Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Summary Report · 2018. 7. 12. · Bicycle and pedestrian...

2017

Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian

Count Summary Report

Prepared by PAG staff Published July 2018

Table of Contents

Introduction and Overview ......................................................................................................... 1

Count Summary Report .......................................................................................................... 1

Process and Methodology ...................................................................................................... 2

Part 1: 2017 Counts ................................................................................................................... 4

2017 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data Summary .......................................................................... 4

Bicycle Summary ................................................................................................................ 4

Pedestrian Summary .......................................................................................................... 7

2017 Count Data by Intersections and Regional Locations ..................................................... 8

Bicycle Data ........................................................................................................................ 8

Pedestrian Data .................................................................................................................12

Part 2: Comparisons with Previous Years .................................................................................14

2016 and 2017 Bicyclist Attributes .........................................................................................14

2013 through 2017 Bicyclist Attributes ...................................................................................14

2013 through 2017 Pedestrian Counts ..................................................................................19

Unlawful Behaviors ................................................................................................................23

Other Factors ........................................................................................................................25

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................26

Appendix A – 2017 Data and Bicyclist Attributes: Top 10 ..........................................................27

Female Ridership ..................................................................................................................27

Age Ranges ..........................................................................................................................29

Safety Considerations ...........................................................................................................31

Helmet Use ........................................................................................................................31

Wrong-Way and Sidewalk Riding .......................................................................................34

Appendix B – Data and Bicyclist Attributes: Rolling Average Trends .........................................41

Appendix C – Count Tally Sheet ...............................................................................................44

Appendix D – Count Reference Sheet ......................................................................................45

Figure 1. Phases in the PAG Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count coordination process. ................... 3Figure 2. 2017 bicycle and pedestrian count locations and subregions. .................................................... 6Figure 3. 2017 bicycle count volumes by subregion. ................................................................................ 11Figure 4. Percentage of 2017 pedestrians per count location and grouped by subregion. ...................... 12Figure 5. 2017 pedestrian count volumes by count location. .................................................................... 13Figure 6. Total bicycle counts at 39 locations from 2013 to 2017. ............................................................ 15Figure 7. Bicycle count percent change: 2017 compared to previous five-year average at 39 core

locations. .................................................................................................................................. 17Figure 8. Total bicycle counts at 39 locations from 2013 to 2017. ............................................................ 19Figure 9. Pedestrian rolling average. ........................................................................................................ 19Figure 10. Pedestrian count percent change: 2017 compared to previous five-year average at 39 core

locations. .................................................................................................................................. 21Figure 11. Unlawful riding behavior hot spots. .......................................................................................... 24Figure A1. 2017 top 10 female ridership locations, by percentage. ......................................................... 27Figure A2. 2017 top 10 female ridership locations, by count. ................................................................... 27Figure A3. 2017 percent female riders by location. .................................................................................. 28Figure A4. 2017 top 10 locations with bicyclists 12 years of age and under, by percentage. .................. 29Figure A5. 2017 top 10 locations with bicyclists 12 years of age and under by, by count. ...................... 29Figure A6. 2017 bicycle count age range percentages, by location. ........................................................ 30Figure A7. 2017 top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by percentage. ..................................................... 31Figure A8. 2017 top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by count. .............................................................. 31Figure A9. 2017 non-helmet wearing bicyclist percentage ranges per count site. ................................... 32Figure A10. 2017 top 10 locations for helmet use, by percentage. .......................................................... 33Figure A11. 2017 top 10 locations for helmet use, by count. .................................................................... 33Figure A12. 2017 top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by percentage. .............................................. 34Figure A13. 2017 top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by count. ........................................................ 34Figure A14. 2017 percentage of wrong-way riders per count site. ........................................................... 35Figure A15. 2017 top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by percentage. .................................................. 36Figure A16. 2017 top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by count. ........................................................... 36Figure A17. 2017 percentage of sidewalk riders per count site. ............................................................... 37Figure B1. Bicyclist gender by three-year rolling average. ....................................................................... 41Figure B2. Bicyclist helmet usage by three-year rolling average. ............................................................. 42Figure B3. Bicyclist unlawful riding behavior by three-year rolling average. ............................................ 43

Table 1. Summary of 2017 bicycle count data. ........................................................................................... 4Table 2. Top 10 bicyclist count locations, 2017. .......................................................................................... 5Table 3. Top 10 pedestrian count locations, 2017. ..................................................................................... 7Table 4. 2017 bicycle count totals grouped by subregion. .......................................................................... 8Table 5. 2017 bicycle count attributes averaged by the number of count locations in each subregion. ..... 9Table 6. 2017 bicycle count attribute percentages summarized by subregion. .......................................... 9Table 7. 2017 bicycle count results ranked by attribute percentages per subregion. ............................... 10Table 8. 2017 pedestrian summary information by subregion. ................................................................. 12Table 9. Comparison between 2016 and 2017 bicycle count data at 46 locations. .................................. 14Table 10. Five-year averages and attribute percentages for 39 core locations. ....................................... 15Table 11. Five-year (2012-2016) previous averages compared with 2017 data at 39 core locations. ..... 16Table 12. Bicycle count totals at 39 core locations, with 2017 totals compared with

the previous five-year average (2012-2016). ......................................................................... 18Table 13. Pedestrian count totals at 39 core locations, with 2017 totals compared with the previous five-

year average (2012-2016). .................................................................................................... 22Table 14. Total bicyclists at core locations, by year, with data from possible influencing factors. ............ 25

file:///Z:/Programs/Transportation/Bicycle/BikeCount/2016%20Bike%20Count/SummaryReport/2016%20PAG%20Regional%20Bicycle%20and%20Pedestrian%20Count%20Summary%20Report,%20Draft%2004252016.docx%23_Toc488411235

Introduction and Overview

Pima Association of Governments (PAG) has coordinated the annual bicycle count since 2008 with the support of its member jurisdictions and the time and dedication of many volunteers. This coordinated effort helps regional planning in several ways, including:

• Planning and evaluation: The count helps track numbers and trends of bicyclists and pedestrians over time, which helps in the assessment of regional needs, planning to address those needs and evaluation of ongoing bicycle projects and programs.

