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.

21   Case Examples This chapter contains a summary of three case examples. Each state DOT case example inter- view was focused on the following topics: • Project details or general information about practices. • Planning and design of the project. • Project finance. • Public/stakeholder engagement. • Implementation/performance monitoring. • Challenges/lessons learned. Massachusetts Department of Transportation MassDOT has a long history of incorporating bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in project design and has published many planning initiatives and engineering directives to guide prac- tices, including those for adding bicycle and pedestrian access on existing vehicle bridges. In this case example, the authors summarized MassDOT’s general practices for providing or improving access to existing vehicle bridges for active transportation users. In 2004, MassDOT formed the Massachusetts Bike/Pedestrian Advisory Board to serve in an advisory role in advancing bicycle and pedestrian transportation. In 2006, MassDOT published Project Development & Design Guide criteria for guiding context-sensitive, community-friendly road and bridge projects. In 2013, MassDOT released the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive, which requires all MassDOT-funded or MassDOT-designed transportation projects to increase bicycling, walking, and transit options. In 2014, to support the Healthy Transportation Policy Directive, MassDOT published Design Criteria Engineering Directive for MassDOT Highway Division Projects, in which pedestrian and bicycle facilities were incorporated as two of the controlling criteria. In addition, MassDOT worked with the Massachusetts Bay Transporta- tion Authority to release Better Bus Project Plan in 2018 and developed Statewide Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plans in 2019. In 2020, MassDOT updated the Design Criteria Engi- neering Directive, Controlling Criteria and Design Justification Process for MassDOT Highway Division Projects, to meet the statewide bicycle, pedestrian, and transit goals and to be more context-sensitive. The Controlling Criteria and Design Justification Process for MassDOT Highway Division Projects (MassDOT 2020) is the latest document that guides MassDOT’s practice for adding and improving bicycle and pedestrian access to existing vehicle bridges. Planning and Design MassDOT-funded bridge replacement or rehabilitation programs are required to consider bicycle and pedestrian accommodations with some exceptions. The specific controlling criteria C H A P T E R 4

22 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges used for the bridge plan and design vary based on the facility type and areas. MassDOT adopts several design guides to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are made within the range of standards (Figure 10). However, providing or improving access for active transpor- tation users is not usually the reasons bridges are selected for replacements or rehabilitations. MassDOT staff mentioned that they identify a bridge for replacement or rehabilitation because the bridge needs to be repaired or it is part of a large highway project. Although providing or improving bicycle and pedestrian access is not the initial purpose, MassDOT staff mentioned that they identify the needs and opportunities of adding bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in the bridge scoping stage. In the Design Criteria Engineering Directive (MassDOT 2020), MassDOT recognizes 14 con- trolling criteria for MassDOT highway division projects, including pedestrian and bicycle facili- ties (see Figure 11). MassDOT requires that pedestrian facilities be provided on both sides of a roadway of all bridge projects “where pedestrians are legally allowed including the roadway underneath the bridge.” Bicycle facilities are also required for each direction of vehicular traffic where bicyclists are legally allowed, except roadways classified as local. The same directive also identifies exceptions when considering bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in a bridge retrofit project. Namely, pavement preservation activities and bridge preservation/maintenance treat- ments, such as joint repair, deck repair, superstructure repair, and substructure repair, are often exempted from bike and pedestrian accommodations. Once the Project Review Committee (PRC) approves a bridge project, MassDOT hosts bridge- scoping meetings to refine the scope of the project. In the meetings, different stakeholders, including DOT staff, highway staff, consultants, and municipalities’ representatives discuss the needs, opportunities, and challenges of the bridge. They review the existing conditions of the project area and evaluate whether the project area has a high potential for walking and bicy- cling trips, whether it is in environmental-justice areas, and whether it is in an area with higher crash risks. In addition, they review the pre-25% design plan and identify risks of pursuing the scope, including utility constraints, environmental impacts, limited rights of way, and so forth (MassDOT 2021). Besides the Controlling Criteria and Design Justification Process for MassDOT Highway Divi- sion Projects (MassDOT 2020), MassDOT staff mentioned that Statewide Bike and Pedestrian Source: Controlling Criteria and Design Justification Process for MassDOT Highway Division Projects, MassDOT (2020). Figure 10. Applicable design guide.

