A Strategic Approach to Transforming Traffic Safety Culture to Reduce Deaths and Injuries (2018)

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.

F-1 Appendix F – Recommendations for Information Included in Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Survey of Traffic Safety Culture In this appendix, we provide recommendations for developing a request for proposal (RFP) to measure traffic safety culture using a survey methodology. These recommendations relate to information that would assist responding entities in replying to the RFP as well as information relevant for contracting agencies to evaluate submitted proposals. Examples are provided from a recent RFP awarded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to obtain a state level representative survey of traffic safety culture in Minnesota. Responding Entity Two of the more important sections of information from the perspective of the responding entity are the agency context from which the RFP purpose emerged and the agency formulation of the expected work scope. Context It is helpful to those who may respond to an RFP to understand the broader context for the request for the survey. By understanding this context, the response can be tailored to need of the requesting agency. In particular, the response can be formulated in terms of specific goals and research questions that directly satisfy the agency purpose in generating the RFP. For example, in the boxed example below, MnDOT articulates not only the broader context to which this particular RFP must relate, but also the intended purpose of the survey including number of key questions that the resulting survey should address. Safety is one of Mn/DOT’s core values. It is Mn/DOTs goal to develop a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system. Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) is one of Mn/DOT’s flagship initiatives. Safety culture is becoming a widely recognized part of roadway safety and a key to reaching the TZD goals. While some funding programs, such as Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) focus on infrastructure, safety culture encompasses the human component to roadway safety. The roadway safety culture of Minnesotans is unknown, which presents great challenges. We need to know the public perceptions of roadway safety better.

F-2 What are Minnesotans’ values toward roadway safety, roadway safety legislation, and traffic enforcement (Are roadways safe enough or need to be safer ? )?, Do Minnesotans identify any leaders in roadway safety (who are they and how are they leaders)? What symbols to Minnesotans assign to the roadways? Are these symbols associated with safety? What are Minnesotans roadway norms? (What are the customary practices in regards to roadway safety i.e. what do friends, neighbors and family do?) How does the public interact with transportation infrastructure and safety installations? Are safety installations valued and utilized? Why or why not? Mn/DOT invests a great deal of funds into transportation safety improvements which are presumed to be publicly accepted and appropriately utilized. Such installations, if not publicly accepted, are not utilized to their full capacity or, in some cases, face removal due to public disapproval (complaints). Consequently, countless staff time hours and department dollars are spent providing the public and media with explanations of why an installation is important or removing installations altogether. On a larger scale this unknown leaves the department with questions. How does Mn/DOT strategically invest roadway safety that will garner the greatest safety benefit given Minnesota’s roadway safety culture? Once those investments are made, how does the public discourse on roadway safety change and how has the roadway safety culture changed? Does a change in safety culture contribute to reductions in fatal and severe crashes? On a smaller scale, community and public acceptance of safety installations, particularly new innovative installations, is challenging to predict without knowing the safety culture. Without public acceptance the full safety benefit may not be realized. There is great importance to engaging the public before, during, and after an installation in order to garner acceptance of some installations and fully realize the safety benefits. Work Scope Similar to the previous discussion on Context, it is helpful to those who may respond to have the expected scope of work specified by the agency. Whereas there may be occasions where an agency either does not have a specific scope in mind or deliberately wishes to invite respondents to offer creative work scope solutions to achieve the purpose stated in the context. Importantly, the work plan should specify not only those tasks that relate to the use of the survey, but also those tasks involved in the development of the survey. For example, in the boxed example below, MnDOT listed not only the tasks involved in the development of the survey tool such as the necessary formative work (Item A), but also the required information to document the development and use of the survey (Item B). Finally, MnDOT specifies requirements for the data collection using the survey (Item C). Collectively, this work scope information will allow responses to consider the