• Prioritizing locations to improve: High rates of wrong-way riding in a location, for example, can suggest a need for an engineering solution.

• Analyzing crash data: Combining police incident data with other site-specific information, such as volume of riders, helps us to better understand problems at crash locations.

• Raising awareness: The annual count provides data PAG can use to help educate community members about bicycle and pedestrian characteristics and trends.

Count Summary Report

This count summary report looks at the data collected in 2017 in addition to previously collected data. Data are presented in a variety of ways in order to maximize their usefulness. Part 1 of this report looks at the count locations from 2017. This section provides an overview of current bicycle and pedestrian use across the region from all 95 count locations included in 2017, but it is not meant for year-over-year comparisons. Part 2 is useful for year-over-year comparisons. This section starts with a summary of all 63 collection locations that were common to years 2016 and 2017. Part 2 continues with comparisons at “core” count locations, which are locations that have been consistently observed since 2008 for bicyclists and since 2010 for pedestrians. Appendix A includes charts highlighting the top 10 observed locations in 2017 for each of the attributes collected for bicyclists. These are accompanied with maps depicting the relative distribution of each attribute across the region. Appendix A lists all 2017 weekday and weekend count locations, and lists the change from 2016 where appropriate. Appendix B summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian counts including the bicyclist attributes using rolling averages for comparison over time. Appendices C and D include materials that were used during the 2017 count for reference.

Process and Methodology

The PAG Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count is scheduled annually for two weeks in October when weather conditions are generally favorable for bicycle and pedestrian activity. Weekday counts occur during peak period hours on either a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. Weekend counts occur on either a Saturday or Sunday from 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. The count is principally a volunteer effort with PAG assisting as a technical resource and event coordinator. The count methodology, as described above, is consistent with general transportation engineering guidelines while tailored for bicyclists and pedestrians. In the weeks prior to the count, PAG recruits volunteers, and this effort includes sharing instructions for using a PAG web map to sign up. First-time counters are required to attend a brief training conducted by PAG staff. An illustration of the count coordination process can be seen in Figure 1 on Page 3. Using a tally sheet (Appendix C), counters record the number of bicyclists and pedestrians that use an intersection at 15-minute increments during each two-hour count shift. For bicyclists, additional attributes are recorded, including whether a bicyclist is female or male, the estimated age range, and if the bicyclist is wearing a helmet, riding the wrong way on the street or riding on the sidewalk. These attributes help transportation planners and others to better understand bicyclist demographic and safety characteristics. For more on the details on directions provided to volunteer counters see Appendix D.

Volunteer recruitment and training phase

PAG distributes a flier to recruit volunteers

Volunteers sign up using web map

Volunteers attend a brief training session

Volunteers go to designated locations to count

Count sheets are completed and then

returned to PAG

Bicycle and pedestrian count phase

Count sheet data are entered into database-

ready tables

Database is connected to ArcGIS and MS Excel for

map, chart and table creation

Data input and report creation phase

Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Report is

completed

Figure 1. Phases in the PAG Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count coordination process.

Part 1: 2017 Counts

2017 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data Summary

A significant change to cyclist attributes was instituted with the 2016 count. The age categories were altered to 12 years or younger. Previously the age attribute categories were 18 and under, or 65 and older. This change to 12 or younger better aligns this count with safety initiatives focused on younger riders. Additionally, this change helps address the challenge of discerning a young adult, age 18, in a region with a large population of university students. The method of determining age has remained a judgment by the volunteer based on the physical appearance of the cyclist. As a result of this change, some of the age comparison statistics have been removed until more years of data are collected.

In 2017, 10,928 bicyclists were counted at 951 locations throughout the jurisdictions of eastern Pima County (Figure 2). As listed in Table 1, over 70 percent of the bicyclists were male, and nearly 60 percent of the bicyclists counted were wearing helmets.

Table 1. Summary of 2017 bicycle count data.

Attribute Total Percentage

of Total

Total Bicyclists 10,928 100%

Female Bicyclists 2,876 26%

Male Bicyclists 8,052 74%

Bicyclists 12 and Under 251 2%

Helmet Wearers 6,426 59%

No Helmet 4,502 41%

Wrong-way Bicyclists 322 3%

Sidewalk Bicyclists 702 6%

1 Weekday and weekend observations at the same location were counted separately.

As shown in Table 2, four of the 95 locations had over 500 bicyclists during the four hours of the count (two hours in the morning, and two in the afternoon). One of the top 10 locations was a weekend count, which only includes three hours of observation. Like previous years, the top five in 2017 were near the University of Arizona (UA).

Table 2. Top 10 bicyclist count locations, 2017.

Location 2017 Rank

Total Bicyclists

Park Ave / University Blvd 1 836

3rd St / Campbell Ave 2 738

2nd St / Highland Ave 3 559

6th St / Highland Ave 4 525

Helen St / Mountain Ave 5 487

Helen St / Highland Ave 6 413

Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary’s Rd 7 373

3rd St / Country Club Rd 8 308

Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave 9 290

Santa Cruz Pathway / El Camino del Cerro (Weekend) 10 289

Figure 2. 2017 bicycle and pedestrian count locations and subregions.

Pedestrians are tallied at the same count locations as bicycles, although no additional attributes are collected. In 2017, 19,980 pedestrians were counted at 94 locations. Of the top 10 highest-volume pedestrian locations listed in Table 3, three were above 2,000 for the four-hour observation period. Of these top three, all are located near the University of Arizona. The highest-volume locations require two people to count simultaneously and are usually conducted by experienced counters. In the past two years, the Park Ave./University Blvd. location had the highest volume (see Table 3), with 2,880 pedestrians counted in 2016 and 3,395 counted in 2017 over four hours. In 2017, this averages to nearly 850 pedestrians per hour.

Table 3. Top 10 pedestrian count locations, 2017.

