Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Summary Report

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

Table of Contents Introduction and Overview... 1 This Report... 1 Process and Methodology... 2 Part 1: 2014 Counts... 4 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data Summary... 4 Bicycle Summary... 4 Pedestrian Summary... 6 2014 Count Data by Intersections and Regional Locations... 7 Bicycle Data... 7 Pedestrian Data...11 Part 2: Comparisons with Previous Years...13 2013 and 2014 Bicyclist Attributes...13 2009 through 2014 Bicyclist Attributes...13 2010 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

List of Figures Figure 1. Phases in the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian count coordination process.... 3 Figure 2. 2014 bicycle and pedestrian count locations and sub-regions.... 5 Figure 3. 2014 bicycle count volumes by sub-region.... 10 Figure 4. Percentage of 2014 pedestrians per count location and grouped by sub-region.... 11 Figure 5. 2014 pedestrian count volumes by count location.... 12 Figure 6. Total bicycle counts at 39 locations from 2009 to 2014... 14 Figure 7. Bicycle count percent change: 2014 compared to previous five-year average at 39 core locations.... 16 Figure 8. Total bicycle counts at 39 locations from 2010 to 2014... 18 Figure 9. Pedestrian Rolling average... 18 Figure 10. Pedestrian count percent change: 2014 compared to previous four-year average at 39 core locations... 19 Figure 11. Unlawful riding behavior hot spots... 22 Figure A1. 2014 top 10 female ridership locations, by percentage.... 25 Figure A2. 2014 top 10 female ridership locations, by count.... 25 Figure A3. 2014 percent female riders by location.... 26 Figure A4. 2014 top 10 locations with bicyclists under 18, by percentage.... 27 Figure A5. 2014 top 10 locations with bicyclists under 18, by count.... 27 Figure A6. 2014 top 10 locations with bicyclists over 65, by percentage.... 28 Figure A7. 2014 top 10 locations with bicyclists over 65, by count.... 28 Figure A8. 2014 bicycle count age range percentages by location.... 29 Figure A9. 2014 top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by percentage.... 30 Figure A10. 2014 top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by count.... 30 Figure A11. 2014 non-helmet wearing bicyclist percentage ranges by location.... 31 Figure A12. 2014 top 10 locations for helmet use, by percentage.... 32 Figure A13. 2014 top 10 locations for helmet use, by count.... 32 Figure A14. 2014 top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by percentage.... 33 Figure A15. 2014 top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by count.... 33 Figure A16. 2014 percentage of wrong-way riders per count site.... 34 Figure A17. 2014 top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by percentage.... 35 Figure A18. 2014 top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by count.... 35 Figure A19. 2014 percentage of sidewalk riders by count site.... 36 Figure B1. Bicyclist gender by 3-year rolling average.... 40 Figure B2. Bicyclist age by 3-year rolling average.... 41 Figure B3. Bicyclist helmet usage by 3-year rolling average.... 42 Figure B4. Bicyclist unlawful riding behavior by 3-year rolling average.... 43 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of 2014 bicycle count data... 4 Table 2. Top 10 bicyclist count locations, 2014... 4 Table 3. Top 10 pedestrian count locations, 2014... 6 Table 4. 2014 bicycle count totals grouped by sub-region.... 7 Table 5. 2014 bicycle count attributes averaged by the number of count locations in each sub-region.... 8 Table 6. 2014 bicycle count attribute percentages summarized by sub-region... 8 Table 7. 2014 bicycle count results ranked by attribute percentages per sub-region.... 9 Table 8. 2014 pedestrian summary information by sub-region... 11 Table 9. Comparison between 2013 and 2014 bicycle count data at 49 locations... 13 Table 10. Five-year averages (2010-2014) and attribute percentages for 39 core locations.... 14 Table 11. Five-year (2009-2013) previous averages compared with 2014 data at 39 core locations.... 15 Table 12. Bicycle count totals at 39 core locations, with 2014 totals compared with the previous five-year average (2009 2013).... 17 Table 13. Pedestrian count totals at 39 core locations, with 2014 totals compared with the previous fouryear average (2010 2013).... 20 Table 14. Total bicyclists at core locations, by year with data from possible influencing factors.... 23

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 2008. 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 2014. 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 2014. 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.

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.

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.

