NE/SE 20s Bikeway Project

NE/SE 20s BIKEWAY PROJECT 28th Avenue between NE Brazee and NE Glisan Conducted by

Lisa Harrison Julia Metz Darwin Moosavi Mike Sellinger Jeremy Young

November

2012

Portland State University | USP 533 | Professor: Lisa Bates

Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................ 1 Findings for NE 28th Avenue between Brazee and Glisan.................................................................................1 Segment......................................................................................................................................................... 2 NE Tillamook Street & NE 28th Avenue............................................................................................................. 2 NE Wasco Street & NE 28th Avenue.................................................................................................................. 3 NE Oregon Street & NE 28th Avenue................................................................................................................ 3 Users and Uses............................................................................................................................................... 4 Equity............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Segment............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Proposed 20s Bikeway....................................................................................................................................... 7 Safety and Parking Concerns........................................................................................................................... 7 Impacts of On-Street Parking on Bicycle Safety................................................................................................. 7 Failure to Stop at Stop Signs.............................................................................................................................. 8 Need for Additional Safety Studies.................................................................................................................... 8 What’s Next................................................................................................................................................... 9 Summary and Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix A: Bicycle Count Findings................................................................................................................A Methodology................................................................................................................................................. A-2 Maps.............................................................................................................................................................. A-3 Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings................................................................................................ B Methodology................................................................................................................................................. B-2 Reliability Concerns....................................................................................................................................... B-2 Validity Concerns........................................................................................................................................... B-3 Bicycle Intercept Survey................................................................................................................................ B-4 Findings......................................................................................................................................................... B-9 Appendix C: Interview Summaries.................................................................................................................. C Appendix D: Forms.........................................................................................................................................D

Executive Summary The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) has proposed a bikeway that runs north-south on the east side of Portland along “the 20s.” When completed the Twenties Bikeway will be a 9.2-mile corridor, providing a designated north-south bike route that currently does not exist in or near the area.

This report presents the observations and findings from data collected along Northeast 28th Avenue from Northeast Brazee Street south to Northeast Glisan Street. If constructed as currently proposed, striped bike lanes would be placed on NE 28th Avenue between Glisan Street and Broadway.

North of Broadway would be a bike boulevard.

Bicycle counts, intercept surveys of cyclists, safety observations, and potential stakeholder interviews were conducted in the area between October 7th and November 25th, 2012. Counts and safety observations were conducted at three intersections along 28th at Oregon, Wasco, and Tillamook.

Findings for NE 28th Avenue between Brazee and Glisan: • Over 2,000 cyclists were counted on this segment during 24 hours of bicycle counts (over 80 cyclists per hour on average) • At three intersections that counts were conducted at, each had at least 500 cyclists during the 24 hours of counts.

• 78 percent of the cyclists were observed wearing a helmet.

• Of the cyclists counted, 40 percent were female, 60 percent were male.

• 87 percent of cyclists were observed using the proposed northsouth route during bicycle counts.

• Of the cyclists counted, 28 percent were counted during weekday morning rush, 32 percent during weekday evening rush, and 40 percent over two separate midday weekend counts.

• Cyclists surveyed were coming to and from all quadrants of the city – indicating use of the proposed route by cyclists beyond just those that live/work adjacent to the route.

The NE/SE 20s Proposed Bikeway connects inner East Portland’s bikeway network. (North-South)

• Two-thirds of cyclists surveyed were commuting to or from work.

• 46 percent preferred 28th to cross I-84, of these cyclists, 75 percent preferred it for safety reasons, 19 percent for directness.

NE 28th Avenue: NE Brazee to NE Glisan | 1

Lisa Harrison

• Parked cars caused safety issues at all three intersections during safety observation.

• Youth, families, and cyclists that appeared to be new/unsure were observed favoring the sidewalk over the street when riding in areas with parked cars.

• Currently little to no bicycle or safety signage along the segment.

Based on these observations and data, it is clear that cyclists already use this segment throughout the week. Northeast 28th is considered to be a good option for cyclists crossing I-84 for both safety and directness. However, there are safety concerns along the segment, particularly related to street parking along Northeast 28th Avenue.

Overall, this segment seems to be a strong option for a connector route for Portland cyclists.

Segment

Tillamook and 28th

Lisa Harrison

The segment analyzed in this report stretches from NE Brazee St. along 28th Ave, south to NE Glisan St. and 28th Ave. This segment has a wide range of land uses, with commercial, residential, and industrial all found close to the segment. There are also numerous schools and parks located on the segment. For purposes of this report, three intersections were selected along this one-mile stretch of NE 28th Avenue to undergo further analysis. These intersections were selected for analysis due to a variety of different circumstances, and they are mostly evenly distributed along the one-mile stretch of NE 28th Avenue.

All three of these intersections were examined throughout the project through various data collection methods.

Corner of NE Tillamook and NE 28th Avenue

Lisa Harrison

The first intersection selected for analysis is located at NE Tillamook Street and NE 28th Avenue. This four-way intersection is located in a medium-to-low density residential neighborhood comprised of larger, middle-to-upper class homes. Parking on the street along NE 28th Avenue is minimal due to the abundance of homes containing private driveways. Among the primary considerations for selecting this intersection were the low volume of motor vehicle traffic and its location on an existing bicycle thoroughfare recognized by PBOT; the east-to-west running Tillamook Street Bike Boulevard. Bicyclists and motorists are alerted to the presence of the Tillamook Street Bike Boulevard by bicycle wayfinding signs as they approach NE Tillamook Street traveling north or south on NE 28th Avenue.

Curve on NE 28th Avenue just south of NE Broadway

2 | NE/SE 20s Bikeway Project

Jeremy Young

Looking west towards Wasco Street on NE 28th Avenue

View of I-84 Crossing on 28th Avenue from Wasco Street

Lisa Harrison

The second intersection selected for analysis along NE 28th Avenue is located where NE 28th Avenue meets NE Wasco Street. This intersection is somewhat unique in that motor vehicles may only enter NE Wasco Street via NE 28th Avenue if they are traveling east.

This eastward extension of NE Wasco Street provides access to several healthcare services and a Fred Meyer supermarket. Only pedestrians and bicycles have westward access to a residential neighborhood along NE Wasco Street, and motor vehicle access is restricted by concrete bollards and a sidewalk. Among the primary considerations for selecting the NE 28th Avenue/NE Wasco Street intersection for analysis was its mix of uses in areas adjacent to the intersection, as well as its very close proximity to the NE 28th Avenue-Interstate 84 overpass, just one block to the south. In addition, the residential portion of NE Wasco Street which provides only pedestrian and bicycle access is the entrance to a PBOT-proposed alternate path which would guide northbound cyclists to NE 26th Avenue so as to place them on a stretch of roadway with fewer jogs, fewer motor vehicle traffic, and less vehicles parked along the street.

