Capitol Region Council of Governments Bike/Pedestrian Count Project

Transcription

1 Capitol Region Council of Governments Bike/Pedestrian Count Project 2015 REPORT

2 CAPITOL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Bike / Pedestrian Count Project 2015 Count Introduction This report presents an analysis of the results of the 2015 Bicycle and Pedestrian Count conducted by the Capitol Region Council of Governments. The count is performed annually at dozens of locations throughout the region, collecting data on pedestrian and cyclist demographics and activities. Basic count information is presented along with an analysis that compares this year s results to previous counts. The report and underlying data present a snapshot of bicycling and walking in this region that helps to inform CRCOG s planning efforts. Since the beginning of the Capitol Region count program, CRCOG has depended upon volunteers to carry out counts and as a result the number of count locations has varied from year to year. The 2009 count was limited in scope, and in 2010 even fewer locations were counted. In 2011, the program expanded to include dozens of counters and locations. The extended count was undertaken again in The counting project was put on hold in 2013 but resumed again in 2014 and In all years, the count has taken place in September during the designated national count period. This report examines the 2015 results and compares them to data from earlier count years. Background In 2008, the Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) updated its Regional Bike/Ped Plan, The CRCOG Commitment to a Walkable and Bikeable Region. The plan highlights the positive impacts that walking and bicycling can have on local and state economies as well as on our overall health, air quality, and mobility. The plan also lists a set of recommended action steps that CRCOG will carry out in an effort to support the communities in our region in their Bike/Ped planning. Collecting bicycling and pedestrian data falls under recommendations 2.3 and 3.3 in the plan. The 2008 plan provided a snapshot of the walking and bicycling patterns in our region, however, much of the data represented commuters traveling to and from work. At that time, there was no data source that allowed us to truly understand what mode choices people use for recreation or everyday activities in our region. Whereas vehicle counts are typically conducted as part of standard traffic studies, and bus ridership figures are collected to study ridership, there was not a comparable effort to collect data on bicycle and pedestrian volumes. The 2008 plan recommended starting a data collection effort that would fill this gap. In September 2009, CRCOG participated for the first time in the National Bike/Ped Documentation Project (NBPD), a project sponsored by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and co-sponsored by Alta + Planning and Design. The nationwide effort provides a consistent model of data collection and ongoing data for use by planners, governments, and bicycle and pedestrian professionals. The 1 P a g e

3 purpose of the project is to encourage agencies nationwide to start conducting bicycle/pedestrian counts and surveys in a consistent manner similar to motor vehicle counts. Working in conjunction with the NBPD, we modified the count and instruction forms to represent our region. The purpose of participating in the NBPD was to initiate a bicyclist/pedestrian data collection program for the Capitol Region. Count Methodology/Implementation After reviewing guidance issued by the NBPD, CRCOG staff determined that two kinds of counts would be performed, based on the location: intersection counts (including where paths/trails crossed) and screen line counts. Intersection counts are more complicated than screenline counts because they include information regarding turning movements. Screenline counts include much of the same information, but are performed when somebody crosses an imaginary line in the road or trail. Volunteers stationed at each location counted both pedestrians and bicyclists, rather than separating the two modes. Figure 1. Map of 2015 count locations 2 P a g e

