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.

6 This chapter reviews the available literature describing the history and present dynamics of investments in pedestrian and bicycle projects by state DOTs as part of other transportation proj- ects. Relevant academic journal articles, policies, reports, guidebooks, and technical resources were identified through TRB’s Transportation Research International Documentation Database, the United States Department of Transportation, and internet searches. An analysis of state DOT STIPs, which provides the most comprehensive available existing analysis of such investments, is also discussed. The review documents the current state of knowledge and of the practice in how state DOTs invest in and track bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure as part of other roadway projects. As early as 1993, in the National Bicycling and Walking Study, FHWA documented the research question of whether active transportation facilities are routinely incorporated by state DOTs into other roadway projects, and if so, whether the investments in active transportation facilities provided as part of such projects are accounted for individually or as part of the overall project (FHWA 1993, p. 41). This literature review finds that a clear answer to how investments in active transportation facilities are tracked has not been documented. Overview of State DOT Tracking of Investments in Active Transportation Component Projects Existing research documents multiple individual and societal benefits of investments in walk- ing and bicycling, including improvements to health, equity, the environment, the economy, and congestion reduction (PBIC 2010; Furie and Desai 2012; Mineta Transportation Institute 2014; Badawi et al. 2018; Bhattacharya et al. 2019). Yet, a review of the available literature did not reveal a comprehensive inventory of investments in active transportation by a state DOT; such an inventory would allow for measurement of these investments. The most comprehensive inventory of state investments in active transportation projects was the League of American Bicy- clists Benchmarking Report (League of American Bicyclists 2018). However, the report does not track what percentage of these investments is stand-alone bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure projects or part of larger roadway projects, and it is not known if information is consistently reported across states. Without an inventory that is known to quantify and incorporate active transportation component projects, it is not possible to accurately calculate overall investments in active transportation at the state level, conduct full benefit-cost analysis of existing active transportation investments, compare active transportation investments to investments in other modes, or calculate other performance measures dependent on a comprehensive inventory of active transportation investments. Tracking investments in active transportation does not have to be financial; states can also track metrics such as miles of facilities or location of facilities. However, the lack of a comprehensive C H A P T E R 2 Literature Review

Literature Review 7   inventory of investments is mirrored in state asset management databases (e.g., linear referencing systems) that could be used to track existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, but frequently is not. Typically, pedestrian infrastructure data are not collected comprehensively across entire transportation networks, including statewide road networks (Louch et al. 2020). Thus, past invest- ments in bicycle and pedestrian facility development—the amount of funding allocated toward these improvements and the existence or condition of facilities—are typically not comprehensively tracked by state DOTs. By contrast, since 1978, all states have been required to report at least some data annually for all public roadways as part of the Highway Performance Monitoring System, ensuring that every state has, at the least, an inventory of all public roads serving motorists. Underlying Factors Contributing to Incomplete Active Transportation Investment Tracking The difference between existing DOT inventories of active transportation investments and roadway investments reflects decades-long prioritization of investments to benefit motor vehicles (including buses and freight) over active transportation modes (Perrin et al. 2021). However, in recent years, federal policy has shifted to explicitly encourage the incorporation of facilities that support active transportation into transportation networks. In 2010, United States Department of Transportation issued a policy statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accom- modation Regulations and Recommendations that began: “The DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects” (United States Department of Transportation 2010). The statement continues: “Every transportation agency . . . has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems.” This policy statement reflected updated priorities for United States Department of Transportation. Adding bicycle and pedestrian facilities where they do not exist can increase the cost, com- plexity, or timeline of roadway projects because of more intensive engineering needs or the need to acquire additional right-of-way to build linear bicycle or pedestrian facilities. In 2016, federal guidance emerged to help practitioners navigate the process of adding bicycle facilities during routine resurfacing projects (FHWA 2016). As of June 2021, 35 states had adopted Complete Streets policies, indicating increased state support for including active transportation in road- way projects (Smart Growth America 2021). These Complete Streets policies generally include a commitment by state DOTs to at least consider active transportation modes in most projects. However, there are several factors that affect implementation and tracking of active transporta- tion projects under Complete Streets policies. These include how routinely active transportation facility investments are incorporated into the design of other roadway projects and collecting and tracking data on active transportation facility investments that have not fully matched the vision and intent of many state-level Complete Streets policies (Yusuf et al. 2016). Over time, the level of emphasis on performance measurement, the implementation of state Complete Streets policies, and the overall “comprehensiveness of commitment” to implementing Complete Streets policies at state DOTs has increased (Yusuf et al. 2016, p. 293). These developments are likely to result in DOTs incorporating active transportation elements in other roadway projects more frequently, as well as more common and detailed tracking of these investments as a Com- plete Streets performance measure. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Analysis Although a comprehensive inventory of active transportation component project investments was not encountered through this literature review, analysis of state transportation spending, as documented through Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs, can reveal broad

