How To Do Your Own Pedestrian Count

1.40%

W Th F Sa Su

Percent of Weekly Pedestrian Volume per Hour

1.20%

1.00%

0.80%

0.60%

0.40%

0.20%

8 PM

4 PM

8 A M

12 PM

8 PM

4 A M

4 PM

12 A M

8 A M

12 PM

8 PM

4 A M

4 PM

12 A M

8 A M

12 PM

8 PM

4 A M

4 PM

12 A M

8 A M

12 PM

8 PM

4 A M

4 PM

12 A M

8 A M

12 PM

8 PM

4 A M

4 PM

12 A M

8 A M

12 PM

8 PM

4 A M

4 PM

12 A M

8 A M

4 A M

12 PM

12 A M

0.00%

Dr. Robert Schneider, UC Berkeley SafeTREC

Pedestrians Count! 2012Los Angeles, CA

Why Collect Pedestrian Volume Data?

Answer Practical Questions

Will more people walk?

Can we make it safer?

Why are there higher pedestrian

volumes in some locations and lower
volumes in others?

How many people use non-motorized

facilities after they are constructed?

Where do pedestrian crashes occur?

Where is the greatest risk?

Institutional Purposes

Use Data for Pedestrian Planning

Institutionalize Pedestrian & Bicycle Data

A multimodal transportation system requires collecting
data for all modes of transportation

Mainline
Traffic
Volume

X-Street
Traffic
Volume

Institutionalize Pedestrian & Bicycle Data

A multimodal transportation system requires collecting
data for all modes of transportation
Establish baseline for pedestrian & bicycle safety,
infrastructure, volumes, etc.
We need these data fields!
Mainline
Traffic
Volume

X-Street
Traffic
Volume

Mainline

X-Street

Pedestrian

Pedestrian

Volume

Volume

Types of Pedestrian & Bicycle Data

Safety

(Crashes, injuries,
behaviors)

User

Characteristics
(Age, gender)

Exposure/
Volume

(Counts, mode
share)

Public
Opinion

(Satisfaction,
desires)

Infrastructure
(Facility coverage
& quality)

Two Main Sources of Volume Data

Surveys
Pedestrian & Bicycle Counts

Volume Data Collection Methods

Safety

(Crashes, injuries,
behaviors)

User

Characteristics
(Age, gender)

Surveys

Exposure/
Volume

(Counts, mode
share)

Public
Opinion

(Satisfaction,
desires)

Counts

Infrastructure
(Facility coverage
& quality)

Types of Pedestrian & Bicycle Surveys

Safety

(Crashes, injuries,
behaviors)

User

Characteristics
(Age, gender)

(Counts, mode
share)

Surveys

Household
(Phone, mail,
internet)

Exposure/
Volume

Intercept

Public
Opinion

(Satisfaction,
desires)

Counts

Infrastructure
(Facility coverage
& quality)

Survey Data

National Household Travel Survey (NHTS)

US Census/American Community Survey
Regional household travel surveys
Intercept surveys

United States Pedestrian & Bicycle Mode Share (1977-2009 NHTS)

30%

Walk
25%

Bicycle
20%

15%

11.0%

10%

9.3%
8.7%

8.5%
7.2%
5.5%

5%

0.7%

0.8%

0.7%

0.9%

0.8%

1.0%

0%
1977

1983

1990

1995

2001

2009

Note: National Household Travel Survey added question to prompt for forgotten walking trips in 2001

Pedestrian
Bicycle
8%
1%
Transit
2%

U.S. Shopping Trip

Mode Share (2009)
(Home-Based Shopping Trips)
Source: Federal Highway Administration,
National Household Travel Survey, 2009.

Automobile
89%

Hayward

Types of Pedestrian & Bicycle Counts

Safety

(Crashes, injuries,
behaviors)

User

Characteristics
(Age, gender)

(Phone, mail,
internet)

Infrastructure

(Counts, mode
share)

Surveys

Household

Exposure/
Volume

Intercept

(Facility coverage
& quality)

Public
Opinion

(Satisfaction,
desires)

Counts

Manual

(Intersection,
segment)

Automated

(Loops, infrared)