4 The NBPD recommended that counts take place the second week of September, 5:00 to 7:00 PM during the weekday and 12:00 to 2:00 PM during the weekend. Most of CRCOG s counts took place between 4pm and 6pm, corresponding to observed peak hours. In certain locations in Hartford counts were performed in the morning from 7am to 9am. Weekend counts took place between 11am and 1pm. Due to volunteer availability, not all desired locations and times were counted. For intersection counts, CRCOG developed forms and detailed instructions that were given to volunteer counters. Both bicyclists and pedestrians were counted and recorded on an intersection diagram. Bicyclists were recorded by the direction they approached the intersection and their destination (turning right, going straight, and turning left.) Counters also recorded if a bicyclist was travelling the wrong way or riding on the sidewalk. Helmet use by cyclists was recorded as well. Pedestrians were counted as they crossed the intersection and recorded for the appropriate crosswalk. Diagonal crossings by pedestrians were also recorded. Counters also recorded basic demographic data such as sex and age (adult or child). Counters were also asked to record whether or not pedestrians used an assistive device such as a cane or a wheelchair. Screenline counters counted bicyclists and pedestrians who passed an imaginary line across the trail or roadway being counted. These counters used different forms, but recorded the same information (except for turning data). The count forms used in 2015 can be found in the appendix. Locations CRCOG chooses count location each year in consultation with bike/ped advocates and its member municipalities. Each year the number and location of count sites varies. In 2014 we counted 70 locations, many of which were located near CTfastrak or CTrail Hartford Line stations. Both of these services were scheduled to begin service in the near future (CTfastrak has since begun service) and CRCOG determined that establishing a baseline would be helpful for future analysis of transit and transit-oriented development patterns. In 2015, CRCOG counted 42 locations and continued to concentrate on locations near transit stations. A map of count locations from 2015 is provided above in Figure 1. Count Summaries and Findings Table 1 shows a summary of the total bicyclist/pedestrian counts for the six years of counting. In 2009, we counted 5,555 pedestrians and cyclists at 25 locations. By 2015 we had increased our program to 42 locations and counted 9,241 bicyclists and pedestrians (following an increase to 71 locations and 15,223 cyclists and pedestrians in 2014). It should be noted, however, that results from individual years should not be compared. Not only did the number of count sites vary from year to year, but the actual locations did as well. In some years, for example, a greater percentage of count sites were multi-use trails, while in other years, more on-road counts were done. As will be shown later, this can significantly skew the results. 3 P a g e

5 Total Total Bicyclists 1, ,598 3,120 2,996 2,370 13,875 Percent of Bicyclists 23% 19% 41% 34% 20% 26% 27% Total Pedestrians 4,256 2,034 5,247 6,187 12,227 6,871 36,824 Percent of Pedestrians 77% 81% 59% 66% 80% 74% 73% Total users 5,555 2,526 8,845 9,307 15,223 9,241 50,699 Total count sites Table 1. Bicycle and pedestrian counts by year ( ) During most of the bike/ped counts, the majority of counts have taken place on weekdays. In 2015, 50 counts (not sites, as a single site may be counted more than once) were performed on weekdays. Just 13 were weekend counts. As will be noted below, this impacts the number and type of users who get counted. The average split for all six years is 72% weekdays and 28% weekends Total Weekday Counts Weekend Counts Weekday Percentage 69% 50% 66% 73% 76% 77% 72% Weekend Percentage 31% 50% 34% 27% 24% 23% 28% Table 2. Bicycle and pedestrian counts by year ( ) Table 3 provides a percentage breakdown of counted cyclists and pedestrians by weekend or weekday (it excludes locations where automatic machine counters were used). In general, cyclists are more evenly split between weekdays and weekends than pedestrians are (2010 was an exception). This is despite the fact that the actual counts are heavily weighted toward weekdays. For example, in 2015, just 21% of counts were performed on weekends. While pedestrians were relatively evenly distributed with 19% of them being counted on weekends, cyclists were weighted in the other direction with 52% on weekends. These numbers have fluctuated over the years, but the overall pattern of cyclists being more prevalent on weekends than pedestrians has not changed. The only exception was 2010, during which 50% of the counts were done on weekends. The differences between weekday and weekend counts may indicate that cycling is more likely to be a recreational activity in the region Total Bicycles 1, ,598 3,120 2,996 2,370 13,875 Weekdays 57% 39% 38% 48% 58% 48% 48% Weekend 43% 61% 62% 52% 42% 52% 52% Pedestrians 4,256 2,034 5,247 6,187 12,227 6,871 36,824 Weekdays 61% 22% 57% 87% 91% 80% 76% Weekend 39% 78% 43% 13% 9% 20% 24% Total of All Users 5,555 2,526 8,845 9,307 15,223 9,241 50,699 Table 3. Bicycle and pedestrian counts by year ( ) and weekend/weekday percentages 4 P a g e

