4.4 Article

Pilot Models for Estimating Bicycle Intersection Volumes

期刊

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD
卷 -, 期 2247, 页码 1-7

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.3141/2247-01

关键词

-

资金

  1. California Department of Transportation
  2. Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bicycle volume data are useful for practitioners and researchers to understand safety, travel behavior, and development impacts. Several simple models of bicycle intersection volumes were developed for Alameda County, California. The models were based on 2-h bicycle counts performed at a sample of 81 intersections in the spring of 2008 and 2009. Study sites represented areas with a wide range of population density, employment density, proximity to commercial property, neighborhood income, and street network characteristics. The explanatory variables considered for the models included intersection site, land use, transportation system, and socioeconomic characteristics of the areas surrounding each intersection. Four alternative models were developed with adjusted R(2) values ranging from .39 to .60. The models showed that bicycle volumes tended to be higher at intersections surrounded by more commercial retail properties within 1/10 mi, closer to a major university, with a marked bicycle facility on at least one leg of the intersection, surrounded by less hilly terrain within 1/2 mi, or surrounded by a more connected roadway network. The models also showed several important differences between weekday and weekend intersection volumes. The positive association between bicycle volume and proximity to retail properties or a large university was greater on weekdays than on weekends, whereas bicycle facilities had a stronger positive association and hilly terrain had a weaker negative association with bicycle volume on weekends than on weekdays. The study found that further testing and refinement was necessary before accurate count predictions could be made in Alameda County or other communities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据