Active Travel in Texas: Data for Decision-Making

Active Travel in Texas: Data for Decision-Making

2014 Texas Active Transportation ConferenceNancy McGuckin

Travel Behavior Analyst

www.travelbehavior.us

2

Overview of Today’s Presentation:

•Data Needs and Data Sources

•Performance Measurement▫Trends over time▫Response to new programs/infra-structure▫Exposure for Safety analysis

•Walking and Biking Behavior and Trends

•Some thoughts about future efforts


3

Data Needs to Assess Active Travel:• Volume of travel (Ped + Bike)• Location• Time/miles of travel (exposure)

Ground-Level

• Demographics• Special populations• Unique behaviors, concerns, barriers

Behavior

• Density/Sprawl• Design factors (e.g. complete streets)• Opportunities and accessibility

Built Environment


4

BikeTexas 2012 Benchmark Study


Provides consistent data across the state (35 towns and cities) related to Bicycle and Pedestrian:

• Infrastructure•Policies•Funding•Staffing•Mode share (to work)

• Education and Advocacy• Safety• Public Health

5

TX-NHTS: a large-scale population survey which provides data on everyday walking and biking:

▫Used to estimate the amount of walking and biking for safety analysis and planning across different metro areas and by different groups of people

▫Characterize the kinds of walk and bike trips people do: purpose, time of day, length, home-based or work-based, etc.

▫ Inform policies and programs relatedto encouraging walking and biking (such as the Safe Routes to School program)


HTTP://NHTS.ORNL.GOV

6

Design Details of TX-NHTS Sample:

TXDOT purchased 20,000 additional samples in the 2009 National Household Travel Survey

Single-day travel-diary for each person’s travel, covering 365 days

All trips, all purposes, all modes on an assigned reporting day for all people in the household

Walk and bike activity for ‘last week’ as well as reporting day allows for greater capture of active travel

Special ‘Safe Routes to School’ module obtained children’s usual travel to and from school


A snapshot of everyday travel by people in Texas

7

A trip was defined as any movement from ‘One Address to Another’:

Access and egress to transit have to be separately estimated from the transit trip description

Trip 7 & 8Walk the

Dog


Source: “Walking and Biking in California”, 2012 McGuckin

8

The Texas add-on was a substantial sample:


Note: If access and egress to transit are calculated, many more walks and bicycle trips would be included in heavy transit markets

Number of Samples Weighted Estimate

Households 22,255 8,422,249

People 46,423 22,299,667

Travel Day Walk Trips 11,742 2.3 bil

Travel Day Bike Trips 1,196 250 mil.

9

How can you use the data? Compare different cities and towns

• Tie behavior to design of the built environment• Examine the impacts of demographics

Develop ‘Exposure Rates’ for safety analysis:• Miles of walking• Time spent biking


Target education, programs and policies for vulnerable groups: school children, elderly, new immigrants

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l291/n1riw/n1riw2/hy100307j.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2007/10/03/truck_vs_bicycle_in_hyannis_pair_of_drug?blog=80&h=361&w=600&sz=70&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=HJkaG53CM8-pjM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=135&prev=/images?q=fedex+trucks+on+residential+streets&um=1&hl=en&rls=DGUS,DGUS:2006-24,DGUS:en&sa=N

10

Measuring Performance


11

What caused this dramatic change in walk and bike mode share?


“walking trips nearly doubled from 8.4 percent to 16.6 percent

of trips”.

Did the state make massive investments in new infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists in cities and

towns across the state?

Did they throw the backing of the state behind some of the proven education

campaigns to increase walking and biking, like

“Bike to Work Day’ or “Safe Routes to School”?

How did they succeed?

12

19931994

19951996

19971998

19992000

20012002

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20138,000

8,500

9,000

9,500

10,000

10,500

VM

T/C

apit

a p

er Y

ear


Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) per Capita started to decline in 2004:

Source: McGuckin’s analysis of Census Population (Jul 1) and HPMS Historic VM-1 Tables

13

When Driving Goes Down, everything else goes ‘up’ as a percent:


2001 2009Mode Share

80%

100%

0.6% 0.8%

4.6%

7.7%

92.6%

87.5%

Mode Share Trends in TXBike Walk Driving

5.1 Percentage Point Decline

in Driving

3.1 percentage point inc. in

Walk

Source: McGuckin’s analysis of TX-NHTS Data Series

14

-20% -19% -20% -20%

-11%

-2% -3%-5%

1%5%

8%

2%

24% 22%

10%

Percent Change in VMT per Capita: 1995 to 2009

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54

55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

Younger people drove fewer miles than older people:


Source: McGuckin’s analysis of NHTS Data Series, comparing VMT per capita from 1995-2009

15-19

15

Between age groups the mode share may look the same while the per capita rate is quite different (here 20% more):

5-15 yrs 16-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and older

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Walk Trips Per Capita and as a Share of Daily Travel

