National Academies Press: OpenBook

Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects (2021)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Review of Literature and Practice
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of the State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26177.
×
Page 27

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.

16 A survey was developed and distributed to the FHWA-maintained list of state bicycle and pedestrian coordinators in all 50 state DOTs and the District of Columbia. The survey was reviewed by the synthesis Topic Panel and revised based on their comments. It was created and administered using the SurveyGizmo enterprise online survey and tools. State bicycle and pedestrian coordinators were encouraged to coordinate their responses with others in their respective state DOT as needed. Reminders were sent by the synthesis principal investigator to those state bicycle and pedestrian coordinators who had not completed the survey. In addition, the survey was distributed to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Council on Active Transportation to maximize the number of states completing the survey. The survey response rate was 67 percent. Responses were received from state DOTs as presented in Map 1. Respondents were asked to upload associated state pedestrian and bicycle plans, reports, and other documentation produced by the state DOT for reference as part of the synthesis. The survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix A. Summary of Results The survey and its component questions were organized around (1) the policy goals that state DOTs incorporate into plans that include pedestrian and bicycle elements; (2) the criteria, metrics, and/or targets used to evaluate, score, and rank pedestrian and bicycle projects and programs for each applicable policy goal; (3) the types of funding programs that state DOTs administer and associated project types that can be funded by these programs; and (4) the vari- ous types of involvement that are undertaken with non–state DOT stakeholders. The individual responses to the survey questionnaire are provided in Appendix B. Policy Goals The survey asked about state DOT policy goals that guide the evaluation and selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects. These policy goals included safety, environmental/sustainability, public health, pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity and accessibility, equity, economic development, and multimodal trips. All but one of the 34 state DOTs that responded to the survey reported using at least one of these policy goals to guide their agency’s evaluation and selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects; 82 percent reported using at least three of these policy goals to guide their evaluation and selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects; and 24 percent reported that they consider all seven policy goals. All of these responding state DOTs used safety policy goals, and 94 percent used pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity and accessibility policy goals to guide their pedestrian and bicycle project evaluation and selec- tion processes. Fewer than half of responding state DOTs used public health (47 percent) or C H A P T E R 3 Survey of the State of the Practice

Survey of the State of the Practice 17   environmental/sustainability (44 percent) policy goals in their respective pedestrian and bicycle project selection processes (see Table 3). The survey requested that respondents indicate the types of plans that include criteria, metrics, and/or targets that apply to the selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects plans for each of the policy goals presented in Table 3. The types of plans to which criteria, metrics, and/or targets for the various policy goals are applied to pedestrian and bicycle project selection by survey respondents are listed in Table 4. Of the state DOTs responding to the survey, 15 percent reported using criteria, metrics, and/or targets from all policy areas in at least one type of plan when stating the policy goals that guide their evaluation and selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects. One of the responding Map 1. Survey respondents and nonrespondents. Policy Goal Share of Responding DOTs That Have Policy Goals Safety 100% Pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity and accessibility 94% Equity 65% Multimodal trips 56% Economic development 53% Public health 47% Environmental/sustainability 44% Table 3. Policy goals incorporated in pedestrian and bicycle project selection by responding state DOTs that have policy goals.

18 Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects state DOTs reported using criteria, metrics, and/or targets for its policy goals in the selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects in all seven of the plan types listed in Table 4. Conversely, 26 percent of the responding state DOTs did not apply any criteria, metrics, and/or targets to the evaluation and selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects in the plans listed in Table 4. Of state DOTs responding to the survey that explicitly incorporate at least one of the seven policy goals (see Table 5) into their pedestrian and bicycle project selection processes, the criteria, metrics, and/or targets most frequently used are those related to equity (73 percent). All of the responding state DOTs that incorporated equity criteria, metrics, and/or targets did so in multiple plans. Network connectivity and accessibility was the next most commonly incorporated policy goal among state DOTs responding to the survey, with 63 percent using criteria, metrics, and/or targets (see Table 5). The percentages of responding state DOTs that use criteria, metrics, and/or targets by policy goal to select pedestrian and bicycle projects, cross tabulated by the type of plan, are presented in Table 6. There are variations with respect to the application of policy goal criteria, metrics, and/or targets in pedestrian and bicycle project selection across the types of plans. Plan Type Long-range statewide transportation plans Strategic Highway Safety Plans Pedestrian Safety Action Plans Statewide/regional pedestrian plans or assessments Statewide/regional bicycle plans or assessments Statewide transportation improvement programs Larger projects across all modes that include pedestrian and bicycle facilities Other plans and programs Table 4. Types of plans that include criteria, metrics, and/or targets for selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects by responding state DOTs. Policy Goal Share of DOTs Applying Metrics Safety 56% Bicycle and pedestrian network connectivity and accessibility 63% Multimodal trips 58% Equity 73% Economic development 44% Public health 50% Environmental/sustainability 53% Table 5. Responding state DOTs with specific policy goals that used criteria, metrics, and/or targets in pedestrian and bicycle project selection.

