In 2001, surface transportation made up 8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product and about 18 percent of average U.S. household expenditures, second only to housing. The nation’s economy and the lifestyles of its citizens depend heavily on a safe and efficient transportation system. Yet, surface transportation agencies face unprecedented challenges in recruiting and retaining the workforce they need to deliver transportation infrastructure and service effectively. The responsible and efficient operation of the nation’s transportation system depends on a well-trained workforce. Successfully addressing transportation workforce issues requires a collective effort involving the agencies, the federal government, the private sector, and a wide range of academic institutions, as well as the transportation workforce.

State departments of transportation and transit agencies deliver transportation infrastructure and service with the support of a host of private-sector contractors and consultants. The Committee on Future Surface Transportation Agency Human Resource Needs was convened by the Transportation Research Board to determine how these agencies can reorient their human resource efforts over the next two decades in order to respond to future changes in roles and responsibilities within their organizations. The intent of this study was not to precisely measure shortfalls between labor force supply and demand. Rather, the committee examined what is needed for transportation agencies to strategically alter key human resource activities—recruiting, training, retaining, and succession management—and makes recommendations designed to enable these agencies to continue to meet

workforce challenges and adjust to labor market realities. Also addressed is the important leadership role of the federal government in this effort.

Transportation workforce issues are complex. There are more than 50 state departments of transportation, nearly 6,000 transit agencies, and many other public agencies with transportation responsibilities. Each has its own set of responsibilities, organizational structure, history, and culture. Each must adapt to internal and external social, political, and institutional working environments, often in different ways. Agencies vary widely, and although each has its own unique capabilities and resources to address workforce needs, all have limited resources. Few have addressed their future workforce needs in a comprehensive fashion, which further complicates efforts to predict how many people in specific job categories for each type of agency will be needed in 5 or 10 years. The committee did not attempt to estimate specific agency needs—what kinds of workers are needed for what kinds of jobs—in any detail because the basis for any such estimate is insufficient. Most agencies do not have mechanisms in place for identifying the skill sets they need. Each agency must decide what skills it needs and set out to obtain them.

It is evident that in recruiting, training, and retaining employees in transportation agencies, one size does not fit all. Agencies must adopt and adapt practices that are best suited to their individual circumstances from a wide range of possible alternatives. This is a complex endeavor because in addition to competing with each other, transportation agencies compete with the private sector for qualified staff. With these constraints in mind, the committee focused on how agencies can meet their workforce needs, now and in the future, regardless of specific or cumulative need. To their credit, all the agencies—in both the public and the private sector—have a long history of working together successfully to address common problems in a systematic and coordinated fashion. The Interstate highway system is an example of such successful collaboration.

In the course of this study, it became clear to the committee that many factors require immediate action and that the situation may, in fact, be far worse than anticipated. Among the factors are high levels

of anticipated retirements; insufficient numbers of midlevel managers available to fill forthcoming vacancies; the need for new workforce skills required to keep pace with new methods and advanced technologies, including systems analysis, computer-aided design and engineering, new materials, robotics, and intelligent transportation technologies; and increasing demands on surface transportation agencies.

The needs are critical. The committee makes recommendations that can be implemented to avoid the severe consequences of inaction that are quickly approaching or already affecting the nation’s transportation and transit agencies. Consider the following:

• Expanded agency missions require new skills. Today’s state departments of transportation were established as highway agencies in the last century to build road networks. Now some of them are responsible for airports, railroads, public transportation, ports and waterways, intermodal operations, and other ancillary functions (such as motor vehicle registration and enforcement) as well as highways. Their changing mission and broader responsibilities require a workforce capable of addressing many issues other than engineering. Transit agencies offer many types of service and must address numerous community, economic, and customer issues. All agencies face planning, environmental, and technology issues and are increasing their use of telecommunications, data management, and other information technologies. Thus, agencies require a workforce with a wider range of technical disciplines than ever before.

• Program growth coincides with level or decreasing staffing. Although programs are expanding, budget restrictions frequently call for maintaining or reducing current staff, resulting in more contracting out and a need for additional contract management and administration skills.

• Senior agency staff are likely to retire in unprecedented numbers. More than 50 percent of the state transportation agency workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 10 years. While this trend is not unique to transportation agencies, it is more than double the rate for the nation’s entire workforce.

• Increasing difficulties in recruiting and retaining professionals and technicians are common. Today’s highly competitive job market shows a growing disparity between pay scales in the public and private sectors. Transit agencies, whose bus and train operators make up about 75 percent of the transit workforce, are struggling to attract workers to this rule-bound, seniority-based environment. Transit agencies’ inability to offer work schedule flexibility, which is highly regarded by today’s job applicants and common in other industries competing to attract these same employees, adds a unique constraint on recruiting. In addition, transit agencies typically offer less pay and fewer opportunities for advancement than do state departments of transportation. Therefore, they frequently find it more difficult to recruit many of the same types of professionals— engineers, planners, and environmental and financial specialists— than do the departments of transportation.

• Workforce training expenditures are insufficient. Benchmark studies of training investment in the private sector and federal agencies indicate that successful organizations spend, on the average, 2 percent of salaries on training, at least four times more than transportation agencies.

• Meeting an organization’s strategic plan requires positioning human resource activities at the strategic level. Agencies whose human resource function focuses solely on filling positions to meet immediate needs cannot achieve their strategic goals of recruiting successfully in today’s job market.

Although any one of these issues would be of concern individually, in combination they suggest an impending crisis, which—with foresight and intervention—may be averted. They also reveal the key role the federal government has in meeting the challenges of the transportation workforce. Because it has the responsibility for strategic national interests, the federal government—Congress, the administration, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and its modal administrations—has a large stake in the effectiveness of the nation’s transportation workforce. The federal government relies on the national transportation workforce to deliver the programs and

projects the nation needs to accomplish its economic, mobility, safety, environmental, and defense mobilization goals for transportation. As the primary steward of the nation’s transportation system, the federal government is in the best position—in terms of resources, scope of interest, and influence—to take a leadership role in addressing transportation workforce issues. Absent federal leadership, attempts to resolve these human resource issues will lack strategic direction and national scope, despite the best efforts and accomplishments of individual transportation agencies and their national associations.

The committee’s recommendations are aimed at a broad range of agency needs and apply to surface transportation agencies but recognize that others—the federal government, the private sector, educational institutions, unions, and employees—must be involved in addressing the key issues. The opportunity to partner is great, as is the potential for collaboration and cooperation on many fronts. Partnering may be difficult at times because of rules and regulations that require distance between public- and private-sector activities, but examples from many successful partnerships and collaborations in other industries suggest that barriers can be overcome. A summary of the committee’s recommendations and its views on the potential consequences of inaction follow.

Training must be a key priority for all involved. Surface transportation agencies at all levels—federal, state, and local—in partnership with the federal government, the private sector, educational institutions, unions, and employees, should establish training as a key priority. Training must be viewed as an investment providing needed knowledge, skills, and abilities. It can be a key component of alternative pathways to transportation agency careers by providing those from undergraduate programs (including community college programs) in business, planning, environmental science, public policy, and other areas with access to the transportation workforce. Commitment to

training is measured by the amount of training and the effectiveness of the training. The agencies must invest more in training than they are now. An investment goal of 2 percent of salaries for training—as suggested from benchmarking surveys of many successful organizations—is appropriate for transportation agencies. This is equivalent to about 40 hours of training annually for each employee. While this benchmark goal is important, the training must be effective as measured in terms of improved performance, lower costs, and other metrics.

More federal surface transportation program funds should be eligible for use by state and local transportation agencies for education and training activities. The committee believes that while spending at all levels for training and education of the transportation workforce should be increased, federal spending can serve as an important catalyst. Federal reliance on the nation’s transportation workforce supports the need for federal leadership in addressing transportation workforce training. Current federal funding for transportation workforce training has several components. The largest single source of federal training funding to agencies is a discretionary program that permits states to use up to 0.5 percent of a portion of the funds from the Surface Transportation Program—about $38 million—for education and training. Similarly, transit agencies can use a portion of their federal operating and capital investment funds—about $32 million—for training. The committee supports the administration reauthorization proposal that calls for making more existing program funds eligible for education and training. By adding several existing programs to those programs whose funds are eligible for education and training expenditures, the administration’s proposal, if enacted, would yield a 200 percent increase in available discretionary funds. Each agency could then decide how much of these funds it wishes to invest in education and training across a number of eligible programs.

Many federal transportation programs—which amount to about $36 billion annually—encourage the use of new methods and ad-

vanced technologies, including planning and environmental models, systems analysis, intelligent transportation systems technologies, community involvement, and alternative fuel transit vehicles. However, these programs do not support training for agency staff responsible for implementing, operating, and maintaining these new methods and technologies. This lack of support acts as a barrier to wider implementation of transportation system innovations that can improve safety and performance and reduce costs. It also hampers the federal stewardship role aimed at ensuring that state and local governments use national resources efficiently.

The committee also supports reauthorization proposals to increase funding for existing federal programs that directly support education and training, including the University Transportation Centers (UTC) program, the Federal Highway Administration’s National Highway Institute, the Federal Transit Administration’s National Transit Institute, and the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP). In conjunction with increasing the federal program funds available for agency education and training, Congress should also introduce incentives that trigger more federal funding if states and agencies invest their own funds in education and training for the transportation workforce. Incentives should be added to the UTC program to encourage the UTCs to partner with community colleges to provide specific education and training in areas for which the community colleges are best suited. Increased training investment must be accompanied by systematic evaluation of training outcomes.

USDOT, in partnership with transportation agencies, the private sector, educational institutions, unions, and employees, should undertake an initiative that focuses on innovation in human resource practices and addresses recruitment, training, retention, and succession management for transportation agency

personnel. This initiative can provide leadership; a focal point for federal, state, and local agency efforts; and a basis for creating partnerships among all key parties. The federal government, because of its national transportation responsibilities and the resources within the human resource organizations in USDOT and its modal agencies, is in an excellent position to lead this initiative as a follow-up to the USDOT-sponsored 2002 National Transportation Workforce Summit. USDOT can interact directly with other federal agencies that are moving forward on workforce development initiatives and acquire useful information and data from them. The transportation workforce initiative can build on current efforts, including the Transportation Workforce Development website being developed by the Federal Highway Administration in partnership with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to document exemplary workforce practices at state departments of transportation. Another example of current work that would be useful to incorporate is that of the American Public Transportation Association’s Workforce Development Task Force. Broadening these efforts to include experiences from all types of transportation agencies and private-sector organizations would provide much-needed information and support. All stakeholders in the nation’s workforce—agencies, academia, trainers, unions, employees, and the private sector—should participate in setting priorities and direction for the initiative. These partners should work together to compile information to examine the national implications of transportation workforce issues.

Transportation agencies should partner with universities, community colleges, training institutes, and the LTAP centers to meet agency training and workforce development needs. These institutions are well organized to provide education and training and have the technical expertise to deliver the curricula, courses,

and training materials required to meet agency skill needs. Many have already done so. More needs to be learned about the appropriate role of each, individually and in combination, in delivering efficient and effective education and training to the workforce.

Transportation agency leaders must make human resource management a strategic function in their agencies. The most successful private- and public-sector organizations have raised human resource management to the strategic level in their organizations because they recognize that human capital is a key to successful performance. Several transportation agencies have already carried out organizational changes to make the human resource function a strategic and equal partner with other key agency functions. Without this organizational change, agencies will continue to fill positions in a piecemeal fashion instead of identifying future workforce needs and addressing gaps in their ability to meet those needs through a strategic human resource program.

