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.

25   This chapter provides case examples from five state DOTs, presented in alphabetical order: Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Oregon, and Utah (Figure 20). The case studies were selected based on the goal of representing different practices highlighted in the survey of DOTs, and on the availability of state DOT staff to participate in a brief interview. Each case example provides a description of the state’s current practices related to tracking investments in active transporta- tion, the motivations for tracking these investments, the challenges that the DOT faces in track- ing these investments, and the strengths and opportunities of each state DOT’s program. Hawaii DOT Hawaii DOT (HDOT) tracks active transportation components of larger projects when they include bikeway elements. The tracking is focused on federally funded projects that represent the majority of HDOT projects; state- and local-funded projects that include bicycle facilities are not regularly captured. More consistent tracking of pedestrian investments and of state- funded improvements are two areas where the HDOT is actively working on improvements for the future. Motivations for Tracking Active Transportation Components HDOT has been required to report on bikeway projects to the legislature annually since the passage of Act 222 in 1995. In 2006, the legislature required that a minimum of 2% of allowable federal funding be allocated to bikeway projects annually. Each December, a report on these expenditures is created and submitted to the legislature. There is no requirement to report on pedestrian expenditures, so these are not tracked or reported systematically. Recent legislation (Act 125, Session Laws of Hawaii 2021) added a requirement to track a priority list of pedes- trian projects, but the list does not include a full account of expenditures or pedestrian facilities installed with larger roadway projects. A small subset of pedestrian project types is tracked more systematically. This is the case of raised crosswalks, for which HDOT maintains a publicly acces- sible geographic information system (GIS) map because that particular measure is of high impor- tance and is an example of a focused safety countermeasure from the federal Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian program that has been implemented in recent years. In addition to complying with state reporting requirements, HDOT tracks information on bikeway investments as a way to keep stakeholders and advocates informed. To this end, a bicycle planning webpage was created in 2021 that displays bikeway expenditures as a per- formance measure (Figure 21). The information displayed on the website is a communication tool to benchmark progress, demonstrate bikeway improvements being implemented, and track goals attained. While there are bicycling advocacy groups on every island, pedestrian-focused C H A P T E R 4 Case Examples

26 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects Figure 21. Hawaii DOT tracking of federal expenditures on bikeways by year is available as a regularly updated performance measure on the agency’s Bicycle Planning website (Source: Hawaii DOT 2022). HI Figure 20. State case examples.

Case Examples 27   advocacy is not as widespread. HDOT indicated that having this external motivator could likely prompt support for more thorough tracking. Current Tracking Processes The requirement to report on bikeway expenditures only applies to designated bicycle facil- ities. Many of Hawaii’s bicycle facilities are shoulder bike lanes. A shoulder that is wide enough to support cycling but is not designated as a bikeway is not included in reporting. As projects evolve, project managers are responsible for updating all transportation project information in the project tracking database on a regular basis. In the fall, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator is responsible for compiling all of the bikeway information for annual reporting purposes. The Coordinator identifies projects with a bikeway component based on project scope descriptions in the database and also by reviewing federal expenditures and then follows up with project managers to confirm the presence of a bikeway element. The costs of bikeway elements of larger projects are determined based on discussions with project managers, and bid elements if they are present. Given the prevalence of shoulder bike- ways, cost allocation for active transportation is typically calculated based on the proportion of the roadway width that is designated as the bikeway. Quantities are also tracked, particularly miles of bikeways, which are further broken down by island. HDOT maintains a publicly accessible GIS map of bikeway facilities, although it pri- marily shows state facilities as there is limited tracking of local facilities. HDOT collects light detection and ranging data of its facilities on an annual basis; these data are used to update facility inventories and conditions tracking, which is used for maintenance tracking. This data collection provides information on the types and locations of facilities, including signage and markings. Notably, the location of sidewalks gathered from this data is mapped on the HDOT’s pedestrian planning webpage. Challenges One of the biggest challenges HDOT faces is the absence of a mechanism to flag active trans- portation projects or components, including minor elements of the project scope, in its proj- ect management database. The time required to follow up with project managers and identify active transportation projects is substantial. In addition to making the identification of active transportation projects faster and more automated, public-facing reporting on websites would be easier if such a flag existed. HDOT also indicated there would be opportunities to improve the financial coding for active transportation projects. Improvements have been made for other types of assets that have helped in tracking investments in those assets. Although not specifically highlighted by agency staff, the loss of institutional knowledge when staff leave the agency may be a challenge, particularly at a small agency. The current HDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator has been in her position for approximately 2 years, and noted that fully understanding the breadth and scope of active transportation projects and building relationships with project managers took significant time. This may affect the ability to accurately track investments in active transportation during staff transitions absent a tracking database that consistently tracks investments. Key Strengths and Opportunities HDOT has high motivation to track active transportation expenditures connected to bike- ways because of a legislative requirement. While the reporting responsibility is shared between

