ii

All material contained in this report is in the

public domain and may be used and reprinted without special permission; citation as to

source is required.

This document is disseminated under the

sponsorship of the Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation

in the interest of information exchange. The

U.S. government assumes no liability for its

contents or use thereof.

Recommended citation

U.S. Department of Transportation

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Bicycle and Pedestrian Data: 

Sources, Needs, & Gaps

BTS00-02

Washington, DC: 2000

To obtain copies of this report and

other BTS products, go to the online

Product Catalog at:

www.bts.gov

You may also mail orders to:

Product Orders

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

U.S. Department of Transportation

400 7th Street SW, Room 3430

Washington, DC 20590

phone 202-366-DATA

fax 202-366-3640

email orders@bts.gov

To obtain transportation-related 

statistical information, call 

800-853-1351.
Report prepared for BTS by:

William Schwartz and

Christopher Porter

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

BTS Project Manager

David Mednick

Contributors

Wendell Fletcher

William Mallett

Joanne Sedor

BTS Publications Staff

Marsha Fenn

Chip Moore

Martha Courtney

Cover Design

Dan Halberstein

TASC Graphics

USDOT

U.S. Department of Transportation

Rodney E. Slater

Secretary

Mortimer L. Downey

Deputy Secretary

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Ashish K. Sen

Director

Rick Kowalewski

Deputy Director

Rolf R. Schmitt

Associate Director for

Transportation Studies

Susan J. Lapham

Associate Director for

Statistical Programs and Services

BTS Mission and Vision 

Our mission: To lead in developing transportation data and information of high quality and

to advance their effective use in both public and

private transportation decisionmaking.

Our vision for the future: Data and information

of high quality will support every significant

transportation policy decision, thus advancing

the quality of life and the economic well-being

of all Americans.

Acknowledgments
iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................1

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................7

Study Approach..........................................................................................................8

Why Collect Bicycle and Pedestrian Data? ................................................................8

2 EXISTING DATA SOURCES ......................................................................11

Usage, Trip, and User Characteristics ......................................................................14

Preferences, Needs, and Attitudes ............................................................................27

Facilities....................................................................................................................29

Crashes and Safety ..................................................................................................33

Expenditures and Capital Stocks ............................................................................38

Secondary Data ........................................................................................................39

References ................................................................................................................40

Boxes

2-1 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Study ..........................................25

2-2 Statewide Bicycle Suitability Criteria................................................................32

Table

2-1 Existing Sources of Bicycle and Pedestrian Data..............................................15

3 DATA NEEDS ........................................................................................43

Summary of Data Needs and Priorities....................................................................43

Usage, Trip, and User Characteristics ......................................................................44

Preferences, Needs, and Attitudes ............................................................................47

Facilities....................................................................................................................48

Crashes and Safety ..................................................................................................49

Secondary Data ........................................................................................................49

References ................................................................................................................50

Table

3-1 Assessment of Data Priorities ..........................................................................45

4 OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING DATA NEEDS ..........................................51

General Recommendations ......................................................................................51

Usage, Trip, and User Characteristics ......................................................................53

Preferences, Needs, and Attitudes ............................................................................55

Facilities....................................................................................................................56

Crashes and Safety ..................................................................................................57

Table of Contents
Secondary Data ........................................................................................................59

References ................................................................................................................60

Box

4-1 Portland, Oregon, Pedestrian Potential and Deficiency Indices ......................56

APPENDICES

A Results of Outreach Effort ..........................................................................61

Methodology............................................................................................................61

Responses ................................................................................................................62

Existing Data............................................................................................................63

Data Needs ..............................................................................................................64

Options for Addressing Data Needs ........................................................................70

Tables

A-1 Email Listservs Contacted................................................................................62

A-2 Survey Responses by Type of Respondent ......................................................64

A-3 Types of Existing Data Cited in Survey ..........................................................65

A-4 Sources of Existing Data Cited in Survey ........................................................65

A-5 Outreach Effort: Summary of Identified Data Needs......................................66

Figures

A-1 Responses by Scope of Activity........................................................................63

A-2 Survey Responses by Type of Organization ....................................................63

B Other Recent Assessments of Data Needs ..................................................75

Irvine Conference ....................................................................................................75

Bureau of Transportation Statistics Assessment ......................................................76

Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand Forecasting Guidebook ........................................76

References ..........................................................................................................77

v
Executive Summary

The potential of pedestrian and bicycle travel to provide mobility,

reduce congestion, improve environmental quality, and promote

public health has received increasing attention in recent years.

Research, planning, and policymaking efforts to improve conditions

for pedestrian and bicycle travel require data such as travel and facility characteristics, crash and safety information, and user preferences.

However, deficiencies and limitations in existing sources for these

data often hamper these efforts.

As an initial step towards enhancing bicycle and pedestrian data quality and filling data gaps, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)

has undertaken this assessment of bicycle and pedestrian data needs.

The study has the following objectives:

● First, to provide an inventory of existing sources of bicycle and

pedestrian-related data, including the extent, quality, and limitations of these sources;

● Second, to identify and prioritize areas in which additional or

improved data are needed; and

● Third, to identify and recommend opportunities for improving the

quality of bicycle and pedestrian data. 

1
This review of existing data and data needs was based on outreach to user

groups that included planners, advocates, and researchers at federal, state,

and local government agencies, universities, and nonprofit organizations.

Published materials and information from other recent assessments of transportation data needs were also reviewed. Primary data sources were classified by four types: 1) usage, trip, and user characteristics; 2) user preferences;

3) facilities; and 4) crash and safety data. Key types of secondary data (data

that are based on analysis of primary data) were also identified, including

research-study results and manuals of practice.

Based on this review, priorities for data needs were identified based on the

following criteria:

● Importance of the data for its intended application(s) and audience(s); 

● Quality of existing data; and

● Usefulness of the data for a range of applications (facility design, trend

analysis, etc.), audiences (researchers, planners, policymakers, etc.), and

geographic scales (local, state, national).

The identified priorities are shown in table 1.

The study also identified a number of opportunities for improving the quality of bicycle and pedestrian data. Emerging information technology, including intelligent transportation systems (ITS) for data collection as well as

information management tools such as geographic information systems

(GIS), have the potential to make data collection, management, and analysis

cheaper and easier. Greater coordination of efforts, however, is required to

fully exploit the potential of these technologies to improve pedestrian and

bicycle data. Also, certain types of data, such as numbers of trips by facility

and user type, are potentially useful to a wide range of user groups; but coordination among these groups is required to establish standardized, mutually

beneficial data collection procedures. 

Some of the key recommendations emerging from this study are identified

below. These are areas in which federal involvement—through coordination

of efforts, provision of technical assistance, or sponsorship of research and

development activities—could greatly assist in benefiting a broad range of

user groups.

2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
General/Cross-Cutting Recommendations:

● Bring together the full range of users of bicycle and pedestrian data to discuss how specific data collection efforts could benefit the broadest number of users. 

● Include in this discussion those who collect all types of transportation

data; for example, representatives of the U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT), state DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations,

and city and county transportation agencies. 

● Opportunities for improving bicycle and pedestrian data should be

viewed in conjunction with current opportunities and constraints for

improving related types of general transportation data.

Executive Summary 3

Table 1

Assessment of Data Priorities

Quality of Priority for

Type of data and description existing data better data

Usage, trip, and user characteristics

Number of bicyclists and pedestrians 

by facility or geographic area Poor High

User and trip characteristics by

geographic area or facility Fair Medium/high

User preferences

Relative preferences for facility 

design characteristics and other 

supporting factors Fair Medium

Facilities data

Characteristics relating to quality

for bicycle or pedestrian travel Fair Medium

Crash and safety data

Specific bicycle- and pedestrian-relevant

crash variables Fair Medium/high

Data regarding crashes that do

not involve a motor vehicle Poor Medium

Secondary data

Safety and demand impacts of

design features Fair High

Safety and demand impacts of

policies, programs Fair Medium
Recommendations on Usage, Trip, and User Characteristics:

● Evaluate and promote new bicycle- and pedestrian-counting technologies

(i.e., video imaging, infrared sensors) by synthesizing the results of current

pilot-testing efforts, sponsoring additional pilot tests and methodological

development, and conducting outreach efforts to disseminate successful

technologies.

● Develop a “handbook” or manual on basic pedestrian and bicycle characteristics such as trip-length distributions and typical socioeconomic and

demographic characteristics.

● Develop and widely disseminate sampling and other methodologies for

conducting pedestrian and bicycle counts and travel surveys. 

● Continue to develop and promote methodological improvements to

household travel surveys, such as metropolitan surveys, the Nationwide

Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS), and other federally sponsored

surveys, to better capture short walk trips, access to transit trips, children’s trips, and purely recreational walk and bicycle trips.

Recommendations on Preferences, Needs, and Attitudes:

● Synthesize and disseminate existing knowledge on preferences, needs, and

attitudes, and update this information on a regular basis. 

● Develop survey questions regarding conditions and preferences for bicycling and walking that could be added to existing metropolitan household

travel surveys, the NPTS, or other surveys.

● Develop surveys and sampling methodologies that can be applied locally

across the nation. 

Recommendations on Facilities:

● Assist in standardizing data formats and definitions of bicycle and pedestrian facilities where appropriate, in order to facilitate use in other applications (crash analysis, network models, etc.) and to promote data

comparability among jurisdictions and geographic areas. 

● Facilitate discussions among various data user groups to identify key network characteristics relevant to bicycle and pedestrian planning and

design, and provide guidance to state and local agencies responsible for

collecting and maintaining transportation data. 

4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
● Investigate new technologies for data collection, such as aerial photography and satellite imagery, and disseminate successful applications.

Recommendations on Crashes and Safety:

● Build consensus on characteristics that are most important to record in

reporting of crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians; include these

characteristics in developing standards for computer-based reporting systems. 

● Investigate opportunities provided by GIS and global positioning systems

(GPS) for identifying and documenting the precise location of crashes;

investigate any potential implications of these technologies for how crash

and facilities data should be reported and managed.

● Investigate methods to achieve more thorough reporting of injury crashes

as well as reporting of nonmotor vehicle crashes and incidents. 

● Investigate the potential of utilizing existing linked crash and medical

record databases for pedestrian and bicycle crash research. 

Recommendations on Secondary Data:

● Continue to improve the availability of existing research by summarizing

existing studies and by making resources available via the Internet.

● Prioritize, fund, and promote research to fill in key gaps in knowledge

related to bicycle and pedestrian travel. 

Executive Summary 5
Introduction

The importance of pedestrian and bicycle travel has received

increasing attention in recent years as planners and policymakers

recognize the benefits to communities, public health, economic development, and the environment of improving nonmotorized travel

options. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), passed by Congress in 1998, requires the consideration of bicycle and pedestrian needs in transportation planning and increases

funding opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian projects. TEA-21

also directs the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to develop

data on bicycles and pedestrians.

Efforts to plan for bicycle and pedestrian travel are frequently hampered, however, by deficiencies in data on travel characteristics, facilities,

safety, and user preferences. As a step toward improving the quality of

bicycle and pedestrian data, BTS has undertaken this assessment of bicycle and pedestrian data needs. The study has the following objectives:

● First, to provide an inventory of existing sources of bicycle and

pedestrian-related data, including the extent, quality, and limitations of these sources;

● Second, to identify and prioritize areas in which additional or

improved data are needed; and

● Third, to identify and recommend opportunities for improving the

quality of bicycle and pedestrian data. 

7

CHAPTER

1
STUDY APPROACH

The following methods were used to identify existing sources of bicycle and

pedestrian data, data needs and priorities, and opportunities for improving data

collection:

● Interviews and discussions with key people involved with pedestrian

and/or bicycle issues at a national level;

● An email questionnaire sent to numerous individuals and groups, including national, state, and local pedestrian and bicycle planners, advocates,

and researchers;

● Various written sources of information, both published and unpublished;

● Experience gained from previous pedestrian and bicycle projects undertaken by the authors of the report.

Appendix A provides an overview of the email survey methodology and results.

Appendix B contains a brief review of other recent assessments of data needs.

WHY COLLECT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DATA?

A perspective on the various uses of bicycle and pedestrian data is helpful in

assessing needs and opportunities. Bicycle and pedestrian data are commonly

applied to at least three general uses:

● Research studies and recommended practices;

● Planning and design of facilities, project selection decisions, policies, and

programs; and

● Analysis of conditions and trends to inform policymaking. 

Consideration of the various uses of data can help shape data collection programs to benefit the greatest number of users. In many cases, programs to collect and manage data can be designed to benefit a broad range of users. In other

cases, research and planning studies will require data collection efforts geared

toward the specific needs of the study. Even in cases where data needs are specific to the study context, however, improvements in data collection technologies and methods are still of general value. Some requirements and needs for the

various uses of data are discussed in more detail below.

Research

Research studies may rely wholly or in part on data collected specifically for the

study being conducted. National or local data sources may also be utilized,

8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
depending on the scope of the study and the quality of available sources. Bicycle

and pedestrian research studies fall into at least three major categories:

● Studies on basic operational characteristics (e.g., bicyclist riding speeds,

shared-path “level-of-service” characteristics, or pedestrian gap acceptance at intersections). These studies usually rely on specific data-collection efforts.

● Studies of factors influencing crashes and safety. These studies rely on at

least two types of data: 1) crash characteristics, describing the people and

vehicles involved, location, environmental conditions, contributing factors, injury outcomes, etc.; and 2) usage data, including flows by location,

user characteristics, etc., from which measures of exposure and therefore

risk can be derived. 

● User preference and demand studies, which analyze the effects of facility

design and other policies on user preferences and demand (usage). These

studies frequently rely on surveys of existing and potential pedestrians

and bicyclists. Quantitative models of behavior can also be used to develop information on user preferences. These models may be based either on

“stated preference” survey data, in which people are asked to make choices among various alternatives, or on “revealed preference” data, i.e.,

observations of people’s actual behavior from travel surveys and counts.

These studies may also utilize trend data on usage, which is analyzed to

determine the impacts of facility or policy changes. 

● As researchers synthesize and analyze raw data from research studies, the

results yield secondary data, such as evidence on the impacts of facility

design and other policies on safety, user satisfaction, demand, medical

costs, and other factors. The results may be in the form of direct statements of impact, or they may take the form of coefficients, factors, etc.

that can be used in modeling the joint impacts of multiple actions. 

Research results are also used to develop manuals of practice. These secondary

forms of data include design manuals, policies, and programs that, based on the

results of a variety of research studies as well as other factors, can be defined as

“recommended practices.”

Planning and Design

Planning and design for pedestrian and bicycle travel involves at least the following aspects:

● The siting and design of facilities for travel (e.g., roads, signals, paths, and

lanes);

Introduction 9
● Development and implementation of operational policies (e.g., traffic

rules and enforcement);

● Provision of other incentives (e.g., bicycle parking, shower and locker

facilities for bicyclists) or disincentives (e.g., tolls and parking pricing) to

travel by various modes; 

● Education and outreach efforts (e.g., to provide information and training

and to influence attitudes and beliefs).

Planning is supported by primary data collected locally, such as user and trip

characteristics, traffic counts, facility characteristics, and crash data. Primary

data can help identify the specific treatments that should be applied locally,

where they should be applied, and what the specific benefits or impacts are likely to be. Uses of primary, locally collected data in planning often include the following:

● Identifying and addressing deficiencies: Data on crashes (or incidents) and

facility characteristics are used to identify trouble spots in bicycle or

pedestrian travel networks and to identify solutions that address these

deficiencies.

● Forecasting demand: Data on facilities, counts, travel patterns, and market and user characteristics are used in conjunction with modeling techniques to forecast travel patterns and demand under assumed future

conditions. Travel forecasts can be used for planning the location of

routes to create a travel network, developing lists of projects for funding,

and providing background for policy decisions.

● Prioritizing projects: Counts and/or demand forecasts are used in conjunction with known deficiencies to identify and prioritize improvements.

