Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Summary Report

Transcription

1 2014 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Summary Report Prepared by PAG staff Published July 2015 Revised September 2015

2 Table of Contents Introduction and Overview... 1 This Report... 1 Process and Methodology... 2 Part 1: 2014 Counts Bicycle and Pedestrian Data Summary... 4 Bicycle Summary... 4 Pedestrian Summary Count Data by Intersections and Regional Locations... 7 Bicycle Data... 7 Pedestrian Data...11 Part 2: Comparisons with Previous Years and 2014 Bicyclist Attributes through 2014 Bicyclist Attributes through 2014 Pedestrian Counts...18 Unlawful Behaviors...21 Other Factors...23 Conclusion...23 Appendix A 2014 Data and Bicyclist Attributes: Top 10 s...25 Female Ridership...25 Age Ranges...27 Safety Considerations...30 Helmet Use...30 Wrong-Way and Sidewalk Riding...33 Appendix B Data and Bicyclist Attributes: Rolling Average Trends...40 Appendix C Count Tally Sheet...44 Appendix D Count Reference Sheet...45

3 List of Figures Figure 1. Phases in the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian count coordination process Figure bicycle and pedestrian count locations and sub-regions Figure bicycle count volumes by sub-region Figure 4. Percentage of 2014 pedestrians per count location and grouped by sub-region Figure pedestrian count volumes by count location Figure 6. Total bicycle counts at 39 locations from 2009 to Figure 7. Bicycle count percent change: 2014 compared to previous five-year average at 39 core locations Figure 8. Total bicycle counts at 39 locations from 2010 to Figure 9. Pedestrian Rolling average Figure 10. Pedestrian count percent change: 2014 compared to previous four-year average at 39 core locations Figure 11. Unlawful riding behavior hot spots Figure A top 10 female ridership locations, by percentage Figure A top 10 female ridership locations, by count Figure A percent female riders by location Figure A top 10 locations with bicyclists under 18, by percentage Figure A top 10 locations with bicyclists under 18, by count Figure A top 10 locations with bicyclists over 65, by percentage Figure A top 10 locations with bicyclists over 65, by count Figure A bicycle count age range percentages by location Figure A top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by percentage Figure A top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by count Figure A non-helmet wearing bicyclist percentage ranges by location Figure A top 10 locations for helmet use, by percentage Figure A top 10 locations for helmet use, by count Figure A top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by percentage Figure A top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by count Figure A percentage of wrong-way riders per count site Figure A top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by percentage Figure A top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by count Figure A percentage of sidewalk riders by count site Figure B1. Bicyclist gender by 3-year rolling average Figure B2. Bicyclist age by 3-year rolling average Figure B3. Bicyclist helmet usage by 3-year rolling average Figure B4. Bicyclist unlawful riding behavior by 3-year rolling average List of Tables Table 1. Summary of 2014 bicycle count data... 4 Table 2. Top 10 bicyclist count locations, Table 3. Top 10 pedestrian count locations, Table bicycle count totals grouped by sub-region Table bicycle count attributes averaged by the number of count locations in each sub-region Table bicycle count attribute percentages summarized by sub-region... 8 Table bicycle count results ranked by attribute percentages per sub-region Table pedestrian summary information by sub-region Table 9. Comparison between 2013 and 2014 bicycle count data at 49 locations Table 10. Five-year averages ( ) and attribute percentages for 39 core locations Table 11. Five-year ( ) previous averages compared with 2014 data at 39 core locations Table 12. Bicycle count totals at 39 core locations, with 2014 totals compared with the previous five-year average ( ) Table 13. Pedestrian count totals at 39 core locations, with 2014 totals compared with the previous fouryear average ( ) Table 14. Total bicyclists at core locations, by year with data from possible influencing factors

4 Introduction and Overview With the time and dedication of many volunteers and the support of member jurisdictions, Pima Association of Governments (PAG) has coordinated the annual bicycle count since This effort helps regional planning efforts 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 and evaluation of bicycle projects and programs. Prioritizing locations to improve: For example, high rates of wrong-way riding in a location 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 helps to educate community members about bicycle and pedestrian characteristics and trends. This Report This count summary report looks at the data collected in 2014 in addition to previously collected data. These data are presented in a variety of ways in order to maximize their usefulness. Part 1 of this report looks at all the count locations from This section provides an overview of current bicycle and pedestrian use across the region from all 136 count locations included in 2014, 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 49 collection locations that were common to years 2013 and 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 2014 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 also lists all 2014 weekday and weekend count locations, and lists the change from 2013 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 2014 count for reference.

