|
|
 |
RESULTS
FROM A SAFETY SURVEYThe authors would like to thank Michael Halladay and Janet Coleman at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Safety Core Business Unit for their direction and guidance toward this report. Joe Toole and staff of the FHWA's Office of Professional Development also contributed time and effort toward data collection for this report. Members of the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) community contributed their invaluable insights for the ideas contained in this report, as did members of the Federal, state, and other local highway safety and training communities.
Kristine Lee Leiphart, PhD, GLS is a transportation specialist with FHWA where she works on policy studies and workforce planning topics for the transportation community. Prior to joining U.S. Department of Transportation, Kristine was a policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, a private-nonprofit think-tank that helps to improve public policy through research and analysis. Before joining RAND, Kristine was the Freight and Finance Project Manager for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) which is a long-term planning agency for transportation as well as community, environmental, and economic development in six counties of Southern California.
Chimai N. Ngo is a transportation specialist with the FHWA at the U.S. Department of Transportation where she works with the Local Technical Assistance Program to help identify the safety needs of local government agencies and tribal governments. In addition, Chimai works on speed management issues and the Safety Conscious Planning Initiative. A transportation planner by training, Chimai has worked on the transportation planning capacity within the FHWA before taking the current position. Some of the issues she handled includes the land-use - transportation relationships, context sensitive design, traffic calming, and transportation management systems.
Transportation Safety Education and Training: An Analysis Framework
Training Through the Local Technical Assistance ProgramBackground
Success Stories
LTAP Safety Training Activities 2000
Exhibit 1. Four E's To Enhance Education & Training
Exhibit 2. Number of Years in Safety
Exhibit 3. Years of Transportation Experience
Exhibit 4. Age of Survey Respondents
Exhibit 6. Role of Respondents in Organizations
Exhibit 7. Organization and Variable Relationships
Exhibit 8. Preference for On-Line, Video, & CD-ROM Instruction
Exhibit 9. "I would take an on-line course from work only."
Exhibit 10. "The interaction with an instruction during a training course is important to me."
Exhibit 11. "The networking opportunities during a course are important to me."
Exhibit 12. Preference of Courses to Lead to Certification
Exhibit 13. Number of Hours Per Week Staff Members Have for Professional Development
Goals of the survey were to assess what topics the transportation safety community would like to have and to evaluate how they would like to access the training courses.
In order to assess how and what kinds of resources and topics should be the target of training safety transportation professionals, FHWA conducted a survey of the Federal, state, and local government staff members, and the academic community. Staff members from 50 FHWA division offices, 9 state Departments of Transportation, the Local Technical Assistance Program community, and members of the academia responded to the survey. Therefore, the responses largely represented the feedback of those in the transportation safety community and professionals who were interested in training and workforce development. Results of the survey, interviews, and case studies are presented in this report.
Some of the specific goals of the survey were to assess what course topics the transportation community would like to have to achieve their professional development and educational needs; and (2) to evaluate how the potential education participants would like to access the training courses. The surveys were designed to link the background of the transportation professionals with their training needs.
Numerous works have been conducted to enhance organizational and professional excellence. For example, in March of 1999, the safety stakeholders developed a technical competency framework for highway safety professionals. Another example has been the development of an individual development plan that has helped staff members meet their career development goals. We believe that devoting our resources to develop our organization's manpower is one of the first steps toward enhancing operations to have safe highway infrastructure, passenger vehicles, and human environment.
The transportation workforce today is multi-generational, multi-modal, and interdisciplinary. Everyone is now able to grasp the larger concepts of how a well-planned utilization of human resources has relevance to the success of a transportation agency in an intermodal environment that integrates highway safety, engineering, design, operations, and planning.
Some of the transportation industries estimate that the transportation industry will face a 40-50 percent shortage of transportation workers as they retire in the next 5-15 years, because about 40 percent of our state and local workforce is between the ages of 45-64 (FHWA, 2001). The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) workforce evaluations revealed that the personnel in the Federal safety community were older than the rest of the transportation community, and it was the technical personnel and engineers who were facing the largest segment of retirees in the next 5-15 years (FHWA, 2000).