● Designing education and outreach programs: Data on crash characteristics and causes as well as counts or survey data (e.g., bicyclists against

traffic flow) can assist in designing education and outreach programs for

pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists to promote safe travel practices.

Origin-destination data can help identify current populations of bicyclists

and pedestrians in order to target programs. Data on attitudes and beliefs

can be used to design programs to promote walking and bicycling and to

help plan and design facilities.

Planning is also supported in part by secondary data, such as research-study

results and recommended practices as discussed above. Secondary data can

assist in developing appropriate network plans, design treatments, operational

policies, supporting policies, and outreach programs. 

10 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
Policymaking

Information on existing conditions and trends in usage, crash rates, and facilities can provide important background for setting policy and for making funding and programmatic decisions. These data can help identify whether existing

policies and programs are successful and whether additional or revised policies

and programs are needed. For example, data indicating that walkway quality is

generally poor and declining might lead to the establishment of improvement

programs or funds, or the establishment of a committee to provide input into

improvements. Data showing increasing crash rates may indicate the need for

additional funding for efforts to improve roadway safety. 

Data on forecast usage can also be important for policymaking. Demand forecasts can be used to predict potential increases in pedestrian and bicycle travel

resulting from various types of improvements. These forecasts can help indicate

the potential benefits and impacts of various policy and programmatic decisions. 

The remainder of this document assesses the state of existing data, priorities for

data needs, and opportunities for improving data collection.

Introduction 11
Existing Data Sources

The following sections provide an overview of existing U.S. sources

of pedestrian- and bicycle-related data, including characteristics,

uses, limitations, and potential enhancements of each source. While

the focus is mainly on data sources available at the national level, the

general existence and quality of data sources at the state and local levels are also discussed. For purposes of this report, both primary and

secondary data sources are identified. Primary data sources are classified by the following types of data:

● Usage, trip, and user characteristics, including couts of users, trip

patterns, and demographic socioeconomic characteristics;1

● Data on the preferences, needs, and attitudes of current or potential bicyclists and pedestrians;

● Facility characteristics, including the locations and attributes of

pedestrian and bicycle facilities; 

13

1 A separate category could be established on traffic flow characteristics that would include

pedestrian and bicycle volumes, speeds, and traffic densities on individual facilities. Traffic

flow data are routinely collected for motor vehicles to characterize system performance and

congestion, but with the exception of specific research studies, only volume (count) data are

collected for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. In this report, counts are discussed in conjunction

with related survey data on usage, since both are collected with similar objectives.

CHAPTER

2
● Crash and safety data, including crashes and other data related to the

safety and security of bicycle and pedestrian travel; and

● Expenditures on and capital stocks of vehicles and facilities.

While only primary data sources are treated in detail, a number of secondary

data sources are also discussed briefly because these were identified in the

course of the study as being important to practitioners. These secondary sources

include:

● Results of research studies,

● Manuals of practice, and 

● Other sources.

A summary of existing data sources is provided in table 2-1.

USAGE, TRIP, AND USER CHARACTERISTICS

This broad category of data answers the questions of who is traveling, how,

where, when, and why. Usage data may take the form of number of travelers

by facility, time of day, geographic area, etc. Data on trips include items such as

origin and destination, trip length, mode, route, purpose, and time of day.

Characteristics of the trip maker or “system user” may include demographic

and socioeconomic factors such as age, gender, income, household structure,

and other information that describes the person and his or her situation in life. 

Data may be reported either in aggregate or disaggregate form. Aggregated data

show statistics such as mode split or average income for all persons living in a

census tract. Disaggregated data include records of the characteristics and trip

patterns of individual people or households. Disaggregated data can be analyzed directly for modeling purposes. Data on usage, trip, and user characteristics are initially collected at a disaggregated level but are frequently reported or

available for analysis only at some level of aggregation. In the aggregate, personal and trip variables may be cross-classified, e.g., trip length distributions by

mode, purpose, and/or age. 

Data sources for usage, trip, and user characteristics include:

● Counts of bicyclists or pedestrians,

● The U.S. decennial census,

● Metropolitan household travel surveys,

● The Nationwide Personal Travel Survey (NPTS),

● Other surveys conducted sporadically at a national level, and

● Various local surveys and market studies.

14 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
Table 2-1

Existing Sources of Bicycle and Pedestrian Data (includes national and multistate-level sources only)USAGE, TRIP, AND USER CHARACTERISTICS; PREFERENCES, NEEDS, AND ATTITUDESData source Agency Scale Frequency Coverage Contents Uses U.S. Census: U.S. Census National 10 years U.S. Aggregate (by * Journey-to-work Summary Tape Bureau population metropolitan area, mode shares/trends Files, Census (entire) civil division, block *Journey-to-work Transportation group)—socio- correlation with Planning Package economic data, aggregate-level 

journey-to-work socioeconomic data 

mode share

U.S. Census: U.S. Census National 10 years U.S. Disaggregate— Possible applications Public Use Bureau population household and in bike/pedestrian Microsample (5% at county individual analysis 

level, 1% at socioeconomic data,metropolitan journey-to-work

level) mode share

Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan 10–20 Metropolitan Disaggregate— * Mode shares/trends Area planning area years area popula- household and * Socioeconomic daHousehold organizations tion (random individual characteristics Travel Surveys (MPOs) sample of socioeconomic data, * Trip characteristics

1,000 to trip patterns * Behavior modeling10,000households)

Nationwide U.S. DOT, National 5 years U.S. popula- Disaggregate— * Mode shares/trends Personal Federal tion (random household and * Socioeconomic daTransportation Highway sample of individual characteristics Survey Administration 22,000 socioeconomic data, * Trip characteristics 

households) trip patterns * Behavior modeling 

National National National Annual U.S. Cycling participation Conditions and Sporting Sporting population (6+ times in previous trends analysis Goods Goods (random year) by age, gender Association Association sample) 
Table 2-1 (Continued)

USAGE, TRIP, AND

USER

CHARACTERISTICS; PREFERENCES, NEEDS, AND

ATTITUDES

Data source Agency Scale Frequency Coverage Contents Uses National Bike Consumer National 1991 U.S. User and usage * Helmet usage Helmet Use Product 1998 population characteristics * Bicyclist characteristicSurvey Safety (1,000+ * Crash analysis 

Commission (CPSC) sample) (exposure) 

Adult Bicyclist University of National 1995 Adults (2,300+ Characteristics, Bicyclist 

Survey (Moritz) Washington sample) exposure characteristics

Rodale Press Rodale Press National Varies Adults Cycle, walk, run— * Conditions and Surveys (1,000+ participation, user trends analysis

sample) characteristics, * User preferences

purpose, incentives,

facility availability

National Health Centers for National Annual Sample of Frequency of Conditions and Interview Disease U.S. physical activity; trends analysis Survey Control and population demographic 

Prevention (CDC) information 

Behavioral Risk CDC National/ Continuous Monthly Optional module on * Conditions and Factor state random exercise: distance and trends analysis Surveillance sample frequency of jog/walk; * Pedestrian System optional state characteristics 

questions may include (recreation only) from 

bike helmet use exercise module

Survey on U.S. DOT, National 1999 U.S. Socioeconomic data * Developing Public Beliefs National population characteristics; educational efforts,and Awareness Highway (random accident exposure; incidentAbout Traffic Safety sample of driving, walking, countermeasuresPedestrian and Administration 4,000) biking exposure;Bike Safety (NHTSA) willingness to walk/Problems bike; attitudes and

knowledge of road users and usage
FACILITIESData source Agency Scale Frequency Coverage Contents Uses Census TIGER/ U.S. Census National Continuous Entire road Location, name, Conditions analysis— Line files Bureau network in address, ranges street topographic m

U.S. sures (connectivity, 

route density, etc.)

National U.S. DOT, National Continuous Nationally Location, name, Attributes of Transportation Bureau of significant capacity, classification, major roads Atlas Databases Transportation roads traffic volume

Statistics

Rail Trail Rails-to-Trails National Continuous All rail trails Location, length, Conditions and trendDatabase Conservancy in U.S. surface, cost, contacts analysis 

State road State DOTs State Continuous Federal, state Road characteristics, Facilities inventory, databases highways traffic volume, needs identification,

crashes crash studies

CRASHES AND SAFETYData source Agency Scale Frequency Coverage Contents Uses Fatality Analysis U.S. DOT, National Continuous All fatal Attributes of crash, Fatal crash analysis Reporting NHTSA crashes vehicle, person, driver System involving motor (100+ attributes) 

vehicles on public roads 

National Auto- U.S. DOT, National Continuous Sample of Attributes of crash, Crash analysis motive Sampling NHTSA police accident vehicle, person, driver, System— reports for (approx. 90 attributes) General motor vehicle Estimates crashes 

System National U.S. DOT, National Annual Summary Motor vehicle Conditions and trendTransportation Bureau of statistics based accidents by type; analysis Statistics Transportation on General costs; trends

Statistics Estimates System

C
Table 2-1 (Continued) CRASHES AND SAFETY Data source Agency Scale Frequency Coverage Contents Uses National Vital CDC, National Annual All deaths in Cause, circumstances Conditions and trendStatistics National United States analysis System Center for 

Health Statistics 

National CDC, National Annual Sample of Cause (including Conditions and trendHospital National injuries in motor vehicle) analysis Ambulatory Center for United States Medical Care Health 

Survey StatisticsAccident National National Annual Based on Summary statistics on Conditions and trendFacts Safety Council General pedestrian, bicyclist, analysis

Estimates motor vehicle injuriesSystem, NationalCenter for Health

Statistics data

National CPSC National Annual Sample of Injury characteristics Bicycle injury Electronic Injury injuries and circumstances analysis Surveillance associated withSystem consumer 

products

State Data U.S. DOT, 17 states Data from Varies by state * Crash analysis System NHTSA police accident * Conditions and tren

reports for analysis motor vehicle crashes 

Crash Outcome U.S. DOT, States (19 Continuous/ Links highway crash Cost, cost burden Data Evaluation NHTSA currently) annual data to medical and analysis 

System financial outcome data State-level crash State DOTs State Continuous Federal, state Crashes (location, * Deficiency and needatabases highways characteristics) identification

* Crash analysis
CRASHES AND SAFETY (Continued)Data source Agency Scale Frequency Coverage Contents Uses Police accident State, local Local Continuous All crashes with Crashes (location, Crash analysis reports police agencies minimum characteristics)

damage value

Safety U.S. DOT, National Continuous/ Incidents on Incident characteristics Pedestrian incidents Management Federal Transit annual transit property involving transit Information Administration vehicles, property

StatisticsFederal Railroad U.S. DOT, National Continuous/ Incidents on Incident characteristics Pedestrian incidents Administration Federal Railroad annual railroad property/ involving railroad 

Administration right-of-way vehicles, property

EXPENDITURES AND CAPITAL STOCKSData source Agency Scale Frequency Coverage Contents Uses Bicycle Bicycle National 5 years Bicycles sold in Sales of bicycles with Conditions and trendManufacturers Manufacturers United States 20+ inch wheels analysis Association Association 

Consumer Bureau of National Continuous/ U.S. Expenditures on Conditions and trendExpenditure Labor annual population bicycles by personal analysis Survey Statistics (random and household 

sample) characteristics 

Rodale Press Rodale Press National Varies (last Sample of new Bicycle expenditures Conditions and trendSurveys 1990) bike purchasers purchase; user analysis

characteristics

GENERAL SOURCESData source Agency Scale Frequency Coverage Contents Uses National U.S. DOT, Bureau National Annual Not Various summary Conditions and trendTransportation of Transportation applicable statistics analysis Statistics Statistics
Counts

Counts indicate how many people or vehicles are using the system at any given

location. Counts may be differentiated by user characteristics, time of day, or

day of week. In addition, if an appropriate sample is conducted, counts can be

summarized to provide estimates of overall facility or system usage by time,

geographic area, facility type, or user type. Counts have a variety of uses,

including:

● Tracking trends in usage,

● Developing exposure measures for crash analysis, 

● Evaluating level of service on a facility by comparing volumes to capacity, 

● Identifying and prioritizing improvements, and

● Calibrating travel demand models.

Motor vehicle traffic volumes are monitored through the Highway Performance

Monitoring System (HPMS). The HPMS is a national system for tracking

motor vehicle traffic volumes by vehicle type, facility type, and geographic area

based on counts at a carefully selected sample of locations. No equivalent of the

HPMS exists for monitoring pedestrian and bicycle volumes or distance traveled. While a few cities and metropolitan planning organizations routinely conduct pedestrian and bicycle counts, most collect them only sporadically for

specific studies or do not collect them at all. 

Existing local count data also vary in quality. When designing a study, consideration must be given to choosing sampling times and collecting enough samples to account for daily, weekly, and seasonal variations, as well as for random

variations resulting from weather, special events, and other causes. If counts are

to be used to estimate traffic in a larger geographic area, a representative set of

locations must also be sampled. A national compendium of local counts was

published in 1994 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as a supplement to the National Bicycling and Walking Study, although such a compendium is not updated on a regular basis (USDOT FHWA 1994). 

Census

The decennial census represents a nearly 100-percent enumeration of the U.S.

population, although some variables are collected only for a sample of the population. Data are publicly available in aggregate form, with most variables

available at the geographic level of the census tract (roughly 4,000 to 5,000

people) and some available at the block or block-group level. Data of interest

to bicycle and pedestrian planning include work-trip characteristics—notably

mode, travel time, time leaving for work, time leaving from work, and

20 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
origin/destination areas. Various personal and household characteristics,

including number of automobiles available to the household, are also relevant.

Some cross-classifications are available in the Census Transportation Planning

Package (CTPP), such as travel time by mode and mode use by gender, at the

geographic level of the city or minor civil division. The CTPP is also available

at the census tract or traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level for many urban areas.

The Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) contains disaggregated data

for a sample of the population, five percent at the county level and one percent

at the metropolitan area level. 

Census data are widely used in transportation planning. Major advantages of

census data include public availability, ease of use, and reliability due to the

large sample size. Also, uniform data are available for the entire country at a

fine level of geographic detail. For pedestrian and bicycle planning, the census

is generally used for comparing journey-to-work mode shares among different

areas. Some aggregate-level studies have used census data to relate journey-towork bicycle or walk mode shares to other variables such as average income,

population density, and zero-vehicle households. These studies have used data

at the level of the census tract, city, and metropolitan area (e.g., Ashley 1989

and Nelson 1997).

Some commonly recognized limitations of census data for pedestrian and bicycle analysis are listed here:

● Only work trips are included. Thus, if census data are used to represent

overall levels of walking and bicycling, these must be assumed to be in

some proportion to work-trip use. Work trips make up less than onequarter of all trips, so nonwork trip-making patterns are not captured by

the census.

● The data may not represent “normal” pedestrian and bicycle work-trip

mode use. The census is conducted the first week in April, and respondents are asked to report their most frequently used mode in the past

week. Mode use may fluctuate depending on weather conditions, and

occasional bicyclists or walkers would not be included. Also, trips by multiple modes (e.g., a walk to the subway) cannot be determined. 

● Data are not available at both the disaggregate level and a high level of

geographic detail. PUMS disaggregated data are only available for small

samples at the level of the city or county, and the application of PUMS

data to pedestrian and bicycle analysis has been very limited. 

● The census is collected only once every 10 years, so it is not useful for

tracking short-term trends or changes. In the future, the Census Bureau

plans to use the new American Community Survey to provide updated

data every year instead of once in 10 years.

Existing Data Sources 21
Because of the large amount of data that must be collected in the census and the

need to obtain a high level of response, it is unlikely that the census can be modified to collect more comprehensive data related to pedestrian and bicycle travel. It is possible, however, that further detailed analyses of the existing

disaggregated census data—performed confidentially and released in aggregate

or summary form for public use—could help relate journey-to-work characteristics to personal characteristics, household characteristics, and any relevant

tract-level data such as population density. 

