Bike Share in Chattanooga

Gene Ezell, Ed.D., CHESProfessor, HHP, Univ. of Tennessee/Chattanooga1The Road to Complete StreetsQuality of Life & Economic Impact through Active Transportationin ChattanoogaIntroduction

2VisionLivability in TransportationFreedom of ChoiceSustainability

Livability / SustainabilityLivability in transportation is about integrating the quality, location, and type of transportation facilities and services available with other more comprehensive community plans and programs to help achieve broader community goals. It provides economic benefits to communities, businesses, and consumers. In practice, livable transportation systems accommodate a range of modes (walking, bicycling, transit, and automobiles) by creating mobility choice within more balanced multimodal transportation networks. This in turn helps support more sustainable patterns of development, whether in an urban, suburban, or rural context. Livable transportation systems can provide better access to jobs, community services, affordable housing, and schools, while helping to create safe streets, reduce energy use and emissions, reduce impacts on and enhance the natural and built environment, and support more efficient land use patterns.The Role of FHWA Programs In Livability:State of the Practice Summary2011Livability in transportation is about leveraging the quality, location, and type of transportation facilities and services available to help achieve broader community goals such as access to a variety of jobs, community services, affordable housing, quality schools, and safe streets. This includes: n Addressing road safety and capacity issues through better planning, design, and construction. n Integrating health and community design considerations into the transportation planning process to create more livable places where residents and workers have a full range of transportation choices. n Using TDM approaches and system M&O strategies to maximize the efficiency of transportation investments. n Maximizing and expanding new technologies such as ITS, green infrastructure, and quiet pavements. n Developing fast, frequent, dependable public transportation to foster economic development and accessibility to a wide range of housing choices. n Strategically connecting the modal piecesbikeways, pedestrian facilities, transit services, and roadwaysinto a truly intermodal, interconnected system. n Enhancing the natural environment through improved storm water mitigation, enhanced air quality, and decreased green house gases

3

30%dont driveUnited States Census - USDOT4Universal Access to MobilityQuestions associated with mobility and transportation choiceare not limited to issues of economic efficiency. We must alsoacknowledge that for many Americans driving is not an option.More than 60 million Americans are not allowed to drive because theyare too young.(10) Another 30 million adults are not licensed to drivefor a variety of reasons including economics, age, disability and choice.Eight million Americans above the age of 60 do not have a driverslicense,(11) and many more licensed drivers choose not to drive.A surprising number of families, especially in urban areas, do nothave access to an automobile. In Washington, D.C., 37 percentof households do not own an automobile.Access to mobility is crucial to thrive economically, socially andphysically. The transportation needs of these large segments ofthe American population need to be met with a mix of bicycling,walking and public transportation options. Transportation inAmerica must be accessible for all Americans. Bicycling and walkingare crucial in providing universal mobility.

Active Transportation for America, 2008. Rails to Trails Conservancy.10. u.s. census Bureau, United States Census 2000. 2000 11. u.s. department of transportation, et al., Distribution of licensed drivers. 2001 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs01/pdf/dl20.pdf 10. u.s. census Bureau, United States Census 2000. 2000 11. Americans Want Safe Alternatives5A new poll by AARP finds that while many Americans ages 50+ are trying to move away from car transportation as a result of high gas prices, their attempt to go green is challenged by inadequate sidewalks and bike lanes, as well as insufficient public transportation options. More Americans age 50+ are trying to leave their cars behind but face obstacles as soon as they walk out the door, climb on their bikes or head for the bus, said Elinor Ginzler, AARP Senior Vice President for Livable Communities.

Increased pressures on mass transit. But how do people access?

52% want to bike moreNHTSA - National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors 6America Bikes PollThe 2002 National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors was sponsored by the US Department of Transportations National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Bureau of Transportation Statistics in order to gauge pedestrian and bicyclists trips, behaviors, and attitudes. 60 million American adults ride bicycles.

55% would prefer to drive less and walk more

Surface Transportation Policy Project7Surface Transportation Policy Project. Recent AARP study on older Americans reiterated this desire.How Do We Get There From Here? 8Policy

Practice

Research9A Complete Street is safe, comfortable and convenient for travel via automobile, foot, bicycle, and transit and accommodates those of differing ages and abilities

Policy10Complete Streets are designed and operated so they are safe, comfortable, and convenient for all users pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities.

