Methods for State DOTs to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Transportation Sector (2022)

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.

13 C H A P T E R 4 Outreach and Implementation Activities Initial Outreach—Workshops and Online Briefing The primary activity of Task 4 of this project was to conduct workshops with at least three State DOT to test an early draft of the guide. Workshops took place in three States in the spring of 2019, following the Phase 1 Interim Panel meeting held in March 2019 at which the initial draft guide material was reviewed. Two primary objectives were set for these Phase 2 workshops:  To obtain feedback on the first draft of the guide, including content, organization, and presentation: Is this information helpful? Is it presented in a helpful manner? What more do staff need/want to know?  To provide each State with some initial assistance in helping advance their GHG practices. About six sample sections for the guide were developed as part of Phase 1. Feedback from the workshops generated overall direction and changes for completing the guide and conducting implementation support in Phase 3 of this project. A workshop report (Technical Memorandum #3: Task 4 Workshop Report) documented the development and key findings of the workshops. Subsequently, a Phase 2 Interim Report provided more detailed recommendations for completing the guide. An online briefing provided updates on the project and presented and obtained feedback on the initial material, reaching more States than could be reached through the workshops. Workshops Workshops took place in Minnesota (May 7, 2019), Washington State (May 9, 2019), and Texas (June 4, 2019). Planning for the workshops began in February 2019 and invitations were issued six weeks to three months ahead of time. The project team worked with a primary host-State contact to identify a venue, confirm dates and times, develop logistical arrangements, issue invitations, and refine a draft agenda developed by the project team. All workshop participants received a final agenda, as well as the first draft guide materials in PDF format a week in advance of the workshop. Handouts for the guide sections and self-assessments discussed in the breakout groups also were available at the workshop. Each workshop ran from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., and concluded no later than 2:45 p.m. Table 4-1 indicates the agenda for the Washington workshop. At the conclusion of each workshop, participants were asked to fill out an evaluation, either by hard copy or online.

14 Table 4-1. Washington workshop agenda. Washington Workshop Agenda Welcome, introductions, and workshop objectives 9:00 a.m. Greenhouse gas basics 9:20 a.m. Overview of Washington State DOT’s current policies and activities 9:35 a.m. National state of the practice 9:45 a.m. Break 9:55 a.m. Overview of guidebook1 10:10 a.m. Breakout groups 11:00 a.m. Developing a State DOT GHG policy (including Executive self-assessment) GHG analysis in systems and corridor planning (including Planning self-assessment) GHG analysis in project development, design, and environmental analysis (including Design self-assessment) Report-back on review of draft guidebook material 12:00 p.m. Lunch 12:15 p.m. Institutional issues and partnerships—presentation 1:00 p.m. Breakout groups 1:20 p.m. Institutional, management, and program development issues Partnerships Report-back on breakouts 2:00 p.m. Workshop summary, final comments, evaluation, and next steps 2:15 p.m. Adjourn 2:30 p.m. 1 The primary product of this research was referred to as a “guidebook” at the outset of the project, but the preferred terminology was later changed to “guide.” Agendas presented in this report retain the original term “guidebook” since that was the term used at the time of the workshop. Participation included a mix of DOT and non-DOT staff:  The Minnesota workshop included 22 participants. Half were Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) staff, representing a variety of functional areas—environment and sustainability, modeling, research, maintenance, controller’s office, and districts. Two staff from Iowa DOT also attended. Non-DOT partners included the MPO for the Twin Cities region, State commerce and environmental agencies, a university researcher, and a nongovernmental organization (NGO) representative.  The Washington State workshop was held at the Washington DOT (WSDOT) headquarters building in Olympia, Washington. There were about 15 participants, 10 from WSDOT, 2 from Oregon DOT planning, 2 MPO/regional planning commission (RPC) staff, and 1 NGO representative. The DOT staff represented planning, environmental, construction/materials, and transportation systems management and operations (TSMO)/ITS functional areas as well as regions. This was a good cross section of DOT staff, as well as non-DOT representation to include outside perspectives.  The Texas workshop took place in the Texas DOT (TxDOT) Riverside Drive training facility in Austin. There were 12 participants, including 6 TxDOT staff, 3 MPO/council of governments (COG) staff (2 from Houston and 1 from Dallas-Fort Worth), 2 university/research agency staff or contractors, and 2 other agency staff—1 each with the Austin regional transit agency and the City of Austin. The TxDOT staff from the Environmental unit also participated. Participants contributed actively to the discussions, and the MPO/COG and local agency planners helped fill in some perspectives to supplement those of the DOT attendees.

