2010 Bench Marking FINAL 1.25.09-Web

8/14/2019 2010 Bench Marking FINAL 1.25.09-Web

1/196

2010 Benchmarking Report

BICYCLING AND WALKING IN THE UNITED STATES

2 0 1 0 BENCHMARKING REPORT

p r ep a r ed b y


2/196

Alliance for Biking & Walking2


3/196


BICYCLING AND WALKINGIN THE UNITED STATES

2 0 1 0 BENCHMARKING REPORTFunding for this report was provided by

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This project was also made possible with signi cantsupport from Planet Bike and Bikes Belong Coalition.

Copyright 2010 by Alliance for Biking & WalkingThe Library of Congress, United States Copyright Of ce

All rights reserved. This report may be reproduced or transmittedwith the written permission of the Alliance. Requests should be

sent to Alliance for Biking & Walking at the address below:

P.O. Box 65150Washington, DC 20035

Phone: 202-449-9692E-mail: [email protected]

Web site: http://www.PeoplePoweredMovement.orgcover photo courtesy of Rails to Trails Conservancy


4/196


Report CreditsAuthor/Project Manager:Kristen Steele, Alliance for Biking & Walking

Research Coordinator/Author:Monica Altmaier, Alliance for Biking & Walking

Research Consultants:Ralph Buehler, PhD, Virginia Tech John Pucher, PhD, Rutgers University

Benchmarking Project Advisors:Andrew Dannenberg, MD, MPH, Centers for Disease Control & PreventionDeb Hubsmith, Safe Routes to School National Partnership Jeffrey Miller, Alliance for Biking & WalkingGabe Rousseau, PhD, Federal Highway AdministrationStephen Skowronski, Centers for Disease Control & PreventionArthur M. Wendel, MD, MPH , Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

ITE Review Committee:Philip J. Caruso, PE, Institute of Transportation Engineers John N. LaPlante, PE, T.Y. Lin InternationalTatiana Richey, Institute of Transportation EngineersMatthew D. Ridgway, AICP, PTP, Fehr & Peers Jeffrey R. Riegner, PE, AICP, Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLPEdward R. Stollof, AICP, Institute of Transportation EngineersShawn M. Turner, PE, Texas Transportation Institute

Additional Contributors:Bob Laurie, Alaska Department of TransportationKate McCarthy and Teri Gardner, San Francisco Bicycle CoalitionLotte SchlegelAllison Vogt, Bicycle Coalition of Maine

Editing Assistance:Nadege Dubuisson, Alliance for Biking & Walking Jim SwansonMaggie Warren Jessica Weber, Alliance for Biking & Walking

Photos courtesy of:Alison Fayre, Alliance for Biking & Walking, Bicycle Coalition of Maine,Cindy Shebley www.photowalkstoday.com, City of Minneapolis,D Sharon Pruitt, David Gartner www.versusgoliath.com,David Niddrie, Donald P aum, Dustin Jensen www.sfwiggle.com,Frank Chan, Greg Raisman, Gustavo Verissimo, Jason Vanderhill, Jchetan, John Luton, John Pucher, Juhan Sonin, Kate McCarthy,Katherine Johnson, Kristen Steele, Kristian Mollenborg,La-Citta-Vita @ Flickr, Les Chat eld, Louisville Metro Government,Megan Rucker, Myleen Hollero www.myleenhollero.com,Nicholas Whitaker, ickr/nickdigital, Payton Chung,Rails to Trails Conservancy, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Trailnet,Transportation Alternatives,SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium (SEARHC),Washington Area Bicyclist Association

Photo by Kristen Steele


5/196


AcknowledgmentsACKNOWLEDGM

This report is the result of hundreds working together.Thanks to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Bikes Belong,and Planet Bike for funding this project. Thanks to Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers University and Dr. Ralph Buehler of Virginia Tech for theirguidance, as well as for their contributions to the data analysis andediting of this report. And, to Lotte Schlegel for quality control andMonica Altmaier for her assistance with research, data collection, andillustrations.

Thanks to the Institute of Transportation Engineers review team fortheir advice during the drafting of this report. Also, thanks to our advi-sors at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for providingtheir expertise and guidance throughout the report drafting.

Last and most importantly, thanks to the leaders of Alliance memberorganizations who supported this project. These leaders were the vitallinks to local of cials and delivered the city and state surveys on time.This project would not have been possible without them, and it isin support of their vital work that this report has been produced.

Thanks to the following organizations and people fortheir help providing data for this report.Activate Omaha, Tammie DodgeActive Transportation Alliance, Carolyn Helmke

and Randy Neufeld

Alabama Department of Transportation,Mary CrenshawAlaska Department of Transportation,

Bob LaurieAlan M. Voorhees Transportation Center,

Leigh Ann Von HagenAlta Planning + Design, Jennifer DonlonArizona Department of Transportation,

Michael SandersAtlanta Bicycle Campaign, Amy GoodwinAtlanta Bicycle Campaign, Alicia WinkelblechAustin Cycling Association, Rebecca Serna

Baton Rouge Advocates for Safe Streets,Rick MorelandBicycle Advocacy of Central Arkansas,

Ken GoundBicycle Alliance of Washington,

Johnathon Fitzpatrick Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia,

John BoyleBicycle Coalition of Maine, Allison Vogt

Bicycle Colorado, Rolando LuarcaBicycle Federation of Wisconsin,

Catrine Lehrer-Brey

Bicycle Transportation Alliance, Emily GardnerBikeDenver, Lise NeerBikeTexas, Robin StallingsBike Walk Mississippi, Karen MogridgeBoston Bikes, Nicole FreedmanCalifornia Department of Transportation,

Ken McGuireCapitol Region Council of Governments, Sandy FryCharlotte Department of Transportation,

Ken TippetteChicago Department of Transportation,

Joshua Koonce

City of Arlington, Alicia WinkelblechCity of Baltimore, Nate EvansCity of Colorado Springs, Kristin BennettCity of Fort Collins, Dave KempCity of Fort Worth, Don KoskiCity of Fresno, Bryan JonesCity of Houston, Rita BalchusCity of Kansas City, Deb RidgwayCity of Long Beach, Courtney Aguirre


6/196


City of Oakland, Jason PattonCity of Oklahoma City Planning Department,

Lanc GrossCity of Raleigh Public Works Department,

Eric LambCity of San Diego, Brad JacobsenCity of San Jose, John BrazilCity of Tucson Transportation Department,

Tom ThivenerCity of Tulsa Public Works Department,

Brent StoutCity of Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation,

Barbara DukeClevelandBikes, Kevin CroninCoalition of Arizona Bicyclists, Robert JensenConsider Biking, Jeff StephensDelaware Department of Transportation,

Anthony AglioDepartment of Transportation, Talbot Hauffe

Executive Of ce of Transportation, Josh LehmanFederal Highway Administration, Donna Jones, Jatona Hatcher, Christopher Douwes

Florida Bicycle Association, Laura HallamGreen Mobility Network, John HopkinsHawaii Bicycling League, Mitchell NakagawaIndiana Bicycle Coalition, Nancy TibbettIowa Bicycle Coalition, Mark WyattKansas Department of Transportation,

Becky PepperKentucky Transportation Cabinet, David TiptonLeague of American Bicyclists, Bill Nesper and

Jeff PeelLeague of Illinois Bicyclists, Ed BarsottiLittle Rock Bicycle Friendly Committee,

Bud LaumerL.A. County Bicycle Coalition, Jennifer KlausnerLouisiana Department of Transportation and

Development, Brian ParsonsLouisville Metro Public Works, Dirk GowinMaryland Department of Transportation,

Michael JacksonMayor's Of ce of Transportation & Utilities,

Charles Carmalt

Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan PlanningOrganization, Tim MorelandMichigan Department of Transportation,

Josh DeBruynMichigan Trails and Greenways Alliance,

Todd ScottMinnesota Department of Transportation,

Mary Elizabeth Jackson

Missouri Bicycle Federation, Brent HughMountain State Wheelers Bicycle Club,

Dennis StrawnNational Center for Safe Routes to School,

Nancy Pullen-Seufert and Austin BrownNational Transportation Enhancements

Clearinghouse, Tracy Hadden LohNevada Department of Transportation, Bill StoryNew Hampshire Department of Transportation,

Jerry MooreNew Mexico Department of Transportation,

Tom TrowbridgeNew Orleans Regional Planning Commission,

Dan JatresNew York State Department of Transportation,

Eric OphardtNorth Carolina Bicycle and Pedestrian

Transportation, Helen ChaneyNorth Dakota Department of Transportation,

Bennett KubischtaOhio Department of Transportation, Sharon ToddOklahoma Department of Transportation,

Richard AndrewsPalmetto Cycling Coalition, Rachael KefalosRegional Transportation Commission of South