Metropolitan Household Travel Surveys

Household travel surveys are conducted in most larger metropolitan areas by

the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) on a 5- to 20-year basis. These

surveys are usually administered to a sample of 1,000 or more area households

whose members then record their trip patterns (time, origin, destination, mode,

purpose, cost, etc.) over the course of one or two days. Characteristics of the

traveler and of the household are also recorded. 

Household surveys are used in travel forecasting to develop and calibrate models of travel behavior. These models are used in transportation planning to predict future travel patterns, assess transportation needs, and examine the effects

of various transportation investments or other policy decisions. For example,

surveys conducted by the Metropolitan Service District in Portland, OR

(Portland Metro); the Chicago Area Transportation Authority; and the Capital

District Transportation Commission in Albany, NY, have been used to develop

mode choice models that predict walk mode shares as a function of the quality

of the pedestrian environment. Household surveys can also can be used to

develop descriptive statistics about trip and traveler characteristics. The data

sets can generally be obtained from the local MPO for further analysis.

The information gathered in household travel surveys is, in theory, useful for

assessing characteristics of pedestrian and bicycle travel. In practice, the surveys

suffer from a number of limitations:

● Many MPOs cannot afford to conduct expensive travel surveys. For those

that do conduct regular surveys, the sample size and trip reporting are

often too small to provide useful information for detailed bicycle and

pedestrian planning. A survey of 3,000 people with a 2 percent bicycle

mode share yields 60 bicycle travelers. This is too small a sample to yield

statistically significant information for any subset of the sample, for

example, to examine how characteristics vary by geographic area or trip

purpose.

● Trips solely for the purpose of recreation, such as a stroll or bicycle ride,

are not included.

22 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
● Walk trips (particularly short trips such as from work to a cash machine)

are commonly underreported. Also, walk trips to access other modes,

notably transit, are often not tracked separately in travel surveys.

● The surveys provide only limited information on the travel patterns of

children. The parent completing the survey is generally asked to report

trips for children from age five to somewhere in the teens. As a result of

this proxy reporting, not all trips may be noted.

MPOs are developing more sophisticated travel survey methods as they search

both for better data and cheaper data-collection methods, but significant limitations still exist. Some potential enhancements to address the above limitations

for pedestrian and bicycle analysis include:

● The survey sample size can be increased to obtain data on more bicycle

and walk trips for analysis. The costs of obtaining a sufficient sample size

for detailed analysis, however, may be prohibitive. As an alternative, areas

with high levels of pedestrian and bicycle travel may be oversampled, or

these groups may be targeted in other ways similar to obtaining sufficient

samples of transit riders through on-board surveys. Portland Metro, for

example, collected additional surveys in densely populated urban neighborhoods that were likely to have higher numbers of pedestrian trips.

Effective means of obtaining larger, representative samples of bicycle and

pedestrian travelers is an area in which further research and implementation experience is needed.

● Proper survey design and interviewer training can greatly reduce the

underreporting of short-walk trips and transit-access trips.

● A few areas are testing “time-use” surveys, in which all daily activities

rather than just trips are recorded. Time-use surveys, if designed properly, could identify the time and length (although not the route taken) for

purely recreational walk and bicycle trips. Portland, OR, has adopted this

methodology and it is being tested in Seattle, WA.

● Underreporting of short trips, walk trips, and trips by children may be

reduced or eliminated through the use of global positioning system (GPS)

receivers to record travel patterns. GPS could also be used to identify specific routes taken for walk and bicycle trips. The use of GPS in travel surveys is currently being explored in Atlanta, GA, Phoenix, AZ, and

Lexington, KY. The first two are multimodal surveys, including bicycle

and pedestrian modes.

● In addition to collecting trip data, household surveys may include a

stated-preference component that can be used to assess travelers’ preferences for various hypothetical mode and route choices. Stated-preference

components have been added to surveys in areas such as Portland, OR,

Existing Data Sources 23
and Dallas, TX, to assess factors such as road pricing and residential location choice. Questions could also be developed that focus on bicycle and

pedestrian travel incentives and options. Conducting stated preference

surveys in conjunction with travel surveys provides compatible data sets

and thus, potentially, more useful information than conducting these surveys independently. On the other hand, creating longer surveys increases

the cost of the survey and also has the potential to reduce the quality and

rate of responses. 

Nationwide Personal Travel Survey

The Nationwide Personal Travel Survey (NPTS) is a household travel survey

administered on a national level. Recent surveys took place in 1983, 1990, and

1995, and the next is planned for 2000–2001 with results available in early

2002. In 1995, the national survey included approximately 21,000 randomly

selected households. Additional households were sampled in specific areas (metropolitan areas or states) that elected to use the NPTS as a supplement or

replacement for their metropolitan household travel survey.

The NPTS is used to analyze the nature and amount of personal travel, the relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and travel patterns, and trends

in passenger travel. The NPTS sample is large enough to provide meaningful

information for pedestrian and bicycle trips at the aggregate level by trip purpose and trip rates by mode, and social, economic, and demographic characteristics of the respondents. The NPTS is publicly available for analysis through

the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s website, which also has publications and

summary data from the 1995 survey. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics’s

(BTS’s) NPTS CD-ROM (BTS-CD-09) contains publications and data for the

1983 and 1990 surveys.

Although the NPTS is a nationally representative survey with a relatively large

sample size, it suffers from some of the same limitations as metropolitan households surveys, discussed above. The NPTS is not detailed enough to identify

bicycle and pedestrian trip and traveler characteristics for specific geographic

areas, such as a metropolitan area. Increasing the sample size to allow for more

geographic specificity presents significant cost implications, just as it does with

metropolitan household surveys. Modifications similar to those noted above

could be made for metropolitan household travel surveys, including oversampling areas with high levels of pedestrian and bicycle travel, and improving the

questionnaire and providing better interviewer training to reduce underreporting of short-walk trips and transit-access trips. However, longer surveys can suffer from a reduction in quality and a lower rate of response, all of which must

be considered along with cost implications when designing the survey.

24 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
Other National Surveys

Various other national-level surveys are occasionally conducted to obtain characteristics of pedestrian and bicycle travelers. Recently, these have included the

following: 

● Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). In the early 1990s, the

CPSC undertook a study of bicycle use and hazard patterns (see box 2-1).

A nationwide telephone survey was conducted of over 1,200 bicyclists to

obtain data on exposure (usage patterns) to complement a survey of bicycle-related injuries reported in hospital emergency rooms. The exposure

survey provided information on rider characteristics, such as age and gender, as well as use patterns, such as trip purpose and type of facilities used

(Rodgers 1994).

● National adult bicyclist survey. A survey of over 2,300 adult bicycle

commuters was conducted in 1995 to determine characteristics and experience of bicyclists (Moritz 1997). The survey provides information on

bicycle commuter personal characteristics, trip length and frequency,

facilities available, equipment, motivation for commuting, crashes, and

Existing Data Sources 25

In 1990 and 1991, the U.S. Consumer Product

Safety Commission (CPSC) undertook a major

national study of bicycle use and hazard patterns. CPSC conducted two surveys: an injury

survey utilizing National Electronic Injury

Surveillance System (NEISS) data and a national random-digit-dial telephone survey to obtain

exposure data. The results were combined to

evaluate bicycle usage and risk factors.

The exposure survey estimated that there are

about 67 million bicyclists who ride a total of

about 15 billion hours annually. Most bicycling

is for recreational purposes, but almost 9 percent of riders use their bicycles primarily for

commuting to work or school. The survey confirms the importance of children’s travel and

recreation, which is not measured in many surveys: about 22 percent of bicyclists are under

age 10 and 40 percent are under age 15. The

survey also noted a higher risk of injury among

children, with injury rates per million hours of

use roughly double those of most other age

groups.

Questions about riding habits showed that

most bicyclists (64 percent) ride a substantial

proportion of the time on neighborhood streets

with low traffic volumes. This compares with

29 percent on sidewalks and playgrounds, 17

percent on bike paths, 18 percent on unpaved

roads, 7 percent on major thoroughfares, and

11 percent on unpaved surfaces or trails. The

survey also noted that collisions or near-collisions with moving motor vehicles accounted

for only about 10 percent of injuries. The

remainder resulted from a variety of other factors, such as collisions with other bicyclists,

pedestrians, or stationary objects; stunts; and

falls on rough or slippery riding surfaces. 

SOURCE: Gregory B. Rodgers et al., Bicycle Use and

Hazard Patterns in the United States, prepared for the U.S.

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1994.

Box 2-1

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Study
perceived safety. The survey was distributed over the Internet and via

mailed responses to advertisements and, therefore, does not represent a

random sample of commuters.

● Recreational surveys. The National Sporting Goods Association conducts

an annual national survey to determine participation (six or more times

in the previous year) in a variety of sporting activities, including bicycling,

by age and gender. Results are published in the Census Bureau’s annual

Statistical Abstract of the United States. Rodale Press occasionally conducts surveys of 1,000 or more adults to identify participation in bicycling, walking, or running activities according to personal characteristics,

incentives, and availability of facilities. These surveys may be most useful

for tracking national trends in recreational bicycling and walking. Survey

results are published in aggregate format, but this study did not find any

instances where disaggregated data were made publicly available for

analysis.

● Health and physical activity surveys. The Behavioral Risk Factor

Surveillance System (BRFSS) is an annual survey designed to assess

health-related risk factors including physical activity. The BRFSS is

designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and is

administered at the state level by State Departments of Health via monthly random samples. The survey is designed with a number of optional

modules that states can implement, including a module on exercise that

includes the frequency and distance of jogging and walking, bicycle helmet use, and other information. Survey results could be used to analyze

trends in recreational activity, including analysis by demographic characteristics. Annual sample sizes usually fall within the range of 1,000 to

4,000 per state, allowing some amount of disaggregation within each

state. The modular design of the survey also means that uniform data can

be collected in all states that choose to apply the optional modules. To

date, however, it does not appear that any states have applied the exercise

module. BRFSS survey data can be obtained on CD-ROM from the

Government Printing Office and summary statistics are also available on

the Internet.

Another annual health-related survey is the National Health Interview

Survey (NHIS), which includes the frequency of physical activity as one of

its data items. This survey could also be used for trend analysis. The survey

does not currently ask for type of physical activity, however, and does not

yield data at the level of the local community or metropolitan area. 

● NHTSA Survey on Public Beliefs. During 1999, the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted a national telephone

survey of 4,000 people on beliefs and awareness about pedestrian and

26 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
bicycle safety and accommodation. The survey included demographic and

socioeconomic characteristics; involvement in accidents; participation in

driving, walking, and bicycling; willingness to walk or bicycle; and attitudes and knowledge regarding road users and usage. The results of the

survey will be used to develop educational efforts and incident countermeasures. 

Local Surveys

In some areas local surveys have been conducted of bicyclists and/or pedestrians to assess personal and trip characteristics. University researchers, city or

metropolitan planners, or other interested groups may conduct such surveys.

The content, scope, and quality of these surveys varies considerably according

to the specific purpose, budget, and level of knowledge of those responsible for

the survey. Nevertheless, these surveys can yield useful information for local

planning. Surveys of bicyclists to determine usage patterns and personal preferences have been conducted by city or regional transportation planning agencies

in areas such as Boulder, CO, Madison, WI, San Diego, CA, and Seattle, WA. 

In many cities with rail transit systems, transit agencies routinely conduct passenger surveys that include mode of access to the station. For example, surveys

conducted by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) in

Boston; the Chicago Transit Authority and METRA commuter rail in Chicago;

and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) in San Francisco have identified the numbers and percentages of transit accessing each station by walking,

bicycling, or other modes of travel.

Local survey results might in some cases be useful to planners in other areas.

Carefully performed surveys can yield valid and transferable information on

traveler characteristics, trip patterns, and preferences. Some local surveys have

been publicized nationally, for example through FHWA’s National Bicycling

and Walking Study, which published a synthesis of survey findings in 1991

(USDOT FHWA 1992). There is no ongoing effort to identify and disseminate

local survey results, however, and such an undertaking would probably prove

difficult. Furthermore, even if local results could be made available on a widespread basis, it is important to recognize the specific situation and limitations

of each survey before generalizing to other areas.

PREFERENCES, NEEDS, AND ATTITUDES

Data on bicyclist and pedestrian preferences, needs, and attitudes attempt to

answer such questions as, how well is the existing transportation system meeting people’s need or desire to bicycle or walk? What improvements would be

most important in increasing the convenience, safety, and enjoyability of

Existing Data Sources 27
people’s travel experience? What improvements would most effectively induce

more people to walk or bike? 

These data may be collected through attitudinal surveys of existing and potential bicyclists and pedestrians. Quantitative models of behavior can also be used

to develop information on user preferences. These models may be based either

on “stated preference” survey data, in which people are asked to make choices

among various alternatives, or on “revealed preference” data, based on observations of people’s actual behavior as measured by travel surveys and counts.

Attitudinal Surveys

Attitudinal and preference data are often collected in conjunction with surveys

to determine other data, such as usage patterns, personal characteristics, and

crash experience. National survey efforts that investigate preferences, needs,

and attitudes are described above and include the recent national adult bicyclist

survey (Moritz 1997), the 1999 NHTSA Survey on Public Beliefs, and opinion

polls such as the 1991 Harris Poll. Also, as identified above, local surveys have

been conducted in some areas to assess user preferences, needs, and attitudes.

These surveys can be useful for identifying specific concerns and needs in a community or region. 

Modeling

Choice or demand models have been developed by some researchers and planners to predict bicycle or pedestrian mode or route choice based on characteristics of the mode or route (e.g., travel time, facilities available). These efforts

have produced some quantitative information on relative preferences, for

example, for bicycle lanes versus off-street trails. The Regional Transportation

Authority in Chicago, for example, recently developed a model to predict mode

of access to transit as a function of sidewalks, pathways, intersection improvements, and bicycle parking facilities in station areas (Wilbur Smith Associates

1996).

A recent FHWA guidebook identifies a range of demand modeling efforts and

summarizes the state of the practice in modeling methodologies (Cambridge

Systematics and BFA 1999). The success of these efforts has been limited, however, both by a lack of data and limitations in methodologies. To date, no comprehensive effort has been made to compare the preferences data developed by

various models and to assess their validity for widespread use in demand forecasting. 

28 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
FACILITIES

Data on pedestrian and bicycle facilities may describe the type of facility (sidewalk, shared-use path, on-road bike lane, pedestrian bridge, etc.), location,

length, width, physical condition, topography, intersection characteristics, and

other relevant features. Data on road facilities, such as number of lanes, lane

width, pavement quality, and intersection characteristics, can also be relevant to

analysis of bicycle and pedestrian travel.

Data on individual facilities need to be geographically referenced in some way

to be meaningful. This referencing may occur in a format as simple as a paper

map or a list of roads by jurisdiction. Increasingly, however, Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) are being used to maintain facility databases. GIS

can include databases in the form of lines (e.g., route segments) or points (e.g.,

intersections or bridges). GIS software packages provide a variety of analysis

and visual display capabilities that take advantage of the geographic nature of

the data.

Data on facilities can also be reported in summary formats. These might

include, for example, percentage of a city’s street network with continuous sidewalks, or miles of bike route by type and pavement condition within a city. An

example of aggregate reporting on road and highway facilities is the Federal

Highway Administration’s annual Highway Statistics (USDOT FHWA 2000).

Potential sources of data on bicycle and pedestrian facilities include:

● The U.S. Census Bureau’s Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding

and Reference (TIGER) files,

● The National Transportation Atlas,

● The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy’s recreational trails database,

● State road databases, and

● Local road information.

Census TIGER Files

The U.S. Census Bureau maintains its TIGER database, a digital database of

geographic features, including roads, covering the entire United States. The

database contains information about these features, such as location in latitude

and longitude, name, type of feature, address ranges for most streets, geographic relationship to other features, and other related information.

TIGER/Line files are publicly available and can be imported into most GIS software packages. 

Existing Data Sources 29
The TIGER/Line street network is comprehensive. It has been used in pedestrian analysis to analyze the connectivity of local street networks and, thus, the

directness of pedestrian pathways (Hsaio 1997). Its usefulness for pedestrian

and bicycle analysis is somewhat limited because it does not contain any facility attributes such as street widths, number of lanes, presence of sidewalks, etc.

