Identifying and Prioritizing Biking and Walking Needs

Transcription

1 Identifying and Prioritizing Biking and Walking Needs The 2012 Utah Bicycle and Pedestrian Barriers Survey TRB Planning Applications Conference May 6, 2013 RSG, Inc Chloe Ritter Elizabeth Greene James Kerrigan

2 Overview Survey Context and Purpose Survey Methods Recruitment Administration Design Survey Responses Attitudes Behaviors Barrier Locations Conclusion Applications Next steps 2

3 Survey Context and Purpose Survey context: Utah Statewide Transportation Study College Travel Diary On-Board Transit Survey (Dixie MPO) Attitude Survey Main Household Travel Diary Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey Residential Choice Survey Long Distance Travel Survey Bike and Walk Survey Purposes Collect additional walking and biking details Identify specific problem locations for bikers and walkers 3

4 Survey Administration Surveys collected September November 2012 Incentive offered Raffle for Apple ipad TM Electronic administration Online survey communication Urban recruitment focus Household diary participants Snowball sampling 4

5 Survey Recruitment Assistance from 150 interest groups Local committees/ neighborhood groups Bike Shops University Community Groups Bike/ Trail Clubs Walking/ Running Clubs 5

6 Questionnaire Design Introduction Behavior Optional: Repeat for both Walk and Bike Attitudes Barrier Locations Demographics 6

7 Sample Profile 7

8 Sample Profile How did you hear about the survey? (1,987 respondents) Household Diary Invitation Newspaper University / Web Businesses/ Community Groups Word of Mouth Social Media Unsure Government Agency 8

9 Preferred infrastructure Comfortable Walking Environments Sidewalk separated from traffic Signalized crossing Off-street trail Sidewalk next to traffic Painted crosswalk Unpaved path by road Unlit sidewalk/path Road WITH shoulder, NO sidewalk Road, NO shoulder, NO sidewalk 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 9

10 Preferred infrastructure Comfortable Biking Environments Bike lane SEPARATED from traffic Multi-use trail SHOULDER of LOW-traffic road Bike lane NEXT to traffic SHARED LOW-traffic road High-traffic intersection, WITH Unlit bike lane/path SHOULDER of HIGH-traffic road High-traffic intersection, NO bike 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 10

11 Typical Behaviors and Barrier Reporting Walking Frequency ( last week ) by Number of Reported Walk Problems 0 walks/never walk 0 walk problems 1 walk problem 2 walk problems 3+ walk problems 1-4 walks/week 5+ walks/week 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 11

12 Typical Behaviors and Barrier Reporting Biking Frequency ( last two weeks ) by Number of Reported Bike Problems 0 rides/never bike 0 bike problems 1 bike problem 2 bike problems 3+ bike problems 1-4 rides/week 5+ rides/week 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 12

13 Barrier Locations: Question Design 13

14 Barrier Locations: Question Design 14

15 Barrier Locations: Question Design 15

16 Barrier Locations: Question Design 16

17 Barrier Locations: Question Design 17

18 Walk and Bike Barrier Locations Example: Salt Lake City Barriers 18

19 Walk and Bike Barrier Hot Spots Example: Salt Lake City Barrier Hot Spots 19

20 Applications Salt Lake area agencies collaborate and are sharing the dataset City of Salt Lake: Data is informing update of Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Study team members and agencies plan to use data for Utah Collaborative Active Transportation Study (UCATS) WFRC planners identifying hot spots for disabled travelers UTA reviewing for transit access issues Potential use for the newly launched SLC Bike Share Engage & share results with residents Cache MPO sharing results on website WFRC considering ways to share results 20

21 Applications 21

22 Closing Thoughts Good method for real-time data for planning Improved targeting of limited dollars Insight into demand for walk and bike infrastructure Potential to adapt the survey to support ongoing data collection Continuous collection of hot spots across several seasons Allow for longer survey administration period to encourage more word of mouth/response Assess trends in barrier data and improve future survey design Identifying and locating problems along roadways Categorization of problem types Coordination with safety and health needs 22

23 Thank You! Questions? Contact information: Chloe Ritter RSG, Inc. Acknowledgements: Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) Cache MPO Dixie MPO Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Utah DOT 23