American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials
Special Committee on Research and Innovation
FY2023 NCHRP PROBLEM STATEMENT
Problem Number: 2023-B-04
Walking,
bicycling, and rolling needs should be considered in nearly all transportation
projects. There are several informative national guidance documents to aid
practitioners working in active transportation:
·
Bike Network Mapping Idea Book (FHWA, 2016).
·
Case Studies in Delivering Safe, Comfortable, and Connected
Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks (FHWA, 2015).
·
Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance
Measures (Semler et al., 2016).
·
Guidebook for Measuring Multimodal Network Connectivity (Twaddell et al.,
2018).
·
Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing
Projects (FHWA,
2015).
·
Noteworthy Local Policies That Support Safe and Complete
Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks (Louch et al.,
2016).
·
Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA et al., 2015).
·
Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks, (Dickman et al., 2016).
·
Strategies for Accelerating Multimodal Project Delivery (Raulerson et al., 2018).
However,
walking, bicycling, and rolling are often not considered or considered only as
an afterthought. This points to the need for institutional change.
There is some limited research to explain why active
transportation infrastructure, process, practices and processes are (or are not)
institutionally adopted. That research identified factors such as political
leadership, local advocacy, taking advantage of timely opportunities and
experiments, and increased learning and training, including exposure to places
with high levels of bicycling and walking (Dill et al., 2017; Wilson &
Mitra, 2020; McLeod et al., 2020). Carefully
documented case studies of successes and failures in institutional policy
adoption and planning for active transportation can help inform current efforts,
but these are rare. There are applicable theories from other disciplines that
help explain the processes of institutional policy learning and transfer, as
well as learning transfer – theories that examine how knowledge gets
transferred and implemented between and within agencies (Glaser et al., 2019;
Marsden & Reardon, 2017; Marsden & Stead, 2011). Theories of
organizational culture and change among public agencies are also relevant
(Fernandez & Rainey, 2006).
One review compared “top-down” and
“bottom-up” approaches to understand how transportation policy gets
implemented. Both provide insights, though bottom-up approaches recognize the
dispersed nature of who controls implementation, including lower-level
personnel who have discretion and knowledge of the system (Marsden &
Reardon, 2017). The “bottom-up” approach highlights the role of professional
staff who can influence implementation. A 2010 survey of state DOT staff
involved in active transportation revealed that lack of support from mid-level
management was tied for the second-highest ranked barrier to implementation
(after funding and tied with technical expertise among staff) (Dill et al.,
2017). There is little research on how to effectively change the actions of
professionals who can help or hinder implementation of active transportation
policies at all levels of an agency.
The NCHRP has sponsored several
projects that focus on how state DOTs operate. In 2001, NCHRP published a
series of documents on Managing
Change in State Departments of Transportation that touch on some of the topics in this research need. One of the
scans for that project identified several keys to strategic leadership:
widespread participation of internal and external stakeholders; a customer
orientation; top management commitment; a deliberate pace and frequent
reinforcement in implementation; ongoing communication; and aligning customer
concerns and agency goals (Poister & Van Slyke, 2001). More recently, NCHRP
Report 750 Strategic Issues Facing
Transportation looked at “Sustainability as an
Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies.” That research found that
about 60% of state DOTs had sustainability performance measures or indicators,
though only about 20% used them for project prioritization. The report found that
“[s]ustainability will require substantial culture change, both within agencies
and among public and state leaders” (National Academies of Science, 2014, p.
9). Some of the findings from that work could inform this research. There may
also be lessons from agencies that have shifted to a data-driven approach to
safety, including the use of performance measures.
