Economic impact of bicycling in Georgia

GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 17-04 FINAL REPORT
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BICYCLING IN GEORGIA
OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
600 WEST PEACHTREE ST. NW ATLANTA, GA 30308

1. Report No.:

2. Government Accession No.:

FHWA-GA-21-1704

N/A

4. Title and Subtitle:

Economic Impact of Bicycling in Georgia

3. Recipient's Catalog No.: N/A
5. Report Date: June 2021

6. Performing Organization Code:

N/A

7. Author(s):

8. Performing Organization Report No.:

Shatakshee Dhongde, Ph.D. (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6177-

17-04

3491); Sarah Tinsley

9. Performing Organization Name and Address:

10. Work Unit No.:

Georgia Institute of Technology

N/A

790 Atlantic Drive

11. Contract or Grant No.:

Atlanta, GA 30332

P.I. NO.: 0015669

Phone: (404) 894-4913

Email: shatakshee.dhongde@econ.gatech.edu

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address:

13. Type of Report and Period Covered:

Georgia Department of Transportation

Final; September 2017June 2021

Office of Performance-based Management and Research 600 West Peachtree St. NW

14. Sponsoring Agency Code: N/A

Atlanta, GA 30308

15. Supplementary Notes:

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

16. Abstract: In the last few decades, bicycling has increasingly become a practical, healthy, and environmentally conscious transportation alternative, especially in rapidly growing communities. The number of trips made by bicycle in the U.S. has been on a steady rise. As the number of bicyclists and supporting infrastructure increases, it is important that government agencies are able to measure the impact of bicycling on the state and local economy. The objective of this research project is to undertake a comprehensive analysis of how bicycling and related activities benefit Georgia's economy.

We focus on three important economic activities to study the impact of bicycling on the state's economy. Firstly, we analyze the impact of more than 700 businesses related to bicycling, including bicycle dealers, suppliers of bicycle parts and accessories, etc., as well as businesses indirectly related to bicycles, such as those selling sportswear, outdoor equipment, etc. Secondly, we study the impact of the construction of bicycle trails in Georgia. We compile data on nearly 80 bicycle trails or trail segments in Georgia. We analyze how the construction and maintenance of trails triggered a multiplier effect throughout the economy. Finally, we compile information on organizations such as bicycle advocacy groups, bicycle tour companies, etc., We collect data on more than 50 bicycling events that take place annually in Georgia and quantify their economic impact on the local economy. This report is the first report to take a comprehensive view of bicycling in Georgia and quantify the impact of bicycling on the state's economy.

17. Keywords:

18. Distribution Statement:

Bicycling, Georgia, Trails, Tourism, Industry, No Restriction

Impact analysis

19. Security Classification 20. Security Classification (of this

(of this report):

page):

Unclassified

Unclassified

Form DOT 1700.7 (8-69)

21. No. of Pages: 22. Price:

97

Free

GDOT Research Project No. 17-04 / T.O. 2014-54 Final Report
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BICYCLING IN GEORGIA
By Shatakshee Dhongde, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Sarah Tinsley
Research Assistant School of Economics Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Contract with Georgia Department of Transportation
In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
June 2021
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Georgia Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
ii

Symbol
in ft yd mi
in2 ft2 yd2 ac mi2
fl oz gal ft3 yd3
oz lb T
oF
fc fl
lbf lbf/in2
Symbol
mm m m km
mm2 m2 m2 ha km2
mL L m3 m3
g kg Mg (or "t")
oC
lx cd/m2
N kPa

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

When You Know

Multiply By

To Find

LENGTH

inches

25.4

millimeters

feet

0.305

meters

yards

0.914

meters

miles

1.61

kilometers

AREA

square inches

645.2

square millimeters

square feet

0.093

square meters

square yard

0.836

square meters

acres

0.405

hectares

square miles

2.59

square kilometers

VOLUME

fluid ounces

29.57

milliliters

gallons

3.785

liters

cubic feet

0.028

cubic meters

cubic yards

0.765

cubic meters

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS

ounces

28.35

grams

pounds

0.454

kilograms

short tons (2000 lb)

0.907

megagrams (or "metric ton")

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

Fahrenheit

5 (F-32)/9

Celsius

or (F-32)/1.8

ILLUMINATION

foot-candles foot-Lamberts

10.76 3.426

lux candela/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

poundforce

4.45

newtons

poundforce per square inch

6.89

kilopascals

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

When You Know

Multiply By

To Find

LENGTH

millimeters

0.039

inches

meters

3.28

feet

meters

1.09

yards

kilometers

0.621

miles

AREA

square millimeters

0.0016

square inches

square meters

10.764

square feet

square meters

1.195

square yards

hectares

2.47

acres

square kilometers

0.386

square miles

VOLUME

milliliters

0.034

fluid ounces

liters

0.264

gallons

cubic meters

35.314

cubic feet

cubic meters

1.307

cubic yards

MASS

grams

0.035

ounces

kilograms

2.202

pounds

megagrams (or "metric ton")

1.103

short tons (2000 lb)

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

Celsius

1.8C+32

Fahrenheit

ILLUMINATION

lux candela/m2

0.0929 0.2919

foot-candles foot-Lamberts

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

newtons

0.225

poundforce

kilopascals

0.145

poundforce per square inch

Symbol
mm m m km
mm2 m2 m2 ha km2
mL L m3 m3
g kg Mg (or "t")
oC
lx cd/m2
N kPa
Symbol
in ft yd mi
in2 ft2 yd2 ac mi2
fl oz gal ft3 yd3
oz lb T
oF
fc fl
lbf lbf/in2

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 4
Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF STATEWIDE REPORTS ................................................................. 9
1. Arizona: An Economic Impact Study of Bicycling in Arizona: Out-of-State Bicycle Tourists & Exports ............................................................................................................. 11
2. Arkansas: Economic and Health Benefits of Bicycling in Northwest Arkansas ................. 12 3. Colorado: Economic and Health Benefits of Bicycling and Walking: State of Colorado .. 13 4. Idaho: Idaho Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Study ....................................................... 14 5. Iowa: Economic and Health Benefits of Bicycling in Iowa ................................................ 15 6. Maine: Bicycle Tourism in Maine: Economic Impacts and Marketing .............................. 16 7. Michigan: Community and Economic Benefits of Bicycling in Michigan .......................... 17 8. Minnesota: Assessing the Economic and Health Effects of Bicycling in Minnesota .......... 17 9. New Jersey: The Economic Impacts of Active Transportation in New Jersey ................... 18 10. North Carolina: Evaluating the Economic Impact of Shared Use Paths in North
Carolina: 20152017 ......................................................................................................... 19 11. Oregon............................................................................................................................... 20
11.1. The Economic Significance of Bicycle-Related Travel in Oregon Detailed State and Travel Region Estimates, 2012.............................................................................. 21
11.2. The Economic Significance of Cycling on Oregon Scenic Bikeways, 2014 ............ 21 12. Utah: Economic Impacts of Active Transportation: Utah Active Transportation
Benefits Study ..................................................................................................................... 22 13. Vermont: Economic Impact of Bicycling and Walking in Vermont.................................. 23 14. Wisconsin: The Economic Impact of Bicycling in Wisconsin........................................... 24 CHAPTER 3. CASE STUDIES IN GEORGIA ........................................................................... 25 Atlanta BeltLine...................................................................................................................... 25
Expansion of the Southwest Corridor Trail ...................................................................... 26 East Coast Greenway .............................................................................................................. 27 Silver Comet Trail................................................................................................................... 28 Firefly Trail............................................................................................................................. 29 Atlanta Regional Commission's (ARC) "Walk. Bike. Thrive!"............................................. 30
iv

CHAPTER 4. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON BICYCLING IN GEORGIA ............................... 33 American Community Survey ................................................................................................ 33 Georgia Bikes Citizen's Survey.............................................................................................. 35 National Household Travel Survey......................................................................................... 36 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration................................................................... 38 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ........................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 5. MEASURING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BICYCLING .................................... 44 CHAPTER 6. MEASURING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BICYCLING BUSINESSES............ 49
Data Compilation on Bicycle-related Businesses ................................................................... 49 Regional Distribution of Businesses Related to Bicycles....................................................... 52 Economic Impact of Businesses Related to Bicycles ............................................................. 53 CHAPTER 7. MEASURING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTING BICYCLE TRAILS .................................................................................................................................... 57 Data Compilation on Bicycling Trails .................................................................................... 57 CHAPTER 8. MEASURING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BICYCLING EVENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS ................................................................................................................. 64 Data Collection using Online Survey ..................................................................................... 64 Economic Impact .................................................................................................................... 66 CHAPTER 9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... 71 APPENDIX................................................................................................................................... 77 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ 82 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 83
v

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Schematic. Depiction of data compiled for the analysis. ................................................ 7 Figure 2. Map. Statewide availability of economic impact study reports on bicycling.................. 9 Figure 3. Map. Georgia pedalcyclist fatalities in 2018................................................................. 39 Figure 4. Map. Georgia pedalcyclist fatalities per 100,000 population in 2018........................... 40 Figure 5. Pie graph. Types of businesses directly related to bicycles........................................... 51 Figure 6. Pie graph. Types of businesses indirectly related to bicycles. ...................................... 52 Figure 7. Pie graph. Percentage of survey respondents by types.................................................. 65 Figure 8. Bar graph. Bicycling events by size of participants. ..................................................... 66 Figure 9. Pie graph. Share of economic activities in total output. ................................................ 75 Figure 10. Pie graph. Share of economic activities in total employment. .................................... 76
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Georgia bicycle friendliness report card score............................................. 6 Table 2. List of statewide reports assessing the economic impact of bicycling in the United
States. ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3. Statewide percentage of population using bicycle as a mode of transportation to
work.......................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 4. Bicycle usage, frequency, and purpose among survey respondents. .............................. 36 Table 5. Responses from pedestrian and bicyclists from NHTS. ................................................. 37 Table 6. CDC state indicator report on physical activity, 2014, behavioral indicators. ............... 41 Table 7. SIC codes utilized for compiling data on bicycle-related businesses. ............................ 50 Table 8. Regional distribution of businesses related to bicycles. ................................................. 53 Table 9. Economic impact of businesses related to bicycles. ....................................................... 54 Table 10. Top 10 sectors with highest number of jobs created by businesses related to
bicycles. .................................................................................................................................... 55 Table 11. Fiscal impact of businesses directly related to bicycles. .............................................. 56 Table 12. Selected bicycle trails in Georgia. ................................................................................ 59 Table 13. Economic impact of construction of bicycle trails. ...................................................... 62 Table 14. Top 10 sectors with highest number of jobs created from construction of bicycle
trails. ......................................................................................................................................... 63 Table 15. Fiscal impact of construction of bicycle trails. ............................................................. 63 Table 16. Estimates of annual expenditures from bicycle events and organizations.................... 67 Table 17. Economic impact of bicycle events and organizations................................................. 69 Table 18. Top 10 sectors with highest number of jobs created from bicycle events and
organizations. ........................................................................................................................... 70 Table 19. Fiscal impact of bicycle events and organizations........................................................ 70 Table 20. Combined economic impact of bicycle-related economic activities. ........................... 71 Table 21. Combined fiscal impact of bicycle-related economic activities. .................................. 72
vii

Table 22. Total pedalcyclist fatalities, and pedalcyclist fatality rates, by state, 2018. ................. 77 Table 23. Trails in Georgia. .......................................................................................................... 78
viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report quantifies the impact of bicycling on Georgia's economy. The bicycle industry has been growing both at the national and state levels over the past few years. Though the state of Georgia only has a small percentage of residents who are commuter cyclists, the state is becoming more open and friendly to bicycling. Cities like Atlanta, Savannah, and the Athens Clarke County Unified Government have been noted on their growing rates of bicycle commuting. Alongside a growing interest in creating a more diverse overall transportation mix across communities, this progression has resulted in investments in new bicycling infrastructure, including multi-use trails and dedicated bicycle lanes, such as the extension of the Atlanta BeltLine and the development of the Georgia section of the East Coast Greenway.
Despite the increasing usage of bicycling in Georgia, the state transportation agency has systematically collected little data that can be used to analyze the economic impact of bicycling. In this report, we compile data from several sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and ReferenceUSA, as well as build our own data through surveys. The report summarizes existing data sources and bicycling statistics, such as the percentage of the population using bicycles to commute to work or for leisure or exercise, the total number of bicycle fatalities, and so on. We hope that this report fills in some of the data gaps by compiling data on sales, revenue, employment levels in bicycle-related business, costs on construction,\ and maintenance of trails, and so on, in the state of Georgia.
The report contains extensive review of impact analysis studies about bicycling in other states. In all, a total of 14 state reports were examined and are summarized. Additionally, case studies of
1

projects related to bicycle trails in Georgia are detailed. Based on the existing literature, the report undertakes an economic impact analysis of the following categories:
1. Bicycle-related businesses. 2. Bicycle trails. 3. Bicycling organizations and events.
The analysis quantified the direct effect of sales revenue from bicycle-related businesses, construction costs of trails, budgets of bicycle organizations, and spending by participants at bicycle events. The analysis was conducted using an inputoutput-based regional economic assessment model. The multipliers in the model were used to estimate the indirect and induced economic effects. Impact of bicycle-related activities was measured in terms of increase in total output; labor income; employment generated in different sectors; and local, state, and federal tax revenues. The entire analysis was conducted at the state level.
The main findings of the report's analysis are summarized below:
We analyzed the impact of more than 700 businesses related to bicycling. We compiled data on businesses directly related to bicycles, that is, bicycle dealers, suppliers of bicycle parts and accessories, etc., as well as businesses indirectly related to bicycles, such as those selling sportswear, outdoor equipment, etc. Bicycle-related businesses had a total annual impact of $361 million on the state's economy. They helped create more than 2,000 jobs in a variety of sectors. They generated more than $8 million in local and state taxes and more than $13 million in federal taxes.
We compiled data on nearly 80 bicycle trails or trail segments in Georgia. We collected data on the location of the trail, the length of the trail in miles, the trail surface, and the
2

use of the trail. The direct, indirect, and induced effects of trails' construction costs resulted in generating economic output worth $124,686,869, and more than 2,000 jobs annually. Construction of trails resulted in generating tax revenue of more than $4 million at the local and state levels and $8 million at the federal level. We conducted survey interviews of more than 30 bicycle organizations in the state and compiled information on their annual budget, the number of employees or volunteers at these organizations, and the type of events and activities they conduct throughout the year. Activities of bicycle organizations resulted in a total output of more than $10 million. Of these, nearly $1 million were generated in terms of labor income. The direct, indirect, and induced impact together led to the creation of more than 450 jobs statewide. The organizations and their activities led to an additional $638,395 in tax revenue. When we combined all three types of economic impact analyses undertaken, we found that bicycling-related businesses, construction of trails, and bicycle organizations generated annually nearly $0.5 billion worth of economic output in Georgia. Of this, more than $0.1 billion was generated in terms of labor income. The combined economic activities resulted in creating more than 4,500 jobs annually. A total of $34 million in tax revenue was generated, of which $12 million went to the local and state economies.
The estimates summarized above are based on the available data and certain assumptions made in the model. Each chapter in the report details the assumptions we made and the limited data we had to conduct the analysis. In each case, we analyzed the impact by considering different scenarios. This report is a first attempt at quantifying the impact of bicycling on Georgia's economy, and we hope readers find the report useful.
3

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Bicycling is a growing sector among alternative, eco-friendly modes of transportation. IBISWorld (2021) reported that over the past 5 years, the bicycle manufacturing industry has grown by 0.9 percent to reach a revenue of $945 million by the end of 2019. During the same time, the number of bicycle-related businesses has grown by 1.5 percent, and these businesses employ 2,633 workers. The key external drivers of this annual growth between 2014 and 2019 include growth in the demand for bicycle dealership and repair (a related industry), a positive consumer confidence index, and an increase in per capita disposable income. This trend is corroborated by data from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), which shows that the number of bicycle trips has grown exponentially, from 1.7 billion in 2001, to 4 billion in 2009, and most recently to 7.2 billion in 2017 (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2021). The United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) shows that the number of commuters who bike to work has increased from 488,000 in 2000 to 786,000 in 20082012 (U.S. Census Bureau 2014), and then to 3.9 million in 2017 (FHWA 2021).
According to a 2016 report by the League of American Bicyclists, the state of Georgia has experienced a moderate amount of growth in bicycle commuting in the last decade. With its 42 miles of paved public paths, 9 miles of protected and buffered bike lanes, and 47 miles of other bike lanes (League of American Bicyclists 2018), Atlanta, Georgia, was ranked fourth on the list of cities with the fastest growing bike commuting, demonstrating a growth of 331.5 percent since 2000, up to a level 1.4 percent in 2016 (McLeod 2016). Other cities within the state also noted for their levels of bicycle commuting were Savannah and the AthensClarke County Unified Government. However, overall, the South was estimated to have the slowest growth in the area of bicycle commuting. While only a small percentage of Georgia residents are
4

commuter cyclists, the state is becoming more open and friendly to bicycling. The League of American Bicyclists ranks states according to their bike friendliness (League of American Bicyclists 2019c). As of 2019, Georgia ranked nineteenth in this list, receiving B ratings for the areas of Infrastructure & Funding and Policies & Programs (League of American Bicyclists 2019b). For comparison, the state of Washington has consistently ranked at the top of the country since 2008, an illustration of their large focus on the bicycling community (League of American Bicyclists 2019a). While the state of Georgia is only ranked nineteenth currently, it has shown tremendous improvement over the past few years, rising from the bottom at fortyninth place in 2008. The strongest area for the state is in terms of its Policies & Programs, where it is ranked eleventh, with the largest contributing factor being its large support of training on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and its implementation of complete streets. Despite this overall improvement in friendliness toward bicycling, Georgia still faces challenges, as the overall percentage change in commuters went down by 7 percent between 2006 and 2016. While the 2016 report does not explain this decline, it highlights the need to promote bicycle awareness, enforce safety laws, and to market this up-and-coming mode of transportation to residents in metro areas, as indicated by the fact that Georgia only received C ratings in the areas of Education & Encouragement, Legislation & Enforcement, and Evaluation & Planning (League of American Bicyclists 2019b). The data published by the League of American Bicyclists can be viewed in table 1, which summarizes the key information presented in the 2019 state report card.
5

Table 1. Summary of Georgia bicycle friendliness report card score.