Lisa Harrison

Wasco and 28th

Oregon and 28th

NE 28th Avenue looking north towards Sandy Boulevard

Jeremy Young

The third and final intersection selected for analysis is located south of I-84 and NE Sandy Boulevard. This three-way intersection, located at NE 28th Avenue and NE Oregon Street, is situated along a mixed use corridor. Due to numerous commercial districts running perpendicular to this corridor, the demand for on-street parking is quite high. The primary considerations for selecting this intersection were the potential conflict between motor vehicles and bicycles as a result of the high number of motor vehicles parked along the street; connectivity to points north and south of the I-84 overpass; and the close proximity to major east-west corridors such as NE Sandy Boulevard and NE Glisan Street and their associated commercial districts. An additional consideration when selecting the NE 28th Avenue/NE Oregon Street intersection was the close proximity to Oregon Park at NE Oregon Street and NE 29th Avenue.

Intersection of NE 28th Avenue & Oregon St; Oregon Park in distance

NE 28th Avenue: NE Brazee to NE Glisan | 3

Users and Uses A wide variety of users were observed throughout the segment including children, families, young, and old riders over the course of the various data collections and observations. The age range of surveyed individuals ranged from under 17 to 65 and over, capturing a very large spectrum of riders. It is important, however, to note that although there was a wide variety of riders, it cannot be assumed that all these riders feel comfortable or safe using this route. Many of the families and children observed on the route were seen using the sidewalk at segments with no designated bike lane. This is most likely due to safety concerns given the high volume of traffic and lack of bike infrastructure along the stretch.

Of the over 2000 cyclists that were counted, a gender split of 40% women to 60% men was observed, which shows higher women ridership than the 31% women, 69% men citywide average. This could mean that this route is perceived as slightly safer than others since the presence of women cyclists can be an indicator of safety on a route.

The amount of observed cyclists with helmets, which was 78%, aligns very closely with the citywide average of 77%.

Also, a high number of enthusiastic and confident riders were surveyed which might imply that the route may not be perceived quite as safe as we anticipated if these are the only riders found on the route.

However, it is important to note that the intercept survey was conducted during rainy weather and not all cyclists stopped for the survey. It may be possible that expert riders would be more interested in sharing their

4 | NE/SE 20s Bikeway Project

opinions due to their greater expertise on the route. Therefore it is more likely that interested but concerned riders were simply not engaged by the survey process rather than there being a lack of them.

Lisa Harrison

On average, about 84 cyclists per hour were counted, for a total of over 2000 cyclists with at least 500 cyclists per intersection. This data shows that this segment is already being used by cyclists throughout the week. The Tillamook intersection had the highest volume of traffic. This is likely because Tillamook is already an established bicycle route, creating a high volume of eastwest as well as north-south traffic as at this intersection. Wasco had the second highest volume of traffic, followed by Oregon.

Both of these intersections had consistent north-south traffic, possibly because the freeway crossing is located between them.

However, Wasco had slightly higher east-west traffic, linked to the access to an adjacent neighborhood to the west and the Fred Meyer shopping center on to the east.

About 87% of the total cyclists counted during the bike count were traveling on the proposed north-south route. Approximately twothirds of these cyclists are commuting to or from work, usually using the north-south bikeway to get to various points of the northeast, southeast, or downtown.

Regardless of its designation in the 20s bikeway project, the existing north-south traffic shows that this is already a well established northsouth bikeway and freeway crossing. Even if safety improvements are not made and needed cycling infrastructure is not added, this part of the proposed 20s bikeway will continue to be used for freeway crossing purposes since an alternate route would not cause complete diversion off of this segment.

NE 28th Avenue approaching NE Broadway

NE 28th Avenue: NE Brazee to NE Glisan | 5

Equity Issues Segment

Children, riding unaccompanied or with their parents, typically do not traverse as quickly as adults yet still need access to key destinations in their community, such as schools, recreational facilities and local businesses. Residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds, linked with shared-use paths and busier streets with well-defined pavement markings between bicyclists and motor vehicles can accommodate children without encouraging them to ride on sidewalks or ride in the travel lane of major arterials. A bike land will provide children with an alternative to riding on the sidewalk and provides them with the option to ride more safely on the street with a buffer from the traffic.

This segment of the proposed 20s bikeway has some bike path infrastructure, but it is fragmented. Two key intersections, NE Wasco and 28th and NE Oregon and 28th, both have significant equity challenges for the populations described above. These safety issues also cross over to elderly and disabled populations who are forced to interact with bicyclists to a greater degree due to the missing bicycle infrastructure.

6 | NE/SE 20s Bikeway Project

Lisa Harrison

SE Corner of NE 28th Avenue and NE Broadway

NE 28th Avenue, just north of Tillamook Street

Jonathan Maus

This introduces significant safety issues for bicyclists, pedestrians, as well as motorists. While use of a sidewalk by bicyclists is permitted, it is only allowed when the bicyclist is moving at a slower pace, equivalent to the pace a pedestrian might hold. So, as a rule, sidewalks are designed for pedestrian maneuverability and speeds, which makes them unsafe for faster moving bicycle use. For bicyclists, conflicts often arise with pedestrians moving at low speeds – (leaving stores, buses, and parked cars), as well as conflicts with fixed street fixtures such as bus benches, fire hydrants, sign posts, and utility poles. Bicyclists riding on sidewalks encounter walkers, joggers, and skateboarders, each with their own distinct speed and ability to suddenly change direction, which leaves bicyclists little time to respond and avoid collision. In the case of bicyclists riding on sidewalks against the flow of traffic, intersections and driveways force encounters with motorists who don’t expect to see them and have minimal time to respond.

Lisa Harrison

During the initial data collection for I-84 crossing segment of the 20s bikeway, equity disparities were discovered for age and gender populations. At two of the intersections studied, children, alone or with their parent, utilized the sidewalk to move along the NE 28th Avenue corridor. Sometimes this included riding contrary to the flow of traffic.

Targeted intercept interviews at these two impacted intersections could provide valuable data to explore the perceived equity disparities. Additional surveys should be conducted at the two neighboring parks to this segment of the bikeway: Oregon Park, located at NE 30th Avenue and Oregon Street and Grant Park, located at NE 33rd Avenue and Grant Place. Finally, there are two public schools within a few blocks of this segment and bike counts and intercept interviews should be conducted there as well to discover alternative routes that are already being used, whether parents would ride bikes to take their children to school or let their children ride alone if a safe bike route or lane was established.