Survey of the State of the Practice 19   The most commonly used policy goal criteria, metrics, and/or targets by responding state DOTs to select pedestrian and bicycle projects in their long-range statewide transportation plans were these: economic development (75 percent), multimodal trips (64 percent), environmental/ sustainability (63 percent), and safety (58 percent). The least common was equity (31 percent). Criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to the safety policy goal were most commonly included in Strategic Highway Safety Plans (79 percent) among responding state DOTs. None of the other policy goal criteria, metrics, and/or targets were used by more than 27 percent (multi- modal trips) of the responding state DOTs as part of pedestrian and bicycle project selection in Strategic Highway Safety Plans. Safety Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Connectivity and Accessibility Multimodal Trips Equity Economic Development Public Health Environmental/ Sustainability Long-range statewide plans 58% 35% 64% 31% 75% 38% 63% Strategic Highway Safety Plans 79% 10% 27% 19% 13% 25% 13% Pedestrian Safety Action Plans 26% 15% 27% 19% 25% 38% 13% Statewide/ regional pedestrian plans 47% 40% 55% 44% 38% 38% 13% Statewide/ regional bicycle plans 53% 50% 64% 50% 63% 50% 13% Statewide transportation improvement programs 74% 40% 36% 31% 50% 38% 75% Larger projects such as corridor/ intersection reconstruction and reallocation of space on existing facilities 68% 60% 46% 44% 50% 25% 38% Other plans and programs 58% 70% 73% 75% 88% 100% 63% Table 6. Responding state DOTs that used criteria, metrics, and/or targets in pedestrian and bicycle project selection, by policy goal and plan type.

20 Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects According to the responses to the survey for this synthesis and a review of state DOT Pedes- trian Safety Action Plans, pedestrian and bicycle projects included in these plans were identi- fied through analyses conducted either as part of other plans or as part of a proscribed analysis outside of the development of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan itself. Accordingly, the use of criteria, metrics, and/or targets for any policy goal was not a major component of these plans, as the emphasis of these plans is to identify recommended countermeasures to address previously identified safety issues. In statewide and regional pedestrian plans, nearly half of state DOTs responding to the survey applied criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to the safety policy goal in the selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects; 44 percent used criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to the equity policy goal; and 40 percent used criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to the pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity policy goal. Only one responding state DOT reported using criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to the sustainability policy goal in this type of plan. In the statewide and regional bicycle plan category, 50 percent or more of the responding state DOTs reported using criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to all of the policy goals except the environmental/sustainability policy goal. As with statewide and regional pedestrian plans, only one responding state DOT reported using criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to the environmental/sustainability policy goal in its bicycle plan. The type of plan where criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to the environmental/ sustainability policy goal was most commonly incorporated by state DOTs responding to the survey was the statewide transportation improvement programs (75 percent). Similar to other types of plans included in the survey for this synthesis, responding state DOTs reported commonly using criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to the safety policy goal in statewide transportation improvement programs (74 percent). Among responding state DOTs, criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to the safety and pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity policy goals were the two most commonly used as part of larger projects across all modes—for example, corridor/intersection reconstruction and reallocation of space on existing facilities (68 percent and 60 percent, respectively). Criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to the public health and environmental/sustainability policy goals were the least commonly reported in the category of larger projects across all modes (25 percent and 38 percent, respectively). The category of other plans and programs was the only one in which the use of criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to all policy goals was reported by more than half of all responding state DOTs. Criteria, metrics, and/or targets related to the public health and economic development policy goals were the most common (100 percent and 88 percent, respectively), while the safety and environmental/sustainability policy goals were the least common (58 percent and 63 percent, respectively) in this category. Survey respondents were also asked to rank each policy goal in the order of its approximate weight in their pedestrian and bicycle project selection process, independent of their responses for each type of plan. For each responding state DOT, the goal with the largest weight was assigned a score of 7 and the goal with the lowest weight was assigned a score of 1. The scores were then summed by policy goal, and the results are provided in Table 7 and Figure 1. The state DOTs responding to the survey for this synthesis weight the policy goals of safety, pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity, and equity more than other policy goals. The state DOTs responding to the survey for this synthesis indicated they use models, post processors, and other analysis tools to quantify the contribution of pedestrian and bicycle projects to each of the policy goals. Some of the tools were developed in-house, while some were purchased from external vendors. Over half of responding state DOTs (approximately 60 percent) reported using at least one model, post processor, or other analysis tool to support their pedestrian and bicycle project

