DOCSLIB.ORG

Texas BTTS Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Texas BTTS Final Report Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails Study Final Report Public Transportation Division July 2018 Acknowledgements Prepared for: TxDOT Public Transportation Division Prepared by: Carl Seifert and Stephanie Lind Quality Reviewers: Teri Kaplan and Bonnie Sherman Bicycle Tourism Trails Study This page is intentionally blank. ii Bicycle Tourism Trails Study Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2. Study Background ......................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Vision, Goals, and Objectives ................................................................................ 2 3. Stakeholder Engagement .............................................................................................. 4 3.1 TxDOT’s Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) .......................................................... 5 3.2 BAC Working Group ................................................................................................ 6 3.3 TxDOT Divisions and Districts.............................................................................. 11 3.4 Consultation with Texas State Agencies ............................................................. 11 3.5 Regional Planning Entities ................................................................................... 14 3.6 BikeTexas and Users ........................................................................................... 15 3.7 Collaborative Approaches to Bicycle Tourism .................................................... 16 4. Benefits of Bikeways and Trails .................................................................................. 18 4.1 Economic Benefits ............................................................................................... 18 4.2 Health Benefits .................................................................................................... 23 4.3 Environmental Benefits ....................................................................................... 26 4.4 Transportation/Travel Benefits ........................................................................... 27 4.5 Preservation of Historic and Cultural Features .................................................. 28 5. Development of the Example Network Routes ........................................................... 29 5.1 Preliminary Route Development ......................................................................... 29 5.2 Conceptual Route Network and Regional Stakeholder Input ........................... 42 6. Bicycle Tourism Trails: Example Network .................................................................... 46 6.1 Example Network Analysis .................................................................................. 47 6.2 Example Network Bikeway Types Analysis ......................................................... 48 7. United States Bicycle Route System (USBRS) ............................................................. 53 7.1 USBRS Overview .................................................................................................. 53 7.2 AASHTO Designation Process .............................................................................. 54 8. BTTS Bikeway Design Guidance .................................................................................. 58 8.1 Bikeway Design Criteria Development ............................................................... 58 8.2 Shared Use Path/Sidepath ................................................................................. 59 8.3 Buffered Bicycle Lane .......................................................................................... 62 8.4 Bicycle Lane ......................................................................................................... 66 8.5 Paved Shoulder .................................................................................................... 70 9. Bikeway Cost Estimates .............................................................................................. 72 10. Next Steps ................................................................................................................... 77 11. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 79 i Bicycle Tourism Trails Study 12. References .................................................................................................................. 80 Appendixes Appendix A: Example Network Route Development Data Sources Appendix B: Wikimap Online Input Tool: All Stakeholder Comments Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimate Tables Tables Table 1: BAC and Working Members ............................................................................................ 6 Table 2: TxDOT BAC and Working Group Meeting Activities ....................................................... 7 Table 3: BTTS Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 10 Table 4: Summary of Research: Daily Expenditures by Bicycle Tourists .................................. 20 Table 5: Working Group's Criteria Prioritization Exercise Results ............................................ 32 Table 6: Route Location Criteria and Metrics ............................................................................ 36 Table 7: Detailed Quantitative Criteria Metrics .......................................................................... 37 Table 8: Example Calculation for Composite Segment Score................................................... 38 Table 9: Wikimap Online Input Tool: Written comments summary .......................................... 43 Table 10: Example Network by Route Type ................................................................................ 47 Table 11: Example Network Geographic Analysis ..................................................................... 48 Table 12: Example Network Bikeway Accommodations: Existing vs. Future ........................... 50 Table 13: Example Network by Bikeway Type ............................................................................ 50 Table 14: Bikeway Construction Cost Estimate Ranges (per mile) .......................................... 74 Table 15: Bikeway Operation and Maintenance Activities ........................................................ 75 Figures Figure 1: Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails Study Planning Process ................................................. 3 Figure 2: Simplified BTTS Stakeholder Engagement Schedule .................................................. 4 Figure 3: BTTS Stakeholder Involvement ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 4: BTTS Project Partners Diagram ..................................................................................... 6 Figure 5: Bicycle Tourism Typology Spectrum ............................................................................ 19 Figure 6: Chances in Trail Use Based on Amenities .................................................................. 26 Figure 7: Route Development Methodology Diagram ............................................................... 29 Figure 8: Working Group Feedback Drawn on a Texas Statewide Map ................................... 