Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02-03-2010
CITY OF EDGEWATER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING Minutes February 3, 2010 8:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Robert Lott called to order the regular meeting of the Economic Development Board at 8:06 a.m., Wednesday, February 3, 2010, in the City Hall conference room. ROLL CALL: Chairman Robert Lott Present Oscar Zeller Present Tim Howard Absent • Marcia Barnett Present Bliss Jamison Present Bob Williams Absent Jennifer Butera Absent Chris Balmer Absent Bill Wetherell Present Also present were City Manager Tracey Barlow, City Councilman Ted Cooper,Planning and Zoning Board liaison Pat Card, CEDS Committee Chairman Robert McIntosh, Tom Alcorn, Southeast Volusia Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Steve Dennis and board coordinator Pat Drosten. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the Regular Meeting of January 6, 2010 were presented for approval. MOTION by Ms.Barnett,SECOND by Mr. Wetherell to approve the Regular Meeting of January 6,2010 minutes as presented: MOTION PASSED 5-0 CITY AND OTHER REPORTS: City Manager Update City Manager Barlow updated the board on the Restoration DRI. He also handed out a list of the Cities 2010 project goals and asked for the boards assistance in achieving several of these goals, including creating a design overlay or Ridgewood Ave and Park Ave., establishment of CRA district(s), establishment of brownfield districts, identification of future truck routes and roadway networks, and developing marketing material and presentations to attract new business. Planning and Zoning Board Update Mr. Card reported that there will be no February Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He also announced that the Volusia County MPO will be holding several Ribbons and Strings workshops and encouraged board members to attend. Much discussion ensued regarding this item. G:\EDB\minutes\2010\minute 1-6-10.reg..doc 1 SEVCC Update Mr. Dennis updated the board on many upcoming activities, including a lunch and learn program on February 12 and a ribbon cutting for the Edgewater City Hall complex on February 24. The ParkTowne Business expo to be held on May 15th was also announced. Chairman Lott stated that the City in partnership with the Rotary will be holding a Spring Fling event on March 27-28. This event will be similar to Port Orange Family Days. Mr. Lott then introduced Tom Alcorn who informed the board that he had three (3) clients who had expressed interest in donating/dedicating property along Cow Creek Rd. to the City in an effort to create a right-of-way in conjunction with the Rails to Trails project. At this time Mr. Lott asked Mr. McIntosh to give the board a summary of the Volusia County League of Cities Advisory Board workshop he attended. Handouts from this workshop were previously supplied to the board members via email from the board coordinator. Mr. McIntosh also updated the board on the activities and schedule for the CEDS committee. City Manager Barlow passed around a brochure that was developed by the City of Deltona for marketing purposes. He stated that Ms. Jamison was already working on creating a marketing tool for Edgewater. Ms. Jamison gave a brief summary of her efforts to date. Mrs. Barnett demonstrated the website that has been developed for ParkTowne Industrial Center. Councilman Cooper further discussed the Council goals previously handed out by City Manager Barlow. He went on to speak to the importance of Edgewater being well represented at the MPO Ribbon and Strings workshops. CONTINUED BUSINESS: Business Visitation Program Ms. Jamison visited 3 local businesses and discussed strengths, weaknesses and desires. The responses were similar to previous business input regarding the need for better infrastructure and the desire to move forward without losing the small town charm of the city. Overall,business felt that the city was responsive to their needs,but that more emphasis could be placed on assisting existing small business owners. NEW BUSINESS: None at this time CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBER REPORTS: Strategic Committee Member—Marcia Barnett—This item was addressed earlier by Mr.McIntosh ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:25 a.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Pat Drosten G:\EDB\minutes\2010\minute 1-6-10.reg..doc 2 ,��:► 0, CITY O F EDGE ATE R 2010 PROJECT GO .,S Close-out all previous disaster related grants (Tyna &Finance Director) ✓ Ridgewood Ave. & Park Ave. design overlay (Development Services Director) • Identify location and begin planning an animal park (Leisure Services Director) ✓ Enhance Police Reserve program (Police Chief) ✓ Complete Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Development Order (DO) process for Restorations Development (City Manager&Development Services Director) • Identify locations and plan for future addition/improvement of sidewalks in the community (Leisure Services Director) r Resolve lawsuit regarding ParkTowne land sale (City Manager&Paralegal) > Complete Utility Rate Study (Environmental Services Director&Finance Director) Establish CRA Districts (City Manager&Development Services Director) ✓ Establish Brownfield Districts (City Manager&Development Services Director) • Complete Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) (City Manager) ✓ Establish Long-Range Facility Plan for Environmental Services (Environmental Services Director) • Complete Design and Implementation Plan for Mango Lake Park (Leisure Services Director) ✓ Complete Agreement for Southern Service Area (Environmental Services Director) • Enhance Building Construction and Sign Regulation Ordinances (Development Services Director) Design and Construct Replacement Fire Station#55 (Fire Chief) • Complete and Implement Comprehensive Employee Salary Study (Personnel Director) ✓ Begin Formatted Master Utility Infrastructure Location Map (Environmental Services Director) Identify Future Truck Routes and Roadway Network (Developmental Services Director) Purchase a Digital Media Sign for Leisure Service Facility (Leisure Services Director) ➢ Establish a Calendar and Increase Community Civic Events to include a Community Holiday Party and Fishing Tournament (Leisure Services Director) ✓ Develop Neighborhood Parks at both lakes on Mango Tree Dr. (22nd & 26th) (Leisure Services Director) ✓ Improve Appearance of Mobile Home Park at 805 S. Ridgewood Ave. (City Manager&Development Services Director) • Increase publicity regarding Reclaim Water Initiative (Environmental Services Director) ✓ Enhance Newsletter and add articles from Mayor, Council and City Manager (Tyna) r Establish Charitable Fund for Annual 4th of July Fireworks (Finance Director) ✓ Prepare Capital Improvement Plan/Schedule and funding source for YMCA (YMCA Board) • Develop Marketing Material and Presentation to attract new business (Economic Development Board) Prepare long-term (5-years) Capital Improvement Plan for Animal Shelter (Leisure Services Director) ISSUE NEWSLETTER PD &E Study PROGRESS FPID: 415434-3-28-01 UPDATE 415434-4-28-01 JANUARY 424040-1-28-01 2010 Developing green space o pp ortunities in east central Florida. Study Conducted Thursday, September 24, 2009. The same information was presented at each workshop. Volusia County in conjunction with Each workshop was conducted in an open house format Brevard County and the Florida with a brief presentation at 6:00 p.m. Maps,drawings and Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a other study information was on display at the workshops. , _—yam Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study Study representatives were available during the workshops for the proposed multi-use trail known as the East Volusia County to answer questions. FLORIDA Central Regional Rail Trail (ECRRT). The project limits are from State Road (S.R.) 415 near Enterprise A total of 125 people attended the second series of pgv�g�A,,O (Volusia County) to Canaveral Avenue in Titusville workshops. Overall, a total of 276 people attended both o• the first and second series of workshops. 4 a ,s' - z from Maytown Spur Road to Dale Street in Edgewater A Comments and Coordination Report has been o 10 • ',,, v (Volusia County). The objective of the study is to developed to document the agency coordination and 4.t.owe. develop alignment and design alternatives for the public involvement methods, meetings and input for this proposed multi-use trail. The proposed ECRRT uses Study. include cycling,hiking,running,skating,wildlife view- S„P,`,OFFL0 0 Study Documentation ing,and equestrian in appropriate areas. 