Survey of the State of the Practice 21   selection process. The most models, post processors, and other analysis tools used by a responding state DOT is seven, with 21 percent of responding state DOTs indicating that they use more than three in their respective pedestrian and bicycle project selection process. Among these, the most common tools were crash analysis software and models. Other tools included those that analyze the number of cyclists and pedestrians using various facilities and software that assists in the ranking of proposed pedestrian and bicycle projects. Some of the state DOTs responding to the survey for this synthesis had the capabilities to develop models, post processors, and other tools internally: 37 percent were developed in-house by state DOT staff, and 15 percent were codeveloped by state DOT staff and a third-party vendor. Regardless of the developer, the models, post processors, and other analysis tools must be maintained and updated. Nearly half of the tools reported by state DOTs responding to the survey (48 percent) were last updated in 2020, and 29 percent were updated in 2019. Five percent were last updated before 2017. Policy Area Overall Rank Score Safety 1 115 Pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity and accessibility 2 89 Equity 3 67 Multimodality 4 43 Economic development 5 41 Environment/sustainability 6 40 Public health 7 39 Table 7. Policy goal weighting for pedestrian and bicycle project selection by responding state DOTs. 115 89 67 43 41 40 39 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Sa fet y Ne tw or k C on ne cti vit y a nd Ac ce ssi bil ity Eq ui ty M ul tim od ali ty Ec on om ic De ve lop m en t En vir on m en t/ Su sta ina bil ity Pu bli c H ea lth Figure 1. Policy goal weighting for pedestrian and bicycle project selection by responding state DOTs.

22 Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Funding According to the responses of state DOTs to the survey for this synthesis, federal funding is most often programmed to pedestrian infrastructure as part of a larger project (26 percent) and to bicycle infrastructure as part of a larger project (25 percent). Further, those responses indi- cated that the most common federal funding programs for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure as part of larger projects are the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (non-Transpor- tation Alternatives), Highway Safety Improvement Program (non–High Risk Rural Roads), and Transportation Alternatives. Responding state DOTs reported the next most common types of projects to be advanced with federal funding are standalone pedestrian infrastructure (19 percent) and standalone bicycle infra- structure (18 percent). Those responses indicated the most common federal funding programs for standalone pedestrian infrastructure projects and standalone bicycle infrastructure projects are Transportation Alternatives and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement. The least common types of pedestrian and bicycle projects to be advanced with federal funding, according to the state DOTs responding to the survey for this synthesis, are education programs applicable to pedestrians and bicyclists (7 percent) and encouragement programs applicable to pedestrians and bicyclists (5 percent). Table 8 and Figure 2 present the use of federal funding programs by project type. Project Type Share of Total Instances Standalone pedestrian infrastructure 19% Standalone bicycle infrastructure 18% Education programs applicable to pedestrians and bicyclists 7% Encouragement programs applicable to pedestrians and bicyclists 5% Pedestrian infrastructure as part of a larger project 26% Bicycle infrastructure as part of a larger project 25% Table 8. Use of federal funding by type of project by responding state DOTs. 19% 18% 7% 5% 26% 25% Standalone Pedestrian Infrastructure (19%) Standalone Bicycle Infrastructure (18%) Education Programs Applicable to Pedestrians & Bicyclists (7%) Encouragement Programs Applicable to Pedestrians & Bicyclists (5%) Pedestrian Infrastructure as Part of a Larger Project (26%) Bicycle Infrastructure as Part of a Larger Project (25%) Figure 2. Use of federal funding by type of project by responding state DOTs.

