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.

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. Coordinators were asked to provide a response or distribute the survey to appropriate colleagues within the DOT. A preliminary request for survey responses was sent via email, with a reminder provided approximately 3 weeks later. A second round of personal email reminders also was sent, followed by two rounds of reminders and phone calls to reach the requisite number of 40 responses (80%) among the 50 states, as required for an NCHRP synthesis report. The survey used “branching” logic, meaning that some questions were dependent on a specific answer to a previous question. For this reason, the number of responses reported varies throughout this chapter. The survey responses represent various potential respondent viewpoints, including trans- portation planner, ADA expert, highway engineer and GIS analyst or database expert. These varied perspectives affected the information received from each DOT. For example, respondents with a GIS background may have provided detailed data about the extent of data and attri- butes collected, while a transportation planner without a GIS background may have reported fewer technical details and answered some questions with “unknown.” Also, if a data collection effort is modest or housed in a different department, or if staff are new, existing data collection efforts may have gone unreported. Additionally, some respondents coordinated survey results with colleagues and may have gathered more detailed information, while other respondents relied on their own knowledge. Finally, a respondent’s perspective may have resulted in mul- tiple interpretations of the answers themselves (e.g., maintenance or condition rating may have been interpreted as either the frequency with which maintenance is needed or current quality of infrastructure). The variety among responses is a finding in and of itself and indicates wide variation in practice among responding DOTs. Survey Format The survey responses addressed some topics, including: • Informational – All respondents were asked to identify their state DOT and whether they would be willing to participate as a case example agency. • Assessment of data collection, for existing data use and desired future use – These questions asked whether pedestrian infrastructure data were collected by the agency. If respondents indicated that data collection occurred, they were asked how the information currently is used. If data collection did not occur, they were asked how they would like to use data in the future. • Facility and pedestrian network definition – Respondents who indicated that data were collected were asked about possible pedestrian facility types included in the state’s definition C H A P T E R 3 State of the Practice

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 net- work, and detail of facility attributes collected. Facility types were drawn from Chapter 2. This series of questions sought to establish an understanding of the coverage and detail of data being collected. Responses were provided in terms of roadways and projects in relation to management authority. • Data collection methods, management, sharing and responsible parties – Questions in this section of the survey investigated details of how a state collected infrastructure data and who was responsible. Questions in this section cover the mechanics of data storage and management, concerns with data sharing, and methods for sharing data with the public. • Data maintenance and update strategy – This section sought to understand if plans were in place to maintain pedestrian infrastructure data over time to keep data relevant and useful. • Program funding – Questions in this section sought to understand whether program funding was available for data collection, maintenance and upkeep. Results of the survey are presented in the remainder of this chapter. A full copy of the survey is found in Appendix A. When the term “other” is used, a write-in answer was provided. It can be viewed in Appendix B’s survey responses. In addition to the survey results, interviews were conducted with representatives from five state DOTs. Results of these interviews are presented in Chapter 4. Survey Content Informational Of the 40 states that responded to the survey, 31 (78%) reported that they collect and store pedestrian infrastructure data. The distribution of responses is shown in Figure 4. The uncertainty in several of the “unknown” answers indicates the variability in knowledge of data collection efforts across agency departments. Figure 4. State DOTs reporting collection of infrastructure data (40 responses).

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? Assessment of Data Collection Use of Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure Data DOTs typically use pedestrian infrastructure data for various purposes, such as ADA and project-level planning work, safety assessments, planning maintenance or network connectivity assessments, project prioritization, or funding awards. States that currently collect pedestrian infrastructure data were asked to identify the categories of data use. As shown in Figure 5, 22 of 31 responding states that collect pedestrian infrastructure data indicated that ADA planning was the greatest category of use, followed in order by project-level planning, safety analysis, connectivity analysis, and maintenance tracking or assessment. Seven states reported that data are used for “other” reasons, including plan development and specific planning initiatives such as development of an active transportation plan, safe routes to school planning or placement of traffic signals. Results are summarized in Table 7. Figure 5. Summary of current pedestrian infrastructure data use (31 responses). State Comment Alaska General Use public right-of-way accessibility Kansas guidelines (PROWAG) as a reference Nevada Safe routes to school (SRTS) planning New Hampshire Permitting reference New York State active transportation plan (ATP) Oregon Active transportation needs inventory Utah Signals Table 7. Summary of “other” identified uses of pedestrian infrastructure data.