Nevada, Jerry DukeRhode Island Department of Transportation

Intermodal Planning, Steve ChurchSafe Routes to School National Partnership,

Margo PedrosoSalt Lake City Bicycle Collective, Michael Wise

San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Neal PatelSan Louis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition,Adam Fukushima

South Dakota Department of Transportation,Craig McIntyre

St. Louis Regional Bicycle Federation,Patty Vinyard

St. Paul Public Works, David KueblerTennessee Department of Transportation,

Jessica WilsonTeton Valley Trains and Pathways, Tim AdamsTransportation Alternatives,

Caroline SamponaroUtah Department of Transportation,Sharon Briggs

Vermont Agency of Transportation, Jon KaplanWalk/Bike Nashville, Glen WannerWashington Area Bicyclist Association,

Eric Gilliland

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


7/196


ContentsAcknowledgments ..................................................... 1

Preface ....................................................................... ......6Alliance for Biking & Walking.....................................6

Benchmarking Project Origins...................................7

Executive Summary ................................................... 8Objectives....................................................................8Data Collection..........................................................9Results................................................................... .....12

State Overview of Primary Benchmarking Indicators ....10City Overview of Primary Benchmarking Indicators .....11Overview of Walking, Bicycling, Transit, and Car Mode

Share ........................................................12High to Low Ranking of Bicycling and Walking Levels ...13Low to High Ranking of Bike/Ped Fatality Rates ...... .....14High to Low Ranking of Per Capita Funding

to Bike/Ped ....................................... .........15 Conclusions..............................................................19

1: Introduction ............................................................ 21 Benchmarking Bicycling and Walking.....................21Primary Objectives....................................................22Secondary Objectives...............................................23Study Areas and Data Collection.............................24 Study Area Populations ............................................25Benchmarks in This Report........................................27

Primary Benchmarks in This Report ............................27Using This Report.......................................................28

2: Levels of Bicycling and Walking ..................... 30How Many People Bicycle and Walk?........................30

State Ranking: Bicycling and Walking to Work .............31City Ranking: Bicycling and Walking to Work ............. .32Workers' Commutes in U.S. by Mode of Transport.... ....32Levels of Walking to Work in U.S. ........... .......................33Levels of Bicycling to Work in U.S. ........... ......................33Share of Commuters Who Bicycle or Walk in 50 States.. 34Share of Commuters Who Bicycle or Walk in Largest

U.S. Cities............. .........................................35Estimated Percent of All Trips by Bicycle and Foot.. .....36Share of Commuters Who Bicycle or Walk 1990-2007.. 37

Who Bicycles and Walks?..........................................38Bicyclist Mode Share by Income Class .......... ..............38Pedestrian Commuters by Income Classi cation..... ...39A Look at Gender........................................................... 40A Look at Ethnicity.......................................................... 41Bicycling and Walking to Work Levels and Gender

Composition by State..................................... 42Bicycling and Walking to Work Levels and Gender

Composition by City...................................... 43 A Look at Age................................................................. 44

TABLE OF CONT

P h o

t o b y

D u s t

i n J e n s e n , s

f w i g g l e

. c o m ,


8/196


3: Safety ..................................................................... 44 Overview of Walking and Pedestrian Safety

Nationwide and in Largest U.S. Cities.... ...46Overview of Bicycling and Bicycle Safety

Nationwide and in Largest U.S. Cities.... ...46 Victim Demographics...........................................46 Age and Risk ............ ................ ................................... 46What's the Risk?....................................................47 Bicycle Safety Ranking .........................................47

Pedestrian Safety Ranking .............................................. 48Percent of Trips and Traf c Fatalities Represented by

Pedestrians in Cities.................... ................. 49Percent of Trips and Traf c Fatalities Represented by

Bicyclists in........................................................ 50 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Risk by State ....................51Emerging Trends....................................................52

U.S. Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatalities 1994-2008 ......52Bicycle Safety in States............ ...................................... 53Pedestrian Safety in States............. .............................. 54Bicycle Safety in Cities ..................................................... 55Pedestrian Safety in Cities............ ................................. 56

4: Policies and Provisions ................................ 57Policies vs. Provisions.............................................57Data on Policies and Provisions...........................58Bicycling and Walking Policies.............................58

Planning for Bicycling and Walking in States.......... 60Planning for Bicycling and Walking in Cities........... 61Complete Streets Policies......................................... 63City Policies Affecting Bicycling and Walking......... .64State Policies Affecting Bicycling and Walking........ 65Safe Routes to School Policies ...................................... 68State Bicycle Policies................................................. 70State Legislation Relating to Bicycling ........................ 71

Provisions for Bicycling and Walking....................72Percent of Federal Transportation Dollars to Bicyclingand Walking................. .................................. 73

Bicycle and Pedestrian Dollars by Funding Program.. 73Percent of Transportation Dollars to Bike/Ped ........... 74Composition of Federal Funding for Bike/Ped

Provisions in Largest U.S. Cities ..................... 75Percent of Transportation Enhancement Funding to

Bike/Ped by State ............................................ 76State Transportation Enhancement Benchmarks

FY 1992-2008..................................................... 77Bike/Ped Funding in States ............................................ 78Bike/Ped Funding in Cities .............................................. 79Safe Routes to School Funding ...................................... 80FTE Bike/Ped Staff/Million People .................................. 83Number of FTE Bike/Ped Staff in Cities (2006-2008)

and FTE Staff/Million People ......................... 84Bike/Ped Staf ng in States ............................................... 85Staf ng in Cities ................................................................. 86Existing Bicycle Facilities in Major U.S. Cities .............. 88Growth in Bicycle Facilities in Major U.S. Cities 2007-

2009 .................................................................... 89Bike/Ped Infrastructure in Cities .................................... 90

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Innovative Facilities in Cities..................................... 91Innovative Facilities De ned.................. ................... 92CLOSER LOOK: Minneapolis: 15,000 Bicycle Parking

Spots........................................................... 93Bike-Transit Integration.............................................. 94

5: Education and Encouragement ............. 952 of the "5 Es"........................................................95Educating Professionals.....................................96

Bike/Ped Professional Education in States............ 97Educating the Public............................................98

Public Education and Events in States................... 100Adult Bicycle Education Courses.......................... 101

Youth Bicycle Education Courses....... .......................... 102Youth Bicycle Education: Youth Per One Participant ..103Adult Bicycle Education: Adults Per One

Participant ........................................................... 104Encouragement Programs and Events...............105

Bicycle Promotion in Cities..................................... 106Bike to Work Day Events............................. ............. 107National Walk and Bike to School Day Participants ..108Number of Schools Participating in Bike and

Walk to School Day.............................. ....109City-Sponsored Bicycle Rides................................. 110CLOSER LOOK: Louisville Mayor's Healthy Hometown

Hike and Bike...........................................1 10 Ciclovia/Car-free Events......................................... 111

6: Grassroots Advocacy ................................. 112 Growing the Movement.....................................112Advocacy as an Indicator.................................113

Alliance U.S. Bike/Ped Advocacy Organizations... 113Proving Effectiveness..........................................114 Measuring Advocacy Capacity.........................114 Revenue Sources of Statewide Alliance

Organizations.......................................... 114Revenue Sources of Alliance Organizations Serving

Cities........................................................ 114 Advocacy Capacity Ranking................................ 115Revenue Sources of Statewide Alliance

Organizations ................................................ 116Per Capita Revenue of Statewide Alliance

Organizations ................................................ 117Revenue Sources of Alliance Organizations Serving

Cities ............................................................... 118Per Capita Income of Alliance Advocacy

Organizations ................................................ 119Number of Residents Per One Member in Alliance

Advocacy Organizations ........................... 119Number of Residents Per One Member in Statewide

Alliance Organizations ............................... 120Number of Residents Per One Member in Alliance

Organizations Serving Cities ................... 121Capacity of Statewide Alliance Organizations..... 122CLOSER LOOK: Bicycle Coalition of Maine: Statewide

Powerhouse for Bicycling....................... 123Capacity of Alliance Organizations Serving Cities... 124


9/196


TABLE OF CONT

CLOSER LOOK: San Francisco Bicycle Coalition:10,000 Members Strong..................................................................................................... 125

7: In uencing Bicycling and Walking ......................................................................... 127Environmental In uences........................................................................ .............................127

Comparing Average Summer and Winter Temperatures to Bicycling Levels ....................................... 128Residential Density and Bicycling ad Walking Levels in Major U.S. Cities ............................................. 129Comparing Facility Miles to Bicycling Levels ................................................................................................ 130

Socioeconomics and Demographics.................................................................................131Comparing Car Ownership to Bicycling and Walking Levels .................................................................. 132

Relationship between Bicyclist Fatalities and Bicycling Levels ................................................................. 133Relationship between Pedestrian Fatalities and Walking Levels .............................................................. 134Relationship between Advocacy Capacity and Mode Share ................................................................ 135

Advocacy and Education....................................................................................................136 Looking to the Leaders.........................................................................................................137 CLOSER LOOK: Alaska's High Levels of Walking........................................................ ......................... 138

