Commu nity and E conomic Ben B igansaugatucktownship.org/kcuTaGuaS/wp-content/uploads/...Report Summary Infographic. ... event participants throughout Michigan that quantified visitor

PHASE

ComBen

Mic

II FINAL REPO

mmunefits

chigan

ORT

nity as of B

Depart

and EBicycli

tment

Econoing in

of Tran

omic Mich

nsport

higan

tation

Phas

Marc

CoBe

PrepMich425 WLansi PrepBBC R1999Denv303.3wwwbbc@

se II Final Rep

ch 20, 2015

ommunenefits

ared for higan DepartmWest Ottawa Sing, Michigan

ared by Research & Co9 Broadway, Suver, Colorado 8321.2547 fax w.bbcresearch@bbcresearch

port

nity andof Bicy

ment of TranspStreet 48933‐1532

onsulting uite 2200 80202‐9750 303.399.0448.com .com

d Econycling i

portation

8

nomic in Michhigan

Table of Contents

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING i

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

Study Objectives ......................................................................................................................... I–1

Methodology .............................................................................................................................. I–1

Key Results ................................................................................................................................. I–2

Report Structure ......................................................................................................................... I–3

II. Methodology

Overview ................................................................................................................................... II–1

Event Participants ...................................................................................................................... II–1

Self‐Supported Touring Bicyclists .............................................................................................. II–3

Bicycle Touring Companies ........................................................................................................ II–3

Bicycling and Tourism in Michigan ............................................................................................ II–4

III. Economic Impact of Bicycling Events

Total Economic Impact ............................................................................................................. III–1

Bicycling Event Economic Impact Surveys ................................................................................ III–2

Case Study Events ..................................................................................................................... III–2

Apple Cider Century ................................................................................................................. III–3

DALMAC .................................................................................................................................... III–8

The Bell’s Beer Iceman Cometh Challenge ............................................................................. III–12

Michigander ........................................................................................................................... III–16

Ore to Shore ........................................................................................................................... III–20

Tour de Troit ........................................................................................................................... III–23

Non‐case Study Events ........................................................................................................... III–27

Overall Economic Impact of Michigan Bicycling Events ......................................................... III–28

IV. Touring in Michigan

Overview ................................................................................................................................. IV–1

Self‐Supported Touring ........................................................................................................... IV–3

Touring Companies .................................................................................................................. IV–7

V. Bicycling and Tourism in Michigan

Overview .................................................................................................................................. V–1

Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... V–1

Strategic Plan ............................................................................................................................ V–3

Communities ............................................................................................................................ V–4

Conclusions and Next Steps ..................................................................................................... V–5

Table of Contents

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING ii

Appendices

A. Economic Impact Model Guide ......................................................................................... A–1

B. Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... B–1

C. Literature Review and Bibliography ...................................................................................C–1

D. Survey Instruments and Interview Guides ........................................................................ D–1

E. Michigan Bicycle Events...................................................................................................... E–1

Report Summary Infographic

SECTION I.

Introduction and Executive Summary

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 1

SECTION I. Introduction and Executive Summary

TheMichiganDepartmentofTransportation(MDOT)retainedBBCResearch&Consulting(BBC)andR.NeunerConsultingtostudytheeconomicandcommunitybenefitsofbicyclingforthestateofMichigan.PhaseIofthiseffortdocumentedbenefitsassociatedwithresidentswhobicycleandparticipateinbicyclingevents.Itincludedstudiesoffivecommunitiesthroughoutthestate.Thisreportistheculminationofthesecondphaseofresearchandfocusesontheeconomicandcommunitybenefitsderivedfromout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingeventsandbicycle‐relatedtourism.

Study Objectives

ThestudyobjectivesforPhaseIandPhaseIIoftheprojectinclude:

1. EstimatingthecommunityandeconomicbenefitsofbicyclinginMichigan;

2. Estimatingthecommunityandeconomicbenefitsofbicyclinginfivecasestudycommunitiesthroughoutthestate;

3. Providingin‐depthqualitativeinformationonlinksbetweenbicyclingandtheeconomyaccordingtobusinessowners,governmentofficialsandbicyclingadvocates;

4. EstimatingtheeconomicbenefitstoMichiganfromout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingevents;and

5. EstimatingtheeconomicbenefitstoMichiganfrombicycle‐relatedtourism.

PhaseIoftheprojectaddressesthefirstthreeobjectivesandPhaseIIprovidesresearchonthefourthandfifthobjectives.Inadditiontothisreport,thePhaseIIstudyalsoproducedacustomizabletoolforusebybicycleeventorganizerstomeasuretheeconomicimpactofvisitorspendingassociatedwithbicyclingevents.

Methodology

Themethodologyforthisstudyisbasedonacomprehensiveliteraturereviewofsimilarstudiesthroughouttheworld.BelowisabriefdescriptionofthetypesofactivitiesstudiedinPhaseIIalongwithanoverviewofthemethodologyused:

Bicycle events.ThestudyincludedonlineandinterceptsurveyresponsesfrombicyclingeventparticipantsthroughoutMichiganthatquantifiedvisitorspendingassociatedwithbicyclingevents.Estimatesoftheeconomicimpactoftheseeventswerebasedontheproportionofout‐of‐stateeventparticipants,theirassociatedspending,andthecirculationofthatspendingthroughtheMichiganeconomy.


Self‐supported bicycle touring.Thestudyincludedonlinesurveyswithself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsontripcharacteristicsandspendinghabits.Self‐supportedtouringbicyclistsarebicyclistswhodonotrelyonmotorvehiclestocarrytheirgearandprovisionswhiletravelling.ResponsesweresolicitedfromanemailnewsletterfromtheAdventureCyclingAssociationandflyersavailableatkeylocationsalongtouringroutesinMichigan.

Touring companies.In‐depthinterviewswereconductedwithbicycletouringcompaniesthroughoutMichigan.Theseinterviewscoveredavarietyoftopicsincludingbusinesstrends,clientdemographics,andannualrevenues.

The role of bicycling in Michigan tourism.ThestudyreviewedkeyresearchontourismtrendsinMichiganandtherolebicyclingplaysinattractingvisitors.

AdditionaldetailsonthemethodologyareincludedinSectionII.

Key Results

Out‐of‐stateparticipantsinorganizedbicyclingeventsinMichiganareresponsiblefor$21.9millionineconomicimpactforthestate.Whilespendingassociatedwiththeseeventsissubstantiallyhigher,themajorityofparticipantsinbicyclingeventsarefromMichigan.Afeweventshadsubstantialparticipationfromout‐of‐stateincludingtheAppleCiderCentury,whereover4,000individualstraveledtoMichigantoparticipateintherideandTheBell’sBeerIcemanCommethChallenge,whereparticipantscamefrom36differentstates.WhilemosteventsaredominatedbyMichiganresidents,eventhoseeventscanhaveasubstantialimpactontheirregion.Forexample97percentofparticipantsintheOretoShoreMountainBikeEpic,heldinMarquetteCounty,traveledmorethan50milestoattendtheevent.

Self‐supportedlongdistancetouringbicyclistswhotraveltoMichiganspend,onaverage,$71perdayduringtheirtrip,andatotalof$520pertrip.Thisspendinghasaneconomicimpactof$760whenaccountingforinducedandindirecteffects.Theaveragetriplengthofabicycletourinthestateisapproximatelysixdaysandmorethantwo‐thirdsofallout‐of‐statetouringcyclistsusedoneofMichigan’sU.S.BicycleRoutesduringtheirtrip.1Asmallproportionofout‐of‐statelongdistancetouringbicyclists(around30%)stayinMichiganfortenormoredaysduringtheirtrip.

BicyclingplaysasubstantialroleinMichigantourism.CommunitiesthroughoutMichiganhavemadesubstantialinvestmentsinmulti‐usepaths,railtrailsandotherinfrastructurethatsupportsbicyclingbytouristsandresidentsalike.Thestatehasthemostrail‐trailsintheUnitedStateswithatotalof2,712milesofshared‐usepathwaysopentowalking,joggingandbicycling.MichiganhasalsoidentifiedbicyclingasanimportantamenityforvisitorstothestatethroughresearchandplanningeffortsconductedbythePureMichigancampaignandlocalchambersofcommerce.ThestateiscurrentlyworkingonastatewidebicyclingtrailrunningfromBelleIsleParkinDetroittoIronwoodinthewesternUpperPeninsula.

1MichiganishometothreeU.S.BicycleRoutes.U.S.BicycleRoute10isa193mileroutethatconnectsSt.IgnaceandIronMountaininMichigan'sUpperPeninsula.TherouteutilizesthewidepavedshouldersalongUS‐2.U.S.BicycleRoute20isaneast‐westrouteofjustover300milesandconnectsMarineCityontheeastwithLudingtononthewest.U.S.BicycleRoute35isa500‐mileroutethatrunsfromIndianathroughMichigantoSaultSte.Marie,Canada,generallyfollowingtheLakeMichiganshorelineandthroughtheeasternUpperPeninsula.


Report Structure

Thisreportincludesfivesections,includingthisintroduction,andfiveappendices.SectionIIprovidesanexplanationofthemethodologyusedforthestudy.SectionIIIpresentsoveralleconomicimpactofbicyclingeventsinMichiganalongwithresultsfromsixcasestudyevents.Theresultsfromtheself‐supportedlongdistancetouringbicyclist’ssurveyareprovidedinSectionIValongwithinformationfrominterviewswithtouringcompanies.SectionVpresentsanoverviewofresearchontourisminMichiganandhighlightswaysinwhichbicyclingcontributestothevisitorexperience.

AppendixAprovidesinstructionsforaneconomicimpactmodelforusebyMDOTandbicyclingeventsstatewideinadditiontoagenericsurveyinstrumentdesignedtocollecttherequiredinformationonvisitorspendingandcharacteristics.AppendixBreviewsthedatasourcesusedforthestudy,andAppendixCprovidesabibliographyandliteraturereview.AppendixDprovidesthesurveyinstrumentsandinterviewguidesusedforthestudy.AppendixEcontainsthelistofeventsincludedinthestudy.Thelastpageofthereportcontainsasummaryinfographicofthestudy.

SECTION II.

Methodology

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 1

SECTION II. Methodology

Thissectiondetailsthemethodologyemployedtomeasuretheeconomicimpactofout‐of‐stateparticipantsinbicyclingactivitiesinthestateofMichigan.TheapproachesusedweredevelopedfromathoroughreviewofliteratureoneconomicimpactsrelatedtobicyclinganddiscussionswithMDOTstaff.AppendixCprovidesabibliographyoftheliteraturereviewedasapartofthestudy.

Overview

ThisstudyprovidesMDOTwithinformationonthefollowingcomponentsofbicycletourisminMichigan:

EstimatesoftheeconomicimpactforarepresentativesampleofbicycleeventsandtoursinMichigan;

Anestimateoftheeconomicimpactofself‐supportedbicycliststouringMichigan;

AreviewofrelevantresearchanddataontheroleofbicyclingintheMichigantourismeconomy;and

Aneconomicimpactmodelanddatacollectiontoolforusebyothereventsororganizations.

Event Participants

Aninterceptandonlinesurveywasusedtocollectinformationontripandvisitationcharacteristicsforavarietyofbicyclingeventsthroughoutthestate.ThesurveyinstrumentusedisbasedoninputfromthePhaseIstudyaswellasinstrumentsusedinsimilarstudiesinArizonaandMontana.1Theinstrumentcollectedinformationfromeventparticipantsregarding:

Tripdetailsincludingpurposeanddistancetravelled;

Partysize;

Numberofeventparticipantsintheparty;

Spendingonlodging,transportation,retailgoods,andrecreationrelatedtotheevent;and

Participantdemographicssuchaslocationofresidence,gender,andincome.

Theinstrumentaskedquestionsaboutresidencesuchthatthestudycoulduseaconservativeapproachtomeasuringtheeconomicimpactofbicyclingevents(forexample,byonlyincluding

1AnEconomicImpactStudyofBicyclinginArizonaOut‐of‐StateBicycleTourists&Exports.ArizonaDepartmentofTransportation,andAnalysisofTouringCyclists;Impacts,Needs,andOpportunitiesforMontana.InstituteforTourismandRecreationResearch,UniversityofMontana.


expendituresbyout‐of‐stateparticipants)whilestillcollectingdatarepresentativeofalleventparticipants.

DataonMichiganbicyclingeventswerecollectedfromtheLeagueofMichiganBicyclist’s(LMB)ridecalendarandresearchfromeventwebsitesincluding:

Eventlength(i.e.numberofdays);

Eventtype(race,charityride,tour);

Numberofparticipants;and

Location.

Eventswereplacedinoneofthreestrata:

Eventswithhighattendanceandthepotentialforsubstantialout‐of‐stateparticipation;

Smallereventswithpotentialforout‐of‐stateparticipation;and

Eventswithoutasubstantialdrawforout‐of‐stateparticipation(e.g.localweeklyrides).

Thestudyteamcontactedeventsinthefirststratatogaugetheirinterestinparticipatinginthestudy.WorkingwithMDOTstaff,thestudyteamidentifiedsixcasestudyeventsforindividualeconomicimpactstudies.

Workingwitheventandtourorganizers,thestudyteamsolicitedsurveyresponsesfromparticipantsacrossarepresentativesampleofMichiganbicycle‐relatedevents.

Intercept surveys.Forthesixcasestudyevents,interceptsurveyswerecollectedfromeventparticipantsduringregistration,priortothestartoftheevent,oraftercompletingtheevent.

Online surveys.SurveysfortheremainderoftheeventswereconductedonlineusingSurveyMonkeywithinvitationstoparticipantsdeliveredbyeventorganizers.

Responsesfromthemultiplesurveyeffortswereusedtoestimatethedirecteconomicimpactofthespecificeventsincludedinthesample,aswellastheoverallimpactofbicycle‐relatedeventsandtoursinMichigan.

Economic impact model.InordertocalculatetheoveralleconomicimpactofbicycleeventsinthestateofMichigan,BBCusedIMPLANmultiplierstocalculatethesecondary(inducedandindirect)economicbenefitsofevent‐relatedspending.2

2IMPLANisaneconomicimpactassessmentsystemdevelopedandmaintainedbytheMinnesotaIMPLANGroup(MIG).Itallowstheusertodeveloplocal‐levelinput‐outputmodelsthatcalculatethedirect,indirect,andinducedimpactsofeconomicactivitybysectorthroughtheuseofindustry‐specificmultipliersandotherfactors.TheIMPLANsystemcloselyfollowstheaccountingconventionsusedbytheBureauofEconomicAnalysis.


Self‐Supported Touring Bicyclists

Anonlinesurveywasusedtocollectinformationfromself‐supportedtouringbicyclistswhotraveledthroughthestateinrecentyears.ThesurveywassimilartothesurveyusedinthestudyofMontanatouringbicyclistsconductedbytheUniversityofMontana.3Thesurveyfocusedonthefollowingaspectsoftripsmadebytouringbicyclists:

Lengthoftour;

SpendingwhileinMichigan;

Partysize;

Route;and

UseofU.S.BicycleRoutes.

TheAdventureCyclingAssociationassistedinthedistributionoftheonlinesurveybywritingblogpostsandsendingemailstopotentialself‐supportedtouringbicyclists.Additionally,flyerswereplacedatlocationsfrequentedbyself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichigan,includinglocationsattheMackinacBridgeandontheS.S.Badger.Inadditiontoquestionsaboutperdayexpenditures,thesurveyincludedquestionsabouttheuseofU.S.BicycleRoutes20and35,frequencyofmulti‐daybicycletripsinMichigan,andmainsurfacetypeusedwhileonamulti‐daybicycletripinMichigan.Surveyresponseswerecleanedtoremoveresponsesthatwerenotrelevanttotheeconomicimpactstudy,similartothedatacleaningprocessforthebicycleeventdatacollectionprocess.

Analysisfromtheonlinesurveysprovidedspendingprofilesforbothin‐stateandout‐of‐statetouringbicyclists.Atotalper‐dayeconomicimpactfortouringbicyclistswascalculatedusingIMPLANmultipliers.

Bicycle Touring Companies

AlistofcompaniesthatsupportorconductbicyclingtoursinMichiganwasdevelopedbasedoninformationfromMichigantourismwebsitesandHooversbusinesslistings.4Telephoneinterviewswereattemptedwithrepresentativesfromeachbusinessonthelistcoveringavarietyoftopicsrelatedtobicycletouringincluding:

Typesoftouringoffered;

Proportionofout‐of‐statecustomers;

Trendsinthebicycletouringbusiness;and

Waysthestatecouldsupportbicycletouring.

3Ibid.

4Hooversbusinesslistingsrepresentacomprehensive“phonebook”ofbusinessesacrosstheUnitedStates.Hooversdoesnotrequirebusinessestopayafeetobeincludedinitsbusinesslistings—itiscompletelyfreetolistedbusinesses.Hooversisacceptedasthemostcomprehensivesourceofbusinesslistingsinthenation.


Bicycling and Tourism in Michigan

ManyMichigantouristsaredrawntothestateduetorecreationalopportunitiessuchashikingandbicycling.SecondaryresearchontherelationshipbetweenbicyclingandthebroaderMichigantourismeconomywascollectedfromavarietyofsourcesincluding:

PureMichigan;

LocalChambersofCommerce;and

ResearchconductedbyMichiganStateUniversity’sExtension.

Researchcollectedfromtheseentitieswassummarizedandincludedinthereportinordertodocumenttheimportanceofbicyclingtonon‐bicycle‐specifictourism,andproviderecommendationsaboutfutureresearchorinitiativesrelatedtobicyclingandtourismstatewide.

SECTION III.

Economic Impact of Bicycling Events

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 1

SECTION III. Economic Impact of Bicycling Events

InordertoestimatetheeconomicbenefitstoMichiganfromout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingevents,acomprehensivelistofbicyclingeventswasdevelopedbasedontheLeagueofMichiganBicyclists(LMB)ridecalendar.WithinputfromMDOTstaff,anumberoflargeeventsthroughoutthestatewereidentifiedaspotentialcandidatesforindividualeconomicimpactstudies.Basedonresponsestoinitialoutreachemailsandcalls,sixeventswerechosenforindividualeconomicimpactstudies.Thesestudiesincludedinterceptdatacollectionwitharepresentativesampleofeventparticipantsaswellaskeydatafromeventorganizers.

Inadditiontotheinterceptsurveyeffort,onlinesurveyresponseswerecollectedfromparticipantsfromothereventsthroughoutthestate.Asdetailedinthemethodologydiscussionbelow,informationfromthesesurveysandeventswerecombinedwithinformationfromtheinterceptsurveyefforttodevelopanestimateoftheoveralleconomicimpactonMichiganduetoout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingevents.Thissectionprovidesanoverviewoftheeconomicimpactsurveyprocess,casestudiesoftheeconomicimpactforsixmajoreventsthroughoutMichigan,anoverviewofthedatacollectionfornon‐casestudyevents,andanestimateoftheoveralleconomicimpactofout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingeventsinMichigan.

Total Economic Impact

Inordertocalculatethetotaleconomicimpactofout‐of‐stateparticipants,bicyclingeventswereorganizedintothreecategories:casestudyevents,targetedevents,andallotherevents.Themethodologyusedtomakethesedistinctionsispresentedlaterinthissection.Spendingprofileswerecreatedforeachcasestudyevent,alltargetedeventsconsideredtogether,andallothereventsconsideredtogether.

Intotal,out‐of‐stateparticipantsinorganizedbicyclingeventsspentapproximately$15.6millioninthestateofMichiganin2014.Morethanhalfoftheseexpendituresweremadeinthecategoriesoffoodandbeveragespending(restaurant/barexpendituresaswellasmoneyspentongroceries)andlodgingexpenses.Theeconomicimpactanalysisconductedforthestudyfoundthatout‐of‐stateparticipantsinbicyclingeventsinMichiganwereresponsibleforapproximately$21.9millionineconomicimpactin2014.


Bicycling Event Economic Impact Surveys

BBCandR.NeunerConsultingworkedtogethertodistributeeconomicimpactsurveystobicyclistswhoparticipatedinanyorganizedbicyclingeventwithinthestateofMichiganin2014.Aspartofthesurveyeffort,stafffromR.Neunerconductedinterceptsurveysofbicyclistsatthesixcasestudyeventsidentifiedbythestudyteam.Intotal,approximately2,100surveyswerecompletedbycasestudyeventparticipants.

Inadditiontothein‐personinterceptsurveys,thestudyteamusedtheLMBridecalendartocontactbicycleeventorganizersinthestateofMichigan.EventorganizerswereaskedtosendoutalinktoanonlinesurveyhostedbySurveyMonkeythatexactlymirroredthephysicalsurveydistributedatthesixcasestudyevents.Approximately2,400onlinesurveyswerecompletedthroughSurveyMonkey.

Priortodataanalysis,surveyresponseswerecleanedtoremoveanswersthatwerenotrelevanttotheeconomicimpactstudy.SurveysfromrespondentswhoindicatedthattheyhadnotparticipatedinanorganizedbicyclingeventinthestateofMichiganwithinthepast12monthswerenotincludedinthefinalanalyses.