2 A Preliminary Engineering Report has been prepared to ° Second Public Workshop Conducted document the various activities and research that occurred —a throughout this Study. The report includes data collection >�"T of TRPN�Q The second series of public information workshops have 9 Y P been held. The first workshop was held in Titusville on and analysis of the developed and rural communities, Monday, September 21, 2009. The second workshop environmental resources,existing trail systems,and future was held in Osteen on Tuesday, September 22, 2009. development and redevelopment plans. Detailed maps The third workshop was held in New Smyrna Beach on of the trail corridor, including the location of the proposed hill. W.' JRY1JIOU1U-UJU 11.1' ' v 'rOj @Ct OCatlOn multi use trail, trail pavilions and trailheads, bridges, and 95 �� associated trail features have also been prepared. Once p , ' ��' • the documentation is approved and accepted by Volusia II, VOLUSIA • and Brevard counties and the Florida Department of Le Fils Conservation' •' L., ' Easement / COUNTY • - Transportation, the report and the maps will be available Of i • • ; for public review. ilk Dirk n fDeBaryBike.Path � # • ff Norman M.Fore • &y� T Conservation Easement • Future Project Phasing e`'iW Miami Corp Property • Canaveral Now that the ECRRT PD&E Study is complete,the project 1 � Farmton Tree Farm • National Seashore -' S.�' is anticipated to move forward as follows: Park gj sRdng. • Turnbull Hammock LAKE 1".-`�' •-conservation Area • Volusia County has funding for construction of the MONROE M - •�� M MOSQUITO LAK@MONROE •—ebNSERVATION AREAtTRAILS ,•—:, •. ... �.. .• LAGOON portion of the ECRRT west of SR 415 (Providence ak _ *$0,4, ,,„,• O ` Merritt Island Boulevard to SR 415)for FY 2010-2011. Lake Monroe % • National Wildlife R••�``cR ne .�W Conservation Area MAYTOWN 2.0 nroe L.•• orr i- �� -•- • •-•- -•—•- '-•-• - • Volusia also has funding through their ECHO grants for �,� �;�� i •• `per design and construction of the segment from SR 415 �'� Lake Jesup 0 4� �• to Guise Road. Conservation Area Q�• NA EY f �o i • Brevard and Volusia counties have Federal/FDOT SEMINOLE TRAIL E°P SEMINOLE r.~ i 's BREVARD tentative funding for future design and construction Little;Big Econ i ♦ • COUNTY activities for FY 2011 through 2015. N 417 COUNTY 9 SlatelForest • •� • dw.�Coonservaattiion Easement icote, Area ♦ • The future recommended phasing of the 9 segments SEMINOLE LOOP RAIL _ Little Big�ECOn y f) ; Iv ” , • of the ECRRT will be directed toward those portions State Forest fiia. Chain of Lak CROSS SEMINOLE TR..._ `a+ro SEMINOLE RANCH CONSERVATION AREA TRAILS • • County Parr of the trail that are likely to generate the most usage. Pineloch Tract t 1 i ( `: ' Y g g Seminole,!Ranch Brevard and Volusia counties will identify the preferred / I Conservation.rea Y P _•_ _ _ •_•�• u _. SaItLakeWIdIIt, ��, segments for construction as part of their regular *Ai-.� - i'• -' transportation improvement prioritization process. East Central Regional Rail Trail �cPtF� p. PD&E Study : t - Public Involvement Office . • ' S — BOWES Inwood Consulting Engineers,Inc. ior4Or 43 02 1R $-000.440 3000 Dovera Drive,Suite 200 �t 000zaRa3o 1 JAN 19 2010 Oviedo, Florida 32765 4 • MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 32765 CITY OF EDGEWATER PO BOX 100 EDGEWATER FL 321320100 J . C Volusia County '''`1 ,�q� FLORIDA R ,3+' co Rte• Issue 3 I January 2010 East Carr:1.3l Rsp, oal Raii TrAii POSE Study Project Contacts °- - If you have questions or comments For questions or comments For questions or comments , 7 _ - _ -' regarding this study you may regarding the portion of the project regarding the portion of the project contact the Project Manager: within Volusia County, you may within Brevard County, you may contact Volusia County's Project contact Brevard County's Project Manager: Manager: Mr.Greg Kern Mr.John Harper Ms. Barbara Meyer Reynolds,Smith& Hills,Inc. Volusia County Engineering and Space Coast Transportation 1000 Legion Place Construction Division Planning Organization Suite 800 123 W. Indiana Avenue, Room 402 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Orlando, Florida 32801-1006 DeLand, Florida,32720-4262 Building B,Room 105, MS 82 Phone: (407)893-5800 Phone:(386)736-5967 Viera, Florida,32940 Fax: (407)648-2128 Fax:(386)822-5736 Phone:(321)690-6890 Email:greg.kern @rsandh.com Email:jharper @co.volusia.fl.us Fax:(321)690-6827 Email: barbara.meyer@ brevardcounty.com :'= 4 — j Please visit the ECRRT PD&E Study website at http://www.volusia.org/trails/railtrail.htm. 1 Business Name Business Address Date of visit visting member issues discussed Advanced Air& Heat 1939 W Park Ave Marcia Barnett Discovery Days Institute 227 N Ridgewood Ave Marcia Barnett Myron's Auto Svc 2033 S Ridgewood Ave Marcia Barnett Dustins Bar B Que 1208 S. Ridgewood Ave Chris Balmer Chaps-N-Bags 132 W. Park Ave Chris Balmer Kwik Kleen 132 W. Park Ave Chris Balmer Custom Tubes 317 Base Leg Dr Bliss Jamison Edgewater Boats 211 N Dale St Bliss Jamison Tropical Blossom 106 N Ridgewood Ave Bliss Jamison Everglades Boats 544 S Air Park Rd Bliss Jamison i Friday. °ansuary 22, 2010 T'ni ItHo net e, 'k - 'isO k,cc:A PiI � �� s 3� k( mow { �k� � $17.,,,,,,,,,,L -, i41 i . L ALA 2 - 1,cos L.?�.r� f r e i. l Cy Wayne ;ran ed the workshop, also took needs. state funds are used to buy 1 wgrant @hometownnewsoi.com part five years ago. Mr. Wel-zenbach said the buses for Votran,but opera- ° "It was fun,"she said."You meetings are also a learning tional costs are paid by Volu- ORIMOND BEACH— "We decide where you think exercise for the citizens. sia County tax payers. The spend a million here and a roads are needed or People find out they can't same principle is true for million there and pretty improvements should be get everything they want commuter rail. soon we're talking about made. You get to put your with $609 and must make Those who took part were serious money." two cents in." compromises — or raise asked to fill out a survey, That famous quote by the Karl Welzenbach of the taxes. which is also available on , late Senator Everett Dirksen MPO said the decisions The participants found the agency's Web site. rang true recently at a work- made by the citizens will be themselves making tough "It's a broad survey to get shop sponsored by the Volu- used to update the long- decisions when they saw the a general idea about how sia County Metropolitan range plan for the area, costs.For example,building the public feels about trans- Planning Organization; which includes all of Volusia commuter rail cost $13.8 portation," Ms. Bollenback which studies area trans- County and part of Flagler million per mile;a-multiuse said.. portation issues. County. trail costs$500,000 per mile; Updating the long-range The agency was seeking "We want public input," a lane of new highway costs plan every five years is like public input on how to he said."We are required by $8.4 million per mile; and a retirement planning, she spend $609 million on law to generate a plan every sidewalk (both sides of the said.: transportation over a 20- five years. We identify how street) costs $800,000 per "Who knows what 'the year period from 2015 to we plan to spend state and mile. world will be like down the 2035. Spending for the next federal and state dollars and Each table was given the road," she said. "We do the five years has been deter- all spending must come out option of voting in a half- best we can with the infor- - mined. of that plan." cent sales tax, which would mation we have today and It was not a serious debate Fifteen to 20 workshops bring an extra$789 million, then keep going back and about roads.It looked like a will be held throughout the or a one-cent sales tax, revising and adjusting. It game room at a recreation area until the end of March. which would add $1.5 bit takes a long time for some center. "This will give us a list of lion. projects such as commuter 1 Four tables with about six public priorities," he said. Lois Bollenback of the rail so we all need to be talk- people each were busy play- "We provide the informa- MPO told the participants ing about plans for develop- ing"Make Your Mark."Using ton to the Metropolitan that taxes are a serious con- ment.We want the public to maps of Volusia County, Planning Board." sideration. share their thoughts." markers, stickers and $609 The Volusia County MPO "You have to ask yourself The current long-range million in play money, each Board membership consists if raising taxes is a real pos- transportation plan, ■ table was challenged to plan of elected officials repre- sibility,"she said. upcoming meetings and a transportation needs, such senting all of the local gov- One wrinkle in playing the survey are posted on the as roads, mass transit, ernments who work cooper- game is that state and feder- Web site, volusiacountym- bridges, sidewalks and bike atively to determine al dollars can be used to po.com. Results of the j trails. appropriate policy to build mass transit, but not workshops will also be post- Terry Mercer,who attend- address transportation to operate it. For example, ed. 1 1—.i4 1411 — I Ti(?0— 1.6c) 4 1-41* R,t) bm,,t L k Cr.4A — 4�,,uf-t✓ G,.