Proposed 20s Bikeway When completed, the proposed 20s bikeway will be a 9.2 mile bike corridor that passes through eleven neighborhoods in the northeast and southeast. The protected classes most impacted by this proposed bikeway include the age, limited English proficiency, race, and sex classes. Suggestions for PBOT would include mechanisms for giving these protected classes a voice in the decision-making process. It is critical that PBOT develop a strategy to target community engagement, which would include individuals who have limited access or involvement in civic affairs. In addition, every segment received a disproportionately high number of responses from the “enthusiastic & confident” and “strong and fearless” bicyclists during the intercept survey collections.

Reaching “interested, but concerned” riders should be a priority for PBOT. The Bicycle Plan has funded bikeways in each of the designated districts. If the proposed twenties bikeway is completed, this will be the second NE/SE route to be completed since the Plan was approved in 2010. Questions of equity arise from PBOT’s planned bikeway prioritization in NE/SE over other neighborhoods in the city that have higher levels of service gaps. In general, bikeways are perceived as safe and easy to navigate. According to the Bicycle Plan, neighborhoods that stand out as lacking low stress bikeways include East Portland, Montavilla, North Portland and St. Johns. Each of these neighborhoods has a higher than average minority population so there is concern that the bikeway phasing may not be functioning at the optimal level for protected classes.

Future phasing should take into count this equity issue.

Safety and Parking Concerns Throughout the study of the NE 28th Avenue segment between NE Brazee and NE Glisan Streets on the proposed 20s Bikeway corridor, several attempts were made to better understand the level of safety on the segment.

Several safety-related concerns were brought to light through a combination of cyclist intercept surveys, the documentation of safety observations and interviews with various stakeholders in the corridor. Recurring safety issues may help to identify areas that deserve priority for bicycle infrastructure installation, and additional safetyrelated devices such as those which may help to control motor vehicle traffic.

Impacts of On-Street Parking on Bicycle Safety Though nearly three-quarters (74%) of bicyclists interviewed during intercept surveys commented that the presence of on-street parking did not affect their route choice, on-street parking seemed to be directly related to many safety hazards observed. At two of the three intersections observed during safety incident counts, onstreet parking was the major element affecting bicycle and motor vehicle interaction. This was the case where NE 28th Avenue meets NE Oregon Street and NE Wasco Street. The lack of sufficient space for bicyclists to travel between parked automobiles and automobiles in motion results in the latter often quickly swerving around cyclists to pass them. In this instance, many motor vehicles enter the lane of oncoming traffic, increasing the risk of a head-on collision. Additionally, at times of heavy traffic volumes such as rush hour, moving into the lane of oncoming traffic is not a possibility for motor vehicles and thus motorists often follow cyclists at a dangerously

Jeremy Young

close distance.

If it is possible and/or feasible, the removal of on-street parking at particular areas along NE 28th Avenue and the installation of bicycle infrastructure, such as marked bike lanes, may help to significantly decrease the risk of bicycle-automobile collisions and “too close for comfort” interactions between motorists and bicyclists. This may, in fact, be necessary if PBOT decides to move forward with a proposed striped bike lane on NE 28th Avenue between NE Glisan and NE Broadway Streets. It should be noted that nearly 45% of cyclists interviewed during intercept surveys commented that a striped bike lane made Bicyclists travel southbound of NE 28th Avenue towards NE Glisan Street them feel “more comfortable” while riding on the street and an additional 45% commented that they felt “much more comfortable” riding with this type of infrastructure in place.

An interview with Kerns Neighborhood Association Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee Chairman Brendon Haggerty and committee member Jeff Mandel revealed that cyclists traveling northbound or southbound on NE 28th Avenue have little room to congregate adjacent to motor vehicle traffic as they wait for the traffic signal to change at NE Sandy Boulevard. Haggerty and Mandel described this as a safety hazard and suggested the removal of three to four parking spaces from NE 28th Avenue in the northbound and southbound lanes on either side of the NE Sandy Boulevard intersection.

Failure to Stop at Stop Signs

Jeremy Young

Failure by bicyclists and motorists to stop at stop signs along NE 28th Avenue between NE Glisan and NE Brazee Streets was a frequently observed safety-related type of incident that is cause for concern. At two of the three intersections surveyed, over forty percent of bicyclists failed to stop at stop signs during their journey. Motorists also failed to stop at stop signs on several occasions. These infractions were observed at the intersections of NE 28th Avenue and NE Tillamook Street as well as NE 28th Avenue and NE Oregon Street. The installation of flashing lights on existing stop signs, or other types of traffic control or calming devices such as “speed humps,” in very close proximity to the intersection may help motorists and bicyclists to realize that they are approaching an intersection where there is a high risk of collision.

Need for Additional Safety Studies Overall, safety-related observations and commentary from intercept surveys and stakeholder interviews have confirmed that in moving forward on a 20s Bikeway, special attention must be paid to increasing safety on the proposed route and minimizing the types 8 | NE/SE 20s Bikeway Project

Currently a two-way stop sign intersection: NE 28th Avenue & Tillamook Street

of risks which are common when bicycles and motor vehicles share the road. To achieve a more comprehensive understanding of safety hazards along NE 28th Avenue between NE Glisan and NE Brazee Streets, additional studies may be necessary moving forward. Studies related to the potential loss of parking along NE 28th Avenue may also be necessary, as the loss of parking could potentially have negative consequences for nearby businesses and residents along the corridor.

What’s Next Additional research is necessary to supplement the findings of this report, including a mail survey and a parking study. A mail survey should be sent to randomly selected residents of the three neighborhoods along this segment. The bike intercept survey produced a great deal of useful data but it did not capture a representative sample of the population living along the proposed route. The mail survey will provide information on the preferences and opinions of a much wider range of the population than the intercept survey. This will include information from “interested but concerned” riders who are not currently using the proposed bikeway. By gathering data from these individuals, PBOT will be able to address their concerns, and build a bikeway that is more likely to elicit new riders.

Further research is also necessary on the safely issues and supply of on street parking along the route. There is currently a disconnect between the stated opinions of cyclists and the results of the safety observation regarding parking. By and large, cyclists stated that on street parking does not affect their route choice, yet the safety observation found on street parking causes a number of safety concerns along the route. A detailed study of the safety implications of on street parking will allow PBOT to ensure the bikeway improves safety for bicyclists on this segment.