All these recommendations aim at improving the performance of transportation agencies and, ultimately, the nation’s transportation system. They reflect the goals and benchmarks of successful public-and private-sector organizations. They also reflect the primary goal— improving human capital—of President Bush’s 2002 Management Agenda.

This page intentionally left blank.

The Committee on Future Surface Transportation Agency Human Resource Needs: Strategies for Recruiting, Training, and Retaining Personnel was formed to study the future human resource needs of transportation agencies and to identify potential strategies for recruiting, training, and retaining these personnel. The charge to the committee is presented in Box 1-1.

The predominant surface transportation agencies—in terms of the number of transportation professionals and operating and support personnel employed—are state departments of transportation or highways (SDOTs) and regional and local transit agencies (TAs). Other public agencies play important roles in surface transportation—rail, water, and intermodal—and also employ transportation specialists. In addition, private engineering, planning, and consulting firms employ a large number of transportation professionals and compete with public agencies for many of the same people and skills in the labor market. Nonetheless, the committee focused primarily on several key employee categories within SDOTs and TAs in its information gathering and discussions. While most of the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are directed at SDOTs and TAs and these key employee categories, they also apply to other public agencies and private firms, as well as other categories. There are also recommendations aimed at components of the federal government—Congress, the administration, and the U.S. Department of Transportation— responsible for the nation’s transportation system.

The study was requested by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Funding support was provided from FHWA, the Research

and Special Programs Administration, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program.¹

SDOTs are state agencies responsible for owning, planning, designing, constructing, operating, maintaining, and repairing major components of each state’s transportation system. The modal responsibilities of some SDOTs include highways, airports, ports and waterways, transit, and some railroads. They carry out their responsibilities in partnership with private-sector engineering and construction firms, suppliers of equipment and materials, and other public agencies. Each of the 50 states, plus Washington, D.C., and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, has its own transportation agency.

While SDOTs are being asked to address an increasing range of economic, cultural, and social impacts of transportation systems, their primary responsibility remains the segments of the federal Interstate highway and primary highway systems within their borders, as well as their own networks of state highways and other transportation infrastructure. The states own more than 20 percent of the nation’s highways, but average ownership varies, ranging from 8.5 percent in North Dakota to 91.5 percent in West Virginia. In 1997 the states provided about $54 billion for highway-related purposes from vehicle and driver licensing fees and fuel taxes. SDOTs work closely with more than 35,000 jurisdictions—counties, towns, and municipalities— that have some transportation responsibilities.² States often provide direct assistance to local governments by performing construction and maintenance on some locally owned roads and by distributing state and federal revenues to local governments as grants for highway purposes.

Budgets for federal surface transportation programs are determined by Congress and state legislatures; SDOT operating budgets are set by state legislatures. The former budgets have grown considerably in recent years (but could be reduced in the future). Between

FY 1995 and FY 2001, the apportionment of federal funds administered by FHWA increased nearly 60 percent, from $18.1 billion to $28.9 billion (FHWA various years) (see Figure 1-1).

TAs include nearly 6,000 state, regional, and local agencies that provide transit service with one or several modes—bus, rail, and demand-responsive systems. Aggregate transit industry statistics mask individual agency characteristics. TAs vary considerably in many respects, including size, service area, responsibility, and jurisdictional complexity. In 1998 only 12 of 478 (2.5 percent) had more than 1,000 vehicles, and just one—New York City—had more than 8,000. More than 53 percent operated fewer than 50 vehicles, and more than 90 percent operated fewer than 250 vehicles. More than 55 percent of all conventional transit passenger miles in the nation are accounted for by the three largest systems—New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco–Oakland—with New York alone accounting for more than 40 percent.

Although public ownership dominates today, the history of transit provision in the United States reflects a mix of privately and publicly provided service. The evolution from private to public ownership,

FIGURE 1-1 Highway expenditures by government level ($ billions).

while not swift, was dramatic. In 1940, only 20 transit systems in the country were publicly owned, and they accounted for just 2 percent of ridership (Black 1991). By 1960, although the vast majority of all systems were still privately owned, public properties accounted for nearly half of all transit ridership, mainly because the country’s very largest systems were publicly owned (Jones 1985). By 1980, more than 500 systems were publicly owned, accounting for 95 percent of ridership nationally (Black 1991).

Two key pieces of legislation—the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (later redesignated the Federal Transit Act) and the 1974 National Mass Transit Assistance Act—established the role of the federal government in the provision of urban transit. Federal aid— loans and grants for transit capital acquisition, construction, and planning beginning in 1964 and operating grants beginning in 1974 —was generally welcomed by states, localities, and distressed private companies alike ( Jones 1985).³ Public funding was also favored by transit labor unions; approximately 75 percent of the current transit workforce is unionized.

The transit workforce comprises approximately 225,000 employees. Of this total, about 58 percent are vehicle operators, 20 percent are assigned to vehicle maintenance, and 12 percent are assigned to nonvehicle maintenance.⁴ The balance of the transit workforce is assigned to general administration.⁵

The significance of surface transportation agencies, their workforce, and the transportation system is illustrated by the following key statistics.

• Surface transportation makes up about 8 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product and about 18 percent of average household expenditures, second only to housing.

• The surface transportation system has an asset value of about $1,300 billion, more than 87 percent of the nation’s total transportation assets.

• Capital expenditures on transportation infrastructure total more than $130 billion per year; transit system operating costs are about $22.6 billion per year.

• Private-sector expenditures for passenger and freight transportation are significant. Private-sector spending for highway transportation alone was $688 billion in 1998, 83 percent of all expenditures for passenger transportation. In 1996 Americans spent more than $225 billion on new automobiles and trucks. More than $402 billion was spent in 1997 for truck freight transportation in the United States, about 79 percent of the nation’s freight transportation expenditures.

• Public-sector transportation agencies employ more than 620,000 people. Total transportation employment in the United States is more than 14.7 million, about 11 percent of the civilian workforce.

The committee began its study by reviewing several previous studies about the education of transportation engineering professionals (TRB 1985a; TRB 1985b; TRB 1998; Sussman 1995), civil engineering careers (Henderson Associates 2000; Meyer and Jacobs 2000; Mason et al. 1992), transit workforce issues (TRB 2001; Moffat et al. 2001; McGlothin Davis 2002), and the changing nature of state transportation organizations (AASHTO 1998; FHWA 2000; NAPA 1995; TRB 2000; Zuelsdorf 2000).⁶ In addition to reviewing recent research

conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program and the Transit Cooperative Research Program, it held discussions with researchers involved in ongoing projects related to this study.⁷ The committee benefited from presentations and discussions at the 2002 National Workforce Summit, which took place in May 2002 and involved more than 75 transportation leaders and professionals (FHWA 2002). Two industry associations that represent key North American transportation and transit agencies, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the American Public Transportation Association, provided the committee with valuable information about their workforce studies and workforce development activities.⁸ At two of its meetings, the committee heard presentations from and had discussions with a range of transportation leaders, educators, private consultants, and labor management experts.⁹

Two recent reports of the National Academy of Engineering, one on public awareness of engineering and the other on improving technological literacy, provided information on the challenge of ensuring an adequate supply of high school graduates interested in pursuing careers in transportation (NAE 2002; Pearson and Young 2002). Both reports provide examples of grassroots activity aimed at improving science and mathematics education in grades K-12, where interest in and preparation for transportation careers—as well as many others— begin.

One study, which is actually a precursor to this one, recognized changes under way in public-sector transportation agencies—large

numbers of impending retirements, the introduction of new technologies, increasing amounts of contracting out of agency work, and a growing need for more training—that continue today (TRB 1985a). It also noted the importance of a highly qualified private-sector transportation workforce in support of the public-sector agencies. Taking a cue from that study, the committee recognized early the large variations in transportation agencies, including different missions, size, and organization. There are many federal, state, and local agencies with transportation responsibilities, and they have similar workforce components. In addition, the private-sector transportation industry—construction firms, contractors, suppliers, and consultants—compete with the public sector in many job categories. To narrow its focus the committee concentrated primarily on the workforces of SDOTs and TAs because it believes that these agencies are representative of most public agencies with transportation responsibilities. Even though the committee focused on SDOTs and TAs, other agencies and private-sector organizations with transportation responsibilities can benefit from this report if they choose to adopt the suggestions for specific action. They are also the principal agencies delivering key elements of the national transportation program.

Transportation agencies are struggling with their human resource efforts at a basic level, and most lack the fundamental tools needed to determine their future agency workforce needs. Organizational workforce development must have a strategic foundation, be data-driven, and follow a systematic model aimed at achieving organizational goals (NAPA 2000). However, most SDOTs have yet to tie their staffing plans to a strategic plan, identify their core competency needs, or undertake a systematic analysis of the gaps between their workforce needs and staff competencies (New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department 1999).

In addition, despite recent and ongoing studies, there is a paucity of data available on agency skill needs, job categories, employee educational background, and employee job skills (New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department 1999; Warne 2003;

McGlothin Davis 2002). The committee commissioned a study to examine the availability and usefulness of national data sources for examining transportation workforce issues (Gilliland 2002). The data were found to be too aggregated to provide accurate predictions for individual job categories in SDOTs and TAs. After considerable deliberation, the committee decided that the lack of essential data and information prevented it from making several key estimates, including the kinds of expertise transportation agencies need in the future, the likely numbers and capabilities of the future transportation workforce, and the future mix of personnel needs in transportation agencies. Clearly each agency must decide what competencies it needs on the basis of how it plans to accomplish its mission. Without established agency workforce development programs in place and agency-level data, it is premature to estimate aggregate skill needs and assess them, especially in light of the wide variations among agencies.

The committee was also asked to examine whether civil engineering programs are changing to accommodate changes in transportation agency missions. SDOTs in particular have traditionally relied on state engineering schools to supply them with entry-level civil engineers. The task was to include assessment of the adequacy of the numbers of students enrolled in universities, colleges, and training institutes with regard to future agency needs. Curriculum change is a complex process involving many considerations. Several are key considerations for this study.

First, engineering programs strive to update course materials to reflect both new technical knowledge and new workforce skill needs, such as technical writing, team building, and working with the public. Second, undergraduate engineering programs are under pressure to reduce their credit hour requirements for graduation and put more emphasis on basics even while they attempt to accommodate new knowledge and meet accreditation requirements. Finally, even though transportation agencies, especially SDOTs, will continue to need a core group of civil engineers to perform or manage the performance of key planning, design, construction, maintenance, and related tasks,

they increasingly need expertise in many other areas, such as environmental science, business administration, economics, information technology, and law.

In light of the variations in transportation agencies, the changes under way in them, their broadening skill needs, and the intricacies of curriculum change in more than 200 civil engineering programs, the committee decided not to address curriculum change or the adequacy of current enrollments. Nevertheless, the committee examined several alternative pathways to careers in transportation agencies that have yet to be fully exploited by the agencies. It also reviewed opportunities for agency partnering with the academic community within and outside their jurisdictions to help educate and train the transportation workforce.

Thus, after considerable discussion and deliberation and subsequent conversations with the study’s sponsors, the committee decided to concentrate on what agencies should do to enable their human resources to meet agency strategic workforce needs. The committee concentrated on the process of accommodating change within transportation agencies instead of trying to solve their individual workforce needs or predict how the internal and external environments of the agencies will change. The committee prepared recommendations that focus on agency recruiting, training, retention, and succession planning and reflect what it believes government, transportation agencies, educators and trainers, and agency personnel can and should do.

