Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies on Transport Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cstp

The use of focus groups to foster stakeholder engagement in intercity T

passenger rail planning
V. Dimitra Pyrialakoua, , Konstantina Gkritzab, Sandra S. Liuc
⁎

a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, United States
b
Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051, United States
c
Department of Consumer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2051, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Recent changes in the United States (U.S.) passenger rail policies have affected a number of National Railroad
Stakeholder engagement Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) corridors. One of the major changes is that, since the Passenger Rail Investment
Passenger rail and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008 was passed, all short-distance Amtrak corridors should become state-
Investment decision making supported. Stakeholder and public involvement is strongly advocated by the U.S. Department of Transportation
Multicriteria analysis
as a fundamental component of the transportation planning process and an important step to keep the public
Focus groups
informed and engaged in decision making. Thus, states should attempt to engage the public in any funding
decisions that might affect passenger rail service changes (such as line discontinuance). In addition, states should
seek the input of the stakeholder and public to evaluate the alternative transportation investment options
available in case such service changes occur. Nevertheless, both literature and practice of stakeholder engage-
ment on policy making and planning of strategic operational changes and/or other broader decision making is
scarce.
This article presents a case study of stakeholder engagement in transportation decision making pertaining to
decisions of investments in passenger rail and state and local fund allocation, using a focus group approach. This
engagement aimed to (1) consult stakeholders in a group setting in an attempt to produce shared knowledge and
(2) explore how the transportation investment decision-making process can incorporate public preferences and
community values in a participatory manner via the assessment of potential investment directions. The goals of
the study are to explore whether stakeholder engagement at a smaller-size projects and/or broader policy and
planning decision making can be beneficial, and whether focus groups are suitable to facilitate such engagement.
The findings verify that stakeholder involvement can provide states and other decision-makers with valuable
insights on several topics supporting future policy and funding decisions. For example, in the case explored, the
engagement of the stakeholders revealed that public investments towards the continuation and potentially
improvement of the intercity passenger rail services are in line with the communities’ goals and are viewed as
more beneficial than alternative transportation investments that can enable mobility in the area. In addition, the
findings suggest that the benefits of engaging stakeholders in transportation decision making go beyond the act
of gathering stakeholders’ input; focus groups or similar dynamic forums can facilitate the production of in-
novative ideas and shared knowledge while fostering collegiality among stakeholders. Finally, the findings of the
case study also verify that focus groups can be a suitable approach to engage and consult a small group of
stakeholders for higher-level transportation investment decision making. Overall, the case study results indicate
that stakeholder engagement can benefit smaller-size projects and/or broader policy and planning decision
making, such as decisions involving the financing of an intercity passenger rail line and investment directions
towards operational changes of the line and/or alternative transportation modes and infrastructure.

1. Introduction decision-making process, it is also a well-recognized challenge (Walker,

2000). In transportation planning specifically, the United States De-
In the context of policy analysis and planning, as important as it is to partment of Transportation (USDOT) and the various agencies within it
integrate the various stakeholders and other relevant parties in the such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dimitra.pyrialakou@mail.wvu.edu (V.D. Pyrialakou), nadia@purdue.edu (K. Gkritza), liuss@purdue.edu (S.S. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.12.009
Received 11 September 2017; Received in revised form 17 October 2018; Accepted 16 December 2018
Available online 20 December 2018
2213-624X/ © 2018 World Conference on Transport Research Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V.D. Pyrialakou et al.
Transit Administration (FTA) highlight the importance of public in-
volvement in the transportation decision-making process (FHWA,
USDOT, n.d.). Since the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) in 1991 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) in 1998 that reinforced the pertinent ISTEA’s direc-
tives, public involvement in transportation planning is federally man-
dated.
As the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 89:
“Public Participation Strategies for Transit” discusses a number of docu-
mented transit-related case studies can be found in the literature, but,
most concern “high-profile, high cost projects” or deal with specific
issues (such as environmental/community impacts) (Giering, 2011).
For example, passenger rail case studies both in and outside of the U.S.
include mostly new constructions, such as from the planning of a new
high-speed rail link between Lyon, France, and Turin, Italy (Pagliara
and Di Ruocco, 2018) and the Campania Regional Metro System in Italy
(Cascetta et al., 2015) to the planning of a proposed new suburban
passenger rail in Bangalore, India (Jillella et al., 2015) and a proposed
light-rail transit in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (Casello et al., 2015);
expansions, such as extensions of the San Diego Trolley light-rail transit
(Bates and Wahl, 1997); and rail transit-oriented development (TOD),
such as the design of light rail TOD in Louisville Kentucky (Bailey et al.,
2007) and the cases of Clarendon Station Area, Arlington County,
Virginia, Emerson Park Station Area, East St. Louis, Illinois, and
Fruitvale Transit Village, Oakland, California (Slotterback, 2010). In
many cases, smaller-size state or regional public transportation pro-
jects, or more general initiatives related to regional transportation
planning, including passenger rail decision making of operational
changes, do not get the same attention. Often, the engagement of the
various stakeholders in the process of transportation planning in such
cases is difficult to ensure, whether due to limited resources or due to
lack of such direction. In addition, effectively engaging the public in
transit projects is especially challenging, more so than in highway-re-
lated projects (Casello et al., 2015).
This article presents the results of a case study of stakeholder en-
gagement in transportation decision making pertaining to decisions of
investments in passenger rail and state and local fund allocation.
Specifically, the case study involves an established intercity passenger
rail line and competing modes in the state of Indiana, U.S. The study
utilized a focus group approach to engage stakeholders in discussions
about the future of the rail line and alternative opportunities for
transportation investments in the state, specifically as related with
operational changes of the line and its continuation or abandonment.
The overarching goals of the study are to explore (1) whether stake-
holder engagement at a smaller-size projects and/or broader policy and
planning decision making can be beneficial, and (2) whether focus
groups are suitable to facilitate such engagement.
The rest of the article is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the
research background. Section 3 describes the case study conducted and
discusses its research goals. Section 4 provides an overview of the
methodology and Section 5 discusses the empirical results. Finally,
Section 6 concludes with the implications of this study, as well as the
study’s limitations and future research directions.
2. Research background
Public involvement is the process through which the public can be
informed about transportation projects and be kept engaged in the
decision making (Giering, 2011), while at the same time, useful in-
formation for the project can be collected from the public (FHWA,
USDOT, 1996). Effective public involvement is therefore a two-way
communication process that enables the exchange of information and
interaction between the public and the transportation decision-makers
(Cascetta and Pagliara, 2013). Other terms that have been used in the
literature and practice to denote the same meaning are public partici-
pation, public engagement, and public outreach.
506
Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517
Literature and practice today unanimously recognize that public
participation is challenging, but rewarding (Leyden et al., 2017). The
documented benefits are many, including the generation of shared
knowledge, design outcomes and decisions that incorporate public
preferences and community values, public ownership and strengthening
of the public support for the implementation of the project, more effi-
cient implementation of projects/decisions, enhanced agency cred-
ibility, and broader community benefits (O'Connor et al., 2000;
Slotterback, 2010).
Today, the involvement of the public is well-recognized as a fun-
damental component of the transportation planning process in the U.S.
(FHWA, n.d.). In the 90s, enabled by the ISTEA and TEA-21, a funda-
mental shift in transportation decision making occurred. Since then and
over the last two decades, practice experience coupled with additional
legislations fostered a culture of “Public Owned Process” in transpor-
tation planning and decision making as opposed to the earlier “Decide,
Announce, and Defend” approach (Gazillo et al., 2013).
The existing public participation tools and methods utilized to foster
public and stakeholder engagement are numerous, spanning from tra-
ditional practices such as focus groups and public meetings to novel
information and communication technology approaches using, for ex-
ample, social media (see for example Majumdar, 2017). In addition,
comprehensive decision-making models that combine several methods
throughout the different stages of a transportation project have also
been proposed (see for example Cascetta et al., 2015). Literature sug-
gests that the selection of an appropriate method is imperative to a
successful process (Cascetta and Pagliara, 2013).
Different categorizations of methods and tools have been suggested
in the literature. For example, Quick and Zhao (2011) suggest four
broad categories of engagement methods: “advisory roles for the public,
consultations with small groups, collaborative design exercises, and
other methods” (Quick and Zhao, 2011, p. 3). Cascetta and Pagliara
(2013) categorize the different available tools based on five levels of
engagement: “stakeholder identification”, “listening and stakeholders
management”, “information communication and consulting”, “in-
formation communication”, and “consulting and participation”
(Cascetta and Pagliara, 2013, p. 109). Similarly, Bickerstaff et al.
