pedestrian and bicyclist data shawn turner, p.e. texas transportation institute h-gac brown bag...
TRANSCRIPT
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Data
Shawn Turner, P.E.Texas Transportation Institute
H-GAC Brown Bag LuncheonHouston, TX ~ October 24, 2011
2
Overview
• Why is bicycling & walking data important?
• What data do we need?
• National / international activities
Why is bicycling and walking
data important?• Same reasons as for other modes
– Support policy decisions/changes– Plan for cost-effective investments– Design safe facilities and infrastructure– Measure performance and progress
toward goals • “What gets measured, gets done”• “If you’re not counted, you don’t
count”3
Portland Examples
4Source: Roger Geller, City of Portland
Bridge Bicycle Traffic
Bikeway Miles
Increasing Bicycle UseCyclistsPer Day
BikewayMiles
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Bridge Bicycle Traffic 2,850 3,555 3,885 3,830 3,207 4,520 5,225 5,690 5,910 6,015 7,686 8,250 8,562 8,875 10,192 12,046 14,563 16,711
Bikeway Miles 79 84.5 87 104 114 144 167 183 214 222.5 236 253 256 262 265.5 269 272 274
2008:274 miles of bikeways
16,711 daily trips
1992:83 miles of bikeways
2,850 daily trips
Portland Examples
5Source: Roger Geller, City of Portland
Bicycle Traffic at City Count LocationsBridge & Non-Bridge Traffic
19911992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500Bridge Bicycle Traffic
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000Non-Bridge Bicycle Traffic
Bridge Bicycle Traffic
Non-Bridge Traffic(based on 43 locations city-wide)
Bridge Bicycle Traffic 2,850 3,555 3,885 3,830 3,207 4,520 5,225 5,690 5,910 6,015 7,686 8,250 8,562 8,875 10,192 12,046 14,563 16,711
Non-Bridge Traffic(based on 43 locations city-wide)
34,406 40,812 55,843
Traffic on four bridges
Traffic at 43 locations,citywide
Portland Examples
6Source: Roger Geller, City of Portland
What data do we need?
• Maintain focus on users and uses of data!– Who needs information (based on your
data)? – What decisions are they making?
• Avoid collecting data only because:– “that’s what our program plan lists…”– “that’s what my boss said to do…”– “that’s what others are doing…” 7
Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
1. Facilities (inventory)– LOS, quality of travel
2. Usage, trip & user characteristics– Counts, surveys
3. Crash & safety data4. User preferences5. Secondary data
– Research and evaluation data
8
Data & Monitoring Challenges
• “The forgotten modes” (Tom Larson)• Typically lower priority, fewer
resources• Typically small numbers, high
variability• Typically on city streets, not major
highways• Difficult to automatically
count/measure• Scale of facilities
9
Automated Counters
Field Tests of Counters• Texas A&M Campus, College Station• ~2 hours, 470 people (15% in groups)
– Brand A, 34% low– Brand B, 11% low
• Pfuger Bridge (jogging trail), Austin• In ~2 hours, 967 people (47% in groups)
– Brand A, 36% low– Brand B, 26% low– Brand C, 24% low
12
Austin Regional Monitoring Program
• State-of-the-practice review• Purchased 2 permanent counters and 2
portable counters from Eco Counter • http://www.campotexas.org/programs_bicped.php
Opportunities and Advances - 1
• “Grassroots” efforts from within the pedestrian/bicyclist community
14
Opportunities and Advances - 2
• Map and navigation industry efforts
15
Opportunities and Advances - 2
• Map and navigation industry efforts
16
Opportunities and Advances - 2
• Map and navigation industry efforts
17
Opportunities and Advances - 3
• Pocket-sized, location-aware mobile devices + crowdsourcing and social media
18
Opportunities and Advances - 3
• Pocket-sized, location-aware mobile devices + crowdsourcing and social media
19
Opportunities and Advances - 3
20Source: Jennifer Dill, Portland State Univ.
National Activities• Alta/ITE National Bicycle and Pedestrian
Documentation Project• ABW Benchmarking Report• FHWA Update of Traffic Monitoring Guide
– Supporting state-of-practice review• NCHRP 8-78: Demand Forecasting Methods• NCHRP 7-19: Count Collection
Methods/Equipment• TRB Ped/Bike Data Subcommittee• And probably lots more!!
21
Intl. Scan Tour - Monitoring
• Bike “barometers”: counters in highly visible locations
22
23
Queen Louise Bridge, Copenhagen:36,000 ADBT
Concluding Thoughts
• Progress is being made– Equipment– Monitoring programs– Travel surveys
• Focus on uses and users– Who?– What decisions?
• Capture passion/dedication of advocates• Mobile devices for crowd-sourced data
24