5 Process and Methodology The 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 in the morning and late afternoon, 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 in the morning 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 in the paragraph above, is consistent with general transportation engineering guidelines while tailored for bicyclists and pedestrians. In the weeks prior to the count, PAG recruits volunteers. This effort includes sharing instructions for using the 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, 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 the directions provided to volunteer counters see Appendix D.

6 Volunteer recruitment and training phase PAG distributes flier to recruit volunteers Volunteers signup using web map Volunteers attend a brief training session Bicycle and pedestrian count phase Volunteers go to designated locations to count Count sheets are completed and then returned to PAG Data input and report creation phase Count sheet data are entered into databaseready tables Database is connected to ArcGIS and MS Excel for map, chart and table creation Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Report is completed Figure 1. Phases in the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count coordination process.

7 Part 1: 2014 Counts 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data Summary Bicycle Summary At 136 locations throughout the jurisdictions of eastern Pima County (Figure 2), 22,288 bicyclists were counted in As listed in Table 1, over 70 percent of the bicyclists were male, and half of the bicyclists counted were wearing helmets. Table 1. Summary of 2014 bicycle count data Attribute Total Percentage of Total Total Bicyclists 22, % Female Bicyclists 6,306 28% Male Bicyclists 15,982 72% Bicyclists under % Bicyclists between 18 & 65 19,719 88% Bicyclists over 65 1,609 7% Helmet Wearers 11,058 50% No Helmet 11,230 50% Wrong-way Bicyclists 623 3% Sidewalk Bicyclists 1,025 5% As shown in Table 2, of these 136 locations, 10 (up from five in 2013) had over 500 bicyclists during the four hours of the count (two hours in the morning and two in the afternoon). Of the 10 locations with the highest volumes, the top six were near the University of Arizona (UA), an increase of two count locations over Table 2. Top 10 bicyclist count locations, 2014 Location 2014 Rank Total Bicyclists Park Ave / University Blvd 1 1,084 Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) 2 1,025 3rd St / Campbell Ave nd St / Highland Ave Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Helen St / Mountain Ave th St / Highland Ave Aviation Pathway / Bristol Ave Mabel St / Warren Ave Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP)

8 Figure bicycle and pedestrian count locations and sub-regions.

9 Pedestrian Summary Pedestrians are also tallied at the same count locations as bicycles, although no additional attributes are collected. In 2014, 28,553 pedestrians were counted at 136 locations. Of the top 10 highest volume pedestrian locations listed in Table 3, all are located near the University of Arizona, which is a change from 2013 which included two downtown Tucson locations in the Top 10 list. The highest volume locations require two people to count simultaneously and are usually conducted by experienced counters. In 2014, the Park Ave./University Blvd. location had the highest volume (see Table 3), with 3,052 pedestrians counted over four hours. This averages to 763 pedestrians per hour, or approximately 190 per 15-minute count interval. Table 3. Top 10 pedestrian count locations, 2014 Location 2014 Rank Total Pedestrians Park Ave / University Blvd 1 3,052 James E Rogers Way / Pathway 2 2,184 6th St / Highland Ave 3 2,013 2nd St / Highland Ave 4 1,839 4th St / Tyndall Ave 5 1,280 6th St / Fremont Ave Park Ave / Speedway Blvd Mabel St / Warren Ave Helen St / Mountain Ave th St / Park Ave

10 Totals per sub-region 2014 Count Data by Intersections and Regional Locations As in previous years, the count locations are grouped into six sub-regions 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 the PAG jurisdictions. Locations that have been counted every year are considered high priority because the data can provide insights into possible trends over time. Bicycle Data Within these sub-regions, more count locations have been established where population density is highest and, as a result, the number of count locations per sub-region is variable. Therefore, the tables below organize the data in different ways to show not only the total volumes and attribute values per sub-region, but also the number of count locations within the sub-region. For example, Table 4 shows that while the Green Valley/Sahuarita sub-region had the fewest number of bicyclists counted, it also had the fewest count locations. When the average count per location is calculated (Table 5), Green Valley/Sahuarita had an average of 113 bicyclists per location which is a greater count per location rate than the East and North/NW regions. Table bicycle count totals grouped by sub-region*. Attributes Downtown East Green Valley / Sahuarita North and NW UA Urban Core Total Bicyclists Count Locations Per Region Female Bicyclists Male Bicyclists Under 18 Bicyclists Age 18 to 65 Bicyclists Over 65 Bicyclists Helmet Wearers No Helmet Wrong-way Bicyclists Sidewalk Bicyclists *The sum of the Total Pedestrians and Number of Count Locations for the sub-regions will not equal the grand total of 22,288 bicyclists and 136 locations due to one count site that was located outside the subregion areas.

