Chapter 8: Overcoming Common Challenges

Throughout the research project, the state DOTs studied expressed a range of challenges from data management to stakeholder engagement. Many of these challenges have been already documented in other chapters of this report. This chapter provides brief reiterations of these challenges before providing the strategies and techniques the state DOTs have used to address them.

IDENTIFYING THE RIGHT CORE TEAM MEMBERS

One of the first steps of context classification implementation involves putting together the effort’s core team. But it can be difficult to determine who should serve on that team. For instance, Nevada DOT discovered only after it created its action plan that several of the divisions and sections mentioned in the plan were not represented on the core team. Incorporating these sections earlier in the implementation process could have streamlined several action plan steps.

Insights:

1. The DOT should identify all teams impacted by context classification early on; make sure each of these teams is represented on the core team.
   • To identify which teams are impacted by context classification, identify all existing activities that could be relevant to implementation.
   • These activities could be formal ones, like identifying contexts (or context-related criteria), or more informal, such as ongoing data management.
2. The core team should be not only multidisciplinary—it should also have members from different levels and districts/regions.
   • Disciplines rarely get to work together – the core team can be an invaluable time for an exchange of information between sections.
   • This exercise can lead agencies to realize they’re farther along in context implementation than they thought: in some cases with the state DOTs studied in this report, the core team discovered that a section had already initiated work on an action item unbeknownst to the other offices.
3. Core team members should offer thorough feedback to the agency champion throughout the entire project process, including when thinking through action plan activities.

MAPPING PROJECT DECISION POINTS

Context classification impacts nearly every step of the project development process. Ideally, context is identified as one of the first project development steps and then considered throughout the process. But when the research team asked each state DOT how context could fit into their existing process, not every state had a clearly defined process.

Insights:

• As one of the early action plan steps, DOTs should document their project development process.
• With this done, DOTs can then identify at what point different decisions—regarding design speeds, for example, or how context influences speed—are made. Having a clearly documented process helps staff identify where context can be most easily integrated.

LEVERAGING PRECIOUS STAFF TIME

The most common challenge cited by all three DOTs was lack of staff time. Staff have many demands on their time, and the implementation of context classification is typically assigned on top of existing roles and responsibilities. Even DOTs enthusiastic about context-based design can stall on implementation because they don’t have the staff resources to support it.

Insights:

• Some of the upfront activities, especially if agencies have decided to map contexts agencywide, can put a strain on staff resources. In some cases, consultant support may be available to handle some of the technical tasks.
• While existing resources, like NCHRP Research Report 1022, provide best practices and methodologies for implementations, state DOT staff will likely need to spend time adapting these approaches to their specific agency.
• States can spread the work of implementation across time by taking advantage of regular update cycles. Many plans and manuals will need to be updated to incorporate context, but they do not need to all be updated simultaneously. Prioritize the most important documents, then update the remaining ones at their regular update intervals.
• Although time is precious, core team members should commit to regular meetings. Agencies that met consistently made the most consistent progress. Kansas DOT staff noted that the regular core team check-in meetings helped maintain accountability and momentum.

MAKING THE MOST OF MAINTENANCE

Another often-cited challenge regarded getting district support for the maintenance of new treatments necessitated by context-based design. Maintenance staff are also stretched thin and do not always have the resources to maintain new and additional treatments; plowing, in particular, can often be an excuse not to try a new treatment.

Insights:

• DOT staff should involve maintenance staff in early discussions regarding a potential new treatment.

• These meetings can be used to address how to make the treatment logistically feasible for the region or district, rather than working through concerns each time the treatment is proposed for a project.

ENGAGING EXTERNAL PARTNERS EARLY

External partners will likely have input on implementing context classification. Kansas DOT mentioned some of their local agencies already have adopted contexts. DOT staff were brainstorming how to consider those existing systems while still developing a system that works for the state road network. Maine DOT was beginning to engage MPOs and noted some MPOs were already beginning to provide input on their context classification map.

Insights:

• Some external partners will be more vocal in the implementation process than others.
• DOTs are encouraged to engage external partners, especially those already implementing context, early in their action plan development. These partners can provide valuable insights as the DOT is defining its context categories and later in the process as the DOT begins to classify streets.
• When DOTs are classifying streets within municipal boundaries, they are encouraged to establish a clear process for collecting input from those agencies and determining when to make changes based on the input.

LOCATING A CENTER OF INITIATVE: SCOPING AND DESIGN

Prior to this research project, most successful efforts to implement context were spearheaded by agency design sections. The DOT champion was typically someone within the headquarters/Central Office Design group, and one of the key steps toward implementation was creating context-based design criteria.

However, in this report Maine DOT provides an example of an agency successfully making steps toward implementation not from Design, but from a Research and Innovation Section. (Design was included in the core team and the action plan development but was not leading the effort.) This suggests that state DOTs have some flexibility in locating the center of initiative for this effort, and that different configurations may fit different agencies.

Insights:

• DOTs, including Florida, often find that context becomes an everyday practice once it is integrated into their design criteria.
• Maine DOT lacks a state-specific design manual; its implementation success lies in part through its scoping checklist.
• This scoping checklist helps staff consider context early on in projects and to scope appropriate treatments for expected users and speeds.

MAINTAINING CONTEXT CLASSIFICATION DATA

At some point, each of the selected DOTs faced the question of whether to map contexts statewide. Prior to the start of the research project, Maine DOT had already begun the effort and was near completion. During the project, Nevada DOT made the decision to begin a map with consultant support, and Kansas DOT was trying to identify the resources needed to support a mapping effort.

Insights:

• Regardless of whether agencies decide to map context, Maine DOT emphasized the need for ongoing data management and regular updates.
• When Maine DOT released its map, input started coming in from partner agencies. Maine DOT learned it is helpful to have a formal process to collect the input and determine how to incorporate it into the map.
• Reconfirming the context at the start of each project can help catch any changes in context that occurred since the map was initially created.

ACCOUNTING FOR COMPLEXITY OF TERMINOLOGY

Each selected DOT experienced sensitivity around terminology in different ways. Maine DOT, who had already released their context categories and map, experienced some resistance to areas being labeled “suburban.” Nevada DOT decided that “roadway environments” was a more approachable term than “context classification.” Kansas DOT, which originally tied its implementation of context to a Complete Streets initiative, experienced ambiguity in how to proceed when FHWA removed Complete Streets resources from their website. While each example is different, they all speak to a need for clarity around terms and definitions.

Insights:

• Industry-standard terms may not make the most sense in a local environment. Terms may have preexisting definitions or connotations that do not align with how an agency wants to use them going forward. Focus on implementing context classification, and adapt terminology as needed to support this goal.
• Intentional education and engagement efforts can help acclimate the public to the purpose of a specific term.