But, its not just one street, and it doesnt look the same everywhere.

Lets look at what we are missing today and what we can do differently.

The many types of Complete Streets

As these policies are developed, it is important to note that while improvements are made one street at a time, a complete streets policy is about creating a multi-modal transportation network.

Speeds are reduced to be more compatible with pedestrians and bicyclists. This is done by a combination of techniques, included among those listed below.

Lanes are reduced in width (from 12 feet to 11 or even 10 feet).

Sidewalks Bicycle lanes Wide shoulders Plenty of well designed and well placed crosswalks Crossing islands in appropriate midblock locations when block lengths are long medians Bus pullouts or special bus lanes Raised crosswalks Audible pedestrian signals Sidewalk bulb-outs Street trees, planter strips and ground cover, which tend to lower speeds and define an edge to travel ways Center medians with trees and ground cover Reduction in numbers of driveways On street parking and other visual speed reduction methods, when properly designed to accommodate bicycles

11

One of the myths we are trying to dispel is can you send me a cross section for a cs? it is not about that; it is about context, people needs, and how to meet peoples needs. This is a CS, favorite street in North America. Can you see how businesses are accommodated? Can you see how much traffic engineering is on this street? Not much. SometimesImage location: Water Street, Vancouver, BC12

Sometimes an improvement will complete the streetImage location: Portland, OR1314

Does apply to rural areas. CS varies by environment. Probably would not need a sidewalk in this env.Image location: Benton County, OR14

In big citiesImage location: 1516

Matter of dignity collaborating with transit agencies to ensure accessible shelters, routesImage location: 16

Suburban road type of road where you will see all the elements of CS bike lanes, separated sidewalks, this may not be what you want in your neighborhoodImage location:

17

This is also a CS, narrow streets some cities looking at 26-28 feet wide with parking both sidesImage location: Seattle, WA

18

Historic areas can be adapted; question of balance, context, making sure all users at the tableImage location: 19Benefits of Complete Streets

Promote healthy lifestylesComplete streets make active living easyComplete streets provide opportunities for increased physical activity by incorporating features that promote regular walking, cycling and transit use into just about every street. A report prepared by the National Conference of State Legislators found that the most effective policy avenue for encouraging bicycling and walking is incorporating sidewalks and bike lanes into community design essentially, creating complete streets.[i] The continuous network of safe sidewalks and bikeways provided by a complete streets policy is important for encouraging active travel.A recent comprehensive assessment by public health researchers of actions to encourage more physical activity recommended building more sidewalks, improving transit service, and shifting highway funds to create bike lanes.[ii]One study found that 43% of people with safe places to walk within 10 minutes of home met recommended activity levels; among those without safe places to walk just 27% met the recommendation.[iii] Residents are 65% more likely to walk in a neighborhood with sidewalks.[iv]

Easy access to transit can also contribute to healthy physical activity. Nearly one third of transit users meet the Surgeon Generals recommendations for minimum daily exercise through their daily travels.[i]A community with a complete streets policy ensures streets are designed and altered to make it easy for people to get physical activity as part of their daily routine, helping them stay trim, avoid heart disease, and receive the many other benefits of physical activity. DuPage County, Illinois adopted its complete streets policy as a health measure, calling it their Healthy Streets Initiative.

[i] Besser, L. M. and A. L. Dannenberg (2005). Walking to public transit steps to help meet physical activity recommendations. American Journal Of Preventive Medicine 29(4): 273-280.

[i] Teach Robbins, L., Morandi, L. Promoting Walking and Biking: the Legislative Role. NCSL, December 2002. www.activelinvingleadership.org/pdf_file/Promoting_Walking_and_biking.pdf[ii] Brennan-Ramirez, Laura K. et al. "Indicators of Activity-Friendly Communities: An Evidence-Based Consensus Process" 2006. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 31, Issue 6[iii] Powell, K.E., Martin, L., & Chowdhury, P.P. (2003). Places to walk: convenience and regular physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1519-1521.[iv] Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R.J. (2002). The relative influence of individual, social, and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Social Science & Medicine, 54 1793-1812.205%Shift in populationphysical activitybehavior