(2002) proposed the following four categories based on the style and
purpose of the method: “traditional: provision of [local transport plan,
(LTP)] policy information”, “transport service oriented: seeking the
views of ‘customers”, “public consultation on LTP issues”, and “public
deliberation on LTP issues” (Bickerstaff et al., 2002, p. 68).
Focus groups are a well-established tool in public participation
practice. Bickerstaff et al. (2002), upon surveying the local highway
authorities in England, found that 70% of the authorities used or were
planning to use focus groups; only consultation documents ranked
higher in use (92%). Cascetta and Pagliara (2013) suggested that focus
groups are suitable to facilitate the communication of information and
“listening and stakeholder management” to engage a small group of
stakeholders. Bickerstaff et al. (2002) categorized focus groups as a tool
under “Public consultation on LTP issues”. Along the same lines, Quick
and Zhao (2011) categorized focus groups as tools suitable for “con-
sultations with small groups”. Focus groups are “group discussions ex-
ploring a specific set of issues” (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1998, p. 4). The
difference between focus groups and group interviews is that the focus
groups explicitly use the interaction between the participants to gen-
erate data (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1998). As such, they are suitable
tools to explore people’s perspectives as they interact with one another
and generally operate within a social context (Barbour and Kitzinger,
1998). Along the same lines, open discussions aiming to solicit a range
of views from the participants can often help participants to clarify their
opinions and the circumstances that these opinions depend on. There-
fore, researchers, by observing and analyzing the exchanges among the
participants, can investigate the degree of consensus on a topic
(Morgan, 1993).
In the context of public participation specifically, as Quick and Zhao
V.D. Pyrialakou et al.
(2011) discuss, focus groups can foster the engagement of stakeholders
and facilitate the exchange of information between the policy makers or
other professional staff, and them, frequently in a bid to achieve con-
sensus. As such, focus groups can be designed to engage stakeholders
and public (including users) in the evaluation of transportation projects
(including broader policy and plans) or to improve the design or plan of
a project or policy to account for the communities’ needs, among
others. One of the key features of focus groups is that they can easily
facilitate the discussion among policy makers or other professionals,
researchers, planners, and stakeholders, and as literature suggests,
discussion is “the essential link between analysis and decision making”
(Willson et al., 2003, p. 366).
3. Case study background, description, and research goals
This article presents a descriptive case study aiming to provide in-
sights on stakeholder engagement in transportation decision making
pertaining to decisions of investments in passenger rail and state and
local fund allocation. The case of the Hoosier State train (HST) was
selected as both an unusual (extreme case1) and a one-of-a kind (unique
case1) case. It is unusual due to the limited research and application of
stakeholder engagement in smaller-size state or regional public trans-
portation projects or more general initiatives related to regional
transportation planning, as discussed in the introduction. It is one-of-a
kind as the operation model of the line at the time of the study was
unique, as discussed below.
Intercity passenger rail has not received significant attention
throughout the development of modern transportation systems in the
U.S. Nevertheless, the USDOT and transportation planners recognize
the important role rail can play in intercity and interregional (between
100 and 500 miles) travel (Morgan et al., 2016; Transportation
Research Board, 2016). Furthermore, the U.S. federal policy and
funding structure pertaining to passenger rail has recently undergone
many changes. Effective October 2013, under the funding provisions of
the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008
(Section 209), all short-distance National Railroad Passenger Corpora-
tion (Amtrak) corridors should become state-supported, with the states
being responsible for the costs associated with the route. As of 2011,
there are 27 short-distance corridors in the U.S. classified as short-
distance (i.e., routes of less than 750 miles) affected by the provisions of
PRIIA (The States Working Group (SWG) and Amtrak, 2011).
This research uses one of those corridors, the HST, as a case study.
The line is 196 miles and operates four days per week between
Indianapolis, Indiana and Chicago, Illinois with stops in Indianapolis,
Crawfordsville, Lafayette, Rensselaer, Dyer, and Chicago. On the re-
maining three days of the week, the Cardinal line, a long-distance
corridor operating from New York City to Chicago, serves the area at
the same times.
As a result of the new policy structure for sustaining and developing
intercity passenger rail, at the beginning of the 2013 fiscal year, the
HST faced the possibility of discontinuance. As a response, the Indiana
Department of Transportation (INDOT) was the first state DOT na-
tionally to announce a Request for Proposals to seek competing solu-
tions from independent providers, as allowed by the PRIIA, in order to
obtain private-sector competitive bids for the operation of the HST.
INDOT ultimately reached an agreement with Iowa Pacific Holdings
that was effective between August 2015 and February 2017 (INDOT
and Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC, 2015). It was agreed that the company
would provide the locomotives for the line, as well as onboard pas-
senger services and amenities, and collaborate with Amtrak to keep the
train in service, with a shared vision to increase service frequency,
improve speed and maintain a reliable schedule, and provide better
onboard amenities. The result was a five-part agreement between
1
Selection criteria based on Yin (2011, 2017).
507
Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517
INDOT, local communities, Iowa Pacific Holdings, Amtrak, and the host
railroads (primarily CSX Corporation). It was a unique (first of its kind
in the U.S.) public-private partnership (PPP), although such partner-
ships based on vertical bundling of railway functions can be found in
other countries (for a discussion on vertical versus horizontal bundling
refer to Gangwar and Raghuram (2015)). PPPs have been used world-
wide to develop and operate various infrastructures for many decades.
In the U.S., since the 2000s there has been an ongoing debate on their
usefulness and effectiveness that has exposed both opportunities and
criticisms (Freeman, 2003; Minow, 2003; Engel et al., 2011).
In the case of transportation infrastructure, PPPs have been pre-
sented as a possible solution to the difficult task of identifying funding
for transportation improvements, especially in times of economic
hardship (see for example Daito et al. (2013)). In fact, in the U.S., as
Engel et al. (2011) describe, these kinds of partnerships have been most
commonly used in the transportation sector. Nevertheless, as Gangwar
and Raghuram (2015) discuss, PPPs around rail infrastructure can be
especially challenging due to the unique nature of the mode (e.g., due
to its technology base and focus on providing a public service).
Sustaining the Hoosier State line has not been a trivial decision for
INDOT and the local communities; the line had been underutilized and,
due to various circumstances, it had been one of the least reliable
Amtrak corridors. In light of the above, the main goal of this study was
to engage the key stakeholders in discussions about the future of the rail
line and alternative opportunities for transportation investments in the
state. The specific objectives of this engagement were to (1) consult
stakeholders in a group setting in an attempt to produce shared
knowledge and (2) explore how the transportation investment decision-
making process can incorporate public preferences and community
values in a participatory manner via the assessment of potential in-
vestment directions. To achieve these objectives, a focus group ap-
proach was utilized as a means to collect data and facilitate the en-
gagement of the stakeholders. As discussed in the research background
session, literature focusing on public participation in transportation
planning suggest that focus groups are a widely used method to deeply
engage and consult a small group of stakeholders and can facilitate the
production of shared knowledge and the assessment of transportation
projects.
4. Methodology
4.1. Research approach and data collection
To address the objectives of the case study, a mixed methods ap-
proach of data collection and analysis was followed. Specifically, during
the focus group both qualitative and quantitative data were collected.
Data sources utilized included four surveys (S), field notes kept by the
research team during the discussion parts of the focus group (FN), and
focus group transcripts (TR). The information collected from the dis-
cussion together with responses in open ended questions of surveys
were analyzed using a thematic qualitative analysis involving the ex-
ploration of patterns in the data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The quan-
titative data collected were used as inputs in a multicriteria analysis
exploring the prioritization of potential transportation investments of
state and local public funds.
During the data collection process, special attention was paid to
ensure the reliability of the case study. The research group developed a
case study protocol for the data collection procedures (reviewed and
approved by Purdue's Institutional Review Board) and a case study
database was created as per the recommendations of the literature and
good practice (see Yin, 2017). In addition, data and methodological
triangulation was used. As following described, the perspectives of the
stakeholders were captured using multiple data collection methods
(data triangulation). Furthermore, a mixed methods approach was used
that combined the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data as ear-
lier discussed. The results and conclusions of the two analyses were
V.D. Pyrialakou et al.