Case Examples 23 Plans developed by MassDOT in 2019 also plays an important role in influencing its practices for providing or improving access for active transportation users in the bridge retrofit project. These plans help identify whether the bridge is a critical gap in the bicycle and pedestrian network. If the bridge is identified as a critical gap, the bridge retrofit project will likely include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations to ensure the connectivity of the bridge as part of the surrounding active transportation network. Project Finance MassDOT has a capital investment plan (CIP) covering the funding for many projects and programs, including the bridge retrofit program. The CIP is funded from a mix of federal, state, and local sources. Municipalities in Massachusetts own 80% of the commonwealth’s roads and bridges. Thus, the CIP also supports the funding of the bridges whose right of way belongs to municipalities for replacements or rehabilitations. However, municipalities are still responsible for maintenance of bridges after completion of the retrofit project. Public and Stakeholder Engagement MassDOT adopted the standard public stakeholder/engagement process. When the PRC has approved the project, the project manager hosts the bridge-scoping meeting with different stakeholders. Figure 12 shows the core disciplines involved in the scoping meeting (the bridge project column has been emphasized in the figure). In the meeting, they provide an overview of the existing conditions of the bridge; review the purpose, need, and scope of work as approved by the PRC; and identify any risks to pursuing the scope. The project manager also obtains input for cross sections to accommodate all users and determines data collection and concep- tual analysis needs. Then the designer and/or consultant performs data collection and develops conceptual designs. 1Includes any Interstate highways and other freeways regardless of speed. 2These criteria are only reviewed and approved by MassDOT. Source: Controlling Criteria and Design Justification Process for MassDOT Highway Division Projects, MassDOT (2020). 2 2 1 Figure 11. MassDOT controlling criteria.

24 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges In terms of conceptual designs, the designer/consultant often holds public outreach meetings with local officials, the general public, and property owners and businesses abutting the project. Then, with the base plan and design, the project manager hosts bridge-scoping meetings again to confirm the scope. After the bridge-scoping meetings, the project manager schedules public outreach to obtain input from the public. When getting input from all users, MassDOT amends the initial scope correspondingly after evaluating the current scope of work and public feedback. MassDOT staff emphasized that coordination and communication among different stakeholders exist at all stages of the project. MassDOT staff commented on its practices to meet ADA compliance and address the needs of people with disabilities. The practices include designing sidewalks with extra width, install- ing accessible crosswalks, and building a separate path with a lower grade across the bridge. MassDOT also recognized that full compliance with these regulations may not be feasible in all situations based on existing or latent field conditions. The project designer may request relief from state requirements, as noted in 521 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 4.1, Variances (MassDOT 2020). Implementation and Performance Monitoring MassDOT has no standard performance monitoring measures after completing a bridge retrofit project. Interviewees pointed out the data limitation for performance monitoring. Count and crash data are two common types of data that MassDOT collects, owns, and controls. MassDOT decides when it collects these two types of dataset. It is challenging to coordinate with external agencies or organizations to collect other types of data for evaluating projects. Thus, MassDOT usually uses two types of data, active travel trip data (e.g., counts) and crash data, to monitor Source: MassDOT (2021). Figure 12. Stakeholders involved in the bridge scoping meeting were asked to choose core disciplines according to project type.

Case Examples 25 changes in active transportation trips and crashes at the state, county, or city level instead of those before and after a specific project. MassDOT staff recognized the importance of adding bicycle and pedestrian access to existing bridges for the entire bike and pedestrian network system. These bridges usually are critical gaps in the active travel network. Thus, adding bicycle and pedestrian access to existing bridges could make bicycling and walking viable and improve potential mobility and accessibility. MassDOT staff mentioned that they do not usually monitor the active transportation trip data (i.e., actual trips) before and after the completion of a project and that they care more about access and potential mobility. MassDOT staff also noted that those listed performance-monitoring measures, including access/connectivity, safety, health, sustainability, and social equity, are more likely to be input at the design stage for CIP and projects when they identify and prioritize projects. Equity analysis is an important step in the CIP, which states: “MassDOT evaluates pro- posed investments and projects to assure that they are equitable with respect to both geog- raphy and to the population groups that they benefit” (MassDOT 2022). MassDOT has also established performance measures in the Statewide Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans to track the agency’s progress in planning and designing the active travel network. Those performance measures mainly evaluate how many roadways have sidewalks and bicycle facilities. MassDOT also includes equity checks for these measures to identify any disparities that affect minority populations, women, low-income populations, populations with limited English proficiency, persons with disabilities, and/or people of ages under 18 or 65 and older (MassDOT 2019a and 2019b). In the bridge scoping stage, MassDOT analyzes crash data, considers safety performance, evaluates the current level of active travel activities, and identifies whether key destinations/trip generators for bicycling and walking trips exist around the bridge. Challenges and Lessons Learned MassDOT staff have observed two challenges and recognized two lessons. The first challenge is the time gap between design and construction. These projects are usually capital inten- sive and take years to complete. The design may take several years; therefore, once it is con- structed, the project may not satisfy the increasing active travel volume needs and meet any new bicycle and pedestrian accommodation policies. MassDOT staff said they try their best to rescope projects by reassessing the needs and opportunities of the bridges instead of using the old design. The second challenge is accommodating all design criteria in the plan and design stage. These design criteria are often incompatible. MassDOT staff need to address all criteria to the best extent possible to get the project through completion. MassDOT staff mentioned the chal- lenge of implementing positive protection systems to actively protect vulnerable users around bus stops. They also noted the incompatibility of ADA compliance with other design criteria and the challenge of retrofitting a bridge in the historic district to make the design fit into the historical context. In terms of lessons, MassDOT staff have recognized the importance of considering the inter- section design when adding bicycle and pedestrian access to the existing bridge. Intersections need to accommodate all potential turning movements. As such, it is important to consider how to include safe access on and off the bridge. They also realized the importance of continuous and effective communication among stakeholders who work on the same project or are influenced by the project.

