Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program. Summary of 2007 Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts and Surveys

Transcription

1 Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Summary of 2007 Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts and Surveys December 2007 Prepared for: County of Marin Department of Public Works Contact: Craig Tackabery and Dan Dawson (415) Prepared by: Alta Planning + Design th Street, Suite 212 Berkeley, CA (510)

2 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary Summary of Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program Count/Survey Program and Objectives Summary of Methodology Number of Count Locations Count Location Criteria Count Dates and Times Count Methodology/Materials 4 4. Summary of Count Data 4 5. Design of Survey Questions Accuracy and Calibration of the Data Appendix A: NTPP Project and Count Location Maps 8 8. Appendix B: Count Data Tables and Forms Appendix C: Survey Charts and Materials Pedestrian Survey Data Charts Bicycling Survey Data Charts Appendix D: Count Location Orthoimagery.35 i

3 1. Executive Summary Bicycling rates are increasing in Marin County, and bicycling/walking activity can be found throughout the urbanized area of Marin County, according to counts and surveys conducted in 22 locations in September Bicycling rates have increased an average of 66% between 1999 and 2007 during weekdays, and an average of 33% during weekend days, while weekday walking rates increased 8% and weekend walking rates have declined 22%. One location, Broadway at Bolinas Road in Fairfax showed a 298% increase in weekend day peak hour bicycling between 1999 and 2007 (from 42 to 167 bicyclists), possibly due to the increasing popularity of mountain biking in the area. Bridgeway at Princess Street in Sausalito showed an increase of 510% in weekday peak hour number of pedestrians (from 57 to 348), possibly due to the timing of a ferry arrival. The counts and surveys were performed as part of the Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP) and the National Bicycle & Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPDP). The NTPP is a federally funded project that allocated $25 million each to four communities nationwide to determine whether increased investments in programs and projects would result in more people walking and bicycling. The September 2007 counts served as the baseline counts for the project in Marin County, which will be re-counted in 2010 in the same locations. The NBPDP project aims to establish a consistent national bicycle and pedestrian count and survey methodology, to generate a national database of bicycle and pedestrian count information. This information will assist analysis on correlations between various factors and bicycle and pedestrian activity, ranging from land use to demographics to facility-type. The September 2007 counts also served as part of the continuing effort to establish annual counts for a national database. Places in Marin County with the highest volumes of combined bicycle and pedestrian activity were 4th/B Streets, San Rafael (2,700 pedestrians/bicyclists over a 2 hour period on a weekday and a 2 hour period on a weekend day), Bridgeway/Princess Street (1,500 people), Tiburon Blvd./Main Street (1,800 people), Mill Valley-Sausalito Path (700 people), and Broadway/Bolinas, Fairfax (700 people). Surveys also revealed that about 44% of pedestrian trips and 38% of bicycle trips were transportation-related (school, work, shopping), and likely replacing vehicle trips. This indicates the existing and potential role of these travel modes to help address issues of congestion and air quality. 1

4 2. Summary of Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program Count/Survey Program and Objectives In order to measure the effectiveness of the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP) in increasing walking and bicycling in the four (4) selected pilot communities, measurements of activity rates before and after the program was implemented are required. Due to the difficulty in measuring this change and the importance of an accurate measurement, a combination of approaches is being used. Mail-out survey cards by the University of Minnesota that request travel diary information from residents in each community is one approach. This report summarizes another approach, which consists of counts and surveys in each community based on the National Bicycle & Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD) methodology. The NBPD is a joint national effort by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Pedestrian & Bicycle Council, and Alta Planning + Design. The NBPD identifies a consistent count and survey methodology and count dates, collects count and survey data nationwide, and analyzes the data to identify walking and bicycling trends and patterns. The NBPD is currently being used as part of a 2-year research effort funded by Caltrans and managed by the Traffic Safety Center at U.C. Berkeley that includes over 80 count and survey locations in San Diego County. The objective of the NTPP Count/Survey program in Marin County is two-fold. First, the program establishes a baseline of walking/bicycling activity at key locations, so that changes in activity levels can be measured in 2010 after NTPP programs and projects have been implemented. Second, the count/survey data provides better understanding of travel patterns. Data regarding where bicyclists and pedestrians live, trip purpose, trip length, travel frequency, alternate modes, factors for route choice, seasonal behavior, desires for improvements and demographic data, can help identify correlations and causations within travel behavior, leading to more informed modeling, along with facilities and programs that properly respond to community needs and conditions. 3. Summary of Methodology The NTPP count and survey methodology was based on the NBPD methodology, which in turn is based on input from ITE and transportation professionals and best practices nationwide. The core of the NBPD methodology is: a. Consistent count days and times b. Consistent count and survey methods and materials c. Centralized data collection and analysis d. Open access to all research professionals and public agencies The NTPP methodology and materials were customized for the unique needs of the NTPP, as described in the sections below Number of Count Locations The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC), who is tasked by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to oversee the before-and-after data collection efforts of the NTPP, enlisted Alta Planning + Design to customize the NBPD for the four (4) NTPP communities. One of the first steps was to provide guidance on the 2

