Post on 03-Oct-2020
PHASE
ComBen
Mic
II FINAL REPO
mmunefits
chigan
ORT
nity as of B
Depart
and EBicycli
tment
Econoing in
of Tran
omic Mich
nsport
higan
tation
Phas
Marc
CoBe
PrepMich425 WLansi PrepBBC R1999Denv303.3wwwbbc@
se II Final Rep
ch 20, 2015
ommunenefits
ared for higan DepartmWest Ottawa Sing, Michigan
ared by Research & Co9 Broadway, Suver, Colorado 8321.2547 fax w.bbcresearch@bbcresearch
port
nity andof Bicy
ment of TranspStreet 48933‐1532
onsulting uite 2200 80202‐9750 303.399.0448.com .com
d Econycling i
portation
8
nomic in Michhigan
Table of Contents
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING i
I. Introduction and Executive Summary
Study Objectives ......................................................................................................................... I–1
Methodology .............................................................................................................................. I–1
Key Results ................................................................................................................................. I–2
Report Structure ......................................................................................................................... I–3
II. Methodology
Overview ................................................................................................................................... II–1
Event Participants ...................................................................................................................... II–1
Self‐Supported Touring Bicyclists .............................................................................................. II–3
Bicycle Touring Companies ........................................................................................................ II–3
Bicycling and Tourism in Michigan ............................................................................................ II–4
III. Economic Impact of Bicycling Events
Total Economic Impact ............................................................................................................. III–1
Bicycling Event Economic Impact Surveys ................................................................................ III–2
Case Study Events ..................................................................................................................... III–2
Apple Cider Century ................................................................................................................. III–3
DALMAC .................................................................................................................................... III–8
The Bell’s Beer Iceman Cometh Challenge ............................................................................. III–12
Michigander ........................................................................................................................... III–16
Ore to Shore ........................................................................................................................... III–20
Tour de Troit ........................................................................................................................... III–23
Non‐case Study Events ........................................................................................................... III–27
Overall Economic Impact of Michigan Bicycling Events ......................................................... III–28
IV. Touring in Michigan
Overview ................................................................................................................................. IV–1
Self‐Supported Touring ........................................................................................................... IV–3
Touring Companies .................................................................................................................. IV–7
V. Bicycling and Tourism in Michigan
Overview .................................................................................................................................. V–1
Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... V–1
Strategic Plan ............................................................................................................................ V–3
Communities ............................................................................................................................ V–4
Conclusions and Next Steps ..................................................................................................... V–5
Table of Contents
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING ii
Appendices
A. Economic Impact Model Guide ......................................................................................... A–1
B. Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... B–1
C. Literature Review and Bibliography ...................................................................................C–1
D. Survey Instruments and Interview Guides ........................................................................ D–1
E. Michigan Bicycle Events...................................................................................................... E–1
Report Summary Infographic
SECTION I.
Introduction and Executive Summary
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 1
SECTION I. Introduction and Executive Summary
TheMichiganDepartmentofTransportation(MDOT)retainedBBCResearch&Consulting(BBC)andR.NeunerConsultingtostudytheeconomicandcommunitybenefitsofbicyclingforthestateofMichigan.PhaseIofthiseffortdocumentedbenefitsassociatedwithresidentswhobicycleandparticipateinbicyclingevents.Itincludedstudiesoffivecommunitiesthroughoutthestate.Thisreportistheculminationofthesecondphaseofresearchandfocusesontheeconomicandcommunitybenefitsderivedfromout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingeventsandbicycle‐relatedtourism.
Study Objectives
ThestudyobjectivesforPhaseIandPhaseIIoftheprojectinclude:
1. EstimatingthecommunityandeconomicbenefitsofbicyclinginMichigan;
2. Estimatingthecommunityandeconomicbenefitsofbicyclinginfivecasestudycommunitiesthroughoutthestate;
3. Providingin‐depthqualitativeinformationonlinksbetweenbicyclingandtheeconomyaccordingtobusinessowners,governmentofficialsandbicyclingadvocates;
4. EstimatingtheeconomicbenefitstoMichiganfromout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingevents;and
5. EstimatingtheeconomicbenefitstoMichiganfrombicycle‐relatedtourism.
PhaseIoftheprojectaddressesthefirstthreeobjectivesandPhaseIIprovidesresearchonthefourthandfifthobjectives.Inadditiontothisreport,thePhaseIIstudyalsoproducedacustomizabletoolforusebybicycleeventorganizerstomeasuretheeconomicimpactofvisitorspendingassociatedwithbicyclingevents.
Methodology
Themethodologyforthisstudyisbasedonacomprehensiveliteraturereviewofsimilarstudiesthroughouttheworld.BelowisabriefdescriptionofthetypesofactivitiesstudiedinPhaseIIalongwithanoverviewofthemethodologyused:
Bicycle events.ThestudyincludedonlineandinterceptsurveyresponsesfrombicyclingeventparticipantsthroughoutMichiganthatquantifiedvisitorspendingassociatedwithbicyclingevents.Estimatesoftheeconomicimpactoftheseeventswerebasedontheproportionofout‐of‐stateeventparticipants,theirassociatedspending,andthecirculationofthatspendingthroughtheMichiganeconomy.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 2
Self‐supported bicycle touring.Thestudyincludedonlinesurveyswithself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsontripcharacteristicsandspendinghabits.Self‐supportedtouringbicyclistsarebicyclistswhodonotrelyonmotorvehiclestocarrytheirgearandprovisionswhiletravelling.ResponsesweresolicitedfromanemailnewsletterfromtheAdventureCyclingAssociationandflyersavailableatkeylocationsalongtouringroutesinMichigan.
Touring companies.In‐depthinterviewswereconductedwithbicycletouringcompaniesthroughoutMichigan.Theseinterviewscoveredavarietyoftopicsincludingbusinesstrends,clientdemographics,andannualrevenues.
The role of bicycling in Michigan tourism.ThestudyreviewedkeyresearchontourismtrendsinMichiganandtherolebicyclingplaysinattractingvisitors.
AdditionaldetailsonthemethodologyareincludedinSectionII.
Key Results
Out‐of‐stateparticipantsinorganizedbicyclingeventsinMichiganareresponsiblefor$21.9millionineconomicimpactforthestate.Whilespendingassociatedwiththeseeventsissubstantiallyhigher,themajorityofparticipantsinbicyclingeventsarefromMichigan.Afeweventshadsubstantialparticipationfromout‐of‐stateincludingtheAppleCiderCentury,whereover4,000individualstraveledtoMichigantoparticipateintherideandTheBell’sBeerIcemanCommethChallenge,whereparticipantscamefrom36differentstates.WhilemosteventsaredominatedbyMichiganresidents,eventhoseeventscanhaveasubstantialimpactontheirregion.Forexample97percentofparticipantsintheOretoShoreMountainBikeEpic,heldinMarquetteCounty,traveledmorethan50milestoattendtheevent.
Self‐supportedlongdistancetouringbicyclistswhotraveltoMichiganspend,onaverage,$71perdayduringtheirtrip,andatotalof$520pertrip.Thisspendinghasaneconomicimpactof$760whenaccountingforinducedandindirecteffects.Theaveragetriplengthofabicycletourinthestateisapproximatelysixdaysandmorethantwo‐thirdsofallout‐of‐statetouringcyclistsusedoneofMichigan’sU.S.BicycleRoutesduringtheirtrip.1Asmallproportionofout‐of‐statelongdistancetouringbicyclists(around30%)stayinMichiganfortenormoredaysduringtheirtrip.
BicyclingplaysasubstantialroleinMichigantourism.CommunitiesthroughoutMichiganhavemadesubstantialinvestmentsinmulti‐usepaths,railtrailsandotherinfrastructurethatsupportsbicyclingbytouristsandresidentsalike.Thestatehasthemostrail‐trailsintheUnitedStateswithatotalof2,712milesofshared‐usepathwaysopentowalking,joggingandbicycling.MichiganhasalsoidentifiedbicyclingasanimportantamenityforvisitorstothestatethroughresearchandplanningeffortsconductedbythePureMichigancampaignandlocalchambersofcommerce.ThestateiscurrentlyworkingonastatewidebicyclingtrailrunningfromBelleIsleParkinDetroittoIronwoodinthewesternUpperPeninsula.
1MichiganishometothreeU.S.BicycleRoutes.U.S.BicycleRoute10isa193mileroutethatconnectsSt.IgnaceandIronMountaininMichigan'sUpperPeninsula.TherouteutilizesthewidepavedshouldersalongUS‐2.U.S.BicycleRoute20isaneast‐westrouteofjustover300milesandconnectsMarineCityontheeastwithLudingtononthewest.U.S.BicycleRoute35isa500‐mileroutethatrunsfromIndianathroughMichigantoSaultSte.Marie,Canada,generallyfollowingtheLakeMichiganshorelineandthroughtheeasternUpperPeninsula.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 3
Report Structure
Thisreportincludesfivesections,includingthisintroduction,andfiveappendices.SectionIIprovidesanexplanationofthemethodologyusedforthestudy.SectionIIIpresentsoveralleconomicimpactofbicyclingeventsinMichiganalongwithresultsfromsixcasestudyevents.Theresultsfromtheself‐supportedlongdistancetouringbicyclist’ssurveyareprovidedinSectionIValongwithinformationfrominterviewswithtouringcompanies.SectionVpresentsanoverviewofresearchontourisminMichiganandhighlightswaysinwhichbicyclingcontributestothevisitorexperience.
AppendixAprovidesinstructionsforaneconomicimpactmodelforusebyMDOTandbicyclingeventsstatewideinadditiontoagenericsurveyinstrumentdesignedtocollecttherequiredinformationonvisitorspendingandcharacteristics.AppendixBreviewsthedatasourcesusedforthestudy,andAppendixCprovidesabibliographyandliteraturereview.AppendixDprovidesthesurveyinstrumentsandinterviewguidesusedforthestudy.AppendixEcontainsthelistofeventsincludedinthestudy.Thelastpageofthereportcontainsasummaryinfographicofthestudy.
SECTION II.
Methodology
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 1
SECTION II. Methodology
Thissectiondetailsthemethodologyemployedtomeasuretheeconomicimpactofout‐of‐stateparticipantsinbicyclingactivitiesinthestateofMichigan.TheapproachesusedweredevelopedfromathoroughreviewofliteratureoneconomicimpactsrelatedtobicyclinganddiscussionswithMDOTstaff.AppendixCprovidesabibliographyoftheliteraturereviewedasapartofthestudy.
Overview
ThisstudyprovidesMDOTwithinformationonthefollowingcomponentsofbicycletourisminMichigan:
EstimatesoftheeconomicimpactforarepresentativesampleofbicycleeventsandtoursinMichigan;
Anestimateoftheeconomicimpactofself‐supportedbicycliststouringMichigan;
AreviewofrelevantresearchanddataontheroleofbicyclingintheMichigantourismeconomy;and
Aneconomicimpactmodelanddatacollectiontoolforusebyothereventsororganizations.
Event Participants
Aninterceptandonlinesurveywasusedtocollectinformationontripandvisitationcharacteristicsforavarietyofbicyclingeventsthroughoutthestate.ThesurveyinstrumentusedisbasedoninputfromthePhaseIstudyaswellasinstrumentsusedinsimilarstudiesinArizonaandMontana.1Theinstrumentcollectedinformationfromeventparticipantsregarding:
Tripdetailsincludingpurposeanddistancetravelled;
Partysize;
Numberofeventparticipantsintheparty;
Spendingonlodging,transportation,retailgoods,andrecreationrelatedtotheevent;and
Participantdemographicssuchaslocationofresidence,gender,andincome.
Theinstrumentaskedquestionsaboutresidencesuchthatthestudycoulduseaconservativeapproachtomeasuringtheeconomicimpactofbicyclingevents(forexample,byonlyincluding
1AnEconomicImpactStudyofBicyclinginArizonaOut‐of‐StateBicycleTourists&Exports.ArizonaDepartmentofTransportation,andAnalysisofTouringCyclists;Impacts,Needs,andOpportunitiesforMontana.InstituteforTourismandRecreationResearch,UniversityofMontana.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 2
expendituresbyout‐of‐stateparticipants)whilestillcollectingdatarepresentativeofalleventparticipants.
DataonMichiganbicyclingeventswerecollectedfromtheLeagueofMichiganBicyclist’s(LMB)ridecalendarandresearchfromeventwebsitesincluding:
Eventlength(i.e.numberofdays);
Eventtype(race,charityride,tour);
Numberofparticipants;and
Location.
Eventswereplacedinoneofthreestrata:
Eventswithhighattendanceandthepotentialforsubstantialout‐of‐stateparticipation;
Smallereventswithpotentialforout‐of‐stateparticipation;and
Eventswithoutasubstantialdrawforout‐of‐stateparticipation(e.g.localweeklyrides).
Thestudyteamcontactedeventsinthefirststratatogaugetheirinterestinparticipatinginthestudy.WorkingwithMDOTstaff,thestudyteamidentifiedsixcasestudyeventsforindividualeconomicimpactstudies.
Workingwitheventandtourorganizers,thestudyteamsolicitedsurveyresponsesfromparticipantsacrossarepresentativesampleofMichiganbicycle‐relatedevents.
Intercept surveys.Forthesixcasestudyevents,interceptsurveyswerecollectedfromeventparticipantsduringregistration,priortothestartoftheevent,oraftercompletingtheevent.
Online surveys.SurveysfortheremainderoftheeventswereconductedonlineusingSurveyMonkeywithinvitationstoparticipantsdeliveredbyeventorganizers.
Responsesfromthemultiplesurveyeffortswereusedtoestimatethedirecteconomicimpactofthespecificeventsincludedinthesample,aswellastheoverallimpactofbicycle‐relatedeventsandtoursinMichigan.
Economic impact model.InordertocalculatetheoveralleconomicimpactofbicycleeventsinthestateofMichigan,BBCusedIMPLANmultiplierstocalculatethesecondary(inducedandindirect)economicbenefitsofevent‐relatedspending.2
2IMPLANisaneconomicimpactassessmentsystemdevelopedandmaintainedbytheMinnesotaIMPLANGroup(MIG).Itallowstheusertodeveloplocal‐levelinput‐outputmodelsthatcalculatethedirect,indirect,andinducedimpactsofeconomicactivitybysectorthroughtheuseofindustry‐specificmultipliersandotherfactors.TheIMPLANsystemcloselyfollowstheaccountingconventionsusedbytheBureauofEconomicAnalysis.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 3
Self‐Supported Touring Bicyclists
Anonlinesurveywasusedtocollectinformationfromself‐supportedtouringbicyclistswhotraveledthroughthestateinrecentyears.ThesurveywassimilartothesurveyusedinthestudyofMontanatouringbicyclistsconductedbytheUniversityofMontana.3Thesurveyfocusedonthefollowingaspectsoftripsmadebytouringbicyclists:
Lengthoftour;
SpendingwhileinMichigan;
Partysize;
Route;and
UseofU.S.BicycleRoutes.
TheAdventureCyclingAssociationassistedinthedistributionoftheonlinesurveybywritingblogpostsandsendingemailstopotentialself‐supportedtouringbicyclists.Additionally,flyerswereplacedatlocationsfrequentedbyself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichigan,includinglocationsattheMackinacBridgeandontheS.S.Badger.Inadditiontoquestionsaboutperdayexpenditures,thesurveyincludedquestionsabouttheuseofU.S.BicycleRoutes20and35,frequencyofmulti‐daybicycletripsinMichigan,andmainsurfacetypeusedwhileonamulti‐daybicycletripinMichigan.Surveyresponseswerecleanedtoremoveresponsesthatwerenotrelevanttotheeconomicimpactstudy,similartothedatacleaningprocessforthebicycleeventdatacollectionprocess.
Analysisfromtheonlinesurveysprovidedspendingprofilesforbothin‐stateandout‐of‐statetouringbicyclists.Atotalper‐dayeconomicimpactfortouringbicyclistswascalculatedusingIMPLANmultipliers.
Bicycle Touring Companies
AlistofcompaniesthatsupportorconductbicyclingtoursinMichiganwasdevelopedbasedoninformationfromMichigantourismwebsitesandHooversbusinesslistings.4Telephoneinterviewswereattemptedwithrepresentativesfromeachbusinessonthelistcoveringavarietyoftopicsrelatedtobicycletouringincluding:
Typesoftouringoffered;
Proportionofout‐of‐statecustomers;
Trendsinthebicycletouringbusiness;and
Waysthestatecouldsupportbicycletouring.
3Ibid.
4Hooversbusinesslistingsrepresentacomprehensive“phonebook”ofbusinessesacrosstheUnitedStates.Hooversdoesnotrequirebusinessestopayafeetobeincludedinitsbusinesslistings—itiscompletelyfreetolistedbusinesses.Hooversisacceptedasthemostcomprehensivesourceofbusinesslistingsinthenation.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 4
Bicycling and Tourism in Michigan
ManyMichigantouristsaredrawntothestateduetorecreationalopportunitiessuchashikingandbicycling.SecondaryresearchontherelationshipbetweenbicyclingandthebroaderMichigantourismeconomywascollectedfromavarietyofsourcesincluding:
PureMichigan;
LocalChambersofCommerce;and
ResearchconductedbyMichiganStateUniversity’sExtension.
Researchcollectedfromtheseentitieswassummarizedandincludedinthereportinordertodocumenttheimportanceofbicyclingtonon‐bicycle‐specifictourism,andproviderecommendationsaboutfutureresearchorinitiativesrelatedtobicyclingandtourismstatewide.
SECTION III.
Economic Impact of Bicycling Events
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 1
SECTION III. Economic Impact of Bicycling Events
InordertoestimatetheeconomicbenefitstoMichiganfromout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingevents,acomprehensivelistofbicyclingeventswasdevelopedbasedontheLeagueofMichiganBicyclists(LMB)ridecalendar.WithinputfromMDOTstaff,anumberoflargeeventsthroughoutthestatewereidentifiedaspotentialcandidatesforindividualeconomicimpactstudies.Basedonresponsestoinitialoutreachemailsandcalls,sixeventswerechosenforindividualeconomicimpactstudies.Thesestudiesincludedinterceptdatacollectionwitharepresentativesampleofeventparticipantsaswellaskeydatafromeventorganizers.
Inadditiontotheinterceptsurveyeffort,onlinesurveyresponseswerecollectedfromparticipantsfromothereventsthroughoutthestate.Asdetailedinthemethodologydiscussionbelow,informationfromthesesurveysandeventswerecombinedwithinformationfromtheinterceptsurveyefforttodevelopanestimateoftheoveralleconomicimpactonMichiganduetoout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingevents.Thissectionprovidesanoverviewoftheeconomicimpactsurveyprocess,casestudiesoftheeconomicimpactforsixmajoreventsthroughoutMichigan,anoverviewofthedatacollectionfornon‐casestudyevents,andanestimateoftheoveralleconomicimpactofout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingeventsinMichigan.
Total Economic Impact
Inordertocalculatethetotaleconomicimpactofout‐of‐stateparticipants,bicyclingeventswereorganizedintothreecategories:casestudyevents,targetedevents,andallotherevents.Themethodologyusedtomakethesedistinctionsispresentedlaterinthissection.Spendingprofileswerecreatedforeachcasestudyevent,alltargetedeventsconsideredtogether,andallothereventsconsideredtogether.
Intotal,out‐of‐stateparticipantsinorganizedbicyclingeventsspentapproximately$15.6millioninthestateofMichiganin2014.Morethanhalfoftheseexpendituresweremadeinthecategoriesoffoodandbeveragespending(restaurant/barexpendituresaswellasmoneyspentongroceries)andlodgingexpenses.Theeconomicimpactanalysisconductedforthestudyfoundthatout‐of‐stateparticipantsinbicyclingeventsinMichiganwereresponsibleforapproximately$21.9millionineconomicimpactin2014.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 2
Bicycling Event Economic Impact Surveys
BBCandR.NeunerConsultingworkedtogethertodistributeeconomicimpactsurveystobicyclistswhoparticipatedinanyorganizedbicyclingeventwithinthestateofMichiganin2014.Aspartofthesurveyeffort,stafffromR.Neunerconductedinterceptsurveysofbicyclistsatthesixcasestudyeventsidentifiedbythestudyteam.Intotal,approximately2,100surveyswerecompletedbycasestudyeventparticipants.
Inadditiontothein‐personinterceptsurveys,thestudyteamusedtheLMBridecalendartocontactbicycleeventorganizersinthestateofMichigan.EventorganizerswereaskedtosendoutalinktoanonlinesurveyhostedbySurveyMonkeythatexactlymirroredthephysicalsurveydistributedatthesixcasestudyevents.Approximately2,400onlinesurveyswerecompletedthroughSurveyMonkey.
Priortodataanalysis,surveyresponseswerecleanedtoremoveanswersthatwerenotrelevanttotheeconomicimpactstudy.SurveysfromrespondentswhoindicatedthattheyhadnotparticipatedinanorganizedbicyclingeventinthestateofMichiganwithinthepast12monthswerenotincludedinthefinalanalyses.
Additionally,somerespondentsdidnotreportparticipatinginaspecificevent.Forexample,inresponsetothequestionthataskedwhichbicyclingeventhadinvitedtherespondenttotakethesurvey,severalrespondentsindicatedthattheywereinvitedtotakethesurveybytheirlocalbicycleshoporinvitedthroughFacebook.Theseresponseswerealsoremovedfromthefinalanalyses.