Bicycling Friendliness

Overall Rank

Overall

19th

Infrastructure & Funding

15th

Education & Encouragement

21st

Legislation & Enforcement

17th

Policies & Programs

11th

Evaluation & Planning

26th

Source: League of American Bicyclists 2019b; N/A = Not applicable.

Letter Grade N/A B- C C+ B C+

Overall, Georgia's score demonstrates the large opportunity the state has to improve its overall attitudes toward bicycling, especially as obesity and sedentary lifestyles pose dangers to the health of its citizens and as the bicycling industry continues to expand.

As a result of the growing importance and relevance of the bicycling industry, an increasing number of states, including Georgia, have invested in new bicycling infrastructure, including multi-use trails and dedicated bicycle lanes, all of which reflect a local-level interest in incorporating bicycle travel into the overall transportation mix across communities. In order to justify the investment in bicycle infrastructure and to better inform policymakers, state departments of transportation (DOTs) have undertaken a rigorous assessment of the impact of bicycling on the states' economies. This report is a first attempt at quantifying the impact of bicycling on Georgia's economy.

A primary contribution of this report is the compilation of data from various sources (see figure 1), since a data repository on the number of bicyclists (both commuters and leisure riders), bicycle trails, their length and associated costs, and annual bicycling events etc. is not available within the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). We undertook an extensive compilation of bicycle-related data. Some of the data were taken from publicly available sites, such as websites of bicycle organizations or from agencies such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the

6

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the ReferenceUSA database (Data Axle 2021).1 We also compiled data by emailing surveys to bicycle organizations in the state and by collecting information on bicycle trails and at annual bicycle events. We hope that this report sheds light on the lack of consistent data available on bicycling in the state of Georgia.

Bicycle Businesses

Directory Records

>700 businesses

Sales Revenue, Employment

Bicycle Trails

Emails, Websites

>80 Trails

Construction, Maintainence
Costs

Bicycle Events, Orgs.

Online Surveys

>60 events, >30 orgs.

Budget, Participants, Employees

Figure 1. Schematic. Depiction of data compiled for the analysis.

OBJECTIVES The main objectives of the report are stated below:
1. Undertake an extensive literature review of statewide reports on the economic impact of bicycling.
2. Review case studies of bicycling trails in Georgia. 3. Compile detailed data on bicycling statistics in Georgia from different agencies. 4. Estimate economic benefits of bicycling in Georgia arising from:
4.1 Bicycle-related businesses.

1 ReferenceUSA is now known as Data Axle Reference Solutions.
7

4.2 Bicycle trails. 4.3 Bicycling organizations and events.
The impact of the three bicycle-related activities was measured in terms of increase in total output; labor income; employment generated in different sectors; and local, state, and federal tax revenues. The analysis was conducted using an inputoutput-based regional economic assessment model. The Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) model is based on a social accounting table with nearly 500 sectors. We used multipliers to estimate how different forms of expenditure on bicycling led to an increase in total output, employment, wages (i.e., household income), value-added (i.e., new value created at each stage of production), and tax receipts (i.e., county and state tax revenues). The multipliers in the model were used to estimate the indirect and induced economic effects.
We emphasize the fact that the estimates in this report were based on the available data and certain assumptions, which are detailed in each chapter. We considered several scenarios in each type of analysis. These "best case" and "worst case" scenarios helped us provide to the readers an interval within which the values will lie with a certain probability, instead of just point estimates. We acknowledge that the analysis has its limitations. For instance, it does not include placing monetary value on non-monetary benefits resulting from bicycling, such as improved health (e.g., decreased healthcare cost); reduced absenteeism and increased productivity (e.g., lower cost for companies on sick days and higher profit); improved sense of community and quality of life (e.g., higher real-estate value); and reduced pollution from vehicle emissions (e.g., lower health costs related to air pollution). Nevertheless, this report is unique in the sense that it is the first report to undertake estimation of the economic impact of bicycling in Georgia.
8

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF STATEWIDE REPORTS This report includes an extensive review of impact analysis studies about bicycling in other states. In all, impact analysis reports for 14 states other than Georgia were examined and summarized (see figure 2). Table 2 lists the statewide reports that we summarize in this chapter.
Figure 2. Map. Statewide availability of economic impact study reports on bicycling. In addition, we conducted an in-depth, online search for each of the 50 states in which we documented any publicly available reports that were related to bicycling. Some states had multiple different transportation reports available, while others did not have any publicly available. We classified each state based on the type of report that was available: (a) states that had no reports available, which included Alaska, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Tennessee; (b) states that had a relevant report available (i.e.,
9

one that specifically related to calculating the statewide economic impact of bicycling), which are listed in table 2; and (c) states that did not have a report directly related to calculating the statewide impact of bicycling but had other potentially relevant reports available, which encompassed the other 29 states, including Georgia. Ultimately, we decided to only include the 14 states in category (b), as these reports directly mentioned calculating the statewide economic impact of bicycling; we did not review those in category (c), as they included items like bicycling and pedestrian plans, which, though related, did not specifically contain the economic impact metrics on which we were focusing. While the list we compiled was as comprehensive as possible, a possibility exists that a report slipped through our online searches. State transportation departments often have ongoing projects, some of which pertain to active transportation, like bicycling. Thus, when conducting a literature review such as this, researchers should keep in mind that new documents might have been added to the available literature during the writing process.
10

Table 2. List of statewide reports assessing the economic impact of bicycling in the United States.

No.

State

1 Arizona

2 Arkansas

3 Colorado 4 Idaho 5 Iowa 6 Maine 7 Michigan 8 Minnesota 9 New Jersey 10 North Carolina

11.1 Oregon

11.2 Oregon

12 Utah 13 Vermont 14 Wisconsin

Year 2013 2018 2016 2014 2011 2001 2014 2016 2012 2018 2013 2015 2017 2012 2006

Report
An Economic Impact Study of Bicycling in Arizona: Out-ofState Bicycle Tourists & Exports Economic and Health Benefits of Bicycling in Northwest Arkansas Economic and Health Benefits of Bicycling and Walking: State of Colorado
Idaho Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Study
Economic and Health Benefits of Bicycling in Iowa
Bicycle Tourism in Maine: Economic Impacts and Marketing
Community and Economic Benefits of Bicycling in Michigan
Assessing the Economic Impact and Health Effects of Bicycling in Minnesota
The Economic Impacts of Active Transportation in New Jersey
Evaluating the Economic Impact of Shared Use Paths in North Carolina: 20152017 The Economic Significance of Bicycle-Related Travel in Oregon Detailed State and Travel Region Estimates, 2012 The Economic Significance of Cycling on Oregon Scenic Bikeways, 2014 Economic Impacts of Active Transportation: Utah Active Transportation Benefits Study
Economic Impact of Bicycling and Walking in Vermont
The Economic Impact of Bicycling in Wisconsin

1. ARIZONA: AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY OF BICYCLING IN ARIZONA: OUTOF-STATE BICYCLE TOURISTS & EXPORTS
This study by McClure Consulting et al. (2013) for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) specifically focused on the contribution to the Arizona economy from out-of-state visitors engaged in organized bicycling activities in the state and from out-of-state customers (wholesale or retail) of bicycle products made or sold in the state.

11

The total annual economic effects generated by out-of-state customers/participants, including bicycle tourism, retail sales, and manufacturing/wholesaling, were as follows: (1) 721 jobs; (2) $88,170,000 in output; (3) $32,002,000 in disposable income; and (4) $31,190,000 in labor income. This study estimated that approximately 14,000 out-of-state participants are involved annually in about 250 events held throughout the state. Arizona bicycle shops that responded to the survey indicated high levels of sales to out-of-state customers.
In comparison to the results of studies in other states, these effects might seem modest, which is due to the following: (1) an economic impact assessment typically focuses on export activity; and (2) the dominant market niche of Arizona in bicycling activities is hosting various events that draw a lot of participants but only for a brief period of time.
2. ARKANSAS: ECONOMIC AND HEALTH BENEFITS OF BICYCLING IN NORTHWEST ARKANSAS The Walton Family Foundation, along with the U.S. Department of Transportation, provided financial support to the $38-million Razorback Regional Greenway, a 36-mile shared-use paved trail that links major cities in Northwest Arkansas (NW AR), and funded this study by BBC Research & Consulting (2018).
According to the study, bicycling in NW AR annually provided $137 million in benefits to the economyapproximately $51 million in business benefits and $86 in health-related benefits. The benefits can be divided into three categories: (1) bicycle retail and retail sales tax, which were around $3 million; (2) household and resident spending, which were around $21 million; and (3) tourism, which was around $27 million. From these estimates, bicycle tourism was shown to be a significant economic driver, accounting for a little over half of the total bicycle
12

business benefits. At least 55 percent of mountain bikers traveled to NW AR from outside the region. Other economic benefits that were important, yet difficult to quantify, were: (1) property values, (2) business development, (3) residential development, and (4) social and business benefits.
The health-related benefits were: (1) reduced mortality benefits, which were around $79 million; and (2) avoided health-care costs, which were around $7 million. Bicycling in NW AR kept children and adults active and decreased the prevalence of adverse health conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic health conditions.
3. COLORADO: ECONOMIC AND HEALTH BENEFITS OF BICYCLING AND WALKING: STATE OF COLORADO From this study (BBC Research & Consulting 2016) for the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Colorado ranked as one of the healthiest states in the country, with one of the nation's highest rates of physical activity and lowest rates of obesity. Compared to the nation, Colorado residents had 50 percent greater access to parks and recreation facilities. In addition, the state had invested heavily in the creation of over 5,000 miles of trails in an effort to encourage residents to be physically active. About 43 percent of Colorado residents 18 or older reported they rode a bike in the last year, which is approximately 48 percent higher than comparable nationwide averages. Bicycling helped prevent about 50 deaths per year in Colorado.
The total economic and health benefits of bicycling was approximately $1.6 billion, of which household spending on biking comprised $434 million, bike retail and manufacturing sales accounted for $185 million, bike-related tourism contributed $448 million, and health benefits
13

accrued from biking accounted for $511 million. An estimated $185 million in goods and services was provided to out-of-state customers, and the total economic impact of out-of-state bike tourism in Colorado was $448 million.
On average, Colorado residents who bicycle or walk regularly were estimated to experience a 2 percent reduction in all-cause mortality compared to those who do not bike or walk regularly. At existing levels of biking, the report indicated this translates into 40 to 60 deaths prevented per year and $409 million to $612 million in economic benefits per year.
4. IDAHO: IDAHO STATEWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN STUDY This study by Sprinkle Consulting and HDR (2014) for the Idaho Transportation Department demonstrated how strategic investments in more active transportation networks, regional pathway systems that draw out-of-state visitors, and target education and promotions will move Idaho toward a better future. Five objectives were set to be completed by 2035: (1) invest in active transportation infrastructure to provide more transportation choices and access to the state's natural environment; (2) improve Idaho's quality of life; (3) invest in tourism; (4) reduce health care costs; and (5) improve bicycling and walking safety. The research team in that study collected data about public support for biking and walking by conducting a public survey among Idaho residents for their opinions and priorities, which included responses from over 700 residents and 26 counties. The tangible return on investment for these five objectives was estimated to be at least $8 billion over the life of this study, while the recommended initiatives and investments to achieve these goals only added up to $465 million, which resulted in an estimated return on investment of 16:1 for this plan. A breakdown of this return on investment was detailed in the following: (1) increased tourism would bring over $135 million in new tourist
14

revenue each year, which would add up to $2.7 billion to the economy by 2035; (2) health-care savings from reduced obesity would reach approximately $5.3 billion; (3) new jobs would come to the state, increasing spending and fueling the economy; and (4) increased transportation choices would improve quality of life.
5. IOWA: ECONOMIC AND HEALTH BENEFITS OF BICYCLING IN IOWA According to this study by Bowles et al. (2011) for the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, Iowa attracts bikers due to its extensive trail system; the state has over 1,600 miles of trails. In 2011, Iowa ranked sixth in the nation in terms of bicycle friendliness. The report noted that 7 percent of Iowans mountain bike and 41 percent use trails for fitness (biking/walking). A majority (63 percent) of cyclists take overnight cycling trips, and 58 percent of cyclists spend over $250 annually on cycling.
The economic impact of commuters was based on a total number of 26,274 commuters. Average expenditures of commuters had a direct economic impact of $41.45 million in direct sales and $27.08 million in value added/income, and supported 975 jobs. The economic impact of recreational riders was based on a total number of 149,916 recreational riders. Average expenditures had a direct economic impact of $250.09 million in direct sales and $164.57 million in value added/income, and supported 6,097 jobs.
In a typical year, retailers sold approximately 18,300 bikes and generated approximately $8,063,834 sales in bikes; $1,921,500 sales in clothing; $4,209,000 sales in accessories; and $3,658,231 in repair work.
In Iowa, the cost of health care associated with obesity-related diseases was estimated at $783 million. The total estimated savings from existing commuter cyclists for the state were
15

$13,266,020, and the estimated savings from recreational riders in the state were $73,942,511. Increased participation in commuter cycling would potentially help to reduce statewide health care costs and improve the overall health of citizens living in Iowa by reducing the rate at which noncommunicable diseases occur.
6. MAINE: BICYCLE TOURISM IN MAINE: ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND MARKETING This study that Wilbur Smith Associates (2001) conducted for the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) identified tourism as the second largest industry in Maine, contributing over $5.4 billion in direct spending to Maine's economy in 1999. Bicycle tourism included activities such as lodging, restaurants, and bike rentals that cater to bicycle tourists. According to the report, in 1999, an estimated 583,740 overnight travelers and 1.4 million daytrip travelers bicycled. The combined estimated domestic and Canadian tourism impact was $36.3 million in direct spending83 percent from day trips and 17 percent from overnightfor a total impact of $66.8 million. This total impact included earnings of over $18 million, which was equivalent to 1,200 full-time jobs. The report covered 3 proposed rails, 21 MaineDOT bike tours, and 4 individual segments of the East Coast Greenway route. MaineDOT developed 21 bicycle tours to introduce cyclists to a variety of bicycling experiences and to spur increased bicycle tourism. It was estimated that the tours would have a direct impact of approximately $782,000 per year, with impacts varying by region based on the number of tours within each region and the length of the tours.
16

