Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Program

Transcription

1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Program February 2015 NORTHEAST OHIO AREAWIDE COORDINATING AGENCY Ted Kalo BOARD PRESIDENT Grace Gallucci EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Preparation of this publication was financed by appropriations from the counties of and municipalities within Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration, in conjunction with the Ohio Department of Transportation.

2 The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) is a public organization serving the counties of and municipalities and townships within Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina (covering an area with 2.1 million people). NOACA is the agency designated or recognized to perform the following functions: GRAND RIVER VILLAGE MADISON NORTH PERRY R LAKE NOACA s Board of Directors is composed of 45 local public officials. The Board convenes quarterly to provide a forum for members to present, discuss and develop solutions to local and areawide issues and make recommendations regarding implementation strategies. As the area clearinghouse for the region, the Board makes comments and recommendations on applications for state and federal grants, with the purpose of enhancing the region s ion s social, physical, environmental and land use/transportation ation fabric. NOACA invites you to take part in its planning process. Feel free to participate, to ask questions and to learn more about areawide planning. PAINESVILLE P FA FAIRPORT A HARBOR VILLAGE. Serve as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), with responsibility for comprehensive, cooperative and continuous planning for highways, public transit, and bikeways, as defined in the current transportation law. Perform continuous water quality, transportation-related air quality and other environmental planning functions. Administer the area clearinghouse function, which includes providing local government with the opportunity to review a wide variety of local or state applications for federal funds. Conduct transportation and environmental planning and related demographic, economic and land use research. Serve as an information center for transportation and environmental and related planning. At NOACA Board of Director direction, provide transportation and environmental planning assistance to the 172 units of local, general purpose government. MADISON PERRY R PAINESVILLE PERRY R 90 MENTOR ON N THE LAKE AKE KE 90 EA GA G UG E U GEA GEAUGA K LA THOMPSON 2 ST LAKELIN E TIMBERLAKE LAKE KIRTLAND HILLS WILLOWICK WILLO OW O OWICK WICK K W IC KL IF 90 FE HIGHLAND HTS. HAMBDEN CHARDON AQUILLA MAYFIELD A VILLAGE MAYFIELD A D HTS. MONTVILLE KIRTLAND LAKE EUCLID EUCLID D GEAUGA CHARDON CHESTERLAND CHESTERLAND GATES A MILLS MUNSON CLARIDON HUNTSBURG 271 SHEFFIELD D LAK LAKE LA AVON LAKE A BAY A RUSSELL ORAIN LORAIN LORA L A AVON G Y HOGA CUYA CUYAHOGA 90 MIDDLEFIELD BURTON NEWBURY BURTON MIDDLEFIELD S. RUSSELL VERMILION BROOKPARK BROOKP OKPARK MIDDLEBURGH EB HTS. S. 80 PARMA P HTS. 77 P PARMA SEVEN H HILLS BROADVIEW HTS. N. ROYAL ROYALTON Y LTON CARLISLE EATON EATO A N SOLON V LLEY VA VALLEY VIEW INDEPENDENCE GLEN WILLOW BAINBRIDGE GEAUGA NORTH RIDGEVILLE ELYRIA ELYRI L A G OGA Y HOG CUYAHOGA CUYA 2 TROY AUBURN 422 GEAUGA PORTAGE PORT POR TAGE 480 STRONGSVILLE VI R IN LORAIN LORA BRECKSVILLE OBERLIN GRAFTON SUMMIT KIPTON 80 BRUNSWIC LIVERPOOL BRUNSWICK 271 WELLINGTON BRIGHTON WELLINGTON PENFIELD LITCHFIELD MEDINA YORK GRANGER I LORAIN M MEDINA MEDINA ROCHESTER ROCHESTER 80 HINCKLEY HUNTINGTON SPENCER CHATHAM A SPENCER For more information, call (216) or log on at LAFAYETTE LAFA FAYETTE SHARON Briarwood Beach Chippewa on the Lake WESTFIELD HOMER 77 MONTVILLE TWP LODI HARRISVILLE W WADSWORTH GUILFORD TW WESTFIELD CENTER 71 SEVILLE ADSWORTH H PORTAGE GRAFTON SUMMIT La GRANGE La GRANGE MEDINA PITTSFIELD SUMMIT CAMDEN PARKMAN P

