Appendix C: Focus Group II Memorandum

Memorandum

Date: February 12th, 2025

To: Meghan Mitman and Kelly Bond, Fehr & Peers

From: Charles T. Brown and Nellie Graham, Equitable Cities

Subject: NCHRP 08-171 Phase II Focus Group Summary

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Background
• Methodology
• Tool Rating Results
• Design and Layout
• Impressions on Usefulness and Usability
• Conclusion

Summary

The feedback provided by participants highlights key improvements to enhance the usability and effectiveness of the toolkit. The following recommendations focus on making the toolkit more actionable, structured, and widely applicable:

Tool Rating Results

• Training for elected officials and agencies was voted the most valuable tool. However, participants explained how hard it’s been to create effective training programs that resonate with officials and agencies.
• Several participants emphasized the importance of speed management for any strategy to be effective. However, representatives note challenges where states frequently ban such measures.
• Enable Priced Parking and Congestion Pricing was rated the least useful tool, in part because its connection to safety is less clear, and it lacks relevance in areas with minimal congestion.
• Tools were rated least useful due to challenges in implementation, limited applicability, or unclear connections to safety.

Design and Layout

• Incorporate bullet-point descriptions of each tool and/or action items at the top of each section for quick reference.
• Acknowledge barriers for each tool, such as enabling legislation required for speed safety cameras.
• Introduce a ranking or matrix that organizes tools from most basic to most advanced, coded by level of feasibility and capacity required.
• Include an estimated timeline to indicate how long it may take to institutionalize each tool.

Impressions on Usefulness and Usability

• Provide clear guidance on how to incorporate the toolkit into action plans, not just the “what” and “why.”
• Develop a standalone 2–3-page primer that can be integrated into Vision Zero action plans or appendices.
• Create a slide deck that users can present to partners to facilitate adoption and discussion.
• Offer concrete examples of achieving system change.
• Expand the additional resources section to include links to more research and case studies.
• Ensure rural examples and approaches are included to increase relevance for all jurisdictions.

Background

This memo is part of the Phase II Research Implementation and Documentation Task of NCHRP 08-171, “Institutionalizing the Safe System Approach in Transportation Planning and Programming.” This focus group task consisted of introducing the draft toolkit to public agency representatives across the United States and gathering their feedback on the organization, usefulness, and applicability of the tools.

This memorandum summarizes responses and key takeaways from the following high-level questions:

1. What tools would be most and least useful? What is your reasoning for the tools you chose?
2. Does the design and layout make it easy to find the information or features you need? If not, how could they be improved?
3. As the intended end user, does this toolkit meet your needs?

Methodology

In January 2025, Equitable Cities invited participants from the Phase I focus groups of this study to participate in a 90-minute Zoom focus group. Each focus group participant received a summary memo of the research project to date and a draft of the toolkit. Each also received an example tool factsheet of the emergency services goals alignment tool (tool number 2) and the toolkit navigation matrices. Equitable Cities conducted three 90-minute focus groups via Zoom in January 2025, with 22 participants joining in total, and representing 16 different states. The participants’ agency characteristics are detailed in Tables C-1 to C-3.

The focus groups were recorded and transcribed by Zoom. The main takeaways from each question were compiled according to region directly from the focus group transcript. Quotations to represent the main takeaways were transferred to another document without personal identification information to anonymize the respondents. Facilitators referred to original transcripts to ensure accuracy and applicability of each key highlight and summary to the original question.

1. Tool Rating Results

With 22 participants voting, the tools were rated as follows, according to the percentage of participants who identified the tool as useful:

Tools Ranked by Most Useful

1. Training for Elected Officials and Agencies (80%)
2. Safe System Speed Management Program (75%)
3. Community and Media Engagement (70%)
4. Expand Funding Sources and Allocations for Safety (70%)
5. Revise or Remove Level of Service as a Performance Metric (70%)
6. Enable Contextual Speed Limit Setting (70%)
7. Enable Automated Traffic Enforcement (70%)
8. Review of Design Guidelines and Standards (70%)
9. Leverage Safety Risk Tools in Forecasting (60%)
10. Multimodal Network Design and Application (60%)
11. Emergency Services Goals Alignment (55%)
12. Right-of-Way Reallocation Framework (55%)
13. Expand Functional Classification (55%)
14. Capacity Analysis for Alternative Development (55%)¹³
15. Remove Parking Minimums and Implement Shared Parking Procedures (50%)
16. Hierarchy of Treatment Selection (50%)
17. Accountability and Monitoring (50%)
18. Provide Affordable Housing and Balance Jobs and Housing (50%)
19. Leverage Public Health Expertise and Co-Benefits (45%)
20. Partner with Unhoused Population Resources (40%)
21. Set Safety Floors for Treatment Selection (40%)
22. Focus on the Ws of Safety (35%)¹⁴
23. Proactive Transition Plan (35%)
24. Update Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines (35%)
25. Implement Mixed-Use and TOD Strategies (35%)
26. Treatment-Specific Policy and Legislation (30%)
27. Safer Vehicle Technology (30%)
28. TSMO Strategies for “Win Win” Approaches (30%)
29. Account for TDM and TSMO in Forecasts (30%)
30. Enable Priced Parking and Congestion Pricing (30%)

___________________

¹³ This tool was published in NCHRP Research Report 1181 as “Evaluate All-Day Operations to Right-Size Capacity.”

¹⁴ This tool was published in NCHRP Research Report 1181 as “Consider Upstream Conditions.”

Reasoning Behind Most Useful Tool Rankings

The main issues highlighted by participants were the importance of integrating safety into public communications, addressing challenges in aligning emergency services goals with roadway designs, and the need for clearer guidance on design standards. Participants also emphasized the value of partnering with public health experts, collaborating with resources for the unhoused population, and considering rural-specific solutions for safety. Many expressed a desire for more federal action on safer vehicle technologies and automated enforcement. Overall, participants gave positive feedback on the toolkit’s focus on program setup, transition strategies, and budgeting, recognizing their importance in achieving safety goals.

Training for Elected Officials and Agencies

Participant 6 (MW, regional) emphasized that training for elected officials and agencies was the most valuable aspect. They questioned whether a template could be developed for such training or if an existing group already provides this support. They also noted that many communities struggle to create effective training programs that resonate with officials and agencies.

Safe System Speed Management Program

Several participants emphasized the importance of speed management for any strategy to be effective. Participant 6 (MW, Regional) expressed a desire for federal-level action on speed management, automated traffic enforcement, and contextual speed limit setting, noting that their state frequently bans such measures. They highlighted a newly introduced pilot program for ramp metering but mentioned concerns about a proposed bill to ban it, led by a charismatic advocate. Similarly, Participant 18 (NE, Regional) stressed that speed management is the primary contributor to serious crashes and emphasized the need for enforcement and speed-setting strategies. Participant 20 (NE, Local) appreciated the toolkit’s focus on kinetic energy and emphasizing that speed is the factor they have the most control over. They particularly noted the need for greater authority over speed limit setting, as current state laws restrict their ability to make changes. Participant 16 (W, Local) prioritized areas with limited existing guidance, including speed management. They acknowledged the availability of high-level guidance but expressed a need for more detailed direction as they prepare to develop a speed management plan.

Community and Media Engagement

Participants highlighted the importance of community and media engagement in fostering a proactive safety culture. Participant 20 (NE, Local) praised the toolkit, noting the difficulty of choosing priorities among its components. They particularly appreciated how the toolkit framed public communication to promote a proactive safety culture, seeing it as a distinct and insightful approach compared to traditional messaging strategies.

Participant 17 (NE, Local) acknowledged some overlap between different engagement strategies but emphasized the importance of clear messaging. They highlighted the role of training for elected officials and agencies, as well as effective communication with the media and community. They stressed that understanding the “who, what, and where” of safety needs is essential for meaningful conversations and believed that many of these strategies would reinforce each other. Similarly, Participant 2 (MW, Local) suggested that media engagement would benefit from quick, easily digestible resources, such as short videos or sound bites. They noted that many people prioritize getting from point A to point B as fast as possible, and when safety measures are implemented that slow down traffic, they often face resistance. To counter this, having quick and compelling media tools could help reinforce the importance of these safety measures.

Revise or Remove Level of Service as a Performance Metric

Participants emphasized the need to revise or remove level of service (LOS) as a performance metric, highlighting challenges and potential alternatives. Participant 8 (MW, State) stressed the importance of identifying alternatives to highway capacity when reconsidering LOS. They found certain statements in the discussion particularly impactful, such as “make every dollar a safety dollar,” which they plan to use in future communications to reinforce the idea that safety should be the default priority rather than an exception. Participant 18 (NE, Regional) focused on the challenges of discussing LOS with the public. They noted that it can be difficult to convey how LOS-related issues along a corridor contribute to speeding and unsafe driving behaviors, making effective communication on this topic essential.

