Encampments of Unhoused Individuals in Transportation Rights-of-Way: Laws and State DOT Practices (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.

34 NCHRP LRD 87 APPENDIX B: SURVEY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION is appendix provides a copy of the survey results. Blank responses and questions not answered by survey participants are excluded. Other than spelling and grammatical errors, responses were not modied. Multiple responses from one state DOT were combined into a unied response. Responses to question 1, which asked about demographic data, and question 2, which asked about the oce location of the survey respondent, are not included in this appendix.

NCHRP LRD 87 35 Question 3. Economic, social, and other factors have caused a continuous increase in homeless populations throughout the United States. It is not unusual for homeless individuals to establish refuge and shelter in encampments that encroach within, around, under, or upon transportation right-of-way, including but not limited to highway/freeway interchanges, overpasses, bridges, and tunnels. Have you expe- rienced such unauthorized access to the right-of-way in your state? - 57 - APPENDIX B: SURVEY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This appendix provides a copy of the survey results. Blank responses and questions not answered by survey participants are excluded. Other than spelling and grammatical errors, responses were not modified. Multiple responses from one state DOT were combined into a unified response. Responses to question 1, which asked about demographic data, and question 2, which asked about the office location of the survey respondent, are not included in this appendix. Question 3. Economic, social, and other factors have caused a continuous increase in homeless populations throughout the United States. It is not unusual for homeless individuals to establish refuge and shelter in encampments that encroach ithi , arou d, under, or upon transportation right-of-way, including but not limited to highway/freeway interchanges, overpasses, bridges, and tunnels. Have you experienced such unauthorized access to the right-of-way in your state? Figure 6. Survey Responses to Question 3. Table 5. Survey Responses to Question 3 by State. State Response Arizona Yes Colorado Yes Delaware Yes District of Columbia Yes Florida Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii Yes Indiana Yes Figure 6. Survey Responses to Question 3. Table 5. Survey Responses to Question 3 by State. State Respon e Arizona Yes Colorado Yes Delaware Yes District of Columbia Yes Florida Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii Yes Indiana Yes Kansas Yes Kentucky Unsure Maryland Yes Michigan Yes Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Montana Yes North Dakota No Ohio Yes Oklahoma Yes Oregon Yes Texas Yes Virginia Yes Washington Yes West Virginia Unsure Wisconsin Yes

36 NCHRP LRD 87 Question 4. What are typical issues when dealing with the management of unauthorized access to the right-of-way? Please describe: Table 6. Survey Responses to Question 4 by State. State Response Arizona Trespass issues encumber health and safety concerns; hostile environment oen laden with illegal drugs and substances. Public nuisance and challenges to moving along. Oen animals are involved. Delaware Trash, debris removal, drug use. Hawaii Dicult, contentious persons, litter, drug paraphernalia, human waste, damages to signs and structures, limited resources for cleanup operations. Indiana INDOT has established and implemented a program to partner with a local professional social services group that facilitates outreach with the homeless population. It has been in place about a year now and is working well to this point. We have worked together to move or remove several encampments. Kansas KDOT does not have the sta with the skills to deal with homeless encampments on the right-of-way. KDOT’s general practice is to contact law enforcement to have the encampment removed. Law enforcement is better equipped to deal with the mental, physical, and shelter issues needed by homeless persons. Maryland Citizen complaints of homeless encampments; complaints of excess litter/environmental degradation in encamp- ment areas. Concern that highway maintenance workers will come into contact with encamped individuals—try to avoid these occasions. Concern that displacing encamped individuals will cause signicant mental or physical stress or harm to those aected. Minnesota Cleanup costs associated with hazardous waste and re-occupation. Mental health and chemical abuse issues for people experiencing homelessness. No ability to support sanitation needs outside of trash removal. Coordination with outreach that balances MnDOT’s operational needs against limited outreach resources and parties who are having diculty nding shelter. Native Americans are a signicant portion of the homeless population, and culturally appropriate shelter and housing option are not broadly available. In larger camps, we routinely have issues with drug dealing, prostitution, and on occasion human tracking. COVID limited our ability to remove camps and created numerous sites with highly unsanitary conditions due in part to size and length of occupation. Ohio is has happened, but it is not widespread and typically resolved shortly aer being identied/reported. We post notices that areas will be cleared and connect with local social services agencies to work directly with the individuals that are on-site. Oklahoma Frustration of having to give a notice of intent to vacate. Aer the appropriate time has passed, the unauthorized situation is removed, only to have more tenants move into the area than before. Also, asking our employees to clean up aer an encampment has been removed is not exactly what they signed up for. Oregon Interference with the construction, maintenance, and operations of the highway, increased litter and debris, en- vironmental damage, damage to highway infrastructure, time and cost to address the issue. Texas Litter; safety issues; having a place for unauthorized persons to go; lack of authority to move people and belong- ings o of the right-of-way. Virginia Physical safety, litter/debris, sanitation, ensuring due process. Washington State State and local agency design, management, operations and maintenance policy and procedures. Bridge and wall design impacts and solutions. Roadside design and maintenance impacts and solutions. Application of Crime Pre- vention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. Processes for developing location inventories and activity data. Tracking and documentation of campsite occurrence and cleanup. Agency liability issues/instances of legal actions. Local agency coordination. Data-sharing agreements with local and state agencies. Local laws and coordination with law enforcement. Partnering with local businesses and advocacy groups. FHWA restrictions/ potential solutions/cases where encampments are permitted. Allowed types of alternate land uses on limited-access right-of-way/equivalent value issues with leasing. Agency training eorts and materials specic to this issue. Em- ployee safety training for dealing with camp removal/cleanup. Adjacent neighborhood safety issues. Policies and practices specic to construction projects. Cost and funding of cleanup and prevention eorts. Bridge and drain- age infrastructure maintenance impacts and solutions. Environmental regulatory impacts and solutions. Employee interaction with encampment residents in daily operations. Holding personal property following cleanup. Use of contractors, correction crews, and agency employees for cleanup. Parked/abandoned RVs. West Virginia Post notication of order to vacate premises aer time has elapsed to remove debris.