2010 Hamlton County Health Plan2004 HEALTHY EATING & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY:A COMMUNITY APPROACH21Physical inactivity is one of the culprits in the obesity epidemic and is costing Hamilton County an estimated $225,307,423 per year: $38,647,169 in Medical Care Costs; $964,594 in Workers Comp Costs; and $185,695,660 in Lost Productivity Cost. In 2007, sixty-three percent of Chattanoogans were not getting the recommended amount of physical activity. If only an additional 5% of Hamilton County residents became active, $11 million would be saved. A recent report made the linkage that while bicycling and walking levels fell 67% between 1960 and 2000, obesity levels increased by 241%. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), policy and environmental change initiatives that make healthy choices in nutrition and physical activity available, affordable, and easy will likely prove most effective in combating obesity. ALTN is committed to furthering such initiatives in Chattanooga.

Healthy Eating & Physical Activity: A Community Approach, 2004.Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2010 Benchmarking Report

$11M Savings in countyhealth care costs2010 Hamlton County Health Plan2004 HEALTHY EATING & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY:A COMMUNITY APPROACH22Physical inactivity is one of the culprits in the obesity epidemic and is costing Hamilton County an estimated $225,307,423 per year: $38,647,169 in Medical Care Costs; $964,594 in Workers Comp Costs; and $185,695,660 in Lost Productivity Cost. In 2007, sixty-three percent of Chattanoogans were not getting the recommended amount of physical activity. If only an additional 5% of Hamilton County residents became active, $11 million would be saved. A recent report made the linkage that while bicycling and walking levels fell 67% between 1960 and 2000, obesity levels increased by 241%. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), policy and environmental change initiatives that make healthy choices in nutrition and physical activity available, affordable, and easy will likely prove most effective in combating obesity. ALTN is committed to furthering such initiatives in Chattanooga.

Healthy Eating & Physical Activity: A Community Approach, 2004.Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2010 Benchmarking Report

23Benefits of Complete Streets

Encourage walking and bicyclingComplete Streets are essential in order to make it possible for Americans to drive less and use our streets to get around more easily on foot, bike, and public transit. The potential to shift trips to lower-carbon modes is undeniable: The 2001 National Household Transportation Survey finds that 50% of all trips in metropolitan areas are three miles or less and 28% of all metropolitan trips are one mile or less distances easily traversed by foot or bicycle. Yet 65 percent of trips under one mile are now made by automobile[i], in part because of incomplete streets that make it dangerous or unpleasant to walk, bicycle, or take transit. Complete streets would help convert many of these short automobile trips to multi-modal travel. Other studies have calculated that 5-10% of urban automobile trips can reasonably be shifted to non-motorized transport[ii].

[i] 2001 NHTS Poll.[ii] Littman, Todd TDM Encyclopedia (ADONIS, 1999; Mackett, 2000; Socialdata Australia, 2000; Cairns et al, 2004).24Benefits of Complete Streets

Improve air qualityComplete Streets are good for air quality. Air quality in our urban areas is poor and linked to increases in asthma and other illnesses. Yet if each resident of an American community of 100,000 replaced one car trip with one bike trip just once a month, it would cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 3,764 tons of per year in the community. Complete streets allow this to happen more easily.

Complete Streets are essential in order to make it possible for Americans to drive less and use our streets to get around more easily on foot, bike, and public transit. The potential to shift trips to lower-carbon modes is undeniable: The 2001 National Household Transportation Survey finds that 50% of all trips in metropolitan areas are three miles or less and 28% of all metropolitan trips are one mile or less distances easily traversed by foot or bicycle. Yet 65 percent of trips under one mile are now made by automobile[i], in part because of incomplete streets that make it dangerous or unpleasant to walk, bicycle, or take transit. Complete streets would help convert many of these short automobile trips to multi-modal travel. Other studies have calculated that 5-10% of urban automobile trips can reasonably be shifted to non-motorized transport[ii]. Places that are giving people options are seeing a reduction in their emissions. Boulder, Colorado is working to create a complete street network, with over 350 miles of dedicated bike facilities, paved shoulders and a comprehensive transit network. Between 1990 and 2003, fewer people in the city drove alone, more people bicycled, and transit trips grew by a staggering 500 percent. The reduction in car trips has cut annual CO2 emissions by half a million pounds[iii]. Complete streets policies arent just a worthy end in the themselves. Theyre also an important means to help reduce heat-trapping pollution and should be an element of every jurisdictions climate change toolbox.