Survey of the State of the Practice 23   The survey for this synthesis also requested information on what pedestrian and bicycle project types are eligible to be awarded state funds (see Table 9). More than 80 percent of state DOTs responding to the survey for this synthesis reported that pedestrian infrastructure as part of a larger project and bicycle infrastructure as part of a larger project can be awarded state funds. Regarding all of the other types of pedestrian and bicycle projects included in the survey for this synthesis, among the state DOTs responding, 60 percent or more reported that they are allowed to fund pedestrian and bicycle projects with state funds: education programs appli- cable to pedestrians and bicyclists (71 percent), standalone pedestrian infrastructure (66 per- cent), standalone bicycle infrastructure (63 percent), and encouragement programs applicable to pedestrians and bicyclists (63 percent). Eleven percent of the state DOTs responding to the survey reported that state funds cannot be awarded to pedestrian or bicycle projects. Involvement of Non–State DOT Stakeholders The survey for this synthesis asked respondents to indicate the type of involvement that non–state DOT stakeholders provided in the development of state plans that include pedes- trian and bicycle components. The types of involvement were defined as follows: • Awareness—Non–state DOT stakeholders were informed of the development or availability of the state plan or program. • Consultation—Non–state DOT stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide input at certain points in the development of the state plan or program. • Direct role—Non–state DOT stakeholders were actively involved in the development of the state plan or program. The percentages of non–state DOT stakeholders made aware of, consulted in, and with a direct role in the development of state plans that include pedestrian and bicycle components as reported by state DOTs responding to the survey for this synthesis are presented in Tables 10, 11, and 12, respectively. Survey respondents reported involving the widest range of non–state DOT stakeholders to the greatest extent in long-range statewide plans, Strategic Highway Safety Plans, and state- wide transportation improvement programs. Conversely, state DOTs responding to the survey involved non–state DOT stakeholders the least in the development of Pedestrian Safety Action Plans and regional pedestrian plans and assessments conducted by state DOTs. Project Type Share Pedestrian infrastructure as part of a larger project 89% Bicycle infrastructure as part of a larger project 86% Education programs applicable to pedestrians and bicyclists 71% Standalone pedestrian infrastructure 66% Standalone bicycle infrastructure 63% Encouragement programs applicable to pedestrians and bicyclists 63% Bicycle and pedestrian projects not programmed with state funding sources 14% Table 9. Pedestrian and bicycle projects eligible to be programmed with state funds by responding state DOTs.

24 Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Program Type State Highway Safety Office State Recreational Trails Program Administration Agency Metropolitan Planning Organization Rural Planning Local Government Long-range statewide plans 13.5% 14.9% 10.8% 9.5% 9.5% 10.8% 13.5% 13.5% Strategic Highway Safety Plans 11.3% 12.9% 12.9% 9.7% 8.1% 12.9% 11.3% 12.9% Pedestrian Safety Action Plans 8.1% 2.7% 8.1% 5.4% 8.1% 8.1% 5.4% 8.1% Statewide pedestrian plans or assessments (non–Pedestrian Safety Action Plans) 5.1% 7.7% 5.1% 5.1% 10.3% 12.8% 10.3% 12.8% Regional pedestrian plans or assessments conducted by state DOT 2.6% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 10.5% 5.3% 2.6% 13.2% Statewide bicycle plans or assessments 9.5% 9.5% 7.1% 4.8% 11.9% 11.9% 9.5% 11.9% Regional bicycle plans or assessments 9.1% 11.4% 9.1% 6.8% 11.4% 6.8% 2.3% 13.6% conducted by state DOT Statewide transportation improvement programs 11.4% 7.6% 11.4% 8.9% 10.1% 15.2% 13.9% 17.7% Organization State Law Enforcement Local Law Enforcement Advocacy Organizations Table 10. Percentage of responding state DOTs that make non–state DOT stakeholders aware of state plans and programs by type.