This
research will look at state department of transportation institutional
structures, policies, programs, processes and practices from top leadership through various
disciplines and program phases, including planning, environment, design, construction,
operations, maintenance, safety,
communications/public outreach, and contracting (hereafter referred to
as “agency institutional structure and policies”) and how active transportation can be
effectively institutionally integrated. This research will (1)
identify and assess the challenges to embedding active transportation
throughout agency institutional structure and policies, (2) identify existing
strategies to overcome those challenges, and (3) recommend additional
strategies to overcome those challenges. The research will focus on internal
challenges that can be influenced and changed directly by state departments of
transportation
The research will involve collecting transportation agency
case studies and additional data through practitioner surveys, focus groups,
and/or other appropriate methods. The research will use relevant theory from
transportation and other disciplines. The challenges and factors considered in
the research will include, but not be limited to:
·
organizational
structure and scale (including the institutional position of the state bicycle
and pedestrian coordinator);
·
political
and administrative leadership;
·
leadership
consideration of walking and bicycling as system needs;
·
influence
by outside organizations;
·
staff
knowledge, experience, and attitudes;
·
existence
of context sensitive, complete streets or other policies that balance the needs
of all users in project development and delivery;
·
active
transportation needs and design solutions that are not only based on historic
data but also consider future growth and future counts for active
transportation users;
·
the
inclusion of active transportation as a primary purpose for projects;
·
policy
conflicts between local, state and federal agencies;
·
how
active transportation benefits are incorporated when calculating a cost benefit
ratio for a project;
·
consideration
of connecting active transportation infrastructure;
·
consideration
of how bicyclist and pedestrian facilities improve the human environment;
·
use
and influence of agency performance measures;
·
funding
processes, levels and structures;
·
research
or information gaps and the application of outdated or inaccurate information,
manuals and data;
·
rationales
used to support active transportation efforts;
·
project
and plan timing, including windows of opportunity and use of experiments and
tactical approaches;
·
training
and professional development;
·
professional
and learning networks, including peer exchanges;
·
workforce
characteristics; and
·
transportation
mode equity and systemic biases.
Project tasks include the following:
1.
Review
of existing research. The review will cover relevant theories, such as policy
transfer, policy learning, and institutional and organizational change and
culture, from other disciplines, as well as existing transportation case
studies.
2.
Develop
a research plan. That plan will include case studies and other data collection
methods, such as surveys and focus groups.
3.
Identify
and select case studies based on selection criteria identified in the research
plan. The case studies will likely include examples of both success and failure
and represent a range of agency, geographic (urban, rural and suburban) and
social contexts.
4.
Collect
case studies, data and information from top
leadership through various disciplines and program phases, including planning,
environment, design, construction, operations, maintenance, safety, communications/public
outreach, and contracting.
5.
Prepare
a report that: (a) reviews the existing research; (b) describes this research
effort; (c) identifies and prioritizes the challenges to integrating active
transportation into agency institutional structure and policies; (d) identifies
strategies used to overcome these challenges; and (e) provides clear
recommendations of specific step-by-step actions agencies can undertake to
institutionalize active transportation
top leadership through various disciplines and program phases, including
planning, environment, design, construction, operations, maintenance, safety,
communications/public outreach, and contracting. The report will
identify information gaps and any application of inaccurate information that
may impede progress in institutionalizing active transportation.
6.
Prepare
step-by-step implementation plans for agency leaders and various disciplines and program phases, including planning,
environment, design, construction, operations, maintenance, safety, communications/public
outreach, and contracting, with specific short-term and long-term action
items. This may include a capability maturity framework assessment tool.
7.
The
plan will also include ideas for implementation activities that could be
undertaken by AASHTO, TRB, FHWA, and other collaborating partners. This would
include efforts to fill research gaps, improve the transfer of existing
research to practice, and to “mythbust” any inaccurate information found to be
a barrier.
8.
This research would identify challenges and strategies for
overcoming those challenges, which public agencies could use to change current
practice. The benefit would be greater consideration of active transportation
throughout program and project planning, development and delivery policies,
leading to greater use of active transportation modes and improved safety and
health and reduced emissions. The research would help shift the culture to
include active transportation in all of their policies.
The project report and materials would inform agency leaders,
providing them clear guidance on how to affect change in their organization.
