adot pedestrian and bicycle program bike-ped_ver1.pdf · bicycle and pedestrian safety action plans...

1

ADOT PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

PROGRAM

2

Session Overview

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Action Plans

Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Strategy Plan

Other bicycle count efforts

3

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plans

ANALYZE…State Highway System (SHS)

pedestrian and bicycle crash data (5-year periods).

IDENTIFY…steps, actions, and countermeasures

to reduce pedestrian crashes, injuries, and fatalities on SHS.

4

Crashes on State Highway System

• 824 pedestrian and

778 bicycle related crashes on SHS (5-year period)

• Represents 10.7 % of state-wide pedestrian related crashes (7,633

crashes), 8.8% of total state-wide bicycle related crashes

5

www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat_us/

THE PROCESS:

1. Obtain crash reports

2. Enter data into PBCAT –used to crash type each SHS crash

3. Identify:

• Hot spot locations

• High risk locations

Detailed Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Data

6

Web-Based tool (developed by Kimley-Horn)

7

PBCAT TOOL CRASH TYPINGTUSAYAN

FLAGSTAFF72 MILES

CRASH

LOCATION

SEPTEMBER 7, 2014

TUESDAY, 1:18 PM

CASE STUDY

N

8

PBCAT TOOL CRASH TYPING

US-180

EAST

9

PBCAT TOOL CRASH TYPING

10

PBCAT TOOL CRASH TYPING

11

PBCAT TOOL CRASH TYPING

12

PBCAT TOOL CRASH TYPING

13

PBCAT TOOL CRASH TYPING

14

PBCAT TOOL CRASH TYPING - LOCATION

15

PBCAT TOOL CRASH TYPING - CRASH GROUP

16

PBCAT TOOL CRASH TYPING - CRASH TYPE

17

Statewide Results: Crash Groups Distribution – Pedestrian Crashes

59 % of crashes in

3 crash groups

24.4%

19.8%

14.8%

8.9% 8.7% 8.0%

5.0%3.8%

2.7%1.7% 1.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

18

Statewide Results: Crash Groups Distribution – Pedestrian

1. Crossing Roadway – Vehicle Turning

2. Crossing Roadway – Vehicle Not

Turning

3. Unusual Circumstances

19

Statewide Results: Crash Groups Distribution – Bicycle Crashes

19.20%

17.10%

12.10%

7.70%6.80%

5.50% 5.50%4.90% 4.40% 4.20%

2.60% 2.40%3.00%

1.50% 1.30%0.60% 0.50% 0.40% 0.30% 0.00% 0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

48 % of crashes in

3 crash groups

20

Statewide Results: Crash Groups Distribution – Bicycle Crashes

1. Bicyclists failed to yield at signalized

intersection

2. Motorists right-turn/merge - “right- hook” crashes

- bicyclist riding opposite direction

3. Motorist failed to yield – signalized

intersection- right turn on red

- left turns – bicyclist

opposite direction

21

Countermeasure Selection Process

1. Review location context and site characteristics:• ADOT GIS data,

• ADOT Photo Log, and Google Street View

• Cross-section, posted speed limit, existing and bicycle pedestrian facilities

2. Identify potential countermeasures –PEDSAFE, BIKESAFE, others

Interchange modifications

Crossing treatments

Lane reduction, speed limit reduction

Sidewalks, striped shoulders, bicycle

lanes

Pedestrian and Bicycle safety

education campaign

Install pedestrian refuge islands

Access management

improvements

Roadway Safety Assessments

Examples of Countermeasures:

22

Conclusions

Crash typing provided insight to identification of most common factors and behaviors leading to bicycle and pedestrian crashes

Connects those factors to countermeasures that most effectively address the crashes

23

Crashes on State Highway System

• 824 pedestrian and

778 bicycle related crashes on SHS (5-year period)

• Represents 10.7 % of state-wide pedestrian related crashes (7,633

crashes), 8.8% of total state-wide bicycle related crashes

24

Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Strategy Plan

Several states developing bicycle and pedestrian count programs as input to performance-based planning:➢ Justify funding to facilities providing

the most benefit

➢ Evaluate facility usage, including before and after usage of new facilities

➢ Provide measure of exposure for crashes

➢ Monitor trends over time

25

Project Objectives

Reviewed current practices:

• Existing methods/technologies for pedestrian and bicycle volume data collection

• Reviewed past and on-going programs in Arizona for the collection of pedestrian and bicycle volume data