28 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects different departments, there is generally good collaboration to obtain the required numbers and a clear point-person in charge, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator. More thorough reporting requirements, particularly for pedestrian improvements, are expected in the future, and HDOT is eager to track and report those investments. Iowa DOT The Iowa DOT partially tracks active transportation component project investments. The tracking focuses primarily on bicycle and pedestrian accommodations implemented to align with the state’s Complete Streets Policy. As a largely rural state, the most common type of facility tracked is a wide shoulder suitable for bicycling, including the incremental cost for adding the recommended minimum width. Motivations for Tracking Active Transportation Components As part of its Bicycle and Pedestrian Long Range Plan, Iowa DOT adopted a Complete Streets Policy in January 2020. The policy requires all investments to be reported to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. As part of the policy, Iowa DOT must also perform a biennial fiscal impact review of the policy for new construction, reconstruction, and resurfacing, restora- tion, and rehabilitation projects. Iowa DOT does not tend to receive requests from advocates to obtain active transportation investment data, likely because many of the advocacy organizations have representatives in the Advisory Committee and therefore already have access to the data. Current Tracking Processes The Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator is the main person in charge of tracking, although they work in collaboration with District staff. The coordinator obtains all resurfacing, restora- tion, and rehabilitation projects and evaluates their compliance with the Complete Streets Policy (known as a “needs test”). The evaluation includes bridges as well. The primary recommenda- tion is to ensure the shoulders are wide enough to support bicycling. When such a recommenda- tion is made, the incremental cost of widening the shoulder (typically adding 2 feet of shoulder width) is tracked as part of Complete Streets investments. Some designers provide relatively detailed figures regarding costs for the wider shoulder. When this information is not available, a typical planning-level cost for the 2 feet increment is used to estimate the investment. When concept statements already include adequate shoulder width to support cycling, the cost is not included as an active transportation investment. However, the DOT does track the number of projects that are in compliance with the Complete Streets Policy. Challenges The greatest challenge faced by Iowa DOT in tracking investments is a limitation of the available data to understand where active transportation projects are planned. Some cities and counties have very good data available regarding locations on state-owned roads where they would like to see special bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, including the specific facility type. However, not all cities and counties have this information, particularly in GIS format. In addition, collaboration and coordination of projects is not necessarily optimal: different schedules and availability of funding become obstacles to implementing more bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Case Examples 29   Another challenge faced is the manual nature of the investment compilation work. While engineers have standardized their concept statements, making it easier to track active transpor- tation elements, Iowa DOT would like to have a more automated process in place and is in the early stages of considering how this automation could take place in the future. Key Strengths and Opportunities The process of tracking incremental investments is helping to institutionalize the provision of bicycle and pedestrian accommodation and better understand the associated costs. Since the implementation of the Complete Streets Policy and systematic needs review, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator has noticed an increase in the number of concept statements that include accommodation for walking or bicycling as DOT staff take on the feedback from the needs review performed on all projects. In addition to tracking the cost of compliance with the Complete Streets Policy, the DOT has recently undertaken an important asset management data collection effort, which includes the surface type and width of shoulders, bike lanes, and so on. The data will be used to update the Bicycle Compatibility Index of road segments on the state’s network. It will also allow for the state’s bike map to be updated. Maryland DOT Maryland DOT staff indicated that there is good tracking of projects that are part of stand- alone active transportation programs such as the Maryland Kim Lamphier Bikeways Network Program and Transportation Alternatives Programs. Maryland DOT tracks active transporta- tion components when they are part of larger projects, including the facility type, location, quan- tities, and costs; however, it is not necessarily done consistently or comprehensively because of the challenges outlined below. Motivations for Tracking Active Transportation Components Maryland has state reporting requirements that make the collection of active transportation data as well as ADA data mandatory. Since 2012, the Consolidated Transportation Program has required annual reporting to track all transportation expenditures for the current year and projected expenditures over the next 5 years. An attainment report accompanies this reporting to quantify progress made. Beyond reporting requirements, a major motivation for Maryland DOT is to demonstrate the work they are doing on active transportation and have reliable data to respond to advocates. There has been an increase in investments in multimodal infrastruc- ture, and Maryland DOT is particularly interested in showcasing to residents and advocates where taxpayer dollars are going, particularly when it comes to active transportation. Current Tracking Processes Maryland DOT is in the process of transitioning to using the Capital Management and Pro- gramming System (CMAPS) as its capital investment tracking software. The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), one of the largest branches of the DOT, is still in the process of adopting this new software. When the transition is complete, tracking active transportation investments is expected to be more streamlined. Currently, most of the tracking for SHA projects is done manually. As the CMAPS software is customizable, a checkbox was added that allows users to identify projects as being active transportation investments. However, the checkbox is

