2007 Benchmarking Report - Alliance for Biking & Walking

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bicycling & Walking in the U.S./ Thunderhead Alliance 2007 46 BICYCLING & WALKING POLICIES & PROVISIONS ronmental aspects of transportation infrastructure. TE projects must fit one of 12 eligible categories and must relate to surface transportation. The National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse collects data on TE-funded projects and provided data on TE-funded projects for the 50 states and cities studied here from 2003-2005. Data show that slightly less than 50% of TE funds go towards bicycle and pedestrian facilities. States and cities vary greatly on their use of TE funds. For some cities, bicycle and pedestrian projects comprise 100% of their TE-funded projects. For other cities, the three year average is zero. Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is the newest federallyfunded program and the only one that is 100% dedicated to funding bicycle and pedestrian capital and education projects. The National SRTS program was signed into law in 2005, making data on the program sparse at this early stage. States were asked to report on the level of funding, allocation of funds between capital and education, and levels of staffing. Though variation in funding allocation is limited by legislation, responses show variation spanning the entire allowable range among states. Because SRTS programs can and have been funded with other DOT funding, Thunderhead’s State Surveys encouraged officials to include these other funds. Because of this, reported SRTS spending may reflect values slightly greater than federal funds alone. Staffing To determine how bicycle and pedestrian staffing differs among states and cities, surveys asked them to report the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian programs. On average, state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) employ 0.34 FTE staff per one million people. The rate is higher among the major cities surveyed, which average 2.8 FTE bicycle and pedestrian staff per million people. State DOTs were also surveyed on levels of Safe Routes to School staffing. While most states average just one full-time-equivalent staff person dedicated to Safe Routes to School, some have more than one, and a few report none at present. Infrastructure To see how cities compared to one another on infrastructure for biking and walking, they were asked to report on miles of existing and planned facilities including sidewalks, on-street striped bike lanes, multi-use paths, and signed bike routes. Cities averaged 1.2 miles of bicycling facilities (bike lanes, multiuse paths, and signed bike routes combined) per square mile. On the high end of the range is Miami, with 4.0 miles of cycling facilities per square mile. Tucson and San Francisco rank second and third, with 3.2 miles of facilities per square mile. Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, New Orleans and Detroit are on the low end, having only 0.1 miles of cycling facilities per square mile. Cities were also asked to report on miles of planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Data show cities plan for twice as many bicycle and pedestrian facilities as the amount they currently have. Las Vegas has more planned facilities than any other city, with 16.2 miles of facilities planned per square mile. As part of their infrastructure for cycling, cities were asked to report the number of existing bike racks and average number of spaces per rack in their city. Cities averaged 24 bike parking spaces per 10,000 people. Minneapolis has the highest amount of bicycle parking per capita with 453 bicycle parking spaces per 10,000 people. A few cities reported no bicycle parking. This report took a closer look at the success of Minneapolis (page 69) and found that strong policies and an innovative funding mechanism have contributed to their success in this area. Bike-Transit Integration The last cycling provision measured was bike-transit integration. This report sought to measure how well cities provide for cyclists on transit. While most cities are successfully integrating bicycles with buses, many fall behind in regards to providing parking for cyclists at transit. The San Francisco Bay Area is a model for bike-transit connectivity. All buses in Oakland and San Francisco are equipped with bike racks and Oakland has more per capita bicycle parking at transit than any other city studied.
Other Source: FHWA (2001-2006) Federal Funding for Cycling & Walking Percent of Federal Transportation Dollars to Bicycling and Walking Transportation P rojects 98.46% % Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 1.54% 2% Transportation Enhancements is largest spending program for bike/ ped projects. Bicycle and Pedestrian Dollars by Funding Program other 3% Surface Transportation Public Lands 1% Interstate Maintena nce 1% National Corridor 1% National Highway Sys tem 1% Minimum Guarantee-TEA 21 2% Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program 2% Recreational Trails Program 3% rogram/Transportation High Priority Projects 4% THIS PIE CHART ILLUSTRATES THE RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF FEDERAL FUNDING for bicycle and pedestrian projects from various funding sources. Federal funding sources that only occasionally went to bicycle and pedestrian projects were placed in the “other” category. These data from the Federal Highway Administration’s Fiscal Management Accounting System reveal that the Transportation Enhancement (TE) program makes up almost three quarters of all funding to bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program is the second greatest funder of bike/ped projects. Funding for these projects came from more than 50 federal funding categories which emphasizes the range of possible funding sources available for bicycling and walking. For the most part, the decision for how to use federal transportation dollars is up to state Departments of Transportation and local Metropolitan Planning Organizations. P E nhancements 73% Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 9% BICYCLING & WALKING POLICIES & PROVISIONS 47 Bicycling & Walking in the U.S./ Thunderhead Alliance 2007
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: includes funding for biking and wal
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 and 112:
Nebraska Bikeable Communities: Omah
Page 113 and 114:
City Census 2000 % bike to work Cen
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?