3 2015 NOACA BOARD OF DIRECTORS BOARD OFFICERS President: Ted Kalo, Commissioner, Lorain County First Vice President: Daniel P. Troy Commissioner, Lake County Second Vice President: Adam Friedrick, Commissioner, Medina County Secretary: Armond Budish, County Executive, Cuyahoga County Assistant Secretary: Michael P. Summers, Mayor, City of Lakewood Assistant Secretary: Richard Heidecker, Columbia Township Trustee, Lorain County Treasurer: Valarie J. McCall, Chief of Government & International Affairs, City of Cleveland Assistant Treasurer: Julius Ciaccia, Jr., Executive Director, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Assistant Treasurer: Susan Infeld, Mayor, City of University Heights Immediate Past President: Mary E. Samide, Former Commissioner, Geauga County BOARD MEMBERS CUYAHOGA COUNTY Samuel J. Alai, Mayor, City of Broadview Heights Tanisha R. Briley, City Manager, Cleveland Heights Armond Budish, County Executive William R. Cervenik, Mayor, City of Euclid Scott E. Coleman, Mayor, City of Highland Heights Glenn Coyne, Executive Director, Planning Commission Timothy J. DeGeeter, Mayor, City of Parma Ann Marie Donegan, Mayor, City of Olmsted Falls Anthony T. Hairston, County Councilman Susan K. Infeld, Mayor, City of University Heights Charles E. Smith, Mayor, City of Woodmere Robert A. Stefanik, Mayor, City of North Royalton Michael P. Summers, Mayor, City of Lakewood Deborah L. Sutherland, Mayor, City of Bay Village Bonita G. Teeuwen, P.E., Director of Public Works CITY OF CLEVELAND Freddy Collier, Jr., Director, City Planning Commission Martin J. Keane, City Councilman Valarie J. McCall, Chief of Government & International Affairs Mamie J. Mitchell, City Councilwoman Terrell Pruitt, City Councilman Matthew L. Spronz, P.E., PMP, Capital Projects Director GEAUGA COUNTY Walter Claypool, County Commissioner Blake A. Rear, County Commissioner Ralph Spidalieri, County Commissioner LAKE COUNTY James R. Gills, P.E., P.S., County Engineer Raymond Jurkowski, General Manager, Laketran Kevin Malecek, County Commissioner Judy Moran, County Commissioner Daniel P. Troy, County Commissioner LORAIN COUNTY Holly Brinda, Mayor, City of Elyria Kenneth P. Carney, Sr., P.E., P.S., County Engineer G. David Gillock Mayor, City of North Ridgeville Richard Heidecker, Trustee, Columbia Township Ted Kalo, County Commissioner Matt Lundy, County Commissioner Chase M. Ritenauer, Mayor, City of Lorain MEDINA COUNTY Lynda Bowers, Trustee, Lafayette Township Adam Friedrick, County Commissioner Patrick Patton, Engineer, City of Medina Michael J. Salay, P.E., P.S., County Engineer REGIONAL AND STATE GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (GCRTA) Joseph A. Calabrese, CEO and General Manager NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT (NEORSD) Julius Ciaccia, Jr., Executive Director CLEVELAND-CUYAHOGA COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY William D. Friedman, President/CEO OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ODOT) Myron S. Pakush, Deputy Director, District 12 Ex officio Member: Kurt Princic, Chief, Northeast District Office, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) NOACA DIRECTORS Grace Gallucci, Executive Director Marvin Hayes, Director of Communications & Public Affairs Cheryl A. Kurkowski, CPA, Director of Finance & Operations Randy Lane, Director of Programming Kathy Sarli, Director of Planning Mark Zannoni, Director of Reseach, Analysis & Policy William Davis, Associate Director of Operations Management Jonathan Giblin, Associate Director of Compliance