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 2014. 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 22,288 100% Female Bicyclists 6,306 28% Male Bicyclists 15,982 72% Bicyclists under 18 960 4% 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 2013. 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 3 894 2nd St / Highland Ave 4 794 Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) 5 750 Helen St / Mountain Ave 6 714 6th St / Highland Ave 7 649 Aviation Pathway / Bristol Ave 8 635 Mabel St / Warren Ave 9 578 Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP) 10 529

Figure 2. 2014 bicycle and pedestrian count locations and sub-regions.

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 6 967 Park Ave / Speedway Blvd 7 931 Mabel St / Warren Ave 8 697 Helen St / Mountain Ave 9 615 6th St / Park Ave 10 514

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 4. 2014 bicycle count totals grouped by sub-region*. Attributes Downtown East Green Valley / Sahuarita North and NW UA Urban Core Total Bicyclists 3001 680 225 2406 7412 8510 Count Locations Per Region 19 7 2 28 21 58 Female Bicyclists 158 97 113 86 353 147 Male Bicyclists 796 170 105 522 2446 2260 Under 18 Bicyclists 2205 510 120 1884 4966 6250 Age 18 to 65 Bicyclists 146 16 85 48 311 323 Over 65 Bicyclists 2747 547 91 2036 6909 7371 Helmet Wearers 108 117 49 322 192 816 No Helmet 1316 540 31 2084 2115 4944 Wrong-way Bicyclists 1685 140 194 322 5297 3566 Sidewalk Bicyclists 94 48 11 85 194 191 *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.

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 158 97 113 86 353 147 Female Bicyclists 42 24 53 19 116 39 Male Bicyclists 116 73 60 67 236 108 Bicyclists Under 18 8 2 43 2 15 6 Bicyclists 18 to 65 145 78 46 73 329 127 Bicyclists Over 65 6 17 25 12 9 14 Helmet Wearers 69 77 16 74 101 85 Non-Helmet Wearers 89 20 97 12 252 61 Wrong-way Riders 5 7 6 3 9 3 Sidewalk Riders 8 8 26 3 19 5 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 6. 2014 bicycle count attribute percentages summarized by sub-region. Attributes Table 5. 2014 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%

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 7. 2014 bicycle count results ranked by attribute percentages per sub-region. Attributes Downtown East Green Valley / Sahuarita North and NW Female Bicyclists 3 5 1 6 2 3 Male Bicyclists 4 3 7 2 6 4 Bicyclists Under 18 3 6 2 6 4 4 Bicyclists 18 to 65 2 5 6 4 1 3 Bicyclists Over 65 6 2 1 3 7 4 Helmet Wearers 5 2 7 1 6 3 Non-Helmet Wearers 3 6 1 7 2 5 Wrong-way Riders 4 1 2 3 4 6 Sidewalk Riders 3 2 1 5 3 5 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.

Figure 3. 2014 bicycle count volumes by sub-region.

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 8. 2014 pedestrian summary information by sub-region.* Attributes Downtown East Green Valley / Sahuarita North and NW UA Urban Core Grand Total Total Pedestrians 3,274 657 206 1,300 16,792 6,259 28,553 Number of Count Locations 19 7 2 28 21 58 136 Pedestrians per Location 172 94 103 46 800 108 228 2014 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.

Figure 5. 2014 pedestrian count volumes by count location.

Part 2: Comparisons with Previous Years 2013 and 2014 Bicyclist Attributes Forty-nine locations were counted both in 2013 and 2014. 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 2013 2014 2013 Percent 2014 Percent Difference Percent Change Total Bicyclists 8,540 8,320-220 -3% Female Bicyclists 2,527 2,260 30% 27% -267-11% Male Bicyclists 6,013 6,060 70% 73% 47 1% Under 18 Bicyclists 289 410 3% 5% 121 42% Age 18 to 65 Bicyclists 7,969 7,568 93% 91% -401-5% Over 65 Bicyclists 282 342 3% 4% 60 21% Helmet Wearers 4,138 4,047 48% 49% -91-2% No Helmet 4,402 4,273 52% 51% -129-3% Wrong-way Riding Bicyclists 309 197 4% 2% -112-36% Sidewalk Riding Bicyclists 641 426 8% 5% -215-34% 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.

