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.

11   Overview and Survey Data Limitations A survey of the state of the practice was developed and subsequently reviewed by the syn- thesis Topic Panel. Revisions were made to the survey based on Panel comments, and the survey was then distributed to the FHWA-maintained list of state Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinators at DOTs in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The survey was created and administered using the Alchemer online survey platform. State Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinators were encouraged to coordinate their responses with others in their agency or ask others more familiar with the topic to complete the survey if needed. To encour- age participation, the synthesis principal investigator sent emails and made phone calls to state Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinators who had not completed the survey to encourage participation. The survey completion rate was 83%. Figure 3 presents responses received from state DOTs. The survey responses were primarily provided by state Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinators, although other state DOT staff may have provided information for the responses or may have responded to the survey in its entirety. The role of state Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator varies substantially from state to state, and this affected the information received from each DOT. For example, some respondents were closely involved with tracking or summarizing active trans- portation investments and may have provided detailed responses about their state’s process, while others may not have been involved in tracking investments and may have reported fewer details and answered some questions with “unknown.” Some respondents also coordinated survey responses with colleagues and may have gathered more detailed information, while other respondents relied on their own knowledge. The survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix A and full survey responses are provided in Appendix B. The description of survey responses presented in this chapter varies from the order of questions presented in the appendices. Analysis of Survey Responses Tracking of Active Transportation Component Project Investments According to the survey responses, the number of DOTs where some form of information is tracked (facility type, estimated cost, location, and so forth) for active transportation component project investments is almost evenly split, with 21 DOTs recording investment information, and 22 DOTs reporting they do not track any information (Figure 3). C H A P T E R 3 State of the Practice

12 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects Responsibility for Tracking Active Transportation Component Project Investments State DOTs where active transportation investment information is tracked were asked to indi- cate who is responsible for tracking this information; multiple answers could be selected. Figure 4 shows the number of state DOTs that selected a certain person or entity as being responsible for this tracking. Note that the “Other” response from one agency was left blank. This agency indicated in the previous question that they do not track active transportation investments. The most common person or entity responsible for tracking active transportation information was a project manager, with two-thirds of DOTs (14 of 21, excluding the blank response) selecting this answer. This was followed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator (10 of 21 DOTs) and the ADA Coordinator (8 of 21 DOTs). Of the people or entities listed in the response options, the least common entity responsible for tracking active transportation component project invest- ments were consultants (5 of 21 DOTs). Eight state DOTs also reported that another person or entity was responsible for tracking active transportation component project investments, including the blank response from the state DOT that does not track these investments. The list of answers from seven other state DOTs or entities responsible for tracking active transportation component project investments includes the following: • “No one.” • “Database staff.” Figure 3. Map of survey completion by state.

State of the Practice 13   • “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 invest- ments data at that time.” Of the 21 state DOTs that track data, one agency indicated that it tracks the data but did not indicate where this responsibility lies. Another stated in its response that the responsibility is unclear and shared between the ADA coordinator, project cost estimators, and project managers. A shared responsibility is a common feature among the 21 DOTs where active transportation component project investments are documented. As Figure 5 shows, only four of the 21 DOTs had only one person or entity responsible for tracking this information. For almost one third of DOTs, three people or entities track the information, and for another third of the DOTs, more than three people or entities are responsible for documenting these active transportation investments. Types of Information Collected DOTs that collect information on active transportation component project investments were asked to identify the type of information collected. The most common collected data includes the facility or treatment type, the location of the investment, the quantity or number of 8 10 5 6 6 7 7 14 8 ADA coordinator Bicycle and pedestrian coordinator Consultants Finance or budget staff Infrastructure tracking staff Performance Management reporting staff Project cost estimators Project managers Other N um be r o f S ta te D O Ts Figure 4. Person or entity responsible for tracking active transportation component project investments (n = 22, including a blank response under “Other”).