4 1) Title & Subtitle 2) NOACA Report No. Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Report 3) Author(s) Marc Von Allmen Contributors: Daniel Boyle, William Davis, Meredith Davis, Gayle Godek, Chad Harris, Kathy Sarli 5) Performing Organization Name & Address Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 1299 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH Phone: (216) FAX: (216) Website: 4) Report Date January ) Project Task No ) NOACA Contract/Grant No. ODOT/FHWA 8) Sponsoring Agency Name & Address Ohio Department of Transportation 1980 W. Broad St., Box 899 Columbus, OH ) Type of Report & Period Covered CY ) Sponsoring Agency Code 11) Supplementary Notes Federal funding for this project was provided by the Federal Highway Administration and administered by the Ohio Department of Transportation. 12) Abstracts The 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Report is the first report since the count program was reorganized in September The report provides information on the national guidelines used for NOACA s count program and analysis of count data from six count sessions in September 2011, May 2012, September 2012, May 2013, September 2013, and May ) Key Words & Document Analysis A. Descriptors: bicycle counts, pedestrian counts, National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project B. Identifiers/Open Ended Terms 14) Availability Statement NOACA 15) No. Pages 16) Price

5 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary... 1 II. Program Background... 3 III. Count Data... 5 IV. Bicyclist Data V. Pedestrian Data VI. Future Improvements VII. Appendix I: Works Cited VIII. Appendix II: Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Data... 22

6 I. Executive Summary To improve planning for a more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly northeast Ohio, NOACA, with the generous help of volunteers, conducts bicycle and pedestrian counts twice a year in May and September at locations throughout all five counties. Counts are conducted based on best practices offered by the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), an effort cosponsored by the Institute of Transportation Engineers to help better coordinate multimodal counting efforts nationwide. 1 NOACA s count program has three objectives: 1. Gauge regional and local levels of bicycling and walking beyond what is already available from Census data. 2. Identify trends based on count data to aid the planning and design of multimodal transportation infrastructure, as well as the implementation and execution of encouragement, educational, and enforcement programs. 3. Aid in the prioritization of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and planning projects. Based on the objectives, a variety of factors are used to help determine where counts are conducted, including population density, land-use patterns, proximity to an existing or planned bikeway, geographical representation, and feedback from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council (BPAC) and other stakeholders. Additionally, placement is also based on the Regional Priority Bikeway Network from the 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan. 2 To date, counts have been conducted at 47 different locations. NOACA develops a list of 40 locations each May and September which is covered based on volunteer availability. Slight changes are made each year to accommodate for a variety of factors. NOACA reorganized the count program in September 2011 to incorporate NBPD guidance. As a result, the database is still relatively limited; however, in this first report since the reorganization of the program, some initial observations are made based on six counting sessions (September 2011, May 2012, September 2012, May 2013, September 2013, and May 2014). The number of bicycles and pedestrians counted per location has fluctuated from session to session with a high of approximately 135 bicyclists and pedestrians (over 2 hours) per location in May 2012, and a low of 76 in September Bicycle counts at primary locations (along important routes and counted during each session) have increased gradually over the past four sessions, while pedestrian volumes have been relatively flat. Females account for just above 22 percent of all the bicyclists counted since September 2011, which is below the national rate of 24 percent. 3 Count locations with shared-use paths and designated bicycle lanes have slightly higher percentages of female riders compared with all other locations. 1

7 Helmet usage increased from 37 percent in September 2011 to 41 percent in May Approximately 55 percent of bicyclists counted at locations with no bikeway were recorded as riding on the sidewalk. Locations with bicycle lanes saw only 26 percent of bicyclists on the sidewalk. Weekdays and weekends see nearly equal rates of bicycling. Potential bikeway demand (composite score based on Census data used in the 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan) shows relatively stronger relationships with higher bicycle volumes when compared with motor vehicle volumes and the presence of a bikeway. Surrounding land-use mix shows a relatively stronger relationship with pedestrian volumes when compared to surrounding population density. 2