11 Percent Average per Location 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. Total Bicyclists Female Bicyclists Male Bicyclists Bicyclists Under Bicyclists 18 to Bicyclists Over Helmet Wearers Non-Helmet Wearers Wrong-way Riders Sidewalk Riders Organizing the attribute data in each sub-region by percentages for that sub-region provides a different perspective. Table 6 shows the percentage of each sub-region s attributes based on the totals for that sub-region. This allows for rate comparisons which can then be paired with count volume for more insight. For example, Table 6 shows that the UA sub-region had the second highest percentage of female riders as compared across sub-regions. In addition, nearly all bicyclists in the UA sub-region (93%) were between the ages of 18 to 65. Table bicycle count attribute percentages summarized by sub-region. Attributes Table bicycle count attributes averaged by the number of count locations in each sub-region. Green Attributes Downtown East Valley / Sahuarita North and NW UA Urban Core Downtown East Green Valley / Sahuarita North and NW UA Urban Core Total Bicyclists 16% 4% 1% 13% 40% 46% Female Bicyclists 27% 25% 47% 22% 33% 27% Male Bicyclists 73% 75% 53% 78% 67% 73% Bicyclists Under 18 5% 2% 38% 2% 4% 4% Bicyclists 18 to 65 92% 80% 40% 85% 93% 87% Bicyclists Over 65 4% 17% 22% 13% 3% 10% Helmet Wearers 44% 79% 14% 87% 29% 58% Non-Helmet Wearers 56% 21% 86% 13% 71% 42% Wrong-way Riders 3% 7% 5% 4% 3% 2% Sidewalk Riders 5% 8% 23% 3% 5% 3%

12 Rank (by Percent) As a supplement to the percentages in Table 6, Table 7 lists the ranks of these percentages. For example, the Green Valley/Sahuarita sub-region was ranked first for the highest percentage of female bicyclists and bicyclists over 65. Table bicycle count results ranked by attribute percentages per sub-region. Attributes Downtown East Green Valley / Sahuarita North and NW Female Bicyclists Male Bicyclists Bicyclists Under Bicyclists 18 to Bicyclists Over Helmet Wearers Non-Helmet Wearers Wrong-way Riders Sidewalk Riders UA Urban Core Figure 3, on page 10, shows the count volumes, by location and sub-region. For more details on regional comparisons of bicyclist attributes Appendix A contains the top 10 locations, by volume and percentage.

13 Figure bicycle count volumes by sub-region.

14 Pedestrian Data In addition to counting bicyclists, volunteers also count pedestrians in 15-minute intervals at each of the count locations. As mentioned previously, 28,553 pedestrians were counted in 2014 at 136 locations. Comparing the data across the six sub-regions (Table 8), the UA sub-region 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 are also illustrated in Figure 4. It shows that 60 percent of the pedestrians were counted in this sub-region, with the remaining 40 percent counted in the other five sub-regions. Finally, Figure 5, on page 12, shows the locations of the pedestrian counts, with symbols to indicate the relative volume at each. Table pedestrian summary information by sub-region.* Attributes Downtown East Green Valley / Sahuarita North and NW UA Urban Core Grand Total Total Pedestrians 3, ,300 16,792 6,259 28,553 Number of Count Locations Pedestrians per Location Pedestrians per Count Location by Sub-region (Percent of Total) Urban Core 8% Downtown 13% East 7% Green Valley / Sahuarita 8% UA 60% North and NW 4% Figure 4. Percentage of 2014 pedestrians per count location and grouped by sub-region. *The sum of the Total Pedestrians and Number of Count Locations for the sub-regions will not equal the grand total due to one count site that was located outside the sub-region areas.

