Statewide Pedestrian/Bicycle Data Collection · PDF fileStatewide Pedestrian/Bicycle Data...

Statewide Pedestrian/BicycleData Collection Study

Transportation StatisticsStatewide Workshop – 2016

Florida Department of

TRANSPORTATION

August 31, 2016

Martin Guttenplan, AICP - CDM Smith

1

Florida Department of Transportation

Non-Motorized Transportation Count Data Collection

Who is involved?

• The Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) Statistics Office, Safety Office, Systems Planning Office, Office of Policy Planning, District Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Champions, District Pedestrian/Bicycle Coordinators, CDM Smith, and Marlin Engineering

What is the purpose?

• To better understand the performance of the non-motorized transportation system in Florida. o Develop a statewide standardized methodology for

counting non-motorized transportation users.

Who is this for?

• Florida Governmental agencies, MPOs, counties, cities and stakeholders who wish to better understand the use of the bicycle and pedestrian network

Task Activities Status

• Task Activities Status

– Literature Review

– Inventory of Count Programs

– Taxonomy

– Survey Monkey

– Draft Recommendations

– Pilot

– Final Report

Florida Department of Transportation 3


Non-Motorized Transportation Count Data Collection

• FDOT statewide ped/bike count program

• Technology

• Locations

• Count frequency

• Partners

• Factoring short term counts to average annualized counts

• Coordination with crash data

• Coordination with FAST Act & FDOT performance measures

Research ProductsRecommendations for:

Meetings with Internal Stakeholders

• Twelve meetings have been held since February

• Most focused on data needs and use, data collection technologies, and stakeholder outreach

• Need for standardization and central storage

• There are MANY stakeholders interested in the data collected


Internal Meetings - Takeaways

• Incorporate before/after counts for complete streets implementation

• Prioritize data collection locations

– High-volume areas

– Severe crash locations

• Integrate bike/ped counts with regular traffic monitoring

• Ped/Bike usage on freight connectors


– Can affect chosen designs

of upgrades

Internal Meeting Takeaways

• Return On Investment study for complete street projects

– Value of traveler’s time

– Travel time saved

– Safety in terms of lives saved in $$

– Air quality

• Needs denominator:


– Bike Ped Counts

Task Activities Status

• Technology/Location

recommendations such as:

– Infrared for peds

– Tubes for bikes

– Video for exposure

– Pavement loops for

continuous counting


Survey Report Findings


Who is counting non-motorized data?

- Approximately 20 entities

• City of Punta Gorda, Urban Design

• City of Lakeland Traffic Operations

• Sarasota County -Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources

• Orange County Traffic Engineering

• Indian River County MPO

• City of Orlando

• Hillsborough MPO• City Of Punta Gorda,

Urban Design• USF CUTR / Walkwise

Tampa• Palm Beach MPO• MetroPlan Orlando• Embry-Riddle

Aeronautical University

• Miami-Dade MPO• City of Sanibel• Pinellas County MPO

• City of Jacksonville• River to Sea TPO• City of Orlando• Rails to Trails of the

Withlacoochee• Tallahassee-Leon

County Planning Department

• FDOT District 5• FDOT District 3• FDOT District 4• FDOT District 7



What would they use the data for?

• To prioritize projects

• To justify district project approval

• Get the information to their MPO

• To target and prioritize maintenance project locations

• Monitor trends

• Track before/after project implementation

• Bridge the gaps in bike-pedestrian routes

• Funding and investment needs

External Stakeholder Takeaways


April 27th Workshop• There are various types of counters being used (passive

infrared and video imaging)

• More meaningful conclusions could be drawn from ongoing projects with good non-motorized count data

12

• Notify appropriate agencies’ staff of count locations

• Would it be possible to add a counting element to new SUN Trail projects?

External Stakeholder Takeaways


May 26th Webinar

• Can Bike/Ped data collection be added to FDOT scoping process?

• Is there a focus on particular trip types for this study?

• Data should be: Publically accessible, GIS referenced & FDOT / Local Roadway ID Referenced

• Is there non-motorized travel demand modeling taking place?

13

Test Bed


• This site in Tallahassee is testing the ability to count motorized and non-motorized traffic simultaneously.

• Uses piezo-electric to detect bicycles and infrared for pedestrians along the pathway.

• Data can be sent wirelessly.

• Study is still ongoing.

NATMEC


• Ideas:

– MPO Regional Mobile Counter Loan Program

– Partner with public health agencies for

funding

– New Video Imaging Software

– Pedestrian counts from intersection push

buttons

NATMEC


• Count Program Structures:

– A mixture of permanent counters and short

term counters.

– Permanent counter establishes expansion

and adjustment factors.

– Short term counters allow for data collection

in more areas.