PBOT has proposed striped bike lanes for much of this section of the bikeway. In order to implement these lanes, parking will have to be removed along stretches of NE 28th Avenue. A parking inventory of the area will allow PBOT to access the impacts of a reduction in available parking on the surrounding communities.

Summary and Conclusions Numerous data collection methods have shed light on the uses, users, equity issues, and safety concerns of the proposed bikeway segment along NE 28th Avenue between NE Brazee Street and NE Glisan Street. It is clear that this segment is currently a popular route choice for cyclists. Bicyclists use this segment to access destinations throughout Portland. Even without existing bike infrastructure and various safety concerns along the route, an average of over 80 cyclists use this segment each hour.

Data from surveys and stakeholder interviews indicates that cyclists perceive NE 28th Avenue to be a safer crossing of I-84 than NE 21st Avenue. Additionally, crossing I-84 on NE 28th Avenue, provides the most direct connection to the other segments of the proposed bikeway.

Overall, NE 28th Avenue between NE Brazee Street and NE Glisan street, is highly used by cyclists and provides connections to areas across Portland. It also provides an attractive option for crossing I-84 in the “20’s.” The construction of bike infrastructure and the mitigation of safety issues along this segment will likely result in higher usage of the route.

NE 28th Avenue: NE Brazee to NE Glisan | 9

Appendix A: Bicycle Count Findings

Bicycle Count Methodology For the purposes of this report, three intersections were selected along the segment. These intersections were selected for analysis due to a variety of different circumstances, and they are mostly evenly distributed along the one-mile stretch of NE 28th Avenue.

Tillamook and 28th • low volume of motor vehicle traffic • location on an existing bicycle thoroughfare recognized by PBOT, running along Tillamook Wasco and 28th • m otor vehicles may only enter NE Wasco Street via NE 28th Avenue if they are traveling east (motor vehicle access to the western side is restricted by concrete bollards and a sidewalk, bicycles and pedestrians still have access) • mix of uses in areas adjacent to the intersection • close proximity to the NE 28th Avenue-Interstate 84 overpass (just one block south) Oregon and 28th • p otential conflict between motor vehicles and bicycles as a result of the high number of motor vehicles parked along the street • c onnectivity to points north and south of the I-84 overpass • c lose proximity to major east-west corridors such as NE Sandy Boulevard and NE Glisan Street and their associated commercial districts • close proximity to Oregon Park at NE Oregon Street and NE 29th Avenue Bicycle counts were conducted in two-hour intervals, at these three different intersections. Counts were completed at various days of the week and times of day in order to get a well-rounded understanding of the ridership along this stretch of NE 28th Avenue. Graduate students from the Master of Urban and Regional Planning program at Portland State University completed counts for this report. Students used PBOT’s “Bicycle Count Form” and the guidelines outlined by PBOT to collect data. Data was collected by visually observing and counting bicyclists as they went through the selected intersection. This includes direction of travel, gender of the cyclist, and if they were wearing a helmet. Counters also made note of any unusual or important observations that they made while at the intersection. See Appendix D for the Bicycle Count Form and detailed instructions that were used to collect data.

Peak period collection was done on Tuesday, October 9th from 7 to 9 AM and Thursday, October 11th from 4 to 6 PM. The other two counts were also conducted on Sunday, October 7th from 1 to 3 PM and Saturday, October 13th 10 AM to 12 PM. Data was collected at all three intersections during each of the four collection periods.

Maps showing the total counts for each intersection begin on the following page.

Weather for counts Sunday, October 7th, 1 to 3PM: 70° F, Sunny Tuesday, October 9th, 7 to 9AM: 50° F, Overcast Thursday October 11th, 4 to 6 PM: 66°F, Sunny Saturday, October 13th, 10AM to 12PM: 58°F, Overcast/Rainy

A-2 | Appendix A: Bicycle Count Findings

Bicycle Count Maps

Bicycle Count Findings | A-3

Bicycle Count Maps

A-4 | Appendix A: Bicycle Count Findings

Bicycle Count Maps

Bicycle Count Findings | A-5

Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings

Bicycle Intercept Survey: Methodology A total of 43 bicycle intercept surveys were conducted between 1pm-5pm on October 31st and 4pm-6pm on November 1st at the NE Tillamook and NE 28th Avenue intersection. Surveys were conducted during and before the afternoon commute on weekdays in order to get a well-rounded sampling of cyclists who cross this point during the week. Portland State University Master of Urban and Regional Planning students collected oral survey data for this report. Students created and used a pre-tested survey based on questions generally asked in bicycle intercept surveys conducted by PBOT, in addition to questions specifically designed for the 20s bikeway.

Questions were added to the survey for each route segment to address issues specific to that area.

For the segment of NE 28th Avenue between NE Brazee Street and NE Glisan Street, two questions were added asking about the general preferred freeway crossing route for cyclists, and their reason for that preference. This was done in coordination with a group of graduate students analyzing the PBOT proposed alternate NE 21st Avenue freeway crossing in order to have comparable feedback and data. The weather conditions during the days in which surveys were conducted consisted of temperatures near 60°F and light rain, which is important to note when analyzing the collected data and the types of riders that were encountered.

The responses from several bicycle intercept survey questions have been summarized in charts in the last section of this appendix (see Results of Selected Bicycle Intercept Survey Questions).

Bicycle Intercept Survey: Validity & Reliability Concerns Validity Coverage errors such as only reaching people during the weekday afternoon and evening commute time slot may create validity issues with how this data represents the “average rider” within this stretch. The fact that the weather was slightly rainy also creates a bit of a coverage error, by not allowing all riders who use this stretch to have an equal chance of being chosen for the survey. Sampling errors may also be apparent because of the small sample size used (43 cyclists). Non-response errors caused by people not stopping to answer questions can contribute to this representation issue. However, if the data is considered as a representation of preferences for cyclists who use the route on weekday afternoons and do not mind riding in cold or wet conditions, the data can be useful in collecting information about the preferences of this group of cyclists.

This may not give a complete picture as to preferences for all cyclists who use this corridor, but still gives insight to a key group of riders that make up a large percentage of the route users. Some groups of cyclists that use this corridor that are suspected to have been missed include casual weekend riders and children riding to school.

Finally, the person administering the survey can cause biases that can skew the validity of the data as well. Due to personal biases of surveyors, or biases by the individual being surveyed about the surveyor, responses can be skewed and not always completely honest and thorough. For example, there was suspicion that some males did not elaborate on or specify safety concerns to other males. While they may have had concerns they potentially did not express them because they did not feel comfortable doing so. This can cause a validity issue that can be hard to detect or account for.

