Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning (2020)

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.

B-1 A P P E N D I X B Survey Responses

B-2 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning 1. Please select the state you represent State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Kansas Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Washington Wisconsin

Survey Responses B-3 2. What is the source of your state’s pedestrian infrastructure data? (select all that apply) State MPO/RTPO Write in Alaska Don’t know Arkansas California Cities and counties Colorado Florida Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Local partners may collect information off the trunk highway system that state DOT is not aware of Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New York North Carolina Local governments Ohio Local jurisdictions Oklahoma Oregon South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Local/municipal bike and ped counts Vermont Washington Vendor data Wisconsin WisDOT has some limited information on pedestrian facilities Total x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 27 x x x x x x x x 8 Other State-led data collection effort

B-4 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning 3. What is your state DOT’s role in storing, compiling and distributing pedestrian infrastructure data? (select one – note that all respondents will see 3a) State Other State distributes pedestrian infrastructure data but does not perform any data manipulation State collects and synthesizes pedestrian infrastructure data Arkansas x California Colorado Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa x Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New York North Carolina Oregon Ohio South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Washington x x x x x x x x x x Wisconsin x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Total 10 2 19

Survey Responses B-5 3a. How does your state collect pedestrian data (write in)? State Write-In California We use multiple methods and databases to collect pedestrian infrastructure data. We have several project delivery databases detailing specific pedestrian features delivered in projects and maintenance work orders. As it relates to projects, surveys, plan review and field reviews can provide information on pedestrian infrastructure data and ADA compliance. We also have a pilot pedestrian data collection effort using custom GIS applications, this includes feature creation using enterprise GIS for crosswalks and sidewalks. Finally, we have a database for out maintenance program that includes maintenance conditions for many assets, including pedestrian infrastructure, that are in planned projects. Electronically via video logs and supplemental sources such as aerial imagery and Google EarthColorado Florida Field and videolog survey Georgia Don't know Idaho Various methods Safe Routes to School grant applications (parent surveys, student tallies, and walkability surveys), physical pedestrian counts from IDOT districts, MPOs, and local jurisdictions, and upcoming pedestrian peer exchange.Illinois Indiana There is no official protocol or standard operating procedure for the collection of pedestrian infrastructure data Iowa Request to Cities Kansas Google Maps/Street View; KDOT Planning Video-Log Use of Area Development Office and Consultants. Much is collected with web- based view, and verified site reviews at certain locations.Kentucky Louisiana Fugro data collection compiles the data Maine Miovision Maryland Collects crash data and existence of sidewalks MassDOT doesn't have any equipment to exclusively count bikes and pedestrians. However, we use Miovision for turning movement counts (TMC) and when we receive a request for TMC data for a specific project ped and bike Massachusetts data is included and is forwarded to the requestor. Minnesota Our ADA office collects most of the information, and it's in relationship to compliance on the TH system. They are collecting information about infrastructure in the state ROW that other partners may own and/or maintain. ADA collects most of the information via field visits. The state also has a videologue that can be used to view infrastructure online. There are internal staff exploring how to use information from third party vendors - like streetlight -to determine pedestrian and bicycle routes. To develop our state bicycle map, the DOT requests information from local partners to populate information, and that's mostly relate to speed, ADT and shoulder width. Response rates from counties vary.

B-6 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Montana Unknown As roads were evaluated, pedestrian infrastructure adjacent to state-owned Nebraska roads was inventoried Nevada Direct inspection – transition plan Field visits to inspect curb ramps; field visits to check sight distance for New Hampshire midblock crosswalks during layout; office reviews of midblock crosswalks using computer tools such as Google Earth and Bing Maps. New York Don’t know PBIN geodatabase and Project Atlas – more descriptive info can be provided if North Carolina requested. ODOT asset management maintains inventory of sidewalks and curb ramps. Currently developing a crossing inventory. Regions have used inventory data and evaluation criteria to develop Active Transportation Needs inventory Oregon (investment prioritization system). South Carolina Manual inventory to establish a baseline. Now, changes are tracked as projects are completed. Tennessee Don’t know Texas GIS-based apps Utah Mandli LiDAR, manual collection, receive from MPOs and local agencies Vermont Site visits Washington Public/private partnerships; from orthophotography, from local agencies Visual inspection using WisDOT Photolog, Google Street View and satellite Wisconsin imagery. 4. The following matrix outlines potential pedestrian facilities and the extent to which your state DOT may collect data on these facilities. Please identify below the coverage of your state DOT’s pedestrian infrastructure data. For example, if data are collected as certain project types are completed, select “Some projects.” If your DOT does not collect this data, please select “Does not collect data.” What is the coverage of your state DOT’s pedestrian infrastructure data? (note – branching logic is used to skip questions in the next section about facility types for which data are not collected) Some All projects Some state All state All public Does not projects roads roads roads collect data Roadway shoulders Sidewalks Crossing information (e.g., crosswalks) Signalization (e.g., ped heads, leading pedestrian interval)