NCHRP LRD 87 37 State Response Wisconsin We usually work with the police authorities to move them to a safer location. e issue we experience is that it oen becomes an unsafe area, litter and continual maintenance to clean up aer them. Available social services to support individuals experiencing homelessness prior to cleanup eorts. Available law enforcement to support notication of cleanup and cleanup eorts. Risks to crews include exposure to hazardous materials, hypodermic needles, etc. Procedures for handling and storage of personal items found in camps. Addi- tional maintenance costs associated with PPE, dump fees, hazardous materials disposal, equipment cleaning, and sanitization and contracted cleanup services. is work takes crews away from other critical and high-priority roadway and bridge maintenance work. Employee morale: ”I was hired to perform highway and bridge mainte- nance work, not cleanup homeless encampments.”

38 NCHRP LRD 87 Question 5. Do you experience dierent issues with the management of unauthorized access to the right-of-way in rural, suburban, or inner-city areas? - 64 - Question 7. Do you have different practices and procedures when managing unauthorized access to the right-of-way in rural, suburban, and inner-city areas? Figure 8. Survey Responses to Question 7. Table 10. Survey Responses to Question 7 by State. State Response Arizona No Colorado No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia No Hawaii No Indiana No Kansas Yes Maryland Unsure Michigan Yes Minnesota No Ohio No Oklahoma No Oregon No Texas Unsure Virginia No Figure 7. Survey Responses to Question 5. Table 7. Survey Responses to Question 5 by tate. State Response Arizona No Colorado Yes Delaware No District of C lumbia No Georgia No Hawaii Unsure Indiana Yes Kansas Yes Maryland Unsure Michigan No Minnesota Yes Montana Yes Ohio Yes Oklahoma Yes Oregon No Texas Yes Virginia Unsure Washington Yes Wisconsin Unsure If a state responded “Yes,” question 5.1 was asked.

NCHRP LRD 87 39 Question 5.1. Please describe how issues with the management of unauthorized access to the right-of-way dier in rural, suburban, or inner-city areas. Table 8. Survey Responses to Question 5.1 by State. State Response Colorado Safety, including that of motorists and other users of state CDOT facilities, state agency personnel, and homeless individuals themselves. Condition exists that poses an immediate threat to the health and safety of motorists, homeless individuals, agency workers, or the general public. Debris and unsanitary conditions, including an ac- cumulation of hazardous waste that is costly to remove. Crime! Indiana e more rural, the more dicult it is to discover the unauthorized access that has occurred. New projects, main- tenance workers, bridge inspections, and the general public complaining about the homeless are how we discover the encampments. Prior to our new initiative, we were not very good at managing the issues. Kansas Unauthorized access in rural areas tends to be items for sale, property owners using the right-of-way for travel, sledding, or recreational uses. Homeless encampments are the issue experienced in the city areas. Minnesota Most of our inner-city areas have decriminalized aspects of suspected drug use and have a higher tolerance of larger camps than in rural and suburban settings. Rural and suburban areas have limited capacity in their social services to deal with the issues commonly found among people experiencing homelessness. Suburban homelessness is more hidden with more individuals living out of their cars and being mobile. Ohio In rural settings, the unauthorized access issues typically tend to be related to people extending farm elds into portions of the right-of-way. Suburban issues are typically more related to signage in the right-of-way. Urban areas may have homeless on occasion or issues with dumping of trash. Oklahoma We do not have many issues with unauthorized access in rural or suburban areas. Usually, the local community is good to help with this situation. Inner-city areas are a dierent situation with the increase in population alone. Situations tend to migrate from place to place and never really get any better. Texas Not really a problem in any areas accept inner city. Washington State Currently, WSDOT is experiencing increasing volumes of encampments in urban areas, and many areas are being tolerated and allowed to grow. Rural and suburban areas are more oen removed and mitigated due to specic public complaints.

