Communicating the Value of Preservation: A Playbook (2012)

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.

170 Appendix D Additional Project Research D-1: State DOT Survey Results D-2: Workshop Summary Appendix D: Additional Project Research

Communicating the Value of Preservation: A Playbook 171 D-1: State DOT Survey Results

172 Survey Overview As part of NCHRP Project 14-24, Task 1, the research team surveyed all 52 AASHTO members electronically in June 2011 to gather baseline information from state DOTs regarding:  Significance of infrastructure preservation among DOTs and their stakeholders;  General DOT communications capabilities;  Infrastructure preservation messages used by DOTs and how they are developed; and  Who DOTs are communicating with about infrastructure preservation issues and how they deliver messages. Survey questions designed to explore these topics were developed by the research team and reviewed by the NCHRP 14-24 Panel members. On June 6, 2011, a request for survey responses was sent via an AASHTO staff e-mail from Lloyd Brown to all members of three AASHTO committees including the Standing Committee on Highways (SCOH), SCOH’s Subcommittee on Maintenance, and the Standing Committee on Finance and Administration’s Subcommittee on Public Affairs. The survey was closed on June 24, 2011. The survey was administered electronically via a web interface using Survey Monkey, a leading provider of web-based survey solutions. This Appendix begins with the research team’s summary observations about the survey results and their implications for understanding community-wide communications practices among DOTs, followed by a detailed breakdown of question-by-question results. Ten Summary Observations about Survey Results With 23 state DOTs represented in the survey, some general observations about the likely state-of-the-practice in infrastructure preservation communication among the broader DOT community may be inferred from the survey results: 1. All DOTs view infrastructure preservation as a top priority and many are struggling to meet desired condition targets; 2. Most DOTs enjoy good credibility with their state legislatures and most think that their stakeholders share a concern about the importance of infrastructure preservation; 3. All DOTs have strong communications capabilities; but in a significant share of DOTs, communications staff may not be actively engaged in crafting communications strategies on infrastructure preservation with this role often being led by executive leadership or engineering staff; Appendix D-1: State DOT Survey Results

Communicating the Value of Preservation: A Playbook 173 4. Most DOTs expect their consumers to care more about road smoothness than user cost savings; but they rarely track stakeholder opinions about maintenance and preservation beyond following press clippings, public hearing feedback, or anecdotal evidence; 5. Most, but not all DOTs are communicating externally on a regular basis about infrastructure preservation needs; their messages often emphasize the cost effectiveness of a strong program and the importance of protecting past investments; 6. A healthy share of DOTs remain skeptical about the value of communications in helping to ensure strong infrastructure preservation programs; 7. State legislatures are a primary audience for almost all DOTs; most also communicate with local elected officials and local governments, but communication with business groups or the general public about infrastructure preservation is less common; 8. DOTs’ preferred delivery mechanisms for messages include press releases, presentations and web-based materials, but few DOTs have dedicated webpages for infrastructure preservation messages or use newer social media channels to communicate preservation messages; 9. Few DOTs are customizing infrastructure preservation messages to different target audiences; messages usually attempt to be one-size-fits-all; and 10. DOTs usually have limited capability to track the impact of their maintenance and preservation communications. Survey Methodology and Response Rate  Survey Achieved a 44 Percent AASHTO Member Response Rate Over a two week period, a total of 40 responses to the survey were collected including one anonymous response, one FWHA Division Office (Oklahoma) response, and responses from the following 23 states, representing 44 percent of all AASHTO members: Alaska (5) Arkansas (2) Colorado (4) Connecticut Delaware Idaho (2) Kansas (2) Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Missouri Montana (2) Nevada New York N. Carolina (2) Ohio S. Carolina (2) Tennessee (2) Utah Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin (2) Wyoming Note: Some DOTs submitted responses from more than one staff person, as indicated in parentheses above.