15 Some themes from each workshop included:  Minnesota—MnDOT has recent strong leadership direction to address GHGs, but initiatives and knowledge are not yet fully integrated throughout the agency. Participants had many questions about what the DOT could do with regard to GHGs. For example, some discussion centered on asphalt versus concrete pavement, traffic flow improvements, and emerging technology vehicles. Participants also expressed a desire for information around the impacts of taking one course of action compared to the costs.  Washington State—WSDOT is far along in terms of considering GHG emissions, especially at the project level, yet they have found GHG impacts of project-level decisions to be very modest. Much of the discussion focused on “moving the needle” on GHG emissions in the context of long-term goals and trends.  Texas—TxDOT is in the early stages of addressing GHGs. There was much discussion about how the guide can be most relevant to a Level 1/2 agency that is working to change practice from the “bottom up” rather than in response to executive-level direction. DOT staff also need to be able to communicate the benefits of what they already are doing to build support for further action, especially when discussing climate change and GHGs publicly. The DOT should emphasize synergies with other more accepted initiatives, such as air quality, energy independence, sustainability, congestion relief, and resilience. Overall considerations for finalizing the guide that were drawn from these workshops include:  Overall guide organization/structure is generally good; materials presented in the sample sections were generally on the right track and mainly required tweaking/refinement rather than overhaul.  Consider the title and how it presents the guide to newcomers and potential users.  Self-assessment tools are generally helpful, but can use some tweaking and refinement as well as clear presentation of their intended use.  Balance desires for brevity/ease of use versus detail by putting most technical detail and nonactionable information (e.g., state of national practice) in appendices, as well as providing links to existing documents/resources.  Strongly consider a web-based/interactive publication format to make the guide more easily accessible and present layers of information.  There is strong interest in seeing good examples of practice.  There is strong interest in communication and partnerships. Consider how best to integrate communication—how much goes in its own section, versus integrating into other functional area sections.  As guide development and implementation testing continues, make sure it is relevant to DOTs at all levels of engagement and something they can share with their partners. Briefing The project team conducted an online briefing in August 2019, provided an update on the project, and presented and obtained feedback on the initial material. The briefing provided an opportunity for States that did not participate in the workshops to offer input to the guide. The briefing was publicized via direct email to the same list of contacts assembled for the Task 1 survey, including State DOT environmental, planning, and executive leads. The briefing lasted just over an hour (45 minutes of presentation and up to 30 minutes for question and answer). In addition to presenting the guide outline and sample material, the briefing included polling questions on who is participating (type of agency), self-assessed level of engagement, GHG focus areas of greatest interest for technical support/guide resources, and relevance of proposed guide content. As shown in Figure 4-1. Online briefing attendance by State. 69 staff from 36 State DOTs attended the briefing. The vast majority of the 53 respondents to the webinar polling were from the Planning, Environmental, or Project Development functional areas, with a small number from Executive or other

16 functional areas. Over 80 percent indicated that their agency were at Level 1 or Level 2 of GHG engagement (minimal activity or developing goals, policies, and tools). Figure 4-1. Online briefing attendance by State. At the conclusion of the briefing, participants were asked which statement most closely reflected their view of their agency’s current position on GHG issues and information needs. Of 43 respondents, about half stated that they needed help addressing GHG emissions. About two-thirds of those respondents indicated that the guide would probably meet their needs, with about one-third stating it probably would not. The other half either did not expect to address GHG emissions in the next 2 to 3 years or were not sure whether they would or not. A small percentage noted that they were addressing GHGs and had adequate resources (Figure 4-2).

