Traffic Volume Collection and Estimation on NonFederal Aid System Roads 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ENGAGEMENT OF LOCAL AGENCIES IN TRAFFIC VOLUME 

COLLECTION AND RANDOM SAMPLING PROCEDURES 

CASE STUDY

FHWA-SA-17-034

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Safety 

Roadway Safety Data Program 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/

March 21, 2017
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

1

Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no 

liability for the use of the information contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. 

Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and 

integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

2

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-17-034

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

ENGAGEMENT OF LOCAL AGENCIES IN TRAFFIC VOLUME 

COLLECTION AND RANDOM SAMPLING PROCEDURES

5. Report Date

March 2017

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

William Holik, Ioannis Tsapakis, Anita Vandervalk, Shawn Turner, John 

Habermann

8. Performing Organization 

Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI)

Texas A&M University System 

3135 TAMU

College Station, TX 77843-3135

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH6116D00004

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period

Case Study, August 2016–

February 2018 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15. Supplementary Notes

The contract manager for this report was Stuart Thompson, Office of Safety. 

16. Abstract

This case study highlights two noteworthy practices at the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) 

regarding traffic data collection agreements with local agencies and random sampling procedures to select shortduration traffic count locations. Through agreements with local agencies, NYSDOT provides traffic counting 

equipment and training in exchange for short-duration traffic counts. The agreement stipulates the minimum number 

of counts local agencies must conduct each year, a number equal to the breakeven point between the cost of the 

counters and cost of conducting short-duration traffic counts. The benefits of these agreements include reducing 

duplicate traffic data collection efforts and costs for NYSDOT while providing additional data and analysis to 

partnering local agencies. NYSDOT conducted a one-time project to collect short-duration counts on a random 

sample of local roads not typically counted as part of the traffic data collection program. This project supplements 

existing count data so that at least 10 percent of the local road mileage in each municipality has short-duration counts 

to support local road annual average daily traffic (AADT) data collection. Random sampling provides an unbiased 

method to select segments for short-duration traffic counts to increase the amount of measured AADT on local roads. 

17. Key Words: 

AADT, data partnership, data collection, random 

sampling, short-duration traffic counts

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

 20

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of Completed Pages authorized
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

3

ACRONYMS 

Table 1. Acronyms. 

Acronym Description

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

DOT Department of Transportation

FAS Federal Aid System

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NFAS Non-Federal Aid System

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

WGS World Geodetic System
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This case study highlights two noteworthy practices at the New York State Department of 

Transportation (NYSDOT) regarding traffic data collection agreements with local agencies and 

random sampling procedures to select short-duration traffic count locations. Through 

agreements with local agencies, NYSDOT provides traffic counting equipment in exchange for 

short-duration traffic counts. The agreement stipulates the minimum number of counts local 

agencies must conduct each year, a number equal to or exceeding the breakeven point between 

the cost of the counters and cost of conducting short-duration counts. The benefits of these 

agreements include reducing duplicate data collection efforts and costs for NYSDOT while 

providing additional data and analysis to collaborating local agencies. NYSDOT conducted a 

one-time project to collect short-duration counts on a random sample of local roads not 

typically counted as part of their traffic data collection program. This project supplements 

existing count data so that at least 10 percent of the local road mileage in each municipality has 

short-duration counts to support local road annual average daily traffic (AADT) data collection. 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 7

BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 8

DATA COLLECTION PARTNERSHIPS ................................................... 9

AGREEMENTS............................................................................................................. 9

DATA COLLECTION ...............................................................................................11

FIELD PROCEDURES ...............................................................................................12

DATA TRANSFER ....................................................................................................12

RANDOM SAMPLING DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE ..............16

APPLICABILITY TO OTHER STATES ..................................................17

DATA COLLECTION PARTNERSHIPS ................................................................17

RANDOM SAMPLING DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE .............................18

REFERENCES ............................................................................................19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................20
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

6

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Acronyms. ............................................................................................................ 3

