Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects (2021)

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.

8 This chapter discusses the history and current status of identification, evaluation, prioritiza- tion, and selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects by state DOTs. This discussion is based on two related analyses. The first analysis was the review of academic literature, guidebooks, reports, and technical resources as identified through the Transportation Research Information Database, the U.S. Department of Transportation, various Internet search engines, and profes- sional associations. The second analysis included the creation of an inventory of state DOT plans that include pedestrian and bicycle components and an assessment of how these elements relate to project selection. Both analyses attempted to identify how policy goals, objectives, and perfor- mance measures were operationalized by state DOTs in their processes for identifying, ranking (i.e., evaluating and prioritizing), and selecting pedestrian and bicycle projects. Literature Review In the same way that widening a roadway leads to additional driving via induced demand, cre- ating more hospitable pedestrian and bicycle conditions via improved infrastructure also leads to increased rates of walking and bicycling (Skov-Petersen et al. 2017). The specific processes through which state DOTs identify, prioritize, evaluate, and select projects to create improved conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists vary; they largely depend on the staff resources available for these activities, the size of the population of the state, and the amount of federal and state funding available to be awarded for implementation (Dill et al. 2017). State DOTs undertake pedestrian and bicycle projects in the pursuit of a variety of goals. Litman (2019a) details the goals of active transportation over five categories: (1) economic development, (2) land use, (3) reduced vehicle travel, (4) public health, and (5) user/equity benefits. Semler et al. (2016) note that active transportation is a means to achieve outcomes in seven broad categories: connectivity, economy, environment, equity, livability, public health, and safety. Each category has multiple facets. Environmental goals, for example, may deal with air quality, water quality, wetlands, noise, wildlife, and/or climate change. The goals are also interconnected with nontransportation policies such as public health goals, which can include elements of safety, environmental quality, and health outcomes for vulnerable or underserved populations. Evaluation and Prioritization of Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Most state pedestrian and bicycle plans are policy plans, not lists of projects (Biton et al. 2014). Regardless of whether pedestrian and bicycle plans are policy documents or identify specific areas for improvements, guiding principles such as goals, objectives, and strategies can be linked C H A P T E R 2 Review of Literature and Practice

Review of Literature and Practice 9   to performance measures. Project prioritization is the scoring or ranking of projects according to a set of objective criteria (Semler et al. 2016). Title 23 §135 of the United States Code requires a performance-based approach to transportation decision making whereby states must consider federally defined measures and targets “when developing policies, programs, and investment priorities reflected in the statewide transportation plan and statewide transportation improve- ment program.” State DOTs have historically focused on automobile-centric performance measures rather than those related to walking and bicycling. This has led to undervaluing the benefits of active transportation modes relative to auto-centric projects when comparing walking and bicycling in cross-modal prioritization processes (Litman 2019b). A more comprehensive approach rec- ognizes the value of bicycling and walking and the importance of advancing access (the ability to reach desired destinations) as well as mobility (the ability to move). This shift has led to the development of performance measures for other modes to better evaluate progress toward policy goals and objectives (Litman 2019b). In selecting performance measures, Biton et al. (2014) note that state DOTs would be well-served to focus on and choose the measures they can directly influence via their investment decisions. Different performance measures are relevant for not only project evaluation and prioritiza- tion but also other applications including, but not limited to, comparing alternatives, scenario planning, and benchmarking (Semler et al. 2016). Semler et al. identify 30 bicycle and pedestrian performance measures. The review of state plans and reports for this synthesis found measures that are specifically applicable to and used by state DOTs for pedestrian and bicycle project evaluation. These include • Access to community destinations, • Access to jobs, • Adherence to accessibility laws, • Connectivity index, • Crashes, • Pedestrian and bicycle delay, • Density of destinations, • Facility maintenance, • Job creation, • Land value, • Levels of service for pedestrians and bicyclists, • Network completeness, • Pedestrian and bicycle volumes, • Person throughput, • Physical activity and health, • Population served by walk/bike/transit, • Transportation-disadvantaged populations served, and • Vehicle miles traveled. Regarding pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity, Twaddell et al. (2018) describe the ease with which people can get where they want to go. Twaddell et al. recommend analysis methods relevant to project prioritization (e.g., network density, route directness, access to destinations) and describe the performance measures that support each method. These perfor- mance measures include intersection density, connected node ratio, block length, street-miles per square mile, out-of-direction travel as a percentage of shortest-path route, crossing oppor- tunities, travel sheds, percentage of accessible jobs, and access to community destinations.