[i] 2001 NHTS Poll.[ii] Littman, Todd TDM Encyclopedia (ADONIS, 1999; Mackett, 2000; Socialdata Australia, 2000; Cairns et al, 2004).[iii] All data from Modal Shift in the Boulder Valley 1990 2003, May 2004 for the City of Boulder by the National Research Center Inc. 25Benefits of Complete Streets

Better mobility By 2025, US Census estimates that the number of Americans over 65 will increase from 12% of the population to nearly 20%, totaling 62 million Americans.Need safe alternatives to driving. More than 50% of older Americans who do not drive stay home on a given day because they lack transportation options. (Surface transportation policy partnership Aging Americans stranded without options, 2004). Cant make it across wide streets.

Complete streets provide older persons with a variety of options for getting around, whether walking, taking public transit, or sharing rides with family and friends. One recent survey showed that 82% of older Americans surveyed consider public transportation to be a better alternative to driving, particularly at night. [i] More than half (54%) of older adults who reported an inhospitable walking, bicycling and transit environment outside their homes said they would walk, bicycle, and take transit more if their streets were improved. A majority of older people support complete street policies. [ii] Research also shows that moderate exercise, such as walking and biking, contributes significantly to a healthy lifestyle.

A community with a complete streets policy considers the needs of older residents every time a transportation investment decision is made. Proven methods to create complete streets for aging pedestrians include retiming signals to account for slower walking speed, constructing median refuges or sidewalk bulb-outs to shorten crossing distances, and installing curb ramps, sidewalk seating and bus shelters with seating. Improved lighting, signage and pavement markings are among the measures that can benefit drivers of any age, but particularly older drivers.

[i] American Public Transportation Association, Transit News. December 2005.[ii] AARP, Fighting Gas Prices, Nearly A Third of American sage 50+ Hang Up Their Keys To Walk But Find Streets Inhospitable, Public Transportation Inaccessible.26Benefits of Complete Streets

Economic revitalizationComplete streets make fiscal sense. Integrating sidewalks, bike lanes, transit amenities, and safe crossings into the initial design of a project spares the expense of retrofits later. Jeff Morales, the Director of Caltrans when the state of California adopted its complete streets policy in 2001, said, "By fully considering the needs of all non-motorized travelers (pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with disabilities) early in the life of a project, the costs associated with including facilities for these travelers are minimized.

Complete streets make economic sense. A balanced transportation system that includes complete streets can bolster economic growth and stability by providing accessible and efficient connections between residences, schools, parks, public transportation, offices, and retail destinations. Complete streets can reduce transportation costs and travel time while increasing property values and job growth. Research shows that building walkable streets and lowering automobile speeds can improve economic conditions for both residents and business owners, and anecdotal evidence indicates that home values increase on streets that have received complete streets treatments. (Drennen, Cervero, Burden)

Complete streets create viable, livable communitiesCreating infrastructure for non-motorized transportation and lowering automobile speeds by changing road conditions can improve economic conditions for both business owners and residents. When Valencia Street in San Franciscos Mission District slimmed its traffic lanes to slow down cars and accommodate other users, merchants reported the street changes enhanced the area. Nearly 40 percent of merchants reported increased sales, and 60 percent reported more area residents shopping locally due to reduced travel time and convenience. Overall, two-thirds of respondents described the increased levels of pedestrian and bicycling activity and other street changes improved business and sales.[i] A network of complete streets is more safe and appealing to residents and visitors, which is also good for retail and commercial development.Street design that is inclusive of all modes of transportation, where appropriate, not only improves conditions for existing businesses, but also is a proven method for revitalizing an area and attracting new development. Washington, DCs Barracks Row was experiencing a steady decline of commercial activity due to uninviting sidewalks, lack of streetlights, and speeding traffic. After many design improvements, which included new patterned sidewalks, more efficient public parking, and new traffic signals, Barracks Row attracted 44 new businesses and 200 new jobs.[1] Economic activity on this three-quarter mile strip (measured by sales, employees, and number of pedestrians) has more than tripled since the inception of the project.Complete streets also boost the economy by increasing property values, including residential properties, as generally homeowners are willing to pay more to live in walkable communities. In Chicago, homes within a half-mile of a suburban rail station on average sell for $36,000 more than houses located further away.[2] Similarly in Dallas, the new public transportation rail line helped spur retail sales in downtown Dallas, which experienced sales growth of 33 percent, while the sales in the rest of the city grew 3 percent.[3]