Additionally,somerespondentsdidnotreportparticipatinginaspecificevent.Forexample,inresponsetothequestionthataskedwhichbicyclingeventhadinvitedtherespondenttotakethesurvey,severalrespondentsindicatedthattheywereinvitedtotakethesurveybytheirlocalbicycleshoporinvitedthroughFacebook.Theseresponseswerealsoremovedfromthefinalanalyses.

Boththeonlineandphysicalsurveyscollecteddemographicandspendinginformationfromeventparticipants.Thesurveyscapturedexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatethetotaleconomicimpactinMichiganfromallout‐of‐stateparticipantsinbicyclingevents.ThesurveyinstrumentusedtocollectthedataonbicyclingeventsisincludedinAppendixD.

Case Study Events

Sixcasestudyeventswerechosenforindividualeconomicimpactstudiesincluding:

TheAppleCiderCentury;

DALMAC;

TheBell’sBeerIcemanComethChallenge;

TheMichigander;

TheOretoShoreMountainBikeEpic;and

TheTourdeTroit.

Theseeventswerechosenfortheirsize,geographicdiversity,andwillingnesstoparticipateinthestudyprocess.FigureIII‐1showsamapoftheroutesforthesixcasestudyevents.

BBC

FiguCas

Sourc

Ap

ThetoutheinS

Theand

C RESEARCH & C

ure III‐1. e Study Event

ce: BBC Research &

pple Cider C

eAppleCiderroftheorchasouthwestcoSeptember.

eACCisarecrdemphasizes

ONSULTING

ts

Consulting.

Century

Century(ACCards,forestsaornerofthes

reationalandthatallpartic

C)isanannuandwinecountate’slowerp

dsocialtourfocipantsridet

alone‐day15ntryinandarpeninsula.Th

orbicyclists.thetourinas

5,25,37,50,6roundThreeherideisheld

Itisnotintensafeandintel

62,75or100Oaks,Michigdeachyearon

ndedtobeacligentmanne

SECTION III, PA

0milebicyclegan,locatedinnthelastSun

competitiverer.

AGE 3

nnday

ide


Since1974,ithasbecometheMidwest'slargestone‐daycenturyevent(100miles),regularlyreachingover5,000cyclists.TheACCissponsoredbytheThreeOaksSpokesBicycleClub.FundsraisedareusedtofinancetheAppleCiderCenturyTour,theBackroadsBikewayRoutes,theBicycleMuseumhousedattheDeweyCannonTradingCompany,theLeagueofAmericanBicyclists,RailstoTrails,andtohelpfundcommunityyouthprogramsandothernonprofitorganizationfundraisingcauses.

Direct spending associated with all ACC participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,ACCparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallACCattendees.

Figure III‐2. Direct Spending in Michigan by All Event Attendees

Note:

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting.

FigureIII‐2showsthatACCattendeesspentover$1.6millioninthestateofMichiganduringthe2014ACC.

ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromlodgingexpenditures,foodandbeveragespending(restaurant/barexpendituresaswellasmoneyspentongroceries),andtransportationexpenses.

Lodging. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐2showsthatACCparticipantsspentapproximately$470,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.

Food and beverage. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐2,ACCparticipantsspentslightlylessthan$400,000duringtheirtrips.

Transportation. SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromACC,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐2showsthatACCparticipantsspentmorethan$260,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.

Expenditure

Lodging $470,022

Food and beverage 396,496

Transportation 262,414

Shopping and entertainment 229,968

Registration 208,740

Bicycles 86,640

Total Direct Spending $1,654,279

Total Direct

Spending


Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐2,ACCparticipantsspentapproximately$230,000duringtheirtrips.

Registration expenses.Theregistrationfeeforthe2014ACCwas$35.Thetotalregistrationexpensesforthe2014ACCarecalculatedasthetotalnumberofeventparticipants(approximately6,000in2014)multipliedbytheregistrationfee.FigureIII‐2showsthatACCparticipantsspentnearly$210,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014ACC.

Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐2showsthatACCparticipantsspentmorethan$85,000duringonbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.

Spending by non‐local participants. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallACCparticipants,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstateorfrommorethan50milesawaytoparticipateinthe2014ACC.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIII‐3.

Figure III‐3. Direct Spending in Michigan from Non‐local Participants

Note:


Source:


Eighty‐sevenpercentoftotalACCparticipantscametoMichiganfromoutofstate,while11percentofACCparticipantswerefromMichiganbuttravelledmorethan50milestoparticipateintheevent.Intotal,non‐localparticipantsaccountedforapproximately98percentofattendanceand99percentofthetotaldirectexpendituresrelatedtothe2014ACC.

OftheACCparticipantsthattravelledtoMichiganfromoutofstate,slightlylessthanthree‐fourths(74%),camefromIllinois.Sixteenpercentofout‐of‐stateACCattendeestravelledtoMichiganfromIndiana.FullresultsarepresentedinFigureIII‐4.

Expenditure

Lodging $416,459 $52,682

Food and beverage 343,058 51,207

Transportation 225,419 31,981

Shopping and entertainment 195,867 32,864

Registration 182,070 22,510

Bicycles 71,994 13,967

Total Direct Spending $1,434,867 $205,212

Out‐of‐State

Spending

50+ mile

Spending

BBC

FiguOrigAtte

Note:

“OtheOH, P

Sourc

BBC R

Totrepgentheitheia“s

AspMicresi

Figueve

C RESEARCH & C

ure III‐4. gin of Out‐of‐sendees

:

er” includes AK, CA, FPA, TX, WI, and WY.

ce:

Research & Consultin

tal economiortonlyreprneratedbyeveirmoneypurirearningsonsecondaryimp

previouslydischigan,sothatidentsisexclu

ureIII‐5presntthroughth

ONSULTING

state

FL, IA, KS, MN, NE, NY

ng.

ic impact ofesentsaportentparticipanrchasegoodsanlocalgoodspact.”

scussed,thistitonlycaptuudedfromth

entsthespenhelocalMichi

Y,

f ACC. Theditionofthetotntscirculatesandservicesandservices

impactanalyuresnewspeeoverallecon

ndingflowmoiganeconomy

irectspendintalimpactoftsinthelocalefromotherbu.Thisrecircu

ysisonlyinclundingintheMnomicspendi

odelusedtotyanddeterm

ngdiscusseditheACContheconomy.Bususinesses,anulationofmon

udesspendingMichiganecoingreported

tracetheflowinesthetotal

inthepreviouhestateofMicsinesseswherndworkersspneyintheeco

gbyvisitorsfnomy.Spendinthisstudy.

wofdollarsgeleconomicim

SECTION III, PA

ussectionoftchigan.Spendrevisitorssppendaportioonomyisterm

fromoutsidedingbyMichig.

eneratedbythmpactoftheA

AGE 6

thisdingendnofmed

ofgan

heACC.


Figure III‐5. Spending Flow Model

Source: BBC Research & Consulting.

FigureIII‐6onthefollowingpageshowsthedirectimpacts,secondaryimpact,andtotaleconomicimpactassociatedwiththe2014ACC.Itisimportanttonotethatthisvalueonlyincludeseconomicactivitygeneratedbyout‐of‐stateACCparticipants.Addingthedirectandsecondaryimpacts,theACChasatotaleconomicimpactofmorethan$1.9milliononthestateofMichigan.

Thedirectimpactsasaresultofout‐of‐stateparticipant’sspendingarelessthanthedirectexpendituresofout‐of‐stateparticipants.Certaincategoriesofexpendituresincreasethedirecteffectsassociatedwiththoseexpendituresatalessthanonetooneratio.Forexample,aportionofthedirecttransportationexpensesareestimatedtoaccruetobusinesseslocatedoutsideofthestateofMichiganandarenotincludedinthedirectimpact.Additionally,thedirectimpactsoffoodandbeverageandshoppingandentertainmentexpendituresarelessthanthetotalexpendituresinthosecategories.Thedirectimpactsinthesecategoriesrepresentthemarginalvaluetobusinessownersinthosecategories—thedifferencebetweentheamountthatanitemsellsforatretailpricesandtheamountthattheretailerpaidtopurchaseanitemfromitsoriginalproducer.

Total Impact

Direct Impact

Secondary Impact

Lodging

Registration

Food andBeverage

Shopping and Entertainment

Transportation

Bicycles

2014 ACC

Participant Expenditures


Figure III‐6. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 ACC

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Source: BBC Research and Consulting.

DALMAC

Along‐time,well‐knownroadbicyclingtour,DALMACisshorthandfortheDickAllenLansingtoMackinacbicycletour.TheridewasfoundedbystatesenatorDickAllen,who,in1971,soughttocreateaneventtodemonstratethatbicyclesandautomobilescouldsafelyshareMichigan’sscenicroadways.Overthelast45years,DALMAChasgrownfromarideconsistingofadozenorsoofAllen’sfriendstoasubstantialroadtouringoperationthatattractsnearly1,600ridersperyearfromacrosstheUnitedStatesandCanada.

EveryyearoverLaborDayweekend,DALMACsendsridersofffromthecampusofMichiganStateUniversityinEastLansingtocompleteoneofseveralrouteoptions.Therouteoptionsvaryfromfourtofivedaysandofferavarietyofdistancesandterrain.SomeroutesfinishinMackinawCityatthenorthernedgeofMichigan’slowerpeninsula,whilethe5‐DayEastand5‐

SecondaryImpact

Total Impact

Direct Impact

2014 ACC


Lodging$ 416,459

Registration$ 179,631

Food &Beverage$ 275,207


$ 86,704

Transportation$ 105,767

Bicycles$ 71,994

$ 809,113 $ 1,944,875

$ 1,135,762 $ 809,113 $ 1,944,875 + =


UProutescontinueacrosstheMackinacBridge,throughaspecialprogramwiththeMackinacBridgeAuthorityandMDOTescortingcyclistssafelyacross.

Thetraditional5‐DayroutefollowsasimilarpathastheWestroute,withanextradaytoenjoythesights.TheEastrouteclimbstothefamousHoughton/HigginsLakesareaandconcludeswithaspectacularandbreathtakingrideovertheMackinacBridge,or"MightyMac,"beforeendinginStIgnace.The5‐UProutealsoincludesacrossingoftheMackinacBridgebutcontinuesonthroughtheUpperPeninsulatofinishatSaultSte.Marie.

Eachnightonthetour,DALMACparticipantscampatcommunitysites(suchasschools)andeatmealsatschoolcafeterias.TheseovernightsareoftenfundraisingeventsfortheschoolsandotherfacilitiesthathostDALMACriders.Someridersalsotakeadvantageofprivatesupportandgear(SAG)andcampingservices.

ProceedsfromtheDALMAChelpsupporttheDALMACFund,whichgrantsmoniestoapplicantsforbicyclingsafety,bicyclingadvocacy,andsomeinfrastructureprojectseachyear.TheFundhasawardedover$1.2millioningrantstobiking‐relatedcausesoverthepast30years.1

Direct spending associated with all DALMAC participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,DALMACparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallDALMACparticipants.


Note:


Source:


FigureIII‐7showsthatDALMACparticipantsspentover$1.1millioninthestateofMichiganduringthe2014DALMAC.

ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromregistrationfeespaiddirectlytotheevent,foodandbeveragespending,andlodgingexpenses.

1http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/travel/michigan/2014/08/27/dalmac‐draws‐riders‐th‐year/14686651/

Expenditure

Registration $386,169


Lodging 195,037


Bicycles 116,237



Total Direct

Spending


Registration expenses. DALMACparticipantswereaskedwhichridetheyparticipatedin—5‐Day(traditional),5‐DayUP,5‐DayEast,or4‐DayWest.Thefive‐dayeventshavehigherregistrationcoststhanthefour‐dayevent.BBCcalculatedaweightedaverageofregistrationfeesbasedonwhicheventsurveyrespondentsindicatedparticipatingin.

FigureIII‐7showsthat,intotal,approximately1,700DALMACattendeesspentover$385,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014DALMAC.

Food and beverage. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐7,DALMACattendeesspentapproximately$250,000duringtheirtrips.

Lodging. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐7showsthatDALMACattendeesspentapproximately$195,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.

Transportation. SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromDALMAC,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐7showsthatDALMACattendeesspentnearly$130,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.

Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐7showsthatDALMACattendeesspentmorethan$115,000duringonbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.

Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐7,DALMACattendeesspentapproximately$95,000duringtheirtrips.

Spending by non‐local attendees. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallDALMACattendees,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstateorfrommorethan50milesawaytoparticipateinthe2014DALMAC.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedinFigureIII‐8.

Figure III‐8. Direct Spending in Michigan from Non‐local Attendees

Note:


Source:


Expenditure

Registration $56,202 $125,209


Lodging 25,828 73,735


Bicycles 15,232 35,197


Total Direct Spending $202,243 $371,170

Out‐of‐State

Spending

50+ mile

Spending

BBC

Fiftattetotaofth

Oftthirperresu

FiguOrigAtte

Note:

“OtheNY, PA

Sourc

BBC R

Tottotacirc

Thisot

Formanspe

FiguwithgenDAL

C RESEARCH & C

teenpercentoendeeswerefal,non‐localahetotaldirec

theDALMACprds(64%)camcentofout‐ofultsareprese


:

er” includes CA, FL, MA, TX, VA, and WA.

ce:


tal economialimpactofthculatesinthe

simpactanalthatitonlyca

rsomeexpendnufacturingondingtothed

ureIII‐10shohthe2014DAneratedbyoutLMAChasato

ONSULTING

oftotalattendfromMichigaattendeesaccctexpenditure

participantstmefromthenf‐stateDALMentedinFigur

state

MA, MN, MO, NC, NJ,

ng.

ic impact ofheDALMACoeconomy,cre

lysisonlyinclapturesspend

diturecategoorprocessingdirecteconom

owsthedirectALMAC.Itisit‐of‐stateDAotaleconomic

deescametoanbuttravelleountedforapesrelatedtot

thattravellednearbystatesACattendeesreIII‐9.

,

f DALMAC. Tonthestateofeatinga“seco

ludesspendindingintheMi

ries,asubstathatoccursomicimpactfo

timpacts,secimportanttoLMACattendcimpactofap

Michiganfroedmorethanpproximatelythe2014DAL

dtoMichiganofIllinois,Instravelledto

ThedirectspfMichigan.Spondaryimpac

ngbyDALMAchiganecono

antialportionoutsideofMicrthesecateg

condaryimpanotethatthisees.Addingtpproximately

moutofstaten50milestopy47percentoLMAC.

fromoutofsndiana,Ohio,aMichiganfro

pendingreprependinggenect.”

ACparticipantomythatoccu

noftheretailchigan.Asargoriesislesst

act,andtotalsvalueonlyithedirectandy$290,000on

S

e,whileone‐tparticipateinofattendance

state,slightlyandWisconsimstatesfarth

esentsonecomeratedbyeve

tsfromoutsidursduetothe

priceisassocesult,theratithanone.

economicimncludesecondsecondaryimnthestateof

SECTION III, PAG

thirdofDALMntheevent.Ineand49perce

lessthantwoin.Thirty‐sixheraway.Th

mponentoftntparticipan

deofMichigaeevent.

ciatedwithioofdirect

pactassociatnomicactivitympacts,theMichigan.

GE 11

MACnent

o‐

ese

thents

an,

tedy


Figure III‐10. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 DALMAC



The Bell’s Beer Iceman Cometh Challenge

ThefirstIcemanComethwasheldin1990andwaslessofaracethananadventureandanexperiment—onetoseeifmountainbikescouldmakethejourneyfromKalkaskatoTraverseCity.Theinitialridewasasuccessandthe$5entryfeeincludedapost‐racebarbecueatJellystoneParkinTraverseCity.

Today,theBell’sBeerIcemanComethisapoint‐to‐pointmountainbikerace,traditionallyheldonthefirstSaturdayofNovember.TheracestartsindowntownKalkaskaandtravelsthroughthePereMarquetteStateForest,finishingapproximately29milesawayatarecreationresortontheeasternedgeofTraverseCity.Onthewayridersrolloverpavedroads,dirtroads,twotracks,abandonedrailroadbeds,andpartsoftheVasaNordicskitrail.

SecondaryImpact

Total Impact

Direct Impact

2014 DALMAC



Lodging$ 25,828


Bicycle$ 15,232


$ 15,357


$ 123,811 $ 292,588

$ 168,778 $ 123,811 $ 292,588 + =


Inadditiontothe29‐milerace,theMeijerSlushCupoffersyoungerridersaneight‐mileloopversionoftheeventthatstartsatTimberRidgeandfollowstheVasa10Kskitrail.BothraceshavesoldoutwithinhourswhenregistrationopenseachMarch.

Inits25thyear,theIcemanattractedapproximately5,500registrantsfromacrosstheUnitedStatesandfromasfarawayasAustralia.Accordingtoraceorganizers,about30riderswereprofessionalracers.2

Bothprofessionalandamateurcategoriesareeligibleforcashprizeswithaminimumcashpurseofmorethan$50,000.3In2014,MichiganYouthCyclingawardedthreescholarshipstothetopthreefinishersintheMYC12‐18categoriesforbothmaleandfemalebicyclists.

Direct spending associated with all Iceman participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,Icemanparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallIcemanattendees.


Note:


Source:


FigureIII‐11showsthatIcemanattendeesspentapproximately$2.3millioninthestateofMichiganduringthe2014IcemanCometh.

ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromlodgingexpenses,foodandbeveragespending,andregistrationfeespaiddirectlytotheevent.

Lodging.Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐11showsthatIcemanattendeesspentapproximately$620,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.

2http://www.ahealthiermichigan.org/2014/11/06/gear‐up‐for‐the‐iceman‐cometh‐challenge/

3http://www.iceman.com/pages/awards

Expenditure

Lodging $622,904


Registration 366,750



Bicycles 185,865


Total Direct

Spending


Food and beverage.Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐11,Icemanattendeesspentslightlylessthan$550,000duringtheirtrips.

Registration expenses.Theregistrationfeeforthe2014Icemanwas$75.Thetotalregistrationexpensesforthe2014Icemanarecalculatedasthetotalnumberofeventparticipants(approximately4,900in2014)multipliedbytheregistrationfee.FigureIII‐11showsthatIcemanparticipantsspentmorethan$365,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014IcemanCometh.

Transportation. SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromIceman,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐11showsthatIcemanattendeesspentnearly$350,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.

Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐11,Icemanattendeesspentmorethan$285,000duringtheirtrips.

Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐11showsthatIcemanattendeesspentmorethan$185,000onbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.

Spending by non‐local attendees. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallIcemanattendees,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstate,orfrommorethan50milestoparticipateinthe2014Iceman.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIII‐12.


Note:


Source:


Thirty‐sixpercentoftotalattendeescametoMichiganfromoutofstate,whilemorethanhalf(52%)ofIcemanattendeeswerefromMichiganbuttravelledmorethan50milestoparticipateintheevent.Intotal,non‐localattendeesaccountedforapproximately88percentofattendanceand91percentofthetotaldirectexpendituresrelatedtothe2014IcemanCometh.

Icemaneventorganizerswereabletoprovidearegistrationlogthatincludedinformationonrider’sstatesoforigin.UsingthislistthestudyteamcalculatedthatoftheIcemanparticipants

Expenditure

Lodging $272,597 $319,828





Bicycles 57,138 105,129

Total Direct Spending $939,094 $1,208,775

Out‐of‐State

Spending

50+ mile

Spending

BBC

thatIndMic

FiguOrigAtte

Note:

“Otheand A

Sourc

BBC R

Totecoesti

AspMicrep

Formanspe

FiguwithgenIcem

C RESEARCH & C

ttravelledtoiana,Ohio,anchiganfromst


:

er” includes 32 statesAustralia.

ce:


tal econominomycreatesimateofthet

previouslydischigan.Spendortedinthis

rsomeparticinufacturingondingtothed

ureIII‐14shohthe2014Icneratedbyoutmanhasatot

ONSULTING

MichiganfrondWisconsintatesfarther

state

s as well as Canada

ng.

ic impact ofsa“secondarotaleconomi

scussed,thisdingbyMichigstudy.

ipantexpendiorprocessingdirecteconom

owsthedirectceman.Itisimt‐of‐stateIcemtaleconomici

omoutofstat.Twenty‐fiveaway.These

f Iceman Coryimpact.”Adcimpactont

impactanalyganresidents

itures,asubsthatoccursomicimpactfo

timpacts,secmportanttonmanattendeeimpactofapp

e,three‐fourtepercentoforesultsarepr

ometh. Recirddingthedirethestate.

ysisonlyinclusisexcludedf

tantialportiooutsideofMicrthesecateg

condaryimpaotethatthisves.Addingtheproximately$

thscamefromut‐of‐stateIcresentedinF

rculationofdectandsecon

udesspendingfromtheover

onoftheretachigan.Asargoriesislesst

act,andtotalvalueonlyincedirectands$1.3milliono

S

mthenearbycemanattendeFigureIII‐13.

irectspendinndaryimpacts

gbyvisitorsfralleconomic

ilpriceisassesult,theratithanone.

economicimcludeseconomsecondaryimonthestateof

SECTION III, PAG

statesofIllineestravelled

nginthesprovidesan

fromoutsidecspending

ociatedwithioofdirect

pactassociatmicactivity

mpacts,thefMichigan.

