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.

37   The objective of this synthesis is to document and summarize state DOT practices for selecting pedestrian and bicycle projects. This includes the identification of the policy goals and asso- ciated criteria, metrics, and targets that state DOTs use to guide evaluation and selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects; the types of pedestrian and bicycle projects that are funded through federal and state programs; and the types of involvement by various non–state DOT stakeholders. Major Findings The major findings of this synthesis are based on the literature review; information gathered from state DOT plans, reports, and guidelines; the online survey; and case examples of four state DOTs that represent a diversity of viewpoints from across the country. These findings include the following: • The amount of federal funds available for the implementation of pedestrian and bicycle projects has grown steadily since the Transportation Enhancements program and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program were first funded in federal FY 1992 under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. Over the past nearly 30 years, addi- tional federal programs dedicated fully or partially to funding pedestrian and bicycle projects have been authorized, and the amount of funds obligated for pedestrian and bicycle projects has increased from $23 million in 1992 to over $1 billion in 2019. As of 2014, all 50 states had at least one source of state funding that could be used to advance pedestrian and bicycle projects, and 14 states had a dedicated state pedestrian and bicycle funding program. • State DOTs are responsible for administering the majority of federal and state pedestrian and bicycle funding programs. In many cases, that includes selecting the projects to be advanced using these funds (as opposed to serving only as “pass-through” fiscal agents). In fulfilling their project selection responsibilities, state DOTs typically undertake four phases that can be categorized as (1) establishing policy goals, objectives, and performance measures; (2) identifying pedestrian and bicycle projects to be proposed for implementation; (3) eval- uating and prioritizing proposed pedestrian and bicycle projects; and (4) selecting pedestrian and bicycle projects to be awarded funds. • State DOTs select pedestrian and bicycle projects to achieve a variety of policy goals. The results of the literature review; assessment of statewide plans, reports, and guidelines; and responses to the online survey were consistent with respect to the policy goals that state DOTs include in their plans that contain pedestrian and bicycle components. The two most frequently cited policy goals were safety and pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity/ accessibility. Equity and multimodal trips (i.e., expanding the extent, quality, and range of C H A P T E R 5 Summary of Major Findings

38 Practices for Selecting Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects reasonable travel options available to people) were also commonly included in state DOT plans, selected by survey respondents, and discussed in the available literature. • Candidate pedestrian and bicycle projects to be considered for funding through programs administered by state DOTs can be identified via internal consultation with various state DOT bureaus or offices responsible for planning, safety, design, and capital programming. State DOTs generally administer but are not eligible applicants for the award of federal TA program funds, which accounted for more than half of all federal funds obligated for pedestrian and bicycle projects in 2019. State DOTs solicit candidate projects to be awarded TA funds from non–state DOT stakeholders such as local governments, regional transpor- tation agencies, not-for-profit organizations, and other entities. State DOTs also conduct solicitations for pedestrian and bicycle projects from external stakeholders for other federal and state funding programs. Some state DOTs, including Vermont, award funding to local governments to study and conceptualize pedestrian or bicycle projects that can be sub- mitted for design and construction funding in a future solicitation, creating a pipeline of candidate projects. • The policy goals guide the criteria, metrics, and/or targets that are used to evaluate and prioritize candidate pedestrian and bicycle projects. The means for evaluation and priori- tization vary from state to state; they range from methodologies that are mainly quantita- tive, incorporating the use of analysis tools (such as the ActiveTrans Priority Tool available through the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center), to primarily qualitative assess- ments that do not involve numerical scoring. In some states, such as Texas, the state DOT combines data-driven analysis with professional judgment so as not to rely solely on either quantitative or qualitative means. State DOT evaluation criteria and prioritization pro- cesses can also consider a sponsor’s capacity to successfully implement a proposed bicycle or pedestrian project. The New Jersey DOT factors in local communities’ past record of performance on state-funded projects, adoption of a complete streets resolution, and the inclusion of a bicycle network in an adopted municipal master plan when prioritizing projects to be awarded funds through its Bikeway Grant Program. • State DOT selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects does not necessarily always follow the prioritization of projects based on quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods. Factors such as geographic distribution can play a role, as evidenced by information gained from the case examples. In Oregon, Active Transportation Leverage funds (which are federal monies) are allocated by formula to Oregon DOT regions. The Transportation Investment Fund administered by the Utah DOT specifies consideration of active transportation serving first- and last-mile connections to transit, particularly in the densely populated Wasatch Front Region. Eligibility requirements of the various funding programs may restrict a state DOT’s flexibility to select and award funds consistent with a prioritized list of candidate pedestrian and bicycle projects. For example, when the total amount of funds requested for projects of a certain type exceeds the amount available in the respective funding program(s), projects of another type that ranked lower may be selected because funds are available in a different funding program for which the lower-ranked projects are eligible. • In addition to standalone pedestrian and bicycle projects, state DOTs also provide funding for pedestrian and bicycle improvements that are implemented as part of larger roadway and bridge projects. According to the results of the survey, more responding state DOTs use the federal High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program (non-HRRR), National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (non-TA), and U.S. Department of Transportation Discretionary Grants Program to advance pedestrian and bicycle projects as part of larger projects than use these programs for standalone pedestrian and bicycle projects. • State DOTs also involve other stakeholders to varying degrees in the development of state plans that include pedestrian and bicycle components. The types of involvement for this synthesis

Summary of Major Findings 39   were defined as “awareness” (non–state DOT stakeholders were informed of the development or availability of the state plan), “consultation” (non–state DOT stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide input at certain points in the development of the state plan), and “direct role” (non–state DOT stakeholders were actively involved in the development of the state plan or program). State DOTs responding to the survey involved metro politan plan- ning organizations (MPOs) in a direct role more frequently than any other non–state DOT stakeholder. Advocacy organizations were the non–state DOT stakeholder most likely to be informed of the availability and consulted in the development of plans by responding state DOTs, but they were the least likely to have a direct role (with the exception of development of Pedestrian Safety Action Plans). Suggestions for Future Research During the development of this synthesis, knowledge gaps were identified. Thus, suggestions for future research include the following: • Postimplementation assessments of pedestrian and bicycle projects completed through state DOT–administered programs—The literature review identified how performance measures used in pedestrian and bicycle project evaluation and prioritization are also applicable to other applications such as benchmarking and evaluating progress toward policy goals (Litman 2019a; Semler et al. 2016). Identifying the current state of the practice and methodologies available and under development for assessing the actual benefits accrued from the imple- mentation of pedestrian and bicycle projects would provide state DOTs with a fuller under- standing of options to establish more robust performance measurement systems and how the information collected could be used to improve project evaluation and prioritization processes. • MPO participation and influence in state DOT–administered selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects—According to the results of the survey, MPOs are the nonstate stakeholder most directly involved in the development of state DOT plans and statewide transportation improvement programs. The involvement of MPOs in state DOT–administered selection of pedestrian and bicycle projects was also discussed in multiple case examples. A comparative evaluation of MPO involvement in state DOT–administered pedestrian and bicycle project selection processes would offer insights into the various coordination, technical, and other capabilities that state DOTs may be able to leverage. • Sources of state funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects—According to the literature review and case examples, there are common sources of state revenues used for programs to fund pedestrian and bicycle projects (e.g., fuel taxes, vehicle sales taxes). The current knowledge base of state DOTs could be expanded by an inventory of current and emerging future state- level revenue options coupled with an examination of the current and projected adequacy of each under various scenarios including, but not limited to, changes in vehicle miles traveled, penetration of electric and alternative vehicles, and increased shared mobility and micro- mobility options. • Processes for identifying pedestrian and bicycle projects—According to the review for this synthesis, state DOTs play a lead role in the administration of federal and state funding programs that can be used to implement pedestrian and bicycle projects. An analysis of the similarities and differences in state DOT processes for formulating projects internally and soliciting them from non–state DOT stakeholders could be a mechanism for knowledge transfer. The analysis could spotlight opportunities to improve project proposals through revised or enhanced materials developed and distributed to potential project sponsors—such as guidebooks, applicant workshops, and presentations—and through provision of feedback during proposal development.