10 Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Project Prioritization Measurement Systems The literature review discovered several examples of measurement systems used in project evaluation and ranking (i.e., prioritization). Determining a project prioritization measurement system may be one step in the implementation phase of the larger process of developing a pedes- trian and bicycle plan (Gelinne et al. 2017). For improvements specific to pedestrians, Litman (2019a) describes project evaluation across four factors: (1) magnitude of impact, (2) demand (number/type of users and destinations), (3) support of special objectives such as improving mobility for individuals with disabilities, and (4) network/synergetic effects. Another resource is the ActiveTrans Priority Tool (APT)—available through the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, which is supported by FHWA and NHTSA and housed within the Highway Safety Research Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The APT can help states prioritize both the locations and short-, medium-, and long-term phasing of pedestrian and bicycle improvements (Lagerwey et al. 2015). The APT can also help state DOTs and other agencies link proposed pedestrian and bicycle projects to policy objectives. The APT process consists of two phases. Phase I, Scoping, includes defining the purpose of the prioritiza- tion effort, selecting factors, establishing weights for the factors, selecting measurable variables, considering data quality and availability, and assessing technical resources. This serves as the foundation for Phase II, Prioritization, which includes setting up a prioritization tool, measur- ing and inputting data, and scaling variables so different units are comparable. The end result is a ranked list of pedestrian and bicycle projects. The APT identifies nine factors that are commonly considered in the prioritization pro- cess: (1) stakeholder input, (2) constraints, (3) opportunities, (4) safety, (5) existing conditions, (6) demand, (7) connectivity, (8) equity, and (9) compliance. The factors are then weighted to reflect their importance, according to the agency’s values and goals. Each factor is represented by a set of related variables that can be measured. For example, safety variables could be the total number or rate of pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Demand variables could be popula- tion and employment density or proximity to transit stops/stations, and they can be measured quantitatively or qualitatively. The selection of variables provides agencies the flexibility to incorporate what is important to their community and can be accomplished depending on data availability and the staff resources required to process and analyze the data. The Virginia DOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program developed a project evaluation frame- work that includes prioritization of safety projects (Natarajan et al. 2008). The Virginia DOT conducted its own state-of-the-practice survey and found that project selection and prioritiza- tion was influenced by public meetings and workshops, local government policy, and expert opinion. The framework developed by the agency distinguished between the city/county level (project identification, performance measurement, evaluation of countermeasures) and the state level (project prioritization). Candidate projects are prioritized on the basis of cost, number of crashes, proximity to high-activity zones, ease of implementation and maintenance, community support, and special considerations such as vulnerable users. The Virginia DOT also identified additional project prioritization metrics, including latent demand, opportunity to construct con- currently with adjacent roadway projects, and connectivity. Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements as Part of Larger Projects Pedestrian and bicycle improvements can be standalone projects or part of larger projects across modes. FHWA encourages state DOTs and MPOs to integrate pedestrian and bicycle improvements into larger projects. This can be done simply and cost-effectively by building pedestrian and bicycle improvements such as sidewalks, trails, and crossing islands for