8 II. Program Background The NOACA bicycle and pedestrian count program aids the agency in many of its multimodal planning efforts. Bicycle counts have been conducted by the agency since Originally, counts were conducted by interns for four- or seven-hour periods between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. during June, July, and August. Count locations were counted on a multi-year basis to allow for more time to pass before analyzing data. In 2011, NOACA adopted guidelines laid out by the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD). 4 The NBPD is a national effort sponsored by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Pedestrian and Bicycle Council. The stated goals of the program are: 1. Establish a consistent national bicycle and pedestrian count and survey methodology. 2. Establish a national database of bicycle and pedestrian count information generated by these consistent methods and practices. 3. Use the count and survey information to begin analysis on the correlations between local demographic, climate, and land-use factors and bicycle and pedestrian activity. The program website goes on to say that to properly measure and forecast bicycle and pedestrian activity, methodologies should be used that are consistent and similar to those used for motor vehicles. These methodologies will result in a better database and decision-making tools. The NBPD outlines several guidelines for bicycle and pedestrian counting programs, recommending that counts be conducted during four one-week periods throughout the year to account for seasonal changes. At this time, NOACA counts during the spring (May) and fall (September), and will consider conducting counts during the summer and winter in the future, depending on the capacity of the program. Due to the fact that counts are constricted to a one-week period, NOACA uses the help of volunteers to cover more locations in a short period of time, which is common among NBPD count programs. Volunteers count bicyclists and pedestrians at various intersections throughout northeast Ohio during the weekday evening peak time of 5 p.m. 7 p.m., as well as from 11 a.m. 1 p.m. during the weekend. These were determined as ideal periods based on hundreds of counts submitted nationally to NBPD. NOACA takes numerous measures to make sure the data obtained through the count program is as accurate as possible. All volunteers are trained by NOACA staff. The training includes an explanation of the purpose of the program, an overview of materials, detailed discussion on counting procedures, safety issues, and the importance of accuracy, and ends with a question and answer session. Additionally, NOACA staff conducts quality control during the count days, making sure that volunteers are present at their assigned count locations and conduct counts as 3

9 instructed. Finally, all data submitted by volunteers is compared to previous data and examined for reasonableness before being entered into the count database. NOACA participates in the NBPD to aid in the progress made toward program goals. Furthermore, agency-specific objectives, which overlap with national goals, have also been established. They are as follows: 1. Gauge regional and local levels of bicycling and walking beyond what is already available from Census data. 2. Identify trends based on count data to aid the planning and design of multimodal transportation infrastructure, as well as the implementation and execution of encouragement, educational, and enforcement programs. 3. Aid in the prioritization of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and planning projects. All elements of the count program will be evaluated on a regular basis to achieve the program objectives efficiently. The applications of the data resulting from the count program are not limited to these objectives and have been used in a variety of NOACA planning processes and also by other entities within the region. 4

10 III. Count Data A) Count Locations Before each count session, NOACA staff develops a list of potential count locations based on a variety of factors, including: previous count locations population density land-use patterns proximity to an existing or planned bikeway geographical representation feedback from the BPAC and other stakeholders the Regional Priority Bikeway Network from the 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan The number of potential count locations is based on the perceived volunteer capacity at the time of the session. If NOACA is more effectively able to recruit volunteers in the future, the size of the list may grow. In addition, before the May 2013 counting session, locations were reorganized to coincide with the Regional Priority Bikeway Network (RPBN), the network of roads and shared-use paths identified in the 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan as regional priorities for the implementation and maintenance of bikeways that accommodate a wide variety of users. Table 1 shows the list of locations that have been counted to date. Note that this list includes locations that were either slightly changed or discontinued to count at a different location. Table 1: Count Locations Location ID Location County Municipality Fairmount Blvd. west of Richmond Rd. Cuyahoga Beachwood S Woodland Blvd. west of Richmond Rd. Cuyahoga Beachwood Brecksville Rd. south of E Royalton Rd. Cuyahoga Brecksville Denison Ave. east of Fulton Rd. Cuyahoga Cleveland E 9th St. south of Superior Ave. Cuyahoga Cleveland Carnegie Ave. west of Ontario St. Cuyahoga Cleveland Euclid Ave. west of E 105th St. Cuyahoga Cleveland Detroit Ave. east of W 25th St. Cuyahoga Cleveland Franklin Blvd. east of W 45th St. Cuyahoga Cleveland Superior Ave. west of E 33rd St. Cuyahoga Cleveland Euclid Ave. west of E 40th St. Cuyahoga Cleveland Broadway Ave. north of E 55th St. Cuyahoga Cleveland Lorain Ave. east of Rocky River Dr. Cuyahoga Cleveland W 65th St. south of Detroit Ave. Cuyahoga Cleveland Superior Ave. east of E 9th St. Cuyahoga Cleveland Woodland Ave. east of E 55 th St. Cuyahoga Cleveland 5

