The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 17-36

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 17... ... 17 Overview and Survey Data Limitations A survey of the state of the practice was conducted to better understand current practices around pedestrian infrastructure data collection and use by state DOTs. The survey was distributed to state DOT bicycle and pedestrian coordinators through an email list maintained by FHWA. Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... 18 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning of pedestrian infrastructure, the extent of data collected in relation to the roadway network, and detail of facility attributes collected. Facility types were drawn from Chapter 2. Read the entire page →
From page 19... ... State of the Practice 19 Originally, 32 agencies reported infrastructure data collection. However, follow-up revealed only collision data were collected; therefore, this response was reclassified to "unknown." When another DOT reported it was unsure if data were collected, it, too, was classified as "unknown." If an agency responded that data were not collected, it was asked a final question before exiting the survey: How would it like to use pedestrian infrastructure data in the future? Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... 20 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Most states use infrastructure data for multiple purposes. Figure 5 shows that approximately one-quarter of states use infrastructure data for a single purpose, typically project-level or ADA planning. Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... State of the Practice 21 Shoulders Twenty-four states reported collection of some roadway shoulder data, 17 states collect shoulder data for all state roadways, 5 collect data for some state roadways, and 2 collect shoulder data for all public roadways (Figure 7) Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... 22 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning This is consistent with attributes that can be extracted from a video log. One state reported collecting only rumble strip data for some projects, while another reported data collection for some projects, but no detail about facility attributes collected. Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... State of the Practice 23 width, 9 collect surface type, 8 collect presence of detectable warning surfaces, and 5 or fewer states collect information on maintenance condition, utilities, presence of a buffer or planting strip, effective width, or barriers (Figure 10) Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... 24 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Trails Nineteen states reported collection of some trail data, 12 collected data for some projects, 7 reported data collection on some state roadways, and 4 collected data on all state roadways. No states collected data on all projects (Figure 11) Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... State of the Practice 25 was describing one or multiple data sources. One state mentioned that data were used to determine ADA compliance. Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... 26 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Extent Attributes State So m e ro ad w ay s A ll ro ad w ay s So m e st at e ro ad w ay s A ll st at e ro ad w ay s W id th M at er ia l/ su rf ac e ty pe M ai nt en an ce c on di ti on r ati ng o r ne ed s O th er Alaska x x Arkansas x x Colorado x x x Florida x x Illinois x x Iowa x x x Kansas x x x Kentucky x x Massachusetts x x Minnesota x x x x x Nebraska x x New York x North Carolina x x x Oklahoma x x x Oregon x x x x x Texas x x x x Vermont x x Washington x x x x Wisconsin x x Total 12 0 7 4 7 9 3 10 Table 10. Relationship of data extent and trail facility details collected. Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... State of the Practice 27 Of facility attributes collected, 11 states collect marked crosswalk locations, 8 collect traffic signal locations, and 7 reported collecting curb ramp and midblock crossing locations. Fewer than five states reported collection of lighting, crossing type or maintenance condition (Figure 14) Read the entire page →
From page 28... ... 28 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Extent Attributes State So m e ro ad w ay s A ll ro ad w ay s So m e st at e ro ad w ay s A ll st at e ro ad w ay s A ll pu bl ic r oa ds Cr os sw al k lo ca ti on Cr os sw al k ty pe Tr affi c si gn al s Cu rb r am ps M id bl oc k cr os si ng s Li gh ti ng M ai nt en an ce c on di ti on r ati ng o r ne ed s O th er Arkansas x x California x x x x Florida x x Illinois x x Kentucky x x Massachusetts x x x x x Montana x Nebraska x x x Nevada x x New Hampshire x x x x x x x New York x North Carolina x x x x x Oklahoma x x x x Oregon x x x x x x South Carolina x x x Utah x x x x x x x Vermont x x Washington x x x x x x x Wisconsin x x x x x Total 7 1 7 7 1 11 3 8 7 7 4 2 5 Table 11. Relationship of data extent and crossing facility details collected. Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... State of the Practice 29 Figure 16. Summary of signal attributes collected. Read the entire page →
From page 30... ... 30 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Roadway sidewalk centerline Count Roadway centerline 19 Unknown 8 As a standalone linear feature 7 Other 3 Table 13. Roadway centerline vs. Read the entire page →
From page 31... ... State of the Practice 31 An analysis of write-in responses found the following: • Three responses mentioned state ADA office or transition plans. • Count and collision data collection were reported in four responses, indicating the importance of understanding use and location of physical assets. Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... 32 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning drawings or paper-based systems; and 8 use another tabular format with spatial references (e.g., LRS) Read the entire page →
From page 33... ... State of the Practice 33 and eight provided a write-in response (Figure 21) Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... 34 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Figure 20. Summary of concerns with public data. Read the entire page →
From page 35... ... State of the Practice 35 project-specific funding or dedicated state funding, such as a data inventory completed as part of a plan update or grant funding cycle. Six states were unsure how or if data maintenance was funded, and one reported no dedicated funding source (Figure 22) Read the entire page →
From page 36... ... 36 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Collection of curb ramps most frequently is tied to all state roadways, and lighting typically is collected for projects only. – Only 16 states reported collection of some signal data. Read the entire page →

From page 17...

... 17 Overview and Survey Data Limitations A survey of the state of the practice was conducted to better understand current practices around pedestrian infrastructure data collection and use by state DOTs. The survey was distributed to state DOT bicycle and pedestrian coordinators through an email list maintained by FHWA.