In Chapter 2, information on the characteristics of SDOTs, TAs, and their workforces is presented, the primary issues that affect them are reviewed, and changing agency workforce needs are described. The traditional sources of key transportation and transit agency personnel and the education and training system that supports them are reviewed in Chapter 3. The importance of strategic human resource management is described in Chapter 4, and suggestions for address-

ing people and skill needs through agency recruiting, training, retention, and succession planning are provided. Information on specific transportation workforce data and analysis needs is provided in Chapter 5. The committee’s findings and recommendations are given in Chapter 6.

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

NAE National Academy of Engineering

NAPA National Academy of Public Administration

TRB Transportation Research Board

AASHTO. 1998. The Changing State DOT. Washington, D.C.

Black, A. 1991. Privatization of Urban Transit: A Different Perspective. In Transportation Research Record 1297, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 69–75.

FHWA. 2000. Positioning FHWA for the Future. Report of Task Force on Workforce Planning and Professional Development. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Dec.

FHWA. 2002. National Transportation Workforce Summit: Summary of Proceedings. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., May.

FHWA (various years). Highway Statistics. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Gilliland, C. W. 2002. Transportation Workforce: Existing Indicators and Needed Data. Prepared for Committee on Future Surface Transportation Agency Human Resource Needs, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Henderson Associates. 2000. Minnesota Summit on Civil Engineering Workforce Development. Final Report 2000-23. Nov.

Jones, D. W. 1985. Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Mason, J. M., Jr., J. R. Tarris, E. Zaki, and M. S. Bronzini. 1992. NCHRP Report 347: Civil Engineering Careers: Awareness, Retention, and Curriculum. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

McGlothin Davis, Inc. 2002. TCRP Report 77: Managing Transit’s Workforce in the New Millennium. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Meyer, M., and L. J. Jacobs. 2000. A Civil Engineering Curriculum for the Future: The Georgia Tech Case. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, American Society of Civil Engineers, April, pp. 74–78.

Moffat, G. K., A. H. Ashton, and D. R. Blackburn. 2001. TCRP Synthesis 40: A Challenged Employment System: Hiring, Training, Performance Evaluation, and Retention of Bus Operators. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

NAE. 2002. Raising Public Awareness of Engineering. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

NAPA. 1995. NCHRP Report 371: State Departments of Transportation: Strategies for Change. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

NAPA. 2000. Building Successful Organizations: A Guide to Strategic Workforce Planning. Washington, D.C.

New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department. 1999. Staffing Plan Survey of State Transportation Agencies. Research Report NM99, ADM-01. Sept.

Pearson, G., and A. T. Young (eds.). 2002. Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology. National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C.

Sussman, J. M. 1995. Educating the New Transportation Professional. ITS Quarterly, Summer.

TRB. 1985a. Special Report 207: Transportation Professionals: Future Needs and Opportunities. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

TRB. 1985b. Special Report 210: Transportation Education and Training: Meeting the Challenge: Proceedings of the Conference on Surface Transportation Education and Training. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

TRB. 1998. Conference Proceedings 17: Intermodal Transportation Education and Training. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

TRB. 2000. Transportation Research Circular 501: Strategic Management Research Needs for State Departments of Transportation. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

TRB. 2001. TCRP Research Results Digest 45: Identification of the Critical Workforce Development Issues in the Transit Industry. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Dec.

Warne, T. 2003. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice: Current Practice for Recruiting and Retaining Individuals in State Transportation Agencies. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (in progress).

Zuelsdorf, R. 2000. Presentation at the Western Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials meeting. June 13.

DECEMBER 17–18, 2001

Future Changes Affecting Transportation Agencies

John Mahaffie, Coates & Jarratt

Agency Changes Affecting the Workforce

Stephen Lockwood, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.

State DOT Experience

John Horsley, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Minnesota Summit on Civil Engineering Workforce Development

Cheri Marti, Minnesota Department of Transportation

Transit Agency Workforce Development Issues

Pam Boswell, American Public Transportation Association

Brian Vogel, Quatt Associates

Private-Sector Workforce Development

Terry Neimeyer, KCI Technologies, Inc.

Workforce Development Experience in the Construction Industry

James Krug, FMI Recruiters

Universities and Curriculum Change

Gerald E. Galloway, Secretary, U.S. Section, International Joint Commission and Member, American Society of Civil Engineers Task Force on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice

APRIL 11–12, 2002

State DOT Experience with Meeting Human Resources Needs

David Gehr, Vice President, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., and former Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation

Changing Education and Training Needs for Intelligent Transportation Systems

John Collura, Professor of Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech and Chairman of the ITS-America Education and Training Committee

Labor/Union Considerations

Robert Tobias, Professor, Department of Public Policy, American University and former President of the National Treasury Employees Union

Transportation Construction Industry Issues

Brad Sant, Vice President of Safety and Education, American Road and Transportation Builders Association

Transportation agencies at all levels of government and the private-sector organizations that support them operate in a climate of change—stemming from technical, demographic, institutional, political, cultural, economic, and environmental factors—that affects the personal and professional lives of everyone, including the transportation workforce. Comprehensive studies of current and future workforce issues identify many such factors. Box 2-1 presents the four key factors of change from one such study— Workforce 2020—together with several primary components of each (Hudson Institute 1997).¹

Surface transportation agencies face these and other issues in delivering programs, facilities, and services to their customers.² No single trend or characteristic describes how the transportation agency workplace or workforce is changing. While state departments of transportation (SDOTs) and transit agencies (TAs) share many

trends and characteristics, there are important differences in the issues faced by each. In the first section of this chapter the issues affecting SDOTs are presented, and how these issues affect the workforce and are changing the way those agencies are organized and operated is examined. The key issues affecting the TA workforce are reviewed in the second section. This is followed by a description of the model used by the committee to characterize transportation agency job categories. The chapter is summarized in the final section.

Today’s SDOTs are the direct descendants of state highway agencies that were organized in the early 20th century to plan, design, build, and maintain state and federal highway networks. Many of these agencies have evolved into multimodal departments with divisions responsible for statewide aviation, highways, public transportation, waterways, and intermodal programs. Some also have driver and motor vehicle registration and at least one has the state highway patrol within its purview.

As an organization, an SDOT is oriented toward civil engineering because its work relates to public or civil infrastructure facilities and systems. A typical university civil engineering curriculum provides instruction on the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of

such facilities and systems. Graduate programs focus these skills more closely on transportation subjects.

The Interstate highway system, the country’s last major national transportation program, set the stage for current SDOT organization and activity. The success of that system required a high degree of uniformity and consistency across all the states. This need was met through an enormous set of procedures, standards, and specifications for highway infrastructure. As a result, until recently the SDOT environment was characterized by a long period of stability and a high degree of standardization, supported by a successful national program oriented toward highway system development and preservation. State and federal policy and politics, then, together with dedicated funding and legislative oversight, define the SDOT operating environment. Information on the salient federal legislation and the roles of different levels of government in highway funding is provided in Box 2-2. Some of the key changes under way in state highway programs are described in Box 2-3. [Such changes at the federal level are illustrated in Appendix A by the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) view of the key differences between FHWA programs and roles in the Interstate era and in the early 21st century.] Despite the changes affecting all SDOTs and FHWA, each SDOT possesses a distinctive culture and character, and each continues to adapt to its internal and external social, political, and institutional working environments, often in different ways. Within this context, key factors forcing change in the SDOTs are described in the following sections.

The 1980s and 1990s saw a growing commitment by governors and state legislatures to reducing the size and influence of government. More recently, many states faced with revenue shortfalls have reduced state agency operating budgets and staff.³ Mandated spending limits, balanced-budget requirements, and other factors led to agency workforce reductions, hiring freezes, and early retirement incentive programs that downsized many state agencies. To deliver their programs

with reduced staff, many SDOTs reorganized to eliminate several organizational levels, automated or shifted some traditional central office functions to lower levels of the organization, and decentralized other functions. Reorganization also often devolves decision making to lower levels; combined with decentralization, this trend results in more individual discretion concerning how work gets done and fosters more nontraditional employment arrangements. Thus reorganization requires a broader range of knowledge, skills, and abilities among individual workers.⁴ Kettl (1996, 45) points out that “careful downsizing requires planning, strategic analysis of critical skills, and the creation of incentives to acquire and retain those skills. The key is shrinking government’s size while reconfiguring it to manage changing needs.” As an example, some of the changes associated with the reorganization at the Ohio Department of Transportation are described in Box 2-4.

The trend toward devolving authority from the federal to the state level, and in many cases further within the states to local governments, combined with changing institutional forms, has affected intergovernmental relationships. At the same time, federal regulations and unfunded mandates strain federal–state relations. State and local agencies are beginning to be less dependent on federal assistance and to work

more closely with each other to address some issues—environmental, transportation, and others—that require solutions tailored to local or regional circumstances. In some cases, serious consideration is being given to new forms of regional government even as agencies strive to find ways of working together more closely to achieve regional goals.

The aging of the nation’s population is reflected in the aging of the transportation agency workforce. According to the Current Population Survey, there were 18.4 million workers over age 55 in the labor force in 2000; the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 31.9 million workers over age 55 by 2015 (GAO 2001). A 1999 survey of SDOTs indicated that more than 50 percent of their workforce is eligible to retire in the next 10 years—more than double the rate for all workers (New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department 1999).⁵ In December 2000, FHWA reported that 47 percent of its 2,680 employees were eligible for retirement in 2010 (13 percent at the time, 16 percent in 2005, and 18 percent in 2010). Moreover, potential re-

tirements are more critical in some position specialties than others.⁶ For example, almost one-third of current SDOT executives were eligible to retire in 2000, and more than 90 percent can retire within 10 years (FHWA 2000a).⁷

This high potential rate of retirements stems in large part from the aging of the baby boom generation—those born from 1946 through 1964. The proportion of all workers aged 45 and older will increase from 33 percent of the labor force in 1998 to 40 percent in 2008, which will add nearly 17 million workers to this age group. Over the same period, those aged 25 to 44 will decline as a percentage of the labor force—from 51 to 44 percent—resulting in 3 million fewer workers in this age bracket (Dohm 2000). For some transportation agencies, the institution of hiring freezes when downsizing took place means that today many agencies do not have enough midlevel managers to replace their retiring senior-level managers. In an example that reflects the situation in many American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials member organizations, retirements are leaving the Ontario Ministry of Transportation with significant vacancies (see Table 2-1). Vacancy rates in these specialized skill areas are double those seen at the ministry just 10 years ago.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century significantly increased federal-aid program funding and broadened the scope of program activities, which placed increased pressure on reduced SDOT staffs. As noted in Chapter 1, between FY 1995 and FY 2001, the apportionment of federal funds administered by FHWA increased nearly 60 percent, from $18.1 billion to $28.9 billion.

Two factors have led to increasing amounts of contracting out in SDOTs—increased program spending and agency downsizing. States have always contracted out their highway construction work, and many are now contracting out large portions of other work as well. Estimates from two sources based on state submissions illustrate the nature and extent of work contracted out by SDOTs as well as the variations among states in this regard (see Annex 2-1 at end of this chapter). Anecdotal evidence indicates that the amount of work being contracted out will likely continue to increase, largely because of increased program growth and agency staffing limitations.⁸

An important consequence of increased contracting out is that agency staff must focus less on engineering work and more on contract administration and management of others who are doing the engineering work.⁹ Moreover, regardless of the amount of work contracted out, responsibility for verification and accountability for expenditure of public funds remain with the agencies. Contract administration and management of others may not be appealing to engineers whose undergraduate curriculum emphasized planning and design of facilities.

