3.0 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS AND WORKSHOPS

3.1 Purpose and Approach

The purpose of the stakeholder interview is to gain additional insights into the institutional arrangements, partnerships, outreach methods, and other activities contributing to successfully planning, deploying, and operating the Minnesota UPA projects. The results of the interviews and workshops will be used in the non-technical success factor analysis. The results will be of benefit to other areas seeking to enhance existing, or develop new multi-agency/multi-jurisdictional partnerships to promote innovative transportation solutions to address traffic congestion.

Two sets of interviews and workshops will be conducted. The first set of interviews will be conducted in June and July, with the workshop to follow in early September 2009, prior to the deployment of the Minnesota UPA projects. The opportunity exists to coordinate the first set of interviews with interviews being conducted by faculty at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs with funding from the University of Minnesota's ITS Institute. This approach will allow for more interviews to be conducted by leveraging additional resources. The second set of interviews and workshop will be conducted in the spring and summer of 2011, after deployment of all Minnesota UPA projects.

3.2 Stakeholders to Interview

As noted, faculty from the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs are currently conducting similar, although not identical, interviews with funding from the University of Minnesota's ITS Institute. Faculty from the Humphrey Institute provided an initial list of individuals to be interviewed. This list was developed with input from the Minnesota UPA Partners Outreach Subcommittee. The list was split between individuals to be interviewed with funding from the University of Minnesota and those to be interviewed with funding from the Minnesota UPA National Evaluation. Names on the top half of the list were identified to be interviewed using funding from the University of Minnesota and names on the bottom half of the list were targeted to be interviewed with funding from the UPA National Evaluation.

Based on review by members of the Battelle team, input from representatives from the Minnesota UPA partnership agencies, comments from U.S. DOT representatives, and additional input from faculty at the Humphrey Institute, the list of possible interviewees was expanded and revised. Table 3-1 presents the list of stakeholders targeted to be interviewed with funding from both the University of Minnesota and the UPA National Evaluation. The table highlights the anticipated sources of funding and the status of interviews conducted with funding from the University of Minnesota.

As presented in Table 3-1, in some cases multiple individuals from the same agencies have been identified to be interviewed. The intent is to interview both the top officials – such as the Chair or the Commissioner – as well as the key senior staff involved in the Minnesota UPA. It is realized that due to busy schedules it may not be possible to schedule interviews with all the top officials identified. It is anticipated that between 12 and 14 interviews will be completed for the Minnesota UPA National Evaluation based on the availability of individuals and the ability to schedule interviews. The Battelle team will be able to utilize the results from the interviews conducted with funding from the University of Minnesota to enrich the interview results. The individuals from these interviews will also be invited to participate in the workshop.

Based on previous experience, it is anticipated that each interview will take between one hour and one and one-half hour. The questions will be sent to the individuals in advance of the interviews to help facilitate discussion. Two members of the Battelle team will participate in each interview. One individual will lead the interview, ask the questions, and take notes. The second individual will take notes using a laptop computer and record the session if the interview agrees.

Table 3-1. List of Stakeholders to Interview

Name	Organization	Funding/Status
Tim Anderson	FHWA, St. Paul	University of Minnesota*
Ken Buckeye	Mn/DOT	University of Minnesota*
John Doll	State Senator	University of Minnesota*
Scott Dibble	State Senator	University of Minnesota*
Max Donath	Center for Transportation Studies	University of Minnesota*
Steve Elkins	City Council Member, City of Bloomington	University of Minnesota*
Frank Hornstein	State Representative	University of Minnesota*
Brian Kary	Mn/DOT	University of Minnesota
Steve Kotke	City of Minneapolis	University of Minnesota*
Mark Krebsbach	Transportation Director, Dakota County	University of Minnesota
Craig Lamothe	Metro Transit	University of Minnesota*
Brian Lamb	Metro Transit	University of Minnesota*
Beverly Miller	Minnesota Valley Transit Authority	UPA
Mike Abegg	Minnesota Valley Transit Authority	UPA
Nick Thompson	Mn/DOT	University of Minnesota*
Tom Thorstenson	Metro Transit	University of Minnesota*
Max Donath	Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota	University of Minnesota*
Tom Sorel	Commissioner, Mn/DOT	UPA
Bernie Arseneau	Mn/DOT	UPA
Bob Deboer	Citizen's League	University of Minnesota*
Carol Flynn	Value Pricing Task Force	UPA
Elizabeth Glidden	City Council Member, City of Minneapolis	University of Minnesota*
Mary Liz Holberg	State Representative	University of Minnesota*
Bob Johns	Director, Center for Transportation Studies	UPA
Peter Bell	Chair, Metropolitan Council	UPA
Robert McFarlin	Metropolitan Council, District 3	UPA
Polly Bowles	Metropolitan Council, District 8	UPA
Wendy Wulff	Metropolitan Council, District 16	UPA
Tom Weaver	Regional Administrator, Metropolitan Council	UPA
Arlene McCarthy	Director, Metropolitan Transportation Services, Metropolitan Council	UPA
Steve Murphy	State Senator	University of Minnesota*
Bob Tennessen	35W Solutions Alliance	UPA
Peter Wagenius	Council Liaison, City of Minneapolis	UPA
John Doan	SFR Consulting	University of Minnesota*
Lee Munnich	Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota	University of Minnesota
Dan Krom	Dakota County	UPA
Larry Lee	City of Bloomington	UPA
Dan McElroy	City of Burnsville	UPA
Susan Moe	FHWA, St. Paul	UPA
Marthand Nookala	Hennepin County	UPA