Location 2017 Rank

Total Pedestrians

Park Ave / University Blvd 1 3,395

6th St / Highland Ave 2 2,248

2nd St / Highland Ave 3 2,205

Helen St / Highland Ave 4 919

Helen St / Mountain Ave 5 724

Congress St / Toole Ave 6 647

Park Ave / University Blvd (weekend) 7 642

Alameda St / Church Ave 8 592

Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (weekend) 9 438

Ring Rd / Warren Ave 10 396

2017 Count Data by Intersections and Regional Locations

As in previous years, the count locations are grouped into six subregions for purposes of geographic comparison. These include the UA area, downtown, urban core, north and northwest, Green Valley/Sahuarita and eastside. Since the count requires the time of many volunteers, the locations where counts occur vary from year to year based upon where volunteers choose to conduct counts. However, efforts are made to recruit volunteers to count at the highest-priority locations first. As volunteers sign up for these locations, additional locations are made available based upon volunteer demand. Priority count locations are determined by PAG staff with input from member jurisdictions. Locations that have been counted every year are considered high priority because the data can provide insights into possible trends over time.

Within these subregions, more count locations have been established where population density is highest and, as a result, the number of count locations per subregion is variable. Therefore, the tables below organize the data in different ways to show not only the total volumes and attribute values per subregion but also the number of count locations within the subregion. For example, Table 4 shows the north and northwest subregions having significantly more cyclists than the east subregion. In 2017, 1,683 cyclists were counted in the north and northwest subregion, and only 221 were counted in the east subregion. However, the north and northwest subregion also had significantly more count locations than the east subregion, which partially explains why more cyclists were counted in the north and northwest subregion. When the average number of cyclists is calculated per count location (as seen in Table 5), the east subregion had slightly more cyclists per location than the north and northwest subregion at 111 and 80, respectively.

Table 4. 2017 bicycle count totals grouped by subregion.

Attributes Down-town East

Green Valley /

Sahuarita North

and NW UA Urban Core

Tota

ls p

er

Subre

gio

n

Total Bicyclists 1,933 221 49 1,683 3,831 3,211

Count Locations Per Region 16 2 2 21 9 45

Female Bicyclists 456 65 11 330 1271 743

Male Bicyclists 1,477 156 38 1,353 2,560 2,468

Bicyclists 12 and Under 106 2 0 7 36 100

Helmet Wearers 1,185 193 49 1,488 1,605 1,906

No Helmet 748 28 0 195 2,226 1,305

Wrong-way Bicyclists 65 2 0 33 68 154

Sidewalk Bicyclists 119 11 10 84 109 369

Considering the bicyclist attributes on a per location basis, Table 5 shows that the UA subregion

had the most bicyclists per location and, as a result, also had the highest values in several of

the attributes, including females, males, helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers.

Table 5. 2017 bicycle count attributes averaged by the number of count locations in each subregion.


Green Valley /

Sahuarita North


Avera

ge

per

Location

Total Bicyclists 121 111 25 80 426 71


Male Bicyclists 92 78 19 64 284 55


Helmet Wearers 74 97 25 71 178 42

Non-Helmet Wearers 47 14 0 9 247 29

Wrong-Way Riders 4 1 0 2 8 3

Sidewalk Riders 7 6 5 4 12 8

Organizing the attribute data in each subregion by percentages provides a different perspective. Table 6 shows the percentage of each subregion’s attributes based on the totals for that subregion. This allows for rate comparisons which can then be paired with count volume for more insight. For example, Table 6 shows that the UA subregion had the highest percentage of female riders (33 percent) as compared across all subregions. In addition, less than half of the cyclists in the UA subregion (42 percent) wore helmets. Table 6. 2017 bicycle count attribute percentages summarized by subregion.


Green Valley /

Sahuarita North


Perc

ent

Total Bicyclists 11% 1% 0% 9% 21% 18%

Female Bicyclists 24% 29% 22% 20% 33% 23%

Male Bicyclists 76% 71% 78% 80% 67% 77%

Bicyclists 12 and Under 5% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3%

Helmet Wearers 61% 87% 100% 88% 42% 59%

Non-Helmet Wearers 39% 13% 0% 12% 58% 41%

Wrong-Way Riders 3% 1% 0% 2% 2% 5%

Sidewalk Riders 6% 5% 20% 5% 3% 11%

As a supplement to the percentages in Table 6, Table 7 ranks the attributes by percentages. For example, the north and northwest subregion ranked first for male bicyclists and last for female bicyclists.

Table 7. 2017 bicycle count results ranked by attribute percentages per subregion.


Green Valley /

Sahuarita North


Rank (

by P

erc

ent)


Male Bicyclists 4 5 2 1 6 3


Helmet Wearers 4 3 1 2 6 5

Non-Helmet Wearers 3 4 6 5 1 2

Wrong-Way Riders 2 5 6 3 3 1

Sidewalk Riders 3 4 1 4 6 2

Figure 3 on Page 11 shows the count volumes, by location and subregion. For more details on regional comparisons of bicyclist attributes, Appendix A contains the top 10 locations, by volume and percentage.

Figure 3. 2017 bicycle count volumes by subregion.

In addition to counting bicyclists, volunteers also count pedestrians in 15-minute intervals at each of the count locations. As stated above, 19,980 pedestrians were counted in 2017 at 95 locations. Comparing the data across the six subregions (Table 8), the UA subregion continues to have the highest number of total pedestrians and, by far, the highest number of pedestrians per count location. The high pedestrian volumes of the UA also are illustrated in Figure 4. It shows that 70 percent of the pedestrians were counted in this subregion, with the remaining 30 percent counted in the other five subregions. Finally, Figure 5 on Page 13 shows the locations of the pedestrian counts, with symbols to indicate the relative volume at each. Table 8. 2017 pedestrian summary information by subregion.


Green Valley /

Sahuarita

North and NW UA

Urban Core

Grand Total

Total Pedestrians 3,204 266 54 1,277 10,774 4,455 19,980

Number of Count Locations 16 2 2 21 9 45 95

Pedestrians per Location 200 133 27 58 1,197 99 210

Figure 4. Percentage of 2017 pedestrians per count location and grouped by subregion.

Downtown12%

East8%

Green Valley / Sahuarita

1%

North and NW3%

UA70%

Urban Core6%

2017 Pedestrians per Count Location by Subregion (Percent of Total)

Figure 5. 2017 pedestrian count volumes by count location.