Fig. 1. Outline of the Methodology.
cross-checked and explored for inconsistencies (methodological trian-
gulation).
The methodology of the study is outlined in Fig. 1.
4.2. Participants’ selection and recruitment
The focus groups consisted of individuals and groups in Indiana that
have influence over planning and decision making and/or influence
over fostering a mode shift from automobile to public transportation for
intercity trips. Participants included planning and operating agencies
(such as metropolitan planning organizations [MPOs], the
Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission, and INDOT),
economic development groups (such as the Indiana Economic
Development Corporation and chambers of commerce), transportation
stakeholders (such as Amtrak, Iowa Pacific Holdings, and Intercity Bus
Companies), passenger rail advocacy groups (such as the Indiana
Passenger Rail Alliance), community volunteers, and other key stake-
holders in Indiana and the five counties where an Amtrak station is
located (i.e., Marion, Lake, Jasper, Tippecanoe, and Montgomery
counties). Elected officials (such as mayors, state representatives and
senators) were also invited and participated as the political involve-
ment in the decision-making process can be strong, even for PPPs
projects (Carpintero and Siemiatycki, 2016), and in addition to that,
local elected officials have been financially supporting the line since
2013.
A convenience (non-random) sample was used. The individuals
were selected either because of their involvement in the HST’s devel-
opment since 2013 (e.g., state senators and representatives, community
leaders), or based on their key position in target agencies (e.g., INDOT
representatives, mayors, representatives from MPOs). Because this
study targeted specific stakeholders based on the criteria explained
above, citizens’ participation was ensured via well-known community
508
Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517
representatives and residents with specific technical knowledge (simi-
larly to the recommendations of USDOT (FHWA, USDOT, 1996) for
decision and policy boards) instead of openly inviting all Indiana re-
sidents. Nevertheless, the goal was to ensure the participation of a wide
variety of stakeholders from different backgrounds, because typically,
focus groups as a means of public engagement are being designed to
involve a representative sample of stakeholders in terms of perspectives
(Quick and Zhao, 2011).
Two focus group meetings were organized in West Lafayette and
Indianapolis, Indiana, during Fall 2015. The first meeting included 11
participants and the second meeting 9 participants. Among the parti-
cipants, two of them participated in both meetings; thus, the total
number of stakeholders participated in the meetings was 18. The target
size of each focus group was around 6–10 individuals, as suggested in
the literature (e.g., Krueger, 1994). For the initial contact to invite
participation, several active citizens connected to relevant stakeholders
were recruited to help with personally contacting the potential parti-
cipants in order to ensure the maximum response rate and participa-
tion. For the invitation, standard practices were followed, which in-
cluded initially contacting the participant via email to provide a general
description of the research, the general topic of discussion, and the
importance of the individual’s participation and opinion (Stewart and
Shamdasani, 2014). A recruitment letter that provided more informa-
tion on the discussion topics was distributed to the target individuals.
Together with the recruitment letter, a pilot survey was distributed (S0).
This pilot survey aimed at providing context to the potential partici-
pants, prompting the participants who ultimately decided to participate
to begin considering the topics to be discussed, and soliciting initial
information that was later used to design the material for the focus
group meeting.
V.D. Pyrialakou et al.
4.3. Focus group discussion topics and format
The focus group meetings were designed to last approximately
120 min. Both meetings were led by a moderator2 who facilitated and
prompted conversations based on the following five discussion topics:
1. Long- and short-term planning goals of the communities and the
different stakeholders involved
2. Mode assessment in view of the planning goals identified
3. Financial support and financial viability of the HST
4. Ridership increase
5. Multimodal transportation
The main body of the discussion guide was divided into sections
based on the topics summarized above. A combination of surveys and
focus group discussions were used in this research, because this com-
bination usually ensures more comprehensive and time-efficient data
collection (Morgan, 1993). Thus, after the initial introductions were
completed, the participants were guided through the first questionnaire
(S1) which collected data on Discussion Topic 1 using verbal instruc-
tions. The responses to this first survey were collected and summarized
on-site and were subsequently used to identify the pertinent community
goals that were to be used to complete the mode assessment. Next, a
second questionnaire (S2) was distributed to the participants to solicit
information pertaining to the Discussion Topics 3 through 5. The pur-
pose of this questionnaire was to ensure that their opinions on several
predetermined aspects of the discussion topics were collected, even if
the discussion did not cover those topics and to also provide the op-
portunity of cross-checking to improve the reliability of the case study.
Another purpose of this questionnaire was to ensure that the opinions of
all participants were captured in case a participant did not feel com-
fortable sharing his/her opinion on a specific topic with the focus
group.
Upon completion of the second questionnaire, a discussion was
prompted aiming to better understand the priorities of the stakeholders
in relation to the goals of the community or the agency they re-
presented. During the last part of this discussion, the participants were
presented with a summary of their responses to the first questionnaire,
specifically showing the top 5–7 planning goals provided by the parti-
cipants (Discussion Topic 1). This was done to ensure that all partici-
pants agreed with the selected goals that would later be used as criteria
in the multicriteria analysis and finalize the order of the criteria. The
next part of the focus group aimed at collecting data pertaining to the
perceived transportation mode performance, in view of the identified
criteria (Discussion Topic 2). For this part of the meeting, a survey
technique was again used instead of attempting to collect data through
a discussion, both to save time in data collection and to ensure that the
unbiased opinion of each stakeholder was recorded (S3). All ques-
tionnaires used in the focus group (S1, S2, and S3) are include in the
Appendix.
The next part of the focus group involved an open-ended discussion
of several aspects of Discussion Topics 3 through 5 guided by the
moderator. The discussion was not structured, but rather the partici-
pants were presented with a few topics and were encouraged to start a
conversation based on what they considered to be most urgent.
Throughout the discussion, the moderator kept these topics in mind
and, when the conversation faltered, used prepared questions on these
topics to prompt further discussion. Finally, as literature and practice
suggest, the focus group closed with an opportunity for the participants
to debrief (see Bloor, 2001).
2
The moderator was a PhD candidate in Civil Engineering with expertise in
transportation engineering, trained under an experienced moderator and
Professor in the Department of Consumer Science at Purdue University.
509
Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517
4.4. Multicriteria analysis
The objective of the quantitative analysis of the data collected was
to provide insights on the perspectives of the stakeholders pertaining to
potential investments of state and local funds to the HST and competing
modes along the line in light of the communities’ long- and short-term
plans. Potential investments were not assessed in a project-specific
manner, but rather loosely towards specific transportation modes and
infrastructure that can enable the mobility of the state residents. To
achieve this objective a standard multicriteria analysis was used.
In transportation planning, it is often required that key decisions are
made on the basis of a wide range of performance criteria that reflect
the concerns and goals of all key stakeholders involved, such as trans-
portation agencies, transportation system users, and society as a whole
(Sinha and Labi, 2011). For the assessment of transportation projects
(including capital investments, technologies, and strategic operational
and other decisions), under multiple criteria with different dimensions,
multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a frequently used ap-
proach that has been receiving an increasing number of applications in
various transportation topics (Macharis and Bernardini, 2015), in-
cluding public transportation planning (such as Gerçek et al. (2004) and
Zak (2011), for example). Although it is a well-established approach
that can enable the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in the decision-
making process, research and applications of the MCDA in the topic of
stakeholder engagement in more general planning and decision-making
problems are scarce (de Luca, 2014).
MCDA is an operation research field that focuses on addressing
complex decision problems by providing methods and tools that can
facilitate the assessment of alternative projects with respect to differ-
ent—and often conflicting—criteria (quantitative and/or qualitative)
(Vincke, 1992). Two of the most widely used groups of MCDA methods
are outranking methods (such as ELECTRE and PROMETHEE) and
multiattribute utility and value theory variants (such as AHP and UTA)
(Greco et al., 2016). Simple linear additive multicriteria models (see for
example, Keeney and Raiffa (1993)) form the basis of many multi-
attribute utility and value theory models, such as the Analytical Hier-
archy Process (AHP) developed by Saaty (1980, 1990), which is the
most widely used MCDA model as suggested by the literature (see
Macharis and Bernardini, 2015).