[1] Barracks Row Annual Report. 2006. http://www.barracksrow.org/public/AnnualReports/BAR-001-AnnualRprtv4.pdf. [2] American Public Transportation Association. Public Transportation Means Business. http://www.apta.com/government_affairs/tea21/documents/brochure_transit_means_business.pdf. [3] APTA. Public Transportation Means Business. [i] Drennen, Emily. Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses. 2003. http://www.emilydrennen.org/TrafficCalming_full.pdf.

4) Increase Community and Property ValuesAfter a redesign of Valencia Street in San Francisco, California, two-thirds of respondents described the increased levels of pedestrian and bicycling activity and other street changes improved business and sales.[i] Complete streets implementation helped to increase property values on Clematis Street in West Palm Beach, Florida. City officials opened the previously one-way street to two-way traffic, narrowed the street at points, raised intersections, and bulbed out the curbs at intervals in a slalom-like pattern to slow traffic. the city rebuilt an interactive fountain, restored key buildings, and provided for event spaces.[ii] These changes increased property values from $10 to 40 per square foot in 1993 to $50 to $100 per square foot in 1998.

[i] Drennen, Emily. Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses. 2003. http://www.emilydrennen.org/TrafficCalming_full.pdf.[ii] From The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities by the Local Government Commission Center for Livable Communities. 27

The Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. 2010 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Planwww.chchrpa.orgHow do we get there? The 5 Es

28PracticeProvide a public bicycle share system within urban boundaries to improve air quality, public health, quality of life, and community connectivityIntroduction

29

30

31

32Launched Summer 201230 Stations / 300 Bicycles

On-board GPS System

Secondary Lock

7-speed Hub

33

34

35Station Locations

36

37

38

39

Anything after this? Ill put entire station photo,

40

41

42350+ Annual Members1,675+ Daily Users43

Statistics July 23 October 10, 2012

Total # of Trips: +7,000Avg. # of Trips / Day: 88Busiest Day: 298 tripsAvg. Trip Time: 25 minTotal Miles Traveled: +7,000Total Travel Time: +210,000 min

44Initial Impact700,000 calories burned

Over 4,478 lbs of CO2 offset452004 Greenway Collection ProjectCARTA Bike on Bus Data2008-2011 Riverpark Data Collection Automated collection tools2011-2012 Bike Share Survey

ResearchBackgroundOne of the greatest challenges facing the bicycle and pedestrian field is the lack of documentation on usage and demand. Without accurate and consistent demand and usage figures, it is difficult to measure the impact of investments in these modes, especially when compared to the other transportation modes such as the private automobile. This report follows the recommendation of The Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication N. FHWA-RD-165, July 1999). This document states that further development of modeling techniques and data sources are needed to better integrate bicycle and pedestrian travel into mainstream transportation models and planning activities (Vol. 1, Section 4). Measuring bicycle and pedestrian data can be segmented into four basic types: 1) household travel based trips; 2) land use based trips; 3) screenline or similar activity levels; and 4) intercept surveys. With the development of the 2002 Chattanooga Urban Area Bicycle Facilities Master Plan, it was clearly identified that the community needs to evaluate the progress of the bicycle plan to assure that planning, design and advocacy efforts are appropriate and effective. This is essential to assure that planning, design and advocacy efforts are appropriate and effective. At the core of this evaluation is a data-driven evidence base that serves as a benchmark to compare with future data. Simultaneously in 2002, a national effort began known as the National Bicycle Pedestrian Documentation (NBPD) Project. It was developed through a cooperative effort between Alta Planning + Design and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Pedestrian & Bicycle Council. A core aim of this project is to create a centralized database of non-motorized transport usage activities that parallels the data available for motorized transportation. It operationalizes this through specific methodological guidance and allows for researchers to look at variables such as demographics, facility, land use, activity volumes and other measures. . The NBPD count effort primarily focuses on screen line and crosswalk counts to measure activity levels at the same location over time.