15 Figure pedestrian count volumes by count location.

16 Part 2: Comparisons with Previous Years 2013 and 2014 Bicyclist Attributes Forty-nine locations were counted both in 2013 and The attribute data for these locations are summarized in Table 9. At these locations, there was an overall 3 percent decrease in the volume of bicyclists. The percentage of wrong-way riding and sidewalk riding decreased at a significantly greater rate than the total bicyclists indicating that, overall, those unlawful behaviors declined. Table 9. Comparison between 2013 and 2014 bicycle count data at 49 locations. Attribute Percent 2014 Percent Difference Percent Change Total Bicyclists 8,540 8, % Female Bicyclists 2,527 2,260 30% 27% % Male Bicyclists 6,013 6,060 70% 73% 47 1% Under 18 Bicyclists % 5% % Age 18 to 65 Bicyclists 7,969 7,568 93% 91% % Over 65 Bicyclists % 4% 60 21% Helmet Wearers 4,138 4,047 48% 49% -91-2% No Helmet 4,402 4,273 52% 51% % Wrong-way Riding Bicyclists % 2% % Sidewalk Riding Bicyclists % 5% % 2009 through 2014 Bicyclist Attributes Since 2009, volunteers have counted at the same 39 locations in the region. As Figure 6 on page 14 shows, the average of total bicyclists counted over the six years from 2009 to 2014 was 6,615 for these 39 locations, averaging slightly fewer than 170 bicyclists per location. With 7,064 bicyclists counted in 2014, it was the highest total of the past six years.

17 Five-year Bicycle Count Totals for 39 "Core" Locations (Average = 6,615) 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, ,512 7,022 6,737 6,860 7,064 5, Figure 6. Total bicycle counts at 39 locations from 2009 to Table 10 serves as a reliability test of current year counts and also includes regional averages from the past six years. The data only consists 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, 2014 Count Totals and Percent of 2014 Count, are then compared to the values of the previous five years. This comparison illustrates that the 2014 count was neither anomalous in its total count nor for any of the attributes collected. The largest deviation from the previous five-year average is 2 percent, which occurred in helmet usage and sidewalk riding behavior. This table also illustrates regional patterns in bicycle usage and behavior. The last two columns show the six-year averages and percentages. In this time span, nearly three times as many male bicyclists were counted than female bicyclists (72% compared to 28%). Also, less than half the bicyclists were seen using helmets. Table 10. Five-year averages ( ) and attribute percentages for 39 core locations. Attributes Previous 5- year average ( ) Percentage of each attribute from the previous 5- year average 2014 Count Totals Percent of 2014 Count Current 6-year average ( ) Percentage of each attribute from the current 6- year average Total Bicyclists 6, % 7, % 6, % Female Bicyclists 1,827 28% 1,884 27% 1,861 28% Male Bicyclists 4,698 72% 5,180 73% 4,885 72% Under 18 Bicyclists 143 2% 200 3% 173 3% Age 18 to 65 Bicyclists 6,216 95% 6,619 94% 6,391 95% Over 65 Bicyclists 166 3% 245 3% 181 3% Helmet Wearers 2,849 44% 3,268 46% 2,967 44% No Helmet 3,677 56% 3,796 54% 3,779 56% Wrong-way Bicyclists 207 3% 137 2% 222 3% Sidewalk Riding Bicyclists 389 6% 310 4% 417 6%

18 Table 11 and Figure 7 on page 16 compare 2014 data at the core locations with the previous five-year averages ( ). In 2014, there was an 8 percent increase in the total number of bicyclists compared with the 2009 to 2013 average. The number of bicyclists under 18 and those over 65 were notably higher in 2014 compared to the previous five-year averages, resulting in percent changes of 40% and 48% respectively. Table 11. Five-year ( ) previous averages compared with 2014 data at 39 core locations. Attribute Previous 5-year average ( ) 2014 Percent Change from previous 5-year average Total Bicyclists ,525 8% Female Bicyclists ,827 3% Male Bicyclists ,698 10% Under 18 Bicyclists % Bicyclists Aged 18 to ,216 6% Over 65 Bicyclists % Helmet Wearers ,849 15% No Helmet ,677 3% Wrong-way Bicyclists % Sidewalk Bicyclists %

19 Figure 7. Bicycle count percent change: 2014 compared to previous five-year average at 39 core locations.

20 Table 12. Bicycle count totals at 39 core locations, with 2014 totals compared with the previous five-year average ( ). Location 2009 Total 2010 Total 2011 Total 2012 Total 2013 Total 2014 Total Previous 5-year average ( ) 2014 Percent Change (from previous 5-year average) 10th Ave / 43rd St % 18th St / 6th Ave % 1st Ave / Tangerine Rd % 22nd St / Kolb Rd % 3rd St / Campbell Ave % 3rd St / Swan Rd % 4th Ave / Lester St % 6th St / 9th Ave % 6th St / Highland Ave % 7th Ave / 7th St % Ajo Way / Mission Rd % Alvernon Way / Broadway Blvd % Alvernon Way / Ft Lowell Rd % Anklam Rd / St Mary's Rd % Arroyo Chico / Tucson Blvd % Aviation Hwy / Broadway Blvd - Snake Bridge % Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave % Broadway Blvd / Wilmot Rd % Camino del Sol / Continental Rd % Campbell Ave / Grant Rd % Campbell Ave / River Rd % Columbus Blvd / Pima St % Congress St / Granada Ave % Cortaro Rd / Silverbell Rd % Craycroft Rd / Golf Links Rd % Elm St / Tucson Blvd % Fairview Ave / Prince Rd % Glenn St / Treat Ave % Helen St / Mountain Ave % Ina Rd / Oracle Rd % Ironwood Hill Dr / Silverbell Rd % Kolb Rd / Tanque Verde Rd % La Cholla Blvd / River Rd % Park Ave / University Blvd % Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd % River Rd / Sabino Canyon Rd % Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd % Stone Ave / University Blvd % Sunrise Dr / Swan Rd %

