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.

1   When state departments of transportation (DOTs) make active transportation improve- ments as part of larger infrastructure projects (referred to as “active transportation com- ponent projects” in this report), it can be difficult to track those investments. Tracking investments in active transportation infrastructure can take the form of financial tracking, location tracking, tracking of quantities, facility condition tracking, or other measures. Dif- ficulties in tracking arise because there is no uniform methodology for state DOTs to use for compiling these investments. This may lead to an underreporting of active transportation investments and limited accuracy and availability of active transportation funding data for stakeholders, interested parties, and the state DOTs. Underreporting makes it difficult to accurately calculate overall investments in active transportation at the state level, conduct full benefit-cost analysis of existing active transportation investments, track change over time, compare active transportation investments to investments in other modes, or calculate other performance measures. The objective of this synthesis is to document if and how state DOTs track and record their investments in active transportation component projects and to understand the challenges they face in tracking these investments. Active transportation refers to modes of transport that are human powered. While this primarily refers to walk- ing and bicycling, this report also includes the following within its definition: people using mobility devices, skating, and using newer forms of micromobility, such as scooters. The findings from this work confirm that it is not common for state DOTs to comprehen- sively track information on active transportation component projects. Just under half (21 of 43) of DOTs surveyed do so. Of these, 81% track costs (at a minimum), while the remainder track other types of information, such as facility or treatment type, location, number of improvements, and so on, without tracking costs. State DOTs face several challenges when tracking or considering tracking this information. The majority struggle to identify when a larger project includes active transportation investments, and this determination may vary by staff or regions within the state. Once the projects are identified, assessing the costs of the active transportation components (versus those from the larger project) is also a challenge and is often not done consistently. Finally, at many DOTs, it is unclear who is responsible for tracking this information, and most do not have a centralized database to gather and compile the information. The synthesis findings derive from a review of the limited literature available on DOT practices for tracking active transportation investments and an online survey on practices for tracking active transportation that was distributed to DOTs in the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Responses were obtained from 42 states and the District of Columbia (83% response rate). Follow-up interviews were conducted with five state DOTs to develop case examples. S U M M A R Y Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects

2 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects There are few inventories of state investments in active transportation. According to the literature review, this is at least partially because there is no federally mandated requirement to report on these investments. The League of American Bicyclists Benchmarking Report attempts to quantify these investments (League of American Bicyclists 2018). However, the Benchmarking Report relies on state-provided data, which likely varies across states, on whether the figures include bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure component project improvements. An independent analysis of Statewide Transportation Improvement Pro- grams (STIPs) conducted by Advocacy Advance also attempted to identify state invest- ments in active transportation based on manual coding of project descriptions included in STIPs. A quantification of costs was possible for projects coded as stand-alone active trans- portation investments. It was possible to count the number of larger projects that included an active transportation component; however, the cost of the active transportation invest- ments could not be quantified in these cases. The proportion of total project cost attributed to the active transportation elements could not be estimated from STIP descriptions. Overall, there are very few states where information on active transportation component project investments can readily be accessed by the public. Only two were noted through the literature review undertaken for this summary. This finding is supported by the results of the survey sent out to DOTs as part of the development of this synthesis: as noted above, just under half of DOTs (21 of 43) track active transportation component project information. About a quarter of DOTs have a requirement to spend a certain percentage of capital project funding on active transportation, which is frequently accompanied by reporting require- ments to the state legislature. In addition to state reporting requirements, the most common reasons stated for tracking this information include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, the ability to respond to advocates and stakeholders, and for performance measures and performance-based planning tracking. Of those that collect this information, 17 (81%) track costs while the other four DOTs only track other types of information, such as the facility or treatment type, the location, the number of improvements, and so on. The majority of the 17 DOTs that track costs use formula ratios or assumptions of total project costs to determine the percentage of the overall project cost attributed to active transporta- tion components. If right-of-way needs to be acquired, most DOTs indicate that the right- of-way cost is not allocated, or is allocated to the entire project without distinction between subgroups such as “highway” and “active transportation.” For two-thirds of DOTs that track active transportation component project information, three or more people or entities are responsible for tracking these investments. Follow-up interviews with selected state DOTs showed that the level of involvement of the different people or entities is varied. For example, in one case, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordina- tor is ultimately responsible for the tracking, but they rely on input and information from project managers and finance staff while also enlisting the help of a consultant to make the results available to the public through their DOT website. The unclear assignment of responsibility for tracking active transportation information is among the most frequent challenges faced by state DOTs, for both those that currently track active transportation component project investments and those that do not. Other frequent challenges identified are fundamental in nature, including knowing when a project includes active transportation components, and knowing how to assign the costs of these active transportation elements. Follow-up interviews support this finding, even for DOTs that currently track active transportation investment. One state DOT noted that while it can relatively easily attribute costs for elements that are obviously active transportation-related, other improvements than can benefit people using active modes as well as other modes, such as certain types of signalization, are less straightforward to compile. This state DOT

Summary 3   noted that widely recognized and accepted guidance on this subject would be beneficial to their tracking efforts. Project tracking databases that allow users to pull active transportation components out of larger project costs are rare (5 of 43 DOTs have them), and over half of state DOTs do not have a centralized database or other means to store transportation investment data. Among those that do have centralized databases, identifying active transportation projects and components of larger projects can still be difficult. One state DOT interviewed for a case example noted having the ability to flag active transportation projects in its database, but that this flag is applied to stand-alone active transportation projects only. Another state DOT interviewed for a case example indicated having to read through project descriptions to identify projects with active transportation components, which requires substantial effort. The synthesis resulted in the identification of several gaps in current knowledge that could be addressed through future research. Notably, an investigation of best practices for identify- ing, collecting, and managing active transportation component project information would provide a roadmap for state DOTs that would like to track their investments. The develop- ment of guidance on cost assumptions or calculations for active transportation components of larger project would also help DOTs track investments more easily.