3.3 Interview Questionnaires

Questionnaires will be used for both the pre-deployment and the post-deployment stakeholder interviews. Table 3-2 provides the questionnaire for the pre-deployment interviews. Table 3-3 provides the draft questionnaire for the post-deployment interviews. The post-deployment questionnaire may be revised based on the results of the pre-deployment interviews and workshop, as well as to address any issues or concerns that emerge during the implementation and operation of the Minnesota UPA projects. Interviewers will also have a series of probes to use in drawing responses from interviewees if needed.

Interviewee: __________________________________ Date: __________________

Interviewer(s): __________________________________________________________

Introduction	Explain the National UPA Evaluation purpose, scope, and sponsors. Describe the purpose and process for the stakeholder interviews. Note that the interviews are confidential. Responses will not be attributed to specific individuals. Explain the Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Human Subject Protection requirements, consent form, and need for signature.
Role in UPA and Expectations	Please describe your agency's role and your personal role in planning, designing, and implementing the Minnesota UPA projects. What is your agency's objective(s) in participating in the UPA? What benefits did you expect to be realized when you decided to participate in the UPA? Have these expectations changed at all during the planning and pre-deployment process? If so, what has changed and why? What would constitute success from the UPA projects for you and your agency? What about the UPA overall? Has your view of what constitutes success changed during the planning and pre-deployment process? If so, in what way and why?
Institutional Arrangements	Have you and your agency worked with the other partnership agencies, organizations, and individuals before? If so, what has been the focus of this work? How would you classify past working relationships - successful, unsuccessful, mixed? (Check for all partners – Mn/DOT, Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, MVTA, City of Minneapolis, and Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, and Ramsey counties. Also check for CTS and the HHH Institute at the University of Minnesota, legislators, and other local communities). What do you think were the keys to bringing all the agencies and jurisdictions together to develop the UPA partnership and to implement the UPA projects? What do you think will be the keys to maintaining the partnership throughout the deployment and operation process? Have there been any changes in the partnership agencies and jurisdictions, including yours, that have influenced implementation of the UPA projects? If so, how have these changes been addressed? Do you feel there have been any changes in the commitment to the UPA projects on the part of your agency/jurisdiction or other agencies/jurisdictions? If yes, please explain the nature and the potential causes of these changes. What have been the biggest challenges during the implementation process? How have these challenges been addressed by the partners, including your agency/jurisdiction? Have they been effectively overcome? Were there any specific institutional issues that had to be addressed? If so, how were they addressed by the partners, including your agency/jurisdiction? Have they been effectively overcome? Were there any specific policy or political issues that had to be addressed? If so, how were they addressed by the partners, including your agency/jurisdiction? Have they been effectively overcome? How will the decision on how revenues will be allocated or reinvested be made? What do you think the plan should be for use of the revenues? Were there any technical or technology-related issues that had to be addressed? If so, how were they addressed by the partners, including your agency/jurisdiction? Have they been effectively overcome?
Outreach Activities	A variety of outreach activities have been used to engage policy makers, the public, and other groups in the implementation of the Minnesota UPA projects. What do you feel have been the most successful activities? Have you been involved in any of these activities? If so, what has been your experience? Are there other outreach activities you feel would be of benefit? Do you anticipate any issues or concerns with public acceptance of the HOT lanes or the PDSL, the telecommuting programs, or other project elements?
Lessons Learned	Based on your experience to date, would you do anything differently if you were beginning to plan and implement the same projects in a different corridor with the same funding? What if the project as a whole had twice the funding? What if the project as a whole had half the funding? What do you feel are the key experiences or lessons learned so far to share with individuals in other areas? Are there any other topics you would like to bring up related to the UPA?

