Bicycle Counts Using Pneumatic Tubes

Transcription

1 Bicycle Counts Using Pneumatic Tubes Krista Nordback, Ph.D., P.E. Miguel Figliozzi, Ph.D. Sirisha Kothuri, Ph.D. Taylor Phillips Andrew Schrope Carson Gorecki SPR 772 TREC and Civil & Environmental Eng. Dept. Portland State University NATMEC, May 3,

2 Overview Background & Methods Findings Conclusions & Recommendations 2

3 Background & Methods 3

4 Goals Investigate if and under what conditions existing continuous and short duration, bicycle and pedestrian count technologies are most accurate How to cost effectively integrate them into ODOT s current traffic monitoring and signal operations systems 4

5 Tube Test Sites Controlled Environment ODOT s Traffic System Services Unit parking lot, Salem Mixed Traffic Road Segment Historic Columbia River Highway near Corbett Intersection Hall & 99W, Tigard

6 Pneumatic Tube Counters Tested Type Make Model Code Eco-Counter Bicycle-only Tubes B1 Bicycle-specific Eco-Counter Bicycle/motor vehicle Tubes B2 JAMAR Technologies, TRAX Cycles Plus C1 Inc. Classification TimeMark Gamma C2 Corporation MetroCount MC5600 C3 Volume Diamond Traffic Products TT-6 V1

7 Ground Truth Video Cameras 7

8 Error Metrics Overall Error = cc mm mm Mean Percent Error (MPE) = 1 h h cc ii mm ii ii=1 Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) = 1 h where mm ii h ii=1 cc ii mm ii mm ii m = ground truth count for study period c = tube count for study period h = total number of bins (hours)

9 Findings 9

10 Controlled Environment Test 10

11 Controlled Environment All had < 10% error within 10 to 15 feet of the count equipment (standard bikes) % Error Distance from Anchor Point in Feet Diamond JAMAR Metro Count ARX Time Mark Eco-Counter

12 Special Cases 12

13 Special Cases Tube Test Tube Counter Tandem, Bike with Trailer Overall Error (%) Carbon Fiber, Cargo Bicycle Overall Error (%) Standard bicycles: One behind the Other Overall Error (%) Standard bicycles: Side by Side Overall Error (%) EcoCounter Jamar CyclesPlus TimeMark MetroCount ARXCycle Daimond TT

14 Mixed Traffic Test 28 Tubes Low motor vehicle traffic 576 bicyclists during study 14

15 Mixed Near Traffic Far Eco-Counter N Eco-Counter S Eco-Counter S Half Road JAMAR N JAMAR S JAMAR S half-road TimeMark 10ft N TimeMark 16ft N TimeMark 10ft S TimeMark 16ft S MetroCount ARX N MetroCount ARX S MetroCount BOCO N MetroCount BOCO S Diamond TT6 Counters -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% Mean Percent Error (MPE)

16 Mixed Traffic Tube Error Absolute Inteval Error (hourly) 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Hourly Absolute Interval Error by Ground Truth Bike Volume and Counter Type Ground Truth Bike Volume Volume Only Classification Bicycle Specific Combined Trend R² =

17 Mixed Traffic Tube Error 120% Absolute Interval Error (hourly) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Ground Truth Motor Vehicle Volume Volume Only Classification Bicycle Specific Combined Trend R² =

18 Causes for Undercounts Cyclists riding side-by-side Cars passing cyclists crossing tubes 18

19 Bicycle Speed Equipment Average Bicycle Speed (mph) Eastbound Westbound Combined Jamar, south side, (total) Jamar, north side, (total) Jamar half road, south side, near (EB) 12.1 n/a n/a TimeMark, south side, 16ft, (total) TimeMark, north side, 16ft, (total) TimeMark, south side, 10ft, (total) TimeMark, north side, 10ft, (total) MetroCount, south side BOCO, (total) MetroCount, north side BOCO, (total) All Counter Average Manual (Video)

20 Tube Tests Hall and 99 W, Tigard Bike lane and Sidewalk Tubes Mini-tubes <20 feet long Camera Location

21 Tubes

22 Bike Lane & Sidewalk Mean Percent Error (MPE) 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% N Diamond S Diamond N Eco Counter S Eco Counter N Jamar S Jamar N Metro Count S Metro Count N Time Mark S Time Mark

23 Mean Percent Error (MPE) 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% -30% More Accurate Counters New Scheme BOCO Scheme

24 Causes for Overcounting by Classification Tube Counters Number of Occurances Car in bike lane Ped steps on tubes Skateboard Stroller Reasons C1 C3

25 Causes for Undercounting by Classification Tube Counters Number of Occurances Bike swerves over tubes Cyclist exits bike lane No apparent reason bike lane No apparent reason sidewalk Reasons Bikes riding closely together Stopped over tubes C1 C3 C2