7. MICHIGAN: COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF BICYCLING IN MICHIGAN This study conducted by BBC Research & Consulting (2014) for the Michigan Department of Transportation (MichiganDOT) found that Michigan has the most rail-trail miles of any state. These trails and multi-use paths provide an economic boost for local businesses, and both communities and residents desired to increase the links within the existing trail network. However, trails are more expensive than nonseparated bicycle lanes, so it was important to weigh the benefits of these trails against their costs.
About 20 percent of Michigan residents rode a bicycle in 2013. Out of the bicycling sample population, 11 percent were considered active (i.e., ride at least 2 days a week), about 67 percent were male, 75 percent were over the age of 35, and less than 50 percent rode for recreation 3 days a week or more. The main barriers to biking more frequently were: (1) lack of infrastructure, (2) weather conditions, and (3) safety concerns. Commuters faced the additional barriers of distance and lack of facilities at the destination, which was evident from the fact that only about 0.5 percent of workers reported that they "usually" commute to work on a bicycle.
The overall economic benefit due to bicycling of $668 million was distributed across five subcategories as follows: (1) $175 million from household spending on bicycling, (2) $11 million from manufacturing, (3) $256 million from avoided health costs, (4) $187 million from reduced absenteeism, and (5) $38 million from event and tourism spending.
8. MINNESOTA: ASSESSING THE ECONOMIC AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF BICYCLING IN MINNESOTA According to Qian's study (2016) for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Minnesota was found to be the second most bicycle-friendly state in the U.S., and recreational
17

bicycling to be the second most prevalent activity on state trails. Minnesota also had a significant presence in the bicycling industry.
Overall, the bicycling industry in Minnesota produced an estimated total of $779.9 million in economic activity in 2014, including $208.8 million of annual labor income and 5,519 jobs. Minnesota had a strong bicycle-related manufacturing industry, as nearly 80 percent of the economic impact of the bicycling industry was derived from manufacturing and wholesale business. Specialty bicycle stores accounted for 70 percent of total bicycle-related sales.
The average bicycle-event visitor spent a total of $121.2 per day in 2015, and visitors supported an estimated $14.3 million of annual economic activity, including $4.6 million in labor income and 150 jobs. The report identified 101 active events in the state, each with an average of 610 participants. In total, the events hosted an estimated 61,610 participants, of which 50 percent were visitors. The majority of participants in bicycling events were white, non-Hispanic males. More males than females participated in all event types, though different events attracted people from different age groups, income ranges, and educational levels. The report estimated that bicycling prevented 12 to 61 deaths per year, saving $100 million to $500 million annually. Roughly one death per year was prevented for every 10,000 cyclists. Moreover, bicycling was linked to statistically significant lower risks of metabolic syndrome, obesity, and hypertension.
9. NEW JERSEY: THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION IN NEW JERSEY This report by Brown and Hawkins (2012) at Rutgers' Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center was conducted for the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and showed that active transportation contributes significantly to the New Jersey economy by using data from a
18

typical year, namely, 2011. Direct, indirect, and induced impacts, active transportation-related infrastructure, businesses, and events were estimated to have contributed $497.46 million to the state economy in 2011, which was nearly 8 times the estimated $63.17 million invested in infrastructure that year. The report estimated that around 4,018 jobs with $153.17 million in compensation were created and $49 million were earned in total tax revenue.
Participation in active transportation events totaled around 242,338. These participants were estimated to have spent $35.36 million annually as part of their event trips, with over $10 million derived from out-of-state visitors. These events generated $57.82 million in total economic activity: 369 jobs with $17.79 million in compensation, contributions to the gross domestic product (GDP) of $31.2 million, and $49.07 million in total overall tax revenue. Despite this large economic impact, only around 3.1 percent of commuters in the state used walking as their primary means of commuting to work and only around 0.3 percent used bicycling. Thus, a large opportunity existed to make active transportation a part of the daily lives of event participants, and in order for this to happen, safe and attractive infrastructure would have to be conveniently accessible.
10. NORTH CAROLINA: EVALUATING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SHARED USE PATHS IN NORTH CAROLINA: 20152017 In this report by the Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) and Alta Planning and Design (2018) for the North Carolina DOT (NCDOT), three primary types of economic benefits were valued based on a longitudinal study of four shared use paths (SUPs): (1) impacts to businesses and employees from trail user expenditures, retail sales tax benefits, and capital investments to build an SUP; (2) impacts to land values for properties within
19

proximity to an SUP; and (3) user and societal health, congestion, pollution reduction, and safety benefits from the population of trail users based on how they use an SUP.
Combined, the total business output generated by the four trails was $19.426 million, the total employment supported was 261 jobs, and the total amount of labor income generated was $7.552 million. The total taxes collected from employee compensation, production and imports, and corporations for the four trails totaled $683,900. Combined, the total business output generated by construction was $48.7 million, the total employment supported was 530 jobs, and the total labor income generated was $17.6 million.
Mixed results concerning the impact of proximity to an SUP on assessed property values underline how difficult it is to isolate the true effect of SUP proximity on property values, particularly given each SUP's unique location and context.
Concerning health, congestion, and pollution reduction benefits, the Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model (ITHIM) estimated the following for one of the four SUPs: the annual regional cost savings attributable to physical activity totaled to $1.437 million; the annual regional cost savings attributable to decreased risk of road traffic injuries was $913,000; and the pollution reduction amount was negligible. The Alta Benefit Impact Model was used to estimate the impacts of the other three SUPs, estimating that the combined total transportation benefits were $22.398 million; the combined annual environmental cost savings were $707,000; and the total healthcare cost savings were $296,000.
11. OREGON Two related reports have been written for the state of Oregon, both of which are summarized in the following subsections.
20

11.1. The Economic Significance of Bicycle-Related Travel in Oregon Detailed State and Travel Region Estimates, 2012 This study performed by Dean Runyan Associates (2013) for Travel OregonTM documented the economic significance of bicycle-related travel in Oregon by analyzing data on a variety of bicycling activities, including both overnight and day trips. No other previous research provided economic impacts for bicycle-related travel in Oregon at the state or regional level. This report provided a detailed description of the magnitude of bicycling from a recreational travel perspective, and its findings described primary bicycle- and cycling-related economic aspects of travel.
The scope of the economic impact analysis included all of the travel expenditures for trips made in Oregon where bicycling activity occurred on these trips as plannedeither as the primary reason or one of several reasons for the trip. Expenditures included accommodations, restaurants/bars/lounges, groceries/snacks, etc. Travel made by Oregon residents and nonresidents for both overnight and day trips (50 or more miles, one way) was included.
In 2012, travelers took nearly 1.2 million travel party trips in Oregon during which some type of bicycle recreation activity occurred as a planned activityeither as the primary reason or one of several reasons for the trip. The average length of stay for overnight party trips was 3.6 nights. Travelers who participated in bicycle-related activities while traveling in Oregon spent nearly $400 million in 2012, representing about 4.4 percent of the direct travel spending in the state.
11.2. The Economic Significance of Cycling on Oregon Scenic Bikeways, 2014 This study, conducted by Dean Runyan Associates (2015) for Travel Oregon and the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department, was a comprehensive effort to document the economic significance of Oregon Scenic Bikeways, providing a detailed description of the volume of rides
21

taken, characteristics of cyclists, and the economic significance of cycling activity along each of Oregon's 12 Scenic Bikeways.
In 2014, cyclists made approximately 79,000 rides on Oregon Scenic Bikeways. The number of rides were estimated based on data from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) line strip counts, ODOT Strava (i.e., the fitness app) volumes, ODOT video counts, rides with global position system (GPS) volumes, and volunteer counts. The cyclists spent nearly $12.4 million, representing about 3 percent of all bicycle-related travel in the state. These expenditures included expenses on accommodation and food services; snacks and groceries and trip-related motor fuel; and arts, entertainment, and recreation, including bicycle/cycling event fees. This spending by cyclists directly supported over 150 jobs with earnings of approximately $3.4 million and generated local and state tax receipts of approximately $450,000.
12. UTAH: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION: UTAH ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS STUDY This study, performed by Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. (2017) for the Utah Transit Authority, observed that Utah has policies that support active transportation, and that it is the fifth most bike-friendly state. Ranked twelfth nationally for biking to work, 0.9 percent of the population commuted to work using bike share. However, little has been done to quantify and monetize the benefits of cycling, which is why this study was initiated. This study provided insight on the regional economic impact of spending on active transportation projects and by people who walk and bicycle. The estimations of these health and economic benefits of active transportation were then used to inform policy and planning decisions. The term "active transportation" encompasses walking, running, and cycling; however, this report largely focused on the economic effects of
22

cycling, since less is known about the magnitude and range of expenditures for walking and running.
The direct sales in cycling-related businesses were estimated at $132 million. After accounting for indirect and induced effects, the total economic impact was $303.9 million; nearly 2,000 jobs; and over $46 million in income in 2015. When combined with multipliers, tourism yielded a combined economic impact of about $122 million in output; nearly 1,500 jobs; and $46.7 million in income. Nearly 45 percent of Utahans got less than the recommended 150 minutes per week of physical activity, and these individuals missed an average of 0.63 days of work each year. Thus, these people could save an additional $3.07 in annual healthcare costs for every mile they walk or $0.75 for every mile they bike.
13. VERMONT: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BICYCLING AND WALKING IN VERMONT The purpose of this study, conducted by Resource Systems Group, Inc. et al. (2012) for the Vermont Agency of Transportation, was to estimate the total economic benefits of walking and biking in Vermont during a typical year by providing estimates of the number of jobs created and labor earnings generated due to the investment in and use of walking and biking facilities by residents and visitors.
Expenditures for infrastructure and programs amounted to $9.8 million in 2009. Visitor expenditures were obtained for over 40 major running and bicycling events in 2009 to provide a condensed picture of bicycling and walking tourism, which was necessary due to an absence of reliable visitor estimates. These events attracted over 16,000 participants who spent over $6 million in the state, which supported a total of 160 workers with $4.7 million in labor
23

earnings. Overall, a total economic contribution of $82.7 million in output and 1,418 jobs with $40.9 million in labor earnings was generated in 2009. Bicyclepedestrian-oriented activities contributed less than 1 percent to the state's economy.
14. WISCONSIN: THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BICYCLING IN WISCONSIN This study by the Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin (2006) on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) was largely conducted by reviewing previous studies conducted by relevant state and private organizations and by gathering data from existing secondary sources. In 2001/2002, 48 percent of Wisconsin adults biked for recreation, and around 89 million bicycle trips were made. The expansive benefits of bicycling were separated into the following: health, transportation and safety, environmental, transportation choice, efficiency, quality of life, and economic impact. The total gross economic impact was estimated as the sum of direct, indirect, and induced impacts on employment, incomes, and output. In addition, the industry had an induced impact, which is the activity generated within the state when bicycle-related employees and employers of supplier firms both spend their wages. All of this activity created a ripple effect of successive waves of spending, and, thus, the total gross economic impact was the sum of direct, indirect, and induced impacts on employment, incomes, and output. The economic impact in Wisconsin of the bicycling industry was $556 million and 3,418 jobs.
24

CHAPTER 3. CASE STUDIES IN GEORGIA
While this is the first report about the statewide economic impact of bicycling in Georgia, several case studies have already been conducted about specific bicycle or mixed-used trails across the state. A few of these infrastructure projects are still ongoing, including the Atlanta BeltLine and the East Coast Greenway (ECG). Various other trails and greenways across the state also attract many cyclists and pedestrians, including Big Creek Greenway, the Dragonfly Trail Network, the Yamassee Trail, and the Flint Riverfront Greenway, among many others (Discover Georgia Outdoors 2021). While the bicycling industry is still relatively small in Georgia, it is growing, as evidenced by: (1) investment in infrastructure projects like those described in the case studies included in this review paper, (2) investment in campaigns for increased awareness of cyclists on the road and bicycling laws (Governor's Office of Highway Safety in Georgia 2021), (3) the demand for the various case study reports that have already been written, and (4) the request that this statewide economic impact report be written. In this section, we detail the findings of some of these case studies of bicycle trails in Georgia.
ATLANTA BELTLINE The Atlanta BeltLine project began as the thesis of a graduate student at the Georgia Institute of Technology to address the city's notorious traffic problemsthe city consistently ranks in the top 10 for the worst traffic congestion and commute times in the nation (Davidson 2011). The project involves repurposing old rail corridors, with the goal of building a total of 33 miles of trails over the life of the project. These trails will encircle the city's core and provide pedestrians and cyclists with shared-use paths that connect to parks, transit, neighborhoods, and local businesses. The need for such a project can be illustrated by the poor condition of the current
25

existing sidewalk network around the BeltLine, which contributes to the fact that over 16 percent of bicycle crashes and 12 percent of pedestrian crashes in the city occur on roadways within one half mile of the proposed trail segments. Moreover, this transportation infrastructure model could potentially be implemented in many other communities across the country.
The 2017 Annual BeltLine Report (Atlanta Beltline, Inc. 2017) illustrated the following figures, to date: $4.1 billion in economic development had occurred; 2,565 affordable housing units were within walking distance of the BeltLine; 14,500 housing units were in the TAD (tax allocation district); 396 acres of brownfields had been remediated; 29,500 construction jobs had been created; 11,200 permanent jobs had been created; and 1.87 million people used the Eastside Trail in that year alone.
Expansion of the Southwest Corridor Trail In 2013, the Benefit Cost & Economic Impact Analysis (City of Atlanta 2013) was written, which included an Appendix in response to the request of TIGER V funds to support an expansion of the Southwest Corridor Trail, which would involve extending the existing West End Trail to the north and south. This report predicted that the full BeltLine project would generate $105.4 million in discounted benefits and $59.0 million in discounted costs, using a 7 percent real discount rate. Therefore, the project was expected to generate a net present value of $46.4 million and to have a costbenefit ratio of 1.79.
Based on statistics from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), the benefits were broken down by different groups (for both cyclists and pedestrians): existing commuters, existing recreational users, new commuters, and new recreational users. The quantifiable benefits included mobility benefits, health benefits (cost savings), reduced auto use,
26

and new recreational user benefit. The estimated benefits for these categories were: (1) $0.4 million from improved health, (2) $18.1 million from improved mobility, (3) $83.2 million from an increase in recreation activity, and (4) $3.8 million from a reduction in vehicle-miles-traveled due to reduced auto use. The qualitative benefits included livability, increased community cohesion, accessibility, land use mix, preserving social and ecological resources (i.e., sustainability), and an increase in property value.2
EAST COAST GREENWAY The East Coast Greenway is a walking and biking route stretching 3,000 miles from Maine to Florida, designed to transform the 15 states and 450 communities it connects through active and healthy lifestyles. The ECG Alliance leads the development of the trail network. Termed the "Greenway Stimulus," investment in this Greenway has resulted in $400 million in constructionready projects.
In Georgia, the ECG goes through the six counties that directly touch the Atlantic Ocean, passing through well-known cities, including Savannah and Brunswick. As of now, Georgia has 165 spine route miles (East Coast Greenway Alliance 2021), mostly on-road, in addition to 14.1 miles of protected greenway completed out of an envisioned 144 miles. This route has been named the Coastal Georgia Greenway, receiving funding from both public and private entities within the state and local jurisdictions. In August 2020, the Bike + Walk Coastal Georgia (BWGC): Coastal Georgia Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was adopted by the Coastal Regional Commission of Georgia (CRC 2020), with the central goal of setting a clear path for the region to develop a connected network of walking and biking routes within its communities and
2 An increase in property value is currently an unquantified benefit of the BeltLine, but literature indicates an increase in property values of 0.3 percent in urban areas that are within a mile of a bicycle facility.
27

regional destinations, poising the state for growth and enhancing the availability of safe places to walk and bike. The plan shared that a total of $254,200 state funds has been provided so far in support of Coastal Georgia Greenway projects, in addition to a total of $2,247,500 matching funds provided by the region, with the combined total investment being $2,501,700.
SILVER COMET TRAIL The Silver Comet Trail is a 61-mile-long paved rail trail. It is the nation's oldest and longest trail of this type. The Silver Comet Trail: Economic Impact Analysis and Planning Study (Alta/Greenways 2013) was two-part and analyzed the current economic impacts of the trail, as well as the potential future economic impacts of the trail if it is expanded. The economic impact of the trail was measured through 11 different impact areas: direct activity, tourism activity, spillover impacts, unmet demand, fiscal impacts, property value impacts, new development, employer and employee attraction, mobility, health benefits, and ecological services rendered.
The estimates of the economic benefits resulting from each of these impact areas were based on survey results, past research, literature, and some assumptions. To understand the composition and scale of the spillover impacts, the Regional InputOutput Modeling System (RIMS II) was utilized. Impacts were sized to the level of the state and to the four-county region representing parts of Georgia that are geographically proximate to the trail. The Silver Comet Trail in its current form was estimated to generate approximately $57 million in direct spending. Including spillover impacts, total expenditures were $100 million in the region. If expanded, the trail would generate approximately $86 million in direct spending. Including spillover effects, total expenditure would be about $150 million in the region. Fiscally, the current trail was estimated
28

to generate about $3.5 million in current tax revenues per year for the state. If expanded, this number was estimated to increase to about $5 million per year.
FIREFLY TRAIL The Firefly Trail is a planned rail trail in Northeast Georgia. The trail will be 39 miles long and will pass through three counties in Northeast Georgia, namely Clarke, Oglethorpe, and Greene Counties. Its construction is ongoing along the historic rail line known as the Athens branch of the Georgia Railroad. The trail derives its name "Firefly" from the local nickname for the locomotive that ran the line from 1891 until 1984, because of the sparks that flew from its woodburning engine. The trail will be a multi-use path for car-free recreation and transportation.
An economic impact study (Dhongde 2016) was undertaken to estimate the cost and benefits of the planned trail. The construction of the project would lead to a one-time increase in total output of $32 million. Thus, every dollar spent would lead to a multiplier effect by generating $1.33 in economic impact. This would include a direct impact of $24 million; an indirect impact of $5 million, due to the purchases of goods and services made toward construction of the trail; and an induced impact of about $3 million, due to the spending undertaken on restaurants, shops, and so on. The total value added in production would be around $11 million. This indicates the net worth of goods and services produced due to the construction activity. The construction of the trail would create 158 additional jobs, mostly in construction, real estate, and wholesale trade. Household incomes were expected to rise by $6.9 million. Construction activities would generate tax revenue of about $50,000 at the county level; $800,000 at the state level; and $1.26 million at the federal level. Assuming an annual turnout of about 1.13 million visitors to the trail, total output would increase by $14.7 million per year when the trail is operational.
29