Pedestrian and Bicycle Counting Tips

Manual counts
Automated count technologies

Overall advice: Count with a purpose

IdenBfy possible uses of count data before starBng
Possible purposes:
Track trends in walking & bicycling over Bme
Evaluate crash risk at specic locaBons
Show the eect of specic projects/programs on use or
safety (before and aNer studies)
Demonstrate that there are many people walking and
bicycling
Develop pedestrian or bicycle volume models

Several Dierent Ways to Count

Intersec)on
Where two roadways cross

Screenline or Segment
Along sidewalk/roadway segment
NaBonal DocumentaBon Project

Mid-block
Crossing in the middle of the block, away from the intersecBon

Example

Google EarthTele Atlas 2008

Example
Pedestrian Midblock Crossing Counts

Google EarthTele Atlas 2008

Example
Pedestrian Segment/Screenline Counts

Google EarthTele Atlas 2008

Example
Pedestrian Intersection Crossing Counts

Google EarthTele Atlas 2008

Example
Pedestrian Intersection Crossing Counts

Google EarthTele Atlas 2008

Example
Bicyclist Intersection Turning Counts

Straight

Left
Right

Google EarthTele Atlas 2008

Example
Bicyclist Intersection Turning Counts

Right
Left

Straight

Google EarthTele Atlas 2008

Manual Counts

Tip 1: Train the Data Collectors

Why do we need training?

...It s just counBng people
walking and bicycling!

We Need Consistent, Reliable Counts

Accuracy is most important.
Counts will be used by transportaBon & planning
agencies, advocates, researchers.
Coun)ng is easy.
Coun)ng accurately & consistently is the
challenge.
Data collectors get beZer with experience.

QuesBons in Data Collectors Minds

Eliminate them.
Who is a pedestrian?
Baby in Dad s arms? Skateboarder? Person walking a
bike?

Who is a bicyclist?
Moped rider? Person walking a bike?

When does a pedestrian get counted?

Jaywalking? Turning right around the corner?

When does a bicyclist get counted?

Riding on sidewalk? Turning right around the corner?

Tip 2: Choose a Good Count Form

(or recording device)

Pedestrian IntersecBon Count Form

Pedestrian IntersecBon Count Form

National Documentation Project Screenline Count Form

Tip 3: IdenBfy locaBons that need more than

one data collector in advance

When do you need more than one data collector?

Rule of thumb: 400-500 pedestrians per hour is
upper limit of single data collector for intersecBons
Greater mix of pedestrians & bicyclists requires
more aZenBon/more data collectors

Tip 4: PrioriBze data items so that most

important informaBon is collected
EssenBal

Important
OpBonal

Possible Data Priority Ranking

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Count of pedestrians
Count of bicyclists
Gender
Helmet Use
Pedestrian Crossing DirecBon
Bicyclist Turning Movement

Other ConsideraBons

Where should you count?

Alameda County Example

Most are in Countywide Ped & Bike Plans

In neighborhoods with a range of incomes
18 locations within -mile of a school
6 locations within -mile of BART
Range of traffic volumes
About of intersections have:
Median islands
Less than four lanes on mainline approaches
No traffic signals

When are good time periods for counting?

Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday
4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
5 p.m. to 7 p.m. (National Documentation Project)
2 p.m. to 4 p.m. near schools

Saturday
9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
12 p.m. to 2 p.m.
3 p.m. to 5 p.m.

Automated Counts
Telegraph Ave. Southbound Bicycle Loop Counts , Feb. to Nov. 2009
600

February March April May June July August

September October Nov

Bicycles per day c ounted by bicycle loop in southbound bicycle lane

500

400

300

200

100

Tip 1: Understand the type of data that the

automated counter will provide

Typical Alameda County Pedestrian AcBvity PaZern (13 sites)

1.40%

W Th F Sa Su

1.00%

0.80%

0.60%

0.40%

0.20%

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

8 A M

12 PM

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

0.00%

12 A M

Percent of Weekly Pedestrian Volume per Hour

1.20%

Tip 2: Review raw data and correct anomalies

Tip 3: Understand and correct for undercounBng

Automated C ounts vs. Manual C ounts (15-minute periods)

800

700

Manual Count (15-minute period)

600

Manual =
Automated
Line

500

Valida&on counts taken

in Alameda County and
San Francisco, CA.
Included loca&ons with
dierent sidewalk
widths, temperature,
precipita&on.

