2007 Benchmarking Report - Alliance for Biking & Walking

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bicycling & Walking in the U.S./ Thunderhead Alliance 2007 50 BICYCLING & WALKING POLICIES & PROVISIONS Less than 2% of federal transportation dollars go to bicycling and walking. percentage of transportation dollars to bike/ped 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1.6% Alabama 2.7% Alaska 4.1% Arizona 0.4% Arkansas 2.1% California 1.7% Colorado 2.2% Connecticut 3.6% Delaware 1.5% District of Columbia 1.1% Florida 1.2% Georgia 4.0% Hawaii 0.9% Idaho 1.4% Illinois 0.9% Indiana 3.9% Iowa 1.4% Kansas 1.0% Kentucky 0.6% Louisianna STATES SPEND 1.54% OF THEIR FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION DOLLARS for bicycle and pedestrian projects on average. This amounts to $2.52 per capita each year on average. Rhode Island spends 5.4% of its federal transportation funds on biking and walking, the highest of all states. South Carolina ranks lowest among states spending just 0.2% of its federal transportation funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects. % fed funds to bike ped Percentage of Transportation Dollars to Bike/Ped Projects (3-year average 2004-2006) 1.2% Maine 0.6% Maryland 1.5% Massachusetts 1.7% Michigan 3.6% Minnesota 0.5% Mississippi 2.7% Missouri states Source: FHWA’s FMIS accounting system (2004-2006) Note: The District of Columbia is included in this illustration for comparison, although it is not compared to states in other areas of the report; data here is from a three year average of authorized funding and thus represent all federal funds obligated to projects in the 3-year period and are not necessarily the actual amount spent in these years. 1.1% Montana 3.8% Nebraska 1.0% Nevada 3.5% New Hampshire 1.2% New Jersey 2.1% New Mexico 0.9% New York 1.1% North Carolina 0.8% North Dakota 1.9% Ohio 1.1% Oklahoma 2.0% Oregon 1.8% Pennsylvania 5.4% Rhode Island 0.2% South Carolina 0.5% South Dakota 2.4% Tennessee 1.2% Texas 1.3% Utah 3.2% Vermont 0.5% Virginia 2.0% Washington 0.5% West Virginia 1.8% Wisconsin 1.3% Wyoming
Distribution of Transportation Enhancements Funding by Category (3-year average 2003-2005) 11) Highway runoff mitigation and w ildlife crossings 1.0% 10) Archaeological planning and r esearch 0.3% 9 ) Billboard removal 0.2% 8) Rail corridor preservation and t rail development5.3% 7) Preservation of historic t ransportation facilities 8.8% 6 ) Historic preservation 2.8% 5) Landscaping and scenic b eautification 19.6% Source: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse (2003-2005) 12) Transportation museums 1.7% 1 ) Bicycle and pedestrian facilities 47.8% 4) Scenic and historic highway p rograms and welcome centers 8.5% TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS (TE) ARE A MAJOR SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR bicycle and pedestrian projects, yet less than half of all TE funds are spent on biking and walking nationwide. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities do make up the largest funding category, with 47.8% of funds going to projects in this category. Landscaping and scenic beautification projects are the second most-funded category, accounting for 19.6% of TE funds. Scenic and historic highway programs and welcome centers and preservation of historic transportation facilities are the third and forth most-funded categories. Some states such as Alaska, Colorado, Montana and Nevada spend the majority of their TE funds on bicycle and pedestrian projects. In the three years averaged for this study, Texas spent 100% of their TE funds on scenic and historic highway programs and welcome centers, translating into $0 for biking and walking. Washington, New Mexico, and Connecticut reported no TE projects in the 3-year period of 2003-2005 surveyed here. 2) Bicycle and pedestrian e ducation and safety 0.3% 3 ) Scenic and historic acquisitions 3.6% Less than half of Transportation Enhancement funds go to bicycling and walking. BICYCLING & WALKING POLICIES & PROVISIONS 51 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 and 50: Other Source: FHWA (2001-2006) Fede
Page 51: Funding for Bicycling & Walking Pro
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?