46

Factors Affecting Bicycling Usage at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga: A Precursor Evaluation for Bike Share ImplementationResearchThe UTC campus was selected for this research under the assumption that the university campus represents a high-density environment of potential near-market bicycle users in anticipation of the launch of the bike share program

47Trends in Active TransportationPucher and Renne, 2003 Source: NHTS and NPTS

48These data are from the NHTS, which interviewed 25,000 households, this represents data on about 20,000 urban ones.They make use of a 24-hr travel diary, in which respondents report their destination, starting and ending time for each trip, mode of transport, and the distance.

Health Impacts49MethodsCross-sectional evaluation of current travel behavior

Screen-line cordon survey basedon National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project

Random pedestrian intercept survey

This study used a cross-sectional evaluation of current travel behavior on campus, captured through observation counts of bicyclists combined with an intercept survey of those walking.

These instruments will provide a baseline dataset of bicycle usage on campus and stated preferences for a potential shift toward bicycling with the introduction of the bike share system.

The use of selected points to create a cordon screen-line around campus assumes that the behavior of those using other access points is not substantially different.

For the bicycle observation counts, these points were assumed to provide the most direct access to campus. While pedestrians might access campus through a variety of building entrances, the selected intercept points were expected to provide a suitable sample for the study.

50Count and Survey LocationsData will be collected at 7 locations that form a perimeter around the campus core:

Loc 1: E. 5th St. at the UC entrance

Loc 2: E. 5th St. at the UTC Bookstore

Loc 3: Palmetto at Vine St.

Loc 4: Palmetto at Oak St.

Loc 5: McCallie at Baldwin

Loc 6: Douglas at Oak

Loc 7: Douglas at Vine

51

52Bicycle CountsIdentify bicycle traffic volumes

Behavior and demographic information

Create benchmark data Description of the Population and Sample

For the observation portion of the study, all bicyclists entering or exiting specific points were considered subjects.

For the intercept survey, all pedestrians entering or exiting the specific points were considered the population under consideration. Every third person passing through the points were considered for the random sample.

53

Pedestrian Intercept SurveyDemographic questions

Travel behavior questions

Health questionsThe pedestrian intercept survey form was an 18-question oral survey with interviewer recorded demographic, time, and location data.

This instrument was field tested by two independent surveyors over a 2-hour period and the form was revised.

This instrument was designed to be administered orally by trained surveyors with selected prompting for individual questions as necessary.

54If you had easy access to a bicycle and did not need to worry about theft or maintenance, would you ride a bicycle more often?

Almost 75% (n=1384) of respondents indicated that they would definitely or probably/maybe use a bicycle more often if it were accessible and did not require them to keep up maintenance.

55Would you say that in general your health is:Created to enhance the availability of data related to active transportationStudy conducted to understand student attitudes, opinions and perceived needs regarding active transportationApproximately 250 student researchers collected 955 randomly completed surveys in the Fall of 2011 and 949 surveys in Spring 2012As part of this same study, ALTN asked respondents about their perceived healthStudies show that if you ask someone about their health, it will mirror clinical assessments. Therefore, if someone thinks that they are healthy, diagnostic tests will generally confirm this perception.

56How important do you think it is for the University to provide for walking, bicycling, and public transportation?

Additionally, the perceived importance of active and public transportation opportunities on campus were deemed somewhat important to extremely important by 97% of the sample.

57What the Fall 2011/Spring 2012 Data Tell UsUsing the Chi Square statistic, statistically significant relationships (p < 0.05) were found for the following relationships:

Potential Users and Bike ConfidencePotential Users and General HealthPotential Users and Mode of Transportation DowntownPotential Users were defined as those people that responded Yes Probably or Maybe to the following question: If you had easy access to a bicycle and did not need to worry about theft or maintenance, would you ride a bicycle more often?

Bike Confidence: How confident are you in your ability to ride a bicycle safely along with traffic?

General Health: The question about health asks: Would you say that in general your health is x ? X = excellent, very good, good, poor, dk/not sure

Mode of Transportation Downtown: In a typical week, which modes of transportation would you likely use to get from campus to downtown? (Check all that apply)

58These are data collected/reported during the Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 cross sectional studies.

Potential Users were defined as those people that responded Yes Probably or Maybe to the following question: If you had easy access to a bicycle and did not need to worry about theft or maintenance, would you ride a bicycle more often?

Confidence riding was established by asking the following question: How confident are you in your ability to ride a bicycle safely along with traffic?