Boththeonlineandphysicalsurveyscollecteddemographicandspendinginformationfromeventparticipants.Thesurveyscapturedexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatethetotaleconomicimpactinMichiganfromallout‐of‐stateparticipantsinbicyclingevents.ThesurveyinstrumentusedtocollectthedataonbicyclingeventsisincludedinAppendixD.
Case Study Events
Sixcasestudyeventswerechosenforindividualeconomicimpactstudiesincluding:
TheAppleCiderCentury;
DALMAC;
TheBell’sBeerIcemanComethChallenge;
TheMichigander;
TheOretoShoreMountainBikeEpic;and
TheTourdeTroit.
Theseeventswerechosenfortheirsize,geographicdiversity,andwillingnesstoparticipateinthestudyprocess.FigureIII‐1showsamapoftheroutesforthesixcasestudyevents.
BBC
FiguCas
Sourc
Ap
ThetoutheinS
Theand
C RESEARCH & C
ure III‐1. e Study Event
ce: BBC Research &
pple Cider C
eAppleCiderroftheorchasouthwestcoSeptember.
eACCisarecrdemphasizes
ONSULTING
ts
Consulting.
Century
Century(ACCards,forestsaornerofthes
reationalandthatallpartic
C)isanannuandwinecountate’slowerp
dsocialtourfocipantsridet
alone‐day15ntryinandarpeninsula.Th
orbicyclists.thetourinas
5,25,37,50,6roundThreeherideisheld
Itisnotintensafeandintel
62,75or100Oaks,Michigdeachyearon
ndedtobeacligentmanne
SECTION III, PA
0milebicyclegan,locatedinnthelastSun
competitiverer.
AGE 3
nnday
ide
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 4
Since1974,ithasbecometheMidwest'slargestone‐daycenturyevent(100miles),regularlyreachingover5,000cyclists.TheACCissponsoredbytheThreeOaksSpokesBicycleClub.FundsraisedareusedtofinancetheAppleCiderCenturyTour,theBackroadsBikewayRoutes,theBicycleMuseumhousedattheDeweyCannonTradingCompany,theLeagueofAmericanBicyclists,RailstoTrails,andtohelpfundcommunityyouthprogramsandothernonprofitorganizationfundraisingcauses.
Direct spending associated with all ACC participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,ACCparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallACCattendees.
Figure III‐2. Direct Spending in Michigan by All Event Attendees
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
FigureIII‐2showsthatACCattendeesspentover$1.6millioninthestateofMichiganduringthe2014ACC.
ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromlodgingexpenditures,foodandbeveragespending(restaurant/barexpendituresaswellasmoneyspentongroceries),andtransportationexpenses.
Lodging. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐2showsthatACCparticipantsspentapproximately$470,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.
Food and beverage. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐2,ACCparticipantsspentslightlylessthan$400,000duringtheirtrips.
Transportation. SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromACC,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐2showsthatACCparticipantsspentmorethan$260,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.
Expenditure
Lodging $470,022
Food and beverage 396,496
Transportation 262,414
Shopping and entertainment 229,968
Registration 208,740
Bicycles 86,640
Total Direct Spending $1,654,279
Total Direct
Spending
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 5
Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐2,ACCparticipantsspentapproximately$230,000duringtheirtrips.
Registration expenses.Theregistrationfeeforthe2014ACCwas$35.Thetotalregistrationexpensesforthe2014ACCarecalculatedasthetotalnumberofeventparticipants(approximately6,000in2014)multipliedbytheregistrationfee.FigureIII‐2showsthatACCparticipantsspentnearly$210,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014ACC.
Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐2showsthatACCparticipantsspentmorethan$85,000duringonbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.
Spending by non‐local participants. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallACCparticipants,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstateorfrommorethan50milesawaytoparticipateinthe2014ACC.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIII‐3.
Figure III‐3. Direct Spending in Michigan from Non‐local Participants
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
Eighty‐sevenpercentoftotalACCparticipantscametoMichiganfromoutofstate,while11percentofACCparticipantswerefromMichiganbuttravelledmorethan50milestoparticipateintheevent.Intotal,non‐localparticipantsaccountedforapproximately98percentofattendanceand99percentofthetotaldirectexpendituresrelatedtothe2014ACC.
OftheACCparticipantsthattravelledtoMichiganfromoutofstate,slightlylessthanthree‐fourths(74%),camefromIllinois.Sixteenpercentofout‐of‐stateACCattendeestravelledtoMichiganfromIndiana.FullresultsarepresentedinFigureIII‐4.
Expenditure
Lodging $416,459 $52,682
Food and beverage 343,058 51,207
Transportation 225,419 31,981
Shopping and entertainment 195,867 32,864
Registration 182,070 22,510
Bicycles 71,994 13,967
Total Direct Spending $1,434,867 $205,212
Out‐of‐State
Spending
50+ mile
Spending
BBC
FiguOrigAtte
Note:
“OtheOH, P
Sourc
BBC R
Totrepgentheitheia“s
AspMicresi
Figueve
C RESEARCH & C
ure III‐4. gin of Out‐of‐sendees
:
er” includes AK, CA, FPA, TX, WI, and WY.
ce:
Research & Consultin
tal economiortonlyreprneratedbyeveirmoneypurirearningsonsecondaryimp
previouslydischigan,sothatidentsisexclu
ureIII‐5presntthroughth
ONSULTING
state
FL, IA, KS, MN, NE, NY
ng.
ic impact ofesentsaportentparticipanrchasegoodsanlocalgoodspact.”
scussed,thistitonlycaptuudedfromth
entsthespenhelocalMichi
Y,
f ACC. Theditionofthetotntscirculatesandservicesandservices
impactanalyuresnewspeeoverallecon
ndingflowmoiganeconomy
irectspendintalimpactoftsinthelocalefromotherbu.Thisrecircu
ysisonlyinclundingintheMnomicspendi
odelusedtotyanddeterm
ngdiscusseditheACContheconomy.Bususinesses,anulationofmon
udesspendingMichiganecoingreported
tracetheflowinesthetotal
inthepreviouhestateofMicsinesseswherndworkersspneyintheeco
gbyvisitorsfnomy.Spendinthisstudy.
wofdollarsgeleconomicim
SECTION III, PA
ussectionoftchigan.Spendrevisitorssppendaportioonomyisterm
fromoutsidedingbyMichig.
eneratedbythmpactoftheA
AGE 6
thisdingendnofmed
ofgan
heACC.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 7
Figure III‐5. Spending Flow Model
Source: BBC Research & Consulting.
FigureIII‐6onthefollowingpageshowsthedirectimpacts,secondaryimpact,andtotaleconomicimpactassociatedwiththe2014ACC.Itisimportanttonotethatthisvalueonlyincludeseconomicactivitygeneratedbyout‐of‐stateACCparticipants.Addingthedirectandsecondaryimpacts,theACChasatotaleconomicimpactofmorethan$1.9milliononthestateofMichigan.
Thedirectimpactsasaresultofout‐of‐stateparticipant’sspendingarelessthanthedirectexpendituresofout‐of‐stateparticipants.Certaincategoriesofexpendituresincreasethedirecteffectsassociatedwiththoseexpendituresatalessthanonetooneratio.Forexample,aportionofthedirecttransportationexpensesareestimatedtoaccruetobusinesseslocatedoutsideofthestateofMichiganandarenotincludedinthedirectimpact.Additionally,thedirectimpactsoffoodandbeverageandshoppingandentertainmentexpendituresarelessthanthetotalexpendituresinthosecategories.Thedirectimpactsinthesecategoriesrepresentthemarginalvaluetobusinessownersinthosecategories—thedifferencebetweentheamountthatanitemsellsforatretailpricesandtheamountthattheretailerpaidtopurchaseanitemfromitsoriginalproducer.
Total Impact
Direct Impact
Secondary Impact
Lodging
Registration
Food andBeverage
Shopping and Entertainment
Transportation
Bicycles
2014 ACC
Participant Expenditures
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 8
Figure III‐6. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 ACC
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: BBC Research and Consulting.
DALMAC
Along‐time,well‐knownroadbicyclingtour,DALMACisshorthandfortheDickAllenLansingtoMackinacbicycletour.TheridewasfoundedbystatesenatorDickAllen,who,in1971,soughttocreateaneventtodemonstratethatbicyclesandautomobilescouldsafelyshareMichigan’sscenicroadways.Overthelast45years,DALMAChasgrownfromarideconsistingofadozenorsoofAllen’sfriendstoasubstantialroadtouringoperationthatattractsnearly1,600ridersperyearfromacrosstheUnitedStatesandCanada.
EveryyearoverLaborDayweekend,DALMACsendsridersofffromthecampusofMichiganStateUniversityinEastLansingtocompleteoneofseveralrouteoptions.Therouteoptionsvaryfromfourtofivedaysandofferavarietyofdistancesandterrain.SomeroutesfinishinMackinawCityatthenorthernedgeofMichigan’slowerpeninsula,whilethe5‐DayEastand5‐
SecondaryImpact
Total Impact
Direct Impact
2014 ACC
Participant Expenditures
Lodging$ 416,459
Registration$ 179,631
Food &Beverage$ 275,207
Shopping and Entertainment
$ 86,704
Transportation$ 105,767
Bicycles$ 71,994
$ 809,113 $ 1,944,875
$ 1,135,762 $ 809,113 $ 1,944,875 + =
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 9
UProutescontinueacrosstheMackinacBridge,throughaspecialprogramwiththeMackinacBridgeAuthorityandMDOTescortingcyclistssafelyacross.
Thetraditional5‐DayroutefollowsasimilarpathastheWestroute,withanextradaytoenjoythesights.TheEastrouteclimbstothefamousHoughton/HigginsLakesareaandconcludeswithaspectacularandbreathtakingrideovertheMackinacBridge,or"MightyMac,"beforeendinginStIgnace.The5‐UProutealsoincludesacrossingoftheMackinacBridgebutcontinuesonthroughtheUpperPeninsulatofinishatSaultSte.Marie.
Eachnightonthetour,DALMACparticipantscampatcommunitysites(suchasschools)andeatmealsatschoolcafeterias.TheseovernightsareoftenfundraisingeventsfortheschoolsandotherfacilitiesthathostDALMACriders.Someridersalsotakeadvantageofprivatesupportandgear(SAG)andcampingservices.
ProceedsfromtheDALMAChelpsupporttheDALMACFund,whichgrantsmoniestoapplicantsforbicyclingsafety,bicyclingadvocacy,andsomeinfrastructureprojectseachyear.TheFundhasawardedover$1.2millioningrantstobiking‐relatedcausesoverthepast30years.1
Direct spending associated with all DALMAC participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,DALMACparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallDALMACparticipants.
Figure III‐7. Direct Spending in Michigan by All Event Attendees
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
FigureIII‐7showsthatDALMACparticipantsspentover$1.1millioninthestateofMichiganduringthe2014DALMAC.
ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromregistrationfeespaiddirectlytotheevent,foodandbeveragespending,andlodgingexpenses.
1http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/travel/michigan/2014/08/27/dalmac‐draws‐riders‐th‐year/14686651/
Expenditure
Registration $386,169
Food and beverage 251,142
Lodging 195,037
Transportation 130,202
Bicycles 116,237
Shopping and entertainment 97,886
Total Direct Spending $1,176,673
Total Direct
Spending
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 10
Registration expenses. DALMACparticipantswereaskedwhichridetheyparticipatedin—5‐Day(traditional),5‐DayUP,5‐DayEast,or4‐DayWest.Thefive‐dayeventshavehigherregistrationcoststhanthefour‐dayevent.BBCcalculatedaweightedaverageofregistrationfeesbasedonwhicheventsurveyrespondentsindicatedparticipatingin.
FigureIII‐7showsthat,intotal,approximately1,700DALMACattendeesspentover$385,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014DALMAC.
Food and beverage. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐7,DALMACattendeesspentapproximately$250,000duringtheirtrips.
Lodging. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐7showsthatDALMACattendeesspentapproximately$195,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.
Transportation. SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromDALMAC,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐7showsthatDALMACattendeesspentnearly$130,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.
Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐7showsthatDALMACattendeesspentmorethan$115,000duringonbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.
Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐7,DALMACattendeesspentapproximately$95,000duringtheirtrips.
Spending by non‐local attendees. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallDALMACattendees,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstateorfrommorethan50milesawaytoparticipateinthe2014DALMAC.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedinFigureIII‐8.
Figure III‐8. Direct Spending in Michigan from Non‐local Attendees
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
Expenditure
Registration $56,202 $125,209
Food and beverage 50,081 78,278
Lodging 25,828 73,735
Transportation 29,751 33,405
Bicycles 15,232 35,197
Shopping and entertainment 25,149 25,345
Total Direct Spending $202,243 $371,170
Out‐of‐State
Spending
50+ mile
Spending
BBC
Fiftattetotaofth
Oftthirperresu
FiguOrigAtte
Note:
“OtheNY, PA
Sourc
BBC R
Tottotacirc
Thisot
Formanspe
FiguwithgenDAL
C RESEARCH & C
teenpercentoendeeswerefal,non‐localahetotaldirec
theDALMACprds(64%)camcentofout‐ofultsareprese
ure III‐9. gin of Out‐of‐sendees
:
er” includes CA, FL, MA, TX, VA, and WA.
ce:
Research & Consultin
tal economialimpactofthculatesinthe
simpactanalthatitonlyca
rsomeexpendnufacturingondingtothed
ureIII‐10shohthe2014DAneratedbyoutLMAChasato
ONSULTING
oftotalattendfromMichigaattendeesaccctexpenditure
participantstmefromthenf‐stateDALMentedinFigur
state
MA, MN, MO, NC, NJ,
ng.
ic impact ofheDALMACoeconomy,cre
lysisonlyinclapturesspend
diturecategoorprocessingdirecteconom
owsthedirectALMAC.Itisit‐of‐stateDAotaleconomic
deescametoanbuttravelleountedforapesrelatedtot
thattravellednearbystatesACattendeesreIII‐9.
,
f DALMAC. Tonthestateofeatinga“seco
ludesspendindingintheMi
ries,asubstathatoccursomicimpactfo
timpacts,secimportanttoLMACattendcimpactofap
Michiganfroedmorethanpproximatelythe2014DAL
dtoMichiganofIllinois,Instravelledto
ThedirectspfMichigan.Spondaryimpac
ngbyDALMAchiganecono
antialportionoutsideofMicrthesecateg
condaryimpanotethatthisees.Addingtpproximately
moutofstaten50milestopy47percentoLMAC.
fromoutofsndiana,Ohio,aMichiganfro
pendingreprependinggenect.”
ACparticipantomythatoccu
noftheretailchigan.Asargoriesislesst
act,andtotalsvalueonlyithedirectandy$290,000on
S
e,whileone‐tparticipateinofattendance
state,slightlyandWisconsimstatesfarth
esentsonecomeratedbyeve
tsfromoutsidursduetothe
priceisassocesult,theratithanone.
economicimncludesecondsecondaryimnthestateof
SECTION III, PAG
thirdofDALMntheevent.Ineand49perce
lessthantwoin.Thirty‐sixheraway.Th
mponentoftntparticipan
deofMichigaeevent.
ciatedwithioofdirect
pactassociatnomicactivitympacts,theMichigan.
GE 11
MACnent
o‐
ese
thents
an,
tedy
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 12
Figure III‐10. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 DALMAC
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: BBC Research and Consulting.
The Bell’s Beer Iceman Cometh Challenge
ThefirstIcemanComethwasheldin1990andwaslessofaracethananadventureandanexperiment—onetoseeifmountainbikescouldmakethejourneyfromKalkaskatoTraverseCity.Theinitialridewasasuccessandthe$5entryfeeincludedapost‐racebarbecueatJellystoneParkinTraverseCity.
Today,theBell’sBeerIcemanComethisapoint‐to‐pointmountainbikerace,traditionallyheldonthefirstSaturdayofNovember.TheracestartsindowntownKalkaskaandtravelsthroughthePereMarquetteStateForest,finishingapproximately29milesawayatarecreationresortontheeasternedgeofTraverseCity.Onthewayridersrolloverpavedroads,dirtroads,twotracks,abandonedrailroadbeds,andpartsoftheVasaNordicskitrail.
SecondaryImpact
Total Impact
Direct Impact
2014 DALMAC
Participant Expenditures
Registration$ 56,202
Lodging$ 25,828
Food &Beverage$ 42,200
Bicycle$ 15,232
Shopping and Entertainment
$ 15,357
Transportation$ 13,959
$ 123,811 $ 292,588
$ 168,778 $ 123,811 $ 292,588 + =
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 13
Inadditiontothe29‐milerace,theMeijerSlushCupoffersyoungerridersaneight‐mileloopversionoftheeventthatstartsatTimberRidgeandfollowstheVasa10Kskitrail.BothraceshavesoldoutwithinhourswhenregistrationopenseachMarch.
Inits25thyear,theIcemanattractedapproximately5,500registrantsfromacrosstheUnitedStatesandfromasfarawayasAustralia.Accordingtoraceorganizers,about30riderswereprofessionalracers.2
Bothprofessionalandamateurcategoriesareeligibleforcashprizeswithaminimumcashpurseofmorethan$50,000.3In2014,MichiganYouthCyclingawardedthreescholarshipstothetopthreefinishersintheMYC12‐18categoriesforbothmaleandfemalebicyclists.
Direct spending associated with all Iceman participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,Icemanparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallIcemanattendees.
Figure III‐11. Direct Spending in Michigan by All Event Attendees
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
FigureIII‐11showsthatIcemanattendeesspentapproximately$2.3millioninthestateofMichiganduringthe2014IcemanCometh.
ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromlodgingexpenses,foodandbeveragespending,andregistrationfeespaiddirectlytotheevent.
Lodging.Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐11showsthatIcemanattendeesspentapproximately$620,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.
2http://www.ahealthiermichigan.org/2014/11/06/gear‐up‐for‐the‐iceman‐cometh‐challenge/
3http://www.iceman.com/pages/awards
Expenditure
Lodging $622,904
Food and beverage 548,224
Registration 366,750
Transportation 346,179
Shopping and entertainment 285,061
Bicycles 185,865
Total Direct Spending $2,354,983
Total Direct
Spending
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 14
Food and beverage.Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐11,Icemanattendeesspentslightlylessthan$550,000duringtheirtrips.
Registration expenses.Theregistrationfeeforthe2014Icemanwas$75.Thetotalregistrationexpensesforthe2014Icemanarecalculatedasthetotalnumberofeventparticipants(approximately4,900in2014)multipliedbytheregistrationfee.FigureIII‐11showsthatIcemanparticipantsspentmorethan$365,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014IcemanCometh.
Transportation. SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromIceman,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐11showsthatIcemanattendeesspentnearly$350,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.
Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐11,Icemanattendeesspentmorethan$285,000duringtheirtrips.
Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐11showsthatIcemanattendeesspentmorethan$185,000onbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.
Spending by non‐local attendees. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallIcemanattendees,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstate,orfrommorethan50milestoparticipateinthe2014Iceman.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIII‐12.
Figure III‐12. Direct Spending in Michigan from Non‐local Attendees
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
Thirty‐sixpercentoftotalattendeescametoMichiganfromoutofstate,whilemorethanhalf(52%)ofIcemanattendeeswerefromMichiganbuttravelledmorethan50milestoparticipateintheevent.Intotal,non‐localattendeesaccountedforapproximately88percentofattendanceand91percentofthetotaldirectexpendituresrelatedtothe2014IcemanCometh.
Icemaneventorganizerswereabletoprovidearegistrationlogthatincludedinformationonrider’sstatesoforigin.UsingthislistthestudyteamcalculatedthatoftheIcemanparticipants
Expenditure
Lodging $272,597 $319,828
Food and beverage 203,240 300,959
Registration 131,925 190,344
Transportation 171,640 137,775
Shopping and entertainment 102,554 154,741
Bicycles 57,138 105,129
Total Direct Spending $939,094 $1,208,775
Out‐of‐State
Spending
50+ mile
Spending
BBC
thatIndMic
FiguOrigAtte
Note:
“Otheand A
Sourc
BBC R
Totecoesti
AspMicrep
Formanspe
FiguwithgenIcem
C RESEARCH & C
ttravelledtoiana,Ohio,anchiganfromst
ure III‐13. gin of Out‐of‐sendees
:
er” includes 32 statesAustralia.
ce:
Research & Consultin
tal econominomycreatesimateofthet
previouslydischigan.Spendortedinthis
rsomeparticinufacturingondingtothed
ureIII‐14shohthe2014Icneratedbyoutmanhasatot
ONSULTING
MichiganfrondWisconsintatesfarther
state
s as well as Canada
ng.
ic impact ofsa“secondarotaleconomi
scussed,thisdingbyMichigstudy.
ipantexpendiorprocessingdirecteconom
owsthedirectceman.Itisimt‐of‐stateIcemtaleconomici
omoutofstat.Twenty‐fiveaway.These
f Iceman Coryimpact.”Adcimpactont
impactanalyganresidents
itures,asubsthatoccursomicimpactfo
timpacts,secmportanttonmanattendeeimpactofapp
e,three‐fourtepercentoforesultsarepr
ometh. Recirddingthedirethestate.
ysisonlyinclusisexcludedf
tantialportiooutsideofMicrthesecateg
condaryimpaotethatthisves.Addingtheproximately$
thscamefromut‐of‐stateIcresentedinF
rculationofdectandsecon
udesspendingfromtheover
onoftheretachigan.Asargoriesislesst
act,andtotalvalueonlyincedirectands$1.3milliono
S
mthenearbycemanattendeFigureIII‐13.
irectspendinndaryimpacts
gbyvisitorsfralleconomic
ilpriceisassesult,theratithanone.
economicimcludeseconomsecondaryimonthestateof
SECTION III, PAG
statesofIllineestravelled
nginthesprovidesan
fromoutsidecspending
ociatedwithioofdirect
pactassociatmicactivity
mpacts,thefMichigan.