In this article, for the purpose of identifying modes and/or infra-
structures that should be prioritized for public funding based on the
communities’ and the agencies’ transportation-related planning goals, a
simple linear additive model that uses a direct ranking and rating
method is used. Ranking and rating methods are the simplest multi-
criteria analysis techniques (Mendoza et al., 1999). Such simple
methods were popular in the early applications of MCDA (see for ex-
ample Von Winterfeldt and Edwards (1986)). As literature suggests, few
multicriteria analysis techniques are capable of considering stake-
holders’ input in many of the analysis stages. Moreover, due to the
complexity of this task, such techniques are typically time consuming
(Macharis and Bernardini, 2015). Often, as Walker (2000) propose, in
policy modeling, to ensure that the results are easily understood and
applicable, one should use the “simplest model that will do the job”
(Walker, 2000, p. 16). In light of this, a simple ranking and rating
method was chosen because it is straightforward and time efficient,
while at the same time considers the stakeholders’ inputs throughout
the evaluation process, from the identification and weighting of the
criteria, to the scoring of the alternatives. Linear additive models have
been frequently used in stakeholder participation (for an overview of
studies, see Macharis and Bernardini (2015)).
Typically, a multicriteria analysis involves the identification,
weighting, and scaling of the criteria, and the combination (or amal-
gamation) of each alternative in view of the alternative’s performance
in terms of the selected criteria (Sinha and Labi, 2011). In the following
sections, the choices made for each step are presented. The metho-
dology followed herein was developed by the researchers based on the
V.D. Pyrialakou et al.
rank-based value method proposed by Schlager (1968). The method
was adapted to accommodate its application at a group level. In addi-
tion to this method, different weighting options were explored to assess
the sensitivity of the results to the weight selection. The final steps are
discussed in detail below.
The alternatives considered are investments on:
• the HST to sustain and potentially improve services and/or increase
frequency,
• the improvement and/or addition of passenger intermodal stations,
• highway infrastructure,
• the addition of alternative fuel stations, and
• the operations and potential expansion of airports.
This list was not intended to be exhaustive, but to reflect the most
commonly subsidized transportation modes and infrastructure in the
study area.
4.4.1. Identification
For the identification of the criteria, the participants were given the
following 20 planning goals related to the provision of transportation
services and were asked to identify the five most important for them
and/or the agency they represented.
1. Transportation safety (improve health, reduce transportation-re-
lated fatalities/injuries)
2. State of good repair (maintain or improve operating conditions,
sustaining assets)
• Goals related to economic competitiveness:
3. Enhance productivity and growth
4. Improve systems’ performance (efficiency, travel time reliability)
5. Promote land-use patterns that foster community development
6. Promote the adoption of new transportation technologies
•
Goals related to quality of life in communities:
7. Enhance quality of life and community well-being
8. Improve accessibility, mobility, and connectivity
9. Expand transportation choices
10. Promote social equity
11. Promote environmental justice
•
Goals related to environmental sustainability:
12. Promote energy efficiency and/or reduce energy use
13. Mitigate environmental impacts (including water quality/
quantity, air pollution, noise, damage to cultural heritage)
14. Adapt to climate change
•
Goals related to public (or mass) transportation and multimodality:
15. Enhance economic attractiveness of systems (e.g., reduced costs
for agencies)
16. Enhance financial viability
17. Improve services to maximize mobility, accessibility, and mul-
timodality (e.g., reduced travel time, improved on-time perfor-
mance, increased frequency, route expansion)
18. Increase ridership
19. Provide quality and affordable services
20. Encourage use of non-motorized modes (e.g., pedestrian and
bicycle travel)
These 20 goals were selected based on a review of the transportation
planning goals of INDOT as captured in the 2013–2035 Future
Transportation Needs Report (INDOT, 2013), the USDOT’s 2014–2018
Strategic Plan (USDOT, 2014), past literature such as Litman (2013),
and the feedback obtained from the pilot survey distributed to the
participants. The participants were also instructed to add to the list any
other goals they viewed as important, to ensure that their priorities are
fully reflected in the criteria. No additional planning goals were added
to the original list in either meeting.
510
Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517
4.4.2. Weighting
Following the suggestions of Dodgson et al. (2009), numerical
weights can be directly assigned by the stakeholders, either with a
simple prioritization or with point allocation. In this research, direct
weighting through an ordinal ranking approach was chosen, because it
is generally more time efficient than other direct weighting methods
(Eckenrode, 1965). In addition, as discussed in the literature (see for
example Ahn and Park (2008)), when an assessment is performed at the
group level, it might be difficult for the group to come to a consensus on
something more complex than the ranking of criteria. In this study, a
simple, group-based prioritization was preferred; the final ranking of
the criteria was determined by considering the initial order that re-
sulted from the survey responses to the first questionnaire and the
opinions expressed in the discussions. Specifically, the collective
ranking as determined based on the frequency of the position in the
order of the criteria (e.g., the most important criterion was the one that
most participants ranked as most important) was first presented to the
participants. Then, there was an open discussion based on the results
and an agreement on the ranking of the criteria was sought at the end of
the activity. At the final order, different criteria were allowed to have
the same importance to reflect the distribution of stakeholders’ opinions
and the inherently different prioritization of goals of the stakeholders’
agencies.
The following four well-established methods were explored to es-
timate cardinal values from the ordinal data collected (i.e., to approx-
imate the “real” values of the weights) for the multicriteria analysis:
rank sum (RS), rank reciprocal (RR), and rank exponent (RE) first
documented by Stillwell et al. (1981), and rank order centroid (ROC),
first proposed by Solymosi and Dombi (1986) and established by Barron
and Barrett (1996). In addition, for a comparison, equal weights (EW)
that ignores the information on the criteria’s perceived order of im-
portance collected, were also explored. Following are the weight ap-
proximation formulas:
N Rj + 1
RS wj = N
n=1
(N Rn + 1) (1)
1/Rj
RR wj = N
n=1
(1/ Rn ) (2)
(N Rj + 1) p
RE wj = N
n=1
(N Rn + 1) p (3)
EW wj = 1/ N (4)
1 N 1
ROC wj =
N n=1 Rn (5)
where Wj is the weight for the criterion j, N is the number of criteria, Rn
is the rank position of the nth criterion (n = 1, …, N), and p is a
parameter that describes the weights. Additional information per-
taining to the most important criterion3 is needed to calculate p;
however, the RE method can also be used to explore the effects of
different p values (note that the weight distribution becomes sharper as
p increases). For p = 0, the RE method gives the same results with EW
and for p = 1 the same with RS.
Literature suggests that the ROC approach typically outperforms the
rest of the methods. However, as Roberts and Goodwin (2002) discuss,
this seems to be true when and only when the sum of the true weights
naturally equals to 1, 10, or 100 (such as weights elicited through a
point allocation). Herein, the RS weights were used as the basis to
present the results and the rest of the weights were used to explore the
sensitivity of the results to the various weight approximations. For a
3
Specifically, the respondents have to additionally weigh the most important
attribute on a scale of 0–1. Then p can be calculated through an iterative pro-
cess. For more information, refer to Stillwell et al. (1981).
V.D. Pyrialakou et al. Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517

relatively large number of criteria, Roberts and Goodwin (2002) Table 1

showed that this method is a suitable alternative to ROC when weights Multicriteria Analysis Results.
have been elicited through other methods (such as direct rating and/or a. Planning Goals Selected for the Multicriteria Analysis
ordering).
Criterion/Goal Order
4.4.3. Scaling
1st meeting 2nd meeting
This step is required because, in practice, different criteria are
measured in different units. To solve this problem, this research used a Enhance productivity and growth 1 –
common pre-established scale that reflected the degree to which de- Enhance quality of life and community well- 1 –
being
velopment/improvement of the alternatives (i.e., transportation mode or
Expand transportation choices 1 –
infrastructure) using public funds was expected to advance or hinder Improve accessibility, mobility, and 2 –
progress toward the goal considered based on the participants’ per- connectivity
ceptions. The participants rated the alternatives on a negative to posi- Improve services to maximize mobility, 3 2
tive visual analog scale. The rating was then transformed to a pre-es- accessibility, and multimodality
Improving system performance 4 3
tablished 9-point rating scale (from −4 to 4) for the calculations.
State of good repair 5 –
Transportation safety – 1
4.4.4. Scoring Enhance financial viability – 5
The participants were instructed to rate the alternatives with respect Increase ridership – 4
b. Final Scores for each Mode or Infrastructure*
to each of the selected planning goals, considering the degree to which
development/improvement of each alternative using public funds was Mode/Infrastructure Normalized Performance Score
expected to advance or hinder progress toward each goal.