40 NCHRP LRD 87 Question 6. What regulations, policies, practices, or procedure do you follow to manage unauthorized access to the right-of-way? Please describe and/or provide documentation (i.e., name or web address): Table 9. Survey Responses to Question 6 by State. State Response Arizona Local law enforcement when necessary is involved with the department’s District Maintenance and the Right of Way Property Management Group, along with the Environmental Group. Safety precautions are taken and practiced consistently. Colorado We can only address this issue if the encampment hinders an engineering project. Delaware DelDOT has an internal policy to handle this issue. District of Columbia ere is a Mayor’s Order in place for this. Georgia e department works with outreach agencies (municipalities) for placement of homeless into programs and housing, and we have a contractor come behind and clean up. Hawaii Hawaii Revised Statutes 264-6. It is unlawful to place, erect, leave, or store any structure, motor or other vehicle, equipment, or any other object wholly or partially within the highway right-of-way without written permission of the director of transportation. Indiana We do not have our guidelines online yet because they are only being implemented in the Indianapolis metro area at this time. We would be happy to email them to you. Kansas KDOT eld personnel will contact law enforcement to manage unauthorized homeless encampments. KDOT eld sta will contact landowners about other unauthorized uses of the right-of-way, such as items for sale or travel. e rst communication is usually in person explaining why the use is unauthorized, and subsequent follow-ups are usually by letter. Maryland When encampment is discovered on state right-of-way, the process of removing the encampment is as follows: Notify local police—they report to the scene and alert encamped individuals (if present) that they’ll be asked to leave in 30 days. Police install or have MDOT SHA install “No Trespassing” sign. Encamped individuals have 30 days to leave the premises, lest they be apprehended by police. If possible, police will arrange relocation to a local shelter. Minnesota Documentation sent. Ohio We do not have any written guidance on point as it is not a common issue. In practice, we reach out to social service agencies for them to work with the individuals and get the services. Upon removal, we will clear the site and cure issues that may have made the site attractive (i.e., remove brush and trash). Oklahoma We post a notice to vacate usually within 30 days. We begin the removal/cleanup process aer the 30 days have expired. Oregon e Oregon DOT may post areas as “no camping” or “no trespass” and may ask that the person leave the area. It remains up to law enforcement agencies to enforce the unauthorized use of the right-of-way. If personal property remains, the Oregon DOT must post notice before collecting that personal property. e amount of notice varies depending on the location but is generally 10 days. Virginia Administrative Code: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+reg+24VAC30-21-30 [link no longer active] Applicable code sections: http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/33.2-210, https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title3.2/ chapter1/section3.2-102/ Washington WSDOT is currently in the process of reassessing its policy and practice as we emerge from having to work socially distanced. We have older policy that was originally adopted around 2008 that specied notication and removal process. Please let us know if you would like to include our old policy documents for the record. While we have a statewide policy related to homeless encampment cleanup, our eorts also need to align to policies established by local jurisdictions. Wisconsin We work with police powers to remove them from the area they are trespassing. ey try and move them to homeless shelters and facilities.

NCHRP LRD 87 41 Question 7. Do you have dierent practices and procedures when managing unauthorized access to the right-of-way in rural, suburban, and inner-city areas? - 64 - Question 7. Do you have different practices and procedures when managing unauthorized access to the right-of-way in rural, suburban, and inner-city areas? Figure 8. Survey Responses to Question 7. Table 10. Survey Responses to Question 7 by State. State Response Arizona No Colorado No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia No Hawaii No Indiana No Kansas Yes Maryland Unsure Michigan Yes Minnesota No Ohio No Oklahoma No Oregon No Texas Unsure Virginia No Figure 8. Survey Responses to Question 7. Table 10. Survey Responses to Question 7 by State. State Response Arizona No Colorado No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia No Hawaii No Indiana No Kansas Yes Maryland Unsure Michigan Yes Minnesota No Ohio No Oklahoma No Oregon No Texas Unsure Virginia No Washington Unsure Wisconsin No If a state responded “Yes,” question 7.1 was asked. Question 7.1. Please describe the dierences in practices and procedures when managing unauthorized access to the right-of-way in rural, suburban, and inner-city areas. Table 11. Survey Responses to Question 7.1 by State. State Response Kansas See answer to previous response.

42 NCHRP LRD 87 Question 8. How does the right-of-way property type (e.g., easement or fee ownership) aect your policies, practices, and procedures managing unauthorized access to the right-of-way? Please describe: Table 12. Survey Responses to Question 8 by State. State Response Arizona ADOT has exclusive control over the right-of-way per statute whether owned in fee or easement. Colorado Treated all the same. Delaware ese occurrences typically take place in our fee ownership. District of Columbia Not much. Georgia It is handled the same for all categories. Hawaii n/a. Indiana It doesn’t. Kansas ere is no eect. Kentucky (No answer.) Maryland I’m unsure. e process that I described is specic to state highway rights-of-way. Furthermore, MDOT SHA owns/maintains all numbered routes, exclusive of toll routes and routes within Baltimore city limits; therefore, I cannot comment on urban (within large city) practices. Minnesota At this time, MnDOT has not made this distinction since our highest concentrations are in locations where there is fee ownership. It is unlikely easement would relieve MnDOT of the obligation to respond to the unauthorized access in most instances, with impact to vehicle operations being the primary consideration. Ohio No dierence. We have a responsibility to control the right-of-way as a matter of law; the ownership interest is immaterial as we have control of the area either way. Oklahoma To my knowledge, we treat all unauthorized access situations the same. In city limits, we always work with the municipality. Oregon ere would be no dierence. Texas Type of ownership does not aect policies or practices. Virginia Not usually an issue as most impacts are on the interstate right-of-way. Washington is is a minor consideration in most cases. Wisconsin When WisDOT is made aware of a problem area, we work with the community and police to correct the situa- tion. Oen, we are asked or receive complaints of areas that feel unsafe. It is a continual struggle and is a cost to taxpayers to maintain and clean these area from unwanted debris.