Part 2: Comparisons with Previous Years

2016 and 2017 Bicyclist Attributes

Sixty-six locations were counted both in 2016 and 20172. The attribute data for these locations are summarized in Table 9. At these locations, the count showed an overall 6 percent decrease in the volume of bicyclists. The largest percent change by attribute was bicyclists 12 and under, at an increase of 74 percent. The ratio that each attribute contributes to the total volume remains relatively unchanged. Table 9. Comparison between 2016 and 2017 bicycle count data at 66 locations.

Attribute 2016 2017

2016

Percent

2017

Percent Difference

Percent Change3

Total Bicyclists 8,828 8,281 -547 -6%

Female Bicyclists 2,367 2,231 27% 27% -136 -6%

Male Bicyclists 6,461 6,050 73% 73% -411 -6%

Bicyclists 12 and Under 110 191 1% 2% 81 74%

Helmet Wearers 4,814 4,753 56% 57% -61 -1%

No Helmet 4,014 3,528 44% 43% -486 -12%

Wrong-way Riding Bicyclists 254 238 3% 3% -16 -6%

Sidewalk Riding Bicyclists 482 467 5% 6% -15 -3%

2013 through 2017 Bicyclist

Attributes

Since 2008, volunteers have counted at the same 39 locations in the region. As Figure 6 on Page 15 shows, the average number of total bicyclists counted over the five years from 2013 to 2017 was 6,252 for these 39 locations, averaging slightly more than 160 bicyclists per location. With 5,313 bicyclists counted in 2017, the total number was 15 percent lower than the average from the past five years.

2 Weekday and weekend observations at the same location were counted separately. 3 Percent Change = (current year value – prior year value) / prior year value.

Figure 6. Total bicycle counts at 39 locations from 2013 to 2017.

Table 10 serves as a reliability test of current year counts and also includes regional averages from the past six years. The data only consist of the 39 core locations. To check the reliability, the average and percent of the previous five years of data are included in the first two data columns. The next two columns, “2017 Count Totals” and “Percent of 2017 Count,” are then compared to the values of the previous five years. This comparison illustrates that the 2017 count was anomalous neither in its total count nor for any of the attributes collected. The largest deviations from the previous five-year average are only 1 percent. This table also illustrates regional patterns in bicycle usage and behavior. The last two columns show the current five-year averages and percentages. In this time span, nearly three times as many male bicyclists were counted compared with female bicyclists (72 percent compared with 28 percent). Fewer than half of the bicyclists were seen using helmets (47 percent).

Table 10. Five-year averages and attribute percentages for 39 core locations.

Attributes

Preious 5-Year Average (2012-2016)

Percentage of Each Attribute

from the Previous 5-

Year Average

2017 Count Totals

Percent of 2017 Count

Current 5-Year

Average (2013-2017)

Percentage of Each Attribute from the

Current 5-Year

Average

Total Bicyclists 6,536 100% 5,313 100% 6,252 100%

Female Bicyclists 1,801 28% 1,518 29% 1,757 28%

Male Bicyclists 4,736 72% 3,795 71% 4,494 72%

Bicyclists 12 and Under 181 3% 163 3% 185 3%

Helmet Wearers 3,011 46% 2,701 51% 2,932 47%

No Helmet 3,525 54% 2,612 49% 3,320 53%

Wrong-way Bicyclists 182 3% 176 3% 176 3%

Sidewalk-Riding Bicyclists 357 5% 355 7% 353 6%

6,860 7,064 6,274

5,747 5,313

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Table 11 and Figure 7 compare 2017 data at the core locations with the previous five-year averages (2011–2015). The 2017 count saw a decline in the total number of cyclists at the 39 core locations. Therefore, the count shows a corresponding decrease in each of the attribute numbers.

Table 11. Five-year (2012-2016) previous averages compared with 2017 data at 39 core locations.

Attribute 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Previous 5-Year

Average (2012-2016)

2017

Percent Change

from Previous 5-

Year Average

Total Bicyclists 6,737 6,860 7,064 6,274 5,747 5,313 6,536 -19%

Female Bicyclists

1,734 2,047 1,884 1,730 1,608 1,518 1,801 -16%

Male Bicyclists 5,003 4,813 5,180 4,544 4,139 3,795 4,736 -20%

Bicyclists 12 and Under

146 190 200 293 77 163 181 -10%

Helmet Wearers

3,097 3,059 3,268 2,922 2,710 2,701 3,011 -10%

No Helmet 3,640 3,801 3,796 3,352 3,037 2,612 3,525 -26%

Wrong-way Bicyclists

206 199 137 189 177 176 182 -3%

Sidewalk Bicyclists

377 393 310 358 349 355 357 -1%

Figure 7. Bicycle count percent change: 2017 compared to previous five-year average at 39 core

locations.

Table 12. Bicycle count totals at 39 core locations with 2017 totals compared with the previous five-year average (2012–2016).

Location 2012 Total

2013 Total

2014 Total

2015 Total

2016 Total

2017 Total

Previous 5-Year

Average (2012-2016)

2016 Percent Change

(from Previous

5-Year Average)

10th Ave / 43rd St 17 16 21 25 19 23 20 17%

18th St / 6th Ave 75 73 92 58 72 45 74 -39%

1st Ave / Tangerine Rd 101 94 102 82 102 76 96 -21%

22nd St / Kolb Rd 57 51 64 59 59 37 58 -36%

3rd St / Campbell Ave 1,001 902 894 908 883 738 918 -20%

3rd St / Swan Rd 99 71 133 46 63 55 82 -33%

4th Ave / Lester St 81 73 73 61 57 61 69 -12%

6th St / 9th Ave 129 106 94 73 54 62 91 -32%

6th St / Highland Ave 611 675 649 535 542 525 602 -13%

7th Ave / 7th St 84 89 143 102 98 162 103 57%

Ajo Way / Mission Rd 61 30 69 46 19 51 45 13%

Alvernon Way / Broadway Blvd 98 115 91 68 65 76 87 -13%

Alvernon Way / Ft Lowell Rd 47 45 30 40 48 33 42 -21%

Anklam Rd / St Mary's Rd 96 66 63 76 76 60 75 -20%

Arroyo Chico / Tucson Blvd 63 85 60 42 30 29 56 -48% Aviation Hwy / Broadway Blvd - Snake Bridge