CLOSER LOOK: Portland's High Levels of Bicycling............................................................................. 141

8: Impact of Bicycling and Walking on Public Health .......................................... 143Bicycling, Walking, and Obesity...........................................................................................144

Change in Bicycling and Walking Rates vs. Adult Obesity and Overweight Rate. ............................ 144

Trend in Obese Children vs. Rate of Bicycling and Walking to School .................................................. 144Comparing Bicycling and Walking to Obesity Levels in 50 States .......................................................... 145 Obesity Levels ......................................................................................................................................................... 146 Levels of Bicycling and Walking to Work ........................................................................................................... 146

Other Health Indicators........................................................................................................147 Public Health in 50 States................................................................................................................... 148

Public Health in U.S. Cities.................................................................................................................. 149Comparing Bicycling and Walking to Physical Activity Rates in 50 States ............................................. 150

Comparing Bicycling and Walking to Diabetes Rates in 50 States .......................................................... 151Comparing Bicycling and Walking to High Blood Pressure Rates in 50 States ...................................... 152

9: Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 153Bicycle Share of Trips in Europe, North America, and Australia ............................................................... 154

Walk Share of Trips in Europe, North America, and Australia .................................................................... 155 Bicycling Levels in International Cities ............................................................................................................ 156 Bicycle Funding and Mode Share ................................................................................................................... 157

Appendix 1: Overview of Data Sources .................................................................... 161Appendix 2: Organization and Study Area Matches ........................................ 162Appendix 3: Challenges with Trip Data ................................................................... 163Appendix 4: Additional Data on Bicycling and Walking Commute

Trends .................................................................................................................................. 167Bicycle to Work Levels by City 1990-2007.......................... ........................................................... ...... 167Bicycle to Work Levels by State 1990-2007................................................................ ......................... 168Walking to Work Levels by City 1990-2007......................... ........................................................... ...... 169Walking to Work Levels by State 1990-2007................................. ....................................................... 170

Appendix 5:Additional Resources ............................................................................... 171Appendix 6: Overview of Other Benchmarking Efforts ..................................... 178

Benchmarking Efforts Abroad...............................................................................................178Benchmarking Efforts in the U.S...........................................................................................180Links to Other Benchmarking Efforts....................................................................................182Benchmarking Together.......................................................................................................187

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 188


10/196

Photo by the Alliance for Biking & Walking


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PrefacePREFACE

Alliance for Biking & WalkingAlliance for Biking & Walking (formerly known as the ThunderheadAlliance) is the North American coalition of grassroots bicycling andwalking advocacy organizations. Our mission is to create, strengthen,and unite state and local bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organiza-tions. Since our founding in 1996, we have grown from 12 to 160member organizations representing 47 states and three Canadianprovinces. In the last 14 years, we have improved the effectivenessof our organizations through trainings and the sharing of best prac-tice models in organizational development and bicycling and walk-ing initiatives. We are continually improving our delivery channelsthrough executive coaching, replicable models, trainings, our on-callsupport system, and our online resources library.

Alliance organizations inform and organize their communities toimprove conditions for bicycling and walking, promoting these ashealthy and enjoyable ways to travel. From advocating for bikewaysand walkways to conducting safety courses, our coalition is changingattitudes and the environment in communities across North America.The Alliance connects these grassroots forces, sharing best practices,fostering peer networking, and supporting each other in our effortsto promote bicycling and walking for healthy communities, a healthy

environment, and a better quality of life.

Advocacy leaders from across North America gathered for the2008 Alliance Leadership Retreat in Bainbridge Island, WA.


11/196


Benchmarking Project OriginsThe Alliances Benchmarking Project began in 2003 when Allianceleaders recognized the need for advocates to measure progress of bi-cycling and walking and realized the lack of available data. Our staff

and board jumped on the project, recognizing the bene t of showingthe impact advocacy has on increasing bicycling and walking. With-out hard data to measure results, Alliance organizations were miss-ing a key argument for their efforts.

In 2004 the Alliance completed a pilot benchmarking report collect-ing data only on bicycling from just 15 cities and 15 states to testmethods for the project. This rst report helped pave a smootherpath for the collection of more comprehensive data from all 50 statesand 51 cities in 2006 and 2007. The rst full report on the status of bicycling and walking in the United States was published in August

2007 (under the organization's former name: Thunderhead Alliance).This report marks a shift to the beginning of the year (January 2010).This shift was made so that the report would not seem outdated asquickly since publishing in the fall leaves just a few months left inthe year. This document is the second full report and builds upon ourprevious efforts.

Through the ongoing Benchmarking Project, the Alliance for Biking& Walking will publish an updated version of this report every twoyears and will continuously re ne methods and consider new datasets as available. As the project progresses, it will offer more precise benchmarks and recommendations for advocates and governmentof cials so that they have the data they need to improve bicyclingand walking in the U.S. and eventually all of North America.

Since our founding in 1996,we have grown from 12 to

160 member organizationsrepresenting 47 states andthree Canadian provinces.

Advocacy leaders point to the location of their newcampaigns at an Alliance Winning Campaigns Training

P h o

t o b y

t h e A l l i a n c e

f o r

B i k i n g

& W a

l k i n g

PREF


12/196


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary

Photo by Kate McCarthy, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

What isn't counted, doesn't count.

Government of cials working to promote bicycling andwalking need data to evaluate their efforts. In order toimprove something, there must be a means to measureit. The Alliance for Biking & Walking's Benchmarking

Project is an ongoing effort to collect and analyze data on bicyclingand walking in all 50 states and at least the 50 largest cities. Thisis the second biennial Benchmarking Report. The rst report waspublished in the fall of 2007, and the next report is scheduled to bepublished in January 2012.

Objectives(1) Promote Data Collection and AvailabilityThe Benchmarking project aims to collect data from secondarysources (existing databases) and to conduct surveys of city and stateof cials to obtain data not collected by another national source. Anumber of government and national data sources are collected and


13/196


EXECUTIVE SUM

illustrated in this report. Through state, city, and organization bian-nual surveys, this project makes new data available in a standardizedformat that otherwise does not exist.

(2) Measure Progress and Evaluate ResultsThe Benchmarking Project aims to provide data to government of-cials and advocates in an accessible format that helps them measuretheir progress toward increasing bicycling and walking and evalu-ate the results of their efforts. Because the Benchmarking Project isongoing, cities and states can measure their progress over time andwill see the impacts of their efforts. By providing a consistent andobjective tool for evaluation, organizations, states, and cities candetermine what works and what doesn't. Successful models can beemulated and failed models reevaluated.

(3) Support Efforts to Increase Bicycling and WalkingThis project will ultimately support the efforts of government of -cials and bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations to increase bicycling and walking in their communities. By providing a meansfor cities and states to compare themselves to one another, this reportwill highlight successes, encourage communities making progress,and make communities aware of areas where more effort is needed.By highlighting the top states and cities, other states and cities willgain inspiration and best practice models. This report is intended tohelp states and communities set goals, plan strategies, and evaluate

results.

Data CollectionThis report focuses on 50 states and the 51 largest U.S. cities. Most bicycling and walking is in urban areas, and because of short tripdistances, the most potential for increasing bicycling and walkingis in cities. Whenever possible, the Alliance collected data for thisreport directly from uniform government data sources. Researcherscollected data that were not readily accessible from national sourcesthrough three surveys for cities, states, and advocacy organizations.In October 2008, the team reached out to 50 states and 51 cities, utiliz-ing the staff of cities, state departments of transportation, metropoli-tan planning organizations, and advocacy organizations to providedata for organization, city, and state surveys. The surveys comple-mented existing government data sources to create a comprehen-


14/196


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

State Mode Share Safety Funding Staf ng Bike/PedPolicies (1)Advocacy

Capacity (2)Alabama

Alaska Arizona

Arkansas California *Colorado

Connecticut Delaware

Florida Georgia *Hawaii Idaho Illinois

Indiana Iowa

Kansas Kentucky *Louisiana

Maine Maryland *

Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi

Missouri Montana * Nebraska * Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey New Mexico *

New York North Carolina North Dakota

Ohio Oklahoma

Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island

South Carolina South Dakota

Tennessee Texas

Utah Vermont Virginia *

Washington West Virginia

Wisconsin Wyoming

Find the Data (pg) 38 5758 82 89 64, 69,75 121, 126

State Overview of Primary Benchmarking IndicatorsKey: = Top 1/3 among states = Middle 1/3 among states = Bottom 1/3 among states * = data unavailable

The tables on this page and next givean overview of how states and citiescompare in six areas. Full circles indicatethe best ranking; states and cities with fullcircles are within the top 1/3 among theirpeers. Half-circles represent the middle1/3, and empty circles represent the bot-tom 1/3. States and cities with the mostlled in circles represent those that aresetting the benchmarks for bicycling andwalking levels, safety, funding, staf ng,policies, and advocacy capacity, Belowis an explanation for how the ranking onthis page and next were determined.

