.pdf or by request.
31
0 0 R2021 Update Public Input Survey Results
A survey to collect public input on the update of the Public Participation Plan was available from
March 4, 2021 to April 19, 2021. The Public Participation Plan, first adopted in 2007 and updated in
2018, states that it should be reviewed every three years. In 2021, staff reviewed the plan and
identified minor changes:
x Updated contact information (page i).
x Reorganization:
o 3XUSRVHDQG2EMHFWLYHVRI3XEOLF3DUWLFLSDWLRQLVQRZVLPSO3XUSRVHDQG
2EMHFWLYHV
o Objectives are now second-level headings so they appear in the table of contents.
o 5HPRYHG3XEOLF3DUWLFLSDWLRQ6WUDWHJLHVZKLFKZDVUHGXQGDQWZLWKRWKHU
sections.
o 7RROER[XQGHU3XUSRVHDQG2EMHFWLYHVRI3XEOLF3DUWLFLSDWLRQLVQRZ
7RROER[
o (YDOXDWLRQ*XLGHOLQHVRI3XEOLF3DUWLFLSDWLRQ(IIRUWVXQGHU3XUSRVHDQG
2EMHFWLYHVRI3XEOLF3DUWLFLSDWLRQLVQRZ(YDOXDWLRQ
x 5HSKUDVHGNHGHFLVLRQSRLQWVZKLFKZDVFRQIXVLQJ7DEOHDQGWKURXJKRXW
x Updated the planning factors to match 23CFR 450.306 (page 9).
x 5HPRYHG)LJXUHDQG3XEOLFSDUWLFLSDWLRQSHUPHDWHVWKHSODQQLQJSURFHVVIURPWKH
description of the long-range transportation plan because there are many planning steps that
the public does not participate in (page 11).
x Revised the description of the Transportation Improvement Program to explain that the
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation makes funding decisions one year out
while the Virginia Department of Transportation makes a six-year improvement plan (page
12).
x Objective 1, changed the bow-tie model to a more accurate statement about timeliness (page
14).
x Updated Objective 4, High Quantity to reflect recent RVTPO experience with public input
(pages 17-18).
x Clarified Final Comment Period and Public Hearing section (page 18) to allow flexibility in the
event that state law changes regarding the requirement of newspaper ads.
x Removed items that were not successful and updated details on items based on RVTPO
recent experience with public participation in section 3. Toolbox (formerly section 2.3) (pages
19-20).
x Changed the 15-day requirement, which was effectively a 21-day requirement because
newspaper ads must be submitted a week in advance, to 14 days (page 23).
32
0 0 Rx Replaced Appendix material, Title VI and Limited English Proficiency, with the most recent
Title VI Implementation Plan. (The Title VI Implementation was updated in 2019 and
amended March 25, 2021 to correct deficiencies identified during a compliance review from
the Virginia Department of Transportation.)
The comment opportunity and survey were promoted through:
x RVARC blog
x RVARC Facebook page
x Email to organizations and individuals who had served on the steering committee for the
2018 update
x Email to about 300 people who have taken an RVTPO survey in the past
x RVARC e-newsletter
x Published in the Roanoke Times and the Roanoke Tribune
Public input on the 2018 update was robust, and actively seeking broad public input across the
UHJLRQWKDWZDVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKHUHJLRQVGHPRJUDSKLFPDNHXSRQPLQRUXSGDWHV could confuse
citizens who had not been involved in the process. Twenty-one people took the survey.
33
0 0 RAll but two people had participated in at least one RVPTO opportunity for public input, such as
taking a survey or attending a hearing or meeting.
Participants were asked about their experience with RVTPO surveys. Most participants understood
the purpose and the questions and felt their input was considered and valued. Additional comments
were:
x I thought that the wrong questions were asked, and not enough room for other info to be
added.
x I am hopeful, not a yes or no answer for the last two questions
34
0 0 R
Most participants feel aware of public input opportunities and feel they are meaningful. Additional
comments about how the RVTPO can improve its public participation included:
x Encourage people that participate to share the survey with family and friends in the area so
that they, too, may take the survey and submit their input.
x I think it’s fine
x I don’t know I got the information on Next Door.
x I wish I knew. Older educated white people seem to make up the majority of people with the
time and interest to do this. I think you would have to pay people or give gift cards to get
other input.
x not knowing more is on me
x More social media updates
x Again, the answer would be “hopeful” for the second part of question three. It is possible that
more people would respond if they could be sure their voices were listened to, not just heard.
x continue to try and get the word out there
35
0 0 RParticipants who had been part of the steering committee for the development of the 2018 Public
3DUWLFLSDWLRQ3ODQZHUHLQYLWHGWRUHYLHZDUHSRUWRQWKH59732VSXEOLFSDUWLFLSDWLRQHIIRUWVDQG
answer some questions. Of the four participants who indicated they had served on the steering
committee, three completed this section.
All three former steering committee members feel that the RVTPO has achieved or improved its
public participation goals of high quantity, high quality, meaningful to the public, and variety of input.
No one indicated that the RVTPO has not improved. All members agreed with all of the proposed
changes.
36
0 0 RDemographic questions
:KLOHEURDGLQSXWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKHUHJLRQVGHPRJUDSKLFVZDVQRWDQDSSURSULDWHJRDOIRUWKLV
survey, standard demographic questions were included. Of 21 participants, 17 provided a five-digit
zip code, all of which were within the RVTPO boundary. Most participants identified as white, one
%ODFNDQGRQHDQRWKHUUDFH1RSDUWLFLSDQWVKDGLQFRPHOHVVWKDQfour participants had
income in the $20,000-$49,000 range, the remaining had incomes above that range. Most
participants were 55 years or older and no participants were younger than 35 years. To determine
how much public input was from RVTPO decision makers, participants were asked if they were a
member of the RVTPO Policy Board or Transportation Technical Committee. One participant said