Therefore, training and workforce development are strategies to enhance organizational efficiency by recognizing people as a valuable resource. The focus of workforce development helps the performance driven business environment to anticipate and to respond proactively to upcoming events such as retirements and recruitments. A well-planned workforce provides the professional environment with greater consistency and communication decisions centered around the resources brought by the people who are responsible for the success of an agency.
In light of the interdisciplinary work-force for highway safety, the professionals in engineering, emergency medical services, enforcement, and educational fields work together to better integrate and deliver highway training and education objectives.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) investigated developing ways for closing the gap between today's resources and the future needs in highway safety. Furthermore, we continually try to derive implementation goals that would lead to organizational and professional excellence in the highway safety community. Our workforce development goals are to assess the present needs of the safety workforce within the transportation community and to continue to assess the career track of professionals.
FHWA is working to develop a way to ensure the agency will have a capable workforce to meet changing future needs. The FHWA workforce is interdisciplinary and safety goals are met by having coordination among engineers, enforcement officials, educators, and emergency medical response teams (Exhibit 1). FHWA also looks to partner among federal, state, local, and private sector to implement activities enhancing the safety workforce and educational development in the community.
Every five years, the United Nations participates in an International Conference on Education, hosted by the International Bureau of Education and UNESCO. On September 5, 2001, the Forty-Sixth Session of the Conference convened the educational leaders of the world in Geneva. The theme for this conference was management of curriculum change, educational content, learning strategies, capacity building, and dissemination of information for the 21st Century. In a written correspondence submitted by Education Ministers around the world, the Brazilian Minister of Education raised the importance of new technologies in education and the need to narrow the digital divide. Consistent with this theme, the FHWA Team believes that education, training, and workforce development are important resources to help narrow the gaps in professional development such as the digital divide within the transportation community and to familiarize the workforce with the new, affordable technological concepts.
At the Federal Highway Administration, the leadership recognizes the value of education and professional development. Thus, FHWA conducted a survey to examine the continued efforts toward education, organizational productivity, quality programs, workforce development.
The FHWA Team conducted the safety needs assessment to help the safety community detect problems, manage the improvement process, and inform us how well our training goals were being met. Goals of the safety survey were to help the safety professionals in the following areas, but not limited to:
FHWA is continuing efforts to enhance workforce development for highway safety professionals.
FHWA encourages clear program goals, result-driven projects, quality customer service, business acumen, and measuring performance based on scientific assessments to make improvements.
FHWA's effort in education and training encourages partnerships and fosters interagency collaboration among providers of training, education, and professional development, both for governmental and non-governmental sectors. In this effort, FHWA conducted a mail survey of FHWA division offices, state DOTs, LTAP centers, and the academia to assess the training, education, and workforce planning needs of the transportation stakeholders.
In an effort for the Federal government to have performance-based activities and programs, FHWA encourages clear program goals, result-driven projects, quality customer service, business acumen, and measuring performance based on scientific assessments to make improvements.
The measurements of past performance, benchmarking of present situations, and planning for the future are seen as integral processes for comparing current spending and future resources for planning human capital. In a market environment where a leaner economy, efficient spending of resources, and programs with net public benefit and growth potential are being encouraged, periodic programmatic and policy evaluations are required.
The Government Performance and Results Act encourages efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in federal government programs. This has allowed governmental agencies to concentrate their resources in the vital fields and allocate the workforce effectively to meet target goals. Resources and expertise can be allocated more efficiently with evaluations that benchmark what how to direct the resources to meet the annual agency goals for training and workforce planning.
In order to measure program needs, FHWA initiated a needs assessment consisting of a survey followed by telephone interviews of survey participants who volunteered to offer more information about safety training. A single survey instrument was devised for transportation professionals in three different levels of government and in academia. They were:
FHWA developed a survey instrument to collect information that identified customers' needs and their training preferences.
The survey instrument consisted of 35 questions that were pre-tested to a safety and transportation audience. Staff members of the Office of Safety, State Departments of Transportation, Office of Professional Development, and members of the highway safety community generated input into the survey design. The survey was designed to identify types of training the safety community preferred and what method of learning mechanism was convenient or useful to them.
The questions addressed demography of the respondents, training topics of interest, and preferred method of training delivery. The survey also had open-ended questions at the end for people to offer additional insights and ideas. The questions asked to the respondents were in the following categories: Demography (e.g., gender, age, and education level), safety experience, professional role in the organization, transportation experience, level within the organization, personal information, types of courses, course response, subjects of interest, location of the course, and the method of training.