–t"c„ 40 a 1 x Cep ,Ala- 1 4) BICYCLING AND WALKING IN THE UNITED STATES 2 0 111 0 BENCHMARKING REPORT * , , v ESi' ' '.- Mir : - 4,- , ‘, ,,,, ii moo oit3J,,..,_ , ,,viimiliihik., ‘11011111 thallirTiT011,41,',, ,. Sairri;01111111111111r .'-'*:7`.-;:4.--t. lip 1 5 4 A 1111, . i -ko 11' • ♦0 # a' p II prepared by . it Alliance for Biking & Walking 1 Alliance for Biking & Walking BICYCLING AND WALKING IN THE UNITED STATES 2 0 1 BENCHMARKING REPORT Funding for this report was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This project was also made possible with significant support from Planet Bike and Bikes Belong Coalition. Copyright 2010 by Alliance for Biking&Walking The Library of Congress,United States Copyright Office All rights reserved.This re p o rt may be reproduced or transmitted with the written permission of the Alliance.Requests should be sent to Alliance for Biking&Walking at the address below: P.O.Box 65150 Washington,DC 20035 Phone:202-449-9692 E-mail:info @PeoplePoweredMovement.org Web site:http://www.PeoplePoweredMovement.org cover photo courtesy of Rails to Trails Conservancy Report Credits i 4#. ilho, r . , ..,.„ , , Author/Project Manager: Kristen Steele,Alliance for Biking&Walking ' ^ Research Coordinator/Author: Monica Altmaier,Alliance for Biking&Walking 0%141r Research Consultants: Ralph Buehler,PhD,Virginia Tech John Pucher,PhD,Rutgers University Benchmarking Project Advisors: Andrew Dannenberg,MD,MPH,Centers for Disease Control&Prevention ^' Deb Hubsmith,Safe Routes to School.National Partnership #, Jeffrey Miller,Alliance for Biking&Walking Gabe Rousseau,PhD,Federal Highway Administration Stephen Skowronski,Centers for Disease Control&Prevention . Arthur M.Wendel,MD,MPH,Centers for Disease Control&Prevenon 140,- ,, ITE Review Committee: Philip J.Caruso,PE,Institute of Transportation Engineers { John N.LaPlante,PE,T.Y.Lin International Tatiana Richey,Institute of Transportation Engineers Matthew D.Ridgway,AICP,PTP,Fehr&Peers Jeffrey R.Riegner,PE,AICP,Whitman,Requardt&Associ LP Edward R.Stollof,AICP,Institute of Transportation Engineers x s Shawn M.Turner,PE,Texas Transportation Institute Additional Contributors: + 4 Bob Laurie,Alaska Department of Transportation u s p p Kate McCarthy and Teri Gardner,San Francisco Bic cle Coalition Lotte Schlegel ' Allison Vogt,Bicycle Coalition of Maine 4 Editing Assistance: Nadege Dubuisson,Alliance for Biking&Walking Jim Swanson , ; � � Maggie Warren f Jessica Weber,Alliance for Biking&Walking Photos courtesy of: nP 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, ;V 4 David Niddrie,Donald Pflaum,Dustin Jensen www.sfwiggle.com, Frank Chan,Greg Raisman,Gustavo Verissimo,Jason Vanderhill, Jchetan,John Luton,John Pucher,Juhan Sonin,Kate McCarthy, ' r r, Katherine Johnson,Kristen Steele,Kristian Mollenborg, gin= La-Citta-Vita @ Flickr,Les Chatfield,Louisville Metro Government, Megan Rucker,Myleen Hollero www.myleenhollero.com, Nicholas Whitaker,flickr/nickdigital,Payton Chung, ,k ,, r Rails to Trails Conservancy,San Francisco Bicycle Coalition,Trailnet, / Transportation Alternatives, / SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium(SEARHC), e Washington Area Bicyclist Association # ti fi Yr ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Acknowledgments 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 their guidance, as well as for their contributions to the data analysis and editing of this report.And,to Lotte Schlegel for quality control and Monica Altmaier for her assistance with research,data collection,and illustrations. Thanks to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' review team for their advice during the drafting of this report.Also,thanks to our advi- sors at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for providing their expertise and guidance throughout the report drafting. Last and most importantly, thanks to the leaders of Alliance member organizations who supported this project.These leaders were the vital links to local officials and delivered the city and state surveys on time. This project would not have been possible without them,and it is in support of their vital work that this report has been produced. Thanks to the following organizations and people for their help providing data for this report. Activate Omaha,Tammie Dodge Bicycle Colorado,Rolando Luarca Active Transportation Alliance,Carolyn Helmke Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin, and Randy Neufeld Catrine Lehrer-Brey Alabama Department of Transportation, Bicycle Transportation Alliance,Emily Gardner Mary Crenshaw BikeDenver,Lise Neer Alaska Department of Transportation, BikeTexas,Robin Stallings Bob Laurie Bike Walk Mississippi,Karen Mogridge Alan M.Voorhees Transportation Center, Boston Bikes,Nicole Freedman Leigh Ann Von Hagen California Department of Transportation, Alta Planning+Design,Jennifer Donlon Ken McGuire Arizona Department of Transportation, Capitol Region Council of Governments,Sandy Fry Michael Sanders Charlotte Department of Transportation, Atlanta Bicycle Campaign,Amy Goodwin Ken Tippette Atlanta Bicycle Campaign,Alicia Winkelblech Chicago Department of Transportation, Austin Cycling Association,Rebecca Serna Joshua Koonce Baton Rouge Advocates for Safe Streets, City of Arlington,Alicia Winkelblech Rick Moreland City of Baltimore,Nate Evans Bicycle Advocacy of Central Arkansas, City of Colorado Springs,Kristin Bennett Ken Gound City of Fort Collins,Dave Kemp Bicycle Alliance of Washington, City of Fort Worth,Don Koski Johnathon Fitzpatrick City of Fresno,Bryan Jones Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, City of Houston,Rita Balchus John Boyle City of Kansas City,Deb Ridgway Bicycle Coalition of Maine,Allison Vogt City of Long Beach,Courtney Aguirre 2010 Benchmarking Report 1111 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS City of Oakland,Jason Patton Missouri Bicycle Federation,Brent Hugh City of Oklahoma City Planning Department, Mountain State Wheelers Bicycle Club, Lanc Gross Dennis Strawn City of Raleigh Public Works Department, National Center for Safe Routes to School, Eric Lamb Nancy Pullen-Seufert and Austin Brown City of San Diego,Brad Jacobsen National Transportation Enhancements City of San Jose,John Brazil Clearinghouse,Tracy Hadden Loh City of Tucson Transportation Department, Nevada Department of Transportation,Bill Story Tom Thivener New Hampshire Department of Transportation, City of Tulsa Public Works Department, Jerry Moore Brent Stout New Mexico Department of Transportation, City of Virginia Beach Parks and Recreation, Tom Trowbridge Barbara Duke New Orleans Regional Planning Commission, ClevelandBikes,Kevin Cronin Dan Jatres Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists,Robert Jensen New York State Department of Transportation, Consider Biking,Jeff Stephens Eric Ophardt Delaware Department of Transportation, North Carolina Bicycle and Pedestrian Anthony Aglio Transportation,Helen Chaney Department of Transportation,Talbot Hauffe North Dakota Department of Transportation, Executive Office of Transportation,Josh Lehman Bennett Kubischta Federal Highway Administration,Donna Jones, Ohio Department of Transportation,Sharon Todd Jatona Hatcher,Christopher Douwes Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Florida Bicycle Association,Laura Hallam Richard Andrews Green Mobility Network,John Hopkins Palmetto Cycling Coalition,Rachael Kefalos Hawaii Bicycling League,Mitchell Nakagawa Regional Transportation Commission of South Indiana Bicycle Coalition,Nancy Tibbett Nevada,Jerry Duke Iowa Bicycle Coalition,Mark Wyatt Rhode Island Department of Transportation Kansas Department of Transportation, Intermodal Planning,Steve Church Becky Pepper Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet,David Tipton Margo Pedroso League of American Bicyclists,Bill Nesper and Salt Lake City Bicycle Collective,Michael Wise Jeff Peel San Francisco Bicycle Coalition,Neal Patel League of