ADOT PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Bike-Ped_ver1.pdf · PDF file Bicycle and Pedestrian...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    04-Jul-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    2
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of ADOT PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM Bike-Ped_ver1.pdf · PDF file Bicycle and Pedestrian...

  • 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 TYPING TUSAYAN

    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 loops 2. Infrared: Active 3. Infrared: Passive 4. Laser scanner 5. Magnetometer 6. Manual observers 7. Piezoelectric 8. Pneumatic tubes 9. Pressure and seismic/acoustic sensors 10. Radar 11. Radio beam 12. Stereoscopic 13. Thermal imaging 14. Video: Automated reduction 15. Video: Manual reduction 16. 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 Combined Pedestrians & 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), ru