Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges (2023)

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.

53   State DOT Survey Responses A P P E N D I X B For the following tables, agency names have been abbreviated (Table B-1). Questions for each table precede the table. Bold text in the question indicates the abbreviation used in the table to indicate that answer. Empty cells in the following tables indicate no response given for that question. Table B-1. Agency names and their abbreviations. Agency Name Agency Abbreviation Alabama Department of Transportation ALDOT Alaska Dept of Transportation & Public Facilities Alaska DOT&PF Arkansas Department of Transportation ARDOT California Department of Transportation Caltrans Colorado Department of Transportation CODOT Delaware Department of Transportation DelDOT Florida Department of Transportation FDOT Hawaii Department of Transportation HDOT Idaho Transportation Department ITD Illinois Department of Transportation IDOT Iowa Department of Transportation Iowa DOT Kansas Department of Transportation KDOT Kentucky Transportation Cabinet KYTC Maine Department of Transportation MaineDOT Maryland Department of Transportation MDOT Massachusetts Department of Transportation MassDOT Michigan Department of Transportation MDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MnDOT Montana Department of Transportation MDT Nevada Department of Transportation NDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation NCDOT North Dakota Department of Transportation NDDOT Oklahoma Department of Transportation ODOT South Carolina Department of Transportation SCDOT Texas Department of Transportation TxDOT Vermont Agency of Transportation VTrans Wyoming Department of Transportation WYDOT

54 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Table B-2 provides the answers to the following questions: • Q6-1. In Calendar Year 2019, how many projects were initiated which involved retrofitting existing bridges to provide or improve access for active transportation users? This includes projects where the retrofit was the primary purpose and projects where the retrofit was secondary to another purpose (e.g., rehabilitation for asset management). Realizing that COVID-19 may have impacted project schedules, please include projects that were initiated during these time periods. • Q6-2. In Calendar Year 2020, how many projects were initiated which involved retrofitting existing bridges to provide or improve access for active transportation users? This includes projects where the retrofit was the primary purpose and projects where the retrofit was secondary to another purpose (e.g., rehabilitation for asset management). Realizing that COVID-19 may have impacted project schedules, please include projects that were initiated during these time periods. • Q6-3. In Calendar Year 2021 how many projects were initiated which involved retrofitting existing bridges to provide or improve access for active transportation users? This includes projects where the retrofit was the primary purpose and projects where the retrofit was secondary to another purpose (e.g., rehabilitation for asset management). Realizing that COVID-19 may have impacted project schedules, please include projects that were initiated during these time periods.

Table B-2. Answers to Questions 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3. Agency Q6-1 Q6-2 Q6-3 ALDOT 0 0 0 Alaska DOT&PF 0 0 1 ARDOT One n/a n/a Caltrans 0 40 3 CODOT 0 0 1 DelDOT 0 1 0 FDOT 2 2 2 HDOT 1 2 1 ITD 0 0 0 IDOT 2 1 3 Iowa DOT 0 1 (still in design) 0 KDOT KYTC 1 2 1 MaineDOT 3 6 6 MDOT varies varies varies MassDOT Unknown/not explicitly tracked/need time to collate information Unknown/not explicitly tracked/need time to collate information Unknown/not explicitly tracked/need time to collate information MDOT 1 4 3 MnDOT MDT NDOT 0 0 1 NCDOT 0 0 0 NDDOT one none none ODOT SCDOT We don't track this data We don't track this data SC 517 (Isle of Palms Connector) TxDOT Not available (N/A) N/A N/A VTrans 0 0 1 WYDOT 0 2 0 N/A = Not Applicable