Enable Automated Traffic Enforcement

Participants discussed the challenges and considerations surrounding automated traffic enforcement. Participant 16 (W, Local) pointed out that state laws significantly limit the ability to implement automated enforcement and contextual speed limits. At the local level, they do not require further guidance but instead need the state to take action and remove legal barriers. Participant 13 (W, Local) emphasized the importance of acknowledging disparities in automated enforcement, particularly its impact on lower-income communities. While automated enforcement reduces concerns about in-person profiling, they noted the need for safety-based criteria for deployment strategies. They also acknowledged that other cities use automated enforcement for additional purposes, such as monitoring bus lanes, blocked intersections, and school bus violations. However, they noted a lack of consensus on the broader use of automated enforcement, suggesting that its implementation should be guided by a Safe System Approach tailored to different contexts.

Review of Design Guidelines and Standards

Participants emphasized the importance of reviewing and refining design guidelines and standards to drive meaningful change in transportation projects. Participant 20 (NE, Local)

highlighted the challenge of obtaining and working through design guidelines, noting that while the process requires navigating technical documents, it is a crucial area where significant change can occur. Participant 13 (W, Local) shared that their agency is actively working on reviewing design guidelines with a focus on speed management. While clear guidelines exist within their project development process, they are not widely known across the agency. They emphasized the need to integrate clear expectations from the transportation system plan into key documents such as the traffic design manual and project delivery checklist. Their goal is to ensure that project and policy development explicitly support reduced travel speeds.

Emergency Services Goals Alignment

Participants highlighted challenges in aligning emergency services goals with roadway safety and design improvements. Participant 8 (MW, State) noted that in snow-prone states, maintenance workers often share concerns similar to emergency services staff, particularly regarding design elements such as raised crosswalks and narrow lanes, which complicate snow plowing. To address this, they have started integrating road workers into the concept of safer road users and approaching snowplows and construction vehicles as safer vehicles. Participant 26 (S, Local) appreciated the inclusion of emergency response considerations, noting that in project meetings, well-designed safety improvements are often dismissed due to concerns about emergency vehicle access. They suggested that a tool to help facilitate these discussions would be valuable for cities.

Participant 18 (NE, Regional) shared their struggles with fire departments opposing roadway safety measures such as roundabouts and road diets. They pointed out that local fire departments often advocate for excessively wide roads, which conflict with broader safety goals. Participant 12 (W, Local) acknowledged past challenges in coordinating with emergency service providers and emphasized the lack of resources available to educate and engage them effectively.

Leverage Public Health Expertise and Co-Benefits

Participant 20 (NE, Local) emphasized the success of collaborating with public health partners to enhance transportation safety efforts. They highlighted the value of leveraging public health expertise to shift from a reactive approach—responding to crash events—to a more epidemiological perspective that examines underlying causes of crashes. This approach has been highly beneficial in shaping their program.

Partner with Unhoused Population Resources

Participant 26 (S, Local) emphasized the importance of partnering with resources that support the unhoused population. They acknowledged that while this issue resonates with them, their agency has yet to take meaningful steps in collaborating with organizations that assist these communities. They noted that the unhoused population is a significant factor in many reported crashes, making this a critical area for future engagement.

Proactive Transition Plan

Participant 8 (MW, State) suggested expanding the proactive transition plan to include rural solutions, noting that many rural highways need attention. They recommended adding safety edges, rumble strips, and potentially wide or enhanced edge lines to toolkit, as these measures could improve safety in rural areas.

Implement Mixed-Use and TOD Strategies

Participants highlighted the importance of integrating land use, transportation, and safety priorities, and how this toolkit was unique in its approach. Participant 6 (MW, Regional) suggested that zoning should be included in discussions around land use and safety. They emphasized the need for zoning ordinances to account for safety considerations, such as ensuring clear sightlines at intersections and incorporating infrastructure like bikeways and wider sidewalks to promote safety for all users. Participant 7 (MW, Local) noted that the intersection of land use, transportation, and safety is a significant issue, aligning with ongoing work with the Michigan Association of Planning to develop policy guidance. They found the toolkit to be systemic and comprehensive, addressing the needs of land use planners, transportation planners, and public health professionals. Participant 13 (W, Local) appreciated the toolkits recognition that successful safety efforts require building density and improving transit connections. They also highlighted the importance of addressing the high cost of housing and its impact on vulnerable populations, viewing this approach as a crucial part of a holistic safe system strategy, even though it may seem tangential to direct safety efforts.

