2007 Benchmarking Report - Alliance for Biking & Walking

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bicycling & Walking in the U.S./ Thunderhead Alliance 2007 52 BICYCLING & WALKING POLICIES & PROVISIONS Percent of TE Funds to Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects in 50 States Percent of total percentage funds allocated of obligated for TE each funds category 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Alaska Colorado Montana Nevada Utah Georgia Arizona Minnesota Nebraska Wisconsin New Hampshire Alabama North Carolina Maine Indiana West Virginia Oklahoma Wyoming Vermont Idaho Oregon Missouri Hawaii Iowa Tennessee Kansas Source: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse (2003-2005) (3-year average) % to category #1 - bicycle and pedestrian facilities % to category #2 - bicycle and pedestrian education and safety states states Florida Louisianna Pennsylvania South Carolina Illinois New York Michigan Arkansas Ohio California South Dakota Virginia North Dakota New Jersey Maryland Delaware Massachusetts Kentucky Mississippi Rhode Island Connecticut New Mexico Texas Washington
Percent of TE Funds to Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects in Most-Populous Cities (3-year average) percentage of obligated TE funds 1 0 0 % 9 0 % 8 0 % 7 0 % 6 0 % 5 0 % 4 0 % 3 0 % 2 0 % 1 0 % 0 % San Francisco Memphis Charlotte Denver Las Vegas Atlanta Omaha Oakland Colorado Springs Oklahoma City San Jose Indianapolis Kansas City (MO) Cleveland Tulsa Phoenix Tucson Source: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse (2003-2005) Note: No TE funds were programmed during this period in New York, Chicago, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso, Seattle, Albuquerque, Mesa, Miami, or Arlington. WHILE CITIES SUCH AS SAN FRANCISCO, MEMPHIS, Charlotte, Denver, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Omaha, Oakland, and Colorado Springs have spent approximately 100% of TE funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects, Boston, New Orleans, Louisville, and Washington spend the lowest percentage of their TE dollars for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Jacksonville Portland Philadelphia % to category #1 - bicycle and pedestrian facilities % to category #2 - bicycle and pedestrian education and safety Minneapolis Baltimore Columbus Sacramento Los Angeles Detroit San Diego Long Beach The amount of TE funding to bicycle and pedestrian projects varies among major cities. Boston New Orleans Louisville Washington Milwaukee Nashville Fresno Virginia Beach Honolulu BICYCLING & WALKING POLICIES & PROVISIONS 53 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 and 52: Funding for Bicycling & Walking Pro
Page 53: Distribution of Transportation Enha
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?