ATLANTA REGIONAL COMMISSION'S (ARC) "WALK. BIKE. THRIVE!" The ARC's "Walk. Bike. Thrive!" (ARC 2020a) is considered a part of the Commission's The Atlanta Region's Plan (ARC 2020b), which guides policy and decision-making for the Atlanta region. The purpose of the plan is to increase "active transportation," which encompasses walking, running, and cycling, within the Atlanta region and to reduce risks that currently inhibit walking and biking by focusing on a few key factors:
Safety the plan will create a safer region for bikers by creating a trend toward fewer bicycle accidents.
Mobility the plan will encourage biking as a daily activity to be more frequent and convenient.
Economic competitiveness the plan will increase the economic success of the region, as increased demand and investments toward cycling would increase quality of life and enhance economic growth.
"Walk. Bike. Thrive!" is the part of the plan that deals with the "active transportation." This report focuses on the cycling component of the plan. The Atlanta Region's Plan is divided into two frameworks: (1) Regional Framework this framework will guide ARC's decision-making, funding decisions, and technical assistance investments; and (2) Local Framework this framework provides guidance for cities and counties to build high-quality biking systems and work with local partners to endorse policies and programs that support biking. Goals central to The Atlanta Regional Plan's "Walk. Bike. Thrive!" initiatives include the following: creating more inclusive biking options for everyone; increasing safety; linking biking improvements with an increased quality of life; establishing a Regional Trail Network; developing a strategy for growth; and, ultimately, allowing Atlanta to market itself as one of the most bike-friendly
30

regions in the nation. To increase the attractiveness and convenience for bike trips, ARC developed five strategies to increase investments for biking to address the growing demand for active modes of transportation for both recreational and commuting purposes:
1. Prioritize investments on areas that enable short trips for cycling. Data show that 50 percent of bike trips in the Atlanta region are less than 2.4 miles, and more than 75 percent of bike trips are shorter than 4 miles. For trips greater than 4.5 miles (which comprise half of all trips), 95 percent of the time, people commute by car. Thus, focusing funding on built environments that already support biking for short trips is the wisest investment decision.
2. Address safety and equity issues. A key finding is that people who rely on biking for daily commutes tend to live in locations least supportive of active modes. Additionally, lower income people of color are overrepresented in bicycle crashes. Investments in more trails, bike lanes, as well as increased supply of affordable housing in safer biking regions can help diffuse these safety and equity issues. Along with equity concerns, ARC also supports efforts for communities to become bicycling-friendly communities.
3. Ensure quality transitions between cycling and other modes of transportation (i.e., transit, driving) to cater to long-distance trips. This can allow for people to combine different modes of transportation to arrive at a destination.
4. Identify and address barriers to biking in order to increase the "bikeability" of a region's lower-density residential neighborhoods and auto-oriented corridors.
5. Implement ARC's regional trail network strategy that is focused on closing network gaps and expanding trails of regional significance.
31

These goals can be accomplished by continuous investment, coordination from public and private partners, and a development of a corridor scoping program to evaluate expansion opportunities. When 70 miles of key gaps are connected, a 225-mile continuous regional trail network will be created and result in a 46 percent increase in mileage of regionally significant trails. The plan's local framework focuses on guidance to creating a high-quality biking system. A high-quality biking system involves the concept of the "20-minute neighborhood." According to the ARC, to excel in this area, a biking network must have: (1) an interconnected network of bikeways that serve key destinations in a community; (2) a factor of convenience for all users; (3) smooth and stable surfaces, adequate space, visibility at all times, and a predictable environment; (4) a buffer from fast vehicles and dedicated space for cyclists; and (5) accommodation for people of all ages and abilities. ARC's The Atlanta Region's Plan (ARC 2020b) looks to benefit the Atlanta region in multiple ways. It addresses the growing demand for biking both recreationally and as a mode of commuting. The plan also promotes health as it provides alternative "active transportation" methods, including cycling for shorter distance trips. From an economic standpoint, the plan enhances economic competition and growth in the area as the quality of life increases due to safe and accessible opportunities to bike.
32

CHAPTER 4. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON BICYCLING IN GEORGIA
In this chapter, we summarize some interesting statistics related to bicycling in Georgia in existing datasets. We review findings from the following: (1) American Community Survey, (2) Georgia Bikes! Citizen Survey, (3) National Household Travel Survey, (4) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and (5) U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the American Community Survey every year, sending the survey to a sample of about 3.5 million households across the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Questions on the ACS include topics such as education, employment, internet access, and transportation.
Table 3 shows bicycle commuter data for the most recent year, 2019 (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). The variables concerning transportation to work in the ACS only include workers 16 years and over. The states (with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico included) are organized in descending order by the percentage in the Bicycle Transportation to Work column. We have included a column showing the total population of each state. The District of Columbia had the largest proportion of commuters using bicycle to work (4 percent). The top 10 states include the District of Columbia, Oregon, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, California, Massachusetts, Washington, Arizona, and Idaho. On the opposite end, many southern states, such as South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma, were among the lowest ranking states in terms of proportion of bicycle commuters.
33

Table 3. Statewide percentage of population using bicycle as a mode of transportation to work, from ACS.

State

1 District of Columbia

2

Oregon

3

Montana

4

Colorado

5

Wyoming

6

California

7

Massachusetts

8

Washington

9

Arizona

10

Idaho

11

Alaska

12

Minnesota

13

New Mexico

14

New York

15

Florida

16

Hawaii

17

Illinois

18

Wisconsin

19

Pennsylvania

20

Utah

21

Vermont

22

Connecticut

23

Indiana

24

Louisiana

25

South Dakota

26

Iowa

27

Kansas

28

Maine

29

Maryland

30

Michigan

31

Nebraska

32

New Hampshire

33

North Dakota

34

Ohio

35

Rhode Island

36

Virginia

Continued on next page

Population 705,749
4,217,737 1,068,778 5,758,736
578,759 39,512,223 6,892,503
7,614,893 7,278,717 1,787,065
731,545 5,639,632 2,096,829 19,453,561 21,477,737 1,415,872 12,671,821 5,822,434 12,801,989 3,205,958
623,989 3,565,287 6,732,219 4,648,794
884,659 3,155,070 2,913,314 1,344,212 6,045,680 9,986,857 1,934,408 1,359,711
762,062 11,689,100
1,059,361 8,535,519

% Using Car 38.50 81.00 86.10 82.80 88.40 83.30 76.90 80.90 86.30 87.50 82.00 85.90 90.10 59.00 87.30 82.50 80.00 88.70 83.60 86.50 84.70 85.90 91.10 90.90 88.70 88.80 91.20 88.00 82.60 90.70 90.80 88.20 91.00 90.40 87.80 85.60

% Using Bicycle 4.00 1.90 1.20 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

34

Table 3. (Continued).

State

Population

% Using Car

% Using Bicycle

37

Arkansas

3,017,804

93.10

0.20

38

Delaware

973,764

89.20

0.20

39

Georgia

10,617,423

87.60

0.20

40

Kentucky

4,467,673

91.00

0.20

41

Missouri

6,137,428

90.50

0.20

42

Nevada

3,080,156

87.60

0.20

43

New Jersey

8,882,190

78.80

0.20

44

North Carolina

10,488,084

88.90

0.20

45

Oklahoma

3,956,971

92.10

0.20

46

South Carolina

5,148,714

90.70

0.20

47

Texas

28,995,881

89.80

0.20

48

Alabama

4,903,185

93.80

0.10

49

Mississippi

2,976,149

93.80

0.10

50

Tennessee

6,829,174

90.90

0.10

51

West Virginia

1,792,147

91.00

0.10

52

Puerto Rico

3,193,694

92.00

0.10

Source: The data are taken from the S0801 and DP05 tables from the ACS (U.S. Census Bureau 2019), 1-year estimates.

"Car" in this table can refer to car, truck, or van. The totals do not add up to 100 percent since other transportation response options were excluded from this table; these other response options were: (1) public transportation (excluding taxicab); (2) walked; (3) taxicab, motorcycle, or other means; and (4) worked at home. The state of Georgia ranks thirty-ninth for the largest percentage of workers who bike to work. In Georgia, 87 percent used cars and only about 0.2 percent used bicycles to commute to work.

GEORGIA BIKES CITIZEN'S SURVEY In 2011, the Survey Research Center at the University of Georgia, along with Georgia Bikes, conducted an extensive survey to learn about the attitudes of Georgia residents regarding interactions between motorists and bicyclists. The survey collected data by reaching out to a

35

sample of about 614 adults via telephone or cell-phone interviews in nine Georgia counties.3 Table 4 contains the results from that survey.
Similar to the evidence from the ACS of 2019, this Citizens' Survey (Survey Research Center at UGA 2011) also shows that a majority of respondents (61 percent) drive cars and very few ride bicycles (0.3 percent). Among those who ride a bicycle, most ride it only 35 times a year (15.5 percent) and either for recreational purpose (62 percent) or for exercise (27 percent). Very few (0.6 percent) respondents use a bicycle for their commute.

Table 4. Bicycle usage, frequency, and purpose among citizens' survey respondents.

Type of Vehicle Most
Driven

Percent

How Often Do You Ride a Bicycle?

Car

61.3

Never

SUV/Van

28.8

35 times/year

Pick-up Truck

8.0

12 times/month

Motorcycle

0.5

1 time/week

Bicycle

0.3

35 times/week

Other

1.1

> 5 times/week

Source: Survey Research Center at UGA (2011).

Percent
71.8 15.5 6.2 2.9 2.8 0.5

Reason for Riding a Bicycle Recreation Exercise Commuting Touring
Racing Mountain Biking

Percent
62.6 27.6 3.4 0.6 1.7 4.0

NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY The Federal Highway Administration conducts the National Household Travel Survey. The NHTS serves as the only source of national data that allows the analysis of trends in personal and household travel, and it includes daily noncommercial travel by all modes and characteristics of the people traveling, their household, and their vehicles. The most recent data from the NHTS are available from 2017 (Transportation Pooled Fund Program 2018). The NHTS data are collected directly from a stratified random sample of U.S. households, with the total sample size

3 Estimates based on a sample of this size are subject to a sampling error of 4.0 percent at the 95 percent confidence interval.
36

being 129,696. Note that within Georgia, the Chattanooga and Atlanta metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are excluded.
In table 5, we compare pedestrian and bicyclist responses from the survey. In general, the averages for the state of Georgia are very similar to the national averages in all categories. Georgia averages are slightly higher than the national averages for walkingfor example, Georgia has a higher average number of people who walked outside within the past week, both for general purposes and strictly for exercise. However, Georgia averages are slightly lower than the national averages for bicycling, with the exception of bicycle rides taken strictly for the purpose of exercising.

Table 5. Responses from pedestrians and bicyclists, from NHTS.

Questions
In the past 7 days, how many times did you take a walk outside including walks to exercise, go somewhere, or to walk the dog (e.g., walk to a friend's house, walk around the neighborhood, walk to the store, etc.)?

National Average (Std. Dev.)

Georgia Average (Std. Dev.)

National Sample
Size

Georgia Sample
Size

5.4 (8.3)

5.7 (9.0)

263,410 17,632

How many of these walks were strictly for exercise?

3.1 (4.4)

3.2 (4.7)

191,381 12,830

In the past 7 days, how many times did you

ride a bicycle outside including bicycling to exercise, or to go somewhere (e.g., bike to a friend's house, bike around the neighborhood,

0.38 (1.9)

bike to the store, etc.)?

0.33 (1.6)

264,019 17,692

How many of these bicycle rides were strictly

1.8

to exercise?

(3.0)

1.9 (3.2)

28,356

1,670

In the past 30 days, how many times did you use a bike share program (e.g., Bikeshare, Zagster, or CycleHop)?

0.4 (2.9)

0.3 (1.9)

28,426

1,671

Source: Data are from the most recently conducted National Household Travel Survey, which took place in 2017. Average values exclude these responses: (1) I do not know, and (2) I prefer not to answer.

37

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration aims to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses from motor vehicle crashes through enforcing vehicle performance standards and partnerships with state and local governments. The NHTSA also maintains a database related to traffic safety information, which includes statistics for nonmotorist crashes and fatalities. We compiled data from the NHTSA on bicycle fatalities. Georgia ranks in the middle tier of states, with 2.0 percent of total fatalities in the state being pedalcyclists (see table 22 in the appendix). This is lower than the national average, which is 2.30 percent, indicating that a smaller proportion of fatalities in Georgia are bicyclists than in the U.S. as a whole. Figure 3 shows the number of fatalities in 2018, and figure 4 shows the number of fatalities per 100,000 population across counties. In figure 3, we see that 26 counties in Georgia had between 1 and 5 pedalcyclist fatalities in 2018, namely: Barrow, Ben Hill, Bulloch, Carroll, Charlton, Cherokee, Clayton, Columbia, DeKalb, Floyd, Fulton, Henry, Houston, Jefferson, Jones, Laurens, Liberty, Newton, Oconee, Richmond, Rockdale, Spalding, Thomas, Tift, Troup, and Washington. Of these counties, Bulloch, Carroll, Columbia, DeKalb, Fulton, Henry, and Richmond have a recorded rate of at least 0.10 percent of their population who bicycle to work, according to the 2019 ACS data discussed previously (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). In figure 4, the same 26 counties in Georgia as in figure 3 are colored; however, the fatality rates in these counties are now compared with the fatality rates of counties across the entire nation.
38

Source: The Performance Measures of Georgia section of the annual NHTSA State Traffic Safety Information (STSI) reports (2018).
Figure 3. Map. Georgia pedalcyclist fatalities in 2018, from NHTSA.
Ranking in the lower third of the rate of fatalities by county in the nation, the counties in green (i.e., Cherokee, Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton, and Henry) had a fatality rate of less than 0.45 per 100,000 population in 2018. Ranking in the middle third of the rate of fatalities, the counties in orange (i.e., Barrow, Carroll, Columbia, Floyd, Houston, Newton, and Rockdale) had a fatality rate between 0.45 and 1.26 per 100,000 population. Ranking in the upper third of the rate of fatalities, the counties in red (i.e., Ben Hill, Bulloch, Charlton, Jefferson, Jones, Laurens, Liberty, Oconee, Richmond, Spalding, Thomas, Tift, Troup, and Washington) had a fatality rate above 1.26 per 100,000 population. This indicates that in the state of Georgia, out of the counties that had at least one fatality, the majority (14 out of 26 counties) fall in the upper one third percentile of highest fatality rate per 100,000 population in 2018, when compared to other counties across the U.S.
39

Source: NHTSA (2020).
Figure 4. Map. Georgia pedalcyclist fatalities per 100,000 population in 2018.
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION In 2014, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report titled State Indicator Report on Physical Activity (CDC 2014). In table 6, we summarize state level indicators on physical activity. Georgia ranked among the bottom three states with the lowest percent of adult population that "usually biked or walked to work." Only 1.8 percent of Georgia's adults walked or biked to work compared to the national average of 3.4 percent. On the other hand, over a quarter of Georgia's adult population (26.7 percent) reported not undertaking any leisure-time physical activity. In 2018, 26.2 percent of adults in Georgia did not engage in any leisure-time physical activity, which is just slightly lower than in 2014 (see CDC's online tool data for 2018; CDC 2021).
40

Table 6. CDC state indicator report on physical activity, 2014, behavioral indicators.