5 number of locations for each of the communities. Alta estimated that, at a minimum, one count should be conducted per 15,000 of population. This was considered a reasonable balance between obtaining representative counts throughout a community, and budget limitations. For Marin County, this equated to a total of 16 counts. In addition to these 16 count locations, Marin County also authorized Alta to count an additional six (6) locations that reflected previous counts (from 1999) and on-going count locations throughout the county, for a total of 22 count locations Count Location Criteria Criteria for count and survey locations followed from the rigorous criteria developed through the national NTPP data collection and analysis program. Phase II of this data collection program focuses on the impacts of specific projects in each Pilot community. The counts and surveys conducted in 2007 will be conducted again in 2010, postconstruction of Pilot infrastructure projects. The criteria for selecting the NTPP project-related count locations included: a. Pedestrian and bicycle activity areas or corridors (downtowns, near schools, parks, etc) b. Locations near proposed major bicycle/pedestrian improvements c. Representative locations in the urbanized area d. Key corridors that can be used gauge the impacts of future improvements e. Locations where counts have been conducted historically f. Locations where bicycle and pedestrian collision numbers are high g. Locations where there are ongoing counts being conducted by other agencies through a variety of means, including videotaping gaps and pinch points for bicycling and pedestrians In Marin, six locations were identified for conducting the intercept surveys to measure the impact of selected proposed NTPP projects. Survey locations were chosen based on where the projects will ultimately be constructed and where potential users are likely to be traveling now. Some locations were strategically chosen to survey for multiple projects, such as the Ranchitos Road location for both the Puerto Suello path and the Los Ranchitos Road bike lanes. Of the 26 projects funded by the Board of Supervisors in April, 2007, seven projects are being measured through the surveys List A-1 and Figure A-1 NTPP: Count and Survey Locations provide a list and map of count and survey locations, respectively. Figures A-2 through A-7 provide maps that illustrate the spatial relationship between NTPP projects and count locations Count Dates and Times The proposed NTPP count days and times were proposed to be consistent with the NBPD methodology: Dates The counts were conducted during the NBPD national count period of September 11-16, 2007, although counts could be conducted within 1-3 weeks of this period as well if they were non-holiday periods and weather conditions 3

6 were similar. The Marin counts were conducted during this time period, although some re-counts occurred in the following weeks. Times Weekdays (Tuesday-Thursday, non-holidays): 4-6 pm Weekend Days (Saturday, Sunday, non-holiday): 12-2 pm Although not deemed necessary at the time in Marin, individual communities could count other periods if local conditions (such as large employee work shift changes) warranted, however they were asked to also count during the standard NBPD periods as well Count Methodology/Materials All counts were conducted using manual counters and standardized count forms (see Appendix B: Count Forms and Data Tables). Counters were trained and given maps showing the exact screen line to be used in the counts. The counts included volumes of bicyclists and pedestrians, along with information on gender, and children. Riding the wrong way and helmet use was collected for bicyclists as well. 4. Summary of Count Data Comparisons with counts conducted in September 1999 (as part of the Marin County Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan) and September 2007 are shown in Tables 1 and 2 for bicyclists and pedestrians. It is useful to note that activity levels of bicyclists and pedestrians may vary as much as 30% or more on a daily basis at the same location on two sequential days as shown in daily counts performed as part of the Caltrans Seamless Travel project. The data does reveal some interesting pedestrian patterns (see Table B-1: Weekday and Weekend Peak-Hour Pedestrian Counts, for 1999 and 2007), including: 1. Average weekday pedestrian peak hour volumes at the 12 locations increased 8% (averages of pedestrians/hour), reflecting increases in commuting and utilitarian trip making by foot. 2. Average weekend pedestrian peak hour volumes have dropped about 22% between 1999 and 2007 (from an average of 277 pedestrians/hr to 220). 3. Count changes between 1999 and 2007 at individual locations ranged up to 600%, but this was primarily at locations where the volumes are very low and changes in absolute numbers are very low. For example, there was a 600% increase in pedestrians at Ranchitos Road/Puerto Suello Summit, but this was only a change from 2 to 14 people. 4. The location where the increase was the greatest in absolute terms, from 57 pedestrians in 1999 to 348 pedestrians in 2007 (an increase of 291 pedestrians/hour), occurred on a weekday at Bridgeway/Princess Street in Sausalito. At the same time, a decrease of 294 pedestrians/hour was observed at Miller Ave. at 4

7 Throckmorton in Mill Valley. These large changes may be due to things such as special events and ferry arrivals, or, they may indicate changes in the tourist, economic and commercial dynamics of these areas. A comparison of bicycling volumes between 1999 and 2007 (see Table B-2: Weekday and Weekend Peak-Hour Bicycle Counts, for 1999 and 2007) indicates: 1. Average weekday peak hour bicycling volumes at 13 locations have increased from 31 to 52 bicyclists/hour (an increase of 66%) between 1999 and 2007, indicating a significant increase in bicycling to work and school. 2. Average weekend day peak hour bicycling has increased from 71 to 95 bicyclists/hour (33%), just outside the range of daily variation, indicating a potentially significant increase in volumes. 3. The largest absolute increase in bicycling occurred again at Bridgeway/Princess Street in Sausalito, where 129 peak hour weekday bicyclists were counted in 2007 (versus 45 in 1999), an increase of 84 bicyclists. At the same location, there was a decrease of 97 bicyclists on a weekend day period. A breakdown of the 2007 bicycle and pedestrian counts is shown in Table B-3: Sep-2007 Walking and Bicycling 2-Hour Count Volumes for Weekdays and Weekends and Table B-4: Sep-2007 Two-Hour Bicyclist and Pedestrian Volumes & Attributes. Summaries of the two-hour volume for bicyclists and pedestrians on weekdays and weekend days are shown in Table A-3. Key findings include: 1. Bicycling on weekdays is occurring throughout the county, with activity levels ranging from a low of 6 bicyclists over 2 hours (Alameda Del Prado) to 246 bicyclists (Bridgeway/Princess), with an average of 70 bicyclists over two hours. 2. Walking on weekdays is also occurring throughout the county, albeit at an average of over 2.5 times the rate of bicycling, with activity levels ranging from 11 persons/2 hours (Alameda Del Prado) to 1,141 persons (4th and B Street, San Rafael). 3. The busiest weekday locations in Marin County for combined walking/bicycling are (1) 4th & B Streets, San Rafael, (2) Bridgeway/Princess Street, Sausalito, (3) Tiburon Blvd./Main Street, Tiburon, and (4) Medway/Belvedere Street, San Rafael. 4. The 4-6 pm weekday count period may reflect the peak activity levels for adults, but not for areas near schools. A 7-9 am supplemental weekday count conducted at the Doherty Drive/Hall Middle School location showed 114 bicyclists and 162 pedestrians, almost all children, which is 217% higher than the 4-6 pm count of 24 bicyclists and 38 pedestrians at the same location. In other words, peak periods may be variable and highly related to nearby land uses such as schools 5. Walking and bicycling on weekend days is occurring throughout the eastern urbanized areas of Marin County. Average weekend bicycling is 60% higher than average weekday volumes, and average weekend walking is 30% higher than average weekdays, indicating the popularity of bicycling and walking as recreational activities. 5