14 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects improvements—measured in metrics such as miles of bike lanes or sidewalk or number of curb ramps or crosswalks—and the costs associated, each with 15 to 17 of 21 DOTs (71-81%) report- ing these four types of information are collected (Figure 6). Projects programmed and projects completed were less likely to be compiled, with 10 and eight DOTs collecting this information, respectively. The six responses in the “Other” category sometimes indicated that previously stated infor- mation types were tracked at least for some projects. In other cases, the “Other” category was used to provide a more detailed explanation regarding the information tracked but did not contain a new or different type of information, as indicated in the following DOT 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.” 4 3 6 3 2 1 2 One person/entity Two people/entities Three people/entities Four people/entities Five people/entities Six people/entities Seven people/entities N um be r o f S ta te D O Ts Figure 5. Number of people or entities responsible for tracking active transportation component project investments (n = 21). 16 16 15 10 8 17 6 Facility or treatment type Location Quantity or number of improvements Projects programmed Projects completed Cost Other N um be r o f S ta te D O Ts Figure 6. Type of information collected about active transportation component project investments (n = 21, multiple selections possible).

State of the Practice 15   • “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 por- tion 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.” Only one state DOT indicated they collect only one type of information (Figure 7). In fact, 13 of the 21 state DOTs that gather information on active transportation component project invest- ments collected four or more different types of information, with some state DOTs indicating when different types of information are collected. Timeline for Data Collection Data can be collected at different times during a project’s delivery timeline. Figure 8 shows the number of DOTs that collect their active transportation investment information at differ- ent stages of the project. Over half of the DOTs that track this information do so at least at the programming stage (12 of 21 DOTs). Less than a quarter do so at the preliminary design stage (5 of 21 DOTs). Only two state DOTs collect active transportation data for all five main phases of a project life cycle, from programming to project completion. For one agency, tracking at all stages of project delivery is dependent on the source of funding for the project, as noted in the follow- ing comments provided by DOTs that selected the “Other” category regarding the timeline of information collection activities: • “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.” 1 3 4 4 3 4 2 N um be r o f S ta te D O Ts Figure 7. Number of different information types collected for active transportation component project investments (n = 21).

16 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects Excluding “Other” responses, two thirds of DOTs collect their information on active trans- portation investments at one or two points during the larger project’s timeline (Figure 9), typi- cally at project completion, during construction, or at the time of programming. Reasons for Tracking Active Transportation Component Project Investments Presented with a list of potential reasons for tracking active transportation investments, 13 of the 21 DOTs that gather this information indicated that they did so to conform to state report- ing requirements; this was the most common response (Figure 10). Note that one state DOT did not provide a response to this question. State requirements are followed closely by three other reasons for tracking active transportation component project investments, each selected 12 5 7 7 8 6 4 Programming Preliminary design Final design Construction Project completion Independent from the project delivery timeline Other N um be r o f S ta te D O Ts Figure 8. Stages in project delivery timeline where active transportation component project investments are tracked (n = 21, multiple selections possible). 7 8 4 0 2 One point in delivery timeline Two points in delivery timeline Three points in delivery timeline Four points in delivery timeline Five points in delivery timeline N um be r o f S ta te D O Ts Figure 9. Number of different moments in project delivery timeline when information on active transportation component project investments is tracked (n = 21).

State of the Practice 17   by 12 DOTs: as part of performance measure and performance-based planning tracking, to respond to advocates, and because of ADA requirements. Few state DOTs indicated that they track the active transportation information as part of environmental justice requirements or equity assessments (4 of 21 DOTs). State DOTs noted a limited number of other reasons for tracking active transportation invest- ments, including as part of a Complete Streets Policy and to identify project bundling opportu- nities or realize economies of scale, as shown in the following DOT responses: • “[Our DOT] 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.” Spending Requirement for Active Transportation Capital Projects State DOTs may track investments in active transportation to document compliance with state- level mandates that require specific amounts of transportation funding be spent on active trans- portation. The majority of DOTs do not have a requirement for a specific percentage of spending to be dedicated for active transportation capital projects. Only 11 of 43 DOTs indicated such a requirement exists, and one DOT did not provide a response (Figure 11). 8 13 12 8 7 8 11 12 7 4 12 3 Reporting requirements - Federal Reporting requirements - State Performance measure and performance-based planning tracking To quantify investments across communities To make linkages to community goals and adopted plans As part of project scoring or prioritization To respond to citizen, stakeholder, or legislative requests To respond to advocates To assess potential long-term changes as a result of these investments Environmental justice requirements / equity assessment ADA requirements Other Number of State DOTs Figure 10. Reasons for tracking active transportation component project investments (n = 21, multiple selections possible).