GE 15
nois,to
of
ted
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 16
Figure III‐14. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 Iceman
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: BBC Research and Consulting.
Michigander
TheMichiganderBicycleTourstartedin1992asacollaborativeeffortbetweentheMichiganRailstoTrailsConservancy(RTC)andtheDetroitFreePress.Atthetime,theconceptofconvertingabandonedrailroadbedsintorecreational“railtrails”wasanewidea,stillawaitingwidespreadpublicsupport.
TodaytheMichiganderisapopularroadbikingtourthatshowcasesMichigan’snationalleadershiponrails‐to‐trails.Therearetworouteoptions:atwo‐daytour—agreatchoiceforfamiliesandfirst‐timeriderswhowanttoexperiencewhatbicycletouringentails;andasixdaytour,whichoffersridersthechancetoextendtheirfunandchallengetheirfitnessoveraweekofriding.
TheMichiganderwasnamedoneofthe“Top10Multi‐DayRidesinAmerica”byBicyclingMagazine.TheridecombinesbeautifulviewsalongtheGreatLakesonpavedandcrushed
SecondaryImpact
Total Impact
Direct Impact
2014 Iceman
Participant Expenditures
Lodging$ 272,597
Registration$ 130,158
Food &Beverage$ 168,852
Bicycle$ 57,138
Transportation$ 80,534
Shopping and Entertainment
$ 38,359
$ 532,341 $ 1,279,978
$ 747,637 $ 532,341 $ 1,279,978 + =
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 17
limestonesurfacetrailswithampleoptionsforactivitiesandentertainmentinsmalltownsalongtheway.
AllproceedsfromthetourbenefitthenonprofitMichiganTrailstoGreenwaysAllianceandtheireffortstoconnectMichiganthroughastatewidesystemoftrails.
Direct spending associated with all Michigander participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,Michiganderparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallMichiganderattendees.
Figure III‐15. Direct Spending in Michigan by All Event Attendees
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
FigureIII‐15showsthatMichiganderattendeesspentapproximately$480,000inthestateofMichiganduringthe2014Michigander.
ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromregistrationfeespaiddirectlytotheeventandfoodandbeveragespending.
Registration expenses. Michiganderparticipants(643in2014)wereaskedwhichridetheyparticipatedin—the2‐Day,6‐Day,or7‐Dayride. Thesix‐andseven‐dayeventshavehigherregistrationcoststhanthetwo‐dayevent.BBCcalculatedaweightedaverageofregistrationfeesbasedonwhicheventsurveyrespondentsindicatedparticipatingin.
FigureIII‐15showsthat,intotal,Michiganderattendeesspentover$175,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014Michigander.
Food and beverage.Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐15,Michiganderattendeesspentslightlylessthan$115,000duringtheirtrips.
Lodging.Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐15showsthatMichiganderattendeesspentapproximately$65,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.
Expenditure
Registration $175,450
Food and beverage 113,319
Lodging 62,990
Shopping and entertainment 52,877
Transportation 40,783
Bicycles 31,653
Total Direct Spending $477,071
Total Direct
Spending
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 18
Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐15,Michiganderattendeesspentmorethan$50,000duringtheirtrips.
Transportation. SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromtheMichigander,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐15showsthatMichiganderattendeesspentslightlymorethan$40,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.
Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐15showsthatMichiganderattendeesspentmorethan$30,000onbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.
Spending by non‐local attendees. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallMichiganderattendees,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstate,orfrommorethan50milestoparticipateinthe2014Michigander.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIII‐16.
Figure III‐16. Direct Spending in Michigan from Non‐local Attendees
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
SixteenpercentoftotalattendeescametoMichiganfromoutofstate,whilethree‐quartersofMichiganderattendeeswerefromMichiganbuttravelledmorethan50milestoparticipateintheevent.Intotal,non‐localattendeesaccountedforapproximately92percentofattendanceand92percentofthetotaldirectexpendituresrelatedtothe2014Michigander.
Michigandereventorganizersprovidedthestudyteamwiththenumberofout‐of‐stateparticipants,butdidnotprovideafullregistrationlog.Thestudyteamattemptedtodeterminethestatesoforiginoftheout‐of‐stateattendeesusingsurveyresponses,butdidnotreceivealargeenoughsampleofresponsestoestimatewithconfidencethestatesoforiginforout‐of‐stateattendees.Ofthesurveysthatwerecompletedbyout‐of‐stateattendees,respondentscametoMichiganfrom16differentstates.
Total economic impact of Michigander. DirectspendingbyMichiganderparticipantscirculatesthroughthestateeconomyandcreatesa“secondaryimpact.”Thetotaleconomicimpactiscalculatedbyaddingthedirectandsecondaryimpact.
Expenditure
Registration $35,043 $125,688
Food and beverage 35,151 68,350
Lodging 17,294 42,306
Shopping and Entertainment 16,809 32,776
Transportation 15,300 21,096
Bicycles 6,324 23,391
Total Direct Spending $125,920 $313,607
Out‐of‐State
Spending
50+ mile
Spending
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 19
Aspreviouslydiscussed,thisimpactanalysisonlyincludesspendingbyvisitorsfromoutsideofMichigan,sothatitonlycapturesnewspendingintheMichiganeconomy.SpendingbyMichiganresidentsisexcludedfromtheoveralleconomicspendingreportedinthisstudy.
Forsomeparticipantexpenditures,asubstantialportionoftheretailpriceisassociatedwithmanufacturingorprocessingthatoccursoutsideofMichigan.Asaresult,theratioofdirectspendingtothedirecteconomicimpactforthesecategoriesislessthanone(e.g.thismightrepresenttheretailmargin).
FigureIII‐17showsthedirectimpacts,secondaryimpact,andtotaleconomicimpactassociatedwiththe2014Michigander.Itisimportanttonotethatthisvalueonlyincludeseconomicactivitygeneratedbyout‐of‐stateMichiganderattendees.Addingthedirectandsecondaryimpacts,theMichiganderhasatotaleconomicimpactofapproximately$176,000onthestateofMichigan.
Figure III‐17. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 Michigander
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: BBC Research and Consulting.
SecondaryImpact
Total Impact
Direct Impact
2014 Michigander
Participant Expenditures
Registration$ 34,573
Lodging$ 17,294
Food &Beverage$ 29,079
Bicycle$ 6,324
Shopping and Entertainment
$ 6,928
Transportation$ 7,179
$ 74,401 $ 175,777
$ 101,375 $ 74,401 $ 175,777 + =
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 20
Ore to Shore
TheOretoShoreMountainBikeRaceisthelargestmassstartpoint‐to‐pointmountainbikeraceinthestateofMichigan,heldinMarquetteCountyinMichigan’sUpperPeninsula.TheOretoShorehasgrownoverthelast16years,from480racersin1999toover2,500racersin2014.
TheraceattractsridersfromacrosstheGreatLakesregiontothechallengeofcompletinga28‐mileor48‐milecourse.Giventhepoint‐to‐pointnatureoftheevent,thestartlineisthetownofNeguanee,thesiteofthefirstdiscoveryofironoreintheSuperiorregionoftheUnitedStates.RacerstravelalongacoursethattakesthemthroughIshpeming,pastlong‐agoabandonedsitesofundergroundoremining,throughwoodedwilderness,andfinallyintotheCityofMarquetteneartheshoresofLakeSuperior.
Thereisalsoa10‐mileShoreRockrouteforentry‐levelracersandkidswantingtoparticipate.TheShoreRockcourseisacirclethatstartsandendsinMarquette.
RaceorganizersattributethesuccessoftheOretoShoretoacombinationoffactors,includingtheterraininMarquetteCounty,locatedonthesouthernshoresofLakeSuperior.WiththeLakeasabackdrop,racersenjoymagnificentviewsalongacoursethatbeginsagradualdescentatabout20milesoutfromthefinishline.
Raceorganizershavepairedtheeventpacketpickupwithalargeexpoeventfeaturingdozensofvendors.PrizemoneyisawardedtotopfinishersinboththeHardRockandSoftRockracecategories.
Direct spending associated with all Ore to Shore participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,OretoShoreparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallOretoShoreattendees.
Figure III‐18. Direct Spending in Michigan by All Event Attendees
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
FigureIII‐18showsthatOretoShoreattendeesspentmorethanonemilliondollarsinthestateofMichiganduringthe2014OretoShore.
Expenditure
Food and beverage $317,282
Lodging 312,584
Transportation 140,191
Shopping and Entertainment 124,076
Registration 97,500
Bicycles 41,719
Total Direct Spending $1,033,352
Total Direct
Spending
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 21
ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromfoodandbeveragespendingandlodgingexpenditures.
Food and beverage.Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐18,OretoShoreattendeesspentmorethan$315,000duringtheirtrips.
Lodging.Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐18showsthatOretoShoreattendeesspentmorethan$310,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.
Transportation.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromOretoShore,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐18showsthatOretoShoreattendeesspentslightlymorethan$140,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.
Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐18,OretoShoreattendeesspentapproximately$125,000duringtheirtrips.
Registration expenses. Totalregistrationexpensesforthe2014OretoShorearecalculatedasthetotalnumberofeventparticipants(approximately1300in2014)multipliedbytheregistrationfee.FigureIII‐18showsthatOretoShoreparticipantsspentapproximately$100,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014OretoShore.
Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐18showsthatOretoShoreattendeesspentmorethan$40,000onbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.
Spending by non‐local attendees. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallOretoShoreattendees,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstate,orfrommorethan50milestoparticipateinthe2014OretoShore.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIII‐19.
Figure III‐19. Direct Spending in Michigan from Non‐local Attendees
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
Expenditure
Food and beverage $253,567 $60,460
Lodging 254,506 54,190
Transportation 105,136 30,064
Shopping and Entertainment 101,263 20,948
Registration 68,250 25,920
Bicycles 30,248 10,521
Total Direct Spending $812,971 $202,103
Out‐of‐State
Spending
50+ mile
Spending
BBC
Sevquaparatte
Oftfrom
FiguOrigAtte
Note:
“OtheMT, N
Sourc
BBC R
TotecoMic
AspMicresi
Formanspe
FiguwithgenOre
C RESEARCH & C
ventypercentarter(27%)oticipateintheendanceand9
theOretoShomWisconsin.
ure III‐20. gin of Out‐of‐sendees
:
er” includes CA, CO, FNH, OH, OR, and SD.
ce:
Research & Consultin
tal econominomycreateschiganeconom
previouslydischigan,sothatidentsisexclu
rsomeexpendnufacturingondingtothed
ureIII‐21shohthe2014OrneratedbyoutetoShorehas
ONSULTING
oftotalattenofOretoShoreevent.Intot98percentof
oreparticipanFullresultsa
state
FL, HI, IA, IN, KS, KY,
ng.
ic impact ofsa“secondarmyisthesum
scussed,thistitonlycaptuudedfromth
diturecategoorprocessingdirecteconom
owsthedirectretoShore.Itt‐of‐stateOresatotalecono
ndeescametoeattendeeswtal,non‐localfthetotaldire
ntsthattravearepresented
f Ore to Shoryimpact.”Thmofthedirect
impactanalyuresnewspeeoverallecon
ries,asubstathatoccursomicimpactfo
timpacts,sectisimportantetoShoreatteomicimpacto
oMichiganfrowerefromMiattendeesacectexpenditu
elledtoMichigdinFigureIII
ore. Thecircuhetotaleconotandseconda
ysisonlyinclundingintheMnomicspendi
antialportionoutsideofMicrthesecateg
condaryimpattonotethatendees.Addinofapproxima
omoutofstachiganbuttrccountedforauresrelatedt
ganfromoutI‐20.
ulationofdireomicimpactoaryimpactsa
udesspendingMichiganecoingreported
noftheretailchigan.Asargoriesislesst
act,andtotaltthisvalueonngthedirectately$1.1mill
S
te,whilemoravelledmoreapproximatelothe2014O
ofstate,mor
ectspendingofOretoShorassociatedwit
gbyvisitorsfnomy.Spendinthisstudy.
priceisassocesult,theratithanone.
economicimnlyincludeseandsecondaliononthest
SECTION III, PAG
rethanone‐ethan50milely97percentretoShore.
rethanhalfca
intheMichigreontheththeevent.
fromoutsidedingbyMichig.
ciatedwithioofdirect
pactassociateconomicactiryimpacts,thateofMichig
GE 22
estotof
ame
gan
ofgan
tedvityhean.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 23
Figure III‐21. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 Ore to Shore
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: BBC Research and Consulting.
Tour de Troit
TheTourdeTroit(TdT)isaone‐dayurbanbicycleridethatexploressomeoftheDetroit’smosthistoricareas,takesinmanyofitsmostbreathtakingsights,andprovidesbicyclistsauniqueopportunitytoenjoythestreetsoftheMotorCitywiththousandsofbicyclists.
Asthecity’slargestcyclingevent,TdTraisesawarenessofbikingasamodeoftransportationandpublicizesthegrowinggreenwaysnetworkintheCityofDetroitandSoutheastMichigan.Initsfirstyearin2001,theTdTwassupportedwithabiketrailerequippedwithacooler,pumpandsometools,whileT‐shirtsaleshelpedoffsettheexpenseofprintmaterialsandotherexpenses.Theridedrew50people.In2014,theTdThasgrowntobethelargestbicyclingeventinthestateofMichigan,drawingover7,500riders.ThisexponentialgrowthisanexampleofthegrowthofurbanbicyclinginMichiganandarenewedinterestintheCityofDetroit.Since2005,
SecondaryImpact
Total Impact
Direct Impact
2014 Ore to Shore
Participant Expenditures
Lodging$ 254,506
Registration$ 67,336
Food &Beverage$ 199,735
Transportation$ 49,330
Shopping and Entertainment
$ 59,760
Bicycle$ 30,248
$ 469,364 $ 1,130,280
$ 660,915 $ 469,364 $ 1,130,280 + =
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 24
theTourdeTroitridehasraisedover$180,000forthegreenwaysnetworkandnon‐motorizedtransportationprojectsinDetroit.4
TdThastworouteoptions.Thefirst—andprimary—isaleisurelyrideof30mileswithpoliceescortonaclosedroutewithsweeper‐andSAGsupport.Forexperiencedcyclists,theTourdeTroitoffersametriccentury(62miles)optionthatdoesnotincludepoliceescort.Rideorganizersreportthattheyspendover$100,000tosupporttheride’spolicepresence.
Direct spending associated with all TdT participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,TdTparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallTdTattendees.
Figure III‐22. Direct Spending in Michigan by All Event Attendees
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
FigureIII‐22showsthatTdTattendeesspentapproximately$880,000inthestateofMichiganduringthe2014TdT.
ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromregistrationfeespaiddirectlytotheevent,transportationexpenditures,andfoodandbeveragespending.
Registration expenses. Totalregistrationexpensesforthe2014TdTarecalculatedasthetotalnumberofeventparticipants(approximately7,500in2014)multipliedbytheregistrationfee.FigureIII‐22showsthatTdTparticipantsspentnearly$225,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014TdT.
Transportation.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromTdT,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐22showsthatTdTattendeesspentslightlymorethan$200,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.
4http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/08/13th_annual_tour_de_troit_bike.html
Expenditure
Registration $224,945
Transportation 200,072
Food and beverage 192,155
Lodging 128,051
Shopping and entertainment 71,850
Bicycles 59,045
Total Direct Spending $876,117
Total Direct
Spending
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 25
Food and beverage.Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐22,TdTattendeesspentmorethan$190,000duringtheirtrips.
Lodging.Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐22showsthatTdTattendeesspentmorethan$125,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.
Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐22,TdTattendeesspentmorethan$70,000duringtheirtrips.
Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐22showsthatTdTattendeesspentapproximately$60,000onbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.
Spending by non‐local attendees. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallTdTattendees,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstate,orfrommorethan50milestoparticipateinthe2014TdT.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIII‐23.
Figure III‐23. Direct Spending in Michigan from Non‐local Attendees
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
TenpercentoftotalattendeescametoMichiganfromoutofstate,whileone‐quarterofTdTattendeeswerefromMichiganbuttravelledmorethan50milestoparticipateintheevent.Intotal,non‐localattendeesaccountedforapproximately35percentofattendanceand55percentofthetotaldirectexpendituresrelatedtothe2014TdT.
OftheTdTparticipantsthattravelledtoMichiganfromoutofstate,almosthalfcamefromCanada.FullresultsarepresentedinFigureIII‐24.
Expenditure
Registration $21,875 $55,638
Transportation 52,781 67,956
Food and beverage 55,561 58,309
Lodging 62,053 43,121
Shopping and entertainment 16,944 25,041
Bicycles 6,765 13,589
Total Direct Spending $215,979 $263,653
Out‐of‐State
Spending
50+ mile
Spending
BBC
FiguOrigAtte
Note:
“OtheND, th
Sourc
BBC R
Totinthimp
AspMicresi
Formanspe
Figuwithgentota
C RESEARCH & C
ure III‐24. gin of Out‐of‐sendees
:
er” includes CA, CT, Dhe Netherlands, PA,
ce:
Research & Consultin
tal economihelocaleconpactrepresen
previouslydischigan,sothatidentsisexclu
rsomeparticinufacturingondingtothed
ureIII‐25shohthe2014Tdneratedbyoutaleconomicim
ONSULTING
state
DC, IL, IN, KY, MN, MTN, VA, WA, and WI.
ng.
ic impact ofomyandcreantsthetotalec
scussed,thistitonlycaptuudedfromth
ipantexpendiorprocessingdirecteconom
owsthedirectdT.Itisimpot‐of‐stateTdTmpactofappr
O, .
f TdT. Spendatesa“secondconomicimpa
impactanalyuresnewspeeoverallecon
itures,asubsthatoccursomicimpactfo
timpacts,secrtanttonoteTattendees.Aroximately$3
inggenerateddaryimpact.”actofTourde
ysisonlyinclundingintheMnomicspendi
tantialportiooutsideofMicrthesecateg
condaryimpathatthisvaluAddingthedi300,000onth
dbyTourde”ThesumofteTroitonthe
udesspendingMichiganecoingreported
onoftheretachigan.Asargoriesislesst
act,andtotalueonlyincludirectandsecohestateofMi
S
TroitparticipthedirectandeMichiganec
gbyvisitorsfnomy.Spendinthisstudy.
ilpriceisassesult,theratithanone.
economicimdeseconomicondaryimpacichigan.
SECTION III, PAG
pantscirculatdsecondaryconomy.
fromoutsidedingbyMichig.
ociatedwithioofdirect
pactassociatcactivitycts,theTdTh
GE 26
tes
ofgan
ted
asa
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 27
Figure III‐25. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 TdT
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: BBC Research and Consulting.
Non‐case Study Events
Inadditiontothesixcasestudyevents,theteamgroupedeventsintothecategoriesof“targetedevents”and“allotherevents.”AlistoftheeventsincludedinthesecategoriesisincludedinAppendixE.
Targeted events. Thetargetedeventscategoryincludesbicycleeventsthatarelargeinsize(e.g.,greaterthan500attendants),orarelikelytohaveasubstantialout‐of‐stateattendance(e.g.,partofanationaltour,locatedclosetoastateborder,etc.),butdonothavethesamenationalrecognitionasthecasestudyevents.Intotal,thestudyteamdeterminedthat32eventsinthestateofMichiganfellintothiscategory,withtotalattendanceofapproximately40,000participants.
Over550surveyswerecompletedbybicycleeventparticipantsthattookpartinatargetedeventinMichiganin2014.BBCconstructedanevent‐relatedspendingmodeltocalculatetheaverage
SecondaryImpact
Total Impact
Direct Impact
2014 Tour de Troit
Participant Expenditures
Lodging$ 62,053
Transportation$ 24,765
Food &Beverage$ 50,821
Shopping and Entertainment
$ 7,166
Registration$ 21,582
Bicycle$ 6,765
$ 125,034 $ 298,185
$ 173,151 $ 125,034 $ 298,185 + =
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 28
dollaramountspentbyeventparticipants.Averagesfromthesesurveyswereusedtocreateaspendingprofileforatypicalparticipanttothistypeofevent.
All other events. Therewereanumberofeventsidentifiedthatwerenotlargeenough,basedonattendanceornationaldraw,towarrantclassificationinthetargetedeventscategory.Althoughtheseeventsundoubtedlydrawout‐of‐stateparticipants,theirestimatedout‐of‐stateparticipationratewasnotassubstantialasaneventinthetargetedeventscategory(e.g.,5%out‐of‐stateattendanceforaneventinthiscategory,comparedto20%out‐of‐stateattendanceinthetargetedeventscategory).
