Understanding the Use of Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities

Abstract

Traffic counts and models for describing use of non-motorized facilities such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails are \ngenerally unavailable. Because transportation officials lack the data and tools needed to estimate use of facilities, \ntheir ability to make evidence-based choices among investment alternatives is limited. This report describes and \nassesses manual and automated methods of counting non-motorized traffic; summarizes counts of cyclists and \npedestrians in Minneapolis, Minnesota; develops scaling factors to describe temporal patterns in non-motorized \ntraffic volumes; validates models for estimating traffic using ordinary least squares and negative binomial \nregressions; and estimates bicycle and pedestrian traffic volumes for every street in Minneapolis. Research shows \nthat automated counters are sufficiently accurate for most purposes. Automated counter error rates vary as a \nfunction of type of technology and traffic mode and volume. Across all locations, mean pedestrian traffic (51/hour) \nexceeded mean bicycle traffic (38/hour) by 35 percent. One-hour counts were highly correlated with 12-hour \n"daily" counts. Significant correlates of non-motorized traffic vary by mode and include weather (temperature, \nprecipitation), neighborhood socio-demographics (household income, education), built environment characteristics \n(land use mix), and street (or bicycle facility) type. When controlling for these factors, bicycle traffic, but not \npedestrian traffic, increased over time and was higher on streets with bicycle facilities than without (and highest on \noff-street facilities). These new models can be used to estimate non-motorized traffic where counts are unavailable \nand to estimate changes associated with infrastructure improvements.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.