Treatment-Specific Policy and Legislation

Participant 17 (NE, Local) discussed the challenges of policies and budgeting, particularly the issue of level of service, which often becomes a deal-breaker for projects. They agreed on the critical importance of speed management and expressed plans to implement automated traffic enforcement. They found the toolkit’s case summaries to be very helpful in supporting these efforts.

Safer Vehicle Technology

Participant 17 (NE, Local) noted the connection between safer vehicles and emergency services, sharing an example from a trade show where their fire department and fleet management department examined new cab designs. This provided an opportunity to discuss vehicle safety, downsizing, and other innovations. They highlighted that safer vehicles are an emerging area with a lot of potential for innovation, making it valuable to include in the conversation. Participant 12 (W, Local) acknowledged the limited influence local agencies have over safer vehicle technology, expressing a desire for more movement at the federal level. They noted that at the state, city, or MPO level, there is significantly less ability to drive change in this area.

Tools Ranked by Least Useful

1. Enable Priced Parking and Congestion Pricing (45%)
2. Account for TDM and TSMO in Forecasts (30%)
3. Expand Functional Classification (30%)
4. Safer Vehicle Technology (30%)
5. Remove Parking Minimums and Implement Shared Parking Procedures (25%)
6. Focus on the Ws of Safety (25%)¹⁵
7. TSMO Strategies for “Win Win” Approaches (20%)
8. Accountability and monitoring (15%)
9. Community and Media Engagement (15%)
10. Treatment-Specific Policy and Legislation (15%)
11. Leverage Safety Risk Tools in Forecasting (15%)
12. Proactive Transition Plan (15%)
13. Update Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines (15%)
14. Provide Affordable Housing and Balance Jobs and Housing (15%)
15. Right-of-Way Reallocation Framework (10%)
16. Revise or Remove Level of Service as a Performance Metric (10%)
17. Enable Contextual Speed Limit Setting (10%)
18. Capacity Analysis for Alternative Development (10%)¹⁶
19. Partner with Unhoused Population Resources (10%)
20. Implement Mixed-Use and TOD Strategies (10%)
21. Leverage Public Health Expertise and Co-Benefits (5%)
22. Set Safety Floors for Treatment Selection (5%)
23. Enable Automated Traffic Enforcement (5%)

Reasoning Behind Least Useful Tool Rankings

Tools were rated least useful due to challenges in implementation; limited applicability to participants’ role, agency, or geographic context; or unclear connections to safety. Public health expertise was difficult to leverage due to fragmented data, while mixed-use and TOD strategies required significant shifts in planning. Contextual speed limit setting was seen as ineffective without complementary road design changes, and safer vehicle technology, though beneficial, was not viewed as a top priority and was outside participant agencies’ jurisdictions. Pricing strategies such as congestion pricing lacked relevance in areas with minimal congestion, while removing parking minimums faced concerns in car-dependent regions. TSMO strategies were criticized for sometimes prioritizing traffic flow over safety. Participants described some tools, such as “Focus on the Ws of Safety,” as unclear in purpose, and argued that forecasting methods could be resource-intensive and prone to bias. Expanding functional classification was also debated, with some advocating for its removal rather than modification. The following tools received detailed comments from participants.

___________________

¹⁵ This tool was published in NCHRP Research Report 1181 as “Consider Upstream Conditions.”

¹⁶ This tool was published in NCHRP Research Report 1181 as “Evaluate All-Day Operations to Right-Size Capacity.”

Enable Priced Parking and Congestion Pricing

Regarding priced parking and congestion pricing, Participant 26 noted that in their downtown area, the streets empty out by 5 PM as people drive back to the suburbs, which means congestion pricing might not be effective in their specific location.