30 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects a simple ‘Yes or No’ and doesn’t allow for nuance when there is an active transportation com- ponent in a larger project. Project managers are responsible for updating their projects in CMAPS. For projects where active transportation improvements are a component of the larger project, the project manager manually allocates the active transportation portion at their discretion. While a central database exists, not all projects get a Project Information Form with a description field. Projects that are smaller in scope only get a one-line description with little information that would allow for the identification of active transportation components. Overall, DOT staff expressed that the actual active transportation investments are likely undercounted. Parallel to tracking capital investments, Maryland DOT has recently started to track active transportation safety projects in a GIS database, with interactive mapping accessible to the public. This initiative is part of the Vision Zero and Context Driven programs. The Context Driven Treatments website, shown in Figure 22, is updated with new components regularly and it includes maps of bicycle and pedestrian improvements undertaken by Maryland DOT (MDOT 2022). Over 200 projects have been tracked since early 2020. To gather the informa- tion, a quarterly information request is sent to all district offices as well as the head office, which handles larger projects. Each office is responsible for providing the information that goes into the map. The list includes the location and a description of the improvements, but no cost infor- mation is associated with each improvement. Crews are sent out to verify the information and take pictures of the improvements as part of the quality control process. Figure 22. A screenshot of Maryland DOT’s Context Driven Treatments website. All projects shown in this screenshot were completed between January 2019 and November 2021 (Source: MDOT 2022).