Mode Share: This ranking is based on thecombined share of commuters who bi-cycle and walk to work. The top 1/3 statesand cities are those with the highestpercentage of workers who commute bybicycle and foot. Data source: ACS 2007

Safety: This ranking is based on the bi-cycle and pedestrian fatality rate de nedas number of bicycle and pedestriandeaths (using a 3-year average) dividedby the bicycling and walking to workmode share times the population. The top1/3 states and cities are those with thelowest fatality rate, and thus the highestsafety ranking. Data Sources: FARS 2005-2007, ACS 2007

Funding: This ranking is based on thefederal dollars per capita that are obli-gated to bicycling and walking annually.The top 1/3 states and cities are thosewith the highest per capita investment offederal dollars in bicycling and walking.Data Source: FHWA 2004-2008

Staf ng: This ranking is based on thenumber of full-time-equivalent city andstate staff devoted to bicycling andwalking issues per 1 million residents. Thestate ranking includes only state depart-ment of transportation staff. City rankingincludes city staff. The top 1/3 states andcities are those with the highest numberof bike/ped staff per 1 million residents.Data Source: State and city surveys

Bike/Ped Policies: This ranking is basedon the total number of policies promot-ing bicycling and walking adopted bythe state/city. Policies counted for statesinclude: Goals to increase walking,increase bicycling, decrease pedestrianfatalities, and decrease bicycle fatalities;Master Plan adopted for bicycling andfor walking; Bike/ Ped advisory commit-tee; legal 2-abreast riding for bicycles;publicly available bicycle map; incen-

Interpreting the State andCity Overview Tables


15/196


EXECUTIVE SUM

City Overview of Primary Benchmarking Indicatorstives for bicycle commuting, completestreets policy; CO 2 Reduction Planadopted and if it included goals for bi-cycling and goals for walking; statewidebicycle conference. Policies counted forcities include: goals to increase walking,increase bicycling, decrease pedestrianfatalities, and decrease bicycle fatalities;Master Plan adopted for bicycling andfor walking; Bike/ Ped advisory commit-tee; driver enforcement for not yielding;minimum spending level for bicycle andpedestrian; maximum number of parkingspaces for new building; bicycle parkingrequirements in building/ garages, newbuildings, and at public events; completestreets policy. Data Sources: State surveys,city surveys, League of American Bicy-clists (1)

Advocacy Capacity: This ranking isbased on the 3-year average (2006-2008)per capita revenue of bicycling andwalking advocacy organizations servingcities/states. Only statewide organizationsare included for states and only organiza-tions with a focus on serving a study areacity are included for cities. Cities andstates without dedicated advocacy orga-nizations are marked by an empty circle.Data Source: Organization surveys (2)

Notes: (1) Because many states have thesame number of policies, policy rankingsare not divided into even thirds. For states,those with 10 or more of the 16 policiesconsidered are indicated with full circles;those with 5-9 policies are indicated witha half circle, and those with fewer than5 policies are indicated with an emptycircle. For cities, those with 9 or more ofthe 15 policies considered are indicatedwith full circles; those with 7-8 policies areindicated with a half circle, and thosewith fewer than 7 policies are indicatedwith an empty circle. (2) These rankingsare based on surveys of Alliance bicy-cling and walking advocacy organiza-tions only. Because some cities and statesare not served by dedicated Allianceadvocacy organizations, for states, the 16served by advocacy organizations withthe greatest capacity are marked with afull circle, the 15 remaining states servedby advocacy organizations are marked

with half circles, and the remainingstates not served by statewide Allianceadvocacy organizations are indicatedwith empty circles. For cities the 15 servedby advocacy organizations with thegreatest capacity are marked with a fullcircle, the 14 remaining cities served byadvocacy organizations are marked withhalf circles, and the remaining cities notserved by dedicated Alliance advocacyorganizations are indicated with emptycircles.

Key: = Top 1/3 among states = Middle 1/3 among states = Bottom 1/3 among states * = data unavailable

City Mode Share Safety Funding Staf ng Bike/PedPolicies (1)Advoca

Capacity Albuquerque * *Arlington, TX *

Atlanta Austin

Baltimore Boston

Charlotte Chicago

Cleveland * * Colorado Springs

Columbus Dallas Denver Detroit El Paso * *

Fort Worth Fresno Honolulu * Houston *

Indianapolis Jacksonville * *

Kansas City, MO Las Vegas

Long Beach Los Angeles *

Louisville Memphis *

Mesa Miami

Milwaukee Minneapolis

Nashville * New Orleans *

New York * Oakland

Oklahoma City Omaha *

Philadelphia Phoenix

Portland, OR Raleigh

Sacramento * *San Antonio * *

San Diego San Francisco

San Jose Seattle Tucson Tulsa

Virginia Beach Washington, DC

Find the Data (pg) 39 5960 83 88,90 65,68 128


16/196


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

sive reserve of data that evaluatesmultiple factors that affect bicyclingand walking in cities and states.

ResultsLevels of Bicycling and WalkingFrom 1990 to 2007, the percent of commuters who bicycle to work increased from 0.4% to 0.5% whilethe percent of commuters who walk to work decreased from 3.9% to2.8%. According to the 2007 Ameri-

can Community Survey (ACS), 3.3%of commuters nationwide are bicy-clists (0.5%) or pedestrians (2.8%).Residents of major U.S. cities are 1.8times more likely to walk or bicycleto work than the national average.

Mode ofTravel

% of Trips to Work (1) % of All Trips (2)

50States

Major U.S.Cities

50States

Major U.S.Cities

2.8% 4.8% 8.7% 11.0%

0.5% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9%

4.8% 17.3% 1.6% 2.4%(4)

(3)91.9% 77.1% 88.8% 85.7%(4)

Overview of Walking, Bicycling,Transit, and Car Mode Share

According to the 2001 NationalHousehold Travel Survey (NHTS)0.9% of all trips are by bicycle and8.7% of all trips are by foot nation-wide. It is dif cult to determine bicycling and walking mode share

for all trips at the state and city lev-els because of small sample sizes of NHTS.

Bicycle and pedestrian commutersare generally distributed propor-tionately among ethnic groups inthe U.S., according to the 2007 ACS.Hispanics are slightly more likely to bicycle or walk to work and Asians

are more likely to walk to work thanother ethnic groups. Greater dispari-ties are found among genders. Whileamong pedestrian commuters, 54%are male and 46% are female, among bicycle commuters, 77% are maleand only 23% are female. A look atage reveals that while walking isgenerally distributed proportionate-ly among age groups, youth under

age 16 make up the majority of bi-cycle trips. This age group makes up just 24% of the U.S. population, butaccounts for 58% of bicycling trips.

SafetyWhile overall numbers of bicycleand pedestrian fatalities are declin-ing, pedestrians and bicyclists arestill at a disproportionate risk for

being a victim of a traf c fatality.While just 8.7% of trips in the U.S.are by foot and 0.9% are by bicycle,11.3% of traf c fatalities are pedestri-ans and 1.8% are bicyclists. In majorU.S. cities, 4.8% of trips are by foot

Sources: (1) ACS 2007 (2) NHTS 2001 Notes: (3) This includes trips by pri-vate car and "other" means that are not public transportation, bicycling,or walking. (4) These values are estimated using metropolitan areas withpopulations over 1 million and do not re ect the study area cities of thisreport exactly.


17/196


EXECUTIVE SUM

High to Low Ranking ofBicycling and Walking Levels

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Alaska

New York

Vermont

Montana

Oregon

Wyoming

South Dakota

Hawaii

North Dakota

Massachusetts11. Maine12. Iowa13. Pennsylvania14. Colorado15. Idaho16. Washington17. Wisconsin18. Minnesota19. California20. New Hampshire21. Rhode Island22. Illinois23. Nebraska24. New Jersey25. Utah26. Connecticut27. Delaware28. Kansas29. Arizona30. Nevada31. West Virginia32. Maryland33. New Mexico34. Michigan35. Ohio36. Virginia37. Indiana38. Kentucky39. Louisiana40. Missouri41. Florida42. Oklahoma43. North Carolina44. Mississippi45. South Carolina46. Texas47. Georgia48. Arkansas49. Tennessee50. Alabama

States1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Boston

Washington, DC

San Francisco

New York

Seattle

Minneapolis

Philadelphia

New Orleans

Portland, OR

Honolulu11. Baltimore12. Oakland13. Chicago14. Denver15. Tucson16. Milwaukee17. Sacramento18. Long Beach19. Atlanta20. Cleveland21. Los Angeles22. Miami23. San Diego24. Raleigh25. Columbus26. Mesa27. Albuquerque28. Detroit29. Austin30. Colorado Springs31. Louisville32. Las Vegas33. Fresno34. San Jose35. Tulsa36. Houston37. Kansas City, MO38. Memphis39. El Paso40. Omaha41. San Antonio42. Phoenix43. Virginia Beach44. Indianapolis45. Charlotte46. Dallas47. Arlington, TX48. Jacksonville49. Nashville50. Fort Worth51. Oklahoma City

Cities

and 0.8% are by bicycle, yet 26.5% of traf c fatalities are pedestrians and3.0% are bicyclists.

