Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects (2022)

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 A P P E N D I X B Survey Responses Select the state you represent or indicate if Washington, DC: [State dropdown menu] 1. Does your state require that a specific percentage of spending be directed at new active transportation capital projects (not including maintenance, operations, or personnel)? Yes No Alabama X Alaska X Arizona X Arkansas X Connecticut X Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Louisiana X Maine X Maryland X Michigan X Minnesota X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X New Mexico X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma X Oregon X

Survey Responses 49   TOTAL 11 31 If yes, what percentage of spending is required to be directed at new active transportation capital projects? _________ (Fill in the blank) • 18% • Up to 2% of flexible funding. • Aiming for 10% of HSIP funds to incorporate active transportation. • Currently, it is a state requirement to spend 2 percent of eligible federal funds on bicycle projects. We provide an annual report to the state legislature on bikeway projects. Last year's report demonstrated 6.7 percent of eligible federal funds were allocated to bikeway projects. There is a bill at the state legislature to increase this amount to 5 percent. We support this bill and expect that it will become law. • 1% of [State] Transportation Funds. • 0.6% for bicycle facilities, 2.5% for pedestrian facilities (which gets interpreted as ADA compliance). • N/A • For federal TA funding 50% is designated from TA set-asides funds. • Minimum 1% of state highway funds. • 0.53% • 0.43% of motor vehicle funds for cities/counties, 0.3% highway funds for state. See Chapter 47.30 RCW: TRAILS AND PATHS (wa.gov). Pennsylvania X Rhode Island X South Carolina No Response No Response South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Washington X Washington, DC X Wisconsin X Wyoming X

50 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects 2. Are Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds used for active transportation projects in your state? Select all that apply. Yes - for stand-alone active transportation projects Yes - for larger projects that include an active transportation component No Alabama X X Alaska X X Arizona X Arkansas X Connecticut X X Georgia X X Hawaii X Idaho X X Illinois X X Indiana X X Iowa X Kansas X X Kentucky X Louisiana X X Maine X X Maryland X Michigan X X Minnesota X X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X X New Mexico X X New York X X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X X Oklahoma X Oregon X X Pennsylvania X Rhode Island X South Carolina X X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X X Utah X Vermont X Washington X X Washington, DC X Wisconsin X X Wyoming X TOTAL 26 34 4

Survey Responses 51   If yes, approximately what percentage of annual HSIP funds are spent on the active transportation components of HSIP- funded projects: <1.0% 1.1% - 2.0% 2.1% - 5.0% 5.1% - 10.0% 10.1% - 25.0% >25.0% Not Sure No Response Alabama X Alaska X Arizona X Arkansas X Connecticut X Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Louisiana X Maine X Maryland X Michigan X Minnesota X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X New Mexico X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Washington X Washington, DC X Wisconsin X Wyoming X TOTAL 5 2 5 5 2 1 19 4

52 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects 3. Does your agency use Federal funds for active transportation infrastructure that is a part of larger projects? Yes No Alabama X Alaska X Arizona X Arkansas X Connecticut X Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Louisiana X Maine X Maryland X Michigan X Minnesota X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire No Response No Response New Jersey X New Mexico X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Washington X Washington, DC X Wisconsin X Wyoming X TOTAL 41 1

Survey Responses 53   4. In your agency, is information collected about active transportation investments when they are part of larger projects (e.g., facility type, estimated cost, location)? Yes No Alabama X Alaska X Arizona X Arkansas X Connecticut X Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Louisiana X Maine X Maryland X Michigan X Minnesota X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X New Mexico X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Washington X Washington, DC X Wisconsin X Wyoming X TOTAL 21 22

54 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects 5. Who is responsible for tracking investments in active transportation carried out as part of larger projects? Select all that apply. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Consultants Finance or budget staff Infrastructure tracking staff Performance Management reporting staff Project cost estimators Project managers Other - Please describe Alabama X Alaska Arizona Arkansas X Connecticut X X X Georgia X X X Hawaii X X X X X X Idaho Illinois Indiana X X X X Iowa X X X X Kansas Kentucky Louisiana X Maine Maryland X X X X X X X Michigan Minnesota X X Missouri X X X Montana X X Nebraska Nevada X X X New Hampshire X New Jersey X New Mexico X X X X New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon X X Pennsylvania Rhode Island X X X X X X X South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas X X X Utah Vermont Washington X X X X X Washington, DC X X X X X Wisconsin Wyoming X X X TOTAL 8 10 5 6 6 7 7 14 8