8 6. The most popular weekend bicycling locations were (1) Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at Tennessee Valley, (2) Tiburon Blvd./Main Street, Tiburon, and (3) Broadway/Bolinas, Fairfax. This indicates the popularity of Marin s multi-use paths, and also the relationship between shopping/eating/sight seeing and pedestrian activity. 7. The most popular weekend walking locations were, (1) 4 th and B Streets, San Rafael, (2) Tiburon Blvd/Main Street, Tiburon, and (3) Bridgeway/Princess St., Sausalito. 8. Activity levels appear to be related to land use, facility types, visitor destinations, and transit ridership, with downtown areas, high transit ridership areas, visitor destinations, and multi-use pathways accounting for all of the high activity areas. Table 4 provides a breakdown of bicyclist and pedestrian attributes, including gender, whether a person was a child (under 18), and for bicyclists, whether they wore a helmet. Key findings include: 1. Males make up 72% of bicyclists, which is consistent with other surveys conducted around the country (Thunderhead Alliance, 2007). The popularity of mountain bicycling with men, plus factors such as concerns about safety and security could be reasons why fewer females bicycle than males. 2. Children 18 years or under, based on visual observation, make up about 13% of all bicyclists. 3. A significant number of bicyclists (29%) were reported not to be wearing helmets. 4. The male-female split of pedestrians (52% - 48%) indicates a much closer approximation of the county s population, which is 49.1% male and 50.9% female. 5. The 14% of pedestrians as children 18 years or younger is similar to bicyclists and indicates that, proportionally, fewer children are walking or bicycling on average than adults at the 22 count locations. Nationally, children account for 24.6% of the population. 5. Design of Survey Questions The survey questions developed for the NTPP and Marin County were customized from the NBPD by the four (4) pilot communities and the VTSC. The surveys were designed to be conducted in the field as intercept surveys, to maximize the statistical validity of the results. Mail-in, phone, and other surveys have shown to be heavily biased in past survey efforts. The surveys were conducted at selected count locations (see Figure 2-1) during or immediately before or after count periods. Surveyors were identified by a yellow jersey and name tag, and trained on how to ask questions. A copy of the survey form is included in Appendix B. Over 210 surveys were collected during the count period. Results of the surveys are shown in Appendix B. Key findings include: Pedestrians 1. Trip Purpose: 19% of walking trips were part of school or work commutes. Together with shopping/errand trips (21%), about 40% of walking trips are utilitarian and transportation related. If respondents drove alone for these trips instead of walking, this sample group would annually account for approximately 8,154 additional vehicle trips. Considering the median respondent trip length 1.5 miles 6

9 and the average automobile mpg 20.2 according to the EPA this translates to approximately gallons of gasoline, $1,870 (at $3.09/gallon), and 11,686 lbs. of CO2. 2. Walking Frequency: The average walking frequency was 15 days/month, with 30% of the respondents walking daily. 3. Alternative Mode for this Trip: If the respondent were not able to walk, 36% would have driven, which is similar to the 45% of the transportation trips identified previously. A large number (27%) would have bicycled, indicating the exercise/recreational nature of their trip. 4. Improvement Preference: Respondents identified shade trees, benches, better walking surfaces, and better street crossings as their top four (4) improvements. 5. Reasons for Route Choice: Respondents stated that the directness of the route, accessibility/proximity, and scenic qualities were the top reasons they selected the route to walk. 6. Ethnicity: The ethnic breakdown appeared roughly equivalent to the ethnicity of the county. Bicyclists 1. Trip Purpose: 22% of bicycling trips were part of school or work commutes. Together with shopping/ errand trips (14%), about 36% of trips are utilitarian and transportation related. If respondents drove alone for these trips instead of bicycling, this sample group would annually account for approximately 5,468 additional vehicle trips. Considering the median respondent trip length 10 miles and the average automobile mpg 20.2 according to the EPA this translates to approximately 2,707 gallons of gasoline, $8,364 (at $3.09/gallon), and 52,245 lbs. of CO2. 2. Frequency: The average bicycling frequency was 11 days/month, with 16% of the respondents bicycling daily. 3. Alternative Mode for this Trip: If the respondent were not able to bicycle, 36% would have driven, which is the same as the 36% of the transportation trips identified previously. A large number (18%) would have walked, indicating the exercise/recreational nature of their trip. 4. Improvement Preference: Respondents identified better roadway and pathway maintenance, bike lanes, less traffic, and signs/stencils as their top four (4) improvements. 5. Reasons for Route Choice: Respondents stated that directness, accessibility/proximity, separation from traffic, and lower traffic volumes were the top reasons they selected the route to bike. 6. Ethnicity: The ethnic breakdown appeared roughly equivalent to the ethnicity of the county. 7

