Bicycle Counts Using Pneumatic Tubes

Similar documents
Counting Bicycles and Pedestrians at Signalized Intersections

Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts at Signalized Intersections Using Existing Infrastructure

Accuracy of Bicycle Counting with Pneumatic Tubes in Oregon

Forthcoming 2015 Transportation Research Record

Leveraging Signal Infrastructure for Nonmotorized Counts in a Statewide Program

Safety Effectiveness of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

Lisa Austin and Jasna Hadzic MnDOT; Greg Lindsey - UMN

Design and Implementation of Pedestrian and Bicycle-Specific Data Collection Methods in Oregon

Ben Timerson, MnDOT Erik Minge, SRF Consulting Group Greg Lindsey, University of Minnesota

Transforming Traffic Signals to Support Sustainability: Applications, Ideas, & Research

Evaluation of Bike Boxes at Signalized Intersections [Presentation]

Complete Street Analysis of a Road Diet: Orange Grove Boulevard, Pasadena, CA

Dear Mr. Tweed: Sincerely, Min Zhou, P.E. Vice President

FINAL REPORT. Designing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic Count Program to Estimate Performance Measures on Streets and Sidewalks in Blacksburg, VA

Lessons Learned from Cycle Tracks (Class IV Bikeways) Design Practice

Designing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Program in Blacksburg, VA

The Traffic Monitoring Guide: Counting Bicyclists and Pedestrians. APBP 2017 June 28: 11:15am-12:45pm

PBIC Webinar. Pedestrian and Bicycle Count Data Part I Programs, Data and Metrics

Columbia Pike Implementation Team (CPIT) Meeting

Cyclist Compliance at Signalized Intersections

INTERSECTION DESIGN. Bicycle Facility Workshop Intersections 4-1

CAPITOL DRIVE & FOND DU LAC AVENUE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS. Urban Planning 772 SARAH BREGANT, RYAN PETERSON, & MATT WERDERITCH

A Traffic Operations Method for Assessing Automobile and Bicycle Shared Roadways

Development of Guidelines for Bicycle Use of Controlled Access Facilities in Virginia

NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION MONITORING PROGRAM

Temporal and Spatial Variation in Non-motorized Traffic in Minneapolis: Some Preliminary Analyses

Webinar: Exploring Pedestrian Responsive Traffic Signal Timing Strategies in Urban Areas

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS REPORT US Route 6 Huron, Erie County, Ohio

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION

Designing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic Monitoring Program to Estimate Annual Average Daily Traffic in a Small Rural College Town

J Street and Folsom Boulevard Lane Conversion Project (T ) Before and After Traffic Evaluation

Prediction of Pedestrian Crashes at Midblock Crossing Areas using Site and Behavioral Characteristics Preliminary Findings

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. North Harrison Street (Lee Highway to Little Falls Road) Comparative Analysis. Prepared for:

RURAL HIGHWAY SHOULDERS THAT ACCOMMODATE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN USE (TxDOT Project ) June 7, Presented by: Karen Dixon, Ph.D., P.E.

A Summary of Recent Evaluations of Cycling Facilities in Portland, OR

Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Strategic Implementation Plan. January 18, 2011

Multi-Modal Traffic Analysis. Parisi and Associates

RE: City of Portland Request to Experiment with HAWK/Bike signal

ACTION TRANSMITTAL No

Institutionalizing Bicycle and Pedestrian Monitoring Programs in Three States

Bicycle and Pedestrian Data Collection Manual Draft

Exploring Thresholds for Timing Strategies on a Pedestrian Active Corridor

Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning in a Historically Car-Centric Culture: A Focus on Connectivity, Safety, & Accessibility

Webinar: Impacts of Roadway and Traffic Characteristics on Air Pollution Risks for Bicyclists

INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 3009 HAWTHORNE ROAD CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW REVISED. Prepared for: Canada Inc.