21 2010 through 2014 Pedestrian Counts 2014 marks the fifth 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. Five-year Pedestrian Count Totals for 39 "Core" Locations (Average = 9,147) 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 7,125 8,825 9,410 9,426 10, Figure 8. Total bicycle counts at 39 locations from 2010 to 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, 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. Pedestrian 3-year Rolling Average: at 39 core locations 10,500 10,000 9,500 9,000 8,500 8,000 7, Figure 9. Pedestrian Rolling average Figure 10, on page 19, displays the change in pedestrian volumes between the average and the 2014 counts. Table 13, on page 20, displays this same pedestrian data in a table format. This table mimics Table 12, on page 17, however, with pedestrian data and with one less year included in the previous years average.

22 Figure 10. Pedestrian count percent change: 2014 compared to previous four-year average at 39 core locations

23 Table 13. Pedestrian count totals at 39 core locations, with 2014 totals compared with the previous fouryear average ( ). Location Previous 4-year average ( ) 2014 Percent Change (from previous 4-year average) 10th Ave / 43rd St % 18th St / 6th Ave % 1st Ave / Tangerine Rd % 22nd St / Kolb Rd % 3rd St / Campbell Ave % 3rd St / Swan Rd % 4th Ave / Lester St % 6th St / 9th Ave % 6th St / Highland Ave % 7th Ave / 7th St % Ajo Way / Mission Rd % Alvernon Way / Broadway Blvd % Alvernon Way / Ft Lowell Rd % Anklam Rd / St Mary's Rd % Arroyo Chico / Tucson Blvd % Aviation Hwy / Broadway Blvd - Snake Bridge % Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave % Broadway Blvd / Wilmot Rd % Camino del Sol / Continental Rd % Campbell Ave / Grant Rd % Campbell Ave / River Rd % Columbus Blvd / Pima St % Congress St / Granada Ave % Cortaro Rd / Silverbell Rd % Craycroft Rd / Golf Links Rd % Elm St / Tucson Blvd % Fairview Ave / Prince Rd % Glenn St / Treat Ave % Helen St / Mountain Ave % Ina Rd / Oracle Rd % Ironwood Hill Dr / Silverbell Rd % Kolb Rd / Tanque Verde Rd % La Cholla Blvd / River Rd % Park Ave / University Blvd % Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd % River Rd / Sabino Canyon Rd % Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd % Stone Ave / University Blvd % Sunrise Dr / Swan Rd %

24 Unlawful Behaviors In addition to being unlawful, certain bicycling actions or behaviors are safer than others. 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. This is the result of sidewalk and wrong-way bicyclists occupying space where drivers are not expecting to find them resulting in less visibility by drivers and consequently shorter reaction times. There are also increased conflicts with pedestrians when riding on the sidewalk in addition to other fixed hazards. 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 there exist other circumstances that are promoting these behaviors. These other circumstances could include a lack of bicycle facilities, a false perception of increased safety from high vehicle speeds, a high concentration of heavy/commercial vehicles or a popular destination with insufficient bicycle connectivity, among others. Figure 11 on page 22 lists 30 observed locations with high incidence of sidewalk and wrong-way riding.

25 Figure 11. Unlawful riding behavior hot spots 37.5% 9.7% 14.4% 17.2% 22.0% 21.9% 22.0% 8.7% 18.1% 14.2% 14.5% 15.2% 15.2% 3.8% 12.7% 13.1% 12.9% 10.0% 19.0% 3.8% 9.7% 9.3% 7.8% 7.5% 9.2% 6.6% 9.5% 10.4% 6.1% 9.7% 50.0% 68.6% 62.1% 54.0% 46.3% 44.7% 37.8% 44.8% 29.8% 32.5% 30.3% 26.8% 25.5% 34.6% 25.4% 24.3% 24.1% 24.0% 14.3% 29.4% 21.9% 21.9% 23.2% 22.9% 21.2% 22.5% 17.5% 16.0% 19.7% 14.6%