175 180 148 138 114 74 151 -51%

Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave 444 385 403 288 326 290 369 -21%

Broadway Blvd / Wilmot Rd 80 73 68 44 141 53 81 -35%

Camino del Sol / Continental Rd 24 30 40 22 18 7 27 -74%

Campbell Ave / Grant Rd 135 118 123 154 151 71 136 -48%

Campbell Ave / River Rd 56 50 44 49 32 17 46 -63%

Columbus Blvd / Pima St 121 100 128 112 68 85 106 -20%

Congress St / Granada Ave 61 86 81 88 76 125 78 59%

Cortaro Rd / Silverbell Rd 20 19 40 107 17 22 41 -46%

Craycroft Rd / Golf Links Rd 60 55 37 48 42 20 48 -59%

Elm St / Tucson Blvd 217 189 178 98 153 128 167 -23%

Fairview Ave / Prince Rd 49 43 81 46 38 46 51 -11%

Glenn St / Treat Ave 89 132 91 132 98 70 108 -35%

Helen St / Mountain Ave 920 779 714 587 508 487 702 -31%

Ina Rd / Oracle Rd 95 57 20 61 17 16 50 -68%

Ironwood Hill Dr / Silverbell Rd 31 53 49 18 13 19 33 -42%

Kolb Rd / Tanque Verde Rd 53 93 62 188 56 46 90 -49%

La Cholla Blvd / River Rd 60 65 97 71 35 30 66 -54%

Park Ave / University Blvd 680 1,143 1,084 1,008 887 836 960 -13%

Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd 215 176 260 246 172 66 214 -69%

River Rd / Sabino Canyon Rd 42 50 39 41 50 64 44.4 18.5%

Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd 133 146 263 181 243 373 193.2 54.2%

Stone Ave / University Blvd 285 292 374 282 264 241 299.4 -14.6%

Sunrise Dr / Swan Rd 105 72 55 62 44 41 67.6 -39.4%

2013 through 2017 Pedestrian Counts

The 2017 count marks the eighth year of pedestrian data collection. The growth of this dataset now allows for comparison to previous years. Figure 8 presents the total pedestrian counts for the past five years at core locations.

Figure 8. Total pedestrian counts at 39 locations from 2013 to 2017.

Figure 9 presents one means of assessing trends across years with data that can be highly variable. A moving average takes a set number of years, in this case three, and averages the values for that time span which results in one data point. The process is repeated, advancing the beginning and end year for the average by one year until all years are included. This results in single-year data being included in multiple averages, thereby reducing the variability for trend analysis. (This same process is used in Appendix B with the bicycle attribute data.) Following this method, the trend of pedestrian counts is positive overall; however, the last three data points are relatively flat.

Figure 9. Pedestrian rolling average.

9,481 10,415

10,880

9,548 10,314

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Five-year Pedestrian Count Totals for 39 "Core" Locations (Average = 10,128)

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017

Pedestrian Three-Year Rolling Averages for 39 "Core" Locations

Figure 10 on Page 21 displays the change in pedestrian volumes between the 2012–2016 average and the 2017 counts. Table 13 on Page 22 displays this same pedestrian data in a table format. This table mimics Table 12 on Page 18.

Figure 10. Pedestrian count percent change: 2017 compared with previous five-year average at 39

core locations.

Table 13. Pedestrian count totals at 39 core locations, with 2017 totals compared with the previous five-year average (2012-2016).

Location 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Previous 5-Year

Average (2012-2016)

2017

Percent Change (from

Previous 5-Year

Average)

10th Ave / 43rd St 36 58 86 38 37 36 51 -29.4%

18th St / 6th Ave 111 132 168 175 87 104 134.6 -22.7%

1st Ave / Tangerine Rd 33 36 33 29 18 9 29.8 -69.8%

22nd St / Kolb Rd 254 368 323 284 376 253 321 -21.2%

3rd St / Campbell Ave 546 337 469 377 400 309 425.8 -27.4%

3rd St / Swan Rd 39 51 107 60 55 30 62.4 -51.9%

4th Ave / Lester St 6 31 39 37 40 24 30.6 -21.6%

6th St / 9th Ave 78 89 98 97 75 102 87.4 16.7%

6th St / Highland Ave 1,991 2,129 2,013 2,650 2,216 2,248 2,199.8 2.2%

7th Ave / 7th St 115 119 169 165 71 260 127.8 103.4%

Ajo Way / Mission Rd 95 87 72 86 105 103 89 15.7%

Alvernon Way / Broadway Blvd 279 327 304 244 251 282 281 0.4%

Alvernon Way / Ft Lowell Rd 229 206 212 125 171 162 188.6 -14.1%

Anklam Rd / St Mary's Rd 39 27 28 12 16 27 24.4 10.7%

Arroyo Chico / Tucson Blvd 70 51 63 46 40 45 54 -16.7%

Aviation Hwy / Broadway Blvd - Snake Bridge

71 60 54 64 53 44 60.4 -27.2%

Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave 94 107 108 92 103 97 100.8 -3.8%

Broadway Blvd / Wilmot Rd 260 234 265 209 208 265 235.2 12.7%

Camino del Sol / Continental Rd 16 20 23 26 12 28 19.4 44.3%

Campbell Ave / Grant Rd 152 105 119 168 50 94 118.8 -20.9%

Campbell Ave / River Rd 40 33 25 17 41 39 31.2 25.0%

Columbus Blvd / Pima St 224 118 267 221 199 271 205.8 31.7%

Congress St / Granada Ave 539 529 396 613 585 366 532.4 -31.3%

Cortaro Rd / Silverbell Rd 21 18 89 86 7 11 44.2 -75.1%

Craycroft Rd / Golf Links Rd 32 26 36 30 33 18 31.4 -42.7%

Elm St / Tucson Blvd 50 64 22 55 44 39 47 -17.0%

Fairview Ave / Prince Rd 140 106 155 103 57 92 112.2 -18.0%

Glenn St / Treat Ave 79 67 86 65 81 78 75.6 3.2%

Helen St / Mountain Ave 543 585 615 651 639 724 606.6 19.4%

Ina Rd / Oracle Rd 128 111 100 106 38 73 96.6 -24.4%

Ironwood Hill Dr / Silverbell Rd 139 108 82 53 71 92 90.6 1.5%

Kolb Rd / Tanque Verde Rd 86 69 55 92 41 90 68.6 31.2%

La Cholla Blvd / River Rd 39 59 49 44 24 38 43 -11.6%

Park Ave / University Blvd 2,344 2,572 3,052 3,229 2,880 3,395 2,815.4 20.6%

Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd 132 125 126 94 68 42 109 -61.5%