The implementation plan would also have ideas for what additional steps could
further implementation.
$600,000
24 months
Jennifer Dill, Portland State University
Talia Jacobson, Toole Design Group
AASHTO Council on Active Transportation
Toks Omishakin, Caltrans Director, and
Chair, Council on Active Transportation
Dickman, D., Falbo, N., Durrant, S., Gilpin, J., Gastaldi,
G., Chesston, C., Morrill, P., Ward, C., Walker, W., Jones, B., Cheng, C.,
Portelance, J., Kack, D., Gleason, R., Lonsdale, T., Nothstine, K., Morgan, J.,
& Pressly, R. (2016). Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks.
Federal Highway Administration. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhwahep17024_lg.pdf
Dill, J., Smith, O., & Howe, D. (2017). Promotion of Active
Transportation among State Departments of Transportation in the U.S. Journal
of Transport & Health, 5, pp 163-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2016.10.003
Federal Highway Administration, University of North Carolina,
C. H., Sam Schwartz Engineering, & Kittelson & Associates. (2015). Separated
Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/separatedbikelane_pdg.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2015). Case Studies in
Delivering Safe, Comfortable, and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/network_report/network_report.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2016). Bike Network
Mapping Idea Book (01605748). http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/bikemap_book/bikemap_book.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2016). Incorporating
On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/resurfacing_workbook.pdf
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G.
(2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector. Public administration review, 66(2), 168-176.
Glaser, M., te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2019).
Learning to build strategic capacity for transportation policy change: An
interdisciplinary exploration. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary
Perspectives, 1, 100006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2019.100006
Louch, H., O’Byrne, D., Machi, C., O’Toole, K., VanOosten,
M., Twaddell, H., Martin, L., ICF Incorporated LLC, Alta Planning + Design,
Sprinkle Consulting Inc, & Federal Highway Administration. (2016). Noteworthy
Local Policies that Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa17006-Final.pdf
Marsden, G., & Reardon, L. (2017). Questions of
governance: Rethinking the study of transportation policy. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 101, 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.008
Marsden, G., & Stead, D. (2011). Policy transfer and
learning in the field of transport: A review of concepts and evidence. Transport
Policy, 18(3), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.10.007
McLeod, S., Babb, C., & Barlow, S. (2020). How to ‘do’ a
bike plan: Collating best practices to synthesise a Maturity Model of planning
for cycling. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 5,
100130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100130
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(2014). Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 4: Sustainability as
an Organizing Principle for Transportation Agencies. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22379.
Poister, T H; Van Slyke, D M. (2001). Managing Change in
State Departments of Transportation. Scan 1 of 8: Innovations in Strategic
Leadership and Measurement for State DOTs. NCHRP Web-Only Document, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program; Georgia State University, Atlanta, Issue
39
Raulerson, M. T., Leahy, A., Semler, C., Mah, S., Gelinne,
D., Brookshire, K., Kumfer, W., Leahu-Aluas, O., Stout, M., & Smith, B.
(2018). Strategies for Accelerating Multimodal Project Delivery. Federal
Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/multimodal_delivery/fhwahep19006.pdf
Semler, C., Vest, A., Kingsley, K., Mah, S., Kittelson, W.,
Sundstrom, C., & Brookshire, K. (2016). Guidebook for Developing
Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance Measures. Federal Highway
Administration. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/performance_measures_guidebook/pm_guidebook.pdf
Twaddell, H., Rose, E., Broach, J., Dill, J., Clifton, K., Lust,
C., Voros, K., Louch, H., David, E., ICF Consulting, Portland State University,
Alta Planning + Design, & Federal Highway Administration. (2018). Guidebook
for Measuring Multimodal Network Connectivity. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/multimodal_connectivity/fhwahep18032.pdf
Wilson, A., & Mitra, R. (2020). Implementing cycling
infrastructure in a politicized space: Lessons from Toronto, Canada. Journal
of Transport Geography, 86, 102760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102760