174  Respondents Most Frequently Categorize Themselves as ‘Senior/Executive Managers’ Respondents self-identified the type(s) of role they serve within their agency. Results are shown in Figure D-1-1 (39 respondents answered this question.) Figure D-1-1: Survey Respondents’ Roles Note: Respondents were given the opportunity to choose more than one role, so results do not tally to 100 percent. Among the most common categories of titles provided by those who responded were variations of ‘Chief Engineer’ (8 respondents), ‘State Maintenance Engineer’ (6 respondents), and ‘Public Affairs Officer’ or ‘Communications Director’ (6 respondents). Infrastructure Maintenance and Preservation in DOTs The survey asked several questions intended to gauge the significance of infrastructure maintenance and preservation as an issue within DOTs:  Most Respondents Think Preservation is a Top Priority and a Challenge for their Agency Almost all (97 percent) of respondents agree or strongly agree that infrastructure preservation is among their agency’s top priorities (32 respondents answered this question). Most (88 percent) agree or strongly agree that preservation needs outpace their agency’s ability to pay for them (32 respondents answered this question). About two-thirds of respondents, meanwhile, agree or strongly agree that their agency struggles to meet its pavement and bridge condition targets (31 respondents answered this question). These findings are shown in Figure D-1-2. 39% 15% 33% 54% Technical or engineering Communications Policy/planning Senior/executive manager Appendix D-1: State DOT Survey Results

Communicating the Value of Preservation: A Playbook 175 Figure D-1-2: Survey Respondents’ Characterization of Preservation Needs  Most Respondents Think their Agency Enjoys Good Credibility with Elected Officials and that their Stakeholders See Infrastructure Preservation as a Critical Transportation Issue As shown in Figure D-1-3, most (81 percent) respondents agree or strongly agree that their agency enjoys good credibility with elected officials and the public (31 respondents answered this question) and about three quarters (74 percent) of all respondents agree or strongly agree that their stakeholders see infrastructure preservation as a critical transportation issue (31 respondents answered this question). Figure D-1-3: Survey Respondents’ Perceptions of Agency Credibility and Stakeholder Priorities 81% agree their agency enjoys good credibility with elected officials and the public 74% agree their agency's stakeholders think infrastructure preservation is a critical tran ortation issue 68% agree their state struggles to meet targets 88% agree preservation needs outpace revenues in their state 97% agree preservation is a top priority in their state sp

176  Respondents are Split on Whether Stakeholders are Satisfied with Infrastructure Conditions As shown in Figure D-1-4, only about half (52 percent) of all respondents agree or strongly agree that most or all highway users are satisfied with infrastructure conditions. The remainder either disagree or are neutral about stakeholders satisfaction (31 respondents answered this question).  A Majority of Respondents Think Consumers See Smoother Roads as the Greatest Value of a Strong Preservation Program, not Cost Savings As shown in Figure D-1-5, more than half (60 percent) of all respondents think that consumers value smoother roads as the most important benefit of a strong infrastructure preservation program versus improved safety, lower long-term infrastructure costs, or reduced user costs. (30 respondents answered this question). Figure D-1-5: Survey Respondents’ Perceptions of What Consumers Value Most About a Strong Infrastructure Preservation Program 52% agree most stakeholders are satisfied with infrastructure conditions Figure D-1-4: Share of Respondents that Agree Stakeholders are Satisfied with Infrastructure Conditions 10% 10% 20% 60% Lower auto repair costs Lower infrastructure costs for taxpayers in the long run Safer driving conditions Smoother roads Appendix D-1: State DOT Survey Results

Communicating the Value of Preservation: A Playbook 177 General Communications Capabilities at DOTs The survey asked several questions intended to provide a broad overview of agency communications capabilities:  Typical Respondent’s DOT has 4 to 20 FTE Communications Staff According to the survey responses, the median respondent’s DOT has between 4 and 10 headquarters FTE staff dedicated to communications and 0 to 10 dedicated communications FTE staff in its district offices.  Typical Respondent’s DOT Relies on Combination of Staff to Develop Infrastructure Preservation Communications As shown in Figure D-1-6, a DOT’s executive staff is most likely to be actively engaged in developing infrastructure preservation messages. Internal planning, technical, or communications staff are all equally likely to be involved, according to the survey responses. Use of external communications firms to develop infrastructure preservation messages is not prevalent (28 respondents answered this question). Figure D-1-6: Survey Respondents’ Characterization of Who is Actively Engaged in Developing Infrastructure Preservation Messages Note: Respondents were given the opportunity to choose more than one category of staff, so results do not tally to 100 percent.  Respondents View Press Relations and Websites as Their DOTs’ Strongest Communications Capabilities; Expertise in Graphic Design, Photo/Video, and Social Media Perceived as Less Strong Survey participants more frequently rated their DOT’s website, presentations, and press relations capabilities as adequate or extensive; while they more frequently 81% 54% 54% 54% 23% Executive staff Planning staff Internal technical staff Internal communications staff External communications firm