According to the 2005-2007 FatalityAnalysis Reporting System (FARS)

and the 2001 NHTS, seniors are themost vulnerable age group. Whileadults over 65 make up 9% of walk-ing trips and 4% of bicycling trips,they account for 19% of pedestrianfatalities and 9% of bicyclist fatali-ties.

Policies and ProvisionsA number of policies and provisionsare represented in this report in-cluding funding and staf ng lev-els, infrastructure, written policies,and bike-transit integration. Whilemany states and cities have shownprogress in this area, most still rank poorly for funding, written policies,and bike-transit integration.

Funding for Bicycling and Walking2008 data from the Federal HighwayAdministration reveal that statesspend just 1.2% of their federaltransportation dollars on bicyclingand walking. This amounts to just$1.29 per capita for bicycling andwalking. About 46% of these dedicated bicycle and pedestrian dollars are fromthe Transportation Enhancement (TE)program. The majority of TE funding

(48%) goes toward building bicycleand pedestrian facilities and to bicycleand pedestrian education.

Source: 2007 ACS Notes This ranking is based on thecombined bike and walk to work share from the 2007ACS. The number one position indicates the state andcity with the highest share of commuters who commuteby bicycle or foot. View graphs illustrating this data onpages 34 and 35 of this report.


18/196


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11. South Dakota12. Iowa13. New York14. Wisconsin15. Montana16. Washington17. Oregon18. Colorado19. Kansas20. Connecticut21. Pennsylvania22. Utah23. Ohio24. Illinois25. Rhode Island26. West Virginia27. Virginia28. Indiana29. Hawaii30. New Jersey31. Kentucky32. Michigan33. California34. Missouri35. Maryland36. Delaware37. Oklahoma38. Arkansas39. Nevada40. Tennessee41. Texas42. Georgia43. Arizona44. North Carolina45. Mississippi46. New Mexico47. Louisiana48. Alabama49. South Carolina50. Florida

StatesVermont

Nebraska

Alaska

Wyoming

North Dakota

Maine

Idaho

New Hampshire

Minnesota

Massachusetts

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Kansas City, MO

Boston

Minneapolis

Seattle

New York

San Francisco

Colorado Springs

Washington, DC

Portland, OR

Philadelphia11. Omaha12. Chicago13. Baltimore14. New Orleans15. Oakland16. Cleveland17. Denver18. Columbus19. Milwaukee20. Long Beach21. Honolulu22. Atlanta23. Sacramento24. San Diego25. Virginia Beach26. El Paso27. Los Angeles28. Tucson29. Raleigh30. San Jose31. Indianapolis32. Mesa33. Austin34. Las Vegas35. San Antonio36. Memphis37. Louisville38. Fresno39. Arlington, TX40. Houston41. Charlotte42. Albuquerque43. Tulsa44. Detroit45. Miami46. Phoenix47. Nashville48. Oklahoma City49. Dallas50. Fort Worth51. Jacksonville

Cities

Low to High Ranking ofBike/Ped Fatality Rates

Sources: FARS 2005-2007, ACS 2007 Notes: This ranking isbased on the fatality rate which is calculated as numberof bicycling or walking fatalities during 2005-2007 dividedby the population times the bicycle or walk to work modeshare. The number one position indicates the safest stateor city according to the fatality rate. View these data onpages 5356 of this report.

Planning and LegislationSince the 2007 Benchmarking Report,there has been a 44% increase in thenumber of states that have publishedgoals to increase bicycling and walk-ing, and a 78% increase in the numberof states that have published goals toreduce bicycle and pedestrian fatali-ties.

A number of new policies were includ-ed in the surveys for this report andcollected from the League of AmericanBicyclists' (LAB) new Bicycle FriendlyStates program. 2009 LAB data on statelegislation reveal that most states have basic bicyclists' rights legislation such

as allowing bicyclists to legally ridetwo-abreast, signal right turns withtheir right hand, and to take a full traf-c lane in the presence of a sidepath or

bike lane. Fourteen states have 3-footpassing laws that require motorists topass bicyclists at a safe distance of atleast three feet.

A survey of other policies found thatless than half of cities and states haveadopted complete streets policies thatrequire streets be built to accommodateall potential road users. Thirteen of 18states that have adopted CO2 reduc-tion plans have included goals for bicycling and walking as part of theseplans. Just 16 states report having astatewide bicycle conference. And 36states report having a publicly avail-able bicycle map.


19/196


EXECUTIVE SUM

High to Low Ranking of PerCapita Funding to Bike/Ped

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Alaska

Vermont

Rhode Island

Wyoming

Montana

Hawaii

New Hampshire

Delaware

Iowa

New Mexico11. Tennessee12. Washington13. Arizona14. Minnesota15. North Dakota16. Pennsylvania17. Idaho18. Alabama19. Missouri20. Kansas21. Indiana22. Maine23. Nebraska24. South Dakota25. Georgia26. Kentucky27. Wisconsin28. Oregon29. Utah30. Michigan31. Ohio32. Arkansas33. North Carolina34. California35. Louisiana36. Colorado37. Connecticut38. Florida39. Mississippi

40. Texas41. Massachusetts42. Nevada43. Illinois44. Oklahoma45. Maryland46. New Jersey47. New York48. West Virginia49. South Carolina50. Virginia

States

Data on Safe Routes to School policiesat the state level were collected fromstate surveys and from the Council of Educational Facility Planners Interna-tional (CEFPI). State surveys indicatethat 15 states provide additional fund-ing for Safe Routes to School beyondfederal funding. According to CEFPI,25 states have policies requiring mini-mum acreage for school siting. Thesepolicies often force new schools to lo-cate far from population centers mak-ing bicycling and walking to schooldif cult for students.

Cities were surveyed on driver en-forcement for not yielding to bicyclists

or pedestrians. Results indicate thatslightly less than half of cities activelyenforce motorists not yielding to bicy-clists and pedestrians. The average neis $159.

Cities were also surveyed on car and bicycle parking requirements. Themajority of cities (38) have policiesthat require a minimum number of carparking spaces for new developments. Just eight cities report having policiesthat set maximum limits for car park-ing. Fifteen cities require bicycle park-ing in buildings and garages, 23 as partof new buildings, and eight at publicevents over a certain size.

Staf ng Staf ng is indicative of how a state orcity prioritizes improving bicycling

and walking. Surveys indicate that,Source: FHWA FMIS 2004-2008Notes: This ranking isbased on the per capita spending of states and citieson bicycling and walking using a 5-year average (2004-2008). Data is based on funds obligated to projects inthis period and are not necessarily the amount spent inthese years. The number one position indicates the stateor city with the highest amount of per capita funding tobicycling and walking. No data were available for NewYork City and Honolulu. View these data on pages 7879of this report.

Atlanta

Minneapolis

Oakland

Washington, DC

Tucson

Seattle

Nashville

Cleveland

Sacramento

Miami11. Indianapolis12. Raleigh13. San Diego14. San Francisco15. San Jose16. Denver17. Kansas City, MO18. Portland, OR19. New Orleans20. Detroit21. Albuquerque22. Oklahoma City23. Milwaukee24. Houston25. Jacksonville26. Omaha27. Philadelphia28. Dallas29. Fresno30. Memphis31. Colorado Springs32. Louisville33. Baltimore34. Virginia Beach35. Arlington, TX36. San Antonio37. Columbus38. Phoenix39. Long Beach

40. Boston41. Los Angeles42. Tulsa43. Chicago44. Las Vegas45. Mesa46. Fort Worth47. Charlotte48. Austin49. El Paso

Cities1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


20/196


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

on average, states have 0.8 staff per 1 million residents dedicated to bicycling and walking. While there are states and cities with notablestaf ng dedicated to bicycling and walking, there is still signi cantroom for improvement. Outreach for this report revealed that themajority of staff dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian issues are over-worked, and their departments are understaffed.

InfrastructureCity surveys examined current and planned bicycle and pedestrianinfrastructures in order to benchmark the progress communitiesare making. Speci cally, cities reported miles of bike lanes, bicycleroutes, and multi-use paths. On average, cities have 1.6 miles of bi-cycle facilities (bike lanes, multi-use paths, and signed bicycle routes)per square mile (up from 1.2 miles in 2007).While implementation of innovative facilities such as bicycle boule-vards and colored bike lanes is low, surveys indicated that there arenew projects currently being implemented or in the process of ap-proval.