11 10314 Ontario North of Superior Cuyahoga Cleveland W 25 th St south of Bridge Cuyahoga Cleveland St Clair east of E 55 th Cuyahoga Cleveland Mayfield Rd. west of Kenilworth Rd. Cuyahoga Cleveland Heights Edgehill Rd. west of Overlook Rd. Cuyahoga Cleveland Heights Cedar Glen Pkwy. west of Overlook Rd. Cuyahoga Cleveland Heights Dover Center Rd. north of Butternut Ridge Rd. Cuyahoga North Olmsted Crocker Rd. north of Hilliard Blvd. Cuyahoga Westlake Hilliard Blvd. west of Clague Rd. Cuyahoga Westlake Detroit Ave. east of Warren Rd. Cuyahoga Lakewood Lake west of Nicholson Cuyahoga Lakewood Front St. north of E Grand St. Cuyahoga Berea Aurora Rd. west of Portz Pkwy. Cuyahoga Solon Bedford Chagrin Pkwy. east of SOM Center Rd. Cuyahoga Solon E 222nd St. south of Milton Ave. Cuyahoga Euclid Lakeshore Blvd. west of E 218 th St. Cuyahoga Euclid Valley Pkwy. north of Mastick Rd. Cuyahoga Fairview Park Valley Pkwy. east of Broadview Rd. Cuyahoga Broadview Heights Towpath Trail at Harvard Ave. Cuyahoga Cuyahoga Heights Bedford Chagrin Pkwy. east of Broadway Ave. Cuyahoga Bedford Lee Rd. north of Shaker Blvd. Cuyahoga Shaker Heights Bell St. west of Walters Rd. Cuyahoga Chagrin Falls Broadview Rd. south of Snow Rd. Cuyahoga Parma Maple Highlands Trail at Center St. Geauga Chardon Center St. west of Main St. Geauga Chardon Maple Highlands Trail at South St. Geauga Chardon Hambden St. west of Huntington St. Geauga Chardon Main St. north of Spring St. Geauga Burton Center St. west of Baird St. Geauga Burton Euclid Ave. west of Lloyd Rd. Lake Wickliffe Liberty St. south of Mentor Ave. Lake Painesville Lake Metroparks Greenway at Johnnycake Ridge Rd. Lake Painesville Center St. south of Munson Rd. Lake Mentor Chillicothe Rd. south of Mentor Ave. Lake Mentor Erie Ave. south of 2nd St. Lake Willoughby Lakeshore Blvd. east of Lost Nation Rd. Lake Willoughby North Chagrin Trail at Strawberry Ln. Lake Willoughby Hills Broadway Ave. north of 6th St. Lorain Lorain Lake Rd. east of Avon Beldon Rd. Lorain Avon Lake Lorain St. west of Professor St. Lorain Oberlin North Coast Inland Trail at E College St. Lorain Oberlin 6

12 40303 Professor St. north of Lorain St. Lorain Oberlin Center Rd. east of Haddock Rd. Medina Brunswick High St. north of Greenwich Rd. Medina Wadsworth Broad St. east of Lyman St. Medina Wadsworth Court St. north of Lafayette Rd. Medina Medina NOACA follows national best practices in conducting bicycle and pedestrian counts, using the help of volunteers to cover many locations over the same period of time. Therefore, locations in which bicyclists and pedestrians are counted are influenced by the availability of volunteers within certain areas. The number of locations that have been counted within each county and municipality are included in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2: Number of Locations by County County Locations Cuyahoga 39 Geauga 6 Lake 8 Lorain 5 Medina 4 Total 62 Table 3: Number of Locations by Municipality Municipality Locations Cleveland 16 Chardon 4 Cleveland Heights 3 Oberlin 3 Mentor 2 Euclid 2 Wadsworth 2 Westlake 2 Other 28 Total 62 About two-thirds of the locations counted are within Cuyahoga County and more than a quarter are located within the City of Cleveland. This is in part due to the fact that the factors used to develop the list of potential locations are more prevalent within these areas; however, the disparity is also a result of the difficulty in recruiting volunteers outside Cuyahoga County. NOACA staff will continue to develop strategies and partnerships to recruit volunteers throughout the entire region to minimize geographical data gaps. 7