All 50 Federal FHWA Division Offices in the 50 states participated in the survey, including the Eastern, Midwest, and Western Resource Centers. Nine State Departments of Transportation representing the various geographical regions of the United States were chosen to participate in the survey, and all nine returned survey responses. Academic institutions in the western and southern regions of the United States also participated.
The Federal Highway Administration requested their division offices distribute the survey to five staff members in each division who had interest in safety, training, or professional development. FHWA also selected nine state Departments of Transportation and asked the surveys be administered to five staff members at each of the state offices. The American Public Works Association (APWA) collaborated with FHWA to collect information from Local Transportation Assistance Program community representing the local governments. The National Highway Institute aided in requesting information from the academic institutions.
The safety professional community has staff members at the federal and state levels that are newer to the field of safety, having zero to five years in safety, but they were not necessarily new to the organization (Exhibit 2).
Our survey responses show that FHWA and the federal government have a high number of people working with 10 to over 20 years of transportation experience than five to 10 years of transportation experience (Exhibit 3). The state DOT had the highest number of respondents from the 10 to 20 years of experience category.
For the Federal government staff members who responded to the survey, the highest percentage (36 percent) is found in the age range between 31 and 40, followed by the 41 to 50 category (29 percent), and over 51 category (27 percent). Only 8 percent of the Federal government respondents were between the ages of 18 and 30 (Exhibit 4). On the state level, the percentage breakdown was evenly split between the 31 to 40 age range and the 41 to 50 age range. From the pool of survey respondents, a smaller percentage of the state government staff members were in the over 51 category, but there was a higher percentage of 18 to 30 year olds at the state governments (12 percent).
Thirty-four percent of those surveyed had graduate degrees and 61 percent had college degrees in the Federal and state governments. On the local government side, 50 percent of the survey respondents and graduate degrees, and 36 percent had college degrees (Exhibit 5).
From the Federal government, 76.8 percent (129) of the respondents were engineers, 6.0 percent (10) of the respondents were planners, 15.5 percent (26) of the respondents were managers, 1.8 percent (3) of the respondents were in the “other” category (i.e., trainers, human resources specialists) (Exhibit 6). From the state governments, 47.1 percent (16) of the respondents were engineers, 2.9 percent (1) of the respondents were planners, 5.9 percent (2) of the respondents were technicians, 35.3 percent (12) of the respondents were managers, and 8.8 percent (3) were in the “other” category (i.e., trainers, human resources specialists).
Chi-square analysis demonstrated that there were significant differences and similarities in seven areas pertaining to the backgrounds of the survey respondents and the organizations to which they belonged (i.e., Federal, state, and local governments). The seven variables that had significance among the organizations are listed in Exhibit 7.
Among Federal, state, and local government staff members who responded to the survey, the majority had college or graduate level education. A high number of the survey respondents had experience in the safety professional community and were public sector staff members. The people who returned the surveys were also largely engineers or managers in their organizations.
The respondents indicated that they desired to see courses in topic areas such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program, ITS Applications for Safety, Comprehensive Highway Safety Improvement Model, Safety Management Process, and Safety Leadership Training.
Based on previous workforce mission analyses, FHWA has an understanding of what is needed to have quality personnel. Our goal was to identify areas to close the gap between today's resources and the future needs in highway safety, and to begin deriving actions to implement highway safety goals. FHWA continues to develop implementation goals in order to contribute to organizational and professional excellence within the overall highway safety community.
The respondents indicated they desired to see new or updated courses in the topic areas of Highway Safety Improvement Program, ITS Applications for Safety, the Comprehensive Highway Safety Improvement Model, Safety Management Process, and Safety Leadership Training. Some respondents requested more thorough information when announcements are made about training courses.
Specific requests from the respondents included more learning through case studies and interactive lectures; developing more courses that focus on the implementation of FHWA's safety programs such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program; seeing more training on the use of various roadway safety hardware; having more training on the data collection process, what type of safety data are needed, where highway professional can obtain good data for crash analysis; and learning how to conduct safety evaluations.