F-3 type of survey, size of sample, and method of sample collection they consider is best suited for the context and work scope of this RFP. The final goal is to develop an ethnographic data collection tool with which to measure Minnesota roadway safety culture over time. This tool should identify Minnesotan’s core roadway safety values at multiple time points and move beyond market research survey of attitudes. The data collection tool should link what people say they believe and explain they key drivers behind their beliefs. This tool may be administered at regular intervals through phone interview and focus groups or other appropriate methodologies. The full scope of this project should include A. Develop a taxonomy for Minnesota Roadway Safety Culture 1. Develop a taxonomy that informs the development of a Minnesota specific traffic safety culture assessment tool. This taxonomy should identify key factors (such as sociodemographic characteristics) that may serve as predictors of roadway safety values. 2. Exhaustive list of cultural, societal, endogenous, and exogenous factors that may need to be considered for the development of an assessment tool These factors should be evaluated for at state level as well as the TZD Regional level 3. A list and description of the most prominent traffic safety culture issues facing MnDOT currently that are relative to Minnesota 4. Supporting literature review for the different factors within the taxonomy B. Develop an Ethnographic Tool to Measure Minnesota’s Roadway Safety Culture 1. Based on the taxonomy, develop an ethnographic data collection tool to measure Minnesota roadway safety culture, which may be repeated at regular intervals to measure Minnesota roadway safety culture, which may be repeated at regular intervals) 2. Written user instructions for data collection tool and supporting scoring systems (if any) 3. Supporting literature review to the data collection tool 4. Pilot study to assess effectiveness of data collection tool which would include an evaluation of effectiveness and reliability testing C. Collect baseline data from a US Census representative sample of Minnesota 1. Data collected should be geo-coded in order to disaggregate to TZD Regions 2. Reliability and validity testing of data collection tool 3. Written report of baseline findings The end product should be a usable tool that will inform Mn/DOT and partnering agencies of Minnesotan’s core roadway safety values. Some areas that should be addressed, include but are not limited to: Minnesotan’s priorities toward transportation access (economic) vs. safe travel, attitudes toward other roadway users – other motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc., attitudes toward roadway safety laws, safety installations, violators of roadway safety laws, perceptions of what roadway safety means, and locus of control within roadway safety. Contracting Agencies From the perspective of the contracting agencies that generate the RFP, there are several important information requests that can be used to evaluate the credibility and competence of the submitted responses including their proposed process for developing the

F-4 survey tool, rationale for selecting an underlying behavioral model, and prior experience using similar survey methodologies. Survey Process As discussed in Appendix E, there are existing best practices guidelines for the process of developing a reliable and valid survey tool. Therefore, we recommend that contracting agencies include in the RFP the explicit requirement that the responding agencies describe their specific approach to each step of the survey design process. This would give the agency assurance that each step would be undertaken by the responding agency. It also will give the agency an opportunity to evaluate the methods proposed by the responding entity that affect survey representativeness including sample size and delivery method. Indeed, the methods proposed by the responding entity for each step of the survey development process should be reviewed in relation to the criteria discussed in the main body of the report for quality data collection; namely, representativeness, accuracy, sensitivity, and prediction. Behavioral Model Throughout the report, we have discussed the important of an underlying model (see Figure 6) not only in defining traffic safety culture, but also for guiding data analysis and developing effective TSCB strategies. Thus, it is imperative that the survey development process stipulated in the RFP require that responding entity specifies and justifies a particular behavioral model in their proposal. This should also include an explanation of how this model will be used to guide the development of the survey, analysis of data, and interpretation of results. Collectively, this information could be requested on a “Methodology” section of the RFP. Upon reviewing the submitted proposals, the contracting agency will want to determine if the specified model seems adequate for the purpose of the RFP. This would include judging the quality of the provide rationale given for selecting the model and the explanation for use of the model. Survey Experience The contracting agency can determine the level experience and skill of the responding entity in relation to survey methodologies from several sources. First, the RFP could request a review or listing of literature and projects the responding entity feels is “relevant” to the context and scope. This can then be reviewed to assess the completeness of the

F-5 information provided. However, this assumes that the contracting agency has sufficient awareness of this literature and project domain. Second, the RFP can request that the responding agency directly address the issue of their experience and skill by requiring them to describe and give examples of previous survey projects they have successfully undertaken. Third, the RFP can request that the responding entity discuss how the results of the survey will be applied in practice. This establishes the experience and skills of the entity in terms of being able to relate their proposal back to the project purpose described in the RFP context. In the example below, MnDOT stated the implementation efforts themselves, but the RFP could also direct the responding entity to define the application of the results themselves. Part A: The findings from this project will inform MnDOT of the array of factors that need to be considered when addressing traffic safety culture in Minnesota TZD program development both statewide and at regional level. Part C: The baseline findings for the data collection tool will offer a snapshot of how the public views roadway safety and the priorities placed on roadway safety. These findings will inform TZD program development both statewide and at regional level. The data collection tool developed will serve to measure safety culture changes over time to clearly identify areas of progress and opportunities for improvement in roadway safety. Baseline findings and ongoing data collection will also serve to identify when the public may be less supportive of safety installations. By identifying potential public acceptance issues before an installation, the public can actively be engaged and informed of safety installation process, the need for the safety installation, and how the installation will improve roadway safety.