26 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Michigan Department of Transportation The interview with MDOT staff was less about one specific project and more about overall practices concerning access for pedestrians and bicyclists on vehicle bridge retrofit projects. The staff referred to many bridges as examples when discussing various aspects, from planning and design to funding and stakeholder input—some of which are mentioned in this summary. The MDOT Bridge Design Manual is the guide for plan preparation procedures of bridges on the interstate/freeway and also on arterials, collectors, and local road systems governed by MDOT. The manual includes new bridges and bridge retrofit projects. The first paragraph of Chapter 1 stresses the importance of accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists and that incor- poration of or connectivity to active transportation modes of transportation must be considered. Rehabilitation projects are discussed in Chapter 12 of the Bridge Design Manual, which includes the following statement: Where pedestrian traffic exists across a structure having sidewalks less than 4’ 0” wide, an evaluation must be made to determine the hazard involved and to consider practical improvements. All structures carrying pedestrians need to be evaluated for conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. (MDOT 2019a) A similar statement exists for other modes of transportation (e.g., bicycles, multi-use paths) in that chapter. The state is divided into seven MDOT regions (see Figure 13) that each manage transportation- related construction, maintenance, and programs. In addition, there are eight pedestrian and bicyclist regional plans that cover most if not all of the counties in the state. Some of the plans have geographies that align with MDOT regions. The regional plans include existing and pro- posed facilities as well as priorities in each of the counties in the plan. Planning and Design There are two primary drivers guiding decisions about including access for pedestrians and bicyclists. The first involves active transportation plans that have been adopted by metro- politan planning organizations (MPOs) or local agencies. These local plans are mentioned within the regional plan documents and often provide needs and desires that are project-specific. Source: MDOT (2022). Figure 13. Seven MDOT regions.

Case Examples 27 The second driver is the MDOT bridge replacement strategy in the region. Is funding available to replace a bridge or significantly alter bridge decking? If so, the local plans help the designers and others in the region decide on the accommodations for and protections of active trans- portation users. For existing structures, MDOT has to consider the bridge condition and type of structure (e.g., superstructure, beams) when retrofitting. An important question, repeated throughout the interview, was whether the structure can carry additional loads. The desires of the local com- munity are another factor when deciding whether to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities and what types of pedestrian and bicyclist facilities should be installed. Interviewees reflected on a case several years ago when MDOT was undertaking a bridge retrofit project on Willow Road. The community did not want to provide access for pedestrians and bicyclists; therefore, no accommodations were included in the project. Recently, however, that community has indicated a desire for access by active transportation users. Unfortunately, adding bicycle and pedestrian facilities at present is much more challenging. Another factor for accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists in bridge retrofit projects is the amount of available pavement width that can be reallocated for bicycle and pedestrian facili- ties. Posted speed limits, motor vehicle traffic volumes, and estimates of bicycle and pedestrian demand are also factors to consider. Demand is calculated based on assumed trip generation rates. Some bridges in the state have more capacity than needed for motor vehicle demand. For these bridges, adding facilities for walking and bicycling is much easier. Nevertheless, designers must return to the condition of the bridge and the structural load that can be accommodated. Re-striping to include bicycle lanes does not significantly change the load on the bridge struc- ture. Adding a sidewalk and/or concrete barrier, however, increases the load and may require structural changes to handle the increased load. Positive protection systems are challenging for bridge retrofit projects due to the weight of the concrete. An example of a bridge retrofit project in which a lane is being removed to provide space for pedestrians and bicyclists is in Ypsilanti, Michigan, where South Huron Street and South Hamilton Street intersect to cross I-94. It is currently under construction and will include accommodations for active transportation users on the west side of the bridge in a shared-use path. As shown in Figure 14, a barrier (i.e., positive protection system) serves to separate motor vehicle traffic from active transportation users, providing a more comfortable facility for these users. The western- most southbound travel lane on Huron Street will be removed to make space for the shared-use path. Since MDOT owns and operates both roadways (Huron Street and I-94), the decision to include active transportation access is made by MDOT staff. Another bridge project (Parkview Avenue over US-131 in Kalamazoo, Michigan) is in a loca- tion where a county road (Parkview Avenue) crosses a state-controlled highway. While MDOT owns the bridge structure and takes responsibility for the load and its structural integrity, the county decides on operational changes in terms of the number and width of lanes and whether to remove a car lane for the addition of a shared-use path or other bicycle/pedestrian facility. Therefore, the decision does not always fall to MDOT. Regarding the process for considering pedestrians and bicyclists, there is no major distinction between bridge retrofit and bridge replacement projects from a planning perspective. MDOT recognizes that the bridge (whether retrofitted or replaced) will exist for a long time; therefore, it wants to make sure that the community plans for and has the structure they need. Nonetheless, retrofit projects are more challenging when considering funding options. A concern mentioned by interviewees is the real estate surrounding the bridge and the fact that many bridges were built decades ago where only farms existed. Intensive development might have occurred around and adjacent to the bridge, which complicates the decision-making pro- cess. Similarly, land use developments planned for the next three to five years must be considered.