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. This is consistent with state DOT mandates to build projects and report on progress toward compliance with ADA. Approximately one-half of respondents identified two or three uses, while the remaining one-quarter identified four or more current uses for infrastructure data. Future Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data Survey respondents were asked to rank their preferred future uses of pedestrian infrastruc- ture data. Figure 6 shows the summed answers reported by all 40 states. The most commonly desired future uses were safety analysis and project planning work. Case example respondents noted this information was likely to vary both by individual and by department responding to the survey. Facility and Pedestrian Network Definition Respondents who collect infrastructure data were asked to describe the extent of their data collection for several basic facility types, including roadway shoulders, sidewalks, trails, cross- ings and signals. For each facility type, respondents were asked to describe the extent of facility collection on the roadway network (e.g., some projects, all projects, some state roadways, all state roadways or all public roadways). Respondents then were asked to provide some infor- mation about the facility’s attributes (e.g., shoulder width and maintenance condition, or trail type and surface). The survey was formatted to allow multiple extents (e.g., respondents could specify that shoulder data are collected both for “some projects” and “all state roadways”) of data input for each facility type to accommodate the broadest range of answers and anticipated usage of multiple data storage systems. Figure 6. Summary of top-ranked future use of pedestrian infrastructure data (40 responses).

State of the Practice 21 Shoulders Twenty-four states reported collection of some roadway shoulder data, 17 states collect shoul- der data for all state roadways, 5 collect data for some state roadways, and 2 collect shoulder data for all public roadways (Figure 7). Twenty-one states report collecting shoulder width, 17 report paving material, 11 report rumble strips, and 11 report on maintenance conditions (Figure 8). Of the four write-in responses, one noted that only paved shoulder data are collected, one noted the importance of this data collection from a Complete Streets principle perspective, one reported that data are calculated from associated roadway data, and the final noted associ- ated speed and ADT information is available. Table 8 shows the relationship between the extent of data and facility details collected. States collecting data for all state roadways also collect information on width and surface type. Figure 7. Extent of roadway shoulder data collection. Figure 8. Summary of roadway shoulder attributes collected.

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. Maintenance condition may be interpreted as either a ranking of quality or an indication of how frequently maintenance might be needed. Sidewalks Twenty-seven states reported collection of some sidewalk data, 13 collect sidewalk data for all state roadways, 6 collect data for some state roadways, and 2 collect sidewalk data for all public roadways (Figure 9). Of facility attributes collected, 11 states collect data on full facility 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 Fa ci lit y w id th Fa ci lit y m at er ia l/ su rf ac e ty pe Pr es en ce o f r um bl e st ri p M ai nt en an ce c on di ti on r ati ng or n ee ds O th er Arkansas x x California x x x x Colorado x x x Florida x x x x x Idaho x x x x x Illinois x x Indiana x x x Iowa x x x x x Kansas x x x x x x Kentucky x x x x Louisiana x x x x Minnesota x x x x x Montana x Nebraska x x x x x New York x North Carolina x x x Ohio x x Oklahoma x x x x x Oregon x x x x South Carolina x x x Texas x x x x Utah x x x x x Vermont x x x Washington x x x x x x Wisconsin x x x x Total 4 2 5 17 2 21 17 11 11 4 Table 8. Relationship of data extent and shoulder facility attributes collected.

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 plant- ing strip, effective width, or barriers (Figure 10). Thirteen states reported write-in answers, a handful of which included more information about how facilities were located. Five of these responses were related to ADA compliance and indicated either the ADA group tracked these attributes or an inventory to support ADA compliance was planned. One response noted Com- plete Street principles, two indicated that only sidewalk presence or absence was recorded, and two indicated the attributes were unknown or that others within the agency could provide additional detail. These results show that, unlike roadway shoulder data collection, there is more variation in the extent and attributes of data collected among state DOTs. Table 9 shows the relationship between the extent of data and facility details collected. The most commonly reported combination of extent and attributes – by six states – is data collection for all state roadways and facility width. No single DOT reported collection of all sidewalk attributes for all state or public roadways. Figure 9. Extent of roadway sidewalk data collection. Figure 10. Extent of sidewalk attributes collected.