The final score for each alternative Si was calculated based on the 1st meeting 2nd meeting
following equation:
Hoosier State train (HST) 90.41 88.89
J Passenger multimodal facilities 84.06 72.69
Si = wj Oij
j=1 (6) Highways 72.49 74.35
Alternative fuel stations 65.30 59.91
where wj is the weight of each criterion given by Eqs. (1)–(5), Oij is the Airports 65.21 72.69
average among the participants score given to each alternative i for
each criterion j showing the degree to which the criterion would be * The scores presented in this table have been calculated using RS weights
achieved by funding the alternative j. (see Eq. (1)).

5. Focus group outcomes
The following sections present the results of the multicriteria ana-
lysis and summarize the key points that emerged from the focus group
discussion.
5.1. Multicriteria analysis
5.1.1. Multicriteria analysis results
The two focus group meetings produced two different sets of criteria
based on the planning goals the participants prioritized. The criteria
selected and the final hierarchical order resulting from the survey re-
sponses and the focus group discussions are presented in Table 1(a).
Based on the selected criteria and the methodology presented above,
the results of this analysis are shown in Table 1(b).
The final normalized scores are reported herein in a scale of 0–100.
A final score of a 100 is the highest possible score, denoting that all
participants agreed that the development/improvement of a specific
transportation mode or infrastructure using public funds would be ex-
pected to advance progress towards all selected community goals to the
maximum degree. The scores for each criterion are shown in Fig. 2.
As seen in Table 1 and Fig. 2, the HST received the highest scores in
both focus group meetings. This confirms that, based on the perceptions
of the stakeholders who participated in the meetings, the funding spent
on sustaining and improving the HST is justified. Later discussions
further highlighted this point.
5.1.2. Sensitivity analysis
In this section the sensitivity of the multicriteria analysis results on
the selection of different weight approximations is explored. Fig. 3
shows the results for the five weight approximation schemes presented
earlier. For the RE weights, the result for three different values of the
parameter p are displayed (i.e., p = 0.5, 5, and 10). The results for other
values larger than 0.5 and smaller than 10 would fall in between the
results for p = 0.5 and p = 10 due to the nature of the formula.
As Fig. 3 shows, the results are not especially sensitive to the se-
lection of weight approximation. The HST scores were consistently
higher regardless the weight approximation used. This was expected
because the HST appeared to be a dominant alternative (i.e., it is at
least as good as any other alternative on every aspect and inferior to at
least one aspect) in both focus group meetings. As Fig. 2 shows, the
scores of this alternative were higher for all criteria. As Triantaphyllou
and Sánchez (1997) and Stillwell et al. (1981) discuss, it is intuitive that
in the case that a dominant alternative exists, this alternative will al-
ways remain the most preferable, no matter the changes in the weights.
Furthermore, the order of the rest of the alternatives is overall
consistent, with the following exceptions. For the first meeting, the
scores of the alternative fuel stations and the airports are very close.
Consequently, when equal weights or RE (p = 0.5) are used, the air-
ports’ score become higher than the alternative fuels stations’ score.
Similarly, for the second meeting, the scores of the airports and the
passenger multimodal facilities are close and the results changes when
equal weights or RE (p = 0.5) are used. Fig. 3 also shows that in the
first meeting, only the score of the alternative fuel stations seemed to be
somewhat sensitive the selection of weight approximation, while for the
second meeting, highways and airports seemed somewhat sensitive.
5.2. Findings from the open discussion
The discussions of both groups were recorded and were later ana-
lyzed based on the recordings, the personal notes of the authors, and
notes provided by volunteers who assisted in the focus group meetings.
Following is a summary of the focus group report (the complete focus
group report can be found at Pyrialakou (2016)).
5.2.1. Financial viability and financial support of the Hoosier state train
(HST)
In both focus groups, the participants agreed that a crucial goal for
the HST is to achieve more financially viable services or services that
would not need to be so heavily subsidized. Increasing ridership

511
V.D. Pyrialakou et al.
Fig. 2. Scores by Criterion.
emerged as the single factor that could ensure financially viable ser-
vices. However, the prevailing feeling was that several barriers prevent
a significant increase in ridership currently. Participants referred to,
among others, the low frequency of the services, the inconvenient
schedule, and the unreliability of the schedule. A few of the relevant
comments were as follows:
• Financial viability is linked with an increase in ridership:
“From a ridership’s stand point [..] I don’t think we are going to be able
to turn the dial as much as I would have liked to have seen because of all
these barriers that we have. But we need to see something.”
“The goal is […] for that [the subsidy per passenger] to be noticeably
reduced; and that would be noticeable reduced based on efficiencies and
based on increased ridership.”
• The inconvenient schedule was a concern:
“The hours are dictated with the slot of the long distance train. It is not a
schedule that is ultimately desirable.”
“The number one complaint is the 6 AM departure from Indianapolis.”
• The limited frequency of the service was a concern:
“In a route like this, you really need three trains a day in each direction
to generate the volume of ridership even approaching economic viability.
[…] So that people can do rational trip planning, whether it’s for busi-
ness or pleasure.”
• The unreliability of the service was a concern:
512
Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517
“The way it stands right now […] I think it’s tough for anybody who
wants to travel between the two cities, or anything in between, for
business, to do that, because it is so unpredictable.”
Another point discussed was that residents are unaware of the ser-
vices. Many of the participants felt that this is also a barrier to in-
creasing ridership. For example, some of the relevant comments were as
follows:
• The lack of public awareness was a concern:
“If they don’t know that it’s there they are not going to use it.”
• The lack of public awareness in that past was identified as a mar-
keting challenge by the participant:
“It is amazing that people have no clue that this ever existed.”
Many of the participants also made the connection between im-
proving services as a means to increasing ridership and providing
adequate funding to improve the infrastructure. Interestingly, in both
meetings, but independently, the conversation reached the point where
one participant observed that the problem before them is circular: on
one hand a ridership increase is needed to provide evidence that the
line can become financially viable and thus justify subsidization of the
line, but on the other hand financial support is needed to improve the
existing infrastructure and services in order to attract more riders. The
following are among the statements pertaining to this topic:
• The participant commented that well-utilized services are important
V.D. Pyrialakou et al. Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517

Fig. 3. Final Multicriteria Scores for the Various Weight Approximation Methods.

for securing funding:

“I think the PR side of thing is going to be critical to keep it going, but the
greatest PR that we can have is […] the ridership increasing.”
• The participants identified the perceived relationship between in-
creasing ridership and increasing investment:
“It’s a chicken and an egg thing. How do you justify spending on in-
creased frequencies if ridership is low? On the other hand, ridership will
always be low if there aren’t sufficient frequencies. It’s a balancing act
and it requires a little bit of vision, […] as opposed to rearguard action
for what is.”
“You are not going to have more riders until we have perhaps a larger

513
V.D. Pyrialakou et al.
commitment by the state from its budget, to kind of get the thing rolling at
the level that the average consumer wants for you.”
One of the key goals of the discussion was to solicit information
regarding the plans of the state and the communities along the line to
continue supporting the HST in the future and/or to discuss alternative
funding sources. All of the elected officials and some other stakeholders
who participated in the meetings firmly believed that even though the
communities have been supporting the line since 2013 and will con-
tinue to do so until at least 2017, this should be a temporary solution. In
terms of where the funding should (or should not) come from, the
participants offered a few ideas of various funding sources, but gen-
erally agreed that public funding is an important part. Some of the
relevant comments were as follows:
• The participants believed that local funding should be discontinued,
even though the investment has been justified so far:
“From a local standpoint, we view [the funding of the services] in the
context of economic development and quality of life. With that being
said, it’s not something that we can continue forever.”
“We want to be a part of it. We appreciate what the state has done and it
was important that we played an active role in it, but, like everything else,
there would have to be a time that we would not still be doing that.”
• The participant identified the potential for continuing support to the
line with local funds if additional investments are secured:
“We are certainly willing to continue that for a while, and if we saw
(quite frankly) additional investments being made [..] we would be more
willing then to continue that knowing that there was hope for the future
that there would be even better.”
Another idea that emerged from both meetings was the idea of
passenger rail as a public utility that should receive public funding. Not
all participants felt as strongly as others about this idea, but a few
provided strong support for the idea. However, in the discussion a few
skeptical comments were made pertaining to the return on investment
and the extent of passenger rail utilization. For example, some of the
related comments were as follows:
• The participant suggested that passenger rail be viewed as an asset
of the state, and the participant believed that public funds should be
pursued:
“It [the HST] needs to be viewed as an asset of the state. […] And then
we need to invest accordingly, which means there has to be a value to
that investment.”