In addition, it does not contain pedestrian and bicycle connections that are not

part of the street network, such as alleys, walkways, or pathways. It can, however, serve as a base map for additional mapping of facilities and characteristics

at the local level.

National Transportation Atlas

The National Transportation Atlas Databases (NTAD) are a collection of geospatial databases, developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation and

other federal agencies, depicting transportation facilities, networks, and services of national significance. The databases are designed to be used with GIS

software. Elements of the NTAD can be downloaded or ordered through the

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) website. 

One element of the NTAD is the National Highway Planning Network, a network database representing approximately 400,000 miles of federal-aid roads

in the 50 states and Puerto Rico. It is a topologically connected line database

depicting the locations and centerline alignments of nationally significant roads.

Attributes include route names or numbers, capacity measures, various network

classifications, and traffic volumes.

The NTAD is currently of very limited usefulness for bicycle and pedestrian

planning since it does not include local roads or bicycle and pedestrian facilities. However, it does contain a few attributes (e.g., capacity and traffic volumes) that may be relevant to bicycle and pedestrian planning. It also

demonstrates the potential of GIS technology to make information on transportation facilities readily available and usable on a national scale. 

National-level inventories of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, similar to those

maintained for roads and highways, have not been developed. 

Recreational Trails Database

The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy maintains a database of trails in the United

States that utilize former railway alignments. The database currently includes

information on the location, mileage, type of surface, contacts, and other information as available for specific trails. Summary data on total trails and mileage,

both existing and projected, are available by state. The database may be useful

for tracking trends in the provision of off-road travel/recreation facilities. It is

30 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
also a potential repository for other relevant information, such as the number,

characteristics, and trip patterns of trail users by trail as well as characteristics

of trail access and the surrounding area. If enough data of reasonable quality

could be assembled, this might provide the basis for analysis of factors influencing both recreational and utilitarian nonmotorized travel. 

State Road Databases

State departments of transportation maintain road databases for the purposes

of statewide transportation planning and programming as well as maintenance

activities. These databases generally include U.S. and state highways. Attributes

may include facility type, number of lanes, capacity, traffic volume, pavement

quality, crashes by type, whether the road is an established bike route, and other

information. The types, quality, and format of the data vary from state to state.

In many states, these data have been incorporated or expanded into statewide

management systems established by Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).2 Many states also have developed, or are developing, statewide road databases in GIS format. 

State road databases have been used for statewide bicycle route planning in a

number of states, including Illinois, Maine, and North Carolina. Bicycle suitability inventories and route maps have been developed that rate highways for

suitability according to facility type, traffic volume, shoulder width, pavement

quality, and other characteristics. The specific variables and methods for determining suitability vary from state to state and are summarized in a recent report

by the Texas Transportation Institute (Turner 1997) (see box 2-2). Also, in some

states such as California, the data have been used as a basis for crash studies

because pedestrian and bicycle crashes can be tied to various facility and locational features. 

State databases suffer from the obvious drawback that they do not include local

roads. They also may not include some of the most important characteristics

relevant to bicycle and pedestrian planning and analysis (e.g., not all states

include shoulder width in their inventories). Relevant characteristics could be

added, however, given sufficient resources for data collection. Also, updates

may only be performed every five-to-eight years. State road databases may be

most useful for bicycle route planning and crash analysis in areas where state

and federal highways make up a significant proportion of through routes. The

databases could also be used to report the mileage or percentage of state and

federal roads, by area, considered suitable for bicycling.

Existing Data Sources 31

2 ISTEA required states to develop six management systems to track transportation assets and system

performance. Three—pavement, bridge, and public transportation—are asset management systems.

The other three—congestion, safety, and intermodal—relate to system performance. The requirement

to develop management systems has since been dropped, although many states have continued with

their development.
Local Road Information

Cities, counties, or MPOs also maintain records of transportation facilities

within their jurisdiction. Increasingly, this information is being stored in electronic format, primarily with GIS databases. At one end of the electronic spectrum, one can find basic mapping tools showing the location of public roads.

As the databases are enhanced, one can find information on roadway geometry, including width of pavement, pavement condition, traffic volumes, presence

of sidewalks, etc. At the other end of the spectrum one might find geo-coded

information describing the compatibility of each facility with bicycling and/or

walking. Portland, OR, for example, has used GIS databases to develop factors

that describe the quality of an area for walking based on sidewalk continuity,

ease of street crossings, and street connectivity.

These more sophisticated tools are typically used in areas that have well-developed networks of bicycle facilities or pedestrian activity, or in areas that have

well-developed city or regional pedestrian or bicycle programs. While useful for

local planning and system management functions, the data are not typically

organized in a way that can be easily shared with others. 

32 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data

The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) recently

undertook a survey to determine the extent to

which state Departments of Transportation

(DOTs) have developed bicycle suitability criteria for use in state roadway planning. The survey revealed that 70 percent (11 of 16 sampled

states) had bicycle suitability criteria in place.

The two most common criteria (one or both

were used in every case) were the traffic volume and the width of outside lanes or shoulders. Thirty-five percent of the states with

suitability criteria also indicated that they

looked at heavy vehicles when considering

traffic volume, 25 percent considered pavement conditions, and 15 percent included traffic speed or speed limit criteria.

The conclusions from the survey indicate that,

with some exceptions, state implementation of

various bicycle suitability criteria is still in its

inception. The majority of those states that had

bicycle suitability criteria in place had done so

to meet state legislation that mandated their

formation and use as a part of a multimodal

transportation plan. It appeared that the use of

traffic volume and lane width as primary suitability criteria was closely related to the fact

that this information was available in state

DOT databases. In addition to surveying current practice, the TTI report also makes recommendations for developing and adopting

bicycle suitability criteria. 

SOURCE: S.M. Turner, C.S. Schafer, and W.P. Stewart,

Bicycle Suitability Criteria: Literature Review and Stateof-the-Practice Survey, Research Report 3988-1, prepared

by the Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX,

1997, Internet: tti.tamu.edu.

Box 2-2

Statewide Bicycle Suitability Criteria 
CRASHES AND SAFETY

Increasingly, the word “crash” rather than “accident” is used to refer to incidents that result in property damage, injury, or fatalities to road users. In the

case of pedestrians and bicycles, falls can also result in injuries and property

damage and should be included in safety nomenclature. Data on crashes and

falls can include the location of the incident; number and attributes of vehicles

and people involved; damage and injuries; characteristics of the incident location; and contributing factors. Also related to safety, data on personal security

or crime is often relevant to bicycle and pedestrian travelers. 

Crash and other safety data can be used:

● To identify trends by geographic area, facility type, severity, contributing

factors, etc.;

● To identify potential hazardous locations; 

● To identify contributing factors to crashes and severity, including characteristics of the individuals involved, vehicles, and environment;

● To identify potential countermeasures to reduce crashes;

● To evaluate the safety of various facility designs and operational policies; 

● To identify crash costs; and

● To prioritize safety improvements.

Crash and other safety data are most useful when they can be related to exposure data, a measure of the number of people at risk for a crash. Absolute numbers of crashes on a facility, for example, are not very meaningful unless they

can be related to the number of users of the facility. Dividing total crashes by

an exposure measure indicates the risk or likelihood of a crash per trip or distance traveled. A road with a high number of bicycle accidents and high bicycle volumes may be safer (as measured by crashes per mile of travel) than a road

with a low number of bicycle accidents and low bicycle volumes. 

The ability to associate crash data with facility data, such as shoulder width or

intersection characteristics, and with performance data for other modes, such

as traffic volumes and speeds, is also useful in crash investigation and safety

studies. 

Sources of pedestrian and bicycle crash and safety data include:

● National crash and incident databases,

● National mortality and injury databases,

Existing Data Sources 33
● State crash databases, and

● Police accident reports.

National Crash and Incident Databases

NHTSA maintains two national crash databases for public use: the Fatality

Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive Sampling

System General Estimates System (NASS GES). The FARS is a database of all

fatal crashes involving motor vehicles on public roads. It contains over 100

attributes of the crash, vehicle, and people involved. GES data come from a

nationally representative sample of police-reported motor vehicle crashes of all

types, from minor to fatal. Approximately 90 data elements, collected from

police accident reports, are coded into a common format. 

Both the FARS and GES databases are available from NHTSA, and the FARS

can be queried online. NHTSA also produces an annual summary report of

crash data entitled Traffic Safety Facts. This document includes summary statistics for pedestrian and bicycle crashes, such as fatalities and injuries by age,

gender, location (intersection or nonintersection), time of day, and related factors. NHTSA also produces a related series of traffic safety briefs, including literature on bicycling and pedestrians. BTS and the National Safety Council also

produce annual summary reports that include some data from the FARS and

GES (USDOT BTS 1998; NSC 1999).

Together, FARS and the GES have proven to be useful databases for tracking

trends and for national studies of crash characteristics, causes, and potential

countermeasures. Both databases can be used for research on pedestrian and

bicycle crashes that involve motor vehicles. Although FARS provides a comprehensive inventory of fatalities, deaths make up only a small proportion of

crashes. Data on nonfatal crashes are less comprehensive and reliable. The GES

suffers from potential sampling errors, and minor-injury and property-damageonly crashes are typically underreported. Also, the GES data are limited by the

content and accuracy of the police reports from which they are obtained (see

section on police accident reports). 

FARS and the GES also suffer from some specific limitations for pedestrian and

bicycle crash analysis. Neither database includes crashes that do not involve a

motor vehicle.3 Also, the databases do not include a number of variables that

may be important specifically in bicycle or pedestrian crash analysis. Examples

include whether the bicyclist was wearing a helmet, or whether objects were

present that might have obscured visibility. A lack of both appropriate crash

34 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data

3 According to a study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 10 percent of fatalities and 90

percent of injuries to bicyclists did not involve a motor vehicle (Rodgers et al. 1994).
variables and consistent reporting of relevant variables is a general problem

with police accident reports. Specific crash data needs and mechanisms to

improve reporting are discussed in more detail in chapter 4. 

There are at least two potential national-level sources of pedestrian and bicycle

incidents involving transit and railroads. The Federal Transit Administration’s

Safety Management Information Statistics (SAMIS) tracks incidents on transit

property. The Federal Railroad Administration maintains a record of incidents

on railroad property and rights-of-way. 

National Mortality and Injury Databases

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), run by the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, maintains databases that may be useful for

tracking pedestrian and bicycle injury trends. The National Vital Statistics

System (NVSS) includes annual reporting of all deaths in the United States, classified by cause (e.g., motor vehicle) and circumstance (collision with motor

vehicle, animal, bicycle, pedestrian, or fixed object, or fall). The National

Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) includes a sample of

injuries in the United States classified by cause. Some summaries of NCHS data

on pedestrian and bicyclist injuries are published in the National Safety

Council’s annual Injury Facts (formerly Accident Facts). 

One advantage of these sources over motor vehicle crash databases is that they

allow tracking of pedestrian and bicycle injuries and fatalities that do not

involve motor vehicles. Depending on the geographic resolution at which the

data can be analyzed, they could be used to develop local measures of risk (e.g.,

pedestrian injuries per capita). Also, the NHAMCS could potentially allow a

better analysis of injury characteristics and the resulting costs than is provided

by police accident reports. On the other hand, without linkages to specific crash

or location data the usefulness of these databases for crash investigation is limited or nonexistent. The authors are unaware of applications of these data to

pedestrian and bicycle injury analysis. 

Another source of data on bicyclist injuries is the National Electronic Injury

Surveillance System (NEISS), maintained by the Consumer Product Safety

Commission. NEISS is based on a sample of hospitals that are statistically representative of hospital emergency rooms nationwide. From the data collected,

estimates can be made of the numbers of injuries associated with consumer

products (including bicycles and bicycle helmets) and injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. Data are collected on a broad range of injuryrelated issues, covering hundreds of product categories, and provide national

estimates of the number and severity of product-related injuries. The NEISS

data have been used in at least one study on bicycle-related injuries (Rodgers et

Existing Data Sources 35
al. 1994; Tinsworth 1993). NEISS information can be obtained by contacting

the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

State Crash Databases

Most states maintain, in varying forms, their own crash databases. NHTSA has

recently undertaken efforts to make state-level information more widely available and useful. One product of these efforts is the State Data System (SDS).

The SDS includes crash files from 17 participating states. The data are taken

from police accident reports and the specific data collected vary by state. Data

files are available from the individual states with state permission and a fee.

NHTSA has also produced a report from these data, State Data System: A

Summary of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes from State Crash Data Files, which

is available on its website. The summary report includes pedestrian fatalities

and injuries by age, location, and state. 

Another NHTSA effort to make better use of existing state databases is the

Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) project. CODES is a project

to link highway crash data to medical and financial outcome data. The linked

data were originally used to demonstrate the effectiveness of safety belts and

motorcycle helmets on death, disability, and costs. While linked data have not

been used specifically for bicycle and pedestrian crash analysis, linkage represents a potentially useful tool to conduct better crash analysis without collecting additional data. By linking crash data to medical and financial records,

specific factors in bicycle and pedestrian crashes (helmet use, type of crash, location, etc.) could be more closely linked to injury outcomes and the resulting

costs. This may assist with targeting resources for prevention and designing

appropriate countermeasures.

A similar effort is FHWA’s Highway Safety Information System (HSIS), which

currently contains state crash data for eight states—California, Illinois, Maine,

Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Utah, and Washington. These crash

data are linked to roadway inventory files and traffic volume data. HSIS allows

users to analyze a large number of safety-related problems that can range from

basic “problem identification” issues to modeling efforts that attempt to predict

future accidents from roadway and traffic characteristics. HSIS is limited to

state roads, however, and does not cover local streets.

State-level databases can potentially provide a more complete sample of crashes than contained in the GES. As described above, they can be linked with data

in state road databases, such as facility type and traffic volumes. As a result,

they are generally more useful for local analysis and planning than national

crash databases. Not all state databases include crashes on local roads, however, and often do not provide enough detail for needed analyses. Also, as with

36 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
the GES, the data are based on police accident reports and suffer from the same

limitations in reporting. 

Police Accident Reports4

Police accident reports (PARs) serve as the basis for most local, state, and

national crash databases. Although many incidents are unreported, the majority of these involve only minor property damage and no significant personal

injury. PARs include specific categories of information on the crash location and

characteristics, as well as crash diagrams and narratives (compiled from witness

reports and follow-up investigation) describing what happened. The quality

and level of information collected varies locally. 

PARs can provide a rich source of data for anyone with the resources to analyze them individually. However, they suffer from a number of limitations and

are frequently inadequate for remediation studies. These limitations include:

● Reporting formats and information vary from state to state (usually, each

state has a standard accident reporting form).

● Important variables are often not collected, and in particular many

variables relevant to pedestrian and bicycle crash analysis may not be

reported.

● Police officers may not be well trained in crash reporting and reports are

often filled out by civilians. As a result, the quality of reporting may vary.

In particular, injury severity is often estimated incorrectly.

● The reports are often available only in hard copy, although many departments are starting to adopt computerized reporting systems. 

The widespread adoption of computer-based reporting systems has the potential to overcome many of these limitations and provide better and more useable

crash data. These opportunities are discussed in chapter 4.

Security and Crime

In addition to crashes and falls, crime can represent a safety hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists. Actual and perceived risks to personal security may in

some cases be a strong deterrent to pedestrian or bicycle travel. Data on the

locations and characteristics of criminal incidents, such as muggings, can help

local authorities improve enforcement in needed areas and reduce risks to travelers. While some aspects of crime prevention are beyond the purview of transExisting Data Sources 37

4 This section is based on personal communication with Richard Blomberg, Dunlap & Associates,

Stamford, CT.
portation planning agencies, in many cases, site and facility design can influence

the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Examples of important design features

include lighting, placement of vegetation, sightlines, and orientation of buildings.