Moreover, as transportation programs expand, the workloads of contractors, consultants, and materials suppliers increase in parallel with those of transportation agencies, requiring them to have additional qualified engineers, certified inspectors, and skilled and unskilled construction workers.

The traditional mission—and continuing responsibility—of SDOTs is the delivery of surface transportation infrastructure. The past focus of SDOTs on highway construction and maintenance led to agency staffs being heavily populated by civil engineers and technicians trained in the fundamentals of design, materials, construction, structures, hydraulics, geotechnical studies, and transportation engineering. This traditional mission began to change in the 1960s as SDOTs began responding to changing environmental and community needs, as well as federal mandates and regulations. Since then, agency missions have further expanded to encompass metropolitan and regional planning requirements; environmental and safety concerns; intermodal considerations; the implementation of intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies; and a wide range of issues related to the natural environment, including air and water quality, noise, and habitat and endangered species protection, as well as community impacts (cultural, historic, and social).¹⁰ Moreover, the issues of sustainability and environmental justice have emerged as areas for transportation agency attention despite a lack of consensus on what they entail (TRB 1997). And since September 2001, transportation security has become a pressing issue as well. As a result, today’s public and private transportation organizations employ a wide range of specialists, including certified planners, architects, landscape architects, environmental scientists, economists, geologists, hydrologists, computer programmers, statisticians, real estate agents, lawyers, appraisers, and acquisition agents (Polzin and Ward 2002).

Starting in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, SDOTs began emphasizing customer-oriented initiatives and paying more attention to quality management, performance measurement, process reengineering, and the delivery of customer service. Customer service and its accompanying real-time information requirements have become a key component of SDOT (as well as TA) activities. More focus on customer satisfaction helps overcome some inefficiency inherent in fragmented system ownership and has impelled many agencies to seek improved cooperation between states and metropolitan areas, and states and local communities. Coupled with customer service activities is the need for SDOTs (and TAs) to interact more proactively and openly with the public and the media.

All public agencies are under increasing legislative and public scrutiny, with the result that they must operate more openly, especially when large-scale projects and facilities are involved. While public involvement may have begun as a response to planning and regulatory requirements, it is becoming a key component of the customer-oriented focus of public agencies. Public involvement requires effective communication and openness in planning, design, priority setting, and overall decision making. Agencies are also recognizing that customer-oriented public participation requires more than responses to individual needs, and they are surveying their customers more regularly to measure levels of satisfaction and identify areas for improvement.

Technology changes the skills required in the workforce. During the 1980s and 1990s, computer and telecommunications technologies reshaped many core SDOT functions, including financial and administrative systems, project planning, design, and program management, as well as all measurement and analysis activities. With a computer on everyone’s desk, the way work is organized has changed, as well as how work gets done. ITS technologies—the convergence of communication, computing, sensing, and control technologies aimed at achieving operational improvements through freeway and incident management, traveler information, road weather information, and

other user services—are the most recent examples of technology innovation in transportation agencies.¹¹ The use of ITS technologies to operate and manage transportation systems creates a whole new operating environment for transportation agencies and increases the demand for people who understand and operate these technologies. In addition, the transportation agency workforce must be able to use new computer and telecommunications technologies quickly if their benefits are to be realized (Tulgan 2001).¹²

As noted in Chapter 1, public agencies and private organizations compete for many of the same employees. Variations in compensation and job benefits significantly affect the choice of employer for many job seekers. Public agencies are often challenged in recruiting and retaining workers for jobs requiring newer skills and for entry-level positions (NRC 2001). While data on public–private salary differentials are scarce, several recent surveys indicate the differences. One survey revealed that the median salary of responding civil engineers was $59,900 per year in the public sector and $66,000 per year in the private sector (CE News 2002). Reese (2003) found in a survey of younger (below age 35) American Society of Civil Engineers members that the average annual salary for private-sector engineers is $1,000 higher than the average for all engineers, while the average annual salary for public engineers is $1,000 lower than the average for all. Young engineers with advanced degrees in both categories earned $2,000 more per year than the overall average.

Anecdotal evidence provided to the committee in an open session held in December 2001 and by several committee members who are human resource managers indicates that when SDOT engineers

move from the public to the private sector, the primary reasons are higher salaries and the potential for profit sharing. Interviews conducted with SDOT officials in 2000 as part of a recent FHWA study yielded similar results (FHWA 2000b). Evidence of engineers moving from the private to the public sector is sketchy. Reasons given for such moves include more regular work hours, improved work–life balance, and greater opportunity for more responsibilities earlier in one’s career (FHWA 2000b). The committee could find no information on how many engineers move in either direction.

While periods of low unemployment often highlight the difficulties associated with public–private salary differentials, periods of increasing unemployment or labor market instability have the opposite effect.¹³ Workers become more interested in public-sector employment for the same reasons as those cited above for moving from the private to the public sector—more regular work hours, improved work–life balance, and opportunity for more responsibilities earlier in one’s career (Kaye and Jordan-Evans 1999).

Progressive public-sector agencies are able to attract workers even while adopting efficiency improvements based on new methods and techniques developed for the private sector—reengineering, restructuring, and downsizing. Such agencies, in recognition that the labor market is becoming increasingly open and fast moving, are recognizing that they need a retention strategy that focuses on particular employees or groups of employees (Cappelli 2000).

TAs provide local and regional public transit services and operate in an environment of high expectations from transit customers. The TA workforce has several unique characteristics:¹⁴

• It is in constant contact with the general public.

• About 75 percent of its members—operators and maintenance staff—are responsible for high standards of efficiency and public (in addition to workplace) safety.¹⁵

• Transit operators and maintenance staff are usually unionized.

• Operators must hold a Class B commercial driver’s license with a passenger endorsement and are subject to drug and alcohol testing.

• Almost all TAs are local government agencies; a few are state agencies.

• Opportunities for advancement are limited.

• The industry has suffered from a poor or uncomplimentary image in the past, which hampers recruiting efforts.

TAs provide a schedule-driven customer service. As a result, the majority of the transit workforce—transit equipment operators— function in a rule-bound, seniority-based environment with little flexibility. This situation has its drawbacks for recruiting younger employees. In addition, the transit industry is experiencing the same stresses on its employment processes as those affecting employers in other sectors. A tight labor market, combined with changing workforce demographics and difficult transit working conditions, creates a definite challenge for TAs. This is especially so for the five key job categories that TAs identify as most difficult to recruit and retain— bus and train operators, equipment maintenance staff, planners, engineers, and information technology specialists (McGlothin Davis 2002). Nevertheless, the workforce issues that TAs face vary from locale to locale, among different-sized agencies, and on the basis of the type of governance structure. The ways in which these and other characteristics affect the TA workforce are described below.

TAs face many of the same obstacles in competing for skilled personnel as do other public agencies. In a recent survey of the industry, 77 percent of responding agencies reported that a noncompetitive wage and benefit package was a key reason for their difficulty in recruiting employees in the benchmark positions mentioned above (McGlothin Davis 2002, 15). On the other hand, certain other positive characteristics of TA employment—public service, job security, working with people, supporting a better environmental solution, and the opportunity to work independently—can be marketed for some positions (Moffat et al. 2001, 7).

Transit employees responsible for performing safety-sensitive functions—such as bus and rail operators—must pass drug and alcohol tests and a physical examination as conditions of employment and are subject to random testing during employment (McGlothin Davis 2002).¹⁶ Entry-level operator positions require a high school degree or equivalent; mechanic positions often require training or certification. Operators and maintenance staff work their way up through the ranks, advancing internally, usually to a limited number of supervisory positions.¹⁷ New hires—especially bus and train operators—are faced with the traditionally challenging entry-level conditions of split shifts, variable work schedules, and stressful working conditions.¹⁸ Transit operating schedules are rigid, reflecting high travel demands during peak periods of the day. As a result, there is no opportunity for flexible work schedules for transit operators. Moreover, the first assignment for many bus operators is the extra-board, a standby assignment that can require the operator to be ready to drive as many as three times each day without a guarantee of being assigned any

work. Such an assignment can be a deterrent for new hires and contributes to high turnover in the position, adversely affecting transit service and thwarting recruiting efforts.

Technology changes are affecting TAs in many of the same ways that they affect SDOTs, especially with regard to financial and administrative systems, project planning, and data management and analysis. TAs need information technology specialists to operate and maintain their computer systems and networks and the ITS-oriented systems now included in much bus and rail equipment. They need maintenance staff who understand modern bus subsystems that are increasingly dependent on electronics for control, monitoring, and communication. They are also faced with a proliferation of sophisticated onboard electrical and electronic equipment that is changing the way agencies provide bus service and the way passengers use that service. For example, wiring systems are multiplex instead of analog, engines and subsystems are electronically instead of mechanically controlled, and revenue collection systems are electromechanical rather than mechanical. While such improvements have greatly enhanced the capabilities and benefits of the systems involved, they have also introduced a new level of complexity, requiring considerable knowledge and skill to operate and maintain effectively. Transit operators, for example, must be able to use new mechanical equipment designed to accommodate passengers with disabilities. Many TAs have acknowledged that keeping pace with advanced electronics-based technologies and realizing the full range of benefits of new systems and equipment through traditional on-the-job training alone is not sufficient (McGlothin Davis 2002, 13). Many small transit agencies with a few paratransit vehicles find it particularly difficult to afford a qualified mechanic for their vehicles, which contain complex mechanical systems (Passenger Transport 2002).

TAs have traditionally employed civil engineers and planners to address core engineering and planning issues. The building of subway

and trolley systems in the 19th and 20th centuries—similar in many ways to the construction of railroads that already employed civil and mechanical engineers—drew many engineers to urban transit. Many continued to play key roles as the need for planning, design, and construction, as well as operation and maintenance of facilities, grew. The organization and management of today’s TAs has been heavily influenced by engineers and engineering practice, and TAs continue to recruit engineers for key positions. TAs also need planners to support their service and capital programs. Both engineer and planner positions require a baccalaureate degree, and both have been identified as benchmark positions—those most difficult to recruit and retain for TAs (McGlothin Davis 2002).

TA workforce demographics reflect many public-sector employment trends. According to data from 20 TAs, the average age of bus operators was 50.1 years, and that for mechanics was 46.1 years (McGlothin Davis 2002). Both are higher than the average of 39 years for all employees (Dohm 2000). Minorities are overrepresented in bus operations as compared with information technology and engineering positions, in which Caucasian males dominate. The gender mix for bus operators is about 77 percent male and 24 percent female.

The image an organization projects and perceptions about its culture are important to its workforce and its recruiting and retention efforts. Transit is perceived as hardware- rather than people-oriented and isolated from the mainstream of American business (McGlothin Davis 2002). Because it is schedule-driven and must adhere strictly to safety, drug, and alcohol regulations, transit is viewed as quasi-military, inflexible, and rule-bound or old-fashioned. Some agencies suffer from a history of poor union–management relations, even if the situation is

improving.¹⁹ Research is currently under way to determine how existing negative attitudes about TA culture and practices can be addressed to improve the agencies’ image as an employer of choice (Transit Cooperative Research Program Project F-11).

Transit agencies are usually governed by a board of directors or trustees comprising public citizens appointed by a governor, mayor, or other elected official. Sometimes approval of appointments is also required by a legislative body (the state legislature or the city council). Members typically represent specific political jurisdictions. Transit boards range in size from 5 to 23 members and average 9 members (Simon & Simon 2002). The vast majority of transit boards avoid day-to-day operations and focus on policy issues.