Per

Cap

ita

Wal

k T

rip

s

Wal

k T

rip

s as

a S

har

e o

f All

Tra

vel

Source: McGuckin’s analysis of 2009 NHTS


16

In trends analysis the percent mode share and trends in trips per capita can show different patterns:


Source: McGuckin’s analysis of NHTS Data Series

1977 1983 1990 1995 2001 20090%

5%

10%

15%

Walking Mode Share, people 16+

1977 1983 1990 1995 2001 20090

40

80

120

160Walking Trips per Capita, people 16+

17

In safety analysis exposure rates based on miles or minutes can show different patterns than fatalities per population…

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Under 5 5 -- 9 10 -- 1516 -- 2021 -- 2425 -- 3435 -- 4445 -- 5455 -- 6465 -- 74 75 +

Pedestrain Fatallities per Population and per Miles Walked

Fatalities per 1,000,000 pop Fatalities per 100,000,000 miles walked


Source: McGuckin’s analysis of FARS Data for CA and the 2009 CA-NHTS

18www.travelbehavior.us

Another important measure is the percent of in-active people:

NY VA CA FL GA TX

28.4 33.0 34.0 34.6 34.6 39.0

53.253.2 55.2 51.8 51.7

50.7

18.4 13.9 10.8 13.6 13.6 10.3

Percent of People by Reported Walks 'Last Week'

Everyday +

1-6 times/week

Zero Walks

Source: McGuckin’s analysis of 2009 NHTS people 16+

19

Active Travel in Texas


HTTP://NHTS.ORNL.GOV

20

Where does Texas rank among the states?


NC

SC

GA

TX

OH

FL

WI

AZ

VA

All Other

CA

NY

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Per Capita Walk Trips in Selected States:Texas is Ninth of Twelve

Source: McGuckin’s analysis of 2009 NHTS

21

‘New immigrants’ are more likely to report walking everyday, while Hispanics and Asians are the most likely to report zero walks:

African-American

Asian

Hispanic (of any Race)

White

New Immigrants (5 yrs or less):

0 20 40 60 80 100

None (zero last week) Some (1-6 last week) Everyday (7+ last week)

Percent of PeopleSource: McGuckin’s analysis of CA-NHTS for 2013 CHCC


The TX-NHTS has people’s perceptions of barriers related to infrastructure:

Barriers to Walking MoreDistrict with

Highest Percentage

District with Second Highest

Streets too wide Los Angeles Redding

No sidewalks or sidewalks in poor condition Redding Fresno

Too many cars Los Angles Fresno

Unsafe street crossings Los Angeles Fresno

Fast traffic Los Angeles Fresno

No nearby paths or trails Eureka Fresno

Not enough light at night San Bernardino Redding

Source: McGuckin’s analysis of the 2009 CA-NHTS

Compared to other states, a smaller proportion of walk trips in Texas are to ‘walk the dog’...

New York

California

Iowa

Texas

Arizona

Indiana

All Other States

North Carolina

Wisconsin

Virginia

South Carolina

Florida

Georgia

Overall

4.1

6.1

7.1

7.1

7.2

7.6

8.2

10.2

10.7

10.9

13.4

13.9

18.0

8.0

2009 NHTS Percent of Daily Walk Trips to “Walk the Dog”

Source: 2009 NHTS Day Trip File, McGuckin’s analysis

24

Myths and Evidence About Active Travel


25

All

Pre-D

rivers

16-29

30-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Per Capita Walk Trips (all Purposes)2009 All

All

Pre-D

river

s16-2

930-5

960-6

465-6

970-7

475-7

980-8

485+

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2009 for People in Denser Urban Areas

Myth: Young adults (16-29) are more likely to walk than older people

• Walk trip rates drop overall when people reach driving age

• Nationwide, people aged 16-29 walk at about the rate of folks 60-64

• Except in denser urban areas


Source: McGuckin’s analysis of the 2009 NHTS

26

People in high density settings walk more than others, but most folks in the US live in lower-density neighborhoods:



750 or Less

1500 3000 7000 17000 300000%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Percent of People and Walk Rates by Res-idential Density -- US

Household Units per Sq. Mi.