GE 15

nois,to

of

ted


Figure III‐14. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 Iceman



Michigander

TheMichiganderBicycleTourstartedin1992asacollaborativeeffortbetweentheMichiganRailstoTrailsConservancy(RTC)andtheDetroitFreePress.Atthetime,theconceptofconvertingabandonedrailroadbedsintorecreational“railtrails”wasanewidea,stillawaitingwidespreadpublicsupport.

TodaytheMichiganderisapopularroadbikingtourthatshowcasesMichigan’snationalleadershiponrails‐to‐trails.Therearetworouteoptions:atwo‐daytour—agreatchoiceforfamiliesandfirst‐timeriderswhowanttoexperiencewhatbicycletouringentails;andasixdaytour,whichoffersridersthechancetoextendtheirfunandchallengetheirfitnessoveraweekofriding.

TheMichiganderwasnamedoneofthe“Top10Multi‐DayRidesinAmerica”byBicyclingMagazine.TheridecombinesbeautifulviewsalongtheGreatLakesonpavedandcrushed

SecondaryImpact

Total Impact

Direct Impact

2014 Iceman


Lodging$ 272,597



Bicycle$ 57,138



$ 38,359

$ 532,341 $ 1,279,978

$ 747,637 $ 532,341 $ 1,279,978 + =


limestonesurfacetrailswithampleoptionsforactivitiesandentertainmentinsmalltownsalongtheway.

AllproceedsfromthetourbenefitthenonprofitMichiganTrailstoGreenwaysAllianceandtheireffortstoconnectMichiganthroughastatewidesystemoftrails.

Direct spending associated with all Michigander participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,Michiganderparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallMichiganderattendees.


Note:


Source:


FigureIII‐15showsthatMichiganderattendeesspentapproximately$480,000inthestateofMichiganduringthe2014Michigander.

ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromregistrationfeespaiddirectlytotheeventandfoodandbeveragespending.

Registration expenses. Michiganderparticipants(643in2014)wereaskedwhichridetheyparticipatedin—the2‐Day,6‐Day,or7‐Dayride. Thesix‐andseven‐dayeventshavehigherregistrationcoststhanthetwo‐dayevent.BBCcalculatedaweightedaverageofregistrationfeesbasedonwhicheventsurveyrespondentsindicatedparticipatingin.

FigureIII‐15showsthat,intotal,Michiganderattendeesspentover$175,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014Michigander.

Food and beverage.Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐15,Michiganderattendeesspentslightlylessthan$115,000duringtheirtrips.

Lodging.Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐15showsthatMichiganderattendeesspentapproximately$65,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.

Expenditure



Lodging 62,990



Bicycles 31,653

Total Direct Spending $477,071

Total Direct

Spending


Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐15,Michiganderattendeesspentmorethan$50,000duringtheirtrips.

Transportation. SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromtheMichigander,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐15showsthatMichiganderattendeesspentslightlymorethan$40,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.

Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐15showsthatMichiganderattendeesspentmorethan$30,000onbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.

Spending by non‐local attendees. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallMichiganderattendees,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstate,orfrommorethan50milestoparticipateinthe2014Michigander.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIII‐16.


Note:


Source:


SixteenpercentoftotalattendeescametoMichiganfromoutofstate,whilethree‐quartersofMichiganderattendeeswerefromMichiganbuttravelledmorethan50milestoparticipateintheevent.Intotal,non‐localattendeesaccountedforapproximately92percentofattendanceand92percentofthetotaldirectexpendituresrelatedtothe2014Michigander.

Michigandereventorganizersprovidedthestudyteamwiththenumberofout‐of‐stateparticipants,butdidnotprovideafullregistrationlog.Thestudyteamattemptedtodeterminethestatesoforiginoftheout‐of‐stateattendeesusingsurveyresponses,butdidnotreceivealargeenoughsampleofresponsestoestimatewithconfidencethestatesoforiginforout‐of‐stateattendees.Ofthesurveysthatwerecompletedbyout‐of‐stateattendees,respondentscametoMichiganfrom16differentstates.

Total economic impact of Michigander. DirectspendingbyMichiganderparticipantscirculatesthroughthestateeconomyandcreatesa“secondaryimpact.”Thetotaleconomicimpactiscalculatedbyaddingthedirectandsecondaryimpact.

Expenditure



Lodging 17,294 42,306

Shopping and Entertainment 16,809 32,776


Bicycles 6,324 23,391


Out‐of‐State

Spending

50+ mile

Spending


Aspreviouslydiscussed,thisimpactanalysisonlyincludesspendingbyvisitorsfromoutsideofMichigan,sothatitonlycapturesnewspendingintheMichiganeconomy.SpendingbyMichiganresidentsisexcludedfromtheoveralleconomicspendingreportedinthisstudy.

Forsomeparticipantexpenditures,asubstantialportionoftheretailpriceisassociatedwithmanufacturingorprocessingthatoccursoutsideofMichigan.Asaresult,theratioofdirectspendingtothedirecteconomicimpactforthesecategoriesislessthanone(e.g.thismightrepresenttheretailmargin).

FigureIII‐17showsthedirectimpacts,secondaryimpact,andtotaleconomicimpactassociatedwiththe2014Michigander.Itisimportanttonotethatthisvalueonlyincludeseconomicactivitygeneratedbyout‐of‐stateMichiganderattendees.Addingthedirectandsecondaryimpacts,theMichiganderhasatotaleconomicimpactofapproximately$176,000onthestateofMichigan.

Figure III‐17. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 Michigander



SecondaryImpact

Total Impact

Direct Impact

2014 Michigander



Lodging$ 17,294


Bicycle$ 6,324


$ 6,928


$ 74,401 $ 175,777

$ 101,375 $ 74,401 $ 175,777 + =


Ore to Shore

TheOretoShoreMountainBikeRaceisthelargestmassstartpoint‐to‐pointmountainbikeraceinthestateofMichigan,heldinMarquetteCountyinMichigan’sUpperPeninsula.TheOretoShorehasgrownoverthelast16years,from480racersin1999toover2,500racersin2014.

TheraceattractsridersfromacrosstheGreatLakesregiontothechallengeofcompletinga28‐mileor48‐milecourse.Giventhepoint‐to‐pointnatureoftheevent,thestartlineisthetownofNeguanee,thesiteofthefirstdiscoveryofironoreintheSuperiorregionoftheUnitedStates.RacerstravelalongacoursethattakesthemthroughIshpeming,pastlong‐agoabandonedsitesofundergroundoremining,throughwoodedwilderness,andfinallyintotheCityofMarquetteneartheshoresofLakeSuperior.

Thereisalsoa10‐mileShoreRockrouteforentry‐levelracersandkidswantingtoparticipate.TheShoreRockcourseisacirclethatstartsandendsinMarquette.

RaceorganizersattributethesuccessoftheOretoShoretoacombinationoffactors,includingtheterraininMarquetteCounty,locatedonthesouthernshoresofLakeSuperior.WiththeLakeasabackdrop,racersenjoymagnificentviewsalongacoursethatbeginsagradualdescentatabout20milesoutfromthefinishline.

Raceorganizershavepairedtheeventpacketpickupwithalargeexpoeventfeaturingdozensofvendors.PrizemoneyisawardedtotopfinishersinboththeHardRockandSoftRockracecategories.

Direct spending associated with all Ore to Shore participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,OretoShoreparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallOretoShoreattendees.


Note:


Source:


FigureIII‐18showsthatOretoShoreattendeesspentmorethanonemilliondollarsinthestateofMichiganduringthe2014OretoShore.

Expenditure

Food and beverage $317,282

Lodging 312,584


Shopping and Entertainment 124,076

Registration 97,500

Bicycles 41,719


Total Direct

Spending


ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromfoodandbeveragespendingandlodgingexpenditures.

Food and beverage.Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐18,OretoShoreattendeesspentmorethan$315,000duringtheirtrips.

Lodging.Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐18showsthatOretoShoreattendeesspentmorethan$310,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.

Transportation.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromOretoShore,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐18showsthatOretoShoreattendeesspentslightlymorethan$140,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.

Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐18,OretoShoreattendeesspentapproximately$125,000duringtheirtrips.

Registration expenses. Totalregistrationexpensesforthe2014OretoShorearecalculatedasthetotalnumberofeventparticipants(approximately1300in2014)multipliedbytheregistrationfee.FigureIII‐18showsthatOretoShoreparticipantsspentapproximately$100,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014OretoShore.

Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐18showsthatOretoShoreattendeesspentmorethan$40,000onbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.

Spending by non‐local attendees. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallOretoShoreattendees,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstate,orfrommorethan50milestoparticipateinthe2014OretoShore.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIII‐19.


Note:


Source:


Expenditure

Food and beverage $253,567 $60,460

Lodging 254,506 54,190


Shopping and Entertainment 101,263 20,948


Bicycles 30,248 10,521


Out‐of‐State

Spending

50+ mile

Spending

BBC

Sevquaparatte

Oftfrom

FiguOrigAtte

Note:

“OtheMT, N

Sourc

BBC R

TotecoMic

AspMicresi

Formanspe

FiguwithgenOre

C RESEARCH & C

ventypercentarter(27%)oticipateintheendanceand9

theOretoShomWisconsin.


:

er” includes CA, CO, FNH, OH, OR, and SD.

ce:


tal econominomycreateschiganeconom


rsomeexpendnufacturingondingtothed

ureIII‐21shohthe2014OrneratedbyoutetoShorehas

ONSULTING

oftotalattenofOretoShoreevent.Intot98percentof

oreparticipanFullresultsa

state

FL, HI, IA, IN, KS, KY,

ng.

ic impact ofsa“secondarmyisthesum


diturecategoorprocessingdirecteconom

owsthedirectretoShore.Itt‐of‐stateOresatotalecono

ndeescametoeattendeeswtal,non‐localfthetotaldire

ntsthattravearepresented

f Ore to Shoryimpact.”Thmofthedirect


ries,asubstathatoccursomicimpactfo

timpacts,sectisimportantetoShoreatteomicimpacto

oMichiganfrowerefromMiattendeesacectexpenditu

elledtoMichigdinFigureIII

ore. Thecircuhetotaleconotandseconda


antialportionoutsideofMicrthesecateg

condaryimpattonotethatendees.Addinofapproxima

omoutofstachiganbuttrccountedforauresrelatedt

ganfromoutI‐20.

ulationofdireomicimpactoaryimpactsa


noftheretailchigan.Asargoriesislesst

act,andtotaltthisvalueonngthedirectately$1.1mill

S

te,whilemoravelledmoreapproximatelothe2014O

ofstate,mor

ectspendingofOretoShorassociatedwit


priceisassocesult,theratithanone.

economicimnlyincludeseandsecondaliononthest

SECTION III, PAG

rethanone‐ethan50milely97percentretoShore.

rethanhalfca

intheMichigreontheththeevent.


ciatedwithioofdirect

pactassociateconomicactiryimpacts,thateofMichig

GE 22

estotof

ame

gan

ofgan

tedvityhean.


Figure III‐21. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 Ore to Shore



Tour de Troit

TheTourdeTroit(TdT)isaone‐dayurbanbicycleridethatexploressomeoftheDetroit’smosthistoricareas,takesinmanyofitsmostbreathtakingsights,andprovidesbicyclistsauniqueopportunitytoenjoythestreetsoftheMotorCitywiththousandsofbicyclists.

Asthecity’slargestcyclingevent,TdTraisesawarenessofbikingasamodeoftransportationandpublicizesthegrowinggreenwaysnetworkintheCityofDetroitandSoutheastMichigan.Initsfirstyearin2001,theTdTwassupportedwithabiketrailerequippedwithacooler,pumpandsometools,whileT‐shirtsaleshelpedoffsettheexpenseofprintmaterialsandotherexpenses.Theridedrew50people.In2014,theTdThasgrowntobethelargestbicyclingeventinthestateofMichigan,drawingover7,500riders.ThisexponentialgrowthisanexampleofthegrowthofurbanbicyclinginMichiganandarenewedinterestintheCityofDetroit.Since2005,

SecondaryImpact

Total Impact

Direct Impact

2014 Ore to Shore


Lodging$ 254,506





$ 59,760

Bicycle$ 30,248

$ 469,364 $ 1,130,280

$ 660,915 $ 469,364 $ 1,130,280 + =


theTourdeTroitridehasraisedover$180,000forthegreenwaysnetworkandnon‐motorizedtransportationprojectsinDetroit.4

TdThastworouteoptions.Thefirst—andprimary—isaleisurelyrideof30mileswithpoliceescortonaclosedroutewithsweeper‐andSAGsupport.Forexperiencedcyclists,theTourdeTroitoffersametriccentury(62miles)optionthatdoesnotincludepoliceescort.Rideorganizersreportthattheyspendover$100,000tosupporttheride’spolicepresence.

Direct spending associated with all TdT participants. Asapartoftheregistrationprocess,TdTparticipantswereaskedtocompleteaninterceptsurveythatcollecteddemographicandspendinginformation.Participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytoparticipateonlineaftercompletingtheride.Theinterceptandonlinesurveyscapturedparticipantexpendituresonlodging,foodandbeverage,shoppingandentertainment,bicyclesandcomponents,transportation,andeventregistration.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentperdaywhileinMichigan.SurveydatawereusedtoestimatetotaldirectspendinginMichiganfromallTdTattendees.


Note:


Source:


FigureIII‐22showsthatTdTattendeesspentapproximately$880,000inthestateofMichiganduringthe2014TdT.

ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromregistrationfeespaiddirectlytotheevent,transportationexpenditures,andfoodandbeveragespending.

Registration expenses. Totalregistrationexpensesforthe2014TdTarecalculatedasthetotalnumberofeventparticipants(approximately7,500in2014)multipliedbytheregistrationfee.FigureIII‐22showsthatTdTparticipantsspentnearly$225,000onregistrationfeestoparticipateinthe2014TdT.

Transportation.SurveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentontransportationtoandfromTdT,includingairfare,gasoline,publictransportation,carrentalorparking.FigureIII‐22showsthatTdTattendeesspentslightlymorethan$200,000ontransportationduringtheirtrips.

4http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/08/13th_annual_tour_de_troit_bike.html

Expenditure




Lodging 128,051


Bicycles 59,045

Total Direct Spending $876,117

Total Direct

Spending


Food and beverage.Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtheyspentonrestaurants,bars,andgrocerieswhileinMichigan.AsshowninFigureIII‐22,TdTattendeesspentmorethan$190,000duringtheirtrips.

Lodging.Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonlodging,includingmoneyspentonhotelsandcampgrounds.FigureIII‐22showsthatTdTattendeesspentmorethan$125,000onlodging‐relatedexpenseswhileinMichigan.

Shopping and entertainment. Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheamountofmoneythattheirpartyspentonnon‐foodshoppingsuchasclothingorsouvenirs,aswellasnon‐bicyclingentertainmentsuchasamusementparksormovietheatersduringtheirtrips.AsshowninFigureIII‐22,TdTattendeesspentmorethan$70,000duringtheirtrips.

Bicycles. Thesurveysaskedparticipantshowmuchtheyspentonbicycles,components,repairs,andaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.FigureIII‐22showsthatTdTattendeesspentapproximately$60,000onbicyclesandbicycle‐relatedrepairsandaccessoriesduringtheirtrips.

Spending by non‐local attendees. InadditiontolookingatthedirectspendingofallTdTattendees,itisappropriatetoexaminespendingfromnon‐localeventparticipants.Non‐localparticipantsaredefinedasthosewhotravelledfromoutofstate,orfrommorethan50milestoparticipateinthe2014TdT.BBCanalyzedthisgroup’sdirectspendingseparately,andresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIII‐23.


Note:


Source:


TenpercentoftotalattendeescametoMichiganfromoutofstate,whileone‐quarterofTdTattendeeswerefromMichiganbuttravelledmorethan50milestoparticipateintheevent.Intotal,non‐localattendeesaccountedforapproximately35percentofattendanceand55percentofthetotaldirectexpendituresrelatedtothe2014TdT.

OftheTdTparticipantsthattravelledtoMichiganfromoutofstate,almosthalfcamefromCanada.FullresultsarepresentedinFigureIII‐24.

Expenditure




Lodging 62,053 43,121


Bicycles 6,765 13,589


Out‐of‐State

Spending

50+ mile

Spending

BBC

FiguOrigAtte

Note:

“OtheND, th

Sourc

BBC R

Totinthimp

AspMicresi

Formanspe

Figuwithgentota

C RESEARCH & C


:

er” includes CA, CT, Dhe Netherlands, PA,

ce:


tal economihelocaleconpactrepresen


rsomeparticinufacturingondingtothed

ureIII‐25shohthe2014Tdneratedbyoutaleconomicim

ONSULTING

state

DC, IL, IN, KY, MN, MTN, VA, WA, and WI.

ng.

ic impact ofomyandcreantsthetotalec


ipantexpendiorprocessingdirecteconom

owsthedirectdT.Itisimpot‐of‐stateTdTmpactofappr

O, .

f TdT. Spendatesa“secondconomicimpa


itures,asubsthatoccursomicimpactfo

timpacts,secrtanttonoteTattendees.Aroximately$3

inggenerateddaryimpact.”actofTourde


tantialportiooutsideofMicrthesecateg

condaryimpathatthisvaluAddingthedi300,000onth

dbyTourde”ThesumofteTroitonthe


onoftheretachigan.Asargoriesislesst

act,andtotalueonlyincludirectandsecohestateofMi

S

TroitparticipthedirectandeMichiganec


ilpriceisassesult,theratithanone.

economicimdeseconomicondaryimpacichigan.

SECTION III, PAG

pantscirculatdsecondaryconomy.


ociatedwithioofdirect

pactassociatcactivitycts,theTdTh

GE 26

tes

ofgan

ted

asa


Figure III‐25. Total Economic Impact from Out‐of‐state Participants, 2014 TdT



Non‐case Study Events

Inadditiontothesixcasestudyevents,theteamgroupedeventsintothecategoriesof“targetedevents”and“allotherevents.”AlistoftheeventsincludedinthesecategoriesisincludedinAppendixE.

Targeted events. Thetargetedeventscategoryincludesbicycleeventsthatarelargeinsize(e.g.,greaterthan500attendants),orarelikelytohaveasubstantialout‐of‐stateattendance(e.g.,partofanationaltour,locatedclosetoastateborder,etc.),butdonothavethesamenationalrecognitionasthecasestudyevents.Intotal,thestudyteamdeterminedthat32eventsinthestateofMichiganfellintothiscategory,withtotalattendanceofapproximately40,000participants.

Over550surveyswerecompletedbybicycleeventparticipantsthattookpartinatargetedeventinMichiganin2014.BBCconstructedanevent‐relatedspendingmodeltocalculatetheaverage

SecondaryImpact

Total Impact

Direct Impact

2014 Tour de Troit


Lodging$ 62,053




$ 7,166


Bicycle$ 6,765

$ 125,034 $ 298,185

$ 173,151 $ 125,034 $ 298,185 + =


dollaramountspentbyeventparticipants.Averagesfromthesesurveyswereusedtocreateaspendingprofileforatypicalparticipanttothistypeofevent.

All other events. Therewereanumberofeventsidentifiedthatwerenotlargeenough,basedonattendanceornationaldraw,towarrantclassificationinthetargetedeventscategory.Althoughtheseeventsundoubtedlydrawout‐of‐stateparticipants,theirestimatedout‐of‐stateparticipationratewasnotassubstantialasaneventinthetargetedeventscategory(e.g.,5%out‐of‐stateattendanceforaneventinthiscategory,comparedto20%out‐of‐stateattendanceinthetargetedeventscategory).

Intotal,BBCcategorizedslightlymorethan100bicycleeventsintothiscategory.5Obtainingattendancedataforeventsinthiscategorywasmoredifficultthanforeventswithalargerpresenceinthebicyclingcommunity.Duetotheirsmallersize,manyoftheeventsdidnothaveindividualwebsitesorpublicly‐availableregistrationnumbers.Inordertoestimatethetotalnumberofbicyclistsparticipatingintheseevents,thestudyteamattemptedtodeterminethetotalnumberofeventparticipantsforasmanyeventsaspossiblebasedonpublicallyavailableinformation.Foreventswherereliableparticipationnumberscouldnotbedetermined,BBCusedthemedianattendancenumbersforeventsinthiscategoryforwhichreliableattendancedatawereavailable.BBCestimatesthatapproximately35,000bicyclistsparticipateineventsinthiscategoryinMichiganeveryyear.

Overall Economic Impact of Michigan Bicycling Events

InordertocalculatethetotalamountofdirectexpendituresrelatedtobicycleeventsinthestateofMichiganin2014,BBCsummedbicycleevent‐relatedexpendituresforout‐of‐statevisitorsparticipatinginthesixcasestudyevents,targetedevents,andallotherevents.

BBCinitiallyanalyzedthesurveyresponsesandfoundthattheout‐of‐stateparticipationratereportedviatheonlinesurveywasmuchlowerthananticipated.Inordertocheckthattheonlinesurveyswerebeingcompletedbyarepresentativeproportionofout‐of‐stateattendants,BBCanalyzedtheout‐of‐stateparticipationrateforthecasestudyevents.BBCcomparedtheactualout‐of‐stateproportionofcasestudyeventparticipants(calculatedusingeventregistrationlogs)totheproportionofcasestudyeventparticipantsrespondingtotheonlinesurveywhoindicatedtravellingtoMichiganfromadifferentstate.