Illinois Bicyclists,Ed Barsotti San Louis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition, Little Rock Bicycle Friendly Committee, Adam Fukushima Bud Laumer South Dakota Department of Transportation, L.A.County Bicycle Coalition,Jennifer Klausner Craig McIntyre Louisiana Department of Transportation and St.Louis Regional Bicycle Federation, Development,Brian Parsons Patty Vinyard Louisville Metro Public Works,Dirk Gowin St.Paul Public Works,David Kuebler Maryland Department of Transportation, Tennessee Department of Transportation, Michael Jackson Jessica Wilson Mayor's Office of Transportation&Utilities, Teton Valley Trains and Pathways,Tim Adams Charles Carmalt Transportation Alternatives, Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Caroline Samponaro Organization,Tim Moreland Utah Department of Transportation, Michigan Department of Transportation, Sharon Briggs Josh DeBruyn Vermont Agency of Transportation,Jon Kaplan Michigan Trails and Greenways Alliance, Walk/Bike Nashville,Glen Wanner Todd Scott Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Eric Gilliland Mary Elizabeth Jackson 1111 Alliance for Biking &Walking r -•TABLE OF CONTENTS nt nt , ,_ Co e s Acknowledgments Pre` Alliance for Biking &Walking 6 Benchmarking Project Origins 7 Executive Summary .8 Objectives 8 Data Collection 9 Results 12 ` State Overview of Primary Benchmarking Indicators10 "°a City Overview of Primary Benchmarking Indicators 11 Overview of Walking,Bicycling,Transit,and Car Mode Share 12 } - High to Low Ranking of Bicycling and Walking Levels13 f Low to High Ranking of Bike/Ped Fatality Rates 14 High to Low Ranking of Per Capita Funding to Bike/Ped 15 Conclusions 19 ,, 1 : Introduction 21 1kt Benchmarking Bicycling and Walking 21 .''' K Primary Objectives 22 ---*N...,„ Secondary Objectives 23 ,-, Study Areas and Data Collection 24 � . Study Area Populations 25 Benchmarks in This Report 27 f e' Primary Benchmarks in This Report 27 i 1 Using This Report 28 . ,� . 2:Levels of Bicycling and Walking 30 How Many People Bicycle and Walk? 30 State Ranking:Bicycling and Walking to Work 31 . City Ranking:Bicycling and Walking to Work 32 Workers'Commutes in U.S.by Mode of Transport 32 �` Levels of Walking to Work in U.S 33 Levels of Bicycling to Work in U.S 33 \4441% Share of Commuters Who Bicycle or Walk in 50 States34 Share of Commuters Who Bicycle or Walk in Largest U.S.Cities 35 Estimated Percent of All Trips by Bicycle and Foot 36 ~ I Share of Commuters Who Bicycle or Walk 1990-200737 Who Bicycles and Walks? 38 Bicyclist Mode Share by Income Class 38 Pedestrian Commuters by Income Classification 39 A A Look at Gender 40 " A Look at Ethnicity 41 y 9 Bicycling and Walking to Work Levels and Gender ° Composition by State 42 .# g Bicycling and Walking to Work Levels and Gender - Composition by City 43 . -� A Look at Age 44 * 2010 Bench marking Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 3:Safety 44 Innovative Facilities in Cities 91 Overview of Walking and Pedestrian Safety Innovative Facilities Defined 92 Nationwide and in Largest U.S.Cities 46 CLOSER LOOK:Minneapolis:15,000 Bicycle Parking Overview of Bicycling and Bicycle Safety Spots 93 Nationwide and in Largest U.S.Cities 46 Bike-Transit Integration 94 Victim Demographics 46 Age and Risk 46 5: Education and Encouragement 95 What's the Risk? 47 2 of the"5 Es" 95 Bicycle Safety Ranking 47 Educating Professionals 96 Pedestrian Safety Ranking 48 Bike/Ped Professional Education in States 97 Percent of Trips and Traffic Fatalities Represented by Educating the Public 98 Pedestrians in Cities 49 Public Education and Events in States 100 Percent of Trips and Traffic Fatalities Represented by Adult Bicycle Education Courses 101 Bicyclists in 50 Youth Bicycle Education Courses 102 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Risk by State 51 Youth Bicycle Education:Youth Per One Participant..103 EmergingTrends 52 Adult Bicycle Education:Adults Per One U.S.Bicycle and Pedestrian Fatalities 1994-2008 52 Participant 104 Bicycle Safety in States 53 Encouragement Programs and Events 105 Pedestrian Safety in States 54 Bicycle Promotion in Cities 106 Bicycle Safety in Cities 55 Bike to Work Day Events 107 Pedestrian Safety in Cities 56 National Walk and Bike to School Day Participants..108 Number of Schools Participating in Bike and 4: Policies and Provisions 57 Walk to School Day 109 Policies vs.Provisions 57 City-Sponsored Bicycle Rides 110 Data on Policies and Provisions 58 CLOSER LOOK: Louisville Mayor's Healthy Hometown Bicycling and Walking Policies 58 Hike and Bike 110 Y 9 9 Planning for Bicycling and Walking in States 60 Ciclovia/Car-free Events 111 Planning for Bicycling and Walking in Cities 61 Complete Streets Policies 63 6: Grassroots Advocacy 1 1 0 City Policies Affecting Bicycling and Walking 64 Growing the Movement 112 State Policies Affecting Bicycling and Walking 65 Advocacy as an Indicator 113 Safe Routes to School Policies 68 Alliance U.S.Bike/Ped Advocacy Organizations...1 13 State Bicycle Policies 70 Proving Effectiveness 114 State Legislation Relating to Bicycling 71 Provisions for Bicycling and Walking 72 Measuring Advocacy Capacity 114 Percent of Federal Transportation Dollars to Bicycling Revenue Sources of Statewide Alliance and Walking 73 Organizations 114 Bicycle and Pedestrian Dollars by Funding Program..73 Revenue Sources of Alliance Organizations Serving Percent of Transportation Dollars to Bike/Ped 74 Cities 114 Composition of Federal Funding for Bike/Ped Advocacy Capacity Ranking 115 Revenue Sources of Statewide Alliance Provisions in Largest U.S.Cities 75 Organizations 116 Percent of Transportation Enhancement Funding to Per Capita Revenue of Statewide Alliance Bike/Ped by State 76 Organizations 117 State Transportation Enhancement Benchmarks Revenue Sources of Alliance Organizations Serving FY 1992-2008 77 Cities 118 Bike/Ped Funding in States 78 Per Capita Income of Alliance Advocacy Bike/Ped Funding in Cities 79 Organizations 119 Safe Routes to School Funding 80 Number of Residents Per One Member in Alliance FTE Bike/Ped Staff/Million People 83 Advocacy Organizations 119 Number of FTE Bike/Ped Staff in Cities(2006-2008) Number of Residents Per One Member in Statewide and FTE Staff/Million People 84 Alliance Organizations 120 Bike/Ped Staffing in States 85 Number of Residents Per One Member in Alliance Staffing in Cities 86 Organizations Serving Cities 121 Existing Bicycle Facilities in Major U.S.Cities 88 Capacity of Statewide Alliance Organizations 122 Growth in Bicycle Facilities in Major U.S.Cities 2007- CLOSER LOOK:Bicycle Coalition of Maine:Statewide 2009 89 Powerhouse for Bicycling 123 Bike/Ped Infrastructure in Cities 90 Capacity of Alliance Organizations Serving Cities...124 4 Alliance for Biking &Walking TABLE OF CONTENTS CLOSER LOOK:San Francisco Bicycle Coalition: 10,000 Members Strong 125 7: Influencing Bicycling and Walking 127 Environmental Influences 127 Comparing Average Summer and WinterTemperatures to Bicycling Levels 128 Residential Density and Bicycling ad Walking Levels in Major U.S.Cities 129 Comparing Facility Miles to Bicycling Levels 130 Socioeconomics and Demographics 131 Comparing Car Ownership to Bicycling and Walking Levels 132 Relationship between Bicyclist Fatalities and Bicycling Levels 133 Relationship between Pedestrian Fatalities and Walking Levels 134 Relationship 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 143 Bicycling,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 144 Comparing 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 149 Comparing Bicycling and Walking to Physical Activity Rates in 50 States 150 Comparing Bicycling and Walking to Diabetes Rates in 50 States 151 Comparing Bicycling and Walking to High Blood Pressure Rates in 50 States 152 9: Conclusion 153 Bicycle 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 161 Appendix 2: Organization and Study Area Matches 162 Appendix 3: Challenges with Trip Data 163 Appendix 4:Additional Data on Bicycling and Walking Commute Trends 167 Bicycle to Work Levels by City 1990-2007 167 Bicycle to Work Levels by State 1990-2007 168 Walking to Work Levels by City 1990-2007 169 Walking to Work Levels by State 1990-2007 170 Appendix 5:Additional Resources 171 Appendix 6: Overview of Other Benchmarking Efforts 178 Benchmarking EffortsAbroad 178 Benchmarking Efforts in the U.S 180 Links to Other Bench marking Efforts 182 Benchmarking Together 187 Bibliography .188 2010 Benchmarking Report PREFACE Preface Alliance for Biking & Walking Alliance for Biking&Walking(formerly known as the Thunderhead Alliance) is the North American coalition of grassroots bicycling and walking 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 160 member organizations representing 47 states and three Canadian provinces. In the last 14 years, we have improved the effectiveness of 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 channels through executive coaching, replicable models, trainings, our on-call support system, and our online resources library. Alliance organizations inform and organize their communities to improve conditions for bicycling and walking, promoting these as healthy and enjoyable ways to travel. From advocating for bikeways and walkways to conducting safety courses,our coalition is changing attitudes 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 efforts to promote bicycling and walking for healthy communities, a healthy environment, and a better quality of life. Advocacy leaders from across North America gathered for the Phob by the Albano , kn: i h.Wif G,ti, 2008 Alliance Leadership Reteat in Bainbridge Island,WA. ,0 -, - - odivt- -,-..trst, 0 .3.40.,.... . „ :1,. .