LCVMPO Bicyycle Master Plaan –Appendix D
D Appe
endix D
Inttroduc
ction
This w
working pape
er presents a summary of tthe surveys conducted at tthe Listeningg Stations and
d taken onlinee. The date and location of eaach Listening Station are id
dentified in Taable 1 below.. Tablee 1. Listening Sttation Dates & Locations
L
Date(s) (2014) 9/1
18 – 9/21 9/27 10/12 10/17 10/24 10/25 10/31 11/11 Location Description Nez Perce Cou
unty Fair (Lewisston)
Riverfest @ Grranite Lake Parrk (Clarkston)
Mountain Dew
w Park (Lewisto
on)
Postal & Copy (Clarkston)
Clarkston High
h School (Clarkston)
Pumpkin Paloo
oza (Lewiston)
Lewiston High School (Lewiston)
LCSC (Lewiston
n) County Faair
Festival an
nd bicycle ridee Skate parkk Local busiiness
Local high
h school govern
nment classes
Halloween
n festival in Lewiston Local high
h school govern
nment classes
Local colleege class on traansportation
Survey Summary
y
When accessed on November 26, 2014, the
ere were 433 responses to the survey, tthe majority o
of those responses collected at the Listening Statio
ons identified
d in Table 1 ab
bove, with a minimal num
mber of respon
nses collected
d from the onlin
ne survey. Ovverall, survey responses are illuminatingg and reflect the community demograp
phics. With an
n almost even
n split among male and female respondents, respondents ages rangingg across six deecades, and a broad distrib
bution in ride
frequ
uency, the survey response
es in all likelih
hood reflect tthe communiity as a wholee fairly well. A revview of the pu
ublic involvem
ment included
d in bicycle pllans from sevven other jurisdictions found considerable variation, but aalso a numberr of common components and findings. All of the pl ans besides tthe Madison aand Olympia master plans docu
umented publlic outreach cconducted spe
ecifically for tthe plan. Thee most comm
mon strategiess for public involvement weree regular mee
etings with an
n advisory com
mmittee, pressentations/w orkshops, and online survveys. In all of the reviewed
d planss that asked aabout bicycle related priorrities, the pub
blic’s top prio rity was addittional bike facilities. This ccorrelates with what was heard in the LCV
VMPO Bike Plan survey, w
where “lack off connected p
paths and bicyycle facilities”” was the top‐
rated
d factor for im
mproving bicyycling in the V
Valley. Safety was also a keey concern for survey resp
pondents in alll of the citiess. IN alll of the comm
munities with the exception of Seattle, tthe primary ppurpose of biccycling trips w
was either reccreation or exerccise, just like the the respo
ondents to the LCVMPO Biike Plan surveey. 1 | P a g e LCVMPO Bicycle Master Plan –Appendix D The United States has seen an increase in cycling over the past four decades. Between 1977 and 1995, the number of trips taken by bicycle doubled in the U.Si. According to recent national data, cyclists make up 0.6% of all commutersii. Nationwide, 1.0% of all trips are made by bikeiii. The national commuter data is consistent with what is found in the Lewis Clark Valley, with 0.5% of US Census Bureau respondents identifying as bicycle commuters in 2012. This data is also consistent with the responses to the LCVMPO Bicycle Master Plan survey, where both exercise and recreation were identified as the top 2 primary reasons for biking, well ahead of transportation. In the United States, the highest rates of cycling are seen in western states, while southern states have extremely low rates of cyclingiv. The percentage of bicycling commuters who are women has increased in recent years, up from 23.3% in 2007 to 26.9% in 2012v. Based on survey responses, the Lewis Clark Valley is behind in the percentage of female commuters, as that was only selected by 18% of female survey respondents. When examining attitudes about cycling, people who cycle are more likely to have a positive perception of cycling. In a survey of Dutch cyclists, only 5% of frequent cyclists had a negative opinion of cycling, compared to 29% of infrequent cyclistsvi. These attitudes are similar to those expressed by survey respondents. Just over 30% of male cyclists and just over 10% of female cyclists identified as riding two or more times per week. All other respondents identified as either infrequent or non‐cyclists. With regards to attitudes of bicyclists, the response to the question “How do you feel bicyclists in your area typically behave?” was enlightening. Nearly 50% of the respondents thought bicyclists were “courteous, obeying traffic laws”. However, there were several behaviors identified – inexperienced, riding without lights, riding in the wrong direction, behaving rudely – that were identified by between 8 and 25% of the time. A summary of the survey responses are collected below. Survey Responses
Question 1. What is your gender? Male
Female
2 | P a g e LCVMPO Bicycle Master Plan –Appendix D Question 2. What is your age? 45
40
35
Percentage
30
25
Female
20
Male
15
10
5
0
0‐9
10‐19
20‐29
30‐39
40‐49
50‐59
60+
Question 3. Where do you live and work? 300
250
200
150
Work
Live
100
50
0
City of
Lewiston
City of
Clarkston
Asotin County
Nez Perce
County
City of Asotin
Other
3 | P a g e LCVMPO Bicycle Master Plan –Appendix D Question 4. How often do you ride a bicycle? 60
Percentage
50
40
Female
30
Male
20
10
0
Never
4‐5 times a year 2‐3 times per
month
2‐5 times per
week
5+ times per
week
Question 5. When you ride in the Valley, what is the primary purpose of your trip? 60
50
40
30
Male
20
Female
10
0
4 | P a g e LCVMPO Bicycle Master Plan –Appendix D Question 6. How do you rate present bicycling conditions in the Valley? 60
50
Percentage
40
Female
30
Male
20
10
0
Excellent
Fair
Poor
I don't know
Question 7. How do you feel bicyclists in your area typically behave? 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Male
Female
5 | P a g e LCVMPO Bicycle Master Plan –Appendix D Question 8. How do you feel drivers in your area typically behave around bicyclists? 60
50
40
30
Male
20
Female
10
0
Merely
Pass
Drive too Believe Fail to yield Courteous,
tolerate bicyclists
fast
bicyclists to bicyclists yield, and
bicyclists too closely
should not crossing a
give
presence
be allowed street
bicyclists
to ride on
space
the roads
Tolerate
Harass
bicyclists bicyclists
not
following
rules of the
road
Question 9. What are the 5 most important factors that need to be addressed to improve bicycling? 350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
6 | P a g e LCVMPO Bicycle Master Plan –Appendix D Question 10. What are 5 improvements that would make you more likely to bicycle? 250
200
150
100
50
0
i
Pucher, J., et al., 1999 ‐ Bicycling renaissance in North America?: Recent trends and alternative policies to promote bicycling, Transportation Research Part A, 33, 625‐54 ii
American Community Survey 2011 iii
National Household Travel Survey 2009 iv
Pucher, J., et al., 2011 ‐ Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re‐appraisal of cycling trends and policies, Transportation Research A, 45, in press v
“Bicycling and Walking in the United States Benchmarking Report 2014”. Alliance for Biking and Walking vi
Fietsberaad, 2009 ‐ "Car and bicycle are very highly appreciated" 7 | P a g e