Chapter 4: In-Person Workshops

INTRODUCTION

Based on the outcomes of Tasks 1 and 2, the goal of Task 3 was to develop draft training materials for workshops with each of the selected state DOTs. As part of Task 4, the research team carried out the series of in-person workshops for Nevada DOT, Kansas DOT, and Maine DOT. After the workshops concluded, the research team took lessons learned and updated the training materials to better reflect the needs of a national audience. Task 4 also included the preparation of the Interim Report.

WORKSHOP OVERVIEW

To begin, the research team prepared drafts of the workshop agenda and outline and shared them with the NCHRP panel for initial feedback. From there, the research team prepared workshop materials, including a pre-workshop webinar, a kickoff meeting presentation, approximately four hours’ worth of interactive training materials, and an action plan template. Workshop materials were further refined in subsequent tasks and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

Workshop Agenda

The in-person workshops were organized around the following activities:

• The pre-workshop webinar was a 15-minute recorded presentation that provides background, discusses the benefits of context classification, and sets expectations for attendees for workshop format and context.
• Session 1: Leadership and Core Team Kickoff allowed DOT leadership and core team members to meet and review the goals for the workshop and action plan. This session was a two-hour meeting.
• Session 2: Interactive Training was a four-hour interactive training session designed to help agency staff to learn how context classification could be implemented in each phase of project delivery and to identify key themes for action plan development.
• Session 3: Action Plan Work Session was a four-hour work session with DOT core team members to develop an agency-specific action plan for context classification implementation, with responsible groups and timelines identified for each action.
• Session 4: Debrief was the final debrief session in which agency leadership staff and core team members outlined next steps for action plan implementation. This included identifying the most critical elements, immediate next steps, staff leads, and a communication plan for moving forward.

Pre-Workshop Webinar

The pre-workshop webinar was intended to provide background for workshop attendees less familiar with context classification. The webinar highlighted the following topics:

• Introduction to context classifications
• Overview of AASHTO’s five context classifications
• Anticipated changes to the AASHTO Green Book, 8^th Edition
• Relationship to functional classification
• Benefits of context classification
• Available resources
• In-person workshop agenda

The webinar was in presentation format with a recorded voiceover. Prior to recording the video files with voiceover, the research team provided a draft of the presentation with speaker notes of the intended audio voiceover to the NCHRP panel for its feedback. The panel’s feedback was incorporated into the final version, which was recorded and then provided to the state DOT champions to share with workshop attendees approximately one to two weeks before the workshops.

Interactive Training

The interactive training was designed to last four hours and was facilitated primarily in-person, though state DOTs had the option to include remote attendees unable to travel. Considering the themes echoed in the survey results and the interviews conducted in Task 2, the specific workshop training session topics were:

• Context classification and implementation in the project development process
• Relationship of context classification to user needs
• Relationship of context classification to vehicle speeds

Each of these training topics was followed by interactive elements to reinforce the training, as shown in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Interactive Training Agenda

Action Plan Template

The research team developed an action plan template to help agency staff to track ongoing status and next steps, as well as to identify decision topics, lead and supporting units, activities needed prior to start, and anticipated timeline. Potential decision topics were outlined to serve as discussion starting points and included:

• Establishing multidisciplinary implementation team
• Establishing context classifications
• Determining context classification documentation steps
• Establishing cross section criteria for each context classification by facility type
• Establishing target speeds for each context classification and facility type
• Integrating context classification into project development process
• Considering project type applications
• Considering current or future processes to evaluate tradeoffs in cross section allocation
• Identifying supportive funding mechanisms

The action plan template also included an element to identify documents or policy updates necessary to support context classification.

WORKSHOP SUMMARY

The individual workshops were completed over the following days. Nevada DOT opted to spread the training over three days, while Kansas DOT and Maine DOT covered the same topics over two days:

• Nevada DOT: September 30–October 2, 2024
• Kansas DOT: October 29–30, 2024
• Maine DOT: November 18–19, 2024

The following sections summarize key takeaways from each workshop. The action plans created by each state are provided in Error! Reference source not found..