Developed ADOT data collection framework

• Scope of future pedestrian and bicycle counts

• Collected pedestrian and bicycle volume data

26

Technology Review 15 count technologies reviewed: 1. Inductance loops2. Infrared: Active3. Infrared: Passive4. Laser scanner5. Magnetometer6. Manual observers7. Piezoelectric8. Pneumatic tubes9. Pressure and seismic/acoustic sensors10. Radar11. Radio beam12. Stereoscopic13. Thermal imaging14. Video: Automated reduction15. Video: Manual reduction16. Other emerging technologies

Pneumatic tubes and video reduction was used for the study

for short-term counts

27

Emerging Technologies

Indirect or sample counts

• GPS-enabled smartphones (e.g., Strava)

• Bluetooth or WiFi readers

• Intersection control presence detectors

• Pedestrian crosswalk push buttons

Sometimes a small and biased sample

Still in R&D, not adopted by practitioners

28

How to Select Technology?

What are you counting?• Bicyclists only? Pedestrians only?

• Pedestrians and bicyclists combined

• Pedestrians and bicyclists separately

How long are you counting?• Permanent, temporary or short term?

Life cycle cost per amount of data

Are options available for commercial equipment?

Accuracy

29

Technologies Example: FHWA TMG Matrix

2. How Long?

1. What Are You Counting?

Permanent

Temporary/ Short Term

Bicyclists Only

Pedestrians Only

+Pedestrians &

Bicyclist CombinedPedestrians & Bicyclist

Separately Cost

Inductance Loops1 $$

Magnetometer2 $-$$

Pressure Sensor2 $$

Radar Sensor $-$$

Seismic Sensor $$

Video Imaging:Automated

$-$$

Infrared Sensor(Active or Passive)

$-$$

Pneumatic Tubes $-$$

Video Imaging:Manual

$-$$$

Manual Observers $$-$$$

Technology

Indicates what is technologically possible.

Indicates a common practice.

Indicates a common practice, but must be combined with another technology to classify pedestrians and bicyclists separately.

$, $$, $$$: Indicates relative cost per data point.1 Typically requires a unique loop configuration separate from motor vehicle loops, especially in a traffic lane shared by bicyclists and motor vehicles.2 Permanent installation is typical for asphalt or concrete pavements; temporary installation is possible for unpaved, natural surface trails. 3 Requires specific mounting configuration to avoid counting cars in main traffic lanes or counting pedestrians on the sidewalk.

3

30

Data Collection Methodology and Plan Site Identification and Prioritization

Locations identified from these sources:

High-crash and high-risk areas from statewide bicycle and pedestrian safety plans

Regional/national bicycle routes, such USBR 90, part of a nationwide system of bicycle routes

Special event bicycle routes

Other sources such as the permanent count station for bicyclists on SR 179

31

Count Locations and Prioritization

Pedestrian and bicycle activity areas or corridors

Fatal and/or injury crash history

Area type

• urban-suburban or rural

ADOT permanent count stations

Programmed improvements

• support before and after studies

Location – optimize travel between count locations

32

Count Prioritization

Count sites prioritized into 4 categories:

Priority 1A - Phoenix and Tucson region (34 sites)

Priority 1B - high priority locations in urbanized areas: Sierra Vista, Flagstaff, Sedona, and Prescott (13 sites)

Future sites

Priority 2 - sites that are mainly outside of urbanized areas, or where there were multiple sites in the same area (13 sites), rural or more remote areas

33

Phoenix Area Sites

34

Tucson Sites

35

Sierra Vista Sites

36

Flagstaff, Sedona, and Verde Valley Sites

37

Analysis of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Count Data - Type of Counts Conducted

Tube Counts – used for a one-week data collection period

Video Counts – 48-hour period, data manually reduced, captured pedestrians and bicyclists

Long-Duration Tube Counts –pneumatic tubes, MAG Bicycle Counter Loan Program, October 12, 2017 to January 31, 2018 at 5 sites

Arizona Canal Trail tube

installation, west of 25th Avenue

38

Tube Count Summaries – 7 Day Counts

3 2 1

59 60

81

33

26

16 17

5

36

13

37

3

5963

43

25

31

16

50

6

42

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

143 144 145 122 123 80 19 21 21 140 130 126 136

Ave

rage

Dai

ly V

olu

me

(C

yclis

ts/d

ay)

Site ID

Average Daily Bicycle Volume (Weekday) Average Daily Bicycle Volume (Weekend)

Apache Boulevard at SR 101

39

Sum of Average Daily Bicycle Volumes- Time of Day - Tube Count Locations (13 sites)

Higher average bicycle volumes occurred at 11

am, 1 pm, and 4 pm.