TA workforce planning is often constrained by a transit board decision to cap the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs). When a board mandates restricting FTEs to control costs, it often overlooks actual operating conditions and the potential consequences of FTE limits, such as increased scheduled and unscheduled overtime, operator dependence on overtime, reduced morale and performance, and increased turnover (Moffat et al. 2001).

Past studies of SDOT workforce needs have focused principally on either the civil engineering or the professional workforce—including, for example, civil and other engineers, planners, lawyers—those requiring a baccalaureate or professional degree. Studies of TA workforce needs have concentrated on several benchmark categories—bus

and train operators, equipment maintenance staff, engineers, planners, and information technology specialists. To both focus and simplify its discussions, the committee adopted a model of transportation agency job categories based on education and training qualifications while recognizing that any such model can oversimplify the situation and obscure variations within and among categories.²⁰ The committee’s model is based on four primary job categories—executive/managerial, professional /technical, operator/technician, and administrative/ clerical. The minimum requirement for professional staff is a baccalaureate or professional degree or equivalent qualifications. The minimum requirement for technical staff is a post–secondary school credential (an associate’s degree, a certificate from a recognized training program, or some combination of training and experience) that qualifies them. The minimum requirement for administrative and clerical staff is a high school diploma or equivalent. More information on these categories as discussed by the committee is presented in Table 2-2.

Many factors—including technology changes, demographic factors, increasing ethnic diversification of the population, funds availability, and so forth—will continue to have an impact on the transportation agency workforce and the agencies’ ability to recruit and retain qualified staff. Each agency must decide how it will undertake its mission and the workforce it needs to accomplish that mission. While many factors affect this decision, several are critical: anticipated program

growth, an expanding agency mission, constraints on program funding, and pressure to maintain or reduce agency staff. In combination they require agencies to contract out more work. Many agencies are already selectively increasing their use of contractors and consultants for work traditionally undertaken by agency staff. As they contract out more work, agencies still need some in-house expertise to ensure quality control, a basic fiduciary responsibility of the agency, as well as more contract management and administration skills (Camm and Moore 1997). Nevertheless, overall program management and fiscal stewardship must remain in-house.

Each transportation agency is independent, and few have attempted to predict their workforce needs in the next 5 or 10 years. However, in light of the changes taking place in the workforce, there are some identifiable trends. The impending wave of retirements of senior management staff is important to agencies that do not have sufficient numbers of midlevel replacements in the pipeline. Technology changes are taking place at a quickening pace, increasing the need for training in new methods, technology applications, and management techniques. Contracting out demands more of an agency’s technical staff than just a caretaker role; it requires technical competence combined with contract management and administration skills. The experience gained from the few states moving quickly toward an operating model in which a high percentage of work is contracted out should prove valuable to other agencies if the lessons learned can be captured and disseminated.

The issue of the future TA workforce is somewhat different at this time. While external changes will continue to affect TAs, how they will deliver service in the next 5 to 10 years is not likely to change, nor is the basic mix of personnel required. Thus the need for transit operators and equipment maintenance staff, engineers, planners, and information technology personnel will continue.

FPE Federation of Public Employees

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GAO General Accounting Office

NRC National Research Council

TRB Transportation Research Council

Camm, F. S., and N. Y. Moore. 1997. Strategic Sourcing: A Key to the Revolution in Business Affairs. Report DB-208-AF. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.

Cappelli, P. 2000. A Market-Driven Approach to Retaining Talent. Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb.

CE News. 2002. Salary Survey 2002. May. www.cenews.com/edsalsurmain.html.

Dohm, A. 2000. Gauging the Labor Force Effects of Retiring Baby-Boomers. Monthly Labor Review, July, pp. 17–25.

FHWA. 2000a. Positioning FHWA for the Future. Report of Task Force on Workforce Planning and Professional Development. Washington, D.C., Dec.

FHWA. 2000b. Federal Lands Highway, Phase II Benchmarking Study. Washington, D.C., Sept.

FPE. 2001. The Quiet Crisis: Recruitment and Retention in the Public Sector. Recruitment and Retention Task Force. Washington, D.C., June.

GAO. 2001. Older Workers: Demographic Trends Pose Challenges for Employers and Workers. GAO-02-85. Washington, D.C., Nov.

GAO. 2002. A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-02-373SP. Washington, D.C.

Hudson Institute. 1987. Workforce 2000—Work and Workers for the 21st Century. Indianapolis, Ind.

Hudson Institute. 1997. Workforce 2020—Work and Workers in the 21st Century. Indianapolis, Ind.

Kaye, B., and S. Jordan-Evans. 1999. Love ‘Em or Lose ‘Em. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, Calif.

Kettl, D. 1996. Civil Service Reform: Building a Government That Works. The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

McGlothin Davis, Inc. 2002. TCRP Report 77: Managing Transit’s Workforce in the New Millennium. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Moffat, G. K., A. H. Ashton, and D. R. Blackburn. 2001. TCRP Synthesis 40: A Challenged Employment System: Hiring, Training, Performance Evaluation, and Retention of Bus Operators. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department. 1999. Staffing Plan Survey of State Transportation Agencies. Research Report NM99, ADM-01. Sept.

NRC. 2001. Building a Workforce for the Information Economy. Washington, D.C.

Passenger Transport. 2002. Illinois DOT Connects Small Transit Agencies to Regional Repair Centers. Dec. 27.

Polzin, S. E., and B. G. Ward. 2002. Designing an Interdisciplinary Educational Program to Support Transportation Workforce Development. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1812, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 143–150.

Reese, C. 2003. Employment History Survey of ASCE’s Younger Members. Leadership and Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 33–53.

Simon & Simon Research and Associates, Inc. 2002. TCRP Web Document 21: Public Transit System Policy Boards: Organization and Characteristics. TCRP Project H-24, Contractor Final Report. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_21.pdf.

TRB. 1997. Special Report 251: Toward a Sustainable Future: Addressing the Long-Term Effects of Motor Vehicle Transportation on Climate and Ecology. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Tulgan, B. 2001. Winning the Talent Wars. W.W. Norton & Company.

Warne, T. 2003. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice: Current Practice for Recruiting and Retaining Individuals in State Transportation Agencies. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (in progress).

Wulf, W. A., and G. M. C. Fisher. 2002. A Makeover for Engineering Education. Issues in Science and Technology, Spring, pp. 35–39.

Universities, community colleges, independent training institutes, professional and trade associations, and public agencies offer a broad range of education and training opportunities that encompass degree, certificate, and continuing education programs, and short courses providing the knowledge and skills needed by transportation agencies. Two federal agencies closely associated with transportation programs offer training opportunities: the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through the National Highway Institute (NHI), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), through the National Transit Institute (NTI). A third federal agency, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) in the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), manages the University Transportation Centers (UTC) program, initiated under the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 and continued in subsequent surface transportation reauthorizations.

Education and training programs at universities, community colleges, and technical schools are affected by institutional issues as they attempt to meet the needs of the education marketplace.¹ These issues include academic policies, accreditation and licensing requirements, competition for students, economic considerations, and staffing.

Traditional and emerging sources of education and training all address the needs of employers and employees for continuous learning in response to the growing demands of the marketplace and the workplace. In the following sections information is provided on sources of professional, technical, and industry education and training for state departments of transportation (SDOTs) and transit agencies (TAs).

The primary credential for many key transportation agency positions is still a degree in civil engineering. Civil engineering graduates have long been the backbone of SDOT workforces, largely because civil engineering education prepares students to perform the bulk of work done by these agencies—planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation facilities. As the range of activities within the purview of SDOTs has broadened (as discussed in Chapter 2), the agencies need more planning, environmental, financial, and legal specialists. The primary credential for these positions is a bachelor’s degree in planning, environmental science, business, prelaw, or related topics. Regardless of the need for a variety of professions, civil engineering remains the dominant focus. In recent years, the number of civil engineers graduating from accredited engineering programs has been decreasing (see Figure 3-1).² Despite this cyclic pattern, the supply of civil engineering graduates appears sufficient to meet demand.

Notwithstanding the importance of civil engineers to the operation of transportation agencies, engineering consulting and construction firms employ many more civil engineers. This is evidenced by the fact that in mid-2002, offers to civil engineering graduates were 40 percent

from consulting firms, 50 percent from construction firms, and only 10 percent from government and nonprofit organizations.³ While the data are limited, they do reflect the employment potential. They also suggest that even if changes in civil engineering curricula would benefit SDOTs in light of their changing work requirements, the influence of the agencies on curriculum decisions is small compared with that of other potential employers.⁴

Many SDOTs have strong ties and established relationships with state universities that help attract engineering students to agency

FIGURE 3-1 Bachelor’s degrees awarded in selected engineering disciplines. (Source: engtrends.com.)

work. Such ties have several origins, including state government support of public universities, participation in cooperative engineering programs, agency funding of internships and fellowships, agency research funding that focuses the work of graduate students (and their professors) on SDOT topics, and agency employees who are state university graduates or supporters of student and departmental activities.⁵

The changes taking place in SDOTs and other transportation agencies—requiring other engineering and technical specialties to address intelligent transportation system (ITS) implementation, environmental regulations, and metropolitan transportation planning, as well as the growing demand for procurement and contract management specialists—have been recognized by the academic community. Sussman (1995, 4) notes the need to educate a “new transportation professional” with breadth in three fundamental areas—technology, systems, and institutions—and an in-depth specialization in a subset of transportation. He also addresses the associated need for a faculty capable of approaching transportation education in terms of “big infrastructure investments, a network structure for delivery of services, an (relatively recent) application of real-time control, a global scale, and a changing institutional structure, particularly between public and private sectors” (Sussman 1999, 23).

In response to the changing needs of urban transportation agencies the University of South Florida—one of USDOT’s university transportation centers—has instituted a Graduate Interdisciplinary Transportation Program. It brings together graduate students in economics, civil engineering, and public administration for a six-course certificate program; the coursework is also available to students working toward master’s degrees. The program, which is described in more detail in Box 3-1, was developed with a view toward the changing knowledge and skill requirements of the transportation workforce for both public- and private-sector employers.

The UTC program, a key component of federal support for university transportation education and research, is described later.

As their name implies, community colleges—a unique American institution with a 100-year history of service—are community-based institutions of higher learning. There are more than 1,170 community colleges in the nation, with about 1,000 being public institutions.⁶ The majority share the characteristics of open access and equity, comprehensive program offerings aimed at job preparation, a community-based philosophy, a commitment to teaching, and a commitment to continuous learning. Unlike 4-year colleges and universities, where attainment of a bachelor’s degree is the implicit goal of students, community colleges serve students who share a goal of self-improvement but not necessarily a degree.

Community colleges offer a variety of credit and noncredit courses aimed at occupations in high demand within the community.⁷ They are characterized by high levels of enrollment, low graduation rates, and large numbers of older (mature) students, suggesting that they are functioning as retraining rather than as primary training institutions. Minorities and immigrants are overrepresented in 2-year schools. First-generation postsecondary students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to enroll in community colleges than in 4-year schools (NCES 2000). For students who are already in related technical fields, switching careers, or adding technical skills to their current nontechnical skills, community colleges are a convenient, economical, and popular option.