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. NYSDOT Traffic Counts MOA. .....................................................................10

Figure 2. AADT in New York in 2015. ..........................................................................14

Figure 3. Short-Duration Traffic Count Locations in New York................................15
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

7

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this case study is to highlight two noteworthy practices at the New York State 

Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for collecting short-duration traffic count data: 

 Partnership agreements with local agencies 

 Random sampling procedures 

The local road network within New York is extensive, and NYSDOT is a leader in developing 

partnerships and projects to collect short-duration traffic counts on local roads. Through 

agreements with local agencies, NYSDOT provides traffic counting equipment and training in 

exchange for short-duration traffic counts. Agreements with counties, cities and metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs) stipulate the minimum number of counts local agencies must 

conduct each year. This number equals or exceeds the breakeven point between the cost of 

the counters and cost of conducting short-duration traffic counts. The benefits of these 

agreements include reducing duplicate traffic data collection and costs for NYSDOT and 

providing additional data and analysis to collaborating local agencies.(1) 

In addition to ongoing agreements with local agencies, NYSDOT conducted a one-time project 

to collect short-duration counts on a random sample of local roads not typically counted as 

part of their traffic data collection program. This project supplements existing count data with a 

target of covering at least 10 percent of the local road mileage in each municipality with shortduration counts to support annual average daily traffic (AADT) data collection. NYSDOT chose 

random samples from all local roadways in each municipality to develop aggregate statistics of 

the amount of travel on local roadways. The benefits of this random sampling procedure 

include an increase in the number of short-duration traffic counts, as well as more complete 

and accurate AADT for local roads. Selecting locations randomly generates an increase in the 

number of counts on non-Federal Aid System (NFAS) roads. 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

8

BACKGROUND 

New York has approximately 115,000 miles of public roads, of which about 86,000 miles are 

functional class local or rural minor collectors. Traffic counts at bridges and railroad crossing 

total approximately 9,000 miles of counts and another 8,000 counts from random sampling of 

local roads to support local road AADT collection and subsequent vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

estimation. NYSDOT supplemented its existing count data with a target of counting at least 10 

percent of the mileage in each of the 1,500 municipalities in the state to ensure a wide 

distribution of count data. NYSDOT conducts a few thousand counts every year through 

agreements with local agencies. NYSDOT provides traffic counters, supporting equipment, 

software, and training to the agencies. In return, agencies provide traffic counts, many of which 

are on rural minor collectors and local roads that NYSDOT would not otherwise count. 

NYSDOT compiles approximately 12,000 short-duration traffic counts annually. 

NYSDOT conducts very few traffic counts itself, taking around 2 percent of the counts 

annually. Local agencies (14 percent) and contractors (84 percent) take the remaining counts. 

Contractors’ costs vary widely depending on the type of count and location. For example, a 

simple volume count costs $100, while a more complex classification count costs $1,800. The 

statewide average count costs roughly $200. During a statewide project that involved data 

collection on local roads, contractors charged $120 per count. The traffic counters purchased 

by NYSDOT cost roughly $800 each. The benefits of having local agencies conduct counts 

become clear when comparing the cost of equipment to the cost of contractors. 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

9

DATA COLLECTION PARTNERSHIPS 

NYSDOT partners mostly with counties to collect traffic data and has partnerships with about 

half of the 62 counties in the state. Occasionally, NYSDOT collaborates with cities and MPOs. 

NYSDOT provides traffic counting equipment, training, and support; in return, local agencies 

provide short-duration traffic counts. These partnerships are mutually beneficial. They save 

NYSDOT time and money by reducing duplicate data collection and provide counties with data 

analysis and equipment. Approximately 14 percent of the counts taken annually in New York 

are by local agencies. NYSDOT establishes standards for all traffic monitoring activities, 

including short-duration traffic counts. These standards ensure that all traffic data are 

consistently collected, allowing for easy data transfer and upload to NYSDOT’s database. 