26 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 13 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. Tucson Average October Low Temp. 1 Tucson Average October High Temp. 1 Tucson Total Precipitation for October 1 Average U.S. Retail Gas Price October 2 Tucson MSA Unemploy -ment Rate in October 3 Population Estimates for Pima County 4 University of Arizona Student Population 5 Total* Year Biyclists , Trace $ ,032 37, , $ ,274 38, , $ ,168 39, , $ ,081 39, , Trace $ ,380 40, , $ ,046 40, , $ ,007,162 42,236 *Total bicyclists from 39 core locations collected every year 1 National Weather Service Forecast Office, Tucson, AZ. Monthly climate reports and F-6 data for Tucson AZ. Accessed at: 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. Regular Conventional Retail Gasoline Prices. Accessed at: 3 Arizona Dept. of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Accessed at: 4 Arizona Dept. of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics. Census Data and Population Estimates. Accessed at: 5 University of Arizona Analytics and Institutional Research, student data. Accessed at: Demographics 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 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 staff members thank the community, jurisdiction volunteers and partners for making this effort possible. PAG staff will continue to work with jurisdictional representatives and stakeholders to conduct counts in high priority areas that will benefit the region.

27

28 Appendix A 2014 Data and Bicyclist Attributes: Top 10 s Female Ridership 60% 50% 40% Top 10 locations with highest percentage of female bicyclists 52% 52% 50% 49% 46% 46% 46% 43% 41% 41% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ajo Way / Mission Rd Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP) La Villita Rd / Rancho Sahuarita Blvd Park Ave / University Blvd 6th St / Cherry Ave Mabel St / Warren Ave Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd Cortaro Rd / Greasewood Silverbell Rd Rd / Speedway Blvd Ring Rd / Warren Ave Figure A top 10 female ridership locations, by percentage Park Ave / University Blvd Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Top 10 locations with the highest number of female bicyclists 296 3rd St / Campbell Ave Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP) Mabel St / Warren Ave Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) 2nd St / Highland Ave 215 Helen St / Mountain Ave th St / James E Highland Ave Rogers Way / Pathway Figure A top 10 female ridership locations, by count.

29 Figure A percent female riders by location.

30 Age Ranges 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Top 10 locations with highest percentage of bicyclists under 18 years of age 93% 5th St / Euclid Ave 57% Julian Wash Pathway / Kolb Rd 53% 1st St / Euclid Ave 47% 46% 45% 37% Congress St / La Villita Rd / 6th St / Park Congress St / Granada Ave Rancho Sahuarita Blvd Ave Toole Ave 26% 24% 15th Ave / Kelso St Coachline Blvd / Twin Peaks Rd 20% Camino de Oeste / Cortaro Farms Rd Figure A top 10 locations with bicyclists under 18, by percentage La Villita Rd / Rancho Sahuarita Blvd Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclist under 18 years of age 80 5th St / Euclid Ave Rillito 6th St / Park Pathway / Ave Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Park Ave / University Blvd Park Ave / University Blvd 47 Congress St / Congress St / Toole Ave Granada Ave st St / Euclid Ave Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Figure A top 10 locations with bicyclists under 18, by count.

31 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Top 10 locations with highest percentage of bicyclists over 65 years of age 75% Camino del Sol / Continental Rd 42% 39% 38% La CañadaDr / Moore Rd Santa Cruz Pathway / Diamond St La Cholla Blvd / Moore Rd 35% 35% Catalina Hwy / Snyder Rd 16th St / 3rd Ave 32% 32% Innovation Dr / Tangerine Rd 15th Ave / Kelso St 28% Santa Cruz Pathway / Valley Rd 24% Pantano Pathway / Tanque Verde Rd Figure A top 10 locations with bicyclists over 65, by percentage Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclists over 65 years of age 125 Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) 90 Santa Cruz Pathway / Diamond St Catalina Hwy La CañadaDr / Snyder Rd / Moore Rd 55 3rd St / Campbell Ave Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP) Alvernon Way / Dodge Blvd Santa Cruz Pathway / El Camino del Cerro 36 Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd Figure A top 10 locations with bicyclists over 65, by count.