56 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Table B-3 provides the answers to the following questions: • Q7. Currently, how many bridges are actively being retrofitted (under construction) to provide or improve access for active transportation users? This number may include those identified in the previous question. • Q8. Please think about the most recently completed project to retrofit an existing bridge which provides or improves access for active transportation users. The next few questions will focus solely on this project. What factors were used to identify this bridge as one to be retrofitted which provides or improves access for active transportation users? Select all that apply. Bike or pedestrian counts on the bridge (1) The number of bike or pedestrian conflicts/crashes at the bridge (2) Stakeholder concerns and/or requests for the bridge to be retrofitted (3) Regional or statewide transportation plan (4) Regional or statewide bicycle or pedestrian plan (5) Regional or statewide bridge planning study (6) Known ADA accessibility issues at the bridge (7) Policy changes requiring active transportation accommodations (8) Part of a longer corridor/roadway project (9) Other, specify (10) ________________________________________________ Table B-3. Answers to Questions 7 and 8. Agency Q7 Q8 ALDOT 5 Other Alaska DOT&PF 0 Other ARDOT 1 Stakeholder, Corridor Caltrans 292 Bicycle, Bridge, ADA, Policy CODOT 1 Policy DelDOT 2 Bicycle FDOT 2 Counts, Conflicts, Stakeholder, Transportation, Bicycle, Bridge, Policy HDOT 3 Bicycle, Corridor ITD 0, we are making new bridges wider to accommodate peds and bikes Other IDOT 2 Counts, Conflicts, Stakeholder, Transportation, Bicycle, Policy, Corridor, Other Iowa DOT 0 Other KDOT KYTC 0 Counts, Bicycle, ADA MaineDOT 5 Counts, Stakeholder, Transportation, Bicycle, Corridor

State DOT Survey Responses 57 Agency Q7 Q8 MDOT Exact # is unknown. There are many projects that are initiated by developers and district offices to add or improve pedestrian access. Transportation, Corridor, Other MassDOT Unknown/not explicitly tracked/need time to collate information Bicycle, Policy MDOT Unknown Stakeholder, Transportation, Bicycle, ADA, Corridor MnDOT MDT NDOT 0 Other NCDOT 0 Stakeholder NDDOT none Counts, Stakeholder ODOT SCDOT We don't track this data Stakeholder, Other TxDOT Not available—TxDOT is a large agency with decentralized project development; this information is not readily available. Corridor, Other VTrans 1 Stakeholder WYDOT 1 Stakeholder Table B-4 provides answers to the following questions: • Q9. Please identify who owns and who operates this bridge. o Owner (1) ________________________________________________ o Operator (2) ________________________________________________ • Q9-1. Please identify who owns this bridge. • Q9-2. Please identify who operates this bridge. • Q10. What type of bridge was retrofitted? o Arch (1) o Beam (2) o Truss (3) o Cantilever (4) o Tied arch (5) o Suspension (6) o Cable-stayed (7) o Other, specify (8) ________________________________________________ • Q10-1. Other Text

Table B-4. Answers to Questions 9, 9-1, 9-2, 10, and 10-1. Agency Q9 Q9-1 Q9-2 Q10 Q10-1 ALDOT Most are being handled as part of State's Bridge Replacement Program State of Alabama Same Other, specify New bridge replacement Alaska DOT&PF Environmental commitment for a different project to get approval DOT&PF DOT&PF Beam ARDOT Arkansas DOT DOT and city Beam Caltrans State City Beam CODOT CDOT CDOT Beam DelDOT DelDOT—owns and maintains most roads, thoroughfares and bridges outside of municipal streets DelDOT Beam FDOT Florida DOT Florida DOT Beam HDOT HDOT HDOT Beam ITD Added parallel ped bridge next to existing bridge City of Eagle City of Eagle Beam IDOT Please be aware that I am using a project that is in ph2 engineering with very high likelihood of moving into construction in late 2022 or early 2023 as this has a lot of momentum from many parties in our state. IL DOT IL DOT Beam Iowa DOT (The following information relates to the one project listed in Q6, which is still in design) As part of a deck overlay project on a bridge with a 4'-0 sidewalk, the sidewalk will be widened to comply with ADA requirements and will receive a new traffic barrier separator and fall protection railing. Iowa DOT (same) Beam KDOT

Agency Q9 Q9-1 Q9-2 Q10 Q10-1 KYTC KYTC KYTC Beam MaineDOT MaineDOT MaineDOT Beam MDOT Developer Project MDOT SHA MDOT SHA Beam MassDOT MassDOT MassDOT Other, specify Not sure MDOT Michigan DOT Michigan DOT Beam MnDOT MDT NDOT None recently completed N/A N/A Other, specify N/A NCDOT NCDOT N/A Beam NDDOT ND and MN NDDOT and MNDOT Truss ODOT SCDOT Part of the East Coast Greenway SCDOT SCDOT Beam TxDOT Part of Mobility35 plan to add shared-use paths along the corridor TxDOT TxDOT Beam VTrans Town of Plainfield Vermont Town of Plainfield Vermont Beam WYDOT City of Rock Springs City of Rock Springs Beam N/A = Not Applicable