Nevada DOT

Coming into the workshop, Nevada DOT had identified context classification definitions (referred to as “roadway environments”) and was early in the process of implementing them. The following are key takeaways from the Nevada DOT workshop:

• Mapping existing project decisions: Nevada was already taking steps to advance context classification, but its efforts were not always well documented or known across the divisions. For example, the Traffic Safety Engineering Section had started updating its target speed and posted speed settings to be context-based, but some staff in other divisions and sections were not aware of this development. One of the key action items discussed was the need to map out all the existing project decision points and documents. The research team recommended this action item be led by the Scoping managers in the Transportation Administration Section. The scoping phase often acts as a “passing of the torch” from planning to design, and therefore the Scoping managers have insight into more of the full project development process.
• Involvement from other divisions: During action plan development, several divisions and sections that were not part of the work session were mentioned multiple times, including sections such as Information Technology and Administration’s Communications. Incorporating these sections early when implementing context classification could help streamline several action plan steps.
• Impact of large developments: Nevada DOT had limited influence over how planned developments access its facilities as well as over how it could potentially change its roadway design (cross section) to serve the surrounding land uses based on context. Nevada DOT could establish a more open dialogue with local entities to collaborate in the planning and design of roads serving the local communities.
• Leadership participation: Members of the Nevada DOT leadership team were specifically encouraged to attend the kickoff meeting and debrief. Several members of the leadership team also participated in the action plan work session. Having leadership participation in the work session helped the team efficiently move through the action plan development. With staff and leadership working together, the team was able to

• identify the needed actions, the lead unit and associated staff for each action, and the decision-making authority for each action.
• Maintenance requirements: As Nevada DOT is a relatively centralized DOT, most designs are done at the headquarters level, while maintenance is done by the regions. As headquarters starts integrating new design treatments, it is important to consider the additional maintenance load on regional staff and to make sure the regions have the support they need to properly maintain the infrastructure.
• Project schedules: Attendees named project scheduling as one of the barriers to implementing context-based design. Staff noted they do not always have the time and resources for additional coordination early in the project and that scope items are often removed to keep up a project’s pace.
• Multidisciplinary action plan: The steps identified in the action plan covered a broad mix of topics and had lead roles for all the major divisions, including Planning, Engineering, and Operations. For each action plan topic, additional divisions and sections were identified to help support the lead.
• Priority action items: Nevada DOT identified 22 potential action items and prioritized the following as a starting point:
  • Map contexts statewide.
  • Formalize a process to verify context during needs validation as part of One Nevada.
  • Reinforce use of roadway environments (context classification) in posted speed setting.
  • Map out deliverables and decision points through the project development process.

Kansas DOT

Kansas DOT was in the earliest stages of implementation. DOT staff was interested in integrating context to prepare for the next edition of the Green Book but had not yet taken any concrete steps. The following are key takeaways from the Kansas DOT workshop:

• Staffing challenges: Kansas DOT staff identified many activities that could be valuable to implementing context-based design, but staffers were concerned they did not have enough staff resources to support them. One example was conducting more safety screenings on 1R projects (pavement preservation).
• Maintenance agreements: Local agencies are required to maintain most bicycle and pedestrian facilities. If there is room in the project budget, Kansas DOT may construct the facility, but the DOT requires a maintenance agreement (also referred to as a “City Connecting Link”) from local agencies. This creates situations where the local agencies reject bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure because they cannot afford the maintenance obligation. This limits the degree to which Kansas DOT can modify cross sections.
• Rural town transitions: Kansas DOT cited several examples where speeding was an issue in rural towns. In some places, there was little to no difference in street design on the way into town even as the posted speed lowers. While cross section changes are

• sometimes limited by the above-mentioned maintenance agreement requirements, there are opportunities to introduce speed management treatments to reduce speeds and improve safety through towns.
• Rural safety: One of Kansas DOT’s largest safety challenges was single-vehicle lane-departure crashes in rural areas. The DOT discussed the need for additional guidance on balancing safety treatments (such as rumble strips) with bicyclist comfort when riding on the shoulder.
• Priority action items: Kansas DOT identified 22 potential action items and prioritized the actions into four tiers. Top priorities include:
  • Explore local maintenance agreements to see where there is flexibility for Kansas DOT to do more in cities.
  • Tailor context zones to Kansas and identify criteria to determine each context.
  • Get leadership signoff to begin working on a bridging document that provides project-level guidance on implementing context classification sooner rather than trying to update several respective design-related manuals.