Account for TDM and TSMO in Forecasts

Participant 22 (NE, Local) shared that in Richmond, forecasting is not a significant focus due to existing safety issues occupying time and attention for treatment. They typically work to improve existing conditions, such as the city’s functional classification and speed-limit settings, with most streets posted at 25 miles per hour. Additionally, they mentioned that Richmond has a dashboard for accountability monitoring, which is publicly accessible. Participant 17 (NE, Local) expressed skepticism about forecasting for all modes, particularly for bicycles, as it is difficult to predict. They suggested that promoting high-capacity modes in projects is more effective than trying to forecast every mode. Participant 20 (NE, Local) noted that forecasting requires substantial time or financial resources and is often limited by available data. They pointed out that traditional forecasting methods can lead to biases, and these biases sometimes prevent safety projects, such as road diets, from being implemented because of concerns over potential future congestion, even when current volumes seem acceptable.

Expand Functional Classification

Participant 18 (NE, Regional) expressed opposition to expanding functional classification, suggesting instead that it should be eliminated. They found it to be an unnecessary exercise, as roads can have varying characteristics depending on their development nodes. They preferred using judgment on a case-by-case basis rather than relying on assigned categories. Participant 20 (NE, Local) emphasized the importance of addressing arterials. They noted that if arterials are treated as untouchable, they become a major source of fatalities in cities. They advocated for using arterials as a framework to critically assess the service they provide and make necessary changes for safety improvements. Participant 17 (NE, Local) suggested adding a third category to the functional classification, as there are roads that don’t fit neatly into existing categories. They mentioned multi-lane arterials and single-lane collectors, which can be dangerous due to their role as key connectors, even though they may appear to be residential or collector streets.

Safer Vehicle Technology

Participant 26 (S, Local) commented that while safer vehicle technology is beneficial, even for drivers in older cars, it may not be a top priority. They noted that improvements in vehicle safety are important, but not as fundamental as other safety measures such as reducing speed.

Remove Parking Minimums and Implement Shared Parking Procedures

Participant 2 (MW, Local) acknowledged the strategy of removing parking minimums and implementing shared parking as a good idea but found that its connection to safety was less clear, which is why they rated it as less useful. Participant 27 (S, Local) pointed out that reducing parking minimums might work in some areas, but in places such as South Florida, where alternative transportation options are limited, it can penalize residents without offering them other options.

Focus on the Ws of Safety

Participant 13 (W, Local) found some titles unclear, particularly “Focus on the Ws of Safety.” They were familiar with the “Es of safety” but found the meaning of this particular item ambiguous. They suggested the title could be reworded to better reflect the idea of integrating personal experiences with safety, as they have worked on similar initiatives documenting stories from people on the street.

TSMO Strategies for “Win Win” Approaches

Participant 16 (W, Local) expressed concern that TSMO (Traffic Systems Management and Operations) is sometimes used by traffic engineers to focus on level of service and capacity, which contradicts efforts to reduce speed and improve safety. They emphasized that technology should be repurposed to prioritize speed reduction and safety outcomes, rather than trying to maintain high speeds while ensuring safety, which they believe is not feasible.

Enable Contextual Speed Limit Setting

Participant 26 (S, Local) mentioned that speed limits often fail to control vehicle speeds, as drivers tend to go at speeds they feel comfortable with, regardless of posted limits. They emphasized that simply changing signs does not necessarily reduce speeds. Participant 6 also noted that while data collection is important, the key to improving safety is slowing down vehicles. They highlighted that implementing measures to slow cars can initially frustrate people, but it is a necessary first step in reducing crashes, serious injuries, and fatalities. Once speeds are reduced, land use strategies become crucial to provide alternative transportation options such as walking or cycling, enabling people to function in a slower-traffic environment.

Implement Mixed-Use and TOD Strategies

Participant 4 (MW, Regional) discussed the difficulty of integrating land use and transportation, noting that transitioning communities from car-oriented designs to more mixed-use areas is a complex challenge. They compared it to changing traffic forecasting and level-of-service approaches, which may be more feasible.

Leverage Public Health Expertise and Co-Benefits

Participant 6 (MW, Regional) shared a challenge in their region regarding public health data, as each county has its own health department, and many counties lack one altogether. This fragmentation means that health data is often isolated to specific counties, limiting its regional impact.

Missing Tools and Additional Resources

Participants provided feedback on tools that were absent from the toolkit, and suggestions for additional resources to include in the final draft.