60 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Table B-5 provides answers to the following questions: • Q11. Please select the attributes below that describe the bridge prior to retrofitting. Select all that apply. The bridge is located on a toll facility (1) The bridge is designated historic (2) The bridge provides access over natural barrier (river, canyon, etc.) (3) The bridge provides access over man made barrier (road, rail, etc.) (4) The bridge is located in an urban area (5) The bridge is located in a suburban area (6) The bridge is located in a rural area (7) The bridge included sidewalks (8) The bridge included bike lanes (9) The bridge included shared use paths (10) The bridge was ADA accessible (11) The bridge is the main connection between residential centers (cities, towns, communities, etc.) (12) The bridge is prone to bike-pedestrian related crashes (13) The bridge is circumvented by newer construction (14) Other, specify (15) ________________________________________________ • Q11-1. Other Text • Q12. Was this retrofit project part of a larger bridge rehabilitation project or was the project solely focused on providing or improving access for active transportation users? o The project was part of a larger bridge rehabilitation project (1) o The project was solely focused on providing or improving access for active transportation users (2) o The project was implemented for some other reason (3) • Q13. Please specify why the retrofit project was implemented. (If implemented for some other reason was noted in Q12.)

Table B-5. Answers to Questions 11, 11-1, 12, and 13. Agency Q11 Q11-1 Q12 Q13 ALDOT Sidewalks Rehabilitation Alaska DOT&PF Natural, Rural, Other Trail access Other Mitigation with USFS for approval of a different project ARDOT Man Made, Urban, Other Previous bridge had wide shoulders used for bike/ped accommodations Other Reduce vehicular congestion at interchange ramp terminal. Caltrans Urban, Sidewalks, Connection Rehabilitation CODOT Natural, Urban, Sidewalks, ADA Rehabilitation DelDOT Natural, Suburban, Other Bridge included wide outside shoulder where a barrier was installed to create a shared use path Access FDOT Natural, Urban, Suburban, Bike Lanes Rehabilitation HDOT Historic, Natural, Suburban, Bike Lanes Rehabilitation ITD Urban, Other Independent parallel bridge Access IDOT Natural, Urban, Sidewalks, Shared Use, ADA, Connection Rehabilitation Iowa DOT Natural, Urban, Sidewalks Rehabilitation KDOT KYTC Man Made, Urban, Bike Lanes, Connection Access MaineDOT Urban Rehabilitation MDOT Urban Access MassDOT Natural, Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, ADA Rehabilitation

Agency Q11 Q11-1 Q12 Q13 MDOT Man Made, Urban, Suburban, Rural, Sidewalks Rehabilitation MnDOT MDT NDOT Other N/A Access NCDOT Man Made, Urban, Sidewalks Access NDDOT Historic, Natural, Urban, Connection Rehabilitation ODOT SCDOT Natural, Urban, ADA, Connection Access TxDOT Natural, Suburban, Sidewalks Other The retrofit of this specific frontage road bridge was part of a larger safety and operational improvement project along I- 35 at Williams Drive, which included the addition of shared use path connectivity. VTrans Natural, Rural, Sidewalks, Connection Access WYDOT Natural, Rural Rehabilitation N/A = Not Applicable

State DOT Survey Responses 63 Table B-6 provides answers to the following questions: • Q14. Please select the strategies used to provide or improve access for active transportation users of this retrofitted bridge. Select all that apply. Construction of new bicycle lanes (1) Construction of new sidewalks (2) Construction of new shared bicycle/vehicle lanes (3) Construction of new shared bicycle/pedestrian path (4) Widening existing bicycle lanes (5) Widening existing shared bicycle/vehicle lanes (6) Widening existing sidewalks (7) Widening existing shared bicycle/pedestrian path (8) Strategies focused on improving access for individuals with disabilities (9) Other, specify (10) ________________________________________________ • Q14-1. Other Text • Q15. What was the cost of this retrofit? If you do not know, simply write in "I do not know." • Q16. Has the retrofit project included implementation of positive protection systems (concrete barriers, guardrails, etc.) to actively protect vulnerable users lanes from potential vehicular impacts? o Yes (1) o No (2)