Thisanalysisshowedthattheonlinesurveyunderrepresentedthetrueproportionofout‐of‐stateeventparticipantsatthesixcasestudyevents.Forthisreason,theproportionofout‐of‐stateparticipantsatcasestudyeventswascalculatedusingregistrationlogs,andnotfromthesurveyresponses.Forthetargetedeventsandallotherevents,BBCinflatedtheout‐of‐stateproportioncalculatedfromonlinesurveyresponsestobetterreflectthetrueout‐of‐stateparticipationrate.BBCwasthenabletoestimatethetotalnumberofout‐of‐stateparticipantstotargetedeventsandallothereventsinMichiganin2014.

5Eventsforwhichtheout‐of‐stateattendanceratewasestimatedtobeatornearzerowereexcludedfromthiscategory.Theseeventswereoftenlocalevents,withverylittleattentionoutsideofasmallgeographiclocation(e.g.,alocalweeklyride,abicycleracetoraisefundsforalocalschooldistrict,etc.).


Aftermakingtheseadjustments,BBCcalculatedthetotaldirectspendinginMichiganbyout‐of‐stateparticipantsusingthefollowingdata:

Totaldirectspendingbyout‐of‐stateparticipantsateachofthesixcasestudyevents;

Averageevent‐relatedspendingbyout‐of‐stateparticipantsattargetedeventsmultipliedbytheestimatednumberofout‐of‐stateparticipantsattheseevents;and

Averageevent‐relatedspendingbyout‐of‐stateparticipantsatallothereventsmultipliedbytheestimatednumberofout‐of‐stateparticipantsattheseevents.

TheexpendituresinFigureIII‐26representthetotaldirectspendingbyout‐of‐stateparticipantsusingspendingdataforparticipantsineachofthethreebicycleeventcategories.

Figure III‐26. Direct Spending in Michigan by Out‐of‐state Participants

Note:


Source:


FigureIII‐26showsthat,whenconsideredtogether,participantsfromoutsideofthestateofMichiganspentapproximately$15.6millioninthestateofMichiganin2014.ThelargestdirectimpactsonthestateofMichigancamefromfoodandbeveragespending(restaurant/barexpendituresaswellasmoneyspentongroceries)andlodgingexpenses.

InordertocalculatetheoveralleconomicimpactofbicycleeventsinthestateofMichigan,BBCconductedafulleconomicimpactanalysisusingIMPLANmultipliers.BBCfoundthat,intotal,out‐of‐stateparticipantsinbicycleeventsinthestateofMichiganwereresponsibleforapproximately$21.9millionineconomicimpactin2014.

Thestudyteamacknowledgesthatthistotaleconomicimpactmayrepresentaconservativeestimate.ItispossiblethatthereareorganizedbicycleeventswithinthestateofMichiganwhichdrawout‐of‐stateparticipantsthatwerenotincludedinthestudy.Furthermore,someoftheeventswhichweredeterminedunlikelytohavesubstantialout‐of‐stateparticipationmayhavehadout‐of‐stateparticipation.

Expenditure

Food and beverage $4,439,503

Lodging 4,259,198

Registration 2,188,279

Transportation 2,013,424

Shopping and entertainment 1,783,892

Bicycles 867,412


Total Direct

Spending

SECTION IV.

Touring in Michigan

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 1

SECTION IV. Touring in Michigan

Overview

Withover1,300milesofbicycletrailsacrossthestateandthreeU.S.BicycleRoutes,thestateofMichiganisinauniquepositioninregardstobicyclinginfrastructure.ComparedtotheotherstatesintheEastNorthCentralCensusregion(Wisconsin,Illinois,IndianaandOhio)Michiganisatadistinctadvantageinattractingself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsdueinparttoitsthreeU.S.BicycleRoutes.FigureIV‐1onthefollowingpageprovidesamapofthecurrentroutesthroughMichigan:USBR10,a193‐milerouteconnectingSt.IgnaceandIronMountainintheUpperPeninsula;USBR20a300‐mileeast‐westrouteconnectingMarineCitywithLudington;andUSBR35,a500‐mileroutetravelingthroughMichiganalongtheLakeMichiganShorefromIndianatoSaultSt.Marie,Canada.

Michigan’sneighboringstatesdonothavethesameamountofbicycleinfrastructure.BothWisconsinandIndianadonotcurrentlyhaveanydesignatedU.S.BicycleRoutes.IllinoishastwoshortU.S.BicycleRoutes(36and37)whichrunfromtheWisconsin‐Illinoisborder,throughChicago,andontotheIllinois‐Indianaborder.OhiohasU.S.BicycleRoute50,whichtraversescentralOhiofromtheIndiana‐OhiobordertotheOhio‐WestVirginiaborder.

Inadditiontoprovidinginfrastructurefortouringbicyclists,thestateofMichiganmakesitsinfrastructureeasytoaccess.1MDOTprovidesturn‐by‐turndirectionsforallthreeU.S.BicycleRoutes,enablingself‐supportedtouringbicycliststoplantheirownroutesacrossthestate.Withabundantbicyclinginfrastructureandreadilyavailablerouteplanningsupport,thestateofMichiganretainsmanyofitsresidenttouringbicyclistsandattractsmanyout‐of‐statetouringbicyclistsaswell.Thissectionprovidesasummaryoftheper‐ridereconomicimpactofindependenttouringbicyclistsinMichiganalongwithresultsfrominterviewswithcompanieswhosupportbicycletouring.

1“Touringbicyclists”and“self‐supportedtouringbicyclists”areusedinterchangeablythroughoutthisreport.Bothtermsrefertobicyclistswhodonotrelyonmotorvehiclestocarrytheirgearandprovisionswhiletravelling.

BBC

FiguCur

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure IV‐1. rent U.S. Bicy

ce: Center for Share

ONSULTING

ycle Routes in

ed Solutions and Tech

Michigan

hnology Partnershipss, Michigan Departmment of Technology, MManagement, and B

SECTION IV, PA

udget.

AGE 2


Self‐Supported Touring

AspartoftheefforttoestimatetheeconomicbenefitstoMichiganfrombicycle‐relatedtourism,thestudyteamattemptedtodevelopaspendingprofileforatypicalself‐supportedtouringbicyclistinthestateofMichigan.Theliteraturereviewshowedalackofdataspecificallyrelatedtothespendingpatternsofself‐supportedtouringbicyclists,bothinMichiganaswellasnationwide.

Afewstudieshaveattemptedtoquantifytheeconomicimpactsofself‐supportedbicycletourisminotherstatesbycollectingprimarydataonself‐supportedtouringbicyclist’sexpenditures.2,3Basedonareviewofliteratureanddiscussionswithexpertsontouringbicyclists,thestudyteamdeterminedthatthecollectionofprimarydataonself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichiganwouldbenecessarytoestimatetheeconomicimpactofthesetourists.InconjunctionwiththeAdventureCyclingAssociation(ACA),thestudyteamdistributedasurveyviaSurveyMonkeytoself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinthestateofMichigan.

Touring survey. Inordertodevelopasurveyinstrumentforself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinthestateofMichigan,thestudyteamrepurposedthebicyclingeventsurveybyaddingseveralquestionsrelatingspecificallytobicycletouring.Thespendingcategories(e.g.,lodging,foodandbeverage,etc.)wereexactlythesameasthoseinthebicyclingeventsurvey.Surveyparticipantswereaskedtoestimatetheperdayexpendituresoftheirentirebicyclingparty.

TheAdventureCyclingAssociationassistedindistributionoftheonlinesurveybywritingblogpostsandsendingemailstopotentialself‐supportedtouringbicyclists.Additionally,flyerswereplacedatlocationsfrequentedbyself‐supportedbicyclistsinMichigan.Inadditiontoquestionsaskingaboutperdayexpenditures,thesurveyincludedquestionsabouttheuseofU.S.BicycleRoutes20and35,frequencyofmulti‐daybicycletripsinMichigan,andmainsurfacetypeusedwhileonamulti‐daybicycletripinMichigan,andotherquestions.Surveyresponseswerecleanedtoremoveanswersthatwerenotrelevanttotheeconomicimpactstudy,similartothedatacleaningprocessforthebicyclingeventdatacollectionprocess.Acopyofthesurveyinstrumentusedfortheself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsurveyisincludedinAppendixD.

Discussion.Forthepurposesoftheeconomicimpactanalysis,resultsarepresentedbelowonaper‐riderbasis.Themostrigorousstudytodateoftouringbicyclistsdidnotaddresstheoverallvolumeofparticipants.Inaddition,discussionswithstaffoftheAdventureCyclingAssociationindicatethatthereisnoestablishedmethodologytoquantifythenumberoftouringbicyclistsintheUSonastateornationallevel.

Whereattemptshavebeenmadetoquantifythevolumeoftouringbicyclists,itisoftenthroughpaneldataofgeneraltouristswitharelativelylowincidenceofbicyclingactivitiesandanevenlowerincidenceofindependentbicycletouring.Thisapproachcanleadtoanestimateofparticipantvolumewithalargemarginoferror.Additionally,thistypeofpanelsurveyoften

2InstituteforTourismandRecreationResearch,UniversityofMontana.December2013.“AnalysisofTouringCyclists:Impacts,NeedsandOpportunitiesforMontana.”

3DeanRunyanAssociates.April2013.“TheEconomicSignificanceofBicycle‐RelatedTravelinOregon.”


includestouristswhomayhaveparticipatedinseveraldifferentbicyclingactivitiesduringtheirtrip,withoutidentifyingtheirprimaryactivity.Asaresultoftheselimitationsandthecostinvolvedwiththisapproach,thisstudydoesnotattempttoquantifytheannualnumberoftouringbicyclistsvisitingMichigan.MDOTmightconsiderworkingwithanalreadyestablishedgeneraltourismsurvey(suchasthoseconducedinconjunctionwiththePureMichigancampaign),toquantifythenumberofindependenttouringbicyclistsinthefuture.

Survey execution and results. ThesurveywasdistributedtoalistoftouringbicycliststhroughtheAdventureCyclingAssociation’sBikeBitsnewsletter.Thisnewsletterreachesthousandsoftouringbicycliststhroughouttheworld.ReaderswereaskedtoparticipateinthesurveyiftheyhadtouredinMichigan.Surveyswerealsosolicitedfromflyersplacedintwostrategiclocationsthatarefrequentedbytouringbicyclists;ontheSSBadger(aprivatelyoperatedferrythatcrossesLakeMichigan)andattheMackinacBridge(wherebicyclistsarerequiredtocrossusingtransportservicesprovidedbytheMackinacBridgeAuthority).Intotal,364onlinesurveyswerecompletedbyself‐supportedtouringbicyclists.

Analysis.Inordertoanalyzetheeconomicimpactassociatedwithindependentbicycletouringforin‐stateandout‐of‐staterespondents,per‐ridespendingwascalculatedforrespondentswhoreported:

TouringinMichiganwithinthepastthreeyears;

Apartysizeoffewerthan15people(toavoidconfusionwithorganizedtourspending);and

Theirstateofresidenceoranaddressthatcouldbeusedtodeterminetheirstateofresidence.

Forthespendinganalysisthestudyusedthe166responsesthatmeetthesecriteria.

Resultsofthesurveyanalysisshowedthat,onaverage,out‐of‐stateself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsspend$71.26perpersonperdayandstayinMichiganforslightlymorethansevendays.In‐stateself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsspend$54.29perpersonperdayandtravelinMichiganforapproximatelyfiveandahalfdays.

FigureIV‐2,presentedbelow,showsthatthelargestexpendituresareinthecategoriesoffoodandbeverage($29.23perdayout‐of‐state;$22.21perdayin‐state)andlodging($28.94perdayout‐of‐state;$24.62in‐state).Additionally,whiletheaverageout‐of‐statevisitorspendssevendaysinMichigan,approximatelythreein10visitorsstayinMichiganfor10ormoredays,andonein10visitorsstaysfor14ormoredays.


Figure IV‐2. Daily Per Person Expenditures in Michigan

Note:


Source:

BBC Research & Consulting

Intotal,atypicalself‐supportedtouringbicyclistinMichiganfromoutofstatespendsapproximately$520duringaself‐supportedbicycletour.Thisdirectspendingresultsinapproximately$760oftotaleconomicimpactinthestateofMichigan.4AtypicalMichiganresidenttakingpartinaself‐supportedbicycletourspendsapproximately$300duringatourinthestateofMichigan.Theeconomicimpactsfromin‐stateresidentexpendituresarenotcalculated,aseconomicimpactanalysesdonotanalyzeexpendituresofin‐stateresidents.

Additional data. In addition to the expenditure data, the online survey collected informationregardinghowoftenbicycletouristsvisitMichigan,whichroutestheyused,andwhetherornottheyhadvisitedMichiganpriortotheirmostrecentmulti‐daybicycletrip.

Surveyresultsshowedthatmorethanhalf(55%)ofallself‐supportedtouringbicyclistshadbeeninmulti‐daybicycletripsinMichiganwithinthepastyear.Slightlylessthantwo‐thirdsofself‐supportedtouristsindicatedutilizingoneofMichigan’sU.S.BicycleRoutes.Additionally,approximately22percentofout‐of‐statesurveyrespondentsindicatedthattheirmostrecentmulti‐daybicycletripwastheirfirstvisittothestateofMichigan.Lessthan3percentofself‐supportedbicyclistsindicatedridinganAmtraktraininMichigan.

Demographic information. Demographicinformationforself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichiganissimilartodemographicinformationofself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinotherstates.Approximatelyhalfofallself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichiganarebetweentheagesof55and64,andmorethan80percentofself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichiganareabovetheageof45.ThisissimilartoastudyoftouringbicyclistsinMontanathatfoundanaverageageof52yearsold.5Michiganresidentsappeartobeolder,onaverage,thanself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsfromoutofstate.FullresultsarepresentedbelowinFigureIV‐3.

4Spendingbybicyclistscirculatesinthelocaleconomy.Businesseswherevisitorsspendtheirmoneypurchasegoodsandservicesfromotherbusinesses,andworkersspendaportionoftheirearningsonlocalgoodsandservices.Thisrecirculationofmoneyintheeconomyistermeda“secondaryimpact.”Thetotaleconomicimpactisthesumofdirectandsecondaryimpacts.

5“AnalysisofTouringCyclists:Impacts,NeedsandOpportunitiesforMontana.”

Expenditure

Food and beverage $29.23 $22.21

Lodging $28.94 $24.62

Shopping and Entertainment $8.63 $4.07

Bicycles $3.20 $2.17

Transportation $1.26 $1.22

Total Direct Spending $71.26 $54.28

Out‐of‐State

Spending

In‐State

Spending

BBC

FiguAgeTou

Sourc

BBC R

Surhigh(47$10resuMon

FiguInco

Sourc

Demord

Potbicybicywith

6Ibid

C RESEARCH & C

ure IV‐3. e of Self‐Suppouring Bicyclists

ce:


veyresponseherthanthei%)ofself‐sup00,000,compaultsforMichintanastudy.

ure IV‐4. ome of Self‐Su

ce: BBC Research &

mographicinfdertopromot

tential nextyclistsappearyclingenvironhtheconditio

d.

ONSULTING

orted s

ng.

esindicatethaincomeofselpportedtouraredtoonly3iganareprese

upported Tou

Consulting

formationcanteself‐suppor

t steps for sertobeverypnmentingenonofbicyclep

attheincomef‐supportedtingbicyclists38percentofentedbelowi

ring Bicyclists

nbeusefulwrtedbicycleto

elf‐supportleasedwithteral.Surveyrpathsandthe

eofself‐suppotouringbicyclinMichiganfself‐supportinFigureIV‐4

s

whendecidingouringinMic

ed touring.thestateofMrespondentseavailability

ortedtouringlistsinMontareportedanitedtouringbi4andcompar

ghowtobesthigan.

Ingeneral,sichigan’sbicyindicatedthaofbicyclerou

gbicyclistsinana.ApproximincomeofhigicyclistsinMoredtoresults

targettourin

elf‐supportedycleinfrastruattheywerevutemapsacro

SECTION IV, PA

nMichiganismatelyhalfgherthanontana.6Fullfromthe

ngbicyclistsin

dtouringuctureandverysatisfiedossthestate.

AGE 6

n


Furthermore,manyrespondentsdiscussedthescenicnatureofU.S.BicycleRoute35alongMichigan’swesterncoast.

MDOTmayconsideranothersurveyofself‐supportedtouringbicycliststodevelopabetterunderstandingoftheneedsandwantsthatareuniquetothisgroupofbicyclists.Additionally,thespendingprofilecouldberefinedwithafuturesurveywheneconomicconditionshavechangedornewinfrastructureisaddedfortouringbicyclists.

Goingforward,MDOTshouldworkwiththeAdventureCyclingAssociationtokeepuptodatewithresearchrelevanttoself‐supportedbicycletouring.Inparticular,MDOTshouldcontinuetolookforstudiesthatutilizeanappropriatemethodologytoestimatethetotalnumberofself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinaparticularstate.Thismethodologycouldbeusedtoestimatethetotalnumberofself‐supportedbicyclistsinMichigan,aswellasthetotaleconomicimpactofthesetourists.

MDOTcouldalsoconsideringpartneringwithastate‐widetourismresearcheffortsuchasthoseconductedforPureMichigan.ThiswouldrequireworkingwiththeorganizationtoaddquestionsaboutthetypeofbicyclingactivitiesthatrespondentsparticipatedinduringtheirvisittoMichigan.CurrentsurveysforPureMichiganhaveonlyaskedwhetherparticipantsparticipatein“hikingorbiking.”Asdiscussedabove,theseeffortstypicallyuseresponsesfromsurveypanelswithalowincidenceofindependenttouringbicyclists.Inspiteofthesedrawbacks,apanelsurveyapproachwouldlikelybeabletoprovidearangeofthenumberofindependenttouringbicyclistswhovisitMichiganannually.

Touring Companies

InordertobetterunderstandtheeconomicimpactcausedbybicyclinginthestateofMichigan,bicycletouringcompanieswereinterviewedabouttheirbusinesseswithinthestateofMichigan.Interviewparticipantswereaskedtoestimatethetotalnumberofridersthattheyprovideservicestoperyear,thepercentageofcustomersthattraveltoMichiganfromoutofstateandyearlyaveragerevenues,amongotherquestions.ThestudyteamattemptedtocontactasmanycompaniesinvolvedinbicycletouringinthestateofMichiganaspossiblebyaskinginterviewparticipantsiftheyknewofanyotherbicycletouringcompaniesoperatinginthestateofMichigan.

DatafromtheinterviewsshowthatbicycletouringcompaniesinMichigancanbegroupedintotwocategories:localtouringcompaniesofferingcitytoursinandaroundtheirimmediatecity,andtouringcompaniesthatoffersupportservicestobicyclistsparticipatinginorganizedbicyclingevents(acopyoftheinterviewguideusedwithbicycletouringcompaniesisincludedinAppendixD).Companiesfromthefirstgroupusuallyorganizebicyclingtourswithinaparticularcitythatmayhighlightdifferentculturalaspectsofalocation(i.e.,ahistorictour).CompaniesfromthesecondgroupoffersupportservicessuchastransportationtoandfromlargerbicyclingeventswithinthestateofMichigansuchastheMichiganderandDALMAC.Thesetoursusuallylastforuptoaweekandtraverselargeportionsofthestate.


Results.Companiesofferinglocaltoursestimatedthatbetween750and1,000bicycliststourwiththeircompanieseachyear,andthat10‐20percentoftheircustomerstravelledtoMichiganfromoutofstate.Tourcostswereinthe$20to$50range,dependingonlengthoftourandservicesoffered.Ownersestimatethatapproximately20to30percentoftheirtotalannualrevenuescomefromtheirtouringoperations.Employersmentionthatthewarmermonthsaremuchbusierintermsofthenumberofriders,andasaresultalargeportionoftheirstaffisemployedpart‐timeduringthesemonths.

Companiesthatofferservicestoridersparticipatinginlarge,formally‐organizedeventsofferedservicestoamuchsmallernumberofridersperyearthancompaniesofferingprimarilylocaltours,butchargedsubstantiallymorefortheirservices.Businessownersinthiscategorystatedthattheyprovideservicestoapproximately100to150ridersperyear,offeringservicesforfivetosixtoursinMichiganperseason.Estimatesoncustomersfromoutofstateweremorevaried,withownersstatingthatbetween20and60percentoftheircustomersresidedoutsideofMichigan.

Toursofferedbythesecompaniesrangedinpricefrom$300to$1,500,dependingonlengthofthetourandthetypesofservicesoffered.OwnersindicatedthatalloftheirbusinessrevenuescamefromprovidingservicestotouringbicyclistsparticipatinginorganizedbicyclingeventswithinthestateofMichigan.Businessownersinthiscategoryalsohighlightedthattheirbusinessoperationsarelargelyseasonal,withalmostalloftheirsupportedtoursoccurringinthesummer.Asaresult,employerskeepfewifanyfull‐timestaff,andemployamoderately‐sizedpart‐timestaffofbetweenfourto12employees.