6 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 50% 50% 48% 52% 47% 53% 47% 53% 44% 56% 50% 50% Female Pedestrians Male Pedestrians Figure 2. Pedestrians counted by gender Figure 2. shows the gender of pedestrians by year. As the chart shows, pedestrians tend to be evenly split between male and female. In 2015, the count was split in half between male and female users. In 2014, the count was a little more lopsided, with 56% of pedestrians being male and 44% being female. For cyclists, the distribution is much more skewed toward males (see Figure 3). In 2015 the split was 68% male and 32% female. This is a slight increase for the female percentage, which was just 27% in The overall trend in the count has been an increase in the female percentage. Just 23% of cyclists counted in 2009 were women. It is difficult to say at this point whether this increase is a result of behavioral changes or of the differences between count locations. It does show that cycling still tends to be a male-dominated activity. As our count methodology becomes more rigorous, we will be better equipped to track this trend. It should be noted, that with the automatic counts in 2011 (on the Hop River Trail in Bolton), we were unable to determine if trail users were bicyclists or pedestrians or male or female. Therefore, those counts are not included in any of these summary tables. 5 P a g e

7 60% 100% 90% 50% 80% 40% 70% 60% 30% 50% 20% 40% 30% 10% 20% 0% 10% 0% 77% 75% 73% 68% 70% 68% 32% 30% 32% 23% 25% 27% With Traffic 2011 Against Traffic 2012 On Sidewalk Female Cyclists Male Cyclists Figure 5. Cyclist behavior by year for on-road counts. Figure 4. Cyclists counted by gender Volunteers were also asked to identify children (including children in strollers) when counting. On average, children accounted for 7% of pedestrians in As shown in Figure 4, the total number of children counted in 2015 was much larger than in Overall though, the perentage of pedestrians counted who are children has been unstable. Notably, in 2011 it reached a peak of 12%, while the previous year just 2% of pedestrians were children. The past three years have been relatively steady between 6% and 7% Children Adults 4,256 2,034 5,249 6,187 12,227 6,871 Percent Children 2% 2% 12% 7% 6% 7% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Children Adults Percent Children Figure 3. Children as a percent of all pedestrians counted (all years) 6 P a g e

8 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% With Traffic Against Traffic On Sidewalk Figure 5. Male and female facility use in 2015 Figure 5 shows how bicyclists were operating on the roads at the count locations. In 2015, just 7% of cyclists were observed riding against traffic. Of the riders for whom this information was gathered, 43% were riding with traffic while 50% were on the sidewalk. Over the years there has been little change in these percentages. The highest against traffic percentage was recorded in 2009 at 10%, but has stayed below that level ever since. The percentage of cyclists riding on the sidewalk has been relatively steady, with a small dip in 2010 and 2011 to 46% and 47% respectively. There is too little data to make any conclusions, but it does appear that cyclists in the region prefer to ride on the sidewalk. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 63% 37% Female 54% 46% Male Road Trail Figure 6. Male and female cyclist facility use in P a g e

9 Follow up studies should be done to determine if this is a result of insufficient on-road infrastructure, or if there is another cause. As the program continues and the same locations are counted each year, we will be able to evaluate trends for riding behavior. Figure 6 shows the difference in female bicyclist and male bicyclist behavior relative to the type of facility used. To a much greater degree than men, women choose to ride on trails rather than roads. Just 37% of the female cyclists in the count were on-road riders, while 46% of male cyclists were on the road. Comparisons with prior years are not shown as the locations that were counted in each year have varied considerably, making it difficult to draw any conclusions. As CRCOG continues to count the same locations over the coming years, we hope to be able to identify trends. The charts showing riding behavior by sex can be somewhat misleading without understanding how many males and females were actually counted on the roadways. In 2015, 68% of the cyclists counted by CRCOG were men. When broken down by facility type, as shown in Figure 7, we see that men make up just 64% of trail riders but account for 73% of road riders. Again, given the differences in the number and locations of the counts, it is difficult to make any conclusions regarding trends. It does appear though, that men tend to be more comfortable riding on the road than women do. Next steps The count data and database used to summarize the data are a very rich source of information, limited only by the manpower available to analyze and evaluate the data. It would be useful to develop standard queries for the database that would enable us to extract the data for individual towns and locations and then share that information with the towns, for their own analysis. Going forward CRCOG might want to develop a program of counting locations every other year. This might make the counting program more manageable. Additionally, CRCOG should investigate how to 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 73% 64% 68% 27% 36% 32% Road Trail Total Percent female Percent male Figure 7. Facility type by gender of cyclist (2015) 8 P a g e