Table B-6. Answers to Questions 14, 14-1, 15, and 16. Agency Q14 Q14-1 Q15 Q16 ALDOT New bicycle, New sidewalks I do not know Yes Alaska DOT&PF Other Add cantilever path to side of bridge $1 million Yes ARDOT New sidewalks, Access, Other To provide other pedestrian features in including islands and crosswalks The project total was $3.5 million. This amount included other construction costs. No Caltrans New bicycle, New sidewalks, Existing sidewalks I do not know No CODOT Existing sidewalks, Access I do not know Yes DelDOT New path, Access I do not know Yes FDOT New path I do not know Yes HDOT New bicycle CON = $15 million No ITD Other Parallel bridge to existing $2.1 million Yes IDOT New path, Access, Other 2 x 5' curbline sidewalks to an east-side only 14' wide Shared Use Path with vertical separation. This is on IDOT’s webpage here: https://idot.illinois.gov/about-idot/stay- connected/blog/bob-michel I do not know; this will be part of an emergency redecking project Yes Iowa DOT Existing sidewalks INCOMPLETE (project still in design) Yes KDOT KYTC New bicycle I do not know No MaineDOT New path, Existing sidewalks I do not know No MDOT Existing sidewalks I do not know No MassDOT New bicycle, New sidewalks, New path I do not know No

Agency Q14 Q14-1 Q15 Q16 MDOT New lanes, New path, Other 4' or wider shoulders Varies but could be up to $2.5 million for the bridge with a pathway on it and all the related interchange configuration work. Yes MnDOT MDT NDOT Other N/A N/A No NCDOT New bicycle, Existing sidewalks $400,000 Yes NDDOT New bicycle, New sidewalks I do not know Yes ODOT SCDOT New bicycle, New path, Other Restriping to add buffered bike lane and pedestrian path $300,000 No TxDOT New sidewalks, New path, Access I do not know Yes VTrans New sidewalks $650,000.00 No WYDOT New sidewalks, New path I do not know Yes N/A = Not Applicable

66 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Table B-7 provides answers to the following questions: • Q17. Please share any limitations and/or constraints that ${e://Field/AgencyName} faced when choosing and implementing the positive protection system.________________________________________________________________ • Q18. How were these limitations and/or constraints addressed? • Q19. What types of benefits are anticipated as a result of this project to provide or improve access for active transportation users? Select all that apply. Access/Connectivity. Bridges can be gaps in active transportation networks. Well- designed and interconnected bicycle and pedestrian facilities allow all users to conveniently and safely get where they want to go (1) Safety. Implementation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on bridges can improve the safety of these modes, decreasing the likelihood of crashes or conflicts with other road users. (2) Health. By increasing residents’ access to opportunities for physical activity, these facilities can lead to improved health outcomes. (3) Sustainability. Including bicycle and pedestrian facilities on bridges can increase the safety and comfort of nonmotorized travel. Improved nonmotorized travel can lead to a decreased dependency on personal vehicles, contributing to decreases in greenhouse gas emissions, potential reduction in congestion, and increased environmental sustainability within a community. (4) Social Equity. Rivers, highways, and railroad tracks may serve as barriers between neighborhoods with different socioeconomic makeups and different levels of access to jobs and other opportunities. Providing nonmotorized access over these barriers can promote equity, access to opportunity, economic development, and public health. (5) Other, specify (6) ________________________________________________ • Q19-1. Other Text Table B-8 provides answers to the following questions: • Q20 For which of the following types of benefits are data being collected to estimate benefit-related metrics? Select all that apply. Access/Connectivity (1) Safety (2) Health (3) Sustainability (4) Social Equity (5) Other, specify (6) ________________________________________________ • Q20-1. Other Text

