Focus Groups With

FINAL REPORT ON

FOCUS GROUPS WITH

KEY EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS

conducted for the

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF SAFETY

FINAL

August 30, 2005

FOCUS GROUP TASK TEAM

Office of Safety

Mike Halladay, Director, Office of Safety Office of Program Integration/Delivery

Timothy Barkley, Office of Safety Marketing Specialist

Kathy Krause, Safety Legislation Transportation Specialist

SAIC Task Team

Mark Robinson, SAIC, PM

Rebecca Barnes, SAIC, Task Manager

Robert Hicks, Public Technology Institute, Principal Investigator

Lea Johnson, Public Technology Institute

Karen Haas, Manifest Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND...... 1

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………….……..3

3. STAKEHOLDER ISSUE AGENDAS……………………………………………...... 5

3.1Priority Roadway Safety Issues of the Office of Safety's Key Stakeholder Audiences

3.2 Where Do Roadway Safety Issues Rank in the Competition for State and Local Government Resources?

4. STAKEHOLDER INPUT TO THE OFFICE OF SAFETY'S PROGRAM

ACTIVITIES ...... 12

4.1 Which of the Office of Safety's Existing Program Areas Are of Greatest Interest to Local Stakeholders?

4.2 What Would Local Stakeholders Like to Learn More About in the Area of Roadway Safety?

4.3 How is the Office of Safety Currently Helpful to State Transportation Agency Roadway Safety Programs?

4.4 How Can FHWA Improve Its Roadway Safety Services to State Transportation Agencies?

4.5How Do Local Elected Officials View the LTAP Program?

5. STAKEHOLDER INFORMATION-SEEKING PREFERENCES ...... 19

6. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS...... 20

6.1Areas of Consensus

6.2Opportunities for Partnership-Building

1.BACKGROUND

In the spring of 2004, the FHWA Office of Safety initiated a three-phase project to develop a Communications & Outreach Plan. The plan is intended to provide a strategic framework for allocating communications resources in order to convey priority messages to the key audiences who must become engaged if the DOT-supported National goal of significantly reducing highway fatalities is to be achieved.

In Phase I, a Preliminary Communications & Outreach Plan was developed. In Phase II, the Office of Safety sought input from external stakeholders. Phase III will incorporate the external stakeholder input into a final Communications & Outreach Plan.

In July 2004, Manifest Inc., an SAIC subcontractor, delivered the Preliminary Communications & Outreach Plan to the Office of Safety. The preliminary plan was based on input received through interviews with Office of Safety and other relevant DOT staff, as well as a review of the then-existing Office of Safety communications, outreach, and technology transfer products and activities.

This report documents findings of three Phase II Focus Groups conducted by the SAIC team with external stakeholders in March and April of 2005 and presents a preliminary initial analysis of the findings. In Phase III, the Phase II findings will be further analyzed and the results will be incorporated into the final communications plan.

The FHWA Office of Safety staff and the SAIC project team worked together to plan the focus groups. Selection of the specific stakeholder audiences to target in the focus group activity was the key initial planning issue. Resources were available to fund only three focus groups, yet the Office of Safety's partner and customer universe included four major stakeholder sectors (i.e., State Transportation Policymakers, State Transportation Practitioners, Local Transportation Policymakers, and Local Transportation Practitioners), and several distinct subsectors, many of which are represented by partner associations, within each major stakeholder sector. (The Preliminary Communications & Outreach Plan includes a thorough analysis of stakeholder sectors and subsectors.) Eventually, the focus group planning team decided that obtaining input and feedback from the Office of Safety's two new major stakeholder sectorslocal policymakers and local practitioners is a major priority. An equally important priority is staying on track with the FHWA's core constituency: State transportation officials. Consequently, the three stakeholder groups chosen for the focus group activity were:

• Local Policymakers & PractitionersNational Association of Counties (NACo) Transportation Steering Committee.
• Local Practitioners─Public Technology Institute (PTI) Transportation Council.
• State Policymakers & Practitioners─American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety (SCOHTS).

1

2.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this section is to elaborate on major observations of the three focus groups (NACo, AASHTO, and PTI) and to summarize recommended themes, gaps, messages, and communications products and mechanisms.

With respect to key stakeholder concerns and issues, there was significant overlap in roadway safety interests articulated by both State and local officials. The need to lower the national fatality rate, concerns about driver behavior, and the need for accurate crash data were just a few examples of these overlapping concerns. Although there were other issues that were raised independently by State, rural, and urban local officials, all of these concerns and issues were complementary to one another within the overall umbrella of roadway safety.