10 incorporate more automatic counters into the program, as this method of counting could lead to understanding of bicycle and pedestrian peaks by type of facility, by time of day, day of week, and month of year. 9 P a g e

11 Appendix 1: Data Tables Data Table 1: Detailed Counts CRCOG ID Intersection/St Municipality Count Type Time 10 P a g e Total Count Cyclists Pedestrians Female Male BE2 Farmington Ave and Main St Berlin Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) BO1 Hop River Trail at Steele's Crossing Bolton Screenline Weekend (11AM - 1PM) CA1 Bridge St and Main St Canton Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) CA1 Bridge St and Main St Canton Intersection Weekend (11AM - 1PM) CA3 Farmington River Trail at River Road and Center St/Maple Ave Canton Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) CA3 Farmington River Trail at River Road and Center St/Maple Ave Canton Intersection Weekend (11AM - 1PM) CA5 Farmington River Trail at Maple Ave and Allen Pl Canton Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) CA5 Farmington River Trail at Maple Ave and Allen Pl Canton Intersection Weekend (11AM - 1PM) CA6 Farmington River Trail at Rte 44 Canton Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) CA6 Farmington River Trail at Rte 44 Canton Intersection Weekend (11AM - 1PM) CA7 Farmington River Trail at Rte 179 Canton Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) CA7 Farmington River Trail at Rte 179 Canton Intersection Weekday (2PM-4PM) CA8 Farmington River Trail - Bike Ped Bridge Canton Intersection Weekend (11AM - 1PM) EG2 Farmington Canal Heritage Trail at Rte 20 East Granby Screenline Weekend (11AM - 1PM) EH2 Charter Oak Greenway at Forbes St East Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) EH3 Burnside Ave and Middle School East Hartford Intersection Weekday 7:30AM - 8:30AM EH4 Main St and Burnside Ave East Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) GL1 Main St and Hebron Ave Glastonbury Intersection Weekend (11AM - 1PM) GL1 Main St and Hebron Ave Glastonbury Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) GL3 Main St and Douglas St Glastonbury Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) GL4 Naubuc Ave and Glastonbury Boulevard Glastonbury Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) GL4 Naubuc Ave and Glastonbury Boulevard Glastonbury Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) GL4 Naubuc Ave and Glastonbury Boulevard Glastonbury Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) HF1 Franklin Ave and Brown St Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) HF1 Franklin Ave and Brown St Hartford Intersection Weekend (11AM - 1PM) HF11 Park St and Washington St Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM)

12 Data Table 1: Detailed Counts CRCOG ID Intersection/St Municipality Count Type Time Total Count Cyclists Pedestrians Female Male HF13 Church St and High St Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) HF19 Main St and Gold St Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) HF2 Founders Bridge Hartford Screenline Weekday (7-9AM) HF2 Founders Bridge Hartford Screenline Weekday (4-6 PM) HF2 Founders Bridge Hartford Screenline Weekday (11:30AM - 1:30AM) HF24 Sigourney St and Hawthorn St Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) HF25 Park St and Francis Ave Hartford Intersection Weekday (7-9AM) HF27 Broad St and Capitol Ave Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) HF7 Farmington Ave and Sigourney St Hartford Intersection Weekend (11AM - 1PM) MA1 Rte 195 and Bolton Road Mansfield Intersection Weekday (12PM - 2PM) MA4 Rte 195 and Rte 275 Mansfield Intersection Weekday (12PM - 2PM) MC4 Buckland St and Pleasant Valley Road Manchester Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) NB7 Main St and Bank St New Britain Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) NE4 Willard Ave and West Hill Road Newington Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) RH1 Rte 3 and Rte 160 Rocky Hill Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) SI2 Farmington Canal Heritage Trail at Rte 10 Simsbury Screenline Weekday (4-6 PM) SI3 Farmington Canal Heritage Trail at Rte 10 and Rte 315 Simsbury Screenline Weekday (4-6 PM) SI3 Farmington Canal Heritage Trail at Rte 10 and Rte 315 Simsbury Screenline Weekend (11AM - 1PM) SO1 Farmington Canal Heritage Trail at West Main St/Summer St Southington Screenline Weekday (4-6 PM) SO1 Farmington Canal Heritage Trail at West Main St/Summer St Southington Screenline Weekday (4-6 PM) SO2 Farmington Canal Heritage Trail at Mill St Southington Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) SO2 Farmington Canal Heritage Trail at Mill St Southington Intersection Weekend (11AM - 1PM) SU1 Farmington Canal Heritage Trail at Phelps Road Suffield Screenline Weekend (11AM - 1PM) SW1 Bissell Bridge and Old Main St South Windsor Screenline Weekday (4-6 PM) SW3 Sullivan Ave/Buckland St and Ellington Road South Windsor Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) WH11 New Park Ave and Flatbush Ave West Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) P a g e