10 6. Accuracy and Calibration of the Data The 22 count locations and 210+ surveys collected as part of the Marin NTPP Count/Survey program provide an invaluable snapshot into walking and bicycling in Marin County, and also serve as a baseline measurement for the NTPP program. 7. Appendix A: NTPP Project and Count Location Maps List A-1 NTPP: Count and Survey Locations Number Count and Survey Locations Surveys Count Type 1 Tiburon Blvd at Main Street, Tiburon Annual 2 Miller Ave. at Throckmorton, Mill Valley Annual 3 4th St. at B St., San Rafael Annual 4 Bridgeway at Princess St., Sausalito Annual 5 San Anselmo Ave at Tunstead, Ave., San Anselmo Annual 6 Broadway at Bolinas Rd., Fairfax Annual 7 Grant Ave., at Redwood Blvd., Novato Annual 8 Magnolia Ave. at Ward St., Larkspur Annual 9 Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at E. Blithedale, Mill Valley yes Annual 10 Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at Tennessee Valley Path Junction, Tam Junction Annual 11 Tiburon Bike Path at Blackie's Pasture, Tiburon Annual 12 Larkspur-Corte Madera Path at Baltimore Wye Annual 13 Corte Madera Creek Path at Bon Air Rd., Greenbrae Annual 14 Medway Rd. at Belvedere St., San Rafael Annual 15 Camino Alto at E. Blithedale, Mill Valley yes Annual 16 Alameda Del Prado at Nave Drive, Ignacio yes NTPP/Annual 17 Ranchitos Rd at Puerto Suello Summit, San Rafael yes NTPP/Annual 18 Doherty Dr. at Hall Middle School, Larkspur yes NTPP 19 Sir Francis Drake at Wolfe Grade, Kentfield yes NTPP 20 Andersen Dr. at Cal Park Tunnel Path, San Rafael yes NTPP 21 South Novato Blvd. at Rowland; Novato Annual 22 Bellam at Andersen, San Rafael NTPP 8

11 7 NWP RR 37 NOVATO 21 SAN PABLO BAY FAIRFAX 6 17 SAN RAFAEL SAN ANSELMO 5 3 ROSS LARKSPUR 12 CORTE MADERA 580 MILL VALLEY Count and Survey Locations NBPDP NTPP NBPDP & NTPP TIBURON Existing Bikeways Class I Bikeway or Multi-Use Path 1 Class II Bicycle Lanes MUIR BEACH BELVEDERE Class III Signed Routes/Shoulders SAUSALITO Miles Figure A-1 NBPDP & NTPP Count and Survey Locations Marin County, California 9

12 Columbine Ln Cowbarn Ln Redwood Blvd Scotia Ln Seascape Dr Novato Blvd Tahoe Cir Hwy 101 Marsh Rd Hwy Commuter Connection - Enfrente Road Bel Marin Keys Blvd Caribe Isle Karla Ct Hamilton Dr Pimentel Ct Deborah Ct Highland Dr Rowe Ranch Dr Galli Dr Elmview Way Digital Dr Winged Foot Dr Pebble Beach Dr Pebble Beach Fire Rd Fairway Dr Ignacio Blvd Alameda de la Loma Chicken Shack Fire Rd Raccoon Dr Ponte Fire Rd Palmer Dr Via del Plano Oak Grove Dr CalledelaMesa Pacheco Creek Dr Ignacio Blvd Loma Verde Elem. School Calle Paseo Little Cat Fire Rd Heather Stone Fire Rd Oak Forest Rd Flicker Dr Corte Alta CalledelaSelva Via Escondida 0 1,500 3,000 Feet Count & Survey Location NTPP Project School Transit Hub PrairieFalconDr Class I Bikeway or Multi-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lanes Class III Signed Routes/Shoulders Entrada Dr Salvatore Dr Calle Arboleda Pelican Ln Hector Ln Via Herbosa Alameda del Prado Clay Ct Commercial Blvd Roblar Dr Madrid Ct Seville Way Alameda del Prado Class II Josefa Ct Nave Dr Los Robles Rd Cielo Ln Marin Valley Dr Pamaron Way Martin Dr Hamilton Pkwy State Access Rd Bolling Dr Scenic Dr CSt Moffett Ct Randolf Dr Brookline Dr Novato Charter School Hamilton Elem. School BSt Aberdeen Rd Todd's Rd Main Gate Rd Kelly Dr Sunny Cove Dr Bolling Cir Hathaway Dr NWP RR Perimeter Rd Oakwood Dr SanJoseDr Crescent Dr Arnold Dr Palm Dr Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Survey Locations Commuter Connection -Enfrente Road & Alameda Del Prado Class II