Intotal,BBCcategorizedslightlymorethan100bicycleeventsintothiscategory.5Obtainingattendancedataforeventsinthiscategorywasmoredifficultthanforeventswithalargerpresenceinthebicyclingcommunity.Duetotheirsmallersize,manyoftheeventsdidnothaveindividualwebsitesorpublicly‐availableregistrationnumbers.Inordertoestimatethetotalnumberofbicyclistsparticipatingintheseevents,thestudyteamattemptedtodeterminethetotalnumberofeventparticipantsforasmanyeventsaspossiblebasedonpublicallyavailableinformation.Foreventswherereliableparticipationnumberscouldnotbedetermined,BBCusedthemedianattendancenumbersforeventsinthiscategoryforwhichreliableattendancedatawereavailable.BBCestimatesthatapproximately35,000bicyclistsparticipateineventsinthiscategoryinMichiganeveryyear.
Overall Economic Impact of Michigan Bicycling Events
InordertocalculatethetotalamountofdirectexpendituresrelatedtobicycleeventsinthestateofMichiganin2014,BBCsummedbicycleevent‐relatedexpendituresforout‐of‐statevisitorsparticipatinginthesixcasestudyevents,targetedevents,andallotherevents.
BBCinitiallyanalyzedthesurveyresponsesandfoundthattheout‐of‐stateparticipationratereportedviatheonlinesurveywasmuchlowerthananticipated.Inordertocheckthattheonlinesurveyswerebeingcompletedbyarepresentativeproportionofout‐of‐stateattendants,BBCanalyzedtheout‐of‐stateparticipationrateforthecasestudyevents.BBCcomparedtheactualout‐of‐stateproportionofcasestudyeventparticipants(calculatedusingeventregistrationlogs)totheproportionofcasestudyeventparticipantsrespondingtotheonlinesurveywhoindicatedtravellingtoMichiganfromadifferentstate.
Thisanalysisshowedthattheonlinesurveyunderrepresentedthetrueproportionofout‐of‐stateeventparticipantsatthesixcasestudyevents.Forthisreason,theproportionofout‐of‐stateparticipantsatcasestudyeventswascalculatedusingregistrationlogs,andnotfromthesurveyresponses.Forthetargetedeventsandallotherevents,BBCinflatedtheout‐of‐stateproportioncalculatedfromonlinesurveyresponsestobetterreflectthetrueout‐of‐stateparticipationrate.BBCwasthenabletoestimatethetotalnumberofout‐of‐stateparticipantstotargetedeventsandallothereventsinMichiganin2014.
5Eventsforwhichtheout‐of‐stateattendanceratewasestimatedtobeatornearzerowereexcludedfromthiscategory.Theseeventswereoftenlocalevents,withverylittleattentionoutsideofasmallgeographiclocation(e.g.,alocalweeklyride,abicycleracetoraisefundsforalocalschooldistrict,etc.).
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 29
Aftermakingtheseadjustments,BBCcalculatedthetotaldirectspendinginMichiganbyout‐of‐stateparticipantsusingthefollowingdata:
Totaldirectspendingbyout‐of‐stateparticipantsateachofthesixcasestudyevents;
Averageevent‐relatedspendingbyout‐of‐stateparticipantsattargetedeventsmultipliedbytheestimatednumberofout‐of‐stateparticipantsattheseevents;and
Averageevent‐relatedspendingbyout‐of‐stateparticipantsatallothereventsmultipliedbytheestimatednumberofout‐of‐stateparticipantsattheseevents.
TheexpendituresinFigureIII‐26representthetotaldirectspendingbyout‐of‐stateparticipantsusingspendingdataforparticipantsineachofthethreebicycleeventcategories.
Figure III‐26. Direct Spending in Michigan by Out‐of‐state Participants
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting.
FigureIII‐26showsthat,whenconsideredtogether,participantsfromoutsideofthestateofMichiganspentapproximately$15.6millioninthestateofMichiganin2014.ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromfoodandbeveragespending(restaurant/barexpendituresaswellasmoneyspentongroceries)andlodgingexpenses.
InordertocalculatetheoveralleconomicimpactofbicycleeventsinthestateofMichigan,BBCconductedafulleconomicimpactanalysisusingIMPLANmultipliers.BBCfoundthat,intotal,out‐of‐stateparticipantsinbicycleeventsinthestateofMichiganwereresponsibleforapproximately$21.9millionineconomicimpactin2014.
Thestudyteamacknowledgesthatthistotaleconomicimpactmayrepresentaconservativeestimate.ItispossiblethatthereareorganizedbicycleeventswithinthestateofMichiganwhichdrawout‐of‐stateparticipantsthatwerenotincludedinthestudy.Furthermore,someoftheeventswhichweredeterminedunlikelytohavesubstantialout‐of‐stateparticipationmayhavehadout‐of‐stateparticipation.
Expenditure
Food and beverage $4,439,503
Lodging 4,259,198
Registration 2,188,279
Transportation 2,013,424
Shopping and entertainment 1,783,892
Bicycles 867,412
Total Direct Spending $15,551,708
Total Direct
Spending
SECTION IV.
Touring in Michigan
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 1
SECTION IV. Touring in Michigan
Overview
Withover1,300milesofbicycletrailsacrossthestateandthreeU.S.BicycleRoutes,thestateofMichiganisinauniquepositioninregardstobicyclinginfrastructure.ComparedtotheotherstatesintheEastNorthCentralCensusregion(Wisconsin,Illinois,IndianaandOhio)Michiganisatadistinctadvantageinattractingself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsdueinparttoitsthreeU.S.BicycleRoutes.FigureIV‐1onthefollowingpageprovidesamapofthecurrentroutesthroughMichigan:USBR10,a193‐milerouteconnectingSt.IgnaceandIronMountainintheUpperPeninsula;USBR20a300‐mileeast‐westrouteconnectingMarineCitywithLudington;andUSBR35,a500‐mileroutetravelingthroughMichiganalongtheLakeMichiganShorefromIndianatoSaultSt.Marie,Canada.
Michigan’sneighboringstatesdonothavethesameamountofbicycleinfrastructure.BothWisconsinandIndianadonotcurrentlyhaveanydesignatedU.S.BicycleRoutes.IllinoishastwoshortU.S.BicycleRoutes(36and37)whichrunfromtheWisconsin‐Illinoisborder,throughChicago,andontotheIllinois‐Indianaborder.OhiohasU.S.BicycleRoute50,whichtraversescentralOhiofromtheIndiana‐OhiobordertotheOhio‐WestVirginiaborder.
Inadditiontoprovidinginfrastructurefortouringbicyclists,thestateofMichiganmakesitsinfrastructureeasytoaccess.1MDOTprovidesturn‐by‐turndirectionsforallthreeU.S.BicycleRoutes,enablingself‐supportedtouringbicycliststoplantheirownroutesacrossthestate.Withabundantbicyclinginfrastructureandreadilyavailablerouteplanningsupport,thestateofMichiganretainsmanyofitsresidenttouringbicyclistsandattractsmanyout‐of‐statetouringbicyclistsaswell.Thissectionprovidesasummaryoftheper‐ridereconomicimpactofindependenttouringbicyclistsinMichiganalongwithresultsfrominterviewswithcompanieswhosupportbicycletouring.
1“Touringbicyclists”and“self‐supportedtouringbicyclists”areusedinterchangeablythroughoutthisreport.Bothtermsrefertobicyclistswhodonotrelyonmotorvehiclestocarrytheirgearandprovisionswhiletravelling.
BBC
FiguCur
Sourc
C RESEARCH & C
ure IV‐1. rent U.S. Bicy
ce: Center for Share
ONSULTING
ycle Routes in
ed Solutions and Tech
Michigan
hnology Partnershipss, Michigan Departmment of Technology, MManagement, and B
SECTION IV, PA
udget.
AGE 2
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 3
Self‐Supported Touring
AspartoftheefforttoestimatetheeconomicbenefitstoMichiganfrombicycle‐relatedtourism,thestudyteamattemptedtodevelopaspendingprofileforatypicalself‐supportedtouringbicyclistinthestateofMichigan.Theliteraturereviewshowedalackofdataspecificallyrelatedtothespendingpatternsofself‐supportedtouringbicyclists,bothinMichiganaswellasnationwide.
Afewstudieshaveattemptedtoquantifytheeconomicimpactsofself‐supportedbicycletourisminotherstatesbycollectingprimarydataonself‐supportedtouringbicyclist’sexpenditures.2,3Basedonareviewofliteratureanddiscussionswithexpertsontouringbicyclists,thestudyteamdeterminedthatthecollectionofprimarydataonself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichiganwouldbenecessarytoestimatetheeconomicimpactofthesetourists.InconjunctionwiththeAdventureCyclingAssociation(ACA),thestudyteamdistributedasurveyviaSurveyMonkeytoself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinthestateofMichigan.
Touring survey. Inordertodevelopasurveyinstrumentforself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinthestateofMichigan,thestudyteamrepurposedthebicyclingeventsurveybyaddingseveralquestionsrelatingspecificallytobicycletouring.Thespendingcategories(e.g.,lodging,foodandbeverage,etc.)wereexactlythesameasthoseinthebicyclingeventsurvey.Surveyparticipantswereaskedtoestimatetheperdayexpendituresoftheirentirebicyclingparty.
TheAdventureCyclingAssociationassistedindistributionoftheonlinesurveybywritingblogpostsandsendingemailstopotentialself‐supportedtouringbicyclists.Additionally,flyerswereplacedatlocationsfrequentedbyself‐supportedbicyclistsinMichigan.Inadditiontoquestionsaskingaboutperdayexpenditures,thesurveyincludedquestionsabouttheuseofU.S.BicycleRoutes20and35,frequencyofmulti‐daybicycletripsinMichigan,andmainsurfacetypeusedwhileonamulti‐daybicycletripinMichigan,andotherquestions.Surveyresponseswerecleanedtoremoveanswersthatwerenotrelevanttotheeconomicimpactstudy,similartothedatacleaningprocessforthebicyclingeventdatacollectionprocess.Acopyofthesurveyinstrumentusedfortheself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsurveyisincludedinAppendixD.
Discussion.Forthepurposesoftheeconomicimpactanalysis,resultsarepresentedbelowonaper‐riderbasis.Themostrigorousstudytodateoftouringbicyclistsdidnotaddresstheoverallvolumeofparticipants.Inaddition,discussionswithstaffoftheAdventureCyclingAssociationindicatethatthereisnoestablishedmethodologytoquantifythenumberoftouringbicyclistsintheUSonastateornationallevel.
Whereattemptshavebeenmadetoquantifythevolumeoftouringbicyclists,itisoftenthroughpaneldataofgeneraltouristswitharelativelylowincidenceofbicyclingactivitiesandanevenlowerincidenceofindependentbicycletouring.Thisapproachcanleadtoanestimateofparticipantvolumewithalargemarginoferror.Additionally,thistypeofpanelsurveyoften
2InstituteforTourismandRecreationResearch,UniversityofMontana.December2013.“AnalysisofTouringCyclists:Impacts,NeedsandOpportunitiesforMontana.”
3DeanRunyanAssociates.April2013.“TheEconomicSignificanceofBicycle‐RelatedTravelinOregon.”
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 4
includestouristswhomayhaveparticipatedinseveraldifferentbicyclingactivitiesduringtheirtrip,withoutidentifyingtheirprimaryactivity.Asaresultoftheselimitationsandthecostinvolvedwiththisapproach,thisstudydoesnotattempttoquantifytheannualnumberoftouringbicyclistsvisitingMichigan.MDOTmightconsiderworkingwithanalreadyestablishedgeneraltourismsurvey(suchasthoseconducedinconjunctionwiththePureMichigancampaign),toquantifythenumberofindependenttouringbicyclistsinthefuture.
Survey execution and results. ThesurveywasdistributedtoalistoftouringbicycliststhroughtheAdventureCyclingAssociation’sBikeBitsnewsletter.Thisnewsletterreachesthousandsoftouringbicycliststhroughouttheworld.ReaderswereaskedtoparticipateinthesurveyiftheyhadtouredinMichigan.Surveyswerealsosolicitedfromflyersplacedintwostrategiclocationsthatarefrequentedbytouringbicyclists;ontheSSBadger(aprivatelyoperatedferrythatcrossesLakeMichigan)andattheMackinacBridge(wherebicyclistsarerequiredtocrossusingtransportservicesprovidedbytheMackinacBridgeAuthority).Intotal,364onlinesurveyswerecompletedbyself‐supportedtouringbicyclists.
Analysis.Inordertoanalyzetheeconomicimpactassociatedwithindependentbicycletouringforin‐stateandout‐of‐staterespondents,per‐ridespendingwascalculatedforrespondentswhoreported:
TouringinMichiganwithinthepastthreeyears;
Apartysizeoffewerthan15people(toavoidconfusionwithorganizedtourspending);and
Theirstateofresidenceoranaddressthatcouldbeusedtodeterminetheirstateofresidence.
Forthespendinganalysisthestudyusedthe166responsesthatmeetthesecriteria.
Resultsofthesurveyanalysisshowedthat,onaverage,out‐of‐stateself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsspend$71.26perpersonperdayandstayinMichiganforslightlymorethansevendays.In‐stateself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsspend$54.29perpersonperdayandtravelinMichiganforapproximatelyfiveandahalfdays.
FigureIV‐2,presentedbelow,showsthatthelargestexpendituresareinthecategoriesoffoodandbeverage($29.23perdayout‐of‐state;$22.21perdayin‐state)andlodging($28.94perdayout‐of‐state;$24.62in‐state).Additionally,whiletheaverageout‐of‐statevisitorspendssevendaysinMichigan,approximatelythreein10visitorsstayinMichiganfor10ormoredays,andonein10visitorsstaysfor14ormoredays.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 5
Figure IV‐2. Daily Per Person Expenditures in Michigan
Note:
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting
Intotal,atypicalself‐supportedtouringbicyclistinMichiganfromoutofstatespendsapproximately$520duringaself‐supportedbicycletour.Thisdirectspendingresultsinapproximately$760oftotaleconomicimpactinthestateofMichigan.4AtypicalMichiganresidenttakingpartinaself‐supportedbicycletourspendsapproximately$300duringatourinthestateofMichigan.Theeconomicimpactsfromin‐stateresidentexpendituresarenotcalculated,aseconomicimpactanalysesdonotanalyzeexpendituresofin‐stateresidents.
Additional data. In addition to the expenditure data, the online survey collected informationregardinghowoftenbicycletouristsvisitMichigan,whichroutestheyused,andwhetherornottheyhadvisitedMichiganpriortotheirmostrecentmulti‐daybicycletrip.
Surveyresultsshowedthatmorethanhalf(55%)ofallself‐supportedtouringbicyclistshadbeeninmulti‐daybicycletripsinMichiganwithinthepastyear.Slightlylessthantwo‐thirdsofself‐supportedtouristsindicatedutilizingoneofMichigan’sU.S.BicycleRoutes.Additionally,approximately22percentofout‐of‐statesurveyrespondentsindicatedthattheirmostrecentmulti‐daybicycletripwastheirfirstvisittothestateofMichigan.Lessthan3percentofself‐supportedbicyclistsindicatedridinganAmtraktraininMichigan.
Demographic information. Demographicinformationforself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichiganissimilartodemographicinformationofself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinotherstates.Approximatelyhalfofallself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichiganarebetweentheagesof55and64,andmorethan80percentofself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichiganareabovetheageof45.ThisissimilartoastudyoftouringbicyclistsinMontanathatfoundanaverageageof52yearsold.5Michiganresidentsappeartobeolder,onaverage,thanself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsfromoutofstate.FullresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIV‐3.
4Spendingbybicyclistscirculatesinthelocaleconomy.Businesseswherevisitorsspendtheirmoneypurchasegoodsandservicesfromotherbusinesses,andworkersspendaportionoftheirearningsonlocalgoodsandservices.Thisrecirculationofmoneyintheeconomyistermeda“secondaryimpact.”Thetotaleconomicimpactisthesumofdirectandsecondaryimpacts.
5“AnalysisofTouringCyclists:Impacts,NeedsandOpportunitiesforMontana.”
Expenditure
Food and beverage $29.23 $22.21
Lodging $28.94 $24.62
Shopping and Entertainment $8.63 $4.07
Bicycles $3.20 $2.17
Transportation $1.26 $1.22
Total Direct Spending $71.26 $54.28
Out‐of‐State
Spending
In‐State
Spending
BBC
FiguAgeTou
Sourc
BBC R
Surhigh(47$10resuMon
FiguInco
Sourc
Demord
Potbicybicywith
6Ibid
C RESEARCH & C
ure IV‐3. e of Self‐Suppouring Bicyclists
ce:
Research & Consultin
veyresponseherthanthei%)ofself‐sup00,000,compaultsforMichintanastudy.
ure IV‐4. ome of Self‐Su
ce: BBC Research &
mographicinfdertopromot
tential nextyclistsappearyclingenvironhtheconditio
d.
ONSULTING
orted s
ng.
esindicatethaincomeofselpportedtouraredtoonly3iganareprese
upported Tou
Consulting
formationcanteself‐suppor
t steps for sertobeverypnmentingenonofbicyclep
attheincomef‐supportedtingbicyclists38percentofentedbelowi
ring Bicyclists
nbeusefulwrtedbicycleto
elf‐supportleasedwithteral.Surveyrpathsandthe
eofself‐suppotouringbicyclinMichiganfself‐supportinFigureIV‐4
s
whendecidingouringinMic
ed touring.thestateofMrespondentseavailability
ortedtouringlistsinMontareportedanitedtouringbi4andcompar
ghowtobesthigan.
Ingeneral,sichigan’sbicyindicatedthaofbicyclerou
gbicyclistsinana.ApproximincomeofhigicyclistsinMoredtoresults
targettourin
elf‐supportedycleinfrastruattheywerevutemapsacro
SECTION IV, PA
nMichiganismatelyhalfgherthanontana.6Fullfromthe
ngbicyclistsin
dtouringuctureandverysatisfiedossthestate.
AGE 6
n
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 7
Furthermore,manyrespondentsdiscussedthescenicnatureofU.S.BicycleRoute35alongMichigan’swesterncoast.
MDOTmayconsideranothersurveyofself‐supportedtouringbicycliststodevelopabetterunderstandingoftheneedsandwantsthatareuniquetothisgroupofbicyclists.Additionally,thespendingprofilecouldberefinedwithafuturesurveywheneconomicconditionshavechangedornewinfrastructureisaddedfortouringbicyclists.
Goingforward,MDOTshouldworkwiththeAdventureCyclingAssociationtokeepuptodatewithresearchrelevanttoself‐supportedbicycletouring.Inparticular,MDOTshouldcontinuetolookforstudiesthatutilizeanappropriatemethodologytoestimatethetotalnumberofself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinaparticularstate.Thismethodologycouldbeusedtoestimatethetotalnumberofself‐supportedbicyclistsinMichigan,aswellasthetotaleconomicimpactofthesetourists.
MDOTcouldalsoconsideringpartneringwithastate‐widetourismresearcheffortsuchasthoseconductedforPureMichigan.ThiswouldrequireworkingwiththeorganizationtoaddquestionsaboutthetypeofbicyclingactivitiesthatrespondentsparticipatedinduringtheirvisittoMichigan.CurrentsurveysforPureMichiganhaveonlyaskedwhetherparticipantsparticipatein“hikingorbiking.”Asdiscussedabove,theseeffortstypicallyuseresponsesfromsurveypanelswithalowincidenceofindependenttouringbicyclists.Inspiteofthesedrawbacks,apanelsurveyapproachwouldlikelybeabletoprovidearangeofthenumberofindependenttouringbicyclistswhovisitMichiganannually.
Touring Companies
InordertobetterunderstandtheeconomicimpactcausedbybicyclinginthestateofMichigan,bicycletouringcompanieswereinterviewedabouttheirbusinesseswithinthestateofMichigan.Interviewparticipantswereaskedtoestimatethetotalnumberofridersthattheyprovideservicestoperyear,thepercentageofcustomersthattraveltoMichiganfromoutofstateandyearlyaveragerevenues,amongotherquestions.ThestudyteamattemptedtocontactasmanycompaniesinvolvedinbicycletouringinthestateofMichiganaspossiblebyaskinginterviewparticipantsiftheyknewofanyotherbicycletouringcompaniesoperatinginthestateofMichigan.
DatafromtheinterviewsshowthatbicycletouringcompaniesinMichigancanbegroupedintotwocategories:localtouringcompaniesofferingcitytoursinandaroundtheirimmediatecity,andtouringcompaniesthatoffersupportservicestobicyclistsparticipatinginorganizedbicyclingevents(acopyoftheinterviewguideusedwithbicycletouringcompaniesisincludedinAppendixD).Companiesfromthefirstgroupusuallyorganizebicyclingtourswithinaparticularcitythatmayhighlightdifferentculturalaspectsofalocation(i.e.,ahistorictour).CompaniesfromthesecondgroupoffersupportservicessuchastransportationtoandfromlargerbicyclingeventswithinthestateofMichigansuchastheMichiganderandDALMAC.Thesetoursusuallylastforuptoaweekandtraverselargeportionsofthestate.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 8
Results.Companiesofferinglocaltoursestimatedthatbetween750and1,000bicycliststourwiththeircompanieseachyear,andthat10‐20percentoftheircustomerstravelledtoMichiganfromoutofstate.Tourcostswereinthe$20to$50range,dependingonlengthoftourandservicesoffered.Ownersestimatethatapproximately20to30percentoftheirtotalannualrevenuescomefromtheirtouringoperations.Employersmentionthatthewarmermonthsaremuchbusierintermsofthenumberofriders,andasaresultalargeportionoftheirstaffisemployedpart‐timeduringthesemonths.