400

300

200

100

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Automated Count (15-minute period)

700

800

Automated C ount to Manual C ount C onversion Function

800

Conversion
Function

700

Manual Count (15-minute period)

600

Manual =
Automated
Line

500

Undercoun&ng is likely
to depend on the width
and design of the
sidewalk in addi&on to
the volume of
pedestrians. However,
this is an early aCempt
to develop a general
conversion func&on.

For Automated
Counts > 4 9:
y = 0.393x1.2672

400

For Automated
Counts < 4 9:
y = 1.1x

300

200

100

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Automated Count (15-minute period)

700

800

Tip 4: Use data to develop adjustment

(extrapolaBon) factors
Time of day, day of week,
season of year
Land use
Weather

Typical Alameda County Pedestrian AcBvity PaZern (13 sites)

1.40%

W Th F Sa Su

1.00%

0.80%

0.60%

0.40%

0.20%

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

8 A M

12 PM

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

0.00%

12 A M

Percent of Weekly Pedestrian Volume per Hour

1.20%

Typical Alameda County Pedestrian AcBvity PaZern (13 sites)

1.40%

W Th F Sa Su

1.00%

0.80%

0.60%

2-hour count
period

0.40%

0.20%

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

8 A M

12 PM

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

0.00%

12 A M

Percent of Weekly Pedestrian Volume per Hour

1.20%

Challenges to Collecting
Pedestrian & Bicycle Data
Limited funding and staff time
Concerns about unwanted results
Limited agency capacity for data
collection, in general
Difficulty with data collection
departments

2-Hour Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts

Mainline Roadway

Intersec)ng Roadway

Weekday
Ped Count

Saturday Ped
Count

Weekday Bike
Count

Saturday Bike
Count

Mission Boulevard Torrano Avenue

16

28

Davis Street

28

33

29

20

Mission Boulevard Jeerson Street

171

27

12

University Avenue Bonar Street

InternaBonal
Boulevard
107th Avenue

229

225

40

25

89

69

14

11

Pierce Avenue

Foothill Boulevard D Street

San Pablo Avenue

Harrison Street

99

114

38

43

East 14th Street

InternaBonal
Boulevard

Hesperian Boulevard

78

69

34

46th Avenue

287

286

53

63

Solano Avenue

Masonic Avenue

514

397

150

127

Broadway

12th Street

3577

1374

63

47

Pedestrian Crash Analysis

Mainline
Roadway

Intersec)ng
Roadway

Reported
Pedestrian
Crashes
(1996-2005)

Mission
Boulevard

Torrano
Avenue

Davis Street
Foothill
Boulevard
Mission
Boulevard
University
Avenue
InternaBonal
Boulevard
San Pablo
Avenue
East 14th
Street
InternaBonal
Boulevard

Pierce Avenue

D Street
Jeerson
Street

Bonar Street

107th Avenue

Harrison Street
Hasperian
Boulevard

46th Avenue
Masonic
Solano Avenue Avenue

Broadway

12th Street

Pedestrian RISK Analysis

Mainline
Roadway

Intersec)ng
Roadway

Es)mated Total
Weekly
Pedestrian
Crossings

Annual
Pedestrian
Volume
Es)mate

Ten-Year
Pedestrian
Volume
Es)mate

Reported
Pedestrian
Crashes
(1996-2005)

Pedestrian Risk
(Crashes per
10,000,000
crossings)

Mission
Boulevard

Torrano
Avenue

1,169 60,796 607,964

82.24

Davis Street
Foothill
Boulevard
Mission
Boulevard
University
Avenue
InternaBonal
Boulevard
San Pablo
Avenue
East 14th
Street
InternaBonal
Boulevard

Pierce Avenue

1,570 81,619 816,187

49.01

D Street
Jeerson
Street

632 32,862 328,624

30.43

5,236 272,246 2,722,464

18.37

Bonar Street

11,175 581,113 5,811,127

12.05

107th Avenue

3,985 207,243 2,072,429

9.65

Harrison Street
Hasperian
Boulevard

4,930 256,357 2,563,572

7.80

3,777 196,410 1,964,102

5.09

12,303 639,752 6,397,522

4.69

22,203 1,154,559 11,545,589

1.73

0.85

46th Avenue
Masonic
Solano Avenue Avenue
Broadway

12th Street

112,896

5,870,590

58,705,898

Example: 2012 Benchmarking Report

Communities Seek to Increase Walking & Bicycling

USDOT 1994: Increase mode share from 7.9% to 15.8%

35 states have published goals to increase walking
35 states have published goals to increase bicycling
36 of 51 largest cities have goals to increase walking
47 of 51 largest cities have goals to increase bicycling
26 states and more than 250 local & regional agencies
have established Complete Streets policies

City of Portland, OR. Bicycle Counts Report 2011.