13 Greenwood Ave Upper Toyon Dr Villa Ct Berens Dr Makin Grade Hill Dr Poplar Dr Mc Allister Ave Citron Ave Broadway Tulane Dr Survey Location NTPP Project School Vista Dr Laurel Grove Ave Harvard Dr Magnolia Ave Clark St Estates Ct Cypress Ave Bon Air Rd Ross St Marin St Manor Rd Creekside Dr Bayview St Grove St Wolfe Grade DSt Class I Bikeway or Multi-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lanes Wolfe Ave Class III Signed Routes/Shoulders Arroyo Dr Acacia Ave Edna Ct Bayview Rd Corte Alegre Almenar Dr Corte Real Willow St CSt BSt Ivy Ln Oak Ave 0 1,550 3,100 Feet Pine Ct Meyer Rd Anthony G Bacich Elem. School Boardwalk 1 Tioga Ln Southern Heights Blvd Brushwood Ln Vista Grande Courtright Rd Corte Patencio Marin Catholic High School Corte Lenosa Via Holon Via Casitas Warner Ct Mariposa Rd Los Cerros Dr Bretano Way Riviera Cir Lindaro St Picnic Ave McCoy Rd Cielo Dr La Cuesta Dr Altura Way Jordan St Bungalow Ave Baldwin Ct Paseo Way Eliseo Dr Lincoln Ave Lovell Ave Harte Ln Corte Precita Barry Way Du Bois St Woodland Ave Baywood Ter Irwin St VialaPaz Corte Ramon Corte Morada NWP RR Davidson Middle School Laurel Dell Elem. School Hazel Ct Bret Ave Harte Ave Via Lerida Yacht Club Dr Andersen Dr Dolores St Billou St Redding Way Bret Harte Ln Bay St Via Navarro Parkside Way Eliseo Dr Francisco Blvd NWP RR Blossom Dr Rose St 3rd St Bret Harte Rd VialaCumbre Redwood Hwy Harbor St Baxters Ct Auburn St Orange St Alta Vista Way Canal St Mill St Front St Point San Pedro Rd Medway Rd NWP RR Albion St Hwy 101 Tiburon Blvd Vivian St Gary Pl Hwy 101 Louise St Jacoby St Larkspur St Belvedere St Simms St Greenbrae Boardwalk Tiburon St Old Quarry Rd Larkspur Landing Cir Fairfax St Novato St Medway Improvements Bellam Blvd Sir Francis Drake Blvd Sonoma St Bahia Way Bahia Pl Francisco Blvd Cal Park Tunnel Pathway NWP RR Madera St Kerner Blvd Bahia Cir Sorrento Way Playa Del Rey Hwy 580 Alley Way Levee Rd San Rafael Adult Education Bahia Vista Elem. School Catalina Blvd Main St Spinnaker Point Dr Egret Vw Shoreline Path Hwy 580 Shoreline Pkwy Valley Way Pelican Way Glacier Point Rd Valley Way Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Survey Location Medway Improvements & Cal Park Tunnel Pathway

14 Avon Ave Euterpe St Blithedale Ave Elm Ave Alta Vista Ave Lomita Dr Ashford Ave Meadow Rd Dorset Ln Plaza Dr Knoll Rd Park Ave Miller Ave Evergreen Ave Bay Rd Molino Ave Greenhill Rd Alta Way Browning St Northern Ave Catalpa Ave Manor Dr Azalea Dr Blithedale Ave Central Dr Neila Way Brabo Ter Pineo Ave Marin Dr Vernal Ave Browning Ct Walnut Ave Ethel Ave Montford Ave Reed St Laverne Ave Ventura Way Maple St Live Oak Dr Willow St Locust Ave California Ave Loring Ave Marin Ave Ethel Ln La Goma St Midway Ave Wendy Way Alturas Way Pine St Pinehill Rd Laurel Way Matilda Ave Nelson Ave Sycamore Ave Wellesley Ave Peralta Ave Poplar St Park Ter Circle Way Locke Ln Median Way Woodside Ave Mesa Ave Oxford Ave Plymouth Ave Lowell Ave Tennessee Ave Amicita Ave Valley Cir Camino Alto Homestead Blvd Stanford Ave Linda Way Surrey Ave Gomez Way Dolan Ave Jean St Ross Dr Ryan Ave 0 1,050 2,100 Feet Leo Ln Count & Survey Location Count Location NTPP Project Transit Hub School Class I Bikeway or Multi-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lanes Sheffield Ave Richardson Way Class III Signed Routes/Shoulders Columbia Ave Yale Ave Mc Rae Rd Lark Ln Cleveland Ave Robin Rd Camino Alto Ct Rising Rd Bell Ln Julia Ave Greene St Flamingo Rd Beryl Ave Morning Sun Ave Cardinal Ct Shelley Dr Almonte Blvd Lilac Ln Cardinal Rd Tamalpais Ave Millay Pl Longfellow Rd Hamilton Dr Kipling Dr Keats Dr Villa Garden Dr Kipling Ct Seaver Dr Shelter Bay Ave TAMALPAIS HIGH SCHOOL Eliot Ct Bay Vista Cir Thoreau Cir Miwok Way Tennessee Valley Pathway Swift Ct Hwy 101 Ramp Hwy 101 Ramp Hwy 101 Sherwood Dr Redwood Hwy Frontage Rd Hwy 101 Ramp Hwy 101 Milland Dr Tiburon Blvd Belvedere Dr Bolinas St Knoll Ln Reed Blvd DeSilvaIslandDr Manzanita Connector Shoreline Hwy Knoll Rd Donahue St Richardson Dr Vista Real Vista del Sol Neider Ln Ricardo Rd Seminary Dr Seminary Dr Hwy 101 Shuck Dr Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Survey Locations Tennessee Valley Pathway & Manzanita Connector

15 Diane Ln Creekside Dr Survey Location Cross Creek Pl Larkspur Plaza Dr Boardwalk 1 HALL MIDDLE SCHOOL Riviera Cir VialaBrisa NTPP Project School Corte del Bayo Class I Bikeway or Multi-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lanes Class III Signed Routes/Shoulders Feet 709. Doherty Drive Pathway Doherty Dr William Ave Locust Ave Post St REDWOOD HIGH SCHOOL Ward St Hawkins Way Magnolia Ave Rice Ln Liberty St Cane St Monte Vista Ave Meadowood Dr South Green Niven Way Midway Rd Heather Way National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project & Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Survey Locations 709. Doherty Drive at Hall Middle School, Larkspur