28 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Depending on the type of development, turning movement volume estimates may mean that the removal of travel lanes or the center turn lane is not practical. Furthermore, the operation of the bridge as it is today or in the near future may warrant additional car lanes. The adjacent development may make it difficult to do a retrofit or even a replacement project if right-of-way limitations or concerns of the adjacent landowners exist. These and other external influences contribute to the decision-making process. Once it is decided to include access for active transportation users, the process determines what bicycle and pedestrian facilities are appropriate. The first step is understanding the users. How will they cross the bridge and by which mode? Are they primarily walking? Are some using assistive mobility devices? Are most riding bicycles? Once MDOT understands the user, it considers the preferred long-term alternative by the local agency and decides whether it can provide that option. The Cadillac version is a shared-use path with a concrete barrier, often with a parapet railing. If MDOT cannot provide this accommodation, planners work to achieve the desired alternative as near as possible—which may mean considering a raised curb, as shown in Figure 15. This option has been used to separate motor vehicle lanes from the shoulder or bike Source: Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (2014). Figure 14. Huron Street Bridge over I-94 in Ypsilanti, Michigan.

Case Examples 29 lane. This type of lane separator would not be appropriate for a sidewalk already elevated. One drawback of the raised curb is that it must be anchored to the bridge deck (four bolts drilled every 10 feet), which can cause deterioration where salts and waters enter the drilled hole. Another negative factor regarding traffic lane separators and positive protection systems is snow collected behind the barrier on the shoulder, which is challenging to clear. Traditionally, the county is responsible for snow clearance; clearing behind the barrier may be too much of a cost burden. In some cases, local agencies prefer no barrier to a raised curb separator for this reason. Planners consider three types of barriers: hard, soft, and no barriers. MDOT is searching for the ideal solution in which holes in the bridge deck are minimized, snow removal is less chal- lenging, and protection for active transportation users is provided. Interviewees recognized that, although the lane separator provides a visual cue for motorists to identify the location of active transportation, it is not a barrier, because it would not necessarily stop an errant motor vehicle as would a positive protection system. An ideal solution would be some combination of flexible plastic posts and a heavy concrete barrier. One measurement that planners rely on for facility selection is the amount of freight traffic. Wide shoulders provide an acceptable bicycle facility in many cases; however, a physical barrier is needed when heavy freight traffic exists in order to provide additional safety and comfort for bicyclists. In the Ypsilanti Huron Street bridge example, a wide shoulder was not a solution because freight traffic and expected pedestrians and bicyclists would not have a barrier between them. The community wanted more protection; therefore, MDOT had to consider how to fit pro- tection in the available width. As one respondent said about this decision in general, “Sometimes narrowing the lanes and widening the shoulder is the best that can be done.” When asked about safety policies that may influence decisions, interviewees pointed to the state DOT’s adoption of Toward Zero Deaths. This statewide goal influences the selection of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As mentioned previously, the goal is to identify a barrier that achieves agency objectives. Interviewees emphasized the desire to include a barrier where there is a high percentage of commercial freight traffic mixed with active transportation users. In these situations, painted shoulders (without physical separation) were not preferred. Therefore, in terms of safety performance, the design of barriers or protections for pedestrians and bicyclists is a key concern. Guidelines exist in Chapter 12 of the MDOT Bridge Design Manual, which has minimum design standards for retrofits and includes guidelines such as whether to retain or replace bridge railings, which is critical for the safety of all bridge users. Table 7 is used Source: Google Maps. Figure 15. Example of traffic lane separator.