More people desire "overview" types of courses and less specialized ones. The assessment found that it might be beneficial for trainees to obtain specialized expertise through one to two month rotations at various field offices where the safety experts are located, so they can learn from the experts. In essence, the people desiring particular skills/knowledge would be practicing "simulation learning" as their mentors apprentice them. Additionally, for courses that may have a limited number of attendees (i.e., because the topic is so specialized), it would be financially difficult to develop and sustain a course that would have a limited number of attendees.
Fifty-one percent of the Federal government staff members indicated that given the three choices for instruction—online, video, and CD-ROM—their favorite form of instruction was via CD-ROMS. The state and local government staff members also found CD-ROMS to be the favorite method of learning by 38% and 79% respectively.
The survey respondents were either largely neutral or agreed they would take an online course only from work as opposed to taking an online course from home (Exhibit 9). Some of the survey respondents were from the academia. The academic respondents were in the 18-30 age category and were interested in the online type of learning. At FHWA, the safety workforce largely falls below the 31-50 category. FHWA is making a conscientious effort to match our current courses with our present safety workforce.
The respondents largely agreed or strongly agreed that the interaction they could have with the instructor during a course was important (Exhibit 10). This question was posed to assess how important the person-to-person interaction would be compared to type of interaction that would be provided by an online or CD-ROM type of course. The respondents wanted to see more courses brought to their offices in the various states. Courses being brought out to the localities would cut down on traveling expenses and make it easier and more equitable for the agencies with a smaller training budgets to have learning opportunities.
The Federal and local government respondents of the survey largely strongly agreed or agreed that the networking opportunity that was presented during a training course was important to them (Exhibit 11). The state government staff members mainly agreed or were neutral about the importance of networking during training sessions.
The respondents requested modular course development that they can attend in sections, to keep the length of the course to 1-2 days, and to provide 1-hour executive summaries for the courses that can be offered to the public / private sector executive staff members to help raise awareness in these areas. For the most part, FHWA and state DOT staff members still largely prefer the traditional "classroom or conference learning-type" of environment.
The respondents from Federal and state governments largely agreed or were neutral about desiring a course that would lead to some type of certification (Exhibit 12). The responses from the local government respondents were evenly spread among those who were neutral, agreed, or strongly agreed about desiring a certification for taking a course.
The highest percentage of Federal and state government respondents had available one to two hours per week for training and professional development (Exhibit 13). Forty-nine percent of the Federal respondents had one to two hours available per week for training, and 47.1 percent of the state respondents had one to two hours available weekly for training.
The survey respondents indicated they wanted to know more about the availability of safety training. The respondents suggested the trainers bring more of the training courses to the field office areas and to the state Departments of Transportation. They also suggested that a central database might help provide a clearinghouse for a comprehensive set of training information for highway safety professionals. Another respondent indicated that each FHWA Division Office could benefit from having an updated library of safety information and training materials.
CD ROMs and web-based methods of learning were found to be dependent on the familiarity level of the computer users and the learning tool. However, the respondents indicated that it would be a good idea to offer courses on CD ROMS as a measure to save travel funds. The survey participants requested that presentations in the training material be up to date and that the length of the courses be limited to one day or less. The participants requested the training delivery process be sped up significantly, and the courses and materials be kept as current as possible and updated on a regular basis.
Overall, the respondents were neutral concerning whether a consultant or a university instructor should teach the courses.
The results of the training assessment also revealed safety training should to be made more visible. It was suggested that with the heavy workload in the Division, employees may not be able to find time to complete distance learning. However, there were exceptions in remote areas where distance learning could be economical.
The respondents recommended the use of experienced instructors, or those who
were experienced in the subject they
were presenting. Overall, the respondents thought university professors made
good training instructors. The instruction provided by consultants received
mixed reviews. The respondents indicated good instructors should give more time
to discussion of topics and should be less focused on their individual agendas.
Respondents preferred instructors who paid attention to the perspective of
the attendees, such as what the attendees needed from a class, and gave their
presentation to maximize the learning of the attendee.
The respondents recommended that FHWA provide one-hour executive summaries for the courses to be offered.
The survey respondents made recommendations for new course developments such as keeping the length of the course to one to two days. The respondents asked for modular course development so they could attend courses as one to three hour stand-alone sessions and for the length of the courses to be limited to one to two days.
The respondents recommended the Federal Highway Administration provide one
hour executive summaries for the courses to be offered to the public and private
sector executive staff members in order to help raise awareness in specific
areas.