Community colleges offer an opportunity to tap a worker pool of recent high school graduates, experienced workers seeking a midlife career change, and college graduates with nontechnical degrees seeking alternative employment in more technical fields. Evidence that community college programs have proven successful in providing workers for information technology jobs suggests that programs can

be developed for other job types and diffused across the country (Lerman et al. 2000). This capability is leveraged by a key community college advantage—flexibility in curriculum. Two-year colleges can react to industry demands quickly and are not burdened by the bureaucratic structure and accreditation issues of 4-year colleges and universities.⁸ On the other hand, as noted above, an accredited engineering or other degree is often a requirement for some transportation agency positions. Finally, it should be noted that, given their financial constraints and union contracts, community colleges can find it difficult to attract and retain the qualified faculty they need.⁹

Community colleges are partnering with TAs to address some transportation agency needs for specialized skills. The Houston Community College System’s Northeast College has partnered with the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) for nearly 20 years to provide heavy motor vehicle maintenance/diesel mechanic training for METRO’s maintenance apprenticeship program. That program consists of 5 years of training based on a combination of community college classes and on-the-job training at METRO. Candidates are selected by METRO, and community college instructors teach the classes. The program provides 100 percent job placement for those who complete the training. There are currently 75 students in the program.

Community colleges are addressing the need for engineering graduates in other ways, including partnering with universities to provide alternative entry into baccalaureate engineering degree programs. For example, the University of Dayton (UD) has two dual-admission

programs with Sinclair Community College (SCC) in Dayton. In such programs, students who complete an associate’s degree in one of the qualifying programs at SCC and meet the grade point average requirement can transfer to UD with junior status and receive a one-third annual tuition discount from UD while they pursue their baccalaureate degree. In the joint Adult Degree Advancement Program, students over 24 years of age also receive a tuition discount.

Community colleges are well positioned to address emerging and continuing community needs for specialized training programs; they can react quickly to changing needs. However, their ability to initiate and sustain programs in areas of high demand depends on hiring and retaining qualified instructors, who are often in high demand elsewhere.

FHWA’s NHI provides training and education for surface transportation agencies through the development and delivery of training courses, administration of fellowships and internships, and several affiliate programs. Current funding for NHI is $8 million annually. Specific NHI program activity is summarized in Table 3-1. In addition, NHI currently supports an initiative of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) aimed at identifying and publicizing innovative practices in SDOT workforce management practices. This effort is described in Chapter 4.

NTI, located at Rutgers University, was established under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 to develop, promote, and deliver education and training programs for the public transit industry in subject areas of critical importance in which training does not exist or is limited. The institute’s initial four program

areas were advanced technologies and innovative practices, compliance with federal regulations, management and professional development, and multimodal transportation planning. In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) provided additional funding and added workplace safety as a program area. Current funding for NTI is $4 million annually. In addition to traditional course offerings, NTI provides monthly audio teleconferences, an annual transit trainer’s workshop, and presentations by invited speakers.

The Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) provides technical assistance funds to the states to assist them and local governments through 58 LTAP centers¹⁰ that provide training and technical assistance primarily to local transportation agencies, as well as to SDOTs, metropolitan planning organizations, private industry, and other transportation providers. Most of the centers are housed at state universities and technical colleges and are geared specifically toward disseminating research results and new technologies to rural highway agencies and municipalities with populations under 2 million. The location of the

centers at universities also provides educational and training opportunities for students interested in highway-related careers, and training and technical assistance for highway professionals at the state and local levels. The LTAP centers are funded by FHWA, SDOTs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, universities, local transportation agencies, and other state funds. In 2002, up to $140,000 in LTAP funds was available to each state on a 1:1 matching basis; in some cases the match was much greater. During that year, LTAP centers provided more than 5,000 training sessions to more than 135,000 participants. Current funding enables the LTAP program to reach about one-third of the local government transportation workforce.

The centerpiece of federal support for university transportation programs is the UTC program, which is administered by RSPA. TEA-21 authorized up to $158.8 million for grants to as many as 33 UTCs throughout the United States from FY 1998 to FY 2003. Ten of these centers, designated as regional centers, were selected competitively in 1999. The other 23 UTCs are located at universities specified in TEA-21. Funding for the UTCs is matched on a 1:1 basis, often by an SDOT, but also by other sources.

The UTC program supports graduate student education and research in transportation; such assistance provides a platform for the development of future transportation professionals, researchers, and educators. TEA-21 established education as one of the primary objectives of a UTC, institutionalized the use of strategic planning in university grant management, and reinforced the program’s focus on multimodal transportation. (See Appendix C for more detail on the universities in the UTC program.) Congressional designations for the UTC program in FY 2001 amount to 93 percent of the potential grants. During FY 2002, 17 existing centers will enter a competition for funding for the final 2 years of authorization.

As noted in Chapter 2, SDOTs operate in a climate of change stemming from technical, demographic, institutional, political, cultural,

economic, and environmental factors. These changes—especially advances in technology; materials; construction methods; financing and scheduling projects; and ways of administering contracts to save time, control costs, and improve quality—require SDOTs to focus more resources on training the workforce. Congress has authorized each SDOT to spend up to 0.5 percent of a portion of its Surface Transportation Program funds on training, a total of about $38 million in FY 2002. SDOTs spent only about $9 million of the available funds in 2002.¹¹ Data from surveys indicate that SDOTs annually provide about 10 hours of training on average for each employee. Nevertheless, many states spend state money for training.¹²

Information from NHI and the National Transportation Training Directors, an organization of SDOT training directors, suggests that the full range of SDOT training activities is quite broad, but documentation on those activities is limited. Many states are entering into joint training efforts with contractors, consultants, and, in some cases, county and city engineers to leverage limited training resources toward common goals.

A recent survey by Trauner (2001) revealed that SDOTs are reacting to reduced staffing levels by requiring that project engineering and inspection staffs have a wider variety of skills and be willing to work in broader geographic areas than was previously the norm.

SDOTs use certification and licensing mechanisms to ensure that project engineers and inspectors have the needed knowledge and skills.¹³ Both are often tied to advancement in the organization as well. SDOTs use a variety of institutions to provide instruction for project engineers and inspectors. Table 3-2 shows that the primary provider of such instruction is department staff. Some SDOTs have also pooled resources to develop and implement a single uniform program for training and certification of technical personnel under the

Transportation Curriculum Coordinating Council, a partnership formed in September 2000 to coordinate, prioritize, and reduce duplication of effort in the development and revision of core training materials for highway construction inspectors and technicians. The council comprises representatives of AASHTO, FHWA, NHI, SDOTs, industry associations, and five regional training and certification groups.¹⁴

The training and certification efforts of SDOTs extend to other areas. Examples include Georgia DOT’s project engineer’s academy, maintenance foreman’s academy, and worksite erosion control certification program; Indiana DOT’s technician certification program; and Pennsylvania DOT’s Transportation University, which has been designated as a certified provider of continuing education credits by the International Association for Continuing Education and Training.

A number of states—including Virginia, Texas, Minnesota, California, Pennsylvania, and New York—have established cooperative programs among state highway and transportation agencies, transit properties, and state universities and community colleges. For example, Virginia DOT has a community college–based training program for bus maintenance staff; the state transit office pays the maintainers while they attend courses.

Transit equipment operators and maintenance staff, who make up the majority of transit agency employees, receive considerable training. After recruitment, operators require training in safety, operational issues, passenger relations, and the electronic communications and fare collection equipment widely used today. Transit agency maintenance staff usually need to be certified as an electrical, electronic, or mechanical technician or in another specialty. Because equipment suppliers regularly enter and exit the market, each new equipment purchase can require training on new systems. Other transit employees need training in their skill areas and for other reasons. Congress has authorized transit agencies to spend up to 0.5 percent of federal operating and capital funds for training, a total of about $33 million in FY 2002. FTA does not compile information on how much of these funds transit agencies actually spend, but anecdotal information from FTA, the American Public Transportation Administration (APTA), and committee members familiar with a number of transit agencies indicates that they do not use much, if any, of these funds for training. Purchases of new transit equipment provide a mechanism for training of maintenance staff by manufacturers. Studies of the transit workforce indicate that some transit agencies have exemplary training programs. Box 3-2 describes how the Metropolitan Transit Authority in New York City teamed with its unions and the New York City Board of Education to create an apprenticeship program to feed qualified technicians into the agency. Box 3-3 describes an agency’s efforts to train its maintenance staff on new bus technologies.

AASHTO is the national association that represents state highway and transportation officials. It sponsors several management training programs. National Transportation Management Conferences, conducted in partnership with the Eno Transportation Foundation, provide specialized training to midlevel SDOT managers in skills they

need to make the transition from technical to management responsibilities. These weeklong conferences introduce participants to the theories and practices associated with managing people and projects effectively. The Team Leadership Institute, conducted in partnership with Indiana University, is a 2-week management training program for senior managers. An annual weeklong Advanced Leadership Institute is organized for selected alumni of the Team Leadership Institute. AASHTO also conducts a 1-day CEO Workshop for new SDOT directors each year in conjunction with its spring meeting.

AASHTO sponsors a science and mathematics education program [Transportation and Civil Engineering (TRAC)] to increase student awareness of transportation and civil engineering as possible career

choices. (See Box 3-4 for more information on TRAC.) See Appendix G for more information on programs aimed at supporting young people in K-12 science and mathematics education and attracting them to transportation careers.

APTA represents 14,000 North American transit systems, government and state associations, and transit businesses. Since 1997, Leadership APTA, a professional development program made up of three 2-day sessions, has provided transit leadership–oriented instruction

to 25 individuals working for transit systems and corporations and businesses related to the transit industry. The program introduces participants to the issues, skills, and demands of transit and APTA leadership. The American Public Transportation Foundation provides support for qualified individuals to pursue advanced degrees in areas related to the needs of the transit industry.

As a result of the work of APTA’s Workforce Development Task Force, APTA has begun to institutionalize human resource management as a strategic function in transit agencies. Four subcommittees have been formed within the committee: labor relations, employment, organizational development, and employee development and training. Each subcommittee is developing a work plan that will include training needs and program suggestions with particular emphasis on Web-based seminars and instructional programs.

APTA’s workforce development activities are featured on its website (www.apta.com/cmmtt/humres/index.htm).

Many other associations provide training opportunities for transportation agencies, contractors, and consultants. Selected examples in the area of project management and project inspection are shown in Table 3-3.

Education and training are increasingly available from a variety of sources other than those described above. Such education and training can involve nontraditional sources, nontraditional delivery mechanisms, or both.

Over the last two decades, community-based organizations, for-profit companies, and in-house company programs have begun competing with 4-year colleges and universities and community colleges for programs and students (Bailey 2002). An example is the Cisco Networking Academies program, sponsored by Cisco Corporation, which provides training in high schools and community colleges on

how to design, build, and maintain computer networks (see Box 3-5). For-profit companies are offering short-term training, preparation for technical certification, and even baccalaureate degrees at several levels. For-profit educational institutions are competing directly with community colleges for adult students with strong occupational objectives, especially in information technology fields.

The delivery of education and training is changing. Whereas education has traditionally meant bringing students to sources of knowl-

edge and instruction, distance learning using computers and the Internet brings sources of knowledge to students.¹⁵ The combination of economic pressure, student needs, time and space limitations, and technological opportunity has encouraged schools and firms to experiment with Web-based distance education. Web technologies that are capable of delivering text, data, images, audio, and video in an integrated and coordinated manner help overcome many problems associated with earlier delivery methods for distance education. Degree-granting colleges and universities, community colleges, state and federal agencies, corporations, and even publishers are exploring options for participating in distance education. As intellectual capital and knowledge work replace physical capital and production work as the source of economic prosperity, attention is increasingly being

given to the opportunities offered by distance learning. Nevertheless, “the potential effect of computer-based distance education is perhaps the greatest unknown concerning the nature of the competitive landscape in postsecondary education” (Bailey 2002, 61).