Companiesthatofferservicestoridersparticipatinginlarge,formally‐organizedeventsofferedservicestoamuchsmallernumberofridersperyearthancompaniesofferingprimarilylocaltours,butchargedsubstantiallymorefortheirservices.Businessownersinthiscategorystatedthattheyprovideservicestoapproximately100to150ridersperyear,offeringservicesforfivetosixtoursinMichiganperseason.Estimatesoncustomersfromoutofstateweremorevaried,withownersstatingthatbetween20and60percentoftheircustomersresidedoutsideofMichigan.
Toursofferedbythesecompaniesrangedinpricefrom$300to$1,500,dependingonlengthofthetourandthetypesofservicesoffered.OwnersindicatedthatalloftheirbusinessrevenuescamefromprovidingservicestotouringbicyclistsparticipatinginorganizedbicyclingeventswithinthestateofMichigan.Businessownersinthiscategoryalsohighlightedthattheirbusinessoperationsarelargelyseasonal,withalmostalloftheirsupportedtoursoccurringinthesummer.Asaresult,employerskeepfewifanyfull‐timestaff,andemployamoderately‐sizedpart‐timestaffofbetweenfourto12employees.
BothcategoriesofbusinessesgenerallybelievedthatbicycletourismwasdoingwellinMichigan,thanksinparttoeffortsfromMDOTregardingmappingbicyclingroutesthroughoutthestate.Severalownersmentionedthatmorecouldbedonetopromotebicycletourismwithinthestate,byestablishingacentrallistofbusinessesofferingtouringservicesinMichigan.
SECTION V.
Bicycling and Tourism in Michigan
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 1
SECTION V. Bicycling and Tourism in Michigan
Overview
RecreationalbicyclingplaysasubstantialbutdifficulttoquantifyroleinMichigan’stourismindustry.A2010studybyD.K.Shifflet&Associatesfoundthat3percentofleisurevacationsinMichiganinvolvedhikingorbicyclingasarecreationalactivity.Thatpercentagevariesacrossthestate,from1percentofleisuretravelerstosoutheasternMichiganreportinghikingorbicyclingduringtheirvacationsto7percentintheUpperPeninsula.1
TherearenumerouspublicandprivategroupsacrossthestatethataimtopromotebicyclingasaformofrecreationforbothMichiganresidentsaswellastourists.SeverallocalConventionandVisitorsBureaus,fromlargecitiessuchasGrandRapidstosmallertownslikeGaylord,provideresourcesfortouristsinterestedinbicycling.Manycommunitiesprovidemapsoflocalbicycletrailsaswellaslistingsofbusinessesthatrentbicycles.Otherorganizations,liketheUpNorthTrailsCollaborative,aimtoprovidemapsforalltypesofrecreationaltrailsacrosslargeregionsofthestate.
Michiganisinauniquepositioninregardstorecreationalbicyclingandlongdistancetransportationrelatedbicyclingasithassubstantialbicyclinginfrastructureandstrongsupportforbicyclingatthelocalaswellasstatewidelevel.
Infrastructure
Michiganisaregionalandnationalleaderinbicyclinginfrastructureandinvestment.Michiganisanationalleaderinrails‐to‐trailsconversions,aprogramwhichconvertsformertrainrailsintomulti‐usepaths.ThestateofMichiganhas119railtrails(themostintheUnitedStates);withatotalof2,712milesofshared‐usepathwaysopentowalking,jogging,andbicycling.Intotal,Michiganishometo6.6percentoftherailtrailslocatedintheU.S.and12.4percentofrailtrailmileageintheU.S.2
Inadditiontotherails‐to‐trailsprogramwhichhasbeengrowingsincetheState’sfirstrailtrail,thePaintCreekTrail,openedin1983,thestateofMichiganhasrecentlymadebicyclingastatewidepriority.GovernorRickSnyder’s2012EnergyandEnvironmentSpeechcalledforthecreationofastatewidebicyclingandhikingtrail,thepreliminarydraftofwhichispicturedbelowinFigureV‐1.Thetrailfeaturestworoutesacrossthestate,oneforhikingandoneforbicycling.BothroutesrunfromBelleIsleParkinDetroittoIronwoodinthewesternUpperPeninsula.
1D.K.Shifflet&Associates.2010.“Michigan2009VisitorProfile.”
2http://www.michigantrails.org/newsroom
BBC
FiguMic
Sourc
InaU.S.RouThebetwThe
TheTradive
C RESEARCH & C
ure V‐1. chigan’s Iron B
ce: Michigan Depart
additiontoth.BicycleRoututesthananyeseroutesareweenstates,beserouteshel
ephysicalbicyail,andothersersityofnatu
ONSULTING
Belle Trail
tment of Natural Res
erecentlyantes.AsofDecotherstateineprimarilydebuttheycanalptoreinforc
yclinginfrasts)isdesigneduralscenery.U
sources.
nouncedIronember2014,ntheMidwesesignedforusalsobeusedbetheimageo
tructureinMidtotakeadvaU.S.BicycleR
nBelleTrail,MMichiganhasst(Minnesotasebylong‐disbyrecreationofMichiganas
ichigan(railtntageofMichoute35follow
Michiganhassmoreofficiaa,Wisconsin,stancetourinnalbicyclistsvsabicycle‐fri
trails,U.S.Bichigan’suniquwsthescenic
sthreeofficialallydesignateIllinois,Indiangbicycliststrvacationingiiendlystate.
cycleRoutes,uenaturalrescLakeMichig
SECTION V, PA
llydesignatededU.S.Bicycleana,andOhio)ravellingnMichigan.
theIronBelleourcesanditgancoastlinef
AGE 2
de).
etsfor
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 3
amajorityofitslengthinWesternMichigan.TheIronBelleTrailfollowsaportionoftheLakeHuroncoastlineintheLowerPeninsula,andasubstantialportionoftheLakeMichigancoastlineintheUpperPeninsula.The2,700milesofrailtrailsthroughoutthestateutilizesceniccorridorsthroughMichigan’sdenseforestsandrollinghillsides.
Community Support. InadditiontothebicyclepathsandphysicalbicycleinfrastructureavailabletorecreationalbicyclistsinMichigan,somecommunitieshaveexploredbicyclesharingprogramsasameanstoencouragebicyclinginmoreurbanenvironments.AnnArborbeganitsbikesharingprogram,ArborBike,inlate2014andLansinghasexperimentedwithapilotbicyclesharingprogram,CapitalCommunityBikeShare.DetroithasalsoconductedastudytoexplorethefeasibilityofapublicbikesharingsysteminDowntownDetroit.
ArborBikecurrentlyoffersa24‐hourpassforasmallfee.Duringthat24‐hourperiod,ridersmaytakeunlimitedridesoflessthan60minutesatatime.ThisprogramcanbeagreattoolfortouristsinMichiganlookingtoexploreurbanenvironmentswithmoreflexibilitythantravellingbycar.Bikesharesthroughoutthecountryhaveseensubstantialuseofbikesharesbytourists.3
TheamountofphysicalbicyclinginfrastructureinMichiganandtheemergenceofshort‐termbicyclerentaloperationsmaybepartofthereasonthatvisitorstoMichiganperceivethestateasagoodplacetoparticipateinrecreationalbicycling.A2013studyconductedbyLongwoodsInternationalfoundthatapproximatelytwo‐thirds(64%)ofregionalmarketrespondents(includesrespondentsfromMichigan,Illinois,Wisconsin,Indiana,Ohio,andSouthernOntario)agreedthatMichiganisgreatforbicyclingandjogging.Morethanhalf(53%)ofregionalmarketrespondentsindicatedthattheystronglyagreedthatotherstatesinMichigan’sregionalmarketweregreatforbicyclingandjogging.4Michigancanencouragethatperceptionbycontinuingitssupportofbicyclingasarecreationalactivityfortourists.
Strategic Plan
In2011,the$17.7billionMichigantourismindustrygeneratednearlyonebilliondollarsinstatetaxrevenueandsupportedapproximately200,000jobs.5Inordertosupportandexpandthisindustry,oneofthelargestinMichigan,theMichiganTravelCommissionadoptedthe2012‐2017MichiganTourismStrategicPlan.Theplanwasdevelopedbasedontheinputfromhundredsoftourismindustryleaders,frommultipleindustriesandfromallareasofthestate.KeytothesuccessoftheplanisthecontinuationofthePureMichigancampaign,particularlytheportionofthecampaignaimedatattractingout‐of‐statevisitorstoMichigan.In2011,one‐thirdoftouristsinMichiganwereresidentsofanotherstate—anumberthathasincreasedyearoveryearinthepast.6
3NewYorkCityDepartmentofCityPlanning.Spring2009.“Bike‐ShareOpportunitiesinNewYorkCity.”
4LongwoodsInternational.March2014.“Michigan2013TourismAdvertisingEvaluationandImageStudy.”
5Dr.SarahNicholls,MichiganStateUniversity.December2012.“The2012‐2017MichiganTourismStrategicPlan.”
6Ibid.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 4
BicyclingplaysanimportantroleinMichigan’stourismindustry.TouristscomingtoMichiganmaytakeadaytripthrougharuralsectionoftheUpperPeninsulaonarailtrail,oruseabicycletoexploreanurbanenvironment.Bicyclingisdiscussedseveraltimesinthestrategicplan,especiallyinrelationtooneoftheplan’skeygoalsofproductdevelopment.
Theproductdevelopmentgoalaimsto“enhanceinfrastructuretosupportthedeliveryofaworldclassPureMichigantravelexperience.”Toachievethisgoal,theplanrecommendsshowcasingMichiganasastatewithadiverseandextensivenetworkofalltypesoftrails.Partofthisplaninvolvesencouraginglocalcommunitiestodevelopmorebicyclingroutesdesignedtohighlightlocalsceneryandattractions.
Communities
InadditiontothestepstakentopromotebicyclinginMichiganatastatewidelevel,severalcommunitiesacrossthestatehaveengagedinextensiveeffortstopromotetourismintheirlocalregions.AspartofthePhaseIportionofthisstudy,casestudieswereconductedinselectcommunitiesthroughoutthestateofMichigantoestimatetheeconomicimpactofbicyclingonlocaleconomies.Twoofthecasestudycommunities,TraverseCityandHolland,arediscussedbelowasexamplesofthebenefitsfromencouragingbicyclingasarecreationalactivityamongtourists.
Traverse City. TraverseCityisasmalltownofapproximately15,000residentsinnorthernLowerMichigan.PartlyduetoitssceniclocationontheGrandTraverseBayandabundantrecreationopportunities,theTraverseCitytourismindustryisamajorcontributortothearea’seconomy.Morethan3.3millionvisitortripsweremadetotheTraverseCityareain2012,resultinginnearly$1.2billionindirectspending.7
PartofthecasestudyinvolvedinterviewswithstakeholdersinTraverseCitytodocumenttheconnectionsbetweenbicyclingandeconomicgrowthanddevelopmentinthearea.
Stakeholderscitedthemorethan60milesoftrailsintheTraverseAreaRecreationalTrail(TART)systemaspartofthereasonforbicycling’spopularityintheregion.Inadditiontoalreadyexistingbicycleinfrastructureintheregion,stakeholder’smentionedtheincreaseinpopularityofbicyclingasameansoftransportation.
“Bicyclingissomethingthat’salwaysbeenabigpartofoutdoorrecreationinTraverseCity.Thebigdriverhasbeentheimprovementofourtrailinfrastructure,butnowitisbecomingmoreofapartofthetransportationmix.”–MikeNorton,TraverseCityConventionandVisitorsBureau.
AlthoughitisnotclearwhatportionoftourismindustryrevenuesareduetovisitorstoTraverseCitywhobicycleduringtheirtrips,severalstakeholdersdiscussedtheimportanceofbicyclingandtheregion’sbroaderstrategyaroundoutdoorrecreationasatourismdraw.Giventhattourismisresponsibleforcreatingapproximately12,000jobsintheTraverseCityarea(30%of
7http://www.traversecity.com/economic‐impact‐530/
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 5
areaemployment)andthepopularityofbicyclingamongTraverseCitytourists,theimpactofbicyclingontheTraverseCitytourismeconomyissubstantial.8
Holland. Holland,MichiganisasmalltownlocatedonLakeMichiganinthesouthwesternportionofthestate.Locatedlessthanathree‐hourdrivefrombothChicagoandDetroit,HollandhasaccesstotwoofthelargesttouristmarketsintheMidwest.AlthoughHolland’seconomyisdrivenprimarilybymanufacturing,tourismcontributesasubstantialamounttotheregionaleconomy.JaneClark,thePresidentoftheWestMichiganCoastChamberofCommerce,mentionedthatHollandisuniquebecauseitisboth“atourismdestinationandaplacethathasasolidjobbase.”
DespitelessrelianceontourismdollarsthanTraverseCity,theHollandregionhasmadesubstantialinvestmentsinbicyclinginfrastructure.Hollandhasinvestedinalargenetworkofseparated,shared‐usepathsandsidepathsandverylittleon‐roadinfrastructure,acombinationthatisuniquewhencomparedtoothercasestudylocationsinthePhaseIreport.TheseseparatedpathsareusedbyresidentsandtouristsaliketoaccessdowntownHollandaswellastotakebicycletripstothebeachonLakeMichigan.
SallyLaukitis,ExecutiveDirectoroftheHollandConventionandVisitorsBureau,discussedtheincreaseofbicycletouristsinHolland:
“Withinthelasttwoyears,we’veseenanactiveincreaseinthenumberofcarsrollingintotownwithbikesontheback.We’veseenmorepeopleheretobicycle,morepeopleheretoseeHollandonbike.”
ManyprivatebusinessesaretakingadvantageofHolland’sbicyclinginfrastructureandgrowinginterestinbicyclingforrecreationbyofferingservicestointerestedtourists.Severalbusinesseslocatednearthelakefrontofferbicyclesforrent,andmanyofthetraditionalbicycleretailshopshaveactiverentalbusinesses,deliveringrentalbicyclestolodginglocationsaroundtheregion.
TheHollandregioncanserveasanexampleofhowlocalcommunitiesthatarenotprimarilyreliantontourismcanstillbenefitfrominvestmentsinbicyclinginfrastructureandencouragingbicyclingasarecreationalactivityfortourists.
Conclusions and Next Steps
Michiganisinauniquepositionbothregionallyandnationallyinregardstobicycle‐relatedtourism.Michiganhasanabundanceofbicyclinginfrastructure,includingrailtrails,U.S.BicycleRoutes,statewidetrails,bicyclelanes,andseparatedbicyclepaths.ThissectionpresentssuggestionsonhowMDOTandotherstateagenciesandpartnerscancontinuetopromotebicycling.
Future Investments. Stakeholdersshouldpromotecurrentrailtrailsaswellascontinuetoencouragetherails‐to‐trailsmovement.Approximatelyoneoutofeveryeightmilesofrailtrailis
8Ibid.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 6
locatedinthestateofMichigan,whichhelpstobuildtheperceptionthatMichiganisaleadingstateforrecreationalbicycling.
The2012‐2017MichiganTourismStrategicPlanincludedseveralsuggestionsonhowtosupportandgrowbicyclingasarecreationalactivityinMichigan.Michigancommunitiesshouldbeencouragedtodevelopmarkedorsignedbicycleroutesortoursthathighlightlocalattractions,bothcommercialandrecreational.
Additional Research. Currentlythereisverylittleresearchorprofilingoftouristswhohappentobicyclewhileonvacation.WhiletherearenumerousstudiesquantifyingtheeconomicimpactsoftourismacrossthestateofMichigan,theirfocusonrecreationalbicyclingisextremelylimitedifitexistsatall.
MDOT,otherstateagencies,andrelevantpartnersshouldworkwiththeMichiganEconomicDevelopmentCorporationifandwhentheycommissionanotherstatewidevisitorprofile.The2009visitorprofileprovidedimportantinformationabouttheMichigantourismindustryandthetypesoftravelersthatareattractedtoMichigan.However,thestudywaslackinginquestionsrelatedtoMichigantouristswhoparticipateinrecreationalbicyclingwhileonvacation.
Asnotedpreviouslyinthissectionofthereport,therearenumerouscommunitiesacrossthestatearepromotingbicyclingontheirown.Effortsshouldbemadetocontinuetohelpthesetownsandmunicipalitiesencouragebicyclingbyprovidingthemwithaframeworkfordevelopingtourismsurveys.Thesecommunitieswouldthenbeabletoquantifytheeconomicimpactsofbicyclingwithmoreaccuracy,andcomparethoseresultstootherbicycling‐friendlytownsthroughoutthestate.
APPENDIX A.
Economic Impact Model Guide
BBC
APEc
Theecothatresp
Avenumparwhobelo
Thegreathan
FiguExa
Note:
Sourc
C RESEARCH & C
PPENDconom
eeconomicimnomicimpactneedtobedponsestothe
erage Spendmberofsurveticipants,andotravelledmowarethefol
Numberoffromevent
Totalnumbsurveys
Totalevendata,registr
Numberofanswered“participate
Averagepaanswered“
Averageleanswered“
elastthreefieaterthan50mn50miles(Q
ure 1. mple of Avera
: Numbers includ
ce: BBC Research &
ONSULTING
DIX A. ic Impa
mpactmodelctsofspecificdoneoutsideebicycleeven
ding and Eceyresponsesrddifferentgroorethan50mllowingfields
fsurveys—Tattendees
berofattend
ntparticipantrationlogs,et
fout‐of‐stateYes”toquestinthisevent?
artysize(ouYes”toquest
ngthoftripYes”toquest
eldslistedabomiles(Q1=”NQ1=”No”orbla
age Spending
ed in this reference a
Consulting Economi
act Mo
canbeusedinbicycleeventofthemodelntsurvey.
onomic Impreceivedfromoupcharactermiles,andin‐sthatrequire
Thenumbero
dees—Thes
ts—Thetotatc.
eattendees—tion1“Didyo?”
t‐of‐state)—tion1.
(out‐of‐statetion1.
ovealsoneedNo”orblankaankandQ2=”
and Economi
are meant to be used
ic Impact Model.
odel Gu
nconjunctiontswithinthesrelatetoaver
pact. Thiswomeventattenristicsforoutstateattendeeinputsfrom
ofcompleted
sumofquesti
alnumberof
—ThesumofoutraveltoM
—Theaverage
e)—Theave
dtobecomplandQ2=Yes)a”No”orblank
ic Impacts Wo
d as examples only.
uide
nwiththebicstateofMichragesandsum
orksheetconndees,thetotat‐of‐stateatteeeswhotravetheeventsur
surveysthat
ion5forallre
eventpartici
fquestion5fMichiganfrom
eofquestion
erageofquest
etedforin‐standin‐stateak).
orksheet
cycleeventsuigan.Theonlmsofnumeri
ntainsinformaalnumberofendees,in‐staelledlessthanrvey.
teventorgani
espondentsw
pants,frome
forallresponmanotherstat
5forallresp
tion7forallr
tateattendeesattendeeswh
APPENDIX A, PA
urveytoestimycalculationsicalsurvey
ationontheeventateattendeesn50miles.Lis
izersreceived
withcomplete
eventorganiz
dentsthatteorcountry
pondentsthat
respondentst
swhotravellotravelledle
AGE 1
mates
sted
d
e
zer’s
to
t
that
edess
BBC
Inpin‐spar
Thestatdaypro
FiguExa
Note:
Sourc
PerIfththeinwdistcalc
Basshoavestatshopay
C RESEARCH & C
puts. Thiswostatemorethaticipants,and
e“Numberwhtesurveyrespy”shouldbefividedanansw
ure 2. mple of Input
: Numbers includ
ce: BBC Research &
r Person Calhereisonlyo“Averageregwiththesametanceridesorculateanaver
sedonthesuruldbecreaterageregistrate;in‐statemwsthatout‐oymoreinregi
ONSULTING
orksheetrequan50;in‐statdtheprocess
hospentmonpondentsthailledinusingwer.Theproc
ts Worksheet
ed in this reference a
Consulting Economi
lculations.Tneoptionforgistrationspeedollaramourmulti‐dayoprageregistrat
rveyrespondedthatcontaitionspendingorethan50;iof‐stateparticistrationfees.
uiresinputsfotelessthan50forinputiss
neyonhotels”tfilledoutqutheaverageocessissimila
are meant to be used
ic Impact Model.
Thisworkshereventregistrendingperpeunt.Iftherearptions)withdtionspending
ents’answernstheregistrgperpersonin‐statelesstcipantsmayb.
oreachdiffer0).Inputfieldimilarforoth
”fieldshoulduestion8a.Thofquestion8arforquestion
d as examples only.
eetrequiresaration(i.e.,alrson”fieldforemultiplevadifferentregigperperson.
toQ14,“Inwrationfeeforcanbecalculthan50).Thisbemorelikely
rentgroupofdsaredescribhercategories
dbefilledinuhe“averagehaforout‐of‐sns8bthrough
additionalinfolparticipantsorallthreepaariationsfortistrationfees,
whichridedidthatparticullatedforeachsisnotnecesytoparticipa
eventattendbedforout‐ofsofattendees
usingthesumhotelspendingstatesurveyrhquestion9.
ormationfromspaythesamarticipanttypetheevent(e.g,thenitmay
dyouparticiparride.Afterhparticipanttsary,butinitateinlongere
APPENDIX A, PA
ee(out‐of‐staf‐states.
mofQ5foroutgperpartyperespondentst
mtheeventhmeamount),thescanbefilleg.differentbepreferred
pate?”anewfrdoingthis,antype(out‐of‐ialresearchevents,andth
AGE 2
ate;
t‐of‐erthat
host.hened
to
fieldn
hus
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 3
Understanding the Outputs. EconomicimpactsarecalculatedusingIMPLANinput‐outputmodelsthatarespecifictothestateofMichigan.IMPLANisaneconomicimpactassessmentsystemdevelopedandmaintainedbytheMinnesotaIMPLANGroup(MIG).Itallowstheusertodeveloplocal‐levelinput‐outputmodelsthatcalculatedirect,secondary,andtotaleffectsofeconomicactivitybysectorthroughtheuseofindustry‐specificmultipliersandotherfactors.