Survey Responses B-7 EXTENT OF ROADWAY SHOULDER DATA COLLECTED Shoulder summary DOTs All state roadways 17 Some state roadways 5 Some projects 4 All projects 2 All public roads 2

B-8 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning EXTENT OF SHOULDER DATA COLLECTED Extent 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 Arkansas x California x x Colorado x Florida x Idaho x Illinois x Indiana x Iowa x Kansas x x Kentucky x x Louisiana x x Minnesota x Montana Nebraska x New York x North Carolina x Ohio x Oklahoma x x Oregon x South Carolina x Texas x Utah x Vermont x Washington x x Wisconsin x Grand Total 4 2 5 17 2

Survey Responses B-9 EXTENT OF ROADWAY SIDEWALK DATA COLLECTED Sidewalks summary DOTs All state roadways 15 Some projects 9 Some state roadways 6 All public roads 2 All projects 1

B-10 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning EXTENT OF SIDEWALK DATA COLLECTED Extent 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 Alaska x Arkansas x California x x Colorado x Florida x Idaho x Illinois x Iowa x Kansas x x Kentucky x Louisiana x x Maryland x Massachusetts x Minnesota x Montana Nebraska x New Hampshire x x x New York x North Carolina x Oklahoma x x Oregon x South Carolina x Tennessee x Texas x Utah x Washington x x Wisconsin x Total 9 1 6 15 2

Survey Responses B-11 EXTENT OF TRAIL DATA COLLECTED Trails summary DOTs Some Projects 12 Some State Roadways 7 All State Roadways 4 All Projects 0

B-12 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning EXTENT OF TRAIL DATA COLLECTED Extent 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 Alaska x Arkansas x Colorado x Florida x Illinois x Iowa x Kansas x x Kentucky x Massachusetts x Minnesota x x Nebraska x New York x North Carolina x Oklahoma x x Oregon x Texas x Vermont x Washington x x Wisconsin x Total 12 0 7 4

Survey Responses B-13 SUMMARY OF SIGNAL DATA COLLECTION Signal summary All state roadways Some projects 8 Some state roadways 1 All projects 1 all public roads 1 DOTs 9

B-14 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning EXTENT OF SIGNAL DATA COLLECTED Extent 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 Arkansas x California x Illinois x Kansas x x Kentucky x Massachusetts x New Hampshire x x x New York x North Carolina x Oregon x x South Carolina x Texas x Utah x Vermont x Washington x x Wisconsin x Total 8 1 2 9 1

Survey Responses B-15 5. Please provide some detail about the attributes your state DOT collects that are associated with pedestrian infrastructure data. Which of the following attributes does your state's DOT collect for roadway shoulders? (select all that apply) State Facility width Facility material/ surface type Presence of rumble strip Maintenance condition rating or needs Other Arkansas x California x x Colorado x x Florida x x x x Idaho x x x x Illinois x Indiana x x Iowa x x x x Kansas x x x x Kentucky x x Louisiana x x Minnesota x x x x Montana x Nebraska x x x x New York North Carolina x x Ohio x Oklahoma x x x Oregon x x x South Carolina x x Texas x x x Utah x x x x Vermont x x Washington x x x x Wisconsin x x x Total 21 17 11 11 4

B-16 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Shoulder summary DOTs Facility width 21 Facility material/surface type 17 Presence of rumble strip 11 Maintenance condition rating or needs 11 Other 4 Total 64

