2007 Benchmarking Report - Alliance for Biking & Walking

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bicycling & Walking in the U.S./ Thunderhead Alliance 2007 54 BICYCLING & WALKING POLICIES & PROVISIONS PHOTO COURTESY OF HO JOHN LEE Safe Routes to School: A Look at the Newest Funding Source Winning Safe Routes to School in the U.S. The term “Safe Routes to School” (SRTS) was coined in the 1970s in Denmark as part of an initiative to reduce the number of children killed while biking and walking to school. The term spread internationally reaching Bronx, NY in 1997 when the first Safe Routes to School program began in the U.S. In 1998 Congress funded pilot Safe Routes to School programs in Arlington, Massachusetts and Marin County, California. The Safe Routes to School buzz continued to spread to communities developing their own grassroots programs throughout the U.S.. Thunderhead Alliance member organizations lobbied Congress from 2002-2005 for a federally-funded Safe Routes to School program. Some already had local programs underway which would later become model programs. In 2005, Congress voted to include a federally-funded National Safe Routes to School Program as part of SAFETEA-LU, the reauthorization bill for the federal transportation law. This victory for Thunderhead’s coalition is now being celebrated nationwide as states have begun to coordinate their programs, in many cases with the help of Thunderhead organizations providing their expertise and resources. An Early Look at SRTS Programing The National Safe Routes to School program will be about two-years old when this report is released. At the time of this project’s data collection it was just over one year old. Although it is important to begin collecting data on the program in 50 states, there is a limited amount of information available at this time since many states are still organizing their programs and some have yet to spend any of their Safe Routes to School funding. For this report, states were asked about levels of funding, allocation of funds between capital projects and education programs, and staffing levels. They were also encouraged to include other DOT funding spent on the program. Findings indicate that states are varied among their approaches to the programming of Safe Routes to School funding. While states average one full-time-equivalent staff person dedicated to the program, some states are taking creative approaches to increasing their staff capacity, such as using Americorps volunteers to help with messaging and promotion, or relying on field coordinators in each school district for outreach to schools. States also vary in their allocation of funds to capital projects vs education projects, although variation is restricted by legislation.
Education Projects by State Ratio of Safe Routes to School Funds to Capital vs. Education Projects percent Percentage of Safe of Safe Routes Routes to to School Funds funds 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Kentucky Wyoming Source: State Surveys Minnesota Indiana Maine Arkansas Colorado California Georgia Hawaii states State Iowa Michigan Oregon perecnt % of funds of funds allocated allocated to education to capital projects perecnt of funds allocated to education % of funds allocated to capital projects Tennessee Utah Wisconsin Kansas Nationwide Average of Safe Routes to Safe Routes toSchool Funding SpendingAllocation: on Capital vs. Education Capital vs. Education Note: The following states report that no Safe Routes to School funding had been spent at the time of this survey and thus could not respond to the question on ratio of funds to capital vs. education projects: Alabama, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota; All other states were unable to provide data on Safe Routes to School funding ratios. THE FEDERAL SRTS LEGISLATION RESTRICTS VARIATION IN THE WAY states spend federal Safe Routes to School funds, due to a requirement that no more than 30% and no less than 10% of funds can be spent on educational activities. States exercise discretion within this 20% window. The 18 states who responded to a question on the ratio they’ve set for spending these funds run the entire allowable range. Nine states could not answer because they haven’t yet spent any Safe Routes to School funds. Fifteen states were unable to provide these data for unspecified reasons. Vermont capital 76% education 24% Federal Safe Routes to School legislation: 10-30% of funds to be spent on education activities. BICYCLING & WALKING POLICIES & PROVISIONS 55 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 and 54: Distribution of Transportation Enha
Page 55: Percent of TE Funds to Bicycle & Pe
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?