Table B-7. Answers to Questions 17, 18, 19, and 19-1. Agency Q17 Q18 Q19 Q19-1 ALDOT More often than not, ALDOT does not have enough room on existing bridges to provide positive protection. We are providing protection on all new bridges when we are providing sidewalks/bicycle lanes. We will evaluate each site to see what we are able to provide. Access, Safety, Sustainability, Social Equity Alaska DOT&PF Rail retrofit was coincidentally happening as part of a different project 2 separate rail systems being used, vehicle and pedestrian Other NEPA compliance for different project ARDOT Access, Safety, Social Equity Caltrans Access, Safety, Health, Sustainability, Social Equity CODOT Poor transition details Applying MASH review principles as best as possible Access, Safety, Social Equity DelDOT N/A N/A Access, Safety, Health, Sustainability, Social Equity FDOT The new path is on a totally separate structure. The new path is on a totally separate structure. Access, Safety, Health, Sustainability, Social Equity HDOT Access, Safety, Health, Sustainability, Social Equity ITD None N/A Access, Safety, Health, Sustainability

Agency Q17 Q18 Q19 Q19-1 IDOT This project will redeck and create exposed rebar for new vertical separation to tie to. If no redecking was done, then tying new vertical separation to existing, covered rebar would be impractical. We have previously had other retrofit projects that bolted through the deck but caused rusted bolts to fall into traffic below. Tying a parapet to existing rebar is one of our greatest constraints and challenges. Fortunately, this project will remove deck surface and expose rebar to tie to. Access, Safety, Health, Sustainability, Social Equity, Other To add to safety, adding a vertical separator now will benefit users when autonomous vehicles arrive. See proposed NPA MUTCD 5B.06 which FHWA proposes to create a vertical separation between autonomous vehicles and bicycles. Iowa DOT (none) N/A Safety KDOT KYTC Access, Safety, Health, Sustainability, Social Equity MaineDOT Access, Safety, Health, Sustainability MDOT Access MassDOT Access, Safety, Health, Sustainability, Social Equity

Agency Q17 Q18 Q19 Q19-1 MnDOT MDT NDOT Other N/A NCDOT N/A N/A Access, Safety NDDOT We had to squeeze 4 lanes of traffic in the space that was left. Went to lane widths <12 feet. Restriping narrower lanes, Creating positive barrier between new sidewalk and veh. lanes, public outreach to indicate that <12 feet lanes were acceptable for speed limits of 35mph. Access, Safety, Social Equity. Providing conc. barrier is very expensive. Often more than has been allocated to a bridge rehab budget. Further, is the spacing requirements. It is often difficult to implement conc. barrier and maintain 12' travel lanes. Lane separator systems (Qwick Kurb) are priced extremely high for MDOT to install (~$125/linear foot). This often leads to asking local agencies to participate in cost sharing. More MDOT simple plastic bollards seem to be regularly ignored by drivers and get hit, this has led to MDOT requiring a maintenance agreement with local agencies. Finally, building sidewalks is an expensive option and is almost always discouraged within the department and if built an agreement is required with the local agency to maintain and often there is a cost sharing request. See Q 17. Access, Safety, Social Equity

TxDOT The bridge roadway surface is level with the shared use path (there was no existing curb), therefore the design needed to provide adequate protection between vehicular traffic and the shared use path, and also address drainage considerations. The shared use path width allowed for adequate clear distance between the rail and bike/pedestrian user. See Q 17. Access, Safety, Health, Sustainability VTrans Access, Safety, Health WYDOT None N/A Access, Safety, Sustainability N/A = Not Applicable Agency Q17 Q18 Q19 Q19-1 ODOT SCDOT Access, Safety, Social Equity

Table B-8. Answers to Questions 20 and 20-1. Agency Name Q20 Q20-1 ALDOT Safety Alaska DOT&PF A/C, Safety, Health ARDOT Other None of the above Caltrans Safety CODOT Other None at this point DelDOT Other 3 FDOT Safety HDOT Safety ITD A/C, Safety, Health, Sustain IDOT A/C, Safety, Sustain, Social Iowa DOT Other N/A KDOT KYTC A/C, Safety MaineDOT Safety MDOT A/C, Safety MassDOT A/C MDOT Other None collected MnDOT MDT NDOT Other N/A NCDOT Other None NDDOT Safety ODOT SCDOT Safety TxDOT Other Crashes will be recorded in the area as a means of comparing how the improvements would impact crash rates and types. VTrans A/C, Safety WYDOT Other None N/A = Not Applicable