18 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects Of the 11 state DOTs where a requirement exists, the percentage of funds required to be spent on active transportation varies widely (less than 0.5% to 18%), as does the source of the funds included in the requirement. As indicated in the following responses from the DOTs where a requirement exists, the minimum spending may be calculated as a percentage of state transpor- tation or highway funds, as a percentage of eligible federal funds, and so on: • “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).” • “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.” Use of Highway Safety Improvement Program Funds for Active Transportation The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving a “significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries” (FHWA 2021). HSIP specifically allows funding for active transportation projects. Because federal funding programs No 31 72% Yes 11 26% No Response 1 2% Figure 11. State-level requirement for a specific percentage of spending to be directed to new active transportation capital projects (n = 43).

State of the Practice 19   have significant reporting requirements, DOTs using HSIP funds for active transportation proj- ects may track overall investments in active transportation. The vast majority of DOTs reported using HSIP funds for active transportation projects. Almost half said the funds are used both for stand-alone active transportation projects and for larger projects that include an active trans- portation component (Figure 12). Only four DOTs indicated HSIP funds are not used for active transportation projects. Overall, 34 of 43 DOTs (79%) use HSIP funds for larger projects that include an active transportation component and 26 of 43 DOTs (60%) use these funds for stand- alone active transportation projects. Of the DOTs where HSIP funds are used for active transportation projects, almost half of respondents to the survey were not sure of the proportion of HSIP funds used specifically for the active transportation components of HSIP-funded projects. For the 20 DOTs where this infor- mation was available, the proportion of HSIP funding going to active transportation projects or components varied widely, from less than 1% to over 25%, as shown in Figure 13. In most cases where the information was available, active transportation accounted for 10% or less of annual HSIP spending (17 of 20 DOTs). Use of Federal Funds for Active Transportation Components of Larger Projects All but two of the 43 DOTs indicated that its transportation agency uses federal funding for active transportation infrastructure that is part of larger projects. One state DOT specifically indicated that it does not use federal funds for this purpose, while the other did not provide a response. 21 49% 13 30% 5 12% 4 9% Yes - Both Yes - Larger Projects with Component AT Only Yes - Standalone AT Projects Only No Figure 12. Use of HSIP funds for active transportation projects (n = 43).

20 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects Attribution and Tracking of Costs Related to Active Transportation Component Project Investments Percentage of Larger Project Costs Attributed to Active Transportation Agencies may use different methods to determine the percentage of a larger project cost that can be attributed to active transportation components. Most DOTs indicated that they use formula ratios or assumptions, while few used unit costs and active transportation con- tributions by local agencies (Figure 14). Four agencies that indicated they do not generally track active transportation costs provided an answer to this question, and one that typically does track this data did not answer. Two agencies used the “Other” category to indicate they do not track costs. 5 2 5 5 2 1 <1.0% 1.1%–2.0% 2.1%–5.0% 5.1%–10.0% 10.1%–25.0% >25.0% N um be r o f S ta te D O Ts Figure 13. Percentage of annual HSIP funds spent on active transportation components of HSIP-funded projects (n = 20). 9 2 1 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Formula ratios/assumptions of total project cost Unit costs for active transportation components Active transportation contributions by local agencies Other N um be r o f S ta te D O Ts Figure 14. Method used to determine the percentage of larger project costs attributed to active transportation components (n = 20, including responses saying costs are not tracked).