Maine DOT

Prior to the workshop, Maine DOT was the furthest along in advancing context classification. The DOT had identified its state-specific contexts, begun to map them statewide, and begun to develop scoping and speed limit-setting guidance. The following are key takeaways from the Maine DOT workshop:

• Maintenance and new treatments: Maintenance—plowing in particular—was often an excuse not to try a new treatment. Staff discussed the need to involve maintenance staff in early discussions when considering new treatments. Ideally, any maintenance concerns would be addressed upfront rather than working through concerns on each project.
• Training and communication: Since Maine DOT had already made significant progress, a key focus area was internal and external communication and training. Leadership was eager to create a consistent, departmentwide message on the rationale and expectations for a context-based approach to project delivery.
• Bridge design: Bridge design was a greater focus in Maine than in any of the other states. In Maine, bridges often provide direct connection between two towns. If the towns have different perspectives on bicycle and pedestrian facilities, bridge design project managers lack the guidance to make decisions on the right typical section. This can lead to project delays.
• Pilot projects and demonstrations: Maine DOT had several different pilot and demonstration project initiatives. Staff were generally willing to try things and either adapt if needed or work on a permanent installation when things work well.
• Priority action items: Maine DOT identified 21 potential action items. Top priorities include:
  • Create a consistent message for internal and external rollout.
  • Identify topics and set up internal training.

• • Transition speed limit tool from the Research and Innovation Section to the Traffic Operations Section.
  • Map out the project development process to show how context fits into different types of projects.
  • Update Preliminary Design Report to better reflect Complete Streets policy.

Common Themes

Several topics were brought up by more than one state DOT:

• Access management: Access management on developing corridors was consistently brought up as a challenge. DOTs have limited influence over the development permitted along state roadways but must provide access to the adjacent parcels. The number of access points creates a safety challenge for all modes.
• Mapping project decision points: Nevada DOT and Maine DOT did not have clear documentation of their project development processes, including at what point different decisions are made. This may make it challenging to communicate clearly where context can fit into the process. The research team advised both agencies to map their current processes to start identifying where context can be integrated.
• Multidisciplinary collaboration: One of the main benefits of the in-person workshops was the dedicated time staff had to collaborate across disciplines. Many commented at the end of the workshops that they rarely get to work together as a group in this way. There were several occasions where staff learned what others were doing to support context during the workshop.
• Speed management as a primary benefit: Kansas DOT and Maine DOT rely heavily on local maintenance for bicycle and pedestrian treatments. With this in place, there are relatively few cross section decisions left to make for the DOT. In both states, they saw speed management as a primary benefit of context classification.

WORKSHOP MATERIALS FEEDBACK

Part of Task 8 was to update the training materials to be applicable to a broad, national audience. To support the materials update, the following input was collected from the state DOTs and/or observed by the research team:

• As originally designed, there were too many slides in the training presentation, especially in the speed section. The research team identified an opportunity to reduce the verbal presentation and provide some of the excised examples as an appendix or handout.
• The research team had several interactive questions that were discussed as a large group. This led to strong engagement from some participants and limited engagement from others. The research team identified an opportunity to create handouts with the questions for staff to complete in smaller groups and then report back.
• Many of the slides included examples from more urban places. Kansas DOT staff requested examples that highlight the economic benefits of context-based design in smaller, more rural communities.

• Maine DOT had several exhibits that were subsequently integrated into the national training materials, including context-based crash analysis, modal prioritization, and speed-setting guidance.
• The action plan template was updated with the action items identified by the state DOTs, which had not been previously included.