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