Survey of the State of the Practice 25   Program Type State Highway Safety Office State Recreational Trails Program Administration Agency Metropolitan Planning Organization Rural Planning Organization Local Government Advocacy Organizations Long-range statewide plans 11.8% 4.7% 12.9% 11.8% 16.5% 8.2% 17.6% Strategic Highway Safety Plans 11.3% 2.8% 11.3% 9.9% 14.1% 12.7% 16.9% Pedestrian Safety Action Plans 8.9% 6.7% 8.9% 8.9% 4.4% 4.4% 8.9% Statewide pedestrian plans or assessments (non–Pedestrian Safety Action Plans) 11.9% 5.1% 10.2% 5.1% 13.6% 8.5% 11.9% Regional pedestrian plans or assessments conducted by state DOT 7.9% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 10.5% 10.5% Statewide bicycle plans or assessments 11.6% 4.3% 11.6% 7.2% 11.6% 10.1% 15.9% Regional bicycle plans or assessments 9.4% 3.8% 11.3% 7.5% 9.4% 11.3% 13.2% conducted by state DOT Statewide transportation improvement programs 11.3% 3.2% 14.5% 8.1% 17.7% State Law Enforcement 9.4% 12.7% 8.9% 10.2% 10.5% 10.1% 9.4% 11.3% 8.1% 19.4% Local Law Enforcement Table 11. Percentage of responding state DOTs that consult with non–state DOT stakeholders in development of state plans and programs by type.

26 Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Program Type State Highway Safety Office State Recreational Trails Program Administration Agency Metropolitan Planning Organization Rural Planning Organization Local Governments Long-range statewide plans 11.5% 6.7% 23.1% 16.3% 17.3% 5.8% 4.8% 12.5% Strategic Highway Safety Plans 18.3% 4.2% 15.8% 10.8% 12.5% 14.2% 10.0% 11.7% Pedestrian Safety Action Plans 11.8% 2.9% 10.3% 7.4% 11.8% 8.8% 10.3% 13.2% Statewide pedestrian plans or assessments (non–Pedestrian Safety Action Plans) 9.5% 7.4% 17.9% 12.6% 13.7% 7.4% 8.4% 12.6% Regional pedestrian plans or assessments conducted by state DOT 9.7% 6.9% 16.7% 12.5% 15.3% 4.2% 6.9% 9.7% Statewide bicycle plans or assessments 10.8% 7.8% 18.6% 12.7% 13.7% 6.9% 7.8% 13.7% Regional bicycle plans or assessments 7.0% 8.5% 16.9% 12.7% 15.5% 2.8% 7.0% 12.7% conducted by state DOT Statewide transportation improvement programs 8.0% 12.5% 28.4% 19.3% 19.3% 2.3% 2.3% 4.5% Advocacy Organizations State Law Enforcement Local Law Enforcement Table 12. Percentage of responding state DOTs that directly involve non–state DOT stakeholders in development of state plans and programs by type.

Survey of the State of the Practice 27   Metropolitan planning organizations were the non–state DOT stakeholder that most fre- quently had a direct role in the development of state plans by state DOTs responding to the survey. MPOs were involved more frequently than any of the other non–state DOT stakeholders in the development of long-range statewide transportation plans, statewide pedestrian plans or assessments (non–Pedestrian Safety Action Plans), regional pedestrian plans and assessments conducted by state DOTs, statewide bicycle plans and assessments, regional bicycle plans and assessments conducted by state DOTs, and statewide transportation improvement programs. Advocacy organizations were the non–state DOT stakeholder that most frequently had a direct role in the development of Pedestrian Safety Action Plans as reported by survey respondents. Among survey respondents, the non–state DOT stakeholder that most frequently had a direct role in the development of Strategic Highway Safety Plans was state highway safety offices. State DOTs responding to the survey indicated that advocacy organizations were the most likely to be informed of the availability of and consulted in the development of their plans but were the least likely to be directly involved in the development of the plans. The exception (as previously noted) was Pedestrian Safety Action Plans, in which advocacy organizations were the non–state DOT stakeholder most frequently directly involved. Survey respondents reported that across all three types of involvement, state recreational trails program administration agencies, state law enforcement, and local law enforcement were the three non–state DOT stake- holders that were the least frequently included in the development of state plans across all types of involvement.

Next: Chapter 4 - Case Examples »
Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

State departments of transportation (DOTs) conduct planning and administer funding programs for the implementation of pedestrian and bicycle projects. The amount of federal funds available for these projects has grown steadily since 1992 under programs implemented as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Synthesis 564: Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects documents and summarizes state DOT practices for selecting pedestrian and bicycle projects, excluding design elements.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!