13 Map 1 shows all locations which have been counted since September 2011, along with existing bikeways within the region. Some count locations are along shared use paths (SUP), bicycle lanes, and designated routes, while others do not include any bikeway. The distribution between these four types of count locations is shown in Table 4. 8

14 Miles Bicycle Route Bicycle Lane Shared-Use Path Count Location Map 1: Count Locations

15 Table 4: Number of Locations by Bikeway Type Bikeway Type Locations Shared-Use Path 12 Bicycle Lane 10 Bicycle Route 1 No Bikeway 39 Total 63 B) Count Volumes In September 2013, volunteers tallied 6,479 bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized transportation users over 98 hours of counting, making it the largest session volume since program changes were implemented in 2011; however, because the number of counts during each session varies from year to year based on volunteer availability, a more useful measurement may be the average number of bicyclists and pedestrians per count. Figure 1 shows the results for each counting session. 120 Volume/Number of Counts Bicyclists Pedestrians 0 Sep 11 Sessions May 13 Figure 1: Bicyclist and Pedestrian Volumes per Count by Session The limited data at this time shows a fluctuating volume of bicyclists and pedestrians per count from session to session. The two May sessions for both bicyclists and pedestrians yielded higher volumes than the September sessions. It should be noted, however, that weather conditions for the September 2012 session were the least ideal of the four, which is a probable reason why that session had the lowest volumes. Impacts of weather on volumes will continue to be monitored as the database grows. Finally, one likely reason pedestrians nearly triple bicyclists is that almost all transportation users, including bicyclists, are also pedestrians at some point during their trip. 10

16 In addition to tracking total session volumes, more established peer counting programs across the nation have identified primary locations for verifying progress made toward bicycle mode share goals. While the remaining list of locations may change from session to session based on a variety of reasons, primary locations are counted consistently to allow for a more complete and valuable data set. During its early years of implementation, NOACA will work to identify appropriate primary count locations. Two early candidates are the Detroit Superior Bridge, which is one of several bridges connecting the west side of Cleveland to downtown, and Edgehill Road at Overlook Road, which is located along a bicycle-friendly route between Cleveland Heights and other east-side suburbs and the many job centers in University Circle. Figure 2 shows the volumes recorded for each of these primary locations by session Combined Volume at Primary Locations by Session Combined Volume Sept 2011 May 2012 Sept 2012 May 2013 Sept 2013 May 2014 Sessions Bicyclists Pedestrians Figure 2: Primary Location Volumes The most recent session saw an average of 211 bicyclists during weekday counts at these two primary locations, the highest of the six sessions and a 43-percent increase compared to September Pedestrian volumes at the two primary locations stayed relatively flat for the first three sessions, with a slight dip in May These two locations work well as primary locations, but more locations should be incorporated in the future to give a broader geographical representation. 11

17 IV. Bicyclist Data A) Gender Many cities and regions monitor the percentage of women bicyclists as an indicator of fostering a bicycle-friendly transportation network. Research has shown that, generally speaking, women often have greater safety concerns when it comes to bicycling as a form of transportation. 5 According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, women accounted for 24 percent of trips made by bicycle. 6 NOACA asks volunteers to record the gender of bicyclists so it can investigate whether similar conditions exist in northeast Ohio. Among all bicyclists counted since September 2011, women accounted for percent. Table 5 shows the percentage of women bicyclists for locations with various types of bikeways. Table 5: Percent Female Bicyclists by Bikeway Type Bikeway Type % Female Bicyclists Shared-Use Path Bicycle Lane Bicycle Route No Bikeway All Locations The percentage of female bicyclists does not vary greatly between the different types of bikeways. Locations that include a bicycle lane, followed closely by shared use paths (designated with signage or pavement markings), have the highest percentage of female bicyclists. This is as expected considering the research on safety concerns mentioned above. More innovative bikeways, such as protected bicycle lanes, bicycle boulevards, and others, must be considered to promote bicycling as a legitimate form of transportation for a variety of ages and skill levels. NOACA will continue to monitor the percentage of female riders as an indicator of how much progress is made in this regard. B) Helmet Use In addition to the bicyclist s gender, volunteers also record whether the bicyclist was wearing a helmet. Although helmets are not mandated by law, NOACA encourages all bicyclists to wear one. This data will help NOACA track improvement, or lack thereof, in this effort. According to the data, the rate of helmet usage has increased from just over 37 percent in September 2011 to 41 percent in May This is an improvement, but much progress can still be made in the form of education and encouragement. Neighborhoods that contain count locations with relatively higher volumes as well as low helmet usage rates can be considered priorities for these efforts. Clark-Fulton, Old 12