BothcategoriesofbusinessesgenerallybelievedthatbicycletourismwasdoingwellinMichigan,thanksinparttoeffortsfromMDOTregardingmappingbicyclingroutesthroughoutthestate.Severalownersmentionedthatmorecouldbedonetopromotebicycletourismwithinthestate,byestablishingacentrallistofbusinessesofferingtouringservicesinMichigan.

SECTION V.

Bicycling and Tourism in Michigan

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 1

SECTION V. Bicycling and Tourism in Michigan

Overview

RecreationalbicyclingplaysasubstantialbutdifficulttoquantifyroleinMichigan’stourismindustry.A2010studybyD.K.Shifflet&Associatesfoundthat3percentofleisurevacationsinMichiganinvolvedhikingorbicyclingasarecreationalactivity.Thatpercentagevariesacrossthestate,from1percentofleisuretravelerstosoutheasternMichiganreportinghikingorbicyclingduringtheirvacationsto7percentintheUpperPeninsula.1

TherearenumerouspublicandprivategroupsacrossthestatethataimtopromotebicyclingasaformofrecreationforbothMichiganresidentsaswellastourists.SeverallocalConventionandVisitorsBureaus,fromlargecitiessuchasGrandRapidstosmallertownslikeGaylord,provideresourcesfortouristsinterestedinbicycling.Manycommunitiesprovidemapsoflocalbicycletrailsaswellaslistingsofbusinessesthatrentbicycles.Otherorganizations,liketheUpNorthTrailsCollaborative,aimtoprovidemapsforalltypesofrecreationaltrailsacrosslargeregionsofthestate.

Michiganisinauniquepositioninregardstorecreationalbicyclingandlongdistancetransportationrelatedbicyclingasithassubstantialbicyclinginfrastructureandstrongsupportforbicyclingatthelocalaswellasstatewidelevel.

Infrastructure

Michiganisaregionalandnationalleaderinbicyclinginfrastructureandinvestment.Michiganisanationalleaderinrails‐to‐trailsconversions,aprogramwhichconvertsformertrainrailsintomulti‐usepaths.ThestateofMichiganhas119railtrails(themostintheUnitedStates);withatotalof2,712milesofshared‐usepathwaysopentowalking,jogging,andbicycling.Intotal,Michiganishometo6.6percentoftherailtrailslocatedintheU.S.and12.4percentofrailtrailmileageintheU.S.2

Inadditiontotherails‐to‐trailsprogramwhichhasbeengrowingsincetheState’sfirstrailtrail,thePaintCreekTrail,openedin1983,thestateofMichiganhasrecentlymadebicyclingastatewidepriority.GovernorRickSnyder’s2012EnergyandEnvironmentSpeechcalledforthecreationofastatewidebicyclingandhikingtrail,thepreliminarydraftofwhichispicturedbelowinFigureV‐1.Thetrailfeaturestworoutesacrossthestate,oneforhikingandoneforbicycling.BothroutesrunfromBelleIsleParkinDetroittoIronwoodinthewesternUpperPeninsula.

1D.K.Shifflet&Associates.2010.“Michigan2009VisitorProfile.”

2http://www.michigantrails.org/newsroom

BBC

FiguMic

Sourc

InaU.S.RouThebetwThe

TheTradive

C RESEARCH & C

ure V‐1. chigan’s Iron B

ce: Michigan Depart

additiontoth.BicycleRoututesthananyeseroutesareweenstates,beserouteshel

ephysicalbicyail,andothersersityofnatu

ONSULTING

Belle Trail

tment of Natural Res

erecentlyantes.AsofDecotherstateineprimarilydebuttheycanalptoreinforc

yclinginfrasts)isdesigneduralscenery.U

sources.

nouncedIronember2014,ntheMidwesesignedforusalsobeusedbetheimageo

tructureinMidtotakeadvaU.S.BicycleR

nBelleTrail,MMichiganhasst(Minnesotasebylong‐disbyrecreationofMichiganas

ichigan(railtntageofMichoute35follow

Michiganhassmoreofficiaa,Wisconsin,stancetourinnalbicyclistsvsabicycle‐fri

trails,U.S.Bichigan’suniquwsthescenic

sthreeofficialallydesignateIllinois,Indiangbicycliststrvacationingiiendlystate.

cycleRoutes,uenaturalrescLakeMichig

SECTION V, PA

llydesignatededU.S.Bicycleana,andOhio)ravellingnMichigan.

theIronBelleourcesanditgancoastlinef

AGE 2

de).

etsfor


amajorityofitslengthinWesternMichigan.TheIronBelleTrailfollowsaportionoftheLakeHuroncoastlineintheLowerPeninsula,andasubstantialportionoftheLakeMichigancoastlineintheUpperPeninsula.The2,700milesofrailtrailsthroughoutthestateutilizesceniccorridorsthroughMichigan’sdenseforestsandrollinghillsides.

Community Support. InadditiontothebicyclepathsandphysicalbicycleinfrastructureavailabletorecreationalbicyclistsinMichigan,somecommunitieshaveexploredbicyclesharingprogramsasameanstoencouragebicyclinginmoreurbanenvironments.AnnArborbeganitsbikesharingprogram,ArborBike,inlate2014andLansinghasexperimentedwithapilotbicyclesharingprogram,CapitalCommunityBikeShare.DetroithasalsoconductedastudytoexplorethefeasibilityofapublicbikesharingsysteminDowntownDetroit.

ArborBikecurrentlyoffersa24‐hourpassforasmallfee.Duringthat24‐hourperiod,ridersmaytakeunlimitedridesoflessthan60minutesatatime.ThisprogramcanbeagreattoolfortouristsinMichiganlookingtoexploreurbanenvironmentswithmoreflexibilitythantravellingbycar.Bikesharesthroughoutthecountryhaveseensubstantialuseofbikesharesbytourists.3

TheamountofphysicalbicyclinginfrastructureinMichiganandtheemergenceofshort‐termbicyclerentaloperationsmaybepartofthereasonthatvisitorstoMichiganperceivethestateasagoodplacetoparticipateinrecreationalbicycling.A2013studyconductedbyLongwoodsInternationalfoundthatapproximatelytwo‐thirds(64%)ofregionalmarketrespondents(includesrespondentsfromMichigan,Illinois,Wisconsin,Indiana,Ohio,andSouthernOntario)agreedthatMichiganisgreatforbicyclingandjogging.Morethanhalf(53%)ofregionalmarketrespondentsindicatedthattheystronglyagreedthatotherstatesinMichigan’sregionalmarketweregreatforbicyclingandjogging.4Michigancanencouragethatperceptionbycontinuingitssupportofbicyclingasarecreationalactivityfortourists.

Strategic Plan

In2011,the$17.7billionMichigantourismindustrygeneratednearlyonebilliondollarsinstatetaxrevenueandsupportedapproximately200,000jobs.5Inordertosupportandexpandthisindustry,oneofthelargestinMichigan,theMichiganTravelCommissionadoptedthe2012‐2017MichiganTourismStrategicPlan.Theplanwasdevelopedbasedontheinputfromhundredsoftourismindustryleaders,frommultipleindustriesandfromallareasofthestate.KeytothesuccessoftheplanisthecontinuationofthePureMichigancampaign,particularlytheportionofthecampaignaimedatattractingout‐of‐statevisitorstoMichigan.In2011,one‐thirdoftouristsinMichiganwereresidentsofanotherstate—anumberthathasincreasedyearoveryearinthepast.6

3NewYorkCityDepartmentofCityPlanning.Spring2009.“Bike‐ShareOpportunitiesinNewYorkCity.”

4LongwoodsInternational.March2014.“Michigan2013TourismAdvertisingEvaluationandImageStudy.”

5Dr.SarahNicholls,MichiganStateUniversity.December2012.“The2012‐2017MichiganTourismStrategicPlan.”

6Ibid.


BicyclingplaysanimportantroleinMichigan’stourismindustry.TouristscomingtoMichiganmaytakeadaytripthrougharuralsectionoftheUpperPeninsulaonarailtrail,oruseabicycletoexploreanurbanenvironment.Bicyclingisdiscussedseveraltimesinthestrategicplan,especiallyinrelationtooneoftheplan’skeygoalsofproductdevelopment.

Theproductdevelopmentgoalaimsto“enhanceinfrastructuretosupportthedeliveryofaworldclassPureMichigantravelexperience.”Toachievethisgoal,theplanrecommendsshowcasingMichiganasastatewithadiverseandextensivenetworkofalltypesoftrails.Partofthisplaninvolvesencouraginglocalcommunitiestodevelopmorebicyclingroutesdesignedtohighlightlocalsceneryandattractions.

Communities

InadditiontothestepstakentopromotebicyclinginMichiganatastatewidelevel,severalcommunitiesacrossthestatehaveengagedinextensiveeffortstopromotetourismintheirlocalregions.AspartofthePhaseIportionofthisstudy,casestudieswereconductedinselectcommunitiesthroughoutthestateofMichigantoestimatetheeconomicimpactofbicyclingonlocaleconomies.Twoofthecasestudycommunities,TraverseCityandHolland,arediscussedbelowasexamplesofthebenefitsfromencouragingbicyclingasarecreationalactivityamongtourists.

Traverse City. TraverseCityisasmalltownofapproximately15,000residentsinnorthernLowerMichigan.PartlyduetoitssceniclocationontheGrandTraverseBayandabundantrecreationopportunities,theTraverseCitytourismindustryisamajorcontributortothearea’seconomy.Morethan3.3millionvisitortripsweremadetotheTraverseCityareain2012,resultinginnearly$1.2billionindirectspending.7

PartofthecasestudyinvolvedinterviewswithstakeholdersinTraverseCitytodocumenttheconnectionsbetweenbicyclingandeconomicgrowthanddevelopmentinthearea.

Stakeholderscitedthemorethan60milesoftrailsintheTraverseAreaRecreationalTrail(TART)systemaspartofthereasonforbicycling’spopularityintheregion.Inadditiontoalreadyexistingbicycleinfrastructureintheregion,stakeholder’smentionedtheincreaseinpopularityofbicyclingasameansoftransportation.

“Bicyclingissomethingthat’salwaysbeenabigpartofoutdoorrecreationinTraverseCity.Thebigdriverhasbeentheimprovementofourtrailinfrastructure,butnowitisbecomingmoreofapartofthetransportationmix.”–MikeNorton,TraverseCityConventionandVisitorsBureau.

AlthoughitisnotclearwhatportionoftourismindustryrevenuesareduetovisitorstoTraverseCitywhobicycleduringtheirtrips,severalstakeholdersdiscussedtheimportanceofbicyclingandtheregion’sbroaderstrategyaroundoutdoorrecreationasatourismdraw.Giventhattourismisresponsibleforcreatingapproximately12,000jobsintheTraverseCityarea(30%of

7http://www.traversecity.com/economic‐impact‐530/


areaemployment)andthepopularityofbicyclingamongTraverseCitytourists,theimpactofbicyclingontheTraverseCitytourismeconomyissubstantial.8

Holland. Holland,MichiganisasmalltownlocatedonLakeMichiganinthesouthwesternportionofthestate.Locatedlessthanathree‐hourdrivefrombothChicagoandDetroit,HollandhasaccesstotwoofthelargesttouristmarketsintheMidwest.AlthoughHolland’seconomyisdrivenprimarilybymanufacturing,tourismcontributesasubstantialamounttotheregionaleconomy.JaneClark,thePresidentoftheWestMichiganCoastChamberofCommerce,mentionedthatHollandisuniquebecauseitisboth“atourismdestinationandaplacethathasasolidjobbase.”

DespitelessrelianceontourismdollarsthanTraverseCity,theHollandregionhasmadesubstantialinvestmentsinbicyclinginfrastructure.Hollandhasinvestedinalargenetworkofseparated,shared‐usepathsandsidepathsandverylittleon‐roadinfrastructure,acombinationthatisuniquewhencomparedtoothercasestudylocationsinthePhaseIreport.TheseseparatedpathsareusedbyresidentsandtouristsaliketoaccessdowntownHollandaswellastotakebicycletripstothebeachonLakeMichigan.

SallyLaukitis,ExecutiveDirectoroftheHollandConventionandVisitorsBureau,discussedtheincreaseofbicycletouristsinHolland:

“Withinthelasttwoyears,we’veseenanactiveincreaseinthenumberofcarsrollingintotownwithbikesontheback.We’veseenmorepeopleheretobicycle,morepeopleheretoseeHollandonbike.”

ManyprivatebusinessesaretakingadvantageofHolland’sbicyclinginfrastructureandgrowinginterestinbicyclingforrecreationbyofferingservicestointerestedtourists.Severalbusinesseslocatednearthelakefrontofferbicyclesforrent,andmanyofthetraditionalbicycleretailshopshaveactiverentalbusinesses,deliveringrentalbicyclestolodginglocationsaroundtheregion.

TheHollandregioncanserveasanexampleofhowlocalcommunitiesthatarenotprimarilyreliantontourismcanstillbenefitfrominvestmentsinbicyclinginfrastructureandencouragingbicyclingasarecreationalactivityfortourists.

Conclusions and Next Steps

Michiganisinauniquepositionbothregionallyandnationallyinregardstobicycle‐relatedtourism.Michiganhasanabundanceofbicyclinginfrastructure,includingrailtrails,U.S.BicycleRoutes,statewidetrails,bicyclelanes,andseparatedbicyclepaths.ThissectionpresentssuggestionsonhowMDOTandotherstateagenciesandpartnerscancontinuetopromotebicycling.

Future Investments. Stakeholdersshouldpromotecurrentrailtrailsaswellascontinuetoencouragetherails‐to‐trailsmovement.Approximatelyoneoutofeveryeightmilesofrailtrailis

8Ibid.


locatedinthestateofMichigan,whichhelpstobuildtheperceptionthatMichiganisaleadingstateforrecreationalbicycling.

The2012‐2017MichiganTourismStrategicPlanincludedseveralsuggestionsonhowtosupportandgrowbicyclingasarecreationalactivityinMichigan.Michigancommunitiesshouldbeencouragedtodevelopmarkedorsignedbicycleroutesortoursthathighlightlocalattractions,bothcommercialandrecreational.

Additional Research. Currentlythereisverylittleresearchorprofilingoftouristswhohappentobicyclewhileonvacation.WhiletherearenumerousstudiesquantifyingtheeconomicimpactsoftourismacrossthestateofMichigan,theirfocusonrecreationalbicyclingisextremelylimitedifitexistsatall.

MDOT,otherstateagencies,andrelevantpartnersshouldworkwiththeMichiganEconomicDevelopmentCorporationifandwhentheycommissionanotherstatewidevisitorprofile.The2009visitorprofileprovidedimportantinformationabouttheMichigantourismindustryandthetypesoftravelersthatareattractedtoMichigan.However,thestudywaslackinginquestionsrelatedtoMichigantouristswhoparticipateinrecreationalbicyclingwhileonvacation.

Asnotedpreviouslyinthissectionofthereport,therearenumerouscommunitiesacrossthestatearepromotingbicyclingontheirown.Effortsshouldbemadetocontinuetohelpthesetownsandmunicipalitiesencouragebicyclingbyprovidingthemwithaframeworkfordevelopingtourismsurveys.Thesecommunitieswouldthenbeabletoquantifytheeconomicimpactsofbicyclingwithmoreaccuracy,andcomparethoseresultstootherbicycling‐friendlytownsthroughoutthestate.

APPENDIX A.

Economic Impact Model Guide

BBC

APEc

Theecothatresp

Avenumparwhobelo

Thegreathan

FiguExa

Note:

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

PPENDconom

eeconomicimnomicimpactneedtobedponsestothe

erage Spendmberofsurveticipants,andotravelledmowarethefol

Numberoffromevent

Totalnumbsurveys

Totalevendata,registr

Numberofanswered“participate

Averagepaanswered“

Averageleanswered“

elastthreefieaterthan50mn50miles(Q

ure 1. mple of Avera

: Numbers includ

ce: BBC Research &

ONSULTING

DIX A. ic Impa

mpactmodelctsofspecificdoneoutsideebicycleeven

ding and Eceyresponsesrddifferentgroorethan50mllowingfields

fsurveys—Tattendees

berofattend

ntparticipantrationlogs,et

fout‐of‐stateYes”toquestinthisevent?

artysize(ouYes”toquest

ngthoftripYes”toquest

eldslistedabomiles(Q1=”NQ1=”No”orbla

age Spending

ed in this reference a

Consulting Economi

act Mo

canbeusedinbicycleeventofthemodelntsurvey.

onomic Impreceivedfromoupcharactermiles,andin‐sthatrequire

Thenumbero

dees—Thes

ts—Thetotatc.

eattendees—tion1“Didyo?”

t‐of‐state)—tion1.

(out‐of‐statetion1.

ovealsoneedNo”orblankaankandQ2=”

and Economi

are meant to be used

ic Impact Model.

odel Gu

nconjunctiontswithinthesrelatetoaver

pact. Thiswomeventattenristicsforoutstateattendeeinputsfrom

ofcompleted

sumofquesti

alnumberof

—ThesumofoutraveltoM

—Theaverage

e)—Theave

dtobecomplandQ2=Yes)a”No”orblank

ic Impacts Wo

d as examples only.

uide

nwiththebicstateofMichragesandsum

orksheetconndees,thetotat‐of‐stateatteeeswhotravetheeventsur

surveysthat

ion5forallre

eventpartici

fquestion5fMichiganfrom

eofquestion

erageofquest

etedforin‐standin‐stateak).

orksheet

cycleeventsuigan.Theonlmsofnumeri

ntainsinformaalnumberofendees,in‐staelledlessthanrvey.

teventorgani

espondentsw

pants,frome

forallresponmanotherstat

5forallresp

tion7forallr

tateattendeesattendeeswh

APPENDIX A, PA

urveytoestimycalculationsicalsurvey

ationontheeventateattendeesn50miles.Lis

izersreceived

withcomplete

eventorganiz

dentsthatteorcountry

pondentsthat

respondentst

swhotravellotravelledle

AGE 1

mates

sted

d

e

zer’s

to

t

that

edess

BBC

Inpin‐spar

Thestatdaypro

FiguExa

Note:

Sourc

PerIfththeinwdistcalc

Basshoavestatshopay

C RESEARCH & C

puts. Thiswostatemorethaticipants,and

e“Numberwhtesurveyrespy”shouldbefividedanansw

ure 2. mple of Input

: Numbers includ

ce: BBC Research &

r Person Calhereisonlyo“Averageregwiththesametanceridesorculateanaver

sedonthesuruldbecreaterageregistrate;in‐statemwsthatout‐oymoreinregi

ONSULTING

orksheetrequan50;in‐statdtheprocess

hospentmonpondentsthailledinusingwer.Theproc

ts Worksheet

ed in this reference a

Consulting Economi

lculations.Tneoptionforgistrationspeedollaramourmulti‐dayoprageregistrat

rveyrespondedthatcontaitionspendingorethan50;iof‐stateparticistrationfees.

uiresinputsfotelessthan50forinputiss

neyonhotels”tfilledoutqutheaverageocessissimila

are meant to be used

ic Impact Model.

Thisworkshereventregistrendingperpeunt.Iftherearptions)withdtionspending

ents’answernstheregistrgperpersonin‐statelesstcipantsmayb.

oreachdiffer0).Inputfieldimilarforoth

”fieldshoulduestion8a.Thofquestion8arforquestion

d as examples only.

eetrequiresaration(i.e.,alrson”fieldforemultiplevadifferentregigperperson.

toQ14,“Inwrationfeeforcanbecalculthan50).Thisbemorelikely

rentgroupofdsaredescribhercategories

dbefilledinuhe“averagehaforout‐of‐sns8bthrough

additionalinfolparticipantsorallthreepaariationsfortistrationfees,

whichridedidthatparticullatedforeachsisnotnecesytoparticipa

eventattendbedforout‐ofsofattendees

usingthesumhotelspendingstatesurveyrhquestion9.

ormationfromspaythesamarticipanttypetheevent(e.g,thenitmay

dyouparticiparride.Afterhparticipanttsary,butinitateinlongere

APPENDIX A, PA

ee(out‐of‐staf‐states.

mofQ5foroutgperpartyperespondentst

mtheeventhmeamount),thescanbefilleg.differentbepreferred

pate?”anewfrdoingthis,antype(out‐of‐ialresearchevents,andth

AGE 2

ate;

t‐of‐erthat

host.hened

to

fieldn

hus

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 3

Understanding the Outputs. EconomicimpactsarecalculatedusingIMPLANinput‐outputmodelsthatarespecifictothestateofMichigan.IMPLANisaneconomicimpactassessmentsystemdevelopedandmaintainedbytheMinnesotaIMPLANGroup(MIG).Itallowstheusertodeveloplocal‐levelinput‐outputmodelsthatcalculatedirect,secondary,andtotaleffectsofeconomicactivitybysectorthroughtheuseofindustry‐specificmultipliersandotherfactors.