— , _ Iv- „., • ,..:41,-; . t41 .., ioot _ ji. # 4 -0 ..1.;., . ‘4 ..* , A1111 , v., ... 1„ • • tyrp� �r I s , 4 I :.. . 4. I:41 '4.1.' 1 ,.....,( - ' -4' ``p_ y 6 Aihance for Biking F.,Vicilkir q 4 PREFACE Benchmarking Project Origins The Alliance's Benchmarking Project began in 2003 when Alliance leaders 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 benefit of showing the 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 test methods for the project. This first report helped pave a smoother path for the collection of more comprehensive data from all 50 states and 51 cities in 2006 and 2007. The first 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 as quickly since publishing in the fall leaves just a few months left in the year. This document is the second full report and builds upon our previous efforts. Through the ongoing Benchmarking Project,the Alliance for Biking &Walking will publish an updated version of this report every two years and will continuously refine methods and consider new data sets as available.As the project progresses, it will offer more precise benchmarks and recommendations for advocates and government officials so that they have the data they need to improve bicycling and walking in the U.S. and eventually all of North America. Advocacy leaders point to the location of their new campaigns at an Alliance Winning Campaigns Training. m Since our founding in 1996, a we have grown from 12 to t 160 member organizations fl representing 47 states and three Canadian provinces. 4 each orking Repo r Executive u m ma r a Auti ii x 2. l(Nik '1' 1,* i_ ,2, 0 ill , •22 .,,, If*, Ili 1114k, r m .4 I , ‘ 1 t . , Y 4.. y, _ ... i`. it , What isn't counted, doesn't count. Government officials working to promote bicycling and walking need data to evaluate their efforts. In order to improve something, there must be a means to measure it. The Alliance for Biking&Walking's Benchmarking Project is an ongoing effort to collect and analyze data on bicycling and walking in all 50 states and at least the 50 largest cities. This is the second biennial Benchmarking Report. The first report was published in the fall of 2007, and the next report is scheduled to be published in January 2012. Objectives (1) Promote Data Collection and Availability The Benchmarking project aims to collect data from secondary sources (existing databases) and to conduct surveys of city and state officials to obtain data not collected by another national source.A number of government and national data sources are collected and 8 Alliance for Biking &Walking it EXECUTIVE SUMMARY illustrated in this report.Through state, city, and organization bian- nual surveys, this project makes new data available in a standardized format that otherwise does not exist. (2) Measure Progress and Evaluate Results The Benchmarking Project aims to provide data to government of- ficials and advocates in an accessible format that helps them measure their progress toward increasing bicycling and walking and evalu- ate the results of their efforts. Because the Benchmarking Project is ongoing, cities and states can measure their progress over time and will see the impacts of their efforts. By providing a consistent and objective tool for evaluation, organizations, states, and cities can determine what works and what doesn't. Successful models can be emulated and failed models reevaluated. (3) Support Efforts to Increase Bicycling and Walking This project will ultimately support the efforts of government offi- cials and bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations to increase bicycling and walking in their communities. By providing a means for cities and states to compare themselves to one another, this report will 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 will gain inspiration and best practice models. This report is intended to help states and communities set goals,plan strategies, and evaluate results. Data Collection This report focuses on 50 states and the 51 largest U.S. cities. Most bicycling and walking is in urban areas, and because of short trip distances, the most potential for increasing bicycling and walking is in cities. Whenever possible, the Alliance collected data for this report directly from uniform government data sources. Researchers collected data that were not readily accessible from national sources through 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 provide data for organization, city, and state surveys. The surveys comple- mented existing government data sources to create a comprehen- 9 2010 Benchmarking Report i State Overview of Primary Benchmarking Indicators Key: 0 =Top 1/3 among states �J =Middle 1/3 among states U =Bottom 1/3 among states * =data unavailable Interpreting the State and =i-=a City Overview Tables Alabama O C 4 Alaska • • • • / The tables on this page and next give Arizona C - • • 1 an overview of how states and cities Arkansas 0 0 C C 0 compare in six areas.Full circles indicate the best ranking;states and cities with full California C C C C C circles are within the top 1/3 among their Colorado • C 0 0 C • peers.Half-circles represent the middle Connecticut C C 0 O • 1/3,and empty circles represent the bot- Delaware O 0 • • C tom 1/3.States and cities with the most filled in circles represent those that are Florida 0 0 0 C C / setting the benchmarks for bicycling and Georgia 0 0 C 0 Cs walking levels,safety,funding,staffing, Hawaii • C • C C • policies,and advocacy capacity,Below Idaho • • • • C is an explanation for how the ranking on this page and next were determined. Illinois C C 0 C C • Indiana 0 C C 0 0 • Mode Share:This ranking is based on the Iowa • • • C • combined share of commuters who bi- Kansas C C C • cycle and walk to work.The top 1/3 states and cities are those with the highest Kentucky O C C 0 C percentage of workers who commute by Louisiana 0 0 �� C C C bicycle and foot.Data source:ACS 2007 Maine • • C • • • Maryland 4 C 0 • • Safety:This ranking is based on the bi- cycle and pedestrian fatality rate defined Massachusetts • • 0 • • • as number of bicycle and pedestrian Michigan C C C • C • deaths(using a 3-year average)divided Minnesota C • • C • C by the bicycling and walking to work mode share times the population.The top Mississippi 0 0 0 C O C 1/3 states and cities are those with the Missouri C C 0 O C lowest fatality rate,and thus the highest Montana • • • 0 0 safety ranking.Data Sources:FARS 2005- Nebraska C • C 0 C 2007,ACS 2007 Nevada 0 0 0 0 C 0 New Hampshire C • • • • C Funding:This ranking is based on the federal dollars per capita that are obli- New Jersey C C 0 0 • 0 gated to bicycling and walking annually. New Mexico C 0 • C 0 * The top 1/3 states and cities are those New York • • 0 O C C with the highest per capita investment of federal dollars in bicycling and walking. North Carolina 0 0 C C C 0 Data Source:FHWA 2004-2008 North Dakota • • • • 0 C Ohio 0 C C 0 0 C Staffing:This ranking is based on the Oklahoma 0 0 0 C 0 C number of full-time-equivalent city and state staff devoted to bicycling and Oregon • • C • • • walking issues per 1 million residents.The Pennsylvania • C • 0 C C state ranking includes only state depart- Rhode Island C C • C C • ment of transportation staff.City ranking South Carolina O O O O • • includes city staff.The top 1/3 states and cities are those with the highest number South Dakota • • C C 0 0 of bike/ped staff per 1 million residents. Tennessee 0 0 • 0 • C Data Source:State and city surveys Texas 0 0 0 C C • Utah C C C • • 4 Bike/Ped Policies:This