Distance learning is only beginning to be developed and used. Computer-based distance learning is not a homogeneous and well-defined entity; it takes a variety of forms and serves various individual and organizational purposes.¹⁶ Some students may be uncomfortable with technology and simply avoid using it. Others may be interested in the technology but not have access to the bandwidth needed to receive training properly as originally formatted. Thus if providers use Internet technology to its fullest potential, they may find their student base shrinking because of technical constraints as students have increasing difficulties with graphics and formats. The Internet requires infrastructure that is not affordable to every institution or organization. Internet education and training are also socially isolating and inadequate for certain types of skills, such as soft interpersonal and high-level analytical skills (Bechky 1999).

There are several examples of the use of distance learning technology in transportation. The Consortium for ITS Training and Education (CITE) is addressing the needs of transportation professionals through a partnership of more than 30 universities worldwide, two state members of the I-95 Corridor Coalition, USDOT’s ITS Joint Program Office, and FHWA. CITE offers certificate programs, and SDOTs in need of ITS capability can use its courses. It was recently awarded a 3-year development grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers has developed an Internet-based professional development program to address transportation and management areas of practice, such as transportation planning, traffic control, capacity analysis, and safety analysis.

Successful completion of a course can lead to professional development hour units that meet requirements for professional license renewal in 25 states.

Before distance learning can be a major factor in undergraduate engineering education, the issues of accreditation and validation (graduation, licensure, and certification) must be addressed.¹⁷ Both issues are important to public agencies and their public health and safety responsibilities.

Traditionally, SDOTs have hired graduate civil engineers to fill most of their entry-level professional positions and then used training programs, rotational job assignments, job experience, and other means to develop their own cadre of midlevel engineers, some of whom advanced to become managers in the agency. However, as the range of SDOTs’ technical activity has expanded (see Chapter 2), the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed by agency staff have also expanded. In addition, the work environment and the way work is undertaken continue to change, requiring communication, team-building, and other skills.

Some of these changing needs are addressed over time through changes in the curricula of engineering degree programs. Curriculum changes are slow, involving internal assessment and debate and outside advice; see the review by Meyer and Jacobs (2000) of the process and outcomes of a major curriculum change in the civil and environmental engineering department at Georgia Tech.¹⁸ Curriculum changes respond to the needs of the profession in general, not those

of any specific specialty area. For example, Georgia Tech added a technical communications specialist to its staff to work with faculty and staff on enhancing communication skills within the existing course structure. On the other hand, Penn State recently dropped its transportation engineering undergraduate course requirement for civil engineers in reaction to reduced credit hour requirements for the undergraduate degree.¹⁹

An undergraduate engineering curriculum is subject to accreditation, which serves to assure employers that graduates are prepared to begin professional service, taxpayers that their funds are being well spent, and the public that graduates are aware of public health and safety considerations.²⁰ Accreditation is based on several factors, including demonstration that the curriculum has certain required components, that students obtain specific knowledge and skills, and that the faculty are sufficient in number and qualifications. Degree programs for engineers, engineering technologists, and engineering technicians are accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), whose members are the major national professional engineering societies.²¹ The ABET accreditation process uses independent visiting teams to evaluate individual programs.

Accreditation is also important because state licensing boards and certification programs may require graduation from an ABET-accredited program as the first step in the registration or certification process for professional practice. Licensing assures the public that the registration holder has demonstrated acceptable knowledge and skills in basic engineering areas. In most SDOTs, many senior-level positions require licensure, which is a key incentive for young engineers to obtain their professional engineering license. Many SDOTs encourage, and sometimes support, this step through job assignments

and other assistance. In the private sector, many engineering firms require licensure for advancement to senior-level positions.

Certification is often a requirement for some technical specialties at SDOTs and TAs. It is a voluntary process through which individuals are recognized for knowledge and skills in a specialized field.²² Certification is firmly established in such professional fields as accounting, financial planning, association management, and medical specialties. Increasingly it is being established in specialties such as environmental, irrigation, and corrosion engineering.²³ (Table 3-4 indicates some of the SDOT technician certification requirements.) Transit operators also have certification requirements. Bus operators are required to have a commercial driver’s license, while train operators are certified by union supervisors after specific classroom and field training.

There are several reasons why transportation agencies must make training a priority. While the work of SDOTs is still civil engineering– oriented, many more disciplines and technical specialties are involved.²⁴ Even in TAs, where equipment operators and maintenance staff make up at least 75 percent of the workforce, training is an imperative for complex transit vehicles that incorporate advances such as alternative fuel propulsion systems, automated fare collection systems, telecommunications-based positioning systems, and computer-based vehicle diagnostic equipment. In addition, because transportation agencies are finding it necessary to hire employees with little or no prior

exposure to the work of the agencies, training is needed to prepare them for such work. Figure 3-2 illustrates some potential alternative career pathways for SDOT and TA staff and the role training plays.²⁵

Training is increasingly necessary if transportation agencies are going to benefit from or utilize many workplace changes, including new technologies, methods and materials, environmental and planning regulations, and even upgrades to PC-based office software applications; Box 3-6 provides illustrations. The implementation of ITS technologies provides another example. When Congress created the ITS implementation program, USDOT recognized the need for state and local transportation agency training before such implementation could begin. To address this need it established the ITS professional capacity–building program—and provided $3.5 million annually—to examine the needs, engage public- and private-sector partners and academia, and develop a program to provide the knowledge and skills for agencies to implement ITS technologies.²⁶ As noted previously, FHWA has identified two additional critical training needs—for safety and planning specialists—but federal funding has yet to be made available.

As noted above, SDOTs have about $38 million in federal funds available for training but use only about one quarter of that. (No comparable federal funding is available to train TA employees.) For 23 SDOTs reporting the number of full-time employees, these federal funds amount to about $233 per full-time employee (New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department 1999). If these SDOT employees average $30,000 per year, this amounts to about 0.7 percent of their annual salary. Data from 18 states responding to a survey conducted by the National Transportation Training Directors indicate that the states spent just under 1 percent of agency salaries (unpublished survey, 2001).

Similarly, transit agencies can use a portion of their federal operating and capital investment funds, about $32 million in FY 2002, for training. According to FTA, few of them use these funds for training, but there are no data indicating how many agencies do use it for this purpose or how much they use. With approximately 225,000 transit agency employees in the United States, these funds yield an average of $142 per employee in 2002.

In comparison, a 2001 survey of 1,488 employers by the American Society of Training and Development found that these companies spent 2 percent of annual salaries on training. Leading companies spend even more: General Electric, 4.6 percent; U.S. Robotics, 4.2 percent; Motorola, 4 percent. FHWA, in recognition of its workforce training needs, has set a goal of 3 percent of annual salaries.

Nevertheless, transportation agency training is not being neglected. There is an extensive array of targeted education and training for transportation agency staff, as well as for people interested in transportation careers. However, such efforts are fragmented and decentralized, reflecting the nature of the transportation system and the transportation agencies. Each agency has different training needs and limited resources, so no single agency addresses the full spectrum of industry needs. AASHTO’s Administrative Subcommittee on Personnel and Human Resources, APTA’s National Transit Workforce Initiative, and the National Transportation Training Directors have all recognized the industry need for cooperative workforce development activities aimed at making more effective use of limited resources.²⁷ While these and other efforts point to the need for training the transportation workforce, they also reveal the need to learn more about alternative ways of developing skills and delivering training. Numerous approaches, including traditional classroom training, Web-based instruction, distance learning, computer-based training, and Web-based professional networks—and their cost-effectiveness—need to be explored.

Surface transportation is essential to economic activity and social interaction. It also reinforces public policies concerning economic, social, defense, environmental, and, more recently, national security matters. The federal government—through the combined actions of Congress, the administration, and USDOT—is responsible for strategic national transportation interests. However, the delivery of transportation infrastructure and public transportation service takes place through a complex intergovernmental arrangement, which is based on a long history of federalism whereby more than 35,000 state and local government agencies carry out a national transportation program with guidance and direction from the federal government.²⁸ The demands on the transportation workers in public agencies and in the private-sector organizations that support these agencies require a broad range of education, skills, and capabilities that change as new methods, materials, and technologies are developed and adopted.

While workforce development is not exclusively a federal problem, the federal government has recognized its reliance on the transportation workforce of these government agencies and the private-sector companies that support them by assisting in several activities aimed at workforce development. For example, SDOTs and TAs can use a portion of federal surface transportation funds for employee training. The UTC program, which provides transportation-related education and research opportunities for graduate students, is funded in part with federal funds. The LTAP centers, also federally supported, provide training and technical assistance primarily to local transportation agencies, as well as to SDOTs, metropolitan planning organizations, private industry, and other transportation providers. NHI and NTI provide education and training opportunities, especially where training does not exist or is limited. USDOT has begun to partner with professional associations, especially AASHTO and APTA, to address workforce issues.

In 2002, USDOT organized the National Transportation Workforce Summit, which enabled public- and private-sector and academic representatives to engage in extensive dialogue on transportation workforce issues (see Box 3-7). The summit underscored that the federal government has yet to develop a consistent strategy or programmatic goals addressing the full spectrum of transportation workforce issues.²⁹ Participants concluded that a large unmet need and opportunity remain for federal government leadership in transportation workforce development. The committee agrees with this assessment.

Continuing federal government reliance on the workforce of the nation’s highly fragmented and decentralized transportation agencies makes workforce development an important issue for the federal government. No single agency or organization has sufficient interest in or resources available to take on the full range of national transportation workforce development issues, especially in light of the highly mobile nature of the workforce. Moreover, a federal agency can interact directly with other federal agencies in activities that address and support workforce development and leverage these activities for the benefit of the transportation workforce.³⁰

Taking a leadership role would help the federal government ensure that the programs it already supports lead to the outcomes it seeks. Stated simply, only the federal government has the breadth of interest and connections, combined with sufficient resources, to gather information about workforce development issues and programs, engage in and support partnerships with state and local transportation agencies and the private sector, and disseminate information about successful activities.

Transportation agencies, especially SDOTs, are experiencing considerable change. Traditionally, SDOTs have been civil engineering–oriented organizations. TAs also have a key need for civil engineering professionals. Today’s transportation agencies require a much wider range of skills, and their staffs include people from many disciplines. Moreover, alternative pathways for entering the transportation workforce are increasing in number, but little is known about how such nontraditional pathways attract or prepare

future agency staff. More knowledge about the various pathways offered by university engineering and transportation programs, community colleges, and nonengineering university degree programs could help SDOTs and TAs in their search for a qualified workforce.

Taken together, many education and training opportunities are available to the transportation workforce. However, because the overall effort is highly fragmented, with little coordination or collaboration (and no single national leader), opportunities for improvement are being missed. Little effort has been made to clarify how much education and training are needed, available, or consumed by transportation agencies. Moreover, because funding for education and training varies considerably in the agencies, individual efforts often lack sufficient resources to have a national impact.

The mix of opportunities available to provide agency staff with the knowledge, skills, and abilities they need indicates that there is much to be learned about alternative ways of supplying this knowledge. Not only traditional classroom training, but also Web-based instruction, distance learning, computer-based training, and Web-based professional networks³¹—and their cost-effectiveness—need to be explored.

