region 1 active transportation needs...

Draft, 10/2/2014

1

REGION 1 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS INVENTORY

LITERATURE REVIEW

September 24, 2014

ODOT Region 1

Draft, 10/2/2014

2

Introduction

ODOT’s inventory of active transportation needs does not currently include sufficient data to consult as new projects, partnership, or funding opportunities arise. As a result, opportunities to complete active transportation improvements in conjunction with preservation or other funded projects in an area are often missed. In addition, each time a new funding source becomes available for active transportation improvements a significant time investment is required to identify potential candidate projects.

ODOT does not currently have a framework for prioritizing active transportation investments relative to each other. Strategically implementing these investments is particularly important, given declining revenues and currently available funding that is insufficient to complete the desired active transportation system.

ODOT is currently updating the statewide Pedestrian and Bicycle Modal Plan policy element. The Modal Plan will provide a policy framework to guide active transportation investments, but will not identify specific infrastructure improvements for implementation. Completing an active transportation needs inventory and assessment will position Region 1 well to be able to implement new policy guidance when the Modal Plan is completed.

The purpose of this literature review is:

1. to summarize existing ODOT inventories and needs assessment methods for various

assets, including where ODOT inventories exist, what attributes are being collected,

how they are being collected, and how the inventories are being used.

2. to summarize the methods used to collect bicycle and pedestrian asset data in other

locations in the US including State DOTs, regional, city and local governments. A

summary of trends and similarities in data collection methods, valuable variables

collected, prioritization criteria and processes, and lessons learned is provided from 32

different reports and plans.

3. to provide a list of attributes collected at agencies; both at ODOT and in other locations

in the U.S. in a companion workbook to this report. The workbook includes separate

spreadsheets organizing;

Oregon Agency Methods

Other Agency Methods

Oregon vs. other DOT Inventory Attributes for Bicycles, Pedestrians and ADA

Other Agency Inventory Attributes

Oregon Agency Inventory Attributes

ODOT Inventory Attributes

The attributes collected from other agencies in this literature review werer generally related to non-motorized travel. However, some of the attributes collected for bicycle and pedestrian programs include motor vehicle attributes. For example, if an agency uses Bicycle Level of Comfort or Service metrics in their needs assessment, they also collect information about AADT and motor vehicle speed to determine BLOC and BLOS scores. The attributes collected at ODOT

Draft, 10/2/2014

3

include all of the inventories found in this literature review, including culvert, road, and sign inventory attributes.

Draft, 10/2/2014

4

Existing ODOT Asset Inventories

Since 2006, ODOT has been in the process of consolidating inventory and asset data into one database, TransInfo. However, not all inventory data has been consolidated into TransInfo. Some departments, such as Signs, have their own process of collecting and storing data.

In general, it is understood that ODOT inventory data should be accessible to all departments; each separate department inventory should be accessible to all other departments. In most cases, ODOT inventory data is available to other agencies and the public through web tools or special requests. The data is used for keeping track of assets, managing maintenance, construction projects, mapping and scoping and developing needs assessments. Depending on the type of data, it is mainly stored in Excel spreadsheets and/or in GIS layers.

Figure 1 is a flow chart that depicts the departments that manage inventory asset data and interactive data tools that are relevant to the Needs Assessment Inventory. Brief descriptions and links to ODOT departments and tools in the flow chart follow.

Figure 1: Flow Chart of ODOT Departments that manage Inventory asset data and Interactive Data Tools

Draft, 10/2/2014

5

Asset Management Integration (AMI) http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/AMI.aspx AMI manages the collection and storage of physical assets inventory data. The data is used for asset management analysis and reporting that optimize the allocation of funds and maximize the efficiency of maintenance and construction operations. AMI is involved in maintaining the TransInfo database, TransGIS and FACS-STIP tools.

Transportation Data Section (TDS) http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/tdd/tdata/default.aspx TDS collects and maintains road information to classify and monitor ODOT facilities and statistics. TDS oversees the units of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Road Inventory and Classification Services (RICS), Crash Analysis and Reporting and Transportation Systems Monitoring. TDS manages the TransInfo database.

Road Inventory and Classification Services (RICS) Unit http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/pages/rics/publicroadsinventory.aspx This unit compiles road inventory data information, mileage control support and provides training services. RICS also helps to manage and extract information from the TransInfo database.

Geographic Information Services (GIS) http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/Pages/gis/odotgis.aspx GIS provides ODOT GIS data and services. GIS manages all of ODOT GIS layers and the TransGIS tool. Most of the layers that are currently available are a snapshot of 2009 data.

TransInfo http://www.oregon.gov/odot/td/tdata/pages/rics/publicroadsinventory.aspx TransInfo is ODOT’s Oracle corporate database. It was launched in 2006, replacing the Integrated Transportation Informantion System (IT IS). TransInfo is a clearinghouse of road inventory data and mileage statistics. Examples of data stored include the digital video log (DVL), Federal Functional Classification and National Highway System. It is managed by AMI and TDS.

Integrated Transportation Information System (ITIS) Prior to 2006, ITIS was ODOT’s mainframe database. However, IT IS was constraining and difficult to use, requiring computer coding skills.

Features, Attributes and Conditions Survey- Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FACS-STIP) http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/FACS-STIP%20Home.aspx FACS-STIP is a dynamic and interactive website tool that provides access to asset information. It was developed as a tool for scoping, R1 (paving project requirements) projects, and other project research. The data uses a set of attributes collected from a variety of data sources in ODOT, such as TransInfo, Crash Data System, or spreadsheets that are managed and stored in individual departments. Each attribute (referred to in FACS-STIP as a “title” or “file name”) is

http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/AMI.aspx

http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/tdd/tdata/default.aspx

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/pages/rics/publicroadsinventory.aspx

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/Pages/gis/odotgis.aspx

http://www.oregon.gov/odot/td/tdata/pages/rics/publicroadsinventory.aspx

http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/FACS-STIP%20Home.aspx

http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/FACS-STIP%20Home.aspx

Draft, 10/2/2014

6

managed and updated by a Data Owner and a Data Steward. Some of the data is in a spreadsheet form and other data is available in a GIS layer. The FACS-STIP tool home page is shown in Figure 2.

There are two components to the FACS-STIP Tool

1. Map Tool

Uses ODOT ArcGIS layers to create maps. An example map depicting 2008-2011

STIP projects is illustrated in Figure 3.

2. Data To Go

Creates spreadsheets and reports based on data chosen from a list of attributes

within the tool. Figure 4 is a screenshot of the search page in FACS-STIP Data To

Go.

Figure 2: Screenshot of FACS-STIP Tool

Draft, 10/2/2014

7

Figure 3: FACS-STIP Map Tool. Example, STIP Projects in 2008-2011

Figure 4: FACS-STIP Data To Go Search

Draft, 10/2/2014

8

FACS-STIP Technical Documents website http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/FACS-STIP%20User%20Guides.aspx Provides information on the FACS-STIP Tool and information on how to collect inventory data

that is used in the Tool including

FACS-STIP Tool User’s Guide

Signs-Data Collection and Inventory Database Users Guide

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities, Parking, ADA Ramps and Curb Users Guide

Roadside Barriers, A data Collection Users Guide, 2009

Oregon DOT 1R Culvert Training

These reports are covered in more detail in the following literature review.

TransGIS http://wpdotappl21.odot.state.or.us/transgis/ An interactive GIS web mapping tool. It is managed by the ODOT GIS Unit. The tool is available to the Public. A screenshot of the website is shown in Figure 5. The layer catalog includes

Bridges

ODOT sites

Geo-Environmental

Safety

STIP

Pavement

Traffic

Transit

Highway Classifications

Highway Network

Rail Network

Freight

Boundaries

The only “active transportation” GIS layers available are ADA ramps. An example map of ADA attributes in Woodburn, OR is illustrated in Figure 6.

http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/FACS-STIP%20User%20Guides.aspx

http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/FACS-STIP%20User%20Guides.aspx

http://wpdotappl21.odot.state.or.us/transgis/

Draft, 10/2/2014

9

Figure 5: Screenshot of TranGIS Interactive Website

Figure 6: Example of Mapping in TransGIS, ADA Ramps in Woodburn, OR

Draft, 10/2/2014

10

State Highway Inventory Reports http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/Pages/otms/OTMS_Highway_Reports.aspx This ODOT website of the Transportation Data Section (TDS) provides detailed inventory information that can be used by ODOT employees and the public. One of the links provided is the Public Road Inventory, which includes the TransInfo Database. This site provides custom reports on lanes, vertical grades, horizontal curves, traffic volumes and vehicle classification reports. Additionally, glossaries are provided for each inventory. Figures 7, 8 and 9 Error! Reference source not found. provide snapshots of the Highway inventory search engine and report results.

Figure 7: The Interactive Highway Inventory. http://highway.odot.state.or.us/cf/highwayreports/aml_summary_parms_by_route_no.cfm

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/Pages/otms/OTMS_Highway_Reports.aspx

http://highway.odot.state.or.us/cf/highwayreports/aml_summary_parms_by_route_no.cfm

Draft, 10/2/2014

11

Figure 8: Results of a Highway Inventory Search

Figure 9: Results of a Lane Information Search

Draft, 10/2/2014

12

Literature Review

The following is a summary of reports and plans that discuss known ODOT asset inventories and needs assessment methodologies.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Assessment Report- Final Report, 2011 http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/docs/finalreportbikepedcount.pdf This report was prepared by Alta Planning for ODOT to assess the current state of ODOT bicycle and pedestrian data collection and utilization. The following is a summary and conclusions of this report.

Currently, bicycle and pedestrian data at ODOT are accessed through crash data, the Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities, Parking, ADA Ramps & Curbs Data Collection Users Guide, and through individual bicycle and pedestrian documentation collected for individual projects. Usually, the data for individual projects is not accessible throughout the agency. This report emphasizes the need for consistent methods for collecting inventory data and improving communication throughout the agency around collecting and using bicycle and pedestrian data. The report states that there are data collection methodologies at ODOT that can be leveraged to integrate and standardize bicycle and pedestrian data collection including the Asset management Integration Section’s FACS-STIP initiative. The report concludes that, compared to motor vehicles, there is a lack of consistent methods for collecting and storing bicycle and pedestrian data at ODOT. In particular, there is a lack of bicycle and pedestrian traffic counts. ODOT’s bicycle and pedestrian data sets were found to be incomplete and the processes for collecting the data across the agency were not widely known. Standard methods for bicycle and pedestrian data collection have not yet been standardized.

It was stressed that standardized bicycle and pedestrian data collection must be developed in order to avoid costly mistakes such as retrofits from poor planning, overlooking bicycle and pedestrian needs resulting in missed funding opportunities and inefficient use of time and resources from duplicating research due to unknown data sources.

FACS-STIP Tool Users Guide, Version 3.0, March 2013 http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/AMI%20Documents/FACS-STIPv3-Final-02212013.pdf This ODOT Asset Management manual describes how to use the FACS-STIP Tool. There are two components of the FACS-STIP Tool; the Map Tool and Data To Go (or Data2Go). The manual includes tutorial examples, called Example Work Flows that are used for training purposes. In addition, the Users Guide provides a table of data sources for each attribute available for analysis in FACS-STIP. Definitions for each attribute are also provided as well as answers to frequently asked questions about FACS-STIP.

Some of the data sources include TransInfo, GIS and CRASH CDS (Crash Data System). The bicycle, pedestrian and ADA assets available for analyses in FACS-STIP are:

ADA Ramps

Bike Facilities

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/docs/finalreportbikepedcount.pdf

http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/AMI%20Documents/FACS-STIPv3-Final-02212013.pdf

http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/AMI%20Documents/FACS-STIPv3-Final-02212013.pdf

Draft, 10/2/2014

13

Bike needs

Shared Use Path

Sidewalk Needs

Sidewalks

ODOT Bicycle/ Pedestrian Facilities, Parking, ADA Ramps &Curbs. A Data Collection Users Guide, 2009 http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/Tech%20Docs.aspx This document was developed as a guide for ODOT employees to learn how to develop, collect and update bicycle, pedestrian, parking, ADA ramp and curb inventory information. Resources and a data dictionary are included. The document provides step-by-step inventory procedures that include where to access forms, how to fill them out, and detailed inventory definitions with images.

This project began in 2006 with a bicycle, pedestrian, and ADA inventory pilot project in McMinnville, OR. The methodology was established and in 2007 a statewide inventory was completed. The ADA inventory was completed in 2011 and the curb inventory was completed in 2012. Interns collected the data from the digital video log. Before evaluating the facilities from the digital video log, the interns went out into the field to measure sidewalk widths and compared them to what they saw in the video. From this sidewalk width field evaluation, the interns estimated the width of the sidewalks in the video log. An “inspection date” field was then populated once the sidewalk width was verified in the field. If there is no date, then the sidewalk width was not measured in the field.

Bike, pedestrian, and ADA data was collected from all tenth mileposts (MP) within urban areas, from FIPS. If a MP extended beyond the urban growth boundary (UGB), the entire MP was evaluated. If a sidewalk or bike lane continued outside the UGB, the data continued to be collected from each additional milepost until the facility ended. The data can be truncated to meet the needs of reports with urban limits. However, only urban area mainline highways were collected, with one exception; the I-205 path was added, however it may not be accurate.

The data is continually updated in TransInfo. Once a contract plan is completed, the inventories are updated; either continually or, at least, within one year. The current GIS file is a snapshot of 2009 and has not been updated. The data stored in FACS/STIP is the same 2009 GIS file. It is also stored in GIS in an Excel Spreadsheet that is continually updated.

In 2007-2009, the new inventory cross-checked 1990’s data and many errors were found. Currently, a new data update project is in process. An inventory of traffic barriers has recently been completed. A sidewalk and bicycle facility inventory will happen in the next year.

ODOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Implementation Plan, 2014 http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TS/Pages/Bicycle_Pedestrian_Safety.aspx This implementation plan expands on Oregon’s Transportation Safety Action Plan, describing the process used to develop a needs assessment for pedestrian and bicycle safety. The purpose

http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/Tech%20Docs.aspx

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TS/Pages/Bicycle_Pedestrian_Safety.aspx

Draft, 10/2/2014

14

of this plan is to provide a systemic method for addressing bicycle and pedestrian safety on state and non-state corridors by highlighting areas that are in need of safety improvements. The goal is to identify candidate project corridors.

This report follows the first three steps in Element 1 in the FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Framework, illustrated in Figure 10.

1. Identify focus crash types and risk factors

2. Screen and prioritize candidate locations

3. Select countermeasures

The needs assessment step is left for ODOT regional staff and local jurisdictions.

The traditional method for locating projects that improve safety is to find hot spots of crash types and address the particular sites with the highest crash rates. The evaluation team used both the traditional method combined with a more pro-active, alternative method to develop a list of safety projects. Using the inventory collected for the FACS/STIP and safety data, the evaluation team examined the locations of various target crash types and developed a list of roadway characteristics or attributes at each of the crash sites. A list of risk-based roadway characteristics was developed. A needs assessment was populated with locations that have risk-based characteristics and was cross checked with safety data. The needs assessment list was used for choosing bike and pedestrian safety projects for the 2016-2018 STIP.

Draft, 10/2/2014

15

Figure 10: FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Framework

The following is a list of potential risk factors for pedestrians was developed from the methodology:

Transit stops

Urban, undivided 4-lane roadways

Presence of a traffic signal

Presence of pedestrian activated flashers or beacons

Posted Speed limit

ADT

Crash frequency and severity

For bicycles, the risk factors include:

Driveway density

Urban, undivided 4-lane roadways

Lack of a bicycle facility on at least one side of a roadway

Presence of traffic signals

ADT

Posted Speed Limit

Crash frequency and severity

Draft, 10/2/2014

16

A point/weight system was applied to each of the risk factors. A countermeasure toolbox was then developed and available as a resource for evaluating one or more countermeasures for a corridor project.

A list of pedestrian and bicycle corridors are identified for each ODOT Region. The following is a list of crash frequency and severity project corridors along ODOT roads. A complete list of crash frequency and severity project corridors is given on maps and in the tables in the document.

Cascade Highway N (OR-213 or SE 82nd) between MP 1.74 and MP 8.92

Mt. Hood Highway (OR 26 or SE Powell) between MP 1.27 and MP 3.38

Northeast Portland Highway (US 30BY or Sandy Blvd) between MP 4.39 and MP 5.94

Mt. Hood Highway between MP 6.89 and MP 8.31

Pacific Highway (E) (99E or MLK/McLoughlin) between MP 18.2 and MP 18.9

Northeast Portland Highway (US 30BY or Sandy Blvd) between MP 2.8 and MP 6.30

Mt. Hood Highway between MP 25.4 and MP 27.3

Oswego Highway (OR 43 or Macadam) between MP 3.20 and MP 2.62

Oswego Highway between MP 3.00 and MP 5.50

Tualatin Valley Highway (OR 8) between MP 3.7 and MP 4.30

Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway (OR 10) Between MP 1.00 and MP 3.40

Pacific Highway (E) between MP 19.50 and MP 21.80

Tualatin Valley Highway (OR 8) between MP 1.10 and MP 2.80

Pacific Highway (E) between MP -4.40 and MP -3.80

Some of the lessons learned in the development of the plan were included. Crash data, especially for bicycles and pedestrians, is lacking and inaccurate. In an interview with Rodger Gutierrez, ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Specialist, Gutierrez described that a substantial amount of crash data had to be discarded during the risk factor analysis due to errors and incomplete data. In addition there was no testing of statistical significance of the risk factors.

The report also concluded that inventory data collected across agencies is not consistent and suggested having two databases; one for state facilities and one for city and county roads. Developing bicycle and pedestrian exposure data to develop crash rates was also suggested in this plan.

Oregon Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan, 2010 http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/roadway_departure.aspx Roadway departure fatalities are the most common type of fatality crash. The Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) has a goal of reducing the number of highway fatalities to less than 335 by 2015. The TSAP requires Oregon to develop a plan for addressing road departure fatalities. This report describes the process of combining a data analysis package and a set of roadway departure countermeasures. This combination of data is used to develop a list of cost-effective countermeasures, deployment levels, and the funding required to achieve a 20% decrease in roadway departure fatalities. This process includes both state and local roads and highways

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/roadway_departure.aspx

Draft, 10/2/2014

17

The method combines existing Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) methods and combines two additional approaches:

1. Systematic application of low cost countermeasures

2. Comprehensive application of low cost infrastructure, applying the three E’s;

Engineering, Education, Enforcement.

The HSIP method is a traditional approach of analyzing specific high crash locations and recommending countermeasures that address the specific issues at the location. In addition to this HSIP process it is recommended to implement a systematic distribution of low-cost countermeasures at locations with moderate crash frequencies and types. At high risk crash locations, it is recommended to apply the three E’s; the addition of low cost infrastructure (engineering), targeted education and enforcement. Roadway, roadway departure and crash data are the predominant sources of data used in this analysis. Trees are also evaluated on a case by case basis. The analysis procedures for identifying location are as follows;

1. Using the systematic approach, crash types are matched with appropriate

countermeasures. A cluster of locations with targeted crashes at or above the

designated threshold level are selected.

2. The total targeted crash clusters are multiplied by a predicted Crash Reduction Factor to

estimate the total number targeted crashes that could be reduced if the

countermeasures were implemented within the cluster areas.

3. For severe crash locations, an additional overall crash reduction is multiplied by the

observed severity history of the crash type to estimate the severe crash reduction in the

area.

ODOT Congestion Bottleneck and Operations Study (CBOS), 2013 http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/pages/cbos.aspx This report was developed in response to the FHWA Localized Bottleneck Reduction (LBR) Program, which addresses point specific and small corridor bottlenecks. The CBOS study utilized data collected from PORTAL website, travel time runs, ODOT information, observations, data collected from traffic cameras to develop detailed, integrated information on all bottleneck areas on highways in Region 1 including I-5, I-205, I-84, I-405, and US 26. The final product of the CBOS study is the Project Atlas; a versatile and highly detailed document that includes a set of detailed figure maps, tables and project sheets describing bottlenecks along freeway corridors in the Portland Metro Area. The maps are designed to easily find key information about each bottleneck location including influence area, congestion duration and time periods, contributing factors, reported crashes, and an operations summary. A project sheet is included for each individual bottleneck with recommended cost-effective countermeasures. Each of the recommended projects is compared and evaluated in different forms throughout the document.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/pages/cbos.aspx

Draft, 10/2/2014

18

The document does not prioritize one project over another; it provides cost effective countermeasures with the intent that these low-cost improvements will be added to scheduled road improvement projects and as funding becomes available. The final document includes shovel-ready projects and is designed to simplify the process of choosing projects when funding becomes available. Culvert Inspection & Inventory Handbook and the 1R Culvert Inventory Training, 2009 http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/Tech%20Docs.aspx This recently developed inventory is designed to collect data on all culverts on ODOT facilities with a diameter of between 12 inches to 20 feet. This data is required for all ODOT 1R Projects. In addition to basic location and material data, data on the condition of the culvert is collected and used for inspection and maintenance purposes.

To ensure that field crews have consistent definitions of culverts, a detailed data dictionary and condition description is included in the training and field guide. Field Crews use a Tru Pulse™ laser range finder for measuring azimuth and calculates the vertical and horizontal distance. The data is used to populate a culvert FACS/STIP tool inventory spreadsheet in Excel. Information is stored on the Drainage Facilities Management system (DFMS). 4,000 out of an estimated 30,000 ODOT culverts have been inventoried. Roadside Barriers, A data Collection Users Guide, 2009 http://transnet.odot.state.or.us/hwy/techserv/Web%20Pages/Tech%20Docs.aspx This manual gives step by step instructions for how to plan, collect, store, upload, and access roadside barrier data. Roadside barriers include guardrails, cable and concrete barriers. The manual provides a list of attributes that are related to roadside barriers. In addition, inventory definitions and images are provided. It is not clear when data collection of roadside barriers began, however this data collection process is based on a pilot study conducted in Region 2 in 2007.

A spreadsheet is provided and is to be used with the Video Data Log (DVL) to collect detailed guardrail attribute data. The spreadsheet data is stored in a network file and then sent to RICS to be added to the corporate database (TransInfo). A report is then generated by RICS with information on how to view the inventory data in the database.

Sign Inventory Field Handbook for State Highways, January 2011 EDITION http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/sign_inventory_field_handbook_2012.pdf This field handbook is a reference guide for collecting ODOT’s sign inventory. It describes in detail how to collect sign inventory out in the field. The data is collected on a data collection sheet. Two pieces of equipment are needed to collect the data, a distance measuring instrument (DMI) and a PDA/GPS unit. The data is later entered into a sign inventory database. The Field Handbook provides detailed descriptions and images of the types and variety of components that should be recorded in the inventory. A frequently asked questions section is also provided. The types of data collected include



http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/sign_inventory_field_handbook_2012.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/sign_inventory_field_handbook_2012.pdf

Draft, 10/2/2014

19

Roadway and location

Standard and custom signs

Retro-reflectivity

Sign supports/post types

Installation history

In 2008, ODOT completed a basic street sign assets inventory. A Data Collection User’s Guide was developed in 2007 to standardize data collection for the inventory. A database and data entry software for signs based was developed from a IS software in 2008 and is known as “R2 Sign” (this is further discussed in the following Sign Inventory Database Users Guide). Each district maintains its own sign inventory database.

Sign Inventory Database Users Guide, August 2013 Edition http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/Sign_Inventory_Database_Users_Guide_8_14_2013.pdf This report provides detailed information on how to perform the data entry of sign inventory data (discussed in the report above), generate reports and table maintenance using the Sign Database (R2 Sign software). The Sign Database organizes each sign by “installation”. Each installation is defined by the following fields (attributes).

Maintenance District

State Highway Number

Milepost

MP prefix

Roadway ID

Route number

Location District

Side of the road

Highway Division

Distance from edge of pavement

GPS coordinates

Location

City/County

Each district maintains a sign inventory database. There is no discussion about sharing the data with RICS to input into TransInfo. However, the database is referred to in the FACS-STIP Tool Users Guide, Version 3.0, March 2013 in the Appendix D: Data Sources FACS-STIP Tool. FACS-STIP uses the 2RSign database to collect sign inventory data. When searched in the ODOT Geoportal and ODOT TransGIS, the data is incomplete. In addtion

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, An Element of the Oregon Transportation Plan, 1995 http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/or_bicycle_ped_plan.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/Sign_Inventory_Database_Users_Guide_8_14_2013.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/Sign_Inventory_Database_Users_Guide_8_14_2013.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/or_bicycle_ped_plan.pdf

Draft, 10/2/2014

20

This early ODOT report reminds us that Senate Bill 100, Statewide Planning Goals, Goal 12, mandated an “inventory of local, regional, and state transportation needs”. In 1993, ODOT conducted an inventory of highways. This inventory was updated in 1994. The inventory included bikeways; bike lanes or shoulders (including side of the road) and sidewalks (and side of the road).

The Plan recommends that there should be an existing facilities inventory of roads, streets, and highways by function, type, ownership, width and condition. The inventory should also include existing and deficient bikeways and walkways, trails and paths, and disability access. Additionally, the Plan recommends an inventory of bikeway signing. This was deemed important because, at the time, there were many bicycle signs that did not meet standards.

ADA Requirements The following summarizes three reports related to ADA inventory requirements. The first describes general agency ADA Transition plans and the need for the establishment of a self-evaluation process. The second and third reports are ODOT ADA self-evaluation reports and the procedures for maintaining an inventory and developing a needs assessment.

NCHRP Project Number 20-7 (232) ADA Transition Plans: A Guide to Best Management Practices, 2009 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A5D74E2E-3C9F-4645-BBE0-14C5BB780AD0/0/ADATransitionPlansReportMay2009.pdf Title II of the Americans with Disability Act requires that public services and public transportation must be accessible to people with disabilities. One requirement is to develop a Program Access Plan, or Transition Plan to identify and resolve any access issues. As part to the Transition plan, agencies must identify physical obstacles that limit the accessibility of facilities. It is required that all departments make a contribution to address accessibility deficiencies. One of the elements of Step 5 of the ADA Transition Plan is to develop an inventory of physical barriers in the Department’s Facilities. This is referred to as The Self-Evaluation. Table 1 is the suggested ADA inventory. The report emphasizes that the inventory process must be quantifiable and a baseline must be developed in order to monitor and measure progress and that self-evaluation takes place periodically, even after the transition plan is complete.

A needs assessment process should be developed and could include

Citizen requests or complaints regarding inaccessible locations

Pedestrian LOS

Population density

Presence of disabled population

Cost

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A5D74E2E-3C9F-4645-BBE0-14C5BB780AD0/0/ADATransitionPlansReportMay2009.pdf

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A5D74E2E-3C9F-4645-BBE0-14C5BB780AD0/0/ADATransitionPlansReportMay2009.pdf

Draft, 10/2/2014

21

Table 1: Suggested Inventory for ADA Transition Plans. Taken from the NCHRP Project Number 20-7 (232) ADA Transition Plans: A Guide to Best Management Practices

SELF-EVALUATION CHECKLIST

ISSUE POSSIBLE BARRIERS

Sidewalk and Pathway Clear Width Narrow, Below Guidelines

Sidewalk and Pathway Cross Slope Steepness, Irregularity, Variability, Warping

Landings Along Sidewalks and Pathways

Less Than 4 feet by 4 feet

Sidewalk and Pathway Grade Steepness, Angle Points

Materials and Finishes Deterioration of Surfaces, Deterioration of Markings, Appropriateness of material (ex. Cobblestones)

Gratings Grating Type, Grate Opening Orientation

Discontinuities Missing Sections, Gaps, Drops, Steps

Detectable Warning System Missing, Inappropriate Materials, Inadequate Size, Wrong Location

Obstructions Signs, Mail Boxes, Fire Hydrants, Benches, Telephones, Traffic Signal Poles, Traffic Signal Controller Boxes, Newspaper Boxes, Drainage Structures, Tree Grates, Pole Mounted Objects, Standing Water, Snow or Ice

Traffic Signal Systems Lack of Provision for the Visually Impaired such as APS, Inadequate Time Allowed, Inoperable Buttons, Inaccessible Buttons

Curb Ramp Missing, Doesn’t Fall within Marked Crosswalk, Doesn’t Conform to Guidelines

Curb Ramp Flares Missing Where Required, Too Steep

Draft, 10/2/2014

22

ODOT Title II Americans with Disabilities Act Self-Evaluation Report, 2004 http://cms.oregon.egov.com/ODOT/CS/CIVILRIGHTS/titlevi/docs/2004_title_ii_ada_self_evaluation.pdf ODOT completes a self-check of the agencies adherence and progress to ADA requirements in its programs and services, facilities, communications, and employment opportunities statewide. The self-evaluation is completed about every ten years. The data for the report is gathered from:

on-site building and facility evaluations of ODOT, DMV and MCTD offices and rest areas

Public Focus Groups on Accessibility to ODOT programs, services, and employment

Public accessibility survey mailed to 5000 Oregonians

Internal accessibility survey of ODOT managers

Highway facility evaluations

The most relevant part of this document is the Highway Facility Evaluation Analysis. The main inventory need and requirement is intersection curb ramps. An inventory of needs was completed in 1995. Each District surveyed all intersections along highways within their jurisdiction to determine which were not in compliance with ADA. Curb ramp installation on ODOT facilities began in 1996. The methodology of needs assessment includes:

1. To identify existing sidewalks in ODOT jurisdictions

2. Identify ADA priority intersections and other sidewalks serving government offices and

buildings and facilities, other transportation modes, public accommodations, and large

employers.

3. Survey curb ramp need at priority locations

4. Compile spreadsheets by districts for constructing projects

5. Identify funds and schedule work statewide

Needs are then assessed based on proximity to:

1. schools, libraries, government offices, hospitals, , cemeteries, parks and recreational

facilities, and social services

2. Bus stops, transportation terminals, charter bus service, and airports

3. Shopping malls, hotels and motels, restaurants, auditoriums and movie theaters, retail

stores, commercial services, museums, art galleries and churches

4. Large employers

5. All other land uses

ODOT Americans with Disabilities Act , Section 504 Transition Plan Update, 2011 http://cms.oregon.egov.com/ODOT/CS/CIVILRIGHTS/titlevi/docs/odot_transition_plan_oct_2011.pdf This document specifies updates to the ODOT ADA Self-Evaluation report of 2004 and adds new needs assessment criteria;

http://cms.oregon.egov.com/ODOT/CS/CIVILRIGHTS/titlevi/docs/2004_title_ii_ada_self_evaluation.pdf

http://cms.oregon.egov.com/ODOT/CS/CIVILRIGHTS/titlevi/docs/2004_title_ii_ada_self_evaluation.pdf

http://cms.oregon.egov.com/ODOT/CS/CIVILRIGHTS/titlevi/docs/odot_transition_plan_oct_2011.pdf

http://cms.oregon.egov.com/ODOT/CS/CIVILRIGHTS/titlevi/docs/odot_transition_plan_oct_2011.pdf

Draft, 10/2/2014

23

1. Offices and facilities with high volume of public access such as public rooms, safety rest

area, and DMV/MCTD field offices

2. Offices and facilities having employees with disabilities with accessibility needs

3. Other offices and facilities

A Highway ADA Facility/Curb Ramp Inventory table is given which evaluates the state of curb ramps in ODOT facilities. Most of the curb ramps in all ODOT regions are in poor condition or missing.

An updated work plan for 2011 is initiated in this report. It requires:

ADA ramp inventory be maintained

The curb ramp inventory be transferred to the corporate asset database in TransInfo

The Curb ramp inventory will undergo a QA/QC process (does not give a timeline for the

process)

Region 5 was supposed to conduct a pilot to develop a needs assessment criteria in

2012

In 2009, Facilities developed one database for all ODOT owned building information (ODOT owns about 1,200 buildings), Information includes:

projects requested and completed

issues and problems (such as safety, leaks, electrical, and ADA issues).

Overview of Bicycle and Pedestrian Inventory Data Collection

ODOT has had an on-going effort to consolidate inventory data into one main location,

TransInfo. Inventory data is also available in TransGIS. However, currently available GIS files are

only a snapshot of conditions in 2009. To obtain the most current R1 data, a request must be

submitted to The Road Inventory and Classification Services (RICS) Unit. RICS will extract the

most recent TransInfo data which can then be converted into GIS layers.

The current ODOT facility inventory collection for active transportation is detailed in the ODOT Bicycle/ Pedestrian Facilities, Parking, ADA Ramps &Curbs. A Data Collection Users Guide, 2009 described in the previous section. The existing ODOT inventories include:

Bike Facilities Needed (FACS_STIP)

o AddMileage (Direction of travel with increasing mileposts in the add direction

and decreasing mileposts in the non-add direction)

o BEGMP (Beginning Milepost to 0.01 mile accuracy)

o BikeNeed (Bike facility needed, Yes (Y) or No (N))

o EFFECTV_DT (Date or time period in which the data extract is relevant or

current)

o ENDMP(End milepost, to 0.01 mile accuracy)

Draft, 10/2/2014

24

o GIS_PRC_DT (Date that the data was processed)

o HWYNUMB (Highway number)

o LRS_KEY (Linear Reference System highway identifier

o MLGE_TYP (type of highway mileage; regular mileage (0), spur (y), temporary

mileage (t), overlapping mileage (z))

o Offset (offset used for plotting the location in GIS)

o OVLAP_CD (number of duplicate milepoints on a specific highway, range of 0 to

9)

o RDWY_ID (Number of assigned to a roadway where more than one roadbed

exists for the highway; primary (1), secondary (2), split with increasing milepoints

(3), split with decreasing milepoints (4), located line (5)

o Roadside (side of the road in which the bike facility is located based on add mile

direction)

o Shape (feature geometry; polyline)

o ST_HWY_SFX (main road or highway identifier number)

Bike Facilities(Roadway Engineering)




o BikeFacil (Type of bike facility; bike lane (BL), shared lane (SL), shoulder (SH))

o Blcondition (bike lane condition; good (G), fair (F), poor (P))

o Blnotes (notes)

o Blwidth (bike lane width)


current)




o InspecYR (Year of inspection)






9)




Draft, 10/2/2014

25


direction)



Shared Use Paths





current)




o InspecYR (Year of inspection)






9)

o Path (Yes (Y) or No (N))

o PathCondit (path condition; Good (G)(smooth, new pavement. Only used for

new construction), Fair(F) (reasonably smooth pavement), Poor (P) (pavement

that is badly cracked, heaved, eroded, etc.)

o PathSurfac (path surface; asphalt (black), concrete (white))

o PathWidth ( measured from one edge to the other, in feet)





direction)



Sidewalk Needs





current)

Draft, 10/2/2014

26









9)




o Roadside (side of the road in which the sidewalk is located based on add mile

direction)

o SdwkNeed (is sidewalk needed Yes (Y) or No (N))


o SIGNED_RTE (signed route name)


Sidewalks

o SIGNED_RTE (signed route name)








9)




direction)



o Sidewalk (Yes (Y) or No (N))

o SWsurface (sidewalk surface; asphalt (black), concrete (white))

o SWbuffer(Furniture zone or buffer; Yes (Y) or No (N). Any sidewalk greater than 6

feet has a de factor buffer)

Draft, 10/2/2014

27

o SWwidth (sidewalk width measured from one edge of the pavement to the other

or to adjacent building)

o SWcondit (condition of the path; Good (G)(smooth, new pavement. Only used

for new construction), Fair (F) (reasonably smooth pavement), Poor

(P)(pavement that is badly cracked, heaved, eroded, etc.)




current)



Mid-Block Crossings o Notes

ADA ramps

o ADA_ramp (Yes (Y) or No (N))

o Cityname (name of city where ramp is located)

o Cond_Func (the functional condition of the ramp per corner

good (G) All ramps present at a corner meet the following seven criteria:

1) ramp is free of obstacles; 2) Lip height does not exceed .25 inches; 3)

Travel path of a wheelchair must slope in only one direction at a time; 4)

Slope differential is the algebraic difference in slopes at the ramp; 5) does

not exceed maximum ramp slope (see Bike/Ped, Parking, ADA Ramps and

Curbs manual for further details); 6) Minimum of a 3 ft by 3 ft level

landing; and 7) Truncated domes must be present and properly installed.

Fair (F) one or more ramps meet criteron: 1) ramp is free of obstacles; 2)

Lip height does not exceed .25 inches; 3) Travel path of a wheelchair

must slope in only one direction at a time; 4) Slope differential is the

algebraic difference in slopes at the ramp; 5) does not exceed maximum

ramp slope (see Bike/Ped, Parking, ADA Ramps and Curbs manual for

further details); 6) Minimum of a 3 ft by 3 ft level landing; and 7)

Truncated domes must be present and properly installed.

Poor (P) One or more of ramps at a corner meet 5 or less of the 7 criteria:

1) ramp is free of obstacles; 2) Lip height does not exceed .25 inches; 3)

Travel path of a wheelchair must slope in only one direction at a time; 4)

Slope differential is the algebraic difference in slopes at the ramp; 5) does

not exceed maximum ramp slope (see Bike/Ped, Parking, ADA Ramps and

Curbs manual for further details); 6) Minimum of a 3 ft by 3 ft level

landing; and 7) Truncated domes must be present and properly installed.)

Draft, 10/2/2014

28

o Cond_phys (Good (G)(smooth, new pavement. Only used for new construction),

Fair (F) (reasonably smooth pavement), Poor (P)(pavement that is badly cracked,

heaved, eroded, etc.))

o Fips_City (Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)record code for the city

where ramp is located)

o Fips_urb (FIPS record code for the urban area where ramp is located)

o Fips_urbnz (FIPS record code for the urban zone where ramp is located)



o Hwynumb (Highway number)

o Insp_dt_yr (year of ramp inspection)

o Lrs_kry(Linear Reference System highway identifier

o MdblkXing(midblock crossing, Yes (Y)

o Mlge_typ (type of highway mileage; regular mileage (0), spur (y), temporary


o Odot_reg (ODOT region)


o Ovlp_cd (number of duplicate milepoints on a specific highway, range of 0 to 9)




o Ramp_crnr (corner number; Each corner is assigned a number 1 through 4. On a

two-way highway, corner 1 is to the right when facing the add mile direction and

the numbers go counter-clockwise)

o Ramp_loc (approximate address for street ramp is located on)

o Ramp_typ (the type of ramp; continuous single (CS), continuous double (CS),

diagonal (D), island double (ID), island triple (IT), Incomplete (I), none (N)

o RampNotes1 (notes regarding ramp)

o RampNotes2 (supplementary notes regarding ramp)

o Rdwy_id (Number of assigned to a roadway where more than one roadbed exists

for the highway; primary (1), secondary (2), split with increasing milepoints (3),

split with decreasing milepoints (4), located line (5)

o Signed_rte (signed route name)

o St_hwy_sfx (main road or highway identifier number)

o Status (ramp status)

o Urb_nm (name of urban area (pop. 5,000-50,000) where the ramp is located)

o Urbnz_nm (Name of urbanized area (pop. > 50,000) where ramp is located)


direction)

o Effectv_dt (Date or time period in which the data extract is relevant or current)

o GIS_prc_dt (Date that the data was processed)

Draft, 10/2/2014

29


Curbs o Type, curb and gutter (CG), standard curb no gutter (SC), mountable curb (M) o Height, good (G) (>6”), fair (F) (4” to 6”), poor (P) (<4”) o Condition, good (G) , fair (F),poor (P)

Parking o Type, diagonal parking (DP), parallel parking (PP), orthogonal parking (OP),

Unmarked (UM), parking area (PA) o Width, in feet o Condition, good (G) , fair (F),poor (P)

The list of bicycle, pedestrian, and ADA inventory attributes and metadata can be found at:

ODOT Geoportal http://wpdotappl45:8080/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page;jsessionid=D8CA4D1F14EFC557

15DB430DC7FC2F2C

Most of these inventories are also stored in TransInfo, GIS, FACS-STIP or in Excel spreadsheets.

The following is the Pedestrian, Bicycle & ADA Ramp Data Collection Spreadsheet from the

ODOT Bicycle/ Pedestrian Facilities, Parking, ADA Ramps & Curbs, A Data Collection Users

Guide.

http://wpdotappl45:8080/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page;jsessionid=D8CA4D1F14EFC55715DB430DC7FC2F2C

http://wpdotappl45:8080/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page;jsessionid=D8CA4D1F14EFC55715DB430DC7FC2F2C

Draft, 10/2/2014

30

Figure 11: Pedestrian, Bicycle & ADA Ramp Data Collection Spreadsheet from the ODOT Bicycle/ Pedestrian Facilities, Parking, ADA Ramps & Curbs, A Data Collection Users Guide,

2009

Draft, 10/2/2014

31

Other Region 1 Agency Active Transportation Asset Inventories

Metro Regional Active Transportation Plan (RATP), 2014 This Plan includes recommended strategies to develop a needs assessment but does not provide specific projects. Implementation recommendations include:

1. The first priority is to add new facilities where none exist that improve connectivity to

existing facilities, fill gaps

2. Fill gaps in areas with high pedestrian, cycling and transit demand

3. Next, is to improve facilities so that they are safe and accessible

A number of recommended strategies are given for developing a needs assessment including:

Developing a needs assessment that is inclusive of all transportation modes. This will

help develop a complete inclusive transportation system instead of treating individual

modes separately.

In locations where connectivity is lower, for example suburban areas,

o Prioritizing the development of facilities that promote transit use and access,

such as protected pedestrian facilities

o Improving direct bicycle travel by using strategies such a trail development

Filling the connectivity gaps in the ATP bicycle and pedestrian networks in areas that

show increased 2035 levels of activity

increasing access and safety to underserved populations

improving access in area with limited access for bicycle and pedestrians, such as bridges

funding education programs that increase pedestrian and bicycle mode share

Building coalitions to fund larger projects

The ATP Stakeholder Advisory Committee developed a list of criteria to guide transportation needs assessment. These include:

Access

Safety

Equity

Increased activity

A set of lists of locations was developed within the Metro region that would benefit from the expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle network. Each list represents an aspect of improvements to each of the locations in the list, such as:

Areas with above average underserved populations that have lower bike network

density compared to other parts of the region. For example,

o Forest Grove

o Tigard

o Happy Valley

Draft, 10/2/2014

32

Areas that would show the highest level of bicycle activity in 2035 with a completed

ATP bicycle network:

o SW Portland

o Inner NE Portland

o Tigard

The Metro Existing Conditions, Findings and Opportunities Report (2012) This report was used for the development of the RATP. The data used in the report include the Oregon Household Activity Survey, ODOT Crash Data from 2007-2010, the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, National Bicycle and Walking Study, RLIS.

The report describes the needs assessment method using two different Regional Zone Analysis processes for pedestrians and bicycles. Using GIS mapping and a grading scale of 1, for less supportive, to 5, most supportive, it develops a matrix of communities within the UGB and their supportiveness to walking and cycling. For pedestrian activity the attributes used in this method include auto speed, auto volume, auto lanes, pedestrian crashes, sidewalk completion, tree canopy, signalized crossings, connectivity, and people and places. For bicycles it grades attributes supportive of cycling including road connectivity, road density, topography, land use, permeability, bikeway connectivity, bikeway density, bike comfort, biking potential, and bikeway conditions. The report also gives a list of required attributes for analysis and where there are gaps in data collection.

This report also provides a list of data needs and gaps in data for regional analysis, similar to Trimet Pedestrian Network Analysis report. These include:

Counts of pedestrians and bicycle activity; modeled activity levels

Width of sidewalk

Width of landscaped buffer between walkway/bikeway and motorized traffic (planter,

trees,etc)

Number of driveways within one mile

Presence and type of bicycle facility (partial data available)

On street parking

Presence of streetlight throughout

Location of crossings, including midblock crossings

Location of crossing treatments

85th percentile speed

Design speed

Posted speed limit (only available for arterials)

Number of travel lanes (partial data available)

Presence of two-way center lane

Width of outside travel lane

Presence/width of median

ADT (only available for arterials)

Draft, 10/2/2014

33

Density of intersections and signalized crossings (only available for arterials)

Informal paths and access ways

Curb cuts

Safety information

Trimet Pedestrian Network Analysis Chapter2 of the final report provides the analysis methodology used to prioritize pedestrian improvements to transit. First, a Base GIS layer is created that describes the “transit supportiveness” of each location, such as density, street connectivity, stop level ridership, and proximity of Trimet transit stops to essential destinations such as grocery stores, schools, and senior housing. The second step is to overly the data to discover locations of deficiencies in transit supportiveness. Third, composite scores were calculated for every stop. The scores were developed in the first and second steps. Clusters of high scoring stops were then compared to areas of low income and communities of color. These locations were then further analyzed.

Technical Memo #1: Targets, Methodology, and Data Inventory, (2009-2010) provides guidelines and identifies attribute gaps in the data needed to complete a comprehensive needs assessment process. The goal of this document is to develop 10 focus areas for pedestrian improvements for transit that can be submitted for regional flexible funds. Using the GIS process described in the Trimet Pedestrian Network Analysis, the creation of ten focus areas is described in more detail. A table of data needed for analysis, shown in Table 2, is provided with columns that describe where the attribute data is found and where data sources are missing; for example, grocery stores and pedestrian crash data.

The ten focus areas include:

SW Farmington Road and SW Murray Blvd. in Beaverton

Clackamas Town Center Transit Center

SE Division St. and SE 182nd Ave. in Gresham

Tanasbourne Town Center in Hillsboro

Clackamas County Red Soils Campus in Oregon City

SE Division St. and 122nd Avenue

SE Powell Blvd. and SE 82nd Avenue

Hillsdale

Tigard Transit Center

SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy and SW Scholls Ferry Rd. in Washington County

Draft, 10/2/2014

34

Table 2: Trimet Pedestrian Access to Transit Data Needs, Sources, and Gaps

Washington County, OR. Prioritization of Bike & Pedestrian Gaps, Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Prioritization Project http://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/Divisions/LongRangePlanning/PlanningPrograms/TransportationPlanning/bikeandped/gap-prioritization.cfm Washington County, Oregon has developed a website to describe their needs assessment process, needs list, and GIS maps. Inventory maps have been developed for sidewalks and bike lanes in Washington County. Attributes include:

Sidewalks on each side of the road

Bike lanes on each side of the road

http://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/Divisions/LongRangePlanning/PlanningPrograms/TransportationPlanning/bikeandped/gap-prioritization.cfm

http://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/Divisions/LongRangePlanning/PlanningPrograms/TransportationPlanning/bikeandped/gap-prioritization.cfm

Draft, 10/2/2014

35

Whether sidewalks are concrete, asphalt or gravel

Where there is no sidewalks

Trails

Planned trails

bike lanes greater or equal to 5 feet wide

shoulders suitable for bikes, 4 feet or greater

no bike lane or suitable shoulder

Multi use path on each side of the road

An evaluation criterion for needs assessment is also described. The process has three steps:

1. Suitability analysis

Does the area support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in terms of

i. Safety

ii. Density

iii. Mix of uses

iv. Street connectivity

v. Proximity to transit

vi. Proximity to other services and employment centers

It is then determined where pedestrian and bicycle improvement would likely

have the greatest impact and largest number of users

2. Overlay Analysis

Gaps in the walking and biking network are overlaid with weighted suitability

analysis

3. Improvement Constraints and Public Support

Determines the successful implementation based on

i. Public support

ii. Geographic equity

iii. Right of way constraints

iv. cost estimates

v. future improvements

Draft, 10/2/2014

36

Trends and Best Practices

The following includes a summary of 32 reports collected throughout the US that cover bicycle, pedestrian and multi-modal inventories and methodologies in various agencies. Detailed agency inventory attributes and methods are included in the attached workbook.

Methods Used for Data Collection In general, most agencies began their bicycle and pedestrian inventory by gathering existing data including GIS, crash data, other local agency data, and existing road geometric data, such as shoulder width for bicycle lanes. Most GIS data, including bicycle facilities and sidewalks, was generated from orthophoto aerial imagery.

Once imagery and existing data is exhausted for bicycle and pedestrian data collection, surveys of roadways are conducted, either in addition to their regular roadway inventory data collection, or through organized field surveys. Fieldwork is also used to verify data, by either walking or driving along the segment. Some agencies, such as the City of Sammamish, WA hired contractors to collect inventory data. The Puget Sound Regional Council in Washington State gathered data from other agencies and then hired a contractor to verify the data. WSDOT documented that it took two full-time staff people three months to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian facilities on 7,000 roadway miles

Another method of verification of data was to ask other agencies, project engineers, advocacy organizations and the public to verify collected data. Clark County, WA brought maps to a Community Design Forum and to neighborhood Association Meetings and asked for data verification on maps. Massachusetts DOT also verifies bicycle and pedestrian data by utilizing the public engagement process; encouraging the public to give feedback on map details through their website.

Very few reports discussed the equipment used to collect the data. In a 2012 report developed for Atlanta, GA by the Georgia Institute of Technology titled The Cost of Owning and Operating Sidewalks: A Strategy for the City of Atlanta, recommends using Microsoft Access, Arc Pad, and Trimble Nomad to collect and manage data. This report also mentioned that they developed a wheelchair equipped with an Android to collect ADA related GPS data.

A 2010 report titled An Examination of Practices for Retrofitting Existing Roads with Sidewalks in the United States by Senior Research Scientist Ilona O. Kastenhofer at the Virginia DOT, Kastenhoffer reviewed existing bicycle and pedestrian data collection for the State of Virginia concluded that most agencies manage their data in Microsoft Excel and analyze the data in ArcGIS.

Valuable Variables The workbook includes 192 attributes collected by 32 different agencies and projects in the US. None of the reports evaluated emphasized the most important attributes. Bike lane was the most collected Active Transportation attribute from all of the agencies and location reviewed. Existing sidewalk, width of the shoulder or bike lane and surface material were the next most collected variables.

Draft, 10/2/2014

37

In an interview with Washington County Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, Shelley Oylear, she stated that the most valuable variables that they collected was which side of the street had a sidewalk. This was deemed important to determine if pedestrians had to cross midblock or “flip-flop” back and forth across the street to use the sidewalk; a high risk safety behavior and an inconvenience for pedestrians. Oylear also recommended having an attribute that conveys if the sidewalk width meets ADA minimum standards or an agreed upon agency minimum sidewalk width.

As with sidewalks, Oylear recommends establishing the appropriate minimum width of a shoulder to function as a bike lane and have it be reflected in the inventory. For Washington County, sidewalk composition is also an important inventory attribute. Asphalt sidewalks are considered temporary and are managed by the County. Concrete sidewalks are permanent and are managed by the adjacent property owner. Therefore, it is imperative for Washington County to know where temporary sidewalks exist and to replace them with concrete to minimize sidewalk management and liability.

In a phone interview with Paula Reeves, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator at the Washington State DOT (WSDOT), Reeves stated that having attributes for maintenance and quality of facilities is useful in administering maintenance projects. WSDOT bicycle and pedestrian facility attributes are collected in coordination with the State Route Video Log to collect roadway data. This data was used to update Washington’s Non-Motorized Transportation Plan.

Another recommended attribute that Atlanta, GA recommends is the collection of a tree and root maintenance inventory. Trees and tree roots are a major culprit in maintaining safe sidewalks.

Rural Coos County, OR inventories paved bike shoulder widths on state highways from the ODOT Bicycle and pedestrian program, 2008. Coos County recommends a 6 foot shoulder for bicycles. However, shoulders that are equal or greater than four feet are also considered bicycle facilities. Less than four foot shoulders are considered shared bicycle facilities with motor vehicles.

Needs Assessment Criteria and Processes A variety of methods are used to develop a needs assessment for active transportation projects including Level of Service, weighting, point schemes, and cost-benefit analysis. Most of the agencies reviewed use a combination of methods.

The Maryland DOT has a two-tier approach. The first tier projects must be

recommended for improvement in a local plan

in a funding priority area

A Bicycle Level of Comfort (BLOC) score of E or F.

The second tier projects must either be

in a local improvement plan

Draft, 10/2/2014

38

have a BLOC score of E through F

Nashville has uses Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) and Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) for ranking projects. However, they also develop a needs assessment using NCHRP 616, crash analysis and trip generation models. Washington County developed a needs assessment based on land use, network density, safety, and social equity.

Many of the needs assessment processes are based on land use. Tucson, Philadelphia, Denver, and Portland all use qualitative measures to prioritize projects. Latent demand modeling is used in Orlando, FL.

The Cascade Bicycle Club, Public Health-Seattle King County and the US Centers for Disease Control have developed a guide for non-motorized prioritization planning using NCHRP Report 552 Benefit-Cost Analysis Framework.

Lessons Learned Lessons learned were collected from three sources; Caltrans and interviews with bicycle and pedestrian coordinators at WSDOT, and Washington County. All three emphasized the need for developing a clear data dictionary and comprehensive training for those that are collecting the data. All had complaints about the lack of consistency and documentation of attribute definitions across local agencies. It was suggested that State DOT’s should be responsible for developing statewide standards and guidelines for attribute definitions and encourage other agencies to follow the standards set by their DOT.