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 1,000 0 6,512 7,022 6,737 6,860 7,064 5,496 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 6. Total bicycle counts at 39 locations from 2009 to 2014. 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 (2010-2014) and attribute percentages for 39 core locations. Attributes Previous 5- year average (2009-2013) Percentage of each attribute from the previous 5- year average 2014 Count Totals Percent of 2014 Count Current 6-year average (2009-2014) Percentage of each attribute from the current 6- year average Total Bicyclists 6,525 100% 7,064 100% 6,746 100% 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%

Table 11 and Figure 7 on page 16 compare 2014 data at the core locations with the previous five-year averages (2009 2013). 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 (2009-2013) previous averages compared with 2014 data at 39 core locations. Attribute 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Previous 5-year average (2009-2013) 2014 Percent Change from previous 5-year average Total Bicyclists 5496 6512 7022 6737 6860 7064 6,525 8% Female Bicyclists 1609 1809 1937 1734 2047 1884 1,827 3% Male Bicyclists 3887 4703 5085 5003 4813 5180 4,698 10% Under 18 Bicyclists 92 160 128 146 190 200 143 40% Bicyclists Aged 18 to 65 5280 6158 6721 6471 6451 6619 6,216 6% Over 65 Bicyclists 124 194 173 120 219 245 166 48% Helmet Wearers 2197 2720 3171 3097 3059 3268 2,849 15% No Helmet 3299 3792 3851 3640 3801 3796 3,677 3% Wrong-way Bicyclists 232 208 188 206 199 137 207-34% Sidewalk Bicyclists 422 410 345 377 393 310 389-20%

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

Table 12. Bicycle count totals at 39 core locations, with 2014 totals compared with the previous five-year average (2009 2013). Location 2009 Total 2010 Total 2011 Total 2012 Total 2013 Total 2014 Total Previous 5-year average (2009-2013) 2014 Percent Change (from previous 5-year average) 10th Ave / 43rd St 13 22 27 17 16 21 19 10.5% 18th St / 6th Ave 62 59 75 75 73 92 68.8 33.7% 1st Ave / Tangerine Rd 44 103 110 101 94 102 90.4 12.8% 22nd St / Kolb Rd 58 57 42 57 51 64 53 20.8% 3rd St / Campbell Ave 845 992 1170 1001 902 894 982-9.0% 3rd St / Swan Rd 53 78 73 99 71 133 74.8 77.8% 4th Ave / Lester St 33 50 64 81 73 73 60.2 21.3% 6th St / 9th Ave 69 97 81 129 106 94 96.4-2.5% 6th St / Highland Ave 540 365 610 611 675 649 560.2 15.9% 7th Ave / 7th St 111 67 101 84 89 143 90.4 58.2% Ajo Way / Mission Rd 17 28 93 61 30 69 45.8 50.7% Alvernon Way / Broadway Blvd 79 93 101 98 115 91 97.2-6.4% Alvernon Way / Ft Lowell Rd 31 43 35 47 45 30 40.2-25.4% Anklam Rd / St Mary's Rd 58 75 84 96 66 63 75.8-16.9% Arroyo Chico / Tucson Blvd 40 41 44 63 85 60 54.6 9.9% Aviation Hwy / Broadway Blvd - Snake Bridge 105 124 120 175 180 148 140.8 5.1% Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave 204 307 413 444 385 403 350.6 15.0% Broadway Blvd / Wilmot Rd 55 76 71 80 73 68 71-4.2% Camino del Sol / Continental Rd 6 35 33 24 30 40 25.6 56.3% Campbell Ave / Grant Rd 112 105 102 135 118 123 114.4 7.5% Campbell Ave / River Rd 42 54 39 56 50 44 48.2-8.7% Columbus Blvd / Pima St 90 140 112 121 100 128 112.6 13.7% Congress St / Granada Ave 56 91 80 61 86 81 74.8 8.3% Cortaro Rd / Silverbell Rd 3 24 15 20 19 40 16.2 146.9% Craycroft Rd / Golf Links Rd 38 47 45 60 55 37 49-24.5% Elm St / Tucson Blvd 204 234 149 217 189 178 198.6-10.4% Fairview Ave / Prince Rd 23 65 50 49 43 81 46 76.1% Glenn St / Treat Ave 108 157 119 89 132 91 121-24.8% Helen St / Mountain Ave 724 771 906 920 779 714 820-12.9% Ina Rd / Oracle Rd 56 61 106 95 57 20 75-73.3% Ironwood Hill Dr / Silverbell Rd 20 37 89 31 53 49 46 6.5% Kolb Rd / Tanque Verde Rd 68 72 64 53 93 62 70-11.4% La Cholla Blvd / River Rd 41 66 85 60 65 97 63.4 53.0% Park Ave / University Blvd 900 986 995 680 1143 1084 940.8 15.2% Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd 82 226 197 215 176 260 179.2 45.1% River Rd / Sabino Canyon Rd 50 65 39 42 50 39 49.2-20.7% Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd 167 201 65 133 146 263 142.4 84.7% Stone Ave / University Blvd 249 291 313 285 292 374 286 30.8% Sunrise Dr / Swan Rd 40 107 105 72 55 62 75.8-18.2%