The FHWA and state DOT staff members still largely preferred the traditional
classroom or conference learning-type of environment.
The respondents requested the FHWA bring more courses to the various regions and cities where training attendees would be located. Having the training officers travel to the various states would cut down on traveling expenses and makes it easier and more equitable for the agencies with a smaller training budgets to have the learning opportunity.
Responses were received from ten (10) LTAP Centers and four (4) local transportation agencies. As a result, the sample size was small. In addition, several answers from LTAP Centers do not necessarily reflect the opinion of local agencies. For this reason, this section only extracts the information that is relevant and fairly representative of the thoughts of local communities. Most of the subsections report results of all 14 responses, and those that do not are indicated.
Additional information was obtained from Lisa Pogue, the Director of the LTAP Clearinghouse, during a telephone interview in January 2002.
The summary of the results of the evaluation is below. The summary is divided into two major sections, Profile of Respondents and Major Findings.
| Field | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Safety | 9 | 64.3% |
| Non-Safety | 3 | 21.4% |
| No Response | 2 | 14.3% |
| Role | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Engineer | 5 | 36% |
| Manager | 7 | 50% |
| Researcher/Professor/Educator | 2 | 14% |
| Engineer | Manager | Researcher/Professor/Educator | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safety field | 4 (29%) | 5 (36%) | 0 |
| Other fields | 1 (7%) | 2 (14%) | 0 |
| Experience in Safety | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| No Experience | 1 | 7.1% |
| 1 year | 1 | 7.1% |
| 1 - 5 years | 2 | 14.3% |
| 6 - 10 years | 3 | 21.4% |
| 11 - 20 years | 2 | 14.3% |
| Over 20 years | 4 | 28.6% |
| No Response | 1 | 7.1% |
Training Needs
Many respondents indicated training and professional development helped them keep updated with the latest information. About 57 percent of the respondents considered taking training courses for such purpose. 36 percent of the respondents claimed that training has helped them fulfill their job responsibilities. Only 1 respondent (7 percent) used training to obtain a degree.
Regarding topics of training, the most favorite topic was traffic safety, followed by subject of ITS in safety. The following list indicates the number of responses for each topic (in order of most to least interested):
Several survey questions asked for information on computer access and usage. This subsection reports only the results from the 4 local responses because they were thought to truly reflect the condition in the localities rather than the LTAP Centers.
Responses to questions regarding computer access reflected 100 percent access to computer at work and 75 percent access at home. Likewise, all respondents indicated that they have Internet access at their work places and 75 percent have Internet access at home.
Respondents were asked to indicate frequencies of the use of following computer tools: e-mail, internet, intranet, CD-ROMs, spreadsheets, and databases. The possible survey responses were: everyday, a few times each week, a few times each month, and none. A summary of the results is shown in the below table:
| Tools | Every Day | A Few Times Each Week | A Few Times Each Month | None |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100% | - | - | - | |
| Internet | 50% | 50% | - | - |
| Agency's Intranet | 50% | 25% | 25% | - |
| CD-ROMs | 75% | 25% | ||
| Spreadsheets | 25% | 50% | 25% | - |
| Databases | 50% | - | 50% | - |
Training Experience
Respondents were given a list of organizations and asked to indicate whether they were familiar with training courses sponsored by the organizations. Most respondents were familiar with the training courses sponsored by the FHWA, NHI, State DOT, APWA, ITE, and LTAP. However, few were familiar with courses sponsored by the ASCE and other agencies within the US DOT. One respondent claimed not to be familiar with training course sponsored by any of the organizations.
Regarding time available for training and professional development activities, more than half of the respondents indicated they have from 1 to 2 hours available per week. Noticeably, respondents who indicated that they have more than 3 hours per week for training and professional development were engineers rather than managers or academics.
Length and Format of Training Courses
When asked about length of courses, the majority (71.4 percent) responded that they prefer half to one-day courses. Only three respondents (21.4 percent), all of who were engineers, preferred taking courses that last more than 2 days. Other engineers prefer courses that last more than 1 day, but all managers favor courses that take place within half to one day. This may be explained by engineers generally having more time for training and professional development than non-engineers, as mentioned earlier.
Furthermore, Lisa Pogue observed that local technicians prefer taking short courses, which are no longer than one day. For these individuals, "circuit rider" courses, which are offered by the LTAP Centers and consist of 2 to 4-hour session, work best for them.