72 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Table B-9 provides answers to the following questions: • Q21-1. Please think about all the projects to retrofit existing bridges to provide or improve access for active transportation users which ${e://Field/AgencyName} has completed. Listed below are several roles DOT bicycle or pedestrian coordinators may assist or lead in these projects. For each, please identify the typical role of bicycle or pedestrian coordinators in ${e://Field/AgencyName}. Assist (1) Lead (2) Not Applicable (3) Identifying bridges for retrofit (1) Developing the project request for proposal (2) Project budgeting (3) Identifying funding for the project (4) Public engagement process (5) Procurement process (6) Project management (7) Media engagement regarding the project (8) Identifying performance standards by which project success will be measured (9) Monitoring success of the project (10) Other, specify (11) • Q21-2. Identifying bridges for retrofit (1) • Q21-3. Developing the project request for proposal (2) • Q21-4. Project budgeting (3) • Q21-5. Identifying funding for the project (4) • Q21-6. Public engagement process (5) • Q21-7. Procurement process (6) • Q21-8. Project management (7) • Q21-9. Media engagement regarding the project (8) • Q21-10. Identifying performance standards by which project success will be measured (9) • Q21-11. Monitoring success of the project (10) • Q21-12. Other Text

Table B-9. Answers to Questions 21-1 to 21-12. Agency Q21- 1 Q21- 2 Q21- 3 Q21- 4 Q21- 5 Q21- 6 Q21- 7 Q21- 8 Q21- 9 Q21- 10 Q21- 11 Q21-12 ALDOT A NA NA NA A NA NA NA NA NA Alaska DOT&PF NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ARDOT A NA NA A A NA NA NA A A Caltrans A A NA NA A NA NA A A NA CODOT A A NA NA A A L A A A DelDOT Not being collected FDOT L A A NA A NA A NA A A HDOT A A A A A NA NA A A A ITD A A A NA A NA NA A NA A IDOT A A A A A A A A L L A There are multiple bike/ped coordinators between central and districts. Funds sometimes cause the coordinators to become Leads such as with SPR or ITEP. District Coordinators are the primary person we are writing above for the items above. Iowa DOT NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA "Retrofit" of existing bridges with new ped/bike facilities has not been done in Iowa KDOT KYTC A A A L A A A A A A MaineDOT A A NA NA A NA NA NA NA NA MDOT NA A NA NA A NA NA A A A MassDOT NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA L Statewide planning process to identify vision, goals, performance measures MDOT A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA MnDOT MDT

Agency Q21- 1 Q21- 2 Q21- 3 Q21- 4 Q21- 5 Q21- 6 Q21- 7 Q21- 8 Q21- 9 Q21- 10 Q21- 11 Q21-12 NDOT NCDOT NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NDDOT L L L L L L L L L L ODOT SCDOT A L L L L L L A L L TxDOT NA NA NA NA A NA NA NA NA NA A TxDOT’s district bike/ped coordinators may be involved in varying degrees with any aspect of project planning or development depending on their primary job and the needs/interests of the local district office and community. VTrans A A L L A A L A A A WYDOT A A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA A Note: A = Assist, L = Lead, NA = Not Applicable.

State DOT Survey Responses 75 Table B-10 provides answers to the following questions: • Q22 Does ${e://Field/AgencyName} have a standardized approach or guidelines on how/when to consider retrofitting? o Yes (1) o No (2) • Q23 Does ${e://Field/AgencyName} have any policies or engineering directives on how/when to consider retrofitting? o Yes (1) o No (2) • Q26 Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up interview, if ${e://Field/AgencyName} is selected as one of a handful of case studies? Table B-10. Answers to Questions 22, 23, and 26. Agency Name Q22 Q23 Q26 ALDOT No No Alaska DOT&PF No Yes ARDOT No No Caltrans No Yes CODOT No No DelDOT No No FDOT No Yes HDOT No No ITD No Yes IDOT No Yes Iowa DOT No No KDOT KYTC Yes Yes Yes MaineDOT No Yes MDOT No Yes MassDOT Yes Yes Yes MDOT No Yes MnDOT MDT NDOT No Yes NCDOT No No NDDOT No No ODOT SCDOT No No TxDOT Yes Yes No VTrans No Yes WYDOT No Yes