Perc

ent o

f Peo

ple

Wal

ks p

er W

eekThe City of Ft. Worth

averages 721.4 Housing

Units/Sq Mile and 3.5 walks per week


Source of graphic: http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/Walking/index.html


People in Dallas-Ft. Worth are less likely to have close-by destinations they want to travel to:

Dallas-Ft. Worth has fewer trips of 1 mile or less (25.7 percent) AND fewer of those trips are by walking and biking than Atlanta, LA, or the nation as a whole:

DFW Region

Atlanta Region

National LA Re-gion

SF Re-gion

Wash,DC Re-gion

NY Metro Area

0

20

40

60

80

100

25.7

27.1 28.133.6 31.6 32.9

47.1

Transit/Other

Drive with Others

Drive Alone

Walk/Bike

Percent of All Travel That is in Trips of 1 Mile or Less

Per

cen

t of A

ll T

rip

s of

1 m

ile o

r le

ss b

y M

ode

XX.X


29

Myth: People used to walk more in the ‘olden’ days

Source: McGuckin’s analysis of NHTS data series, using adjusted 1995

1990 1995 2001 2009

150.7 151.8

166.5

146.0

86.1 86.0

115.5

138.2

Per Capita Walks Trips, 1990-2009 US

Children 5-15 yrs old People aged 16 and Older

While Adults are Reporting More Walks, Children are Reporting Fewer, and a

smaller proportion of

those are walks to school


People walk and ride for a range of reasons:

7.3

17.2

8.3

33.7

33.0

Percent of Bike Rides

16.1

34.5

12.1

20.2

14.9

Percent of Walks

All Other

Go to school

Shop/Errands

Other Soc/Rec

Exercise

Children aged 5-15

13.3

22.9

22.0

14.1

24.0

0.29

Percent of Bike Rides

24.7

10.7

19.4

12.2

23.8

7.2

Percent of Walks

All Other

Work and WrkRel

Shop/Errands

Other Soc/Rec

Exercise

Pet Care:Walk the Dog

Travelers aged 16 and older


Source: McGuckin’s analysis of CA-NHTS for 2013 CHCC

31

What does the NHTS tell us about trends in biking in the U.S.?• Nearly half of driving age adults have

access to a bicycle

• More than half of adults with a bike use it in the summer months*

• Since 1990, children are making fewer bike trips, especially to school

• As our society ages, the average age of adult cyclists is also getting older

• Nearly a quarter of bike trips by 16-30 year olds are commutes, and bike commuters are very loyal to their mode

*From BTS National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behavior


32

Myth: The average cyclists is youngwww.travelbehavior.us

Source: McGuckin’s analysis of NHTS Data Series

1990 1995 2001 2009

32.334.1

39.942.7

Average Age of Cyclists 16 and olderEvidence: Baby Boomers

continue to cycle, and the mean age is older by over

ten years than just two decades ago. Aging impacts

infrastructure design for cyclists in many of the same ways it does for pedestrians

and drivers.

33

Evidence: People from 5 years old to 35 years old bicycle at nearly the same per capita rates

5-15

16-24

25-34

35-54

55-64

65+

All

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Bicycle Trips per Capita per Year in CA by Age Group

Bicycle Trips per Capita per Year

Myth: Children bicycle more than other age groups

This difference (23.0 to 24.5) is

within the margin of

error


Source: McGuckin’s analysis of the 2009 CA-NHTS

34

Critical Findings and Future Directions



Summery of Critical Findings:Performance Measurement

Mode Share is the traditional measure of the percent of travel by each major means:

Driving, Transit, Walk, and Bike.

Worked well when all travel was increasing at about the same rate,

BUT when driving started to level off around 2004—and declined during the recession—ALL the other travel modes increased in share.

Think of it as part of the TOOL-BOX for assessing changes in travel

36

Summary of Critical Findings: Safety

Therefore using population-based safety statistics results in lower estimates of fatalities

Developing exposure data (based on the amount of walking) brings to light the differences between metro areas and population groups (immigrants, children)

These data can provide information to promote safety to specific populations with greater exposure (lower-income school children, frequent bicyclists, or new immigrants)


Evidence shows that Texans walk less than people in other states:

37

Summary of Critical Findings: Health In Texas, 39% of people report no walks

at all ‘Last Week’:

▫Health advocates are interested in increasing active transport—this ties in very well with the goals of safety, livability, and sustainability.

▫ In addition, as people age they are likely to develop travel difficulty. The evidence shows that many older people have difficulty traveling outside the home. Many of those who don’t travel would like to get out more.


38

Summary of Critical Findings: Livability Children are especially vulnerable, since fewer of them walk to school, and overall they walk less than they used to

Walking to school is correlated with walking for other purposes and increases active travel by children for all purposes—programs aimed at encouraging children to walk can create a constituency of walkers

The most vulnerable populations—children and older people—can be harbingers of good design and planning in livable communities


39

Evidence-based planning and policy can make real improvements in people’s lives:

Promote safe and convenient opportunities for physical activity through complete streets and safety improvements

Reduce the carbon footprint of daily travel while also improving air quality and reducing emmissions

Ensure that all people have equal access to affordable transportation (e.g. walking and biking)


40

Putting it all together:


How do the different ways cities plan for bike and pedestrians actually effect people’s daily travel?

BikeTexas Benchmark

Study

TX-NHTS Bike and Walking

Behavior

41

With the right data and the right measures…


We can find the right road!

42

Thank You!

Get more information at:


Active Travel in Texas: Data for Decision-Making

Documents

Transcript of Active Travel in Texas: Data for Decision-Making