2007 Benchmarking Report - Alliance for Biking & Walking

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bicycling & Walking in the U.S./ Thunderhead Alliance 2007 92 FACTORS INFLUENCING CYCLING, WALKING, AND SAFETY dollars earned by advocacy organizations per 10 city residents/ number of advocacy staff per million people Relationship Between Advocacy Capacity and Mode Share 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Fort Worth Charlotte San Jose Dallas Nashville Houston Kansas City (MO) Columbus Long Beach San Diego Source: ACS (2005), Thunderhead Organization Surveys r = 0.58 (organization income per 10 residents/bike + walk levels) r = 0.55 (organization staffi ng per million residents/bike + walk levels) Advocacy capacity and higher levels of cycling and walking may be linked. organization’s income (in dollars) per 10 city residents number of advocacy staff per one million people precsnt of trips to work by bike or foot Albuquerque Austin Colorado Springs Los Angeles Atlanta cities Milwaukee New Orleans Sacramento Baltimore Chicago Denver Portland Philadelphia THUNDERHEAD COMPARED THE COMBINED LEVELS OF BIKING and walking to work from the ACS 2005 to standardized income and staffing levels of Thunderhead member organizations representing these cities. Positive correlations (r=0.58 and r = 0.55) suggests a relationship may exist between advocacy capacity and levels of cycling and walking. Seattle New York San Francisco Washington Boston 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% percent of trips to work by bicycle or foot
8: Impacts of Bicycling and 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Walking on Public Health Public health and levels of physical activity are inextricably linked. This report analyzed data on a number of public health indicators compared to biking and walking levels. Indicators include obesity and overweight levels (current and over time), physical activity levels, high blood pressure, and diabetes. Biking, Walking and Obesity Levels Trends Over Time To compare rates of biking and walking with obesity trends, Census Journey to Work data for 1960 through 2000 were compared to overweight and obesity levels in the U.S. for the same time period. These data show that as biking and Change in Bicycling and Walking Rates vs. Adult Overweight Rates over last 40 years percent overweight or obese 1960 1970 percent % overweight percent % obese obese percent % of trips of trips to to work by bike or foot or foot 1980 1990 2000 12% 10% Sources: National Center for Health Statistics (2006), Census (1960,1970,1980,1990,2000); r = -0.86 (bike+walk/overweight) r = -0.79 (bike+walk/obesity) 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% percent of trips to work by bicycle or foot percent of children who bike or walk to school walking levels have plummeted, overweight levels have steadily increased and obesity levels have soared. The decrease in bicycling and walking may be even greater since these data do not take into account any trips besides work trips (walking and biking to school, for example, would not be counted here). Also, bicycling was not separated out from “other”modes in early Census surveys, so 1960 and 1970 levels shown are for walking only. While bicycling and walking levels fell 67% between 1960 and 2000, obesity levels increased by 241%. Although these two trends are not the only factors involved, the correlation cannot be ignored. This report looked at data on childhood obesity prevalence from the CDC and the National Health and (cont. next page) Trend in Obese Children vs. Rate of Biking and Walking to School 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1966-69 1972-77 percent of kids who bike or walk to school percent of kids whoare obese 1978-83 1990-91 Sources: CDC, NHANES, McDonald, Noreen (2007); r=-0.63 2001 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% percent of children who are obese IMPACTS OF CYCLING & WALKING ON PUBLIC HEALTH 93 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 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: percent of trips to work by foot %
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?