Case Examples 31   Challenges Maryland DOT (MDOT) identified several challenges in tracking active transportation com- ponent project investments. The first two have already been alluded to above: the transition to CMAPS is not yet complete across the department, and the active transportation checkbox is suitable to identify exclusive active transportation projects, but not active transportation com- ponents. To more accurately capture this information, additional manual steps are necessary and require significant staff time. It is likely that the information is not being added consis- tently across different MDOT SHA districts, and it appears that the process is not capturing all investments. In addition, Maryland DOT would appreciate a standardized practice of identifying active transportation improvements. Beyond sidewalks and bikeways, there are several infrastructure types such as signals and certain types of medians that could be considered active transportation investments. Having clear guidelines would help in creating a more comprehensive account of all investments. Internal information sharing and cross-agency information sharing on active transportation was identified as another challenge. For example, Maryland DOT indicated that it is hard to track improvements implemented at transit stations that support active transportation. Investments to accommodate full size bicycles on rail vehicles, and a shared-use path providing multimodal access to Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) were also noted as examples of investment that are not well captured in current tracking processes. Key Strengths and Opportunities The transition to CMAPS will improve MDOT’s capacity to track active transportation improvements. Maryland DOT has an on-going contract with the vendor and could further customize the reporting options to make it easier to track projects that have an active transpor- tation component if desired. Staff education and culture change are also ongoing to help ensure that the process for identifying and reporting of active transportation projects is more uniform and progress is being made to modify how staff perceive their own work. Oregon DOT The Oregon DOT (ODOT) has a detailed methodology to track active transportation com- ponent project investments, focused on state-funded projects. There is also a robust system in place to geographically track the location of active transportation improvements and a detailed accounting methodology to track costs. While the latter is highly detailed, ODOT believes that it leads to underreporting of investments. The tracking effort also requires substantial staff com- mitment, and ODOT is exploring ways to simplify the process. Motivations for Tracking Active Transportation Components The state of Oregon passed ORS 366.514, commonly known as the Bike Bill, in 1971. The Bike Bill mandates accommodations for walking and bicycling on any public road constructed, recon- structed, or relocated. Along with this requirement, recipients of state highway funds are obligated to spend a minimum of 1% of funds on pedestrian and bicycling improvements and report on this spending. This legislative requirement was the initial motivation for ODOT to track active trans- portation investments. In recent years, a performance measure for the proportion of the pedestrian or bicycle network completed has been added, which led ODOT to track active transportation improvement locations and characteristics as part of their asset management database. While costs

32 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects are not the primary performance metric examined by the legislature, tracking this information helps ODOT shape its budget requests. By combining this information with the proportion of net- work completed, ODOT was recently able to demonstrate that, at current funding levels, it would take approximately 180 years to complete the state’s active transportation networks. While advocate inquiries do not constitute a primary motivational factor for tracking invest- ments, ODOT does receive requests from advocacy organizations related to this data. Tracking the information enables timely data sharing. A yearly report is also provided to Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Current Tracking Processes ODOT staff in charge of tracking active transportation components of larger projects rely on approximately six databases to make the final determination on active transportation invest- ments. They analyze projects individually and identify bid items related to active transportation. Highly detailed guidance was created to identify which elements are considered active trans- portation improvements and what proportion of costs for certain shared elements (e.g., sig- nals) should be attributed to active transportation. The methodology used was approved by the Oregon Department of Justice in 2013/2014. Responsibility for this tracking process changed over the years and was unclear in recent years because of DOT reorganizations. It is currently the Community Paths Program Manager’s responsibility. Historically, the process was undertaken once a year. During the reorganization, the accounting was not undertaken and the DOT is in the process of updating information for those years. The intention for the future is to resume yearly accounting to take place after the end of the fiscal year. Active transportation elements are geographically tracked through the DOT’s standard asset management inventory processes. A version of their database is publicly accessible through the ODOT TransGIS mapping application (ODOT 2022). Bicycle facilities, sidewalks, marked crosswalks, and ADA ramps, corners, and push buttons can be viewed through the application. This information is updated on an annual basis. Challenges The primary challenge faced by the Oregon DOT is the complexity of the cost tracking system in place. The detailed accounting requires significant staff resources to track down bid items from multiple databases and complete the various calculations involved in the attribution to active transportation components. The process usually takes 2 to 3 months to complete in its entirety (although not on a full-time basis). The tracking also requires collaboration and mul- tiple information requests as the various databases used to tally investments are often owned by different people and departments that need to complete queries individually for this reporting effort. Bid items also fail to reflect any scope changes that occur once a contract is awarded, which introduces inaccuracies. In addition, despite a very detailed methodology, ODOT believes that the result undercounts actual investments. For example, preliminary engineering costs, utility relocation, mitigation of hazardous materials and other similar costs are not accounted for. ODOT perceives that this leads to the common misconception that active transportation projects are easy and inexpensive to complete, which does not always reflect reality. The timing of reporting also limits the utility of the process. By the time bid items are tallied at the end of the fiscal year and the accounting completed, budget and funding decisions for the next fiscal year are already completed and cannot be adjusted to reflect the most recent expenditures.

