2007 Benchmarking Report - Alliance for Biking & Walking

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bicycling & Walking in the U.S./ Thunderhead Alliance 2007 110 APPENDIX 4: DATA DISCREPANCIES Appendix 4: Data Discrepancies Discrepancies in Journey to Work Data: Census 2000 and ACS 2005 City Census 2000 % bike to work Census 2000 ranking ACS 2005 % bike to work ACS 2005 ranking Census 2000 % walk to work Census 2000 Ranking ACS 2005 % walk to work Albuquerque 1.12% 12 0.81 15 2.69% 26 2.17% 25 Amarillo 0.15% 43 0.14 45 1.10% 51 0.76% 49 Arlington (TX) 0.17% 39 * * 1.60% 46 * * Atlanta 0.31% 35 0.51 28 3.50% 21 3.25% 18 Austin 0.93% 15 1.31 11 2.55% 27 1.80% 38 Baltimore 0.33% 33 0.40 31 7.11% 7 5.42% 10 Boston 0.97% 13 0.94 13 13.04% 1 12.55% 1 Charlotte 0.15% 42 0.16 44 1.52% 49 1.59% 42 Chicago 0.50% 25 0.67 17 5.67% 10 5.47% 9 Cleveland 0.22% 36 0.39 32 4.03% 16 4.23% 15 Colorado Springs 0.52% 24 0.59 24 2.46% 29 2.53% 23 Columbus 0.34% 31 0.63 19 3.20% 23 1.64% 40 Dallas 0.13% 46 0.19 41 1.95% 43 1.81% 35 Denver 0.95% 14 1.41 10 4.35% 14 4.80% 12 Detroit 0.16% 41 0.21 40 2.81% 24 2.54% 22 El Paso 0.12% 49 0.32 34 1.96% 42 2.07% 28 Fort Worth 0.12% 48 0.23 39 1.59% 47 1.09% 48 Fresno 0.79% 18 0.66 18 2.06% 39 1.67% 39 Honolulu 1.25% 7 1.44 9 6.59% 9 6.91% 6 Houston 0.46% 27 0.28 35 2.31% 32 1.87% 33 Indianapolis 0.21% 37 0.10 48 2.00% 40 1.89% 31 Jacksonville 0.42% 29 0.25 38 1.79% 45 1.85% 34 Kansas City (MO) 0.12% 47 0.02 49 2.27% 33 2.22% 24 Las Vegas 0.39% 30 0.34 33 2.16% 37 1.80% 37 Long Beach 0.73% 19 0.60 21 2.53% 28 1.80% 36 Los Angeles 0.61% 22 0.59 23 3.57% 20 3.15% 19 Louisville 0.44% 28 0.27 36 4.09% 15 1.39% 46 Memphis 0.11% 51 * * 1.93% 44 * * ACS 2005 Ranking
City Census 2000 % bike to work Census 2000 ranking ACS 2005 % bike to work ACS 2005 ranking Census 2000 % walk to work Census 2000 Ranking ACS 2005 % walk to work Mesa 1.23% 8 0.75 16 2.08% 38 2.08% 27 Miami 0.55% 23 0.53 27 3.67% 18 4.87% 11 Milwaukee 0.33% 32 0.57 25 4.71% 13 4.27% 14 Minneapolis 1.89% 3 2.42 2 6.61% 8 5.81% 8 Nashville 0.14% 44 0.17 42 2.38% 30 1.87% 32 New Orleans 1.16% 11 0.97 12 5.21% 12 4.22% 16 New York 0.47% 26 0.48 29 10.41% 3 9.44% 4 Oakland 1.22% 9 1.54 8 3.73% 17 2.98% 21 Oklahoma City 0.11% 50 0.17 43 1.59% 48 1.36% 47 Omaha 0.14% 45 0.12 47 2.37% 31 2.12% 26 Philadelphia 0.86% 16 0.89 14 9.05% 5 8.05% 5 Phoenix 0.86% 17 0.60 22 2.17% 36 1.62% 41 Portland 1.76% 5 3.47 1 5.24% 11 4.30% 13 Sacramento 1.35% 6 1.75 6 2.77% 25 3.66% 17 San Antonio 0.16% 40 0.13 46 2.17% 35 1.49% 45 San Diego 0.73% 20 0.62 20 3.65% 19 1.89% 30 San Francisco 1.98% 2 1.85 5 9.36% 4 9.59% 3 San Jose 0.62% 21 0.40 30 1.44% 50 1.52% 44 Seattle 1.88% 4 2.31 3 7.36% 6 6.87% 7 Tucson 2.21% 1 2.24 4 3.44% 22 3.11% 20 Tulsa 0.21% 38 0.26 37 2.24% 34 1.96% 29 Virginia Beach 0.32% 34 0.56 26 1.96% 41 1.56% 43 Washington 1.16% 10 1.74 7 11.80% 2 9.97% 2 Bike and Walk to Work Data: 2000 Census vs. 2005 ACS ACS 2005 Ranking This table is included to highlight variation in bike and walk to work data from the 2000 Census and the 2005 American Community Survey (ACS). The decennial Census collects data in April which may limit the accuracy of biking and walking travel data. Because many places in the U.S. still have quite low temperatures in April, this may discourage the number of people who bike and walk to work. The ACS collects data year-round which may lead to a more accurate portrayal of yearly commute patterns. Other variations in the two data sets may be caused by the smaller sample size and more recent nature of the 2005 ACS. Rankings are provided ranging from one (highest percentage of people who bike/walk to work) to 50 (lowest percentage of people who bike/walk to work) for comparison. APPENDIX 4: DATA DISCREPANCIES Bicycling & Walking in the U.S./ Thunderhead Alliance 2007 111