City of Portland, OR. Bicycle Counts Report 2011.

City of Portland, OR. Bicycle Counts Report 2011.

Seattle Bicycle Counts

Source: City of Seattle, Bicycle Count Report, 2009

Source: New York City DOT

San Francisco

Source: City of San Francisco MTA, 2011 Bicycle Count Report, December 2011

Communities with Pedestrian

Volume Trend Data?

Alameda County Pedestrian Count Trends

Weekday 4-6 p.m. counts at selected locations

Source: Alameda County Transportation Commission, Manual Pedestrian and Bicycle Count
Report for Alameda County, 2002 to 2010, June 2011

Alameda County Pedestrian Count Trends

Weekday 3-4 p.m. counts at selected locations near schools

Source: Alameda County Transportation Commission, Manual Pedestrian and Bicycle Count
Report for Alameda County, 2002 to 2010, June 2011

Minneapolis Pedestrian Count Trends

Source: City of Minneapolis Pedestrian & Bicycle Count Report, 2011

Minneapolis EsBmated Daily

Total Bicycle Volumes

Source: City of Minneapolis Pedestrian & Bicycle

Count Report, 2011

Minneapolis EsBmated Daily

Total Pedestrian Volumes

Source: City of Minneapolis Pedestrian & Bicycle

Count Report, 2011

Minneapolis Screenline Count Mode Shares

Source: City of Minneapolis Pedestrian & Bicycle Count Report, 2010

Intersection Counting Exercise

E. Caesar Chavez Avenue & N. Vignes Street

Questions & Discussion

Dr. Robert J. Schneider

UC Berkeley Safe TransportaBon Research & EducaBon Center
rschneider@berkeley.edu

Preliminary Pedestrian Crash Analysis

Typical Pedestrian AcBvity PaZern vs. Employment Centers

1.40%

W Th F Sa Su

1.00%

0.80%

0.60%

0.40%

0.20%

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

8 A M

12 PM

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

12 A M

8 PM

4 PM

12 PM

8 A M

4 A M

0.00%

12 A M

Percent of Weekly Pedestrian Volume per Hour

1.20%

Typical Pedestrian AcBvity PaZern vs. Employment Centers

1.40%

W Th F Sa Su

1.20%

0.80%

0.60%

0.40%

0.20%

0.00%

12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM

Percent of Weekly Volume per Hour

1.00%

Typical Pedestrian AcBvity PaZern vs. Employment Centers

1.40%

W Th F Sa Su
Employment Centers
12 to 2 p.m., Wednesday =

1.20%

2.63% of total
weekly volume

0.80%

0.60%

Composite of 13 Locations
12 to 2 p.m., Wednesday=

2.16% of total
weekly volume
0.40%

0.20%

0.00%

12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM
12 A M
4 A M
8 A M
12 PM
4 PM
8 PM

Percent of Weekly Volume per Hour

1.00%

Land Use Adjustment Factors

(Example: Alameda County, CA)

Counts taken at locaBons with specic types of land uses were mulBplied by these factors to
match counts taken at typical Alameda County LocaBons
Count Times when Adjustment Factors were Applied
Land Use Category Definition
Employment
Center

>=2,000 j obs within 0.25 miles (402 m) 4

Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Saturday Saturday Saturday

12-2 p.m. 2-4 p.m. 3-5 p.m. 4-6 p.m. 9-11 a .m. 12-2 p.m. 3-5 p.m.

0.83

0.97

0.99

0.99

1.16

1.00

1.07

1.37

0.96

0.90

0.98

0.86

1.14

1.12

>=10 c ommercial r etail properties within 0.1 miles

Neighborhood
Commercial Area (161 m)5

0.92

1.00

1.00

0.97

1.04

0.77

0.78

Near Multi-Use
Trail

1.63

0.79

0.72

0.91

0.69

1.31

1.07

0.94

0.77

0.82

1.07

1.20

1.23

1.37

>=500 j obs within 0.25 miles (402 m) 4 & no

Residential Area

commercial r etail properties within 0.1 miles (161 m) 5

>=0.5 c enterline miles of multi-use trails within 0.25

miles (402 m)6
>=1 elementary, middle, or high s chool within 0.25

Near School

miles (402 m)5

Weather Adjustment Factors

(Example: Alameda County, CA)

Counts taken under certain weather condiBons were mulBplied by these factors to match
counts taken during typical Alameda County weather condiBons
Count Times when Adjustment Factors were Applied
Weather
Condition

Definition

Weekday
12-6 p.m.

