Using Peer Exchanges to Improve the Effectiveness of Strategic Highway Safety Plans (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 764 Using Peer Exchanges to Improve the Effectiveness of Strategic Highway Safety Plans Brian Chandler Leidos Seattle, WA Vernon Betkey Leidos Bel Air, MD Jennifer Atkinson Leidos West Plains, MO Tom Welch Leidos Maxwell, IA Tim Neuman, Kim Kolody CH2M HiLL Chicago, IL Richard Storm CH2M HiLL Bellevue, WA Richard Retting saM sCHwartz engineering Arlington, VA Greta Cleary VoiCe assoCiates Centennial, CO Subscriber Categories Highways  •  Planning and Forecasting  •  Safety and Human Factors TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org  Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 764 Project 17-52 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-28383-0 Library of Congress Control Number 2014931454 © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 764 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Christopher Hedges, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Lori L. Sundstrom, Senior Program Officer Megan Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Maria Sabin Crawford, Assistant Editor NCHRP PROJECT 17-52 PANEL Field of Safety—Area of Bridges Leanna Depue, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City, MO (Chair) John C. Goodknight, Goodknight Consulting, Gainesville, FL Robert E. Hull, Utah DOT, Salt Lake City, UT Ning Li, Virginia DOT, Richmond, VA Timothy R. Pieples, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA Jim Taylor, University of Notre Dame, Granger, IN Priscilla A. Tobias, Illinois DOT, Springfield, IL Terecia W. Wilson, Clemson University, Prosperity, SC Tamiko Burnell, FHWA Liaison P. John Sprowls, FTA Liaison Jennifer B. Warren, FHWA Liaison Bernardo Kleiner, TRB Liaison

NCHRP Report 764: Using Peer Exchanges to Improve the Effectiveness of Strategic Highway Safety Plans contains practical guidance for state departments of transportations (DOTs) on how to plan and conduct state-level peer exchanges as a means for identifying strate- gies, tactics, and practices to improve implementation, evaluation, and updating of their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs). It includes a flexible and easily adaptable template that agencies can use to plan and conduct in-person and virtual peer exchanges, as well as reference and supportive material that would be useful to peer exchange organizers and participants. DOT safety program managers and staff should find this practical and cost- effective guidance helpful in organizing and conducting successful peer exchanges. In an effort to reduce traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries, Congress included a requirement in SAFETEA–LU for each state to develop and implement an SHSP. While all states accomplished this by 2007, the pace, vigor, and effectiveness of SHSP implementation has varied. Properly designed peer exchanges between state DOTs—that also include their safety partners—have been identified as a cost-effective means for state DOTs and safety advocates to identify ways to improve implementation of their SHSPs and inform safety- related resource allocation decisions. Peer exchanges can provide state DOTs with new ideas and approaches for overcoming SHSP implementation barriers. Under NCHRP Project 17-52, Leidos, Inc. was asked to develop guidance and provide supportive materials for an individual state to use in voluntarily developing and implement- ing a peer exchange that is focused narrowly on evaluating or improving its own SHSP. The report identifies potential tasks and the timelines necessary to plan and conduct a peer exchange. It also provides guidance on ensuring that invited peers have necessary and rel- evant expertise and experience, discusses the characteristics of successful host state partici- pants, and includes samples of documentation needed to prepare the peer exchange partici- pants (e.g., peer exchange objectives, agendas, and discussion guides). Budget constraints and limits on travel currently being experienced by many jurisdictions may, however, affect their ability to conduct or participate in a face-to-face SHSP peer exchange. These and other obstacles to conducting such a peer exchange were examined and potential solutions—such as holding “virtual peer exchanges”—were identified. In addition to NCHRP Report 764, the contractor’s Final Project Report that contains the results of the literature review, detail on research methodology and the results of field tests of the guidance, and a discussion of future research needs is available on the TRB project website. F O R E W O R D By Lori L. Sundstrom Senior Program Officer Transportation Research Board