178 Appendix D-1: State DOT Survey Results

Communicating the Value of Preservation: A Playbook 179 Infrastructure Preservation Message Content The survey asked several questions about the content of agencies’ infrastructure preservation messages, how they are developed, and their perceived impact:  Protecting Past Investments/Cost Effectiveness of Preservation are DOTs’ Most Common Preservation Message Themes All but one of the 23 responding states indicate they have developed one or more messages about infrastructure preservation needs. As shown in Figure D-1-9, most responding states’ messages share similar themes, with ‘cost effectiveness of preservation’ and ‘importance of protecting past investments’ among the most common message elements. Figure D-1-9: Frequency and Content of Common DOT Preservation Message Themes D O T s a r e M o r e L i k e  Respondents Most Frequently Use a Combination of Budget and Asset Management Systems Data to Develop Infrastructure Preservation Messages; They Don’t Usually Use Polling Information or Focus Groups When developing infrastructure preservation messages, respondents indicate that they most commonly use pavement and bridge management systems data (29 respondents use) and revenue and budget information (22 respondents use). They are much less likely to use national studies (8 respondents use), focus groups (3 respondents use) or polling (respondents use). Results are shown in Figure D-1-10 (29 respondents answered this question.) 12 11 7 7 5 3 3 2 1 1 Preservation is cost effective Protect past investments Revenues are insufficient Description of currrent/future system condition Advantages of right action, in right place, at right time Preservation is our main function We use performance targets We use technology Users pay more in vehicle costs on bad roads The system is aging

180 Figure D-1-10: Frequency with Which Respondents Rely on Selected Sources of Information to Develop Infrastructure Preservation Messages Few Respondents Use Polls or Web Metrics to Track Message Impacts Only two respondents indicate they use public opinion surveys to quantify the impacts of their preservation messages and only one respondent reports tracking web metrics, like YouTube views. By contrast, a reasonable share of respondents track more qualitative measures such as positive media stories, direct outcomes (such as increased funding), or word of mouth. Some respondents, however, do not make any efforts to track the impacts of their messages. (22 respondents answered this question.) Results are shown in Figure D-1-11 (22 respondents answered this question.) Figure D-1-11: Survey Respondents’ Use of Message Impact Tracking Metrics 29 22 21 18 11 10 8 5 3 1 Pavement/bridge management systems data Revenue/budget information Predicted condition data Performance measurement data Life cycle cost data Public comments, via pothole reporting etc Interviews with technical staff National studies Focus groups Polling 9 9 8 6 2 1 Number of positive stories in media Tracking direct outcomes (e.g., increased funding, no decreased funding) Word of mouth/anecdotal evidence Do not attempt to quantify impact Change in public opinion surveys Web metrics Appendix D-1: State DOT Survey Results

Communicating the Value of Preservation: A Playbook 181 Infrastructure Preservation Message Audiences and Delivery The survey asked several questions about the audiences for infrastructure preservation messages and how they are delivered: State and Local Elected Officials, Local Governments are Most Frequently Cited Audiences for Preservation Messages State legislators top respondents’ list of primary audiences for their infrastructure preservation messages, with 93 percent communicating with state legislators. Other popular audiences include local elected officials, and other local agencies. Between half and two-thirds of responding agencies communicate with industry partners, business groups, federal legislators, the media and the public. Less common audiences for infrastructure preservation messages include individual businesses, advocacy organizations, law enforcement, and other state agencies. These results are shown in Figure D-1-12 (29 respondents answered this question.) Figure D-1-12: Audiences that DOTs are Communicating with About Preservation Note: Respondents were given the opportunity to choose more than one category of audiences, so results do not tally to 100 percent.

182  Most Respondents’ DOTs do not Segment Infrastructure Preservation Communications by Audience No clear practices for segmenting audiences are observable from the survey responses, which was answered by 27 respondents. Most commonly, respondents indicate they either do not segment communications by audience or they do not know if such segmentation occurs. Results are shown in Figure D-1-13. Figure D-1-13: Segmentation of Audiences by Respondents  Website Comments, News Clippings, and Public Hearing Comments are Most Common Methods to Track Stakeholders’ Opinions Respondents’ DOTs use a variety of methods to track stakeholder opinions. The most popular methods are website comments, news clippings and public hearings. Opinion polling, focus groups, and satisfaction surveys are less widely used (31 respondents answered this question). These results are illustrated in Figure D-1-14. 9 6 5 3 2 2 Don't segment audience Don't know By geography By industry By rural/urban split By topics of interest By political affiliation or boundaries By demographics Appendix D-1: State DOT Survey Results