32 Figure A bicycle count age range percentages by location.

33 Safety Considerations Helmet Use 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Top 10 locations with highest percentages of bicyclists not wearing helmets 100% 96% 95% 92% 91% 90% 87% 85% 84% 83% 15th Ave / Kelso St Rillito Pathway / Swan Rd Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP) La Villita Rd / Rancho Sahuarita Blvd Grant Rd / Oracle Rd Mabel St / Warren Ave 6th St / Cherry Ave Drachman St / Park Ave Fairview Ave / Prince Rd 6th St / Highland Ave Figure A top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by percentage. Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclists not wearing helmets Park Ave / University Blvd 593 2nd St / 6th St / Highland Ave Highland Ave Mabel St / Warren Ave Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP) 3rd St / Campbell Ave 445 Helen St / Mountain Ave James E Rogers Way / Pathway Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Figure A top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by count.

34 Figure A non-helmet wearing bicyclist percentage ranges by location.

35 100% 99% 98% 97% 96% 95% 94% 93% Top 10 locations with highest percentage of bicyclists wearing helmets 100% 100% 100% Tangarine Rd / Thornydale Rd Ina Rd / Thornydale Rd Camino de Oeste / Cortaro Farms Rd 98% 1st Ave / Tangerine Rd 97% Silverbell Rd / Wade Rd 97% 97% 97% 1st Ave / Tangerine Rd La CañadaDr / Moore Rd La Cañada Dr / Lambert Ln 96% Tangarine Rd / Thornydale Rd 96% La Cholla Blvd / Moore Rd Figure A top 10 locations for helmet use, by percentage Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclists wearing helmets 535 Aviation Pathway / Bristol Ave rd St / Campbell Ave Park Ave / University Blvd Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) La CañadaDr / Moore Rd Figure A top 10 locations for helmet use, by count Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave Helen St / Mountain Ave Alvernon Santa Cruz Way / Dodge Pathway / St Blvd Mary's Rd

36 Wrong-Way and Sidewalk Riding 30% Top 10 locations with highest percentage of bicyclists riding the wrong way 25% 20% 15% 24% 23% 22% 22% 20% 20% 20% 18% 16% 15% 10% 5% 0% Tangerine Rd / Twin Peaks Rd / Dove Mtn Blvd 22nd St / Columbus Blvd Council St / Stove Ave 22nd St / Kolb Rd Grant Rd / Oracle Rd Pantano Rd / Speedway Blvd Camino de Oeste / Cortaro Farms Rd Figure A top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by percentage. 1st St / Euclid Ave Pantano Pathway / Tanque Verde Rd 1st Ave / Limberlost Rd Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclist riding the wrong way 33 Tangerine Rd 6th St / / Twin Peaks Highland Ave Rd / Dove Mtn Blvd Park Ave / Speedway Blvd Mabel St / Warren Ave Aviation Pathway / Bristol Ave Grant Rd / Oracle Rd 6th St / Park Ave Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd nd St / Kolb Rd 3rd St / Country Club Rd Figure A top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by count.

37 Figure A percentage of wrong-way riders per count site.

38 60% 50% 40% 30% Top 10 locations with highest percentage of bicyclists riding on the sidewalk 52% 51% 42% 37% 35% 35% 34% 31% 31% 30% 20% 10% 0% 22nd St / Columbus Blvd 5th St / Euclid Ave 1st St / Euclid Ave 9th St / Euclid Ave 1st St / Euclid Ave 6th St / Pantano Rd / Fremont Ave Speedway Blvd Coachline Blvd / Twin Peaks Rd Grant Rd / Oracle Rd 22nd St / Kolb Rd Figure A top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by percentage. Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclists riding on the sidewalk th St / 6th St / Highland Ave Fremont Ave 48 La Villita Rd / Rancho Sahuarita Blvd th St / Euclid Ave Park Ave / Speedway Blvd th St / Park Ave 22nd St / Columbus Blvd Grant Rd / Oracle Rd 6th St / Cherry Ave Mabel St / Warren Ave Figure A top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by count.