There appeared to be significant gaps in the awareness of existing FHWA roadway safety programs, particularly among local officials. Despite this perceived gap, local officials remained interested in learning more about the roadway safety improvement program, safety conscious community planning, new safety technology, and the prevention of intersection crashes. The results also suggest that FHWA should take a targeted approach to rolling out these programs. For example, roadway safety improvement programs were of great interest in rural areas, but not in urban areas. Likewise, safety conscious community planning seemed to resonate with local officials in urban areas rather than those in rural areas. This suggests a targeted approach for certain programs would serve the interests and needs of various communities more appropriately than just rolling these programs out to each State without a tailored approach.

State Departments of Transportation (DOT) were more familiar with the programs that FHWA has developed in this area; however, for the most part they expressed a lack of clarity in understanding FHWA’s role and focus. They recommended that FHWA engage in public awareness, provide information on Federal-Aid safety program eligibility, work with them more closely on the comprehensive safety program, support State leadership roles and mechanisms, and, finally, provide more technical assistance. It was also suggested that FHWA take a leadership role in bringing together all the administrations within US DOT for the purpose of achieving a truly comprehensive safety program.

Roadway safety was clearly not at the top of the agenda of State or local communities; however, the focus group and survey respondents gave us some insight into how to craft a meaningful message to decision-makers. They suggested developing strategies for leveraging public safety with other important issues and concerns within the community such as driver behavior, public safety, congestion mitigation, economic development, and school safety.

In terms of receiving information, the stakeholders from AASHTO, NACo and PTI preferred obtaining information from their peers, staffs, through national associations that they trust, and at conferences and workshops. They did not prefer to receive information by the Internet, through news media, or from their constituents.

Several new mechanisms and strategies were suggested by the stakeholders. They included creation of a national coalition on roadway safety that would serve to bring together and coordinate the different stakeholders and interest groups. One model to emulate is FHWA’s National Transportation Operations Coalition (NTOC). Another suggestion was to initiate a national campaign to raise the public awareness. Since the local outreach to decision-makers has been missing for both rural and urban areas, it was suggested that cooperative agreements with organizations like NACo and PTI be established and existing agreements with organizations like AASHTO be strengthened. There was also a common theme of sharing best practices, so it was proposed that FHWA could conduct information exchange in areas such as the approaches being taken to implement the mandated comprehensive safety program.

1

3.STAKEHOLDER ISSUE AGENDAS

An important principle of effective communication is to secure the audience's attention by shaping messages that relate to issues that are of major concern to the target audience. The Office of Safety needs to shape messages that will explain how its products and services will help various stakeholder/customer groups to address their major roadway safety issues and concerns.

3.1 Priority Roadway Safety Issues of the Office of Safety's Key Stakeholder Audiences: The Office of Safety wanted to obtain unbiased baseline information about the issues that its key stakeholders associate with roadway safety and determine issue priorities within each stakeholder group. In an effort to elicit this baseline information, each of the focus group sessions began with an open discussion about the participants' issues and concerns related to roadway safety.

Roadway safety is a broad topic that includes issues that are beyond the scope of the FHWA Office of Safety's mission. Tables A, B, and C summarize the results of the open discussions, organized by their relevance to the Office of Safety's core mission of improving the safety of roadway infrastructure.

The priority roadway safety concerns and issues of key stakeholders directly relevant to the Office of Safety's core mission are:

• Need to lower fatality rates (NACo and AASHTO).
• Rural road safety—2-lane safety improvements (NACo, AASHTO).
• Funding for roadway safety.
• need for dedicated and sustained rural road safety funding (NACo, AASHTO).
• financing safety improvements and comprehensive roadway safety programs (NACo, PTI).
• Pedestrian safety (all stakeholder groups).
• Lane departure collisions (NACo and AASHTO).
• Need to include local roads in road safety planning (NACo).
• Roadway design (NACo, AASHTO).
• Nighttime Visibility (PTI).
• Inform elected officials of results of roadway safety audits so they can move resources to address needs.
• School Zone Safety (PTI).