1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 1 1.2 Peer Exchange Overview 2 1.3 Purpose and Scope of the Guide 3 1.4 Organization of the Guide 4 Chapter 2 Strategic Highway Safety Plan Basics 4 2.1 What Is an SHSP? 4 2.2 Purpose of the SHSP 5 2.3 Fundamental Elements 8 2.4 Steps for SHSP Implementation 10 Chapter 3 Peer Exchange Basics 10 3.1 What Is a Peer Exchange? 11 3.2 Why Is a Peer Exchange Important? 12 Chapter 4 Pre-Peer Exchange Planning 12 4.1 Determine If and When a Peer Exchange Is Needed 13 4.2 Establish the Peer Exchange Objective 14 4.3 Choose Peer Exchange Topics 15 4.4 Select the Appropriate Event Type 18 Chapter 5 In-State Peer Exchanges 19 5.1 Plan a Successful In-State Peer Exchange 19 5.2 Gain Support from Agency Leadership 19 5.3 Establish a Steering Committee 24 5.4 Identify Funding and Staff Resources 25 5.5 Establish a Planning Committee 26 5.6 Confirm Event Objectives and Topics 26 5.7 Select the Delivery Method 27 5.8 Visit Another State Hosting a Peer Exchange 29 5.9 Select the Date, Time, and Location 29 5.10 Identify Event Needs and Peer Exchange Roles 32 5.11 Create an IT/AV Support Plan 33 5.12 Develop a Communications Plan 33 5.13 Make Invitee List 35 5.14 Build the Event Agenda 37 5.15 Communicate with Participants 38 5.16 Send Invitations 39 5.17 Send Registration Packets 40 5.18 Conduct the Peer Exchange Event 41 5.19 Evaluate the Event 41 5.20 Conduct Follow-Up Meetings 43 5.21 Write a Follow-Up Report C O N T E N T S

46 Chapter 6 Multi-State/Regional Peer Exchanges 47 6.1 Plan a Successful Multi-State/Regional Peer Exchange 47 6.2 Gain Support from Agency Leadership 51 6.3 Establish a Steering Committee 52 6.4 Identify Funding and Staff Resources 53 6.5 Establish a Planning Committee 54 6.6 Confirm Event Objectives and Topics 55 6.7 Select the Delivery Method 56 6.8 Visit Another State Hosting a Peer Exchange 56 6.9 Select the Date, Time, and Location 59 6.10 Identify Event Needs and Peer Exchange Roles 62 6.11 Create an IT/AV Support Plan 62 6.12 Develop a Communications Plan 63 6.13 Make Invitee List 65 6.14 Build the Event Agenda 66 6.15 Communicate with Participants 67 6.16 Send Invitations 68 6.17 Send Registration Packets 69 6.18 Conduct the Peer Exchange Event 70 6.19 Evaluate the Event 70 6.20 Conduct Follow-Up Meetings 71 6.21 Write a Follow-Up Report 74 Chapter 7 Peer Reviews 75 7.1 Plan a Successful Peer Review 75 7.2 Identify Funding and Staff Resources 79 7.3 Establish a Planning Committee 80 7.4 Discuss the Event with Key Stakeholders 81 7.5 Review Information and Determine Event Objectives and Topics 81 7.6 Select the Delivery Method 82 7.7 Consult with Another State Hosting a Peer Review 82 7.8 Select the Date, Time, and Location 84 7.9 Identify Event Needs and Peer Exchange Roles 85 7.10 Create an IT/AV Support Plan 86 7.11 Make Invitee List 87 7.12 Build the Event Agenda 88 7.13 Send Invitations 88 7.14 Conduct the Peer Review 89 7.15 Evaluate the Event 89 7.16 Conduct Follow-Up Meetings 91 7.17 Write a Follow-Up Report 93 Chapter 8 One-on-One Discussions 93 8.1 Plan a Successful One-on-One Discussion 94 8.2 Identify Funding and Staff Resources 94 8.3 Establish a Planning Lead 94 8.4 Discuss the Event with Key Stakeholders and Confirm Objectives 96 8.5 Select the Delivery Method 97 8.6 Consult with Another State with Experience Hosting Similar Meetings 97 8.7 Select the Date, Time, and Location

97 8.8 Identify Event Needs and Peer Exchange Roles 99 8.9 Create an IT/AV Support Plan 99 8.10 Build the Event Agenda 99 8.11 Conduct the One-on-One Discussion 100 8.12 Evaluate the Event 100 8.13 Conduct Follow-Up Meetings 101 Chapter 9 Conclusion 102 Glossary 106 Appendix Tools for Conducting Peer Exchange Events Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.