APRIL 1, 2015 APWA CONFERENCE. TIM HANSEN, PE Chief Operating Officer AHBL, Inc. Project Designer

Comparison of Turning Movement Count Data Collection Methods for a Signal Optimization Study. White Paper

Traffic Signal Redesign 50% Design Report

PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

FHWA Experimentation #4-298(E) Modified HAWK Signal and Bike Signal - Draft Report

FHWA Resources for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals

CE576: Highway Design and Traffic Safety

SR 693 (Pasadena Avenue) Corridor Study from Shore Drive South to 66 th Street

Environmental Assessment Findings & Recommendations. Public Hearing November 13, 2014

Lee s Summit Road Improvement Study Public Open House June 7, 2007 Summary of Comment Card Responses

V2X Bicycle and Pedestrian Detection. ITS Wisconsin Annual Conference October 23, 2018

Methods and Technologies for Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection NCHRP 7-19

Towards Effective Design Treatment for Right Turns at Intersections with Bicycle Traffic

2017 Northwest Arkansas Trail Usage Monitoring Report

Vail Cascade Bar 11:50 PM There once was a designer with clout who designed a two-lane roundabout On its big debut a cyclist came through He got in bu

Joshua Saak, P.E., PTOE Traffic Design Engineer Ada County Highway District May 23, 2013

Public Information Meeting. Orange Camp Road. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Beltway to I-4. Presented by: Volusia County August 2, 2018

2014/2015 BIKE ROUTE PLAN 83 AVENUE PROTECTED BIKE LANE

Brian D. Hare, P.E. Bureau of Design PennDOT PA APA Annual Conference Investing in a Sustainable Future October 5, 2009

Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections

Building a bike friendly Chicago

Hidden Oaks Elementary School

FINAL DESIGN TRAFFIC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Meeting Summary. St. Helens US 30 & Columbia Blvd./St. Helens St. Corridor Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2

Sharrows and Elephants and Bike Boxes!, s, Oh My!

Durrance Elementary School

PRINCE GEORGE S PLAZA METRO AREA PEDESTRIAN PLAN

CITY OF OAKLAND. 27th Street Bikeway Feasibility and Design. Final Report (v3) March 23, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement: The Severance of a Major Bicycling and Ped Route

Designing for Pedestrian Safety in Washington, DC

Pedestrians and Bicyclists. Bruce Friedman and Scott Wainwright FHWA MUTCD Team

Instructions for Counting Pedestrians at Intersections. September 2014

Clybourn Ave. Protected Bike Lane Study Halsted St. to Division St.

An Analysis of Bicycle-Vehicle Interactions at Signalized Intersections with Bicycle Boxes

ADOT Bicyclist and Pedestrian Count Strategy Plan

Conducting Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts in Your Community: Count Manager Training. MnDOT and MDH Bicycle and Pedestrian Counting Initiative 2015

Bicycle-Specific Traffic Signals: Results from a State-of-the-Practice Review

Metro Bike Program Project Update

Connecting cyclists to work. Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council

Evaluation of M-99 (Broad Street) Road Diet and Intersection Operational Investigation

Access Routes from US 101 to the Richmond San Rafael Bridge

Glenn Avenue Corridor Traffic Operational Evaluation

CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action

Watertown Complete Streets Prioritization Plan. Public Meeting #1 December 14, 2017

2014/2015 BIKE ROUTE PLAN 83 AVENUE PROTECTED BIKE LANE

Development of Arlington County s Marked Crosswalk Guidelines. Jon Lawler, P.E. Design Engineer Arlington County, VA

Welcome to the Sellwood Bridge Project Open House!

BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE for URBAN STREETS. Prepared by Ben Matters and Mike Cechvala. 4/16/14 Page 1

Appendix 3 Roadway and Bike/Ped Design Standards

Bicycle Corrals Portland Designing Streets NYC October 25, 2012 Roger Geller, Bicycle Coordinator Portland, OR

Ottawa Beach Road Study

2.0 LANE WIDTHS GUIDELINE

Health, Transportation and Bicycling: Connecting the Dotted Lines

Chapter 9 Chapter 9 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE VOLUME STUDIESVOLUME COUNT STUDY PURPOSE

Transcription:

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, 2016 1

Overview Background & Methods Findings Conclusions & Recommendations 2

Background & Methods 3

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

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

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

Ground Truth Video Cameras 7

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)

Findings 9

Controlled Environment Test 10

Controlled Environment All had < 10% error within 10 to 15 feet of the count equipment (standard bikes) % Error 20 0-20 -40-60 -80-100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance from Anchor Point in Feet Diamond JAMAR Metro Count ARX Time Mark Eco-Counter

Special Cases 12

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 -75-4 -74-59 Jamar CyclesPlus -50-50 -2-46 TimeMark -4-6 -65-38 MetroCount 5600 - -96-56 -95-57 ARXCycle Daimond TT6 4-9 -4-36

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

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)

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 0 10 20 30 40 50 Ground Truth Bike Volume Volume Only Classification Bicycle Specific Combined Trend R² = 0.4325

Mixed Traffic Tube Error 120% Absolute Interval Error (hourly) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0 200 400 600 800 Ground Truth Motor Vehicle Volume Volume Only Classification Bicycle Specific Combined Trend R² = 0.2347 17

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

Bicycle Speed Equipment Average Bicycle Speed (mph) Eastbound Westbound Combined Jamar, south side, (total) 13.3 20.3 17.0 Jamar, north side, (total) 12.5 20.5 16.8 Jamar half road, south side, near (EB) 12.1 n/a n/a TimeMark, south side, 16ft, (total) 13.8 12.7 13.3 TimeMark, north side, 16ft, (total) 13.2 19.2 18.2 TimeMark, south side, 10ft, (total) 12.6 17.7 13.2 TimeMark, north side, 10ft, (total) 13.2 20.9 20.0 MetroCount, south side BOCO, (total) 13.0 21.6 17.6 MetroCount, north side BOCO, (total) 13.4 21.8 18.7 All Counter Average 12.9 19.4 16.4 Manual (Video) 12.1 21.6 16.7

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

Tubes

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

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

Causes for Overcounting by Classification Tube Counters Number of Occurances 5 4 3 2 1 0 Car in bike lane Ped steps on tubes Skateboard Stroller Reasons C1 C3

Causes for Undercounting by Classification Tube Counters Number of Occurances 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 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

Conclusions & Recommendations 26

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)

Guidebook

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

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

Questions Krista Nordback, Nordback@pdx.edu, 503-725-2897 Miguel Figliozzi, Figliozzi@pdx.edu, Sirisha Kothuri, skothuri@pdx.edu Taylor Phillips, tphill2@pdx.edu SPR 772 31

Extra Slides 32

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

Historic Columbia River Hwy RESULTS 34

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

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

TSSU Results

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

TSSU Tube Test Results Type Percent Overall Error by Zone (%) MPE (%) Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MAPE (%) n 69 85 92 95 93 90 73 EcoCounter 0.0-1.06 N/A -0.6 1.7 Jamar 1.5 0.0 0.0-10.5-38.0-49.5-26.0-15.7 16.7 CyclesPlus TimeMark -7.3 0.0-5.3-6.3-25.0-53.9-82.2-16.2 16.6 MetroCount -7.3-1.2-18.1-26.3-63.0-64.8-98.6-30.8 30.8 5600 - ARXCycle Daimond TT6-11.6 6.0 3.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A -7.6 9.9

Analysis on Columbia River Hwy 40

Hourly Absolute Interval Error by Ground Truth Bike Volume and Counter Type 120% 100% Absolute Interval Error (hourly) 80% 60% 40% R² = 0.174 R² = 0.3089 R² = 0.1864 Volume Classification Bike Specific 20% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Ground Truth Bike Volume

Hourly Absolute Interval Error by Ground Truth Vehicle Volume and Counter Type 120% Absolute Interval Error (hourly) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% R² = 0.2835 R² = 0.0465 R² = 0.2781 V_MAPE_Veh C_MAPE_Veh B_MAPE_Veh 0% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Ground Truth Vehicle Volume per Hour