Data on incidents of crime are primarily maintained at the city level in police

crime logs. Many of the same statements that apply to local crash reporting

apply to the reporting and management of crime data. For example, cities are

developing—to varying degrees—GIS-based systems that can display the locations of incidents as well as store the various attributes of these incidents. In this

outreach effort, no particularly outstanding issues regarding security-related

data for bicycle and pedestrian analysis were identified, but nonetheless this is

an area that should not be overlooked. Perceptions of safety are also important,

but may not correlate to the reported level of crime.

EXPENDITURES AND CAPITAL STOCKS5

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) calls for “a

national accounting of expenditures and capital stocks (facilities and vehicles)

on each mode of transportation and intermodal combination.” Ideally, this

would include estimates of the current value of sidewalks, shared-use paths,

pedestrian bridges, etc., but the data currently do not exist. 

Tracking of bicycle stocks is one way of tracking trends in bicycle usage. The

following sources on bicycle expenditures and stocks are known:

● The Bicycle Manufacturer’s Association has data on bicycles sold from

1970 to the present in five-year increments. These data are available in the

BTS report, National Transportation Statistics, which is produced

annually (USDOT BTS 1999).

● The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS’s) Consumer Expenditure Survey

includes data on personal expenditures on bicycles. These expenditures

can be tabulated by age, education, income, household composition,

occupation, region of residence, and other variables. Microdata CDROMs that include bicycle expenditure information can be purchased

from BLS.

● Purchasing data are available from industry surveys, such as a 1990 survey by Rodale Press of 3,200 new bicycle purchasers. These data are not

currently reported on a regular basis.

● The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) grant management system is

a potential source for FTA funding of bicycle-transit links. However, for

38 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data

5 This section is partially based on unpublished information from Paul Schimek, Cambridge, MA.
most grants that include funds for bicycle improvements, such as for the

purchase of racks and lockers, the system does not separately identify this

information. Likewise, FHWA tracks bicycle and pedestrian funding for

stand-alone projects—that is, where the funding is not part of a larger

transportation project. The information covers projects that use federal

transportation money (i.e., ISTEA, TEA-21), and does not show spending

categories.

SECONDARY DATA

Secondary data include research-study results, manuals of practice, summary

statistics, and other reports, manuals, or findings that can help practitioners in

planning for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Secondary data are often based on

analysis and synthesis of data from the primary sources discussed above.

Specific types of secondary data might include the safety effects of design features; demand impacts of design features, education programs, and other policies to promote bicycling or walking; and recommended street or sidewalk

design practices.

This report does not include a comprehensive inventory of secondary data

sources by type. However, the outreach effort conducted for this report revealed

both a strong interest in secondary data sources and significant gaps in what is

currently available. The survey revealed a particular need for better dissemination of existing data and knowledge and for additional research in a number of

key areas. Two of the most commonly requested secondary sources, research

study results and manuals of practice, are discussed here.

Research Study Results

Various research studies have been conducted on factors such as the safety

effects of design features and the demand impacts of various design features and

other policies. Results are frequently disseminated through publication of

reports and conference proceedings, and may be used to inform the development of design manuals. Local planners and advocates, however, often do not

have the time or the resources available to locate published studies. Also, many

design features—particularly recent innovations, or those that have seen little

implementation—have not been thoroughly studied. A further complication, in

the case of demand impacts, is that the relative impacts of various policies and

actions may work together in ways that are difficult to untangle. As a result,

applying the results of demand studies to local situations can be very difficult.

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Bicycling and Walking Study

produced a series of reports in the 1990s, some of which included references to

research results on various topics. A forthcoming publication by NHTSA will

Existing Data Sources 39
help disseminate existing safety-related research results. This Bicycle Research

Compendium, to be published by the end of 1999, will provide a synthesis of

NHTSA’s bicycle research program from the 1960s through the 1990s. The

compendium will include a synopsis of each study as well as a subject and

author index. 

Manuals of Practice

Manuals of practice assist local planners and engineers by providing standards

they can use, instead of having to “reinvent the wheel” in every situation.

Relevant manuals cover such topics as engineering guidelines for facility design

and traffic engineering. The manuals are based on research studies and implementation experience concerning safety effects, user preferences, and costs. In

the parallel field of traffic engineering, guidelines have been adopted to the

point of having strong legal implications if not followed. 

While it may or may not be desirable to establish certain design practices as

“mandatory” from a legal standpoint, manuals of practice nevertheless provide

important useful guidance to practitioners. In the past few years, the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and

other organizations have been actively involved in the development of improved

guidance for bicycle and pedestrian design. AASHTO’s Guide for the

Development of Bicycle Facilities was updated in 1999. This document represents a significant enhancement of the prior edition. Because it is focused on

design and not planning, however, it does not represent a source of data.

Several recent efforts to enhance pedestrian design are also notable. In 1998, the

Institute of Transportation Engineers published Design and Safety of Pedestrian

Facilities, which provides an excellent basis for good planning practice. The

document also provides some overview data on crash-related trends. In 1999,

the Transportation Research Board, through AASHTO and its National

Cooperative Highway Research Program, initiated Project 15-20, Planning,

Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. The first objective of this project is to compile the most relevant existing information related to the planning,

design, and operation of pedestrian facilities, including the accommodation of

pedestrians with disabilities. The second objective is to develop a guide for the

planning, design, and operation of pedestrian facilities. Again, this effort is not

focused on data needs, but will include strategies and recommendations for filling information gaps. 

REFERENCES

Ashley, C.A. and C. Banister. 1989. Cycling to Work from Wards in a Metropolitan

Area. Traffic Engineering and Control 30:6–8, June–September. 

40 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
Cambridge Systematics and Bicycle Federation of America (BFA). 1999. Guidebook

on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel, FHWA-RD-98-165. Produced

for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

Washington, DC. 

Hsaio, S. 1997. Using GIS for Transit Pedestrian Access Analysis, presented at the

Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Paper No. 970157.

Washington, DC.

Moritz, W.E. 1997. A Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters: Design and

Aggregate Results, presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual

Meeting, Paper No. 970979. Washington, DC.

National Safety Council (NSC). 1999. Injury Facts (formerly Accident Facts).

Itasca, IL. Internet: www.nsc.org.

Nelson, A.C. and D. Allen. 1997. If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them:

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities, presented at the

Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Paper No. 970132.

Washington, DC. City Planning Program, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Rodgers, G.B., et al. 1994. Bicycle Use and Hazard Patterns in the United States.

Washington, DC: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Tinsworth, D., C. Polen, and S. Cassidy. 1993. Bicycle-Related Injuries: Injury,

Hazard, and Risk Patterns, Technical Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission. 

Turner, S.M., C.S. Schafer, and W.P. Stewart. 1997. Bicycle Suitability Criteria:

Literature Review and State-of-the-Practice Survey. Texas Transportation

Institute, Research Report 3988-1. College Station, TX. Internet: tti.tamu.edu.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics

(BTS). 1998. Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1998, BTS98-S-01.

Washington, DC. Internet: www.bts.org.

______. 1999. National Transportation Statistics 1999, BTS99-04. Washington,

DC. Internet: www.bts.gov.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA). 1992. Case Study No. 1: Reasons Why Bicycling and Walking Are Not

Being Used More Extensively As Travel Modes, FHWA-PD-92-041. Prepared for

the National Bicycling and Walking Study by S.A. Goldsmith.

______. 1994. A Compendium of Available Bicycle and Pedestrian Trip Generation

Data in the United States: A Supplement to the National Bicycling and Walking

Study. Washington, DC.

______. Annual. Highway Statistics. Washington, DC. Internet: www.fhwa.dot.gov/

ohim/ohimstat.htm.

Wilbur Smith Associates. 1996. Non-Motorized Access to Transit: Final Report,

prepared for Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago, IL. Internet:

www.bts.gov.

Existing Data Sources 41
Data Needs

43

CHAPTER

3

SUMMARY OF DATA NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

The following section identifies needs for new or improved data as

expressed by practitioners. The section also identifies priorities

for improving data, based on the potential usefulness of the data and

on the quality of existing data. In some cases, these needs can be met

by enhancing existing data collection or data management efforts. In

other cases, new data collection efforts are required.

The outreach effort conducted for this project serves as the primary basis

for this assessment. For this, an email survey was conducted to help

identify bicycle and pedestrian data needs. A brief questionnaire was

emailed to over 60 people active in the fields of planning, research, or

advocacy for bicycles and/or pedestrians. The assessment is also based

on the results of other recent evaluations of data needs for transportation in general, and for pedestrian and bicycle planning in particular.

These efforts include:

● A conference on information needs for state and local transportation decisions, cosponsored by the Bureau of Transportation

Statistics (BTS), the Transportation Research Board, the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit

Administration, and the American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials (NAS TRB 1997); 
● A BTS assessment of needs for transportation statistics (USDOT BTS

1998); and

● An FHWA-sponsored guidebook on methods of forecasting bicycle and

pedestrian travel (Cambridge Systematics and BFA 1999).

The appendices provide more detail about the outreach effort and other assessments as well as their results.

Table 3-1 summarizes the identified data needs and provides a rough assessment

of priorities, listed by data type. These priorities are based on the following criteria:

● Quality of existing data,

● Importance of the data for its intended application(s) and audience(s), and

● Usefulness of the data for a range of applications (facility design, trend

analysis, etc.), audiences (researchers, planners, designers, policymakers,

etc.), and geographic scales (local, state, national).

The strength of priorities, of course, must be compared with the level of effort

needed to collect the desired data. Nevertheless, the results indicate areas in

which effort should be directed into developing improved data collection,

analysis, and reporting methods. The remainder of chapter 3 discusses the various needs identified for each type of data and describes the reasoning behind

this prioritization in greater detail.

USAGE, TRIP, AND USER CHARACTERISTICS

Perhaps of highest priority, there is a strong need for comprehensive and systematic data on usage, including potential usage. Even basic information, such

as total travelers, trips, and distance traveled by bicycle or foot, does not exist

in most areas. Nearly 40 percent of respondents to the outreach effort identified a need for better data of this type. In particular, respondents expressed three

related but distinct needs:

● Overall indicators of usage and trends in usage, such as numbers of people who bicycle or walk; total numbers of bicycle or walk trips; mode

shares; and miles of travel by nonmotorized modes. The need for such

indicators was expressed primarily at the local level but also at the state

and national levels.

● Counts (traffic volumes) on specific facilities, in some cases by characteristics such as time of day, day of week, or type (e.g., work, shopping,

recreational). 

44 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
Data Needs 45

Table 3-1

Assessment of Data Priorities

Priority

Quality of for better

Data type Description Primary uses existing data data

Usage, trip, Number of Conditions and trend analysis Poor High

and user bicyclists and

characteristics pedestrians by Network planning (prioritize

facility or improvements)

geographic area

Crash analysis (develop exposure

measures)

Demand forecasting (calibrate 

models)

Usage, trip, User and trip Conditions and trend analysis Fair Medium/

and user characteristics high

characteristics by geographic Crash analysis (exposure measures,

area or facility contributing factors)

Demand forecasting (develop

models)

User Relative prefer- Facility design Fair Medium

preferences ences for facility

design character- Network planning (prioritize

istics and other improvements)

supporting factors

Demand forecasting (determine 

demand impacts)

Facilities data Characteristics Conditions and trend analysis Fair Medium

relating to quality

for bicycle or Facility design and network planning

pedestrian travel (identify deficiencies, prioritize 

(facility-specific; improvements)

or areawide 

summary) Crash analysis (identify hazardous

locations, designs)

Demand forecasting (include factors

in models)

Crash and Specific bicycle Crash analysis (contributing factors, Fair Medium/

safety data and pedestrian- countermeasure development) high

relevant crash

variables

Crash and Nonmotor-vehicle Crash analysis (contributing factors, Poor Medium

safety data crash data countermeasure development)

Secondary Safety and demand Facilty design Fair High

data impacts of design

features

Secondary Safety and demand Policy and program design Fair Medium

data impacts of policies,

programs
● Better data on characteristics of pedestrian and bicycle trips and tripmakers, including distributions of trips by distance, purpose, and time of

day; distributions of travelers and trips according to demographic and

socioeconomic characteristics; and various cross-classifications of these

variables.

More comprehensive and systematic data on usage would assist a wide variety

of data users for many purposes. At the local level, it would aid planners and

advocates in determining current travel patterns, prioritizing improvements,

and tracking the effectiveness of policies, programs, and facility improvements.

It would assist in safety analysis and crash prevention at all levels by providing

safety researchers and local planners with measures of exposure. This is particularly important since crash data must be combined with exposure data (e.g.,

pedestrian traffic volumes) to determine the hazards or risks posed by various

designs, environmental factors, etc. It would assist efforts to model and forecast

demand and to determine preferences for and demand impacts of various

improvements. At all levels of policymaking, from local through national, better data on system usage would assist policymakers by illustrating overall trends

in usage as well as differences in trends among geographic areas, user characteristics, and so forth. 

Field counts and travel surveys both provide a basis for estimating usage, and

each has advantages and disadvantages as discussed in chapter 4. Regardless of

the technique used, an ideal system of usage data collection and reporting

would have the following characteristics:

● The data collection would permit tracking of usage patterns on individual

facilities as well as aggregation of data across an area (e.g., total bicyclemiles of travel in a city); 

● Data would be collected systematically—that is, on an ongoing basis in a

manner in which patterns can be compared over time;

● Data would be collected in a consistent manner across cities, metropolitan areas, etc., so that the data could be aggregated to larger geographic

areas, including nationwide; and

● Data could be broken out by specific factors, such as user characteristics

(age, sex, disabilities, etc.), trip purpose and length, time of day, type of

facility, etc. 

While usage data is an overall high priority, the importance of these specific

aspects varies according to the intended use of the data. For some uses, specific variables or compatibility among areas may be required; for other uses, it

may be more important simply to know overall levels of travel in a particular

geographic area.

46 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
PREFERENCES, NEEDS, AND ATTITUDES

Data on user preferences, attitudes, and expressed needs of existing and potential bicyclists and pedestrians appear to be a secondary but still important priority.1 Fourteen percent of respondents expressed a desire for better data in this

area. Respondents specifically requested data on relative preferences for facility

types, to assist with both facility design and travel modeling; reasons why people do not bicycle or walk and what would encourage them to do so; and perceptions of safety and the influence of safety concerns on bicycling or walking. 

A fair amount of information on expressed preferences—as gathered from various local and national surveys—already exists, and has to some extent been

summarized through the National Bicycling and Walking Study. These data

provide a general sense of what factors are important in a person’s decision to

walk or bicycle. Recent research to establish a Bicycle Compatibility Index is

also helping establish relative preferences for specific design features (USDOT

FHWA 1998). Knowledge of user preferences falls short, however, when it

comes to modeling the impacts of specific policies and facility design characteristics on travel choices. This is because there are many factors that influence

these decisions, and they can interact in complicated ways. Advances in demand

modeling as well as better data to support this modeling are therefore required

to further quantify relative preferences.

Fortunately, a systematic and comprehensive data collection effort on user preferences, similar to a system of tracking usage and crash data, is probably not

necessary. There is strong evidence from travel modeling experience that preferences are to a large extent “transferable” from one area to the next, and that

it is therefore not necessary to perform preference surveys in every city or metropolitan area. 

Current challenges are:

● To further disseminate results (including recent surveys and studies) on a

national basis, 

● To compare results across geographic areas to determine their transferability, 

● To synthesize results in a manner that is most useful to local practitioners, and 

● To identify additional research efforts that are required to support specific

purposes such as demand modeling and facility design. 

Data Needs 47

1 Note that it is important to know preferences for potential as well as actual bicyclists and pedestrians, therefore the term “user” is applied loosely to indicate all people for whom bicycle and

pedestrian-related policies could potentially impact travel choices.
Targeted research and methodological development is required to quantify the

tradeoffs that people make among various factors in a format that is useful for

behavior modeling across geographic areas. Note that while research studies in

this area may require their own specific data collection, they will also strongly

benefit from the improvement of other pedestrian and bicycle data, including

facility characteristics, travel survey results, and counts. 