30 Figure 9: Working Group Feedback Drawn on an East Texas Regional Map ........................... 31 Figure 10: Working Group Feedback Drawn on a Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Map .............. 31 Figure 11: Routes Drawn by Working Group – April 10, 2017 ................................................. 31 Figure 12: BTTS Preliminary Routes – July 17, 2017 ............................................................... 34 Figure 13: Composite Segment Scores Applied Statewide ....................................................... 39 Figure 14: Composite Segment Score Distributions ................................................................. 40 Figure 15: Example of a Preliminary Route Modification .......................................................... 40 Figure 16: Preliminary and Conceptual Routes Compared ....................................................... 41 ii Bicycle Tourism Trails Study Figure 17: Wikimap Introduction Screen and Legend ............................................................... 42 Figure 18: Wikimap Online Input Tool: Feedback Map ............................................................. 43 Figure 19: Houston-area Wikimap Feedback/Comments ........................................................ 44 Figure 20: Houston-area Conceptual Route Modifications ....................................................... 45 Figure 21: BTTS Example Network ............................................................................................. 46 Figure 22: Example Network Bikeway Accommodations: Existing vs. Future Map ................. 49 Figure 23: Example Network by Bikeway Type Map .................................................................. 51 Figure 24: BTTS Route Development: Detailed Process Overview ........................................... 52 Figure 25: USBRS National Corridor Plan .................................................................................. 54 Figure 26: USBRS Route Designation Process .......................................................................... 55 Figure 27: Typical Shared
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Written Comments
    Written Comments 1 2 3 4 1027 S. Lusk Street Boise, ID 83706 [email protected] 208.429.6520 www.boisebicycleproject.org ACHD, March, 2016 The Board of Directors of the Boise Bicycle Project (BBP) commends the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) for its efforts to study and solicit input on implementation of protected bike lanes on Main and Idaho Streets in downtown Boise. BBP’s mission includes the overall goal of promoting the personal, social and environmental benefits of bicycling, which we strive to achieve by providing education and access to affordable refurbished bicycles to members of the community. Since its establishment in 2007, BBP has donated or recycled thousands of bicycles and has provided countless individuals with bicycle repair and safety skills each year. BBP fully supports efforts to improve the bicycle safety and accessibility of downtown Boise for the broadest segment of the community. Among the alternatives proposed in ACHD’s solicitation, the Board of Directors of BBP recommends that the ACHD pursue the second alternative – Bike Lanes Protected by Parking on Main Street and Idaho Street. We also recommend that there be no motor vehicle parking near intersections to improve visibility and limit the risk of the motor vehicles turning into bicyclists in the protected lane. The space freed up near intersections could be used to provide bicycle parking facilities between the bike lane and the travel lane, which would help achieve the goal of reducing sidewalk congestion without compromising safety. In other communities where protected bike lanes have been implemented, this alternative – bike lanes protected by parking – has proven to provide the level of comfort necessary to allow bicycling in downtown areas by families and others who would not ride in traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Policies, Practices, and Ordinances
    Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Policies, Practices, and Ordinances November 2011 i iv . Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Policies, Practices, and Ordinances November 2011 i The Delaware Valley Regional Planning The symbol in our logo is Commission is dedicated to uniting the adapted from region’s elected officials, planning the official professionals, and the public with a DVRPC seal and is designed as a common vision of making a great region stylized image of the Delaware Valley. even greater. Shaping the way we live, The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the work, and play, DVRPC builds Delaware River. The two adjoining consensus on improving transportation, crescents represent the Commonwealth promoting smart growth, protecting the of Pennsylvania and the State of environment, and enhancing the New Jersey. economy. We serve a diverse region of DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding nine counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, sources including federal grants from the Montgomery, and Philadelphia in U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Gloucester, and Mercer in New Jersey. and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey DVRPC is the federally designated departments of transportation, as well Metropolitan Planning Organization for as by DVRPC’s state and local member the Greater Philadelphia Region — governments. The authors, however, are leading the way to a better future. solely responsible for the findings and conclusions herein, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities.
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Agenda ● December 14, 2020
    PAGE 1 CITY OF TEXARKANA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ● DECEMBER 14, 2020 Virtual Regular Meeting 6:00 PM 220 TEXAS BLVD. TEXARKANA, TX 75501 Special Notice and Meeting Procedures Due to COVID-19 Pursuant to the temporary suspension of certain open meetings laws to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, this meeting of the City Council will not be conducted in person and will not be conducted at City Hall. This meeting will be conducted by video conference and telephone call. At least a quorum of the City Council will be participating by video conference or telephone call in accordance with the provisions of Sections 551.125 or 551.127 of the Texas Government Code that have not been suspended by order of the Governor. The public may access the City’s regular meeting agenda materials through the City’s website ci.texarkana.tx.us. Public Hearings Audio/video (A/V) conferencing for virtual two-way communication with the City Council will be made available for noticed public hearings only. If your computer or personal device is not capable of A/V conferencing, then you should use audio-only or telephone conferencing. A/V conferencing may be accessed using an internet browser, going to the Zoom platform at this URL, https://tinyurl.com/Txktx12142020, following the registration instructions, and completing the registration process. Registration must be completed by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Telephone conferencing may be accessed by calling toll free 1 888-788-0099 or 1 877-853-5247, and when prompted enter Meeting ID 924-8277-1350 and passcode 1212020.