39 Figure A percentage of sidewalk riders by count site.

40 Table A top 50 weekday bicycle count locations by total compared with 2013 totals Total 2013 Total 2014 Rank Change ( ) Percent Change (( )/2013) Location Park Ave / University Blvd % 3rd St / Campbell Ave % 2nd St / Highland Ave 794 N/A 3 N/A N/A Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) % Helen St / Mountain Ave % 6th St / Highland Ave % Aviation Pathway / Bristol Ave 635 N/A 7 N/A N/A Mabel St / Warren Ave 578 N/A 8 N/A N/A James E Rogers Way / Pathway 524 N/A 9 N/A N/A Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave % Stone Ave / University Blvd % 3rd St / Country Club Rd % Fremont Ave / Helen St 346 N/A 13 N/A N/A Alvernon Way / Dodge Blvd 341 N/A 14 N/A N/A 4th Ave / Speedway Blvd 304 N/A 15 N/A N/A Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd % Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd % Park Ave / Speedway Blvd 209 N/A 18 N/A N/A Cherry Ave / Speedway Blvd 200 N/A 19 N/A N/A 6th St / Cherry Ave 198 N/A 20 N/A N/A La Villita Rd / Rancho Sahuarita Blvd % 4th St / Tyndall Ave 184 N/A 22 N/A N/A Elm St / Tucson Blvd % La CañadaDr / Moore Rd 163 N/A 24 N/A N/A Rillito Pathway / Santa Cruz Pathway 156 N/A 25 N/A N/A 6th St / Fremont Ave 151 N/A 26 N/A N/A Aviation Hwy / Broadway Blvd - Snake Bridge % 7th Ave / 7th St % Speedway Blvd / Treat Ave % 9th St / Euclid Ave 141 N/A 30 N/A N/A CDO Linear Park / La Cañada 140 N/A 31 N/A N/A 6th St / Park Ave % Rillito Pathway / Childrens Memorial Park 135 N/A 33 N/A N/A 3rd St / Swan Rd % Santa Cruz Pathway / Commerce Dr 133 N/A 35 N/A N/A

41 Table A top 50 weekday bicycle count locations by total compared with 2013 totals (continued) Total 2013 Total 2014 Rank Change ( ) Percent Change (( )/2013) Location Columbus Blvd / Pima St % Congress St / Toole Ave % Campbell Ave / Grant Rd % Drachman St / Park Ave 119 N/A 39 N/A N/A Cherry Ave / Drachman St 116 N/A 40 N/A N/A Elm St / Treat Ave % Granada Ave / St Marys Rd 109 N/A 42 N/A N/A Santa Cruz Pathway / Grant Rd % 1st Ave / Tangerine Rd % La Cholla Blvd / River Rd % 6th St / 9th Ave % 18th St / 6th Ave % Alvernon Way / Broadway Blvd % Glenn St / Treat Ave % Grant Rd / Oracle Rd 90 N/A 50 N/A N/A

42 Table A weekend bicycle count locations ranked by total and compared with 2013 totals. Location Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP) 2014 Total 2013 Total 2014 Rank Change ( ) Percent Change (( )/2013) % % La CañadaDr / Moore Rd 406 N/A 3 N/A N/A 4th Ave / Speedway Blvd 403 N/A 4 N/A N/A Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd 334 N/A 5 N/A N/A Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd % Park Ave / University Blvd 288 N/A 7 N/A N/A Tangerine Rd / Twin Peaks Rd / Dove Mtn Blvd % 1st Ave / Tangerine Rd 232 N/A 9 N/A N/A Catalina Hwy / Snyder Rd 232 N/A 10 N/A N/A Santa Cruz Pathway / Diamond St 229 N/A 11 N/A N/A Freeman Rd / Old Spanish Trail % Santa Cruz Pathway / El Camino del Cerro 201 N/A 13 N/A N/A Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave 164 N/A 14 N/A N/A Rillito Pathway / Swan Rd % 3rd St / Country Club Rd 118 N/A 16 N/A N/A Silverbell Rd / Wade Rd 105 N/A 17 N/A N/A Congress St / Toole Ave 93 N/A 18 N/A N/A Coachline Blvd / Twin Peaks Rd % Congress St / Scott Ave 68 N/A 20 N/A N/A Oracle Rd / Rancho Vistoso Blvd % Tangarine Rd / Thornydale Rd 51 N/A 22 N/A N/A Mission Rd / Valencia Rd 35 N/A 23 N/A N/A Ina Rd / Thornydale Rd % Pantano Pathway / Golf Links Rd 29 N/A 25 N/A N/A 16th St / 3rd Ave 20 N/A 26 N/A N/A 1st St / Euclid Ave 19 N/A 27 N/A N/A Oracle Rd / Wilds Rd % Camino de Oeste / Cortaro Farms Rd 11 N/A 29 N/A N/A 15th Ave / Kelso St 0 N/A 30 N/A N/A

43 Appendix B Data and Bicyclist Attributes: Rolling Average Trends Many efforts are made to reduce year-to-year fluctuation 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 is collected on a once per annum bases 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: , , , , and This approach was applied to the 39 core locations that have been included in the count since Figure B1. Bicyclist gender by 3-year rolling average.

44 Figure B2. Bicyclist age by 3-year rolling average.

45 Figure B3. Bicyclist helmet usage by 3-year rolling average.

46 Figure B4. Bicyclist unlawful riding behavior by 3-year rolling average.

47 Appendix C Count Tally Sheet

48 Appendix D Count Reference Sheet