Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.

Browsing by Subject "Pedestrian counts"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Minnesota Bicycle and Pedestrian Counting Initiative: Methodologies for Non-motorized Traffic Monitoring
    (Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2013-10) Lindsey, Greg; Hankey, Steve; Wang, Xize; Chen, Junzhou
    The purpose of this project was to develop methodologies for monitoring non-motorized traffic in Minnesota. The project included an inventory of bicycle and pedestrian monitoring programs; development of guidance for manual, field counts; pilot field counts in 43 Minnesota communities; and analyses of automated, continuous-motorized counts from locations in Minneapolis. The analyses showed hourly, daily, and monthly patterns are comparable despite variation in volumes and that adjustment factors can be used to extrapolate short-term counts and estimate annual traffic. The project technical advisory panel made five recommendations: (1) MnDOT should continue and institutionalize coordination of annual statewide manual bicycle and pedestrian counts; (2) MnDOT should improve methods for reporting results of field counts and explore web-based programs for data reporting and analysis; (3) MnDOT should lead efforts to deploy and demonstrate the feasibility of new automated technologies for bicycle and pedestrian counting, focusing on new technologies not presently used in Minnesota; (4) MnDOT should begin integration of non-motorized traffic counts from existing automated, continuous counters in Minneapolis into its new databases for vehicular traffic monitoring data; and (5) MnDOT should work with local governments and explore institutional arrangements for (a) establishing a network of permanent, automated continuous monitoring sites across the state and (b) sharing and deploying new technologies for short-duration monitoring to generate traffic counts that provide a more comprehensive understanding of spatial variation in nonmotorized traffic volumes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Understanding the Use of Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities
    (Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2012-07) Lindsey, Greg; Hoff, Kristopher; Hankey, Steve; Wang, Xize
    Traffic counts and models for describing use of non-motorized facilities such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails are generally unavailable. Because transportation officials lack the data and tools needed to estimate use of facilities, their ability to make evidence-based choices among investment alternatives is limited. This report describes and assesses manual and automated methods of counting non-motorized traffic; summarizes counts of cyclists and pedestrians in Minneapolis, Minnesota; develops scaling factors to describe temporal patterns in non-motorized traffic volumes; validates models for estimating traffic using ordinary least squares and negative binomial regressions; and estimates bicycle and pedestrian traffic volumes for every street in Minneapolis. Research shows that automated counters are sufficiently accurate for most purposes. Automated counter error rates vary as a function of type of technology and traffic mode and volume. Across all locations, mean pedestrian traffic (51/hour) exceeded mean bicycle traffic (38/hour) by 35 percent. One-hour counts were highly correlated with 12-hour "daily" counts. Significant correlates of non-motorized traffic vary by mode and include weather (temperature, precipitation), neighborhood socio-demographics (household income, education), built environment characteristics (land use mix), and street (or bicycle facility) type. When controlling for these factors, bicycle traffic, but not pedestrian traffic, increased over time and was higher on streets with bicycle facilities than without (and highest on off-street facilities). These new models can be used to estimate non-motorized traffic where counts are unavailable and to estimate changes associated with infrastructure improvements.