40

48-Hour Video Count Summaries at Intersections

The site with the highest level of activity is Site 49 (Milton Road at University Drive) in Flagstaff

Site ID Jurisdiction Route LocationTotal Intersection

Cyclists

Total Intersection

Pedestrians

1 Phoenix I-17 SB Ramps At W Bethany Home Rd 174 532

2 Tucson SR 77 At W River Rd 188 376

3 Tucson SR 77 At W Ina Rd 93 152

5 Phoenix N 67th Ave At I-10 WB Ramps 62 136

6 Phoenix N Dysart Rd At I-10 EB/WB Ramps 175 227

8 Flagstaff S Milton Rd At I-40B/Historic Rte. 66 264 981

9 Flagstaff US-180 At W Birch Ave 325 1035

11 Phoenix I-17 NB/SB Ramps At W. Glendale Ave 210 717

12 Phoenix I-17 NB/SB Ramps At W Indian School Rd 194 558

13 Phoenix I-17 NB/SB Ramps At W Thomas Rd 67 212

16 Phoenix SR-51 Ramps (East/West) At E Indian School Rd 145 140

18 Tempe I-10 WB/EB Ramps At W Baseline Rd 102 341

43 Sierra Vista SR 92 At E Golden Acres Dr 1 6

46 Tucson S Mission Rd At W Ajo Way 74 347

47 Pima County SR 77 At W Orange Grove Rd 75 307

49 Flagstaff S Milton Rd At W University Dr 641 1524

56 Mesa S Hawes Rd At E Main St 100 30

63 Glendale N 55th Ave At W Maryland Access 52 11

65 Peoria N 83rd Ave At US 60 46 88

83 Tucson I-10 WB/EB Ramps At W St Mary’s Rd 405 146

94 Mesa N Crismon Rd At E Main St 89 52

95 Sierra Vista SR 90 At E Fry Blvd 63 113

106 Sedona Rodeo Rd At SR 89A 131 315

138 Prescott SR 89 At Aspen Way 61 35

139 Flagstaff US-180 At W Forest Ave 134 81

41

Example of Milton Road at University Drive, in Flagstaff

48-hour Intersection Counts

University Dr.

Milt

on

Rd.

42

Count Data Storage, Analytics, and Reporting System

➢ Uses of database: • Permanently store raw and processed count data• Audit trail of the data review process, including

flagged, suspect or invalid data• Seasonal adjustment capability • Reports of summary count statistics• Flexibility to analyze and visualize count data • Ability to schedule short-duration counts and then

track progress against a schedule• Better coordination between ADOT and local

agencies/MPOs across the state

43

Count Data Storage, Analytics, and Reporting System

ADOT uses a Traffic Data Management System (TDMS)

All MPOs and COGs use the MS2 TDMS as their motorized traffic database platform

Recommend additional pilot testing of MS2 NMDS to provide a statewide clearinghouse for pedestrian and bicyclist count data.

44

Count Data Storage, Analytics, and Reporting System

45

Permanent Continuous Count Sites

Modest number of permanent, continuously-operating count data collection sites for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Sites to provide data on:• Seasonal and day-of-week trends, which can be used to

seasonally adjust short-duration counts

• Changes in travel volumes and patterns over longer periods of time

Sites with dedicated on-road space for cyclists

• Marked bicycle lane or paved shoulder to permit automated count equipment to operate more effectively

Sites with at least a modest bicycle volume

• 15 cyclists per day for the purpose of this review

46

Potential Count Sites Meeting Criteria

Chandler - SR 101 Frontage Road/Sun Circle Trail Crossing

Fountain Hills - SR 87 north of Shea Boulevard,

Mesa - SR 87 at McKellips Road

Phoenix - Dysart Road at I-10

Tucson - SR 86 at Mission Way

Tucson - SR 77 in the Tucson area

Flagstaff - I-40B (SR 89A) north of Milton Road

Flagstaff - US 180 at Forest Avenue

Prescott - SR 89 at Cherry Street

Sedona - SR 89A at Rodeo Road

Sedona - SR 179 at MP 311

73-74

47

Lack of Cycling Safety Data

Only ~30% of bike collision data captured

No centralized or near miss reporting

47

Photo: Ed Wiebe

48

BikeMaps.org: Free and available

Nelson et al. (2015) BikeMaps. org: a global tool for collision

and near miss mapping. Frontiers in public health 3.

48

49

49

50

Reporting an incident

Ethics requires data be anonymous

50

51

Data Visualization

51

52

52

53

Questions?