• The participant views passenger rail as a public good:
“You have to treat it [the HST] as a public good, that’s what it is. The
addition of public transit/passenger rail is a public good, just like a
highway. If that’s the way of thinking, it becomes a whole different
conversation.”
• The return on investment and the potential for low overall utiliza-
tion by the public were concerns:
“So I am assuming there is no break-even point then, when we are looking
at the millions of millions of dollars that would be required to be invested
in order to make this a viable option. […] In terms of understanding the
decision-making process in our discussion with our constituents, we need
to have an idea of what are our projections for how many Hoosier
constituents would be using the line.”
5.2.2. Ridership increase
Apart from the barriers to increased ridership discussed above and
the connections made between improving service and increasing ri-
dership, several other factors that can increase ridership were
514
Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517
discussed. Representatives of Iowa Pacific Holdings (IPH) reported their
attempts to foster such an increase in ridership. They also made it clear
that this is one of their key goals. Apart from improving operational
services, the key points in terms of marketing that IPH mentioned were
improved onboard services, targeted advertisement, word of mouth,
digital awareness, and public relations. Iowa Pacific Holdings also
talked about a more targeted approach to advertising its services.
Specific target population groups mentioned were university students
and their parents, “millennials,” and senior citizens.
Based on the participants’ comments, a ridership increase is mainly
expected to come from new demand. However, whether the source of
this demand would be new demand for travel or a mode shift from
automobile or alternative transportation modes was not discussed to
much extent. The potential of a mode shift to the HST for business
travel was briefly mentioned. Related to that were comments on the
barriers to business travel, as discussed above.
Other key factors and opportunities that could be explored to sup-
port a ridership increase were also discussed. Some of the relevant
comments are reported below:
• Economic development and support by the private sector are viewed
as opportunities to increase ridership:
“I feel that with public investments too, if you are getting businesses like
commerce or anybody else, it’s also going to boost, like, getting the word
out to the employees and the people around, so that kind of also goes
hand in hand with the businesses [that] are putting in their investments.
They’re going to also be promoting it because there going to want to see
returns.”
• System-wide connectivity can be an opportunity to increase rider-
ship:
“Connectivity to other modes is another way [to increase ridership]. […]
It’s a way that you also show support for the service. You are ac-
knowledging that it’s there and then you are also providing that con-
nection.”
• Accessibility to the line can be an opportunity for or a barrier to
increased ridership:
“Not only the service itself, but it’s how you might be getting to and from
the service is what really makes it or breaks it.”
• System-wide connectivity can be an opportunity to increase rider-
ship in terms of the last-mile problem:
“Especially millennials or older folks who don’t want to drive, then [a
well-connected mass transportation network] really becomes an attrac-
tive service. You get precisely that last mile to the train station.”
5.2.3. Multimodal transportation
Apart from the importance of system-wide connectivity and acces-
sibility to the line, as highlighted above, the participants also discussed
the importance of multimodality. In addition, participants representing
different perspectives made the case that different mass transportation
modes, whether state supported, such as the HST, or privately owned,
such as intercity buses, are not competing modes. Rather different
modes can be complementary, even if they serve the same areas, be-
cause they aim to provide transportation options to Indiana residents.
For example, some of the comments were as follows:
• System-wide connectivity and multimodality are seen as goals to
pursue:
“The train is a spine of a network. You get to these towns and you have
transit and/or intercity bus that can take to more rural areas. You have a
network […] of connectivity, it works really well.”
V.D. Pyrialakou et al.
• Multimodality is seen as a goal to pursue; different modes are not
perceived as competing with passenger rail but rather as com-
plementary:
“I think a lot of us in the bus industry feel that way [passenger rail is not
a competitor]; we want to complement the railroads.”
5.2.4. Other key topics emerged and future directions
Many participants also highlighted the role that culture plays in
both the adoption of public transportation services in general and
passenger rail specifically and the willingness of stakeholders to fi-
nancially support such services. Specifically, many of the participants
discussed the fact that Indiana is an automobile-centered state.
However, participants also discussed the possibility of an ongoing shift
in the culture and the transportation paradigm towards a more multi-
modal and less automobile-centered lifestyle.
Another topic worth mentioning that was raised during the discus-
sions included the perceived benefits of providing passenger rail ser-
vices in the state and the importance of sustaining the line. The senti-
ment was that the HST connects communities along the line and
provides options to the communities’ residents. The discussions re-
vealed that the stakeholders who participated in the focus groups
viewed the HST as a resource of the state, an asset that needs to be
preserved. Moreover, most participants agreed that future efforts
should be concentrated not only on sustaining the line but also on ex-
panding the passenger rail services in the state.
6. Discussion and concluding remarks
This article presented a case study of stakeholder engagement in
transportation decision making pertaining to decisions of operating
and/or smaller capital investments in passenger rail and competing
modes and infrastructure in light of the regional communities’ plans,
using a focus group approach. Specifically, this article explored the
engagement of stakeholders in discussions about potential investments
in the continuation of the HST, a short-distance intercity passenger rail
corridor that was affected by the policy changes introduced by PRIIA,
and/or in alternative transportation modes and infrastructure in the
area.
6.1. Empirical findings and implications
The findings of the focus group suggest that, based on the stake-
holders’ perceptions, investments in public transportation, and speci-
fically in passenger rail, in Indiana would be crucial to reaching the
communities’ long- and short-term goals. Furthermore, as evident from
the multicriteria analysis, stakeholders perceive passenger rail to be the
most advantageous transportation mode that can be developed for in-
tercity travel in the area. Because passenger rail is currently the only
public (mass) transportation mode for intercity land travel supported by
the state, its continuation and further advancement would most cer-
tainly benefit Indiana, especially in terms of multimodality, accessi-
bility and connectivity, and economic development.
The above are illuminating findings with several state and local
policy implications for the case of an intercity passenger rail line that
has faced the possibility of discontinuance repeatedly. The findings
verify the decisions of the state and local communities to continue
supporting the operations of the HST financially. In addition, they al-
lude to the need to identify additional funding sources, especially under
the stated views of the local authorities who believed that local funding
should eventually cease. Furthermore, during the focus group meetings,
a number of key topics that can help guide the future of the HST were
also discussed. From this analysis, several key conclusions emerged that
can help guide policy and planning decisions in the study area. For
example, it was highlighted that for the HST to be a financially viable
515
Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517
service, an increase in ridership should be achieved. Apart from the
marketing efforts, it was evident that improvements to the train services
as well as system-wide improvements can foster such an increase.
Finally, should the line discontinue operations, the findings highlight
the need for alternative public intercity transportation options, and
therefore, the state and local communities should either prepare for
alternative investments, or develop and implement policies that can
attract independent transportation services (such as intercity bus ser-
vices).
6.2. Methodological contributions
This case study verifies that engaging the stakeholders and gath-
ering their perspectives can be beneficial for smaller-size state or re-
gional public transportation projects, or more general initiatives related
to regional transportation planning. The analysis suggested that stake-
holders and public, as members of the local community, understand the
challenges and issues related to transportation in the region, and thus,
can provide valuable insights for the decision-makers on several topics.
At the same time, the findings of the case study verify that a focus group
setting can facilitate brainstorming and dynamic exchanges of in-
formation, which in turn can instigate innovative ideas from the par-
ticipants and the generation of shared knowledge. Furthermore, the
shared focus group experience can enhance the collegiality among the
community stakeholders, who can thus concertedly serve the commu-
nity. The feedback received by the participants, both at the end of the
focus group meetings and through a feedback survey (S4), also verified
the value of such meetings. Eleven of the 18 participants responded to
the short feedback survey that was sent out. All 11 believed that focus
groups, such as the one in which they participated, can facilitate col-
laboration among stakeholders and discussion of important topics re-
lated to public transportation systems while promoting the improve-
ment of such systems. Most respondents (10 out of 11, with 1 remaining
neutral) agreed that the focus group meeting was useful, and they
would recommend the use of similar methods in the future.