State

No Leisure-Time Physical Activity

Met 150-minute Aerobic Activity
Guideline

Met 300-minute Aerobic Activity
Guideline

Met Muscle Strengthening
Guideline

U.S. National Alabama

25.4

51.6

31.8

29.3

32.6

42.4

23.9

24.7

Alaska

22.0

57.9

37.7

33.8

Arizona

24.1

52.8

33.1

32.5

Arkansas California

30.9

45.7

27.8

24.7

19.1

58.2

36.1

32.1

Colorado

16.5

61.8

40.7

35.6

Connecticut

25.5

52.6

32.8

30.6

Delaware

27.0

48.5

28.3

32.3

District of Columbia

19.8

57.6

34.4

36.1

Florida

26.9

52.8

33.7

29.2

Georgia Hawaii

26.7

50.7

31.8

30.2

21.3

58.5

38.1

32.1

Idaho

21.4

57.2

35.9

30.3

Illinois

25.1

51.7

31.2

31.4

Indiana

29.2

46.0

27.5

26.0

Iowa

25.9

47.6

26.9

27.5

Kansas

26.8

46.8

26.4

24.5

Kentucky

29.3

46.8

29.3

26.3

Louisiana

33.8

42.0

25.9

23.9

Maine

23.0

56.7

35.6

27.5

Maryland

26.2

48.7

28.8

30.2

Massachusetts

23.5

56.3

35.7

32.0

(Continued on next page)

Met Both 150minute
Aerobic and Muscle
Strengthening Guidelines 20.6 15.0 25.0 24.2 16.7 23.7 27.3 21.8 21.5 26.3 21.4 20.7 23.7 22.4 22.0 17.3 17.2 16.5 17.3 15.5 20.6 19.8 23.3

Usually Biked or Walked to Work
3.4 1.4 8.9 3.2 2.0 3.8 4.3 3.3 2.6 14.8 2.2 1.8 5.8 4.3 3.7 2.6 4.1 2.9 2.3 2.4 4.3 2.6 5.4

41

Table 6. (Continued).

State

No Leisure-Time Physical Activity

Met 150-minute Aerobic Activity
Guideline

Met 300-minute Aerobic Activity
Guideline

Met Muscle Strengthening
Guideline

Michigan

23.6

53.5

33.6

28.8

Minnesota

21.9

54.0

33.7

29.6

Mississippi

36.0

40.0

23.7

23.9

Missouri

28.4

49.5

30.5

24.7

Montana

24.4

55.3

36.0

30.2

Nebraska

26.3

49.0

28.6

28.1

Nevada

24.3

52.6

33.8

30.1

New Hampshire

22.5

56.1

34.3

30.4

New Jersey

26.4

53.2

33.1

31.7

New Mexico

25.3

52.2

33.1

31.5

New York

26.3

51.5

32.0

30.1

North Carolina

26.7

46.8

28.2

27.7

North Dakota

27.1

47.3

26.1

27.4

Ohio

27.0

51.6

32.9

30.4

Oklahoma

31.2

44.8

27.1

23.8

Oregon

19.8

61.1

40.7

30.9

Pennsylvania

26.2

49.4

29.9

27.8

Rhode Island

26.2

48.7

29.1

28.5

South Carolina

27.2

50.0

30.6

27.6

South Dakota

27.0

46.1

25.3

26.1

Tennessee

35.1

39.0

22.7

20.6

Texas

27.2

48.2

27.6

28.3

Utah

18.9

55.8

33.6

32.3

Vermont

21.0

59.2

39.9

29.0

(Continued on next page)

Met Both 150minute
Aerobic and Muscle
Strengthening Guidelines 19.7 20.9 14.2 17.3 21.8 19.0 21.3 22.3 23.1 22.3 21.5 18.3 18.0 21.4 16.2 23.4 18.8 19.5 18.5 16.0 12.7 19.0 22.5 21.6

Usually Biked or Walked to Work
2.7 3.5 1.8 2.2 6.2 3.4 2.4 3.1 3.5 3.1 6.9 2.0 4.4 2.6 2.1 6.2 4.3 4.0 2.3 4.8 1.5 1.9 3.5 6.5

42

Table 6. (Continued).

Met Both 150-

State

No Leisure-Time Physical Activity

Met 150-minute Aerobic Activity
Guideline

Met 300-minute Aerobic Activity
Guideline

Met Muscle Strengthening
Guideline

minute Aerobic and
Muscle Strengthening
Guidelines

Usually Biked or Walked to Work

Virginia

25.0

52.4

33.6

33.4

22.7

2.7

Washington

22.0

54.2

34.0

30.6

21.0

4.3

West Virginia

35.1

43.0

26.1

20.2

12.7

3.0

Wisconsin

22.7

57.4

35.4

29.2

22.3

4.0

Wyoming

25.5

53.1

33.0

29.6

21.2

4.3

Note: The data in this table are from the most recently published behavioral indicator CDC report titled State Indicator Report on Physical Activity, which was released in 2014 (CDC 2014).

43

CHAPTER 5. MEASURING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BICYCLING
We estimate the economic impact of bicycling using the model provided by the Impact Analysis for Planning. This inputoutput model is based on a social accounting table with nearly 500 sectors. The model replicates industry supply chain linkages and patterns of household expenditures at the county or state level.
We measure the economic impact arising from the following: (1) bicycle trails, (2) bicycle businesses, and (3) bicycle events. Below, we provide definitions of the different measures of economic benefits that are estimated for these activities. Let us consider bicycle trails as an example to explain these measures. Economic benefits arising from bicycle trail projects can be broadly categorized as originating from two types of impacts, namely the construction impact and the operations impact.
Construction Impact:
First, the construction of a trail will provide a boost to the regional economy. More people will be employed on construction-related jobs, trucks will be hired, construction equipment will be rented, and raw materials will be purchased on a large scale. Thus, the construction impact will provide an economic boost in the short-term.
Operations Impact:
The operations impact, on the other hand, will recur annually. It provides a boost to the local economy when people start using the trail, i.e., when pedestrians start walking short distances, commuters start biking to their workplaces, and tourists start visiting the trail. The trail users spend money on recreation rentals (such as bicycles, child seats, and
44

helmets), recreation services (such as shuttle buses and guided tours), historic preservation, restaurants, and lodging. Thus, direct economic benefits accrue to many different local groups, including residents, businesses, and government agencies.
Both the construction and the operation impacts generate multiple rounds of economic benefits, which can be classified as the following: (1) direct benefits, (2) indirect benefits, and (3) induced benefits. We use multipliers to estimate how different forms of expenditure on bicycling led to an increase in total output, employment, wages (household income), value-added (new value created at each stage of production), and tax receipts (county and state tax revenues). Multipliers reflect the interactions across all industries and sectors and are updated as the conditions of the economy change over time. Economic benefits are measured by using the following indicators:
Total Output:
When expenditure on new infrastructural projects such as a bicycle trail is undertaken, there is a trickle down of different impacts on the total output in the economy.
o Direct Effect:
The first effect, known as the "direct effect," is due to the initial spending that is undertaken on the project. A simple example is a firm that wins the contract and purchases, say, concrete blocks to build the trail.
o Indirect Effect:
Second, the initial spending creates demand for goods and services among firms operating in the supply chains of related industries. For example, the firm from which the concrete blocks were purchased will spend money on purchasing raw
45

materials such as gravel and sand. This demand is classified as the "indirect effect."
o Induced Effect:
Finally, the direct and indirect spending effects result in additional compensation to workers. With the added income, households undertake additional spending. Workers in the firm building concrete blocks and workers using concrete blocks to construct the trail will all receive additional income, which they will spend on, say, meals, clothes, and other consumer goods. This additional spending is referred to as the "induced effect."
The indirect and induced effects combined are called the "multiplier effect." In other words, each trail investment sets in motion secondary expenditures because prime contractors buy goods and services from suppliers, hire subcontractors, and make payments to workers and suppliers. As the suppliers, subcontractors, and workers spend portions of their income on other goods and services, new rounds of spending occur. Taken together, these three effects lead to an increase in economic activity. Total output is the cumulative effect of numerous rounds of spending set in motion by the original expenditures on the trail project.
Value Added in Production:
Value added is the output as measured by final sales minus the value of the intermediate goods and services required to create the new output. Value added measures the contribution to new economic output made by an individual producer, sector, or industry.
46

In the case of the trail project, value added will be the final price of the project minus the cost of all the goods and services used during the production process.
New Jobs Created:
Workers are required to produce goods and services for the new trail project. The new demand helps to sustain the existing workforce and typically results in an expansion of new hiring. Jobs created measures the number of new full- and part-time employees. When each of these workers who receive additional revenue further spends this revenue in the market, there is a chain effect, or what is termed as the "indirect economic benefits" of the trail.
Household Income:
This is the compensation to employees paid in return for the work they performed in creating the new final demand. A boost to household income is generated not only when more output is produced but also when more workers are hired to fill in the new jobs created.
New Tax Revenue:
Additional tax revenues are derived from the increase in final sales. The revenues come from sales and excise taxes, customs duties, property taxes, motor vehicle licenses, severance taxes, and special assessments.
We conducted the analysis using statewide multipliers; that is, we estimated the statewide impact of bicycling. The estimated impact would be smaller if we had conducted the analysis at a county level because the multipliers at that level capture a smaller percentage of the economic activity.
47

At the county level, the economic impact of a bicycle trail depends upon the extent to which the successive rounds of spending recirculate within the county or leak out to other areas. Leakages occur when households and businesses make purchases from firms outside of the local economy. Examples include prime contractors hiring nonlocal subcontractors or buying supplies from nonlocal businesses. Another leakage is when households make purchases from vendors outside of the county. Hence, we conducted the analysis at the state level.
48

CHAPTER 6. MEASURING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BICYCLING BUSINESSES
DATA COMPILATION ON BICYCLE-RELATED BUSINESSES We compiled data on retail businesses related to bicycling from the ReferenceUSA database (Data Axle 2021). ReferenceUSA (e.g., Minnesota state report [Qian 2016]) and InfoUSA (e.g., Utah state report [Urban Design 4 Health 2017]) are both owned by Data Axle (formerly the Infogroup). ReferenceUSA provides access to business and consumer data for libraries, while InfoUSA provides data and marketing solutions for businesses. ReferenceUSA begins by collecting hundreds of thousands of public information sources. Every record is verified and compiled systematically. It has over 350 call center specialists placing over 24 million calls each year to ensure the data are accurate. Detailed data are kept accurate by continually updating the information. From thousands of business records in the ReferenceUSA database,4 we compiled data on businesses by using the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) descriptions that explicitly contained the word "bicycle" along with others that did not contain that word but were related. We included only verified businesses in the search results. The SIC codes used are based on previous statewide reports (e.g., Utah state report [Urban Design 4 Health 2017]) and are listed in table 7. We divided the businesses into two categories: (1) businesses directly related to bicycles, and (2) businesses indirectly related to bicycles.
4 The ReferenceUSA website was accessed via the Georgia Institute of Technology's library site. The site was last accessed on January 21, 2020.
49

Table 7. SIC codes utilized for compiling data on bicycle-related businesses.

SIC Code 375102 472507 594141 594142 769974 799909 509102 593232 594140 375101 509126 375198
SIC Code 394923 594113 078216 569913 594166 509111

Directly Related to Bicycles Description
Bicycle Fabricators Bicycle Tours Bicycles-Dealers Bicycle Racks & Security Systems Bicycles-Repairing Bicycles-Renting Bicycles-Wholesale Bicycles-Dealers-Used Bicycles-Parts & Supplies Bicycles-Parts & Supplies-Manufacturers Bicycles-Parts & Supplies-Wholesale MotorcycleBicycle & Parts Indirectly Related to Bicycles
Description Sporting & Athletic Goods Sporting Goods-Retail Sports Field Products & Services Sportswear-Retail Outdoor Equipment Accessories Sporting Goods-Wholesale

Businesses directly related to bicycles include bicycle dealers, repairs, rentals, parts, and so on. As seen in figure 5, more than 90 percent of the businesses are bicycle dealers. Other business types include bicycle repairs, manufacturing parts and supplies, and bicycle tours. We assumed that 100 percent of the sales revenue for these businesses comes directly from bicycles.

50

Figure 5. Pie graph. Types of businesses directly related to bicycles.
Businesses indirectly related to bicycles include stores selling sporting goods, sportswear, outdoor equipment, and so on. As seen in figure 6, a majority of these businesses were sporting goods retailers. The ReferenceUSA data do not distinguish between sales volume of cycling from other types of sporting-goods equipment. Since these stores carry a variety of sporting goods, clothing, shoes, etc., we assumed that only 10 percent of their revenue originates from sales associated with bicycles. Furthermore, we took a conservative approach and removed several large retail, e-commerce stores,5 as well as general stores such as Kmart and Walmart from our analysis, since cycling equipment in these stores constitutes a very small portion of sales revenue.
5 We removed retail stores such as Academy Sports, Adidas, American Eagle Outfitters, Dick's Sporting Good, Harley Davidson, DTLR, Famous Footwear, Finish Line, Fleet Feet, Hibbet Sports, Locker Room, Lululemon, Nike, Pacson, REI, Sketchers, Under Armor, and Zumiez.
51

Figure 6. Pie graph. Types of businesses indirectly related to bicycles.
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF BUSINESSES RELATED TO BICYCLES Applying all the filters left us with a total of 172 businesses that are directly related to bicycles, and 547 businesses indirectly related to bicycles. We compiled data on these businesses' sales revenue, as well as the number of employees. Most of the data available are for the years 2018 and 2019. In table 8, we show the distribution of bicycle-related businesses by the 12 regional commissions. As seen in table 8, these businesses together employed 6,163 workers; 749 in the directly-related establishments and 5,414 in the indirectly-related establishments. Most of the bicycle dealers and related businesses in the state are relatively small, with an average of 4 employees in the directly-related businesses and about 10 employees in the indirectly-related businesses. The Atlanta Regional Commission has the largest number of businesses, with 343 establishments included in our data, which employed 2,930 workers. Central Savannah, Coastal, Georgia Mountains, Northeast Georgia, and Northwest Georgia also generated sizeable employment and sales revenue, among other regional commissions.
52

Table 8. Regional distribution of businesses related to bicycles.

Regional Commissions
Atlanta Central Savannah River Area Coastal Georgia Mountains Heart of Georgia Altamaha Middle Georgia Northeast Georgia Northwest Georgia River Valley Southern Georgia Southwest Georgia Three Rivers Total

Directly Related to Bicycles

No. of Businesses

Total Employees

85

457

4

11

23

84

16

52

0

0

4

18

11

51

11

24

7

27

3

7

3

5

5

13

172

749

Indirectly Related to Bicycles

No. of Businesses

Total Employees

258

2473

19

724

39

204

54

466

12

206

15

153

34

312

49

507

17

96

17

99

18

98

15

76

547

5414

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BUSINESSES RELATED TO BICYCLES In table 9, we show estimates of the economic impact of businesses directly related to bicycles. For businesses directly related to bicycles, we assumed that 100 percent of their revenue and employment can be allocated to bicycles. These businesses employed 749 workers and had a total revenue of $134,080,000. Both of these values are treated as direct effects in terms of economic impact. For businesses indirectly related to bicycles, we assumed only 10 percent of their revenue and employment can be allocated to bicycles. Thus, we assumed that in the bicycling sector, these businesses employed 541 workers and had a total revenue of $90,917,300. Combining all the direct and indirect businesses together, the direct impact was a total of 1,290 jobs; $12,420,935 in labor income; and more than $224.9 million in household spending. In comparison, the Northwest Arkansas report (BBC Research & Consulting 2018) estimated

53

$21 million in household spending on bicycling and related goods, while the Colorado report (BBC Research & Consulting 2016) estimated $185 million.
The indirect effect arises, for example, when a bicycle dealer places orders for store stationery, packaging, advertisement, and so on. We estimated that the indirect effect of these sales and services led to an additional $93,618,047 in output; created 479 additional jobs; and increased labor income by $34,154,254. Finally, the induced effect arises when employees earning income from the direct and the indirect effects spend this income on groceries, clothing, school supplies, and so on. The estimated induced effect resulted in 300 additional jobs; $13,441,447 in labor income; and $42,385,382 in output. Thus, the total impact of bicycle-related businesses was an increase in the total output worth $361 million; the creation of 2,070 jobs in the bicycling business; and $60 million in labor income. The Utah report (Urban Design 4 Health 2017) also estimated that bicycling-related businesses generated output worth $303 million; 2,000 jobs; and about $46 million in labor income. In terms of a costbenefit ratio, we found that $1 of bicycle retail revenue resulted in an increase in output worth $1.60.