Communicating the Value of Preservation: A Playbook 183 Figure D-1-14: Methods DOTs Use to Track Stakeholder Opinions  Press Releases, Presentations, Websites are Top Three Most Frequently Used Message Delivery Mechanisms DOTs are using a variety of traditional and contemporary methods to deliver the message about preservation. Press releases, websites, and verbal communication by way of presentation or one-on-one meetings are the most frequently used methods of communication, but new and innovative social networking methods, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube also are quite common. These results are illustrated in Figure D-1-15. 22 20 20 12 8 7 6 4 4 4 4 Website comments News clip tracking (Subscribe to clip service or gather clips) Public hearings or meetings Satisfaction surveys (usually phone or mail surveys) Focus groups Opinion polling Comment cards Do not track stakeholders opinions Online communities Road rallies Don't know

184 Figure D-1-15: Most Common Communication Delivery Methods Appendix D-1: State DOT Survey Results

Communicating the Value of Preservation: A Playbook 185 D-2: Workshop Summary

186 Summary of the Workshop Members of the consultant team conducted a successful workshop based on the Playbook at the TRB Asset Management Conference in April of 2012. The goals of the workshop were to test the Playbook’s concepts with a real audience of DOT practitioners and to provide attendees with an engaging and educational exercise that simulated the process of crafting a successful preservation campaign. The workshop was well attended; approximately 60 attendees participated in the three-hour interactive session. The agenda for the workshop followed the chapters within the Playbook. It began with an overview presentation that touched on the goals of the overall project, the components of the Playbook, and intended outcomes of the workshop. Attendees were then placed into groups of eight to ten participants and guided through a series of exercises designed to develop a theoretical preservation messaging campaign. Each group was given one of three customized scenarios to serve as the backdrop of their effort: Scenario one in which the State’s system was in poor condition and there was little support for transportation, scenario two in which the DOT was just barely meeting their preservation targets and was concerned about future commitment to the cause, or scenario three in which the system was in good condition but the political climate was focused on cutting taxes and shrinking government. The workshop exercises were split into distinct activities that aligned with the Playbook elements: audience identification, message development, and message delivery. Before each activity, the consultant team walked through the principles of each element and gave guidance one how to approach it. In the first activity, participants were tasked with identifying their most important audiences, brainstorming what those audiences value, and developing an influence vs. interest matrix. The outcome of the activity was that groups were able to choose a priority audience segment or segments to focus their campaign on. The specific results varied slightly by group, but most often the groups chose to focus at least in some way on elected officials and various stakeholder interest groups. In the second activity, participants created specific preservation messages. To increase the number of ideas generated, individual participants were first given five minutes to brainstorm ideas on their own. The groups then reconvened and individuals shared their ideas for discussion. The teams began to prioritize and select one or two key themes and some supporting messages or message concepts that they agreed could most effectively communicate with their identified priority audiences. Creativity was in abundance; highlights included the slogans, “No Assets Left Behind,” and “Pave Me Now or Pay me Later.” In the third and final group activity, the teams were asked to develop a list of message delivery mechanisms that would most effectively communicate their newly crafted messages to their priority audiences. At this stage of the workshop, the various campaigns began to take shape; some groups focused on presentations and one-on-one meetings with the most influential audience members, others chose full-fledged social media campaigns complete with YouTube scripts and Facebook pages, and still others focused on more traditional media efforts such as press releases and ribbon cuttings at preservation projects. Appendix D-2: Workshop Summary

Communicating the Value of Preservation: A Playbook 187 At the conclusion of the workshop, each team presented to the entire workshop audience a brief overview of their campaign. They also were asked to provide feedback on the workshop or the playbook concepts. Generally the feedback was very positive and there were a few constructive comments. The most poignant observation was that some of the groups focused too much on the symptoms of a failing system (such as potholes), rather than on the importance of taking action before these symptoms come to light. This advice hit home with the workshop participants and was recognized as one of the challenges of effectively delivering an effective preservation communication campaign. Overall the workshop was successful and demonstrated the benefit that hands-on activities are an effective way to implement and promote the findings of NCHRP projects.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation