BACKGROUND

A common approach used in transportation design is to set minimum accommodations or guidelines, such as a minimum width, for a sidewalk or bikeway. Such guidelines provide for a basic level of infrastructure quality in cases where they are applied. The concept is also used at the planning level; for example, some Complete Streets policies specify minimum accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles. However, the minimum accommodations are frequently used as the default or preferred width in all cases, even though these widths often do not provide a level and quality that will significantly increase the use of walking, bicycling, and rolling, particularly among all types of users and in areas where greater walking, bicycling, and rolling activity is possible. Research is needed on the design flexibility and the different levels of accommodation recommended for different contexts and roadway types.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop an active transportation guide and tool (or tools) that provide a decision-making framework for the adoption and implementation of supportive active transportation infrastructure and design ranges that provide better safety, comfort, and accessibility while still serving all surface transportation users and functions.

The deliverables are expected to include:

• Performance criteria and qualitative, quantitative, and/or surrogate measures used in decision-making regarding the application of different active transportation design;
• Ranges of active transportation design values and other accommodations;
• Succinct communication materials targeting different audiences, such as executive offices, planning and design professionals, and members of the general public. The use of creative design and graphics is encouraged;
• A conduct of research report that describes and documents the full research project; and
• An implementation plan focused on the practitioner that markets and encourages adoption of the products of this research, including training materials, opportunities to present material in conferences and other venues, and potential opportunities for integration into industry design standards and guides.

TASKS

PHASE I: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

TASK 1: LITERATURE REVIEW AND STATE OF THE PRACTICE REVIEW

The research team will identify, review, and synthesize the design values, dimensions, ranges, guidelines, tools, and other supporting resources that transportation practitioners employ to design active transportation facilities. The review and synthesis will consist of two parallel tracks: academic research and agency design guidance and practices.

The team will create a tracking list of the identified research, agency resources, and findings that will identify the source, type (e.g., case study, report, guidance), key findings, and relevant mode(s) for improved data management and establishing connections for the practitioner engagement in Task 2 and case study development in Task 3. 

As the team is currently working on the newest editions of the AASHTO Bike Guide and the AASHTO Green Book, the team will review the guidance presented in those draft guides and the literature reviews completed for those projects. 

The research team will prepare a brief survey for general practitioners to seek experiences, challenges, and examples where designers have applied design flexibility for the safety of active transportation users, where they have tried but failed to apply flexibility based on agency direction or design guidance, and the relevant conditions for that design flexibility (for example was it permitted to be applied in urban areas, but not along suburban arterial streets or rural collectors). Surveys will help to frame specific questions asked during workshops and may be used to identify possible case study locations. The survey instrument and list of targeted stakeholder participants will be approved by NCHRP prior to execution. 

Broad Workshops – The research team will convene 3-6 workshops at venues where practitioners and agency officials are already gathering to seek feedback on successes and failures of design guidance to address the needs, comfort, and safety of active transportation users.

Focused Workshops – The research team shall conduct 1-3 focused workshops with select state DOTs and city/ county officials identified through the Literature Review and as recommended by the panel. The goal of these workshops will be to understand each agency’s decision-making processes for the issues discussed in the Task 2 Literature Review, with a focus on the specific contexts in which design flexibility has been applied, where it has generally not been used/ allowed, and how the written design guidance, policies (written or unwritten), stated project goals, crash histories, cost, maintenance, legal concerns, etc. have affected those decisions.

The research team will seek to understand how cultural issues, agency structures or design hierarchy, and/or how past attempts at applying design flexibility have shaped agencies’ current processes. 

Task 2 Deliverables: Memo documenting the practitioner engagement (including survey questions and workshop agendas) to be provided into an appropriate QPR and the Interim Report

TASK 3: CASE STUDIES

Based on coordination with the panel, the engagement with practitioners throughout Task 2, professional networks, and knowledge of past projects, the research team will conduct up to 40

case studies of projects where streets are expected to serve the needs of active transportation users and that have been constructed. The cases will be selected to reflect a variety of states (with a variety of design guidance approaches), street functional classifications, land use contexts, socioeconomic status of the neighborhood, and funding sources used for design or construction (e.g., local, state, federal). The case studies will be selected to ensure a diversity of baseline design guidance are evaluated as part of the case study process, with a specific focus on states that have differences in the use of terminology (e.g. minimum, preferred), differences in widths, and differences in the common workflow of the design process.

Through this engagement and using data collected in Task 3, the research team will seek to identify case study projects that have been built for at least five years to allow for some before and after analysis of safety performance using crash data.  Other project outcomes to be evaluated could include relation to comfort, accessibility, and maintenance. The final list of criteria and methods for analysis will be shared with the panel in Task 3 as noted above.   

Task 3 Deliverables: Draft case study reports for integration in the Interim Report  

TASK 4: DESIGN GUIDANCE VARIATION AND IMPLICATIONS

After completion of the literature review, engagement, and case studies assessment identified in Phase I’s Tasks 1-3, the team will review and summarize the results to understand:

1. The variation of design guidance terminology, widths, and processes;

2. The common concerns or challenges faced by practitioners when working to design safe and comfortable active transportation facilities; and

3. The realized outcomes of built projects and the degree to which they achieved the safety and comfort goals.

 This review will assess the use of design terminology and presented values in the state and local design guidance with actual implemented infrastructure, noting the street classifications, land use context, intended design user(s), posted speed, etc. The review will also document how the project development workflow, references to design flexibility, and other process-related design guidance (such as establishing project goals or defining the project purpose and need statement) has informed project outcomes.

 Based on this review, the team will analyze and draw conclusions about the effectiveness of different design guidance strategies and will document which approaches are successful and which are less successful at providing facility types, widths, and designs that are proven through research to address the safety, comfort, and accessibility of active transportation users. This assessment will also strive to identify which specific factors in the design guidance served as barriers or opportunities and most affects the built outcomes.

Tasks 4 Deliverables: Technical memorandum documenting design guidance approaches, outcomes, and initial recommended design guidance framework

TASK 5: INTERIM REPORT

Upon the panel’s review of the Task 5 Technical Memorandum, the team will prepare and submit an interim report of all work completed in Tasks 2 through 5 and the framework for the work to be completed in Phase II.

The interim report will be submitted for panel review and comment.  NCHRP will schedule and convene an in-person interim panel meeting in Washington, D.C. to review the results. During this meeting the research team will seek feedback from the panel on the work completed to date, respond to critical questions, and discuss any recommended changes to the interim report and project approach.

The interim report will incorporate all research conducted and deliverables produced to date, at a minimum to include: 

Introduction: Framing the Problem and Project Approach 

·       Literature Review and State of the Practice

·       Survey and Workshop Engagement

·       Case Study Review and Findings

·       Design Guidance Approach

·       Initial Recommendations

·       Outline for the Guide

 Task 5 Deliverables:

·      Interim Report and guide outline

·      Updated Work Plan

·       Interim Panel Meeting attendance and documentation

NCHRP approval will be required prior to advancing into Phase II. 

PHASE II: DELIVERABLES

 TASK 6: DRAFT DELIVERABLES

 The guide outline will be coordinated with the panel during Task 6 and will synthesize the research, engagement, and recommendations into a single document. The guide is envisioned to be structured to highlight:

• ·       The goal of providing safe, comfortable, and accessible active transportation facilities;
• ·       A summary of the literature review and state of the practice;
• ·       A summary of common challenges in design guidance, the design process, and variations by street type or land use context; and
• ·       Successful strategies in written design guidance and practical implementation to better convey ideal design solutions, explain alternative solutions and their trade-offs and safety risks, and an enhanced understanding of design flexibility to achieve the project goals.

 Accompanying the guide will be draft versions of the following:

• ·       Supplemental technical memorandum with a Model Language Template 

• ·       Communication materials to help put the guide’s content into practice.

  ·       “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” technical memo

   The draft deliverables will be submitted for panel review and comment. The research team shall convene a final virtual panel meeting following the submission of these draft materials. The team will present an overview of the materials during this meeting, will seek feedback from the panel on the deliverables, respond to critical questions, and discuss any recommended changes to the guide or supplemental materials.

   Task 6 Deliverables:

  ·       Draft Guide and Supplemental Model Language Technical Memorandum

  ·       Draft communications materials

  ·       Draft Implementation Technical Memo

   TASK 7: FINAL DELIVERABLE

   Based on the panel comments from Task 7, the research team will work to synthesize the entire project into a series of final deliverable documents. The research team shall provide a detailed and specific point-by-point response to each written comment and how the comments are addressed in the final deliverables in accordance with NCHRP procedures.

   The final deliverables will also include articles summarizing the project results that are geared towards publications agreed to by the panel, such as the FHWA Safety Compass newsletter, ITE Journal, the ASCE Civil Engineering Magazine, etc.

   Task 7 Deliverables:

  ·       Final Guide

  ·       Final Supplemental Model Language Memorandum

  ·       Final Implementation Technical Memo

  ·       Final communication materials, including articles for publication

  ·       Response to panel comments

STATUS: Contract executed on August 26, 2024.  Phase I work underway.