2007 Benchmarking Report - Alliance for Biking & Walking

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bicycling & Walking in the U.S./ Thunderhead Alliance 2007 48 BICYCLING & WALKING POLICIES & PROVISIONS for Bicycling & Walking Provisions (2) $25 in 50 States federal dollars spent for each funding program per capita per year (1) Funding $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Alaska Rhode Island Vermont Hawaii Delaware Wyoming Montana Nebraska New Hampshire Arkansas North Dakota Georgia Tennessee Iowa Missouri Minnesota Federal Funding Program (3) Oklahoma other Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program Recreational Trails Program High Priority Projects Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Surface Transportation Program/Transportation Enhancements (STP/TE) Wisconsin Washington Alabama New Mexico Oregon Idaho Arizona Kansas Indiana states Source: (page 48 and 49) FHWA’s FMIS accounting system (2001-2006) (1)Data here is from a six year average of authorized funding and thus represent all federal funds obligated to projects in the 6-year period and are not necessarily the actual amount spent in these years; The “other” category represents approximately 50 additional federal funding programs for which relatively small amounts were spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects; (2) Alaska was cropped in this illustration to allow funding sources from other states to be viewed; Alaska had an additional $20.51 per capita in the “other category” for a total of $45.58 per capita each year in federal funds obligated to bicycling and walking projects in the 6-year period; Maine Colorado Louisiana Kentucky Pennsylvania Massachusetts Ohio Michigan Connecticut Maryland Florida California Texas Mississippi Utah Nevada New York North Carolina Virginia Illinois South Dakota New Jersey West Virginia South Carolina
Funding for Bicycling & Walking Provisions federal dollars spent for each funding program per capita per year (1) $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 Baltimore Atlanta Oklahoma City Washington Omaha New Orleans Tulsa Amarillo Oakland Minneapolis Portland Nashville-Davidson Louisville Milwaukee Sacramento in 50 Cities(4,5) Tucson San Jose Austin Federal Funding Program (3) other Seattle San Antonio Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program High Priority Projects Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Surface Transportation Program/Transportation Enhancements (STP/TE) Phoenix Mesa Philadelphia San Diego Indianapolis Memphis Detroit cities (3) Funding programs that comprised a large share of all bike/ped spending (pie chart page 47) may not be a top funding program for comparing all states and cities. The Mimimum Guarantee, National Highway System, National Corridor, Interstate Maintenance, Public Lands, and Recreational Trails Program (for cities) may have contributed enough funds to a project to qualify it as a top bike/ped spending program in terms of dollars spent. However, when we divided funds by the population of cities and states, these spending programs do not qualify as a top bike/ped spending program and thus are not included in these illustrations; (4) Funding data for cities was gleaned from the FHWA which reports projects by “Urbanized Areas” and counties. Projects were sorted by urbanized area first, then by county, in order to more closely capture a particular city’s funding amount. Dollar amounts here represent per capita spending per year for the part of the Urbanized Area that lies within the Benchmarking city’s county. The majority should lie within the city’s boundary, though it likely that a small portion of funding going to other cities is captured here; (5) Discrepancies exist between FHWA funding data for cities, data reported by cities, and data from the National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghous. Fresno Fort Worth Arlington New York Denver Chicago San Francisco Colorado Spring Los Angeles Long Beach Houston Las Vegas Albuquerque Jacksonville Dallas Miami El Paso Columbus Charlotte Boston Cleveland Kansas City Virginia Beach Honolulu BICYCLING & WALKING POLICIES & PROVISIONS 49 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 and 48: includes funding for biking and wal
Page 49: Other Source: FHWA (2001-2006) Fede
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?