18 Brooklyn, and Slavic Village neighborhoods within the City of Cleveland, as well as the cities of Lakewood, Oberlin, and Wickliffe, meet these characteristics. C) Sidewalk Riding A final characteristic recorded by volunteers is the number of bicyclists who choose to ride on the sidewalk as opposed to sharing the road with motorized vehicles or using whatever bikeway may be available. Although no analysis of local crash data has been undertaken, multiple studies have argued that riding on the sidewalk is more dangerous in many situations. 7 This may be a result of the bicyclists being less visible to motorists, especially at intersections, and the conflict with vehicles turning into driveways. Of the bicyclists recorded at locations that did not include a shared-use path during the May 2014 session, just over 35 percent rode on the sidewalk. One obvious factor to associate with sidewalk riding is the presence of a bikeway. When the roadway contained a bicycle lane or was designated as a bicycle route, sidewalk riding hovered just over 31 percent (26 percent for bicycle lanes and 37 percent for bicycle routes). The number jumps up to 55 percent when no bikeway is present. Therefore, it can be argued that to encourage bicyclists to ride in the road and operate as vehicles, proper accommodations should be provided. D) Weekday and Weekend NOACA conducts bicycle and pedestrian counts on both weekdays and weekends in accordance with NBPD guidance. Counts conducted on weekdays are during evening commute hours, while weekend counts occur during the afternoon. Weekday counts are conducted with commuters in mind, while weekend counts are oriented toward bicyclists running errands or riding for recreation. Although many other factors must be considered, an overwhelming share of weekend riders could indicate connections to commercial and recreational land uses need to be prioritized. An overwhelming share of weekday bicyclists could indicate connections to high-density employment centers need to be prioritized. Figure 3 pertains to all count locations that have been counted on both weekdays and weekends. The percentage of counts is compared to the percentage of bicyclists counted for both weekdays and weekends. 13

19 Weekday vs. Weekend Bicyclists Bicyclists Weekday Weekend Counts % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 3: Weekday vs. Weekend Bicyclists The chart shows that 79 percent of counts were conducted on weekdays, and 81 percent of bicyclists were counted during weekdays. More data will allow for more analysis and inferences on this topic in the future. E) Relationship Between Volume and Other Factors There are many studies that look at the relationship between certain factors and bicycling rates. Although many factors are likely to have similar relationships in northeast Ohio compared to the cities and regions in which these studies took place, it is important to explore these relationships with local data. NOACA s bicycle count database is still in its early stages of development, so no concrete conclusions will be able to be made at this point. A more statistically rigorous analysis will be undertaken once a more robust database is available. Potential Bikeway Demand (PBD) (Figure 4) comes from NOACA s 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan and is a composite score calculated for each census tract within the five-county region based on population density, job density, the percentage of people commuting by bicycle, the percentage of people commuting by walking or public transit, the percentage of households with zero vehicles, and the percentage of short commutes. 14

20 Potential Bikeway Demand Count Volumes PBD Linear (PBD) R² = Potential Bikeway Demand Score Figure 4: Potential Bikeway Demand This provides some insight on the current infrastructure needs of northeast Ohio bicyclists. As the database grows, NOACA can conduct similar analyses to better inform federal funding decisions. F) Bicycle Count Data & the RPBN Although NOACA uses many factors to identify and prioritize Regional Priority Bikeway Network (RPBN) segments, bicycle counts along these routes will add yet another layer to improve the process. Map 2 shows bicycle count locations with their corresponding highest bicycle volume recorded to date (indicated by the color of circle). Map 3 shows bicycle volumes along segments of the Regional Priority Bikeway Network. Continued monitoring and collection of data will provide insight, particularly before and after studies, and allow counts to be more integrated into shaping the RPBN and other bike networks. 15