DirectEffectsincludethespendingofeventattendees,lessanyexpendituresthatarelikelytohaveoccurredoutsideofthestateofMichigan.1AslocalindustriesrespondtothedirectspendingrelatedtobicycleeventsbymakingtheirownpurchasesoflaborhoursandgoodsandservicesinMichigan,thisspending,inturn,generatesdemandforadditionalgoodandservices.ThisdemandisreferredtoasaSecondaryEffect.TotalEffectsarecalculatedasthesumofDirectandSecondaryEffectstakentogether.
Inadditiontocalculatingatotaleconomicimpact(TotalEffect)ofbicycleevents,IMPLANmodelsalsocalculatetheincreaseinjobsasaresultofevent‐relatedspending.Forthisanalysis,“jobs”includeallfull‐time,part‐time,andtemporarypositions.Onejoblasting12monthsisconsideredequivalenttotwojobslastingforsixmonths.ThisdefinitionisthesamedefinitionusedbytheU.S.BureauofLaborStatistics(BLS)andU.S.BureauofEconomicAnalysis(BEA).
Reporting Economic Impacts. OutputsfromtheeconomicimpactmodelcanbeusedtohighlightthebenefitsofaspecificbicycleeventwithinthestateofMichigan.Whenreportingtheresultsoftheeconomicimpactmodel,eventorganizersshouldmentionthedirectandtotaleffects,aswellastheincreaseinnumberofFTEjobs.DirectEffectsrepresentthedirectspendingfromeventattendees,andTotalEffectsrepresentthetotaleconomicimpactwithinthestateofMichiganafterdirectexpendituresarecirculatedthroughtheeconomy.Reportsontheeconomicimpactoftheseeventsshouldalsomentionthattheseeconomicimpactsandincreasesinemploymentwouldnothaveoccurredwithoutthebicycleevent.
1MoneyspentontransportationexpensesincreasetheDirectEffectsassociatedwithtransportationexpendituresatalessthanonetooneratio,asaportionoftransportationexpensesareestimatedtoaccruetobusinesseslocatedoutsideofthestateofMichigan.
APPENDIX B.
Data Sources
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX B, PAGE 1
APPENDIX B. Data Sources
Anumberofdatasourceswereusedincalculatingtheeconomicbenefitsderivedfromout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingeventsandbicycle‐relatedtourismincluding:
2014 Michigan Department of Transportation Bicycling Event Survey. Asapartofthestudy,interceptandonlinesurveyswereconductedcollectinginformationfromparticipantsinbicyclingeventsinMichiganabouttheirspendingrelatedtoparticipatinginbicyclingevents.
Aspartofthesurveyeffort,stafffromR.Neunerconductedinterceptsurveysofbicyclistsatthesixcasestudyeventsidentifiedbythestudyteam.Intotal,approximately2,100surveyswerecompletedbycasestudyeventparticipants.
Inadditiontothein‐personinterceptsurveys,thestudyteamusedtheLMBridecalendartocontactbicycleeventorganizersinthestateofMichigan.EventorganizerswereaskedtosendoutalinktoanonlinesurveyhostedbySurveyMonkeythatexactlymirroredthephysicalsurveydistributedatthesixcasestudyevents.Approximately2,400onlinesurveyswerecompletedthroughSurveyMonkey.
2014 Michigan Department of Transportation Independent Touring Bicyclist Survey. Thestudyteamalsoconductedasurveyofindependenttouringbicyclists.Thissurveywasbasedontheeventsurvey,butmodifiedtoincludeseveralquestionsrelatingspecificallytobicycletouring.Thespendingcategories(e.g.,lodging,foodandbeverage,etc.)wereexactlythesameasthoseinthebicycleeventsurvey.Surveyparticipantswereaskedtoestimatetheper‐dayexpendituresoftheirentirebicyclingparty.
TheAdventureCyclingAssociationassistedindistributionoftheonlinesurveybywritingblogpostsandsendingemailstopotentialself‐supportedtouringbicyclists.Additionally,flyerswereplacedatlocationsfrequentedbyself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichigan.Inadditiontoquestionsaskingaboutper‐dayexpenditures,thesurveyincludedquestionsabouttheuseofU.S.BicycleRoutes20and35,frequencyofmulti‐daybicycletripsinMichigan,andmainsurfacetypeusedwhileonamulti‐daybicycletripinMichigan,inadditiontootherquestions.Surveyresponseswerecleanedtoremoveanswersthatwerenotrelevanttotheeconomicimpactstudy,similartothedatacleaningprocessforthebicycleeventdatacollectionprocess.Intotal,364onlinesurveyswerecompletedbyself‐supportedtouringbicyclists.
Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). D&Bprovidesinformationonbusinessesbyindustryandlocation.DatafromHoovers,aD&Bsubsidiary,providesinformationontherevenuesandemploymentofbicycle‐relatedmanufacturesandretailersthroughoutthestate.D&Bdatawereusedtocollectinformationaboutbicycletouringcompanies.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX B, PAGE 2
League of Michigan Bicyclists (LMB). TheLMBadvocatesforcyclistsinMichiganandprovidespolicymakerswithvaluableinformationonbicyclinginthestate.TheLMBorganizeseventsandcollectsanddistributesdataandreports.ThestudyusedtheLMBridecalendartodevelopacomprehensivelistofbicyclingeventsinMichigan.
APPENDIX C.
Literature Review and Bibliography
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 1
APPENDIX C. Literature Review and Bibliography
Thisappendixprovidesabibliographyanddetailedreviewofallexistingliteratureexploredduringthecourseofthestudy.
Overview
Researchforthisreportbeganwithanextensivereviewoftheexistingliteratureoncommunityandeconomicimpactsofbicycling.Thereviewcontinuedthroughoutthestudy,asnewresearchwaspublishedandstakeholdershighlighteduniqueaspectsofthecasestudycommunities.AfterPhaseIofthestudywascompletebutbeforesubstantialworkhadbegunforPhaseII,severalkeystudieswerereleasedthatweresimilarinnaturetoPhaseIIofthestudy.Detailsofthesestudiesandtheirmethodologiesarepresentedbelow.
Literaturereviewedforthestudyincludedpeer‐reviewedpublications,reportsfromconsultants,periodicalarticles,analysesbyalllevelsofgovernmentandpublicationsbyadvocacygroups.Thegeographicscopeoftheliteraturerangedfromfocusonaspecificpieceofbicyclinginfrastructuretotheimpactsofbicyclingonanentirecountry.
Althoughbicyclingadvocates,governmentofficialsandordinarycitizensaregivingincreasingattentiontothesubject,studiessimilarinnaturetothiseffortarerareandthedatasourcesavailableonbicyclingremainlimited.Whileanexhaustivereviewofallreputableliteratureonthetopicisnotfeasible,over75articlesandreportswerereviewedinordertoestablishareliablefoundationfortherestofthestudy.
Theliteraturereviewwasspecificallyusefulinrevealingrelevantdatasources,recentimportantbicyclingphenomenonandapplicablemethodologysuchassurveydesigntechniques.
Nonetheless,city‐,state‐andnationwidestudieshavebeenconductedinrecentyearsintheUnitedStatesandEurope.ReportsonbicyclingincitiessuchasPortlandandNewYork,statessuchasIowaandColorado,andnationsliketheUnitedKingdomhaveprovidednumerousdata,utilizingincreasinglysophisticatedmethodology.Thestudiesexaminedvariedsubstantiallyinscopeandscale.Manyofthestudiesreliedmainlyonavailablenationalandstatedata,whileothersaugmentedsecondarysourceswithprimarydatacollection.
Key Studies
Phase I. ThreepreviouslyconductedstudiesprovidedparticularvaluetoPhaseIofthisstudy.Theyarelistedandreviewedindetailbelow.
CenterforResearchinEconomicandSocialPolicy.“TheEconomicImpactofBicyclinginColorado.”1999.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 2
TheestimatedeconomicimpactofbicyclinginColoradoisabout$1billion.Manufacturingproducesthelargestshareofbicycling‐relatedrevenue,followedbyretailandtourism.
ThirtybicycleandrelatedproductsmanufactureswereidentifiedinColorado,withcombinedestimatedannualrevenueof$762.7millionandpayrollof$18.1million.
Retailersreportedtotalannualrevenueof$200millionandpayrollof$16million.Halfofbicyclepurchasescamefromeitherbicycle‐specificbusinessesorgeneralsportinggoodsstores,makingup79percentofbicycleexpenditures.Averagebikepricewas$619.
Skiresortsattract700,000cyclistsannually,whospend$56‐76millioneachyear.Seventypercentofthesecyclistsarefromoutofstate.
TenpercentofColoradansreporthavingtakenabicycle‐relatedvacationinthepastyear,spendinganaverageof$360pervacation.
Definedsectorsofthecyclingeconomyincludemanufacturing,retail,tourismandotheractivities.Otheractivitiesincludetouring,racingandcharityevents.Thesecategoriescouldbelumpedintoone“event”sectorofthecyclingeconomyinfuturestudies.Therevenue,full‐timeequivalentemployment,andpayrollareestimatedforeachsector.
Surveysofmanufacturers,retailers,skiresorts,chambersofcommerceandhouseholdswereconducted.TheamountofcyclingatskiresortsisrelativelyuniquetoColorado,thoughparallelsecondarycyclinguseinfrastructurecouldbeexploredinotherlocales.
Bikesaleoutletswerecategorizedbystoretype,andthedistributionofnumberofbikessoldandproportionofbikeexpendituresbystoretypewereestimated.
Grous,Alexander.“TheBritishCyclingEconomy.”
Thereportdefines“cyclingeconomy”andoffersagrosscyclingcontributiontotheeconomy,quantifiedat£2.9billionor£230percyclistperyearasof2011.Cyclingparticipationisgrowing,andaprojectedgrowthtrendofonemillionadditional“regularcyclists”wouldadd£141milliontotheeconomybetween2011and2013.SeveralfactorsareattributedtothisgrowthincludingthetriplingoftheNationalCycleNetwork(inmiles).
BenefitstotheBritisheconomyinclude2010cyclesalesof£1.62billion(28%annualincrease),£853millioninaccessorysalesandmaintenance,23,000directjobsearningover£500millionandprovidingover£100millionintaxrevenue,andhealthbenefitsestimatedtosavetheeconomy£128millionperyear.Healthbenefitsincludereducedcostsoftreatingobesityandreducedabsenteeism(cyclistsreportmissingwork1.3daysperyearlessthannon‐cyclists).Cyclistsareestimatedtobesavingtheeconomy£193millioninabsenteecosts.
Barrierstothegrowthofcyclingincludesafetyandself‐confidenceconcernsamongindividuals,timeconstraints,anincreaseintheproportionofchildrenbeingdriventoschool,andlimitedpublicfundingforinfrastructure.UnlikeinthenearbyNetherlands,most
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 3
(70%)Britishcyclistsaremale.Ahigh(42%)proportionofchildrenownbicycles,butmorethanhalfdonotrideregularly.Thereportexploreslatentdemand,representedbythe2.2millionBritonswhodesiretocyclehaveyettoduetolackofinformationoffunds.Thesepotentialcyclistsrepresent£516millionofeconomicpotential.
Thereareanestimated13millioncyclistsintheU.K.,representing27percentofthepopulation.Thirty‐threepercentatclassifiedasregularcyclists,41percentasoccasionalcyclists,and26percentasfrequentcyclists.Despitebeingthesmallestclassification,frequentcyclistsaccountfor38percentofthesalesandaccessorymarket.
ThereportdrawsextensivecomparisonstoothernorthernEuropeancountries,whichisbeneficialinpartbecauseofsimilarclimate,ridingseasons,andpopulationandinfrastructuredensities.Similarly,comparingMichigan’scyclingcharacteristicstothoseofotherMidwesternstateswouldprovebeneficial.
Cyclingemploymentdataisbrokendownintothreecategories:retailsales,manufacturing,andcyclinginfrastructure.Cyclistsaredividedintothreemajorsegments—occasionalcyclists,regularcyclistswhocyclemorethan12timesperyear,andfrequentcyclistswhocycleatleastonceperweek.Foursub‐segmentsarealsodefined—family,consistingofparentsandchildrenwhoridetogether;recreationalusers;commuters;andenthusiasts.
Theexplorationandquantificationoflatentdemandprovestelling.Assessingthenumberofpeopledesiringtocyclebutpreventedfromdoingsobybarriers,whileoutliningthebenefitsofagrowingcyclingeconomyanddefiningthosebarriers,wouldbevaluabletothosetakingactionandwouldbecrucialtoinformingdecisionsregardingthedeploymentofcapital.
SustainableTourismandEnvironmentProgram.“EconomicandHealthBenefitsofBicyclinginIowa.”Fall2011.
Iowahasover1,600milesoftrails.SevenpercentofIowansmountainbike,while41percentusetrailsforbikingorwalking.Thereareanestimated150,000recreationalriderswhogenerate$367millionindirectandindirecteconomicimpactandsavethestate$74millioninhealthcarecosts.Thereareanestimated25,000commutercyclistswhogenerate$52millionindirectandindirecteconomicimpactandsavethestate$713millioninhealthcarecosts.
Twenty‐ninepercentofIowansdonotmeetrecommendedlevelsofphysicalactivity,while67percentareoverweightorobese.Obesity‐relatedhealthcarecostsinIowaareestimatedat$783million,notincludingabsenteeismorlowproductivitycosts.
Thereare61bicycle‐specificretailbusinessesinthestateand18,300(20%roadbikes,11%children’sbikes,21%mountainbikes,and48%leisurebikes)bikessoldin2010.Revenuestotaled$8.1millioninbikes,$1.9millioninclothing,$4.2inaccessories,and$3.7millioninrepairs.Fifteenyear‐roundbicycleorganizationswereidentified,averaging106membersandanaveragebudgetof$22,000.Theeconomicvalueoftheseorganizations’volunteersisestimatedat$340,000.Register’sAnnualBicycleRideAcrossIowa(RAGBRAI),Iowa’s
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 4
highestprofilecyclingeventcreatedanestimated$16.9millionindirectspendingby8,802travelingparties($1,921perparty).
Primaryresearchwasconductedviasurveysofindividualcyclists,bicycle‐specificretailers,andbikeorganizations.Datawascollectedregardingdemographics,bikeusage,events,andbusinessstatistics.Forthesakeofconservativeestimates,medianfigureswereusedincalculatingimpacts.
Individualcyclistsweredividedintocommutersandrecreationalcyclists.Afurtherdivisionofrecreationalcyclistswouldprovebeneficial,asitwoulddistinguishcyclingenthusiastsfromcausalrecreationalriders.
Retaildatawascollectedregardingtype,number,revenueofbikesales,expensesandrevenues,employmentfigures,andcustomerinformation.Employmentandsalesdatasuchasnumberofsales,categoryofsales,andrevenuearerelevantandapplicabletomostanycyclingimpactstudy.Lessusefulisthereport’ssummingofrevenuesandexpensestoprovideatotalimpactfigureforretailers.Non‐bikespecificretailerswerenotincludedinthestudy.Thiscouldbedonebyapplyinggeneralathleticretailers’salesdatatotheirproportionofbikesalestototalsales.
Bicycleorganizationsprovideddataonnumberofmembers,volunteertypesandhours,eventparticipation,andbudget.Budgetallocationinformationwouldprovebeneficial.
HealthcarecostsavingsweredeterminedbyapplyingCentersforDiseaseControldatatoindividualcyclistsridinginformation.
Phase II. FourstudieswerepublishedaftertheliteraturereviewforPhaseIwasconducted.ThesestudieswerereferencedextensivelyduringPhaseIIofthisreport.Theyarelistedandreviewedindetailbelow.
DeanRunyanAssociates.“TheEconomicSignificanceofBicycle‐RelatedTravelinOregon.”April2013.
ConductedbyDeanRunyanAssociates,thisstudyattemptstodocumenttheeconomicimpactofbicycle‐relatedtravelinOregon.Thestudyteamsurveyedbicycleparticipantsthroughbicycle‐relatedemaillists,aswellasanationalhouseholdpanelofOregonvisitors.SurveyswereusedtocollectinformationondirectspendingasaresultofbicycletripsinOregon.
Usingsurveyresponses,thestudyteamcalculatedtravelexpenditures,totalearningsasaresultofbicycle‐relatedtravelexpenditures,increasesinemploymentasaresultofbicycle‐relatedexpenditures,andtheincreaseinlocalandstatetaxreceiptsasaresultofbicycle‐relatedexpenditures.
CharlesBrown.AlanM.VorheesTransportationCenteratRutgersUniversity.“TheEconomicImpactsofActiveTransportationinNewJersey.”
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 5
TheNewJerseystudy,conductedbyCharlesBrownattheAlanM.VorheesTransportationCenteratRutgersUniversity,analyzedhowNewJersey’seconomywouldbeimpactediflocal,state,andfederalgovernmentsdidnotinvestinactivetransportationinfrastructureandimprovementswithinthestate.Theprimaryobjectiveofthestudywastoestimateannualstatewideeconomicimpactsofactivetransportation.Todothis,thestudyteamusedaninput‐outputmodeltoestimateeconomicactivityandjobssupportedasaresultofactivetransportation‐relatedcapitalinvestments,businesses,andevents.Totaleconomicactivitywithinthestatewascomparedtoactivetransportation‐relatedinvestmentstoconductthecost‐benefitanalyses.
SimilartotheOregonstudy,theNewJerseystudyusessurveydatatoinformitsinput‐outputmodels.ThisstudyisbroaderinscopethantheOregonstudyasitlooksattheeconomicimpactofallactivetransportation‐relatedexpendituresratherthanonlybicycle‐relatedevents.Additionally,thestudyanalyzestheeconomicbenefitsofcapitalinvestmentsinactivetransportation,atopicnotcoveredbytheOregonstudy.
McClureConsulting.“AnEconomicImpactStudyofBicyclinginArizona.Out‐of‐StateBicycleTourists&Exports.”June2013.
ConductedbyMcClureConsulting,thisstudyutilizedinput‐outputanalysestoestimatethecontributiontotheArizonaeconomyfromout‐of‐statevisitorsengagedinbicyclingactivitieswithinArizona,andout‐of‐statecustomersofbicycle‐relatedgoodsmanufacturedorsoldinthestate.TheArizonastudyissimilarinnatureandscopetothestudyconductedinOregon.Bothstudiesusedsurveydatatoattempttoestimatetheeconomicimpactofbicycling‐relatedactivitiesontheirrespectivestates.
ResourceSystemsGroup.“EconomicImpactofBicyclingandWalkinginVermont.”July6,2012.
TheVermontstudy,conductedbyResourceSystemsGroup,issimilartotheNewJerseystudyasitattemptstoestimatethetotaleconomicbenefitsofwalkingandbicyclinginthestateofVermont.Thestudy’scoreeconomicmodelwasdevelopedbyRegionalEconomicModels,Inc.(REMI)tocalculatethetotaleconomiccontributionofactivetransportationinfrastructurespending,andspendingrelatingtoactivetransportationeventsandbusinesses.
TheResourceSystemsGroupstudyteamfoundthatcertaineconomicimpactcategorieshadlittlereliableinformationfromwhichtoestimatetotaleconomicimpacts.Thesecategoriesincludedavoidedtransportationconsumerandpubliccosts,andtheimpactonrealestatevaluefromactivetransportationinvestments.TheychosetoexcludethesecategoriesfromtheREMImodel,anddiscussthesecategoriesinamorequalitativefashion.
Supporting Studies
Thefollowingstudiesandarticleswereutilizedtovaryingdegreesduringthecourseoftheentirestudy.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 6
ActiveLivingResearch.“TheEconomicBenefitsofOpenSpace,RecreationFacilitiesandWalkableCommunityDesign.”RobertWoodJohnsonFoundation.May2010.
Papersynthesizespreviousresearchinregardstotheeconomicvalueofoutdoorrecreationfacilities,openspacesandwalkablecommunitydesign.Focusesontheprivatebenefitsthataccruetonearbyhomeownersaswellasotherusersofopenspace.
AdventureCyclingAssociation.“BonjourCycleTourism!”3October,2012.
AllianceforBiking&Walking.“WorkingwiththeBusinessCommunity.”11July2012.
Discussesopportunitiesandtipsforworkingwithandconsultingtolocalbusinessesandbusinessdistricts.
AltaPlanning&Design.“Bicycle‐RelatedIndustryGrowthinPortland.”Boulder,CO.June2006.
AnalyzestheeconomicimpactofbicyclingtotheCityofPortlandbyconductingasurveyofover100businesses.Surveyconsistedoffourquestionsrelatedtogrossrevenuerelatedtobicycles,growthinrevenueoverthepastdecade,theeffectofPortland’sbike‐friendlyreputationonbusiness,andhowthebicycle‐relatedactivitiesoftheCitycouldhelptheirbusinessgrow.