Survey Responses B-17 6. Which of the following attributes does your state DOT collect for sidewalks? (select all that apply) Attributes State Fa ci lit y w id th Eff ec ti ve w id th Su rf ac e ty pe Pr es en ce o f b uff er Ba rr ie rs M ai nt en an ce c on di ti on ra ti ng o r ne ed s D et ec ta bl e w ar ni ng s In di ca to r uti liti es O th er U nk no w n Alaska x Arkansas x California x x Colorado x Florida x x x Idaho x Illinois x Iowa x x x x Kansas x Kentucky x x Louisiana x Maryland x Massachusetts x x x Minnesota x x x x x x Montana x Nebraska x New Hampshire x New York North Carolina x x Oklahoma x Oregon x x x x x x South Carolina x x Tennessee Texas x x x x x x Utah x x Washington x x x Wisconsin x x Total 11 1 9 2 1 5 8 4 13 1

B-18 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Sidewalks summary DOTs Other 13 Facility width 11 Surface type 9 Detectable warnings 8 Maintenance condition rating or needs 5 Indicator utilities 4 Presence of buffer 2 Unknown 1 Effective width 1 Barriers 1

Survey Responses B-19 7. Which of the following attributes does your state DOT collect for trails? (select all that apply) Attributes State W id th M at er ia l/ su rf ac e ty pe M ai nt en an ce co nd iti on ra tin g or ne ed s O th er Alaska x Arkansas x Colorado x x Florida x Illinois x Iowa x x Kansas x Kentucky x Massachusetts x Minnesota x x x Nebraska x New York North Carolina x x Oklahoma x Oregon x x x x Texas x x x Vermont x Washington x x Wisconsin x Total 7 9 3 10 Trails summary DOTs Other 10 Material/surface type 9 Width 7 Maintenance condition rating or needs 3 Total 29

B-20 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning

Survey Responses B-21 8. Which of the following attributes does your state DOT collect for crossing information – e.g., crosswalks? (select all that apply) Attributes State 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 ra ti ng o r ne ed s O th er Arkansas x California x x Florida x Illinois x Kentucky x Massachusetts x x x x Montana x Nebraska x x Nevada x New Hampshire x x x x New York North Carolina x x x x Oklahoma x x Oregon x x x x x South Carolina x x Utah x x x x x x Vermont x Washington x x x x x Wisconsin x x x x Total 11 3 8 7 7 4 2 5

B-22 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Crossing summary Crosswalk location Traffic signals 8 Curb ramps 7 Midblock crossing 7 Other 5 Lighting 4 Crosswalk type 3 Maintenance condition rating or need 2 DOTs 11

Survey Responses B-23 9. Which of the following attributes does your state DOT collect for signalization – e.g., pedestrian heads, leading pedestrian interval? (select all that apply) Attributes State Pe de st ri an s ig na l h ea d Le ad in g pe de st ri an in te rv al Tu rn p ro hi bi ti on M ai nt en an ce c on di ti on r ati ng or n ee ds O th er Arkansas x California x x Illinois x Kansas x x Kentucky x Massachusetts x x x x New Hampshire x New York North Carolina x x Oregon x South Carolina x x x Texas x x Utah x x Vermont x x x x Washington x Wisconsin x Total 11 4 3 3 7 Signal summary DOTs Pedestrian signal head 11 Other 7 Leading pedestrian interval 4 turn prohibition 3 Maintenance condition rating or needs 3

B-24 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning 0 Pedestrian Signal Head Other Leading Pedestrian Interval Turn Prohibition Number of DOTs 42 6 8 10 12 11 7 4 3 3Maintenance Condition Rating or Needs

Survey Responses B-25 In a re la tio na l da ta ba se sy st em In ta bu la r f or m at w ith n o sp ati al re fe re nc e In a CA D- ba se d sy st em In ta bu la rf or m at w ith ro ut e an d m ile po st a tt ri bu tio n in a sp ati al G IS sy st em PD Fs ,d ra w in gs or ot he rp ap er m ap s KM Z fil e U nk no w n fo rm at O th er 10. How are your state’s DOT data stored? (select all that apply – note that a user will see 10a if he or she selects GIS or CAD as a storage mechanism) State Alaska x Arkansas x California x x x x x x Colorado x x x Florida x Idaho x Illinois x Indiana x x Iowa x Kansas x x x x x x x Kentucky x Louisiana x Maryland x Massachusetts x x Minnesota x x x Montana x Nebraska x Nevada x New Hampshire x New York x North Carolina x Ohio x x x Oklahoma x x Oregon x x x x South Carolina x x x Tennessee Texas x Utah x x x x x x x Vermont x x x Washington x x x x x Wisconsin x x Total 10 2 8 21 5 9 4 4 5