16 Sequoia Rd GSt Los Ranchitos Rd Rustic Way FSt Fairhills Dr Fairhills Dr Forbes Ave Quarry Rd Marin St Shaver St Clayton St 1st St Ross St Pilgrim Way Oakmont Ave El Cerrito Ave Mission Ave ESt DSt Bayview St San Rafael Ave 5th Ave CSt 101 2nd St Taylor St Chula Vista Dr BSt Octavia St Ivy Ln San Pablo Ave Los Ranchitos connector Hayes St Cottage Ave Jones Pl Stewart Dr Marin Academy Via Sessi Elford St Fair Dr Coleman Dr ASt Woodland Ave Hammondale Ct Vineyard Dr St Raphael School Julia St 1st St 4th St Brooks St Albert Park Ln Lindaro St Hwy 101 Wilson Ct Graceland Dr Wilkins St Lootens Pl Prospect Dr Curtis Ave Robert Dollar Scenic Dr Nye St Cijos St Villa Ave Lincoln Ave Ritter St Jordan St La Vista Way Garden Ln Hacienda Ct Laurel Pl Andersen Dr Hetherton St Glen Park Ave Paloma Ave Hillcrest Dr Corte Mesa Ave Tamalpais Ave Hwy 101 Duffy Pl Stevens Pl Linden Ln Pacheco St 3rd St Irwin St Du Bois St Grand Ct Elm St Clyde Ave Green Way Rafael Dr Nunan Ln Grand Ave Francisco Blvd Rice Dr Newhall Dr Mary St Aquinas Dr Angelica Ct Watt Ave Terradillo Ave Dominican Dr Sienna Way Puerto Suello Hill Pathway Irwin St Belle Ave Locust Ave Coleman Elem. School Union St Mountain View Ave Palm Ave Marinita Ave Park St Acacia Ave Puerto Suello Hill to Transit Station Connector Mahon Creek Path to Transit Center Connector Francisco Blvd Count & Survey Location Count Location NTPP Project School Transit Hub Class I Bikeway or Multi-Use Path Convent Ct Williams St Valencia Ave Oakdale Ave Class II Bicycle Lanes Class III Signed Routes/Shoulders 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Mill St Welcome Ln Dominican University Broadview Dr Canal St Highland Ave Jewell St Brodea Way Embarcadero Way Sea View Ave SanRafaelHighSchool Marina Court Dr Mooring Rd Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Survey Locations Los Ranchitos Connector, Puerto Suello Hill Pathway Puerto Suello-Transit Center Connector, & Mahon Creek Path

17 Mann Dr Tamal Vista Ln Laurel Grove Ave Cypress Ave WolfeGlenWay Oak Ave Inman Ave Kentdale Ln Corte Alegre Fay Dr Los Cerros Dr Rosebank Ave Edna Ct Wolfe Grade Manor Rd Acacia Ave Mc Allister Ave ANTHONY G BACICH ELEM. SCHOOL Corte Comoda Vista Grande Corte Elena Almenar Dr Lilac Ave MARIN CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL Sir Francis Drake Blvd Bon Air Rd Via Hidalgo Feet Berens Dr School Survey Location Class I Bikeway or Multi-Use Path Class II Bicycle Lanes Class III Signed Routes/Shoulders National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project & Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Survey Locations Sir Frances Drake at Wolfe Grade, Kentfield

18 8. Appendix B: Count Data Tables and Forms Table B-1 Weekday and Weekend Peak-Hour Pedestrian Counts, for 1999 and 2007 Weekday (peak hr between 4-6 pm) Weekend Day (peak hr between 12-2 pm) Location Streets Sep-99 Sep-07 % Sep-99 Sep-07 % Tiburon Blvd at Main Street, Tiburon * 269 * (26.8%) 2 Miller Ave. at Throckmorton, Mill Valley * 95 * (53.3%) 3 4 th and B St. * 669 * % 4 Bridgeway at Princess St., Sausalito % (38.2%) 5 San Anselmo Ave at Tunstead, Ave., San Anselmo (48.7%) (50.7%) 6 Broadway at Bolinas Rd., Fairfax (30.8%) (14.4%) 7 Grant Ave., at Redwood Blvd., Novato (26.8%) (16.5%) 8 Magnolia Ave. at Ward St., Larkspur * 84 * (15.0%) 9 Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at E. Blithedale, Mill Valley % * 19 * 10 Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at Tennessee Valley Path Junction, Tam Junction (61.5%) % 11 Tiburon Bike Path at Blackie s Pasture, Tiburon % % 12 Larkspur-Corte Madera Path at Baltimore Wye (28.9%) % 13 Corte Madera Creek Path at Bon Air Rd., Greenbrae (61.1%) (65.3%) 14 Medway Rd. at Belvedere St., San Rafael * 244 * * 198 * 15 Camino Alto at E. Blithedale, Mill Valley * 35 * * 15 * 16 Alameda Del Prado at Nave Drive, Ignacio * 7 * * 11 * 17 Ranchitos Rd at Puerto Suello Summit, San Rafael % * 20 * 18 Doherty Dr. at Hall Middle School, Larkspur * 38 * * 30 * 19 Sir Francis Drake at Wolfe Grade, Kentfield % * 15 * 20 Andersen Drive at Cal Park Tunnel Path, San Rafael * 11 * * 21 * 21 South Novato Blvd. at Rowland; Novato * 39 * * 13 * 22 Bellam at Andersen, San Rafael (7.1%) * 20 * Average count per location % (21.5%) * = data unavailable 16

