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.
3  Introduction Background The number of people 6 years and older in the United States who bicycled at least once a year increased approximately 23% between 2010 and 2021 to a total of 51.4 million people (Statista Research Department 2022). The increasing number of walking and bicycling trips in the United States has necessitated development of the active transportation infrastructure. Approximately 3% of the U.S. population use active transportation to commute to work (American Community Survey 2016â2020). For a significant group, walking and cycling are the only or preferred modes of transportation (Attanayake et al. 2015). However, many roads are built without sidewalks or bicycle facilities in the United States. As a result, connectivity issues exist for those who walk and bicycle. Government agencies and private and nonprofit organizations across the United States are working to correct this concern and to develop a more balanced, multimodal transportation system (Kastenhofer 2010). Figure 1 displays an example from Austin, Texas (Longhorn Bridge), where accommodations were improved for active transportation users in a bridge retrofit project. Bridges are integral to most roadway systems and often the only reasonable option for people without cars to traverse rivers and highways. However, many bridges are barriers to the con- tinuous and safe movement of active travel (Attanayake et al. 2015). Bridges with inadequate or missing bicycle and pedestrian accommodations create obstacles to connectivity for active transportation users, not only hurting safety performance but also resulting in equity concerns for users (Nance 2012). When a travel mode is inconvenient or is perceived to be unsafe, it is less appealing. Therefore, providing safe paths for bicycle and pedestrian traffic over existing bridges is a critical need and crucial to multimodal transportation planning. For over a decade, DOTs across the United States have been working to address accessibility, safety, comfort, and connectivity for people who walk and bicycle. A U.S. Department of Trans- portation (U.S. DOT) policy statement signed in March 2010 encourages the establishment of well-connected networks to foster safer, more livable communities. In Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations (2010), U.S. DOT stresses the need to provide accommodations for active transportation users on bridges. The following bullets are taken directly from the policy: ⢠U.S. DOT encourages states, local governments, and other government agencies to adopt means and initiatives to integrate bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on new, rehabili- tated, and limited-access bridges. ⢠Approval of bridge projects involving bridge deck replacement or rehabilitation with fed- eral financial participation could be withheld if pedestrians and bicyclists are negatively impacted and the secretary determines that safe accommodations can be provided at a reasonable cost. C H A P T E R 1
4 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Many state DOTs have created plans to improve active transportation networks and increase active transportation options along state-owned roadways. One improvement is reallocating roadway space for pedestrians and bicyclists or constructing new facilities to accommodate these road users. Since many vehicle bridges were not originally designed for active transportation users, they may create gaps in pedestrian and bicyclist networks. How state DOTs work to close the gaps on existing vehicle bridges is the focus of this synthesis project. This synthesis gathered the following information: ⢠Practices for state DOTs to consider in retrofits. ⢠Characteristics of the bridges to which access has been added. ⢠Techniques and standard details that DOTs have used, are using, or have considered using to improve active transportation access to existing vehicle bridges. ⢠Considerations for successful deployment. ⢠Practices on knowledge transfer between state DOTs and other infrastructure owners and operators. ⢠Practices on state DOT bicycle/pedestrian coordinator roles in bridge retrofits. The information was gathered by conducting a literature review, a survey of state DOTs, and three case examples. Objective The objective of this project is to document the practices employed by state DOTs to provide or improve access to existing vehicle bridges for active transportation users. Study Approach As previously mentioned, the study was conducted in three main phases: literature search, survey, and case example interviews. Literature Review A scan of the literature was conducted and focused on academic and professional research on providing access to pedestrians and bicyclists in bridge retrofit projects. One purpose of the literature review and industry scan was to identify bridge retrofit projects as well as overall prac- tices and to review select state DOT manuals and guidelines for accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists in bridge retrofit projects. An online search of the Transportation Research Informa- tion Database, standard peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature databases, and other Source: Photo taken by Joan G. Hudson. Figure 1. Bridge where pedestrian and bicyclist access was improved in Austin, Texas, in 2021.
Introduction 5 sources suggested by panel members was conducted. The results of the literature review are summarized and incorporated into this final report. The literature review is in Chapter 2. Survey A list was developed of 52 DOTs, which included all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The goal was to have one point of contact from each state DOT participate in the online survey about their practices to provide or improve access to existing vehicle bridges for active transportation users. The point of contactâs role was to gather the information requested in the survey from agency staff and enter the answers into the online survey document. The contact list was made up of TRB Active Transportation Council members, several of whom were also state DOT Bicycle Coordinators, because each state DOT is represented on this council. For instances when surveys were not opened or completed, the project team developed an additional list from the AASHTO Research Advisory Council, which also has members from every state DOT, and sought their help as a point of contact to complete the survey. Thirty-one DOTs responded to the survey, which is a 60% participation rate. The map of the states where the DOT participated in the survey is provided in Figure 2. Appendix A includes the survey instrument and Appendix B includes the survey responses. Figure 2. State DOTs that participated in the survey.
6 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges The survey was divided into six sections: ⢠Introduction and screener questions. ⢠Questions focused on the number of projects implemented recently and currently being implemented that provide or improve access to existing vehicle bridges for active transporta- tion users. ⢠Characteristics of the most recent projects that provide or improve access to existing vehicle bridges for active transportation users. ⢠Questions regarding the role of bicycle/pedestrian coordinators in projects that provide or improve access to existing vehicle bridges for active transportation users. ⢠Questions regarding guidelines or policies on how/when to consider retrofitting. ⢠Participant information. The study team provided custom survey links to each DOT to permit the survey to be easily shared among multiple people within the DOT to obtain all requested information. Survey results are included in Chapter 3. Case Examples Chapter 4 contains three case examples of state DOTs that were selected based on several factors: ⢠The states were geographically diverse and represented three of the four AASHTO regions. ⢠The state DOTs had completed bridge retrofit projects in which active transportation access was provided or improved in recent years. ⢠The state DOT survey participant expressed a willingness to participate as a case example. ⢠Several state DOTs were suggested as case examples by a project team member based on participation in the Transportation Pooled Fund TPF-5(343) âRoadside Safety Research for MASH Implementationâ program. This program provides a cooperative approach to research- ing roadside-safety hardware, assisting state DOTs with their implementation of the AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), and addressing other roadside-safety needs of common interest. Case examples focused on bridge projects in which bicycle and pedestrian accommodations and general practices for accommodating or improving access for these road users were implemented. The study team interviewed DOT design engineers, bicycle coordinators, and planners from the following state DOTs: ⢠Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). ⢠Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). ⢠Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The interview guide is provided in Appendix C. Report Organization This report includes five main chapters, references, and four appendices. A literature review was conducted to document practices to provide access to pedestrians and bicyclists. There are survey results of state DOTs regarding retrofit practices that include active transportation. The case examples offer an understanding of the details of the bridge retrofit projects and practices and focus on bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.