B-2 | Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings

Reliability Issues with reliability that may exist overlap with some of the same issues that created validity issues. Individuals administering the test may present reliability issues in addition to the validity issues mentioned before. It may be difficult to recreate the same reactions and answers when using different people to administer the test, even though this was minimized to the best of the surveyor’s ability. Examples of ways this may happen include side conversations held by the surveyor and survey taker or giving clarification on questions. These types of discourse may create unintentional bias. Unchangeable factors with surveyor’s appearance and perceived biases make it difficult to eliminate this reliability issue. Also, since collection did occur on Halloween, this may create reliability issues due to potential change in schedules by cyclists to accommodate their holiday activities. Finally, the weather, and the inability to exactly recreate the weather conditions not only found during collection but also earlier in the day when commuting decisions were made, make weather a reliability issue.

Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings | B-3

Bicycle Intercept Survey Hi I’m ___________, I’m a student at PSU. Our class of urban planning students is partnering with the Portland Bureau of Transportation (or “PBOT”) to gather information about people’s biking habits and preferences. We’re focused on the proposal to create a north-south bikeway in the “20s” streets. The proposal would designate bike paths and develop infrastructure for travel in the blocks between 20th and 30th streets on the east side. [pause for questions?]

Your feedback will be part of the information used by PBOT for its stakeholder advisory process, adding important information about how people want to use a north-south bikeway. Of course, your answers will be aggregated with other survey takers and your answers will remain anonymous. Your help with our survey will be really valuable. It should take about five minutes of your time. [they say yes] Thanks so much. I’ll start by asking about your trip today: 1. What is the purpose of your trip today? ____ commuting to work ____ exercise ____ errands ____ leisure ____ school (self or children) ____ other 2. Where did you start your trip? – What was the nearest intersection to your starting point today?

Intersection of ________________________ & ______________________ What east-west street were you on (or will you be on) when you turned onto the north-south bikeway? ___________________________ 3. Where is your destination?- what is the nearest intersection to your end point?

Intersection of ________________________ & ______________________ What east-west street will you turn on when you exit the north-south bikeway? ___________________________ 4. Will you cross I-84 on this trip? ____ YES – if YES, answer 5. ____ NO –if NO, skip to 6 ____ Don’t know –skip to 6

B-4 | Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings

5. When you cross I-84 today, which route will you use? ____ 21st ____ 28th ____ 33rd ____ Other _________________ ____ I don’t know/ it depends 6. When you cross I-84 in general, which route do you prefer? ____ 21st ____ 28th ____ 33rd ____ Other _________________ ____ I don’t know/ it depends 7. Why do you prefer that route? ____ Directness ____ Safety ____ Scenery ____ Other _________________ ____ I don’t know/ it depends Now we have some questions about your usual bicycling activities—

8. How often do you bike? ____ Less than once a week ____ At least once a week, but not daily ____ Five or more days a week 9. In cold or wet weather, do you bike….. ____ Less often ____ About the same ____ More often ____ I don’t know/ not sure 10. How often do you bike north or south in ‘the 20s’? (the streets between 20th and 30th on the east side) ____ Never ____ Less than once a week ____ At least once a week, but not daily ____ Five or more days a week

Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings | B-5

We’re interested in what affects your choice of where to ride. I have a list of characteristics that might be on a route. I’ll ask you to tell me about the likelihood that you would choose a route with these characteristics. For each one you could respond: Much less likely – somewhat less likely – neither more or less likely – somewhat more likely – much more likely Or, if you don’t know.

Don’t know

Much more likely

Somewhat more likely

Neither

Somewhat less likely

How do the following affect the likelihood that you will choose a route to bike on?

Much less likely

11.

It is a designated or marked bike route Low volume of motor vehicle traffic on the route Crossings at major arterial streets have traffic lights Little or no on-street parking on the route Route is direct with no or few jogs or turns Route is well-lit at night Route avoids hills Route has commercial activities or other destinations along the way

Thinking about the different designs of streets you might bicycle on….

12. Do the following bike infrastructures make you feel more or less comfortable riding on the streets? For each, you could respond: Much less comfortable- less comfortable –neither- more comfortable- much more comfortable Or, don’t know

Bike lane -painted lane at side of the road Bike sharrows – street marked as a shared lane Buffered bike lane – lane with separation from cars Cycle track – lane separated from motor vehicle by parked cars Bike box at intersections –area for cyclists to wait at traffic lights

B-6 | Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings

Don’t know

Much more comfortable

More comfortable

Neither

Less comfortable

I have a set of photos that show what each type of infrastructure looks like.

Much less comfortable

13. What best describes how you feel about bicycling on the street in the City of PDX? ____ I do not ride my bike on the streets ____ I am interested, but have concerns, so I rarely ride my bike on the streets ____ I am enthusiastic and confident when I ride my bike on the streets ____ I am strong and fearless when I ride my bike on the streets ____ Other

DEMOGRAPHIC: Our analysis will be improved by knowing a bit about the background of participants, so we can know who we’ve learned about. This information is confidential and optional.

What is your gender? ______________ How do you identify your race and/or ethnicity? ____________________ What neighborhood do you live in? ________________________ What is your age?

____ under 17

____ 18-24

____ 25-34

____ 35-44

____ 45-54

____ 55-64

____ 65+ Thank you for helping us with this survey!

Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings | B-7

Examples of Bicycle Infrastructure to be Used as a Reference in Question #12

B-8 | Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings

Results of Selected Bicycle Intercept Survey Questions (Bicyclists intercepted and surveyed at NE 28th Avenue & NE Tillamook Street)

1.

What is the purpose of your trip today?

6.

Where did you start your trip (nearest intersection)?

Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings | B-9

7.

Where is your destination (nearest intersection)?

8.

When you cross I-84 in general, which route do you prefer?

B-10 | Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings

Somewhat less likely

Neither

Somewhat more likely

Much more likely

Don’t know

How do the following affect the likelihood that you will choose a route to bike on?

Much less likely

11.

It is a designated or marked bike route

0%

2%

2%

40%

56%

0%

Low volume of motor vehicle traffic on the route

0%

0%

2%

30%

67%

0%

Crossings at major arterial streets have traffic lights

2%

2%

16%

35%

44%

0%

Little or no on-street parking on the route

5%

0%

74%

16%

5%

0%

Route is direct with no or few jogs or turns

0%

0%

30%

37%

33%

0%

Route is well-lit at night

0%

0%

49%

28%

23%

0%

Route avoids hills

0%

0%

47%

35%

16%

2%

Route has commercial activities or other destinations along the way

5%

21%

51%

16%

5%

2%

12.