Overall, the proposed framework appears to be a suitable approach
to foster stakeholder participation at the initial stages of policy making
and planning. It can both facilitate the collection of the stakeholders’
general opinions about a suggested project and increase the interactions
between them. Both these elements can significantly contribute to a
successful participation process in transportation planning, as literature
suggests (see Le Pira et al. (2016)). The adoption of a mixed methods
approach, apart from enhancing the reliability of the case study via
triangulation, seems to facilitate a more comprehensive assessment of
the stakeholders’ opinions. Each method can be potentially used by
itself—depending on the objectives of the stakeholder en-
gagement—but this will result in loss of information. On the one hand,
the potential of multicriteria analysis has been well-recognized in the
literature and in practice. The findings of this article suggest that such
techniques, even simplified, can facilitate a high-level evaluation of the
potential transportation investment directions in an area. In addition,
such techniques can be used to verify that specific public investments
(such as operating investments to sustain a passenger rail line) are
justified in light of the communities’ goals and/or to draw attention to
investments that are not expected to advance the communities’ goals or
that could even hinder such goals. The advantage of this method is that
it provides clear, objective, and well-documented results. The method
aims to collect solid information from the stakeholders, and thus ad-
dresses one of the goals of the focus groups in public participation, that
is to consult the stakeholders. However, by itself this method cannot
sufficiently engage them. Furthermore, often the data collected from
such quantitative approaches are superficial; they might not capture the
true, deeper opinions and beliefs of the participants.
On the other hand, focus group discussions are widely used methods
to solicit broader information pertaining to the participants’ ideas,
opinions, feelings, etc. The advantage of open discussion is that it
V.D. Pyrialakou et al.
facilitates the interaction among stakeholders. This interaction and
synergism have numerous benefits, as previously discussed, including
the generation of shared knowledge and potentially a deeper under-
standing of the stakeholders’ views and degrees of agreement. In ad-
dition, this method is more flexible so that it facilitates the engagement
of the stakeholders and the collection of information that they perceive
as important, rather than what the policy makers and other organizers
of the focus groups might feel important to solicit. Along the same lines,
the information collected from such qualitative approaches can poten-
tially capture the opinions and beliefs of the participants more accu-
rately. However, the findings of this method are more subjective and
less concrete, because they rely more on the moderation of the focus
group and the researchers’ interpretation of the data collected. Because
transportation decision making is an inherently complex process that
includes the evaluation of the various trade-offs involved, and because
the aim of the process is to both consult and engage the stakeholders,
combining the analysis of focus group discussions with quantitative
analysis, such as multicriteria analysis, can provide a more compre-
hensive approach.
6.3. Research implications, limitations, and future directions
A major policy implication of this case study is that stakeholder
engagement at the state level should not be limited to major capital
investments. The study provided evidence that such engagement can
yield benefits for smaller-size regional investments and broader trans-
portation decision making and planning, even when the engagement is
constrained by budget and time limitations. As this was an exploratory
case study, should public engagement at this level becomes a practice
and the opportunity of a typical case study arises, future research can be
designed to closely study the benefits and provide a comprehensive
assessment of whether engagement at this level is cost-beneficial.
A few limitations should be taken into account. As discussed, the
case selected represents an extreme and unique case. As such, the value
of this research in fact lies in the rareness of the circumstances.
Claiming external validity and the statistical generalizability of this
case study and its conclusions would be problematic and against the
principles of the case study selection. In addition, as an extreme and
unique case, the method is exploratory (Seawright and Gerring, 2008).
That said, some of the conclusions are generalizable via falsification,
such as the fact that stakeholder engagement can indeed be valuable
not only in larger scale transportation projects, but also in more general
initiatives related to regional transportation planning, such as per-
taining to investments in operating intercity passenger rail. Further-
more, this case study aspires to be transferable. Instead of assessing the
generalization of the study, the validity can be assessed using the
concept of transferability, which is the alternative to the generalization
criterion frequently used in qualitative research (first proposed by
Lincoln and Guba (1985)). The methodology proposed is easily replic-
able and can be used to foster stakeholder engagement in transportation
decision making under budget constraints. In terms of the conclusions
of the case study, although case specific, they could potentially be ap-
plicable in future cases contextually similar to this case.
Furthermore, the following specific concerns on the case study de-
sign and methods used can be addressed. First, to ensure a more com-
prehensive evaluation, the administration of additional focus group
meetings to collect data from more participants is suggested. In addi-
tion, the sample employed for the focus group meetings was a con-
venience sample. As such, unbiased responses cannot be ensured, even
though maximum effort was spent to ensure a wide variety of partici-
pants from different backgrounds. Future efforts can utilize stakeholder
analysis to select the most suitable sample and ensure effective and
efficient participation process. For example, social network analysis can
be used to provide information pertaining to the social interactions of
the stakeholders and help understand the connections between them
and the power relations and predict the possible outcomes of their
516
Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517
interactions (García Melón et al., 2013; Le Pira et al., 2016).
Along the same lines, this study represents a first attempt to engage
a core participant group involving key regional stakeholders in a focus
group. Nevertheless, as literature and practice indicates, ensuring di-
versity in public involvement is a key concern in the participation
process (for a discussion see Quick and Zhao (2011)). Inclusivity has
been recognized as one of the key principles of public participation; yet
there is no consensus on how to achieve it and it seems to be one of the
hardest principles to address in practice (Bickerstaff et al., 2002; Leyden
et al., 2017). Improving the accessibility of the process by organizing
additional meetings and/or using additional innovative strategies, such
as use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), can
foster inclusivity (Wagner, 2013). In addition, in future efforts, special
attention should be paid to further reach out to the public, including
customers and prospective customers, and ensure an equitable re-
presentation of transport-disadvantaged individuals such as ethnic
minorities and low-income populations (FHWA, USDOT, 1996; Giering,
2011; Weeks, 2002).
Furthermore, a potential limitation of the methodology utilized is
the use of the ranking-based method to identify the weights used in the
multicriteria analysis. Even though the sensitivity analysis demon-
strated that the multicriteria analysis results were robust, for future
applications, different weighting methods such as point allocation
could be explored to ensure a more accurate representation of the
stakeholders’ perception of the importance of each criterion. Besides,
other multicriteria evaluation methods previously used in public en-
gagement, such as methods based on the analytic hierarchy process (see
for example de Luca (2014)), can be explored. Finally, as potential
investments were assessed in a broader, non project-specific context,
specifics regarding transportation alternatives, such as their relative
costs and benefits, were not considered in this study. For future re-
search, if plans for specific alternative transportation investments exist,
the results of technical evaluations can be incorporated in the analysis.
Authors’ note
This study was approved by the Purdue Human Research Protection
Program (IRB Protocol Number 1507016231). The contents of this ar-
ticle reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the official position of INDOT or other organizations that participated
in the focus groups.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all who helped arrange and prepare
the focus group meetings, including Dr. Bob McCullouch, Program
Manager, Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program; Mike Piggott,
Community Relations Director, Purdue University; Arvid Olson, com-
munity volunteer; and the students who helped conduct the meetings.
The authors would also like to thank the INDOT and Joint
Transportation Research Program (JTRP) staff who arranged office
space for the Indianapolis focus group meeting. Finally, the authors
would also like to acknowledge all the focus group participants, who
will remain anonymous for reasons of privacy.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.12.009.
References
Ahn, B.S., Park, K.S., 2008. Comparing methods for multiattribute decision making with
ordinal weights. Comput. Oper. Res. 35, 1660–1670.
Bailey, K., Grossardt, T., Pride-Wells, M., 2007. Community design of a light rail transit-
oriented development using casewise visual evaluation (CAVE). Soc. Econ. Plann. Sci.
V.D. Pyrialakou et al.
41 (3), 235–254.
Barbour, R., Kitzinger, J., 1998. Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and
Practice. Sage.
Barron, F.H., Barrett, B.E., 1996. Decision quality using ranked attribute weights.
Manage. Sci. 42, 1515–1523.
Bates, T., Wahl, D., 1997. PART 6: light rail transit: we can't hear you! San Diego's
techniques for getting balanced community input in major investment studies.
Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1571, 195–207.
Bickerstaff, K., Tolley, R., Walker, G., 2002. Transport planning and participation: the
rhetoric and realities of public involvement. J. Transp. Geogr. 10 (1), 61–73.
Bloor, M., 2001. Focus Groups in Social Research. Sage.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3,
77–101.
Carpintero, S., Siemiatycki, M., 2016. The politics of delivering light rail transit projects
through public-private partnerships in Spain: a case study approach. Transp. Policy
49, 159–167.
Cascetta, E., Pagliara, F., 2013. Public engagement for planning and designing trans-
portation systems. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 87, 103–116.