Survey Responses 55   Other responses: • No one • Database staff • This is an "unclear responsibility" that we would ideally like to straighten out in the future, our ADA coordinator does not track all active transportation investments, but is very thorough when it involves projects with ADA components. Project managers and cost estimators are aware of estimated figures, but after construction the information isn't aggregated in an easily accessible fashion. • Ped/Bike/Transit Design Engineer, Highway Safety Engineer • Regional and Active Transportation Planners • State Transportation Improvement Plan • The Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator does not really track the data, rather they (I) am a customer. I complete the League Of American Bicyclists survey and attempt to gather investments data at that time. Note from Synthesis Authors: New Jersey was routed to this question despite indicating they do not track active transportation investments as part of other projects. Their response (“Other” – left blank) was removed for the purposes of analysis.

56 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects 6. What types of information do you collect about these projects? Select all that apply. Facility or treatment type Location Quantity or number of improvements Projects programmed (per fiscal year) Projects completed (per fiscal year) Cost Other - Please describe Alabama X X X X Alaska Arizona Arkansas X X X Connecticut X X X X X Georgia X X X X X Hawaii X X X X X X Idaho Illinois Indiana X X X Iowa X X X X X X Kansas Kentucky Louisiana X X X X Maine Maryland X X X X X Michigan Minnesota X X X Missouri X X X Montana X Nebraska Nevada X X X X X X New Hampshire X X X X New Jersey New Mexico X X New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon X X Pennsylvania Rhode Island X X X X X X X South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas X X X X X X X Utah Vermont Washington X X Washington, DC X X X X Wisconsin Wyoming X X X X X X TOTAL 16 16 15 10 8 17 6

Survey Responses 57   Other responses: • We are required to report bikeway projects to the state legislature annually. There is a bill to add a new requirement to track pedestrian projects in this legislative session, so we'll probably be required to track similar pedestrian facilities in the future. We are already moving in this direction internally. • I would say the information for almost all of these options is available, but, as mentioned above, it is not readily or easily accessible. There is a lot of digging involved so to speak. • We are building better data to reflect these investments and map them for the public. • If ped/bike funding is being used to leverage a larger project, we track all of the info above. If the ped/bike elements are being funded through a different program we just track the portion of the project cost that went to ped/bike improvements for required annual reporting under ORS 366.514. • Consistency with local / state transportation plans • Tracking mechanisms and processes were only recently developed and will take time to achieve full compliance Note from Synthesis Authors: The “Other” responses provided by Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, and Texas were considered to be a refinement or explanation of the choice of other information types, not a different type of information tracked. Their responses were removed from the count of Other information types for the purpose of analysis. In addition, Oregon’s Other response indicated that all types of information are tracked at least in certain circumstances. For the purpose of analysis, the tally for each information type includes Oregon and the tally for Other does not, since no different information type was provided.

58 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects 7. At what point(s) in the project delivery timeline does your agency track or measure active transportation investments that are part of larger projects? Select all that apply. Programming Preliminary design Final design Construction Project completion Independent from the project delivery timeline Other - Please describe Alabama X Alaska Arizona Arkansas X X X X Connecticut X X Georgia X X X Hawaii X Idaho Illinois Indiana X X Iowa X X X X X Kansas Kentucky Louisiana X Maine Maryland X X X Michigan Minnesota X X X Missouri X X Montana X Nebraska Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey New Mexico X X New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon X X Pennsylvania Rhode Island X X X X South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas X X X X X Utah Vermont Washington X X Washington, DC X X Wisconsin Wyoming X X TOTAL 12 5 7 7 8 6 4

Survey Responses 59   Other responses: • The facilities are documented at this time. They are not tracked. • Planning and Design of project components are monitored with help of local jurisdictions but this is not done very systematically. • For stand-alone ped/bike projects and larger projects that ped/bike funds are being added to, we track all phases. For projects that include incidental ped/bike improvements that aren't funded through the ped/bike program, we only track the % of the project work/cost that is ped/bike when the project is programmed. • Denoted within the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Note from Synthesis Authors: All the “Other” responses provided in this question were considered to be a refinement or explanation of the delivery timelines selected, not different delivery timelines. Consequently, Other responses were not tallied for the purpose of analysis. In addition, Oregon’s Other response indicated that information is collected at all delivery timelines other than “Independent from the project delivery timeline” depending on the circumstances. For the purpose of analysis, the tally for each delivery timeline other than the one noted above includes Oregon.