17 Figure 4-2. Participants’ views on agency needs with respect to GHG. Testing and Implementation—Workshops and Technical Assistance The scope of work called for engaging three to five State DOTs in testing and implementation of the guide as part of Task 7 prior to completion of final products. The purpose of the technical assistance task was both to begin engaging the target audience in implementing the guide and for the research team to gather feedback on the guide prior to its final publication. To recruit State partners for this task, the project team contacted the 27 State DOTs that had expressed potential interest in further assistance or support either in the fall of 2018 survey and interviews or in response to a poll question in the August 2019 briefing. State DOT staff contacts included those who responded to the survey and those who participated in the briefing. Nine States expressed potential interest, but a number of these States determined they were unable to participate due to factors such as timing, staff turnover, leadership support, or resource availability. Although two of the States participating in the first round of workshops also were potentially interested, the project team decided to prioritize engaging new States given the overlap in material between the 2 rounds of engagement. Ultimately, 4 States expressed strong interest in moving forward, which fit within the project team’s scope for assistance. Testing and implementation with these States included both workshops and additional technical assistance as requested by each State. Due to restrictions on travel and gatherings related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the four workshops took place virtually.  Nevada—Virtual workshop held in four sessions of two hours each, May 2020.  Colorado—Virtual workshop held in two sessions of two and a half hours each, June 2020.  Delaware—Virtual workshop held in two sessions of two hours each and a one-hour follow-up call with Delaware DOT (DelDOT) staff, August 2020.  Hawaii—Virtual workshop held in one session of three and a half hours, January 2021. Individual reports were produced on each workshop; summaries are included as Appendix D to this report. Key findings from the workshops and follow-on technical assistance are provided below. Not Addressing GHG Emissions in the Next 2-3 Years, 24% Not Sure, 23% Needs Help Addressing GHG, Guidebook Will Meet Our Needs, 37% Addressing GHG and Has Adequate Resources, 2% Needs Help Addressing GHG, Guidebook May Not Meet Our Needs, 14%

18 Participation Each State had a very different approach to workshop participation, corresponding with different needs. For Nevada, the DOT (NDOT) was at a very early stage of addressing GHGs and asked for more time on the guide overview. The Nevada workshop included 35 participants (attending at least 1 session), about half from NDOT and half from partner agencies (State agencies, utilities, MPOs, universities). Breakout groups were effective in this workshop at engaging participants, both from NDOT and from partner agencies. The involvement of NDOT and partner staff benefited from the strong endorsement of the NDOT director, who participated in the entire workshop. Colorado DOT (CDOT) had more experience with GHGs, and was in the middle of a parallel, consultant- supported process as part of the development of a statewide GHG “roadmap” led by the Colorado Energy Office. (CDOT’s consultants organized a much larger GHG workshop the following month, including over 70 CDOT staff, at which the NCHRP guide also was briefly presented.) The Colorado workshop included a smaller group of 10 DOT staff, so there were no breakouts. Based on feedback from the Nevada workshop, the project team introduced the use of polling in the Colorado workshop to improve interactivity and to break up sections of longer presentation material. DelDOT had more experience with GHGs—mainly at the operations level (e.g., agency fleets/ electrification)—because the State had been addressing climate change for years, although primarily with a focus on adaptation. DelDOT was in the middle of a parallel process, led by the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and supported by a separate consulting team, to develop a statewide Climate Action Plan. DelDOT had only a few agency staff participate (5 in the workshops plus 2 others in the debrief), as they felt that given the small size of their agency, these few staff were able to effectively communicate and set direction with others. The majority of the 22 DelDOT workshop participants were DelDOT partners (state agencies, transit, MPO, local government, advocacy). Hawaii DOT (HDOT) also invited a number of partners to their workshop, as well as a cross section of agency staff from different functional units. The workshop included over 50 participants from HDOT, other state agencies, cities and counties, MPOs, and federal agencies. The workshop was structured as part of the quarterly convening of the Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee’s (STAC) staff-level arm, Sub-STAC, with additional invitees. (Sub-STAC facilitates a coordination committee between the State and counties.) HDOT also was in the process of updating its long-range transportation plan at the time of the workshop. As a result of the large number of local and regional agencies participating, the discussion at this workshop ranged broadly over GHG planning status and needs, in addition to State DOT status and needs. Breakouts and poll questions were effective at engaging participants. Platform Participating States and partners were able to view the draft guide in the form of a “hybrid” publication, which used the webresource platform for overall introduction and navigation pages and included links to PDFs of individual sections. The project team developed presentation slides for each workshop. Workshops were convened using virtual platforms. The virtual format worked well for presenting information and reasonably well for discussions. Discussions are best suited to in-person settings, as people seem to feel freer to speak informally and can engage inside conversations. In-person events ensure that people are focusing most of their attention on the speaker or discussion, which did not always seem to be the case for the virtual events. As is common in virtual meetings, technical issues occasionally prevented people from speaking or hearing well. However, the virtual format was particularly advantageous in Hawaii and Nevada, where a number of participants was based at a considerable distance from the DOT headquarters. Another advantage of the virtual format was that spreading the workshop over multiple days allowed the project team to adjust the agenda “on the fly,” and conduct and present additional research on key questions

