Cities around the United States are investing in bicycle infrastructure, and to secure additional transportation funding, cities are reporting bicycle use and safety improvements. Data on bicyclist traffic volume is necessary for performing safety studies and reporting facility use. Meeting the need for data, available manual bicycle counting programs count cyclists for a few hours per year at designated locations. A key issue in the design of counting programs is determining the timing and frequency of counts needed to obtain a reliable estimate of annual average daily bicyclists (AADB). In particular, in which days of the week, hours of the day, and months of the year should counts be collected? And, most important to program cost, how many hours should be counted? This study used continuous bicycle counts from Boulder, Colorado, to estimate AADB and analyze the estimation errors that would be expected from various bicycle-counting scenarios. AADB average estimation errors were found to range from 15% with 4 weeks of continuous count data to 54% when only 1 h of data was collected per year. The study found that the most cost-effective length for short-term bicycle counts is one full week when automated counting devices specifically calibrated for bicycle counting are used. Seasons with higher bicycle volumes have less variation in bicycle counts and thus more accurate estimates.

No abstract

Accurate estimates of bicycle and pedestrian volume inform safety studies, trend monitoring, and infrastructure improvements. The Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Monitoring Guide advises current practice for estimation of nonmotorized traffic. While methodologies have been developed to minimize error in estimation of annual average daily nonmotorized traffic (AADNT), challenges persist. This study provides new guidance for monitoring and volume estimation of nonmotorized traffic. Using continuous count data from 102 sites across six cities, the findings confirm that mean absolute percent error (MAPE) in estimated AADNT is minimized when seven-day short duration counts are collected in June through September and for 24-h counts, when data are collected Tuesdays through Thursdays (except for pedestrian-only counts). MAPE across all days (except holidays) and seasons was 34% for 24-h and 20–22% for seven-day short duration counts. The magnitude of bicycle and pedestrian volumes did not significantly affect estimation errors. For factor groups larger than one counter, the length of short duration samples may influence accuracy of AADNT estimates more than the number of counters per group, all else equal. To maximize precision of estimates of AADNT, four or more counters per factor group for bicycle and five or more for pedestrian travel monitoring are recommended. These findings provide guidance for practitioners seeking to establish or improve nonmotorized traffic monitoring programs.

Transportation agencies' motor vehicle count programs tend to be well established and robust with clear guidelines to collect short-term count data, to analyze data, develop annual average daily traffic (AADT) adjustment factors, and to estimate AADT volumes. In contrast, bicycle and pedestrian traffic monitoring is an area of work for most transportation agencies. In most agencies, there are a low numbers of counting sites and limited agency experience to manage a city-wide or state-wide system of collecting, processing, and using nonmotorized data. Short duration counts are used to estimate longer duration volumes such as AADT. Because bicycle or pedestrian shortterm counts vary dramatically over time and significantly more than motorized vehicle counts, the direct application of motorized vehicle AADT estimation methods may be inadequate. The goal of this paper is to present a methodology that will enhance, if needed, existing AADT estimation methods widely employed for motorized vehicle counts. The proposed methodology is based on the analysis of AADT estimation errors using regression models to estimate a correcting function that accounts for weather and activity factors. The methodology can be applied to any type of traffic with high volume variability but in this research is applied to a permanent bicycle counting station in Portland, Oregon. The results indicate that the proposed methodology is simple and useful for finding ideal short-term counting conditions and improving AADT estimation accuracy.

Quantifying bicycle use is fundamental to understanding bicycle travel. Methods of counting bicycles vary from limited-time, manual counts to permanent overhead imaging sensors. One common permanent counting method uses inductive loops embedded in the pavement to count cyclists on paths. Although inductive loop detectors have been found to be a highly accurate method of counting bicycles under ideal test conditions, their accuracy after years of use has not been systematically studied. This study focuses on bicycle counts collected by the City of Boulder, Colorado, since 1998, on multiuse paths with inductive loop detectors. To estimate the accuracy of the devices in use, two individuals manually counted path users at six locations. On average, the loop detectors counted 4% fewer bicycles than the manual counters at the same locations. Of the 22 detector channels with sufficient counts to judge their accuracy, roughly 68% were considered accurate. The most dramatic inaccuracies were caused primarily by detector settings and software-related problems. This study found that inductive loop detectors can provide accurate measures of bicycle use on a pathway, but only when detectors are properly installed, calibrated, maintained, and free of external interference.