Saturday
9 a .m.-5 p.m.

1.07

1.12

1.10

1.06

1.11

1.11

1.27

1.34

>=80 degrees Fahrenheit (27 degrees Celsius) during

Warm

first c ount hour 7

<=50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) during

Cool

first c ount hour 7

<= 0.6 of the expected s olar r adiation (Langleys per

Cloudy

day) during first c ount hour 7,8

>=0.01 i nch (0.254 mm) of precipitation during either

Rain

count hour 7

Count Times when Adjustment Factors were Applied

Weather
Condition

Weekday
12-6 p.m.

Definition

Saturday
9 a .m.-5 p.m.

Seasonal Adjustment Factors

>=80 degrees Fahrenheit (27 degrees Celsius) during

Warm

first c ount hour 7

1.07

1.12

<=50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) during

Cool

first c ount hour 7

(Example: Alameda County, 1.10

CA)

1.06

<= 0.6 of the expected s olar r adiation (Langleys per

Cloudy

day) during first c ount hour 7,8

1.11

1.11

1.27

1.34

>=0.01 i nch (0.254 mm) of precipitation during either

Rain

count hour 7

Counts
taken during the spring were mulBplied by these factors to match counts taken in
Seasonal Adjustment Factors (Counts taken from April through June were multiplied by these factors to match counts taken
Alameda
County during a typical Bme of 3 the year
in Alameda County during a typical time of the year)
Count Times when Adjustment Factors were Applied
Land Use Category Definition
Employment
Center

All Time Periods

>=2,000 j obs within 0.25 miles (402 m) 4

0.98

>=500 j obs within 0.25 miles (402 m) & no

Residential Area

commercial r etail properties within 0.1 miles (161 m) 5

Neighborhood
Commercial Area

>=10 c ommercial r etail properties within 0.1 miles

Near Multi-Use
Trail

>=0.5 c enterline miles of multi-use trails within 0.25

(161 m)5
miles (402 m)6

0.97
0.98
0.91

>=1 elementary, middle, or high s chool within 0.25

Near School

miles (402 m)5

0.93

1) L and use a djustment factors based on hourly a utomated s ensor c ounts taken a t 1 3 l ocations i n Alameda County between April 2 008 a nd J une 2 009.
2) Weather a djustment factors based on hourly a utomated s ensor c ounts taken a t 1 3 l ocations i n Alameda County between April 2 008 a nd J une 2 009.
3) Employment c enter, residential a rea, neighborhood c ommercial a rea, a nd multi-use trail s easonal a djustment factors based on hourly a utomated s ensor c ounts taken a t 1 3
locations i n Alameda County from April 2 008 to J une 2 009. School s easonal a djustment factor based on hourly a utomated s ensor c ounts taken a t 3 l ocations i n Alameda County from
May 2 009 to J une 2 009.
4) Source = Traffic Analysis Zones from San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2 005
5) Source = L and Use Parcels from Alameda County Tax Assessor's Office, 2 007
6) Source = Bay Area Multi-Use Trail Centerlines from San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2 007
7) Source = California Irrigation Management Information System, 2 008-2 009 (Mills College, Union City, a nd Pleasanton weather s tations).
8) Solar radiation measurements from the previous 4 to 1 0 years a t e ach of the three Alameda County weather s tations were used to c alculate the e xpected s olar radiation
measurement for e very hour of the year. The weather c ondition was determined to be "cloudy" i f the ratio of the c urrent measurement was <= 0 .6 of the e xpected s olar radiation for
that s pecfic hour. The threshhold was s et a t 0 .6 to match a s c losely a s possible to field data c ollectors' s ubjective determinations of when the weather was "cloudy".

Seasonal Adjustment Factors

(Example: NaBonal DocumentaBon Project)

Each month has a dierent proporBon of the total annual pedestrian or bicycle volume