30 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges to guide designers on railing decisions. Posted speed and sidewalk/brush block width are factors to consider, among others. More detail is provided in the MDOT Bridge Design Guide 6.05.02, which includes specific railing or protection considerations based primarily on the posted speed limit (see Figure 16). An example of a project mentioned was the DeWitt Road bridge in which additional capacity was available and structural integrity was not an issue. Five lanes with wide shoulders existed. Travel lanes were removed, and a 14-foot-wide shared-use path was added on the west side of the bridge. Additional railings and a positive protection system were built. The project was recently completed. Before-and-after photos are provided in Figure 17 and Figure 18. Project Finance Like road construction funded by federal, state, and local taxpayer dollars, bridge retrofit projects are typically paid for by a combination of government sources. Funds are raised through the federal fuel tax, state fuel tax, and license and registration fees. The Michigan Transporta- tion Fund was started in 1951 and is shared among transportation agencies for the construc- tion, maintenance, and operation of Michigan’s transportation system. Excise tax on recreational marijuana was allocated to this fund during FY 2021 and will continue to be allocated in subse- quent years, providing projected revenue of $50 million, $59 million, and $68 million in 2022, 2023, and 2024, respectively. Also, in 2019, additional revenue was phased in from an income tax Source: MDOT (2019a). Replace = Replace railing with Standard MDOT-approved bridge rail; Retrofit = Retrofit per Standard Plans B-22, B-23, or B-50 Series; Retain = Retain existing bridge rail; Guardrail = Attach thrie beam guardrail directly to concrete posts. 1 Where sidewalks are required for pedestrian use, they shall provide at least 4'-0" clear distance between the bevel point and the retained, retrofitted, or replaced railing (12-5-2005). 2 Normally, handrails should not be removed; however, if they are removed, anchor bolts should be left in place. This treatment is accepted as crash-tested for Michigan Thrie Beam Retrofit (Std B-23). 3 Replace railing if circumstances warrant; otherwise, attach thrie beam guardrail to railing (concrete posts) with " diameter bolts. Wood blocks and blockouts shall not be used in guardrail attachment to posts. If approach guardrail is present or being installed, it shall be attached to thrie beam guardrail on bridge; use thrie beam transition and expansion sections as required. If no approach guardrail is present or being installed, terminate thrie beam guardrail at end post of railing with thrie beam terminal connector. 4 Obsolete Standards R15 A - R15 N, X-17 and B-17 Series & X-20 and B-20 Series. Replace if warranted by the condition of the existing barrier and the crash history; retain otherwise. 5 Sidewalk/brushblock height at curb must be ≥10". 6 Remove sidewalk width as needed for shoulder width. 7 8 Table 7. Bridge railing treatment options.

Case Examples 31 Source: MDOT (2019a). Figure 16. Bridge Design Guide 6.05.02—Protection Systems.

32 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Source: Google Maps. Figure 17. Before shared-use path installation on DeWitt Road Bridge over I-69. Source: Michigan Department of Transportation Bridge Inspector, April 2022. Figure 18. Completed shared-use path on DeWitt Road Bridge over I-69. redirection divided between the State Trunkline Fund (a fund for state-controlled highways), county road commissions, and cities and villages. The state transportation law (MCLA 247.660k) requires a minimum of 1% of state transpor- tation funds to be spent for active travel, such as shared-use paths, sidewalks, curb ramps, bike lanes, shoulder paving, and planning and education. The projects must have a clear transporta- tion purpose and typically occur within the road rights of way (MDOT 2019b).