• Participant 25 (S, Local) highlighted the importance of Vision Zero training for law enforcement, considering their role in enforcing traffic safety measures. They suggested this could be a beneficial addition to the resource on emergency service goals alignment.
• Participant 22 (NE, Local) suggested adding tools related to safety culture in the workplace, emphasizing that the health perspective combined with the needs of unhoused populations should be considered, especially given the high rates of co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. They also noted a recent legislative move in Virginia regarding Intelligent Speed Assistance for reckless drivers and proposed expanding on that.
• Participant 1 (MW, Local) recommended adding a glossary for acronyms, as these can be a challenge for users.
• Participant 24 (S, Regional) proposed expanding on the idea of revising or removing level of service as a performance metric, suggesting other performance metrics could help focus on safety rather than just reducing travel times. They also noted a pilot project in Denver that assessed pedestrian visibility to larger vehicles, which they felt aligned with safe systems thinking.
• Participant 8 (MW, State) emphasized the need for rural solutions, particularly for areas with long distances between towns, which often lack tools to improve safety on such roads.
• Participant 3 (MW, State) suggested adding training for project-level planners and designers, as these are the individuals making decisions on safety improvements, especially in decentralized DOTs.
• Participant 6 (MW, Regional) recommended focusing on the impact that planning and zoning can have on transportation safety, particularly by ensuring that engineers and zoning participants are collaborating effectively.
• Participant 13 (W, Local) suggested adding fair warning resources released by the Vision Zero network to the toolkit.
• Participant 27 (S, Local) mentioned that roundabouts and school speed hump zones are helping reduce speeding near schools both during and outside of school hours. Enforcement has been made possible through speed enforcement cameras. Participant 27 suggested this approach could be included in the toolkit.
• Participant 12 (W, Local) proposed expanding the use of existing data sources, such as crash reports, to proactively plan safety treatments based on data from different streets and intersections.
• Finally, Participant 22 (NE, Local) recommended implementing an internal pledge to commit to Vision Zero among all stakeholders, from local leadership to funding partners, to align efforts and focus on safety culture within organizations.

2. Design and Layout

Participants provided feedback on the design and layout of the toolkit, suggesting various improvements for better accessibility and visual appeal.

• Participant 7 (MW, Local) recommended a three-page layout, with a summary sheet containing concise, bulleted takeaways for quick reading, followed by two pages with detailed information. They also suggested aligning the content more directly with a Safe System Approach rather than Vision Zero.
• Participant 5 (MW, Regional) found the terminology related to external agencies somewhat unclear, as it didn’t add much value to their work, given that collaboration with external agencies is inherent to their role.
• Participant 24 (S, Regional) had difficulty finding the key at the bottom of the sheet and suggested moving it to a more prominent position or having an introductory page to clarify it right away.
• Participant 6 (MW, Regional) recommended removing inactive icons to streamline the design and make it more focused.
• Participant 13 (W, Local) expressed a desire for clearer action steps and suggestions on how to engage with the content. They suggested adding icons to highlight key actions.
• Participant 12 (W, Local) suggested referencing which pillar of the Safe System Approach each section relates to for better clarity.
• Participant 22 (NE, Local) questioned who the primary user of the toolkit would be, suggesting that a Vision Zero coordinator or local champion could be key in implementing the toolkit effectively. They emphasized the importance of having a dedicated person to institutionalize the strategies in the toolkit into action plans.

3. Impressions on Usefulness and Usability

The final question for participants was to understand, as the intended end users, if the toolkit would meet their needs. They were also asked what, if anything, would make them more likely to use the tool, and any other suggestions for improving the toolkit.

How the Toolkit Will Meet Their Needs

Participant 6 (MW, Regional) viewed the toolkit as a useful reference when updating metropolitan transportation plans. They saw it as a resource for ensuring that relevant safety strategies are incorporated and for vetting those strategies with their committees. However, they were less certain about how cities or counties might apply the toolkit in practice, as MPOs primarily use such tools for planning integration.

Participant 5 (MW, Regional) expressed a strong desire to have had access to the toolkit earlier, particularly during their recent plan reevaluation for competitive federal funding. They believed the toolkit could have been instrumental in shaping discussions and reinforcing the concept that “every dollar is a safety dollar.” They saw it as a valuable resource for policymakers who frequently discuss safety and would like to use it to present clear and actionable strategies to advance those conversations.

Recommendations on Format, Integration, and Usability

Participants emphasized the need for a more concise and accessible version of the toolkit to improve its usability among various stakeholders. Several participants, including Participant 2 (MW, Local) and Participant 26 (S, Local), suggested creating a two-page executive summary or standalone primer highlighting key concepts, ensuring that decision-makers, policymakers, and practitioners can quickly grasp its core messages.