ranking is based Vermont • • • • • • on the total number of policies promot- Vermont ing bicycling and walking adopted by Virginia 0 C 0 C • the state/city.Policies counted for states Washington • • • • ( • include:Goals to increase walking, West Virginia C C 0 C 4 4 increase bicycling,decrease pedestrian Wisconsin • • C • • • fatalities,and decrease bicycle fatalities; Master Plan adopted for bicycling and Wyoming • • • • O O for walking;Bike/Ped advisory commit- m '"I4!l*sr*'1 ri! R tee;legal 2-abreast riding for bicycles; publicly available bicycle map;incen- 10 Alliance for Biking &Walking r 1 1 City Overview of Primary Benchmarking Indicators Key: • =Top 1/3 among states 0 =Middle 1/3 among states 0 =Bottom 1/3 among states * =data unavailable tives for bicycle commuting,complete streets policy;CO2 Reduction Plan adopted and if it included goals for bi- cycling and goals for walking;statewide Albuquerque C _ t 4 bicycle conference.Policies counted for Arlington,TX 0 0 0 * cities include:goals to increase walking, Atlanta C C • • • increase bicycling,decrease pedestrian Austin C C 0 • • C fatalities,and decrease bicycle fatalities; Baltimore • • C C 0 C Master Plan adopted for bicycling and ; for walking;Bike/Ped advisory commit- Boston • • 0 C 0 C tee;driver enforcement for not yielding; Charlotte O 0 0 C • C minimum spending level for bicycle and Chicago • • 0 • C • pedestrian;maximum number of parking Cleveland C • • * • spaces for new building;bicycle parking requirements in building/garages,new Colorado Springs C • C C C • buildings,and at public events;complete Columbus C C C C C C streets policy.Data Sources:State surveys, Dallas 0 0 C 0 C C city surveys,League of American Bicy- Denver • • • • 0 C clists(1) Detroit C 0 C 0 0 0 Advocacy Capacity:This ranking is El Paso 0 C 0 * * C based on the 3-year average(2006-2008) Fort Worth 0 0 0 0 0 C per capita revenue of bicycling and Fresno C 0 C • • C walking advocacy organizations serving cities/states.Only statewide organizations Honolulu • C • C C are included for states and only organiza- Houston C 0 C 0 0 * tions with a focus on serving a study area Indianapolis C C • 0 0 C city are included for cities.Cities and Jacksonville 0 0 C * • C states without dedicated advocacy orga- nizations are marked by an empty circle. Kansas City,MO 0 • • 0 • C Data Source:Organization surveys(2) Las Vegas C C 0 C • C Long Beach C C 0 C • C Notes:(1)Because many states have the Los Angeles C C 0 * 0 C same number of policies,policy rankings Louisville C 0 C • • • are not divided into even thirds.For states, Memphis 0 0 C • 0 C those with 10 or more of the 16 policies Mesa C C 0 C • 0 considered are indicated with full circles; those with 5-9 policies are indicated with Miami C 0 • C 0 C a half circle,and those with fewer than Milwaukee • C C 0 • • 5 policies are indicated with an empty Minneapolis • • • • C • circle.For cities,those with 9 or more of Nashville 0 0 • * 0 • the 15 policies considered are indicated with full circles;those with 7-8 policies are New Orleans • • C C C indicated with a half circle,and those New York • • * 0 C • with fewer than 7 policies are indicated Oakland • • • • • 4 with an empty circle.(2)These rankings Oklahoma City 0 0 C C 0 are based on surveys of Alliance bicy- Omaha C • C * 0 C cling and walking advocacy organiza- tions only.Because some cities and states Philadelphia • • C 0 0 • are not served by dedicated Alliance Phoenix 0 0 0 0 C 0 advocacy organizations,for states,the 16 Portland,OR • • C • • • served by advocacy organizations with the greatest capacity are marked with a Raleigh C C • 0 C C full circle,the 15 remaining states served Sacramento • C • * * C by advocacy organizations are marked San Antonio O 0 C * • C with half circles,and the remaining San Diego C C • 0 C C states not served by statewide Alliance San Francisco • • • • • • advocacy organizations are indicated with empty circles.For cities the 15 served San Jose C C • • C • by advocacy organizations with the Seattle • • • • C • greatest capacity are marked with a full Tucson • C • I • circle,the 14 remaining cities served by Tulsa 0 0 0 • C C advocacy organizations are marked with half circles,and the remaining cities not Virginia Beach 0 C C 4 C served by dedicated Alliance advocacy Washington,DC • • • • • • organizations are indicated with empty liniriniP circles. ' 2010 Benchmarking Report El • _A. , :. V. . ' ..Y Overview of Walking, Bicycling, According to the 2001 National Transit, and Car Mode Share Household Travel Survey (NHTS) 0.9% of all trips are by bicycle and %of Trips to Work (1) rips (2) 8.7% of all trips are by foot nation- Mode of wide. It is difficult to determine Travel 50 Major U.S. 50 Major U.S. bicycling and walking mode share States Cities States Citie for all trips at the state and city lev- 1 2.8% 4.8% 8.7% 11 .0% els because of small sample sizes of NHTS. 0.5% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% Bicycle and pedestrian commuters are generally distributed propor- R 4.8% 17.3% 1 .6% 2.4%(4) tionately among ethnic groups in the U.S., according to the 2007 ACS. Hispanics are slightly more likely to (3) 91 .9% 77.1% 88.8% 85.7%(4) bicycle or walk to work and Asians are more likely to walk to work than 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, other ethnic groups. Greater dispari- or walking.(4)These values are estimated using metropolitan areas with ties are found among genders. While populations over 1 million and do not reflect the study area cities of this report exactly. among pedestrian commuters, 54% are male and 46% are female, among bicycle commuters, 77% are male sive reserve of data that evaluates and only 23% are female.A look at multiple factors that affect bicycling age reveals that while walking is and walking in cities and states. generally distributed proportionate- ly among age groups, youth under Results age 16 make up the majority of bi- cycle trips. This age group makes up just 24% of the U.S. population,but Levels of Bicycling and Walking accounts for 58% of bicycling trips. From 1990 to 2007, the percent of commuters who bicycle to work Safety increased from 0.4% to 0.5% while While overall numbers of bicycle the percent of commuters who walk and pedestrian fatalities are declin- to work decreased from 3.9% to ing, pedestrians and bicyclists are 2.8%.According to the 2007 Ameri- still at a disproportionate risk for can Community Survey (ACS), 3.3% being a victim of a traffic fatality. of commuters nationwide are bicy- While just 8.7% of trips in the U.S. clists (0.5%) or pedestrians (2.8%). are by foot and 0.9% are by bicycle, Residents of major U.S. cities are 1.8 11.3% of traffic fatalities are pedestri- times more likely to walk or bicycle ans and 1.8% are bicyclists. In major to work than the national average. U.S. cities, 4.8% of trips are by foot IIAlliance for Biking &Walking EXECUTIVE SUMMARY High to Low Ranking of and 0.8% are by bicycle, yet 26.5% of Bicycling and Walking Levels traffic fatalities are pedestrians and 3.0%o are bicyclists. cY State O - `ka 1 Boston According to the 2005-2007 Fatality 0 ew York .. 2 . Washington, �c Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the 2001 NHTS, seniors are the O -rmont 3 . San Francisco most vulnerable age group. While 4 ontana 4 New York adults over 65 make up 9% of walk- ing trips and 4% of bicycling trips, 5 ' + regon 5 w Seattle they account for 19% of pedestrian 6 yoming 6 Minneapolis fatalities and 9% of bicyclist fatali- 0 .uth Dakota 7 Philadelphia ties. O ,•wail 8 New Orleans Policies and Provisions 0 orth Dakota "`' 9 Portland, OR A number of policies and provisions 0 Jassachusetts 10 Honolulu are represented in this report in- 11.Maine 11.Baltimore cluding funding and staffing lev- 12.Iowa 12.Oakland els, infrastructure, written policies, 13.Pennsylvania 13.Chicago 14.Colorado 14.Denver and bike-transit integration. While 15.Idaho 15.Tucson many states and cities have shown 16.Washington 16.Milwaukee 17.Wisconsin 17.Sacramento progress in this area, most still rank 18.Minnesota 18.Long Beach 19.California 19.Atlanta poorly for funding, written policies, 20.New Hampshire 20.Cleveland and bike-transit integration. 21.Rhode Island 21.Los Angeles 22.Illinois 22.Miami 23.Nebraska 23.San Diego Funding for Bicycling and Walking 24.New Jersey 24.Raleigh 25.Utah 25. 