North Texas Region

National Coordination


• Opportunity to work with FHWA and use

their newly revised non-motorized TMG

data format in October

• Interest expressed from other researchers

and agencies about this study

• NATMEC conference in Miami

• TRB Non-motorized Data Subcommittee

Some Florida Best Practices


• Ideas:

– D-5/MetroPlan Regional Mobile Counts

Program

– D-5 TransPed

– JAX - Video Imaging Software

Count Programs Around the State


Lessons Learned


• Ideas:

– Don’t go live with counters until they are fully installed

– Use trained professionals familiar with technology for installation

– Use trained professionals to count from video• Easy to undercount

– Occlusion a problem with side-fire infrared

– Infrared units did not operate properly in Florida heat at first

Pilot Location to Apply Recommendations


• Needs identified for testing:

– Various locations are needed

– Multiple area/land use types and facility types if possible

• Multiple organizations have put forward support for pilot study locations:

– Palm Beach MPO

– D4

– Miami Dade MPO

– D5

21

Pilot Location


• Southeast Florida Chosen

• Marlin staff have local

knowledge and contacts

– Palm Beach MPO

– D4

– Miami Dade MPO

– D6

22

Matrix for Count Sites - FDOT Context Zones


• FDOT Context Zones for Complete Streets Implementation

– Transect, ITE, PENNDOT, NJDOT based

23

Source: NJDOT & PENNDOT Smart Transportation Guidebook

Matrix for Count Sites


• Location Chart example

24

A B C D E F G

Context ZonesSidewalk/ No Bicycle

Lane

Sidewalk/ Bicycle

Lane

Paved Shoulder

Shared Lane /

"Sharrow"

Sidewalk/ Protected Bike Lane

Shared Use Path

Trail

1Rural 1

2Rural Town 1 1 1

3Suburban Residential 2 2 1 1

4Suburban Commercial 2 2 1 1

5General Urban Residential 1 1 2 1

6Urban Center 1 2 1

7Urban Core 3 2 1 1

8State Park 1

Pilot Deployment


• Initial matrix example of test sites by:

– Context Zone,

– Facility type and

– Local data collection efforts

25

Roadway Location Jurisdiction

On, Off-

System Subject

Existing Count

Location Devices Locations

1C US 27 North of I-75 Broward Co. SIS Bicycles tubes 2 2

2A Hillsboro Blvd S of NW 64th Tr Parkland SHS Pedestrians

and Bicycles

tubes/infra

red

2 4

2B Holmeberg Road E of Parskside Drive Parkland Local Pedestrians

and Bicycles

tubes/infra

red

2 4

2C SR 80 W of SR 15 Belle gLade SIS Bicycles tubes 2 2

3A Sunrise Blvd W of Pine Island Rd Sunrise SHS Pedestrians

and Bicycles

tubes/infra

red

2 4

3A Pine Island Rd N of Broward Blvd Plantation Local Pedestrians

and Bicycles

tubes/infra

red

2 4

3B University Dr N of Cleary Rd Plantation SHS Pedestrians

and Bicycles

tubes/infra

red

2 4

3B Pines Blvd W of 160th St Pembroke Pines SHS Pedestrians

and Bicycles

tubes/infra

red

2 4

3C SR 84 W of Markham Park Weston SHS Bikes tubes 2 2

Context

Scenario

# of

Devices

Pilot Deployment - Technology


• Initial matrix of test sites

emphasized passive

infrared and mini-tubes

• Discussions with

manufacturers for

equipment loans

– Piezo

– Radar

– Video w/shape recognition

26

Pilot Deployment – Data Roll Up


• Mix of local data and project data

• Mix of automated and manual counts

• Mix of time periods of counts

• Limited number of permanent counters to

develop factors

• Quality assurance of data

• FHWA TMAS compatibility

27

Discussion


Pilot Deployment – Integration w/ FDOT TTMS or PTMS?

• Has it been done before?

• Other than RoadSys, is it possible?

28

Discussion


Pilot Deployment – Integration with Strava Metro?

• How to best structure pilot data?

• Data format issues?

29

Discussion


Future vision for non-motorized count program?

• How to expand?

• District 5 TransPed application

• Integration with existing & future count

stations?

• Impact of “Smart Cities”

30

Next Steps


• Refinement of draft

recommendations

• Conduct pilot

• Refine recommendations

• Final report Dec. 30, 2016

Contact Information

James Whitley

[email protected]

Martin Guttenplan

[email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Statewide Pedestrian/Bicycle Data Collection · PDF fileStatewide Pedestrian/Bicycle Data...

Documents

Transcript of Statewide Pedestrian/Bicycle Data Collection · PDF fileStatewide Pedestrian/Bicycle Data...