Regarding the interval of information given in a training event, the responses suggested that sessions given in the interval of 1 hour or less were preferred. About half of the respondents indicated they prefer receiving information in the intervals of 1 hour and the other half indicated that they prefer 45 minutes and less.
More than half of the respondents (64.3 percent) agreed with the idea of taking 1 to 3 days worth of the "best of" or the most frequently requested safety classes, while 21.4 percent did not. Those who disagree with the ideas work in the academic environment. Fourteen percent remain neutral towards the idea.
Most respondents agreed with the idea of taking courses that lead to certification.
Respondents were given a number of choices of geographical locations and asked
to identify the locations where they would prefer taking training classes. The
majority indicated they
prefer taking courses at an office in their geographical locations within driving
distance of their work places. This information appears to correspond to the
responses regarding length of training courses. Since the majority prefer taking
short courses (from half to one day), it would be reasonable to take the courses
in a geographical location in proximity of the workers' offices.
The respondents were asked to rank three distance learning options - On-line, video, and CD-ROM. The CD-ROM option received the highest ranking, followed by video and online options.
The respondents were given five options of learning methods - Case study, action learning, interactive lectures, on-line/pc courses, and focus groups. Learning through case studies and interactive lectures received equally favorable responses from the respondents. These two options were chosen by 71 percent of the responders. The action learning and focus group-type of learning did not receive as much support (14 percent and 7 percent, respectively). No respondent chose the online/PC course option.
In the question regarding the best way to retain information, respondents were given five choices: hearing, seeing on television, seeing on computer screen, seeing in person, and talking about subjects with others. Some respondents selected more than one choice. The choice of learning by seeing the instructor in person received the most responses (71.4 percent). The next most popular choice was the choice of talking about the subject with other people.
Most (86 percent) respondents agreed that interactions with instructors and networking opportunities during training courses are important to them. This reaction corresponds to responses to a question regarding learning methods, in which respondents selected case study and interactive lectures. Only one respondent disagreed with the importance of interaction with instructors (this was a researcher in the academic environment).
The results above indicate that a traditional classroom setting remains the
preferred format of training courses for the majority of respondents.
On the evaluation form, respondents were asked how they want to receive information related to training opportunities. Fifty percent replied that they would prefer paper catalogs being mailed to them directly. Almost 36 percent preferred seeing the catalogs on the Internet, while 14 percent chose CD-ROM catalogs. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents indicated no preference.
According to Lisa Pogue, the most preferred medium of materials LTAP Centers request from the LTAP Clearinghouse is printed copies. Their customers, the local and tribal transportation agencies, preferred this medium. Following hard copies are the CD-ROM and web based formats, respectively. Most of the time, the LTAP Centers requested these materials to distribute in training classes as courses or reference materials.
The information from the formal evaluation and the interview with Lisa Pogue
consistently suggests that printed materials remain the first choice of local
transportation agencies.
Conclusions
Given the results of the evaluation, it can be concluded that training courses targeting workers in local transportation agencies should have the following characteristics:
For many years, local and tribal transportation agencies have received many
benefits from the LTAP through training, one of
the activities performed by the LTAP and TTAP Centers. The mission of the LTAP
is to help local agencies - cities, counties, and tribal governments - tap into
new technology, information, and training so they can operate more efficiently
and safely. With one LTAP Center in each State and Puerto Rico, and seven Tribal
Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) Centers, the LTAP is a national network
that transfers transportation information from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and other institutions to the local agencies, and also exchanges information
among the Centers. Each Center adapts its programs to address the unique challenges
faced by the customers it serves.
The success of the LTAP is founded on delivering training and technical assistance to its customers. The Centers respond to the specific transportation needs with efficient and cost-effective solutions. LTAP's success can also be attributed to its commitment to partner with many State DOTs, local public works chapters, county associations, and transportation education institutes. This partnering allows the LTAP to collaborate efforts with other entities to reduce duplication of services, share training costs and expertise, and provide optimum training and information to the customers.
Challenges to LTAP are inevitable, despite numerous success stories. Currently, LTAP reaches only one-third of its target audience for one main reason, limited resources. Another reason is many local transportation workers cannot afford to travel far or be away for an extended time for training. Lastly, LTAP's many potential customers are unaware of the LTAP and its services.