2008 data from the Federal Highway 26.Connecticut 26.Mesa Administration reveal that states 27.Delaware 27.Albuquerque 28.Kansas 28.Detroit spend just 1.2% of their federal 29.Arizona 29. asn C trans ortation dollars on bicycling 31.West Virginia 31.Louisville and walking. This amounts to just 32.Maryland 32.Las Vegas 33.New Mexico 33.Fresno $1.29 per capita for bicycling and 34.Michigan 34.San Jose walking.About 46% of these dedicated 35.Ohio 35.Tulsa 36.Virginia 36.Houston bicycle and pedestrian dollars are from 37.Indiana 37.Kansas City,MO the Transportation Enhancement(TE) 38.Kentucky 38.Memphis 39.Louisiana 39.El Paso program. The majority of TE funding 40.Missouri 40.Omaha (48%)goes toward building bicycle 41.Florida 41.San Antonio 42.Oklahoma 42.Phoenix and pedestrian facilities and to bicycle 43.North Carolina 43.Virginia Beach and pedestrian education. 44.Mississippi 44.Indianapolis 45.South Carolina 45.Charlotte 46.Texas 46.Dallas 47.Georgia 47.Arlington,TX Source:2007 ACS Notes This ranking is based on the 48.Arkansas 48.Jacksonville combined bike and walk to work share from the 2007 49.Tennessee 49.Nashville ACS.The number one position indicates the state and 50.Alabama 50.Fort Worth , with the highest share of commuters who commute 51.Oklahoma City by bicycle or foot.View graphs illustrating this data on pages 34 and 35 of this report. 2010 Benchmarking Report , . - liIllMC,, . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning and Legislation Low to High Ranking of Since the 2007 Benchmarking Report, B ike/Ped Fatality Rates there has been a 44% increase in the number of states that have published ■tes Cities _, :` goals to increase bicycling and walk- i t 0 §as City,MO ing, and a 78% increase in the number of states that have published goals to 2 ' ebraska 2 "Boston reduce bicycle and pedestrian fatali- 0 ,:laska 3 inneapolis ties. , yoming 0 -attle A number of new policies were includ- orth Dakota 5 -' ew York ed in the surveys for this report and 0 6 •n Francisco collected from the League of American aine Bicyclists' (LAB)new Bicycle Friendly 0 daho 7 Colorado Springs States program. 2009 LAB data on state ashin ton, DC legislation reveal that most states have 0 ew Hampshire 0 9 basic bicyclists' rights legislation such 0 innesota 0 •rtland, OR as allowing bicyclists to legally ride assachusetts 0 iladelphia two-abreast, signal right turns with their right hand and to take a full traf- 1 1.south Dakota 11.Omaha � 12.Iowa 12.Chicago fic lane in the presence of a sidepath or 13.New York 13.Baltimore bike lane. Fourteen states have 3-foot 14.15.Montana 14.New Orleans ' 15.Oakland passing laws that require motorists to 16.Washington 16.Cleveland pass bicyclists at a safe distance of at 17.Oregon 17.Denver p y 18.Colorado 18.Columbus least three feet. 19.Kansas 19.Milwaukee 20.Connecticut 20.Long Beach 21.Pennsylvania -= 21.Honolulu A survey of other policies found that 22.Utah 22.Atlanta less than half of cities and states have 23.Ohio 23.Sanrmgoto 24.Illinois D 24.San Diego adopted complete streets policies that 25.Rhode Island 25.Virginia Beach require streets be built to accommodate 26.West Virginia 26.El Paso q 27.Virginia 27.Los Angeles all potential road users.Thirteen of 18 28.Indiana 28.Tucson adopted CO2 reduc- 29.Hawaii 29.Raleigh states that have ado p 30.New Jersey 30.San Jose lion plans have induded goals for 31.Kentucky 31.Indianapolis 32.Michigan 32.Mesa bicycling and walking as part of these 33.California 33.Austin plans.Just 16 states report having a 34.Missouri 34.Las Vegas 35.Maryland 35.San Antonio statewide bicycle conference.And 36 36.Delaware `' 36.Memphis states report having a publicly avail- 37.Oklahoma 37.Louisville 38.Arkansas 38.Fresno able bicycle map. 39.Nevada 39.Arlington,TX 40.Tennessee 40.Houston 41.Texas 41.Charlotte 42.Georgia _ 42.Albuquerque Sources:FARS 2005-2007,ACS 2007 Notes:This ranking is 43.Arizona 43.Tulsa based on the fatality rate which is calculated as number 44.North Carolina 44.Detroit of bicycling or walking fatalities during 2005-2007 divided 45.Mississippi 45.Miami by the population times the bicycle or walk to work mode 46.New Mexico 46.Phoenix share.The number one position indicates the safest state 47.Louisiana 47.Nashville or city according to the fatality rate.View these data on 48.Alabama , 48.Oklahoma City pages 53-56 of this report. 49.South Carolina 49.Dallas 50.Florida 50.Fort Worth 51.Jacksonville 14 Alliance for Biking &Walking EXECUTIVE SUMMARY High to Low Ranking of Per Data on Safe Routes to School policies Capita Funding to Bike/Ped at the state level were collected from state surveys and from the Council of Stat--_ Educational Facility Planners Interna- 1 'aska 1 Atlanta tional (CEFPI).State surveys indicate that 15 states provide additional fund- 2 ° ermont 2 Minneapolis ing for Safe Routes to School beyond © ode Island 3 Oakland federal funding.According to CEFPI, O ' oming 4 Washington, DC 25 states have policies requiring mini- mum acreage for school siting. These 5 .Montana 5 Tucson policies often force new schools to lo- 6 awaii 6 Seattle cate far from population centers mak- 0 ing bicycling and walking to school -w Hampshire 7 Nashville difficult for students. 0 °laware 8 Cleveland Cities were surveyed on driver en- 0 Ewa 9 Sacramento forcement for not yielding to bicyclists or pedestrians. Results indicate that 11.Tennessee 11.Indianapolis slightly less than half of cities actively 12.Washington 12.Raleigh enforce motorists not yielding to bicy- 13.Arizona 13.San Diego clists and pedestrians. The average fine 14.Minnesota 14.San Francisco 1S$159. 15.North Dakota 15.San Jose 16. Pennsylvania 16.Denver 17. Idaho 17. Kansas City,MO Cities were also surveyed on car and 18.Alabama 18.Portland,OR y 19.Missouri 19.New Orleans bicycle parking requirements. The 20.Kansas 20.Detroit ma on of cities (38)have policies 21. Indiana 21.Albuquerque ) �' ( ) P 22. Maine 22.Oklahoma City that require a minimum number of car 23.Nebraska 23.Milwaukee parking spaces for new developments. 24.South Dakota 24.Houston P g P ments.P 25.Georgia 25.Jacksonville Just eight cities report having policies 26. Kentucky 26.Omaha that set maximum limits for car ark- 27.Wisconsin 27.Philadelphia P 28.Oregon 28.Dallas ing. Fifteen cities require bicycle park- 29. Utah 29. Fresno ing in buildings and garages, 23 as part 30.Michigan 30. Memphis 31.Ohio 31.Colorado Springs of new buildings, and eight at public 32.Arkansas 32.Louisville events over a certain size. 33.North Carolina 33.Baltimore 34.California 34.Virginia Beach 35.Louisiana 35.Arlington,TX Staffing 36.Colorado 36.San Antonio 37.Connecticut 37.Columbus Staffing is indicative of how a state or 38. Florida 38.Phoenix city prioritizes improving bicycling 39.Mississippi 39. Long e l Beach �P P g Y g 40.Texas 40.Boston and walking. Surveys indicate that, 41.Massachusetts 41. Los Angeles 42.Nevada 42.Tulsa 43.Illinois 43.Chicago Source:FHWA FMIS 2004-2008 Notes:This ranking is 44.Oklahoma 44.Las Vegas , based on the per capita spending of states and cities 45.Maryland 45.Mesa on bicycling and walking using a 5-year average(2004- 46.New Jersey 46.Fort Worth , 2008).Data is based on funds obligated to projects in 47.New York 47.Charlotte this period and are not necessarily the amount spent in 48.West Virginia 48.Austin these years.The number one position indicates the state 49.South Carolina 49.El Paso or city with the highest amount of per capita funding to j bicycling and walking.No data were available for New 50.Virginia ,, York City and Honolulu.View these data on pages 78-79 of this report. 2010 Benchmarking Report IIIII 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 notable staffing dedicated to bicycling and walking, there is still significant room for improvement. Outreach for this report revealed that the majority of staff dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian issues are over- worked,and their departments are understaffed. Infrastructure City surveys examined current and planned bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures in order to benchmark the progress communities are making. Specifically, cities reported miles of bike lanes,bicycle routes, 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 are new projects currently being implemented or in the process of ap- proval. Bike-Transit Integration Bike-transit integration has proved to be a vital aspect of effective bicycle systems. The report analyzes responses from city and state surveys, as well as American Public Transportation Association (APTA) data,to see how well cities are integrating bicycle systems with transit. Thirty-seven cities report that 100% of their bus fleet 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 Encouragement Education and encouragement programs at the state and city level are effective ways to inform the public and promote bicycling and walking. Information from state and city surveys and the National Center for Safe Routes to School illustrates the growth in bicycle and pedestrian education in communities. National Walk and Bike to School Day is a popular encouragement activity with growing school participation nationwide. Thirty cities report having youth bicycle education courses and 35 have adult courses.Youth education is a vital area of outreach because it has the potential to influence the habits of the next gen- eration.The number of youth who participate in bicycle education courses in cities increased by 20% from two years ago. Surveys indicate a 69% increase in adult participation levels for bicycle educa- tional courses over the last two years. 