B-26 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Data storage Count In a spatial GIS system 21 In a relational database system 10 PDFs, drawings or other paper maps 9 In tabular format with route and milepost attribution 8 Other 5 In a CAD-based system 5 KMZ file 4 Unknown 4 In tabular format with no spatial reference 2 Total 68

Survey Responses B-27 As a stand- alone State Roadway linear Centerline feature Other Unknown Alaska Arkansas x California x Colorado x Florida x Idaho Illinois x Indiana x Iowa x x Kansas x x x Kentucky x Louisiana x Maryland Massachusetts x Minnesota x Montana x Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire x x x x x x x x North Carolina x Ohio x Oklahoma x Oregon x x x South Carolina x Tennessee Texas x Utah x x Vermont x Washington x Wisconsin x Total 19 7 3 8 10a. If your sidewalk or shoulder data have a spatial association, how would it be mapped? (select all that apply)

B-28 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Roadway sidewalk centerline DOTs Roadway centerline 19 As a standalone linear feature 8 Unknown 7 Other 3

Survey Responses B-29 11. Does your state DOT have a data maintenance plan to keep data up-to-date over time? (select one) State Alaska x Arkansas x California x Colorado x Florida x Idaho x Illinois x Indiana x Iowa x Kansas x Kentucky x Louisiana x Maryland x Massachusetts x Minnesota x Montana x Nebraska x Nevada x New Hampshire x New York x North Carolina x Ohio x Oklahoma x Oregon x South Carolina x Tennessee x Texas x Utah x Vermont x Washington x Wisconsin x Total 12 2 9 8 Yes No Unknown Other

B-30 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Maintenance Yes 12 Unknown 9 Other 8 No 2 DOTs

Survey Responses B-31 12. How is pedestrian data collection and/or data maintenance funded? (select all that apply) Funding source Part of a larger data maintenance program budget Federal funding (e.g., HPMS, HSIP or planning) 13 State/local funding 8 Project-specific funding 7 Funding source unknown 6 Other funding source 3 No specific funding source 1 DOTs 13

B-32 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning State Data is available to the public via website or digital portal Data is only made available to the public upon request Status of Data- Sharing Mechanism is Unknown No formal mechanism currently exists for data sharing Other Alaska Arkansas California Colorado Florida Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Carolina x x x x Tennessee x x x Texas Utah Vermont x x x x x x x x x Washington x x x x x x x x x x x x x Wisconsin x Total 13 4 3 9 1 13. How are your state DOT’s pedestrian infrastructure data shared with the public? (select all that apply)

Survey Responses B-33 Sharing data with public Data are available to the public via website or digital portal 13 No formal mechanism currently exists for data sharing 9 Data are only made available to the public upon request 4 Status of data sharing mechanism is unknown 3 Other 1 DOTs

B-34 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning 14. Does your state DOT have any concerns with sharing pedestrian infrastructure data? (select all that apply) Yes, we have No, we Yes, we We have no known contractual have concerns have no other State Yes, Yes, user about data data liability is privacy is sharing sharing sharing a concern a concern data concerns concerns concerns Alaska Arkansas x California Colorado x Florida Idaho x Illinois x Indiana x Iowa Kansas x Kentucky x Louisiana x Maryland x x Massachusetts x Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada x New Hampshire x New York North Carolina x Ohio x Oklahoma Oregon x South Carolina x Tennessee Texas x Utah x Vermont x Washington x x x Wisconsin x x x x x x x x x x x Total 6 3 1 12 1 11

Survey Responses B-35 Liability DOTs No, we have no data sharing concerns 12 We have no known concerns 11 Yes, liability is a concern 6 Yes, user privacy is a concern 3 Yes, we have contractual concerns about sharing data 1 Yes, we have other data sharing concerns 1