    [Show full text]
  • FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide
    BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE FEBRUARY 2019 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED February 2019 Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. FUNDING NUMBERS Bikeway Selection Guide NA 6. AUTHORS 5b. CONTRACT NUMBER Schultheiss, Bill; Goodman, Dan; Blackburn, Lauren; DTFH61-16-D-00005 Wood, Adam; Reed, Dan; Elbech, Mary 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION VHB, 940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500 REPORT NUMBER Raleigh, NC 27606 NA Toole Design Group, 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Mobycon - North America, Durham, NC 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AND ADDRESS(ES) AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Tamara Redmon FHWA-SA-18-077 Project Manager, Office of Safety Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public on the FHWA website at: NA https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike 13. ABSTRACT This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions about trade- offs relating to the selection of bikeway types. This report highlights linkages between the bikeway selection process and the transportation planning process. This guide presents these factors and considerations in a practical process- oriented way. It draws on research where available and emphasizes engineering judgment, design flexibility, documentation, and experimentation. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Bike, bicycle, bikeway, multimodal, networks, 52 active transportation, low stress networks 16. PRICE CODE NA 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Crowdsourcing to Prioritize Bicycle Network Improvements
    GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 14-39 FINAL REPORT USING CROWDSOURCING TO PRIORITIZE BICYCLE NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS OFFICE OF RESEARCH 15 KENNEDY DRIVE FOREST PARK, GA 30297-2534 This page intentionally left blank. GDOT Research Project RP14-39 Final Report Using Crowdsourcing to Prioritize Bicycle Network Improvements By Dr. Kari E. Watkins Assistant Professor School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Chris LeDantec Assistant Professor School of Literature, Media and Communication Georgia Institute of Technology Contract with Georgia Department of Transportation In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration April 2016 The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who is (are) responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. i This page intentionally left blank. ii 1.Report No.: 2. Government Accession No.: 3. Recipient's Catalog No.: FHWA-GA-16-1439 4. Title and Subtitle: 5. Report Date: Using Crowdsourcing to Prioritize Bicycle April 2016 Network Improvements 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s): 8. Performing Organ. Report No.: Dr. Kari E. Watkins, PE (P.I.), Dr. Chris LeDantec (co-P.I), Aditi Misra, Mariam Asad, Charlene Mingus, Cary Bearn, Alex Poznanski, Anhong Guo, Rohit Ammanamanchi, Vernon Gentry, Aaron Gooze 9. Performing Organization Name and Address: 10. Work Unit No. Georgia Institute of Technology 11. Contract or Grant No.: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering GDOT Research Project No.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting to the Curb: a Guide to Building Protected Bike Lanes.”)