FACILITIES

Better data on the location, characteristics, and extent of bicycle and pedestrian facilities was identified as a need by 15 percent of respondents to the outreach effort. As with preferences data, improved data of this type would be

useful but are probably not as high a priority as basic usage data. For local

planning purposes, even if a comprehensive inventory of facilities does not exist

(and therefore total mileage by type, condition, etc., cannot be quantified), anyone familiar with an area has a general sense of what conditions are like and

where specific problems might exist. It is easier to assess existing facility conditions through observation than to obtain “hard” data such as user counts and

surveys. Local jurisdictions, for example, frequently conduct inventories of

bicycle facilities for the purpose of developing bicycle plans. 

Nevertheless, both needs and opportunities exist for improving facilities data.

Better facilities data would appear most useful for local planning efforts. A

number of respondents identified a desire for databases indicating locations and

characteristics of specific facilities. Potential uses include developing compatibility ratings and recommended routes, identifying deficiencies, and identifying

and prioritizing improvements. Local data on facility characteristics would also

assist in crash studies and in forecasting travel demand. 

A few respondents also identified a desire for aggregate-level reporting of facilities data (e.g., miles of bicycle paths per capita in a city, county, or metropolitan area). Tracking the extent of facilities at the metropolitan, state, and

national levels would be useful in helping planners and policymakers assess the

extent to which adequate facilities are provided. 

Particular needs for improving facilities data include:

● Incorporating attributes relevant to bicycle and pedestrian travel (e.g.,

sidewalk and crosswalk locations) into roadway databases; 

● Expanding roadway databases to include bicycle- and pedestrian-specific

links, such as off-road trails; 

● Incorporating other environmental and land use variables that relate to

the quality of an area for bicycling and/or walking; and 

48 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
● Incorporating data into a geographic information system-based format so

that it can be more easily analyzed, displayed, and linked with other relevant data for analysis.

CRASHES AND SAFETY

Approximately 30 percent of outreach respondents indicated a need for better

data related to crashes and safety, and this appears to be a relatively high priority. Three specific needs were identified:

● More complete and consistent information on locations and characteristics of reported crashes,

● More comprehensive reporting of nonfatal crashes and nonmotor-vehicle

crashes, and

● Geographic linkage of crash data to facility and usage data.

Most respondents expressed the need for more complete or usable crash databases or for more detailed data on specific crashes. Data were particularly

requested on specific characteristics of crashes relevant to pedestrian and bicycle crash analysis; for example, location relative to a crosswalk or whether the

bicycle was equipped with lights if traveling at night. Improved crash data and

data linkages would assist in crash analysis and the design of countermeasures

(i.e., steps taken to prevent crashes), both in local planning and in larger-scale

research studies. 

A number of respondents also expressed the need for better aggregate crash

data, i.e., summary statistics by area, facility type, or crash type. This would

also assist in tracking safety trends at the local, state, and national levels. 

SECONDARY DATA

Better secondary data appear to be a relatively high priority for planners, engineers, consultants, and advocates at the local level. Important types of secondary data include research results on the safety, demand, and other impacts of

design features and policies; recommended design practices; and model policies

and programs relating to design, education, and promotion.

The safety and user-preference impacts of various design features, especially for

bicycle travel, were identified by about 30 percent of outreach respondents and

appear to be the highest priority need. While recent research has focused on a

number of bicycle and pedestrian design issues, many issues have not been thoroughly researched, and evidence on the appropriateness of various treatments

is often conflicting or nonexistent. Furthermore, existing research results may

Data Needs 49
not be readily available or known to practitioners at the local level. In the

absence of such evidence, planners, engineers, and advocates often find it difficult to agree on or justify specific design treatments. 

The effectiveness of many other policies and actions to support pedestrian and

especially bicycle travel is also not well understood. Some of these issues include

the demand impacts of shower and locker facilities at the workplace; demand

impacts of bicycle parking in commercial areas, and the safety and demand

impacts of educational programs. In the absence of evidence on these effects,

benefits cannot be compared to costs, and planners may find it hard to justify

particular programs or actions.

REFERENCES

Cambridge Systematics and Bicycle Federation of America (BFA). 1999. Guidebook

on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel, FHWA-RD-98-165. Produced

for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

Washington, DC.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Transportation Research Board (TRB). 1997.

Information Needs to Support State and Local Transportation Decisionmaking

into the 21st Century, Proceedings of a Conference, Irvine, CA, March 25.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Internet: www.bts.gov/needs as of

May 5, 2000.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics

(BTS). 1998. Transportation Statistics Beyond ISTEA: Critical Gaps and

Strategic Responses, BTS98-A-01. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA). 1998. Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level of

Service Concept, Final report, FHWA-RD-98-072. Prepared by Turner-Fairbank

Highway Research Center.

50 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
Options for

Addressing Data

Needs

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

By viewing the overall range of data needs and opportunities in perspective, perhaps the most important finding emerging from this

study is that opportunities and constraints to improved bicycle and

pedestrian data collection must be investigated in a crosscutting

manner. 

Practitioners in a diversity of areas, such as safety research, demand

forecasting, and roadway engineering, may benefit from common

data collection activities. Furthermore, information-based technologies, including intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and geographic information systems (GIS), are creating opportunities to improve

the state of transportation data collection and management in general. At the same time, institutional and financial constraints create barriers to capitalizing on these opportunities. Greater coordination is

required among federal, state, and local transportation planning

agencies to improve the quality of pedestrian and bicycle data. 

51

CHAPTER

4
An effort to identify opportunities, constraints, and needed actions might

include a conference or series of workshops that bring together a variety of

important groups. Some key aspects of such an effort would include:

● The full range of users of bicycle and pedestrian data would be brought

together to discuss how data collection efforts could benefit the broadest

number of users. For example, count or survey data could serve as a foundation for tracking usage of specific facilities, estimating overall levels of

system usage, developing measures of exposure for crash analysis, and

developing and calibrating network models. The potential for coordinating efforts to meet all of these needs should be investigated.

● The discussions would also include those who collect all types of transportation data; for example, representatives of the U.S. Department of

Transportation (USDOT), state DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations, city and county transportation agencies, hospitals, and police.

Representatives of these agencies could help identify both opportunities

and constraints to improving the collection of bicycle- and pedestrianrelated data.

● Opportunities for improving bicycle and pedestrian data would be viewed

in conjunction with opportunities for and constraints to improving related types of general transportation data. For example, computer-based

crash reporting systems have the potential for greatly improving the quality and usefulness of crash data. Local adoption of these systems is likely

to be driven by their general usefulness for data management rather than

by specific pedestrian and bicycle data opportunities. At the same time,

however, pedestrian and bicycle data users must be involved in the design

of these systems to ensure their maximum utility for pedestrian- and bicycle-crash analysis. 

● Needs and opportunities for making databases compatible with each

other would be discussed. For example, GIS can greatly facilitate the

management and analysis of pedestrian- and bicycle-related data. If data

definitions in different sources are not compatible with each other, however, GIS cannot be utilized to its maximum potential. Other opportunities for standardizing data and linking databases (e.g., medical records

and crash records) should also be identified. 

The outreach effort for this study resulted in additional recommendations

for improving the quality of bicycle and pedestrian data. By far, the most

common recommendation regarding existing data was to make all available

data readily accessible via the Internet. Some respondents specifically suggested that a centralized Internet repository with a searchable database

and/or links to other relevant sources would be useful. Respondents’ suggestions for new data collection generally focused on new technologies, such

52 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
as video cameras and GIS, and on alternative survey methodologies. Other

suggestions for better dissemination of data and for new data collection

opportunities are noted in appendix A.

Respondents also provided general suggestions as to how the Bureau of

Transportation Statistics (BTS) and/or other federal agencies could assist

with new data collection efforts. These generally fell under the following

areas: 

● Technical assistance, including developing uniform data collection methods and reporting formats, demonstrating new data collection technologies, and developing case studies of successful data collection efforts;

● Financial assistance in the form of grants or other funding specifically designated for data collection; 

● Requirements or mandates, such as requiring pedestrian and bicycle data

collection as a part of transportation data collection or transportation

planning efforts that benefit from federal funding; and

● Assistance in coordinating efforts, for example, sponsoring conferences or

working groups, or maintaining contact lists of peer professionals,

resource people, etc. 

The remainder of this section discusses specific opportunities for each type

of data, including options for addressing data needs as well as potential

actions that could be taken (especially at the federal level) to advance these

options.

USAGE, TRIP, AND USER CHARACTERISTICS

Basic demand or usage indicators may be developed from either systematic

counts or regular travel surveys. Counts provide total numbers of users by

facility, facility type, area, and time and can also be used to estimate total

bicycle- or pedestrian-miles of travel if adequate samples are conducted.

Surveys have the additional potential for tracking usage by characteristics of

the user, trip purpose, and origin/destination. As in standard transportation

practice, the ideal is probably a combination of regular field monitoring to

obtain volume patterns combined with occasional surveys to collect more

detailed data on origin-destination patterns, user characteristics, etc.

Currently, major barriers to gathering better demand/usage data are cost and

effort. Both counts and surveys are extremely labor-intensive, and mechanical counting technology is more difficult to apply to bicycles and pedestrians

than to motorized vehicles. Given limited financial resources and a general

lack of priority assigned to bicycle and pedestrian data, state and local agencies are generally unwilling to allocate sufficient resources to bicycle and

pedestrian data collection.

Options for Addressing Data Needs 53
While applications of new information technology have the potential to

reduce the costs of data collection, particularly for counts, an increase in

both federal and/or local resources will ultimately be required to improve the

quality of data in this area. In addition to simply allocating more resources,

however, a number of actions may be taken at the federal level to better

leverage existing data collection efforts and to increase the capacity of local

agencies to collect additional data. Some recommendations include:

● Develop a “handbook” or manual on basic pedestrian and bicycle characteristics, such as trip-length distributions and typical socioeconomic

and demographic characteristics.1 In addition to the National Personal

Transportation Survey (NPTS), a potentially underexploited source of

such data is existing metropolitan household travel surveys, which could

be analyzed and compared on a nationwide basis.

● Evaluate and promote new bicycle- and pedestrian-counting technologies

(i.e., video imaging, infrared sensors) by synthesizing the results of current

pilot testing efforts, sponsoring additional pilot tests and methodological

development, and conducting outreach efforts to disseminate successful

technologies. Further development and evaluation is required in this area,

and local agencies must be provided with the know-how to adopt and utilize new technology.

● Develop and widely disseminate model surveys and sampling methodologies for collecting pedestrian- and bicycle-related data. Currently, surveys

and sampling methods that are applied in practice vary significantly in

their quality. Recommended methodologies should be developed and disseminated for both counts and travel surveys. For example, assuming

resources are devoted to systematic bicycle and pedestrian traffic monitoring, what would an ideal temporal and spatial coverage of counts look

like? What are recommended methodologies for obtaining representative

pedestrian and bicycle travel survey data? 

● Investigate enhancements to household travel surveys, notably inclusion

of purely recreational bicycle and walk trips, as well as techniques to

improve reporting of children’s trips, short walk trips, and walk or bicycle access to other modes of travel. Techniques to minimize underreporting of walk trips have been developed with some success in a few

metropolitan areas and should be adopted on a more widespread basis.

● Evaluate and, if successful, disseminate new technologies to collect travel

survey data, such as personal monitors to measure physical activity levels.

The success of pilot survey applications of global positioning system

54 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data

1 This need was identified in the development of the Guidebook on Methods to Forecast Bicycle and

Pedestrian Travel (Cambridge Systematics and BFA 1999).
(GPS) units to track trips should also be monitored and potential applications to monitoring pedestrian and bicycle travel explored.

● Improve the state of the practice in bicycle and pedestrian demand forecasting. Data on forecast usage can be at least as important as data on

existing usage for many planning and design applications and for supporting funding allocation decisions. Forecasts may be important in

designing a trail to ensure adequate width, for example, or in planning a

network of routes to maximize usage. 

PREFERENCES, NEEDS, AND ATTITUDES

As noted in chapter 2, there are several ways to obtain data on preferences,

needs, and attitudes. Qualitative assessments and attitudinal surveys are less

resource-intensive and may, in many cases, be adequate for planning and

design activities. Stated-preference or revealed-preference analysis can be

used to develop more robust and quantitative information on user preferences, but these methods are limited by the expense involved in conducting

and analyzing surveys, deficiencies in other data (particularly usage and network characteristics), and modeling limitations.

An additional point is that data on preferences are to a large extent transferable from one area to another and, therefore, local data collection efforts

may not be required everywhere as they are for usage, facilities, and crash

data. Calibration across localities for differences in socioeconomic level,

land use, climate, and other factors may be necessary. With these points in

mind, the following actions could be taken to improve data on preferences,

needs, and attitudes:

● Synthesize existing knowledge on preferences, needs, and attitudes. Such

a synthesis was written in 1991 as part of the National Bicycling and

Walking Study, but regular updates would be useful. One component of

this effort should investigate the potential for using existing quantitative

preference data in models to predict pedestrian and bicycle travel choices.

● Develop survey questions regarding conditions and preferences for bicycling and walking that could be added to existing metropolitan household

travel surveys, the NPTS, or other market surveys.

● Develop model surveys and sampling methodologies. As with travel surveys, a variety of surveys and sampling methods are applied in practice,

with varying levels of quality.

Options for Addressing Data Needs 55
FACILITIES

Emerging information technology is

providing new opportunities for maintaining more useful databases on transportation facilities. Geographic

information systems provide the ability

to store geographically referenced data

in a format that is easy to analyze, display, and link with other databases (e.g.,

crash records, population and land-use

data) for analysis (see box 4-1). Most

state and local transportation agencies

have adopted or are adopting GIS to

store and manage facilities-related data.

Many are integrating facilities data with

other transportation-related data to

varying degrees, for example, through

the development of Transportation

Management Systems. These efforts can

involve substantial initial investments,

but can also have significant payoffs in

the long run. 

While GIS and other new technologies

can make it easier to update and maintain facilities databases, it is important

to note that GIS cannot collect data.

Resources must still be devoted to compiling relevant data and updating it on a

regular basis. Communication and coordination among agencies with varied

responsibilities are also required.

Some recommendations to improve the

quality of data on bicycle and pedestrian

facilities include:

● Standardizing data formats and definitions where appropriate in order to

facilitate use in other applications

(crash analysis, network models,

etc.), and promote data comparability among jurisdictions and geographic areas. Facilities data will be most

56 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data

Box 4-1

Portland, Oregon, Pedestrian Potential

and Deficiency Indices

The city of Portland, Oregon, assembled data from

a variety of sources into a common geographic

information system (GIS) environment to develop

and map a “Pedestrian Potential Index” and a

“Deficiency Index.” These indices were then combined to identify areas of both high potential and

high deficiency, so that these areas could be targeted for improvements. 

The Pedestrian Potential Index is based on a variety

of factors, including adopted street and neighborhood classifications (e.g., pedestrian district, town

center); proximity to schools, transit stops, public

parks, and pedestrian-friendly commercial zoning;

and the likelihood of short trips being made by

walking, based on analysis of metropolitan household travel survey data. 

The Deficiency Index is developed by combining

rankings for six factors: sidewalk deficiency, crash

locations, traffic speed, traffic volume, street width,

and length of street block. Sidewalk deficiency is

based on the continuity of sidewalks, as determined by field surveys. Pedestrian crash locations

were determined from city accident databases.

Traffic speeds and volumes were identified at available count locations. Roadway widths and segment

lengths were also identified from city GIS databases of roadway facilities. 

The city’s analysis illustrates how GIS tools can be

used to manage and display existing data from various sources, as well as newly collected data, in a

common environment. The analysis further illustrates how these sources can be used to identify

areas in which improvements to the pedestrian

environment are required.

SOURCE: City of Portland, OR, Office of Transportation, Identifying Priorities for Pedestrian Transportation Improvements,

Pedestrian Master Plan Project Development: Final Report,

June 30, 1997.
useful if they are developed in a geographically referenced format that can

be easily linked with socioeconomic and demographic data and crash

databases, and if they contain attributes that can be incorporated in transportation model networks for demand forecasting.