Another challenge for the LTAP is the growing training and transportation demands.
By 2010, nearly half of the current
transportation workforce is projected to retire. Currently, the nation's roadways
are becoming more and more congested. Undoubtedly, the LTAP can play an important
role in training new and current workers and assisting them in delivering a
safe and efficient transportation system.
Because each Center implements its own training program to adapt to its customers' needs, there are no two identical Centers.
In the safety professional community itself, different aspects of safety are addressed by different LTAP Centers since the needs vary from one location to another.
This section discusses two success stories of on-going safety training programs in two LTAP Centers - New York and Florida.
Roadway Safety Program at the NY LTAP Center
The Cornell Local Roads Program LTAP Center (Local Roads Program) has a proven record of providing training and technical assistance to local agencies throughout New York. As part of the FHWA's LTAP network, the Local Roads Program can access the resources of other LTAP Centers in the United States and Puerto Rico. In addition, the Local Roads Program has access to the library and research facilities of the Cornell University, where it is housed.
In 1997, the Local Roads Program began conducting a training program on roadway safety for local highway agencies in response to a request from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Both the NYSDOT and the Local Roads Program recognized many local highway officials were unfamiliar with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Work zone related training was perceived as necessary at the local level. Rural highway agencies in New York State often lacked basic work zone safety devices and personal protective equipment; and were unaware of effective risk management procedures to mitigate roadside hazards.
Recognizing the demand for roadway safety training from local agencies and
the desire to continue to expand the
outreach effort were high, the Local Roads Program requested funding from the
NYSDOT to hire a traffic safety engineer. In 2000, the LTAP Center used the
funding provided by the NYSDOT to hire the first traffic safety engineer. In
addition, the Local Roads Program received funding from the Governor's Traffic
Safety Committee to initiate several activities.
The following activities have been completed or are underway:
In addition, the following are some ideas that the LTAP Center hope to launch:
The success of the project has been the result of the partnerships the Local Roads Program forged early in the project. First, the LTAP Center agreed with the NYSDOT's perception that there was need, but developed the concept slowly and deliberately. Second, the response from local agencies more than justified the LTAP Center's decision to expand the project. Third, the safety engineer in the FHWA Division Office in New York provided invaluable help and support. Finally, other LTAP Centers shared their materials, experience, software, expertise, and instructors to help get the project started.
Florida Traffic Safety Training Program (FTSTP)
Since the late 80s, the Florida Technology Transfer (T2) Center1 has partnered with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Safety Office to provide the traffic safety training necessary to reduce fatalities and injuries on the State and Federal Highway system in Florida. Local agencies, private organizations and FDOT personnel have reaped the benefits of this low cost, regionally available training.
At its conception, the FTSTP started by offering a traffic safety course through
the vocational technical (vo-tech) center in Ft. Myers, Florida, which became
the first Regional Center. This arrangement provided the benefits of using an
existing and well functioning facility with a local constituency and staff to
support the program. Qualified instructors were identified and became employees
of the school system. The FTSTP has expanded to six centers and ten courses,
which are scheduled to meet the demand in each region. The six Regional Centers,
all housed in existing vo-tech schools, have staff and instructors totaling
around 36, with a full time Traffic Safety Coordinator in the T2 Center. In
addition, a seventh Regional Center is planned for the program in South Florida.
1. Florida Technology Transfer (T2) Center is an umbrella organization which houses various technology transfer and training entities including: LTAP, Traffic Safety, Rural Technology Assistance Program, Transportation Industrial Alliance, formerly Child Passenger Safety, and others. All their programs and projects are integrated to ensure efficient delivery and to strengthen the overall effort.
Using existing facilities is a win-win situation for both the T2 Center and the vo-tech schools, providing a valuable partnership with a university and local access for participants. The Florida T2 Quarterly Newsletter carries a schedule of dates, locations, and contacts for all 10 traffic safety courses currently being offered. Each Regional Center takes registration, provides location and curriculum, grades all tests and transmits the results via an email database to the Traffic Safety Coordinator for generation of certificates and inclusion in the master database.