Review of Literature and Practice 11   pedestrians during the reconstruction of highways or by installing crosswalks and adding bicycle lanes during road resurfacing projects. FHWA advises state DOTs, MPOs, and other agencies to “consider all Federal-aid highway programs as potential funding sources” (FHWA 2019). Luecke et al. (2016) note that, among other advantages, construction of bicycle facilities during a roadway resurfacing project (1) can be more cost-effective than a standalone project; (2) benefits from new pavement, which is better for applying bicycle markings; and (3) can be considered as part of large capital program allocations for not only road resurfacing projects but also restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction projects. However, incorporation of pedes- trian and bicycle improvements into larger capital projects does require additional time to plan, conduct public outreach, and do additional design for the pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Consideration of bicycle facilities sometimes occurs late in the resurfacing process, and Luecke et al. make a case for shifting this consideration to earlier in the process when the preliminary list of resurfacing projects is generated. Review of State Planning Documents State DOTs develop multiple plans and reports that include pedestrian and bicycle compo- nents. These plans and reports typically include policy goals, objectives, performance measures, and strategies to improve and expand walking and bicycling. Some of these plans and reports also include information on the criteria, methodologies, and tools used to evaluate and prioritize pedestrian and bicycle projects. In other cases, the plans and reports reference additional docu- mentation, such as guidebooks and project application materials for specific funding programs, which contains the information on project evaluation and prioritization. This synthesis involved a review of the project evaluation and prioritization criteria and methodologies that inform the selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects to receive funding through state DOT–administered programs. The types of statewide plans and reports inventoried are listed in Table 2 along with a brief summary of their respective purposes. Policy Goals The vast majority of the state DOT plans and reports reviewed for this synthesis contain policy goals. These goals provide the overall framework for the components of the plans. Examples of plan components include objectives that further detail the stated intent of the goals, perfor- mance measures that define how progress toward the goals will be assessed, and the strategies to meet the goals (in more limited instances, specific projects are included). As would be expected given that four of the six types of plans and reports reviewed specifically address safety, improv- ing safety was the most common goal found in the state DOT–produced plans and reports reviewed. In addition to safety, pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity (providing facilities for walking and bicycling to, from, and between residences, employers, schools, parks, and other destinations) was a common goal in long-range statewide transportation plans and statewide pedestrian and/or bicycle plans. Other policy goals in addition to safety and pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity were identified in the review of the state DOT plans and reports. According to this review, the most common policy goals and brief general descriptions of how progress can be made toward these goals (in alphabetical order) are as follows: • Economic development—Studies of existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure have dem- onstrated that when walking and bicycling are more attractive travel options, people spend more time at their destinations, which can drive economic activity and community revital- ization (Giles-Corti et al. 2010). Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure can lead to increased

12 Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects economic activity, particularly in downtown areas. Additionally, bikeable and walkable com- munities have become more than destinations, as some people prefer to live and work there because of the convenient availability of these travel options. Similarly, by connecting pedes- trian and bicycle infrastructure, tourism may grow by attracting outside revenues from those traveling by active forms of transportation as a recreational and experiential activity. • Environmental/sustainability—Because of the zero-to-low emissions associated with active forms of transportation, replacing trips that would otherwise have been made by automobiles with walking and bicycling can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants that degrade air quality. Beyond air quality, offering increased opportunities for active transporta- tion by walking and bicycling can also benefit water quality through the reduction of particu- lates and microplastic particles from automobile tires that end up in stormwater management systems and water bodies. The provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities are also important elements to realizing the full benefits of land use policies and legislation that require or incen- tivize compact development. • Equity—Given the costs associated with purchasing, registering, and insuring an automobile and the ongoing operating expenses for fuel, parking, and vehicle maintenance, owning a personal car is beyond the financial means of some individuals. In addition to those that cannot afford a private automobile, persons with disabilities, seniors who can no longer operate an automobile, and youth who are too young to obtain a driver’s license often rely on walking and bicycling. Increasing safe, convenient options to walk and bicycle is critical to improving quality of life and economic opportunities for a variety of individuals. Plan Type Summary of Purpose Long-range statewide transportation plan Serves as the overarching basis for the development and implementation of the state transportation system across all modes over a 20-year forecast period. Statewide pedestrian and/or bicycle plan Whether combined or standalone for either pedestrians or bicyclists, articulates the vision and associated policy goals, objectives, strategies, and means for gauging progress with respect to improving walking and/or bicycling on a statewide basis and across multiple considerations (e.g., safety, connectivity, equity). Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Provides a comprehensive framework, identifies key safety needs, and guides investment decisions toward strategies and countermeasures that have the greatest potential to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Determines the current state of pedestrian safety and develops a set of engineering and nonengineering (e.g., education, encouragement, and enforcement) countermeasures to be implemented. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Annual Report Describes progress being made on implementing highway safety improvement projects, assesses the effectiveness of those improvements, and describes the extent to which the implemented improvements have contributed to reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Highway Safety Plan targets for 15 performance measures, describes strategies to meet the targets, and discusses successes in meeting the targets of the previous fiscal year. It is required for a state to receive Section 402 funds. An annual, data-driven plan that includes quantifiable Table 2. Statewide plans and reports that include pedestrian and bicycle components.