Bike-Transit IntegrationBike-transit integration has proved to be a vital aspect of effective bicycle systems. The report analyzes responses from city and statesurveys, as well as American Public Transportation Association(APTA) data, to see how well cities are integrating bicycle systemswith transit. Thirty-seven cities report that 100% of their bus eet has bicycle racks, a 23% increase over the past two years. On average,major U.S. cities report an average of 1.2 bicycle parking spaces at

transit stops for every 10,000 residents.

Education and EncouragementEducation and encouragement programs at the state and city levelare effective ways to inform the public and promote bicycling andwalking. Information from state and city surveys and the NationalCenter for Safe Routes to School illustrates the growth in bicycle andpedestrian education in communities. National Walk and Bike toSchool Day is a popular encouragement activity with growing schoolparticipation nationwide.

Thirty cities report having youth bicycle education courses and35 have adult courses. Youth education is a vital area of outreach because it has the potential to in uence the habits of the next gen-eration. The number of youth who participate in bicycle educationcourses in cities increased by 20% from two years ago. Surveysindicate a 69% increase in adult participation levels for bicycle educa-tional courses over the last two years.


21/196


EXECUTIVE SUM

League of American Bicyclists' data indicate that the majority of states (43) have information on bicycling in their state driver's manu-al, yet just 23 states have questions on bicycling on their state driver'sexam. The majority of states (33) have a "Share the Road" or similarpublic safety campaign. Fifteen states report sponsoring a statewideride to promote bicycling or physical activity.

This Alliance also collected data on professional education regarding bicycling and walking. Overall, most states have great room for im-provement in this area. Only 30% of states have bicycle enforcementas part of police of cer training, and only 22% have bicycle enforce-ment as a police academy requirement. And, just 16 states reporthaving hosted a statewide bicycle and pedestrian conference.

Cities were also surveyed on encouragement activities includingpresence of and participation levels in Bike to Work Day events, ci-clovias/Sunday street events, and city-sponsored bicycle rides. Biketo Work Day is the most common encouragement event with 38 cities

Photo by Kristen Steele


22/196


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

participating with an average of one participant for every 157 adults.Twenty-three cities sponsor rides to promote bicycling or physicalactivity with an average of one participant for every 582 residents.Fifteen states have hosted car-free ciclovia/Sunday parkways eventswith an average of one participant for every 53 residents.

Cycling and Walking AdvocacyAdvocacy organizations have the potential to in uence bicyclingand walking in the communities they serve by advocating for andwinning new policies, funding, infrastructure, and programs. Thenumber of Alliance state and local bicycle and pedestrian advocacyorganizations has been increasing steadily since the Alliance wasfounded in 1996 (as Thunderhead Alliance). This report measuresorganization capacity of Alliance member organizations and setsstandards for membership, revenue, staf ng, and media exposure.Results from Alliance organization surveys vary widely because of

the great variation in maturity and operations of these organizationsas well as the communities they serve. Some organizations in this re-port are decades old while others were founded not long before thesesurveys were collected.

Surveys indicate that revenue of advocacy organizations per residentserved increased from $0.03 to $0.04 in the last two years. Organi-zations serving cities earn signi cantly more per capita than theirstatewide counterparts. Local organizations earn an average of $0.20per resident served while statewide organizations earn just $0.03 perresident. About half of the statewide Alliance organizations report an

increase in per capita revenue from two years ago. In general, orga-nization revenue is diversi ed, coming from membership and dona-tions, events, fees, grants, contracts, and the bicycle industry. Localalliance organizations also have much higher per capita membershiplevels averaging one member per 1,283 residents. Statewide organi-zations have an average of 5,222 per member. Similarly, statewideorganizations operate with an average of 0.3 full-time-equivalentstaff (FTE) per million residents served. Organizations serving citiesaverage 1.9 FTE staff per million residents.

Factors In uencing Bicycling and WalkingAnalysis in this report shows several positive relationships between bicycling and walking rates and safety, advocacy capacity, density,and car ownership. While weather does not appear to be a factor thatdirectly in uences bicycling levels, density, advocacy capacity, andcost of operating a vehicle are a few factors that appear to in uence bicycling and walking trips. ACS and FARS data indicate a positive


23/196


EXECUTIVE SUM

correlation between bicycling and walking levels and safety. In linewith previous studies, an increase in walking and bicycling levels isstrongly related to increased bicyclist and pedestrian safety. A slightpositive relationship also exists between advocacy capacity (rev-enue and staff levels) and bicycling and walking levels. Denser cities(higher number of residents per square mile) also have higher levels

of bicycling and walking. As the percent of trips to work by walkingand bicycling decreases, so does the percent of households that donot own a car. This suggests a relationship between car ownershipand walking and bicycling levels. However, the relationship in cities between bicycling and walking levels and the miles of bike lanes andshared use paths is not as strong and may need to be analyzed fur-ther. Dif culty in measuring the quality and accessibility of facilitiesmakes it dif cult to examine this relationship at present.

Impacts of Bicycling and Walking on Public Health

To see how bicycling and walking in uence public health, the Alli-ance compared public health data to bicycling and walking levels.Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)and ACS re ect a direct relationship between levels of bicycling andwalking and several public health indicators. Data suggest that therisk for such health problems as obesity, diabetes, asthma, and hyper-tension will decrease with more bicycling and walking. States withlower bicycling and walking levels on average have higher levelsof obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. States with higherlevels of bicycling and walking also have a greater percentage of adults who meet the recommended 30-plus minutes of daily physical

activity. This suggests that increasing bicycling and walking can helpachieve public health goals of increasing physical activity and lower-ing rates of overweight and obesity.

ConclusionsWhile many state and local communities are making suf cient effortsto promote bicycling and walking, there is much more work to bedone. Barriers in staf ng and funding remain a consistent limitationto promoting bicycling and walking. Bicycling and walking make

up nearly 10% of all trips, and over 13% of traf c fatalities, and yetreceive less than 2% of federal transportation dollars. The provenenvironmental, economic, and personal health bene ts that bicyclingand walking offer are evidence that increasing bicycling and walk-ing levels are in the public good, yet a much greater investment isneeded throughout the U.S. This Benchmarking Report identi eswhich cities and states are leading the way and provides links to


24/196


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

resources (Appendix 5) from these communities. The Alliance rec-ommends that government of cials and advocates take the time toevaluate their efforts to promote bicycling and walking. This reportcan be used by communities to see how they measure up, to identifyrole models, and to set new goals. Continued benchmarking andimprovements in the availability of data will strengthen the report inthe coming years, and lend a better understanding of the factors thatin uence bicycling and walking. Ultimately, by providing a tool forcommunities to consistently measure progress, evaluate results, andset new targets, this report will advance efforts for a more bicycleand pedestrian friendly America.


25/196


INTRODUC

1: Introduction

Benchmarking Bicycling and Walking

Benchmarking is the method of determining best practicesor standards and who sets them. Government of cials and bicycle and pedestrian advocates have all wondered atsome point how their city or state compares with others. Of-cials and advocates need data to measure their progress and evalu-ate their efforts. The Alliance for Biking & Walkings BenchmarkingProject collects data from government and national data sources,and through surveys to government of cials and advocates. Resultsare published in a biennial Benchmarking Report to demonstratethe progress of cities and states in regard to bicycling and walking.Benchmarking helps to show of cials and advocates where their cityor state measures up and helps them to identify areas most in needof improvement. The ultimate objectives of the Benchmarking Projectare to increase the number of people who bicycle and walk and toimprove their safety. Through benchmarking, new goals can be set,programs evaluated, and continued progress made toward a bicycleand pedestrian friendly America.

Photo by David Nidd


26/196


CHAPTER 1

Primary ObjectivesPromote Data Collection and AvailabilityHistorically there has been little data available on bicycling andwalking that can be compared across states and cities. Data that has

existed is often not easily accessible to of cials and advocates. Oneof the primary objectives of the Alliance's Benchmarking Project isto promote data collection and availability. This project collects datafrom a number of government and national data sources andpresents it in a way that is easily accessible to those who need it.Through biennial surveys of states, cities, and advocacy organiza-tions, the Benchmarking Project makes new data available such asmiles of infrastructure, staf ng levels, and advocacy capacity. Thesedata are not collected by any other source, but are crucial to under-standing mode share and safety outcomes.

Measure Progress and Evaluate ResultsBenchmarking is a necessary step to give communities a true pictureof how they compare to other communities, what areas they are ex-celling in, and where they are falling behind. Most importantly, thesedata enable advocates and of cials to evaluate the results of theirefforts. Because the Benchmarking Project is ongoing, states and cit-ies can measure their progress over time and will see the impacts of their efforts. By providing a consistent and objective tool for evalua-tion, this report allows states and cities to determine what works and

what doesnt. Successful models can be emulated and failed modelsdiscarded.

