Growing numbers of public transportation and recreation agencies have implemented automated bicycle and pedestrian traffic monitoring programs. To support these initiatives, researchers and agency analysts have developed programs, methods, and measures to ensure data quality. These methods include statistical tests for identifying and flagging outliers and other invalid counts and procedures for imputing or managing missing and censored counts. Because statistics such as annual average daily bicyclists are used frequently in planning and engineering, analysts have focused on validation of daily counts using data from permanent monitors. Procedures for ensuring the validity of hourly counts have not been standardized. This paper presents quality assurance (QA) methods for hourly nonmotorized traffic counts at 115 short-duration and nine permanent monitoring sites on multiuse trails monitored by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) between 2016 and 2021. These methods include statistical tests for flagging and censoring invalid hourly counts and procedures for imputing estimates for censored or missing counts. Differences in traffic flow estimates with and without QA are documented, and hourly patterns and factors are presented. Use of quality assurance methods for hourly counts can increase the validity of estimates of nonmotorized traffic.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Office of Highway Policy Information. Traffic Monitoring for Non-motorized Traffic. In Traffic Monitoring Guide, US Department of Transportation, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2022, pp. 4-1–4-33.
2.
RyusP.FergusonE.LaustsenK. M.ProulxF. R.SchneiderR. J.HullT.Miranda-MorenoL.Methods and Technologies for Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection. NCHRP Web-Only Document, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2014a.
3.
RyusP.FergusonE.LaustsenK. M.ProulxF. R.SchneiderR. J.HullT.Miranda-MorenoL.Guidebook on Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2014b.
4.
ProulxF. R.SchneiderR. J.Miranda-MorenoL. F.Performance Evaluation and Correction Functions for Automated Pedestrian and Bicycle Counting Technologies. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 142, No. 3, 2016, p. 04016002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000828
TurnerS.LesleyP.Quality Counts for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Quality Assurance Procedures for Nonmotorized Traffic Count Data. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2013. 2339: 57–67. https://doi.org/10.3141/2339-07
7.
NordbackK.KothuriS.PetritschT.McLeodP.RoseE.TwaddellH.Exploring Pedestrian Counting Procedures: A Review and Compilation of Existing Procedures, Good Practices, and Recommendations. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2016.
8.
LuT.BuehlerR.MondscheinA.HankeyS.Designing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic Monitoring Program to Estimate Annual Average Daily Traffic in a Small Rural College Town. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 53, 2017, pp. 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.017
9.
JacksonK. N.O’BrienS. W.SearcyS. E.WarcholS. E.Quality Assurance and Quality Control Processes for a Large-Scale Bicycle and Pedestrian Volume Data Program. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017. 2644: 19–29. https://doi.org/10.3141/2644-03
10.
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Minnesota’s Walking and Bicycling Data Collection Report. Office of Transit and Active Travel, St. Paul, MN, 2018, p. 20.
11.
OhlmsP. B.DougaldL. E.MacKnightH. E.Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Programs: Scan of Current U.S. Practice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2019. 2673: 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119834924
12.
McNeilN.TufteK.Bike and Walking Quality Counts: Using Bike Ped Portal Count to Develop Data Quality Checks. NITC-RR-1026. Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC), Portland, OR, 2019. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/trec_reports/203/
13.
TurnerS.LasleyP.HudsonJ.BenzR.Guide for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Count Data Submittal. Federal Highway Administration and the Texas Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2019.
14.
RollJ.Nonmotorized Traffic Monitoring and Crash Analysis. FHWA-OR-RD-21-08 Prepared by Oregon Department of Transportation, Final Report, Project SPR 813. FWHA, Washington, D.C., 2021. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/56485
15.
KothuriS.BroachJ.McNeilN.HyunK.MattinglyS.MiahM.NordbackK.ProulxF.Exploring Data Fusion Techniques to Estimate Network-Wide Bicycle Volumes. NITC-RR-1269. Transportation Research and Eucation Center (TREC), Portland, OR, 2022.
16.
El EsaweyM. An Approach for Detecting Data Anomalies at Permanent Cycling Count Stations. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems, Vol. 149, No. 1, 2023, p. 04022129-1–04022129-10
17.
Miranda-MorenoL.NosalT.SchneiderR.ProulxF.Classification of Bicycle Traffic Patterns in Five North American Cities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2013. 2: 68–79. https://doi.org/10.3141/2339-08
18.
HankeyS.LindseyG.MarshallJ.Day-of-Year Scaling Factors and Design Considerations for Nonmotorized Traffic Monitoring Programs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2014. 2468: 64–73. https://doi.org/10.3141/2468-08
19.
BudowskiA. R.Developing Expansion Factors to Estimate Cyclist Seasonal Average Daily Traffic in Winnipeg, MB (Master's thesis). University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 2015, p. 110.
20.
EsaweyM. E.MosaA. I.Determination and Application of Standard K Factors for Bicycle Traffic. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2015. 2527: 58–68. https://doi.org/10.3141/2527-07
21.
LindseyG.PeteschM.HankeyS.The Minnesota Bicycle and Pedestrian Counting Initiative: Implementation Study. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN, 2015.
22.
BudowskiA.McLaughlinF.NordbackK.MontufarJ.Estimating Seasonal Average Daily Bicyclists Using 2-H Short Duration Counts. TRB 96th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2017, p. 18.
23.
NordbackK.KothuriS.JohnstoneD.LindseyG.RyanS.RawJ.Minimizing Annual Average Daily Nonmotorized Traffic Estimation Errors: How Many Counters are Needed Per Factor Group?Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2019. 2673: 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119848699
24.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Bicycle and Pedestrian Data: Sources, Needs, and Gaps. BTS00-02. USDOT, 2000.
25.
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Minnesota’s Walking and Bicycling Data Collection Report Update. Office of Transit and Active Travel, St. Paul, MN, 2021.
26.
RobinsonM.WascalusJ.Gozali-LeeE.2019 Minnesota State Trail Visitor Study. Minnestoa Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN, 2020, p. 51.
27.
LindseyG.TianY.PeteschM.ScottyS.Trends in Bicycling and Walking in Minnesota: A Multi-Year Perspective on the COVID Surge. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, Vol. 92, No. 2, 2022, pp. 44–50.
28.
HolmesT.KnightJ.NewmanD.WuX.Monitoring Use of Minnesota State Trails Considerations and Recommendations for Implementation (capstone project report). Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Minneapolis, MN, 2016.