60 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects 8. If you track costs, how does your agency determine what percentage of a larger project cost can be attributed to the active transportation component? Formula ratios/assumptions of total project cost Unit costs for active transportation components Active transportation contributions by local agencies Other - Please describe Alabama X Alaska Arizona Arkansas X Connecticut X Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho Illinois Indiana X Iowa X Kansas Kentucky Louisiana X Maine Maryland X Michigan Minnesota X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska Nevada X New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico X New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon X Pennsylvania Rhode Island X South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas X Utah Vermont Washington X Washington, DC X Wisconsin Wyoming X TOTAL 9 2 1 8

Survey Responses 61   • All of the above - it depends on the project. • N/A, we do have unit costs for "concrete" which a portion would be for sidewalks, but the values are not hashed out cleanly. • EDSM grants exemption if 20% of total project cost is exceeded • ADA projects collect costs. Other AT costs not collected • Both ratios/assumptions and unit costs • We do not. • We have a DOJ audited methodology for calculating ped/bike costs based on bid items and other approved expenses, plus some formula ratios/assumptions. It is very time intensive to calculate every year and we are hoping to adopt a new methodology that can be automated. Note from Synthesis Authors: The “Other” responses provided by Indiana and New Mexico indicated that they do not track costs. Consequently, their Other responses were removed from the tally for the purpose of analysis. Other responses:

62 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects 9. If a roadway project requires the purchase of right-of-way, how is the cost for that purchase allocated to the project? The cost is allocated to the portions of the project that fall within the purchased right-of-way The cost is allocated to portions of the project based on a formula or ratio The cost is allocated to the entire project without being broken down by subgroups Right-of-way costs are not allocated Other - Please describe Alabama X Alaska Arizona Arkansas X Connecticut X Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho Illinois Indiana X Iowa X Kansas Kentucky Louisiana X Maine Maryland X Michigan Minnesota X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska Nevada X New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico X New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon X Pennsylvania Rhode Island X South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas X Utah Vermont Washington X Washington, DC X Wisconsin Wyoming X TOTAL 2 2 7 6 3

Survey Responses 63   • Cost is allocated to the entire project however this would be included in the calculation for 20% (does not mean the project will be cancelled or altered at greater than 20%, just gives designers/PM an out) • The cost is allocated to the portions of the project triggering the r/w requirement (e.g., if we're adding a turn lane and need to purchase r/w to rebuild the sidewalk along the wider cross section, ped/bike is not expected to pay for the r/w or the sidewalk costs; if r/w is required just to accommodate filling a sidewalk gap, ped/bike program pays for the r/w, access management, stormwater, etc.) • TxDOT acquires their right-of-way on a per parcel basis for a project. A parcel is the real property that the land owner owns. Texas protects the landowners. Therefore, the valuations are per market activity and the real property interests that are being acquired, rather than per project subgroups such as "highway" or "active transportation facilities". Note from Synthesis Authors: The “Other” response provided by Louisiana closely matched the available response category of “Right of way costs are not allocated.” Consequently, their Other response was re-categorized to “Right-of-way costs are not allocated” for the purpose of analysis. Other responses:

64 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects 10. Is cost data stored in a searchable central database or is it only tracked and maintained at the project or district level? Central database - statewide Project level / not aggregated Other - Please describe Alabama X Alaska Arizona Arkansas X Connecticut X Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho Illinois Indiana X Iowa X Kansas Kentucky Louisiana X Maine Maryland X Michigan Minnesota X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey New Mexico X New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon X Pennsylvania Rhode Island X South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas X Utah Vermont Washington X Washington, DC X Wisconsin Wyoming X TOTAL 12 6 3

Survey Responses 65   Other responses: • CHIMES is a central database used. Transport List collected unit prices, but not sum of AT facilities. • We have a statewide searchable STIP database that summarizes the cost of each project and amount of funding provided for each project phase from various funding sources. It does not provide detailed project costs (e.g., bid items)