Do the following bike infrastructures make you feel more or less comfortable riding on the streets?

Appendix B: Bicycle Intercept Survey Findings | B-11

Appendix C: Interview Summaries

Interview Summaries Individual interviews were conducted by all members of the team with a variety of stakeholders within this segment of the bikeway. In the Grant Park neighborhood, a homeowner who lives on the corner of NE 28th Avenue and Tillamook Street agreed to be interviewed. The Sullivan Gulch Neighborhood Association Land Use Committee Chair was interviewed, as well as a resident of Sullivan Gulch who is a regular cyclist. Two members of the Kerns Neighborhood Association Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee were interviewed. And finally, Carl Larson from the Bicycle Transportation Alliance completed our interviews.

Common concerns emerged from the individual interviews that were predicted by previous research of the segment: bicyclist-motor vehicle interactions in the high traffic portions of the corridor, especially when coupled with significant on-street parking. Several of the interviewees also noted the potential for backlash against parking removal along NE 28th Avenue. Carl Larson offered a strategy for overcoming the backlash, if it arises: “If PBOT really has trouble getting rid of car parking here, they could build up infrastructure everywhere else on the route, inducing higher volume of bike traffic on 28th, which then could lead to the necessity of addressing the safety issues on the segment with parking.” This approach should eventually lead even opponents of parking removal to see the value in addressing the congestion and safety issues that come with the additional cyclists on the segment.

Another concern at multiple locations was failure to observe traffic signs or the lack of complete traffic calming infrastructure. The Grant Park resident witnessed a hit-and-run accident between a bicyclist and motor vehicle this past summer. The young woman on the bike suffered minor injuries, but her bike was mangled and she was deeply shaken by the experience. She stayed with the homeowners for nearly an hour until a friend arrived to pick her up. This interviewee was quite adamant that a four-way stop was needed at 28th and Tillamook. They enjoy the neighborhood enrichment the bike path provides when they are home, but they have seen about five or six serious accidents in the last six years and too many close calls.

Several interviewees mentioned the hope that the city would consider other users when implementing bike infrastructure, notably pedestrians in the Sullivan Gulch area which has a large elderly housing community just off the proposed bikeway. Several stakeholders encouraged engagement with the local business owners.

The belief is they would be receptive to bicycle infrastructure incorporated into the corridor to bring in a new customer base (although these comments were directed primarily for the segment just south of this one). In this segment, the NE Broadway business district runs perpendicular to the bikeway and is a high traffic corridor (around 33,000 vehicles per day according to the interviewee). New bike infrastructure crossing NE Broadway should certainly include conversations with business owners along the corridor. An increase in bicycle riders in this area may also impact pedestrian movement and safety.

Two of the interviews addressed the crossing of I-84. Both interviewees expressed a preference for the bikeway to cross the interstate at NE 28th Avenue. One asserted that cyclists would not be willing to detour over to the NE 21st Avenue crossing, even if PBOT made it the designated crossing. The other interviewee mentioned that NE 21st Avenue has a very high volume of traffic and trucks, making it less safe for cyclists than NE 28th Avenue.

One theme was clear throughout the interviews conducted – the desire to have North/South bikeways on the east side of Portland. When asked about transportation priorities, a couple of the interviewees specifically mentioned that North/South bikeways should be the number one priority at PBOT. Although the 20s is considered a “bike-friendly” neighborhood, there is plenty of room for improvement and the consensus from the interviews conducted is this would be a welcomed project.

C-2 | Appendix C: Interview Summaries

Appendix D: Forms

Instructions for Using the Bicycle Count Form Arrive at count location at least 10 minutes before count time (3:50 pm or 6:50 am) to prepare the count form (both sides), as follows: 1) Fill in information that best describes location where you will be counting (typically names of intersecting streets). Because you will be recording one hour’s information per side, clearly label the time period represented by each side of the sheet. Weather information is general.

Note if it’s cool, cold, warm, or hot, sunny, raining, overcast…

2) 3) 4) 5)

Note anything unusual you observe. For example, nearby construction that might be affect cyclists using the count streets, lots of wrong-way riding by cyclists on the streets, or many cyclists on the sidewalks instead of the streets.

Establish the North arrow on the sheet.

Label the streets on the intersection drawing. Modify the drawing as necessary for TIntersections or non-standard intersections.

Draw in arrows representing each legal move that can be made by a cyclist approaching from each leg of the intersection (i.e., straight-through, right-turn, left-turn, etc) COUNT each cyclist passing through the intersection by making tick-marks in two locations: on the line in the intersection diagram that describes their movement through the intersection, and above in the tally boxes for helmet-use and gender. Begin counts precisely at the beginning of the hour and end promptly at the end of the hour.

After the end of the first hour, flip the form (remember: you set up the other side before the count!) and count the second hour’s cyclists.

6) After counting for two hours, tally your counts. Record in small boxes the number of cyclists who made each movement, as shown on the sheet. Record the number of cyclists with / without helmets by gender in the areas provided.

7) Write the total number of cyclists for each hour in a box in the lower right-hand corner of the sheet.

Counting Tips: x

Make tally marks on the sheet only after cyclists have passed through the intersection, i.e., do not mark them in advance anticipating the movement they will make. You might pick a point at each intersection that cyclists must pass before you’ll record their information.

x

If working in teams, and especially at busy intersections, one person can record the directional information and another the gender and helmet information on a separate sheet.

Transfer the gender/helmet information to the count sheet after the 2-hour count.

x

Do not try to tally count information after the first hour. Do it following the complete count.

x

In the case of discrepancies between the directional count and the gender / helmet count; the directional count is to be taken as accurate. Tally those totals in the lower-right hand corner (step 7).