River Rd / Sabino Canyon Rd 4 8 9 12 12 25 9 177.8%

Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd 38 71 97 74 72 97 70.4 37.8%

Stone Ave / University Blvd 159 163 287 225 122 158 191.2 -17.4%

Sunrise Dr / Swan Rd 116 75 114 126 150 144 116.2 23.9%

Unlawful Behaviors

Crash history shows that riding on the wrong side of the street (opposing the flow of traffic) and riding on the sidewalk are two of the more inadvisable bicycling behaviors, in addition to being unlawful. Drivers simply are not expecting to find bicyclists on sidewalks or riding on the wrong side of the street, resulting in less visibility for drivers and consequently shorter reaction times. Bicycle conflicts with pedestrians increase when people ride bikes on the sidewalk. It is likely not the intent of a bicyclist to increase his or her danger by riding in these manners; it is more likely that other circumstances exist that are promoting these behaviors. These other circumstances could include a lack of bicycle facilities; a false perception of increased safety on the sidewalk vs. in traffic with high vehicle speeds; a high concentration of heavy/commercial vehicles or insufficient bicycle connectivity at a popular destination, among others. Figure 11 on Page 24 lists 25 observed locations with high incidence of sidewalk and wrong-way riding.

Figure 11. Unlawful riding behavior hot spots.

Other Factors

As in previous reports, we continue to gather data from several other sources that may provide insights into bicycle volumes from year to year. Table 14 lists October average low and high temperatures, average retail gas prices and unemployment rates. It also lists population estimates both for Pima County and the UA student body.

Table 14. Total bicyclists at core locations, by year, with data from possible influencing factors.

Year

Total* Biyclists

Tucson Average October

Low Temp.1

Tucson Average October

High Temp.1

Tucson Total

Precipi-tation for October1

Average U.S. Retail Gas Price October2

Tucson MSA Unemploy-

ment Rate in October3

Population Estimates for Pima County4

University of Arizona Student

Population5

2008

7,529

57.5 88.3 Trace $3.01 6.8% 984,032 37,217

2009

5,496

55.8 83.7 0.05” $2.50 10.0% 984,274 38,057

2010

6,512

59.1 86.1 0.46” $2.77 9.1% 981,168 39,086

2011

7,022

58.0 88.5 0.06” $3.40 8.1% 986,081 39,236

2012

6,737

58.0 88.8 Trace $3.65 6.9% 990,380 40,223

2013

6,860

55.1 85.4 0.00” $3.29 6.6% 996,046 40,621

2014

7,064

62.1 89.3 1.33” $3.12 5.9% 1,007,162 42,236

2015

6,274

61.9 85.3 2.25” $2.23 5.3% 1,009,371 43,088

2016

5,747

62.5 92.5 0.10” $2.19 4.7% 1,013,103 43,625

2017

5,313

62.1 92.5 0.00” $2.43 4.7% 1,026,099 44,831

Conclusion

Each year, the PAG Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count contributes to the expanding dataset of biking and walking behaviors in the region. Preserving the accuracy of datasets is an ongoing challenge met with real-time and resource constraints. Trained volunteers enable an extensive count each year. Data collection protocols, including mandatory trainings, help ensure data quality. In order to further ensure its accuracy, the data should be paired with other data to achieve the maximum benefit and use from any dataset. Other sources that can complement this data include the National Household Travel Survey and the American Community Survey. The PAG Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count continues to be an important resource to planners and stakeholders by providing key data on bicycle and pedestrian activity within eastern Pima County. PAG thanks the community, jurisdiction volunteers and partners for making this effort possible. PAG will continue to work with jurisdictional representatives and stakeholders to conduct counts in high priority areas that will benefit the region.

*Total bicyclists from 39 core locations collected every year 1National Weather Service Forecast Office, Tucson, AZ. Monthly climate reports and F-6 data for Tucson, AZ. Accessed at: www.wrh.noaa.gov/twc/climate/reports.php 2U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. Regular Conventional Retail Gasoline Prices. Accessed at: www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMRU_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=M 3Arizona Dept. of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics. Local Area Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Statistics. Accessed at: http://azstats.gov/laus-data-query-tool/ 4Arizona Dept. of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics. Census Data and Population Estimates. Accessed at: https://population.az.gov/population-estimates 5University of Arizona Analytics and Institutional Research, student data. Accessed at: http://uair.arizona.edu/Student-Demographics

Appendix A – 2017 Data and Bicyclist Attributes: Top 10

Female Ridership

Figure A1. 2017 top 10 female ridership locations, by percentage.

Figure A2. 2017 top 10 female ridership locations, by count.

50%

44%38% 38% 37% 36% 36% 35% 34% 34%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Kelso St /Oracle Rd

6th St / 9thAve

3rd St /Campbell

Ave

5th St /Euclid Ave

2nd St /Highland Ave

Helen St /Highland Ave

4th Ave /Speedway

Blvd(Weekend)

CampbellAve / River

Rd

Julian WashPathway /Kolb Rd

(Weekend)

SpeedwayBlvd / Treat

Ave

Figure A.1. Top 10 locations with highest percentage of female bicyclists

281253

209

168150 139

97 92 92 84

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

3rd St /Campbell

Ave

Park Ave /University

Blvd


6th St /Highland Ave


Helen St /Mountain

Ave

Blacklidge Dr/ Mountain

Ave

3rd St /Country Club

Rd

Santa CruzPathway / St

Mary's Rd

Santa CruzPathway / ElCamino del

Cerro(Weekend)

Figure A2. Top 10 locations with the highest number of female bicyclists

Figure A3. 2017 percent female riders by location.

