1.0  Background

1.1 The Local Road Research Board

1.2 Problem Statement

1.3 Purpose of this Document

1.4 Intended Audience

1.5 Using this Document

1.0    Background

1.1  The Local Road Research Board

Established in 1959 through state legislation, the Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) was created to sponsor research for local, generally low-volume, roads. Over the last 40 years, the LRRB has funded hundreds of projects on a variety of topics. This research generally falls into four main categories: materials and methods used in constructing and maintaining pavement; drainage systems and other utilities under the pavement; management of the roadside environment; and bridge construction and maintenance.

The Board is comprised of Minnesota City and County Engineers, appointed by the Mn/DOT Office of State Aid, as well as representation from Mn/DOT. Qualified researchers from various sources – Universities, Mn/DOT and the private sector – conduct the research. The research topics generally originate from surveys and focus groups held with the units of local government within Minnesota.

Research sponsored by the LRRB helps to improve the quality of Minnesota’s transportation systems. The LRRB works through its Research Implementation Committee (RIC) to make information available and to transfer research results into practical applications. The RIC uses a variety of methods to reach engineers and others with new developments, including electronic presentations, videos, Web sites, written reports, pamphlets, seminars, workshops, field demonstrations, CD-ROMs and on-site visits. For more information, visit the LRRB’s Web site: http://www.lrrb.gen.mn.us/

[ Back to top ]

1.2   Problem Statement

The Internet has created an explosion of technology and communication capabilities. With the increased use of computers and communications technology, communicating with the public is becoming a multimedia experience — the latest of which is via the Internet. Much of this change is attributable to improvements in the communications industry. In the past, communication with the public was done via telephone, mail, public meetings or visits to the local governmental office. Today, communication can be accomplished electronically.

Local agencies, cities and counties regularly inform residents and roadway users of activities happening within their community (construction schedules, road closures, spring load restrictions, contact information, detour routes, roadway conditions, permit applications, etc.). With its widespread use and understanding, the Internet is becoming the standard for mass communication with the general public. Because of this, many local agencies are developing Web pages, posting their information on-line, and beginning to conduct transactions (e.g., permit applications) via the Internet.

With the ever-changing technology involved in publishing information on the Internet, there are no clear technological standards for Web site development and operation. This is especially true for government agencies that operate at differing levels of technical sophistication and that must respond to different needs, goals and objectives. For example, some agencies are contemplating Web publishing for the first time; some agencies have staff trained in Web publishing; yet, others will hire a consultant to develop their Web site.

With these factors in mind, the LRRB realized that agencies needed to do more than simply post information on the Internet; that information has to be useful and well organized. The LRRB also felt that agencies should keep their Web site information current and up-to-date, but recognized that there were no guidelines providing local governments with recommendations. Lastly, the LRRB determined that there were no evaluation tools for Web sites devoted to public works or transportation agencies. Web publishing professionals may not immediately understand the nature of the public works and infrastructure information needed for a city or county Web site. These professionals seem to “speak a different language” and need some guidance to handle the unique challenges posed by Web sites owned by public agencies.

[ Back to top ]

1.3  Purpose of this Document

In a recent survey of cities in Minnesota, the League of Minnesota Cities reported the following statistics:

• Of 472 total respondents, 66 percent did not have a Web site. For cities with a population greater than 10,000, only 27 percent did not have a Web site
• Of the cities without a Web site, 172 indicated that there was interest in developing a Web site and 58 percent of these cities indicated that their time frame for development of a site was within the year. [1]

Because of the lack of strong evaluation tools and the growing interest in Web publishing, the LRRB funded this project to develop Web site guidelines for city and county highway functions. The following is a list of goals and objectives of this project:

• Research how other local government agencies are using the Web to deliver services and/or communicate with the public.
• Provide a general background on Web site development, glossary of terms, information on Web site hosting and some general standards for Web publishing.
• Provide general guidelines for Web site mechanics (i.e., colors, font size, page layout, navigability, readability, etc).
• Provide a list of what is considered “minimum” content for local agencies’ Web sites (i.e., contact information, FAQs, road closures/restrictions, construction schedules, permits, etc.)
• Provide a list and examples of suggested policies (i.e., privacy. advertising, copyright, links, etc.).

[ Back to top ]

1.4  Intended Audience

City and county public works and highway agencies contemplating a Web site or a Web based project for the first time will find these guidelines an effective tool for planning a new project, or for integrating public works and highway information with an existing comprehensive city or county Web effort. The guidelines provide a starting point for minimum site content, describe user expectations and will provide communication standards to make planning a new project easier and ultimately more successful.

For agencies with existing sites, these guidelines provide tools to evaluate a Web project. They will help evaluate Web sites from a traditional Web publication standpoint, and will provide insight into the unique data challenges that public works and highway Web sites present.

City and county public works agencies often need specifications to give to consultants to direct their services and identify what is needed when a consultant produces the Web site. Additionally, cities and counties need tools to bridge the knowledge or language gap between themselves and consultants. These guidelines will outline the Web publishing process and can be used as a glossary to fill in missing concepts and terminology.

[ Back to top ]

1.5  Using this Document

Since the intended audience of these guidelines is broad, there are several levels of detail presented. In general, the beginning of the document contains general topics geared toward readers with little practical experience with the Internet and the World Wide Web. Most of the broad discussions are presented in greater depth in the Appendices.

Section 2.0 presents some Internet standards and best practices. Some typical workflow scenarios are presented in an effort to familiarize readers with the Web publication process. Some of the logistics of Web publishing are also covered, as well as some recommendations for planning a Web publication. Since the discussion is technical, definitions of the important terms are provided in Appendix A.3.

Section 3.0 presents guidelines for creating successful Web sites, broken down into two main sections. Section 3.1 covers the mechanics of a good Web site. It provides guidelines for font usage, creating persistent navigation icons and introduces some Internet issues to consider when designing a Web site. Section 3.2 covers topics for a public works or highway agency to include in a Web site. A minimum set of topics to include in a city/county highway Web site is provided. Lastly, some ideas for additional information to cover are presented, and a suggested schedule for updating and reviewing a Web site is outlined. Section 4.0 presents information to help evaluate a Web publishing project.

[ Back to top ]