AGREEMENTS 

NYSDOT uses a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to facilitate partnerships with counties. As 

part of this partnership, NYSDOT purchases and provides traffic counters and supporting 

equipment, software, and training to the counties, which in turn conduct a minimum of two 

counts per counter per year for five years. If a county does not fulfill its obligation to the state, 

it must return the equipment. 

The agreements between NYSDOT and local agencies are simple and executed with an MOA, 

as shown in Figure 1. 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

10

Figure 1. NYSDOT Traffic Counts MOA. 

Source: Michael Fay, Director Highway Data Services Bureau, NYSDOT 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

11

NYSDOT benefits through a reduced need for staff and contractual resources to collect traffic 

data. Counties benefit by receiving the equipment, software, training, and analysis as well as 

having local and statewide data in a consistent and uniform format they can more efficiently use. 

DATA COLLECTION 

NYSDOT partners with local agencies to enrich the available traffic count data and eliminate 

duplicate efforts. Federal funding, construction, maintenance, planning, and safety projects use 

traffic count data. To ensure that data collected by local agencies integrates into NYSDOT’s 

database, local agencies must follow the same procedures as NYSDOT and contractors. 

NYSDOT developed a guide, titled New York State Traffic Monitoring Standards for Short Count 

Data Collection 

(https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/mexis_app.pa_ei_eb_admin_app.show_pdf?id=11926), 

to help local agencies and contractors meet data collection requirements.(2)

 

The guide includes minimum standards for short-duration traffic counts, safety, traffic count 

sites, and data. The amount of data collected by local agencies varies depending on an agency’s 

size and budget. Local agencies must conduct a minimum of two counts per counter per year 

for five years; however, many counties conduct additional counts. Local agencies in New York 

conduct approximately 14 percent of the short-duration counts. 

To meet the minimum count requirement, NYSDOT must take 10 counts per counter on the 

Federal Aid System (FAS), sections with bridges, or sections with railroad crossings, for which 

NYSDOT would otherwise have to expend funds to collect. In addition, local agencies provide 

all count data collected to NYSDOT for processing. Local agencies take the majority of counts 

on NFAS roads that NYSDOT would not have otherwise counted. 

NYSDOT requires traffic counts to comply with the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic 

Monitoring Guide.

(3)

 The NYSDOT traffic count program has the following minimum standards 

for short-duration counts: 

 All counts are in 15-minute intervals. 

 At least 48 hours of data are required, while 72 hours are preferred, for weekday 

counts. The counts must include at least two valid counts for each hourly interval. 

 Weekend counts are done at NYSDOT request. Each weekend count must have one 

hour of valid data for a 24-hour interval and must be accompanied by a weekday count 

taken adjacent to the weekend period. 

 Volume counts are taken by direction, and classification counts are taken by lane. 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

12

 NYSDOT specifies no part of a weekday or weekend count used for AADT estimation 

may contain data collected during a holiday interval. 

FIELD PROCEDURES 

NYSDOT lists several procedures that local agencies must follow in the short duration count 

data collection guide. . In addition, all work must conform to NYSDOT’s Work Zone Traffic 

Control Manual.

(4)

 NYSDOT identifies count locations using GPS coordinates and describes them 

using the road number, road name, beginning termini, ending termini, end milepoint, section 

length, factor group, and functional classification. NYSDOT trains local agencies on equipment 

setup and use so that the counts are valid. Agencies record the GPS coordinates as close as 

possible to actual traffic count locations. 

DATA TRANSFER 

Agencies transfer data to NYSDOT weekly through email or an FTP site. NYSDOT has 

procedures for file naming and related documents to help identify count locations and 

determine data validity. NYSDOT works with traffic counter manufacturers to ensure that each 

type of recorder can produce the required output format. This allows local agencies to easily 

export data in NYSDOT’s required format. 