13 Data Table 1: Detailed Counts CRCOG ID Intersection/St Municipality Count Type Time Total Count Cyclists Pedestrians Female Male WH12 New Britain Ave and New Park St West Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) WH4 Boulevard and Prospect Ave West Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) WH5 Asylum Ave and Quaker Lane West Hartford Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) WI1 Broad St and Maple Ave Windsor Intersection Weekday (4-6 PM) P a g e

14 Data Table 2: Detailed Counts - Males CRCOG ID 13 P a g e Male - Bicyclists - No Helmet Male - Bicyclists - With Traffic Male - Bicyclists - Against Traffic Male - Bicyclists - On Sidewalk/Trail Male - Adult on Foot Male - Recreational User Male - Children (Inc Stroller) Male - Assisted BE BO CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA EG EH EH EH GL GL GL GL GL GL HF HF HF HF HF HF Male - Other

15 Data Table 2: Detailed Counts - Males CRCOG ID Male - Bicyclists - No Helmet Male - Bicyclists - With Traffic Male - Bicyclists - Against Traffic Male - Bicyclists - On Sidewalk/Trail Male - Adult on Foot Male - Recreational User Male - Children (Inc Stroller) Male - Assisted HF HF HF HF HF HF MA MA MC NB NE RH SI SI SI SO SO SO SO SU SW SW WH WH WH WH WI Male - Other 14 P a g e

16 Data Table 3: Detailed Counts - Females CRCOG ID Bicyclists - No Helmet Bicyclists - With Traffic 15 P a g e Bicyclists - Against Traffic Bicyclists - On Sidewalk/Trail Adult on Foot Recreational User Children (Inc Stroller) BE BO CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA EG EH EH EH GL GL GL GL GL GL HF HF HF HF HF HF Assisted Other

17 Data Table 3: Detailed Counts - Females CRCOG ID Bicyclists - No Helmet Bicyclists - With Traffic Bicyclists - Against Traffic Bicyclists - On Sidewalk/Trail Adult on Foot Recreational User Children (Inc Stroller) HF HF HF HF HF HF MA MA MC NB NE RH SI SI SI SO SO SO SO SU SW SW WH WH WH WH WI Assisted Other 16 P a g e

18 Data Table 4: Detailed Counts All Users Bicyclists CRCOG ID Bicyclists - No Helmet - With Traffic 17 P a g e Bicyclists - Against Traffic Bicyclists - On Sidewalk/Trail Adults on Foot Recreational User Children (Inc Stroller) Assisted Other Female Male Bicyclists - Female Bicyclists - Male BE BO CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA EG EH EH EH GL GL GL GL GL GL HF HF HF HF HF HF

19 Data Table 4: Detailed Counts All Users Bicyclists CRCOG ID Bicyclists - No Helmet - With Traffic Bicyclists - Against Traffic Bicyclists - On Sidewalk/Trail Adults on Foot Recreational User Children (Inc Stroller) Assisted Other Female Male Bicyclists - Female Bicyclists - Male HF HF HF HF HF HF MA MA MC NB NE RH SI SI SI SO SO SO SO SU SW SW WH WH WH WH WI P a g e

20 19 P a g e

21 20 P a g e