Cascetta, E., Carteni, A., Pagliara, F., Montanino, M., 2015. A new look at planning and
designing transportation systems: a decision-making model based on cognitive ra-
tionality, stakeholder engagement and quantitative methods. Transp. Policy 38,
27–39.
Casello, J.M., Towns, W., Bélanger, J., Kassiedass, S., 2015. Public engagement in public
transportation projects: Challenges and recommendations. Transp. Res. Rec.: J.
Transp. Res. Board 2537, 88–95.
Daito, N., Chen, Z., Gifford, J.L., Porter, T., Gudgel, J.E., 2013. Implementing public
private partnerships during challenging economic times: case study of the 495
Express Lanes on the Virginia portion of the Washington Capital Beltway Project
(USA). Case Stud. Transp. Policy 1, 35–45.
de Luca, S., 2014. Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: an analytic
hierarchy process based approach. Transp. Policy 33, 110–124.
Dodgson, J.S., Spackman, M., Pearman, A., Phillips, L.D., 2009. Multi-Criteria Analysis: A
Manual. Department for Communities and Local Government, London.
Eckenrode, R.T., 1965. Weighting multiple criteria. Manage. Sci. 12, 180–192.
Engel, E., Fischer, R., Galetovic, A., 2011. Public-private partnerships to revamp US in-
frastructure. Hamilton Policy Brief. Brookings Institution.
FHWA, n.d. Transportation planning process resource guide [WWW Document].
URL < http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/publications/
resource_guide/ > .
FHWA, USDOT, n.d. Public involvement/Public participation [WWW Document].
URL < http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/ > .
FHWA, USDOT, 1996. Public involvement techniques for transportation decision-making
(No. FHWA-HEP-15-044).
Freeman, M., 2003. Critical Choices: The Debate Over Public–Private Partnerships and
What it Means for America’s Future. The National Council for Public-Private
Partnerships, Washington, DC.
Gangwar, R., Raghuram, G., 2015. Framework for structuring public private partnerships
in railways. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 3, 295–303.
García Melón, M., Estruch Guitart, V., Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Monterde-Roca, B., 2013.
Social network analysis in participatory environmental decision making. The case of
Spanish wetland La Albufera. 12th international symposium on the analytic hierarchy
process (ISAHP 2013). Multi-criteria Decision Making. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Gazillo, S., Strumwasser, B., Zmud, M., Morris, A., Kuehn, D., Weeks, J., and Bilotto, C.,
2013. Update on the state of the practice: Public involvement in the 21st Century.
< https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0rSL6QF7xUnRkJ0NFRfaEEwTXc/edit > .
Gerçek, H., Karpak, B., Kılınçaslan, T., 2004. A multiple criteria approach for the eva-
luation of the rail transit networks in Istanbul. Transportation 31 (2), 203–228.
Giering, S., 2011. ). Public Participation Strategies for Transit: A Synthesis of Public
Transit (TCRP Synthesis No. 89. Transportation Research Board.
Greco, S., Figueira, J., Ehrgott, M., 2016. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Springer,
New York.
INDOT, 2013. 2013-2035 future transportation needs report.
INDOT, Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC, 2015. Agreement concerning Provision of Certain
Services Related to Hoosier State passenger Rail Service between the Indiana
Department of Transportation and Iowa Pacific Holdings. LLC.
Jillella, S.S.K., Matan, A., Newman, P., 2015. Participatory sustainability approach to
value capture-based urban rail financing in India through deliberated stakeholder
engagement. Sustainability 7 (7), 8091–8115.
Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value
Trade-Offs. Cambridge University Press.
Krueger, R.A., 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, second ed.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Le Pira, M., Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., Pluchino, A., Rapisarda, A., 2016. Modelling sta-
keholder participation in transport planning. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 4, 230–238.
Leyden, K.M., Slevin, A., Grey, T., Hynes, M., Frisbaek, F., Silke, R., 2017. Public and
stakeholder engagement and the built environment: a review. Curr. Environ. Health
Rep. 4 (3), 267–277.
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry (75). Sage.
517
Case Studies on Transport Policy 7 (2019) 505–517
Litman, T., 2013. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-Modal Transport Evaluation.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Macharis, C., Bernardini, A., 2015. Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
for the evaluation of transport projects: time for a multi-actor approach. Transp.
Policy 37, 177–186.
Majumdar, S.R., 2017. The case of public involvement in transportation planning using
social media. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 5 (1), 121–133.
Mendoza, G.A., Macoun, P., Prabhu, R., Sukadri, D., Purnomo, H., Hartanto, H., 1999.
Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessment of Criteria and
Indicators. 9. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Minow, M., 2003. Public and private partnerships: accounting for the new religion.
Harvard Law Rev. 116, 1229–1270.
Morgan, D.L., 1993. Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of The Art. Sage
Publications.
Morgan, C.A., Warner, J.E., Horowitz, E.S., Simpson, D.P., Sperry, B., Zullig, W.E., 2016.
Guidebook for Intercity Passenger Rail Service and Development (National
Coopoerative Rail Research Program (NCRRP) No. 6). Transportation Research
Board.
O'Connor, R., Schwartz, M., Schaad, J., Boyd, D., 2000. State of the Practice: White Paper
on Public Involvement. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC http://on-
linepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/millennium/00108.pdf.
Pagliara, F., Di Ruocco, I., 2018. How public participation could improve public decisions
on rail investments? Reg. Sci. Policy Pract.
Pyrialakou, V.D., 2016. Assessing Public Transportation Options for Intercity Travel in
U.S. Rural and Small Urban Areas: A Multimodal, Multiobjective, and People-
Oriented Evaluation. PhD Dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Quick, K., Zhao, Z., 2011. Suggested Design and Management Techniques for Enhancing
Public Engagement in Transportation Policymaking. University of Minnesota Center
for Transportation Studies Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital
Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/116934.
Roberts, R., Goodwin, P., 2002. Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision
models. J. Multi-Criteria Dec. Anal. 11, 291–303.
Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 48 (1), 9–26.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill, New York.
Schlager, K., 1968. In: The Rank-Based Expected Value Method of Plan Evaluation
Highway Research Record 238. National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp.
153–158.
Seawright, J., Gerring, J., 2008. Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu
of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Res. Q. 61 (2), 294–308.
Sinha, K.C., Labi, S., 2011. Transportation Decision Making: Principles of Project
Evaluation and Programming. John Wiley & Sons.
Slotterback, C.S., 2010. Public involvement in transportation project planning and design.
J. Archit. Plann. Res. 144–162.
Solymosi, T., Dombi, J., 1986. A method for determining the weights of criteria: the
centralized weights. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 26, 35–41.
Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P.N., 2014. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Sage
Publications.
Stillwell, W.G., Seaver, D.A., Edwards, W., 1981. A comparison of weight approximation
techniques in multiattribute utility decision making. Organiz. Behav. Hum. Perform.
28, 62–77.
The States Working Group (SWG), Amtrak, 2011. PRIIA Section 209, Cost Methodology
Policy.
Transportation Research Board, 2016. Interregional travel: a new perspective for policy
making. Special Report No. 320. Committee for a Study of Intercity Passenger Travel
Issues and Opportunities in Short-Haul Markets. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
Triantaphyllou, E., Sánchez, A., 1997. A sensitivity analysis approach for some de-
terministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Dec. Sci. 28, 151–194.
USDOT, 2014. Transportation for a new generation: Strategic Plan|Fiscal Years 2014-18
(FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan).
Vincke, P., 1992. Multicriteria Decision-Aid. John Wiley & Sons.
Von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W., 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioural Research.
Cambridge University Press, London.
Wagner, J., 2013. Measuring performance of public engagement in transportation plan-
ning: three best principles. Transp. Res. Rec. 2397 (1), 38–44.
Walker, W.E., 2000. Policy analysis: a systematic approach to supporting policymaking in
the public sector. J. Multicriteria Dec. Anal. 9, 11.
Weeks, J.L., 2002. Public Involvement by Minorities and Low-Income Populations:
Removing the Mystery. TR News.
Willson, R.W., Payne, M., Smith, E., 2003. Does discussion enhance rationality? a report
from transportation planning practice. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 69 (4), 354–367.
Yin, R.K., 2011. Applications of Case Study Research. Sage.
Yin, R.K., 2017. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage pub-
lications.
Zak, J., 2011. The methodology of multiple criteria decision making/aiding in public
transportation. J. Adv. Transp. 45 (1), 1–20.