B-36 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning 15. How does your state DOT currently use pedestrian infrastructure data? (select all that apply) State Project-level planning work Safety- related analysis Connectivity- related analysis Maintenance condition rating or needs ADA planning Alaska Arkansas X California X X X X Colorado X X X X Kansas X X X Florida X X X X X Idaho X Illinois X X X X Indiana Iowa X X Kentucky X X Louisiana X X X X Maryland X X Massachusetts X X X X X Minnesota X X X Montana X X X Nebraska X X Nevada X X New Hampshire New York X North Carolina X Ohio X X Oklahoma X Oregon X X X X X South Carolina X X Tennessee Texas X X X Utah X X X X X Vermont X X Washington X X X X Wisconsin X

Survey Responses B-37 Values DOTs ADA planning 22 Project-level planning work 19 Safety-related analysis 15 Connectivity-related analysis 10 Maintenance condition rating or needs 8 State Comment Alaska General Kansas Use PROWAG as a guideline Nevada SRTS planning New Hampshire Permitting reference New York state ATP Oregon Active transportation needs inventory Utah Signals

B-38 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning 16. How would your state DOT like to be able to use pedestrian infrastructure data? (ranked selection) State Project- level planning work Safety- related analysis Connectivity- related analysis Maintenance condition rating or needs ADA planning Alabama 5 1 2 3 4 Alaska 4 3 1 5 2 Arizona 3 1 2 4 5 Arkansas 2 1 3 4 5 California 1 2 3 4 5 Colorado 3 2 1 4 5 Kansas 4 3 2 5 1 Florida 4 2 1 5 3 Georgia 4 1 3 5 2 Idaho 1 2 3 4 5 Illinois 4 1 3 5 2 Indiana 3 1 2 5 4 Iowa 1 3 2 4 5 Kentucky 2 3 4 5 1 Louisiana 1 2 5 3 4 Maine 5 1 3 4 2 Maryland 2 1 3 5 4 Massachusetts 2 1 3 4 5 Michigan 1 2 3 5 4 Minnesota 4 1 2 5 3 Montana 4 3 5 2 1 Nebraska 3 2 4 5 1 Nevada 4 2 3 5 1 New Hampshire 1 5 4 2 3 New Jersey 4 2 5 3 1 New Mexico 5 2 4 3 1 New York 3 1 2 4 5 North Carolina 1 3 2 5 4 Ohio 3 1 2 5 4 Oklahoma 3 2 1 4 5 Oregon 3 2 5 4 1 Pennsylvania 1 2 3 5 4 South Carolina 5 1 2 4 3 South Dakota 2 1 4 5 3 Tennessee 1 4 2 5 3 Texas 2 3 4 5 1

Survey Responses B-39 Safety-related analysis 15 Project-level planning work 11 ADA planning 9 Connectivity-related analysis 5 Maintenance condition rating or needs 0 Utah 1 2 5 4 3 Vermont 2 1 3 5 4 Washington 4 2 1 5 3 Wisconsin 1 4 3 5 2 Desired uses DOTs

B-40 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning 17. The synthesis includes three to five case examples to illustrate representative use case studies. Involvement includes an interview and review of use case writeup. Please let us know if you are interested in participating as a case example agency. State Case Example Participant Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No California Yes, I am interested in participating Colorado Yes, I am interested in participating Kansas Yes, I am interested in participating Florida No Georgia No Idaho No Illinois No Indiana Yes, I am interested in participating Iowa No Kentucky Yes, I am interested in participating Louisiana Yes, I am interested in participating Maine No Maryland No Massachusetts No Michigan No Minnesota Yes, I am interested in participating Montana No Nebraska No Nevada Yes, I am interested in participating New Hampshire Yes, I am interested in participating New Jersey Yes, I am interested in participating New Mexico No New York No North Carolina Yes, I am interested in participating Ohio No Oklahoma Yes, I am interested in participating Oregon Yes, I am interested in participating Pennsylvania No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Texas Yes, I am interested in participating Utah Yes, I am interested in participating Vermont No Washington Yes, I am interested in participating Wisconsin No

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

A vailability and U se of Pedestrian Infrastructure D ata to Support A ctive Transportation Planning N CH RP Synthesis 558 TRB TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 ISBN 978-0-309-67345-7 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 6 7 3 4 5 7 9 0 0 0 0