These data describe frequencies of the cross tabulation of confidence riding by potential Bike Chattanooga users.

Not surprisingly, it is evident that those identifying themselves as potential users also describe themselves as more confident riding a bike while those less likely to be users are less confidence.59This chart illustrates the same data as the previous slide, but rather than frequencies, it displays percentages of potential users by confidence. The same trend is evident.60This chart shows us self-reported general health by potential users.

Keep in mind the definition of potential users.

The question about health asks: Would you say that in general your health is x ? X = excellent, very good, good, poor, dk/not sure

As expected, the greatest percentage of potential users are among those reporting good, very good, or excellent health.

61In a typical week, which modes of transportation would you likely use to get from campus to downtown? (Check all that apply)62Another cross-sectional survey was administered Oct 30 and 31 of this this year. The intention of this survey was to explore knowledge, attitudes and behaviors about BikeChattanooga. A total of 955 surveys were completed over the two days in three UTC common areas2 outside the UC and 1 at the top of the library steps. Surveys were administered by students enrolled in two sections of Research Methods (HHP 2990). Students were trained to administer the survey systematically.

The data presented in this chart were generated from the Fall 2012 survey question: If you are not a member, what would motivate you to become a member?

The response options were not mutually exclusive, so respondents could check all options that would be potentially motivating.

Notice that only 21% of respondents have No interest. This indicates that 77% of UTC students/faculty/staff that are not already members are potential membersassuming generalizability of the Fall 2012 survey.

63Again, these data are results from the Fall 2012 cross sectional study.

The survey question isIf you were to become a member, what would be your reason?

These data indicate that nearly 87% of UTC students/faculty/staff that are not already members are potentially interested in membership.

In combination with the Motivation data previously described as well as the data collected in the previous study during Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 that indicate only 10.5% of UTC students/faculty/staff, given easy access to a bike, would Definitely Not ride a bike more often, it can be concluded that UTC has an opportunity to greatly increase Bike Chattanooga membership among students, faculty and staff.64Fall 2012 SurveyHave you ever used the Bike Chattanooga bikes?65Survey questionDid you know that there is a special $30 annual membership rate to the first 500 UTC student memebers?66Survey questionDo you have access to a non-bike share working bicycle here in Chattanooga?67

Philip Pugliese, MBABicycle CoordinatorCity of Chattanooga

Stefanie deOlloqui, MS, MCHESAssociate DirectorActive Living & Transportation Network

Gene Ezell, Ed.D., CHESProfessor, HHP, Univ. of Tennessee/Chattanooga68ReferencesAlliance for Biking and Walking. (2010). Bicycling and walking in the United States: 2010 benchmarking report. Retrieved from http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/index.php/site/benchmarkingdownload/Alta Planning + Design. (2011). National bicycle and pedestrian documentation project. Retrieved from http://bikepeddocumentation.org/American Public Health Association. (2007). American Public Health Association policy statement 2007-9. Addressing the urgent threat of global climate change to public health and the environment. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association. Aultman-Hall, L. (1999). Bicycle cordon count pilot study. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Department of Civil Engineering and the Kentucky Transportation Center. Retrieved from http://www.chem.uky.edu/bikes/PDFs/UKBikecount.pdfBassett, D., Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Thompson, D., & Crouter, S. (2011). Active transportation and obesity in Europe, North America, and Australia. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, 81(8), 24-28.Chattanooga/Hamilton County Health Department. (2004). Healthy eating & physical activity: A community approach. Retrieved from http://hcstep1.org/docs/A%20Community%20Approach.pdfChattanooga/Hamilton County Health Department. (2010). Picture of our health Hamilton County, Tennessee: 2010 community health data profile. Retrieved from http://rhc.hamiltontn.org/2010%20Health%20Plan.pdfChattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (CHCRPA). (2010). 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Retrieved from www.chcrpa.org