DirectEffectsincludethespendingofeventattendees,lessanyexpendituresthatarelikelytohaveoccurredoutsideofthestateofMichigan.1AslocalindustriesrespondtothedirectspendingrelatedtobicycleeventsbymakingtheirownpurchasesoflaborhoursandgoodsandservicesinMichigan,thisspending,inturn,generatesdemandforadditionalgoodandservices.ThisdemandisreferredtoasaSecondaryEffect.TotalEffectsarecalculatedasthesumofDirectandSecondaryEffectstakentogether.

Inadditiontocalculatingatotaleconomicimpact(TotalEffect)ofbicycleevents,IMPLANmodelsalsocalculatetheincreaseinjobsasaresultofevent‐relatedspending.Forthisanalysis,“jobs”includeallfull‐time,part‐time,andtemporarypositions.Onejoblasting12monthsisconsideredequivalenttotwojobslastingforsixmonths.ThisdefinitionisthesamedefinitionusedbytheU.S.BureauofLaborStatistics(BLS)andU.S.BureauofEconomicAnalysis(BEA).

Reporting Economic Impacts. OutputsfromtheeconomicimpactmodelcanbeusedtohighlightthebenefitsofaspecificbicycleeventwithinthestateofMichigan.Whenreportingtheresultsoftheeconomicimpactmodel,eventorganizersshouldmentionthedirectandtotaleffects,aswellastheincreaseinnumberofFTEjobs.DirectEffectsrepresentthedirectspendingfromeventattendees,andTotalEffectsrepresentthetotaleconomicimpactwithinthestateofMichiganafterdirectexpendituresarecirculatedthroughtheeconomy.Reportsontheeconomicimpactoftheseeventsshouldalsomentionthattheseeconomicimpactsandincreasesinemploymentwouldnothaveoccurredwithoutthebicycleevent.

1MoneyspentontransportationexpensesincreasetheDirectEffectsassociatedwithtransportationexpendituresatalessthanonetooneratio,asaportionoftransportationexpensesareestimatedtoaccruetobusinesseslocatedoutsideofthestateofMichigan.

APPENDIX B.

Data Sources

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX B, PAGE 1

APPENDIX B. Data Sources

Anumberofdatasourceswereusedincalculatingtheeconomicbenefitsderivedfromout‐of‐stateparticipationinbicyclingeventsandbicycle‐relatedtourismincluding:

2014 Michigan Department of Transportation Bicycling Event Survey. Asapartofthestudy,interceptandonlinesurveyswereconductedcollectinginformationfromparticipantsinbicyclingeventsinMichiganabouttheirspendingrelatedtoparticipatinginbicyclingevents.

Aspartofthesurveyeffort,stafffromR.Neunerconductedinterceptsurveysofbicyclistsatthesixcasestudyeventsidentifiedbythestudyteam.Intotal,approximately2,100surveyswerecompletedbycasestudyeventparticipants.

Inadditiontothein‐personinterceptsurveys,thestudyteamusedtheLMBridecalendartocontactbicycleeventorganizersinthestateofMichigan.EventorganizerswereaskedtosendoutalinktoanonlinesurveyhostedbySurveyMonkeythatexactlymirroredthephysicalsurveydistributedatthesixcasestudyevents.Approximately2,400onlinesurveyswerecompletedthroughSurveyMonkey.

2014 Michigan Department of Transportation Independent Touring Bicyclist Survey. Thestudyteamalsoconductedasurveyofindependenttouringbicyclists.Thissurveywasbasedontheeventsurvey,butmodifiedtoincludeseveralquestionsrelatingspecificallytobicycletouring.Thespendingcategories(e.g.,lodging,foodandbeverage,etc.)wereexactlythesameasthoseinthebicycleeventsurvey.Surveyparticipantswereaskedtoestimatetheper‐dayexpendituresoftheirentirebicyclingparty.

TheAdventureCyclingAssociationassistedindistributionoftheonlinesurveybywritingblogpostsandsendingemailstopotentialself‐supportedtouringbicyclists.Additionally,flyerswereplacedatlocationsfrequentedbyself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinMichigan.Inadditiontoquestionsaskingaboutper‐dayexpenditures,thesurveyincludedquestionsabouttheuseofU.S.BicycleRoutes20and35,frequencyofmulti‐daybicycletripsinMichigan,andmainsurfacetypeusedwhileonamulti‐daybicycletripinMichigan,inadditiontootherquestions.Surveyresponseswerecleanedtoremoveanswersthatwerenotrelevanttotheeconomicimpactstudy,similartothedatacleaningprocessforthebicycleeventdatacollectionprocess.Intotal,364onlinesurveyswerecompletedbyself‐supportedtouringbicyclists.

Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). D&Bprovidesinformationonbusinessesbyindustryandlocation.DatafromHoovers,aD&Bsubsidiary,providesinformationontherevenuesandemploymentofbicycle‐relatedmanufacturesandretailersthroughoutthestate.D&Bdatawereusedtocollectinformationaboutbicycletouringcompanies.

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX B, PAGE 2

League of Michigan Bicyclists (LMB). TheLMBadvocatesforcyclistsinMichiganandprovidespolicymakerswithvaluableinformationonbicyclinginthestate.TheLMBorganizeseventsandcollectsanddistributesdataandreports.ThestudyusedtheLMBridecalendartodevelopacomprehensivelistofbicyclingeventsinMichigan.

APPENDIX C.

Literature Review and Bibliography

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C, PAGE 1

APPENDIX C. Literature Review and Bibliography

Thisappendixprovidesabibliographyanddetailedreviewofallexistingliteratureexploredduringthecourseofthestudy.

Overview

Researchforthisreportbeganwithanextensivereviewoftheexistingliteratureoncommunityandeconomicimpactsofbicycling.Thereviewcontinuedthroughoutthestudy,asnewresearchwaspublishedandstakeholdershighlighteduniqueaspectsofthecasestudycommunities.AfterPhaseIofthestudywascompletebutbeforesubstantialworkhadbegunforPhaseII,severalkeystudieswerereleasedthatweresimilarinnaturetoPhaseIIofthestudy.Detailsofthesestudiesandtheirmethodologiesarepresentedbelow.

Literaturereviewedforthestudyincludedpeer‐reviewedpublications,reportsfromconsultants,periodicalarticles,analysesbyalllevelsofgovernmentandpublicationsbyadvocacygroups.Thegeographicscopeoftheliteraturerangedfromfocusonaspecificpieceofbicyclinginfrastructuretotheimpactsofbicyclingonanentirecountry.

Althoughbicyclingadvocates,governmentofficialsandordinarycitizensaregivingincreasingattentiontothesubject,studiessimilarinnaturetothiseffortarerareandthedatasourcesavailableonbicyclingremainlimited.Whileanexhaustivereviewofallreputableliteratureonthetopicisnotfeasible,over75articlesandreportswerereviewedinordertoestablishareliablefoundationfortherestofthestudy.

Theliteraturereviewwasspecificallyusefulinrevealingrelevantdatasources,recentimportantbicyclingphenomenonandapplicablemethodologysuchassurveydesigntechniques.

Nonetheless,city‐,state‐andnationwidestudieshavebeenconductedinrecentyearsintheUnitedStatesandEurope.ReportsonbicyclingincitiessuchasPortlandandNewYork,statessuchasIowaandColorado,andnationsliketheUnitedKingdomhaveprovidednumerousdata,utilizingincreasinglysophisticatedmethodology.Thestudiesexaminedvariedsubstantiallyinscopeandscale.Manyofthestudiesreliedmainlyonavailablenationalandstatedata,whileothersaugmentedsecondarysourceswithprimarydatacollection.

Key Studies

Phase I. ThreepreviouslyconductedstudiesprovidedparticularvaluetoPhaseIofthisstudy.Theyarelistedandreviewedindetailbelow.

CenterforResearchinEconomicandSocialPolicy.“TheEconomicImpactofBicyclinginColorado.”1999.


TheestimatedeconomicimpactofbicyclinginColoradoisabout$1billion.Manufacturingproducesthelargestshareofbicycling‐relatedrevenue,followedbyretailandtourism.

ThirtybicycleandrelatedproductsmanufactureswereidentifiedinColorado,withcombinedestimatedannualrevenueof$762.7millionandpayrollof$18.1million.

Retailersreportedtotalannualrevenueof$200millionandpayrollof$16million.Halfofbicyclepurchasescamefromeitherbicycle‐specificbusinessesorgeneralsportinggoodsstores,makingup79percentofbicycleexpenditures.Averagebikepricewas$619.

Skiresortsattract700,000cyclistsannually,whospend$56‐76millioneachyear.Seventypercentofthesecyclistsarefromoutofstate.

TenpercentofColoradansreporthavingtakenabicycle‐relatedvacationinthepastyear,spendinganaverageof$360pervacation.

Definedsectorsofthecyclingeconomyincludemanufacturing,retail,tourismandotheractivities.Otheractivitiesincludetouring,racingandcharityevents.Thesecategoriescouldbelumpedintoone“event”sectorofthecyclingeconomyinfuturestudies.Therevenue,full‐timeequivalentemployment,andpayrollareestimatedforeachsector.

Surveysofmanufacturers,retailers,skiresorts,chambersofcommerceandhouseholdswereconducted.TheamountofcyclingatskiresortsisrelativelyuniquetoColorado,thoughparallelsecondarycyclinguseinfrastructurecouldbeexploredinotherlocales.

Bikesaleoutletswerecategorizedbystoretype,andthedistributionofnumberofbikessoldandproportionofbikeexpendituresbystoretypewereestimated.

Grous,Alexander.“TheBritishCyclingEconomy.”

Thereportdefines“cyclingeconomy”andoffersagrosscyclingcontributiontotheeconomy,quantifiedat£2.9billionor£230percyclistperyearasof2011.Cyclingparticipationisgrowing,andaprojectedgrowthtrendofonemillionadditional“regularcyclists”wouldadd£141milliontotheeconomybetween2011and2013.SeveralfactorsareattributedtothisgrowthincludingthetriplingoftheNationalCycleNetwork(inmiles).

BenefitstotheBritisheconomyinclude2010cyclesalesof£1.62billion(28%annualincrease),£853millioninaccessorysalesandmaintenance,23,000directjobsearningover£500millionandprovidingover£100millionintaxrevenue,andhealthbenefitsestimatedtosavetheeconomy£128millionperyear.Healthbenefitsincludereducedcostsoftreatingobesityandreducedabsenteeism(cyclistsreportmissingwork1.3daysperyearlessthannon‐cyclists).Cyclistsareestimatedtobesavingtheeconomy£193millioninabsenteecosts.

Barrierstothegrowthofcyclingincludesafetyandself‐confidenceconcernsamongindividuals,timeconstraints,anincreaseintheproportionofchildrenbeingdriventoschool,andlimitedpublicfundingforinfrastructure.UnlikeinthenearbyNetherlands,most


(70%)Britishcyclistsaremale.Ahigh(42%)proportionofchildrenownbicycles,butmorethanhalfdonotrideregularly.Thereportexploreslatentdemand,representedbythe2.2millionBritonswhodesiretocyclehaveyettoduetolackofinformationoffunds.Thesepotentialcyclistsrepresent£516millionofeconomicpotential.

Thereareanestimated13millioncyclistsintheU.K.,representing27percentofthepopulation.Thirty‐threepercentatclassifiedasregularcyclists,41percentasoccasionalcyclists,and26percentasfrequentcyclists.Despitebeingthesmallestclassification,frequentcyclistsaccountfor38percentofthesalesandaccessorymarket.

ThereportdrawsextensivecomparisonstoothernorthernEuropeancountries,whichisbeneficialinpartbecauseofsimilarclimate,ridingseasons,andpopulationandinfrastructuredensities.Similarly,comparingMichigan’scyclingcharacteristicstothoseofotherMidwesternstateswouldprovebeneficial.

Cyclingemploymentdataisbrokendownintothreecategories:retailsales,manufacturing,andcyclinginfrastructure.Cyclistsaredividedintothreemajorsegments—occasionalcyclists,regularcyclistswhocyclemorethan12timesperyear,andfrequentcyclistswhocycleatleastonceperweek.Foursub‐segmentsarealsodefined—family,consistingofparentsandchildrenwhoridetogether;recreationalusers;commuters;andenthusiasts.

Theexplorationandquantificationoflatentdemandprovestelling.Assessingthenumberofpeopledesiringtocyclebutpreventedfromdoingsobybarriers,whileoutliningthebenefitsofagrowingcyclingeconomyanddefiningthosebarriers,wouldbevaluabletothosetakingactionandwouldbecrucialtoinformingdecisionsregardingthedeploymentofcapital.

SustainableTourismandEnvironmentProgram.“EconomicandHealthBenefitsofBicyclinginIowa.”Fall2011.

Iowahasover1,600milesoftrails.SevenpercentofIowansmountainbike,while41percentusetrailsforbikingorwalking.Thereareanestimated150,000recreationalriderswhogenerate$367millionindirectandindirecteconomicimpactandsavethestate$74millioninhealthcarecosts.Thereareanestimated25,000commutercyclistswhogenerate$52millionindirectandindirecteconomicimpactandsavethestate$713millioninhealthcarecosts.

Twenty‐ninepercentofIowansdonotmeetrecommendedlevelsofphysicalactivity,while67percentareoverweightorobese.Obesity‐relatedhealthcarecostsinIowaareestimatedat$783million,notincludingabsenteeismorlowproductivitycosts.

Thereare61bicycle‐specificretailbusinessesinthestateand18,300(20%roadbikes,11%children’sbikes,21%mountainbikes,and48%leisurebikes)bikessoldin2010.Revenuestotaled$8.1millioninbikes,$1.9millioninclothing,$4.2inaccessories,and$3.7millioninrepairs.Fifteenyear‐roundbicycleorganizationswereidentified,averaging106membersandanaveragebudgetof$22,000.Theeconomicvalueoftheseorganizations’volunteersisestimatedat$340,000.Register’sAnnualBicycleRideAcrossIowa(RAGBRAI),Iowa’s


highestprofilecyclingeventcreatedanestimated$16.9millionindirectspendingby8,802travelingparties($1,921perparty).

Primaryresearchwasconductedviasurveysofindividualcyclists,bicycle‐specificretailers,andbikeorganizations.Datawascollectedregardingdemographics,bikeusage,events,andbusinessstatistics.Forthesakeofconservativeestimates,medianfigureswereusedincalculatingimpacts.

Individualcyclistsweredividedintocommutersandrecreationalcyclists.Afurtherdivisionofrecreationalcyclistswouldprovebeneficial,asitwoulddistinguishcyclingenthusiastsfromcausalrecreationalriders.

Retaildatawascollectedregardingtype,number,revenueofbikesales,expensesandrevenues,employmentfigures,andcustomerinformation.Employmentandsalesdatasuchasnumberofsales,categoryofsales,andrevenuearerelevantandapplicabletomostanycyclingimpactstudy.Lessusefulisthereport’ssummingofrevenuesandexpensestoprovideatotalimpactfigureforretailers.Non‐bikespecificretailerswerenotincludedinthestudy.Thiscouldbedonebyapplyinggeneralathleticretailers’salesdatatotheirproportionofbikesalestototalsales.

Bicycleorganizationsprovideddataonnumberofmembers,volunteertypesandhours,eventparticipation,andbudget.Budgetallocationinformationwouldprovebeneficial.

HealthcarecostsavingsweredeterminedbyapplyingCentersforDiseaseControldatatoindividualcyclistsridinginformation.

Phase II. FourstudieswerepublishedaftertheliteraturereviewforPhaseIwasconducted.ThesestudieswerereferencedextensivelyduringPhaseIIofthisreport.Theyarelistedandreviewedindetailbelow.

DeanRunyanAssociates.“TheEconomicSignificanceofBicycle‐RelatedTravelinOregon.”April2013.

ConductedbyDeanRunyanAssociates,thisstudyattemptstodocumenttheeconomicimpactofbicycle‐relatedtravelinOregon.Thestudyteamsurveyedbicycleparticipantsthroughbicycle‐relatedemaillists,aswellasanationalhouseholdpanelofOregonvisitors.SurveyswereusedtocollectinformationondirectspendingasaresultofbicycletripsinOregon.

Usingsurveyresponses,thestudyteamcalculatedtravelexpenditures,totalearningsasaresultofbicycle‐relatedtravelexpenditures,increasesinemploymentasaresultofbicycle‐relatedexpenditures,andtheincreaseinlocalandstatetaxreceiptsasaresultofbicycle‐relatedexpenditures.

CharlesBrown.AlanM.VorheesTransportationCenteratRutgersUniversity.“TheEconomicImpactsofActiveTransportationinNewJersey.”


TheNewJerseystudy,conductedbyCharlesBrownattheAlanM.VorheesTransportationCenteratRutgersUniversity,analyzedhowNewJersey’seconomywouldbeimpactediflocal,state,andfederalgovernmentsdidnotinvestinactivetransportationinfrastructureandimprovementswithinthestate.Theprimaryobjectiveofthestudywastoestimateannualstatewideeconomicimpactsofactivetransportation.Todothis,thestudyteamusedaninput‐outputmodeltoestimateeconomicactivityandjobssupportedasaresultofactivetransportation‐relatedcapitalinvestments,businesses,andevents.Totaleconomicactivitywithinthestatewascomparedtoactivetransportation‐relatedinvestmentstoconductthecost‐benefitanalyses.

SimilartotheOregonstudy,theNewJerseystudyusessurveydatatoinformitsinput‐outputmodels.ThisstudyisbroaderinscopethantheOregonstudyasitlooksattheeconomicimpactofallactivetransportation‐relatedexpendituresratherthanonlybicycle‐relatedevents.Additionally,thestudyanalyzestheeconomicbenefitsofcapitalinvestmentsinactivetransportation,atopicnotcoveredbytheOregonstudy.

McClureConsulting.“AnEconomicImpactStudyofBicyclinginArizona.Out‐of‐StateBicycleTourists&Exports.”June2013.

ConductedbyMcClureConsulting,thisstudyutilizedinput‐outputanalysestoestimatethecontributiontotheArizonaeconomyfromout‐of‐statevisitorsengagedinbicyclingactivitieswithinArizona,andout‐of‐statecustomersofbicycle‐relatedgoodsmanufacturedorsoldinthestate.TheArizonastudyissimilarinnatureandscopetothestudyconductedinOregon.Bothstudiesusedsurveydatatoattempttoestimatetheeconomicimpactofbicycling‐relatedactivitiesontheirrespectivestates.

ResourceSystemsGroup.“EconomicImpactofBicyclingandWalkinginVermont.”July6,2012.

TheVermontstudy,conductedbyResourceSystemsGroup,issimilartotheNewJerseystudyasitattemptstoestimatethetotaleconomicbenefitsofwalkingandbicyclinginthestateofVermont.Thestudy’scoreeconomicmodelwasdevelopedbyRegionalEconomicModels,Inc.(REMI)tocalculatethetotaleconomiccontributionofactivetransportationinfrastructurespending,andspendingrelatingtoactivetransportationeventsandbusinesses.

TheResourceSystemsGroupstudyteamfoundthatcertaineconomicimpactcategorieshadlittlereliableinformationfromwhichtoestimatetotaleconomicimpacts.Thesecategoriesincludedavoidedtransportationconsumerandpubliccosts,andtheimpactonrealestatevaluefromactivetransportationinvestments.TheychosetoexcludethesecategoriesfromtheREMImodel,anddiscussthesecategoriesinamorequalitativefashion.

Supporting Studies

Thefollowingstudiesandarticleswereutilizedtovaryingdegreesduringthecourseoftheentirestudy.


ActiveLivingResearch.“TheEconomicBenefitsofOpenSpace,RecreationFacilitiesandWalkableCommunityDesign.”RobertWoodJohnsonFoundation.May2010.

Papersynthesizespreviousresearchinregardstotheeconomicvalueofoutdoorrecreationfacilities,openspacesandwalkablecommunitydesign.Focusesontheprivatebenefitsthataccruetonearbyhomeownersaswellasotherusersofopenspace.

AdventureCyclingAssociation.“BonjourCycleTourism!”3October,2012.

AllianceforBiking&Walking.“WorkingwiththeBusinessCommunity.”11July2012.

Discussesopportunitiesandtipsforworkingwithandconsultingtolocalbusinessesandbusinessdistricts.

AltaPlanning&Design.“Bicycle‐RelatedIndustryGrowthinPortland.”Boulder,CO.June2006.

AnalyzestheeconomicimpactofbicyclingtotheCityofPortlandbyconductingasurveyofover100businesses.Surveyconsistedoffourquestionsrelatedtogrossrevenuerelatedtobicycles,growthinrevenueoverthepastdecade,theeffectofPortland’sbike‐friendlyreputationonbusiness,andhowthebicycle‐relatedactivitiesoftheCitycouldhelptheirbusinessgrow.

AltaPlanning&Design.“TheValueofBicycle‐RelatedIndustryinPortland.”Boulder,CO.2008.

AmericaBikes.“BikeSpendingperCapita.”

Listofestimatedannualrevenueperstate.

AmericanHikingSociety.“TheEconomicBenefitsofTrails.”February2004.

Archambault,Dennis.“Detroit’sNewBicycleEconomy.”ModelDMedia.09October2012.