Table 9. Economic impact of businesses related to bicycles.

Business Type Directly Related Indirectly Related Combined

Impact Type Direct Effect

Directly Related Indirectly Related

Indirect Effect

Combined

Directly Related Indirectly Related

Induced Effect

Combined

Total Effect
Note: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2019 dollars.

Employment 749.0 541.0
1,290.0 285.7 193.7 479.0 178.9 121.3 300
2,070.0

Labor Income $7,401,862 $5,019,073
$12,420,935 $20,353,144 $13,801,110 $34,154,254
$8,010,004 $5,431,443 $13,441,447 $60,016,636

Output $134,080,000
$90,917,300 $224,997,300
$55,788,704 $37,829,343 $93,618,047 $25,258,223 $17,127,159 $42,385,382 $361,000,729

54

In table 10, we list the top 10 sectors in which the largest number of jobs were created. As noted previously, the direct impact of bicycle retail establishments combined was an employment of 1,290 workers in Georgia. However, additional jobs were created in wholesale trade, management companies, architectural and engineering companies, restaurants, and the transportation sector as a result of the multiplier effect, which is the indirect and induced effects combined.

Table 10. Top 10 sectors with highest number of jobs created by businesses related to bicycles.

Sector
Motorcycle, bicycle, and parts manufacturing

Employment 1,290

Labor Income
$12,438,951

Wholesale trade

95

$8,265,180

Management of companies and enterprises Architectural, engineering, and related services

43

$5,329,038

34

$3,000,546

Employment services

28

$1,147,894

Full-service restaurants

28

$627,966

Limited-service restaurants

26

$477,042

Real estate

26

$520,069

Truck transportation

25

$1,317,803

Services to buildings

18

$340,588

Note: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2019 dollars.

Value Added

Output

$24,455,217 $15,924,884

$225,323,665 $23,082,499

$6,353,344 $10,563,626

$2,828,004
$1,685,176 $690,019
$1,157,199 $3,428,423 $1,647,473
$404,987

$5,390,679
$2,257,526 $1,362,860 $2,152,906 $4,879,914 $3,861,207
$714,224

In table 11, we estimate the fiscal impact of these businesses at the federal, state, and local levels. At the state and local levels, $6.4 million were collected as revenue from taxes on production. A similar large amount ($6.2 million) was collected on employee compensation from federal income taxes. Overall, $8.2 million were collected as tax revenue at the state and local levels, and more than $13 million were collected in federal taxes.

55

Table 11. Fiscal impact of businesses directly related to bicycles.

Tax on

Employee Proprietor Production

Compensation Income

and

Imports

State

and Local

$18,217

$0 $6,449,878

Taxes

Federal Taxes

$6,254,812 $215,184

$816,989

Note: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2019 dollars.

Households $1,618,700 $4,280,822

Corporations

Total

$194,344 $8,281,139 $1,603,329 $13,171,136

56

CHAPTER 7. MEASURING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTING BICYCLE TRAILS
DATA COMPILATION ON BICYCLING TRAILS Many state reports, such as those from New Jersey (Brown and Hawkins 2012) and Vermont (Resource Systems Group 2012), use data on bicycle-related infrastructure. However, as the Vermont report (Resource Systems Group 2012) observes, obtaining specific cost information on bicycle- and pedestrian-related infrastructure is fraught with difficulty. Identifying bicyclerelated infrastructure is challenging because the costs of most bicycle facilities--for instance, roadway shoulder widening and sidewalks--are often included in the overall roadway projects, and as such, they cannot be separately identified. Thus, GDOT was not able to provide data on capital investment in bicycle-related infrastructure.
Instead, we compiled data on construction of bicycle trails in the state. GDOT does not have a repository of data on construction costs of trails, since many trail projects are handled by regional commissions. We contacted about 50 persons via email, visited trail websites, and contacted organizations primarily responsible for constructing/maintaining trails, such as the Path Foundation. We succeeded in compiling data on more than 80 bicycle trails (or trail segments) in Georgia (see table 23 in the appendix for a list of trails). We collected data on the location of the trail (i.e., county and regional commission), the length of the trail in miles, the trail surface (i.e., concrete, asphalt, etc.), and the use of the trail (i.e., bicycling, walking, skating, etc.).
A majority (50 percent) of the trails are located within the Atlanta Regional Commission. Within the ARC, Cobb and Fulton Counties had the largest number of trails. Many of the trails were also located in the Coastal, Georgia Mountains, and Northeast Georgia Regional Commissions. Trail
57

surfaces comprised a variety of materials, such as asphalt, ballast, boardwalk, concrete, crushed stone, dirt, grass, gravel, and woodchip. The two most popular surfaces were concrete and asphalt. As the length of the trail increased, the number of trails comprising multiple surface compositions increased. Shorter trails were mostly made of either asphalt only or concrete only, whereas longer trails were composed of other material--boardwalk, concrete, and crushed stone. Bicycle trails were categorized as either rail trail or greenway/non-rail trail. About 60 percent of trails were greenway/non-rail trail and the remaining 40 percent were rail trail. Most trails offer similar recreational activities, including biking, inline skating, fishing, horseback riding, mountain biking, and walking. In general, longer trails tend to host a greater variety of activities (i.e., biking, inline skating, fishing, mountain biking, walking), while many of the shorter trails are limited to just biking and walking. Longer bicycle trails in Georgia are more likely to be wheelchair accessible. Of the 84 trails for which we compiled data, few trails had information on their construction costs. The construction costs we received were approximate values reported by the persons contacted. The costs of the factors of production that were included in these construction costs were, of course, not uniform across different projects. In table 12, we list 15 trails on which we have reliable data on construction costs. These projects were fairly recently undertaken, mostly since 2015. Note that the majority of the data are on trail sections, not on the entire trail length.
58

Table 12. Selected bicycle trails in Georgia.

Trails
Camden County CGG/ECG Carrollton GreenBelt Towne Lake Pass Trail Noonday Creek Trail Rubes Creek Trail Clayton Connects Douglas Trail Newnan Line East Decatur Greenway Peachtree Creek Greenway PATH Parkway PATH400 Greenway Trail Proctor Creek Greenway Southwest Connector Trail Atlanta BeltLine Azalea City Trail Williams Street Spur Total

County
Camden Carroll Cherokee Cherokee Cherokee Clayton Coffee Coweta DeKalb DeKalb, Fulton Fulton Fulton Fulton
Fulton
Lowndes

Miles Constructed on Trail Sections
42.0 17.4 1.94 1.48 0.7 2.6 2.5 1.8 1.1 12.0 1.5 2.0 2.9
1.1
0.8
91.82

Approx. Construction Cost
12,230,000 12,000,000 2,600,000 1,800,000
650,000 3,000,000
175,027 2,400,000
638,089 8,800,000 2,800,000 6,000,000 3,800,000
1,200,000
1,784,642
59,877,758

Construction costs can vary widely from state to state and county to county, and they depend on a variety of factors, such as material used to build the trail, type of facilities, labor costs, time taken to complete the project, and so on. For example, for a 1.1-mile trail stretch, we have a construction cost of $638,089 for the East Decatur Greenway in DeKalb County, and almost double, or $1,200,000, for the Southwest Connector Trail in Fulton County. A wide range for per-mile construction costs is cited in the literature. Bushell et al. (2013) compiled data on nearly 77 facilities and provided approximate construction costs. According to that study, the cost of a paved multi-use trail ranged anywhere between $64,710 and $4,288,520 in 2013. The economic costbenefit report on the Firefly Trail in Northeast Georgia (Dhongde 2016) stated that the cost

59

of the trail project was estimated to be around $620,000 per mile. The construction costs in table 12 indicate that, on average, the cost of a multi-use trail was about $652,000 per mile.
Due to a lack of accurate data, these estimates in the impact analysis are based on certain assumptions. Firstly, as noted previously, the construction costs are approximate values reported and are not precise. Secondly, most of the costs were incurred during different years since 2015. Estimates of economic benefit are expressed in 2019 dollars. Finally, there are several other trail projects which may have taken place during this time but for which we do not have data.
Hence, we estimate the economic impact of trail construction under three scenarios. The first scenario uses the estimated cost as the total cost of all trails from table 12. This is equal to $59,877,758 and is based on the data that we have. In the second scenario, we assume that the actual costs are higher than the estimated costs by 50 percent, and in the third scenario, we assume that the actual costs are lower than the estimated costs by 50 percent. Thus, these two scenarios provide an upper and lower bound on estimates. Our estimated investment of about $59.8 million in bicycle trails is comparable to the New Jersey report (Brown and Hawkins 2012), which estimated an investment in bicycle infrastructure of about $63.2 million.
Table 13 summarizes the impact of the construction of these trails on the state's economic output. Direct effect is due to the total cost of construction equal to $59,877,758. A 50 percent higher construction cost estimate will give a total direct benefit of $89,816,638, and a 50 percent lower estimate will give a total direct benefit of $29,938,879. The direct effect includes economic output produced in terms of construction material used for trails, such as asphalt, ballast, boardwalk, concrete, crushed stone, dirt, grass, gravel, and woodchip. The construction
60

activity led to the creation of 1,574 jobs in the economy and generated labor income worth $18,975,014.
The spending categorized under direct effect leads to additional spending, which is the indirect effect. The indirect effect measures additional demand for goods and services among firms operating in the supply chains of related industries. For example, the firm from which the concrete blocks were purchased will spend money on purchasing raw materials, such as gravel and sand, or the construction of a boardwalk will create demand for additional lumber. Output as a result of the indirect effect increased by $35,538,158 (with an upper bound of $53,307,237 and a lower bound of $17,769,079). The indirect effect created an additional 223 jobs and $13,473,362 in terms of labor income.
Finally, the direct and indirect spending effects result in additional compensation to workers. With the added income, households undertake additional spending on, say, purchasing food, clothes, and other consumer goods. This additional spending is the induced effect. The induced effect, though smaller compared to the direct and indirect effects, is nevertheless important, as it adds a significant value to the state's economic output. As seen in table 13, the induced effect was worth $29,270,953 (with an upper bound of $43,906,429 and a lower bound of $14,635,476) and led to the creation of anywhere between 104 and 311 additional jobs.
Combining all three impact types together, the construction of trails led to an overall economic impact of more than $124 million (with an upper bound of $187 million and a lower bound of more than $62 million). This translates to a rate of return of almost $2.10 for every $1 spent on construction costs of trails. In addition to the increase in economic output, the construction
61

activity created anywhere between 1,000 and 3,000 jobs and generated more than $41 million in labor income.

Table 13. Economic impact of construction of bicycle trails.

Assumption

Impact Type

Employment

Estimated Cost

1,574

Upper Bound

Direct Effect

2,361

Lower Bound

787

Estimated Cost

223

Upper Bound

Indirect Effect

335

Lower Bound

111

Estimated Cost

207

Upper Bound

Induced Effect

311

Lower Bound

104

Estimated Cost

2,004

Upper Bound

Total Effect

3,007

Lower Bound

1,002

Note: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2019 dollars.

Labor Income $18,975,014 $28,462,521 $9,487,507 $13,473,362 $20,210,044 $6,736,681 $9,284,397 $13,926,596 $4,642,199 $41,732,774 $62,599,161 $20,866,387

Output $59,877,759 $89,816,638 $29,938,879 $35,538,158 $53,307,237 $17,769,079 $29,270,953 $43,906,429 $14,635,476 $124,686,869 $187,030,304 $62,343,435

In table 14, we list the top 10 sectors in which the largest number of jobs were created due to the construction activity. The direct impact created 1,574 jobs related to the construction of trails. However, the indirect and induced impacts led to additional jobs in insurance agencies, real estate, restaurants, and other sectors. This was the multiplier effect of the construction activity on the state's economy.

62

Table 14. Top 10 sectors with highest number of jobs created from construction of bicycle trails.

Sector

Employment Labor Income

Transit and ground passenger transportation Insurance agencies, brokerages, and related activities

1,574 33.8

$18,975,014 $2,469,627

Services to buildings

23.6

$438,423

Employment services

17.5

$716,369

Management consulting services

17.3

$1,455,866

Real estate

16.9

$334,119

Full-service restaurants

14.1

Maintenance and

repair construction of nonresidential

12.7

structures

Limited-service restaurants

12.7

$315,104 $731,436 $229,582

Wholesale trade

12

$1,042,284

Note: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2019 dollars.

Value Added $26,275,927
$3,295,735 $521,320
$1,051,672 $1,311,472 $2,202,592
$346,241
$1,019,832
$556,916 $2,008,215

Output $59,877,759
$6,432,947 $919,387
$1,408,860 $2,050,672 $3,135,103
$683,862
$2,081,216
$1,036,112 $2,910,829

In table 15, we estimate the fiscal impact. At the state and local level, $2.9 million were collected as revenue from taxes on production. At the federal level, $3.8 million was collected on employees' compensation from federal income taxes. Overall, $4.1 million were collected as tax revenue at the state and local levels, and more than $8.4 million were collected in federal taxes.

Table 15. Fiscal impact of construction of bicycle trails.

Tax on

Employee Proprietor Production

Compensation Income

and

Imports

State and

Local

$11,184

$0 $2,946,796

Taxes

Federal Taxes

$3,840,036 $328,695 $373,263

Note: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2019 dollars.

Households Corporations $1,136,087 $103,966 $3,004,502 $857,716

Total $4,198,033 $8,404,212

63

CHAPTER 8. MEASURING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BICYCLING EVENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS
DATA COLLECTION USING ONLINE SURVEY Several state reports have collected data by conducting surveys either online, e.g., the Arizona (McClure Consulting et al. 2013), and Colorado (BBC Research & Consulting 2016) state reports, or in person, e.g., the New Jersey (Brown and Hawkins 2012) and Minnesota (Qian 2016) state reports. The number of survey respondents varied across state reports. For example, in the Iowa state report (Iowa Bicycle Coalition [Bowles et al. 2011]), 13 bicycle organizations took the survey; in the Maine state report (Wilbur Smith Associates 2001), 11 tour operators responded; and in the Arkansas state report (BBC Research & Consulting 2018), 12 bicycle retailers responded to the survey. We conducted an online survey of bicycle groups in Georgia. The survey link was shared via email and on social media (SurveyMonkey 2020). The survey was conducted between the months of July and August 2020. A total of 36 bicycling groups across Georgia voluntarily agreed to take the survey. Figure 7 shows the composition of the groups who responded to the survey. The sample was almost equally made up of bicycle advocacy groups and bicycle-related nonprofit organizations (36.1 percent each); other groups, such as bicycle tour companies, event organizers, for-profit event services, local groups of bike riders, trail advocacy groups, and so on, formed the remainder of the sample (27.8 percent).
64

27.8 36.1
36.1 Advocacy Groups Non-Profit Org. Others
Figure 7. Pie graph. Percentage of survey respondents by type. The survey collected data on 66 bicycling events that happen annually in Georgia. The event size varied significantly, with some events having as few as 10 participants (i.e., informal groups of bike riders) and other events with as many as 2,000 participants. The average number of participants was 350, and the median value was 100 participants. Figure 8 shows the distribution of events by the number of participants. Many events had fewer than 50 participants, while some were medium sized with 100400 participants. About 10 events were very large with 1,000 or more participants.
65

Figure 8. Bar graph. Bicycling event size by number of participants.
Participation/registration fees also varied significantly across events. Nearly 50 percent of bicycling events organized in Georgia were free of charge, with no registration fee. Some events had a fixed-fee structure, while others had more complicated designs with differential fees charged, e.g., for individuals, corporate teams, online/in-person registration, and so on.
Most of the surveyed bicycle groups reported that all of the employees were actually volunteers who worked without pay. Among those who had paid employees, the median size was 6 employees per organization. Only one group reported having 65 employees, and another reported 30 employees. All other groups had 10 or fewer employees. On average, employees were paid $12 to $15 per hour (the minimum wage in Georgia is $7.25).
ECONOMIC IMPACT In order to estimate the impact of bicycle organizations on the state's economy, we first estimated the spending undertaken by these organizations and spending around the events. Note that the estimates shown in table 16 are based on our survey, and hence, should be treated as
66

lower bounds, since the survey covered a limited number of organizations in the state. The event registration fee was calculated using survey responses on the number of participants and the registration fee for each event. Participants spent, on average, about $80/person outside of the main event at local hotels, restaurants, etc. We also used $40/person and $120/person as lower and upper bounds on expenditure outside of the event (in comparison, the Minnesota report [Qian 2016] estimated, on average, that visitors spent $121/day at such events). The total event budget was calculated using an average budget per event of $7,000; we also used $5,000 and $10,000 as the lower and upper bounds on average budget per event. Revenue from annual membership was calculated using number of members and the membership fee charged. Similarly, payroll expenditure was calculated based on the number of employees and average wage. Thus, we estimated a total direct impact of more than $6.6 million, with a lower bound of at least $4.7 million and an upper bound of $8.7 million.