Case Examples 33 Having a funding partner is the goal of bridge retrofit projects that go beyond the basic design of what MDOT can fund. Interviewees pointed to the Ypsilanti Huron Street Bridge Project as an example in which many partners helped fund the project. This is a model that MDOT anticipates moving toward increasingly. The state of Michigan bridge program traditionally receives approximately $200 million for bridges per fiscal year. MDOT has 6,005 bridges in its inventory, and 12 of them are movable struc- tures, which are expensive to maintain and replace. MDOT has 41 structures that are classified as big bridges or unique/complex bridges in the inventory, which are also expensive to maintain and replace. (Big bridges are defined as having a deck area of 100,000 square feet or greater.) Of the $200 million allocated toward MDOT bridges, a portion of that funding is reserved for funding movable bridges, big bridges, and complex bridges; that amount varies per year depending on the needs of those structures. The remaining funding is distributed to the seven MDOT regions based on a formula that considers bridge condition, number of bridges in each region, and other factors. Many MDOT structures were built in the 1950s and 1960s; it is difficult to monitor all needed repairs of aging inventory. Maintaining the structural integrity of the bridge is of utmost impor- tance. If MDOT must spend $500,000 or more on a retrofit project to add accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists, that money is not allocated to a bridge that has a deteriorated condition. If grants or other local funding is made available, it helps to complete the bridge project; however, the responsibility for long-term capital maintenance typically stays with MDOT. Therefore, the cost remains a concern even after construction is completed. If a bridge is in poor condition, MDOT will not spend much money retrofitting it, and the bridge will likely be replaced. If congested conditions exist, the bridge may be eligible for different funding sources depend- ing on the type of congestion and the location of the bridge. For example, funding such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program or internal MDOT competitive funding might be appropriate sources. In some cases, such as when bridges are hit, making repairs accelerates the process of a retro- fit project. Columbia Street Bridge over US 127 is an example of a bridge that was struck by an over-height vehicle. The damage to the bridge presented an opportunity to provide accommoda- tions. Wider shoulders and a traffic curb separator were included in the bridge retrofit project. Unfortunately, the rebuilding opportunity from a bridge strike does not mean that access can always be added for pedestrians and bicyclists, since the insurance money is somewhat restricted to reconstructing what existed before. Recouping the cost from the insurance company is more complicated if new designs are planned. Public and Stakeholder Engagement The MDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator have developed active transportation groups referred to as Regional Pedestrian and Bicycle Committees. These committees exist in every region and consist of pedestrian and bicycle advocates and transportation leaders who meet quarterly. The planners from MDOT used to have support from consultants to run and coor- dinate these committees; however, the committees are largely now the responsibility of MDOT staff. In some regions, the committees have gone beyond MDOT and include local agencies and advocacy groups (LivingLAB 2017). These committees act as a means to discuss and get feedback on bridge retrofit projects, as well as to hear from advocates about bridge-related concerns. As previously mentioned, local plans are some of the first considerations for bridge retrofit projects. Planning data are pulled from the pedestrian and bicyclist plans in these local areas. Requests from stakeholders are recorded on a spreadsheet and referred to often. Interviewees pointed to a local MPO in Washtenaw County that funded a project about bridge conditions. Long-term goals were stated in this guide, and every bridge in the county was included in the conditions table.

34 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Political changes were mentioned as an issue that MDOT must contend with. Sometimes elected officials or staff want facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. At other times, they are less of a priority. Other ways to receive input from the community exist, such as when an MDOT regional staff person inquires about the local plan in an area where a bridge project is scoped or when an advocacy group member brings a particular bridge concern to the attention of the MDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator, who serves as the “eyes and ears on the ground” for the community and as a contact for bicycle groups. As such, the coordinator keeps lines of commu- nication open about needs that exist at present or are expected in the future. Beyond communication and coordination within the community, the MDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator also functions as the region’s expert for detailed design considerations. As such, the coordinator joins meetings to review and discuss bicycle and pedestrian designs, ensures compliance with the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, discerns whether there is design flexibility, and provides input on other design options. Interviewees indicated that no standard method exists to identify stakeholder groups; conse- quently, they depend on MPOs to share stakeholder contacts. Generally, MDOT considers the staff of local municipalities or advocacy groups representative of the general public. More spe- cifically, gaining feedback from people experiencing disabilities is often challenging; therefore, reliance on local agencies and MPOs is necessary to ensure attention is given and needs are met. In some cases, it is through requests for amenities that MDOT discovers the concerns of these groups. For example, because MDOT has received requests from citizens in Ypsilanti for audible pedestrian signals, they learned that persons with disabilities live and/or travel in the area. While bridge replacement projects hold stakeholder and public meetings as a rule during the design phase, for bridge retrofit projects, public meetings are more ad hoc or case by case. Implementation and Performance Monitoring The primary objectives of MDOT bridge retrofit projects are to increase mobility and safety. Before/after bicycle and pedestrian count data collection is not routinely conducted due to time constraints. Crash data are pulled to apply for internal safety funding as an important step before project selection. Nonetheless, safety performance data are not typically reviewed after project completion to determine the reduction in crashes. Interviewees did mention that crash data could be accessed from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, since that MPO has a high-crash-analysis map that is routinely updated. The data and analysis could be shared and further developed if desired. Sometimes public health goals, metrics, or concerns are included in active transportation plans. Although recreation and activity levels are important, they are not specifically concerns of MDOT. Challenges and Lessons Learned As mentioned earlier, the Willow Road Bridge Project is one in which a missed opportunity occurred. Interviewees said it is challenging to reflect on what could have been done differently, because they did not know how the conversations proceeded with local agencies years ago and what shortfalls may have occurred. They suggested that one practice going forward might be to better track conversations so that future MDOT staff understand what occurred. When a political change occurs or new personnel are hired, interviewees said that priorities may change resulting in more or less preference for providing access for pedestrians and bicyclists. Now that there is an active transportation plan in place, the region’s priorities are established and have lasting value.