Finally, although some agencies have estimated their future workforce needs, the aggregate needs of all agencies have not been documented. Moreover, no single agency, organization, or association addresses the national transportation workforce need. The 2002 National Transportation Workforce Summit underscored the concerns and interest regarding workforce issues among public and private stakeholders but also illustrated the fragmented ownership and lack of leadership on this issue. Moreover, federal representatives at the National Transportation Workforce Summit acknowledged that

USDOT has yet to address the transportation workforce issue. It remains to be seen whether leadership can be brought to bear on the issue.

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

NCES National Center for Education Statistics

Bailey, T. 2002. Community Colleges in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities. In The Knowledge Economy and Postsecondary Education: Report of a Workshop (P. A. Graham and N. G. Stacey, eds.), National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 59–76.

Bechky, B. A. 1999. Summary of the Workshop. In Competence Without Credentials, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, March. www.ed.gov/pubs/Competence/section7.html.

Feisel, L., and G. Peterson. 2002. A Colloquy on Learning Objectives for Engineering Education Laboratories. Proc., 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

FHWA. 2002. National Transportation Workforce Summit: Summary of Proceedings. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., May.

FHWA. 2003. European Practices in Transportation Workforce Development: Results of an AASHTO–FHWA Scanning Tour. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Lerman, R., S. K. Riegg, and H. Salzman. 2000. The Role of Community Colleges in Expanding the Supply of Information Technology Workers. DOL Contract No. J-9-M-5-0048. The Urban Institute, May.

McGlothin Davis, Inc. 2002. TCRP Report 77: Managing Transit’s Workforce in the New Millennium. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Meyer, M., and L. J. Jacobs. 2000. A Civil Engineering Curriculum for the Future: The Georgia Tech Case. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, American Society of Civil Engineers, April, pp. 74–78.

Murnane, R., N. Sharkey, and F. Levy. 2002. A Role for the Internet in American Education? Lessons from the Cisco Networking Academies. In The Knowledge Economy and Postsecondary Education: Report of a Workshop (P. A. Graham and N. G. Stacey, eds.), National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 127–158.

NCES. 2000. The Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department. 1999. Staffing Plan Survey of State Transportation Agencies. Research Report NM99, ADM-01. Sept.

Stacey, N. G. 1999. Conclusion. In Competence Without Credentials, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. March. www.ed.gov/pubs/Competence/section8.html.

Sussman, J. M. 1995. Educating the “New” Transportation Professional. ITS Quarterly, Summer.

Sussman, J. M. 1999. The New Transportation Faculty: The Evolution to Engineering Systems. Transportation Quarterly, Summer.

Trauner Consulting Services, Inc. 2001. Training Curriculum for Project Personnel. Final Report. Philadelphia, Pa.

In this chapter, what transportation agencies can do to meet their strategic staffing needs in today’s highly competitive labor environment is examined. The focus is on recruiting, training and retraining, and retaining employees and on succession management. Where possible, research findings concerning these activities are provided, practices that have proved successful for private- and public-sector organizations are described, and the committee’s suggestions for action by transportation agencies are presented. What the committee believes is a fundamental principle for a successful organization—making the human resource function a strategic partner in setting the organization’s strategic direction—is addressed in the first section. In the second section, how an organization’s strategic plan determines its core competency needs and how these needs focus recruiting, training, and retention activities are described. In the sections that follow, research and experience concerning how to recruit, train and retrain, and retain qualified people are described. It is important to note that human resource activities are interrelated and that, for example, some actions taken to improve employee retention also support recruiting efforts. Moreover, specific agency human resource activities must be customized in light of different job categories and employment requirements. Finally, succession planning and potential agency partnering activities are addressed in separate sections.

As discussed in Chapter 2, there is no single organizational or operating model for a state department of transportation (SDOT) or a transit agency (TA). Each is unique because of state or local politics, history, geography, size, population, governmental structure, and other conditions.¹ Overall, however, as the dominant owners/operators of the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure, SDOTs are responsible for building, operating, and maintaining a vast array of infrastructure components for a variety of modes, whereas TAs share a common mission of providing public transportation service. Both SDOTs and TAs have planning, environmental, budgeting, finance, and data-gathering and analysis responsibilities. In addition, the work of SDOTs and TAs—like that of other public agencies—involves a network of partnerships among government agencies, private companies, nonprofit organizations, and elected officials (Kettl 1993).

Public and private organizations that recognize the importance of human capital to their long-term success and establish human resource management as a strategic function do best at dealing with the uncertainties of a changing work environment and workplace (NAPA 2000).² Such organizations recognize that the human element must be explicit in strategic plans, which provides the basis for identifying human resource requirements, competency needs, and competency gaps (OPM 1999).³ Accomplishing this requires the active participa-

tion of human resource managers as fully integrated partners in the development and implementation of such plans.

Decisions about privatization, outsourcing, devolution, and the like stem from policy debates about what governments should do in-house and what they should have the private sector do for them. These decisions can also reflect the nature of work, skill availability, the impact of technology, and other factors. Such debates often generate change. SDOTs are changing as their mission broadens (AASHTO 1998) (see Chapter 2). The changes stem from how agencies choose or are directed to accomplish their mission. Thus, as individual SDOTs change, they become increasingly differentiated by the kinds of work done by their staff. The changes in TAs are not as extensive, but for both SDOTs and TAs, deciding how work will be done and who will do it is a strategic-level decision that drives human resource management.

The purpose of strategic workforce planning is to ensure that the organization has the human resources it needs to accomplish its mission. The organization’s leaders must assess the nature and content of its current and future work and the kind of workforce required to perform it. They must identify and react to the social, technical, economic, political, and environmental factors that may change the agency’s mission or priorities. Tracking these changes and evaluating how they affect workforce needs help identify gaps to be addressed. These gaps form the basis for actions aimed at providing the workforce needed for future agency work. The workforce planning process addresses four key issues:

• Identifying the composition and content of a workforce strategically positioned to deal with possible future situations and business objectives,

• Identifying the specific capability gaps—including any special skills required by possible future situations—between the current and future workforces,

• Preparing recruiting and training plans for permanent and contingent staff that address these gaps, and

• Determining what functions or processes can and should be out-sourced and how this will be done.

Exemplary organizations are developing carefully crafted workforce planning strategies using multiple approaches or activities (NAPA 2001). Each organization must take into consideration the factors mentioned above that make it unique, as well as its culture, what its employees value, and its industry. The proposed workforce planning process prepared for the Georgia Department of Transportation shown in Figure 4-1 exemplifies the needed components.

The core competencies of an organization are the collective knowledge, skills, and abilities that set the organization apart from others and without which it cannot accomplish its primary mission or business and realize its desired outcomes. Core competencies reflect how an organization chooses to accomplish its mission. Traditionally, the core competencies of SDOTs have been oriented to civil engineering because of the agencies’ focus on infrastructure provision and historical decisions that they would rely on their own engineering staffs to accomplish their mission. Nevertheless, the missions and core competencies of SDOTs, as well as individual core competencies and job requirements, are changing. Table 4-1 summarizes these changes for SDOTs. At the same time, the committee recognizes that each SDOT and TA defines its own mission and core competencies, along with individual core competencies and job requirements. The core competencies for SDOTs in Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are provided in Appendix D. Although each organization is unique, their individual core values share a common focus on leadership, organizational knowledge, and managing for results.

The broadened mission of SDOTs has resulted in the need for a wider range of knowledge, skills, and abilities. Moreover, as some

SDOTs increase the amount of work they contract out, the way to accomplish their mission, as well as the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed, changes accordingly. This change is reflected in new agency core competency needs.⁴ How contracting out can change key skill needs is described in Appendix E. These needs are also affected by such factors as the increasing application of intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies.

Recruiting for key positions in SDOTs and TAs must reflect current and future workforce needs and the labor market. Although traditional recruiting techniques are likely to continue to be used in addressing agency needs, customizing the recruiting process to better align tactics, market conditions, and the positions being filled can help agencies deal successfully with current and possible future recruiting issues, including multiple career paths, a pleasant work environment, training and education opportunities, work–life balance, freedom of location, and attractive financial and compensation/benefits packages. While government agencies and some private companies may not be able to address all these issues to the same degree, they can view them as useful benchmarks for evaluating strategies and innovative practices.⁵

Although SDOTs use a variety of recruiting approaches, most rely on campus recruiting. Many have traditionally hired newly graduated engineers and rotated them through a series of work assignments within the agency.⁶ Some SDOTs have long-standing alumni

connections with state universities, while others have research or other organizational ties that enable them to identify and encourage potential job applicants. The Kentucky Department of Transportation, for example, has a successful scholarship program that provides it with many graduate engineers (see Box 4-1). Other potential sources for job applicants are university cooperative engineering

education programs, scholarship programs, summer employment for promising undergraduate students, support for graduate student research, research partnerships between agencies and universities, agency support of student engineering association activities, and job fairs. Career development information can be provided via websites, videos, CDs, and printed materials; career-day participation; and support for mentoring programs, science fairs, and internship programs (Mason et al. 1992).⁷ The timetable for the college campus recruiting process shown in Table 4-2 illustrates the many activities involved in such recruiting, as well as the continuous nature of the process.

A recent survey of SDOT recruiting practices confirms that the agencies are becoming more innovative in recruiting (Gilliland 2001). States are using benchmarking and salary surveys to increase salary levels, developing flexible employment arrangements for employees with special physical or family needs, and establishing employee satisfaction programs that include frequent communication with supervisors.

They are also instituting bonus programs for new hires, referrals by existing employees, and retention in critical job categories; streamlining the hiring process to reduce delays; and using multidisciplinary teams for recruiting visits and interviews (Gilliland 2001). More specific methods are used for some individual job categories. For example, when one state agency found it difficult to recruit information technology specialists, it instituted an internal training program for employees desiring a career change. Applicants who pass a screening test participate in a 6-month training program while continuing to receive their salary. Trainees are guaranteed the option of returning to their previous jobs if the training is not successful. In its initial year the program had a 100 percent retention rate. Other actions taken by SDOTs include the following:

• Partnering with a state university to establish individual development plans addressing both personal and departmental goals, with all employees being offered core competency courses to increase individual effectiveness and specialized courses to prepare them for future career opportunities;

• Providing incentives for highly motivated or economically disadvantaged students to complete their education while working at the agency;

• Working with the universities within a state to establish distance learning opportunities for advanced degree programs in areas of needed expertise; and

• Helping universities prepare and monitor senior design projects to provide undergraduate engineers with exposure to multidisciplinary projects that reflect agency experience.

Re-recruiting, or attracting adults making a career transition, has proved successful at several SDOTs looking to add or replace skills in middle- and upper-management positions. Highly qualified people who are retiring from another organization often remain interested in working in a stable work environment or wish to accumulate additional retirement benefits. Re-recruiting involves many of the same

approaches used to recruit experienced professionals. Some examples are described in Table 4-3.

Some TAs have also adopted innovative recruiting methods, especially for bus drivers and information technology specialists, two of the most difficult positions to fill. (See Box 3-2 for details of the technician apprenticeship program at the Metropolitan Transit Authority in New York City.) TAs have found that well-planned and highly targeted advertising and outreach programs can be successful in this regard. Some are recognizing the differences between what transit employees value most and what transit managers think they value, and they are tailoring their recruiting efforts accordingly (see Table 4-4). Some are awarding bonuses to employees who recruit new bus operators; others display a promotional bus at major public and sporting events and have bus operators available to talk to prospective operators. Other tactics, which apply to all organizations and most job categories, include the following (Moffat et al. 2001):

• Providing website access for potential recruits;

• Focusing on inside sources, current or former employees, and internal job postings;

• Seeking recruits through schools and fraternal, religious, and community organizations;