Table 16. Estimates of annual expenditures from bicycle events and organizations.

Categories

Total

Event Registration Fee

$ 2,300,050

Spending Outside of the Event

$ 3,421,680

Event Budget

$ 455,000

Annual Membership

$ 259,722

Payroll

$ 259,200

Total

$ 6,695,652

Note: Estimates are based on a limited sample of survey responses and, hence, should be treated as lower bounds.

Table 17 summarizes the impact of bicycle organizations and events on the state's economic output. A direct effect of $6.6 million resulted from event budget, registration fee, and spending generated during the event, as well as the organizations' annual membership and payroll. The direct effect of spending $6.6 million annually resulted in the creation of 432 jobs and $369,632

67

in labor income. As discussed above, an upper bound of estimates resulted in $8.7 million in expenditure and the creation of 720 jobs, whereas a lower bound of estimates resulted in $4.7 million and the creation of 288 jobs.
Direct spending led to additional spending, which is the indirect effect. The indirect effect measures additional demand for goods and services among firms operating in the supply chains of related industries. For example, bicycle events and organizations may lead to further revenue generated for firms in the advertisement sector, insurance, sportswear; businesses who supply orange cones, boards, maps, flyers; firms selling bicycle products, helmets, safety gadgets, and so on. Indirect effect also occurs when visitors to bicycle events make local purchases. Visitors pay for hotels and other overnight stays. In turn, operators of hotels make purchases across their supply chain. Indirect effect is the sum of these changes. Output as a result of the indirect effect increased by $2,785,962 (with an upper bound of $3,650,853 and a lower bound of $1,984,066).
Finally, the direct and indirect spending effects result in an increase in employment. Table 17 shows that a total of 446 jobs were created because of the direct and indirect spending. The additional income generated results in households increasing their expenditure. This additional spending is the induced effect. Induced effect is associated with a change in the economy due to employee spending. Spending by employees of visited businesses triggers the induced effect. Examples include restaurant and hotel employees. These employees spend their wages and tips. Induced effect is the sum of these changes. As seen in table 17, the induced effect was worth $1,261,338 (with an upper bound of $1,652,916 and a lower bound of $898,281).
When we combined all three types of effects, we found that bicycle organizations and the events they hold annually resulted in an overall economic impact of more than $10.7 million (with an
68

upper bound of $14 million and a lower bound of $7.6 million). In addition to the increase in economic output, bicycle organizations and their activities led to the creation of 455 jobs annually and generated more than $1.7 million in labor income.

Table 17. Economic impact of bicycle events and organizations.

Assumption

Impact Type

Employment

Estimated Cost

432

Upper Bound

Direct Effect

720

Lower Bound

288

Cost Estimated

14.3

Upper Bound

Indirect Effect

18.7

Lower Bound

10.2

Estimated Cost

8.9

Upper Bound

Induced Effect

11.7

Lower Bound

6.4

Estimated Cost

455.2

Upper Bound

Total Effect

750.4

Lower Bound
Note: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2019 dollars.

304.5

Labor Income $369,632 $484,383 $263,239
$1,016,390 $1,331,924
$723,838 $400,001 $524,180 $284,867 $1,786,024 $2,340,488 $1,271,944

Output $6,695,652 $8,774,292 $4,768,412 $2,785,962 $3,650,853 $1,984,066 $1,261,338 $1,652,916
$898,281 $10,742,952 $14,078,061 $7,650,759

As seen in table 17, a total of 455 jobs were created as a result of direct, indirect, and induced effects of bicycle organizations and events held by these organizations. In table 18, we list the top 10 sectors in which the highest number of jobs were created. Expectedly, direct jobs were created in the motorcycle, bicycle, and parts sector. But the multiplier impact of the indirect and induced effects also led to the creation of jobs in other sectors, such as wholesale trade, management companies, restaurants, transportation, and real estate.

69

Table 18. Top 10 sectors with highest number of jobs created from bicycle events and organizations.

Sector

Employment Labor Income

Motorcycle, bicycle,

and parts

432

manufacturing

$370,168

Wholesale trade

2.8

$245,962

Management of

companies and

1.3

$158,586

enterprises

Architectural,

engineering, and

1

$89,293

related services

Employment services

0.8

Full-service restaurants

0.8

Limited-service restaurants

0.8

Real estate

0.8

$34,160 $18,688
$14,196 $15,477

Truck transportation

0.8

$39,216

Services to buildings

0.5

$10,135

Note: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2019 dollars.

Value Added
$727,758 $473,906 $189,068
$84,158 $50,149 $20,534 $34,437 $102,026 $49,027 $12,052

Output
$6,705,364 $686,908 $314,361
$160,420 $67,181 $40,557 $64,068 $145,220 $114,905 $21,254

The fiscal impact of bicycle events and organizations is summarized in table 19. At the state and local levels, $191,941 were collected as revenue from taxes on production. At the federal level, $186,136 were collected on employee compensation from federal income taxes. Overall, $246,437 were collected as tax revenue at the state and local levels, and more than $391,958 were collected in federal taxes.

Table 19. Fiscal impact of bicycle events and organizations.

State and Local Taxes

Employee Proprietor Compensation Income

$542

$0

Tax on Production
and Imports
$191,941

Federal Taxes

$186,136

$6,404 $24,313

Note: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2019 dollars.

Households $48,171
$127,392

Corporations $5,783
$47,713

Total $246,437 $391,958

70

CHAPTER 9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this report, we estimated the economic impact of bicycling in Georgia. We conducted an extensive review of existing state-level bicycle reports across the U.S. (chapter 2) and of case studies based in Georgia (chapter 3). Based on the literature review, we chose three important economic activities to study the impact of bicycling on the state's economy.
First, we analyzed the impact of more than 700 businesses related to bicycling (chapter 6). We compiled data on businesses directly related to bicycles, that is, bicycle dealers, suppliers of bicycle parts and accessories, etc., as well as businesses indirectly related to bicycles, such as those selling sportswear, outdoor equipment, etc. As summarized in table 20, bicycle businesses had a total annual impact of $361 million on the state's economy. They helped create more than 2,000 jobs in a variety of sectors (see chapter 6 for sector-wise employment). We also analyzed the distribution of these businesses by regional commissions. Atlanta, Central Savannah River Area, Georgia Mountains, Northeast Georgia, and Northwest Georgia were some of the regions with the highest numbers of jobs created by bicycle-related businesses. These businesses also helped the local and state economies by generating tax revenue from sales tax, corporate tax, and income tax. As seen in table 21, bicycle-related businesses generated more than $8 million in local and state taxes and more than $13 million in federal taxes.

Table 20. Combined economic impact of bicycle-related economic activities.

Economic Activity

Employment

Bicycle Businesses

2,070

Trails Construction

2,004

Events and Organizations

455

Total

4,529

Note: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2019 dollars.

Labor Income $60,016,636 $41,732,774 $1,786,024 $103,535,434

Output $361,000,729 $124,686,869
$10,742,952 $496,430,550

71

Table 21. Combined fiscal impact of bicycle-related economic activities.

Business Type

State and Local Taxes

Bicycle Businesses

$8,281,139

Trails Construction

$4,198,033

Events and Organizations

$246,437

Total

$12,725,609

Note: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2019 dollars.

Federal Taxes
$13,171,136 $8,404,212
$391,958 $21,967,306

Total
$21,452,275 $12,602,245
$638,395 $34,692,915

A second economic activity related to bicycling was the impact of the construction of bicycle trails in Georgia. GDOT does not have systematic data available on the construction costs of trails, since many trail projects are handled by regional commissions. We contacted about 50 persons via email, visited trail websites, and contacted organizations primarily responsible for constructing and maintaining trails, such as the Path Foundation. This helped us compile data on nearly 80 bicycle trails or trail segments in Georgia. We collected data on the location of the trail (county and regional commission), the length of the trail in miles, the trail surface (concrete, asphalt, etc.), and the use of the trail (bicycling, walking, skating, etc.). In table 20, we summarize the economic impact from the benchmark scenario using estimated construction costs equal to $59,877,758 (see chapter 7 for details). This level of expenditure on construction and maintenance of trails triggered a multiplier effect throughout the economy. The direct effect increased output produced in terms of construction material used for trails, such as asphalt, ballast, boardwalk, concrete, and so on. The indirect effect measured additional demand for goods and services among firms operating in the supply chains of related industries. For example, the firms producing the construction material had to purchase raw materials, such as gravel, sand, and lumber. Finally, the direct and indirect spending effects resulted in an induced effect measured in terms of additional compensation to workers. The induced effect included households undertaking expenditure on purchasing food, clothes, and other consumer goods

72

because of the additional income generated by the direct and indirect effects. As seen in table 20, all three effects combined resulted in generating economic output worth $124,686,869, and more than 2,000 jobs annually. In addition to transit and transportation, these jobs were created in a variety of sectors, including insurance agencies, real estate, full-service restaurants, and so on (see chapter 7 for details). Table 21 shows that the construction of trails resulted in generating additional tax revenue of more than $4 million at the local and state levels and $8 million at the federal level.
Finally, we also conducted surveys of more than 30 bicycle organizations in the state and compiled information on their annual budget, the number of employees or volunteers at these organizations, and the types of events and activities they conduct throughout the year. The survey included a large variety of organizations, such as bicycle advocacy groups, nonprofit organizations, bicycle tour companies, event organizers, for-profit event services, local groups of bike riders, trail advocacy groups, and so on. The survey collected data on 66 bicycling events that take place annually in Georgia. The event size varied significantly, with some events having as few as 10 participants and others as many as 2,000 participants. Many events had fewer than 50 participants, while some were medium sized with 100400 participants. About 10 events were very large, with 1,000 or more participants. Participation/registration fees also varied significantly across events. Nearly 50 percent of bicycling events organized in Georgia were free of charge, with no registration fee. Most of the surveyed bicycle groups reported that all of the employees were in fact volunteers who worked without pay. Among those who had paid employees, most organizations had fewer than 10 employees. On average, employees were paid $12 to $15 per hour. We took into account annual membership, payroll, event budget, and so on, and we estimated a total direct impact of more than $6.6 million, with a lower bound of at least
73

$4.7 million and an upper bound of $8.7 million spent annually by organizations and event participants (see chapter 8 for details). As seen in table 20, these activities resulted in generating a total output of more than $10 million. Of these, over $1 million were generated in terms of labor income. The direct, indirect, and induced impacts together led to the creation of more than 450 jobs statewide. The organizations and their activities led to an additional $638,395 in tax revenue.
When we combined the three types of economic impact analyses, we found that bicycling-related businesses, trails, and activities led to creating annually nearly $0.5 billion worth of economic output in the state economy. Of the $0.5 billion in economic output, more than $0.1 billion were generated in terms of labor income. More than 70 percent of the total output was generated because of direct, indirect, and induced effects from bicycle-related businesses. Almost a quarter of the output resulted from the construction and maintenance of bicycle trails (see figure 9). The combined economic activities resulted in creating more than 4,500 jobs annually. Bicycle businesses and the construction of trails had a share of about 45 percent, whereas bicycle organizations and events helped support the remaining 10 percent of jobs (see figure 10). A total of $34 million tax revenue was generated by the three activities, of which $12 million went to the local and state economies.
We emphasize that the estimates summarized above are based on the available data and certain assumptions made in the model. These are, after all, estimates and not accurate values. Each chapter in the report details the assumptions we made and the limited data we had available to conduct the analysis. For instance, to measure the impact of businesses, we assumed that for businesses indirectly related to bicycles (e.g., retailers selling sportswear), only 10 percent of their revenue and employment were linked to bicycles. We estimated economic impact by
74

considering different scenarios. For instance, the data on construction costs that we compiled were not comprehensive. Several other trail projects may have taken place during this time for which we did not have data. Hence, we estimated the economic impact of trail construction under three scenarios. The first scenario used the estimated cost as the total cost of all trails. In the second scenario, we assumed that the actual costs are higher than the estimated costs by 50 percent, and in the third scenario, we assumed that the actual costs are lower than the estimated costs by 50 percent. Thus, these two scenarios provided an upper and lower bound on the estimates. We considered similar upper and lower bounds on estimates of the economic impact of bicycle organizations and annual bicycle events.
Note: Shares calculated on total output values given in table 20.
Figure 9. Pie graph. Share of economic activities in total output.
75

Note: Shares calculated on total output values given in table 20.
Figure 10. Pie graph. Share of economic activities in total employment.
A primary undertaking for this project was the compilation of data from various sources. A data repository on bicycling is not currently available. Some bicycle organizations have compiled related data and made it available on their websites. Other data were available from secondary sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the CDC, and the ReferenceUSA database. In addition to conducting the economic impact analysis, in this report we reviewed existing data sources and summarized bicycling statistics, such as the percentage of population using bicycles to commute to work, for leisure, for exercise, the total number of bicycle fatalities, and so on. We also compiled data by emailing surveys statewide to bicycle organizations and by collecting information on bicycle trails and annual bicycle events. We hope that this report sheds light on the lack of consistent data available on bicycling in the state of Georgia. This report is a first attempt at quantifying the impact of bicycling on Georgia's economy, and we believe readers will find the report useful in the future for economic impact evaluation of a number of bicyclerelated activities such as newly constructed trail projects, and additional bicycle events and tours.
76

APPENDIX

Table 22. Total pedalcyclist fatalities, and pedalcyclist fatality rates, by state, 2018.

State
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico

Total Facilities
953 80
1,010 516
3,563 632 294 111 31
3,133 1,504
117 231 1,031 858 318 404 724 768 137 501 360 974 381 664 921 182 230 330 147 564 391

Pedalcyclist Fatalities

Number
9 0 23 3 155 22 1 6 3 161 30 2 2 24 22 7 5 10 29 2 5 4 21 7 6 2 2 0 8 2 18 11

Percentage of Total Fatalities
0.90% 0.00% 2.30% 0.60% 4.40% 3.50% 0.30% 5.40% 9.70% 5.10% 2.00% 1.70% 0.90% 2.30% 2.60% 2.20% 1.20% 1.40% 3.80% 1.50% 1.00% 1.10% 2.20% 1.80% 0.90% 0.20% 1.10% 0.00% 2.40% 1.40% 3.20% 2.80%

Population
4,887,871 737,438
7,171,646 3,013,825 39,557,045 5,695,564 3,572,665
967,171 702,455 21,299,325 10,519,475 1,420,491 1,754,208 12,741,080 6,691,878 3,156,145 2,911,505 4,468,402 4,659,978 1,338,404 6,042,718 6,902,149 9,995,915 5,611,179 2,986,530 6,126,452 1,062,305 1,929,268 3,034,392 1,356,458 8,908,520 2,095,428

Pedalcyclist Fatality Rate per Million Population
1.84 0
3.21 1
3.92 3.86 0.28
6.2 4.27 7.56 2.85 1.41 1.14 1.88 3.29 2.22 1.72 2.24 6.22 1.49 0.83 0.58
2.1 1.25 2.01 0.33 1.88
0 2.64 1.47 2.02 5.25

77

New York

943

29

3.10%

19,542,209

1.48

North Carolina

1,437

18

1.30%

10,383,620

1.73

North Dakota

105

2

1.90%

760,077

2.63

Ohio

1,068

22

2.10%

11,689,442

1.88

Oklahoma

655

16

2.40%

3,943,079

4.06

Oregon

506

9

1.80%

4,190,713

2.15

Pennsylvania

1,190

18

1.50%

12,807,060

1.41

Rhode Island

59

1

1.70%

1,057,315

0.95

South Carolina

1,037

23

2.20%

5,084,127

4.52

South Dakota

130

0

0.00%

882,235

0

Tennessee

1,041

8

0.80%

6,770,010

1.18

Texas

3,642

69

1.90%

28,701,845

2.4

Utah

260

3

1.20%

3,161,105

0.95

Vermont

68

0

0.00%

626,299

0

Virginia

820

12

1.50%

8,517,685

1.41

Washington

546

16

2.90%

7,535,591

2.12

West Virginia

294

5

1.70%

1,805,832

2.77

Wisconsin

588

4

0.70%

5,813,568

0.69

Wyoming

111

0

0.00%

577,737

0

U.S. Total

36,560

857

2.30%

327,167,434

2.62

Source: NHTSA 2020.