Badger,Emily.“CyclistsandPedestriansCanEndUpSpendingMoreEachMonthThanDrivers.”TheAtlanticCities.05December,2012.

Beierle,Heidi.“BywaysviaBicycle:SeeingtheUnitedStatesonTwoWheels.”TheJournalforAmerica’sByways.October2011.

DiscussionofbicycletourismintheUnitedStates,including:typesofbicycletourists,routeandpathcharacteristicsacrossthenation,generaldiscussionoftravellingcross‐countryviabicycle.

Belden,Russonello&StewartLLC.“2011CommunityPreferenceSurveyNationalAssociationofRealtors.”2011.

BicycleFederationofWisconsin.“Bicycling:GoodforWisconsin.”17December,2010.

BrieflydiscussesthebenefitsofbicyclinginthestateofWisconsin.


BicycleFederationofWisconsin.“WisconsinBicyclingBusinesses.”17December2010.

Alistof200bicycle‐relatedbusinessesinWisconsin.

BicycleFederationofWisconsinandWisconsinDepartmentofTransportation.“TheEconomicImpactofBicyclinginWisconsin.”

PresentstheimpactofbicyclingonWisconsinanditseconomyinthreeparts:overallbenefitsfrombicyclingtothestateofWisconsin,economicdataonthebicyclingindustryinWisconsin,aswellasanecdotaldataontheeconomicimpactofbicycletourismandrecreation.Totalimpactiscalculatedtobe$556millionand3,420jobsinadditiontoanundeterminedbutsignificantadditionaleconomicbenefitfrombicycletourism.

BikesBelongCoalition.“BikesBelongSurvey:TheSize&ImpactofRoadRidingEvents.”November2009.

Surveywasconductedtoestimatethesize,number,anddirecteconomicimpactofrecreationalroadbicyclingeventsintheyear2008.Total2008revenuefromrecreationalroadridingeventscalculatedtobe$240millionin2008.

BostonCyclistsUnion.“BikeLanes–GoodforBusiness,GoodforTaxpayers.”

Describesindetailthebenefitstotaxpayersfrombicyclinginthecategoriesofhealthcarecosts,infrastructurecosts,cleanair,increasedtourism,improvementsintrafficsafety,andbikelanepopularity.

Buehler,RalphandJohnPucher,eds.“CityCycling.”TheMITPress.November2012.

Cheng,Elaineetal.“Shopping,Parking,andTransportationIntheEastVillage.”

Examinestransportationhabitsandshoppingandspendingpatternsofresidentsandvisitorson2ndAvenuebetweenHoustonSt.and14thSt.intheEastVillage,Manhattan.Analyzesmodeoftransportationtotheareaanditsrelationshipwithaveragespendingpercapita,residentvs.non‐residentautomobileuse,attitudestowardstravellingtotheareagivenless/moreparkingspaces

Clifton,Kellyetal.“ExaminingConsumerBehaviorandTravelChoices.”PortlandStateUniversity.February2013.

Reportlooksatconsumerspendingandtravelchoicesacross89businessesinthePortlandmetropolitanarea.Studyfindsthattherearedifferencesbetweentheamountconsumersspendatvariousbusinessesbytheirmodeoftravel,butthatthisdifferenceislesspronouncedwhencontrollingforcustomerdemographics.Furthermore,thebuiltenvironment(employmentdensity,proximitytorailtransit,etc)iskeytoexplainingtheuseofnon‐automobilemodes.

Cortright,Joe.“NewYorkCity’sGreenDividend.”CEOsforCities.April2010.


Analyzesthe“GreenDividend”ofNewYork,theamountofmoneythatNewYorkerssaveonauto‐relatedexpensesperyearthatisthenspentlocally,stimulatingthecity’seconomy.LooksatVehicleMilesTravelled(VMT)perdayinNewYorkascomparedtothe50largestU.S.metroareasandcalculatessavingsbymultiplyingthedifferenceinVMTbythecostofoperatingamotorvehiclepermile.

Danielle,Sinnettetal.“MakingtheCaseforInvestmentintheWalkingEnvironment.”June2011.

Putsforthargumentsandevidenceforinvestinginthewalkingenvironment.Discussiontopicsinclude:whyinvestinwalkingenvironments,widerbenefitsofwalkingfriendlyenvironments,whatmakesagoodwalkingenvironment,andthecosteffectivenessofinvestmentsinwalkingenvironments.

DeanRunyanAssociates.“Proposal–OregonBicycleEconomicImpacts.”29March,2012.

Proposedprojectwillprovideadetaileddescriptionofthemagnitudeofbicyclingfromamanufacturingandretailsalesindustryandrecreationaltravelperspectivebydocumentingthevariouswaysthatbicyclesandbicyclingprovideeconomicbenefitstothestateanditsresidents.

DeanRunyanAssociates.“TheEconomicSignificanceofBicycle‐RelatedTravelinOregon.”April2013.

Studyaimstoprovideadetaileddescriptionofthemagnitudeofbicyclingfromarecreationaltravelperspectivebyusingadetailedquestionnaire.Datashowsthatin2012travelerswhoparticipatedinbicycle‐relatedactivitieswhiletravelinginOregonspentnearly$400million–approximately4.4percentofdirecttravelspendinginthestate.

Dobes,Leo.“EconomicEvaluationofBicycleInfrastructure.”

Appendix4inalargerpaper,“WalkingandCyclingTrunkInfrastructureReport.”AppendixprovidesanoutlineoftheCostBenefitAnalysismethodologyusedtoestimatethebenefitsofenhancedbicyclelanesandfacilitiesinCanberra.Authorsofthepaperwanttoapplyonlyadamages‐avoidedapproachwithvalueofstatisticallifebasedonthehumancapitalapproach,asopposedtothewillingnesstopaybasedonchoicemodeling.

EastCentralFloridaRegionalPlanningCouncil.“EconomicImpactAnalysisofOrangeCountyTrails.”2011.

AttemptstodeterminetheeconomicimpactoftheLittleEconGreenways,WestOrangeandCadyWayTrailsonOrangeCountyFlorida’slocaleconomy.Ageneralsurveywasdistributedtotrailusersinanattempttocollectdataonthespendinghabitsassociatedwithusingthethreetrails.Inordertodetermineeconomicimpact,datafromthesurveyswasanalyzedviatheRegionalEconomicModel,Inc.(REMI).

EconomicandPolicyResources,Inc.,LocalMotion,andResourceSystemsGroup,Inc.“EconomicImpactofBicyclingandWalkinginVermont.”6July,2012.


EstimatesthetotaleconomicbenefitsofwalkingandbikinginthestateofVermont,withamorecomprehensiveapproachthansimplyanalyzingrevenuefromtourismandvisitorspending.StudyfindstheoveralleconomiccontributionofbicycleandpedestrianorientedactivitiesinVermontin2009tobe$82milliondollarsinoutputand1,418jobscomingfrominfrastructureandbicycle‐pedestrianeventsandbusinesses.

Flusche,Darren..“BicyclingMeansBusiness:TheEconomicBenefitsofBicycleInfrastructure.”AdvocacyAdvance.July2012

Highlightstheimpactthebicycleindustryandbicycletourismcanhaveonstateandlocaleconomies,discussesthecosteffectivenessofinvestments,pointsoutthebenefitsofbikefacilitiesforbusinessdistrictsandneighborhoods,andidentifiesthecostsavingsassociatedwithamodeshiftfromcartobicycle.Evidenceshowsthatinvestmentsinbicycleinfrastructureareacost‐effectivewaytoenhanceshoppingdistrictsandcommunities,generatetourismandsupportbusiness.

Garrett‐Peltier,Heidi.“EstimatingtheEmploymentImpactsofPedestrian,Bicycle,andRoadInfrastructure.”PoliticalEconomyResearchInstitute.December2010.

CasestudythatestimatestheemploymentimpactsofvarioustransportationinfrastructureprojectsinthecityofBaltimore,particularlyinregardstothedifferencesinemploymentresultingfromdifferentprojecttypes—projectsthatfocusonbicycleandpedestrianinfrastructurevs.thosethatdonot.Indescendingorderoftotaljobspermilliondollarsspent,projectsarerankedinthefollowingorder:Pedestrianprojects,bikelanes(on‐street),bikeboulevard(planned),roadrepairsandupgrades,androadresurfacing.

Garrett‐Peltier,Heidi.“PedestrianandBicycleInfrastructure:ANationalStudyofEmploymentImpacts.”PoliticalEconomyResearchInstitute.June2011.

Analyzestheemploymentresultingfromthedesignandconstructionofpedestrianandbicyclinginfrastructureprojects.DataweregatheredfromDepartmentsofTransportationusingdetailedcostestimatesonavarietyofprojectstocreateaninput‐outputmodelthatstudiesthedirect,indirect,andinducedemploymentthatiscreatedthroughthedesign,construction,andmaterialsprocurementofbicycle,pedestrian,androadinfrastructure.

Gotschi,Thomas.“CostsandBenefitsofBicyclingInvestmentsinPortland,Oregon.”JournalofPhysicalActivityandHealth.2011.

ObjectiveistoassesshowcostsofPortland’spastandplannedinvestmentsinbicyclingrelatetohealthandotherbenefits.Comparescostsofinvestmentplanswithhealthcarecostsavingsandvalueofstatisticallifesavings.Resultsshowthatinvestmentsofbetween$138and$605millionwillresultinhealthcarecostsavingsof$388to$594million,fuelsavingsof$143to$218million,andsavingsinvalueofstatisticallivesof$7to$12billion.

Grabow,Maggie,MicahHahn,andMelissaWhited.“ValuingBicycling’sEconomicandHealthImpactsinWisconsin.”TheNelsonInstituteforEnvironmentalStudiesCenterforSustainabilityandtheGlobalEnvironment,UniversityofWisconsin‐Madison.January2010.


Assessestheeconomicandhealthbenefitsofbicyclingrecreationinthestateinadditiontodemographictrendscharacterizingcurrentandfuturecyclists.Economicimpactisdeterminedbyquantifyingthenumberofbicycleperson‐days,determiningtheaverageexpenditureofbicyclists,andthenmodelingtotaleconomicimpactsusinganinput/outputmodel.StudyestimatestotaleconomicimpactofbicyclerecreationandtourisminWisconsintobe$924millioninadditiontothetotalpotentialvalueofhealthbenefitsat$410million.

Griffin,Robert,JenniferHoag,andMichaelToma.“CoastalGeorgiaGreenwayMarketStudyandProjectedEconomicImpact.”ArmstrongAtlanticStateUniversityCenterforRegionalAnalysis.December2003.

Studyestimatesannualuseandeconomicimpactofa150‐milemulti‐usetrailthatexistsaspartoftheGeorgiacomponentoftheEastCoastGreenway.Analyzesbothnon‐quantifiableaswellasquantifiableeconomicbenefitsgivendifferingbaseassumptionsregardingpercentageoftrailusersthatarelocalresidents.

Hollowell,Dana.“Cyclingtourists,rails‐to‐trailsboostMichiganastwo‐wheeledvacationdestination.”BridgeMagazine.05April2012.

Krizek,Kevin.“EstimatingtheEconomicBenefitsofBicyclingandBicycleFacilities:AnInterpretiveReviewandProposedMethods.”EssaysonTransportationEconomics.2007.

Paperreviewsandinterpretsexistingliteratureregardingtheeconomicbenefitsofbicyclefacilitiesandsuggestsstrategiestoevaluateeconomicbenefitsinfuturework.Discussionofcentralissuesandconfoundingfactorsintheanalysisofbicyclebenefitsaswellashowtheframeworkpresentedinthepapercanbebuiltupon.

Lawrie,Judsonetal.“BikewaystoProsperity–AssessingtheEconomicImpactofBicycleFacilities.”InstituteforTransportationResearchandEducation.February2006.

DetermineifbenefitsgainedfromNorthCarolinaDepartmentofTransportationinvestmentsinbicyclefacilitiesintheOuterBanksjustifytheinvestmentinadditionalfacilitiesacrossthestate.EconomicImpactAnalysislooksatthedegreetowhichbicyclingtouristsweredrawntotheareabecauseofbicyclefacilities.Studysuggeststhatpublicinvestmentsinothercoastalandresortareascouldreturnsimilarbenefits.

LeagueofMichiganBicyclists.“2012SunriseBicycleTour–SurveyResults.”

LeagueofMichiganBicyclists.“StateofMichiganBicycleProfile.”16April,2013.

Listsdifferentbicycle‐relatedorganizations,groups,andbicycle‐friendlybusinessesacrosstheStateofMichigan.

Lee,Karen.“CreatingHealthyCommunitiesThroughDesign.”28June,2011.

Overviewofhowcommunitydesignimpactshealthbylookingattrendsincommunitydesignandtheircorrelationwithincreasesinobesityanddiabetesandgeneraldeclinesinhealth.Alsoprovidesdataonco‐benefitsofcreatingorimprovingaccesstoplacesfor


physicalactivitysuchasenvironmentalimprovements,moneysavedtotheconsumer,andjobcreation.

Liechty,RachelandIngridSchneider.“LakeCountyScenicByway:Awareness,impactonqualityoflife&economy.”UniversityofMinnesotaTourismCenter.December2010.

Studyaimstoidentify,viaaquestionnaire,consumerawarenessoftheLakeCountyScenicByway,thebyway’simpactonqualityoflifeamongresidents,andtheeconomicimpactofbywaytravelerstotheregionaleconomy.Economicimpactisestimatedat$32millionineconomicoutputand512full‐time,part‐time,andseasonaljobs.Litman,Todd.“EconomicValueofWalkability.”VictoriaTransportPolicyInstitute.12December2007.

Litman,Todd.“EconomicValueofWalkability.”VictoriaTransportPolicyInstitute.2007.

Describeswaystoevaluatethebenefitofwalkingandwalkabilityfromtheviewpointthatwalkingiscurrentlyundervaluedinconventionaltransportationplanning.Potentialwalkabilityimpactsincludeaccessibility,consumercostsavings,publiccostsavings,efficientlanduse,livability,publicfitnessandhealth,economicdevelopment,andequity.Threeapproachestointegratethevalueofwalkabilityintransportationplanningdecisionsarediscussed:asaproportionalshareoftotaltravelactivity,acostallocationapproach,andacost‐benefitanalysisapproach.

Lovy,Howard.“Biketrailsbringtwo‐wheeltourismtonorthernMichiganbusinesses.”Crain’sDetroitBusiness.26September,2012.

Meisel,Drew.“BikeCorrals–LocalBusinessImpacts,Benefits,andAttitudes.”PortlandStateUniversitySchoolofUrbanStudiesandPlanning.2010

Aimstoresearchandcloselyexaminetheperceivedbenefitsandimpactsofbikecoralsonlocalbusinessesproximatetoacorral.Web‐basedsurveyadministeredforallbusinesseswithinonehalf‐blockofabikecorral.Surveyresultsshowbikecorralsareperceivedtohelppromotesustainability,enhancestreetandneighborhoodidentity,increasefootandbiketraffic,etc.

NationalTransportationEnhancementsClearinghouse.“TheSocialandEconomicBenefitsofTransportationEnhancements.”

Showcases10projectsthatdemonstratedthepotentialoftheTransportationEnhancements(TE)programtobringaboutpositivechanceandeconomicgrowthinlocalcommunities.

NationalBicycleandPedestrianClearinghouse.“TheEconomicandSocialBenefitsofOff‐RoadBicycleandPedestrianFacilities.”TechnicalAssistanceSeries,Number2.September1995.

Nelson,Charlesetal.“Rail‐TrailsandSpecialEvents:CommunityandEconomicBenefits.”MichiganStateUniversity.


DiscussescommunityandeconomicbenefitsassociatedwithtworecreationalbicyclespecialeventsheldonthePereMarquetteRail‐Trail(PMRT)inMidlandCountyMichigan.Botheventsbroughtintoover$450,000totalindirectspendingintheyear1999.

Neuner,Rory.“ResourcesforMichiganEconomicImpactofBicyclingStudy.”19February,2013.

BrieflydescribescurrenthotissuesinMichiganrelatedtotransportationinadditiontolistingmajorbicyclingorganizations.

NewYorkCityDOT.“MeasuringtheStreet:NewMetricsfor21stCenturyStreets.”2012.

Discusseskeyapproachestostreetdesignprojects,aswellashowtomeasureresultsagainstgoalsforsafety.Usingacross‐sectionofrecentNYCDOTstreetdesignprojects,thereportdetailsthemetricswhichNYCDOTusestoevaluatestreetprojects.Metricsinclude:crashesandinjuries,volumeofvehicles,trafficspeed,economicvitality,usersatisfaction,andenvironmentalandpublichealthbenefits.

Nighswander,Matt.“Bikelanesmaybenefitsmallbusinesses.”NBCNews.

OutdoorIndustryFoundation.“TheActiveOutdoorRecreationEconomy.”Boulder,CO.2006.

AnalyzestheactiveoutdoorrecreationeconomyandcalculatesitstotaleconomicimpactintheUnitedStates.Looksatsubgroupsoftheindustrysuchasdifferenttypesofrecreation,participationacrossdifferentregions,salesrevenuegenerated,jobsinvolvedinsupportingtheindustry.

PewCenterontheStatesandTheRockefellerFoundation.“MeasuringTransportationInvestments:TheRoadtoResults.”May2011.

Identifieswhichstateshavetheessentialtoolsinplacetomakemorecost‐effectivetransportationfundingandpolicychoices.Concludethatstatesgenerallyhavethegoals,performancemeasures,anddatatohelpthemmeasureprogressinregardstosafetyandinfrastructurepreservation.Inotherimportantareassuchasjobs,commerceandenvironmentalstewardship,policymakersaswellasthepublicneedbetterandmoreinformationabouttheresultstheyaregettingfortheirmoney.

Rails‐to‐Trails‐Conservancy.“ActiveTransportationBeyondUrbanCenters:WalkingandBicyclinginSmallTownsandRuralAmerica.”Washington,DC.

Newanalysisof2009NationalHouseholdTravelSurveyforfivedifferenttypesofruralareasimprovesuponpreviousresearchwhichplacedalltypesofruralareasinonecategory.Reportshowsthat,forsomecategoriesofruralcommunities,human‐poweredmobilityisascommonasinurbanareas.Discussestheneedforfederalinvestmentsinsmallercommunitiesascomparedtomoreurbanareas.

Rails‐to‐TrailsConservancy.“ActiveTransportationforAmerica:TheCaseforIncreasedFederalInvestmentinBicyclingandWalking.”Washington,DC.2008.


Reportquantifiesthebenefitsfromcyclingandwalkingunderbusiness‐as‐usualscenario,modestscenario,andsubstantialscenario.Benefitsincludeavoideddriving,fuelsavings,CO2emissionreductions,andphysicalactivity.Benefitstotheeconomyrangefrom$4.1billionperyearintheBAUcaseto$65.9billioninthesubstantialscenario.

Rails‐to‐Trails‐Conservancy.“D&LTrail2012UserSurveyandEconomicImpactAnalysis.”December2012.

Studyconductedin2012toquantifythenumberofusersondifferentsectionsoftheDelawareandLehighNationalHeritageCorridoracrossdifferentsectionsofthetrail.Surveyswerealsoavailablealongthetrailthataskedquestionsregardingtrailusage,distancetravelledtousethetrail,amountofmoneyspentwhilevisitingthetrail/region,etc.

Rails‐to‐Trails‐Conservancy.“TrailUserSurveysandEconomicImpact:AComparisonofTrailUserExpenditures2009.”March2009

Reportfocusesonreporteddollarsspentfromtrailusersurveyscompletedonsevenrail‐trailsinPennsylvania.

Rodgers,AnthonyandPatrickVaughan.“TheWorldHealthReport2002:ReducingRisks,PromotingHealthyLife.”WorldHealthOrganization.2002.

Describestheamountofdisease,disabilityanddeathintheworldtodaythatcanbeattributedtoaselectednumberofthemostimportantriskstohumanhealth.Alsocalculateshowmuchofthecurrentburdencouldbeavoidedinthenextcoupleofdecadesiftheseriskfactorsarereduced.

Ryan,Bill.“EconomicBenefitsofaWalkableCommunity.”Let’sTalkBusiness–IdeasforExpandingRetailandServicesinYourCommunity.July2003.

Sayer,Jim.“CalculatingtheValueofBicycleTravel.”AdventureCyclingAssociation.21March,2012.

Powerpointpresentationonthevalueofbicycletravelandassociatedprojectsindifferentlocationsworldwide.

Snyder,Ryan.“TheEconomicValueofActiveTransportation.”RyanSnyderAssociates,LLC.

Factsheetdetailingthebenefitsofactivetransportationandhowitrelatestocommunitydesign.

SouthwickAssociates.“TheOutdoorRecreationEconomy:TechnicalReportonMethodsandFindings.”31August,2012.

Studyupdatesandexpandsupon2006studyofactiveoutdoorrecreationbyaddinganadditionalsurveytogaugethebroadereconomiccontributionsofoutdoorrecreation.Inordertocombineeconomiccontributionsfromthetwosurveys,asetofactivitieswas


definedthatencompassesbothtypesofrecreation(motorizedandnon‐motorized).Totaleconomicimpactiscalculatedasasumofdirect,indirect,andinducedeffects.