19 Table B-2 Weekday and Weekend Peak-Hour Bicycle Counts, for 1999 and 2007 Weekday (peak hr between 4-6 pm) Weekend Day (peak hr between 12-2 pm) Location Streets Sep-99 Sep-07 % Sep-99 Sep-07 % Tiburon Blvd at Main Street, Tiburon * 64 * % 2 Miller Ave. at Throckmorton, Mill Valley * 23 * % 3 4 th and B St. * 31 * (15.6%) 4 Bridgeway at Princess St., Sausalito % (51.6%) 5 San Anselmo Ave at Tunstead, Ave., San Anselmo % % 6 Broadway at Bolinas Rd., Fairfax % % 7 Grant Ave., at Redwood Blvd., Novato % 10 9 (10.0%) 8 Magnolia Ave. at Ward St., Larkspur * 25 * % 9 Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at E. Blithedale, Mill Valley (4.5%) (22.9%) 10 Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at Tennessee Valley Path Junction, Tam Junction % % 11 Tiburon Bike Path at Blackie s Pasture, Tiburon % (24.5%) 12 Larkspur-Corte Madera Path at Baltimore Wye (33.3%) (8.1%) 13 Corte Madera Creek Path at Bon Air Rd., Greenbrae % % 14 Medway Rd. at Belvedere St., San Rafael * 55 * * 32 * 15 Camino Alto at E. Blithedale, Mill Valley * 36 * * 38 * 16 Alameda Del Prado at Nave Drive, Ignacio * 6 * * 5 * 17 Ranchitos Rd at Puerto Suello Summit, San Rafael % * 67 * 18 Doherty Dr. at Hall Middle School, Larkspur * 24 * * 19 * 19 Sir Francis Drake at Wolfe Grade, Kentfield 22 9 (59.1%) * 15 * 20 Andersen Drive at Cal Park Tunnel Path, San Rafael * 37 * * 23 * 21 South Novato Blvd. at Rowland; Novato * 18 * * 13 * 22 Bellam at Andersen, San Rafael % * 8 * Average count per location % % * = data unavailable 17

20 Table B-3 Sep-2007 Walking and Bicycling 2-Hour Count Volumes for Weekdays and Weekends Weekday (4-6 pm) Weekend (12-2 pm) Loc # Streets Bicyclists Pedestrians Total Bicyclists Pedestrians Total 1 Tiburon Blvd at Main Street, Tiburon Miller Ave. at Throckmorton, Mill Valley th and B St Bridgeway at Princess St., Sausalito San Anselmo Ave at Tunstead, Ave., San Anselmo Broadway at Bolinas Rd., Fairfax Grant Ave., at Redwood Blvd., Novato Magnolia Ave. at Ward St., Larkspur Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at E. Blithedale, Mill Valley Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at Tennessee Valley Path Junction, Tam Junction Tiburon Bike Path at Blackie s Pasture, Tiburon Larkspur-Corte Madera Path at Baltimore Wye Corte Madera Creek Path at Bon Air Rd., Greenbrae Medway Rd. at Belvedere St., San Rafael Camino Alto at E. Blithedale, Mill Valley Alameda Del Prado at Nave Drive, Ignacio Ranchitos Rd at Puerto Suello Summit, San Rafael Doherty Dr. at Hall Middle School, Larkspur Sir Francis Drake at Wolfe Grade, Kentfield Andersen Drive at Cal Park Tunnel Path, San Rafael South Novato Blvd. at Rowland; Novato Bellam at Andersen, San Rafael Average count per location TOTAL * = data unavailable 18

21 Table B-4 Sep-2007 Two-Hour Bicyclist and Pedestrian Volumes & Attributes: Gender, Age and Helmet Use Bicyclists Pedestrians Loc # Streets Male Female Total Children No Helmet Wrong Way Male Female Total Children 1 Tiburon Blvd at Main Street, Tiburon Miller Ave. at Throckmorton, Mill Valley th and B St Bridgeway at Princess St., Sausalito San Anselmo Ave at Tunstead, Ave., San Anselmo Broadway at Bolinas Rd., Fairfax * * 367 * * * Grant Ave., at Redwood Blvd., Novato Magnolia Ave. at Ward St., Larkspur Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at E. Blithedale, Mill Valley * * 331 * * * Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at Tennessee Valley Path Junction, Tam Junction * * 673 * * * Tiburon Bike Path at Blackie s Pasture, Tiburon * Larkspur-Corte Madera Path at Baltimore Wye * * 150 * * * Corte Madera Creek Path at Bon Air Rd., Greenbrae * Medway Rd. at Belvedere St., San Rafael Camino Alto at E. Blithedale, Mill Valley * * 113 * * * Alameda Del Prado at Nave Drive, Ignacio * * 13 * * * Ranchitos Rd at Puerto Suello Summit, San Rafael * * 114 * * * Doherty Dr. at Hall Middle School, Larkspur * 19 Sir Francis Drake at Wolfe Grade, Kentfield Andersen Drive at Cal Park Tunnel Path, San Rafael South Novato Blvd. at Rowland; Novato * * 58 * * * Bellam at Andersen, San Rafael * * 47 * * * * Total (of locations reporting attributes) Percent 72% 38% 100% 13% 29% 7% 52% 48% 100% 14% * = data unavailable 19

22 Figure B-1 NTPP Count Form 20

23 9. Appendix C: Survey Charts and Materials 9.1. Pedestrian Survey Data Charts 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 28% 33% 20.0% 15% 21% 10.0% 0.0% 4% Exercising Work Commute School Recreation Shopping/doing errands 9% Personal Business (medical, visting friends, etc.) Figure C.1-1 Pedestrian Trip Purpose Question 2 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 20% 16% 24% 30% 10% 7% 0% First time 0-5 times 6-10 times times Daily (in the last month) Figure C.1-2 Pedestrian Walking Frequency Question 3 21