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). Of facility attributes collected, nine states collected surface type, seven collected width, and three collected maintenance condition (Figure 12). Ten states reported a write-in answer and, based on those results, an additional four states collect pathway location only and two states noted the data are collected by another agency. In these instances, it is unknown whether the respondent 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 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 r ati 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 x Arkansas x x California x x x x Colorado x x Florida x x x x Idaho x x Illinois x x Iowa x x x x x Kansas x x x Kentucky x x x Louisiana x x x Maryland x x Massachusetts x x x x Minnesota x x x x x x x Montana x Nebraska x x New Hampshire x x x x New York x North Carolina x x x Oklahoma x x x Oregon x x x x x x x South Carolina x x x Tennessee x Texas x x x x x x x Utah x x x Washington x x x x x Wisconsin x x x Total 9 1 6 15 2 11 1 9 2 1 5 8 4 13 1 Table 9. Relationship of data extent and sidewalk facility details collected.

State of the Practice 25 was describing one or multiple data sources. One state mentioned that data were used to deter- mine ADA compliance. Additionally, write-in responses indicated that data typically were only within the state right of way and a comprehensive inventory of all state trails was not maintained. Table 10 shows the relationship between extent of data and facility details collected. Data are typically collected at the project level and include location and material. Four states report data collection for trails along all state roadways and include both material and location, while three also report maintenance condition. Overall, the amount of data collected for trails is less than both shoulders and sidewalk data. Crossings Nineteen states reported collection of some crossing data, seven states reported collection of crossing data for all state roadways, seven collect for some projects, and six for some state roadways. One state collects data for all projects, while another collects data for all public roads (Figure 13). Figure 11. Extent of roadway trail data collection. Figure 12. Summary of trail attributes collected.

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. Figure 13. Extent of roadway crossing data collection.

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 (Fig- ure 14). Five states reported a write-in answer, one reported that inventory was complete for all signalized locations, one reported that district offices collect data in crosswalks, and one state reported that maintenance collects details of crossings. Table 11 shows the relationship between the extent of data and facility details collected. When data are collected for all state or public roadways, crosswalk location and traffic signals frequently are collected, while the collection of curb ramps most frequently is tied to all state roadways. Lighting typically is collected for projects only, with the exception of one state that reported collection on all state roadways. Two states reported that maintenance data are the only data collected at the project level. During case example interviews, several states reported that main- tenance is handled by the local jurisdiction through an MOU, which may help account for the scarcity of reporting on this attribute. Signals Only 16 states reported collection of some signal data. Of these states, nine reported collec- tion of signal information on all state roadways, eight reported collection for some projects, and one each reported collection for some state roadways, all projects and all public roads (Figure 15). Of facility attributes, 11 states collected the location of pedestrian signal heads, and four reported a leading pedestrian interval. Three states collected turn prohibition, and three col- lected maintenance condition (Figure 16). Seven states provided a write-in answer, with three reporting pedestrian pushbuttons or pedestrian detection, one mentioning partial collection of turn prohibitions, and one reporting that data collection is completed by individual districts as needed. One reported answer was not relevant to the question. Table 12 shows the relationship between the extent of data and facility details collected. When data are collected for the state roadway system, details on pedestrian signal heads are almost always collected. When leading pedestrian interval (LPI) data are collected, it is done so most frequently in relation to all state roadways. Data collection for projects varies by state. Figure 14. Summary of crossing attributes collected.

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. Figure 15. Extent of roadway signal data collection.

State of the Practice 29 Figure 16. Summary of signal attributes collected. 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 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 o r ne ed s O th er Arkansas x x California x x x Illinois x x Kansas x x x x Kentucky x x Massachusetts x x x x x New Hampshire x x x x New York x North Carolina x x x Oregon x x x South Carolina x x x x Texas x x x Utah x x x Vermont x x x x x Washington x x x Wisconsin x x Total 8 1 2 9 1 11 4 3 3 7 Table 12. Relationship of data extent and signals facility details collected.