As a part of the agreement with local agencies, NYSDOT provides software for the counters 

and agrees to process the data. After processing, local agencies send the data to NYSDOT for 

inclusion in the database. To identify where counts were taken and ensure data validity, 

NYSDOT requires the following information: 

 A cover letter detailing the organization conducting the count, work week, NYSDOT 

region, road name, count type, duration, lanes, and data collection method. 

 Count files. 

 Field logs detailing where the counter was placed, when data were collected, counter 

model, counter serial number, a map of the data collection location, and how the 

counter was set up. 

 Site photos. 

 File with geospatial coordinates recorded in decimal degrees in World Geodetic System 

(WGS) 1984. 

 Raw data files downloaded from counters. 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

13

 Other information on counter placement activities. 

NYSDOT conducts quality control checks of all traffic count data using manual procedures or 

automatic checks built into the traffic count software. Checks include procedures such as: 

 Ensuring there are no counts of zero during peak hours. 

 Confirming that the number of counts at noon is greater than at midnight. 

 Comparing directional splits. 

 Comparing differences between certain vehicle classes. 

 Ensuring a normal distribution of speeds. 

When NYSDOT receives and verifies traffic count data, it applies axle correction factors and 

adjustment factors for day of week and month of year to the short-duration counts based on 

data from permanent count sites. The data are then uploaded to a traffic data viewer accessible 

on the Internet (http://gis3.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=tdv).(5) The traffic data viewer 

displays a variety of information, including AADT (Figure 2), continuous count locations, shortduration count locations (Figure 3), bridge locations, and grade crossing locations. 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

14

Figure 2. AADT in New York in 2015. 

Source: http://gis3.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=tdv 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

15

Figure 3. Short-Duration Traffic Count Locations in New York. 

Source: http://gis3.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=tdv 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

16

RANDOM SAMPLING DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE 

In addition to partnering with local agencies, NYSDOT conducted a one-time project to collect 

additional NFAS traffic data. Over the last few years, NYSDOT conducted about 8,000 shortduration counts under a special project to collect a random sampling of local roads to support 

local road AADT data collection. NYSDOT supplemented its existing count data with a target 

of counting at least 10 percent of the mileage in each of the 1,500 municipalities in the state to 

ensure wide distribution of data. NYSDOT used its existing local highway inventory to select 

count locations. All locations were collectively sampled, including mainlines, alleys, cul-de-sacs, 

and dead ends. 

To randomly select roads to collect short-duration traffic counts, NYSDOT extracted NFAS 

road segments from its statewide inventory of public roads. The total mileage of NFAS road 

segments in each municipality was compared to the mileage of segments with traffic counts. A 

random number was generated for each segment in municipalities with counts on less than 10 

percent of the total mileage. NYSDOT sorted each municipality individually by the random 

number and selected segments to be counted until reaching 10 percent of the mileage. About 

8,000 segments were selected for counts, in addition to the already counted segments, to reach 

the 10 percent coverage of NFAS roads. Contractors then conducted short-duration traffic 

counts and provided the data to NYSDOT. 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

17

APPLICABILITY TO OTHER STATES 

NYSDOT is innovatively and actively developing agreements with local agencies to enrich traffic 

data collection on NFAS roads. Other states can adopt a similar partnership agreement with 

counties to supplement traffic data collection. States may see high upfront costs to purchase 

the equipment, but they can recover these costs by requiring a minimum number of traffic 

counts that equals the cost of hiring a contractor or collecting the data using DOT staff. 

NYSDOT also proactively developed a random sampling method to increase the number of 

short-duration traffic counts on local roads. 

DATA COLLECTION PARTNERSHIPS 

Lessons learned from NYSDOT regarding data collection partnerships include the following: 

 Partnering with local agencies that have data collection programs may reduce duplicate 

efforts. Local agencies may be collecting short-duration traffic counts that are also 

collected by the DOT, and vice versa. 

 A mutually beneficial partnership will reduce costs for the DOT and provide hardware, 

software, training, and data analysis to the local agency. 