The program also offers the provision of training delivered to an organization at its own facility by sending a "Circuit Rider" to teach courses requested by the organization. Additionally, the Regional Center facilities are used to provide training from other programs, such as the LTAP. This partnership makes for easy insertion of other courses as dictated by new legislation or other regulations within the State. To date, the FTSTP has offered over 1,200 courses and trained nearly 19,000 transportation and public works employees. The present course offerings, ranging in length from one day to four days, include Basic, Intermediate and Advanced Maintenance of Traffic, Levels I, II and III Signs and Markings, Levels I, II, and III Signals, and Pilot/Escort Flagging. The FTSTP offers participants both FDOT qualification and, for some courses, International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA) certification.
The Florida T2 Center's traffic safety accomplishments include:
In addition to the 10 courses currently offered through the Regional Centers, the following courses have also been developed and presented or are being explored with the T2 Center's partners:
The T2 Center's future project possibilities include:
Tips for Success
The information contained on the following table is based on the report entitled
"Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) Safety Activities 2000"
which was developed by the LTAP Clearinghouse in 2001.
| LTAP/ TTAP Center |
Work Zone Safety & Traffic Control |
OSHA issues |
Incident Mgnt |
Safety Mgnt | Roadway Safety Improvement | Road Safety Audit | Accident Analysis | Data Collection & Analysis | Traffic Engineering | Traffic Control & Traffic Cont. Devices | Highway-Rail Grade Crossing | Enforcement | Speed Mgnt | Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety | Older Driver & Ped. Highway Design | Human Factors | Impaired Driving | Defensive Driving | Roadside/Roadway Design & Safety | Road & Bridge Maintenance | Hazardous Materials | Tort Liability & Risk Mgnt | FEMA | LTAP/TTAP Center |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | x | x | x | x | AL | |||||||||||||||||||
| AZ | x | x | x | x | AZ | |||||||||||||||||||
| AR | x | x | x | AR | ||||||||||||||||||||
| CA | CA | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| CO | x | x | CO | |||||||||||||||||||||
| CT | x | x | x | CT | ||||||||||||||||||||
| DE | x | x | x | DE | ||||||||||||||||||||
| FL | x | x | x | x | x | FL | ||||||||||||||||||
| GA | x | x | x | x | GA | |||||||||||||||||||
| HI | x | x | HI | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ID | x | x | ID | |||||||||||||||||||||
| IL | x | x | x | IL | ||||||||||||||||||||
| IN | x | x | IN | |||||||||||||||||||||
| IA | x | x | x | x | IA | |||||||||||||||||||
| KS | x | x | x | x | KS | |||||||||||||||||||
| KY | x | x | x | x | KY | |||||||||||||||||||
| LA | x | x | x | x | LA | |||||||||||||||||||
| ME | x | x | x | x | ME | |||||||||||||||||||
| MD | x | x | x | x | x | MD | ||||||||||||||||||
| MA | x | x | MA | |||||||||||||||||||||
| MI | x | x | MI | |||||||||||||||||||||
| MN | x | x | MN | |||||||||||||||||||||
| MS | x | x | MS | |||||||||||||||||||||
| MO | x | x | x | x | MO | |||||||||||||||||||
| MT | x | x | MT | |||||||||||||||||||||
| NE | x | NE | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| NV | x | x | x | x | x | x | NV | |||||||||||||||||
| NH | x | x | NH | |||||||||||||||||||||
| NJ | x | x | x | x | x | NJ | ||||||||||||||||||
| NM | x | x | x | x | NM | |||||||||||||||||||
| NY | x | NY | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| NC | x | x | x | x | NC | |||||||||||||||||||
| ND | x | x | ND | |||||||||||||||||||||
| OH | x | x | x | x | x | OH | ||||||||||||||||||
| OK | x | OK | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| OR | x | x | x | x | x | OR | ||||||||||||||||||
| PA | x | x | x | x | x | x | PA | |||||||||||||||||
| PR | x | x | PR | |||||||||||||||||||||
| RI | x | x | x | x | RI | |||||||||||||||||||
| SC | x | x | SC | |||||||||||||||||||||
| SD | x | x | x | x | SD | |||||||||||||||||||
| TN | x | x | x | x | TN | |||||||||||||||||||
| TX | x | x | x | TX | ||||||||||||||||||||
| UT | x | x | x | UT | ||||||||||||||||||||
| VT | x | x | x | VT | ||||||||||||||||||||
| VA | x |