26 Conclusions & Recommendations 26

27 Conclusions Tube counters can be used for counting bicycles o In low volume mixed traffic, only Eco-Counter, JAMAR Cycles Plus, and MetroCount with BOCO are better (-10% to -40% undercount, overall error). o In mostly bicycle traffic, TimeMark Gamma* can also be used. Recommend short tubes (<15 feet), 6-foot spacing, mini-tubes used to reduce trip hazard. o In bicycle-only traffic, Diamond TT6 can also be used. *TimeMark Gamma with standard tubes (> 50 ft long) and 10 or 16 foot spacing in mixed traffic greatly undercounts bicycles (-66 to -73% error far side, -13% to -64% near side)

28 Guidebook

29 Tube Recommendations TIPS Avoid mixed traffic. Count on low traffic roads. Use bicycle-specific classification schemes. Avoid counting bicycles >15 feet tube length from counter. Use mini-tubes. DO NOT Use 50 foot long tubes. Count in high volume mixed traffic. 29

30 Acknowledgements Technical Advisory Committee Lyn Cornell, former Chair Mark Joerger, current Chair Sheila Lyons Gary Obery Jessica Horning Dave Hirsch Don Crownover Bruce Moody, FHWA TSSU Test: Bill Link, Fraser Groves, Roger Boettcher, Amanda Owings Tube Test: Dara Gayler, Will Adams, Phillip Armand, and Rick Hindle and all the vendors. Hall & 99W Test: Tiffany Slauter, Mike Casper, Tim Damm 30

31 Questions Krista Nordback, Miguel Figliozzi, Sirisha Kothuri, Taylor Phillips, SPR

32 Extra Slides 32

33 Controlled Environment Test ODOT Traffic Systems Service Unit in Salem N Source: Google Maps 33

34 Historic Columbia River Hwy RESULTS 34

35 Pneumatic Tube Counters Tested Type Make Model Tubes Eco-Counter Bicycle-only Tubes Road Tube Bicycle-specific Eco-Counter Bicycle/motor vehicle Road Tube Tubes JAMAR TRAX Cycles Plus Mini-tube Technologies, Inc. Classification Time Mark Gamma Road Tube Corporation MetroCount MC5600 Mini-tube Volume Diamond Traffic Products TT-6 Road Tube

36 Mixed Traffic 10% Mean Percent Error (MPE) 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% -60% -70% -80% WB EB

37 TSSU Results

38 Loops Data from diamond loops was not useable due to adjustments in settings during test. Parallelogram loops tested with two cards: Reno A&E 1101B EDI >50% error in center

39 TSSU Tube Test Results Type Percent Overall Error by Zone (%) MPE (%) Zone MAPE (%) n EcoCounter N/A Jamar CyclesPlus TimeMark MetroCount ARXCycle Daimond TT N/A N/A N/A N/A

40 Analysis on Columbia River Hwy 40

41 Hourly Absolute Interval Error by Ground Truth Bike Volume and Counter Type 120% 100% Absolute Interval Error (hourly) 80% 60% 40% R² = R² = R² = Volume Classification Bike Specific 20% 0% Ground Truth Bike Volume

42 Hourly Absolute Interval Error by Ground Truth Vehicle Volume and Counter Type 120% Absolute Interval Error (hourly) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% R² = R² = R² = V_MAPE_Veh C_MAPE_Veh B_MAPE_Veh 0% Ground Truth Vehicle Volume per Hour

43 Error for Pneumatic Tube Counters in Mixed Traffic Near Far EcoBlue_In_WB EcoBikeOnly_In_EB EcoBikeCarTotal HALF ROAD JAMAR_WB_Lane_1 JAMAR_EB_Lane_1 JAMAR_EB_HALF_RD TimeMark_WB_10ft_Class_A TimeMark_WB_16ft_Class_A TimeMark_EB_10ft_Class_B TimeMark_EB_16ft_Class_B MetroCount_WBGrey5600_W1 MetroCount_EBBlack5600_E2 Counters -80% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% MPE

44 Summary of Error for Mixed Traffic Tube Test Counter Name n Bicycles Overall Counted Error (%) MPE (%) MAPE (%) Eco Counter, North Side Eco Counter, South Side Bike Only Eco Counter, South Side (half road) Total Hourly Over Counts JAMAR, North Side JAMAR, South Side JAMAR, South Side (half road) Time Mark, North Side (10ft) Time Mark, North Side (16ft) Time Mark, South Side (10ft) Time Mark, South Side (16ft) Metro Count, North Side Metro Count, South Side Metro Count, North Side BOCO Metro Count, South Side BOCO Diamond, South and North Sides

45 Analysis on Hall & 99W 45

46 100% Error, All Tube Counters 80% 60% 40% 20% Error 0% -20% -40%

47 Hall & 99 Tube Results N Time Mark S Time Mark Counter Time Mark, North Side Error=0 Counter Time Mark, South Side Error= Ground Truth Ground Truth

48 N Diamond S Diamond Counter Diamond, North Side Error=0 Counter Diamond, South Side Error= Ground Truth Ground Truth N Eco-Counter S Eco-Counter Counter Eco-Counter, North Side Error=0 Counter Eco-Counter, South Side Error= Ground Truth Ground Truth

49 N JAMAR S JAMAR Counter JAMAR, North Side Error=0 Counter JAMAR, South Side Error= Ground Truth Ground Truth N Metro Count S Metro Count Counter Metro Count, North Side Error=0 Counter Metro Count, South Side Error= Ground Truth Ground Truth