Participant 6 (MW, Regional) proposed developing accompanying presentation slides for easy integration into board meetings, allowing members to engage with the material in digestible segments. Similarly, Participant 7 (MW, Local) noted that standardized language, graphics, and research within the toolkit would facilitate its use in municipal decision-making, ensuring alignment across different stakeholders.

Participants 12 (W, Local) and 13 (W, Local) stressed the importance of case studies, which provide real-world examples and contacts for further learning. They, along with Participant 16 (W, Local), highlighted the value of concrete, actionable steps that practitioners can take.

Participant 21 (NE, State) suggested including additional reference materials to allow for deeper exploration, while Participant 20 (NE, Local) saw the toolkit as an effective way to introduce new ideas and validate best practices to partners and elected officials. They emphasized the need for both practical guidance and communication strategies that demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and proven success of recommended approaches.

Participant 17 (NE, Local) emphasized the importance of viewing the Safe System Approach as a holistic transformation, where multiple aspects of the system must change in alignment. To enhance clarity and usability, they proposed structuring the toolkit to explicitly link each strategy to a Safe System category and Vision Zero goals. They recommended clearly outlining why each strategy matters, what goals it can achieve, and defining measurable indicators of success. Specifically, they pointed to emergency services coordination as an example—effective communication and collaboration on-street design projects should both improve safety and ensure emergency vehicles can efficiently reach their destinations.

Overall, participants valued the toolkit but recommended making it more succinct, action-oriented, and adaptable to different audiences.

Toolkit Organizing Frameworks

Participant 20 (NE, Local) supported the toolkit’s alignment with Vision Zero goals but suggested that it might be more effective if it focused solely on the Safe System framework rather than trying to bridge the two. They recommended refining the document to emphasize direct alignment with Safe System goals.

Participant 22 (NE, Local) proposed structuring the toolkit using a capability maturity model, where different programs and organizations could identify their current level and prioritize actions

accordingly. They highlighted the importance of a phased approach, starting with foundational steps—such as establishing multidisciplinary committees or securing leadership support—before moving into more transformative actions like cultural shifts and infrastructure changes.

Additionally, they suggested coding strategies by level of difficulty, providing clear indicators of which actions are easier for new programs to implement versus those requiring more advanced coordination. They emphasized the importance of securing early wins to build momentum. They also recommended adding guidance on overcoming implementation barriers and integrating strategies into action plans to ensure institutionalization. Including estimated timeframes for each action—ranging from short-term efforts to long-term initiatives—would further help organizations plan and prioritize their efforts effectively.

Acknowledging Barriers to Implementation

Participant 20 (NE, Local) emphasized the importance of acknowledging barriers to implementation within the toolkit. They suggested distinguishing between actions that can be implemented immediately and those that require more complex steps, such as enabling legislation, which may vary based on local context. Recognizing these challenges would help new adopters set realistic expectations. Additionally, they commented on the catalyst project strategy, noting that while it appears to focus on infrastructure projects, an early adopter project does not necessarily have to involve infrastructure. Broadening the definition could make it more accessible and applicable to a wider range of communities and organizations.

Conclusion

The participants expressed optimism and appreciation for the toolkit and its potential impact on transportation safety. One participant said they think it will help prioritize safety over vehicle capacity, and others acknowledged the challenge of consolidating all SSA requirements into a single document. Another participant at the regional level said she hoped the toolkit will encourage engineers and decision-makers to adopt new perspectives on roadway projects. Two people noted that many agencies face similar transportation safety challenges and that they expressed hope that the tools will facilitate coordination with new partners. Another participant shared that through the toolkit they discovered new tools and were able to reframe tools they were already aware of. They stated that they look forward to applying the tools in future action plans.

The feedback gathered from participants underscores the need to refine the toolkit to enhance its usability, effectiveness, and real-world applicability. To improve accessibility, participants suggested incorporating concise bullet-point descriptions, a ranking system for feasibility, and estimated timelines for implementation. Addressing barriers to adoption, such as legislative hurdles for speed safety cameras, will help users navigate challenges more effectively. For usability, participants suggest the toolkit could provide clearer guidance on implementation, and a standalone primer. Expanding case studies, including rural examples, and offering more research-backed resources will further enhance its utility.

Table C-1. Agency characteristics.

Table C-2. Agency functions.

Table C-3. Number of agency representatives by state.