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. sidewalk centerline. Roadway Centerline vs. Sidewalk Centerline Data can be mapped to the roadway centerline or a standalone feature. For example, data mapped to a roadway centerline typically are used for applications such as maintenance assessment or routing, while data mapped to a sidewalk centerline typically are used for visual assessments of gaps or to display on maps. While sidewalk centerline data might be more useful for visualizing data, they are more difficult to use for network routing or inventory purposes and typically are incompatible with HPMS and other data that use the roadway centerline for linear referencing. Translation between the two data formats often is time-consuming and may require staff train- ing and quality control efforts to review data for errors that arise. Respondents were asked to identify how pedestrian data (e.g., shoulders, trails and side- walks) would be displayed if they had a linear component. Of 31 states that responded, 19 (61%) indicated the data would be displayed or associated with a roadway centerline, while 7 (22.5%) indicated the data were stored as a standalone linear feature or sidewalk centerline. Eight states indicated the data storage format was unknown. Respondents were allowed to select multiple answers, and three states did so, indicating the availability of multiple datasets. Results are summarized in Table 13. Data Collection Methods, Management, Sharing and Responsible Parties Data Sources The 31 states that reported collecting pedestrian infrastructure data were asked about the types of data collection occurring at the DOT. As shown in Figure 17, most DOTs collect data from multiple data sources. Twenty-eight (90%) states report having a state-led data collection effort, with 13 of these states (47%) also collecting data from MPO/RTPOs. Of the 17 states that reported collecting data from MPO/RTPOs, only 4 identified this as their lone data source. Nine states reported data collection from other sources – typically cities, counties or local governments. Seven of nine states reported this “other” data collection was in addition to a state- led effort. One state reported “vendor data” as an alternative source, and one agency was unsure about its data source. State Role Thirty-one states reported a DOT role in pedestrian infrastructure data collection, with 19 states reporting collecting and synthesizing data, 2 states reporting data collection but no manipulation, and 10 states reporting another role (Table 14). All participants were invited to provide more detail about their responses, which are summarized below. These write-in responses mostly are related to how the DOT conducted its infrastructure inventory or explained the variety of methods used to store data in more detail.

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 impor- tance of understanding use and location of physical assets. • Site inspections were mentioned in five responses. • Various digital or digitally aided collection responses were the most frequently reported among write-ins. LiDAR-based methods were reported twice, while video logs, Google Street View or other orthophoto inventories were included in more than five responses. • Several individual responses described multiple data sources or asset management systems within their agency that are used to store pedestrian infrastructure data. For example, one agency reported having an inventory of roadway shoulders and another database storing side- walk data, while an additional database might store information related to maintenance needs. • Many of the responses report or imply the effort requires a substantial investment of staff or consultant time to conduct site visits, review video logs, translate data into a custom GIS app, etc. Data Storage With respondents instructed to select all applicable answers, 31 states provided information about how their pedestrian infrastructure data are stored. Figure 18 shows that 21 states reported storing data in a GIS system; 10 reported storing data in a relational database system; 9 use PDFs, Figure 17. Summary of data collection leadership (31 responses). State role Count State collects and synthesizes pedestrian infrastructure data 19 Other 10 State distributes pedestrian infrastructure data but does not perform any data manipulation 2 Total 31 Table 14. State role in data collection.

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). Five or fewer states reported using a CAD-based system, KMZ files or another tabular format without a spatial reference; four states reported their data storage format was unknown; and five states provided a write-in answer, typically correlating to proprietary software in use. Additionally, one state reported that LiDAR is used as one of several data storage methods, while another reported that tabular data typically are used, but GIS, CAD and PDF formats are used to supplement tabular data storage. As shown in Table 15, 14 states (45%) use multiple data formats, illustrating the complexi- ties and limitations of data usefulness. Multiple data systems can indicate a robust data storage and deployment system or a data storage system that is fragmented and located within multiple departments at the DOT. Public Data Sharing Thirteen of 31 states (42%) reported sharing infrastructure data with the public via a website or other web portal. Four states (13%) indicated that data are made available to the public only upon request, three states (10%) were unsure of a specific data-sharing mechanism, and nine states (30%) indicated that no formal mechanism currently exists (Figure 19). Data-Sharing Concerns Figure 20 summarizes the potential concerns with sharing pedestrian infrastructure data with the public. When asked about potential concerns for sharing infrastructure data, 12 of 31 states (39%) reported there were none. Eleven (35%) indicated the status of any concerns was unknown to them, six (19%) expressed a potential lability concern, three states (10%) expressed a potential privacy concern, and one (3%) expressed a potential contractional concern. One other state responded that the data might not be ready for publication as another potential concern. Data Maintenance and Update Strategy Respondents were asked whether a data maintenance plan was in place and to select a single answer. Twelve states (39%) reported that a data maintenance plan was in place, two (6%) reported having no plan, nine states (29%) reported the maintenance plan status as “unknown,” Figure 18. Infrastructure data storage formats.