AltaPlanning&Design.“TheValueofBicycle‐RelatedIndustryinPortland.”Boulder,CO.2008.
AmericaBikes.“BikeSpendingperCapita.”
Listofestimatedannualrevenueperstate.
AmericanHikingSociety.“TheEconomicBenefitsofTrails.”February2004.
Archambault,Dennis.“Detroit’sNewBicycleEconomy.”ModelDMedia.09October2012.
Badger,Emily.“CyclistsandPedestriansCanEndUpSpendingMoreEachMonthThanDrivers.”TheAtlanticCities.05December,2012.
Beierle,Heidi.“BywaysviaBicycle:SeeingtheUnitedStatesonTwoWheels.”TheJournalforAmerica’sByways.October2011.
DiscussionofbicycletourismintheUnitedStates,including:typesofbicycletourists,routeandpathcharacteristicsacrossthenation,generaldiscussionoftravellingcross‐countryviabicycle.
Belden,Russonello&StewartLLC.“2011CommunityPreferenceSurveyNationalAssociationofRealtors.”2011.
BicycleFederationofWisconsin.“Bicycling:GoodforWisconsin.”17December,2010.
BrieflydiscussesthebenefitsofbicyclinginthestateofWisconsin.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 7
BicycleFederationofWisconsin.“WisconsinBicyclingBusinesses.”17December2010.
Alistof200bicycle‐relatedbusinessesinWisconsin.
BicycleFederationofWisconsinandWisconsinDepartmentofTransportation.“TheEconomicImpactofBicyclinginWisconsin.”
PresentstheimpactofbicyclingonWisconsinanditseconomyinthreeparts:overallbenefitsfrombicyclingtothestateofWisconsin,economicdataonthebicyclingindustryinWisconsin,aswellasanecdotaldataontheeconomicimpactofbicycletourismandrecreation.Totalimpactiscalculatedtobe$556millionand3,420jobsinadditiontoanundeterminedbutsignificantadditionaleconomicbenefitfrombicycletourism.
BikesBelongCoalition.“BikesBelongSurvey:TheSize&ImpactofRoadRidingEvents.”November2009.
Surveywasconductedtoestimatethesize,number,anddirecteconomicimpactofrecreationalroadbicyclingeventsintheyear2008.Total2008revenuefromrecreationalroadridingeventscalculatedtobe$240millionin2008.
BostonCyclistsUnion.“BikeLanes–GoodforBusiness,GoodforTaxpayers.”
Describesindetailthebenefitstotaxpayersfrombicyclinginthecategoriesofhealthcarecosts,infrastructurecosts,cleanair,increasedtourism,improvementsintrafficsafety,andbikelanepopularity.
Buehler,RalphandJohnPucher,eds.“CityCycling.”TheMITPress.November2012.
Cheng,Elaineetal.“Shopping,Parking,andTransportationIntheEastVillage.”
Examinestransportationhabitsandshoppingandspendingpatternsofresidentsandvisitorson2ndAvenuebetweenHoustonSt.and14thSt.intheEastVillage,Manhattan.Analyzesmodeoftransportationtotheareaanditsrelationshipwithaveragespendingpercapita,residentvs.non‐residentautomobileuse,attitudestowardstravellingtotheareagivenless/moreparkingspaces
Clifton,Kellyetal.“ExaminingConsumerBehaviorandTravelChoices.”PortlandStateUniversity.February2013.
Reportlooksatconsumerspendingandtravelchoicesacross89businessesinthePortlandmetropolitanarea.Studyfindsthattherearedifferencesbetweentheamountconsumersspendatvariousbusinessesbytheirmodeoftravel,butthatthisdifferenceislesspronouncedwhencontrollingforcustomerdemographics.Furthermore,thebuiltenvironment(employmentdensity,proximitytorailtransit,etc)iskeytoexplainingtheuseofnon‐automobilemodes.
Cortright,Joe.“NewYorkCity’sGreenDividend.”CEOsforCities.April2010.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 8
Analyzesthe“GreenDividend”ofNewYork,theamountofmoneythatNewYorkerssaveonauto‐relatedexpensesperyearthatisthenspentlocally,stimulatingthecity’seconomy.LooksatVehicleMilesTravelled(VMT)perdayinNewYorkascomparedtothe50largestU.S.metroareasandcalculatessavingsbymultiplyingthedifferenceinVMTbythecostofoperatingamotorvehiclepermile.
Danielle,Sinnettetal.“MakingtheCaseforInvestmentintheWalkingEnvironment.”June2011.
Putsforthargumentsandevidenceforinvestinginthewalkingenvironment.Discussiontopicsinclude:whyinvestinwalkingenvironments,widerbenefitsofwalkingfriendlyenvironments,whatmakesagoodwalkingenvironment,andthecosteffectivenessofinvestmentsinwalkingenvironments.
DeanRunyanAssociates.“Proposal–OregonBicycleEconomicImpacts.”29March,2012.
Proposedprojectwillprovideadetaileddescriptionofthemagnitudeofbicyclingfromamanufacturingandretailsalesindustryandrecreationaltravelperspectivebydocumentingthevariouswaysthatbicyclesandbicyclingprovideeconomicbenefitstothestateanditsresidents.
DeanRunyanAssociates.“TheEconomicSignificanceofBicycle‐RelatedTravelinOregon.”April2013.
Studyaimstoprovideadetaileddescriptionofthemagnitudeofbicyclingfromarecreationaltravelperspectivebyusingadetailedquestionnaire.Datashowsthatin2012travelerswhoparticipatedinbicycle‐relatedactivitieswhiletravelinginOregonspentnearly$400million–approximately4.4percentofdirecttravelspendinginthestate.
Dobes,Leo.“EconomicEvaluationofBicycleInfrastructure.”
Appendix4inalargerpaper,“WalkingandCyclingTrunkInfrastructureReport.”AppendixprovidesanoutlineoftheCostBenefitAnalysismethodologyusedtoestimatethebenefitsofenhancedbicyclelanesandfacilitiesinCanberra.Authorsofthepaperwanttoapplyonlyadamages‐avoidedapproachwithvalueofstatisticallifebasedonthehumancapitalapproach,asopposedtothewillingnesstopaybasedonchoicemodeling.
EastCentralFloridaRegionalPlanningCouncil.“EconomicImpactAnalysisofOrangeCountyTrails.”2011.
AttemptstodeterminetheeconomicimpactoftheLittleEconGreenways,WestOrangeandCadyWayTrailsonOrangeCountyFlorida’slocaleconomy.Ageneralsurveywasdistributedtotrailusersinanattempttocollectdataonthespendinghabitsassociatedwithusingthethreetrails.Inordertodetermineeconomicimpact,datafromthesurveyswasanalyzedviatheRegionalEconomicModel,Inc.(REMI).
EconomicandPolicyResources,Inc.,LocalMotion,andResourceSystemsGroup,Inc.“EconomicImpactofBicyclingandWalkinginVermont.”6July,2012.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 9
EstimatesthetotaleconomicbenefitsofwalkingandbikinginthestateofVermont,withamorecomprehensiveapproachthansimplyanalyzingrevenuefromtourismandvisitorspending.StudyfindstheoveralleconomiccontributionofbicycleandpedestrianorientedactivitiesinVermontin2009tobe$82milliondollarsinoutputand1,418jobscomingfrominfrastructureandbicycle‐pedestrianeventsandbusinesses.
Flusche,Darren..“BicyclingMeansBusiness:TheEconomicBenefitsofBicycleInfrastructure.”AdvocacyAdvance.July2012
Highlightstheimpactthebicycleindustryandbicycletourismcanhaveonstateandlocaleconomies,discussesthecosteffectivenessofinvestments,pointsoutthebenefitsofbikefacilitiesforbusinessdistrictsandneighborhoods,andidentifiesthecostsavingsassociatedwithamodeshiftfromcartobicycle.Evidenceshowsthatinvestmentsinbicycleinfrastructureareacost‐effectivewaytoenhanceshoppingdistrictsandcommunities,generatetourismandsupportbusiness.
Garrett‐Peltier,Heidi.“EstimatingtheEmploymentImpactsofPedestrian,Bicycle,andRoadInfrastructure.”PoliticalEconomyResearchInstitute.December2010.
CasestudythatestimatestheemploymentimpactsofvarioustransportationinfrastructureprojectsinthecityofBaltimore,particularlyinregardstothedifferencesinemploymentresultingfromdifferentprojecttypes—projectsthatfocusonbicycleandpedestrianinfrastructurevs.thosethatdonot.Indescendingorderoftotaljobspermilliondollarsspent,projectsarerankedinthefollowingorder:Pedestrianprojects,bikelanes(on‐street),bikeboulevard(planned),roadrepairsandupgrades,androadresurfacing.
Garrett‐Peltier,Heidi.“PedestrianandBicycleInfrastructure:ANationalStudyofEmploymentImpacts.”PoliticalEconomyResearchInstitute.June2011.
Analyzestheemploymentresultingfromthedesignandconstructionofpedestrianandbicyclinginfrastructureprojects.DataweregatheredfromDepartmentsofTransportationusingdetailedcostestimatesonavarietyofprojectstocreateaninput‐outputmodelthatstudiesthedirect,indirect,andinducedemploymentthatiscreatedthroughthedesign,construction,andmaterialsprocurementofbicycle,pedestrian,androadinfrastructure.
Gotschi,Thomas.“CostsandBenefitsofBicyclingInvestmentsinPortland,Oregon.”JournalofPhysicalActivityandHealth.2011.
ObjectiveistoassesshowcostsofPortland’spastandplannedinvestmentsinbicyclingrelatetohealthandotherbenefits.Comparescostsofinvestmentplanswithhealthcarecostsavingsandvalueofstatisticallifesavings.Resultsshowthatinvestmentsofbetween$138and$605millionwillresultinhealthcarecostsavingsof$388to$594million,fuelsavingsof$143to$218million,andsavingsinvalueofstatisticallivesof$7to$12billion.
Grabow,Maggie,MicahHahn,andMelissaWhited.“ValuingBicycling’sEconomicandHealthImpactsinWisconsin.”TheNelsonInstituteforEnvironmentalStudiesCenterforSustainabilityandtheGlobalEnvironment,UniversityofWisconsin‐Madison.January2010.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 10
Assessestheeconomicandhealthbenefitsofbicyclingrecreationinthestateinadditiontodemographictrendscharacterizingcurrentandfuturecyclists.Economicimpactisdeterminedbyquantifyingthenumberofbicycleperson‐days,determiningtheaverageexpenditureofbicyclists,andthenmodelingtotaleconomicimpactsusinganinput/outputmodel.StudyestimatestotaleconomicimpactofbicyclerecreationandtourisminWisconsintobe$924millioninadditiontothetotalpotentialvalueofhealthbenefitsat$410million.
Griffin,Robert,JenniferHoag,andMichaelToma.“CoastalGeorgiaGreenwayMarketStudyandProjectedEconomicImpact.”ArmstrongAtlanticStateUniversityCenterforRegionalAnalysis.December2003.
Studyestimatesannualuseandeconomicimpactofa150‐milemulti‐usetrailthatexistsaspartoftheGeorgiacomponentoftheEastCoastGreenway.Analyzesbothnon‐quantifiableaswellasquantifiableeconomicbenefitsgivendifferingbaseassumptionsregardingpercentageoftrailusersthatarelocalresidents.
Hollowell,Dana.“Cyclingtourists,rails‐to‐trailsboostMichiganastwo‐wheeledvacationdestination.”BridgeMagazine.05April2012.
Krizek,Kevin.“EstimatingtheEconomicBenefitsofBicyclingandBicycleFacilities:AnInterpretiveReviewandProposedMethods.”EssaysonTransportationEconomics.2007.
Paperreviewsandinterpretsexistingliteratureregardingtheeconomicbenefitsofbicyclefacilitiesandsuggestsstrategiestoevaluateeconomicbenefitsinfuturework.Discussionofcentralissuesandconfoundingfactorsintheanalysisofbicyclebenefitsaswellashowtheframeworkpresentedinthepapercanbebuiltupon.
Lawrie,Judsonetal.“BikewaystoProsperity–AssessingtheEconomicImpactofBicycleFacilities.”InstituteforTransportationResearchandEducation.February2006.
DetermineifbenefitsgainedfromNorthCarolinaDepartmentofTransportationinvestmentsinbicyclefacilitiesintheOuterBanksjustifytheinvestmentinadditionalfacilitiesacrossthestate.EconomicImpactAnalysislooksatthedegreetowhichbicyclingtouristsweredrawntotheareabecauseofbicyclefacilities.Studysuggeststhatpublicinvestmentsinothercoastalandresortareascouldreturnsimilarbenefits.
LeagueofMichiganBicyclists.“2012SunriseBicycleTour–SurveyResults.”
LeagueofMichiganBicyclists.“StateofMichiganBicycleProfile.”16April,2013.
Listsdifferentbicycle‐relatedorganizations,groups,andbicycle‐friendlybusinessesacrosstheStateofMichigan.
Lee,Karen.“CreatingHealthyCommunitiesThroughDesign.”28June,2011.
Overviewofhowcommunitydesignimpactshealthbylookingattrendsincommunitydesignandtheircorrelationwithincreasesinobesityanddiabetesandgeneraldeclinesinhealth.Alsoprovidesdataonco‐benefitsofcreatingorimprovingaccesstoplacesfor
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 11
physicalactivitysuchasenvironmentalimprovements,moneysavedtotheconsumer,andjobcreation.
Liechty,RachelandIngridSchneider.“LakeCountyScenicByway:Awareness,impactonqualityoflife&economy.”UniversityofMinnesotaTourismCenter.December2010.
Studyaimstoidentify,viaaquestionnaire,consumerawarenessoftheLakeCountyScenicByway,thebyway’simpactonqualityoflifeamongresidents,andtheeconomicimpactofbywaytravelerstotheregionaleconomy.Economicimpactisestimatedat$32millionineconomicoutputand512full‐time,part‐time,andseasonaljobs.Litman,Todd.“EconomicValueofWalkability.”VictoriaTransportPolicyInstitute.12December2007.
Litman,Todd.“EconomicValueofWalkability.”VictoriaTransportPolicyInstitute.2007.
Describeswaystoevaluatethebenefitofwalkingandwalkabilityfromtheviewpointthatwalkingiscurrentlyundervaluedinconventionaltransportationplanning.Potentialwalkabilityimpactsincludeaccessibility,consumercostsavings,publiccostsavings,efficientlanduse,livability,publicfitnessandhealth,economicdevelopment,andequity.Threeapproachestointegratethevalueofwalkabilityintransportationplanningdecisionsarediscussed:asaproportionalshareoftotaltravelactivity,acostallocationapproach,andacost‐benefitanalysisapproach.
Lovy,Howard.“Biketrailsbringtwo‐wheeltourismtonorthernMichiganbusinesses.”Crain’sDetroitBusiness.26September,2012.
Meisel,Drew.“BikeCorrals–LocalBusinessImpacts,Benefits,andAttitudes.”PortlandStateUniversitySchoolofUrbanStudiesandPlanning.2010
Aimstoresearchandcloselyexaminetheperceivedbenefitsandimpactsofbikecoralsonlocalbusinessesproximatetoacorral.Web‐basedsurveyadministeredforallbusinesseswithinonehalf‐blockofabikecorral.Surveyresultsshowbikecorralsareperceivedtohelppromotesustainability,enhancestreetandneighborhoodidentity,increasefootandbiketraffic,etc.
NationalTransportationEnhancementsClearinghouse.“TheSocialandEconomicBenefitsofTransportationEnhancements.”
Showcases10projectsthatdemonstratedthepotentialoftheTransportationEnhancements(TE)programtobringaboutpositivechanceandeconomicgrowthinlocalcommunities.
NationalBicycleandPedestrianClearinghouse.“TheEconomicandSocialBenefitsofOff‐RoadBicycleandPedestrianFacilities.”TechnicalAssistanceSeries,Number2.September1995.
Nelson,Charlesetal.“Rail‐TrailsandSpecialEvents:CommunityandEconomicBenefits.”MichiganStateUniversity.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 12
DiscussescommunityandeconomicbenefitsassociatedwithtworecreationalbicyclespecialeventsheldonthePereMarquetteRail‐Trail(PMRT)inMidlandCountyMichigan.Botheventsbroughtintoover$450,000totalindirectspendingintheyear1999.
Neuner,Rory.“ResourcesforMichiganEconomicImpactofBicyclingStudy.”19February,2013.
BrieflydescribescurrenthotissuesinMichiganrelatedtotransportationinadditiontolistingmajorbicyclingorganizations.
NewYorkCityDOT.“MeasuringtheStreet:NewMetricsfor21stCenturyStreets.”2012.
Discusseskeyapproachestostreetdesignprojects,aswellashowtomeasureresultsagainstgoalsforsafety.Usingacross‐sectionofrecentNYCDOTstreetdesignprojects,thereportdetailsthemetricswhichNYCDOTusestoevaluatestreetprojects.Metricsinclude:crashesandinjuries,volumeofvehicles,trafficspeed,economicvitality,usersatisfaction,andenvironmentalandpublichealthbenefits.
Nighswander,Matt.“Bikelanesmaybenefitsmallbusinesses.”NBCNews.
OutdoorIndustryFoundation.“TheActiveOutdoorRecreationEconomy.”Boulder,CO.2006.
AnalyzestheactiveoutdoorrecreationeconomyandcalculatesitstotaleconomicimpactintheUnitedStates.Looksatsubgroupsoftheindustrysuchasdifferenttypesofrecreation,participationacrossdifferentregions,salesrevenuegenerated,jobsinvolvedinsupportingtheindustry.
PewCenterontheStatesandTheRockefellerFoundation.“MeasuringTransportationInvestments:TheRoadtoResults.”May2011.
Identifieswhichstateshavetheessentialtoolsinplacetomakemorecost‐effectivetransportationfundingandpolicychoices.Concludethatstatesgenerallyhavethegoals,performancemeasures,anddatatohelpthemmeasureprogressinregardstosafetyandinfrastructurepreservation.Inotherimportantareassuchasjobs,commerceandenvironmentalstewardship,policymakersaswellasthepublicneedbetterandmoreinformationabouttheresultstheyaregettingfortheirmoney.
Rails‐to‐Trails‐Conservancy.“ActiveTransportationBeyondUrbanCenters:WalkingandBicyclinginSmallTownsandRuralAmerica.”Washington,DC.
Newanalysisof2009NationalHouseholdTravelSurveyforfivedifferenttypesofruralareasimprovesuponpreviousresearchwhichplacedalltypesofruralareasinonecategory.Reportshowsthat,forsomecategoriesofruralcommunities,human‐poweredmobilityisascommonasinurbanareas.Discussestheneedforfederalinvestmentsinsmallercommunitiesascomparedtomoreurbanareas.
Rails‐to‐TrailsConservancy.“ActiveTransportationforAmerica:TheCaseforIncreasedFederalInvestmentinBicyclingandWalking.”Washington,DC.2008.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 13
Reportquantifiesthebenefitsfromcyclingandwalkingunderbusiness‐as‐usualscenario,modestscenario,andsubstantialscenario.Benefitsincludeavoideddriving,fuelsavings,CO2emissionreductions,andphysicalactivity.Benefitstotheeconomyrangefrom$4.1billionperyearintheBAUcaseto$65.9billioninthesubstantialscenario.
Rails‐to‐Trails‐Conservancy.“D<rail2012UserSurveyandEconomicImpactAnalysis.”December2012.
Studyconductedin2012toquantifythenumberofusersondifferentsectionsoftheDelawareandLehighNationalHeritageCorridoracrossdifferentsectionsofthetrail.Surveyswerealsoavailablealongthetrailthataskedquestionsregardingtrailusage,distancetravelledtousethetrail,amountofmoneyspentwhilevisitingthetrail/region,etc.
Rails‐to‐Trails‐Conservancy.“TrailUserSurveysandEconomicImpact:AComparisonofTrailUserExpenditures2009.”March2009
Reportfocusesonreporteddollarsspentfromtrailusersurveyscompletedonsevenrail‐trailsinPennsylvania.
Rodgers,AnthonyandPatrickVaughan.“TheWorldHealthReport2002:ReducingRisks,PromotingHealthyLife.”WorldHealthOrganization.2002.
Describestheamountofdisease,disabilityanddeathintheworldtodaythatcanbeattributedtoaselectednumberofthemostimportantriskstohumanhealth.Alsocalculateshowmuchofthecurrentburdencouldbeavoidedinthenextcoupleofdecadesiftheseriskfactorsarereduced.
Ryan,Bill.“EconomicBenefitsofaWalkableCommunity.”Let’sTalkBusiness–IdeasforExpandingRetailandServicesinYourCommunity.July2003.
Sayer,Jim.“CalculatingtheValueofBicycleTravel.”AdventureCyclingAssociation.21March,2012.
Powerpointpresentationonthevalueofbicycletravelandassociatedprojectsindifferentlocationsworldwide.
Snyder,Ryan.“TheEconomicValueofActiveTransportation.”RyanSnyderAssociates,LLC.
Factsheetdetailingthebenefitsofactivetransportationandhowitrelatestocommunitydesign.
SouthwickAssociates.“TheOutdoorRecreationEconomy:TechnicalReportonMethodsandFindings.”31August,2012.