69ReferencesCity of Toronto. (2010). 2010 Bicycle count report. Toronto, ON, Canada. Cycling Infrastructure & Programs Transportation Services. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/reports/pdf/bicycle_count_report_2010.pdfDavidov, E. (2007). Explaining habits in a new context: The case of travel-mode choice. Rationality and Society, 19(3), 315 -334. doi:10.1177/1043463107077392DeMaio, P. (n.d). The Bike-sharing blog. Retrieved from http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/DeMaio, P. (2009) Bike-sharing: History, impacts, models of provision, and future. Journal of Public Transportation, 12(4), 41-56.Dill, J., & Gliebe, J. (2008). Understanding and measuring bicycling behavior: A focus on travel time and route choice. Final report OTREC-RR-08-03. Retrieved from http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/media/OTREC_Dill_BikeGPS_Report.pdfFederal Highway Administration. (2000). Addendum to the 1997 federal highway cost allocation study final report, May 2000. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/addendum.htmForsyth, A., Krizek, K., & Agrawal, A. (2010). Measuring walking and cycling using the PABS (pedestrian and bicycling survey) approach: A low-cost survey method for local communities. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University.IPEDS Human Resources Submission. (2011). University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Retrieved from http://www.utc.edu/Administration/PlanningEvaluationAndInstitutionalResearch/documents/TotalEmployees2010.xls.pdf

70ReferencesKrizekK J, HandyS L, & ForsythA. (2009). Explaining changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36(4) 725740.Litman, T. (2010). Evaluating public transportation health benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA_Health_Benefits_Litman.pdfOBIS. (2011). Optimizing bike sharing in European cities: A handbook. Retrieved from http://www.obisproject.com/palio/html.wmedia?_Instance=obis&_Connector=data&_ID=779&_CheckSum=1882085425Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2010). Walking and cycling for healthy cities. BuiltEnvironment, 36(4), 391-414.Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Bassett, D., & Dannenberg, A. (2010). Walking and cycling to health: A comparative analysis of city, state, and international data. American Journal of Public Health, 100(10), 1986-92.Pucher, J., Dill, J., & Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Preventive Medicine, 50, Supplement(0), S106-S125. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.07.028Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (2008). Active transportation for America: the case for increased federal investment in bicycling and walking. Retrieved from http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/atfa/ATFA_20081020.pdfSchneider, R. (2011). Understanding sustainable transportation choices: Shifting routine automobile travel to walking and bicycling (Doctoral dissertation, University of 71ReferencesCalifornia, Berkeley). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/893018748?accountid=14767Tennesse Department of Transportation (TDOT). 2010. Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy. Retrieved from http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/bikeped/pdfs/policy.pdfThe United Stated Conference of Mayors. (2008). U.S. Conference of Mayors climate protection agreement. Retrieved from http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htmTitze, S., Stronegger, W., Janschitz, S., & Oja, P. (2007). Environmental, social and personal correlates of cycling for transportation in a student population. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 4 (66-79).United Health Foundation. (2010). Americas health rankings. Retrieved from http://www.americashealthrankings.org/United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration. (1999). Guidebook on methods to estimate non-motorized travel. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/98166/index.cfmUnited States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration. (2001). 2001 national household transportation survey. Retrieved from http://nhts.ornl.gov/U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration. (2005). SAFETEA-LU. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration. (2010). United States Department of Transportation policy statement on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation: Regulations and recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/policy_accom.htm

72ReferencesU.S. Department of Transportation(USDOT), Federal Highway Administration. (2011). Summary of travel trends: 2009 national household travel survey. Retrieved from http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdfUniversity of Kentucky. (2009). Parking and transportation services annual report: Fiscal year 2008-2009. Lexington, KY. University of Kentucky. Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/pts/sites/www.uky.edu.pts/files/pdfs/Annual_Report_08-09.pdfUniversity of Tennessee at Chattanooga. (2011). 2011 Climate Action Plan. Retrieved from http://www.utc.edu/Administration/StrategicPlan/Year3/RecommendedActionsfromCAPWorkinRecomm.pdfWinters, M. (2011). Improving public health through active transportation: understanding the influence of the built environment on decisions to travel by bicycle (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/33377Winters, M., Davidson, G., Kao, D., & Teschke, K. (2011). Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: comparing influences on decisions to ride. Transportation, 38(1), 153-168. doi:10.1007/s11116-010-9284-y

73Chart119693.219699.32.60.78.52.20.87.220.75.41.80.920011.60.9

WalkTransitBicycleWalkTransitBicyclePercent of Trips

Sheet1196919771983199019952001Walk9.38.57.25.4Transit3.22.62.221.81.6Bicycle0.70.80.70.90.9

Sheet2

Sheet3