NCHRP LRD 87 43 Question 9. What practices or procedures do you follow for preventing unauthorized access to the right-of-way (e.g., through planning, design, and maintenance activities)? Please describe and/or provide documentation (i.e., name or web address): Table 13. Survey Responses to Question 9 by State. State Response Arizona Patrols and fencing o potential areas. Public notication to ADOT. Delaware We demolish any structures immediately once we have acquired them to prevent this. District of Columbia Posting signs and fencing. Georgia e department utilizes landscaping plantings with good looks and coverage that deter encampments. Hawaii No trespassing signs posted on structures. Indiana We have started by posting “No Trespassing” signs at certain right-of-way areas and under most bridges that were normally used for encampments. With those signs posted, it gives the agency and our partners the ability to tell folks they can’t be there or stay there. We post in both English and Spanish. Happy to send pictures. Michigan No practices that I’m aware of at this time. Minnesota We have begun hardening the infrastructure with wrought iron fencing in locations where re-occupation is high- ly likely and creates problems immediately. We have also become more strategic with our vegetation manage- ment, keeping trees trimmed and areas mowed in areas where encampments gravitate to. We are also looking at design options that limit spaces for occupation especially with bridge abutments. Ohio I don’t believe we have any written guidance on this. Oklahoma During design, we place fence in certain locations to deter pedestrians from crossing our controlled access areas. Oregon Oregon DOT may adjust maintenance practices to discourage the unauthorized use of the highway right-of-way such as installing fencing, guardrail, or other barriers; changing landscaping practices; and posting signs. Washington Work primarily consists of “opening up the site” through pruning and vegetation clearing. We are also imple- menting design changes to interchange plantings and bridge abutments. Wisconsin No trespassing signage and patrolling of police powers.

44 NCHRP LRD 87 Question 10. What practices or procedures do you follow for the removal of unauthorized users of the right-of-way (e.g., coordination with law enforcement agencies and social services)? Please describe and/or provide documentation (i.e., name or web address): Table 14. Survey Responses to Question 10 by State. State Response Arizona Previously described. Delaware DelDOT works with our Department of Health and Social Services to assist with the removal of personal belong- ings. District of Columbia Law enforcement and social services. Georgia e local law enforcement enforces their ordinances that fall within their jurisdiction. Hawaii Cleanup operations including coordination with law enforcement and social services. Indiana Again, happy to share guidelines with you. Short version is we give them 30 days to move. Aer 30 days, we go in and clean up the area. ere has been approximately 30–60 days of outreach prior to 30-day notice to vacate. Kansas Coordination with law enforcement for homeless encampments. Maryland Please see earlier response. Minnesota Documentation sent. Minneapolis and St. Paul also lead coordinated responses for encampments in their ju- risdictions that include the county, outreach, and state to limit working at cross purposes. We have generally had good outcomes where the site is identied and outreach is given an opportunity to meet and work with the individual(s) before a site is posted for removal. MnDOT reserves the right to move a camp with no notice where the encampment is presenting an immediate danger to vehicle operations, infrastructure, or themselves. Ohio No written procedures. But as described earlier, we involve local social services. Oregon While Oregon DOT employees may ask that a person collect their belongings and leave the area, we rely on law enforcement agencies to address unauthorized use of the highway right-of-way. Texas Others in my agency are engaged in this. Virginia Coordinate with State Police and local law enforcement, media, social services, local shelters, or other assistance groups. Washington WSDOT is currently the subject of a lawsuit from advocacy groups with regard to encampment cleanup prac- tices. We are currently holding o on implementing any ocial policy and procedures guidance till we see the nal results of the suit. Wisconsin We work with the municipality, law enforcement, and service agencies.

NCHRP LRD 87 45 Question 11. Have you experienced issues with the removal of unauthorized users of the right-of-way involving matters such as adverse possession, squatter’s rights, and/or the Uniform Relocation Act? - 68 - State Response Oregon While Oregon DOT employees may ask that a person collect their belongings and leave the area, we rely on law enforcement agencies to address unauthorized use of the highway right-of-way. Texas Others in my agency are engaged in this. Virginia Coordinate with State Police and local law enforcement, media, social services, local shelters, or other assistance groups. Washington WSDOT is currently the subject of a lawsuit from advocacy groups with regard to encampment cleanup practices. We are currently holding off on implementing any official policy and procedures guidance till we see the final results of the suit. Wisconsin We work with the municipality, law enforcement, and service agencies. Question 11. Have you experi nced issues with the emoval of unauthorized users of the r ght- of-way involving matters such as adverse possession, squatter’s rights, and/or the Uniform Relocation Act? Figure 9. Survey Responses to Question 11. Table 15. Survey Responses to Question 11 by State. State Response Arizona No Colorado No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia No Hawaii No Figure 9. Survey Responses to Question 11. Table 15. Survey Responses to Question 11 by State. State Response Arizona No Colorado No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia No Hawaii No Indiana No Kansas No Maryland No Michigan No Minnesota No Ohio No Oregon No Texas No Virginia No Washington Yes Wisconsin Yes Question 11.1. Please describe issues you experienced with the removal of unauthorized users of the right-of-way. Table 16. Survey Responses to Question 11.1 by State. State Response Washington e lawsuit involves the way we handled the campers’ belongings when conducting cleanup. e biggest factor with encampment cleanup at this time for WSDOT is the local jurisdiction’s ability to partner and help relocate campers to more suitable local locations. Some of the cities in Washington are beginning to construct housing and designated camping areas for these individuals. Wisconsin We have had issues where it was questioned if they should have relocation benets.