Review of Literature and Practice 13   • Multimodal trips—Improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure can support public trans- portation systems by helping address the “first- and last-mile” dilemma of reaching transit service. In addition, increasing access to public transportation may allow individuals to connect to areas where shared mobility options—which are not present near their residences— are located. Expanding bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure may offer people the opportu- nity to integrate multiple modes of transportation into their trip making. • Pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity/accessibility—As agencies (including state DOTs) improve and expand pedestrian and bicycle transportation infrastructure, they are working toward ensuring that these facilities are adequately accessible to as many people as possible and that new infrastructure is connected to the existing pedestrian and bicycle network. Even if there is abundant pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on a regional or statewide basis, gaps (even small ones) can create stress for those who rely on walking and bicycling as their primary means of travel and make potential users hesitant to walk or bicycle. If these gaps can be filled and the infrastructure is easily accessible to potential pedestrians and bicyclists, concerns about safety will decrease and usage by pedestrians and bicyclists will more likely increase. • Public health—The mechanism through which most automobiles generate power is com- bustion of fossil fuels, resulting in the emission of pollutants and particulate matter that can negatively affect human health by exacerbating issues for individuals with respiratory condi- tions such as asthma. In addition to facilitating reduced automobile usage, improving and expanding pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure creates opportunities for people to build exercise into their daily trip making. This can aid in reducing obesity and the associated risks of developing cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic health ailments. • Safety—The size and weight of automobiles and the speeds at which they can move can be hazards to those walking and bicycling. Creating dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facilities along and within roadways (e.g., sidewalks, bicycle lanes) can improve safety by defining the operating spaces for different users, but conversely may lead to increased conflicts as addi- tional pedestrians and bicyclists are attracted to these facilities. Pedestrian and bicycle infra- structure separated from roadways or constructed in separate rights-of-way (e.g., walking paths, multiuse trails) generally provide the safest conditions for walkers and bicyclists. Project Evaluation and Prioritization As discussed previously in this synthesis, state DOTs administer several programs that award funds for the planning, design, and construction of pedestrian and bicycle projects. According to the state DOT plans and reports reviewed for this synthesis, the evaluation criteria and prio- ritization processes for selecting projects to receive FHWA TA program funds were the most commonly available on state DOT websites. While no longer a separate FHWA program, Safe Routes to School projects are eligible for TA funds, and state DOTs have established evaluation criteria for these projects as well. State DOTs are not eligible recipients of TA funds and typically solicit project proposals from eligible recipients; these include, but are not limited to, local governments; tribal gov- ernments; transit agencies; not-for-profit organizations; and federal, state, regional, and local agencies responsible for the administration of public land or natural resources. All of the state DOT TA evaluation criteria and prioritization processes reviewed for this synthesis include the estimation of the potential for project proposals to improve safety for nonmotorized users of the transportation system. Two common means for doing so include examining crashes over a period of time within the area of effect of the proposed project and assessing traffic volumes and speeds as indicators of potential safety issues or risk.