21 Map 2: RPBN and Bicyclist Volumes Regional Priority Bikeway Network (RPBN) Existing Planned Average Weekday Bicyclist Volumes Miles

22 Map 3: Bicycle Volumes Along RPBN Bicycle Volumes Along Regional Priority Bikeway Network (RPBN) RPBN Segment Without Counts Volumes displayed are highest count, not average Miles Planned Existing Over 75 Over 75

23 V. Pedestrian Data A) Relationship Between Count Volumes and Other Factors Determining which factors have a stronger correlation with higher pedestrian count volumes can help inform the prioritization of installing sidewalks and making intersection improvements within the region. Count locations that did not have sidewalks were not included in the analysis. Figure 5 shows the relationship between pedestrian count volumes and the surrounding population density. Figure 6 shows the relationship between pedestrian count volumes and surrounding land use. Land-use scores were determined as they were for the bicycle counts (see Chapter IV). Count Volumes Population Density Number of People per Acre Population Density Linear (Population Density) R² = Figure 5: Population Density 18

24 Land Use (Pedestrians) Count Volumes Land Use (Peds) Linear (Land Use (Peds)) R² = Land Use Score 1500 Figure 6: Land Use (Pedestrians) Although both population density and land use show a positive relationship with pedestrian volumes, the relationship with land use mix appears to be stronger. Therefore, it could be argued that the lack of sidewalks located in areas with a greater mix of land uses should be prioritized over other areas withoutt sidewalks; however, many components must always be weighed and considered when prioritizing sidewalks and crosswalks. NOACA will continue to use this database as one of many resources to make northeast Ohio a more pedestrian- -friendly region. 19

25 VI. Future Improvements NOACA s bicycle and pedestrian count program, in its current form, is still relatively new. Therefore, means to improve the program, as well as ways to leverage the resulting database, are still being identified. NOACA staff will focus on the following improvements in the near future. Continue to conduct bicycle and pedestrian counts with a consistent methodology. As the data set grows, the more valuable it can be in improving regional bicycle and pedestrian planning. Improve and expand volunteer recruitment, especially in Lorain and Medina counties. Most counts are conducted in Cuyahoga County due to location selection criteria. Develop a list of regional primary locations to be counted on a consistent basis. These locations along major routes can give an indication of broader trends, while other locations, counted on a less frequent basis, can provide some insight on biking and walking in a specific area. Consult with stakeholders to develop appropriate performance measures and targets associated with bicycle and pedestrian counts. Guide investment in multimodal transportation infrastructure based on trends identified from count data. While the database is currently limited, one trend beginning to emerge is the inability of traditional bicycle lanes to attract a variety of users. Identify and closely monitor all before and after opportunities. Count locations that have recently received new or improved bicycle accommodations include the Lorain Carnegie Bridge and Detroit Avenue approaching the Detroit Superior Bridge in Cleveland, and Edgehill Road in Cleveland Heights. Use new technologies and equipment to obtain insight on 24-hour volumes and the modeling of bicycle and pedestrian traffic. NOACA is in the process of testing and calibrating pneumatic tube counters for bicycles. Bicycle and pedestrian count data is available for download from NOACA s website, as well as an appendix of this report. This report is intended to be updated on a regular basis to include analysis on new data and progress made on the activities mentioned above. 20

26 VII. Appendix I: Works Cited 1. National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project, (accessed Aug. 2, 2013). 2. M. Von Allmen, 2013 Regional Bicycle Plan (Cleveland, OH: Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, 2013). 3. A. Santos, 2009 National Household Travel Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, June 2011). 4. National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project. 5. Jennifer Dill, and John Gliebe, Understanding and Measuring Bicycling Behavior: A Focus on Travel Time and Route Choice (Portland, OR: Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium, December 2008). 6. Santos, 2009 National Househld Travel Survey. 7. Conor Reynolds, The Impact of Transportation Infrastructure on Bicycling Injuries and Crashes: A Review of the Literature, Environmental Health 8, no. 47 (October 2009). 21

27 VIII. Appendix II: Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Data See the NOACA website for bike/ped count data downloads: 22