24 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Utilitarian (work/school commutes & shopping/errand related trips) Nonutilitarian (exercise, recreation, personal business) Both 50% 40% 43% 36% 43% 30% 20% 10% 0% 28% 23% 25% 25% 18% 16% 17% 14% 14% 8% 5% 0% First time 0-5 times 6-10 times times Daily (in the last month) Figure C.1-3 Pedestrian Walking Frequency by Trip Purpose Question 2 and Spring Summer Fall Winter Walk in All Seasons Figure C.1-4 Seasons in Which People Avoid Walking Question 4 22

25 <.5 miles.5-1 mile 1-3 miles 3-5 miles 5-10 miles >10 miles Figure C.1-5 Distance of Pedestrian Trips Question 5 14% did not include transit included transit 86% Figure C.1-6 Walking Trips that Included Transit Question 6 23

26 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 36% 30% 27% 20% 16% 10% 4% 11% 0% Car Carpool Transit Bicycle I would not make this trip Figure C.1-7 Alternate Mode to Walking Question 7 100% 90% 80% 70% Utilitarian (work/school commutes & shopping/errand related trips) Nonutilitarian (exercise, recreation, personal business) Both 60% 50% 50% 43% 43% 40% 30% 36% 31% 20% 14% 14% 14% 18% 16% 18% 14% 10% 0% 7% 4% 2% Car Carpool Transit Bicycle I would not make this trip Figure C.1-8 Alternate Mode to Walking by Trip Purpose Question 2 and 7 24

27 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 38% 35% 33% 30% 20% 10% 10% 8% 7% 4% 4% 0% Direct Scenic Qualities Accessible/Close Level Personal Safety Lower Traffic Volumes Connection to transit Heard about it through friends, media etc. Figure C.1-9 Pedestrian Reasons for Route Choice Question 8 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 19% 16% 15% 10% 11% 7% 6% 4% 8% 0% More shade trees Better surface Benches Better street crossings Wider sidewalks More sidewalks Access to shops, etc. Other Figure C.1-10 Pedestrian Stated Preference for Improvements Along Their Route Question 9 25

28 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% Survey Respondents County Population (according to Census2000) 81.7% 70.0% 65.9% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 13.0% 10.4% 5.8% 6.3% 4.4% 3.0% 3.2% 0.7% Hispanic/Latino African American Anglo/Caucasian Asian Not Listed Figure C.1-11 Pedestrian Ethnicity Question 10 26

29 Form C-1 Pedestrian Survey Data Form 27

30 9.2. Bicycling Survey Data Charts 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 33% 34% 20.0% 18% 14% 10.0% 0.0% 4% Exercising Work Commute School Recreation Shopping/doing errands 4% Personal Business (medical, visting friends, etc.) Figure C.2-1 Bicycling Trip Purpose Question 2 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 39% 30% 20% 10% 12% 7% 22% 16% 0% First time 0-5 times 6-10 times times Daily (in the last month) Figure C.2-2 Bicyclist Riding Frequency Question 3 28

31 100% 90% 80% 70% Utilitarian (work/school commutes & shopping/errand related trips) Nonutilitarian (exercise, recreation, personal business) Both 60% 50% 40% 40% 43% 50% 50% 30% 28% 28% 20% 10% 0% 19% 0% 21% 11% 11% 4% 0% 0% 0% First time 0-5 times 6-10 times times Daily (in the last month) Figure C.2-3 Bicyclist Riding Frequency by Trip Purpose Questions 2 and Spring Summer Fall Winter Bike in All Seasons Figure C.2-4 Seasons in Which People Avoid Bicycling Question 4 29

32 less than 2 miles less than 5 miles 5-10 miles miles miles 40+ miles (in the last month) Figure C.2-5 Distance of Bicycling Trips Question 5 14% did not include transit included transit 86% Figure C.2-6 Bicycling Trips that Included Transit Question 6 30

33 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 36% 30% 28% 20% 14% 18% 10% 0% 1% Car Carpool Transit Walking I would not make this trip Figure C.2-7 Alternate Mode to Bicycling Question 7 100% 90% Utilitarian (work/school commutes & shopping/errand related trips) 80% Nonutilitarian (exercise, recreation, personal business) 70% Both 60% 60% 50% 50% 47% 40% 30% 20% 10% 25% 25% 24% 25% 25% 25% 21% 16% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% Car Carpool Transit Walking I would not make this trip Figure C.2-8 Alternate Mode to Bicycling by Trip Purpose Question 2 and 7 31

34 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 27% 24% 22% 20% 13% 10% 0% Direct Accessible/Close Separation from traffic Lower Traffic Volumes 8% 8% Heard about it through friends, media etc. 5% 1% Level Wider Lanes Connection to transit Figure C.2-9 Bicycling Route Choice, Question 8 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 29% 25% 20% 17% 10% 13% 12% 10% 6% 0% Better surface Bike lanes Less traffic Signs/stencils Better maintenance Shoulders Better crossings Signal detection 1% Figure C.2-10 Bicyclist Preference for Improvements Question 9 32

35 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% Survey Respondents County Population (according to Census2000) 75.9% 81.7% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 13.0% 10.0% 0.0% 6.0% 6.0% 5.8% 6.3% 3.2% 1.2% 0.0% Hispanic/Latino African American Anglo/Caucasian Asian Other Figure C.2-11 Ethnicity of Bicyclists Question 10 33

36 Form C-2 Bicyclist Survey Data Form 34