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 10,951 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 8. Total bicycle counts at 39 locations from 2010 to 2014. 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 7,500 2010-2012 2011-2013 2012-2014 Figure 9. Pedestrian Rolling average Figure 10, on page 19, displays the change in pedestrian volumes between the 2009-2013 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.

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

Table 13. Pedestrian count totals at 39 core locations, with 2014 totals compared with the previous fouryear average (2010 2013). Location 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Previous 4-year average (2010-2013) 2014 Percent Change (from previous 4-year average) 10th Ave / 43rd St 33 96 36 58 86 55.8 54.3% 18th St / 6th Ave 72 127 111 132 168 110.5 52.0% 1st Ave / Tangerine Rd 13 47 33 36 33 32.3 2.3% 22nd St / Kolb Rd 392 242 254 368 323 314.0 2.9% 3rd St / Campbell Ave 319 331 546 337 469 383.3 22.4% 3rd St / Swan Rd 34 39 39 51 107 40.8 162.6% 4th Ave / Lester St 25 46 6 31 39 27.0 44.4% 6th St / 9th Ave 82 93 78 89 98 85.5 14.6% 6th St / Highland Ave 365 2017 1991 2129 2013 1625.5 23.8% 7th Ave / 7th St 52 84 115 119 169 92.5 82.7% Ajo Way / Mission Rd 78 115 95 87 72 93.8-23.2% Alvernon Way / Broadway Blvd 334 319 279 327 304 314.8-3.4% Alvernon Way / Ft Lowell Rd 177 156 229 206 212 192.0 10.4% Anklam Rd / St Mary's Rd 12 8 39 27 28 21.5 30.2% Arroyo Chico / Tucson Blvd 61 47 70 51 63 57.3 10.0% Aviation Hwy / Broadway Blvd - Snake Bridge 69 49 71 60 54 62.3-13.3% Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave 141 95 94 107 108 109.3-1.1% Broadway Blvd / Wilmot Rd 216 231 260 234 265 235.3 12.6% Camino del Sol / Continental Rd 15 18 16 20 23 17.3 33.3% Campbell Ave / Grant Rd 147 167 152 105 119 142.8-16.6% Campbell Ave / River Rd 38 38 40 33 25 37.3-32.9% Columbus Blvd / Pima St 248 238 224 118 267 207.0 29.0% Congress St / Granada Ave 689 492 539 529 396 562.3-29.6% Cortaro Rd / Silverbell Rd 20 12 21 18 89 17.8 401.4% Craycroft Rd / Golf Links Rd 26 30 32 26 36 28.5 26.3% Elm St / Tucson Blvd 66 43 50 64 22 55.8-60.5% Fairview Ave / Prince Rd 122 122 140 106 155 122.5 26.5% Glenn St / Treat Ave 65 38 79 67 86 62.3 38.2% Helen St / Mountain Ave 499 633 543 585 615 565.0 8.8% Ina Rd / Oracle Rd 85 98 128 111 100 105.5-5.2% Ironwood Hill Dr / Silverbell Rd 56 21 139 108 82 81.0 1.2% Kolb Rd / Tanque Verde Rd 50 47 86 69 55 63.0-12.7% La Cholla Blvd / River Rd 38 49 39 59 49 46.3 5.9% Park Ave / University Blvd 1959 2158 2344 2572 3052 2258.3 35.1% Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd 118 104 132 125 126 119.8 5.2% River Rd / Sabino Canyon Rd 9 5 4 8 9 6.5 38.5% Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd 76 18 38 71 97 50.8 91.1% Stone Ave / University Blvd 257 198 159 163 287 194.3 47.7% Sunrise Dr / Swan Rd 67 77 116 75 114 83.8 36.1%

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.