50 Criteria GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Distance from Portland Traffic volume (AADT): A high volume and a low volume location are desired. Location of poles for mounting cameras or infrared (away from sources of heat) Availability of inputs in controller for adding detection in parallel Surrounding land use More urban is better Already has a video camera for data collection Sidewalks Six phases or fewer FOR BICYCLES Bicycle traffic volume - Higher is better (100/day minimum ideally) Presence of bicycle lane Existing inductive loops for bicycle detection Presence of FLIR camera or possibility of adding one Volume of right turning traffic (low is good) FOR PEDS Availability of push buttons Pedestrian volume Higher is better Presence of bus stops Crosswalks 50

51 99W and Hall Blvd., Tigard 51

52 Pilot test Preliminary Results 52

53 53

54 Source: Pam Johnson, ODOT Combined Bicycle and Pedestrian Continuous Counter 54

55 Combined Bicycle and Pedestrian Continuous Counter EcoCounter 55

56 Introduction ODOT PROJECT SPR 754 Design And Implementation Of Pedestrian and Bicycle-specific Data Collection Methods In Oregon Dr. Miguel Figliozzi Dr. Christopher Monsere Dr. Krista Nordback Pam Johnson Bryan Blanc 56 56

57 Design and Implementation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Specific Data Collection Methods in Oregon Data Collection Pilot Project ODOT TAC Meeting November 4,

58 Kothuri, Reynolds, Monsere, and Koonce, 2012 Automated Bicycle Counts - Portland Inductive loops are most common Stop Bar Loop Advance Loop Conditions that have to be met Presence of bicycle lane Presence of advance loop in bike lane Presence of individual loop wire 58 58

59 Kothuri, Reynolds, Monsere, and Koonce, 2012 Verification of Bicycle Counts Verification is needed to ensure accuracy Undercounting bicycles %Bikes Counted 97%, 87% Error (MAPE) 17%, 18% 15 Video Counts Loop Counts 80 Video Counts Loop Counts Bicycle Counts 10 5 Bicycle Counts :30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 19:00 Time 0 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 19:00 Time Inbound Bicycle Counts Outbound Bicycle Counts N Wheeler Ave., N. Williams Ave and N. Winning Way 3-leg intersection 59

60 Portland Inductive Loops Location % Bike Counted Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) N Wheeler Ave., N. Williams Ave and N. Winning Way Kothuri %, 87% 17%, 18% Lovejoy at NW 9 th Ave Lindsey % 1% Couch & Grand Lindsey % 18% Broadway & Williams Lindsey % 8% Weidler & 2nd Lindsey % 7% Average 95% 12% 60

61 Pneumatic Tubes 61

62 Preliminary Site Prep ODOT Tube Configurations North Hall Boulevard (Not to scale) 62

63 Analysis- Bicycle Tubes % Errors for counters North 100% Hall Boulevard 93% 96% 81% (Not to scale) 63

64 Boulder County Story ALEX HYDE-WRIGHT, BICYCLE PLANNER/EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR BRIAN GRAHAM, FLOOD RECOVERY COORDINATOR Hyde-Wright, A., B. Graham, and K. Nordback, Counting Bicyclists with Pneumatic Tube Counters on Shared Roadways. ITE Journal,

65 Slide from Boulder County 65

66 Slide from Boulder County 66

67 Slide from Boulder County 67

68 Slide from Boulder County 68

69 Ingredients for Success Use thinner walled bicycle tubes Avoid pinching tube with securing strap Use BOCO Classification Scheme instead of ARX Cycle (available for free) Or contact: 69

70 On-line Guide 70

71 Technologies Tested Pneumatic tubes Inductive loops Diamond Parallelogram Thermal camera Pedestrian pushbutton Passive infrared 71

72 Recommendation Matrix for Short Duration Counts from Testing Facility Bicycles Pedestrian Pedestrian Only Facilities (sidewalks, trails) Bicycle Only Facilities (cycle tracks, separated bike lanes) Bike-Ped Paths & Sidewalks Shoulders and Bike Lanes Roadways (mixed traffic) low volume Roadways (mixed traffic) medium to high volume N/A Tubes All types Tubes bike specific and classification Tubes bike specific and classification Tubes classification counters low volume roads None recommended Infrared (most accurate for low pedestrian traffic sites) N/A Passive infrared (reference) Combine with tubes to distinguish bicycles. N/A Intersections - Pushbutton for ped activity N/A N/A

73 Historic Columbia River Highway Tube Test 73

74 N Historic Columbia River Highway Test 74

75 Hall & 99 W in Tigard 75

76 SOUTH SIDE NORTH SIDE

77 Special Cases Tube Test Tube Counter Tandem, Bike with Trailer Carbon Fiber, Cargo Bicycle Standard bicycles: One behind the Other Standard bicycles: Side by Side n Overall Error (%) n Overall Error (%) n Overall Error (%) n Overall Error (%) EcoCounter Jamar CyclesPlus TimeMark MetroCount ARXCycle Daimond TT