Age Ranges

Figure A4. 2017 top 10 locations with bicyclists 12 years of age and under, by percentage.

Figure A5. 2017 top 10 locations with bicyclists 12 years of age and under, by count.

.

33%

25%

20%17% 17%

15%13%

8% 7% 7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Ajo Way /Mission Rd

12th Ave /Irvington Rd(Weekend)

Kelso St /Oracle Rd

10th Ave /43rd St

CoachlineBlvd / TwinPeaks Rd


Mary's Rd

22nd St /Belvedere

Ave


Rd

Stone Ave /University

Blvd

7th Ave / 7thSt

Top 10 locations with highest percentage of bicyclists 12 years of age and under

56

26

18 17 1612 12 10

7 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Mary's Rd


Rd


Blvd

Ajo Way /Mission Rd


Blvd

Kelso St /Oracle Rd

7th Ave / 7thSt


Mary's Rd(Weekend)

3rd St /Campbell

Ave

Helen St /Mountain

Ave

Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclists 12 years of age and under

Figure A6. 2017 bicycle count age range percentages by location.

Safety Considerations

Figure A7. 2017 top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by percentage.

Figure A8. 2017 top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by count.

100% 100%96% 94% 91% 90% 86% 85% 81% 79%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

22nd St /Osborne Ave


10th Ave /43rd St

Irvington Rd /Liberty Ave

Fairview Ave/ Prince Rd

Kelso St /Oracle Rd

Alameda St /Church Ave(Weekend)

22nd St /Osborne Ave(Weekend)

22nd St /Belvedere

Ave

Arcadia Ave /Grant Rd

Top 10 locations with highest percentages of bicyclists not wearing helmets

478

398370 356

263 260

131 109 97 97

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Blvd

6th St /Highland Ave


3rd St /Campbell

Ave

Helen St /Mountain

Ave



Blvd


Rd


Mary's Rd

Congress St /Granada Ave

Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclists not wearing helmets

Figure A9. 2017 non-helmet wearing bicyclist percentage ranges per count site.

Figure A10. 2017 top 10 locations for helmet use, by percentage.

Figure A11. 2017 top 10 locations for helmet use, by count.

100% 100% 100%

99%99% 99%

97% 97%97%

96%

94%

95%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%

Camino delSol /

ContinentalRd

(Weekend)

Oracle Rd /Rancho

Vistoso Blvd(Weekend)

Camino delSol /

ContinentalRd

Sunrise Dr /Swan Rd

1st Ave /Tangerine Rd

(Weekend)

Cortaro Rd /Silverbell Rd(Weekend)


La CañadaDr / Moore

Rd(Weekend)

DoveMountain

Blvd / MooreRd

Julian WashPathway /Kolb Rd

(Weekend)

Top 10 locations with highest percentage of bicyclists wearing helmets

382358

276247 238 224 209 204 203 199

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

3rd St /Campbell

Ave


Blvd


Mary's Rd

Santa CruzPathway / ElCamino del

Cerro(Weekend)


Mary's Rd(Weekend)

Helen St /Mountain

Ave

CoachlineBlvd / TwinPeaks Rd(Weekend)

Blacklidge Dr/ Mountain

Ave


(Weekend)


Rd

Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclists wearing helmets

Figure A12. 2017 top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by percentage.

Figure A13. 2017 top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by count.

NOTE: Due to a three-way tie for fifth and four-way tie for sixth place, there are 15 locations listed.

50%

30% 30%

23% 23% 23% 20% 20% 19% 18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


10th Ave /43rd St

22nd St /Osborne Ave


Cortaro Rd /Silverbell Rd

BroadwayBlvd / Wilmot

Rd

Congress St /Toole Ave

Ina Rd /Thornydale

Rd

Fort LowellRd / Treat

Ave

AlvernonWay /

BroadwayBlvd

Top 10 locations with highest percentage of bicyclists riding the wrong way

43

19

1412 12

10 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclists riding the wrong way

Figure A14. 2017 percentage of wrong-way riders per count site.

Figure A15. 2017 top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by percentage.

Figure A16. 2017 top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by count.

88%79% 76%

52% 50% 46%38% 37% 35% 33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


RillitoPathway /Oracle Rd

CaminoCampestre /

RandolphWay (ReidPark SUP)(Weekend)

10th Ave /43rd St

Alameda St /Church Ave(Weekend)


BroadwayBlvd / Wilmot

Rd

Kelso St /Oracle Rd

Fairview Ave/ Prince Rd

CaminoCampestre /

RandolphWay (ReidPark SUP)

Top 10 locations with highest percentage of bicyclists riding on the sidewalk

5852

38

2722 21 20

17 16 15 15 15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6th St /Highland

Ave

RillitoPathway /Oracle Rd

CaminoCampestre/ RandolphWay (ReidPark SUP)(Weekend)

1st Ave /Tangerine

Rd(Weekend)

Kelso St /Oracle Rd

7th Ave /7th St

BroadwayBlvd /

Wilmot Rd

Helen St /Highland

Ave

FairviewAve /

Prince Rd

AlvernonWay /

BroadwayBlvd

Ajo Way /Mission Rd

CaminoCampestre/ RandolphWay (ReidPark SUP)

Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclists riding on the sidewalk

Figure A17. 2017 percentage of sidewalk riders per count site.

Table A1. Top 50 weekday bicycle count locations by total in 2017 compared with 2016 totals.