Case Examples 35 Interviewees reiterated the challenges of funding bridge retrofit projects. Local agencies tend to seek all of the access and protections for active transportation users in addition to driving, but they want MDOT to pay for it, which is problematic; consequently, they welcome cost sharing. MDOT is working to make improvements to the system, which includes bridges. For many reasons, completed bridge projects may not include every desired design element. At other times, MDOT cannot accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, perhaps because of traffic volume, turn- ing movements, freight loads, and so forth, and because there is no available space on the struc- ture for a sidewalk. Planners and designers must work within the boundaries provided. One final point stressed was the importance of coordination and collaboration with others. MDOT lacks understanding what local populations want on their road network; therefore, talk- ing to them is critical. A second point was that funding from a federal source for bridge retrofit projects is desired, since financing is one of the biggest obstacles to providing access for active transportation users. Florida Department of Transportation The focus of the FDOT case example is the improvement project of the Fuller Warren Bridge in Jacksonville in northeast Florida along I-95. The bridge provides access over the natural bar- rier of the St. Johns River (see Figure 19) and is approximately 1.5 miles long. FDOT owns and operates the bridge. Beyond this bridge project, the interviewees also shared general practices of adding bike and pedestrian access to existing bridges in Florida. Source: FDOT (2022a). Figure 19. Conceptual plans of the Fuller Warren Bridge.

36 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Planning and Design The Fuller Warren Bridge improvement is part of a larger rehabilitation project, the I-10/I-95 Interchange Improvement Project. Interviewees identified many factors used to determine if and how this bridge would be retrofitted to improve access for active transportation users. These factors included bicycle and pedestrian counts on the bridge, number of crashes on the bridge, stakeholder concerns, statewide transportation plans, and policy changes requiring active trans- portation accommodations. Concerning the policy changes that require active transportation accommodations, interviewees pointed to the Complete Streets Policy, which guides its practices of adding active transportation accommodations. FDOT adopted the Complete Streets Policy in September 2014 to promote safety, quality of life, and economic development in Florida. The policy states: “FDOT will routinely plan, design, construct, reconstruct and operate a context- sensitive transportation network that works for all modes of travel” (FDOT 2015). In 2015, FDOT published the Complete Streets Implementation Plan to integrate the Complete Streets Approach into FDOT’s practices (FDOT 2015), including: 1. Integrating a Complete Streets approach into the core documents, such as guidelines, standards, policies, and manuals. 2. Integrating Complete Streets into FDOT’s long-term transportation plans and decision-making processes at all levels. 3. Modifying approaches for measuring performance such as safety, comfort, access to destina- tions, and so forth. 4. Managing internal and external communication and collaboration during implementation. 5. Providing ongoing education and training for staff and consultants to create an agency culture that considers all transportation users as a core part of the FDOT’s mission. The interviewees stated that these changes and updates significantly influence their practices of adding pedestrian and bicycle access to existing bridges. The Fuller Warren Bridge is located in an urban core area with high pedestrian and bicycle traffic volumes. Thus, there is a need to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate the area safely. Interviewees mentioned that FDOT has a robust process of coordinating with local governments and understanding their regional transportation plans and the need to address the pedestrian and bicycling gaps in the transportation system. In the project scoping phase, FDOT bicycle and pedestrian coordinators work with stakeholders to identify whether bridges are critical gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network and work to ensure that active transportation network connectivity is provided. The improvements for the Fuller Warren Bridge include adding a northbound and southbound traffic lane and a 12-foot shared-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists on the south side of the bridge separated by a fence/railing. The bridge connects the San Marco and Riverside neighborhoods. Before the improvement, the bridge had outside shoulders. The interviewees stated that adding a shared-use path is much more cost-efficient than including a bike lane and a sidewalk. Construction of the shared-use path is expected to be completed in fall 2022. Interviewees stated that safety plays an important role in determining the project’s design and that FDOT has a Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Included in this plan is a list of transpor- tation projects planned for each of the five fiscal years to carry out the duties associated with Chapter 334 of the Florida Statutes. This statute authorizes FDOT to assume the responsibility for coordinating the planning of a safe, viable, and balanced state transportation system serving all regions of the state and to assure the compatibility of all components, including multimodal facilities. The plan is the state’s five-year comprehensive implementation to reduce traffic crashes resulting in fatal or serious injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists, which also guides the design of bridge projects. The interviewees emphasized that their projects seek to provide safer accom- modations for pedestrians and bicyclists especially when sharing routes with high-speed vehicle