    Getting to the Curb A Guide to Building Protected Bike Lanes That Work for Pedestrians This report is dedicated to Joanna Fraguli, a passionate pedestrian safety advocate whose work made San Francisco a better place for everyone. This report was created by the Senior & Disability Pedestrian Safety Workgroup of the San Francisco Vision Zero Coalition. Member organizations include: • Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco • Senior & Disability Action • Walk San Francisco • Age & Disability Friendly SF • San Francisco Mayor’s Office on Disability Primary author: Natasha Opfell, Walk San Francisco Advisor/editor: Cathy DeLuca, Walk San Francisco Illustrations: EricTuvel For more information about the Workgroup, contact Walk SF at [email protected]. Thank you to the San Francisco Department of Public Health for contributing to the success of this project through three years of funding through the Safe Streets for Seniors program. A sincere thanks to everyone who attended our March 6, 2018 charette “Designing Protected Bike Lanes That Are Safe and Accessible for Pedestrians.” This guide would not exist without your invaluable participation. Finally, a special thanks to the following individuals and agencies who gave their time and resources to make our March 2018 charette such a great success: • Annette Williams, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency • Jamie Parks, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency • Kevin Jensen, San Francisco Public Works • Arfaraz Khambatta, San Francisco Mayor’s Office on Disability Table of
    [Show full text]
  • Road Safety Action Group Inner Melbourne Name of Project: Door Knock 2012 Project Number: 0010
    RSAGIM Door Knock – Background Research Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... iii 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Car dooring zone .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Road rules .................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Objectives ..................................................................................................... 3 2 Crash Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4 2.2 What is the prevalence of car dooring crashes? .......................................... 6 2.3 Which vehicle door presents the hazard? .................................................... 7 2.4 Where are car dooring collisions occurring? ................................................ 7 2.5 What is the injury severity? ........................................................................ 11 2.6 Who is injured? ........................................................................................... 13 2.7 How has the injury burden changed? ......................................................... 14 2.8 When are the crashes occurring? .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Scott Lagasse, Jr
    Messenger Building a Bicycle-Friendly Florida Vol. 19, No. 1 • Winter 2016 OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF THE FLORIDA BICYCLE ASSOCIATION, INC. Fast Track Scott Lagasse, Jr. “Driving” the Alert Today to... Florida Message Home By Trenda McPherson & Alert Today Florida staff cott Lagasse, Jr. or “Scotty” as many of Sus have come to know him, is the official spokesperson for Alert Today Florida. Scotty pilots the Alert Today Florida NASCAR Xfinity Series Race Car and the Alert Today Florida NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Race Truck. Yes, he “pilots” them, because this guy FLIES around the track!? While many prefer a motor vehicle as their mode of transportation, Scotty’s Membership 2 preference, second only to the driver’s seat on race day, is his bicycle. He’s been an avid cyclist for most of his life. He rides Blue Light Corner 5 primarily for the health benefits, but he also enjoys the fresh air and the fresh perspective WHEELS Wrap 8-9 he gets when he rides. “Unfortunately, motorists don’t always Ask Geo 11 share the road with bicyclists, and there are some roads I don’t feel safe riding on Gears 101 12 because of it,” Scotty stated. He feels it’s important to “humanize” bicycling by Touring Calendar 14 reminding motorists that PEOPLE are on Scott Lagasse, Jr. proudly sported the FBA and new Alert Tonight Florida logos at the November bicycles. “Every Life Counts” is one of Alert Homestead race. (photo courtesy of Team SLR) Today Florida’s campaigns and one of the messages Scotty drives home through his and bicycle safety? Why not? Scotty is a or other event, or organizing the next new racing and appearances outside the track.
    [Show full text]
  • FLOW Portfolio of Measures: the Role of Walking and Cycling in Reducing
    THE ROLE OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN REDUCING CONGESTION A PORTFOLIO OF MEASURES A PORTFOLIO OF MEASURES FLOW DOCUMENT TITLE The Role of Walking and Cycling in Reducing Congestion: A Portfolio of Measures AUTHORS Thorsten Koska, Frederic Rudolph (Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie gGmbH); Case Studies: Benjamin Schreck, Andreas Vesper (Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen), Tamás Halmos (Budapesti Közlekedési Központ), Tamás Mátrai (Budapesti Műszaki és Gazdaságtudományi Egyetem), Alicja Pawłowska (Municipality of Gdynia), Jacek Oskarbski (Politechnika Gdanska), Benedicte Swennen (European Cyclists’ Federation), Nora Szabo (PTV AG), Graham Cavanagh (Rupprecht Consult GmbH), Florence Lepoudre (Traject), Katie Millard (Transport Research Laboratory), Martin Wedderburn (Walk21), Miriam Müller, David Knor (Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie gGmbH) CONTACT Project coordinator: Rupprecht Consult Bernard Gyergyay: [email protected] Kristin Tovaas: [email protected] Project dissemination manager: Polis Daniela Stoycheva: [email protected] CITATION FLOW Project (2016). The Role of Walking and Cycling in Reducing Congestion: A Portfolio of Measures. Brussels. Available at http://www.h2020-flow.eu. IMAGE DISCLAIMER The images in this document are used as a form of visual citation to support and clarify statements made in the text. The authors have made great effort to provide credit for every image used. If, despite our efforts, we have not given sufficient credit to the author of any images used, please contact us directly at [email protected] LAYOUT PEAK Sourcing DATE July 2016 The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the INEA nor the European Commission is responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