Location 2017 Total

2016 Total

2017 Rank

Change (2017 - 2016)

Percent Change

[(2017 – 2016)/2016]

Park Ave / University Blvd 836 887 1 -51 -6%

3rd St / Campbell Ave 738 883 2 -145 -16%

2nd St / Highland Ave 559 599 3 -40 -7%

6th St / Highland Ave 525 542 4 -17 -3%

Helen St / Mountain Ave 487 508 5 -21 -4%

Helen St / Highland Ave 413 0 6 413 N/A

Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd 373 243 7 130 53%

3rd St / Country Club Rd 308 0 8 308 N/A

Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave 290 326 9 -36 -11%

Stone Ave / University Blvd 241 264 10 -23 -9%

7th Ave / 7th St 162 98 11 64 65%

Speedway Blvd / Treat Ave 146 76 12 70 92%

Santa Cruz Pathway / Silverlake Rd 131 0 13 131 N/A

Elm St / Tucson Blvd 128 153 14 -25 -16%

Congress St / Granada Ave 125 76 15 49 64%

Sunrise Dr / Swan Rd 94 41 16 53 129%

Congress St / Toole Ave 93 0 17 93 N/A

4th Ave / Speedway Blvd 93 0 18 93 N/A

Columbus Blvd / Pima St 85 68 19 17 25%

1st Ave / Tangerine Rd 76 102 20 -26 -25%

Alvernon Way / Broadway Blvd 76 65 21 11 17%

Aviation Hwy / Broadway Blvd - Snake Bridge 74 114 22 -40 -35%

5th St / Euclid Ave 72 119 23 -47 -39%

Campbell Ave / Grant Rd 71 151 24 -80 -53%

Glenn St / Treat Ave 70 98 25 -28 -29%

Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd 66 172 26 -106 -62%

River Rd / Sabino Canyon Rd 64 50 27 14 28%

Fort Lowell Rd / Treat Ave 64 30 28 34 113%

6th St / 9th Ave 62 54 29 8 15%

4th Ave / Lester St 61 57 30 4 7%

Anklam Rd / St Mary's Rd 60 76 31 -16 -21%

Kelso St / Oracle Rd 60 0 32 60 N/A

Alameda St / Church Ave 57 69 33 -12 -17%

3rd St / Swan Rd 55 63 34 -8 -13%

Santa Cruz Pathway / El Camino del Cerro 53 0 35 53 N/A

Table A1. Top 50 weekday bicycle count locations by total in 2017 compared with 2016 totals (continued).

Location 2017 Total

2016 Total

2017 Rank

Change (2017 - 2016)

Percent Change

[(2017 – 2016)/2016]

Broadway Blvd / Wilmot Rd 53 141 36 -88 -62%

6th Ave / 26th St 52 0 37 52 N/A

Ajo Way / Mission Rd 51 19 38 32 168%

Irvington Rd / Liberty Ave 51 0 39 51 N/A

10th Ave / 40th St / Julian Wash Greenway 49 0 40 49 N/A

La Cañada Dr / Naranja Dr 48 162 41 -114 -70%

22nd St / Belvedere Ave 47 0 42 47 N/A

Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP)

46 0 43 46 N/A

Kolb Rd / Tanque Verde Rd 46 56 44 -10 -18%

Fairview Ave / Prince Rd 46 38 45 8 21%

18th St / 6th Ave 45 72 46 -27 -38%

Ring Rd / Warren Ave 43 33 47 10 30%

1st Ave / Copper St / Jacinto St 38 27 48 11 41%

22nd St / Kolb Rd 37 59 49 -22 -37%

Cushing St / Main Ave 35 0 50 35 N/A

Table A2. Weekend bicycle count locations ranked by total in 2017 and compared with 2016 totals.

Location 2017 Total

2016 Total

2017 Rank

Change (2017 - 2016)

Percent Change

[(2017 – 2016)/2016]

Santa Cruz Pathway / El Camino del Cerro 289 0 1 289 N/A

Dove Mountain Blvd / Moore Rd 277 220 2 57 26%

Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd 248 49 3 199 406%

Coachline Blvd / Twin Peaks Rd 218 146 4 72 49%

Pantano Pathway / Tanque Verde Rd 212 79 5 133 168%

1st Ave / Tangerine Rd 206 0 6 206 N/A

Congress St / Scott Ave 187 0 7 187 N/A

Julian Wash Pathway / Kolb Rd 184 0 8 184 N/A

La Cañada Dr / Naranja Dr 181 243 9 -62 -26%

Park Ave / University Blvd 171 224 10 -53 -24%

La Cañada Dr / Moore Rd 150 311 11 -161 -52%

3rd St / Country Club Rd 96 75 12 21 28%

Congress St / Toole Ave 71 0 13 71 N/A

Cortaro Rd / Silverbell Rd 68 101 14 -33 -33%

Oracle Rd / Rancho Vistoso Blvd 61 231 15 -170 -74%

Campbell Ave / River Rd 55 73 16 -18 -25%

Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP)

50 0 17 50 N/A

4th Ave / Speedway Blvd 45 38 18 7 18%

Camino del Sol / Continental Rd 42 0 19 42 N/A

1st St / Euclid Ave 30 0 20 30 N/A

Alameda St / Church Ave 22 34 21 -12 -35%

Craycroft Rd / Golf Links Rd 20 0 22 20 N/A

Ina Rd / Thornydale Rd 13 17 23 -4 -24%

22nd St / Osborne Ave 13 0 24 13 N/A

12th Ave / Irvington Rd 8 0 25 8 N/A

Appendix B – Data and Bicyclist Attributes: Rolling

Average Trends

Many efforts are made to reduce year-to-year fluctuations in this counting effort. These include counting during the same time period, scheduling around regionally significant events, counting during seasonally typical weather conditions, to name a few. Nevertheless, data that are collected once per annum can be subject to variability. A technique that further reduces that fluctuation and facilitates understanding of trends is the rolling average. In essence, this approach takes a series of years, in this case three, and averages them together to arrive at one value, then shifts that series one year later and takes the average again. The following charts show the rolling average which includes average of the following series: 2008-2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012, 2011-2013, 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016, and 2015-2017. This approach was applied to the 39 core locations that have been included in the count since 2008.

Figure B1. Bicyclist gender by three-year rolling average.

Figure B2. Bicyclist helmet usage by three-year rolling average.

Figure B3. Bicyclist unlawful riding behavior by three-year rolling average.

Appendix C – Count Tally Sheet

Appendix D – Count Reference Sheet

Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Summary Report · 2018. 7. 12. · Bicycle and pedestrian...

Documents

Transcript of Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Summary Report · 2018. 7. 12. · Bicycle and pedestrian...