Case Examples 37 traffic. They stated: “In particular on bridges, unless it is a low-speed condition our typical bridge sections do have positive protection.” When adding sidewalks or repurposing bridge space to add bicycle and pedestrian facilities, FDOT is including positive protection, which would typically be a concrete barrier. Thus, the Fuller Warren Bridge project includes implementing positive protection systems to protect vulnerable users from potential vehicular impacts (Figure 20). Project Finance FDOT owns and operates the Fuller Warren Bridge. The cost of the bridge project is $126 million (Davis 2022). The project is currently funded as part of the department’s Work Program. State taxes and fees, along with federal aid, make up the primary funding sources for the program. Other funding sources include tolls collected on certain facilities, proceeds from bond issu- ances, and local taxes and fees. Building the pedestrian and bicycle shared-use path on the bridge adds approximately $5–10 million to an approximately $100 million project. The project was bid as a whole; therefore, there was no breakout of what portion of the total price was for the shared-use path. Public and Stakeholder Engagement Interviewees stated that FDOT usually has standard public engagement procedures. For exam- ple, FDOT pedestrian and bicycle coordinators hold public meetings with stakeholders to share concepts and designs. Community groups are identified as important stakeholders in the public engagement process. FDOT conducted a variety of public engagement activities for this and other bridge projects. The agency hosted informal open houses at which the attendees showed up and walked around the room, spoke with agency staff, and shared their thoughts. The agency also held interactive workshops in which members of the public used stickers and markers to draw ideas on maps or other printed materials. Interactive websites were also created as well that the public could visit, stick a pin, and insert a comment directly on the aerial or the picture. The interviewees also men- tioned a public meeting in which participants used virtual reality goggles to see proposed projects. Interviewees stated that ADA compliance is “inherent to our design procedures and policies that you have to follow on a project.” Source: FDOT (2022a). Figure 20. Fuller Warren Bridge cross section.

38 Practices for Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Access on Existing Vehicle Bridges Implementation and Performance Monitoring While public health was not a key component of performance monitoring measures, it ties into addressing safety performance and accommodating pedestrian and bicycle demand. Interviewees discussed the Highway Safety Manual process for calculating benefits and costs by comparing crashes before and after the project. Specifically, actual safety outcome benefits are calculated and measured using crash data. In addition, interviewees compared the behavior changes before and after the project to examine potential safety benefits. FDOT also has a statewide pedestrian and bicycle count data collection program. Using this data, FDOT monitors the improvement of accessibility and connectivity. In addition, the pedestrian- and bicycle-count data aid in measuring exposure. Thus, with the count and crash data, FDOT compares crash rates before and after a project to evaluate safety performance. Challenges and Lessons Learned Several challenges involving the design, engineering, and construction process were men- tioned by FDOT interviewees. The decentralized approach adopted by FDOT creates a chal- lenge for the plan and design of bridge retrofit projects. As noted on the FDOT website: “The central office establishes departmental policies, rules, procedures, and standards and ensures uniform compliance and quality performance by the districts and central office units that imple- ment transportation programs. In order to provide for efficient operations and to expedite the decision-making process, the operations of the Department are organized into seven districts, each headed by a district secretary, and a turnpike enterprise, headed by an executive director” (FDOT 2022b). In terms of the bridge retrofit projects, the FDOT district rather than a statewide office of FDOT decides the plan/design and controls the budget for these projects. The statewide FDOT office oversees the process to confirm that the project complies with the statewide standards and policies. Since each district has autonomy in planning/design, there may be a lack of consistency and standardization across districts, which leads to a variety of challenges. Additionally, there were concerns within the agency about including a bicycle and pedestrian crossing as part of the bridge project (Davis 2013). According to FDOT Statute 316.091: “Bicyclists and pedestrians should be expected on all of Florida’s state roadways except where restricted on limited-access facilities and interstate highways.” Since the Fuller Warren Bridge is a limited-access facility and part of the interstate highway system, accommodations for active transportation road users were questioned. To address the concern, the agency clarified the statutory interpretation. This clarification resulted in the inclusion of the shared-use path in the project. Material shortages, labor shortages, and price escalations during COVID-19 posed a signifi- cant challenge for bridge retrofit projects. The agency has a work program that commits to suc- cessfully solving these and other problems in order to move forward with implementation. One challenge regards wildlife protection. Interviewees mentioned the project’s need to be assessed for the presence of gopher tortoises and their burrows within and immediately adjacent to the construction footprint. Gopher tortoises and their burrows are important to the terrestrial ecology of Florida. The requirements state: “When construction is proposed over or within a 25-ft radius of a gopher tortoise burrow, FDOT is required to obtain a permit from [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] that allows for the safe capture and relocation of those tortoises” (FDOT 2021). No documented occurrences of the gopher tortoise were found within the project (RS&H 2018).