● Facilitate discussions among various data user groups to identify key network characteristics relevant to bicycle and pedestrian planning, and provide guidance to state and local agencies responsible for collecting and

maintaining transportation data. Given that resources for data collection

are limited, it may be helpful for users to agree on a set of common characteristics that are of interest and that can realistically be monitored within data collection budgets. In addition to incorporating attributes relevant

to bicycle and pedestrian travel (e.g., presence of bike lanes or crosswalks), facilities databases should also contain bicycle- and pedestrianspecific links, such as off-road trails and pedestrian bridges, that do not

appear in standard roadway databases. Coordination among state and

local agencies is also important because planning practices and desired

data may differ from area to area.

● Investigate new technologies for data collection and disseminate successful applications. Analysis of aerial photographs has been used in

Portland, OR, for example, to develop pedestrian environment factors for

individual traffic analysis zones.

CRASHES AND SAFETY

The quality of pedestrian and bicycle crash data is dependent on the quality

and characteristics of local crash reporting systems as well as local, state, and

national crash data management systems. Most of the limitations of existing

crash databases and data management apply to all modes of transportation

and are not unique to pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Highway and road

safety analysis receives considerable attention, and problems such as reporting of nonfatal accidents and a lack of good injury data are widely recognized. As with other types of pedestrian and bicycle data, recommendations

to improve the quality of data must take into consideration current opportunities and constraints in the broader area. See, for example, the discussion

of how new technology can help overcome institutional obstacles to

improved crash records processing (Miller 1997).

Also, as with other data, emerging information technology offers potential

solutions to many existing problems, for example:

● Computer-based crash reporting systems have the potential to allow

detailed and specialized crash reporting. These systems are in various levels of adoption by police departments across the country. They can also

Options for Addressing Data Needs 57
permit the transfer of crash data into central databases, eliminating the

need for manual data entry. As a result, data on all reported crashes can

be made readily available for analysis. 

● Geographic information systems are facilitating the management, display,

and linkage of data. GIS will assist researchers and planners in linking

data to facility and environmental databases, and will assist lay people

through its capabilities of visually displaying information. GIS-based systems for maintaining crash records, facility information, and other data

are in various levels of implementation by states, metropolitan agencies,

and local jurisdictions. 

● Global positioning systems are permitting the recording of precise crash

locations. 

● National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is undertaking

efforts to link crash and medical records databases in some states. Use of

these data for bicycle and pedestrian crash analysis, however, will require

funding of specific research studies. 

● NHTSA is also developing crash-typing software. The Pedestrian and

Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) helps users create a database of

their pedestrian and bicycle crashes from hardcopy accident reports, helps

users capture detail on roadway and environmental conditions at the time

of the crash, types/categorizes the crashes, helps users produce some basic

tables and graphs, and links the crash types to some countermeasures.

In implementing new technologies for crash reporting, analysis, and data

management, consideration should be given to specific needs for bicycle and

pedestrian crash reporting. The potential of computer-based crash reporting

systems, for example, should be leveraged for bicycle and pedestrian crash

analysis through the development of expert systems to guide data entry.

Expert systems can request specific information keyed to the nature of the

crash. For example, if a bicyclist were involved, the computer would prompt

to determine whether or not the bicyclist was wearing a helmet.

Some specific recommendations to improve pedestrian and bicycle crash

data include:

● Build a consensus on characteristics that are important to record in

reporting crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians; incorporate these

characteristics in standards for computer-based reporting systems. Crash

reporting systems should be designed with input from bicycle and pedestrian safety researchers to include important information relevant to bicycle and pedestrian crash analysis. To maximize its usefulness, a standard

58 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
system should be adopted throughout the country so that comparable

data are available on crashes in all areas.2

● Investigate opportunities provided by GIS and GPS for identifying and

documenting the precise location of crashes, and investigate how this data

should be reported and managed.

● Investigate methods to achieve more thorough reporting of injury crashes

as well as reporting of nonmotor vehicle crashes and incidents. While

there is no known way of assuring the comprehensive and systematic

reporting of crashes that fall beneath state-specified damage value thresholds, opportunities may exist for obtaining better samples of data.

Examples may include examination of medical records or self-reporting of

incidents on surveys of bicyclists or pedestrians.3 (Moritz 1997)

● Investigate the potential of utilizing existing linked crash and medical

record databases for pedestrian and bicycle crash research. 

● Continue to include safety researchers in initiatives to improve usage-data

collection, so that usage data provide the most useful measures of exposure for crash investigation. Aggregate exposure statistics should be compatible with aggregate crash statistics; for example, facility types or user

characteristics should have consistent definitions. Facility definitions for

both exposure and crash data on specific facilities should also be compatible (e.g., for pedestrian crash analysis, pedestrian volumes on a specific crosswalk may be important.)

SECONDARY DATA

Needs for secondary data may be addressed through more widespread dissemination of existing research results; through additional research on

design features, policies, etc. that have not been fully studied; and through

the development and dissemination of recommended practices as well as case

studies of successful programs and applications. Some specific recommendations include:

● Continue to improve the availability of existing research. The National

Transportation Library, the National Bicycling and Walking Study, and

the Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse have all made strides in this

direction and the Internet provides excellent new opportunities in this

Options for Addressing Data Needs 59

3 Self-reporting through surveys has previously been used to estimate the frequency and types of nonmotor-vehicle crashes and incidents (Moritz 1997). 

2 Richard Blomberg of the Transportation Research Board Pedestrian Committee has been investigating opportunities and constraints to the adoption of new reporting systems. Involvement by the

NHTSA may be helpful in promoting widespread agreement on and adoption of such systems.
area. A forthcoming NHTSA bibliography on bicycle safety research will

help. Additional bibliographies on other bicycle and pedestrian research

topics—for example, international safety research—would also be useful. 

● Prioritize, fund, and promote research to fill in knowledge gaps. It is

beyond the scope of this assessment to make a comprehensive inventory

of bicycle- and pedestrian-related research needs, although some priorities

(particularly for bicycle-related research) emerged from the outreach

effort. Some recent assessments of research needs, however, have come

from the following sources:

The Transportation Research Board Bicycle and Pedestrian Committees regularly solicit and prioritize research problem statements,

although there is no dedicated funding source to carry out this

research;

NHTSA is currently producing a compendium of the agency’s bicyclerelated research that will help identify areas in which research is lacking; and

A recent Federal Highway Administration report on bicycle and pedestrian demand forecasting methods identified research needs to support

forecasting. 

● Continue to assess research findings and inpractice experience to update

recommended practices. The need for recommended practices is being

addressed to some extent through the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials’ recently released revision of its

design guidelines for bicycle facilities. It is important in the future, however, to update these recommended practices on a regular basis to ensure

that new research is considered and that new techniques are included. A

few cities in the United States, for example, are experimenting with bicycle facility design techniques borrowed from Europe; to the extent that

these prove successful, it may be desirable to include them as recommended practices for certain situations. 

REFERENCES

Cambridge Systematics and Bicycle Federation of America (BFA). 1999. Guidebook

on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel, FHWA-RD-98-165. Produced

for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

Washington, DC. 

Miller, J.S. 1997. Using Technology to Help Overcome Institutional Obstacles to

Improved Crash Records Processing. Transportation Research Record 1581.

Moritz, W.E. 1997. A Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters: Design and

Aggregate Results, presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual

Meeting, Paper No. 970979. Washington, DC.

60 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
Results of Outreach

Effort

METHODOLOGY

To help identify bicycle and pedestrian data needs, a brief questionnaire was emailed to over 60 people identified as active in the

fields of planning, research, or advocacy for bicyclists and/or pedestrians. In particular, those targeted were:

● Representatives of key federal organizations and national advocacy groups;

● University researchers and consultants who recently conducted

research related to bicycle and pedestrian planning or safety; and

● Local planners and advocates active in professional activities, such

as conferences and committees, at a national level.

Names were identified through:

● Transportation Research Board bicycle and pedestrian committee

lists;

● Published research and literature;

● Contacts made at conferences;

● Contacts made through previous research by the report authors;

and

● Suggestions from others.

APPENDIX

A

61
In addition, to obtain broad coverage (in particular of local planners and advocates), the questionnaire was sent to 10 email listservs (see table A-1). 

The questionnaire was not intended to yield a random or representative sample

of responses. Rather, it was viewed as a low-cost means of giving as many people as possible the opportunity to respond and provide feedback. In conjunction with the other sources used for this study, it helps provide a picture of the

most pressing data needs for various types of activities. 

RESPONSES

Responses were obtained from 78 individuals. Most responses were received by

email, although a few were sent as hard copy and a few were obtained through

telephone conversations. The responses were entered into a Microsoft Access

database and tabulated. Responses were received from a nonrandom cross-section of national, state, metropolitan, and local sources (figure A-1). Over twothirds represented either government agencies or advocacy groups, while most

of the rest represented universities or consulting firms (figure A-2). Responses

by type of respondent are shown in table A-2. The groups most commonly represented included:

● State bicycle and pedestrian coordinators (8);

● Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), city planners, and county

planners (16);

● Local advocacy groups or individual advocates (17);

62 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data

Table A-1

Email Listservs Contacted

Listserv name Listserv address

Department of Transportation Listserv dot@listserv.nodak.edu 

Institute of Transportation Engineers Discussion itetraffic@lists.io.com

ITE Transportation Planning Discussion ite_trans_planning@lists.io.com 

ITE Safety Discussion itesafety@lists.io.com

Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) Listserv tmip@list.bts.gov

Transportation Infrastructure Affecting Cycling facilities-n-planning@cycling.org

Pedestrian Discussion Group pednet@flora.ottawa.on.ca

State Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinators bfa-stcoords@igc.org

Association of Pedestrian & Bicycle Professionals apbp@smoke.suba.com

Physical Activity Listserv phys-act@vm.sc.edu
● Researchers (10); and

● Public health and physical activity planners (10).

EXISTING DATA

The phrasing of the question, “What data

sources do you rely upon?” left it to the

respondent to interpret what was meant by

“data source.” As a result, some people cited

specific types of data (travel survey, counts,

etc.) while others cited sources of data

(Department of Transportation (DOT) publication, state agency, and so forth).

Table A-3 identifies the most commonly cited

types of data. For information on user and

trip characteristics, the U.S. Census Bureau

was the most commonly cited source (seven

citations); the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) and metropolitan household travel surveys also received four citations each. Frequently

cited local sources included bicycle and/or pedestrian counts (seven) and user

surveys of attitudes, preferences, habits, etc. (five). For facilities data, six

respondents cited state or local facility inventories or traffic counts. For crash

data, a number of respondents cited state

or local crash databases (12), with a few

(3) citing national crash databases maintained by National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA). 

Table A-4 identifies sources of data cited

by respondents. The most commonly cited

sources included a state agency, usually a

state DOT (13); U.S. DOT publications

(10); primary data collection (10); published research (6); national public health

agencies (6); and engineering manuals of

practice (5). A number of respondents (11)

also cited a variety of informal sources,

such as magazines, newsletters, Internet

discussion groups, and personal communication. 

Results of Outreach Effort 63

State

25%

National/

unaffiliated

 21%

Metropolitan

11%

Local

43%

Figure A-1

Responses by Scope of Activity

Advocacy

25%

University

12%

Government

45%

Other/

none

9%

Consulting

9%

Figure A-2

Responses by Type of Organization
DATA NEEDS

The outreach effort conducted for this

project asked the following questions to

ascertain data needs:

● What types of data would be most

useful to you but are not available?

● How would these data be useful?

Responses were categorized according to

the type of data mentioned. Response frequencies are shown in table A-5. Since the

responses do not represent a random

sample of bicycle and pedestrian planners, researchers, and advocates, the frequency of responses should not be viewed

as a prioritization. In particular, most

responses came from planners and advocates at the state and local level. The

results are generally consistent, however,

with data needs identified through other

forums by researchers and by nationallevel planners, policymakers, and advocates. Results are discussed according to

the major categories of identified data

needs as shown in table A-5. 

Usage, Trip, and User Characteristics

Nearly 40 percent of survey respondents identified a need for better data on system usage and user characteristics. As discussed above, the most widely

accessed sources of these data are the decennial census, the NPTS, and metropolitan household travel surveys. Other counts and surveys are conducted sporadically in particular areas or nationwide. The most frequently mentioned

needs include: 

● Demand/usage indicators. Sixteen respondents expressed the need for better indicators of system usage. Such indicators might include total bicycling or walking trips, numbers of people who bicycle or walk, mode

shares, and miles of travel by nonmotorized modes. The need for such

indicators was expressed primarily at a local level (city, county, or metropolitan area) but also at the state and national geographic scales. Reasons

for wanting these data include tracking trends, determining the effective64 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data

Table A-2

Survey Responses by Type of Respondent

Type of respondent Responses

Project/system planning

State (bike/pedestrian coordinator) 8

Metro (metropolitan planning

organization) 8

Local government 8

Consulting 5

Subtotal 29

Advocacy

National 3

State/local 17

Subtotal 20

Research

Safety/design 6

System planning/demand analysis 3

Health/physical activity 1

Subtotal 10

Health/physical activity

State department of health 7

Other 3

Subtotal 10

Other/unknown 9

Total 78
ness of policies and programs, and justifying

programs and funding by demonstrating system use. This is an “aggregate” or summarylevel category of data, although it may be

developed from the same disaggregate

sources as described below.

● Trip and user characteristics. Fourteen

respondents indicated a desire for better profiles of bicycle and pedestrian trips and travelers. These include distributions of trips by

distance, purpose, and time of day; distributions of travelers and trips according to

demographic and socioeconomic characteristics; and various cross-classifications of these

variables. In other words, people want to

know “who is traveling where, when, why,

and how.” This type of data is traditionally collected through household

travel surveys, but as discussed above, most travel surveys contain inadequate data on bicycle and pedestrian trips. Most of these respondents

expressed a desire for profile (i.e., aggregate-level) data on trips and travelers at the community or metropolitan area level. Such data might be

obtained through improvements to standard household travel surveys or

through travel surveys targeted specifically at bicyclists and pedestrians.

A few respondents also identified a desire for better national-level profiles, as might be obtained through refinements to the NPTS or a national survey

targeted specifically at bicyclists or pedestrians. 

Four respondents in this category specifically expressed a need for better travel survey

data to support demand modeling. The

improvements needed to make survey data

more useful for modeling would be similar

to those required to develop better summary statistics on travel characteristics. Finally,

five respondents specifically expressed a

need for better data on travel patterns of

children and/or school trips.

● Facility counts/volumes. Eight respondents

mentioned a need for more and better

bicycle and/or pedestrian count data. This

type of data is similar to “demand/usage

Results of Outreach Effort 65

Table A-4 

Sources of Existing Data Cited

Sources of data Responses

State agency (DOT, DOH, other) 13

Magazines, newsletters, 

Internet discussion 11

U.S. DOT publications 10

Primary data collection 10

CDC, NIH 6

Published research 6

Engineering manuals of practice 5

Local recreation or advocacy groups 4

MPO or city staff 3

KEY: CDC = Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention; DOH = Department of Health;

DOT = Department of Transportation; MPO =

metropolitan planning organization; NIH =

National Institutes of Health.