Support Efforts to Increase Bicycling and WalkingThe ultimate objectives of the Alliances Benchmarking Project areto support the efforts of of cials and advocates to increase bicyclingand walking in their communities and improve bicycle and pedes-trian safety across the U.S. By comparing bicycling and walkingstatistics across states and cities, this report highlights and praises ef-

forts of communities who provide models, encourages those makingprogress, and makes states and cities aware of areas where they needwork. The Alliance hopes that this report will be used by communi-ties to set goals for increasing bicycling and walking, plan strategiesusing best practice models, and evaluate results over time. The Al-liance strives to make this project a service and tool for of cials andadvocates so that they can chart the best course toward more bike-able and walkable communities.


27/196


INTRODUC

Secondary Objectives

Make the Health ConnectionThe Centers for Disease Control andPrevention have declared obesity anepidemic, and people are now look-ing more closely at the lifestyle choicesthat may be to blame. Among thetop are unhealthy diet and sedentarylifestyles. Studies demonstrate a link between the built environment andlevels of physical activity (Goldberg,2007; TRB, 2005). The way communi-ties are designed is inextricably linkedto the amount of physical activity itsresidents average. Where environ-ments are built with bicyclists and pe-destrians in mind, more people bicycleand walk. These environments increaseopportunities for physical activityand promote healthy lifestyles. Nearly40% of all trips are two miles or less(NHTS), which is considered an easily bikeable distance. Now that people arelooking for answers to reversing the

obesity epidemic, increasing bicyclingand walking is an obvious solution.

Alliance for Biking & Walking haspartnered with the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention for this projectin an effort to highlight the connection between healthy lifestyles and bicy-cling and walking. This report includesdata on physical activity, obesity and

overweight trends, high blood pres-sure rates, and diabetes, to illustratethe connection between bicycling andwalking levels and these health indica-tors. Along with illustrating the correla-tion between bicycling and walking andhealth, the Alliance hopes to show, overtime, that as bicycling and walking

P h o

t o b y

K r i s t e n

S t e e

l e


28/196


CHAPTER 1

levels increase, the obesity epidemic also begins to reverse. Data andillustrations in this report are intended to be used by of cials and ad-vocates to argue for bicycling and walking as an important part of thesolution to creating healthier communities.

Strengthen the Alliances Network Lastly, the Alliance aims to strengthen its network of bicycle andpedestrian advocacy organizations by providing organizations thedata they need to evaluate their success, prove results, and gain promi-nence in their communities. Alliance organizations can bring data fromthis report back to their community leaders, government of cials, andmedia to highlight areas in which their community is successful, mak-ing progress, and in need of improvements. Alliance organizations canalso use these data to prove that advocacy gets results by showing thelink between advocacy capacity and levels of bicycling and walking.This report is a tool for Alliance member organizations to gain promi-nence and win safe and accessible streets for bicycling and walking intheir communities.

Study Areas and Data Collection

50 States / 51 CitiesThe Benchmarking Project focuses data collection efforts on the 50 U.S.states and the 50 largest U.S. cities. Smaller and mid-sized U.S. citieswere invited to participate in the project, and data are made availablefrom these cities, but for comparison purposes only. The 50 largestcities (and New Orleans) are included in this report. New Orleans wasincluded in the 2007 Benchmarking Report as a top 50 population city(according to 2005 ACS population data), but experienced dramaticpopulation loss after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Raleigh, NC, movedup into the top 50 largest cities and is the only new city added for thisreport. The project team chose to keep New Orleans in this analysisto maintain consistency in cities reported. Throughout this report werefer to the "51 Largest U.S. Cities" which includes the 50 largest U.S.

cities and New Orleans. For consistency purposes going forward,cities will only be excluded or added into the report if their popula-tion remains above or below the top 50 cutoff for three years or more.Throughout this report, the top 50 largest U.S. cities (and New Or-leans) are also referred to as "major" or "largest" U.S. cities.

The Benchmarking Project focuses on the 50 largest cities becausethese areas are the largest population areas of U.S. residents. Nearly


29/196


INTRODUC

50 million people live in the 51 citiesincluded in this report. Cities are alsogenerally more densely developed thansuburban and rural communities, andso may have greater opportunities forconversion of car trips to bicycling and

walking.

Data CollectionThe Project Team identi ed nationaland uniform government sources fordata in this report whenever possible.National data sources utilized for thisreport include:

U.S. Census (1990, 2000) American Community Survey

(ACS) (2005, 2006, 2007) American Public Transportation

Association (APTA) (2008) National Household Travel Survey

(2001-2002) National Transportation Enhance-

ments Clearinghouse (2005-2007)

Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) (2004-2009) Fatality Analysis Reporting System

(FARS) (2005-2007) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance

System (BRFSS) (2007) National Health Interview Survey

(NHIS) (2005) National Health and Nutrition

Examination Study (NHANES)(2005-2006)

United States Historical Climatol-ogy Network (USHCN)

National Center for Safe Routes toSchool (2009)

National Complete Streets Coali-tion (2009)

Rank City Popula1 New York 8,2742 Los Angeles 3,806,03 Chicago 2,737,94 Houston 2,046,75 Phoenix 1,513,6 Philadelphia 1,449,67 San Antonio 1,284,38 San Diego 1,276,79 Dallas 1,240,

10 San Jose 922,3811 Jacksonville 808,5212 Detroit 808,313 Indianapolis 793,0114 San Francisco 764,9715 Austin 749,616 Columbus 732,9717 Charlotte 675,2218 Fort Worth 650,619 Baltimore 637,420 Memphis 637,4221 Boston 613,122 El Paso 605,423 Nashville 593,324 Denver 588,325 Washington, DC 588,2926 Milwaukee 582,227 Seattle 577,228 Las Vegas 562,5829 Louisville 561,30 Portland, OR 550,731 Oklahoma City 546,9332 Tucson 519,233 Albuquerque 511,89

34 Mesa 479,435 Fresno 470,436 Long Beach 458,3037 Sacramento 451,40438 Kansas City, MO 437,6539 Virginia Beach 434,7440 Atlanta 432,541 Cleveland 395,3142 Tulsa 389,543 Colorado Springs 389,4944 Omaha 374,3445 Arlington, TX 359,46 Oakland 358,8247 Raleigh 354,1

48 Honolulu 352,749 Minneapolis 351,1850 Miami 348,8

51* New Orleans 239,12

Rank State Population1 California 36,553,2152 Texas 23,904,3803 New York 19,297,7294 Florida 18,251,2435 Illinois 12,852,5486 Pennsylvania 12,432,7927 Ohio 11,466,9178 Michigan 10,071,8229 Georgia 9,544,750

10 North Carolina 9,061,03211 New Jersey 8,685,92012 Virginia 7,712,09113 Washington 6,468,42414 Massachusetts 6,449,75515 Indiana 6,345,28916 Arizona 6,338,75517 Tennessee 6,156,71918 Missouri 5,878,41519 Maryland 5,618,34420 Wisconsin 5,601,64021 Minnesota 5,197,62122 Colorado 4,861,51523 Alabama 4,627,85124 South Carolina 4,407,70925 Louisiana 4,293,20426 Kentucky 4,241,47427 Oregon 3,747,45528 Oklahoma 3,617,31629 Connecticut 3,502,30930 Iowa 2,988,04631 Mississippi 2,918,78532 Arkansas 2,834,79733 Kansas 2,775,997

34 Utah 2,645,33035 Nevada 2,565,38236 New Mexico 1,969,91537 West Virginia 1,812,03538 Nebraska 1,774,57139 Idaho 1,499,40240 Maine 1,317,20741 New Hampshire 1,315,82842 Hawaii 1,283,38843 Rhode Island 1,057,83244 Montana 957,86145 Delaware 864,76446 South Dakota 796,21447 Alaska 683,478

48 North Dakota 639,71549 Vermont 621,25450 Wyoming 522,830

Study Area Populations

Source: 2007 ACS Note: * New Orleans is not currently the 51 largest Ucity but was included in this report for consistency and continuity withthe 2007 Benchmarking Report.


30/196


CHAPTER 1

League of American Bicyclists (LAB) Bicycle Friendly StatesProgram (2009)

Rails to Trails Conservancy (2009) Safe Routes to School National Partnership (SRTSNP) State of the

State's Report (2009)

The sources are identi ed throughout the report with accompanyingdata. An overview of the data sources used in this report can be foundin Appendix 1 on page 161.