D-2 | Appendix D: Forms

Appendix D: Forms | D-3

/ŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƐ ĨŽƌ hƐŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ŝĐLJĐůĞ ŽƵŶƚ &Žƌŵ ƌƌŝǀĞ Ăƚ ĐŽƵŶƚ ůŽĐĂƟŽŶ Ăƚ ůĞĂƐƚ ϭϬ miŶƵƚĞƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞ ĐŽƵŶƚ ƟmĞ ;ŝ͘Ğ͘ Ͳ ϯ͗ϱϬ Ɖm Žƌ ϲ͗ϱϬ amͿ ƚŽ ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞ ƚŚĞ ĐŽƵŶƚ ĨŽƌm͕ ĂƐ ĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗ ϭͿ &ŝůů ŝŶ ŝŶĨŽƌmĂƟŽŶ ƚŚĂƚ ďĞƐƚ deƐĐƌŝďĞƐ ůŽĐĂƟŽŶ ǁŚĞƌĞ LJŽƵ ǁŝůů ďĞ ĐŽƵŶƟnŐ ;ƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJ nameƐ ŽĨ ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƟŶŐ ƐƚƌĞĞƚƐͿ͘ WĞĂƚŚĞƌ ŝŶĨŽƌmĂƟŽŶ ŝƐ ŐĞŶĞƌĂů͘ EŽƚĞ ŝĨ ŝƚ͛Ɛ ĐŽŽů͕ ĐŽůĚ͕ ǁĂƌŵ ͕ Žƌ ŚŽƚ͕ ƐƵŶŶLJ͕ ƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ͕ ŽǀĞƌĐĂƐƚ͙ EŽƚĞ ĂŶLJƚŚŝŶŐ ƵŶƵƐƵĂů LJŽƵ ŽďƐĞƌǀĞ͘ &Žƌ ĞdžĂmƉůĞ͕ ŶĞĂƌďLJ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ ƚŚĂƚ miŐŚƚ ďĞ ĂīĞĐƚ ĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐ on the count ƐƚƌĞĞƚ Ɛ͕ ůŽƚƐ ŽĨ ǁƌŽŶŐͲǁĂLJ ƌŝĚŝŶŐ ďLJ ĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ͕ maŶLJ ĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ƐŝdeǁĂůŬƐ ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ͕ Žƌ ĂŶLJ ŽƚŚĞƌ ƉĂƩĞƌŶƐ ƚŚĂƚ ŵĂLJ ďĞ ƵŶƐĂĨĞ ďƵƚ ĂƌĞ ŶŽƚ ůŝƐƚĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚ ĐŽƵŶƚ ĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ ;ĨŽƌ ĂƵƚŽͲǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐͿ͘ 2) ƐƚĂďůŝƐŚ ƚŚĞ EŽƌƚŚ ĂƌƌŽǁ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ƐŚĞĞƚ͘ 3) >ĂďĞů the ƐƚƌĞĞƚƐ on the inte ƌƐĞĐƟŽŶ ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐ͘ DŽĚŝĨLJ ƚŚĞ ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐ ĂƐ ŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ ĨŽƌ dͲ /ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƟŽŶƐ or ŶŽŶͲƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƟŽŶƐ͘ 4) ƌĂǁ ŝŶ ĂƌƌŽǁƐ ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƟŶŐ ĞĂĐŚ ůĞŐĂů move thĂƚ ĐĂŶ ďĞ maĚĞ ďLJ Ă ĐLJĐůŝƐƚ ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐhŝŶŐ ĨƌŽŵ each leg ŽĨ the ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƟŽŶ (i.e., ƐƚƌĂight-through, right-turn, ůĞŌͲƚƵƌŶ, etc) 5) ĞŐŝŶ ĐŽƵŶƚƐ ƉƌĞĐŝƐĞůLJ at the ďĞŐŝŶŶŝŶŐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŚŽƵƌ ĂŶĚ ĞŶĚ ƉƌŽmƉƚůLJ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ĞŶĚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ŚŽƵƌ͘ ͘ &KZ d, d > d d, dKW K& d, ^, d͗ ŽƵŶƚ >> ĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐ ǁŝƚŚ Ă ƚĂůůLJ ĂƐ ƚŚĞLJ ŵŽǀĞ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƚŚĞ ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƟŽŶ͘ EŽƚĞ ŝĨ ƚŚĞLJ ĂƌĞ ǁĞĂƌŝŶŐ Ă ŚĞůŵĞƚ Žƌ ŶŽƚ ĂŶĚ ŐĞŶĚĞƌ͘ ; Ž ŶŽƚ Įůů ŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ͞ŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͟ ƚĂďůĞ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ďŽƩŽŵ Ăƚ ƚŚŝƐ ƟŵĞ͘Ϳ ͘ &KZ d, /Ed Z^ d/KE Z t/E'͗ KE>z ŵĂƌŬ ĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐ ĂŶĚ ǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵ ŽŶĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚ ĂĐƚƐ ďĞůŽǁ͘ hƐĞ ƚŚĞ ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐ ƚŽ ƐŚŽǁ ƚŚĞ ĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚƌĂǀĞů ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ ĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚ͘ /Ĩ ĂŶLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ďĞůŽǁ ŝƐ ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ ďLJ ĂŶ ĂƵƚŽŵŽďŝůĞ ƌĂƚŚĞƌ ƚŚĂŶ ĐLJĐůŝƐƚ͕ /Z > /d ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƟŽŶ ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐ /Ĩ ŵĂƌŬƐ ĂƌĞ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚ͕ ĚƌĂǁ Ă ůŝŶĞ ƚŽ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƚ ƚŚĞ ƚǁŽ ;ĨĞĞů ĨƌĞĞ ƚŽ ŶŽƚĞ ĚĞƚĂŝůƐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚ ŝĨ LJŽƵ ĨĞĞů ŝƚ ŝƐ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ: ϭ͘ ^ƵĚĚĞŶ DŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ ;ŵĂƌŬ ĂƐ D ŽŶ ĐŽůůĞĐƟŽŶ ĐŚĂƌƚͿ

Ͳ ĞĮŶĞĚ ĂƐ͗ ƐǁĞƌǀŝŶŐ Žƌ ďƌĂŬŝŶŐ ƐƵĚĚĞŶůLJ Ϯ͘ ĐĐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ;ŵĂƌŬ ĂƐ ŽŶ ĐŽůůĞĐƟŽŶ ĐŚĂƌƚͿ

ͲĐĂƌ ĂŶĚ ďŝŬĞ͕ ďŝŬĞ ĂŶĚ ďŝŬĞ͕ ĐĂƌ ĂŶĚ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ͕ ďŝŬĞ ĂŶĚ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ϯ͘ ^ŝŐŶĂůŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ ĂƩĞŶƟŽŶ ;ŵĂƌŬ ĂƐ ^ ŽŶ ĐŽůůĞĐƟŽŶ ĐŚĂƌƚͿ

Ͳ,ŽŶŬŝŶŐͬ'ĞƐƚƵƌŝŶŐ ;ĐLJĐůŝƐƚ Žƌ ĂƵƚŽ ǀĞŚŝĐůĞ ĚƌŝǀĞƌͿ ϰ͘ DŝƐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚ ;ŵĂƌŬ ĂƐ ŽŶ ĐŽůůĞĐƟŽŶ ĐŚĂƌƚͿ

