Automated Validation and Interpolation of Long-Duration Bicycle Counting Data. Issue 43 (December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Beitel, David; McNee, Spencer; McLaughlin, Fraser; Miranda-Moreno, Luis F.
• Is Part Of: Transportation research record. Volume 2672:Issue 43(2018)
• Page Start: 75
• Page End: 86
• Publication Date: 2018-12
• Subjects: Transportation -- Periodicals; Roads; Transport -- Périodiques; Routes -- Périodiques; Routes -- Conception et construction -- Périodiques; Roads; Transportation; 388.05
• DOI: 10.1177/0361198118783123
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0361-1981

Abstract

Bicycle flow data is crucial for transportation agencies to evaluate and improve cycling infrastructure. Average annual daily bicyclists (AADB) is commonly used in research and practice as a metric for cycling studies such as ridership analysis, infrastructure planning, and injury risk. AADB is estimated by averaging the daily cyclist totals measured throughout the year using a long-term automated bicycle counter, or by using long-term bicycle counting data to extrapolate data from a short-term counting site. Extrapolation of a short-term bicycle counting site requires an accurate and complete set of daily factors from a group of references: long-term bicycle counters. In practice, validation of reference data is done manually, an exercise that is time-consuming but crucial as significant error can be introduced into AADB extrapolation if reference data are not validated. This paper proposes an automated method to validate long-term bicycle count data and interpolate anomalous portions of data. As part of this work, the methods are validated using a relatively large dataset of automated bicycle counts. For validation of our approach, data anomalies are created artificially in a way that removes data (first trial), or reduces counts to 25% or 40% of the measured bicycle counts (second and third trials), for 6 hours, 12 hours, and full days. Of the more than 100 generated anomalies, the validation process flagged approximately 90% in the first and second trials and 80% in the third trial. The average absolute relative error of the interpolated daily values was approximately 10% for all three trials.