Training Materials to Implement Context Classifications (2026)
Chapter: 3 Data Collection
Chapter 3: Data Collection
INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of Task 2 was to collect data on and summarize the current state of the practice for the three selected state DOTs (Kansas, Maine, and Nevada). The purpose of this work was to: 1) understand how context-based planning and design could benefit the states; 2) help address potential challenges; and 3) identify mechanisms to integrate context classification into DOT practices. As a first step, the research team met with the state DOT agency champions and encouraged them to select a core team to support implementation activities. Information was then collected via survey of DOT staff and external partners/stakeholders and through small group interviews held with DOT staff in June and July 2024.
GROUP INTERVIEW APPROACH
The research team facilitated four hour-long video conference calls with each of the three selected state DOTs. The small group discussions focused on the following topics:
- Use of context-based design criteria and existing guidance
- Overview of the project development process
- Context classification implementation steps and potential barriers
- Agency mission and change management
While the groups were limited to 8–10 people to support a meaningful discussion, topics were sent to agencies in advance of the meetings to allow the representatives to gather internal feedback from other staff. Participants in each discussion included staff across planning, traffic, safety, design, traffic operations, multimodal, and other relevant bureaus, divisions, sections, and/or programs.
SURVEY APPROACH
To reach additional staff beyond the small group discussions, the research team developed an online survey covering the topics below:
- Agency priorities and how DOTs balance the needs of different users
- Existing design criteria guidance and challenges or limitations to implementation
- Integration of context classification and user needs
- Local agency coordination and challenges
- Public input and community vision
- General DOT challenges, potential changes, and concerns about implementing context classification
The survey was sent to the DOT champions, who were responsible for distributing it. The research team encouraged champions to share the survey with Central Office/headquarters staff,
district/region staff, and external stakeholders. Based on these target audiences, the selected DOTs created a distribution list.
The three states returned a total of 283 responses. Most respondents were from Kansas, which returned 191 responses (68 percent of the total). Maine returned 58 responses (20 percent), and Nevada 34 (12 percent).
KEY FINDINGS BY AGENCY
This section summarizes the key discussion points with each agency as well as the survey results.
Nevada DOT
Current Use of Context
Coming into the research project, the Nevada Department of Transportation (Nevada DOT) had identified contexts (referred to as “roadway environments”) in their Speed Action Management Action Plan and was at the early stages of implementing context on projects.
Existing Project Development Process
Nevada DOT’s project development process often starts when its Planning Division inputs a project lead. The project lead is then verified/evaluated, transitioned to a concept, and sent to Scoping. Scoping then evaluates concepts and presents them to the Front Office for approval/advancement. Once advanced, a concept becomes a project. Then the project typically goes to Roadway Design and/or Project Management for final design and construction. Initial project leads can come from Nevada’s long-range transportation plan (also referred to as One Nevada), through internal department consultation, or from external partners such as counties. Nevada DOT shared they want to formalize one point of entry and a prioritization process through One Nevada.
Implementation Steps
DOT staff shared context is not explicitly documented in the scoping process. However, the online survey data indicated land use is commonly considered in the planning, project programing, environmental studies, and design scoping phases of projects. Nevada DOT has a Road Design Guide, which is highly consistent with the current Green Book and mentions context-sensitive design. Additionally, Nevada DOT has a Speed Action Management Plan which identifies a spectrum of roadway environments that are closely aligned with the Green Book contexts. Nevada did not yet have specific context-based criteria, and mapping the roadway environments has been a challenge.
Agency Goals
Looking ahead, Nevada DOT hoped to improve scoping by identifying context classification (roadway environment) and project needs early in the process as part of One Nevada and to provide resources and support for local partner agencies.
Kansas DOT
Current Use of Context
Of the three selected states, the Kansas Department of Transportation (Kansas DOT) was earliest in its implementation of context classification. While leadership had expressed interest in context, they had not yet adopted or applied contexts within the state.
Existing Project Development Process
DOT staff shared they typically source preservation and replacement projects from internal departments. Modernization or expansion core projects are selected through a local consult process. The local consult process involves gathering input from districts, area engineers, and MPOs, and considers economic benefit and safety scores. At the time, staff were reviewing and updating the scoring process and noted context could be a key item to add to the scoring mechanism.
The typical project development process has five phases. It begins with a Discovery Phase, which develops the detailed scope, cost, and schedule of the project. Design speed is often selected early in this phase, making it possible to also integrate context classification and target speed considerations.
Implementation Steps
Kansas DOT has a Road Design Manual, but it did not have specific information on designing for contexts. The DOT uses a state route classification similar to functional classification. However, survey data showed many Kansas DOT staff informally consider the surrounding context when making project decisions to help define the design elements. Designers often modified existing design criteria for different rural, suburban fringe, and agricultural growth contexts.
Agency Goals
As next steps, Kansas DOT expressed interest in identifying appropriate contexts that work together with the existing route class system and map contexts at a statewide level. Kansas DOT hoped to formalize context classification as part of the local consult scoring process as well as within road design manuals and other design guidance updates.
Maine DOT
Current Use of Context
The Maine Department of Transportation (Maine DOT) had made the most progress toward implementing context classification prior to the research project. The DOT had adopted contexts within the state, drafted a statewide map, and begun to set up a framework to integrate context into the scoping process.
Existing Project Development Process
Staff shared that Maine DOT’s project development process often begins with projects generated by internal committees that are handed to project managers, sometimes without detailed scopes. Project managers define details during the project timeline. At the time. there was no formal process to add active transportation elements to non-active transportation projects, and requests and needs for active transportation elements were often discovered too late for major changes. The lack of detailed scope in project development was a major challenge for Maine DOT’s project implementation and alignment with local agencies and public goals. However, Maine DOT was in the process of addressing this through a context-based Complete Streets scoping checklist.
Implementation Steps
Staff shared there was no consideration for context in design guidance beyond urban and rural classifications, and most design decisions are based on speed. There was no complete state design manual anymore; the Road Design Guide was condensed into various online engineering standards and references to the current AASHTO Green Book. However, Maine DOT had already started to develop classifications, a statewide context map, and the scoping checklist and tools that include context-based criteria. Maine DOT’s context classifications resemble the Green Book classifications with two distinctions: a “Village” context was differentiated from a “Rural Town” context, and there is no “Urban Core” context. The prospective scoping checklist and matrices will integrate context classification to both help inform more detailed project scoping and identify multimodal design elements appropriate for each context.
Agency Goals
At the start of the project, Maine DOT was working toward rolling out the statewide context map and complementary scoping tools with the Complete Streets policy update. The DOT’s hope was that context can encourage more detailed and upfront project scoping that better considers the historically overlooked needs of active transportation users. Maine DOT also hoped the increased documentation and public-facing decision-making processes would improve communication with local agencies and the public.
REFERENCES
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2018. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (commonly referred to as the Green Book).
2. Nevada Department of Transportation. 2018, revised 2020. One Nevada Transportation Plan.
3. Nevada Department of Transportation. 2022. Speed Management Action Plan.
4. Nevada Department of Transportation. 2019. Road Design Guide.
5. Kansas Department of Transportation. 2014. Road Design Manual.
6. Maine Department of Transportation. 2024. Draft Complete Streets Policy.
