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.
48 This synthesis shows clear activity, interest, and need for continued transportation workforce strategies. The state DOTs, LTAPs, universities, and private partners providing leadership and training are keenly aware of the broader U.S. workforce in general and have developed a robust and diverse set of professional training and practice. The literature review, survey, and case examples revealed the following key findings: ⢠There is no standard definition or understanding about workforce development. There is wide variation in the ways that state DOTs and LTAPs frame their characterizations of work- force development, though the recurring theme across all respondents was a focus on training and skills. As a result, there is no clear consensus about how to handle many workforce chal- lenges and most do not differentiate between working development and workforce planning. The state DOTs appear to rely on LTAPs for training and education for technological skills, with state DOTs focusing on so-called âsoft skillsâ such as crisis management and managing conflict. There appears to be a need to incorporate leadership training into programs for the current and future workforce. ⢠The institutional structures are different from state to state. Relatedly, statesâ approaches to workforce planning and development at DOTs and LTAPs also vary. In less than one-third of the states, the DOTs and LTAPs are closely coordinated and always work collaboratively and share resources and communication outlets. Others are not as cohesive and operate indepen- dently from one another without sharing costs. Several of the survey responses note develop- ment opportunities through universities and private contractors. ⢠There is a range of options for funding. The FHWA provides $150,000 each year to LTAPs that must be matched by state and local resources, though this âflatâ amount does not vary based on state size or complexity. While several states provide funding beyond the required match, the budgetary challenges in certain states mean the funding is precarious and in danger of cuts. There may also be opportunities for partnerships with the myriad other transporta- tion workforce organizations, associations, and/or community colleges. ⢠Practices are clearly changing to address new challenges facing the industry. The trans- portation sector is facing many of the same opportunities and challenges as the larger U.S. workforce in general, though some are also unique to transportation. For example, the most commonly identified non-personal reason for employees to leave transportation agencies is compensation: including both salary and benefits. This complicates efforts to replenish a retiring workforce, and the need to recruit, retrain, and retain existing workers as industry needs shift and technologies evolve. These macro themes are slowly finding their way into state DOT and LTAP programming. ⢠The primary focus remains on traditional highway/roadway planning and programming. The state DOT and LTAP coursework, programs, and monitoring are beginning to evolve to reflect a more multimodal nature of transportation, but the emphasis remains on highway C H A P T E R 5 Conclusions
Conclusions 49 engineering, safety, and equipment operations. This is understandable given the original mis- sion and state DOTs and LTAPs, but with the changing nature of the workforce, replenish- ment may depend on casting a wider net. The skills required in transportation departments today and in the future go beyond the traditional construction, maintenance, and operations missions of agencies. Overall, this synthesis finds that transportation workforce strategies are highly decentralized with no national standards for operations, planning, or programming. This is not necessarily a criticism because there is tremendous variation in the transportation workforce needs from state to state. However, it means there is little documentation of best practices, making it difficult to know what innovation can be transferred from state to state. Therefore, future research should focus on developing a national perspective for transpor- tation workforce development and the need for a national recognition for evidence-based methodology and further research into peer-to-peer learning. This approach would address standardization and benchmarking in order for states to learn from each other. Key areas that could be addressed include: ⢠Advancing a clear definition for transportation workforce development. A common defini- tion and characterization would help clarify both the traditional needs inherent in workforce development as well as future trends. Greater attention is needed to determine the distinctions among workforce development, workforce planning, and succession planning. ⢠Understanding how to improve workplace and job quality. The most commonly identified non-personal reason for employees to leave was compensation, including both salary and benefits. With ongoing funding and budgetary challenges in many states, their competitive proposition to attract and retain workers may lie in a better balance between work and per- sonal life or flexible work arrangements. ⢠Developing options for new multimodal coursework. There is certainly a need for tradi- tional roadway engineering, safety, and equipment/tool technical instruction. However, states should also consider expanding their portfolios of course offerings and focus on multimodalism, planning, as well as managerial and leadership âsoft skills.â One thing is clear: The work and need for state DOT and LTAP workforce strategies will remain of paramount importance and must continue to evolve to meet the needs of a changing workforce and industry.