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.

35   The objective of this synthesis is to document if state DOTs are tracking and recording their investments in active transportation component projects and to understand the challenges they face in tracking these investments. Major Findings Tracking active transportation component project investments is a not widespread practice among responding state DOTs: 21 of 43 DOTs that responded to the survey indicated that they track some form of information regarding active transportation component project invest- ments. The most commonly collected data include the active transportation facility or treatment type, the location of the investment, and the costs associated with the investment. Data collec- tion activities occur most frequently during project programming or at project completion, and just under two thirds (13 of 20) of responding DOTs undertake their information collection at one or two points during a project’s delivery timeline. Project managers are the people most often responsible for tracking this information, although in approximately two-thirds (14 of 22) of DOTs that track these data, the responsibility is shared between three or more people or entities. Importantly, 81% of responding DOTs noted that responsibility for tracking the infor- mation was either shared or unclear, both of which present challenges. There are several reasons to collect data about active transportation component project invest- ments. The most common reasons for tracking this information are external requirements or inquiries: state reporting requirements, ADA reporting requirements, responding to advocates, and performance measure and performance-based planning tracking. Approximately one quarter (11 of 43) of states have a requirement to spend a specific percentage of capital project funding on active transportation, and those typically include specific reporting requirements, such as an annual report to the state legislature. Where these requirements exist, the minimum spending varies widely across states. In addition, almost all (41 of 42) responding DOTs indicated they use federal funding in general for active transportation component project infrastructure, and 39 of 43 DOTs use HSIP funding for active transportation projects, either for stand-alone improve- ments or as part of larger projects. However, the use of these funds has not triggered the same data tracking and reporting that state-level requirements have. When attributing active transportation costs in larger projects, 45% of DOTs that track active transportation costs use formula ratios or assumptions while a few use unit costs and active transportation contributions by local agencies. When right-of-way acquisition is required, 65% of responding agencies allocate the cost to the entire project without distinction for “active transportation” or “highway” components, or they don’t allocate costs at all to the project. Of DOTs where active transportation is tracked, 57% have access to a central and searchable C H A P T E R 5 Summary of Findings

36 Measuring Investments in Active Transportation When Accomplished as Part of Other Projects statewide project database, although access to centralized information remains a challenge for many DOTs, even more so among DOTs that do not currently track active transportation infor- mation. Of all DOTs that participated in the survey, a majority (25 of 43) do not have access to agency-accepted order of magnitude cost estimates or cost ratios for active transportation improvements. State DOTs face several challenges when tracking or considering tracking active transpor- tation investments. The most common challenge, faced by 32 of the 43 responding agencies, was knowing how to assign the costs of the active transportation component of larger projects. Knowing when a larger project includes active transportation components was also a challenge faced by about two thirds (28 of 43) of responding DOTs, as were difficulties linked to an unclear assignment of responsibility for tracking the information (28 of 43) while the lack of a central- ized database, particularly one that allows users to identify active transportation component costs within the cost of a larger project, affected over half (23 of 43) of DOTs. Future Research During the development of this synthesis, a variety of gaps in current knowledge were identi- fied that could be addressed through future research. State DOTs are at the forefront of the administration of federal and state funding for active transportation improvements, but it is challenging to obtain a complete picture of the breadth of projects, including improvements implemented as part of larger projects. A more detailed analysis of current practices and the development of best practices for identifying, collecting, and managing active transportation component project investments could highlight opportuni- ties to improve processes such that the identification step is simplified. This research could include the following: • A review of how state DOTs track the existence and condition of existing active transporta- tion facilities. Understanding investments in active transportation requires knowing where active transportation facilities exist and the condition of those facilities. State DOTs have robust tracking systems for the presence and condition of roadway facilities, but tracking similar characteristics for active transportation facilities does not appear to be common- place. This review could note how state DOTs track improved and new active transportation facilities, including the existence, location, length, and financial investment of each facility or treatment. The research should detail obstacles to improved tracking and reporting at the national level. • A review of project tracking/management database characteristics and management processes. This report highlights that many state DOTs do not have project management databases that provide a simple mechanism for highlighting active transportation component proj- ects. A review of state database systems and practices, including data entry and best practices for the timing of data collection within the project life cycle, could highlight best practices for tracking active transportation investments, including the types of active transportation investments that states are able to track with their existing databases. The management of institutional knowledge as it relates to these data collection and management processes could also be included in the research and could highlight opportunities for training and capacity building within DOTs. • The establishment of guidelines or best practices regarding cost assumptions or calculations for active transportation components. Many states struggle with assigning costs to active trans- portation component projects in a simple manner, according to this report. The research could include a review of elements that constitute active transportation improvements and

Summary of Findings 37   the establishment of methodologies to attribute costs from a larger project based on varying levels of data availability and different phases of a project’s lifecycle. The guidelines or best practices could include special topics, such as the attribution of right-of-way costs or the divi- sion of costs for elements that serve multiple purposes and users. • Cost-benefit analysis for active transportation component projects. Active transportation can provide several benefits, including improved safety, improved mobility, transportation choice, and potential health improvements. Research on the costs and benefits of active transporta- tion component projects could highlight the benefits of such projects relative to the costs of implementing the projects. • Funding sources for active transportation projects. There are a handful of funding sources specifically targeted at active transportation projects. However, the majority of active trans- portation projects are likely funded through non-active transportation specific funds. Research could dive more deeply into how states are funding active transportation projects with federal, state, and local funds, particularly for projects that are a component of a larger roadway project. • Links between transit projects and active transportation projects. This report focuses on active transportation projects that are provided as part of roadway projects. Similarly, active trans- portation projects are often provided as part of transit projects. Research could focus on how states integrate active transportation projects with transit projects or piggyback one with the other.