Case Examples 33   Key Strengths and Opportunities ODOT is currently exploring options to simplify their tracking effort for active transporta- tion components of larger projects. Two main avenues are being considered and both rely on strengths of their system and their experience. The first idea being explored is to eliminate the reliance on bid items and instead rely on estimated costs at the programming stage. Given the DOT’s detailed understanding of project costs through years of compiling these data, guidance could be created regarding the percentage of project costs that should be attributed to active transportation for different types of projects. The result would likely be slightly less accurate, but would lead to gains in efficiency and reduced staff time dedicated to this effort while still producing an accounting with the correct order of magnitude for active transportation investments. The second idea under consideration is to make use of their existing expenditure database, STIP Financial Plan. The database already has a field that allows data programmers to input the percentage of a project allocated to active transportation, pavement preservation, and so forth. At this time, this field is primarily populated based on the source of funding rather than the scope of work. The data input process could be modified to increase the accuracy and better reflect actual active transportation investments. This would result in a reduced workload to report on active transportation improvements since a single database query would provide the informa- tion needed. Both approaches would lead to reduced staff effort to create reports on active transportation investments and would allow more time to better communicate and promote the work that they do, an area ODOT is looking forward to improving. Utah DOT Utah DOT (UDOT) does not consistently track active transportation component project investments. There is some tracking done to meet reporting requirements relating to federal funding, but it only aims to demonstrate that minimum requirements are being met and likely does not reflect a full account of active transportation projects or components. Motivations for Tracking Active Transportation Components There is no state reporting requirement or mandated minimum spending for active transpor- tation projects in Utah. There is hesitancy to set a minimum amount as the threshold identified could potentially be interpreted as a ceiling, or maximum spending, as has been observed for other types of investments. There is also little external pressure from advocacy groups to report on active transportation. UDOT completes the League of American Bicyclists biannual survey about funding and implementation of bicycle facilities to the best of its ability, but local advocacy groups have not been requesting a quantification or documentation of active transportation investments. Advocates are more likely to identify and call out large investments where they believe active transportation components should have been integrated but were not. Current Tracking Processes UDOT has an Electronic Program Management software that includes bid amounts and quantities for materials. UDOT also utilizes Project Wise to document the project delivery process and materials; however, many roadway costs are not compartmentalized into active transportation (e.g., the road materials that compose the bike lane are not itemized for active

34 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects transportation) unless the active transportation improvement is a stand-alone project. There is no formal mechanism to identify active transportation elements as part of larger projects. There is no accepted general rule of thumb to allocate costs to active transportation. Projects can be flagged in the software if they are exclusively active transportation related. Some tracking through bid elements is possible when they are clearly identifiable as active transportation improvements. For example, the paint required to stripe a bikeway could be pulled out. How- ever, the software is relatively dated and would require additional steps to make that identifica- tion possible. Planning-level cost estimates are available and the state DOT provides a costing sheet to metropolitan planning organizations for cost estimating purposes. Without a mandated requirement to track investments, there is little incentive for project managers to take the time for those extra steps. As a result, staff estimated that less than half of striped bikeways are cap- tured within the Electronic Program Management software. Challenges For UDOT, there are limited motivations for tracking active transportation component proj- ect investments. Active transportation expenditures are not always supported, so active trans- portation costs are often minimized in reporting. Staff noted that without a stronger active transportation policy and a legislated requirement to proactively document spending, tracking of active transportation investments is unlikely given the staff time required. An additional chal- lenge is that while stand-alone projects are relatively easy to track, on larger projects, various elements are bid together and can be difficult to separate. Tracking can vary by district and it is often done informally. Key Strengths and Opportunities A new state-funded Transportation Investment Fund for active transportation was recently created and will provide $35 million in active transportation funding per year. This may be an opportunity to begin tracking active transportation improvements in Utah. While active trans- portation improvements are not unanimously supported in the state, there is wider acceptance of and support for quality transit amenities. It could be helpful to track active transportation investments that improve access to transit. UDOT noted that tracking active transportation improvements at transit stations and as part of any first-mile/last-mile improvement would be a benefit and could also serve as a gateway to tracking more active transportation investments. UDOT noted that automated reports could be helpful for planning purposes, for example, to document equity considerations and changes in investments over time and to compare rural investments versus urban investments.