19 that arose on the first day(s), such as examples of other States’ policies or information on strategy and cost effectiveness. Workshop Evaluation A separate web-based evaluation survey (covering both the workshop and the guide) was distributed at all workshops. About 10 participants from Nevada, three from Colorado, and none from Delaware completed the survey. A follow-up survey was not distributed for the Hawaii workshop since the timing of this workshop precluded making use of any significant feedback on the guide. While the surveys captured some additional written feedback, most of the feedback from the surveys mirrored what was captured through discussion, chat comments, and polling in the workshops. Polls conducted during the Colorado and Delaware conveyed more quantitative responses than the follow-up survey, indicating that it is helpful to capture as much feedback as possible during the workshop. Feedback on the guide was generally very positive and did not point to any major changes to the content or organization of the guide. Participants appreciated the modular structure, which allows DOT staff to navigate directly to the section corresponding to their functional area. They found the self-assessment tools helpful. Participants also liked the web portal interface and suggested the entire guide be placed in this format. Some of the suggestions from the workshop participants for the final guide included adding additional State examples; adding additional content on a few items, such as strategy effectiveness and cost effectiveness; and some minor reorganization. Post-Workshop Technical Assistance Requests for post-workshop assistance beyond questions researched and presented during the workshop were more limited than anticipated. The project team provided the following assistance:  Providing a written recap of questions raised by participants (via voice or chat) during the workshop and the project team’s answers to these questions.  Providing potential next steps for action as part of each workshop report, which was provided to host agency staff for review, and/or as a stand-alone memo.  Participating in a 3-hour session of another consultant-led workshop on GHG strategies for CDOT staff. As part of this session, giving a 15-minute presentation on the draft NCHRP guide and answering questions in breakout groups.  Holding a follow-up call with NDOT executives to discuss an executive charter and identify next steps for leadership.  Providing CDOT staff with a consolidated list of possible GHG reduction strategies.  Pointing participants to additional or key resources on particular topics. For example, a librarian from CDOT asked for a list of the team’s top 5 to 10 resources. Evaluation of the Testing and Implementation Task All of the Task 7 host agencies felt that the workshops were a successful way of conveying the guide material to agency and partner staff and found them to be helpful in defining next steps. The project team also received useful feedback on the draft guide. The workshops were in many ways the most successful component of the testing and implementation task.

20 Follow-on requests were mainly related to overall agency direction and strategy, as well as identifying key resources and information. None of the agencies requested specific follow-up assistance with technical items (data, analysis, etc.). Possible reasons for this include:  In some cases, technical staff needed direction from leadership before initiating their implementation of the guide. Agency timelines and priorities were sometimes not aligned with the timelines of the NCHRP project, making it difficult to plan and schedule technical assistance.  In the case of two of the States, consultants were already on board through other contracts with the DOT or another State agency to perform technical analysis in support of GHG mitigation or climate action planning. Requesting assistance from the NCHRP project team could have risked overlapping with those ongoing efforts.  The budget and time available to the NCHRP project team for technical assistance may not have been sufficient to support complete analysis as might have been requested by a participating State DOT; substantial DOT staff time and effort would have been required.  Workshop participants noted that the guide provided useful resources. As such, they may not have felt the need for additional assistance, instead feeling that agency staff had the direction and resources that they needed to move forward. In recent years, NCHRP has expanded the outreach and implementation aspects of its research projects. This project found both workshops conducted during early stages of guide or report development as well as prior to development of draft final materials to be excellent ways to: 1) ensure the product meets the needs of the target audience, and 2) to introduce the material to this audience and help jumpstart implementation. Online briefings and/or presentations at conferences and technical meetings are also an excellent way of engaging a larger audience, although with less depth than the State workshops. In contrast, the ability to provide effective “hands-on” technical assistance to individual States through this type of project was not clearly demonstrated, although it is possible that with a different subject matter and/or timing there might have been more interest in this type of assistance.