14 Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects State DOTs incorporate other policy goals into their project evaluation and prioritization processes. A frequent one is improving connectivity and access for pedestrians and bicyclists by addressing gaps in the network from a statewide perspective, with projects being evaluated on their contribution to creating comprehensive and cohesive pedestrian and bicycle systems. The South Dakota DOT, using the phrase “relevance,” weighs this criterion most highly among its selection criteria (South Dakota Department of Transportation 2020). The Texas DOT, Ohio DOT, and New Jersey DOT all place explicit emphasis on connectivity and consistency with existing state plans (Texas Department of Transportation 2019; Ohio Department of Trans- portation 2020; New Jersey Department of Transportation 2018a). The Oregon DOT also uses network completion as a primary consideration in its proposal evaluation process (Oregon Department of Transportation 2019). Several states incorporate equity by considering the number of elementary and secondary students eligible for reduced-price or free lunches who would benefit from the implementa- tion of each project submitted. The Oregon DOT operationalizes equity for elementary and secondary students by using the U.S. Department of Education standard for Title I schools, which is those schools where at least 40 percent of the children are from low-income families (Oregon Department of Transportation 2020a). The Ohio DOT considers the percentage of households without access to a private vehicle and the potential increase in walking and bicycling trips that would result in an effort to address the needs of low-income individuals, persons with disabilities, seniors who can no longer operate an automobile, and youth who are too young to obtain a driver’s license (Ohio Department of Transportation 2020a). The New Jersey DOT TA project evaluation criteria include how the proposal affects user mode—for example, the promotion of other nonautomotive means of transportation in addi- tion to walking and bicycling (New Jersey Department of Transportation 2018b). With respect to connections to transit and other modes, the Utah DOT’s Transportation Investment Fund contains specific consideration of active transportation serving first- and last-mile connections to transit, particularly in the densely populated Wasatch Front Region (Utah Department of Transportation 2020). In addition to evaluation criteria directly linked to the policy goals of plans with pedestrian and bicycle components, some state DOTs’ prioritization processes consider community sup- port for a project. The affirmed presence of project proponents can be considered an indicator of local buy-in, with allied stakeholders viewed as likely stewards of the project. The New Jersey DOT Bikeway Grant Program provides assistance to counties and municipalities to construct new bike paths consistent with a statewide goal of constructing 1,000 new miles of bikeways. Project proposals are evaluated on the basis of a municipality’s projected dedication and ability to complete the project, as demonstrated through past performance with state grants and timely expenditure reporting, the presence of an adopted complete streets resolution, and the inclusion of a bicycle network in an adopted municipal master plan (New Jersey Department of Trans- portation 2018a). Just as the criteria used to evaluate pedestrian and bicycle project proposals vary among state DOTs and within state DOTs depending on the requirements of the funding program, so does the weighting of these criteria within their respective prioritization processes. Some, such as the Texas DOT, aggregate both quantitative and qualitative criteria, combining data-driven analyses with professional judgment (Texas Department of Transportation 2019). State DOTs may provide varying weights to their criteria (which are often organized around the policy goals of their plans). This weighting can take the form of additional possible points for certain criteria compared to others or the use of multipliers that are higher or lower according to the impor- tance of the criteria (i.e., all criteria can be scored from 1 to 10, but the score is multiplied by a factor of between, say, one and five depending on importance). Some criteria are scored as “yes”

Review of Literature and Practice 15   or “no,” eschewing numerical scoring and using the total number of criteria scored as “yes” to determine the number of points a proposal receives. Cultivating Future Projects Some state DOTs provide funds as part of a preparatory process that allows potential project sponsors to develop projects for submission during future state DOT–administered solicita- tions for pedestrian and bicycle projects. One of three avenues for state funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects in Vermont is its Scoping Studies program. This program, requiring local matching funds, has a single selection criterion: community need. If funds are awarded, villages, towns, and cities use the funding to study and conceptualize a pedestrian or bicycle project that can be submitted for design and construction funding in a future solicitation (Vermont Agency of Transportation 2020). The Massachusetts DOT has directed resources toward determining existing and latent demand for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (Massachusetts Depart- ment of Transportation 2019). Using the metrics of activity, crashes, access to transit, and social equity, the Massachusetts DOT maintains a geographic information system that can assist local, regional, and state entities in formulating projects for consideration in future rounds of pedes- trian and bicycle project decision making.