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%

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 2008 7,529 57.5 88.3 Trace $3.01 6.8 984,032 37,217 2009 5,496 55.8 83.7 0.05 $2.50 9.6 984,274 38,057 2010 6,512 59.1 86.1 0.46 $2.77 9.1 981,168 39,086 2011 7,022 58.0 88.5 0.06 $3.40 8.0 986,081 39,236 2012 6,737 58.0 88.8 Trace $3.65 7.0 990,380 40,223 2013 6,860 55.1 85.4 0.00 $3.29 6.9 996,046 40,621 2014 7,064 62.1 89.3 1.33 $3.12 5.9 1,007,162 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: www.wrh.noaa.gov/twc/climate/reports.php 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. Regular Conventional Retail Gasoline Prices. Accessed at: www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/leafhandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epmru_pte_nus_dpg&f=m 3 Arizona Dept. of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Accessed at: http://azstats.gov/laus-data-query-tool/ 4 Arizona Dept. of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics. Census Data and Population Estimates. Accessed at: https://population.az.gov/population-estimates 5 University of Arizona Analytics and Institutional Research, student data. Accessed at: http://uair.arizona.edu/student- 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.

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 A1. 2014 top 10 female ridership locations, by percentage. 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 345 337 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 275 265 Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP) Mabel St / Warren Ave 236 236 Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) 2nd St / Highland Ave 215 Helen St / Mountain Ave 181 162 6th St / James E Highland Ave Rogers Way / Pathway Figure A2. 2014 top 10 female ridership locations, by count.

Figure A3. 2014 percent female riders by location.

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 A4. 2014 top 10 locations with bicyclists under 18, by percentage. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 85 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 76 62 Rillito 6th St / Park Pathway / Ave Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) 57 57 Park Ave / University Blvd Park Ave / University Blvd 47 Congress St / Congress St / Toole Ave Granada Ave 38 36 33 1st St / Euclid Ave Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Figure A5. 2014 top 10 locations with bicyclists under 18, by count.

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 A6. 2014 top 10 locations with bicyclists over 65, by percentage. 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 146 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 82 68 Catalina Hwy La CañadaDr / Snyder Rd / Moore Rd 55 3rd St / Campbell Ave 43 42 42 Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP) Alvernon Way / Dodge Blvd Santa Cruz Pathway / El Camino del Cerro 36 Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd Figure A7. 2014 top 10 locations with bicyclists over 65, by count.

Figure A8. 2014 bicycle count age range percentages by location.

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 A9. 2014 top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by percentage. Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclists not wearing helmets 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 683 Park Ave / University Blvd 593 2nd St / 6th St / Highland Ave Highland Ave 536 521 501 483 Mabel St / Warren Ave Camino Campestre / Randolph Way (Reid Park SUP) 3rd St / Campbell Ave 445 Helen St / Mountain Ave 398 375 353 James E Rogers Way / Pathway Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) Figure A10. 2014 top 10 locations for non-helmet use, by count.

Figure A11. 2014 non-helmet wearing bicyclist percentage ranges by location.

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 A12. 2014 top 10 locations for helmet use, by percentage. 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 650 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 411 401 397 392 3rd St / Campbell Ave Park Ave / University Blvd Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) La CañadaDr / Moore Rd Figure A13. 2014 top 10 locations for helmet use, by count. 276 269 260 252 Blacklidge Dr / Mountain Ave Helen St / Mountain Ave Alvernon Santa Cruz Way / Dodge Pathway / St Blvd Mary's Rd

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 A14. 2014 top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by percentage. 1st St / Euclid Ave Pantano Pathway / Tanque Verde Rd 1st Ave / Limberlost Rd 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 59 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 27 25 23 Park Ave / Speedway Blvd Mabel St / Warren Ave Aviation Pathway / Bristol Ave 18 18 17 Grant Rd / Oracle Rd 6th St / Park Ave Santa Cruz Pathway / St Mary's Rd 14 14 22nd St / Kolb Rd 3rd St / Country Club Rd Figure A15. 2014 top 10 locations with wrong-way riding, by count.