Trail Name Cloudland Connector Trail Silver Comet Trail
Heritage Park Trail
Big Creek Greenway
Midtown Greenway
Rock Creek Greenway
Tallulah Falls Rail-Trail
Helen to Hardman Heritage Trail Towne Lake Pass Trail

Table 23. Trails in Georgia.

Counties Chattooga

Surface N/A

Cobb, Paulding, Polk Floyd

Concrete Asphalt

Forsyth, Fulton Boardwalk, Concrete

Hall

Concrete

Hall

Asphalt, Concrete

Rabun

Asphalt

White

Concrete

Cherokee

Concrete

Activities Biking, Mountain Biking, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Fishing, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Fishing, Mountain Biking, Walking Biking, Walking
Biking, Walking

78

Noonday Creek Trail
Rubes Creek Trail Phoenix Trail

Cherokee, Cobb Cherokee
Clayton, Fulton

Asphalt, Boardwalk, Concrete Concrete
Concrete

Atlanta Road Path Cochran Shoals Trail Cumberland Connector East Cobb Trail Floyd Road Trail Lucille Creek Trail Mountain-to-River Trail Spring Road Trail Wildhorse Trail

Cobb Cobb Cobb Cobb Cobb Cobb Cobb Cobb Cobb

Asphalt Gravel Concrete Concrete Concrete N/A Concrete Asphalt Concrete

East Decatur Greenway DeKalb

Concrete

Keswick Park Extension Trail South Peachtree Creek Trail Peachtree Creek Greenway Stone Mountain Trail

DeKalb

Asphalt

DeKalb

Boardwalk

DeKalb

Concrete

DeKalb, Fulton Asphalt, Concrete

Trolley Line Trail

DeKalb, Fulton Asphalt, Concrete

Arabia Mountain Trail
South River Trail
Castlewood Road Path Peachtree City Multi-Use Paths Atlanta Beltline

DeKalb, Rockdale DeKalb, Rockdale Fayette Fayette
Fulton

Concrete Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Concrete

Chastain Park Trail

Fulton

Asphalt

Eastside Trail (Atlanta Beltline) Lionel Hampton Trail

Fulton Fulton

Concrete Asphalt

North Park Path
Northside Trail (Atlanta Beltline) PATH Parkway
PATH400 Greenway Trail

Fulton Fulton
Fulton Fulton

Asphalt Concrete
Asphalt, Concrete Concrete

Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Fishing, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Walking
Biking, Walking
Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Fishing, Walking
Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking

79

Proctor Creek Greenway Fulton

Southwest Connector Trail (Atlanta Beltline) West End Trail (Atlanta Beltline) Westside Trail (Atlanta Beltline) Whetstone Creek Trail
Camp Creek Greenway
Ivy Creek Greenway
Suwanee Creek Greenway Reeves Creek Trail
Rockdale River Trail

Fulton
Fulton
Fulton
Fulton Gwinnett Gwinnett Gwinnett
Henry Rockdale

Clayton Connects Newnan Line Carrollton GreenBelt

Clayton Coweta Carroll

LaGrange Thread Trail Firefly Trail
North Oconee River Greenway Cricket Frog Trail

Troup Clarke, Ogelthorpe, Greene Clarke
Newton

Eastside Trail (Covington) Oxford Trail
Yellow River Trail

Newton
Newton Newton

Ocmulgee Heritage Trail Bibb

Augusta Canal Trail

Augusta

Phenomenon Trail

Clay

Chattahoochee Riverwalk Muscogee

Columbus Dragonfly Trail Columbus Fall Line Trace Palmetto Creek Trail
Moultrie Trail

Muscogee
Muscogee
Harris Colquitt

Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete Concrete Asphalt, Gravel Asphalt, Concrete
Concrete Concrete
Concrete Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
Ballast, Concrete, Dirt, Grass Concrete
Concrete Concrete
Concrete, Gravel, Crushed Stone, Woodchips Asphal, Gravel
Asphalt, Concrete
Asphalt, Concrete
Asphalt, Concrete
Asphalt, Concrete Asphalt, Concrete

Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Fishing, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Fishing, Walking
Biking, Inline Skating, Walking
Biking, Inline Skating, Walking
Biking, Inline Skating, Fishing, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Mountain Biking, Walking Biking, Walking
Biking, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Mountain Biking, Walking
N/A N/A Biking, Inline Skating, Fishing, Walking Biking, Walking
Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking

80

Riverfront Greenway Trail Azalea City Trail
Azalea City Trail Williams Street Spur Bryan County CGG/ECG
S&S Greenway
Camden County CGG/ECG McQueen's Island Trail

Dougherty
Lowndes Lowndes
Bryan Bulloch Camden
Chatham

Truman Linear Park Trail
Chatham County CGG/ECG Douglas Trail

Chatham Chatham
Coffee

Guyton Rails to Trails Effingham

Hampton Spur Bike Trail Glynn

St. Simons Island Trail Glynn

Jekyll Island Trail

Glynn

Glynn County CGG/ECG Glynn

Liberty County CGG

Liberty

McIntosh County

McIntosh

CGG/ECG

Note: Data collected as of May 2020.

Concrete
N/A N/A
Concrete Asphalt Concrete
Gravel
Concrete Concrete
Asphalt
Asphalt
Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete

Biking, Horseback Riding, Walking N/A N/A
Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking
Biking, Mountain Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking
Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Inline Skating, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking Biking, Walking

81

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) for its support. The work conducted for this report was sponsored by the GDOT Office of Performance-based Management and Research and supported by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program under Research Project 17-04. The authors acknowledge the assistance provided by GDOT personnel Jack Anninos, Sarah Lamothe, Supriya Kamatkar, Sunil Thapa, and Trang Mai. The authors thank several members from Georgia's bicycling community who helped this project by sharing their experience, making connections, and overall being excited about this project. These include Shamsul Baker, Brian Barlow, Brent Buice, Elliot Caldwell, Dennis Carman, Maurice Carter, John Devine, Katelyn Digioia, Betsy Eggers, Georgia Henderson, Rebecca James, Edwin McBrayer, Melissa Memory, Eric Meyer, Mark Ralston, Michelle Ritan, Tracie Sanchez, Julie Smith, Brian Stockton, Ashley Travieso, Will Wagner, and Rose West. Any omission of names is purely accidental. The authors also thank several bicycle organizations who took spent time completing an anonymous survey for the report. Finally, the authors thank Sharon Dunn, who edited the report prior to submission and Lesley Easley and Marjorie Jorgenson at Georgia Institute of Technology for their support.
82

REFERENCES
Alta/Greenways. (2013). Silver Comet Trail: Economic Impact Analysis and Planning Study. Northwest Georgia Regional Planning Commission, Rome, GA. Available online: https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/Trail_Study_142-GA-Silver-Comet-EconImpact.pdf.
Atlanta Beltline, Inc. (2017). Atlanta Beltline: Annual Report 2017. Atlanta Beltline, Inc., Atlanta, GA. Available online: https://beltline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2017-AtlantaBeltLine-Annual-Report.pdf.
Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). (2020a). "Walk. Bike. Thrive!" Part 1: Recommendations, in The Atlanta Region's Plan, ARC, Atlanta, GA. Available online: https://cdn.atlantaregional.org/wp-content/uploads/walkbike-thrive-part-1-final-web-.pdf.
Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). (2020b). The Atlanta Region's Plan. Atlanta, GA. Available online: https://www.atlantaregionsplan.org/.
BBC Research & Consulting. (2014). Community and Economic Benefits of Bicycling in Michigan. Final Report, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI. Available online: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_CommAndEconBenefitsOfBicyclingInMI_ 465392_7.pdf.
BBC Research & Consulting. (2016). Economic and Health Benefits of Bicycling and Walking: State of Colorado. Final Report, Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Denver, CO. Available online: https://choosecolorado.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/Economic-and-Health-Benefits-of-Bicycling-and-Walking-inColorado-4.pdf.
BBC Research & Consulting. (2018). Economic and Health Benefits of Bicycling in Northwest Arkansas. Final Report, Walton Family Foundation, Bentonville, AR, and PeopleForBikes, Boulder, CO. Available online: https://8ce82b94a8c4fdc3ea6db1d233e3bc3cb10858bea65ff05e18f2.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/d0/97/cf26b21948308adae682862472 9a/march-2018-nw-arkansas-final-report-corrected.pdf.
Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin. (2006). The Economic Impact of Bicycling in Wisconsin. Governor's Bicycle Coordinating Council, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, WI. Available online: https://www.wistatedocuments.org/digital/collection/p267601coll4/id/7463/rec/1.
83

Bowles, B., Fleming, K., Fuller, K., Lankford, J., and Printz, J. (2011). Economic and Health Benefits of Bicycling in Iowa. Iowa Bicycle Coalition (IBC), Coralville, IA. Available online: https://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/images/uploads/Economic_and_Health_Benefits _of_Bicycling_in_Iowa.pdf.
Brown, C. and Hawkins, J. (2012). The Economic Impacts of Active Transportation in New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Transportation, Trenton, NJ. Available online: http://recon.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Economic-Impacts-of-ActiveTransportation-in-NJ.pdf.
Bushell, M.A., Poole, B.W., Zegeer, C.V., and Rodriguez, D.A. (2013). Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements: A Resource for Researchers, Engineers, Planners, and the General Public. Federal Highway Administration, UNC Highway Safety Research Center. Available online: https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2014). State Indicator Report on Physical Activity, 2014. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/downloads/PA_State_Indicator_Report_2014.pdf.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021). "Data, Trends and Maps." (online data tool) Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/data-trends-maps/index.html.
Coastal Regional Commission of Georgia (CRC). (2020). 2020 Bike + Walk Coastal Georgia: Coastal Georgia Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, GA. Available online: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56607983e4b0b03b86208e4e/t/5f3530404113673fca750d7 8/1597321507411/BikeWalkCoastalGeorgia_2020_August-12-2020_Adopted.pdf.
Data Axle. (2021). Data Axle Reference Solutions (previously known as ReferenceUSA database). (website) Available online: http://www.referenceusa.com/Home/Home.
Davidson, E. (2011). "The Atlanta Beltline: A Green Future." FHWA-HRT-11-006, Public Roads, 75(2), Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research, Development, and Technology. Last modified on January 31, 2017. Available online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/11septoct/04.cfm.
Dean Runyan Associates. (2013). The Economic Significance of Bicycle-Related Travel in Oregon Detailed State and Travel Region Estimates, 2012. Travel Oregon, Portland, OR. Available online: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/23162.
84

Dean Runyan Associates. (2015). The Economic Significance of Cycling on Oregon Scenic Bikeways, 2014. Travel Oregon and Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department, Portland, OR. Available online: https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/BWT/Documents/SB-Oregon-ScenicBikeways-economic-report.pdf.
Dhongde, S. (2016). Analyzing the Impact of the Firefly Trail on Economic Development in Northeast Georgia. Research Report No.15-22, Georgia Department of Transportation, Office of Research, Forest Park, GA. Available online: http://g92018.eosintl.net/eLibSQL14_G92018_Documents/15-22.pdf.
Discover Georgia Outdoors. (2021). (website) St. Simons Island, GA. Available online: https://www.discovergeorgiaoutdoors.com/do-it/bicycling/.
East Coast Greenway Alliance. (2021). "Georgia." (website) Durham, NC. Available online: https://www.greenway.org/states/georgia.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2021). "National Household Travel Survey." (website) McLean, VA. Available online: https://nhts.ornl.gov/.
Governor's Office of Highway Safety in Georgia. (2021). "Bicycle Safety in Georgia: Georgia Law on Bicycles." (website) Atlanta, GA. Available online: https://www.gahighwaysafety.org/campaigns/bicycle-and-pedestrian-safety/.
HDR Decision Economics. (2013). Benefit Cost & Economic Impact Analysis: Appendix in Support of the TIGER V Application: Atlanta Beltline Community Connector. City of Atlanta and Atlanta Beltline, Inc., Atlanta, GA. Available online: https://beltline.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/ABI-TIGER-V-BCA-Appendix.pdf.
IBISWorld. (2021). "Industry at a Glance." (website) Available online: https://my.ibisworld.com/us/en/industry-specialized/od4357/industry-at-a-glance.
Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) and Alta Planning and Design. (2018). Evaluating the Economic Impact of Shared Use Paths in North Carolina: 20152017. Final Report, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, Raleigh, NC. Available online: https://itre.ncsu.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/NCDOT-2015-44_SUP-Project_Final-Report_optimized.pdf.
League of American Bicyclists. (2018). "Topic X: Infrastructure for People Biking & Walking." Chapter 4 in Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2018 Benchmarking Report, League of American Bicyclists, Washington, DC. Available online: https://data.bikeleague.org/in-thisreport/.
85

League of American Bicyclists. (2019a). Bicycle Friendly State: Historical Ranking, 20082019. Washington, DC. Available online: https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/2019%20BFS%20historical%20ranking.pdf.
League of American Bicyclists. (2019b). Bicycle Friendly State Report Card: Georgia Ranked 19 out of 50. Washington, DC. Available online: https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/BFS%20Report%20Card_2019_Georgia.pdf.
League of American Bicyclists. (2019c). "Ranking: 2019 Bicycle Friendly State Ranking." (website) Washington, DC. Available online: https://bikeleague.org/content/ranking.
McClure Consulting, LLC, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and Economic & Policy Resources (EPR), Inc. (2013). An Economic Impact Study of Bicycling in Arizona: Out-of-State Bicycle Tourists & Exports. Final Report, MPD 64-12 Contract No. ADOT11-013181, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ. Available online: https://apps.azdot.gov/files/ADOTLibrary/Multimodal_Planning_Division/BicyclePedestrian/Economic_Impact_Study_of_Bicycling-Final_Report-1306.pdf.
McLeod, K. (2016). Where We Ride: Analysis of Bicycle Commuting in American Cities--Report on 2016 American Community Survey Data. League of American Bicyclists, Washington, DC. Available online: https://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/LAB_Where_We_Ride_2016.pdf.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2018). State Traffic Safety Information (STSI) Reports. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Available online: https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/STSI.htm#.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2020). Traffic Safety Facts: 2018 Data Bicyclists and Other Cyclist. DOT HS 812 884, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Available online: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812884.
Qian, X. (2016). Assessing the Economic Impact and Health Effects of Bicycling in Minnesota. Final Report, Research Project 2016-36, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN. Available online: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TS/2016/201636.pdf.
Resource Systems Group, Inc., Economic and Policy Resources, Inc., and Local Motion. (2012). Economic Impact of Bicycling and Walking in Vermont. Final Report, Vermont Agency of Transportation, Barre, VT. Available online: https://headwaterseconomics.org/wpcontent/uploads/Trail_Study_84-bicycling-walking-vermont.pdf.
86

Sprinkle Consulting and HDR. (2014). Idaho Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Study. Idaho Transportation Department, Boise, ID. Available online: https://itd.idaho.gov/wpcontent/Bike/StatewideBicyclePedestrianStudy.pdf. Survey Research Center. (2011). Georgia Bikes! Citizen Survey. University of Georgia (UGA), Athens, GA. SurveyMonkey. (2020). "Bicycle Data: Data on Bicycle Organizations." Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. (online survey) Available online: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Q6F3QYS. Transportation Pooled Fund Program. (2018). "Solicitation Detail View: Moving Forward with the Next Generation Travel Behavior Data Collection and Processing." Study Number TPF5(398), Solicitation Number 1466. Available online: https://www.pooledfund.org/Details/Solicitation/1466. Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. (2017). Economic Impacts of Active Transportation: Utah Active Transportation Benefits Study. Final Report, Contract Number 15-1412TP, Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, UT. Available online: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b8b54d1f407b40494055e8f/t/5bdc820c4fa51a4d9f77e014 /1541177878083/Utah+Active+Transportation+Benefits+Study+-+Final+Report.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). "Biking to Work Increases 60 Percent Over Last Decade, Census Bureau Reports." Press release number CB14-86, 20082012 American Community Survey. Available online: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-86.html. U.S Census Bureau. (2019). American Community Survey Data. United States Census. Available online: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs.html. Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA). (2001). Bicycle Tourism in Maine: Economic Impacts and Marketing. Final Report, Maine Department of Transportation, Office of Passenger Transportation, Augusta, ME. Available online: https://headwaterseconomics.org/wpcontent/uploads/Trail_Study_80-bicycle-tourism-maine.pdf.
87