46 NCHRP LRD 87 Question 12. Are your laws, practices, policies, and/or procedures governing illegal/unauthorized use of transportation right-of-way statewide or regionally specic? Please describe and/or provide documentation (i.e., name or web address): Table 17. Survey Responses to Question 12 by State. State Response Arizona Statewide specic. Colorado No, they are statewide although we use local ordinances if they are more aggressive. Delaware No. Georgia Not specic. Partnerships with city or county municipalities that fall within these parameters are key to the suc- cess of these types of programs. Hawaii N/A. Indiana Statewide. Kansas Statewide. K.S.A. 68-413b. Maryland I am unsure. Minnesota Unauthorized use of state right-of-way is uniform across the state. Mississippi MS Code § 65-1-8.2.h Authority and powers of the commission. “To make proper and reasonable rules and regulations for the removal from the public rights-of-way of any form of obstruction.” North Dakota N24-03-23. “Encroachments on state highways. No part of the right of way for state highways may be encroached upon by erection thereon of any structure, or placing thereon any personal property, other than a temporary parking of a motor vehicle, without a written permit from the director. Any encroachment may be caused to be removed, obliterated, or corrected by order of the director and the total cost thereof must be paid by the person responsible for the encroachment. Property other than motor vehicles le upon highway right of way for a period exceeding seventy-two hours, the ownership of which cannot be determined aer reasonable eort has been made to do so, must be deemed abandoned and may be removed from the right of way and stored at the nearest site available for thirty days and if it is not claimed by the owner during such period, and the cost of removal and storage paid, it may be disposed of in the manner prescribed by the director. Abandoned motor vehicles are subject to the provisions of chapter 23.115. If such property is disposed of it must, except as otherwise provided by this section, be sold or disposed of in the manner provided in chapter 23.115. e receipts therefrom must be deposited in the state treasury as provided in section 1 of article IX of the Constitution of North Dakota and cred- ited to the common schools trust fund unless a commercial towing service lawfully disposes of the abandoned vehicle.” Something to note: typical encroachment legislation. Ohio Statewide law. It is a trespass. Oregon Statewide. Texas No. Virginia Statewide. Washington Most of the attention in Washington is focused on the Seattle metro area, but the state legislature has passed legislation relating to this issue in each of the last several sessions. West Virginia Most of our bridges are aerial easements, thus rendering abodes beneath them matters of private property. In the event of actual unauthorized occupancy of a right-of-way, it would fall under a hybrid of criminal trespass law and obstructions (see W.Va. Code 17-16-1 et. seq.). We have not been enforcing such events except in the event that trac ow is impeded or there is a danger to the traveling public, which is rare.

NCHRP LRD 87 47 Question 13. Do you use public right-of-way for homeless shelters or to provide similar social services? - 71 - Question 13. Do you use public right-of-way for homeless shelters or to provide similar social services? Figure 10. Survey Responses to Question 13. Table 18. Survey Responses to Question 13 by State. State Response Arizona No Colorado No Delaware No District of Columbia Yes Florida (No answer) Georgia Yes Hawaii No Indiana No Kansas No Kentucky (No answer) Maryland Unsure Michigan No Minnesota No Mississippi No Figure 10. Survey Responses to Question 13. Table 18. Survey Responses to Question 13 by State. State Response Arizona No Colorado No Delaware No District of Columbia Yes Florida (No answer) Georgia Yes Hawaii No Indiana No Kansas No Kentucky (No answer) Maryland Unsure Michigan No Minnesota No Mississippi No Montana (No answer) North Dakota No Ohio No Oklahoma (No answer) Oregon No Texas Yes Virginia No Washington No West Virginia No Wisconsin No

48 NCHRP LRD 87 Question 13.1. Please describe how you use public right-of-way for homeless shelters or to provide similar social services. Table 19. Survey Responses to Question 13.1 by State. State Response Georgia Outreach has programs for housing and medical assistants that are utilized for the ones in need. Texas We are in the process of using unneeded sites as homeless shelters in Austin. Question 13.2. Do you have plans to change the way you use public right-of-way for homeless shelters or similar social services in the future? - 73 - Question 13.2. Do you have plans to change the way you use public right-of-way for homeless shelters or similar social services in the future? Figure 11. Survey Responses to Question 13.2. Table 20. Survey Responses to Question 13.2 by State. State Response Georgia Yes Texas No Question 13.2.1. Please describe your plans to change the way you use public right-of-way for homeless shelters or similar social services in the future. Table 21. Survey Responses to Question 13.2.1 by State. State Response Georgia This process is an ongoing program that has different hurdles that we are faced with week by week. The key is partnership with all parties involved with the same goals. Figure 11. Survey Responses to Question 13.2. Table 20. Survey Responses to Question 13.2 by State. State Response Georgia Yes Texas No Question 13.2.1. Please describe your plans to change the way you use public right-of-way for homeless shelters or similar social services in the future. Table 21. Survey Responses to Questio 13.2.1 by State. State Response Georgia is process is an ongoing program that has dierent hurdles that we are faced with week by week. e key is partnership with all parties involved with the same goals.