Studyupdatesandexpandsupon2006studyofactiveoutdoorrecreationbyaddinganadditionalsurveytogaugethebroadereconomiccontributionsofoutdoorrecreation.Inordertocombineeconomiccontributionsfromthetwosurveys,asetofactivitieswas
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 14
definedthatencompassesbothtypesofrecreation(motorizedandnon‐motorized).Totaleconomicimpactiscalculatedasasumofdirect,indirect,andinducedeffects.
TheCenterforResearchonEconomicandSocialPolicy(CRESP)oftheUniversityofColoradoatDenver.“BicyclingandWalkinginColorado:EconomicImpactandHouseholdSurveyResults.”April2000.
ProvidesstatisticalinformationregardingtheeconomicimpactofbicyclinginColorado.Dataaregatheredphoneandmailsurveysofbicyclemanufacturers,retailbicycleshops,andskiresortoperatorsinColorado.EconomicimpactfrombicyclinginColoradocalculatedtobeover$1billionannually,primarilyfrombicyclemanufacturing.
Tomes,PatriciaandCarlKnoch.“TrailUserSurveysandEconomicImpact:AComparisonofTrailUserExpenditures2009.”Rails‐to‐TrailsConservancy.March2009.
Comparessurveyresponsescompletedonsevenrail‐trailsinPennsylvaniatosevenusersurveyscompletedoncomparabletrailsinthenortheastU.S.Reportreviewsaselectionoftrailusersurveysanalyzingtheeconomicimpactofrail‐trails,comparesthedataandmethodologyused,andcreatesacomparativetablewhichdetailsdollarsamountspentpertrailuseroneachtrail.
TransportationAlternatives.“StreetstoLiveBy.”August2008.
Examinesthecostsandbenefitsofawide‐ranging“livablestreets”programinNYC,aprogramthataimstoincreasepedestrianandbicycleusageofcitystreets.PaperreviewstheLivableStreetsmovement,howthemovementwillbenefitthecommunityandtheeconomy,andhowtobestmakeNYClivable.Recommendationsincludemakinglivablestreetstherule,increasingtheamountofwalkinginNYC,promotinglivablestreetsonthebasisofpublichealthandinbusinessdistricts,etc.
VancouverAreaCyclingCoalition.“HowdoBikesBenefitBusiness?”
Vogt,Christine,ChuckNelson,andJoelLynch.“BusinessAnalysisReport–ImpactsofthePereMarquetteRail‐TrailontheEconomyandBusinessCommunityofMidlandandIsabellaCounties,Michigan.”DepartmentofPark,RecreationandTourismResources,MichiganStateUniversity.
PowerpointdescribingthebenefitsandcostsrelatedtotheconstructionanduseofthePereMarquetteRail‐Trail.
Woehrer,Julia.“NewPavementMeansNewCustomersforLocalBusinesses.”NorthwestMichigan’sSecondWave.23October,2012.
Yates,Gus.“TheEconomicCaseforCarfreeDevelopment.”CarFreeCity,USA.
Powerpointpresentationdetailingthebenefitsofacar‐freedevelopmentplan.Benefitsincludelessautomobile‐relatedfatalities,lowerlevelsofobesity,pollutiondecreases,decreasesinhouseholdtransportationcosts,infrastructuresavings,etc.
APPENDIX D.
Survey Instruments and Interview Guides
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 1
APPENDIX D. Survey Instruments and Interview Guides
AppendixDcontainsthefollowingsurveyinstrumentsandinterviewguides:
Thesurveyinstrumentusedforthebicyclingeventsurveys;
Thesurveyinstrumentusedforindependenttouringbicyclists;and
Theinterviewguideusedindiscussionswithbicycletouringcompanies.
Event Participant Survey Instrument
TheMichiganDepartmentofTransportation(MDOT)isconductingastudyassessingtheeconomicimpactsofbicyclingthroughoutthestate.AlongwithastudyteamconsistingofBBCResearch&ConsultingandR.NeunerConsulting,MDOTisinterestedinlearningmoreaboutparticipationandspendinghabitsassociatedwithbicyclingeventandtravel.
Pleasetakeafewminutestocompletethefollowingsurvey.Thesurveyshouldtakeyounomorethan5minutestocomplete.Therearenorightorwronganswers,andeveryanswerisveryimportanttous.Ifyouparticipateinmultiplebicycle‐relatedevents,youmaybeaskedtoanswerthesurveybasedonyourtriprelatedtoeachevent.Weappreciateyourtimeandeffortwiththisprocess.Alloftheinformationgatheredwillbereportedinaggregateandyourresponseswillbeanonymous.
1. HaveyouparticipatedinanorganizedbicyclingeventinMichiganinthepast12months?
a. Yesb. No(terminatesurvey)
2. WereyouinvitedtotakethissurveyregardingaparticulareventinMichigan?a. Yesb. No(skiptoquestion4)
3. Whateventinvitedyoutotakethissurvey?[Dropdownmenuwithlistofeventsaswellasoptionstochoose‘other’andenteraresponse,or“Noeventinvitedmetotakethissurvey](skiptoquestion5unless“Noevent…”isselected)
4. WhatisthemostrecentMichiganbicyclingeventinwhichyouparticipated?[Dropdownmenuwithlistofeventsaswellasanoptiontochoose‘other’andenteraresponse]
5. DidyoutraveltoMichiganfromanotherstateorcountrytoparticipateintheevent?a. Yes(skiptoquestion7)b. No
6. Didyoutravelmorethan50milestoparticipateintheevent?
a. Yesb. No
7. ThebicyclingeventIparticipatedinwas…
a. Theprimaryreasonformytravel.(skiptoquestion9)b. Oneofmultiplereasonsformytravel.c. Notthereasonformytravel(i.e.Iwouldhavemadethesametripregardlessof
whetherornotIparticipatedintheevent).
8. Didyouextendthelengthofyourtripbecauseyouparticipatedintheevent?a. Yesb. No
9. Howmanypeoplewereinyourtravelparty(includingyourself)?___________
Page 2
10. Howmanypeopleinyourpartyparticipatedintheevent(includingyourself)?__________
11. Howmanydayswasyourtrip?__________
12. PleaseestimatetheamountofmoneyyourpartyspentperdayinMichiganonthefollowingcategoriesduringyourtrip.
a. Lodging(e.g.hotels,campgrounds,cottages) $_______b. Restaurantsandbars $_______c. Groceries(i.e.foodandbeveragenotatrestaurantsandbars) $_______d. Non‐foodshopping(e.g.clothing,souvenirs,etc.) $_______e. Non‐bicyclingentertainment(e.g.amusementpark,movietheater,etc.)$_______f. Bicycles,components,repairs,andaccessories $_______
13. Pleaseestimatetheamountofmoneyyourpartyspentontransportation(e.g.airfare,
gas,publictransportation,carrentalorparking)duringyourtrip.$__________
14. Whatisyourage?a. Under18b. 18‐24c. 25‐34d. 35‐44e. 45‐54f. 55‐64g. 65orabove
15. Whatisyoursex?
a. Maleb. Female
16. WhatisyourZIPcode?
a. _______b. IliveoutsidetheUnitedStates
17. Whatisyourannualhouseholdincome?
a. Lessthan$25,000b. $25,001‐50,000c. $50,001‐75,000d. $75,001‐100,000e. $100,001‐125,000f. $125,001‐150,000g. $150,001‐200,000h. $200,001ormore
18. Additionalcomments:_______________________________Thankyouforyourtimeandparticipation.Aswementionedatthebeginningofthesurvey,youmaybeaskedtotakethissurveyagainregardingyourparticipationinanotherevent.Ifyouhavethetime,weappreciateyourcompletionofasurveyregardingyourtripandexpensesforeachbicycle‐relatedevent.
MDOT Touring Bicyclist Survey
The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is conducting a study assessing the economic impacts of bicycle touring throughout the state. Along with a study team consisting of BBC Research & Consulting and R. Neuner Consulting, MDOT is interested in learning more about participation and spending habits associated with bicycle touring and travel. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. The survey should take you no more than 5-7 minutes to complete. There are no incorrect answers, and every answer is very important to us. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Josh DeBryun at MDOT: debruynj@michigan.gov
1. Have you ever participated in a multi-day bicycle trip in
Michigan?
Yes
No (If no, please skip to Question 15)
2. Have you ever visited Michigan before your most recent mutli-day bicycle trip?
Yes
No
3. How long has it been since your most recent multi-day bicycle trip in Michigan?
Within the past month
More than one month but less than six months
More than six months but less than a year
More than one year but less than three years
More than three years
4. Thinking about your most recent mutli-day bicycle trip in Michigan, how many days did you spend in Michigan (including rest days)?
__________
5. On your most recent multi-day bicycle trip in Michigan, how many bicyclists (including yourself) were in your travel/party group?
__________
6. On your most recent multi-day bicycle trip in Michigan, approximately how many miles did you ride per day touring within the state (exclude rest day riding)?
__________
7. On your most recent multi-day bicycle trip in Michigan, approximately how many miles did you ride in total within the state?
__________
8. At any time during your trip did you utilize U.S. Bicycle Route 20? (US Bicycle Route 20 is an east-west route traveling through central Michigan. Route 20 travels
between Marine City north of Detroit, to Ludington on the Lake Michigan coast. See map below.)
Yes
No
9. At any time during your trip did you utilize U.S. Bicycle
Route 35? (US Bicycle Route 35 is a north-south route in western Michigan that generally follows the Lake Michigan coastline. Route 35 enters Michigan near New Buffalo in the southwestern corner of the state and terminates the Upper Peninsula in Sault Ste. Marie. See map above.)
Yes
No
10. Please indicate, to the best of your ability, the cities in Michigan closest to where you entered and exited the state on your most recent multi-day bicycle trip.
Enter: __________
Exit: __________
11. What was the main surface type you used on your most recent multi-day bicycle trip in Michigan?
Paved road
Paved side path/rail trail
Dirt road
Dirt rail trail
45-54
55-64
65 or older
$100,000 – 124,999
$125,000 – 149,999
$150,000 – 199,999
$200,000 and above
12. Did your trip include riding an Amtrak train in Michigan?
Yes
No
13. Please briefly describe your bicycle route through the state of Michigan (description can include cities you stayed in, routes used during the trip, etc.)
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
14. Please estimate the amount of money your party spent per day in Michigan on the following categories during your trip (bicycling days and off days combined).
a.) Lodging (e.g. hotels, campgrounds, $_________ cottages)
b.) Restaurants and bars $_________
c.) Groceries (e.g. food and beverage not at restaurants and bars) $_________
d.) Non-food shopping (e.g. clothing, souvenirs, etc.) $_________
e.) Non-bicycling entertainment (e.g. amusement park, movie theater, etc.) $_________ f.) Bicycles, components, repairs and accessories $_________ g.) Non-bicycling transportation $_________
15. What is your age?
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
16. What is your sex?
Male
Female
17. What is the ZIP code of your primary residence? __________ (Skip to question 19)
I live outside the United States
18. If your primary residence is not located in the United States, in what city and country is your primary residence located?
City:______________
Country: ______________
19. What is your annual household income?
Less than $25,000
$25,000 - 49,999
$50,000 - 74,999
$75,000 – 99,999
20. Additional Comments: _____________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
To return, simply fold this survey in half so that the Business Return information is on the outside, either staple or tape to secure it, and then put it in the mail. No postage necessary.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
Interview Guide
Goodmorning/afternoon,mynameis_________andIamwithBBCResearch&Consulting.WeareworkingwiththeMichiganDepartmentofTransportation(MDOT)toassesstheeconomicimpactofbicyclinginthestateofMichigan.InadditiontosurveyingbicyclistsateventssuchasDALMACandtheMichigander,weareattemptingtocontactcompaniesthatprovideservicestotouringcyclistsinthestateofMichiganinordertocalculatetheeconomicimpactoftouringcyclistswithinthestate.Areyouwillingtospendafewminutes(5‐10)discussingyourbusinessandtheservicesthatyouprovidetotouringcyclistsinMichigan?
BelowisalistofpotentialquestionsforinterviewswithbicycletouringcompaniesthatoperateinMichigan.
Whattypesoftoursdoyouoffer?
Howmanydoyouoffereachyear?
Whatisthetotalnumberofcyclistswhotourwithyourcompanyeachyear?
WhatproportionofyourclientsarefromoutsideofMichigan?
Howmanystaffdoyouemploy?Aretheyemployedfull‐timeorpart‐time?
Whataretheaveragerates/pricesforyourtours?
Doyouprovideservicestoself‐supportedcyclistsinthestateofMichigan?
o Approximatelyhowmanyself‐supportcyclistsdoyouprovideservicestoeachmonth/year?
o Whatservicesdoyouoffer?Howmuchdotheycost?
Whatareyouraverageannualrevenues?Whatproportioncomesfromtouring‐relatedincome?
Businesstrendsinthepastfewyears?Haveyounoticedmore,less,orthesameamountoftouringbicyclistsinMichigan?
HaveyounoticedanychangeinbusinessasaresultofU.S.bicycleroutes20and35?Haveyounoticedcustomersspecificallymentioningthoseroutesasdesiredbicyclepaths/toursthroughthestate?
CanyouthinkofanythingelsethatthestateshouldconsiderinordertoimprovebicycletouringinMichigan?
Othercomments/concerns?
DoyouknowofanyothercompaniesinthestateofMichiganthatwouldbewillingtodiscusstheirbusinessesprovidingservicestotouringcyclists?
APPENDIX E.
Michigan Bicycle Events
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING — FINAL REPORT APPENDIX E, PAGE 1
APPENDIX E. Michigan Bicycle Events
AppendixEincludesthelistsusedforthestudyfortargetedbicycleeventsinMichiganaswellastheothereventsincludedinthedatacollectionprocess.
Figure 1. Targeted Bicycle Events
Source: BBC Research & Consulting.
Targeted Events
Assenmacher Michigan Mountain Mayhem Gravel Grinder
Barry‐Roubaix Gravel Road Race Michigan Mountain Mayhem Spring Classic
Bike Michiana for Hospice Michigan's UP Tour
Black Bear Bicycle Tour MSU Grand Fondo
Blue Water Ramble Mud Sweat and Beers
Celebration of Cycling NTN Trails Fest
Colorburst ODRAM
Copper Harbor Trails Festival One Helluva Ride
Grand Rapids Triathlon PALM
HealthPlus Tour de Crim Ride Around Torch
Holland Hundred Shoreline West
Lakeshore Harvest Country Bike Tour Tailwind Cyclocross
Leelanau Harvest Tour Tour de Livingston
Lowell 50 Yankee Springs Time Trial
Lumberjack 100 Zeeland Criterium
Michigan Mountain Mayhem Zoo‐de‐Mackinac Bike Bash (tour)
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING — FINAL REPORT APPENDIX E, PAGE 2
Figure 2. All Other Bicycle Events
Source: BBC Research & Consulting.
All Other Events
Addison Oaks Iron Range Roll Mt. Brighton Town Series Tawas Triathalon
Alma Grand Prix of Cyclocross Jill Byelich Memorial National 24hr challenge The 100,000 Meter T‐Shirt Ride
Alpena Sunrise Tour Kal‐Haven Trailblazer Noquemanon Snowbike World Championship The Highlander
Beat the Train Kaltour Northville Tour De Ville Thumb Sprint Triathlon
Big Bear Butt Ride Keweenaw Chaindrive Northwest Tour TCBA Tour de Crim
Big Mac Kisscross Novi Tree Farm Pump Track Jam Tour de Cure
Bike MS Lansing Bike Party Peach of a Ride Tour de Flint
Bike the Bridge Lansing Criterium Peak to Peak Tour de Ford
Bulldog Bike Tour Le Tour de Donut Pedal Grand Rapids Tour de Lac
Come Clean Duathlon Le Tour de Mont Pleasant Pedal n' Paddle Tour de Mitt
Critical Mass Lowell Covered Bridge Potawatomi Single Speed World Championship Tour de Mount Pleasant
Debaets Davos Mad Anthony Cyclocross Race for Wishes Tour of Frankenmuth
Delta County Century Ride Make a Wish Reeds Lake Triathalon Tour of Woodward
Detroit Bike City Maple Hill Race for Wishes Ride for a Cause Traverse City Cherry Festival
Detroit Randonneurs Marquette Cyclocross Ride for Cancer Trifecta Tour
Fall Fury Cyclocross Marquette Trails Festival Ride for Refuge Triple Trail Challenge
Gaslight Criterium Massive Fallout Ride MS Ultimate Cycle Challenge
Gladstone Metric Century Maybury Time Trial Ride of Silence University of Michigan Triathalon
Gold Coast Bike Tour MI Titanium Ride The Highlander UPCross
Gold Spike Tour MI Triathlon Championships Ride Thru Hell Vino Cycle
Gran Fondo Michigan Adventure Race Samford and Sun Triathlon Westford Recumbent Race
Grand Rapids Ride of Silence Midwest Recumbent Rally Shoreline Harvest Wow ride
Grazie 500 MISCA state championship Single Speed USA X100 Mountain Bike Race
Hansen Hills 100 MiTi Triathlon Singletrack Showdown Yankee
Harbor Springs Classic Motor City Bike & Brew Tours Six Hours of Ithaca Yooper ride
Hawk Island Triathlon MS 150 Frankenmuth Slow Roll
Holly triathlon MS 150 Holland State Cyclocross Championships
REPORT SUMMARY INFOGRAPHIC
Total economic impact:
of out-of-state self-supported touring bicyclists reported
using US Bicycle Routes 20 or 35
BICYCLE TOURISM IN MICHIGANthe economic impacts of
The average economic impact of self-supported touring bicyclists per trip:
The total economic impact of organized bicycling events in 2014 was
Apple Cider Century
$21.9 million
For more information contact Josh DeBruyn, MDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator at debruynj@michigan.gov
This study was made possible through the Federal Highway Administration State Planning and Research Program administered by the Michigan Department of Transportation.
$76069%
BICYCLE TOURISM IN MICHIGAN
GENERAL FINDINGS
CASE STUDY EVENTS
$1.94 million1 in 3
out-of-state participants traveled from a
non-neighboring state
participants traveled from:
$742
Highest average expenditures per participant of the six case study events 97%
were non-local participants
participantsin 2014
7,500
Iceman ComethChallenge
Michigander
36 different states
2 countriesand
Thisinfographicprovidesaone‐pagesummaryofbicyclinginthestateofMichiganbasedoninformationgatheredbyBBCResearch&ConsultingandR.NeunerConsultingfortheMichiganDepartmentofTransportation(MDOT)aspartofthesecondphaseofatwo‐phasestudyontheeconomicbenefitsofbicyclingeventsinMichigan.TheinfographicisaccompaniedbyareportprovidinginformationonthestateofMichiganandthedatasourcesandmethodologyusedforthestudy.Aspartofthestudy,theteamsurveyedparticipantsinorganizedbicyclingeventsthroughoutthestateofMichiganabouttheirspendinghabits.Self‐supportedtouringbicyclists(bicyclistswhodonotrelyonmotorvehiclestocarrytheirgearandprovisionswhiletravelling)werealsoaskedtoestimatetheirspendinghabitswhileinthestateofMichigan.Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheirspendinginthefollowingcategories:
Lodging(e.g.hotels,campgrounds,cottages);
Restaurantsandbars;
Groceries(i.e.foodandbeveragenotatrestaurantsandbars);
Non‐foodshopping(e.g.clothing,souvenirs,etc.);
Non‐bicyclingentertainment(e.g.amusementpark,movietheater,etc.);
Bicycles,components,repairs,andaccessories;and
Transportation(e.g.airfare,gas,publictransportation,carrentalorparking).
Belowisadescriptionofthedatasourcesforthe“GeneralFindings”sectionoftheinfographic:
Totaleconomicimpactoforganizedbicyclingevents—Gatheredfromsurveydataofover3,400participantsinorganizedbicyclingeventsinMichigan;
Economicimpactoftheaverageself‐supportedtouringbicyclist—Gatheredfromsurveydataofover350self‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinthestateofMichigan;
Percentageofself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsusingU.S.BicycleRoutes—Self‐supportedtouringbicyclistsurveydata.
Belowisadescriptionofthedatasourcesforthe“CaseStudyEvents”sectionoftheinfographic.Alldatawerecollectedviaphysicalandonlinesurveysunlessotherwisestated:
AppleCiderCentury—$1.94milliondollarsintotaleconomicimpactiscalculatedfromthedirectspendingofout‐of‐stateparticipantstothe2014ACC;
Michigander—$742istheestimatedaverageexpenditureforall2014Michiganderparticipants.Thisaverageishigherthantheotherfivecasestudyevents;
DALMAC—Anestimated36percentofout‐of‐stateparticipantstoDALMACcamefromstatesfurtherawaythanIllinois,Ohio,Wisconsin,andIndiana;
OretoShore—97percentofparticipantsinthe2014OretoShorewerenon‐localparticipants(i.e.,travelledtotheeventfrommorethan50milesaway);
IcemanCometh—Accordingtoeventregistrationlogs,participantsinthe2014IcemanComethChallengetravelledtoMichiganfrom36differentstatesandtwocountries(CanadaandAustralia);
TourdeTroit—Morethan7,500individualsparticipatedinthe2014TourdeTroit,accordingtoeventregistrationinformation.
ForinformationonU.S.BicyclesRoutesinMichigangoto:www.michigan.gov/mdot‐biking