ĞĮŶĞĚ ĂƐ͗ ƌƵŶŶŝŶŐ ƐƚŽƉ ƐŝŐŶ͕ ŝůůĞŐĂů ƚƵƌŶ͕ ƌŝĚŝŶŐ ŽŶ ƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬ ƚŽŽ ĨĂƐƚ͕ ƌŝĚŝŶŐ

ǁƌŽŶŐ ǁĂLJ ĚŽǁŶ ƌŽĂĚ͕ ĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐ ďŝŬĞ ůĂŶĞ ŝůůĞŐĂůůLJ ;ŝĨ ĐĂƌͿ 6) ŌĞƌ ĐŽƵŶƟŶŐ ĨŽƌ ŽŶĞ ŚŽƵƌ͕ ƚĂůůLJ LJŽƵƌ ĐŽƵŶƚƐ͘ dŽƚĂů ƚŚĞ ƚĂůůŝĞƐ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĐLJĐůŝƐƚ ƐĞĐƟŽŶ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ͞ƚŽƚĂůƐ͟ ďŽdžĞƐ͘ ƚ ƚŚŝƐ ƟŵĞ͕ ƚŽƚĂů ŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ďLJ ƚLJƉĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ƚĂďůĞ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ďŽƩŽŵ͘ >ĂƐƚůLJ͕ ƚŽƚĂů Ăůů ŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ͞ƚŽƚĂů͟ ďŽdžĞƐ͕ ĂƐ ǁĞůů͘ ŽƵŶƟŶŐ dŝƉƐ͗ ͻ DĂŬĞ ƚĂůůLJ maƌŬƐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ƐŚĞĞƚ ŽŶůLJ ĂŌĞƌ ĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐ have ƉĂƐƐĞĚ through the inteƌƐĞĐƟŽŶ͕ ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ ĚŽ not maƌŬ ƚŚĞm ŝŶ ĂĚǀĂŶĐĞ ĂŶƟcŝƉĂƟŶŐ ƚhe movemeŶƚ ƚŚĞLJ ǁŝůů maŬĞ͘ zŽƵ ŵŝŐŚƚ ƉŝĐŬ Ă ƉŽŝnt at each ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƟŽŶ that ĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐ mƵƐƚ ƉĂƐƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞ LJŽƵ͛ůů ƌĞĐŽƌĚ ƚŚĞŝƌ ŝŶĨŽƌmĂƟŽŶ͘ ͻ /Ĩ ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐ ŝŶ ƚĞĂmƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJ Ăƚ ďƵƐLJ ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƟŽŶƐ͕ ŽŶĞ ƉĞƌƐŽŶ can record the ĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶĂů ŝŶĨŽƌmĂƟŽŶ and another the gender and helmĞƚ ŝŶĨŽƌmĂƟŽŶ ŽŶ Ă ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ ƐŚĞĞƚ͘ dƌĂŶƐĨĞƌ ƚŚĞ ŐĞŶĚĞƌͬŚĞůmĞƚ ŝŶĨŽƌmĂƟŽŶ ƚŽ the count ƐŚĞĞƚ ĂĨ ter the ϭͲŚŽƵƌ count. ͻ Ž ŶŽƚ ƚƌLJ ƚŽ ƚĂůůLJ ĐŽƵŶƚ ŝŶĨŽƌmĂƟŽŶ ĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĐŽƵŶƚ͘ Ž ŝƚ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĐŽmƉůĞƚĞ ĐŽƵŶƚ͘ D-4 | Appendix D: Forms

Bicycle Count Form >ŽĐĂƟŽŶ͗ D a te ͗

T im e ͗

W e a th e r͗

N a me ͗

EŽƚĞƐ͗

cyclists

Male

Female

Total

with helmet without helmet totals

ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƟŽŶ ŬĞLJ

N orth

KE>z ŵĂƌŬ ĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐ ĂŶĚ ǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵ ŽŶĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚ ĂĐƚƐ ďĞůŽǁ͘ hƐĞ ƚŚĞ ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐ ƚŽ ƐŚŽǁ ƚŚĞ ĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚƌĂǀĞů ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ ĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚ͘ /Ĩ ĂŶLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ďĞůŽǁ ŝƐ ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ ďLJ ĂŶ ĂƵƚŽŵŽďŝůĞ ƌĂƚŚĞƌ ƚŚĂŶ ĐLJĐůŝƐƚ͕ /Z > /d͘ /Ĩ ŵĂƌŬƐ ĂƌĞ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚ͕ ĚƌĂǁ Ă ůŝŶĞ ƚŽ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƚ ƚŚĞ ƚǁŽ ;ĨĞĞů ĨƌĞĞ ƚŽ ŶŽƚĞ ĚĞƚĂŝůƐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚ ŝĨ LJŽƵ ĨĞĞů ŝƚ ŝƐ ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ͗

1. Sudden Movements (mark as M)

Ͳ,ŽŶŬŝŶŐͬ'ĞƐƚƵƌŝŶŐ ;ĐLJĐůŝƐƚ Žƌ ĂƵƚŽ ǀĞŚŝĐůĞ ĚƌŝǀĞƌͿ

2. Collisions (mark as C)

4. Misconduct (mark as X)

ͲĐĂƌ ĂŶĚ ďŝŬĞ͕ ďŝŬĞ ĂŶĚ ďŝŬĞ͕ ĐĂƌ ĂŶĚ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ͕ ďŝŬĞ Θ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ sudden movements (M)

incidents

ϯ͘ ^ŝŐŶĂůŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ ĂƩĞŶƟŽŶ ;ŵĂƌŬ ĂƐ ^Ϳ

Ͳ ĞĮŶĞĚ ĂƐ͗ ƐǁĞƌǀŝŶŐ͕ ďƌĂŬŝŶŐ ƐƵĚĚĞŶůLJ

collisions (C)

Ͳ ĞĮŶĞĚ ĂƐ͗ ƌƵŶŶŝŶŐ ƐƚŽƉ ƐŝŐŶ͕ ŝůůĞŐĂů ƚƵƌŶ͕ ƌŝĚŝŶŐ ŽŶ ƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬ ƚŽŽ ĨĂƐƚ͕ ƌŝĚŝŶŐ ǁƌŽŶŐ ǁĂLJ ĚŽǁŶ ƌŽĂĚ͕ ĞŶƚĞƌŝŶŐ ďŝŬĞ ůĂŶĞ ŝůůĞŐĂůůLJ ;ŝĨ ĐĂƌͿ ƐŝŐŶĂůŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ ĂƩĞŶƟŽŶ ;^Ϳ misconduct (X) totals

cyclists cars totals

Appendix D: Forms | D-5