Interviewee: __________________________________ Date: __________________

Interviewer(s): __________________________________________________________

Introduction	Explain the National UPA Evaluation purpose, scope, and sponsors. Describe the purpose and process for the stakeholder interviews. Note that the interviews are confidential. Responses will not be attributed to specific individuals. Explain the Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Human Subject Protection requirements, consent form, and need for signature.
Role in UPA and Expectations	Please describe your agency's role, and your personal role in deploying and operating the Minnesota UPA projects. What is your agency's objective(s) in participating in the UPA? What benefits did you expect to be realized when you decided to participate in the UPA? Have these expectations changed at all during the deployment and operation of the various projects? If so, what has changed and why? Have your expectations been realized? What would constitute success from the UPA projects for you and your agency? What about the UPA overall? Has your view of what constitutes success changed during the deployment and operation of the various projects? If so, in what way and why? (Since it is anticipated that most individuals will be re-interviewed, these questions may be modified to focus on any changes that occurred during the deployment).
Institutional Arrangements	How would you describe your working relationships with other UPA partners during the deployment and operation phases? Did your working relationship change during the deployment and operation of the UPA projects? If so, how did it change? (Check for all partners – Mn/DOT, Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, MVTA, City of Minneapolis, and Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, and Ramsey counties. Also check for CTS and the HHH Institute at the University of Minnesota, legislators, and other local communities). What do you think have been the keys to maintaining the partnerships throughout the deployment and operation process? Have there been any changes in the partnership agencies and jurisdictions, including yours, that have influenced the deployment and operation of the UPA projects? If so, how have these changes been addressed? Do you feel there have been any changes in the commitment to the UPA projects on the part of your agency/jurisdiction or other agencies/jurisdictions? If yes, please explain the nature and the potential causes of these changes. What have been the biggest challenges during the deployment and operation phases? How have these challenges been addressed by the partners, including your agency/jurisdiction? Have they been effectively overcome? Were there any specific institutional issues that had to be addressed? If so, how were they addressed by the partners, including your agency/jurisdiction? Have they been effectively overcome? Were there any specific policy or political issues that had to be addressed? If so, how were they addressed by the partners, including your agency/jurisdiction? Have they been effectively overcome? How was the decision on how to allocate or reinvest revenues made? Does the use match your ideas on how the revenues should be used? Were there any technical or technology-related issues that had to be addressed? If so, how were they addressed by the partners, including your agency/jurisdiction? Have they been effectively overcome?
Outreach Activities	A variety of outreach activities have been used to engage policy makers, the public, and other groups during the deployment and operation of the Minnesota UPA projects. What do you feel have been the most successful activities? Are there other outreach activities you feel would be of benefit? What has been the public reaction to the HOT lanes and the PDSL? Has there been any reaction to the telecommuting program or other UPA elements? Have any other issues or concerns emerged?
Lessons Learned	Based on your experience to date, would you do anything differently if you were beginning to deploy and operate the same projects in a different corridor with the same funding? What if the project as a whole had twice the funding? What if the project as a whole had half the funding? What do you feel are the key experiences or lessons learned so far to share with individuals in other areas? Are there any other topics you would like to bring up related to the UPA?

3.4 Workshop

A workshop will be conducted at the conclusions of each round of interviews. All of the individuals interviewed will be invited to participate in the workshop, which is anticipated to be approximately three hours in length. The individuals interviewed through funding from the University of Minnesota will also be invited to participate in the workshop. These individuals will have the opportunity to comment on the more detailed questions included in the national evaluation interviews.

The purpose of the workshop is to foster additional dialog among the key stakeholders. The common themes identified during the interviews will be used to frame the group discussion, which will explore these and other topics in more detail. Table 3-4 presents the format for the pre-deployment workshop. It is anticipated that the post-deployment workshop will follow a similar format, although changes may be made based on the first workshop and interview results.

Table 3-4. Workshop Format

Welcome and Self Introductions - 10 minutes Purpose of Workshop - 5 minutes Summary of Key Point from Interviews and Additional Discussion – (20 minutes each) 80 minutes Expectations Institutional Arrangements Outreach Activities Lessons Learned Expectations for Operations – 20 minutes Concluding Remarks – 20 minutes

3.5 Analysis Methods

Immediately following each round of interviews, the interview notes and tape recordings will be reviewed and the major comments will be documented. The responses of each stakeholder to every question will be summarized. Faculty at the Humphrey Institute use the NVivo software to help organize, analyze, and summarize interviews. The categories for summarizing the results will be identified using both questionnaires. Subcategories will be used to provide more detail on the various topics covered in both sets of interviews.

A summary report will be prepared highlighting the common themes emerging from the interviews, as well as unique perspectives. The summary report will be organized by the interview questions, with a final section presenting overarching themes and tips for other areas.

The workshop discussion will be summarized immediately following each workshop. The workshop summary will highlight the discussion of the interview questions. Additional perspectives will be documented, as will reinforcement of the common themes from the interviews. The workshop summary will be of benefit to the Minnesota UPA partnership agencies, other agencies in the Twin Cities area, and agencies throughout the country.

3.6 Schedule and Responsibilities

The first set of stakeholder interviews will be conducted in late June and July, 2009. The first workshop will be conducted in early September, 2009. The interviews and workshop will be completed prior to deployment of the major UPA projects, which begins in September 2009. The second set of stakeholder interviews will be conducted in June and July, 2011. The workshop will be held in August 2011.

Members of the Battelle team will conduct both the pre- and post-deployment interviews and facilitate the workshops. The results from the interviews and the workshops will be summarized after each round.