NCHRP LRD 87 49 Question 13.3. Do you have plans to use public right-of-way for homeless shelters or to provide similar social services in the future? - 74 - Question 13.3. Do you have plans to use public right-of-way for homeless shelters or t provide similar social services in the future? Figure 12. Survey Responses to Question 13.3. Table 22. Survey Responses to Question 13.3 by State. State Response Arizona No Colorado Yes Delaware No Hawaii Yes Indiana No Kansas No Michigan No Minnesota No Mississippi No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Virginia No Washington No West Virginia No Wisconsin No Figure 12. Survey Responses to Question 13.3. Table 22. Survey Responses to Question 13.3 by State. State Response Arizona No Colorado Yes Delaware No Hawaii Yes Indiana No Kansas No Michigan No Minnesota No Mississippi No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Virginia No Washington No West Virginia No Wisconsin No Question 13.3.1. Please describe your plans to change the way you use public right-of-way for homeless shelters or similar social services in the future. Table 23. Survey Responses to Question 13.3.1 by State. State Response Colorado Colorado has asked for an FHWA waiver to allow the homeless on CDOT right-of-way. Hawaii It is in the early planning stages. Maryland Not aware of any changes at this time.

50 NCHRP LRD 87 Question 14. Has your agency received requests for access to the public right-of-way for homeless shelters from outside of your agency in your state? - 75 - Question 13.3.1. Please describe your plans to change the way you use public right-of-way for homeless shelters or similar social services in the future. Table 23. Survey Responses to Question 13.3.1 by State. State Response Colorado Colorado has asked for an FHWA waiver to allow the homeless on CDOT right- of-way. Hawaii It is in the early planning stages. Maryland Not aware of any changes at this time. Question 14. Has your agency received requests for access to the public right-of-way for homeless shelters from outside of your agency in your state? Figure 13. Survey Responses to Question 14. Table 24. Survey Responses to Question 14 by State. State Response Arizona No Colorado Yes Delaware No Georgia No Hawaii Yes Indiana Yes Kansas No Figure 13. Survey Responses to Question 14. Table 24. Survey Responses to Question 14 by State. State Response Arizona No Colorado Yes Delaware No Georgia No Hawaii Yes Indiana Yes Kansas No Maryland No Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon Yes Texas Yes Virginia No Washington No West Virginia No Wisconsin No

NCHRP LRD 87 51 Question 14.1. How do you manage requests for access to the public right-of-way for homeless shelters? Please describe: Table 25. Survey Responses to Question 14.1 by State. State Response Hawaii Currently the necessary utilities are not available within the right-of-way to support homeless shelters. Indiana Our legislature just created a Homeless Taskforce to research faster ways to provide both short-term and long- term solutions to housing our homeless population. Just the start. Minnesota Requests have been few, so we have been able to discuss them on a case-by-case basis; all have been declined. e decision to deny the requests has usually been a lack of management for sanitation or security for the proposed shelter, and MnDOT is not allowed to support those costs out of the trunk highway fund. Additionally, many of the proposals are also in violation of local codes and ordinances. Oregon When the requested area is outside the clear zone and not needed for the construction, maintenance, or opera- tion of the highway, consideration is given to leasing the area for the alternate use. Texas ey are processed through the district. Question 15. Please provide any further information—the name (and if possible, web address) of the document(s), state statute(s), or other that describes your agency’s procedure(s), policy(ies), or process(es) for public access to the right-of-way for homeless shelters and/ or illegal/unauthorized use of the right-of-way and the removal and prevention of unsheltered encampments in the right-of-way: Table 26. Survey Responses to Question 15 by State. State Response Georgia House Bill 713, GA. Indiana Guidance document. Mississippi https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmd=1000516&crid=46cfaf06-48ba-4e49-98d2-762d9f226b& cong=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inK xYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3Acontent Item%3A8P6B-85F2-D6RV-H2C4-00008-00&pdcontentcomponentid=234190&pdteaserkey=sr18&pditab=- allpods&ecomp=L5w_kkk&earg=sr18&prid=f345a781-937f-46c7-98ed-5337ec3d26ad. West Virginia W.Va. 17-16-1 et seq., 157 CSR 2; 157 CSR 6, MM-109 Encroachment Permit. FHWA has expressed interest in potentially providing services at rest areas. ere are discussions with using rest stops for this purpose.