State of the Practice 21   In some cases, a combination of two or more of the methods listed are used or the methods may differ depending on the project. These are not reflected in Figure 14. The responses from the six other DOTs that indicated they used other methods are as follows: • “Project specific.” • “All of the above – it depends on the project.” • “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 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.” Allocation of Right-of-Way Costs If a roadway project requires the purchase of right-of-way, it may appear that the purchase is necessary solely for active transportation components at the edge of the roadway, such as bike lanes or sidewalks. However, roadway components such as additional travel or turn lanes also determine the overall project width and may have spurred the need for additional right- of-way. DOTs were asked how right-of-way costs are allocated to the project when acquisition is required. Twenty total agencies responded to this question: four agencies that indicated they do not track active transportation costs in a previous question answered this question, and one agency that currently tracks costs did not respond. As shown in Figure 15, in most agencies, the right-of-way costs are allocated to the entire project without distinction, or are not allocated at all (i.e., not included in the project cost). Only four DOTs allocate costs either using a formula or ratio or using the physical portion of the project within the right-of-way to determine allocation. Three DOTs also provided different responses, as follows: • “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 manage- ment, stormwater, etc.).” 2 2 7 6 3 The cost is allocated to the portions of the project that fall within the purchased right of way The cost is allocated to the portions of the project based on a formula or ratio The cost is allocated to the entire project without being broken down by subgroups such as “highway” or “active transportation” Right of way costs are not allocated Other Number of State DOTs Figure 15. Allocation of right-of-way costs when an active transportation component is present (n = 20).

22 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects • “[Our DOT] acquires their right-of-way on a per parcel basis for a project. A parcel is the real property that the land owner owns. [State] 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.’” Availability of Central Searchable Database for Costs The majority of DOTs that track cost information indicated that they have access to a central and searchable statewide database, while just under 30% said the costs are not aggregated or that they are only tracked and maintained at the project level (Figure 16). Note that four DOTs indicated they do not normally track active transportation costs, but provided an answer. Of these, two indicated that there is a statewide database, which may present an opportunity to begin tracking the data or breaking down data that are already being tracked. Three DOTs also indicated they had another answer, although in one case the explanation was left blank. The following two provided other answers indicate there are central databases for those agencies, with some limitations on the information available: • “CHIMES [Capital Highway Information Management Enterprise System] is a central data- base used. Transport List collected unit prices, but not sum of AT [active transportation] 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).” Availability of Cost Estimates DOTs were asked about the availability of agency-accepted order of magnitude cost esti- mates or cost ratios for active transportation improvements, such as a cost per mile of bike lane. A majority of DOTs indicated these figures are not available, as shown in Figure 17. Challenges Faced when Tracking Active Transportation Investments All 43 DOTs, whether they currently track active transportation investments or not, were asked to identify challenges they face when trying to track and record active transportation Central database - statewide 12 57% Project level / not aggregated 6 29% Other 3 14% Figure 16. Availability of a searchable central database for cost data (n = 21).

State of the Practice 23   investments. The results are shown in Figure 18. The most frequent challenge reported is not having an established methodology to assign the costs of the active transportation component projects (32 of 43 DOTs, or 74%), followed by knowing when a larger project includes active transportation components and an unclear assignment of responsibility for tracking this infor- mation (28 DOTs each, or 65%). While not as frequently reported as these top three challenges, all other potential challenges listed in Figure 18 resonated with at least a third of DOTs, indicat- ing that none of the potential challenges identified are isolated issues. Cost Estimates Available 18 42% Cost Estimates Not Available 25 58% Figure 17. Availability of order of magnitude cost estimates or cost ratios for active transportation improvements (n = 43). 12 16 7 8 11 10 3 16 16 16 8 17 6 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 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 Number of State DOTs Currently track AT investments Currently do not track AT investments Figure 18. Challenges faced when attempting to track active transportation (AT) investments (n = 43, multiple selections possible).

24 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects Some challenges were more likely to affect agencies that do not currently track their active transportation investments (although not exclusively). These notably include the lack of a centralized database or other means to store data (73% of the DOTs do not currently track active transportation data versus 33% of the DOTs do) and an unclear assignment of respon- sibility for tracking active transportation investments (77% of the DOTs do not track their data versus 52% do). Conversely, agencies that track active transportation investments were more likely to identify a shared responsibility for tracking investments across multiple people or departments as a challenge (48%), compared to agencies that do not currently track their active transportation investments (27%). Seven agencies indicated they had other types of challenge, as follows: • “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 docu- mentation is included as part of the design study report as well as part of environmental processes.” In line with the identified issue of a lack of centralized database, DOTs also overwhelm- ingly indicated that their current project tracking databases do not provide functionality that would allow them to pull out only the active transportation component of larger project costs (Figure 19). Yes 5 12% No 37 86% No Response 1 2% Figure 19. Ability for project tracking databases to pull out active transportation components of larger project costs (n = 43).