    [Show full text]
  • Dallas Area, Northeast Texans Split Over Reservoir in Water Plan
    Dallas area, northeast Texans split over reservoir in water plan By KELLEY SHANNON, Austin Bureau, Dallas Morning News, Published: 28 April 2013 11:18 PM AUSTIN — Shirley Shumake’s family has owned land near the Sulphur River in northeast Texas since the 1800s. She doesn’t take kindly to the prospect of losing property to create a lake to collect water for Dallas. “Our history runs deep,” she said. “We have pleaded. We have done everything.” Northeast Texas water planners declared opposition to the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir in their regional plan. Yet Dallas regional planners identified it as a future water source. “We’re having to reach out a hundred miles, 200 miles, 300 miles in our planning,” said Jim Parks, water planning group chairman for the fast-growing Dallas area, about 115 miles from the possible reservoir. The clash over Marvin Nichols underscores the difficulty of choosing which water projects to fund as lawmakers consider spending $2 billion on water project loan money. Legislation that the House is scheduled to debate Monday provides a framework for funding priorities but wouldn’t do more to resolve regional water disputes. “That’s something we’ll be looking at” in the future, said House Natural Resources Chairman Allan Ritter, R-Nederland. “Do we need more teeth in it? Probably so.” And as the population in Texas’ biggest metropolitan areas continues to grow, conflicts over such priorities may only increase as well. The Texas Water Development Board hasn’t settled the disagreement over Marvin Nichols, though legislation passed in 1997 says the board is supposed to help resolve “interregional conflicts.” Based on rules state water officials have established, they can declare a conflict only if more than one region is relying on a water source, said Carolyn Brittin, the water board’s deputy executive administrator.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Dallas Water Conservation Five-Year Strategic Plan Updated June 2010
    City of Dallas Water Conservation Five-Year Strategic Plan Updated June 2010 TBPE Registration No. 13 In association with Amy Vickers & Associates, Inc. CP&Y, Inc. Miya Water BDS Technologies, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS ES. Executive Summary .........................................................................................................ES-1 ES.1. Strategic Planning Process ......................................................................................ES-1 ES.2. City of Dallas Water Use Profile .............................................................................ES-1 ES.3. Identification and Screening of Potential Water Conservation Strategies ..............ES-5 ES.4. Detailed Evaluation of Selected Water Conservation Strategies ............................ES-7 Projected Water Savings ..................................................................................ES-8 Benefit-Cost Analysis ......................................................................................ES-9 ES.5. Recommended Implementation Plan, FY 2010-11 through FY 2014-15 .............ES-10 Recommended New or Enhanced Water Conservation Strategies ................ES-11 Recommended DWU Staff Increases ............................................................ES-20 Recommended Water Conservation Division Budgets .................................ES-20 1. Introduction, Objectives, and Goals ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Historical Background and the Need for Water Conservation .................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cycling to the Future
    Cycling to the Future: Lessons from Cities across the Globe John Pucher, Rutgers University Ralph Buehler, Virginia Tech Photo: Susan Handy Photo: Ralph Buehler Photo:Photo: SF GregBike CoalitionRaismanSan Antonio Photo: Bike Texas Photo: Marie Demers Advantages of Cycling: • Economical: Affordable by everyone, requiring minimal costs for individuals and governments • Good for business: Generate retail sales and profits from tourism • No pollution: Clean and quiet • Energy-efficient: Use up calories we need to burn off from eating too much • Healthy: Many studies report on physical, social, mental health benefits • Fun: Getting out into the fresh air with family and friends Cycling Share of Daily Trips in Europe, North 30.0 America, and Australia, 1999-2008 25.0 20.0 15.0 Percent of trips by cycling cycling oftrips by Percent 26 10.0 18 5.0 10 9 9 8 4 4 0.5 1 2 3 1 1 2 0.0 Source: Pucher and Buehler (eds.) City Cycling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012 Bicycle Share of Work Commuters in the USA (2007) and Canada (2006) Source: Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Seinen, M., “Bicycling Renaissance in North America? An Update and Re- Assessment of Cycling Trends and Policies,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 45 (6), 2011, pp. 451-475. Lots of Potential for Increased Cycling: Many daily trips in American urban areas are short enough to walk or bike! • ~27% of all trips in the U.S. were a mile or shorter in 2009 • ~41% of all trips were shorter than two miles Share of Cycling for Short Trips 40 NL 35 30 DK 25 GER 20 35 15 31 29 24 24 10 Percent Percent oftrips by cycling 18 16 USA 12 5 7 2 1 0 2 0<2.5km 0<2.5km 0<2.5km 0<2.5km 5<7.5km 4.5<6.5km 4.5km-6.5km 4.5km-6.5km 2.5km<4.5km 2.5km<4.5km 2.5km<4.5km 2.5km<4.5km Trip distance category Source: Pucher and Buehler (eds.) City Cycling.
    [Show full text]