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

Summary of Error for Mixed Traffic Tube Test Counter Name n Bicycles Overall Counted Error (%) MPE (%) MAPE (%) Eco Counter, North Side 576 361-37 -23 26 2 Eco Counter, South Side 576 378-34 -20 23 3 Bike Only Eco Counter, South Side (half road) 300 183-39 -20 26 2 Total Hourly Over Counts JAMAR, North Side 576 409-29 -18 22 9 JAMAR, South Side 576 400-31 -13 31 15 JAMAR, South Side (half road) 300 185-38 -23 24 1 Time Mark, North Side (10ft) 576 170-70 -50 55 3 Time Mark, North Side (16ft) 576 200-65 -44 50 12 Time Mark, South Side (10ft) 576 142-75 -60 60 1 Time Mark, South Side (16ft) 576 79-86 -73 73 3 Metro Count, North Side 576 236-59 -43 43 0 Metro Count, South Side 576 288-50 -32 32 0 Metro Count, North Side BOCO 576 380-34 -28 29 1 Metro Count, South Side BOCO 576 495-14 -10 10 1 Diamond, South and North Sides 576 425-26 -20 27 20

Analysis on Hall & 99W 45

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

Hall & 99 Tube Results N Time Mark S Time Mark 30 30 25 25 Counter 20 15 10 5 Time Mark, North Side Error=0 Counter 20 15 10 5 Time Mark, South Side Error=0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ground Truth Ground Truth

N Diamond S Diamond 30 30 25 25 Counter 20 15 10 5 Diamond, North Side Error=0 Counter 20 15 10 5 Diamond, South Side Error=0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ground Truth 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ground Truth N Eco-Counter S Eco-Counter 30 30 25 25 Counter 20 15 10 5 Eco-Counter, North Side Error=0 Counter 20 15 10 5 Eco-Counter, South Side Error=0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ground Truth Ground Truth

N JAMAR S JAMAR 30 30 25 25 Counter 20 15 10 5 JAMAR, North Side Error=0 Counter 20 15 10 5 JAMAR, South Side Error=0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ground Truth Ground Truth N Metro Count S Metro Count 30 30 25 25 Counter 20 15 10 5 Metro Count, North Side Error=0 Counter 20 15 10 5 Metro Count, South Side Error=0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ground Truth Ground Truth

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

99W and Hall Blvd., Tigard 51

Pilot test Preliminary Results 52

53

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

Combined Bicycle and Pedestrian Continuous Counter EcoCounter 55

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

Design and Implementation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Specific Data Collection Methods in Oregon Data Collection Pilot Project ODOT TAC Meeting November 4, 2013 57

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

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 60 40 20 0 17:30 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

Portland Inductive Loops Location % Bike Counted Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) N Wheeler Ave., N. Williams Ave and N. Winning Way Kothuri 2012 97%, 87% 17%, 18% Lovejoy at NW 9 th Ave Lindsey 2014 98% 1% Couch & Grand Lindsey 2014 83% 18% Broadway & Williams Lindsey 2014 104% 8% Weidler & 2nd Lindsey 2014 103% 7% Average 95% 12% 60

Pneumatic Tubes 61

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

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

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, 64 2014.

Slide from Boulder County 65

Slide from Boulder County 66

Slide from Boulder County 67

Slide from Boulder County 68

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) http://www.pdx.edu/ibpi/short-duration-count-program Or contact: 69

On-line Guide www.pdx.edu/ibpi/count 70

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

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

Historic Columbia River Highway Tube Test 73

N Historic Columbia River Highway Test 74

Hall & 99 W in Tigard 75

SOUTH SIDE NORTH SIDE

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 24-75 24-4 68-74 70-59 Jamar CyclesPlus 46-50 54-50 116-2 118-46 TimeMark 46-4 54-6 116-65 118-38 MetroCount 46-96 54-56 116-95 118-57 5600 - ARXCycle Daimond TT6 46 4 54-9 116-4 118-36