66 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects 11. What are your agency’s reasons and motivations for tracking active transportation investments as part of other transportation projects? Select all that apply: Re po rti ng re qu ir em en ts - Fe de ra l Re po rti ng re qu ir em en ts - St at e Pe rf or m an ce m ea su re a nd pe rf or m an ce -b as ed pl an ni ng t ra ck in g To q ua nti fy in ve st m en ts a cr os s co m m un iti es To m ak e lin ka ge s to c om m un it y go al s an d ad op te d pl an s A s pa rt o f p ro je ct sc or in g or pr io ri ti za ti on To r es po nd t o ci ti ze n, st ak eh ol de r, o r le gi sl ati ve r eq ue st s To r es po nd t o ad vo ca te s To a ss es s po te nti al lo ng -t er m c ha ng es En vi ro nm en ta l ju sti ce re qu ir em en ts / eq ui ty a ss es sm en t A D A r eq ui re m en ts O th er - Pl ea se de sc ri be Alabama X X X Alaska Arizona Arkansas X Connecticut X X X X X X X X X X X Georgia X X X X X X Hawaii X X X X Idaho Illinois Indiana X X X X X Iowa X X Kansas Kentucky Louisiana X X X X X Maine Maryland X X X X X X Michigan Minnesota X X X Missouri X Montana X X Nebraska Nevada X X X X X X X X X X X New Hampshire X X X X New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon X X X X X Pennsylvania Rhode Island X X X X X X X X X X X X South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas X X X X X X X Utah Vermont Washington X X Washington, DC X X X X X Wisconsin Wyoming X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL 8 13 12 8 7 8 11 12 7 4 12 3

Survey Responses 67   Other responses: • ARDOT does not track active transportation investments. The facilities are documented in our design criteria during the design phase. • Complete Streets Policy • Additional opportunities for project bundling / capture of economies of scale Note from Synthesis Authors: The “Other” response provided by Arkansas indicated that they do not track active transportation investments. Consequently, their Other response was removed from the tally for the purpose of analysis.

68 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects 12. What challenges do you face in tracking and recording active transportation investments? Select all that apply. Knowing when a larger project includes active transportation components Assigning costs to the active transportation components of larger projects No centralized database or means to store data Investments are tracked at the project level but are not aggregated across the state Responsibility for tracking investments is not clearly assigned to a person or department Responsibility for tracking investments is assigned across multiple people or departments which can be difficult to coordinate Other - Please describe Alabama X X X X Alaska X X X X X Arizona X X Arkansas X X X X Connecticut X X Georgia X X X Hawaii X X X X Idaho X X X Illinois X X Indiana X X X X X Iowa X Kansas X X X X X X Kentucky X X X Louisiana X X Maine X X X X Maryland X X X X Michigan X X X X X Minnesota X X X X Missouri X X Montana X X Nebraska X X X X Nevada X X X X New Hampshire X New Jersey X X X X New Mexico X X X X New York X X X X X North Carolina X X X North Dakota X X X Ohio X X X Oklahoma X X X X X X Oregon X X X X Pennsylvania X X X Rhode Island X X South Carolina X X X South Dakota X X X X Tennessee X X X X X Texas X X X Utah X X X Vermont X X X X Washington X X X X X X Washington, DC X X X X X Wisconsin X X X Wyoming X TOTAL 28 32 23 16 28 16 7

Survey Responses 69   Other responses: • We do not track this data. If assigned, multiple bureaus and personnel may pull the data but not in a conforming method to another district. • Only have the ability to track planned projects not built construction in the event of plan changes or other issues. • Our current systems don't support the collection of this information at this time. • Providing up-to-date project information for communities/advocates • Difficulty in labeling a project as AT if that is a small component of the overall project; we track by funding codes by funding type, not by specific improvements • Active Transportation investments often fall outside the dedicated Active Transportation Program and can appear in Bridge, Pavement, Traffic Safety, etc. • The department has focused on documenting when facilities are not provided on projects. The department documents design decisions if facilities are not provided and that documentation is included as part of the design study report as well as part of environmental processes. See FDM 11-46-1.3.1 evaluation criteria https://wisconsindot.gov/rdwy/fdm/fd-11-46.pdf#fd11-46-1.3

70 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects 13. Do your current project tracking databases provide functionality to be able to pull out just the active transportation component of larger project costs? Yes No Alabama X Alaska X Arizona X Arkansas X Connecticut X Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Louisiana X Maine X Maryland X Michigan X Minnesota X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X New Mexico X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania X Rhode Island X South Carolina No Response No Response South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Washington X Washington, DC X Wisconsin X Wyoming X TOTAL 5 37

Survey Responses 71   14. Does your agency maintain active transportation order of magnitude cost estimates or cost ratios that are broadly accepted within the agency? (e.g., cost per mile of bike lane) Yes No Alabama X Alaska X Arizona X Arkansas X Connecticut X Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Louisiana X Maine X Maryland X Michigan X Minnesota X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X New Mexico X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Washington X Washington, DC X Wisconsin X Wyoming X TOTAL 18 25

Abbreviations and acronyms used without denitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America 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 FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association 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 MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) 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 TDC Transit Development Corporation 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

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ISBN 978-0-309-68729-4 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 6 8 7 2 9 4 9 0 0 0 0