16 Alliance for Biking &Walking 9 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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's exam. The majority of states (33)have a"Share the Road" or similar public safety campaign. Fifteen states report sponsoring a statewide ride 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 enforcement as part of police officer training, and only 22% have bicycle enforce- ment as a police academy requirement.And,just 16 states report having hosted a statewide bicycle and pedestrian conference. Cities were also surveyed on encouragement activities including presence of and participation levels in Bike to Work Day events, ci- clovias/Sunday street events, and city-sponsored bicycle rides. Bike to Work Day is the most common encouragement event with 38 cities 110, ef T.: r < says �: ar + ;0-....- „ 1„,,,, , � r} ai yr t& itYJ 4 4 i1ir a.„4_ - y ! t r .t'� s r dl.! 3 g4 { } 7 IP It I- T I k S y. ' fi., til i k ..ii t. r' �► r ■ Aa 4- t } 2010 Benchmarking Report III m. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY participating with an average of one participant for every 157 adults. Twenty-three cities sponsor rides to promote bicycling or physical activity with an average of one participant for every 582 residents. Fifteen states have hosted car-free ciclovia/Sunday parkways events with an average of one participant for every 53 residents. Cycling and Walking Advocacy Advocacy organizations have the potential to influence bicycling and walking in the communities they serve by advocating for and winning new policies, funding, infrastructure, and programs. The number of Alliance state and local bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations has been increasing steadily since the Alliance was founded in 1996 (as Thunderhead Alliance). This report measures organization capacity of Alliance member organizations and sets standards for membership,revenue, staffing, and media exposure. Results from Alliance organization surveys vary widely because of the great variation in maturity and operations of these organizations as well as the communities they serve. Some organizations in this re- port are decades old while others were founded not long before these surveys were collected. Surveys indicate that revenue of advocacy organizations per resident served increased from$0.03 to$0.04 in the last two years.Organi- zations serving cities earn significantly more per capita than their statewide counterparts. Local organizations earn an average of$0.20 per resident served while statewide organizations earn just$0.03 per resident.About half of the statewide Alliance organizations report an increase in per capita revenue from two years ago. In general, orga- nization revenue is diversified, coming from membership and dona- tions,events, fees, grants, contracts, and the bicycle industry. Local alliance organizations also have much higher per capita membership levels averaging one member per 1,283 residents. Statewide organi- zations have an average of 5,222 per member. Similarly, statewide organizations operate with an average of 0.3 full-time-equivalent staff(FTE)per million residents served. Organizations serving cities average 1.9 FTE staff per million residents. Factors Influencing Bicycling and Walking Analysis 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 that directly influences bicycling levels, density, advocacy capacity, and cost of operating a vehicle are a few factors that appear to influence bicycling and walking trips.ACS and FARS data indicate a positive 18 Alliance for Biking&Walking EXECUTIVE SUMMARY correlation between bicycling and walking levels and safety. In line with previous studies, an increase in walking and bicycling levels is strongly related to increased bicydist and pedestrian safety.A slight positive 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 walking and bicycling decreases, so does the percent of households that do not own a car. This suggests a relationship between car ownership and walking and bicycling levels. However, the relationship in cities between bicycling and walking levels and the miles of bike lanes and shared use paths is not as strong and may need to be analyzed fur- ther. Difficulty in measuring the quality and accessibility of facilities makes it difficult to examine this relationship at present. Impacts of Bicycling and Walking on Public Health To see how bicycling and walking influence 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 reflect a direct relationship between levels of bicycling and walking and several public health indicators. Data suggest that the risk for such health problems as obesity,diabetes, asthma, and hyper- tension will decrease with more bicycling and walking.States with lower bicycling and walking levels on average have higher levels of obesity, diabetes,hypertension, and asthma. States with higher levels 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 help achieve public health goals of increasing physical activity and lower- ing rates of overweight and obesity. Conclusions While many state and local communities are making sufficient efforts to promote bicycling and walking, there is much more work to be done.Barriers in staffing and funding remain a consistent limitation to promoting bicycling and walking. Bicycling and walking make up nearly 10% of all trips, and over 13% of traffic fatalities, and yet receive less than 2% of federal transportation dollars. The proven environmental, economic, and personal health benefits that bicycling and walking offer are evidence that increasing bicycling and walk- ing levels are in the public good,yet a much greater investment is needed throughout the U.S. This Benchmarking Report identifies which cities and states are leading the way and provides links to 2010 Benchmarking Report 19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY resources (Appendix 5) from these communities. The Alliance rec- ommends that government officials and advocates take the time to evaluate their efforts to promote bicycling and walking. This report can be used by communities to see how they measure up, to identify role models, and to set new goals. Continued benchmarking and improvements in the availability of data will strengthen the report in the coming years, and lend a better understanding of the factors that influence bicycling and walking.Ultimately,by providing a tool for communities to consistently measure progress, evaluate results, and set new report P targets, this ort will advance efforts for a more bicycle and pedestrian friendly America. 20 Alliance for Biking &Walking 1 : Introduction yea . z i R iovbt, . n it 11 1 : *, jii AI .... v i _ , . , ,, ....i.v., . 6M- x. Benchmarking Bicycling and Walking enchmarking is the method of determining best practices or standards and who sets them. Government officials and bicycle and pedestrian advocates have all wondered at some point how their city or state compares with others. Of- ficials tY P ficials and advocates need data to measure their progress and evalu- ate their efforts. The Alliance for Biking&Walking's Benchmarking Project collects data from government and national data sources, and through surveys to government officials and advocates. Results are published in a biennial Benchmarking Report to demonstrate the progress of cities and states in regard to bicycling and walking. Benchmarking helps to show officials and advocates where their city g P tY or state measures up and helps them to identify areas most in need of improvement. The ultimate objectives of the Benchmarking Project are to increase the number of people who bicycle and walk and to improve their safety. Through benchmarking, new goals can be set, programs evaluated, and continued progress made toward a bicycle and pedestrian friendly America. 2010 Benchmarking Report