52 NCHRP LRD 87 Question 16. Is there a need to update or modify your state laws, regulations, or policies to improve management of unauthorized access to public right-of-way? - 77 - illegal/unauthorized use of the right-of-way and the removal and prevention of unsheltered encampments in the right-of-way: Table 26. Survey Responses to Question 15 by State. State Response Georgia House Bill 713, GA. Indiana Guidance document. Mississippi https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=46cfaf06- 48ba-4e49-98d2- 762d9f2ff26b&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQ xYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&pddocfullpath=%2F shared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A8P6B- 85F2-D6RV-H2C4-00008- 00&pdcontentcomponentid=234190&pdteaserkey=sr18&pditab=allpods&ecomp= L5w_kkk&earg=sr18&prid=f345a781-937f-46c7-98ed-5337ec3d26ad. West Virginia W.Va. 17-16-1 et seq., 157 CSR 2; 157 CSR 6, MM-109 Encroachment Permit. FHWA has expressed interest in potentially providing services at rest areas. There are discussions with using rest stops for this purpose. Question 16. Is there a need to update or modify your state laws, regulations, or policies to improve management of unauthorized access to public right-of-way? Figure 14. Survey Responses to Question 16. Table 27. Survey Responses to Question 16 by State. State Response Colorado Unsure Figure 14. Survey Responses to Question 16. Table 27. Survey Responses to Question 16 by State. State Respon e Colorado Unsure Delaware Unsure Georgia No Hawaii Unsure Indiana No Kansas No Maryland Yes Michigan No Minnesota Unsure Mississippi No North Dakota Unsure Ohio No Oregon Yes Texas Unsure Virginia Unsure Washington Yes West Virginia No Wisconsin Unsure Question 16.1. Please describe what update or modication to your state laws, regulations, or policies would be useful to improve the management of unauthorized access to public right-of-way. Table 28. Survey Responses to Question 16.1 by State. State Response Maryland I will forward this survey to our Oce of Policy, in hopes that they will provide a more adequate response. At minimum, I am hopeful that we will more clearly dene a process by which encamped peoples are directed to a shelter or other facility. Oregon It would be helpful if the law more clearly prohibited the unauthorized use of the state highway right-of-way.

NCHRP LRD 87 53 Question 17. Is there a need to update or modify federal laws and regulations to improve management of unauthorized access to public right-of-way? - 79 - Question 17. Is there a need to update or modify federal laws and regulations to improve management of unauthorized access to public right-of-way? Figure 15. Survey Responses to Question 17. Table 29. Survey Responses to Question 17 by State. State Response Delaware No Georgia Yes Hawaii Unsure Indiana No Kansas No Maryland Unsure Michigan No Minnesota Unsure Mississippi No North Dakota Unsure Ohio No Oregon Yes Texas Unsure Virginia No Washington Unsure West Virginia No Figure 15. Survey Responses to Question 17. Table 29. Survey Responses to Question 17 by State. State Response Delaware No Georgia Yes Hawaii Unsure Indiana No Kansas No Maryland Unsure Michigan No Minnesota Unsure Mississippi No North Dakota Unsure Ohio No Oregon Yes Texas Unsure Virginia No Washington Unsure West Virginia No Wisconsin Unsure Question 17.1. Please describe what update or modication to federal laws or regulations would be useful to improve the management of unauthorized access to public right-of-way. Table 30. Survey Responses to Question 17.1 by State. State Response Georgia e law or regulations need to be modied to prevent any res under our bridge structures to ensure the integrity of these locations. We have ammable utility hangers carrying combustible products that cause signicant dam- age to roadways and bridges. Oregon It would be helpful if federal laws and regulations more clearly prohibited the unauthorized use of the rights-of- way of federal aid highways.

54 NCHRP LRD 87 Question 18. How do you coordinate with local or municipal agency ordinances and/or management practices related to unsheltered populations in the right-of-way? Please describe: Table 31. Survey Responses to Question 18 by State. State Response Colorado We work jointly with local DPWs [departments of public works] and law enforcement. We provide notice to the homeless and ask them to leave the right-of-way. We use law enforcement to move homeless from our right-of- way. We then clean up and repost signage. Georgia We have a group that meets every week and goes over the latest concerns and works together with combined resources to mitigate the concerns for the city and local areas. Indiana Happy to share documents. Kansas Field personnel will advise local law enforcement of the issue. Local law enforcement will handle the removal. Maryland Please refer to earlier response. Minnesota Generally, we have tried to have a consistent approach to camp sizes and risk factors and clearance notices. Mississippi Sporadic dwellings are found and brought to the agency’s attention within the Jackson metro area occasionally and are oen removed and or relocated in coordination with local law enforcement. North Dakota Need has not materialized. Ohio ese are rare situations for us. Typically, the social service agency would be a city or county agency that we would contact to work with the aected individuals. Oregon When this type of unauthorized use of the state highway right-of-way is discovered, local government social service agencies are notied so that they can oer the necessary social services to the individual(s). Virginia VDOT controls most public roadways with exception of two counties and cities, and towns over a certain popu- lation. Normally coordination is not an issue. Washington A number of cities in Washington have hired sta to work on this issue, which is key to coordinating eort. In most cases, WSDOT utilizes local law enforcement when entering encampments or conducting cleanup. West Virginia Conversations with metro areas such as City of Charleston, Morgantown, Clarksburg, Fairmont, Parkersburg. e dialogue varies. Much is done on district level. Wisconsin We coordinate with the municipality on what services are available in the area of concern. Question 19. Can you provide a local agency contact information for follow-up? - 81 - State Response Oregon When this type of unauthorized use of the state highway right-of-way is discovered, local government social service agencies are notified so that they can offer he necessary social services to i dividual(s). Virginia VDOT controls most publ c roadways with exception of two coun ies and ci ies, and towns over a certain population. Normally coordination is not an issue. Washington A number of cities in Washington have hired staff to work on this issue, which is key to coordinating effort. In most cases, WSDOT utilizes local law enforcement when entering encampments or conducting cleanup. West Virginia Conversations with metro areas such as City of Charleston, Morgantown, Clarksburg, Fairmont, Parkersburg. The dialogue varies. Much is done on district level. Wisconsin We coordinate with the municipality on what services are available in the area of concern. Question 19. Can you provide a local agency contact information for follow-up? Figure 16. Survey Responses to Question 19. Question 19.1. Please provide local agency contact information. Four respondents provided contact information for follow-up. Question 20. Has the 2021 change in political administration at the national level changed your agency’s practices and procedures when dealing with unsheltered population in the right-of- way, or had any other effect on these practices and procedures? Figure 16. Survey Responses to Question 19.