TheCenterforResearchonEconomicandSocialPolicy(CRESP)oftheUniversityofColoradoatDenver.“BicyclingandWalkinginColorado:EconomicImpactandHouseholdSurveyResults.”April2000.

ProvidesstatisticalinformationregardingtheeconomicimpactofbicyclinginColorado.Dataaregatheredphoneandmailsurveysofbicyclemanufacturers,retailbicycleshops,andskiresortoperatorsinColorado.EconomicimpactfrombicyclinginColoradocalculatedtobeover$1billionannually,primarilyfrombicyclemanufacturing.

Tomes,PatriciaandCarlKnoch.“TrailUserSurveysandEconomicImpact:AComparisonofTrailUserExpenditures2009.”Rails‐to‐TrailsConservancy.March2009.

Comparessurveyresponsescompletedonsevenrail‐trailsinPennsylvaniatosevenusersurveyscompletedoncomparabletrailsinthenortheastU.S.Reportreviewsaselectionoftrailusersurveysanalyzingtheeconomicimpactofrail‐trails,comparesthedataandmethodologyused,andcreatesacomparativetablewhichdetailsdollarsamountspentpertrailuseroneachtrail.

TransportationAlternatives.“StreetstoLiveBy.”August2008.

Examinesthecostsandbenefitsofawide‐ranging“livablestreets”programinNYC,aprogramthataimstoincreasepedestrianandbicycleusageofcitystreets.PaperreviewstheLivableStreetsmovement,howthemovementwillbenefitthecommunityandtheeconomy,andhowtobestmakeNYClivable.Recommendationsincludemakinglivablestreetstherule,increasingtheamountofwalkinginNYC,promotinglivablestreetsonthebasisofpublichealthandinbusinessdistricts,etc.

VancouverAreaCyclingCoalition.“HowdoBikesBenefitBusiness?”

Vogt,Christine,ChuckNelson,andJoelLynch.“BusinessAnalysisReport–ImpactsofthePereMarquetteRail‐TrailontheEconomyandBusinessCommunityofMidlandandIsabellaCounties,Michigan.”DepartmentofPark,RecreationandTourismResources,MichiganStateUniversity.

PowerpointdescribingthebenefitsandcostsrelatedtotheconstructionanduseofthePereMarquetteRail‐Trail.

Woehrer,Julia.“NewPavementMeansNewCustomersforLocalBusinesses.”NorthwestMichigan’sSecondWave.23October,2012.

Yates,Gus.“TheEconomicCaseforCarfreeDevelopment.”CarFreeCity,USA.

Powerpointpresentationdetailingthebenefitsofacar‐freedevelopmentplan.Benefitsincludelessautomobile‐relatedfatalities,lowerlevelsofobesity,pollutiondecreases,decreasesinhouseholdtransportationcosts,infrastructuresavings,etc.

APPENDIX D.

Survey Instruments and Interview Guides

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 1

APPENDIX D. Survey Instruments and Interview Guides

AppendixDcontainsthefollowingsurveyinstrumentsandinterviewguides:

Thesurveyinstrumentusedforthebicyclingeventsurveys;

Thesurveyinstrumentusedforindependenttouringbicyclists;and

Theinterviewguideusedindiscussionswithbicycletouringcompanies.

Event Participant Survey Instrument

TheMichiganDepartmentofTransportation(MDOT)isconductingastudyassessingtheeconomicimpactsofbicyclingthroughoutthestate.AlongwithastudyteamconsistingofBBCResearch&ConsultingandR.NeunerConsulting,MDOTisinterestedinlearningmoreaboutparticipationandspendinghabitsassociatedwithbicyclingeventandtravel.

Pleasetakeafewminutestocompletethefollowingsurvey.Thesurveyshouldtakeyounomorethan5minutestocomplete.Therearenorightorwronganswers,andeveryanswerisveryimportanttous.Ifyouparticipateinmultiplebicycle‐relatedevents,youmaybeaskedtoanswerthesurveybasedonyourtriprelatedtoeachevent.Weappreciateyourtimeandeffortwiththisprocess.Alloftheinformationgatheredwillbereportedinaggregateandyourresponseswillbeanonymous.

1. HaveyouparticipatedinanorganizedbicyclingeventinMichiganinthepast12months?

a. Yesb. No(terminatesurvey)

2. WereyouinvitedtotakethissurveyregardingaparticulareventinMichigan?a. Yesb. No(skiptoquestion4)

3. Whateventinvitedyoutotakethissurvey?[Dropdownmenuwithlistofeventsaswellasoptionstochoose‘other’andenteraresponse,or“Noeventinvitedmetotakethissurvey](skiptoquestion5unless“Noevent…”isselected)

4. WhatisthemostrecentMichiganbicyclingeventinwhichyouparticipated?[Dropdownmenuwithlistofeventsaswellasanoptiontochoose‘other’andenteraresponse]

5. DidyoutraveltoMichiganfromanotherstateorcountrytoparticipateintheevent?a. Yes(skiptoquestion7)b. No

6. Didyoutravelmorethan50milestoparticipateintheevent?

a. Yesb. No

7. ThebicyclingeventIparticipatedinwas…

a. Theprimaryreasonformytravel.(skiptoquestion9)b. Oneofmultiplereasonsformytravel.c. Notthereasonformytravel(i.e.Iwouldhavemadethesametripregardlessof

whetherornotIparticipatedintheevent).

8. Didyouextendthelengthofyourtripbecauseyouparticipatedintheevent?a. Yesb. No

9. Howmanypeoplewereinyourtravelparty(includingyourself)?___________

Page 2

10. Howmanypeopleinyourpartyparticipatedintheevent(includingyourself)?__________

11. Howmanydayswasyourtrip?__________

12. PleaseestimatetheamountofmoneyyourpartyspentperdayinMichiganonthefollowingcategoriesduringyourtrip.

a. Lodging(e.g.hotels,campgrounds,cottages) $_______b. Restaurantsandbars $_______c. Groceries(i.e.foodandbeveragenotatrestaurantsandbars) $_______d. Non‐foodshopping(e.g.clothing,souvenirs,etc.) $_______e. Non‐bicyclingentertainment(e.g.amusementpark,movietheater,etc.)$_______f. Bicycles,components,repairs,andaccessories $_______

13. Pleaseestimatetheamountofmoneyyourpartyspentontransportation(e.g.airfare,

gas,publictransportation,carrentalorparking)duringyourtrip.$__________

14. Whatisyourage?a. Under18b. 18‐24c. 25‐34d. 35‐44e. 45‐54f. 55‐64g. 65orabove

15. Whatisyoursex?

a. Maleb. Female

16. WhatisyourZIPcode?

a. _______b. IliveoutsidetheUnitedStates

17. Whatisyourannualhouseholdincome?

a. Lessthan$25,000b. $25,001‐50,000c. $50,001‐75,000d. $75,001‐100,000e. $100,001‐125,000f. $125,001‐150,000g. $150,001‐200,000h. $200,001ormore

18. Additionalcomments:_______________________________Thankyouforyourtimeandparticipation.Aswementionedatthebeginningofthesurvey,youmaybeaskedtotakethissurveyagainregardingyourparticipationinanotherevent.Ifyouhavethetime,weappreciateyourcompletionofasurveyregardingyourtripandexpensesforeachbicycle‐relatedevent.

MDOT Touring Bicyclist Survey

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is conducting a study assessing the economic impacts of bicycle touring throughout the state. Along with a study team consisting of BBC Research & Consulting and R. Neuner Consulting, MDOT is interested in learning more about participation and spending habits associated with bicycle touring and travel. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. The survey should take you no more than 5-7 minutes to complete. There are no incorrect answers, and every answer is very important to us. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Josh DeBryun at MDOT: [email protected]

1. Have you ever participated in a multi-day bicycle trip in

Michigan?

Yes

No (If no, please skip to Question 15)

2. Have you ever visited Michigan before your most recent mutli-day bicycle trip?

Yes

No

3. How long has it been since your most recent multi-day bicycle trip in Michigan?

Within the past month

More than one month but less than six months

More than six months but less than a year

More than one year but less than three years

More than three years

4. Thinking about your most recent mutli-day bicycle trip in Michigan, how many days did you spend in Michigan (including rest days)?

__________

5. On your most recent multi-day bicycle trip in Michigan, how many bicyclists (including yourself) were in your travel/party group?

__________

6. On your most recent multi-day bicycle trip in Michigan, approximately how many miles did you ride per day touring within the state (exclude rest day riding)?

__________

7. On your most recent multi-day bicycle trip in Michigan, approximately how many miles did you ride in total within the state?

__________

8. At any time during your trip did you utilize U.S. Bicycle Route 20? (US Bicycle Route 20 is an east-west route traveling through central Michigan. Route 20 travels

between Marine City north of Detroit, to Ludington on the Lake Michigan coast. See map below.)

Yes

No

9. At any time during your trip did you utilize U.S. Bicycle

Route 35? (US Bicycle Route 35 is a north-south route in western Michigan that generally follows the Lake Michigan coastline. Route 35 enters Michigan near New Buffalo in the southwestern corner of the state and terminates the Upper Peninsula in Sault Ste. Marie. See map above.)

Yes

No

10. Please indicate, to the best of your ability, the cities in Michigan closest to where you entered and exited the state on your most recent multi-day bicycle trip.

Enter: __________

Exit: __________

11. What was the main surface type you used on your most recent multi-day bicycle trip in Michigan?

Paved road

Paved side path/rail trail

Dirt road

Dirt rail trail

45-54

55-64

65 or older

$100,000 – 124,999

$125,000 – 149,999

$150,000 – 199,999

$200,000 and above

12. Did your trip include riding an Amtrak train in Michigan?

Yes

No

13. Please briefly describe your bicycle route through the state of Michigan (description can include cities you stayed in, routes used during the trip, etc.)

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

14. Please estimate the amount of money your party spent per day in Michigan on the following categories during your trip (bicycling days and off days combined).

a.) Lodging (e.g. hotels, campgrounds, $_________ cottages)

b.) Restaurants and bars $_________

c.) Groceries (e.g. food and beverage not at restaurants and bars) $_________

d.) Non-food shopping (e.g. clothing, souvenirs, etc.) $_________

e.) Non-bicycling entertainment (e.g. amusement park, movie theater, etc.) $_________ f.) Bicycles, components, repairs and accessories $_________ g.) Non-bicycling transportation $_________

15. What is your age?

Under 18

18-24

25-34

35-44

16. What is your sex?

Male

Female

17. What is the ZIP code of your primary residence? __________ (Skip to question 19)

I live outside the United States

18. If your primary residence is not located in the United States, in what city and country is your primary residence located?

City:______________

Country: ______________

19. What is your annual household income?

Less than $25,000

$25,000 - 49,999

$50,000 - 74,999

$75,000 – 99,999

20. Additional Comments: _____________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

To return, simply fold this survey in half so that the Business Return information is on the outside, either staple or tape to secure it, and then put it in the mail. No postage necessary.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

Interview Guide

Goodmorning/afternoon,mynameis_________andIamwithBBCResearch&Consulting.WeareworkingwiththeMichiganDepartmentofTransportation(MDOT)toassesstheeconomicimpactofbicyclinginthestateofMichigan.InadditiontosurveyingbicyclistsateventssuchasDALMACandtheMichigander,weareattemptingtocontactcompaniesthatprovideservicestotouringcyclistsinthestateofMichiganinordertocalculatetheeconomicimpactoftouringcyclistswithinthestate.Areyouwillingtospendafewminutes(5‐10)discussingyourbusinessandtheservicesthatyouprovidetotouringcyclistsinMichigan?

BelowisalistofpotentialquestionsforinterviewswithbicycletouringcompaniesthatoperateinMichigan.

Whattypesoftoursdoyouoffer?

Howmanydoyouoffereachyear?

Whatisthetotalnumberofcyclistswhotourwithyourcompanyeachyear?

WhatproportionofyourclientsarefromoutsideofMichigan?

Howmanystaffdoyouemploy?Aretheyemployedfull‐timeorpart‐time?

Whataretheaveragerates/pricesforyourtours?

Doyouprovideservicestoself‐supportedcyclistsinthestateofMichigan?

o Approximatelyhowmanyself‐supportcyclistsdoyouprovideservicestoeachmonth/year?

o Whatservicesdoyouoffer?Howmuchdotheycost?

Whatareyouraverageannualrevenues?Whatproportioncomesfromtouring‐relatedincome?

Businesstrendsinthepastfewyears?Haveyounoticedmore,less,orthesameamountoftouringbicyclistsinMichigan?

HaveyounoticedanychangeinbusinessasaresultofU.S.bicycleroutes20and35?Haveyounoticedcustomersspecificallymentioningthoseroutesasdesiredbicyclepaths/toursthroughthestate?

CanyouthinkofanythingelsethatthestateshouldconsiderinordertoimprovebicycletouringinMichigan?

Othercomments/concerns?

DoyouknowofanyothercompaniesinthestateofMichiganthatwouldbewillingtodiscusstheirbusinessesprovidingservicestotouringcyclists?

APPENDIX E.

Michigan Bicycle Events

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING — FINAL REPORT APPENDIX E, PAGE 1

APPENDIX E. Michigan Bicycle Events

AppendixEincludesthelistsusedforthestudyfortargetedbicycleeventsinMichiganaswellastheothereventsincludedinthedatacollectionprocess.

Figure 1. Targeted Bicycle Events


Targeted Events

Assenmacher Michigan Mountain Mayhem Gravel Grinder

Barry‐Roubaix Gravel Road Race Michigan Mountain Mayhem Spring Classic

Bike Michiana for Hospice Michigan's UP Tour

Black Bear Bicycle Tour MSU Grand Fondo

Blue Water Ramble Mud Sweat and Beers

Celebration of Cycling NTN Trails Fest

Colorburst ODRAM

Copper Harbor Trails Festival One Helluva Ride

Grand Rapids Triathlon PALM

HealthPlus Tour de Crim Ride Around Torch

Holland Hundred Shoreline West

Lakeshore Harvest Country Bike Tour Tailwind Cyclocross

Leelanau Harvest Tour Tour de Livingston

Lowell 50 Yankee Springs Time Trial

Lumberjack 100 Zeeland Criterium

Michigan Mountain Mayhem Zoo‐de‐Mackinac Bike Bash (tour)

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING — FINAL REPORT APPENDIX E, PAGE 2

Figure 2. All Other Bicycle Events


All Other Events

Addison Oaks Iron Range Roll Mt. Brighton Town Series Tawas Triathalon

Alma Grand Prix of Cyclocross Jill Byelich Memorial National 24hr challenge The 100,000 Meter T‐Shirt Ride

Alpena Sunrise Tour Kal‐Haven Trailblazer Noquemanon Snowbike World Championship The Highlander

Beat the Train Kaltour Northville Tour De Ville Thumb Sprint Triathlon

Big Bear Butt Ride Keweenaw Chaindrive Northwest Tour TCBA Tour de Crim

Big Mac Kisscross Novi Tree Farm Pump Track Jam Tour de Cure

Bike MS Lansing Bike Party Peach of a Ride Tour de Flint

Bike the Bridge Lansing Criterium Peak to Peak Tour de Ford

Bulldog Bike Tour Le Tour de Donut Pedal Grand Rapids Tour de Lac

Come Clean Duathlon Le Tour de Mont Pleasant Pedal n' Paddle Tour de Mitt

Critical Mass Lowell Covered Bridge Potawatomi Single Speed World Championship Tour de Mount Pleasant

Debaets Davos Mad Anthony Cyclocross Race for Wishes Tour of Frankenmuth

Delta County Century Ride Make a Wish Reeds Lake Triathalon Tour of Woodward

Detroit Bike City Maple Hill Race for Wishes Ride for a Cause Traverse City Cherry Festival

Detroit Randonneurs Marquette Cyclocross Ride for Cancer Trifecta Tour

Fall Fury Cyclocross Marquette Trails Festival Ride for Refuge Triple Trail Challenge

Gaslight Criterium Massive Fallout Ride MS Ultimate Cycle Challenge

Gladstone Metric Century Maybury Time Trial Ride of Silence University of Michigan Triathalon

Gold Coast Bike Tour MI Titanium Ride The Highlander UPCross

Gold Spike Tour MI Triathlon Championships Ride Thru Hell Vino Cycle

Gran Fondo Michigan Adventure Race Samford and Sun Triathlon Westford Recumbent Race

Grand Rapids Ride of Silence Midwest Recumbent Rally Shoreline Harvest Wow ride

Grazie 500 MISCA state championship Single Speed USA X100 Mountain Bike Race

Hansen Hills 100 MiTi Triathlon Singletrack Showdown Yankee

Harbor Springs Classic Motor City Bike & Brew Tours Six Hours of Ithaca Yooper ride

Hawk Island Triathlon MS 150 Frankenmuth Slow Roll

Holly triathlon MS 150 Holland State Cyclocross Championships

REPORT SUMMARY INFOGRAPHIC

Total economic impact:

of out-of-state self-supported touring bicyclists reported

using US Bicycle Routes 20 or 35

BICYCLE TOURISM IN MICHIGANthe economic impacts of

The average economic impact of self-supported touring bicyclists per trip:

The total economic impact of organized bicycling events in 2014 was

Apple Cider Century

$21.9 million

For more information contact Josh DeBruyn, MDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator at [email protected]

This study was made possible through the Federal Highway Administration State Planning and Research Program administered by the Michigan Department of Transportation.

$76069%

BICYCLE TOURISM IN MICHIGAN

GENERAL FINDINGS

CASE STUDY EVENTS

$1.94 million1 in 3

out-of-state participants traveled from a

non-neighboring state

participants traveled from:

$742

Highest average expenditures per participant of the six case study events 97%

were non-local participants

participantsin 2014

7,500

Iceman ComethChallenge

Michigander

36 different states

2 countriesand

Thisinfographicprovidesaone‐pagesummaryofbicyclinginthestateofMichiganbasedoninformationgatheredbyBBCResearch&ConsultingandR.NeunerConsultingfortheMichiganDepartmentofTransportation(MDOT)aspartofthesecondphaseofatwo‐phasestudyontheeconomicbenefitsofbicyclingeventsinMichigan.TheinfographicisaccompaniedbyareportprovidinginformationonthestateofMichiganandthedatasourcesandmethodologyusedforthestudy.Aspartofthestudy,theteamsurveyedparticipantsinorganizedbicyclingeventsthroughoutthestateofMichiganabouttheirspendinghabits.Self‐supportedtouringbicyclists(bicyclistswhodonotrelyonmotorvehiclestocarrytheirgearandprovisionswhiletravelling)werealsoaskedtoestimatetheirspendinghabitswhileinthestateofMichigan.Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoestimatetheirspendinginthefollowingcategories:

Lodging(e.g.hotels,campgrounds,cottages);

Restaurantsandbars;

Groceries(i.e.foodandbeveragenotatrestaurantsandbars);

Non‐foodshopping(e.g.clothing,souvenirs,etc.);

Non‐bicyclingentertainment(e.g.amusementpark,movietheater,etc.);

Bicycles,components,repairs,andaccessories;and

Transportation(e.g.airfare,gas,publictransportation,carrentalorparking).

Belowisadescriptionofthedatasourcesforthe“GeneralFindings”sectionoftheinfographic:

Totaleconomicimpactoforganizedbicyclingevents—Gatheredfromsurveydataofover3,400participantsinorganizedbicyclingeventsinMichigan;

Economicimpactoftheaverageself‐supportedtouringbicyclist—Gatheredfromsurveydataofover350self‐supportedtouringbicyclistsinthestateofMichigan;

Percentageofself‐supportedtouringbicyclistsusingU.S.BicycleRoutes—Self‐supportedtouringbicyclistsurveydata.

Belowisadescriptionofthedatasourcesforthe“CaseStudyEvents”sectionoftheinfographic.Alldatawerecollectedviaphysicalandonlinesurveysunlessotherwisestated:

AppleCiderCentury—$1.94milliondollarsintotaleconomicimpactiscalculatedfromthedirectspendingofout‐of‐stateparticipantstothe2014ACC;

Michigander—$742istheestimatedaverageexpenditureforall2014Michiganderparticipants.Thisaverageishigherthantheotherfivecasestudyevents;

DALMAC—Anestimated36percentofout‐of‐stateparticipantstoDALMACcamefromstatesfurtherawaythanIllinois,Ohio,Wisconsin,andIndiana;

OretoShore—97percentofparticipantsinthe2014OretoShorewerenon‐localparticipants(i.e.,travelledtotheeventfrommorethan50milesaway);

IcemanCometh—Accordingtoeventregistrationlogs,participantsinthe2014IcemanComethChallengetravelledtoMichiganfrom36differentstatesandtwocountries(CanadaandAustralia);

TourdeTroit—Morethan7,500individualsparticipatedinthe2014TourdeTroit,accordingtoeventregistrationinformation.

ForinformationonU.S.BicyclesRoutesinMichigangoto:www.michigan.gov/mdot‐biking

Documents

Commu nity and E conomic Ben B igansaugatucktownship.org/kcuTaGuaS/wp-content/uploads/...Report Summary Infographic. ... event participants throughout Michigan that quantified visitor