Figure A16. 2014 percentage of wrong-way riders per count site.

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 A17. 2014 top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by percentage. Top 10 locations with the highest number of bicyclists riding on the sidewalk 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 62 53 6th St / 6th St / Highland Ave Fremont Ave 48 La Villita Rd / Rancho Sahuarita Blvd 44 42 5th St / Euclid Ave Park Ave / Speedway Blvd 31 29 28 27 25 6th St / Park Ave 22nd St / Columbus Blvd Grant Rd / Oracle Rd 6th St / Cherry Ave Mabel St / Warren Ave Figure A18. 2014 top 10 locations with sidewalk riders, by count.

Figure A19. 2014 percentage of sidewalk riders by count site.

Table A1. 2014 top 50 weekday bicycle count locations by total compared with 2013 totals. 2014 Total 2013 Total 2014 Rank Change (2014-2013) Percent Change ((2014 2013)/2013) Location Park Ave / University Blvd 1084 1143 1-59 -5% 3rd St / Campbell Ave 894 902 2-8 -1% 2nd St / Highland Ave 794 N/A 3 N/A N/A Rillito Pathway / Mountain Ave Bridge (both sides of pathway) 750 320 4 430 134% Helen St / Mountain Ave 714 779 5-65 -8% 6th St / Highland Ave 649 675 6-26 -4% 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 403 385 10 18 5% Stone Ave / University Blvd 374 292 11 82 28% 3rd St / Country Club Rd 347 361 12-14 -4% 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 263 146 16 117 80% Rillito Pathway / Oracle Rd 260 176 17 84 48% 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 185 108 21 77 71% 4th St / Tyndall Ave 184 N/A 22 N/A N/A Elm St / Tucson Blvd 178 189 23-11 -6% 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 148 180 27-32 -18% 7th Ave / 7th St 143 89 28 54 61% Speedway Blvd / Treat Ave 142 210 29-68 -32% 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 139 156 32-17 -11% Rillito Pathway / Childrens Memorial Park 135 N/A 33 N/A N/A 3rd St / Swan Rd 133 71 34 62 87% Santa Cruz Pathway / Commerce Dr 133 N/A 35 N/A N/A

Table A1. 2014 top 50 weekday bicycle count locations by total compared with 2013 totals (continued). 2014 Total 2013 Total 2014 Rank Change (2014-2013) Percent Change ((2014 2013)/2013) Location Columbus Blvd / Pima St 128 100 36 28 28% Congress St / Toole Ave 127 321 37-194 -60% Campbell Ave / Grant Rd 123 118 38 5 4% 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 115 128 41-13 -10% Granada Ave / St Marys Rd 109 N/A 42 N/A N/A Santa Cruz Pathway / Grant Rd 105 150 43-45 -30% 1st Ave / Tangerine Rd 102 94 44 8 9% La Cholla Blvd / River Rd 97 65 45 32 49% 6th St / 9th Ave 94 106 46-12 -11% 18th St / 6th Ave 92 73 47 19 26% Alvernon Way / Broadway Blvd 91 115 48-24 -21% Glenn St / Treat Ave 91 132 49-41 -31% Grant Rd / Oracle Rd 90 N/A 50 N/A N/A

Table A2. 2014 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 (2014-2013) Percent Change ((2014 2013)/2013) 1025 362 1 663 183% 529 12 2 517 4308% 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 326 307 6 19 6% Park Ave / University Blvd 288 N/A 7 N/A N/A Tangerine Rd / Twin Peaks Rd / Dove Mtn Blvd 247 172 8 75 44% 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 223 255 12-32 -13% 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 157 297 15-140 -47% 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 84 82 19 2 2% Congress St / Scott Ave 68 N/A 20 N/A N/A Oracle Rd / Rancho Vistoso Blvd 67 185 21-118 -64% 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 32 17 24 15 88% 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 19 158 28-139 -88% 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

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: 2008-2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012, 2011-2013, and 2012-2014. This approach was applied to the 39 core locations that have been included in the count since 2008. 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.

Appendix C Count Tally Sheet

Appendix D Count Reference Sheet