Table A summarizes roadway safety concerns and issues that are directly relevant to the core mission. These are areas where the Office of Safety might play a leadership role.
Table A: Key Stakeholder Concerns and Issues Relevant to FHWA
Office of Safety Mission

• 2-lane rural

The priority roadway safety concerns and issues of key stakeholders relevant to the U.S. Department of Transportation's mission are:

• Driver behavior (NHTSA) (all stakeholder groups).
• Speeding.
• Aggressive driving.
• Cell phone use.
• Red light running.
• Teen seat belt use.
• Crash data (NHTSA/FHWA) (all stakeholder groups).
• Need for accurate data.
• Need for standardization.
• Resources for law enforcement to produce better accident reporting.
• Tort liability of local transportation agencies for failure to meet highway standards (FHWA) (NACo, PTI).
• Driver training (rural 2-lane) (NHTSA) (NACo).
• National Forest Service & National Park Service environmental policies restrict clearing sight lines on right-of-way (opportunity for FHWA or U.S. DOT to work with Federal interagency partners to resolve conflicts between environmental and safety concerns) (NACo).

Table B summarizes concerns and issues relevant to the core missions of other U.S. DOT agencies (which are identified). These are issues where the FHWA Office of Safety may partner with other DOT offices or agencies, as well as external partners.

Table B: Key Stakeholder Concerns and Issues Relevant to U.S. DOT Mission

• cell phone use

• aggressive driving

• teen seat belt use

• speeding

• aggressive driving (NHTSA)

Table B: Key Stakeholder Concerns and Issues Relevant to U.S. DOT Mission (continued)

• Federal mandates overly restrictive (impaired driving, seat belts)

• need for helmet laws in all States (NHTSA)

• speeding

• red light running (NHTSA)

• Resources for law enforcement to produce better accident reporting (NHTSA/FHWA/DOJ)

• speeding

• red light running (NHTSA)

Table C summarizes stakeholder concerns and issues that will require broad-based action at the Federal, State, and local levels. These are issues where the U.S. DOT may partner with other stakeholders at the national, State, and local levels.

All of these issues will require the commitment and coordination of broad groups of stakeholders, although it is not how the necessary leadership will be provided. The Office of Safety may wish to partner with other national stakeholder groups to provide leadership on selected issues that require broad-based action.

The priority roadway safety concerns and issues of key stakeholders that require broad-based cooperative action among Federal, State, and local stakeholders are:

• Establishing stakeholder consensus and focus (AASHTO, PTI).
• Need for guidance on how to build community partnerships.
• Public awareness (NACo, AASHTO).
• Increased resources for traffic enforcement (PTI).
• Motorcycle safety licensing and training (AASHTO).
• Driver education (NACo).
• Local jurisdiction acceptance of photo enforcement (NACo).
• Right-of-way for safety on rural roads (NACo).

Table C: Key Stakeholder Concerns and Issues Requiring Broad-based
Federal, State, and Local Action

• Drivers

• Pedestrians

3.2 Where Do Roadway Safety Issues Rank in the Competition for State and Local Government Resources? The FHWA Office of Safety and its partners seek to influence State and local policymakers to significantly increase resources for and attention on roadway safety.

In order for the highway safety community to persuade State and local policymakers to shift resources toward roadway safety, roadway safety messages must present a convincing argument demonstrating that roadway safety issues are of equal or greater concern to the other issues competing for policymakers' commitment and attention.

Analysis of competing issues also reveals opportunities to partner and leverage roadway safety with competing, but related, issues. For example, roadway safety is strongly linked to congestion mitigation because more than half of all travel delay on roadways is caused by traffic incidents.

Roadway safety ranks relatively low among State transportation agency priorities, behind new construction, system preservation, and congestion mitigation. Only traffic operations ranks lower. Table D shows the results from the AASHTO SCOHTS focus group.

Table D: Where Roadway Safety Ranks Among Competing State Transportation Priorities (1=highest priority, 5=lowest priority).

In rural localities, roadway safety is a relatively important issue, behind only budgets, public safety, and schools and education. Table E shows results from the NACo focus group, where participants were asked to indicate where roadway safety ranks among competing jurisdiction-wide priorities. The NACo participants were elected officials & county engineers from non-urban areas.

Table E: Where Roadway Safety Ranks Among Competing Non-Urban Local Priorities (NACo)

In urban localities, roadway safety is near the bottom of the priority list, behind public safety, budgets, economic development, schools/education, public works, and traffic congestion. Table F shows results from the PTI focus group, where participants were asked to indicate where roadway safety ranks among competing jurisdiction-wide priorities. PTI participants were policymakers and practitioners from urban areas.