NCHRP LRD 87 55 Question 19.1. Please provide local agency contact information. Four respondents provided contact information for follow-up. Question 20. Has the 2021 change in political administration at the national level changed your agency’s practices and procedures when dealing with unsheltered population in the right-of-way, or had any other eect on these practices and procedures? - 82 - Figure 17. Survey Responses to Question 20. Table 32. Survey Responses to Question 20 by State. State Response Colorado No Delaware No Georgia No Hawaii No Indiana No Kansas No Maryland Unsure Michigan Unsure Minnesota No Mississippi No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Texas Unsure Virginia No Washington No West Virginia No Figure 17. Survey Responses to Question 20. Table 32. Survey Responses to Question 20 by State. State Response Colorado No Delaware No Georgia No Hawaii No Indiana No Kansas No Maryland Unsure Michigan Unsure Minnesota No Mississippi No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Texas Unsure Virginia No Washington No West Virginia No Wisconsin No Question 20.1. Please describe how the 2021 change in political administration at the national level changed your agency’s practices and procedures when dealing with unsheltered population in the right-of-way. We did not receive any responses to this question.

56 NCHRP LRD 87 Question 21. e synthesis will include case examples to illustrate dierent state DOT regulations, practices, procedures, and policies about managing unauthorized access to public right-of-way in more detail. We will conduct follow-up telephone interviews to discuss aspects of statutes, policies, practices, and procedures for inclusion in the synthesis report. Would your agency be interested in participat- ing in a case example? - 83 - State Response Wisconsin No Question 20.1. Please describe how the 2021 change in political administration at the national level changed your agency’s practices and procedures when dealing with unsheltered population in the right-of-way. We did not receive any responses to this question. Question 21. The synthesis will include case examples to illustrate different state DOT regulations, practices, procedures, and policies about managing unauthorized access to public right-of-way in more detail. We will conduct follow-up telephone interviews to discuss aspects of statutes, policies, practices, and procedures for inclusion in the synthesis report. Would your agency be interested in participating in a case example? Figure 18. Survey Responses to Question 21. Table 33. Survey Responses to Question 21 by State. State Response Colorado Yes Delaware Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii No Indiana Yes Kansas Yes Maryland Yes Figure 18. Survey Responses to Question 21. Table 33. Survey Responses to Question 21 by State. State Response Colorado Yes Delaware Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii No Indiana Yes Kansas Yes Maryland Yes Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi Yes North Dakota No Ohio Yes Texas No Virginia Yes Washington Yes West Virginia Yes Wisconsin Yes

NCHRP LRD 87 57 Question 22. Is there anyone else at your agency we should contact for additional information regarding best practices for managing unauthorized access to the public right-of-way? - 84 - State Response Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi Yes North Dakota No Ohio Yes Texas No Virginia Yes Washington Yes West Virginia Yes Wisconsin Yes Question 22. Is there anyone else at your agency we should contact for additional information regarding best practices for managing unauthorized access to the public right-of-way? Figure 19. Survey Responses to Question 22. Question 22.1. Please provide contact information: Six respondents provided contact information for follow-up. Question 23. Please provide any further comments not requested in the survey that you would like us to know. Table 34. Survey Responses to Question 23 by State. 6 12 0 Yes No Unsure Additional Contact (n=18) Figure 19. Survey Responses to Question 22. Question 22.1. Please provide contact information: Six respondents provided contact information for follow-up. Question 23. Please provide any further comments not requested in the survey that you would like us to know. Table 34. Survey Responses to Question 23 by State. State Response Ohio We are happy to help support your research, but this is not a common issue in Ohio, and we do not have any written policy specic to dealing with it. Texas None. Washington WSDOT sponsored an NCHRP research proposal on best management practices for dealing with encampments, and we have received word that our proposal will be funded in the FY2022 cycle. It will be imperative that this study and the one conducted next year are coordinated and sequential. Attaching the proposal FYI. West Virginia While not heartless, the DOH [Department of Housing] is a dynamic entity, and the State of West Virginia has only recently seen permanent homelessness in the urban areas. Much of that is urban, and there is an interplay between the cities and state that does not always jibe. We are geared toward road construction, bridge construc- tion, safe trac ow, and do not buy most property in fee. We buy rights-of-way/easements for state road pur- poses. Were the problem to increase substantially, our role may be lesser than other state DOTs’. Question 24. If you would like to share any additional document, please drop it in the box below (if you have more than one le, please upload them as one .zip le; only one le can be uploaded). Two respondents shared additional documents.