 The minimum number of counts can be set so that the DOT will at least break even 

when providing local agencies with traffic counters and related equipment, training, and 

support compared to the cost of hiring contractors. 

 Working with the manufacturer of the traffic data recorders is crucial. To ensure data 

compatibility, NYSDOT works with the traffic recorder manufacturer to provide the 

required format as one of the output options. This allows for seamless upload of data to 

NYSDOT’s traffic count database. 

 Adequate training and standards are necessary to ensure valid data collection. NYSDOT 

guides local agencies on collecting and transmitting data that NYSDOT can then easily 

validate and incorporate into the state wide traffic database. 

 Developing good working relationships with other agencies and understanding their 

needs, priorities, and objectives can improve the probability of success. 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

18

RANDOM SAMPLING DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE 

Lessons learned from NYSDOT regarding random sampling procedures include the following: 

 Random sampling provides an unbiased method to select segments for short-duration 

traffic counts and can be applied to a one-time count program or an annual count 

program. 

 Many short-duration traffic counts on NFAS roads can be collected in a short period. 

These counts will drastically improve AADT coverage and thus improve the accuracy of 

analyses using AADT data. 

 Roadways with several shorter adjoining segments could be combined into one longer 

segment to reduce multiple counts on the same road. Multiple adjoining segments with 

similar geometric features could be combined into one segment. 

 Coordination with local agencies and community members will help with program 

success. Community members may be unfamiliar with traffic data collection equipment 

and its purposes, so informational material and advanced coordination can inform them 

on the value of short-duration traffic count data collection. 

 The concept of random sampling and statistical data collection was difficult for 

NYSDOT regions, MPOs, and local officials to understand. Each tended to recommend 

selected locations (what it considered important roads) to count rather than randomly 

selected sites. It was especially difficult to accept a need for counts on roads like short 

dead ends and cul-de-sacs, even though those roads constitute much of the total 

mileage. Providing frequent communication, explaining the purpose of these counts, and 

offering to count some important locations when feasible was helpful during this 

process. 
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

19

REFERENCES 

1. New York State Department of Transportation, 2014 Traffic Data Report for New York 

State. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hdsrespository/NYSDOT_Traffic_Data_Report_2014.pdf. Accessed December 19, 2016. 

2. New York State Department of Transportation, New York State Traffic Monitoring 

Standards for Short Count Data Collection, Office of Engineering, Technical Services 

Division, Highway Data Services Bureau, 2015. 

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/mexis_app.pa_ei_eb_admin_app.show_pdf?id=

11926. Accessed March 2, 2017. 

3. Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Monitoring Guide, Office of Highway Policy 

Information, September 2013. 

4. New York State Department of Transportation, Work Zone Traffic Control, Office of 

Traffic Safety and Mobility, 2015. 

5. New York State Department of Transportation, Traffic Data Viewer. 

http://gis3.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=tdv. Accessed December 19, 2016. 

Phone interviews and email conversations with: 

 Michael Fay, NYSDOT. 

 Robert Limoges, NYSDOT. 

 Regina Doyle, NYSDOT. 

FHWA, Office of Safety 

Stuart Thompson, P.E. 

Federal Highway Administration 

202-366-8090 

Stuart.Thompson@dot.gov
NEW YORK STATE DOT CASE STUDY 

20

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The FHWA Office of Safety Data Management Systems and Processes Project Team would like to 

thank the following individuals, who graciously provided information needed to develop this case 

study. 

Name Title Department Email/Phone #

Michael Fay Director, Highway Data 

Services Bureau

New York State 

Department of 

Transportation

Michael.Fay@dot.ny.gov

518-457-1965

Robert Limoges Director, Safety Program 

Management and 

Coordination Bureau

New York State 

Department of 

Transportation

Robert.Limoges@dot.ny.gov

518-457-2452

Regina Doyle Sr. Transportation 

Analyst

New York State 

Department of 

Transportation

Regina.Doyle@dot.ny.gov

518-485-0164