State of the Practice 33 and eight provided a write-in response (Figure 21). Write-ins indicate the question is difficult to answer in a single response, because a DOT likely maintains multiple datasets. Additionally, three respondents reported a plan is in development, two reported maintenance every 2 years, and two reported that maintenance plans varied by dataset. Program Funding Most states fund data collection efforts through multiple sources, using federal funding asso- ciated with HPMS or the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and efforts funded as part of a larger budget line item (e.g., a data maintenance budget). Seven states reported using In ta bu la rf or m at w ith no sp at ia l re fe re nc e In a re la tio na l da ta ba se sy st em In ta bu la rf or m at w ith ro ut e an d m ile po st att rib ut io n In a sp at ia lG IS sy st em In a CA D- ba se d 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 State Alaska x Arkansas California 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 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 Vermont x x x Washington x x x x Wisconsin x x Total 10 2 8 21 x x x x x 5 9 4 4 5 Table 15. Infrastructure data storage formats used by state DOTs.

34 Availability and Use of Pedestrian Infrastructure Data to Support Active Transportation Planning Figure 20. Summary of concerns with public data. Figure 19. Summary of data sharing with public. Figure 21. Summary of states with data maintenance plans (31 responses).

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). Three DOTs reported a write-in answer, indicating the question was not relevant to their state. Conclusion: Summary Findings In conclusion, the state of practice survey indicates the following: • Thirty-one of the 40 states (78%) that responded to the survey reported they collect and store pedestrian infrastructure data. • Most states (about three-quarters of the 31 that responded) use pedestrian infrastructure data for multiple purposes. The most common uses of such data were ADA and project-level plan- ning. The most commonly desired future uses of pedestrian infrastructure data were safety analysis and project-planning work. • The majority of states collect data about sidewalk and roadway shoulder data for a subset of state roadways, specifically: – Twenty-seven states reported collection of some sidewalk data, and 13 collect sidewalk data for all state roadways. The most common sidewalk attribute collected (among about one-third of states that collect data) was full facility width. There is a lot of variation in the extent and attributes of sidewalk data collected among state DOTs. No single DOT reported collection of all sidewalk attributes for all state or public roadways. • Twenty-four states reported collection of some roadway shoulder data, and 17 collected shoulder data for all state roadways. Twenty-one states reported collecting shoulder width, and another 17 reported paving material. • About two-thirds of states reporting data collection have information related to trails, cross- ings and signal data on a subset of state roadways. Specifically: – Nineteen states reported collection of some trail data, 12 of which collected data for some projects. Data typically are collected at the project level and include location and material. Overall, the amount of data collected for trails is less than that for shoulders and sidewalk. – Nineteen states reported collection of some crossing data. When data are collected for all state or public roadways, crosswalk location and traffic signals frequently are gathered. Figure 22. Sources of pedestrian infrastructure data collection and maintenance funding.

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 typi- cally is collected for projects only. – Only 16 states reported collection of some signal data. When data are collected for the state roadway system, pedestrian signal heads are usually collected. When leading pedestrian interval (LPI) data are collected, it is most frequently in relation to all state roadways. • Nineteen states (61%) indicated the data would be displayed or associated with a roadway centerline, while seven (23%) indicated the data were stored as a standalone linear feature or sidewalk centerline. • Most DOTs collect data from multiple data sources. Twenty-eight states (90%) report a state-led collection effort. Additionally, 13 of these states (47%) also collect data from MPO/RTPOs. • Most states (21) reported storing data in a GIS system. Fourteen states (45%) use multiple data formats, illustrating the complexities and limitations of data usefulness. • Thirteen of 31 states (42%) reported sharing infrastructure data with the public via a website or other web portal. • When asked about potential concerns with sharing infrastructure data, 12 of 31 states (39%) reported no concerns. Eleven (35%) indicated the status of any concerns was unknown to them. • Twelve states (39%) reported that a data maintenance plan was in place. • Most states fund data collection efforts through multiple sources, using federal funding associated with HPMS or the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), along with efforts funded as part of a larger budget line item (e.g., a data maintenance budget).