Page 1 and 2:
Bicycling and Walking in the U.S. B
Page 3 and 4:
Bicycling and Walking in the U.S. T
Page 5 and 6:
Acknowledgements This report has de
Page 7 and 8:
Contents PHOTO COURTESY OF SEAN DRE
Page 9 and 10:
Executive Summary Government offici
Page 11 and 12:
to bicycle and pedestrian programs.
Page 13 and 14:
1: Introduction Benchmarking Bicycl
Page 15 and 16:
Denver, CO receives Bicycle-Friendl
Page 17 and 18:
all and included recommendations fo
Page 19 and 20:
2: Data Collection The Benchmarking
Page 21 and 22:
3: Current Status of Bicycling How
Page 23 and 24:
PHOTO COURTESY OF AMY KELLOGG Bicyc
Page 25 and 26:
% work trips by bike Percent of Tri
Page 27 and 28:
State % of work trips Trips to work
Page 29 and 30:
City Trips to work by bike % of wor
Page 31 and 32:
PHOTO COURTESY OF TRANSPORTATION AL
Page 33 and 34:
Number of People per Bike Shop in M
Page 35 and 36:
anks lowest here with only 4.0% wal
Page 37 and 38:
7% Pedestrian Percent of Trips to W
Page 39 and 40:
100% Distribution of those who walk
Page 41 and 42:
State % of trips by foot Trips to w
Page 43 and 44:
City % of Trips by Foot Trips to Wo
Page 45 and 46:
Pedestrian Mode Share & Safety in C
Page 47 and 48:
includes funding for biking and wal
Page 49 and 50:
Other Source: FHWA (2001-2006) Fede
Page 51 and 52:
Funding for Bicycling & Walking Pro
Page 53 and 54:
Distribution of Transportation Enha
Page 55 and 56:
Percent of TE Funds to Bicycle & Pe
Page 57 and 58:
Education Projects by State Ratio o
Page 59 and 60:
Bicycle & Pedestrian Staff Levels i
Page 61 and 62: Members of LAPD Bicycle Police Team
Page 63 and 64: Excerpts from Model Policies: Chica
Page 65 and 66: State % of transportation $ to bike
Page 67 and 68: City Per capita spending on bicycle
Page 69 and 70: miles per square mile of city 18 16
Page 71 and 72: Minneapolis Top for Bike Parking Mi
Page 73 and 74: Transit Integration with Bicycling
Page 75 and 76: Thunderhead Alliance Bicycle & Pede
Page 77 and 78: Budgets of Thunderhead Organization
Page 79 and 80: evenue in dollars $2,500,000 $2,000
Page 81 and 82: State Total populationserved by org
Page 83 and 84: City Population served larger than
Page 85 and 86: City-Based Advocacy Organizations M
Page 87 and 88: average temperature (degrees farhen
Page 89 and 90: Demographic Influences Income Incom
Page 91 and 92: miles of bicycle facilities per squ
Page 93 and 94: percent of trips to work by foot %
Page 95 and 96: 8: Impacts of Bicycling and 40% 35%
Page 97 and 98: percent of trips to work by bicycle
Page 99 and 100: 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Alaska Montana
Page 101 and 102: 9: Conclusions Safety in Numbers Da
Page 103 and 104: Levels, Safety, and Funding 25% per
Page 105 and 106: 10: Recommendations How You Can Use
Page 107 and 108: surveys. The team will expand outre
Page 109 and 110: State Thunderhead Organization AK N
Page 111: Nebraska Bikeable Communities: Omah
Page 115 and 116: States Bike fatalities WISQARS Bike
Page 117 and 118: Bibliography: Chapter 1 - Introduct
Page 120: $24.95 Made possible in part by: MA
show all

2007 Benchmarking Report - Alliance for Biking & Walking

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?