Many of the variables this report measures are not currently availablefrom other national sources. In these cases, the Project Team relied oncity, state, and organization surveys to collect data on such indicatorsas miles of bicycle facilities, bike/ped staf ng levels, and advocacycapacity. The surveys were sent to leaders of Alliance organizations,government of cials, and advocates in the 50 states and 51 cities repre-sented in this report in October 2008. Because Alliance advocacy lead-ers can tap existing relationships with local government of cials, theywere able to help increase the survey response rate and ensure that n-ished surveys were as complete as possible. Surveys were completed by department of transportation staff, metropolitan planning organiza-tion staff, city of cials, and Alliance advocacy leaders. In many casessurveys required input from multiple agencies because the requesteddata were not easily accessible in one place. The project team reachedout to survey respondents through March 2009, with the nal data for

Photo by Katherine Johnson


31/196


INTRODUC

the report coming in early April. All data were entered into the Bench-marking Project's data collection tool, checked for quality control, andanalyzed over the next several months. This report relies largely onself-reported data and while the Alliance has made all efforts to verify,the accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Benchmarks in This ReportBicycling and walking mode share (percent of all trips and percent of trips to work) and safety are the two primary outcome benchmarksof this project. Because our ultimate goals are to increase bicycling

Input BenchmarksPolicy (Chapter 4)

funding levels (per capita and % of transportation dollars to bicycling and walking)staf ng levels (per capita)complete streets policiesgoals to increase bicycling and walkinggoals to increase safety

bike/ped master planbike/ped advisory committeelegislationinfrastructure (existing and planned miles per square mile)bike-transit integration

bicycle racks on buses bicycle parking spaces at transit stations (per capita) bicycle access on rail

facilities at transit

Programs (Chapter 5)

adult and youth bicycle education courses (per capita)Bike to Work Day program (per capita)car-free events program (per capita)city/state-sponsored bicycle rides program (per capita)Walk and Bike to School Day program (per capita)

Advocacy (Chapter 6)

presence of dedicated bike/ped advocacy organizationcapacity indicators of advocacy organization

membership (per capita) budget (per capita) staff levels (per capita) media hits

Outcome BenchmarksMode share(Chapter 2)

trips to workall tripsdemographics

age gender ethnicity

Safety(Chapter 3)

fatalities (number and percent of all traf c fatalities)riskdisparities in mode share and fatalitiesdemographics

age

Public health (Chapter 8)

overweight and obesity levelshypertension (high blood pressure) levelsdiabetes levelsasthma levelsphysical activity levels

Primary Benchmarks in This Report


32/196


CHAPTER 1

and walking, and improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety, these arethe benchmarks with which we ultimately measure the progress of states and cities. We also measure a number of input benchmarkswhich we believe, and research has shown, in uence levels of bi-cycling, walking, and safety. Input benchmarks are the factors thataffect the outcome benchmarks. Policy, Programs, and Advocacyare the three primary input benchmarks contained in this report.A variety of things are measured under each of these input catego-ries (detailed in the chart on page 27). While likely none of these benchmarks alone are responsible for bicycling and walking levelsand safety, a number of them combined may shape mode share andsafety levels.

This report includes additional data on input factors that may in u-ence bicycling and walking including weather, residential density,and levels of car ownership. This report also includes data on publichealth, a secondary outcome benchmark of this project.

Using This ReportThe Benchmarking Project is intended as a resource for governmentof cials, bicycle and pedestrian advocates, researchers, and the me-dia searching for comparable data and means to measure progress.We encourage you to search this document for your city or state tosee how you compare to other cities or state. To make data easy tond, this report orders all data tables alphabetically by city or state.Charts and graphs are ordered by benchmark in order to most clearlysee how states and cities compare with each other. Here are a few ad-ditional tips for using this report:

1. See where you measure up: Scan the report for your cityor state. See how your city/state compares to others. Are you below or above the average for other cities/states? Note whereyou are leading and where you are behind.

2. Connect with the media: Consider issuing a press release or

talking with the media about this report. Discuss how your stateor city stacks up against others in bicycling and walking levels,safety, and funding. Highlight any areas where you are leadingand opportunities for improvement. Use the data to support thework you are doing to promote bicycling and walking locally.

3. Evaluate your efforts: Think about where you have been fo-cusing your efforts toward increasing bicycling and walking and


33/196


INTRODUC

safety. Are these efforts working? Look for trends in the data inthis report. Look for benchmarks set by cities and states that areleading in the area you are working in.

4. Set new goals: Use the data in this report to set new goals andrefocus your efforts if needed. In this report you will nd which

cities/states are leading in per capita funding and staf ng for bicycling and walking, in miles of bicycling and walking facili-ties per square mile, in per capita membership and revenue foradvocacy organizations, and a number of other indicators. Youwill also see what the national average and averages for majorU.S. cities are. Use these benchmarks to set goals for your city/state.

5. Use it as a reference book: The Alliance has heard from anumber of government of cials and advocates that the Bench-marking Report is a publication they reference frequently intheir work. Keep this report on your of ce bookshelf in an ac-cessible location. Use it when you are contacted by the media forstatistics in your community, or when you need facts for a pre-sentation or paper you are preparing. Use these data to supportyour work promoting bicycling and walking in your state or city.

If you have questions about the data in this report, would like torequest additional data from the Benchmarking Project, have feedback for our team, or other questions or inquiries, please don't hesitate tocontact us at [email protected].


34/196


CHAPTER 2

2: Levels of Bicycling andWalking

How Many People Bicycle and Walk?

The question of how many people in a given area bicycle andwalk, and what percentage of trips bicycling and walkingaccount for, is arguably the most important question foradvocates and of cials. Bicycling and walking levels are theultimate outcome benchmarks of all efforts to promote bicycling andwalking. These gures show communities if they are gaining or los-ing ground in their efforts to convert more trips to active transporta-tion. Unfortunately, accurate and comparable data on bicycling andwalking levels are still very limited (1).

Trip Data for This ReportThis report relied on the most consistent and dependable source of data on levels of bicycling and walking available, the American Com-munity Survey (ACS). The ACS is an annual survey which provides

Photo courtesy of Frank Chan, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

(1) For a discussion of the challenges with determining accurate levels of bicycling and walking, seeAppendix 3, page 163. Appendix 3 also contains a discussion on the differences between the ACSand Census methodologies.


35/196


LEVELS OF BICYCLING AND WA

yearly estimates on the share of work-ers commuting by bicycle or foot. Thisreport also includes the estimated bicycling and walking mode share forall trips from the 2001 National House-hold Travel Survey (NHTS) (2).

This report looks at mode share towork data from the 1990 and 2000decennial Census, and the 2005,2006, and 2007 ACS. Although work trips account for only 14% of all trips(NHTS 2001-2002), these data providea glimpse into trends in bicycling andwalking levels over the last 17 years.

Findings on Mode Share The Alliance used 2007 ACS data todetermine that nationwide, an aver-age of 3.3% of commuters get to work by bicycle (0.5%) or foot (2.8%). Inthe major U.S. cities studied here, theshare of commuters by bicycle and footis higher at 5.6% (0.8% bicycling and4.8% walking). People in major cit-ies are 1.6 times more likely to bicycleto work, and 1.8 times more likely towalk to work, than their counterpartsnationwide.

Since our last report in 2007, Oregonhas replaced Montana as the state

STATE RANKING

Tables to left: Source: 2007 ACS Notes: This ranking isbased on the share of commuters who bicycle and walkto work. The state with the greatest share of commuterswho bicycle or walk is ranked #1. The 50th position isthe state with the least percentage of commuters whobicycle or walk. View these data on pages 34 and 42 ofthis report. (2) The 2001 NHTS is a national survey withsmall sample sizes when disaggregated to the state andlocal level. Thus, NHTS data for 2001 should be viewed asrough and sometimes unreliable estimates of walk andbicycle trips for individual states and cities. Also, NHTSreports local data according to metropolitan statisticalareas, which extend beyond the boundaries of the citieschosen for this Benchmarking report. Due to these limita-tions, NHTS data should be considered rough estimatesfor bicycling and walking in these areas. For more of adiscussion on data limitations in this chapter, see Ap-pendix 3.

11. Pennsylvania12. Iowa13. Oregon14. Washington15. Rhode Island16. New Hampshire17. Wisconsin18. New Jersey19. Colorado20. Idaho21. Connecticut22. Minnesota23. Illinois

24. Nebraska25. California26. Kansas27. Delaware28. Utah29. Maryland30. West Virginia31. Nevada32. Ohio33. Michigan34. Arizona35. New Mexico36. Kentucky37. Virginia38. Indiana39. Louisiana40. Missouri41. Oklahoma42. North Carolina43. South Carolina44. Texas45. Mississippi46. Georgia47. Florida48. Arkansas49. Tennessee50. Alabama

Alaska

New York

Vermont

Montana

South Dakota

Hawaii

North Dakota

Massachusetts

Maine

Wyoming

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Walking to Work

Oregon

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

Idaho

Alaska

California

Utah

Arizona

Washington11. Wisconsin12. Minnesota13. Massachusetts14. Hawaii15. North Dakota16. Nebraska17. Nevada18. Illinois19. Florida20. South Dakota21. Vermont22. New York23. New Mexico

24. Iowa25. Delaware26. Maine27. Michigan28. New Hampshire29. Pennsylvania30. Indiana31. Kansas32. Louisiana33. O

2010 Bench Marking FINAL 1.25.09-Web

Documents

Transcript of 2010 Bench Marking FINAL 1.25.09-Web