8 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects patterns in spending and trends across states. One such analysis examined STIPs to determine the prevalence and cost of bicycling and pedestrian projects, including both stand-alone active transportation projects and those completed as part of other roadway projects (Advocacy Advance 2018). The analysis manually coded and quantified the number of projects that included terms associated with active transportation for each state’s STIP. It categorized each project as stand- alone bicycling, stand-alone walking, shared-use (bicycle and pedestrian), or a road project with active transportation components (Figure 1). Percentages of projects and costs for each category were then calculated. The Advocacy Advance analysis found that slightly more active transportation projects were planned as stand-alone projects than as part of other roadway projects, and that walking facilities were reported more frequently than bicycling facilities, as shown in Table 1 (Advocacy Advance 2018, p.  18). The analysis found that 1.3% of federal transportation dollars nationwide are planned to be spent through state DOT STIPs on projects that exclusively create bicycling and walking facilities; it is unclear if this figure includes ADA compliance investments. Meanwhile, state DOT roadway projects that included active transportation investments accounted for any- where from 1% to 20% of federal transportation spending, with a nationwide average of 5.4%. This wide variation in investment likely reflects actual variance in investment, as well as dif- ferences in what state DOTs are counting as active transportation investments. The analysis Figure 1. Common types of roadway projects with active transportation investments contained in state DOT STIPs. (Source: Advocacy Advance 2018.) Note: Advocacy Advance was a program of the League of American Bicyclists, which continues to report on bicycle and pedestrian spending at data.bikeleague.org.

Literature Review 9   also found that just under half (46%) of all active transportation projects were planned as part of another roadway project. The report stated that it was not possible to separate the costs of active transportation facilities completed as part of other roadway projects based on the level of financial detail available in the STIPs, as costs for all facilities in a given project were typically provided in aggregate (Advocacy Advance 2018). Whether a state had a Complete Streets policy was not a guarantee of a greater number of projects with identified bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Eight of the top 10 states with the highest percentage of bicycle and pedestrian facilities had Complete Streets laws or policies, but some states with Complete Streets laws or policies also had some of the lowest percentages of bicycle and pedestrian facilities listed in the STIP (Advocacy Advance 2018). The report notes that the project descriptions in the STIP “rarely included how all users are accommodated” and “were often fewer than one or two sentences,” using “general categories of work types (for example, ‘road widening’) that limited the understanding of the full scope of each project” (Advocacy Advance 2018). Therefore, it is possible the analysis did not capture the full extent of active transportation facilities planned by all state DOTs through their STIPs. The report identified key data gaps related to quantifying bicycling and walking investments in this way. These gaps stemmed from • Small and not well-quantified investments in bicycling and walking; • Inadequate project descriptions as noted above; and • The many types of active transportation investments, some of which may not be reflected in the STIP. In addition, the report evaluated the data transparency of each state’s STIP, related to the above data gaps that affect the ability to determine investments in active transportation component projects (Advocacy Advance 2018). Additional Findings Some states quantify their investments in active transportation as part of other projects beyond the reporting in their STIP. For example, according to a 2015 report, the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) provided reports in at least 2007, 2008, 2013, 2014, and 2015 to the state legislature with information on the agency’s bicycle and pedestrian accommodation activ- ities on a cost basis as a percentage of all roadway expenditures in a given category, and in aggregate (VTrans 2015). The VTrans report differentiated between the costs associated with shoulder widening (which may benefit bicyclists and pedestrians by providing a safer or more Source: Advocacy Advance 2018. Table 1. A summary table itemizing Advocacy Advance’s nationwide findings for bicycling and walking projects by project type.

10 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects comfortable place to travel than in a motor vehicle travel lane but is not a dedicated active trans- portation facility), stand-alone active transportation projects, active transportation features of other projects, and other project costs. Overall, shoulder widening accounted for $9.3 million, or 10% of all VTrans transportation investments that year; active transportation investments completed as part of other roadway projects accounted for $1.1 million, or 1.3%; stand-alone active transportation projects accounted for $3.1 million, or 3.1%; and all other non-active- transportation-related costs totaled $75.8 million, or 84.9% of all agency investments (Figure 2). Since 1995, the Hawaii DOT has been required to report annually on its bikeway projects and expenditures (Hawaii DOT 2020). The annual report includes expenditures that are stand-alone bikeway projects, such as shared use paths, and bikeway projects that are part of larger roadway projects, such as bike lanes and designated paved shoulders. The report tracks federal funding (and required matching funds) but does not capture state and local funding on bikeway projects. For the 2020 fiscal year, Hawaii DOT reported $10,607,347 in total bikeway expenditures, or 6.6% of the $160,772,655 of total eligible federal funds expended. In addition to written reports, Hawaii DOT reports annual federal expenditures on bikeways as a performance measure on its website (Hawaii DOT 2022). The following chapters of the synthesis explore how states are tracking investments in active transportation in greater depth through a survey of state DOTs and the District of Columbia, and through select case examples from state DOTs. 2015 All Programs $9,263,869 $1,137,881 $3,054,895 $75,787,570 Shoulder Widening Bike/Ped Features Bike/Ped Projects Other Project Costs $89,244,215 Total Project Costs (selected projects) Figure 2. VTrans summary of active transportation facility investments, either stand-alone projects or those completed as a feature of another road project, as a percentage of all transportation investment costs (Source: VTrans 2015).