Table A-3

Types of Existing Data Cited

Type of data Responses

Census 7

Nationwide Personal 

Transportation Survey 4

Local household travel surveys 4

Local attitude/use surveys 5

Local bike/pedestrian counts 7

State/local facility inventories 4

National crash databases 3

State, local crash databases 12

National Center for 

Health Statistics 6
66 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data

Table A-5 

Outreach Effort: Summary of Identified Data Needs

Type of data Total Percent

Primary data

Usage, trip, and user characteristics 34 43

Demand/usage indicators (total, mode shares) 16 20

Trip and user characteristics (frequency, 

distance, destination, purpose, age, gender, etc.) 14 18

Counts/volumes on specific facilities 8 10

Exposure data (to relate to crash data) 7 9

Travel patterns of children, school trips 5 6

Trip generation rates 5 6

Household survey data/inputs to 

forecasting models 4 5

Bicycles in use/owned 3 4

Helmet usage 3 4

Preferences, needs, and attitudes 11 14

Descriptive data 8 10

For input to forecasting models 3 4

Facilities 12 15

Databases/inventories 8 10

Summary statistics/benchmarks 4 5

Ancillary facilities (showers, parking, etc.) 3 4

Crashes 23 29

Crash databases: 17 22

Location, characteristics, contributing factors 14 18

Nonmotor vehicle crashes 4 5

Nonfatality crashes/injury data 3 4

Links to other data (facilities, exposure, injury) 3 4

Summary crash data: 7 9

Contributing factors/causes 3 4

General crash data (crashes, crash rates) 2 3

Nonfatality crashes 1 1

Nonmotor-vehicle crashes 1 1

Bicyclist violations of motor vehicle code 1 1

Crime on trails 1 1

Secondary data

Facility design 22 28

Safety impacts 13 16

Demand impacts 7 9

Recommended practices 4 5

Costing data for planning 2 3

Effects on motorist behavior and attitudes 1 1

Policies and programs 10 13

Recommended/model practices 6 8

Benefits of various policies/programs 3 4

Safety impacts 3 4

Demand impacts 1 1
indicators,” but with the difference that the data are desired for specific

facilities rather than for an area as a whole. Counts, if performed in a systematic manner at an adequate sample of locations, can provide a basis

for estimating aggregate usage and tracking trends in usage; developing

exposure measures for crash analysis; and calibrating travel models. They

can also directly assist planning activities such as designing adequate facilities to accommodate traffic and prioritizing facilities for improvement. 

● Exposure data. Seven respondents specifically indicated a need for “exposure” data. Exposure data are similar to usage indicators in that they

quantify trips, miles of travel, etc. An additional purpose of exposure

data, however, is to develop crash rates or risk measures (e.g., crashes per

bicycle-mile of travel). As a result, data used to develop exposure measures may have more specific requirements than data that are collected just

to determine levels and trends in system usage. It may be desirable, for

example, to collect exposure data by facility type, time of day, bicyclist

experience level, or any other measure that is important in classifying and

analyzing crashes. 

● Trip generation data. Five respondents (all consultants) identified the

need for bicycle trip generation data by type of land use. Automobile trip

generation rates, expressed in terms of trips per thousand square feet or

another measure of the size of development, are widely used in transportation planning. They are developed by regressing traffic counts

against size of development and other related measures, based on surveys

at various locations, and are reported in the Institute of Transportation

Engineers’ Trip Generation. Consultants who work with such data would

clearly appreciate similar data for bicyclists.

● Other usage-related data. Other desired data related to system usage

include bicycles in use or owned (three respondents) and helmet usage

(three respondents).

Preferences, Needs, and Attitudes

A total of 11 respondents expressed a desire for better data on preferences,

expressed needs, and attitudes of existing and potential bicyclists and pedestrians. Preference data can assist in designing facilities, policies, and programs to

have the greatest benefit to users and the greatest impact on attracting new bicyclists and pedestrian trips. Respondents specifically requested data on relative

preferences for facility types, to assist with both facility design and travel modeling; reasons why people do not bicycle or walk and what would encourage

them to do so; and perceptions of safety and the influence of safety concerns on

bicycling or walking. Three of these respondents specifically indicated a need

for preference data that could be used in demand modeling. 

Results of Outreach Effort 67
Facilities

Twelve respondents identified a need for better data on bicycle and pedestrian

facilities. Two-thirds of these identified a need for databases indicating locations

and characteristics of specific facilities, that is, “disaggregate” facility data.

Desired data include not only the presence and characteristics of bicycle and

pedestrian facilities, but other relevant characteristics such as roadway lane

widths and traffic volumes. A number of respondents noted that having these

data in Geographic Information System (GIS) format would be of great help in

planning and analysis. 

Better facilities data would primarily be useful in local planning activities,

including developing compatibility ratings and recommended routes, identifying deficiencies, and identifying and prioritizing improvements. Some respondents also expressed a desire for facilities data in a format that can be related to

other datasets, such as travel volumes and crashes. 

In addition to facility databases, four respondents noted that it would be useful

to have summary statistics of miles of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, etc. The purpose

of having these data would be to measure progress in providing facilities and to

set “benchmarks,” for example, an actual versus desired ratio of bike lane-miles

per capita or per road-mile. 

Three respondents noted that it would also be useful to have either general

inventories or know the specific locations of ancillary facilities, including bicycle parking and shower/locker facilities at workplaces. 

Crashes

A total of 23 respondents indicated the need for better data on crashes.

Seventeen of these respondents expressed the need for more complete or usable

crash databases or for more detailed data on specific crashes. These disaggregate crash data (databases of individual crash records) are used by researchers

in crash analysis as well as by planners in identifying hazard locations, crash

causes, and countermeasures. In addition, seven of the respondents expressed

the need for better aggregate crash data, that is, summary statistics by area,

facility type, or crash type. Aggregate data can be useful both for tracking

trends and for identifying areas in which improvement is needed. Some specific needs for improved crash data include:

● Locations and causes of crashes. A number of respondents were interested in knowing the locations and causes of crashes for planning purposes,

and indicated that data in GIS format would be particularly useful for

matching with facilities data. The quality of data on crash locations varies

locally and by state, so some respondents might have access to high68 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
quality data while others might not. Some jurisdictions, for example, have

developed GIS-based crash databases, but this technology has not yet

been adopted throughout the country. The ease with which crash data can

be obtained from the responsible agency can also vary locally. 

● Crash characteristics and contributing factors. A number of respondents

also indicated a need for additional and better quality data collection on

crash characteristics and contributing factors. These data would help

inform crash analysis and countermeasure development. Specific areas in

which better data are needed include environmental variables such as

roadway geometrics and visibility impairments; characteristics of those

involved such as demographics, helmet use, light use, and bicyclist skill

level; and other potential causal or contributing factors. 

● Specific types of crashes. Some respondents also noted specific types of

crashes for which data are particularly lacking. While the Fatal Accident

Reporting System (FARS) provides a comprehensive inventory of fatalities, injury databases may not be comprehensive, and as the severity of the

crash decreases the quality of the data and likelihood of reporting also

decreases. Furthermore, a general lack of data on crashes or incidents that

do not involve motor vehicles was noted. These might include, for example, bicycle-pedestrian collisions or single-bicycle incidents. Data of this

type, in addition to tracking trends, would be useful in analyzing the safety impacts of various facility designs or specific facilities. 

● Injuries and outcomes. Two respondents noted the need for better data on

injuries and medical outcomes of crashes. Currently, injury severity is

coded by an often untrained crash witness. Better data on injury types,

severity, and costs can assist in analyzing the full costs of various types of

crashes, designing appropriate countermeasures, and prioritizing specific

sites or crash types for countermeasures. 

● Summary data. Seven respondents indicated a desire for better summarylevel data on crashes. Specific requests were for better reporting of contributing factors and causes of bicycle and pedestrian crashes; more

complete reporting of nonfatality and nonmotor-vehicle crashes; bicyclist

violations of the motor vehicle code; and crime on trails. 

Secondary Data

The data needs discussed above all involve the collection, dissemination, and/or

summary analysis of primary data. Over one-third of survey respondents, however, also interpreted “data” to mean secondary data sources, such as results of

research studies and recommended practices. Respondents involved in local

planning and facility design rely heavily on these data to assist in choosing

Results of Outreach Effort 69
appropriate design treatments and recommending policy actions. The results

are summarized here under two categories: 1) facility design and 2) policies and

programs. 

● Facility design. Twenty-two respondents indicated a desire for data and

recommendations to help inform the design of facilities. Over half

requested evidence on the safety impacts of various design features, while

one-third wanted data on the demand impacts of design features.

Similarly, four requested recommended practices (such as would be found

in a design manual), while two requested costing data for various facility

types, for planning purposes. 

The most frequently mentioned design issue of interest was the demand

and safety effects of various bicycle facility designs (bike paths, bike lanes,

wide curb lanes, lane widths, and other design alternatives). Other specific design features for which better information was requested include contra-flow lanes, intersection treatments, rumble strips, angled parking,

mid-block pedestrian crossings, pedestrian overpasses, traffic calming,

and mixed-use and “pedestrian-friendly” neighborhoods.

● Policies and programs. Ten respondents requested information to support

the development of policies and programs, including education programs,

promotional efforts, and city-wide “bicycle-friendly” or “pedestrianfriendly” policies. As with facility design, some respondents were interested in the safety, demand, and other impacts of these programs. Others

were interested in learning about recommended or “model” programs

that have been demonstrated to be effective in other areas.

OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING DATA NEEDS

In addition to asking about existing sources and data needs, the outreach effort

conducted for this project also asked respondents whether they had any suggestions for:

● More effective dissemination and utilization of existing data sources,

● Cost-effective ways of collecting new data (enhancement of existing surveys, use of advanced surveillance technologies, etc.), and

● Assistance activities that would help encourage and facilitate the collection of local data.

Responses are summarized below.

70 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
Better Use of Existing Data

Half of the survey respondents provided suggestions for making better use of

existing data. Not surprisingly for a survey conducted primarily by email, the

vast majority of these respondents commented that all available data should be

made readily accessible via the Internet. (While use of the Internet is not yet

ubiquitous, one respondent commented that “Almost all of us who do bike

planning for a living are online and in contact with each other.”) A few respondents specifically suggested that a centralized, searchable database would be

useful, as would links to related sites with relevant data such as NHTSA and

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A few respondents also

noted existing good examples of data dissemination, including the Bureau of

Transportation Statistics’ (BTS’) National Transportation Library and the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bicycle/Pedestrian Clearinghouse,

and suggested expanding these applications. 

Five respondents noted a general need for better awareness of existing data,

where to obtain it, and how to use it. 

Other suggestions for collecting and disseminating existing data included:

1. Use of existing publications, such as American Planning Association

newsletters and the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip

Generation;

2. Collection and dissemination of local data and survey results through

state bicycle and pedestrian coordinators or other state-level staff;

3. Dissemination through other groups, such as the National Bicycle Safety

Network and state departments of health;

4. Additional analysis and publication of summary-level bicycle- and pedestrian-related crash data, using existing national and state databases;

5. More widespread publication and presentation of bicycle- and pedestrianrelated research; 

6. Maintaining contact lists of local governments and advocacy groups who

are working to improve bicycle and pedestrian conditions; and

7. Sponsorship of a conference on bicycle and pedestrian site design issues,

including case studies, in conjunction with developers. 

Collection of New Data

A number of respondents also provided suggested methods for collecting additional data. Suggestions generally fell into two categories: 1) use of new techResults of Outreach Effort 71
nologies and 2) improved surveying and sampling methods. Suggestions for use

of new technologies included:

● Video monitoring for bicycle and pedestrian counts—including both new

monitoring systems and use of existing systems established for traffic or

street security monitoring;

● Infrared sensors;

● Dataloggers that are placed on a person and measure physical and environmental variables; 

● Use of GPS for pedestrian trip tracking; and

● Laptop-based crash reporting systems.

Suggestions for conducting or expanding surveys included:

● Addition of questions to the NPTS;

● Addition of questions to health surveys, including the Behavioral Risk

Factor Surveillance System and the Youth Risk Factor Survey;

● Distribution of surveys at bicycle shops and pedestrian trip generators,

such as schools and shopping malls;

● Surveys of people accessing mass transit;

● Surveys using the Internet or newspapers; and 

● Use of local bicycle groups to identify problem areas.

Assistance with Data Collection

Respondents’ suggestions for how the BTS or other federal agencies could assist

with data collection generally fell into three categories: technical assistance,

financial assistance, and regulations/ mandates.

● Technical assistance. Seven respondents identified the need for technical

assistance, specifically:

- Developing uniform data collection methodology, reporting formats, and analysis methods;

- Demonstrating, evaluating, and testing new data collection technologies; and

- Developing case studies of successsful data collection efforts.

● Financial assistance. Eleven respondents noted a shortage of local

resources for data collection and suggested that financial assistance would

72 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
be helpful in the form of grants or other funding specifically designated

for data collection. One respondent also suggested funding bicycle and

pedestrian research studies at the local level. Another suggested enlisting

local advocacy, religious, and community groups to provide volunteer

assistance with counts. 

● Requirements/mandates. Seven respondents suggested that bicycle and

pedestrian data collection be required as a part of transportation data

collection or transportation planning efforts that benefit from federal

funding. One respondent suggested that state DOTs be required to work

with state departments of health. 

● Assistance in coordinating efforts. Suggestions in this area included maintaining a database of bicycle advocates and planners, and assisting in

coordination among groups (e.g., between local government staff and a

university to coordinate research). 

Results of Outreach Effort 73
Other Recent

Assessments of Data

Needs

This project also reviewed the results of other recent assessments of

bicycle and pedestrian data needs. These include:

● A 1997 conference sponsored by the Bureau of Transportation

Statistics (BTS) in Irvine, California, to identify transportationrelated information needs, including bicycle and pedestrian data;

● The BTS’ Transportation Statistics Beyond ISTEA: Critical Gaps and

Strategic Responses, an assessment of needs for transportation statistics; and

● A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-sponsored guidebook

on methods for forecasting bicycle and pedestrian travel.

To a large extent, the recommendations from these efforts corroborate

the results of the outreach effort conducted for this project. Key findings

are summarized below. 

IRVINE CONFERENCE

In March 1997, the BTS cosponsored a conference in Irvine, California,

entitled “Information Needs to Support State and Local Transportation

Decisionmaking into the 21st Century.” The conference resulted in a

number of recommendations relevant to bicycle and pedestrian data,

notably:

75

APPENDIX

B
● Development of a nationwide transportation facility and service database,

including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with accuracy to scale maps of

1:100,000 or less;

● Better trip data, including origin-destination data at a greater level of temporal and spatial detail; trip chaining; and multiple modes;

● Better information on user behavior and characteristics; 

● Linkage of system data with data on system use and surroundings;

● Effects of transportation systems management (TSM) and travel demand

management (TDM) strategies on system use and characteristics; and

● Customer satisfaction and user perceptions of performance.

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS ASSESSMENT

In 1998, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics published an assessment of

needs for transportation statistics (USDOT BTS 1998). While the focus was not

specifically on bicycle and pedestrian data, the document did identify a number

of bicycle- and pedestrian-related data needs. These include:

● Passenger travel for disadvantaged people, including low-income families

without cars;

● Exposure measures for bicycling and walking, especially for children and the

elderly;

● Underreporting of bicycle and walk trips in national travel surveys;

● Locations and attributes of crashes, especially nonfatal crashes; 

● Incidents not involving motor vehicles; and

● Standardization and integration of geographically based data.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DEMAND FORECASTING GUIDEBOOK

FHWA recently developed a guidebook on methods of forecasting bicycle and

pedestrian travel (Cambridge Systematics and BFA 1999). While the focus of

the guidebook is on methodologies, a number of critical data gaps were identified that inhibit demand forecasting. These include:

● Data on bicycle and pedestrian trip patterns at the local level (nonmotorized

sample sizes in household travel surveys are generally insufficient for forecasting purposes);

76 Bicycle and Pedestrian Data
● Facility-level data—for example, the locations and characteristics of bicycle

and pedestrian facilities—for use in transportation network databases used

for modeling; 

● Environmental data in land use databases; for example, descriptors of the

quality of the pedestrian environment or the mix of land uses in an area; and

● Preferences for various mode, route, etc. attributes in a format that can be

used in demand modeling. 

REFERENCES

Cambridge Systematics and Bicycle Federation of America (BFA). 1999. Guidebook

on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel, FHWA-RD-98-165. Produced

for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics

(BTS). 1998. Transportation Statistics Beyond ISTEA: Critical Gaps and

Strategic Responses, BTS98-A-01. Washington, DC. 

Appendix B 77